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

Re: Problems in Advaita

In keeping with the tradition of oneness, I am condensing all my responses
to separate people in one article. Advaitins should be proud :)

Santosh Kumar wrote:

>:  As I 
>: >understand advaita, the world is as real as a dream. It does 
>: 
>: But a dream is not real.
>
>The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the 
>dream you never questioned its authenticity.  Same is the 

Not really. I question the authenticity of my dreams all the time...

>case with this world also. When you are in this world, you 
>perceive it as real.

But if the world we experience around us, with all its qualities and
variegatedness is false, that still presupposes that such a world actually
exists *somewhere*.

 I suggest you read books like "Gospel of Sri 
>Ramakrishna" and "Complete works of Swami Vivekananda"
>to get a better understanding of Advaita. These books deal 

No! I'm sorry, but neither Ramakrishna nor Swami Vivekananda are truly
representatives of Advaita. If you want to learn Advaita, you should read
the works of Sri Sankaraachaarya and those of his followers in paramparaa.
Since Sri Sankaraachaarya is the original exponent of advaita in this age,
the only persons who can honestly claim to be advaitists are those who
received teachings from him in disciplic succession. 

Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and other swamis in that class are influenced by
advaita, but their philosphies are quite clearly a result of time and
circumstance. Most of these people have, as their primary motivation, the
desire to water down Vedic philosophy and present it in a form that is
palatable to Western sensibilities. Then too there is their motivation (not
necessarily bad) to liberate India from Western political and cultural
influence. Unfortunately, the philosophy they put forward becomes a mix of
advaita, nationalism, and philosophical revisionism rather than a sincere,
spiritual treatise.

Prasad S. Sista wrote:

>>> *** Sir sorry to interrupt. First of all there are two states here.
>>>  one in which everything is one and the other in which they are all
>>>  different.
>>Well, that's not what Ramakrishnan said. Nor am I aware of any reference in 
>>Sankaracharya's works to the effect that there is a state in which "they are 
>>all different." What is clear to me from advaita theory (and I would 
>>appreciate it if someone could quote Sankara to the contrary) is that 
>>everything is ultimately one, and that no distinctions are admitted.
>   *** Neither am I aware of reference in Shankara's works about it. Why??
>   I havent read any of Shankara's works myself. You are assuming that all
>   advaitins are quoting from Shankara's works and this is not necessarily
>   true always.

Wrong. Advaitins have to base their philosophy on Sankaraachaarya, or else
they are not advaitins. If Sankaraachaarya does not accept it, then it is
not advaita. And I am not aware of Sankaraachaarya conceding that a state
actually exists where "everything is different."

>>Actually, what he said was that *personal* existence was what was verifiable. 
>>This is interesting, because no advaitist thatIknow ofaccepts theidea that 
>>we are individual, living entities. Rather,they accept that there is only one 
>>world-soul, not many individual souls. 
>  *** Well it might be interesting. But whether it is interesting or not or
>   whether it is the belief of other advaitists or not, that is what he worte.

Exactly. And I assert that what he wrote is not correct, according to
advaita philosophy.

>>>  he is talking about rather than trying to form an idea of whether he
>>>  has an idea of advaita or not!!! Please try to see what people are
>>>  SAYING instead of trying to evaluate their Parampara and their guru.
>>
>>Well, I am trying to see what he is saying. I don't think what he or you are 
>>saying is correct according to Sankaracharya's parampara.
> ** Enlightment required. What is Sankaracharya's parampara. By the way
>   please  enlighten me on this one too. What exactly is `Paramapara?'

paramparaa literally means "coming one after another" or something like
that. It is a time honored Vedic (and Indian) tradition that spiritual
knowledge is received in paramparaa, that is, through disciplic succession
from guru to student. This is to ensure the authenticity of the information.
It is also to ensure that unqualified personalities do not allow the
teachings to be adulterated. Practically all Vedanta traditions accept the
importance of learning through paramparaa. Lord Krishna also describes how
He disseminated knowledge in this way in the beginning of the 4th chapter.

>>This is not a very scientific statement. Eitherthe world is real,or it is an 
>>illusion. 
> Well. It depends on where you are looking from. By the way since when did

Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
is the same for everyone. So either the world is real, or it is not. No
points for trying to compromise just to be politically correct :)

>>So what is the truth? Is the world real, or an illusion?
>**** I am testing my patience myself. I will write it again. It depends on
>how you are perceiving the world. If you are perceiving it through your
>senses and intellect then  everything is real and you see differences in form,
>attributes etc. But if you are able to transcend these then everything is ONE
>So I wish to say assuming that you have not transcended you senses and 
>intellect, The world is REAL.

So, according to you, the Absolute Truth is that everything is ONE.
Therefore, only in the conditioned state do we see the world as REAL. That
means that the world is not actually REAL. Therefore whatever we do is also
not actually REAL. 

In that case, you have negated the validity of the very tools by which you
have arrived at this conclusion - the same criticism you charged me with (or
was that someone else? I forget...).

>  *** Sorry. I was not trying to criticise anyone. The illusion theory seems
>   ridiculous to you because you are not realised. what advaita says is
>   IF one is self-realised, everything is an illusion for Him. The aim of
>   every human being(since he is endowed with the precious gift of THINKING or
>   the intellect) should be to attain that state. There are different ways of
>   achieving this.  
>   eg:  Through Bhakti or love.
>        Through Karma or work.
>        Through knowledge or intellect.

But that is not what Lord Krishna says. What He clearly says in the Gita is:

naaham vedair na tapasaa
 na daanena na cejyayaa
s'akya evam-vidho drashtum
 drishtavaan asi maam yathaa

bhaktyaa tv ananyayaa s'akya
 aham evam-vidho 'rjuna
jnyaatum drashtum ca tattvena
 praveshtum ca parantapa

which indicates that only by undivided devotional service. He specifically
states that it cannot be done by simply study of the Vedas (knowledge or
intellect) or by simply penances, charity, worship, etc (karma).

Later, in 12th chapter, Krishna only recommends the other yoga systems if
the devotee is unable to pursue bhakti. Therein it is quite clear that the
other yoga systems are meant to bring one to the platform of bhakti.

>>>   I have one very straight forward question. Valmiki is supposed to be
>>>   the author of Ramayana and is supposed to be a great man. What was
>>>   his Parampara?
>>
>>Krishna - Brahmaa - Naarada - Valmiiki. 
>   ** I was really unaware of this. thanks for the clarification.
>      But Krishna was born in the Dwaaparyuga and Valmiki I thought belonged
>      to the Tretayuga. So how can one born before somebody belong to the
>    parampara of someone who is born later. Please correct me if I am wrong??

This is actually a very basic teaching. Krishna was not "born" at a
particular time. He exists eternally, although he appeared in Dvaapura yuga
for the purpose of pleasing His devotees and destroying the miscreants.
Krishna is eternally existing in the spiritual realm, and this fact is
constantly being hammered on us in the Gita itself.

 >  ** Basically it doesnt depend on who you worship as long as you are REALLY
>   worshipping!! In fact it is not necessary to `worship' in the literal

That is not the message of the Mahaabhaarata, as understood from the fact
that the Gita itself (which comes from the Mahaabhaarata) says otherwise:

antavat tu phalam teshaam
 tad bhavaty alpa-medhasaam
devaan deva-yajo yaanti
 mad-bhaktaa yaanti maam api (7.23)

"Men of small intelligence (alpa-medhasaam) worship the demigods
(deva-yajaha), and their fruits are limited and temporary (antavat). Those
who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees
(mad-bhaktaa) ultimately reach My spureme planet (yaanti maam - literally
"go to Me"). 

>   sense of the word as is illustrated by parable of Vyadha. BTW you didnt
>   answer my question. What was the paramapara of the Vyadha??

I don't know his paramparaa. However, I frankly think you have
misrepresented the story, as demonstrated by the evidence given above. As I
recall, the whole purpose of that story was to demonstrate the importance of
duty to the braahmin. However, since neither of us has heard this from a
qualified guru, it is best not to speculate.

>>There is a relationship. Mundane sex desire is materialistic. Therefore, 
>>according to advaita philosophy, one should remain celibate, and thus refrain 
>>from indulging in things which are illusion.
>  ** I am trying not to be rude here. Please refer to the english dictionary.
>     I said there is no if then relationship. that is if you are materialistic
>     you are non-celibate doesnt follow

On the contrary, it does follow. Materialism simply means lording it over
material nature, and for young people (and many old people) that means
looking for sex. Because of lust, people avoid religion. And also because of
lust, those who want to be religious make up all kinds of whacky
interpretations that remove any sense of responsibility they might have to
God. The natural conclusion of Sankaraachaarya's philosophy is that one
would have to renounce sex desire all together; so no one who hankers after
it (even in the context of marriage) can honestly call himself an advaitist. 

>>
>>Well, I have always been taught that genuine religion teaches one to know and 
>>love the Personality of Godhead, and to desire only to serve Him eternally.
>   ** This is the opinion of the person that has taught you and you have
accepted

Actually it is the opinion of the Bhagavad-Gita.

brahma-bhuuta prasantaama
 na socati na kankshati
samaha sarveshu bhuteshu
 mad-bhaktim labhate paraam

>     ** A problem to finish off. A tiger cub is feeling hungry and its mother
>   wants to feed it. So it kills a cow who's calf is also hungry to feed its
>   cub. What do you think is the tiger doing?? Dharma or Adharma??
>   Please think about this.

Humans are not tigers. Humans are presumable advanced enough to do more than
the basic animal necessities - namely eating, sleeping, defending, and
mating. Humans are advanced enough to find civilized alternatives. Please
think about this.

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote (in a separate thread, by anyway it's all
one):

>Thanks for the clarification Bon Giovanni. I also saw the post by Dr Jai
Maharaj
>giving some more details about this issue. The point ofcourse is that many of
>the details given in various puraaNas (even the uhmm, saatvic ones) about the
>distances to the moon, size of the earth etc are grossly wrong. Of course if
>one realizes that these are just artha vada and not meant for extended debate,
>then grossly silly assertions like "astronauts never went to the moon" wouldn't
>be made.

Actually, this point is very explicitly discussed in Dr. Richard Thompson's
_Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy_. As I recall, the conclusion he arrived at
after studying all of Srila Prabhupada's statements on this matter was that
Prabhupada was referring to Chandraloka whenever he said "moon," which makes
sense since Srila Prabhupada thought in Vedic terms. The rest of us by
contrast think of a lifeless rock in space when we hear the word "moon." The
difference between the two? One theory I have heard is that the former is
indeed further away than the latter. But I believe the conclusion Dr.
Thompson arrived at was that they are indeed the same, but the distance
given in scripture refers to the amount of pious merit one must accrue in
order to be reborn there. An irreligious person whose senses are impure will
not be able to see the civilization which scripture says is there. As I
recall, this interpretation was not made whimsically, but was supported by
other scriptural evidence wherein distances are very clearly given as a
measure of how much piety one must have. 

In any case, it has been some time since I read this book, and the details
in my mind are quite sketchy. It certainly would be worthwhile to check it
out rather than risk misrepresenting Srila Prabhupada's position.


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