Guest guest Posted October 20, 1998 Report Share Posted October 20, 1998 >"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar Jaldhar, Thanks. I see your points. Your contention that Advaita Vedanta started with Shankara Bhagavad paada is interesting. About an year or two ago, there were some interesting discussions between Vidyashankar and Mani Varadarajan (VishisTaadvaitin) on this aspect, if I remember in alt. Hindu. May be Vidyashankar can shed some light on this, if he is still in this list and can also clarify his thoughts on the origin of the advaitic philosophy. Personally, I have no interest in the history. And your second contention ( I may be paraphrasing it, please correct me if I am wrong) is Shankara and the recognized aachaarya (jagadguruus) interpretations have to be followed to the letter to be qualified as advaita Vedantin - other wise it is not advaita vedanta. This is also an interesting conclusion, whether I agree with you or not. Essentially what you are saying is, I have to take the total package to be qualified to say it is advaita Vedanta. Unfortunately I have to beg to differ from your contentions. You are of course entitled to put me in the 'unintelligent people list' or 'idiots list' - which makes it no more a non-null set. I do agree with you that Adi Shankara has emphasized the external Sanyaasa as a step towards the moksha and so also the other aachaaryaas - I am also familiar with Sri Vidyaranya's treatise. I have no disagreements on any one of these aspects. There was also emphasis of the teachings and qualifications of the students for Brahmavidya - restricting to Brahmins by cast, only to males and those who have gone through the requisite samskaara. These are discussed extensively in Upadesha saahasri by Shankara. Who is a Brahmin - and who is a sanyaasin - one can discuss. Historical perspective are obvious. No disagreements on that. You can call me a gurudrohi or whatever names you have in stock. You may be interested to know Sri Swami Madhusuudhana Saraswati was also referred as gurudrohi by some of the objectors as they argued that his thesis is contradictory to other advaitic aachaaryaas. It is my understanding that unlike other aachaaryaas Madhusuudana did not consider Brahma suutraas as valid pramaana or atlest not as valid as the other two. I am going to take from the teachings and the writing from Shankara and other great aachaaryaas that which is self consistent and that which appeals to my brain and heart. It may not be the advaita vedanta from your definition, but I will still consider it to be so since the nature of the moksha that I believe in is advaita. Your caution that I have some responsibility to others is quite amusing. Most of the time I try to paraphrase what I write as my understanding, since that is all I am qualified to present. I also try to support my understanding with quotations from the scriptures. Now it is for the readers to agree or disagree or dump that into the trash. If in the process some people also become pseudo-adviatins, it is the product of their praarabda and their purushaartha. About my illogic in my logic, I will try to live with it, until I see the same light that you see. I realize that is why I come under your 'no more non-null set'. But thanks again for pointing my follies. By your note I am sure you have worned all those in this list to be careful of what they read in my posts since it may not be true advaita but pseudo-advaita. Good by Jaladhar and god bless you. Hari Om! Sadananda. > >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. No it is not for that reason I left - it was the use of abusive language which has no place in any discussions. > >> 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. yes the scope plus the use of the abusive language by discussors. > >> 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 > > > > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between >mind and matter K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.