[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
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...
****** Do you question the authenticity of your dreams in your dream
or after waking up?? This is the million dollar question!
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*.
**** The world is not false. The different manifestations of the
Self or the One that we perceive are due to the fact that we are
not liberated from our senses, mind and intellect. As long as you are
not liberated(analogy to dream here is 'as long as you are dreaming')
your senses, mind and intellect tell you that this is what is there
and is the absolute truth. But once you have REALISED(wake up),
you realise that what WAS different IS one and the same(what you
thought was REAL is only a dream after you wake up)
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.
*** I disagree with you here. How does it matter whether I follow
Sri Ramakrishna/Vivekananda or Shankaracharya??
It is like saying that I am not stating
E = m * c*c (mass energy equivalence proposed by
Einstein) correctly unless I am his disciple and have got knowledge
from him in disciplic succession!! the equation remains the same
whether I read it from Einstein's own treatise or from any other book.
I really dont understand the rationale behind this kind of arugument.
Also advaita is so logical and precise in its approach that it is
just like an exact science(this is my personal opinion). So it doesnt
matter who says it. The theory is the same.
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.
**** This again is an opinion. I will really give more weightage
to what you say if you can sincerely tell me how many of Sri Ramakrishna's
or Vivekananda's books you have read. I am saying this because
you have categorised their works here and not what I have written:-)
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."
**** I dont know if Shankaraachaarya has stated this. But I wouldnt
expect him to since it is obvious. most of us are in this state. This is the
state in which we percieve things as they are that is different in
colour, shape, size and other characteristics.
Exactly. And I assert that what he wrote is not correct, according to
advaita philosophy.
*** If you say that that is the advaita then let me argue according
to YOUR advaita(though there is nothing like that). There is nothing
that is correct or wrong everything is the same. So what is correct
advaita and what is wrong advaita???
>>This is not a very scientific statement. Eitherthe world is real,or it is an
>>illusion.
*** By the way. You did not answer my question. Define god and
religion in scientific terms. Please say that you dont have an
answer if you dont have one because I have answers for these(scientific
answers sir, purely scientific!!!)
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 :)
**** Then why differences like guru and sishya and hierarchy in
the quality of devotion?? So by your argument, is dvaita an absolute
philosophy??
Advaita is absolute in the sense that the world is real for
people who have not REALISED that it is an ILLUSION.
>>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.
^^^^^^^^
***** What is this ACTUALLY?? Please clarify....
We are treading on very unsure ground when we say world is
ACTUALLY real and NOT ACTUALLY real and things like that.
Let me put it straight. If you attain self-realisation, world is ONE
if not it is different(in attributes like size, colour etc)
By actually, which actually do you mean. Actually after realisation
or actually before realisation, that is now!!
Actually world is one after realisation but now, actually, world is
as what you actually see!!!
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...).
** Question answered in the previous paragraph:-)
> *** 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.
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.
*** Here there seems so be a jump. If Krishna himself recommends
the other yoga systems, it means that they are CLEAR alternatives to
Bhakti. The Lord himself is saying that IF YOU CANT pursue, follow
this. Why would he state anything inferior??
The Vyadha's case(butcher's case) is a clear case of Karma yoga.
this has been stated in the Mahabharata(I dont have references since
I left my book back in India but I will be happy if anyone can
provide reference about the Vyadyageeta). If this is not authentic,
neither is the BhagavadGita. This parable is to illustrate the fact
that all paths are equal and none of them is INFERIOR or superior to
the other (which is the same as what advaita states)
> ** 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
"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").
*** This may be correct. But please read my sentence carefully.
Who is worshipping in the first place?? Only if I worship(literally sit
and think about a diety) will the question of WHO I am worshipping
arise. WORK IS WORSHIP
> 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.
**** Yes. You have hit upon the right point here. It is to illustrate
the importance of duty. This story shows that a butcher who does his
duty sincerely is much better off than a brahmin who prays/worships god
for years(here the brahmin was not really unattached to the fruits of
his tapas) looking for some powers. A person who sincerely does his
duty is much better off than one who is not sincere in his bhakti
(which intuitively is correct also)
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.
**** Advaita basically states that there are no two states and
there is only one(a-dvaita means not dvaita ie not two but one)
So it only is a means of describing the SELF. Hardly does it talk
about sex desire and all other things you have just now stated.
Also materialism means'a doctrine that the only or the
highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
furtherance of material progress'. I am quoting from the websters here.
so where does the meaning LOOKING FOR SEX come from. It comes only from
your assumptions and your obsessions.
> ** A problem to finish off. A child is feeling hungry and its mother
> wants to feed it (both are humans!). She doesnt have anything to give
the child and no money to buy anything for the child.
so she decides to steal(she is basically helpless and all other
avenues are closed). Feeding the kid is her DUTY since she is the
mother. But stealing is a sin according to 'MORALS'.
> What do you think the mother is 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.
***** I have stated an extremely civilised(unique to human beings)
alternative. Please ponder over this...
Regards
Prasad S Sista
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------- end of forwarded message -------
Follow-Ups:
