[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
In article <4io55h$jvr@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
santhosh@iss.nus.sg (Santhosh Kumar) wrote:
>: 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.
The point is to show that such a theory cannot be considered. If a
philosophy
requires that you not accept it as real, then it is not a philosophy
that is
worth follwing.
As I
>understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does
But a dream is not real.
>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.
I don't understand. First you say that it is as real as a dream, but a
dream
is not real. Now you are saying that "the dream existed and...."
implying that
the world around us is in fact real.
What I want to know, is, does the world around us exist in time and
space or
not?
>It becomes illusion only when you negate it using a higher level
>of consciousness, not otherwise.
"not otherwise." So, the world around us is real, just temporary. Is
that what
you are saying?
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.
Please bear with me. But I frankly did not understand the above.
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.
Well, now I am confused by your explanation. I was looking for someone
to
clearly and concisely explain to me (without indulging in name
calling)
whether or not the world around us is real. If it is real, then it
seems that
there is no reason for putting all kinds of conditions on 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.
Quite the contrary! When you are in a desert, you may see mirages of
water.
You can't see something which you have never before heard of.
If that is the case, all the novels
>written so far should be a narration of actual incidents.
No. Literature is based on human experience. You may notice that a
baby is
mentally incapable of writing a novel. That is because a baby has no
experience from which to derive a story about people and
relationships.
So, my point is that you can only see an effect if it is present in
the cause.
A story on paper (the effect) exists first in the mind of the author
(the
cause). The mental representation of the story is itself based on an
interweaving of ideas, thoughts, looks, attitudes and so on which have
been
studied by the author and mixed up by him in a way to produce a unique
story.
>: 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.
Exactly. But while no one would separate the power to burn from fire,
no
Vedantist would want to link illusion with Brahman. The Supreme
Brahman is
saccidananda according to advaitists, so how is it that illusion can
be an
intrinstic property of the Supreme 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.
>:
>There is no problem with teaching Advaita to worldly people. Even
>the saints praises Grahasthasramam.
But which saints? Sankaracharya never praised it. The utility of
Grihasthaasrama can only be accepted in a world view with a personal
Godhead
at the center and with devotion as both the means and the end. In this
situation, God is accepted as real person, so grihastha life is meant
to
produce children who are raised as servants of God.
In advaita, however, there is no clear utility for householder life,
since
bhakti is not regarded as an eternal condition. I think that is why
Sankaracharya required his disciples to be celebate. The fact that
this is not
practiced now simply means that today's advaitins want to have their
cake and
eat it too.
>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.
OK I guess I can accept that.
>: 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 think the universally understood purport of statements such as these
is that
one should not become entangled in simply being a Vedic scholar; one
should
realize their goal.
I must again advise you not to use tools from a theory
>that you negated already, otherwise do not negate it.
But I never negated the Vedas. Far from it, I argue that advaitins are
the
ones who are using tools, the reality of which they have denied.
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.
The same holds for the advaitins. How can they use tools of the
material world
(a relative truth) to understand the Absolute Truth? Since you are
criticizing
me on this point, I think I should say that this criticism is more
appropriately directed at the advaitins. I do accept that the world is
real.
>: >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.
But a wave never BECOMES the ocean. A drop of water never becomes a
glass of
water. There is similarity in quality only, but the difference in
quantity
remains.
Therefore, if the wave to an ocean analogy is accurate, one would have
to
conclude that one always remains quantitatively subordinate to God,
which
would refute advaita.
