Goodness (was Re: [Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means')

[Amuthan]

Aditya,

i'm really surprised to see (imo) junk mails from u. i
sense a lot of arrogance in ur mails and would
sincerely advise u to remove that asap. though u may
not agree fully with what i'm going to say below, u
may atleast keep it in one little corner of ur mind :)


--- Aditya Varun Chadha <adichad_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 3a. advaitin metaphysics is derivABLE without
> invoking the vedas
> (through purely mental acrobatics)
>

this issue has been discussed many times before. it is
NOT possible to derive the basic principles of advaita
without shruti pramANa. 

to see why this is so, consider the most basic claim
of advaita : 'brahman alone exists.' brahman is that
from which the universe is born, that in which it is
sustained and that into which it dissolves finally. 

(if u know of any claim of advaita on stuff that is
NOT  pratyakSha and still think u can give a sensible
derivation of it, please do so. i'll concentrate on
just this claim since it is of fundamental importance
in advaita metaphysics.) 

an 'advaitin' accepts this claim based on shruti
vAkyAs like 'sadeva saumya idamagra AsIt', 'yato vA
imAni bhUtAni jAyante....' etc. period.

but is this derivable by other means? NO. because
there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the
universe should have an ultimate cause. even if u
assume that it has one, there are no grounds to
suppose that it still exists in it's cause and that it
will finally resolve into it's cause. 

if u argue that u accept the existence of brahman
without the help of shruti pramANa then it's a
personal opinion of urs which is of no interest to
those who want to know the truth. remember that we are
not here to discuss our own delusions of what the
truth is, but rather ways to get out of our delusions
by studying and living the teachings of some mahAtmAs
and thus know the truth as it is. of course, u r free
to think whatever u want, but don't call that advaita.
 

if u make ur own assumptions (by this is meant ur
axioms) on issues that r NOT pratyakSha (brahman and
dharma), construct a theory based on those assumptions
(read 'delusions') and say that it agrees with advaita
and hence that advaita is 'derivable' solely based on
mental acrobatics, then i would say it is time that u
revise the basics of logical (= sensible) thinking. 

if u argue that advaita wrongly argues that dharma is
not pratyakSha or that advaita does not have anything
to do with ethics, then i would dismiss it as your
personal fancy. the problem comes when u still try to
add an 'advaitin' tag to urself. to understand the
problem, note that there can only be two sensible
interpretations of who is an 'advaitin'. the first and
primary interpretation refers to one who does not
perceive duality - a jIvanmukta in short. the second
and practical definition refers to one who follows a
way of life based on the vedAs as interpreted by 
AchAryAs in bhagavatpAda's tradition. this includes
BOTH ethics and metaphysics (and much more). one who
simply believes that brahman alone exists and
continues doing all sorts of stuff that he thinks is
right is NOT an advaitin.

there is no question of any change of opinion when it
comes to issues related to brahman. but for ethical
issues, a change can be accepted ONLY if it has it's
basis in the shAstrAs AND is sanctioned by a consensus
of mahAtmAs who belong to a proper guru paramparA and
live a life along traditional lines. 

u cannot expect advaita to nod to ur whims and
fancies. if u r arrogant enough to say that vedAs can
be wrong, then u may as well cut down all ur relations
with the vedAs. 

it is very unfortunate that most people who learn
advaita based on non-traditional ways tend to think
that they know advaita better than traditionally
trained people. i can only hope that this situation
will be remedied somehow in the future. 

--- Aditya Varun Chadha <adichad_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 3b. the infallability/fallability of vedas has no
> bearing on the
> theory called advaita.
>

i don't know where u read this. the simple fact is
that it is wrong. u don't have the freedom to decide
what is and what is not advaita. first know what
advaita vedAnta is. then u can state ur blah blah
blahs.

--- Aditya Varun Chadha <adichad_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 5.  since vedas are NOT necessary for the upholding
> of advaita,
> advaitins can hold views about an ethical issue that
> contradicts the
> vedic tradition and yet does not contradict advaita
> (which is pure
> metaphysics).
> 

the truth (or advaita satya) is independent of our
actions - good or bad. nothing in fact can contradict
advaita. there is no point in saying that u do
something and YET don't contradict advaita. 

i hope i haven't offended u with my rather straight
replies. i have no such intentions, but what really
bugs me is that u r making arbitrary statements about
advaita based on god knows what AND also maintain that
all these things r logical.  

-- amudan.


		
__________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new. 
http://in.answers.yahoo.com