Talk:Advaita Vedanta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Initial heading

(Please add new topics at the foot of this page)

---

This page needs so much more. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:20, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to add it. -- Arvindn 17:04, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can't do everything! I'm working on the Hinduism page a lot. Also, like with your addition to Adi Shankara's songs, I didn't know those, so we need a variety of people. As Locke said, the more factions that exist, the more likely they will average out to the right movement. Onward. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:01, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I tried to add to the subject of Advaita with "Supreme Science" http://unifiedfieldtheory.blogspot.com/ The response was not unexpected. I cannot understand how anyone can understand what Advaita "not-two" is about without knowing where it came from: MEDITATION and the study of thoughts in meditation-- ie the Supreme Science. From meditation we get to Samadhi, the Reality of dreamless-sleep. ONLY from this REALITY, Atman, Brahman, can someone hope to connect language with the Reality that is beyond name and form, language. Advaita tries to do the impossible and explain the Reality that is beyond language with language. This Study of thoughts, probably the oldest (and only?) science has been called by some the Supreme Science. Because it is the oldest science it seems to be too "esoteric" to be included in Wikipedia, even though Physics calls it its Unified Field Theory that has been around for over 5000 years. --geepee 17:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)Geza Pal

Question: Do we need two complete sections linking Advaita philosophy with current physics concepts? I personally feel that both these sections need references to appropriate sources, and the paragraph dealing with Unified Field Theory needs NPOV work. For instance the sentence "Advaita has been handed down to us thanks to the Supreme Science" seems like a strong assertion to me. I would like to rephrase this to something like "Some people believe that Advaita has been handed..." with a reference explaining who these people are, or even better, something like "(Insert names of such schools of thought here) believe that Advaita..." again followed by a reference. Also, the link [1] doesn't seem to exist, nor does [2]. I would prefer avoiding links to blogspot.com and other similar sites - they don't add any credence to this article, and they have this feel of "A believes X and has written about it on his blog. News at 11." to them. I would prefer links to the official websites of such schools of thought (if such websites exist), or links to neutral descriptions of the beliefs (some University Department of Philosophy for instance). If we can't quote such references, we should probably delete the relevant section. I would like your comments. Thanks. --Brhaspati 10:05, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

We have a section here "Advaita and Science" but there is nothing in Wikipedia about "Advaita." only Advaita Vedanta. I do not know the languages of Advaita but maybe Wikipedia should clarify these words for its readers. --geepee 17:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed list of guidelines to improve this article

I feel that this article currently has the following problems:

• Uses ad hoc mix of spellings (Sankara, Shankara, Shankaracharya etc).
• Refers to terms without complete explanation of what they mean, such as "Adi (meaning First)". Yes, but in what language?
• Mixes historical fact with religious beliefs.
• Over-reliance on Adi Shankara.

I propose the following guidelines for this article.

• Use consistent names and spellings. Remember that the person reading this article may not be familiar with Sanskrit transliterated to English. We may add a section noting that "Shankara" may also be referred to as "Shankaracharya" and explaining what "Acharya" means in Sanskrit. The rest of the article should be consistent, ideally using the same spelling as those in other articles referred to from here.
• If you use a non-English word, please add a parenthetical note saying what it means and what language it is from. We may possibly over-explain some terms, but it's easier to delete unnecessary text later than to write new text. Please do not assume that "If someone is reading about Advaita, he/she probably knows Sanskrit roots" - they may have come here through a Google search for "Advaita" or some such term.
• We need to consciously maintain NPOV on this article. When describing someone's life for instance, please don't change modes from "A said X" to "The great master A said X". There may be readers who are critical of A, and changes like these are quite jarring to them. Also, when describing the philosophy itself, qualify the statements as much as possible with "A said", "B believed" etc. Otherwise it sounds like a blunt assertion about the nature of the universe :)
• The article in its current state describes Adi Shankara's contributions in detail, but subsequent thinkers are not described in enough detail. Specifically, we need things like "Adi Shankara believed X. The next major contribution to Advaita came from B, who modified X to X', on the grounds that (explanation). Subsequently, C added the concept of P to Advaita, so that (metaphysical paradox) could be resolved" and so on. This readily encapsulates Advaita's history and its various influences.

Please add your own guidelines to the list above. I would like your comments on how to improve this article. Thanks --Brhaspati 11:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

One guideline we could agree upon is a proper transliteration scheme, e.g. there is variable usage of 'sh' and 'ş' in Sanskrit words, e.g. moksha and mokşa. The standard transliteration for this sound is s-underdot, which is different from 'ş'.

I think it is also important to establish when a word should get fully transliterated and when its more widely used Roman script spelling should be used. For example, should we always go with Krishna or should we always use Kŗşņa? Or should we use either spelling, depending upon context?

Thanks, Vidyasankar 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ş, look at IAST for the standard transliteration scheme. I agree that there a different symbol is mentioned. We'll have to change ş to that symbol. I'll get to this asap. Babub 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see guidelines for transliteration being discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Imc 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Science

I removed the following section as it is simply the assertion of religious dogma and is thus inappropriate to a public, shared, communal encyclopedia. I will try to incorporate the relevant data in an appropriate way. I am (of course) open to argument or debate. --Goethean 17:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Advaita has been handed down to us thanks to the Supreme Science. This Supreme Science was practiced by some sages around the Indus River, in India, maybe even 5000 years ago. The Supreme Science is nothing more than the study of thoughts in meditation. From meditation the subject of thoughts goes to a subject that is beyond thoughts, words, language: dreamless-sleep or samadhi. Samadhi is the Reality without which there can be no thoughts. This dreamless-sleep or samadhi is the beginning and end of Advaita that can be also translated as: “not-two.” This Advaita is more or less physics’ Unified Field Theory that has thus been around for over 5000 years.

God's Debris should find a reference here

Though Mel removed my refrences to God's Debris from this page, I feel that God's Debris is a good example of how Vedanta has influenced post modern philosphic thought.

I request that the reference to God's Debris should be added back in the section titled "Influence of Vedanta".

Thanks --Ash.banerjee@gmail.com 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mahavakya

I moved the mahavakya to a new section cos I thought it didn't fit into "books and personalities". Babub 10:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding references to Sufism

There are good cross-references to concept of Nirvana in Buddhism.. similiar reference to the very similar sufi notions should be made. the names and forms change, but the message of "That art Thou" and self-realization is the same, even closer in language then in Buddhism.

As a start, I have added cross-reference to Sachal Sarmast's page which I have also edited to include cross reference to Advaita (some fanatic keeps trying to edit that page to remove the essense of Sachal's philosophy and reference to the website).

You give no citation for your claim, which seems to be original research. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at, "Sind and Its Sufis" by Jethmal Parsram Gulrajani, First Published: 1924, Theosophical Publishing House Adyar, India

It is available at

http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sindh/

Or more directly: http://www.freesindh.org/sufis

here are some quotes:

"[Sachal Sarmast] like [Shah Abdul] Latif [Bhittai], interprets Islam in the Sufi way. Like Latif he too came under the influence of the Hindu Sannyasis of the Advaita School of Shankara."

"ALL IS HE

"The Sufi has by this process of reasoning and mystic experience arrived at what is his great word, the chief mantram, "All is He," (Hamaioost). Just as the Vedantist expresses this idea in the word "OM," so does the Sufi express it in the word Vahiadaoo, or Hoo hoo. It comes from his very being : he is engaged intently upon this Hoo hoo. The Sindhi Sufis who came in contact with Vedantist Yogis, adopted the word "OM" too; hence Latif (says):

"If the Guru were to give thee the one curved word (OM) it would be to thee as light in darkness," therefore "keep mim(m) in thy mind, and place alif (a) before it". [spelling of Om in Sindhi alphabet]

"This word, call it "OM," Hoo, or Vahiadaoo, is what they call the "Great Word," Ism-e-Azm; it is on this that they meditate. I am told it is a practice amongst the Sufis, to concentrate on the word " Ism-e-Azm," which they are given written in an attractive form on a piece of paper; and such is the result of their concentration that they see it everywhere; and their rapturous songs are but the joyful expression of this experience, as sung by an ancient Sufi, the grandfather of Shaha Latif..."

In fact, the term yogi (jjoggii, with implosive j and g in Sindhi) are synonymous with Sindhi sufi poetry, as there are no petty distinctions in this worldview (All is One, One is All). Many of Sachal Sarmast's poems are on Lord Krishna and Yogi Masters.

You can read a brief treatment of the philosophy in the url I have provided.

A more thorough treatment is in the more recent book "Sufis of Sindh" by Dr. Motilal Jotwani. Unfortunately it is not available on-line.

-- Daraazii

1. You need to give citations when you make edits, not wait for a challenge.
2. In any case, what you say above shows that what you added to the article was incorrect. What you've cited is that some writers argue that there are similarities between Sufism and Advaita vedanta (unsurprising, as similarities between all religions can be found, especially at the mystical end of things), not that the latter influenced the former as you said in the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you say that: "Like Latif he too came under the influence of the Hindu Sannyasis of the Advaita School of Shankara." If that is not influence, what do you mean by influence? I'll wait for the discussion to settle before updating. --Daraazii

The trouble is that you don't say who Latif is; the impression I got was that he was a commentator on Islam, and especially Sufism. Still, whatever the case of that, his seems to be a certain interpretation or account, and shouldn't be stated in the article as a plain fact. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you say this is "a certain interpretation".. it represents a consenus of all Sindhi historians as well as followers of the tradition. The consensus is backed by Shah Latif's, as well as Sachal Sarmast's poetry, makes ample references to living traditions of yogis and their non-dualist philosophy. -- Daraazii

Advaita has influenced so many other schools of thought and many schools of thought have similarities to it. I propose something similar to what they have in A Course In Miracles a section for similarities to other traditions. There is already one for one Buddhist school. Sethie 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me. Obviously, one can draw a direct line from Advaita to Sindhi sufis (whether these sufis were popularly considered Muslim or Hindu). In case of the nondualism of Ibn Arabi, as far as I know, one would have to classify it as a similiarity rather than a direct influence.

It is interesting to observe that it is only scholarship that puts labels and ownership of ideas.. anyone who actually follows or believes the philosophy would not assign it to any region or limit it to a label, but would consider it universal and something emanating from self-realization and not something that can be taught or transmitted. But the wikipedia has to stay "objective" and "historical". -- Daraazii

Too theoretical, abstract and ungrounded in anything solid for a response, except to say, "Maybe" or "Could be."Sethie 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Article Help for Atman

Would someone familiar with Advaita Vedanta please do some work on the Atman (Hinduism) article. As it is written it is not right. It says that atman and brahman are synonyms. This is not quite right. If they were simply synomyms then Adi Shankara would not have needed his arguments to arrive at the conclusion that atman is brahman. See discussion page for the article too. Chris 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs more editing

Alright, I added some essential sections regarding basics of advaita vedanta. This article needs a lot of editing in the "salient features" section. I feel a lot of it is redundant. I will go through it asap and also add a seperate section on "advaita vedanta today". Babub 12:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka

I think there should be an addition on these subject to this and the Shankara article. To ignore the impact that they had on Shankara and the intellectual context that he lived in limits the scope of the article.

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. See WP:OR. All information entered must have authentic sources and must be published. --Babub | Talk 11:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs referencing

The whole article needs referencing. I'll get to it slowly--^Babub→Talk 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Founder of advaita

The article says that shankara was the first in the advaita tradition. From what I know the founder of advaita was badarayana. Also there were other rishis associated with advaita like dattatreya, ashtavakra etc...Shankaras guru gaudapada himself is part of that guru parampara. In my opinion saying shankara was the first would be a mistake:)

"First in the tradition to formulate the siddhanta in his works". This is true. But I agree that he was not the first in the tradition itself.--^Babub→Talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A request

I would love to hear shankara's teachings on the actual path or way to moksha. I know what contemporary teachers have to say, but am clueless about Shankara's views on the matter. Sethie 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Impact of Advaita

The following statement may not be completely true.

"Each of the later 4 Vedanta schools are successively more theistic along the lines of an anthropomorphic god. Advaita rejuvenated much of Hindu thought and also spurred on debate that led to the expounding of Vishishtadvaita (qualified nondualism) and Dvaita (dualism)."

It is very true that Shankara "rejuvenated" i.e. revived Hindu thought. However, it cannot be said that Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita were schools successively theistic

1. For instance, Ramanuja traces the line of Vishishtadvaitic thinking to Bodhayana (400 BC??) Even regardless of that, the main force driving Vishishtadvaita were the devotional vaishnavite aalwars (2 AD - 8 AD) and the philosophic thought can be found in their works. The works were in tamil and consequently they were not well known.

2. Shankara in his Bhashya, refutes the doctrine of both the Bhagavatas and Pasupatas, showing that they were indeed existent at that time. Philosopher4 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg

Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Madhusoodana Saraswati, Vidyaranyar and Bhagavannama Bhodendrar - Prominent advaita Saints of the Past

Madhusoodana Saraswati, Vidyaranyar and Bhagavannama Bhodendrar were prominent Advaitic saints of the past who have written profound commentaries in Advaita Vedanta

99.144.243.220 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Ravishankar March 06, 2008

Concept of illusion - NPOV

I am adding a criticism of the concept of illusion and other concepts as section(s) to the article. Its critical to maintaining NPOV as the AV went through centuries of critical relationship with other schools of Vedanta. Wikidās ॐ 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Shouldn't the pronunciation be IPA: [əd̪vɛt̪ə veːd̪ɑːnt̪ə]? -- Q Chris (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism reassessment: C

Fails B criteria:

• The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

Tags.Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Theory of creation

The theory of creation in advaitic vedanta incorporated here is incomplete and needs more study, creation of universe is incorporated in the vivekachudamani by Shankara, these should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.10.34 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Heading

I have simplified the heading as it was becoming difficult to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Implication is that there is duality

Refer to the following sentence in the first paragraph….

"Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman).[2]

Should it be clarified to state that Advaita does not see a duality between the two?

"Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman)[2] as a continuum and not separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radisesh (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article explains the "difference" between buddhism and advaita vedanta

Clinical Atmanology[3] Especially the second part is important. Please read.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by N33 (talk • contribs).

I have a problem with the first sentence: "Advaita (literally, non-duality) is more often than not interpreted as monism/monistic system of thought."

In my personal experience and search I have come to the conclusion that there is a VERY DEFINATE difference between non-dualism and monism. My perception leads me to differentiate the two as monism being an affirmative statement and non-dualism being more along the line of "neti neti" (I'm not sure what it is, but I know it isn't dualism.)

I leave the clarification for the experts on Hinduism. Dave ©¿©¬ (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)HowdyDave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.87.182 (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this. My readings have been mostly Huxley and Watts, however. I'm not an expert but there's a reason that the term non-duality is used. The only way to speak on the subject is by using terms in the negative. When you speak in the positive it gives attributes to Brahman. Speaking in the negative, however, can suggest what Brahman is not thus leading to intuitive knowledge of what Brahman is. Monism is a finite term, where-as Brahman is infinite. Even using the word monism makes a person think in dualities by contrasting it to multiplicity. The term Advaita, or non-duality, is used for the very purpose of keeping our minds out of duality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.44.191 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

West-centric confusion.

Regarding the following sentence in the article:

″Since monotheism is the basis of the three semitic religions which have dominated the religio-politico-cultural history in past millenium, scholars have not been able to see Advaita Vedanta in its own and true perspective.″

The ideas presented here are unclear and possibly West-centric. Has monotheism dominated India, China, Japan and other Asian nations for the past 1000 years? Also, which scholars are referred to? Western ones? Eastern ones? If Eastern or Hindu, why has monotheism prevented them from seeing the Advaita Vedanta in its own and true perspective?

Lindamulder (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I have removed the offending sentence. My guess is they mean in Judao-Christian-Islamic countries, but even this is dubious and original research. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)