thx....the Shankaracharya's commenting on MMY - Obviously a case of sour grapes. MMY got where he did through cleverness; a trait lacking in the phoney Shankaracharya's. ... However, I do appreciate (though don't agree with); your speculative conjectures on Vedanta. You haven't provide any (a) rationale, (b) evidence (c) corroboration; but on the whole, the assertion (I assume you are comparing Vedanta to Buddhism) deserves further investigation and I thank you for bringing it up.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:12 PM, yifuxero wrote: > > > thx, your expression "Vedanta snobs" is vague and the referrent is > > unclear. Be specific. > > Shankara. > > > Again, CC isn't Enlightenment. MMY rarely used the E word as far as > > I can tell; but if he did, his usage would be equated with the > > highest Realization in his model, not the lower CC. The latter is > > obviously dualistic. Help me out here somebody, I don't generally > > get into is/isn't tennis. > > He's welcome to do whatever he wants with his "model". Not everyone > agrees with him. Not everyone sees the world from the POV of Vedanta > and Badarayana. > > > ... > > Need a knock out punch for Vaj's subterfuge. He's obviously > > building up to something so he can say MMY was "only" in CC. > > I would never say that. I'd defer to the Shankaracharyas who comment > on his level of consciousness: "in darkness" and "mind like a > supermarket" (i.e. clearly not in CC yet...). Perhaps it would be > more helpful to think of him as a fallen yogi who did what he could, > while he could. >
