Why “Traditional Advaita” has not relevance to liberation.

[Guest guest]

Since there has not yet been any moderator comment on this as yet, I feel I

should make a few points.

 

First of all, the posted article was unattributed. (The guidelines are that

all quotations should be.) In fact, it was written by Tony Parsons, in

(unattributed!) response to articles by myself

(http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/path/neo_advaita.htm ) and Alan Jacobs

(http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/neoadvaita_jacobs.htm ).

 

The reason that it is inappropriate for this list has nothing to do with the

relative merits of traditional and neo-advaita. It is simply that this list

has its expressed purpose as being to discuss the subject of Advaita *as

taught by shaMkara*.

 

As far as the content of the article is concerned, it simply misses the

point that the 'traditional' method does *not* have a 'fundamental

misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual'. It

simply *starts* with this position since that is the apparent situation of

the apparent person in this apparent world. The approach of shaMkara, from

whom all traditional teachings derive, is one of adhyAropa and apavAda -

false attribution followed by subsequent retraction. Now *that* is am

appropriate topic for the list. Unfortunately, we covered this some months

ago...

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Since there has not yet been any moderator comment on this as yet,

Hi Dennis.

Why not ask for honest commentaries about the pro/con of the

articles.Why the insistence in hiding the article under the rug? Are

the article arguments so devasting for the traditional

establishment?

> First of all, the posted article was unattributed. (The guidelines

are that

> all quotations should be.) In fact, it was written by Tony Parsons,

Now the article is in agreement with the guidelines.

>In response to articles by myself

> (http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/path/neo_advaita.htm ) and

Alan Jacobs

I have found a lot of contraditions in your article,I'm ready to

share my findings.

(http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/neoadvaita_jacobs.htm )

Do you will go to include the Tony Parsons article about traditional

Advaita with the one's from you and Alan in your site? Just for

comparations purposes?

> The reason that it is inappropriate for this list has nothing to do

with the

> relative merits of traditional and neo-advaita. It is simply that

this list

> has its expressed purpose as being to discuss the subject of

Advaita *as

> taught by shaMkara*.

Do you know that ShaMkara was a lover of debates and inappropiate

article.He was never a dogmatism follower. He was one of the

best "moderator" ever.He accepted any assumption and was ready to

smash it to nothing.Other good "moderator" was Nagarjuna.We can learn

from both.

> As far as the content of the article is concerned, it simply misses

the

> point that the 'traditional' method does *not* have a 'fundamental

> misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual'.

It

> simply *starts* with this position since that is the apparent

situation of

> the apparent person in this apparent world.

The Pure Advaita approach bypasses the mind and its more

complicated "ardous and more is better or easier doing nothing is

better" assumptions.The arguments that dualistics traditional

practices can lead the apparent seeker to the nondualistic

realizations is similar to the idea that with sufficient effort and

determination you can get water from a mirage.The point is who is it

that is going to choose to make the effort? How can a illusion dispel

itself? Pure Advaita is not a teaching and is beyong understanding

and the mind limited ideas of becoming destiny,free will,karma,and

personal attainment and religious["we have thousand of years of

tradition"]

dogmatism.

>approach of shaMkara, from

> whom all traditional teachings derive, is one of adhyAropa and

apavAda -

> false attribution followed by subsequent retraction. Now *that* is

am

> appropriate topic for the list. Unfortunately, we covered this some

months

> ago...

Covered some months ago? Anything that need to be remembered can't be

the Truth.This Itsness, Being timeless can never be achieved or

contained.It's continuously available.It's always at hand,in an

eternal state of readiness.It is already what is as it is.

Clarity

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

Hi Rudi,

 

<<The Advaitin List's homepage says "... to exchange viewpoints on

Shankara's Advaita Philosophy". Would a contribution criticising his

philosophy, even if misguided, not be "an expression of a viewpoint" on his

philosophy? I understand that you would want to keep off-topic contributions

off the list, but contributions questioning assumptions underlying

discussions on a list - even if erroneous - are still on-topic.>>

 

It is more a matter of attitude, as noted by your other comment ('The

Advaitin homepage also says "to help members to develop an attitude ... (of)

.... an open mind". Quite.') The spirit of this list is one of earnest

enquirers seeking guidance and discussion on topics relating to the teaching

of Shankara, where Shankara is regarded as an authority second only to the

prasthAna traya. It is fine to ask 'what does Shankara mean by this?'. It is

not acceptable to say 'What Shankara says is a load of rubbish'.

 

On another list (Satsangdiary, for example), this would be perfectly ok (and

expected!). Unlike most other lists, members are *required* to be respectful

to teachers about who they write and to others. If not, they become

moderated and, if they persist, removed from the list. And this policy works

extremely well! Hope this all makes sense.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis