-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Advaita and Its Fallacies
- Thread starter sangom
- Start date
- Status
N
Nara
Guest
Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!
Another crucial question that Advaitins casually sweep aside is the location of Maya. Shri Sangom raised several very pertinent questions. They need to be answered properly. You can't just set them aside saying they are of no value.
It is one thing to say Advaitam appeals to one's rational sense, that is a different argument. But, to say it is is a Vaideeka matham one has to do better than what has been presented.
Cheers!
I am sorry, I was in a hurry and misunderstood your post.
This is quite self-serving. The objection is, if pratyaksham and anumanam are fundamentally flawed, then, one cannot magically say it is alright to understand Shruti, but for everything else they are not to be relied on.
This is even more self-serving. All the verses that support Advaitam are collected to give a cogent narative, and everything else are rejected outright. This won't do, especially, there is a counter narrative that reconciles all the apparent contradictions.
Nowhere in Shruti can you find support for this position that there is an ultimate reality and there is a relative reality. There is no shruti support for the notion that there are different kinds of realities, like paramArtha satyam and vyavaharavishayam satyam, these are invented constructs to justify Advaitam. This is the premise of the blogger you cited uses to respond to Bhagavat Ramanuja. This blog post is filled with declarative statements like "he is wrong, "he does not understand" without providing any fully footnoted arguments.
Another crucial question that Advaitins casually sweep aside is the location of Maya. Shri Sangom raised several very pertinent questions. They need to be answered properly. You can't just set them aside saying they are of no value.
It is one thing to say Advaitam appeals to one's rational sense, that is a different argument. But, to say it is is a Vaideeka matham one has to do better than what has been presented.
Cheers!
Dear Sri KRS Ji,
Just a quick note.
I remember having read in Shankara's Brahmasutra on the concept of existance of the self as followed in purva mimansa. If am not wrong, Shankara trounced Mandana Mishra in this regard. Shankara's brahmasutra also deals with the sankhya view that the universe cannot possibly be thot of having an origin from any other factor other than pradhana, the primordial nature (the pradhana being insentinent or from atoms, or hiranyagarbha, or merely designated as "non-existence"). If pradhana taken to be hiranyagarbha (or some soul under worldy conditions), then only one can say that there is an entity called God who created the universe. And that God is different from Soul. Shankara says those who establish the existance of God depend on this one inference alone (that the universe has originated from hiranyagarbha pradhana).
Here there is an inherent dichotomy. AFAIK, Shankara refuted this sort of inferred pradhana. To Shankara, the tendency to create cannot logically arise from any form of inferred pradhana. According to Shankara, if the insentinet pradhana must create, then it must have gunas; which to Shankara it cannot have.
I am not sure on what basis you would say that Shankara held the pov that nirguna and saguna are the same. Unfortunately i have read only very few works of Shankara. Please can you refer some books to me wherein Shankara propounds this view (of saguna and nirguna being the same).
Sir, AFAIK, Shankara completely rejected Purvamimansa. If i remember right, even in the Sanskrit movie on Adi Shankaracharya, there is no hint of Shankara accepting any form of purvamimansa. Is there any historical basis to suggest that Shankara himself incorporated Purva Mimansa into sadhana? Or does any text written by Shankara suggest his acceptance ?
Regards.
[PS: i thankyou in advance for the reply. I will be logging in after Dec 5th to reply].
Dear Professor Nara Ji,
We are going in circles. I have posted a blog by Sri Sadanand Ji, which is essentially a summary of analysis presented by John Grimes as a part of his Ph.D. thesis.
Without picking out selective words to dismiss these responses, how about providing a detailed response to these arguments? By the way, you seem to be making the same allegations about these statements that you are making - 'self serving'. Please respond in detail, and destroy the arguments put forth if you can - because you are the one raising objections on Advaitha and I think that you owe us a detailed rebuttal. Thanks.
Regards,
KRS
We are going in circles. I have posted a blog by Sri Sadanand Ji, which is essentially a summary of analysis presented by John Grimes as a part of his Ph.D. thesis.
Without picking out selective words to dismiss these responses, how about providing a detailed response to these arguments? By the way, you seem to be making the same allegations about these statements that you are making - 'self serving'. Please respond in detail, and destroy the arguments put forth if you can - because you are the one raising objections on Advaitha and I think that you owe us a detailed rebuttal. Thanks.
Regards,
KRS
S
SwamiTaBra
Guest
Dear Sri. KRS,
Sorry, you have mistaken my intentions.
Kindly look into the following post that in which many of the tenets are rubbished
Post #101 by Sri Nara on apouresheya
In the same post Dakshinamurty is dismissed as a mere religious symbol. If rishis are supposed to have sat at the feet of a mythical god, and by mere silence doubts their doubts dispelled is it not something pertinent to the issue we are debating? May be we are better equipped than our preceptors, the rishis!!
Similarly Sri Sangom who is admired by one all for his erudition isn’t convinced of apouresheya, it seems. (I remember reading one of his early post, but am unable to locate now.) Apouresheya would also imply that vedas are svatah pramanah, self-evident. Is this not central to Hinduism?
Nara dismissed apouresheya as a dogma, but asks for validation from sruti, in his reply to your post #127!! Also he has not answered my question on vritti. He may dismiss the same as dogma. If apouresheya doctrine is not accepted, no philosophy claiming to be vedic can stand. Your reference on ontology too has not been taken. Sri Nara has to answer for his inconsistencies.
Both of them it seems are not prepared to accept the widely accepted explanation on tapering of karma and its working out as given in one of the postings. (again I am unable to locate the precise post)..
My objective is not to plonk in philosophical discourses of the west. Sri. Sangom wants a strict rational explanation on karma’s attachment on jeeva, which I am afraid may not obtained without taking the discourse to the realm of ontology in the Indic tradition. When ontology is opened how can one not refer to jeevan muktas. Sri. Nara stopped short of calling Sri Ramana a charlatan. Ramana’s assertions are seen as ipse dixit. David Bohm or a Romain Rolland do not think so, nor does many other westerners looking for answers looking for vexed issues in philosophies. May be we should adopt a
a posteriori approach i.e. from the accomplishment of jivan muktas and gradually explaining the process that went towards that. I doubt whether it will be acceptable to both Sri. Sangom and Sri. Nara.
From my scant exposure to western philosophy, I see that Kant talked of transcendental analytic and transcendental aestetic of course from a different prespective.
As important tenets have been dismissed by both of them,--- of course retaining a few as karma and jiva—I see the debate going nowhere.
Sankara is perhaps the last pre-eminent radical polemist. The tallest claim “Tat tvam asi” is startling: either it is a profound truth or is simply a flight of fancy.
May be Sri. Sangom has something up his sleeve, as it were, and his revelations will appear at a suitable time. Until then our understanding of the philosophical underpinnings or lack of it will be exposed in this debate.
Last edited:
To all,
Please let each other not take offence at what the other is saying. Hindusim is not like islam or christianity which requires that its believers have no choice but must beleive in its tenets in order to be a muslim or christian. Hindusim allows for growth and changes.
As for correct representation of facts, wrt Shri KRS ji's post 125, i think it was Ramanuja who reconciled nirguna and saguna brahman, not Shankara (am not sure though). I request Shri Nara to elaborate more on this. Seems like concepts made their way from VA into advaitha. There is nothing wrong with that. However, if Ramanuja has reconciled nirguna and saguna, it would only be fair to have the credit going to him.
In a way this conversation is good. Because we know where we need to grow from here on. Stagnation is going to do no good. Yet again, it shows us that the role of religious leaders is imperative. Why have people stopped writing or producing philosophical works / literature? Isn't it time to propound new philosophies, or reinvent the old in a new bottle (revive stuff i mean as per times)...Perhaps in future there will be an amalgamation of concepts from VA, A and D and new philosophies will be created...In that way, hopefully sanatana will grow / evolve..
Regards.
Please let each other not take offence at what the other is saying. Hindusim is not like islam or christianity which requires that its believers have no choice but must beleive in its tenets in order to be a muslim or christian. Hindusim allows for growth and changes.
As for correct representation of facts, wrt Shri KRS ji's post 125, i think it was Ramanuja who reconciled nirguna and saguna brahman, not Shankara (am not sure though). I request Shri Nara to elaborate more on this. Seems like concepts made their way from VA into advaitha. There is nothing wrong with that. However, if Ramanuja has reconciled nirguna and saguna, it would only be fair to have the credit going to him.
In a way this conversation is good. Because we know where we need to grow from here on. Stagnation is going to do no good. Yet again, it shows us that the role of religious leaders is imperative. Why have people stopped writing or producing philosophical works / literature? Isn't it time to propound new philosophies, or reinvent the old in a new bottle (revive stuff i mean as per times)...Perhaps in future there will be an amalgamation of concepts from VA, A and D and new philosophies will be created...In that way, hopefully sanatana will grow / evolve..
Regards.
N
Nara
Guest
Dear Shri KRS, we have articulated the objections, I have listed them already. As a response, you want me to go read a Ph.D. thesis or blog and respond to their arguments? If I am to take a similar approach, I can also give you another book reference and ask you to go look it up for the rebuttals. But we are the ones having a discussion. I request you to read all the reference you want and present your arguments. That is only fair.
Let us take the first question about pramana. Here is what you said:
Again the suspension of these only applies to the process of removing avidya to realize the nature of Atman. Sankara never applies to understanding the Sruthis.
Why is prayaksham and anumanam valid for understanding Shruti, but not valid for anything else? Suspending them when they come in the way of the favored thesis is not self-serving, why?
Cheers!
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
sangom
0
Dear Shri Nara,
As you may know Sankara's advaita, strictly speaking, did not arise out of a direct interpretation of Sruti but an elaboration of the brahmasutras which attempt to reconcile the contradictory and diverse statements of the various Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, but the "sutras" are so terse that they themselves are far from being lucid. The sutras indicate that right from the beginning there were differences of opinion among the various interpreters of the Vedanta.
Sankara was, most probably, influenced by the buddhist line of thought and envisaged one ultimate reality (in the place of ultimate particles as propounded initially by buddhism and later developed into Sunyata vada) in a sort of flowing medium. He tried to interpret the brahma sutra, upanishads and Gita according to his vision and because the scholarly world then was more attuned to the buddhist thinking, it accepted Sankara's line of thought rather easily, the only strong opponent being Mandana Misra.
Most of the bhashyas of all the acharyas are to make the prasthanatrayee fit into their favoured view of the brahmasutras. So, certain conditions were laid down, one being that Sruti is unquestionable and true. (Buddha rejected this premise.) This is the reason why Sankara "had to" accept Sruti as pramana, else his advaita would not have been accepted within hinduism.
N
Nara
Guest
Yes Shri Sangom, this and the fact the Sutras are the distilled essence of the Upanishads that the validity of the Bhashyas is to be ascertained based on Shruti verses. (Note Shri SwamiTaBra, this is why I ask for Shruti validation, not because I believe in the infallibility of Shruti.) I also agree with your point that Sankara's audience was both the Buddists and his own Vaideekas, he had the unenviable task of refuting Buddism but still stay within the confines of the Vedas, and he did that brilliantly that nobody else could have done.
If the timing had been different and if Sankara came after Buddism had already been debunked, who knows what his Bhashya may have looked like!!!!
Cheers!
N
Nara
Guest
Yes sir, I do. I have already explained why. The proponents of Advaitam claim that Advaitam is the true purport of the Vedas. So, asking them to explain why there are discrepancies between their Advaitam and the authority from which they derive its validity, namely the Vedas, does not require me to buy into the belief of apourusheyaness of the Vedas.
Your question was, "I would like to know whether karma can arise without vritti? If no, from where vritti emanates?" I was and still not sure what you mean by karma and vRitti and the connection. That is why I did not comment on it. To me vRitti is action, karma may also be action or the phala of the action. I need some more clarity from you before I can comment on it.
I hope I have answered your doubt. I don't have to believe in the apaurusheyaness of Vedas to ask the proponent of Advaitins to be consistent with their own declared premise that Vedas are authentic pramana.
RM is a much revered man for a lot of people. To me, he is one man presenting some interesting ideas. His ideas are acceptable to me only to the extent they make sense. This does not mean I think of him a charlatan. I am unwilling to accept arguments that go like, "RM said so and therefore it is true".
Also, IMO, westerners opinions do not automatically confer a higher level of acceptability. Bohm and Rolland are free to form their own opinions. There are many western philosophers who reject any supernatural explanations. I am willing to examine any idea that makes sense as long as they are presented without any appeal appeal to credulity.
I must say, your doubt is well founded. Any argument predicated upon experiences of someone believed to be a jeevan-mukta is a non-starter.
Western philosophers are not stuck with awe for what philosophers of an earlier era said, whether it is Descartes, Hume, or Lock or Kant. This is not to say they are not respected, they are, but they are not revered to the extent their words remain etched with no scope for further development. This is why our orthodox Indian thinkers are stuck in the rut of having to defend apaurusheya and Shankara and Ramanuja ad infinitum, and nobody is ready to think outside this box. Everything has to be religious, supernatural, and must be Adviatic for Smarthas and VA for Svs, and D for Madwas, etc., etc.
Cheers!
S
SwamiTaBra
Guest
Dear Sri. Nara,
Thanks for your response.
Narendra (before he became Swami Vivekananda) as a student went about asking one and all including the Brahmos whether any one of them has seen the ultimate reality. He had a sharper intellect than any of us have here (you may not agree).
His meeting with Sri Ramakrishna is too well known and his transformation therefrom. Being a mystic Sri Ramakrshna did not have to labour to explain him. Kindly note he as we tambram are he did not have hangup of being a smartha, vishnava or a dvaitha. In fact the Bengali educated elite (called bhadralok) to which he belonged was almost under the sway of western thought. In fact emergence of Rammohun Roy could be attributed to this influence.
Even for a layman, in the Indic culture Vedas are the ultimate saying.
It is not for me ask to from you a measure of humility to look into transcendence and other phenomena, but however much you see with contempt at those prepared to give a serious look at them, the humanity in India will not move away from that tradition. That is why sages of all hues command reverence – though some may be charlatans.
You could certainly have some points regarding the integrity of elucidating a certain philosophical standpoint with reference to a stated authority. I certainly agree that the debate can have better rigour in that aspect. Alas, most of here (you are probably an exception) are not trained in tarka. You deserve credit for what certainly is your due here. But your refusal to recognize transcendental phenomena betrays your cussedness. Hence I refuse your contention that a posteriori approach is a non-starter.
All true rationalists have hit a roadblock somewhere and it when they wave the white flag and seek to leapfrog into the realm of transcendence. If you in that exclusive tribe then, you are truly blessed.
By the way, Sri Aurobindo propounds what is he calls the descent of supramental, which for you could be of some “interest” to you, at least some grist. In fact Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda have commented on his mayavada; Sri Aurobindo is critical for its somewhat crippling effect on Indian psychological make up in the period that followed.
With regards,
Swami
P.S. : Vritti as widely understood is the thought vibration, not action: karma springs
therefrom.
Dear Swami,
Did Swami Vivekananda expound the Vedas? Or Vedanta? or Purvamimansa? Picked up Shankara's bhasya on brahmasutra after a long time. Skimmed thru a few pages. The first time i read it about 15 years back, i had beleived every word of it. Now i see the very many contradictions within the bhasya itself...
1) Instead of expecting the Shruti to be "accepted as pramana without question", may i hear from you why vedas are to be considered as such?
2) The authors of several of the vedic compositions are known (kanva, atreya, vishwamitra, etc). Then why are we to consider them apaurusheya?
Lets say I write something today. About 3000 years later the language common now may have disappeared or may have changed considerably over time. So 3000 years later not many people understand my compositions. As a result my compositions get to be considered ancient or old, archaic writings. Lets say 3000 years later perhaps some descendent of mine will still be memorizing the lines and chanting them. On what basis should they be taken as pramana?
Regards.
OP
OP
sangom
0
Shri Swami,
I do not think Sankara relied on jeevan muktas who lived before him in formulating his advaita. He set forth his views and he had to interpret the 'prasthAnatraya' in accordance with his views - I would say bend the three srutis to his view - and this he did. Still certain aspects were left unclear. Unlike Buddha who refused to go into certain aspects, Sankara did not have an occasion to show his reluctance in explaining the locus of mAyA. But it is there for everyone to see that even his direct disciples maNDana and padmapAda, had different views on mAyA and its location. To me this speaks of incoherence in the advaita theory itself.
I do not understand why ontology should draw on jeevanmuktas? Is there any logical reasoning to show that jeevanmuktas - which honour we seem to generally thrust on certain ascetics and, in the examples cited by you, when certified by some westerners - have a better idea of ontological truths? As for me the human being is "powered" by some power or force, and it is impossible for anyone to know about that power, as the saying goes 'the knower cannot be known'. But certain practices induces a trance state of mind and it is as unreliable (or may be more than) as the waking stage. Hence I would not attach much importance to the words of such jeevanmuktas.
Is this untenable? Karma and jeeva have been interpreted, but jeeva differs in the eyes of different vedanta schools.
Sankara is perhaps the last pre-eminent radical polemist. The tallest claim “Tat tvam asi” is startling: either it is a profound truth or is simply a flight of fancy.
Sir, I have nothing up my sleeve. As I stated above I feel there is some power or force which is what "life" is, as normally known to us. It is difficult to believe that it is the same force which creates the entire set of universes.
As regards "tat tvam asi" I will post my views in a day or two please.
N
Nara
Guest
Dear Shri SwamiTaBra, Greetings!
Sir, I have contempt for nobody, malice towards none, and love for all. Not seeing eye-to-eye does not mean I harbor contempt and neither does that make me haughty. If some sages are charlatans then they do not deserve any respect let alone reverence. All others, to the extent they pursued knowledge and tried to make sense of the world around them, they do deserve our respect, but most certainly not reverence -- reverence makes us put on blinders.
I don't know about vibrations and karma emanating from it. I can only state what my view of karma is, it is effect of our actions. We have to face the consequences of the choices we make and actions we perform. Good acts and bad acts outlive us in the memories of future generations. The scope and intensity of these acts will determine the scope, half-life, and the reaction of the such acts. The acts of my grandfather lives only in my memory, and will die once I am gone. But the acts of Bhagavat Ramanuja lives on across a great cross section of people and may live for many centuries to come.
There is no such thing as karma that gets accumulated for each individual, like a bank account, and carried forward through many births. We have but one life to live, and we are all alone, there is nobody there at the top of the mountain or the middle of the ocean. We have to make the best of it, as much as we can.
Cheers!
I have no idea and therefore I cannot agree or disagree. But that is completely besides the point, isn't?
While what even a layman may think about the Vedas cannot make the Vedas any more or less valid, the statement itself is not true. Budda rejected Vedas outright and ever since there has been many who did the same. The most recent ones are the members of the Dravidian Rationalist Movement. Even deeply theistic thinkers like Basavanna rejected the Vedas, so did a lot of Saivas of Tamil Nadu.
It is a strange world isn't, those who claim to be keepers of the supposed eternal truth, the ones who are nothing short of the all powerful godhead itself, are the ones with humility, and the ones who accept the utter insignificance of humans in the grand scheme of things, who refuse to claim any special conduit to fountainhead of knowledge, are the ones lacking even a modicum of humility!!!
Sir, I have contempt for nobody, malice towards none, and love for all. Not seeing eye-to-eye does not mean I harbor contempt and neither does that make me haughty. If some sages are charlatans then they do not deserve any respect let alone reverence. All others, to the extent they pursued knowledge and tried to make sense of the world around them, they do deserve our respect, but most certainly not reverence -- reverence makes us put on blinders.
No sir, I have to contradict you even here, I am not trained in anything including Tarka. If I am anything, I am not adamant, or else, I will be with you and others, insisting in the inerrancy of the Vedas and infallibility of revered Acharyas. I kept my mind open and opinions flexible to reason, and that is why I am where I am today. Charge of cussedness is a weapon to beat the dare-to-think people back to the established orthodoxy, back to seeing clothes upon the naked emperor.
That is your right and I respect that.
Indeed, waving the white flag is what true rationalists do, for they are humble enough to realize the limitations of human knowledge. But they sure don't leapfrog into the territory of faith and make tall claims with arrogant certainty, if they did, they are surely not any kind of rationalist, let alone the true kind.
In SV literature, vRitti is action, both mental and physical. So, thoughts are also vRitti, but not exclusively so.
I don't know about vibrations and karma emanating from it. I can only state what my view of karma is, it is effect of our actions. We have to face the consequences of the choices we make and actions we perform. Good acts and bad acts outlive us in the memories of future generations. The scope and intensity of these acts will determine the scope, half-life, and the reaction of the such acts. The acts of my grandfather lives only in my memory, and will die once I am gone. But the acts of Bhagavat Ramanuja lives on across a great cross section of people and may live for many centuries to come.
There is no such thing as karma that gets accumulated for each individual, like a bank account, and carried forward through many births. We have but one life to live, and we are all alone, there is nobody there at the top of the mountain or the middle of the ocean. We have to make the best of it, as much as we can.
Cheers!
Last edited by a moderator:
Basically comparing Adi Sankara with that of other legends, i am not comfortable. The most scientific approach in life philosophy is Advaitha. Right from Albert Einstein and contemporary scientist including the great saints have whole heartedly supported the view of Advaitha because of it universal application. Even Dr. Deepak chopra's Unified field of Medicine, and Unified theory or oneness theory from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and other great masters have lot of meaning and living evidence.
It is easy to comment on Adi Sankara's physical body and his thinking outwardly because our objective mind is looking at physical objects alone not the subjective mind. The atma - Subjective mind and its full winding potential has to be recognized and brought up to the physical world. Empirical evidences are plenty to substantiate that those who have dragged the Atmic power has been very successful in their life, profession and career. Do not look the Self realization as only Moksha and immortality. Even an artist, painter, sculpture, musician goes into Transcendental stage and drags the subjective strength and lives upon on the physical world which makes them self satisfied in their arts, which has to be interpreted as Self Realization stage. Evidence with presence of Emotional intelligence and other intelligence are scientific evidence for Advaitha. Can discuss on scientific evidence to make our philosophy more contemporary. Hope we can start our thread of discussion on this line. Will be happy to contribute on this area more ("Ethics and Brain" -Research student at Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa, USA - Teaching and Promoting Consciousness based Education to the world based on Vedic system).
It is easy to comment on Adi Sankara's physical body and his thinking outwardly because our objective mind is looking at physical objects alone not the subjective mind. The atma - Subjective mind and its full winding potential has to be recognized and brought up to the physical world. Empirical evidences are plenty to substantiate that those who have dragged the Atmic power has been very successful in their life, profession and career. Do not look the Self realization as only Moksha and immortality. Even an artist, painter, sculpture, musician goes into Transcendental stage and drags the subjective strength and lives upon on the physical world which makes them self satisfied in their arts, which has to be interpreted as Self Realization stage. Evidence with presence of Emotional intelligence and other intelligence are scientific evidence for Advaitha. Can discuss on scientific evidence to make our philosophy more contemporary. Hope we can start our thread of discussion on this line. Will be happy to contribute on this area more ("Ethics and Brain" -Research student at Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa, USA - Teaching and Promoting Consciousness based Education to the world based on Vedic system).
OP
OP
sangom
0
Shri Swami,Originally Posted by SwamiTaBra...
Sri. Sangom wants a strict rational explanation on karma’s attachment on jeeva, which I am afraid may not obtained without taking the discourse to the realm of ontology in the Indic tradition. When ontology is opened how can one not refer to jeevan muktas.
By the word "jeevan mukta" is normally meant a person who has attained experience of 'brahman', the only Reality as per advaita. (Visishtadvaita does not provide for jeevanmukti but only videha mukti, as I understand.) While I was studying Sankara's bhAshya on cHAndogyOpanishad (to give my comments on 'tat tvam asi') I came across the following comment of Sankara:
This is from Sankara's introductory remarks on cH.U. 6-1.
"अनन्तरम् चैकस्मिन्भुक्ते विदुषि सर्वम् जगत्तृप्तम् भवतीत्युक्तम्... Further, it has been said ( in V-24) that when a knower (of the Vaisvanara Self) eats, the whole world becomes satisfied."
Since these are the words of Sankara, I am sure there is no question of doubting its veracity. So, if a knower of the Vaisvanara Self (which, from the relevant adhyaya will be seen to be one who knows the universal self) eats, then the whole world, including animals, birds, etc., should feel satisfied. We can concede that such satisfaction will be only temporary since even the said knower will need food periodically. But don't we have millions of people suffering from hunger and thirst for days on end and succumbing to these, in Africa and some parts of India itself? Was the condition different some hundred or two hundred years ago? Not at all. Hence there were no jeevanmuktas at least during the times of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda or Ramana. Else the above statement is untrue.
I am saying this in support of my statement that the adulation which is given to some ascetics by eulogizing them as "jeevan muktas" is mere imagination, and does not stand scrutiny on the basis of Sruti.
I am sure, knowing how well the minds of people have been conditioned, that some excuse or round-about argument can come, to counter my observation. But I would like to know what it is.
OP
OP
sangom
0
Shri Sairavi,
It is difficult to understand the import of this sentence unless you clarify what you mean by 'other legends' and why such a comparison is not comfortable to you.
Again it is not clear to me as to what you refer to as 'life philosophy', because that is how I read this sentence.
When you say "whole heartedly supported" do you mean that right from Einstein scientists have expressed the view that advaita is better than the other schools of vedanta? "contemporary scientist including great saints" does not make sense. Who are the great saint scientists? When you say "even Deepak Chopra's unified field of medicine" it looks to me that it is something either very unique and great or very very ordinary, either of the extremes. Frankly, this is the first time I am hearing about it. I will google and find out more on that. I am not aware of Mahesh Yogi's theory as such. Was it his interpretation of advaita or an independent philosophy developed by him?
Sorry Sir, nobody commented on Sankara's physical body here. All that we are doing is to discuss what Sankara himself, during his lifetime presented in support of his advaita pov and find out whether his advaitam is logically acceptable to a rational intellect.
Subjective mind, its winding potential, etc., have not been relied upon by Sankara when he presented his theory to the world. Then how and why it has become a necessity now?
Sankara did not claim any such results for those who get brahmajnAnam. On the contrary he emphasized asceticism and renunciation of this material world, to achieve that goal.
Our discussions here are on the internal coherence, logicality, etc., of advaita as presented by Sankara. If you desire to cover other areas such as those you have referred to above, kindly start another thread and we will participate to the extent our knowledge permits us.
S
SwamiTaBra
Guest
Honestly, I am stumped by the "vaisvanara self"'s abilities as you have described. Is it some sort of allegory and in which case it will be given to speculation and be assured that Sri. Nara is now gifted an arsenal.
Yes the point of inflection of Advaita and Vishtaadvaitha lies in mukhti, at least it appears so.
May I request to initiate a thread on building up of different (at least the major) philosophical schools in our country. I know it will be painstaking. Rather than trying to score brownie points here and there it will engender a better informed debate.
Thanks for your observation.
Warm regards,
Swami
S
SwamiTaBra
Guest
Dear HH,
Lets say I write something today. About 3000 years later the language common now may have disappeared or may have changed considerably over time. So 3000 years later not many people understand my compositions. As a result my compositions get to be considered ancient or old, archaic writings. Lets say 3000 years later perhaps some descendent of mine will still be memorizing the lines and chanting them. On what basis should they be taken as pramana?
My reply:
Do the phonemes change or the syllables change? Kindly show me proof that they have changed since the early days of humanity. The whole point is that no one trusts the integrity of what someone else says. Perhaps this is what an age is. There cetainly can be gaps in understanding, as archealogists will vouch, but does it mean everything of past are not valid, unless transmitted without interruption. Scepticism definitely is healthy . Even as we argue, we rely on book by some one else. Even Sri. Sangom or Sri Nara had to rely on print (now transmitted through NET) and everything is fragmented.
No one said Vivekananda propounded vedas. What is interesting in what he said was that vedas are the only scriptures which asks to go beyond that. We can only speculate what he meant,
The rishis are not authors in the conventional sense. They are supposed to have just transmitted the sounds. It is somewhat like an inspired poetry, in which the poet does not exercise his mental faculties.
Birth of such rishis is not precluded in the future eras.
Quarrels arise more out of fragmented knowledge rather than by ignorance. In saying so I am also a party. Pehaps this makes many people scary of intellectual exercises and takes them to secure sentimentalism that Bhakti offers.
With regards,
Swami
Last edited:
Dear Sri Sangom Ji,
One has to read the Vedas and Upanishads in certain context. I am afraid you are giving a literal meaning here that too without context.
The part you quote comes after establishing various sacrifices and oblations need to be performed by a man, understanding the meaning of oblations. Various organs, planets and the elements are offered the food in the meaning of Agnihotra - and then the Upanishad talks about the difference between a Jeevan Muktha and a non Jeevan Muktha and says that when the Jeevan Muktha who understands the Agnihotri eats in all worlds 'satisfying' everyone. The word 'satisfy' does not mean being full with food - it is an allegorical term used to signify the sacrifice to these entities and these entities' futures 'appetite', meaning future well being are satisfied for their functioning. This is not a literal sentence, it is about establishing that the Jeevan Muktas do not 'eat' in a biological sense but rather for the welfare of the whole universe. This is the import of this stanza, as far as I can tell.
But, of course, if you insist on literal meaning, you are absolutely right.
Bur seeing is believing. As far as Ramana Maharishi is concerned, to me He is a Jevvan Muktha. This is my own experience as well as the experience of countless others. I understand how this will not appeal to the 'scientific' minds such as yourself and Professor Nara Ji.
Another simple question to you and Professor Nara Ji: You say that Sri Sankara created/supported the dictum that one should take Sruthis as the final say. But at the same time here Professor Nara Ji, especially argued that there is no support for Sankara's theories on Advaitham in the Sruthis. Why would Sankara wants folks to believe in Vedas as the final say, knowing that his proposition would be examined that way, if he had 'invented' something outside of them? Does not make sense to me.
Regards,
KRS
One has to read the Vedas and Upanishads in certain context. I am afraid you are giving a literal meaning here that too without context.
The part you quote comes after establishing various sacrifices and oblations need to be performed by a man, understanding the meaning of oblations. Various organs, planets and the elements are offered the food in the meaning of Agnihotra - and then the Upanishad talks about the difference between a Jeevan Muktha and a non Jeevan Muktha and says that when the Jeevan Muktha who understands the Agnihotri eats in all worlds 'satisfying' everyone. The word 'satisfy' does not mean being full with food - it is an allegorical term used to signify the sacrifice to these entities and these entities' futures 'appetite', meaning future well being are satisfied for their functioning. This is not a literal sentence, it is about establishing that the Jeevan Muktas do not 'eat' in a biological sense but rather for the welfare of the whole universe. This is the import of this stanza, as far as I can tell.
But, of course, if you insist on literal meaning, you are absolutely right.
Bur seeing is believing. As far as Ramana Maharishi is concerned, to me He is a Jevvan Muktha. This is my own experience as well as the experience of countless others. I understand how this will not appeal to the 'scientific' minds such as yourself and Professor Nara Ji.
Another simple question to you and Professor Nara Ji: You say that Sri Sankara created/supported the dictum that one should take Sruthis as the final say. But at the same time here Professor Nara Ji, especially argued that there is no support for Sankara's theories on Advaitham in the Sruthis. Why would Sankara wants folks to believe in Vedas as the final say, knowing that his proposition would be examined that way, if he had 'invented' something outside of them? Does not make sense to me.
Regards,
KRS
S
SwamiTaBra
Guest
Dear Sri Nara,
Refusal to acknowledge the limitations of reason and possibility of realms beyond intellect is what I refer here.
You may revel in casting aspersions on every vibuthi (I have myself said that there are enough fraudsters) but that does not help any one even a bit. The problem is how to test whether one has graduated into the supra-intellectual zones.
By the way,the Buddhists in India are Hinduised in that they visit temples; the same with Lingayats, the followers of Basavanna. Except the adherents of Abrahamic religions and Zoroastrians, the rest here are hinduised.
With regards,
Swami
Last edited:
OP
OP
sangom
0
Shri KRS ji,
Your posts contain some logical statements interspersed with your subjective preference for advaita and aspect related to it. For example, your post ends with the sentence, "Yes, I know that Sankara used the word 'Samadhi' in terms of what we call as 'Nirvakalpa' Samadhi today." But you have not supported either of the points. I would request that instead of just such bald but authoritative-looking statements, you please substantiate the points also.
I have not had access to the arguments between sankara and maNDana miSra. So I am unable to make any comments on these. In case you have some records, kindly furnish.
But from the reported details in Sankara Vijayam, the debate went on for a number of days without a clear winner when resort was made to some sort of super human device to declare Sankara as the winner. To me it appears that this is indicative of maNDana having been won over not by pure debate but some extra methods and hagiological cover-up of the truth.
Smt Happy Hindu has raised some doubts about the veracity of the above statements. I am also of the same opinion as she holds. We look forward to your response.
The immortal soul referred to above is IMHO different from the brahman of advaita. Rigveda just postulated a life in some other world for the dead persons but it is not clear whether they believed in a "soul" akin to the jivatma of later times.
A very pertinent question arises as to how you are practising advaitam without mixing beliefs of the other schools of vedanta. The doubt is there because you confuse nirvikalpa samadhi with samadhi, then say Sankara endorsed it, Saguna and nirguna brahmans are one and the same etc., without bothering even a bit to cite where Sankara expresses such views. But for others you expect every statement to be supported by relevant evidence. I may be able to sift through your posts and find more such examples but I suppose these will suffice.
I will have to say that you are not aware of the real debate between advaitins and v. advaitins on the untenabilities of advaita. Probably these are not widely known or publicised lest there be unnecessary animosity created between two sets of fanatical supporters of both the sects.
Now the web page you cite gives very high faluting word-play. As understood by my very limited intelligence, the answer to the nature and locus of mAyA is something like "mAya is neither real nor unreal". This like saying a certain vegetable is neither brinjal nor banana (is it brinana then? or banjal?). I would therefore request that you present whatever arguments are given there in simple snd lucid language so that we may respond.
Now coming to the history of the saptavidha anupapattis (SVA) raised by rAmAnuja, it was not until the 20th. century that some rebuttal is available. One Ananthakrishna Sastry wrote "sata bhushani" to rebut vedanta desika's sata dushani which included the objections raised in SVA. Then jagadeeSvara SasthRi wrote sapthavidha anupapaththi pareeksha, and sapthavidha anupapaththi sthhApanam was again written by thalaiyALam ranganAthhAchArya. Then followed a number of works on either side like sadvidyA vinaya by mahAchArya, SankarASankara bhAshyavimaRSa by rAmarAyakavi, then paramARthha bhUshaNa by puTTamURthi veerarAghavAchArya , viSishTAdvaithaSakthi by T.D. Thathacharya, and the debate still continues with advaita not able to score a final and conclusive win.
When we are discussing topics like these it will be best not to introduce our own terms, and that too without advance explanation. But in the context of Sankara's advaita when he himself says yoga is not a means for knowing or experiencing brahman, attaining liberation, etc., it will avoid a lot of confusion if we stick to the original meaning of yoga viz., Patanjali's yogadarsana and that alone.
Samkhya differs IMO from advaita ab initio, because Samkhya postulates prakriti and purusha, denounces the concept of Iswara (this is the original atheistic Samkhya of Kapila, but this has also been morphed by mixing with Yoga, subsequently.we do not know at which stage Sankara dealt with Samkhya.), propounds 24 fundamental principles which are at the base of evolution, etc. Hence advaita is different completely.
my observations will follow in a day or two, but regarding the rebuttals please furnish a lucid version.
I said sankara does not use the word "leela" in any of his bhashyas. I you can give references in support of the above statements, pl.do.
Dear Sri Ravi Ji,
Sorry, it took me a while to respond to your post.
I agree with the content, except for one item. The Abrahamic God is a Saguna Brahmin (has qualities that allows for punishment or rewards), rather than a Nirguna Brahmin. While it is usually stated as nameless and formless, by the virtue of being a God with action, it ceases to be Nirguna.
Regards,
KRS
Sorry, it took me a while to respond to your post.
I agree with the content, except for one item. The Abrahamic God is a Saguna Brahmin (has qualities that allows for punishment or rewards), rather than a Nirguna Brahmin. While it is usually stated as nameless and formless, by the virtue of being a God with action, it ceases to be Nirguna.
Regards,
KRS
Dear HH Ji,
The concept of Saguna Brahmin, arising out of Maya in the physical world is enunciated by Shankara. But he went beyond that and said that the Nirguna Brahman is the ultimate, the unchangeable. So Ishwara as seen by the human mind is a bridge between what is Nirguna and Jeeva. Please read these;
Veda and Vedanta : Are They Opposed to One Another? from the Chapter "The Vedas", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
Mimansa and Adi Sankara from the Chapter "Mimamasa - Karmamarga", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
And the creation from the advaitha concept as opposed to others is contained here:http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part13/chap7.htm
There are further topics that cover the role of Ishwara etc. in this site.
So Shankara was the first to reconcile the concept of bheda versus abheda systems. He went from relative to absolute. Ramanuja, it seems went from absolute to relative.
If you need further clarification, please let me know.
Regards,
KRS
The concept of Saguna Brahmin, arising out of Maya in the physical world is enunciated by Shankara. But he went beyond that and said that the Nirguna Brahman is the ultimate, the unchangeable. So Ishwara as seen by the human mind is a bridge between what is Nirguna and Jeeva. Please read these;
Veda and Vedanta : Are They Opposed to One Another? from the Chapter "The Vedas", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
Mimansa and Adi Sankara from the Chapter "Mimamasa - Karmamarga", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:
And the creation from the advaitha concept as opposed to others is contained here:http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part13/chap7.htm
There are further topics that cover the role of Ishwara etc. in this site.
So Shankara was the first to reconcile the concept of bheda versus abheda systems. He went from relative to absolute. Ramanuja, it seems went from absolute to relative.
If you need further clarification, please let me know.
Regards,
KRS
Last edited:
OP
OP
sangom
0
Shri KRS ji,
Frankly I am not able to understand what is out of context in my post and why Sankara's statement should not be taken in the literal sense. Even granting for argument's sake that "One has to read the Vedas and Upanishads in certain context", but not accepting it, the bhashya is not veda or Sruti.
I suppose you have the Chandogya Upanishad bhashya by Sankara. If you are referring to someone else's commentary in English I don't know how far it will be in alignment with Sankara's version.
cH. up. chapter V narrates how king aSvapati, who had himself known the vaiSvAnara self (VNS), instructed the five seekers, viz., prAceenaSAla s/o upamanyu, satyayajna s/o pulusha, Indradyumna grandson of bhallavi, jana s/o SArkarAksha, buDila s/o aSvatarSva.
The account given is itself ridiculous in that aSvapati claims that if one does not worship (upAsate) VNS in its entirety but only parts of it like heaven, sun, air, sky, water and earth, which constitute the head, eye, prANa, body (torso), abdomen (bladder) and feet ofthe VNS would lose the respective part of their anatomy. (Even Sankara does not try to adduce any esoteric dimension in his bhAshya to this caution given by king aSvapati. Hence it is safe to conclude that it is what it says in direct language.)
Then comes the instruction proper from aSvapati. He says, "You all, knowing this VNS as though different, eat food. But one who meditates thus upon the VNS that is the object of identification in 'this I am', and is confined only to a region, eats food in all the worlds, in all the creatures and in all the selves.
Of the VNS such as this, the head is 'sutEjaH' (effulgent), eye is the 'viSvarUpaH' (the multiform), prANa is 'pr^tHagvartma' (differently directed), the torso is 'bahula' (abundant), bladder or abdomen is 'rayi' (wealth), feet are 'patishThAH' (base, earth), chest is the (fire) altar, the hairs on the chest are the kuSa grass, heart the gArhapatya fire, mind the anvAhArya pacana fire, and the mouth is the Ahavaneeya fire.
Here aSvapati indirectly compares the overtly done 'agnihotra' and the oblations with the five morsels to be taken before food accompanied with the mantras, prANAya svAhAH, vyAnAya svAhaH, apAnAya svAhaH, samAnAya svAhAH, udAnAya svAhAH.
Each of the items is supposed to satisfy one type of agni, it is simultaneously stated to satisfy a whole chain of entities as under:
1. prANa > eye > sun > heaven > that in which the heaven and sun are fixed > eater >@
[When prANa is satisfied eye is satisfied; when eye is satisfied sun satisfied; when sun is satisfied heaven is satisfied ; when heaven is satisfied that in which heaven and sun are fixed is satisfied; when that in which heaven and sun are fixed is satisfied the eater is satisfied; @(the eater is satisfied) also with progeny, cattle, food, lustre (tEjas) and divine splendour resulting from sacred knowledge (brahmavarcas). @ this refrain is given in all the cases
2. vyAna > ear > moon > diks (four cardinal directions) > that in which the moon and the diks are fixed > eater himself >@
3. apAna > speech > fire > earth >that in which earth and fire are fixed > eater himself >@
4. samAna > mind > rain > lightning > that in which rain and lightning are fixed > eater himself > @
5.udAnA > skin > air > AkASa > that in which air and AkASa exist > eater himself > @
These utterances do not seem (to me at least) any great truth. At best they reflect primitive beliefs. In this context one (supposed to be great) deduction in SatapatHa brAhmaNa comes to mind. That great pronouncement goes like this (this is from memory):
When the body is hot (because of fever or similar situations) water (perspiration) comes out. Hence heat is the source of water. That means water emerged out of agni, "agnErApaH"!!
Since you stated that vedas and upanshads have to be read "in certain contexts" I will request you to enlighten me what special context applies to this episode and how it will affect the meaning given above which is true to Sankara's commentary.
The story does not stop there. aSvapati continues: "If anyone, without knowing this, performs agnihotra, it would be like giving up the embers and pouring the oblations on the ashes.
Then if anyone knowing it thus offers the agnihotra, for him the oblation becomes poured into all the worlds, all the creatures and all the selves.
Just as the upper part of a reed when put into fire gets burnt up, so also become burnt up all the sins of the one who knowing it thus, performs agnihotra.
Sankara, in his commentary on this stanza states that the said destruction of sins is not complete because the evils which are instrumental for the present life will not be burnt up.He also affirms that the same effect will be got bymaking these oblations to oneself when eating food. For the sake of info. I give the actual words from Sankara bhAshyam:
य एतदेवम् विद्वान् अग्निहोत्रम् जुहोति भुङ्क्ते ।
It is after this, in the next khaNDa that sankara gives the introduction which I included in my post to Swami.
I am convinced that the literal meaning is what should be taken as authentic unless we have definite proof to indicate that they are encrypted texts.
Knowing well that your attesting RM's jeevanmukta status will not convince us why do the very same thing?
Sorry to say that you forget the conditions which were to be satisfied in Sankara's times for a darSana to be even considered 'Astika' darSana was that its propounder should interpret and show how his darSana is in accord with the prastHAnatrayee, viz., vEdas, the main upanishads and BG. Naturally Sankara had to say that his tenets were in accord with the three items; otherwise his advaita would have been categorised as a vainASika philosophy, the adjective Sankara himself gave to buddhist philosophy.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
For rent [Property for Rent] 1st Floor Independent House In AdambakkamIndependent House 1st Floor
- Bav2003 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted Need of a Brahmin lady cook in AdambakkamRequire a Brahmin female cook in 40s to 60 to cook for a family of 4 adults +2 kids in...
- LakshmiRajesh (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Need Brahmin cook for homeBrahmin cook needed to make breakfast and lunch at home (Mylapore) for 4 people. Please text...
- ram1618 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
-