The following has been taken from Kamakoti.org.journal:
Friday, 25 November 2011
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
SANKARA's CONTRIBUTION TO INDIAN RELIGION
If the Hindus of today can legitimately be proud of their great Vedic religion, it is in no small measure due to the services of this thirty-two year old monk. This needs to be adequately realized by all especially those belonging to man-made cults and sects who dismiss Acharya as a Mayavadi. It is unfortunate that some people indeed have succumbed to falsehood despite of Acharya's efforts. Shankara strengthened the foundations of the eternal Vedic faith to such an extent that the vigor imparted by him was an unfailing support in later years to the work and mission of people like Madhwa, Ramanuja, Nimbaraka etc. this is an undeniable historical fact. In Shankara's life and teaching and propagation lies embedded the immense vitality, which is responsible for the safe preservation and sure sustenance of the eternal Vedic faith.
To designate Shankaracharya as just an upholder of Monism, just like any other sectist Acharya's is a tone down to his gigantic personality and to dilute his contribution. Not in any of his writings does any evidence exist of one-sided outlook, the narrow vision, the vigorlessness, and the incompleteness, which are the characteristics of most of the later preachers and teachers. Indeed Shankara was the greatest, the noblest and the most luminous representative of expansive, universal and all embracing Sanatana Vedic Dharma. All that is sublime, strengthening, glorious in the Vedanta faith as it obtains today is the handiwork of this distinguished monk, and this is true not only in respect of the philosophical aspect of that faith, but also in respect of its practical side.
Harsha Ramamurthy.
Saturday, 19 November 2011
SANKARA AND BUDDHISM
Here are the views of Bhagavatpadal on Buddhism:
Shankara and Buddhism - 1
By Sri Kamakoti Mandali on Aug 17, 2009 | In Darshana
- Govinda Chandra Pandey
The relationship of Shankara to Buddhism has been the subject of considerable debate since ancient times. He has been hailed as the arch critic of Buddhism and the principal architect of its downfall in India. At the same time, he has been described as a Buddhist in disguise. Both these opinions have been expressed by ancient as well as modern authors – scholars, philosophers, historians and sectaries. Shankara’s writings clearly show his acquaintance with at least three schools of Buddhist philosophy, the sarvAstivAdins, the vijnAnavAdins and the mAdhyamikas. Of individual Buddhist authors, he clearly shows acquaintance with dharmakIrti. He criticizes Buddhist doctrines and speaks disparagingly of the Buddha himself. These facts tend to lend evidence to the legendary accounts in his biographies which show him disputing with Buddhists.
Although shankara’s criticism of Buddhist philosophy occurs in several of his works, it is taken up most systematically in sUtra bhAShya. Following the sUtras he takes up for criticism the common Buddhist ideas of momentariness, non-selfhood and causality as dependent origination, as also some specific doctrines of the three Buddhist schools mentioned before. Now the Buddhist principle of momentariness implies that all things are subject to change, that change takes place every moment, and that all change implies total destruction without any room for survival or persistence (niranvayavinAsha). In its fully developed form at the hands of Buddhist logicians this principle was grounded on the analysis of the concept of existence itself and formulated as a svabhAvAnumAna. Existence was conceived as instantaneous causal function (artha-kriyAkAritva), causation as ordered succession of movements (nityaprAgbhAvitva), things as process or flow (santAna, pravAha). The principle had, however, originated in existential concern and passed through several phases. It was the perception of human mortality and the evanescence of experience which led to the disparagement of the attachment to personal existence. The denial of the individual soul as a permanent spiritual substance was developed as its metaphysical support and corollary. Individual existence, thus, came to be conceived as an aggregate, a stream of transient factors. In this earlier phase, the doctrine of momentariness was essentially a doctrine of the transience of psychic states without any permanent substratum. It did not mean in this early phase the unqualified denial of all substantive entities. Later when the Buddhist schools ramified, the concept of momentariness was formulated at least as early as the age of ashoka. It was elaborated in abhidharma and mahAvibhAsa and the abhidharmakosha record detailed debates on the nature of Time. In mahAyAnic texts the momentariness of things became the momentariness of the states of mind or experience. Logicians like ratnakIrti gave the doctrine its finished logical form.
The sarvAstivAdins to whom shankara alludes do admit a large number of dharms which function momentarily but subsist through time. This is what give them their very name. it is true that substance, quality and mode are rolled into one in the dharmas but they do have persistent natures or characters i.e. svabhAva or lakShaNa.
Now shankara’s major critique of momentariness occurs in the context of sarvAstivAda, apparently in its sautrAntic version. Shankara thus questions the doctrine of momentariness as inadequate to explain the facts of identity, especially personal identity, and the fact of causation itself. ‘Those who maintain that everything has a momentary existence only admit that when the thing existing in the second moment enters into being the thing existing in the first moment ceases to be. On this admission it is impossible to establish between the two things the relation of cause and effect, since the former momentary existence which ceases or has ceased to be, and so has entered into the state of non-existence, cannot be the cause of the later momentary existence’. Nor could it be assumed that the former momentary existence when its process has reached a mature conclusion and it is still in a positive state, is the cause of the later moment. This would imply that the finished positive product becomes active once again and gets connected with the next moment. Nor would it help to assume that the mere existence of the antecedent moment constitutes its causal efficiency because it still remains unconnected with the succeeding moment. If the nature of the cause does not influence the nature of the effect, the two cannot be called cause and effect. If the nature of the cause persists in the effect, as that of clay in the pot, the principle of momentariness would be given up. If, on the other hand, the nature of the cause were to be assumed not to color the nature of the effect at all, one would be able to affirm the causal relation arbitrarily. Again, the production, and destruction of a thing being held to be simultaneous, how are they to be connected with its own nature or being? The three could not be identical, else the three terms would become synonymous. Nor could the three be distinguished as different states of the same thing because then one moment will in effect be trifurcated. Nor could the production and destruction of a thing be different from its being because in that case its being would be untouched by them and become perpetual. Nor finally could the production or destruction of a thing be merely their perception or non-perception which being subjective will leave the object untouched and make it eternal once again. Indeed, since the antecedent moment ceases before the rise of the subsequent one, the effect would appear to arise without a cause which would contradict the Buddhist belief in causality. If the antecedent moment is held to last till the subsequent moment arises, cause and effect would become simultaneous, and the principle of momentariness too would be falsified. In the brhadAraNyaka bhAShya too shankara attacks the concepts of production out of nothing and momentariness on several grounds. Recognition or the perception of similarity would both be impossible if everything is momentary.
Shankara’s critique of the Buddhist principle of momentariness here appears to be based on a dynamic conception of causality of which the paradigm may be said to be the case of intelligent will transforming some material according to a design. Such is God’s creation of the world (IkShApUrvaka srShTi) as also of the potter’s making of pots. Shankara essentially identifies cause and effect, regarding causation as nothing but transformation. The Buddhist view in contrast resolves causality into the invariance of succession where the cause is devoid of any motion or influence. The Buddhist model of causation is not the production of commonsense objects like pots, but the infinitesimal process of becoming, as illustrated in the stream of consciousness.
As for shankara’s difficulties about the reconciliation of the three aspects of becoming in a single moment, this difficulty was raised and considered at length in the abhidharma. The sautrAntika answer was that the samskrta lakShaNas belong to the sequence or pravAha. Static commonsense objects need to be replaced by continuous processes or flux. The identity of an object is defined by its characteristic function which must express itself instantaneously and cease. As a new function emerges a new object must be held to have been produced. However, the indiscernibility of similar successive moments and functions leads to a sense of persistent identity in sequence. While Buddhist momentariness reduces identity into an illusory construct, shankara views change as illusory modes or appearances of the changeless ground. For the Buddhist, ‘to be’ is ‘to change’; for shankara, ‘to change’ is the sign of being unreal. Shankara ridicules the Buddhists as vainAshikas or Nihilists, the Buddhists disparage vedAnta as shAsvatavAda or Eternalism. Thus Buddhism and Shankara appear to be mutually opposed as asadvAda and sadvAda.
This, however, does not represent the true position. The Buddha had expressly ruled out both Eternalism (shAshvatavAda) and Nihilism (ucChedavAda). Hence to accuse his doctrine of Nihilism could only be based on misunderstanding
Thursday, 3 November 2011
SWAMI DAYANANDA SARASWATI'S VIEWS ON ADVITA AND RAMANA
At the risk of some repetition, I am reproducing what A Cohen has to say on this subject:
It is a unique characteristic of Advaita Vedanta that most of its prominent modern figures, those who stand out as radiant examples of the power and glory of Absolute realization, generally seem to have had little, if any, formal traditional training. Ramana Maharshi, for instance, probably the most universally recognized teacher of Advaita in the twentieth century, was spontaneously enlightened at the age of sixteen with no prior spiritual practice or study. The fiery Advaita master and author of I Am That, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, realized the Absolute after only three years with his guru. And in speaking with a number of contemporary Advaita teachers for this issue, we were intrigued to find that one thing almost all of these individuals have in common is a striking independence from the monastic orders, teaching systems and sacred texts of the very tradition from which their teachings spring.
But Advaita Vedanta is, in fact, a 1,300-year-old tradition that traces its roots even further back to the Upanishads, a collection of divinely inspired scriptures over 2,500 years old. Embodying the Hindu philosophy of nonduality, which holds that only the one Absolute, undivided Self is ultimately real, Advaita has several monastic orders, a rich body of literature and a long history of formal philosophical discourse. Given that our own exploration of Advaita for this issue of WIE had exposed us to such a diverse array of contemporary teachers and teachings, we had grown increasingly curious about what someone classically trained in the traditional methods and doctrine would have to say in response to our questions. It was our quest for such a traditionalist that ultimately landed us in the jungle of the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, at the ashram of Swami Dayananda Saraswati.
Swami Dayananda is, by his own description, a traditional teacher of Advaita Vedanta. A close disciple of the widely respected late Vedanta teacher Swami Chinmayananda, he began teaching over thirty years ago after a disciplined spiritual search that included both intensive study of the classical scriptures and several years on retreat in the Himalayan foothills. In that time, he has gained an illustrious reputation both in India and abroad as a fierce upholder of the tradition. He has published twenty-one books, including several translations of and commentaries on the traditional texts, and has established three ashrams (two in India and one in the United States) where his intensive courses in Vedanta are taught year-round.
Surrounded by rainforest about thirty miles outside Coimbatore, Swami Dayananda's newest ashram, Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, is a sprawling complex of halls and dormitories capable of accommodating approximately three hundred people. At the time of our visit there were about one hundred students in residence for a three-year course, including thirty or so Westerners, many of whom, we learned, had left behind successful careers in order to attend. In addition to hosting these longer, residential courses, the ashram also receives many distinguished short-term visitors including, we were told, some of India's biggest movie stars and political leaders, the former President of India among them.
During our first day there we had an opportunity to sit in on some of Swami Dayananda's classes, and when we did, it became apparent to us that, in his desire to perpetuate the tradition, what Swami Dayananda has established is not the contemplative retreat environment one might expect to find at the ashram of an Indian guru, but rather a sort of spiritual academy, its goal being first and foremost the acquisition of knowledge about Vedanta. Students' days are spent in the classroom, seated on the floor behind short wooden desks, listening to Swami Dayananda read from the ancient Sanskrit texts, pausing after each verse to give often elaborate commentary. When students are not in class or engaged in their ashram duties, they are either studying independently or meeting with Swami Dayananda, who in addition to teaching three long classes each day makes himself available between classes for less formal discussions.
What we found most intriguing about Swami Dayananda's intensely scholastic approach was its unusual lack of emphasis on spiritual practice. The only formal practice period at the ashram is thirty minutes of meditation in the morning. We would soon learn that spiritual practices have no significant place in the program for one simple reason: to Swami Dayananda, they are essentially irrelevant to the path. The one thing that is relevant, he feels, is study—sincere study of the sacred texts of Vedanta.
According to Swami Dayananda, most contemporary exponents of Advaita Vedanta are seriously misguided in their approach. He feels that in overemphasizing the pursuit of transcendent experience, they have missed the entire point of the ancient teachings. In traditional Advaita Vedanta, he asserts, it is held thatsacred scripture itself is the only reliable means to clear away ignorance and reveal direct knowledge of the Absolute. He writes: "Just as the eyes are the direct means to know color and form, Vedanta is the direct means . . . to know one's true nature and resolve confusions regarding Atma [the Self]." It is therefore only by applying ourselves to a disciplined study of the revealed words of the great sages, he feels, that we can attain the knowledge that will liberate us from delusion.
Fueled by his conviction in the supreme efficacy of scriptural study, Swami Dayananda is unabashed in his criticism of "mystics" who say that the way to enlightenment is through spiritual experience alone. In fact, both in his writings and in one of our dialogues with him, he even went so far as to express doubt about the realization of the widely revered but unschooled modern sage Ramana Maharshi—adding that there may be millions of Indian householders with a similar level of attainment!
While such statements initially took us by surprise, we would later discover through dialogues with a number of leading Western Advaita scholars that similar sentiments are held by many Advaita traditionalists. Even one of the living Shankaracharyas—the head of one of the four monastic institutions allegedly established by Advaita's founder, Shankara—also denies the validity of Ramana's attainment, apparently for the simple reason that someone who wasn't formally trained in Vedanta couldn't possibly be fully enlightened!
Our visit to Swami Dayananda's ashram turned out to be a fascinating education. Over the course of our three-day stay, we met formally with Swami Dayananda four times for what turned out to be a wide-ranging series of dialogues. During that time, what had begun as an ashram curiosity—a small group of Westerners with an American spiritual teacher who had come to interview their guru—rapidly escalated into one of the most talked about and well-attended events at the ashram. From our second session onward, the meeting room was overflowing out the door as disciples crowded in to listen to the discussion. And between meetings, we regularly found ourselves in conversation with students eager both to discuss points that had arisen in the interview and to suggest questions for the next round.
Throughout the sessions, Swami Dayananda revealed himself to be every bit the traditionalist we had expected, sharing in his answers to our questions his comprehensive understanding of both the tradition itself and the subtleties of Advaita philosophy. Yet while we left his ashram in many respects much clearer about the history and doctrines of the Advaita tradition, our visit had also raised some fascinating questions. Wasn't it intriguing, we found ourselves asking as our taxi made its way back to the airport, that within a tradition dedicated to the profound and radical realization of the Absolute, there are learned and devoted authorities who feel compelled to distance themselves from the powerfully realized mystics to whom many of that tradition's own followers look for inspiration? If, in so doing, they are upholding the "purity" of the tradition, what does that mean about the nature of enlightenment, to which the Advaita path is intended to lead?
Ramana Maharshi said, "No learning or knowledge of scriptures is necessary to know the Self, as no man requires a mirror to see himself." Swami Dayananda, on the other hand, had just told us that "we have no means of knowledge for the direct understanding of Self-realization, and therefore Vedanta is the means of knowledge that has to be employed for that purpose. No other means of knowledge will work."
What is enlightenment? Is it simply a shift in understanding that can be brought about, as Swami Dayananda insists, entirely through the study of sacred texts? Or is it, as some of the most radiant examples of this powerful teaching have proclaimed, the world-shattering revelation of a mystery that lies forever beyond the mind?
Swami
Dayananda
Saraswati
Dayananda
Saraswati
But Advaita Vedanta is, in fact, a 1,300-year-old tradition that traces its roots even further back to the Upanishads, a collection of divinely inspired scriptures over 2,500 years old. Embodying the Hindu philosophy of nonduality, which holds that only the one Absolute, undivided Self is ultimately real, Advaita has several monastic orders, a rich body of literature and a long history of formal philosophical discourse. Given that our own exploration of Advaita for this issue of WIE had exposed us to such a diverse array of contemporary teachers and teachings, we had grown increasingly curious about what someone classically trained in the traditional methods and doctrine would have to say in response to our questions. It was our quest for such a traditionalist that ultimately landed us in the jungle of the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, at the ashram of Swami Dayananda Saraswati.
Swami Dayananda is, by his own description, a traditional teacher of Advaita Vedanta. A close disciple of the widely respected late Vedanta teacher Swami Chinmayananda, he began teaching over thirty years ago after a disciplined spiritual search that included both intensive study of the classical scriptures and several years on retreat in the Himalayan foothills. In that time, he has gained an illustrious reputation both in India and abroad as a fierce upholder of the tradition. He has published twenty-one books, including several translations of and commentaries on the traditional texts, and has established three ashrams (two in India and one in the United States) where his intensive courses in Vedanta are taught year-round.
Surrounded by rainforest about thirty miles outside Coimbatore, Swami Dayananda's newest ashram, Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, is a sprawling complex of halls and dormitories capable of accommodating approximately three hundred people. At the time of our visit there were about one hundred students in residence for a three-year course, including thirty or so Westerners, many of whom, we learned, had left behind successful careers in order to attend. In addition to hosting these longer, residential courses, the ashram also receives many distinguished short-term visitors including, we were told, some of India's biggest movie stars and political leaders, the former President of India among them.
During our first day there we had an opportunity to sit in on some of Swami Dayananda's classes, and when we did, it became apparent to us that, in his desire to perpetuate the tradition, what Swami Dayananda has established is not the contemplative retreat environment one might expect to find at the ashram of an Indian guru, but rather a sort of spiritual academy, its goal being first and foremost the acquisition of knowledge about Vedanta. Students' days are spent in the classroom, seated on the floor behind short wooden desks, listening to Swami Dayananda read from the ancient Sanskrit texts, pausing after each verse to give often elaborate commentary. When students are not in class or engaged in their ashram duties, they are either studying independently or meeting with Swami Dayananda, who in addition to teaching three long classes each day makes himself available between classes for less formal discussions.
What we found most intriguing about Swami Dayananda's intensely scholastic approach was its unusual lack of emphasis on spiritual practice. The only formal practice period at the ashram is thirty minutes of meditation in the morning. We would soon learn that spiritual practices have no significant place in the program for one simple reason: to Swami Dayananda, they are essentially irrelevant to the path. The one thing that is relevant, he feels, is study—sincere study of the sacred texts of Vedanta.
According to Swami Dayananda, most contemporary exponents of Advaita Vedanta are seriously misguided in their approach. He feels that in overemphasizing the pursuit of transcendent experience, they have missed the entire point of the ancient teachings. In traditional Advaita Vedanta, he asserts, it is held thatsacred scripture itself is the only reliable means to clear away ignorance and reveal direct knowledge of the Absolute. He writes: "Just as the eyes are the direct means to know color and form, Vedanta is the direct means . . . to know one's true nature and resolve confusions regarding Atma [the Self]." It is therefore only by applying ourselves to a disciplined study of the revealed words of the great sages, he feels, that we can attain the knowledge that will liberate us from delusion.
Fueled by his conviction in the supreme efficacy of scriptural study, Swami Dayananda is unabashed in his criticism of "mystics" who say that the way to enlightenment is through spiritual experience alone. In fact, both in his writings and in one of our dialogues with him, he even went so far as to express doubt about the realization of the widely revered but unschooled modern sage Ramana Maharshi—adding that there may be millions of Indian householders with a similar level of attainment!
While such statements initially took us by surprise, we would later discover through dialogues with a number of leading Western Advaita scholars that similar sentiments are held by many Advaita traditionalists. Even one of the living Shankaracharyas—the head of one of the four monastic institutions allegedly established by Advaita's founder, Shankara—also denies the validity of Ramana's attainment, apparently for the simple reason that someone who wasn't formally trained in Vedanta couldn't possibly be fully enlightened!
Our visit to Swami Dayananda's ashram turned out to be a fascinating education. Over the course of our three-day stay, we met formally with Swami Dayananda four times for what turned out to be a wide-ranging series of dialogues. During that time, what had begun as an ashram curiosity—a small group of Westerners with an American spiritual teacher who had come to interview their guru—rapidly escalated into one of the most talked about and well-attended events at the ashram. From our second session onward, the meeting room was overflowing out the door as disciples crowded in to listen to the discussion. And between meetings, we regularly found ourselves in conversation with students eager both to discuss points that had arisen in the interview and to suggest questions for the next round.
Throughout the sessions, Swami Dayananda revealed himself to be every bit the traditionalist we had expected, sharing in his answers to our questions his comprehensive understanding of both the tradition itself and the subtleties of Advaita philosophy. Yet while we left his ashram in many respects much clearer about the history and doctrines of the Advaita tradition, our visit had also raised some fascinating questions. Wasn't it intriguing, we found ourselves asking as our taxi made its way back to the airport, that within a tradition dedicated to the profound and radical realization of the Absolute, there are learned and devoted authorities who feel compelled to distance themselves from the powerfully realized mystics to whom many of that tradition's own followers look for inspiration? If, in so doing, they are upholding the "purity" of the tradition, what does that mean about the nature of enlightenment, to which the Advaita path is intended to lead?
Ramana Maharshi said, "No learning or knowledge of scriptures is necessary to know the Self, as no man requires a mirror to see himself." Swami Dayananda, on the other hand, had just told us that "we have no means of knowledge for the direct understanding of Self-realization, and therefore Vedanta is the means of knowledge that has to be employed for that purpose. No other means of knowledge will work."
What is enlightenment? Is it simply a shift in understanding that can be brought about, as Swami Dayananda insists, entirely through the study of sacred texts? Or is it, as some of the most radiant examples of this powerful teaching have proclaimed, the world-shattering revelation of a mystery that lies forever beyond the mind?
Monday, 31 October 2011
PERIYAVAL's MIRACLE
Here is the experience of Madurai Meenakshisundaram Vaidyanathan's dream of Periyaal at U.S.A:
Newbie
Achievements:
Newbie- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Posts
- 5
- Points
- 1,028
- Level
- 4
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
My second vision of Sri Maha Periyava
October 1973 I had my second vision of Sri Maha Periyava In U.S.A.
From Aug 1970 to Oct 1973 was a very difficult period of our lives.
No scholarship. First thesis for M.S(computer and inforamtion science)at the University of Pennsylvania was a failure.
From a Divisional Engineer class I position in India to a position of cleaning mens room in the college it was a startling change in my life.
No money. No job. Going to Univ of pennsylvania without a scholarship.
I was mariied in July 1970 in Bangalore and came to U.S alone in August 1970.
My wife was carrying our first baby and I did not even know that when I left for U.S.A .
Our son was born in Apr 1971 and I did not see him until 1974.
In Oct 1973 , near the University ,I was working in a yogurt culture manufacturing company,
situated on the top of an old brick building on the fifth floor.
I had two dollars and thirtyfour cents in my Girard bank account.
It was a tuesday evening. I will not be paid 62 dollars until Friday.
I used to unload cubes of solid carbon dioxide "dry ice" each weighing 56 lbs.
I broke the cubes with 16 lbs sledge hammer, into small pieces and mixed with ethyl alcohol,
in a flat metal bath in which long glass cylinders with yogurt culture inside.
The glass tubes are are connected to a vacuum chamber for removing moisture and make the culture a dry powder.
It was vicious mixture of alcohol and evaporating carbon dioxide.
I had severe headache. i did not have money for the train to go back to my slum apartment.
i was hungry. I had no money to buy food. It was raining.
I walked fifteen blocks in the rain and came to my apartment repeating
"Guru Brahma Gurur Vishnu Gurur Devo Maheshwara
...." and I had a pint of milk which I wanted to heat and drink. That wll be my dinner. I had no other food.
When I poured the milk in the heating pan it fell out with a sickening thud and
I realized the milk had gone bad and sour. I realized I have no dinner that night.
I sat down and wept. "Acharaya Deva! Even hardened criminals breaking stones in a jail are given Koozh"
" You have decided to treat me like this". I must be worse than a criminal.
I was so angry and I decided that I must be punished more than a criminal.
I was running a high fever.And there was no hot water as the landlady had turned off the hot water in that slum aprtment. Poor students have no say.
In that peak winter, the water in the bathroom sprayed ice cold water like stinging needles.
I stood under the water to punish myself. Repeating "Gur brahma Gurur Vishnur..." sloka
I stood shivering as every part of the body shook uncontrollably and the ice cold water did a miracle.
My fever was reduced. i came out of the bath room with wet towel and I said to myself
" i am a dog and dogs do not sleep in bed" So I slept on the cold cement floor under the picture of Sri Guru.
I went into a deep coma/sleep. And then a dream.
During the dream I am standing with the wet towel repeating the sloka.
Where reality ends where dream starts i was not aware.
In the dream I was standing in pitch darkness.
I am praying to Sri Guru.
Something is sharp and I am standing on it and it hurts.
I bent down and I pick that and rub it on my wet towel and suddenly I have huge glittering diamond that instantly illuminates the room and lot of people are around me saying "Look at him. He has a priceless diamond".
It was around four in the morning.
I noticed a triangular piece of News paper sticking out near the bed.
I tore the piece and read " A programmer with Telephone exchange experience and computer science back ground needed for programming" Call 215-FL2-6520."
I went to work next day and took a loan of a quarter of dollar from Mike, who was my co-worker at the Yogurt culture company. I called FL2-6520 and spoke a Gentleman who wanted to see me immediately. From that time Sri Acharya has sent wave after wave of good luck in our lives.
The pregnant wife I had left in Bangalore joined me after four years in Aug 1974.
I saw our son Rajeev for the first ime when my wife came to join me in the U.S.
Rajeev is an associate Director at Stanford research Institute in Harrisonburg Virginia and doing research in drug discovery.
Our second son Natesh was born twelve years later and is a MBA from Georgetown University and works for Lockheed Martin corp as a finance analyst in Manasss Virginia.
Natesh is named after my paternal Grandfather Sri Natesa Thatha.
My grandfather and Sri Maha Periyava studied together for Veda Adhyayanam veda patasala and my Grandmother used to always say that. Sri Periyava came to see my grandfather in our rented house in Kalla kurichi
in 1948. My Grandfather was bed ridden and could not walk and he sent a word to Sri Periyava asking for his forgiveness as he was unable to come for Darshan. Instead Sri Periyava decided to come to our house to see his devotee. I was eight years old. It looks like yesterday when I had the Darshan of Sri Periyava. Today I wrote this from my heart. (July 15 2010). All the Glory to Sri Guru.
Madurai Meenakshisundaram Vaidyanathan (Gurubhaktha)
Thursday, 27 October 2011
FOUR PRINCIPLES OF SPIRITUALITY
Here are the important four principles of Spirituality:
The Four Principles of Spirituality.
An Indian friend now on an overseas assignment at Singapore, has sent this to me. No doubt hoping that it will help me manage my current situation better! I share with you the same message with no motives other than to expose you to Indian Spirituality.
The First Principle states:
“Whomsoever you encounter is the right one”
This means that no one comes into our life by chance. Everyone who is around us, anyone with whom we interact, represents something, whether to teach us something or to help us improve a current situation.
“Whomsoever you encounter is the right one”
This means that no one comes into our life by chance. Everyone who is around us, anyone with whom we interact, represents something, whether to teach us something or to help us improve a current situation.
The Second Principle states:
“Whatever happened is the only thing that could have happened”
Nothing, absolutely nothing of that which we experienced could have been any other way. Not even in the least important detail. There is no “If only I had done that differently…, then it would have been different…”. No. What happened is the only thing that could have taken place and must have taken place for us to learn our lesson in order to move forward. Every single situation in life, which we encounter, is absolutely perfect, even when it defies our understanding and our ego.
“Whatever happened is the only thing that could have happened”
Nothing, absolutely nothing of that which we experienced could have been any other way. Not even in the least important detail. There is no “If only I had done that differently…, then it would have been different…”. No. What happened is the only thing that could have taken place and must have taken place for us to learn our lesson in order to move forward. Every single situation in life, which we encounter, is absolutely perfect, even when it defies our understanding and our ego.
The Third Principle states:
“Each moment in which something begins is the right moment”
Everything begins at exactly the right moment, neither earlier nor later. When we are ready for it, for that something new in our life, it is there, ready to begin.
“Each moment in which something begins is the right moment”
Everything begins at exactly the right moment, neither earlier nor later. When we are ready for it, for that something new in our life, it is there, ready to begin.
This is the Fourth Principle, the final one:
“What is over, is over”
It is that simple. When something in our life ends, it helps our evolution. That is why, enriched by the recent experience, it is better to let go and move on.
I think it is no coincidence that you’re here reading this.
If these words strike a chord, it’s because you meet the requirements and understand that not one single snowflake falls accidentally in the wrong place!
“What is over, is over”
It is that simple. When something in our life ends, it helps our evolution. That is why, enriched by the recent experience, it is better to let go and move on.
I think it is no coincidence that you’re here reading this.
If these words strike a chord, it’s because you meet the requirements and understand that not one single snowflake falls accidentally in the wrong place!
Be good to yourself.
Love with your whole being.
Always be happy.
This entry was posted in Philosophy and tag
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)