[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
some layman's attempt to dwell on the questions raised:
( not that the advaitha has no problems in my comprehension)
In article <4gd7i7$qjj@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU> wrote:
>
>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.
advitha does not say *everything* is unreal. it says there is *one*
thing with certain qualities, and that every thing that *appears* to be
separate from that *one* thing is due to illusion.
one of the qualities of that *one* thing is chith (awareness or
knowledge).
>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 ?
if i am sleeping, and dream that i am on the funeral pyre, hope you
will agree that i am not actually on the pyre. if the dreams are
unreal (as they anyway are), do you say that there is no need for
me to get rid of this illusion of being on the pyre? I am one, and
am alive, but do i not know that that dream is an illusion?
>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?
Mere knowledge is said to be salvation. Like my waking up is just
the end of illusion.
>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.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
i am not an authority on advaitha, but i am just peculating: what if
we had two brains? if these two brains are dreaming as two different
characters, then is it not necessary for both the brains to get rid
of those illusions associated with these dreams, for both the brains to
realize the truth? What if one wakes up, and attempts to wake the other?
Well youmight argue, then where is advaitha, when there are two minds,
and you know the answer, that the soul is one, just with two brains.
well, am i speculating out of thin air? possibly. but there
is some basis, i guess: Shankara himself says in his commentary: "oh
god, even though i have been saying that you are every thing, i am not
arrogating to say that i am you. I am like a drop and you are like an
ocean"
Even Ramaha Maharshi asks us to enquire ("Who am *I*"). If he thinks
there is only one thing, and all of us are an illusion, then why would
he asks us to realise the self. The points you have pointed out might
not be flaws in the theory, but could be our misunderstanding of advaitha
(i am not suggesting that there is doubt about *oneness* in advaitha,
i am just speculating the ignorance can manifest manifold) and the
practice of *religion* (what ever you mean by that) is meant to get
rid of that ingorance).
somewhere (in Mandyuka upanishath or its karika?), it is explained
this way: if there are hundred pots, and if we see from each one
of them one sky and on moon, will it mean we have 100 skys and
100 moons?
