your mail

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 22 May 1997, Jonathan Bricklin wrote:

> It's as if you have not seen the word advaitism, before?  Is this possible
> from such a learned man?
>

I don't recall ever hearing it but I can tell you one thing.  I have
absolutely no idea what it means.  It seems to be a mish-mash of
half-understood concepts gathered from all over the place held together
with your experience whatever that's worth.  Advaita Vedanta on the other
hand is a systematic set of doctrines with a history, authorities and
methodology.  There is room for difference of opinion.  There are others
on this list who are Advaitins who I've had disagreements with but at
least we share a common frame of reference.  Even the followers of rival
schools of Vedanta at least share our conceptual framework even if they
disagree on what it means.   You on the other hand invented this
advaitism.  It means whatever you want it to mean and is probably not
relevant to anyone but yourself.

> > > Its
> > > deepest truths make more sense out of
> > > the world of experience not less.
> >
> > You haven't experienced the authors of the Vedas so why should this
> > concept make less or more sense to you?
>
> Language mediates experience.
> >

You can't have it both ways.  Rishi, Veda, etc. are all words with fixed
meaning which will resonate in the same way with all people familiar with
Indian tradition.  If these meanings mediate your experience then fine but
you seem to be saying "I have felt this therefore these words mean this."
That's a tautology.

> If you miss the point you miss its foundation.  Jesus had many allegiences
> with the beliefs of the Pharisees, but he brought a conceptual revolution
> nonetheless.  Citing commentators that weave Shankara with the Mimamsakas
> does not address the issue.  There are Jews for Jesus who keep kosher.
>

Are there any Jews for Jesus who have been chief Rabbis of Israel?  That
would be a more apropos analogy.  Shankaracharya and his disciples to this
very day as well as being monks who teach Vedanta are the heads of the
Smarta community who regulate their lives according to the Mimamsaka
rulings of the Dharmashastras and most of whom will never practice
Vedanta.  The point is the traditional view is that Purva and Uttara
Mimamsa are one system which deals with two seperate issues,  The enquiry
not Mimamsakas who "converted" to Vedanta, they are Mimamsakas who are
dealing with another topic.

As for Shankaracharya starting a conceptual revolution.  I don't think
this holds water.  Shankaracharya seems himself as part of a long line of
teachers of Advaita doctrine.  He quotes a number of previous authorities.
One of his major works, Mandukya Karika Bhashya is actually a commentary
on a work of his paramguru Gaudapadacharya.  The Mimamsakas were hardly of
one mind on the status of karma vs. Jnana.  As well as the karma-only
school Shankaracharya criticizes, there were those who taught acombination of
jnana and karma and they get criticized too.  So do various kinds of
Vedantins. Between the extreme jnana-only position of Advaita Vedanta and
the extreme karma-only position of some Mimamsakas, there is a steady
spectrum rather than sharp discontinuities.

> See, there's that doubt, again.  The term is new to you.  Say it ain't so!
>
> Now hold on.  Until you come clean on whether or not you've seen the term
> advaitism before let's have not be casting stones.  See, I would have to
> believe that you have seen it, but forgot it.
>

Yes it's new.  You seem to have invented it.  Perhaps you should start an
advaitism mailing list where those who give a damn can find out what it
means.  I can only take a guess.

> The ones in my neck of the woods value Menachem Mendel Schneerson above
> all.

Then your knowledge of Hasidim is even less than your knowledge of
Vedantins.

> But comparisons would not be relevant to them.

Why don't you ask them?  It should be easy to test.  Tell them "I wish
peace and love to everyone.May I be excused from practising the mitzvot?" I
think you know what answer you will get.

> It would be like
> asking Vivekananda whether he preferred the Ashtavakra Gita to Ramakrishna.

Unfortunately the only person wh can answer that is dead but ananswer is
not inconceivable.

>  By the way, does that text fit into your self-constructed Talmud of
> Advaita Vedanta?
>

Much as I'd like to be able to claim construction of the towering edifice
of Advaita Vedanta, it was in existance thousands of years before me.  The
position of the Ashtavakra Gita is crystal clear.  It is a smriti.

> Now you've done it.  It's time for a quiz.  What eminent Indian Philosopher
> begins his account of Advaita Vedanta with this sentence:  "The Advaitism
> of Samkara is a system of great speculative daring and logical subtlety."?
>

I don't know.  I have a wide range of interests but there is an infinite
amount to know and a finite amount of time to study it.  So I have to do
some quality control and cut out the irrelevant stuff.  I don't see how
being an "Indian philosopher" makes you any more clueful about Advaita
Vedanta than anyone else so I don't bother with that kind of thing.

--
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!