[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Advaita and personal existence (was something else)
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>In article <4ick4h$t8g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>The one with esoteric questions thought:
>
>>>Indeed. While I am not interested in assailing the personal character of the
>>>person who made this claim, I must note that it is indeed a bold one coming
>>>from someone whose idea of philosophy is to deny his own existence. One has
>to
>
>>I am not surprised at your ignorance (Advaita asking one to deny his own
>existence). After all, your knowledge (actually ignorance) of Advaita is from
>>throughly illogical arguments by Prabhupada.
>
>Once more, you make bold assertions as if they are self-evident, preferring
>always to stay away from detail. The interesting thing is, it was from YOU
>whom I learned that one must deny his personal existence.
>
>In fact, Advaita starts from the
>>opposite end, one's personal existence is the only thing which always IS and
>>verifiable directly.
Is it? One knows that one exists during waking and dream states. Also the
feeling "I slept" exists and continuity in the "I" is always present. Thus it is
obvious that one's personal existence is never doubted. This is the first thing
any Advaitic book talks about. But then you prefer to remain in ignorance and
form your opinions from fifth rate articles, what can I do?
If you read the "talks with Ramana" or "Vicharasangraham" etc this is the FIRST
point always emphasized. In fact, my father, who introduced me to philosophy
asked me this question when I was in high school and explained the principle of
Advaita. Oh, ofcourse THE man himself explains it in Gaudapada karika. So I
would have never said that "I" don't exist.
Please point out when I denied my personal existence. I would have said "I"
don't exist in the sense of mind or senses, but the true "I" is beyond these
two. This is seen by using elementary arguments (see for ex. Vicharasangraham).
In any case it should have been obvious from the context, but I did presume
that the reader had atleast average intelligence and knew the basics of
advaita, well I guess I have to live and learn. Ken seemed to follow what I
was saying perfectly, I had an extended discussion with him on this topic.
I had a small discussion with Shrisha Rao and Vidya also, if I remember.
>First you say that you have no personal existence, and now you say you do.
>It's clear to me that you have no idea what Advaita is, what to speak of other
>systems of Vedanta.
It is clear to me that you need a pair of spectacles and/or a basic course in
English and more importantly logic.
>Anyway, the orignal point stands. For you, the whole world is an illusion. So
>why should I accept anything you say? You are also an illusion, according to
>your own so-called philosophy.
I did not ask you to accept anything sir, you can wallow in your own ignorance.
I presume you know Newton's law of inertia.
>Once again, carefully avoiding substance, you make assertions you cannot
>support. I find it amusing that you believe I have shown myself "to be
>unwilling to engage in any logical argument," you who are not even sure of
>your own existence. Then you state that "your arguments on paramparaa has
>[sic] been taken apart by Ken and I many times." I will give you a chance to
>argue against paramparaa in my other reply. For now, I can only say it
>is amusing that you must rely on Ken, who equates worship of Beavis and
>Butt-head and TVs with worship of Vishnu.
Poor Ken. He merely said that going to the temple and thinking about Beavis and
Butthead is worse than thinking the true form of God to be B&B and worshiping
them. You comprehension of simple statements is quite astounding. I am
reminded of the adage "A jaundiced man sees everything yellow".
>Anyway, I am not going to further this discussion about who pulled whose nose
>and when. You stated that you find Prabhupada's translation is absurd. What
>translation was absurd? Tell us how it ought to be translated, or admit your
>ignorance and leave the discussion peacefully. The bottom line here, is that
The bottom line here is your ignorance. The verse from Shiva puraaNa was
translated AND interpreted absurdly. I pointed it out before.
Well, I remember how you ran for it when I explained how I did not personally
attack you, there was no reply :-). Also when Giri posted your esoteric
questions you again ran for it. Please post the answers you get for your
esoteric questions. I am not getting enough jokes from rhf and rec.humor is too
big to go through.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Salvation is the realisation of one's true self and the resulting bliss.
Shiva Purana I.13.66
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
