Problems in Advaita
Sankar Jayanarayanan
First problem :
Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its own unreality.
So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
Advaita. So it does exist.
So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
the side of non-existence?
[ This is a glaring example of a Goedel's string at work. In Wittgenstein's
philosophy, I heard, he comes to the conclusion that everything that can be
expressed in words is nonsense(in the strict sense of the word). But if that
is so, then his own result should make no sense! ]
Second Problem :
Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things: Atman
and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise religion.
Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
already known ?
More clearly---
If there is nothing other than the self, whence this delusion? If there is no
delusion, practise of religion will amount to nothing, since as Sankara himself
says, the way to salvation is the removal of delusion, and which itself does
not exist according to Advaita. So...why practise?
Third problem :
Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must accept
the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation" and
"afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which exists
along with the Atman.
You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at all-since
we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
religion?
The basic problem is:Advaita has a lot of problems asking people to practise.
Saying it's already "out there" means that there is really no need to practise.
-----------------------------------------------------
Curiously, Buddha said---
" If the 'I' perishes [Please note that change is a form of perishing,since
change means that the object is not what it was, in other words, the object
which once was, does not exist anymore], then there would be no need to
worry about the hereafter [ basically, no need to worry about your karma,
for which you may reap good or bad rewards after death ].
If the 'I' doesnot perish [ also taken to mean 'does not change' ], then
all these moral values, this striving to be perfect, would have no use-
for if the 'I' is already [unchanging and also] perfect, what need is there
to perfect the Perfect ?
BOTH VIEWS ARE WRONG AND THEIR ERRORS ARE MOST GRIEVOUS."
And significantly, in the Gita,(15.18), Krishna says,"...I transcend the
mutable and the immutable."
Also, Sankara, in his opinion of which students to accept for instruction,
gives one of the conditions as," He must have lost detachment and must be
willing to proceed towards the knowledge of the Self."
Clearly, by accepting only those students who're already on the path towards
the Self, Sankara gives no reason for "practise". As was pointed out by
someone, the ethical, practical values simply don't seem to "come out" in
Sankara's teaching. There is only pure theory.
I also saw this- "Sankara does not dwell on the topic of Avidya, since it is
apparent to him that the topic, when expanded, would traverse toward dualism."
One of his fore-most disciples, Suresvara, wrote more on Avidya. But the topic
did not stop with him.A disciple of Suresvara expands on Suresvara's views on
Avidya. So Avidya is quite a bother to Advaita!
The Bhedabheda school of thought by Bhaskara starts off,"Perhaps you reason thus
: '...when there is the true Atman, we can throw away this world.' what sort
of logic is this?"
In fact, Bhaskara's treatise gives this argument,"If you say that Avidya is
beginningless, then there can be no such thing called 'release', for it could
be no more destroyed than Bramhan. Or, if it has a beginning, whence does it
arise? And if it does arise, since it is an effect, it must be a real thing;
whereby your thesis is destroyed that ignorance is unreal, for no unreal thing
like a hare's horn arises. Again, Avidya cannot belong to Bramhan, for the
nature of Bramhan is pure consciousness and incomparable bliss; nor can it
belong to the individual soul, for you admit the existence of no individual
soul different from Bramhan."
-Kartik
----------------------------------------
The disciple asks,"Master, can I realise the Buddha?"
The master replies," 'I' is a delusion."
The pupil continues," Have you realised the Buddha?"
The master says"Seeing separate-ness, such as 'you' and 'I' is a delusion."
The pupil thinks for a while and asks,"Is there anyone who has realised the
Buddha?"
"When there is neither 'you' nor 'I', who is the one that wants to realise
the Buddha?"
-----------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subm.: s...@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-r...@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
( not that the advaitha has no problems in my comprehension)
In article <4gd7i7$q...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kar...@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
>
>First problem :
>
>Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its
>own unreality.
>So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
>conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
>Advaita. So it does exist.
advitha does not say *everything* is unreal. it says there is *one*
thing with certain qualities, and that every thing that *appears* to be
separate from that *one* thing is due to illusion.
one of the qualities of that *one* thing is chith (awareness or
knowledge).
>So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
>the side of non-existence?
>
>[ This is a glaring example of a Goedel's string at work. In Wittgenstein's
>philosophy, I heard, he comes to the conclusion that everything that can be
>expressed in words is nonsense(in the strict sense of the word). But if that
>is so, then his own result should make no sense! ]
>
>Second Problem :
>
>Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things: Atman
>and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise
>religion.
>Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
>already known ?
if i am sleeping, and dream that i am on the funeral pyre, hope you
will agree that i am not actually on the pyre. if the dreams are
unreal (as they anyway are), do you say that there is no need for
me to get rid of this illusion of being on the pyre? I am one, and
am alive, but do i not know that that dream is an illusion?
>More clearly---
>If there is nothing other than the self, whence this delusion? If there is no
>delusion, practise of religion will amount to nothing, since as Sankara
>himself
>says, the way to salvation is the removal of delusion, and which itself does
>not exist according to Advaita. So...why practise?
>
>Third problem :
>
>Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must
>accept
>the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation" and
>"afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
>contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which exists
>along with the Atman.
>You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at
>all-since
>we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
>religion?
Mere knowledge is said to be salvation. Like my waking up is just
the end of illusion.
>The basic problem is:Advaita has a lot of problems asking people to practise.
>Saying it's already "out there" means that there is really no need to
>practise.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
i am not an authority on advaitha, but i am just peculating: what if
we had two brains? if these two brains are dreaming as two different
characters, then is it not necessary for both the brains to get rid
of those illusions associated with these dreams, for both the brains to
realize the truth? What if one wakes up, and attempts to wake the other?
Well youmight argue, then where is advaitha, when there are two minds,
and you know the answer, that the soul is one, just with two brains.
well, am i speculating out of thin air? possibly. but there
is some basis, i guess: Shankara himself says in his commentary: "oh
god, even though i have been saying that you are every thing, i am not
arrogating to say that i am you. I am like a drop and you are like an
ocean"
Even Ramaha Maharshi asks us to enquire ("Who am *I*"). If he thinks
there is only one thing, and all of us are an illusion, then why would
he asks us to realise the self. The points you have pointed out might
not be flaws in the theory, but could be our misunderstanding of advaitha
(i am not suggesting that there is doubt about *oneness* in advaitha,
i am just speculating the ignorance can manifest manifold) and the
practice of *religion* (what ever you mean by that) is meant to get
rid of that ingorance).
somewhere (in Mandyuka upanishath or its karika?), it is explained
this way: if there are hundred pots, and if we see from each one
of them one sky and on moon, will it mean we have 100 skys and
100 moons?
Mani Varadarajan
> In article <4gd7i7$q...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> Sankar Jayanarayanan <kar...@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
> advitha does not say *everything* is unreal. it says there is *one*
> thing with certain qualities, and that every thing that *appears* to be
> separate from that *one* thing is due to illusion.
>
> one of the qualities of that *one* thing is chith (awareness or
> knowledge).
In fact, the philosophical position you have just stated
is that of Visistadvaita, which literally means Non-duality
of the Single Entity who is qualified by attributes.
Advaita states that there is only one entity, and that
entity is pure, undifferentiated consciousness, without
*any* distinct attributes whatsoever. Anything perceived
as having an attribute is in the realm of the false.
Mani
Giri
Kartikji :
Instead of calling these problems in advaita, wouldn't it
be better if you called it problems in my understanding of advaita because
the problems you mention here are not problems even to someone who is not
well versed in advaita [like me]. I am only following up on this post since
i haven't seen any followups, though there are people better versed in
advaita and avidya than me.
>First problem :
>Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its own unreality.
By everything what do you mean ? Only Self IS. The rest is illusory
since we don't percieve things with an underlying unity. To give you a
crude example, we say the foam and the water are two different things, but
in reality the foam wouldn't exist without water.
>Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things: Atman
>and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise religion.
Based on my understanding, Avidya is unreal only from the paramparthika
view i.e avidya is unreal for a self-realized person since he only sees SELF
in everything. Just asking questions like "if only Self is, then why we
perceive ourselves to be different from each other ? Can you give all your
money to me since we are the same etc.." is due to avidya, according to
advaita.
In short, any duality you perceive between your Self and others {including things} is due to avidya.
>Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
>already known ?
The Self is not known to you [since i presume you are not self-
realized]. The practice is to remove avidya, i.e to remove the delusion that
you are separate human being whoi is limited, one who dies etc. Only
when the avidya is removed that one perceives that the I is never born, nor
does it die. Remember, this I is Self or Atman [which is Brahman in advaita]
and not the ego self.
Another way of looking at it is to use the mandukya karika. When
we are awake, we use our senses and mind. When we dream, we use our mind
but not our senses, while in deep sleep we don't use the senses and the mind.
Therefore, there is a break in mind,senses and the ego etc, yet when we
get up after the sleep we say 'i had a good sleep, i feel fresh etc...'.
This points that there is a fourth state which is transcendantal to these
states and IS all the time. This subject is dealt in detail in
http://ddi.digital.net/~egodust
>Third problem :
>Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must accept
Well, there is something to achieve if you believe that you are
dual and you are different from every other person. The belief is that
you are already enlightened, but due to avidya you perceive that you are
limited, subjected to duality, death etc. The practice is only to remove
avidya.
>Clearly, by accepting only those students who're already on the path towards
>the Self, Sankara gives no reason for "practise". As was pointed out by
>someone, the ethical, practical values simply don't seem to "come out" in
>Sankara's teaching. There is only pure theory.
This is false, and blatantly false. Shankara's taught not only
theory/philosophy but a solid path of jnana marga based on Discrimination.
The poath of discrimination between unreal and the real based on some
self-enquiry if of course not charming, but to say that Shankara did not
talk about devotion is not true. He talked extensively about the importance
of the grace of Guru. For a person, the Guru may be a physical one or even
Ishvara. Shankara does talk about ethical values like yama, niyama etc in
upadesasahasri. But, lack of ethics
is frequently pointed out by critics, and Dr.
Radhakrishnan devotes a whole chapter in his book 'indian philosophy'
on this topic. Shankara, by assuming his disciples are only interested
in Self-realization' does not directly impose criteria since it is very
unlikely that a renunciate who has a burning desire to liberate would not
follow yama, niyama etc.
>I also saw this- "Sankara does not dwell on the topic of Avidya, since it is
>apparent to him that the topic, when expanded, would traverse toward dualism."
Well, it is frequently said that Shankara and Buddha do not
talk much about avidya because that is avidya itself. But, as you
point out correctly, many have tried to explain avidya etc. Most advaitains
sidestep this issue; For example, when i asked a well known advaitain
'where did this avidya arise'. HE told me that 'you don't ask who started
the fire when your house is burning, put the fire out first and then you
will know'.
Due to time restrictions [yeah, yeah, time is an illusion :-)],
i cannot answer more in detail, but read the introduction to
upadesasahasri : thousand teachings of Shankara by Mayeda. He deals with
your questions in detail.
Giri
--
{The opinions expressed above are mine and not that of my employers}
http://www.geopages.com/RodeoDrive/1415 <--> Yoga/Spirituality/Hinduism page
brahma satyaM, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaivana paraH - Adi Shankara
'I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details' -- Albert Einstein
Prasad S. Sista
any transgressions of the netiquette.
In article <4gj7an$h...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana <go...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>some layman's attempt to dwell on the questions raised:
>( not that the advaitha has no problems in my comprehension)
>In article <4gd7i7$q...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Sankar Jayanarayanan <kar...@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>First problem :
>>
>>Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its
>>own unreality.
>>So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
>>conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
>>Advaita. So it does exist.
and Illusion delivered in London.
" Almost all of you have heard of the word Maya. Generally it is used, though
incorrectly, to denote illusion or delusion, or some such thing. Butthe
theory of Maya forms one of the pillars upon which the Vedanta philosophy
rests. It is therefore necessary that it should be properly understood".
"When the Hindu says the world is Maya, at once people get th idea
that the world is an illusion.But the Maya of the vedanta in its last
develped form, is
neither Idealism nor realism nor is it a theory. it is a simple
statement of
facts - what we are, and what we see around us".
>
>advitha does not say *everything* is unreal. it says there is *one*
>thing with certain qualities, and that every thing that *appears* to be
>separate from that *one* thing is due to illusion.
>
>one of the qualities of that *one* thing is chith (awareness or
>knowledge).
>
>>So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
>>the side of non-existence?
>>
>>[ This is a glaring example of a Goedel's string at work. In Wittgenstein's
>>philosophy, I heard, he comes to the conclusion that everything that can be
>>expressed in words is nonsense(in the strict sense of the word). But if that
>>is so, then his own result should make no sense! ]
"This world has no existence. What is meant by that? It means that
it has no
absolute existence. It exists only in relation to my mind, to your mind,
and to
the mind of everyone else. We see this world with the five senses, but if we
had another sense, it would appear as something more. If we had yet another
sense, it would appear as something still different. It is a mixture of
existence and non-existence".
Here I want to put forth a few of my inferences based on the above
extracts.
What he actually means is that the world has existence with respect to the
five senses and the mind but on an absolute scale, the differences that we
see everyday between various things are NOT EXISTENT anymore but everything
is one(this is what i infer by non-existence).
For example lets consider a hypothetical situation where a vernier
calipers
(a measuring instrument that measures length of objects) gets life having
nothing but sense of touch and being able to process the length of the object
inserted between the two arms. From the reference point of the vernier, the
world exists but only as a set of lengths. For it, a monkey's tail and an
elephant's tail are the same if they have the same length. You cannot explain
to it the differences between them since it cannot percieve
them. So the vernier is able to see no difference between the two since it
CANNOT see it. But human beings are born with five senses and we are
percieving things through them since our birth. If we are able to free
ourourselves from these senses and the controller of these(the mind or
intellect) then we might be
able to see that all world is the same and the relative world with
respect
to different senses has NO Existence or is NON EXISTENT.
>>
>>Second Problem :
>>
>>Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things:
Atman
>>and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise
>>religion.
>>Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
>>already known ?
I want to extend the above arguement to answer this question. On a
relative
scale it exists but on an absolute scale it may not. Only when we can see
things free from our intellect and senses, will we know whether it exists
or not and
this freeing from senses is nothing but self realisation.
>
>
>
>>More clearly---
>>If there is nothing other than the self, whence this delusion? If there
is no
>>delusion, practise of religion will amount to nothing, since as Sankara
>>himself
>>says, the way to salvation is the removal of delusion, and which itself
does
>>not exist according to Advaita. So...why practise?
The people who have freed themselves from their physical and intellectual
limitations (senses and intellect) have found that only the self exists on
the absolute scale. The moment we start THINKING how it is possible, we are
bound by intellect and` a desire to know' which binds us from going
beyond the
senses...
>>
>>Third problem :
>>
>>Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must
>>accept
>>the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation" and
>>"afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
>>contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which exists
>>along with the Atman.
There is no contradiction here. When people say now and afterwards,
it is
according to the reference frame of time which is percievable and hence
is a
part of the senses(though we cant percieve time physically(say like hearing
or feeling),our mind can percieve it(say the difference between
yesterday and
today). But after self-realisation, it is possible that there may
not be
anything like time since everthing is the Self.
>>You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at
>>all-since
>>we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
>>religion?
The only gains that are achievable by practising religion or anything
else
are physical and at the most intellectual. Realisation is something that is
beyond the intellect but is achievable through the intellect. The
intellect is
the one that can free it from itself. I know that I am going around
in a circle
but the concept is abstract here. If it is clear as to how it does
that, then
that is the path to realisation (to which i have no clue).
I wish to end my posting here.
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
>
>
> First problem :
>
> Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its own unreality.
> So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
> conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
> Advaita. So it does exist.
Rather than playing word games with the verb "exist" it might be better
to spend some time understanding the sophistication of the system of two
truths (pAramArthika vs. vyAvahArika) in advaita. It is very misleading
and quite often a fundamental misunderstanding of advaita to state that
"advaita states that everything is illusory". That is just not the case.
All doctrines, including advaita and dvaita "exist" in the common-place
sense of the verb, at the level of reality that is perceived and
understood by the senses. This is the level of vyavahAra. At this level,
the senses are directed outwards, and they receive sensory input and the
manas and the buddhi process such sensory input.
Beyond this level of vyavahAra, and in fact, transcending it, is the
level of paramArtha. In this state, no doctrine "exists", because no
doctrine manages to capture the essence of this state completely. It is
essentially "vAcAm agocaram" - unapproachable by mere words. The minute
you want doctrine specified for you in great detail, you are insisting
that you want to be limited by and to verbal descriptions. The whole
point that is emphasized in advaita and in upanishads like the mANDUkya
is that this Atman-state is completely beyond words. It is this
realization that prompts advaitins to say that even the doctrine of
advaita, which is elaborated by verbal techniques, is itself not the
Absolute Truth. Advaita does not "exist" only at the paramArtha level.
At the vyavahAra level, all doctrines exist.
The Experience of this paramArtha level may be called a mystical
experience, if you will. And those who have had this experience are of
the firm opinion that for them nothing else exists. It is a drastic
mistake to attempt to understand advaita purely intellectually, without
grounding it in the "Experience" of those who tell you they have had it.
I use "E" for Experience in order to emphasize the fact that at this
level, there is no talk of experiencer, experienced and the experience
itself. For that matter, there is no talk, period.
> So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
> the side of non-existence?
In your question, please clarify what you mean by existence and
non-existence? Does your idea of existence necessarily entail
multiplicity of entities that exist? Then advaita's answer to you is
that such existence is characteristic of bondage, from which the seeker
seeks liberation. Every issue of advaita is related intimately to the
questions of baddhatvam (being bound) and moksha. Advaita is on the side
of Existence, with a capital E, in which there is no multiplicity i.e.
yatra AtmA eva sarvam abhUt - where the Atman itself has become all.
Again, do not get misled by the use of the verb "become". The reality is
that the AtmA always was, is and will be All. The becoming refers only
to the realization that this is so.
>
> [ This is a glaring example of a Goedel's string at work. In Wittgenstein's
> philosophy, I heard, he comes to the conclusion that everything that can be
> expressed in words is nonsense(in the strict sense of the word). But if that
> is so, then his own result should make no sense! ]
>
But neither Goedel nor Wittgenstein make such a clear demarcation of two
levels of truth as classical advaita does. Once you insist that these
two levels of truth are completely separate, the application of Goedel's
string does not make sense. Does Wittgenstein insist that there is an
Unborn which is not describable by words, and that therefore anything
that can be expressed in words is nonsense? Not to my knowledge.
On the other hand, advaita is ambivalent or distrustful of words only
when it comes to describing Brahman. In the ordinary world, where we do
not perceive Brahman by any of our senses, and words make as sense as we
want them to. Quite unlike Wittgenstein, advaita does not dismiss all
words as nonsense. There is always the question, "what purpose do these
words serve?"
> Second Problem :
>
> Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things: Atman
> and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise religion.
> Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
> already known ?
Au contraire, avidya is synonymous with the Self not being really known.
You think you know it, but do you? Avidya exists for him who sees it.
There is no necessity to absolutize each and every concept. In an
absolute sense, since Brahman alone exists, avidya is unreal. In the
relative sense, do you really, really know that Brahman alone exists? It
is not enough to quote something from an upanishad to that effect. Can
you say out of your own conviction that Brahman alone exists? If not,
avidya exists for you. If you can say that Brahman alone exists, where
is the question of avidya then?
>
> More clearly---
> If there is nothing other than the self, whence this delusion? If there is no
> delusion, practise of religion will amount to nothing, since as Sankara himself
> says, the way to salvation is the removal of delusion, and which itself does
> not exist according to Advaita. So...why practise?
Whence this delusion? From ignorance of the fact that there is nothing
other than the Self. Here, advaita has no answer to give you, except to
ask you, "do you doubt the word of Sruti - sarvam AtmA?" If you do,
fine, advaita is not for you. If you do not doubt it, but still are not
able to say it yourself with any conviction, how else do you describe
this, except as ignorance of the truth that Sruti states i.e. avidyA?
That is all there is to the question of avidyA.
Practice of religion is for the sake of citta-Suddhi. The path is not in
raising unasnwerable questions about the origin of delusion, but in
acknowledging that it seems to exist for you, and seek to remove it, or
to transcend it. If you wish to transcend it, then practise religion.
I say some questions are unanswerable, because no system of vedanta can
escape from this. If not avidyA, they resort to karma, the rationale of
which is also unanswerable. Or else, another school resorts to saying
that all difference is eternal, which does not answer your question any
better.
>
> Third problem :
>
> Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must accept
> the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation" and
> "afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
> contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which exists
> along with the Atman.
Time is also one of those categories which exists vyAvahArically
speaking, but not pAramArthically speaking. Brahman/Atman transcends
time, and is not affected by time, so again time does not matter from
the paramArtha standpoint.
> You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at all-since
> we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
> religion?
Advaita rarely says "there is X" or "there is not-X" in such simplistic
terms as you portray. The logical development in many Indian schools
does not limit itself to X and not-X categories. Negation is developed
in very complicated ways e.g. four-fold negation, and this sort of
simplistic reasoning about the existence or otherwise of time ignores
the complexity of the ideas of time and causality in the advaita school.
>
> The basic problem is:Advaita has a lot of problems asking people to practise.
> Saying it's already "out there" means that there is really no need to practise.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Advaita does not portray itself as a system that exhorts people
to practice. Ethical and moral imperatives are presupposed, and
advaitins have not thought it very worthwhile to preach practice to
people. Their answer to the question of practice is summarized in the
following statement - "What is the use of talking about advaita to those
who do not even follow sAmAnya dharma? Everyone knows it is wrong to
cheat and steal, but corruption and embezzlement have become ingrained
in their lives. Why talk about advaita to them?" - This was said in very
recent times by Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, a renowned advaitin. In
other words, the response of the orthodox advaitin is this - if you are
not prepared to follow basic dharma i.e. practice, then we won't talk to
you about advaita. They will agree - saying it is "out there" does not
really exhort people to practice. Their response is fine, "we won't say
anything about advaita at all, rather than saying something contrary to
our philosophy for the purpose of exhorting people to practice." For
exhorting people to practice, those advaitins who are in the business of
preaching to multitudes use other schemes, most often bhakti, yoga,
karma, varNASrama dharma etc.
>
> Curiously, Buddha said---
>
> " If the 'I' perishes [Please note that change is a form of perishing,since
> change means that the object is not what it was, in other words, the object
> which once was, does not exist anymore], then there would be no need to
> worry about the hereafter [ basically, no need to worry about your karma,
> for which you may reap good or bad rewards after death ].
> If the 'I' doesnot perish [ also taken to mean 'does not change' ], then
> all these moral values, this striving to be perfect, would have no use-
> for if the 'I' is already [unchanging and also] perfect, what need is there
> to perfect the Perfect ?
> BOTH VIEWS ARE WRONG AND THEIR ERRORS ARE MOST GRIEVOUS."
>
> And significantly, in the Gita,(15.18), Krishna says,"...I transcend the
> mutable and the immutable."
>
> Also, Sankara, in his opinion of which students to accept for instruction,
> gives one of the conditions as," He must have lost detachment and must be
> willing to proceed towards the knowledge of the Self."
>
> Clearly, by accepting only those students who're already on the path towards
> the Self, Sankara gives no reason for "practise". As was pointed out by
> someone, the ethical, practical values simply don't seem to "come out" in
> Sankara's teaching. There is only pure theory.
Read Prof. Karl Potter's well-written introductory chapter in vol. 3 of
The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, about the place of ethical and
practical values in advaita. I don't see why every school of philosophy
needs to say something about everything. Sankara chooses to address
those whose ethical, moral and practical values are exemplary, so why
preach to the converted, so to speak?
>
> I also saw this- "Sankara does not dwell on the topic of Avidya, since it is
> apparent to him that the topic, when expanded, would traverse toward dualism."
>
> One of his fore-most disciples, Suresvara, wrote more on Avidya. But the topic
> did not stop with him.A disciple of Suresvara expands on Suresvara's views on
> Avidya. So Avidya is quite a bother to Advaita!
avidyA is a bother, because of the nature of philosophical debate among
vedAnta schools. Sankara is very adroit in handling avidyA. I am not
very conversant with the works of later advaitins, but I do know this
much. All of them develop different strands of thought implied in
Sankara's works. As avidyA is closely related to karma, and the cycle of
rebirths and redeaths, I don't see that avidyA is a real problem for
advaita alone. All Indian schools have some problem or the other trying
to fit linear, logical thinking to the circular nature of karma theory.
advaita attempts to reconcile this by breaking out of the circle, which
if you think about it, is the very motive for moksha - breaking out of
the circle of samsAra.
>
> The Bhedabheda school of thought by Bhaskara starts off,"Perhaps you reason thus
> : '...when there is the true Atman, we can throw away this world.' what sort
> of logic is this?"
>
Probably the answer to this is "Yes, there may be no logic, but it is
what the Sruti says." Besides, for the mumukshu who seeks to break out
of rebirths, what use is the world characterized by such rebirth? One
attempts to get rid of a thing only if one does not value it much.
Having gotten rid of it, why bother about it any more? It does not
become Somebody Else's Problem, because there is Nobody Else.
> In fact, Bhaskara's treatise gives this argument,"If you say that Avidya is
> beginningless, then there can be no such thing called 'release', for it could
> be no more destroyed than Bramhan. Or, if it has a beginning, whence does it
> arise? And if it does arise, since it is an effect, it must be a real thing;
> whereby your thesis is destroyed that ignorance is unreal, for no unreal thing
> like a hare's horn arises. Again, Avidya cannot belong to Bramhan, for the
> nature of Bramhan is pure consciousness and incomparable bliss; nor can it
> belong to the individual soul, for you admit the existence of no individual
> soul different from Bramhan."
>
> -Kartik
>
Paul Hacker has written an excellent article titled "Whose is avidyA?"
analyzing this question from a variety of texts. It is most instructive,
in this regard.
> ----------------------------------------
>
> The disciple asks,"Master, can I realise the Buddha?"
> The master replies," 'I' is a delusion."
> The pupil continues," Have you realised the Buddha?"
> The master says"Seeing separate-ness, such as 'you' and 'I' is a delusion."
> The pupil thinks for a while and asks,"Is there anyone who has realised the
> Buddha?"
>
> "When there is neither 'you' nor 'I', who is the one that wants to realise
> the Buddha?"
>
No comment, because Buddhist schools are diametrically opposed in their
approach to many issues.
S. Vidyasankar
anand hudli
questions have answered well by Vidya and others.
I will just try to add something to what has already been said.
According to advaita, Shruti employs the technique of adhyaaropa
and apavaada in explaining things. adhyaaropa means superimposition
of an unreal thing on a real thing. apavaada means the sublation
of the unreality that was superimposed. For example, Shruti
talks about all kinds of karmas, yajnas, etc. These are all
adhyaaropa. It teaches us about all these things in the
adhyaaropa stage. In the apavaada stage, Shruti sublates those
very things that it talked about in the adhyaaropa stage, by
pointing to a Higher Reality, Brahman. It tells us in no
uncertain terms, "You are That Brahman. Everything else is
a superimposition."
Critics may ask at this point: Why does Shruti teach us
first about things which later are shown to be superimpositions?
Why the bother? Why not tell us directly about Brahman?
The answer is quite simple and provided by Shankara himself in
his commentary on the Chhaandogya upanishhad :
paramArthasadadvayam brahma mandabuddhiinaam asad iva
pratibhaati sanmaargasthaaH taavad bhavantu tataH shanaiH
paramaarthasad api graahayishhyaam iti manyate shrutiH |
The Supreme Nondual Reality Brahman is viewed by people of
dull intellect (mandabuddhiinaam) as asat, unreal. Here dull
intellect has nothing to do with IQ! One may have an IQ
of 200+ and still be a mandabuddhi. The intellect that is
refered to here is the sharp discriminating intellect that
distinguishes between things transient and eternal. Often
this intelligence is called viveka. If you tell
mandabuddhi's about Brahman directly as, "neti, neti",
they will come to the conclusion that Brahman is
a nonexistent entity. asad iva pratibhaati.
Let these mandabuddhi's also be brought to the right path,
sanmaarga, thus considers shruti, iti manyate shrutiH.
tataH, therefore shruti expects such mandabuddhi's to
shanaiH, slowly make the progress towards and grasp the
paramaartha sat, Brahman.
In Shankara's excellent answer above, there is also
another implied answer. What about people who are not
mandabuddhi's? Such people can be of two kinds. First,
there are people who are gross materialists and who think
there is nothing beyond the empirical reality. They dont
even want to consider the possibility of a higher reality.
For them shruti has little to offer. Second, there are
those who already know Brahman. Again, shruti has little
to offer these people.
It is only the middling mandabuddhi's like us, that
need shruti, which gives us a gentle, steady approach to
Brahman. So shruti teaches us about the karmas,
upasanaas, etc. and finally asks us to transcend what
it taught us, in favor of the Supreme Reality, Brahman.
The notion that shruti uses the technique of adhyaaropa
and apavaada was advanced by Shankara, but many vedantins,
including, unfortunately, some advaitins, fail to recognize
this.
Shri Sachchidaanandendra Saraswati elaborates on the technique
in his (translated) book, "The Method of Vedanta."
Anand
Hari Krishna Susarla
go...@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana) wrote:
>In article <4gd7i7$q...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Sankar Jayanarayanan <kar...@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>First problem :
>>
>>Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its
>>own unreality.
>>So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
>>conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
>>Advaita. So it does exist.
>
>advitha does not say *everything* is unreal. it says there is *one*
>thing with certain qualities, and that every thing that *appears* to be
>separate from that *one* thing is due to illusion.
Quite right. However, I think the major point of Kartik's claim, one for which
I have as yet seen no satisfactory answer, is that since the world around us
is illusory, then anything we do in this world (like claim that it is
illusory) is also false. Two negatives = a positive. It also raises the issue
of whether or not it is useful to do anything at all, since both sin and
tapasya are both illusion.
>>So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
>>the side of non-existence?
It definitely stands for the nonexistence of the material world. However, some
advaitists recognize the problem of this and turn around and interpret that it
is, indeed, real.
>>Second Problem :
>>
>>Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things:
Atman
>>and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise
>>religion.
>>Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
>>already known ?
>
>if i am sleeping, and dream that i am on the funeral pyre, hope you
>will agree that i am not actually on the pyre. if the dreams are
>unreal (as they anyway are), do you say that there is no need for
>me to get rid of this illusion of being on the pyre? I am one, and
>am alive, but do i not know that that dream is an illusion?
Of course, an illusion of something presupposes its actual existence
somewhere. Using the logic that the effect is always present in the cause, you
would not expect to see an emanation involving qualities if its source
ultimately had no qualities.
Actually, Sankar's objection brings up another, related point. Advaita reduces
everything to Brahman and Maya, but this is duality, not oneness. In order to
get around this, they would have to say that Maya is an intrinsic property of
Brahman. Of course, that would defy its nature as sati-cit-ananda. Another
tricky problem for the advaitins.
>>More clearly---
>>If there is nothing other than the self, whence this delusion? If there is
no
>>delusion, practise of religion will amount to nothing, since as Sankara
>>himself
>>says, the way to salvation is the removal of delusion, and which itself does
>>not exist according to Advaita. So...why practise?
In fact, I think this is the problem with teaching advaita to materialistic
people (i.e. - anyone who is not a lifelong celibate). Such people will
naturally conclude that there is no need for sadhana. No wonder
Sankaracharya's disciples were all brahmacaris and sannyasis.
>>
>>Third problem :
>>
>>Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must
>>accept
>>the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation"
and
>>"afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
>>contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which
exists
>>along with the Atman.
>>You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at
>>all-since
>>we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
>>religion?
>
>
>Mere knowledge is said to be salvation. Like my waking up is just
>the end of illusion.
I think the same objection applies. One's awakening still occurs at some
definite time.
>>The basic problem is:Advaita has a lot of problems asking people to
practise.
>>Saying it's already "out there" means that there is really no need to
>>practise.
In fact, that's only a fraction of the problems. If we are all one, then that
means we should all get liberation at the same time. If everything is an
illusion, then so too are the Vedas which are supposed to teach us how to get
out of that illusion.
>well, am i speculating out of thin air? possibly. but there
>is some basis, i guess: Shankara himself says in his commentary: "oh
>god, even though i have been saying that you are every thing, i am not
>arrogating to say that i am you. I am like a drop and you are like an
>ocean"
That is indeed interesting. Can you provide the source? I really would like to
look that up.
regards,
-- HKS
Prasad S. Sista
>>>Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its
>>>own unreality.
>>>So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
>>>conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
>>>Advaita. So it does exist.
>>advitha does not say *everything* is unreal. it says there is *one*
>>thing with certain qualities, and that every thing that *appears* to be
>>separate from that *one* thing is due to illusion.
>Quite right. However, I think the major point of Kartik's claim, one for
which
>I have as yet seen no satisfactory answer, is that since the world around us
>is illusory, then anything we do in this world (like claim that it is
>illusory) is also false. Two negatives = a positive. It also raises the issue
>of whether or not it is useful to do anything at all, since both sin and
>tapasya are both illusion.
understanding this. You are asking the same fundamental questions that were
faced by the advaitins when they started preaching advaita. So these
questions have already been answered so that there is no ambiguity(this is what
it is all about there is no ambiguity). The moment you say that two negatives
make a positive and 5 negatives make a negative and 15 positives..........
you are already illuded. There is no negative no positive. Only the self
EXISTS. This is as far as real existence is concerned. This is with reference
to an absolute reference frame and not with respect to what you see or what
you believe or what you THINK is right or wrong.:-) Everything that you SEE
you HEAR you FEEL you THINK, you SMELL you TASTE exists because your senses
tell you that it exists. It is only a set of inputs from sensory organs
that your mind is processing and THINKING and forming a picture of.
Just think of a person who is born without the olfactory capabilities. He
will see rose as a beautiful flower but will never be able to attribute it
to the sweet smell it has. If you are able to voluntarily cut off all these
senses, you might be able to see that the universe is all one( I can only
speculate because i haven't been able to do it myself!!). Here one more
question can be raised for which I very well have the answer. I will answer
it if the question is raised:-)
Yes. You have raised one more very fundamental question. Any work done
`useful' or `useless' is going to bind you in the wheel of causality.
The work is the cause and there will be some effect to it. Good work is
like being bound with golden chains and `useless' work is like being bound
with iron chains(gold and iron are only used figuratively. Gold does not
mean the yellow shiny metal with n+1 protons in the nucleus of its atom
and ......:-)). So what you said is right when looked upon in certain angle
Yes. You are bound anyway. How does it matter what chain it is??
>>>So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
>>>the side of non-existence?
>>>Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things:
>Atman
>>>and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise
>>>religion.
>>>Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self
********* `Practicing religion'. More clarification is required on this
What exactly does the writer mean by this??
>
>Of course, an illusion of something presupposes its actual existence
>somewhere. Using the logic that the effect is always present in the cause,
>you would not expect to see an emanation involving qualities if its source
>ultimately had no qualities.
form. Have you ever see `AIR'. Have you ever `SEEN' the `SMELL' of a rose??
Have you ever `TASTED' the melody of music?? You should try and THINK beyond
the senses because even though thinking is in itself a constraint, it is one
step beyond the senses!!
>ActuallySankar's objection brings up another,related point. Advaita reduces
>get around this, they would have to say that Maya is an intrinsic property of
>Brahman. Of course, that would defy its nature as sati-cit-ananda. Another
>tricky problem for the advaitins.
only one. You may give it whatever name you want(Vishnu, Shiva, Christ ,ocean,
sea,well anything. I for myself want to call it ENERGY because once i call
`IT' Vishnu, I will start attributing characteristics to it like 4 hands,
Chakra in one hand and Shanka in the other and all other things.
)
>In fact, I think this is the problem with teaching advaita to materialistic
>people (i.e. - anyone who is not a lifelong celibate). Such people will
>naturally conclude that there is no need for sadhana. No wonder
>Sankaracharya's disciples were all brahmacaris and sannyasis.
********* `Materialistic'....hmm. I dont see any connection between
materialism and CELIBACY. You can be celibate throught your life and still
be materialistic. You can argue that they are both same according to advaita
But wait a minute. That is only if you have stopped perceiving this world
through the senses and intellect. But I have not achieved that state. So for
me everything exists as it does for you.
>>>Third problem :
>>>Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must
>>>accept
>>>the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation"
>and
>>>"afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
>>>contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which
>exists
>>>along with the Atman.
>>>You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at
>>>all-since
>>>we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
>>>religion?
>>>The basic problem is:Advaita has a lot of problems asking people to
>practise.
>>>Saying it's already "out there" means that there is really no need to
>>>practise.
>In fact, that's only a fraction of the problems. If we are all one, then that
>means we should all get liberation at the same time. If everything is an
***** What is this `WE' are all `ONE'. There is only one. Thats it. The moment
you say WE, you are getting back to your illusion. Then there is no oneness.
Everything then is according to your senses and obviously WE as in we are all
DIFFERENT refers to different people.
>illusion, then so too are the Vedas which are supposed to teach us how to get
>out of that illusion.
Here I would like to restate what advaita ACTUALLY means by ILLUSION. People
seem to be driven by this most of the time. ILLUSION doesnt mean OPTICAL
ILLUSION. If your first reaction to EVERYTHING is ILLUSION is,`Well I am able
to see and feel everything!' then you need to understand this clearly(you will
an ILLUSION. This might be a little difficult to digest :-)). Illusion in
advaita is a simple statement of facts of what we are and what we see which
is basically EXISTENCE of good and bad together, life and death together..
etc. It doesnt mean optical or any such illusions. It is just the life we
lead.
>>well, am i speculating out of thin air? possibly. but there
>>is some basis, i guess: Shankara himself says in his commentary: "oh
>>god, even though i have been saying that you are every thing, i am not
>>arrogating to say that i am you. I am like a drop and you are like an
>>ocean"
****** Here I would like to make some things clear. Why are people fighting
over what Shankara said or what some other acharya said. you are only reading
something that is reported to have been said by Shankara. He might have/might
not have said it. Even then, I dont think there is any doctrine of Hinduism
that insists on critisising other doctrines. If someone believes in a
particular set of doctrines, he should strive to achieve what the ultimate
state that set of doctrines portrays as whether it is SELF REALIZATION as in
advaita or something else in some other set of beliefs. Critisising other
doctrines is at least according to my limited knowledge not a form of
SADHANA(personally I feel that work is worship. Any person who is committed to
his duty is doing SADHANA while he is performing his duty and it is not
necessary for him to separately go somewhere to some corner and do `SADHANA'.
^^^^^^^^^.
I am feeling tired of this argument myself.
Thanks for reading through this if you have come thus far.
Prasad S Sista
Santhosh Kumar
: In article <4gj7an$h...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
: go...@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana) wrote:
:
: >In article <4gd7i7$q...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
: >Sankar Jayanarayanan <kar...@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
: >>
: >>First problem :
: >>
: >>Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its
: >>own unreality.
: >>So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
: >>conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
: >>Advaita. So it does exist.
This statement is incorrect, I cannot say "I do not exist", it will be
self denial. To say "I do not exist", I should exist, logically
incorrect as well.
: Quite right. However, I think the major point of Kartik's claim, one for which
: I have as yet seen no satisfactory answer, is that since the world around us
: is illusory, then anything we do in this world (like claim that it is
: illusory) is also false. Two negatives = a positive. It also raises the issue
: of whether or not it is useful to do anything at all, since both sin and
: tapasya are both illusion.
Seems like you are complicating the matter too much! When you say
something does not exist, what is the logic behind using a theory
( "Two negatives = a positive" ) which is part of the already negated
theory to prove that what you proved is not right. As I
understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
not mean that whatever we are doing is meaningless and illusion.
As long as we are in the dream, the dream is real. The dream
becomes an illusion when you go beyond that state to a higher
state, what we call "awake". This by no way implies that the
dream was not real, the dream existed and the characters you
saw in the dream were real in the dream.
It becomes illusion only when you negate it using a higher level
of consciousness, not otherwise. It may not be appropriate to use
part of the theories in the dream and part of the theories in
this world to establish a point, in the same way it won't be
appropriate to use part of the theories of this world and part
of higher consciousness to drive a point, it will not take us
anywhere. If you negate a theory, do not use any more tools or
axioms from that theory, in this case the world, it would only
complicate the matter, otherwise do not negate this world.
Please do not get confused with the statement "This world
is an illusion", it is not an illusion as long as you are in
it, it becomes an illusion only when you go beyond (negate) it.
: Of course, an illusion of something presupposes its actual existence
: somewhere. Using the logic that the effect is always present
: in the cause, you
You dream ( day dream ) about something, it does not imply that
it exists somewhere else. If that is the case, all the novels
written so far should be a narration of actual incidents.
: would not expect to see an emanation involving qualities if its source
: ultimately had no qualities.
:
: Actually, Sankar's objection brings up another, related point. Advaita reduces
: everything to Brahman and Maya, but this is duality, not oneness. In order to
: get around this, they would have to say that Maya is an intrinsic property of
: Brahman. Of course, that would defy its nature as sati-cit-ananda. Another
: tricky problem for the advaitins.
:
It is not that Brahman and Maya exists, it is Brahman that exists, and
manifests as Maya, like fire and the power to burn. Without fire,
it won't have the power to burn, and at the same time fire does
not exist without its quality to burn certain things.
:
: >>More clearly---
: >>If there is nothing other than the self, whence this delusion? If there is
: no
: >>delusion, practise of religion will amount to nothing, since as Sankara
: >>himself
: >>says, the way to salvation is the removal of delusion, and which itself does
: >>not exist according to Advaita. So...why practise?
:
: In fact, I think this is the problem with teaching advaita to materialistic
: people (i.e. - anyone who is not a lifelong celibate). Such people will
: naturally conclude that there is no need for sadhana. No wonder
: Sankaracharya's disciples were all brahmacaris and sannyasis.
:
There is no problem with teaching Advaita to worldly people. Even
the saints praises Grahasthasramam.
: >>
: >>Third problem :
: >>
: >>Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must
: >>accept
: >>the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation"
: and
: >>"afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
: >>contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which
: exists
: >>along with the Atman.
: >>You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at
: >>all-since
: >>we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
: >>religion?
: >
: >
: >Mere knowledge is said to be salvation. Like my waking up is just
: >the end of illusion.
:
: I think the same objection applies. One's awakening still occurs at some
: definite time.
Time does not exist only in the higher consciousness state, till that
state is reached you are still driven by the so-called illusion which
you perceive as real,in that sense time still exists for you. Time is
as apparent as we are, our existence is apparent, not real. Or, in
other words, we exist apparently, so do time.
:
: >>The basic problem is:Advaita has a lot of problems asking people to
: practise.
: >>Saying it's already "out there" means that there is really no need to
: >>practise.
:
: In fact, that's only a fraction of the problems. If we are all one, then that
: means we should all get liberation at the same time. If everything is an
: illusion, then so too are the Vedas which are supposed to teach us how to get
: out of that illusion.
Vedas itself says "Use Vedas, but go beyond(negate) Vedas". It admits its
limitation. I must again advise you not to use tools from a theory
that you negated already, otherwise do not negate it. An equivalant
in Physics would be that of Newtonian Physics and Relativity theory.
If relativity theory is true, then Newtonian Physics cannot be true,
but we know both are true, only its domain varies. In other words,
Newtonian Physics is true in a limited sense. Most of your arguments
are like using theories in Newtonian physics to prove that relativity
theory is not true.
:
: >well, am i speculating out of thin air? possibly. but there
: >is some basis, i guess: Shankara himself says in his commentary: "oh
: >god, even though i have been saying that you are every thing, i am not
: >arrogating to say that i am you. I am like a drop and you are like an
: >ocean"
: That is indeed interesting. Can you provide the source? I really would like to
: look that up.
:
It is because Sankara himself is a manifestation of THAT. A wave cannot
say that wave is the ocean, but the wave belongs to the ocean, and hence
is the ocean, but by itself cannot claim to be the ocean.
Regards,
Santhosh
Santhosh Kumar
Santhosh Kumar (sant...@iss.nus.sg) wrote:
: Hari Krishna Susarla (susarla...@studentserver1.swmed.edu) wrote:
: : In article <4gj7an$h...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
: : go...@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana) wrote:
: :
: : >In article <4gd7i7$q...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
: : >Sankar Jayanarayanan <kar...@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
: : >>
:
: : would not expect to see an emanation involving qualities if its source
: : ultimately had no qualities.
: :
: : Actually, Sankar's objection brings up another, related point. Advaita reduces
: : everything to Brahman and Maya, but this is duality, not oneness. In order to
: : get around this, they would have to say that Maya is an intrinsic property of
: : Brahman. Of course, that would defy its nature as sati-cit-ananda. Another
: : tricky problem for the advaitins.
: :
:
:
: It is not that Brahman and Maya exists, it is Brahman that exists, and
: manifests as Maya, like fire and the power to burn. Without fire,
: it won't have the power to burn, and at the same time fire does
: not exist without its quality to burn certain things.
I missed the question regarding Sat-Chit-Ananda, let me try to explain
as I inderstand it. Now having said that Brahman and Maya are the same
and Maya is the manifestation of the same Brahman, let us take the case
of a poisonous snake, can the snake be affected by its venum? Or, can
the fire be affected by the fire? In a similar way, we are the same
Brahman that has attributes, but we do not get affected by its
qualities, and by itself IT is in the state of complete happiness
(Sat-Chit-Ananda) though IT has everything within IT, but is
unaffected by what IT has. Or, in other words, the attributes comes
when you consider multiplicity, which is an illusion.
regards,
Hari Krishna Susarla
sant...@iss.nus.sg (Santhosh Kumar) wrote:
>: Quite right. However, I think the major point of Kartik's claim,
one for
which
>: I have as yet seen no satisfactory answer, is that since the world
around
us
>: is illusory, then anything we do in this world (like claim that it
is
>: illusory) is also false. Two negatives = a positive. It also raises
the
issue
>: of whether or not it is useful to do anything at all, since both
sin and
>: tapasya are both illusion.
>
>
>Seems like you are complicating the matter too much! When you say
>something does not exist, what is the logic behind using a theory
>( "Two negatives = a positive" ) which is part of the already negated
>theory to prove that what you proved is not right.
The point is to show that such a theory cannot be considered. If a
philosophy
requires that you not accept it as real, then it is not a philosophy
that is
worth follwing.
As I
>understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
But a dream is not real.
>not mean that whatever we are doing is meaningless and illusion.
>As long as we are in the dream, the dream is real. The dream
>becomes an illusion when you go beyond that state to a higher
>state, what we call "awake". This by no way implies that the
>dream was not real, the dream existed and the characters you
>saw in the dream were real in the dream.
I don't understand. First you say that it is as real as a dream, but a
dream
is not real. Now you are saying that "the dream existed and...."
implying that
the world around us is in fact real.
What I want to know, is, does the world around us exist in time and
space or
not?
>It becomes illusion only when you negate it using a higher level
>of consciousness, not otherwise.
"not otherwise." So, the world around us is real, just temporary. Is
that what
you are saying?
It may not be appropriate to use
>part of the theories in the dream and part of the theories in
>this world to establish a point, in the same way it won't be
>appropriate to use part of the theories of this world and part
>of higher consciousness to drive a point, it will not take us
>anywhere.
Please bear with me. But I frankly did not understand the above.
If you negate a theory, do not use any more tools or
>axioms from that theory, in this case the world, it would only
>complicate the matter, otherwise do not negate this world.
>Please do not get confused with the statement "This world
>is an illusion", it is not an illusion as long as you are in
>it, it becomes an illusion only when you go beyond (negate) it.
Well, now I am confused by your explanation. I was looking for someone
to
clearly and concisely explain to me (without indulging in name
calling)
whether or not the world around us is real. If it is real, then it
seems that
there is no reason for putting all kinds of conditions on it.
>: Of course, an illusion of something presupposes its actual
existence
>: somewhere. Using the logic that the effect is always present
>: in the cause, you
>
>You dream ( day dream ) about something, it does not imply that
>it exists somewhere else.
Quite the contrary! When you are in a desert, you may see mirages of
water.
You can't see something which you have never before heard of.
If that is the case, all the novels
>written so far should be a narration of actual incidents.
No. Literature is based on human experience. You may notice that a
baby is
mentally incapable of writing a novel. That is because a baby has no
experience from which to derive a story about people and
relationships.
So, my point is that you can only see an effect if it is present in
the cause.
A story on paper (the effect) exists first in the mind of the author
(the
cause). The mental representation of the story is itself based on an
interweaving of ideas, thoughts, looks, attitudes and so on which have
been
studied by the author and mixed up by him in a way to produce a unique
story.
>: would not expect to see an emanation involving qualities if its
source
>: ultimately had no qualities.
>:
>: Actually, Sankar's objection brings up another, related point.
Advaita
reduces
>: everything to Brahman and Maya, but this is duality, not oneness.
In order
to
>: get around this, they would have to say that Maya is an intrinsic
property
of
>: Brahman. Of course, that would defy its nature as sati-cit-ananda.
Another
>: tricky problem for the advaitins.
>:
>It is not that Brahman and Maya exists, it is Brahman that exists,
and
>manifests as Maya, like fire and the power to burn. Without fire,
>it won't have the power to burn, and at the same time fire does
>not exist without its quality to burn certain things.
Exactly. But while no one would separate the power to burn from fire,
no
Vedantist would want to link illusion with Brahman. The Supreme
Brahman is
saccidananda according to advaitists, so how is it that illusion can
be an
intrinstic property of the Supreme Brahman?
>: In fact, I think this is the problem with teaching advaita to
materialistic
>: people (i.e. - anyone who is not a lifelong celibate). Such people
will
>: naturally conclude that there is no need for sadhana. No wonder
>: Sankaracharya's disciples were all brahmacaris and sannyasis.
>:
>There is no problem with teaching Advaita to worldly people. Even
>the saints praises Grahasthasramam.
But which saints? Sankaracharya never praised it. The utility of
Grihasthaasrama can only be accepted in a world view with a personal
Godhead
at the center and with devotion as both the means and the end. In this
situation, God is accepted as real person, so grihastha life is meant
to
produce children who are raised as servants of God.
In advaita, however, there is no clear utility for householder life,
since
bhakti is not regarded as an eternal condition. I think that is why
Sankaracharya required his disciples to be celebate. The fact that
this is not
practiced now simply means that today's advaitins want to have their
cake and
eat it too.
>Time does not exist only in the higher consciousness state, till that
>state is reached you are still driven by the so-called illusion which
>you perceive as real,in that sense time still exists for you. Time is
>as apparent as we are, our existence is apparent, not real. Or, in
>other words, we exist apparently, so do time.
OK I guess I can accept that.
>: In fact, that's only a fraction of the problems. If we are all one,
then
that
>: means we should all get liberation at the same time. If everything
is an
>: illusion, then so too are the Vedas which are supposed to teach us
how to
get
>: out of that illusion.
>
>
>Vedas itself says "Use Vedas, but go beyond(negate) Vedas". It admits
its
>limitation.
I think the universally understood purport of statements such as these
is that
one should not become entangled in simply being a Vedic scholar; one
should
realize their goal.
I must again advise you not to use tools from a theory
>that you negated already, otherwise do not negate it.
But I never negated the Vedas. Far from it, I argue that advaitins are
the
ones who are using tools, the reality of which they have denied.
An equivalant
>in Physics would be that of Newtonian Physics and Relativity theory.
>If relativity theory is true, then Newtonian Physics cannot be true,
>but we know both are true, only its domain varies. In other words,
>Newtonian Physics is true in a limited sense. Most of your arguments
>are like using theories in Newtonian physics to prove that relativity
>theory is not true.
The same holds for the advaitins. How can they use tools of the
material world
(a relative truth) to understand the Absolute Truth? Since you are
criticizing
me on this point, I think I should say that this criticism is more
appropriately directed at the advaitins. I do accept that the world is
real.
>: >well, am i speculating out of thin air? possibly. but there
>: >is some basis, i guess: Shankara himself says in his commentary:
"oh
>: >god, even though i have been saying that you are every thing, i am
not
>: >arrogating to say that i am you. I am like a drop and you are
like an
>: >ocean"
>
>
>: That is indeed interesting. Can you provide the source? I really
would like
to
>: look that up.
>
>It is because Sankara himself is a manifestation of THAT. A wave
cannot
>say that wave is the ocean, but the wave belongs to the ocean, and
hence
>is the ocean, but by itself cannot claim to be the ocean.
But a wave never BECOMES the ocean. A drop of water never becomes a
glass of
water. There is similarity in quality only, but the difference in
quantity
remains.
Therefore, if the wave to an ocean analogy is accurate, one would have
to
conclude that one always remains quantitatively subordinate to God,
which
would refute advaita.
Santhosh Kumar
: sant...@iss.nus.sg (Santhosh Kumar) wrote:
:
: >
: >Seems like you are complicating the matter too much! When you say
: >something does not exist, what is the logic behind using a theory
: >( "Two negatives = a positive" ) which is part of the already negated
: >theory to prove that what you proved is not right.
:
: The point is to show that such a theory cannot be considered. If a
: philosophy
: requires that you not accept it as real, then it is not a philosophy
: that is
: worth follwing.
:
: As I
: >understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
:
: But a dream is not real.
The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the
dream you never questioned its authenticity. Same is the
case with this world also. When you are in this world, you
perceive it as real. I suggest you read books like "Gospel of Sri
Ramakrishna" and "Complete works of Swami Vivekananda"
to get a better understanding of Advaita. These books deal
with both Dvaita and Advaita, so you may choose whichever
is acceptable to you. There are a number of speeches by
Swami Ranganathanada, et al, like:
1. "Practcal Vedanta and Science of Values(in 3 audio cassettes)",
by Swami Ranganathananda.
2. Question answer session on Vedanta (Video, the event was
held in Chicago) by Swami Ranganathanada.
3. Don't exactly remember the title of the cassette, but contains
a talk by Dr. Chandrasekhar and Swami Ranganathananda, held
somewhere in USA.(audio cassette).
4. Practical Vedanta by Swami Ranganathananda. (Video)
These cassettes may be obtained from Ramakrishna Mission.
Hope this helps in your effort to understand Advaita.
regards,
Santhosh
K Arunachalam
This is the first time I am posting/responding to a post in any net. I
hope, I will keep my cool after this post and resist the temptation to
respond to or initaite any item to any net. Having said that, the urge to
express on the matter was , in my opinion, based on the need to explain.
There may be others who can give better anology and better explanation to
the topic "maya". But the following is my considered opinion.
My understanding about the cause for confusion with regard to advita
philosophy in the net, and indeed over the historical past, is in the
proper translation/understanding - or the lack of it - of the term "maya".
The confusion araises when it is translated into "illussion". Of course,
life and everything that goes with the life cannot be an illussion.
Ask a poet, how he feels about expressing his inner emotions. He will
probably say he feels inadequate in expressing his inner emotions, when he
feels the urge to exppress. If that were the case for a poet endoved with
the use of words, what of the non-poets or scientists who have limited
ability to express precisely anything other than technical matter. There
is a proverb in Tamil language - "Kannaara kandadhum poi. Kaathaara
ketadhum poi. Theera visaaripathe mei". Those who are familiar with this
proverb know how it has been misinterpreted. The meaning of that, for the
benefit of those who do not understand that is that what you SEE may not
be true! what you HEAR may not be true! Only inernal contemplation of
what you have heard and seen and the conclusions arrived at through your
contemplation is true. If that were true of proverbs, what of the
utterings of spirituly elevated beings' statements. I think, I am straying
from the topic.
The appropriate translation of the term "maya" would be "TRANSITORY
REALITY". It means only that it is real but is impermenant not permenant.
This had been one of the hall marks of ancient Indian philosophy.
As an example: Scientis say, and all of us know, that water can exist in
varying states as water, ice, or vapour under different circumstances and
conditions. Since, we have come to understand that "reality" it is not
difficullt if we say that the fact of water at a particular condition is
only "maya" or "TRANSITORY REALITY".
However, if that particular fact is not known to many of us, and only one
two scientists, through their laboratory experiments and their strength of
mind, have come to realize this and try to express that fact to other
non-scientists, how many of us would be able to appreciate them. I doubt
there will be only a few, if any at all.
Another example we can give. Suppose we have a pea-nut. All I ask you
divest your previous knowledge and understanding and experiences of
biology, gardening etc. In this case, you do not know anything about the
nature of a seed, its relation to plant etc. If we have been divested of
these conditioned mind, and if a wiser person comes along and tells us that
there is life in that pea-nut seed, what will be our reaction? A few will
start thinking. Few will say not so. Most will say he has gone "cookoo".
That has happend to scientists, spiritual persons, etc. Galilio, Jesus,
Gandhi are examples.
These two examples are only indicative of the concepts of "maya".
Since we try to relate "maya" only with life - since it is the most
precious thing to one, we have to go beyond certain thing. To understand
the term "maya" with respect to human life itself, we should understand
the term "thre-kala-janani", the one who understands the past, present
and the future.
We do not know exactly what we are doing at the time of what we do. Do not
we talk first and then think most of the time? If that were the case, how
many of us can understand where we came from, what we are doing and where
we will be after this life. Without the understanding of the interplay
between the past, present and future with respect to human life, the term
"maya" cannot be appreciated in the context of human life. If we can
understand the interplay between these things, in the context of
appropriate circumstances, then the term "maya" will be well understood.
When that is understood, the beauty of advita philosophy will be
appreciated, by scientists, poets and painter - that is its logic,
expression etc etc.
Those who want to **(understand)** would be immensly benefited when they
read the commentaries of gita and upanishads by well known masters. I
have benefitted by reading them.
With kind regards
Dr. Arunachalam
___________________________________________________________________
M Suresh
susarla...@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
I would like to make a few points here.
Though it is very difficult to defend advaita as a complete logical
framework for explaining the world experiences, when considered as an
indicator of the absolute it cannot be dismissed offhand.
If logical consistency is so important for a philosophy, then
"materialistic atheism" ( which says that matter and energy only exist
and that living things are machines ) would be the best philosophy.
One of the most important things advaita does is that it defines god to
be so absolute that each of his manifestations will have to be absolute.
( Advaitic interpretation of Purnamadah, purnamidam ... ).
The dvaita concept of One Paramatman, or God served eternally by
Jivatman's or individual souls cooks up in the mind a concept of
something like a lone Sun ( The Paramatman ) out there in the universe
circled by a few planets ( The Jivatman's ). This is a concept difficult
to swallow. In fact a friend of mine once told a story in which Narada
crosses this universe, and visits the lord of a greater universe in whose
court lord's like Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are attendees, come from lesser
universes like ours. It sounded more like science fiction than religion
or spirituality, but it comes from extending our concept of hierarchical
control beyond God, just as one can extend the concept of solar system to
other stars galaxies and so on.
The advaitic interpretation of Aham Brahmasmi ( I am Brahman ) would be
very effective in cutting out such flights of the mind, by giving a
fullness or completeness to god so that the same fullness or completeness
is there in each of his manifestations.
Dvaita too tries to give absolute status to god by saying that "Jivas are
part and parcel of the Paramatman" ( A question: Was this stated by
Prabhupada only or by other dvaitins in Sanskrit? ) but is not quite as
effective as advaita.
>The point is to show that such a theory cannot be considered. If a
>philosophy
>requires that you not accept it as real, then it is not a philosophy
>that is
>worth follwing.
>
> As I
>>understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
>
>But a dream is not real.
A dream is real as long as it exists. I feel that the world if
considered as a dream is an eternal dream, because a person even on
attaining realization knowing that it is a dream becomes a witness to the
dream ( In fact he is established in a state of unbroken awareness
transcending all the three transient states of the mind namely wakeful,
dream and deep sleep ). He does not wake up from it, for waking up from
the world dream would correspond to the dissolution of the whole
universe.
Speaking of reality, I think the definition of reality according to
Indian systems of philosophy goes something like : That which is self
evident and eternal. Under that definition the would world become unreal
even in the dvaita perspective because the world is eternally dependent
on the Paramatman and exists by his will, and is not something which is
self evident.
Further, according to advaita since Brahman is refelected in each of its
manifestations the world does not exist apart from the subject seeing the
world.
However ajnani's perceive the world as independent and self evident and
identifying themselves closely with the body and mind see themselves to
be apart from the world. It is this perception which is unreal and
called Maya.
Similiarly while a dream is real as a creation of the mind, identifying
oneself with the dream body and considering the dream world as external
to the person and causing the experiences is unreal. The reality of the`
dream is that the subject of the experience, the dream world causing the
experience and the experience itself have a common source and are the
same.
>>not mean that whatever we are doing is meaningless and illusion.
>>As long as we are in the dream, the dream is real. The dream
>>becomes an illusion when you go beyond that state to a higher
>>state, what we call "awake". This by no way implies that the
>>dream was not real, the dream existed and the characters you
>>saw in the dream were real in the dream.
>
>I don't understand. First you say that it is as real as a dream, but a
>dream
>is not real. Now you are saying that "the dream existed and...."
>implying that
>the world around us is in fact real.
>
>What I want to know, is, does the world around us exist in time and
>space or
>not?
It does, just as a dream exists in time and space. Just as a dream
exists while it occurs the world exists till its dissolution.
>>It becomes illusion only when you negate it using a higher level
>>of consciousness, not otherwise.
>
>"not otherwise." So, the world around us is real, just temporary. Is
>that what
>you are saying?
>
> It may not be appropriate to use
>>part of the theories in the dream and part of the theories in
>>this world to establish a point, in the same way it won't be
>>appropriate to use part of the theories of this world and part
>>of higher consciousness to drive a point, it will not take us
>>anywhere.
>
>Please bear with me. But I frankly did not understand the above.
>
>If you negate a theory, do not use any more tools or
>>axioms from that theory, in this case the world, it would only
>>complicate the matter, otherwise do not negate this world.
>>Please do not get confused with the statement "This world
>>is an illusion", it is not an illusion as long as you are in
>>it, it becomes an illusion only when you go beyond (negate) it.
>
>Well, now I am confused by your explanation. I was looking for someone
>to
>clearly and concisely explain to me (without indulging in name
>calling)
>whether or not the world around us is real. If it is real, then it
>seems that
>there is no reason for putting all kinds of conditions on it.
It is real, but its perception is unreal and an illusion as if one is
looking through a clouded window ( The way Jiddu Krishnamurthy puts it ).
>
>Quite the contrary! When you are in a desert, you may see mirages of
>water.
>You can't see something which you have never before heard of.
All the relative truths must be contained in Brahman. Again it cannot be
said that the brahman is the dreamer because the Brahman cannot be a
seer. The ego can be said to be the dreamer. But I am not quite sure of
this as these are tricky waters you get into if you pull the dream
analogy too far.
[ deleted ]
>>It is not that Brahman and Maya exists, it is Brahman that exists,
>and
>>manifests as Maya, like fire and the power to burn. Without fire,
>>it won't have the power to burn, and at the same time fire does
>>not exist without its quality to burn certain things.
>
>Exactly. But while no one would separate the power to burn from fire,
>no
>Vedantist would want to link illusion with Brahman. The Supreme
>Brahman is
>saccidananda according to advaitists, so how is it that illusion can
>be an
>intrinstic property of the Supreme Brahman?
illusion itself means that which is not real and hence it is denied. So
it cannot be treated as a property. Ramana Maharishi on explaining
Shankaracharya's philosophy says that the world exists as Brahman and not
as Maya, the way we perceive it. Thus the advaitists say that Brahman
alone exists and Maya is non-existent. In that respect according to
Ramana Maharishi advaitsts can be called Maya vivadins instead of Maya
vadins, since they deny the existence of Maya.
>>: In fact, I think this is the problem with teaching advaita to
>materialistic
>>: people (i.e. - anyone who is not a lifelong celibate). Such people
>will
>>: naturally conclude that there is no need for sadhana. No wonder
>>: Sankaracharya's disciples were all brahmacaris and sannyasis.
>>:
>
>>There is no problem with teaching Advaita to worldly people. Even
>>the saints praises Grahasthasramam.
>
>But which saints? Sankaracharya never praised it. The utility of
But has he said that only celibate persons can progress towards
realization? I am curious to know if Madhvacharya and Ramanujacharya were
householders?
>Grihasthaasrama can only be accepted in a world view with a personal
>Godhead
>at the center and with devotion as both the means and the end. In this
The culmination of devotion is the dropping of of the ego and the
realization that you are one with god. Also if you see saints like
Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharishi, Ramakrishna Parmahamsa etc, their
devotion did did not end with their attaining realization. They
continued to be bhakta's even after their realization. So I do not think
that devotion is just a means to an end in advaita.
If we consider devotion as love, then the greatest form of love is that
in which the lover and loved are one. This can be illustrated with an
incident about Ramkrishna Parmahamsa I have read somewhere. When a
bullock cart was passing by, Ramakrishna Parmahamsa jumped with pain when
a bullock was whipped and whip marks were found on his back. This showed
how great a love Ramakrishna Parmahamsa had for all creation.
>situation, God is accepted as real person, so grihastha life is meant
>to
>produce children who are raised as servants of God.
A good concept but extremely difficult to follow. One may keep hammering
the concept into his head but I doubt it would become his genuine desire
in leading a householders life.
>In advaita, however, there is no clear utility for householder life,
>since
>bhakti is not regarded as an eternal condition. I think that is why
>Sankaracharya required his disciples to be celebate. The fact that
>this is not
>practiced now simply means that today's advaitins want to have their
>cake and
>eat it too.
Again though Shankaracharya stated that being a celibate was superior, I
doubt if he condemned a householder life.
[ deleted ]
>The same holds for the advaitins. How can they use tools of the
>material world
>(a relative truth) to understand the Absolute Truth? Since you are
>criticizing
>me on this point, I think I should say that this criticism is more
>appropriately directed at the advaitins. I do accept that the world is
>real.
About your ( or Kartik's ) point on the philosophy being illusory made
many times in this message, It can be restated as : Nothing done within a
field of experience can result in transcending it since everything done
is part of the field of experience.
Interstingly I had found the same kind of argument against hinduism ( It
is interesting to note that hinduism is considered to be identical with a
distorted version of advaita which is one of its brances of philosophy )
in an article against religious pluralism in a christian web page :
Firstly, I feel that this kind of an argument is just a kind of guess
work and cannot be applied to realization.
Secondly, If one considers a dream as a model of the world then the
argument cannot be applied to dreams either because it IS POSSIBLE to
know that you are dreaming while dreaming by performing some consistency
checks within the dream itself. This is what lucid dreaming is all
about. If you want some more info you can read the following web page :
http://www.eolas.co.uk/ah/ben_garb.htm
>But a wave never BECOMES the ocean. A drop of water never becomes a
>glass of
>water. There is similarity in quality only, but the difference in
>quantity
>remains.
If we leave aside the form of the wave or the drop and look at the
essence of the wave or the drop of water, we find that it is water which
is the same as the essence of the ocean or the glass of water. Similarly
if we leave aside our external bodies and look inside our true selves we
will find that we are god.
>Therefore, if the wave to an ocean analogy is accurate, one would have
>to
>conclude that one always remains quantitatively subordinate to God,
>which
>would refute advaita.
I do not think it proper to assign a quantity to god as the ocean or
glass analogy would call for, because an ocean eventhough very large is
nevertheless finite.
regards,
Suresh.
H. Krishna Susarla
to separate people in one article. Advaitins should be proud :)
Santosh Kumar wrote:
>: As I
>: >understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
>:
>: But a dream is not real.
>
>The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the
>dream you never questioned its authenticity. Same is the
Not really. I question the authenticity of my dreams all the time...
>case with this world also. When you are in this world, you
>perceive it as real.
But if the world we experience around us, with all its qualities and
variegatedness is false, that still presupposes that such a world actually
exists *somewhere*.
I suggest you read books like "Gospel of Sri
>Ramakrishna" and "Complete works of Swami Vivekananda"
>to get a better understanding of Advaita. These books deal
No! I'm sorry, but neither Ramakrishna nor Swami Vivekananda are truly
representatives of Advaita. If you want to learn Advaita, you should read
the works of Sri Sankaraachaarya and those of his followers in paramparaa.
Since Sri Sankaraachaarya is the original exponent of advaita in this age,
the only persons who can honestly claim to be advaitists are those who
received teachings from him in disciplic succession.
Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and other swamis in that class are influenced by
advaita, but their philosphies are quite clearly a result of time and
circumstance. Most of these people have, as their primary motivation, the
desire to water down Vedic philosophy and present it in a form that is
palatable to Western sensibilities. Then too there is their motivation (not
necessarily bad) to liberate India from Western political and cultural
influence. Unfortunately, the philosophy they put forward becomes a mix of
advaita, nationalism, and philosophical revisionism rather than a sincere,
spiritual treatise.
Prasad S. Sista wrote:
>>> *** Sir sorry to interrupt. First of all there are two states here.
>>> one in which everything is one and the other in which they are all
>>> different.
>>Well, that's not what Ramakrishnan said. Nor am I aware of any reference in
>>Sankaracharya's works to the effect that there is a state in which "they are
>>all different." What is clear to me from advaita theory (and I would
>>appreciate it if someone could quote Sankara to the contrary) is that
>>everything is ultimately one, and that no distinctions are admitted.
> *** Neither am I aware of reference in Shankara's works about it. Why??
> I havent read any of Shankara's works myself. You are assuming that all
> advaitins are quoting from Shankara's works and this is not necessarily
> true always.
Wrong. Advaitins have to base their philosophy on Sankaraachaarya, or else
they are not advaitins. If Sankaraachaarya does not accept it, then it is
not advaita. And I am not aware of Sankaraachaarya conceding that a state
actually exists where "everything is different."
>>Actually, what he said was that *personal* existence was what was verifiable.
>>This is interesting, because no advaitist thatIknow ofaccepts theidea that
>>we are individual, living entities. Rather,they accept that there is only one
>>world-soul, not many individual souls.
> *** Well it might be interesting. But whether it is interesting or not or
> whether it is the belief of other advaitists or not, that is what he worte.
Exactly. And I assert that what he wrote is not correct, according to
advaita philosophy.
>>> he is talking about rather than trying to form an idea of whether he
>>> has an idea of advaita or not!!! Please try to see what people are
>>> SAYING instead of trying to evaluate their Parampara and their guru.
>>
>>Well, I am trying to see what he is saying. I don't think what he or you are
>>saying is correct according to Sankaracharya's parampara.
> ** Enlightment required. What is Sankaracharya's parampara. By the way
> please enlighten me on this one too. What exactly is `Paramapara?'
paramparaa literally means "coming one after another" or something like
that. It is a time honored Vedic (and Indian) tradition that spiritual
knowledge is received in paramparaa, that is, through disciplic succession
from guru to student. This is to ensure the authenticity of the information.
It is also to ensure that unqualified personalities do not allow the
teachings to be adulterated. Practically all Vedanta traditions accept the
importance of learning through paramparaa. Lord Krishna also describes how
He disseminated knowledge in this way in the beginning of the 4th chapter.
>>This is not a very scientific statement. Eitherthe world is real,or it is an
>>illusion.
> Well. It depends on where you are looking from. By the way since when did
Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
is the same for everyone. So either the world is real, or it is not. No
points for trying to compromise just to be politically correct :)
>>So what is the truth? Is the world real, or an illusion?
>**** I am testing my patience myself. I will write it again. It depends on
>how you are perceiving the world. If you are perceiving it through your
>senses and intellect then everything is real and you see differences in form,
>attributes etc. But if you are able to transcend these then everything is ONE
>So I wish to say assuming that you have not transcended you senses and
>intellect, The world is REAL.
So, according to you, the Absolute Truth is that everything is ONE.
Therefore, only in the conditioned state do we see the world as REAL. That
means that the world is not actually REAL. Therefore whatever we do is also
not actually REAL.
In that case, you have negated the validity of the very tools by which you
have arrived at this conclusion - the same criticism you charged me with (or
was that someone else? I forget...).
> *** Sorry. I was not trying to criticise anyone. The illusion theory seems
> ridiculous to you because you are not realised. what advaita says is
> IF one is self-realised, everything is an illusion for Him. The aim of
> every human being(since he is endowed with the precious gift of THINKING or
> the intellect) should be to attain that state. There are different ways of
> achieving this.
> eg: Through Bhakti or love.
> Through Karma or work.
> Through knowledge or intellect.
But that is not what Lord Krishna says. What He clearly says in the Gita is:
naaham vedair na tapasaa
na daanena na cejyayaa
s'akya evam-vidho drashtum
drishtavaan asi maam yathaa
bhaktyaa tv ananyayaa s'akya
aham evam-vidho 'rjuna
jnyaatum drashtum ca tattvena
praveshtum ca parantapa
which indicates that only by undivided devotional service. He specifically
states that it cannot be done by simply study of the Vedas (knowledge or
intellect) or by simply penances, charity, worship, etc (karma).
Later, in 12th chapter, Krishna only recommends the other yoga systems if
the devotee is unable to pursue bhakti. Therein it is quite clear that the
other yoga systems are meant to bring one to the platform of bhakti.
>>> I have one very straight forward question. Valmiki is supposed to be
>>> the author of Ramayana and is supposed to be a great man. What was
>>> his Parampara?
>>
>>Krishna - Brahmaa - Naarada - Valmiiki.
> ** I was really unaware of this. thanks for the clarification.
> But Krishna was born in the Dwaaparyuga and Valmiki I thought belonged
> to the Tretayuga. So how can one born before somebody belong to the
> parampara of someone who is born later. Please correct me if I am wrong??
This is actually a very basic teaching. Krishna was not "born" at a
particular time. He exists eternally, although he appeared in Dvaapura yuga
for the purpose of pleasing His devotees and destroying the miscreants.
Krishna is eternally existing in the spiritual realm, and this fact is
constantly being hammered on us in the Gita itself.
> ** Basically it doesnt depend on who you worship as long as you are REALLY
> worshipping!! In fact it is not necessary to `worship' in the literal
That is not the message of the Mahaabhaarata, as understood from the fact
that the Gita itself (which comes from the Mahaabhaarata) says otherwise:
antavat tu phalam teshaam
tad bhavaty alpa-medhasaam
devaan deva-yajo yaanti
mad-bhaktaa yaanti maam api (7.23)
"Men of small intelligence (alpa-medhasaam) worship the demigods
(deva-yajaha), and their fruits are limited and temporary (antavat). Those
who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees
(mad-bhaktaa) ultimately reach My spureme planet (yaanti maam - literally
"go to Me").
> sense of the word as is illustrated by parable of Vyadha. BTW you didnt
> answer my question. What was the paramapara of the Vyadha??
I don't know his paramparaa. However, I frankly think you have
misrepresented the story, as demonstrated by the evidence given above. As I
recall, the whole purpose of that story was to demonstrate the importance of
duty to the braahmin. However, since neither of us has heard this from a
qualified guru, it is best not to speculate.
>>There is a relationship. Mundane sex desire is materialistic. Therefore,
>>according to advaita philosophy, one should remain celibate, and thus refrain
>>from indulging in things which are illusion.
> ** I am trying not to be rude here. Please refer to the english dictionary.
> I said there is no if then relationship. that is if you are materialistic
> you are non-celibate doesnt follow
On the contrary, it does follow. Materialism simply means lording it over
material nature, and for young people (and many old people) that means
looking for sex. Because of lust, people avoid religion. And also because of
lust, those who want to be religious make up all kinds of whacky
interpretations that remove any sense of responsibility they might have to
God. The natural conclusion of Sankaraachaarya's philosophy is that one
would have to renounce sex desire all together; so no one who hankers after
it (even in the context of marriage) can honestly call himself an advaitist.
>>
>>Well, I have always been taught that genuine religion teaches one to know and
>>love the Personality of Godhead, and to desire only to serve Him eternally.
> ** This is the opinion of the person that has taught you and you have
accepted
Actually it is the opinion of the Bhagavad-Gita.
brahma-bhuuta prasantaama
na socati na kankshati
samaha sarveshu bhuteshu
mad-bhaktim labhate paraam
> ** A problem to finish off. A tiger cub is feeling hungry and its mother
> wants to feed it. So it kills a cow who's calf is also hungry to feed its
> cub. What do you think is the tiger doing?? Dharma or Adharma??
> Please think about this.
Humans are not tigers. Humans are presumable advanced enough to do more than
the basic animal necessities - namely eating, sleeping, defending, and
mating. Humans are advanced enough to find civilized alternatives. Please
think about this.
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote (in a separate thread, by anyway it's all
one):
>Thanks for the clarification Bon Giovanni. I also saw the post by Dr Jai
Maharaj
>giving some more details about this issue. The point ofcourse is that many of
>the details given in various puraaNas (even the uhmm, saatvic ones) about the
>distances to the moon, size of the earth etc are grossly wrong. Of course if
>one realizes that these are just artha vada and not meant for extended debate,
>then grossly silly assertions like "astronauts never went to the moon" wouldn't
>be made.
Actually, this point is very explicitly discussed in Dr. Richard Thompson's
_Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy_. As I recall, the conclusion he arrived at
after studying all of Srila Prabhupada's statements on this matter was that
Prabhupada was referring to Chandraloka whenever he said "moon," which makes
sense since Srila Prabhupada thought in Vedic terms. The rest of us by
contrast think of a lifeless rock in space when we hear the word "moon." The
difference between the two? One theory I have heard is that the former is
indeed further away than the latter. But I believe the conclusion Dr.
Thompson arrived at was that they are indeed the same, but the distance
given in scripture refers to the amount of pious merit one must accrue in
order to be reborn there. An irreligious person whose senses are impure will
not be able to see the civilization which scripture says is there. As I
recall, this interpretation was not made whimsically, but was supported by
other scriptural evidence wherein distances are very clearly given as a
measure of how much piety one must have.
In any case, it has been some time since I read this book, and the details
in my mind are quite sketchy. It certainly would be worthwhile to check it
out rather than risk misrepresenting Srila Prabhupada's position.
- K
M Suresh
--- Article to be posted follows ---
In the previous article I had referred to a christian
page which has criticised the Mayavaada philosophy.
I would like to add that since the article is somewhat
long you can get to the paragraph containing the criticism
by doing a search on the word "Maya" or go to the last
few paragraphs.
The page is at :
regards,
Suresh.
Prasad S Sista
Santosh Kumar wrote:
>: As I
>: >understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
>:
>: But a dream is not real.
>
>The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the
>dream you never questioned its authenticity. Same is the
Not really. I question the authenticity of my dreams all the time...
****** Do you question the authenticity of your dreams in your dream
or after waking up?? This is the million dollar question!
But if the world we experience around us, with all its qualities and
variegatedness is false, that still presupposes that such a world actually
exists *somewhere*.
**** The world is not false. The different manifestations of the
Self or the One that we perceive are due to the fact that we are
not liberated from our senses, mind and intellect. As long as you are
not liberated(analogy to dream here is 'as long as you are dreaming')
your senses, mind and intellect tell you that this is what is there
and is the absolute truth. But once you have REALISED(wake up),
you realise that what WAS different IS one and the same(what you
thought was REAL is only a dream after you wake up)
No! I'm sorry, but neither Ramakrishna nor Swami Vivekananda are truly
representatives of Advaita. If you want to learn Advaita, you should read
the works of Sri Sankaraachaarya and those of his followers in paramparaa.
Since Sri Sankaraachaarya is the original exponent of advaita in this age,
the only persons who can honestly claim to be advaitists are those who
received teachings from him in disciplic succession.
*** I disagree with you here. How does it matter whether I follow
Sri Ramakrishna/Vivekananda or Shankaracharya??
It is like saying that I am not stating
E = m * c*c (mass energy equivalence proposed by
Einstein) correctly unless I am his disciple and have got knowledge
from him in disciplic succession!! the equation remains the same
whether I read it from Einstein's own treatise or from any other book.
I really dont understand the rationale behind this kind of arugument.
Also advaita is so logical and precise in its approach that it is
just like an exact science(this is my personal opinion). So it doesnt
matter who says it. The theory is the same.
Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and other swamis in that class are influenced by
advaita, but their philosphies are quite clearly a result of time and
circumstance. Most of these people have, as their primary motivation, the
desire to water down Vedic philosophy and present it in a form that is
palatable to Western sensibilities. Then too there is their motivation (not
necessarily bad) to liberate India from Western political and cultural
influence. Unfortunately, the philosophy they put forward becomes a mix of
advaita, nationalism, and philosophical revisionism rather than a sincere,
spiritual treatise.
**** This again is an opinion. I will really give more weightage
to what you say if you can sincerely tell me how many of Sri Ramakrishna's
or Vivekananda's books you have read. I am saying this because
you have categorised their works here and not what I have written:-)
Wrong. Advaitins have to base their philosophy on Sankaraachaarya, or else
they are not advaitins. If Sankaraachaarya does not accept it, then it is
not advaita. And I am not aware of Sankaraachaarya conceding that a state
actually exists where "everything is different."
**** I dont know if Shankaraachaarya has stated this. But I wouldnt
expect him to since it is obvious. most of us are in this state. This is the
state in which we percieve things as they are that is different in
colour, shape, size and other characteristics.
Exactly. And I assert that what he wrote is not correct, according to
advaita philosophy.
*** If you say that that is the advaita then let me argue according
to YOUR advaita(though there is nothing like that). There is nothing
that is correct or wrong everything is the same. So what is correct
advaita and what is wrong advaita???
>>This is not a very scientific statement. Eitherthe world is real,or it is an
>>illusion.
*** By the way. You did not answer my question. Define god and
religion in scientific terms. Please say that you dont have an
answer if you dont have one because I have answers for these(scientific
answers sir, purely scientific!!!)
Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
is the same for everyone. So either the world is real, or it is not. No
points for trying to compromise just to be politically correct :)
**** Then why differences like guru and sishya and hierarchy in
the quality of devotion?? So by your argument, is dvaita an absolute
philosophy??
Advaita is absolute in the sense that the world is real for
people who have not REALISED that it is an ILLUSION.
>>So what is the truth? Is the world real, or an illusion?
>**** I am testing my patience myself. I will write it again. It depends on
>how you are perceiving the world. If you are perceiving it through your
>senses and intellect then everything is real and you see differences in form,
>attributes etc. But if you are able to transcend these then everything is ONE
>So I wish to say assuming that you have not transcended you senses and
>intellect, The world is REAL.
So, according to you, the Absolute Truth is that everything is ONE.
Therefore, only in the conditioned state do we see the world as REAL. That
means that the world is not actually REAL.
^^^^^^^^
***** What is this ACTUALLY?? Please clarify....
We are treading on very unsure ground when we say world is
ACTUALLY real and NOT ACTUALLY real and things like that.
Let me put it straight. If you attain self-realisation, world is ONE
if not it is different(in attributes like size, colour etc)
By actually, which actually do you mean. Actually after realisation
or actually before realisation, that is now!!
Actually world is one after realisation but now, actually, world is
as what you actually see!!!
In that case, you have negated the validity of the very tools by which you
have arrived at this conclusion - the same criticism you charged me with (or
was that someone else? I forget...).
** Question answered in the previous paragraph:-)
> *** Sorry. I was not trying to criticise anyone. The illusion theory seems
> ridiculous to you because you are not realised. what advaita says is
> IF one is self-realised, everything is an illusion for Him. The aim of
> every human being(since he is endowed with the precious gift of THINKING or
> the intellect) should be to attain that state. There are different ways of
> achieving this.
> eg: Through Bhakti or love.
> Through Karma or work.
> Through knowledge or intellect.
Later, in 12th chapter, Krishna only recommends the other yoga systems if
the devotee is unable to pursue bhakti. Therein it is quite clear that the
other yoga systems are meant to bring one to the platform of bhakti.
*** Here there seems so be a jump. If Krishna himself recommends
the other yoga systems, it means that they are CLEAR alternatives to
Bhakti. The Lord himself is saying that IF YOU CANT pursue, follow
this. Why would he state anything inferior??
The Vyadha's case(butcher's case) is a clear case of Karma yoga.
this has been stated in the Mahabharata(I dont have references since
I left my book back in India but I will be happy if anyone can
provide reference about the Vyadyageeta). If this is not authentic,
neither is the BhagavadGita. This parable is to illustrate the fact
that all paths are equal and none of them is INFERIOR or superior to
the other (which is the same as what advaita states)
> ** Basically it doesnt depend on who you worship as long as you are REALLY
> worshipping!! In fact it is not necessary to `worship' in the literal
"Men of small intelligence (alpa-medhasaam) worship the demigods
(deva-yajaha), and their fruits are limited and temporary (antavat). Those
who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees
(mad-bhaktaa) ultimately reach My spureme planet (yaanti maam - literally
"go to Me").
*** This may be correct. But please read my sentence carefully.
Who is worshipping in the first place?? Only if I worship(literally sit
and think about a diety) will the question of WHO I am worshipping
arise. WORK IS WORSHIP
> sense of the word as is illustrated by parable of Vyadha. BTW you didnt
> answer my question. What was the paramapara of the Vyadha??
I don't know his paramparaa. However, I frankly think you have
misrepresented the story, as demonstrated by the evidence given above. As I
recall, the whole purpose of that story was to demonstrate the importance of
duty to the braahmin. However, since neither of us has heard this from a
qualified guru, it is best not to speculate.
**** Yes. You have hit upon the right point here. It is to illustrate
the importance of duty. This story shows that a butcher who does his
duty sincerely is much better off than a brahmin who prays/worships god
for years(here the brahmin was not really unattached to the fruits of
his tapas) looking for some powers. A person who sincerely does his
duty is much better off than one who is not sincere in his bhakti
(which intuitively is correct also)
On the contrary, it does follow. Materialism simply means lording it over
material nature, and for young people (and many old people) that means
looking for sex. Because of lust, people avoid religion. And also because of
lust, those who want to be religious make up all kinds of whacky
interpretations that remove any sense of responsibility they might have to
God. The natural conclusion of Sankaraachaarya's philosophy is that one
would have to renounce sex desire all together; so no one who hankers after
it (even in the context of marriage) can honestly call himself an advaitist.
**** Advaita basically states that there are no two states and
there is only one(a-dvaita means not dvaita ie not two but one)
So it only is a means of describing the SELF. Hardly does it talk
about sex desire and all other things you have just now stated.
Also materialism means'a doctrine that the only or the
highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
furtherance of material progress'. I am quoting from the websters here.
so where does the meaning LOOKING FOR SEX come from. It comes only from
your assumptions and your obsessions.
> ** A problem to finish off. A child is feeling hungry and its mother
> wants to feed it (both are humans!). She doesnt have anything to give
the child and no money to buy anything for the child.
so she decides to steal(she is basically helpless and all other
avenues are closed). Feeding the kid is her DUTY since she is the
mother. But stealing is a sin according to 'MORALS'.
> What do you think the mother is doing?? Dharma or Adharma??
> Please think about this.
Humans are not tigers. Humans are presumable advanced enough to do more than
the basic animal necessities - namely eating, sleeping, defending, and
mating. Humans are advanced enough to find civilized alternatives. Please
think about this.
***** I have stated an extremely civilised(unique to human beings)
alternative. Please ponder over this...
Regards
Prasad S Sista
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subm.: s...@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-r...@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
------- end of forwarded message -------
Hari Krishna Susarla
First of all, I would like to point out that my initial objections were
actually directed to Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian. Since he proclaimed my
ignorance of advaita philosophy, I requested him to answer my questions and
clarify my doubts. Since he has been unable to do so, it seems that the fact
is that he is the ignorant one. This is pretty humorous considering that he
seemed so otherwise confident in his understanding of advaita vedanta.
In article <4jvm6v$s...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
psi...@ecn.purdue.edu(Prasad S Sista) wrote:
>>The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the
>>dream you never questioned its authenticity. Same is the
>
>Not really. I question the authenticity of my dreams all the time...
> ****** Do you question the authenticity of your dreams in your dream
> or after waking up?? This is the million dollar question!
Yes. I question the authenticity of my dreams, even when I am dreaming. Do I
get a million dollars now? :)
>But if the world we experience around us, with all its qualities and
>variegatedness is false, that still presupposes that such a world actually
>exists *somewhere*.
> **** The world is not false. The different manifestations of the
You are evading the question. The point is, we have a world around us with
qualities and variegatedness. Therefore, the source from which it came must
also have qualities and variegatedness. We conclude that the sun is hot
because the sunrays which we perceive are also hot. So similarly, we must
conclude that the Absolute Truth, which is the source of everything, must have
qualities because this world (whether it is real or not) has qualities.
>No! I'm sorry, but neither Ramakrishna nor Swami Vivekananda are truly
>representatives of Advaita. If you want to learn Advaita, you should read
>the works of Sri Sankaraachaarya and those of his followers in paramparaa.
>Since Sri Sankaraachaarya is the original exponent of advaita in this age,
>the only persons who can honestly claim to be advaitists are those who
>received teachings from him in disciplic succession.
> *** I disagree with you here. How does it matter whether I follow
> Sri Ramakrishna/Vivekananda or Shankaracharya??
For example, if I want to teach medicine, I have to have a degree in medicine.
That degree is more than just a piece of paper; it is a certification of my
abilities and knowledge by persons who have themselves been similarly
certified. Although I don't need a degree to know some things about the
medical sciences, in order to become an authority on medicine I must be
trained by other authorities.
So, while Vivekananda and others have some ideas that are in line with advaita
philosophy, the fact of the matter is that they are not authorities on advaita
because they are apasampradaayi. Therefore, whatever they say about advaita
has to be taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by an authority on
advaita.
>Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and other swamis in that class are influenced by
>advaita, but their philosphies are quite clearly a result of time and
>circumstance. Most of these people have, as their primary motivation, the
>desire to water down Vedic philosophy and present it in a form that is
>palatable to Western sensibilities. Then too there is their motivation (not
>necessarily bad) to liberate India from Western political and cultural
>influence. Unfortunately, the philosophy they put forward becomes a mix of
>advaita, nationalism, and philosophical revisionism rather than a sincere,
>spiritual treatise.
> **** This again is an opinion. I will really give more weightage
> to what you say if you can sincerely tell me how many of Sri Ramakrishna's
> or Vivekananda's books you have read. I am saying this because
> you have categorised their works here and not what I have written:-)
I have "Thoughts of Power," "Karma Yoga," and "Chicago Addresses" all by Swami
Vivekananda.
>Exactly. And I assert that what he wrote is not correct, according to
>advaita philosophy.
> *** If you say that that is the advaita then let me argue according
> to YOUR advaita(though there is nothing like that). There is nothing
> that is correct or wrong everything is the same. So what is correct
> advaita and what is wrong advaita???
You seem to be kind of confused here. I never said that "there is nothing that
is correct or wrong everything is the same." Rather, I criticized other Hindus
for having that belief. It is NOT my belief, nor is it the belief of real
advaitins.
> *** By the way. You did not answer my question. Define god and
> religion in scientific terms. Please say that you dont have an
> answer if you dont have one because I have answers for these(scientific
> answers sir, purely scientific!!!)
I could answer by citing Bhagavad-Gita, which is the Supreme science spoken by
the Lord Himself. But, I am guessing that you probably won't care for it.
>Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
>is the same for everyone. So either the world is real, or it is not. No
>points for trying to compromise just to be politically correct :)
> **** Then why differences like guru and sishya
Because one person is ignorant of the Absolute Truth and must seek instruction
from another person who does.
and hierarchy in
> the quality of devotion??
I never said that there was a "hierarchy in the quality" of devotion.
So by your argument, is dvaita an absolute
> philosophy??
I am not a dvaitist, but yes, I would argue that dvaita is a lot closer to the
actual understanding of the Absolute Truth than advaita.
> Advaita is absolute in the sense that the world is real for
> people who have not REALISED that it is an ILLUSION.
So, what you are saying now is that the world is ultimately an illusion.
Presumably, the perception by REALISED persons would be correct, from an
Absolute standpoint. Therefore, the world is illusion, and so too are tools
and means by which we can realize this.
Of course, this still does not answer any of my original questions. If the
world is illusion, where does that illusion come from? Who is being put under
illusion? Why is this being done? If illusion is there, then the corresponding
reality is presupposed. So within this illusion there is individuality and
variegatedness, so there must be a similar case in the source of that
illusion.
>So, according to you, the Absolute Truth is that everything is ONE.
>Therefore, only in the conditioned state do we see the world as REAL. That
>means that the world is not actually REAL.
> ^^^^^^^^
> ***** What is this ACTUALLY?? Please clarify....
A person who is really interested in the Absolute Truth generally does not
need to clarify such words. The reason you don't like this word "actually" is
because it requires you to make a statement of fact, but you are unable to do
that without qualifying it. This is indeed telling.
>> the intellect) should be to attain that state. There are different ways
of
>> achieving this.
>> eg: Through Bhakti or love.
>> Through Karma or work.
>> Through knowledge or intellect.
First of all, I noticed you excised the verse from Bhagavad-Gita which clearly
contradicts this. So, I will post it again:
bhaktyaa tv ananyayaa s'akya
aham evam-vidho 'rjuna
jnaatum drashtum ca tattvena
praveshtum ca parantapa
"My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I
am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can
you enter into the mysteries of My understanding." (11.54)
Krishna says this after rejecting the methods of karma and jnaana.
>Later, in 12th chapter, Krishna only recommends the other yoga systems if
>the devotee is unable to pursue bhakti. Therein it is quite clear that the
>other yoga systems are meant to bring one to the platform of bhakti.
> *** Here there seems so be a jump. If Krishna himself recommends
> the other yoga systems, it means that they are CLEAR alternatives to
> Bhakti. The Lord himself is saying that IF YOU CANT pursue, follow
> this. Why would he state anything inferior??
Because other yoga systems are meant to bring one to the platform of bhakti
yoga. See the above verse. Only by bhakti can one understand the Absolute
Truth.
> The Vyadha's case(butcher's case) is a clear case of Karma yoga.
I only have your word for that, so pardon me if i take it with a grain of
salt.
> this has been stated in the Mahabharata(I dont have references since
> I left my book back in India but I will be happy if anyone can
> provide reference about the Vyadyageeta). If this is not authentic,
> neither is the BhagavadGita. This parable is to illustrate the fact
> that all paths are equal and none of them is INFERIOR or superior to
> the other (which is the same as what advaita states)
WRONG. That is not what the story was meant to illustrate. It is NOT what the
Mahabharata says, because the Bhagavad-Gita clearly says otherwise. That story
in the Mahaabhaarata, as I remember it, was meant to teach the importance of
duty. It had NOTHING to do with illustrating "the fact that all paths are
equal and none of them is INFERIOR or superior..." The brahmin had falsely
renounced his duty of caring for his parents (false renunciation is condemned
in the Bhagavad-Gita), and learned of its importance from the wretched
buthcher, who, sinful though he was, at least understood the importance of
following his family duties.
> > ** Basically it doesnt depend on who you worship as long as you are
REALLY
>> worshipping!! In fact it is not necessary to `worship' in the literal
>
>"Men of small intelligence (alpa-medhasaam) worship the demigods
>(deva-yajaha), and their fruits are limited and temporary (antavat). Those
>who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees
>(mad-bhaktaa) ultimately reach My spureme planet (yaanti maam - literally
>"go to Me").
> *** This may be correct.
It is correct. It comes from scripture after all.
But please read my sentence carefully.
> Who is worshipping in the first place?? Only if I worship(literally sit
> and think about a diety) will the question of WHO I am worshipping
> arise.
This makes no sense. You are trying to imply that one can worship any god, but
the Bhagavad-gita clearly says that worship of other gods is without proper
understanding. Therefore, if you worship, you must worship Lord Krishna if you
are to be considered to be in proper knowledge. That is the teaching of
Bhagavad-Gita.
>WORK IS WORSHIP
If so, then we must conclude that the ass (note: I am referring to the animal,
not a part of the anatomy) is the best of all devotees, because no one works
harder than the poor ass who works all day pulling his master's cart.
If I work hard for my own sense gratification, does it mean I am worshiping?
What kind of philosophy is that?
What the Bhagavad-Gita says is that one must work to please Lord Krishna. That
kind of work is karma-yoga. Not simply working to earn money to please your
own senses.
This "WORK IS WORSHIP" idea is not an advaitist teaching. It is a Vivekananda
teaching. It is because of sentiments like this that I say that advaitists
should learn philosophy from Sankaraachaarya's line, and not from others who
happen to be very popular.
>
>> sense of the word as is illustrated by parable of Vyadha. BTW you didnt
>> answer my question. What was the paramapara of the Vyadha??
>
> **** Yes. You have hit upon the right point here. It is to illustrate
> the importance of duty. This story shows that a butcher who does his
> duty sincerely is much better off than a brahmin who prays/worships god
> for years(here the brahmin was not really unattached to the fruits of
> his tapas) looking for some powers. A person who sincerely does his
> duty is much better off than one who is not sincere in his bhakti
> (which intuitively is correct also)
This is all likely a misinterpretation. First of all, from what I remember of
that story, the brahmin was NOT a bhakta. He was performing austerities, yes,
but that is not necessarily the same as bhakti. As stated in the
Bhagavad-Gita, only by bhakti can one attain the Supreme. Other paths can only
lead you to bhakti-yoga. It is not the case that " A person who sincerely does
his duty is much better off than one who is not sincere in his bhakti..."
While a bhakta has to be sincere, what is stated in Bhagavad-Gita is:
yoginaam api sarveshaam
mad-gatenaantar-aatmanaa
s'raddhaavaan bhajate yo maam
sa me yuktatamo mataha
"And of all yogiis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks
of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me -- he is
the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the higest of all. That is
My opinion." (6.47)
Furthermore, bhakti which is improperly performed yields better results than
other yoga systems:
nehaabhikrama-naa'so 'sti
pratyavaayo na vidyate
sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya
traayate mahato bhayaat (2.40)
"In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on
this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear."
No such claims are made about other paths.
>On the contrary, it does follow. Materialism simply means lording it over
>material nature, and for young people (and many old people) that means
>looking for sex. Because of lust, people avoid religion. And also because of
>lust, those who want to be religious make up all kinds of whacky
>interpretations that remove any sense of responsibility they might have to
>God. The natural conclusion of Sankaraachaarya's philosophy is that one
>would have to renounce sex desire all together; so no one who hankers after
>it (even in the context of marriage) can honestly call himself an advaitist.
>
> **** Advaita basically states that there are no two states and
This after trying to convince me that there are two states?
> there is only one(a-dvaita means not dvaita ie not two but one)
> So it only is a means of describing the SELF. Hardly does it talk
> about sex desire and all other things you have just now stated.
On the contrary! Sankaraachaarya condemned attraction for women in the most
harshest of terms. He would have to, since married life is illusion. According
to his philosophy, one should remain celibate (to do otherwise is to indulge
in illusion) and simply meditate and study the Absolute Truth.
Of course, so-called advaitists whom I have met do not want to hear this,
because most of the time they are not serious about practicing advaita. If you
want to use advaita to get out of devotional service to Lord Krishna, then you
should go all the way and strive for celibacy. You can't have your cake and
eat it too.
> Also materialism means'a doctrine that the only or the
> highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
>furtherance of material progress'. I am quoting from the websters here.
> so where does the meaning LOOKING FOR SEX come from. It comes only from
> your assumptions and your obsessions.
My obsessions, eh? My how you are taking this personally! Nevertheless, it is
a fact that materialistic desires are a bigger source of motivation than most
people realize. I don't care to convince you of it, but It is pretty obvious
to me when I see people saying things like "WORK IS WORSHIP" and reading
kaama-sutra (a treatise on obtaining sense gratification) while claiming to be
advaitists.
Real advaita requires that one retreat from material life. Pursuing marriage,
family, career, and money is not compatible with advaita as I have understood
it. If these things are illusion from the Absolute perspective, then indulging
in them will not help a person become realized.
>Humans are not tigers. Humans are presumable advanced enough to do more than
>the basic animal necessities - namely eating, sleeping, defending, and
>mating. Humans are advanced enough to find civilized alternatives. Please
>think about this.
> ***** I have stated an extremely civilised(unique to human beings)
> alternative. Please ponder over this...
where?
Santhosh Kumar
: ignorance of advaita philosophy, I requested him to answer my questions and
: clarify my doubts. Since he has been unable to do so, it seems that the fact
: is that he is the ignorant one. This is pretty humorous considering that he
: seemed so otherwise confident in his understanding of advaita vedanta.
Could we restrain from personal allegations as our aim
is to learn from each other. If I know what Advaita is all
about, I would not have been spending time on this net to
discuss it in the way I am doing now. It may be better if we
accept that we know something about it, but our understanding
is incomplete.
:
: > *** By the way. You did not answer my question. Define god and
: > religion in scientific terms. Please say that you dont have an
: > answer if you dont have one because I have answers for these(scientific
: > answers sir, purely scientific!!!)
:
: I could answer by citing Bhagavad-Gita, which is the Supreme science spoken by
: the Lord Himself. But, I am guessing that you probably won't care for it.
If you like to quote Bhagavat Gita as the proof of the existence
of God b'se it was spoken by God, you are pre-supposing that God
exists. But, the question is how to prove that God exists?
:
: >Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
: >is the same for everyone. So either the world is real, or it is not. No
: >points for trying to compromise just to be politically correct :)
: > **** Then why differences like guru and sishya
Let us say you have 10 different pots made in 10 distinct
designs, but all are made of from the same heap of clay
by the same man. We know for sure that apparently
they look different, each pot has its own distinct appearence.
Now, the truth is that they are all clay, if you break them
to clay form, they all look alike, no difference at all, it
becomes nothing but clay, its root form, this is the
absolute truth, the pot is nothing but the clay itself,
but apparently they looked different, this you may call
it as transitory reality or illusion or relative world
or whatever you like.
: actual understanding of the Absolute Truth than advaita.
:
: > Advaita is absolute in the sense that the world is real for
: > people who have not REALISED that it is an ILLUSION.
:
: So, what you are saying now is that the world is ultimately an illusion.
: Presumably, the perception by REALISED persons would be correct, from an
: Absolute standpoint. Therefore, the world is illusion, and so too are tools
: and means by which we can realize this.
Please refer to the above example of clay and pot. If you wish
to call the existence of clay as pot as an illusion, you may
wish to classify this world as an illusion in that limited
sense.
:
: Of course, this still does not answer any of my original questions. If the
: world is illusion, where does that illusion come from? Who is being put under
: illusion? Why is this being done? If illusion is there, then the corresponding
There is no light in a room, it appears to be dark for you. Now,
your question is "Where does the darkness come from?" Then, if
I say, it was an illusion due to the lack of light, you may
then say, "No, I don't agree with you, the darkness existed,
because when I bring the light, it goes away. If it did not
exist, how can it go away?"
: >WORK IS WORSHIP
:
: If so, then we must conclude that the ass (note: I am referring to the animal,
: not a part of the anatomy) is the best of all devotees, because no one works
: harder than the poor ass who works all day pulling his master's cart.
:
: If I work hard for my own sense gratification, does it mean I am worshiping?
: What kind of philosophy is that?
:
: What the Bhagavad-Gita says is that one must work to please Lord Krishna. That
: kind of work is karma-yoga. Not simply working to earn money to please your
: own senses.
:
: This "WORK IS WORSHIP" idea is not an advaitist teaching. It is a Vivekananda
: teaching. It is because of sentiments like this that I say that advaitists
: should learn philosophy from Sankaraachaarya's line, and not from others who
: happen to be very popular.
:
Even working for sensory satisfaction
is superior to not working, because the society benefits
from your work, in that sense "Work is defenitely to be
worshipped", but remember that "it does not mean that it
is done as worship, only means that work is worship."
Regards,
Santhosh
Santhosh Kumar
: In keeping with the tradition of oneness, I am condensing all my responses
: to separate people in one article. Advaitins should be proud :)
:
: Santosh Kumar wrote:
:
: >: As I
: >: >understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
: >:
: >: But a dream is not real.
: >
: >The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the
: >dream you never questioned its authenticity. Same is the
:
: Not really. I question the authenticity of my dreams all the time...
I did not mean it as an impossibility, but something not
very usual. In the same way, it is possible to negate this
world using the higher consciousness while living in this
world, but very few could achieve this state.
. Also, as my
understanding on this subject goes, once an ordinary person
achieves Nirvikalpa Samadhi, he leaves the body in 21 days.
: >case with this world also. When you are in this world, you
: >perceive it as real.
:
: But if the world we experience around us, with all its qualities and
: variegatedness is false, that still presupposes that such a world actually
: exists *somewhere*.
:
Who said this world is NOT REAL, it is REAL. One can only say that
the present is REAL and the present for us is this world. If you are
convinced that this world is NOT REAL, the netters could benefit
a lot from your experience as regard to Advaita philosophy.
One can view this world as a transitory REALITY as someone
has rightly pointed out in an earlier posting, but not as
"a world actually exists *somewhere*", the world is here
itself, not somewhere else.
: I suggest you read books like "Gospel of Sri
: >Ramakrishna" and "Complete works of Swami Vivekananda"
: >to get a better understanding of Advaita. These books deal
:
: No! I'm sorry, but neither Ramakrishna nor Swami Vivekananda are truly
: representatives of Advaita. If you want to learn Advaita, you should read
: the works of Sri Sankaraachaarya and those of his followers in paramparaa.
: Since Sri Sankaraachaarya is the original exponent of advaita in this age,
: the only persons who can honestly claim to be advaitists are those who
: received teachings from him in disciplic succession.
:
: Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and other swamis in that class are influenced by
: advaita, but their philosphies are quite clearly a result of time and
: circumstance. Most of these people have, as their primary motivation, the
: desire to water down Vedic philosophy and present it in a form that is
: palatable to Western sensibilities. Then too there is their motivation (not
: necessarily bad) to liberate India from Western political and cultural
: influence. Unfortunately, the philosophy they put forward becomes a mix of
: advaita, nationalism, and philosophical revisionism rather than a sincere,
: spiritual treatise.
I am not an authority on Advaita to comment on your statements
above, but, what I can say is that for atleast some of us,
the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda
helped understand Advaita. If you can understand Sankaracharya's
teachings, you need not bother about the rest.
Regards,
Santhosh
Prasad S. Sista
Hari Krishna Susarla <susarla...@studentserver1.swmed.edu> wrote:
>
>First of all, I would like to point out that my initial objections were
>actually directed to Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian. Since he proclaimed my
>ignorance of advaita philosophy, I requested him to answer my questions and
>clarify my doubts. Since he has been unable to do so, it seems that the fact
>is that he is the ignorant one. This is pretty humorous considering that he
>seemed so otherwise confident in his understanding of advaita vedanta.
>
>In article <4jvm6v$s...@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> psi...@ecn.purdue.edu(Prasad S Sista) wrote:
>
>>>The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the
>>>dream you never questioned its authenticity. Same is the
>>
>>Not really. I question the authenticity of my dreams all the time...
>> ****** Do you question the authenticity of your dreams in your dream
>> or after waking up?? This is the million dollar question!
>
>Yes. I question the authenticity of my dreams, even when I am dreaming. Do I
>get a million dollars now? :)
YOU MAY QUESTION THE AUTHENTICITY OF IT THOUGH :-)))))))
>
>>But if the world we experience around us, with all its qualities and
>>variegatedness is false, that still presupposes that such a world actually
>>exists *somewhere*.
>> **** The world is not false. The different manifestations of the
>
>You are evading the question. The point is, we have a world around us with
>qualities and variegatedness. Therefore, the source from which it came must
>also have qualities and variegatedness. We conclude that the sun is hot
>also have qualities and variegatedness. We conclude that the sun is hot
>because the sunrays which we perceive are also hot. So similarly, we must
>conclude that the Absolute Truth, which is the source of everything, must hav
e
>qualities because this world (whether it is real or not) has qualities.
*** I have a small objection here. You said 'world around us has
variegatedness. So the source from which it came must have qualities
and variegatedness'. Let's say for example I consider the element
iron, the source for a knife. Is sharpness one of the properties of
IRON since it is also a property of the knife??? Doesnt this argument
sound absurd. How can iron by itself have sharpness as a property??
Only when it is made into a knife does it get this property. Similarly
So the argument that 'a source must have the same properties as the
things it generates' is wrong(as proved above). So when we talk about
God we are talking about something fundamental(like iron in the above
example). You can argue that iron also has some properties. But the
fundamental being we are talking about here doesnt.
>> *** I disagree with you here. How does it matter whether I follow
>> Sri Ramakrishna/Vivekananda or Shankaracharya??
>
>For example, if I want to teach medicine, I have to have a degree in medicine
.
>
>For example, if I want to teach medicine, I have to have a degree in medicine
.
> That degree is more than just a piece of paper; it is a certification of my
>abilities and knowledge by persons who have themselves been similarly
>certified. Although I don't need a degree to know some things about the
>medical sciences, in order to become an authority on medicine I must be
>trained by other authorities.
>
>So, while Vivekananda and others have some ideas that are in line with advait
a
>philosophy, the fact of the matter is that they are not authorities on advait
a
>because they are apasampradaayi. Therefore, whatever they say about advaita
>has to be taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by an authority on
>advaita.
You have conveniently deleted the E=m*c*c example I have given. No
problem. Yes you need a degree here. You are absolutely right. And the
degree for a guru is that he should be SELF REALISED. Please enlighten
me on this point. I want to know of someone who is not apasampradaayi
on advaita other than Shankara. Can you name someone??
>
>> to what you say if you can sincerely tell me how many of Sri Ramakrishna's
>> to what you say if you can sincerely tell me how many of Sri Ramakrishna's
>> or Vivekananda's books you have read. I am saying this because
>> you have categorised their works here and not what I have written:-)
>
>I have "Thoughts of Power," "Karma Yoga," and "Chicago Addresses" all by Swam
i
>Vivekananda.
You need to HAVE more books and READ them too if you want a better
>
>> *** By the way. You did not answer my question. Define god and
>> religion in scientific terms. Please say that you dont have an
>> answer if you dont have one because I have answers for these(scientific
>> answers sir, purely scientific!!!)
>
>I could answer by citing Bhagavad-Gita, which is the Supreme science spoken b
y
>the Lord Himself. But, I am guessing that you probably won't care for it.
Please do answer. The only thing is it should be SCIENTIFIC(this
was what you said about one of the statements('that statement is not VERY
SCIENTIFIC')
>
>>Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
>>Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
>>is the same for everyone. So either the world is real, or it is not. No
>>points for trying to compromise just to be politically correct :)
>> **** Then why differences like guru and sishya
>
>Because one person is ignorant of the Absolute Truth and must seek instructio
n
Thanks for providing the answer that I was going to write. This was
what I meant when I said there are two states. One ignorant and one
REALISED and free from ignorance. Beings who are ignorant cannot see the
absolute truth and have to be enlightened. So if you are ignorant, you
see the world as having different attributes. If you have understood the
>
> So by your argument, is dvaita an absolute
>> philosophy??
>
>I am not a dvaitist, but yes, I would argue that dvaita is a lot closer to th
e
>actual understanding of the Absolute Truth than advaita.
How do you know this?? Do you have an understanding of the Absolute
truth?? Then please enlighten me. Anyway do you belong to the parampara
of the acharyaas?? Otherwise I will have to take whatever you say with
truth?? Then please enlighten me. Anyway do you belong to the parampara
of the acharyaas?? Otherwise I will have to take whatever you say with
>
>> Advaita is absolute in the sense that the world is real for
>> people who have not REALISED that it is an ILLUSION.
>
>So, what you are saying now is that the world is ultimately an illusion.
>Presumably, the perception by REALISED persons would be correct, from an
>Absolute standpoint. Therefore, the world is illusion, and so too are tools
>and means by which we can realize this.
>
>Of course, this still does not answer any of my original questions. If the
>world is illusion, where does that illusion come from? Who is being put under
>illusion? Why is this being done? If illusion is there, then the correspondin
g
>reality is presupposed. So within this illusion there is individuality and
>variegatedness, so there must be a similar case in the source of that
>illusion.
The source argument has already been taken care of. Now coming to where
the illusion comes from . It comes from the ignorace of the beings.
Why it is being done. Well I sincerely say that I dont know why.
Why it is being done. Well I sincerely say that I dont know why.
>>So, according to you, the Absolute Truth is that everything is ONE.
>>Therefore, only in the conditioned state do we see the world as REAL. That
>>means that the world is not actually REAL.
>> ^^^^^^^^
>> ***** What is this ACTUALLY?? Please clarify....
>
>A person who is really interested in the Absolute Truth generally does not
>need to clarify such words. The reason you don't like this word "actually" is
>because it requires you to make a statement of fact, but you are unable to do
>that without qualifying it. This is indeed telling.
It is not that I like it or dont like it. I want to get a clear picture
of what you are saying. You are not conveying much by saying actually..
What exactly is actually here?? I clearly pointed out the two states
as realised and not realised. If one is not realised, he percieves the
world as objects with different attributes. If he is(as quoted by
realised souls) he will see the world as ONE.
>
>Krishna says this after rejecting the methods of karma and jnaana.
It is not the verse but the interpretation that contradicts my statement.
It is not the verse but the interpretation that contradicts my statement.
I will surely get back to this as soon as I can get a proper translation
of gita and find this verse. By the way I have read BG myself and have
never come across such an interpretation.
>> this has been stated in the Mahabharata(I dont have references since
>> I left my book back in India but I will be happy if anyone can
>> provide reference about the Vyadyageeta). If this is not authentic,
>> neither is the BhagavadGita. This parable is to illustrate the fact
>> that all paths are equal and none of them is INFERIOR or superior to
>> the other (which is the same as what advaita states)
>
I am not backing out of the vyadhageeta argument. Let me get a
proper translation of this and I will get right back to you on this.
>
>But please read my sentence carefully.
>> Who is worshipping in the first place?? Only if I worship(literally sit
>> and think about a diety) will the question of WHO I am worshipping
>> arise.
>
>This makes no sense. You are trying to imply that one can worship any god, bu
t
>This makes no sense. You are trying to imply that one can worship any god, bu
t
>the Bhagavad-gita clearly says that worship of other gods is without proper
>are to be considered to be in proper knowledge. That is the teaching of
I am again saying if you worship. I am not worshipping at all. then
>>WORK IS WORSHIP
>
>If so, then we must conclude that the ass (note: I am referring to the animal
,
>not a part of the anatomy) is the best of all devotees, because no one works
Yes. You have got it wrong here again. The ass is working because
it is being MADE to work by the master. It is afraid of his whip and
so it works. Leave it to itself and see if it voluntarily picks up a
cart(or atleast try to do it). I bet it wont. That is the difference sir.
If one is afraid of going to Planet of the faithless and worships because
he will go there otherwise then he is sure to end up there. It is
just for the sake of working that you have to work not because you are
afraid or because you see some fruits(or result) at the end of the road.
That is the essence of Karma Yoga.
>
>If I work hard for my own sense gratification, does it mean I am worshiping?
>What kind of philosophy is that?
>If I work hard for my own sense gratification, does it mean I am worshiping?
>What kind of philosophy is that?
Question answered above.
>
>What the Bhagavad-Gita says is that one must work to please Lord Krishna. Tha
t
>kind of work is karma-yoga. Not simply working to earn money to please your
>own senses.
Sorry. I would like a quote from BG about this. I would like to
know which part of BG you are interpreting like this.Thanks in advance.
>
>This "WORK IS WORSHIP" idea is not an advaitist teaching. It is a Vivekananda
>teaching. It is because of sentiments like this that I say that advaitists
>should learn philosophy from Sankaraachaarya's line, and not from others who
>happen to be very popular.
I dont have any sentiments about this and I want to make it clear that i
dont have.
>> (which intuitively is correct also)
>
>This is all likely a misinterpretation. First of all, from what I remember of
@
>This is all likely a misinterpretation. First of all, from what I remember of
>that story, the brahmin was NOT a bhakta. He was performing austerities, yes,
>but that is not necessarily the same as bhakti. As stated in the
>Bhagavad-Gita, only by bhakti can one attain the Supreme. Other paths can onl
y
>lead you to bhakti-yoga. It is not the case that " A person who sincerely doe
s
>his duty is much better off than one who is not sincere in his bhakti..."
>While a bhakta has to be sincere, what is stated in Bhagavad-Gita is:
>
>yoginaam api sarveshaam
> mad-gatenaantar-aatmanaa
>s'raddhaavaan bhajate yo maam
> sa me yuktatamo mataha
>
>"And of all yogiis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks
>of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me -- he i
s
>the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the higest of all. That is
>My opinion." (6.47)
>My opinion." (6.47)
Here giving up the fruits of work is surrendering to the lord.
Thinking only of your work and doing work for the sake of doing it
and nothing else is doing service to the lord. So now........
>
>Furthermore, bhakti which is improperly performed yields better results than
>other yoga systems:
>
>nehaabhikrama-naa'so 'sti
> pratyavaayo na vidyate
>sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya
> traayate mahato bhayaat (2.40)
>
>"In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on
>this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear."
The interpretation doesnt in any sense mean that IMPROERLY PERFORMED
bhakti yields BETTER results.... I dont know how you can infer these
things from that verse.
>>
>> **** Advaita basically states that there are no two states and
>
>
>This after trying to convince me that there are two states?
Sir. Please. This is really getting to my head. I meant the two
states here as the Bhakta and the God and not the ignorant and the
realised. Once the unrealised person realises, he is THE SAME AS GOD
and hence the word ADVAITA. But in DVAITA , the BHAKTA can never BECOME
one with god.(please tell me if I am wrong here)
>
>> there is only one(a-dvaita means not dvaita ie not two but one)
>> So it only is a means of describing the SELF. Hardly does it talk
>> about sex desire and all other things you have just now stated.
>
>On the contrary! Sankaraachaarya condemned attraction for women in the most
>harshest of terms. He would have to, since married life is illusion. Accordin
g
>to his philosophy, one should remain celibate (to do otherwise is to indulge
>in illusion) and simply meditate and study the Absolute Truth.
Plese quote from one of Shankara's works and I will accept it with a
grain of salt:-)
>Of course, so-called advaitists whom I have met do not want to hear this,
@
Of course, so-called advaitists whom I have met do not want to hear this,
>because most of the time they are not serious about practicing advaita. If yo
u
No comments on this. You are making sweeping statements here.
>
>> Also materialism means'a doctrine that the only or the
>> highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
>>furtherance of material progress'. I am quoting from the websters here.
>> so where does the meaning LOOKING FOR SEX come from. It comes only from
>> your assumptions and your obsessions.
>
>My obsessions, eh? My how you are taking this personally! Nevertheless, it is
>a fact that materialistic desires are a bigger source of motivation than most
>people realize. I don't care to convince you of it, but It is pretty obvious
>to me when I see people saying things like "WORK IS WORSHIP" and reading
>kaama-sutra (a treatise on obtaining sense gratification) while claiming to b
e
>advaitists.
>
>
>Real advaita requires that one retreat from material life. Pursuing marriage,
>family, career, and money is not compatible with advaita as I have understood
>it. If these things are illusion from the Absolute perspective, then indulgin
g
>in them will not help a person become realized.
If you have understood it that way, you will have to reunderstand it since
this is not what it means.
Basically replace the tiger with a mother (human) who is helpless.
She is not educated neither does she know of any dvaita or
advaita(basically a very poor(in terms of money) and
uneducated person). She decides to steal to feed her hungry kid as this
is her only alternative(I mean that she can think of). Is she doing
adharma or dharma if she steals??
>> ***** I have stated an extremely civilised(unique to human beings)
>> alternative. Please ponder over this...
>
Regards
Prasad S Sista
Giri
>. Also, as my
>understanding on this subject goes, once an ordinary person
>achieves Nirvikalpa Samadhi, he leaves the body in 21 days.
Santhoshji :
Namaskaar. You remark that one who nirvikalpa samadhi drops their body
in 21 days. I have also heard this many times in India, my Guruji denies
any thing of this sort. Ramana Maharshi, in Talks with Ramana, talks
about kevala and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. The first is likened to
a bucket lowered into a water well with still the rope attached, while
sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi is like the river water mixed in the sea.
Thus, the former is temporary while the latter is permanent.
Obviously He had attained both these states but does not die in 21 days :-)
In fact, in latter parts of the book 'Talks with Ramana', he refutes the
statement that one would die in 21 days.
I would be interested if you had some references (shruti and/or
smriti) stating 21 days.
Thanks for your time,
Giri
Joan Sotkin
"'Trailanga Swami once said that because a man reasons he is conscious of
multiplicity, of variety. Attaining samadhi, one gives up the body in twenty-one
days. . . '" (Ramakrishna was talking to his devotees.)
MC1
I believe this whole line of discussion is mislabeled. Sankara's advaita
vedanta is not concerned with samadhi - enlightenment is a "result" of
knowledge based on the sruti alone. Both Sankara and Suresvara are quite
clear on this point. Please see "Accomplishing the Accomplished" by
Anantanand Rambachan for a full exposition on this issue.
Modern scholarship labels many popular current and near current schools
and teachings as neo-vedanta because of misinterpreted, misguided
information such as seeking samadhi through the darshana of advaita.
please cc response to: M...@aol.com
--
------------------------------------------------------
Mail your posts to: gh...@netcom.com