--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay Vaj, > > Tomorrow I'll be blasting back -- with you, it'll only be funzies. > > Edg
Edg, tomorrow you'll be "blasting back," but it will be what it always is with you -- words, words, words, typed by someone who has convinced himself that he "understands" Advaita, but who obviously has never experienced what it speaks about. I think Vaj made the best point of this whole gaggle of words. Both relative and absolute DO exist. Those who consider only one of them to be "the reality" have missed out on half of life. I would go further and say that those who have come to believe that only one is "reality" based on pure intellectual speculation alone have probably missed more than half. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> 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. > > >
