Hey Judy, Very accurate description of just how the culture of Vedanta was in Shankara's day. Quite dispassionate reporting too.
Congradulations to you. We rarely see these kinds of simple, unleaved observations here of FFL. I find it refreshing. Even Vaj should be able to agree - and I'm not sure if I've seen that yet. Good job. Hope more folks around here can pick up on it. Emptybill --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Uh, no. You mean Shankara, of course, not > Patanjali. > > In any case, a penchant for debate about the > validity of Advaita Vedanta hardly justifies > labeling Shankara as a "religious fanatic." > Such a label is a function of modern Western > culture in which the nature and role of > religion are very different from what they > were in Shankara's culture: essentially, > religion *was* the culture, not a subset of > it. There was no such thing as not being > religious. > > Moreover, there was no clear distinction > between religion and philosophy, or > metaphysics. > > Furthermore, debate of the kind in which > Shankara engaged was a *tradition* in that > culture, much as debate is a tradition in > Buddhism and Judaism, among many others. To > call Shankara a "religious fanatic" because > he engaged in debate about the superiority > of Advaita Vedanta is like calling candidates > for office in the West "political fanatics" > because they engage in debates about the > superiority of their policies. > > > TM "springs from" (i.e., MMY's teaching is > based on) both Patanjali and Shankara, the > former in terms of practice and experiences > of consciousness, the latter in terms of > metaphysics. > >> Naah. Shankara couldn't have engaged in > debate, obviously, without *opponents* from > other metaphysical traditions who were trying > to prove *their* tradition represented truth, > and whose followers believed every word their > teachers spoke was gospel. > > That's what adherents of most philosophies > or metaphysical systems or religions *do*. > TM's insistence on the correctness of its > metaphysics could have come from any one of > the systems whose validity Shankara challenged, > and many others besides. > > Bottom line: There's no unique linkage > between TM's tendency toward dogmatism and > Shankara's penchant for debate. > > > I don't believe anyone here suggested they > were. That's a pretty, uh, elementary principle, > after all (and, incidentally, a principle > Shankara was very insistent on). > > Tom didn't say enlightenment became words, he > said words became enlightenment through the > discrimination of the intellect, "when the > translucent intellect is as clear as the Self." > > That's a quote from Patanjali, of course, not > Shankara. However, Shankara's most famous work > (at least in the West) is titled "The Crest > Jewel of Discrimination." >
