[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Advaita (was Re: Siva as Yogi?)
keutzer@Synopsys.COM (Kurt Keutzer) wrote:
>In article <4df36o$6fc@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
><vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
><snipping others comments>
>> Kashmir Saivism is itself pronouncedly non-dualistic in nature. Any
>> philosophical problems that one faces with advaita will ultimately come up in
>> Kashmir Saivism also. The problems may not be readily apparent because Kashmir
>> Saivism keeps the distinction between "Pure consciousness" and "awareness"
>> fuzzy. But Kashmir Saivism's conception of nishkala Siva, and its idea of
>> moksha as absorption in nishkala Siva are very close to the classical advaita
>> ideas of nirguNa brahman and moksha.
>
>There seems to be an implicit assumption that any non-dualistic
>philosophical system will face the same problems of advaita. IMHO I don't
>believe this to be the case. Among the difficulties of advaita are the
>explanation of the relative and more particularly the explanation of our
>own experience. If atman == brahman and brahman lacks qualities then there
>is the problem of how do you explain the diversity of our conventional
>experience. How can the atman and the jiva ever be related.
There seems to be a big mis-understanding here. What exactly is the system
which is called Advaita? Traditionally people accept Shankara's system as what
is called Advaita. Again and again and again questions have been raised about
"conventional experience", whatever it may be. In this regard lots of
half-truths and myths have been spread by various people, including
(supposedly) some of his own followers. Shankara refutes any such thing as
realization. It is NOT a state to achieved. There is only ignorance, which
makes us think that we are not "realized".
How do you explain a building which you see in a dream? The masters are of the
opinion that explaining creation, etc is like explaining how a building
came to exist in a dream. The mind which has imposed causality THINKS that
someone must have built it etc. In the dream you think SOME ONE must have
built it. You do not realize that it's YOUR own metal creation.
Similarly, any explanation such as maya, God, Lila etc are just imaginations of
people. When there are already so many delusions what is the point in seeking
to add to them by giving explanations to the "mundane existence"? Shankara is
very firm on this. The Gaudapada Karika (verses 7-10) says
"Some who concern themselves with the cause of creation think that almighty
power is the origin of things and by others creation is imagined as like to an
illusion or dream.
Those who have made up their minds on this subject say it is merely the will of
the lord; those who concern themselves about time think that from time is the
birth of all creatures.
Others say that creation is for the sake of enjoyment, yet others say it is for
play. Really, this is the very nature of the Lord; as for other theories, well,
He has all He can desire and why should He crave anything?
He who is called the Fourth is the master of cessation of all ills, the strong
lord and undecaying, the One without a second of all existences, the shining
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
one who pervadeth"
Finally, there is no jiva (verse 10) and hence no need to explain the
relationship between jiva and the atman.
>A similar
>problem crops up in the view that mathematical truths are ideal and
>transcendental. If they are ideal and transcendental then how are they
>knowable.
At the risk of repeating myself ad-nauseam, there is nothing to "know" or
"realize". One just has to lose the delusion.
>There are a few non-dualist systems that side-step this problem.
>Madhyamaka prasangika posits non-duality without postulating a
>transcendental unity. Cittamatra posits a non-dual unity of consciousness
>and in that system it doesn't seem hard to understand how consciousness can
>ultimately be one while still having diversity. Kashmir Shaivism (which I
All these are just for the intellectuals to keep arguing about :-). The matter
is clear. There is just the SELF. There is no duality and there is no "knowing"
or "not knowing". Anything else is a delusion like the woman searching for her
necklace when it was already around her neck. The delusion, in other words has
no "reality". I hope you understand what I am trying to saying here.
In Upadesa Sara, Shankara says seeking the Self or Brahman is exactly similar.
It's just the delusion that has to be lost, there is nothing to be gained
afresh.
>guess is a pretty vague term) seems to me to be closer to the cittamatra
>view. Please note that I am not saying that these other non-dual schools
>don't have other problems to contend with. All I am saying is that they do
>not have the same problems as advaita vedanta.
Advaita does NOT regard the "usual reality" worth explaining. Since it's a
delusion, what explanation does it need anyway? In short Advaita has NO
problems in this regard.
>Kind Regards,
>Kurt
Ramakrishnan.
--
That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not
see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperish-
able. But, there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - IV.iii.23
