ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Sep 11 15:51:14 CDT 2002
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:28:53 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Ashish Chandra wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:16:13 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
>> <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
>> >A misconception should be cleared up here. Just bcause Advaitins don't
>> A bigger misconception should also be cleared - that the Dasnami (Adi
>> Shankara's) is the only tradition qualified to be called Advaitins.
>This is precisely what I meant when I talked about the confusion that
>arises from the indiscriminate use of words.
>Advaitin is a shorthand for Advaita Vedantin which is synonymous with the
>philosophy poularized (though not started) by Shankaracharya. If all
>these modern Gurus are jumping on the Advaita bandwagon today it is
>because of Shankaracharya not some ancient alternate tradition.
What makes you think that they are really looking at Adi Shankaracharya's
philosophy to say what they talk is Advaita? I mean what are your grounds
for even thinking that people "want" to jump on the Advaita bandwagon? Even
today there are saints who have said that they do no completely agree with
Adi Shankara's philosophy in toto and yet their experiences, as well as
their teachings, are Advaita (that of Unity of all - Brahman is one without
a second and the world is a misapprehension, not unreal).
>> have been saints after saints who were Brahmajnanis and who always said
>> is One.
>Really? Name them. Were they prior to Shankaracharya? Did they refer to
>themselves as Advaitins?
What will you do with names anyway? But here goes
Sri Sri Sri 1008 Neem Karoli Baba, Hariakhan Baba, Anandamayi Ma, Deoria
Baba, Sombar Giri Baba, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Swami
Sivananda, Sri Swami Krishnananda. These are only a few that I can think
What does it matter if they referred to themselves as Advaita Vedantins or
not? They taught that God is one and that He is not different from you. If
that is not Advaita, then what else is?
>Assertions by themselves are only hot air. They need to be backed up with
>facts to become more substantial.
Facts to be proven to who? Even now there is a discussion on this list
about freezing water on boiling to prove one's liberated state. What does a
saint have to prove to and who? If you would like to quiz him, fine. He may
or may not take your test. But if you stick to his passing the test being
the sole criteria for his being liberated, then what can one say?
>> They may not have taught any classical philosophy as such but they
>> were Advaitins all the same.
>Because Ashish Chandra said so? Without any kind of objective criteria,
>it's just your word against mine, against x, against y...
I guess I don't understand what it is you are trying to say. What is this
objective criteria? For me, it is jivanmukti or sainthood. I don't care for
any other criteria. But yes, that is my opinion and I don't think it can be
universally applied. But I don't know what else can? Only what the
Shankaracharya's say? Then that is applicable to only those who call
themselves their followers. What about the others? Advaita cannot be
practiced by anyone except Sannyasis. But here we are all *discussing*
Advaita here - that of the Unity of all with God.
>> When someone talks about Advaita (or the
>> teachings of these saints), he may or may not be referring to the
>> philosophical positions of Adi Shankara's sampradaya and should not be
>> dismissed outright as not being representative of Advaita.
>Then on what grounds should he be dismissed? :-)
If he is liberated, then he cannot be dismissed.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list