[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Advaita (was Re: new site etc)
vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>For the sake of actually communicating with everyone else, it would
>help if you didn't create your own definitions. Given that there are a
>lot of non-ISKCON Gaudiyas, calling them "ISKCONites" is about as
>correct as calling all advaitins "Vivekanandaites".
Oh, OK. Since I explained once I thought you wouldn't mind, anyway. But one
question, is Prabhupada accepted by all Gaudiyas as a guru in their line? I'm
not talking about fringe opinions, but rather what the general opinion+opinion
of the usual aacharyaas. Just curious.
>>I find neo-advaita significantly less appealing, both from an
>Pray, what is neo-advaita?
>To put it politely, it's the philosophy spouted by people who claim to
>be advaitins, but who don't really seem all that closely linked with
>classical advaita.
Quite a vague definition, Maybe I haven't met any of these people, I have met
only people who agree with Shankara, Ramana.
>>>intellectual standpoint, and from a standpoint of "beauty", than
>>
>>Advaita is not about beauty. It's about self-realization.
>Your comments sound quite a bit drier and more bland than the actual
>famous advaitins of the past. Of course, this doesn't surprise me.
Is that so? Please tell us about these comments and the various works on
advaita you have read which contradict me.
>You might try the Van Gogh museum instead of Advaita for beauty.
>Given that there are most definitely advaitins who wrote beautiful
>things, I'll pass on your interpretation.
In poetry there are two things : The way of saying it and what is being said.
Ofcourse many advaitins were good poets also. But the more important thing is
the message, ofcourse for you it may be different.
>>And anyone reading Advaita for "beauty" is only a mere intellectual.
>>Many of us are rather serious practitioners.
>
>And in one felled swoop, you've not only rewritten history, but you've
>also established yourself well above those "less serious
>practitioners" (or were they charlatans in your opinion?) of the past.
>Congratulations. Humility is so overrated, and I'm glad to see you
>don't bother with that conventional wisdom.
History of what? Advaitin teachers have always told that the realized persons
are beyond practice (Shankara, Ramana). Ramana has always insisted that reading
more and more and wanting to write poetry etc are within the realm of the mind
and if not realized it is important to practice concentration etc, to gain
strength for doing aatma vichaara. From my conversation with Bharati teerta
Swami (present pontiff of Sringeri) when he came to our house, I gathered the
same idea from him. Of course you may know better.
The fact is I am not realized and believe that reading the basic works of
advaita+intense practice is what is required for me. My roommates who are also
advaitins feel the same way. Giri has told similar things on e-mail to me. I
just presented the opinions of people who I know to be advaitins.
>I have.
>
>>Can you point out some of them to me?
>
>Since you ask, I'll give you two examples - see Vidya's posts or
>Anand's posts. In my opinion, they are significantly better than those
>of many of the other people who claim to be advaitins.
I haven't seen many posts of theirs in srh, I was an on/off reader of ah and
started only around Oct '95 or so. However let me put the question to Anand and
Vidya : Is advaita trying to be "beautiful" or point out the truth and make
people work toward realization? The poetry of people who write advaitic tests
may be good (ex. Shiva Bhujangam of Shankara), but is that what they are trying
to achieve?
>>>a lot of the people who claim to be philosophically linked to
>>>Sankaracharya just don't seem to be on his level. Granted, these
>>
>>Did anyone claim to be Shankara here?
>
>Please re-read those sentences.
>
>>Most of us are sadhakas (I presume) and
>>trying to attain self-realization and not prove that we are aacharyaas. And of
>>course I have to presume that you perfectly know on what level Shankara was.
>
>To give you a more concrete example, if I have a bar of gold and a
>pile of refuse, I don't have to know the exact value of each to
>determine which is more valuable. Of course, if I have a bar of gold
>and a bar of platinum, life becomes harder.
Cute analogy, but totally wrong place. You made the comment about Shankara as
if it is pretty normal to expect Shankara's level from every one. That is why I
made my statement.
>>I also find it quite funny that you expect us to be on the level of Shankara,
>
>I don't. Please re-read that section carefully before jumping to this
>sort of erroneous conclusion. Specifically, _three_ different types of
>people are mentioned, and the followers of Shankaracharya are not
>listed in two two sentences, as far as I know.
Please re-read your own sentence again and realize that it could also be
interpreted the way I said.
>>Should I be surprised? Did you think I even cared? Or did you think my aim in
>>life is to "convert" ISKCONites to advaita? What do I care whether you had
>>your Guru's approval or not?
>
>Given that you keep on referring to people as "ISKCONites", then it
>should be pointed out that you are most definitely incorrect. However,
>I was not aware that you were redefining English words to your own
>fancy. I'll be more careful in the future to figure out what you
>_really_ mean when you use already existing labels.
Again do you think I care whether you got anyone's approval?
>>???!!!
>
>If you have a specific question, ask it. If not, abuse punctuation to
>your heart's content.
For sanctimonious preaching like yours, punctuation is the best way.
>>???!!! May I know what you are trying to talk about? Why are you so concerned
>>about whether there will be Hindus or not? They will exist as long as there
>>are people who can set an example exist.
>
>Then I'm even more convinced that in a generation, there won't be any
>Hindus born in the US.
Well, we are in the realm of speculation here, I think there have always been
Hindus who can set examples and won't disappear suddenly.
>Like I said above, feel free to "stoop" to the level of your
>"opponents", if that's what you feel you want to do.
No my opponents are so much in paatala that I can't stoop that low (even if I
want to)
>>denigrating everything else. I am really curious, don't you see the circular
>>logic involved in this Paadma puraaNa stuff?
>
>Do you fail to see your own hypocrisy? You are supposedly railing on
>Prabhupada for your perception that he talks about stuff which he
>doesn't understand, in your opinion, but now, you're asking me to
>believe that you've somehow proved some circularity of logic in the
>Padma Purana? Thanks, but I'll pass. The irony is just too heavy.
I clearly pointed out the circularity in logic, but you never made an attempt
to answer it.
>Ah, we've now entered the realm of "know-nothing Hinduism", where it's
>cool and hip to be stupid.
You are just describing yourself.
>>Self-reform first, as THE man himself said "Let he who is not guilty cast the
>>first stone".
>
>I believe that should be "he who is without sin", but I might be mistaken.
I don't believe the meaning changed, however you are obsessed only with
trivialities.
>>Instead, why not
>>try to be "moral" and tell children that they are trying their best and that
>>they too should too and EXPLAIN why. IMHO, that's a good way.
>
>>ut wait - won't that make all the immoral people feel bad? After all,
>>hat have they done wrong that you want to define their behavior as
>>mmoral? Can't we all be moral be definition. Why doesn't someone with
>>he right authority declare that "everything is moral", so that way,
>>eaching the children becomes a no-brainer?
Is that what I said? There is no connection between what I said and your
interpretations.
>>Finally, others are also trying to do small services in their own way. You
>>have no exclusive right over that.
>I don't believe I ever claimed that I did, but thank you very much for
>the strawman argument and the non sequitur, not to mention the
>gratuitous righteous indignation. You've made my weekend.
>
Ooooh, look who is talking about righteous indignation. I was talking about
something else and you bring in the sentence "at least I am doing blah blaagh"
etc and I merely pointed that out.
Reply one more time, raving and ranting about neo-advaita and how the future of
Hinduism in the US depends on you. But if you have the intellect please
criticize the circular argument I pointed out, Also for the edification of srh
please post a 2 page article on advaita, ofcourse you can rave and rant about
neo-advaita in one more page.
You haven't disappointed me in this post. Your leaps of logic and sanctimonious
preaching are getting better.
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/
