• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advaita and its fallacies.

Dear all,
I am afraid that an illusion is likely to be created while going through this thread that Advaitam was advocated and laboured to be justified only by Adi sankara.
The oldest record, perhaps, is in Rig Veda, Nasadiya Sutra, where Monotheism is discussed about.
In Zoroastrianism, which was perhaps once the largest on earth, when some consider it as old as 18th century BCE, Monotheism is mentioned.
Among the Abrahamic religions, Judaism ( Torah, the Hebrew Bible), talks about Monotheism.
The Older Testament adopts a more complex Trinatarianism ( father, Son and the holy Ghost).
In Islam, Wahabbism, the primary part Tawhid, talks about the uniqueness and Unity of God, again Monotheism.
Thus, all religions, old and young have the concept of Monotheism.
Adi Sankara, who, besides being one of the greatest philosophers, was also an Administrator unparalleled,fused together the different factions prevailing at that time, Ganapatyam,Saivam,Sauram,Vaishnavam and Saktham and when he found among some tribals the worship of Kaumaram, he incorporated that belief also and created what is more commonly known as Shanmatasthabanam, advocating the philosophy that, in whatever form you worship God, God is same and unique and Advaitam. When this was extended to the interpretation of Vedas and Upanishads, the Atma and the Body etc being one or illusorily double or really dual etc,he extended his logic to establish that it is all one and whatever we are seeing differently, is Maya.
He could not have been more sarcastic on all those who discuss on Vedanta and Grammar etc than he was in his small composition, Bhaja Govindam, when he criticises all those who are spending their time on " Drung gung karane", but instead, devote their time in worshipping Govinda.
After all, whether we talk about Chit, the subatomic particles or about Ambaram, bigger than the Universe, we get lost in the search for Chidambaram and that is the Chidambara Rahasyam
Regards,
Ramanathan.
 
There is a simple logic to advaita's consistency with existence of god. All forms of god human relations are based on master-servant/slave relationship of various types in non advaitic tradition. But this defies the very simplicity and our natural understanding of how god should be. Even atheists keep asking the question if god were to exist why should he be impartial. Thus at the bottom of our hearts we know there can be no inequality in front of god. Then when we apply the " Not this" test on different thoughts , events or objects that manifest on us, it should lead to identification with the real nature. To put it more simply we know god is in us (whether we are a pretha- ghost without body) or whether in this body. we also know we are part of god. Now derive the logic yourself. Advaita is but natural , yet because of the human nature to associate with maya, so many complex explanations are needed. advaitha is the most natural concept, one may always argue about the validity of the arguments that lead to this concept.
 
Advaita; I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter, for all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and if one man fails, the whole world fall to that extent??(1) With these words the Father of modern India, Mahatma Gandhi, revealed the thoughts that were a major influence on him in 1924. However, the ideas he mentioned date back hundreds of years to the thoughts of an influential thinker named Sankara, and they also reflect the ideas of more modern Indian scholars who were shaping and adapting ancient ideas to a contemporary present. The terms Advaita, which means non-dualistic, and Vedanta, which literally means the end of the Vedas, together refer to a series of thinkers and ideas that go back to the eighth century C.E.
 
Vedanta accepts the scriptural authority of the four Vedas, the Upanishads, the two great epics, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana, and the Brahmasutras. It gives little acknowledgement to the Puranas and Tantras. In fact, one could argue that in the great ebb and sway of Hindu thought in general, that the Advaita ?revolution? was the backlash against a major emphasis on idols and ?bhakti? devotion to numerous gods and goddesses. Amidst the huge sea of millions of deities, Vedanta attempts to synthesize the earlier texts of Hindu scriptures into an overarching system, which, while not totally dismissing bhakti, relegates it to a secondary place in favor of a higher and ultimate unity ?behind? or ?underneath? all the respective deities. Advaita was built upon the earlier Mimamsa tradition of exegesis. This tradition, dating back to the second century C.E., stressed the Vedic tradition of dharma, the ritual understanding of how people are to act in the universe. As Clooney notes, ?Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the event of sacrifice: dharma, the object of Mimamsa inquiry, is the sum of all right relations, the activated, fully understood and rightly connected set of all the small and large activities and things which together constitute the sacrificial whole.? (3) Even though Advaita is modeled on the same paradigm, it does break in some significant ways and claims to have superseded its predecessor. It is often called the Uttara (later) Mimamsa.
 
Born into a family of Shiva worshipers, Sankara has been transformed over time into an avatar, a literal incarnation of Shiva himself. Seen as a child prodigy, his hagiographers state that he had mastered the four Vedas by the age of eight, the age when boys normally begin to study the Vedas! Even as a young man he showed his desire to become a renouncer, a ?sannyasin?, and seek ?moksha? or liberation from the wheel of birth, death, and rebirth, or ?samsara?. At sixteen he left his family home and became a sannyasin. For the next sixteen years he would travel to many parts of India, visiting temples, reading and studying, debating with different groups and writing his commentaries. There are several legends about the deal his parents made to have a son who would do so much but live only a short life, and Sankara only lived until he was thirty-two. But in that short time he wrote voluminous commentaries and refuted many opponents from differing traditions. His teachings on Advaita center on several important ideas. The most important is ?The Brahman is real; the world is unreal. The ?jiva?(individual soul or spirit) is verily Brahman and no other.? This needs to be unpacked quite a bit. The Vedas teach about many gods, but to Sankara, the key is Brahman. Using many Vedic and Upanisadic texts, Sankara argues that all the deities mentioned in the scriptures are merely hints of the one real god. When Sankara argues in this way, his point is not that the other gods are not gods, but rather, they really represent the one true reality of the universe ? Brahman. In the same way, all that appears in the world to the senses is ?unreal?. In this sense, Sankara thought that the world is ?Maya?, the dream or illusion. Maya also means ?that which measures?, and is used in the sense that Maya measures the unmeasurable, diversifies the undiversified, and changes the immutable. The world is illusion because of ?avidya? or ignorance of the true nature of things. The jiva is the individual soul or ?atman?. Each bit of the world is atman. So in essence Brahman really is all that there is, but the individual is blinded by his/her own ignorance into thinking that he/she, as an individual, is separate from the universal one. Maya blinds from the true or higher nature, and through knowledge of the truth ?tat tvam asi? (that art thou) the atman recognizes what is real and Maya has no more power over the enlightened mind.
 
What is Advaita, or nonduality? Advaita means nondual or "not two." This oneness is a fundamental quality of everything. Everything is a part of and made of one nondual conciousness. Often the question arises, "If it is all one thing, why don’t I experience it that way?" This is confusing oneness for the appearance of sameness. Things can appear different without being separate. Just look at your hand for a moment. Your fingers are all different from each other, but are they separate? They all arise from the same hand. Similarly, the objects, animals, plants and people in the world are all definitely different in their appearance and functioning. But they are all connected at their source—they come from the same source. This one Being that is behind all life has an infinite number of different expressions that we experience as different objects.
 
the hand analogy, your fingers are all made of the same substance. They are made up of similar tissues, cells, atoms, and at the deepest level, subatomic particles. Similarly, when your experience of reality becomes more subtle, you discover that everything is just different expressions of one field of nondual Being. Below is a wonderful little story about the meaning and definition of nonduality or Advaita written by Dennis Waite (of advaita.org.uk) that explores this in more depth. But what about your experience right now? Is it possible to realize this subtle oneness or nonduality in ordinary experience? It is, if you set aside the expectation of a dramatic awakening to the experience of oneness and explore the nondual nature of reality a little bit at a time. Just as even a single drop of water is wet, you can experience oneness in even simple everyday experiences, since oneness is a fundamental quality of everything that exists.
As an experiment, just notice your fingers and the palm of your hand. Can you say where one starts and the other ends, or are they one thing? To take this further, where does your hand stop and your forearm begin? Can you experience the oneness of your hand and your forearm? If these are not separate, then what about other parts of your body? Are your feet and your ears really one even though they are so different? Now notice if there really is a separation between your thoughts and your head. Where does your head stop and something else called thought begin? What about feelings or desires? Are they really separate from you or your body?
 
advaita
is concept of human sense
it means although our shapes of hand it different but it combain in one body and it together within ours. this mean although we born with lot of aim in world we all with out main purpose that is being sucess in life

so it mean when we balance our mind thinking hearing and looking sense together
we can easly achieve our aim in life
 
self-realization, or the realization of the oneness of who we are, is not some distant goal that only a few can attain. The Self is that which is always and already present, that which doesn't come and go. The love, peace, and happiness we have all been seeking is already here and is, in fact, who we are. Through simple self-inquiry, we can awaken from the dream of a separate self to the reality of Oneness, to the spiritual truth
 
I am one of the moderators of the advaitin Discussion forum and please visit and find more about advaita.
advaitin : Advaitin: Shankara's Advaita Philosophy

More information about advaita is also available at many sites including the one below:
Advaita Vedanta Anusandhana Kendra

Fundamentally all our misunderstanding is due to partial or full "Ignorance." With vivekam (true knowledge) our misunderstanding will melt away and we can recognize the Truth and our True Divine Nature. This is the essence of Advaita Vedanta Philosophy as postulated by Sankara. One need to get proper guidance from a realized Guru to clear all misunderstandings.

regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: I just joined the list today and thanks for accepting me.
 
Dear ramvchandran Ji,

A belated welcome to you.

I had been in discussions with two of our stalwart members here, Sri Sangom Ji and Professor Nara Ji on this topic.

Advaitha is such a complex philosophy to understand, I was not able to respond to the postings of these two against it's validity - and as I was readying myself to respond, I got sick.

I think this is a worthy subject to take up as I think that there are many misconceptions.

Sri Sangom Ji and Professor Nara Ji,

If you are so inclined, we can restart this conversation. What do you think?

Regards,
KRS
 
KRS said:
Dear ramvchandran Ji,

A belated welcome to you.

I had been in discussions with two of our stalwart members here, Sri Sangom Ji and Professor Nara Ji on this topic.

Advaitha is such a complex philosophy to understand, I was not able to respond to the postings of these two against it's validity - and as I was readying myself to respond, I got sick.

I think this is a worthy subject to take up as I think that there are many misconceptions.

Sri Sangom Ji and Professor Nara Ji,

If you are so inclined, we can restart this conversation. What do you think?

Regards,
KRS
Click to expand...

Dear Shri KRS,

I have said my views as best as I could. But "advaita" in my view, has been so much altered to suit the needs of the society that "advaita today" is full of every kind of permissibility - right from Tantra to Bhakti to even perhaps poorva meemamsa being considered as valid stepping stones for a person to ultimately get "Brahmajnana". In such a confused scenario I don't think it will be within my limited intellectual ability to argue my case any better than what I have already done. The only evidence I can adduce in support of my view is that advaitins have not yet been able to completely vindicate themselves over the criticism of Ramanujacharya.

I therefore respectfully request to be excused from further participation.
 
Dear Shri KRS,

Our Sanaathana Dharma which is based on the 4 Vedas and 108 Upanishadhs invariably considers "ADHVAITHAM" as the principle force of existence. There are many Upanishadhs which vouch-safe for it.

The learned members may not be aware of the Adhvaithic Principle - Non Duality i.e The Maker is the Made - that exists only in Sanaathana Dharma (as against any other later religions in this 3rd planet in this Solar System, which is the part of Milkyway Galaxy which is a part of this Universe.

More to come.
 
Dear Sri Suba42 Ji,

Abheda philosophy is cited only in a few vedic passages as opposed to the Bheda philosophy. Can you cite the relevant Abheda passages from the 4 Vedas?

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Shri. KRS Ji,

[FONT=&quot]ADHVAITHAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS.

Morethan 10 Upaishadhs (out of 108 Upanishadhs) speak of Non Duality.

The first is Aithareya Upanisha (Rig Veda)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot] – “pragyaanam bhrahmaha” (verse 3.3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Consciousness is Brahman.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

This consciousness (I' ness) arises at Mollaadhara Chakra (The first Chakra of 6 Chakraas - situated between Urinal and Anal outlets.

We are sixth sensed living things, even single sensed living things will have the Iness.

More to come.

Best Regards.
 
Dear Shri. KRS Ji,

[FONT=&quot]ADHVAITHAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS.(Part II)

The second is Purushaha Sohamasmi (Verse 16) in Esaavaasya Upanishadh (Shukla Yajurveda) - I AM THAT (Purusha) which has created this Surya Mandala.

Pranaam.

[/FONT]
 
Dear sri suba42 Ji,

Is it possible to answer what the original intent of this thread is? It was to answer the questions raised by a muslim publication about advaitha as well as the 'seven untenables' raised by Acharya Ramanuja against advaitha.

We all, I think know about the Maha Vakyas that support Advaitha.

I think it would serve the original purpose of this thread if you can make counter arguments against each of the 'seven untenables' and firmly establish that advaitha is NOT fallacious.

Thank you.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Shri. KRS Ji,

It is humbly felt that there is nothing beyond the Gnaana Khanda of Veda viz. the Upanishadhs, and the 4 Mahavaakyaas clearly prove the concept of Adhvaitha. Though one can go at any length to prove the Non-Duality concept, it is humbly felt that it is not the right time to do so at this juncture.

It may be possible to negate the 7 Untenables but not at this juncture.

Hence you may feel free to close this chapter.

Pranaam.
 
Dear KRS ji,

Seven untenables of Advaita - Sapta VidhA anupapatti (as per Sri Ramanuja in his
SriBhashyam)
1. Ashrayanupapatti: What is the locus or support of Maya? Where does Avidya reside?
If there is any such thing as Maya or Avidya, we are justified in asking for its seat or
abode. Verily it cannot exist in Brahman, for then the nondualism of Brahman would
break down. Moreover, Brahman is said to be pure self luminous consciousness or
knowledge and Avidya means ignorance. Then how can ignorance exist in knowledge?
Again, Avidya cannot reside in the individual self, for the individuality of the self is said
to be the creation of Avidya. How can the cause depend on its effect? Hence Avidya
cannot exist either in Brahman or in Jiva. It is an illusory concept, a figment of the
Advaitin's imagination. If it resides anywhere, it resides only in the mind of the Advaitin
who has imagined this wonderful pseufo-concept, this logical myth
2. TirodhAnanupapatti: How can Avidya conceal Brahman? If it does, then Brahman is not
self-conscious and self-luminous subject. If Brahman is of the nature of self-luminosity
and self-proved pure knowledge, Ignorance cannot cover or veil its essence. It is as
absurd as to say that darkness can hide light or that night can act as a veil on day.
3. Svarupanupapatti: What is the nature of Avidya? Is it positive(real) or negative or both or
neither? If it is positive then how can it be Avidya? Avidya means ignorance and
ignorance means absence of knowledge. To regard Ignorance as positive is to accept selfcontradiction.
Moreover if Ignorance is positive, how can it be ever destroyed? No
positive entity can be destroyed. As the Advaitin admits that ignorance is removed by
Knowledge, Ignorance can never be positive. And if Avidya is negative , then how can it
project this world illusion on Brahman? To Say that Avidya is both positive and negative
is to embrace self-contradiction. And to say that it is neither positive nor negative is to
give up all logic
4. AnirvachaniyatvAnupapatti: Avidya is defined by the Advaitin as Indefinable. It is
described as indescribable. This is a clear self-contradiction. To avoid this the advaitin
says that Avidya is not absolutely indescribable, that to call it indescribable means that it
cannot be described either as real or as unreal. Indescribability is equated with being
neither real nor unreal. But this is absurd. This shows that Advaitin is giving up all logic.
How can a thing be neither real nor unreal? This is merely verbal Jugglery. Reality and
unreality are both exhaustive and exclusive. They are contradictories not contraries.
Between themselves they exhaust all possibilities of predication. A thing must be either
real or unreal. There is no third alternative. All our cognitions relate to either entities or
non-entities. To refute this is to refuse to think. To maintain a third alternative is to reject
the well-established canons of logic- the law of contradiction and the law of excluded
middle.
5. Pramananupapatti: By what pramana or means of valid cognition is AvidyA cognized?
Avidya cannot be perceived, for perception can give us either an entity or a non-entity. It
cannot be inferred for inference proceeds through a valid mark or middle term which
AvidyA lacks. Nor can it be maintained on the authority of the scriptures for they declare
Maya to be a real wonderful power of creating this wonderful world which really belongs
to God.
6. Nivartakanupapatti: There is no remover of Avidya. The advaitin believes that knowledge
of the unqualified attributeless Brahman removes Avidya. But such knowledge is
impossible. Discrimination and determination are absolutely essential to knowledge. Pure
identity is a mere abstraction. Identity is always qualified by difference and distinction.
Hence there can be no knowledge of an undifferentiated attributeless thing. And in the
absence of such knowledge nothing can remove Avidya
7. Nivrtyanupapatti: In the last point we were told that there is no remover of Avidya. This
point tells us that there is no removal of Avidya. Avidya is said to be positive
(Bhavarupa) by the Advaitin. How then can a positive thing be removed? A thing which
positively exists cannot be removed from existence by knowledge. The Bondage of the
soul is due to karma which is a concrete reality and cannot be removed by abstract
knowledge. It can be removed by Karma, Jnaana, Bhakti and Prasada. The ignorance of
the soul is destroyed when the karmas are destroyed and when the soul flings itself on the
absolute mercy of the Lord who pleased by Soul's constant devotion, extends his grace to
it.

The negations will follow.

PraNaam.
 
we are contained in brahman inside the garbham.as we possess freewill also,avidya emanates from being to being.the commonality is the latent energy hidden amongst all is brahman.as brahman only exists nothing else.its the essence of advaitham to experience the oneness of the spirit soul.the fragments of spirit souls in humans and other beings are all contained within brahman,as he is self luminous or self absent of luminosity.there is no difference in spirit souls,humans create the divisions because of maya.
 
ADHVAITAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS

1. Ashrayanupapatti: What is the locus or support of Maya? Where does Avidya reside? If there is any such thing as Maya or Avidya, we are justified in asking for its seat or abode. Verily it cannot exist in Brahman, for then the nondualism of Brahman would break down. Moreover, Brahman is said to be pure self luminous consciousness or knowledge and Avidya means ignorance. Then how can ignorance exist in knowledge?
Again, Avidya cannot reside in the individual self, for the individuality of the self is said to be the creation of Avidya. How can the cause depend on its effect? Hence Avidya cannot exist either in Brahman or in Jiva. It is an illusory concept, a figment of the Advaitin's imagination. If it resides anywhere, it resides only in the mind of the Advaitin who has imagined this wonderful pseufo-concept, this logical myth.

 Objection:
1. The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other Possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.

Response:
(a) There are several problems in Ramanuja’s criticism. In Advaita Siddhi, Madusuudhana saraswati has addressed this more extensively.“Avidya must be either real or unreal and there is no other possibility” - is an axiomatic statement of Ramanuja. Real on the basis of absoluteness or paramaarthika level fulfills the definition of trikaala abhaadhitam – that which remains unchanged or non-negated is alone real – this follows from Krishna’s statement – naasato vidyate bhaavo na bhaavo vidyate sataH – that which exists can never cease to exist and that which is non-existent can never come to existence. This statement is valid for gross as well as subtle matter. Thus anything that changes cannot be real. But it cannot be unreal either since it appears to exist in the present. Unreal is that which never existed in the past and has no locus in the present. Like vandyaa putraH – son of a barren woman. The world, Jagat, does not fulfil either of the definitions of the real and unreal. Since it undergoes continuos change it cannot be real but it cannot be unreal since it exists right now in the waking state. Hence a third term is needed to define the world – which is neither real and unreal. It is mithya that appears to be real but upon analysis it is not there. But upon analysis every mithya has to resolve to its substratum, which is real. Scientifically if something is continuously changing, then there is some thing fundamental that forms a basis for the continuously changing things. Hence Ramanuja’s claim that we are driven to self-contradiction is untenable from ones own experience. – Just like sun raise and sun set – is it real or unreal – It appears to be real since one experiences it everyday and it is not real since shaastra (science) says that sun neither raises nor sets. Hence it is mithya. As long as I have
AJNaana or Avidya – I take the sun raise and sun set as real – but that can be negated once I have a correct knowledge. Thus Ramanuja is clearly wrong in his criticism that there is a contradiction in saying the statement‘avidya is neither real and unreal causes self contradiction and infinite regression.

(b) Now coming to avidya itself – it is not a positive quantity to be or not to be. Its presence is inferred by the absence of knowledge. If I have no knowledge of chemistry, my ignorance of chemistry is inferred. Knowledge is positive – either in terms of information or facts in my memory or logical application of the information in the memory. When I gained the knowledge
of chemistry, I say I have lost my ignorance of chemistry. If ignorance is real then I can never loose it. Inquiry into ignorance is itself a useless inquiry, since it is not a positive quantity to inquire about. When did the ignorance began? – this question itself is invalid question and hence it is said that it is anivervachaniiyam – inexplainable . It is anaadi –beginningless. If it has beginning then before that I was knowledgeable.
Ignorance can be replaced by knowledge but not vice versa. Hence it is anaadi yet can have an end when the knowledge dawns on me. For that reason only it is peculiar type does not belong to the nature of Brahman. For the Jagat, the world, there is locus, which is Brahman, which is the substratum, or real on which the changes takes place. For ignorance there is not absolute locus to say it is centered on this. Hence it is called anirvacahaniiyam. It appears to be centered on Jeeva who himself is the product of avidya. But Jeeva has his own locus and that is Brahman while the ignorance has only apparent locus that is Jeeva, who takes unreal as real. That is what is the term delusion implies. Whatever one imagines oneself in delusion is not real but for the one who is in delusion what he imagines is real. Hence reality is based on the Reference State – hence it is at the vyaavahaarika or transactions level, the relative realties are established. From absolute point only Brahman alone is real. Everything else is relatively real.

PraNaam
 
Last edited:
ADHVAITAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS

 2. TirodhAnanupapatti: How can Avidya conceal Brahman? If it does, then Brahman is not self-conscious and self-luminous subject. If Brahman is of the nature of self-luminosity and self-proved pure knowledge, Ignorance cannot cover or veil its essence. It is as absurd as to say that darkness can hide light or that night can act as a veil on day.

The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvacaniiyam.} All cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.

Answer : It is the extension of the same arguments but attacking the anivarchaniiyam aspect. Ramanuja’s statement that all cognitions are either of the real or unreal is absolutely wrong. In fact it is the other way around. Only Brahman alone is real, and Brahman cannot be cognized in the true sense of the word. We have already established that there is something called mithya, which appears to be real, but upon inquiry what appears to be real is not real, but only the substratum that supports the appearance is real. Sun raise and sun set is one example. Bending of the pencil immersed half way in water appears to be real, but bending is not real. Scientific investigations aim at resolving these apparent experiences by appropriate inquiry. Right type of inquiry leads to discoveries that illumine the truths underlying each of the experiences. There are truly anirvachaniiyam that is accepted even by Ramanuja and others – For example- which is the beginning – chicken or egg. Or what is the cause and what is the effect. Since ignorance is anaadi which Ramanuja also agrees, who has the ignorance is the fundamental question that is left to be answered by both systems of philosophy. (in the case of Ramanuja ignorance that is anaadi belongs to Jeevaas not knowing their aadhaaratvam or dependence on the Lord – that is due to delusion which is also Maya. His explanation is not much different.
How and when the Jeevaas possessed this ignorance – he has to resort to the same answer too – it is anirvachaniiyam. In Advaita, ignorance which is the cause for Jiiva to feel that he is Jiiva is locused on Jiiva. It is like chicken and egg situation – anyonya ashraya – Jiiva has avidya and avidya is the cause of Jiiva. This cannot be resolved by intellectual analysis since intellect itself is the product of avidya. Hence it is anirvachaniiyam. Only way to resolve this is to transcend the cause-effect relations ships or transcend the time where all these concepts take birth. The anirvachaniiyam aspect in Ramanuja is buried in the disguise of Paramaatma leela. Why Lord wants to play at Jive’s expense is anirvachaniiyam, since He is the Lord and He cannot be questioned. Unquestionable surrenderance is only the upaaya or the means for moksha or liberation.

In addition, there are two ways to answer the central objection of Ramanuja. First, avidya is not positive quantity to be classified as real or unreal. It can only be inferred by lack of knowledge, which is positive. Since it does not come under real or unreal it is anivervachaniiyam. Second, ignorance by definition is incomprehensible. If it is comprehensible then it is no more ignorance. In contrast to what Ramanuja claims the incomprehensibility of avidya “flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe”, itself is baseless. One can only cognize knowledge of the object or lack of object. I know chemistry or I do not know chemistry both are facts to be cognized and recognized. In the cognition of the first, the knowledge of chemistry is cognized and in the cognition of the second the absence of the knowledge of chemistry is cognized. Anirvachaniiyam comes only to answer the why's and how's and when's etc – or inquiry into the nature of ignorance itself. This part of the problem as discussed above is common in Advaita and vishishhTaadvaita.


PraNaam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top