Swami Vivekananda's Vedantic Cosmopolitanism | Swami Medhananda
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Swami Medhananda is a Senior Research Fellow at Ramakrishna Institute of Moral and Spiritual Education in Mysore, India. In this discourse, he presents his new book, Swami Vivekananda's Vedantic Cosmopolitanism, which will be available at:
global.oup.com...
www.amazon.com...
► To support the Vedanta Society of New York: www.vedantany.o...
Vedanta NY Archives: / vedantanewyorkarchives
Web: vedantany.org
Soundcloud: / vedantany
iTunes Podcast: bit.ly/vedanta-...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Facebook: / vedantany
ABOUT VEDANTA
Vedanta is one of the world’s most ancient religious philosophies and one of its broadest. Based on the Vedas, the sacred scriptures of India, Vedanta affirms the oneness of existence, the divinity of the soul, and the harmony of religions.
ABOUT US
Vedanta Society of New York is affiliated with the Ramakrishna Order of India. In fact, this is the Order's first Center started by Swami Vivekananda, in 1894. It was a historic event, for the seed of the world-wide Ramakrishna Movement was sown here in New York over a century ago. Swami Sarvapriyananda is the present Resident Minister and Spiritual Leader of the Vedanta Society of New York.
I don’t (I do) want to read the book I wanted you to do a whole class. I am looking forward to discovering your works personally. It was a great introduction and presentation that I really enjoyed. You verbally peruse the knowledge in a manner that makes me want to hear more of you. Thanks for doing this. I am going to watch this a second time right now.
Pranaam maharaj🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
As an Advaitin who might be labeled as “traditional” according to the taxonomy presented here, I must acknowledge that were it not for my stumbling into a dusty booklet with a few of Swami Vivekananda’s early speeches, about four years ago, I would not be calling myself an Advaitin today. I will therefore remain forever grateful to Swami Vivekananda for reaching me where I was at then and inspiring me to delve into Sri Shankaracharya’s narrative of the Advaitic vision of the Upanishads.
That said, I feel compelled to respond to what I view as a pejorative portrayal of traditional Advaitins as “world-negating” in this presentation. In the Advaita of my understanding, never do we seek to negate the world; rather, what we seek to negate is the seeming separation between the world and Brahman, i.e., the seeming duality of a world apart from Brahman that is presented to us through our mind and senses. What we seek to negate is the seeming otherness of and differences in the worldly appearances of our non-dual reality as Brahman which, arguably, leads us to label some of our appearances as sectarian and others as cosmopolitan, and so on.
Contrary to what this presentation seems to insinuate, as a traditional Advaitin I do not relish in declaring that the world is non-existent. However, even if one were to assume hypothetically that I did, it would still not be world-negating if one looked at it logically. If I were to assert that “the world is non-existent”, clearly I could not have meant that the five-letter word “w-o-r-l-d” and the dictionary meaning of that word are non-existent because, by using it in that sentence, I have already accepted the existence of that word and its meanings. Since, the word “world” and its dictionary meanings are not negated I submit that world-negation is not the import of that sentence. Hence, I posit that it is just a short-hand way of saying that “the world is non-existent except as Brahman appearing as words and their meanings, names and forms, causes and effects, and so on”. Viewed from this perspective, I would suggest that traditional Advaita is by no means world-negating.
Very well spoken my friend.
"out of this world, I should say" 😁
The ONE and only experience ("him") self through all manifestations and dimentions.
I am not sure how and why you are connecting the existence of the material world with the dictionary meaning of the word "world" here. Under Shankara's formula of "brahma satyam, jagat mithya" - what do you think mithya means? Whatever nuance there may be to the meaning of mithya, it definitely cannot mean satyam. Hence, under the traditional (ie. Adi Shankaracharya's) view of Advaita, Brahman alone is real, and the world (with its names and forms) is an ignorant *superimposition* on pure, formless (nirguna) Brahman. Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, and Sri Aurobindo have challenged Shankara's view by arguing for a "brahma satyam, jagat satyam" perspective to reality. Here, while Brahman is truly everything that exists, including maya (Shankara's "mithya" of the jagat). Even the names and forms are Brahman, and not a superimposition of our ignorance onto Brahman. This allows for even Brahman with attributes like names and forms (aka saguna Brahman, or personal deities, and literally everything that exists) to be a real entity, which the traditional Shankara view of Advaita does not.
@@anmolkohli For “traditional” Advaitins like me, satyam is that which cannot be falsified at any time in the past, present, or future (i.e., trikala-abadhita satyam). For us, mithya is just an appearance of satyam which although not apart from satyam appears to be so. This is why we say, mithya is satyam but satyam is not mithya. Therefore, the belief that mithya is other than satyam is itself mithya! Also, we say that satyam is free of mithya while mithya is not free of satyam, meaning that satyam may appear as mithya without becoming other than satyam, while mithya cannot appear without satyam. So, where there is mithya, there is satyam as well, and this satyam blazes forth, figuratively speaking, for realized individuals.
For us, the proposition “Brahma satyam, jagat satyam” does not stand up to logical scrutiny for the following reason. Suppose at any given time T and point P Brahman exists as Brahman. It stands to reason that if jagat were satyam as well, as was assumed, then jagat must exist independently as jagat at that time T and point P. However, if both are equally real, how could both them exist as what they are independently and simultaneously at each point P? Ergo, via a reductio ad absurdum logical argument, we can establish that both non-dual Brahman and jagat, existing independently, cannot be trikala-abadhita satyam. Furthermore, if jagat were satyam, it would not change its form at any time. However, we know that is not the case from our daily experience of waking and deep sleep. Hence, jagat cannot be called trikala-abadhita satyam. Brahman, on the other hand, is form-free and change-free.
I must add, however, that I am in no way, shape, or form suggesting that Sri Ramakrishna was being illogical just as I do not believe that Sri Shankaracharya was being illogical either. As an Advaitin, I reconcile the seemingly contradictory statements of these realized beings thus. For me, what Sri Ramakrishna is saying is “jagat-karana Brahma satyam, jagat satyam” while what Sri Shankaracharya is saying is “karana-karya-vilakshana Brahma satyam, jagan mithya”. So, for me, Sri Ramakrishna is emphasizing “sarvam khalvidam Brahma” while Sri Shankaracharya is emphasizing “Aham Brahmasmi”; same truth different emphasis.
@@anmolkohli Also, as a traditional Advaitin who is a devotee of Sri Krishna, I do not view my ishta devatha or personal deity as any less real than the body and mind through which I worship the Lord. So, I disagree with your conclusion that traditional Advaita precludes or hinders worship of personal deities. On the contrary, for me, traditional Advaita has deepened my understanding of the Lord and increased my appreciation and adoration of the Lord’s glories beyond what I had previously.
@@rsr9200 Thanks for this wonderfully detailed reply. I think the central issue of divergence here is the definition of Brahman. In your argument against "brahma satyam, jagat satyam", you rely on Brahman always being form-free and change-free, and this also forms your criterion for satyam itself. However, Sri Ramakrishna is known to have said "brahma shakti abhed", ie. Brahman and Shakti are without difference. If we are to interpret this saying in its most intuitive form, without reading in any other word, then what Sri Ramakrishna meant was that both Brahman and the active energy of its manifestation (Shakti) are the same. If we include this active energy in our definitions of Brahman, then even the ultimate or absolute (as opposed to merely empirical) reality of this world is affirmed, simply because this world is a manifestation of Brahma-Shakti.
Traditional Advaita definitely promotes worship of deities and the jnana of Advaita is also what brought me towards bhakti. However, Shankara creates a hierarchy between nirguna and saguna Brahman. Hence, Sri Krishna represents the latter, and is in turn reduced to an intermediate level of worship. I remember reading in Shankara's commentaries on the Upanishads where he recommends worship for the lowest level of spiritual aspirants. In some other schools of Vedanta as well as in integral Advaita, personal deities are equal to nirguna Brahman with no hierarchy whatsoever. This is the second way in which "Brahma Shakti abhed" can be understood, Shakti being a personal goddess.
Despite my utmost respect for Adi Shankara, I find his commentaries on the prasthana-traya to be world-denying. I would recommend that you compare commentaries on the Isha Upanishad of Adi Shankara and Sri Aurobindo to read more on the difference between world-denying and integral Advaita.
हरी: ऊॅं तत्सत् 🙏🏻
श्रीरामकृष्णार्पणमस्तु🙏🏻
Pranam Swami Medhanandaji Maharaj🙏🏻
Thank you Vedanta society New York for sharing this 🌹
Pranam Swamiji 🙏🙏🙏
Fantastic overview...at the end whete you show SV invokes maya as individuation...I wonder wow ...what would he be saying now to Bernado Kastrup the analytic philosopher who currently invokes the concept of 'alters'...see BKs Essentia Foundation Course on Consciousness...as another justification for how individuation works. Wonderful...the argumenys ate coming thick and fast now. SV was so ahead of his time. He caught me by his London 1896 lectures.
ॐ नमो भगवते रुद्राय 🙏
Pranam 🙏🙏🙏
Jai Swami Vivekananda
Pranaam Swami Saravpriyananda ji
love your work.
Very interesting and informative presentation from Swami Medhananda, thank you!! I should like to read this book, 🌸🙏🏼
After listening to this talk and reading some of the comment threads, I suppose one take-away is that argument begets argument begets argument, sort of like a self-sustaining perpetual motion machine. But I do very much like the argument presented from this book. 🙏🏼🌼
Nice introduction by Sw.S'nandaji & also talk by An.Maharaj...
I want to read the book. It is out if stock everywhere.
I know revered Swami Savarpriyanandji has many times said that SriRamakrishna's approach based on Kathamrita has many similarities to Kashmiri Shaivism. I was reading book "The Bhakti schools of Vedanta". I see lot of similarities in the philosophical approach of Vallabhcharya Mahaprabhu's as Shuddha Advaita to SriRamakrishna's approach. Ofcourse they cannot have exact same approach but I see similarities with my limited reading. I am novice and please correct me / guide me. Surely should not be in analysis of these with nascent knowledge. However clarity always helps. As per Vallabhacharya Maya is nothing else than a Shakti of Ishvara. He is not only the creator of the universe but is the universe itself. Jiva in essence is Brahman though different from Brahman. However his stand on avidya could be expressed differently. We listen to Sriramkrishna's approach of Vidya Maya and Avidya Maya. I surely want to read Swami Vivekananda's Vedantic Cosmopolitanism.
🙏🙏🙏🙏
Earlier this video has been published then removed and now republished. What is reason for all that?
🙏🏻🙏🏻
Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna
Enjoyed every word thinking of kathamrita and the 3 yogas. Looking forward to reading it and trying to undersand more. But i have a lot of catching up to do, so read william james etc in original. May be will understand some more then.
Whenever there's use of Sanskrit or other regional language, Please do explain that, other wise there is no understanding for me regarding that, what has been said, even if it's prayer of salutation.
Ultimately, it is ALL "happening" in my awareness
So, why all this gyrations (addressing Swami Sarwapriyananda)? Unless such talks are given with a reminder every 5 minutes that it is awareness that is speaking to aware-nesses
Just saying - Awareness
1:18:00
Here is the "classical" confusion within the nondual movement.
To confuse Brahman and Atman.
The whole nondual movement is blind because of this very misunderstanding.
Throwing in tens of thousands of scholars to grind out a solution to a simple misconception and dancing around it without reaching one definitive understanding.
Ayon maharaj is now engaged with the most futile work to prove Vivekananda as an integral advaitin..There are numerous passages in his lectures that prove vivekananda as a follower of traditional advaita vedanta..In this respect, i think vivekananda had different world view which does not completely fit with Ramakrishna's more broader philosophy.. Vivekananda never saw the world as a real manifestation of bramha shakti..He was more akin to shankaracharya in philosophy and was a great lover of bodhisattwahood.. so he was a modified Shankar as he mixed up in his traditional advaita philosophy the concept of buddhist compassion, modern philanthropy and universal love to make it practical as well as ethical
..Moreover just few years before his death he established Advaita ashrama in mayavati which clearly proves that he was more kevalaadvaita fanatic than an integral advaitin..Ayon maharaj is misleading us to bring Vivekananda in the same line of Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Aurobindo..
Sure, please tell us more about how Swami Vivekananda had a completely different philosophy from his own guru, and how a monk of the Order is misleading us into equating the two.
@@anmolkohli there is no mandatory rule that a disciple should be a mental and spiritual product of his guru.. A guru helps his disciples for god realization, but he never insists them to follow his own path. Ramakrishna himself got help from Totapuri, but he went beyond Totapuri.. similarly Ramakrishna awakened the fire of spirituality in Vivekananda, helped him to know his realization of all religious as well as yogic paths, infused in him some divine power for the work of the world, yet Vivekananda followed Shankar more than Ramakrishna, though he acknowledged the supreme greatness of his guru and placed him above all avatars..
i think you are deliberately doing ninda of swamiji maharaj.. swamiji's moods are infinite, swamiji's ways are also infinite.. nobody understood swamiji as thakur understood..
swamiji in many times had said that he's gyani outside but inside he's a bhakta.. read his letters about holy mother, in those letters he clearly accepts brahma shakti integrity...
do you think a person who believes the world including ishwara as maya only can write "sampada tava sripada bhava gospada bari yathai".. it is never possible..
@@ds86496 When one maintains two faces that is called "hypocrite" पाखण्डी . "infinite moods, infinite ways" these are all cult language to "shield" the hypocrite cult founders leaders. One can choose to do anything in life , no one cares. But the way VVN misused the divine power entrusted in him be SRK is a glaring example of "A great fall in spiritual life", disgusting.
@@I.love.Jagdamba_Shiva_Hari. sri ramakrishna would be always against these blasphemeous words against swamiji.. he would never withstand such comment against his dearest devotee..pls read kathamrita again and again.. thakur used to call naren as narayana incarnated, the person who has his consciousness in the infinite.. if someone used to say something against naren, then thakur would scold that person..
nobody understood swamiji maharaj as thakur did.. we dont have that buddhi to understand the glories of swamiji maharaj.. only a mind inflicted with envy and hypocrisy can comment like such against swamiji..
hypocrite means the person whose mind is not equal to his speech and only a hypocrite mind can see hypocrisy in others..even if the other person is free from hypocrisy, the person with envious hypocrite mind would see the reflection of his own hypocrisy in that other person..
i dont see any conflict between thakur and swamiji's teachings.. i see both are saying the same things.. swamiji is just echoing what thakur said.. there is no word of swamiji that is not of sri ramakrishna...
🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙏🙏