Advaita and the -isms

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji,

 

I appreciate the way in which you noticed the sequence of flow in my

original message !! My praNams to you.

 

I agree to your words regarding the limitation of language in 'explaining'

the Truth. No wonder the Upanishads say 'It can only be expressed as 'Not

this, Not this''. The point you had mentioned about 'Faith' in AchArya and

in the scriptures is very right. That is all I have with me now.

 

Hari Om

PS: My messages are taking more than a day to get posted in the list.

Sunderji, can you please check it?

 

 

-

"Ram Chandran" <RamChandran

> The sages of the Upanishdas have understood that the Brahmin cann't

> be defined using 'words and phrases.' The statement, 'That, it is"

> summarizes our inability to describe using words. The reason that we

> accept the Sankara's advaita philosophy is quite simple (complex!):

> We have faith in the wisdom of Sankara, the Vedas and the sages of

> the Upanishads. Those who believe in other 'isms' are likely have

> different understanding of the 'Truth.' The saying, that we have to

> go beyond our 'intellect' to realize the truth confirms the fact

> that 'Truth' can't be described by words!!

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namasre Ramji,

 

Sorry, I missed to answer your question.

 

The question of 'How' doesn't arise with 'The absence of knowledge of the

Self'.

Any answer you give to that question is also in Ignorance.

 

Something in Ignorance cannot explain the cause of Ignorance.

Can you see the battery used in a torch with the light of that torch itself?

No.

So these objections regarding 'How', 'What' and 'Why' of Ignorance is not

valid in the realm of Ignorance.

Only something outside ignorance can explain Ignorance. But once you are out

of ignorance, where is the ignorance for which you want the answers? This is

the stance taken by our AchArya regarding the foolish objections based on

Ignorance. We can find this in BSB and also in Gita bhAshyam.

 

It is not escaping the objection.

It is showing the hollow nature of the objection.

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

-

"Ram Chandran" <RamChandran

>

> "Brahman is changeless, homogenous and One without a second. How

> then did this world of plurality come about? The absence of

> Knowledge of the Self about its own true nature give rise to the

> wrong Knowledge. This wrong knowledge is what we see in this

> empirical world as name and form (nAma-rUpa)."

>

> You have verbalized the Brahman by saying that He is changeless,

> homogenous and One without a second. Then you raise the

> question, "How then did this world of plurality come about?" Your

> answer, "The absence of knowledge of the Self about its own true

> nature give rise to wrong knowledge." Why didn't you continue with

> the next question, "How did the absence of knowledge of the Self

> about its own nature come?" your verbalization of the question on

> the 'Truth' provided a 'verbal answer' but instantaneously brought a

> new question directly focused on the same 'verbal answer.' I don't

> believe that a debate on 'Truth' will ever end satisfactorily

> with 'words' alone!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raj,

You started off in your first paragraph extolling the preamble as

the key to the

understanding of the B.S.B. as a whole. Here was an opportunity for you to

focus on the text

and base your analysis on it. Unless you do that how are we to distinguish

personal flights of

fancy from Sankara's actual thinking. No I'm afraid boring and scholastic

though it be

citation, chapter & verse,analysis and comment are the crampons that allow the

hardy band of

climbers to traverse the smooth face of that Kailas of wisdom and understanding.

 

Realism and Idealism are genera of which there are many species. Some of the

more florid

specimens may be assigned a provisional home and that in itself may block

understanding. 'Don't

think, look and see'(Wittgenstein ?) and that means what the French call

'expication du texte'(?

correct).

 

Even such a one as myself who is not a Hindu and without faith in the Vedas and

with no

automatic regard for Sankara as a culture hero can by following his arguments

and reflecting on

them achieve a fair degree of understanding. Nor do I accept that if one

understood perfectly

then one would have to be enlightened as that leaves out a goodly number of

sainted folk who

never heard of Advaita.

 

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

The reason that we accept the Sankara's advaita philosophy is quite simple

(complex!):

We have faith in the wisdom of Sankara, the Vedas and the sages of the

Upanishads.

 

praNAm Sri Ramachandran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

With your kind permission, I'd like to say that it is not with mere faith

we are approaching shankara praNIta advaita siddhAnta. Shankara/shruti-s

gives us various means (adhyArOpa apavAda nyAya, avasthA traya, panchakosha

prakriya etc.) to understand logically atmaikatva vidyA which is in turn

applicable to all irrespective on one's school of thought. That is the

reason why Shankara in sUtra bhAshya says, shruti alone is not the final

means of knowledge in the case of the enquiry into the nature of

parabrahman. We can treat only shruti-s are means in the case of *dharma

jignAsa* (religious duty) whereas in *brahma jignAsa* the knowledge of

brahman is vastu tantra so, shruti as well as intuition are the means of

knowledge. Since the knowledge should culminate in intuition, we should

consider intuitive knowledge also gained through shruti pratipAdya

Atmaikatva vidyA.

 

This is my humble understanding prabhuji. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji,

 

I presume this message was for me.

 

 

-

"ombhurbhuva" <ombhurbhuva

> Namaste Raj,

> You started off in your first paragraph extolling the preamble

as the key to the

> understanding of the B.S.B. as a whole. Here was an opportunity for you

to focus on the text

> and base your analysis on it. Unless you do that how are we to

distinguish personal flights of

> fancy from Sankara's actual thinking. No I'm afraid boring and scholastic

though it be

> citation, chapter & verse,analysis and comment are the crampons that allow

the hardy band of

> climbers to traverse the smooth face of that Kailas of wisdom and

understanding.

 

 

Yes, that would have been most appropriate. It gives the opportunity for all

to check the original. Next time, I will do so.

 

> Realism and Idealism are genera of which there are many species. Some of

the more florid

> specimens may be assigned a provisional home and that in itself may block

understanding. 'Don't

> think, look and see'(Wittgenstein ?) and that means what the French call

'expication du texte'(?

> correct).

 

 

I havent been fortunate enough to read much of western philosophy.

 

> Even such a one as myself who is not a Hindu and without faith in the

Vedas and with no

> automatic regard for Sankara as a culture hero can by following his

arguments and reflecting on

> them achieve a fair degree of understanding. Nor do I accept that if one

understood perfectly

> then one would have to be enlightened as that leaves out a goodly number

of sainted folk who

> never heard of Advaita.

 

 

How many understood the relativity theory and how many 'really' understood

the relativity theory?

 

> Best Wishes, Michael.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhasker Prabhuji:

 

You are quite correct and everything that you have stated confirms

your faith in the statements from our scriptures. Without faith, we

can't maintain the feeling, that everything that believe

is 'logically consistent!' Intellectual understanding and logic

always starts with some basic premises (axioms, definitions,

assumptions, etc.) Those who accept and agree with those basic

premises do not find logical inconsistencies and others always

discover logical fallacies. All that I tried to say is that it is

impossible to describe 'the unkonown Truth' using words, which can

only explain known Truth. When we use the words to explain, we

should be fully aware that the 'unknown Truth' is beyond the world

of words.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> We can treat only shruti-s are means in the case of *dharma

> jignAsa* (religious duty) whereas in *brahma jignAsa* the

knowledge of

> brahman is vastu tantra so, shruti as well as intuition are the

means of

> knowledge. Since the knowledge should culminate in intuition, we

should

> consider intuitive knowledge also gained through shruti pratipAdya

> Atmaikatva vidyA.

>

> This is my humble understanding prabhuji. Kindly correct me if I

am wrong.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

As an advaitin, I accept your 'words' but those who do not believe

the 'stance taken by Sanakaracharya' may read and understand

the 'words' in BSB and Gita differently and come to a different

conclusion. From the advaitic point of view (Advaita Philosophy

theolized by Sankara) objections of others are considered 'foolish'

and out of ignorance. The medium of 'words' can at the most

produce 'puzzles' and interesting discussions but not necessarily

resolutions!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> .....

> Only something outside ignorance can explain Ignorance. But once

you are out

> of ignorance, where is the ignorance for which you want the

answers? This is

> the stance taken by our AchArya regarding the foolish objections

based on

> Ignorance. We can find this in BSB and also in Gita bhAshyam.

>

> It is not escaping the objection.

> It is showing the hollow nature of the objection.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ramji,

 

Let me clarify,

You wrote:

>From the advaitic point of view (Advaita Philosophy

> theolized by Sankara) objections of others are considered 'foolish'

> and out of ignorance.

 

They are not 'considered' foolish, since then it appears that

Shankara was egotistic. But they ARE foolish since they are out of

ignorance and Shankara was the Samyak-sambuddha. Shankara was

triumphant at Kashmir, not because he was well learned, but because

he was enlightened. The others were also learned.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam