A moment please !!!

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Padmasheela Rayala wrote:

> Hi,
>         I also have been reading the Advaita discussion group articles with a
> great deal of interest but since yesterday, I feel that the group is diverging
> from its original discussions.  And also, it came as a shock to me that the
> people who I have been thinking that they have a lot of knowledge about the
> vedas and all are talking these things.  It is really hurting too...
>

So you lost a delusion today.  Congratulations.

>         Basically, I got an impression with the earlier postings that it
 doesn't
> matter what a person does for a living etc. but if a person has a thirst for
> knowledge and want to know about self, they can go about all these
> ways..(advaita, yoga etc...).  I can understand about the questions if a
> householder can do it successfully with all the responsibilities...but what I
 am
> unable to understand is about the mention and discussion of caste system.

And what I'm unable to understand is some people like to pretend the caste
system doesn't exist.  It should be obvious to anyone who has seen, been
to or even heard of Hinduism that this is what our people do.

 These
> people...who are supposed to have gained atleast a little bit of knowledge
>from  all these vedas and advaita and what not...

Especially the what not.

they still didn't come out of one
> basic principle that any person can have a thirst for knowledge and thus can
> attain or acheive brahmanatvam.  Do you guys really mean to tell me that any
> person who is not a brahman(brahmin..)by birth is not eligible to attain
> moksha?

You can answer that question yourself.  Go back and look at the archives
of this list and tell me who is saying that.

>  Is this what our Vedas really tell us?

The Vedas, yes, are only for Brahmans.  But the Puranas, Smritis etc.
contain the essence of the Vedas and are open to all.


> How can any person get a right to
> become a Brahman just because he is born to brahman parents?  Doesn't Brahman
> mean that the person has attained knowledge about self and thus these caste or
> the human-made boundaries do not exist at that point?

No.

Is this whole discussion
> group based on the assumption that who ever is participating or reading these
> articles have to be a brahman by birth?

No.

>         I lost most of my respect for the people in this group after realizing
> that however much knowledge you might achieve by reading books, by working
> with
> a guru, that knowledge actually didn't sink into their heart.  If you think
> that
> self realization or moksha (or call it by any name) is possible only for a
> person who wears yagnopaveetha or a brahman by birth, I really don't think
> that
> is neither a way to realize that nor are you a brahman just because you think
> you are...
>

You are entitled to think whatever you like and respect whoever you like
but it is of no concern to anyone else.  Especially if your basis for
doing so is based on a complete misconception.  So go or stay it's up to
you.


>         I almost asked a question the other day--as to why is this path or
> advaita and everything limited to men?  I am a woman and a non-brahman but I
> have a desire to learn about these things..I may not be able to achieve the
> highest point or maybe I maynot even take off from the first level itself
> but I
> have a lot of desire to try to understand and learn everything..And that was
> the
> reason I joined this group thinking I can learn something new...But now, I
> don't
> think I will ask that question as the people who are participating in these
> discussions are not actually understanding the very basic principles of
> advaita...

You should have asked your question.  You would have gotten an answer
perhaps one you would have been pleasantly surprised by.  But I guess
you'll never know being so adamant against learning something new.
Personally I'm on this list because I learn something new from everyone I
correspond with--even the ones I'm 180 degrees in opposition to.  (It's
called open-mindedness.)

If your arguments are true, how come Sankaracharya even considered
> the
> principles of buddhism?  Why didn't he just thrash it saying they are not
> brahmans?

Because Shankaracharya had a brain in his head.  We all have brains and
the intent is for us to use them.  We have to consider every new idea that
comes along measure it against the yardstick of the shastras and logic and
*then* reject it if it doesn't fit.

> Did Sankaracharya actually said anywhere that these cannot be
> attained by anybody else?
>

Most of Shankaracharyas works consist of polemics against other darshanas.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!