[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Problems in Advaita
Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes. I question the authenticity of my dreams, even when I am dreaming. Do I
> get a million dollars now? :)
Not so easily. I would be interested in knowing how you do this. Is it
the same "you" that dreams that also simultaneously questions the
authenticity of the dream? If so, then you must be caught up in a
contradiction every time you dream. Every dream, whether pleasant or
otherwise, must then become an unbearable torture for you.
Or is there a part of "you" that dreams and another part of "you" that
questions at the same time? If so, how do these different parts interact
when you are awake? Are these the only parts of "you" or are there other
parts also? Maybe you would make a good subject for experiments by
neurobiologists interested in human consciousness. Meanwhile, if you
question the authenticity of your dreams even when you are dreaming,
what tells you not to question the authenticity of your waking
experiences when you are awake? Or does the questioning part of "you" go
to sleep when the experiencing part of "you" is awake? :-)
>
> 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.
>
Please check your facts about Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Vivekananda
being "apasampradAyI". It is a well documented fact that Sri Ramakrishna
was initiated by Sri Tota Puri, an advaita sannyasi. As such, his
disciples have every right to claim to be in SankarAcArya's sampradAya.
This of course does not guarantee that the position of the Ramakrishna
Mission or its monks on a given issue is identical to or consistent with
the position of those in the more ancient advaita mathas. But not for
the reason you put forth.
Besides, it is not as if every word that a religious leader utters in
his lifetime is somehow intimately connected to his philosophical
position. Vivekananda himself was very clear that his statements about
nationalism were not necessarily connected with advaita. To say the
least, it is somewhat of a stretch to attempt to find advaita in his
non-philosophical writings and then to give him a bad name for not being
consistent with Sankaran advaita.
On the other hand, it is quite possible that there is a master who has
never formally been in the disciplic succession from SankarAcArya, but
who still teaches pure advaita. One very famous example is Sri Ramana
Maharishi. Also, remember that those who did come in SankarAcArya's line
of disciples have acknowledged Sri Ramana as a realized and very
competent guru.
Finally, I don't see why all "advaitins" have to be Sankarites, all
"viSishTAdvaitins" Ramanujites and so on. Each school claims to
represent the true philosophy of the upanishads. Theoretically, it is
quite possible for another philosopher to hold an ultimately non-dual
position about the vedAnta, and still differ from Sankara in details.
One old example of an advaitin who is not always in agreement with
SankarAcArya is maNDana miSra, the author of "brahmasiddhi". So long as
that philosopher has learnt the vedas and vedAngas in the proper way,
there is nothing to stop him from starting a new sampradAya that is
allied to or similar to an already existing school in some respects and
different in others.
S. Vidyasankar
