Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
If only Kumarila didn't consume his life in order to correct a slight he made to Dharmapala...sigh.Historically, Shankara's doctrine found phenomenal success, practically displacing Mimamsa.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If only Kumarila didn't consume his life in order to correct a slight he made to Dharmapala...sigh.Historically, Shankara's doctrine found phenomenal success, practically displacing Mimamsa.
Rather surprising comments. But even so, with some it may be that they're intimidated and worried they'll stand out too much, due to not being Indian, rather than not wanting to be around Indians per se.
I'm always surprised when I encounter such stuff, but I'm just relating my experience. You get naive after awhile when most all of the people you hang out with aren't of that mentality. At this stage in life, of course, I'm far more comfortable amongst Indian people than westerners, even though I'm white. On pilgrimage once (Omaha, Nebraska) some Indians were visiting that temple for the first time, and they actually approached me to ask questions, because I assume, I looked the most 'at home'. They were kind of surprised when I told them, "I'm not from here either."
If only Kumarila didn't consume his life in order to correct a slight he made to Dharmapala...sigh.
My money's on Kumarila. He would have demolished Shankaracharya in vada-bhiksha. For all practical purposes, he is pretty much the greatest Hindu polemicist Bharat ever had (EDIT: probably matched only by the Buddhist, Dharmakirti, in Indian dialectics).We still do not know if Kumarila would have fared better than Mandana. Maybe yes, maybe not.
Most 'westerners' that i've interacted with hitherto had one or more of the following w.r.t. their motivation to explore advaita/māyāvāda (not necessarily in the order of importance):I truly believe that the final conclusion is Advaita ... pure monism. The difference is all about how we get there.
Most tenets of māyāvāda rest on logical constructs and any questions on the validity is met with two standard answers - 'you haven't understood properly' or 'anirvacanīya' i.e., inexplicable. So the argument that it can be understood without mysticism is not really valid. I've seen neo-advaita gurus befuddle neophyte westerners with genuine inquisitiveness to understand with statements like "oh, it is something to be experienced not explained" in workshops.
What indeed works is that at a broad level 4-5 aupaniṣadic half-sentences removed from context can be highlighted as favoring māyāvāda and the entire philosophy is built around them. I consider it as spiritual-allopathy, whereas other schools require a more holistic understanding and are like āyurveda (not the popular one though).
नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।
1- Though māyāvāda posits unity, Śri Śaṅkara explicitly indicates that women and śūdras are ineligible for not only his philosophy but śāstras in general, and therefore cannot achieve mokṣa. Women have to be born as men, and that too as brahmins and then gain knowledge to be eligible.
On the other hand, Śri Madhva who emphasizes difference posits everyone is eligible for mokṣa, and that jāti has nothing to do with varṇa, one born in śūdra jāti can be in fact of brāhmaṇa varṇa, and women too are eligible for mokṣa just like vaidika ṛṣi-patnis, and even śūdra by varṇa is eligible for mokṣa.
That is your constitutional right according to Hindusim, Poeticus. Why should anyone mind?You don't mind if I don't see it that way, right?
A-la Poeticus' post above, no reason why they are not entitled to their different views.The other thing about widespread Advaita is it has become "loose" enough to accommodate just about any belief. Different people who consider themselves to be following Advaita have different views and many of these views are in contrast with one another.
I think you will find it interesting. Do visit one as soon as possible. Forget the comment, it is a discussion.I personally would love to visit a Hindu temple. I really don't understand the racism comment.
I do not think so. Sri Ramanuja, Sri Nimbarka, and Sri Madhvacharya are great pillars of Hinduism. I do not really get along with Sri Vallabhacharya for one reason, the hereditary succession of gurudom. It is like Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which ruled India for a long time.Completely agree Tattva-ji. Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva do not get enough credit for their immense contribution to Vedanta.
In my 'advaita' (I do not like the neo-advaita' label) there is no karma because there is no birth, no death. And Krishna said nobody gets killed and no one is a killer. It is 'maya' all through.The cowboy is wrong. He just committed murder. But in the grand scheme of things, karma will catch him, as will awakening to the reality of behaviour affecting the state of inner progress to permanent realisation.
No enlightened. Cannot put 'Parmarthika' and 'Vyavaharika' in their proper places. None of the two should be denied.2) Nothing matters. We're all God. We can do whatever the heck we want to because its all God and here's proof. (Showing his total disconnect to reality, and to compassion.)
It is not an experience. It is a deduction by analysis.So you've expereined oneness?
Hindus go to HDF (Hindu Dharma Forum). I found it very stiffling there and very un-Hindu, but it is their forum, why should I complain? IndiaDivine, I think, is a shade better.That's something interesting in itself, I wonder why it is.
I am what I always was - Star-dust, Brahman.Simple questions like "How are you?" are incomprehensible to them.
I am what I always was - Star-dust, Brahman.
Yes, Advaita is the truth of Veda. If Veda were about Duality, it'd not have criticized Dualistics in Upanishada-s. The truth is that moksha is possible only if there is unification of Atman & Brahman and I don't think Bhedavadi would ever attain Moksha. Because they're worshiping Duality - which is maya.I truly believe that the final conclusion is Advaita ... pure monism. The difference is all about how we get there The person who's brahmavadi attains Moksha, Mayavadi who accept duality and existence of maya don't.I truly believe that the final conclusion is Advaita ... pure monism. The difference is all about how we get there
Brahman is changeless, eternal. Same today as it was yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow.
Vedas are not about non-duality or duality, they are about multiplicity.If Veda were about Duality, it'd not have criticized Dualistics in Upanishada-s.