Guest guest Posted July 18, 2003 Report Share Posted July 18, 2003 Namaste Professor Krishnamurthy >Still I hasten to point out the fallacy in the above logic. >'Brahman is Consciousness' combined with 'Brahman is One >without a second' does not imply the nonexistence of the >material world. It only means that the material world >(and all that goes with it) is also Consciousness. I don't know what your definition of 'matter' is. I take the standard Western definition, as used e.g. by most scientists. For them, 'matter' is the inert unconscious 'stuff' that is 'outside' of our consciousness. According to this view, when we see an apple, we are not seeing the material apple itself. Rather we are seeing an image in our sense of vision (which consists of perceptions *within* consciousness). This image was produced by light reflecting off of the material apple 'out there' and striking our eyes, thus producing nerve impulses which somehow resulted in the vision of the apple somewhere in our brain. That vision and the original apple are different. The vision is in consciousness, and the apple is outside of consciousness in the 'external material world'. The external material world is not considered to be conscious. Is a stone conscious? And if it were, is it *my* consciousness? Anyhow, I am not saying that is my view. I am only saying that that is the standard view of science since Newton, except perhaps for the most advanced and philosophical physicists, who can deal with a higher level of abstraction. So it is a matter of definitions. If you wish to deny matter, that is fine, since so do I. But you cannot maintain a 'conscious' matter, since matter according to the standard definition is outside of anybody's consciousness and is therefore unconscious. You cannot have dry water. By the way, this distinction between consciousness and matter is nothing but the old Sankya distinction between purusha and prakriti, so it should not be all that unfamiliar to you. It is also so-called 'common sense'. Shankara also refuted the Shankyans. Anyhow, I know for a fact that Sadanandaji agreed with me before in no uncertain terms regarding the non-existence of matter, as I describe it. I have the message. So I am really anxious to reconcile that with the troublesome passages in the Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28), as I requested in my last message. Can anybody please help me? Has this been discussed in the history of Advaita? By the way, Sri Ram, this has nothing to do with Buddhism, even though Shankara is refuting a certain school of Buddhism in Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28). As far as this list is concerned, my question has only to do with the non-existence of matter. Any further application to Buddhism will be done strictly on my site and should be of no concern to this group. (Unless cyberspace is not big enough for both of us ... heaven forbid!) Thank you and Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 Namaste Benjamin, I will try to resolve this apparent paradox with the help of that age-old advaita analogy regarding the Ocean and the Wave. There is an ocean in which are many waves. There is a Venkat Wave (VW) which goes daily to 'Office Wave' and does 'work wave' on a 'table wave' using a 'computer wave'. VW also communicates with a far-off wave called Benjamin wave (BW) using the 'computer wave'. Now in this ocean there are Upanishad Waves (UW) which have said that "Brahman is Water' and "Brahman is one without a second' BW now puts 1 wave and 1 wave together and deduces from the above that there is only water and no ocean or waves. But there was another wave that used to be there in the same ocean called Shankara Wave (SW) which had even while affirming the statements of UW that 'Brahman is water' and 'Brahman is one without a second' had also said that the reality of ocean and waves cannot be denied. BW is tremendously confused. It has great confidence in both UW and SW and simply cannot accept one of them is wrong. But they seem to be contradicting each other. So BW sends a question wave on the internet wave asking the other waves as to how this contradiction can be resolved. VW is not an expert wave on these matters. But still decides to reply through its own computer wave. For this it uses some other statements of SW: There are 2 realities - paramArthika (P)and vyavahArika (V). While P exisits on its own, V exists dependent on P. The dependence relationship is defined by the following equation: P + Name + Form = V. Water exists on its own. Water plus certain names and forms give rise to Ocean and waves. Water is in realm P while ocean and water are in realm V. So water, ocean and waves all exist but in their own realms. Both UW and SW are right and there is no contradiction between the two. Q.E.D. (hopefully) Regards, Venkat - M Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: Professor Krishnamurthy >Still I hasten to point out the fallacy in the above logic. >'Brahman is Consciousness' combined with 'Brahman is One >without a second' does not imply the nonexistence of the >material world. It only means that the material world >(and all that goes with it) is also Consciousness. BENJAMIN So I am really anxious to reconcile that with the troublesome passages in the Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28), as I requested in my last message. Can anybody please help me? Has this been discussed in the history of Advaita? Plus - For a better Internet experience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 Namaste Venkat-M, >I will try to resolve this apparent paradox with the help of that >age-old advaita analogy regarding the Ocean and the Wave. Clearly, you are making waves in your message! I only wish you had submitted something so interesting to my group. I don't think they really want this kind of 'Western' philosophical discussion over here, just as they don't want to talk about Buddhism. That is fine with me if they wish to stay focused. It's a totally legitimate idea and policy. Mostly I wanted Sadanandaji's superb scholarship on a troublesome passage from the Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28). Now I am afraid he went home for the weekend without seeing my request and will come in Monday without seeing it either. Maybe I should have just sent him an email, but I was hoping other scholars out there might also have some help. Now as for the 'Venkat Wave (VW)' ... Does it drive a VolksWagen Wave? I guess that is a silly joke... >But there was another wave that used to be there in the same >ocean >called Shankara Wave (SW) which had even while affirming >the >statements of UW (Upanishad Wave) that 'Brahman is water' and >'Brahman is one without a second' had also said that the reality >of ocean and waves cannot be denied. > >BW (Benjamin Wave) is tremendously confused. ... You got that one right, Sri Venkat-M Wave! >For this it (VW) uses some other statements of SW: > >There are 2 realities - paramArthika (P) and vyavahArika (V) ... Aha! Stop right there, Mr Venkat-M Wave! Put your hands above your head! Don't move! First of all, I hope you read my Message 14 on my Clear Void list, called 'The Primordial Advaitic Inconsistency (or so it seems)', where I discuss Vyavaharika and Paramarthika. I think I understand this issue OK. If not, then please feel free to respond to that message. What you seem to be saying is that when Shankara Wave is arguing with the Buddhist Waves (more precisely the Vijnanavadins) in Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28), he is at the Vyavaharika level, since he is asserting the reality of objects against the Buddhists. But this seems to imply that the Vijnanavadins are correct at the Paramarthika level. So why doesn't Shankara say so? It is not fair to the Buddhists! And once again, Sri Ram, I am not trying to introduce Buddhism back into this list. I am perfectly happy continuing the discussion over there, and indeed I do not have enough time or energy to continue it in both places. I only want to deal with those troublesome people (my good friends!) who point to Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28) and say, 'See Shankara WAS a realist and not an idealist.' This clear excerpt *proves* it. And the BSB is supposed to be one of the more 'authoritative' works of Shankara. Now in my own mind, I am convinced that Shankara was a true idealist at the Paramarthika level, and he did not believe in the 'reality of objects'. Indeed, this would utterly contradict the Upanishads and Advaita. The reality of objects would assert entities other than the Brahman or Consciousness which is our Self. But how do I convince others that Shankara is speaking at the Vyavaharika level in Bhasya (II, 2, 28)? To my adversaries, that will sound like a particularly weak 'lawyer's trick', unless I can find another passage in Shankara confirming this. And why would Shankara argue so 'deceptively' with the Buddhists? Why would he not just say, 'Listen, you Vijnanavadins, you are right that objects do not exist, but there are *other* points I disagree with you on, such as your alleged refutation of the Vedas...' That would be a perfectly valid position for him to take... Sadanandaji, HELP!!!!! And Venkat-M, your math seems fine to me. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 Sorry, Benjamin. I did not mean to queer the pitch; I do hope Sadanandaji will come in and explain the real intent of BSB II, 2, 28 to all of us. After all if one interprets II, 2, 28, as I have done, without having read II, 2, 27 or II, 2, 29 (infact without having read anything else in BSB except the Adhyasa Bhasya) the chances of he being right are as high as that for a blind man hitting the bulls-eye in the first attempt. Sadaji, please do come in and explain the correct understanding on this rather crucial commen of Shankara. I am aware Benjamin, that I still have to post my first message on 'clearvoid'. But what is happening now over there is absolutely stupendous. When keen intellect and vast erudition are grappling with each other in search of truth, the atmosphere calls for reverential silence from the likes of me. I have read a lot on Buddhism but of the Thereavada kind and that on 'clearvoid' can be a huge disadvantage. Regards, Venkat - M. Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: Clearly, you are making waves in your message! I only wish you had submitted something so interesting to my group. Mostly I wanted Sadanandaji's superb scholarship on a troublesome passage from the Brahma-sutra Bhasya (II, 2, 28). Now I am afraid he went home for the weekend without seeing my request and will come in Monday without seeing it either. Plus - For a better Internet experience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 Namaste For the attention of those interested in this discussion may I cite the following webpage and subsequent pages of Swami Krishnananda? http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-05.html praNAms to all advaitins profvk ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 Professor Krishnamurthy, Thank you for the interesting link. Gee whiz, there are so many different branches of Buddhism (and Vedanta?) that I shall never catch up. I am used to hearing the argument that Advaitins (like Sri Ramana) say "The world is illusion" while "Buddhists" (whoever they are) say "the world is Like an illusion, neither something nor nothing." Now you give me a link stating it is the Buddhists who are the idealists! :-\ I liked an earlier poster's resolution that this Advaitin "illusion" referred not to form itself, but our sense of separateness from it. When I'm feeling devilish, I ask idealists to jump off a bridge and tell us what it was like. We all wake up from dreams but waking up from the waking state seems different. regards, david. --- "V. Krishnamurthy" wrote: > Namaste > > For the attention of those interested in this discussion may I > cite the following webpage and subsequent pages of Swami > Krishnananda? > http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-2-05.html > > praNAms to all advaitins > profvk > > ===== > Prof. V. Krishnamurthy > My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ > You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Namaste David-ji, In one of david godman's book, a devotee had asked him (Bhagwan Ramana) the same ?. - is the world unreal Bhagwan then clarified as follows: This is what Sankara meant. 1. Brahman is real 2. World is unreal 3. Brahman is world He also said that, people tend to forget the sandwiching stmts (1 and 3) and eat only the vegetables/cheese (stmt 2) and blame sankara for being pessimistic. He urged the devotee to come to the level of sankara and understand the purport of all 3 statements On the other point, my dear, who is going to catch what? All the paths shud lead to the same - Truth is one and told differently by the sages. Please take any one preferred path (if you have not done that already and if you have done, kindly apologize me for unneccessarily jumping the gun) and pursue the sadhana. Rgds --Ranga David King [david.king] Saturday, July 19, 2003 5:05 PM advaitin Re: Non-existence of the material world Gee whiz, there are so many different branches of Buddhism (and Vedanta?) that I shall never catch up. I am used to hearing the argument that Advaitins (like Sri Ramana) say "The world is illusion" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Namaste Yes, Ranga-ji got it just right. Also, it was David who said he wanted to tell the 'immaterialists' to jump off a bridge and see if they liked it. You may jump off a bridge and not like it, but it is still all in your mind. Where are pain and suffering, except in the mind? Also, the bridge and body jumping are in the mind. They are what I am pleased to call 'perceptions' (and ONLY perceptions). It is not all that complicated. This is neither nonsensical not mysterious. Om! Benjamin P.S. Why does eScribe STILL not work! advaitin, "Chakkara Rangarajan \(crangara\)" <crangara@c...> wrote: > Namaste David-ji, > > In one of david godman's book, a devotee had asked him (Bhagwan Ramana) > the same ?. - is the world unreal > > Bhagwan then clarified as follows: This is what Sankara meant. > 1. Brahman is real > 2. World is unreal > 3. Brahman is world > > He also said that, people tend to forget the sandwiching stmts (1 and 3) > and eat only the vegetables/cheese (stmt 2) and blame sankara for being > pessimistic. He urged the devotee to come to the level of sankara and > understand the purport of all 3 statements > > On the other point, my dear, who is going to catch what? All the paths > shud lead to the same - Truth is one and told differently by the sages. > Please take any one preferred path (if you have not done that already > and if you have done, kindly apologize me for unneccessarily jumping the > gun) and pursue the sadhana. > > > > Rgds > --Ranga > > > > David King [david.king@p...] > Saturday, July 19, 2003 5:05 PM > advaitin > Re: Non-existence of the material world > > Gee whiz, there are so many different branches of Buddhism > (and Vedanta?) that I shall never catch up. > > > I am used to hearing the argument that Advaitins (like Sri > Ramana) say "The world is illusion" > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 The discussion of jagath satyatva and mityatva has been debated on for centuries. If jagath was mithya, then one has to accept that the all prevailing vedas are apowrushEya (the one which is not manmade). If not how can one base his argument on the vedas ? How can one ,make an arument based on the vedas , which depicts nature ? So if vedas are apowrushEya , they should are the prefect truth and nothing else. How is that AchArya shankara accepts (in madhavadiyAraNya's shankara vijaya) that vedas have some flaws ? Like he clealy says that words like "Aim phat" or "hum phat vashaT" are meaningless and the entire karmakanda is flawed ? Why would the EshAvAsOpanishat say "EshA'vAsayam' ida sarvam yathkinchya jagtyAm jagat, tEna tyaktEna bhunjIthA mAgrudhahkakassyasviddhanam"? why should the all ture vedas say something about mithya vastus ? How come yAgAs , yagnAs and other rituals have been stressed ? Ofcourse gnAna is the result of karma. It is also true in everyday life. If bramha and jIva were at the same level of Ananda in the mOksha state, why was there a necessity of depicting the levels of Ananda in "bramhAnanda valli (mImAmsA)" in the "taitareeya". When you accept "satyam gnAnam anathama bramha" why not the "bheeshAsmAdvAtaha pavate" etc ?? The interpretation of the rope being seen as a serpent in the dark does not really refer to the mithyatva of jagath , but the agnAna of the jIva who thinks that the rope is a serpent (andhEna tamasAvrutam). But if that was an illusion, at least the rope being there is satya. How can one see the sarpa without the rope being there ? If the rope was also an illusion , how could you compare an illusion with another illusion ? how can you see the illusion of an illusion ? annambhatta in his trakasamgraha dIpika clearly says that "illusions can be only of real things". Is this not simple logic? Ok if the pot made up of mud was chosen to show the unity of bramha and jIva was just mithya (as mud and pot are worldly things) , then how can u sight an illusion as an example to show something which is real ??? Everyone knows and understands , that the final ingredient in the pot is mud (mrutthikaa ityEva satyam). But when u use a pot made of loha or metal, the final ingredient is not mud but metal which is entrily different than mud in all sense. So everyone accepts that mud and loha are different entities. The other interpretation which explains this is , the difference in the jivas , one jIva is entirly different compared to the other jIva. So sarvajIvEshu bedhah is the correct interpretation to the above arguments. This is ture even to the level of atoms. Everyone knows that all matter is made of atoms, but none shall accept that all matter is made of a single kind of atom. This clearly upholds the turth that jivAs are having tri-guNas and the combination of these three guNAs . And bramhan is not having these three -gunas (satva rajas and tamas). But bramha is not nirguNa. He has all the guNas. And this is specifically indicated by bramhasUtra kartA veda vyAsa devaru himself in the mahabhAratha mangaLa shlOka "triguNya varjitam". And one more thing please do not set your ideas reading the works of foreigners like max muller and others on the vedas and try to argue about points. We have a number of AchAryas who have laid their views in front of us. It is painful to see that our kids and our people are doing anusandhAna of the shAstrAs and their interpretations reading the works of foreign authors. Remember the bhAva is very important while giving an explanation. So unless you have been born in the same culture and grown up in the vedic tradition like the three AchAryas (shankara , rAmAnuja and madhwa) , you cannot interpret the vedas. Today people have stopped reading the works of our own AchAryas and started studying the works of foreigners. For example max muller, he just translated the vedas based on pANini's grammar or what little Sanskrit he knew. But he could not even conclude 1/10000000 th of what the three AchAryas said. It is like the Roman Catholic Church accepting the interpretation of the bible made by a person who is not a Christian. It is obvious that it is unacceptable, not because he is insincere or something , but he will never have the same bhAva and the same conviction . Also no one should or can degrade the three AchAryas and their teachings. Unless we take the Agamas, purANAs and itihAsas as references for our interpretation of the vedas, it will be deemed to be incomplete. Without taking all the principal upanishads and the vedas as a total we cannot interpret anything. If we try to, it will be flawed. It will be like taking a few pieces of ore from a gold mine and rejecting the whole mine as useless. Iti nArAyaNa smaraNegaLu gokulAnandatIrtha. =============================================================== nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || -------- AchArya madhwa in the gItAtAtparya =============================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Hi Benjamin, I think that the metaphor of the sculpture in the rock is most appropriate for this one. When you see such a sculpture, made out of the rock of which it is a part (e.g. Rushmore memorial?), you initially see only the form of the figure as if it stood alone, separate from the rock. Only after dropping this notion and looking more closely do you appreciate that in fact the sculpture is the very same material as the background. Similarly objects appear within (our) consciousness and we perceive them to be separate. In fact, upon 'enlightened' observation, they are seen not to be separate from that Consciousness at all. They and we are nothing but that one Consciousness out of which all the appearances arise. We do not deny the appearance, merely the semblance of separateness. (Apologies for late reply - I was a few days behind in my reading of the list.) Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Hi Dennis I agree that this rather graphic image goes a long way towards giving a taste of the basic Advaitin intuition, with the background rock playing the role of Brahman or Consciousness. The only problem is that the die-hard rationalistic skeptic will climb up to one spot on Mt. Rushmore and chip out a piece of rock, and then climb to another spot and chip out another piece of rock, and then he will climb down and say, 'See these two pieces of rock that I chipped out of the Brahman-rock. They are different pieces fo rock. So how can you say that Brahman is nondual?' In other words, no metaphor is completely successful at the ordinary vyavaharic level, not this one and not the ocean and waves. However, with a bit of intuition, these analogies can trigger a bit of a 'poetic' insight into the matter. I do agree that the jnana sees 'Consciousness' everywhere in everything, but it is ultimately indescribable. I think the dream analogy works best. In the dream, the dream objects all seem to be real. But upon awakening we realize that it was all fantasized by the dreamer (i.e. Seer). So only the Seer was (or is) real. Maybe this is why we have dreams. Because it gives such a straightforward illustration of Advaita. Yes, I like the dream analogy the best.... Yes, we missed you. And where's Gregji? Om! Benjamin advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > I think that the metaphor of the sculpture in the rock is most > appropriate for this one. When you see such a sculpture, made > out of the rock of which it is a part (e.g. Rushmore memorial?), > you initially see only theform of the figure as if it stood alone, > separate from the rock. Only after dropping this notion and > looking more closely do you appreciate that in fact the > sculpture is the very same material as the background. > Similarly objects appear within (our) consciousness and we > perceive them to be separate. In fact, upon 'enlightened' > observation, they are seen not to be separate from > that Consciousness at all. They and we are nothing but that one > Consciousness out of which all the appearances arise. We do not > deny theappearance, merely the semblance of separateness. > > (Apologies for late reply - I was a few days behind in my reading > of the list.) > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Ranga wrote: 1. Brahman is real 2. World is unreal 3. Brahman is world Dave writes: Thanks, Ranga-Ji. I have seen these with (1) and (2) switched (whatever). Ken Wilber gives his interpretation in the Forward to Talks with Ramana (which I don't have with me currently). Ranga wrote: On the other point, my dear, who is going to catch what? All the paths shud lead to the same - Truth is one and told differently by the sages. Please take any one preferred path (if you have not done that already and if you have done, kindly apologize me for unneccessarily jumping the gun) and pursue the sadhana. David writes: That all paths lead to the same truth is also my intuition but I also dialogue with assorted postmodernists who claim otherwise. I do have a preferred sangha but see little difference between Ramana's self-enquiry and Buddhism's vipassana, inasmuch as Seeing is Seeing, or What Is just Is, and the rest is interpretation. Benjamin wrote: You may jump off a bridge and not like it, but it is still all in your mind. David wrote: Benjamin, if you jump off a bridge (don't do that), one important thing will change: we will no longer have these interesting conversations. As far as I can tell, there are no dead people on this list. gokulAnandatIrtha wrote: Without taking all the principal upanishads and the vedas as a total we cannot interpret anything. If we try to, it will be flawed. It will be like taking a few pieces of ore from a gold mine and rejecting the whole mine as useless. David writes: Dear gokulAnandatIrtha-Ji, your comments are fascinating but filled with Sanskrit terms I unfortunately do not understand yet. In general, I regard "western" authors translating "eastern" texts as a good thing because it presents ideas in "my language." If their interpretation is flawed, other "western" authors may eventually clarify the shortcomings. As for "rejecting the whole mine," I prefer to "look for the partial truths;" that is, what does everyone agree on. regards, david. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 > Benjamin wrote: > You may jump off a bridge and not like it, but it is still > all in your mind. > > David wrote: > Benjamin, if you jump off a bridge (don't do that), one > important thing will change: we will no longer have these > interesting conversations. As far as I can tell, there are > no dead people on this list. > David, I think you are a die-hard realist! Anyhow, believe me, it's all in your mind... Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 --- "Benjamin Root" wrote: > > > Benjamin wrote: > > You may jump off a bridge and not like it, but it is still > > all in your mind. > > > > David wrote: > > Benjamin, if you jump off a bridge (don't do that), one > > important thing will change: we will no longer have these > > interesting conversations. As far as I can tell, there are > > no dead people on this list. > > > > David, I think you are a die-hard realist! > > Anyhow, believe me, it's all in your mind... Dear Benjamin-Ji, I think you are a die-hard phenomenologist (i.e., everything is in the mind . This group, our conversation, constitutes an undeniable "we-space" consisting of many (imaginary?) subjects in intersubjective communion that you apparently wish to deny. dave. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 praNAm Sri Gokulanandathirtha prabhuji Hare Krishna >From your mail, prabhuji, it seems that you are from dvaita school. I do agree that there is a considerable difference of opinion between these two schools on philosophical view points. But since this list is exclusively dedicated to discuss shankara's work & hindu dharma in general & advaita vedAnta in particular, I sincerely request you to check for the appropriateness of the premise before propagating dvaita phil. Just two months back this list has witnessed vociferous attack from dvaita scholars resulting in unfriendly end to the discussion. Hence, you may present your views in Sri Benjamin prabhuji's new list *clearvoid* (ofcourse, if he permits) if you wanted to have a more open & meaningful discussion on these issues. This is only a friendly/cautionary advice to you prabhuji, before moderators of this list jump on you!!! Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Note from the List Moderators: The list very much appreciates view points from members who believe in other Vedantic, neo-vedantic and non-vedantic philosophical schools of thoughts. The purpose of this list (well stated in the FAQ) is to enhance the understanding of Advaita philosophy and consequently the members need to understand the various philosophies. Those who search through the list archives will notice that the list had lengthy discussions on various philosophies. The moderators do expect posters to keep their discussions within scope defined in the scope of the list. If and when the discussions start distort and divert away from spirituality, the moderators will intervene and curtail such discussions. Dear Sir, I am from the dvaita school , but my vidya guru was an advaitic scholar. I do not have any intention to create any problems here. I just presented some views. I respect AchArya shankara to the core. I have no intention of 'attacking' or creating any trouble. I have always regarded AchArya shankara as the champion of the cause of hindudharma punarujjeevana. But none the less , it is said in the vedas that one should gain knowledge by discussions and svAdhyAya (in taitareeya). So please dont think i am here for a show down. I just present some of the views. It is for everyone to take it as they like applying the "hamsaksheeranyaaya". nAham karthA harih karthA gokulAnandatIrtha advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > praNAm Sri Gokulanandathirtha prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > From your mail, prabhuji, it seems that you are from dvaita school. I do > agree that there is a considerable difference of opinion between these two > schools on philosophical view points. But since this list is exclusively 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.