Talk:Advaita Vedanta/Archive 4

quick question for advaita - single entity
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)


 * you added diff, at the end of the lead:


 * First, the end of the lead is not the most logical place of such a statement. Also, the lead summarizes the article, so you should first treat it somewhere in the article. Reading the IEP-article on Madhva, the section on "Relationship with other forms of Vedānta" may be the best place. But then, still, the sentence "Madhva rejects the notion that brahman is the only truly existent entity (tattva)" looks odd to me. Which source on Shankara states that Shankara holds such a view? But, indeed, the statement in the lead "Brahman alone is ultimately real" does seem to express the same. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
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)


 * On the other hand, the confusing use of repetitive compound terms in the current version obscures the basic claim of advaita, which is that the experiencing self and absolute reality are non-different (is there any source that would contradict this claim??). It is linguistically confusing to say "(jiv)Atman and Atman-Brahman are non-different"—you seem to be redundantly trying to show that Atman is both part of the individual self and the absolute self—but this is what the sentence is saying anyway. It’s like saying "water-H2O and H2O-ice are the same" when you could just say "water and ice are both H2O" (or to match my rewrite better, "ice/water and H2O are non-different"). This approach seems to put the cart before the horse, trying to invoke the ambiguity of the terms before they’re even given the chance to be minimally defined, compared with each other, or complicated. I don’t see any meaningful ambiguity being lost in the version I wrote, as the fact that these terms can all potentially be used interchangeably (or considered "non-different") is the point made by the end of the sentence anyway. Does this objection make sense? I’m just trying to ensure that the basic idea is comprehensible to the first-time reader without immediately plunging them into visceral linguistic confusion in the lead's first paragraph. Kkollaps (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Kkollaps, thanks for your response. I see your point too, of course, though it also ilustrates my point: the AV-tradition, and the scholarship on it, does use the term atman to refer both to jivatman, the experiencing self, and to Atman as in Brahman, the highest Self. 'Minimally defining' them is interpretation, whereas the tradition is more nuanced than that; and it's precisely this nuance which makes the tradition more than just a bullit-statement. As for 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)
 * I trust you read note 4? It quotes several authors on the (jiv)Atman-Brahman equation, and explains that Shankara used two different terms to denote atman:
 * Your first edit diff, edit-summary 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
 * into
 * As you can see, "experiencing self" is jiva; I used (jiv)Atman precisely because "Atman" is the better known term, though only Bowker uses the term "atman" in the equation with Brahman. So, strictly speaking, we should use the term jiva here.
 * As for "Absolute Reality," "Brahman" is to be preferred, since "Absolute" is an interpretation. NB: "Absolute Reality" is also not exactly correct; it's about the 'ultimate Existent'or 'Real', that which is Real when all temporary things are seen through.
 * Your second edit diff, edit-summary This needed fixing accordingly, don’t see some this language in the source either, changed
 * into
 * Indich quotes Shankara, stating that "the jiva [i]s a mere reflection of the Atman," with Atman referring to the highest Real.
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * into
 * Indich quotes Shankara, stating that "the jiva [i]s a mere reflection of the Atman," with Atman referring to the highest Real.
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indich quotes Shankara, stating that "the jiva [i]s a mere reflection of the Atman," with Atman referring to the highest Real.
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If we can’t get past the complicated ambiguity of all the Sanskrit terms, then perhaps we should leave them out until the body, where the complexities can be elaborated on. In the lead, we can simply say “the individual self and the absolute reality are non-different," which is not something I see contradicted in any of the sources. Kkollaps (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the original terms are to be preferred when translations/interpretations are ambiguous or open to multiple translations/interpretations. The term "the" alone gives two reifications; "indivual self" would be closer to the Indian meaning (as far as I understand). And "absolute reality" is not exactly what Shankara c.s.mean with Atman-Brahman; it is the 'highest' reality, that which cannot be sublated. Personally, I find that contemplating the ambiguities gives a better understanding of the meaning/usages of the terms; taht's why I prefer to keep them. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I reread some chapters of the Upadesasahasri, to see which terms Shankara uses; I noticed (again?) that the Atman-Brahman equating gives some sense of an unified reality, in which the individual "I" ceases to be a separate entity; this is a 'mental exercise'. Yet, when Shankara describes Atman-Brahman as 'pure consciousness', he's subtly moving the goalposts, pointing to the 'essence of mind'; this is an 'awareness-strategy'. In the end, of course, both "strategies" are valid in pointing out 'the essence', yet they're still slightly different. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)