[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
First of all, I would like to point out that my initial objections were
actually directed to Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian. Since he proclaimed my
ignorance of advaita philosophy, I requested him to answer my questions and
clarify my doubts. Since he has been unable to do so, it seems that the fact
is that he is the ignorant one. This is pretty humorous considering that he
seemed so otherwise confident in his understanding of advaita vedanta.
In article <4jvm6v$s6@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
psista@ecn.purdue.edu(Prasad S Sista) wrote:
>>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!
Yes. I question the authenticity of my dreams, even when I am dreaming. Do I
get a million dollars now? :)
>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
You are evading the question. The point is, we have a world around us with
qualities and variegatedness. Therefore, the source from which it came must
also have qualities and variegatedness. We conclude that the sun is hot
because the sunrays which we perceive are also hot. So similarly, we must
conclude that the Absolute Truth, which is the source of everything, must have
qualities because this world (whether it is real or not) has qualities.
>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??
For example, if I want to teach medicine, I have to have a degree in medicine.
That degree is more than just a piece of paper; it is a certification of my
abilities and knowledge by persons who have themselves been similarly
certified. Although I don't need a degree to know some things about the
medical sciences, in order to become an authority on medicine I must be
trained by other authorities.
So, while Vivekananda and others have some ideas that are in line with advaita
philosophy, the fact of the matter is that they are not authorities on advaita
because they are apasampradaayi. Therefore, whatever they say about advaita
has to be taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by an authority on
advaita.
>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:-)
I have "Thoughts of Power," "Karma Yoga," and "Chicago Addresses" all by Swami
Vivekananda.
>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???
You seem to be kind of confused here. I never said that "there is nothing that
is correct or wrong everything is the same." Rather, I criticized other Hindus
for having that belief. It is NOT my belief, nor is it the belief of real
advaitins.
> *** 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!!!)
I could answer by citing Bhagavad-Gita, which is the Supreme science spoken by
the Lord Himself. But, I am guessing that you probably won't care for it.
>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
Because one person is ignorant of the Absolute Truth and must seek instruction
from another person who does.
and hierarchy in
> the quality of devotion??
I never said that there was a "hierarchy in the quality" of devotion.
So by your argument, is dvaita an absolute
> philosophy??
I am not a dvaitist, but yes, I would argue that dvaita is a lot closer to the
actual understanding of the Absolute Truth than advaita.
> Advaita is absolute in the sense that the world is real for
> people who have not REALISED that it is an ILLUSION.
So, what you are saying now is that the world is ultimately an illusion.
Presumably, the perception by REALISED persons would be correct, from an
Absolute standpoint. Therefore, the world is illusion, and so too are tools
and means by which we can realize this.
Of course, this still does not answer any of my original questions. If the
world is illusion, where does that illusion come from? Who is being put under
illusion? Why is this being done? If illusion is there, then the corresponding
reality is presupposed. So within this illusion there is individuality and
variegatedness, so there must be a similar case in the source of that
illusion.
>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....
A person who is really interested in the Absolute Truth generally does not
need to clarify such words. The reason you don't like this word "actually" is
because it requires you to make a statement of fact, but you are unable to do
that without qualifying it. This is indeed telling.
>> 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.
First of all, I noticed you excised the verse from Bhagavad-Gita which clearly
contradicts this. So, I will post it again:
bhaktyaa tv ananyayaa s'akya
aham evam-vidho 'rjuna
jnaatum drashtum ca tattvena
praveshtum ca parantapa
"My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I
am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can
you enter into the mysteries of My understanding." (11.54)
Krishna says this after rejecting the methods of karma and jnaana.
>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??
Because other yoga systems are meant to bring one to the platform of bhakti
yoga. See the above verse. Only by bhakti can one understand the Absolute
Truth.
> The Vyadha's case(butcher's case) is a clear case of Karma yoga.
I only have your word for that, so pardon me if i take it with a grain of
salt.
> 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)
WRONG. That is not what the story was meant to illustrate. It is NOT what the
Mahabharata says, because the Bhagavad-Gita clearly says otherwise. That story
in the Mahaabhaarata, as I remember it, was meant to teach the importance of
duty. It had NOTHING to do with illustrating "the fact that all paths are
equal and none of them is INFERIOR or superior..." The brahmin had falsely
renounced his duty of caring for his parents (false renunciation is condemned
in the Bhagavad-Gita), and learned of its importance from the wretched
buthcher, who, sinful though he was, at least understood the importance of
following his family duties.
> > ** 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.
It is correct. It comes from scripture after all.
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.
This makes no sense. You are trying to imply that one can worship any god, but
the Bhagavad-gita clearly says that worship of other gods is without proper
understanding. Therefore, if you worship, you must worship Lord Krishna if you
are to be considered to be in proper knowledge. That is the teaching of
Bhagavad-Gita.
>WORK IS WORSHIP
If so, then we must conclude that the ass (note: I am referring to the animal,
not a part of the anatomy) is the best of all devotees, because no one works
harder than the poor ass who works all day pulling his master's cart.
If I work hard for my own sense gratification, does it mean I am worshiping?
What kind of philosophy is that?
What the Bhagavad-Gita says is that one must work to please Lord Krishna. That
kind of work is karma-yoga. Not simply working to earn money to please your
own senses.
This "WORK IS WORSHIP" idea is not an advaitist teaching. It is a Vivekananda
teaching. It is because of sentiments like this that I say that advaitists
should learn philosophy from Sankaraachaarya's line, and not from others who
happen to be very popular.
>
>> sense of the word as is illustrated by parable of Vyadha. BTW you didnt
>> answer my question. What was the paramapara of the Vyadha??
>
> **** 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)
This is all likely a misinterpretation. First of all, from what I remember of
that story, the brahmin was NOT a bhakta. He was performing austerities, yes,
but that is not necessarily the same as bhakti. As stated in the
Bhagavad-Gita, only by bhakti can one attain the Supreme. Other paths can only
lead you to bhakti-yoga. It is not the case that " A person who sincerely does
his duty is much better off than one who is not sincere in his bhakti..."
While a bhakta has to be sincere, what is stated in Bhagavad-Gita is:
yoginaam api sarveshaam
mad-gatenaantar-aatmanaa
s'raddhaavaan bhajate yo maam
sa me yuktatamo mataha
"And of all yogiis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks
of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me -- he is
the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the higest of all. That is
My opinion." (6.47)
Furthermore, bhakti which is improperly performed yields better results than
other yoga systems:
nehaabhikrama-naa'so 'sti
pratyavaayo na vidyate
sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya
traayate mahato bhayaat (2.40)
"In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on
this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear."
No such claims are made about other paths.
>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
This after trying to convince me that there are two states?
> 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.
On the contrary! Sankaraachaarya condemned attraction for women in the most
harshest of terms. He would have to, since married life is illusion. According
to his philosophy, one should remain celibate (to do otherwise is to indulge
in illusion) and simply meditate and study the Absolute Truth.
Of course, so-called advaitists whom I have met do not want to hear this,
because most of the time they are not serious about practicing advaita. If you
want to use advaita to get out of devotional service to Lord Krishna, then you
should go all the way and strive for celibacy. You can't have your cake and
eat it too.
> 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.
My obsessions, eh? My how you are taking this personally! Nevertheless, it is
a fact that materialistic desires are a bigger source of motivation than most
people realize. I don't care to convince you of it, but It is pretty obvious
to me when I see people saying things like "WORK IS WORSHIP" and reading
kaama-sutra (a treatise on obtaining sense gratification) while claiming to be
advaitists.
Real advaita requires that one retreat from material life. Pursuing marriage,
family, career, and money is not compatible with advaita as I have understood
it. If these things are illusion from the Absolute perspective, then indulging
in them will not help a person become realized.
>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...
where?
