[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
> 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:-)
Is it this: what if the senses are cut out "involuntarily" - will the
person become self-realised? ;-)
I suppose not; for the person is still entangled by the mind. :-)
> >>>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??
I meant Japa, self-enquiry, prayer and the like. Anyway, they are illusions only
at the Paramarthika level, right? :-)
> 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.
You know - according to Quantum Mechanics, there is no causality in this
physical world - see the "Bell's theorem of non-causality".
> >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.
No. Brahman has _no_ qualifications. I think that even according to
Western philo, the word "exist" is _not_ a predicate (or "existing" an
adjective), which I think was dealt with by Kant (can someone clarify ?).
As for "chit" and "ananda", how did you know that - have you realised Brahman to
know the feeling/view of Brahman ??!!?? Then you must have no problems
at all :-)
> ****** There are no two things like Brahman and Maya.
Like saying that "Brahman is Shakti, and Shakti is Brahman." :-)
> >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.
Well...according to the Upadeshasahasri, only students who have achieved the
state of "desire-lessness" can approach the teacher for instruction...
> >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
>
I do not wish to quote the entire Gaudapada Karika here. According to it, there
is no "liberation" etc. to be achieved.
"..there is none suffering, none struggling for liberation...this is the
highest truth."
> ***** 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.
Yeah - there really is no "illusion" only at the Paramarthika level.
At the Vyavaharika level, the Vedas exist: as in the Taittariya U.,"The "Satyam"
became the "R^itam" and the "anR^itam"."
> Even then, I dont think there is any doctrine of Hinduism
> that insists on critisising other doctrines.
In the Upadeshasahasri, Shankara says,"The wrong ideas of the nihilists can
be pointed out thousands and thousands of times" :-)
> I am feeling tired of this argument myself.
Yeah - so am I :-)
> Thanks for reading through this if you have come thus far.
you're welcome :-)
> Prasad S Sista
>
Jayanarayanan
