Vedanta Basics

[RongzomFan]

Bump

 

I'm trying to figure out how to maintain focus on the OP (which is really an article that I'm writing to cover my understanding of Vedanta basics). Thoughts?

 

Forget about John Levy and NeoAdvaita.

Edited January 3, 2014 by RongzomFan

[gatito]

Bump

 

I'm trying to figure out how to maintain focus on the OP (which is really an article that I'm writing to cover my understanding of Vedanta basics). Thoughts?

 

I think that the only way to manage any kind of serious discussion here is to put it in a PPF

 

(You could link to it in the first post)

 

Another thing that you may find helpful to consider is that you could write the article in your PPF and manage the feedback there as you see fit and only afterwards pin the completed version in the Vedanta Forum and lock it. You could then start a discussion thread to which you could link in the pinned and locked thread. Furthermore, you could also link to your PPF in the pinned locked thread.

 

Incidentally, also think that, at this point, it would be wise to unpin this thread as well as the Upanishads thread, which has gone nowhere since its inception nearly two years ago.

 

I hope that’s useful.

[dwai]

See, the activity on this thread by some individuals seems driven by ego. And wait for the responses to start...

[gatito]

Explain how John Levy is superior to traditional Vedanta or the Upanishads.

 

OK 

 

(To tidy up this loose end )

 

John Levy's The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta is a quick read that will give you a really good overview.

 

The traditional approach will take around three to nine years to complete.

 

However, the traditional approach is guaranteed to remove all your ignorance.

 

[gatito]

Bump

 

I'm trying to figure out how to maintain focus on the OP (which is really an article that I'm writing to cover my understanding of Vedanta basics). Thoughts?

 

 

I think that the only way to manage any kind of serious discussion here is to put it in a PPF

 

(You could link to it in the first post)

 

 

Another thing that you may find helpful to consider is that you could write the article in your PPF and manage the feedback there as you see fit and only afterwards pin the completed version in the Vedanta Forum and lock it. You could then start a discussion thread to which you could link in the pinned and locked thread. Furthermore, you could also link to your PPF in the pinned locked thread.

 

Incidentally, also think that, at this point, it would be wise to unpin this thread as well as the Upanishads thread, which has gone nowhere since its inception nearly two years ago.

 

I hope that’s useful.

 

Another suggestion is that perhaps you could discuss the four types of dialogue (two healthy and two unhealthy) that are usually referenced when teaching traditional Vedanta?

 

Edited March 18, 2015 by gatito

[dwai]

Another suggestion is that perhaps you could discuss the four types of dialogue (two healthy and two unhealthy) that are usually referenced when teaching traditional Vedanta?

 

You mean Para, Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari? These aren't necessarily about dialogue but about the levels of meditative immersion/advancement in meditation...

[gatito]

I was thinking of the two unhealthy:

• jalpa

• vitaṇḍā

and the two healthy:

• vāda

• samvāda

[dwai]

 

I was thinking of the two unhealthy:

• jalpa

• vitaṇḍā

and the two healthy:

• vāda

• samvāda

Let's start an alternate thread for it.

 

Typically discussions in my experience tend to gravitate towards Jalpa ...

 

Of course reductio ad absurdum is the position of vitanDa and has been used by pandits in the past. I don't like it personally because it leads to lot of heartburn and vitiates the discussions/environment. 

 

Don't think Samvada is a likelihood here on TTB (Even Vada is often Jalpa or VitanDa in disguise).

Edited March 18, 2015 by dwai

[9th]

i prefer discussions which lead to svecchacara 

 

which is why i start there as well

[Cheshire Cat]

 

The three systems of Vedanta

 

These are:

 

1. Advaita Vedanta or Non-Dualistic Vedanta (Shankaracharya being the primary teacher of this system)
2. Dvaita Vedanta or Dualistic Vedanta (Madhavacharya being the primary teacher)
3. Vishisthadvaita Vedanta or Qualified Non-dualistic Vedanta (Ramanujacharya being the primary teacher)

 

 

There's also bhakti-vedanta.

[dwai]

There's also bhakti-vedanta.

There is no such thing as far as I am aware. There was a person called Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, who founded the ISKCON movement - but he has nothing to do with Vedanta imho. The ISCKON/Hare Krishna movement is about Gaudiya Vaishnavism and not about Vedanta.

[Cheshire Cat]

There is no such thing as far as I am aware. There was a person called Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, who founded the ISKCON movement - but he has nothing to do with Vedanta imho. The ISCKON/Hare Krishna movement is about Gaudiya Vaishnavism and not about Vedanta.

 

What?

 

Never heard about Vallabhacarya? Never heard about pushti marga?

 

 

 

This book, in six chapters, discusses Vallabhacharya's doctrine of Bhakti Vedanta. The introductory chapter gives the quintessence of the major systems of philosophy — Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Dvaita and so on — and also mentions the tenets of the Hamsa sect of Vishnavism (of Nimbarka). While clearly bringing out how and where the Advaita differs from Buddhism, the author dispels the misconception underlying the description of Sankara as a “Pracchanna Bauddha.” His analysis, supported by ‘Sruti' and cogent arguments, should help in getting a clear and proper understanding of these schools of philosophy, with all their nuances.

Concept

The concept of ‘pushti bhakti,' which is Vallabahacharya's contribution to Vedanta literature, has been explained by the author as both the means and the end of enquiry (pushti marga), which alone leads the seeker on the path to liberation. His theory can be placed between Advaita and the other Vedantic schools, namely Visishtadvaita and Dvaita. He holds that the reality is One and endowed with attributes. For Vallabhacharya, Bhakti, not Jnana, is the means to liberation and Bhakti, according to him, could be both nirguna and saguna — the former when directed towards Lord Krishna (the Supreme Being) and the latter when shown towards others. It is nirguna Bhakti that leads one to liberation, with divine grace. The second chapter, which deals with the summum bonum of human life, refers to Vallabhacharya's concept of the ‘fifth' purushartha, namely experiencing the immediate presence of Purushottama by re-enacting the divine sport of Lord Krishna and going through the ecstasy of participating in it in a spirit of self-effacing devotion.

The third chapter discusses the Purva Mimamsa concepts, mentioning the differing interpretations placed on them by the three schools, and explains how Vallabhacharya considers both Karma and Jnana as significant in one's spiritual journey. While the fourth chapter spells out the different forms of Bhakti — his signal contribution here being ‘pushti bhakti' (grace of God), which he holds to be superior to the conventionally recognised nine forms (he calls them ‘maryada bhakti'), the fifth elaborates on the ways in which devotion is practised. In the concluding chapter, the author makes some general remarks about the different schools of Vedanta. On the whole, this is a commendable effort by the author in bringing out the intermingling conceptual strands in Vallabhacharya's philosophy and thereby helping one to understand it better.

[dwai]

What?

 

Never heard about Vallabhacarya? Never heard about pushti marga?

 

I don't think Vallabhacharya's system is considered part of the traditional 3 interpretations of the Upanishads. That doesn't mean there isn't much to be learnt from it. Please add more thoughts on it in your own words - your understanding of this

[Cheshire Cat]

I don't think Vallabhacharya's system is considered part of the traditional 3 interpretations of the Upanishads.

 

The vedanta philosophies are:

 

1. The Advaita Philosophy of Sri Sankara;
2. The Visishtadvaita Philosophy Of Sri Ramanuja;
3. The Dvaita Philosophy Of Sri Madhavacharya;
4. The Dvaitadvaita Philosophy of Sri Nimbarka;
5. The Suddhadvaita Philosophy of Sri Vallabha;
6. The Achintya Bhedabheda Philosophy of Sri Chaitanya

   (The Hare Krishna Movement)

 

for more info http://www.hinduism.co.za/schools.htm

 

[dwai]

The vedanta philosophies are:

 

1. The Advaita Philosophy of Sri Sankara;
2. The Visishtadvaita Philosophy Of Sri Ramanuja;
3. The Dvaita Philosophy Of Sri Madhavacharya;
4. The Dvaitadvaita Philosophy of Sri Nimbarka;
5. The Suddhadvaita Philosophy of Sri Vallabha;
6. The Achintya Bhedabheda Philosophy of Sri Chaitanya

   (The Hare Krishna Movement)

 

for more info http://www.hinduism.co.za/schools.htm

 

Yeah I don't consider the Hare Krishna stuff valid Vedanta interpretations

[Cheshire Cat]

Yeah I don't consider the Hare Krishna stuff valid Vedanta interpretations

 

why?

Is this a thread about your personal considerations?

 

Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद, acintyabhedābheda in IAST) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference.

 

[from Gupta, Ravi M. (2007). Caitanya Vaisnava Vedanta of Jiva Gosvami's Catursutri tika.pp. 47-52]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhika_Ramana_Dasa

Edited March 23, 2015 by Cheshire Cat

[dwai]

why?

Is this a thread about your personal considerations?

 

Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद, acintyabhedābheda in IAST) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference.

 

[from Gupta, Ravi M. (2007). Caitanya Vaisnava Vedanta of Jiva Gosvami's Catursutri tika.pp. 47-52]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhika_Ramana_Dasa

Yes it is. I authored this thread and it is my perspective of what the Vedanta Basics look like. If you have alternate views, feel free to post another topic  on it.

[Cheshire Cat]

Yes it is. I authored this thread and it is my perspective of what the Vedanta Basics look like. If you have alternate views, feel free to post another topic  on it.

 

Then it should go in your personal diary page.

 

Here it's an open thread and if you write incorrect information, consider that your personal views mean much less than academic views... especially if you're unable to justify them in terms that go beyond your philosophical taste. 

[dwai]

Then it should go in your personal diary page.

 

Here it's an open thread and if you write incorrect information, consider that your personal views mean much less than academic views... especially if you're unable to justify them in terms that go beyond your philosophical taste. 

That is up to the moderators. It is not about philosophical taste. It is about whether tradition considers all commentaries on Vedanta as mainstream Vedanta. Traditionally there are 3 main schools of Vedanta. The interpretations that you mention are identical/based on the Dvaita commentaries on the Upanishads. That is my position on it. 

 

But like I said, you don't have to be limited or restricted by my statements - I'm a fool who doesn't usually know his butt from his head

 

Feel free to post what you want where you want. Those who are interested will participate and read  

 

Peace and well being to you brother.

[Cheshire Cat]

It is not about philosophical taste. It is about whether tradition considers all commentaries on Vedanta as mainstream Vedanta. Traditionally there are 3 main schools of Vedanta. The interpretations that you mention are identical/based on the Dvaita commentaries on the Upanishads. That is my position on it. 

 

You're repeating that "traditionally there are 3 main schools of vedanta", then I'm legitimate to ask: where does this "tradition" of classification comes from?

 

Scholars say that Vallabhacarya's philosophy is vedanta and if you say that it's not, I think that it would be a good idea to clarify what are the elements and quality of a vedanta school in your opinion... and then see if those things are present in these philosophies which you consider unworthy of the title.

[dwai]

You're repeating that "traditionally there are 3 main schools of vedanta", then I'm legitimate to ask: where does this "tradition" of classification comes from?

 

Scholars say that Vallabhacarya's philosophy is vedanta and if you say that it's not, I think that it would be a good idea to clarify what are the elements and quality of a vedanta school in your opinion... and then see if those things are present in these philosophies which you consider unworthy of the title.

The Indian traditional view, as far as my knowledge goes. My views on Vedanta are there in the OP (and it is a WIP that's halted right now. but I will continue to add it to as time and energy permits). Perhaps you should create another thread and post your views there? I don't know how many people actually read and were helped by the Vedanta "boot camp" that is the OP, but my hope it that at least a few are. You should do the same in an alternate thread - Call it "Vedanta Basics - Part 2" (or whatever else pleases your heart). Unless of course my conceding "defeat" is more important to you. Then I humbly bow out of this discussion - my energy is better used else where