Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

...I request all the three knowledgeable members to be calm and cool and continue contributing and sharing their knowledge with other members.

Dear BK sir, I am not feeling agitated at all. Our integrity has been questioned just out of the blue, and in my case unfounded accusations have been made. I feel these must be dealt with in a forthright way.

best regards ...

 

[sangom]

INMHO, if the supermoderator while participating in discussions as a member indicate his name with"veteran' and uses the term"SM' only when he plays the role of SM,we can avoid such misunderstanding.

Respected Shri Krishnamurthy Sir,

The problem here is not as simple as whether the SM letters should or should not appear in a post made by the SM as an ordinary member. To make the point clearer I may tell you that even if KRS had made his post #74 without either SM or Veteran, the objections from my side would be valid and would have arisen IMO.

Here is a thread with more than 100 posts; Shri Sravna has been making so many "pronouncements" without even a shred of supporting facts, evidence by way of arguments, or citations re. sources, that the one other place you will find similar things is in the Holu Quran giving the "revelations" through the angel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GabrielGabriel from God to Prophet Muhammad. S/Shri Nara, Subbudu and myself have been trying all possible methods to make Sravna see the position within the civility limits expected in a forum like this, but he has been steadfastly refusing (or is it that he is incapable?) to understand that we can't deal here with such divine revelations.

Suddenly KRS, the SM jumps in and says "[FONT=&quot]Folks, In just came across this thread."[/FONT] And he goes on to make allegations as under: "[FONT=&quot]Unfortunately, here you are dealing with three non believers, one approaching the question from SV viewpoint, another drawing all sorts of inferences from his assumptions and the third drawing conclusions without proper grounding.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What is actually amusing to me is Sri Sangom's assertion that Dwaitha is an allied philosophy of Visishtadwaitha as opposed to Advaitha!"
Then he announces like an Emperor announcing the Gladiator fight, "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Let the games begin, with these folks! If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs."

Now, I have provided vide post # 99, the evidence to be provided and am ready to provide more. But I am yet to see evidence in support of KRS' pronouncement to the effect "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, in my opinion. Please cite your logic here when you say something else." Can you not see, Shri Krishnamurthy sir, that the attitude reflected in such statement is, [/FONT]
"in this forum the rule is [FONT=&quot]Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, because it is (in) my opinion.[/FONT]Therefore others who say something else have to cite their logic."

Now, my question is, is this a வெள்ளரிக்கா பட்டணம் where the rules are set by a so-called supermoderator for anything under the sun? If KRS was making the post as an ordinary member, he ought to have backed up his statement to the effect [FONT=&quot]Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, in my opinion, — with adequate firm evidence, and then only he should have asked others to cite their logic if they have a different view. But he does not think that he should have such egalitarian approach; this forum is one of equality but SM is more equal than the rest of the lot who are akin to the Sudras. I do not think we should nurture such a mindset any further unless some of us feel addicted to "regurgitating" here whatever we may have known, learnt or even come across while[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]casually surfing the web.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I request all the three knowledgeable members to be calm and cool and continue contributing and sharing their knowledge with other members.
When a difference of opinion in a family come to the open,,we do get heated up and exchange hot words.After sometime all of us cool down.It is not a custom in any good family that one member just leaves the house because of difference of opinion with head of the family.
Let us give proper guidance to the youngsters of this forum and other Guest members who may open threads and read.
PEACE.

Sir, I do not consider any of us - Nara, Subbudu or myself - to be immature enough to loose our cool on such an issue. I do not know exactly how the other two read this. But for me it is a matter of principle and of running this forum on egalitarian lines without favouritism of any sort.

The family fights, as you will readily agree, often led to irreparable alienation and branching off with very sad consequences; the only thing absent was probably "vendetta", but this is also known in India FYI. If the head of the family is unreasonable separations will occur every so often. And by fighting for principles we will set the most cherished norms for youngsters and new-comers, IMO.

 

[sravna]

For the moment let us assume maya was not Sankara's idea. But the idea of non-duality is advaita's central idea. So if reality is non-dual, the seeming duality has to be false or should be an illusion. So one doesn't really have to steal ideas, especially one of the stature of Sankara, to conclude it is due to the power of brahman that illusion is created.

Either it is malicious propaganda or genuine lack of understanding of the above that Sankara is said to have been influenced by buddhism.

 

[sravna]

Respected Shri Krishnamurthy Sir,

The problem here is not as simple as whether the SM letters should or should not appear in a post made by the SM as an ordinary member. To make the point clearer I may tell you that even if KRS had made his post #74 without either SM or Veteran, the objections from my side would be valid and would have arisen IMO.

Here is a thread with more than 100 posts; Shri Sravna has been making so many "pronouncements" without even a shred of supporting facts, evidence by way of arguments, or citations re. sources, that the one other place you will find similar things is in the Holu Quran giving the "revelations" through the angel Gabriel from God to Prophet Muhammad. S/Shri Nara, Subbudu and myself have been trying all possible methods to make Sravna see the position within the civility limits expected in a forum like this, but he has been steadfastly refusing (or is it that he is incapable?) to understand that we can't deal here with such divine revelations.

Suddenly KRS, the SM jumps in and says "[FONT=&quot]Folks, In just came across this thread."[/FONT] And he goes on to make allegations as under: "[FONT=&quot]Unfortunately, here you are dealing with three non believers, one approaching the question from SV viewpoint, another drawing all sorts of inferences from his assumptions and the third drawing conclusions without proper grounding.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What is actually amusing to me is Sri Sangom's assertion that Dwaitha is an allied philosophy of Visishtadwaitha as opposed to Advaitha!"
Then he announces like an Emperor announcing the Gladiator fight, "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Let the games begin, with these folks! If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs."

Now, I have provided vide post # 99, the evidence to be provided and am ready to provide more. But I am yet to see evidence in support of KRS' pronouncement to the effect "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, in my opinion. Please cite your logic here when you say something else." Can you not see, Shri Krishnamurthy sir, that the attitude reflected in such statement is, [/FONT]
"in this forum the rule is [FONT=&quot]Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, because it is (in) my opinion.[/FONT]Therefore others who say something else have to cite their logic."

Now, my question is, is this a வெள்ளரிக்கா பட்டணம் where the rules are set by a so-called supermoderator for anything under the sun? If KRS was making the post as an ordinary member, he ought to have backed up his statement to the effect [FONT=&quot]Visishtadwaitha has more commonality with Advaitha than Dwaitha, in my opinion, — with adequate firm evidence, and then only he should have asked others to cite their logic if they have a different view. But he does not think that he should have such egalitarian approach; this forum is one of equality but SM is more equal than the rest of the lot who are akin to the Sudras. I do not think we should nurture such a mindset any further unless some of us feel addicted to "regurgitating" here whatever we may have known, learnt or even come across while[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]casually surfing the web.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Sir, I do not consider any of us - Nara, Subbudu or myself - to be immature enough to loose our cool on such an issue. I do not know exactly how the other two read this. But for me it is a matter of principle and of running this forum on egalitarian lines without favouritism of any sort.

The family fights, as you will readily agree, often led to irreparable alienation and branching off with very sad consequences; the only thing absent was probably "vendetta", but this is also known in India FYI. If the head of the family is unreasonable separations will occur every so often. And by fighting for principles we will set the most cherished norms for youngsters and new-comers, IMO.

Shri KRS,

I for one do not doubt your integrity even an iota. As I have said once before I admire the way you strive to perform the role of moderator in a fair and just manner.

I think I should take a fair share of responsibility for all that has happened. I am willing to conduct the debate in the way Shri Sangom, Shri Nara and Shri Subbudu want it to be conducted. I find it fair enough.

I personally feel that the presence of such knowledgeable people is a great asset to the forum.

 

[subbudu1]

I noticed the comments of KRS but opinions are opinions. So I let it pass. Somehow I happened to be thick skinned. I felt it amusing. If you read my views in this thread, nothing much can be said about my own knowledge of advaita. I have myself admitted that my knowledge of advaita is limited to a few important books. But even one good book is enough to indicate what that philosophy is all about though it may not make me a scholar. My views echoed here are on my practical experience with advaita. I have made statements which should indicate I am flexible and I can change my views if something logical comes up.

I am here playing the role of a probing student, eager to learn and eager to question. You can see from our responses to Sravna, that we were no where making wild allegations and conclusions. We were questioning only his logic. The difficulty of our questions should be apparent to any non believer in advaita.


Sravna seems to be quite a never give up man. I am surprised he needs special endorsement from KRS. No sarcasm intended here Dear Sravna.


But Sangom has genuinely felt hurt because of certain comments of KRS. If KRS feels that his comments are not baseless, he should quote clear evidences in support of his statements.

I would like to wait before Sangom's questions are properly addressed.

All said and done I dont want KRS to feel cornered. Even without resigning , KRS has many options for responding to Sangom. Regardless of which option KRS chooses , he can set things right if he responds in the right way. If things are just a matter of perception I think misunderstandings can easily be cleared. I think regardless of which option KRS chooses, if he responds appropriately he can walk out of this with his head held high. A precedent for all moderators is needed.

 

[sravna]

Folks,

My reference would be the commentary on Brahma Sutra by Sankara. The material is available on the web here: Brahmasutra Bhashya Of Shankaracharya - Commentary Of Shankaracharya On Vedanta Sutras - Brahma Sutra Brahma Sutra Sankara Index

 

[nachi naga]

Just because one does not get advaitham,that does not mean Sankara needs certificates.Its indeed very sad and pathectic ego tussle happen and i think Sravana has been very honourale in this unneccessay ego craziness.This ego itself is Maya,of the "I" which is the veil that needs to be removed which is existing on account of tamasic gunam and avidya,becoming illusional as well as delusional.While i accept atheist and agnostics are NOT welcome with their perspective,but they are human's too,is my opinion.Sravana has also written,that he will debate with citation and evidences from bonafide sources,so i request member's to not pursue a confrantational attitude,as each one of you are very valuable gems with gods worth embedded.Praveen is a good man,lets honor the young blood by truly resolving issues.Thanks.

 

[subbudu1]

Just because one does not get advaitham,that does not mean Sankara needs certificates.Its indeed very sad and pathectic ego tussle happen and i think Sravana has been very honourale in this unneccessay ego craziness.This ego itself is Maya,of the "I" which is the veil that needs to be removed which is existing on account of tamasic gunam and avidya,becoming illusional as well as delusional.While i accept atheist and agnostics are NOT welcome with their perspective,but they are human's too,is my opinion.Sravana has also written,that he will debate with citation and evidences from bonafide sources,so i request member's to not pursue a confrantational attitude,as each one of you are very valuable gems with gods worth embedded.Praveen is a good man,lets honor the young blood by truly resolving issues.Thanks.

This particular issue is not merely related to some ego.Sangom has a valid point. It is a matter of principle. KRS needs to address the questions of Sangom. Give valid evidences, and we will participate. From Sangom's response I dont think he has made baseless statements. I am sure Nara agrees with me on this.

If KRS cannot provide evidences he must admit his mistake. Everyone makes mistake. He who sees his own mistakes , he alone is the best of men.He needs to explain how the moderators need to take care in the future before passing off irrelevant comments.

I am not even a bit angry or excited. I did not feel the least bit excited when I read the post of KRS. But I will hold off until KRS gives a reasonable explanation.

 

[Nara]

Dear Subbudu sir,

I agree with the two posts you have made. Shri Sangom sir has laid out the reasons for his view in a logical and persuasive way. To say that somebody's right to express ideas is being suppressed, is completely baseless. This is not about the plays in the game, it is about the rules of how the game is played, it is about level playing field.

Only one vote counts in deciding who serves as the SM, and it is most certainly not mine and I am glad it is that way. Having said that, if I have a vote that counts, I will vote for Shri KRS to continue as SM. I do feel in this instance he made an erroneous judgment call, but taken his record in total and what the alternative may be, I feel comfortable with him being the SM. Once again, it is not for me to decide who is SM, all I want to express here is my support for Shri KRS to continue as SM.

Shri KRS and I address each other as "brother" sometimes. That feeling has not diminished in anyway. Shri Sangom is also like an elder brother to me. In this instance, I am fully on board with Shri Sangom's objections and I only wish and hope they will be addressed soon. Just stepping down won't resolve anything, the ill-feelings will only fester.

I love to get back in the game, I hope Shri KRS will deal with this issue and resolve it soon.

Thanks ...

 

[sangom]

Dear Subbudu sir,

I agree with the two posts you have made. Shri Sangom sir has laid out the reasons for his view in a logical and persuasive way. To say that somebody's right to express ideas is being suppressed, is completely baseless. This is not about the plays in the game, it is about the rules of how the game is played, it is about level playing field.

Only one vote counts in deciding who serves as the SM, and it is most certainly not mine and I am glad it is that way. Having said that, if I have a vote that counts, I will vote for Shri KRS to continue as SM. I do feel in this instance he made an erroneous judgment call, but taken his record in total and what the alternative may be, I feel comfortable with him being the SM. Once again, it is not for me to decide who is SM, all I want to express here is my support for Shri KRS to continue as SM.

Shri KRS and I address each other as "brother" sometimes. That feeling has not diminished in anyway. Shri Sangom is also like an elder brother to me. In this instance, I am fully on board with Shri Sangom's objections and I only wish and hope they will be addressed soon. Just stepping down won't resolve anything, the ill-feelings will only fester.

I love to get back in the game, I hope Shri KRS will deal with this issue and resolve it soon.

Thanks ...

Shri Subbudu,

Your posts deserve the same compliment which Shri Sravna has given to KRS', viz., Good to see the voice of sanity back!

I admire your patience and even suspect that you might be a primary school teacher for the mentally differently abled. Carry on your discussion please.

But, may I just point out that Sankara is considered an avataara etc., by gullible people because the hindus had by Sankara's time, become very highly insular in outlook as well as social life, what with strict caste rules binding each individual, that there was hardly any knowledge -sharing with the rest of the world. Parmenides had much earlier bestowed this "maayaavaada" to this world. Just a glimpse:

Parmenides of Elea (Greek: Παρμενίδης ὁ Ἐλεάτης; fl. early 5th century BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Elea, a Greek city on the southern coast of Italy. He was the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy. The single known work of Parmenides is a poem, On Nature, which has survived only in fragmentary form. In this poem, Parmenides describes two views of reality. In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion," he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful. These ideas strongly influenced the whole of Western philosophy, perhaps most notably through its effect on Plato.
(Parmenides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[nachi naga]

We Indians dont need some guy from overseas to spoonfeed philosophies now and belittle our own.Looks like old standards of aping the west is persisting even now.what a tragedy indeed,that Adi Sankara has to be compared with a foreigner,whom Indians have zero knowledge then in Adi Sankaras time or now.Hope we can get back to the topic,and have discussion about it.In fact Shad Darshanas as was known later as Sanathana Dharma becomes Hindusthan and finally Hindus.I guess its in our genes to be meek and humble,no wonder the Indus Valley civilisation got changed to Hindus by the greeks,thankfully from 2000 things are better for Bharat and Bharatians.

 

[renuka]

Boys!!!!

I have some goodies for you..

Advaita Vedanta

 

[sravna]

Dear Esteemed Members,

I will not be participating in further discussions on this topic and also in any other future discussions in the near future. This sad development is due to my work commitments which would not allow me much leisure.

I was eagerly looking forward to the exchange of views on advaita but it was not to be but I hope other members would pursue this topic and derive the benefit.

I consider myself priveleged to have had the opportunity to interact with some very fine minds. I am also happy that I had discussions that was not just appealing to the intellect but ones which dealt with real and burning issues.

I look forward to joining you all again soon.

 

[sangom]

We Indians dont need some guy from overseas to spoonfeed philosophies now and belittle our own.Looks like old standards of aping the west is persisting even now.what a tragedy indeed,that Adi Sankara has to be compared with a foreigner,whom Indians have zero knowledge then in Adi Sankaras time or now.Hope we can get back to the topic,and have discussion about it.In fact Shad Darshanas as was known later as Sanathana Dharma becomes Hindusthan and finally Hindus.I guess its in our genes to be meek and humble,no wonder the Indus Valley civilisation got changed to Hindus by the greeks,thankfully from 2000 things are better for Bharat and Bharatians.

...because people are ready to blindfold themselves and declare that Greece and Rome did not exist when their Shad Darshanas were ruling the entire globe

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. Subbudu.

A few simple questions from this humble ignoramus. Being a cognoscenti will you please answer them?

.............................Advaitha Philosophy is as invalid as any of the other two major philosophies of our tradition
Advaita talks of unified consciousness without any practical proof but it is still not able to undue the duality in its philosophy.
It is a self serving manipulative pessimistic philosophy. The only positive contribution it seems to have made is bringing the different hindu sects together and promoting a broad outlook to God.

These are summary statements. Like if I say my neighbour is a pest. Please give reasons for your conclusions. You are assuming to be a high priest and you are issuing your fatwa. Hindus do not accept such fatwas.

Vishishtadvaita tries to compromise with the concept of duality. But it talks of some unknown god about whom there is no evidence. It miserably fails in giving a proper evidence of the attributes of the Lord. Positive and negative attributes are relative. If God is responsible for good things that happens in the world, I say with all the confidence in my life, that he is responsible for all the bad things also.If we go by this philopsophy the best that we can dream of is the place of some guard or a bhakta in Vaikunta or may be the chakra and shanku of God or get somehow embedded in the body of God like a drop in the ocean. There is again no evidence of this kripa or grace of god, who rescues his devotees. This god also has some special preference to people who brand the god's marks on their body.

"talks about some unknown god"--God is unknown. Do you know God? If you know please tell me what he is like.
"It miserably fails in giving proper evidence of the attributes of the God"-- What kind of an evidence will be the "proper" one. You have to make it clear first.

"If we go by this philopsophy the best that we can dream of is the place of some guard or a bhakta in Vaikunta or may be the chakra and shanku of God or get somehow embedded in the body of God like a drop in the ocean."--What better than this so called best do you have in mind? A Porche with a chaaffeur or beautiful girls in the 7th heaven?

"There is again no evidence of this kripa or grace of god, who rescues his devotees. This god also has some special preference to people who brand the god's marks on their body."
If this is your understanding of the Visishtadvaita philosophy, (Edtd-KRS)

Dvaita is self evident. But the philosophy is a slavish mentality philosophy. In this philosophy people are reduced to permanant slaves with no beginning and no end. It is idol worshiping avatar of Mohammedanism. If you are lucky you will become an avatar like prahlada. But even then you cannot be immortal. You will have to be reborn as another guru in madhva sampradaya.

The sweeping ease with which you pass your judgments is some thing amazing. The mullahs of Dwaita and the gurus of islam running after you would be indeed an interesting visual.

Cheers.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

I took time since yesterday to think about this situation and yesterday I offered to quit (in fact quit) as a Moderator as well as a member of this Forum, which I outlined in a PM to Praveen Ji yesterday, with copies to Professor Nara Ji and Sri Sangom Ji. I offered to quit mainly because I did not want to lose two very valued members of this Forum. And not to create any headaches for Sri Praveen Ji. But he has refused to accept my offer. So, here I am, still a member and a Moderator.

I did not respond to what Sri Sangom Ji, because it took time for Sri Praveen Ji to read my PM - he has some things going on in his private life, which keep him away from the Forum. So, here is my side of the story:

1. First, whenever I participate as a member, I post with normal letters like this. I try not to moderate overly, but in instances where I do, I use red letters in my posting. When I have a member's cap, I have my own set of values/outlooks. This has been the tradition here. Because one's views should not affect one's judgment as a Moderator, and because Sri Praveen Ji and Sri Silver Fox Ji, understood this, knowing me they have asked me to be a Moderator. Most people here know that for the most part I have been very impartial. In cases when I might have been partial, it is mainly because this Forum is divided and grouped based on viewpoints and a few might think that I am taking sides.

Now let me start with Sri Sangom's objections:

1. First of all per Forum rules, nothing prevents any members, including me, to offer opinions at any time in a thread, especially in threads under General Discussions.
2. I was away from the Forum for a while again and when I came back saw this thread, topic of Advaitha which is a great interest mine, and after discussions on a similar thread which Sri Sangom Ji started, after reading a few comments he made there, I bought a few books and have read many of them, and my thanks to him for that. So, when I asked him sometime back to continue discussion in his thread, he refused and as an author he has every right to decline and I left it at that. But when I read this new thread started by Sri Sravana Ji, my interest was rekindled and especially when I saw that Sri Sravana Ji, discussing with 3 folks with contrary opinions, with excitement, I posted, with a clear intent to communicate that can we go back and discuss some points discussed from the start.

This is why I said 'Let the games begin, with these folks! If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs.'


Now read my first sentence carefully and tell me where I say they do not have any integrity? The message was that I hoped that they would allow me to participate instead of saying no, because they would understand to let me in on the conversation. I have respect for all the folks I mentioned and I wanted their consent (even though I do no9t need it) to intervene in the middle. Now Sri Sangom Ji took it to mean that as a SM I am questioning his integrity.

3. Now In terms of my second statement, this is what Sri Sangom Ji has posted in various places:
'Sankara seemed to have learnt all the lessons from Buddhism and used those to counter Buddhism itself; and this includes part of Buddhistic philosophy (śūnyavāda).

While we talk a lot about maayaa and avidyaa, all that Sankara said was "adhyaasa" or "adhyaaropa", appendage to Brahman. Fortunately, Sankara was able to escape with his advaita. I believe that he was able to do so because it was the acme of the Pallava rule, vedic brahmanism was spreading with full vigour in the south and the rulers were favourably disposed towards the revival of anything based on vedas and vedic (brahmanic) ideas.'

This is the type of statement by Sri Sangom Ji that I questioned. The Buddhist link is not proved beyond doubt. Especially, there are citations of Advaitha idea exists in Upanishads that pre date Buddhism. There are questions as to whether Buddhism adopted the concept of Avidya from Hinduism, Buddha was a Hindu, - there are no valid proofs either way. And when Sri Sangom Ji connects Brahminism and Advaitha, he again conveniently skips Adi Shankara's rejection of Purva Mimamsa as a valid path to know Brahma.

So, why does he gets upset when I said that he has not provided any proof to back up his infereces (remember I was posting as a member, NOT AS A SM), when he has not. Even the Wikipedia citation he has posted afterwards, at the end says while some researchers conclude that the concept may have come from Buddhism, read the citations last para, which gives the opposite view. Because I know that Sri Sangom Ji has strong opinions about Brahminism, etc., I think his nopinions are colored by that. What is wrong in saying that?

Lastly, my 'proof' about Dwaitha and Visishtadwaitha are more related: I do not need any 'proofs' to make this statement - it is based on logic. Advaitha is based on the abedha principle from the Vedas. Visishtadwaith is based on reconciling both abheda and bheda principles from the same Vedas. Dwaitha is entirely based on bheda principle from the same Vedas. Hence my statement.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

If this is your understanding of the Visishtadvaita philosophy, my servant maid's knowledge of quantum theory is better.

Dear Shri KRS, and other members,
I have never walked away from people just because they oppose my views, and I always walk away from people who just can't put forth their views without tearing me down as a person. Starting from Anand and Saptajihva to even sravna, we have managed to disagree profoundly without resorting to profane tactics.

It is disheartening to see comments like the one quoted above, the only purpose of which is to insult and humiliate. This kind of personal put-downs serve to inflame and generate nothing but ill will. Unfortunately, even Shri KRS engages in this. I feel really sorry about it.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I disagree. My comments are not at all like the above, where I personally attacked/put down anyone. I agree with you though on the above sentence, which is a direct personal attack because it questions your intelligence not your ideas.

There is a difference.

I know you questioned the use of the word pollyannaish to describe your ideas, provided some definition which you characterized it as a personal attack.

This is the definition that I had in my mind, when I used it:
Adj. 1. pollyannaish - pleasantly (even unrealistically) optimistic
upbeat, cheerful
optimistic - expecting the best in this best of all possible worlds; "in an optimistic mood"; "optimistic plans"; "took an optimistic view"

I do not consider a personal attack, which I said so. Why would you not believe me? You think that I am intent on hurting you? I am not.

Unfortunately you are looking for personal attacks, and in that process you think I engage in it.

Please go back and read my postings about Pol Pot, Chamberlain etc. I never ever said that you are like them. If I did, I would have said that you are like that person or this person.

In Pol Pots case I wanted to illustrate what happens when a whole culture is forced to change. He was a killer and a dictator. Your thinking that I would ever compare you with him is by itself makes me sick. Ditto with Chamberlain and his pacifism.

There is a difference between saying things about one's ideas and another to attack a person.

Okay, if you want me to apologize, I will, because I do not want you to feel hurt (please don't repeat here that my apology is not welcome, because I would not retract my words).

Show me the sentences where I have attacked you anywhere on your person. I will not only retract the words but also apologize in public.

But, please understand that I can criticize your ideas.

By the way, if I remember, you have recently stated that folks who are religious are superstitious and not logical/rational. Even though many in our fORUM would have taken this as a personal attack on their faiths, I let it ride. I took this as your general opinion and you are not attacking the persons who are religious, even though one can easily take this as such.

I said the above to illustrate an example.

Now please let me know who posted the above example you cite and where it is posted. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS,

... I agree with you though on the above sentence, which is a direct personal attack because it questions your intelligence not your ideas.

Thank you, I hope some action will be forthcoming.

I know you questioned the use of the word pollyannaish to describe your ideas,

It is not just that, you said people like me do most harm to this world and that my views are offensive to the 9/11 families. These are unnecessarily personal.

Adj. 1. pollyannaish - pleasantly (even unrealistically) optimistic
upbeat, cheerful

Shri KRS, tell me one instance when this word is used as a complement as you claim. It is always used as a put down and you know it. Please go back and read your own post and see whether it sounds innocuous.

It really does not matter to me all that much, I only feel sorry I can't dialog with you if you are going to resort to such tactics.

I do not consider a personal attack, which I said so. Why would you not believe me? You think that I am intent on hurting you? I am not.

Even as an ordinary member, one who is supposed to be an unknown quantity, I try to consider how my words will appear to the reader. But you are SM. You have special responsibility that comes with the special powers bestowed upon you. You, as an SM, have a special obligation to set a high standard for civil exchange. But, you wish to write what you want and want me to read your mind and not the words you write. Is that not too much of an ask?

Shri KRS, you are still my brother, and I will take your word for it. I hope in the future, the words you write are more reflective of what is in your mind.

In Pol Pots case I wanted to illustrate

Same comment as above. IMO, equating any ordinary person to some of the worst criminals in human history, is not something that I would do or would consider kosher.

Show me the sentences where I have attacked you anywhere on your person.

Let me quote from this post:

It is a pity that folks like you who live in a theoretical world, who do most harm to this world with your polyannish attitde, aka, Neville Chamberlain, who confuse pacifism at all costs to civilized behaviour.
​

If this is not a personally degrading and personally offending comment, I guess we have to descend to the standards of Tamilnation.com or Karuthu.com to ascertain what is civil.

But, please understand that I can criticize your ideas.

I wouldn't expect anything less!

By the way, if I remember, you have recently stated that folks who are religious are superstitious and not logical/rational.

I don't remember, but this is something that is not entirely out of character. This is about religion and what it does to otherwise rational people. I condemn religion of all stripes, not the religious, for they are victims IMO.

Shri KRS, I have a lot of respect for you, I don't have any biological brothers and it would be a blast to have you as a brother. In other words, I don't take any of this personally against you. But, I think you do need to think twice about making personal comments like "people like you". Just imagine if somebody says to you -- I wouldn't -- people like you with conservative ideas are the enemies of all that is wholesome, how would you take it, would you take it as a personal attack or merely a criticism of your ideas?

Whatever the case may be, I do feel it is a personal attack when things such as "people like you" are written.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

... Just a glimpse: (Parmenides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Dear Shri Sangom sir,

I read through the Wiki article and the similarity of ideas is astounding. I wonder whether the Greek scholars who may have accompanied Alexander brought the seeds of Advaitam to India. Of course, such a possibility does not take away any of the brilliance of the Indian thinkers, but such subtleties are purely blasphemy from the POV of fragile egos.

This brings me to those who base their arguments on the existence of a creator god on the cause and effect principle. To them the very fact there is an effect is proof of a cause. In other words, the existence of jagat is proof of existence of Brhman.

This of course reveals the lack of rigor in their thinking. If an effect must always have a cause, then who is the cause of Brhman? Who is the cause of that cause? The infinite regress is self evident!

On the other hand, if the claim is that Brhman is ever present without a cause, then, that begs the question, why can't jagat exist in the same way without a cause?

Like Subbudu sir observed, I feel A, VA or D, they all are equally invalid. Of the three, A is so palpably absurd it is a wonder there are people subscribing to this view. Even the most famous rope/snake example they love to cite, presupposes three entities, a rope, a snake, and an observer, so much for unitary reality, yet they have the audacity to cite this as an explanation for advaitam.

VA may be more in line with the Vedas, but, as Subbudu sir has correctly observed, it presupposes a lot of preposterous ideas such as Sri Vaikuntam, Nithyasoories, Dhivya Athma Swaroopam, Dhivya Mangala Vighraham, etc., it just boggles one's mind. The proverbial invicible pink unicorn seems more real.

D, is another critique of A that goes further than VA, but in doing so, goes farther than what the Vedas, in its infinite wisdom, asserts some pretty unsustainable claims that flies in the face of rational thinking.

Here, I must note that VA is nether A nor D. But, when the similarities and dissimilarities are taken as a whole, A stands distinctly different from VA and D because A rejects anything else than Brhman - the one they call Nirguna -- as ultimately illusory. VA is no less farther from this notion than D. Ramanuja categorically rejects this idea. He goes as far as to assert that even our dreams are real. So, if a closeness contest is to be held and one is forced to choose which of the two philosophies, A or D, is closer to VA, then one has no choice but to side with D. This is not my opinion, the doyen of SV, Swami Sri Desikan is claimed to have sided with D in a debate between D and A.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

This is why I said 'Let the games begin, with these folks! If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs.'

Now read my first sentence carefully and tell me where I say they do not have any integrity? The message was that I hoped that they would allow me to participate instead of saying no, because they would understand to let me in on the conversation. I have respect for all the folks I mentioned and I wanted their consent (even though I do no9t need it) to intervene in the middle. Now Sri Sangom Ji took it to mean that as a SM I am questioning his integrity.

Dear Sir,

I have immense regard for you. How i wish you had not said those words. Because sir, unfortunately, it does come across as questioning Sangom sir's integrity.

Sir, if you wished to participate in the discussion, surely you cud have done so by starting off with the upanishad points yourself. In any case, there simply is no necessity to make such a remark on Sangom sir.

Sir, am posting this as someone who has immense regard for Sangom sir also. I wish to stand up for him. Sangom sir and i have disagreed in many places. I have even been disrespectful to him but each time realised it after reflecting back. But Sangom sir has always been principled. He has always stuck to responding to the points and even when provoked has not gone all out to attack any poster. But there are posters (like Brahin) who have specifically concentrated on provoking him these days.

Hope all of us can concentrate on the points of the discussion; and leave the poster alone. No one knows whose views might change after the next 10 minutes.

3. Now In terms of my second statement, this is what Sri Sangom Ji has posted in various places:
'Sankara seemed to have learnt all the lessons from Buddhism and used those to counter Buddhism itself; and this includes part of Buddhistic philosophy (śūnyavāda).

While we talk a lot about maayaa and avidyaa, all that Sankara said was "adhyaasa" or "adhyaaropa", appendage to Brahman. Fortunately, Sankara was able to escape with his advaita. I believe that he was able to do so because it was the acme of the Pallava rule, vedic brahmanism was spreading with full vigour in the south and the rulers were favourably disposed towards the revival of anything based on vedas and vedic (brahmanic) ideas.'

This is the type of statement by Sri Sangom Ji that I questioned. The Buddhist link is not proved beyond doubt. Especially, there are citations of Advaitha idea exists in Upanishads that pre date Buddhism. There are questions as to whether Buddhism adopted the concept of Avidya from Hinduism, Buddha was a Hindu, - there are no valid proofs either way. And when Sri Sangom Ji connects Brahminism and Advaitha, he again conveniently skips Adi Shankara's rejection of Purva Mimamsa as a valid path to know Brahma.

So, why does he gets upset when I said that he has not provided any proof to back up his infereces (remember I was posting as a member, NOT AS A SM), when he has not. Even the Wikipedia citation he has posted afterwards, at the end says while some researchers conclude that the concept may have come from Buddhism, read the citations last para, which gives the opposite view. Because I know that Sri Sangom Ji has strong opinions about Brahminism, etc., I think his nopinions are colored by that. What is wrong in saying that?

Sir, am not well read in advaita. I have read only a primer on visishtadvaita. From a lay person's pov, i wish to say this.

Just because some sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' exists in chandogya, it cannot be construed to support advaita or any philosophy. Anyone can create new ontologies and claim that it is supported by shruti, by conjuring up a connection between an upanishad phrase and their own meanings. Just that Buddha did not do it unlike advaita that did copy from buddhism but claimed to have shruti evidence for it. Those who claim advaita is pracchana boudha do have their valid points. And those who wish to counter-claim can very well do so. Instead of all this paper talk, how i wish there was a real life debate between Jains, Buddhists and Advaitins. According to Frits staal, the phrase 'Tat Tvam Asi' is not even gramatically correct...but then we have a conversation between Udalaka and Svetaketu, recorded on what basis we do not know. Anyways, all this is my personal view alone.

It is also my view that there has been a great deal of fraudulent claims that have gone into creating a 'faith', let alone a 'philosophy'. It is my view that the hagiographers of Shankara claimed incorrect things. Even words of Sadashiva Brahmendra have been altered to suit some premises (like the so-called "recontruction" of a particular temple at kanchi). I do not mind posting about all this, but i know it will be received with anger and indignation. And i do not want another round of such things. But then folks like me who started off as ardent beleivers cannot be blamed for ending up disillusioned.

I do not know if Sangom sir also became disillusioned along the way like me. But if (just in case) he did, there is nothing wrong with that. So just because he may have "strong opinions about Brahminism, etc" (your words), surely there is no necessity to think that he is "colored by that" (and i wonder what connection does this have with the topic of advaita). Anyways, even if he is "coloured" by such things, so what? Surely the discussion can be on the points, and not on the poster, what he is coloured about, etc.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Nara,

You have made some excellent points.
Let me quote this again

Here, I must note that VA is nether A nor D. But, when the similarities and dissimilarities are taken as a whole, A stands distinctly different from VA and D because A rejects anything else than Brhman - the one they call Nirguna -- as ultimately illusory. VA is no less farther from this notion than D. Ramanuja categorically rejects this idea. He goes as far as to assert that even our dreams are real. So, if a closeness contest is to be held and one is forced to choose which of the two philosophies, A or D, is closer to VA, then one has no choice but to side with D. This is not my opinion, the doyen of SV, Swami Sri Desikan is claimed to have sided with D in a debate between D and A.

I did not know Desikar's views on this. But a decent reading of Vishishtadvaita clearly shows the name is a misnormer. There is really not much advaita in it. In one of his lectures Shri Velukuddi Krishnan, the well known scholar, he says that the relation of a jiva to the brahman is that between the shariram and atman. In other words if this is to be taken as valid then the jiva is just an outer covering of the brahman. How much more dvaitic can you get. A clear difference is made between the jiva and the brahman . As per vishishtadvaita the brahman's thinking, personality and character is no where influenced by the individual jiva. The individual jiva remains an individual jiva. So I will specifically call Vishishtadvaita as a special case of dvaita. The philosophical bed-fellows needs no explanation. In any argument between a dvaita and an advaita scholar, a vishishtadvaitin is likely to side with a dvaitin. In TN there is not much of a dvaita. In Karnataka all three groups are there. I have seen the relationship between these three groups.

In any discourse by a Sri Vaishnava scholar, indirect and direct references to mayavada and advaita are made in a dismissive fashion. Some of them even specifically mention advaita as something akin to a dangerous faith. There will never be an attack of Dvaita in any of the lectures

 

[suraju06]

Dear Shri KRS, and other members,
I have never walked away from people just because they oppose my views, and I always walk away from people who just can't put forth their views without tearing me down as a person. Starting from Anand and Saptajihva to even sravna, we have managed to disagree profoundly without resorting to profane tactics.

It is disheartening to see comments like the one quoted above, the only purpose of which is to insult and humiliate. This kind of personal put-downs serve to inflame and generate nothing but ill will. Unfortunately, even Shri KRS engages in this. I feel really sorry about it.

Cheers!

Dear KRS Sir,

In a discussion when someone displays his profound ignorance splendidly what I feel as a member participating in the discussion is absolute pain. It is painfull not because the other party is ignorant, but because he has come here used this forum to waste my time as well that of many other serious members. This includes when someone( he may be even be a great professor) tells you that he comes here only to pass time. It is blatant mischief and nothing else. So it becomes important to mince no words and point out the standard clearly. Now please tell me whether Visishtadvaita is all about your ending up as a guard or a bhakta and all about putting a shanku and chakra on your body so that you will get a preferred treatment? If some one reveals such levels of ignorance particularly when members are discussing about the philosophical intricacies of the subject, is this not mischief making? And if I have questioned strongly that mischief making what is wrong? Even if people with a halo, who are special/privileged members of this forum in your esteemed assessment, come and tell you that I have crossed the line, you should have applied your mind to see the context, which you have not done. I am deeply disappointed by your editing my harmless picturesque words. If you needed a fall guy in your latest spat with the three members you have identified, I am not ready to play balls. Please justify your action in having edited the words. How are they personal? Please reinstate the comment. You can carry on your fight with others in other ways. Whatever I write will be disheartening to Mr. Professor Honourable Nara jee because he is still nursing a wound. He is working to a plan and you know that. I dont care if I am blocked for putting down these thoughts. Bye.

And finally if someone wants to leave the forum because your moderation is not upto his and his two friends' expectation let him leave. The forum can live gloriously and comfortably without him as it can do without me and you.

 

[zebra16]

Dear Esteemed Members,

I will not be participating in further discussions on this topic and also in any other future discussions in the near future. This sad development is due to my work commitments which would not allow me much leisure.

I was eagerly looking forward to the exchange of views on advaita but it was not to be but I hope other members would pursue this topic and derive the benefit.

I consider myself priveleged to have had the opportunity to interact with some very fine minds. I am also happy that I had discussions that was not just appealing to the intellect but ones which dealt with real and burning issues.

I look forward to joining you all again soon.

How I wish that the "work commitments" had come a couple of days or a week earlier!! If it had, we would have avoided the unpleasantness which ensued.

Regards,

narayan

 

[subbudu1]

Dear Nara,

You have made some excellent points.
Let me quote this again


I did not know Desikar's views on this. But a decent reading of Vishishtadvaita clearly shows the name is a misnormer. There is really not much advaita in it. In one of his lectures Shri Velukuddi Krishnan, the well known scholar, he says that the relation of a jiva to the brahman is that between the shariram and atman. In other words if this is to be taken as valid then the jiva is just an outer covering of the brahman. How much more dvaitic can you get. A clear difference is made between the jiva and the brahman . As per vishishtadvaita the brahman's thinking, personality and character is no where influenced by the individual jiva. The individual jiva remains an individual jiva. So I will specifically call Vishishtadvaita as a special case of dvaita. The philosophical bed-fellows needs no explanation. In any argument between a dvaita and an advaita scholar, a vishishtadvaitin is likely to side with a dvaitin. In TN there is not much of a dvaita. In Karnataka all three groups are there. I have seen the relationship between these three groups.

In any discourse by a Sri Vaishnava scholar, indirect and direct references to mayavada and advaita are made in a dismissive fashion. Some of them even specifically mention advaita as something akin to a dangerous faith. There will never be an attack of Dvaita in any of the lectures

There is another vaishnava philosophy which is much more closer to advaita. It is not vishishtadvaita but it is Vallabacharya's philosophy. I will give a more detailed explanation later.