PDA

View Full Version : Shaktaism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism



TruthSeeker
13 May 2006, 09:41 AM
Why do we need three religions Shaktaism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism? Why not just one? Why these religions have apparently contradictory doctrines?

Are Shakti, Shiva and Vishnu just different names for God? If so, why scripture have to potray them differently, often shown as quarreling with each other? Why are their devotees often seen fighting each other?

I shall attempt a brief answer from a monistic perspective:

Brahman is Nirguna and beyond all attributes. Whatever attribute we can concieve of can only be denied of the Brahman(neti neti) or directly equated with Brahman.(sarvam khalvidam brahma). Upanishads describe Brahman as Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam, stated in English is Existance, Knowledge and Infiniteness. Note that infiniteness is not merely with respect to space and time, but the transcendendal infinite, which we cannot concieve of.

However, Brahman cannot be a trinity since Brahman is undivided. So all of Exsitance, knowledge and Infiniteness have to be identical. This is a contradiction by human logic. ( though it maybe no issue at the absolute reality).

Now think of these questions:

Is Brahman knowledge and existant because it is infinite?
Is Brahman infinite and existant due to knowledge( thought)?
Is Brahman knowledge and infinite becuase it exists?

If you say yes to the first one, you are a Vaishnavite.
If you say yes to the second one, you are a Shaivite.
If you say yes to the third one, you are a Shakta.

If Exsitance and Knowledge are subjugated to the infinite nature of Brahman, Vishnu becomes the supreme God, and Brahma and Shiva have to proceed from Vishnu. Note that Brahma is equivalent to Shakti.

If Infiniteness and Existance are subjected to knowledge ( thought or consciouness), Shiva becomes the supreme God, and Brahma and Vishnu have to proceed from Shiva.

If Infiniteness and Consciouness are subjected to Existance, Shakti becomes the supreme diety, and others are created by her.

Thus, all systems are just different ways of looking at the Brahman who is beyond speech and thought. Even the Christain trinity must be based on the same idea. It turns out that Shakti, Shiva and Vishnu are just not different names of Brahman, but distinct features conveyed by scripture, and the the very subjugation of two of them to the third yield three different methods of God realization. That is why, no system ever equates any of them directly and there is no need to do so.

Skaktas do have to beleive in the superiority of Shakti.
Shaivaites do have to beleive in the superiority of Shiva.
Vaishnavites do have to beleive in the superiority of Vishnu.

But just remember the bigger monistic picture and the world will be rid of all intolerance.

Arjuna
13 May 2006, 10:51 AM
Namaste,

The main problem is not name used to call the God, but a darshana. For Monism (Paradvaita or other types of Advaita-vada) all other doctrines are "inferior teachings" not because they use a different name, but because their views are limited truth, while Monism encompasses all these as its partial aspects.

Any truely Monistic darshana is the same, be it Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava.

TruthSeeker
13 May 2006, 11:27 AM
Namaste,

The main problem is not name used to call the God, but a darshana. For Monism (Paradvaita or other types of Advaita-vada) all other doctrines are "inferior teachings" not because they use a different name, but because their views are limited truth, while Monism encompasses all these as its partial aspects.

Any truely Monistic darshana is the same, be it Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava.

But before you can call something as "inferior" should'nt you have it verified yourself? As long as any one claims his teachings to be superior with just bookish knowledge or quotes from scripture, nothing is proved. Not even the words of the guru can be taken as absolute proof because the views of different gurus vary. There is no uniform view even amongst monists - why? There is no unform view amongst dualists? Why so? Because reality is not defined at all. How do you know which one is true?

Common man knows only the name of the God, and darshana is rarely the cause of conflict. Only edicated people well versed with philosophy will fight over darshana.

atanu
23 May 2006, 10:13 AM
Now think of these questions:

Is Brahman knowledge and existant because it is infinite?
Is Brahman infinite and existant due to knowledge( thought)?
Is Brahman knowledge and infinite becuase it exists?

If you say yes to the first one, you are a Vaishnavite.
If you say yes to the second one, you are a Shaivite.
If you say yes to the third one, you are a Shakta.




Namaskar TS,

By your own admission, the above involves some thought/perception/belief. But He is That reality which brings up the thought. The thought cannot know Him. A report written by me will not understand me but I will understand the report.

It is the real infinite unchained I.

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”


YV iv. 4. 9.


(Thou art) Prajapati in mind when Soma moves;
the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing;
Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma;
Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought;
Mitra when purchased; Çipivista (Aditi) when put in place;
delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival;
Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar;
Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar;
Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place;
Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet;
Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed;
Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk;
the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out;
Rudra when offered;
Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed;
the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers;
life when taken; the river when going to the final bath;
the ocean when gone; the water when dipped;
the heaven when arrived at completion.




The only pratyaksha truth is that I exist in all states of consciosness. The I is covered up with thoughts. In silence only is He known.

Arjuna
24 May 2006, 02:21 AM
Namaskar TS,
By your own admission, the above involves some thought/perception/belief. But He is That reality which brings up the thought. The thought cannot know Him. A report written by me will not understand me but I will understand the report.

The only pratyaksha truth is that I exist in all states of consciosness. The I is covered up with thoughts. In silence only is He known.


Yes, and this is the essence of Monism. And this is why Monism IS the essential Truth, while all other darshanas are intepretations of mind.

Tantric Monism is named Pratyakshadvaita (alone with Paradvaita and Svatantrya-vada), for a Yogi sees everything as this I-Consciousness.

Arjuna
24 May 2006, 02:29 AM
Namaste TS,


But before you can call something as "inferior" should'nt you have it verified yourself?

The whole of my experience (and anyone's) can be fully and perfectly explained only in the context of Monistic metaphysics.
That is why it is "superior."

But the Truth itself is beyong any words and explanations, it is the Consciousness, Parasamvit.


Common man knows only the name of the God, and darshana is rarely the cause of conflict. Only edicated people well versed with philosophy will fight over darshana.

Darshanas were not created by "common man," but exactly by "educated people" only. Educated people induce conflicts due to attachment to ego and unwillingness to investigate the Truth sinserely.
And true mystics come to the same ground and raise above the conflict, even if their ideas are different. For Consciousness and Love is the same for all.

However, darshanas as explanations of the Truth vary: some are superior and other inferior.

sarabhanga
24 May 2006, 07:29 PM
Tantric Monism is named Pratyakshadvaita (alone with Paradvaita and Svatantrya-vada), for a Yogi sees everything as this I-Consciousness.
Pratyaksha-vada is Nyaya (Logic); and “Tantric Monism” is only an English name for Naiyayika Vedanta!

How is Pratyakshadvaita any different from the Logic of Advaita Vedanta?

Paradvaita and Pratyakshadvaita are only Vedantanyaya ~ i.e. the Vedanta of the Naiyayikas, the Nyaya of the Vaidantikas, or simply Vedantic Logic.

“Paradvaita” may be Para-Advaita or Para-Dvaita; and in this case, Para means “having as the chief object, given up to, occupied with, engrossed in, intent upon, resting on, consisting of, serving for, or synonymous with”, rather than “highest or supreme”.

This logical method as applied to a particular philosophy is the Tantra of the Vada ~ i.e. the science of Advaita follows the scientific method or logical approach of Paradvaita.

And so, it would appear that “Tantric Monism” is absolutely identical with the standard term “Advaita Vedanta”. ;)

atanu
25 May 2006, 02:23 AM
Yes, and this is the essence of Monism. And this is why Monism IS the essential Truth, while all other darshanas are intepretations of mind.

Tantric Monism is named Pratyakshadvaita (alone with Paradvaita and Svatantrya-vada), for a Yogi sees everything as this I-Consciousness.


I am not an intellectual. What you say is correct. But what you say also indicates that the apparent differences you wish to demonstrate between Advaita and Tantrik Monism are in the mind only.


In fact my Guru teaches no philosophy; He instructs to just find out the I who is seeking to create the differences. He also instructs that except from the perspective of seekers (who are as if situated in different parts of a mountain but seek to attain the same summit ), there is no difference in the goal of any path.


Philosophies are names but He is nameless. Depending on suitability of the seeker, a path may be exposed to a one seeker while another path may be exposed to another seeker. The goal is always the same. In tantrism, possibly (my knowledge is limited), the method to transcend the sense of body is approached in a different way compared to jnana perspective of advaita. This is the only difference I see. Anyway, the final goal is to see/be ONE INDIVISIBLE Brahman.

So, I have no difference with any one, since I believe that the paths and their allocations to so-called individuals are scripted by the Self only and not by individual ego personalities.

Om Nama Shivayya

Arjuna
25 May 2006, 08:43 AM
Pratyaksha-vada is Nyaya (Logic); and “Tantric Monism” is only an English name for Naiyayika Vedanta!
How is Pratyakshadvaita any different from the Logic of Advaita Vedanta?
Paradvaita and Pratyakshadvaita are only Vedantanyaya ~ i.e. the Vedanta of the Naiyayikas, the Nyaya of the Vaidantikas, or simply Vedantic Logic.
“Paradvaita” may be Para-Advaita or Para-Dvaita; and in this case, Para means “having as the chief object, given up to, occupied with, engrossed in, intent upon, resting on, consisting of, serving for, or synonymous with”, rather than “highest or supreme”.
This logical method as applied to a particular philosophy is the Tantra of the Vada ~ i.e. the science of Advaita follows the scientific method or logical approach of Paradvaita.
And so, it would appear that “Tantric Monism” is absolutely identical with the standard term “Advaita Vedanta”. ;)

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Paradvaita is, of course, parAdvaita, para+advaita. Another term used is paramAdvaya. Preference depends on metrical reasons :).
This definitely stands for "supreme Advaita," and this is supported both by its own texts and by opinions of scholars.

Pratyakshadvaita (pratyakShAdvaita) refers to direct experience of the Unity in the world itself, or rather seeing the world as Consciousness alone.
World is essentially real, for it exists in the Supreme Consciousness, and this is a second reason for the use of "pratyaksha" designition.

Nyaya as one of 6 systems, though a Shaiva one, has nothing to do with Tantric Monism. However, the whole of Tantric Doctrine is based upon logic, which is technically called "sattarka." There are three adharas of the true knowledge: Sattarka, Sadguru and Sadagama, according to Tantric Shaivism.

Of course, we may use a name of "Advaita-vedanta" for Tantric Doctrine also, if we use it in specifically selected meaning. But that isn't a general practice and such usage will lead to inevitable confusion.
Usually all Shaiva and Tantric traditions refer to themselves as "Siddhanta" and not "Vedanta."

TruthSeeker
25 May 2006, 01:18 PM
The whole of my experience (and anyone's) can be fully and perfectly explained only in the context of Monistic metaphysics.
That is why it is "superior."


How is it so? No advaitin can ever understand how Brahman is associated with Maya until it is really experienced. Perfect explanations are not found in any system of philosophy or religion, else there wont be any atheists in the world. If you think you know the truth, then you do not know it -- stated clearly in the vedas.



But the Truth itself is beyong any words and explanations, it is the Consciousness, Parasamvit.


If you have read my post carefully, this view is called Shaivism, where consciousness is said to be the origin of everything. That is why Shaivism holds the world to be a product of consciousness( and hence illusory) and Vaishnavism upholds the reality of the world, because infiniteness is the origin of everything. Have you read about Vallabha's Vaishnavism? It is monistic and yet does not accept the world to be a mitya. That is exactly what I am talking about here.

In theory, in Shaivism, Shiva who is consciouness is the origin of everything, and hence from this point of view, the world is illusory.

In Shaktaism, Existance is the root cause of jagat, and hence it usually upholds realism.( yet due to its connection with Shaivism it may not be as realistic as in Vaishnavism)

In Vaishnavism, infiniteness which is also of a spatial entity, is the cause of the world, and hence from this point of view, the world is real. Even monistic Vaishnavites do not accept Mayavada.

It is these fundamental differences that I was addressing - not just different names like Shakti, Shiva or Vishnu.





Darshanas were not created by "common man," but exactly by "educated people" only. Educated people induce conflicts due to attachment to ego and unwillingness to investigate the Truth sinserely.
And true mystics come to the same ground and raise above the conflict, even if their ideas are different. For Consciousness and Love is the same for all.


Darshanas are not created by educated people, but by mystics. Do you really think anyone who is not divine in origin can come up with a system of vedanta? Though they apparently clash with each other, their divinity is manifest solely by their ability to charm and command other people, their vast scholarship and other achievements. Can you find a single scholar nowadays who matches the legendary Acharyas in any respect?

It is not right that all mystics share the same view, that is the whole issue about. No two Yogis appear to have the same experience.





However, darshanas as explanations of the Truth vary: some are superior and other inferior.

Superior or Inferior truth are probably decided from personal experience isn't it? I have heard some Buddhists claiming that Shunyavada is the highest truth, and the vedantin will finally switch over from the illusionary Brahman to his Shunyata finally. So there is no way to firmly beleive in anything unless you experience it. As a rough guide, your temperaments, your knowledge and the method of interpretation of scripture, along with the conviction and enlightenment of the guruji is a paramount factor. If you dont have a guru, it is unlikely you will have not a fixed beleif pattern and might continue to learn and investigate all the time.

People belonging to sampradayas have very fixed and rigid beleifs and wont be in a position to accept other systems and in case they do so, they will call their own beleifs as superior. No idea why the word superior is used. If two religions lead to God, how could one be considered inferior to the other irrespective of what they teach?

Arjuna
25 May 2006, 05:01 PM
Namaste,


How is it so? No advaitin can ever understand how Brahman is associated with Maya until it is really experienced. Perfect explanations are not found in any system of philosophy or religion, else there wont be any atheists in the world.

There are two aspects of understanding, bauddha (intellectual) and paurusha (spiritual). The first one relies upon Sattarka (right logic), which is based upon anubhava (experience). Second one is purely related to experience.
Paradvaita as a darshana (metaphysical vision or doctrine) represents the intellectual aspect, a projection of Truth into semantic field. Such kind of explanation is not "perfect" in a sense in which Anuttara, Concsiousness or Love is perfect, for it is not a whole; but it is perfect when based upon pratyaksha-anubhava.
Another reason for stating that Monism is supreme darshana is that it's divinely revealed in Bhairavagamas and supported by Siddhas. However this is a matter of belief until one gets the needed inner experience and develops right logic to see accuracy of this view directly.

Advaitin can and have to understand the relation of Brahman and Maya, for upon this depends his state: if he rejects Maya as illusion separate from Brahman he cannot rise above sushupti level. Only when Maya is seen as inherent potency and freedom of Brahman, one goes into Turiya and attains Paramapada.
Of course, such understanding is not a product of mental speculation or reading of books; but of direct realisation of I-Consciousness and applying right logic to it. Prakasha and Vimarsha that are two non-separate aspects of Parasamvit are not different from Prakasha and Vimarsha of the Consciousness of a Yogi. Thus having known his Atman a Yogi understands a relation of Brahman and Maya (Shiva and Shakti).


If you think you know the truth, then you do not know it -- stated clearly in the vedas.

If one thinks that he knows Truth, verily he doesn't know it. The Truth isn't an object of thought-process.


If you have read my post carefully, this view is called Shaivism, where consciousness is said to be the origin of everything. That is why Shaivism holds the world to be a product of consciousness( and hence illusory) and Vaishnavism upholds the reality of the world, because infiniteness is the origin of everything. Have you read about Vallabha's Vaishnavism? It is monistic and yet does not accept the world to be a mitya. That is exactly what I am talking about here.

This is inaccurate. There are different schools of Shaivism and Vaishnavism, dualistic and non-dualistic, as well as compromising. Monistic Shaivism (Paradvaita) holds the world as REAL exactly because it is in Consciousness only. And this Consciousness is not one of some three attributes of Brahman, but the very Absolute. Brahman (in a sence of a static Being) is it's one aspect, and another is Maya (Shakti, to be precise).

Anantatva is merely an attribute of Parasamvit, as well as Satyata and Jnana. Consciousness is the Truth (the only Reality), it is the Knowledge (thus it is Self-aware and not insentient void) and it is Limitless (i.e. Unbound and Free, Svatantra). This is exactly what Monistic Shaivism teaches.


In theory, in Shaivism, Shiva who is consciouness is the origin of everything, and hence from this point of view, the world is illusory.
In Shaktaism, Existance is the root cause of jagat, and hence it usually upholds realism.( yet due to its connection with Shaivism it may not be as realistic as in Vaishnavism)
In Vaishnavism, infiniteness which is also of a spatial entity, is the cause of the world, and hence from this point of view, the world is real. Even monistic Vaishnavites do not accept Mayavada.

Mayavada as a theory of Maya being not one with Brahman and the world being an illusion is rejected by virtually all schools of Shaivism, monistic and dualistic.
Shaktism holds the same view as Monistic Shaivism does. In fact there is no separate metaphysics of Shaktism — it is a Monistic Shaiva metaphysics only (we may recall Krama system which is the only strictly Shakta school, but its doctrine is not different from a Shaiva one, just terms vary).

Again, there is a school of monistic Vaishnavism which has the same doctrine as that of Kashmiri Shaivism. And Vaishnava Sahajiyas are close in their views to Shaktas and even to Tantric Buddhists.
This kind of generalisation U incline to is quite dubious.

BTW there is no term "Shaktaism", but "Shaktism."


Darshanas are not created by educated people, but by mystics.

By educated mystics :p
Sri Ramakrishna, Kabir or Lalla didn't develop any darshanas, though no doubt they were mystics!


Do you really think anyone who is not divine in origin can come up with a system of vedanta? Though they apparently clash with each other, their divinity is manifest solely by their ability to charm and command other people, their vast scholarship and other achievements. Can you find a single scholar nowadays who matches the legendary Acharyas in any respect?

Charm, command or scholarship themselves prove nothing. Hitler had a command over people, Pope of Rome does have it, etc. Of course everything exists in Parasamvit only, but we cannot say that these qualities are proofs of divinity manifested.

There may be various paths (methods) intended for different kinds of people. But there may be only one true metaphysics, for all other theories are at best something partly true. If we see some people opposing the Monistic doctrine (which may take slightly different forms, but its essence is always Advaita), that happens due to four reasons:
1. Lack of experience;
2. Defect of logic (experince may be there, but a person is unable to interpret it properly);
3. Ego (one understands that his theory is inaccurate, but continues to preach it for getting status, fame, money etc.);
3. Particular circumstances (one explains a "lower teaching" for people of little understanding).


It is not right that all mystics share the same view, that is the whole issue about. No two Yogis appear to have the same experience.

Details may and do differ, but never essence. Consciouness is one.


Superior or Inferior truth are probably decided from personal experience isn't it? I have heard some Buddhists claiming that Shunyavada is the highest truth, and the vedantin will finally switch over from the illusionary Brahman to his Shunyata finally. So there is no way to firmly beleive in anything unless you experience it. As a rough guide, your temperaments, your knowledge and the method of interpretation of scripture, along with the conviction and enlightenment of the guruji is a paramount factor. If you dont have a guru, it is unlikely you will have not a fixed beleif pattern and might continue to learn and investigate all the time.

There are three criteria of true knowledge: Sattarka (right logic based upon yogic experience), Sadagama (Divine Revelation) and Sadguru.


People belonging to sampradayas have very fixed and rigid beleifs and wont be in a position to accept other systems and in case they do so, they will call their own beleifs as superior. No idea why the word superior is used. If two religions lead to God, how could one be considered inferior to the other irrespective of what they teach?

There is a proof of a darshana being superior over another: if the whole of experience can be consistently explained with one system and cannot be explained with another, the first one is verily superior (as a metaphysical system).

Mathematics has proved that there cannot exist any kind of system which explains everything and yet is not self-contradictive. Thus there must be either some contradiction or innuendo. Since contradiction is against logic, the second choise has to be accepted — a mystery. And there is a mystery of one perfect and independent Consciousness producing in itself the whole variety of objects. Here comes a point which is inexpressible. But this mystery is verified by yogic experience, which is referred to by Kashmiri Shaiva authors.

We may recall an indescribable Maya of Advaita-vedanta; but in that case it is in fact described (as being a cause of triple avidya) and that leads to two self-contraditions: 1. claimed indescribable entity is described; 2. this entity is held as different from Brahman, and thus Advaita-vada is refuted.

TruthSeeker
25 May 2006, 06:00 PM
This is inaccurate. There are different schools of Shaivism and Vaishnavism, dualistic and non-dualistic, as well as compromising. Monistic Shaivism (Paradvaita) holds the world as REAL exactly because it is in Consciousness only. And this Consciousness is not one of some three attributes of Brahman, but the very Absolute. Brahman (in a sence of a static Being) is it's one aspect, and another is Maya (Shakti, to be precise).


You do not realize that if the world were held as real, and the philosophy is monistic, the three stages of Jagrat, Svapna and Shushupti have to be classifed as unreal, because these are changing unlike the Turiya. I know you make claims about having a version of Shaivism and advaita based on realism but has it been presented in the vedantic community and logically defended? I doubt that. You can make all that claims of being monistic, but you have not accounted for the changes we percieve- which are dualistic.





Anantatva is merely an attribute of Parasamvit, as well as Satyata and Jnana. Consciousness is the Truth (the only Reality), it is the Knowledge (thus it is Self-aware and not insentient void) and it is Limitless (i.e. Unbound and Free, Svatantra). This is exactly what Monistic Shaivism teaches.


Not based on vedanta -- so I am not following this up. Taittirya mentions that Brahman is Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam and uses three explcit words to classify Brahman, which means these are not identical per se, in which case only one of them was needed. All these have to stand at the same level of heiraracy to make sense.






Mayavada as a theory of Maya being not one with Brahman and the world being an illusion is rejected by virtually all schools of Shaivism, monistic and dualistic.


This is the view of bhamati school. Sri Shankara has not specified anything about Maya ( whether it is one or not one with Brahman), but rather left the status as inexplicable.

You are not following the need for some of the advaitins to separate Maya from Brahman himself. When Maya is considered to originate from Brahman and also act on the Brahman, it is thoroughly illogical and hardly a satisfactory explanation. Sri Shankara discusses this possibility thoroughly and dismisses it on the basis that no independent being will ever go into real misery of its own making.

If you hold everything to be Brahman, and also consider the misery etc to be Brahman, you are attributing the defect to the Brahman. Hence Sri Shankara chooses to opt out of this illogical thesis.

Vallabha holds that Brahman deliberate obscures himself to generate the plurality.






Again, there is a school of monistic Vaishnavism which has the same doctrine as that of Kashmiri Shaivism. And Vaishnava Sahajiyas are close in their views to Shaktas and even to Tantric Buddhists.
This kind of generalisation U incline to is quite dubious.


I am talking about the general Vaishnavism, not any particular form of Vaishnavism influenced by Kashmiri Shavism due to proximity.




Charm, command or scholarship themselves prove nothing. Hitler had a command over people, Pope of Rome does have it, etc. Of course everything exists in Parasamvit only, but we cannot say that these qualities are proofs of divinity manifested.


The example of Hitler proves nothing. His people hated him. And he might have won some command by brute force. If you want to consider some of our ancient Acharyas as ordinary mortals, then what credit should be assign to the present day Acharyas who do not come anywhere near their standards?




There may be various paths (methods) intended for different kinds of people. But there may be only one true metaphysics, for all other theories are at best something partly true. If we see some people opposing the Monistic doctrine (which may take slightly different forms, but its essence is always Advaita), that happens due to four reasons:
1. Lack of experience;


In what? How many advaitins have achieved the oneness with Brahman?




2. Defect of logic (experince may be there, but a person is unable to interpret it properly);


All schools of vedanta are deeply steeped in logic, and well refined due to the need to thrive in such environments.



3. Ego (one understands that his theory is inaccurate, but continues to preach it for getting status, fame, money etc.);


The same thing can be turned against advaita too. How many preachers of advaita ( barring a few sanyasins in Himalayas and elsewhere) are preaching it based on their own realization?



3. Particular circumstances (one explains a "lower teaching" for people of little understanding).


What exactly do you mean by "lower teaching"? If you mean the philoosphical content, then it means nothing. All schools of Hinduism can be classified into Karma, Jnana and Bhakti Yoga, all of which are considered to be paths to salvation on their own.

Let us say you are a Smarta and are an advaitin. Let us say another guy is a Vaishnava. What exactly are they taught to do, to make one of them superior to the other? As far as most Hindus are concerned, they all pray, perform Puja, recite the names of God, do some meditation etc. Where does Philosophy even enter anywhere here? How does the teaching of advaita become superior to the teaching to dvaita when their spiritual practices are identical?

If you are talking of sanyasins, non advaitins can also be sanyasins, and also indulge in Yoga. So there is no difference even here.

So please instruct me how the teaching of advaita is superior to the teaching of say dvaita, when it does not address anything in particular. Every school literally preaches the need to be good, be moral, relinquish doership, to be devoid of ego, to be humble, simple, devoted etc. What makes something superior to the other? How does the superior philosophical knowledge aid anywhere in your opinion?




There is a proof of a darshana being superior over another: if the whole of experience can be consistently explained with one system and cannot be explained with another, the first one is verily superior (as a metaphysical system).


All systems of advaita, VA and dvaita are internally self consistant. Infact, in the case of dvaita you also have perceptional evidence to backup the claims. Going by your logic, we should all consider Dvaita to be most superior Darshana because it matches every day experience and does not even need logical demonstration.

Can you please explain how advaita as a system can logically outwit dvaita? Can you prove me logically that all differences we percieve are fictitious? Advaita is dependent mainly on scriptural evidence, not logic. Logic has no place in Turiya. Logic is used to primarily defend the scriptural authority without which there is no proof for it.




We may recall an indescribable Maya of Advaita-vedanta; but in that case it is in fact described (as being a cause of triple avidya) and that leads to two self-contraditions: 1. claimed indescribable entity is described; 2. this entity is held as different from Brahman, and thus Advaita-vada is refuted.

Rubbish. Great that you found two statments to "refute" advaita when advaita itself has hundreds of commentaries that defend every aspect of its logic. If advaita's position were so weak as you imagine to be( as to refuted by 2 statments), then this school would not have survived till now.;)

You have not read any works in advaita. Read advaita-siddhi of Madhusudhana Saraswathi which answers many of the devastating criticisms against advaita. Just imagining to have refuted advaita amounts to nothing. It is just like some of the Vaishnavas here.

All traditions in advaita have this perennial problem of explaining the apaprent dualty in non dualty. No system of advaita has as much logical works and the long lineage of scholars and sages that advaita vedanta has. No system of advaita is as well refined as advaita-vedanta because of the "hostile" vedantic tradition in which it flourished.

Arjuna
25 May 2006, 07:08 PM
You do not realize that if the world were held as real, and the philosophy is monistic, the three stages of Jagrat, Svapna and Shushupti have to be classifed as unreal, because these are changing unlike the Turiya. I know you make claims about having a version of Shaivism and advaita based on realism but has it been presented in the vedantic community and logically defended? I doubt that. You can make all that claims of being monistic, but you have not accounted for the changes we percieve- which are dualistic.

It is logically presented in Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini and other works. Anyone interested may study at least scholarly works if not originals.


Not based on vedanta -- so I am not following this up. Taittirya mentions that Brahman is Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam and uses three explcit words to classify Brahman, which means these are not identical per se, in which case only one of them was needed. All these have to stand at the same level of heiraracy to make sense.

Brahman is One, and consequently all three attributes refer to the one entity. This Brahman is Consciousness or Parasamvit, which is named as Satya, Jnana and Ananta.


You are not following the need for some of the advaitins to separate Maya from Brahman himself. When Maya is considered to originate from Brahman and also act on the Brahman, it is thoroughly illogical and hardly a satisfactory explanation.

If one separates Maya from Brahman, Advaita is finished.
The only logically possible and in fact logically necessary explanation is that Maya is inherent power of Brahman, and Brahman is Self-aware and Free.

If it is said in Shruti, sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, this has to be accepted by Vedanta. Sarvam is everything; nothing is said about a dubious entity of Maya different from Brahman.

A kinda Brahman that is insentient and non-different from mere void verily cannot be supreme one :D


If you hold everything to be Brahman, and also consider the misery etc to be Brahman, you are attributing the defect to the Brahman. Hence Sri Shankara chooses to opt out of this illogical thesis.

"Defect" is an interpretation of mind. And ultimately ALL qualities exist in Consciousness, for there is nothing apart from it. And even if anything were, it wouldn't be apparent since the absence of Consciousness.


So please instruct me how the teaching of advaita is superior to the teaching of say dvaita, when it does not address anything in particular. Every school literally preaches the need to be good, be moral, relinquish doership, to be devoid of ego, to be humble, simple, devoted etc. What makes something superior to the other? How does the superior philosophical knowledge aid anywhere in your opinion?

The problem is that U start confusing categories. Advaita is superior as a metaphysics system; and this is judged by logic and not such "proofs" like similarity of outer worship, existance of sannyasins etc.
Metaphysics helps as it is a part of Jnana-yoga.


All systems of advaita, VA and dvaita are internally self consistant. Infact, in the case of dvaita you also have perceptional evidence to backup the claims. Going by your logic, we should all consider Dvaita to be most superior Darshana because it matches every day experience and does not even need logical demonstration.

Dvaita is NOT supported by experience. Dunno what about U, but my experience is that everything exists in Consciousness only, and this Consciousness is one. Diversity exists in Unity, and this is logical as well.

Arjuna
25 May 2006, 07:09 PM
Can you please explain how advaita as a system can logically outwit dvaita? Can you prove me logically that all differences we percieve are fictitious? Advaita is dependent mainly on scriptural evidence, not logic. Logic has no place in Turiya. Logic is used to primarily defend the scriptural authority without which there is no proof for it.

I have no such amount of time, excuse me.
If interested, read the sources and then we may discuss.


Rubbish. Great that you found two statments to "refute" advaita when advaita itself has hundreds of commentaries that defend every aspect of its logic. If advaita's position were so weak as you imagine to be( as to refuted by 2 statments), then this school would not have survived till now.;)

Again, i cannot write treateses for the lack of time.

If U are so well versed in AV, U could have provided explanation of these two points in spite of mere claims and insults ;)


All traditions in advaita have this perennial problem of explaining the apaprent dualty in non dualty. No system of advaita has as much logical works and the long lineage of scholars and sages that advaita vedanta has. No system of advaita is as well refined as advaita-vedanta because of the "hostile" vedantic tradition in which it flourished.

1. There is no problem in such explanation if we accept the freedom of the Absolute. And such is the view of Paradvaita of Shaivism.

2. No point in arguement, for Ur knowledge of Shaivism is even worse than my knowledge of AV :D

sarabhanga
27 May 2006, 04:51 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Paramadvaita is “the highest being without a second” ~ certainly indicating “pure non-duality”. :)

Pratyakshadvaita refers to the Anubhavabodha of Vedanta.


सर्वँ ह्येतद्ब्रह्मायमात्मा ब्रह्म सोऽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् ॥
sarvam hyetadbrahmāyamātmā brahma so'yamātmā catushpāt ||2||

All this is verily Brahman; this Atman is Brahman; this Atman is quadruped.

This is the Anubhava Vakya, from the Mandukya Upanishad of the Atharva Veda.

Anubhava is “perception, fruition, understanding, impression on the mind not derived from memory, experience, or knowledge derived from personal observation or experiment”. And the Anubhava Vakya indicates the direct realization of Brahman.

Anubhava is “a sign or indication of a feeling by a look or gesture, dignity, authority, result, firm opinion, ascertainment, good resolution, or belief”. And the Anubhava Vakya is the ultimate wisdom of the Vedanta.

Nyaya means “that into which a thing goes back ~ i.e. an original type, standard, method, rule (especially a general or universal rule), model, axiom, system, plan, manner, right or fit manner or way, fitness, or propriety”.

Nyaya is an applied logical system, and Nyaya is all about Perception and Knowledge Sources ~ and the Naiyayika perspective is Realism.

You mentioned Pragalbhacharya in the Tantric Monism thread, and he was a 15th century Naiyayika.

You also mentioned the Tattvacintamani of Gangeshopadhyaya, and he was a 12th century Naiyayika who particularly emphasized Pratyaksha, Anumana, and Shabda.

The practical method of all Vedanta relies on Pratyaksha or Anubhava! ;)

TruthSeeker
06 June 2006, 01:45 PM
Namaste Arjuna,



If one separates Maya from Brahman, Advaita is finished.
The only logically possible and in fact logically necessary explanation is that Maya is inherent power of Brahman, and Brahman is Self-aware and Free.

If it is said in Shruti, sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, this has to be accepted by Vedanta. Sarvam is everything; nothing is said about a dubious entity of Maya different from Brahman.


The fundamentals that make advaita vedanta go for these primarily



1) Brahman is one without a second.( ekam eva advitiyam)
2) Brahman has no internal differences ( neha nanasti kinchana)
3) Brahman is actionless

If Brahman is a knower, you have the problem of dualty, ie the knower and the knowledge - and 1) is off by the wind. Any attempts to subvert it by positing special powers to Brahman etc to subvert this issue will break NB. That is advaita is so keen on this.

If Brahman has no internal differences, and if the world(or everything) is Brahman, then 2) is contradicted., because there are differences within the world. The explanation of the world being consciousness non different from Brahman, will force heterogenous nature of Brahman. Advaita cannot accept everything as Brahman, because such a concept is easily refuted . This "sarvam" looks nice on paper, but wont hold any fort if you want to resort to logical scrutinty, and hence advaita holds Brahman alone as real.( whatever is heterogenous or changing cannot be posited as real and stand logical scrutiny). If this computer is Brahman by any chance, it breaks non dualty on the word go. Either say that this computer is not Brahman or say that it does not exist. No advaitin will interpret sarvam khalvidam brahma to prove that this computer is also Brahman - that would be suicidal in itself.


If Brahman is actionless, there are logical problems in accepting a Maya born of Brahman. Again, Brahman is said to be AptakAma or having no unfilled desires , so you have to figure out a good reason on why to play this game of self concealment.( with himself). Some advaitins hold that Maya originated out of Brahman without any reason, but there are other issues with such theory. Again, Maya is beginningless, so why give any explanation for it? Why seek reasons for causeless entities? If you want to say Maya is from Brahman I have no issues with it, just understand that it has its own issues.


No one wants to defend equations like Brahman=Cosciounsess, Brahman=Jnana, Brahman=Satya because the terms are redundant and contradictory . That is why Brahman is detached from whatever we can think of, including consciouness. Try to support your theory with say some scholars of Dvaita. Your concepts wiill disappear in no time. Some school that devloped in Kashmir did not have to bother with such issues, and probably never peer reviewed or even criticized by other schools. You can talk as much as you want.




The problem is that U start confusing categories. Advaita is superior as a metaphysics system; and this is judged by logic and not such "proofs" like similarity of outer worship, existance of sannyasins etc.
Metaphysics helps as it is a part of Jnana-yoga.


Superior Metaphysics? In what respect? It is superior solely subject to your defence of this metaphysics, and refutation of others. All schools have Jnana Yoga as part of their philosophy, though it maynot be followed in practice - it is totally incorrect attach Jnana Yoga with advaita.





Dvaita is NOT supported by experience. Dunno what about U, but my experience is that everything exists in Consciousness only, and this Consciousness is one. Diversity exists in Unity, and this is logical as well.

Dvaita is not supported by experience? I guess you are a Brahma-jnanin.

The whole range of experience is only Dvaita, unless you have fully awakened the Ajna Chakra. And fully non dual only in Sahsrara, by theory this is not what you are talking of right now? If so, I salute you and I dont want to argue with such a Mahan.

I am beginning to think that the whole strife between advaitins and non advaitins both due to 1. generic intolerance of non advaitins 2. superiority complex of some advaitins.

Because - "Dvaita is NOT supported by experience." is something of an empty statement. more of emotion than a fact.

TruthSeeker
06 June 2006, 02:04 PM
I have no such amount of time, excuse me.
If interested, read the sources and then we may discuss.

Again, i cannot write treateses for the lack of time.


Nice excuses. Do you think you really need any proof to show that?



If U are so well versed in AV, U could have provided explanation of these two points in spite of mere claims and insults


I did not see where you percieved an insult, because it was you who have been repeatedly "refuting" advaita. I have not bothered with you at all. You openly state that you do not know any advaita vedanta, and yet write two liners of refutation copied from elsewhere. I am not surprised to see this attitute, because some of other Tantrics I know show a similar attitute towards advaita vedanta.

I am not against any such school because I personally believe that vedanta sorely lacks a systematic scientific discipline like the Kundalini Yoga.





2. No point in arguement, for Ur knowledge of Shaivism is even worse than my knowledge of AV :D

I have never claimed to know your version of Shaivism, and never made any statements against it, except giving short comments about your complete misconceptions. If you dont remember, I have only asked questions about your beleif on another thread. I have not claimed any knowledge whatsoever. If at all I said anything I have stated that 1) It is not vedantic 2) I cannot take it as seriously as advaita vedanta from a logical point of view because it has hardly been subjected the heavy scrunity advaita vedanta has been to - and it needs no proof.

Arjuna
06 June 2006, 02:08 PM
2) Brahman has no internal differences (neha nanasti kinchana)
3) Brahman is actionless

Namaste,

"Internal" difference can exist in opposition to external only ;)

1. Consciousness necessarily has to imply a sort of difference at least in description. For there must be Prakasha and Vimarsha for awareness to take place. If this Self-awareness of the Absolute is rejected, He becomes same as unsentient void (which is rejected by Shruti).

2. Brahman is actionless if it is viewed as Prakasha only (and NOT the Absolute per se). Otherwise He necessarily has inherent Shakti, which manifests as action. If this is rejected, the existance of the world (even though it exists in Consciousness alone) cannot be explained.
Brahman is beyond action, but all action comes from Brahman only.

Arjuna
06 June 2006, 03:02 PM
If Brahman is a knower, you have the problem of dualty, ie the knower and the knowledge - and 1) is off by the wind.

Knower and knowledge are different linguistically and not in essence.
But if one says Brahman is devoid of knowledge, this levels Him with unconscious void. And unconscious void cannot be accepted as Supreme Absolute. Moreover, in such case a question arises where does consciousness come from (if it is absent in Brahman)?
What is a value of philosophy which goes against both logic and actual experience?

Shruti says, "Prajnanam Brahma."


If Brahman has no internal differences, and if the world (or everything) is Brahman, then 2) is contradicted., because there are differences within the world. The explanation of the world being consciousness non different from Brahman, will force heterogenous nature of Brahman. Advaita cannot accept everything as Brahman, because such a concept is easily refuted.

If AV rejects everything as Brahman, it contradicts Shruti, which says "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma."

Saying "internal differences" presupposes existance of something "external."
Diversity exists in Consciousness (which is our actual experience and logical necessity) and it is non-separate from Consciousness. For if Consciousness is not there, diversity cannot be known and established.

Ur supposition that "the explanation of the world being consciousness non different from Brahman, will force heterogenous nature of Brahman" (U might have meant to say "heterogeneous") is wrong since the nature of Brahman is Consciousness alone.


This "sarvam" looks nice on paper, but wont hold any fort if you want to resort to logical scrutinty, and hence advaita holds Brahman alone as real.

If Brahman alone is real, the world is real — for there is no second entity to Brahman. To say "world is unreal" is a sense it doesn't exist is absurd. Non-existent thing cannot be a matter of experience. If U would remember an example of a snake and a rope, i will point that in any case a rope is needed for a snake to be imagined ;).
The theory that the world is a product of ignorance or illusion doesn't stand any criticism. For if one accepts any kind of force different from Brahman Advaita is finished. If one says "brahma satyaM" and "jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH," then how is it possible that some power of illusion can make Jiva (non-different from Brahman itself) imagine an unexistent world?

If Brahman alone exists, then there is no place for any illusion or ignorance being different from Brahman.
If Brahman is thought actionless, then he becomes an impotent void, upon which a separate power executes authority. This is verily absurd. And how can a Jiva have ANY experience if Brahman is not the knower?


If Brahman is actionless, there are logical problems in accepting a Maya born of Brahman.

If one accepts a thing named "maya" he has to either say it is unborn (co-eternal with Brahman) and this results in dualism, or it is born (where from if not from Brahman, the ONLY reality?)


Again, Brahman is said to be AptakAma or having no unfilled desires, so you have to figure out a good reason on why to play this game of self concealment (with himself).

Perhaps U would be surprised that Ur statement goes against Ur views :D
If Brahman is Aptakama, then his desires are fulfilled — which imply that he does have desire. Otherwise for unsentient and self-unaware Brahman it is ridiculous to speak of any "fulfilled desires."
Exactly because Brahman plays this game his desires are fulfilled through this. The whole of manifestation takes place as a result of free Will of the Absolute. That is why He can be called "Aptakama."


Superior Metaphysics? In what respect?

Dualism can be explained in a context of Monism, which is more vast and deep in its grasp of the Reality. But in a context of dualism Monism is seen as nonsense — this is a reason of intolerance on a part of dvaitins ;)


Dvaita is not supported by experience? I guess you are a Brahma-jnanin.

The ONLY "thing" which is my actual and direct experience beyond any doubt is Consciousness. And i know no second Consciousness, it is one only. Thus, Advaita is based on experience.

Suggestion of existance of any objects separate from Consciousness cannot be verified, for when Consciousness is lacking no objects are perceived. Separate objects is a pure theory and NOT an experience.


The whole range of experience is only Dvaita, unless you have fully awakened the Ajna Chakra. And fully non dual only in Sahsrara, by theory this is not what you are talking of right now? If so, I salute you and I dont want to argue with such a Mahan.

How do U know these things about chakras? Saying this implies U have realised all up till Sahasrara :D

Znanna
06 June 2006, 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
The whole range of experience is only Dvaita, unless you have fully awakened the Ajna Chakra. And fully non dual only in Sahsrara, by theory this is not what you are talking of right now? If so, I salute you and I dont want to argue with such a Mahan.


Originally Posted by Arjuna
How do U know these things about chakras? Saying this implies U have realised all up till Sahasrara :D


Sahasrara? There are polarities or reflections of this chakra and all others in infinite combination ... the possibilities are endless!

Eh, but practice is so fun :)

But hey, I'm just a girl.



Namaste,
ZN

willie
06 June 2006, 09:11 PM
This seems to be another endless arguement that say nothing. Under the restriction and definitions of brahman then brahman would be mostly useless. Just out there doinf not much. Somehow I don't think brahman would like this useless state.

Arjuna
07 June 2006, 01:07 AM
This seems to be another endless arguement that say nothing. Under the restriction and definitions of brahman then brahman would be mostly useless. Just out there doinf not much. Somehow I don't think brahman would like this useless state.

Then what do U read this "useless arguement" for? Why waste Ur precious time? :D Does Brahman "like" this indeed useless state?

atanu
14 June 2006, 03:52 AM
Namaskar TS


Namaste Arjuna,

-----That is why Brahman is detached from whatever we can think of, including consciouness. ------ The whole range of experience is only Dvaita, unless you have fully awakened the Ajna Chakra. ---
.

You have brought out a very subtle point.




I am beginning to think that the whole strife between advaitins and non advaitins both due to 1. generic intolerance of non advaitins 2. superiority complex of some advaitins.

Because - "Dvaita is NOT supported by experience." is something of an empty statement. more of emotion than a fact.


But strife, I feel, is the experience itself. It is not restricted to advaita vs. dvaita etc. Existence of a school (or for that matter a being) is simply based on such experiential differences -- which arise in non-dual brahman but are not the non-dual brahman.

All experiences, except one, however, has a begininning and an end -- thus cannot be the eternal truth. The one permanent experience is "I exist". Even during deep sleep I exist. Some gurus teach abidance in the "I exist" experience without a break, to experience/reveal/be (no word may be perfect here) the ROOT wherefrom "I exist" cognition arises.

Regards


NB: Your posts have benefitted me.

atanu
14 June 2006, 04:21 AM
The ONLY "thing" which is my actual and direct experience beyond any doubt is Consciousness. And i know no second Consciousness, it is one only. Thus, Advaita is based on experience.



Namskar Arjuna,

This matter is extremely subtle but can be realised in a moment of flash.

When you say: The ONLY "thing" which is my actual and direct experience beyond any doubt is Consciousness, you are stating an experience. This experience is the ever true -- I agree here.

But still, this is an experience of some one. Who is that some one? Is that some one exactly the same as the "I exist" consciousness or He is the source of this everlasting experience? What is He?


But for all practical purposes teachers have taught THAT being as pure consciousness without a qualification. And, Mandukya is most precise in defining IT as indefinable -- neither consciousness nor non-consciousness.


Brahman does not participate but participates at a pada level as consciousness. Brahman is unchangeable but cause of all changes. Brahman is sthanu but is the fastest being. Atma desires birth of Purusha but Atma is desireless. Atma kills not and is not killed. Atma acts not but everything is done in its presence. Etc. Etc.

It is like a cinema screen without which no show would be possible, but it is not the show.

But actually words will never reach Him. Mind will never reach Him. The only proof of Him is in identity with Him. Dvaita and VA just ignore such shruti, so they are not complete (here I seem to differ from TS).


Please, deeply reflect without forming an opinion fast. You may realise that Advaita requires no modification except on account of mind's requirement to conceptualise.
Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 June 2006, 04:36 AM
Sahasrara? There are polarities or reflections of this chakra and all others in infinite combination ... the possibilities are endless!

Eh, but practice is so fun :)

But hey, I'm just a girl.

Namaste,
ZN


Hey, are you just a girl? Truly?

For just a girl your terse posts are valuable (do not mean chauvinism here).


For TS and Arjuna:

All Chakra business mean experience only. Which, TS, has said dwell in the realm of Dvaita only. Behind all experiences there is an experiencer. Who is that experiencer? Knowing Him (knowing may be objected by some and being Him is more appropriate), the Advaita is known (again wrong word perhaps).


Regards to all and Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
14 June 2006, 07:34 PM
Hey, are you just a girl? Truly?

For just a girl your terse posts are valuable (do not mean chauvinism here).

(snip)


Yep, just a girl :)

Thanks for appreciating my crunched down commentary! I know little of doctrine (maybe I intuitively have avoided the Vedas haha) but my understanding is of experience, and it is from that which I speak.

I only "know" through practice and obtain a referential point of view from commentary offered by y'all, for which I'm very appreciative, it is all very informative, and gives me interesting things to search about on the net.

I just do stuff, hey I'm just a girl :P



Namaste,
ZN

atanu
14 June 2006, 11:28 PM
Yep, just a girl :)

Thanks for appreciating my crunched down commentary! I know little of doctrine (maybe I intuitively have avoided the Vedas haha) but my understanding is of experience, and it is from that which I speak.

I only "know" through practice and obtain a referential point of view from commentary offered by y'all, for which I'm very appreciative, it is all very informative, and gives me interesting things to search about on the net.

I just do stuff, hey I'm just a girl :P



Namaste,
ZN


Namaste ZN

Carry on. Best Wishes.