Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 There have, as yet, not been very many offers for weekly definitions. There is cuurently much discussion on topics that utilize key words that will require definitions eventually viz. avidyA, mAyA, hiraNyagarbha etc. Can I suggest that the main participants formulate definitions for these while they are fresh in the mind and let me know that they have done so and I will schedule them in for the near future. A reminder that these should be relatively short - 3 or 4 paragraphs and only use words that have previously been defined Best wishes Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Dennis-ji : i perfectly understand where you are coming from . May i however say something ? . This group was started in August of 1998 and has now 1536 members. THe total number of messages are 34429 . In a group such as this consisting of so many seasoned and learned advaitins , it is unrealistic to expect that the most commonly used terms in Advaita will not be used in the postings ... Take for instance , the verses on the Group page - a whole lot of sanskrit terms have been used . Although a translation has been provided , there is no word by word translation . MANY OF US ARE FAMILIAR WITH THESE VERSES - although all of us cannot fully comprehend the finer nuances of concepts such as 'equanimity' -Smabhava? Can we honestly say we treat all beings as same ? ( my dog will bemore special to me than my neighbor's dog , is it not ) The point is THIS - INSTAED OF GOING FOR WEEKLY DEFINITIONS , HOW ABOUT* BI-WEEKLY *DEFINITIONS ? a week is too long a time to ponder on and discuss one word - Adhyasa - but to fully comprehend the concept of 'adhyasa' may take months and months ... do you see where am i ecoming from ? In the past , we have seen how no consensus was reached even on this concept of Adhyasa ! Tonyji said in his post - there is no rope and no snake ! how profound ! but tony-ji , who is making this observation ? there is no observer and no object to be observed , too ! and another point is all words are interconnected in Advaita - Maya is not a *standalone* word . When you discuss the concept of Maya , you cannot ignore the concepts of avidya and vidya ! nor can you ignore the veiling power of maya ( avarna shakti) so on and so on . It will take a genius to describe 'maya' without using these other terms , for in Advaita , all words are interconnected and intertwined ! can adhyasa be discussed without 'maya ' ? can Atma be discussed without BRAHMAN ? CAN BRAHMAN BE DISCUSSED WITHOUT BRINGING IN RELATED SANSKRIT WORDS ? IN SANSKRIT , A WORD , ITS MEANING AND CONNOTATION ARE INSEPERABLE . fOR INSTANCE , MAYA in one context may refer to 'illusion' , in another context , it may refer to 'money' . It may also refer to 'delusion' , AS PROFESSORJI RIGHTLY pointed out - Maya is neither real or unreal - it is distinct - sat-asat-vilakshana . someone asked if Maya and avidya are synonyms - not necessarily . Maya can be of two types - vidya maya and avidya maya . Then again, when we discuss vidya maya, can we ignore discrinmination ( viveka- sanskrit) and detatchment ( nir-moha ) ? Similarly , when we discuss avidya maya , can we ignore gunas ( qualities) ? my question is are we simply trying to describe words and their simple meanings for beginners where a one liner would be sufficient or are we trying to define words and their significance in advaita philosophy ? Just thinking aloud forgive me if i have said anything i ought not to "The language of truth is simple." Advaita is simple but profound . A zen poem says 'not two , not two ' with best wishes advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote: > > There have, as yet, not been very many offers for weekly definitions. > There is cuurently much discussion on topics that utilize key words > that will require definitions eventually viz. avidyA, mAyA, > hiraNyagarbha etc. Can I suggest that the main participants formulate > definitions for these while they are fresh in the mind and let me know > that they have done so and I will schedule them in for the near future. > > A reminder that these should be relatively short - 3 or 4 paragraphs > and only use words that have previously been defined > > Best wishes > > Dennis > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati" <dhyanasaraswati wrote: > > Dennis-ji : > > i perfectly understand where you are coming from . > I believe the general consensus is that a definition can use other words that have not yet been defined with the proviso that a) a brief definition is given (no more than half a dozen words) and b) the word is highlighted so that, when the word is given a full definition in the future, a hyperlink can be added to the highlighted word. Best wishes, Dennis 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.