PDA

View Full Version : Advaita Vedantha: Serious Attention Required: Part II



brahman
21 May 2012, 06:05 AM
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Dear Members,

This thread is a continuation of what has been discussed in Advaita Vedantha: Serious Attention Required (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8996) Part I which was closed for a review. This thread will not feature any kind of need or request for a new sub forum on advaita instead emphasizing on healthier topics contributed by our wise members.


--------------------------------------------------


Dear Sri. Satay,

Fully understood the situation occurred in the last thread and appreciate your wise decision on this issue. Thank you so much.

--------------------------------------------------


Dear Uttam,

Uttam Wrote:


For your information, I have not gone through advaita literatures vigorously.
The total advaita philosopy is explained in terms of perception out of some examples. It is surprising that the whole philosophy of Mayabad is explained in terms of some perception involving some examples only.


The science of the absolute called advaitha vedantha is preached on the basis of three major elements or its methodological procedures of inquiry into the truth includes three major factors Viz.


1) Shruthi: Authority of the shruthi passages, or intuitive experience of the ancient sages.

2)Logic and Reasoning: Though shruti�s are the ultimate authority, Sankara uses his full reasoning power as well, therefore logic and reasoning is an essential requisite for comprehending his true Vision and accomplish a successful philosophical contemplation.

3) Anubhuthi: Sankara takes man as the centre of discussion and analyses his individual experiences. This is clear from the fact that Sankara calls his Brahmasutra Bhashya as �Saareerika mimaamsa bhaashya�. In the upothghatha of this unparalleled piece of work he neither speaks of Brahman nor about the reality of the world but only of man and his experience.

Uttam Wrote:



May be we are not having the required intellect to understand the reasoning of some the happeings of this world. Does it mean they are all false ?



Thats right, the doctrine of Sankara has been as much subjected to criticism as the doctrine regarding the world, many critics even today take him to be an illusionist. Let�s examine what Sanakra says on the appearance of this world..


Sankara does not start with the assumption that the world is existing. It is treated as an �appearance�(very important to note). So strictly speaking the enquiry in vedantha is not about the reality of the world, but about what is presented to us by sense-perception. The world always appears �to� the individual souls , if the individual souls were not existing there would not have been this appearance. And individual notion of �I� is placed due to avidya/adhyasa as a conditioning factor. That is, the world appears as long as avidya prevails in the individual souls. By avidya one mistakes Brahman for this world. When it dispels with the grace of a Guru or intense mediation upon the scriptural perception, one realizes one�s own identity with Brahman, and �world appearance� diminishes and the question of the reality of the world does not arise.

As you said Uttam, our knowledge is limited to our experience; we perceive only what appears to us. It cannot be real for it is sublated by the knowledge of Brahman. It cannot also be considered as non being, for it is a reality in our day-to-day experience. This is why Sankara holds that the nature of the world is unknowable and therefore indefinable. Apart from the sense data we have no proof of the world existing, all the 6 senses have no absolute existence and experience from it is found to be variable(anithya), and can be listed as examples of illusory experiences too. Knowledge accumulated through sense data cannot be, thus, relied upon as a perfect source of valid knowledge. Is it?

According to the Sankara, the nature of the world is un-understandable and this characteristic of the world he expresses in terms like Maya, Anivacaniya, Sad-Asat vilakshna etc...


We cannot criticise a philosophy merely for the reason we do not understand it or just because we have been taught to dislike it. Think independently, we must think our own, with our intellect wide open.



--------------------------------------------------

devotee
22 May 2012, 01:43 AM
Namaste Brahman,

I am really sorry. How can I commit mistake again and again in understanding your intentions in your posts ? It is the third time when this has happened. :(

Actually, if you read the sentence, "Does this indirectly means that you have been a class-VIII’s physics student earlier and then qualified for the advanced physics called quantum mechanics." ... it can be interpreted in the way I saw it. I always value your posts and your views on Advaita VedAnta and I am glad that I was proved wrong again.

Now to answer your questions :

I was never a child who would accept things just because it was written in a book or told by someone. I was a sort of rebellious child who would accept only logical arguments. So, my head was always full of questions on spirituality even at a very young age. My parents, though non-sectarian Hindus, were inclined towards Vaishnavism so naturally I was drawn towards that initially. However, reciting texts from RAmAyANa, singing bhajans etc. didn't answer my questions. I asked these questions :

a) Why God needs to be worshipped at all for being pleased ? Does He have human weakness as being pleased with praise etc. ? My conscience answered, "No. God cannot have such weaknesses.".

b) Why should we place so much importance on image worship ? Is God concentrated in the image alone ? My Conscience told me, "No. It can't be.".

c) What are we doing with indulging in bhajans and kirtans, offering him/her flowers ? God cannot encourage sycophancy.

d) How can Mantras do any favour to us ? Just repeating some words which have no meaning in any other language than Sanskrit ... how can it accrue any merit ? I chanced upon the writings of Acharya Rajneesh on this issue but it didn't satisfy me.

e) I could not get any answer from any one for my this most difficult question : If this all is created by some entity called God, why did He create it at all ? This horrible world ! How can He create this world and expect us to praise Him for giving us this horrible "existence" ?

However, the reality was that "I existed", "this world existed" and there was certainly some intelligent system working behind all this. This all cannot be just by chance. It was not possible. ... so, the questions existed and kept bothering me.

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

My father encouraged me to read Bhagwad Gita. This book made immense sense to me. Most of questions got answered. However, I had no clue what the Advaitic verses in chapter 13 meant, if Krishna (some super-human God) was behind all this mystery. There were other verses in chapter 6, chapter 2 also which remained foggy to me. It appeared to me that Lord Krishna is just playing with words in those verses talking impossible combinations at the same time like "It is neither sat nor Asat", "I am not in those beings though all beings are in me" etc.

But this book left a deep impression on me. I accepted Lord Krishna as my Guru and God.

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

In around year 2006-2007 I came into contact with some friends on internet who discussed Advaita. Much of this was not clear to me. I initially thought that it was all jugglery of words. Once I had a long discussion with one of the friends and that left me shocked for quite a few days. I felt that I was just a kid picking up pebbles on the side of the vast ocean of spirituality. There was so much to know and understand. I started reading RamaNa Maharishi who was my first favourite on Advaita, then Nisragadatta Maharaj, Wei-Wu-Wei, VivekAnanda on JnAn yoga, MahAyAn Buddhism, Sufism and then finally to Upanishads. Upanishads proved to be the treasure of knowledge I was looking for. I soon became an avid reader of Upanishads with Shankaracharya's commentaries. Slowly I also started reading Upanishads which were not commented upon by Shankara. To avoid any confusion due to mistranslation, I bought original books of Upanishads in Sanskrit with Hindi translation so that I should get the exact meaning of the message of the Upanishads. I also read, "Man's eternal Quest" and "Divine Romance" written by Paramhansa Yogananda which explained things in a logical and scientific way. During this entire period, I was thinking, thinking and finding answers to my questions which bugged me for so long since my childhood. I am an engineer and I found that Advaita was supported by my analysis of atomic structure, Laws of Nature etc. I found that MAyA was indeed the cause of this world when I was able to visualise how a Solid Wall had actually nothing solid within it in reality.

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

By this time, Bhagwad Gita, Mantras, bhajans, kirtans etc. all started making sense to me. I theoretically understood how it all fitted together and made perfect sense.

*****************
So, this is what I wanted to say. Understanding Advaita for me was a long journey before it started to make perfect sense to me. I didn't start from Class VIII as you see. I started in KG without any knowledge of real physics if that explains my state in the beginning.

People come here. Learn a thing or two about Advaita and start bashing Advaita based on their half-cooked knowledge about it. That is what Uttam was doing. He ridiculed not only Advaita but also tried to show the greatest of Advaita teachers, Adi Guru Sri ShankarachArya in poor light as if He was actually a fraud who came to delude human beings of this world who were all bound to be liberated but for teachings of Shankara !!

OM

brahman
26 May 2012, 07:06 AM
Dear Devotee,

Sharing your experiences was so nice. Your beloved father as a helping hand, loving friends serving you with thoughts on wisdom, and above all, by the grace of god, we have lots to learn from these. What is admirable is that you always remained a self seeker, away from spoon feeding, and transforming every moment of your life to the search for true knowledge.

None of us are perfect. Some are seniors but none are seers, so let us therefore aim at this distant goal but not different from anyone of us.

Devotee wrote
“However, the reality was that "I existed", "this world existed" and there was certainly some intelligent system working behind all this. This all cannot be just by chance. It was not possible. ... so, the questions existed and kept bothering me.”
Then you added: ..
this book (Gita) left a deep impression on me, I accepted Lord Krishna as my Guru and God.


Q: You were so convinced, and that remained the sole reason you chose Lord Krishna as your first Guru. What was that unshakable belief that benefited you?


Q: How did Gita explain the existence of this World and US as individuals?


“I found that MAyA was indeed the cause of this world when I was able to visualise how a Solid Wall had actually nothing solid within it in reality.”

Q: How precisely does the Upanishads explain Maya as the cause of this world?


Q: How do you differentiate the teachings of the Gita and the Upanishads in the issue of existence (of both the World and “I”)?


I am not always connected to the internet and not a busy person either, so feel free to take enough time to answer this, you may even take a stand of No-Reply to this.


---------------

Devotee wrote
People come here. Learn a thing or two about Advaita and start bashing Advaita based on their half-cooked knowledge about it. That is what Uttam was doing. He ridiculed not only Advaita but also tried to show the greatest of Advaita teachers, Adi Guru Sri ShankarachArya in poor light as if He was actually a fraud who came to delude human beings of this world who were all bound to be liberated but for teachings of Shankara !!


Uttam is equally competent to any member here. he is curious about advaita vedanta. he feels this particular science misguides a mass of people , and feels pity towards it.

So it is his deep concern pertaining to the future of many than a personal attack . or could be seen as a a kind of elucidation in terms of the pramanas(authorized knowledge) he has been taught

As everyone has the freedom to express himself and get clarified by the compassionate comrades, let us consider this issue ethically. Fighting is not an end to any means. This is my POV on this


---------------

Love:)

devotee
27 May 2012, 02:10 AM
Namaste Brahman,



Q: You were so convinced, and that remained the sole reason you chose Lord Krishna as your first Guru. What was that unshakable belief that benefited you?

I don't know whether I would be able to tell you exactly how I felt before being exposed to Advaita. However, the understanding was mostly dualistic. I used to read Bhagwad Gita almost everyday to have clear understanding where I had problems. For that I also started translating Bhagwad Gita from Sanskrit myself to know exactly what Lord Krishna wanted to say. Normally, it gets coloured by the translators' inclination towards a path.

Actually, this was the best scriptures among all the scriptures I had studied so far. However, it doesn't mean that I remained a pure Bhkata all the time ... many a times, doubts took me towards Atheism.


Q: How did Gita explain the existence of this World and US as individuals?

Lord Krishna explains this in Chapter 2 which can be interpreted in both dualist manner and non-dualist manner --- "There was no time when these Kings didn't exist ... etc.". Then he also talks of how Prakriti plays a role in creation of everything etc.


Q: How precisely does the Upanishads explain Maya as the cause of this world?

There are many places in Upanishads where it has been indicated. One can refer SarvaSaropanishad, Mantrikopanishad, NirAlambopanishad etc.

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

I don't feel any incentive to tell you all this when I very well know that you have a good grasp on Advaita VedAnta. So, I won't be responding to your questions any more in this thread.

When there is true desire to know from someone who doesn't know, there is an incentive to take pains to explain things to him/her. In absence of that, I feel like I am trying to prove my understanding of Advaita to you .... as if I am taking some exams ! ... and I really don't like it. :)

OM

Seeker
28 May 2012, 12:13 AM
Devotee Ji,
Thanks for the brief story. I learn a lot from your posts and it is an interesting background you have.

brahman
28 May 2012, 12:32 AM
Namaste Brahman,



... and I really don't like it. :)

OM




No worries Dear devotee, please dismiss the issue out of your mind. Love:)

brahman
28 May 2012, 12:51 AM
Namaste devotee,

Pardon me for butting in, but this really caught my attention. I'm curious to know why you thought these questions were so difficult to answer. It seems to me that many of your questions are based on false premises. For example, question (a) seems to presuppose some "need" on the part of God aka Brahman to be worshipped. Whereas I think a Vedaantist would say that He is completely satisfied in and of Himself and does not require our worship. Our worship is beneficial for us. Question (b) seems to suggest that icon-worship implies not being all-pervasive. I've never seen any such claim by any Vedaanta tradition. In fact, one could argue that, if God is all-pervasive, then He is in the icon also - so why so much skepticism about it? Question (c) again seems based on the false premise motivating question (a) - God does not need these things because He has everything - we offer for our own benefit. I am reminded of the famous Gita verse "patram pushpam phalam toyam..." - God is self-satisfied, but when a devotee out of pure love offers something to Him, even if it is some little thing, then He gets attracted to it as if it were something He did not have. Question (d) - how can mantras have benefit? Well, how can any meditation have benefit? If you believe meditation is beneficial, then why would meditation with mantras not be beneficial? Doesn't it seem logical to assume that meditation carried out with more of the senses engaged (i.e. speaking and hearing) will allow greater concentration? Finally Question (e) seems to be asking two questions - why did He create this world and why did He create us? First, He did not "create" us - we are existing eternally as the Upanishads say - nityo nityANAm chetanas chetanANAm..... In the shAstras it is mentioned that before pralaya we exist along with matter in an unmanifest state, dormant, and that when all this is brought forth (i.e. the creation) then we get bodies according to our previous karma. So, creation is an opportunity for the souls to perform activity, especially those activities that lead to liberation.



regards,

Philosoraptor


Philosoraptor writes: I guess I was just not clear on why any of those questions should be bothersome in any way.






Dear Philosoraptor,

This has been clarified by devotee in the same post as follows ;

Devotee wrote
By this time, Bhagwad Gita, Mantras, bhajans, kirtans etc. all started making sense to me. I theoretically understood how it all fitted together and made perfect sense.



Love:)