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

Re: Problems in Advaita

In article <4j2qkh$r0t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
   susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:

  I would like to make a few points here.

  Though  it is  very difficult  to defend  advaita as  a complete  logical
  framework for  explaining the  world experiences,  when considered  as an
  indicator of the absolute it cannot be dismissed offhand.

  If  logical   consistency  is  so   important  for  a  philosophy,   then
  "materialistic atheism" ( which says that  matter and energy only exist
  and that living things are machines ) would be the best philosophy.

  One of the most  important things advaita does is that  it defines god to
  be so absolute that each of  his manifestations will have to be absolute.
  ( Advaitic interpretation of Purnamadah, purnamidam ... ).

  The  dvaita  concept  of  One  Paramatman,  or God  served  eternally  by
  Jivatman's  or  individual souls  cooks  up  in  the  mind a  concept  of
  something like  a lone Sun ( The  Paramatman ) out there in  the universe
  circled by a few planets ( The Jivatman's ).  This is a concept difficult
  to swallow.  In fact a friend of  mine once told a story  in which Narada
  crosses this universe, and visits the lord of a greater universe in whose
  court lord's like Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are attendees, come from lesser
  universes like ours.  It sounded more like science  fiction than religion
  or spirituality,  but it comes from extending our concept of hierarchical
  control beyond God, just as one can extend the concept of solar system to
  other stars galaxies and so on.

  The advaitic interpretation  of Aham Brahmasmi ( I am  Brahman ) would be
  very  effective in  cutting out  such flights  of the  mind,  by giving a
  fullness or completeness to god so that the same fullness or completeness
  is there in each of his manifestations.

  Dvaita too tries to give absolute status to god by saying that "Jivas are
  part  and parcel  of the  Paramatman" ( A  question:  Was this stated  by
  Prabhupada only or  by other dvaitins in Sanskrit? ) but  is not quite as
  effective as advaita.

>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.

  A  dream  is real  as  long  as  it exists.  I  feel  that the  world  if
  considered  as a  dream is  an eternal  dream,  because a person  even on
  attaining realization knowing that it is a dream becomes a witness to the
  dream  ( In fact  he  is established  in a  state  of unbroken  awareness
  transcending all the  three transient states of the  mind namely wakeful,
  dream and deep sleep ).  He does not wake up from it,  for waking up from
  the  world  dream  would  correspond  to the  dissolution  of  the  whole
  universe.

  Speaking  of reality,  I think  the  definition of  reality according  to
  Indian systems  of philosophy  goes something like :  That which  is self
  evident and eternal.  Under that definition the would world become unreal
  even in the  dvaita perspective because the world  is eternally dependent
  on the Paramatman and  exists by his will,  and is not something which is
  self evident.

  Further,  according to advaita since Brahman is refelected in each of its
  manifestations the world does not exist apart from the subject seeing the
  world.

  However ajnani's perceive  the world as independent and  self evident and
  identifying themselves closely  with the body and mind  see themselves to
  be  apart from  the world.  It  is this  perception which  is unreal  and
  called Maya.

  Similiarly while a  dream is real as a creation of the mind,  identifying
  oneself with the  dream body and considering the dream  world as external
  to the person and causing the experiences is unreal.  The reality of the`
  dream is that the subject of the experience,  the dream world causing the
  experience and  the experience itself  have a  common source and  are the
  same.

>>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  does,  just as a  dream exists  in time  and space.  Just as  a dream
  exists while it occurs the world exists till its dissolution.

>>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.

  It is  real,  but its perception is unreal and  an illusion as if  one is
  looking through a clouded window ( The way Jiddu Krishnamurthy puts it ).

>
>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.

  All the relative truths must be contained in Brahman.  Again it cannot be
  said that  the brahman  is the  dreamer because the  Brahman cannot  be a
  seer.  The ego can be said to be the dreamer.  But I am not quite sure of
  this  as these  are tricky  waters you  get into  if you  pull the  dream
  analogy too far.

[ deleted ]

>>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?

  illusion itself means that  which is not real and hence it is denied.  So
  it  cannot be  treated  as  a property.  Ramana  Maharishi on  explaining
  Shankaracharya's philosophy says that the world exists as Brahman and not
  as Maya,  the way we  perceive it.  Thus the advaitists say  that Brahman
  alone  exists and  Maya is  non-existent.  In that  respect according  to
  Ramana Maharishi  advaitsts can be  called Maya vivadins instead  of Maya
  vadins, since they deny the existence of Maya.

>>: 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

  But  has  he  said  that  only  celibate  persons  can  progress  towards
  realization? I am curious to know if Madhvacharya and Ramanujacharya were
  householders?

>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

  The  culmination of  devotion  is the  dropping  of of  the  ego and  the
  realization  that you  are one  with  god.  Also if you  see saints  like
  Shankaracharya,  Ramana  Maharishi,  Ramakrishna  Parmahamsa  etc,  their
  devotion  did  did  not  end  with  their  attaining  realization.   They
  continued to be bhakta's even after their realization.  So I do not think
  that devotion is just a means to an end in advaita.

  If we consider devotion  as love,  then the greatest form of love is that
  in which  the lover and  loved are one.  This can be illustrated  with an
  incident  about  Ramkrishna Parmahamsa  I  have  read somewhere.  When  a
  bullock cart was passing by, Ramakrishna Parmahamsa jumped with pain when
  a bullock was whipped and whip marks were found on his back.  This showed
  how great a love Ramakrishna Parmahamsa had for all creation.

>situation, God is accepted as real person, so grihastha life is meant
>to
>produce children who are raised as servants of God.

  A good concept but extremely difficult to follow.  One may keep hammering
  the concept into his head but I  doubt it would become his genuine desire
  in leading a householders life.

>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.

  Again though Shankaracharya stated that being a celibate was superior,  I
  doubt if he condemned a householder life.

[ deleted ]

>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.

  About your  ( or Kartik's ) point  on the philosophy being  illusory made
  many times in this message, It can be restated as : Nothing done within a
  field of experience  can result in transcending it  since everything done
  is part of the field of experience.

  Interstingly I had found the same  kind of argument against hinduism ( It
  is interesting to note that hinduism is considered to be identical with a
  distorted version of advaita which is  one of its brances of philosophy )
  in an article against religious pluralism in a christian web page :

http://str.org/relistew.htm

  Firstly,  I feel that this kind  of an argument  is just a kind  of guess
  work and cannot be applied to realization.

  Secondly,  If one considers  a dream  as a  model of  the world  then the
  argument cannot  be applied to  dreams either  because it IS  POSSIBLE to
  know that you are dreaming  while dreaming by performing some consistency
  checks  within the  dream  itself.  This is what  lucid  dreaming is  all
  about.  If you want some more info you can read the following web page :

http://www.eolas.co.uk/ah/ben_garb.htm

>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.

  If we  leave aside  the form  of the  wave or  the drop  and look  at the
  essence of the wave or the drop of water,  we find that it is water which
  is the same as the essence of the ocean or the glass of water.  Similarly
  if we leave aside our external bodies  and look inside our true selves we
  will find that we are god.

>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.

  I do  not think it  proper to assign  a quantity to  god as the  ocean or
  glass analogy would  call for,  because an ocean eventhough very large is
  nevertheless finite.

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