[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Problems in Advaita
>>>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.
HI. Just wanted to throw in some answers which might be of use to you in
understanding this. You are asking the same fundamental questions that were
faced by the advaitins when they started preaching advaita. So these
questions have already been answered so that there is no ambiguity(this is what
it is all about there is no ambiguity). The moment you say that two negatives
make a positive and 5 negatives make a negative and 15 positives..........
you are already illuded. There is no negative no positive. Only the self
EXISTS. This is as far as real existence is concerned. This is with reference
to an absolute reference frame and not with respect to what you see or what
you believe or what you THINK is right or wrong.:-) Everything that you SEE
you HEAR you FEEL you THINK, you SMELL you TASTE exists because your senses
tell you that it exists. It is only a set of inputs from sensory organs
that your mind is processing and THINKING and forming a picture of.
Just think of a person who is born without the olfactory capabilities. He
will see rose as a beautiful flower but will never be able to attribute it
to the sweet smell it has. If you are able to voluntarily cut off all these
senses, you might be able to see that the universe is all one( I can only
speculate because i haven't been able to do it myself!!). Here one more
question can be raised for which I very well have the answer. I will answer
it if the question is raised:-)
Yes. You have raised one more very fundamental question. Any work done
`useful' or `useless' is going to bind you in the wheel of causality.
The work is the cause and there will be some effect to it. Good work is
like being bound with golden chains and `useless' work is like being bound
with iron chains(gold and iron are only used figuratively. Gold does not
mean the yellow shiny metal with n+1 protons in the nucleus of its atom
and ......:-)). So what you said is right when looked upon in certain angle
Yes. You are bound anyway. How does it matter what chain it is??
>>>So where does the philosophy of Advaita stand-on the side of existence or on
>>>the side of non-existence?
>>>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
>>>already known ?
********* `Practicing religion'. More clarification is required on this
What exactly does the writer mean by this??
>
>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.
****** You have come a full circle. How can you SEE something that has no
form. Have you ever see `AIR'. Have you ever `SEEN' the `SMELL' of a rose??
Have you ever `TASTED' the melody of music?? You should try and THINK beyond
the senses because even though thinking is in itself a constraint, it is one
step beyond the senses!!
>ActuallySankar's objection brings up another,related point. Advaita reduces
>everything to Brahman and Maya, but this is duality, not oneness. In orderto
>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.
****** There are no two things like Brahman and Maya. Whatever there is, it is
only one. You may give it whatever name you want(Vishnu, Shiva, Christ ,ocean,
sea,well anything. I for myself want to call it ENERGY because once i call
`IT' Vishnu, I will start attributing characteristics to it like 4 hands,
Chakra in one hand and Shanka in the other and all other things.
)
>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.
********* `Materialistic'....hmm. I dont see any connection between
materialism and CELIBACY. You can be celibate throught your life and still
be materialistic. You can argue that they are both same according to advaita
But wait a minute. That is only if you have stopped perceiving this world
through the senses and intellect. But I have not achieved that state. So for
me everything exists as it does for you.
>>>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?
>>>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
***** What is this `WE' are all `ONE'. There is only one. Thats it. The moment
you say WE, you are getting back to your illusion. Then there is no oneness.
Everything then is according to your senses and obviously WE as in we are all
DIFFERENT refers to different people.
>illusion, then so too are the Vedas which are supposed to teach us how to get
>out of that illusion.
Here I would like to restate what advaita ACTUALLY means by ILLUSION. People
seem to be driven by this most of the time. ILLUSION doesnt mean OPTICAL
ILLUSION. If your first reaction to EVERYTHING is ILLUSION is,`Well I am able
to see and feel everything!' then you need to understand this clearly(you will
an ILLUSION. This might be a little difficult to digest :-)). Illusion in
advaita is a simple statement of facts of what we are and what we see which
is basically EXISTENCE of good and bad together, life and death together..
etc. It doesnt mean optical or any such illusions. It is just the life we
lead.
>>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"
****** Here I would like to make some things clear. Why are people fighting
over what Shankara said or what some other acharya said. you are only reading
something that is reported to have been said by Shankara. He might have/might
not have said it. Even then, I dont think there is any doctrine of Hinduism
that insists on critisising other doctrines. If someone believes in a
particular set of doctrines, he should strive to achieve what the ultimate
state that set of doctrines portrays as whether it is SELF REALIZATION as in
advaita or something else in some other set of beliefs. Critisising other
doctrines is at least according to my limited knowledge not a form of
SADHANA(personally I feel that work is worship. Any person who is committed to
his duty is doing SADHANA while he is performing his duty and it is not
necessary for him to separately go somewhere to some corner and do `SADHANA'.
^^^^^^^^^.
I am feeling tired of this argument myself.
Thanks for reading through this if you have come thus far.
Prasad S Sista
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
