Exchange of information with Advaita-L

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji:

 

Namaste,

 

The list moderators are quite happy to receive your

complementary remarks thanks from the bottom our

hearts. Most important, you have some valid and

construtive suggestions and we are blessed to have you

as a member of this list.

 

Any such exchange of postings between Advaita-L and

Advaitin will be conducted very carefully. The purpose

of any such exchange should benefit the majority of

members of the lists. The primary idea for the dialog

is to develp more friendly relationship between the

members of the list. As pointed rightly by you, both

these lists focus their discussions on Shankara's

Advaita Philosophy and consequently it became one of

the important common factor. However, this list

approaches Shankara's Philosophy with a dynamic

framework and permits members to discuss with broader

perspectives. This may be the reason for the keen

participation from Westerners like you, Frankji,

Gregji, Patrickji, Robertji, Robinji, and others. This

is our strength and we have reason to go back to the

Vedic time period framework. At the same time, this

list values the wisdom showered by the seers and

saints of Vedic time period and will continue to

cherish them.

 

Coming back to nondualitysalon, I agree with your

observation that their postings are more general

without focusing on specifics. I was a member of that

list for sometime and I did follow them closely for

few months. The list is quite friendly and the

atomoshphere is quite cordial. This list always

welcomed Sri Umbadaji to share information about the

list and he has posted nonduality list information

many times. We do maintain friendly ties with

Umbadaji. Our dear friend, Harshaji's list,

Harshasatsang also maintains friendly relationship

with Advaitin. Harashaji always share interesting

articles and questions between Advaitin and

Harshasatsangh. Also Advaitin list keeps cordial (and

very close) relationship with Ramamkrishna list

(Vivekananda Center, London) and Sri Jayji, the

moderator of Ramakrishna List also exchanges articles

and questions between the lists. We also have other

contributors from several other lists (Narenji,

Colleteji and others).

 

During an informal email correspondence with

Madhavaji, the Chief Moderator of Advaitin, he made

the following comments:

"Please see that Advaitin's scope is beyond the

limitations of any mission, mutth or any such entity.

Not that I have no respect to any traditional mission,

but as I have observed -- most of the people, having

identified themselves with one guru or the other

before getting the advaitic ideas, think that they are

unwelcome in certain groups because they belong to

blah blah blah mission or mutt! Advaitin should be

like "philosophy sans frontiers" (inspired by the word

doctors with out borders :-)) Let all people, who

have faith in Hindu dharma and the Philosophy of

Advaita, join and become a group of advaita. This

should be a forum of united voice. I had asked my

teacher Swamini Saradapriyananda during my last

meeting with her in January about what should be the

scope of Advaitin. She felt that much harm is done to

the philosophy because of the infighting, split with

in the brothers (advaitins). She advised that we

should take Advaitin beyond all missions. Make it a

home place for all "advaitins", a home place for all.

We should be able to unite all Advaitins from all

parts of the world.".

 

I hope to see comments and reactions from other

members. Such comments can help the list to serve

better.

 

Thanks again,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Hey Robert,

 

I remember those ADVAITIN interchanges. I'm glad you're here!

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

At 04:06 PM 8/24/00 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:

 

I would second this statement, with the addition that, as some may remember,

I was asked by the moderators to leave Advaita-L for refusing to concede

full and absolute infallibility of scripture in advance. A sort of 'love it

or leave it' group mentality evolved (to use a metaphor with jingoistic US

politics), and by the end I was glad to leave Advaita-L. I have raised some

of the same questions in Advaitin, although not so much regarding scripture

specifically, and have been very pleased, even touched, by the open and

tolerant atmosphere here. I harbor no resentment against the moderators or

members of Advaita-L but, like Dennis, I think it's important that Advaitin

retain its own unique character, distinct from Advaita-L. As long as that

remains true, I'll be a happy reader and occasional contributor, whether the

lists are combined or not. However you might see a few sparks from Advaita-L

members provoked by posts to Advaitin that are fairlly routine here.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

>This seems a problem without an easy solution.

 

Greetings Dennis

 

Thanks for taking time and expressing your views. People like you make the

list more valuable. Your recent posts, more than anything else, provided

many of us to sit back and reevaluate our understanding of adviata.

Continue to keep questioning till it becomes crystal clear in terms of the

nature of the problem and hence solution to the problem. Voice like yours

will keep on the straight path. Thanks again.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Greetings Advaitins:

 

The list moderators propose to add the following

paragraph at the end of FAQ document and Welcome

letter. Please review the paragraph and give your

feedback and we will try to incorporate all

constructive suggestiions. The primary purpose of this

paragraph is to help members to get the benefits of

scholarly discussions in lists that focus on

Shankara's Advaita. This is a great opportunity for

both the lists to share articles from knowledgeable

authors.

 

With our warmest regards,

 

Advaitin List Moderators

 

============================================

Exchange of Scholarly Articles Between Advaitin and

Advaita-L

========================================

The primary focus of Advaitin and Advaita-L (Website:

<http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/>) is Shankara's

Advaita Philosophy and both lists have agreed to

exchange scholarly articles between them. This will

be facilitated as follows:

 

1 Scholarly articles posted in Advaitin can be

forwarded to Advaita and vice versa without prior

permission from the author.

 

2 All such forwarded articles should be posted without

any editing unless it is done by the author.

 

3 Forwarded articles should get full credit to the

author appropriately (by retaining article header

and/or by Website address)

 

4 The list encourages knowledgeable authors to post

their scholarly articles in both the lists.

=========================================

[Guest guest]

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

advaitin <advaitin >

Wednesday, August 23, 2000 4:04 PM

Exchange of information with Advaita-L

 

>This seems a problem without an easy solution.

>

>I was a member of the Advaita-L list for a number of years. It was the

first

>such list I encountered and I was very grateful to be able to listen to and

>take part in discussions with such honoured members. However, it seemed as

>time went on, the topics became increasingly academic and reference to

>modern sages was either frowned upon or not even tolerated. Despite the

>truth of Self and illuory nature of the ego, some of the participants

seemed

>to write in an opinionated, and occasionally patronising (or worse) manner.

 

I would second this statement, with the addition that, as some may remember,

I was asked by the moderators to leave Advaita-L for refusing to concede

full and absolute infallibility of scripture in advance. A sort of 'love it

or leave it' group mentality evolved (to use a metaphor with jingoistic US

politics), and by the end I was glad to leave Advaita-L. I have raised some

of the same questions in Advaitin, although not so much regarding scripture

specifically, and have been very pleased, even touched, by the open and

tolerant atmosphere here. I harbor no resentment against the moderators or

members of Advaita-L but, like Dennis, I think it's important that Advaitin

retain its own unique character, distinct from Advaita-L. As long as that

remains true, I'll be a happy reader and occasional contributor, whether the

lists are combined or not. However you might see a few sparks from Advaita-L

members provoked by posts to Advaitin that are fairlly routine here.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

> I would second this statement, with the addition that, as some may

remember,

> I was asked by the moderators to leave Advaita-L for refusing to

concede

> full and absolute infallibility of scripture in advance. .....

.................

> retain its own unique character, distinct from Advaita-L. As long

as

that

> remains true, I'll be a happy reader and occasional contributor,

whether the

> lists are combined or not. However you might see a few sparks from

Advaita-L

> members provoked by posts to Advaitin that are fairlly routine here.

 

 

As a member of both mailing lists, I think it is important for me to

clarify a couple of things -

 

1. Much as the traditional attitude of frequent posters on Advaita-l

may mystify or even put off Western readers, it needs to be

appreciated that the Advaita Vedanta view of scripture is quite

unique. It is not like that of the literal minded theologians that

most Westerners are familiar with (and have come to reject). Nor does

the Advaita Vedanta tradition agree to consider scripture to be of

zero value, and consign it to the dustbin.

 

Often, in the past, disagreements came about on the Advaita-L list,

simply because there seemed to be no effort to understand the

tradition on its own terms. Granted, there were those among the

traditionalists who were very impatient with others. But what one

person sees as dry and academic is seen by another kind of person as

of central importance. And what one person sees as friendly is seen

by another as a frivolous waste of time and effort. Can't be helped -

different people have different priorities. In any case, the birth of

a separate Advaitin list has helped cater to different kinds of

audiences, and has allowed all posters to maintain some kind of

focus, without getting involved in flame-wars.

 

2. What is being envisaged is not so much a blanket merger of the two

lists, but an exchange of information/posts between the two. To avoid

unnecessary misunderstandings, may I suggest the addition of another

statement in the proposed FAQ modifications? It may read something

like the following,

 

"If the author of a particular post on one list so wishes, (s)he may

include a statement in the post itself, not to forward the message to

the other list. All members of the list are expected to honor the

author's wishes."

 

In my opinion, this would help prevent unnecessary branching of

threads on the two lists, and the author of an original post can

choose to keep an entire thread within one list. It will also help

maintain some cordiality when posts from one list are forwarded to

the other. The kind of sparks envisaged by Robert can be avoided.

 

Best wishes,

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

 

Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, August 24, 2000 4:36 PM

Re: Exchange of information with Advaita-L

 

 

[...]

>1. Much as the traditional attitude of frequent posters on Advaita-l

>may mystify or even put off Western readers, it needs to be

>appreciated that the Advaita Vedanta view of scripture is quite

>unique. It is not like that of the literal minded theologians that

>most Westerners are familiar with (and have come to reject). Nor does

>the Advaita Vedanta tradition agree to consider scripture to be of

>zero value, and consign it to the dustbin.

[...]

 

I totally agree with your statement, and did then also. It was important to

me to maintain a distinction between "Everything in this book is true" and

"This book is infallible." I maintained then, and still feel, that the

second statement can be made only on the basis of blind faith, since it puts

a set of beliefs beyond any possible question. And again, to subject

something to question is not necessarily to deny its truth; it may be only

to cast its truth in a stronger light. I also felt then, as I do now, that

Advaita Vedanta does not need to be bolstered by any such absolutist

position with regard to scripture since, as I have stated before, it is one

of the most (or perhaps THE most) profound, provocative and elegant notions

ever to grace the human mind. IMHO this should be enough for anyone, without

advance guarantees of absolute, unquestionable truth, which by definition

can never be justified anyway. In my view, such an absolutist posture

concerning scripture actually demeans Vedanta by implying that it isn't

capable of standing on its own, which it most certainly is. And, although

Vedic scripture is a treasure beyond estimation, the Truth would remain even

if it, even if the Indian people, even if the whole human race had never

existed.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Vidyasankar:

 

Namaste,

 

Thanks for sharing your wisdom and thoughts on this

important issue. I agree that any exchange of posts

should be with the full consent of the author and also

such exchanges should meet the list guidelines and

scope. Sri Gummuluru Murthy (comoderator of advaitin)

is in the process of developing appropriate procedures

to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and

duplications. I am quite hopeful that both Advaita-L

and Advaitin will make sincere make efforts to keep a

friendly atmosphere and be sensitive to concerns

expressed by members.

 

I want to share my opinions in reply to your

thoughtful observations on the moderating policies of

Advaita List. I believe that civility, politeness and

kindness are integral parts of Advaita tradition.

Consequently, those who follow traditional Advaitam

have even greater responsibility. There is nothing

wrong in expressing one's disagreement during any

discussions. On the same ground, there is no necessity

for any one to express disagreements mixing with anger

and inappropriate language. In a spiritual forum such

as Advaita-L, every member implicitly takes the pledge

to maintain civility and common courtesy to others.

 

Your observation that "Often, in the past,

disagreements came about on the Advaita-L list,

simply because there seemed to be no effort to

understand the tradition on its own terms,"

is quite valid. If we probe little further we will be

able to observe that everyone believed tradition on

their own term! The question, who is right and who is

wrong is never resolved; and will never be resolved.

None of the members belonging to the Advaita-L list is

a well-known authority on the tradition. The purpose

of forums such as Advaita-L or Advaitin is to help

members to exchange and clarify doubts in a friendly

environment. The role of the moderator of the list is

to keep the discussions peaceful and useful. I am

yet to find some valid reasons for any traditionalist

to exhibit their impatience through inappropriate

language. Also, it seems that the offenders don't seem

to recognize their weakness and consequently don't

take corrective steps.

 

Most important, I want to thank you for taking your

time to answer the concerns expressed by Dennis and

Robert. But they are not alone and more than a dozen

past members of Advaita-L from Indian origin have

similar concerns.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan

wrote:

> .......

> Often, in the past, disagreements came about on the

> Advaita-L list,

> simply because there seemed to be no effort to

> understand the

> tradition on its own terms. Granted, there were

> those among the

> traditionalists who were very impatient with others.

> But what one

> person sees as dry and academic is seen by another

> kind of person as

> of central importance. And what one person sees as

> friendly is seen

> by another as a frivolous waste of time and effort.

> Can't be helped -

[Guest guest]

Greetings Robert:

 

The doubts and questions that you have raised

regarding the validity of ‘Vedas' requires careful

scrutiny. I am overwhelmed by your sincerity, style

and eloquence. The relationship between "Vedas" and

Advaita Vedanta is quite strong and subtle. To be

precise, ‘shruti' is the original name attributed to

Vedas. Shrutis are direct revelations of ‘Truth' from

God (Truth) and consequently Shruti is synonymous with

‘Truth.' The statement that "Vedas (shruti) is

infallible" is accordingly not come from blind faith

but it is a tautological fact. The only way to verify

the factuality of Vedas is to know the Truth.

Implicitly, it means that only realized souls can

understand ‘Vedas' and this is the unique connection

between Advaita Vedanta and ‘shruti.' It may appear

that I am playing with words and if it is so, let it

be!

 

Now coming back to reality, everything that is written

is a diluted form of Truth because it is always mixed

with human imagination. To safeguard the sanctity of

the scriptures, the Vedic system maintained the "oral

tradition" to preserve what was directly revealed.

 

Finally, what I have expressed above comes from my

understanding and it is likely with full of flaws. I

request the more knowledgeable members of the list to

share their wisdom and shred my ignorance.

 

Warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

--- Robert Watson <niche wrote:

> [...]

>

> I totally agree with your statement, and did then

> also. It was important to

> me to maintain a distinction between "Everything in

> this book is true" and

> "This book is infallible." I maintained then, and

> still feel, that the

> second statement can be made only on the basis of

> blind faith, since it puts

> a set of beliefs beyond any possible question......

[Guest guest]

Robert,

 

I know what you mean about the truth based on faith in the scriptures.

This is why the Mandukya Upanishad is so great - the last 3 chapters

establish the advaitic argument *without* recourse to belief in scripture.

 

--Greg

 

At 05:51 PM 8/24/00 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:

>>>>

 

Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, August 24, 2000 4:36 PM

Re: Exchange of information with Advaita-L

 

 

[...]

>1. Much as the traditional attitude of frequent posters on Advaita-l

>may mystify or even put off Western readers, it needs to be

>appreciated that the Advaita Vedanta view of scripture is quite

>unique. It is not like that of the literal minded theologians that

>most Westerners are familiar with (and have come to reject). Nor does

>the Advaita Vedanta tradition agree to consider scripture to be of

>zero value, and consign it to the dustbin.

[...]

 

I totally agree with your statement, and did then also. It was important to

me to maintain a distinction between "Everything in this book is true" and

"This book is infallible." I maintained then, and still feel, that the

second statement can be made only on the basis of blind faith, since it puts

a set of beliefs beyond any possible question. And again, to subject

something to question is not necessarily to deny its truth; it may be only

to cast its truth in a stronger light. I also felt then, as I do now, that

Advaita Vedanta does not need to be bolstered by any such absolutist

position with regard to scripture since, as I have stated before, it is one

of the most (or perhaps THE most) profound, provocative and elegant notions

ever to grace the human mind. IMHO this should be enough for anyone, without

advance guarantees of absolute, unquestionable truth, which by definition

can never be justified anyway. In my view, such an absolutist posture

concerning scripture actually demeans Vedanta by implying that it isn't

capable of standing on its own, which it most certainly is. And, although

Vedic scripture is a treasure beyond estimation, the Truth would remain even

if it, even if the Indian people, even if the whole human race had never

existed.

 

Robert.

 

 

----------

<http://click./1/7750/6/_/489436/_/967157924/>

 

----------

 

Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Searchable List Archives are available at:

<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv

aitin/

Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to

<advaitin-nomail >

To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to

<advaitin-normal >

To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to

<advaitin-digest >

To to advaitin list, send a blank email to

<advaitin->

 

 

 

<<<<

[Guest guest]

I would like to second the calls that have been made recently to

re-evaluate the role of this list vis-a-vis Advaita-L and the

Non-Duality Salon. Specifically I would encourage members to ask

themselves whether our purpose is to do philosphy (free enquiry, no

holds barred) or theology (you can ask whatever questions you like

about God but you cannot ask whether God exists).

 

A case in point is message #5957 by Miguel (a refugee from Advaita-L)

who asked several well thought-out and heartfelt questions but

received only two responses (from Ram and Dennis). Miguel makes no

secret of his skepticism and his dissatisfaction with the conventional

responses to his questions. Is this the reason why the loftier pundits

on this list have disdained to answer him?

 

And even Dennis, whose recent outburst of skepticism was such a

welcome breath of fresh air, reverts to the party line when he answers

Miguel's question about free will by saying

>So we do have free will in one sense and do not have it in another.

>They can both be true. It merely depends upon the context in which it

>is being discussed. Exactly equivalent to talking about vyavahaara or

>paramaarthika.

 

So to bring matters to a head let me ask

(1) Is the distinction between vyavahaara or paramaarthika made

anywhere in the Upanishads or in the Gita?

(2) Does this distinction exist anywhere outside of Advaita?

(3) Does it serve any purpose other than to paper over the

contradictions in Advaita?

(4) Is this a forum in which fundamental questions like these can be

debated?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

>I would like to second the calls that have been made recently to

>re-evaluate the role of this list vis-a-vis Advaita-L and the

>Non-Duality Salon. Specifically I would encourage members to ask

>themselves whether our purpose is to do philosphy (free enquiry, no

>holds barred) or theology (you can ask whatever questions you like

>about God but you cannot ask whether God exists).

 

Patrik, I think the objectives in tems of why the list formed and the scope

of the list are well defined. It specifically is meant for discussing the

adviata doctrin as enciated by Shankara but included the post shankara and

preshankara sages that address the issues the problem in terms of advaita

vedanta. One can include the whole philosophy included but that is too

broad and there are several others list serves that cater to specifics such

as dwaita or vishhTaadvaita etc etc. When it is ecouraged to discuss

other aspects the moderators wants to insure that we do not deviate from

the establised scope of the discussion. It is a free enquiry and one can

definitely express as Shree Miguel did and those those interested in

repsonding or found time to repsond have done so.

>A case in point is message #5957 by Miguel (a refugee from Advaita-L)

>who asked several well thought-out and heartfelt questions but

>received only two responses (from Ram and Dennis). Miguel makes no

>secret of his skepticism and his dissatisfaction with the conventional

>responses to his questions. Is this the reason why the loftier pundits

>on this list have disdained to answer him?

 

I donot now know who those loftier pundits are -I have not encountered them

in this list as I see. I find everyone responding based on what think

about or thought about the problem and understand to the degree that they

are convinced.

 

I read the responses of Ram and Dennis and personally I did not have any

new comments to make hence kept quiet.

>

>And even Dennis, whose recent outburst of skepticism was such a

>welcome breath of fresh air, reverts to the party line when he answers

>Miguel's question about free will by saying

 

As I see Dennis, he is churning his own mind to come to grips with the

problem and that is really a very good sign. His mails and answers reflect

his deep inquiry within what is right or what is wrong. These are labour

pains one has go through until one is thoughly convinced one way or the

other. I donot see any party lines versus non-party line. It is only ones

understanding based on ones background and how it is evolving. The

statement quated below acually for me represents the wisdom - Dennis is

quite scientific in his approach and differenting with what reference one

is answering the question. I would not answer any differently and I donot

think it is juming into a band wagon party but critically evalaute the

answer from one's understanding of the totallity.

>

>>So we do have free will in one sense and do not have it in another.

>>They can both be true. It merely depends upon the context in which it

>>is being discussed. Exactly equivalent to talking about vyavahaara or

>>paramaarthika.

 

 

>

>So to bring matters to a head let me ask

>(1) Is the distinction between vyavahaara or paramaarthika made

>anywhere in the Upanishads or in the Gita?

>(2) Does this distinction exist anywhere outside of Advaita?

>(3) Does it serve any purpose other than to paper over the

>contradictions in Advaita?

>(4) Is this a forum in which fundamental questions like these can be

>debated?

>

>Regards,

>

>Patrick

 

 

Patrik - you have asked bomb-shell questions in the end. Here is what I

remember-

1. Offhand I donot remenber the Upanishads quatations regarding your first

question. But there are plenty in B.Geeta. Krishna address the lower

nature and higher nature - lower nature correpsonding to the vyavahaara and

higher nature corresponding to paaramaarthika.

2. Not necessorily in those words - in VishishhTaadvaita - there are two -

leela vibhuuti where there the play is taking place and divya vibhuuti -

transendental state.- They do believe in transendental forms and worlds

which are beyond maaya and ephemeral forms and the worlds within the realm

of maaya. But at the same time they do criticise advaitic concept of maaya

and the associated mithya aspect of the world.

3. This is upto you to find out. Is it really an acadamic question or is

it important - I will discussing the next few weeks in relation to adhyaasa

bhaasya - to what extent this understanding of supreimpostion is relavent

for ones evolution.

4. By all means - precisely it is meant for that. It is encouraged by all

means. One may not agree with the answers and that has to be accepted.

When one asks questions, he should be ready to receive answers which he may

not agree. The forum is not intended to conver any one to any party but

provide the answers logically as well as from advaita point since that is

the emphasis of the list.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Hi Patrick,

 

I know about the orthodox mentality. Every religion has it. Once on

ADVAITA-L, someone proclaimed as I remember, that Westerners can never

reach enlightenment, because they are outcasts. The best they can do is

live a good life, and hope that in some future lifetime they will be born

in India, even as an insect. Then they can work their way up, maybe attain

the Brahmin caste and begin the study of Vedanta, take sannyas, etc. The

writer of that message I'm pretty sure was a Brahmin....

 

You mentioned Miguel's questions. One question you mention here is about

free will. Are you interested in an advaitic-philosophy discussion of

that, or were you interested in how the scriptures deal with the question.

I have an essay on it (totally non-scriptural!) if it's the former approach

you're interested in. As I remember, Miguel also asked about how

phenomenality in general relates to the physical body. Were you interested

in that too?

 

Of the four questions you ask, I can say that in Madhyamika Buddhism, there

is elaborate teaching analogous to the vyavahaara/paramaarthika

distinction. It is the notion of the two truths, relative and absolute.

The relative truth of the table is the collection of parts, legs, top,

nails, etc. The absolute truth of the table is the emptiness of the table.

(Where emptiness means the total lack of "self" or inherent existence of

the table.)

 

Oh, and for (4), I'd say YES!!

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

At 02:56 PM 8/25/00 -0000, Patrick Kenny wrote:

 

(1) Is the distinction between vyavahaara or paramaarthika made

anywhere in the Upanishads or in the Gita?

(2) Does this distinction exist anywhere outside of Advaita?

(3) Does it serve any purpose other than to paper over the

contradictions in Advaita?

(4) Is this a forum in which fundamental questions like these can be

debated?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My purpose was not to start a

new thread on the subject of vyavahaara and paramaarthika but merely

to find out if members of the list are interested in discussing

Advaita Vedanta (which is incontrovertibly the sole purpose of this

list) in a spirit of free enquiry even if that entails subjecting

some of Advaita's most fundamental tenets to critical scrutiny.

(Assuming as always that the discussion is conducted civilly and with

respect for everybody's right to his own opinion.)

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

> >So to bring matters to a head let me ask

> >(1) Is the distinction between vyavahaara or paramaarthika made

> >anywhere in the Upanishads or in the Gita?

> >(2) Does this distinction exist anywhere outside of Advaita?

> >(3) Does it serve any purpose other than to paper over the

> >contradictions in Advaita?

> >(4) Is this a forum in which fundamental questions like these can

be

> >debated?

> >

> >Regards,

> >

> >Patrick

>

>

> Patrik - you have asked bomb-shell questions in the end. Here is

what I

> remember-

> 1. Offhand I donot remenber the Upanishads quatations regarding your

first

> question. But there are plenty in B.Geeta. Krishna address the

lower

> nature and higher nature - lower nature correpsonding to the

vyavahaara and

> higher nature corresponding to paaramaarthika.

> 2. Not necessorily in those words - in VishishhTaadvaita - there are

two -

> leela vibhuuti where there the play is taking place and divya

vibhuuti -

> transendental state.- They do believe in transendental forms and

worlds

> which are beyond maaya and ephemeral forms and the worlds within

the realm

> of maaya. But at the same time they do criticise advaitic concept of

maaya

> and the associated mithya aspect of the world.

> 3. This is upto you to find out. Is it really an acadamic question

or is

> it important - I will discussing the next few weeks in relation to

adhyaasa

> bhaasya - to what extent this understanding of supreimpostion is

relavent

> for ones evolution.

> 4. By all means - precisely it is meant for that. It is encouraged

by all

> means. One may not agree with the answers and that has to be

accepted.

> When one asks questions, he should be ready to receive answers which

he may

> not agree. The forum is not intended to conver any one to any party

but

> provide the answers logically as well as from advaita point since

that is

> the emphasis of the list.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Robert Watson wrote:

> [...]

> ...

> as some may remember,

> I was asked by the moderators to leave Advaita-L for refusing to concede

> full and absolute infallibility of scripture in advance. A sort of 'love it

> or leave it' group mentality evolved (to use a metaphor with jingoistic US

> politics), and by the end I was glad to leave Advaita-L. I have raised some

> of the same questions in Advaitin, although not so much regarding scripture

> specifically, and have been very pleased, even touched, by the open and

> tolerant atmosphere here. I harbor no resentment against the moderators or

> members of Advaita-L but, like Dennis, I think it's important that Advaitin

> retain its own unique character, distinct from Advaita-L. As long as that

> remains true, I'll be a happy reader and occasional contributor, whether the

> lists are combined or not. However you might see a few sparks from Advaita-L

> members provoked by posts to Advaitin that are fairlly routine here.

>

> Robert.

>

 

 

namaste.

 

Robert's views are very well expressed. He may recall that I also

participated in the ending portions of that debate on advaita-l.

 

What is taking place at the present stage, is a general recognition

of cooperation between the two Lists with exchange of articles, with

the consent of the author, if there is sufficient interest from both

sides. The character of advaitin list will be as it is and the same

friendly atmosphere and the same broad scope will be maintained by

the moderators.

 

I am asked to prepare guidelines for transmittal of any advaitin

posts to advaita-l and for receiving advaita-l posts into advaitin.

I am in the process of doing that. Once I have something concrete,

I will present it to the List members.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

[Guest guest]

Greetings Patrickji:

 

In addtion to the extensive and thoughtful comments

from Sri Sadanandaji, I want to inject my opinion.

 

First, the calls that have been made recently were

mostly to request to keep this list with its unique

identity - Advaita Philosophy discussions (traditional

and practical) maintaining friendliness and

cordiality. Dennis and Robert in particular have

expressed their concerns with respect to the

unification efforts with Advaita-L list where they had

some unpleasant experience. Dennis and Robert can be

rest assured that the 'unification agenda' has been

postponed indefinitely. However, the list wants to

permit free exchange of articles between the lists

with the full consent of the authors. Those who still

have doubts should read the FAQ file at the

Webaddress:

<advaitin/Moderate/FAQ_adv.txt>

 

If you have specific suggestions and comments on the

list policies and guidelines, please send your

comments to Sri. Gummuluru Murthy. The list welcomes

constructive comments and suggestions from everyone.

 

I am quite surprised to see your statement regarding

the responses to Miguel's posting and remarks. On the

average, I receive at the most, I receive one response

back from some member. The response from two for his

posting is quite good! Honestly, this list operates

like an Auction site like Ebay and the site is open to

everyone. In Ebay, some auctions get hundreds of

biddings and others receive zero biddings! Similary,

some questions in Advaitin get lots of responses and

others few or none. Some items in the auction site is

quite attractive to many and similarly some subject

matter in Advaitin list gets greater attraction.

 

Factually, all of us have time constraint and we wish

to respond to every posting but we do have other

priorities to attend to. The purpose of this list is

force knowlegeable people like you, Miguel, Dennis,

Robert, Sadanand, Madhava, Gummuluru, Frank, Greg,

Sundar, ProfVK and others to share your wisdom

unselfishly to benefit the all the members. Any such

sharing develops new discussions, new thoughts and new

knowledge to both the contributors and

noncontributors. As Sadanandaji rightly said that the

role of list moderators is to engage the discussions

impartially. Also moderators are obligated to keep the

discussions focusing within scope and list

guidelines.

 

Fundamentally, this list is open to everyone to

express their view points freely in a friendly

atomosphere. If you have any specific ideas for

improvement, please communicate them openly and we are

quite willing to listen.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: The list has no plans to curtail discussions

that fall within the list scope and guidelines.

 

 

--- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote:

> I would like to second the calls that have been made

> recently to

> re-evaluate the role of this list vis-a-vis

> Advaita-L and the

> Non-Duality Salon. Specifically I would encourage

> members to ask

> themselves whether our purpose is to do philosphy

> (free enquiry, no

> holds barred) or theology (you can ask whatever

> questions you like

> about God but you cannot ask whether God exists).

>

> A case in point is message #5957 by Miguel (a

> refugee from Advaita-L)

> who asked several well thought-out and heartfelt

> questions but

> received only two responses (from Ram and Dennis).

> ........

[Guest guest]

Yes Greg, I would be very interested to read your essay on free will.

My recollection of some of your earlier remarks is that you manage to

come down firmly on both sides of this issue

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

> You mentioned Miguel's questions. One question you mention here is

about

> free will. Are you interested in an advaitic-philosophy discussion

of

> that, or were you interested in how the scriptures deal with the

question.

> I have an essay on it (totally non-scriptural!) if it's the former

approach

> you're interested in. As I remember, Miguel also asked about how

> phenomenality in general relates to the physical body. Were you

interested

> in that too?

>

> Of the four questions you ask, I can say that in Madhyamika

Buddhism, there

> is elaborate teaching analogous to the vyavahaara/paramaarthika

> distinction. It is the notion of the two truths, relative and

absolute.

> The relative truth of the table is the collection of parts, legs,

top,

> nails, etc. The absolute truth of the table is the emptiness of the

table.

> (Where emptiness means the total lack of "self" or inherent

existence of

> the table.)

>

> Oh, and for (4), I'd say YES!!

>

> Regards,

>

> --Greg

>

> At 02:56 PM 8/25/00 -0000, Patrick Kenny wrote:

>

> (1) Is the distinction between vyavahaara or paramaarthika made

> anywhere in the Upanishads or in the Gita?

> (2) Does this distinction exist anywhere outside of Advaita?

> (3) Does it serve any purpose other than to paper over the

> contradictions in Advaita?

> (4) Is this a forum in which fundamental questions like these can be

> debated?

>

> Regards,

>

> Patrick

[Guest guest]

OK Patrick,

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#free_will

 

Basically the essay says that what is free is not the person. What is

free, actually what is freedom itself, is the consciousness in which the

person appears. Enjoy!

 

--Greg

 

 

 

At 06:17 PM 8/25/00 -0000, Patrick Kenny wrote:

>>>>

Yes Greg, I would be very interested to read your essay on free will.

My recollection of some of your earlier remarks is that you manage to

come down firmly on both sides of this issue

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

> A case in point is message #5957 by Miguel (a refugee from Advaita-

L)

> who asked several well thought-out and heartfelt questions but

> received only two responses (from Ram and Dennis). Miguel makes no

> secret of his skepticism and his dissatisfaction with the

conventional

> responses to his questions. Is this the reason why the loftier

pundits

> on this list have disdained to answer him?

 

One's reactions to the questions, or the lack (or the abundance) of

responses to them depend a lot on what one's view of the purpose of

the list is. Mailing lists can at best serve as sounding boards for

expressing one's doubts and for sharpening one's own thought

processes. They cannot really take the place of a classroom or a more

traditional guru - disciple interaction.

 

The trouble with free will and determinism is that every view of them

follows one or the other party line. One could argue for one or the

other alternative, but one can't really have both, in a strong sense.

So one opts for (free will) or is forced into (strong determinism)

the weak acknowledgement of both, like the party line that you say

Dennis took. So you see, even the weak acknowledgement of both is

open to reinterpretation in terms of either side. The only resolution

that I can personally come up with is that the very debate is wrongly

formulated. It is a mind-game, and the only way to resolve it is to

stop playing the game. One only gets answers for the questions that

one asks. If you ask the wrong question, there is not much chance of

getting the right answer. Now this stance can be criticized as simply

avoiding the issue, but then, that may well be deliberate. Is there

any other solution space that has not been covered by the above?

> (1) Is the distinction between vyavahaara or paramaarthika made

> anywhere in the Upanishads or in the Gita?

 

See bRhadAraNyaka upanishad, 2. 4. 1-14 and 4. 5. 1-15. The two words

are not used, but the distinction is there nonetheless.

> (2) Does this distinction exist anywhere outside of Advaita?

 

Madhyamaka Buddhism. And many Western philosophers have distinguished

between "things as they are" and "things as they seem to be." Indeed,

don't you think that philosophy only begins by recognizing that what

is immediately observed may not be really real? Right there, one has

this sort of distinction. Whether one resolves it in an idealistic

way or a realistic way depends on other assumptions one makes.

> (3) Does it serve any purpose other than to paper over the

> contradictions in Advaita?

>

> (4) Is this a forum in which fundamental questions like these can be

> debated?

 

I should think so. And so is Advaita-L. But then, if one asks a

highly provocative question like 3 above, on a mailing list devoted

to Advaita, one should expect people to get provoked, or even

irritated, and to give provocative responses. It is unfair to ask

pointed questions, if one cannot tolerate pointed answers. Maybe you

would not mind such a response personally, but on a mailing list, an

exchange between two people has the potential to offend a third,

fourth and a fifth person, who may then all decide to quit, because

they don't like a hostile atmosphere! If people don't want to offend,

they may keep mum, but there are also people who don't care whether

others find them too opinionated or not. Specifically in this case,

their irritation would arise from the wording of question 3, which

does not specify what are the contradictions that you see as being

papered over by the distinction between vyavahAra and paramArtha.

Furthermore, the counter-question would be whether the contradictions

are within Advaita or whether there is an inherent problem in

perception. If the former, please elaborate. If the latter, is there

another (better?) resolution of the problem that does not involve

other kinds of contradictions?

 

Best wishes,

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Patrick Kenny wrote:

 

A case in point is message #5957 by Miguel (a refugee

from Advaita-L) who asked several well thought-out and

heartfelt questions but received only two responses

(from Ram and Dennis). Miguel makes no secret of his

skepticism and his dissatisfaction with the

conventional responses to his questions. Is this the

reason why the loftier pundits on this list have

disdained to answer him?

 

Miguel-Angel: Yes, I used to take active part in

Advaita-L for years. I liked it for some time but grew

less and less comfortable with the attitude of some of

the Indian members. Greg mentions the case of one

stating that Westeners are not meant for enlightenment.

Another case that scandalized me was one member holding

that the Vedas are not to be taught to women, only to

Brahmin men. I don't mind the exchange of articles

between the two lists, but I wouldn't like a merger at

all. This list is quite good as it is, and I find the

atmosphere here very good. Congratulations to the

moderators.

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

Patrick Kenny wrote:

> [...] My own view is that

> Advaita is a serious philosophical

> tradition but not one that has any

> special monopoly on truth and it

> deserves to be discussed on the same

> footing as other philosophies. The

> problem with this of course is that

> those who are most knowledgeable about

> Advaita feel otherwise...

>

 

 

namaste patrick-

 

the following might sound elitist.

it really isn't. the fact is, i am

*certain* that we are all in reality

having the experience of the Self ALWAYS.

(we ARE the Self and nothing more.)

it's only the mind distracting us;

diverting our awareness. however, it

cannot affect our innate consciousness.

which will be proven in time.

 

having said that...

 

experience is the real barometer concerning

these issues. and this is what the vedic

sruti is the product of. and for one to

have any corresponding recognition of it,

one needs to be at least approaching the

commensurate level of its experience within

oneself as well. if not it will remain

mentally/emotionally irrelevant.

 

if one is in fact nearing such proximity,

i would strongly advise seeing the videotape

of the sage of arunachala, sri ramana.

 

there is a point in the video where bhagavan

is looking into the eyes of one of the visitors

to the ashram. if one is open and sensitive

enough, one will immediately be transported.

all doubts will be dispelled.

 

one has to be at least near the point of

what could be called 'egoic breakthrough.'

if one could be expected to have a resonance

within themselves and see/experience the

ineffable reality of Self-realization in

the eyes and auric vibration of a jnani.

 

then it goes to a place where it isn't merely

even that 'seeing is believeing,' but rather

more: 'Being is believing.' no! even this

latter is nonsense!! nothing can be said.

nothing whatsoever.

 

peace in OM,

frank

[Guest guest]

Dear Vidyasankar,

 

The contradiction that I was referring to was the statement by Dennis

(which is not original with him) that we do and do not have free

will.

The use of the vyavahaara/paramaarthika distinction to 'resolve' such

contradictions seems to me to be highly questionable although as I

explained to Sadananda I do not want to make an issue out of this

(at least not for now) but rather to pose the question (in an

admittedly provocative way) whether or not it is possible to discuss

Advaita Vedanta in a spirit of free inquiry where the only appeal is

to reason and not to tradition, authority or convention. My impression

is that this would not be possible on the Advaita-L list nor in the

Non Duality Salon and the indications from this list are

contradictory, depending on whether a Westerner or Indian holds the

floor.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

>

> > A case in point is message #5957 by Miguel (a refugee from

Advaita-

> L)

> > who asked several well thought-out and heartfelt questions but

> > received only two responses (from Ram and Dennis). Miguel makes no

> > secret of his skepticism and his dissatisfaction with the

> conventional

> > responses to his questions. Is this the reason why the loftier

> pundits

> > on this list have disdained to answer him?

>

> One's reactions to the questions, or the lack (or the abundance) of

> responses to them depend a lot on what one's view of the purpose of

> the list is. Mailing lists can at best serve as sounding boards for

> expressing one's doubts and for sharpening one's own thought

> processes. They cannot really take the place of a classroom or a

more

> traditional guru - disciple interaction.

>

> The trouble with free will and determinism is that every view of

them

> follows one or the other party line. One could argue for one or the

> other alternative, but one can't really have both, in a strong

sense.

> So one opts for (free will) or is forced into (strong determinism)

> the weak acknowledgement of both, like the party line that you say

> Dennis took. So you see, even the weak acknowledgement of both is

> open to reinterpretation in terms of either side. The only

resolution

> that I can personally come up with is that the very debate is

wrongly

> formulated. It is a mind-game, and the only way to resolve it is to

> stop playing the game. One only gets answers for the questions that

> one asks. If you ask the wrong question, there is not much chance

of

> getting the right answer. Now this stance can be criticized as

simply

> avoiding the issue, but then, that may well be deliberate. Is there

> any other solution space that has not been covered by the above?

>

> > (1) Is the distinction between vyavahaara or paramaarthika made

> > anywhere in the Upanishads or in the Gita?

>

> See bRhadAraNyaka upanishad, 2. 4. 1-14 and 4. 5. 1-15. The two

words

> are not used, but the distinction is there nonetheless.

>

> > (2) Does this distinction exist anywhere outside of Advaita?

>

> Madhyamaka Buddhism. And many Western philosophers have

distinguished

> between "things as they are" and "things as they seem to be."

Indeed,

> don't you think that philosophy only begins by recognizing that

what

> is immediately observed may not be really real? Right there, one

has

> this sort of distinction. Whether one resolves it in an idealistic

> way or a realistic way depends on other assumptions one makes.

>

> > (3) Does it serve any purpose other than to paper over the

> > contradictions in Advaita?

> >

> > (4) Is this a forum in which fundamental questions like these can

be

> > debated?

>

> I should think so. And so is Advaita-L. But then, if one asks a

> highly provocative question like 3 above, on a mailing list devoted

> to Advaita, one should expect people to get provoked, or even

> irritated, and to give provocative responses. It is unfair to ask

> pointed questions, if one cannot tolerate pointed answers. Maybe

you

> would not mind such a response personally, but on a mailing list,

an

> exchange between two people has the potential to offend a third,

> fourth and a fifth person, who may then all decide to quit, because

> they don't like a hostile atmosphere! If people don't want to

offend,

> they may keep mum, but there are also people who don't care whether

> others find them too opinionated or not. Specifically in this case,

> their irritation would arise from the wording of question 3, which

> does not specify what are the contradictions that you see as being

> papered over by the distinction between vyavahAra and paramArtha.

> Furthermore, the counter-question would be whether the

contradictions

> are within Advaita or whether there is an inherent problem in

> perception. If the former, please elaborate. If the latter, is

there

> another (better?) resolution of the problem that does not involve

> other kinds of contradictions?

>

> Best wishes,

> Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Greetings Patrick:

 

Please note that 'contradictions' are true indicators

of the spirit of free enquiry and the existence of

freedom of expression. There is nothing wrong in

having contradictory viewpoints when the focus of the

discussions on a complex subject such as 'Traditions

vs reason.' However, I disagree that any such

disagreements can be attributed to race or ethinic

origin. First the notion of 'tradition' and 'reason'

are quite subjective and it depends on the background

and training that the subject received. The

identifying the nationality of a person by name is

quite imprecise and it can be quite misleading.

Many of my Indian friends who are very uncomfortable

with the notion of "tradition, authority and

convention." Similarly, quite a few of my western

friends are strong believers in "tradition, authority,

and convention." Interesting the same individual who

holds the floor may not necessarily keep the same

stand for ever and I have seen both westerners and

Indians who have changed their stand.

 

In conclusion, we should refrain from making hasty

conclusions without sufficient facts.

 

Warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

--- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote:

> ...... now) but rather to pose the

> question (in an

> admittedly provocative way) whether or not it is

> possible to discuss

> Advaita Vedanta in a spirit of free inquiry where

> the only appeal is

> to reason and not to tradition, authority or

> convention. My impression

> is that this would not be possible on the Advaita-L

> list nor in the

> Non Duality Salon and the indications from this list

> are

> contradictory, depending on whether a Westerner or

> Indian holds the

> floor.

>

> Regards,

>

> Patrick

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Patrick,

 

Whay would you say this about the non-duality salon? There's no devotion

to a textual tradition there. People come from all different angles. Why

not pose the question and see what happens.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

At 03:02 PM 8/27/00 -0000, Patrick Kenny wrote:

(at least not for now) but rather to pose the question (in an

admittedly provocative way) whether or not it is possible to discuss

Advaita Vedanta in a spirit of free inquiry where the only appeal is

to reason and not to tradition, authority or convention. My impression

is that this would not be possible on the Advaita-L list nor in the

Non Duality Salon and the indications from this list are

contradictory, depending on whether a Westerner or Indian holds the

floor.

[Guest guest]

"Patrick Kenny" <pkenny@c...> wrote:

> Dear Vidyasankar,

>

> The contradiction that I was referring to was the statement by

Dennis

> (which is not original with him) that we do and do not have free

> will.

> The use of the vyavahaara/paramaarthika distinction to 'resolve'

such

> contradictions seems to me to be highly questionable although as I

 

It is rather tempting to jump over to the paramArtha vs. vyavahAra

distinction as a catch-all solution to every problem, but if one

knows the tradition well, one will see that that is not how the

traditional authors treat such problems. At least, they don't point

to such a distinction without having examined an issue somewhat

deeply from the vyavahAra standpoint. There is really no reason to

accept a paramArtha, unless the vyavahAra view of something can be

shown to faulty or limited in some sense. I don't know if Dennis

particularly referred to such a distinction. Personally, my feeling

is that the entire question of free well vs. determinism is

meaningless in paramArtha. Both horns of the dilemma make sense only

within vyavahAra. However, so long as one is caught between the two

alternatives of believing in either this or that, one remains caught

in vyavahAra. What seems like the infuriating fence-sitting attitude

of most Advaitins is really a recognition of a dilemma for what it

is, and a refusal to grasp either horn exclusively.

> explained to Sadananda I do not want to make an issue out of this

> (at least not for now) but rather to pose the question (in an

> admittedly provocative way) whether or not it is possible to discuss

> Advaita Vedanta in a spirit of free inquiry where the only appeal is

> to reason and not to tradition, authority or convention. My

 

I should think that a discussion can be carried out in one of two

ways.

 

One way would be to just ask what the traditional authors and texts

have said, and figure it out fully, before making a judgment of the

traditional view. It would also be good not to consider a view

traditional, unless it can be supported with proper quotes from the

traditional authors. Just because somebody with an Indian name says

something, it need not become the traditional Advaita Vedanta view of

the subject.

 

Another way to get to such a discussion with the traditional minded

people would be to view what you think to be the traditional stance

as one among various solutions to a problem that defies solution.

That may or may not agree with what you arrive at from a spirit of

free enquiry. But a discussion can be done, so long as people remain

civil.

 

However, I'm curious - by referring to the "spirit of free inquiry",

haven't you already skewed the debate in favor of free will? What is

it that enquires? If that entity does not possess free will, how can

there be free inquiry? Yet, I see that you most often support a

strong deterministic view, which is puzzling. That in itself should

be an example of paradoxical the nature of this issue is.

 

Best wishes,

Vidyasankar

 

ps. With Greg, I'm also curious why you discount the Nonduality Salon

as an apt forum for this issue. Is it because you think most posters

there simply convert everything to a word game?