dwai
-
Content count
8,286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
70
Everything posted by dwai
-
I think only a few of us are interested in *REALLY* understanding what Advaita Vedanta is teaching. Glad to share it How about collaborating on a series that clearly articulate Advaita Vedanta's positions wrt. Self, Universe and God, and their interrelationship thereof. Albeit this single article by Swami Sivananda already covers most of it...
-
Okay very well I appreciate you not ignoring these posts and I hope i have not come across as being impolite in my responses either. Again, my intent was not to be either condescending or ad-hominem anyone (I think I've done neither). Please carry on with your exposition without worrying about me. I'll just be a fly on the wall (and maybe buzz around a bit when driven to it).
-
When did I belittle your points? I just pointed out the inaccuracies. Our delusions indeed! Would you go so far as saying that your knowledge of AV is complete? That you are a Jivanamukta? As recently as last year, I thought my knowledge of AV was quite sound. How foolish I was to think that. There are more are more "secrets" that get revealed if we have shraddha and sincerity. This is parÄ vidyÄ we are discussing here...well beyond the realms of words and debates. The mysteries keep unfolding.
-
I'm merely stating facts as I know them. If you choose to call it my personal opinions, then that's your prerogative. However, it doesn't leave room for much of a discourse then. I have no interest in showing one is greater than the other. For all I care, let KS be the best tradition in the world. I'm already studying it. My understanding is that it is not that dramatically different from AV. I can't help it as I read these threads and see how woefully incomplete the descriptions of AV are.
-
You miss the point and the possibility that perhaps you are too caught up in your opinions? It is not about my opinion. It is a fact. Everything I stated about AV are known to serious practitioners of AV. One has to go beyond the "Jagat Mithya" stage. But I clearly see that we've reached an impasse now. Good luck with your comparison brother Love. Dwai
-
It is that the straw men being propped up about AV are just that...straw men. Personally I have a lot of interest in exploring actual differences and nuances of KS and AV. Just the initial hump of actually clearly articulating AV doesn't seem to happen...always a half-baked understanding being portrayed as "fact"...
-
Not my personal opinions. Just higher level knowledge of AV, taught to me by a bonafide master of AV. Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it is not right. It is not about opinions, it is about being correct in representing positions that you are making "this vs that" type arguments about. It is called Purva Paksha. If you don't care to be accurate, that's a different matter altogether. Then the comparison is just a farce.
-
This was the reason for my introducing the concept of Vak (and it's four states). All things that can be said or known fall into the domain of Vak. In fact, all knowledge arises from Vak (parÄ). But if we elaborate on that, it'll result in thousands of pages of commentary (which I'm sure are already out there). It is a topic to be pondered and thought through, irrespective of the "This vs That" (whatever the this or that might be on any given day).
-
I only pointed out deficiencies in your OP (and subsequent ones) about the position of AV vis-a-vis the world. Also pointed out gaps in understanding of how the universal being and limited being interact (which are all well documented in the upanishads). It is not about my belief system, but rather a pointing out of the inaccuracies and discrepancies in the way AV was positioned. Don't take it personally. I know you mean well. best, dwai
-
I'm not saying that you did. I'm just pointing out that things are not silo'ed out into neat little columns in the Hindu landscape as most people (mainly outsiders) would like to believe. That said, I'm dropping out of the discussion as it seems to be causing you discomfort.
-
Quite right. Tantra is enmeshed with all Hindu darshanas. It is a myth that Tantra is a distinctly separate system within Hindu dharma (in that, one is either a tantric or something else). All top level Advaitins (from Adi Shankaracharya to Sri Ramkrishna Paramahamsa) I know of were tantriks of the highest order. I personally consider Tantra to be the practical aspect of the darshanas. One person who seems to stand apart is Ramana Maharshi, but his favorite text was the Tripura Rahasya, which a tantric text.
-
The āSwamiā was the Shankaracharya of the Sringeri math. He was not some confused seeker who personally bought into āTantraā. I have a friend who was a protege to this swami (whom I quoted above). He is very clear about the ālogic onlyā Advaita Vedanta that is taught in some Vedanta schools today - they are NOT representative of the tradition. I do rest my case here. I ( fwiw) am not convinced about the ādifferenceā of the two traditions - there are differences of approach and practice for sure, but the ends are not that different.
-
Hereās a beautiful expression of Advaita Vedanta (from jagat mithya to sarvaiva idam Brahman) ā
-
Actually even in Advaita, Divine Grace is a requisite. I know this verbatim from the mouth of several Swamis of the Chinmaya and Ramakrishna orders Read this by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swamigal of Sringeri Math (One of the bastions of Advaita Vedanta in the world) -- http://indiafacts.org/bhakti-brings-happiness-discourse-jagadguru-sri-abhinava-vidyatirtha-mahaswamiji/ Yet, we seem to do Guru Yoga, Deity Yoga in specific schools of Buddhism as well. There verily is room for divine grace in Advaita Vedanta, and there seems to be the room for it in certain Buddhist traditions as well (Vajrayana being one that comes to mind).
-
The Shiva Sutras actually has three different parts and three approaches therein. Depending on the individual, one of the three approaches apply.
-
Okay. I guess you have made up your mind
-
Agreed on Sri Ramakrishna being Tantrik. He was Tantrik, Bhakta, Advaitin, etc etc par excellence. However, his views are not radically different from Advaita Vedantic views. He is a recognized jivanamukta/Avadhuta. Do you mean to say that Mandukya + Karika doesn't actually teach what i posted? Please do the research before discarding it as "I don't agree with you"
-
I already answered this. Jagat Mithya is a intermediate stage of Advaita Vedanta teaching.
-
This is actually not correct. Karma yoga is prescribed with following viewpoint for Jnana-oriented seekers so one can become selfless (seva as nishkÄma karma). For Bhakti-oriented seekers it is while maintaining a break-less contemplation of God. If you read about the Ramakrishna Order's teachings, you'll find this very clearly articulated. Again this is not correct as far as my knowledge goes. Universal Being is the Material Universe (virat) appearing to the individual being (viswanara) in the waking state. The Universal Being appears as the Dreamer's world (Hiranyagarbha) to the dreamer (taijasa) and the Universal Being appears as God (Ishwara) to the deep sleeper (prÄgya). In Waking state, Universal Being is the Universe experienced by the Jiva. In Dream state, the Universal Being is experienced as the dream universe to the Jiva. In the Causal state (Deep Sleep), The Universal Being is God (Ishwara), the cause and condition for the manifestation of the dream as well as the waking states (and the associated experienced worlds). All these states (and the Universal Being) is none other than Brahman/Atman as Turiya. A reading of the Mandukya Upanishad and GaudapÄda's KÄrikÄ is very useful towards understanding this.
-
Jagat Mithya is only one phase of Advaita vedanta. It is a preliminary phase and actually an incomplete view. Advaita Vedanta view is all-inclusive and jagat is only mithya in and by itself. When taken in context of Brahman it is non-different from Brahman, who is Sat (so absolutely Real) I find the KS material fascinating (had some profound experiences as I was studying the Shiva Sutras commentary by Swami Lakshmanjoo). My own work in the Daoist internal alchemy and Tamil Siddhar yoga leads me to believe that they are all different modalities to the same objective - liberation. Of course, there are Tantric and Daoist systems that believe in the rainbow body and dematerializing into a puff of smoke (and I've got nothing against that either).
-
It IS a fact that many advaitins donāt aim to acquire the magical state or even siddhis. I do know of several who have quite a great many siddhis. I just think the original premise of this thread was not clear. The AV position was not correctly posited.
-
I trust the traditional attribution of authorship. I don't think its cogent to question the authorship given that he has been attributed with authorship for a 1000+ years now. I've highlighted the section of your post that IS relevant (imho) wrt. the comparison you started out with. I think it is great that you're doing it. But you stopped at the "jagat mithya" bit. So, it was incomplete. There are aspects of Vedanta that normally people are not well versed with. What is the relationship of Brahman with Vak (the four states thereof)? When looked at in context of Vak (parÄ, pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari), suddenly many things become clear. ParÄ is Vak in primordial state, undifferentiated, with full potentiality of all permutations and combinations that arise out of it. It is corresponding to Turiya. Then there is Vak as Pashyanti, where it manifests as "archetypes". This corresponds to the causal state (and deities, et al arise exist here). This is the state from/in which infinite beings (kÄrana sharÄ«ra) arise (and re-incarnate over and over again, the body-mind changes). Then there is Vak as Madhyama, where it manifests in thought-forms and is accessible by the mind (more profoundly so in the dream state). Finally there is Vak as speech (and words), where it exists in the most unsophisticated state (verbal communication, language, etc). The Shivoham of Shankara, I am inclined to say is the parÄ, that he verbalizes (so it is in my books, not different from Kashmir Shaivism perspective that dramatically). And it manifests as Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari (as Deity, Concept/Ideal and in speech). Seems tangential, but thought we should look at this subject from a different angle
-
It is just a difference of degrees. Not dramatically different results.
-
But Adi Shankara also said "Shivoham". As a Jivanamukta, he too claims that he is none other than Shiva.
-
Advaita Vedantaās final conclusion is that the āall elseā is none other than Brahman, so are also real. Only the āall elseā donāt have independent self nature separate from Brahman. From AV perspective, energy is the creative power of Brahman, so not separate from Brahman.
