Buddhism and Self

[Nanda Kumar]

I should not be the one to do this, but leave it to the really knowledgable
ones on the list. But I fear most of them would keep silent mainly because
they're above this.

>The only person saying Sankara must have been a fool to bother to
>defeat anatman (if it did not deny the Self) was the person accusing
>others of having disrespect for Sankara.
Is this really necessary? The only purpose this kind of talk would serve
is to fuel more arguments.

> That way, he'd still be Shiva incarnate and we could all be friends
>again, right?
It's a traditional Hindu thought that Sankara was Shiva's incarnate and
even today it's maintained. This is hardly a responsible statement for
somebody who wants to preserve amity on this list.

>More than one list member seems to feel that Advaita-L should be
>confined to discussions of orthodox Hinduism rather than the wider
>interpretation of Advaita sometimes called the "perennial philosophy" or
>"primordial tradition".
However you define it, if Advaitam isn't orthodox Hindu philosophy,
nothing is. In Advaitam, the shruti is considered the final authority and so
discussion on Advaitam would definitely reflect orthodox Hindu thought.
Though I don't remember anybody objecting to anything SENSIBLE,
irrespective of the source.

> I know many members of this list prefer to think of Advaita as
>expressing the truth of all great spiritual systems of the world and not
>just Hinduism.
Does it really matter how anybody defines Advaitam? Truth is Truth,
whatever the definition.

Infact, I was the first to object to Ramakrishnan's objectionable tone in his
postings. But the members should understand that there're quite a few of
us on this list who're very new to this and trying to learn. And if the
contributor's on this list aren't responsible and careful about their
postings, we could easily be misguided. So Ramakrishnan and Jaladhar
even though are a bit 'direct', they serve to keep the list free from
'misguiding' thoughts.