[Advaita-l] Why "D. Gayatri" has been allowed to post to the list

[Ravi Kiran]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Yes you are right but consider this:  jivatma paramatva ekatva is only
> possible by the cessation of all samkalpik karma.  And the only person who
> can do cease karma completely is the sannyasi.  Only the sannyasi and of
> all the grades of sannyasis, the paramahamsa is capable of mukti in this
> lifetime.
>
> Have you taken sannyasa?  IF not, then all discussion we could conduct on
> this list no matter how low or lofty is theoretical only.


True, the discussions (on paramArthika satya) are helpful in mananam.


> I do not single you out here for I am in the same boat.
>
> So is joining advaita-l pointless?  No I think that theoretical
> discussions can still have value in that they are a preparation for the
> practice.  The fact is that much of the philosophical development of
> Advaita Vedanta has been as a result of critique from other darshanas, the
> Bauddha, Purvamimamsaka, Sankhya, Vaishnavas and other theists of various
> kinds, and now Indology.  So it is important for the sadhaka to get a good
> understanding of these other perspectives to get a better understanding of
> his own perspective.
>

Agreed

>
> As long as you are in samsara (and you cannot escape it by slogans but
> only by renunciation) you are bound by every relevant injunction of the
> Vedas and shastras.  If you are a Brahmana grhastha as a many list members
> are, learning dharma, teaching dharma, and defending dharma against its
> opponents is your bounden duty.  This cannot be foisted off onto "scholars"
> or acharyas.  For this purpose as well, one must be aware of the historical
> and philosophical bases of Advaita Vedanta.
>
> One more reason:  The epitome of Advaita sadhana has been summarized as an
> contemplation (vichara) on the question "Who am I?" Well, no one of us has
> spontaneously generated.  "I" is in part a product of ones ancestry,
> environment, and other historical factors.  This too must be analyzed in
> depth.
>
> Yes, Thank you.

Regards