You are NOT qualified to critique a Spiritual Tradition if...

[doc benway]

On 9/12/2018 at 8:03 PM, Kar3n said:

There is not a soul on these forums who is qualified to tell another what they can and can not speak of or about. 

 

This is a discussion forum and not a place for anyone to tell another what they can and can not discuss with regard to practices. It just does not work that way here. Everyone is free to engage in commentary, critique or discussion no matter their level of dedication, experience or knowledge.

 

Good points

 

22 hours ago, Bud Jetsun said:

 

No one has any of them, they are not possessions. 

 

Wisdom comes from all places.  Examine the aspects of oneself which cares about the critique. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

Well said, I always appreciate your input

 

20 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I think you are mixing this up with some other different, bigger and general issue for the forum.  It may be better if you understand what is going on here in Hindu forums in past week.  That might give you a better idea on the positions presented and where Karen and my arguments are from.

 

It feels like a certain set of people (may be 1 or 2) think only they are qualified to discuss AV.  Only they have the right knowledge in AV and others are wrong.  Anyone with opposing ideas to are labeled, called names like straw-men, etc., or accused of having malicious intent to waste others time!  Even when quoted directly from Vedanta, Upanishads, Gita against the points they present, they say, all of those texts explain only partially.  Except some here got the highest knowledge somehow from some bonafide masters.   And they say their Higher knowledge is the only true AV.  

 

Now at this point, it looks like attempts are made to create rules and say only these qualified people can discuss Advaita.  

 

This is getting beyond ridiculous at this point.

 

You may well be correct, I know nothing about what’s been going on in the Hindu discussions. I was projecting my own stuff. Thanks for pointing that out. 

[doc benway]

17 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

let`s be kind to one another.  Yes, we have the right to say whatever we`d like about whatever here on Daobums.  Or nearly whatever.  But it would be lovely if we keep each other`s tender places in mind as we do so.  

 

Beautiful, thank you

 

[neti neti]

On 9/13/2018 at 12:35 AM, s1va said:

It feels like a certain set of people (may be 1 or 2) think only they are qualified to discuss AV.  Only they have the right knowledge in AV and others are wrong.  Anyone with opposing ideas to are labeled, called names like straw-men, etc., or accused of having malicious intent to waste others time!  Even when quoted directly from Vedanta, Upanishads, Gita against the points they present, they say, all of those texts explain only partially.  Except some here got the highest knowledge somehow from some bonafide masters.   And they say their Higher knowledge is the only true AV.  

 

Now at this point, it looks like attempts are made to create rules and say only these qualified people can discuss Advaita.  

 

This is getting beyond ridiculous at this point.

 

Since I was the only other member of the AV camp involved in the recent thread that got a bit heated, I'll address this and try to keep it short and to the point. My intent is not to fan the flames of contention, but I feel obligated to bring as much of this into light as possible so as to avoid confusion. One could argue it was ridiculous there before it ever got to the point dwai felt it necessary to voice his opinion here in this way.

 

A great example from the OP:

Quote

For instance - "Advaita Vedanta says World is False/illusory". Yes, but when taken in context of the second part of the statement - The World is none other than Brahman who is Absolute Reality, it doesn't seem as shocking or dramatic anymore.

 

Now, I believe most here are more than capable of understanding that what's being conveyed is the "world is false" in light of Absolute Reality, Brahman. Meaning, there is no world independent of Brahman, therefore, there is no world, there is only Brahman. The world is real as Brahman only. One would know this concept with just a passing knowledge of AV.

 

Now with this in view, putting aside your opinion that AV's non-dual Brahman ultimately differs from Abhinavagupta's apparent monistic view, (we can leave that for the original thread)...

You should realize how it comes across like picking of out-of-context straws and raises suspicions of your commentary being biased.

 

It's obvious Abhinavagupta refutes the assertion of Maya to use it as a launchpad of sorts to directly state what AV ultimately concludes, the same "final reality". In fact the direct approach, ajata vada in AV, parallels Abhinavagupta's and is synonymous with the Shiva Sutra's "first awakening."

Of course it seems to be about subject-object, because, in this particular approach, consciousness identifies with a limited subject and takes objects to be different from itself. This declaration of illusory Maya is however not the singular approach available for the aspirant in AV. It is but one approach... as I'm quite positive you're aware of. The approaches across traditions may appear to differ and the analogies may seem world's apart, but that which is being pointed to, is one.

Therefore we conclude the apparent differences are obviously moot. To misconstrue this as someone trying to come off as having higher knowledge in some contrived condescending way is nonsense. It's like a flashing of a victim card where there has been no perpetrator, hence the stawman allegations.

 

Naturally, for someone such as yourself claiming to have had a somewhat extensive experience in the AV tradition, it's difficult to accept you're surprised to hear some of us question whether or not your arguments come from a place of sincerity. To continue quoting volumes of Abhinavagupta after having this pointed out, and not addressing it, only to insist on the validity of the differences, I'm sorry to say seems at best childish and at worst disingenuous. If you truly just cannot see it, then please do accept my apologies.

 

I am not qualified to assert anything as law, and I laugh at the ludicrous suggestion that anyone has laid claim to a monopoly on knowledge here. However, I am more than qualified to discern when one is simply unwilling to entertain a more holistic view of what the texts are ultimately speaking to. Which is perfectly fine of course, but I'm not afraid to challenge them on it. And if that sounds "unloving", then I guess I'll just have to appear loveless in the spirit of maintaining a semblance of sanity here in the Hindu section.

 

Yeah, I know Marblehead, I can hear you now, "Good luck with that." Lol.

 

That is all. May the reader judge wisely.

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by neti neti

[Marblehead]

8 minutes ago, neti neti said:

Yeah, I know Marblehead, I can hear you now, "Good luck with that." Lol.

Yeah, I'm still reading this thread.

 

I don't know why though.  Just something I thought I should do.

 

 

[s1va]

2 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

Since I was the only other member of the AV camp involved in the recent thread that got a bit heated, I'll address this and try to keep it short and to the point. My intent is not to fan the flames of contention, but I feel obligated to bring as much of this into light as possible so as to avoid confusion. One could argue it was ridiculous there before it ever got to the point dwai felt it necessary to voice his opinion here in this way.

 

A great example from the OP:

 

Now, I believe most here are more than capable of understanding that what's being conveyed is the "world is false" in light of Absolute Reality, Brahman. Meaning, there is no world independent of Brahman, therefore, there is no world, there is only Brahman. The world is real as Brahman only. One would know this concept with just a passing knowledge of AV.

 

Now with this in view, putting aside your opinion that AV's non-dual Brahman ultimately differs from Abhinavagupta's apparent monistic view, (we can leave that for the original thread)...

You should realize how it comes across like picking of out-of-context straws and raises suspicions of your commentary being biased.

 

It's obvious Abhinavagupta refutes the assertion of Maya to use it as a launchpad of sorts to directly state what AV ultimately concludes, the same "final reality". In fact the direct approach, ajata vada in AV, parallels Abhinavagupta's and is synonymous with the Shiva Sutra's "first awakening."

Of course it seems to be about subject-object, because, in this particular approach, consciousness identifies with a limited subject and takes objects to be different from itself. This declaration of illusory Maya is however not the singular approach available for the aspirant in AV. It is but one approach... as I'm quite positive you're aware of. The approaches across traditions may appear to differ and the analogies may seem world's apart, but that which is being pointed to, is one.

Therefore we conclude the apparent differences are obviously moot. To misconstrue this as someone trying to come off as having higher knowledge in some contrived condescending way is nonsense. It's like a flashing of a victim card where there has been no perpetrator, hence the stawman allegations.

 

Naturally, for someone such as yourself claiming to have had a somewhat extensive experience in the AV tradition, it's difficult to accept you're surprised to hear some of us question whether or not your arguments come from a place of sincerity. To continue quoting volumes of Abhinavagupta after having this pointed out, and not addressing it, only to insist on the validity of the differences, I'm sorry to say seems at best childish and at worst disingenuous. If you truly just cannot see it, then please do accept my apologies.

 

I am not qualified to assert anything as law, and I laugh at the ludicrous suggestion that anyone has laid claim to a monopoly on knowledge here. However, I am more than qualified to discern when one is simply unwilling to entertain a more holistic view of what the texts are ultimately speaking to. Which is perfectly fine of course, but I'm not afraid to challenge them on it. And if that sounds "unloving", then I guess I'll just have to appear loveless in the spirit of maintaining a semblance of sanity here in the Hindu section.

 

Yeah, I know Marblehead, I can hear you now, "Good luck with that." Lol.

 

That is all. May the reader judge wisely.

 

 

It's simple and not quite so complicated at all.  Some of us find differences between Advaita Vedanta and what Abhinavagupta taught as part of Kashmir Shaivism, including Abhinavagupta in his own words as I clearly pointed out in that other thread multiple times.

 

We are saying the teachings are different.  And this is our view.  You are welcome to hold your own views.  No one is refuting or saying your views are not valid.  But if you keep coming back and argue,  'No, it's all the same, your views are wrong and only my views are right'.  I call this sheer arrogance.  Yes, it is trying to monopolize the view and control the narrative to one narrow view.

 

For the benefit of those that have not read the other thread, I am quoting Abhinavagupta's words where he clearly states his views are different from Vedanta and why.  I held the AV view for a long time, that does not mean I don't have the freedom to change my mind, when I see what I feel as higher teaching.

 

You clearly don't get the part about trying to change other people's opinions and control the narrative.  I doubt you ever will, so I can't help any further.

 

"Abhinavagupta insists that his view of the creative nature of absolute reality should not be confused with the views of the Samkhya or Vedanta"

 

Quote

In addition, the unreal essence is not capable of creating such a grandiose presentation. If she is really capable of creating, then she is without a doubt a real entity, not an apparent and indescribable one (ibid., 80).

 

At the very beginning of his enormous work, he also criticizes one more of the theories of the universe, namely the concept of illusion (vivarta-vada). This theory has two aspects. First, it refers to the phenomenon of a non-existent phenomenon, such as, for example, a dream or a mirage.

 

According to this view, the universe does not exist, but only seems to be an existing reality. Vivarta can also refer to some phenomenon, which in fact is not what it seems, as, for example, a rope can be mistaken for a snake, or a shell for silver. In accordance with this aspect of the vivartas, Brahman exists, but falsely appears as God, a limited soul and inanimate matter.

 

According to Abhinavagupta:

It is said that the vivarta is a manifestation of a non-existent entity. How can it be unreal, when it is manifested? No one paid proper attention to this discrepancy.
(ibid., 18).

 

Abhinavagupta observes that the essence that clearly manifests and creates the universe must be something real and significant, and should be described accordingly. In his commentary on Paratrishika, Abhinavagupta insists that his view of the creative nature of absolute reality should not be confused with the views of the Samkhya or Vedanta, since this is an exclusively Shivaite view (Paratrishikavirana V.181).

 

 

 

[s1va]

Come to think of it, what is the difference between Mo Pai and some of you insisting only your views are right, and others must subscribe to your views, since you believe it is the highest?  I see no difference at all except they make the additional scientific evidence claim.

 

No offense to Mo Pai believers, just pointing out the similarities.

 

It has been pointed out numerous times, we understand some of you hold different views on Vedanta.  While others respect your views and not criticize you for holding your views, you can't afford the same courtesy to others.  Just acknowledge that there can be other views or other opinions. No, for example neti neti, refused to accept there can be other valid opinions.  I doubt he will even right now.

 

On 9/11/2018 at 12:34 PM, neti neti said:

Seriously, I fear loss of sleep if some of the atrocious wrongs aren't righted sometimes. Lol.

 

But when you try, you're automatically labeled the bad guy for denying this or that text with hardly any attempt to acknowledge what was said.

 

Go figure. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

 

 

This shows lack of tolerance to other views that a person thinks is not right.  Some of the other posts were similar and along these lines, not even acknowledging that others can have a different opinion.  It is clearly against the egalitarian spirit of TDB.  I think I have said enough on this topic. 

[neti neti]

54 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

It's simple and not quite so complicated at all.  Some of us find differences between Advaita Vedanta and what Abhinavagupta taught as part of Kashmir Shaivism, including Abhinavagupta in his own words as I clearly pointed out in that other thread multiple times.

 

We are saying the teachings are different.  And this is our view.  You are welcome to hold your own views.  No one is refuting or saying your views are not valid.  But if you keep coming back and argue,  'No, it's all the same, your views are wrong and only my views are right'.  I call this sheer arrogance.  Yes, it is trying to monopolize the view and control the narrative to one narrow view.

 

For the benefit of those that have not read the other thread, I am quoting Abhinavagupta's words where he clearly states his views are different from Vedanta and why.  I held the AV view for a long time, that does not mean I don't have the freedom to change my mind, when I see what I feel as higher teaching.

 

You clearly don't get the part about trying to change other people's opinions and control the narrative.  I doubt you ever will, so I can't help any further.

 

"Abhinavagupta insists that his view of the creative nature of absolute reality should not be confused with the views of the Samkhya or Vedanta"

 

1

 

Again, simply insisting on the differences without addressing what was provided to discuss in any way whatsoever is all that is seen here. A willful ignorance of what's been offered in a noncompulsory fashion, might I add. No one has said you were flat out wrong as far as I can tell, there have only been clarifications of ambiguity which you've made no attempt to refute but by providing more quotes.

 

You call it sticking to your opinion, but it's at the expense of blatantly ignoring a proposed refinement to it. You then ironically have the audacity to project that very same attitude you're guilty of upon others. I call that sheer hypocrisy. It seems the lack of tolerance for any meaningful discussion once the inaccuracies of your argument are exposed, is on your end.

 

42 minutes ago, s1va said:

This shows lack of tolerance to other views that a person thinks is not right.  Some of the other posts were similar and along these lines, not even acknowledging that others can have a different opinion.  It is clearly against the egalitarian spirit of TDB.  I think I have said enough on this topic. 

 

What it shows is a willful disregard for attempts to explain and rectify the misunderstanding between apparent opinions. You insist there is no misunderstanding, but have been unwilling to explain yourself. I believe you've said enough, indeed.

[s1va]

8 minutes ago, neti neti said:

Again, simply insisting on the differences without addressing what was provided to discuss in any way whatsoever is all that is seen here. A willful ignorance of what's been offered in a noncompulsory fashion, might I add. No one has said you were flat out wrong as far as I can tell, there have only been clarifications of ambiguity which you've made no attempt to refute but by providing more quotes.

 

The difference has been explained so many times including on the quote that I posted right above.   But first you have to empty your mind of ALL concepts including AV and be open minded truly.  To have a child like curiosity, then you can easily find those differences explained numerous times in the 5 pages of discussion on this topic in the other thread.  Can you do that for one minute? 

 

As they say in my mother tongue, one can wake up a sleeping person.  But it will be very hard to wake up a person that is pretending to sleep. I can only feel for you.

 

In your own words, you are losing sleep and on a crusade to fight what you think are atrociously wrong views and "correct" all of them.  It is important and critical for you to change and correct my 'atrociously wrong views'.   I clearly have no such need to correct you or anyone.  I am not attached to my views and I never push others to buy into my views.  I don't engage in such fanatical fights that you clearly seem to enjoy and thrive, even such thought is repulsive to me,  to 'correct' the wrongs of others views and opinions. Therefore I don't feel the need to keep expanding and explain to you, keep engaging on the same steps that is clearly taking no one anywhere.  This upsets you.  I get it.

 

Do you get it neti neti? It's not important to me what you believe as true.  No matter what it is, I respect it as your opinion. As long as it does not infringe on my freedom to have my own opinions.  Why is it so important for you, that I should accept your views and opinions? Do you respect and look up to me so much that my opinion matters? Clearly not.  It's just an atrociously wrong view you need to correct.  Otherwise, you are going to lose sleep in your own words.

 

I feel for you.  I hope you can get over this.  I know you have it in you to get over this.  Much love my friend, no matter what your beliefs are.  You are in my image, this is the fundamental about non-dual.  It's not about insisting one view is greater than other and to look down upon others and try to 'correct' them.

[3bob]

Gods and Guru, integral part of Hindusim - not abstractions in the wind...

[Daemon]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

Gods and Guru, integral part of Hindusim - not abstractions in the wind...

 

Now, that painting's Hinduism in a nutshell!

Anyone here competent to decipher all the symbolism?

 

☮️

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Daemon

[3bob]

I'd say there are many general and important meanings, besides just concepts and symbolism - also the feelings and meanings are not the same for all individuals or everyone.  (and should not be attempted to be made so)

[Daemon]

45 minutes ago, 3bob said:

I'd say there are many general and important meanings, besides just concepts and symbolism - also the feelings and meanings are not the same for all individuals or everyone.  (and should not be attempted to be made so)

 

So you'd be happy to accept that for some people Hinduism doesn't need Gods or gurus?

 

☮️

 

[3bob]

I didn't say that,  and I far as I know the widely accepted definition of Hinduism includes belief in Lord Ganesha and other gods and devas, importance of Guru, the Vedas, several other major aspects like reincarnation, dharma, and  karma which are recognized across most all schools or sects,  along with some commonly accepted  spiritual/cultural  practices that may not all be written in religious stone but have been in effect for a long time.  (like certain marriage traditions, vegetarianism, alms for the poor or Sahdus , festivals, temples,  etc..)  Of course I'm only speaking as an outsider looking in through my small window.    

[Marblehead]

6 minutes ago, 3bob said:

I didn't say that, 

I expected that response as soon as I read the post questioning you.  Hehehe.

 

[Daemon]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

I didn't say that,  and I far as I know the widely accepted definition of Hinduism includes belief in Lord Ganesha and other gods and devas, importance of Guru, the Vedas, several other major aspects like reincarnation, dharma, and  karma which are recognized across most all schools or sects,  along with some commonly accepted  spiritual/cultural  practices that may not all be written in religious stone but have been in effect for a long time.  (like certain marriage traditions, vegetarianism, alms for the poor or Sahdus , festivals, temples,  etc..)  Of course I'm only speaking as an outsider looking in through my small window.

 

 

Do you realise that your position is refuted by the Ashtavakra* Gita?

Perhaps you take the view that this Gita isn't Hinduism?

 

☮️

 

*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtavakra ☮️

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Daemon

[sagebrush]

I thought Hinduism has beliefs in 100's of Gods

 

on a more artistic note- what is the painting depicting?

 

ok ganesh

ok chariot

ok nighttime

ok transcribing

ok archer

ok pond

and what is the left elbow prop about?

 

burning Nag Champa?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by sagebrush

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, sagebrush said:

I thought Hinduism had 100's of Gods

 

 

 

 

 

330 million Gods to be precise, as per the Hindu scriptures with each having their own function in the cosmos.

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, s1va said:

330 million Gods to be precise

That pretty much ought to cover all the bases.

 

[sagebrush]

very complicated

 

[s1va]

yet very simple also.  When we read there are 925,000 species of insects, or at anytime there are 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individual insects alive. In the United States, it doesn't spook us, but when it comes to Gods, we don't want variety!  It is unfair.  If it is more than one, what it does it matter if it is 2 or 330 million?

[Daemon]

8 minutes ago, sagebrush said:

very complicated

 

 

Just fairly sophisticated (and nuanced).

Something for everyone perhaps?

 

☮️

 

[Daemon]

25 minutes ago, sagebrush said:

I thought Hinduism has beliefs in 100's of Gods

 

on a more artistic note- what is the painting depicting?

 

ok ganesh

ok chariot

ok nighttime

ok transcribing

ok archer

ok pond

and what is the left elbow prop about?

 

burning Nag Champa?

 

 

Perhaps best to let 3bob explain what it means to him, as he posted it?

 

☮️

 

[Stosh]

I bet it means that one should be nice to their Guru and re-commit to their teachings at the beginning of the monsoon. 

[sagebrush]

well sounds like that would make complete sense

but why refute anything if one can unzip the mind and see and hear it all.

I place my attention tonight on my lawn outside.

 

endearing though

but manipulative and malicious

 

who knows what tomorrow brings

 

[Daemon]

4 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I bet it means that one should be nice to their Guru and re-commit to their teachings at the beginning of the monsoon. 

 

It's infinitely more sophisticated and nuanced than that.

But, as it's 3bob's fish to fry, I'll leave it there.

 

☮️