Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 Hello Benjamin, A sudden shift of scene to a round world tour of prejudice, chiefly the your own, would seem to have been an indication that the point was granted but no twas not to be. You find yourself in the odd position of knowing more about the inner meaning of Advaita than Sankara does. Do have a look at the B.S.B. with Sankara's commentary, there's nothing like knowledge to fortify an argument. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 Hello Michael, >A sudden shift of scene to a round world tour of >prejudice, chiefly the your own, would seem to have been >an indication that the point was granted but no twas not >to be. You find yourself in the odd position of knowing >more about the inner meaning of Advaita than Sankara >does. Do have a look at the B.S.B. with Sankara's >commentary, there's nothing like knowledge to fortify an >argument. Apparently you did not bother to notice my reference to some comments Sadananda made regarding the possible inauthenticity and/or irrelevance of those passages. Shankara may have been addressing a type of Buddhism I am not, or he may have misunderstood it, and we are not even sure of the author(s) of the B.S.B. It is not nearly as straightforward as you seem to think. More to the point, there was no prejudice on my part. Rather I was trying to unite and foster more brotherly love, especially between religions that clearly bear a strong family resemblance, if not a fundamental identity of inspiration. My opinions were hardly original, nor did I claim they were, and I was shoving nothing down anybody's throat. And there was hardly so much mail on the list that my own messages got in the way. The views I expressed were entirely reasonable and in line with the spirit and letter of the Advaitin scriptures, taken as a whole, if only you had bothered to read carefully what I expressed so carefully. This is not to say that I was not open to friendly debate. I always am. You, on the other hand, clearly display an uncharitable and narrow minded attitude, e.g. by using such a strong word as 'prejudice' and by resorting to sarcasm. This is not the right attitude. Oh, and beware. Quoting this or that paragraph of scripture does not a wise man make, not even a scholar. The Upanishads themselves are inconsistent on the surface, in the mere words, but not when viewed with the eye of wisdom. That is why we need the B.S.B. in the first place. And then we need wise people to comment on the B.S.B. Take care Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Hello Benjamin, > A sudden shift of scene to a round world tour of > prejudice, chiefly the your own, would seem to have been > an indication that the point was granted but no twas not > to be. You find yourself in the odd position of knowing > more about the inner meaning of Advaita than Sankara > does. Do have a look at the B.S.B. with Sankara's > commentary, there's nothing like knowledge to fortify an > argument. > Best Wishes, Michael. Namaste A Chara, Michael, this type of dogmatic pronouncement comes from following a line of thought, usually a teacher or particular guru, and discounting everything else that doesn't fit. Two lines of process develop, the first one rationalises everything to fit what the guru says and what doesn't is thrown out. Secondly; This doesn't stop one from studying a memorising many scriptures from the texts anyway. One has to be careful one doesn't turn into a C.D. Sankara as far as I see him talked at all levels, and as only 60,000 people on the planet today could even understand him intellectually, 'non-duality', that is; he talked in a way of devotion also. I have all these scriptures as well, but I try to work on the essence rather than just the vehicle...........Slan ........Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote: > > Apparently you did not bother to notice my reference to some comments > Sadananda made regarding the possible inauthenticity and/or > irrelevance of those passages. Shankara may have been addressing a > type of Buddhism I am not, or he may have misunderstood it, and we > are not even sure of the author(s) of the B.S.B. It is not nearly as > straightforward as you seem to think. > I was under the impression that the B.S.B. was pretty much accepted by everyone to be something definitely penned by Shankara. The Brahma Sutras themselves contain refutations of Buddhism, and Shankara, in expanding upon these, is only following the thought of the Vedanta Sutras themselves. So if Shankara didn't refute Buddhism just as the Brahma Sutras do, then he'd be writing a pretty poor commentary on them. If we are to come to a reasonable and honest conclusion about this, we must look at Shankara's criticisms of Buddhism and see if these legitimately apply to Buddhist teachings of today. I also think, if Indo-Asian religions were to unite, it should be done on the basis of their actual commonalities, such as religious tolerance, non-violence, etc. and not on the imposition of a doctrine that all must adhere to. And if this is done, there's no reason to exclude Muslim Sufis from the mix either, or liberal Christian and Jewish mystics; no reason for it to be an "Indo-Asian" unity at all. Concerning Buddhism itself, Bhikkhu Bodhi, who most all Western Theravadin websites will include a link or reference to his works, wrote a nice, long tract on why Theravada Buddhism and Advaita cannot be reconciled. You can find it here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay27.html Concerning Madhyamika (Tibetan and Zen Buddhism of today), if they were to actually unite with Advaita, they would have to side-step or get rid of their most essential founders, like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti (or Bhavaviveka), both of whom openly and explicitly refute concepts, without which, Advaita Vedanta wouldn't be Advaita Vedanta anymore. Essentially, if these schools were to all unite in doctrine, they'd be uniting at a high cost to their own uniqueness; they must reject the very texts and teachings that distinguish them as independent schools or, in other worse, they must cease to exist as schools at all - and, be under the banner of Advaita. Then there comes the harder task of getting Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita to reject their own scholars and books and teachings, or else they won't be unified. The same goes for Jainism as well. I think a unity of Western and Eastern Bhakti/Jnana traditions, such as Sufism might be more effective and done so without destroying anyone's school of thought. But there's direct links between Indian mysticism and Sufism via Plotinus, Abu Yazid, Kabir, and a Persian translation of the Upanishads in the 17th century, so no real need to try and unify them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > and as only 60,000 > people on the planet today could even understand him intellectually, > 'non-duality', that is; Wow, that's a low number. I'd think more like 100 million or so. Hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 Hari OM! Dear BenjaminJi, What is B.S.B? If it is Brahma Sutra Bashya, Please specify that, just writing B.S.B, will not make everybody understand, what really it is. This B.S.B might be Americanization of our scriputres! With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > > > Hello Michael, > > >A sudden shift of scene to a round world tour of > >prejudice, chiefly the your own, would seem to have been > >an indication that the point was granted but no twas not > >to be. You find yourself in the odd position of knowing > >more about the inner meaning of Advaita than Sankara > >does. Do have a look at the B.S.B. with Sankara's > >commentary, there's nothing like knowledge to fortify an > >argument. > > Apparently you did not bother to notice my reference to some > comments > Sadananda made regarding the possible inauthenticity and/or > irrelevance of those passages. Shankara may have been addressing a > > type of Buddhism I am not, or he may have misunderstood it, and we > are not even sure of the author(s) of the B.S.B. It is not nearly > as > straightforward as you seem to think. > > More to the point, there was no prejudice on my part. Rather I was > > trying to unite and foster more brotherly love, especially between > religions that clearly bear a strong family resemblance, if not a > fundamental identity of inspiration. My opinions were hardly > original, nor did I claim they were, and I was shoving nothing down > > anybody's throat. And there was hardly so much mail on the list > that > my own messages got in the way. The views I expressed were > entirely > reasonable and in line with the spirit and letter of the Advaitin > scriptures, taken as a whole, if only you had bothered to read > carefully what I expressed so carefully. This is not to say that I > > was not open to friendly debate. I always am. > > You, on the other hand, clearly display an uncharitable and narrow > minded attitude, e.g. by using such a strong word as 'prejudice' > and > by resorting to sarcasm. This is not the right attitude. > > Oh, and beware. Quoting this or that paragraph of scripture does > not > a wise man make, not even a scholar. The Upanishads themselves are > > inconsistent on the surface, in the mere words, but not when viewed > > with the eye of wisdom. That is why we need the B.S.B. in the > first > place. And then we need wise people to comment on the B.S.B. > > Take care > Benjamin > The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 advaitin, "concordance909" <concordance909> wrote: > advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > and as only 60,000 > > people on the planet today could even understand him > intellectually, > > 'non-duality', that is; > > > Wow, that's a low number. I'd think more like 100 million or so. > Hmmm. Namaste, It is based on Nisargadatta Maharaj's statement that only one person in Mumbai can understand non duality properly, even intellectually. ie one in ten million........ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > advaitin, "concordance909" > <concordance909> wrote: > > Namaste, > > It is based on Nisargadatta Maharaj's statement that only one person > in Mumbai can understand non duality properly, even intellectually. > ie one in ten million........ONS...Tony. Namaste, Now I doubt if I understand Nisargadatta properly! I wonder what the population of the world was when the Upanishads were composed, because at that time you've at least got a nice crowd of people who understood it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 advaitin, "concordance909" <concordance909> wrote: > advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > advaitin, "concordance909" > > <concordance909> wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > It is based on Nisargadatta Maharaj's statement that only one > person > > in Mumbai can understand non duality properly, even > intellectually. > > ie one in ten million........ONS...Tony. > > > Namaste, > > Now I doubt if I understand Nisargadatta properly! > > I wonder what the population of the world was when the Upanishads > were composed, because at that time you've at least got a nice crowd > of people who understood it. Namaste C, Perhaps they only thought that they understood it. Who knows, my feeling is that Nisargadatta meant more than just interpret the words......ONS..Tony. 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.