Date of Yoga Vashishta (and a comment on BSB)

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin,

Not being a scholar, I only met them

coming home, however, some of them hold that the

attribution of Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha to

Shankara is dubious. B.S.B. is definitely assigned to

his authorship as is Upadesasahasri his only non-

commentarial work. The latter I would recommend for

your perusal. It is a short work, Chap.II is a self

contained dialogue on the rational basis of advaita.

The deep sleep argument is given primacy.

 

What Shankara wrote was: Yes, you do speak like that,

since you have no curb to your mouth; but you do not

speak logically .....

 

This is different from your 'curb his mouth'. In

general Shankara rejects Buddhist teaching on Annata

(anatman/no self) and Annica (momentariness). On the

particular point about the status of objects my

banging on about it has been to counter your stance

which uncountered might be accepted by default. It's

an important button and should be clicked. Shri

Sadananda does not line up with your position on that

one either as he states "but it is not non-existence

of duality; otherwise Advaita would have been called

monism". It's the level of substratum that the unity

that underpins name and form is found.

Best Wishes, Michael

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

Sadanadaji said:

>The denial of duality is denial - hence it is not

>non-existence of duality; otherwise Advaita would

>have been called monism. There is no need to deny

>when duality does not exist at all.

 

I don't quite follow the subtlety of this logic. It seems to me that

one can deny some X precisely BECAUSE that X does not exist.

 

Also, frankly, it does seem to me that 'nonduality' is logically the

same as 'monism', in some sense, but perhaps I am being too prosaic.

 

>I know you understand it but I do not know why you

>need to embark the so-called idealism if that denies

>the transactional reality or so called common sense.

 

I was hoping that by saying that my understanding of 'idealism' was

the same as the Yoga Vasitha (or at least seems that way to me), then

people would be happy, since that is a revered Advaitin text. I

guess I was too optimistic. It doesn't matter. I will realize the

truth when the moment is right. After all, I'm also a determinist,

so this must be the case!

 

Still, it seemed to me that Michaelji's position on the BSB was even

more in conflict with your views (or any 'nondual' view) than

anything I said. That passage from the BSB clearly seems to me to

posit an 'object'. (I am referring to the *commentary* on the Brahma

Sutra II.2.28 by the so-called 'Shankara' as translated by Swami

Gambhirananda. I am not referring to the sutra itself, which is

indeed ambiguous and can be understood as you once described it.)

But now Michael says you agree with him! Oh well...

 

Also, I never denied the transactional reality that requires us to be

careful driving, as you later mention. I agree that a traffic

accident is unpleasant, but the entire experience is in

consciousness, just as a nightmare is in consciousness. It is as

simple as that.

 

Anyhow, the Yoga Vasistha seems to make a lot of sense to me and to

agree with what I think. So I will put my faith in it as a working

hypothesis and see where it leads...

 

 

 

Anandaji said:

>The whole point of considering deep sleep is that it

>points to animmediate experience that cannot be remembered

>from the past.

 

Well, if you don't remember deep sleep, and if all that you write and

say is done during the waking state, then how can you talk about it

at all? Again, I am perhaps being too dull and prosaic...

 

Anyhow, you later reminded us of what is often said in Advaitin

circles: that a guru is essential for realizing the truth. But what

is a guru? Can faith and sincerity substitute for a guru? Must it

be a guru of flesh? Must one be an 'official' sanyasin, complete

with orange robe? Can attending satsanghs with a good teacher do it?

What must be said during these satsanghs? Must the teacher

specifically choose you for grace, at least silently in his own mind,

or is it enough that he simply be speaking on the right topic to any

general audience?

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> The question then becomes whether these two mahavakyas are truly

> fundamental. One can also find more dualistic language in the

> Upanishads, which the Dvaitins and other dualists exploit. The

> question then arises whether all of the Upanishads are truly

> consistent and which are the most authentic ones. A western

scholar

> (or skeptical Indian scholar) can easily ask these questions, but

it

> must be often painful for a devoted traditional Advaitin.

>

 

Namaste

 

The question whether it is the dualistic language of an Upanishad

that is the final one or it is the non-dualistic language that is

final, can be resolved as follows.

 

Contention One: Ultimately there is only One, no second. But when we

come to the phenomenal world or we are engaged in a discussion, the

status of duality has to be presumed, because without duality there

cannot be any communication. But this duality is only phenomenal.

Beyond all phenomena, there is only non-duality. Thus non-duality is

true, in spite of the apparent duality.

 

This makes sense. But now let us look at the following contention

and the argument following.

 

Contention two: Ultimately there are two;

 

Argument: But when this has been said, any other statement that

there is only one without a second, will not make any sense at all.

Because when even in the ultimate situation there are two, how can

we accept that one of them disappears in any phenomenal

situation ? 'Ultimately' in Vedanta means it has to be ever-

present.

 

This single argument is enough, it appears, to maintain that all

bheda-shrutis are only secondary and only the abheda-shrutis are

primary. Therefore Contention two cannot hold. Q.E.D.

 

In fact any scripture which has even one non-duality assertion, must

ipso facto be considered as propagating advaita even if the other

parts of the same scripture talks in the language of duality. Such

language in such a situation is only a step-down for purposes of

communication or understanding! There is no question of any

inconsistency!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk