I love that Ramakrishna Math has given the monks and disciples the freedom to interpret Thakur and philosophy in general in the way that appeals to them and they see fit. It's a return to the true freedom of thought that was prevalent in Ancient India. If you do not agree with this Swami, there is no need to listen to him. But insulting him for his American birth or putting him down for not agree with Sri Adi Shankara is unbecoming. He has gone beyond all of us and has left everything to dedicate his life to God. Monks are also on a journey, so let us not be unkind to them or to each other.
Advanced Vedanta class .. had to listen because of the name “ Vedanta for dummies” .. but really need to note down and listen to it again .. he’s indeed a great scholar but I love the talks of Swami Sarvpriyananda and he just gives the talk extempore without any written note or laptop, like it’s all in him , like a “living “ knowledge!
The best thing about Swami Sarvapriyanandaji is he transfers Advaita teachings as taught in Prasthanatrayam. His sense of belonging to Sankara School is obvious and his humility is appealing to all. He is non partisan in his talks loyal to RK Order. Complaining and grumbling against universally revered Acharya's teachings, like Sankara's Advaita Vedanta is not at all in the fitness of things for newly made monks of RK Mission. The RK Mission must not encourage such biased monks to conduct lectures. A monk is also a learner and he must study under his seniors. One bad apple can spoil a basket of good apples. Todays world is looking up to Upanisads to understand study of One Changeless Consciousness Principle to bring global Oneness. This new monk may be wanting to advocate Cosmopolitanism in Vedanta , which is not the core teaching of Advaitam. He lacks respect for clasdical Advaita lineage ; Adi Sankara is the Chief. All schools are good in their own ways and take us till a certain point. They are means, not the end. Publicly demolishing Sankaras' time-proven CONCLUSIONS on Mahavakyas is unacceptable. RK Order must call him out.
@@sukanyaviswanathan9283 I disagree. He isn't disrespecting Shankara by disagreeing with him. Infact all good philosophy is based on free rational thinking, which RK encourages. And he is not 'complainging and grumbling', he is refuting Shankara based on sound logic. It's you who is grumbling. I adore Swami Sarvapriyananda. But I also love and respect Swami Medhananda who uses sound logic to establish a coherent philosophy based on Ramakrishna's and Vivekananda's teachings. This academic framework is so so helpful in giving Ramakrishna in philosophical circles so that his teachings may gain more weight worldwide.
As per different schools of Vedanta - What is the human problem, fundamentally? If this is discussed then we can truly accept which school of Vedanta is exactly correct. Instead of talking about God & Bhakti directly, it will be more appropriate to discuss these three in this order - 1. who is human being?, 2. what is the world around? and 3. what is God? as per different schools of thought. Different schools of thought are fundamentally different with respect to the above three aspects and these three schools are not comparable, anyway, unless the answers to these questions are the same! No one is dummy in understanding the philosophy of it is systematically explained, in fact Vedanta is meant for the dummies only!
Comparing two monks of the same Order is not very helpful or sound either. Everyone's approach is different which opens newer perspectives to the audience.
Very important lecture and teaching for students and practitioners alike! Great job Swami! Also - mad respect that you have dedicated your life to teaching these truths! 🕉🙏🏼🙌🏽
WOW! This is an excellent analysis of the different schools of Vedanta, not recommended as a first introduction to Vedanta. The next time I listen to the talk, I need to have a notebook in hand and use the pause button more frequently. He explains the Sanskrit terms well. If this were a university, it would be an upper division class. If you are confused, skip ahead about 40 minutes. 🙏🌻
I RESPECT YOU AS BECAUSE OF YOUR CRITICAL ANALYSIS WITHOUT ANY INCLINATION TO ANY OF THE SYSTEM AVAILABLE I THE RELIGION DOCTRINE JAY SRI RAMKRISHNA AMIT CHAITYANA KOLKATA
Thank you Swami-ji.❤ You need to pause & speak slower to enable our minds to process so much information in one lecture. Good to learn about differences in spiritual beliefs. We need to respect all personal beliefs. What is interesting is that so many in this materialistic world are interested in spiritual topics & that particular beliefs appeal to certain minds. ●Why are human mind/bodies/souls attracted to violence, peace etc? Does our spiritual make-up, the 3 Gunas/energies we are born with lead us to act in particular ways? Are overcoming negative tendencies the common battle of all human minds?
excellent explanation. liked to listen again and again. no one tells us so nicely this views. every one has their own views but our mind is not fully satified. our inner quaries are well addressed. thanks and pranam maharaj. please do upload such lectures.
Excellent Swamiji Authoritative talk This is not for dummies It is for serious students of Vedanta One has to listen to it multiple times and make notes
If you have experienced the hell of believing that you're an "individual soul" for all eternity, you'll be very happy (Mukti) when you discover Advaita Vedanta, and Ajata Vada. Everything just makes sense, now I can happily cease to be.
Such a comprehensive & expansive coverage - indeed grateful to be able to hear his discourse - one question Guruji - Bhrahma Shakti Satyam, Jagat Satyam : is that not very close to Kashmir Shaivism or Advaita Shaivism Pranaam
As per different schools of Vedanta - What is the human problem, fundamentally? If this is discussed then we can truly accept which school of Vedanta is exactly correct. Instead of talking about God & Bhakti directly, it will be more appropriate to discuss these three in this order - 1. who is human being?, 2. what is the world around? and 3. what is God? as per different schools of thought. Different schools of thought are fundamentally different with respect to the above three aspects and hence these three schools are not comparable, anyway, unless the answers to these questions are the same! No one is dummy in understanding the philosophy if it is systematically explained, in fact Vedanta is meant for the dummies only! (In the sense, Dummies with respect to their ego)
Really well presented talk. Comparison of existing schools of thought in Vedanta through some broad parameters followed by explanation of Vigyan Vedanta through some of the same parameters. 1) Just as it's a journey for us, it's a journey for these monks as well. So we can just choose to be more generous in our assessment of them. 2) Does putting forth a new perspective like Vigyan vedanta mean that he is trying to belittle old masters? Should we forget एकं सत् विप्रा - - -? And more importantly, who really can cause any dent to the splendid glory of the old masters? 3) Why compare one teacher with other? Why not just stick to what we find appealing at personal level and leave the rest to the experts/God?
In Ramakrishna Mission ,the sanyas name given after examining the characteristics of the person concerned who will get that name. Sarvapriyananda, Medhananda-- all now understand how appropriate those name given to the Monks !!
As per different schools of Vedanta - What is the human problem, fundamentally? If this is discussed then we can truly accept which school of Vedanta is exactly correct. Instead of talking about God & Bhakti directly, it will be more appropriate to discuss these three in this order - 1. who is human being?, 2. what is the world around? and 3. what is God? as per different schools of thought. Different schools of thought are fundamentally different with respect to the above three aspects and these three schools are not comparable, anyway, unless the answers to these questions are the same! No one is dummy in understanding the philosophy of it is systematically explained, in fact Vedanta is meant for the dummies only!
@@radhakrishnanv2286 This is the best comment I have seen about Philosophy. Yep. Very much true. The 3 Questions you have raised should be the starting point in any Discussion.
@@kumarakantirava429 Thank you for your nice comment ! Man alone can find a solution for all the varieties of problems manufactured by mankind by itself ! God has put adequate brain power in every human being for not creating his/her own problems. But man enjoys the power of all other organs except the brain which is unfortunate. Even God cannot save mankind from all the evils which mankind manufactures. Great revolutionary philosophers, all over the world, have explained the technical connection between once brain with once own problems. But our Gurudom has created a convenient theory and proclaimed that "the God is responsible for all the problems of human beings" - " God only can save the mankind from all the evils" - "man need not show any improvement in his/her attitude but simply keep praying God blindly" etc etc. This sort of escapism is called as religion in different names. Effectively, man his/her own issues and Gurudom says God will solve. No guru in recent days, except few, tells the mass that "you are the cause & solution for each of your problem". Neither Vedanta nor great personalities like Swami Vivekananda preach anything about a religious movent. They never encourage groupism. Religion is an invention by mankind to throw all the problems into it and escape. Bagwan Buddha told his followers "Be a light unto yourself" as his last words which have become"lost_words". Like this we have many lessons that have been lost when a religion/ groupism is formed. When many creatures are living harmoniously without any religion human beings alone are dying in religions.
Nice to hear the explanation the way you describe got Goosebumps after hearing..I had misunderstood earlier that you are Nitish Bhardwaj(Krishna) from Mahabharata..
Definitely still raw, definitely not self realised, but yes academically well read..in my humble opinion, Swamiji needs some mentoring... spirituality should be talks of highest realization and not putting one over the other. Also, monks should be allowed to have talks on vedanta after some years on spiritual practice, having understood the essence of scriptures and not be based on academic qualifications. I am sorry for sounding harsh, but in this talk there were critical comments on one Swami from the RKM order that I hold in the highest esteem who has also given lectures on different schools but has done it beautifully... Swamiji definitely needs mentoring
He is a gem. He is only getting started. What is so great in beating a 1500 year old drum? It takes a special power of God to challenge an established pattern of thoughts and introduce new ideas boldly. The world is moving so fast that people who do not keep the pace will simply become irrelevant. Who wants to go to a Sadhu to hear soothing confirmations? Sadhus are not therapist... This Sadhu is setting the bar so high that some people naturally feel uncomfortable.
@@I.love.Jagdamba_Shiva_Hari. All I can say is The Highest Truth is Inexplicable, all Masters in the past have tried to explain the truth in their Best possible way of understanding. So let us first learn to Respect that. If one strongly feels about a particular idea or thinks that is The Truth, try to explain that or put forth examples to support that truth as you have been convinced. Just by putting down others and being Bold and Brash, am sorry you are not going to achieve the ultimate Goal of Spirituality which is Peace. OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIH..
@@radhikaiyer997 I think i know where you are coming from. Look, I am a very big fan of Swami Sarvapriyananda myself. These sadhus have real thick skin, they do not get offended by each other's philosophical criticism. Both of them are true gems, we need 2000 of them in the USA.
Swamiji, Thank you for this very well structured and organised talk clarifying the various schools of Vedanta! One question I had is that all Bhakti schools seem to have Vishnu or his Avatars such as Krishna as the Sagun Bhagwaan, so which Philosophical school forms the basis of Shaktism and Shaivism? Thank you again.
1 Vishitaadvaiyta was there even much before Sri Ramanujacharya. He was not founder of it. 2 Sri Ramanujacharya very actively spread the secrets of Salvation, God and philosophy to all people irrespective of Caste, position, and Sex. 3 Sri Ramanujacharya proved that it is not caste but the qualities and attitude, and love towards decides the nobility of a person. 4.Many lower caste people got MANTRA and salvation. He was several times given poison for recognizing lower caste and women. 5.Lord venkateshwara himself said to follow the path and preachings of Ramanujacharya. 6.Vishnusahasra nama says - God can exist any shape or structure. That is misunderstood as no shape and structure. 7. Gajendra moksha story tells who is the God as a source for all without beginning and end.
As per different schools of Vedanta - What is the human problem, fundamentally? If this is discussed then one can truly accept which school of Vedanta is exactly correct. Instead of talking about God & Bhakti directly, it will be more appropriate to discuss these three in this order - 1. who is human being?, 2. what is the world around? and 3. what is God? as per different schools of thought. Different schools of thought are fundamentally different with respect to the above three aspects and these three schools are not comparable, anyway, unless the answers to these questions are the same! No one is dummy in understanding the philosophy of it is systematically explained, in fact Vedanta is meant for the dummies only!
Btw vedas are not like Bible which is compilation and stealings from Jews old testimetns and other pagan scriptures. so Bible doesn't even exist it's been edited so many times its doomed centuries ago.
13:40 mind is insentient, a subtle form of matter is not true. What is a mind? Mind (mn) of Vedic tradition is very different from the mind we refer to in common language. The mind that we refer to is sum total of emotions, thoughts, feeling etc. is a product of the inner instrument/subtle body. But mind/mn of the Vedas is very different, it is "highly"sentient , and the most important component of the subtle body. SRK also says that a pure mind/mn and Atma is the same, which can not be insentient. Only a Vigyani would know the difference... :)
On the conflict of Adi Shankara's Advaita vs. Dwaita (bhakti hymns) - a nice way to reconcile the two might be to believe that Adi Shankara had a "Road to Damascus" moment (probably in Sarada Pith, Kashmira visit) that changed/modified his view on Advaita vs. Dwaita. Personally, I am with Heisenberg - momentum/position?....Nirguna/Saguna?,....Potaytoe/Potahto....just get on with the meditation, please... Or, maybe Adi Shankar was a dilettante, who dabbled in both philosophies to chase Facebook Likes and Insta shares (....NOT!)
As per different schools of Vedanta - What is the human problem, fundamentally? If this is discussed then we can truly accept which school of Vedanta is exactly correct. Instead of talking about God & Bhakti directly, it will be more appropriate to discuss these three in this order - 1. who is human being?, 2. what is the world around? and 3. what is God? as per different schools of thought. Different schools of thought are fundamentally different with respect to the above three aspects and these three schools are not comparable, anyway, unless the answers to these questions are the same! No one is dummy in understanding the philosophy of it is systematically explained, in fact Vedanta is meant for the dummies only!
I beg to disagree with swami Medhananda about which off shoot of vedanta SRK and Vivekananda practiced and preached-Ma Sarada said it herself when asked by a fellow monk why they could not worship SRK in the ashram in the Himalayas which was dedicated to SRK's advaita vedanta and no worship was allowed of SRK as per Vivekananda's instructions as SRK was an advaitan. The monk was disgruntled and complained to Ma Sarada that Vivekananda was not allowing worship of SRK at the Advaita Ashram and Ma Sarada said that yes, Vivekananda was right, SRK was Advaita, Also, Shankaracharya gave up his thoughts on casteism when a chandaal challenged him about his own realization that atman was same in all.
Shankara gave up his casteism ?? !! Then, should we ask Shankara Mutts to remove ALL the references Shankara has Made to Manusmriti in his commentary ?? Such commentary does not deserve a place in society.
Swamiji I heard your full lecture. Only one question for you. You have spoken about gnyana, bhakthi and karma yogas but no refetence to kriya yoga at all. As a Isha Yoga practicioner, we believe that while all paths are valuable, the first three can be slippery. And there is a possibility of hallucination..i mean how many people today can practice pure Bhakthi and not have it descend to something transactional. Again, with gnyana yoga, how many can devote the time for this? Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudeva, of Isha has devised spiritual practices devoted to raising individual energies. Any comment on this?
As per different schools of Vedanta - What is the human problem, fundamentally? If this is discussed then we can truly accept which school of Vedanta is exactly correct. Instead of talking about God & Bhakti directly, it will be more appropriate to discuss these three in this order - 1. who is human being?, 2. what is the world around? and 3. what is God? as per different schools of thought. Different schools of thought are fundamentally different with respect to the above three aspects and these three schools are not comparable, anyway, unless the answers to these questions are the same! No one is dummy in understanding the philosophy of it is systematically explained, in fact Vedanta is meant for the dummies only!
You mean Jaggi Vasudev of Coimbatore .. ?? He could not even explain why he cremated his Wife's body before her Parents came from Bangalore ! FRAUD ALERT !
❗👁SEER👁 = Sophy-Exist-Exit-Realize❗Vedanta means end of knowledge or wisdom.. Sophy orignates from the Middle English sophie, from the Latin sophia, from the Ancient Greek σοφῐ́ᾱ (sophíā, “high knowledge”: “learning”, “wisdom”); 🔥I've burnt all the holy pages I used to carry but poems flare in my heart. One of you saved my Satori paper, I know it piece by piece. You pasted it back together. Now watch me burn it once and for all. - Ikkyu 🔥 👁SEER👁 = Self-Eternal-Essence-Realize Why so 👁️seerious👁️⁉️ You may see i'm a seer but i'm no one❗
*❗Silencing the Linguistic-Ego-Breath❗Out beyond ideas of Veda and Vedanta, there is the Self. When the soul abides as the Self the mind-world is too full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase “each other” doesn't make any sense‼️* *👁SEER👁 = Speech+Exist+Exit+Realize❗* *👁SEER👁 = Silence+Eternal+Essence+Realize❗* *I used to want buyers for my words. Now I wish someone would buy me away from words. Look for someone else to to tend the shop. I am out of this Vedanta-making business‼️* *Inside me a hundred beings are putting their fingers to their lips and saying, “That’s enough for now. Shhhhh.” Silence is an ocean. Speech is a river.* *When the ocean is searching for you, don’t walk to the language-river. Listen to the ocean,* *and bring your talky business to an end.* *Traditional words are just babbling in that presence, and babbling is a substitute for sight. - Rumi* *I am the magician (linguist) caught in his own trickery (linguist-tricks). Let me cut the breath of self (ego/word/wisdom) and be silent. Language cannot come from my Mind as I choke and go under.* You may 👁see👁 i'm a 👁️seer👁️ but i'm not anyone❗
@@Yogis_BitterTruth_Nirvan *👁️SEER👁️ = Script/Scripture-Exist-Exit-Realize‼️* *“Self is the real book. You can glance anywhere in that book; nobody can take it away from you. Whenever you are free turn towards Self. Thereafter you may read whatever you like.”- Ramana Maharshi* *There is a voice that doesn't use words. Listen‼️- Rumi*
Sad, very sad the state of comprehension of non dual basic principles. You are all over the place with no direction. Allow me to draw the following picture: "You have a bunch of parts that once belonged to well built functional mechanism, a machine. You do not have the original blueprints and you fruitlessly try to fit parts at random in hopes that you will be able to restore the mechanism to its functional state. Duplicates of original parts seep in and you are unable to tell them apart. At best you get a buzz from your efforts but at no point you are getting close to fixing it." Call me. I will help you.
I sincerely made an effort to understand your comment.It is your picture - you can draw whatever you want. it seems like you are trying to say "you do not know what you are talking about, and you are wasting time". See, this is called "a direct method". Painting imaginary pictures is "here and now, imagined enlightenment non-duality" method. He is a true gem.
I agree that it is wrong to judge, however this monk is American origin. On the other hand, with all due respect, even if he regularly went through all the initiations and rituals for a monk, he does not have that spirit. All the knowledge he presents in this lecture is too raw and superficial. In my humble opinion, knowledge of Vedic teachings comes through spiritual practice and true experience. No laptop or iPad is needed when knowledge is truly integrated into the soul. Everything that the Americans ever touched with their hands, they reshaped and destroyed all values. Sorry but that's the fact. I beg the Indian people not to include this kind of people in their tradition, religion and cultural heritage, because such people will destroy its beauty and quality.
That's super unfair of you. This lecture is meant to cover the basic aspects of Vedanta. It's more like a philosophy class that is also needed in the journey for those curious enough to know. No nationality is barred from knowing the supreme truth, that is Swami Vivekananda proclaimed this as universal knowledge. The truth is for and by everyone, don't try to gatekeep this. Also, you're not even Indian.
I get the impression that this monk is here to discredit Adi Sankaracharya . He may like Vignyana Vedanta but why does he belittle Sankara and our Advaita Vedanta. Is it an attempt to form groupism online? Sw Sarvapriyananda & other monks in RK Order must tell him to stop this divisional approach in his talks.
This so called monk has an agenda seemingly. With temerity he demeans Sri Shankaracharya Bhagavadpada and questions his works. This monk is a hollow person.
Shankara's Advaita vedanta has stood the test of time in criticism, from Mandana Mishra on down to the present day. Adi Shankara needs no protection from sincere debate. Besides, a chandala on the banks of the Ganga has already taught him humility, no one can best that. Take the gooseberry handed to you and taste the bitter and the sweet, or throw it away. Brahman really don't give a #$@+, being Nirguna and all...
As per different schools of Vedanta - What is the human problem, fundamentally? If this is discussed then we can truly accept which school of Vedanta is exactly correct. Instead of talking about God & Bhakti directly, it will be more appropriate to discuss these three in this order - 1. who is human being?, 2. what is the world around? and 3. what is God? as per different schools of thought. Different schools of thought are fundamentally different with respect to the above three aspects and these three schools are not comparable, anyway, unless the answers to these questions are the same! No one is dummy in understanding the philosophy of it is systematically explained, in fact Vedanta is meant for the dummies only!
@@sumitdutta7043 the "obvious" problem is the attempt to seperate Vedanta from Siddhanta; to seperate Vedanta from Hindu Dharma and to speak about non duality.
A monk should not have bias which this monk has in abundance. He may be a scholar but lacks in the fundamental factor of expression of his views. He may.speak the English language like an American but does not know how to teach, how to pause, how to repeat. All he does is to show off his American accent. It seems as though his object is to put down Sri Shankaracharya Bagavadpada by questioning the authorship of Sri Shankaracharya's great works ; the crown being Viveka Chudamani. You may have a completely different opinion and you are entitled to it. But you have no right to speak of Shankaracharya in the manner you spoke. Did you play marbles with Sri Shankaracharya? On hearing you I get the impression that you are out to insult Sri Shankaracharya ( not that any one can do that, least of all you) and you are out to show off your accent. You can never compete with Swami Sarvapriyananda for you don't have the guna required for it. You are not fit to be called as monk.
You're right. Interestingly Vivekananda was on a mission to spread divinity of ONENESS as the core teaching of Advaita Vedanta as taught by Sankaracharya. There may be other doctrines advocated by other saints. But this new monk is repeatedly demolishing the final teaching of Sankara, which is rejection of plurality and embracing Oneness as solution to human sorrow and fear. He is mixing up Kashmiri Saivism, saguna brahman, bhakti duality in the name of RK's Vignyana vedanta. No clarity. Only aim is fault finding with Sankaras classic approach. Monks like Sarvapriyananda must not encourage his disrespect to Acharya. Anyone can start a new school of thought. But not out of arrogance.
It is okay to have faith in Dvaita but it is indecent to talk the way he did. He is arrogant. On the other hand Swami Sarvapriyananda is so humble and so clear in his speech. He is a great teacher too. As I said this arrogant monk is a show off.
@@rajikrishnan2 i am inclined to agree with your views philosophically, though not with the denunciation of the Swami's personality.... I had a long exchange of messages in watsapp with fellow seekers just now... I personally feel that an advaitic seeker should stick to SHANKARA - RAMANA Vedanta till the end , for his sadhana to culminate in the Advaita Anubhuti.... As Gitacharya says, shraddhamayoyam purush
... continued... " as is one's faith, so is his attainment" or as the saying goes, 'yat bhaavam, tat bhavati', if one does not have uncompromising faith in Tat Tvam Asi teaching, it's unlikely he will realize the truth in his experience.... Compromising with all schools as a process of synthesis or eclecticism, to accommodate all schools as right in their own way, is hardly likely to result in the Saving Experiential Knowledge in the form of avagati or ending of samsara i.e., transmigrational existence and that is the proof of the pudding that lies in the eating of the moksha cake 🍰!! Good exchange of perceptions or brainstorming indeed 😊!! OM NAMO RAMANAYA 🙏🙏🤗!!
@@swamitanmayanandasarasvati1352 Read your remarks with interest. Namaskaram. When a monk teaches Advaita Vedanta tradition here or abroad, he must stick to Tat Tvam Asi as taught by Adi Sankara, using the same technical words or jargons. Advaitam is not old or ancient. It is for all times. It is modern too. It is the Art of studying the Science of SELF. So in the pretext of capturing cosmopolitan audience, there should be no attempt to deviate from the core teaching which is Aikyam.. and aikyam alone. Ie. Aham Brahmaiva na parah. And Jiva-Brahma aikya gnyanam is the final goal. Of course there are many stops, called darshanas, in the Aikya journey. Anyone can get off in the middle and re-enter again. But to say Sankaras teaching is wrong and I am not with Sarvapriyananda in his orthodox Sankara methodology of ONENESS and Mithyatvam of world is a disturbing trend in RK advaita Order. We are happy that we got to hear a good response from the esteemed Ramana Maharishi Advaita school. Pranams.
Neo Vedantis are so good at misinterpreting Advaita. All four Shankaracharyas practice worshipping of Chandramaulishwara Shivling on daily basis as they are Shaivas then practice worshipping of other deities too. Bhakti is first step on the way of realisation of unity between you and brahman. From now on, I would refer to listen Swami Sarvapriyananda Ji than Swami Medhananda Ji.
That's not true.Its true that he doesn't have a fascination towards Shankaracharya's doctrines and often tries to place Advaita stance on a lower ontological level of truth. But he doesn't say that Advaita is false as Iskconites claim. His entire exercise is to give a new nuance to the line of interpretation of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda philosophy by stating that Vijnana is a state higher than Advaita. It is his way of interpretation. You are free to interpret Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda in whatever fashion you please
