Shaivite refutation Of Advaita

[Omkara]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101791730/Ved%C4%81nta-vs-%C5%9Aaiva-Tantra

[wundermonk]

Could you outline, in your own words, what the arguments and the counter arguments are?

[Omkara]

I will be outlining Abhinavagupta's polemic as and when I get time.First though,two of his arguments not mentioned in the article I posted.

Please note here that I am studying Abhinavagupta's philosophy and his views do not necessarily reflect mine.

He argues that even knowledge (jnana) is an activity (kriya) of the Divine,without activity the Divine Being would be inert and incapable of bringing about anything, least of all the whole cosmos. Parmshiva is svatantra (has free will) and therefore is a Karta (doer). Knowledge (jnana) is not a passive state of consciousness but an activity of consciousness, though an effortless one. Knowledge is not really like the reflection of moon in a pond; in knowledge there is an active “grasping” on the part of the knower which is an activity of mind (kriya).So the Advaitin argument that Brahman is inactive is refuted.

In Tantraloka,Abhinavagupta says that Shankara's philosophy is not true monism as it implies the eternal existence of two entities – Brahaman and Avidya, which amounts to clear dualism.

I would request you go through this thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=270 before we discuss the topic further.

[Omkara]

The advaitin says that that experience world keeps man in bondage and is to be shunned through sannyasa.Abhinavagupta says the world is the source of both bondage and liberation, and understanding the world as a manifestation of Shiva can give liberation just like a thorn is used to remove another thorn.
This world is not the cause of bondage of the world in and of itself,only a bound,conditioned, fearful, limited experience of the world causes bondage.The enlightened mind looks upon the world as the lila of shiva,not as a trap to be avoided or as a distraction to spiritual pursuits.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Thank you for the link, I am reading through it now. I have recently been reading on Kashmir Shaivism and I am quite fascinated with its way of expressing the truth. I would consider myself to practice Advaita, but I am quite open to other ways of expressing the truth.

There are some things that I am confused about when discussing these differences. I have been hearing how one contrast is for Advaita the world is unreal and for the Kashmir Shaivite the world is Real as Siva. Yet I also have heard Advaita teachers say at other times that the world is Siva and none other than this. So to me it seems like they are both arriving at the same conclusion, they are just pointing to it differently at some times.

It is also said that in Kashmir Shaivism Siva is active whereas Advaita says Siva is not active, but as in the above example I have also heard from Advaita teachers that God is the only doer. So it seems again that they are pointing to the same thing, unless I am not comprehending correctly (which very well may be the case).

I also heard in a different work than the one you linked us to that Advaita teaches suppression of the senses. This may be true for some groups and practices, but I still find many Advaita teachers that even mention that we should not suppress any feelings or the sense perceptions in general.

It is difficult to generalized these concepts as if they are fixed. Concepts are only pointing to the truth. When we see them as rigid then we may create these separations.

Please correct anything I have said that is not correct, because I am very interested in learning about these schools and also their differences. Right now as I mentioned I am fascinated reading about Kashmir Shaivism.

Om Namah Shivaya

[wundermonk]

He argues that even knowledge (jnana) is an activity (kriya) of the Divine,without activity the Divine Being would be inert and incapable of bringing about anything, least of all the whole cosmos. Parmshiva is svatantra (has free will) and therefore is a Karta (doer).

Per Advaita, creation never occurred. That we call Brahman the creator is due to tatastha lakshana (definition per accidens) like how we can identify a a home by saying that home that is below the moon. Brahman, as a creator, is Ishwara.


Knowledge (jnana) is not a passive state of consciousness but an activity of consciousness, though an effortless one. Knowledge is not really like the reflection of moon in a pond; in knowledge there is an active “grasping” on the part of the knower which is an activity of mind (kriya).So the Advaitin argument that Brahman is inactive is refuted.

Mind, buddhi, ahamkara, etc. are evolutes of prakriti and Brahman is just existence-consciousness. That is, Brahman does not need to ''act'' or grasp to know. There is nothing apart from Brahman that Brahman has to know.


In Tantraloka,Abhinavagupta says that Shankara's philosophy is not true monism as it implies the eternal existence of two entities – Brahaman and Avidya, which amounts to clear dualism.

Avidya has no beginning. This is true. But it does have an end. Once that is ended, there is only Brahman - pure monism/oneness. Once this knowledge dawns, it is also cognized that Avidya did not truly exist. So, there was never dualism to begin with.


I would request you go through this thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=270 before we discuss the topic further.

That will take time. :( That is an 18 page thread. :)

[Omkara]

Hi,perhaps you did not read my disclaimer that I am studying this philosophy.I do not necessarily support everything he says and do not want to get into an argument with advaitins over a philisophy I am not sure I believe in.That is why I posted this in the Shaiva section.

Shruti contains many references to an act of creation by Ishwara,and nothing to suggest Ishwara and Brahman are not the same or that a nirguna and saguna Brahman exists.

The document which I posted argues(in contrast to advaita) that Brahman knows itself.Thus the next argument proceeds.

The rest of the arguments similarly follow from earlier refutations of the advaitin responses which you have posted,which is why I asked you to read the thread(at least tge first 20 posts).

Perhaps you could also go through the below links.From your previous posts I can tell you will love it and it will be a valyable investment of time.Abhinavagupta was a philosopher of caliber on par with the Big Three of Vedanta according to most academics but mleccha invasion and forced conversion of kashmir wiped out his sect before it could spread.
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Trika/Trika.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kashmiri/

[Omkara]

Avidya has an end?I did not get you here.Do you belong to one of those advaita schools which believe everyone regains knowledge of their true nature when one person attains moksha and so no one has been liberated yet?

Also,could you explain your statement that avidya never truly existed?

[Omkara]

Spiritualseeker,modern neo advaita as taught by many teachers today differs from traditional advaita.One mustctread carefully while learning about advaita.Osho,Papaji,Balasekar and co. do not teach traditional advaita and do not belong to any recognized traditional lineage of teachers.

[Omkara]

Re your statement that 'Brahman has nothing to know except itself',per orthodox advaita Brahman does not know itself.Shankara states this in his commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.The argument used is stated in the document I posted,though the refutation is somewhat muddled and did not make sense to me.Did you read the document?

[shiv.somashekhar]

Avidya has an end?I did not get you here.Do you belong to one of those advaita schools which believe everyone regains knowledge of their true nature when one person attains moksha and so no one has been liberated yet?

Also,could you explain your statement that avidya never truly existed?

The Advaita definition of Moksha says there is no duality at that point and hence there cannot be an entity like avidya. Other people do not exist at this point either nor does a past - which should answer your question.

To add, the advaita definition of Moskha is really no different from the Nirvana of Buddhism. If there is no duality, identity makes no sense nor does consciousness. The prachana baudha criticism is apt.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


http://www.scribd.com/doc/101791730/Ved%C4%81nta-vs-%C5%9Aaiva-Tantra
With all due respect... one may wish to engage the reader within the opening of the post. A hello would be nice. Then some sort of prelog or preamble suggesting what you wish to do , or what you would like to accomplish.

A cut and paste and a directive to go read something is less engaging and minimizes the interests ( IMHO) of the reader.
We ask you to consider this apporach, as it is also outlined in our new guidelines.
We ask you to review the approach here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2550


praṇām

[Seeker123]

If there is no duality, identity makes no sense nor does consciousness. The prachana baudha criticism is apt.

I believe the Advaita POV is that there is duality/multiplicity as long as there is avidya. You are already the limitless nondual Brahman but you don't know it due to avidya. You think you are the limited body, mind, intellect etc. Brahman alone exists (nondual). Body, mind etc. dont have independent existence from Brahman. So they are Mithya, i.e. neither existent (independently that is of Brahman) nor non-existent like the horns on a human.

I am still learning. If I misrepresented the Advaita POV please let me know.

[Omkara]

The Advaita definition of Moksha says there is no duality at that point and hence there cannot be an entity like avidya. Other people do not exist at this point either nor does a past - which should answer your question.

To add, the advaita definition of Moskha is really no different from the Nirvana of Buddhism. If there is no duality, identity makes no sense nor does consciousness. The prachana baudha criticism is apt.

As I pointed out,this would only make sense if everyone attained moksha simultaneously when one person realized identity with Brahman.
In moksha,there is no past?This does not make sense to me.
I still fail to understand how it could be said that avidya NEVER EXISTED in the first place.
I have read from multiple sources that in Advaita the ontological position of avidya is unexplained and is regarded as inexplicable.Then how can such statements be made about an entity that we cannot define or explain?

[Omkara]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


With all due respect... one may wish to engage the reader within the opening of the post. A hello would be nice. Then some sort of prelog or preamble suggesting what you wish to do , or what you would like to accomplish.

A cut and paste and a directive to go read something is less engaging and minimizes the interests ( IMHO) of the reader.
We ask you to consider this apporach, as it is also outlined in our new guidelines.
We ask you to review the approach here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2550


praṇām

I will keep that in mind.Thank you.

[Seeker123]

So the Advaitin argument that Brahman is inactive is refuted.

Advaita POV is that Nirguna Brahman does not have any guna, so cant listen, can act etc. But how can God listen to our prayers? The explanation is that it is the Saguna Brahman (Ishwara) which does but Saguna is not independent of Nirguna it is merely Nirguna with Maya. You may refer to Shri. SN Sastry's explanation here

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/nirguna.htm

BTW I just came across this related thread and am reading it
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7708

[Omkara]

The division of Brahman into Saguna and Nirguna has no basis in Shruti.
I started this thread to share this file with those interested in kashmir shaivism and not to argue with advaitins so I will recuse myself from this thread now.

[wundermonk]

Do you belong to one of those advaita schools which believe everyone regains knowledge of their true nature when one person attains moksha and so no one has been liberated yet?

Firstly, no Advaita school believes that everyone is liberated when one person attains moksha.

Secondly, I do not "belong to one of those advaita schools" or other of their schools. I am just putting forth what I believe to be the Advaitic position.

[wundermonk]

I still fail to understand how it could be said that avidya NEVER EXISTED in the first place.

Avidya is inferred. How? Via our erroneous cognitions. At a macro level, it is avidya that leads to perception of difference, names and forms, etc. The Advaitin claims that what is incorrigible in perception is pure existence, without difference/name/form. Any difference is due to erroneous conception/language loaded. The former is called nirvikalpa pratyaksha (conception-free perception) and the latter is called savikalpa pratyaksha (conception-loaded perception).

For instance, avidya is inferred when we incorrectly perceive the snake, as opposed to the rope. So, avidya exists as long as one perceives wrongly (i.e. sees differences/names/forms). When the rope is shown/realized, it becomes clear that there was never a snake truly. So, avidya is definitely non-existent when one compares its status to the truth status of the rope.


Then how can such statements be made about an entity that we cannot define or explain?

One can even make a statement about an absolutely non-existent entity such as a square circle thus:

"A square circle does not exist."


The division of Brahman into Saguna and Nirguna has no basis in Shruti.

IMO, such statements needlessly vitiate the atmosphere in HDF.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I started this thread to share this file with those interested in kashmir shaivism and not to argue with advaitins so I will recuse myself from this thread now.
From a kaśmir śaivism POV brahman is recognized, yet slightly differently ( not better, just another angle).

In kaśmiri śaivism tṛtīyam brahman is considered. What can this be ?
It is a standard point of reference that brahman is considered as oṁ-tat-sat in vedānta. In trika ( or kaśmir śaivism ) it is called the 3rd brahma.
That is , in oṁ-tat-sat it is the 3rd defining idea or sat that is considered. Yet this brahman is considered vast ( bṛhat) , all pervading (vyāpaka) and is completely in union with śakti.

In vedānta one may call out brahman as oṁ-tat-sat or as sat-cit-ānanda. In kaśmir śaivism this whole concept can be related with one word sauḥ ( sa +au + ḥ) and is considered amṛtbīja, the very heart (hṛdaya) of bhairava ( paramaśiva).

Now within kaśmiri śaivism there are some differences ( not objections) to vedānta:

yoga in action (karma-yoga)
mokṣa and its delineation
ignorance and its ( complete) elimination
who is fit to practice yoga
the notion of māyā
what is pure and impure
the ultimate Reality as being dormant or active ( aware of It-Self)These are just a few... to develop these ideas to the fullest extent should be done in the uttara folder, as these are advanced in depth-and-breath of thinking.


praṇām

[Spiritualseeker]

Spiritualseeker,modern neo advaita as taught by many teachers today differs from traditional advaita.One mustctread carefully while learning about advaita.Osho,Papaji,Balasekar and co. do not teach traditional advaita and do not belong to any recognized traditional lineage of teachers.


Namaste,

So what do you think about Ramana Maharshi? Was he a traditional Advaita teacher or was he of the neo advaita? Also does one who does not come from a particular lineage somehow less Advaitic or less of a true teacher?

Om Arunachala Siva

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Yajvan would you say that Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita arrives at the same point of Self Realization?

I am very new to all this, so I feel much ignorance as I am trying to grasp all this information. For some reason I think these are just simply different means of teachings guiding one to the Ultimate Truth.

Om Namah Sivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste,
Yajvan would you say that Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita arrives at the same point of Self Realization?

I am very new to all this, so I feel much ignorance as I am trying to grasp all this information. For some reason I think these are just simply different means of teachings guiding one to the Ultimate Truth.
Om Namah Sivaya
I respect your question... being new, all this can be overwhelming. That said, I think if you are ~ new ~ to all this you may be starting at the deep end of the pool.

To appreciate this, one must be sitting on a strong foundation. Why so? When one begins to compare and contrast the differences, at times they are slight, and other times they are profound. And what happens to the new person ? They may get overwhelmed and little is gained ( other then confusion ).

So, what is one to do ? Keep an open mind and continue to study, probe. One begins to feel comfort over time - for me that comfort came after many years. I was fooled in the beginning to think "I got it", then I unturned a few more levels of knowledge and a whole new level of learning took place. More learning then ever before.
Now within kaśmir śaivism , knowledge is part of the solution and must be complimented with direct experience , one + the other brings fullness of Being, full appreciation, full awareness. One without the other is less then desirable and does not get the desired results.

praṇām

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Thank you Yajvan, your advice is accepted. I am currently reading Back to the Truth: 50000 Years of Advaita. Maybe this will help me understand some of the basic concepts and premise of Advaita teachings.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Seeker123]

The division of Brahman into Saguna and Nirguna has no basis in Shruti.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8076
http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_6/0003.html



I started this thread to share this file with those interested in kashmir shaivism and not to argue with advaitins so I will recuse myself from this thread now.
I agree arguments never help. But it can help to understand the POV of that which is being refuted in this thread.

[Omkara]

Avidya is inferred. How? Via our erroneous cognitions. At a macro level, it is avidya that leads to perception of difference, names and forms, etc. The Advaitin claims that what is incorrigible in perception is pure existence, without difference/name/form. Any difference is due to erroneous conception/language loaded. The former is called nirvikalpa pratyaksha (conception-free perception) and the latter is called savikalpa pratyaksha (conception-loaded perception).

For instance, avidya is inferred when we incorrectly perceive the snake, as opposed to the rope. So, avidya exists as long as one perceives wrongly (i.e. sees differences/names/forms). When the rope is shown/realized, it becomes clear that there was never a snake truly. So, avidya is definitely non-existent when one compares its status to the truth status of the rope.



One can even make a statement about an absolutely non-existent entity such as a square circle thus:

"A square circle does not exist."



IMO, such statements needlessly vitiate the atmosphere in HDF.

I had said I would not post on this thread further but I noticed I had left this argument unrefuted.

What you have posted is not the traditional advaitic position.Proof is available on the link below on page 3.
http://www.sankaracharya.org/library/WhenceAdhyasa.pdf

[wundermonk]

What you have posted is not the traditional advaitic position.Proof is available on the link below on page 3.
http://www.sankaracharya.org/library/WhenceAdhyasa.pdf

Well, what would be this traditional Advaitic position? Advaita itself has atleast two schools of thought based on the answer to the question of what is the locus of avidya.

I would appreciate if you can frame your arguments in your own words. That should not be too difficult, because my position is contradicted on page 3 itself, right? Also, the author of that post is not here to engage in discussions if needed. So, perhaps you would be willing to understand what the flow of thought was in that exchange of emails and articulate it clearly here. :)

[Omkara]

Well, what would be this traditional Advaitic position? Advaita itself has atleast two schools of thought based on the answer to the question of what is the locus of avidya.

I would appreciate if you can frame your arguments in your own words. That should not be too difficult, because my position is contradicted on page 3 itself, right? Also, the author of that post is not here to engage in discussions if needed. So, perhaps you would be willing to understand what the flow of thought was in that exchange of emails and articulate it clearly here. :)

Avidya as per all famous advaita teachers through the centuries,is not merely a 'misconceiving' as you have portrayed but is an entity in itself(which is why it needs a locus in the first place),whose ontological status is infeterminate and therefore,it is considered(absurdly) to be 'neither real nor unreal'.Misperception of reality is caused by avidya,not the other way round.

Given that this tenet of advaita was the centrepiece of Ramanuja's famous seven refutations,and advaitins saw the need to respond and clarify the locus of avidya rather than dismissing Ramanuja's arguments as a misrepresentation,it is clear that avidya is an entity.And in any case,I can safely assume Ramanuja knew more about Advaita than we do.

Citations from classical advaitic texts are cited in the link I posted.

[wundermonk]

Avidya as per all famous advaita teachers through the centuries,is not merely a 'misconceiving' as you have portrayed but is an entity in itself(which is why it needs a locus in the first place),

No Advaita philosopher would admit that avidya is an entity in itself with an essence of its own. That would defeat the whole purpose of monism. Even error needs a locus. An erroneous perception of snake needs a locus/substrate which is the rope. So, just because some"thing " needs a locus does not make that some"thing" ontologically at the same level as the substrate. To give another analogy, in ordinary perception, which is characterized by avidya, it is not true that there is no vidya whatsoever. Even in perception of difference, this perception itself depends on the availability of light. Advaita holds that Brahman is the light of all lights that makes visible everything else. So, Brahman/vidya/knowledge/consciousness is part and parcel of even ordinary day-to-day perceptions.


whose ontological status is infeterminate and therefore,it is considered(absurdly) to be 'neither real nor unreal'.Misperception of reality is caused by avidya,not the other way round.

There is nothing absurd about positing that something can be neither real nor unreal. God/Brahman is the former. A square circle is the latter. We ourselves, in the unliberated/bonded state, neither real as Brahman nor completely unreal like a square circle.

Also note, that while it is true that misperception of reality is caused by avidya, avidya is itself caused by past misperceptions. This is not circular because there is a past linear temporal infinite regress of ...misperception...avidya...misperception...avidya..., etc.

[Omkara]

Shankara makes his position on avidya clear in the vivekacudamani.
http://www.sankaracharya.org/vivekachudamani1.php
I am posting a link to the text.References in support from other major Advaita treatises can be found in the earlier link I posted.Quite frankly,if you do not wish to read the evidence I present,I am not interested in continuing this argument.

I can present more links to works by Ramanuja,Abhinavagupta,Madhva,Vallabha etc. to show that all these acharyas made this tenet of advaita the main target of their polemic.Why did they waste their time repeating the same argument again and again?In all those centuries,did no advaitin bother to call their bluff?Do you wish to suggest you know advaita better than these scholars?

[wundermonk]

Omkara:

You are not presenting evidence of any sort. You are merely linking to long threads/discussions/documents elsewhere and expect me, magically, to be able to figure out what exactly you want me to see.

Can you or can you not frame arguments in your own words? Not only would that demonstrate your knowledge of the issues at hand, it would also be possible to discuss with you instead of Adi Shankara or Ramanuja or others who have passed away and who do not post on HDF!

[Omkara]

Pleasr understand that I did not start this thread to attack advaitins or their beleifs.I started this thread to share somr useful material with othets interested in acharya Abhinavagupta.I do not see why non-Shaivas have to jump in here to argue.I am not trying to convert advaitins and I have the highest respect for shankaracharya.

[wundermonk]

Pleasr understand that I did not start this thread to attack advaitins or their beleifs.I started this thread to share somr useful material with othets interested in acharya Abhinavagupta.I do not see why non-Shaivas have to jump in here to argue.I am not trying to convert advaitins and I have the highest respect for shankaracharya.

Each Hindu Darshana is self-consistent in itself. What this means is that given the axioms of each Darshana (which include interpretation of scriptures), the ensuing philosophy is without contradictions.

I am not for or against any particular Darshana. What I am stating is that if you want to claim that a particular philosophy stands refuted, you can do so based on the axioms that you believe in. The axioms that you believe in are only beliefs and may or may not constitute reality. So, an Advaitin can easily respond to any purported "refutation" by pointing out the untenability of the axiom itself even though, once the axiom is accepted, the ensuing philosophy is sound. Likewise, a Dvaitin can respond to any purported "refutation" by pointing out the untenability of Advaitin axioms.

[Omkara]

Shankara makes his views on the matter clear in the Vivekachudamani.Could you point out where he has said anything that supports your position or contradicts mine.If you have not read the text before,It is only 6 pages long.You can definitely go through it in a few minutes.When both advaitin and non advaitin literature on the subject says the same thing,when a disciple of swami dayanada posting on the email discussion accepts it,you expect me to accept ypur statemenrs on the matter(without any references or supplementary evidence from advaitin literature).Surely you agree that all these sources are more authoritative than your opinion on tbe matter,or mine?

I am quitting this discussion.

[devotee]

Namaste Omkara and WM,

I would just like to point out certain things without interfering with this lively discussion :

a) Avidya is not an entity per Advaita. It cannot be either by traditional or non-traditional (I don't know what it means) that any entity other than Brahman exists.

b) Avidya is the nature of Brahman in the first two states elaborated in Mandukya Upanishad. The third state too arises due to avidya but it itself is not deluded. This is saguna Brahman. The first two states arise from and end into the third. In the fourth i.e. Turiya, all the three states disappear. As none of these states appear in Turiya and also as there is no avidya to begin with in Turiya, all the three states are considered illusionary from the state of the Absolute i.e. Turiya.

c) From Turiya i.e. the fourth state, there is/was never a bondage, there is/was no avidya and there is/will be no moksha. It is all happening as in the dream of a human being. It is has to be kept in mind that the illusion appears as the Reality in the first two states ... the illusion that is talked about in Advaita is only from the reference point of Turiya which is the sole reality. The problem starts when we start mixing concepts from different states of existence. A dream character cannot claim that the dream is unreal ... only on awakening, the dreamer can say.

OM

[Omkara]

Avidya being an entity is obvioualy not compatible with monism.That is EXACTLY the argument Abhinavagupta makrs in the document I posted in the beginning.

These are Ramanuja's objections to Advaita.Since all his objections are directed at a tenet that according to you Advaitins do not beleive in,why has no one informwd the SriVaishnavas for so many centuries in countless debates?Would not tge first Advaitin Ramanuja went to with these objections have simply said-We do not beleive in this,and Ramanuja would have happily become an advaitin?Do you think one of the greatest scholars in Hindu history could have made such a fundamental mistake?Are Sri Harsha,Vachaspati Mishra etc. fools to have written books defending this beleif?
Ramanuja's objections are-
The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If t is unreal, we are driven to self- contradiction or infinite regress.
claim that Avidya is neither real nor unrea but incomprehensible, {anirvachaniya.} Al cognition is either of the real or the unreal the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.
The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramana can establish Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma- vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere gnorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.
The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the (false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual soul's {jiva.} Neither s possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.
Avidya's obscuration of Brahman. Sankara would have us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness, obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this(impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it - equally absurd Advaita claims that Avidya has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya, the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated{nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes.Liberation is a matter of Divine Grace: no amount of earning or wisdom will deliver us which we dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya; knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy t. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.

This is my last post.Just to clarify-I did not anywhere claim that Abhinavagupta had succesfuly refuted Advaita.I am still learning and I just wanted to share this onteresting document with other Shaivas.

[Omkara]

No Advaita philosopher would admit that avidya is an entity in itself with an essence of its own. That would defeat the whole purpose of monism. Even error needs a locus. An erroneous perception of snake needs a locus/substrate which is the rope. So, just because some"thing " needs a locus does not make that some"thing" ontologically at the same level as the substrate. To give another analogy, in ordinary perception, which is characterized by avidya, it is not true that there is no vidya whatsoever. Even in perception of difference, this perception itself depends on the availability of light. Advaita holds that Brahman is the light of all lights that makes visible everything else. So, Brahman/vidya/knowledge/consciousness is part and parcel of even ordinary day-to-day perceptions.



There is nothing absurd about positing that something can be neither real nor unreal. God/Brahman is the former. A square circle is the latter. We ourselves, in the unliberated/bonded state, neither real as Brahman nor completely unreal like a square circle.

Also note, that while it is true that misperception of reality is caused by avidya, avidya is itself caused by past misperceptions. This is not circular because there is a past linear temporal infinite regress of ...misperception...avidya...misperception...avidya..., etc.

This is a circular argument.No non-advaitin will accept that we are beither unreal nor real,so the advaitin cannot provide a valid example of something neither unreal nor real.

[Omkara]

Each Hindu Darshana is self-consistent in itself. What this means is that given the axioms of each Darshana (which include interpretation of scriptures), the ensuing philosophy is without contradictions.

I am not for or against any particular Darshana. What I am stating is that if you want to claim that a particular philosophy stands refuted, you can do so based on the axioms that you believe in. The axioms that you believe in are only beliefs and may or may not constitute reality. So, an Advaitin can easily respond to any purported "refutation" by pointing out the untenability of the axiom itself even though, once the axiom is accepted, the ensuing philosophy is sound. Likewise, a Dvaitin can respond to any purported "refutation" by pointing out the untenability of Advaitin axioms.

Which is exactly why all axioms must come from Shruti.:D

[wundermonk]

Ramanuja's objections are-
The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If t is unreal, we are driven to self- contradiction or infinite regress.
claim that Avidya is neither real nor unrea but incomprehensible, {anirvachaniya.}

This shows a misunderstanding of what the Advaitin means when he says something is real and something is unreal. Understand Advaita from the Advaitin POV first.

Next, please explain the syllogism/inference used by Ramajuna to establish that something can only be either real or unreal.


Al cognition is either of the real or the unreal the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.

Are dream cognitions real or unreal? How would you know? More importantly, when would you know that your dreams were real or unreal?


The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramana can establish Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma- vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere gnorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.

Again, you need to understand what the Advaitin means by the terms real and unreal. No cognition can be of the absolutely unreal - for e.g. son of a barren woman, or a married bachelor or a square circle, etc. You may believe that the world is divided into either the real OR the unreal and this separation is collectively exhaustively. The advaitin does not and has valid reasons for why he believes so.


The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the (false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual soul's {jiva.} Neither s possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.

Avidya is neither one with Brahman NOR completely different from Brahman. Also, there is no vicious circle when it is claimed that avidya causes jiva and the jiva misperceives due to avidya. This is like the temporal infinite regress of ...seed...sprout...seed...sprout....



But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated{nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes.Liberation is a matter of Divine Grace: no amount of earning or wisdom will deliver us which we dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya; knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy t. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.

Sure. Any dualistic theistic philosophy will definitely deny the existence of an attributeless Brahman. So, no surprises there. The rest of your comments are also typical purely theistic view of God. There is nothing wrong with that either. However, real/Unreal when used in the context of Advaita have special meanings. So, until you express knowledge of what the Advaitin actually means by these terms, your arguments about cognition being real, bondage being real, etc. will miss the mark unfortunately.


This is my last post.Just to clarify-I did not anywhere claim that Abhinavagupta had succesfuly refuted Advaita.I am still learning and I just wanted to share this onteresting document with other Shaivas.

Well, you have already stated many times that some earlier post would be your last post. But that is okay. In any case, why are you using Vaishnavite Ramanuja's arguments against Advaita now given that you wanted to share some interesting documents with other Shaivites?

[Omkara]

Ramanuja's complete arguments are too long to recount here.I quoted them only to show they are aimed at beleifs that according to you advatins do not have in which case Ramanuja would have converted the moment any Advaitin told him that.
I am uncommitted to any particular school,though I identify as a Shaivite.In fact I lean more towards monism rather than dualism.
Abhinavagupta whose arguments I posted at the heginning is also a monist.I was only trying to share a hard to find file with others rather than trying to refute advaita.Abhinavagupta's argument is also aimed at the same belief which according to you advaitins hold.Abhinavagupta was an advaitin before he converted to troka shaivism.Surely he knows what he us talking about,as does Ramanuja.

[wundermonk]

Ramanuja's complete arguments are too long to recount here.I quoted them only to show they are aimed at beleifs that according to you advatins do not have in which case Ramanuja would have converted the moment any Advaitin told him that.

People can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions. So, I reiterate again, if you have a dualistic theistic POV, Dvaita/VA will appeal to you. If you have a monistic POV, Advaita will appeal to you. By appeal, I mean that using the common evidence, certain axioms are likely to be more believeable than others.


Abhinavagupta was an advaitin before he converted to troka shaivism.Surely he knows what he us talking about,as does Ramanuja.

See my previous paragraph and how people will take a liking for one philosophy over another. No philosophy, in itself, is provably wrong. It is just that one strikes a chord with us while the other doesn't.

[Omkara]

You have made it clear that you will not read any links I post.Fine.Will you at least bother to read what I take the trouble to type out?
I am inclined towards MONISM.I did not put up those files to attempt to disptove advaita.You have still not replied to this question.Do you think qll the Advaitin and non Advaitin acharyas I cited had no idea what they were talking about when they all say that advaita beleives avidya is an entity?

[MahaHrada]

The topic tittle of this thread is very misleading as is the article by C. Wallis. Abhinavagupta never discussed or refuted the Kevaladvaita of Shankaracharya, nor did his disciples.

Both darshanas are monistic, (advaita) Kaula (i.e Kashmir Shaivaism) as well as the Vedanta of Shankaracharya.

The very idea that Abhinavagupta or his disciples refuted advaita is completly ridicoulous, they were all staunch advaitans.
Though the kaula advaita of the kashmir shaivaites has some important doctrinal differences with the kevaladvaita of the Smarta sampradaya of Shankaracharya these were never discussed by Kaulas, we find discussions by the kashmiri masters of other darshanas for example the grammarians, buddhists and dualistic shaiva siddhanta but all comments of doctrinal differences between Shankaracharyas school and Kaula are only from contemporary scholars. (edit: My mistake Abhinavagupta mentioned differences with Advaita Vedanta concepts in some places)

Christopher Wallis is a self declared american "Kashmir shaiva" and does not have any genuine connection to any authentic tantric tradition or teacher.

It is inevitable for a correct understanding of tantric darshanas like kashmir shaivaism, especially of the kaula variety, which is the most advanced tantric philosphy and practice to establish such a connection, intellectual study of the texts, without the grace of a Guru is futile and will lead to confusion not liberation.

A scholar with such a connection to a living tradition, and the anugraha of shakti was Jankinath Kaul "Kamal"

http://koausa.org/Personality/JankiKaulKamal.html

I recommend therefore to consult his article on the differences between Vedanta and Kaula Dharma and move C. Wallis rubbish into the trash can were it belongs.

http://www.koausa.org/Glimpses/Vedanta.html

Srimat Swami Lakshman Joo, in one of his lectures on Kashmir Shaivism says, "Like Vedanta, this system endeavours to remove the innate ignorance that separates the individual from the universal."
Then, what are the points of difference between these two established philosophies?
There is no difference so far as the aim of both is concerned. Both the monistic philosophies aim at the realization of the Ultimate Reality, which one calls Parabrahman and the other calls Parama Siva. So Paramasiva or Parameshwara is that ultimate Reality, which the Vedas declare as "This world came out from the Eternal Existence which is one, the only and without the second."
To sum up, if we study both these philosophies with interest and zeal, we shall find that both lay stress on the practical aspect, which is realization of the Self. Both enable all to realise the teachings during one's own lifetime. Their individual developments lead to the common goal - Realization of the Supreme Reality - where there is no experience of duality and hence no sorrow. It is the state of absolute bliss. It is the stateless state.

Jankinath Kaul "Kamal"

[Omkara]

Namaste Mahahrada,Is the quote from the Tantraloka criticizing Advaita unauthentic?I have read it also in works by B.N.Pandit and Dzyckowski.Also,are the four points raised by Wallis not doctrinal differences between KS and Kevaladvaita?I await your guidance.

Perhaps the title is misleading.Sorry.Obviously Abhinavagupta was a monist, and thus an 'Advaitin',though not in the commonly understood sense of the word.

[Omkara]

Btw,I had aldredy read the article by Kaul,but thank you anyway.

[Twilightdance]

I thought Abhinavagupta as well as others did spend some time and pages considering other views including advaita of shankaracharya and placing them in the hierarchy of Kashimiri shaiva view of things. However, the amount of polemics rather very limited. Shaiva's engaged in more polemics with Buddhists if at all as well as with other shaiva traditions.

A vedantin will have very limited ground to discuss doctrinal differences with a Shaiva because the later do not consider the Shruti to be the only authority, removing any chance of a meaningful discussion.

[MahaHrada]

Namaste Mahahrada,Is the quote from the Tantraloka criticizing Advaita unauthentic?I have read it also in works by B.N.Pandit and Dzyckowski.Also,are the four points raised by Wallis not doctrinal differences between KS and Kevaladvaita?I await your guidance.

Perhaps the title is misleading.Sorry.Obviously Abhinavagupta was a monist, and thus an 'Advaitin',though not in the commonly understood sense of the word.

Vedanta concepts were criticised, but a.f.a.i.k. there is no hard evidence that Abhinvagupta even knew of Kevaladvaita. (edit: My mistake Abhinavagupta mentioned differences with Advaita Vedanta concepts in some places)

Of course also other academics and Swami Lakshman joo commented on the differences of both darshanas but the differnces are far outweighed by the similarities, focussing solely on the differences shows little discernment and the utter lack of divine intuition (pratibha)

There is very little hard evidence indeed, but instead of the one darshana refuting the other it is highly likely that Kevaladvaita (the Smarta Sampradaya) and Pratyabhijna philosophies did mutual influence each other, see the article of K.N. Dhar (Abhinavagupta - the Philosopher) on this matter:

Even though no other reference regarding his visit to Kashmir has been traced as yet, the popular tradition corroborates its authenticity. This cannot be dismissed cheaply, in as much as, that on the perusal of Shankra's treatises it becomes patently clear that his compositions did influence the Kashmiri Saiva literature; more so his imprint on Pratyabhijna (theory of recognition) is obviously discerned
K.N.Dhar
http://www.koausa.org/Glimpses/abhinava.html

What quote of Tantraloka and what points of C. Wallis do you exactly mean?

[MahaHrada]

A vedantin will have very limited ground to discuss doctrinal differences with a Shaiva because the later do not consider the Shruti to be the only authority, removing any chance of a meaningful discussion.

I remember having read in Tantraloka that Abhinavagupta has strictly forbidden discussions with Vedantins.

[Omkara]

In the Shaivite library I have compiled in the link in my signature,there is a file called 'Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta' which contains quotes from various works of Abhinavagupta where he criticizes kevaladvaita.
The tantraloka quote is 111:404 where he criticizes the doctrine of avidya.
I asked whether the four points of difference cited by wallis in his article are true points of difference between the two philosophies.

[MahaHrada]

In the Shaivite library I have compiled in the link in my signature,there is a file called 'Kashmir Shaivism and Vedanta' which contains quotes from various works of Abhinavagupta where he criticizes kevaladvaita.
The tantraloka quote is 111:404 where he criticizes the doctrine of avidya.
I asked whether the four points of difference cited by wallis in his article are true points of difference between the two philosophies.

Yes, sorry my mistake, it seems he did mention differences and is naming advaita vedanta concepts, one time in Tantraloka and also in Ishvarapratjabhijna Vimarshini.

There are several differences between the concept of the absolute in KS and in Advaita Vedanta.

The absolute in KS is dynamic (it is rotating through stages) whereas the absolute in Advaita Vedanta is static. So: yes, (regarding the first claim) formally in the concept of Vimarsha/Prakasha there appears a duality, knower and known conceived as one unity within the absolute, this concept cannot be accepted by Advaita Vedanta.

Concerning the second claim KS states that the world is real, of course this cannot be accepted by Advaita Vedanta, since it is a main concept of A.V. "Brahma satyam jagat mithya" the world is not real. (vivartavada)

Third claim: A. V. is world renouncing and Kaula Tantra of course not. Kaula Dharma defines "Brahmacharya" as virile sexual activity not as celibate life, and the highest method of celebrating knowledge of the absolute is ritualised sexuality, the Kula sacrifice (Kula Yaga), that such ideas are unacceptable to Advaita Vedanta is obvious.

Fourth claim: K.S. and A.V agree that it is ultimately primarily by Jnana that one achieves the highest state, but K.S. does not differentiate between Jnana and Kriya which are both only shaktis of shiva and both originate from Iccha the divine impulse and both are therefore different aspects of, and inferior to Iccha shakti (desire or impulse). So not only Jnana but also Kriya is needed to achieve liberation, for instance the diksha of the Guru. Of course the idae that desire is a superior power than Jnana , or Kriya (activity) and originates as well from the absolute is unacceptable to A.V. which associates Kriya or Karma solely with a state of imperfection.

Whether any of these doctrinal differences can be called "refutations" is doubtful since these concepts are based on the authority of the agamas and tantras not the vedas and upanishads and certainly Advaita as such is not refuted, since these are only doctrinal differences between two schools of Advaita, one based primarily on the authority of the tantras and agamas the other solely on that of the vedic shastras and smriti.

[Seeker123]

Shankara makes his views on the matter clear in the Vivekachudamani.Could you point out where he has said anything that supports your position or contradicts mine.If you have not read the text before,It is only 6 pages long.You can definitely go through it in a few minutes.When both advaitin and non advaitin literature on the subject says the same thing,when a disciple of swami dayanada posting on the email discussion accepts it,you expect me to accept ypur statemenrs on the matter(without any references or supplementary evidence from advaitin literature).Surely you agree that all these sources are more authoritative than your opinion on tbe matter,or mine?

I am quitting this discussion.


Namaste Omakara:

Thanks for the 72 page email compilation. It is very useful and I am still reading it. It appears you may not have read the whole thing. Some observations from that compilation (Atmachaitanya is one of the key posters questioning avidya):

1. Atmachaitanya states that post-Shankara Advaitins hold avidya to be real.
2. Atmachaitanya though agrees with Shankara by stating that Avidya is a misconception and is not real.
3. Atmachaitanya states that Vivekachudamani was not Shankara's work but a much later 16th century work.
4. Swami Dayananda's student does not state Avidya is Real. But Atmachaitanya himself states that he misunderstood his position on Prasankyana Vada....

[Omkara]

Namaste Omakara:

Thanks for the 72 page email compilation. It is very useful and I am still reading it. It appears you may not have read the whole thing. Some observations from that compilation (Atmachaitanya is one of the key posters questioning avidya):

1. Atmachaitanya states that post-Shankara Advaitins hold avidya to be real.
2. Atmachaitanya though agrees with Shankara by stating that Avidya is a misconception and is not real.
3. Atmachaitanya states that Vivekachudamani was not Shankara's work but a much later 16th century work.
4. Swami Dayananda's student does not state Avidya is Real. But Atmachaitanya himself states that he misunderstood his position on Prasankyana Vada....

Atmachaitanya was Dayananda's student before he changed his guru,as is stated in the beginning.
That avidya is real is accepted by all advaitins after shankara and sureshwara most definitely,and they also hold vivekachudamani to be authentic.Atmachaitanya and his current guru are not considered advaitins by mainstream advaitins.
So at least since the late 9th century,advaitins have been asserting that avidya is real.I have not read shankara's works fully so I cannot tell what his views were.But since the position that avidya is an entity is attacked by other later acharyas over the centuries and defended by later advaitin teachers,we can see that it was the mainstream advaitin belief.
There are clear flaws in Atmachaitanya's line of thinking as well,btw.
Regards.

[MahaHrada]

Atmachaitanya was Dayananda's student before he changed his guru,as is stated in the beginning.
That avidya is real is accepted by all advaitins after shankara and sureshwara most definitely,and they also hold vivekachudamani to be authentic.Atmachaitanya and his current guru are not considered advaitins by mainstream advaitins.
So at least since the late 9th century,advaitins have been asserting that avidya is real.I have not read shankara's works fully so I cannot tell what his views were.But since the position that avidya is an entity is attacked by other later acharyas over the centuries and defended by later advaitin teachers,we can see that it was the mainstream advaitin belief.
There are clear flaws in Atmachaitanya's line of thinking as well,btw.
Regards.

Avidya is not accepted as real, in any ultimate sense, this would refute the whole idea of Advaita Vedanta, it is only accepted as real in a limited sense. Therefore it is considered neither to be real nor to be unreal but inexplicable. From a non sectarian academic viewpoint Vivekachudamani cannot have been written by Shankaracharya, it is only attributed to him, this is true as well of the majority of canonical texts attributed to him in the smarta sampradaya.

J.F Staal one of the greatest authorities in vedic studies gives a well thought out and easy introduction to this topic: (bold emphasis mine)

The addition smṛtirūpaḥ ‘in the form of remembrance’, underscores the subjective character of adhyāsa. But adhyāsa necessarily has an objective character too. In order to know how far the latter is related to its subjective character, we may contrast adhyāsa which is smṛtirūpaḥ with smṛti ‘remembrance’ itself. In remembrance we are conscious of the fact that we are concerned with a mental image of the past. In superimposition we do not possess that consciousness (we are deluded in avidyā) and we take the mental image as referring to an extra-mental fact. But what is the status of the mental image, say, the silver of the stock-example? In the situation of superimposing it upon mother-of-pearl, it is neither real, nor unreal. It is not real, because it is sublated; but it is not unreal, because it appears. It is sublated, because it does not really occur in mother-of-pearl; it appears, because it is based upon the past perception of real silver. It is therefore called anirvacanīya, ‘inexplicable’.* If this holds for the mental image, adhyāsa and avidyā must necessarily be anirvacanīya too. They neither belong to the category of being, nor to that of non-being. If avidyā would be unreal it would not trouble us and we would not be caught in it; if it would be real the Absolute would not be the only reality and we would lose the non-dualistic position. Therefore, it neither is, nor is not; it is of a different category, about which we cannot speak; it is anirvacanīya.
It is clear that there lies a problem here. In fact, any slightest negation of the unreality of avidyā attributes being to it and thus destroys non-dualism. In order to safeguard the advaitic character of Advaita, avidyā is sometimes called tucchā, ‘non-being’; but this holds only for the possessor of brahmavidyā.

* Śaṅkara himself in the sūtrabhāṣya does not characterise adhyāsa or avidyā as anirvacanīya; but it occurs there as an attribute of nāmarūpe
Excerpt: chapter 11. Adhyāsa - avidyā - māyā of Advaita and Neoplatonism J.F. Staal
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/staa009adva01_01/staa009adva01_01_0022.php

[Omkara]

Sorry that was a typo caused by the previous poster referring to avidya as real.I have referred to avidya being neither real nor unreal several times before in this thrrad.Both I and the poster before me referred to avidya being real in the sense of avidya being an entity.

Vivekachudamani is controversial.But as I have shown with various evidences,avidya is considered an entity in advaita for ovet 11 centuries,whether shankara beleived it or not,and is accepted and criticized as the traditional advaitin belief by other acharyas.

[devotee]

Namaste,

Why use the term "neither real nor unreal" ?

What is "real" ? I see a piece of diamond in front of me which is sparkling bright. Is it real ? If I see the same diamond with a extremely high resolution electron microscope or through X-ray effects on a film & see only vast amount of space with some nuclei and electrons moving around. Is that real ? Or it is just vibrating electromagnetic fields where the diamond is seen ... what is really "real" ?

Is the solid wall in front of me "real" or the 99.99 % void which is present in the wall which I cannot see ? What is real ? It is true that the solid wall in front of me has 99.99 % void but I don't see any space to be able to move inside even a needle !

Our perception of "reality" changes as we change the state from where we see. When you see from "dreaming state" ... you can't see the reality. You feel that whatever you are perceiving is "real" but on waking up you know that it was all unreal. Any thing is unreal from Turiya state as there is no duality but the same thing appears as "real" when we are in waking and dreaming states. Again the perception of something unreal must have something real underneath. So, if we remove the bias of the states from where the things are perceived, we must say that things are neither "real" nor "unreal".

************************

There is no need to tread upon the path of Advaita for those who feel that Advaita philosophy is wrong. One should follow a path that appeals to him. God has provided different paths as no one path suits everyone. There is no point refuting Ramanuja or Shankaracharya. Both are right in their own way. Ramanauja chose a different path as Advaita didn't appeal to him. It was not his path. Shankara chose Advaita as he found it the Truth echoing in the whole of Vedanta.

I am a practising Advaitin. We are told to "realise the Truth" than falling into trap of such ego massaging by indulging in such meaningless debates. Stop believing, if that bothers you. Start practising ... the Truth will reveal itself when the mind is pure .. free from worldly cloudiness. The senses are to be merged into mind ... mind has to be taken inward ... chatter in the mind must stop to realise the Truth. Atman or the Self cannot be described ... it has to be realised.

OM

[Omkara]

For the LAST time, I have as yet no opinion on the matter.I am inclined towards MONISM.
I posted the refutation of Ramanuja because it shows that all of Ramanuja's objections towards Advaita ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS A BELIEF THAT IT IS BEING CLAIMED ADVAITINS DO NOT HOLD.I offered it as one of several textual proofs that Advaitins do believe it.Surely Ramanuja had done his research before writing.

i request Satay to delete this thread.

[wundermonk]

There is no need for any thread to be deleted. If needed, you may request the moderator to delete your own posts. People expend time and energy to post here and simply deleting a thread where they have posted makes a mockery of taking time to post on HDF! In fact, you can delete your posts come to think of it. No need to bother the moderator here either. :)

If you foresee that you cannot respond to your own thread, either say you are out of that thread and do not post further or participate actively engaging with the other posters. This is basic message board courtesy. What you are doing in your own thread is kicking/screaming/crying hoarse when your position is challenged. You also refuse to understand what the Advaitin means when he uses the terms "real" and "unreal".

That being said, I wonder how a monist (which you proclaim you are) would explain the nature of diversity/multiplicity/difference that we ordinarily experience without taking recourse to something similar to Avidya.

Advaita can be arrived at PURELY logically if one accepts its axioms which are also grounded in sruthi. i.e. any monistic system (something which seeks to explain the universe based on one eternal priciple alone) can not but posit an anirvachaniya avidya. This is the logical truth. So, if you want spiritual monism (as opposed to materialistic monism), you have to posit that there is a truth value that is neither real (unsublateable in the past/present/future) nor unreal (completely non-existent like a square circle).

[Omkara]

Challenged with WHAT?
You seem to be studiously avioding answering the simple question-
Avidya is an entity in Advaita.Does Advaita accept this or not?If you feel Advaita does not accept it,why were Ramanuja and the others refuting a nonexistent doctrine?

Vallabhacharya,Abhinavagupta,Aurobindo etc. do set out monistic systems without bringing in an anvicharya avidya.

I did not criticize the doctrine of avidya at any point.I have only quoted others arguments against it to show while refuting the idea of avidya,they are refuting the traditional advaitic position,which is not the position you are articulating.

[MahaHrada]

Sorry that was a typo caused by the previous poster referring to avidya as real.I have referred to avidya being neither real nor unreal several times before in this thrrad.Both I and the poster before me referred to avidya being real in the sense of avidya being an entity.

Vivekachudamani is controversial.But as I have shown with various evidences,avidya is considered an entity in advaita for ovet 11 centuries,whether shankara beleived it or not,and is accepted and criticized as the traditional advaitin belief by other acharyas.

I do not doubt that A.V. considers Avidya an entity or that it has substantiality, but not in the sense of the Shaivas where Shiva is always the kartr the Actor or Agent, and Maya or Avidya (tirodhana shakti) an active expression of his own absolute self. That it is considered to have substantiality does not mean that A.V. posits that it shares the absolute reality with Brahman as a second, that is a strawman argument put up by opponents. Defeating strawmen may be the easiest way to win a debate, but does tell us more about the attitude of the oppponents than about A.V. Abhinavaguptas critic of the buddhist viewpoint is also mostly a fight against an army of strawmen.

Again i refer to J.F Staal:

The characterization of the metaphysical adhyāsa as superimposition of the non-Self upon the Self answers more questions than we have yet asked. Thus it is often asked in later Advaita what the āśraya, ‘locus’, of avidyā is. Where does avidyā exist? The jīva cannot be its locus (although this was the opinion of Vācaspati Miśra and his followers), as it itself a product of avidyā. It is clear that the only entity which is independent from avidyā is Brahman, and that therefore, if avidyā. has a locus at all (which must be the case), it must be Brahman. But this means that superimposition is of the non-Self upon the Self. That avidyā has its locus in Brahman also means that it is the function of avidyā to cover and to conceal the real nature of Brahman, just as a cloud hides the sun.
and
According to the ultimate point of view, for the person who has attained realization, māyā is tucchā, ‘non-being’; for the metaphysician or dialectician it is neither real nor unreal (anirvacanīya); and for the man in the street it is real (vāstavī).One of the main objections of Rāmānuja against Advaita is the ‘neither-being-nor-non-being’ character of avidyā, which violates according to Rāmānuja the law of the excluded third. Also modern critics of Advaita often look upon anirvacanīya as the weakest point of the system. But we ought rather to admire Śaṅkara for the firmness of mind, with which he has accepted the conclusion, that multiplicity becomes inexplicable if Brahman is posited as the only reality. He readily admits that there are important points which his system fails to explain, but this is due to a principal inexplicability based upon the structure of reality. In other philosophies we often discover flaws where their explanation fails. In Advaita these failures are part of the system.

[Seeker123]

Atmachaitanya was Dayananda's student before he changed his guru,as is stated in the beginning.
Regards.
I was referring to Jaishankar another student who enters the discussion (page 35).



That avidya is real is accepted by all advaitins after shankara and sureshwara most definitely,and they also hold vivekachudamani to be authentic.Atmachaitanya and his current guru are not considered advaitins by mainstream advaitins.
So at least since the late 9th century,advaitins have been asserting that avidya is real.I have not read shankara's works fully so I cannot tell what his views were.But since the position that avidya is an entity is attacked by other later acharyas over the centuries and defended by later advaitin teachers,we can see that it was the mainstream advaitin belief.
There are clear flaws in Atmachaitanya's line of thinking as well,btw.
Regards.

I think you have misunderstood. In Page 3 Atmachaitanya (AC) restates the problem (Whence Adhyasa?) as formulated by Fox:
A) Brahman does the superimposing (Gaudapadas position) The problem: Brahman becomes active and changeable.
B) Adhyasa is an independent' process outside Brahman. The problem: Brahman is no longer One without a second.
C) We ourselves do it. (Shankaras position) The problem: Who would produce the first superimposition? (I.e. the defect of an infinite regress and if Adhyasa is defined as MUTUAL SUPERIMPOSITION it would lead to nihilism-see below).

AC goes on to say that post Shankara Advaitins adopted (B) which Ramanuja and other acharyas rejected. I dont know if all post Shankara Advaitins really adopted B and defended Ramanuja's attacks or ignored as strawmen. Anyway the Advaita I have learnt including some of Swami Dayananda's writing certainly does not subscribe to B - there can be nothing outside Brahman! ON the other hand it subscribes to (C), i.e. Adhyasa is only for us, i.e. for our mind. Adhyasa does not enjoy any equal status with Brahman and in the Brahman state there is nothing else, i.e. no adhyasa.

AC explains his position from page 36:
"I would like to attempt an answer to your question ‘Whence Adhyasa’ by advocating the third choice, that I am the ‘cause’, in the sense that: ‘I don’t know the Self, I haven’t been able to discriminate the true nature of the Self, and due to this , I may be considered the ‘cause’ of superimposition, and to show how this in fact is Shankaras position, (as opposed to the Mula Avidya Vadins who opted for the second alternative, and by so doing in fact abandoned Non Duality) and to demonstrate that by taking such a position, it does not result in the unacceptable consequences that Fox seems to think it does."

What he (Sankara) does say, however, is that this fundamental misconception (Adhyasa), the misconception of mixing up the Self and the Non-Self, the subject and the object, the knower and the known, (even though it is admittedly opposed to all reason) is a FACT of universal experience (“sarva loka pratikshaha”).

In this quotation (which is basically a re-echo of his Adhyasa Bhashaya) Shankara makes it even clearer, if that is possible, that the only reason, or ‘cause’ for our misconceiving the Self is merely because we no not know the Self. If we in fact knew the Self, it would not be possible to misconceive it as anything else. Just as in the case of the mistaken knowledge about the misconceived ‘snake’. That misconception could never arise without there being an absence of knowledge with regard to the fact that all that is there, all that was there, all that will be there, is the rope alone. The ‘snake’ was no doubt an ‘effect’ and the absence of knowledge with regard to the rope can be considered to be the ‘cause’ of the snake, but this cause is not a positively existing material ‘thing’ some ontological entity needed to account for the effect called a ‘misconceived snake’.

He concludes that Avidya is false and is due to a misconception (adhyasa). But there is not denying that Avidya is seemingly real, Mithya, (as long as we are not realized) in the same way that this world is seemingly real.

[Omkara]

As per Advaita,avidya is neitger unreal nor real and does not exist outside of Brahman,nor is it a second ontological real alongside Brahman.
When did I claim otherwise?
Why is my position being repeatedly and deliberately misrepresented?

Please read wundermonk's definition of Avidya and why I said that is not tge traditional definition.I cited page 3 because it contains references substantiating my stand,not to make any comments whatsoever about tge rest of the discussion.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Does Shankara say avidya is neither real nor unreal? I would be surprised if he says so.

The reason is, according to Shankara, in his BSB, Brahman alone is real and everything else is unreal. There is no category for "neither real nor unreal", not to mention that such a category makes no logical sense (similar to "bheda/abheda").

Therefore, Avidya (like Maya) can only belong to the unreal category. If Shankara puts this differently in any of his texts, we can talk about it.

[thamiZH_sivan]

I still have to read these posts. But, before I do, I would first like to state that advaita is also in and accept in saivàm. Only, there are various misinterpretations of the authentic and original, and thus, only correct interpretation, which belongs to saivà sithaandhàm, and that is, as non-dual as taught by thirumoolà naayànaar and meykkâNDà sivàm.

[devotee]

I still have to read these posts. But, before I do, I would first like to state that advaita is also in and accept in saivàm. Only, there are various misinterpretations of the authentic and original, and thus, only correct interpretation, which belongs to saivà sithaandhàm, and that is, as non-dual as taught by thirumoolà naayànaar and meykkâNDà sivàm.

Yes, you are right. After reading the teachings of Abhinava Gupta on Kashmir Shaivism, the Advaitic teachings become clear. Indeed there are some different expressions used but it is all Advaitic in nature essentially.

OM

[Seeker]

I still have to read these posts. But, before I do, I would first like to state that advaita is also in and accept in saivàm. Only, there are various misinterpretations of the authentic and original, and thus, only correct interpretation, which belongs to saivà sithaandhàm, and that is, as non-dual as taught by thirumoolà naayànaar and meykkâNDà sivàm.


Namaste TamiZH sivan Ji,

Do you have any good recommendation of a translation for Thirumandhiram? For someone like me , it is a very hard read due to the poetic Tamil used there.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Seeker: I have this one: http://www.supatha.in/index.php/english-books/tirumantiram.html Its still pretty obscure in the English as well. There are other partial translations on line, but not a whole lot. Must be a deep book. I bought it here: http://www.minimela.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=69_71&zenid=4pvusfi42s21ivir8cknmd2l01

There was another finished in 2009, but I don't know where you might get it.

Aum Namasivaya

[Seeker]

Vanakkam EM Ji,
Much thanks. Appreciate it - I have folks from India coming over and hope they can get it for 200Rs.:)

[thamiZH_sivan]

I don't know why my comment was removed. Possibly cos of the email address. But, as I said, the transalations and interpretations of thirumandhiram online are incorrect -- to understand properly, a lot of penance and study is needed. Most translations are are done only from a Tamil perspective influenced by other philosophies or a mis-understanding of saivà sithaandhàm. I see other links here so, I'm going to take my chance and repost the link to a work teaching sithaandham as simple as possible and in parts. Please check this site once a month for updates. http://www.voicesnet.com/alldocsoneauthor.aspx?memberid=129710

[satay]

Admin Note

Namaskar,


I don't know why my comment was removed.

Please read the rules again at http://hindudharmaforums.com/faq.php
Buzz me or one of the mods if you have any questions about the rules.

Thanks,

[Omkara]

I don't know why my comment was removed. Possibly cos of the email address. But, as I said, the transalations and interpretations of thirumandhiram online are incorrect -- to understand properly, a lot of penance and study is needed. Most translations are are done only from a Tamil perspective influenced by other philosophies or a mis-understanding of saivà sithaandhàm. I see other links here so, I'm going to take my chance and repost the link to a work teaching sithaandham as simple as possible and in parts. Please check this site once a month for updates. http://www.voicesnet.com/alldocsoneauthor.aspx?memberid=129710

Thank you vey much for the link!

[devotee]

Namaste Shiva,


Does Shankara say avidya is neither real nor unreal? I would be surprised if he says so.

The reason is, according to Shankara, in his BSB, Brahman alone is real and everything else is unreal. There is no category for "neither real nor unreal", not to mention that such a category makes no logical sense (similar to "bheda/abheda").

Therefore, Avidya (like Maya) can only belong to the unreal category. If Shankara puts this differently in any of his texts, we can talk about it.

Shankara talks of Vyavaharika satyam and Paramarthika satyam ... therefore, Satyam i.e meaning of "real" has to be clearly understood. When Shankara says that only Brahman is Satyam, it is Parmarthika satyam. Again, nothing in this world or whatever exists can be categorised as "Real" and "unreal" without first defining what one means by that term. Let's see what some verses from scriptures say of Brahman and Avidya/Maya :

Rig Veda talks of the beginning of the creation in NasdIya Sukta : "In the beginning, there was neither Being (sat) nor non-Being (asat)". So, we can say that essence of everything is neither Being nor non-Being because everything followed that and came out of that.

Taitriya Upanishad says, " asat va idam agra aasiit; tato vai sat ajaayata" ==> Before (everything that came later) it was non-Being (asat) alone .. from that came Being (sat).

Chhandogya Upanishad says, " sat eva soumya idam agra aaseet ekam eva advitiiyam…” ==> It was "Being (sat) alone in the beginning, O' good looking one, (which is) Only One and Non-dual".

Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita 13.12 : I shall speak to you at length about that which ought to be known, and knowing which one attains supreme Bliss. That supreme Brahman, who is the lord of beginningless entities, is said to be neither Sat (being) nor Asat (non-being).

In Viveka ChURamaNi 111, Sankaracarya says,

"sannapyasannaapyubhyaatmikaa no bhinnabhyabhinnaapyubhyaatmikaa no sangaapyaasangaapyubhayaatmiko no mahaatbhootaa-anirvacaniiyaroopaa" ===>

Maya is neither Being nor non-Being, neither different (from Brahman) nor non-different (from Brahman), neither with parts or without parts. It is very wonderful and of a form which is inexpressible.


OM

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste Shiva,



Shankara talks of Vyavaharika satyam and Paramarthika satyam ... therefore, Satyam i.e meaning of "real" has to be clearly understood. When Shankara says that only Brahman is Satyam, it is Parmarthika satyam. Again, nothing in this world or whatever exists can be categorised as "Real" and "unreal" without first defining what one means by that term. Let's see what some verses from scriptures say of Brahman and Avidya/Maya :

Thanks for the references. I can see why this would cause confusion and also how opponents would exploit these vague statements of "neither this nor that".

The Vyavaharika/Paramarthika difference solves this problem. As I recall, this clarity came not from Shankara, but by later Advaitins. The avidya/maya problem was also handled differerently by the two variants - Bhamati and Vivarana.

[ranjitm]

But omkara's point still stands. The fact that Ramanuja etc. contested Advaita-vada by taking up the principle of a 'real' avidya illustrates amply that avidya is, indeed, considered a distinct entity in AV. With all due respect to the other posters, your long expositions are hardly adressing the issue here. You are giving your intellectual (and intelligent) reasons as to why avidya cannot be accepted as real but all evidence (Ramanuja's celebrated refutation, for instance) points quite to the contrary...that 'mainstream advaita', as omkara puts it, accepts a real avidya

[devotee]

Namaste,


But omkara's point still stands. The fact that Ramanuja etc. contested Advaita-vada by taking up the principle of a 'real' avidya illustrates amply that avidya is, indeed, considered a distinct entity in AV. With all due respect to the other posters, your long expositions are hardly adressing the issue here. You are giving your intellectual (and intelligent) reasons as to why avidya cannot be accepted as real but all evidence (Ramanuja's celebrated refutation, for instance) points quite to the contrary...that 'mainstream advaita', as omkara puts it, accepts a real avidya

Why don't you read VedAnta yourself and see whether Avidya is real or unreal or both real and unreal or neither ? With all due respect to Sri Ramanuja, his "celebrated refutation" is not considered an authority by VedAntic schools. Only the Shruti is the valid instrument to check if any statement is right or wrong.

OM

[Necromancer]

Please forgive my oversimplicity here, as I am trying to get my head around this as well.

In my opinion (and partial experience), Adi Shankaracharya was not only a believer and expounder of non-dualistic (Advaitic) belief, but he was also a great Shiva Bhakta.

One would think that is a contradictory statement, unless Para Brahman = Maha Shiva (Maha Deva). In which case, the names are synonymous, interchangeable, then mean nothing.

Trying to find out which came first, Jnana or Bhakti is like trying to find out which came first, the chicken or the egg. In the end that really doesn't matter at all.

I don't refute the Advaita Philosophy and I still would call myself an Advaia Vedantist (all pigeonholing aside). I just happen to love Lord Shiva and I equate that to what I believe Brahman is.

I also have this 'thing' from my lef-over Buddhist philosophy days that kinda goes: "If you see Buddha on the Way, kill him" and thus, I realise to reach Brahman I must give up my love for Shiva some time in the future and not to soon, I hope. I'm quite enjoying it here.

Aum Namah Shivaya