PDA

View Full Version : Tattvas



grames
01 October 2009, 08:03 AM
Hi,

After reading so many posts and views expressed here, i have a feeling that most of the subscribers here are advaitins and very few of them are expressing different school of thoughts. Not to be judgemental but i have a serious concern that what is posted many times here do not follow the classical "Advaita" rather they all exhibit various "new" idea under the belief that it is "Advaita".

So, wouldn't be nice to have a thread where the actual basic tenets of advaita or "Your" belief is shared for the benefit of our readers?

Please follow these before you post responses to this thread..

1. Make sure, you have a reference for your knowledge like Who gave you that knowledge or is it your own wisdom etc.
2. State that reference if it is not yours... instead of plain shruti text interpretations do provide the "Baasya" ref or any other references of great advaitic acharya or scholars
3. State what is the basis of your personal inference if it is your personal knowledge after reading Shrutis or updanishad or practicing some "Yoga"


Lets begin...

devotee
01 October 2009, 09:45 AM
Hi,

After reading so many posts and views expressed here, i have a feeling that most of the subscribers here are advaitins and very few of them are expressing different school of thoughts. Not to be judgemental but i have a serious concern that what is posted many times here do not follow the classical "Advaita" rather they all exhibit various "new" idea under the belief that it is "Advaita".

Dear Grames, it is ironical for an ISKCONite to assert that he knows Advaita better than those who are practising it. You want to act moderator for the Adavait Vedantists here ?

Please don't try to control the area which is not yours. Just now we had enough of Voidism here ! Brahman = Void & Advaitins are Voidist !! The scriptures which says this is written by Srila PrabhuPAd ! Whatever is written in Upanishads & in BG is correct only to the extent what ISKCONites endorse ????

Being a Krishna devotee myself I have all love for ISKCON & there members .... but the way some people behave from this organisation it reminds me of people from Abrahmic religions .... it is not Hindu way at all. What is this ???? .... whatever I say is ONLY right & whatever way I interpret is ONLY correct ... ???? Without having knowledge of original Sanskrit version of scriptures, people start dictating what is right & what is wrong ????

Sorry, this I have seen in other forums but at least this forum has a tradition of respecting even contradicting views & that is why I like this forum.

ISKCON has a clear-cut path of Bhakti Yoga. Advaita Vedanta is Jnana Yoga. My humble request is that please stick to the school belonging to your own faith ... & if you want to discuss crossing over, please, please ... please don't be judgemental like your this post which is nothing but a show of inflated ego & which can create only ugly scene here.

Regards,

OM

grames
01 October 2009, 10:51 AM
Dear Devotee,

Being judgmental or trying to show off is not my idea or agenda. The purpose of my post is not to tick off your ego or to be judgmental about any individual but to bring out the tenets of "Advaita" so that someone who comes to this forum can get something valuable back for their time and stay here. Also, only when you talk more and share more, your own knowledge expands and please do not consider that it is an offense to raise questions about your view when it comes to a public forum. I don't think your life is controlled by what is posted on "Hindudharma" forums.

Like how you wish to brand everyone who speaks against or alternate to "Advaita" view as ISKCONITe, i can consider that as outcome of your inflated ego or being judgmental but i am not interested in anyone's personal judgment. If you do not want to contribute, read what others post but for the reason of explaining my intention, i am clarifying the purpose of my first post.

Thanks

Eastern Mind
01 October 2009, 11:46 AM
So, wouldn't be nice to have a thread where the actual basic tenets of advaita or "Your" belief is shared for the benefit of our readers?

Lets begin...

Grames: Go ahead and begin, then. Reminds me a committee I sat on once where everyone believed that the last word was the best word so no one said anything. That was fun

Personally, I have no working definition of advaita in my head so I guess I'm at a loss.

Aum Namasivaya

kd gupta
01 October 2009, 11:54 PM
Gramesji

You are right, as Advait means A dvait [ two ] and A [ no ] dvait or two .

In second case when Advait means one…Every natural no starts from 1 [ you know zero is an integer and not a natural no ] so beginner starts from Advait or one .

Now if anybody is of level two….I welcome his views .

brahman
02 October 2009, 04:04 AM
Hi,

After reading so many posts and views expressed here, i have a feeling that most of the subscribers here are advaitins and very few of them are expressing different school of thoughts. Not to be judgemental but i have a serious concern that what is posted many times here do not follow the classical "Advaita" rather they all exhibit various "new" idea under the belief that it is "Advaita".

So, wouldn't be nice to have a thread where the actual basic tenets of advaita or "Your" belief is shared for the benefit of our readers?

Please follow these before you post responses to this thread..

1. Make sure, you have a reference for your knowledge like Who gave you that knowledge or is it your own wisdom etc.
2. State that reference if it is not yours... instead of plain shruti text interpretations do provide the "Baasya" ref or any other references of great advaitic acharya or scholars
3. State what is the basis of your personal inference if it is your personal knowledge after reading Shrutis or updanishad or practicing some "Yoga"


Lets begin...

wouldn't mind, But can you please explain these uses
"classical "Advaita"
"new" idea"
"Advaita" ?





.

atanu
02 October 2009, 07:07 AM
Grames: Go ahead and begin, then. Reminds me a committee I sat on once where everyone believed that the last word was the best word so no one said anything. That was fun

Aum Namasivaya

:Roll:

However, I agree with devotee. I will relate two views. In Shankara Vijayam, Shankara is seen debating with Vishistaadvaita advocate of his time. The VA proponent insists that the final view (sheshatwa) is wherein one sees oneself as knowledge and a miniscule part of the infinite Lord, whose essential nature is also knowledge. Shankara simply said: then you would not see the Lord.

Guru Ramana, although known to be an advaitin, appeared to be offering a different perspective from the intellectual understanding of advaita darshana. But the difference is apparent only. He said one or two are words. The Self is the reality that no one can negate and Self is partless and not two.

IMO, the need remains to experience the Turya as it is -- as advaita shivo atman. And one situated stably in Turya is not bound. Guru Ramana is known to have commented that he occupied bodies in various lokas and he asked devotees as to how the happenings with these variety of bodies changed the Self, which is not two? In order to have such freedom, the one, impartible, Turya must be known as oneself. Lord kAla, Sarvesvara, is also pervaded by Turya, which, Guru Madhava calls Prabhu.

We simply would not understand the explanations of a Turya established Guru, without having our own experience of Turya, which scriptures indeed term as shivo advait atma.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
02 October 2009, 07:47 AM
Dear Grames,

Namaste,

Is it not said that words and mind come back from Him? There is bound to be differences in the domain of the mind and then in the domain of the word. I have related a story as to how my daughter, when she was just three year old, defeated her boyfriend, who had to agree after a fierce argument lasting one hour, that the sun was 'pilA' and not 'yellow'.

Guru Dakshinamurty teaches silence of mind by silence. And Guru Narayana teaches us to know the impartible Atman-Brahman. So, let us strive.

Regards and Best Wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
03 October 2009, 08:44 AM
Atanuji wrote

There is bound to be differences in the domain of the mind and then in the domain of the word.

When a bulb is switched off , there comes a light which is due to enduced emf [ voltage ] .

A known saint said that if you intend to see god out side then it is different than that is inside .

Sribhagwatam says…ShabdBrahma sudurbodham .

Now if it is suduh+bodham …then it leads to Oneness , that it is the original light in bulb .

And if it is su +durbodham…then it is some extra form one, and the case as enduced emf .
…pl. Guide….

yajvan
03 October 2009, 11:22 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee,

Just now we had enough of Voidism here ! Brahman = Void & Advaitins are Voidist !!

I am already running the other way!


http://www.magiclanterngraphics.com/bunny_jogging_lg_clr.gif

yajvan
03 October 2009, 05:15 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

tattva तत्त्व - as a noun means true or real state , truth , reality
tattva components are tad + tva-m
tad तद्- is 'that' + tva त्व - is 'one' yet also means 'several'. ( tvam is the personal pronoun condition )Hence tad + tva gives us 'that' + 'one' ( yielding tattva). And who is this 'that' ? Brahman. The ultimate tattva - the real state, reality.

praṇām

atanu
04 October 2009, 12:42 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee,


I am already running the other way!


http://www.magiclanterngraphics.com/bunny_jogging_lg_clr.gif


Namaste yajvan ji,

Where do you get such cartoons and icons?? it seems that they run back to you.

Om

kd gupta
04 October 2009, 01:15 AM
http://www.heyayush.co.cc/images/avtars/cartoon/21.gif
It is Akshar Brahma/Shabda Brahma

grames
04 October 2009, 03:57 AM
Dear,

Classical advaita is the advaita mainly propagated by Shripada Shankara and also by some of his disciples where the Tattva is based on the "Vedanta". In other words, the advaita of Shri Shankara and his followers put their source of knowledge in Vedas, Upanishads and BS along with Gita.

Advaita or Neo advaita of today has no root in Vedanta or any of the Vedic scriptures but it is just idea/experience of few modern age so called "Bagavan"s but at least these Bagavans are very popular and also very well known and identified in the west as custodians of Hinduism in general.

New idea or personal belief which still talks about something in the line of "Advaita" but have no proper source in vedanta or source in any of these well known, highly reputed "custodian" of hindu dharma but outcome of meditation, guidance from some random Guru who they consider realized etc.


Please bear in mind, there is no right or wrong in sticking to your faith and it will be wise only if you acknowledge your source of faith as that is the only way how you can cultivate and harvest the ultimate from that source which gave you faith. :)

Hope, i am not sounding prejudice.

Thanks


wouldn't mind, But can you please explain these uses
"classical "Advaita"
"new" idea"
"Advaita" ?
.

brahman
04 October 2009, 05:30 AM
Dear,

Classical advaita is the advaita mainly propagated by Shripada Shankara and also by some of his disciples where the Tattva is based on the "Vedanta". In other words, the advaita of Shri Shankara and his followers put their source of knowledge in Vedas, Upanishads and BS along with Gita.

Advaita or Neo advaita of today has no root in Vedanta or any of the Vedic scriptures but it is just idea/experience of few modern age so called "Bagavan"s but at least these Bagavans are very popular and also very well known and identified in the west as custodians of Hinduism in general.

New idea or personal belief which still talks about something in the line of "Advaita" but have no proper source in vedanta or source in any of these well known, highly reputed "custodian" of hindu dharma but outcome of meditation, guidance from some random Guru who they consider realized etc.

The last two category of people have this symptom of bringing in "scriptural" references but translated by neo advaitin or some enthusiastic western scholars but believe that, that is the opinion of Shripada Shankara etc.


Please bear in mind, there is no right or wrong in sticking to your faith and it will be wise only if you acknowledge your source of faith as that is the only way how you can cultivate and harvest the ultimate from that source which gave you faith. :)

Hope, i am not sounding prejudice.

Thanks



Advaita is an experience; it’s an experience above the senses to be explained.
For that reason I don’t believe in a single definition for Advaita.

Advaita is reality; it is truth, its knowledge
Its believing in truth, believing in all and believing in one.
For that purpose you live, to sustain you do karma, implement dharma to observe karma. Dharma comes from the Sastras.
Sastras from the enlighted
And enlightment is the experience of reality, thats Advaita.

That’s all from me about Advaita.

Source of knowledge is Prasthana traya.



Also would like to remind you that, There were advaitians even before Shri. Sankara Bhagavadpadar.(In which category do their successors come?)





.

devotee
04 October 2009, 07:32 AM
Namaste,

Advaita, Classical Advaita, Neo-Advaita, new idea, Advait Vedanta ..... I have heard it before too.

The irony was that the person who was bringing in these terms was from Bhakti Yoga, a Shavite. He had some knowledge of Advaita ... but he thought he was an authority.

My Guru is from Advaita school from one of the ten orders of Shankaracharya. It is not that today all schools of Shankaracharya orders follow the same practises literally. The basic principles are same & they are based on Vedanta.

Some people try to show that Vivekananda was not a classical Advaitin. ... Ramana Maharishi, Punja ji, Nisarga datta Maharaj don't belong to Advaita Vedanta ... Awadhoot Gita is not an Advaita Vedanta text etc. etc. These people are basically those who themselves don't practise Advaita. I say that please read about all those whom you consider that they are different from "Classic Advaita" .... read those scriptures which you think are not of Classic Advaita ... hear the views of anyone who expresses his views on Advaita. Then compare those views with Vedanta Teachings. If they differ then you can claim that "it is a different idea" from Advaita Vedanta.

Then there are misunderstanding over the teachings of the Advaita too. It is said that liberation is not possible just by worship, doing good karmas & gaining Punya ... unless the delusion is removed by contemplation on teachings of the Vedanta. Now someone interprets that it is forbidden to do anything in classic Advaita ! Then some people believe that Advaita Vedanta doesn't believe in God & basically Viodism of Buddhism in disguise !! If that is true then why Shankara wrote "Bhaj Govindam" ... worshipped different deities in many religious places ... why the Maths involve themselves in social service ??

OM

atanu
04 October 2009, 11:49 AM
Dear,

Classical advaita is the advaita mainly propagated by Shripada Shankara and also by some of his disciples where the Tattva is based on the "Vedanta". In other words, the advaita of Shri Shankara and his followers put their source of knowledge in Vedas, Upanishads and BS along with Gita.

Advaita or Neo advaita of today has no root in Vedanta or any of the Vedic scriptures but it is just idea/experience of few modern age so called "Bagavan"s but at least these Bagavans are very popular and also very well known and identified in the west as custodians of Hinduism in general.

---
Thanks

Namaste,

I am delighted that Grames believes that Shankaracharya's teachings are vedic. That is a lot. But I will be more delighted, if he coughs out exactly how Neo Advaitins differ from Shankaracharya's teachings?

I am almost sure that this has to do with which tattva is the Supremest.

Om

bhaktajan
04 October 2009, 02:23 PM
'Define Your Terms'
aka
'Define Tattvas et al'

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

No one is defining the basis of what they are blogging about.

if there is an absolute basis for your ponitifications ---'define your terms.'

Here is the Standard ---It is accepted by all thoughtfull & honest men:

“'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire,'define your terms.'

How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms!

This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition.

It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task." --- Will Durant, author of The Story of Philosophy




Not argue and win, but to know and make known, should be our motto ---Shri Narayana Gurudevan

brahman
05 October 2009, 12:04 AM
'Define Your Terms'
aka
'Define Tattvas et al'

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

No one is defining the basis of what they are blogging about.

if there is an absolute basis for your ponitifications ---'define your terms.'

Here is the Standard ---It is accepted by all thoughtfull & honest men:

“'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire,'define your terms.'

How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms!

This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition.

It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task." --- Will Durant, author of The Story of Philosophy




Not argue and win, but to know and make known, should be our motto ---Shri Narayana Gurudevan

curiosity pays.
we will have that post soon "gurunathan to me".
But making things simple is hard.
patience pays




.

grames
05 October 2009, 01:11 AM
Thank you dear Brahman and this is exactly what is expected as response to this thread :)


Yes. Classical advaita is not believed to be started from Shri Sankara but from Vishnu as the parama Guru and at least i am aware of it :).

Thanks once again.



Advaita is an experience; it’s an experience above the senses to be explained.
For that reason I don’t believe in a single definition for Advaita.

Advaita is reality; it is truth, its knowledge
Its believing in truth, believing in all and believing in one.
For that purpose you live, to sustain you do karma, implement dharma to observe karma. Dharma comes from the Sastras.
Sastras from the enlighted
And enlightment is the experience of reality, thats Advaita.

That’s all from me about Advaita.

Source of knowledge is Prasthana traya.



Also would like to remind you that, There were advaitians even before Shri. Sankara Bhagavadpadar.(In which category do their successors come?)





.

grames
05 October 2009, 01:16 AM
Haa haa.... don't be so suspicious and though i don't seek for your respect simultaneously i don't get moved by your prejudice either.

Advaita is not considered non-vedic by any other schools and i am not sure why you think otherwise?

As stated earlier, my idea or purpose is not to 'compare' or even debate about advaita with other philosophies in this particular thread but to put forth the actual tenets instead of assuming and interpreting a lot of things under the label advaita. So, help the others to know what your "meaning" or tenets of "Advaita" along with its source.

Gotcha?


Namaste,

I am delighted that Grames believes that Shankaracharya's teachings are vedic. That is a lot. But I will be more delighted, if he coughs out exactly how Neo Advaitins differ from Shankaracharya's teachings?

I am almost sure that this has to do with which tattva is the Supremest.

Om

bhaktajan
05 October 2009, 09:58 AM
Why is the 'conclusion of Advaita philosophy the 'go-to' for discussion of Tattvas? Because it was initiated by Veda-vyasa?

Here is definitions from my copy of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's Folio of his Translations:

Tattva-darçé—one who has seen the truth.
Tattvas—the Absolute Truth’s multifarious categories.
Tattvavädés—the followers of Madhväcärya.
Tattvavit—one who knows the Absolute Truth in His three different features.
Tattva—truth.

bhaktajan
05 October 2009, 10:14 AM
Please come and receive intellectual stimulation.

Here are definitions from Bhaktivedanta Swami's translations:

Advaita—nondual; without differentiation.
Advaita-siddhänta—the conclusion of the monists, namely, that the Absolute Truth and the individual living entity are separate in the material state, but that when they are spiritually situated there is no difference between them.
Advaita-väda—the philosophy of absolute oneness taught by Çaìkaräcärya, and whose conclusion is advaita-siddhänta.
Advaita-vädés—atheistic philosophers who say all distinctions are but material illusions. [See also: Mäyävädés]

Mayävädé—one who propounds the philosophy of Çaìkaräcärya, which basically holds that God is featureless and impersonal, that devotion to a personal Godhead is false, the material creation of the Lord is also false, and the ultimate goal of life is to become existentially one with the all-pervading, impersonal Absolute.

bhaktajan
05 October 2009, 10:19 AM
Sri grimes,
Your humility and level of tolerence and level of earnestness coupled with your tactfull reserve are obvious and indicative of a true spiirt of scholarship. Brava!

Please feel free to speak your mind with out distractions from overt distractors.

atanu
05 October 2009, 11:43 AM
Haa haa.... don't be so suspicious and though i don't seek for your respect simultaneously i don't get moved by your prejudice either.

Advaita is not considered non-vedic by any other schools and i am not sure why you think otherwise?

As stated earlier, my idea or purpose is not to 'compare' or even debate about advaita with other philosophies in this particular thread but to put forth the actual tenets instead of assuming and interpreting a lot of things under the label advaita. So, help the others to know what your "meaning" or tenets of "Advaita" along with its source.

Gotcha?

Namaste Grames,

OK, Well said. Now then spell out the deviation from Vedanta by Neo Advaita proponents (as per your understanding).

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
05 October 2009, 12:06 PM
For a plethera of Vedanta by Neo Advaita proponents ---one only need look as far as all the new age authors of quasi-religious self-help publishers, as for example this source:

One Spirit® Book Club (http://www.onespirit.com/) ---The Book club that offers titles, products and other resources specifically targeted to spiritual development and holistic health.
http://www.onespirit.com/

brahman
06 October 2009, 12:01 AM
Thank you dear Brahman and this is exactly what is expected as response to this thread :)


Yes. Classical advaita is not believed to be started from Shri Sankara but from Vishnu as the parama Guru and at least i am aware of it :).

Thanks once again.

From you previous post:

Classical advaita is the advaita mainly propagated by Shripada Shankara and also by some of his disciples where the Tattva is based on the "Vedanta". In other words, the advaita of Shri Shankara and his followers put their source of knowledge in Vedas, Upanishads and BS along with Gita.


Please clarify this.
Also would like to hear your(own) tattwas on advaita as well.




.

grames
06 October 2009, 01:43 AM
Dear Brahman,

I do not understand your confusion if you have one :). I meant, "Shri Shankara" was the main proponent of the "classical" Advaita system which has riped and held very high during his course. I am not attributing the entire philosophical school to "Shri Sankara" as the originator though many advaita followers believe it like that for your information.



From you previous post:



Please clarify this.
Also would like to hear your(own) tattwas on advaita as well.




.

grames
06 October 2009, 01:52 AM
So you are very much interested in distractions rather than contribution?


You see, so far only one is ready to even utter his/her belief and the source of his/her faith and is it true that the people who have some "faith" in advaita do not have the real knowledge on their own faith to even share it with others?

When it is asked what is your faith, questioning the question and spending the time and energy on suspicion, ridiculing etc. are really useless.

If the philosophy and teaching has its source in Vedanta, it is "classical" advaita. Period :)

if it is not, but outcome of some Yogi's, maharishis etc, it is not "classical". Another period.

Thirdly, your personal faith and experience.

For your information and caution, it takes guts to admit something as "just my personal experience" but do not hesitate to admit it if it is so.

Source of knowledge is as important as Knowledge itself. Give that honor!


Namaste Grames,

OK, Well said. Now then spell out the deviation from Vedanta by Neo Advaita proponents (as per your understanding).

Om Namah Shivaya

brahman
06 October 2009, 03:59 AM
Dear Brahman,

I do not understand your confusion if you have one :). I meant, "Shri Shankara" was the main proponent of the "classical" Advaita system which has riped and held very high during his course. I am not attributing the entire philosophical school to "Shri Sankara" as the originator though many advaita followers believe it like that for your information.

forget my confusion grames.





Not argue and win, but to know and make known, should be our motto ---Shri Narayana Gurudevan

atanu
06 October 2009, 07:23 AM
So you are very much interested in distractions rather than contribution?


Namaste grames,

Since when you became bitterish?

I just asked "Now then spell out the deviation from Vedanta by Neo Advaita proponents (as per your understanding)". Is asking for clarification a distraction? If specifying the differences is such a big issue for you as to be a distraction, then you should not have started the thread. How can a discussion go one merely on your opinions?

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
06 October 2009, 09:53 AM
"In-absolutes"? "In-absolutes"? Dejavu all over again?


distractions rather than contribution?

Here is the standard:

If one is ready to even utter his/her belief and
the source of his/her faith ---
It is most common for people who have some "faith" in advaita not to have the real knowledge of
their own faith ... thus, incapable to even share it with others.

When it is asked what is your faith,
questioning the question
and spending the time and energy on
suspicion, ridiculing etc. are really useless.

If the philosophy and teaching has its source in Vedanta, it is "classical" advaita. Period!!!

if it is not, but outcome of some Yogi's, maharishis etc [bogus-yogis, svengalis, new age cultists], it is not "classical". Another period.


That is my opinion!!!

grames
06 October 2009, 11:24 AM
Dear Atanu,

Namaste. I think i have stated it already what the differences are and i don't think i should pollute this thread with a big explanation of what is the detailed differences of "classical" vs neo as i am sure you know all well.

Why don't you put your faith instead of all these? Are you confused between these "classical" VS Neo vs your own faith??? In that case, just write your opinion ignoring all these labels please.

Thanks for your patience and i haven't given any opinions of my own yet.


Namaste grames,

Since when you became bitterish?

I just asked "Now then spell out the deviation from Vedanta by Neo Advaita proponents (as per your understanding)". Is asking for clarification a distraction? If specifying the differences is such a big issue for you as to be a distraction, then you should not have started the thread. How can a discussion go one merely on your opinions?

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
11 October 2009, 09:25 AM
Dear Atanu,

Namaste. I think i have stated it already what the differences are and i don't think i should pollute this thread with a big explanation of what is the detailed differences of "classical" vs neo as i am sure you know all well.

Why don't you put your faith instead of all these? Are you confused between these "classical" VS Neo vs your own faith??? In that case, just write your opinion ignoring all these labels please.

Thanks for your patience and i haven't given any opinions of my own yet.

(http://www.astrojyoti.com/aboutastrojyoti.htm)


So Gramesji
You are waiting Atanuji’s reply, o.k.
My submission says that there can be two aspects of thinking 1. scientific 2. logical
Scientific is just the property of matter, five elements defined by Vedas
Logical is based on interpretation of Vedmantras
All Hindu scriptures are derived from Vedas, because only and only Vedmantras are authentic
Upnishads , Agamas, purans and so more ,all are referred from Vedas .
Gita and Ramcharitmanas may be said to explain Vedas…
The only Tattva, say paramtattva is Imperishable BRAHMA [ Bramha is original source of Brahman means Ved ] , similarly as Vedakshar is Imperishable and that the Parmatma is one or Advait . Now see from different scriptures….

Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti rig1/164/46
Bhutanyatmaivabhud yaj40/7
Twam Bramha raivid Brahmanspate rig2/1/3

Yogin Paramtattvamay bhakha Ramcharitmanas

Yo maam pashyati sarvatra sarvam cha mayi pashyati;
Tasyaaham na pranashyaami sa cha me na pranashyati. Gita30/6

The only prayer from the Parmatma should be
TAMASO MA JYOTIRGAMAY

grames
14 October 2009, 01:48 AM
Dear Gupta,

I no longer wait for anyone in this forum as i have a strong feeling which is justified by the least response to this thread and diversion tactics that, there is no one here who in fact know what their source of faith is or have interest in knowing what "classical Advaita" of Gauda pada, Shri Shankara, Madhusuthana etc is all about.

Philosophy comes with variety and only when you know which philosophy makes sense to you after knowing it completely, then you can taste the fullness of it. Just stating that, Brahman is One, Brahman is this and that etc. after reading or hearing from some random source but not even trying to understand the root of such philosophical school and to its fullness is mere overlooking and assuming we have the conclusion and the guidance after such overlooking is not justice to your own self. Speculation is dangerous path and will lead you to unfortunate state only. This is sad situation and some people may think that i am prejudice, overconfident, rude etc by making the above statement(s) but that is the honest observation i have with a lot of people who say that they have "advaitic" faith.

I am planning to write a new message on this forum about Shri Shankara's advaita and i hope that will "show off" my understanding of what "classical" advaita is.

Thanks for your patience.

Hari Bol!





So Gramesji
You are waiting Atanuji’s reply, o.k.
My submission says that there can be two aspects of thinking 1. scientific 2. logical
Scientific is just the property of matter, five elements defined by Vedas
Logical is based on interpretation of Vedmantras
All Hindu scriptures are derived from Vedas, because only and only Vedmantras are authentic
Upnishads , Agamas, purans and so more ,all are referred from Vedas .
Gita and Ramcharitmanas may be said to explain Vedas…
The only Tattva, say paramtattva is Imperishable BRAHMA [ Bramha is original source of Brahman means Ved ] , similarly as Vedakshar is Imperishable and that the Parmatma is one or Advait . Now see from different scriptures….

Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti rig1/164/46
Bhutanyatmaivabhud yaj40/7
Twam Bramha raivid Brahmanspate rig2/1/3

Yogin Paramtattvamay bhakha Ramcharitmanas

Yo maam pashyati sarvatra sarvam cha mayi pashyati;
Tasyaaham na pranashyaami sa cha me na pranashyati. Gita30/6

The only prayer from the Parmatma should be
TAMASO MA JYOTIRGAMAY

atanu
14 October 2009, 02:33 AM
Guptaji,

Actually, I am waiting to see the differences between classical advaita and neo advaita listed down.

Om Namah Shivaya

Grames,

You are welcome to write on Shankara's advaita. But you are wrong to assume that you only will be correct. Shankara's teachings were interpreted by disciples in their ways. The disciples were encouraged to write their own purports by none other than Shankara Himself.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
14 October 2009, 03:20 AM
Namaste
I have continued interest in knowing and defining “classical Advaita” concepts. I would like to tell it apart from Neo and Modern Vedanta. I feel no shame in admitting that I would have to hesitate if asked to distinguish them, I cannot easily.

I am prepared to contribute at an academic level i.e. no emotive posts or debates about people’s ability from me. The result of which will be a more clear understanding to accept or reject privately. I am in agreement that the better one knows something the better they can communicate it to others. As to the value this brings to the aspirant, we can debate separately (or here if you all feel it helps once we have a foundation).

I can begin by suggesting that “Lila/Leela” is not a classic Advaita concept and has been adopted along the way. To my knowledge I have not yet come across Lila in any of Sri Shankaracharya’s work. Has anyone else?

grames
14 October 2009, 03:20 AM
Dear Atanu,

I do agree with you completely and my only curiosity is to know whether individual faith in the "classical advaita" falls in to either Shri Sankara or his disciples interpretation.

Also, please let me state this one more time... i am not declaring or having an opinion that "my" understanding alone can be the final understanding. Do not mistake me.

So whats yours is the straight forward question.




Guptaji,

Actually, I am waiting to see the differences between classical advaita and neo advaita listed down.

Om Namah Shivaya

Grames,

You are welcome to write on Shankara's advaita. But you are wrong to assume that you only will be correct. Shankara's teachings were interpreted by disciples in their ways. The disciples were encouraged to write their own purports by none other than Shankara Himself.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
14 October 2009, 05:03 AM
Dear Atanu,

Also, please let me state this one more time... i am not declaring or having an opinion that "my" understanding alone can be the final understanding. Do not mistake me.

So whats yours is the straight forward question.

Dear Grames,

I have stated my understanding many times over. I have no doubts (which are bandied about usually based on grammatical nitpicking) about the clear cut 5 maha vakyas, as commented upon by Shankara.

But I, instead of going into grammatical nitpicking, prefer to point out that all scripture exhort as below:

Katha

tam mahantam vibhumatamanam matvagamya atmabhavena sakshat aham asmi paramatmeti dhiro na shochati

After knowing/comprehending the atma - as that paramatma I am - as identical with myself - the discriminative qualified student does not grieve.
Same knowledge is taught in every scripture including Gita; the need to know the Self.

I asked you, whether it is possible to truly know indivisible Paramatman in a non-advaita mode? Is it possible to know your own atma as another? Is it possible to know advaita as another?

Advaita is an experience of Advaita only and thousand books will not clarify anything but only add to confusion.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
14 October 2009, 05:04 AM
ya imam madhvadam veda atmanam jivaman antikaat
eeshanam bhutabhavyasya na tado vijugupsate etadvaitat

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
14 October 2009, 07:55 AM
Dear Gupta,

I no longer wait for anyone in this forum as i have a strong feeling which is justified by the least response to this thread and diversion tactics that, there is no one here who in fact know what their source of faith is or have interest in knowing what "classical Advaita" of Gauda pada, Shri Shankara, Madhusuthana etc is all about.

Philosophy comes with variety and only when you know which philosophy makes sense to you after knowing it completely, then you can taste the fullness of it. Just stating that, Brahman is One, Brahman is this and that etc. after reading or hearing from some random source but not even trying to understand the root of such philosophical school and to its fullness is mere overlooking and assuming we have the conclusion and the guidance after such overlooking is not justice to your own self. Speculation is dangerous path and will lead you to unfortunate state only. This is sad situation and some people may think that i am prejudice, overconfident, rude etc by making the above statement(s) but that is the honest observation i have with a lot of people who say that they have "advaitic" faith.

I am planning to write a new message on this forum about Shri Shankara's advaita and i hope that will "show off" my understanding of what "classical" advaita is.

Thanks for your patience.

Hari Bol!

Namaste Gramesji
I am a patient of patience , waiting for your planning for Hari Bol .