PDA

View Full Version : Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism



Arjuna
13 May 2006, 09:12 PM
Do you hold jagat to be absolutely real? If so, how do you account for multiplicity seen with the senses? Is ignorance and evil also Shiva?

1. Absolutely Real (Sat) is only Anuttara or Paramashiva, God, pure Consciousness, Brahman. In this point Paradvaita agrees with Advaita-vedanta: brahma satyam.
The world is real, but relatively: its reality is totally dependent upon Consciousness. As Abhinavagupta puts it, “The absolute monism is that principle that neither refutes nor establishes diversity” (Malinivijaya-varttika, I.123). And, “Therefore, only the Atman shines [everywhere] taking as its form the whole objective existence known as the universe, and appearing as all this without any break” (Ishvarapratyabhijna-vimarshini with Bhaskari, I.51). This doctrine is called Abhasa-vada.
Paradvaita rejects doctrines of Vivarta and Parinama.
2. The perception of multiplicity is possible due to Self-concealing of God, which He performs in His total freedom, svatantrya. “But Almighty God, being able to do even the impossible, and possessing pure independence, is skilled in playfully concealing His real Self” (Tantraloka, IV.10).
3. As B.N. Pandit explains, “According to the absolute non-dulaism of Paradvaita, He (God) and He alone exists in all the various scenes of this play. All creation has its real and eternal existence within God in the form of the divine potency of His pure consciousness. Once creation becomes manifested as apparent phenomenal existence, it has a beginning and an end. Even so, perfect yogins see only the existence of one Absolute God in both the apparent phenomenal existence and the pure noumenal existence of absolute Consciousness. Siva yogins must not only know this truth, they have to actually feel it as well. Then and then alone do they attain perfect and complete Self-realization.
God is God in both His noumenal and phenomenal aspects” (Specific Principles of Kashmir Saivism. Delhi, 1997. P. 7)
To sum up, “Consciousness alone has an independent existence, and Consciousness alone shines as the whole phenomenal world” (ibid., p. 9).


Also, do you accept that Brahman is changeless and perfectly homogeneous? If yes, how are you reconciling the changing nature of the world as percieved through the senses.

Brahman is changeless.
“Saivas do not accept that there is any transformation of either Siva (the transcendent) or Sakti (the immanent). Rather, they explain that the immanent aspect of Consciousness is an outwardly reflectional manifestation of the inwardly existent divine powers of the transcendent (Siva)” (Specific Principles of Kashmir Saivism. Delhi, 1997. P. 18).
“God is like a mirror in that reflections shining in Him do not transform Him in any way. […] God, bearing the whole psycho-physical existence as reflections, is also not involved in any transformation of His essence. He remains pure Consciousness alone while appearing as infinite phenomena” (ibid., p. 19).


I am not finding realism as wrong, but that position would not be compatible with vedantic ideal of changeless and ekapada Brahman. My only doubt in this regard is, what should be considered a change in the Brahman. Is Brahman subject to change, due to the apprent changes we percieve. By Human logic, if something changes and it is Brahman, Brahman also changes.

“If the absolute monistic existence of pure Consciousness is accepted, then its independent activity of bearing diverse forms can not be explained at all. But all this can be justified and explained if it be accepted as endowed with freedom in the form of Self-awareness” (Ishvarapratyabhijna-vimarshini with Bhaskari, II.203).


Classical advaita tries to prove that Brahman does not change, since the changes are not real. Advaita based on realism try to prove that Brahman is not changed even if we consider the jagat as real. This is a hard nut to crack, and human logic may not be applicable to Brahman at all. So both positions maybe correct.

Abhinavagupta analyses views of Advaita-vedanta, saying:
“If it is argued that the unity of absolute Consciousness is a reality, and that [the appearance] of diversity is due to the disturbance caused by avidya, then it is not possible to resolve who is responsible for this defect of ignorance (avidya). For on the one hand, how could Brahman, who is pure knowledge, assume the form of ignorance? And on the other hand, in reality there is no other creature to whom ignorance could occur” (Ishvarapratyabhijna-vimarshini with Bhaskari, II.202).
And adds, “If a Vedantic aspirant identifies avidya with Maya and takes the latter as the divine potency of Brahman, he also can attain the highest perfection” (Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini, III.405).

sarabhanga
13 May 2006, 10:51 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

How do you see that Paradvaita is essentially different from Shankaracarya's Mayavada?

TruthSeeker
14 May 2006, 04:01 AM
Namaste Arjuna,



The world is real, but relatively: its reality is totally dependent upon Consciousness. As Abhinavagupta puts it, “The absolute monism is that principle that neither refutes nor establishes diversity” (Malinivijaya-varttika, I.123). And, “Therefore, only the Atman shines [everywhere] taking as its form the whole objective existence known as the universe, and appearing as all this without any break” (Ishvarapratyabhijna-vimarshini with Bhaskari, I.51). This doctrine is called Abhasa-vada.
Paradvaita rejects doctrines of Vivarta and Parinama.


Advaita vedanta is Abhasa-vada only. Read BSB 2.3.50. Both vivarta and parinama are different ways of viewing this, and are not really opposed to each other.



2. The perception of multiplicity is possible due to Self-concealing of God, which He performs in His total freedom, svatantrya. “But Almighty God, being able to do even the impossible, and possessing pure independence, is skilled in playfully concealing His real Self” (Tantraloka, IV.10).


How is this essentially different from vivarta? Self concealing is nothing but vivarta put in a dignified way! Infact, it is not even different from lila or sport, which is the activity of a personal God!



Brahman is changeless.
“Saivas do not accept that there is any transformation of either Siva (the transcendent) or Sakti (the immanent). Rather, they explain that the immanent aspect of Consciousness is an outwardly reflectional manifestation of the inwardly existent divine powers of the transcendent (Siva)” (Specific Principles of Kashmir Saivism. Delhi, 1997. P. 18).
“God is like a mirror in that reflections shining in Him do not transform Him in any way. […] God, bearing the whole psycho-physical existence as reflections, is also not involved in any transformation of His essence. He remains pure Consciousness alone while appearing as infinite phenomena” (ibid., p. 19).


Abhasa vada has its own share of logical problems, because it has to introduce artificial concepts like mirror etc. When Brahman alone exists, where from come such "mirrors"? Paninama vada has its own set of issues. Brahman being Upadana Karana itself has its own issues. Changes only in the internal potency or consciousness could be argued as no different from parinama vada.



If the absolute monistic existence of pure Consciousness is accepted, then its independent activity of bearing diverse forms can not be explained at all. But all this can be justified and explained if it be accepted as endowed with freedom in the form of Self-awareness


Self awareness of the Brahman has been rejected by Adi Shankara due to the logically fallacy of dualty arising from the concept of seer and the seen. "I" ness arises only when there is dualty.



“If it is argued that the unity of absolute Consciousness is a reality, and that [the appearance] of diversity is due to the disturbance caused by avidya, then it is not possible to resolve who is responsible for this defect of ignorance (avidya). For on the one hand, how could Brahman, who is pure knowledge, assume the form of ignorance? And on the other hand, in reality there is no other creature to whom ignorance could occur” (Ishvarapratyabhijna-vimarshini with Bhaskari, II.202).
And adds, “If a Vedantic aspirant identifies avidya with Maya and takes the latter as the divine potency of Brahman, he also can attain the highest perfection” (Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini, III.405).


There are advaitins who think that the distinction between Avidya and Maya is an unnecessary one. Perhaps just different shades of Maya? Avidya has been used to denote the state of existance where divinity is not known in anyway, except from the books. Maya denotes a state where divinity is experienced. When Maya is transcended Isvara is experienced. When Isvara is transcended, the highest perfection is attained.

I may be wrong - but I think your views appear to fall mid way between monism and dualism. Are you sure you are speaking of a Yogi attaining complete identity with Shiva here, or just percieves Shiva everywhere? In the latter case, it is Vishistadvaita only.

Because:



Even so, perfect yogins see only the existence of one Absolute God in both the apparent phenomenal existence and the pure noumenal existence of absolute Consciousness. Siva yogins must not only know this truth, they have to actually feel it as well. Then and then alone do they attain perfect and complete Self-realization.



does not looks like perfect non dualism of Shankara advaita. On the face of the description, it appears closer to Vishsitadvaita. But I may be wrong.

Arjuna
14 May 2006, 05:00 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

How do you see that Paradvaita is essentially different from Shankaracarya's Mayavada?

Namaste Sarabhanga,

As far as i know, in Shankara's Advaita-vedanta there is an unresolved problem of status of Maya. If it is not inherent in Brahman itself (which will lead to Shaiva/Shakta view), what can be its origin and what is the object of its effect? Since there is no clear answer to these, Maya was claimed to be unexplicable.

However, from a note of Abhinavagupta it is clear that he accepted that Shankara's Vedanta view is close to Shaiva one, but mistaken is some issues.

If my understanding of Shankara's position is inaccurate, U may correct me. Then we can see what is the difference of Paradvaita and Advaita-vedanta (or there is none).

Arjuna
14 May 2006, 05:25 AM
Namaste TS,


Namaste Arjuna,
Advaita vedanta is Abhasa-vada only. Read BSB 2.3.50. Both vivarta and parinama are different ways of viewing this, and are not really opposed to each other.

Yes, i know: but this Abhasa is different. Acc. to Pandit's definition:
Abhasa-vada of Vedanta — the theory that the phenomenon is merely a vision without any substance.
Abhasa-vada of Kashmir Shaivism — the theory that everything exists within the light of consciousness, and appears as different on account of the playful will of the infinite consciousness.


How is this essentially different from vivarta? Self concealing is nothing but vivarta put in a dignified way! Infact, it is not even different from lila or sport, which is the activity of a personal God!

This is Lila, but of Brahman Himself.


Abhasa vada has its own share of logical problems, because it has to introduce artificial concepts like mirror etc. When Brahman alone exists, where from come such "mirrors"? Paninama vada has its own set of issues. Brahman being Upadana Karana itself has its own issues. Changes only in the internal potency or consciousness could be argued as no different from parinama vada.

Brahman is Self-aware, and only in this case He is really ONE (and no other force, entity or anything is there, like "unexplicable" avidya) and GOD (and not mere void).


Self awareness of the Brahman has been rejected by Adi Shankara due to the logically fallacy of dualty arising from the concept of seer and the seen. "I" ness arises only when there is dualty.

Atman needs not anything apart from itself for its own shining as Prakasha and self-awareness as Vimarsha, since these "two" are but linguistic figures to describe its Nature.
If one rejects Self-awareness inherent in Brahman, there arises two problems: Brahman becomes same as unsentient void, and the appearance of phenomena cannot be explained. This leads to subtle dualism of Brahman + avidya.


I may be wrong - but I think your views appear to fall mid way between monism and dualism. Are you sure you are speaking of a Yogi attaining complete identity with Shiva here, or just percieves Shiva everywhere? In the latter case, it is Vishistadvaita only.
Because:
does not looks like perfect non dualism of Shankara advaita. On the face of the description, it appears closer to Vishsitadvaita. But I may be wrong.

Shaiva view is of pure Monism.
Since all phenomena is just Consciousness, same God is undividedly experienced both as Saguna and Nirguna. And Shiva-yogin is Shiva.

TruthSeeker
14 May 2006, 05:28 AM
As far as i know, in Shankara's Advaita-vedanta there is an unresolved problem of status of Maya. If it is not inherent in Brahman itself (which will lead to Shaiva/Shakta view), what can be its origin and what is the object of its effect? Since there is no clear answer to these, Maya was claimed to be unexplicable.


True, but the followers of Shankara advaita have clarified the position.

According to the bamathi school, Maya is not inherent in Brahman itself, and its status is unexplicable. The individual jiva is the locus of avidya ,, but it pertains to the individual, who is subject to it. brahman is never subject to avidya , but controls it in Its capacity as ISvara. Istasiddhi of Vimuktatman even says avidya is not an evil but an embellishment, which should be very close to the self concealment described by you!

According to the vivarna school, since there is only the One brahman, that brahman Itself is both the locus of avidya and the object of avidya. You certainly cannot ignore this view from a true monistic perspective, because all other views are only disguised forms of this view.

Both these solutions have their merits and issues. Appayya Dixita demonstates how both these schools are one in essence in attacking a logical problem with advaita.

Arjuna
14 May 2006, 05:40 AM
Namaste,


True, but the followers of Shankara advaita have clarified the position.
According to the bamathi school, Maya is not inherent in Brahman itself, and its status is unexplicable. The individual jiva is the locus of avidya, but it pertains to the individual, who is subject to it. brahman is never subject to avidya , but controls it in Its capacity as ISvara.

This seems not to make complete sense. "Unexplicability" is just a logical fault, since every experience can be explained. What are jiva and Ishvara? Again, a product of avidya? If so, the problem remains; and if not and they are separate, it become dualism.


According to the vivarna school, since there is only the One brahman, that brahman Itself is both the locus of avidya and the object of avidya. You certainly cannot ignore this view from a true monistic perspective, because all other views are only disguised forms of this view.

Yes, this seems to be close (or identic) to Shaiva position.
What is the basis of vivarna school and its date of origin?

TruthSeeker
14 May 2006, 06:39 AM
This seems not to make complete sense. "Unexplicability" is just a logical fault, since every experience can be explained. What are jiva and Ishvara? Again, a product of avidya? If so, the problem remains; and if not and they are separate, it become dualism.


Inexplicability is allowed because we are dealing with something beyond human understanding. In blunt terms, any monistic philosophy is faced with the challenge of explaining the apparent dualty without compromising the unchanging, blemishless nature of Brahman. Thus, these are only efforts in the direction. Bamathi tries to retain the svayam prakAshatva of Brahman, by shifting the locus of ignorance to jiva. Thus the locus of avidya is avidya itself, and is an infinite chain, yielding infinite number of jivas. Avidya is never traced out, and it is an infinite chain whose origin need not be discussed.




Yes, this seems to be close (or identic) to Shaiva position.
What is the basis of vivarna school and its date of origin?

vivarana gets its name after Sri Prakashatman (10th century) which is based on Sri Padmapada's Panchapadika. It seems more correct to me, but the base criticizm directed against this school is assigining opposites to the same Brahman, like omniscience and ignorance, omnipotence and finiteness etc.

You must realize that any form of advaita is always on the defensive. No foolproof explanation can ever be offered for something that completely defies sense perception. You can only meet objections one by one, and try to answer it. Your answers are likely to be criticized again, and the cycle goes on. You can frequently see Dvaitins proposing an advaita khandana, and the advaitins coming up with an advaita bhushana and so on. To this day there is no final conclusion that has been mutually accepted. Dvaitins assume that they have comprehensive rebuttal of advaita, but advaitins dont agree. We reply that Dvatins do not understand advaita properly and some of their arguments are flawed. Atleast someone should be aware that Brahman is not in the realm of human logic to know for sure who is right.:)

Thus, advaita has to rely more upon scripture and verbal testimony than logic which is not the case with dualistic schools. In any case, I dont have a problem in assigning the opposites to Brahman, since there is no escaping this fact anyway. If everything is Brahman, this has to be true. Avidya has to be Brahman only, what else could it be, if Brahman alone exists? You could argue that Avidya is "modified" Brahman, or "distorted" Brahman, but final conclusion is the same.

Singhi Kaya
14 May 2006, 07:49 AM
What is avidya? I'm not fully understanding from the discussions of this thread...can anyone explain in more details. Thanks

TruthSeeker
14 May 2006, 08:24 AM
vidya is knowledge, and consequently avidya literally translates to opposite of knowledge, namely ignorance. It can take a number of meanings based on the context. Brahman is of the nature of pure undifferentiated consciousness, but that is not we see with our physical senses, and this multiplicity which we see is called avidya or ignorance of the true nature of the Self.

Arjuna
14 May 2006, 08:49 AM
vivarana gets its name after Sri Prakashatman (10th century) which is based on Sri Padmapada's Panchapadika.

In this case it is considerably later than Kashmiri Monistic Shaivism, which at least dates by 8th century C.E. (when Shiva-drishti was written by Acharya Somananda). His immediate disciple Utpaladeva wrote Ishvarapratyabhijna, and Abhinavagupta commented upon it is 10—11 century.

Moreover, Paradvaita (known also as Svatantrya-vada, Spanda-darshana, Pratyabhijna-darshana etc.) seems to precede even Shankara's Vedanta, since Shankara is usually considered to have lived in 8—9 century.

Singhi Kaya
14 May 2006, 08:53 AM
Into blind darkness enter those who follow ignorance;
into even greater darkness go those who follow knowledge.
It is distinct, they say, from knowledge.
It is distinct, they say, from ignorance
-Isa Upanishad

Isin't Brahma neither knwoledge nor ignorance? However both exist because of brahma. so avidya doesn't cast anything particularly dark on brahma nor vidya cast anything particularly luminous on brahma?? Both these are exist within the qualified brahma or the universe~and none in non-qualified brahma?

I'm just asking is it our mental bias for ignorance and knowledge is the root cause for so much philosophising to make brahma free from the bias?

I'm just thinking here~and I have a feeling, not making much sense...ha ha

sarabhanga
15 May 2006, 04:56 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Maya is inherent in Dvaita, and of course Dvaita is inherent in Advaita.

It is the actual perception of duality that is the creative action of Maya.

Maya is “creative illusion”, and the veritable illusion of Jivatman being somehow disconnected from the absolute unity of Paramatman is the very nature of Maya as Avidya.

The whole of Advaita Vedanta is beautifully presented in the Mandukyopanishad.

Prajna (Brahma) is absolutely non-different from Turiya (Brahma) until the very moment that duality is invoked or imagined.

Om is Om, as one whole unit; however, Om may be perceived as being composed of discrete elements, as A + U + M.

All possible subdivisions are always implied in the whole, but those parts are only fleeting components of the eternal reality that lies beyond all duality. And one who perfectly knows that eternal reality does not see any diversity, but rather perceives the whole reality all at once.

Like a well-trained musician who so perfectly knows the tune that there is no thought of individual notes and their particular relationships. That sage musician merely conceives the perfect intention and the whole is perfectly expressed in all its diversity. The time of performance passes in an instant for the minstrel who is totally immersed in the one creative moment of the whole perfect expression.

The perfect composer knows his creation as a whole that is non-different from himself, while the ignorant audience can only appreciate all of the individual flourishes and wonder how such an uninterrupted flow of perfectly arranged individual components could ever have been conceived. And this is essentially the difference of Vidya and Avidya.

The science of the Pranava teaches A. U. M., but this Vidya alone is Avidya. The whole (the so-called fourth foot ~ the Turya) must be comprehended and conceived as the one perfect unity that it truly is.

Shaiva Siddhanta is not entirely synonymous with Shaiva, and Shri Shankaracarya was surely devoted to Shiva, so I find your regular opposition of Shaiva vs. Shankara rather distasteful.

How is Shankaracarya’s Vedanta “mistaken in some issues”?

TruthSeeker
15 May 2006, 05:35 AM
In this case it is considerably later than Kashmiri Monistic Shaivism, which at least dates by 8th century C.E. (when Shiva-drishti was written by Acharya Somananda). His immediate disciple Utpaladeva wrote Ishvarapratyabhijna, and Abhinavagupta commented upon it is 10—11 century.

Moreover, Paradvaita (known also as Svatantrya-vada, Spanda-darshana, Pratyabhijna-darshana etc.) seems to precede even Shankara's Vedanta, since Shankara is usually considered to have lived in 8—9 century.

So what?

I can see that you want to put down Sri Shankara advaita in each of your post, without any proof or knowledge about it. Either you want to say that your tradition is older, or philosophically superior, or morally different. Looks like an inferiority complex to me.

Shankara tradition traces its origin to Lord Narayana, and through a disciplic succesion through Vyasa and in modern times through Govindapada and Shankara. It is not a "new" tradition as you would like to view it. Kashmiri Monism may date to the 8th century, but advaita vedanta is much older than that.

And it is very narrow minded to view Advaita vedanta as different from other Monistic traditions. What is the need to do so?

Arjuna
15 May 2006, 05:42 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
Maya is inherent in Dvaita, and of course Dvaita is inherent in Advaita.
It is the actual perception of duality that is the creative action of Maya.
Maya is “creative illusion”, and the veritable illusion of Jivatman being somehow disconnected from the absolute unity of Paramatman is the very nature of Maya as Avidya.
The whole of Advaita Vedanta is beautifully presented in the Mandukyopanishad.
Prajna (Brahma) is absolutely non-different from Turiya (Brahma) until the very moment that duality is invoked or imagined.
Om is Om, as one whole unit; however, Om may be perceived as being composed of discrete elements, as A + U + M.
All possible subdivisions are always implied in the whole, but those parts are only fleeting components of the eternal reality that lies beyond all duality. And one who perfectly knows that eternal reality does not see any diversity, but rather perceives the whole reality all at once.
Like a well-trained musician who so perfectly knows the tune that there is no thought of individual notes and their particular relationships. That sage musician merely conceives the perfect intention and the whole is perfectly expressed in all its diversity. The time of performance passes in an instant for the minstrel who is totally immersed in the one creative moment of the whole perfect expression.
The perfect composer knows his creation as a whole that is non-different from himself, while the ignorant audience can only appreciate all of the individual flourishes and wonder how such an uninterrupted flow of perfectly arranged individual components could ever have been conceived. And this is essentially the difference of Vidya and Avidya.
The science of the Pranava teaches A. U. M., but this Vidya alone is Avidya. The whole (the so-called fourth foot ~ the Turya) must be comprehended and conceived as the one perfect unity that it truly is.

Thank U for this nice exposition, it is interesting :)


Shaiva Siddhanta is not entirely synonymous with Shaiva, and Shri Shankaracarya was surely devoted to Shiva, so I find your regular opposition of Shaiva vs. Shankara rather distasteful.

I use a word Shaiva frequently as a synonim of Monistic (Tantric) Shaiva, for it is troublesome to write long titles each time! :p
Yes, there are several Shaiva traditions, which all technically are "Shaiva" since they call God as "Shiva".

I do not put Shankara himself into opposition to Shaivism, since i believe he was a Shrividya follower (and thus a Monistic Shaiva). The issue is with his Vedanta as presented in his commentaries upon Prasthana-trayi.
Please, excuse me if i used somewhere as unpleasant expression. Following Shri Bhaskararaya, i do accept and respect Shankara as one of Shrividya Acharyas.


How is Shankaracarya’s Vedanta “mistaken in some issues”?

This requires time; i hope in a few days i will write a post on this theme and then will expect Ur reply.

Arjuna
15 May 2006, 06:02 AM
So what?

This interpretation might have been borrowed from Kashmiri Monism, that's all. But may well have been developed independently, as a necessary logical conclusion of Advaita.
I asked for its source in order to undertand who developed this view, Shankara himself or his followers.


I can see that you want to put down Sri Shankara advaita in each of your post, without any proof or knowledge about it.

Philosophical arguement is not "putting down." I several times pointed out that my knowledge of Vedanta is rather limited; i am opened to discussion and can change my opinion — for example, when U mentioned a view which is close to Paradvaita position, i learned that Vedanta subsequently came to similar conclusions.


Shankara tradition traces its origin to Lord Narayana, and through a disciplic succesion through Vyasa and in modern times through Govindapada and Shankara. It is not a "new" tradition as you would like to view it. Kashmiri Monism may date to the 8th century, but advaita vedanta is much older than that.

Please, mythology aside. Every tradition claims it is from Shiva, Narayana or Brahma — and in a sense it may be true, but definitely not in a historical sense!
The earliest exponent of Advaita-vedanta as far as i know may be Govindapada (or Gaudapada, his Guru). And for Kashmiri Monism Vasugupta and Vatulanatha lived previously to them.
However, i have no wish to argue on history, since this is of little importance and no use.


And it is very narrow minded to view Advaita vedanta as different from other Monistic traditions. What is the need to do so?

What was a need for Shankara to wander around India and argue with various panditas? Perhaps there is a sense in inquiring philosophically which Monistic tradition is more perfect and accurate in its exposition of Monism.

TruthSeeker
15 May 2006, 07:20 AM
This interpretation might have been borrowed from Kashmiri Monism, that's all. But may well have been developed independently, as a necessary logical conclusion of Advaita.
I asked for its source in order to undertand who developed this view, Shankara himself or his followers.


In the sourthern part of India, philosophical views cannot be derived from any independent thought without soundly justifying it. Sri Shankara's Philolosophy addressed the needs of his time. Later vedantins improvised it only when there was a need. The schools of Bamathi and Vivarana arose only to address particular charges against advaita by Bhaskara and later by Ramanuja.( and others)

There are no monistic traditions in the South other than advaita vedanta that has answered critics soundly. This may not have been a problem with Kashmiri Monism, which thrived in different circumstances.






Philosophical arguement is not "putting down." I several times pointed out that my knowledge of Vedanta is rather limited; i am opened to discussion and can change my opinion — for example, when U mentioned a view which is close to Paradvaita position, i learned that Vedanta subsequently came to similar conclusions.


But if you do not know about Advaita vedanta, you should refrain from making statements you made earlier. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that Paradvaita is the true Monism, which is somewhat offensive to the followers of advaita vedanta. And then you call advaita as "defective" and yet confess that you do not know it.:)

I do not enter philosophical arguments because everything has been said and done by vedantins. There is no new criticizm that you are going to come up with, that have not been done by the school of Dvaita, Advaita vedanta will have all the answers to your charges , all you need to look up the proper commentaries.

People are always jumping in here by quoting from Sri Shankara's commentaries and finding fault with them (that includes Vaishnavas here), without the least knowledge that it has been addressed very soundly by his followers.




What was a need for Shankara to wander around India and argue with various panditas? Perhaps there is a sense in inquiring philosophically which Monistic tradition is more perfect and accurate in its exposition of Monism.

Sri Shankara was mainly concentrating on Buddhists, the Jains, some of the dualists like Shankyas, the followers of Nyaya Vaisheshika, Purva Mimansins etc. I am not sure if he was against other monistic traditions and there is not much evidence in his works. Obviously, he has objected to the unvedic practices of other monistic traditions, but it is unlikely that he went after their philosophical doctrines.

Arjuna
15 May 2006, 07:38 AM
But if you do not know about Advaita vedanta, you should refrain from making statements you made earlier. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that Paradvaita is the true Monism, which is somewhat offensive to the followers of advaita vedanta. And then you call advaita as "defective" and yet confess that you do not know it.:)

I deem that Abhinavagupta knew Advaita-vedanta of his time (10-11 cent.) perfectly, and he criticized it in Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini and other works, and modern scholars of Shaivism also have a decent knowledge of Advaita-vedanta as well (for instance, B. N. Pandit).

TruthSeeker
15 May 2006, 11:21 AM
I deem that Abhinavagupta knew Advaita-vedanta of his time (10-11 cent.) perfectly, and he criticized it in Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini and other works, and modern scholars of Shaivism also have a decent knowledge of Advaita-vedanta as well (for instance, B. N. Pandit).

I guess so - even other traditions of advaita, that of Vijnanabikshu, Vallabha, Sridhara Swami etc - have had similar issues.

Your views are remarkably similar to that to Vallabha in a kind of personal God and the grace of God (pushti). As far as I know, these concepts are not alien to Shankara advaita and these criticisms against advaita are a result of improper understanding.

Regarding Abhinavagupta's charges, which advaitin vedantins have cared to address his issues and in which work? If nobody has addressed them anytime, it means it was not taken seriously. Unless the charges are coming from a well known tradition , I am sure they would be ignored. I am almost sure advaita vedanta has taken only Vishistadvaita and Dvaita seriously when coming to defending its position and has not really bothered itself with other schools which are only an essential rehash of one of these schools.

You just cant say that advaita is defective because Abinavgupta found it incorrect. What were his arguments, and what were the counter arguments provided to him, and what were his counter and so on. That should be the way you should check the validity of their arguments. If you read just one side of the debate, it will always appear as if the arguments are valid.:)

sarabhanga
15 May 2006, 07:01 PM
Kashmiri Monistic Shaivism, which at least dates by 8th century C.E.
Shri Shankaracarya lived in the 8th century, and his Advaita philosophy came directly from Shri Gaudapada, whose Karikas date from the 4th or 5th century!

Jalasayanan
16 May 2006, 01:54 PM
Shri Shankaracarya lived in the 8th century, and his Advaita philosophy came directly from Shri Gaudapada, whose Karikas date from the 4th or 5th century!
Shri Gaudapada is supposed to live near by 8th Century CE, where in he taught Shri Govinda who in turn taught Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada. (Assuming that Shri Gaudapada lived near 4/5 th Century will end with ideas that indicate Shri Gaudapada and Shri Govinda both lived for almost 200 Years each to teach Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada in 8th Century)

Shri Gaudapada's Gaudapadeeya Karika is also dated as 8CE

However, having seen his lineage, Saarasvata Brahmanas, we can say origination is some where around 4/5 th century.

However, my reservation here in is split in saarasvata Brahmana group in tracing their lineage through Gaudapada without referring Adi Sankara and second group of citrapura matha tracing their lineage via Adi Sankara are acceptable. However, other saaravata group are Dualist. This shows the entire group had different ideas and opinions and exclusion of Adi Sankara from one group (Kavale Matha, Saarasvatas of Goa and northern coastal karnataka) indicates they are purely Advaiti as such

Hence, probably Ajaativada (Maaya concept) can be said to be originated from Shri Gaudapada but not whole Advaita as such

Arjuna
16 May 2006, 02:30 PM
Hence, probably Ajaativada (Maaya concept) can be said to be originated from Shri Gaudapada but not whole Advaita as such

Advaita as such was the original philosophy of the Vedic and Agamic religion; its developments as Kashmiri Monism (Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava), Shankara's Vedanta, Vallabha's Shuddhadvaita etc. are historical developments of the initial concept of Shruti.

Jalasayanan
16 May 2006, 03:04 PM
Advaita as such was the original philosophy of the Vedic and Agamic religion; its developments as Kashmiri Monism (Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava), Shankara's Vedanta, Vallabha's Shuddhadvaita etc. are historical developments of the initial concept of Shruti.

Which Advaita you refer as original philosphy and how Sankara Vedanta & Kashmiri Monistic Shaiva is different from it?

How did Vaishanava became part of Kashmiri Monism?

sarabhanga
16 May 2006, 09:25 PM
Namaste Jalasayanan,

A brief Guru Paramapara for Shri Shankaracarya is traditionally given as:

Parashara ~ Vyasa ~ Shukadeva ~ Gaudapada ~ Govindapada ~ Shankaracarya

Dashanami tradition places Parashara in the Treta-yuga; with Vyasa and his son Shuka in the Dvapara-yuga; and with Gauda, Govinda, and Shankara, in the Kali-yuga.

Historical investigation places Parashara about 900 BC, Vyasa about 700 BC, Gaudapada about 500 AD, and Shankara about 700 AD.

And both chronologies reveal that the stated Paramapara must be an abbreviation of the full historical lineage, which only indicates certain key figures in the long sequence.

Vidyaranya (c. 1100 AD) noted that there were five Acaryas between Gaudapada and Shankara.

Shantiraksita (c. 700 AD) quoted directly from Gaudapada’s Karikas.

Bhavaviveka (c. 500 AD) quoted some passages very similar to the Karikas.

And the Karikas of Gaudapada are quite similar to those of Nagarjuna (c. 300 AD).

And so, it can reasonably be suggested that Gaudapada’s teaching was widely known before 700 AD, and he was perhaps a contemporary of Bhavaviveka, or even of Nagarjuna.

Given five Acaryas between Gaudapada and Shankara, an interval of more than 200 years is well justified. And even with only the directly stated succession from Gauda to Govinda to Shankara (and remembering that Govindapada was an old man when Shankara met him, and that Gaudapada also lived for a long time) the suggested dates are reasonable.


What do you mean by “Sarasvata Brahmana” ?

Where is “Citrapura Matha” ?

Who are the “other Dualist Sarasvata group” ?

Who are the “Kavale Matha Sarasvatas of Goa” ?

None of this makes sense to me. :confused:

Jalasayanan
17 May 2006, 12:27 PM
What do you mean by “Sarasvata Brahmana” ?
Group of Brahmins in Goa and northern coastal Karnataka are identified as Saarasvata Brahmins

Where is “Citrapura Matha” ?
Is a sub sect amongst that group

Who are the “other Dualist Sarasvata group” ?
Most of the existing Saarasvata Brahmins are disciples of Madhavacharya now. They easily accepted Dvaita doctrine, for the history of Dvaita reveals they had another dualist philosophy which was corrected on certain counts by Shri Madhavacharya. Has I had read very few books on Dvaita doctrine, and those books did not reveal what was that earlier Dualist philosophy. It just indicated that they were earlier Shaivist

Who are the “Kavale Matha Sarasvatas of Goa”
This is another sub sect of Saarasvata Brahmins

sarabhanga
18 May 2006, 08:06 AM
Namaste Jalasayanan,

Shri Gaudapada taught Ajativada as the Ultimate Truth of Advaita; and Shri Shankaracarya developed and propagated his teaching.

Shankara (not Gaudapada) established the Dashanami tradition, which defined (for the first time) ten groups of Sannyasins with the following names: Aranya, Vana, Sagara, Parvata, Giri, Ashrama, Tirtha, Puri, Bharati, and Sarasvati.

Initially, all of these Sannyasins were Ekadandi Svamis; but as the Akhadas were established (after 850 AD) the Vanas, Giris, Puris, and some Bharatis, renounced the Dandi and became Avadhuta Nagas.

The remaining Ekadandis are only Aranya, Sagara, Parvata, Ashrama, Tirtha, Bharati, or Sarasvati.

If the Parampara of the “Sarasvata Brahmana group” are followers of Madhvacarya, then they have either adopted the “Sarasvata” title in imitation of Shankara’s “Sarasvati”, or at some stage they have somehow been “converted” from Shaiva Advaitins into Vaishnava Dvaitins. And such a conversion would involve renouncing the very knowledge that entitles a Sannyasin to be known as Sarasvati in the first place! ;)

I assume that the Dvaitin group that excludes Shankara from their lineage would be followers of Madhvacarya (12th century) :rolleyes: ; and that the Vishishtadvatin group that includes Shankaracarya would be followers of Caitanya Mahaprabhu (15th century).

The Madhvagaudiya Sampradaya is an amalgamation of the Caitanya and Madhva Sampradayas ~ the “Madhva” and the “Gauda” (i.e. Bengali, after the origin of their founder). And the “Gaudapada” of Madhvagaudiyas could be the Paramaguru of Shri Caitanya ~ in which case the only similarity with Shankaracarya’s Paramaguru is their common Bengali heritage.

Caitanya’s philosophy was developed from that of Shri Ramnujacarya (11th century); although Madhvacarya revived the orthodox teachings of Kumarilla Bhatta (7th century), and he condemned and ridiculed the teachings of Ramanuja as just as ruthlessly as he did those of Shankaracarya. :confused:

In his drive to rid Dharma of “non-vedic” influences, Kumarilla Bhatta had offended his own Gurus and was about to immolate himself when Shankara arrived to debate, so Shankara went on to find Kumarilla Bhatta’s student Mandan Mishra.

Mandan Mishra was defeated by Shankara (as Kumarilla Bhatta had planned) and he was named Sureshvara and appointed as the first Acarya of the southern Sringeri Matha (the ultimate source of all Sarasvati Sannyasins).

So Madhvacarya’s claim to the Parampara of Gaudapada is only by virtue of his attachment to the earlier teachings of Kumarilla Bhatta that were argued by Mandan Mishra (i.e. Sureshvaracarya) and his wife, but already defeated by Shri Shankaracarya. And Mandan Mishra’s Dvaita philosophy was absolutely opposed to Gaudapada’s Ajativada, so to claim descent from Gaudapada only because of some vicarious connexion with Sureshvaracarya, and all the while preaching a philoshophy that was not only denounced and abandoned by Sureshvara but also in direct opposition to Gaudapada’s teaching, is quite absurd! :(

None of this has any bearing on Kashmiri Shaivism or Paradvaita.

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 08:32 AM
Which Advaita you refer as original philosphy and how Sankara Vedanta & Kashmiri Monistic Shaiva is different from it?
How did Vaishanava became part of Kashmiri Monism?

Advaita is expressed in early Upanishads, that may be referred to as "original philosophy" in a historical sense.

Kashmiri Monism is textually based on divinely revealed Shiva-sutras and Shiva-drishti of Somananda (which belong to 8th century), as well as Bhairavagamas (exact date of which is not set, but the fact is that the whole corpus of Bhairavagama existed before 10th century).
There existed a monistic Ekayana (Vaishnava) tradition in Kashmir, to which Vamanadatta (pre-10th century), the author of Samvit-prakasha, belonged.

Shankara's tradition historically can be traced to Gaudapada, who is also an author of Tantric Shrividyaratna-sutras.

TruthSeeker
18 May 2006, 08:37 AM
Caitanya’s philosophy was developed from that of Shri Ramnujacarya (11th century); although Madhvacarya revived the orthodox teachings of Kumarilla Bhatta (7th century), and he condemned and ridiculed the teachings of Ramanuja as just as ruthlessly as he did those of Shankaracarya. :confused:


I wouldn't think that Shri Madhvacharya was just as ruthless with Shri Ramanujacharya. Madhvacharya would not accept any view that would even connect the jiva and the jagat with Brahman. And to a system that beleives in jiva svarupa and colossal differences between them, Sri Ramanuja's equating jiva with Brahman except in matters of universal governance must have been a blasphemy of sorts.

Vishishtadvaitins felt uneasy with the emergence of Dvata that they also followed their lead in pushing jiva as far away from the Brahman as possible. Thus, the glorious position of the jiva which enjoys equality with God in most matters was reduced to a master-servant relationship. Dvaita was satisfied with this development and did not make so many assaults on VA as it did on advaita.

This can be seen very clearly in the later school of Thenkalai which is very much like Dvaita. Thenkalais also beleiive in some kind of gradations of jivas (kaivalya and moxa) and also beleive in nityasamsarins(people who are never liberated), though they dont agree with the eternal damnation of Dvaita.

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 02:34 PM
Advaita is expressed in early Upanishads, that may be referred to as "original philosophy" in a historical sense.

Kashmiri Monism is textually based on divinely revealed Shiva-sutras and Shiva-drishti of Somananda (which belong to 8th century), as well as Bhairavagamas (exact date of which is not set, but the fact is that the whole corpus of Bhairavagama existed before 10th century).
There existed a monistic Ekayana (Vaishnava) tradition in Kashmir, to which Vamanadatta (pre-10th century), the author of Samvit-prakasha, belonged.

Shankara's tradition historically can be traced to Gaudapada, who is also an author of Tantric Shrividyaratna-sutras.

There existed a monistic Ekayana (Vaishnava) tradition in Kashmir, to which Vamanadatta (pre-10th century), the author of Samvit-prakasha, belonged.
Vamadatta's work is dated as 10th century. It cannot be pre-10th century. Date given approximately as 980 AD. At this time, Ekayana Shaka was missing in toto. I am not sure how Vamadatta became part of Ekayana at this time when the whole text is missing.

Of course, Monistic Vaishnav exist. Practically, kevala advaita of sankaracharya can also serve for vaishnav though many do not follow it.


Gaudapada, who is also an author of Tantric Shrividyaratna-sutras.
Request Arujuna to post lines of Shrividyaratna sutras which indicates Gaudapada as the author of this text. Normally, authors make some lines indicating this work is done by so and so

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 05:35 PM
Request Arujuna to post lines of Shrividyaratna sutras which indicates Gaudapada as the author of this text. Normally, authors make some lines indicating this work is done by so and so

It is traditionally accepted to be by Gaudapada, similarly to Saundarya-lahari which is traditionally believed to have been written by Adi Shankara.
As i know, Shankara maths accept this (in South India they verily do).

sarabhanga
22 May 2006, 01:14 AM
Namaste Jalasayanan,

You have confused two quite different groups. The Sarasvata Brahmanas are a genetic or family lineage; while the Sarasvati Sannyasins are a purely academic or spiritual lineage.

It is possible, however, that the first Dashanami Sarasvatis were gathered from the southern Sarasvata Brahmana community; and both groups remember their origins in Kashmir ~ the Devi of Sringeri Matha (and thus all Sarasvatis) being Sharada (originally at Sardi, in Kashmir).

Shri Shankaracarya, Prithividharacarya (Sureshvara), Vishvarupacarya (Hastamalaka), Nirotrotakacarya (Trotaka), and Balabhadra-Padmapadacarya (Padmapada), established a total of 51 Mathas ~ and neither “Citrapura Matha” nor “Kerala Matha” was one of them.

Arjuna
26 May 2006, 04:34 PM
Some points of difference between Paradvaita (PA) of Vasugupta and Advaita-vedanta (AV) of Shankara:

1. Brahman as defined in AV is identical to Prakasha (Shiva) of PA. But while in AV it is deemed to be the Supreme Reality, PA holds Anuttara (Paramashiva, Parasamvit, Purnabrahman) as the Supreme. Anuttara is described as having two aspects, Prakasha and Vimarsha (Shakti).

2. In AV Brahman is inactive (Shanta). In PA Anuttara is totally free (Svatantra), Self-aware and possesses five powers with which He manifests everything. Anuttara is inactive and active at the same time. The vibration of Anuttara is called Spanda.

3. In AV the world is created by ignorance (avidya) and it is unreal (mithya). But in PA the world is created by sheer Will of Anuttara and hence is real. The world is Chidvilasa and not mithya. Everything is Consciousness alone.

4. In AV Maya is not real (not one with Brahman) and indescribable. But in PA Maya is a power of Anuttara, real and not separate from Him.

5. In AV avidya is eliminated by shravana, manana and nididhyasana. PA acknowledges two types of ignorance, anava (paurusha) and bauddhika; and while the latter can be eliminated by Vedantic method, anava is destroyed by the grace of God alone.

6. In AV love and aesthetic experience have no place. PA gives extremely high value to these as leading directly to experience of Divine.

sarabhanga
28 May 2006, 02:39 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Thanks for clarifying.

The Kashmiri Shaivism of Vasugupta (c. 860–925 AD) ~ i.e. Pratyabhijna Darshana ~ is based on the 14 Shiva Sutras (Pratyahara Vidhayaka Sutrani) that were revealed by Shiva to Panini (c. 520–460 BC).

अ इ उ ण् । ऋ ऌ क् । ए ओ ङ् । ऐ औ च् । ह य व र ट् । ल ण् ।
ञ म ङ ण न म् । झ भ ञ् । घ ढ ध ष् । ज ब ग ड द श् । ख फ छ ठ थ च ट त व् । क प य् । श ष स र् । ह ल् ॥

Vasugupta’s vision of the Shiva Sutras was revealed to him in a dream; and his student, Kallata Bhatta, wrote the Spandakarika. And these two texts form the basis for the full exposition of Pratyabhijna Darshana by Abhinavagupta (c. 975–1025 AD) and his student, Kshemaraja.


1. Brahman as defined in AV is identical to Prakasha (Shiva) of PA. But while in AV it is deemed to be the Supreme Reality, PA holds Anuttara (Paramashiva, Parasamvit, Purnabrahman) as the Supreme. Anuttara is described as having two aspects, Prakasha and Vimarsha (Shakti).
Brahman has two aspects ~ Kala and Akala, or Saguna and Nirguna.

Nirguna Brahman is Akala or Mahakala, and only this supreme Brahman is Aja and Ekapad ~ the Uttama Satya of Gaudapada (c. 500 AD).

Shiva is Brahman (Nirguna and Saguna), and Prakasha is specifically Saguna Brahman ~ and the Mahabharata knows Prakasha as the son of Tamas (since Light and Dark can only exist in duality).

Vimarsha means “consideration, deliberation, trial, critical test, critical juncture or crisis, examination, reasoning, discussion, knowledge, or intelligence”; and the Mahabharata knows Vimarsha as Shiva.

The duality of Prakasha and Vimarsha (Illumination and Intelligence ~ the Appearance and the Perception) only exists in the context of Saguna Brahman.

Vimarsha (the critical test) and Prakasha (the whip or lash) represent the trial and punishment of existence in manifest duality.

The Uttara Satya of Advaita is Ajativada; while the Anuttara Satya of Paradvaita is surely Jativada.

Uttara means “upper, higher, superior, chief, excellent, dominant, predominant, better, more excellent, more powerful, northern (because the northern part of India is high), left (because in praying, the face being turned to the east, the north would be on the left hand), later, following, subsequent, latter, concluding, posterior, or future”.

Anuttara means “chief, principal, best, excellent, fixed, firm, low, inferior, base, south, or southern”.

Uttara is “answer, reply, defense, rejoinder, contradiction, superiority, competency, result, the chief or prevalent result or characteristic, what remains or is left, or conclusion”. And Anuttara is “without a reply, unable to answer, or silent”.

Advaita Vedanta is based on Badarayana’s Brahma Sutras and Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karikas; whereas Paradvaita or Pratyabhijna is based on the Panini’s Shiva Sutras and Vasugupta’s Spanda Karikas.

Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta (“Mayavada”) assumes Ajativada, and all duality is viewed as non-eternal (i.e. born and mortal).

Vasugupta’s Paradvaita Nyaya (“Pratyakshavada”) assumes Jativada and Ajativada simultaneously, and Advaita is considered to be eternal and unborn, along with Dvaita, which is somehow mysteriously both born and unborn, and both mortal and immortal.

Paradvaita seems to be exactly equivalent with Vishishtadvaita ~ the Anuttara Satya.


2. In AV Brahman is inactive (Shanta). In PA Anuttara is totally free (Svatantra), Self-aware and possesses five powers with which He manifests everything. Anuttara is inactive and active at the same time. The vibration of Anuttara is called Spanda.
Shanta can mean “appeased, pacified, tranquil, calm, free from passions, undisturbed, soft, pliant, gentle, mild, friendly, kind, auspicious, abated, subsided, ceased, stopped, extinguished, averted, innoxious , harmless, come to an end, gone to rest, deceased, departed, dead, purified, or cleansed”. And Shanta indicates “an ascetic whose passions are subdued, tranquillity, contentment, or peace of mind” ~ and apparent inaction is not necessarily due to the absolute inabilty for any action.

Nirguna Brahman is neither “active” nor “inactive”, and thus always totally free (Svatantra).

Saguna Brahman is either active or inactive, depending on his Shakti (i.e. Maya).

Through his own Will this Vimarsha Shakti is either subdued (unmanifest but implicit as the immortal divine reality ~ the highest state of Paradvaita) or active (manifest and explicit as the mortal mundane reality ~ the default condition of Dvaita).

And the source of all Spanda (vibration) is surely the Pranava ~ the Omkara, explained in the Mandukyopanishad, which is itself the scriptural inspiration for Gaudapada’s Ajativada and thus all subsequent Advaita Vedanta ~ and Spanda is only the expression of Maya.

Anuttara Prakasha is only Saguna Brahman ~ the Prajna Atman, who creates through the power of illusion (or Maya Shakti).

Only this “Kala” Brahman can be worshipped, and Paradvaita (as Pratyakshadvaita) expresses the logical system that supports this practice.

sarabhanga
30 May 2006, 03:39 AM
Given that “Kashmiri Shaivism” is not based on the Brahmasutras, or even on the Upanishads, but rather on the Shivasutras of Vasugupta (c. 900 AD) it is not Vedanta. And Vasugupta’s dream seems to have been elaborated by subsequent disciples with the same Vishishtadvaita that was promoted by Ramanuja (c. 1100 AD). Abhinavagupta (c. 1000 AD) predates Ramanuja, however, and if Abhinavagupta had justified his Paradvaita through a commentary on the Brahmasutras then we could say that he was the first Acarya of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. His disciples (such as Kshemaraja) would have been contemporaries of Ramanuja, who applied the same philosophy (but with a Vaishnava perspective) to the Brahmasutras, thus firmly establishing the philosophy of his Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya.

Arjuna
03 June 2006, 05:22 PM
Given that “Kashmiri Shaivism” is not based on the Brahmasutras, or even on the Upanishads, but rather on the Shivasutras of Vasugupta (c. 900 AD) it is not Vedanta. And Vasugupta’s dream seems to have been elaborated by subsequent disciples with the same Vishishtadvaita that was promoted by Ramanuja (c. 1100 AD). Abhinavagupta (c. 1000 AD) predates Ramanuja, however, and if Abhinavagupta had justified his Paradvaita through a commentary on the Brahmasutras then we could say that he was the first Acarya of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. His disciples (such as Kshemaraja) would have been contemporaries of Ramanuja, who applied the same philosophy (but with a Vaishnava perspective) to the Brahmasutras, thus firmly establishing the philosophy of his Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Yes, Kashmiri Shaivism is not a Vedanta system, but purely Siddhanta one.
Before Vasugupta and Somananda there existed in Kashmir a monistic Tantric school of Krama, dating at least to 7th century C.E., time of Sri Vatulanatha.

However, the first Vishishtadvaita system was still Shaiva — of Shrikantha (his Brahmamimansa-bhashya).

Arjuna
03 June 2006, 05:46 PM
The Kashmiri Shaivism of Vasugupta (c. 860–925 AD) ~ i.e. Pratyabhijna Darshana ~ is based on the 14 Shiva Sutras (Pratyahara Vidhayaka Sutrani) that were revealed by Shiva to Panini (c. 520–460 BC).

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Monistic Kashmiri Shaivism incorporates four main trends: Krama, Kula, Trika and Pratyabhijna. Out of these Pratyabhijna was started by Vasugupta (who got a revelation of Shiva-sutras) and Somananda (the author of Shiva-drishti) — in a strict sense, the latter is a founder of Pratyabhijna as such.

14 Sutras of Patanjali and a commentary upon them, Nandikeshvara-kashika, form a separate philosophical school and probably are not historically related to Kashmiri traditions of Shaivism. However Nandikeshvara Shaivism indeed is similar to Shaiva Monism of Pratyabhijna.


Vasugupta’s vision of the Shiva Sutras was revealed to him in a dream; and his student, Kallata Bhatta, wrote the Spandakarika. And these two texts form the basis for the full exposition of Pratyabhijna Darshana by Abhinavagupta (c. 975–1025 AD) and his student, Kshemaraja.

As i know, Shiva told to Vasugupta in a dream to go to certain rock, where he consequently went and discovered Sutras written on its surface.
Sri Kallata wrote Karikas which are the base of Spanda sub-school.

But the principal texts of Pratyabhijna school are Shiva-drishti by Somananda and Ishvara-pratyabhijna by his student Utpaladeva. Sri Abhinavagupta had commented upon the latter.


Brahman has two aspects ~ Kala and Akala, or Saguna and Nirguna.
[...]
The duality of Prakasha and Vimarsha (Illumination and Intelligence ~ the Appearance and the Perception) only exists in the context of Saguna Brahman.
Vimarsha (the critical test) and Prakasha (the whip or lash) represent the trial and punishment of existence in manifest duality.

According to KSh, Prakasha is Nirguna and Vimarsha is Saguna, while Anuttara is beyond both. This is not to argue, but only to present the Paradvaita view.


Advaita Vedanta is based on Badarayana’s Brahma Sutras and Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karikas; whereas Paradvaita or Pratyabhijna is based on the Panini’s Shiva Sutras and Vasugupta’s Spanda Karikas.

Paradvaita (Shaiva Monism) is not directly related to Panini's Sutras (as far as i know). Spanda-karikas were written by Bhatta Kallata, though some scholars mistakenly ascribe them to Vasugupta.


Paradvaita seems to be exactly equivalent with Vishishtadvaita ~ the Anuttara Satya.

No, it is not. Paradvaita may be similar to Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha (i cannot tell exactly since i have little idea of exact Vallabha's doctrine).

To conclude with, the only essential problem from the Shaiva point of view with AV is a status of Maya: if it is accepted as the inherent power of Brahman himself, no contradiction remains.
Other things are more linguistic problems rather than logical :)

TruthSeeker
06 June 2006, 03:08 PM
.

Anuttara Prakasha is only Saguna Brahman ~ the Prajna Atman, who creates through the power of illusion (or Maya Shakti).

Only this “Kala” Brahman can be worshipped, and Paradvaita (as Pratyakshadvaita) expresses the logical system that supports this practice.

I think you summed it up nicely. That is what it is.

TruthSeeker
06 June 2006, 03:19 PM
No, it is not. Paradvaita may be similar to Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha (i cannot tell exactly since i have little idea of exact Vallabha's doctrine).

To conclude with, the only essential problem from the Shaiva point of view with AV is a status of Maya: if it is accepted as the inherent power of Brahman himself, no contradiction remains.
Other things are more linguistic problems rather than logical :)

If it is Vallabha's, I or other advaitins have no doubts "shuddha advaita" is not pure advaita, but only a form of VA. They might have succeeded in offering a better explanation of Maya, but at the cost of contradicting scriptures. Just calling oneself as "shuddha advaita" does not make it so. Maya cannot be an inherent power of NB because NB by definition cannot act nor wield Maya. Hence its status must necessarily be inexplicable. Any attempt to bypass this is treatment of SB only. True Advaita cannot stand on SB, SB implies multiplicity and internal divisions, which Upanishads flatly deny.

Arjuna
06 June 2006, 04:09 PM
I think you summed it up nicely. That is what it is.

Postulating existance of Saguna and Nirguna helps little. Again two is there, be it Prakasha/Vimarsha or Saguna/Nirguna :)
The language itself needs to be dualistic, for this reason duality always exists in terminology.

Arjuna
06 June 2006, 04:19 PM
Maya cannot be an inherent power of NB because NB by definition cannot act nor wield Maya. Hence its status must necessarily be inexplicable. Any attempt to bypass this is treatment of SB only. True Advaita cannot stand on SB, SB implies multiplicity and internal divisions, which Upanishads flatly deny.

Then this is not Advaita at all.
U have NB, Maya different from it, SB...

Inexplicability is cunningness only — firstly, U do explain that Maya is not real and it is a cause of the illusory diversity, and secondly how a thing which is a fact of experience cannot be explained?

Sudarshan
08 June 2006, 04:16 AM
Then this is not Advaita at all.
U have NB, Maya different from it, SB...

Inexplicability is cunningness only


Thanks -- yes, inexplicability is sheer cunningness.;)



— firstly, U do explain that Maya is not real and it is a cause of the illusory diversity, and secondly how a thing which is a fact of experience cannot be explained?

Namaste Arjuna - you are right, Nirguna, Maya and Saguna are all separate entities and hence great effort is made to show that the latter two do not exist at all.:)

Without Nirguna and Saguna, you still have Brahman and Maya, dual entities. Advaita is impossible without equating Brahman and Maya in this case.

All forms of advaita have to rely on this inexplicability. How else would you explain Brahman subjecting himself to Maya ( real or not)? Any form of monism eiither uses the word inexplicability directly or in a disguised form. Changing terminologies are not going to help - monism has to end with inexplicability.

Given all this, I would have to appreciate the depth of Advaita Vedanta compared with other forms of pseudo-advaitas. Vallabha's system claims to be some kind of monism but is preaching eternal damnation of most souls due to the the sport of God. (nice sport on himself) It is not advaita because there exist a Brahman who is ever free, and there exists a Brahman who is eternally damned. And note that this system is realism.:)

Without Nirguna Brahman, non dualism is out. If you assign an attribute to Brahman, then we have two entities, Brahman and attribute. If you say that both are the same, then Brahman cannot have multiple attributes, because it is a logical fallacy. If your advaita's God is Saguna, it is automatically self negating - juicy lollipop for others. Advaita of Shankara steers clear of so many issues like this. It is a great system, but it fails to answer many questions because only truth can be proved. Any amounts of proofs supplied to prove that Brahman is bonded in samsara, whether due to sport, inevitability, inexplicability etc will lead to all sorts of logical fallacies. To overcome all these objections, effort is made to put the horse before the cart - trying to dismiss unexplainable phenomena or scripture as inexplicable or illusion, which itself is not based on any scriptural authority, nor on logical grounds.

If your ultimate God is Saguna, it is only disguised dvaita, even if you call it advaita - This is certain. Or else you are misusing the word advaita - just like Vallabha and others.

Arjuna
08 June 2006, 04:37 AM
Namaste Arjuna - you are right, Nirguna, Maya and Saguna are all separate entities and hence great effort is made to show that the latter two do not exist at all.:)

Namaste,

Nirguna and Saguna are not separate entities, but aspects of one and the same Consciousness. Maya is an inherent power of this Ultimate Consciousness (Parasamvit).

Advaita is the supreme truth, but it is only possible when God (named Shiva or Vishnu or Kali, no matter) is seen not only as One Brahman but as Brahman that is Self-aware and Free.

Sudarshan
08 June 2006, 05:11 AM
Namaste,

Nirguna and Saguna are not separate entities, but aspects of one and the same Consciousness. Maya is an inherent power of this Ultimate Consciousness (Parasamvit).


So the one ultimate has two aspects? Then why it is called advaita in the first place? What exactly do you mean by advaita?

I agree with your explanations, but you dont seem to realize why Sri Shanaka's system is making this more complicated than it appears necessary. It is easy to say that Brahman has a Shakti called Maya, but this can be easily refuted by logic, as this will end finally in dualism. You must also realize that he was not challenged by anybody during his times. Which means it is more than some lousy logic than you seem to feel here. The inexplicability is an inevitability arsing from monism.




Advaita is the supreme truth, but it is only possible when God (named Shiva or Vishnu or Kali, no matter) is seen not only as One Brahman but as Brahman that is Self-aware and Free.

Who is the seer and the seen? And why is it that I do not see this supreme truth now?

I have no objections with the concept of Self Awareness and Free Brahman, but self awareness results in the fallacy of dualty (of seer and seen) as explained in his Brihadaranyaka commentary. Knower and Knowledge contistute a dualty in itself, and hence the advaitic Brahman cannot be associated with any knowledge or consciousness. But can be directly equated with knowledge and cosnciounsess. This is quite unacceptable by any logic, and hence advaita is forced to express Brahman only in negatives. You cannot make a single positive statement about Brahman without bringing in dualism, and must possibly explain advaita's peculiar standpoints.

Jiva = Brahman, is what Shankara wants to say, and other tenets like Jaganmitya and Nirguna are natural requirements for establishing this. If you do not accept both these, you will have a very hard time defending the Jiva=Brahman equation, atleast according to the high standards of polemics used by these three schools of vedanta.

Sudarshan
08 June 2006, 05:20 AM
Just wanted to add - Paradvaita, as you expained here would be the ideal concept of advaita, which would probably be accepted by non advaitins to good extent.

But Sri Shankara's system would be superior in logic because it factors in a lot of things while propounding a system. The above system with an ultimate personal God and inherent Maya Shakti etc are sitting ducks as a logical system.

Arjuna
08 June 2006, 07:05 AM
But Sri Shankara's system would be superior in logic because it factors in a lot of things while propounding a system. The above system with an ultimate personal God and inherent Maya Shakti etc are sitting ducks as a logical system.

Abhinavagupta thoroughly examined and logically criticised Advaita-vedanta views is his Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini.

Paradvaita has perfect grounds in logic — Kashmirians were always respected for their knowledge, logical development and authority in Shaiva traditions. Most scholars (both Indian and western) acknowledge the metaphysical and logical supremacy of Paradvaita doctrine over all other darshanas.

Arjuna
08 June 2006, 07:35 AM
So the one ultimate has two aspects? Then why it is called advaita in the first place? What exactly do you mean by advaita?

To describe one Ultimate two aspects are necessarily linguistic means.

Advaita means that the only reality is the Consciousness. All that is, exists in this Consciousness, by it, and is non-separate from it.
Consciousness is active for we do experience the world. If it was passive (as AV teaches), experience and apprehension would have been impossible.
Passive and active modes which are called Prakasha and Vimarsha are phases of One and only Samvit. They are not separate.


I agree with your explanations, but you dont seem to realize why Sri Shanaka's system is making this more complicated than it appears necessary. It is easy to say that Brahman has a Shakti called Maya, but this can be easily refuted by logic, as this will end finally in dualism.

This cannot be refuted and this doesn't end in dualism — which was logically proven by Kashmiri Shaiva authors.


You must also realize that he was not challenged by anybody during his times. Which means it is more than some lousy logic than you seem to feel here. The inexplicability is an inevitability arsing from monism.

Shankara lived in south, and he never had a chance to argue with Kashmiri monists.
Some kind of "inexplicability" (or inner contradiction) exists in ANY system — which is a law of logic. In Paradvaita we cannot explain how Anuttara, the Supreme Consciousness, produces in itself the whole of diversity without undergoing any transformation (pariNAma). It is said to be AbhAsa, Consciousness projection in itself out of free will (svAtantrya). But this is the only chance to preserve Monistic view, for if Self-awareness of the Absolute is rejected, this results in contradition with experience, with Shruti and with logic.
Other darshanas have even more severe inner contradictions and "inexplicabilities."


Who is the seer and the seen? And why is it that I do not see this supreme truth now?

The one Atman is both seer and the seen. This truth is always at Ur eyes, and not seeing it is a result of keeping Ur eyes shut ;)
EVERY object is known to exists ONLY when it is apperceived by Consciousness. That is why only Consciousness can be established as independently existing. Objects are non-separate from Consciousness and ultimately non-different from it. Duality is a mode of perception which doesn't break the REAL unity of Advaita. When Yogin experiences the world, he is seeing it as non-different from Atman. When "limited being" experiences diversity, it is Consciousness alone that is experiencing both these categories. Non-duality is always the actual Truth.


I have no objections with the concept of Self Awareness and Free Brahman, but self awareness results in the fallacy of dualty (of seer and seen) as explained in his Brihadaranyaka commentary. Knower and Knowledge contistute a dualty in itself, and hence the advaitic Brahman cannot be associated with any knowledge or consciousness. But can be directly equated with knowledge and cosnciounsess. This is quite unacceptable by any logic, and hence advaita is forced to express Brahman only in negatives. You cannot make a single positive statement about Brahman without bringing in dualism, and must possibly explain advaita's peculiar standpoints.

This is a valid approach. The only problem with AV exposition is a vague status of Maya which is said to be different from Brahman. Otherwise, if Brahman is "described" apophatically, by means of neti-neti, NO attributes should be ascribed to It. Then, one cannot say Brahman is Nirguna or Shanta, for these are also attributes and concepts only.


Jiva = Brahman, is what Shankara wants to say, and other tenets like Jaganmitya and Nirguna are natural requirements for establishing this. If you do not accept both these, you will have a very hard time defending the Jiva=Brahman equation, atleast according to the high standards of polemics used by these three schools of vedanta.

Jiva is non-different from Shiva is Paradvaita also. But this well goes together with saying that the world is also Shiva.
Nirguna is a descriptive term (implying dualism of Saguna), as well as Brahman. But Anuttara simply means "the Ultimate" and "Samvit", Consciousness is the Ultimate, for ANY experience and existance is Consciousness alone.

Sudarshan
08 June 2006, 07:43 AM
Abhinavagupta thoroughly examined and logically criticised Advaita-vedanta views is his Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini.


Is there an online version of this? Thanks.



Paradvaita has perfect grounds in logic — Kashmirians were always respected for their knowledge, logical development and authority in Shaiva traditions. Most scholars (both Indian and western) acknowledge the metaphysical and logical supremacy of Paradvaita doctrine over all other darshanas.

Isn't that some kind of self appraisal? How many vedantins have addressed or taken this system seriously? Or is it not based on prastAna?

Arjuna
08 June 2006, 09:13 AM
Is there an online version of this? Thanks.

Sanskrit text may be available at Muktabodha Online Library, i am not sure.
There is no complete translation into any language as yet (as i know). Navjivan Rastogi two years ago was working upon it, and i have no idea about whether he had completed that work.
This text is indeed tough, maybe the most complicated in the whole of Hindu philosophy.

But there is an english translation of Ishvarapratyabhijna-vimarshini with Bhaskari, as well as extracts from both in scholarly works.


Isn't that some kind of self appraisal? How many vedantins have addressed or taken this system seriously? Or is it not based on prastAna?

That is a constation and not a praise.
I have little idea of who out of Vedantins studied Shaiva Monism. Paradvaita is not based on Prasthana-trayi of course, for it is not a Vedanta system, but purely Siddhanta one.

In fact, i have explained all these things and do not want to write the same stuff again and again. Please go through relevant threads.

Sudarshan
08 June 2006, 10:38 AM
Shankara lived in south, and he never had a chance to argue with Kashmiri monists.


Wrong! Shankara ascended the sarvajnapITha after defeating all the pandits in Kashmir. Somebody like Sri Sarabhanga may confirm this please, as to where exactly the sarvajapITha is connected with.



Some kind of "inexplicability" (or inner contradiction) exists in ANY system — which is a law of logic. In Paradvaita we cannot explain how Anuttara, the Supreme Consciousness, produces in itself the whole of diversity without undergoing any transformation (pariNAma). It is said to be AbhAsa, Consciousness projection in itself out of free will (svAtantrya). But this is the only chance to preserve Monistic view, for if Self-awareness of the Absolute is rejected, this results in contradition with experience, with Shruti and with logic.


Not necesarily.

In my view, all versions of monism are contradicted by experience. Vedanta sutras explicitly reject such a thesis. Bhagavad Gita does the same thing. Multiplicity is confirmed in scripture because there are clear pramANAs for the existance of multiple eternal entities - take for eg BG 2.12, Svetavastara's Nityo nityanam. Satysaya Satyam. Take again BG 15.18, where Krishna says that he is greater than the imperishable. There are many more. There is absolutely no doubt that multiple eternal entities are referenced in the scripture. The essence of all these is that there is a eternal supreme being and many eternal non supreme beings, which would not go well with advaita of any kind. The only defence I have heard is that all non mahAvAkyas are overridden by mahAvAkyas and hence not absolute truth - yaaawnnnn....:)




Other darshanas have even more severe inner contradictions and "inexplicabilities."


Which Darshanas? And what are the "severe" inner contradictions? The word inexplicability (anivachIya ) is never used by Dvaita or VA anywhere for explaining anything. If you are not using it, then well and good.




The one Atman is both seer and the seen. This truth is always at Ur eyes, and not seeing it is a result of keeping Ur eyes shut ;)


What keeps them shut? What is the meaning of your of "Ur eyes"? Does it mean that I am different from Brahman now? You could have simply written "The one Atman is both seer and the seen. This truth is always at Brahman's eyes, and not seeing it is a result of keeping Brahman's eyes shut ;)"




EVERY object is known to exists ONLY when it is apperceived by Consciousness. That is why only Consciousness can be established as independently existing. Objects are non-separate from Consciousness and ultimately non-different from it. Duality is a mode of perception which doesn't break the REAL unity of Advaita. When Yogin experiences the world, he is seeing it as non-different from Atman. When "limited being" experiences diversity, it is Consciousness alone that is experiencing both these categories. Non-duality is always the actual Truth.


I guess the problem with monism is the explanation of the "limited being". Why would a limited entiity arise from an unlimited entity. Is my suffering adding to the bliss of Brahman? The idea is that nothing happens without a cause. In advaita, they take it to the other extreme to say that no creation ever happened since there is no cause that can make that happen and such creation is usless to the Brahman. I can pretty much agree with this view on logical grounds. From a monistic perspective, I have to say that "sport" as a cause for creation is not a good reason as no independent being can become victim of his own Maya. The fundamental question raised is Brahman has Maya Shakti, and whom does he use it on - himself? What for? Sport as a cause for creation will fit only some kind of dualistic or semi dualistic philosophy.




Jiva is non-different from Shiva is Paradvaita also. But this well goes together with saying that the world is also Shiva.
Nirguna is a descriptive term (implying dualism of Saguna), as well as Brahman. But Anuttara simply means "the Ultimate" and "Samvit", Consciousness is the Ultimate, for ANY experience and existance is Consciousness alone.

mANDUkya Upanishad will probably disallow Brahman to be interpreted as consciousness, in the advaiatic way, I guess other advaitins describe it as "neither unconsciousness" and "nor consciousness". Consciousness is also a human word after all, and advaita's equivalent for that term might be Nirguna which is perhaps even more abstract.

What I think is, Nirguna as presented to the world is only for logical purposes. In advaita siddhi. after answering to a question by Nyaymrita on whether Brahman had absolutely no qualities ( prakritic or otherwise) in the affirmative, he becomes guilty and quickly adds a note below - "but I know of nothing higher than the flute playing Krishna". It gave me a good laugh because after extracting away all the vital essence of Brahman by chipping away at all qualities of any kind by negation, he is then feeling so guilty and then cant stop praising the Lord. Philosophical defence of religion drives one to speak things that he himself does not beleive in.:)

Arjuna
08 June 2006, 04:04 PM
Wrong! Shankara ascended the sarvajnapITha after defeating all the pandits in Kashmir. Somebody like Sri Sarabhanga may confirm this please, as to where exactly the sarvajapITha is connected with.

May be, but whom did he argue with in Kashmir? There were dualist Shaivas in Kashmir at that time as well.
I strongly doubt he had argued with Paradvaita adherents. Is there any historical evidence? Even if some South indian biographer wrote he did, that's not a proof by itself. Is there any Kashmiri evidences? I strongly doubt that. If there are, U or anyone is welcome to provide them.


Not necesarily.

That is proved scientifically. There cannot exist ANY system which explains everything and at the same time is non-contradictive.


In my view, all versions of monism are contradicted by experience.

Of course, U are free to have Ur view. But U seem to ignore the explanation i provided. I cannot understand how U can reject that the only 100% sure fact is the existance of Consciousness.


Vedanta sutras explicitly reject such a thesis. Bhagavad Gita does the same thing. Multiplicity is confirmed in scripture because there are clear pramANAs for the existance of multiple eternal entities - take for eg BG 2.12, Svetavastara's Nityo nityanam. Satysaya Satyam. Take again BG 15.18, where Krishna says that he is greater than the imperishable. There are many more. There is absolutely no doubt that multiple eternal entities are referenced in the scripture.

There is no doubt that dvaitins interpret corresponding passages according to their ideas :D. While Scriptures usually allow both interpretations.
And the ultimate truth of Monism is clearly stated in most important statements of Vedic Shruti, Mahavakyas, and in the highest Agamas, Bhairava and Kula.


The essence of all these is that there is a eternal supreme being and many eternal non supreme beings, which would not go well with advaita of any kind.

This is only a superficial interpretation based on limitations of language and lack of Yogic experience and/or right logic (Sattarka).


The only defence I have heard is that all non mahAvAkyas are overridden by mahAvAkyas and hence not absolute truth - yaaawnnnn....:)

Apart from Mahavakyas Shaivism has ultimate grounds for Monism, divinely revealed Shiva-sutras and Bhairavagamas.


Which Darshanas? And what are the "severe" inner contradictions? The word inexplicability (anivachIya) is never used by Dvaita or VA anywhere for explaining anything. If you are not using it, then well and good.

All "lower" doctrines, which include all non-Monistic teachings. They are based essentially on superstition and are contradicting both Shruti and logic.

However, i do not want to indulge in unnecessary debates. Those interested in dualism may not take part in discussion of any Advaita. Enough of guys like Jalasayanan and Ramkish, whose main purpose is to provoke and confuse everything.


What keeps them shut? What is the meaning of your of "Ur eyes"? Does it mean that I am different from Brahman now? You could have simply written "The one Atman is both seer and the seen. This truth is always at Brahman's eyes, and not seeing it is a result of keeping Brahman's eyes shut ;)"

Yes, U are right! U got it! Everything is but a play of One Consciousness, Chidvilasa :)


I guess the problem with monism is the explanation of the "limited being". Why would a limited entiity arise from an unlimited entity.

The only possible and logic explanation is the Shiva by his free will limits Himself into apparent "limited being." That is a part of His powers, which are non-different from Him.


Is my suffering adding to the bliss of Brahman? The idea is that nothing happens without a cause. In advaita, they take it to the other extreme to say that no creation ever happened since there is no cause that can make that happen and such creation is usless to the Brahman. I can pretty much agree with this view on logical grounds. From a monistic perspective, I have to say that "sport" as a cause for creation is not a good reason as no independent being can become victim of his own Maya. The fundamental question raised is Brahman has Maya Shakti, and whom does he use it on - himself? What for? Sport as a cause for creation will fit only some kind of dualistic or semi dualistic philosophy.

Consciousness developes all this play, for activity (Spanda) is inherent in its nature. It is not only passive, but passive/active. Activity of Consciousness is its freedom and will.
Creation is real, but solely in a sense that it exists in Consciousness, which is Real by definition. It is not real as an independent entity.


mANDUkya Upanishad will probably disallow Brahman to be interpreted as consciousness, in the advaiatic way, I guess other advaitins describe it as "neither unconsciousness" and "nor consciousness". Consciousness is also a human word after all, and advaita's equivalent for that term might be Nirguna which is perhaps even more abstract.

There is no such a thing as unconsciousness as such. Consciousness is not a word only, for there is direct Reality which it denotes.
Regarding Mandukya, i have no wish to search through it. If exact passage is provided i may reply.


What I think is, Nirguna as presented to the world is only for logical purposes. In advaita siddhi. after answering to a question by Nyaymrita on whether Brahman had absolutely no qualities ( prakritic or otherwise) in the affirmative, he becomes guilty and quickly adds a note below - "but I know of nothing higher than the flute playing Krishna". It gave me a good laugh because after extracting away all the vital essence of Brahman by chipping away at all qualities of any kind by negation, he is then feeling so guilty and then cant stop praising the Lord. Philosophical defence of religion drives one to speak things that he himself does not beleive in.:)

That is a problem with AV. In its context love, devotion, beauty and aesthetics has no place and no meaning.
But Paradvaita gives spiritual value to these.

For a note, i personally believe that Shankara himself had a view close to Paradvaita, for Kaula tradition acknowledges Shankara as one of great Tantric Acharyas.
That is why all criticism by me is intended solely for AV ideas, and not Shankara Bhagavatpada himself.

In my view, the crown of Shankara's writings is Saundarya-lahari and not bhashya on Brahma-sutras.

TruthSeeker
09 June 2006, 08:19 AM
Inexplicability is cunningness only — firstly, U do explain that Maya is not real and it is a cause of the illusory diversity, and secondly how a thing which is a fact of experience cannot be explained?

Inexplicability would be cunningness. But subscribing to the "fault" of Brahman in paramArtika would be worse. Since Brahman is of the nature of pure non dual consciousness ( or whatver u want to use), any other observed experience must necessarily be unreal. The observer and the observed have to unreal in paramArtika if the perception is not pure undifferentiated consciousness.( else withdraw the label non dualism please).

You have never understood the significance of the term advaita, though you try to explain advaita on the basis of equating Brahman and all observed experience ( even vyavaharika) with consciousness. As indicated before, if there is multiplicity of any kind ( in your case, it is differentiated or dual consciousness), it ceases to be advaita anymore just like that of Vallabha's. In Vallabha's monism, mukti constitutes dancing with Krishna in Vrindavana -- your advaita is definitely better than this view.;)

Your views are purely that of Sabda Brahman and his Mayashakti, and hence can be safely classifed as Para-Vishistadvaita, and on account of this, no more discussions will be possible. As expected, a Vishisihtadvaitin cannot be expected to be at peace with advaita, and your objections are viewed in that manner and ignored. Sudarshan's agreement with many of your viewpoints confrim this view.;)


Dvaita - Vishistadvaita - Paradvaita - Advaita should represent the logical ascendancy of philsophical thought. Since Dvaita cannot accept Vishistadvaita, Vishistadvaita cant accept Paradvaita, and Paradvaita cant accept Advaita, while Advaita itself can absorb all these three under vyavahrika. No system touched paramArtika other than Advaita, and hence advaita has to naturally provide some inexplicabilities to all systems of throught, as it is beyond the plane of thought. Paradvaita is still within the realm of thought (where even multiplicity exists!) according to your explanations and hence it is classifed as phenomenal reality.

Sudarshan
09 June 2006, 11:52 AM
May be, but whom did he argue with in Kashmir? There were dualist Shaivas in Kashmir at that time as well.
I strongly doubt he had argued with Paradvaita adherents. Is there any historical evidence? Even if some South indian biographer wrote he did, that's not a proof by itself. Is there any Kashmiri evidences? I strongly doubt that. If there are, U or anyone is welcome to provide them.


All Shankara Vijayams talk about this. It is upto you to beleive in their credibility. If he did reach there, it is certain that he defeated both monists and dualists at that time. This was the center of learning in Kashmir where Sri Ramanuja also went 300 years later in search of Bodayanavritti. I dont think a proof from Kashmir is necessary and it is very unlikely that they maintained record of their dismal failure. There is one Shankara Vijayam that traces this to Kanchipuram instead of Kashmir, but this is not held to be the authority.





That is proved scientifically. There cannot exist ANY system which explains everything and at the same time is non-contradictive.


Are you referring to Goedal's theorem? Do you know the scope of this theorem and how it is applicable to philosophy? Dont bring in any irrelvant things in here. If we apply the Ockam's razor, even God is unnecessary and we can windup religion.




There is no doubt that dvaitins interpret corresponding passages according to their ideas :D. While Scriptures usually allow both interpretations.
And the ultimate truth of Monism is clearly stated in most important statements of Vedic Shruti, Mahavakyas, and in the highest Agamas, Bhairava and Kula.


I am just asking you what do you think of multiple eternal entiies. It is not as open to interpretation as you assume, and there is no dualistic imposition on it. There are atleast two eternal entities, what are they according to you?




This is only a superficial interpretation based on limitations of language and lack of Yogic experience and/or right logic (Sattarka).


Whose interpreattion is superficial? Brahma sutras have rejected the individual soul's role in any creation in toto( 4-4-17) - and advaita's only recourse is to jump in with Mayavada. Since you do not even accept that, that your version of advaita is automatically ruled out here. The jury's verdict is clear - Individual soul represented by you and me cannot create the world, that is weild Maya, and hence cannot be Brahman. Since advaita says that no creation ever happened, this is not an issue for them. I guess you dont have such an excuse even.


[


Yes, U are right! U got it! Everything is but a play of One Consciousness, Chidvilasa :)


Nice, enough to dismiss your philosophy as a whole.




The only possible and logic explanation is the Shiva by his free will limits Himself into apparent "limited being." That is a part of His powers, which are non-different from Him.


Which has absolutely no logic in it. No independent being will use his freewill to limit himself. If you have infinite power, what will you do? Shut yourself in a jail?




There is no such a thing as unconsciousness as such. Consciousness is not a word only, for there is direct Reality which it denotes.
Regarding Mandukya, i have no wish to search through it. If exact passage is provided i may reply.


Mandukya verse 7. It is surpirsing that you want to challenge others to debate, and even refute them without even reading Mandukya. With such background, I am not interested in arguing with you anymore.




In my view, the crown of Shankara's writings is Saundarya-lahari and not bhashya on Brahma-sutras.

FYI, Saundarya-lahari may not even be a composition of Shankara at all. Only his commentary on VS, Gita and the 10 Upanishads can be genuinely assigned to him. References of every other work cannot be traced anytime before the 14th century A.D. That is, none of his disciplies and the parampara have ever quoted them anywhere before this time, which is quite unusual.

Sudarshan
09 June 2006, 01:26 PM
All "lower" doctrines, which include all non-Monistic teachings. They are based essentially on superstition and are contradicting both Shruti and logic.


No sensible advaitin will say that non Monism is against logic. Scriptural references are a bit more sensible. By logic, monsim is the experience of a hallucinated drunkard if you want an opinion from me. Because, equating youself to the supreme being when you cannot even handle personal problems in life is absurd and against all experience. So dont use logic in such cases.




However, i do not want to indulge in unnecessary debates. Those interested in dualism may not take part in discussion of any Advaita. Enough of guys like Jalasayanan and Ramkish, whose main purpose is to provoke and confuse everything.


Please dont invoke names of people who are not in discussion. If you are sensible, you would not quarrel with other advaitins on a public forum It is quite funny for others to watch two advatins collide with each other - you dont get to watch that often.:6804382843:

ramkish42
09 June 2006, 02:39 PM
However, i do not want to indulge in unnecessary debates. Those interested in dualism may not take part in discussion of any Advaita. Enough of guys like Jalasayanan and Ramkish, whose main purpose is to provoke and confuse everything.


Absolute personal remark!!

I never provoked anybody as such but was provoked much by you. Neither I confuse but it is you who confuse everything by taking things out of context.

In Vamachara thread, I had clearly shown you from your texts that your view is not fully supported. I said 5M is fully substitutable, you insisted no, and on later stage while responding to Shri Sarabhanga, you rejected the idea that your Shrividya guru indeed took matsyam, maamsam and Madyam. You tell who is confusing.

You quote from texts with non existing roman letters

You confused the statements on Shri Shivananda which my friend Jalasayanan as pointed out, till date you have not said what was the statement made by Shri Shivananda which was false still you confuse by saying he has hidden truths from his disciples.

When you are unable to respond, you asked me to stop responding to Vamachara thread, which I graciously accepted

Even a cool and intelligent person like Shri Sarabhanga was provoked by your "out of context" quotes.

Request you not to belittle others for holding different faith. Moreover, request you not to use such words. This will not raise your aura

Singhi Kaya
09 June 2006, 03:00 PM
No sensible advaitin will say that non Monism is against logic. Scriptural references are a bit more sensible. By logic, monsim is the experience of a hallucinated drunkard if you want an opinion from me. Because, equating youself to the supreme being when you cannot even handle personal problems in life is absurd and against all experience. So dont use logic in such cases.

Nothing can be proved aginst logic or to be more logical unless we talk at a personal level.Not possible here.

Monism does appear more sound than dualism and pose much less challenges when explaining the paradox of creation, existence and human suffering - social disturbance and everything.

Actually I find buddhism even more logical. Brahman in seperate existence from creation (nirguna brahman) even if it exist is hardly concern of a human being. Worshiping saguna brahman (shakti) and its powers (bodhisattwas, gods) is the sole way to progress. Can Nirguna brahman be an object of worship??

I feel nirguna brahman is a philosophical construct to incorporate theism into monism. IMHO of course. But just wanted to say, that personally I find an unborn God - personal or impersonal is of little significance to the problems of human life and society. If that urborn god turns into a personal being and projection of human ego, then this little significance turns into a grave problem (abrahamism) often.

Sudarshan
09 June 2006, 03:31 PM
Monism does appear more sound than dualism and pose much less challenges when explaining the paradox of creation, existence and human suffering - social disturbance and everything.


No God appears much better with such logic. How about Deism? They are all much better than monism. How do you think advaita is better at explaining creation? It denies all creation which no scientist on this planet will accept without evidence. If you are ever going to use scientific principles, you will only get atheism, deism or dualism. Pure dualism might show some kind of permanent evil to which I dont subscribe. Monism as explained by Arjuna might perhaps be closer to truth, but as you can see it overlaps considerably with Visistadvaita. Why do you want to tamper with so many scriptural evdiences that say soul is a part of God? That is only monism in part.



I feel nirguna brahman is a philosophical construct to incorporate theism into monism. IMHO of course. But just wanted to say, that personally I find an unborn God - personal or impersonal is of little significance to the problems of human life and society. If that urborn god turns into a personal being and projection of human ego, then this little significance turns into a grave problem (abrahamism) often.

Impersonal God cannot give rise to anything. Only a personal God an ever create anything right? So if you accept creation as real, beleiving in an impersonal God is illogical. Advaita is internally consistant there.

Morover, only a personal God can comfort the wounds of millions of people. When you are faced with miseries in life, only a personal loving God can give you any peace of mind. Do you know that atheists and hard core impersonalists choke down when beset with problems in life? Dont we hear often about the grace of God saving people from acute distress? There are so many instances of people having experiences of personal God. We sometimes curse God when our agony is unberable, we even loose faith sometimes. Evil is definitely hard to explain. You have to assume that the creation was willed by God, in order to justify what we see around us. Why he created, why he watches on our miseries are things that you cannot answer so easily. You have to know it yourself, and as they say, when knowledge of God arises all questions cease.

sarabhanga
10 June 2006, 03:56 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

The Shrividyaranyasutra is attributed to Shri Gaudapada; and so too the Subhagodayastuti, which refers to the two Shakta schools of Samaya and Kaula (soundly condemning the latter).

sarabhanga
10 June 2006, 04:49 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Shankara (c. 800) established Advaita;
Ramanuja (c. 1050) established Vaishnava Vishishtadvaita;
Shrikantha (c. 1050) established Shaiva Vishishtadvaita;
Madhva (c. 1250) established Dvaita.

I still cannot see any difference between Paradvaita and Vishishtadvaita.

Can you explain how the Paradvaita of Kshemaraja (c. 1050) can be distinguished from that of his contemporaries (especially Shrikantha)?

TruthSeeker
10 June 2006, 05:02 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Shankara (c. 800) established Advaita;
Ramanuja (c. 1050) established Vaishnava Vishishtadvaita;
Shrikantha (c. 1050) established Shaiva Vishishtadvaita;
Madhva (c. 1250) established Dvaita.

I still cannot see any difference between Paradvaita and Vishishtadvaita.

Can you explain how the Paradvaita of Kshemaraja (c. 1050) can be distinguished from that of his contemporaries (especially Shrikantha)?

From classical advaitin perspective:

Dvaita - absolute difference between jIva and Saguna Brahman
Vishsitadvaita - difference yet non difference between jIva and Saguna Brahman
Paradvaita - non dual identity with Isvara or Saguna Brahman, which is technically higher than VA
Advaita - non dual identity with Nirguna Brahman.

sarabhanga
10 June 2006, 06:15 AM
Namaste Arjuna,


Brahman has two aspects ~ Kala and Akala, or Saguna and Nirguna.

Nirguna Brahman is Akala or Mahakala, and only this supreme Brahman is Aja and Ekapad ~ the Uttama Satya of Gaudapada (c. 500 AD).

Shiva is Brahman (Nirguna and Saguna), and Prakasha is specifically Saguna Brahman ~ and the Mahabharata knows Prakasha as the son of Tamas (since Light and Dark can only exist in duality).

Vimarsha means “consideration, deliberation, trial, critical test, critical juncture or crisis, examination, reasoning, discussion, knowledge, or intelligence”; and the Mahabharata knows Vimarsha as Shiva.

The duality of Prakasha and Vimarsha (Illumination and Intelligence ~ the Appearance and the Perception) only exists in the context of Saguna Brahman.

Vimarsha (the critical test) and Prakasha (the whip or lash) represent the trial and punishment of existence in manifest duality.

The Uttara Satya of Advaita is Ajativada; while the Anuttara Satya of Paradvaita is surely Jativada.

Uttara means “upper, higher, superior, chief, excellent, dominant, predominant, better, more excellent, more powerful, northern (because the northern part of India is high), left (because in praying, the face being turned to the east, the north would be on the left hand), later, following, subsequent, latter, concluding, posterior, or future”.

Anuttara means “chief, principal, best, excellent, fixed, firm, low, inferior, base, south, or southern”.

Uttara is “answer, reply, defense, rejoinder, contradiction, superiority, competency, result, the chief or prevalent result or characteristic, what remains or is left, or conclusion”. And Anuttara is “without a reply, unable to answer, or silent”.

Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta (“Mayavada”) assumes Ajativada, and all duality is viewed as non-eternal (i.e. born and mortal).

Vasugupta’s Paradvaita Nyaya (“Pratyakshavada”) assumes Jativada and Ajativada simultaneously, and Advaita is considered to be eternal and unborn, along with Dvaita, which is somehow mysteriously both born and unborn, and both mortal and immortal.

According to Paradvaita, Prakasha is Nirguna and Vimarsha is Saguna, while Anuttara is beyond both.
Brahman is one and Brahman is all! Brahman is the very essence of existence; and there is absolutely nothing beyond Nirguna Brahman, except Shunya, which by definition does not exist!


Paradvaita seems to be exactly equivalent with Vishishtadvaita ~ the Anuttara Satya.

No, it is not.
Your answer is insufficient, but I am now led to believe that Paradvaita is only Shunyavada in disguise! :rolleyes:

This “Kashmiri Shaivism” is rather a slippery fish! ;)

sarabhanga
10 June 2006, 09:17 AM
Shankara lived in south, and he never had a chance to argue with Kashmiri monists.
Shri Shankara was born in South India, and he took vows of Sannyasa when he was only about 8 years old. He walked to Omkareshvara, on the Narmada, where he spent 3 years with Govindapada. He then went from Omkara to Kashi, where he stayed near Manikarnika Ghat. There he met another child prodigy, named Sanandana, who became Shankara’s disciple (known as Padmapada).

At only 12 years of age, Shankara and a group of his disciples journeyed up the Ganga, from Mahaprayaga, via Devaprayaga, Rudraprayaga, Karanaprayaga, and Nandaprayaga, to Vishnuprayaga, where he remained for another 4 years, and where his commentaries on the Brahmasutras, the Bhagavadgita, and the 12 principal Upanishads, were all composed.

Returning from Gaumukha (now 16 years of age) Shankara rested at Uttarakashi, where he determined to debate with Kumarilla Bhatta at Prayaga. Kumarilla Bhatta, however, sent him back to the Narmada to find Mandan Mishra for debate, at Mahishmati (near Omkara). Mandan Mishra was defeated and became a disciple of Shankara (known as Sureshvara).

Over the next 16 years, Shankaracarya travelled all over India, debating and establishing Mathas. He was already famous at 12, and people came from all of India to discuss Dharma with him. In his time, there were 72 different sects in India, and Shankara debated with all of them, and all of them were forced to submit to the unassailable logic of Gaudapada’s Ajativada. And he certainly went to Kashmir, where he stayed at Shrinagara and wrote the Saundaryalahari. :1cool:

If Abhinavagupta has somehow defeated the Advaita arguments of Shankara and Gaudapada, then he must have used some logic that was unknown to the Gurus of Vasugupta and the disciples of Vatulanatha, and all the other Kashmiri Pundits of Shankara’s time! ;)

sarabhanga
10 June 2006, 09:48 AM
One cannot say Brahman is Nirguna or Shanta, for these are also attributes and concepts only.
Nirguna means “without attributes”, and Shanta means “un-disturbed”; and thus, both are negative “non-attributes” of the indescribable ultimate reality of Brahman! :)

And Nirguna only implies Saguna for one who is yet immersed in Samsara! ;)

sarabhanga
10 June 2006, 10:36 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

While in Kashmir, Shankaracarya would certainly have visited the ancient Sharadapitha at Shardi (NW of Shrinagar). :)

ramkish42
10 June 2006, 01:54 PM
Namaste Sudarshan,

While in Kashmir, Shankaracarya would certainly have visited the ancient Sharadapitha at Shardi (NW of Shrinagar). :)

Just to add:

Adi Sankarabhagavatpada is said to ascend the throne of Sarva jnana pita defeating all pundits then in Kashmir.

Sankaravijayams speak of Navagupta, a Tantrik, defeated by Sankarabhagavatpada in Kashmir

Further, a demand for kashmiri evidence for such debates is unintelligent demand. If Kashmiri Shaivism is so self centered only to Kashmir, then there is no point in accepting its authority in places other than Kashmir

Sudarshan
10 June 2006, 02:20 PM
Your answer is insufficient, but I am now led to believe that Paradvaita is only Shunyavada in disguise! :rolleyes:

This “Kashmiri Shaivism” is rather a slippery fish! ;)

:D



According to Paradvaita, Prakasha is Nirguna and Vimarsha is Saguna, while Anuttara is beyond both.


This is actually a disguised form of ISKCON. Replace Nirguna with Impersonal(Brahman), Saguna with Personal(Paramatma), and Anuttara with Supreme Personality of Godhead( Purushottama / Bhagavan) - that is ISKCON for you.:)

Or should I say ISKCON is disguised Paradvaita?

sarabhanga
11 June 2006, 12:21 AM
Regarding Mandukya, i have no wish to search through it.
Since the Mandukyopanishad has only 12 lines, such a search should not take long! And I cannot understand your disregard for the wisdom of the Upanishads.


Kaula tradition acknowledges Shankara as one of great Tantric Acharyas.
Since Shri Gaudapada has condemned Kaula in no uncertain terms, in the Subhagodayastuti, it is fanciful to suggest that Shri Shankaracarya promoted Kaula traditions in any way!

तदेतत्कौलानां प्रतिदिनमनुष्ठेयमुदितं भवत्या वामाख्यां मतमसि परित्याज्यमुभयम् ।४२।
tadetatkaulānāṁ pratidinamanuṣṭheyamuditaṁ bhavatyā vāmākhyāṁ matamasi parityājyamubhayam |42|

… अतो बाह्या पूजा भवति भगरूपेण च ततो निषिद्धाचारोऽयं निगमविदहोऽनिन्द्यचरिते ।४३।
… ato bāhyā pūjā bhavati bhagarūpeṇa ca tato niṣiddhācāro'yaṁ nigamavidaho'nindyacarite |43|

Sudarshan
11 June 2006, 11:12 AM
Since Shri Gaudapada has condemned Kaula in no uncertain terms, in the Subhagodayastuti, it is fanciful to suggest that Shri Shankaracarya promoted Kaula traditions in any way!


Is this condemnation due to the unethical practices of Kaulas or is it due to the doctrine? I have seen Swami Shivananda ridiculing these practices in one of his books( book on Hatha Yoga), especially their meat eating, liquor habits, violation of Brahmacharya etc. He is so sure that this is no Yoga and calls this "self delusion".

ramkish42
11 June 2006, 02:19 PM
Is this condemnation due to the unethical practices of Kaulas or is it due to the doctrine? I have seen Swami Shivananda ridiculing these practices in one of his books( book on Hatha Yoga), especially their meat eating, liquor habits, violation of Brahmacharya etc. He is so sure that this is no Yoga and calls this "self delusion".
Basically because of doctrine. Practises are based on the doctrine

Even Srividya Brahmins of Kerala suggest usage of 5M's for non brahmins and non Nambudris (they do not prescribe it to Brahmins and Nambudris who are not interested in taking Matsya, Maamsa and Madyam, if someone shows inclination, they do not object using Varna theories). Arjuna himself has acknowledged in this forum that his srividya guru does not take liquor and meat

On the other hand, this supports my view expressed in Vamachara thread that 5M's are fully substitutable

However, I doubt whether Kaula violates Brahmacharya - they recognize Brahmacharya, Grihasti and Avuduta Ashrama in contrast with general chaturashramas, where in Brahmacharya is recognised

Sudarshan
11 June 2006, 02:34 PM
Shivananda does not target any speciifc tradition, he just opines that all Yoga based on non compliance with Yama and Niyama is "self delusion". Since Arjuna's posts usually deal with more of such topics I assumed his tradition's teaching is like that.

Znanna
11 June 2006, 02:34 PM
Some may find this article of interest (it is too long to post here, I feel):

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_visuv_e_unity.htm


It seems to me that attachment to definitions of "other" is yet another way to avoid unity?


Namaste,
ZN

atanu
12 June 2006, 08:57 AM
Some may find this article of interest (it is too long to post here, I feel):

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_visuv_e_unity.htm


It seems to me that attachment to definitions of "other" is yet another way to avoid unity?


Namaste,
ZN


I agree whole heartedly. Just visualise how Shiva must be smiling in each one of us.:6804382843: Absolute consciousness (who is devoid of embedded concepts) is free to play with any concepts --- and that is what He seems to be doing.:D


Advaita cannot be found in debates (i.e in vac and intellect, which are products of Advaita Shiva) but Advaita is the source to be grasped in the silence of the monkey mind, when mind is non-existent and identical to non dual Brahman. In another post Shri Sudarshan has rightly extolled the merit of dhyana. However, I request Shri Sudarshan to expound his understanding of the 'shivo advaitam' term of Nrisimha and Mandukya Upanishads. Is the advaitam (of Mandykya Up.) different in meaning from the essence of Advaita darshana? I also requect him to expound the meaning of "the only proof of Turiya -- the Self, is in identity with it" as stated in Mandukya Up.

Om Namah Shivayya

Arjuna
12 June 2006, 11:20 AM
You have never understood the significance of the term advaita, though you try to explain advaita on the basis of equating Brahman and all observed experience ( even vyavaharika) with consciousness. As indicated before, if there is multiplicity of any kind ( in your case, it is differentiated or dual consciousness), it ceases to be advaita anymore just like that of Vallabha's.

Namaste,

I deem it is U who prove to be unable to grasp the meaning of Advaita ;). And another problem is that U are unwilling to go through and understand provided arguements.
Thus, this point is an end to discussion, as i hope.

Since this thread is devoted to Paradvaita, i expect that U would be kind enough as to not go on with unsubstantial criticism. All Ur arguements were already refute previously, and i haven't got an answer to my queries from Ur side.

Anyway, thanks for a discussion :).


Your views are purely that of Sabda Brahman and his Mayashakti, and hence can be safely classifed as Para-Vishistadvaita, and on account of this, no more discussions will be possible. As expected, a Vishisihtadvaitin cannot be expected to be at peace with advaita, and your objections are viewed in that manner and ignored.

One more cunning attempt to escape a logical investigation ;).
AV can be called Shunya-vada; its idea of Brahman is clearly non-Vedic and indeed similar or identic to Bauddha.


Dvaita - Vishistadvaita - Paradvaita - Advaita should represent the logical ascendancy of philsophical thought. Since Dvaita cannot accept Vishistadvaita, Vishistadvaita cant accept Paradvaita, and Paradvaita cant accept Advaita, while Advaita itself can absorb all these three under vyavahrika.

Paradvaita accepts Advaita-vedanta as a limited truth of sushupti, while AV is unable to grasp the completeness of Svatantrya-vada, and resorts to silence calling for "inexplicability" of Shakti :D

Sudarshan
12 June 2006, 11:28 AM
Advaita cannot be found in debates (i.e in vac and intellect, which are products of Advaita Shiva) but Advaita is the source to be grasped in the silence of the monkey mind, when mind is non-existent and identical to non dual Brahman. In another post Shri Sudarshan has rightly extolled the merit of dhyana. However, I request Shri Sudarshan to expound his understanding of the 'shivo advaitam' term of Nrisimha and Mandukya Upanishads. Is the advaitam (of Mandykya Up.) different in meaning from the essence of Advaita darshana? I also requect him to expound the meaning of "the only proof of Turiya -- the Self, is in identity with it" as stated in Mandukya Up.

Om Namah Shivayya

Namsate Atanuji,

Nobody is opposing the advaitic interpretations of Mandukya, per se, and could be constituted as one interpretation. For example, I would certainly go with advaitin commentary on certain scriptures than on Dvaita for obvious reasons. Very few people are ever interested in interpreting abedha vAkyas as pure dualism.

Turiya taken from Mandukya is "shiva advaitam" which means Auspicious and Non dual. But Vishistadvaita's objections is to its interpretation as Nirguna Brahman and not on the non dual part. In Vishsitadvaita also, Vishnu as Brahman is the only principle and there exists no second entity, unlike Dvaita which accepts several entiies additional to Brahman. So the non dual part is not a problem for VA.

Turiya's description in verse 7, is pointing to the indescribability of Brahman in words and not necessarily NB. Let me give a few reasons why Turiya cannot be NB.

For advaita, Turiya is completely non dual, and devoid of all attributes, and also there is no distinction between the seer and the seen, ie Turiya is unknowable. Does Mandukya support such a definition? I know that the answer is not easy given the depth of classical writers, but some of the simple reasons that VA adherents give is , Turiya cannot be attributeless or Nirguna because:

1. Verse 7 says sa atma sa vijneyah - that Atma which is to be known, contradicts advaita's premises because in advaita's turiya there is no knower and the known.

2. Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad describes Turiya as dashatam(14.3), or visible and handsome, which would again be opposed to NB. NB cannot be handsome by the very definition of NB.(handsomeness or visibility is an attribute)

If you go further down to Agama Prakarana you will find that Turiya is not NB at all -Ver 10 descibes Turiya as all pervading, Vere 13 describes Turiya as all-seer. Verse 14 talks of Tueiya as a "knower". None of these can qualify for NB.

Turiya as forms of the Lord is described in Mahabaratha and in some of the Tapini Upanshads. For the advaitin interpretation of "four quarters", I have not seen any basis outside the Mandukya.

So if you finally find that Turiya is Saguna, the advaitin framework itself is questioned and it is much easier to interpret the scripture in a way that makes good and responsible use of both non dual, and dual verse, without discarding the verses that procalim dualty as "inferior"..

The identity with Brahman is not a problem for VA at all, as the two items that are equated are the indweller inside the jIvAtma and the paramAtma, which are one and the same. In advaita framework, identity relationships are hard to justify based on either the equality in attributes or form. (guNa and svarUpa) and all interpretations are far fetched and use double pruning methods.

All mahAvAkyas of advaita can easily be justified the VA way. And non mahAvAkyas are also easily reconciled in VA without the need to introduce terminologies such as vyavahArika and paramArtika satta, which are not based on shruti.

atanu
12 June 2006, 12:07 PM
Namaste Sudarshan,



Namsate Atanuji,

Nobody is opposing the advaitic interpretations of Mandukya, per se, and could be constituted as one interpretation. For example, I would certainly go with advaitin commentary on certain scriptures than on Dvaita for obvious reasons. Very few people are ever interested in interpreting abedha vAkyas as pure dualism.
.


OK here till here but then starts the following.


:6804382843:





Turiya taken from Mandukya is "shiva advaitam" which means Auspicious and Non dual. But Vishistadvaita's objections is to its interpretation as Nirguna Brahman and not on the non dual part. In Vishsitadvaita also, Vishnu as Brahman is the only principle and there exists no second entity, unlike Dvaita which accepts several entiies additional to Brahman. So the non dual part is not a problem for VA.
.


I do not think that NB is the problem per se, but hierarchy is -- whether NB or whether SB is higher? Think calmly and decide. Isn't it?

We mostly err in thinking that NB or SB is brahman. It is the other way round. The being, who is the owner of these states (NB or SB) is Brahman, who is declared advaitam.

Now is there a second being apart from Brahman? If not, then the truth is Advaitam -- that is all.

And we also err in thinking that NB means devoid of variety. How that can be? All varieties are creatable in an instant in Pragnya through Taijassa to manifest as waking multiplicity (but Turiya remaining as it is). That is the infinite power of Turiya.





Turiya's description in verse 7, is pointing to the indescribability of Brahman in words and not necessarily NB. Let me give a few reasons why Turiya cannot be NB.

For advaita, Turiya is completely non dual, and devoid of all attributes, and also there is no distinction between the seer and the seen, ie Turiya is unknowable. Does Mandukya support such a definition? I know that the answer is not easy given the depth of classical writers, but some of the simple reasons that VA adherents give is , Turiya cannot be attributeless or Nirguna because:

1. Verse 7 says sa atma sa vijneyah - that Atma which is to be known, contradicts advaita's premises because in advaita's turiya there is no knower and the known.

2. Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad describes Turiya as dashatam(14.3), or visible and handsome, which would again be opposed to NB. NB cannot be handsome by the very definition of NB.(handsomeness or visibility is an attribute)

If you go further down to Agama Prakarana you will find that Turiya is not NB at all -Ver 10 descibes Turiya as all pervading, Vere 13 describes Turiya as all-seer. Verse 14 talks of Tueiya as a "knower". None of these can qualify for NB.

Turiya as forms of the Lord is described in Mahabaratha and in some of the Tapini Upanshads. For the advaitin interpretation of "four quarters", I have not seen any basis outside the Mandukya.

So if you finally find that Turiya is Saguna, the advaitin framework itself is questioned and it is much easier to interpret the scripture in a way that makes good and responsible use of both non dual, and dual verse, without discarding the verses that procalim dualty as "inferior"..
.


All qoutes above can be valid with Turiya being NB, since potential SB state of Pragnya and SB states of dream and waking are from Turiya as the substratum.

Saying 'God is Jiva' does not mean that 'God is Jiva and not God'.






The identity with Brahman is not a problem for VA at all, as the two items that are equated are the indweller inside the jIvAtma and the paramAtma, which are one and the same. In advaita framework, identity relationships are hard to justify based on either the equality in attributes or form. (guNa and svarUpa) and all interpretations are far fetched and use double pruning methods.

All mahAvAkyas of advaita can easily be justified the VA way. And non mahAvAkyas are also easily reconciled in VA without the need to introduce terminologies such as vyavahArika and paramArtika satta, which are not based on shruti.


When equality is not a problem then how inequality attains a permanence? What is the unit of quantity of knowledge that VA says is the essential nature of Jivatma? Can Jnana be weighed?


When light arises there is no darkness. What is known in the state of darkness cannot be the truth but ignorance only.

Sudarshan
12 June 2006, 01:20 PM
I do not think that NB is the problem per se, but hierarchy is -- whether NB or whether SB is higher? Think calmly and decide. Isn't it?

We mostly err in thinking that NB or SB is brahman. It is the other way round. The being, who is the owner of these states (NB or SB) is Brahman, who is declared advaitam.

Now is there a second being apart from Brahman? If not, then the truth is Advaitam -- that is all.

And we also err in thinking that NB means devoid of variety. How that can be? All varieties are creatable in an instant in Pragnya through Taijassa to manifest as waking multiplicity (but Turiya remaining as it is). That is the infinite power of Turiya.


Nirguna Brahman is defined as Nirvishesha Brahman, so there is no question of variety of any sorts. Any weakening of this argument is not advaita position. Please quote from a classical advaitin which permits any variety for NB. Turiya described as infinite power is itself contradiction of NB.





All qoutes above can be valid with Turiya being NB, since potential SB state of Pragnya and SB states of dream and waking are from Turiya as the substratum.


False. Mandukya defines the characteristics of each state separately, so what is specifically mentions for Turiya is for Turiya alone. So Turiya has all these attributes of Lordship, omniscience etc.



Saying 'God is Jiva' does not mean that 'God is Jiva and not God'.


Take an example, The rose is red. Does that mean the rose and red are identical? The jiva is connected to God in the same way. Otherwise you are making rest of the scripture useless. The redness is inseperable from the rose, and has no existance without the rose. The red rose is perfectly non dual as there is nothing but the rose. This is like Arjuna's statement made to TruthSeeker who claimed that term Advaita can be defined only in one way( his way). The defintion of non dualty has nothing to with advaita's version of it - even Arjuna's and mine are all valid interpretations of non dualty. You are essentaiily repeating what TruthSeeker said regarding Advaita.( see Arjuna's reply)




When equality is not a problem then how inequality attains a permanence? What is the unit of quantity of knowledge that VA says is the essential nature of Jivatma? Can Jnana be weighed?


When light arises there is no darkness. What is known in the state of darkness cannot be the truth but ignorance only.

Quantity of Jnana is not measured, it is the same as the Lord, except that the jiva never becomes identical to him. I think this question is better directed at Dvaita than VA.

Arjuna
12 June 2006, 03:18 PM
Are you referring to Goedal's theorem? Do you know the scope of this theorem and how it is applicable to philosophy? Dont bring in any irrelvant things in here.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem

http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

Etc.

Arjuna
12 June 2006, 03:26 PM
Even Srividya Brahmins of Kerala suggest usage of 5M's for non brahmins and non Nambudris (they do not prescribe it to Brahmins and Nambudris who are not interested in taking Matsya, Maamsa and Madyam, if someone shows inclination, they do not object using Varna theories).

Certain part of Srividya brahmanas (including high priests in temples) of Kerala do use wine and meat in worship, but usually do not talk about that ;).


Arjuna himself has acknowledged in this forum that his srividya guru does not take liquor and meat

My Srividya Guru is a Kaula from Sri Bhaskararaya's lineage. He is not a vegetarian, and he is from Kerala.

What i have mentioned that one of my deshikas in Srividya who had been a Srivaishnava outwardly never took meat or alcohol. Not because Srividya is against those, but because Srivaishnavism rejects them.


On the other hand, this supports my view expressed in Vamachara thread that 5M's are fully substitutable

They are — for pashu-sadhakas (samayins) alone.

ramkish42
12 June 2006, 03:51 PM
Certain part of Srividya brahmanas (including high priests in temples) of Kerala

High priests in Temples of Kerala are not brahmins but Nambudris, just to clarify your idea

Nambudris are not classified as brahmins as such by practise

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 01:46 AM
Namaste to all,

For a note: Kashmiri Monists could NOT have been defeated by Shankaracharya for a very simple reason: they hold different Scriptures as supreme authority.
While Paradvaitins accepted only Bhairavagamas (Kaula- and Kramagamas included) and Shiva-sutras as the basis of their Monism, Shankara held Prashthana-trayi to be authorative. How could they argue?
That is why, neither Shankara could formally defeat Paradvaitins, nor Paradvaitins perhaps could defeat Shankara (unless some of them possessed deep knowledge of PT).

Please keep this in mind ;)

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 01:56 AM
Namaste to all,

For a note: Kashmiri Monists could NOT have been defeated by Shankaracharya for a very simple reason: they hold different Scriptures as supreme authority.
While Paradvaitins accepted only Bhairavagamas (Kaula- and Kramagamas included) and Shiva-sutras as the basis of their Monism, Shankara held Prashthana-trayi to be authorative. How could they argue?
That is why, neither Shankara could formally defeat Paradvaitins, nor Paradvaitins perhaps could defeat Shankara (unless some of them possessed deep knowledge of PT).

Please keep this in mind ;)

Irrelevant.;)

Vedantins defeated Buddists, Jainas, Pasupatas etc all of whom use different scriptures.

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 02:11 AM
For those who do not use common scriptures, there is another well accepted way for a debate - logic. If you can prove that the opponent's doctrine is internally inconsistant, you win. But for those accept the full authority of the vedas, strong scriptural support can be used in defence when logic is insufficient.

sarabhanga
13 June 2006, 02:22 AM
3. In AV the world is created by ignorance (avidya) and it is unreal (mithya). But in PA the world is created by sheer Will of Anuttara and hence is real. The world is Chidvilasa and not mithya. Everything is Consciousness alone.
In Advaita, duality is perceived only through Avidya ~ with the only Vidya recognized by Advaita being true knowledge of non-duality (i.e. unity).

Advaita is the Aja Uttama Satya, whose only criterion for absolute truth is unborn eternity. From this perspective, which is perfect knowledge of the Turiya Atman (the Akala Brahman), NOTHING which is created (or born) can be considered as unborn and eternally true.

In Advaita, “unreality” is mortality, and “reality” is immortality.

In Paradvaita, however, “reality” is comparatively fleeting; and the highest reality (Anuttara Satya) is the perspective of the creative Brahman (i.e. the Prajna Atman, or Kala Brahman, whose partner for life is Maya).

The Turya is neither “consciousness” nor “unconsciouness”, for such limitations imply some degree of duality and are characteristic only of Saguna Brahman.


4. In AV Maya is not real (not one with Brahman) and indescribable. But in PA Maya is a power of Anuttara, real and not separate from Him.
In Advaita, Maya exists only and always as the inborn “Avidya” of Saguna Brahman ~ and this creative Avidya is the very reason why the once lauded Brahma (i.e. Saguna Brahman, who should by all rights be worshipped as the true Creator) has been “cursed” by an almost total ban on the official worship of His image.


5. In AV avidya is eliminated by shravana, manana and nididhyasana. PA acknowledges two types of ignorance, anava (paurusha) and bauddhika; and while the latter can be eliminated by Vedantic method, anava is destroyed by the grace of God alone.
In Advaita, Avidya is eliminated only by Jnana, and Jnana is synonymous with Shiva (i.e. Grace).


6. In AV love and aesthetic experience have no place. PA gives extremely high value to these as leading directly to experience of Divine.
In Advaita, there is ultimately no place for any experience of duality, which is the realm of Dvaita and Para-(a)dvaita.

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 03:16 AM
Irrelevant.;)
Vedantins defeated Buddists, Jainas, Pasupatas etc all of whom use different scriptures.

Strictly speaking it is IMPOSSIBLE, for essential axioms differ. It is indeed possible to show that one metaphysical system is more complete and less contradictive that the other, but the ultimate religious pramana is the Scripture. Seeing this, i agree that all Monistic teachings could defeat dualistic ones, for Monism is philosophically more strong view. But AV is not logically superior to PA (which is accepted by scholars as well). Since these systems are based on different Scriptures, how could Shankara "defeat" Paradvaitins? I guess he might have simply been unaware of Shiva-sutras and Bhairavagamas, for they were not current in South India in 8th century.

And I would be happy to know any historical proofs of Shankara's winning over adherents of Paradvaita (if he ever did meet them at all). Digvijayas are not a proof of this kind (as any other Charitras and Lilamritas ;) — this kind of texts are not historical, but primarily advertising).

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 03:23 AM
For those who do not use common scriptures, there is another well accepted way for a debate - logic. If you can prove that the opponent's doctrine is internally inconsistant, you win. But for those accept the full authority of the vedas, strong scriptural support can be used in defence when logic is insufficient.

Till now i have not been shown by U or anyone any kind of inner inconsistency of Paradvaita...

I know logical expositions of AV as being inconsistent by Acharya Utpaladeva and Sri Abhinavagupta. And i have not heard of any logical criticism of Paradvaita from AV side.

TruthSeeker
13 June 2006, 03:38 AM
Since the Mandukyopanishad has only 12 lines, such a search should not take long! And I cannot understand your disregard for the wisdom of the Upanishads.


I agree - this is just a troll here. Without even knowing Mandukya Upanishad he is claiming to refute other schools and also making empty claims that AV has been refuted by his masters - perhaps his own masters were making the same claim without ever reading the Upansihads? How is Arjuna in a position to understand his school's defence of its position without ever reading a bit of scripture? Pure trolling.;)

TruthSeeker
13 June 2006, 03:41 AM
Till now i have not been shown by U or anyone any kind of inner inconsistency of Paradvaita...

I know logical expositions of AV as being inconsistent by Acharya Utpaladeva and Sri Abhinavagupta. And i have not heard of any logical criticism of Paradvaita from AV side.

Because it did not deserve any logical criticism. It was not even advaita. And how do you know that the logical exposition of Utpaladeva and Sri Abhinavagupta had any validity? You do not even know the fundamentals of AV if you have not read Mandukya. Case closed.

sarabhanga
13 June 2006, 03:43 AM
AV can be called Shunya-vada; its idea of Brahman is clearly non-Vedic and indeed similar or identic to Bauddha.
Advaita cannot be called Shunyavada, for the same reasons I have suggested that your understanding of Paradvaita should be called Shunyavada. In Advaita, absolute Shunya cannot even exist!


Paradvaita accepts Advaita-vedanta as a limited truth of sushupti, while AV is unable to grasp the completeness of Svatantrya-vada, and resorts to silence calling for "inexplicability" of Shakti.
Advaita Vedanta does not claim that Maya is “inexplicable”, and Ajativada proclaims that the sole explanation for Maya is Avidya.

TruthSeeker
13 June 2006, 03:52 AM
Advaita Vedanta does not claim that Maya is “inexplicable”, and Ajativada proclaims that the sole explanation for Maya is Avidya.

I beleive I told him clearly in an earlier posting that there are essentially two advaitins one group bhamati who claim the status of inexplicability indirectly by positing an infinite regression of avidyas, and the other vivarana who dont. He has not done any further reading on the subject and come with the same thing time and again. Shankaracharya himself never probes into the nature of Avidya, as he states that looking for an answer from within the context of avidya is hopeless.

atanu
13 June 2006, 04:17 AM
Namaskar,



Nirguna Brahman is defined as Nirvishesha Brahman, so there is no question of variety of any sorts. Any weakening of this argument is not advaita position. Please quote from a classical advaitin which permits any variety for NB. Turiya described as infinite power is itself contradiction of NB.
.

Just find the word Nirguna defining Brahman in 13th chapter of Gita and in Svet. Up. (and many other Upanishads. That is all. VA just tortures the definition.

Similarly, find the word advaita defining Self in Mandukya and other upanishads, which also say This Self is Brahman. Those who know, know that without the Self (seer) there is no Brahman. Lord Krishna says :I am the Self and He also says I am Brahma yoni.

Brahman is from the Self. Without the seer in you cognising there would be no Brahman.

I repeat: Without the cognition there would be no Brahman.




False. Mandukya defines the characteristics of each state separately, so what is specifically mentions for Turiya is for Turiya alone. So Turiya has all these attributes of Lordship, omniscience etc.
.

False.

The Upanishad says AUM can be considered as three separate matras but OM as a whole is Turiya the SELF. And Turiya is the yoni of all -- omniscience, omnipotence etc., etc.

Three separate matras, independently do not make the Self, whereas Turiya alone is Self. And without the Self will there be any other states?




Take an example, The rose is red. Does that mean the rose and red are identical? The jiva is connected to God in the same way. Otherwise you are making rest of the scripture useless. The redness is inseperable from the rose, and has no existance without the rose. The red rose is perfectly non dual as there is nothing but the rose. This is like Arjuna's statement made to TruthSeeker who claimed that term Advaita can be defined only in one way( his way). The defintion of non dualty has nothing to with advaita's version of it - even Arjuna's and mine are all valid interpretations of non dualty. You are essentaiily repeating what TruthSeeker said regarding Advaita.( see Arjuna's reply)
.


Fantastic. You mean that the rose (in your example is God whereas red colour is Jiva? Isn't it?

Does Red colour possess any independent identity (wrt to Brahman example) that you are creating two entitities artificially?

VA is artefact of mental experiences.




Quantity of Jnana is not measured, it is the same as the Lord, except that the jiva never becomes identical to him. I think this question is better directed at Dvaita than VA.


In that case Jiva is an independent entity with independent mind etc. Dvaita is better really than this. What as per you is Ignorance? And what (as per you ) happens before anf after removal of ignorance?


OM

TruthSeeker
13 June 2006, 04:24 AM
Abhinavagupta thoroughly examined and logically criticised Advaita-vedanta views is his Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini.

Paradvaita has perfect grounds in logic — Kashmirians were always respected for their knowledge, logical development and authority in Shaiva traditions. Most scholars (both Indian and western) acknowledge the metaphysical and logical supremacy of Paradvaita doctrine over all other darshanas.

Who are these most "scholars"? Please enlist a hundred names here. ( Indian and western)

If most people acknolwledge the metaphysical, logical, spiritual supremacy of Paradvaita, why there very few followers?

atanu
13 June 2006, 04:29 AM
Shankaracharya himself never probes into the nature of Avidya, as he states that looking for an answer from within the context of avidya is hopeless.

Exactly.


I see Arjuna stating again and again that unlike Advaita, PA considers the world to be real since the world is consciousness -- the reality.

I am lost and I find it funny. How does this differ from Advaita? As per Advaita also, Conscsiousness is Brahman and Brahman is Jagat -- which is real as Brahman and unreal as sensed as a conglomeration of distict unconnected living and non-living beings.


I find a discussion which has no premise.

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 04:30 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
The Shrividyaranyasutra is attributed to Shri Gaudapada; and so too the Subhagodayastuti, which refers to the two Shakta schools of Samaya and Kaula (soundly condemning the latter).

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I know of these. Not sure Subhagodaya is attributed to Gaudapada (or there may be several texts under this title, for at least one is attributed to Shivananda) though.

As i noted, i accept a possibility of Gaudapada and Shankara being Tantric adherents and thus Paradvaitins :). But i cannot prove it historically.

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 04:35 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga,


Brahman is one and Brahman is all! Brahman is the very essence of existence; and there is absolutely nothing beyond Nirguna Brahman, except Shunya, which by definition does not exist!

This is a view of Paradvaita as well, for it accepts the existance of Consciousness (Parasamvit) alone, which is Anuttara (= Brahman as the Absolute).

But what is avidya in AV then? U say Maya has its origin in avidya, and where this avidya comes from? Expect Ur explanation.

I admit that contradiction of Paradvaita and AV may be only linguistic, but till now i am unsure. Perhaps this avidya issue will help.

Paradvaita is never a shunyavada, for Anuttara of PA is perfect Absolute, the Only Reality, Self-aware and Free.

(Please excuse me for delays in my replies, i am not that fast to answer to everyone in a moment.)

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 04:40 AM
Namaste Atanu,


I see Arjuna stating again and again that unlike Advaita, PA considers the world to be real since the world is consciousness -- the reality.
I am lost and I find it funny. How does this differ from Advaita? As per Advaita also, Conscsiousness is Brahman and Brahman is Jagat -- which is real as Brahman and unreal as sensed as a conglomeration of distict unconnected living and non-living beings.

With such exposition i totally agree. If this is a view of AV, it is identical to PA doctrine.

atanu
13 June 2006, 04:55 AM
Namaste Atanu,



With such exposition i totally agree. If this is a view of AV, it is identical to PA doctrine.

But no Arjuna. You only keep stating that Abhinavgupta and others refuted Advaita. I am sorry that I may not be able to go through the whole thread. Would you be kind enough to please state succintly, point wise the differences?

OM

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:12 AM
Absolute personal remark!!
I never provoked anybody as such but was provoked much by you. Neither I confuse but it is you who confuse everything by taking things out of context.

Happily there are threads present to prove U are wrong ;)


In Vamachara thread, I had clearly shown you from your texts that your view is not fully supported. I said 5M is fully substitutable, you insisted no, and on later stage while responding to Shri Sarabhanga, you rejected the idea that your Shrividya guru indeed took matsyam, maamsam and Madyam. You tell who is confusing.

U are confusing the issue again. 5M are NOT "fully substitutable" for Viras, and are substitutable for pashus aka samayins. And U continue to ignore this essential distinction. Which inevitably results in confusion and contradiction.

One of my deshikas who gave me first dikshas in Srividya was not taking these tattvas (as a Srivaishnava-brahmana by birth), though he did practice maithuna as the essential part of Srividya-upasana. So what?


You quote from texts with non existing roman letters

What do U mean?


You confused the statements on Shri Shivananda which my friend Jalasayanan as pointed out, till date you have not said what was the statement made by Shri Shivananda which was false still you confuse by saying he has hidden truths from his disciples.

If he did not have any hidden truths, then he is not a Tantric Master. And if he is not a Tantric Master, he has no right to speach and explain Tantra. Very simple ;).


When you are unable to respond, you asked me to stop responding to Vamachara thread, which I graciously accepted

U were "graciously" unable to read and understand my replies, which made any further discussion useless.


Even a cool and intelligent person like Shri Sarabhanga was provoked by your "out of context" quotes.

It was not me who started provoking Sarabhanga; and at the end me and Sarabhanga came to a same conclusion (while some other people who argued were proved to be wrong and had nothing to reply).

atanu
13 June 2006, 05:14 AM
Regarding Omnipotence and Omniscience of Turiya and Brahman (as stated by Shri Sudarshan).


In Mandukya, Pragnya is Sarvesvara and not Turiya. In Brahma Sutras, Brahman is defined as that wherefrom the functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction proceed. Sutras do not say that Brahman creates, maintains, destroys.


No shruti says that the main function of the Truth (Brahman/Self) is Lordship, endowed with omni qulaities required of controllers.


My appeal here is to examine the seer within (by meditation and enquiry) and experience for oneself whether the seer is advaitam and nirgunam or not? If one sees an ishwara then still a seer remains and the seer is the first cause since without the seer there would'nt be any Seen (Ishwara or other Jivas etc.).


This pertains to Sudarshana, since he insists that experience reveals permanent many beings. Who is the seer of these many beings? Whether such a seer exists in deep sleep or not and if yes, in what form?

OM

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:14 AM
I beleive I told him clearly in an earlier posting that there are essentially two advaitins one group bhamati who claim the status of inexplicability indirectly by positing an infinite regression of avidyas, and the other vivarana who dont. He has not done any further reading on the subject and come with the same thing time and again. Shankaracharya himself never probes into the nature of Avidya, as he states that looking for an answer from within the context of avidya is hopeless.

I have said right there that a view of Maya as an inherent power of Brahman goes OK with Paradvaita. However this view seem to appear in AV tradition well after Shankara.

Since there was no valid refutation of Paradvaita doctrine provided, as well as no valid explanation of avidya status in AV, what is a reason to read further on the subject for me? It is U who are in need to know more in order to continue any discussion ;)

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:15 AM
Because it did not deserve any logical criticism. It was not even advaita. And how do you know that the logical exposition of Utpaladeva and Sri Abhinavagupta had any validity? You do not even know the fundamentals of AV if you have not read Mandukya. Case closed.

It is at least not less logically grounded than AV. However, Paradvaita is NOT a Vedanta teaching, and this might have been another reason for the case.

I have read an exposition of Utpalacharya and Abhinava (in its essentials), while U haven't. I have read Mandukya, but i have no wish to search through my library to dig out something. And i never claimed that i read all Scriptures and that too know them by heart!

Having read nothing on Paradvaita, how can U judge it and "close a case," in which U are incompetent? :D

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:16 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
Shankara (c. 800) established Advaita;
Ramanuja (c. 1050) established Vaishnava Vishishtadvaita;
Shrikantha (c. 1050) established Shaiva Vishishtadvaita;
Madhva (c. 1250) established Dvaita.

There is one more, Visheshadvaita of Shripati Pandita (c. 1200) — Vedanta of Virashaivism.
But i have to note that Paradvaita is essentially non-Vedantic system, but purely Agamic. It started at least from Shankara's time (with Vasugupta, Sri Bhatta Kallata and Acharya Somananda), and got ultimately developed with Acharya Utpala and Sri Abhinavagupta (10-11 century).

Advaita of Shaivism is independent from Shankara's Vedanta.


I still cannot see any difference between Paradvaita and Vishishtadvaita.
Can you explain how the Paradvaita of Kshemaraja (c. 1050) can be distinguished from that of his contemporaries (especially Shrikantha)?

I am not an expert in Vishishtadvaita schools (which are several in fact), and cannot waste time for reading books about it. Paradvaita accepts Parasamvit as the Only Reality, which is Self-aware and perfectly Free. Any doctrine which accepts the same is essentially non-different from PA.
As i know, Vishishtadvaitins do not agree with this view.

Kshemaraja was not the founder or the main theologian of Paradvaita or Pratyabhijna. PA emerged as a distinct darshana at least with Somananda, a direct disciple of Vasugupta.

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:21 AM
This is actually a disguised form of ISKCON. Replace Nirguna with Impersonal(Brahman), Saguna with Personal(Paramatma), and Anuttara with Supreme Personality of Godhead( Purushottama / Bhagavan) - that is ISKCON for you.:)
Or should I say ISKCON is disguised Paradvaita?

Do not make fun of Urself, providing such "logical" explanations! :D

This matters have been illuminated already. Please, read given expositions. ISKCON holds purely dualistic view, while PA — purely monistic.

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:24 AM
Since Shri Gaudapada has condemned Kaula in no uncertain terms, in the Subhagodayastuti, it is fanciful to suggest that Shri Shankaracarya promoted Kaula traditions in any way!

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Thanks for exact quotes ;)

Then, the authorship of Shrividya Ratnasutras and etc. is not proven.
However, there is no point to argue here. I never stated that Shankara being a Kaula Master is necessarily a historical fact!

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:32 AM
Who are these most "scholars"? Please enlist a hundred names here. ( Indian and western)
If most people acknolwledge the metaphysical, logical, spiritual supremacy of Paradvaita, why there very few followers?

"In Shaivism, Vasugupta's Ishvaradvaya-vada advocated the concept of Shiva which was wider than Shankara's concept of Brahman. Maya of Shankarite philosophy was superfluous in KSh, as Shiva possessed both prakasha and vimarsha powers. But pluralistic realism of Siddhanta-shaivas, despite some loose ends in their metaphysics, appealed to the masses in Tamilnadu."

(G.V. Tagare, "Shaivism: Some Glimpses." P. 85)

The reason is simple: Paradvaita is too complicated and advanced (and moreover, it isn't well advertised ;) ).
BTW Advaita-vedanta, one of the most close to PA schools, is not accepted by each and every person as well. Why?

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 05:37 AM
But no Arjuna. You only keep stating that Abhinavgupta and others refuted Advaita. I am sorry that I may not be able to go through the whole thread. Would you be kind enough to please state succintly, point wise the differences?

Namaste Atanu,

I cannot repeat all the stuff again, excuse me please.

Abhinavagupta never refuted Advaita, for he himself was a pure Monist. The issue was Maya or Avidya status, which was unclear in AV of Shankara. Consequently, the Absolute in AV got almost reduced to unsentient and inactive being, hardly distinguishable from a void.
Paradvaita holds Advaita of course to be true, and if Maya is accepted as one with Brahman, then AV becomes virtually identical to PA. This was stated by Abhinava in his commentary upon Malinivijaya-tantra.

atanu
13 June 2006, 06:25 AM
Namste Arjuna


Namaste Atanu,

I cannot repeat all the stuff again, excuse me please.

Abhinavagupta never refuted Advaita, for he himself was a pure Monist. T
.

This is what you had said earlier: I know logical expositions of AV as being inconsistent by Acharya Utpaladeva and Sri Abhinavagupta.





The issue was Maya or Avidya status, which was unclear in AV of Shankara. Consequently, the Absolute in AV got almost reduced to unsentient and inactive being, hardly distinguishable from a void.
Paradvaita holds Advaita of course to be true, and if Maya is accepted as one with Brahman, then AV becomes virtually identical to PA. This was stated by Abhinava in his commentary upon Malinivijaya-tantra.


This has been answered both by Sarabhanga Ji and Truth seeker Ji above.


Regards.


So, it was really a storm over a tea cup. Hair splitting arguments will always reveal spurious differences and separation. That is the function of mind (and that itself is Maya).

atanu
13 June 2006, 06:40 AM
Namste Arjuna Ji


Namaste Atanu,


Abhinavagupta never refuted Advaita, for he himself was a pure Monist. T
.

And this is what you had said earlier: I know logical expositions of AV as being inconsistent by Acharya Utpaladeva and Sri Abhinavagupta.

Who is inconsistent?





The issue was Maya or Avidya status, which was unclear in AV of Shankara. Consequently, the Absolute in AV got almost reduced to unsentient and inactive being, hardly distinguishable from a void.
Paradvaita holds Advaita of course to be true, and if Maya is accepted as one with Brahman, then AV becomes virtually identical to PA. This was stated by Abhinava in his commentary upon Malinivijaya-tantra.


This has been answered both by Sarabhanga Ji and Truth seeker Ji above. I reiterate Maya is Maya – non existent. It resides in mind, which is not the Self, which alone is eternal truth.

That Advaita makes the absolute being insentient and inactive is a Dvaita and VA view, who judge truth from the view point of untruth --- first deciding that Brahman is a person (must have a body). The moot point is what is an infinite body? Can a body be infinite that Brahman is? So, this point needs no refutation or no modification should be required in Advaita because of this faulty realization of Advaita.


Regards.


So, it was really a storm over a tea cup. Hair splitting arguments will always reveal spurious differences and separation. That is the function of mind (which itself is Maya).

atanu
13 June 2006, 07:20 AM
Namste Arjuna Ji


That Advaita makes the absolute being insentient and inactive is a Dvaita and VA view, who judge truth from the view point of untruth --- first deciding that Brahman is a person (must have a body). The moot point is what is an infinite body? Can a body be infinite that Brahman is? So, this point needs no refutation or no modification should be required in Advaita because of this faulty realization of Advaita.





I just have a wish to use my favourite example to elucidate a point about the truth.

The consciousness of I (aham bhavana) has become ALL -- Ishwara, Jiva, and Universe. But the being that has this aham bhavana is the Turiya truth which is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness. If the mind wishes to see the truth as all powerful then that is a desire and not the truth itself. Deciding a proiri that the truth cannot be so dull is an impediment to realise the truth, as is any desire. Why not take the shruti as it is and desist from adding colour of preferences and desires?

It is very subtle. I am aware that I exist but who is this I? My favourite example is the three rupas of water: ice, lquid, and vapour. Who knows what water really is? Similarly, Mandukya teaches that the truth is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness but its three matras include all pervading consciousness and further manifests -- subtle (as in thoughts and dreams, which is called intermediate Taijassa) and gross (called the prathama Agnivaisvnaro).


Elsewher I have noted that Lordship is not the main criteria of the truth but is only incidental. Mandukya assgins Lordship to Pragnya (which has not been declared as the Self in individual capacity). On the other hand, Turiya, which has been called the Self has not been equated to Lordship.


It appears unglamorous to many that the truth has no cares. But let it be. Does the truth care? The truth simply IS. Some people give it a name -- Bholenath.

atanu
13 June 2006, 07:34 AM
It appears unglamorous to many that the truth has no cares. But let it be. Does the truth care? The truth simply IS. Some people give it a name -- Bholenath.


But it is also true from Rig Veda that prayers to Rudra are answered by Aditi and others.


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 07:48 AM
Namaste Atanu --- Dont want to go through the whole drill exercise every time. Just some points.




Just find the word Nirguna defining Brahman in 13th chapter of Gita and in Svet. Up. (and many other Upanishads. That is all. VA just tortures the definition.

Similarly, find the word advaita defining Self in Mandukya and other upanishads, which also say This Self is Brahman. Those who know, know that without the Self (seer) there is no Brahman. Lord Krishna says :I am the Self and He also says I am Brahma yoni.

Brahman is from the Self. Without the seer in you cognising there would be no Brahman.

I repeat: Without the cognition there would be no Brahman.



Precisely. In every place Nirguna is mentioned, it always means only devoid of "prakriti gunas" and not like Advaita which denies all attributes. VA does not torture the defintion. By taking nirguna to mean "absence of prakriti gunas" and taking saguna to mean "the glorious qualities of Brahman beyond prakriti" it has done justice to both these views. Advaita relegates these saguna aspects to the plane of vyAvahArika without any scriptural basis. Note the term guna-bhoktr as used in 13.15 which rules any possibilites of guna and gunavAn being one and the same.


Brihad Aranyaka defines Turiya as darshatam as I mentioned earlier, which means it is handsome or visible. This rules out all possibilities for Turiya to be NB as per advaita's definition of it. Not only that visibility indicates that Turiya is an object( of realization) and not a subject as advaita would like to have it. When we have subject and object dualty in Turiya, Advaita's strict definitions of non dualty dont hold.

Again, we have so many passsages that describe Brahman as desiring and willing to create - how can NB devoid of all gunas and power ever will? And why? These are the classical examples of text torturning to bring out advaita. And we need not forget the famous anivacanIya khyAti of advaita, which assumes inexplicability to anything that it cannot explain - including mAya, avidya etc. How can you build a structure on a foundation of so many inexplicable entities? Dont tell me that adviata does not use inexplicability - the very anivachniYa kyAti( Theory of Error) used in Advaita means that.



Fantastic. You mean that the rose (in your example is God whereas red colour is Jiva? Isn't it?

Does Red colour possess any independent identity (wrt to Brahman example) that you are creating two entitities artificially?

VA is artefact of mental experiences.



Red rose is one entity, and has no internal differences in it. My idea is to suggest that though the Red Rose is one unified entity( Brahman), the red(jiva) itself can never be equated to the red rose, which is what advaita is trying to do. If Brahman alone exists according to advaita, where from did the jiva come in the first place? So Red rose must have existed since eternity and the redness cannot disappear. You must realize this is no fantasy or imagination, such ideas of Brahman are found extensively in Brihad Aranyaka and other Upanshads, which explain Brahman as a being and jiva and jagat as attributes.

yaha atmani tishtan atmanaam antharo yamayati
yam atma na veda yasya atma sareeram

You will find that Shankara also commentates on these passages under vyavahAra daSa, which has no scriptrual basis. The classiciations of vyavahArika and paramArtika are creations of advaitins, and I suggest you provide a scriptural basis for this. Infact you can easily trace this to Buddhism not vedanta. The advaitam simply means unity, and not oneness, which you try to prove. There is a unity of essence which is Brahman, but Brahman is not oneess, which can never explain any phenomenon.




In that case Jiva is an independent entity with independent mind etc. Dvaita is better really than this. What as per you is Ignorance? And what (as per you ) happens before anf after removal of ignorance?


I wonder why you asked this question. Isnt the above example of rose sufficient to answer this question? The redness has no indepenent existance on its own other than the red rose. Jiva's ignorance is due to the Maya of Brahman, and what is the reason according to advaita? I am yet to see a good explanation of how any multiplicity can ever arise from advaita's NB. The only answer you ever give is from advaita's framework, and not based on scripture.

I would like to ask the same question back to you. Who are you in advaita? What is the "I" inside you? For How long did you have this "I"? Why different people have different "I" if Brahman has no multiplcity of any kind. I have not seen one satisfactory explanation other than to say that this "I" is an illusion(of Brahman!). No proof for this, nor any logical reasons provided for the cause of this illusion.( and wrongly expalined as power of Brahman or as self concealment). My answer obviously is that this "I" ness is an intrinsic property of jiva just like redness is different from the rose, yet has no existance apart from it.

What is the cause of jiva - avidya. What is the cause of avidya - jiva who imagined a non existant truth. That is advaita for you.


To get to the point, shruti says that Brahman is Nirguna in very few places. In other places, it describes Brahman in all kinds of glorious attributes. It is advaita's opinion that these two Brahman's are different ( already self contradicting) with one "higher" Brahman devoid of all gunas, and one "lower" Brahman(who is a product of Maya of inexplicability) with these gunas. What is the basis for such a theory? Others think that the same Brahman is referred to in these two passages, one depiciting his "without flaws or defects" (nigunatvam) and the other describing his glory, his Lordship, his omniscience etc. This
definition of nirgunatvam is easuly justifiable. for eg take nirgunam guna bhotkr cha(Sevta Up), where Nirguna is clealy mentioned in the context of a being that wields gunas. There are other verses that explicitly equate nirgunatvam with absence of flaws, but there is no scriptural evidence for equating nirguna with nirvishesha or devoid of all gunas - you are free to provide a proof.

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 07:53 AM
And this is what you had said earlier: I know logical expositions of AV as being inconsistent by Acharya Utpaladeva and Sri Abhinavagupta.

And i already have shown what are the logical faults noted by Utpala and Abhinavagupta. For details, see "Specific Principles of Kashmiri Shaivism" by B.N.Pandit.

AV might have had developed plausible explanations (as TruthSeeker stated), but that was considerably later that Shankara's and Somananda's time. And having done so it came close to Paradvaita viewpoint.

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 08:00 AM
Regarding Omnipotence and Omniscience of Turiya and Brahman (as stated by Shri Sudarshan).


In Mandukya, Pragnya is Sarvesvara and not Turiya. In Brahma Sutras, Brahman is defined as that wherefrom the functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction proceed. Sutras do not say that Brahman creates, maintains, destroys.


No shruti says that the main function of the Truth (Brahman/Self) is Lordship, endowed with omni qulaities required of controllers.


Which means advaita's very concept of Brahman is wrong. Who would ever say that the functions of Lordship, omnisceince are not of God, but that of some illusory entity?




My appeal here is to examine the seer within (by meditation and enquiry) and experience for oneself whether the seer is advaitam and nirgunam or not? If one sees an ishwara then still a seer remains and the seer is the first cause since without the seer there would'nt be any Seen (Ishwara or other Jivas etc.).


Do you know that in advaita, there is no final experience? Nothing can ever be found or seen according to advaita by meditation - the Self that cognizes itself is gone(into an apparent void).:)




This pertains to Sudarshana, since he insists that experience reveals permanent many beings. Who is the seer of these many beings? Whether such a seer exists in deep sleep or not and if yes, in what form?


Do you realize that Prajna or deep sleep is described as the Lord of all beings? According to your logic, all I need to do to sleep without dreams and loose everything to become the Lord of all.

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 08:04 AM
I would like to ask the same question back to you. Who are you in advaita? What is the "I" inside you? For How long did you have this "I"? Why different people have different "I" if Brahman has no multiplcity of any kind. I have not seen one satisfactory explanation other than to say that this "I" is an illusion(of Brahman!). No proof for this, nor any logical reasons provided for the cause of this illusion.( and wrongly expalined as power of Brahman or as self concealment).

This ONE "I" shines as pure Consciousness and this is established as the truth of Monism.
There are no "many I-s", but one Ahanta.

Anu or "individual soul" can be explained only as deliberate self-concealment of Brahman in his lila. Every anu is essentially the same one I.


What is the cause of jiva - avidya. What is the cause of avidya - jiva who imagined a non existant truth. That is advaita for you.

The very issue with avidya is a logical fault of Advaita-vedanta. Having failed to explain it, vedantins said the matter is "inexplicable." Somehow the thing which is given in experience and obviously must be existent happened to be inexplicable :D

Paradvaita answers, that apparent avidya is a function of Consciousness. For nothing apart from Consciousness does exist.


To get to the point, shruti says that Brahman is Nirguna in very few places. In other places, it describes Brahman in all kinds of glorious attributes. It is advaita's opinion that these two Brahman's are different ( already self contradicting) with one "higher" Brahman devoid of all gunas, and one "lower" Brahman(who is a product of Maya of inexplicability) with these gunas. What is the basis for such a theory? Others think that the same Brahman is referred to in these two passages, one depiciting his "without flaws or defects" (nigunatvam) and the other describing his glory, his Lordship, his omniscience etc.

Yes, it is impossible to explain how and why gunas appear if the only Reality is lacking of them!
Only when Brahman is accepted and independent, free, active and self-aware, then Nirguna and Saguna become perfectly explicable and have their place as two phases of Spanda, vibration of Consciousness.

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 08:04 AM
I am not an expert in Vishishtadvaita schools (which are several in fact), and cannot waste time for reading books about it. Paradvaita accepts Parasamvit as the Only Reality, which is Self-aware and perfectly Free. Any doctrine which accepts the same is essentially non-different from PA.
As i know, Vishishtadvaitins do not agree with this view.


Wrong, there is nothing other than Brahman( Vishnu) in VA, which is of course not the NB of advaita, but the SB who weilds the power of Maya and everything contained in him with all jiva and jada. This is why Paradvaita is equal to Vishistadvaita.

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 08:06 AM
Do not make fun of Urself, providing such "logical" explanations! :D

This matters have been illuminated already. Please, read given expositions. ISKCON holds purely dualistic view, while PA — purely monistic.

That is what I meant too - Paradvaita certainly has traces of dualism.;)

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 08:09 AM
Wrong, there is nothing other than Brahman( Vishnu) in VA, which is of course not the NB of advaita, but the SB who weilds the power of Maya and everything contained in him with all jiva and jada. This is why Paradvaita is equal to Vishistadvaita.

Since there are several variants of so called Vishishtadvaita, let me ask two things:

1. What type of it U represent? Ramanuja's VAV?
2. Why is it called "vishishta" and what is its metaphysical summary (just in a few words)?

Then we can examine what differences does it have with PA of Shaivism.

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 08:18 AM
Since there are several variants of so called Vishishtadvaita, let me ask two things:

1. What type of it U represent? Ramanuja's VAV?
2. Why is it called "vishishta" and what is its metaphysical summary (just in a few words)?

Then we can examine what differences does it have with PA of Shaivism.

Allright, we wil examine this on another thread and note similarities and differences. Mine is Ramanuja's system. Perhaps ramkish can join too.

Only in Dvaita we have something apart from Brahman. No other Hindu system accepts a second principle to Brahman ( except Mayavada if Maya is held to be inexplicable), and with only various models of this Brahman. I could very well end up agreeing with most of what you say - we will see. Brahman being consciousness is not a direct teaching of VA, but I think it can be accepted on the basis of Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma. Jnanam is what you call consciousness isn't it?

atanu
13 June 2006, 08:47 AM
Namaste


Namaste Atanu --- Dont want to go through the whole drill exercise every time. Just some points.

Precisely. In every place Nirguna is mentioned, it always means only devoid of "prakriti gunas" and not like Advaita which denies all attributes.
.

Well. Again:6804382843: 'Devoid of Prakriti Guna' for Nirguna is your interpretation.





Note the term guna-bhoktr as used in 13.15 which rules any possibilites of guna and gunavAn being one and the same.
.

So, Guna is another being? :Roll: And can Guna be outside Brahman who is ONE and ALL?




Red rose is one entity, and has no internal differences in it. My idea is to suggest that though the Red Rose is one unified entity( Brahman), the red(jiva) itself can never be equated to the red rose, which is what advaita is trying to do.
.


That is the crux. Guna is not a being. VA and Dvaita equate Guna to Jiva. This is ridiculous. Jiva may be true as a guna but as a being Jiva does not exist. This is what Advaita teaches: The ignorance is equating Guna to the I. Like a General Manager may think "I am a General Manager" today and "I am a CEO" tommorrow. Very few know the unchanging "I"



You must realize this is no fantasy or imagination, such ideas of Brahman are found extensively in Brihad Aranyaka and other Upanshads, which explain Brahman as a being and jiva and jagat as attributes.
.

Oh, I agree. The problem is that I do not consider the attribute to be a being at all. I think we have understood the different premises used by Dvaita, VA, and Advaita.

I have always believed that if the premises were equal then all three schools would mean the same thing. Yes.

As an attribute a Jiva can never be equated to Brahman. How can my darkness be Me?




I wonder why you asked this question. Isnt the above example of rose sufficient to answer this question? The redness has no indepenent existance on its own other than the red rose. Jiva's ignorance is due to the Maya of Brahman, and what is the reason according to advaita? I am yet to see a good explanation of how any multiplicity can ever arise from advaita's NB. The only answer you ever give is from advaita's framework, and not based on scripture.


Yes. As stated above, the redness is very wrongly associated/equated with the awareness of being in VA. And this is ignorance arising out of non-enquiry of one's true nature.



I would like to ask the same question back to you. Who are you in advaita? What is the "I" inside you? For How long did you have this "I"? ------


Please do not ask me, since this my main spiritual exercise. If interested, then enquire yourself. Since, without knowing your SELF you cannot know Brahman.

"I" inside me is the awareness (AHAM Bhavana) residing in Turiya. And this is Vishnu -- all pervading and ONE. Narayana -- Same everywhere. The ignorance is the thought that I as Atanu -- this body-mind has independendent cognition and existence.


Dear Sudarshan Ji, only thing one has to do is to enquire: what and where is the cognitive power in me -- a so-called individual? Remember that your brain is incapable of proclaiming "I exist" when life force exits. And remember that "I" has not changed in anyone anytime. And remember Mahavakya that "Thou I art".




To get to the point, shruti says that Brahman is Nirguna in very few places.


One shruti is enough. And Lord Krishna says Param Brahman is Nirguna.

Regards,

Om Namo Narayaana

atanu
13 June 2006, 09:12 AM
Which means advaita's very concept of Brahman is wrong. Who would ever say that the functions of Lordship, omnisceince are not of God, but that of some illusory entity?



Please read again. Pragnya is Sarvesvara (Mandukya) and From Brahman proceeds the acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction (Brahma Sutras) are Shruti and not post Shankara. Sorry. Please read in full.




Do you know that in advaita, there is no final experience? Nothing can ever be found or seen according to advaita by meditation - the Self that cognizes itself is gone(into an apparent void).:)



How do you know without experiencing it? Please keep aside loose comments. Self becomes ONE being in Nirvikalpa samadhi and becomes ALL In Sahaja Samadhi, since Turiya is ONE AND ALL.





Do you realize that Prajna or deep sleep is described as the Lord of all beings? According to your logic, all I need to do to sleep without dreams and loose everything to become the Lord of all.


Oh yes. If you knew the true deep sleep. But that is not possible without knowing Turiya -- the Self.

You yourself point out shruti of great importance without realising it. Ask yourself why entering Pragnya you lose your Pragnya?

WILL I GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO THIS?


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 09:29 AM
Well. Again:6804382843: 'Devoid of Prakriti Guna' for Nirguna is your interpretation.


Not mine, it has scriptural authority. I pointed this earlier.





So, Guna is another being? :Roll: And can Guna be outside Brahman who is ONE and ALL?


No, Guna is that of Bhagavan. I have given you example and even scriptural evidence - the relationship between Lord and his guna is like that between the red and red rose again. If there were no gunas in the first place like NB, no guna can come out of it too.







That is the crux. Guna is not a being. VA and Dvaita equate Guna to Jiva. This is ridiculous. Jiva may be true as a guna but as a being Jiva does not exist. This is what Advaita teaches: The ignorance is equating Guna to the I. Like a General Manager may think "I am a General Manager" today and "I am a CEO" tommorrow. Very few know the unchanging "I"


Guna is not Jiva but is another kind of attribute. Try defining a big wrestler. People will say that the wrestler is big, he is strong, he has power and so on. They are essentially the definitions of the wrestler, and he has no claims to be a wrestler without these. Similarly, God is only a void without any qualities assigned to it. The qualities and the being, make the complete being. Advaita is saying that the wrestler is just his physical body sans his qualifications as a wrestler.:1cool:






Please do not ask me, since this my main spiritual exercise. If interested, then enquire yourself. Since, without knowing your SELF you cannot know Brahman.

"I" inside me is the awareness (AHAM Bhavana) residing in Turiya. And this is Vishnu -- all pervading and ONE. Narayana -- Same everywhere. The ignorance is the thought that I as Atanu -- this body-mind has independendent cognition and existence.



Dear Sudarshan Ji, only thing one has to do is to enquire: what and where is the cognitive power in me -- a so-called individual? Remember that your brain is incapable of proclaiming "I exist" when life force exits. And remember that "I" has not changed in anyone anytime. And remember Mahavakya that "Thou I art".


The same evading tactics - answer the question. Who are you? And how did you come into being? Does avidya exist because of you, or do you exist because of avidya. This is called the logical fallacy of interdependence.




One shruti is enough. And Lord Krishna says Param Brahman is Nirguna.


Sorry, but this same Krishna is defined to very glorious, the Lord of all etc. How can anybody be Lord if there is oneness? How can he be Nirguna or Nivishesha? Please show me where shruti mentions God to be nirvishesha, not nirguna. That is just one interpretation that corrupts the entire message of the rest of the scripture. And please tell me how the Nirguna Krishna incarnated on earth. Is it like God himself imagines himself to be bonded in some and goes himself to "save" them? No logic here.

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 09:43 AM
Please read again. Pragnya is Sarvesvara (Mandukya) and From Brahman proceeds the acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction (Brahma Sutras) are Shruti and not post Shankara. Sorry. Please read in full.


Turiya is Lord of all, and is even handsome. Why dont you still get the fact that it is not your NB? Yes, from Brahman proceeds all creation, maintanence and destruction - no objections. Brahman, the great Narayna orders activities with other Gods(abhimani devatas) like Brahmac, and hence it is mentioned to be "proceeded from".




How do you know without experiencing it? Please keep aside loose comments. Self becomes ONE being in Nirvikalpa samadhi and becomes ALL In Sahaja Samadhi, since Turiya is ONE AND ALL.


Have you experienced it? It is only advaita that says there is no experience of anything, as knowledge or experience itself is mithya because of the dualty between the seer and seen. I have not added anything to this. Read Shankara's commentaries. No lose comments. If you say that knowledge is expereinced in samAdhi, your version of advaita is gone. Difference betwen Knowledge and the Knower is a dualty.



Oh yes. If you knew the true deep sleep. But that is not possible without knowing Turiya -- the Self.


Turiya according to you is undivided. How can you experience Prajna in Turiya. That is a self contradiction. Since Prajna is not reality, and if Turiya is not sublated, no one can experience anything other than Turiya here - not Lordship or anything, which are just mithya or Prajna.




You yourself point out shruti of great importance without realising it. Ask yourself why entering Pragnya you lose your Pragnya?

WILL I GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO THIS?


Prajna is Sankarshana Murti ( read Gopala Tapini Up) , who is seen in Prajna and is the giver of absolute bliss. Nothing like what you describe. Prajna defines two entities, the experiencer who is the jiva ( of bliss) and the Lord who controls it, Lord Sankarshana. Lord Sankarshana is the Lord of all - not the jiva. Your interpretation says that the deep sleeper becomes the Lord of all!!

atanu
13 June 2006, 09:53 AM
Namaste Sudarshan Ji,

I asked you: What as per you is Ignorance? And what (as per you ) happens before and after removal of ignorance?

And you answered partly as below:




-------

----- Isnt the above example of rose sufficient to answer this question? The redness has no indepenent existance on its own other than the red rose. Jiva's ignorance is due to the Maya of Brahman, -------

.

If Jiva's ignorance is due to Maya of Brahman then you have to further answer why Brahman keeps Jiva in Maya? Inexplicable? Eh? Is Brahman a sadist?


And what happens to Jiva after removal of Maya? Shruti says that knower of Brahman becomes ALL. From Him is this world.

How do you account for such shruti? With Jiva stuck with redness, it possibly cannot become the blue rose. But shruti says from Him is the world.


Regards

atanu
13 June 2006, 10:29 AM
Guna is not Jiva but is another kind of attribute. Try defining a big wrestler. People will say that the wrestler is big, he is strong, he has power and so on. They are essentially the definitions of the wrestler, and he has no claims to be a wrestler without these. Similarly, God is only a void without any qualities assigned to it. The qualities and the being, make the complete being. Advaita is saying that the wrestler is just his physical body sans his qualifications as a wrestler.:1cool:


Well. You said earlier: Rose (God) Redness (Jiva). And I said the redness has no cognition of its own to know its redness.

Further, redness is not an eternal being but you make out Jivas to be eternal beings. Nothing more is needed. The basic premise is faulty.

Advaita never says that wrestler as a physical body is a reality (here definition of reality matters so first brush it up).




The same evading tactics - answer the question. Who are you? And how did you come into being? Does avidya exist because of you, or do you exist because of avidya. This is called the logical fallacy of interdependence.



Who is evading? Lord you are the blue bird, you are the old bent man (Svet. Up.).


Who came into being? The body came into being. The body is not me. I am the Turiya Atma. The qualities are not me. They are mine instituted by Turiya Atma that I am for specific enjoyments. No logical fallacy. ONE ATMA is the reality that is ALL.




Sorry, but this same Krishna is defined to very glorious, the Lord of all etc. How can anybody be Lord if there is oneness? How can he be Nirguna or Nivishesha? Please show me where shruti mentions God to be nirvishesha, not nirguna. That is just one interpretation that corrupts the entire message of the rest of the scripture. And please tell me how the Nirguna Krishna incarnated on earth. Is it like God himself imagines himself to be bonded in some and goes himself to "save" them? No logic here.


Please read Gita. Lord Krishna has appeared using His Maya. He as Lord, is with Maya and not devoid of it. Please read Gita.

And He has surely said that My reality is unborn Mahesvara, whom He also calls Param Purusha, Param Brahman. And He teaches that Praram Brahman is Nirgunam.


Yes, Lord spreads the net and He alone withdraws the net. It is clearly mentioned in Svet. Up.




God is only a void without any qualities assigned to it.



This is the highest ridicule possible. This means that God depends on Gunas, even for his definition. Who is assigning the qualities -- your mind or God? This is truly Charvaka like.


Realise that God IS --- definition or no defintion, which are mind's attempts.

atanu
13 June 2006, 11:12 AM
Turiya is Lord of all, and is even handsome. Why dont you still get the fact that it is not your NB? Yes, from Brahman proceeds all creation, maintanence and destruction - no objections. Brahman, the great Narayna orders activities with other Gods(abhimani devatas) like Brahmac, and hence it is mentioned to be "proceeded from".


Oh. 'Proceed from' and 'ordered by' are the same things? I did not know that.




Have you experienced it? It is only advaita that says there is no experience of anything, as knowledge or experience itself is mithya because of the dualty between the seer and seen. I have not added anything to this. Read Shankara's commentaries. No lose comments. If you say that knowledge is expereinced in samAdhi, your version of advaita is gone. Difference betwen Knowledge and the Knower is a dualty.



I have not experienced it as a result of conscious samadhi. But I experience it everyday as source of any joy. I experience it at the juncture of sleep and waking. At the juncture between two succesive thoughts. During sexual bliss. In the small time interval, when mind grasps the body at one end and a distant flying bird at another. One who understands that joy is not in objects (which are jada) but in the Self, knows the truth.

And Advaita says correctly. Advaita does not say it alone. Mandukya says Turiya is known in identity with it. Brihadar. says: who is there to know it and what is there to know?

I ask you, what is wrong in becoming the unalloyed bliss itself? Your Krishna Darshana (as a separate God) is a Maya. Since there is a seer, who is Primary since without the seer Krishna would not be sighted.

Some however, realise correctly that the seer is Krishna Himself .





Turiya according to you is undivided. How can you experience Prajna in Turiya. That is a self contradiction.


Sudarshan please be a little more thoughtful. Turiya is the Self. Is there anything that has no Self? First decide this. Is there anything that is devoid of atma. If you believe it so, then you may as well declare yourself to be a materialist.

If you believe in Atma then know that the Atma itself has an Aham Bhavana that is Pragnya. If the Self does not cognise I, then who does it? If I do not cognise that "I exist" then who does it? Can anything outside me cognise my I on my behalf? The Self only cognises Pragnya. They are not two different things -- as you often try to make out.

When I say "I exist", me and my awareness of existence do not become two distinct entities.



Since Prajna is not reality, and if Turiya is not sublated, no one can experience anything other than Turiya here - not Lordship or anything, which are just mithya or Prajna.



Who are these no one?

Again a case of mistaken identity. I asked you to check up who is cognising things other than Turiya? Your eyes? Your brain? Your intellect? Who is cognising?

It is the Self -- Turiya, who alone is cognising. That which is the mind of the mind is Brahman (Keno Upanishad).


Sudarshan I am repeatedly asking you: enquire who sees the world? The world does not come and say "I exist". It is something in you that cognises the world. What is that something? Is it not the ever present Self that is the cogniser?





Prajna is Sankarshana Murti ( read Gopala Tapini Up) , who is seen in Prajna ----


Well Well. A third entity has entered the drama.


I asked you why you lose awareness when in a state which is stated to be of pure awareness? And I have not seen any answer.

ramkish42
13 June 2006, 12:39 PM
Hi Atanu and Sudharshan

Request you to clarify what are you discussing

I suppose both of you are not masters of Kashmiri Shaivism, nor do I. If one of you are confident on Kashmiri Shaivism, I thought of taking your help instead of others :1cool:

Arjuna
13 June 2006, 01:06 PM
IMO it would be nice and helpful to keep irrelevant to Paradvaita and Tantrism discussions apart from this thread and section of forum. There are proper places for them ;)

ramkish42
13 June 2006, 01:19 PM
IMO it would be nice and helpful to keep irrelevant to Paradvaita and Tantrism discussions apart from this thread and section of forum. There are proper places for them ;)

Any interest in Gita Satsang?

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 01:33 PM
Oh. 'Proceed from' and 'ordered by' are the same things? I did not know that.


You did not realize that the verse under consideration questions the very premises of advaita. Can you show me another commentartor who said that this definition of Brahman is tatasta laxaNa? This is advaita's imagination - no proof. I am asking you proof, for advaita's bifurcation of satta - vyavaharika and paramArtika - and you have nicely ignored. This artificial terminologies and inexplicabilities were alone enough to dismiss advaita as unsicientifc in toto - before Vishsitadvaita and Dvaita appeared advaita was well establsihed all over India. If Dvaita had originated earlier, no one would have ever heard of such a system based on inexplicability and heavy borrowings from Buddhism. The whole of vedanta is describing creation, the glory of Lord etc which is swept under the carpet based on imagined theories.




And Advaita says correctly. Advaita does not say it alone. Mandukya says Turiya is known in identity with it. Brihadar. says: who is there to know it and what is there to know?

I ask you, what is wrong in becoming the unalloyed bliss itself? Your Krishna Darshana (as a separate God) is a Maya. Since there is a seer, who is Primary since without the seer Krishna would not be sighted.

Some however, realise correctly that the seer is Krishna Himself .


Hallucinations. No one ever became Krishna and never will become. Even Ramana Maharishi, died horribly of throat cancer. What makes you think anybody ever was equal to Krishna. Similar Yogis who claimed to have become Brahmans have not been spared of the ravages of fate - which shows they are heavily under the control of Krishna irrespetive of their realization. These Yogis may have reached Krishna, but they never became equal.




Sudarshan please be a little more thoughtful. Turiya is the Self. Is there anything that has no Self? First decide this. Is there anything that is devoid of atma. If you believe it so, then you may as well declare yourself to be a materialist.


Self Negation. If all the quarters are Atma, then why do you call them as unreal? Is Atma unreal?




If you believe in Atma then know that the Atma itself has an Aham Bhavana that is Pragnya. If the Self does not cognise I, then who does it? If I do not cognise that "I exist" then who does it? Can anything outside me cognise my I on my behalf? The Self only cognises Pragnya. They are not two different things -- as you often try to make out.

When I say "I exist", me and my awareness of existence do not become two distinct entities.


The "I" is from the individual soul which is described as aNu. Brahmasutras clearly establish this except for your convoluted interpretations.




Again a case of mistaken identity. I asked you to check up who is cognising things other than Turiya? Your eyes? Your brain? Your intellect? Who is cognising?

It is the Self -- Turiya, who alone is cognising. That which is the mind of the mind is Brahman (Keno Upanishad).


It is the individual soul, and not the Supreme Soul that percieves the "I" in me. Your issues are replacing the word Atma with Self wherver you find it. Even Shankara says Atma refers only to paramAtma in BSB but rarely is consitant with interreting rest of the scripture.




[
Well Well. A third entity has entered the drama.


You have not followed up anything - Sankarshana is a form of the Lord and non different from him. Where is the third entity? Your grasp on scriptures is poor - I cited the Gopala Tapini Upansihad which is accepted among all schools, and please refer to it.




I asked you why you lose awareness when in a state which is stated to be of pure awareness? And I have not seen any answer.

And you answered - you have none according to your interpretation? The awareness comes from the vision of Lord Sankarshna who is the controller of the Ahamkara tattva. But the perception and spiritual vision of Shusupti are not as perfect as Turiya.

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 01:49 PM
I asked you: What as per you is Ignorance? And what (as per you ) happens before and after removal of ignorance?


And you answered partly as below:



.

If Jiva's ignorance is due to Maya of Brahman then you have to further answer why Brahman keeps Jiva in Maya? Inexplicable? Eh? Is Brahman a sadist?


And what happens to Jiva after removal of Maya? Shruti says that knower of Brahman becomes ALL. From Him is this world.

How do you account for such shruti? With Jiva stuck with redness, it possibly cannot become the blue rose. But shruti says from Him is the world.


Regards

What before ignorance is not a valid question, even from advaita's point of view - because karma and hence jIva is anAdi or beginningless. So Brahman keeping jIva in Maya is out of question and anAdi karma has scriptural support unlike advaita's Maya. Brahman is mentioned to be pure and free of imperfections, and in case of Advaita, since Brahman does not even allow for superficial distinctions of dualty, all imperfections of jIva have to be attrubuted directly to Brahman and thus closes the doors on advaita. To escape from this charge, advaita shuts its eyes and says , all dualty is illusion. For whom? Ask yourself - it is the Brahman himself who is in bondage and Maya in advaita and hope it satisfies you.

After ignorance is removed, the Lord is known in all details and glory - that is moksha. Bhagvan is Satyam Jnanam and Anantam and this realization constitutes moksha. Karma is responsible for us not seeing God now, and this needs no logical explanation - scripture supports karma. If you wish to go much deeper, it has to be urged that this is Lord's wish alone and more like concealment like Arjuna says. But advaita's NB cannot do that at all, and even if he did it means he indulged in self delusion.:)

Sudarshan
13 June 2006, 02:05 PM
Well. You said earlier: Rose (God) Redness (Jiva). And I said the redness has no cognition of its own to know its redness.

Further, redness is not an eternal being but you make out Jivas to be eternal beings. Nothing more is needed. The basic premise is faulty.

Advaita never says that wrestler as a physical body is a reality (here definition of reality matters so first brush it up).


The wrestler is just an analogy, substitute whatever you want there. Did you consider redness as dumb as NB who has no self awareness? Both rose and red have their own cognitions here, both having an "I" and "all". Without self awareness, it is impossible to explain any activities the Brahman performs. The concept of NB is faulty at fundamentals.






Who is evading? Lord you are the blue bird, you are the old bent man (Svet. Up.).


You think that helps adviata? What do you think Svet describes mukti as?

1.15-16

As oil exists in sesame seeds, butter in milk, water in river—beds and fire in wood, so the Self is realized as existing within the self, when a man looks for It by means of truthfulness and austerity—when he looks for the Self, which pervades all things as butter pervades milk and whose roots are Self—Knowledge and austerity. That is the Brahman taught by the Upanishad; yea, that is the Brahman taught by the Upanishads.

Where is advaita here? Oil in sesame seed, buuter in milk etc - nothing points to advaita and is clear rejection of advaita. No one becomes identical to Brahman. The union is like butter in milk, they are one but yet subtly different. Advaita simply ignores most of the scripture to establish its imagined hypothesis.




[
B]This is the highest ridicule possible. This means that God depends on Gunas, even for his definition. Who is assigning the qualities -- your mind or God? This is truly Charvaka like.


God depends on Gunas? Can you cite any thing you know that has no gunas? Gunas define the very entity you describe, anything without gunas is shunya. Anyone who is not introduced to advaita and brainwashed by it will reject the concept of an attributeless entity outright.

The word Brahman itself means "big and growing" { brhatvaat ca brahmaNatvaat). So it has such a property of being big, that is infinite. It is growing because Brahman's bliss is enhanced everytime a jIva is liberated..



.
Realise that God IS --- definition or no defintion, which are mind's attempts. [/B]

Agreed, but say that God is beyond our grasp, but yet knowable when we finally have Jnana - this is not even accepted by advaita.

atanu
14 June 2006, 12:24 AM
Agreed, but say that God is beyond our grasp, but yet knowable when we finally have Jnana - this is not even accepted by advaita.


Sudarshan, as has been pointed out by others we may move further discussion elsewhere. I have not yet read the full, however, I note that you agree conditionally.

Just wish to say that "Knowable in identity only" is the scripture.


To summarise: God is as IS -- Bholenath. His purity is maintained by His powers Brahma, Visnu, Rudra, who are essentially THAT as you are also.

atanu
14 June 2006, 12:37 AM
Hallucinations. No one ever became Krishna and never will become. Even Ramana Maharishi, died horribly of throat cancer. What makes you think anybody ever was equal to Krishna. -----

.


Horrible you are. Exposed in true colours. As always the discussion with a Vaishnavaite turns personal only.

Remember that Krishna is Ranchod. His Gopis were abducted and He could not do anything. Yadus were destroyed. Sati self immolated. Rama drowned himself. Christ got crucified.

A jnani and His body are not the same thing. A jnani is all pervading Vishnu only. It is ignorance that associates oneself with the body. And you are horribly ignorant.







It is the individual soul, and not the Supreme Soul that percieves the "I" in me. Your issues are replacing the word Atma with Self wherver you find it. Even Shankara says Atma refers only to paramAtma in BSB but rarely is consitant with interreting rest of the scripture.
.


Find the individual soul and we will discuss further.




You have not followed up anything - Sankarshana is a form of the Lord and non different from him. Where is the third entity? Your grasp on scriptures is poor - I cited the Gopala Tapini Upansihad which is accepted among all schools, and please refer to it.

And you answered - you have none according to your interpretation? The awareness comes from the vision of Lord Sankarshna who is the controller of the Ahamkara tattva. But the perception and spiritual vision of Shusupti are not as perfect as Turiya.



Sudarshan, you have not understood a thing.

You have said: The awareness comes from the vision of Lord Sankarshna.


Whose is the vision and who is cognising Lord Sankashana? You fail to enquire the basic questions again and again due to deeply entrenched beliefs, which are useless for enquiry of God.

If you answer "The individual soul cognises", I ask in advance "With what tool?" Find out the individual soul and His tool of cognition. And you will be on your way.


Done.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 June 2006, 12:40 AM
Hi Atanu and Sudharshan

Request you to clarify what are you discussing

I suppose both of you are not masters of Kashmiri Shaivism, nor do I. If one of you are confident on Kashmiri Shaivism, I thought of taking your help instead of others :1cool:


Dear Ramkish,

I am not a believer of artificial divisions created by mortal men. However, I respect your wish.

Thanks and Regards,

Om namah Shivayya

atanu
14 June 2006, 01:20 AM
To escape from this charge, advaita shuts its eyes and says , all dualty is illusion. For whom? Ask yourself - it is the Brahman himself who is in bondage and Maya in advaita and hope it satisfies you.



Advaita and Advaitin does not admit duality and bondage. So, why should such a one enquire about Maya? Advaitin has already done that and found that there is only one seer who is the seen also.


It is those who harp on duality of seer and the seen have to find out where from two entitities come in ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 June 2006, 01:36 AM
--
After ignorance is removed, the Lord is known in all details and glory - that is moksha. Bhagvan is Satyam Jnanam and Anantam and this realization constitutes moksha. Karma is responsible for us not seeing God now, and this needs no logical explanation - scripture supports karma. If you wish to go much deeper, it has to be urged that this is Lord's wish alone and more like concealment like Arjuna says. But advaita's NB cannot do that at all, and even if he did it means he indulged in self delusion.:)


Turiya the Self is known in identity alone (Mandukya).

The question remains: Who sees the glory and with what tools?


As long as there is another the fear persists (Brihadaraynaka). Is this state of fear (which Arjuna attained) a moksha?


NO. NO. NO.

Arjuna
14 June 2006, 05:13 AM
Namaste to all,

To settle the matter with Shankara's victory over Kashmiri panditas:

If we accept Shankara's date to be 800 A.D., then he could have defeated ONLY dualistic Siddhanta-shaivas and verily not the adherents of Paradvaita.
Vasugupta lived from 800 till 850 A.D., and his only work was Shiva-sutra, revealed to him by Shiva. Bhatta Kallata (825—875 A.D.) wrote Spanda-karikas. Somananda, the first one to write a philosophical exposition of Paradvaita, lived from 875 to 925 A.D., and Utpalacharya was his direct disciple.

Thus, by the time of Shankara's visit to Kashmir Paradvaita was not yet formed as a philosophical school. He could have defeated dualistic shaivas, followers of 28 Siddhantagamas, which are nowadays spread in Tamilnadu.

There was in fact a pre-Shankara's monistic tradition of Tantrism in Kashmir, Kalikrama. But adherents of it were Siddha-yogins and no panditas (at least at those times). Also they never accepted any Vedantic authorities, but relied solely on Kramagamas and Bhairavagamas.

Sudarshan
14 June 2006, 07:49 AM
Horrible you are. Exposed in true colours. As always the discussion with a Vaishnavaite turns personal only.

Remember that Krishna is Ranchod. His Gopis were abducted and He could not do anything. Yadus were destroyed. Sati self immolated. Rama drowned himself. Christ got crucified.

A jnani and His body are not the same thing. A jnani is all pervading Vishnu only. It is ignorance that associates oneself with the body. And you are horribly ignorant.


Nothing personal, think for yourself.

Dear Atanau, Rama and Krishna have pramANAs, Certainly there are jnanins and know about the glories of God- but they were not God. If so, prove it. Regarding Krishna and Rama, I dont have to elaborate much, their Avatarhod is rooted in the scripture.

You must realize that in VA, Jnanam about the Lord destroys all Karmas including prArabdha by the grace of God, and no Jnanin can ever meet with any calamity whatsoever. He is a king in all respects and quits the world the moment he wants. In advaita, you claim to become Brahman, yet the Jnanin appears to be troubled by his karma. The body consciousness is not present in Jnani even according to VA, and he has no Karma even to consider any problems in life. But everything is pervaded by God, including space, tiime and beyond - so the body is a temple of divintiy. Why would a jnanin who knows this be subject to the laws of fate? Many schools of Yoga acept with this concept - including the Siddhas.

You forgot to mention about Rama and Krishna, and quoted some irrelevant stuff about them, as if you did not know it is their Maya. Even Brahma was bewildered by Krishna, and then Krishna lifted the Govardhan with his little finger as a boy, and yet you cant understand that he could not save gopis? You are quite funny. Krishna and Rama were never born like other humans and nor they ever died - it just so appears. This is expressedly mentioned by Krishna. It is often funny an advaitin would bring out the "weaknesses" of Krishna. I wonder what he thinks Krishna is?


You periodically point out ignorance hides the truth. You have not clarified who is being ignorant here other than the Brahman.( remember no second exists according to you)




Whose is the vision and who is cognising Lord Sankashana? You fail to enquire the basic questions again and again due to deeply entrenched beliefs, which are useless for enquiry of God.

If you answer "The individual soul cognises", I ask in advance "With what tool?" Find out the individual soul and His tool of cognition. And you will be on your way.


Individual soul cognizres the Brahman with his own Atma. What is so dificult to understand? If is seeing divinity everywhere, in this space, time, within onself and beyond - understand?
I am surprised that you are finding it so hard to understand this simple concept which you are doing right now - cognizing! No external tools are needed - the paramAtma is known through the jIvAtma. jIvAtnma is not an insentient like NB, and has the power of cognition. The very nature of jIva is consciousness.(Jnatri). It is also surprising that you are able to understand the concept of seer and seen distinction dissolving but yet cant understand what you are doing right now. First know that jIva is not the mind( which is a jada) according to VA, but an eternal luminous entity.

Sudarshan
14 June 2006, 08:06 AM
Advaita and Advaitin does not admit duality and bondage. So, why should such a one enquire about Maya? Advaitin has already done that and found that there is only one seer who is the seen also.


It is those who harp on duality of seer and the seen have to find out where from two entitities come in ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

Om Namah Shivayya

You are contradcting so many things here. Without understanding Maya, how will you overcome it? Seek to understand avidya first, and overcome it. Then seek to understand Maya and overcome it. Bypassing both will lead to no mans land. If things were so simple like advaita says, we had no need of scripture and nor we would be wandering in the samAra. Obviously, I am not talking about the advaitin version of avidya and Maya here.;)

Advaita has neither seer nor seen - seeing or knowing is mithya accroding to advaita. If an advaitin "claims" any experience of sorts, he is already contradicting it. Expereince is mithya according to advaita, so whoever claims so has to rejected ouright.

Be rational first. You are trying to cut the tree sitting on the very branches. You are standing on the very premises of dualty, and without understanding how you came about here in the world of dualty, how can you overcome it? Absurd talk at best.

Sudarshan
14 June 2006, 08:12 AM
Turiya the Self is known in identity alone (Mandukya).

The question remains: Who sees the glory and with what tools?


As long as there is another the fear persists (Brihadaraynaka). Is this state of fear (which Arjuna attained) a moksha?


NO. NO. NO.

Fear of what? Of God? When a Jiva sees Bhagavan in moskha he is overcome by fear? Whose logic is this?

The talks on identity are all absurd, first prove the existance of an entity called NB, and then show how the actionless, attributeless entity gave rise to a dualty. No inexplicability please.

You have not any questions I raised earlier except posting something irrelvant.

Singhi Kaya
14 June 2006, 08:50 AM
You must realize that in VA, Jnanam about the Lord destroys all Karmas including prArabdha by the grace of God, and no Jnanin can ever meet with any calamity whatsoever. He is a king in all respects and quits the world the moment he wants. In advaita, you claim to become Brahman, yet the Jnanin appears to be troubled by his karma.

So we don't have prarabdha karma in VA??
Ofcourse if God is omni potent like in christianity this is explainable.

Sudarshan
14 June 2006, 09:02 AM
So we don't have prarabdha karma in VA??
Ofcourse if God is omni potent like in christianity this is explainable.

No, knowledge of the divine roots out sancita and prArabdha Karmas ( including Agamin) and confers instantaneous liberation without the need to wait for "natural death". Of course, such a soul is free to choose whether to live or not.

Even TiruppAvai of Andal brings this out clearly:

maayanai mannu vatamathurai main^thanaith *
thUya perunIr yamunaith thuRaivanai *
aayarkulaththinil thOnRum aNiviLakkaith *
thaayaik kutal viLakkam ceytha thaamOtharanaith *
thUyOmaay van^thu naam thUmalar thUvith thozhuthu *
vaayinaal paati manaththinaal cin^thikkap *
pOya pizhaiyum pukutharuvaan ninRanavum *
thIyinil thUcaakum ceppu ElOr empaavaay.

atanu
14 June 2006, 10:55 AM
Fear of what? Of God? When a Jiva sees Bhagavan in moskha he is overcome by fear? Whose logic is this?



Sudarshan, you should read Gita again and find that Arjuna was afraid of Lord's visvarupa. Sudarsha, I never said that in moksha one is overcome by fear. You only said that seeing the splendour of Lord is Moksha. I just pointed out that Arjuna was shown the vishwarupa and He was afraid. That surely is no sign of Moksha.


And to end it all, I paste here some reply posted against your sarcasm that as per advaita Brahman does not know anything.




I love you Sudarshana. I pity you also. Please read Gopala Tapaniya to get the answer for your query.

Extracts from Gopala Tapaniya

18. Taste is contained within the element of water, although taste and water are different. Taste is contained within water. This water does not know. I am spirit. How can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


---------- (please read other containers and contents also)


21. When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?

I wish to rephrase for you.

I and you are in the Self. I and You are different from the Self. I and you are contained in the Self. But the Self does not know that.


And again, lest you degrade the spirit as is the usual effect of your unknowing and unintentional statements:

When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


Well Sudarshana contemplate and reflect. Self knows Self only. It does not know of I and You.




Too much of sarcasm is too much. It shows ego and its foolishness. Realise that highest Brahman not knowing I and You is not His fault or not his requirement. It is the expectation of the thoughts arising from THAT. Like taste will expect that water should know it. But the reality is not like the expectation of a lower thing (a product) and water does not become taste ever, it remains water only.

Brahman remains Brahman ever and does not ever become I and You. Pragnya, an inherent nature of Brahman, becomes I, You, and ALL.

atanu
14 June 2006, 11:03 AM
You have not any questions I raised earlier except posting something irrelvant.

Sudarshan you as you know yourself is just a bag full of sarcasm and egoity and thus totally irrelevant.

Sudarshan
14 June 2006, 11:24 AM
Sudarshan you as you know yourself is just a bag full of sarcasm and egoity and thus totally irrelevant.

Why do you get angry? You are always answering from your advatic framework with least regard to scripture. After all, you were the one who called me up to defend the VA interpretations of Mandukya and I showed you why Turiya cant be NB, and you had no arguments. Turiya cant be the NB of advaita because it has been assigned too many qualities like darshatam( handsome), Lord, all pervading etc. That means Brahman is Saguna, and there we go into a completely different way of interpreting scriptures.

You have not explained who are you, except by using cyclic dependency - jiva is the cause of avidya and avidya is the cause of jiva.

I asked you scriptural proof of your three tiers of reality. None provided.

I asked you to show how the Svet Up supported advaita's mukti and no answer from you. ( butter in milk is not advaita)

Now you cant answer too many, and suddenly you try to gain high moral ground. Shall we stop discussion if you cant check your emotions? Anyway I am not responding to you from now.

Instead you feel offended at what I speak of advaita - ask any Advatins informed in the classical literature -

There is no final experience in advaita
Brahman is not self aware
Maya, Avidya etc are inexplicable.
etc etc are all standard positions without which there is no advaita.

As you said, no need to discuss and let us know the truth through personal efforts. What is the use of discussions? You must note that you were the one to call me here.

atanu
14 June 2006, 12:02 PM
Why do you get angry? --- What is the use of discussions? You must note that you were the one to call me here.

I did not become angry at all. And I did not call you here. Me and TS were discussing.

But you fail to show a single proof of your absurd claims against Advaita. It is ceratinly painful to see the effect of ego, which makes one obfuscate and not accept mistakes.

I end it here, dear Sudarshan.

I will just remind you:

I and You are in the Self. The Self is different from I and You. The I and You are containded in the Self. But the Self does not know that.


Jai Shree Krishna Sudarshan dear.

ramkish42
14 June 2006, 12:56 PM
Namaste to all,

To settle the matter with Shankara's victory over Kashmiri panditas:

If we accept Shankara's date to be 800 A.D., then he could have defeated ONLY dualistic Siddhanta-shaivas and verily not the adherents of Paradvaita.
Vasugupta lived from 800 till 850 A.D., and his only work was Shiva-sutra, revealed to him by Shiva. Bhatta Kallata (825—875 A.D.) wrote Spanda-karikas. Somananda, the first one to write a philosophical exposition of Paradvaita, lived from 875 to 925 A.D., and Utpalacharya was his direct disciple.

Thus, by the time of Shankara's visit to Kashmir Paradvaita was not yet formed as a philosophical school. He could have defeated dualistic shaivas, followers of 28 Siddhantagamas, which are nowadays spread in Tamilnadu.

There was in fact a pre-Shankara's monistic tradition of Tantrism in Kashmir, Kalikrama. But adherents of it were Siddha-yogins and no panditas (at least at those times). Also they never accepted any Vedantic authorities, but relied solely on Kramagamas and Bhairavagamas.

The purport of Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada is not to defeat dualistic schools alone but to defeat every single Siddantha and establish Vedantic religion. Whereever he went he established the superiority of Vedanta over all individual revelations.

In short by defeating all Saivaagamic religions, entire Siddantic views underestimating the prowess and authority of Veda over so called revealed information been defeated and for this he has made to sit on Jnanapeetam.

Thus it is very clear that any other off shoot after Adisankara bhagavatpada has to be Vedantic school, if someone still advocates revelations are more superior to Vedanta, it is nothing but not accepting defeat inspite of the fact the they had been made to eat dust by Adisankara Bhagavatpada

All vedantic schools advocates Veda is superior authority over all scriptures - Veda saastrat param naasti. Paradvaita if accepts this view could be considered as Vedantic school (having read with Abhinavagupta's Brahma sutra Bhashya,) else, by undermining Vedic authority and trying to establish Agamic authority as superior to vedic authority will lead to contradictions as Adisankara Bhagavatpada has defeated such thought already.

PS : To Arjuna: If this Paradvaita thread is running material and not a discussion thread, request you to indicate it to me so that I will delete this post and post in a separate thread

Jai shree krishna

Sudarshan
14 June 2006, 01:17 PM
I did not become angry at all. And I did not call you here. Me and TS were discussing.

But you fail to show a single proof of your absurd claims against Advaita. It is ceratinly painful to see the effect of ego, which makes one obfuscate and not accept mistakes.

I end it here, dear Sudarshan.

I will just remind you:

I and You are in the Self. The Self is different from I and You. The I and You are containded in the Self. But the Self does not know that.


Jai Shree Krishna Sudarshan dear.

This is your earlier post:



Advaita cannot be found in debates (i.e in vac and intellect, which are products of Advaita Shiva) but Advaita is the source to be grasped in the silence of the monkey mind, when mind is non-existent and identical to non dual Brahman. In another post Shri Sudarshan has rightly extolled the merit of dhyana. However, I request Shri Sudarshan to expound his understanding of the 'shivo advaitam' term of Nrisimha and Mandukya Upanishads. Is the advaitam (of Mandykya Up.) different in meaning from the essence of Advaita darshana? I also requect him to expound the meaning of "the only proof of Turiya -- the Self, is in identity with it" as stated in Mandukya Up.


Thus there is no doubt that this is your "invitation" and you had no answers other than irrelevant handwaving. You dont have any arguement to hold on your NB here, and the advaita framework itself maybe safely discarded. And to date you have not shown any scriptural evidences for either NB or the three tier reality. All non advaitins know that this three tier is that of Buddhism and goes in the name of parikalpita, paratantra and parinis.
panna satyas. Advaita's three tiers are a clone of these, and the Buddhist tatatha(their word for Shunyata) replaced with Brahman, and denial of creation is common to both, along with the doctrine of Mayavada. Advaita's logical reasoning adhyaropa apavAda is that of Buddists. You are free to show that these are all vedantic by providing the scriptural authority. Dont tell me these are unfair charges, but these are the charges of not less than 10 schools of vedanta which includes later advaitins. I doubt if you read enough to even hear about these terminologies. Enough said. Peace be with you.

sarabhanga
15 June 2006, 12:18 AM
Kala Brahman is 1 (and thus also 2 & 3); while Akala Brahman is 4 alone.

३ (3) = अ (A) = Vaishvanara = Tamas = Vishnu-Maya = Vimarsha
२ (2) = उ (U) = Taijasa = Rajas = Shiva-Shakti = Prakasha
१ (1) = ँ (M) = Prajna = Sattva = Brahmā-Brāhmī = Anuttara

४ (4) = ॐ (AUM) = Turiya = Nirguna = Brahma = ?


Kala Brahman is Saguna ~ the Anuttara Satya of Pravritti and Bhakti.
Akala Brahman is Nirguna ~ the Uttama Satya of Nivritti and Jnana.

Advaita Vedanta takes the ultimate perspective of Akala Brahman (the Caturtha or “Turya”).
Paradvaita (just as Vishishtadvaita) takes the penultimate perspective of Kala Brahman (the Tritiya or “Trika”).

Paradvaita is Trayimaya, and surely depends on the ancient triple Veda.
Advaita is entirely devoid of Maya, and relates primarily to the Atharvangirasa.

Paradvaita is Trayividya, whereas Advaita Vedanta is true Brahmavidya!


Maya is inherent in Dvaita; and it is the actual perception of duality that is the creative action of Maya.

Maya is “creative illusion”, and the veritable illusion of Jivatman being somehow disconnected from the absolute unity of Paramatman is the very nature of Maya as Avidya.

The whole of Advaita Vedanta is beautifully presented in the Mandukyopanishad.

Prajna (Brahma) is absolutely non-different from Turiya (Brahma) until the very moment that duality is invoked or imagined.

Om is Om, as one whole unit; however, Om may be perceived as being composed of discrete elements, as A + U + M.

All possible subdivisions are always implied in the whole, but those parts are only fleeting components of the eternal reality that lies beyond all duality. And one who perfectly knows that eternal reality does not see any diversity, but rather perceives the whole reality all at once.

The science of the Pranava teaches A. U. M., but this Vidya alone is Avidya. The whole (the so-called fourth foot ~ the Turya) must be comprehended and conceived as the one perfect unity that it truly is.

“In Shaivism, Vasugupta’s Ishvaradvaya-vada advocated the concept of Shiva which was wider than Shankara’s concept of Brahman.” ~ G.V. Tagare.

This is untrue. Paradvaita advocates a concept of Anuttara Shiva that is identical with Shankara’s Brahmā, but with intrinsic limitations that are absent in Shankara’s Brahma.

“Maya of Shankarite philosophy was superfluous in Kashmiri Shaivism, as Shiva possessed both Prakasha and Vimarsha powers.” ~ G.V. Tagare.

Maya is superfluous in Paradvaita only because it is so thoroughly immersed in Maya that Maya disappears into the background of consciousness; but Maya can never be extinguished by Paradvaita, which must remain tinged with duality (and thus Avidya).

atanu
15 June 2006, 01:09 AM
*********However, I request Shri Sudarshan to expound his understanding of the 'shivo advaitam' term of Nrisimha and Mandukya Upanishads. Is the advaitam (of Mandykya Up.) different in meaning from the essence of Advaita darshana? I also requect him to expound the meaning of "the only proof of Turiya -- the Self, is in identity with it" as stated in Mandukya Up.**************



This was my invitation about 3-4 days back and you had apriori decided that Mandukya Advaitam Shiva does not mean Advaita at all. 'Knowing Turiya in identity' (as in Mandukya) is also ignored by you. Similarly, you do not care for Nirguna definition of Anadimatparam Brahman in Gita and in Svet. Upanishad. After that there remained no common ground for discussion. I was discussing other matters with TS.:6804382843: This state ended long back.





And to date you have not shown any scriptural evidences for either NB or the three tier reality. All non advaitins know that this three tier is that of Buddhism and goes in the name of parikalpita, paratantra and parinis.
panna satyas. Advaita's three tiers are a clone of these, and the Buddhist tatatha(their word for Shunyata) replaced with Brahman, and denial of creation is common to both, along with the doctrine of Mayavada. Advaita's logical reasoning adhyaropa apavAda is that of Buddists. You are free to show that these are all vedantic by providing the scriptural authority. Dont tell me these are unfair charges, but these are the charges of not less than 10 schools of vedanta which includes later advaitins. I doubt if you read enough to even hear about these terminologies. Enough said. Peace be with you.


I do not know all these terminologies and am not interested also. For me three tier experience is a daily affair in waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Mandukya has taught that underlying these three states there is the reality that is Self and that is unchangeable shivo advaitam, which can be known in identity with it alone. Mandukya says: Turiya has to be known. And Gita says: To attain immortality the anadimat param brahman has to be known. This Self is Brahman. So, it becomes an order of God to know the Self.

That is sufficient for me.

My discussions are as egoistic as yours are. Only I know that ego propels Atanu's efforts whereas you seem to have shut your intellect.

I will sign off with a comment. Whichever God you love, there is a lover. When you say :Vishnu is sarvottama, someone says it. Who is that? Without knowing the Self nothing else is known, since you do not know the self that is procaliming and judging and seeing etc.. All external Gods will finally teach: Self is Param Parastad. Definitions of lower and higher do not apply to it, since there is no other.


And Brahman will always remain a shunyata for VA adherents since the main premise of VA is: In case of scripture contradicting perception, scripture is not stronger.


On account of this premise you will always term whatever is beyond your perception as Shunya.


Bye Bye.

atanu
15 June 2006, 01:15 AM
*********However, I request Shri Sudarshan to expound his understanding of the 'shivo advaitam' term of Nrisimha and Mandukya Upanishads. Is the advaitam (of Mandykya Up.) different in meaning from the essence of Advaita darshana? I also requect him to expound the meaning of "the only proof of Turiya -- the Self, is in identity with it" as stated in Mandukya Up.**************



This was my invitation about 3-4 days back and you had apriori decided that Mandukya Advaitam Shiva does not mean Advaita at all. 'Knowing Turiya in identity' (as in Mandukya) is also ignored by you. Similarly, you do not care for Nirguna definition of Anadimatparam Brahman in Gita and in Svet. Upanishad. After that there remained no common ground for discussion. I was discussing other matters with TS.:6804382843: This state ended long back.





And to date you have not shown any scriptural evidences for either NB or the three tier reality. All non advaitins know that this three tier is that of Buddhism and goes in the name of parikalpita, paratantra and parinis.
panna satyas. Advaita's three tiers are a clone of these, and the Buddhist tatatha(their word for Shunyata) replaced with Brahman, and denial of creation is common to both, along with the doctrine of Mayavada. Advaita's logical reasoning adhyaropa apavAda is that of Buddists. You are free to show that these are all vedantic by providing the scriptural authority. Dont tell me these are unfair charges, but these are the charges of not less than 10 schools of vedanta which includes later advaitins. I doubt if you read enough to even hear about these terminologies. Enough said. Peace be with you.


I do not know all these terminologies and am not interested also. For me three tier experience is a daily affair in waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Mandukya has taught that underlying these three states there is the reality that is Self and that is unchageable Advaitam, which can be known in identity with it alone. Mandukya says: Turiya has to be known. And Gita says: To attain immortality the anadimat param brahman has to be known. This Self is Brahman. So, it becomes an order of God to know the Self.

That is sufficient for me.

My discussions are as egoistic as yours are. Only I know that ego propels Atanu's efforts whereas you seem to have shut your intellect.

I will sign off with a comment. Whichever God you love, there is a lover. When you say :Vishnu is sarvottama, someone says it. Who is that? Without knowing the Self nothing else is known, since you do not know the self that is procaliming and judging and seeing etc.. All external Gods will finally teach: Self is Param Parastad. Definitions of lower and higher do not apply to it, since there is no other.


And Brahman will always remain a shunyata for VA adherents since the main premise of VA is: In case of scripture contradicting perception, scripture is not stronger.


On account of this premise you will always term whatever is beyond your perception as Shunya (including God, who is beyond perception). So, actually, without knowing it you are a nihilist.


Bye Bye.

Arjuna
15 June 2006, 04:57 AM
Namaste,


The purport of Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada is not to defeat dualistic schools alone but to defeat every single Siddantha and establish Vedantic religion. Whereever he went he established the superiority of Vedanta over all individual revelations.

Once again, it was physically impossible to defeat adherents of Paradvaita, for by the time of supposed Shankara's visit to Kashmir Paradvaita as a philosophical school simply did not exist, for it started with Somananda only.


In short by defeating all Saivaagamic religions, entire Siddantic views underestimating the prowess and authority of Veda over so called revealed information been defeated and for this he has made to sit on Jnanapeetam.

Paradvaita and Tantrism are NOT based upon 28 Siddhantagamas (consisting of Shaiva and Raudra Agamas).


Thus it is very clear that any other off shoot after Adisankara bhagavatpada has to be Vedantic school, if someone still advocates revelations are more superior to Vedanta, it is nothing but not accepting defeat inspite of the fact the they had been made to eat dust by Adisankara Bhagavatpada

Baseless.
Vedanta is just one darshana of many, which at certain historical time was spread in its advaita version and suppressed several other traditions current by that time.

Again, Tantric tradition holds Shankara as its own Acharya. He preached Vedanta for masses, to get rid of buddhism, and kept Srividya for esoteric circle.


All vedantic schools advocates Veda is superior authority over all scriptures - Veda saastrat param naasti. Paradvaita if accepts this view could be considered as Vedantic school (having read with Abhinavagupta's Brahma sutra Bhashya,) else, by undermining Vedic authority and trying to establish Agamic authority as superior to vedic authority will lead to contradictions as Adisankara Bhagavatpada has defeated such thought already.

In such a case i would say that Utpalacharya and Abhinavagupta defeated Shankara! ;) Maybe not personally, but in logical investigation.

In fact, since these people NEVER MET, how can U say he "defeated them"? All Masters of Spanda and Pratyabhijna lived AFTER Shankara. And Krama and Kaula Masters, who existed in pre-Shankara's times, were Siddhas and Yoginis. They never cared about writing philosophical treateses.
It could have been that sophisticated Tantric metaphysics was developed as a response to Advaita-vedanta spreading. Though grounds of Tantric Monism are totally independent and pre-Shankara's.

Arjuna
15 June 2006, 05:12 AM
? (3) = ? (A) = Vaishvanara = Tamas = Vishnu-Maya = Vimarsha
? (2) = ? (U) = Taijasa = Rajas = Shiva-Shakti = Prakasha
? (1) = ? (M) = Prajna = Sattva = Brahm?-Br?hm? = Anuttara

? (4) = ? (AUM) = Turiya = Nirguna = Brahma = ?

Kala Brahman is Saguna ~ the Anuttara Satya of Pravritti and Bhakti.
Akala Brahman is Nirguna ~ the Uttama Satya of Nivritti and Jnana.

Advaita Vedanta takes the ultimate perspective of Akala Brahman (the Caturtha or “Turya”).
Paradvaita (just as Vishishtadvaita) takes the penultimate perspective of Kala Brahman (the Tritiya or “Trika”).

Paradvaita is Trayimaya, and surely depends on the ancient triple Veda.
Advaita is entirely devoid of Maya, and relates primarily to the Atharvangirasa.


Namaste Sarabhanga,

This is inaccurate.

In fact,
A, Tamas would be Kriya-shakti.
U, Rajas would be Jnana-shakti.
M, Sattva would be Iccha-shakti.
AUM, Turiya would be Ananda-shakti or Vimarsha (Saguna)
together with Cit-shakti or Prakasha (Nirguna).
? — Anuttara, Paramasamvit, which is beyond Saguna and Nirguna, and encompasses both.

Anuttara is "That beyond which nothing is." Pravritti and Nivritti are functions of Anuttara's freedom, Svatantrya.

Sudarshan
15 June 2006, 06:15 AM
*********However, I request Shri Sudarshan to expound his understanding of the 'shivo advaitam' term of Nrisimha and Mandukya Upanishads. Is the advaitam (of Mandykya Up.) different in meaning from the essence of Advaita darshana? I also requect him to expound the meaning of "the only proof of Turiya -- the Self, is in identity with it" as stated in Mandukya Up.**************



This was my invitation about 3-4 days back and you had apriori decided that Mandukya Advaitam Shiva does not mean Advaita at all. 'Knowing Turiya in identity' (as in Mandukya) is also ignored by you. Similarly, you do not care for Nirguna definition of Anadimatparam Brahman in Gita and in Svet. Upanishad. After that there remained no common ground for discussion. I was discussing other matters with TS.:6804382843: This state ended long back.


Nope, I did not say that Turiya is not advaitam. It is indeed Advaitam but I showed you why it is not the NB of Advaita. Your Nirguna definition is a logical fallacy. You did not show one evidence to prove that Nirguna means Nivishesha while there are so many pramANAs for showing that Nirguna means free of flaws etc.

Take this for eg:

eko devaH sarvabhUteShu gUDhaH sarvavyApI sarvabhUtAntarAtmA
karmAdhyaxaH sarvabhUtAdhivAsaH sAxI chetA kevalo nirguNashcha (Sveta Up)

Here you find the verse describing Brahman as devaH, sarvavyApi, saXi etc which are indicative of guNas. Then what should the nirguNa in the same context mean? That I dump all these attributes? It only means that Nirguna means without flaws like death, sin etc. Unles you can prove the existance of two Brahmans, your views are mere hypothesis. Even then the same verse points to two Brahmans? No chance!

You again mentioned that Krishna said that he was Nirguna and you beleived that. What did you beleive? The supreme being who came down and said that "I am Nirguna" cannot be the advaita's nirguna at all. It will be like a sleeping man attendng the phone and replying - I am in deep sleep.






I do not know all these terminologies and am not interested also. For me three tier experience is a daily affair in waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Mandukya has taught that underlying these three states there is the reality that is Self and that is unchageable Advaitam, which can be known in identity with it alone. Mandukya says: Turiya has to be known. And Gita says: To attain immortality the anadimat param brahman has to be known. This Self is Brahman. So, it becomes an order of God to know the Self.

That is sufficient for me.


From the Bhagavad Gita, the only practical message that I gather is that salvation is possible only on complete surrender to Krishna and unflinching devotion to him. Knowledge about Krishna has to be obtained from performing the Bhakti Yoga. Sorry, I dont see your message.

This is what Lord Krishna says:

idaḿ jñānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ
sarge 'pi nopajāyante pralaye na vyathanti ca ( 14.2)

This is the highest stage of perfection attained by sages( see 14.1), and note the word "sAdharmyam" here which only indicates a nature similar to Krishna, which is further supported by 15.7 which says the soul is a subset(part) of Krishna. The similarity, along with the "part" indicate that Krishna remains Advaitam inspite of this division.

It is your sole imagination that Bhagavad Gita preaches Advaita or attaining identity with Krishna. Even the Bhagavad Gita ends with Lord Krishna advising him to surrender himself completely to Krishna(18.66) which is pretty much useless from the advaitic perspective.




My discussions are as egoistic as yours are. Only I know that ego propels Atanu's efforts whereas you seem to have shut your intellect.


Thanks, there is a differences between ego indulging in bush beating and the ego pointing out the facts.



I will sign off with a comment. Whichever God you love, there is a lover. When you say :Vishnu is sarvottama, someone says it. Who is that? Without knowing the Self nothing else is known, since you do not know the self that is procaliming and judging and seeing etc.. All external Gods will finally teach: Self is Param Parastad. Definitions of lower and higher do not apply to it, since there is no other.


Mere assumptions. No evidence.

[quite=Atanu]
And Brahman will always remain a shunyata for VA adherents since the main premise of VA is: In case of scripture contradicting perception, scripture is not stronger.
[/quote]

This is true of advaita as well, though advaita has no problems with disregarding perceptional evidence while interpreting scripture. If the scripture says the crow is whie advaitins will beleive without winking an eye, since scripture should not be questioned. Similarly, when the whole of scripture upholds the reality of the world ( infact Mayavada is criticized by Krishna in 16.8), they have no problems in upholding it.




On account of this premise you will always term whatever is beyond your perception as Shunya (including God, who is beyond perception). So, actually, without knowing it you are a nihilist.


Nope. But I wont accept something that is mentioned to be unknowable instead of just incomprehensible. Nirguna Brahman has been rejected by all schools of Hinduism ( except advaita) because it has no scripural and logical evidence. The very idea of NB is self contradictory.

No one is rejecting NB due to lack of perception, after all we dont see God at all. It is rejected because it has no basis whatsoever, scripturally and logically. The rest shows your prejudice and absence of knowledge of other schools of Hinduism. And you dont appear to know advaita as well, as you did not even appear to cover my charges on its classifications of reality - except bypassing the question.

Good ways to gain high moral grounds.;)

Sudarshan
15 June 2006, 06:41 AM
One more cunning attempt to escape a logical investigation ;).
AV can be called Shunya-vada; its idea of Brahman is clearly non-Vedic and indeed similar or identic to Bauddha.



Paradvaita accepts Advaita-vedanta as a limited truth of sushupti, while AV is unable to grasp the completeness of Svatantrya-vada, and resorts to silence calling for "inexplicability" of Shakti :D


Since Arjuna calls himself as Advaitin, these should be ample proof to demonstate that I am not prejudiced in anyway. This is the same verdict of everybody.

Inexlicability cannot be considered as a valid explanation for any scientific religion.

Maya - Inexplicable
Avidya - Inexplicable
Nirguna - Inexplicable

and so on...

It needs considerable blind faith to beleive in such a doctrine, which advaitins are accusing others of. Admit it that you just blindly beleive in it, without accusing others of being blind followers or being irrational or spiritually inferior. The tables can be turned in a minute.

atanu
15 June 2006, 07:00 AM
Nope, I did not say that Turiya is not advaitam. It is indeed Advaitam but I showed you why it is not the NB of Advaita. Your Nirguna definition is a logical fallacy. You did not show one evidence to prove that Nirguna means Nivishesha while there are so many pramANAs for showing that Nirguna means free of flaws etc.


Any meaning can be derived with conceptualisation and that is not the way. Advaitam and Nirgunam are two words. Rest is all your mental concepts.




eko devaH sarvabhUteShu gUDhaH sarvavyApI sarvabhUtAntarAtmA
karmAdhyaxaH sarvabhUtAdhivAsaH sAxI chetA kevalo nirguNashcha (Sveta Up)



Yes. This supports Advaita. Being all the things Brahman is yet kevalo Nirgunascha who is the fourth Turiya but as Pragnya/Taijjjaso, and Vaisvnanaro, He is ALL as well. But He is Advaitam and Nirgunam Fourth Turiya First.

Settled.



From the Bhagavad Gita, the only practical message that I gather is that salvation is possible only on complete surrender to Krishna and unflinching devotion to him. Knowledge about Krishna has to be obtained from performing the Bhakti Yoga. Sorry, I dont see your message.

idaḿ jñānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ
sarge 'pi nopajāyante pralaye na vyathanti ca ( 14.2)

This is the highest stage of perfection attained by sages( see 14.1), and note the word "sAdharmyam" here which only indicates a nature similar to Krishna, which is further supported by 15.7 which says the soul is a subset(part) of Krishna. The similarity, along with the "part" indicate that Krishna remains Advaitam inspite of this division.




Yes again. Complete surrender does not happen with you. 'I am a bhakta who has surrendered to Lord' claim retains the doership, which is wrong. When you do not know the Self, What do you surrender?

Nowhere soul as subset is mentioned. These are inventions and lies. What is mentioned is that Atma cannot be cut, burnt etc. There is no equivalent word for soul in Gita. There is however 'Purusha and Atma'. Purusha enmeshed in Prakriti is Man. And as has been pointed out again and again the very concept of division has bbeen shown to apparent and not real by a verse in 13 th Chapter.

The Self is ONE but appears as if divided in beings.






And Brahman will always remain a shunyata for VA adherents since the main premise of VA is: In case of scripture contradicting perception, scripture is not stronger.




This is true of advaita as well, though advaita has no problems with disregarding perceptional evidence while interpreting scripture. If the scripture says the crow is whie advaitins will beleive without winking an eye, since scripture should not be questioned. Similarly, when the whole of scripture upholds the reality of the world ( infact Mayavada is criticized by Krishna in 16.8), they have no problems in upholding it.

Nope. But I wont accept something that is mentioned to be unknowable instead of just incomprehensible.



Does anything depend on your acceptance? I said animals have better perception and there are infinite perceptions. So, all will overrule shruti. You cannot be selective.

Vedas teach us that what is not percieved by senses through the Mahavakyas. Vedas would be useless to teach us that which is known to every one through perception. Some bend Mahavakyas to accomodate preferences.

sarabhanga
15 June 2006, 08:01 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Vaishvanara = Kriya
Taijasa = Iccha = Vimarsha
Prajna = Jnana = Prakasha
Turiya = Ananda = Anuttara

Turiya and Anuttara appear to be equivalent concepts; but if Vimarsha and Prakasha are coeternal with Anuttara, then Paradvaita is akin to Vishishtadvaita, although Trika raises Trimurti to the next level and makes Turiya (as Anuttara) the ultimate Lord of Creation ~ and this is contrary to the Mandukyopanishad (which knows Prajna as the only Creator) and contrary to Ajativada (which denies the unborn eternity of ANY diversity in Turiya).

Shankaracarya’s Advaita and Abhinavagupta’s Paradvaita serve exactly the same purpose; however, “Mayavada” follows Ajativada, whereas “Trika” follows Jativada.

ramkish42
15 June 2006, 08:08 AM
Paradvaita and Tantrism are NOT based upon 28 Siddhantagamas (consisting of Shaiva and Raudra Agamas).

What ever siddantha existed during the presence of Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada was defeated, hence he has been made to sit on Jnanapeetam.

Creating one more agama, after the demise of the great acharya is nothing but simply not accepting defeat, irrespective of the fact been defeated clean and square

If the basis of Paradvaita is Vedanta, there is no problem as Mahacharya as already established the superiority


Baseless.
Vedanta is just one darshana of many, which at certain historical time was spread in its advaita version and suppressed several other traditions current by that time.

Vedanta is just one darshana and it is the only darshana established by Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada defeating all other siddantic religions. Hence, I say, after Adisankara, every offshoot should be a vedantic religion. Any other version Vedanta is acceptable but not a siddantic view, as established by Adisankara Bhagavatpada


Again, Tantric tradition holds Shankara as its own Acharya. He preached Vedanta for masses, to get rid of buddhism, and kept Srividya for esoteric circle.
This part is baseless

The only tantric work subscribed to Adisankara is Soundarya lahari, even there, there is lot of contradictions.

Linga purana categorically tells, this soundarya lahari is written by vinayaka

It is also ascribed to Pushpananda, who grasped it from the walls of Mahameru

Some also opine that Anandalahari part is not written by Adisankara

The idea that Soundarya lahari makes Sankara bhagavatpada as Tantric is laughable, if so, based on all his karavalambams I choose to say, Sankara is a dualist

Soundarya lahari is book of poetry with many contradictions in it. It calls Devi as Ahamkara of Shiva in one place, thus denies physical presence expressing in terms of ahamkara, in the other, it categorically tells, Siva wears Padaduli of this Devi as sacred Ash all over his body, exhibiting her physical presence, in other place siva is described to lay on her lap and Devi enjoying union with Siva in a secret place which is not in consistent with wearing padaduli on sacred ash all over his body

Soundarya lahari is a great work but cannot be a philosphical quest of mahaguru, where in Sariraka Bashya is.

Shed your misconceptions and favourtism; and give way for truth



In such a case i would say that Utpalacharya and Abhinavagupta defeated Shankara! ;) Maybe not personally, but in logical investigation.

In fact, since these people NEVER MET, how can U say he "defeated them"? All Masters of Spanda and Pratyabhijna lived AFTER Shankara. And Krama and Kaula Masters, who existed in pre-Shankara's times, were Siddhas and Yoginis. They never cared about writing philosophical treateses.
Irrelevant to my statements.

Paradvaita can be accepted as vedanta only when it accepts superiority of Veda over agamas. Else it stands as siddantic view, which was condemned by Sankara, establishing Vedantic religion over all othe siddantic religion.

Once all siddantic religion has lost its ground, there is no scope of reviving it


It could have been that sophisticated Tantric metaphysics was developed as a response to Advaita-vedanta spreading. Though grounds of Tantric Monism are totally independent and pre-Shankara's.

If grouns of Tantric monism is pre-sankara's then it should had been defeated by Sankara, else it should be of later. In any case, such basis in unavailable as all siddantic views are defeated, hence there is no siddantic views in kashmir to revive Tantric monism

Sudarshan
15 June 2006, 08:41 AM
Any meaning can be derived with conceptualisation and that is not the way. Advaitam and Nirgunam are two words. Rest is all your mental concepts.


Advaita = Nirguna is also your own mental concept - It is adopted from Buddhist Tatashta and not vedanic Bragman. Atanu, you have not yet shown one evidence yet for showing that the meaning of Nirguna is Nirvishesha.




Yes. This supports Advaita. Being all the things Brahman is yet kevalo Nirgunascha who is the fourth Turiya but as Pragnya/Taijjjaso, and Vaisvnanaro, He is ALL as well. But He is Advaitam and Nirgunam Fourth Turiya First.

Settled.


Turiya itself is not NB Atanu. Remember it is mentioned as handsome, and your NB cant be.;)



Yes again. Complete surrender does not happen with you. 'I am a bhakta who has surrendered to Lord' claim retains the doership, which is wrong. When you do not know the Self, What do you surrender?


In your advaita there is no one to surrender to, is it? Do these passages mean surendering to oneself? Come on, dont misconstrcut the Gita to your whims and fancies.

You are wrong about VA preaching not knowing the Atman. Atman in Brahman, Surrender is effected to Brahman by the jivatman when the Atman is known, In advaita, such a concept is not relevant.



Nowhere soul as subset is mentioned. These are inventions and lies. What is mentioned is that Atma cannot be cut, burnt etc. There is no equivalent word for soul in Gita. There is however 'Purusha and Atma'. Purusha enmeshed in Prakriti is Man. And as has been pointed out again and again the very concept of division has bbeen shown to apparent and not real by a verse in 13 th Chapter.


15.7 has clarified that all living beings( sentients) are part( and hence subset) of Krishna. Your interprettion of this is a blatant lie.( by using Akandaratha and all are unwarranted superimpositions)

As for people holding the world to be illusion of any kind: Gita says this,

They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is
produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.( 16.8)

Since there are no people or philosophies in the world that say that the world is unreal phenomenally, this is specificaly referring to who call it unreal in any way. That should ideally end the claims of Mayavada.





The Self is ONE but appears as if divided in beings.


Not denied by VA. As you know, Vishnu alone exists in VA, and all such divisions have to be apparent only.




Does anything depend on your acceptance? I said animals have better perception and there are infinite perceptions. So, all will overrule shruti. You cannot be selective.


Yes, dont overrule shurti. Please tell me how "butterin milk" in mukti can be advaita as explained in Svet Up. Dont be selective please. I have not seen one response from you yet.




Vedas teach us that what is not percieved by senses through the Mahavakyas. Vedas would be useless to teach us that which is known to every one through perception. Some bend Mahavakyas to accomodate preferences.

VA does not preach that Brahman is known through perception, in that case it should be seen right now. So Mahavakyas have to be interpreted as to make sense with the rest of the shruti and not like advaita that says that most of the vedas are "attattvavedaka" ( false telling). Unfortunately you have confused yourself with unknowability and incomprehensibility which are two very different terms. VA says Brahman is knowable through the Atman( not through senses or mind), but Advaita says it is not even knowable because Brahman has no self awareness.

atanu
15 June 2006, 10:01 AM
Advaita = Nirguna is also your own mental concept - It is adopted from Buddhist Tatashta and not vedanic Bragman. Atanu, you have not yet shown one evidence yet for showing that the meaning of Nirguna is Nirvishesha.
.

No Gita says so. Svet Up. Says So. I have not used any qualifying term like Nirvishesha etc., since Advaitam -- one without a second is enough. Qualifying Advaitam as: A Flower (Brahman) and its (redness) are ONE but also TWO beings is not acceptable.





Turiya itself is not NB Atanu. Remember it is mentioned as handsome, and your NB cant be.;)
.


Dont bring in Mahabharata as shruti and that too without the context. Mandukya says Turiya is indescribable.





Not denied by VA. As you know, Vishnu alone exists in VA, and all such divisions have to be apparent only.
.


Oh then why we are arguing? I say Turiya Shivo alone exists and all divisions are apparent only. I know you have great problem here.






-----. VA says Brahman is knowable through the Atman( not through senses or mind), but Advaita says it is not even knowable because Brahman has no self awareness.

Advaita says it correctly but you do not even try to understand. Self is true whereas ego self is false. Self knows Self only since Self is the eternal truth.



Ayamatma Brahma means This Atma is Brahman. Self is Brahman and awareness is from it. It is the very source of awareness and it cannot be thus correct to say that it has awareness. The correct is to say that the Self is pure awareness. Do you understand this subtle point? And you repeatedly ignore that only proof of it is in identity with it. So, in Turiya there cannot be an awareness of another.

From Gopala Tapaniya Upanishad I had shown that you do not understand what self is. You think that self is I and you. Surely, Turiya does not know I and You. And you have formed a preconcieved notion that for Turiya to not know I and You is inconcievable. This is your idea. Turiya has no such requirement or bondage.

This is well exemplified in Bhagavatam but only deeply discerning one will understand this. Lord Shiva is commonly known to have destroyed yagnas and done other fierce acts. But Bhagavatam says: Lord the destruction of Daksha yagna cannot be a subject of praise or prayer to you, since you do not even know how these things happen.

In Upanishads also shantam Shiva is the term used. Turiya is unchanging whether snakes crawl on Him, since He does not know any other. He is ONE ALONE. Shantam.

But as I have mentioned elsewhere prayers to Him are answered by Aditi -- the ALL including the Devas within ADITI.


Extracts from Gopala Tapaniya

18. Taste is contained within the element of water, although taste and water are different. Taste is contained within water. This water does not know. I am spirit. How can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


---------- (please read other containers and contents also)



21. When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


You have assumed that spirit, which is ONE and which appears to be MANY, has to know/think/lead etc and be a super hero of your mental concept. Spirit has no such inclination, else beggars and thiefs and rapists would not manifest (which you consider as reality).

Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
15 June 2006, 11:25 AM
Dont bring in Mahabharata as shruti and that too without the context. Mandukya says Turiya is indescribable.


Oh I see, that reference is not Mahabaratha, but BrihadAranyaka Up . I cited the verse number itself on this thread and in your enthusiasm to hold on to your illogical beleifs, you bypassed that. Read a few posts before this again.

You do not appear to have read any classics of advaita. Nor have you read the prastAna works of either advaita or VA. You do not know proper scripture and simple things such as quotes from Brihad Aranyaka. This discussion is pointless and this is my last post on this thread. Ignorance is bliss.;)

I also note that you did not address 16.8, nor the Svet up mukti, which should speak for itself. Rest are just irrelvant rehashes.

sarabhanga
16 June 2006, 02:35 AM
प्राणोऽपानो व्यान इत्यष्टावक्षराणि ।
अष्टाक्षरं ह वा एकं गायत्र्यै पदम् ।
एतदु हैवास्या एतत् ।
स यावदिदं प्राणि तावद्ध जयति योऽस्या एतदेवं पदं वेद ।
अथास्या एतदेव तुरीयं दर्शतं पदं परोरजा य एष तपति ।
यद्वै चतुर्थं तत्तुरीयम् ।
दर्शतं पदमिति ददृश इव ह्येषः ।
परोरजा इति सर्वमु ह्येवैष रज उपर्युपरि तपति ।
एवं हैव श्रिया यशसा तपति योऽस्या एतदेवं पदं वेद ॥

prāṇo'pāno vyāna ityaṣṭāvakṣarāṇi |
aṣṭākṣaraṁ ha vā ekaṁ gāyatryai padam |
etadu haivāsyā etat |
sa yāvadidaṁ prāṇi tāvaddha jayati yo'syā etadevaṁ padaṁ veda |
athāsyā etadeva turīyaṁ darśataṁ padaṁ parorajā ya eṣa tapati |
yadvai caturthaṁ tatturīyam |
darśataṁ padamiti dadṛśa iva hyeṣaḥ |
parorajā iti sarvamu hyevaiṣa raja uparyupari tapati |
evaṁ haiva śriyā yaśasā tapati yo'syā etadevaṁ padaṁ veda ||5.14.3||

The Prana, the Apana, and the Vyana, form eight syllables.
One foot [one third] of the Gayatri consists of eight syllables.
This [one foot] of it is that [i.e. the three vital breaths].
And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as there is anything that breathes.
And of that [Gayatri] this indeed is the fourth, the bright foot, shining high above the skies.
What is here called Turiya [the fourth] is meant for Caturtha [the fourth];
what is called Darshatam Padam [the bright foot] is meant for him who is as it were seen [i.e. the person in the sun ~ Surya Narayana];
and what is called Parorajas [he who shines high above the skies] is meant for him who shines higher and higher above every sky.
And he who thus knows that foot of the Gayatri, shines thus himself also with happiness and glory.

Darshata means “visible, conspicuous, or beautiful”, and it particularly indicates “the Sun”.

Darshata Pada is the very basis of visibility and beauty ~ the “soul of the sun” and the “light of all lights” ~ Narayana, as the undivided source of all inspiration and illumination.

The Turiya is the foundation of visibility ~ i.e. the Turiya is Conciousness itself!

स य इमांस्त्रीं लोकान्पूर्णान्प्रतिगृह्णीयात्सोऽस्या एतत्प्रथमं पदम् आप्नुयात् ।
अथ यावतीयं त्रयी विद्या यस्तावत्प्रतिगृह्णीयात्सोऽस्या एतद्द्वितीयं पदम् आप्नुयात् ।
अथ यावदिदं प्राणि यस्तावत्प्रतिगृह्णीयात्सोऽस्या एतत्तृतीयं पदम् आप्नुयात् ।
अथास्या एतदेव तुरीयं दर्शतं पदं परोरजा य एष तपति ।
नैव केन चनाप्यम् ।
कुत उ एतावत्प्रतिगृह्णीयात् ॥

sa ya imāṁstrīṁ lokānpūrṇānpratigṛhṇīyātso'syā etatprathamaṁ padam āpnuyāt |
atha yāvatīyaṁ trayī vidyā yastāvatpratigṛhṇīyātso'syā etaddvitīyaṁ padam āpnuyāt |
atha yāvadidaṁ prāṇi yastāvatpratigṛhṇīyātso'syā etattṛtīyaṁ padam āpnuyāt |
athāsyā etadeva turīyaṁ darśataṁ padaṁ parorajā ya eṣa tapati |
naiva kena canāpyam |
kuta u etāvatpratigṛhṇīyāt ||5.14.6||

If a man [a teacher] were to receive as his fee these three worlds full of all things, he would obtain that first foot of the Gayatri.
And if a man were to receive as his fee everything as far as this threefold knowledge extends, he would obtain that second foot of the Gayatri.
And if a man were to receive as his fee everything whatsoever breathes, he would obtain that third foot of the Gayatri.
But “that fourth bright foot, shining high above the skies”
cannot be obtained by anybody ~
whence then could one receive such a fee?

Arjuna
16 June 2006, 03:16 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
Vaishvanara = Kriya
Taijasa = Iccha = Vimarsha
Prajna = Jnana = Prakasha
Turiya = Ananda = Anuttara

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Standard KSh (Trika etc. and half of Krama tradition) holds a view of 5 functions of Samvit, and thus Chit (or ahAsA) and Ananda (or anAkhyA) are differentiated as Prakasha and Vimarsha.
There is another view (Krama-chatushtaya), which unites Ananda with Chit (anAkhyA with bhAsA), but in this case again Anuttara stands for Atattva, above all 36 principles. Perhaps, Anuttara might be Turyatita of Vedanta.


Turiya and Anuttara appear to be equivalent concepts; but if Vimarsha and Prakasha are coeternal with Anuttara, then Paradvaita is akin to Vishishtadvaita, although Trika raises Trimurti to the next level and makes Turiya (as Anuttara) the ultimate Lord of Creation ~ and this is contrary to the Mandukyopanishad (which knows Prajna as the only Creator) and contrary to Ajativada (which denies the unborn eternity of ANY diversity in Turiya).
Shankaracarya’s Advaita and Abhinavagupta’s Paradvaita serve exactly the same purpose; however, “Mayavada” follows Ajativada, whereas “Trika” follows Jativada.

I cannot say anything now about Jati and Ajati Vadas, this i have to examine first.

But yes, in Trika Anuttara is Maheshvara (not to confuse with Maheshvara as a face of tirobhAva-shakti, Tatpurusha), the Absolute Lord, Self-aware, alone existing and free.

Details of Monism of Trika and of Vedanta may differ, for their origins are independent and even developed they quite separately. However essentially they must be similar. As soon as Maya is accepted as a potency of Brahman, AV becomes not far from Trika. Other differences are non-essential.

atanu
16 June 2006, 04:03 AM
Oh I see, that reference is not Mahabaratha, but BrihadAranyaka Up . I cited the verse number itself on this thread and in your enthusiasm to hold on to your illogical beleifs, you bypassed that. Read a few posts before this again.

You do not appear to have read any classics of advaita. Nor have you read the prastAna works of either advaita or VA. You do not know proper scripture and simple things such as quotes from Brihad Aranyaka. This discussion is pointless and this is my last post on this thread. Ignorance is bliss.;)

I also note that you did not address 16.8, nor the Svet up mukti, which should speak for itself. Rest are just irrelvant rehashes.


Thanks for the compliments. You, unknowingly state a truth. I wish you will know this much for yourself also. I truly have not read anything.

I am a spirit. What can I read and where can I go? (my variation)
I am a spirit. What can I think and where can I go? (Gopala Tapaniya).


As for the Br. Up. reference, Sarabhanga Ji has shown what it is (which of course my Pragnya has known). Mandukya describing Turiya as shivo advaitam, indescribable, not consciousness or not non-consciousness, into which the world dissappers --- which is known in identity and which must be known --- stands perfect.

It must be known and unlearning is required.

Sudarshan
16 June 2006, 08:05 AM
With incorrect understanding of attributes, Advaita says that Exsitance=Knowledge=Bliss= Brahman each by itself.


Repsonse by Satay:



I am not an advaitan but even I know that this equation is wrong!

where are you getting your information about advaita!


Now, from Sarabhanga-ji



The Turiya is the foundation of visibility ~ i.e. the Turiya is Conciousness itself!


So I was right after all. Existance=Knowledge=Bliss=Visibility= Brahman each by itself. ;)

sarabhanga
16 June 2006, 09:06 AM
Brahman is pure Wisdom, and the ultimate Wisdom is knowledge of Existence, and the experience of pure (eternal) Existence is remembered as Bliss, and the very Self of all of this is the essence of “Consciousness”.

At the point of extremity all words fail, and it must be remembered that all these terms are only approximate descriptions of that which is ultimately beyond any definition.

Existence = Knowledge = Bliss = Consciousness = Turiya = Atman = Brahman; all of this simultaneously!

sarabhanga
16 June 2006, 09:13 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Of course all Shaiva systems prefer a five-fold divine plan, but I have used the four-fold Brahmanic arrangement (especially as given most plainly in the Mandukyopanishad) to allow some useful comparisons to be made.

Since all Hinduism originates from the Trayi, most philosophies have an ultimate Trinity; and so with only three essential categories, most philosophies look almost identical.

The Turiya’s creative formula is “1/1 divided by 3/3 remains equal to 1” ~ God is eternally unified, and yet always triple in expression ~ and 1 + 3 = 4.

In Ajativada, only the Turiya exists as an intrinsic eternal verity.

In Jativada, a degree of subdivision is allowed as being eternally true in Creation, and thus (for all practical purposes) these are considered as equally eternal verities.

Dvaita proposes that some degree of duality is absolutely eternal, and this division may be considered as two-fold and/or three-fold.

Vaishnava Vishishtadvaita knows Vaishvanara, Taijasa, and Prajna, as created divisions of Prajna, and this undivided Prajna is Narayana (who remains always Saguna, with Nirguna Brahman ignored, or denied as merely Void).

Paradvaita has Anuttara (expressed as Anuttara, Prakasha, and Vimarsha) as the highest (unborn) reality; and while the Vishva realm is excluded from truly eternal existence, it is included in the “lower” (created) triunity of Jnana, Iccha and Kriya. And thereby the Trika system neatly incorporates a double trinity into the four-dimensional framework.

Arjuna
16 June 2006, 09:13 AM
Brahman is pure Wisdom, and the ultimate Wisdom is knowledge of Existence, and the experience of pure (eternal) Existence is remembered as Bliss, and the very Self of all of this is the essence of “Consciousness”.

At the point of extremity all words fail, and it must be remembered that all these terms are only approximate descriptions of that which is ultimately beyond any definition.

Existence = Knowledge = Bliss = Consciousness = Turiya = Atman = Brahman; all of this simultaneously!

Fully agree :Cool:

BTW Mandukya does call the fourth pada as Shiva... :)

sarabhanga
09 August 2006, 10:23 PM
अ*इ*उण ऋऌक ए*ओङ ऐ*औच हयवरट लण
ञमङणनम झभञ घढधष जबगडदश खफछठथचटतव कपय शषसर हल


aiuṇa ṛḷka eoṅa aiauca hayavaraṭa laṇa
ñamaṅaṇanama jhabhaña ghaḍhadhaṣa jabagaḍadaśa khaphachaṭhathacaṭatava kapaya śaṣasara hala

Znanna
28 April 2007, 02:56 PM
Namaste,

One of the references cited by Agnideva's definition of Paradvaita:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1386

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Trika/emanation.htm

...led me to an illustration which reminded me of two others I have on file, one of which I post below. The notion I have is that each chakra has its own chakra system, and each of those its own reflections as well and all of those as well are mirrored, perfectly balanced in inverse proportion in infinite series.

Just a thought :)


ZN

Sahasranama
25 December 2010, 09:51 AM
Given that “Kashmiri Shaivism” is not based on the Brahmasutras, or even on the Upanishads, but rather on the Shivasutras of Vasugupta (c. 900 AD) it is not Vedanta. And Vasugupta’s dream seems to have been elaborated by subsequent disciples with the same Vishishtadvaita that was promoted by Ramanuja (c. 1100 AD). Abhinavagupta (c. 1000 AD) predates Ramanuja, however, and if Abhinavagupta had justified his Paradvaita through a commentary on the Brahmasutras then we could say that he was the first Acarya of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. His disciples (such as Kshemaraja) would have been contemporaries of Ramanuja, who applied the same philosophy (but with a Vaishnava perspective) to the Brahmasutras, thus firmly establishing the philosophy of his Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya.

Interesting fact. I have seen in a movie of Ramanuja's life that he went to Kashmir to obtain important texts on philosophy before writing his commentary on the brahma sutras.

Sudarshan
01 January 2011, 03:41 AM
Interesting fact. I have seen in a movie of Ramanuja's life that he went to Kashmir to obtain important texts on philosophy before writing his commentary on the brahma sutras.

That is right. Ramanuja is known to have referred to the elaborate commentary on the brahma sUtras by sage bodhAyana at kashmir. The authoritative and the most ancient commentary by bodhAyana is now lost and it appears that nobody other than Ramanuja was in possession of it at any point of time.

The story has it that Ramanuja went to kashmir in search of this commentary. The kashmiris were unwilling to let him have a copy of the text and instead gave him one day to go through it. Ramanuja's premier disciple known as kUreSha committed the entire work to memory in a single night and that is how Ramanuja managed to possess the entire text even though he was given only one day.

Sahasranama
01 January 2011, 12:24 PM
That is right. Ramanuja is known to have referred to the elaborate commentary on the brahma sUtras by sage bodhAyana at kashmir. The authoritative and the most ancient commentary by bodhAyana is now lost and it appears that nobody other than Ramanuja was in possession of it at any point of time.

The story has it that Ramanuja went to kashmir in search of this commentary. The kashmiris were unwilling to let him have a copy of the text and instead gave him one day to go through it. Ramanuja's premier disciple known as kUreSha committed the entire work to memory in a single night and that is how Ramanuja managed to possess the entire text even though he was given only one day.

I have been reading your posts with great interest, I am happy to see you posting again. I am always amazed with the memory of the learned pundits/acharyas of the past.