no postings!?

[Danny Smitzen]

TAKE ME OFF LIST
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Fri Feb 28 13:27:24 1997
Message-Id: <FRI.28.FEB.1997.132724.0530.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:27:24 +0530
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: "V. Ramakrishna" <vrama at GENIUS.TISL.SOFT.NET>
Subject: Introduction
Comments: To: advaita-l at tamu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=euc-kr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,
   This is Shankar.  I am new to the list and I went through some of
 the stuff there.  Most of it is intimidating to a novice, especially
 one who does not know sanskrit.  Still, it was heartening to note  that
 people take the trouble to answer "simple" questions also.
   I am 25, single and am working for a software concern in b'lore. I
 spend my free time reading or taking long (meditative) walks.  I heard
 about advaita about 6 months  back and have since been finding out
 something about it.  This list looks like a good oppurtunity to learn
 something more.
 That is about it for now.
 Regards,
 Shankar
>From jaldhar at braincells.com Mon Mar  3 01:29:07 1997
Message-Id: <MON.3.MAR.1997.012907.0500.JALDHAR at BRAINCELLS.COM>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 01:29:07 -0500
Reply-To: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Various vAda-s in advaita (was Re: A few questions)
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199702181615.LAA10508 at tuna.ecn.purdue.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Sorry for the late reply but for various reasons I've been busy lately.

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> Uhm, this whole line of argument itself shows that you haven't understood
> neither the mANDUkya nor the kArikA-s. Just because the shruti ennumerates 3
> states it does not mean that it gives the waking state higher priority.

At this point I'm not arguing any such thing.  All I'm saying is the
Shruti enumerates 4 states (including turiya.)  And you agree with me.  So
now that's settled we can move on to the next question.  Is the waking
state more real than the dream state?

> In fact
> the mANDUkya says no such thing. The shruti just says that there _seem_ to be
> 3  states, but that the Lord is above them all, i.e., the turIya. Refer to the
> verses on vishva and taijasa. Nowhere does it state that vishva has greater
> reality. shruti also says that there is a world, but it is actually un-real.
> Just because it says that there is a world, it does not mean it is real. In
> fact the shruti goes into quite a bit of detail about creation. So you don't
> mean to say that is real do you? Advaitins hold that creation _seems_ to have
> happened, but in reality it is unreal.
>

As I pointed out far earlier in this thread, this whole discussion of the
relative reality of the 3 lower states can only take place at the
vyavaharic level.  Because as everyone here would agree, they are all
completely unreal in comparison with turiya.  So your words above while
true are irrelevant to the question at hand.  Again I'll repeat the
question.  Is the waking state more real than the dream state?  I'll admit
when I first wrote that it was I didn't think of any shastric reason for
saying so.  I thought it was a matter of common sense.  (And unless you
write your posts in your sleep I think you do too.)  Still, it's there in
he shastras too.  See B.S. 2.4.20 and 3.2.1-6 and Shankaracharya's
comments therewith.


> Further, I don't see who the later advaitins contradicting shrI gauDapAda are:

Neither do I.  I said they distanced themselves from his style.  Where
else do you see a Vedantin referring to a jnani as a buddha for example?
Shankaracharya was fully aware that Gaudapadacharyas comments were tinged
with Buddhism.  That's why in one place he remarks that Gaudapadacharya is
making vijnanavadi arguments to prove the absurdity of vijnanavada.  Does
he do that himself in his own works?

> What do you mean by the above statement? I never said that the world is
> literally a dream.

That's what the poster who originally started this thread thought.  Why
did you step in if you agree with me?

> The point is that by logic and shruti the waking state
> cannot be given _greater_ reality than the dream state. Of course from the
> point of view of the waking state, the dream state _appears_ different and
> _less_ real. In actuality the waking state is not _more_ real.
>

Funny, one paragraph above you're saying the world is more than a dream.

> I am not trying to be rude here, but the point here is not whether _you_ have
> a problem with gauDapAda. It's obvious that you do.

I have problems with a certain presentation of Gaudapadacharyas teachings
but that hardly means I have a problem with the man himself.  I don't see
any discrepancies between his teachings and my very modest assertions.
(Even the one about Buddhist influence is barely controversial.)

> I feel I have to add a note here on why I am dragging on with this argument. I
> had some arguments with various people, both advaitins and dvaitins about the
> GK, upadeshasAhasrI and put forth the claim that shrI sha.nkara had said
 things
> in a different manner in different books to suit persons of different
> capabilities. In srv, when I said this, Shrisha Rao actually claimed I was
> being disrespectful to shrI sha.nkara and so on. I feel that the point that
> advaita recognizes people of various grades and accommodates all of them
 cannot
> be over-emphasized. Other schools, especially the vaishnavites (I do not have
> much experience with shaivites), have the "either-or" approach, which other
> religions like christianity, etc also have, and it is very difficult for them
> to understand this particular aspect of advaita (as seen by the confusion
> which some Western scholars and also non-advaitins on the net seem to
> have).
>

I think this business of different teachings can become a cheap way to
escape from having to use ones brain and in that sense it can be
disrespectful to Shankaracharya as it presents his thought as being
muddled when it isn't.  A division of teaching between the prasthana trayi
and the stotras or amongst the various prakaranas makes sense but if one
suggests Shankaracharya is saying one thing in the Mandukya Karika Bhasya
and a completely different thing in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya and therefore
one can't be compared with the other, it doesn't speak too highly of him.

> You still haven't answered my question on whether some one taught you advaita
> and from what.

I haven't really been encouraged by my teachers from studying Vedanta as
it is rather useless for someone who isn't a sannyasi so my formal study
is in Karma Kanda, Vyakarana, and Sahitya.  But extra-curricularly I have.
Apart from the various swamis and kathakars that come around, and the
"conventional wisdom" that comes from simply growing up amongst astika
people, I've inherited or purchased quite a collection of Sanskrit books
and I know Sanskrit well enough to read them myself.  Everything I've said
is fully within the bounds of tradition.


--
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!