Talk:Vedanta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vedanta, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu mythology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
|
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| ??? | This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale. |
The page says,"Advaita (ad- not, dwaita- two; meaning non-duality)"
Is it not supposed to read "Advaita (a- not, dwaita- two; meaning non-duality)"?
- Correct. Changed Chancemill 12:38, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Schrodinger, etc.
That stuff about Vedanta and modern science is a bunch of orientalist hooey--it is irrelevant, and should be removed from the article completely.
[edit] Response to "Schrodinger, etc."
No it's not. A simple Google search turns up several links to confirm the fact that Schrodinger was a Vedantist. Here's one of them:
http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Erwin_Schrodinger
Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger (August 12, 1887 – January 4, 1961) was an Austrian physicist famous for his contributions to quantum mechanics, especially the Schrödinger equation, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1933. He proposed the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, and he had a life-long interest in Vedanta.
Another point. Confronted with the complexities of quantum physics("--how can something be a wave and a particle at the same time?How can it be in two places at the same time?",students of Physics must grapple with issues of reality, perception and illusion. To my mind, Vedanta is the most suitable philosophical platform that addresses this type of enquiry-- doubtless prompting the interest of eminent physicists on the subject.
(?08:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Canossa2006")
[edit] Like the new format
I like the new subsections that have been created in the article. The earlier version wasn't organized very well. It's good to see how well the page has evolved since I turned the "Cleanup" flag on a few weeks ago.
[edit] Re-Response to Schrodinger, etc.
Just because Schrodinger believed he was a follower of Vedanta is not an indication that he was a Vedantin. Many other western thinkers (e.g. Schopenhauer, Deussen) have thought of themselves as Vedantins, but their teachings are far from those of pre-modern Vedantins.
The members of the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo believed that they were following the Buddha's teachings. They were the ones who were responsible for a nerve gas attack in a Tokyo subway station. Should we mention them in the entry on Buddhism?
Re: Undoubtedly? Genghis Khan himself was a buddhist, of all the people. Plain declaration is of course not enough - but that is not the only source of confirming his saying though... Claims of famous people, are included in MANY articles of wikipedia. Thus, we can let them stay. There were many people who came close to vedantic thinking mind you, so your claim is not perfectly right.
[edit] clean up
I did a little cleaning up of this article today, let me know if you think anything should be added/taken away --Gozar 9 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
[edit] re: cleanup
Looks good. Made some additional minor reformats/corrections. Now that this page is relatively stable, anybody doing major work (especially removal of content) should probably call for a vote here before proceeding with the changes.
There is another article on "Upanishads". From What I understand, Vedanta and Upanishads are one and the same thing (atleast that is what the two articles convey). So why do we have two different articles on the same subject. Why can't we merge the two so that a search on both "Upanishad" and "Vedanta" is redirected to the same article. Any thoughts ? ...Syiem
hi, i'm not sure if you need admin-ship for this or not, but why dont we try proposing a merger with Upanisads and see what the other users think? Then again, the Upanisads are distinctly a collection of writings while Vedanta is a school of thought based on those writings, I am busy at the moment and cant look into it extensively so if you could check that out it would be helpful.--Gozar 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, the two articles should not be merged; the topics are seperate. Vedanta is the systematization of the teachings of the Upanishads hundreds of years after the Upanishads were written. They represent two different schools from two very different periods and cultures. Just as the Upanishads are a commentary on the Vedas, Shankara's thought — which is known as Vedanta — is a commentary on the Upanishads. --goethean ॐ 15:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification Goethean. Though I believe that this distinction between the two terms should be clearly brought out in the articles, especially when the two terms are used almost interchangeably. I will try to do some research on this and try to fill in the gaps.
Thanks a lot ! Syiem 04:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Although in its earliest usage, "Vedanta" simply meant Upanisad, in later usage it also came to mean the school of thought based primarily on the exegesis of the Upanisad (the Brahma Mimamsa, or Uttara Mimamsa school). So it would be very misleading to collapse the "Upanisad" and "Vedanta" thread. There are many influences from Samkhya and Yoga in the Upanisads that are systematically ignored by Samkhya.
Someone has confused the thinkers "Madhva" and "Madhava." The former is the founder of the Dvaita Vedanta school. The latter is a 14th c. Advaita Vedantin. I will fix this.
[edit] Vedanta and Yoga
Is there any source for the following statement:
"As per some, it is a form of Jnana Yoga (one of the four basic yoga practices in Hinduism; the others are: Raja Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga), a form of yoga which involves an individual seeking "the path of intellectual analysis or the discrimination of truth and reality." As per others, Vedanta encompasses all the four yogas."
I object to this statement. If there are no citations for the aforementioned, I would rather remove it. Manas 09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please state your objection(s). --Vivek 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly what I have read, Vedanta encompasses all the four yogas. Now, there might have been some people who felt it was a form of Jnana Yoga only. In that case, references are required. Manas 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then the correct thing to do would be to add a [citation needed] tag for now, instead of removing it. --Vivek 19:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly what I have read, Vedanta encompasses all the four yogas. Now, there might have been some people who felt it was a form of Jnana Yoga only. In that case, references are required. Manas 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Jnana Yoga is the path of knowledge and discrimination. Many Jnani's end up with a Vedantic philosophy but becoming a Vedantist just because one is a Jnani is not a foregone conclusion.
[edit] Acharya and Commentaries
Is there any source for the following:
"Also of note, historically, in order for a guru to be considered an acharya or great teacher of a philosophical school of Vedanta, he was required to write commentaries on three important texts in Vedanta, the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahma Sutras."
There were so many so many people who were called Acharyas who didn't write the commentaries on these books. Manas 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other Vedantic Schools
"The three schools they conceived are the most prevalent, however, proponents of other Vedantic schools continue to write and develop their ideas as well, although their works are not widely known outside of India."
What are the other Vedantic schools that are widely known in India but not outside? It will be better to provide more information here. Manas 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transition from Vedic to Vedantic Religion
In my opinion, the information provided here is either incorrect or irrelevant to the section. This section needs a re-write by someone with understanding of history of that time. Manas 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of schools of thought
Shouldn't non-vaishnav schools of thought be listed too? Such as tantra, shakti vishishtadvaita, siva advaita, and others as such?
