ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM
Sat Sep 14 11:47:28 CDT 2002
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:37:53 -0700, Jagannath Chatterjee
<jagchat01 at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
>> Apart from the fact Apte wrongly says Brahma instead
>> of Brahman this
>> should be clear. It is "not two" not "all is one."
>> There is a subtle
>> difference in emphasis here. Can you see what it
>It means that advaita is not a view/opinion/path but a
>state. Is that it Jaldharji?
It appears the fault is not Apte's - its the publishers'. The Sanskrit-
Hindi edition of the dictionary correctly lists the term (brahman) as in
Brahma (when you pronounce it in Hindi). The English translator/publisher
probably made the mistake by translation the Hindi "Brahma" to English
Brahma (as in Brahmaa - the creator) instead of Brahman which was intended.
The question is really for Jaldhar but what I have been saying is that
Advaita, the adjective, when used alone, could imply nothing else but
Brahman (which alone is non-dual, blimishless etc.). However, Advaita in
and of itself does not imply the term Advaita Vedanta. So when the saints
not related to Advaita Vedanta tradition of Shri Adi Shankaracharya talk
about Advaita, they are not talking about Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankara,
and it is not because of him (Adi Shankara) that they talk of Advaita (at
least not necessarily).
What Jaldhar has been saying is that Advaita denotes nothing but Advaita
Vedanta known to us only through the lineage of Adi Shankara.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list