Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 Spiritual Dialogues and Materialistic Debates. This article provides the distinction between spiritual dialogues and materialistic debates. One of the objective of this article is to help all of us to conduct a spiritual dialogue during our discussions and avoid lengthy debates. Spiritual dialogues can help us in our daily life during our conversations with friends, spouse and collegues. Spiritual Dialogue: The Seven Golden Rules 1 Keep a positive attitude and listen carefully with an open mind. 2 Agree to reevaluate all your previous assumptions about the other person. 3 Look for ways to reach a better solution than your original proposal. 4 Create a friendly attitude, an openness to being wrong and willing to change. 5 Try your level best to reach some basic agreements. 6 Express your real concerns for the other person and remove your negative feelings. 7 Avoid confrontations and search for a common ground. Materialistic Debates: The Seven Pitfalls. 1 Start with a confrontational attitude and determine to prove that the other is wrong. 2 Annotate the flaws of the other and use to counter his/her arguments. 3 Defend your assumptions as the truth and refuse to reevaluate your assumptions. 4 Justify your position as the best solution and exclude other potential solutions. 5 Adamantly keep a closed minded-attitude and reiterate that you are right. 6 Prompt a search for glaring differences between two positions. 7. Fail to observe other's feelings and reject the other's position without any consideration. Source: Based on the training materials from the course: "How to deal with difficult people?" Our ignorance is responsible for the creation of the group of people with the title, "Difficult People." When we remove ignorance with Wisdom, we will learn that "Difficult People" is an illusion. There is one and only one category of people in this world- PEOPLE! The creation of "Difficult People" is caused by our ignorance. The first step for self-realization is to remove (duality) dual projections using the yardstick - IGNORANCE! -- Ram V. Chandran Burke, VA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 According our seers there are four types of discussions: samvaada, vaada, jalpa and vitanda. What Ram is referring to spiritual and materialistic Debates fall under the category of vaada and jalpa, respectively. There is also the first one - samvaada - discussion by a teacher and the tought. Here the student has a faith that teacher is right and has a clear understanding that the teacher has no reason to mislead the student. Any arguments the student presents are only for further clarification or his understanding - All our Upanishads and Geetas are Samvaada's - it is a discussion with knowledge flowing from higher to lower. Learning takes place here. Vaada is open minded discussion where both discussers come with a preconceived ideas but are open to find out what is right - "Let us sit down and discuss" - when we say, that is what is implied. Learning and conversion takes place here. The famous discussion between Shankara and Mandana Misra comes under vaada. In olden days people use to have vaada to establish what is the truth and not who is right! Jalpa is that wherein each discusser has a clear notion that he is right and the other is wrong. Each one has his conviction that he is right. The object of the discussions is only to convert the other person into his camp. If the other person also comes with the same attitude, only noise comes out of it. But neither discussers learns the truth, yet the bystanders may learn from these discussions that one is right or both are wrong! or both are nuisance. The last one is Vitanda - I say you are wrong for no other reason other than it is you who made that statement. If instead some other made the same statement it may be right. Sometimes Vitanda is used effectively to dismiss the arguments of the opponent not because they are wrong but because of the opponent's qualification to make that statement. Inconsistency in the Opponents logic sometime promotes the Vitanda vaada to establish that opponent's statement is wrong, although the statement by itself is right on its own merit. The object is to not knowlede but to dismiss the opponent. But any of the four discussions, there is no insulting of the individual or ill treating the discussers. There is mutual respect inspite of the disagreements. Insulting and ill treating the individuals during the discussions has no place in any discussions, and more so in Vedantic discussions. This arises when fanaticism creep in and that is the reflection of the lack of correct understanding. It is better to shun away from such discussions rather than to fight to correct the discusser. This was the basis for the separate formation of advaitinL from the advaitaL. Hari Om! Sadananda >Ram Chandran <chandran > >Spiritual Dialogues and Materialistic Debates. 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...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 Thanks for such a beautiful explanation. I truly appreciate it. Om Shanti Kathi > > sadananda [sMTP:sada] > Friday, January 15, 1999 1:21 AM > advaitin > Re: Spiritual Dialogues and Materialistic Debates > > sadananda <sada > > According our seers there are four types of discussions: > samvaada, vaada, jalpa and vitanda. > What Ram is referring to spiritual and materialistic Debates fall under > the > category of vaada and jalpa, respectively. > > There is also the first one - samvaada - discussion by a teacher and the > tought. Here the student has a faith that teacher is right and has a > clear > understanding that the teacher has no reason to mislead the student. Any > arguments the student presents are only for further clarification or his > understanding - All our Upanishads and Geetas are Samvaada's - it is a > discussion with knowledge flowing from higher to lower. Learning takes > place here. > > Vaada is open minded discussion where both discussers come with a > preconceived ideas but are open to find out what is right - "Let us sit > down and discuss" - when we say, that is what is implied. Learning and > conversion takes place here. The famous discussion between Shankara and > Mandana Misra comes under vaada. In olden days people use to have vaada > to > establish what is the truth and not who is right! > > Jalpa is that wherein each discusser has a clear notion that he is right > and the other is wrong. Each one has his conviction that he is right. The > object of the discussions is only to convert the other person into his > camp. If the other person also comes with the same attitude, only noise > comes out of it. But neither discussers learns the truth, yet the > bystanders may learn from these discussions that one is right or both are > wrong! or both are nuisance. > > The last one is Vitanda - I say you are wrong for no other reason other > than it is you who made that statement. If instead some other made the > same statement it may be right. Sometimes Vitanda is used effectively to > dismiss the arguments of the opponent not because they are wrong but > because of the opponent's qualification to make that statement. > Inconsistency in the Opponents logic sometime promotes the Vitanda vaada > to > establish that opponent's statement is wrong, although the statement by > itself is right on its own merit. The object is to not knowlede but to > dismiss the opponent. > > But any of the four discussions, there is no insulting of the individual > or > ill treating the discussers. There is mutual respect inspite of the > disagreements. > > Insulting and ill treating the individuals during the discussions has no > place in any discussions, and more so in Vedantic discussions. This > arises > when fanaticism creep in and that is the reflection of the lack of correct > understanding. It is better to shun away from such discussions rather > than > to fight to correct the discusser. This was the basis for the separate > formation of advaitinL from the advaitaL. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > >Ram Chandran <chandran > > > >Spiritual Dialogues and Materialistic Debates. > > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > > > ------ > To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription > to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and > select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. > ------ > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > 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.