Guest guest Posted August 28, 2000 Report Share Posted August 28, 2000 Dear Ram, Vidyasankar and Greg, Unfortunately I have brought down more on my head than I can comfortably deal with. Just as with paramaarthika/vyavahaara, I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on free will right now but would like to continue to focus on the subject at hand. (If you want to start a major row, Greg, be my guest. For those who are interested, my first foray into the list earlier this year was prompted by my puzzlement at how Advaitins could take the idea of free will seriously. In my own case I experienced the idea of not having free will as a bitter pill to swallow initially, but I have quite happily lived for many years without the sense of myself as free agent or taking my 'I' literally. So I don't experience this as a 'dilemma' or as a 'problem that 'defies solution' (Vidyasankar) which is why I find the appeal by Dennis and others to paramaarthika/vyavahaara to resolve this 'dilemma' particularly objectionable.) To Ram: I concede that I should not have made such a bald generalization and that I should have expressed myself more circumspectly. But the fact remains that those members of the list who come upon Advaita later in life (Westerners for the most part) tend to judge its claims by the same standard as they judge other philosophical traditions (namely reason) whereas those are brought up in the shadow of the tradition (Indians for the most part) are more likely to appeal to the authority of scripture or of a living sage. When I used the term 'free inquiry' I simply meant inquiry which is free to question received opinions and dogmatic pronouncemnts of all kinds no matter how august their provenance (nothing to do with free will). When I wrote >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 I should have qualified this statement by saying that Advaita-L and the Non Duality Salon disqualify themselves (in my perception) for quite different reasons: the Non Duality Salon abounds in lofty sentiments but I've never been able to find any intellectual depth in it or the minimal level of scholarship needed to discuss *any* philosophical tradition seriously. 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... Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2000 Report Share Posted August 28, 2000 Hi Patrick! I agree with you about free will, and being able to live without it. That has been happening here also, very, very happily for a number of years. And it is not the last stop in inquiry, as I'm sure we'd both agree. Sorry you don't find any existing list the perfect place for the kinds of discussions you are looking for. Why not start your own list, something like "scholarly nondualism." Did you remember from the pre-advaitin-list days that on ADVAITA-L there was some considerable bristling at the use of the term "advaita vedanta" or "advaita" for anything other than the type of orthodox, text-based study that goes on there? You could create a space where the kind of conversation you are looking for is the lingua franca. Also agree with you on the way that Westerners pursue the study of advaita or any tradition that they take up, especially after graduating from college or some other prolonged study. Is it that you would like to study the topic of advaita vedanta perhaps impartially, or maybe in the context of other non-dual approaches? There are several books that can assist in this. If you'd like to discuss it off-list in a free-flowing way, no-holds barred, nothing sacred, no presuppositions, then I would be happy to discuss it with you. When you study the *philosophy* or *concepts* in advaita, the pursuit is quite likely to take you to subjects other than advaita, and to areas where no authority is generally respected *qua authority*. Another way to do it is to create a web page of your own, then notify the various lists about it. That will generate some like-minded conversation! Regards, --Greg At 10:34 AM 8/28/00 -0400, Patrick Kenny wrote: >>>> Dear Ram, Vidyasankar and Greg, Unfortunately I have brought down more on my head than I can comfortably deal with. Just as with paramaarthika/vyavahaara, I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on free will right now but would like to continue to focus on the subject at hand. (If you want to start a major row, Greg, be my guest. For those who are interested, my first foray into the list earlier this year was prompted by my puzzlement at how Advaitins could take the idea of free will seriously. In my own case I experienced the idea of not having free will as a bitter pill to swallow initially, but I have quite happily lived for many years without the sense of myself as free agent or taking my 'I' literally. So I don't experience this as a 'dilemma' or as a 'problem that 'defies solution' (Vidyasankar) which is why I find the appeal by Dennis and others to paramaarthika/vyavahaara to resolve this 'dilemma' particularly objectionable.) To Ram: I concede that I should not have made such a bald generalization and that I should have expressed myself more circumspectly. But the fact remains that those members of the list who come upon Advaita later in life (Westerners for the most part) tend to judge its claims by the same standard as they judge other philosophical traditions (namely reason) whereas those are brought up in the shadow of the tradition (Indians for the most part) are more likely to appeal to the authority of scripture or of a living sage. When I used the term 'free inquiry' I simply meant inquiry which is free to question received opinions and dogmatic pronouncemnts of all kinds no matter how august their provenance (nothing to do with free will). When I wrote >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 I should have qualified this statement by saying that Advaita-L and the Non Duality Salon disqualify themselves (in my perception) for quite different reasons: the Non Duality Salon abounds in lofty sentiments but I've never been able to find any intellectual depth in it or the minimal level of scholarship needed to discuss *any* philosophical tradition seriously. 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... Regards, Patrick ---------- <http://click./1/7748/6/_/489436/_/967473287/> ---------- 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-> <<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2000 Report Share Posted August 28, 2000 Greetings Patrick: Thanks for the clarifications and your point is well taken. Coming back to the issue of 'tradition and reasoning' I want to restate Einstein's famous quatation: "Religion without science is blind and science without religion is vain." A modified version of this is: "Tradition without reasoning is blind and reasoning without traditions is vain." In reality, tradition and reasoning (also religion and science) coexist and in appearance they are dual but they both seek the Truth using different means. Our problem is to take them separately and indulge in looking from one side forgetting the existence of the other side. In the case of 'free-will' and 'determinism' we have created a non-existent coin of two sides! Our innovations have no limits and we still are afraid to subdue the intellect which creates questions and answers - either by free-will or fully deetermined will! I wish, I could come with an answer that satisfies everyone! warmest regards, Ram Chandran --- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2000 Report Share Posted August 28, 2000 Sorry to jump into this conversation. Just a few points that comes to my mind, I narrate here: >It is like this - through a basic ignorance, 'I' think I 'have' free >will. And I go about my daily life, assuming that I am a free agent >and a free thinker. When I realize that at the root of this >assumption lies ignorance, I give up the notion of free will. >However, this does not entail that everything was determined. It is >not as if the removal of this ignorance reveals that 'I' was nothing >more than a puppet being manipulated by some unseen hand. Whenever I think of free will, I think of the following famous quote by Sri RamaNa Maharashi: "All the activities that the body has to undergo are predetermined by one's own prArabda karma. You do not have the freedom to accept or reject them. The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce your activities THERE". > > whereas those are brought up in the > > shadow of the tradition (Indians for the Swami Vivekananda questioned Scriptures, Sri RamaNa Maharshi didn't need one. There is a peculiar (but good) aspect to Bharatiya Samskruti. I will cite it with the help of an example. SandhyAvandanam is a nitya karma performed all dvija's (twice born). When the appropriate mantras are taught, the boy is around 8-9 years. To make a boy of 8 years understand the meaning of OM etc is a daunting task. So the teacher, asks the student to learn the mantras and the appropriate kAyikas (physical motions involved in the rituals), even though he may not understand it. Here Sraddha (faith) is expected, needed and developed. Apart from the lack of intellectual development being the reason, there is a second reason also. That is that the person should develop certain mental disciplines and habits very essential to sAdhana (may be in future). Once the boy grows up, then he is encouraged to take up the study, question, enquire and find out the meaning. Most Indians go through this process, described above, in a more or less same way. Hence, the first step which such a person will suggest, when it is his turn to recommend is to follow the scriptures, atleast to some extent and then with a right attitude, take up enquiry. You said "grew up in the shadow of tradition", whereas I consider it as "grew up in the light of tradition". > > tradition but not one that has any > > special monopoly on truth and it Advaita does not have monopoly OVER Truth, for Advaita is the Truth and that claim has been questioned since time immemorial. For long, I was labouring under the illusion that the questions that I asked were paradoxes that I stumbled upon, which was something nobody might have thought about. My further enquiry into scriptures and teachings of AchAryas, revealed the exact opposite. Almost every question that we pose, every contradiction that we unearth, every paradox that we confound, every confusion that arises, have already happened to disciples of the past and have been successfully answered by Masters. We just need the patience to learn and a competent AchArya to learn from and things will fall in place. Arjuna questioned Krishna, Rama questioned Vasishta, Swami Vivekananda questioned Shri Ramakrishna - questioning Advaita is not new!!! Regards. S. V. Subrahmanian. _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2000 Report Share Posted August 28, 2000 Patrick Kenny <pkenny@c...> wrote: > Unfortunately I have brought down more > on my head than I can comfortably deal > with. !!! Happens always with such a question. Neither do I want to get into a full-fledged discussion, so just a few brief pointers. > puzzlement at how Advaitins could take > the idea of free will seriously. In my It is like this - through a basic ignorance, 'I' think I 'have' free will. And I go about my daily life, assuming that I am a free agent and a free thinker. When I realize that at the root of this assumption lies ignorance, I give up the notion of free will. However, this does not entail that everything was determined. It is not as if the removal of this ignorance reveals that 'I' was nothing more than a puppet being manipulated by some unseen hand. When the root ignorance goes away, at least according to Advaita, only pure consciousness exists, and this consciousness is really free and unattached. It really neither wills nor determines anything. On the other hand, only through its will does the universe even come into existence. At this level, however, the use of the word 'will' is only figurative. If this distinction is not kept in mind, the problem defies solution. Not otherwise. So, we come to a middle position, where we recognize 'will' which may not be totally 'free' and we also recognize 'determinism' which is not all that 'strong'. So long as one thinks one has free will, one can use that very notion of free will to investigate these issues. One finds oneself in some situation over which one may have no control, but one does have some control over how one reacts to such a situation. So one can be judicious about the whole deal. It is like using a thorn to remove a thorn, or using a diamond to cut another diamond. > those members of the list who come upon > Advaita later in life (Westerners for > the most part) tend to judge its claims > by the same standard as they judge other > philosophical traditions (namely reason) > whereas those are brought up in the > shadow of the tradition (Indians for the > most part) are more likely to appeal to > the authority of scripture or of a > living sage. It works both ways, actually. It is the rare person who views these things from a purely intellectual stance. I've seen many Westerners who want to appeal to scripture or a living teacher. And I've seen many Indians who are skeptical about the authority of some living teachers, if not about scripture. That is partly because there are so many living teachers in India that thinking people don't always accept all their claims to sage-hood. Which is well and good. A true Advaita teacher does not at all mind being questioned and tested. > 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... Some of us don't think that nobody should question Advaita. It is only through questioning and debating that the truth emerges. I, for one, am very willing to discuss such issues impartially, so give it a try some time. Yours, Vidyasankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2000 Report Share Posted August 28, 2000 read the mail venkateswaran --- Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > 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. > > Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! / 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.