[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Advaita (was Re: Siva as yogi?)
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.
>In a prior post you said:
>> All
>>criticisms of this teaching of non-duality [ie. Vedanta] are based upon a >reluctance to give
>>up one's habit of thinking in dvandvas, and are due to extending one's
>>experience of ordinary reality to the realm of moksha, of which the vast
>>majority of us have had no experience.
No, I did not. This was said by Vidyasankar. I claimed that there cannot be a
realm of moksha to which one has to go, since the truth always IS.
>I would put it differently. Criticisms of Advaita Vedanta come from the
>fact that from the standpoint of philosophical discussion pure Advaita
>Vedanta, as you are expositing it, is about as interesting as solipsism. I
>think that a a computer program can be written that passes the Turing test
>as an exponent of Advaita Vedanta.
I don't know what the Turing test is, but from the context I gather that my
explanation of advaita is boring. Well, this is not the first time such an
accusation has been made :-). However, I should point out that boring and
interesting are only modifications of the mind. Since advaitins are more
interested in the truth rather than creating interest in the listeners,
I doubt whether Advaita can get anymore "interesting".
>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.
>Kurt
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
