This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi @ Joshua Jonathan. Greetings and best wishes. I had a quick question. I saw you reverted the edit for redundant info for "single entity" - I too was not sure best way to add that detail. I was reading dvaita page and some of the references there (e.g https://iep.utm.edu/madhva/) that made to think a little for advaita. After reading " Madhva rejects the notion that brahman is the only truly existent entity (tattva)" - where it talks about Sankara's view, I though it was not clear on advaita page about advaita belief of brahman as a single entity. Do you think adding some info e.g
current: " refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real,"
to "refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real and the only entity" or maybe
refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real (single entity)"
I think it would help clarify Sankara's view of Brahman to be the only entity in contrast to Madhva's ishwar, jiva, jada? Not sure how exactly to give that clarity.
Asteramellus ( talk) 14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Shankara believed in a single entity - brahman. [1]
References
@ Kkollaps: I have reverted your recent edits, because the ambiguity of partly synonymous terms for experiencing self and highest Self was lost here; and because the wordplay of jivatman and singulat Atman was lost here. You seem to be giving 'harmonising interpretations', yet the scholarly sources do use various terms; and this (probably) does reflect the variety of the original sources. By replacing this variety with just a few terms you give a harmonisation, and thus an interpretation of these sources, thereby losing the diversity of the original sources and traditions. That is, you replace the original tradition with a modern tradition. And you also lose the richness of possible interpretations, the 'associative reading' provided by the tradition, which facilitates understanding, by replacing it with just one interpretation. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
is there any source that would contradict this claim??, I'll go through some sources, again. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
"One group - principally jiva, vijnanatman, and sarira - expresses the illusory aspect of the soul [...] But in addition there are the two expressions atman and pratyagatman. These also designate the individual soul, but in its real aspect." Mayeda (1992, pp. 11, 14) uses the word pratyagatman; Sivananda1993, p. 219), Deutsch (1973, p. 54), and Menon (2012) use the term jiva when referring to the identity of atman and Brahman.
Think this summarizes the sources a bit better: some use atman, some jiva, some experiencing or individual self, etc. I think the clear idea articulated is that the experiencing self and absolute are non-different, changed
In this view, (jiv) Ātman, the experiencing self, and Ātman-Brahman, the highest Self and Absolute Reality, is non-different.
In this view, the experiencing self ( Ātman or jiva) and the Absolute Reality (Brahman) are non-different.
This needed fixing accordingly, don’t see some this language in the source either, changed
The jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ātman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.
the individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of the Absolute.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi @ Joshua Jonathan. Greetings and best wishes. I had a quick question. I saw you reverted the edit for redundant info for "single entity" - I too was not sure best way to add that detail. I was reading dvaita page and some of the references there (e.g https://iep.utm.edu/madhva/) that made to think a little for advaita. After reading " Madhva rejects the notion that brahman is the only truly existent entity (tattva)" - where it talks about Sankara's view, I though it was not clear on advaita page about advaita belief of brahman as a single entity. Do you think adding some info e.g
current: " refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real,"
to "refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real and the only entity" or maybe
refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real (single entity)"
I think it would help clarify Sankara's view of Brahman to be the only entity in contrast to Madhva's ishwar, jiva, jada? Not sure how exactly to give that clarity.
Asteramellus ( talk) 14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Shankara believed in a single entity - brahman. [1]
References
@ Kkollaps: I have reverted your recent edits, because the ambiguity of partly synonymous terms for experiencing self and highest Self was lost here; and because the wordplay of jivatman and singulat Atman was lost here. You seem to be giving 'harmonising interpretations', yet the scholarly sources do use various terms; and this (probably) does reflect the variety of the original sources. By replacing this variety with just a few terms you give a harmonisation, and thus an interpretation of these sources, thereby losing the diversity of the original sources and traditions. That is, you replace the original tradition with a modern tradition. And you also lose the richness of possible interpretations, the 'associative reading' provided by the tradition, which facilitates understanding, by replacing it with just one interpretation. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
is there any source that would contradict this claim??, I'll go through some sources, again. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
"One group - principally jiva, vijnanatman, and sarira - expresses the illusory aspect of the soul [...] But in addition there are the two expressions atman and pratyagatman. These also designate the individual soul, but in its real aspect." Mayeda (1992, pp. 11, 14) uses the word pratyagatman; Sivananda1993, p. 219), Deutsch (1973, p. 54), and Menon (2012) use the term jiva when referring to the identity of atman and Brahman.
Think this summarizes the sources a bit better: some use atman, some jiva, some experiencing or individual self, etc. I think the clear idea articulated is that the experiencing self and absolute are non-different, changed
In this view, (jiv) Ātman, the experiencing self, and Ātman-Brahman, the highest Self and Absolute Reality, is non-different.
In this view, the experiencing self ( Ātman or jiva) and the Absolute Reality (Brahman) are non-different.
This needed fixing accordingly, don’t see some this language in the source either, changed
The jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ātman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies.
the individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of the Absolute.