Okay Vaj, Tomorrow I'll be blasting back -- with you, it'll only be funzies.
Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: > > > The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that > > they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject > > it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what > > you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch > > the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or > > Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that "language" is being used > > can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. > > LOL. Oh really? > > > When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely "egoic presence" -- are > > seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's > > axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion > > on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers > > were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. > > > > So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed > > retching that the expression of that POV signals a major > > dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. > > I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the > constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists > are any example. > > > > Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be > > "slightly off message/dogma?" And who cares? If the technique is not > > used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily > > worthless. > > Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the > absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational > approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have > a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. > > Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern > advaitin talkers and satsangeroos. >
