[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
Kartikji :
Instead of calling these problems in advaita, wouldn't it
be better if you called it problems in my understanding of advaita because
the problems you mention here are not problems even to someone who is not
well versed in advaita [like me]. I am only following up on this post since
i haven't seen any followups, though there are people better versed in
advaita and avidya than me.
>First problem :
>Since Advaita states that everything is illusory, it states its own unreality.
By everything what do you mean ? Only Self IS. The rest is illusory
since we don't percieve things with an underlying unity. To give you a
crude example, we say the foam and the water are two different things, but
in reality the foam wouldn't exist without water.
>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.
Based on my understanding, Avidya is unreal only from the paramparthika
view i.e avidya is unreal for a self-realized person since he only sees SELF
in everything. Just asking questions like "if only Self is, then why we
perceive ourselves to be different from each other ? Can you give all your
money to me since we are the same etc.." is due to avidya, according to
advaita.
In short, any duality you perceive between your Self and others {including things} is due to avidya.
>Why practise religion at all, since Avidya is anyway unreal, and the self is
>already known ?
The Self is not known to you [since i presume you are not self-
realized]. The practice is to remove avidya, i.e to remove the delusion that
you are separate human being whoi is limited, one who dies etc. Only
when the avidya is removed that one perceives that the I is never born, nor
does it die. Remember, this I is Self or Atman [which is Brahman in advaita]
and not the ego self.
Another way of looking at it is to use the mandukya karika. When
we are awake, we use our senses and mind. When we dream, we use our mind
but not our senses, while in deep sleep we don't use the senses and the mind.
Therefore, there is a break in mind,senses and the ego etc, yet when we
get up after the sleep we say 'i had a good sleep, i feel fresh etc...'.
This points that there is a fourth state which is transcendantal to these
states and IS all the time. This subject is dealt in detail in
http://ddi.digital.net/~egodust
>Third problem :
>Is there anything to "achieve"-like salvation, etc? If there is, you must accept
Well, there is something to achieve if you believe that you are
dual and you are different from every other person. The belief is that
you are already enlightened, but due to avidya you perceive that you are
limited, subjected to duality, death etc. The practice is only to remove
avidya.
>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.
This is false, and blatantly false. Shankara's taught not only
theory/philosophy but a solid path of jnana marga based on Discrimination.
The poath of discrimination between unreal and the real based on some
self-enquiry if of course not charming, but to say that Shankara did not
talk about devotion is not true. He talked extensively about the importance
of the grace of Guru. For a person, the Guru may be a physical one or even
Ishvara. Shankara does talk about ethical values like yama, niyama etc in
upadesasahasri. But, lack of ethics
is frequently pointed out by critics, and Dr.
Radhakrishnan devotes a whole chapter in his book 'indian philosophy'
on this topic. Shankara, by assuming his disciples are only interested
in Self-realization' does not directly impose criteria since it is very
unlikely that a renunciate who has a burning desire to liberate would not
follow yama, niyama etc.
>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."
Well, it is frequently said that Shankara and Buddha do not
talk much about avidya because that is avidya itself. But, as you
point out correctly, many have tried to explain avidya etc. Most advaitains
sidestep this issue; For example, when i asked a well known advaitain
'where did this avidya arise'. HE told me that 'you don't ask who started
the fire when your house is burning, put the fire out first and then you
will know'.
Due to time restrictions [yeah, yeah, time is an illusion :-)],
i cannot answer more in detail, but read the introduction to
upadesasahasri : thousand teachings of Shankara by Mayeda. He deals with
your questions in detail.
Giri
--
{The opinions expressed above are mine and not that of my employers}
http://www.geopages.com/RodeoDrive/1415 <--> Yoga/Spirituality/Hinduism page
brahma satyaM, jagat mithya, jivo brahmaivana paraH - Adi Shankara
'I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details' -- Albert Einstein
