Why Advaita Vedanta first?

[Shantanu]

The Advaita-led live and work with compassion with both hands while detached from the results in a state of love and bliss. They tread the mystical path with practical feet while in body.

Where in the Upanishads does it say that?

 

[Kirran]

I have to find a different name for it. Note that I am not denouncing neo ideas. I am just saying that it is not appropriate to use the label Advaita, because this label means something specific and is not a catch-all term.

I can absolutely see where you're coming from, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm just not entirely comfortable with it, as it reminds me too much of Muslims who say that Ahmadis aren't Muslim. Without the accompanying massacres of course.

Any belief system becomes more diverse over time, this is natural. It's happened with Christianity, with Islam, with Hinduism overall, with Buddhism. Just happens with age. I see no reason why this wouldn't happen in Advaita. This doesn't make neo-Advaitins traditional, by any means, and it's certainly useful to point out that difference.

What I am exactly, I don't know. I don't feel like I'm neo-Advaitin, but perhaps I'm a bit heterodox.

I don't believe that pointing out differences is the same as denouncing. Although I've often been accused of it, especially with regard to differences between Abrahamics and Dharmics. Saying, 'I'm not a Christian' does not mean that I hate Christianity. Saying, "these aren't the traditional or orthodox views," isn't saying you're against something, it's just pointing out the obvious, at least to you.

All very true. But in this particular case, it was more a case of saying that people who claim to be Advaitins aren't Advaitins, rather than saying they're not traditionally Advaitin, for example.

Then again, it is incredibly difficult to read tone on here ... a screen, with words.

Absolutely. I may have come across more accusatory than I meant to be, I just wanted to explore the issue.

It is all Brahman; Brahman is here and now. It is not something to be found in future.

Should this not be it? What are we expecting when we look for a deeper realization of the above? Any realization can only be within the field of experience (and hence, dual).

This is a massively complex and at the same time incredibly simple issue.

On the level of vyavaharika, what is the difference between Ramana Maharishi, or Siva Yogawami of Jaffna, and you and I?

 

[George-ananda]

Where in the Upanishads does it say that?

It is a George-ananda quote created from his own wisdom gleaned from the Vedas, good teachers and common sense.

 

[Kirran]

It is a George-ananda quote created from his own wisdom gleaned from the Vedas, good teachers and common sense.

We shall raise you up as a prophet, and smite all those who disobey your holy word.

 

[Poeticus]

But isn't denouncing purported members of your own religious sect/philosophy because they don't ascribe to the traditional interpretations essentially fundamentalist?

...The only time condemnation would even be plausible [under Dharmic paradigms] is if it highlights the incorrect orthodoxical and orthopraxical conduct of the person in regards to his/her own sectarian identification...

Therefore, it's far from being fundamentalist in the Western, Abrahamic sense...since we are dealing with a completely different epistemology with unique socio-cultural paradigms.

 

[George-ananda]

We shall raise you up as a prophet, and smite all those who disobey your holy word.

Thanks....but no, thanks. I just want to express my opinions hoping it will help others.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I'm just not entirely comfortable with it, as it reminds me too much of Muslims who say that Ahmadis aren't Muslim. Without the accompanying massacres of course.

That is entirely different. The purpose here is to try and avoid dilution/tainting of Shankara's Advaita by not making it a free-for-all. It will be a lot simpler if people use different names for their ideas.

On the level of vyavaharika, what is the difference between Ramana Maharishi, or Siva Yogawami of Jaffna, and you and I?

The difference is the same as that between any two individuals. Ramana was no different than anyone else. He ate, slept, grew old, picked up cancer and died - just like a regular person. He conversed with people, read books, helped in the Ashram kitchen and begged for food when younger.

As I said earlier, we build an image of this enlightened person in our minds and then we use this image to decide who is enlightened and who is not. There is nothing more to it.

 

[Shantanu]

It is a George-ananda quote created from his own wisdom gleaned from the Vedas, good teachers and common sense.

I have yet to see where love and compassion is mentioned in Vedas for living in the material world; after all when one is practicing Brahman-oneness all such attachments should be negated in a matter of fact approach to life, No?

 

[George-ananda]

I have yet to see where love and compassion is mentioned in Vedas for living in the material world;

That sounds like an indictment of the Vedas. Fortunately, I am also influenced by modern holy men that stress love and compassion.

after all when one is practicing Brahman-oneness all such attachments should be negated in a matter of fact approach to life, No?

The masters I respect live in compassion without attachment.

 

[Kirran]

...The only time condemnation would even be plausible [under Dharmic paradigms] is if it highlights the incorrect orthodoxical and orthopraxical conduct of the person in regards to his/her own sectarian identification...

Therefore, it's far from being fundamentalist in the Western, Abrahamic sense...since we are dealing with a completely different epistemology with unique socio-cultural paradigms.

That was a very interesting OP over there, which took some time to read. Thankyou.

Thanks....but no, thanks. I just want to express my opinions hoping it will help others.

That's what a lot of prophets say But OK, I won't worship you.

That is entirely different. The purpose here is to try and avoid dilution/tainting of Shankara's Advaita by not making it a free-for-all. It will be a lot simpler if people use different names for their ideas.

Yes, I agree with you. I think there's a fine line, but that line must nevertheless be found.

The difference is the same as that between any two individuals. Ramana was no different than anyone else. He ate, slept, grew old, picked up cancer and died - just like a regular person. He conversed with people, read books, helped in the Ashram kitchen and begged for food when younger.

As I said earlier, we build an image of this enlightened person in our minds and then we use this image to decide who is enlightened and who is not. There is nothing more to it.

-nods thoughtfully-

 

[George-ananda]

That's what a lot of prophets say But OK, I won't worship you.

Well, with all these 'Like's I've been receiving maybe my ego is ready for that next step!!

 

[Vinayaka]

I have to find a different name for it.

In the west, generally advaita isn't used for this. Instead they use non-dual. They tend to avoid Sanskrit because of the association to the H- word.

In the Church of Oprah... - Magazine Web Edition > January/February/March 2009 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine

 

[Poeticus]

In the west, generally advaita isn't used for this. Instead they use non-dual.

I don't understand why they do that. I mean, I kind of get the jist as to why they may do that. But it's pretty much rude to not give credit where it's due. I truly fail to understand why it's hard for many Westerners to acknowledge that most of the stuff they peddle in such matters is largely Hindu in origin, if not entirely. And therefore, I gotta ask: does it have something to do with the Western DNA? The inability to acknowledge the achievements of the colored folk?

I mean, don't get me wrong. 'Dem French cathedrals*? Works of art, I tell ya. Fo' real! But at least give a nod to the East as well. Here's another example: Chanakya is often termed as "the Indian Machiavelli" in Western academia. But what smacks right in my face is the obvious fact that Chanakya was born many centuries before Machiavelli. Therefore, shouldn't Machiavelli be known as "the European Chanakya"? I mean, seriously, it shouldn't damage the ego that much to just say, "yeah, it's Hindu-derived; yeah, we were influenced by Hinduism; yeah, we owe a lot of the stuff we are saying to Hindus"...? Why the tendency to secretly loot? I thought colonialism was over...

EDIT:

*And not just French cathedrals, but trains, automobiles, motorbikes, airplanes, skyscrapers, laptops, penicillin (I mean, ya'll discovered freakin' penicillin for God's sake!), leather jackets, skateboarding, and so much more! See, I got no problem giving credit where it's due. Ya'll created so much. And to flatter some more, I'll happily say that the West's material-creativity can never be topped, ya'll are straight up g-s with that, fo' real. But hook a brother up, sheesh!

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't understand why they do that.

I have never understood it either. But you and I are Hindus. I don't think we're capable of thinking the way westerners do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The problem is, if Advaita is loosely interpreted to the point where everyone begins to draw their own conclusions on the basis of "all is one", then these conclusions are likely not what the founder had in mind.

Did the founder get a copy-right (do you know who founded it?)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think there are two options - videha-kaivalya and jivanmukta. The former is devoid of any experience of the vyāvahārika, the latter still experiences prārabdha and therefore cannot be brahman. Even those experiencing sayujya with saguṇa-brahman (íṣvara) cannot fully identify themselves as such per brahmasūtra-jagadvyāpāravarjyam- until aikya with nirviśeṣa when there is absolutely no experience of this world (being mithyā). How do you manage to straddle two worlds śrīmān!?

As always, all your posts are excellent. I wish, you give the meaning of the Sanskrit verses mentioned for benefit of people who do not know Sanskrit. However, I understand that this will mean more time for posts (which you may not have). Thankfully I can understand the gist of the verses because of my rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit.

However, I do not have any prarabhda, because I did not have a previous birth. And since I will not have any future birth, my karma will not go beyond this birth. Does that mean that I can do whatever I like? No. I am what my samskaras have made me. I will try to follow my dharma in Vyavaharika. What happens is a matter of chance and probability (Heisenberg).

I have this Gold 'mulple entry card' to Vyavaharika, therefore I can flit in to or out of Vyavaharika at will.

 

[Kirran]

The difference is the same as that between any two individuals. Ramana was no different than anyone else. He ate, slept, grew old, picked up cancer and died - just like a regular person. He conversed with people, read books, helped in the Ashram kitchen and begged for food when younger.

As I said earlier, we build an image of this enlightened person in our minds and then we use this image to decide who is enlightened and who is not. There is nothing more to it.

OK, I've thought more about this.

I think that yes, it may be that this image of the enlightened being is erroneous, because there is only the now and so forth. But nevertheless, people like Ramana and co. have reached a very high level of contentment and happiness. Seeing as that's the point anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter that other aspects we attribute to this putative state of enlightenment are just our own stereotypes.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Śri Madhva on the other hand, explains with vedic proofs of the further divisibility of atoms, existence of UV, a non-linear timeline and innate chaos within the sub-atomic structure, the various forms of force/energy that interact at a sub-atomic structure that provides mass, gravity, etc resulting in function and form, all this in the 12th Century.

can you please elaborate on Non-Linear Timeline? What's that?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

OK, I've thought more about this.

I think that yes, it may be that this image of the enlightened being is erroneous, because there is only the now and so forth. But nevertheless, people like Ramana and co. have reached a very high level of contentment and happiness. Seeing as that's the point anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter that other aspects we attribute to this putative state of enlightenment are just our own stereotypes.

How do you know Ramana has reached a high level of contentment and happiness? What is the test?
There are several people in the world who are happy and contented. We do not see them as liberated. What sets Ramana apart?

According to Advaita, there is no duality. So it is never possible for someone to be liberated and happy - because there is no one there to tell himself he is happy and contented.

We have all assumed - without calling into question - that there are some enlightened people and we have a way of identifying such people. When you dig a little deeper, you realize that there is no criteria by which we can make such an identification. It is always speculation. We have invested a lot into this idea and so we do not want to question our own assumptions, for we run the risk of getting disillusioned.

 

[Kirran]

How do you know Ramana has reached a high level of contentment and happiness? What is the test?
There are several people in the world who are happy and contented. We do not see them as liberated. What sets Ramana apart?

Well, we don't know that anyone is. I find it likely that he is, and also that many other people are. Whether we'd count them as enlightened or not doesn't really matter, it's the state of high contentment which is preferable.

It's really useful for me to think through this stuff, thanks.