(no subject)

[Guest guest]

>Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar wrote:

 

>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.

 

Greetings and thank you Jaldhar for your comments and in a way indirectly

confirming my statements! My statements were in response to the

discussions I had with Sri Gummuluru Murthy, Sri Rama Chandran and Sri

Charles Wikner on this list in contrast to somewhat similar discussions I

had with the discussers in the other list. Here the discussions centered

on the logic rather than on personalities, at least that is what I felt. I

was also admiring the tone and the quality of responses rather than on the

contents per sec. It is not agreements or disagreements but the nature of

the response and willingness to discuss objectively.

 

My quitting the adviataL is not due to disagreements and but due to the

tone of the discussers in disagreeing on the issues as well as the scope of

the list serve. Please read my posts again.

 

Any way, as Sri Rama Chandran stated, it is my opinion. Opinions are

irrelevant, but the logic is not. And that is what I have been emphasizing

all along, and again that is my opinion!

 

Yes, I do strongly believe that the external sanyaasa is helpful, but not

necessary - that is the true import of Advaita. Otherwise it becomes

illogical! The quotations I gave are indeed pertinent, and originally given

by Sri Naaraayana avatar - Sri Bhagavaan Krishna who has married 16,000

wives! - Whether the quatations are of context or out-of context - that

indeed is an opinion. Obviously I would not have given them if I think

they are not relevant! - I justified in terms of the nature of the goal.

Goal being advaitic, the nature of the path is relevant only in the

relative sense, and absolute requirement that one has to take up external

sanyaasa is not compatible with the absolute nature of the advaitic state.

That was the essence of my discussion. I have never disrespected

sanyaasins or sanyaasa aashrama either. I have never discared that

sanyaasa ashrama is not helpful. It is helpful but not necessory is the

gist of my arguments and I have not been provided any contrary logic so far

that I forces me to change my understanding of advaita Vedanta.

> 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.

 

"Disappointments come only to those who make appointments" - Swami

Chinmayaananda.

 

Sorry Jaldhar, for disappointing you. I promise to be open minded till I

am convinced by the shear of logic or by my personal experience. But I

cannot guarentee that I will not be disappointing you again!

 

The rest is history or should we say HIS STORY! - bhuuta bhavya bhavat

prabhuH!

 

I have no more discussions on this subject. Those who are interested on

the discussions of sanyaasa please refer to the archives of the advaitaL to

form your own opinion.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

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

>

>--

>Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, sadananda wrote:

> Greetings and thank you Jaldhar for your comments and in a way indirectly

> confirming my statements! My statements were in response to the

> discussions I had with Sri Gummuluru Murthy, Sri Rama Chandran and Sri

> Charles Wikner on this list in contrast to somewhat similar discussions I

> had with the discussers in the other list. Here the discussions centered

> on the logic rather than on personalities, at least that is what I felt.

 

Then as now, your logic was under fire not your personality.

> I

> was also admiring the tone and the quality of responses rather than on the

> contents per sec. It is not agreements or disagreements but the nature of

> the response and willingness to discuss objectively.

>

 

Typically I find that people who make erroneous statements about Vedanta

are not insincere just uninformed so I do try and discuss with them

rationally and objectively. But it takes two to have a rational argument

and if the other side will not then there is no point in doing so oneself.

As the saying goes "Don't mud-wrestle with a pig, you only get dirty and

annoy the pig." :-) By and large discussions on Advaita-l are conducted

in a civilized manner and IMO far more objectively and informatively than

some of the stuff I've seen here.

> My quitting the adviataL is not due to disagreements and but due to the

> tone of the discussers in disagreeing on the issues as well as the scope of

> the list serve. Please read my posts again.

>

 

I did. You disagreed with the scope. That's what I said.

> Any way, as Sri Rama Chandran stated, it is my opinion. Opinions are

> irrelevant, but the logic is not. And that is what I have been emphasizing

> all along, and again that is my opinion!

>

 

Well that's my opinion too. I shall conduct the rest of this post only

according to that opinion.

> Yes, I do strongly believe that the external sanyaasa is helpful, but not

> necessary - that is the true import of Advaita.

 

Ok, this is your proposition.

 

> Otherwise it becomes

> illogical!

 

Your second proposition is that denying your first proposition is

illogical.

 

Being logical people we ask "How can these propositions be tested?"

>The quotations I gave are indeed pertinent, and originally given

> by Sri Naaraayana avatar - Sri Bhagavaan Krishna who has married 16,000

> wives!

 

And this is one way. By looking at the evidence of Vedantic Authorities.

In your case, Krishna Bhagavan, in my case Krishna Bhagavan and

Shankaracharya. A question is, is it valid for you to exclude

Shankaracharya from the list or for me to add him?

 

Well let's see. Historically the earliest Advaita work which is available

to us is the Mandukyakarikas of Gaudapadacharya. Does He consider

sannyasa optional? Nope. Next is Shankaracharya. He certainly doesn't

think it is optional. Throughout Indian history, Advaita Vedanta has only

referred to Shankaracharyas school. Has any representative of that school

(including Swami Madhusudan Sarasvati who's Advaitasiddhi you have

read.) claimed sannyasa is optional? Nope. To be sure other people hve

interpreted the foundational texts of Vedanta such as the Gita--some in a

similiar way as you. But they have never referred to themselves as

Advaitins. It is not util the 19th century you find people (mostly of

dubious scholarship) who claim sannyasa is optional. Now being the logical

person that you are, are you going to discount the historical record?

> Whether the quatations are of context or out-of context - that

> indeed is an opinion.

 

Yes but there are good opinions and bad ones. And we can judge the worth

of an opinion if we have something to measure it against. Now, we agree

that the Gita is a samvada (or conversation) rather than random sentances

do we not? If so, then context or lack of it can be fairly measured.

 

Let me give an example. Do you think "The Gita teaches one should

slaughter all their relatives." is an accurate representation of the

teachings of the Gita? Why or why not?

> Obviously I would not have given them if I think

> they are not relevant! - I justified in terms of the nature of the goal.

 

To illustrate why this is a logical error: Imagine someone came to your

lab and said "The moon is made of green cheese. All the evidence I have

in this folder proves the moon is made of green cheese. Therefore the

moon is made of green cheese." Do you see what's wrong here? One does

not start with a conclusion and then find facts to fit it. Rather, the

theory has to fit the facts. At this point we have not established what

the goal is. We are looking at the Gita etc. in order to be able to

determine what the goal is. The a priori assumption that we already know

that which we were looking for is illogical.

> Goal being advaitic,

 

Which is unproven. Vedanta can be interpreted in non-Advaita ways. What

is your rationale (your _logical_ rationale) for assuming the goal is

Advaitic?

> the nature of the path is relevant only in the

> relative sense, and absolute requirement that one has to take up external

> sanyaasa is not compatible with the absolute nature of the advaitic state.

 

(I believe it was Vidyashankar who explained to you that the seperation of

of "internal" and "external" sannyasa is a red herring. The sannyasa we

are talking about is both.)

 

If we were to accept this line of reasoning we could similiarly say

"sannyasa is not an absolute requirement" is also not compatible with the

absolute nature of the advaitic state (by which I assume you mean

Moksha?) Thus the _only_ way we could talk about relevancy is in the

relative state. This whole argument (not to mention the arguers!) are in

the relative state so to appeal to any other state is bogus.

 

But actually we don't even need to accept this argument. The nature of

this advaitic state you mention is eternal and changeless. Neither of

these qualities are true of actions or actors. Therefore how can action

bring one closer to that state?

> That was the essence of my discussion. I have never disrespected

> sanyaasins or sanyaasa aashrama either. I have never discared that

> sanyaasa ashrama is not helpful. It is helpful but not necessory is the

> gist of my arguments and I have not been provided any contrary logic so far

> that I forces me to change my understanding of advaita Vedanta.

>

 

As well as contrary logic, realizing your premises are faulty should also

change your understanding. You have been provided with plenty of reasons

why.

> >I really expected better than this.

>

> "Disappointments come only to those who make appointments" - Swami

> Chinmayaananda.

>

 

"Trite slogans are for Hallmark greeting cards."

 

- Jaldhar Vyas

> Sorry Jaldhar, for disappointing you. I promise to be open minded till I

> am convinced by the shear of logic or by my personal experience.

 

These are only two of the pramanas Advaita Vedanta excepts as valid

sources of knowledge. Why restrict yourself?

> But I

> cannot guarentee that I will not be disappointing you again!

>

 

Forget me. How about yourself? All this time you've thought that you've

been logical and objective. It is increasingly evident that you are not.

Isn't this disappointing to you? There seem to be several people on this

list who look to your posts in order to learn something. Do you absolve

yourself of responsibility for them?

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The recent correspondence between Shri Jaladhar Vyas and Shri Sadananda

re the necessity or otherwise of bhoutika sannyAsa is a continuation of

the many discussions on the topic in the past two years. As most members

on this list know, I was also an eager and active participant in that

debate at that time and my views are similar to Shri Sadananda's. Although

I am not keen anymore to participate in such debates, I like to present

here a case-history of a person whom I consider to be an embodiment of

jnAnam and who is a gr^hastha. If you want to see someone who revels in

the Self all the time untouched by the world, you should see this Mr X.

Let me give the story here.

 

Mr. X came as a student to North America (from India) and got enrolled in

an M.Sc. programme at our University. He worked long hours and attended to

his duties. The thesis supervisor was not happy with the progress of the

work and right after the award of the M.Sc. dropped the student (cut his

fiancial aid). Another faculty member took him into the Ph.D. programme.

In the meanwhile, the student went to India, got married according to the

wishes of the parents and returned to continue the Ph.D. The programme

took longer than normal (in fact, it took a full twelve years). During

this period, the student X has two children, his financial aid was cut-off

and he had to go on welfare. He worked long hours, never conscious that

he is doing work. There was never a day the student returned home before

2:00 a.m., was always there working, helping co-graduate students with

programming or what not. Any new student coming from India, or a new

faculty member coming from India is invariably a guest in their modest

apartment for the first few days of their stay in town.

 

The society branded him a looser. The people who took help from him

rose to higher positions. All through, Mr. X was untouched by the

circumstances. While people, well-wishers and back-stabbers, sympathized

on him and expressed how bad a looser he is and how, for the good of the

family, he should act more decisively in this dog-eat-dog world, this

person had never lost composure, never found fault with the society and

took things in stride.

 

To cut the story short, this man, a Ph.D. in Engineering, finally ended up

in the U.S. as a middle man in a computer consulting services procurement

company and doing a job not connected with his 12-year training. The

present day society will and has branded him as a looser. Even now, this

man works long hours, never reaching home before 2:00 a.m.. Does the

person know intellectually the difference between Atman and the soul or

the intricate difference, if any, between dream and deep sleep states?

No. Is he bothered by what the society thinks of him? No. But if you

want to see an embodiment of jnAnam, there is the person. In my view,

he is a perfect renunciate, but still with family living in the middle

of a big city. We may not gain any intellectual knowledge from him by

being his disciple. Even by observing him at close range, we may not

gain much. But what we gain from him by knowing him is that what is

required is a mental attitude, being self-contented and revelling in

the SELF all the time. There are many such Mr. X's in our midst who go

unidentified as embodiments of jnAnam. But that is a reflection on our

inability to recognize such embodiments. Taking on orange robes and

bhoutika sannyAsa does not mean much. That mental renunciation is all

that is required. That is what Shri Shankara says in all his writings,

that is what the MahAnArAyanopanishhad (and Kaivalyopanishhad) statements

mean. And that is what Shri Sadananda was emphasizing throughout in this

debate.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

 

[...]

> If you want to see someone who revels in

> the Self all the time untouched by the world, you should see this Mr X.

> Let me give the story here.

>

 

[...]

 

What you have described here is a good man. Even I would go so far as to

say a great man. But not a sannyasi. The distinction between bhoutika

and manasika in sannyasa is a red herring because by bhoutika sannyasa we

don't mean orange robes but the renunciation of all worldly actions. And

that's what we mean by manasika sannyasa too. They both go together.

 

In the case of your Mr. X, if at work he received news that his wife and

children had been in a terrible accident (God forbid it sould happen) can

you confidently say that he would continue working as if nothing had

happened? Judging by your description I guess he wouldn't because he is

attached to his family. A bond of love is far, far better than a bond of

hate but nevertheless it is a bond. Even the losers in this world (and

I would not consider your Mr. X a loser by any means) are entangled in

attachments. The only way to break free is to renounce this world.

> That mental renunciation is all

> that is required. That is what Shri Shankara says in all his writings,

> that is what the MahAnArAyanopanishhad (and Kaivalyopanishhad) statements

> mean. And that is what Shri Sadananda was emphasizing throughout in this

> debate.

>

 

This is the point of contention. Shankaracharya doesn't make a seperation

between mental and physical sannyasa--both are required. The debate

between karma and sannyasa is a very ancient one so if you and Sadanand

want to take the position you do, you are in good company. But you have

to realize that Advaita Vedanta is not neutral on this matter, it has

taken a particuar view and this view is opposed to yours.

 

--

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar