Sri Ram - please clarify

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram,

 

You just said to Jay:

>Anyone wants to join the discussion should seek permission

>from Sri Sadananda who will be moderating the discussions.

>The entire month of JUNE can be dedicated for enhancing

>our understanding of Advaita Philosophy.

 

Is this a change of policy on the list? Is not anyone allowed to

discuss any topic that comes up? (Provided of course that we do it

in the right way: courteously and without flooding the list with

brief paragraphs or weighing down the list with tedious

dissertations!)

 

Thank you

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin:

 

Namaste:

 

I do owe you and others an explanation. First, Sadaji or me are

unlikely to interfere if someone wants to raise a question or ask for

any clarification. The topic that Sri Jay is proposing will require

very thourough understanding of fine details buried under the

Sanskrit verses along with grammar rules. Sri Sadanandaji is

representing the Advaita Point of view on behalf of all of us and he

is a good debater and keep the discussion under control. Sri Jay and

Sadaji will alternatively express their view points in a debate

format. All of us will be attending a series of seminars from these

two scholars and we can raise questions and clarifications from them.

We do have respectable and responsible group of members and hopefully

will be able to participate after first few postings from Sri Jay and

Sadaji.

 

Those who want active participation are encourged to start advanced

reading of the the Brahmasuutra Notes in the advaitin file folder for

meaninful participation.

 

Finally, the list will always encourage anyone to come forward to

discuss a topic of their choice in the usual format. There is

absolutely no change in the list policies and since we all respect

Sadaji's judgement and scholarship, unnecessary interference will not

help us to learn and understand 'adhyasa.'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Ram,

>

> You just said to Jay:

>

> >Anyone wants to join the discussion should seek permission

> >from Sri Sadananda who will be moderating the discussions.

> >The entire month of JUNE can be dedicated for enhancing

> >our understanding of Advaita Philosophy.

>

> Is this a change of policy on the list? Is not anyone allowed to

> discuss any topic that comes up? (Provided of course that we do it

> in the right way: courteously and without flooding the list with

> brief paragraphs or weighing down the list with tedious

> dissertations!)

>

> Thank you

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Ram,

>

> You just said to Jay:

>

> >Anyone wants to join the discussion should seek permission

> >from Sri Sadananda who will be moderating the discussions.

> >The entire month of JUNE can be dedicated for enhancing

> >our understanding of Advaita Philosophy.

>

> Is this a change of policy on the list? Is not anyone allowed to

> discuss any topic that comes up? (Provided of course that we do it

> in the right way: courteously and without flooding the list with

> brief paragraphs or weighing down the list with tedious

> dissertations!)

>

> Thank you

> Benjamin

 

I know Shree Ram has answered Benjamin. I want to thank him for his kind

words about me. But the fact of the matter is adhyaasa does not need

any counter arguments from any body - Shankara has provided enough

ammunition that is needed - except for those who have concluded and

looking for particular statements which they cannot find and I can

guarantee that they will not find either. But one can find a wealth of

information if someone is really interested in understanding the

fundamental human problem and what scriptures provide to solve that

problem. From my perspective it is not whether there is any error of

superimposition (adhyaasa) or not, but the cause as well as solution

for the error of judgement. From my point, this list is not meant for

convincing others but to convince oneself what is the nature of the

problem. From that perspective I am not going to have any debates with

any one - If you read any of my mail- I always start with the statement

- This is my understanding. There is no way we can convince any body -

neither Dennis, Benjamin, or Murthy gaaru on free will or lack of it -

but present what we think and provide an alternate vision if that is not

covered. This list, of course, is centered on Shankara Advaita, not out

of fanaticism but based on our understanding of the truths expounded in

scriptures as elucidated by Bhagavat paada Shankara. Jay is right that

study of others teacher’s objections would help us establish firm

knowledge of our own understanding. That is part of mananam.

Scriptures are not illogical even though the truth is beyond logic. I

can assure Benjamin that it is not a fanatical approach to the

scriptures but we give the benefit of doubt to scriptural statements,

which may not directly, appeal to the logic in order to see implied

meaning that surpasses logic- what is known as jaha ajah lakshaNa. This

is what Jay referring to samanvaya - consistency - but again each

acharya is self-consistent in his own way while bring out slightly

different models. Hence irrespective of Jay's demands, I can guarantee

that quotes from the scriptures would not help either if one already has

pre-conceived notions - that include about Advaita doctrine - you can

see this in the discussions on Fate and free will -Enough scriptural

quotes have been provided yet many hold on to their views. I don’t

think that will change either in the discussion of adhyaasa. If Jay,

after studying the notes comes forward in terms of what is wrong with

adhyaasa doctrine then we have some thing to think about. Of course, if

one argues it is not directly mentioned in the scriptures therefore that

is not right, and whatever that is mentioned can be interpreted to mean

something else, all I can say to him is thanks you sir and wish you all

the best. Samanvaya or consistency has to be understood correctly too.

Bhagawan Ramanuja is considered as extremely consistent unifying the

both Advaitic and Dvaitic statements with universal purushha with

attributes, but that fails to the logic and therefore appeals to only

some.

 

The point is- No. I will refuse to get into any arguments since most

of these arguments and counter agreements are already there in the

literature. I will only present my understanding if that differs from

the other. Yes from my perspective, any body can step in and discuss if

that improves our understanding, or find fallacies in the arguments as

we did with fate and free will. - as long as we do it respecting

others, that include the acharyas whom we respect. I can reqest Shree

Vidyashankar to step in when ever he can to make sure the discussion is

in tune with adviatic teaching of the scriptures.

 

I would, however, request discussors not to present alternate models

from other systems of philosophies including I must say Buddhism, since

1) we are not familiar with those systems and each one has their own

axioms that one needs to understand before one sees the samanvaya or

consistency - essentially we will be getting to 'different can of worms'

and 2) the list serve is not intended for that purpose. In that sense I

would like to insist that the discussion be limited to the scope of the

list serve - namely Advaita as expounded by Shankara - since that is why

most of the people have joined the list. There are other lists that

seve different philosophies and one may be better of presenting any

extensive discussion of these topics in those specialized list serve.

 

I hope I am clear.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Dear SadAnand-jI,

>The point is- No. I will refuse to get into any arguments since most

>of these arguments and counter agreements are already there in the

>literature. I will only present my understanding if that differs from

 

Read your reply. Both me and you are students of shAstra. I do respect

your knowledge of the shAstra. I am not here to 'argue' with you.

So, here is my suggestion. What I can do is to present both sides of the

arguments on adhyAsa myself. Other scholars like you can intervene

if you feel like.

>which may not directly, appeal to the logic in order to see implied

> meaning that surpasses logic- what is known as jaha ajah lakshaNa. This

> is what Jay referring to samanvaya - consistency - but again each

> acharya is self-consistent in his own way while bring out slightly

 

The two concepts are not quite the same.

 

jahadajahallakshaNa : The secondary meaning

of an expression in which the primary meaning is partly abandoned and

partly retained.

 

jahallakshaNa : The secondary meaning of an expression in which the

primary meaning is abandoned.

 

ajahallakshaNa : A secondary relation of a word to its meaning where

the word without abandoning its primary sense implies much more as

its meaning. Ex: protect the corn from the cows

The protection of the corn in this expression primarily stands for

protection from cows, but secondarily it has a wider application and

it stands for protection from all animals that may eat away the corn.

 

'samanvaya' is 'sam' + 'anvaya' comes from the sootra "Om tattu samanvayAt

Om"

anvaya simply means 'to apply'

The 'sam' stands for 1) applying the primary meaning of all Vedic words

2) applying it to all branches of vEda ( all of rig, yajus, sAma, atharva

all of mantra, braAhmaNa, Aranyaka, upanishat,

all of jnAna-kAnda, karma-kAnda or any other kAnda that one has

chosen to ignore or include )

 

Thus the term 'samanvaya' is a much more comprehensive concept in

vEdAnta than 'jahadajahallakshaNa'.

 

That sootra says, only by such a 'samanvaya' that one will know

that vEdArtha is parabrahman.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda!

 

You said:

>I would, however, request discussors not to present

>alternate models from other systems of philosophies

>including I must say Buddhism, since 1) we are not

>familiar with those systems and each one has their own

>axioms that one needs to understand before one sees the

>samanvaya or consistency - essentially we will be getting

>to 'different can of worms'and 2) the list serve is not

>intended for that purpose.

 

 

You are a moderator, and the moderators are of course the ones who

control this list. But may I make the following heart-felt plea for

open-mindedness?

 

We all agree that this list should remain focused on Advaita. But I

feel strongly that it would be quite unfortunate if some of the more

combative discussions of late lead to any loss of the wonderful

spirit of open-mindedness so characteristic of the Hindu tradition.

I believe that such an open and tolerant perspective is essential to

the pursuit of truth, as even the wisest of us can become enslaved by

our rhetoric and mental habits.

 

Furthermore, I do not believe that the real spirit of the truth can

be found merely through logical discussions based on axioms.

Intuition and wisdom are more important, and these can be sharpened

by comparing Advaita with close sister paths such as Mahayana

Buddhism. Without a doubt, I have received illuminating insights

into both through comparisons done in a spirit of sincere inquiry

rather than pedantic debate.

 

And at a time when Hinduism is threatened by the rapacious designs of

certain creeds which claim to monopolize the truth, it would be wise

to form alliances and exchange sympathetic discussions with those

spiritual paths that have a similar vision.

 

Also, if Buddhism is excluded, why not exclude Dvaitins or even

Visishtadvaitans? A strong case could be made that Advaita is closer

in spirit to Mahayana than to either of those two. Please don't be

fooled by the label 'Hindu', which was paradoxically invented by

non-Hindus who in most cases had little idea what they were talking

about anyway.

 

But I totally agree that such friendly exchanges should be done in

moderation and in simple language without introducing jargon. If

ideas unfamiliar to Advaitins are introduced, then they should be

explained clearly and succinctly.

 

An excellent discussion of the spiritual affinity of Buddhism and

Vedanta can be found in an article by list member VPCNK referenced in

my post: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m16650.html In this

post, I provide some comments which may or may not be helpful. Or

you can just go straight to the referenced article, which is part of

an excellent website on Indian philosophy and spirituality in general.

 

I will certainly try to be modest in introducing Buddhist comparison

to Advaita. And this will only be done to shed light on Advaita and

never to prosletyse (which is inimical to the true spirit of either

Hinduism or Buddhism). But I would feel very sad if Buddhism had

the door completely shut in its face. There is a lot of wisdom there

too!

 

So this means that we must behave ourselves on this list and remain

respectful and focused on Advaita, even when we try to compare or

contrast it with similar creeds. If we do not obey etiquette, then

the inclination will grow to turn this list into an exclusive and

in-bred club. This would be sad for the spirit of Advaita and of

Hinduism in general.

 

My humble thought and feelings. It's up to the moderators. Let's

please behave ourselves and make this an illuminating experience for

everyone.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

I'm one of the co-moderators and have been on this list for a while. Comparison

between Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism has been a recurring thread here

and many of the issues have been covered already. I think that prolonged

discussion on this topic probably won't fly. BUT - you can always start your

own list on this topic. As far as I know, there isn't a list for serious

comparison of Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. I can help publicize it on

many different lists...

 

But I can imagine that some of the attraction of that topic on *this* list is

this. Here are some well-mannered, educated, articulate people that don't quite

agree with your viewpoints, and will discuss them to some extent. You might not

find that if you create your own list. There are also Buddhist lists, where you

could try it as well. Nanda Chandran (VPCNK) tried it a year or so ago,

however, and it never took off.

 

--Greg

 

At 01:30 PM 4/17/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

>I will certainly try to be modest in introducing Buddhist comparison

>to Advaita. And this will only be done to shed light on Advaita and

>never to prosletyse (which is inimical to the true spirit of either

>Hinduism or Buddhism). But I would feel very sad if Buddhism had

>the door completely shut in its face. There is a lot of wisdom there

>too!

>

>So this means that we must behave ourselves on this list and remain

>respectful and focused on Advaita, even when we try to compare or

>contrast it with similar creeds.

 

.....

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

>I think that prolonged discussion on this topic

>probably won't fly. BUT - you can always start

>your own list on this topic. As far as I know,

>there isn't a list for serious comparison of

>Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. I can

>help publicize it on many different lists...

 

I implicitly agreed in my previous post that there should be no

PROLONGED discussion of Advaita vs. Mahayana on this list. I was

only pleading with Sri Sadanada not to slam the door in the face of

Buddhism but to allow the occasional illuminating comparison.

 

>But I can imagine that some of the attraction of

>that topic on *this* list is this. Here are some

>well-mannered, educated, articulate people that

>don't quite agree with your viewpoints, and will

>discuss them to some extent. You might not find

>that if you create your own list. There are also

>Buddhist lists, where you could try it as well.

>Nanda Chandran (VPCNK) tried it a year or so ago,

>however, and it never took off.

 

Yes, we are most fortunate. It is indeed difficult to establish a

free and open list on the internet that maintains a nice, sedate,

focused atmosphere when all it takes is a single zealous and

energetic person to create (perhaps unintentionally or with good

intentions) a disturbance and drown out the rest. Perhaps I have

been guilty of that, though I have mellowed considerably in the past

few weeks. (At this rate, I will soon be dead!)

 

Well, we'll see. But please do realize that open-mindedness is

intrinsic to Indian tradition and is essential to a fruitful search

for the truth. A merely academic and narrowly focused list would

probably become sterile and pedantic and lose its spirit. That would

be quite sad. Brahmins have made that mistake in the past, if you

don't mind my saying so! It is in the nature of intellectuals.

 

At any rate, Nanda Chandran would be FAR more qualified than I to

lead this alternate list that you propose. But I would be glad to me

his 'vice-president'.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

> Dear SadAnand-jI,

>

> >The point is- No. I will refuse to get into any arguments since

> most

> >of these arguments and counter agreements are already there in the

> >literature. I will only present my understanding if that differs from

>

> Read your reply. Both me and you are students of shAstra. I do

> respect

> your knowledge of the shAstra. I am not here to 'argue' with you.

> So, here is my suggestion. What I can do is to present both sides of

> the

> arguments on adhyAsa myself. Other scholars like you can intervene

> if you feel like.

 

That sound more attractive. Thanks. I hope to learn in the process.

>

> >which may not directly, appeal to the logic in order to see implied

> > meaning that surpasses logic- what is known as jaha ajah lakshaNa.

> This

> > is what Jay referring to samanvaya - consistency - but again each

> > acharya is self-consistent in his own way while bring out slightly

>

> The two concepts are not quite the same.

 

Yes - You are absolutely right - I did not inted them to be the same

either.

In order of samanvaya - one may bave to use the other valid means of

tarka to unraval Scriptural statements - This is particularly true with

reference to tat tvam asi statement. Otherwise the direct meaning would

not make sense. you can put a in front of tat but then we do not need

scriptures to tell that I am not that.

 

The rest too early comment - there is also notes on the

samanvayaadhikara in B.S. file.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

In the history of this list (other moderators please correct me if I

am wrong) we have never slammed the door on someone who posted a

comparative analysis of Buddhism with Advaita. As Gregji correctly

pointed out, we do want to maintain balance - we agree to bend but at

the same time will not agree to break! No slamming of the door will

ever take place unless all seven moderators feel that is the right

action for the list.

 

Please trust the moderators and they don't have any personal agenda

and they take their job of protecting the interest of all the members

and their right to the free expression very seriously.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> I implicitly agreed in my previous post that there should be no

> PROLONGED discussion of Advaita vs. Mahayana on this list. I was

> only pleading with Sri Sadanada not to slam the door in the face of

> Buddhism but to allow the occasional illuminating comparison.

>

>