Shaivite refutation Of Advaita

[Omkara]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101791730/...%9Aaiva-Tantra

[wundermonk]

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

[Omkara]

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

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

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

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

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

[Omkara]

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

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Om Namah Shivaya

[wundermonk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That will take time. That is an 18 page thread.

[Omkara]

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

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

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

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

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

[Omkara]

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

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

[Omkara]

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

[Omkara]

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