[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
In article <4gj7an$hks@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana) wrote:
>In article <4gd7i7$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.
Quite right. However, I think the major point of Kartik's claim, one for which
I have as yet seen no satisfactory answer, is that since the world around us
is illusory, then anything we do in this world (like claim that it is
illusory) is also false. Two negatives = a positive. It also raises the issue
of whether or not it is useful to do anything at all, since both sin and
tapasya are both illusion.
>>So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
>>the side of non-existence?
It definitely stands for the nonexistence of the material world. However, some
advaitists recognize the problem of this and turn around and interpret that it
is, indeed, real.
>>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?
Of course, an illusion of something presupposes its actual existence
somewhere. Using the logic that the effect is always present in the cause, you
would not expect to see an emanation involving qualities if its source
ultimately had no qualities.
Actually, Sankar's objection brings up another, related point. Advaita reduces
everything to Brahman and Maya, but this is duality, not oneness. In order to
get around this, they would have to say that Maya is an intrinsic property of
Brahman. Of course, that would defy its nature as sati-cit-ananda. Another
tricky problem for the advaitins.
>>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?
In fact, I think this is the problem with teaching advaita to materialistic
people (i.e. - anyone who is not a lifelong celibate). Such people will
naturally conclude that there is no need for sadhana. No wonder
Sankaracharya's disciples were all brahmacaris and sannyasis.
>>
>>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.
I think the same objection applies. One's awakening still occurs at some
definite time.
>>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.
In fact, that's only a fraction of the problems. If we are all one, then that
means we should all get liberation at the same time. If everything is an
illusion, then so too are the Vedas which are supposed to teach us how to get
out of that illusion.
>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"
That is indeed interesting. Can you provide the source? I really would like to
look that up.
regards,
-- HKS
