Advaita and Its Fallacies

[aramakrishnan1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Swami,

In the famous Mahalakshmi Ashtaka sthothram, the following verse states that Mahalakshmi is a Prabrahma Swaroopam.

“Padmasana Sthithe Devi, Para Brahma Swaroopini, Para Mesi, Jagan Matha, Maha Lakshmi Namosthuthe”

This is a typical sthothram on any devatha and all these Devas / devathas are the attributes of the one and only Parabrahmam.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

I ponder on who listens to me when I do the "Gayatri Jabam". I do not spell anything out of my lips and I am doing the Jabam within myself. Unless there resides someone within me, my jabam is a waste of effort. Nobody else could hear or know what I am doing. This is one of the wonders of the Parabrahmam that I consider as magical.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Dear Swami,

In the famous Mahalakshmi Ashtaka sthothram, the following verse states that Mahalakshmi is a Prabrahma Swaroopam.

“Padmasana Sthithe Devi, Para Brahma Swaroopini, Para Mesi, Jagan Matha, Maha Lakshmi Namosthuthe”

This is a typical sthothram on any devatha and all these Devas / devathas are the attributes of the one and only Parabrahmam.

Quite right.

 

[sangom]

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

Shri Swami,

What I said, and intended to say was, "...desired to incorporate a higher content of mono-theism in hindu philosophy". I wanted to say that instead of simply copying "monotheism" Sankara might have gone one step further to the monism, which incidentally also made advaita come very close to the SUnyata vAda of buddhism.

 

[Nara]

....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 :

Dear Shri aramakrishnan1,

In my observation, you are the first person to say Advaitam is just my conviction not needing any further proof. All others rest their case upon Adi Sankara, who in turn based his arguments upon the Vedas. If it is your conviction and there is no need for proof, then we are at an impasse. When stated in this way there is no scope for further discussion.

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.

In just this small part of your post you have claimed:

• There is what is called "karma" -- (BTW, you have not defined what that karma is)
• The world and life is a medium for actualization of that yet undefined karma.
• There is an entity called brahman
• rishis realized that the world, its perception, entire creation, is brahma
• they also and realized that they themselves are brahman.

From where are you getting all this? Are these just your convictions needing no proof other than the fact you exist?

I think you are getting all this from Brahmnical religious texts which are founded upon the Vedas. So, I see a contradiction here. Please clarify, are you basing your Advaitam on the Vedas as propounded by Adi Sankara or not? If the answer to this question is yes, please revisit my post no. 64 and try to give a response.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

re

when we know,we are the product of god,live within god,i wonder how we can think,that we are seperate body from god,as we are god itself.This realisational experiance advaitham contributes,to the oneness of god,who is within ,outsides,besides us,above us ,below us.As what is there to witness or perceive is god,as i am god..aham brahmasmi..tatwamasi..ayam athma brahman....pragyanam brahma as the maha vakyas quote......whether the raw material to produce the cosmos or the cosmos or the galaxies...from the particle to the pillar is all god..sarvam bhagavan anubhavam.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Dear Nara-ji,

I wish to define Karma first as you said I have not defined my understanding of Karma. Karma cannot be understood stand alone, but with the whole context. So here is the connection between Dharma - Karma - Brahman (Atman)

Dharma – Brahma-Karma relations
In the bharatiya samskriti, people realized themselves as brahma, and people engaged in pursuits that helped actualize karma.
purushartha
bharatiya samskriti recognizes four purusharthas – dharma, artha, kama, moksha, that motivate individuals based on their varna- expression of inherent motivation.
Depending on the varna, that again depends on the proportion of gunas- sattva, rajo, tamo, individual’s motivation changes.
The variation in the gunas is more a function of time, as well as samskara.
atman takes birth, extingushes karma samskara in pursuits suited for the purpose, sometimes accrues more, to be exhausted later, sometimes having exhausted karma attains moksha.
Thus in Indian context, there is no hierarchy. A common man may have exhausted karma and may be a mumukshu, as in the case of Raikva, mentioned in chandogya upanishad. A brahmana, learned in veda and having attained high spiritual insights, may yet accrue karma samskara, as in the case of Ravana, when he abducted Sita devi.
Consciousness awakes in the morning, directs the body during day, wanes in night, remains dormant in sleep and re-awakes in morning. That sequence is considered represented in the creation of world, its sustenance, eventual dissolution and re-creation. Recognizing atman as basis of living beings; and physical bodies as incidental- rather than defining of life, the perennial sequence of birth and death are comprehended as required to actualize karma. The connect between the mental plane and physical plane enable realizing integrality with entire creation and its causative energy.

bharatiya samskriti

bharatiya samskriti consider the entire world as family- vasudhaiva kutumbakam and consequently inspire people to grow together amicably, co-operatively, respecting each other, giving primacy to dharma- that which sustains. It guide people to consider themselves as atman and the physical body like a cloth that is discarded when it becomes old. bharatiya samskriti also inspire people to seek and realize themselves as the supreme, brahma.

Solely identifying with physical body, attaching to it and launching self-aggrandizement drive at the cost of others, is recognized as adharma, that which diminishes, and therefore, discouraged by bharatiyasamskriti. People who indulge in such behavior are considered mleccha and shunned.

The above texts are taken from my "webguru" who helped me know about the Brahman.
With the above definition of Karma, Dharma, Brahman and the Bharatiya samskriti, I wish to have your revised view of the post #80.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Dear Shri aramakrishnan1,

In my observation, you are the first person to say Advaitam is just my conviction not needing any further proof. All others rest their case upon Adi Sankara, who in turn based his arguments upon the Vedas. If it is your conviction and there is no need for proof, then we are at an impasse. When stated in this way there is no scope for further discussion. !

I have already said that I know only a drop of the ocean called Vedas and I know only the extract of what Advaitha meant. My conviction is based on my enquiry and findings using the intellect. I did not accept anything what is written "as it is". Advaitha - being the reality and it needs just simple efforts for one to get convinced about the philosophy. In another post, I remember you have said that no one should accept the religious (brahminical) texts as it is and they should applied their intellect. I have done that and continue to do that. You said others rest their case upon Adi Sankara and Vedas. My conviction is not contradictory to either the Vedas or Adi Sankara's Advaitha.

In just this small part of your post you have claimed:

• There is what is called "karma" -- (BTW, you have not defined what that karma is)
• The world and life is a medium for actualization of that yet undefined karma.
• There is an entity called brahman
• rishis realized that the world, its perception, entire creation, is brahma
• they also and realized that they themselves are brahman.

From where are you getting all this? Are these just your convictions needing no proof other than the fact you exist?

I think you are getting all this from Brahmnical religious texts which are founded upon the Vedas. So, I see a contradiction here. Please clarify, are you basing your Advaitam on the Vedas as propounded by Adi Sankara or not? If the answer to this question is yes, please revisit my post no. 64 and try to give a response.

Cheers![/QUOTE]

I read as many sources that I could in search of the Truth or reality. I am nearly an illiterate in Sanskrit and hence cannot debate using Vedas or Sankara's Advaitha. I am reading various Internet Webgurus and I took the above texts from one of them.
I request you not to focus on "Who said", but "What is said".

 

[Nara]

...The above texts are taken from my "webguru" who helped me know about the Brahman. With the above definition of Karma, Dharma, Brahman and the Bharatiya samskriti, I wish to have your revised view of the post #80.

I am really sorry sir, all this is way above my head. I can't follow anything. If we are to have a meaningful discussion you have to explain all this to me in ordinary language that I can understand.

Cheers!

 

[aramakrishnan1]

In simple terms "Karma" represents the accrued "Paavam" and "Punniyam" from various births.

 

[Nara]

In simple terms "Karma" represents the accrued "Paavam" and "Punniyam" from various births.

Okay, now from where are you getting this "various" births? How does this "Karma" you talk about get accrued and passed on from "one birth" to the next?

Thanks ...

 

[aramakrishnan1]

Dear Nara-ji,

I have tried to explain some of the contents in my Post#82 in the terms of a "Layman". I would be enlightened to know if anything is wrong or everything given below is wrong by debating with any member in the forum.

Let me assume that I have not realized that I am Brahma or the Supreme almighty myself. I am composed of a physical body (which is perishable, dissolvable in the Panchabhootham) and the Atman. When the Atman resides in me, I am talking to you. If the Atman departs, my physical body will lead to become perishable.
During my lifetime, I apply my intellect to conduct my life. I have 2 options in most of instances during my life to proceed, one is the Dharmic way and the other is Adharmic way. The two terms are dharma- that which sustains and Adharma - that which diminishes.
All my actions leading towards Dharma accrues Punniyam and all my actions leading to Adharma leads to Paavam.

At the end of my life, I would have got a set of Paavam and Punniyam accounts. The Atman from my body leaves and takes a new birth to exhaust my accrued Karma Samskara. Thus the cycle continues.

If my intellect always drives me that my “life” is all about living in this universe for the given number of years and I don’t realize that I am Brahmam, I may not care for much of Dharma or Adharma. I will consider that my body should get the maximum comfort and pleasure. Without realizing Brahmam, I may end up during more Adharma and accumulate more Paavam. Due to the thus accrued Paavam (with less degree of Punniyam too), I take another birth, suffer so much physically and mentally to exhaust the Karma Samskara.
If I know that I am Brahmam and I have to get rid of my Karma Samskara, then my actions would be performed with ‘Dharma” as the focus and I won’t care for the fruits of my actions. Thus I would not accrue more “Paavam” and I would get the knowledge to attain Moksha. Thus my Atma dissolves into the Prabrahmam and become one. At this stage, I feel no pain & joy, good and bad, and no more twins thereafter. At this stage, “I” will not the there to realize and I would have become one with the Parabrahmam itself.

 

[aramakrishnan1]

I request the moderator of this forum to rename this title "Advaitha and its fallacies". Such a title seems to admit that there are fallacies in the Advaitha theory itself. I checked with one of my friend who has quite a good knowledge on Advaitha and she has attended shiksha from her Guru on the elementary level of Advaitha. When I said that such titles are used in a Brahmins forum, she said that it is exactly how the blind men try to define an elephant. There are three levels in understanding Advaitha and each one of it is realised by those who willingly try to learn it from a Guru-
Sthoola dhrishti, sookshma dhrishti and Para dhrishti
Only at the Paradhrishti state, you can't find any difference between any objects that you could see and you will know that there is nothing but Parabrahma.
If you want to dig into the Advaitha philosophy, you must have kept the title "A search into Advaitha".
Dear Praveen the Super Moderator, please change the title.

 

[kahanam]

To me the term "fallacies of Advaita" is itself wrong.Kanchi Maha Swamigal has written in Vol: 6 of Deivaththin Kural all that needs to be said as an Outline of Advaita or a Primer of Advaita. Please read the book.

 

[Nara]

..... When I said that such titles are used in a Brahmins forum, she said that it is exactly how the blind men try to define an elephant. There are three levels in understanding Advaitha and each one of it is realised by those who willingly try to learn it from a Guru-
Sthoola dhrishti, sookshma dhrishti and Para dhrishti

This is an impossibly circular argument laced with ad hominem.

To say that the truth of Advaitam can be seen only with Para dhrishti and if you don't see its truth then you lack Para dhrishti like a blind man defining an elephant, is absurdly circular and self serving. Changing the title of the thread will not make the fallacies go away.

To me the term "fallacies of Advaita" is itself wrong.Kanchi Maha Swamigal has written in Vol: 6 of Deivaththin Kural all that needs to be said as an Outline of Advaita or a Primer of Advaita. Please read the book.

I suggest you take a look at Swami Sri Desikan's shata dhooShaNi, 108 objections to Advaitam -- part of this text was lost to posterity, only 60 of the 108 survive today.

Thank you ...

 

[sangom]

This is an impossibly circular argument laced with ad hominem.

To say that the truth of Advaitam can be seen only with Para dhrishti and if you don't see its truth then you lack Para dhrishti like a blind man defining an elephant, is absurdly circular and self serving. Changing the title of the thread will not make the fallacies go away.


I suggest you take a look at Swami Sri Desikan's sada shooshani, 108 objections to Advaitam -- part of this text was lost to posterity, only 60 of the 108 survive today.

Thank you ...

Dear Shri Nara,

Thank you for your timely and highly instructive inputs. I would request members like Shri Ramakrishnan, Shri Swamitabra, etc., to pause for a moment, consider why Shri Ramanuja, and later, Madhvacharya were able to differ from Sankara's advaita and get a large following. I would also request them to see the close relationship between what advaitins today practice, viz., dvaita bhakti which they declare, will create the "parA drishTi" and then the person will be able to realize that everything is brahman.

I would also request them to consider how "karma" originated. Since all jivatmas are brahmam as per advaita, all of them must have originated initially from that parabrahmam only (how? has not been clearly and logically explained even today, but that is another topic.) So, wherefrom did the initial Karma come? Was it there with the brahman? If not did it arise from a source other than the brahman? When I or anyone else dies, there is no longer any "sangom", "Ramakrishnan" or "nara" to experience the karmas in the next birth; so how will any one be convinced that he is enjoying/suffering one's own karma? And, above all, why should the attributeless parabrahman which could have just existed, start this sort of a dumb game in which the jivatmas emanate from the parabrahmam, go through countless births and deaths, lives of misery, and are ordained to seek their original locus after swimming upstream? Does it not, by itself, make the parabrahmam appear to be a sadistic slave driver?

I am reminded of Kalamegha Pulavar's verse in which he says, "PerumALum nalla perumAl, avar tam tirunALum nalla tirunAL, PerumAL tAn irunta idattil cummA irAmaiyinAleyO parunteduttup pOkinRate pAr!" Could not the brahman have remained as it was? Or is there some power controlling It too, which makes all such things happen?

 

[nachi naga]

sangom

So, wherefrom did the initial Karma come? Was it there with the brahman? If not did it arise from a source other than the brahman? When I or anyone else dies, there is no longer any "sangom", "Ramakrishnan" or "nara" to experience the karmas in the next birth; so how will any one be convinced that he is enjoying/suffering one's own karma? And, above all, why should the attributeless parabrahman which could have just existed, start this sort of a dumb game in which the jivatmas emanate from the parabrahmam, go through countless births and deaths, lives of misery, and are ordained to seek their original locus after swimming upstream? Does it not, by itself, make the parabrahmam appear to be a sadistic slave driver?

Karma is a circle.In a circle,where do you begin or end.Its endless.Adi yum illai annanthamum illai.Exalted beings remember every birth,unlike ordinary mortals like me.But by sadhana,i do remember my previous birth too.de ja vu kinda situations.Present lives inequalities and other many life learning experiance teaches me,that karma is an important component of our religion.In a class when the teacher is teaching,only some students grasp rapidly while some dont.I say karma is the cause for evolution.To learn and be better tuned to god.To realise i am god from the original god that was ,that is,that will be... forever is our religious truths...life of eternity/.....mrithyor ma amritham gamaya......sanchitha karma,prarabhdha karma,agami karma..can be further classified as taught by gurus of various sampradayas....even though the athman is invisible,yet without athman the body is nothing but shavam...can anyone deny this oneness of athman existing in real world in a beings?this oneness is the truth.

 

[sangom]

Shri Nachi Naga,

If Karma is a circle, without beginning or end, as you postulate, two questions pop out; 1) if Karma is without beginning or end (anAdi & anantam) it is either a part of the brahman which is the only reality according to advaita, or, 2) if we were to relax the rule that brahman is the only reality, Karma may be another independent entity. If we accept the former answer, brahman itself becomes tainted by Karma and hence it can no longer be considered "nirguNa"; if the latter answer is taken as correct, brahman loses its position as the only reality, karma also exists side by side with it. Again, if Karma is like a circle - without beginning or end - how can any jivatma be rid of Karma? At best we can say one's Karma may be transferred to another but Karma by itself cannot be destroyed.

Remembering past lives is a non-verifiable phenomenon and hence it is more of a belief. But neither Sankaracharya nor any of the sages who are found in the important upanishads, adopt the method of our contemporary advaitins, viz., "believe first and then you will find it to be true". Sankara adopted the method of convincing his opponents by arguments which are in the intellectual level only; he did not tell Mandana Misra to do sAdhana or bhakti and then wait for the opponent to be convinced of the truth of advaita.

Today, we know about equally illustrious acAryas like rAmAnuja, mAdhwa, etc., who subsequently challenged Sankara's advaita and were able to convince a large number of knowledgeable people about the inadequacies and fallacies of advaita and they too did it by means of logical reasoning.

Once we accept the Karma theory, it is easy to accept the rest of your observations about it such as sancita, Agami & prArabdha karmas. If there is oneness of all the Atmas, how is it that the Karma of each is different even at the very initial janma?

But the point here is how and where this beginningless and endless karma fits into the brahman, the sole reality of advaita.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Shri Nachi Naga,

If Karma is a circle, without beginning or end, as you postulate, two questions pop out; 1) if Karma is without beginning or end (anAdi & anantam) it is either a part of the brahman which is the only reality according to advaita, or, 2) if we were to relax the rule that brahman is the only reality, Karma may be another independent entity. If we accept the former answer, brahman itself becomes tainted by Karma and hence it can no longer be considered "nirguNa"; if the latter answer is taken as correct, brahman loses its position as the only reality, karma also exists side by side with it. Again, if Karma is like a circle - without beginning or end - how can any jivatma be rid of Karma? At best we can say one's Karma may be transferred to another but Karma by itself cannot be destroyed.

Remembering past lives is a non-verifiable phenomenon and hence it is more of a belief. But neither Sankaracharya nor any of the sages who are found in the important upanishads, adopt the method of our contemporary advaitins, viz., "believe first and then you will find it to be true". Sankara adopted the method of convincing his opponents by arguments which are in the intellectual level only; he did not tell Mandana Misra to do sAdhana or bhakti and then wait for the opponent to be convinced of the truth of advaita.

Today, we know about equally illustrious acAryas like rAmAnuja, mAdhwa, etc., who subsequently challenged Sankara's advaita and were able to convince a large number of knowledgeable people about the inadequacies and fallacies of advaita and they too did it by means of logical reasoning.

Once we accept the Karma theory, it is easy to accept the rest of your observations about it such as sancita, Agami & prArabdha karmas. If there is oneness of all the Atmas, how is it that the Karma of each is different even at the very initial janma?

But the point here is how and where this beginningless and endless karma fits into the brahman, the sole reality of advaita.

Hope you may find some clues to your question from Sri Ramana Maharishi dialogues such the following one:

Mr. B. C. Das, the Physics Lecturer, asked about free-will and destiny.

M.: Whose will is it? ‘It is mine’, you may say. You are beyond will and fate. Abide as that and you transcend them both. That is the meaning of conquering destiny by will. Fate can be conquered.Fate is the result of past actions. By association with the wise the bad tendencies are conquered. One’s experiences are then viewed to their proper perspective.

I exist now. I am the enjoyer. I enjoy fruits of action. I was in the past and shall be in the future. Who is this ‘I’? Finding this ‘I’ to be pure Consciousness beyond action and enjoyment, freedom and happiness are gained. There is then no effort, for the Self is perfect and there remains nothing more to gain.

So long as there is individuality, one is the enjoyer and doer. But if it is lost, the divine Will prevails and guides the course of events.

The individual is perceptible to others who cannot perceive divine force. Restrictions and discipline are for other individuals and not for the liberated.

Free-will is implied in the scriptural injunctions to be good. It implies overcoming fate. It is done by wisdom. The fire of wisdom consumes all actions. Wisdom is acquired by association with the wise, or rather, its mental atmosphere.

Source: Talks With Ramana Maharshi Book

More Over in In verse 19 of Ulladu Narpadu

Ramana says that the dispute whether fate (vidhi) or free will (mati) prevails is of interest only to those who do not know the (mulam) — the root, base, foundation, origin or source — of both fate and free will (namely the mind, which misuses its free will and experiences whatever fate results therefrom), and that those who have known the truth of this mind have thereby separated themselves from fate and free will and will not hereafter become entangled with them again. In other words,fate and free will appear to exist only so long as our mind appears to exist, but when we scrutinise this mind and thereby know the truth that it does not really exist, fate and free will will also cease to exist.

Regards,
Swami

 

[sangom]

Hope you may find some clues to your question from Sri Ramana Maharishi dialogues such the following one:

Mr. B. C. Das, the Physics Lecturer, asked about free-will and destiny.

M.: Whose will is it? ‘It is mine’, you may say. You are beyond will and fate. Abide as that and you transcend them both. That is the meaning of conquering destiny by will. Fate can be conquered.Fate is the result of past actions. By association with the wise the bad tendencies are conquered. One’s experiences are then viewed to their proper perspective.

I exist now. I am the enjoyer. I enjoy fruits of action. I was in the past and shall be in the future. Who is this ‘I’? Finding this ‘I’ to be pure Consciousness beyond action and enjoyment, freedom and happiness are gained. There is then no effort, for the Self is perfect and there remains nothing more to gain.

So long as there is individuality, one is the enjoyer and doer. But if it is lost, the divine Will prevails and guides the course of events.

The individual is perceptible to others who cannot perceive divine force. Restrictions and discipline are for other individuals and not for the liberated.

Free-will is implied in the scriptural injunctions to be good. It implies overcoming fate. It is done by wisdom. The fire of wisdom consumes all actions. Wisdom is acquired by association with the wise, or rather, its mental atmosphere.

Source: Talks With Ramana Maharshi Book

More Over in In verse 19 of Ulladu Narpadu

Ramana says that the dispute whether fate (vidhi) or free will (mati) prevails is of interest only to those who do not know the (mulam) — the root, base, foundation, origin or source — of both fate and free will (namely the mind, which misuses its free will and experiences whatever fate results therefrom), and that those who have known the truth of this mind have thereby separated themselves from fate and free will and will not hereafter become entangled with them again. In other words,fate and free will appear to exist only so long as our mind appears to exist, but when we scrutinise this mind and thereby know the truth that it does not really exist, fate and free will will also cease to exist.

Regards,
Swami

Shri Swami,

What you have cited does not seem to answer the point "how and where this beginningless and endless karma fits
into the brahman, the sole reality of advaita."

 

[Nara]

Dear Swami,

Shri sangom started this thread about two months ago. So far, eleven members, listed below, have participated in this thread trying to answer the fallacies in Advaitam Shri Sangom presented.

rakeshinnovation
StudentofVihe
vikrama
KRN
Iyyaarooraan
pannvalan
Mohan Parasuram
aramakrishnan1
SwamiTaBra
Nachi Naga
kahanam

Unfortunately, none of them even attempted to answer the basic questions that were raised. Instead, the answers have been of the form (i) it has to be experienced, (ii) only truly evolved people can understand it, (iii) answers can be found in this book or another, (iv) this acharya or another has explained it, (v) asking these questions about advaitam is like a blind man etc., etc.

After 10 pages and nearly 100 responses, not a single response even attempted to answer the questions directly. With due respects to you and to Ramana Maharishi (RM), the answers of RM you have cited are completely irrelevant to the issues raised. I am really disappointed. Even worse is, instead of discussing the issues raised, one member appealed to the moderators to change the title of the thread.

Anyway, even the responses of RM you have provided, the ones that in no way addresses the issues raised, are mere unsustainable declarations. They may appeal to those who are already well predisposed to what they think as "spiritual". But, if one looks at these responses a little deeper with a skeptical and rational mind, they are far from satisfactory. I give below some of these untenable declarations of RM.

• You are beyond will and fate. Abide as that and you transcend them both.
• I was in the past and shall be in the future.
• Finding this ‘I’ to be pure Consciousness beyond action and enjoyment, freedom and happiness are gained.
• There is then no effort, for the Self is perfect and there remains nothing more to gain.
• So long as there is individuality, one is the enjoyer and doer. But if it is lost, the divine Will prevails and guides the course of events.
• The individual is perceptible to others who cannot perceive divine force.
• Restrictions and discipline are for other individuals and not for the liberated.
• The fire of wisdom consumes all actions.
• those who have known the truth of this mind have thereby separated themselves from fate and free will and will not hereafter become entangled with them again.
• In other words,fate and free will appear to exist only so long as our mind appears to exist, but when we scrutinise this mind and thereby know the truth that it does not really exist, fate and free will will also cease to exist.

Except that RM is a widely revered ascetic, is there any basis to accept the above statements? Can you tell me, without appealing to the authority of who made these statements, why they have any validity?

Cheers!

 

[Mohan Parasuram]

Karmas

It is possible under the influence of maya, the individual souls have forgotten their identity. Having fogotten ones true idendity, the individual souls identify themselves with the body and with that the individual souls carryout actions as I have done this and that which has developed attachments. When one identify oneself with the body, all actions bound create karma effect. Base root of all souls may be one and the same, but when one start idendifying oneself with the body, it becomes individuals who is doing the karmas. It is said the evolution of the individual souls are a long and ardous process extending into cycles after cycles, from various yonis and to human bodies. In this long process one gathers karmas according to ones actions. When the understanding comes that the body is merely an instrument which undergoes the experiences, but the soul is merely the witness, at that stage the attachment may not arise.

Rgds,
Mohan

 

[nachi naga]

re

sri sangom

Shri Nachi Naga,

If Karma is a circle, without beginning or end, as you postulate, two questions pop out; 1) if Karma is without beginning or end (anAdi & anantam) it is either a part of the brahman which is the only reality according to advaita, or, 2) if we were to relax the rule that brahman is the only reality, Karma may be another independent entity. If we accept the former answer, brahman itself becomes tainted by Karma and hence it can no longer be considered "nirguNa"; if the latter answer is taken as correct, brahman loses its position as the only reality, karma also exists side by side with it. Again, if Karma is like a circle - without beginning or end - how can any jivatma be rid of Karma? At best we can say one's Karma may be transferred to another but Karma by itself cannot be destroyed.

Brahman.One is nirgunam.I wont even explain it,as i cannot.Sagunam Brahman,is the materialistic view,perception etc for us human consumption.Now,who is asking two questions?If you can answere the above querier two questions by yourself,advaitha is understood and as well experianced.A jiva athma attains moksha,by his own inherent sadhana.An attained moksha person,rarely says he has attained moksha.Karma,was neither created nor can it be destroyed.

Remembering past lives is a non-verifiable phenomenon and hence it is more of a belief. But neither Sankaracharya nor any of the sages who are found in the important upanishads, adopt the method of our contemporary advaitins, viz., "believe first and then you will find it to be true". Sankara adopted the method of convincing his opponents by arguments which are in the intellectual level only; he did not tell Mandana Misra to do sAdhana or bhakti and then wait for the opponent to be convinced of the truth of advaita.

I beg to differ with you.Science has enough evidence to accept about para-normal experiances,which documented as well.To even pray as in pooja,is by itself,worshipping past life of a being.Parama Guru Adi-Shankara Acharya Bhagvathpada,is considered as an incarnation of Lord Shiva.The period was different or yuga was different.In present kali yugam,only nama smaranam will give moksham,as its the key for this yugam.Its futile to have debates now as we will be going in circles.

Today, we know about equally illustrious acAryas like rAmAnuja, mAdhwa, etc., who subsequently challenged Sankara's advaita and were able to convince a large number of knowledgeable people about the inadequacies and fallacies of advaita and they too did it by means of logical reasoning.

Acharyaals like Ramanujar,Madhwacharya etc are amshams of divinity namely that of lord hanuman,lord vaayu putra as per scriptures known to me,unlike the mainstream scriptures.

Once we accept the Karma theory, it is easy to accept the rest of your observations about it such as sancita, Agami & prArabdha karmas. If there is oneness of all the Atmas, how is it that the Karma of each is different even at the very initial janma?

definition of karma,in lay man terms is actions.Even though human beings is one aka athma is one in all human beings,fractally fragmented embedded in each individual-,actions are multi-faceted,owing to vasanas of poorva janma karmas.The observation,about initial janma,is by itself questionable.As there is no initial janma or final janma,its an endless cycle of birth and death of the body,untill the athma sublimes in moksham.A living enlightened being aka jeevan mukthar,is a classic example.One such being is still living amongst us,fortunate are those,who have been called by him to have his darshan.

But the point here is how and where this beginningless and endless karma fits into the brahman, the sole reality of advaita.

When reality is brahman,automatically,we are in hiranyagarbha of brahman.All that we see,hear,touch,feel..etc is dereivatives of brahman.the moolam is brahman.but its human tendency to identify itself with body not the athma.without the athma, body is a shell or outercovering.To know the existence of athma itself,requires grace and many births,to even realise it.Its impossible to make people understand it,as i am not equipped,with apara shakthi to transmit a shakthi paaat.

 

[Mohan Parasuram]

Karmas:

There appears to be so confusion. It may be explained that the karmas are the result of attachment. Due to effect of maya, the soul identifies itself with the body and develops the notion I have done this and that. When there is attachment, the effects of karma take places. But for a realised soul, the body is merely an instrument which takes it course. It is the body that experiences and the soul is merely the witness and will have not attachment when it falls. For a realised soul having surrendered to the supreme will, there is no attachment and no effects of karma as it is the body which undergoes the experiences. That is there is no I, but it is this - the Jadam.

But, it is the Brahman that is beginingless and endless and beyond gunas, the absolute.
In the beginning of creation this one and the same truth manefest into Purusha and Prakirti. Further it manefests into gunas and other manefested forms to assist in the process of creation, preservation and annilation. But these are only the manifested forms of the same truth and works to the same direction, to the same end and to the same result. This may be that, it is said that there is only one truth which is beginningless and endless.

Rgds,
Mohan

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Dear Swami,

Shri sangom started this thread about two months ago. So far, eleven members, listed below, have participated in this thread trying to answer the fallacies in Advaitam Shri Sangom presented.

rakeshinnovation
StudentofVihe
vikrama
KRN
Iyyaarooraan
pannvalan
Mohan Parasuram
aramakrishnan1
SwamiTaBra
Nachi Naga
kahanam

Unfortunately, none of them even attempted to answer the basic questions that were raised. Instead, the answers have been of the form (i) it has to be experienced, (ii) only truly evolved people can understand it, (iii) answers can be found in this book or another, (iv) this acharya or another has explained it, (v) asking these questions about advaitam is like a blind man etc., etc.

After 10 pages and nearly 100 responses, not a single response even attempted to answer the questions directly. With due respects to you and to Ramana Maharishi (RM), the answers of RM you have cited are completely irrelevant to the issues raised. I am really disappointed. Even worse is, instead of discussing the issues raised, one member appealed to the moderators to change the title of the thread.

Anyway, even the responses of RM you have provided, the ones that in no way addresses the issues raised, are mere unsustainable declarations. They may appeal to those who are already well predisposed to what they think as "spiritual". But, if one looks at these responses a little deeper with a skeptical and rational mind, they are far from satisfactory. I give below some of these untenable declarations of RM.

• You are beyond will and fate. Abide as that and you transcend them both.
• I was in the past and shall be in the future.
• Finding this ‘I’ to be pure Consciousness beyond action and enjoyment, freedom and happiness are gained.
• There is then no effort, for the Self is perfect and there remains nothing more to gain.
• So long as there is individuality, one is the enjoyer and doer. But if it is lost, the divine Will prevails and guides the course of events.
• The individual is perceptible to others who cannot perceive divine force.
• Restrictions and discipline are for other individuals and not for the liberated.
• The fire of wisdom consumes all actions.
• those who have known the truth of this mind have thereby separated themselves from fate and free will and will not hereafter become entangled with them again.
• In other words,fate and free will appear to exist only so long as our mind appears to exist, but when we scrutinise this mind and thereby know the truth that it does not really exist, fate and free will will also cease to exist.

Except that RM is a widely revered ascetic, is there any basis to accept the above statements? Can you tell me, without appealing to the authority of who made these statements, why they have any validity?

Cheers!

Let me admit that I'm not well versed in the dialectics, in its pre-suppositions and hence would refrain from commenting on them.

But, I can say that that the challenge is use the intellect and seek answers. All answers to intellects create a fresh ripples of doubts such as the one raised, that again have to be answered.

I would like to know whether karma can arise without vritti? If no, from where vritti emanates?
May I know the meaning of word "apouresheya" and how it came about? What is the significance of Dakshinamurthy for seeking clarifications to doubts?

May be many have tried to grapple with many such questions and in the end had to install a god to put a full stop.

With regards,
Swami