Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[zebra16]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Namaste,

Pl refer msg 131 of 19 05 2011. I have a different take on a couple of points:

QUOTE (I) "Advaita - Extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof"

My take: Not necessarily. The earth-shattering claim of its time that the earth is spherical, required just the pedestrian observation that when a ship is at horizon, its lower parts are obscured due to the sphericity of the earth.

The law of gravity was deduced by Sir Newton by observing the fall of the apple, a daily occurence.

QUOTE 2 : "Starting from Shankaracharya nobody demonstrated non-duality with brahman practically"

My take: None of the scientists till date have demonstrated practically big-bang therory but that does not take out the theory per se. May be advaita does not fall in the class of big bang theory, but in the non-demonstration category it has a partner.

Regards,

narayan

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS,

....Is this not a condescending and hurtful statement?

Saying someone is a victim is on par with calling people like me do most harm in this world, really? You choose to pick up on just this one point on which you found your voice, but simply ignored all the other points. Alright, I don't want to belabor the already belabored, let it be.

As you have rightly said, I have the power to throw you out. Please think a bit on this, why I have not done so, when I constantly get PMs from a lot of Forum members here who routinely ask why we are entertaining folks like you, who do not respect our identity as a Brahmin, on the cultural basis?

Please KRS, you are not doing me any favor, throw me out if you think that is the right thing to do. If you don't throw me out, please be aware that you are doing so not as a favor to me, but because that is the right thing to do in your mind. Either way, it is not a favor to me. For doing the right thing on one issue does not give you a pass to do the wrong thing on a different issue. In other words, not throwing me out for the right reasons does not give you the right to use derisive language against me.

This is exactly what is wrong with SM participating in discussions taking very strong positions and using very strong language. On the issue of the so called "brahmin cultural identity" you have a position opposite to that of mine. You have the power to throw me out and the only power I have is the force of my argument. In addition, you also get lots of PMs complaining why people like me must be entertained. The playing field is so hopelessly tilted.

About these PMs, I have now received warning from you and from another source as well. Who are these people sending secret PMs complaining? Why can't they express their complaints in the open and debate it? If complaints are received does that automatically mean they are valid and I must be reprimanded?

I wake up this morning and see all this and I wonder what the heck. Let me repeat again Shri KRS, you are doing me no favor at all, throw me out if you want.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Let me put it this way:

If you say that something omnipotent can make itself NOT omnipotent, what would that mean? You are just playing with semantics here. These sort of statements make no sense in the same way you say that if a perfect being is not be able to make itself imperfect it is lacking in something.

Omnipotent and NOT omnipotent were not the points which I said; it was "so perfect" that it cannot be omnipotent. I feel these are two entirely different premises.

You are silent about the language inadequacy point.

 

[gopaindu]

Flaws in Advaita and Advaita's place in comparison to Dwaita and Vishishtadvaita

Dear all, (Ref: 1to 10)
In my opinion, There is no flaw in Advaita,Vishishtadvaita or Dwaita. Advaita is abstract. Vishishtadavaida is less abstract and Dwaita is practicable. These three philosophies are three stages of attaining Brahman. To begin with, Dwaita is to be taken as real i.e. Jivatma and Parmatma are real and the former reaches the latter through removal of ignorance or avidya or agnana. Initially, jivatma has to believe that Paramatrma and Jivatma are two distinct realities. This theory is easy to believe because from time immemorial, human beings have considered God as a Supreme being and human beings are inferior to him/her. This belief leads Jivatma to pray to Parmatma to remove his avidya. The consistancy in the prayerfor a very long period leads Jivatma to Vishishtadvaita where, God is no doubt superior there exists another Atma which is far superior to Jivatma but inferior to Paramatma. That secondary supreme being is considered as Goddess Mother. Goddess mother recommends the case of jivatma who pray for removal of Avidya to God. This level is also reached after removal of avidya to a greater extent but not completely. Prayer to Goddress mother again for a long time leads to his case being recommended for complete removal of avidya. God considers the recommendation and showers his dvine grace on the Jivatma after which Avidya is removed completely. Subsequently, the jivatma becomes brahman, which is a part of Paramatma. Then the duality disappears and Aham Brahma Asmi realisation occurs wherein Advaita steps in. Coming to perceived flaws in Advaita, there is no distinction between Brahman and Paramatma. The world which appears to be real due to ill conceived perception. This ill conceived perception is due to veil created by Maya which is also part of brahman. Once the human being attain Brahman/Paramatma, he was so awed by its greatnes and prevalence everywhere, he becomes speechless. That is the reason, even in Vedas, there is no description of Brahman. Vedas only say that they are the means to attain Brahman. According to capacity of individual one can practise Advaita, Vishishtadvaita or Dwaida, obviously depending upon the level of his/her intellect/level of removal of avidya. This view of mine is based on anumanam/ logical thingking. Therefore, the flaws of Advaita are only perceived and not real. raja48

 

[sangom]

Namaste,

Pl refer msg 131 of 19 05 2011. I have a different take on a couple of points:

QUOTE (I) "Advaita - Extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof"

My take: Not necessarily. The earth-shattering claim of its time that the earth is spherical, required just the pedestrian observation that when a ship is at horizon, its lower parts are obscured due to the sphericity of the earth.

The law of gravity was deduced by Sir Newton by observing the fall of the apple, a daily occurence.

QUOTE 2 : "Starting from Shankaracharya nobody demonstrated non-duality with brahman practically"

My take: None of the scientists till date have demonstrated practically big-bang therory but that does not take out the theory per se. May be advaita does not fall in the class of big bang theory, but in the non-demonstration category it has a partner.

Regards,

narayan

Shri Narayan,

Sphericity of earth, gravitation, etc., were known to man and animals (probably, we don't have any way to know or deduce) but were not admitted or explained lucidly. Hence some very sharp intellects deduced these from very ordinary phenomena. But Advaita claims of one Reality which is Brahman, as also the ordinarily known reality (for the sense organs) as mere illusion, are rather extra-ordinary claims. May be we can compare this with a normal human couple. Most of us will have (at least that is my humble opinion) no difficulty in identifying the husband and wife (male and female). We also know, by examples from day-to-day life, medical and physiological sciences etc., that these couple will normally beget progeny. As and when child/ children are born to this couple we all will take that happening as natural and in the stride.

Suppose now some one tells that the one whom we thought as husband (and male) was not male or husband but a female and the wife, and vice versa. Irrespective of who tells the truth, the phenomenon of begetting progeny will happen, though, in the case of this actual example, those who doubt the veracity of the newcomer will have several ways of independent verification and/or deduction of the truth.

Now, let us suppose, somewhat along the same lines, that this world/cosmos/universe and all that is in it is the reality and the supposed Brahman is the illusion, there will be no great difficulty for the universe to function according to its laws, some of which are known to science but much is yet to be understood. What does this mean? Just for the sake of a new philosophy reality has been termed as unreal and an illusory Brahman which not even Sankara has demonstrated, was postulated. In considering the development of Vedanta in India we must keep in mind one essential fact, viz., none of the Acharyas, including Sankara, were deliberately trying to mislead people; they said their convictions as truly as possible, and also tried to prove their respective hypotheses in accordance with the rules of debate accepted in their time. Hence, the opposition to Advaita from Ramanujacharya and later from Madhvacharya, came not just to win public accolades or some award, but due to sincere effort to see that people are not misled due to any reason whatsoever. Of course, it is true that hinduism, vedanta, etc., did not - and even today, they do not - accept buddhism or jainism.

The Big Bang theory is a theoretical construct and there are at least two cosmic phenomena which can be explained (the expanding Universe and the red shift, as also the background radiation in cosmos) only by the Big Bang.

 

[sravna]

Ok this is what I said:

"If you say that the higher brahman being omnipotent should be able to do anything including being imperfect, then you are contradicting its nature of perfection"

Is the following version more clear?

Ok , Perfect being should not have the ability to make itself imperfect as it is a negative quality. Being omnipotent doesn't matter. If it is using the omnipotence to do that it is in fact becoming less omnipotent which doesn't make sense.

Regarding language inadequacy, understanding through language is indeed woefully inadequate compared to one's intuition. Sankara I suppose was 12 or so when he wrote commentary on the brahma sutra. It was through his intuition that he grasped the truth. It took much much longer, over centuries and people are still to come to grips with advaita.

 

[sravna]

Dear all, (Ref: 1to 10)
In my opinion, There is no flaw in Advaita,Vishishtadvaita or Dwaita. Advaita is abstract. Vishishtadavaida is less abstract and Dwaita is practicable. These three philosophies are three stages of attaining Brahman. To begin with, Dwaita is to be taken as real i.e. Jivatma and Parmatma are real and the former reaches the latter through removal of ignorance or avidya or agnana. Initially, jivatma has to believe that Paramatrma and Jivatma are two distinct realities. This theory is easy to believe because from time immemorial, human beings have considered God as a Supreme being and human beings are inferior to him/her. This belief leads Jivatma to pray to Parmatma to remove his avidya. The consistancy in the prayerfor a very long period leads Jivatma to Vishishtadvaita where, God is no doubt superior there exists another Atma which is far superior to Jivatma but inferior to Paramatma. That secondary supreme being is considered as Goddess Mother. Goddess mother recommends the case of jivatma who pray for removal of Avidya to God. This level is also reached after removal of avidya to a greater extent but not completely. Prayer to Goddress mother again for a long time leads to his case being recommended for complete removal of avidya. God considers the recommendation and showers his dvine grace on the Jivatma after which Avidya is removed completely. Subsequently, the jivatma becomes brahman, which is a part of Paramatma. Then the duality disappears and Aham Brahma Asmi realisation occurs wherein Advaita steps in. Coming to perceived flaws in Advaita, there is no distinction between Brahman and Paramatma. The world which appears to be real due to ill conceived perception. This ill conceived perception is due to veil created by Maya which is also part of brahman. Once the human being attain Brahman/Paramatma, he was so awed by its greatnes and prevalence everywhere, he becomes speechless. That is the reason, even in Vedas, there is no description of Brahman. Vedas only say that they are the means to attain Brahman. According to capacity of individual one can practise Advaita, Vishishtadvaita or Dwaida, obviously depending upon the level of his/her intellect/level of removal of avidya. This view of mine is based on anumanam/ logical thingking. Therefore, the flaws of Advaita are only perceived and not real. raja48

Good Analysis

 

[subbudu1]

Ok , Perfect being should not have the ability to make itself imperfect as it is a negative quality. Being omnipotent doesn't matter. If it is using the omnipotence to do that it is in fact becoming less omnipotent which doesn't make sense.
.

What is the measure of this perfectness? What is a negative quality?

 

[sravna]

What is the measure of this perfectness? What is a negative quality?

I would say something which is totally complete by itself like the pure brahman is perfect. A negative quality is therefore one that makes you more incomplete.

 

[Nara]

....Secondly, let me post here a post you have made much after this one:"According to this theory, on anything you have personal experiences in, ipso facto, you cannot have unbiased rational view, it must only be a colored one. The fallacy of this logic is so obvious it is a wonder that it is used so often. The tactic is to tarnish the credibility of the individual in the hope that the views of the individual will not be taken seriously. Some people take this tactic to the extreme and smear and destroy the individual and crowd out any reasonable exchange of ideas. In the recent past more of this is happening in this forum."

I know this is clearly directed against me, but this is okay. You say that 'this is tactics by 'some' to muzzle some others.

Dear Shri KRS one more thing, I had you in my mind because you have said my view or Sangom's view is colored by something or the other, similar to the interviewer dismissing Malcolm X based on his experiences. But I did not have you in mind when I said there are some who take this tactic to the extreme, suraju06 fits that bill perfectly.

To all those who send PMs to Shri KRS and Praveen, let me state here with as much honesty and earnestness that I can muster, if I offend your sensibilities -- I am told this is what I have to watch out for -- please come forward and let me know either through PM or in the open. I will deal with your concerns with utmost respect. I will do one of two things, I will explain why I stand by my views or I will openly retract my words and apologize to you.

Let us do this in the proper way, give me my due, which is nothing more than due process. I won't give you anything less.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

advaitham came at a time when vedas were relegated to background,the back bone of sanathana dharma during adi sankaras time.now some school even have the time factor of adi sankara different.past is an relative-illusion,present is the reality and future is a relative-delusion to think now.sarvam brahman mayam,shambho shiva shambho.

 

[sangom]

To all those who send PMs to Shri KRS and Praveen, let me state here with as much honesty and earnestness that I can muster, if I offend your sensibilities -- I am told this is what I have to watch out for -- please come forward and let me know either through PM or in the open. I will deal with your concerns with utmost respect. I will do one of two things, I will explain why I stand by my views or I will openly retract my words and apologize to you.

Let us do this in the proper way, give me my due, which is nothing more than due process. I won't give you anything less.

Cheers!

Nara,

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. It is as plain as daylight that some people want this forum to be an exclusive club to ventilate their pet ideas and foibles about the glories of Sanatana dharma, apourusheyatva of vedas and generally, the unquestionability of everything in Hindu religion a.k.a. Sanatana Dharma. It now seems to me that the administration of the forum has also decided that the chauvinists' side is better, truer and may be more pleasing to God, and they want to change course. We who are the eyesores, should either acknowledge defeat and join the crowd (and be more Roman among the Romans) or withdraw with whatever integrity still left. I prefer the latter. Anyway, there will be no response to your request for coming out into the open with their grouses against you, me or anyone else; they prefer attacking from safe hide-outs.

 

[subbudu1]

The interested parties may also refer to BUDDHISM, ADVAITA AND DVAITA – 1 « Adbhutam's Blog
for the rebuttals provided by a knowledgeble Advaitin to some of the points raised by Sri BKN

Regards,

narayan

Thank you for the blog. I need to examine each of the verses indicated by the author to make specific comments but I will explain the situation with regard to some of the arguments.

The third line ‘ज्ञानेन भूयोऽपि चतत्प्रलीयते’ specifically teaches that ‘through Knowledge the falsely projected duality ceases’ which is nothing but ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम्. The rope-snake analogy too is significant in the above bhAgavatam verse. The word ‘tat-praleeyate’ is the one that is corresponding to the word ‘ स्यान्निवृत्तौ’ of the Bhuddhistic verse quoted by Sri Madhva.

The blogger is indicating that Bhagwatham contains these ideas. Bhagawatham is considered post-buddhism as there are references to Buddha. Infact some believe that this purana is much later than 10 th century. Therefore Bhagwatham may even contain what Shankara had to say.

The rest of the blog is involved in showing that madhva sampradaya has similarities with advaita. Here I am particularly interested in the differences. The argument about the concept of difference raised in the Book and quoted by me has not been answered in this blog. But this argument hits advaita in the hard hard way.

 

[kunjuppu]

I think that the nature of the topic is such that questioning certain aspects of our heritage is considered ‘anti brahmin’.

Historically, more venom and blood have been shed over religion. In a pale sort of way, it is reflected here, by the desire to suppress certain viewpoints, by terming them ‘anti brahmin’, or worse still, attack the integrity of the poster.

Personally, I think it is best to stay and continue to present viewpoints which may not be liked by some. This is the real world, and one cannot run away. Digging a hole, and shoving the head in it, does the ostrich no good.

It should not be the intent of members here, to hound certain folks to leave the forum. Or bombard Praveen with such requests. so what will be left behind is shadows. Shadows don’t make sounds and are associated with dark practises. It is upto Praveen and the moderators, to choose whether this forum would be a source of light, ie brightness generated through vivid and lively interaction.

Or shadows generated by silence. All will be populated by single hands. Single hands even when they clap, do not make any sounds. and shadows do not make any noise, even when they laugh.

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

I do not want to detract from the thread topic - this will be my last words here to you on the 'integrity' incidence.

1. I have already explained why your words on calling all who follow religions as victims as offensive. You also conveniently said that you are not attacking the 'religious' to somehow separate (in your mind) attacking an idea versus a person. In this case when you say 'victims' how do you separate people from your idea that all religions are bad? In my view this is strong language.

2. By ascribing a motive to everyone else who do not ascribe to your ideas, both directly and indirectly, and then complaining when others do it, you are not being fair. This type of indirect references and ascribing motives that you condemn against is something you often do - I can cite numerous instances of this, if you want. Now, why I have not intervened and moderated on these? Because, I do not think that these do raise to the level of attacking someone personally. But you seem to take things offensively when someone says things like this about you.

3. Now coming to the point of 'throwing you out' - I asked you to think about this, for you to come to a pov about moderation doing what is 'right'. No one will be thrown out for their ideas, as long as they abide by the Forum Rules. So you just can not complain, when someone else who has equally strong views like yourself, uses 'strong' language. 'Strong' here should not be confused with 'attacking a person'. I do not know you and you don't know me, but ascribing some secret motives to people just because they hold a different views from yourself, while within the Forum is a judgement call on moderation, is to be avoided. My frustration is that while I have explained several times, the explanations are not accepted - this Forum has come to a point, where it is segmented on the ideological level, I have said this before - as evidenced by the fact that when I see 'likes' being given, I can almost predict with 99% accuracy, who is giving them based on who is posting. Everyone does it. So, in my opinion, there is a tendency to automatically react to something based on who is saying it, not on the intent and content. Of course when I miss something that is a personal attack, I have always moderated on it.

4. The PM that went out - no, I did not send it - I was copied. It came from the SSM, Sri Praveen Ji.

You need not agree with anything I said above. But I have said this to clear some mis conceptions.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

...2. By ascribing a motive to everyone else who do not ascribe to your ideas, both directly and indirectly, and then complaining when others do it, you are not being fair.

Shri KRS, I simply don't think "people like you do more harm" is in the same category as what you are accusing me of. Anyway, I once stayed as far away from engaging in a discussion with you, and it worked very well for me. I will have to resort to that tactic again.

So you just can not complain, when someone else who has equally strong views like yourself, uses 'strong' language. 'Strong' here should not be confused with 'attacking a person'.

You know KRS I have never complained about anyone, if people try to drag me down to the gutter I keep away from them. Here is something somebody said about me, not my views, but about me, in a different thread:

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.
​

and that somebody claims now that he used "polyannish as a complement!!!! I suppose I should tell that somebody that folks like him with utopian ultra-right-wing attitude who are ruining the lives of millions of people all over the word -- which is actually much milder -- and then claim it was meant as a complement. Even here I did not complain to the SM or Praveen, I only pointed out the outlandishly personal nature of the attack to the attacker himself. I will let the members decide how complementary the above statement about me really is.

Even in this discussion about integrity my initial instinct was to let it go, I knew only heat will be generated by pointing out the attack, and I am proved right. You can call me any name and that would not bother me, I will simply ignore it. But Shri Sangom sir wanted to set the record straight and I am with him on it. I will stand by his efforts for I think he is spot on with his demands.

Alright, from now on I will try and not cross path with you. But you being SM may receive complaints about me via PM. Please remember, the right thing to do is to at least let me see what the complaint is about and give me a chance to respond before sending me a warning to tone it down. This is the very least thing to do to be fair and that is no favor to me.

Thank you ....

 

[zebra16]

Ok this is what I said:


Regarding language inadequacy, understanding through language is indeed woefully inadequate compared to one's intuition. Sankara I suppose was 12 or so when he wrote commentary on the brahma sutra. It was through his intuition that he grasped the truth. It took much much longer, over centuries and people are still to come to grips with advaita.

Sir,
Is this the official Advaita position, that he intuited to grasp the truth? and that he wrote commentary on brahma sutra at the age of 12? This is news to me and if you can give any references (in support) I will be much obliged.

Regards,

narayan

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Those who are inclined to accept Advaita as a guiding principle are not following Adi Sankara but they think their own idea is reflected in that one. I am afraid none of them will make propaganda of it. Any philosophy from ancient to date is reduced to personal reflection and it will not be long before philosophy suffers the same fate as art, history,etc. Individuals depth of knowledge in the arguments may be awesome but not necessarily wholesome. A man who says there is god is as much a fool as a man who says there is none. Whichever school of thought you belong to, unburden yourself by shedding the ego, the seat of all misconceptions.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri narayan, If I may sneak in my two cents ....

QUOTE (I) "Advaita - Extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof"

My take: Not necessarily. The earth-shattering claim of its time that the earth is spherical, required just the pedestrian observation that when a ship is at horizon, its lower parts are obscured due to the sphericity of the earth.

IMO, the purport of the quote is not that the proof must be complicated, only that it must be persuasive. Extraordinarily fantastic claim requires extraordinarily persuasive proof. Advaitam asserts that the world in front of us and our own individual existences that we so intimately feel, are all mere illusion, and that they just don't exist in reality. This is a fantastic claim, and therefore it requires more persuasive proof than simply saying Adi Sankara said so.

QUOTE 2 : "Starting from Shankaracharya nobody demonstrated non-duality with brahman practically"

My take: None of the scientists till date have demonstrated practically big-bang therory but that does not take out the theory per se. May be advaita does not fall in the class of big bang theory, but in the non-demonstration category it has a partner.

There are scientists working on these theories. The scientific process itself is self-correcting and progressive. However, to my knowledge, the Vedantic theories of A, VA, D, etc., are already set in stone, so to speak. The claim is these are Siddantam for the respective adherents, not mere theories.

Actually, my problem with this quote is not about non-duality, but the appearance of a presupposition that there exists a Brhman in the first place. The criticism implied in the quote is that non-duality is not demonstrated, where as, more fundamentally, the existence of a Brhman itself is not demonstrated, let alone its non-dual nature.

Here again, (i) the claim is a fantastic one needing persuasive proof, and (ii) the burden of proof is on those who assert the existence of Brhman.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....... It is indeed the belief of many that this symbolism is an absolute must. May be it reminds them of god more. May be the symbol itself is so sacred that god is with that person by marking those symbols.

Dear Subbudu sir, as you rightly observe, this samskara is an absolute must for all SVs, so much so, in orthodox families, a new DIL will not be allowed to touch anything in the kitchen, why, they may not even be allowed to enter the kitchen, until she is branded .

Boys get branded when the get their second life - upanayanam, though many weekend SVs have no idea about this and don't do it, and the girls get branded when they get their second life - wedding. The one who performs this samskara becomes one's acharya, and therefore girls normally are made to wait until they get married so that the entire family will have the same acharya.

To be fair, this samskara is not only about branding with Shangu and Chakra, but it has five aspects to it -- for this reason this is also called pancha samskara. These five are:

1. tApa samskaram, i.e. the branding part,
2. pundara samskara, the acharya will place the urdva pundaram (namam) in twelve places in the upper torso, and one is supposed to wear this 12 pundaram from that day forward,
3. nAma samskaram - all SVs take the same name, ramanuja dasan,
4. mantra samskaram, the acharya will initiate the aspirant with three esoteric mantras that are of prime importance for all SVs, and they are, (a) thiruvashtaksharam, (b) dvayam, and (c) Srimat BG sharama shlokam; BTW, the first two are so esoteric that they must not be said aloud, and yet, even in the most important temple for all SVs, namely Sri Rangam, these mantras are broadcast on loud speakers -- so much for following tradition , and finally,
5. Ijjai samskaram, this is when you get the right to perform aradhanam to saligrama perumal, and all SVs are supposed to do saligrama aradhanam everyday and consume only what is offered to this perumal, this is the reason for all the exclusivity.

This panca samskara is not restricted only to dwajas, anyone can get it done, even a dalit. If the the stories of SV Acharyas can be believed, then we know that Dalits were indeed part of the SV community once upon a time. Even today, if somebody approaches a SV acharya and requests Panca samskara to be administered, they will do it, they have to do it, for, according to SV, each and every human is entitled to it -- வைகுந்தம் புகுவது மண்ணவர் விதியே, says Nammazhvar. These days, how they get treated afterwards is another story.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

This is exactly the reason I am hesitant to enter into the discussion in this thread.

Those who are inclined to accept Advaita as a guiding principle are not following Adi Sankara but they think their own idea is reflected in that one. I am afraid none of them will make propaganda of it. Any philosophy from ancient to date is reduced to personal reflection and it will not be long before philosophy suffers the same fate as art, history,etc. Individuals depth of knowledge in the arguments may be awesome but not necessarily wholesome. A man who says there is god is as much a fool as a man who says there is none. Whichever school of thought you belong to, unburden yourself by shedding the ego, the seat of all misconceptions.

Although Advaita is my considered conviction, much of what I know is colored by own personal opinions, since I have not read much of Shankara or other advaitakAras. I am currently inclined to go with the advaita explained by BhagavAn DAs in his book 'Science of Peace' which I am serializing in another thread under the title 'adhyAtma vidyA in synthesis'.

The war of words in the last few posts is unfortunate. In the interests of the character of diversity of this forum, which is also the main characteristics of today's *******, I request members to accommodate each other and continue the discussions in amity.

 

[renuka]

click on this link..here to get a picture how things are debated here.

Philosophy - Hindu Dharma Forums

 

[sravna]

Sir,
Is this the official Advaita position, that he intuited to grasp the truth? and that he wrote commentary on brahma sutra at the age of 12? This is news to me and if you can give any references (in support) I will be much obliged.

Regards,

narayan

Shri Narayan,

Sankara completed his commentary on Brahma Sutra at the age of 16. I think this is phenomenal. To grasp such profound truths at such an age in my opinion qualifies him more or less as a unique genius.

 

[tks]

click on this link..here to get a picture how things are debated here.

Philosophy - Hindu Dharma Forums

Smt Renu
Thanks for providing reference to another forum.
I think opposing view points, when presented with scholarly analysis, with maturity reflected in the approach to presentation and with responses that shows understanding of the previous points will make for a very interesting forum

This forum is capable of rising to these levels consistently even if there may be a discordant note here and there.

I would like a thread on what makes a great debate, how forum members can self moderate themselves and how members can make this an exemplary forum in all topic areas. Perhaps I will start such a thread since the topic of this thread is different and share my thoughts. I would be interested in learning what others have to say

Regards

 

[sangom]

The interested parties may also refer to BUDDHISM, ADVAITA AND DVAITA – 1 « Adbhutam's Blog
for the rebuttals provided by a knowledgeble Advaitin to some of the points raised by Sri BKN

Regards,

narayan

Shri Narayan,

IMHO, Buddha did not claim that his preachings were unrelated to the vedic people's belief system (since the word "hinduism" was not in use in Buddha's times). In fact Buddha opposed the vedic sacrificial religious mode and his religion aimed at putting a stop to what we now call as poorva meemaamsa. Hence, the rebuttal appearing in Adbhutam's Blog is a redundant exercise, IMO. The very fact that Buddhism could find followers in far away Japan, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, etc., is sufficient proof of its logical soundness, unlike Advaita which faced opposition even from among the Brahmans, within 400 years or so.

Taking the help of a verse from Mattavilaasa Prahasana (satire on a drunkard's antics) is not doing any signal service to the standing of Advaita as vedanta.