Advaitin - Origin of this word

[Guest guest]

Hari Om.

 

 

I have a query for the Moderators and also to this General satsang.

 

 

What is the origin of the word "Advaitin" - who used it first? Is it an English

word (like Hinduism) or a Sanskrit word. Did Adi Sankara use it or was it by his

followers or his distractors to "stero-type" his line of arguments? When did

the usage begin?

 

 

For example, Visisthadwaitam which Vaisnavites follow is a sanskrit word to the

best of my knowledge and this is what I was used to, till 3 years back when Shri

Madhav introduced Advaitin to me. But I am reading now the 10 major upanishads

by Swami Sivananda and I have so far, not come across a terminology called

"advaitin" in the original sanskrit text.

 

 

Please pardon my ignorance and delay in asking this fundamental question.

 

 

Pranams.

 

 

P.B.V.Rajan

 

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from

http://www.planetm.co.in

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- pbvrajan <pbvrajan wrote:

> I have a query for the Moderators and also to this

> General satsang.

>

>

> What is the origin of the word "Advaitin" - who used

> it first?

 

Namaste

 

The Monier Monier Williams dictionary gives a

reference to advaita in the Satapatha Brahmana 14. It

is also given as a title of an upanishad although it

does not appear in my book of thirty minor upanishads.

 

A google search for the text of the Brahmana...I do

have the work at home....and the advaita upanishad may

help you on your way. It is certainly not an English

word although there are many teachers of such a system

in the core of Western thought....have a read of

Plotinus sometime.

Hope this will help you on your way,

ken Knight

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Dear Kenji and Rajanji,

 

A very fascinating insight from Dr. Viji Shankar is excerpted below

from an interview "What Is Englightenment" had with him recently:

(WIE stands for "What is Enlightenment" and VS for Dr. Viji Shankar.)

 

QUOTE

 

VS: If you want to write about Advaita, you should know what you're

looking for. Do you know what Advaita is?

 

WIE: Won't you please tell us?

 

VS: You don't know what you're looking for, then!

 

WIE: Well, I'm not asking only for myself. I'm asking on behalf of

thousands of readers.

 

VS: Please don't get me wrong. What I'm trying to convey to you is

that if you don't know very clearly in your mind—or your so-called

mind—the exact meaning of the word "advaita," what the word stands

for, how would you know whether the answer you are receiving pertains

to the word you are asking about? Your issue, you say, is about

Buddhism and Advaita, but do you know what Buddhism is? And do you

know what advaita stands for, what advaita means? Are you familiar

with Advaita? You are going to ask me questions about it today. If

that is the case, then you should know what advaita means; otherwise,

this interview is void.

 

WIE: All right. As I understand it, the teaching of Advaita Vedanta

is the teaching of nondualism, the teaching that—

 

VS: But why is it called "nondualism?" God is one, isn't it? If God

is one, which I'm particularly sure the majority will agree to

without any argument, then why don't the Sanskrit sages call

it "ekant," which means one, instead of advaita? Why is the

word "advaita" being used? Has anybody pondered over that? Advaita

means not two. Once you have pondered that, then you have no need to

know anything else. Once you know what advaita means, you have

transcended! You have gone beyond the mind! Why did the sages not

say "one?" Why did they say "not two?" You see, my dear friend, I

don't mean to put you off balance. I'm rather trying to put you back

on the right path.

 

WIE: Thank you.

 

VS: But it should have some effect on you! What is the point of your

collecting information, information, information and printing

magazines when it does not have any effect on your life? You'll die

and go, my son, like the rest of us. The body will disappear. So what

is the point of stuffing your mind with knowledge? What effect does

it have on you? You should have transcended by now! That should be

your goal in life! The only purpose of life is to know who you are.

If you think that accumulating all this knowledge is going to get you

enlightenment, forget it!

But to come back to the point, the word "advaita" is used to

indicate not two! And the reason why is because the mind functions in

a very linear way, from point A to points B, C, D, E, F and so on in

a straight line—are you with me so far? Therefore, the moment you

say "one," it means that there are two, three, four, five, six,

seven, eight and so on and so forth. The moment you say "one," it

means the possibility exists of two. One has got meaning only with

relation to the other numbers; otherwise it has none. And the moment

you say "one," two has already penetrated into it. That is why they

don't say "ekant." They say "NOT TWO!" And NOT TWO means what? That

the many has disappeared. But this is only indicated by a process of

negation.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Pranams and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> The Monier Monier Williams dictionary gives a

> reference to advaita in the Satapatha Brahmana 14. It

> is also given as a title of an upanishad although it

> does not appear in my book of thirty minor upanishads.

>

> A google search for the text of the Brahmana...I do

> have the work at home....and the advaita upanishad may

> help you on your way. It is certainly not an English

> word although there are many teachers of such a system

> in the core of Western thought....have a read of

> Plotinus sometime.

[Guest guest]

--- madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

> VS: But why is it called "nondualism?" God is one,

> isn't it? If God

> is one, which I'm particularly sure the majority

> will agree to

> without any argument, then why don't the Sanskrit

> sages call

> it "ekant," which means one, instead of advaita? Why

> is the

> word "advaita" being used? Has anybody pondered over

> that? Advaita

> means not two.

 

Namaste,

 

Thank you for this dialogue...should we really think

of not-twoalogue!!

I try to make a similar interpretation just using

English as the term 'advaita' has crept into a range

of contexts and we now have people talking of

Christian Advaita which really poses problems.

However, if asked what does advaita mean as a word I

try to put it as follows:'People seek unity but as

soon as we talk of unionor one-ness this implies that

there is something that is 'not-one', not in union. To

avoid this duallistic implication we use the term

advaita,'not-two'to start with.'

People often have had an experience that confirms such

a proposition but they also confirm that this state

does not appear to be permanent. If they wish to

continue questioning they then find themselves

considering reality and the question 'What is real?'

They are then ready to take on or enter into the

teachings of advaita which are, of course, not

advaita. For the teachings come as words not the

experience of advaita which of course cannot be

experienced. Which takes us back to the beginning of

this paragraph and gives us a paradox.

At which point I had better retreat, tongue firmly in

cheek and delighting in the wisdom of those great

teachers who gave us this word.

 

best wishes

 

Ken

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Dear Kenji,

 

Interesting thoughts indeed!

 

The coinage "Christian Advaita" made me really laugh. What a

tragedy! The essence of advaita is indivisibility and oneness. Lo!

here we are having Christian, Hindu, Muslim advaitas! Two, three,

four et al may never leave us in peace.

 

This reminds me of a book found in my daughter's school library. The

caption is "Christian Yoga". The author - some Christian priest

whose name I don't recall. It is better forgotten. He admires

yoga. However, he believes that it does not befit the primitive

Indians in whose land it was born and developed. So, he endeavours to

restore it in pure Christian surroundings, under the care of his

Christian Lord, where it rightly belongs! Isn't that the height of

absurdity? I have read about Islamic Yoga too in a Gulf newspaper in

an article authored by an Indian. Poor Patanjali should feel really

grateful towards these restorers of Europe and Middle East! It is a

shame that we still think as so many even while discussing Unity and

universal matters. God help us!

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

> I try to make a similar interpretation just using

> English as the term 'advaita' has crept into a range

> of contexts and we now have people talking of

> Christian Advaita which really poses problems.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Madathilnairji

 

Namaskar My Friend and thank you for this totally beautiful post

 

This is great : )

 

DharmaDev Arya

 

 

madathilnair <madathilnair

advaitin <advaitin>

Sunday, May 26, 2002 12:20 AM

Re: Advaitin - Origin of this word

 

>Dear Kenji and Rajanji,

>

>A very fascinating insight from Dr. Viji Shankar is excerpted below

>from an interview "What Is Englightenment" had with him recently:

>(WIE stands for "What is Enlightenment" and VS for Dr. Viji Shankar.)

>

>QUOTE

>

>VS: If you want to write about Advaita, you should know what you're

>looking for. Do you know what Advaita is?

>

>WIE: Won't you please tell us?

>

>VS: You don't know what you're looking for, then!

>

>WIE: Well, I'm not asking only for myself. I'm asking on behalf of

>thousands of readers.

>

>VS: Please don't get me wrong. What I'm trying to convey to you is

>that if you don't know very clearly in your mind—or your so-called

>mind—the exact meaning of the word "advaita," what the word stands

>for, how would you know whether the answer you are receiving pertains

>to the word you are asking about? Your issue, you say, is about

>Buddhism and Advaita, but do you know what Buddhism is? And do you

>know what advaita stands for, what advaita means? Are you familiar

>with Advaita? You are going to ask me questions about it today. If

>that is the case, then you should know what advaita means; otherwise,

>this interview is void.

>

>WIE: All right. As I understand it, the teaching of Advaita Vedanta

>is the teaching of nondualism, the teaching that—

>

>VS: But why is it called "nondualism?" God is one, isn't it? If God

>is one, which I'm particularly sure the majority will agree to

>without any argument, then why don't the Sanskrit sages call

>it "ekant," which means one, instead of advaita? Why is the

>word "advaita" being used? Has anybody pondered over that? Advaita

>means not two. Once you have pondered that, then you have no need to

>know anything else. Once you know what advaita means, you have

>transcended! You have gone beyond the mind! Why did the sages not

>say "one?" Why did they say "not two?" You see, my dear friend, I

>don't mean to put you off balance. I'm rather trying to put you back

>on the right path.

>

>WIE: Thank you.

>

>VS: But it should have some effect on you! What is the point of your

>collecting information, information, information and printing

>magazines when it does not have any effect on your life? You'll die

>and go, my son, like the rest of us. The body will disappear. So what

>is the point of stuffing your mind with knowledge? What effect does

>it have on you? You should have transcended by now! That should be

>your goal in life! The only purpose of life is to know who you are.

>If you think that accumulating all this knowledge is going to get you

>enlightenment, forget it!

> But to come back to the point, the word "advaita" is used to

>indicate not two! And the reason why is because the mind functions in

>a very linear way, from point A to points B, C, D, E, F and so on in

>a straight line—are you with me so far? Therefore, the moment you

>say "one," it means that there are two, three, four, five, six,

>seven, eight and so on and so forth. The moment you say "one," it

>means the possibility exists of two. One has got meaning only with

>relation to the other numbers; otherwise it has none. And the moment

>you say "one," two has already penetrated into it. That is why they

>don't say "ekant." They say "NOT TWO!" And NOT TWO means what? That

>the many has disappeared. But this is only indicated by a process of

>negation.

>

>UNQUOTE

>

>Pranams and best regards.

>

>Madathil Nair

>______________________________

>advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>> The Monier Monier Williams dictionary gives a

>> reference to advaita in the Satapatha Brahmana 14. It

>> is also given as a title of an upanishad although it

>> does not appear in my book of thirty minor upanishads.

>>

>> A google search for the text of the Brahmana...I do

>> have the work at home....and the advaita upanishad may

>> help you on your way. It is certainly not an English

>> word although there are many teachers of such a system

>> in the core of Western thought....have a read of

>> Plotinus sometime.

>

>

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

> Lo!

> here we are having Christian, Hindu, Muslim

> advaitas! Two, three,

> four et al may never leave us in peace.

 

Namaste Madathinair,

 

There is a recent experiment in Vedantin/Christian

living that I would recommend as being worthy of

serious study. This began at an ashram near to Trichy

about 60 years ago and the most famous person related

to it is Father Bede Griffiths. He is very

interesting but the more interesting is someone who in

fact started the ashram, whereas Bede came in and

became more famous.

The man I would you to enquire into is Swami

Abhishiktananda. He was in fact a Belgian, Christian

monk who also spent some time in cave on Arunachala

and met with Ramana Maharshi. In due course he left

the ashram at Trichy and disappeared to the Himalayas

although after his death his body was returned to the

ashram. My wife and I had the joy of welcoming in the

New Millenium in the room where his remains lay for a

while. We were part of a celebration that was sending

a monk into a year of silence in the forest. The

interplay of cultural mixes was great as my wife

presented some words form the Syrian tradition, an

Indian priest gave the Christian input and my role was

to talk on the Mahavakyas. It was a mix but only

remarkable in retrospect for we were all talking from

the same inspiration.

To return to Abhishiktananda..he is published under

this name not his Western name. He wrote of his

spiritual enquiry into Vedanta and he moved ever

closer to a purely advaitin point of view.

I would recommend a look at 'The Further Shore' if

you can get a copy as well as his book on 'Prayer'.

These works come from an earlier stage in his journey

and he did not write of the final stages in the

Himalayas. There was a short documentary...made by a

French team I think... but we can only really

appreciate his final insights through the eyes of the

genuine Indian seekers who knew him in his last years.

He really is a special man.

 

Just another possible point to ponder over on this

theme of one tradition seeking a renewed expression

through another.

When people accuse Gaudapada of being a Buddhist they

can argue a strong case because of similarities in his

ideas and words. However it was more likely, in my

opinion, that he found it necessary to use the

language of the Buddhists in order to then bring back

the Vedantin teachings through a popular religious

structure of the time. This process can occur, as

always, both from the inner to the outer...Vivekananda

maybe?....or from the outer to the inner...Gaudapada.

Ultimately the differences dissolve which ever way is

taken but it may help us to stand back and watch with

delight as well as trepidation the strange flow of

spiritual cultures at the present time,

 

Sorry to ramble on

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji,

 

Thanks for the detailed feedback. I would certainly love to follow

your leads, which I am afraid, I can do only when I visit India

next. Currently, I am stationed at a place where such material is

very hard to come by.

 

Best regards and pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________________________

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

> There is a recent experiment in Vedantin/Christian

> living that I would recommend as being worthy of

> serious study.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Some additional resources on Sw. Abhishiktananda

 

http://www.monasticdialog.com/bulletins/64/Challenge_Hindu_Christian.h

tm

 

http://www.innerdirections.org/publish/video/abhishiktananda.htm

 

http://www.bedegriffiths.com/feature.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

> --- madathilnair <madathilnair> wrote:

> > Lo!

> > here we are having Christian, Hindu, Muslim

> > advaitas! Two, three,

> > four et al may never leave us in peace.

>

> Namaste Madathinair,

>

> There is a recent experiment in Vedantin/Christian

> living that I would recommend as being worthy of

> serious study. This began at an ashram near to Trichy

> about 60 years ago and the most famous person related

> to it is Father Bede Griffiths.