Bhakti article critical of Advaita

[Guest guest]

Namaste all!

 

Oh no! More controversy! Now from Sri Jay. Based on the

last line, I think he wants me to pass this on to you. Since his

feelings are so strong - he feels 'insulted' - I do not want to make

him feel worse by ignoring his request. So here is his message.

Afterwards, I will comment on it.

 

>>Maybe Sri Jay has a point not unrelated to this month's topic

>>of bhakti vs. jnana. From my web explorations, it does seem as

>>though those sites that come under the 'bhakti' label are quite

>

>Please do not bring my name whenever someone else gets critical

>of Advaita. I take it as an insult.

>

>In my opinion, we have reduced shAstra to a bunch of beliefs and

>we want to adhere to those beliefs. Some believe in advaita and

>some others in non-advaita. My contention is that both are wrong,

>because they did not start with prasthAna-traya, which is the basis

>for vEdAnta.

>

>If someone mis-represents prasthAna-traya, and calls it vEdAnta,

>I get very critical of them no doubt. Similarly, If someone

>mis-represents

>advaita and calls it 'advaita', then I get critical of them too.

>

>So, please find out why they are critical of Advaita and deal with it.

>Please do not bring my name unnecessarily.

>

>I hope you understand my point of view. I have some email issues,

>feel free to post this to the group.

 

 

Blessed Sri Jay!

 

No insult was intended. Why on earth would you think this? Rather,

I was simply pointing out that you are one of many from a dualistic

Indian spiritual tradition who is critical of Advaita. I found the

indicated website to be a particularly clear and forceful expression

of the 'Vaishnava' criticism of Advaita, and therefore well worthy

of consideration by this group. Furthermore, this dualistic

tradition does seem closely related to Bhakti, which is the topic of

the month. I do not know if you actually call yourself a 'Bhakti',

but there is no doubt that Bhakti is closely related to the views you

have expressed about the glory and separateness (from us) of

Parabrahman.

 

That website provides clear and rational reasons for the dualistic

criticism of Advaita, even if the language is a bit strong, and I

recommend it again:

 

http://www.geocities.com/krisnossamone/notgodEnglish.htm

 

It's fun too, especially when he starts calling the 'impersonalists'

(including Advaitins) by names such as 'atheist' and 'materialist'

and saying we are 'insane'. Yet his reasons are clear and well

articulated and should be read. See, for example, his discussion of

the drop in the ocean. However, he does jump to conclusions about

our motivation which are unjustified.

 

You may protest that the author of that site is still not YOU and

that mentioning your name is a slur. Well, to be honest, your

detailed discussion of scripture got so tedious (at least for me)

that I could not maintain my concentration on it and gave up.

However, I feel that it is likely that this website makes points

that are at least approximately related to yours, and it is much

easier to read. So the list members may benefit from taking a look.

 

After all, the dualistic position is really just that of a 'common

sense' person who also believes in God. It is not much different

from the standard Christian position, except for different

scriptures and gurus. Most people naturally believe in the

separateness and superiority of God. It is we 'nonsensical'

Advaitins who carry the burden of making our views credible.

 

Warmest regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

>No insult was intended. Why on earth would you think this?

 

Point well taken. I am only interested in prasthAna-traya.

 

If someother group critisizes advaita without a basis from

prasthAna-traya, and an advaitin resorts to prasthAna-traya

to defend it, I would rather be an advaitin at that point of time.

>Rather, I was simply pointing out that you are one of many from a dualistic

>Indian spiritual tradition who is critical of Advaita.

 

I am not from a 'dualistic' school, I am from a school that is

firmly rooted in prasthAna-traya.

>I found the indicated website to be a particularly clear and forceful

>expression of the 'Vaishnava' criticism of Advaita, and therefore well worthy

>of consideration by this group.

 

For me 'VishNu' is a philosophical entity - which represents that

which is omni-present - 'vishlr vyAptou'. It is not a mere religious

or a sectarian idea.

 

Look at kaTOpanishat, 'sOdhvana pAramApnOti tad vishNOh paramam padam'

kaTopanishat is neither sectarian nor anything to do with any cult.

>Furthermore, this dualistic

>tradition does seem closely related to Bhakti, which is the topic of

 

What is dualism?

 

My understand of the terms - dualism, monism, pluralism, theism etc

 

monism - the theory that the cause for this world can be finally reduced

to a single principle.

 

dualism - the theory that there are two causes for this world which are

irreducible to one another.

 

pluralism - the theory that there are many causes which are irreducible to

one another.

 

theism - the cause of this world exists as a 'person' or a vyakti.

 

What you guys call 'monism' has two irreducible entities called mAyA and

Brahman, therefore it is actually 'dualism' but given the name of 'monism'.

>From the school I come from, Parabrahman is 'jagadEka kAraNa' because

all other so-called causes such as prakrti are also created by Him. Therefore,

my school should be called 'monism'.

 

Following upanishats, my school says 'God is not a person' therefore

it is not theistic either.

 

All these terms have come from the west, and need to be understood in their

western setting before applying them to Indian schools of thought.

>but there is no doubt that Bhakti is closely related to the views you

>have expressed about the glory and separateness (from us) of

>Parabrahman.

 

It is not the view of any particular school of thought.

it is the view expressed in upanishats. Please read the email 'bhakti in

upanishats'

'yasya dEvE parA bhaktihi yathA dEvE tathA gurou'

 

It is lack of study that makes one think that these are sectarian ideas.

>After all, the dualistic position is really just that of a 'common

>sense' person who also believes in God.

 

belief and philosophy are opposite to one another.

If prasthAna-traya were common sense, we would not have so many

schools of thought coming from great thinkers.

>It is we 'nonsensical' Advaitins who carry the burden of making our views

credible.

 

Yes sir, you need to do it. The only explanation that keeps coming up is

that it can't be explained. If that is what is aceepted as 'credible and

sensical', then there

is not much burden to carry either !!

 

I hope you won't bring my name unnecessarily again while talking about

'dualistic' or 'theistic'

schools, as none of those terms represents my school properly.

 

Warmest regards,

Jay N.