Brahman maya conversations

[sarma-61]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Sarma,

I understand your anguish at what you perceive as mundane and inappropriate treatment of advaita. It is a perfectly reasonable feeling to have for those who are to familiar with the subject, to see it being discussed in this way. On the other hand it is also my view that philosophy as deep as advaita should be not only be accessible to people of erudition but deserves a much wider audience and possibly adherents.

By keeping it at an untouchable distance and not putting it to scrutiny or disallowing new interpretations, is only a disservice. It is my view again that advaita will survive any amount of scrutiny and will emerge only stronger because of that. And let us also not be hypocritical here. When even more sacrosanct beliefs such as belief in God is being treated like trash, why not an earnest and well intentioned discussion to probe further into a not so well understood philosophy be considered, beyond debate?

Dear Shri Sravna,

I am with you in as much as your aim of making advaita philosophy known to a larger audience. But do you think it was because the scholars deliberately kept it out of reach of the general public and did not allow scrutiny? I don't think so. Coming to "new interpretations", you see advaita or for that matter any stream of vedanta cannot be given new interpretation by anyone, just as any other branch of knowledge; the person concerned should have good grasp of the fundamentals and should be able to know what new interpretation, thinking, pov he is proposing and why. I do not find any such learned and sincere attempts here.

On the contrary, a good amount of irrelevant and inane material is being collected here. But, true to the nature of this forum, I feel no one, including yourself has thought it fit to visit the url given by me, I feel. Here is a forum of people who have all ascended the "sarvajna peeTham"!

My purpose is to bring out how a very sacredly held topic is being is being completely dishonoured in this guise. May the curse of the great Adisankara not fall on all you sarvajnas!!

 

[renuka]

My purpose is to bring out how a very sacredly held topic is being is being completely dishonoured in this guise. May the curse of the great Adisankara not fall on all you sarvajnas!!

Dear Sarma Ji,

None of us mind if you tell anyone if we are wrong,ill informed or even ignorant but your last line is very disheartening to read cos you really cant speak on behalf of Adishankarcharya.

Even if He decides to curse anyone... everyone of us will accept it wholeheartedly cos everything eventually has a good outcome.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sarma,

What you say is perfectly acceptable if the discussion is meant for scholarly perusal and criticism. But in an informal discussion, it doesn't make sense to use high sounding philosophical jargon, and it defeats the very purpose of the discussion which is reaching out to a larger number of people. In the olden days certain norms were followed in discussions and debates because of the settings of those era many of which are not relevant today. I think we need to give up the dogmatism about sacredness in these matters if we want the future generation including the smartas to care about Adi Sankara.

If you think the discussion is irrevelant and inane , you would be more than welcome to enlighten us with your contribution. I believe that the philosophy of Adi Sankara is better served by dissection and dissemination rather than keeping it in disuse in the name of sacredness.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I am with you in as much as your aim of making advaita philosophy known to a larger audience. But do you think it was because the scholars deliberately kept it out of reach of the general public and did not allow scrutiny? I don't think so. Coming to "new interpretations", you see advaita or for that matter any stream of vedanta cannot be given new interpretation by anyone, just as any other branch of knowledge; the person concerned should have good grasp of the fundamentals and should be able to know what new interpretation, thinking, pov he is proposing and why. I do not find any such learned and sincere attempts here.

On the contrary, a good amount of irrelevant and inane material is being collected here. But, true to the nature of this forum, I feel no one, including yourself has thought it fit to visit the url given by me, I feel. Here is a forum of people who have all ascended the "sarvajna peeTham"!

My purpose is to bring out how a very sacredly held topic is being is being completely dishonoured in this guise. May the curse of the great Adisankara not fall on all you sarvajnas!!

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

Whats your opinion on this?
[TABLE="width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]The Master Course

The lesson of the day from Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's trilogy: Dancing with Siva, Living with Siva andMerging with Siva
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

---

Lesson 304

Sloka 149 from Dancing with Siva

What Are the Differing Views on Evil?

For monistic theists, the world of maya is Siva's perfect creation, containing each thing and its opposite. For pluralistic theists, the world is tarnished with evil; thus maya could not be the creation of a perfect God. Aum.

Bhashya

Pluralistic Siddhantins hold that the world of maya is intrinsically evil and imperfect, for it is clearly full of sorrow, injustice, disease and death. The soul, too, is beginninglessly tainted with anava, or limitation. Pluralists contend that if God had created maya--the material of the world--or the soul, surely He would have made them flawless, and there would be no evil, for imperfection cannot arise out of Perfection. Therefore, they conclude that anava, karma and maya have always existed and the soul has been immersed in darkness and bondage without beginning. Monistic Siddhantins hold that when viewed from higher consciousness, this world is seen as it truly is--perfect. There is no intrinsic evil. God Siva has created the principle of opposites, which are the means for the soul's maturation--beauty and deformity, light and darkness, love and hate, joy and sorrow. All is God Siva Himself, in Him and of Him. A perfect cosmos has issued forth from a perfect Creator. The Tirumantiram says, "All manifestations of nature are His grace. All animate and inanimate are His pure grace. As darkness, as light, the Lord's grace pervades." Aum Namah Sivaya.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[renuka]

Just to add on..

taken from Ashtavakra Samhita its sorts of matches with the statement in the above post about "There is no intrinsic evil".

Chapter 13 Stanza 7

Observing again and again the inconstancy of pleasure and pain under different circumstance,I have renounced good and evil and I live happily


Bhasya:

Good and evil are associated in our minds with happiness and sorrow.
We seek good and avoid evil in order to be happy.

But one who has realized that happiness and sorrow are really products of circumstances, changing with their changes,and are not of the eternal Self, no longer cares for good or evil and remains established in the Self in which alone there is real and absolute happiness.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

As ever I agree with the monistic view. According to me evil is a necessary evil that makes one grow up. An important purpose of maya is to delude you into thinking that evil will triumph. Once you learn your lessons and sober up you will not again fall into the trap of maya.

Nothing at all in my opinion is without purpose. Everything that is concerned with a soul contributes to its journey towards liberation. It is against this backdrop of liberation everything should be viewed.