[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Advaita (was Re: new site etc)
In article <4io5ml$k2m@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
|> 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.
Given that Prahupada represents one branch of the Gaudiyas, it's not
surprising to find people who are Gaudiyas but who do not accept
Prabhupada as one of their gurus. They respect him, but they don't
personally accept him.
|> >>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.
I've met people who say that they do, but whose words don't.
|> >>>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.
The ever present "of course for you it may be different", or "of course,
you may know better" gets a little tiring after a while.
|> >>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.
I was pointing out that the claim of being a "rather serious practitioner"
is just a teensy bit on the arrogant side, is it not? That, plus the fact
that the statement that "anyone... reading for beauty" is quite a bit more
broad than would be justifiable. If you had said "anyone reading _only_
for beauty", then I'd have had no qualms with it.
|> 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?
I don't think the answer particularly matters, since the question is off-target
to begin with. You're asking them to defeat the strawman you created.
|> >>>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.
You interpreted the statement incorrectly, so please don't state that I made
the comment, because I didn't.
Here is what I _did_ say:
" I have no problem with disagreement,
and I have no problem with people stating viewpoints which differ
from mine, but I find a vast range of quality in the posts which
these days get lumped under "advaita". Needless to say, these stem
not only from the authors themselves, but also from the people
whose viewpoints those authors are representing. To put it nicely,
a lot of the people who claim to be philosophically linked to
Sankaracharya just don't seem to be on his level."
I mention that in some cases, the posts lumped as "advaita" vary
greatly because of the authors, or because of the people the authors
are representing.
So, an advaita post could be "bad" because the author is representing
Shankaracharya poorly.
However, the author might be perfectly representing Swami Bob of
Swami Bob's Vedanta Center and Fast Food Grill, and the post might be
of poor quality nonetheless.
That's where the next statement comes in: "To put it nicely..."
After all, Swami Bob might claim to be philosophically linked to
Shankaracharya, but he just might not be on the same level.
Incidentally, there are a lot more people that claim to be linked
to Shankaracharya than you seem to be mentioning. That is perhaps
the source of the confusion. I'd name some of them who I consider
to be "neo-advaita", but then that would only cause their followers
to get up in arms, etc., etc.
|> >>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.
Perhaps, but when I pointed out that your interpretation was not
correct, why bother pushing the issue?
|> >>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?
Why do you keep asking me whether or not I think you care?
This seems to be a standard rhetorical device in your last
post, and it pops up here as well. Frankly, the question is
rather pointless.
|>
|> >>???!!!
|> >
|> >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.
"bhaja punctuation, bhaja punctuation, bhaja punctuation" - it is the
only 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)
It seems a bit ironic that I'm being accused of being sanctimonious.
|> >>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.
By your own logic, you shouldn't have even asked the question,
and _that_ is what I have said. If you'll explain to me first
why you are entitled to ask the question (by your own logic),
then I'll be more than happy 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.
How clever - take away the context, and then come up with a retort
which is remnisicent of a 4-th grade playground: "I know you are
but what am I? I know you are but what am I?"
Let me point out that this was in response to your claim that it was
somehow inherently wrong to attack the logic of other gurus - a
claim which isn't supported by history.
|> >>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.
I only pointed it out because you oddly chose to capitalize "THE".
If you're going to claim to be quoting "THE man", then it does seem
a bit odd that you get the quote wrong, doesn't it?
|> >>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.
Sure there is a connection - you used the word "moral", but that is most
definitely a value judgement, and given that there are people who don't
see eye to eye on things like that, it's an odd choice of terms in light
of your recent criticism.
After all, your criticism of Prabhupada stems from a "I'll show you!"
attitude towards Krishna Susarla, so if you are suggesting that there
is some "moral" standpoint that should be shown to kids, then it's not
clear how that can be reconciled with your apparent opinion that other
paths shouldn't be criticized. After all, doesn't denoting something as
"moral" also have the effect of denoting something else (another path)
as "immoral"?
|> >>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.
Here are the paragraphs again, in context:
Already I see a lot of
people suggesting that any belief is fanaticism, and that's just
from within the Hindu community. In the end, it'll be "cool" to be
a "know-nothing". It's already that way to a large extent.
You can brand me a heretic for helping ISKCON (among others), but
at least I'm doing something. Likewise, you can sit back and
comfortably lambaste Srila Prabhupada for not meeting your standards,
but let's face it - take a look at the newer generation of Hindu
kids. Find something Hindu about them. Now take a look at some of
_Westerners_ that have come into contact with ISKCON. It shouldn't
be too hard to find cases where these "foreigners" came into contact
with this <your favorite denigratory phrase here> and suddenly became
quite a bit more "Hindu" than the natives.
Given that you were the one who suggested not negatively discussing
another path, then the above statements don't seem all that sanctimonious
to me. After all, if you truly believe that the multiplicity of approaches
is a good thing, then you shouldn't criticize someone for following
an approach other than yours, and _that_ was the point I was making with
that statement.
-Vivek
|> 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/
|> --
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
|> Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
