Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:58, 27 December 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Advaita Vedanta article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism: Philosophy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Metaphysics / Epistemology / Eastern / Ancient Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Epistemology Eastern philosophy Ancient philosophy

Text and/or other creative content from Advaita Vedanta was copied or moved into Neo-Vedanta with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Advaita Vedanta was copied or moved into Nondualism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Differences from Buddhism

@VictoriaGrayson: Why remove that section? How is it OR? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove the section. I just replaced the material with better.VictoriaGrayson 14:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Why not combine both, your text and what I added? Why remove well sourced text with dozens of scholarly WP:RS sources? The discussion of Anatta and Atman is WP:DUE and a central difference, state the sources I had added (with embedded quotes). Do you have a source that refutes this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What I quoted is the central difference. Michael Comans says the same thing.VictoriaGrayson 14:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Thanks. I kept your text. Please add Comans reference too, to it. I added back the other sourced text, as it is from WP:RS, for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Core philosophy

@VictoriaGrayson: You added the following, without a source:

The core philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada, meaning that the phenomenal world is illusory since the only reality is Brahman, a consciousness without attributes.

And you removed the following, which had WP:RS with it.

The core philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and it is best known for asserting that Atman (soul, self) in a living being is identical to the metaphysical ultimate reality Brahman, and that there is oneness in all of existence.

Please add a source that Ajativada is the core philosophy of Advaita, and explain why you are removing the sourced text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Sangeetha Menon (2012), Advaita Vedanta, IEP; Quote: "The essential philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented first in the Upaniṣads and consolidated in the Brahma Sūtra by this tradition."
2. Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120814684, page 91
3. James Lochtefeld, Brahman, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A–M, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-0823931798, page 122
4. Deutsch 1988, pp. 18–19, 72. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDeutsch1988 (help)
5. Nakamura 1990, p. 112. sfn error: no target: CITEREFNakamura1990 (help)

You can read the article which mentions Ajativada in several places. You don't need sources in lead if its supported in the body. VictoriaGrayson 15:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I already did before posting this message. Ajativada is mentioned 4 times in the main article, but the text in main article does not establish that it "core philosophy", and implies it is one aspect of Advaita philosophy. I am okay with your edit to the lead without a source, if you add supporting text to main with a reliable source that states that Ajativada is the core philosophy of Advaita. Since you didn't state an objection to my sourced text above, and it is well discussed in the main article, I will add it back to the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I have objections to your text. Thats why I removed it. You are making Advaita sound like Kashmir Saivism.VictoriaGrayson 15:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Why remove sourced text? Do you have a RS that disputes those sources? Advaita is idealist monism is widely accepted. (Kashmir) Shaivism was influenced and in turn influenced Advaita Vedanta (and this too is mentioned in the article). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a concept called Māyā in Advaita Vedanta. Māyā means things are illusion. Māyā is the logical consequence of Ajativada. Māyā is not monism.VictoriaGrayson 22:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed, we can add the term Maya, into the lead. But why you have deleted John Grimes source and well supported summary from the lead? John Grimes is a well respected scholar, known for his translations of Advaita Vedanta manuscripts, and related books. I included it because it helped make the term and the summary in the lead more understandable. Why delete John Grimes source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In Michael Comans' book Method of Early Advaita Vedānta starting on page 27, he explains the defining characteristic of Advaita Vedanta, as opposed to Ramanuja, is that the world is as unreal as a dream. This contradicts "ideal monism" and "oneness in all of existence".VictoriaGrayson 16:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Where does Comans say it is not "ideal monism" and Advaita is not about "oneness"? In contrast, Comans writes about "oneness" on pages 354, 411, etc.; so do so many scholars. Why do WP:OR? Why not just faithfully summarize what the sources state? You have a strange and flawed understanding of "unreal and Maya" concepts in Advaita and Buddhism, but this is not forum for that discussion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comans explains that Gaudapada demonstrates the world is as unreal/real as a dream starting on page 27. Do you deny this? Page 354 is talking about oneness of self and Brahman, which is irrelevant to this point. So perhaps you are engaging in WP:OR.VictoriaGrayson 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: The discussion starts on page 26. Why jump from a discussion about unreal/real to your own conclusions about "idealistic monism" and "oneness"? Do read Comans' point on page 26 that "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless." Then he discusses "empirically evident/real", "empirically unreal" and "absolutely unreal", Mithya versus other concepts - which is all fine, also discussed by Arvind Sharma and other scholars. Is this something you want clarified in this article or its lead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, according to Advaita if something is truly real it must be changeless. Hence the world is not real. I ask again, do you deny that Gaudapada demonstrates the world is as unreal/real as a dream?VictoriaGrayson 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Gaudapada and many Advaita scholars do use dream as an example to explain their real/unreal concepts. I am concerned about you deleting "idealistic monism" and "oneness" ideas in Advaita Vedanta that are scholarly sourced. If you want to suggest specific page and content that needs to be additionally summarized to improve the article, do so. But don't delete WP:RS content. As I wrote above, the "truly real is changeless" explanation is important. This is already in the main article. Is this what you would like to be added to lead too? (Let us avoid a forum like "do you deny this or that" debate on this talk page). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Another book, the Essential Vedanta, says the same thing on page 157:

The main doctrine that Gaudapāda puts forth is called ajātivāda—the theory of no-origination. According to ajātivāda the entire world of duality is merely an appearance: nothing ever really comes into being, for nothing other than Brahman really exists—the whole world is an illusion like a dream. At times Gaudapāda blurs the distinction between waking and dream consciousness, a distinction which Śamkara later insists upon, and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream. Gaudapāda establishes this by a dialectical critique of causation and by an appeal to the doctrine of māyā.

VictoriaGrayson 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: The lead already has Ajativada. Remember this is not an article Gaudapada, but Advaita Vedanta – a sub-school of Hindu philosophy with numerous texts and scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But the lead doesn't have "the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream" per the quoted passage.VictoriaGrayson 17:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Consider it for the Gaudapada article? You are missing Shankara's distinction mentioned there, who is as much a part of Advaita as Gaudapada. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary said "we can add different POVs for NPOV".VictoriaGrayson 17:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if it is mainstream and WP:DUE. Neither applies in this case. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And how did you determine that?VictoriaGrayson 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Because it would be undue and non-mainstream to mention just cherrypicked Gaudapada's POV, while ignoring Shankara's and others. Even that cherrypicked view is contested; Chapter 2 of his Karika where this discussion of dreams is, has been interpreted in various ways by scholars. For now, mentioning Ajativada and Maya in the lead, suffices. Let us work on the main article. Do you want to summarize Comans' pages on "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless"; "empirically evident/real", "empirically unreal" and "absolutely unreal" in the main article? You will find more on this in publications by Arvind Sharma, Stephen Phillips, Daniel Ingalls, Karl Potter and others. That would be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comans is saying Brahman is real and changeless. Not the phenomenal world. The book Essential Vedanta says the same thing: "for nothing other than Brahman really exists". See quoted passage above.VictoriaGrayson 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That is in the article. Phenomenal world is "empirically real but changing", and Brahman is "absolutely (metaphysically) real and changeless" in Advaita. These concepts will be more clear if we summarized Comans' pages on "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless"; "empirically evident/real", "empirically unreal" and "absolutely unreal" in the main article. As I mentioned earlier, this discussion is also in the publications by Arvind Sharma and others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting phenomenal world is "empirically real but changing" from? This is wrong. Comans says "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless".VictoriaGrayson 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed. But there is a difference between "truly real" and other types of reality. Ultimate/True Reality is what metaphysics in philosophy is, in part, all about. That is what Advaita's "Three levels of Reality" doctrine is all about (Bina Gupta (1992), Perceiving in Advaita Vedanta: Epistemological Analysis and Interpretation, Bucknell University Press, ISBN 978-0838752135, pages 206-208); Jeaneane Fowler (2002), Perspectives of Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Hinduism, Sussex University Press, pages 246-254; Radhakrishnan, "Unreal the world is, illusory it is not"; See Comans' pages 26-39, 106, 174-177, 190-197. Comans summarizing Shankara, "Empirical reality (vyavahara) is not something fictitious, it refers to the empirical world of objective reality". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the Sanskrit, the hedging words of "truly" etc. are not present. These things are inserted by westerners. Radhakrishnan is not reliable. Click HERE.VictoriaGrayson 19:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Indeed. Yet, the initial Two levels of Reality, followed by Three levels of Reality doctrines are part of Advaita Sanskrit texts. If you can read Sanskrit, I suggest you read texts by Gaudapada, Shankara and other Advaita Vedanta scholars. Set aside Radhakrishnan, but this is true for Advaita: "Unreal the world is, illusory it is not" (a phrase you will find in Jeaneane Fowler's book mentioned above, and she agrees). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Essential Vedanta explicitly uses the words illusion and illusory:

The main doctrine that Gaudapāda puts forth is called ajātivāda—the theory of no-origination. According to ajātivāda the entire world of duality is merely an appearance: nothing ever really comes into being, for nothing other than Brahman really exists—the whole world is an illusion like a dream. At times Gaudapāda blurs the distinction between waking and dream consciousness, a distinction which Śamkara later insists upon, and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream. Gaudapāda establishes this by a dialectical critique of causation and by an appeal to the doctrine of māyā.

VictoriaGrayson 20:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: This is not an article on Gaudapada. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You just mentioned Gaudapada in your last comment. Regarding the levels of truth, Comans says on page 94 of his book "that from the level of ultimate truth the world is a cosmic illusion."VictoriaGrayson 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: This is not an article on cosmic illusion. All three levels of Reality are integral to Advaita Vedanta. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: See this.

@Vic's version: Gaudapada uses the concepts of Ajativada and Maya to establish "that from the level of ultimate truth the world is a cosmic illusion," and "and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream." In contrast, Adi Shankara insists upon a distinction between waking experience and dreams.

My suggestion: Other elements of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada, that the empirical phenomenal world is Māyā, and that there are three orders of Reality.

Emphasizing Gaudapada seems undue in the lead, given Shankara/Misra/most Advaita Vedanta scholars discuss the Three orders of Reality. Perhaps, we can incorporate, somewhere in the main article, the quote above from Comans, and Adi Shankara's different views. What are your thoughts? Do you or others have an alternate suggestion? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vic and MSW. I've followed the discussion between the wo of you only partly; I trust that you (MSW) are doing a good job, even if it means that my darlings are being killed. That being said, I'm glad that the level of discussion on this article has risen to this level of expertise; that's very good. I've often thought myself that there was too much Shankara in this article, and too little of the later tradition. That also being said, upon first reading I also think that Vic's contribution is too specialized for the lead. It definitely needs an explanation! Though, the alternative also needs explanation. "Ajativada" is a difficult concept; that is, maybe not intuitively, but when on etries to explain it, with reference to reliable sources, it's a tough subject.

I'll read the discussion; again, I'm glad we've reached this level of expertise here. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the diffs of Vic's reverts/changes; to be honest, both your proposals have merits. Let me explain:

• "Other elements of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada,(note:also called the Doctrine of Non-origination, which holds that the metaphysical Absolute Reality is not subject to birth, change or death; while empirical phenomenal world is always changing yet reducible to that Absolute.) that the empirical phenomenal world is Māyā, and that there are three orders of Reality."

• "Another element" - "a basic element of Gaudapada's philosophy, who provided the base for Shankara," or something like that;
• "also called the Doctrine of Non-origination" - "Non-origination";
• "the metaphysical Absolute Reality" - very apt to mention this, and yet, prone to misunderstanding.

• We could also write "The unchanging Reality beyond the everchanging phenomenal world." Ay, this is a though one...
• "metaphysical," not as in "speculative" (though it is speculative, I think), but as in "beyond sensory perception.
• "Absolute," as in final, the base, unreducable, etc; how many people read this as a reference to some sort of holism, instead of Brahman as some sort of "otherwordly" unchanging Reality? Compare "nonduality"; I'm afraid that many people understand "nonduality" to mean "the nonduality of everything that exists," instead of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman. Advaita Vedanta does postulate a duality between Brahman, the Real, and all phenomenological existences, though this duality is explained away by calling phenomenological realiity "Maya."
• "while empirical Absolute" - yes! Very good!

• "Gaudapada uses the concepts of Ajativada and Maya to establish "that from the level of ultimate truth the world is a cosmic illusion," and "and suggests that the whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and insubstantial dream." However Adi Shankara does make a distinction between waking experience and dreams."

• "Gaudapada insubstantial dream." Yes, very good.
• "However Adi Shankara dreams." Some inbetween sentence is missing? See "another element" above.

References

1. John Grimes (1994), Problems and Perspectives in Religious Discourse: Advaita Vedanta Implications, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791417911, pages 104-105
2. Comans 2000, pp. 193–199. sfn error: no target: CITEREFComans2000 (help)
3. Comans 2000, pp. 27–33, 94. sfn error: no target: CITEREFComans2000 (help)
4. Cite error: The named reference asharmapr176 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Comans 2000, pp. 27–33. sfn error: no target: CITEREFComans2000 (help)
6. Comans 2000, pp. 94. sfn error: no target: CITEREFComans2000 (help)
7. ^ Deutsch 2004, p. 157. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDeutsch2004 (help)

I hope that this helps. I still have to read the discussion, but you've both provided usefull info. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The section "Metaphysics and ontology" could use a short intro: "Advaita Vedanta" postulates the existence of a metaphysical reality, Brahman. Brahman is unchanging and unborn, and therefore Real. In contrast, empirical reality is everchanging, and therefore unreal, or maya, "illusion," "magic." The essence of each human, called Atman, is this unchanging Brahman. Knowledge of this identity is obscured. Knowledge of this identity can be obtained by correct understanding of the holy texts. The attainment of this knowledge liberates one from rebirth: that which is unchanging cannot be reborn." Something like that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "philosophy" is a mis-interpretation-presentation of Advaita Vedanta. Foremost, it's a hermeneutical practice, a reading of texts which brings these texts alive. Compare Hjalmar Sundéns role taking theory. The "core" would be, I think, the realisation that one's essence ("Atman") is Brahman, the unchanging Real "beyond" the ever-changing empirical reality. "Ik ben een God in het diepst van mijn gedachten" (Jacques Perk?). It's not about the arguments, as in western philosophy; it's about a living reality. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Scholars have debunked Hacker's ideas of Advaita Vedanta

Scholars have debunked Hacker's ideas of Advaita Vedanta. See HERE. The authors of this PDF wrote a different book published by Oxford University Press. So they are top scholars.VictoriaGrayson 22:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... They criticise Hacker's approach. What exactly from that paper is relevant to this Wiki-article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Order of sections

I've changed the order of the first sections back to Moksha - texts - philosophy. The moksha-section provides an introductory overview, and tells what Advaita is about: moksha. The texts-section elaborates on this moksha-section, by telling which texts are relevant. And then follows the philosophy-section, which elaborates on the concepts.
When the article starts witht he philosophy-ection, one looses track. I lost track, when I started reading. And I'm not a beginner here, am I? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Advaita or Dvaita or Buddhism or any Indian philosophy is more than Moksha, of course. Every book that introduces Advaita Vedanta starts with its philosophy and main concepts (including moksha), and then gets into moksha / jivanmukta. Reading moksha first, I lost track. Perhaps, we can re-arrange this to address both of our concerns? Let me try today. Please feel free to fine tune it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more, but moksha is the essence. In the end, it's not about philosophy an sich, it's about a change of view. And don't forget that there's also a criticism in scholarship of theory/text oriented studies: the daily practice may actually be more relevant. Compare it to Christmas: one may provide an extensive theological argument for the chrostmas tree etc, when you ask the average person why they've got a christmas tree, they'll probably say "just because."

Look at the Brahman-section: it's uncomprehensible if you haven't already got an idea of whta "Brahman" refers too. Read this:

"Brahman, in Advaita Vedanta, is the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. It is a key metaphysical and ontological concept in Advaita, and considered the material and efficient cause of all that exists. It is the genderless, infinite, pervasive, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe."

I won't bother to read it aloud to my wife (she's an academic too); she won't have a clue what this is about. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That quoted passage is a perfect example of Ms Sarah Welch using the poorest sources available to push her modernist POV. For example, Saint Mary's Press is a Catholic publisher whose books are for Catholics.VictoriaGrayson 14:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: are you okay if I fix some of your spellings? there is nothing called noksha, I think you mean moksha. On rest, I sense your concern. I agree that you have a point. On overall layout, see Buddhism article. How about we cover the concepts just like there? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC) @Vic: Your objections to a source is welcome. As @JJ and I noted elsewhere, the religion of the author and publisher is a sideshow, what matters more is whether the source meets the WP:RS guidelines. In this case, I will replace that one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your sources don't meet guidelines. This is what you don't seem to understand.VictoriaGrayson 14:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Avidhya"-section also should come later; it distracts from moksha, when it is placed at the beginning. Same for the "Guru"-section.
Regarding typos: sure, of course.
And regarding the Buddhism-article: that's a hopeless collage, of course, of Theravda, Mahayana and Vajrayana. It serves as a usefull introduction, but almost all sections could be criticized. I'm still waiting for the Zen-book that's structured around the four truths and the eightfold path... But alas, so be it. It's not big deal, there. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: "Brahma" is a problematic concept, of course, when treated as a discursive concept. For what I know about it, one first has to study Sanskrit and ritual, then learn the texts by heart, and then aim at "getting" them. How are we going to "summarize" this course in a single Wiki-article? No way one will "get" "it" here! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

NB2: King mentions this this text/theory versus practice dichotomy, but also White and Axel Michaels. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: I guess you mean Brahman (not Brahma). On "one first has to study Sanskrit and ritual...", that is just not true. But if you find a peer reviewed reliable source, we should try to include it in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I understand you. I welcome your critical eye. I disagree that author's religion, or publisher's, is what WP:RS is about. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Since other scholars have debunked Hacker, he is not reliable. It has nothing to do with his religion. VictoriaGrayson 15:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@MSW: not necessay to include, at least not at this moment. It's my personal impression & expression, here at the talkpage. Though there must be some sources for it, but which?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Your impression is not consistent with what their historical manuscripts say, what Advaita's history has been or the current practices in their mathas. Nor does it seem consistent with the peer reviewed scholarly literature on them that I am aware of. Post me a note on my talk page, if you come across something. Back to this article, from first time reader's perspective and even a reader who is moderately aware of Indic terminology, I feel if the moksha section is to be the first section, it needs some work and wordsmith-ing. I don't have ideas on how, and will need to meditate on it to suggest something. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Poor Sources

The article uses poor sources to say Brahman is the cause of everything. This is simply not true. Please see Deutsch's Essential Vedanta pages 394-5. Under ignorance, Brahman is misperceived to be Isvara, who seems to cause everything. VictoriaGrayson 15:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Deutsch says that "Brahman" refers to consciousness an sich, or the "awareness" of being aware. He takes a phenomenological approach, which I appreciate, but which of course deviates from the self-understanding of the Advaita-tradition (emic and ...; I always confuse those two terms). But anyway, Brahman as a non-physical reality, which can be discerned by us humans (and is reified by the Advaita-tradition, but that's my personal opinion). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Through avidya, Brahman is misperceived to be Ishvara. Being a misperception, Isvara only seems to cause everything. Please see Deutsch's Essential Vedanta pages 394-5. VictoriaGrayson 15:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I have Eliot Deutsch's books on my desk, and you are cherrypicking and misunderstanding Deutsch from Advaita perspective. See Deutsch's Advaita Vedanta : A Philosophical Reconstruction and others for more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IRONY. Deutsch's Essential Vedanta was published in 2004, as opposed to his outdated Advaita Vedanta : A Philosophical Reconstruction. VictoriaGrayson

@Vic: Where does this article confuse Brahman with Ishvara?, which is what Deutsch is talking about while discussing ignorance and errors with Brahman with attributes (saguna).

Eliot Deutsch (page 110): "Brahman is one and all is Brahman. To the jivanmukta, to the man who is free while living, Brahman is everywhere seen. Moksha or mukti, freedom or liberation, as realized through jnana-yoga, is just this power of being and seeing that excludes nothing, that includes everything. Brahman is One. Everything has its being in Spirit: everything in its true being is Brahman."

Michael Comans, Bina Gupta, Jeaneane Fowler I mentioned in section above, summarize Advaita position similarly, in their own words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Lets take one of your own scholars. Rambachan says on pg. 112 of Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity:

Saguna brahman is brahman thought of as cause, creator, and sustainer of the universe, while nigura brahman is brahman without any relation to the universe

VictoriaGrayson 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: This is the Chapter 7 of Rambachan's book. Have you read the entire section, starting at page 111? If you cherrypick sentences out of context, you will be prone to misunderstanding them. If that sentence interests you, please read chapter 6 which discusses saguna and nirguna Brahman. Are you suggesting that saguna versus nirguna concepts, from Advaita perspective, be better summarized in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(ps @Vic:) See pages 72-75 of Rambachan's book discussing Brahman as the efficient and material cause of the Universe, as well as Atman and all Universe is Brahman (idealistic monism), as the central belief in Advaita. Similarly Arvind Sharma, writes on pages 18-19 of Advaita Vedanta: An Introduction:

Quote: "The mahavakyas, in light of which the Upanishads should be understood according to the hermeneutical tradition of Advaita Vedanta, are the following: 1. All this is verily Brahman. 2. I am Brahman. 3. This Atman is Brahman. 4. That thou art. To this a fifth is sometimes added: 5. Brahman is spirit (or consciousness). MsSarahWelch omits crucial part of the passage in this spot without indication. The reader will note that this first statement identifies the objective universe with Brahman.

Sharma goes on to explain the different reasoning in Advaita school to support statements 1 and 2, and others, over pages 19-46, which I encourage you to read in its entirety. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Idealism means things are illusory.
• Realism and idealism are opposites.
• Pg. 21 of Sharma emphasizes illusion.
• Pg. 19 of which you incorrectly quoted actually says "These statements, however, need to be understood with extreme exegetical care, for they can be easily misunderstood". And then he says its not about "singling out these statements."VictoriaGrayson 19:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Please do not edit my comments (I struck out what you inserted above). I left a whole paragraph out, for brevity. That paragraph states that "These statement, however, need to be understood with extreme exegetical care, as they can be easily misunderstood. Indeed these mahavakyas are accepted as authoritative by other schools of Vedanta as well, so much the fact of singling out these statements as mahavakyas as their understanding within Advaita Vedanta, which sets this system apart from other schools of Vedanta". So, yes, extreme care is necessary, and different sub-schools of Vedanta interpret these differently. Extreme care is what you are not doing. Which page number do you see your first two statements? - note again that their meaning depends on the context.

As we discussed above, and you agreed with me, Comans' on page 26 states "According to Advaita, if something is truly real, it must be changeless." Maya, from this metaphysical perspective, is that which changes. Sharma writes on page 21, "Brahman is the sole reality, and it appears both as the objective universe and as the individual subject." On page 22 Sharma repeats this in first complete paragraph, again on pages that follow. Deutsch states on page 41, "The world is first affirmed as an empirical reality, as an effect of Brahman". On page 32, Deutsch states, "What is meant by calling the world an illusion and at the same time ascribing existence to it? The answer is that for Advaita Vedanta the term "real" means that which is permanent, eternal, infinite". Jumping for brevity again, Deutsch adds, "The world then is not real, but it is not wholly unreal" and he adds that it is necessary to emphasize this rather strongly because Advaita Vedanta is sometimes misrepresented as a philosophy that condemns the world as unreal illusion, something which is not Advaita's position.

Beyond these sources, I am willing to provide multiple recent WP:RS cites for "brahman is identical with atman and objective universe, in Advaita", "Unreal the world is, illusory it is not" and "Three levels of Reality" as important parts of Advaita in recent WP:RS scholarship on Advaita. If you are willing to accept these two additions into the lead, we can together formulate a compromise version. Are you? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Good disclaimer, worthy for citation in the article: "These statements extreme exegetical care." Once and a while, like now, I wonder if we don't "change" Advaita Vedanta by looking at it with modern eyes, treating those statements as factual statements, as some sort of natural science. While maybe they should actually be treated as phenomenological statements. Maybe. As an aside, in these negotiations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. There is some truth to "looking at it with modern eyes", both in romanticized and in prejudiced manner. There has been reliability issues in "looking at Indic schools of thoughts and concepts with colonial/Christian or Islamic proselytizer's/polemic eyes", which @Vic has been hinting at, in this and other articles. It is colonial scholarship which translated Maya as illusion (when Sanskrit concept of Maya is a far more complex than the English concept of "illusion"); similarly Sat was translated as reality (when it is a far more complex concept, is closer to Truth, and its discussion in many Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts incorporates the A=A Law of identity principle). There are many such examples. One way to reduce "looking at it with modern eyes" is to read the manuscripts and the bhashyas directly, and completely, to get the context. The Three levels of Reality, is extensively discussed by Shankara (see Deutsch, Bina Gupta, Michael Comans etc). That is why we need to rely on recent RS scholarship for this article, and strive for NPOV and as faithful a summary as we can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch. You say you "left a whole paragraph out for brevity", however you didn't use (...) to indicate you left out anything. And the part you left out contradicts taking the five statements at face value. Similarly, you continue to misrepresent other sources. Illusion is not a colonial idea. Its a Buddhist idea adopted by Advaita. Idealism means things are illusion. Realism and idealism are opposites. For example Andrew Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism pg.68 states:

"Even withing the Advaita school, there are a variety of views falling at different points on the realist/idealist spectrum. At one end are doctrines such as the extreme illusionism of the sixteenth-century Advaitin Prakasananda; at the other are the realist or nearly realist positions expressed in the early works of Sankara."

VictoriaGrayson 14:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: You are free to believe in whatever you want, but here on this talk page we need to attempt a compromise for this article. We need a better summary of Advaita Vedanta in the lead, not overemphasize Gaudapada or Prakasananda or any single scholar, and we need to faithfully summarize the mainstream recent WP:RS on Advaita. The latter includes Three levels of Reality and other points I made. I am willing to reach a compromise consensus for lead that combines your and my suggestions, are you? If yes, what is your proposal? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge "nigura brahman is brahman without any relation to the universe" as Rambachan states?VictoriaGrayson 14:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No forum-y discussions. Lets focus on getting a few compromise consensus sentences for the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

For the lead, we need to include "nigura brahman is brahman without any relation to the universe" as Rambachan states. Also the Deutsch book from the 1970's is outdated and superseded by his 2004 book.VictoriaGrayson 14:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: A faithful summary of page 112 of Rambachan will be acceptable to me. The 2004 book is similar to Deutsch's earlier books and papers. I will cite 2004 book, if we reach a consensus. Anything else? Are you okay with a two points above I want to include as part of the lead summary? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Gaudapada in lead

@JJ: Does Gaudapada belong in the lead? Why? And if Gaudapada is to be included, why Ajativada, why not summarize his historical role in Advaita as mentioned in the main article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know! depends on the sentence(s). See my comments above on the lead. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Brodd and RS

@Vic: The only St Mary's Press published book in this article is by Jeffrey Brodd. He is a Professor and Chair of Department of Humanities and Religious Studies, at California State University at Sacramento. He is a reliable source, and it does not matter if his book was published by a Catholic / Hindu / Buddhist / Hindu / Atheist / etc publisher. See WP:RS. However, out of respect for your concern, I will add a second source in next day or two, wherever he is cited in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral article rewrite.

Ms Sarah Welch, please discuss your changes one by one on the talk page.VictoriaGrayson 15:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

VictoriaGrayson's revert to 29 October 2015

@VictoriaGrayson: There is no reason to edit war and reinstate a version with numerous "citation needed" from 2013, blogs and non-RS websites with allegations of WP:OWN. Our dispute is with some language in the lead, and neither should you or I insist on our own version. Let us cooperate and try to get to a consensus version together. @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan: Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring. You unilaterally rewrote the article. The version I reverted to was merely the one that existed before you rewrote the article. It is not my version.VictoriaGrayson 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, @JJ: the left out part above, "your comments and intervention would be helpful". @Vic: it is strange that you have accepted the edits I have made, the updated version, and discussed all in the sections above of this talk page, for last one week. And today, after our "illusion and reality" discussion, you start wholesale reverts, adding back citation needed tags, unsourced content etc. I am not going to have a forum-y discussion with you on nirguna Brahman on this talk page. That does not mean you should use wiki procedures disruptively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss all your changes you have made to the article one-by-one on this talk page.VictoriaGrayson 15:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Why WP:POINT and disrupt? There is no need for one-by-one discussion for addressing "citation needed" tags and unsourced content in an article, for example. You suggest the need to use recent RS in our discussion on 'illusion versus reality' above, yet you have twice reverted back to non-RS texts/blogs/websites. Are you seriously asking me to address 'cn' tag in the early December version of this article "one-by-one on this talk page"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the version that existed before you rewrote the article.VictoriaGrayson 16:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Such large-scale reverts are not helpfull; not for improving the article, nor for encouraging cooperation. I prefer MSW to proceed; if there are changes which I find problematic, I'll point them out and discuss them. And not necessarily right now; could also be next week, next month, a couple of months, whatever. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. @VictoriaGrayson: Reverting edits only buys you time for stating your objections. If you don't provide any policy-based objections, the content will go back in. There is no law against rewriting articles. The onus is on you as the reverter to state what your objections are. MSW doesn't need to do anything to argue for her edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no law against rewriting articles Not so, as there is a law for WP:CONSENSUS. Big re-writes are OK if accepted de facto. If not accepted, then per WP:BRD, an edit war is not the way forward. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: are you familiar with WP:BRD? What you are doing is silly and never ends well. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Large-scale reverts are NOT the way to improve Misplaced Pages, nor to encourage participation ... neither is un-discussed large-scale rewrites. A middle path is to engage in discussions, item by item, starting with explaining why a rewrite was necessary and how it improves the article. WP:DR 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly.VictoriaGrayson 21:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me? I see here a concensus for MSW's edits, and multiple protests against this large-scale revert. There's been a lot of discussion already, which has been aborted by Vic's large-scale reverts. Your reverts are quite unhelpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no consensus emerging whatsoever. In these cases, a restore to the previous consensus version is the proper manner. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Cwobeel: Please note that @VictoriaGrayson and I have been working on this, in everyone's watch, since December 13. @Vic's first comment is here. This is not a WP:BRD issue. Because she should and would have stopped me on 13th and any of the days that followed, were it so. The issue is "illusion and three levels of reality" sentence in lead, which we were working on, above on this talk page. We can resolve that relatively easily. Imagine anyone reverting wiki articles back to 2-year old "citation needed" tags and OR and other serious problems, with WP:BRD argument. Note, no one is stopping @Vic to edit this article. In fact I will volunteer that I will not edit this article for next 48 hours and give @Vic and others complete freedom to change anything. Would my offer address her WP:OWN and WP:BRD concerns, and let us together work towards improving this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) that may work, only if the edit warring is stopped cold. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: let it be clear that a lot of my edits are being changed by MSW' edits. Maybe I won't agree with some of them; I don't know yet. I already didn't, as pointed out before. But I prefer her to continue, and see what's she got to offer. If I've got objections, I'll work them out later. No hurry; I've confidence in her competence. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

NB2: Cwobeel wrote: "I see no consensus emerging whatsoever. In these cases, a restore to the previous consensus version is the proper manner." Disgreement on one or two points is not a valid reason to revert all the edits another editor has made. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that an edit war is not the way to resolve a dispute. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel (why do I read "cobweels"?): agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Idealism, realism , and illusionism

JJ, Ms Sarah Welch won't even explain in the article that idealism is the opposite of realism and that idealism includes extreme illusionism.VictoriaGrayson 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: pfff... Is that so? Then either it should be explained, or it should be reworded. But please be aware that you're often so to the point, that for others it sometimes is cryptic what you're saying. To follow the discussion, I'd first have to read what the two of you wrote, and what spurces you're referring to. I guess that's also why I prefer MSW to continue: let's first see what she's got to offer, and then take the time to dive into it. If we first dicuss, there will never be any improvement, only s stalemate discussion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: I welcome @JJ, you and others to edit this article, as much as you want, but do not expect forum-y discussions with me on this talk page. Idealism in philosophy, amongst other things, comes in ontological and epistemological flavors, and I just don't think this is the place to discuss it and how these flavors apply to various Indian philosophies. See this. On this talk page, we should work towards specific suggestions to improve this article, with specific WP:RS and page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. Ms Sarah Welch refuses to explain in the article that idealism is the opposite of realism and that idealism includes extreme illusionism. Andrew Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism pg.68 states:

"Even withing the Advaita school, there are a variety of views falling at different points on the realist/idealist spectrum. At one end are doctrines such as the extreme illusionism of the sixteenth-century Advaitin Prakasananda; at the other are the realist or nearly realist positions expressed in the early works of Sankara."

VictoriaGrayson 21:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: Go ahead, you explain and summarize it into the article. It would be even better, if you also summarized Nicholson's context that goes with it. As I wrote above, I will refrain from editing this article, and let @JJ, you and others edit, revise and add idealism/realism and anything else you want. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vic: FWIW, idealism has been and is in the article, and my original plan was to expand on idealism/realism/illusion as a subsection in the main article. I put idealism into the lead on December 14, but I was puzzled by your attempts to delete it here and your objections here. I then added additional sources, to back it up. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not proper to start editing an old version of the article and throw away the new version by default. A revert should be done only if there is something wrong with the edit as per policies. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid objection. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

I have requested page protection so that, rather than edit war, editors can discuss and arrive at consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Brahman

It could be that I prefer "my" version of the Brahman-section. I'm not sure yet; I'll have to think it over. But it could be that "my" version is more 'tot he point', although less referenced. Again, it is about "phenomenology," about the "insiders-look." Not a "naturalistic" description of "Brahman," but the "experienced Brahman." As Deutsch wrote, Brahman is consciousness; it's one's own cponsciousness sort of reified (my parapharsing/reinterpretation). It's not an "object" "outside"; it's a "cleared" "self-awareness," without the I-distortion - I think. I'll have to think it over. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why we need to start from the old consensus version.VictoriaGrayson 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

We already did: that's what MSW started with. I find it very paternalistic and "bossy" to demand a discussion, point by point, before making any changes. Maybe that's what we would demand from unexperienced or very one-sided editors, but not from a qualified editor like MSW. We are discussing, aren't we? I expect we will reach agreement on all the issues you've raised. It's a different matter with really contested isssues, like the pagiarism-charges against RM; that was really best to discuss, senetence by sentence, before inserting it into the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See the comments of Cwobeel above, who explained it best.VictoriaGrayson 21:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I find Lochtefeld not very convincing. It's a short lemma, with "generalistic" notions on Brahman. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited this section; I think that putting together a collection of definitions from various reliable sources is not necessarily enough to "explain," or give a "feel" of what Brahman is ("is"! Ha! What's in a name?). I hope the definitions work a little bit more together now to convey (is this teh correct word?) this "subjectve notion" or "feel." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Three levels of reality

I thnk it would be better to start the Philosophy-section with this sub-section; it provides a very short, but usefull oveview and intro. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Re-ordering and re-insertion

• Moksha: as far as I know, the study and correct intepretation of the sruti is central. Knowledge, insight, proceeds from this study, but may not even be the most important part, althoygh this may sound strange. It's the continuation of the tradition that's central: knowledge of the Truth, as preserved in the texts. By study, this knowledge, and thereby the universal order, is preserved.It gives a central function to mankind in this order (sorry, no sources).
• Vidya, Svādhyāya and Anubhava: since this study and preservation of the texts is central, or basic, this should be mentioned first. "Moksha" commences with this study.
• Avidya: belongs to the philosophy-section.
• Sat-cit-ananda: idem, at the Brahman-section.
• Philosophy-section: back to levels of reality, and then an explanation/exploration: absolute reality, empirical reality, et cetera.
• Koshas: it may seem strange to put these under avidya, but the koshas cover Reality; they sort of explin the conceopt of avidya.
• States of consciousness: this may be a matter of dispute, but turya is not a state of consciousness (in Advaita), but the basis, which is consciousness.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Atman - essence

I know that "soul" is an often-used translation of "Atman," but it's not correct, I think. It's more like a similitude, to explain (to westerners) what it is. Maybe it's a correct translation in dvaita-Vedanta, but here it's problematic, I think. "Essence" is better, when one thinks of the Upanishadic question "What's the essence, the eesential nature or quality, of all this?" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Oh, and where did the breath go? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Atman = identity.VictoriaGrayson 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I've re-inserted the following sentence:

"It gives "a unifying interpretation of the whole body of Upanishads", providing scriptural authority for the postulation of the nonduality of Atman and Brahman."

I think that these two aspects, sruti and nonduality, are central, and understandable for most people.

I've also rephrased the term "core philosophy"; I don't think that the Advaita tradition itself uses this term, does it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy

Scrolling through the article, before I get off to make breakfast, I noticed that the Epistemology-section has become quite extended. It seems to be rather philosophical, in the western sense of the word: logical arguments. I think that this illustrates a difference in approaches, which is essential in the understanding/presentation of Advaita Vedanta: when it is approached as primarily a philosophy, in the western sense of the word, something essential gets lost: understanding, insight. It's not just logical arguments, it's logical arguments (or what are presented as such) to create a living reality. The logic is not a goal on it's own. Ehmm... I don't know if I'm making myself clear here; time for breakfast indeed, I guess. Best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

NB: I have removed this info from the lead; I think it's non-essential for mast readers, and hinders the accessibility ("toegankelijkheid"; sorry, "Dutchism," so to speak) of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Monism, idealism & realism

See also Talk:Advaita Vedanta#Poor Sources and Talk:Advaita Vedanta#Edit war

@VictoriaGrayson: so, I've read page 68, which argues that portraying Advaita Vedanta as an idealist philosophy is a one-sided presentation, due to a western, idealist (may I dare say, Transcendentalist?) bias, right? we need a section on "Western perceptions of Advaita Vedanta." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch insists on calling Advaita Vedanta idealist (and without explanation). Its not my idea.VictoriaGrayson 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Get over it. I read the page; I think I understand what your point is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that its Ms Sarah Welch who insists on calling Advaita Vedanta idealist. Take it up with Ms Sarah Welch. It has nothing to do with me.VictoriaGrayson 19:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine, you're over it. Let's expand that section; it's an interesting topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Page 68 of Nicholson is a review of Garbe's late 19th-century view, not "western idealist biases" in recent scholarship. Let us not imply new conclusions that Nicholson doesn't make. On rest, can you identify a page number where Nicholson states AV was never idealistic monism? or equivalent? In my reading, he is actually saying it was monism, it was idealistic, and it was also more. Let us not confuse Nicholson's review of Hinduism, with something else. Indeed, Nicholson writes on page 25 that the teachings in the early Upanishads were varied, not uniformly monistic or idealistic, which is true. But that comment is about the Upanishads, not AV. Your comment on AV's history on your talk page is valid, Nicholson's views on it should be added to Pre-Shankara Vedanta section, which I did not touch in my edits last week. Consider embedding quotes with the controversial stuff in the lead, or discussing it better in the main article so that lead summary is well supported therein. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to go through Nicholson again; it's been a while since I read him, and I only checked p.68. Thanks for noticing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Deutsch (1973, Hawaii), AV:A Philosophical Reconstruction, p.31, 41, rejects "subjective idealism." The book doesn't even mention "monism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Craig (1998), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Index, p.475: "The monism of Advaita is principally psychological." See also p.477, left column at the bottom. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. But Craig's comment cannot be interpreted as "western idealist biases in recent scholarship" either. Craig (2000) in Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, adds "Monism in theology is important to almost all expressions, classical and modern, of Indian theism". He writes that Indian philosophy known as Advaita Vedanta is often identified as Indian monism. This is the majority mainstream view in recent scholarship: to verify, see publications by scholars in recent years, such as the sources I added, or Denise Cush's encyclopedia, or Brill's encyclopedia on Hinduism, or Brian Carr's encyclopedia on Asian philosophies, or Zaehner's encyclopedia on world religions, or Potter's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, and so on. They all refer to AV as monism. The lead should summarize the majority "common/oft-stated" view, and alternate views or dissenting views should go into the main with "According to XYX scholar, ...". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

JJ, keep up the good work.VictoriaGrayson 17:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe my point would be that I'm not so sure that using western labels helps in understanding AV. It may be more helpfull to decribe AV on/in its own terms, and contextualize the term "monism," that is, explain how and why it is being used. It seems to me that Deutsch is "correct" in his phenomenological/"psychological" approach of AV. But alas, that's my impression. As I said, I'll have to go through Nicholson again. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: so, Vic, is your problem with the qualification "monims," or with the qualification "idealism."? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Recent scholarship on AV has tried to describe AV in its own terms, and almost all RS are based on Sanskrit manuscripts from the AV school. Let us assume good faith, and that the peer reviewed work by numerous scholars over the last 30 years are RS for this article. Deutsch is not saying anything different, if you read his publications from 1960s onwards. His 1969 work, a bit dated, is one where he explained his views on non-dualism and monism in AV, with more nuance. I would welcome more from Deutsch, Comans, Sharma, Gupta, Potter, and others. Yet, overall, we need to stick to faithfully summarizing mainstream RS by multiple authors on AV, and not do inadvertent OR or push a non-RS/unsourced POV while "describing AV in its own terms (Sanskrit?)". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

JJ, you are doing a good job using recent sources such as Nicholson.VictoriaGrayson 22:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Milne (1997), Advaita Vedanta and typologies of multiplicity and unity: An interpretation of nondual knowledge, International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1, 1:

• "Sankara is not a philosopher in the usual Western sense proposing a metaphysical system through which reality is to be interpreted or explained to the satisfaction of reason. Even less is he proposing a scientific theory of the nature of reality." (p.166)
• "It is misleading, however, to call this teaching 'monism' or 'monistic,' as Robert Zaehner does, for example, in his Mysticism, sacred and profane (1961). Although this term is employed in a attempt to translate the negative term advaita into a positive Western philosophical equivalent, though the term 'monism' really has no precise meaning in Western philosophy, it results in a distortion of the concept. It confuses the negation of difference with the conflation into one." (p.168)

There's a subtle difference, Ithink, between "Advaita Vedanta is monistic, and "Advaita Vedanta is regarded as monistic by western interpreters."

Vic, you haven't answered my question yet: is your problem with the qualification "monims," or with the qualification "idealism."?

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. Deutsch and Milne explain AV as nondualism, preferring that term over monism. The article should include both the majority "common/oft-stated" view, and alternate views or dissenting views, the latter explained in the main with "According to XYX scholar, ...". The ideal summary in lead would stick with the oft-stated view in secondary and tertiary literature, with a clause such as "with some scholars characterizing AV as nondualism rather than monism". I also took out the "despite" language you added to main few days ago and lead without source more recently. It misleads. It is incorrect and at least not acknowledging the majority peer reviewed literature that states something different. Exceptional claims need exceptional WP:RS sources, and I will be okay if you add it with WP:RS that makes that conclusion (w/o OR-synthesis). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JJ.VictoriaGrayson 17:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Buddhism scholar"

changed

"In modern times, due to western Orientalism and Perennialism, and its influence on Indian Neo-Vedanta and Hindu nationalism, Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality."

into

"According to Richard King, a Buddhism scholar, due to western Orientalism and Perennialism, and its influence on Indian Neo-Vedanta and Hindu nationalism, Advaita Vedanta has acquired a broad acceptance in Indian culture and beyond as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality."

References

1. ^ King 2002. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKing2002 (help)

It's incorrect,for two reasons:

• Advaita Vedanta may have been regarded in (later) medieaval times already by some (or many) religious specialists as the quintessence of Indian spirituality, but it was in colonial times that it acquired this predominant position in the views on Hindu spirituality, thanks also to western interest in it. See also Sweetman, Will (2004), "The prehistory of Orientalism: Colonialism and the Textual Basis for Bartholomaus Ziegenbalg's Account of Hinduism" (PDF), New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 6, 2 (December, 2004): 12-38 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
• Why the (incorrect) addition of "a Buddhism scholar"? It's the kind of comments we usually see from editors with a preference for a specific POV. And it's incorrect:

"I am an historian of ideas and a philosopher by inclination but with a concern to explore genealogical questions of power and representation in the study of Asian traditions and religious studies in general. I write on classical Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, theory and method questions in religious studies, and on the comparative study of mysticism and spirituality. I am intrigued by the traditions that I study not only as historical phenomena but also as philosophical 'worldviews' with which one might intellectually engage, and this relates to my conviction that contemporary debates about 'theory' need to move beyond a limited Eurocentric framework and into a postcolonial and trans-cultural space. My work seeks to bring the study of Hindu and Buddhist philosophical ideas into interdisciplinary engagement with contemporary debates in cultural and critical theory. I have a particular interest in Indian philosophical thought in the period 200-900 CE and especially the formation of the Mahayana Buddhist schools (Madhyamaka and Yogacara) and early Advaita Vedanta."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson 06:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: The NPOV policy states, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." An opinion or minority significant POV must be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy. The same policy page reminds us, "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" (WP:YESPOV). It is undue to imply doubts or new conclusions on what is the majority recent scholarly view verifiable in numerous secondary and tertiary sources on AV. It is undue to push unsourced text without page numbers and minority Richard King's POV on AV, assuming that is verifiable, as equal to the majority view of scholars. Yes, if you added multiple, independent scholarly sources, then I am fine with your wording; but neither in the main article nor in the lead you have offered anything other than King's POV. We can identify Richard King as "a Buddhism scholar" like Patrick Gray or Justin McDaniel or others do, or with other appropriate words. I welcome alternate wording. But for WP:DUE and balance, don't choose words that inadvertently push one person's POV, or minority POV as equal in importance or more important to the majority view verifiable in numerous sources. We need to include words that identify what is the majority view and what is minority dissenting/questioning view. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of High-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class Hinduism articles
• Top-importance Hinduism articles
• C-Class Hindu philosophy articles
• Top-importance Hindu philosophy articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class metaphysics articles
• Mid-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• C-Class epistemology articles
• Mid-importance epistemology articles
• Epistemology task force articles
• C-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Ancient philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Ancient philosophy articles
• Ancient philosophy task force articles