How about a Vedanta Sub-Forum?

[dwai]

I noticed that the Buddha bums successfully campaigned to get a sub-forum for Buddhism. Although it seems that there are far less individuals interested in Vedanta (and there are other more suitable fora for these discussions), it would be a shame to see it not get the prominence it deserves, given that it too is a powerful and effective Non-dualism vehicle.

[Informer]

Sure, why not have one for each! I like how the forums are growing to add different insights.

 

Can you tell some about Vedanta?

[Taiji Bum]

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali was one of the pivotal books of my life! Kundalini gets talked about all the time so I voted yes for a Yoga sub-forum.

[dwai]

Sure, why not have one for each! I like how the forums are growing to add different insights.

 

Can you tell some about Vedanta?

Hi informer, vedanta is actually a colletion of systems based on the vedic texts called the upanishads. There are three main schools of vedanta, ie based on interpretation of three primary masters of the upanishads. Advaita vedanta as taught by shankaracharya, which is pure nondualist school. There is the dvaita vedanta as taught by madhava which is pure dualistic school and then vishishtadvaita taught by ramanuja or relative nondualism or special nondualism.

 

The upanishads themselves are a collection of aphorisms recorded over several hundreds of years, some predating the buddha and some postdating him. The upanishads dont themselves delve into whether ultimate reality is dualistic or nondualistic. They are narratives of experiences of various sages as told to their students. Upanishads are usually in the question and answer form, recording discussions between teachers and their students.

 

The vedic sages encountered an infinite and suprarational consciousness in their meditations which they refer to as brahman. So the upanishads are records of how these sages realized there is that which they call brahman and what seekers can do to experience brahman themselves. Furthermore, they attempt to describe what brahman is not, since brahman cannot be sensed by the sensory apparatii and be grasped by the purely rational mind.

 

Advaita vedAnta is the teaching of shankara, an 8th century mAster about how to acquire knowledge of brahman in the context of the upanishadic documents.

[Informer]

Interesting.

 

Hope you get the forums so we can learn more!

 

Thanks for replying.

[Ambrose_Bierce]

What about Mahāyāna?

 

Dwai, I know it is a bit much but could you change the topic to adding a Vedanta and Mahayana subforum?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Ambrose_Bierce

[sean]

could a forum titled "non-dual discussion" encompass vedanta, mahayana, neo-advaita, etc?

 

then a forum title "yoga/tantra discussion" for all things indian yoga.

 

thoughts?

 

sean

[dwai]

could a forum titled "non-dual discussion" encompass vedanta, mahayana, neo-advaita, etc?

 

then a forum title "yoga/tantra discussion" for all things indian yoga.

 

thoughts?

 

sean

 

Sean, I guess a Non-Dual discussion forum could work, but I suspect that it would be overrun by a "certain" demographic. Advaita Vedanta (and Vedanta) in itself is a vast ocean and there can be a great deal of content and discussions that will result from sticking to it. I would say having an Indian Yoga/Tantra/Vedanta section would make more sense purely because they have more in common than not.

 

As far as Mahayana goes, isn't that a branch of Buddhism? Should it not therefore be included in the Buddha bum section?

 

As much as I hate to think of the "segmentation" this could cause, I think it would do more good than harm if the Bums decided to float a distinct sub-forum for the Indic traditions.

[Mandrake]

Sean, I guess a Non-Dual discussion forum could work, but I suspect that it would be overrun by a "certain" demographic. Advaita Vedanta (and Vedanta) in itself is a vast ocean and there can be a great deal of content and discussions that will result from sticking to it. I would say having an Indian Yoga/Tantra/Vedanta section would make more sense purely because they have more in common than not.

 

As far as Mahayana goes, isn't that a branch of Buddhism? Should it not therefore be included in the Buddha bum section?

 

As much as I hate to think of the "segmentation" this could cause, I think it would do more good than harm if the Bums decided to float a distinct sub-forum for the Indic traditions.

 

I second this. Mahayana buddhism already has the buddhist sub-forum. "Non-dual" means a lot of different things in different traditions, so it makes more sense to allow the traditions to expound their views without interruptions. In this way, it is also easier to get a coherent picture of that said tradition.

 

 

Mandrake

[Ambrose_Bierce]

Non-dualism is more Indic than anything, most stories and examples of non-dualism are Indic. Other religions barely touch upon non-dualism though the Hua Hu Ching (taoist? buddhist?) does.

 

"Nondualism", "nonduality" and "nondual" are terms that have entered the English language from literal English renderings of "advaita" (Sanskrit: not-dual) subsequent to the first wave of English translations of the Upanishads commencing with the work of Müller (1823–1900), in the monumental Sacred Books of the East (1879).

 

Nelson (1951: p. 51-52) cites Radhakrishnan's The Principal Upanishads (1953) where Radhakrishnan renders a passage of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (verse 1.4.16) which demonstrates a theme that one becomes transpersonally identified with, or nondual to, or develops qualities associated with that to which one is engaged, worships or holds holy and though it is translated with a male pronominal it may be understood as not being gender-specific:

 

"Now this self, verily, is the world of all beings. In so far as he makes offerings and sacrifices, he becomes the world of the gods. In so far as he learns (the Vedas), he becomes the world of the seers. In so far as he offers libations to the fathers and desires offspring, he becomes the world of the fathers. In so far as he gives shelter and food to men, he becomes the world of men. In so far as he gives grass and water to the animals, he becomes the world of animals. In so far as beasts and birds, even to the ants find a living in his houses he becomes their world. Verily, as one wishes non-injury for his own world, so all beings wish non-injury for him who has this knowledge. This, indeed, is known and well investigated."[4]

The rest can be found: Here

Edited September 15, 2011 by Ambrose_Bierce

[doc benway]

I would very much enjoy more non-dual discussion and more yogic discussion.

I'm presently working through an 18 lecture course on Patanjali that's available for free online. That said, I've not seen so much non-duality, Vedanta, and Yoga discussion and wonder if it really warrants one or two additional sub-forums.

 

It can get tricky to divide things up:

Vedanta and Yoga are both orthodox schools of Hinduism - Yoga is more experiential and Vedanta more mystical (along with Samkhya, the philosophical side of Yoga and a few others I can't recall). Buddhism grew out of Hinduism and Mahayana is a major branch of Buddhism. Non-dual philosophy is basically a Western face of Vedanta stripped of the Hindu components.

 

I think Sean's suggestion makes the most sense but my only concern is dividing discussions up to the point that the general discussion gets anemic.

[Trunk]

new thread Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. Check it.

 

 

As far as infinite subforums, I vote "no". There's infinite ways to categorize things and it just ends up a mess. Keep it small & simple: just focus on writing a quality post, on whatever is up.

[xabir2005]

What about Mahāyāna?

 

Dwai, I know it is a bit much but could you change the topic to adding a Vedanta and Mahayana subforum?

Mahayana is actually a form of Buddhism, so...

[dwai]

I would very much enjoy more non-dual discussion and more yogic discussion.

I'm presently working through an 18 lecture course on Patanjali that's available for free online. That said, I've not seen so much non-duality, Vedanta, and Yoga discussion and wonder if it really warrants one or two additional sub-forums.

 

It can get tricky to divide things up:

Vedanta and Yoga are both orthodox schools of Hinduism - Yoga is more experiential and Vedanta more mystical (along with Samkhya, the philosophical side of Yoga and a few others I can't recall). Buddhism grew out of Hinduism and Mahayana is a major branch of Buddhism. Non-dual philosophy is basically a Western face of Vedanta stripped of the Hindu components.

 

I think Sean's suggestion makes the most sense but my only concern is dividing discussions up to the point that the general discussion gets anemic.

 

Hi Steve,

 

I think the biggest hurdle in discussing Vedanta and Yoga (or Tantra) in their "uncontaminated form" (and I use the word uncontaminated with some trepidation) in the past has been certain people stepping in to opine about the veracity of these traditions (my xyz is better than that or no, that's not the right view etc).

 

Also, the fact that Non-dualism (the Western phenomenon) is oftentimes border-line new-age, and while I don't have a problem with that school of thinking per se, it does tend to confuse and misguide discussions on this topic.

 

So, let's suppose we start having a discussion on Advaita Vedanta and start with elaborating the concepts therein, techniques used to validate the "theory", it would be interesting to see how quickly it turns into a sordid mess because someone would chime in about Alaya Vijnana and there would be ridiculous debates about how "my zero is zero-er than your zero" or "your zero is not really zero because you tend to reify this or that" etc.

 

I know there are many on this forum who share my opinions about various traditions being simply fingers pointing to the moon, but it does make sense (imho at least) to share what each of these traditions bring to the table as far as description and methodology is concerned.

 

Yoga is an interesting subject, since it has been traditionally used by seemingly opposing schools of indian philosophy (called Darshana) to experience that which the respective theories have proposed. So, Yoga is a method (sometimes in toto and sometimes in part) employed by practitioners of the said schools as a practical way to experince their respective teachings (eg: Advaitins and Tantrikas use Yoga as a tool to realize the non-dualism they each refer to, Samkhya is more of a theoritical component to which the traditional Yoga school is the practical component anyway).

 

 

[doc benway]

...certain people stepping in to opine about the veracity of these traditions (my xyz is better than that or no, that's not the right view etc).

 

...Non-dualism ... it does tend to confuse and misguide discussions on this topic.

 

...it would be interesting to see how quickly it turns into a sordid mess because someone would chime in about Alaya Vijnana and there would be ridiculous debates about how "my zero is zero-er than your zero" or "your zero is not really zero because you tend to reify this or that" etc.

 

...but it does make sense (imho at least) to share what each of these traditions bring to the table as far as description and methodology is concerned.

 

Couldn't agree with you more on all points.

 

It is an unfortunate fact that some of us are so attached to a particular point of view that we feel obligated to denigrate or correct others'. I think that's a natural stage in spiritual growth and development. We think we understand and have the answer and we want to share it with others. Or we are threatened by alternative points of view so we get defensive. Lots of reasons probably. There seems to be some lessening of that lately on this forum though I don't doubt it will periodically resurface.

 

One way to approach this (with or without a dedicated sub-forum) would be for the OP to explicitly state - 'I'd like this thread to focus on Advaita Vedanta and while brief comments regarding other traditions are always welcome for comparison, I would like us to stay on topic, please.' Also, chime in if someone's getting too off course and let them know to please stay on topic or consider starting a new thread.

 

The other thing we can do is, if you see a the topic getting derailed, feel free to report it to the mods and we can split it off into a new thread and keep the original on track. Obviously, we'd rather the participants take care of it without our intervention but that's always a back up plan.

 

I spent many months practicing a "who am I" type of inquiry, simply based on reading Ramana and Nisagardatta and some related materials, with amazing benefits but I'll admit that I'm very ignorant regarding the Vedanta literature (Vedas and Upanishads) and orthodoxy and would love to learn more. So if you are knowledgeable in the area (which it sounds like you are), please teach me something!

 

[sean]

ok, i created a subforum, tentatively titled "yoga - tantra - vedanta discussion":

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/forum/184-yoga-tantra-vedanta-discussion/

 

the title feels a little clumsy, maybe i should shorten it somehow.

 

sean

[xabir2005]

ok, i created a subforum, tentatively titled "yoga - tantra - vedanta discussion":

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/forum/184-yoga-tantra-vedanta-discussion/

 

the title feels a little clumsy, maybe i should shorten it somehow.

 

sean

Maybe just vedanta discussion would do.

 

Since Buddhism has its own 'yogas' and 'tantras', Vedanta has its own 'yogas' and 'tantras', it might be a good idea to distinguish them.

Edited September 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[Creation]

Well, the forum has already been created, but I want to give a counterpoint anyway.

 

I am emphatically not in favor of segmenting this fourm more.

 

I didn't like the idea of a Buddhist discussion forum, but I can see the value, in that there is a large group of members that generate an enormous amount of content on Buddhism that many other users just skip over because they are uninterested.

 

Now, there is no such Vedanta community on this forum, despite there being members interested in Vedanta. So my initial though was, "Dwai, if you want more Vedanta discussion here, start some Vedanta threads in the General Discussion forum! Why in the world would you want a walled off space anyway? Isn't that against the spirit of this place?"

 

But then I realized that you have not done this because every time you tried to discuss Vedanta some Buddha Bum would shout you down talking about Emptiness and Dependent Origination. I recall you being frustrated about this, and I understand that.

 

So my question is, were you hoping that a Vedanta subforum would serve as a clubhouse with a "No Buddhists allowed" sign on it?

 

Secondly, why does everyone else who voted "Yes" think that having a separate subforum for Vedanta would be a better idea than just discussing it in the General Discussion forum?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Creation

[Creation]

Oh well, the forum seems to be moving in the direction of segmentation, and I'm curious how that will effect the overall dynamic of this place. It's not like I contribute here much anyway.

 

On the most basic level (not to be underestimated...), it's more forums for me to click on to find new content. Is there some trick to getting around that?

Edited September 15, 2011 by Creation

[mYTHmAKER]

What about us Kashmir Shavites

 

Actually every forum is our forum

There is no forum that is not our forum

 

and yet we are forumless :)

[JustARandomPanda]

Creation's sentiment is my sentiment. I wasn't particularly in favor of a Vedanta forum because I thought it would start a trend of making a subforum for every tradition out there. Anyway, if we're gonna be making subforums of assorted spiritual cultivation traditions I definitely want a Sufi subforum too.

 

However, the "my realization is less clingy than your realization" does seem to be a recurrent theme.

 

Time will tell if all these new subforums that are popping up will cause General Discussion to die. There are a lot of forums on the web where each religion has its own little forum alongside a General forum and they seemingly don't suffer too much from such a layout.

 

It may be that the same can happen here.

[Trunk]

... it's more forums for me to click on to find new content. Is there some trick to getting around that?

There's a piece of text in the upper right of TTBs screen, "View New Content". Click on that. After you're done peeling off the topics you wanna read, click "Mark All Forums as Read" (or something like that) that that screen also presents in the upper right.

 

However, the "my realization is less clingy than your realization" does seem to be a recurrent theme.

Good one.

 

- Trunk

[forestofclarity]

It strikes me that the problem isn't about having enough forums. It's about people drowning threads in posts. This could be solved with a modified term of service and moderation. It seems strange to re-arrange the entire forum.