forestofclarity

I've recently come across Swami Medhananda, who has offered a a new school of Vedanta he calls "vijnana vedanta." It is based on the teaching of Ramakrishna, and essentially seems to combine Vedanta and Tantra a la the Tripura Rahasya. I've only listened to a few of his videos, but this vision of Vedanta rejects the oft repeated: jagat mithya, Brahman satyam with Brahman satyam, jagat satyam. His further claim is that, contrary to Swami Sarvapriyananda, is that traditional Shankaran Advaita cannot be pursued by nearly anyone nor may it combined with other practices such as bhakti devotion, etc. because the bhakti practies inherently reinforce duality. According to Swami M, Shankara would prescribe bhakti as a preparation, and then a dropping of it for jnana once one has developed a high level of separation from bodily consciousness. He argues that, contrary to Swami S, the traditional qualifications must be present to an extremely high degree. Ramakrishna, on the other hand, provides a way to integrate practices -- by acknowledging that all manifestations are real. He also claims a lot of monks from the order have retreated from Ramakrishna back to Shankara. It is interesting to see some one advocate for a new school of Vedanta --- he even plans to put forth a Vijnana Vedanta commentary on the Brahma Sutras!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

I'm not a particular fan of JS but have a few thoughts: I think he misses the point here. Samadhi can be incredibly useful for shutting down the mind in order to obtain a clearer view of what is essential. The error arises when one mistakes a state of meditation with an essential state of being. Swami Sarvapriyananda describes this. If you want to view the screen, you can try to discern it while the movie is going, or you can shut down the projector to see it. The error arises thinking the projector needs to be shut down all the time. But to say that there is no lasting impact from the shutting down and rebooting misses the point and suggests a gap in meditation experience. Depends on what is meant by knowledge. I would say jnana is knowing that does not occur in the intellect, as opposed to vijnana, but no distinction is made here. The "I" ness of I seems to dissolve, IMO. This seems to contradict his earlier point. I don't agree with the "vedanta is intellectual" movement generally. I interacted with JS many years ago when he was just getting started. I told him I understood intellectually, but it was not a lived truth or reality. He said that it is was merely understanding plus confidence. I don't think this will stand up in the long run, and have come to learn the difference between intellectual understanding and realization. I don't think he does, or a least he didn't. This says to me he doesn't understand the prior point. As they say in Dzogchen, experiences are like mist, they fade. Understanding is like a patch, it falls away. Realization is like space, unchanging. Swami S again does not make this mistake, and explains that intellectual understanding is a first step in the shravana, manana, nididhyasana. JS is only touching on the first two, IMO.

Welcome!

Mod Note: With Current Events Shut Down, there is no reason for this thread to continue for the time being.

Mod Note: This was Maddie's thread for transgender Q&A. With Maddie's departure, I see no reason to continue the thread.

I'm going to be honest, I haven't considered any reports because the site doesn't typically work for me. Often the site doesn't load, and if it loads I cannot check the reports, and if I can even click on the reports the site crashes. It really depends on the time of day. I did see that there were numerous issues piling up in Current Events and chose to lock it pending a review. Unfortunately, I have lacked the time, energy, and bandwidth to conduct an in depth review of posts due to other, higher priorities than website moderation. I have finally gotten to some of the reports this evening, and am discussing with the other mods especially since I have recused myself from moderating political threads. So please don't take this for other than what it is-- a slapdash, haphazard effort by some one with little time and energy to spare at the moment.

*** "What's up" is that the mods are working though the issues when we have the time and bandwidth to do so. ***

We have decided to shut it down.

Staff is well aware of the ongoing software issues. Unfortunately, we have limits to access we have and have been attempting to remedy for quite some time.

Current Events Discussion currently closed to new posts/replies pending mod review/discussion.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome! Just FYSA, discussion about Mopai and John Chang in particular has been banned due to the issues it has caused on the board.

From the Mahamudra Aspiration Prayer, trans McLeod: It doesn’t exist: even buddhas do not see it. It doesn’t not exist: it is the basis of samsara and nirvana. No contradiction: the middle way is union. May I know the pure being of mind, free of extremes.

In this case, I would say whatever one refers to as the Self is not beyond mind, but is the essence of mind.

If minds were truly separated, how would we communicate? And what would form the edge or boundary?

This sounds very similar to the Indo-Tibetan models description, TBH. What is dissolved is not the mind, but the illusion of a separate self. The ultimate is not separate from the relative, any more than gold is separate from any specific form, such as a ring or a bracelet, etc.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but the initial model sounds like it is dividing ultimate truth from relative truth, and seems to be describing a classic Samkhya, renunciate approach. Relative practices are often important, and this would include various forms of healing, therapy, integration, etc. But over time, the relative practices become less necessary as one's center of gravity shifts away from the relative self to a more open spacious awareness. This is not a state of inactive passivity but a state of spontaneous action. And the shift itself need not be forced, it just happens. One issue is that people often overestimate their development tend to abandon the relative practices too quick, which some teachers describe as premature immaculation.

Welcome!

Welcome (back)!