[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Advaita (was Re: Siva as yogi?)
On 2 Feb 1996 03:53:52 GMT, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in soc.religion.hindu:
>keutzer@Synopsys.COM (Kurt Keutzer) wrote:
>
>>In article <4duetc$gjg@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
>><rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I wrote:
>>To which Ramakrishna replied:
>>> (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.
>>
>>First of all it may be worthwhile to consider the question: ``What is the
>>purpose of this discussion?'' or more generally ``What is the purpose of a
>>tenet (or philosophical) system?'' The only interest that I have in a
>>discussion in SRH is one that seeks to elevate my state of undertanding and
>>through a cognitive transformation to help lead me from a state of
>>ignorance, marked by emotional suffering, to a state of enlightenment,
>>marked by contentment and an absence of suffering. Similarly, what I seek
>>in a tenet system is a viewpoint that produces, or aids in producing, a
>>similar effect.
>
>Then Advaita is not it. The prime exponent Shankara himself says that "no
>system" or "method" can make one realize. The only possible "way" is dispelling
>the ignorance. If you have belief in the Hindu scriptures then the assurance of
>Krishna that even people who take up Yoga out of curiosity will be saved,
>should suffice.
>
>>Then if I take you as a valid exponent of the Advaita philosophy, which I
>>am genuinely happy to do, then what you are telling me is that Advaita has
>>nothing to offer me. To use your analogy from above:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>or I might simply say: ``You have to wake up.'' So to continue the analogy
>>let me volunteer that I acknowledge myself a dreamer Moreover, I
>>acknowledge that I need to wake-up. The methodology for this that you, and
>>apparently Advaita, are offering me is to simply stop acknowledging the
>>reality of the dream. I think that this is definitely worth trying once.
>>This approach apparently worked for Ramana Maharshi. I would say that
>>something similar worked for Hui Neng, ``the 6th Patriarch of Zen.''
>>However, having tried this viewpoint and my ignorance was not dispelled
>>(i.e. I did not wake up) then I don't see what Advaita has to offer me. To
>>simply continue to repeat (ad nauseum ;-) ) Mahavakyas, quote
>>Shankaracarya, Gaudapadacarya, or the Upanishads doesn't change my state of
>>ignorance.
>
>Well, TRYING a similar viewpoint is yet another mental modification and it
>certainly won't "work". After having seen the intellectual arguments, the only
>thing left to do is one pointed concentration or enquiry. As you say quoting
>various people does not help and in fact there is no way it can either. I
>fail to see how "Advaita" can offer any solace for the suffering one goes
>through in the world. It can only say "Find out who the person who seems to be
>suffering actually is". That is the point I was trying to make. When the
>intellectual arguments have been given it is obvious that the only thing left
>is enquiry. Instead of that engaging in arguments about "vyavaharika reality"
>is being im-practical, IMHO. If one is a realized soul and his prarabdha is
>such that he has to engage in arguments, then it is a totally different matter
>altogether. My point was that people like us (I am including you since you say
>you are in ignorance still) can make better use of time by enquiry rather than
>analyzing other schools of Advaita.
>>But this is just a gratuitious comment that I couldn't resist - because I
>>am not evaluating Advaita Vedanta from the standpoint of philosophical
>>discussion but from the standpoint of a tenet system to lead individuals
>>out of ignorance. Here I don't feel that it has much use for me. Moreover,
>>I can't see any benefit in simply ``emulating'' the non-dualist standpoint
>>when I have no such experience. In fact I can imagine that I might
>>experience some cognitive dissonance were I to ceaselessly posit a view
>>that has no foundation in my own dualistic experience. Of course this is
>>only a personal assessment. I wouldn't want to comment on the utility of
>>the Advaita Vedanta tenet system for others.
>
>The Advaita system goes further. It acknowledges that any system cannot produce
>"realization". However, it does say "Find out what the basis of all reality is.
>In other words who is it that experiences?". I can't see what more one could
>want. However a big question always is "Why is ignorance seemingly present?".
>Most advaitins claim an answer cannot be given or side-step it. In any case the
>path is clear. We have acknowledged the existence of ignorance, enquiry and
>hence dispelling it seems to be the only way.
Well, I consider myself fairly well read in Advaita, particularly
Ramana Maharshi and his disciples.
And, my experience is exactly that of Kurt.
The reason that Self-Enquiry doesn't usually work is due to the
samskaras, the habitual tendencies that comprise the ego.
Just having one glimpse of the real answer to "Who Am I ?" is
insufficient to remove the effect of the samskaras, which reassert
themselves and bring one back into ignorance.
If you look carefully at the biography of Ramana Maharshi, it's pretty
clear that at the time of his self-realization, he didn't have any
samskaras - he wasn't distinguished in any way, he didn't have any
responsibilities, no career, not much of a family, not even any
interests or hobbies, not even religion. Thus, he was in a unique
position to benefit immediately from Self-Enquiry.
On the other hand, if you read what Ramana Maharshi actually said, he
recommends purification and devotion to a Guru. He states in "Guru
and his Grace" [from the book 'The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana
Maharshi']:
"Questioner: What is Guru-kripa? How does it lead to
Self-realization?
Maharshi: Guru is the Self.... His mind is gradually purified until he
longs to know God, more to obtain His Grace than to satisfy his
worldly desires. Then, God's Grace begins to manifest. God takes the
form of a Guru and appears to the devotee, teaches him the Truth and,
moreover, purifies his mind by association. The devotee's mind gains
strength and is then able to turn inward. By meditation it is
further purified and it remains still without the least ripple. That
calm Expanse is the Self..... There is no difference between God,
Guru, and the Self.
...The ego is like a very powerful elephant which cannot be brought
under control by any less powerful than a lion, which, in this
instance, is no other than the Guru, Whose very look makes the
elephant-like ego tremble and die.
One of two things must be done: either surrender yourself, because you
realize your inability and need a Higher Power to help you; or
investigate into the cause of misery, go into the Source and so merge
in the Self. Either way, you will be free from misery. God or Guru
never forsakes the devotee who has surrendered himself."
Namaskar,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness
reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena
is the true nature of the Self. Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies
the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa." - Mark Dyczkowski
