Good observation. I found Judy's analysis very helpful. Thanks. **
--- In [email protected], "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <jstein@> 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." > > >
