[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Problems in Advaita


This is the first time I am posting/responding to a post in any net. I 
hope, I will keep my cool after this post and resist the temptation to 
respond to or initaite any item to any net. Having said that, the urge to 
express on the matter was , in my opinion, based on the need to explain. 
There may be others who can give better anology and better explanation to 
the topic "maya". But the following is my considered opinion. 

My understanding about the cause for confusion with regard to advita
philosophy in the net, and indeed over the historical past, is in the
proper translation/understanding - or the lack of it - of the term "maya". 

The confusion araises when it is translated into "illussion". Of course, 
life and everything that goes with the life cannot be an illussion. 

Ask a poet, how he feels about expressing his inner emotions. He will
probably say he feels inadequate in expressing his inner emotions, when he
feels the urge to exppress. If that were the case for a poet endoved with
the use of words, what of the non-poets or scientists who have limited
ability to express precisely anything other than technical matter. There 
is a proverb in Tamil language - "Kannaara kandadhum poi. Kaathaara  
ketadhum poi. Theera visaaripathe mei". Those who are familiar with this 
proverb know how it has been misinterpreted. The meaning of that, for the 
benefit of those who do not understand that is that what you SEE may not 
be true! what you HEAR may not be true! Only inernal contemplation of 
what you have heard and seen and the conclusions arrived at through your 
contemplation is true. If that were true of proverbs, what of the 
utterings of spirituly elevated beings' statements. I think, I am straying 
from the topic. 

The appropriate translation of the term "maya" would be "TRANSITORY
REALITY". It means only that it is real but is impermenant not permenant. 
This had been one of the hall marks of ancient Indian philosophy. 

As an example: Scientis say, and all of us know, that water can exist in
varying states as water, ice, or vapour under different circumstances and
conditions.  Since, we have come to understand that "reality" it is not
difficullt if we say that the fact of water at a particular condition is
only "maya" or "TRANSITORY REALITY". 

However, if that particular fact is not known to many of us, and only one
two scientists, through their laboratory experiments and their strength of
mind, have come to realize this and try to express that fact to other
non-scientists, how many of us would be able to appreciate them. I doubt
there will be only a few, if any at all. 

Another example we can give. Suppose we have a pea-nut. All I ask you 
divest your previous knowledge and understanding and experiences of 
biology, gardening etc. In this case, you do not know anything about the 
nature of a seed, its relation to plant etc. If we have been divested of 
these conditioned mind, and if a wiser person comes along and tells us that 
there is life in that pea-nut seed, what will be our reaction? A few will 
start thinking. Few will say not so. Most will say he has gone "cookoo". 
That has happend to scientists, spiritual persons, etc. Galilio, Jesus, 
Gandhi are examples. 

These two examples are only indicative of the concepts of "maya". 

Since we try to relate "maya" only with life - since it is the most 
precious thing to one, we have to go beyond certain thing. To understand 
the term "maya" with respect to human life itself, we should understand 
the term "thre-kala-janani", the one who understands the past, present 
and the future. 

We do not know exactly what we are doing at the time of what we do. Do not
we talk first and then think most of the time? If that were the case, how
many of us can understand where we came from, what we are doing and where
we will be after this life. Without the understanding of the interplay
between the past, present and future with respect to human life, the term
"maya" cannot be appreciated in the context of human life. If we can
understand the interplay between these things, in the context of
appropriate circumstances, then the term "maya" will be well understood.
When that is understood, the beauty of advita philosophy will be 
appreciated, by scientists, poets and painter - that is its logic, 
expression etc etc. 

Those who want to **(understand)** would be immensly benefited when they 
read the commentaries of gita and upanishads by well known masters. I 
have benefitted by reading them. 

With kind regards
Dr. Arunachalam

___________________________________________________________________
On 20 Mar 1996, Santhosh Kumar wrote:

> 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
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
>
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.