Advaita and Its Fallacies

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Thank you for your reply. First of all I feel there is a difference between “ I disagree” and “You are wrong”. Left with nothing to do I browse our website and read the contents with interest. I become wiser by the day and stunned by the people’s knowledge. Because I am an ordinary man. Believe me, I am not pretending to be an ordinary man but just that. You say there is no question of discord and I am glad you said it.

When an arrow is shot from the bow there is a time in between before it hits the target. Like our own positions in the ‘world’, let us forget when the arrow was shot and when it hit the target. Now if we divide the time to the minutest fraction, we may find that it does not travel. I am not sure whether my analogy is correct. But my quote should only serve the minimum purpose. The entire thing is Maya; so there is no question of the tree or its seeds, much less a “real” elephant or the marapaachchi. I think it would be appropriate to say that Knowledge is Brahman and Brahman is the knowledge.

In the matter of questioning the scriptures for more enlightenment, I am afraid the “advaita” philosophy is the most abused one if I may say so, so much so that least is known on ‘Dwaitam’ and ‘Vashishtadwaitam’. In whatever way other religions envisage god, the atman has to shed its cloak it has enclosed itself within, to be devoid of this egoistic universe and all that it contains, to be one with That One much the same way. I think it is difficult not to understand than to understand.

Shri Sankaraachaarya has presented to us in a better way what was there before like Kannadaasan gave it to us from Pattinaththar paadals. I promise you I am not at all offended by your appreciation of me and it is your privilege and pleasure to hold any opinion of me and my views. I will continue to respect the knowledge base the site provides and the people of
your stature who provide it.

I just came across the “mind chow” saying ‘everybody knows how to say nothing but few know when’. I feel I failed to put it across then and hence hate to repeat my mistake. With regards,

Shri Iyyaarooraan ji,

Thank you for your kind reply. I observe that you hold advaita in very high esteem. If that be true, it was rather inappropriate, IMO, to cite one of Zeno's paradoxes to justify advaita; because, it will imply that just as Zeno's flying arrow paradox can be (and has been) proved mathematically false, advaita will also be seen as something which can be proved as false. I hope I am able to convey my idea clearly enough.

Advaita has been questioned but definitely not "abused" - either by using foul language against it or by treating it badly - by any of our great Acharyas, but it was, indeed, questioned and deemed by them to be untenable. Most advaitins also follow only the dvaita way of looking at God (as far as we can see around us today) and, as seen from some of the opinions expressed in this thread itself, many knowledgeable people hold the view that Sankara also endorsed all the rituals, pantheistic worship, bhakti, etc., and that these purify a person (they refer to body, mind and intellect, I presume) and makes that person eligible for the brahman to manifest in him. This appears to me as similar to the descent of God in the case of David.

The very fact that visishtadvaita and dvaita, let alone the acintya bhedabheda of caitanya, nimbarka sampradaya, the vallabha school, etc., came into the scene, shows that there were people who did not agree with the advaita concept of Sankara, and, more importantly, that such questioning and doubting were not considered as sacrilege in those times. May be it was because many brahmins and non-brahmins of those days were scholars who could understand the subtle nuances of these various schools of thought and could either accept or reject any or all of these. It is only in recent times that we brahmins have lost that type of scholarship and try to hold on to some things as sacrosanct and any doubts or questions about these sacrosanct items is not tolerated and such doubts/questions are immediately branded as brahmin-bashing, hindu-bashing, swollen egos caused by little knowledge of Sanskrit, OCD, etc., etc.

I recall having read somewhere that the cannibalistic, jungle tribes of New Guinea (this is from my memory only) still hold as sacred an airstrip built during the WW II by RAF in the jungles (to avoid detection by enemy planes). These primitive people thought that "gods" had come down to earth in their holy chariots and then ascended to heaven again; they are sure the "gods" will come again and so they should not do anything to tamper with that holy spot which will be used by their "gods" for the next "descent"! Our present attitude to our scriptures is very similar to this, I think.

 

[Nara]

...I recall having read somewhere that the cannibalistic, jungle tribes of New Guinea (this is from my memory only) still hold as sacred an airstrip built during the WW II by RAF in the jungles (to avoid detection by enemy planes). These primitive people thought that "gods" had come down to earth in their holy chariots and then ascended to heaven again; they are sure the "gods" will come again and so they should not do anything to tamper with that holy spot which will be used by their "gods" for the next "descent"! Our present attitude to our scriptures is very similar to this, I think.

Dear Shri Sangom, I appreciate your incisive presentation, as always. These pacific island cults are called Cargo Cults. The cult is a mix of traditional practices and a belief in a mythical John Frum who will make a "second coming" and bring riches. In anticipation of this second coming the members of the cult build ceremonial air-strips that are considered sacred. A google search of John Frum or Cargo Cult will yield lot of material. Click here for the Wikipedia article.

This John Frum tradition began and took root under our very noses, and therefore, we can get an idea of how long standing traditions may have formed and taken root. Today, we hold Vedas as the final immutable truth that is even aupureshaya, without ever understanding what is in it. For example, as you know much better than I will ever, a range of brutal sacrifices are prescribed in the Vedas for various wishes, are these immutable truths? Even if we reject Poorva Mimamsa and hail onlu the Uttara, even here there are tall stories as to how jagath was created, are these immutable truth?

People casually claim Advaita is the supreme, the ultimate state. But when questions are raised, they are perfunctorily swept aside -- it has to be experienced not explained. If that is so, have these people experienced it? If yes, how come they behave as though they have no belief in Advaitam, i.e. they behave as a distinctly separate entity different from all others, with no less self-interest than the rest of us? If not, how do they know it has to be only experienced?

I only wish the proponents of Advaitam will focus on giving logical answers to the questions. Instead, the norm is to tell others it is just so and you have a case of, as pannvalan puts it, சீ சீ இந்த பழம் புளிக்கும்". This is very unfortunate.

The questions that need to be contemplated upon have been record in this very thread, one may look it up if interested.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom, I appreciate your incisive presentation, as always. These pacific island cults are called Cargo Cults. The cult is a mix of traditional practices and a belief in a mythical John Frum who will make a "second coming" and bring riches. In anticipation of this second coming the members of the cult build ceremonial air-strips that are considered sacred. A google search of John Frum or Cargo Cult will yield lot of material. Click here for the Wikipedia article.

This John Frum tradition began and took root under our very noses, and therefore, we can get an idea of how long standing traditions may have formed and taken root. Today, we hold Vedas as the final immutable truth that is even aupureshaya, without ever understanding what is in it. For example, as you know much better than I will ever, a range of brutal sacrifices are prescribed in the Vedas for various wishes, are these immutable truths? Even if we reject Poorva Mimamsa and hail onlu the Uttara, even here there are tall stories as to how jagath was created, are these immutable truth?

People casually claim Advaita is the supreme, the ultimate state. But when questions are raised, they are perfunctorily swept aside -- it has to be experienced not explained. If that is so, have these people experienced it? If yes, how come they behave as though they have no belief in Advaitam, i.e. they behave as a distinctly separate entity different from all others, with no less self-interest than the rest of us? If not, how do they know it has to be only experienced?

I only wish the proponents of Advaitam will focus on giving logical answers to the questions. Instead, the norm is to tell others it is just so and you have a case of, as pannvalan puts it, சீ சீ இந்த பழம் புளிக்கும்". This is very unfortunate.

The questions that need to be contemplated upon have been record in this very thread, one may look it up if interested.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Thank you for your kind words of appreciation. I was rather unhappy when some honourable members started writing so many innuendos. I was thinking whether expressing myself more clearly is correct or not, when, fortunately, Shri KRN came in with his very balanced and polite comments.

The very unfortunate aspect about advaitam as understood today is that it is something like a cap. People have set beliefs that all the stotras and all are composed by Sankara in his short journey in this world. I don't think any of the Sankara vijayams give the circumstances of composition of most of these stotras, and there is not even a casual mention about Sankara composing the very many miscellaneous stotras which claim his authorship, with "Adi Sankara bhagavatpAda viracitam" or "Sankara bhagavatpAda viracitam", certificate. Even I have given a stotra on Gomathiamman of Sankarankovil in tamil nadu, which goes under Sankara's name.

The late Shri Panoli was out and out hindu who spent his entire life on researching sankara's works. AFAIK, he did not have any other work or profession. (May be he was a landlord with sufficient income.) I therefore feel that his opinions should be given more authenticity than those of even the Sankara Mathams because the Mathams may not like to take any unpopular stand today, even if they are convinced.

Whether I will have anything more to write about advaita will depend on what happens further in/to this thread.

 

[Mohan Parasuram]

Dear Sir,

It appears only an enlightened soul who has actually experienced and realised
can explain it properly. The Lord who is the all pervading manefested and unmanifested
self, that is he himself is the maya, also the truth beyond the gunas, with his own will power runs the universal drama. May be that the divine will, purpose and directions of the brahmin and who is also the manifested maya all amounts to the same. May be this amounts to no dualism. As said earlier, only an enlightened soul can explain it better.
So this must be considered as an attempt by an ordinary mortal[who has limited or no understanding.
Rgds
Mohan

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

It appears only an enlightened soul who has actually experienced and realised
can explain it properly.

Dear Shri Parasuram,

Welcome to this discussion. In my view the usual excuse voiced by many, and also echoed by you in the words, "It appears only an enlightened soul who has actually experienced and realised can explain it properly.", is the standard ruse employed to block any discussion of advaita. I do not know whether such a tactic is employed by SVs. [But from my rudimentary understanding of Visishtadvaitam, they do not have many points to cover up. There may be some objection to the distinction made by Visishtadvaitam between “dhaRmabhUthajnAna” – that which the Man has, and “dhaRmi jnAna”” – knowledge as embodied by the Self, but even here the defence is easier than for advaitins in regard to "svarUpajnAna or sAmAnyajnAna” and “vR^ththijnAna” of Sankara. Shri Nara may shed light on this please.]

If we see the history of advaita, nobody from the great Sankara down to the later advaitins, adopted such a stand, but were engaged in continuous debates with their opponents, and such arguments and counter arguments continue even at present, though at a muted level, through the medium of books and monographs.

We are all aware of what an "experience" is. Some of the dictionary meanings of the word experience are given below:

1. Have firsthand knowledge of states, situations, emotions, or sensations

2. Go through (mental or physical states or experiences)

3. Undergo an emotional sensation or be in a particular state of mind

4. The accumulation of knowledge or skill that results from direct participation in events or activities

5. The content of direct observation or participation in an event

6. An event as apprehended

It may be seen that all these meanings envisage the sense organs (jnAnEndriya) coming into play. Even if we use Sanskrit terms such as "brahmAnanda", "anubhUti" etc., the difficulty remains; "anubhUti" means perception, knowledge from any source but memory, (in philosophy) knowledge gained by means of the four Pramanas (perception by the senses, inference, comparison, and verbal authority), dignity, consequence, and "Anandam" means happiness, joy, enjoyment, sensual pleasure; 'pure happiness,' one of the three attributes of Atman or Brahman in the Vedanta philosophy. Thus in an attempt to describe the state of being one with the "brahman" advaita has added a new meaning of "pure happiness" to the existing word "Ananda".

Now, happiness or 'pure happiness' is also an experience and hence should be cognizable to the senses and one that could be recalled. If so 'brahman' should also be something cognizable to the sense organs and therefore, unreal, as per the advaita axiom that whatever our sense organs perceive - this whole universe - is unreal, the only real thing being brahman, which is devoid of any attributes whatsoever. It is therefore impossible to 'experience' brahman by means of any of our sense organs.

If 'pure happiness' is not a sensory experience, it would have been necessary to say that the experience of brahmananda will always be a selective amnesia, an experience the memory of which cannot be recalled. Here one finds that there is very close similarity between Sankara's brahmAnanda and the "Sunyata" concept of Buddhism.

How can then be an experienced soul and how it can explain better?

Coming to the concept of "maya", it is perhaps the greatest weakness of the advaita vedanta. Sankara called it 'adhyAsa' or 'adhyArOpa', which means something that protrudes - like the foot, or, erroneous transfer from one thing to another, wrong attribution. Since brahman is the origin of everything, this adhyasa should also have originated from that brahman, which means the brahman contained this negative aspect within itself. If so it will not be correct to say that the brahman is without attributes. Starting with such a criticism, you will find that the advaitins shifted their stand continuously so as to meet the criticism, mainly from visishtadvaitins, through the centuries, and the maya concept also has undergone several changes, mainly with reference to where it is located. At one stage advaitins had to accept that “mAyAcha avidyAcha svayamEva bhavathi”, i.e., maya and avidya come into existence of their own. The beginning of maya is due to itself, the advaitins say, which is mysterious. This is inconceivable and the answer for that is that it is the glory of mAyA because mAyA cannot be thought of. Strictly speaking, it has a beginning but its beginning is not due to any other factor (even brahman) and that is the reason why it is called as beginningless. It has a beginning but it is, it does not have another factor for its beginning. This brings the question that brahman is not the only thing; maya also exists as anadi, beginningless, without owing its origin to brahman. Thus advaitins find themselves in a bind to satisfactorily explain the concept of maya as well as its locus, maintaining brahman as the root of all things and the only reality.

The Lord who is the all pervading manefested and unmanifested self, that is he himself is the maya, also the truth beyond the gunas, with his own will power runs the universal drama. May be that the divine will, purpose and directions of the brahmin and who is also the manifested maya all amounts to the same. May be this amounts to no dualism. As said earlier, only an enlightened soul can explain it better.
So this must be considered as an attempt by an ordinary mortal[who has limited or no understanding.

If you will kindly read the above sentences again, you will find that they fit the dvaita concept (God is different and separate from the jiva or individual human soul) very well but fall short of an advaitic brahman concept, which cannot be "he", "runs the universal drama", "divine will", "maya and divine will all amounts to the same" etc., and you have rightly judged that it is dualism. This proves that much of what we do by way of religious practice is pure dualism, that advaita is something that cannot be put into practice, but only debated at best and the argument that it is to be experienced is only a convenient cover-up.

You may also be aware that Sankara is known as "pracchanna bauddha" - Buddha in disguise - because one school of thought holds that Sankara wanted to absorb the then popular mahayana buddhism into the sanatana dharma fold and so presented their philosophy in different form. Just to show the similarity between the concepts of mahayana and advaita, pl. see the following:

"The Mahayana philosophy is based on the older tradition and fully accepts these teachings, but not all traditional interpretations. One of the most important aspects is for example the traditional interpretation that Buddhahood can be achieved only by very few people. The Mahayana teaches instead that every sentient being (being with a mind) can become a Buddha, the only thing preventing our full enlightenment is the failure to improve one's own actions and state of mind. The Mahayana tradition claims that all their sutras have been taught directly by Shakyamuni Buddha or have at least been inspired by the Buddha.
The main Mahayana motivation is to lead all sentient beings to enlightenment. Liberation from cyclic existence (Nirvana) and Buddhahood for oneself are regarded simply as fortunate by-products of one's efforts to help all beings. In fact, the only possible motivation with which one can become a Buddha is the altruistic wish to lead all sentient beings away from suffering.
This motivation is reflected in taking an additional set of vows, known as Bodhisattva vows on top of taking Refuge. The main vow is to free all sentient beings from suffering. These vows are not taken for this life only, but for all future lives as well, until this goal is achieved. The main practices of a Mahayanist are summarised in the 6 perfections: the perfection of giving, ethics, patience, joyous effort, concentration and wisdom."

The full article may be seen at:
The Three Vehicles: Hinayana, Mahayana and Tantrayana

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Advaita

Shri Iyyaarooraan ji,

Thank you for your kind reply. I observe that you hold advaita in very high esteem. If that be true, it was rather inappropriate, IMO, to cite one of Zeno's paradoxes to justify advaita; because, it will imply that just as Zeno's flying arrow paradox can be (and has been) proved mathematically false, advaita will also be seen as something which can be proved as false. I hope I am able to convey my idea clearly enough.

Advaita has been questioned but definitely not "abused" - either by using foul language against it or by treating it badly - by any of our great Acharyas, but it was, indeed, questioned and deemed by them to be untenable. Most advaitins also follow only the dvaita way of looking at God (as far as we can see around us today) and, as seen from some of the opinions expressed in this thread itself, many knowledgeable people hold the view that Sankara also endorsed all the rituals, pantheistic worship, bhakti, etc., and that these purify a person (they refer to body, mind and intellect, I presume) and makes that person eligible for the brahman to manifest in him. This appears to me as similar to the descent of God in the case of David.

The very fact that visishtadvaita and dvaita, let alone the acintya bhedabheda of caitanya, nimbarka sampradaya, the vallabha school, etc., came into the scene, shows that there were people who did not agree with the advaita concept of Sankara, and, more importantly, that such questioning and doubting were not considered as sacrilege in those times. May be it was because many brahmins and non-brahmins of those days were scholars who could understand the subtle nuances of these various schools of thought and could either accept or reject any or all of these. It is only in recent times that we brahmins have lost that type of scholarship and try to hold on to some things as sacrosanct and any doubts or questions about these sacrosanct items is not tolerated and such doubts/questions are immediately branded as brahmin-bashing, hindu-bashing, swollen egos caused by little knowledge of Sanskrit, OCD, etc., etc.

I recall having read somewhere that the cannibalistic, jungle tribes of New Guinea (this is from my memory only) still hold as sacred an airstrip built during the WW II by RAF in the jungles (to avoid detection by enemy planes). These primitive people thought that "gods" had come down to earth in their holy chariots and then ascended to heaven again; they are sure the "gods" will come again and so they should not do anything to tamper with that holy spot which will be used by their "gods" for the next "descent"! Our present attitude to our scriptures is very similar to this, I think.

Dear Sngomji
I am sorry I could not resist rejoining you and allow me your indulgence.

I am not a confirmed ‘advaitin’. But it appeals to me better whenever ‘you are at your wit’s end’. I have said every path should ultimately lead to the same end. I know slightly the extent of your knowledge in these things. Remarkable, of course.

As for the bow and arrow theory, I have myself expressed my doubt of its utility though it was not explained to light on ‘advaita’ for the same reason as pointed out by you. However, in the realm of the subject under discussion the mathematics has no place either as it belongs to mind and matter.

As you said nobody follows the philosophy in life, nor any other one actually. Exigencies and circumstances lead us in our life. When you are in front of the deity in a temple behind the screen, you find him in your heart, and as the screen is drawn aside, the thought of god goes to your head and presently you feel your stomach is pinching for the prasadam. In Shiva temples, it is not the case as you do not get anything from there except vibhuti.

I wonder even after centuries of discussions and analysis and even after proving to be untenable, the philosophy continues to occupy space. Perhaps the arguments against the philosophy are also untenable or weak. I am sure it will survive because it is a subject for disputing subjects. Progress of life will throw more questions on the subject but answers should be found within. Most of the elucidations have come out of questions only. They were not scripted like the reality shows of today. If that is so we are questioning those questioners only. Sankara traveled the length and breadth of India inviting questions and debates in widvat sabhas (when package tours were unheard of then). Regarding Sankara on rituals, the following sloka should tell the different:

“Vadantu shastrani yajantu devaan
Kurvantu karmani bhajantu devata:
Atmaikyabothena vina vimukti-
r’na siddhayati brahmashatantarepi (Vivekachudamani ‘6’)

Again vide sloka 13

“Arthasya nischayo dhrushto vicharena hitoktita:
na snaanena na danena praanyama-shatena va.” (v.c.sloka 13)

I definitely feel I am myself becoming a victim of OCD unwittingly.

I also remember to have read the primitive people’s story. Everybody lives within his kingdom. May I quote another piece. Two fish were in a jar speaking to themselves. One asked the other “Do you believe in God?” The other said “Of course. Who else is changing the water for us?” Forget about it, there is a group of educated people somewhere in England who still believe that earth is not round. Each in his own paradise!

To find satisfying answers one should search within oneself:
“Thasmatsarvaprayatnena bhavabandhavimuktaye
Svaireva yatna: karthavyo rogadaviva pandithai: (vivekachudamani)

I promise you I will not bore you any more. Thank you again for your indulgence and with regards,

 

[sangom]

...
To find satisfying answers one should search within oneself:
“Thasmatsarvaprayatnena bhavabandhavimuktaye
Svaireva yatna: karthavyo rogadaviva pandithai: (vivekachudamani)

I promise you I will not bore you any more. Thank you again for your indulgence and with regards,

Dear Shri Iyyaarooraan,

It seems that we have posted in the very same minute! Your post gives me encouragement. While I have no objection to any of the rituals, bhakti, etc., I am only considering whether advaita as something which can be practised in day to day life, and, if so, how.

I would request you to continue giving us your views. You have a fund of knowledge which will definitely help us to broaden our understanding.

 

[Nara]

,,,,, There may be some objection to the distinction made by Visishtadvaitam between “dhaRmabhUthajnAna” – that which the Man has, and “dhaRmi jnAna”” – knowledge as embodied by the Self, .... Shri Nara may shed light on this please.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Swami Sri Desikan goes in depth with aspects unique to VA that are not accepted by others. He refers to these as, pratitantra siddhAntam - svatantra eva siddha: paratantrai: niShiddha: pratitantra siddhAnta: - that which are rejected by all others but accepted as truth by us.

There are many such pratitantra siddhantam for VA. The most important among them is the body/soul relationship between jagat and Iswara. Another such is DharmabhUta jnAnam (DBJ). An entity that posses this DBJ is Chetanan and those are Jeeva and Iswara. Achetanas are entities that do not posses DBJ. This DBJ, with the help of indriyas, perceive external objects and make them perceptible to its possessor, i.e. the Jeeva. The extent to which DBJ blossoms is determined by one's karma. When all karma are annihilated, i.e. when in Sri Vaikuntam, the DBJ is fully resplendent and one is able to perceive all there is to know without error.

Dharmi-jnAnam (DJ) is the Jeeva itself. It is an independent entity, defined by three characteristics, anutvam, ekatvam, and pratyaktvam -- atomic in size, a distinct entity different from all others, and self cognizant, i.e. does not need another jnAnam to perceive itself -- in other words, it is jnAnam that shows itself without the assistance of any other jnAnam such as DBJ -- it is svayam prakAsham. DJ is what all of us instinctively feel as aham.

These concepts are argued to be to be the truth based on the Vedas. In as much as an argument is persuasive or not persuasive, these are accepted or rejected.

Given the Vedas are supreme and the Prasatana Trayam defines orthodox Brahminism, Advaitam ties one in hopelessly endless knots. If Advaitam is true, then even the Para Brahman does not understand it -- why else would it bother to teach Arjuna, a sure illusion which the all knowing Para Brahman must surely be cognizant of, bother to go on for 18 long chapters? The deeper you go in Advaita, one gets tied down in ever more complex self-contradictory knots.

VA offers a way out and it fits neatly with all the Vedic verses, the advaitic ones like Aham Brahmasi, tat tvam asi, et al., and the plethora of dvaitic ones. However, VA suffers from a fatal flaw as well, it simply brushes aside all the taratamyam (differences) in condition of the Jeevas to karma from beginingless time, not to mention the all caring Theistic god not caring enough to lift all from the misery of the ephemeral existence onto the never ebbing bliss of SAri vaikuntam. VA offers no satisfactory answer to this quandary.

All these philosophies were developed when human knowledge about how mind works was quite primitive. Our brilliant forefathers had only Vedas to go by, and within the context of the Vedas, they speculated and came up truly ingenious and persuasive theories. But, these have been superseded now with advanced scientific knowledge. There is no reason to still swear by the old thinking. It is indeed true that science does not have all the answers, and the human intellect is such that science may never give us all the answers. But, this does not mean one has to blindly adhere to the old speculations as revealed truth. Tall claims to explain that which science is yet to fully understand are clearly untenable.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Swami Sri Desikan goes in depth with aspects unique to VA that are not accepted by others. He refers to these as, pratitantra siddhAntam - svatantra eva siddha: paratantrai: niShiddha: pratitantra siddhAnta: - that which are rejected by all others but accepted as truth by us.
...

All these philosophies were developed when human knowledge about how mind works was quite primitive. Our brilliant forefathers had only Vedas to go by, and within the context of the Vedas, they speculated and came up truly ingenious and persuasive theories. But, these have been superseded now with advanced scientific knowledge. There is no reason to still swear by the old thinking. It is indeed true that science does not have all the answers, and the human intellect is such that science may never give us all the answers. But, this does not mean one has to blindly adhere to the old speculations as revealed truth. Tall claims to explain that which science is yet to fully understand are clearly untenable.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

Thank you for the lucid explanation.

My view is that if more and more people - especially youngsters - take to studying these philosophies in right earnest without getting hooked on to the "blindly follow" syndrome, perhaps they will be able to find better philosophies and/or better cosmologies. Why I say this is because, one of my distant cousins (daayaati) is a well-known cosmologist, and he said to someone that he reads with care all our hindu philosophies and the debates, and that this gives him inspiration for thinking "outside the box" in areas concerning cosmology. But he is no great practising religionist AFAIK. Secondly, since he is now at a very high scientific level, I have absolutely no contact with him, though he grew up from a toddler before my eyes.

 

[Nara]

....My view is that if more and more people - especially youngsters - take to studying these philosophies in right earnest without getting hooked on to the "blindly follow" syndrome, perhaps they will be able to find better philosophies ...

Dear Shri Sangom, Thank you for the kind words, they mean a whole lot coming from a recognized scholar.

Youngsters going for fields of study that are not directly connected to monetarily profitable careers is looked down upon among TB, only a real சோப்ளாங்கி is likely to pursue philosophy as their chosen field of study. My father was aghast when my son chose Political Science for his Bachelors. But he went further and upped the ante by doing a masters in Political Theory. The funny thing is, he is not a one off, a crazy non-conformist like his dad. Most youngsters in the U.S. pursue a B.A., not B.E. or something practical. The result is, I can have an intelligent conversation with my son about human behavior, where as, with my nephew/niece racking in the ever coveted greenback, all I could possibly talk about is the latest Hindi movie sensation about which I know next to nothing, or the latest exploits of Laxman or Yuvraj.

There is lot of talk about preserving the Brahmin culture -- we want to setup 80G tax-exempt trusts, write its goals in as general terms as necessary to qualify for such status, and then channel the resources to parochial goals, just as long as our own kith and kin are allowed to pursue western/British education for all the material benefits we actually and secretly value, and be able to deny it is so. All this is fine just as long as the wretched with no other way to make it in life bear the load of preserving the glorious tradition. If hypocrisy were to blow up in front of them and bite their nose off, they are liable not to notice.

So, I am not going to hold my breath expecting Indian youngsters with the necessary intellectual caliber to take up study of philosophy, if they did, they will be சோப்ளாங்கீ for sure, in the eyes of the mainstream Brahmins.

Cheers, I think !!!!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

As usual I did not explain my idea clearly enough, I see now. My suggestion was that our youngsters - by which I mean those who have a steady job and income - may spend some of their leisure time in reading the translations, commentaries, criticisms, etc., available in English, but with an open mind. This can be in addition to their favourite novels or other subjects. It will be difficult to persuade tambram youngsters to take up Philosophy as the subject of their study, at least in the present conditions of job availability in India.

Hope it is clear now.

 

[Nara]

.... It will be difficult to persuade tambram youngsters to take up Philosophy as the subject of their study, at least in the present conditions of job availability in India.

Yes I do agree with the above Shri Sangom, this is the reason why the cutting edge philosophical thinking that used to take place in India, particularly Tamil Nadu, is now taking place in the West. Among the reasons are (i) it is valued and supported -- one could make a decent to very good living in this field, and (ii) there is no superstitious allegiance to a bygone era.

Youngsters interested in Philosophy are better off looking to western thinkers like Denette and Pinker, than Sankara and Ramanuja.

Cheers!

 

[aramakrishnan1]

My understanding on Advaita gathered from the reference articles given below :


Who am I?
15/11/2010 01:41:44 Bhaskaran Vellakkad


An officer in an office, a householder in a home, a husband to the wife, a son to the parents, a father to the children, a younger brother to an elder brother, an elder brother to a younger brother, a brother to a sister, an employee to the employer, a common man among the public. Likewise in various situations of life, the “I” in everyone assumes myriads of names & designations. In fact, who am “I” actually?

Sometimes the “I’ proclaims that of its citizenships like an American, an Indian, a Brazilian etc or of a particular religion like a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu etc, etc. Without knowing our own real nature the “I “presumes various levels of identities suiting to the situation. All our activities in the waking state are connected to the body. It has existence as long as the body and the pride in the body exist. When the body goes from waking state to dreaming state, the existence of the state of body vanishes & goes to oblivion. In the dreaming state the body leaves all pride in it and exists as mere life energy. While in dream, the body vicariously experiences various false expressions of life as if in real life. When the body further moves from dream to deep sleep, it loses even the consciousness. As the knower of the activities in the body dissolves into total forgetfulness the body knows nothing in deep sleep. And when the body comes back into waking state from deep sleep, it only remembers that it did not know anything while sleeping. So in all these three states - wakefulness, dream and deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences about oneself. From the day first to the last day everyone knows & experiences only in this way as there is no fourth way of experience. So it is clear that everyone is living without the real knowledge of the “I” in everyone. Or else, everyone knows & experiences oneself in the wrong percept. If one analyzes meticulously his knowledge in wakeful state, one can see the end of the reality of deep sleep state. Void or nothingness is the observable knowledge in deep sleep. It is otherwise called ignorance. So we can say that deep sleep is a state of total ignorance of everything. To realize ignorance as ignorance is also a sort of knowledge. If that knowledge is not attained in deep sleep, later we cannot convince that ignorance in wakeful state. It means that someone else is watching, knowing and remembering the ignorance of not knowing anything even in deep sleep. Otherwise it is impossible to remember it later. Who is that watcher? “I” am that. Let us see its real nature further.

It is known that deep sleep is total ignorance & darkness. From that stage goes to wakefulness or dream again. We can observe that all these states are equally states of ignorance & darkness. But in all these states, it is clear that a bright knowledge exists as a witness to all these states and its experiences. That knowledge is the “I” in the various denominations of the body which is unborn and immortal. The experience of not knowing or not remembering anything in deep sleep in this material world is a state of total bliss and painless state even to a chronic cancer patient suffering from excruciating pain. A person who had such a deep sleep comes back from it and says that he had slept well. That experience of happiness & bliss is the real nature of everyone.

“I” am the unborn, eternal, ever pervading, ever witnessing, reason, shining as truth and bliss in every one. “I” am in all and all are in me. “I’ am the subtle of the subtlest and the greater of the greatest. There is nothing other than me. “I” shine as single or millions in everything. One who has known thus the “I” in oneself, knows the “I” in everyone else and everything in this universe as the same and such an enlightened soul never condemns anyone.


brahma

September 7, 2010
World
The world and life is a medium for actualization of karma.
rishis realized that the world, its perception, entire creation, is brahma. and realized themselves as brahma.
Perception
The perceptions of a person, the situation as s/he perceives facilitate realization, and thereby, dissolution of samskara.
rishis realized that the perceptions, the experiences, are manifestations, of and by brahma, manifesting and experiencing itself.
What is percepted, experienced, are drawings made by the perceiver, brahma, on the canvas of world, that is projection of itself.
What one perceives is individual to the person, though may be similar to that of another.
Words of Wisdom
The wisdom one finds in certain words are realization of wisdom within, the words serving as mere canvas upon which the wisdom is drawn by the person.
tat tvam asi
rishis realizing the perceived, the medium that facilitated the perception, and the perceiver to be the same, said- tat tvam asi

 

[Nara]

My understanding on Advaita gathered from the reference articles given below :

[.....]

tat tvam asi
rishis realizing the perceived, the medium that facilitated the perception, and the perceiver to be the same, said- tat tvam asi

Dear aramakrishnan1, all these seem to be just declarations, not supported by anything more than one's own conviction. You say the rishis realized that the perceived, the medium of perception, and the perceiver are all the same. How do you know this? Is there any basis for making this claim?

If you say Vedas say this, then, do you realize that there are many more Vedic statements that are explicitly dualistic than the ones that seem to be advaitic?

Further, for Advaitam to be logical, one has to assert that perception is fundamentally flawed, which is what Adi Sankara asserts. If perception is fundementally flawed, then there is no way one can cite Vedas as evidence, as Vedas can only be understood through perception. Well, here we are, getting all tied up in knots.

My point is not that Adi Sankara is anything but a brilliant polemicist. No physicist will ever say Einstein was 100% correct, and at the same time no serious physicist will have nothing but enormous respect for his contribution to human knowledge. Similarly, no sane person will have anything but the highest of respect for Adi Sankara's intellect. But this does not mean we have to blindly proclaim every last word out of Adi Sankara's mouth is immutable truth. His main opponents were the nihilists and therefore his arguments were directed at their premise.

So, I think, we need to respect Adi Sankara from a historical perspective, but not get mindlessly shackled to all his arguments. I daresay, Adi Sankara himself will expect us to think with what he and other theists would consider, "god" given intellect.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Shri Ramakrishnan,

The account of advaita that you have given is a very simplified version, we may even say it is a 'sanitized' version for easy assimilation by the masses.

The more difficult and abstruse points of Sankara's advaita are omitted in it.

Sometimes the “I’ proclaims that of its citizenships like an American, an Indian, a Brazilian etc or of a particular religion like a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu etc, etc. Without knowing our own real nature the “I “presumes various levels of identities suiting to the situation.

This is only partially true, IMO. Even for one who has experienced or realized the 'brahman' (different from the brAhman caste), it will be necessary to identify oneself with reference to several coordinates in this world, such as nationality, nativity, religion, language, etc. Hence it is not theoretically correct to say that all such identifications are indications of not knowing the true nature of "I".

All our activities in the waking state are connected to the body.

Not true. Many activities are intimately connected with one's mind (emotion) as well as intellect or 'buddhi'. Unless we hold that both mind and intellect are part of the 'body', the statement made by you will not be correct. If it is agreed that mind and intellect are also part of the body, on death the mind and intellect should also perish, may be slowly - if the body is interred, or quickly - if the body is cremated. Then what else will be left of the original 'being'? Only the 'I' you refer to. Will that not mean that on death, every being gets dissolved into its true nature, which is 'brahman' according to advaita? Just my doubt, not my claim, please.

It has existence as long as the body and the pride in the body exist. When the body goes from waking state to dreaming state, the existence of the state of body vanishes & goes to oblivion. In the dreaming state the body leaves all pride in it and exists as mere life energy. While in dream, the body vicariously experiences various false expressions of life as if in real life.

It is not correct to say that 'When the body goes from waking state to dreaming state, the existence of the state of body vanishes & goes to oblivion.

In the dreaming state the body leaves all pride in it and exists as mere life energy', because the body reacts to the emotions of the dream state though not as efficiently as in the waking state. Pl. see:-

Rapid eye movement sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is polemical to say 'real life' to distinguish waking stage of life from the dream sleep stage of life, because, as per advaita, both are unreal or illusory. Which is more illusory is not easily answered.

When the body further moves from dream to deep sleep, it loses even the consciousness. As the knower of the activities in the body dissolves into total forgetfulness the body knows nothing in deep sleep. And when the body comes back into waking state from deep sleep, it only remembers that it did not know anything while sleeping . So in all these three states - wakefulness, dream and deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences about oneself. From the day first to the last day everyone knows & experiences only in this way as there is no fourth way of experience.

So it is clear that everyone is living without the real knowledge of the “I” in everyone. Or else, everyone knows & experiences oneself in the wrong percept. If one analyzes meticulously his knowledge in wakeful state, one can see the end of the reality of deep sleep state. Void or nothingness is the observable knowledge in deep sleep. It is otherwise called ignorance. So we can say that deep sleep is a state of total ignorance of everything. To realize ignorance as ignorance is also a sort of knowledge. If that knowledge is not attained in deep sleep, later we cannot convince that ignorance in wakeful state. It means that someone else is watching, knowing and remembering the ignorance of not knowing anything even in deep sleep.

Otherwise it is impossible to remember it later. Who is that watcher? “I” am that. Let us see its real nature further.

In NREM or deep sleep it is not that consciousness is lost or the person has become unconscious. A person in such sleep can be awakened but with little more effort. Hence it is not correct to say that the consciousness or awareness of the body is absent. Sankara cited these examples in his time
because the scientific knowledge then was very little compared to what we know today.

Non-rapid eye movement sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also a certain opinion among some buddhistic thinking that during the deep (NREM) sleep, the 'astral body' - which, according to them consists of the 'I' element covered by an astral body which has mind and intellect also associated with it - leaves the body but is connected through
a cord to it (invisible to ordinary people but visible to those who have mastery of the esoteric principles) and roams free according to its kArmic tendencies, and tries to satisfy its desires which it cannot in the present physical body. When a sufficiently powerful disturbance is given the person
wakes up from the deep sleep also. The muscles are relaxed and so an outsider gets the feeling as though there is 'no' consciousness in the body.

In your quote, it is said that:1. "...the body knows nothing in deep sleep", and, 2. "...So in all these three states - wakefulness, dream and deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences about oneself." Now firstly how can the body "know"? Assuming that what is being intended is "nothing is known of any experience during deep sleep", how can the second statement, viz., "in...deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences..." be justified , when it has been just said that nothing is known of any experiences during deep sleep?

The example given is therefore inadequate to prove either that there was total ignorance or that some "I" was keeping watch even during deep sleep when the body was unconscious etc.

Leaving aside all these simplification, it is true that advaita defines 'brahman' as 'nirguNa' or devoid of any qualities. It is very difficult to then ascribe "creation" as a work of this nirguNa brahman, because it cannot have done anything other than exist, because it has no attributes whatsoever. So, in order to explain the creation, which is an unreal manifestation of the brahman which is the only reality according to advaita ("EkamEvAdviteeyam" - one and only, no second) Sankara postulated the concept of "adhyAsa" or "adhyArOpa", something which is a layer on the brahman. This creates lot of problems because it is difficult to convincingly prove either that it is a part of brahman, or that it is an independent entity. Shri Nara has already shown one deep inadequacy of advaita. What I have tried to show is yet another.

One of the earliest statements which is relied upon for establishing the advaita pov is rigveda I.164.46:

"Ekam sad viprAH bahudha vadanti" (Truth is one but the wise ones speak differently.)

It has been emphasized for long that the words "Ekam sad" indicate that truth or reality is one only;hence there can only be one true entity. But is it not feasible to interpret this as "there is only one state of affairs that represents the truth, but the wise describe it differently"? For example, the
whole rik is as under:

indram mitram varuNam agnim AhuH
atho divyaH sa suparNo garutmAn
Ekam sad viprAH bahudhA vadanti
agnim yamam mAtariSvAnam AhuH

(They call as Indra, Mitra, VaruNa, Agni, and as the divine and noble-winged garutmAn. The truth is one that the wise speak differently, as agni, yama, mAtariSvAn.)

Is it not possible to form a conclusion that all these various divinities represent one great God or Divinity? Why did we jump to the conclusion that the underlying Truth of the universe itself is one? May be there are verses from the Upanishads to support such a conclusion; but the rigvedic seer who compiled the above verse does not seem to support the advaita pov.

Your post refers to "life energy". What if this life energy is a universal field just like gravitation, manifesting as "life" whenever and wherever circumstances conducive to life arise? Is it not also possible that on the death of the living entity, the "life energy" mingles with the life field which is present everywhere? This will take us very near to the Buddha's observation that nothing possesses an essential, enduring identity and the "SUnyata vAda" of the buddhists. It was Nagarjuna (ca. 150–250 CE) who formally founded that school. Sankara, whose time was about 500 years after Nagarjuna's, might have attempted to incorporate an ontology which will serve to attract the intelligensia among the buddhists into the hindu fold. Or else, Sankara might have been aware of the monotheistic syrian christians (namboodiri families from around Kodungalloor near Kalady
were the original converts to christianity.) and desired to incorporate a higher content of mono-theism in hindu philosophy. Whatever that may have been, his attempt to term everything as illusory but permeated by the only truth (brahman), left a lot of things unexplained. This is my view.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Dear Sangom-ji,
I know a very little of Sankara’s Advaitha and my knowledge is limited to reading some works of Kanchi Mahaperiyavaal. I listen to V.Krishnan discourses and that is the maximum of my knowledge. This is the preface, but I wish to rationally debate with you carrying no baggage from Sankara’s Advaitha.

Shri Ramakrishnan,

The account of advaita that you have given is a very simplified version, we may even say it is a 'sanitized' version for easy assimilation by the masses. . – I accept that as a common man, this one could be easily understood by me.

The more difficult and abstruse points of Sankara's advaita are omitted in it.

This is only partially true, IMO. Even for one who has experienced or realized the 'brahman' (different from the brAhman caste), it will be necessary to identify oneself with reference to several coordinates in this world, such as nationality, nativity, religion, language, etc. Hence it is not theoretically correct to say that all such identifications are indications of not knowing the true nature of "I".
– “That simple thing” which leaves our bodies and then others around start calling the body as “predham” is the real “I”. What is the identity of that “I” after it gets released from an American , an African or an Indian. It is Nirguna.

Not true. Many activities are intimately connected with one's mind (emotion) as well as intellect or 'buddhi'. Unless we hold that both mind and intellect are part of the 'body', the statement made by you will not be correct. If it is agreed that mind and intellect are also part of the body, on death the mind and intellect should also perish, may be slowly - if the body is interred, or quickly - if the body is cremated. Then what else will be left of the original 'being'? Only the 'I' you refer to. Will that not mean that on death, every being gets dissolved into its true nature, which is 'brahman' according to advaita? Just my doubt, not my claim, please.

It is not correct to say that 'When the body goes from waking state to dreaming state, the existence of the state of body vanishes & goes to oblivion.

In the dreaming state the body leaves all pride in it and exists as mere life energy', because the body reacts to the emotions of the dream state though not as efficiently as in the waking state. Pl. see:-
– The Atman is the attributeless “I” and the mind and intellect are acquired above it when it takes the body form and becomes a human. Still the Atman remains unmingled like drop of water over a lotus leaf. The mind and intellect are those elements that help the human to act with “free-will” and also perceive the fruits of samskara. They have no relevance after the Body is called “Predham”.


Rapid eye movement sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is polemical to say 'real life' to distinguish waking stage of life from the dream sleep stage of life, because, as per advaita, both are unreal or illusory. Which is more illusory is not easily answered.

In NREM or deep sleep it is not that consciousness is lost or the person has become unconscious. A person in such sleep can be awakened but with little more effort. Hence it is not correct to say that the consciousness or awareness of the body is absent. Sankara cited these examples in his time
because the scientific knowledge then was very little compared to what we know today. – Yes in this state of sleep, the mind and intellect are really asleep and they don’t perceive anything, but the Atman is still awake.

Non-rapid eye movement sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also a certain opinion among some buddhistic thinking that during the deep (NREM) sleep, the 'astral body' - which, according to them consists of the 'I' element covered by an astral body which has mind and intellect also associated with it - leaves the body but is connected through
a cord to it (invisible to ordinary people but visible to those who have mastery of the esoteric principles) and roams free according to its kArmic tendencies, and tries to satisfy its desires which it cannot in the present physical body. When a sufficiently powerful disturbance is given the person
wakes up from the deep sleep also. The muscles are relaxed and so an outsider gets the feeling as though there is 'no' consciousness in the body.

In your quote, it is said that:1. "...the body knows nothing in deep sleep", and, 2. "...So in all these three states - wakefulness, dream and deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences about oneself." Now firstly how can the body "know"? Assuming that what is being intended is "nothing is known of any experience during deep sleep", how can the second statement, viz., "in...deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences..." be justified , when it has been just said that nothing is known of any experiences during deep sleep?

The example given is therefore inadequate to prove either that there was total ignorance or that some "I" was keeping watch even during deep sleep when the body was unconscious etc.

Leaving aside all these simplification, it is true that advaita defines 'brahman' as 'nirguNa' or devoid of any qualities. It is very difficult to then ascribe "creation" as a work of this nirguNa brahman, because it cannot have done anything other than exist, because it has no attributes whatsoever. So, in order to explain the creation, which is an unreal manifestation of the brahman which is the only reality according to advaita ("EkamEvAdviteeyam" - one and only, no second) Sankara postulated the concept of "adhyAsa" or "adhyArOpa", something which is a layer on the brahman. This creates lot of problems because it is difficult to convincingly prove either that it is a part of brahman, or that it is an independent entity. Shri Nara has already shown one deep inadequacy of advaita. What I have tried to show is yet another.

One of the earliest statements which is relied upon for establishing the advaita pov is rigveda I.164.46:

"Ekam sad viprAH bahudha vadanti" (Truth is one but the wise ones speak differently.)

It has been emphasized for long that the words "Ekam sad" indicate that truth or reality is one only;hence there can only be one true entity. But is it not feasible to interpret this as "there is only one state of affairs that represents the truth, but the wise describe it differently"? For example, the
whole rik is as under:

indram mitram varuNam agnim AhuH
atho divyaH sa suparNo garutmAn
Ekam sad viprAH bahudhA vadanti
agnim yamam mAtariSvAnam AhuH

(They call as Indra, Mitra, VaruNa, Agni, and as the divine and noble-winged garutmAn. The truth is one that the wise speak differently, as agni, yama, mAtariSvAn.)

Is it not possible to form a conclusion that all these various divinities represent one great God or Divinity? Why did we jump to the conclusion that the underlying Truth of the universe itself is one? May be there are verses from the Upanishads to support such a conclusion; but the rigvedic seer who compiled the above verse does not seem to support the advaita pov.

Your post refers to "life energy". What if this life energy is a universal field just like gravitation, manifesting as "life" whenever and wherever circumstances conducive to life arise? Is it not also possible that on the death of the living entity, the "life energy" mingles with the life field which is present everywhere? This will take us very near to the Buddha's observation that nothing possesses an essential, enduring identity and the "SUnyata vAda" of the buddhists. It was Nagarjuna (ca. 150–250 CE) who formally founded that school. Sankara, whose time was about 500 years after Nagarjuna's, might have attempted to incorporate an ontology which will serve to attract the intelligensia among the buddhists into the hindu fold. Or else, Sankara might have been aware of the monotheistic syrian christians (namboodiri families from around Kodungalloor near Kalady
were the original converts to christianity.) and desired to incorporate a higher content of mono-theism in hindu philosophy. Whatever that may have been, his attempt to term everything as illusory but permeated by the only truth (brahman), left a lot of things unexplained. This is my view.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Dear aramakrishnan1, all these seem to be just declarations, not supported by anything more than one's own conviction. You say the rishis realized that the perceived, the medium of perception, and the perceiver are all the same. How do you know this? Is there any basis for making this claim?

If you say Vedas say this, then, do you realize that there are many more Vedic statements that are explicitly dualistic than the ones that seem to be advaitic?

Further, for Advaitam to be logical, one has to assert that perception is fundamentally flawed, which is what Adi Sankara asserts. If perception is fundementally flawed, then there is no way one can cite Vedas as evidence, as Vedas can only be understood through perception. Well, here we are, getting all tied up in knots.

My point is not that Adi Sankara is anything but a brilliant polemicist. No physicist will ever say Einstein was 100% correct, and at the same time no serious physicist will have nothing but enormous respect for his contribution to human knowledge. Similarly, no sane person will have anything but the highest of respect for Adi Sankara's intellect. But this does not mean we have to blindly proclaim every last word out of Adi Sankara's mouth is immutable truth. His main opponents were the nihilists and therefore his arguments were directed at their premise.

So, I think, we need to respect Adi Sankara from a historical perspective, but not get mindlessly shackled to all his arguments. I daresay, Adi Sankara himself will expect us to think with what he and other theists would consider, "god" given intellect.

Cheers!

Dear Nara-ji,

Let it be a declaration or one's own conviction, but if you just take it as a clue to our lives and check whether it is happening around you as is given below, you don't need any proof and you, yourself will become an evidence :

World
The world and life is a medium for actualization of karma.
rishis realized that the world, its perception, entire creation, is brahma. and realized themselves as brahma.

Perception
The perceptions of a person, the situation as s/he perceives facilitate realization, and thereby, dissolution of samskara.
rishis realized that the perceptions, the experiences, are manifestations, of and by brahma, manifesting and experiencing itself.
What is percepted, experienced, are drawings made by the perceiver, brahma, on the canvas of world, that is projection of itself.
What one perceives is individual to the person, though may be similar to that of another.

Words of Wisdom
The wisdom one finds in certain words are realization of wisdom within, the words serving as mere canvas upon which the wisdom is drawn by the person.
tat tvam asi
rishis realizing the perceived, the medium that facilitated the perception, and the perceiver to be the same, said- tat tvam asi

My first questions were

1) Why is a human taking birth ? - The answer is given above and I accepted that it is to dissolve samskara. When you face situations where you had no control over even after you have put in your best efforts, it is easy to realise this.
2) Then comes the question - How is my Samskara dissolved ? It is only by perception - the feeling of joy or pain by the mind (not Atma) is how the Samskara gets dissolved.
3) Next question is who is the perceiver, that is Who am I ? The answer is in the first article in my post.

I have no difficulty in understanding and accepting the Brahma concept mentioned above. I do not need any proof or evidence as I am myself evidence.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom-ji,
I know a very little of Sankara’s Advaitha and my knowledge is limited to reading some works of Kanchi Mahaperiyavaal. I listen to V.Krishnan discourses and that is the maximum of my knowledge. This is the preface, but I wish to rationally debate with you carrying no baggage from Sankara’s Advaitha.

Dear Shri Ramakrishnan,

I am also not a scholar or something on advaita and my knowledge, if any, is only due to reading. So it will be my pleasure to learn from you. But since you seem to indicate that Kanchi swamiji's advaita is different from sankara's, I am not sure whether we will be talking in different tongues. Anyway I shall try...

“That simple thing” which leaves our bodies and then others around start calling the body as “predham” is the real “I”. What is the identity of that “I” after it gets released from an American , an African or an Indian. It is Nirguna.

In this regard we have no evidence, empirical or otherwise, to conclude that 'prEtam' (not 'predham') is 'nirguNa'. In fact we believe that something has been lost from that living body, and that is why it is no longer showing any sign of life. Hence, to say with any authority that the "prEtam" is there and further that it is "nirguNa". Again, if the "prEtam" is nirguNa, our great seers and acharyas must have definitely been aware of it. Would they then have not advised all those elaborate funerary rites and also the concept of "pitrus" who feel hungry and thirsty and have to be propitiated by means of 'tarpaNam', 'SrAddham' etc? Kindly give your opinion.

The Atman is the attributeless “I” and the mind and intellect are acquired above it when it takes the body form and becomes a human. Still the Atman remains unmingled like drop of water over a lotus leaf. The mind and intellect are those elements that help the human to act with “free-will” and also perceive the fruits of samskara. They have no relevance after the Body is called “Predham”.

The basic problem for one who does not 'implicitly' believe, is about how, why and from where the attributeless "I" acquire mind and intellect? More fundamental is the question how the attributeless "brahman" can manifest itself as the universe which is an unreal phenomenon, as per advaita. First of all a thing or entity which has absolutely no attributes cannot change unless and until some external impetus, independent of that attributeless entity, works on or interacts with it. Since there is nothing else save brahman, it is difficult to convincingly reason this out.

One of the - not very successful - method of scholars has been to cite the taittireeya upanishad sentences given below:

so(a) kAmayata | bahu syAm prajayEya iti |sa tapo (a) tapyata | sa tapastaptvA idag^m sarvam asr^jata yadidam kim ca | tat sr^shTvA tad Eva anuprAviSat |tad anupraviSya sacca tyaccAbhavat | etc.

The approximate English translation of the above will be:-

That (brahman) thought that let me (create) manifest in, (many) various and become (those). It did "tapas". Having performed the "tapas", it created all those whatever are here (this universe). After creating (all those) it entered into all those. Having entered thus, it became "sat" as well as "tyat". Here the words 'sat' and 'tyat' are explained as 'that which has form' and 'that which has no form' in the Gita Press edition of "Isadi nau upanishad".

But here the 'saH' (It) which is taken to refer to brahman is also translated (in the Gita Press publication) as 'parameshwar', a deity, perhaps. In that case it is easy to grasp a certain creator who will, naturally, have attributes, doing 'tapas', obtaining additional powers for creation and performing the rest of the acts described above. But if one were to take the "saH" as the attributeless brahman, we are in a logical dilemma.

Most of the people who swear by the infallibility of advaita also seem to forget the rigvedic "nAsadiya sUkta" (X-129) which ends with the rishi wondering:

That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not...,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows or if He does not... !

While even Sankara vows about the applicability of "sruti" as unimpeachable evidence, he does not seem to have accepted that the original creation is something beyond human ability to even conjecture about.

Yes in this state of sleep, the mind and intellect are really asleep and they don’t perceive anything, but the Atman is still awake.

I am not able to understand how mind and intellect can go into a sleeping mode when many bodily functions are going on; what then controls these? Even in deep sleep, if a sharp needle is poked into the body, the sleeping person will jump awake; the pain should be little more than in the REM stage. If the mind is "asleep" how is that pain immediately experienced? I would like to know more about these.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Advaitham, literally means everything is one and there are no two entities. That is the "Chith", "Achith", with form, without form and all such twins that we know about.
Human is composed of a perishable and non-perishable form. The perishable form (prEtam') and the non-perishable Atman together makes a living being. The perishable one (prEtam') also becomes dissolved into the Pancha bhutham, which is again the same Brahma or Parameshwar.
For every object, there is a physical material and a concept behind it. The concept is the formless and the material is with form. The concept is ParaBrahmam and the material is also the manifestation of ParaBrahmam.
The mind is the CPU which takes inputs from the 5 sensory (5 indriyams) and once the 5 sensory organs are dead, then the mind is also dead. "Intellect" is the free will that a man is given to exercise in order to acquire samskara (paavam, punniyam).
Your example of needle poking into a human in deep sleep also confirms that the mind respond to all of the 5 indriyams. The mind could respond only because the inner Atma is within the body. When that Atman is not within the body, you prick with the sharpest needle or pinch it hardly or burn it fully, it is not going to respond. That is the prEtam stage.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Dear Shri Ramakrishnan,

I am also not a scholar or something on advaita and my knowledge, if any, is only due to reading. So it will be my pleasure to learn from you. But since you seem to indicate that Kanchi swamiji's advaita is different from sankara's, I am not sure whether we will be talking in different tongues. .

Generally I am not interested in "who said", but I wish to only look at "What is said". Kanchi Mahaperiyavaa did his intellectual exercise with the basis given by Adi Sankara. So, Kanchi Mahaperiyavaa would have made use of the material available to him.
I too feel that instead of starting from scratch in a subject, take some available concept and find out whether it can be validated.
We are not Rishis and we won't waste our time and efforts to become Rishis. When the western world went into experimenting whatever things that are avaialble in the Prakruthi (the matter), the Indian Rishis and Munis went into the researching the internal thing (Atma Gnanam). Whatever knowledge that we have got from the Rishis are the gift to mankind, but to assign some vested motives for them now is a sin, that I will never commit.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Shri Ramakrishnan,

The account of advaita that you have given is a very simplified version, we may even say it is a 'sanitized' version for easy assimilation by the masses.

The more difficult and abstruse points of Sankara's advaita are omitted in it.

This is only partially true, IMO. Even for one who has experienced or realized the 'brahman' (different from the brAhman caste), it will be necessary to identify oneself with reference to several coordinates in this world, such as nationality, nativity, religion, language, etc. Hence it is not theoretically correct to say that all such identifications are indications of not knowing the true nature of "I".

Not true. Many activities are intimately connected with one's mind (emotion) as well as intellect or 'buddhi'. Unless we hold that both mind and intellect are part of the 'body', the statement made by you will not be correct. If it is agreed that mind and intellect are also part of the body, on death the mind and intellect should also perish, may be slowly - if the body is interred, or quickly - if the body is cremated. Then what else will be left of the original 'being'? Only the 'I' you refer to. Will that not mean that on death, every being gets dissolved into its true nature, which is 'brahman' according to advaita? Just my doubt, not my claim, please.

It is not correct to say that 'When the body goes from waking state to dreaming state, the existence of the state of body vanishes & goes to oblivion.

In the dreaming state the body leaves all pride in it and exists as mere life energy', because the body reacts to the emotions of the dream state though not as efficiently as in the waking state. Pl. see:-

Rapid eye movement sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is polemical to say 'real life' to distinguish waking stage of life from the dream sleep stage of life, because, as per advaita, both are unreal or illusory. Which is more illusory is not easily answered.

In NREM or deep sleep it is not that consciousness is lost or the person has become unconscious. A person in such sleep can be awakened but with little more effort. Hence it is not correct to say that the consciousness or awareness of the body is absent. Sankara cited these examples in his time
because the scientific knowledge then was very little compared to what we know today.

Non-rapid eye movement sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also a certain opinion among some buddhistic thinking that during the deep (NREM) sleep, the 'astral body' - which, according to them consists of the 'I' element covered by an astral body which has mind and intellect also associated with it - leaves the body but is connected through
a cord to it (invisible to ordinary people but visible to those who have mastery of the esoteric principles) and roams free according to its kArmic tendencies, and tries to satisfy its desires which it cannot in the present physical body. When a sufficiently powerful disturbance is given the person
wakes up from the deep sleep also. The muscles are relaxed and so an outsider gets the feeling as though there is 'no' consciousness in the body.

In your quote, it is said that:1. "...the body knows nothing in deep sleep", and, 2. "...So in all these three states - wakefulness, dream and deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences about oneself." Now firstly how can the body "know"? Assuming that what is being intended is "nothing is known of any experience during deep sleep", how can the second statement, viz., "in...deep sleep of body & mind, everyone experiences..." be justified , when it has been just said that nothing is known of any experiences during deep sleep?

The example given is therefore inadequate to prove either that there was total ignorance or that some "I" was keeping watch even during deep sleep when the body was unconscious etc.

Leaving aside all these simplification, it is true that advaita defines 'brahman' as 'nirguNa' or devoid of any qualities. It is very difficult to then ascribe "creation" as a work of this nirguNa brahman, because it cannot have done anything other than exist, because it has no attributes whatsoever. So, in order to explain the creation, which is an unreal manifestation of the brahman which is the only reality according to advaita ("EkamEvAdviteeyam" - one and only, no second) Sankara postulated the concept of "adhyAsa" or "adhyArOpa", something which is a layer on the brahman. This creates lot of problems because it is difficult to convincingly prove either that it is a part of brahman, or that it is an independent entity. Shri Nara has already shown one deep inadequacy of advaita. What I have tried to show is yet another.

One of the earliest statements which is relied upon for establishing the advaita pov is rigveda I.164.46:

"Ekam sad viprAH bahudha vadanti" (Truth is one but the wise ones speak differently.)

It has been emphasized for long that the words "Ekam sad" indicate that truth or reality is one only;hence there can only be one true entity. But is it not feasible to interpret this as "there is only one state of affairs that represents the truth, but the wise describe it differently"? For example, the
whole rik is as under:

indram mitram varuNam agnim AhuH
atho divyaH sa suparNo garutmAn
Ekam sad viprAH bahudhA vadanti
agnim yamam mAtariSvAnam AhuH

(They call as Indra, Mitra, VaruNa, Agni, and as the divine and noble-winged garutmAn. The truth is one that the wise speak differently, as agni, yama, mAtariSvAn.)

Is it not possible to form a conclusion that all these various divinities represent one great God or Divinity? Why did we jump to the conclusion that the underlying Truth of the universe itself is one? May be there are verses from the Upanishads to support such a conclusion; but the rigvedic seer who compiled the above verse does not seem to support the advaita pov.

Your post refers to "life energy". What if this life energy is a universal field just like gravitation, manifesting as "life" whenever and wherever circumstances conducive to life arise? Is it not also possible that on the death of the living entity, the "life energy" mingles with the life field which is present everywhere? This will take us very near to the Buddha's observation that nothing possesses an essential, enduring identity and the "SUnyata vAda" of the buddhists. It was Nagarjuna (ca. 150–250 CE) who formally founded that school. Sankara, whose time was about 500 years after Nagarjuna's, might have attempted to incorporate an ontology which will serve to attract the intelligensia among the buddhists into the hindu fold. Or else, Sankara might have been aware of the monotheistic syrian christians (namboodiri families from around Kodungalloor near Kalady
were the original converts to christianity.) and desired to incorporate a higher content of mono-theism in hindu philosophy. Whatever that may have been, his attempt to term everything as illusory but permeated by the only truth (brahman), left a lot of things unexplained. This is my view.

If establishing montheism was the objective, why he put forward "Shanmatha"? I suppose it should be monism not monotheism as you have put.

Regards,
Swami

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Chapter 3. Karma-yoga​

TEXT 11 ​

devan bhavayatanena
te deva bhavayantu vah
parasparam bhavayantah
sreyah param avapsyatha​

SYNONYMS ​

devan--demigods; bhavayata--having pleased; anena--by this sacrifice; te--those; devah--the demigods; bhavayantu--will please; vah--you; parasparam--mutual; bhavayantah--pleasing one another; sreyah--benediction; param--the supreme; avapsyatha--do you achieve.

TRANSLATION ​

The demigods, being pleased by sacrifices, will also please you; thus nourishing one another, there will reign general prosperity for all.

Dear Swami,
The Prabrahmam is omnipotent and we, the humans have known some of the innumerous attributes of the Prabrahmam and we pray them as demigods (Devas). The Verse 11, Chapter 3 provides the answer why we are looking to Lakshmi for wealth, Saraswathi for learning, Anjaneya for Kaarya sidhi and the like. These are the Devatas and nothing but attributes of the Parabrahmam. You worship and praise an attriubte of the "Almighty" and in turn you will get the blessings according to your wish.
Shanmatham deals with the Devatas (demi-gods) and their properties. For our daily yagna activities, we focus it on the particular Devatas. Once you come to a level where you are no longer need to perform actions, you will not go to the Devathas asking for material things.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Dear Swami,

The famous song "Brahmam Okatey, Prabrahmam Okatey" is the shorter form of Advaitha philosophy. But we sing that song in praise of Narayana Hari, who is a Devata of the Prabrahmam.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

To Shri. Sangom, Shri.Nara and Shri. Swamy,

Most of my knowledge about the Prabrahmam or Advaitam is from the "Kandha Guru kavasam" which is spoon feed of the concept in the most lucid form. Kindly read the text in this kavasam to get the complete idea of Advaitha and Prabrahmam.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Chapter 3. Karma-yoga
TEXT 11
devan bhavayatanena
te deva bhavayantu vah
parasparam bhavayantah
sreyah param avapsyatha
SYNONYMS ​

devan--demigods; bhavayata--having pleased; anena--by this sacrifice; te--those; devah--the demigods; bhavayantu--will please; vah--you; parasparam--mutual; bhavayantah--pleasing one another; sreyah--benediction; param--the supreme; avapsyatha--do you achieve.

TRANSLATION ​

The demigods, being pleased by sacrifices, will also please you; thus nourishing one another, there will reign general prosperity for all.

Dear Swami,
The Prabrahmam is omnipotent and we, the humans have known some of the innumerous attributes of the Prabrahmam and we pray them as demigods (Devas). The Verse 11, Chapter 3 provides the answer why we are looking to Lakshmi for wealth, Saraswathi for learning, Anjaneya for Kaarya sidhi and the like. These are the Devatas and nothing but attributes of the Parabrahmam. You worship and praise an attriubte of the "Almighty" and in turn you will get the blessings according to your wish.
Shanmatham deals with the Devatas (demi-gods) and their properties. For our daily yagna activities, we focus it on the particular Devatas. Once you come to a level where you are no longer need to perform actions, you will not go to the Devathas asking for material things.

Thanks for your response.

To imagine their a hierarchy of gods would be a fallacy. Varuna, Indra, Vayu and Agni can be called "demi-gods" if you want and they derive their power from the ultimate god or paramatman. Hence are to be subordinated to the paramatman.

Ganesha, devi and other gods talked about in Shanmata are the facets, as it were, of the paramatman.

It is perhaps the reason why advanced sadhaks do choose any of these god as their ishta, even while asserting that parabhahman as nirguna, yet manifesting as saguna.. Indeed a metaphysical conundrum.

Regards,
Swami