Shaivite refutation Of Advaita

[Spiritualseeker]

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

Namaste,

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

Om Arunachala Siva

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

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

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

Om Namah Sivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

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

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

I respect your question... being new, all this can be overwhelming. That said, I think if you are ~ new ~ to all this you may be starting at the deep end of the pool.

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

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

praṇām

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

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

Om Namah Sivaya

[Seeker123]

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

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8076
http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_6/0003.html

I started this thread to share this file with those interested in kashmir shaivism and not to argue with advaitins so I will recuse myself from this thread now.

I agree arguments never help. But it can help to understand the POV of that which is being refuted in this thread.

[Omkara]

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

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



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

"A square circle does not exist."



IMO, such statements needlessly vitiate the atmosphere in HDF.

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

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

[wundermonk]

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

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

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

[Omkara]

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

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

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

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

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

[wundermonk]

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

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

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

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

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

[Omkara]

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

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