[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Problems in Advaita
First problem :
Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its own unreality.
So the doctrine of Advaita itself does not exist. But in coming to the
conclusion that Advaita does not exist, we have made use of the doctrine of
Advaita. So it does exist.
So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
the side of non-existence?
[ This is a glaring example of a Goedel's string at work. In Wittgenstein's
philosophy, I heard, he comes to the conclusion that everything that can be
expressed in words is nonsense(in the strict sense of the word). But if that
is so, then his own result should make no sense! ]
Second Problem :
Does Avidya exist or not? If it does, then you have two existent things: Atman
and Avidya. If it does not, then there should be no reason to practise religion.
Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
already known ?
More clearly---
If there is nothing other than the self, whence this delusion? If there is no
delusion, practise of religion will amount to nothing, since as Sankara himself
says, the way to salvation is the removal of delusion, and which itself does
not exist according to Advaita. So...why practise?
Third problem :
Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must accept
the existence of time: because you speak of a "now-there-is-no-salvation" and
"afterwards-there-will-be-salvation". Hence time would exist, which would be
contradictory to Advaita, because there is something called time which exists
along with the Atman.
You mean there is no time? That we are ever free? Then why practise at all-since
we are ever free and there is nothing to be lost or gained by practise of
religion?
The basic problem is:Advaita has a lot of problems asking people to practise.
Saying it's already "out there" means that there is really no need to practise.
-----------------------------------------------------
Curiously, Buddha said---
" If the 'I' perishes [Please note that change is a form of perishing,since
change means that the object is not what it was, in other words, the object
which once was, does not exist anymore], then there would be no need to
worry about the hereafter [ basically, no need to worry about your karma,
for which you may reap good or bad rewards after death ].
If the 'I' doesnot perish [ also taken to mean 'does not change' ], then
all these moral values, this striving to be perfect, would have no use-
for if the 'I' is already [unchanging and also] perfect, what need is there
to perfect the Perfect ?
BOTH VIEWS ARE WRONG AND THEIR ERRORS ARE MOST GRIEVOUS."
And significantly, in the Gita,(15.18), Krishna says,"...I transcend the
mutable and the immutable."
Also, Sankara, in his opinion of which students to accept for instruction,
gives one of the conditions as," He must have lost detachment and must be
willing to proceed towards the knowledge of the Self."
Clearly, by accepting only those students who're already on the path towards
the Self, Sankara gives no reason for "practise". As was pointed out by
someone, the ethical, practical values simply don't seem to "come out" in
Sankara's teaching. There is only pure theory.
I also saw this- "Sankara does not dwell on the topic of Avidya, since it is
apparent to him that the topic, when expanded, would traverse toward dualism."
One of his fore-most disciples, Suresvara, wrote more on Avidya. But the topic
did not stop with him.A disciple of Suresvara expands on Suresvara's views on
Avidya. So Avidya is quite a bother to Advaita!
The Bhedabheda school of thought by Bhaskara starts off,"Perhaps you reason thus
: '...when there is the true Atman, we can throw away this world.' what sort
of logic is this?"
In fact, Bhaskara's treatise gives this argument,"If you say that Avidya is
beginningless, then there can be no such thing called 'release', for it could
be no more destroyed than Bramhan. Or, if it has a beginning, whence does it
arise? And if it does arise, since it is an effect, it must be a real thing;
whereby your thesis is destroyed that ignorance is unreal, for no unreal thing
like a hare's horn arises. Again, Avidya cannot belong to Bramhan, for the
nature of Bramhan is pure consciousness and incomparable bliss; nor can it
belong to the individual soul, for you admit the existence of no individual
soul different from Bramhan."
-Kartik
----------------------------------------
The disciple asks,"Master, can I realise the Buddha?"
The master replies," 'I' is a delusion."
The pupil continues," Have you realised the Buddha?"
The master says"Seeing separate-ness, such as 'you' and 'I' is a delusion."
The pupil thinks for a while and asks,"Is there anyone who has realised the
Buddha?"
"When there is neither 'you' nor 'I', who is the one that wants to realise
the Buddha?"
-----------------------------------------