Brahman alone is real, this
world is unreal; the Jiva is identical with Brahman.
That would be Advaita philosophy but part of that statement is argument
which is used by mayavada philosophers. Shankara introduced concept of maya
or illusion of the world and with that he actually introduced
The Shankara Acharya composed the following works:
Bhashyas on Brahma Sutras...
Zoran wrote:
According to George Thibaut Ramunuja's commentary of
Brahma Sutras is giving more accurate explanation of
what Vyasa said, but Thibaut also added that Shankara's
views are closer to Upanishad
Maybe so, but the TMer tradition follows the Adwaita
tradition of Shankaracharya...
You may believe that Shankara's advaita is right one, but that philosophy
suffers from many inconsistencies. Shakara on many places did not put a
comment on Vyasa's sutras rather he introduced and forced his own
Shankar's tradition which TMers are following is tradition which came from Lord
Vishnu (Narayana)... Shankara's gurus were Vaishnavs. Later on it turned to be
everything else including tradition of Shri...
--Absolutely not so. Shri as bride of Vishnu has always been the glorious
source of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ya might only need to familiarize yer
self with the basic phonemic units of Sanskrit to be able to notice
that it rocks! But, of course, YMMV! ;)
Vowels:
a, aa, i, ii, u, uu, R, RR, L, e, ai, o, au
Consonants
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@
wrote:
Ya might only need to familiarize yer
self with the basic phonemic units of Sanskrit to be able to
notice
that it rocks! But, of course,
No, I'm not suggesting that. What I suggest is a cup
of hot chai for this go nowhere purely in vain
conversation!
--- Zoran Krneta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are suggesting that there is a Brahman on one
side which can be known
through transcendental knowledge and on the other
side is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gyselsvishnu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One of my teachers, Swami Premananda, a native Tamil speaker, claims
that Tamil developed out of the experience of Amrita in the throat.
THE Swami Premananda who Benjamin Creme claims to be the heir to
the throne
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would that be the Throne of the King of Pedophilia?
I don't know. But perhaps that's just the kind of imaginary dark Court
that would be perfect for you.
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of nablusoss1008
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:37 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Validity of Mahrishi's apaurusheya bhasya in
the light of linguistics
--- In HYPERLINK
I won't go into polemics regarding Premananda.
A few points: he is in no way associated with Sai Baba. He seems to
appreciate Ammachi much more than Sai Baba.
He is in jail at the moment but it is all politics.
Having followed the 'case' at close hand, he was not involved in any
criminal act,
Yes, indeed the Benjamin Creme Premananda but Premananda is in no way
associated with Creme or endorse his views.
Once we were discussing Maitryea. Without overhearing us, Premananda
passed by and said: Maitreya is in your heart.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gyselsvishnu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I won't go into polemics regarding Premananda.
A few points: he is in no way associated with Sai Baba.
Yet another who appears to know The Truth. I wish I was like you,
how simple everything would be :-)
Swami
-
I don´t pretend to know the truth but accusations of rape and murder
happening in a small ashram commumity where the guru lived a
completely open and public life,allways in the lime light very
few eye witnesses buy this.
And the association with Sai Baba only exists in mr. Creme´s mind.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gyselsvishnu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-
I don´t pretend to know the truth but accusations of rape and murder
happening in a small ashram commumity where the guru lived a
completely open and public life,allways in the lime light very
few eye
Zoran wrote:
You are suggesting that there is a Brahman on one
side which can be known through transcendental
knowledge and on the other side is everything
else like ego, mind, senses... etc.
According to Shankara, we can only know Brahman through
transcendental knowledge; everything else
Peter wrote:
No, I'm not suggesting that. What I suggest is a cup
of hot chai for this go nowhere purely in vain
conversation!
In vain because you don't understand the basic tenets
of Indian philosophy? Maybe you should just stick to
subjects you know something about, such as repressed
Peter wrote:
Brahman is known to Brahman.
It has not been established that there is a category,
Brahman - that's just a theory found described in the
Indian scriptures. There is no scientific foundation
for supposing that there is a 'Brahman' that actually
exists somewhere. Brahman, as a
According to Shankara, we can only know Brahman through
transcendental knowledge; everything else experienced
through the senses is an appearance only.
If you are standing for Advaita it can't be Brahman and everyting else,
that's mayavada platform... Mayavadins are not pur monists.
Brahman
According to Shankara, we can only know Brahman through
transcendental knowledge; everything else experienced
through the senses is an appearance only.
Zoran wrote:
They are representing diferent schools of advaita. Only
Madhva stands for pure dualism, Vallabaha - pure monism,
You are suggesting that there is a Brahman on one side which can be known
through transcendental knowledge and on the other side is everything else
like ego, mind, senses... etc.
What kind of Brahman is that which doesn't include everything and can not be
the object of gross perception?
Seems you
21 matches
Mail list logo
