[Prev][Next][Index]
more vedAnta for Sadananda
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: more vedAnta for Sadananda
-
From: nparker@crl.com (Nathan Parker)
-
Date: 22 Feb 1995 20:30:50 -0800
-
From nparker@crl.com Wed Feb 22 23: 21:51 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
[ Article crossposted from alt.religion.vaisnava ]
[ Author was Nathan Parker ]
[ Posted on 22 Feb 1995 20:29:30 -0800 ]
Here is part 2 to my reply to Sadananda (this time shorter) :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jAhnavA-nitAi dAsovAca:
I humbly offer below more vedAnta for the enjoyment of all. Remember the
moto:
"If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, give it to the neighbor."
I once again include this most auspicious prayer for the benefit of
myselves who are going to read this article. I don't want your bile to
rise and you to get a headache, so please sit and chant:
Invocation:
"Om. I am reading this article through my News reader. Om. I am Brahman.
Om. I, who wrote the News, which I am now reading due to my ignorance, is
the same as I, who am now reading the News, which I had written to Myself.
Om. I am Brahman. You are I Brahm an, I am You Brahman. This News article
is News Brahman. The I Brahman is reading the News Brahman which was
written by the You Brahman, which is actually the I Brahman. Only due to
ignorance I have not already realized the oneness of the News the reader
and the author. Therefore I take everything as the prasad Brahman of the
We Brahman which is actualy only the Me Brahman. Om."
"oM (mane padme 'haM) brahma satyam jagan mithyA"
(oM) hare kRSNa, hare kRSNa, kRSNa kRSNa, hare hare |
hare rAma, hare rAma, rAma rAma, hare hare ||
viShaya:
"Brahman is beyond personality."
samSaya:
To this we reply:
If Brahman is free from personality, the doubt will arise, "How do we have
personality at present." As has been addressed earlier, the effect is
always present in the cause, therefore the Brahman must also possess
Personality, as it is present in its effect. To say that the personality
has not come from the Brahman, but from the illusion, means that the re
are actually two sources, therefore two bRhats. Brahman is defined as:
janmAdy asya yataH, that which is the source is Brahman. If there is a
second source, that means there is a second Brahman. It is not possible to
have two infinites, as they would m utually limit each other. Brahman is
beyond limit, and Brahman is one. Therefore to suggest that there is a
second Brahman would contradict the meaning of Brahman. Hence, we reject
the viShaya that the Brahman is without personality on the grounds that it
would thereby limit the limitless. Further more, if the personality of
Brahman is only considered to be a transitional stage, then that would
indicate that Brahman is engaging in the activity of transition. In reply
to this, firstly we note that there is no transformation of Brahman, as
has been refuted previously, and neither is it possible for Brahman to
engage in activity and still remain solely as nonduality, therefore there
is a conflict that arises. The idea that the Brahman is going through a
tran sitional stage implies that it is incomplete, and is therefore in
transition. Such an idea is absurd and against all defintions of Brahman.
The Brahman must remain as it is, free from transitional stages, as that
would indicate incompleteness on the part of Brahman. Further more, when
the Brahman was not in the transitional stage it would indicate that he
was still further incomplete, as he was lacking that transitional stage.
Therefore Brahman would be limited. All of this is rejected on the grounds
that the Sruti does not support these speculations.
One may then say:
viShaya
"In a dark room, one may see a rope and mistake it for a snake. It is not
real, it is only mAyA (illusion)"
In reply to this we answer:
The activity of mistaking a rope for a snake further confirms the duality
of the observer, the observed, and the process of observing. Some may say
that it is only illusion, because actually there is no snake there. In
reply we say that the rope is real, the person is real and the idea of the
snake is real. All are real. The only illusion is identifying the rope and
the snake. The very fact that one thinks the rope is a snake shows that
the idea of a snake is real. One will not think that the rope is some
thing that does not exist, since it is impossible to think of something
non-existant. Therefore the fact that the snake is thought of indicates
that there is such a thing as a snake. Further more, the rope in the dark
room is real. If there was no rope in the dark room, the observer would
not think that there was a snake. The illusion must be based on the
reality of an existing rope. Duality is further implied by the fact that
there is the rope and the observer, both being independent of each others
obser vations. The rope does not become a snake due to our illusion that
we think it is a snake. This shows that the rope is situated in reality
and not in illusion. The illusion is only the misidentification of the
rope with the snake. And we should note that the misidentification of the
rope is the misidentification of a real rope with that of a real snake by
a real observer. Neither do we misidentify a nonreal for a nonreal, nor a
nonreal for a real. Both the snake and the rope are situated in reality,
and o nly for this reason can we misidentify them. This is further
emphasized by the fact that once the sun again rises, the rope will be
existing as a real rope, and the observer will identify it properly. Once
the darkness of ignorance is lifted, neither does the rope cease to exist,
nor does the observer cease to exist, nor does the concept of snake cease
to exist, because they are all situated on reality. One who is free from
the darkness of ignorance sees correctly the reality of the rope, and he
never mis takes himself, nor the snake, nor the rope for being anything
other then the reality they are.
This will bring up a further samSaya, and that is:
"If there is only one soul, then why does the illusion continue even after
he is liberated?"
If there is only one, manifested as many due to illusion, then when one is
liberated from bondage, all should be liberated. Liberation means becoming
free from illusion. So when the Brahman becomes free from illusion, why
does he stay fragmented as indivi duals in illusion. Firstly, Brahman
cannot be fragmented, as that indicates cleavage of Brahman, which is
rejected in the Srutis. Therefore, if there is no cleavage, we are all
eternally connect as the one. When the one is liberated, the entire one
must b e liberated, not only part of the one. To say that part of the one
is liberated would indicate compartmentalization of the Brahman, which is
duality. If there is duality even after liberation, then Brahman can not
be non-dual. Therefore if Brahman is one, when Brahman is liberated,
Brahman must be liberated in full (in oneness). Anything less than this
would indicate duality after liberation, and thereby contradict the
statement that Brahman is one. In addition to this, to say that part of
Brahman is cove red by illusion, and part of Brahman is situated in
non-duality is contradictory. If Brahman is simultaneously situated in
liberation and illusion, then I should be simultaneously conscious of the
One being liberated and the One being bound. From pratyakS ha we see that
we are only conscious of ourselves being bound, and therefore, can reject
this based on practical realization. If part of me (the one) is already
liberated, then what is the need for me to become liberated? Even after
being liberated I will still continue to be simultaneously bound, as the
material world is eternal. Therefore the conclusion of such a philosophy
would be that there is nothing to attain, indeed I am everything. Brahman
is eternal, the illusion is eternal, I am the one, theref ore I am
eternally simultaneously illusioned and liberated. Such a conclusion
results in no ASraya, no goal, and no purpose. This is non-different from
voidism, and therefore must be discarded along with other Buddhistic
philosophies, as these philosophie s are directly against the Vedas.
At this point on might argue:
viShaya
"tat tvam asi", "You are that."
samSaya:
Based on the Srutis we know that "we are that". "That" refers to Brahman,
therefore the statement "tat tvam asi" means you are Brahman. This is the
same as saying "ahaM brahmAsmi", but due to the fact that the word tvam is
used, it directly indicates dual ity. To say "you are" automatically
indicates all of the following: "you are", "you are not", "I am", "I am
not", "we are", and "we are not". If it were all only one non duality, the
correct sentance would be "One is" which itself is a contradiction, sinc e
to say "is" implies there is an "is not". Therefore even that statement
would be impossible to use to indicate Oneness. One may further reduce the
statement to just "One" to indicate that there is only one, and neither
"is" nor "is not" (which are duali ty), and therebye try to establish
non-duality. In response we argure that the very word "one" is only one in
relation to "two" or some other number. If there is no "two" there can be
no one. All these points of duality indicate that it is impossible for
Brahman to be nondual.
Therefore the statement "tat tvam asi" means "you are Brahman" in the same
way as the statement "ahaM brahmAsmi" indicates that we are Brahman in
quality, since we are all parts and parcels of the Absolute Truth. If I am
the whole Absolute Truth, then the word asi would be ridicualous to use in
such a sentance, as it directly indicates the duality of "are" and "are
not". If I am the Truth, then what is the question of "are", because there
is nothing else to be. And, indeed, I am not being anything, as the re is
only one. Such a word as "asi" can only be used in duality, and therefore
we must conclude that the Absolute possesses duality.
Further more, the use of the word "tat", indicates "that". It is
contradictory to say "I am that" as "that" indicates something other than
ourselves. For the sentence to be correct, it would have to read "I am I".
Which as stated previous is also a contra diction, as "am" indicates the
duality of "am not". Therefore this statement can only refer to the
qualitative oneness of the jIva with the Absolute, not the Absolute
oneness of them.
If "I am I", in reference to the Absolute Truth, then the very statement
"I am I" is ridiculous, as who am I making the statement to and for what
purpose? There is only I, and I am non-dual, therefore were is the
question of the duality of speaking, what is spoken, and who is observing
the speaking. Such a statement as "I am I" indicates complete ludicricy on
the part of the "I", since he is non-dual, and yet is acting in duality.
Further more, if the "I" who makes the statement is in duality, then the
st atement itself is in duality and is therefore useless.
Therefore such a sentance can not be used to maintain no-duality, as it is
logically and gramatically incorect to make such a statement.
One may argue:
viShaya:
"The saguNa brahman is covered by material contamination, and is therefore
the cause of so much illusion."
In reply we say:
samSaya:
If the saguNa brahman refers to brahman covered by illusion, then the
"process of covering" the Brahman has destroyed the non-duality of
Brahman. A non-duality cannot become duality in anyway, since there would
be no such thing as duality in the first pla ce. Such a statement, as the
above viShaya, indicates two Absolute Truths (the Brahman and the
illusion), and therefore establishes no Absolute Truth. Since Absolute
means "nothing above or equal to", therefore it is contradictory to say
there are two Abs olute Truths, such a statement is against logic and the
Sruti and is therefore discarded. Further more, if the saguNa brahman is
the cause of more illusion, due to His being covered by illusion, then it
is actually the original illusion that is causing th e subsequent
illusion. This is so because only due to the illusion is the saguNa
brahman causing further illusion. Therefore the actually source is the
illusion, and that illusion is controlling the Brahman to act in illusion.
Such a statment destroys the meaning of Brahman and is just a further
infiltration of bauddha philosophy caused by the jugglings of expert
grammarians.
JND
