Originally Posted by
saidevo
namaste Devotee, Atanu, Yajvan, Brahman, Harekrishna, Satay, and other Advaitins,
Originally Posted by
saidevo
Our task is two-folded:
1. to find the shruti/prasthanatraya references not only for the statement 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' but also for Shankara's three concepts: vivarta vAda, adhyAsa--superimposition, prAtibhAsika satyaM;
2. to find out answers which although spiritual/philosophical, can still be understood by the mind/intellect, say by suitable analogies and counter-arguments, to the issues I have quoted, and any issues raised by followers of Dvaita and VishiShtadvaita sampradAyas, with a spirit of reconciliation, by tracing the hierarchy where all concepts fit, with Advaita being at the peak as the ultimate unity. This would help us to learn our philosophy better.
I think the answers could be in Shankara's commentary on the UpaniShads and the Brahma sUtra, besides other works like PanchAdashi.
Namaste Saidevoji and all friends,
You have nicely bulleted the task as twofold. The first answer is there in all Shankara bhashyas -- although we must understand the meaning eventually and not stick with the words -- which we know are changeable through time. The problem with word is unsurmountable and thus it is said that the Truth is beyond the Word and the Mind. For example if I say that mouse is a rodent, a computer nerd may contradict saying "No mouse is an appliance". Both are correct. As Yajvanji says 'purna' is the truth.
At the outset I wish to say that it is not about winning debates. It is about gaining that happiness which we seem to have lost. The goal is to together attain that unbroken happiness. With this background, I will note down a few points.
Shri Nara has indicated that he has doubts that Veda speaks about the eternal truth. He gives credence to scientific enquiry more than the validity of scripture, yet he says VA is more logical. Actually, IMO, Dvaita is most logical for the waking world experience.
On this account, I would request Shri nara to consider a dead body and ask Shri Nara about the lost ability of the dead body to proclaim "I am this dead body". Does he know the life-intelligence that animates all bodies? Does Science know it? At this stage I would leave him to find his own answer rather than saying that it is our belief that scriptures deal with this unknown entity. Of what use is saying "I know this", when the "I" is not known?
Second. Rig Veda itself gives a hint of an illusion that Indra battles and wins:
Rig Veda
10.054.01 (I celebrate), Maghavat, the great glory (you have acquired) by your might; when heaven and earth alarmed called upon you, you did defend the gods, and destroy (their) adversary; (I celebrate your glory), Indra, in that you gave strength to one person (the worshipper).
10.054.02 When you proceed, Indra, increasing in form, and proclaiming your prowess among mankind, false is that your (wandering), false the combats which you have narrated; you (find) now no enemy (to attack), did you formerly find one?
10.054.03 Who among the r.s.is before us have obtained the limit of your entire greatness, since from your own person you have generated at once both mother and father (or earth and heaven)?
But as I pointed out earlier, words will always be interpreted based on one's experience. Science knows this as selective cognition. A different meaning can be ascribed to above verses by another reader. So we come to the third point which corresponds to your second bullet point -- that of finding spiritual philosophical answers that can be understood by mind. This is imporatant since, it is the mind that needs to be tamed with right understanding.
Scriptures teach that to gain unbroken freedom from fear (of death) and pain one must know the Atma-Brahman (that unknown entity which is the subject of Veda-Upanishad).
The implications of this requirement was placed in HDF and elsewhere and I have seen no refutation. At the best, I have seen devotees wriggling away by saying "Our goal is not to know Brahman-Atman".
Although, the following was posted several times, I will re-iterate for the sake of new readers. Also i will re-iterate the goal by citing from another Upanishad:Maha Upanishad
tadbrahmaanandamadvandva.n nirguNa.n satyachidghanam.h . viditvaa svaatmano ruupa.n na bibheti kadaachana .. 70..
paraatpara.n yanmahato mahaantaM svaruupatejomayashaashvata.n shivam.h .kaviM puraaNaM purushha.n sanaatanaM sarveshvara.n sarvadevairupaasyam.h .. 71..
IV-70-72. One fears never (and from nothing) on knowing the nature of the self as Bliss unequalled, attributeless and one mass of truth and consciousness. That is beyond all that is beyond, greater than the greatest, lustrous and eternal in nature, wise, ancient Being, Sarvesvara.
Similarly, as per the teaching of Mandukya Upanishad, one must know the advaita atman, which is defined as: The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
· It is unchanging and it is known as One, all phenomena come to cessation.
- It is the Self -- not another one. Self cannot be another one.
· It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out. In that case advaita will be broken
· It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out. Else, its composition will continuously change.
· It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
· It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible. It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
· It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.
In summary, what exists as knowledge must also exist as gross reality and what exists as gross reality must have its spiritual reality. But all these categories are in Pragnya Ghana in potential form and expressed in Svapna and Jagrat. Advaita Atman, the revealer of homegeneous Pragnya, is however unchangeable eko. It is not possible to know advaita atman by remaining as a second being apart from advaita atman. In that case neither advaita (not two) is upheld, nor can another be atman. It is also not possible to hold the notion "I am doing". Thus Shri Krishna says that the truth is known in samadhi alone.
Advaita thus does not deny the reality of the phenomenal realms of Lord Sarvesvara, Taijjasso and Agnivaisvanaro, neither does it deny existence of potential forms and names in Shushupti in seed form. It however, gives a concrete outlook to fulfil the scripture's call "That is the Self, that is to be known".
-------------------------
With the premise, that it is not about winning a debate but that it is about something much more profound, I would leave professor with only questions. Gradually the Self in him will impel him to acknowledge a few things.
Om Namah Shivaya
PS: IMO, with proofs of Shankara Bhashya alone the task will not be accomplished, since the doubts are on those.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks