Stripped down Advaita

Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru.
Messages
3,293
Reaction score
1,237
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
Thomas said:
Two questions – perhaps another thread if you're interested enough?

1: Is not your Advaita a stripped-down version of what I would call 'common' or most well-known Advaita Vedanta? It seems to me there is scope for understanding and a dialogue with other traditions, including overtly theist traditions?
2: Do the virtues play any part in Advaita – understanding, compassion, and so forth?

I know you're not seeking disciples, however, I do wonder if sometimes you are perhaps doing Advaita Hinduism a disservice?
Click to expand...
1. It is a striped down version of Advaita, stripped to its bones. :) There can be a debate with other Advaita and other theist traditions.
2. Yes, they do. Living in any society requires adherence to its rules (Dharma).

How come? They have their view (Supreme soul (Common) Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Shuddhadvaita, Achintya Bhedabheda Advaita). I have mine.
Common Advaita just says Supreme Soul, Vishishtadvaita says Narayana, the rest say Krishna,
 
Thomas said:
I know you're not seeking disciples, however, I do wonder if sometimes you are perhaps doing Advaita Hinduism a disservice?
Click to expand...
I don't think @Aupmanyav does Advaita Vedanta a disservice. Hinduism has many schools of philosophy and is quite diverse. Some might say it's less a religion than it is a culture or way of life. Advaita Vedanta is even a bit diverse, with some following Shankara's and Guadapada's teachings, and others following Vivekananda's and Ramakrishna's teachings, with the former being more orthodox/traditional. Many, especially the more orthodox Advaitins and even some scholars, consider the latter Neo-Advaita.

I can see how his stating his views are Advaita Vedanta might seem misleading without offering any qualifications to his specific views, and some may balk at him calling it Advaita, but as an Advaitin myself, I just see it as a more materialistic view than mine.

I once heard a story told by Swami Sarvapriyananda that while a class on Advaita Vedanta was being taught to young brahmacharis by a swami, another swami, on hearing the lesson, said, "Stop! You're going to turn them all into atheists!" While the majority of those that follow Advaita Vedanta may be theists, it's not a requirement. Advaita Vedanta, in its purest form, is quite an atheistic approach. I, personally, don't identify as a theist. But then again, I don't identify as an atheist either. ;)
 
SalixIncendium said:
I don't think @Aupmanyav does Advaita Vedanta a disservice...
Click to expand...
I didn't mean a disservice doctrinally – more an almost fundamentalist-dogmatic manner in dismissing the beliefs of others.

But then I don't suppose every guru (not that he claims to be one – I wouldn't burden him with that!) is necessarily all sweetness and light :D
 
SalixIncendium said:
I do not favor this term, because people not familiar with dharmic religions tend to conflate it with the Abrahamic concept of a soul.
Click to expand...
Well, those who talk about Supreme Soul should not be termed as Advaitists. They accept the difference between their soul and that of the Supreme soul as well as the different souls in humans, animals and vegetation. An Advaitist is one who dismisses all distinctions.
 
Aupmanyav said:
You see, if I perceive something as untruth, why would I accept it?
Click to expand...
I'm not for one moment saying you should, I'm simply saying that the manner of your rebuttal can come across as brusque, and dismissive of the person as much as the idea.

You can neither prove your disprove your position, the same as in any reasoned discussion of a theism or otherwise.
 
Thomas said:
I didn't mean a disservice doctrinally – more an almost fundamentalist-dogmatic manner in dismissing the beliefs of others.

But then I don't suppose every guru (not that he claims to be one – I wouldn't burden him with that!) is necessarily all sweetness and light :D
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I do see what you're talking about.

I've known @Aupmanyav for years, and I suppose I've learned to accept that he is who he is, and when he behaves in such a fashion, that it's more a reflection of him than it is Advaita Vedanta, because he openly admits that his atheism isn't mainstream Advaita Vedanta.

If there is one thing I've learned in my many years of talking about religion, it's tolerance.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Well, those who talk about Supreme Soul should not be termed as Advaitists. They accept the difference between their soul and that of the Supreme soul as well as the different souls in humans, animals and vegetation. An Advaitist is one who dismisses all distinctions.
Click to expand...
The whole idea of a soul period is a bit too Samkhya-esque for my view. ;)
 
SalixIncendium said:
Fair enough. I do see what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

SalixIncendium said:
I've known @Aupmanyav for years ...
Click to expand...
So have I, I have a great respect for his view, which is why in a previous reply I suggested we were close, but the distance vertical, and he the higher. It was a compliment, or supposed to be ...

SalixIncendium said:
If there is one thing I've learned in my many years of talking about religion, it's tolerance.
Click to expand...
This is what IO has taught me ...

And if you were here not so long ago (and I think you were) I am not unfamiliar with intolerance – for all offence, mea culpa.

There's another issue running with me at the moment, relevant to the nature of IO dialogue, which I'll post in the lounge ...
 
Thomas said:
I'm not for one moment saying you should, I'm simply saying that the manner of your rebuttal can come across as brusque, and dismissive of the person as much as the idea.

You can neither prove your disprove your position, the same as in any reasoned discussion of a theism or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I generally do not write long posts, and make them as short as possible. I do not even waste internet space. That is why some may feel that my posts are brusque.
Well, if something has not be proved for 10,000 years, I do not think it is worthwhile to believe in it.
 
SalixIncendium said:
The whole idea of a soul period is a bit too Samkhya-esque for my view. ;)
Click to expand...
That is Dvaita (Duality) of Sri Madhvacharya.

Five fundamental, eternal and real differences are described in Dvaita school:[11][2][24]
  1. Between the individual souls (or jīvātman) and God (paramathma or Vishnu).
  2. Between matter (inanimate, insentient) and God.
  3. Between individual souls (jīvātman).
  4. Between matter and jīvātman.
  5. Between various types of matter.
en.wikipedia.org

Dvaita Vedanta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Aupmanyav said:
My beliefs are for me to believe or reject.
Click to expand...
Certainly, but do you feel it's yours to project these beliefs onto others?

Something I wrote years ago still, in my opinion, is relevant here. "No good comes from destroying the spiritual path of another."

As I see it, your atheism is for you. It is/was your path to the summit. Others walk theistic paths which also lead to the same summit, which are no less valid than your own.

One has every right to reject gods, but to tell others who believe in a god(s) that there are no gods helps nothing but one's own ego.
 
Aupmanyav said:
When it comes to discussion and when people are singing praises of their God and messengers, what is wrong if I too project my belief on to them?
Will they stop doing that?
Click to expand...
Are they projecting their songs of praise onto you? Are they quoting your posts directly and singing their praises?

If they're singing them to someone else or in general and not unto you directly, projecting your beliefs onto them equates to proselytizing.

Even if they are singing them unto you, do you think proselytizing is an accepted practice in Hinduism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top