Forwarded mail....

[Guest guest]

"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar writes:

>While searching the web on a different topic, I came across a page with

>the following message. Imagine my horror when I read the words below!

>> What a change! -For being persistent and keep hammering the points

that I

>> believe are the true import of Advaita Vedanta,

> ^^^^^^^

>Excuse me, but why do you assume that your beliefs are of any worth to

>anyone? Whether something is the "true import" of Advaita Vedanta or

not

>is not a matter of opinion. It can be factually determined on the

>evidence of shastras and the guru-parampara that stretches back to

>Bhagavan Narayana Himself. Based on that ones personal prejudices may

be

>deemed true or false. Isn't it the heigh of childishness to assume

that

>the truth is always going to be agreeable to you? When Arjuna asked to

>see Bhagavans divya rupa he found it too difficult to bear. But he

didn't

>pretend the form he liked was the true one. ............

 

Greetings Jaldhar:

 

Welcome to the List!

 

Shri. Sadanand is on travel and will be back this weekend and I am sure

that he will reply to your mail. As you have rightly pointed out that

we all have our own personal prejudices and biased opinions about others

and their beliefs. No reasonable and rational debates are possible with

such a mental framework. We may be just arguing for the sake of

arguements with no fruitful results. I do appreciate your stand and

your values and beliefs and I respect your opinions.

 

I also believe that Sadanand has his rights to express his opinions and

I may like some dislike others. I do not agree with your statement:

"Whether something is the "true import" of Advaita Vedanta or not is not

a matter of opinion. It can be factually determined on the evidence of

shastras and the guru-parampara that stretches back to Bhagavan Narayana

Himself." Your statement at the most is valid with appropriate ifs and

buts. The ifs and buts vary by individuals according to their level of

understanding of Shastras and uru-parampara. No one in this universe

can ever claim that he (she) has the perfect understanding of all the

underlined TRUTH of the Shastras and Guru-parampara. This may explain

why our opinions are different.

 

Thanks again,

 

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

[Guest guest]

for some reaon this didn't go through the first time.

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

While searching the web on a different topic, I came across a page with

the following message. Imagine my horror when I read the words below!

> What a change! -For being persistent and keep hammering the points that I

> believe are the true import of Advaita Vedanta,

^^^^^^^

 

Excuse me, but why do you assume that your beliefs are of any worth to

anyone? Whether something is the "true import" of Advaita Vedanta or not

is not a matter of opinion. It can be factually determined on the

evidence of shastras and the guru-parampara that stretches back to

Bhagavan Narayana Himself. Based on that ones personal prejudices may be

deemed true or false. Isn't it the heigh of childishness to assume that

the truth is always going to be agreeable to you? When Arjuna asked to

see Bhagavans divya rupa he found it too difficult to bear. But he didn't

pretend the form he liked was the true one.

> I was accused by some in

> the previous list-serve that I am mis-interpreting the doctrine or the

> related posts or quoting out of context, etc.,

 

Oh come on this is a really one-sided interpretation of what really went

on First of all the conversation leading up to your departure was not

about satya and asatya so I don't even know why you decided to bring this

subject up. The thread was about sannyasa. (Listmembers who wish to

judge for themselves what really went on should look up the thread "Karma

and sannyasa" in July/August of this year at

http://listserve.tamu.edu/archives/advaita-l/)

 

You put forth the untenable proposition that sannyasa is optional in

Advaita Vedanta. Several people replied to you that it is not. You

responded with a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. I responded showing you

why that shloka in fact meant the opposite of what you said. I also

suggested that given that Shankaracharya is blatantly pro-sannyasa and

anti-karma you were being disingeneous in quoting one shloka picked out of

nowhere. The Gita is not 700 random notions all jumbled together. It is

a samvada between Arjuna and Bhagawan. That is how Shankaracharya and in

fact all Vedantins have interpreted it. So, yes, context does make a

difference. Now if I were dealing with some ignorant person with only a

third-hand knowledge gleaned from other ignorant people it would be one

thing, but you have read these works in the original so you _know_ what

Shankaracharya really taught. (And lets make no mistake, Advaita Vedanta

is what Shankaracharya taught not the modern idiots who have hijacked the

name.) Should you not then be called to task for misinterpretation?

> and was even asked to apologize.

 

You were not asked to apologize for your views but for the sloppiness of

your words. Ravi later made it clear to all members of the list that they

should stick to the topic of that list and you were unwilling or unable to

maintain even that very modest amount of discipline so _you_ decided to

leave. No one forced you. So why insinuate that there was some kind of

censorship going on>

>Lord plays in mysterious ways!

 

Indeed, look what His maya does to otherwise intelligent people. As

someone who has learnt from your thoughts in the past, I'm disappointed.

I really expected better than this.

 

Please cc any replies to me as I do not intend to stay on this list.

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Greetings Jaldhar:

>

> Welcome to the List!

>

> Shri. Sadanand is on travel and will be back this weekend and I am sure

> that he will reply to your mail.

 

I intend to stay on this list only long enough to receive Sadanandas reply

if he wishs to give one.

> As you have rightly pointed out that

> we all have our own personal prejudices and biased opinions about others

> and their beliefs. No reasonable and rational debates are possible with

> such a mental framework. We may be just arguing for the sake of

> arguements with no fruitful results. I do appreciate your stand and

> your values and beliefs and I respect your opinions.

>

 

The issue under contention was not one of opinion but of fact. The

difference between the two, is that opinions are personal and are

essentially unverifiable. Facts on the other hand are independent of the

person expressing them. I could drop dead right now and what I said would

still be true.

> I also believe that Sadanand has his rights to express his opinions and

> I may like some dislike others.

 

One is free to believe whatever they like. They are not free to call it

Advaita Vedanta unless it _is_. And likes and dislikes do not enter into

the picture. A thing does not become true just because it is popular.

> I do not agree with your statement:

> "Whether something is the "true import" of Advaita Vedanta or not is not

> a matter of opinion. It can be factually determined on the evidence of

> shastras and the guru-parampara that stretches back to Bhagavan Narayana

> Himself." Your statement at the most is valid with appropriate ifs and

> buts. The ifs and buts vary by individuals according to their level of

> understanding of Shastras and uru-parampara. No one in this universe

> can ever claim that he (she) has the perfect understanding of all the

> underlined TRUTH of the Shastras and Guru-parampara.

 

Of course different people have different levels of understanding of

subjects. That's why we call some people geniuses and others idiots.

The truth is not affected by the fact some people misinterpret it. It is

not necessary to assume perfect understanding in order to judge truth and

falsehood in every case. In the case of the role of sannyasa we can

simply look at what Acharyas have said and done.

> This may explain

> why our opinions are different.

>

 

I understand opinions are different but I disagree that all opinions are

valid.

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar