Shaivite refutation Of Advaita

[shiv.somashekhar]

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?

The Advaita definition of Moksha says there is no duality at that point and hence there cannot be an entity like avidya. Other people do not exist at this point either nor does a past - which should answer your question.

To add, the advaita definition of Moskha is really no different from the Nirvana of Buddhism. If there is no duality, identity makes no sense nor does consciousness. The prachana baudha criticism is apt.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

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

With all due respect... one may wish to engage the reader within the opening of the post. A hello would be nice. Then some sort of prelog or preamble suggesting what you wish to do , or what you would like to accomplish.

A cut and paste and a directive to go read something is less engaging and minimizes the interests ( IMHO) of the reader.
We ask you to consider this apporach, as it is also outlined in our new guidelines.
We ask you to review the approach here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2550


praṇām

[Seeker123]

If there is no duality, identity makes no sense nor does consciousness. The prachana baudha criticism is apt.

I believe the Advaita POV is that there is duality/multiplicity as long as there is avidya. You are already the limitless nondual Brahman but you don't know it due to avidya. You think you are the limited body, mind, intellect etc. Brahman alone exists (nondual). Body, mind etc. dont have independent existence from Brahman. So they are Mithya, i.e. neither existent (independently that is of Brahman) nor non-existent like the horns on a human.

I am still learning. If I misrepresented the Advaita POV please let me know.

[Omkara]

The Advaita definition of Moksha says there is no duality at that point and hence there cannot be an entity like avidya. Other people do not exist at this point either nor does a past - which should answer your question.

To add, the advaita definition of Moskha is really no different from the Nirvana of Buddhism. If there is no duality, identity makes no sense nor does consciousness. The prachana baudha criticism is apt.

As I pointed out,this would only make sense if everyone attained moksha simultaneously when one person realized identity with Brahman.
In moksha,there is no past?This does not make sense to me.
I still fail to understand how it could be said that avidya NEVER EXISTED in the first place.
I have read from multiple sources that in Advaita the ontological position of avidya is unexplained and is regarded as inexplicable.Then how can such statements be made about an entity that we cannot define or explain?

[Omkara]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�


With all due respect... one may wish to engage the reader within the opening of the post. A hello would be nice. Then some sort of prelog or preamble suggesting what you wish to do , or what you would like to accomplish.

A cut and paste and a directive to go read something is less engaging and minimizes the interests ( IMHO) of the reader.
We ask you to consider this apporach, as it is also outlined in our new guidelines.
We ask you to review the approach here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2550


praṇām

I will keep that in mind.Thank you.

[Seeker123]

So the Advaitin argument that Brahman is inactive is refuted.

Advaita POV is that Nirguna Brahman does not have any guna, so cant listen, can act etc. But how can God listen to our prayers? The explanation is that it is the Saguna Brahman (Ishwara) which does but Saguna is not independent of Nirguna it is merely Nirguna with Maya. You may refer to Shri. SN Sastry's explanation here

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses...ns/nirguna.htm

BTW I just came across this related thread and am reading it
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7708

[Omkara]

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

[wundermonk]

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?

Firstly, no Advaita school believes that everyone is liberated when one person attains moksha.

Secondly, I do not "belong to one of those advaita schools" or other of their schools. I am just putting forth what I believe to be the Advaitic position.

[wundermonk]

I still fail to understand how it could be said that avidya NEVER EXISTED in the first place.

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.

Then how can such statements be made about an entity that we cannot define or explain?

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

"A square circle does not exist."

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

IMO, such statements needlessly vitiate the atmosphere in HDF.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

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.

From a kaśmir śaivism POV brahman is recognized, yet slightly differently ( not better, just another angle).

In kaśmiri śaivism tṛtīyam brahman is considered. What can this be ?
It is a standard point of reference that brahman is considered as oṁ-tat-sat in vedānta. In trika ( or kaśmir śaivism ) it is called the 3rd brahma.
That is , in oṁ-tat-sat it is the 3rd defining idea or sat that is considered. Yet this brahman is considered vast ( bṛhat) , all pervading (vyāpaka) and is completely in union with śakti.

In vedānta one may call out brahman as oṁ-tat-sat or as sat-cit-ānanda. In kaśmir śaivism this whole concept can be related with one word sauḥ ( sa +au + ḥ) and is considered amṛtbīja, the very heart (hṛdaya) of bhairava ( paramaśiva).

Now within kaśmiri śaivism there are some differences ( not objections) to vedānta:

• yoga in action (karma-yoga)
• mokṣa and its delineation
• ignorance and its ( complete) elimination
• who is fit to practice yoga
• the notion of māyā
• what is pure and impure
• the ultimate Reality as being dormant or active ( aware of It-Self)

These are just a few... to develop these ideas to the fullest extent should be done in the uttara folder, as these are advanced in depth-and-breath of thinking.


praṇām