[Advaita-l] The Treatment of Avidya in Advaita - Part 1
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon May 3 12:58:11 CDT 2010
It is a pity that you are trying to advocate the error of 'samshaya' with
all your zeal not realizing that you are not moving one inch from where you
> Not necessarily!! A doubt cannot be always the result of not
> comprehending what is written or said!! I may doubt the very (poor)
> understanding of the originator of these texts and speeches (in this case
> your article) based on clear & solid understanding of the contrary
Do you not realize where you have erred? You have not been able to shift
from the stand that I had proposed: A doubt arises owing to not
comprehending a text or speech. In this case, under the belief or hope(!)
that you are countering me, you are exactly reiterating what I have proposed
by your words: I may doubt the very (poor) understanding of the originator
of these texts and speeches (*in this case your article)*
This doubt that has arisen is ONLY from what X has read: my article, and not
comprehended it. That is my point.
I am sure, it is with that type of 'doubt'(doubting your
> understanding of the siddhAnta) sAvitri mAtAji written that mail. So,
> your assumption on non-comprehension here is utterly baseless.
My conclusion, not assumption, is fully strongly founded on sound basis:
That her objection is a result of *not comprehending my article correctly*.
And your original stand was:
// My dear prabhuji, please note this is the reply to your article
only...if your article resulting in doubts in the minds of readers..then it
is not fool proof & it is not an universally acceptable theory..//
You have yourself admitted that her doubt has 'resulted' from my article.
How could the doubt have arisen if she had not at all read it? So, she has
read it and only then entertained doubts. That she might have doubted my
understanding is another matter. She has expressed her thoughts in the form
of 'flawed thinking' on my part. And I have replied that as well. And the
problem of 'non-comprehension' still persists as the basis of her 'doubt'
(note that she has never said that she ever doubted my understanding; from
her point of view it is certain for her that my thinking is flawed - that
she 'doubted' is only your contribution to the issue.
Thus your charge: 'your assumption on non-comprehension here is utterly
baseless.' is itself baseless. And remember, in view of the Gita teaching:
'samshayAtmA vinashyati' do not ever pursue your arguing for Madam's
supposed doubt. A genuine samshaya for the purpose of mananam will take a
different mode to express itself and seek redressal. Even in that case it is
ONLY due to the non-comprehension of the source text/speech. But that is not
the case here.
I think we are wasting time and energy on such pointless arguments. Let us
concentrate on understanding the bhashya by making our exchanges
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list