Neti Yoga

Srikrishna Ghadiyaram srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM
Tue Sep 17 13:10:16 CDT 2002

Hari Om !!

--- Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:27:38 -0700, Srikrishna
> Ghadiyaram
> <srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >Hari  Om !!
> >
> >If 'Advaita' implies 'Brahman', then 'Advaita'
> should
> >be a 'Noun' and not an 'adjective' right ?
> >
> >But, what Sri Jaladhar is saying is that 'Advaita'
> is
> >an 'adjective' and the 'vedanta' word following is
> >implied, as in the 'Red' is running which is
> actually
> >supposed to express 'Red horse' is running.
> >
> If there is a popularity contest about what the word
> Advaita means to most
> people, then yes, most people would say it means
> Advaita Vedanta of Shri
> Adi Shankaracharya. However, this is not a
> popularity contest. We have gone
> over the meaning of the word advaita. These are the
> findings:
> advaita (a.): non-dual, blismishless etc.
> advaitvaadin/advayavaadin [one of the meanings]:
> follower of vedanta. (note
> vaadin and not simply the word Advaita)
> advaita from the word advaya:
> advaya: non-dual etc...and then the word Buddha.
> So now advaita denotes another name for Buddha
> through the word advaya
> (please refer to Vaman Shivram Apte's dictionary).
> If the word advaita implies Vedanta, then what does
> the word dvaita imply?
> As for usage:
> brahman is nirguna, brahman is ananda, brahman is
> advaita (non-dual, one
> without a second).
> How many times did you see me refer to the word
> Advaita Vedanta of Adi
> Shankaracharya while using Advaita.
> What I have been saying is that when a saint says
> exactly the same thing as
> above, he is not necessarily referring to Adi
> Shankara's philosophy and
> lineage.
> What Jaldhar has been saying is that Advaita means
> Advaita Vedanta whenever
> the word Advaita is used, and that any modern day
> teacher only uses it
> because of him (Adi Shankara) and if the teaching of
> this saint (teacher)
> does not tally with Advaita Vedanta of Adi Shankara
> (not in conclusion but
> even in perception), then the teaching is not
> Advaita (as in non-dual,
> blemishless Brahman/God).

You gave a long reply to my request for clarification
which was not in line with my question.

I am not part of the argument going on between you and
Sri Jaladhar.

I  said:

"> >If 'Advaita' implies 'Brahman', then 'Advaita'
> should
> >be a 'Noun' and not an 'adjective' right ?
> >"

As you took the recourse to the dictionary to resolve
the argument, I pointed out that if "Advaita" implies
Brahman, Brahman being a noun, 'Advaita' also should
be a noun.

But, even you use 'Advaita' as an 'Adjective' only.
Anyway, I understand arguments from both sides.

The only question is if "Advaita Vedanta" with the
tenets of Jiva Brahmaika Ikyam, j~nAna, j~nEya,
j~nAtru abhedatvam, whole visible universe being the
manifestation of Brahman and not separate from Brahman
-  was known and expounded before Acharya Sankara or
not. Though these are derived from the Vedas which are
eternal, was it understood in the same light before
Acharya Sankara.

Even though we can consider Acharya Gaudapada's
Mandukya Karika, his asparsa, ajAta theory seems to be
even higher, profound and different from what Acharya
Sankara expounded.

I request comments from the members.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list