Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 YES, IF THE OBSERVER IS BIPLOAR. PLEASE TAKE THIS AS A JOKE. I SAW YOU POURING ON OUR LIST. HAVE SOME RESPITE AND, IF POSSIBLE, LAUGH. _ advaitin , " fewtch " <core101 wrote: > > This has probably been covered, but one " weakness " I find in Vedanta > (not a complaint, just speculative observation): Why introduce neti- > neti - probably the handiest tool in the box - then go on to assert so > many things such as the Absolute Reality, the Self, the Supreme, > Brahman, etc.? > > Sometimes I think Vedanta goes a little too far in asserting, but > Buddhism negates a bit too much. Perhaps it's typical of human > history - drift toward the polar ends of the spectrum seems > inevitable :-). > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 PraNams It is not weekness in Vedanta - it is in our weakness in identifying all the time with, I am this, I am this, which excludes that, where that includes the Vedanta that you find has weakness. Inclusions and exclusions is the fundamental problem of our egos. As long as it is there Vedanta keep screeming at us that we are not this nor that but inclusive of all this and that and yet beyond and not exclusion of everything as suunyavaada. Some of this was covered in Analysis of the Mind -5 posted few days back. Hari Om! Sadananda --- fewtch <core101 wrote: > This has probably been covered, but one " weakness " I > find in Vedanta > (not a complaint, just speculative observation): Why > introduce neti- > neti - probably the handiest tool in the box - then > go on to assert so > many things such as the Absolute Reality, the Self, > the Supreme, > Brahman, etc.? > > Sometimes I think Vedanta goes a little too far in > asserting, but > Buddhism negates a bit too much. Perhaps it's > typical of human > history - drift toward the polar ends of the > spectrum seems > inevitable :-). > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > PraNams > It is not weekness in Vedanta - it is in our weakness > in identifying all the time with, I am this, I am > this, Agreed - but doesn't it encourage to identify " I am Brahman? " Brahman is just a concept to the seeker unless/until realized, so why did Shankaracharya emphasize this? Substitute identification with a different concept instead of " me? " It's a little bit puzzling from here. > which excludes that, where that includes the > Vedanta that you find has weakness. Not a true weakness, just a kind of non-strong-point I guess. > Hari Om! > Sadananda Namaste, brother... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Mr Fewtch - PraNAms. Sir - I suggest that you first study Vedanta before making wild statements about Vedanta. Who said Brahman is a concept. Brahman means infiniteness. How infinite can can be conceptualized. Brahman means consciousness. If you conceptualize Brahman, it becomes non-Brahman. Can you conceptualize yourself? Are you concept or an idea are a fact? I suggest that you first study Vedanta properly before you can find faults with it or weaknesses in it. Now let me ask you what is the purpose of your joining this list. To learn or to make your wild statements about Vedanta without understanding it? Hari Om! Sadananda --- fewtch <core101 wrote: > advaitin , kuntimaddi > sadananda > <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > PraNams > > It is not weekness in Vedanta - it is in our > weakness > > in identifying all the time with, I am this, I am > > this, > > Agreed - but doesn't it encourage to identify " I am > Brahman? " > Brahman is just a concept to the seeker unless/until > realized, so why > did Shankaracharya emphasize this? Substitute > identification with a > different concept instead of " me? " It's a little > bit puzzling from > here. > > > which excludes that, where that includes the > > Vedanta that you find has weakness. > > Not a true weakness, just a kind of non-strong-point > I guess. > > > Hari Om! > > Sadananda > > Namaste, brother... > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Mr Fewtch - PraNAms. > > Sir - I suggest that you first study Vedanta before > making wild statements about Vedanta. Who said Brahman > is a concept. Sri Sadananda, all words are concepts. > Brahman means infiniteness. Words that have meaning are concepts. Is this not clear? The map isn't the territory. That's what I was referring to in the last msg you responded to. If there's a cup on my desk, it's clear. Truth lies in clarity, words represent mind-monkey screeching -- particularly the broad base of assumptions based on the ego-momentum. For example, I'm told there's such thing as " existence, " and I should believe it because " You know what it means, you know. " All falsehood is based on assumption and taking things for granted. I'm not accusing you of it, just noting. If one is Realized, they are one with Brahman and don't have to keep thinking about it. But prior, it's a word given some arbitrary meaning. Namaste and Peace... 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.