Still Confusion regarding Shankara’s co

Jaldhar H. Vyas jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM
Mon Jan 27 23:47:21 CST 1997

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Cameron Reilly wrote:

> Inferior? Are you saying that advaita recognises one 'mental concept' to be
> of a higher order than another 'mental concept'?

Certainly.  A pot is far more real than a three sided square isn't it?

A basic misunderstanding people seem to have is the idea that in Advaita
the world is not real.  Actually we say it is real but misunderstood.

> Certainly the word 'advaita' itself means 'non-duality', does it not? Not
> two.

It is the jiva and Brahman which are not two.  I  don't see why what we're
talking about should affect that in any way.

> This inability to see beyond the pairs of opposites is due to a fixation
> with dualism. The 'one-ness' of things must first be apperceived before the
> words of the Masters will become clear.

The words of the masters are clear.  The problem is a lot of people don't
bother to read them.

Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Tue Jan 28 01:40:03 1997
Message-Id: <TUE.28.JAN.1997.014003.0500.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:40:03 -0500
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>
Subject: Re: ADVAITA-L Digest - 26 Jan 1997 to 27 Jan 1997
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970127110709.24185C-100000 at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Giri wrote:

>         Don't you think that is wrong since these disciples are,
> as you rightly point out, "self-professed." Ramana did not appoint
> any disciples. Now, if i call myself a disciple of Shankara, you
> cannot define the quality of Shankara by my actions.

The difference between the two is that Shankaracharya has left a
systematic body of work and a parampara.  So if you do make some claim of
representing his thought there is an objective standard to measure your
claim against.  Apparently, judging by my experience on the internet, any
nut with a vaguely mystical notion can call himself a disciple of Ramana.
If you feel such people are bringing a person you respect into disrepute
it behooves the more learned disciples to correct their errant brethren.

> One can be
> called a disciple of X, only if X accepts him to be a disciple
> (there are few exceptions, of course).  imho, the teachings of Ramana
> Maharshi are no different from the teachings of Shankara, and i even find
> the former easier to understand (though the concepts are the same).
> However, that is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.


> >> After the  attainment of krama-mukti, moksa follows eventually.
> >Providing jnana is achieved.  And while this is more likely in Brahmaloka
> >and their is much less chance of falling from such an exalted position it
> >is by no means a foregone conclusion that moksha will be achieved.
>         I differ. There is no falling from Brahmaloka.


>         There is no issue of "falling" and moksha is inevitable in
> the long run, after attaining Brahmaloka. Do you have a reference where it
> is explicity mentioned that a person attaining Brahmaloka *has a chance of
> falling down from grace and has return to the mortal physical plane. [There
> are many such instances in Saiva Siddhanta philosophy, but I am interested
> in Vedanta.]

I must admit that I don't. When I decided to mention the possibility of a
fall I was thinking of the Puranas specifically the story of Jaya and
Vijaya the dwarapals of Vaikuntha in the Bhagawata Purana.  Of course the
Puranas being based on the Vedas are more authoritative that the Agamas
Shaiva Siddhanta is based on but the rule is if there is a discrepancy
between Shruti and Smriti, Shruti overrides.  So based on the examples you
gave it would seem that a fall would not be possible.  Or perhaps there is
some other way to resolve the seeming discrepancy.


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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list