forestofclarity

That's weird. Everything seems to be in order. I'll see if I can fiddle with it when I have some time.

The critiques strike me as clumsy, dismissive caricatures. But I'm sure the traditions will survive. Back in the day, Vedantins were said to worship a giant spider. Spiritual bypassing has been a subject of wide discussion in Buddhist circles for decades, and there have been currents going back millenia. It seems to me the original post is based primarily on projecting stories onto an imagined "other." In this case, that "other" happens to include me, so it is a but bemusing.

There's nothing intellectual about it in my mind. If one examines closely, appearances are magical and dreamlike. This isn't somehting one chooses to believe or disbelieve. One investigates and sees for oneself. Plus the sages of these traditions do feel pain. Different traditions take a different approach. A Shankaran Advaitin might say that Brahman (the underlying nature) is real, but doesn't appear, and what does appear is based on ignorance, aka maya. A Shaivaite, or possibly a Vijnana Vedantin, will say that Shiva (the underlying nature) is real, and so are the expressions, aka Shakti. A Buddhist might say that both the are empty, and others may say that appearances are actually Buddha realms in disguise. Not at all. That's why we have two truth teachings, for relative, transactional truth and ultimate truth. As is said, the view should be as broad as the sky but conduct as fine as barley flour.

I moved it back. Let me know if it still works.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Mo pai discussion has been banned.

Welcome!

I've recently come across Swami Medhananda, who has offered a a new school of Vedanta he calls "vijnana vedanta." It is based on the teaching of Ramakrishna, and essentially seems to combine Vedanta and Tantra a la the Tripura Rahasya. I've only listened to a few of his videos, but this vision of Vedanta rejects the oft repeated: jagat mithya, Brahman satyam with Brahman satyam, jagat satyam. His further claim is that, contrary to Swami Sarvapriyananda, is that traditional Shankaran Advaita cannot be pursued by nearly anyone nor may it combined with other practices such as bhakti devotion, etc. because the bhakti practies inherently reinforce duality. According to Swami M, Shankara would prescribe bhakti as a preparation, and then a dropping of it for jnana once one has developed a high level of separation from bodily consciousness. He argues that, contrary to Swami S, the traditional qualifications must be present to an extremely high degree. Ramakrishna, on the other hand, provides a way to integrate practices -- by acknowledging that all manifestations are real. He also claims a lot of monks from the order have retreated from Ramakrishna back to Shankara. It is interesting to see some one advocate for a new school of Vedanta --- he even plans to put forth a Vijnana Vedanta commentary on the Brahma Sutras!

Welcome!

Welcome!

Welcome!

I'm not a particular fan of JS but have a few thoughts: I think he misses the point here. Samadhi can be incredibly useful for shutting down the mind in order to obtain a clearer view of what is essential. The error arises when one mistakes a state of meditation with an essential state of being. Swami Sarvapriyananda describes this. If you want to view the screen, you can try to discern it while the movie is going, or you can shut down the projector to see it. The error arises thinking the projector needs to be shut down all the time. But to say that there is no lasting impact from the shutting down and rebooting misses the point and suggests a gap in meditation experience. Depends on what is meant by knowledge. I would say jnana is knowing that does not occur in the intellect, as opposed to vijnana, but no distinction is made here. The "I" ness of I seems to dissolve, IMO. This seems to contradict his earlier point. I don't agree with the "vedanta is intellectual" movement generally. I interacted with JS many years ago when he was just getting started. I told him I understood intellectually, but it was not a lived truth or reality. He said that it is was merely understanding plus confidence. I don't think this will stand up in the long run, and have come to learn the difference between intellectual understanding and realization. I don't think he does, or a least he didn't. This says to me he doesn't understand the prior point. As they say in Dzogchen, experiences are like mist, they fade. Understanding is like a patch, it falls away. Realization is like space, unchanging. Swami S again does not make this mistake, and explains that intellectual understanding is a first step in the shravana, manana, nididhyasana. JS is only touching on the first two, IMO.