[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
This is my first article on this news group and so please bear with me for
any transgressions of the netiquette.
In article <4gj7an$hks@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana <gopal@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>some layman's attempt to dwell on the questions raised:
>( not that the advaitha has no problems in my comprehension)
>In article <4gd7i7$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.
The statements in quotes are extracts from Swami Vivekananda's speech aboutMaya
and Illusion delivered in London.
" Almost all of you have heard of the word Maya. Generally it is used, though
incorrectly, to denote illusion or delusion, or some such thing. Butthe
theory of Maya forms one of the pillars upon which the Vedanta philosophy
rests. It is therefore necessary that it should be properly understood".
"When the Hindu says the world is Maya, at once people get th idea
that the world is an illusion.But the Maya of the vedanta in its last
develped form, is
neither Idealism nor realism nor is it a theory. it is a simple
statement of
facts - what we are, and what we see around us".
>
>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! ]
"This world has no existence. What is meant by that? It means that
it has no
absolute existence. It exists only in relation to my mind, to your mind,
and to
the mind of everyone else. We see this world with the five senses, but if we
had another sense, it would appear as something more. If we had yet another
sense, it would appear as something still different. It is a mixture of
existence and non-existence".
Here I want to put forth a few of my inferences based on the above
extracts.
What he actually means is that the world has existence with respect to the
five senses and the mind but on an absolute scale, the differences that we
see everyday between various things are NOT EXISTENT anymore but everything
is one(this is what i infer by non-existence).
For example lets consider a hypothetical situation where a vernier
calipers
(a measuring instrument that measures length of objects) gets life having
nothing but sense of touch and being able to process the length of the object
inserted between the two arms. From the reference point of the vernier, the
world exists but only as a set of lengths. For it, a monkey's tail and an
elephant's tail are the same if they have the same length. You cannot explain
to it the differences between them since it cannot percieve
them. So the vernier is able to see no difference between the two since it
CANNOT see it. But human beings are born with five senses and we are
percieving things through them since our birth. If we are able to free
ourourselves from these senses and the controller of these(the mind or
intellect) then we might be
able to see that all world is the same and the relative world with
respect
to different senses has NO Existence or is NON EXISTENT.
>>
>>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 ?
I want to extend the above arguement to answer this question. On a
relative
scale it exists but on an absolute scale it may not. Only when we can see
things free from our intellect and senses, will we know whether it exists
or not and
this freeing from senses is nothing but self realisation.
>
>
>
>>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?
The people who have freed themselves from their physical and intellectual
limitations (senses and intellect) have found that only the self exists on
the absolute scale. The moment we start THINKING how it is possible, we are
bound by intellect and` a desire to know' which binds us from going
beyond the
senses...
>>
>>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.
There is no contradiction here. When people say now and afterwards,
it is
according to the reference frame of time which is percievable and hence
is a
part of the senses(though we cant percieve time physically(say like hearing
or feeling),our mind can percieve it(say the difference between
yesterday and
today). But after self-realisation, it is possible that there may
not be
anything like time since everthing is the Self.
>>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 only gains that are achievable by practising religion or anything
else
are physical and at the most intellectual. Realisation is something that is
beyond the intellect but is achievable through the intellect. The
intellect is
the one that can free it from itself. I know that I am going around
in a circle
but the concept is abstract here. If it is clear as to how it does
that, then
that is the path to realisation (to which i have no clue).
I wish to end my posting here.
>
>
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
>Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
