How do we counter this argument?

[MahaHrada]

MahaHrada Ji :
Is Shankara saying that the world does not exist?

Yes he did say exactly that, the problem is only that modern and neo advaitans continously try to deny that and are not adhering to kevala advaita but accept rather the parinama vada.

The parAdvaita of the kaula sampradaya which accepts that both Prakriti and Purusha give rise to each other is compatible with Quantum mechanics, because it is accepted that Brahman is immanent in his creation and both conciousness ie the watcher and the wavicle (mass of Prakriti) must exist and together in union they give rise to particle (bindu) and wave (nada) duality. This act of creation is even namend splitting the parabindu (union of nada and bindu) in tantra shastra.

Both Madhyamika Philosophy and Kevala advaita accept only conciousness as the sole existing unit, which is not compatible to physics neither to that based on traditional measurement the newtonian, because we can measure waves by instruments only, that can not be perceived by the senses, nor to quantum mechanics because the watcher and the wavicle both must exist, it is not enough that only the one watcher (like in kevela advaita) exists to begin creation because the wavicle must also exist to be able to be split into wave and particle by cognition.

Many of todays followers of Advaita vedanta are mislead, they often think that kevala advaita accepts the immanence of brahman in the jagat, which is a wrong assumption because shankara subscribes to the Vivarta vada where brahman eternally remains without any change i.e. as conciousness only as one without a second (and the world is an illusion, so whatever we see it is only the illusion of cognition and a cogniser, but there is no object that is cognised), Shankara did not teach the Parinama vada, where the brahman becomes or creates the universe which is compatible with science. Since science has proven that cognition needs some sort of outer reality even if it is something we cannot logically fully grasp such as a junction of wave and particle, the wavicle, Advaita vedantas Vivarta vada and Madhyamika is quasi refuted by modern Quantum mechanics as well as by the traditional methods of measurement.

Please consult traditional scholars of shankaras sampradaya not Vivekananda and other modern vedantists and you will find out that i am correct.

Please understand that i will stop this discussion now, and leave it to your discretion to consult the sources, because i already know that i will immediately after this posting, be abused by our HDF "experts" on Advaita vedanta, i have experienced that countless times before.

[satay]

namaskar,

Please understand that i will stop this discussion now, and leave it to your discretion to consult the sources, because i already know that i will immediately after this posting, be abused by our HDF "experts" on Advaita vedanta, i have experienced that countless times before.

Please 'report' any such 'abuse' to me immediately. All members must follow the forum rules and not make personal attacks on each other.

Thanks!

[atanu]

namaste Yajvan, Atanu and Brahman.

Thank you Atanu, for making my job easier. You have a valid point about the sat being ekam, and the world which is changing cannot be a second sat, and so must be a superimposition over the only sat, and so it can only be of that sat by that sat even for that sat, and I am totally convinced about it,

but I would still ask you, from the POV of the professor, that why should the reality of the world, although it is mutable and changing, be considered an illusion and hence unreal, specially when except a tiny percentage of jnAnis (whose experience is not within the realm of common people) consider it real by common consent and experience?

Namaste Saidevoji,

This intellectual debate has no end. Though there are numerous mention of snare/illusion in Upanishads, they will never be accepted intellectually, untill the need for salvation becomes intense. First, I will cite a few pramanas that assert that the jagat is not what it appears to be; whatever word one may employ to denote this transitory but binding nature.

Isha U.
hiraNmayena paatreNa satyasyaapihitaM mukham.h . tattvaM puushhannapaavR^iNu satyadharmaaya dR^ishhTaye .. 15..

15. The face of the Truth is veiled by a bright vessel. Mayst thou unveil it, O Sun, so as to be perceived by me whose dharma is truth.


Mahanarayana U.
saptapa~nchaasho.anuvaakaH .

ye te sahasramayu paashaa mR^ityo martyaaya hantave . taan yaj~nasya maayayaa sarvaanavayajaamahe .. 1..

LVII-1: O Death, those thousand and ten thousand and ten thousand snares which thou hast laid for slaying man, all of them we remove by the power of our deeds of worship.

Svet. U.

maayaa.n tu prakR^iti.n vidyaanmaayina.n cha maheshvaram.h . tasyavayavabhuutaistu vyaapta.n sarvamida.n jagat.h .. 10..

IV-10: Know then that Nature is Maya, and that the great God is the Lord of Maya. The whole world is filled with beings who form His parts.

Katha U.
2-I-1. The self-existent damned the out-going senses. Therefore one sees externally and not the internal Self. Someone (who is) intelligent, with his eyes turned away, desirous of immortality, sees the inner Self.

Though above cited verses clearly mention that nature is mAyA/ snare that hides the TRUTH, it will not be accepted by the professor or anyone who is not serious about attaining the Truth and Salvation. What is the goal? Is the following the goal of our professor?

Katha U.
1-III-15. By knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so also tasteless, eternal, odourless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death.


If the above is truly the goal then the following is true:

Katha U.
2-I-2. The unintelligent go after outward pleasures; they fall into the meshes of wide-spread death. But the intelligent, having known immortality to be constant, never covet here objects that are inconstant.

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

Still doubts will not go since the source and nature of the questioning Mind itself is Prakriti - maayaa, made of sound, touch and form. But how will the following be experienced, on way to liberation?

Katha U.
1-III-15. By knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so also tasteless, eternal, odourless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death.

Om Namah Shivaya

[saidevo]

namaste Devotee.

I don't understand the problem of the professor. The basic question is : The world is Brahman alone but why do we not see it as Brahman ? There is One alone but perceived in this world as Many .... how ?? Unless the Mithya theory is brought in here, how can this be answered ??

Prof.Nara's main issues are:

• 01. The One Reality, satyam, is only a theoretical possibility, as against the changing reality of the world which is readily and for ever perceptible. So we can't dismiss the reality of the world as mithyA--illusion/unreal.

• 02. How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)

• 03. Advaita is completely confusing, but Ramanuja darshan has some consistency.

Is there any consonance in the bheda, abheda, and ghaTaka shruti statements found in Vedas? As against this the everyday everyman's reality of the world is in more consonance to everyone. (post #26)

• 04. Terms such as 'absolute sat, absolute asat, vyAvahArika satyaM, prAtibhAsika satyaM, mithyA' do not make any sense in practical perspective. He asks, "But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?" (post #48)

• 05. The only reality in Advaita is the nirguNa brahman, since it is not easily reachable, concepts like the vyAvahArika satyaM are brought in, which have no support in the Vedas or other commonly accepted scriptures. (post #53)

• 06. When Advaita claims to have shruti basis, then there should be scriptural support for the statement that the jagat is mithyA. Is there any? (post #85)

• 07. His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post #90)

• 08. At some point of time, we need to grow out of our security blanket and face the reality. Just as Science constantly revalidates its knowledge, the recorded knowledge of the Rishis too must be scrutinized and revalidated, and this would not mean any disrespect to them, just as the scientific world still respects Newton, Darwin, and Einstein although their theories have undergone changes. (post #95)

"Leaving these differences between a theist like yourself and an atheist like myself aside, please cite evidence from the vedas that you hold as supreme for the notions like:
jagath is unreal

-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."

• 09. He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts

-- jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal

• 10. Shankara's concepts were not agreed to by RAmAnuja, and Madhva rejected them both. And then there are Jainas and Buddhas who dismiss even the Vedas as pramANa. Christianity and Islam reject rebirth. "With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?"

• 11. "Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience."

• 12. "Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic."

And then comes his last post quoted in full by Atanu.

**********

Although he is not accommodative to any other view than his own agnostic and materialistic views, he made my wonder: "About using what pramANas in the Vedas and UpaniShads did Shankara deduce his concepts, chiefly the most popular one, 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA'"?

Since I have not read Shankara's Brahma-sUtra bhAShya, or much of the Vedas and UpaniShads, I have started this thread for our own discussion, especially with regard to the points of contention that Prof.Nara has raised.

I am personally convinced as to Shankara's statement, whether there is shruti/prasthanatraya pramANa or not, but then I feel that there must be some missing link between the concepts of Shankara and those of the shruti/prasthanatraya. Since Shankara could have deduced his concepts only from the shruti/prasthanatraya, I feel we need to find out precisely how he derived them.

[atanu]

Many of todays followers of Advaita vedanta are mislead, they often think that kevala advaita accepts the immanence of brahman in the jagat, which is a wrong assumption because shankara subscribes to the Vivarta vada where brahman eternally remains without any change ----

Namaste All,

Shankara teaches Brahman as the Instrumental and Material cause of the Universe (but without undergoing any change itself). So, the premise is wrong.

Only similarity is our dream, wherein cities and elephants are created without any change in the dreamer. A dreamer may cry in anguish about his bad karma or revel in some glorious enjoyment -- yet that karma and that enjoyment do not persist.

Om Namah Shivaya

[satay]

namaste,

According to S N Dasguptra volume 1, sankara teaches that Brhaman is the only reality.
The 'material' thing including ourselves that we see is not true.

[devotee]

Namaste Saidevo ji,

He is mixing a lot of things & therefore confusing things. You should ask him to deal with issues only one a time. Once that is resolved, other issues can be taken up.

As he is an atheist, he must be strong believer in Scientific theories. You ask him : "There is a flower in front of me. It has certain colour, certain shape ... it is solid ... has certain type of fragrance. Now is the flower really what it appears ? I have written many times on this forum that the colour of the flower, its shape, its solid appearance & fragrance has no real existence. You can also ask him whether a solid wall is really solid ? A colorful cloth is really colorful etc. ?" This may show him that the reality of things is not what we perceive. And therefore the World is not really as we perceive it.

I may come up with point wise reply ... but it needs some time.

OM

[atanu]

namaste,

According to S N Dasguptra volume 1, sankara teaches that Brhaman is the only reality.
The 'material' thing including ourselves that we see is not true.

Namaste satay,

Shankara retold the Upanishads out of graciousness.

Mandukya U.

1. All this is the akhshara Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.
2. All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four padas.
--------------------
Just one step of this Self is vaishvanaro - the man who is vishva.

Om Namah Shivaya

[MahaHrada]

namaste Devotee.



Prof.Nara's main issues are:

• The One Reality, satyam, is only a theoretical possibility, as against the changing reality of the world which is readily and for ever perceptible. So we can't dismiss the reality of the world as mithyA--illusion/unreal.

• How did pure jnAna fall into ajnAna? If the teacher is free of ajnAna, and the people is only an illusion, why teach him at all? So many questions, but the answers hardly make sense. (post #20)

• Advaita is completely confusing, but Ramanuja darshan has some consistency.

Is there any consonance in the bheda, abheda, and ghaTaka shruti statements found in Vedas? As against this the everyday everyman's reality of the world is in more consonance to everyone. (post #26)

• Terms such as 'absolute sat, absolute asat, vyAvahArika satyaM, prAtibhAsika satyaM, mithyA' do not make any sense in practical perspective. He asks, "But, even from the religious perspective, what evidence is there from the shruthi or other commonly accepted shashthras for these assertions?" (post #48)

• The only reality in Advaita is the nirguNa brahman, since it is not easily reachable, concepts like the vyAvahArika satyaM are brought in, which have no support in the Vedas or other commonly accepted scriptures. (post #53)

• When Advaita claims to have shruti basis, then there should be scriptural support for the statement that the jagat is mithyA. Is there any? (post #85)

• His main agnostic contention is that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of Brahman, "So, 'brahman satyam, jagath mityam' is based on completely made up entity called brahman and a self-serving definition of the word 'non-existent'." (post #90)

• At some point of time, we need to grow out of our security blanket and face the reality. Just as Science constantly revalidates its knowledge, the recorded knowledge of the Rishis too must be scrutinized and revalidated, and this would not mean any disrespect to them, just as the scientific world still respects Newton, Darwin, and Einstein although their theories have undergone changes. (post #95)

"Leaving these differences between a theist like yourself and an atheist like myself aside, please cite evidence from the vedas that you hold as supreme for the notions like:
jagath is unreal

-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal."

• He says it is difficult to find Vedic pramANa for our key concepts

-- jagath is unreal
-- there is a sagnuna brahman who in reality does not exist, and,
-- only nirguna brahman is reality, and everything else is unreal

Shankara's concepts were not agreed to by RAmAnuja, and Madhva rejected them both. And then there are Jainas and Buddhas who dismiss even the Vedas as pramANa. Christianity and Islam reject rebirth. "With so much contradiction how can anyone claim even a modicum of authenticity to their version in the one revealed by God?"

"Finally, forbidding intellect from any validation is a very low bar. Anything can be claimed to be verifiable only through personal experience."

"Leaving that aside for the moment, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. But, within the context of the given faith, should there not be some logic, some consistency? If one says Vedas are perfect, inerrant, revealed by God, immutable, etc., etc., then please take on my questions at the top of this post. Irrespective of personal outlook on life, consistency within one's own predefined axiomatic parameters is not a luxury, but basic."

And then comes his last post quoted in full by Atanu.

**********

Although he is not accommodative to any other view than his own agnostic and materialistic views, he made my wonder: "About using what pramANas in the Vedas and UpaniShads did Shankara deduce his concepts, chiefly the most popular one, 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA'"?

Since I have not read Shankara's Brahma-sUtra bhAShya, or much of the Vedas and UpaniShads, I have started this thread for our own discussion, especially with regard to the points of contention that Prof.Nara has raised.

I am personally convinced as to Shankara's statement, whether there is shruti/prasthanatraya pramANa or not, but then I feel that there must be some missing link between the concepts of Shankara and those of the shruti/prasthanatraya. Since Shankara could have deduced his concepts only from the shruti/prasthanatraya, I feel we need to find out precisely how he derived them.

You should really take into account, when answering, that shankara seems to be the first sage in the long history of astika darshanas that has come to the conclusions that are criticised above, all other darshanas reject his interpretations with exactly similar arguments as those the professor mentions. Not even his Guru Gaudapada gives exactly these interpretation to the shruti. We only find a similar rejection of the reality of the world in the earlier Bauddha darshana, thats why a lot of scholars assume that Shankara was influenced by Nagarjunas Madhyamika philosophy.

[devotee]

Namaste saidevoji,

For scriptural support to Jagan Mithya :

Atma Upanishad - Atharva Veda

1. The good named the Atman is pure, one and non-dual always, in the form of Brahman. Brahman alone shines forth.
II-2. Even as the world with its distinctions like affirmation, negation, etc., Brahman alone shines forth.
II-3. With distinctions like teacher and disciples (also), Brahman alone appears. From the point of view of truth, pure Brahman alone is.
II-4. Neither knowledge nor ignorance, neither the world nor aught else (is there).
What sets empirical life afoot is the appearance of the world as real.
II-5(a). What winds up empirical life is (its) appearance as unreal.

----
I-28-29. Brahman suffers from no concealment whatsoever. It is uncovered, there being nothing other than It (to cover It). The ideas, �it is� and �it is not�, as regards Reality, are only ideas in the intellect. They do not pertain to the eternal Reality. So bondage and liberation are set up by Maya and do not pertain to the Self.

I hope it helps.

OM