[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Problems in Advaita
-
From: santhosh@iss.nus.sg (Santhosh Kumar)
-
Date: 19 Mar 1996 02:37:32 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, National University Of Singapore.
-
References: <4gd7i7$qjj@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4gj7an$hks@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4iaal9$mku@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
Hari Krishna Susarla (susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu) wrote:
: In article <4gj7an$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.
: >
This statement is incorrect, I cannot say "I do not exist", it will be
self denial. To say "I do not exist", I should exist, logically
incorrect as well.
: 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.
Seems like you are complicating the matter too much! When you say
something does not exist, what is the logic behind using a theory
( "Two negatives = a positive" ) which is part of the already negated
theory to prove that what you proved is not right. As I
understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
not mean that whatever we are doing is meaningless and illusion.
As long as we are in the dream, the dream is real. The dream
becomes an illusion when you go beyond that state to a higher
state, what we call "awake". This by no way implies that the
dream was not real, the dream existed and the characters you
saw in the dream were real in the dream.
It becomes illusion only when you negate it using a higher level
of consciousness, not otherwise. It may not be appropriate to use
part of the theories in the dream and part of the theories in
this world to establish a point, in the same way it won't be
appropriate to use part of the theories of this world and part
of higher consciousness to drive a point, it will not take us
anywhere. If you negate a theory, do not use any more tools or
axioms from that theory, in this case the world, it would only
complicate the matter, otherwise do not negate this world.
Please do not get confused with the statement "This world
is an illusion", it is not an illusion as long as you are in
it, it becomes an illusion only when you go beyond (negate) it.
: Of course, an illusion of something presupposes its actual existence
: somewhere. Using the logic that the effect is always present
: in the cause, you
You dream ( day dream ) about something, it does not imply that
it exists somewhere else. If that is the case, all the novels
written so far should be a narration of actual incidents.
: 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.
:
It is not that Brahman and Maya exists, it is Brahman that exists, and
manifests as Maya, like fire and the power to burn. Without fire,
it won't have the power to burn, and at the same time fire does
not exist without its quality to burn certain things.
:
: >>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.
:
There is no problem with teaching Advaita to worldly people. Even
the saints praises Grahasthasramam.
: >>
: >>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.
Time does not exist only in the higher consciousness state, till that
state is reached you are still driven by the so-called illusion which
you perceive as real,in that sense time still exists for you. Time is
as apparent as we are, our existence is apparent, not real. Or, in
other words, we exist apparently, so do 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.
Vedas itself says "Use Vedas, but go beyond(negate) Vedas". It admits its
limitation. I must again advise you not to use tools from a theory
that you negated already, otherwise do not negate it. An equivalant
in Physics would be that of Newtonian Physics and Relativity theory.
If relativity theory is true, then Newtonian Physics cannot be true,
but we know both are true, only its domain varies. In other words,
Newtonian Physics is true in a limited sense. Most of your arguments
are like using theories in Newtonian physics to prove that relativity
theory is not true.
:
: >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.
:
It is because Sankara himself is a manifestation of THAT. A wave cannot
say that wave is the ocean, but the wave belongs to the ocean, and hence
is the ocean, but by itself cannot claim to be the ocean.
Regards,
Santhosh
