 |
Arya Samaj
|
Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:30 am Post subject: Swamiji and Advaita |
 |
|
Swamiji and Advaita
I thought it would be a good idea to examine Swamiji's position on Advaita Vedanta, seeing as how it is one of the most popular and well-known schools of spiritual philosophy today.
The following is an excerpt from the Satyarth Prakash dealing with the views of Advaita in general and Neo-Vedanta in particular. I have added basic headings to each of the subsections to aid in comprehension as well as a few short explanatory notes.
Statement of the Neo-Vedantist Position
In order to provide the reader with sufficient information in order to understand the following discussion, Swamiji first allows the Neo-Vedantist to make a brief presentation of the fundamental tenet of his philosophy.
| Quote: | | Neo-Vedantist: The world is unreal like things seen in a dream; or like a piece of rope mistaken for a snake; or like a sea-shell seen glittering in the sunshine mistaken for a piece of silver; or like a mirage mistaken for water; or like a town of angels; or like a juggler's trick. God (Brahman) alone is real. |
Here, the Neo-Vedantist is recounting several classic examples used to support the central claim of Advaita philosophy, i.e. that the world is illusionary and that God alone is real. Many of the listed examples were used by Adi Shankara in his written works with great success in his fight against the Jains and Buddhists. All of the examples listed drive towards illuminating a single observation: the mind is capable of superimposing the idea of one thing onto the appearance of another. Thus, in bad light, we may see what is in reality a piece of rope and mistake it for a snake and subsequently be gripped by fear. It is the contention of the Neo-Vedantist that the same kind of relationship exists between the world as we perceive it and Brahman, the Absolute Reality. Thus, just as the snake was illusionary and unreal, so, too, is the world we perceive just an illusion rooted in ignorance.
Clarification of Terms
Before beginning his counter-argumentation, Swamiji request that the Neo-Vedantist clarify the terms used in the establishment of his position.
| Quote: | Swamiji: What do you call ‘unreal’?
Neo-Vedantist: What does not exist and yet appears to do so.
Swamiji: How can a thing appear to exist when it does not exist at all?
Neo-Vedantist: By adhyaaropa.
Swamiji: What do you mean by adhyaaropa?
Neo-Vedantist: Adhyaaropa or adhyaasa consists in believing a thing to be different from what it really is. The refutation of a wrong belief is called apavaada. By means of these two this phenomenal world can be taken to exist in Brahma, Who is Himself unchanging. |
The Neo-Vedantist has introduced the concept of adhyaaropa or ‘superimposition’. This is also called adhyaasa or ‘improper addition’ due to something being added to the perception which, in fact, is not there to begin with. In our earlier example, this would be the idea of ‘snake’ when, in fact, all that was actually seen was a long, slender, half-coiled object lying on the ground. It is our mind that has ‘improperly added’ the idea of ‘snake’ to the actual perception.
Preliminary Refutation of the Neo-Vedantist Position
Now Swamiji begins to show the fallacy inherent in the argument of the Neo-Vedantist. He does so by presenting the Neo-Vedantist with the logical conclusion of the position he has taken in regards to the reality of the world.
| Quote: | Swamiji: You have fallen into a mistake by believing a piece of rope to be real while believing a snake to be unreal. Is not a snake also real?
If you say that it does not exist in a piece of rope we ask: "Does it not exist in some other place?” or, “Does its idea not exist in our consciousness?" If it does, a snake, then, is not ‘unreal’. In the same way, the other illustrations, such as that of a mollusc-shell being mistaken for a piece of silver, can be shown to be wrong. Similarly, things seen in dreams also exist somewhere in the world. Their ideas exist in our consciousness, hence it cannot be said of them that they exist by adhyaaropa i.e., by erroneously attributing the properties of one thing to another. |
Here Swamiji shows that the notion of adhyaaropa does not warrant the conclusion that the world is unreal, as the Neo-Vedantist would have us believe. He agrees that adhyaaropa is an actual phenomenon. Yet he demonstrates that the idea being imposed during adhyaaropa (in our example, that of ‘snake’) cannot itself be unreal. Otherwise it would never have come into the mind of the perceiver. It is only because the perceiver is aware of the idea ‘snake’ that he is capable of attributing it to a piece of rope, though falsely.
The two questions that Swamiji poses are aimed at two different levels at which the direct object of adhyaaropa (in our example, ‘snake’) can exist. In other words, there are two reasons why the Neo-Vedantist use of the notion of adhyaaropa is incorrect. First, though we see a piece of rope and mistake it for a snake, this is not the only occurrence of ‘snake’ in our experience. The other occurrence is when we actually perceive a snake. Due to the fact that ‘snake’ can be used to correctly identify something which exists, the case of adhyaaropa, where a rope is mistaken for a snake, fails to prove the non-existence of snakes in general. Second, even if there were no object which the idea ‘snake’ could correctly identify, the fact remains that the idea itself exists within our consciousness. This fact cannot be denied by the Neo-Vedantist, for to do so would be to undermine his own position and to make his use of the notion of adhyäropa self-contradictory.
This same line of argumentation can be used against all of the examples previously listed by the Neo-Vedantist, for, as we observed earlier, they all rest upon a common assumption. Effectively, therefore, Swamiji has shown that the position of the Neo-Vedantist, as far as it relies upon the notion of adhyaaropa, falls.
First Defence of the Neo-Vedantist Position
Is it not the case, however, that a man may conceive of a thing which has never been seen by him or anyone else? Swamiji allows the Neo-Vedantist to defend his position as follows:
| Quote: | | Neo-Vedantist: If this be true, how can one see a thing in a dream that was never seen or heard to exist in the waking state, such as a man’s head being cut off while he himself weeps, or a stream of water flowing uphill? |
The Neo-Vedantist is arguing for the mentally creative or imaginative faculty of man. No one has seen a river flowing up a hill. Such a thing is physically impossible. However, it is not improbable for a man to have dreamt this. Thus, argues the Neo-Vedantist, it is shown that a man may imagine or dream a thing which does not, in fact, exist.
Second Refutation of the Neo-Vedantist Position
Swamiji, however, is not convinced by such an argument:
| Quote: | Swamiji: Even this example does not support your contention, because the impression of a thing cannot exist in one's mind unless he has seen or heard of it. Furthermore, there can be no remembrance without mental impressions, and without remembrance there can be no direct consciousness of a thing. When a person hears from another that such and a such person's head was cut off on a field of battle and his father or brother or some other relation was seen to weep, or when a person sees water from a fountain jetting up, all these things make impressions on his mind. When he is no longer in his wakeful state and dreams in sleep of what he had seen or heard, since he sees all these things in himself, it can be understood how he comes to imagine that his own head is cut off and he himself weeps or that a stream of water flows upwards. This is not imagining a thing to exist which does not exist at all. It is more like sketching in which a sketcher embodies his idea of what he has seen or heard on paper; or like painting in which a painter, by forming a metal picture of his subject, paints it on canvas.
It is true that sometimes such things are seen in dreams as they exist in the memory. For instance, one may see one's teacher in a dream, while on other occasions one may recall things in a dream which had been seen or heard long beforehand and had completely passed out of one's active memory. In such cases one may mistake whether one sees or hears the same as one has seen or heard before in the waking state. However, things are not remembered so clearly in dreams as they are in the waking state.
Also, a person born blind can never dream of colours. Hence your use of the words adhyaaropa or adhyaasa is incorrect. And therefore the Neo-Vedantist theory of vivartavada (knowledge of illusion), used to describe the situation in which a person erroneously considers the universe to be real, while it is only illusory (Brahman alone being a real entity), just as one mistakes a piece of rope for a snake, is untrue. |
The Neo-Vedantist has argued that a man may have an impression of something which does not exist in order to defend his use of the notion of adhyaaropa. Swamiji, however, has shown that, though a man may have an original idea, such as in dreaming something which has never been seen by him before, that idea will necessarily be composed of elements of things which he has actually seen before. The point Swamiji is making is that knowledge – even supposedly false knowledge as that had through adhyaasa – must come from something based in reality which has been the object of perception. If the entire world were an illusion, a superimposition upon Brahman, as the Neo-Vedantist claims, then there would be no explanation as to origin of the notion ‘world’. Furthermore, if there were no world, then the process of adhyaaropa could never take place to begin with, for there would be nothing for which Brahman could be mistaken.
Second Defence of the Neo-Vedantist Position
In defence of his interpretation of adhyaaropa, the Neo-Vedantist attempts to clarify the cause of adhyaasa as follows:
| Quote: | | Neo-Vedantist: There can be no knowledge of an adhyaasa (a thing which is imposed) without knowledge of its adhiñöhäna (that upon which is imposed), for in the above instance had there been no rope, the idea of a snake being there would never have entered one's mind. As there is no snake in a piece of rope, nor ever was, not shall ever be, though in dim light a man may mistake a piece of rope for a snake and tremble with fear, when he sees it with the light of a good lamp his mistake is at once corrected and he ceases to fear. In like manner man erroneously conceives that this world exists in Brahman. With the light of knowledge, however, the illusion of the existence of the world comes to an end, and he finds that all is Brahman. |
Interrogation
Swamiji now goes about pinning down the Neo-Vedantist as to the ultimate cause of adhyaaropa.
| Quote: | Swamiji: Who is it that erroneously experiences this illusion of the world in Brahman?
Neo-Vedantist: The human soul.
Swamiji: Whence did the human soul originate?
Neo-Vedantist: Out of ignorance.
Swamiji: What is the origin of ignorance and where does it reside?
Neo-Vedantist: Ignorance is without beginning and resides in Brahman.
Swamiji: Was there ignorance of self or of something else in Brahman? And who was it that became ignorant?
Neo-Vedantist: There was chidaabhaasa (reflected consciousness).
Swamiji: What is the nature of this chidaabhaasa?
Neo-Vedantist: It is Brahman. Brahman becomes ignorant of Brahman. In other words, He forgets His own nature.
Swamiji: What is the cause of this forgetfulness?
Neo-Vedantist: Nescience.
Swamiji: Is nescience an attribute of an omnipresent, omniscient being or of one who possesses finite knowledge?
Neo-Vedantist: Of the latter.
Swamiji: Do you then believe in the existence of a second conscious entity besides the infinite, omniscient, conscious being? And where did the being possessed of finite knowledge you just spoke of come from? Of course, it would be alright if you were to believe in the existence of another beginningless, finite, conscious entity besides Brahman, but you do not, hence the objection.
Furthermore, were Brahman to become ignorant of self, this ignorance would spread throughout the whole of Brahman just a pain in one part of a man's body makes all other parts of his body helpless. Thus Brahman, if afflicted with ignorance or pain in one part, would feel Himself ignorant or afflicted with pain throughout His whole self. |
Swamiji has forced the Neo-Vedantist into a corner simply by presenting him with the logical conclusion of his own argument. The Neo-Vedantist has stated that ignorance is the cause of adhyaaropa. However, in order for his position regarding the non-dual nature of reality to stand, he must ultimately admit that Brahman is limited in knowledge and therefore not omniscient. Otherwise, the ignorance required for adhyaaropa could never arise. If, however, he fails to do this, the only avenue left open to him is to admit that something other than Brahman exists. And this would defeat his original position.
In what follows Swamiji allows the Neo-Vedantist four attempts at delivering a satisfactory rebuttal to the arguments brought forth against his position.
First Rebuttal of the Neo-Vedantist Position and Swamiji’s Reply
| Quote: | Neo-Vedantist: It (nescience) is an attribute of upaadhi (the limiting adjunct).
Swamiji: Is upaadhi possessed of consciousness or not? Is it real or otherwise?
Neo-Vedantist: It is indescribable. In other words, it can neither be said of it that it possesses consciousness nor that it is without it; neither that it is real nor that it is merely apparent.
Swamiji: This, then, is quite absurd. For on the one hand you say that its attribute is nescience, and on the other you hold that it can neither be said to be possessed of consciousness, nor devoid of it, neither real nor unreal. It seems to be comparable to a piece of gold adulterated with copper which can neither be said to be gold nor copper, but a mixture of both. |
Here, the Neo-Vedantist tries to find a way out of the situation by saying that ignorance inheres in upädhi and not in Brahman. However, Swamiji is quick to point out the impossible nature of such a suggestion, as something which neither possesses consciousness nor is devoid of it can never be afflicted by nescience.
Second Rebuttal of the Neo-Vedantist Position and Swamiji’s Reply
| Quote: | Neo-Vedantist: Just as the ether of the pot, the ether of a house, and the ether of a cloud appear to be distinct from the universal ether by virtue of being enclosed by the pot, the house and the cloud while in reality they are all identical with the universal ether, in like manner Brahman appears to the ignorant different in different persons and things by virtue of the intervention of maayaa, nescience, and antahkarana (the internal organ of thought) and also by being spoken of collectively and individually, while in reality He is one and the same in all. It is said in the Katha Upanishad, "Just as heat pervades objects of the various sizes and shapes, such as big and small, long, broad and round, and assumes the different forms of those objects, so does God pervades different antaùkaraëa an assumes their forms, but in reality He is distinct from them."
Swamiji: Even this assertion of yours is wrong. Just as you believe the pot, the house and the cloud, in the example cited by you, to be distinct from ether, why do you not in like manner believe the material world - both in its casual and present visible forms - and the soul to be distinct from the Supreme Spirit, and the latter distinct from the former (i.e., matter and the soul)? |
The Neo-Vedantist again seeks a way out, this time by saying that ignorance inheres in individuals, and that, in reality, all is Brahman. Swamiji shows that the example cited by the Neo-Vedantist actually contradicts his original claim that only Brahman exists. For, in order for Brahman to pervade all things in the same manner as ether, there must exist something which is pervaded. Thus, something other than Brahman must exist.
Third Rebuttal of the Neo-Vedantist Position and Swamiji’s Reply
| Quote: | Neo-Vedantist: Just as heat pervades all objects and thereby appears to assume various forms, so does the Supreme Spirit, by pervading the soul and matter, appear to the ignorant as one possessed of form, but in reality He is neither matter nor the soul. Again, when a thousand trays full of water are placed in the sun, a thousand different reflections of the sun are seen, but in reality the sun is one, and does not perish, move or spread when the trays get broken or their water moves or spreads, in the same manner Brahma is reflected in the antaùkaraëa - this reflection is called chidaabhaasa or the image of God.
The soul exists as a distinct entity only so long as the antahkarana lasts, but the moment the antahkaraha, having attained perfect knowledge ceases to exist, the soul attains the nature of Brahman, i.e. becomes God. But as long as the soul is ignorant of its true nature, which is Divine, and thinks that it is the chidaabhaasa that enjoys, feels pleasure or pain, commits sinful or virtuous deeds or is subject to birth and death, it cannot get freedom from the bondage of this world.
Swamiji: This illustration of yours is also no good. The sun has a form as do the trays and the water therein. Again, the sun is separate from the trays and the water therein and vice versa. These two facts alone make it possible for the sun to be reflected. Had all these been formless or had they not been separate from each other, there would have been no reflection of the sun. God is Formless and Omnipresent like ether. Nothing can be separate from Him, nor can God and the Universe be one and the same, as the relation between God and the world is that of one that pervades and one that is pervaded. In other words, when that which pervades and that which is pervaded are seen from the anvaya (conjunction) and vyatirekabhava (exclusion) points of view, they are united together and yet are always distinct from each other.
For, if they are one, the relation of that which pervades and that which is pervaded cannot exist. Yet, it is clearly said in the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad that this relation does exist between God and the world. Again there can be no reflection of God because it is impossible for a formless object to be reflected. As to your belief regarding Brahman that He becomes the soul through the intervention of antaùkaraëa, it is like a child's prattle, for the antahkarana is mutable, movable and separate, whilst Brahma is immutable and entire. Should you not believe Brahman and the soul to be different form each other, how would you answer the following objection?
The antahkarana being movable, the part of Brahman which it would occupy would become devoid of consciousness, whilst the part where it shifts from would become possessed of knowledge, just as an umbrella cuts off the sunshine wherever it is carried, ceases to intercept it where it has been shifted from, in like manner will the antahkarana by acting as an intercepting medium make Brahman at one moment ignorant and bound, and at the next wise and free. From the effect of the presence of an intervening medium like the antahkarana, and Brahman being indivisible the whole of Brahman will become ignorant, which can never be true as He is, ex-hypothesis, all-knowledge. Again, whatever Brahman, through the medium of a certain antahkarana, has been, say, at Mathura, the same cannot be re-called in Kashi (Benares) by Brahman, since He does not possess the same antahkarana, as what has been seen by one cannot be remembered by another. The chidaabhaasa that sees a thing a Mathura is not the same as that which lives a Benares, and the Brahman that illuminates the chidaabhaasa of Mathura is not the same that lives at Benares. If Brahman is the soul and not distinct from it, the soul ought to be omniscient.
If the reflection of Brahman be distinct, none should be able to recall what he has seen or hear in the past. If you say that one can remember because Brahman is one and the same, we answer that pain or ignorance in one part (of Brahman) should affect the whole of Brahman. Thus by such illustration you have represented the eternal, holy, all-wise, ever-free, indivisible Brahman as non-eternal, unholy, ignorant, and subject to bondage, and division. |
Again, Swamiji shows that the examples brought forth by the Neo-Vedantist actually undermine his position. In order for Brahman to be ‘reflected’, as the Neo-Vedantist argues, there must certainly be something other than Brahman. Furthermore, as Swamiji demonstrates, the position of the Neo-Vedantist incurs additional contradictions at every turn.
However, the real substance of this section resides in Swamiji’s presentation of the true nature of the relationship between God and the world. Swamiji states that God is all-pervasive like ether and yet is distinct from the world. The relationship is that between that which pervades and that which is pervaded.
Fourth Rebuttal of the Neo-Vedantist Position and Swamiji’s Reply
| Quote: | Neo-Vedantist: Even a formless object can be reflected, just as ether (sky) is reflected in a mirror or in water and looks blue or dull grey, in like manner Brahman casts His reflection in all antahkarana.
Swamiji: No one can see ether with his eyes, as it is altogether formless. How can a thing be reflected in a looking-glass or in water when it cannot even be seen. Only a thing that possesses some form can look blue or deep grey, but never a formless one.
Neo-Vedantist: What is then that looks bluish above and is reflected in a mirror?
Swamiji: It is the particles of dust and water that have gone up from the earth and of luminous matter. If there were not aqueous vapour above, where could the rain come from? Hence what looks like a tent and over-spreads us in reality a spherically-shaped mass of aqueous vapour. Just as fog, when looked at form a distance, appears thick and tent-like but gets thinner on approaching nearer, so does the watery vapour go up in the sky. |
Swamiji nails down the last of the core rebuttals of the Neo-Vedantist by showing the impossibility involved in supposing God reflects in the antaùkaraëa.
Summary
| Quote: | Neo-Vedantist: Are the then the illustrations relating to a coil of rope and a snake and to things seen in dreams and the like, which have been adduced above by us, beside the point?
Swamiji: No, it is your understanding that is to blame, and this has already been pointed out. Pray tell us who it is that first falls prey to ignorance?
Neo-Vedantist: Brahman.
Swamiji: Is Brahman omniscient or possessed of finite knowledge?
Neo-Vedantist: He is neither omniscient nor is He possessed of finite knowledge, because omniscience and its reverse can be predicated of him alone whose vision is barred by a limiting conjunct (upaadhi).
Swamiji: Who is it that becomes subject to the influence of upaadhi?
Neo-Vedantist: Brahman.
Swamiji: Then you actually claim that Brahman can be both omniscient and its reverse. Why did you then take exception to this statement? If you contend that upaadhi is something that has not reality in existence, with whom then did this false conception originate?
Neo-Vedantist: Is the soul identical with Brahman or not?
Swamiji: It is different from Brahman, for if it were the same as Brahman, no false conceptions could originate. He whose conception can be wrong can never be all-truth.
Neo-Vedantist: We recognize no distinction between right and wrong, and all human utterance is devoid of actuality.
Swamiji: If all that you believe and say is false, how can you provide reliable guidance?
Neo-Vedantist: We don't care whether we provide reliable guidance or not. Conceptions of right and wrong originate entirely with us and have no objective reality. It is the soul that is the witness and seat thereof.
Swamiji: If conceptions of right and wrong are purely subjective phenomena, you would be a thief and an honest man at one and the same time and, therefore, a very unsafe guide. For he alone is a trustworthy guide whose conceptions are correct, who speaks what is right and acts up to his convictions in accordance with what is right, and not one who is otherwise. With your statements being self-contradictory, you cannot be right.
Neo-Vedantist: Do you believe in the existence of the beginningless maayaa that resides in and conceals Brahman?
Swamiji: No, we do not, because you interpret maayaa as something which is not and yet appears to be. Only he whose mental vision is blurred will subscribe to this belief. It is impossible that a thing which does not exist at all should appear to exist, even as it is impossible to photograph the son of a barren woman. Besides, your view is opposed to the teachings of the Upanishads as is proved by the following passage of the Chhaandogya Upanishad, "(Do thou,) O dear son, (bear in mind) that the world had verily a material cause." |
Last Line of Defence: The Call to Authority
In a last-ditch effort to thwart the critique of Swamiji, the Neo-Vedantist throws up the argument of authority.
| Quote: | Neo-Vedantist: Would you refute the teachings of even scholars like Vasishtha, Shankara and Nischaldas who were possesses of greater learning than you are? To me it appears that Vasishtha, Shankara and Nischaldas could speak with greater authority.
Swamiji: Are you yourself a well-read man or not?
Neo-Vedantist: Yes, I have read a little.
Swamiji: Alright, then. Try and establish the truth of the doctrine promulgated by Vasishtha, Shankara and Nischaldas, and we will refute your arguments. He whose position is proved to be right will be regarded as the greater authority. If the position held by you in common with those teachers had been impregnable, you would have succeeded in confuting us in debate by producing the arguments advanced by them, and in that case your position would have been accepted as right. |
________________________________
Discussion is more than welcome!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Prabhat
Platinum Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 1189
Location: Holland, The Hague
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste,
i did not understeand everything, but this is a new kind of a sect, and they claim not everything you see is wright and wrong 
so..... if you see a rope, people mind think it is a snake, but...... i am getting confused man. crazy people.
_________________
Namaste,
Prabhat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is something I would have trouble replying to because the way I understand advaita is independent of any of sankara's works - I base my knowledge more upon introspection and the like. "Neo-vedantists" that swamiji speaks of were not really following sankara's works properly either - he said that realisation is the only way of attaining moksha; and that yogas are instruments of attaining this realisation. This was never properly understood by many pseudo-advaitins, even today and think that those who practice yoga will only attain material heavens of devaas' positions but never moksha.
The idea that world is an illusion - is one of the biggest misconceptions about advaita as well. What sankara says is that the world is real - but it is relatively real. One is to transcend beyond this to attain the absolute reality. Until then; it is still real. In yoga and samkhya sutras it says that those who gain the right knowledge can control the elements i.e., 'magic'. Sankara is known to have such 'powers' as well. My understanding is that one who attains the right realisation would also be capable of manifesting these powers. However all these canons say that the perfect yogis will never bother manifesting these powers - they instead consider them hindrance to realisation.
Anyway; here's all I got to support some of the notions:
Adhyaropa is perhaps the most difficult concept in advaita which I have partially comprehended but still have difficulty in any argument regarding it.
| Quote: | | Swamiji: You have fallen into a mistake by believing a piece of rope to be real while believing a snake to be unreal. Is not a snake also real? |
Not always - the object is first perceived as alive i.e,. an alive rope. The mind argues that this cannot be the case; so justifies by saying its a snake. In other words; the delusion is first perceived by the mind; which it then tries to reason out by association with another entity. If it cannot find the other entity of similiar properties; it will treat the entity as it is ie., an alive rope.
| Quote: | | If you say that it does not exist in a piece of rope we ask: "Does it not exist in some other place?” or, “Does its idea not exist in our consciousness?" If it does, a snake, then, is not ‘unreal’. |
The snake doesn't indeed exist - if i see a big clown doll, i might think its a real clown[i hate clowns...]. Now the clown i think of it to be; is definitely unreal. If i never knew of a clown; it would definitely have been perceived by me as a moving doll
| Quote: | | In the same way, the other illustrations, such as that of a mollusc-shell being mistaken for a piece of silver, can be shown to be wrong. Similarly, things seen in dreams also exist somewhere in the world. |
Boogie-man doesn't exist  Everything we see in dreams need not exist. We can apply the principle concept of samkhya here - that nothing in this world need be pre-existent, nor come into existence. It can be derived or evolved from another element; or the inherent nature of the perceiving entity.
| Quote: | | Their ideas exist in our consciousness, hence it cannot be said of them that they exist by adhyaaropa i.e., by erroneously attributing the properties of one thing to another. |
Ideas that exist in mind cannot be declared as real; because their existence is but temporary. The ideas are derived out of one element or the other; this is attributed to the avidya.
| Quote: | | He whose position is proved to be right will be regarded as the greater authority. |
This is ONE thing I can never agree to. Reason? So far we've always seen derived schools such as naiyayikas, samkhiyikas, vedaantins, etc.. refute the other in a cyclical order. If all of them are wrong, then one of them should tend towards the reality much more than other. Having been refuted by another; none of them approach towards the truth and are at the same level. Therefore the victor of an argument is based not on the philosophy itself but the proponents of their respective philosophies. Secondly; direct perception is many a times a difficult thing for a person to explain to the other who has not perceived it. Seniors ask me to describe how catherine zeta jones looks like and I struggle to do that. Trying to explain what the colour red is, to a colour-blind person. Advaita is supposed to be propounded only to grhastaas or sanyaasas; and adi sankara was one of the few exceptional cases..
I am yet to see a convincing argument to show that traitavaada is supported by nasadiya sukta and chandogya upanisad(though I have tried some reasoning out myself). Independent of the scriptures; certain concepts like reason for the system; moksha and some other such ideas are troublesome for me to understand without the idea of advaita.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Prabhat and PD,
| Prabhat wrote: | | ...this is a new kind of a sect... |
Well, Advaita is 'new' in Vedic terms, but rather old going by modern historical concepts. It's been around for at least 1000 years, if not longer. Advaita played a central role in the reestablishment of Vedic thought over unorthodox schools of thought like Buddhism and Jainism in India. Today, Advaita is the most well-known system of spiritual philosophy of Indian origin in the West.
| PD wrote: | | "Neo-vedantists" that swamiji speaks of were not really following sankara's works properly either... |
Swamiji was of the same opinion. Which is why he directed his argument at Neo-Vedantists and not at Shankara directly. It remained unclear to Swamiji whether Shankara proposed Advaita as the Absolute Truth or whether it was more a clever argument used to defeat Buddhists and Jains in order to bring them back to the Vedic fold. I see no clear way to determine this either way.
| PD wrote: | | The idea that world is an illusion - is one of the biggest misconceptions about advaita as well. |
Agreed. However, I have read a fair number of Shankara's works and, in my opinion, Swamiji has correctly and fairly represented the Advaita position.
| PD wrote: | | Adhyaropa is perhaps the most difficult concept in advaita which I have partially comprehended but still have difficulty in any argument regarding it. |
Adhyaaropa is the central pillar holding up the doctrine of Advaita. Without it, Advaita becomes impossible to defend. However, in and of itself, the concept shouldn't present any difficulty to a receptive mind. It is simply the notion that the human mind can (falsely) superimpose an idea onto a given perception.
In Shankara's classic example, a man sees a long, slender, half-coiled form on the side of the road in the moonlight. His first reaction is one of fear, for these attributes are known by him to apply to a snake. And as snakes represent danger, his fear is justified based on his understanding of what he has seen. However, says Shankara, the man's perception of the snake is a case of adhyaaropa - superimposition or false attribution. For, when the man returns with a lamp and an axe to kill the snake, he sees that it was, in fact, simply a piece of discarded rope.
What, asks Shankara, has happened to the snake the man saw? It has vanished, for it was merely a product of adhyaaropa, in other words, an illusion.
According to Shankara, this phenomenon is also responsible for man's perception of the manifold world, when, in reality, there is only the one Brahman, Absolute Reality. When man, guided by the light of wisdom, examines the world, the illusion that it is manifold simply vanishes, leaving him only with the knowledge of Brahman.
The important thing to realize here is that Shankara is not arguing that the actual object of adhyaaropa - the cause of our perceiving the manifold world - is illusory. (In the example, the rope was real.) It is only our superimposition of the notion of 'world' upon Brahman that is false or illusionary.
However, as Swamiji points out, there are several flaws in this argument.
To begin with, though the 'snake' was simply a product of adhyaaropa and thus illusionary in this instance, that does not mean that snakes in general do not exist. What Swamiji is arguing is this: In order for adhyaaropa to take place, man must have some concept which (roughly) corresponds to that which he actually perceives. However, as Advaita claims there is nothing but Brahman to begin with, whence should this falsely attributed concept arise? In other words, how can Advaita explain the possibility of adhyaaropa?
The immediate answer to this is adivya or 'ignorance'. Yet, as Swamiji demonstrates, this only entangles the position of Advaita even further. For the question remains: Whence this ignorance? And who should suffer from it? As there is only Brahman in the Advaita view, the answer must ultimatley and necessarily be: Brahman is the one suffering from ignorance. This, however, defeats the entire position of Advaita, for Brahman is necessarily unlimited, and ignorance is a form of limitation.
Thus, Advaita leads us into a contradicition which cannot be overcome without admitting the existence of something other than Brahman.
To respond to PD's comments:
| PD wrote: | | Quote: | | Swamiji: You have fallen into a mistake by believing a piece of rope to be real while believing a snake to be unreal. Is not a snake also real? |
Not always - the object is first perceived as alive i.e,. an alive rope. The mind argues that this cannot be the case; so justifies by saying its a snake. In other words; the delusion is first perceived by the mind; which it then tries to reason out by association with another entity. If it cannot find the other entity of similiar properties; it will treat the entity as it is ie., an alive rope. |
In the example, even as stated by Shankara, the quality of being alive is in no way perceived by the individual, i.e. there is nothing in the actual perception which justifies the assumption that that which is perceived is alive. The form alone is sufficient to bring about adhyaaropa.
| PD wrote: | | Quote: | | If you say that it does not exist in a piece of rope we ask: "Does it not exist in some other place?” or, “Does its idea not exist in our consciousness?" If it does, a snake, then, is not ‘unreal’. |
The snake doesn't indeed exist - if i see a big clown doll, i might think its a real clown [i hate clowns...]. Now the clown i think of it to be; is definitely unreal. If i never knew of a clown; it would definitely have been perceived by me as a moving doll |
The point Swamiji is making is that the idea of 'snake' must have come from somewhere, and not from the perception under examination. Furthermore, there are cases in which the term 'snake' is correctly applied. Also, when we perceive something for the first time, we necessarily compare it with things we have already perceived, perhaps taking parts of one thing and parts of another in order to form a composite representation in our minds. If this did not take place, we would not understand what it is that we are perceiving.
| PD wrote: | | Boogie-man doesn't exist. Everything we see in dreams need not exist. We can apply the principle concept of samkhya here - that nothing in this world need be pre-existent, nor come into existence. It can be derived or evolved from another element; or the inherent nature of the perceiving entity. |
You are actually restating Swamiji's position. He's not arguing that everything we see in dreams is real. What he's saying is that every mental representation is based upon some prior perception. Take a unicorn, for example. I have seen a horse. And I've seen horned animals. Therefore, when I imagine a unicorn I am not imagining something completely new, but instead combining elements of previous perceptions.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: post edited |
|
|
| Quote: | | Swamiji was of the same opinion. Which is why he directed his argument at Neo-Vedantists and not at Shankara directly. It remained unclear to Swamiji whether Shankara proposed Advaita as the Absolute Truth or whether it was more a clever argument used to defeat Buddhists and Jains in order to bring them back to the Vedic fold. I see no clear way to determine this either way. |
No, there is a difference between what I say and what swami dayananda says. According to swamiji, sankara concocted up the philosophy to refute jainas and bauddhas. This is not the real case - sankara learnt about advaita from his guru gaudapada; and we can safely assume he followed it himself because he was a krishna bhakta - why would he be one if he knew it is futile worship? The problem is that later on advaitic students lost the actual intention of sankara and believed advaita is limited unto his works. As you mentioned yourself - that people fail to make the distinction between dayananda the logician and dayananda the social reformer; same applies here IMO. In his works, he says that we are itself That. But in his works; he speaks of something different - that yogas are diseases of mind; worship limits us etc... Many of his students even today think that knowledge is sufficient to attain moksha; yogas are unnecessary and that one needn't follow vedas. This is neither the view of sankara nor the view of many modern gurus who say that such a notion is almost sin.
| Quote: | | Agreed. However, I have read a fair number of Shankara's works and, in my opinion, Swamiji has correctly and fairly represented the Advaita position. |
Yes I know you've read his works, but the reason I'm confused about this is because from what I read at vjsingh's site; they were pretty much talking about pseudo-advaita i.e., acosmism [advaita is absolute monism and there is a thin but significant difference in the two].
| Quote: | | Adhyaaropa is the central pillar holding up the doctrine of Advaita. Without it, Advaita becomes impossible to defend. However, in and of itself, the concept shouldn't present any difficulty to a receptive mind. It is simply the notion that the human mind can (falsely) superimpose an idea onto a given perception. |
Yes, I'm aware its the fundamental concept in kevala advaita. The reason I say its hard to comprehend is because the argument put out by swamiji was something we can safely assume to have been used by jainas and bauddhas as well; its a argument of a basic level of logic [IMO]
| Quote: | | In Shankara's classic example, a man sees a long, slender, half-coiled form on the side of the road in the moonlight. His first reaction is one of fear, for these attributes are known by him to apply to a snake. |
Fear doesn't arise in the mind of any person when he notices something - the object is first perceived, its nature is assumed, the logic then infers from this and generates fear. Kids at times are afraid of people making faces, but they're not afraid of big dogs or insects. (I say this with confidence thanks to hours of introspection since atleast age 12. I'm an overthinker...)
| Quote: | | You are actually restating Swamiji's position. |
Seemingly true; but not really. In this case the delusion is more based upon the perceived entity than another entity that is different from the one being perceived. The existence of another entity is infact unnecessary - as the boogie man. The entity is inexistent and based on no other entity - it was entirely product of the mind based upon the items of the closet that the child tries to see through darkness.
| Quote: | | Thus, Advaita leads us into a contradicition which cannot be overcome without admitting the existence of something other than Brahman. |
Nope. Contradiction issues forth only when you make assumptions about god. God is described as incomprehensible; and to be honest we cant make assumptions of That having a mind [which is finite according to vaiseshika]. If we do not make this assumption; god is better equalled to an ocean with countless drops within it. The ejection of a drop; is the soul. This however, is not the drop's inherent nature and will ultimately rejoin into the ocean. If we look at the whole situation at a larger time scale, there is only the eternal ocean. The reality is independent of the linear quantised perception of change i.e., time.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | No, there is a difference between what I say and what swami dayananda says. According to swamiji, sankara concocted up the philosophy to refute jainas and bauddhas. |
As far as I can tell from reading the Satyarth Prakash, Swamiji remained undecided on this issue. In fact he says:
| Swamiji wrote: | | Now, it must be understood that if it was the belief of Shankara that God and the human soul were identical and that the world was an illusion, it was not good. But if he had avowed this doctrine simply in order to refute Jainism more successfully, it contained some good. |
| You wrote: | | This is not the real case - sankara learnt about advaita from his guru gaudapada; and we can safely assume he followed it himself because he was a krishna bhakta - why would he be one if he knew it is futile worship? |
Actually, the argument runs in the opposite direction: He taught Advaita simply to defeat Jains and Buddhists in debate while really believing in and advocating the worship of Krishna. (He composed the very beautiful Baja Govindam in which he said quite clearly that salvation is only to be attained through worship of Krishna.) The idea is that he didn't think worship was futile, he was simply conforming to the reigning standards of his days in debate and public disputation. But, like I said, I don't think the point can be proven either way.
| You wrote: | | The problem is that later on advaitic students lost the actual intention of sankara and believed advaita is limited unto his works. As you mentioned yourself - that people fail to make the distinction between dayananda the logician and dayananda the social reformer; same applies here IMO. In his works, he says that we are itself That. But in his works; he speaks of something different - that yogas are diseases of mind; worship limits us etc... Many of his students even today think that knowledge is sufficient to attain moksha; yogas are unnecessary and that one needn't follow vedas. This is neither the view of sankara nor the view of many modern gurus who say that such a notion is almost sin. |
Just so that it is clear to all who may be reading this thread, Shankara did not reject yoga, yajña or study of the Vedas. On the contrary, he said all three were conducive to God-realization. In the Vivekachudamani, Shankara mentions this several times:
| In Verse 46, Shankara wrote: | | The Holy Scriptures proclaim Loving Devotion, Meditation and Yoga as the direct path to liberation for he who seeks release from all bondage. Only he who remains steadfast in these is freed from the bonds of the body, which have arisen due to ignorance. |
| In Verse 6, Shankara wrote: | | One should recite the Holy Scriptures, perform yajña and other good works, and praise God. Yet without knowledge of the unity of the soul and absolute reality there is no liberation, even in hundreds of ages. |
The key here for Shankara's system in all of these practices is the knowledge of the unity of God and the soul. Practices which support this end are good. Those which distract from it, however, are bad.
| You wrote: | | Yes I know you've read his works, but the reason I'm confused about this is because from what I read at vjsingh's site; they were pretty much talking about pseudo-advaita i.e., acosmism [advaita is absolute monism and there is a thin but significant difference in the two]. |
I am not aware of what is being discussed on Vijay Singh's website. (Link?) But, yes, there is a very significant difference between Advaita and Acosmism.
| You wrote: | | Yes, I'm aware its the fundamental concept in kevala advaita. The reason I say its hard to comprehend is because the argument put out by swamiji was something we can safely assume to have been used by jainas and bauddhas as well; its a argument of a basic level of logic [IMO] |
The reason why members of the groups mentioned didn't bring up these arguments is because of the position they themselves took. You have to remember that Buddhism and Advaita agree to an amazing degree. The only real point of contention between them is the ultimate reality of Atman/Brahman. Thus, the Buddhist was interested in completely different parts of the philosophy and would have made very different arguments against it.
| You wrote: | | Fear doesn't arise in the mind of any person when he notices something - the object is first perceived, its nature is assumed, the logic then infers from this and generates fear. |
I don't think we're disagreeing here. You have simply broken down my term 'reaction' into it's constituent parts. Besides, you're playfully avoinding the point, which is that superimposition can and does occur. 
| You wrote: | | In this case the delusion is more based upon the perceived entity than another entity that is different from the one being perceived. The existence of another entity is infact unnecessary - as the boogie man. The entity is inexistent and based on no other entity - it was entirely product of the mind based upon the items of the closet that the child tries to see through darkness. |
The point is that, regardless of what the child imagines the boogie-man to be, that conception will necessarily be composed of elements of real things he or she has percieved. Man does not imagine in a vaccum, but instead constantly recombines previous impression to form new ones. If we argue that the child is not combining past impressions of objects in it's imaginings of the boogie-man, then how else can we explain it's fear? If the fear is real, then the child is associating something in the closet with something it has experienced as to be feared in real life.
| Quote: | | Nope. Contradiction issues forth only when you make assumptions about god. God is described as incomprehensible; and to be honest we cant make assumptions of That having a mind [which is finite according to vaiseshika]. If we do not make this assumption; god is better equalled to an ocean with countless drops within it. The ejection of a drop; is the soul. This however, is not the drop's inherent nature and will ultimately rejoin into the ocean. If we look at the whole situation at a larger time scale, there is only the eternal ocean. The reality is independent of the linear quantised perception of change i.e., time. |
This position is actually closer to that known as Vishishtadvaita, which states that the souls are parts of Brahman, like drops of an ocean or sparks of a flame. Advaita, however, does not propound even the possibility of such an 'ejection'. Thus, to speak of a 'return' makes no sense, no matter which frame of reference you choose.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Shishya,
| Quote: | | ..advocating the worship of Krishna.(He composed the very beautiful Baja Govindam in which he said quite clearly that salvation is only to be attained through worship of Krishna.) |
He was a smartha to be precise - he believed in worship of krishna as an ishta-devata which is the fundamental tenet of smartha sampradaya - that one can worship that in any form he wishes to; but communion only as the formless all-pervading self. Some say that he's a saivite on top of it for his use of the word 'siva'... What I know is that when he said worship of krishna - he meant worship as in the sense of bhakti; which he believed to be the most intimate form of god [which i believed myself]
Bhaja Govindam - ah, one of my favourites, esp. the one sung by late M. S. Subhalakshmi... However I doubt we can say 'govinda' here refers to krishna itself - he uses the word 'siva' but to refer to nirguna brahman..
| Quote: | | The idea is that he didn't think worship was futile, he was simply conforming to the reigning standards of his days in debate and public disputation. But, like I said, I don't think the point can be proven either way. |
Personally I see the point favouring adi supporting advaita maybe due to influence and compatibility with smarthic thought.
| Quote: | | The reason why members of the groups mentioned didn't bring up these arguments is because of the position they themselves took. You have to remember that Buddhism and Advaita agree to an amazing degree. The only real point of contention between them is the ultimate reality of Atman/Brahman. Thus, the Buddhist was interested in completely different parts of the philosophy and would have made very different arguments against it. |
On a sidenote; why do people always try to see kevala advaita as being based upon buddhism and not vice versa i.e., buddhism is agnostic vedanta? There are many instances in shruti that favour kevala advaita [such as nasadiya; chandogya; yoga-vasishta, etc..] so it is not a correct assumption according to me. Some believe that sankara belonged to BCE times - that would further support the view that advaita is more of an aryan view..
| Quote: | | Besides, you're playfully avoinding the point, which is that superimposition can and does occur. |
Not really, the thing is - if the process is correctly analysed it can also dispell misconceptions. Personally I see the argument of comparision eliminated if we understand that the inference is derived directly from the perceived object and not comparision with a foreign object.
| Quote: | | Man does not imagine in a vaccum, but instead constantly recombines previous impression to form new ones. |
Man doesn't perceive vacuum in the first place
| Quote: | | The point is that, regardless of what the child imagines the boogie-man to be, that conception will necessarily be composed of elements of real things he or she has percieved. If we argue that the child is not combining past impressions of objects in it's imaginings of the boogie-man, then how else can we explain it's fear? If the fear is real, then the child is associating something in the closet with something it has experienced as to be feared in real life. |
Because there are 'instincts' present within every person; and these are what help him make his first actions. Boogie-man is not something you perceive directly - it is the result. First you perceive the darkness; the darkness creates fear within us - and henceforth are associations made. However the associations are not mandatory; I've never had any bad experience with darkness or closets but I feared it in my childhood.
| Quote: | | This position is actually closer to that known as Vishishtadvaita, which states that the souls are parts of Brahman, like drops of an ocean or sparks of a flame. Advaita, however, does not propound even the possibility of such an 'ejection'. Thus, to speak of a 'return' makes no sense, no matter which frame of reference you choose. |
Yes; I'm aware of visishtaadvaita[i dont favour this philosophy much]. The 'ejection' exists only at the relative level; at the absolute level there is no ejection at all as I mentioned - the ocean continues to be as it is. This is not the stance of visishtaadvaita from what I can tell - presides; according to visishtAdvaita; the soul retains its individuality which is not my view. It is opposed to my view of right-knowledge being the only path to moksha [this knowledge however can be attained in many ways] and the view that there is only homogenous Self that seems heterogenous at a temporal level.
From what I know - perhaps its work of later writers - that there are three levels of reality; where the world is real; where the god and soul is real; where there is only That.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prabhat
Platinum Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 1189
Location: Holland, The Hague
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys please.
in the english i understeand 
_________________
Namaste,
Prabhat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Prabhat,
I'll try and explain it in the simplest terms possible:
The main thing being discussed here is the relationship between three things: God, the Soul and the World.
Various schools of philosophy have differing views on this relationship. In particular:
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are three completely different things which are permanently separate from one another.
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are three different things, but that God pervades the Soul and the World, so that, althought they are different, they are never really separate from one another. (This is the position taken by Swamiji, sometimes referred to as Traitavada.)
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are three different things, but that their separation, though real, is only temporary. When Moksha is attained, the Soul merges back into God, becoming one with Him forever.
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are, in reality, one thing, and that the difference between them is only illusionary. (This is, more or less, the position taken by Shankara, sometimes referred to as Advaita.)
All the schools agree that ignorance is the cause of suffering in man, though they differ as to what they think happens when this ignorance is overcome. Shankara says that the individual as an individual stops existing. Swamiji says that the individual continues to exist in an elevated state of being.
The argument that Swamiji makes against Shankara is this: If ignorance is the cause of suffering, and there is only one thing, namely Brahman, then who is it that suffers from ignorance in the first place? Advaita is forced to say that Brahman suffers from ignorance. However, ignorance is a limitation in knowledge. And Brahman is, in his very nature, unlimited. Therefore, Brahman cannot suffer from ignorance. However, we cannot deny that suffering takes place. Therefroe, if Brahman cannot be the one suffering from ignorance, then there must be something other than Brahman in existence. And this mean that the Advaita (non-dualist) position is self-contradictory.
Ask if I need to clarify it more. I don't mind.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste,
One thing remains unmentioned - advaita isn't an easy philosophy to comprehend. I laughed at the (seemingly) acosmic concept of advaita that we're equal to god; yet endure suffering. If time is understood to be unreal; this paradox collapses IMO..
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | One thing remains unmentioned - advaita isn't an easy philosophy to comprehend. |
Do you think so? When I was into Advaita one of the reasons I liked it was because I found it to be so simple. In fact, I found it's simplicity to be one of the strongest things going for it. Bhedaabheda, for example, is much more difficult, in my eyes...
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste,
Yes - I'm sure about it. The initial concepts seem lucid; I believed in a concept similiar to the one believed in by yadava bhaskara [svabhaviko bhedabheda] that the unconscious brahman makes a rift into three divisions - isvara, atman, prakrti. However understanding that 'the brahman is nirguna but we believe it to be saguna' - to not attempt validate it but prove it - in other words, try to come to explanation on your own - can be a tedious task at times. At one point of time I nearly collapsed into the belief as many acosmics have - that there is no god indeed. As you can see, priniciple of superimposition might seem easy to believe in but needs much more reasoning than assumed. Even now I dont understand how insentience can come out of sentience which is the fundamental argument put by samkhya philosophy unless we say that there is transcendence beyond logic. (I make the assumption that the 'insentience' is but dormant brahman and not insentient in itself, but perceived to be so)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | As you can see, priniciple of superimposition might seem easy to believe in but needs much more reasoning than assumed. |
This would lead me to think there is a problem with Advaita rather than a weakness in my ability to understand it. I guess it's a matter of differing presuppositions, though.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dont understand why you see it to be a problem with advaita - a model can indeed be difficult to explain, but that is not enough to rule out the possibilities of it being true. Personal attempts to reason out certain things in traitavaada; varying from interpretation of certain verses to other things like reason, salvation, rta, nature of god, even free will, etc... became difficult for me. Though an advaitin, that doesn't mean I try to reason out everything through advaita - instead I try to reason out everything through the concepts of nyaya or samkhya. Law of parsimony is applicable only in the case of multiple explanations; both of which explain as well as predict to an equal extent. Otherwse the law requires aristotlean logic i.e., there are 5 distinct elements etc... being simpler should have greater chances of being true. Adhyaropa principle's inherent difficulty is - the atomic concept of mind will lead to a paradox.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
Let me clarify: Adhyaaropa or superimposition as a general phenomenon is understood easily enough. It happens on a daily basis and seems self-evident. However, adhyaaropa as an epistemological argument in support of non-dualism as an ontological reality does not. In fact, I see it as fundamentally and inherently self-contradictory, for the reasons I have listed above.
I have faith in my ability to reason. If something seems reasonable to me, I accept it. If it seems unreasonable, I reject it. Unless someone can provide me with a satisfactory clarification of the above mentioned contradiction, I see myself forced to reject Advaita on those grounds. Why should I, after giving Advaita a fair and objective analysis and finding it to contradict the laws of reason, try and convince myself that something must be wrong with me or that I must not be understanding it correctly? I do not presuppose or assume that Shankara was an avatar of God, or that he was infallible. Therefore, his works are subject to the same level of critical analysis as everyone else's. Inherent in that view is the possibility that I could find his theory inacceptable in the light of reason and experience. Therefore, if I find something in Advaita (or any theory) to be self-contradictory or illogical, then I feel it is my duty to reject it.
And if we try and make an appeal to a supposed super-rational nature of the theory, then, ultimately, we are regressing instead of progressing. Which is to say, we are resorting to the same kind of arguments used by Christians and Muslims to cover up the illogical details of their respective doctrines instead of upholding the general rule that the Laws of Nature, the Laws of Reason and Divine Law are ultimately one.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste,
Of course I totally agree with you there - what is not understood is better rejected than to be dogmatically adhered to... Adhyaropa in favour of non-dualism is what I'm saying - not as easy to explain as people think of it to be. The belief or disbelief in advaita will not affect one's progress in spiritual growth, because IMO this knowledge remains temporary and the realisation is what matters, which is inculcated through yoga's.. I'm not trying to cover up the 'flaws in advaita' - I think it would be safe to assume that kevala advaita was developed upto the point of addressing these basic flaws, because sankara was famous for having refuted every system from nyaya and samkhya to jaina and bauddha, naturally his system should be developed enough to withstand attacks from them. Navya-Nyaaya school was developed in order to address the flaws of Nyaaya, but I dont consider sankara's authority to infallible nor of him (or any other) as avataar of god. I reject many notions of sankara's system; my personal belief is that there is a system that supersedes this and has or will be discovered by another individual... I have no reason to defend a system I ridiculed until recently either.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | ...because sankara was famous for having refuted every system from nyaya and samkhya... |
Are you sure of this? Judging by his Vivekachudamani, Shankara makes substantial use of both systems to establish his own. In fact, without Samkhya, Shankara's system is unthinkable, in my opinion. The only point of contention between them is Shankara's claim that Purusha and Prakriti have one common underlying substratum, i.e. Nirguna Brahman. But perhaps there are some works out there I am not familiar with where he does, in fact, refute Nyaaya and Samkhya. Do you have any further information on this?
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Shishya,
| Quote: | | Are you sure of this? Judging by his Vivekachudamani, Shankara makes substantial use of both systems to establish his own. In fact, without Samkhya, Shankara's system is unthinkable, in my opinion. The only point of contention between them is Shankara's claim that Purusha and Prakriti have one common underlying substratum, i.e. Nirguna Brahman. But perhaps there are some works out there I am not familiar with where he does, in fact, refute Nyaaya and Samkhya. Do you have any further information on this? |
Accepting some of the postulates of these systems doesn't really have much to do with the systems itself - samkhya's ideology is mentioned in geeta, but one should remember that the concepts of vedanta is vehemently opposed to the concepts of samkhya. The former says world arises out of brahman, the latter says that insentience cannot arise out of sentience. From what I notice, vaiseshika, yoga, mimamsa are systems; while their logical basis is nyaya, samkhya, vedanta respectively..
In the brahma sutra bhashya commentary I have; the second chapter - dealing with avirodha[non-contradiction] he refutes yoga, samkhya, vaiseshika, buddhism, jaina and bhaagavata systems. I dont know if he refuted nyaya system, but another advaitin, Śrīharśa in his work Khandanakhandakhādya criticises the nyaaya system.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
| You wrote: | | Accepting some of the postulates of these systems doesn't really have much to do with the systems itself - samkhya's ideology is mentioned in geeta, but one should remember that the concepts of vedanta is vehemently opposed to the concepts of samkhya. The former says world arises out of brahman, the latter says that insentience cannot arise out of sentience. |
I have to admit, I am much less familiar with the two Mimamsas than with Nyaaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya and Yoga. So, I have a hard time judging for myself. However, the point of departure for my examination (when I get around to it) is that of Swamiji: That the Darshanas, in their original forms, do not contradict but rather complement one another. With my studies of the four above mentioned systems, I have found this to be the case. Until I have taken the Mimamsas into closer consideration, I will tend to give credence to Swamiji's pronouncement.
| You wrote: | | From what I notice, vaiseshika, yoga, mimamsa are systems; while their logical basis is nyaya, samkhya, vedanta respectively.. |
I think, generally speaking, this is true. However, I have noticed that of the pair Nyaaya-Vaishashika, it is Nyaaya which exhibits more practical application than Vaishashika, which is much more theoretical in nature. (But, then again, I come from a long line of debaters and lawyers, so I am predisposed to see argumentation and debate as practical undertakings. )
| You wrote: | | In the brahma sutra bhashya commentary I have; the second chapter - dealing with avirodha[non-contradiction] he refutes yoga, samkhya, vaiseshika, buddhism, jaina and bhaagavata systems. I dont know if he refuted nyaya system, but another advaitin, Śrīharśa in his work Khandanakhandakhādya criticises the nyaaya system. |
I have avoided Shankara's commentaries entirely in my study of his work, choosing instead to focus upon his original works. I don't really know why - I understand his commentaries are - seen from the traditional perspective - even more important and fundamental than his original works. However, I found the commentaries to be a bit too convoluted and construed. My loss, I guess. I will, therefore, have to accept your report as true until I can verify this for myself.
With that being said, the only point of the Samkhya system I can imagine Shankara rejecting is it's primary thesis: that Purusha and Prakriti are two separate beings. In all other regards, his system is simply too similar for there to be much room for disagreement. Please inform me if this is not the case, and if not, then the other points which he criticises. 
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shishya wrote: | Namaste PD,
| Quote: | | I have to admit, I am much less familiar with the two Mimamsas than with Nyaaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya and Yoga. So, I have a hard time judging for myself. However, the point of departure for my examination (when I get around to it) is that of Swamiji: That the Darshanas, in their original forms, do not contradict but rather complement one another. With my studies of the four above mentioned systems, I have found this to be the case. Until I have taken the Mimamsas into closer consideration, I will tend to give credence to Swamiji's pronouncement. |
I agree with swamiji's PoV too - these systems are expositions of different parts of vedas which were individualised and ended up opposing each other. It is possible that vedanta speaking of world emerging from brahman meant that the matter was retained in a subtle "non being" inactive state, which is the only way I can comprehend nasadiya sukta as harmonious with traitavaada. But if any one is studied as a system in itself, it leads one to notions that contradict the other systems IMO.
I think, generally speaking, this is true. However, I have noticed that of the pair Nyaaya-Vaishashika, it is Nyaaya which exhibits more practical application than Vaishashika, which is much more theoretical in nature. |
I haven't read much about vaiseshika other than some articles by S. Kak; but what's so theoretical in vaiseshika again? By the way, I'm not referring to the application of the system - but its content...
| Quote: | | I will, therefore, have to accept your report as true until I can verify this for myself. |
Please trust me as I speak of it - that is the only sankara's work I have and tried reading in the first place!
| Quote: | | With that being said, the only point of the Samkhya system I can imagine Shankara rejecting is it's primary thesis: that Purusha and Prakriti are two separate beings. |
This is precisely what he disagrees with...
| Quote: | | In all other regards, his system is simply too similar for there to be much room for disagreement. Please inform me if this is not the case, and if not, then the other points which he criticises. |
The thing is, he says that 'these smrtis have lost their authenticity' and refutes which of the notions of these systems he's opposed to in the second chapter.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prabhat
Platinum Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 1189
Location: Holland, The Hague
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shishya wrote: | Namaste Prabhat,
I'll try and explain it in the simplest terms possible:
The main thing being discussed here is the relationship between three things: God, the Soul and the World.
Various schools of philosophy have differing views on this relationship. In particular:
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are three completely different things which are permanently separate from one another.
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are three different things, but that God pervades the Soul and the World, so that, althought they are different, they are never really separate from one another. (This is the position taken by Swamiji, sometimes referred to as Traitavada.)
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are three different things, but that their separation, though real, is only temporary. When Moksha is attained, the Soul merges back into God, becoming one with Him forever.
- Some think that God, the Soul and the World are, in reality, one thing, and that the difference between them is only illusionary. (This is, more or less, the position taken by Shankara, sometimes referred to as Advaita.)
All the schools agree that ignorance is the cause of suffering in man, though they differ as to what they think happens when this ignorance is overcome. Shankara says that the individual as an individual stops existing. Swamiji says that the individual continues to exist in an elevated state of being.
The argument that Swamiji makes against Shankara is this: If ignorance is the cause of suffering, and there is only one thing, namely Brahman, then who is it that suffers from ignorance in the first place? Advaita is forced to say that Brahman suffers from ignorance. However, ignorance is a limitation in knowledge. And Brahman is, in his very nature, unlimited. Therefore, Brahman cannot suffer from ignorance. However, we cannot deny that suffering takes place. Therefroe, if Brahman cannot be the one suffering from ignorance, then there must be something other than Brahman in existence. And this mean that the Advaita (non-dualist) position is self-contradictory.
Ask if I need to clarify it more. I don't mind. |
no i think a get the picture a litle bit, so witch of the 4 do you agree.
_________________
Namaste,
Prabhat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste Prabhat,
I'll try re-explain the whole thing...
Basically, there is no prejudice about god[ishvara] being this or that in our scriptures. Everyone first grows up thinking god created the world, god created us all out of nothingness. A bit of simple logic defies this explanation:
If god created the universe, what did he create it with? If he used some raw materials, how did he create this raw material? [This raw material is called Prakrti]
If god created soul[atman], what did he create it from? What is created will be destroyed. This means that soul shouldn't be immortal.
General western theistic logic doesn't answer this basic question so well. Indian logic explains this situation in many ways:
1)Isvara didn't create atman. Isvara didn't create prakrti. They co-exist with him. Isvara creates universe out of prakrti; like a potter makes a pot from clay. [tattvavaada and traitavaada]
2)Prakrti and Atman are projections of Ishvara; like pot made from clay; however the clay creates the pot(s) itself. We are a part of god. [too many philosophies...]
3)There is no difference between Ishvara and Atman. Our belief that the two are different, is just a myth [Kevala Advaita by sankaracharya]
This is but the start of the differences. There are many more, such as the relation between ishvara and atman, what happens upon attaining moksha, what the 'cosmic spirit' brahman is, means of attaining moksha and so on.
Philosophy of Swami Dayananda is perhaps the most lucid and brilliant:
He agrees with point 1; that no one created ishvara, prakrti and atman
The relation between ishvara, atman, prakrti is - nature of god is to create the universe and judge souls, while nature of soul is to reap what they sow. Though they're distinct, god pervades soul and matter, so they're not really seperate from each other.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shishya
Administrator
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1985
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
That's a very nice summary. It made me think of something I once read (can't seem to remember the source, but...oh well).
God is often referred to as SAT-CHIT-ANANDA or Being-Consciousness-Bliss. In God, all three of these qualitites or attributes are equally present.
The Soul (Atman), however, has only two of these qualities, SAT-CHITTA or Being and Consciousness, by which it is pervaded as aspects of God's existence. The goal or purpose of the Soul, therefore, is to be filled with God's ANANDA or Bliss. This is what occurs during Moksha. However, as ANANDA is not an integral part of the Soul, it is ultimately destined to return to earthly existence.
Prakriti has only SAT or Being. The goal or purpose of matter is to be shaped and formed by CHITTA or Consciousness much in the same way as the Soul strives to be filled with ANANDA or Bliss. However, just as the Soul must return to earthly existence, so too much matter return to its original, formless state of Mula Prakriti during Pralaya.
_________________
Namaste,
Shishya
ॐ
ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shyena
Gold Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 964
Location: Hyderabad, AP
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: Introspections and Contemplations... |
|
|
Namaste,
I came to a similiar thing when I was contemplating upon swamiji's statement that every entity has something saguna with one and nirguna with another. However that makes me still wonder - what property does it have analogous with isvara? Sat is common to all, so prakrti is rather - characterless substance. To assume this however infers the problem that, as there is nothing to draw comparision with to use the word 'sat', the definition of sat collapses - this is partly how we can explain nasadiya sukta - due to lack of object of comparision, we say "neither sat nor asat prevailed". The problem is that - this comparision creates a paradoxical situation if we try to interpret the rest of the hymn.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prabhat
Platinum Member
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 1189
Location: Holland, The Hague
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaste PD,
Philosophy of Swami Dayananda is perhaps the most lucid and brilliant:
He agrees with point 1; that no one created ishvara, prakrti and atman.
So who did?? it is also explaint in this religion
_________________
Namaste,
Prabhat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam 
Namaste 