Measure of firmness (was Re: Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 1(The nature of difference) )

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

>It should be noted, however, to do this these schools of thoughts may end
>up
>stretching, distorting, and misinterpreting statements in these texts --
>just to make it agree with the proposed philosophy. One such example is the
>morphing of "sa aatmaa tattvamasi ..." to "sa aatmaa atattvamasi".

I checked out from some sources, the exact sanskrit text of the Chandogya
Upanishad(both online and offline). I realized it is "sa atmA tattvamasi"
only and not "sa aatmA atattvamasi". As you rightly said, some schools do
distort the original text.

In the modern age, I think Sri Ramakrishna Matt has contributed largely to
the spread of the advaitic message. Ultimately, the message is more
important than even the texts that convey it.

Best Regards
Kalyan


>From: "M. S. Ravisankar" <ravi at AMBAA.ORG>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Measure of firmness (was Re: Dvaita and Sophistry - Part 1(The
>          nature of difference) )
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:22:30 -0600
>
>Firmness/Validity of a philosphical system in the context of vedAnta is
>measured by its ability to give satifactory interpretation of prasthAna
>trayI (brahmasuutra, bhagavad giita, and major upanishads) and show its
>conformity with these texts. This is a tradition started and set  by our
>Acharya.  There are only handful of schools within vedAnta, which meet this
>requirement.
>
>It should be noted, however, to do this these schools of thoughts may end
>up
>stretching, distorting, and misinterpreting statements in these texts --
>just to make it agree with the proposed philosophy. One such example is the
>morphing of "sa aatmaa tattvamasi ..." to "sa aatmaa atattvamasi".
>
>In the above example, one can see usefulness of such a measure, as it
>exposes a fundamental problem. Many new schools that come under the class
>of
>neo-vedanta, that mix and mess  advaita-vedAnta with buddhism etc., say
>whatever they want to say and show no obligation to undertake a formal
>exposition of prasthAna trayI.
>
>Ravi
>
>
>-----Jaldhar Wrote:
>
> > >We may disagree strongly with Dvaita but at least it has a firmer
> > >foundation than some of the crazy ideas being thrown around these days.
>
> > Can you elaborate on this please?
>
>Dvaita arguments atleast attempt to base themselves on facts and logic
>unlike the muddled hodge-podge of many of todays thinkers (many of which
>unfortunately claim to be in the Advaita camp.)  I give them credit for
>that.  We may diagree with both the premises and the conclusions but we
>ought to atleast respect the effort.
>
>Also historically the spirited criticism of Vyas Tirth and his disciples
>forced Advaita Vedanta to clarify our views (Which Swami Madhusudan
>Saraswati and his discipes ably did.)  So actually we should thank such
>people for polishing the the gem of Advaita!
>
>
>--
>Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/


_________________________________________________________________
Get more buddies in your list. Win prizes http://messenger.msn.co.in/promo