Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

.... I dont have any means to judge their orthodoxy because lot of things are never really discussed in public. .

Dear subbudu sir, I can't say anything with total confidence about orthodoxy in general, but within SV orthodoxy caste does play an important role in interactions and discrimination based on caste is a part and parcel of day-to-day activities.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

Dear HH,

next 20 days as I am going away to a place where I do not intend to access internet.

Cheers.

Sri Raju - If I remember right in another post you said you are going to Himalayas! Do share with us (me at least) what this trip is about and other details perhaps in another topic area. Thanks
Regards

 

[gopaindu]

Dear shri Subbudu,(Refost No.2-Advaita-flawed or real),
The philosophy ofAdvaita vedant -Non-duality : What is the nature of maya, the attachment/link was really informative about the philosophy. Thanks for the same. I would like to point out that kindly ponder over the purpose of starting this forum. I really wonder why a person who has no respect for Brahmism or its culture should participate in this forum at all. The forum is for Tamil Brahmins and the forum's purpose is to disseminate knowledge about Brahminism and its values for the people belonging to the last 3-4 generations/decades. I like very much the information posted by you to the extent that you recommended the link and enabled even persons belonging to late 1940s could understand clearly what is advaita.But the last sentence of yours conveying thatfinding difficult to understand advaita philosophy and relate it to be real or convincing is somewaht intriguing. In case, you find that Advaita philosophy is more flawed than perceived, then the suggestion of link expalining the philosophy is a paradox. These two do not go together. Iwill appreciate you to Either believe it and disseminate knowledge through your vigourous efforts. Kindly do not confuse people by conveying that it is difficult to relate. raja48.

 

[gopaindu]

Dear Shri Nara,(Post No.226, Advaita flawed or perceived)
I have just gone through Advaita philosophy,courtesy by Shri Subbudu 1. I do not find any flaw in the philosophy. This is a Tamil Brahmins website. The website was started to disseminate knowledge about Brahminism, its culture and value system to the people who belong to the last 3-4 generations/decades. This is not a forum to discuss discrimination by brahmins. Are you able to digest the reservation policy for Government jobs of State Government of Tamil Nadu and how a few from brahmin families who had joined on merit were being mocked at by others about the faith, beliefs and practices of brahmins. I have heard some people 's career was spoled just because they come from brahmin families. If the Government which proclaims it to be secular can practise discrimination why not others? Thus, in my opinion discrimination is prevalent in one form or other on one or other basis. What I find really strange is that the entire community consisting of various castes is divided into haves (wealthy people) and have nots (poor). THe latter are discriminated by the former even though castes of both are the same. Do you know why those who claimed to belong to brahmin community left the country for jobs abroad? The reason is obviously discrimination by the Government and as well as hatred of those belonging to other communities. I am aware that I am going out of the purview of my subject and not following my own principle state above for which I feel very sorry and apologise to the members. raja48.

 

[Nara]

... What I find really strange is that the entire community consisting of various castes is divided into haves (wealthy people) and have nots (poor).

I fully agree with this point -- this is why I think the poor and exploited must find common cause with other poor and exploited free of any caste considerations.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

dear raja48,

i am not so sure that we tambrams migrated out of our villages due to discrimination.

our migration process started since the 1920s. our great grand parents had large families, and with limited income and opportunities, it became a necessity for the sons to seek fortunes elsewhere.

the initial places were north india, including current pakistan, burma, malaya, singapore and ceylon. when word came back, about good job opportunities and comfortable living, soon others followed suit.

one branch of my family settled in penang. they used to get regularly request for clerks from the british estates (rubber, teak, tin) in malay interior. on the other end, passed 10th class from palghat, used to land in the ship from nagapattinam in penang. this man used to receive them, feed them for a few days, get the local chinese tailor to stitch pants, shirts, boxer shorts and rudimentary behaviour towards the white man.

in those days, these guys came twice back to palghat - once for marriage, and once when the father passed away. this sedate lifestyle was interrupted in 1941 by japanese invasion, when many fled but most stayed back and have stayed there since.

post independence with the huge increase in civil service in delhi plus those big govt owned industrial mammoths in the north, more of us emigrated into these gated colonies in jamshedpur, bhilai or durgapur.

starting 1960s, migration to the usa started. this time it was free higher education the impetus, but none of these guys came back. and more followed.

so, i beg disagree with you, re our primary reason for migrating was discrimination. nowadays, their chldren of those migrants are coming back to chennai due to opportunities here.

hopefully this puts things in persepective sans emotions.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sister,

You level a very big charge on the mutts. 'Caste Discrimination', is not just a word to throw around. What do you mean by this word?

Doing somethings against the Indian laws is also a crime. This is why I specifically asked you what you mean. I think you are confused between what is caste prejudice (which is not illegal), with caste discrimination (which is definitely illegal). I just want to make sure, you understand the differences between the two.

Dear Sir,

Am not confused. On the contrary, am more aware than before. Over PMs i now understand that there is talk of new forums or possibly closed threads. So i feel we can wait and continue our discussion on this later. For now i feel the more pertinent issue is my note to Raju which am clarifying below.

As I have said, as a Moderator, when I say certain things and warn everyone to abide, and if they do not, then we have to make it a rule. I have had several conversations with you on this general topic over a different person. I have told others too. It is Professor Nara Ji's responsibility to come to me to do the moderation. It is not your business to act as a moderator. When you say to Sri Raju Ji, 'Who are you to say this to Professor Nara Ji', you are clearly taking over my job as the moderator. This type of interference creates more issues. Instead of making my job easier, it just makes it hard, irrespective of my support of your views in general.

Reg my post 177, i asked a straight question to Raju, the context of which is pretty clear -- how can one member ask any other member to go away no matter what ideas he has or what he cites in his support? However, sir i was not expecting your red note in post 183 for something like this.

I would have been happier if you had told me to keep away from this issue and then questioned Raju yourself. However, you are saying that Raju has every right to ask a member to leave. (???)

Please forgive me sir but am not able to make sense of your note in post 183 . You said "Sri Suraju Ji has every right to ask another member to leave. Why are you coming between what is between him and Professor Nara Ji".

Sir, if Raju has "every right" to ask anyone to leave, then surely I too as a forum member have "every right" to ask Raju on what authority can he say that.

You have mentioned cliques in post 183 and jalra support in post 186. But sir am unable to accept that explanation.

If Raju had asked you, Saidevo, Kunjuppu ji, Renu, TKS or anyone to leave, i still would have asked Raju the same thing. Am sure other members also wud have liked to ask Raju that question, just that i did it first. As i has asked in post 188, I still want to know on what authority can Raju ask anyone to leave?

 

[Nara]

Dear Happy,
My own personal opinion is, you, or anyone else for that matter, have every right to join my side of an argument if what I am saying is persuasive to you, I welcome it -- the proverbial heavens know those who disagree will not hesitate to oppose me with all their might, which I welcome equally. But, I don't want you to get into trouble with the law on my account.

BTW, confusion abounds as to what constitutes personal attack. Alas, it is not that complex -- views that some perceive as offensive are not automatically personal attacks on them, but derisive remarks about the person and not the views they express, invariably are. It is quite simple really, not rocket science or quantum mechanics.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear all,
How long you guys want to continue this Clash of the Titans?
Just forget it..kiss and make up and go back to the main purpose of this thread.
Its good for everyone.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi Happy Hindu Ji,
As I have said, let the person the posting is addressed to respond. When I said he had every right, what he said on it's surface is not by itself derisive. It is quite answerable in kind. It is not a personal attack. If, as I have said, offends Professor Nara Ji, then let him either respond or PM myself, as I have said.

Again, let me repeat, you have no role in trying to enforce any Forum rule, even if Sri Raju has said something wrong. It is within the purview of the Moderator.

This will be the last communication I will have with you on this.

KRS

 

[KRS]

Yes, Exactly! I only wish such a simple concept is followed by all!

Regards,
KRS

BTW, confusion abounds as to what constitutes personal attack. Alas, it is not that complex -- views that some perceive as offensive are not automatically personal attacks on them, but derisive remarks about the person and not the views they express, invariably are. It is quite simple really, not rocket science or quantum mechanics.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Panchabhootham make up all that are material. Before a soul gets self awareness which happens when it reaches the stage of life, it is associated with the inanimate. I would conjecture that at the inanimate stage there is a predominance of one of the panchabhootham elements. Each element starting from the earth is more refined than the previous one. It is just like guna with respect to the mental stage.

The predominance starts with the earth element, goes on until it reaches the all pervading space element and the soul is said to have conquered space. The evolution follows after that, the soul being now a mental entity. Each guna now predominates starting from tamas and up to sattva with sattva being the most refined. The reaching of the final divine stage is when it attains a balance of the three gunas and said to have conquered time. So the experience the soul has either in inanimate or animate form corresponds respectively to the predominance of a particular panchabootham or guna.

This is not totally related to advaita philosophy but shows that there is false perception of reality because you have an excess of certain elements in a certain being at a certain stage of its evolution and that is responsible for this false perception.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear shri Subbudu,(Refost No.2-Advaita-flawed or real),
The philosophy ofAdvaita vedant -Non-duality : What is the nature of maya, the attachment/link was really informative about the philosophy. Thanks for the same. I would like to point out that kindly ponder over the purpose of starting this forum. I really wonder why a person who has no respect for Brahmism or its culture should participate in this forum at all. The forum is for Tamil Brahmins and the forum's purpose is to disseminate knowledge about Brahminism and its values for the people belonging to the last 3-4 generations/decades. I like very much the information posted by you to the extent that you recommended the link and enabled even persons belonging to late 1940s could understand clearly what is advaita.But the last sentence of yours conveying thatfinding difficult to understand advaita philosophy and relate it to be real or convincing is somewaht intriguing. In case, you find that Advaita philosophy is more flawed than perceived, then the suggestion of link expalining the philosophy is a paradox. These two do not go together. Iwill appreciate you to Either believe it and disseminate knowledge through your vigourous efforts. Kindly do not confuse people by conveying that it is difficult to relate. raja48.

Dear gopa,

Let me quote this again

The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA

Let me cite the website for reference again.
The Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - Nonduality: What is the nature of maya?

I will explain you my difficulty. Suppose I had never seen a snake I would never mistake rope for a snake. In Nara's language a Pink Unicorn never exists. But a Pink unicorn even though imagined has parts made from real things.
This was the essential objection of Madhva also, so I understand. That snake rope analogy presupposes two real things.

If there was self luminous knowledge all around concept of avidya never arises in the first place. If avidya is because of maya, maya must be in the very nature of brahman as there is nothing but brahman. But since brahman is self luminous and perfect therefore maya is part of what is perfect. In other words we have to stretch our imagination but not logically and assume that this all potent maya can cause avidya. This is the difficulty.

Let us look at the progress of the atman towards the so called vidya. This vidya is supposed to enlighten the atman and gradually show its identity. This process is no different from the process of knowledge which leads to understanding of difference. Read my post of dvaita. I find vallabhacharya's argument a shade better whereby he dismisses both avidya and vidya as just opposites of each other.

Read my post on Vallabhacharya, if we come to accept advaita why not the shudda-advaita of vallabha. In such a situation as shuddha -advaita the brahman becomes many the world is as real as it is. Is this also not acceptable if maya itself is in the very nature of brahman, as per advaita itself.

 

[sravna]

Dear gopa,

Let me quote this again

Let me cite the website for reference again.
The Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - Nonduality: What is the nature of maya?

I will explain you my difficulty. Suppose I had never seen a snake I would never mistake rope for a snake. In Nara's language a Pink Unicorn never exists. But a Pink unicorn even though imagined has parts made from real things.
This was the essential objection of Madhva also, so I understand. That snake rope analogy presupposes two real things.
If there was self luminous knowledge all around concept of avidya never arises in the first place. If avidya is because of maya, maya must be in the very nature of brahman as there is nothing but brahman. But since brahman is self luminous and perfect therefore maya is part of what is perfect. In other words we have to stretch our imagination but not logically and assume that this all potent maya can cause avidya. This is the difficulty.

Let us look at the progress of the atman towards the so called vidya. This vidya is supposed to enlighten the atman and gradually show its identity. This process is no different from the process of knowledge which leads to understanding of difference. Read my post of dvaita. I find vallabhacharya's argument a shade better whereby he dismisses both avidya and vidya as just opposites of each other.

Read my post on Vallabhacharya, if we come to accept advaita why not the shudda-advaita of vallabha. In such a situation as shuddha -advaita the brahman becomes many the world is as real as it is. Is this also not acceptable if maya itself is in the very nature of brahman, as per advaita itself.

Shri Subbudu,


B -> H1,H2

H1-> L1,L2
H2- L3, L4

and so on back to the energy that made up the initial universe

Consider the above hiearchy where B, H and L are Brahman, human and a life
form. The realm of brahman is the spiritual realm and the rest constitute the physical realm. From the point of view of brahman, H1, H2, L1, L2, etc. are there in it and doesn't exist as separate entitites . Brahman has an unified experience of all of them. But maya projects them as separate entities. Since these are separate entities they do not have the unified experience. In other words brahman is hidden from them.

The way up for the separate entities is by constant learning and acquisition of truer and truer knowledge.

 

[zebra16]

Dear gopa,


I will explain you my difficulty. Suppose I had never seen a snake I would never mistake rope for a snake. In Nara's language a Pink Unicorn never exists. But a Pink unicorn even though imagined has parts made from real things.
This was the essential objection of Madhva also, so I understand. That snake rope analogy presupposes two real things.


.

I am not sure, I get the meaning of this. You say that if you had never seen a snake you would not have mistaken rope for a snake. This appears to be okay to me. But you continue "In Nara's language a Pink Unicorn never exists". Does this mean your non-knowledge of snake is equated with pink unicorn? Does that mean that non-knowledge of snake means non-existence of snakes?

Regards,

narayan

 

[zebra16]

Dear Shri Sangom sir,


Even in practice, there is clear antipathy towards acharyas of Advaitam compared to acharyas of D. SV acharays have no problem meeting Madva acharyas, but they are forbidden from coming face-to-face with ekadaNDa sanyasees like Sankaracharyars because they don't wear yagyapvateeam. A few years ago when Srimat Azhagiya Singar of Srimat Ahobila Matam met Kanchi Sankarachariyar in person there was quite a murmur among SV orthodoxy. On the other hand, there is written record of the 42nd Azhagiya Singar, known as Injimedu Azhagiya Singar, debating a Madwa acharya in Sri Rangam face-to-face on the concept of taratamyam in Sri Vaikuntam about 70 years ago. I suspect both sides claimed victory , just kidding, I don't know what the Madwas claim, but the SV side claims their Acharya won!

Cheers!

This seems to imply that sanyasis of Madhava tradition wear yagnopaveetham. Is my inference correct? My observations seem to suggest that the sanyasis of Madhava tradition DO NOT wear yagnopaveethem. The antipathy to the sankaracharyars may be due to other reasons, basically being near-competitors both by proximity and the no. of followers.

Did the meeting of Sankaracharya by Srimat Azhagiya Singar result in the breaking of the blue-book of manual of SV Acharyas (as you seem to suggest that "they are forbidden from coming face-to-face with ekadaNDA sanyasees)?

 

[gopaindu]

Dear SHri Nara,(Refost 230)
Your view point is not well taken by the members. The kind of hatred spread by politicians among the hindus on the basis of castes for their political gainis has not yet been erased. Further, I very much doubt whether belong to the poor class of various castes as there are many people who do not have even adequate food to survive in rural India. If we were to do anything, we should only go to them and enlighten them. Posting messages in their support in the websidt will not in any way going to help them. May be big words from a small mouth (Hindi Proverb: Chhoti Muh and Badi Baath). Of course, my intention of the post No.229 is not to raise caste issues or other issues irrelevant to the objective of the website. Thanks for appreciating my view point.raja48.

 

[sravna]

Dear gopa,

Let me quote this again

Let me cite the website for reference again.
The Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - Nonduality: What is the nature of maya?

I will explain you my difficulty. Suppose I had never seen a snake I would never mistake rope for a snake. In Nara's language a Pink Unicorn never exists. But a Pink unicorn even though imagined has parts made from real things.
This was the essential objection of Madhva also, so I understand. That snake rope analogy presupposes two real things.

Your knowledge of snake requires that it is real. But that knowledge is a false knowledge
What you think as reality which is the snake was itself a false perception.Whatever you see in the physical world is only as real as the snake. Physical world though a reality just like a snake is, is not as real as brahman which is the rope.

 

[gopaindu]

Dear Shri Subbudu1,(Ref: Post No. 239 -Advaita)
If one has not seen a snake, then the existance of snake is doubtful. However, if pink unicon, even if not seen or exist, then it is real because it must have been made of all real thing. The argument is contradictory by applying two standards for the same kind of non existant animals. Even if one has not seen a snake, it is quite likely that he must have heard about its venemous nature which is sufficient to kill even the human being which it bites. There is a saying in Tamil that`Paambendral Padaiyum Nadungum'. Snake is an ordinary animal which is unlikely to have been seen or heard. Coming to the point the rope only gives the illusion of snake in poor light and this is avidya. In braod daylight, it is possible to distinguish between a snake and a rope This is Vidya. Once the illusion disappears. Brahman is truth and Avidya is illusion. Once, the illusion disappears, the truth i.e.Brahman is known. According to Advaita,only Brahman is real and the rest are illusory even though they may appear to be real. To cite an example, the present material world in which w live believe it is real. However, for a person who has attained Brahman or has realised Brahman does not see anything other than brahman for the simple reason that the unreal or illusion of this world has disappeared. Last but not the least, the examples given to explain philosophy need not be taken at their face value. What is needed is contemplation of philosophy itself. The contemplation after a long period makes one not only understand the philosophy but also motivates to practise. The examples are given only to motivate people to conetemplate the philosophy. For example, children are given toffees/chocolates to attend Independence day/Republic day function. They are explained the significance of the flag and why and how one should honour the flag during the function. The toffees only motivate them to attend the function. When the taste of the toffee is recalled, the need for honour of the flag is automatically recalled. In the young age, whatever is learnt, it remains for a long time until one makes efforts to forget. I am not sure whether I have tried to help you to come over your difficulty or confused further. In the case of more confusion, try to contemplate and I am sure God (if you recognise his existance) will definitely help you not only understand the philosophy but also may make you an expert in it. raja48

 

[subbudu1]

Dear gopa,


I will explain you my difficulty. Suppose I had never seen a snake I would never mistake rope for a snake. In Nara's language a Pink Unicorn never exists. But a Pink unicorn even though imagined has parts made from real things.
This was the essential objection of Madhva also, so I understand. That snake rope analogy presupposes two real things.


.

I am not sure, I get the meaning of this. You say that if you had never seen a snake you would not have mistaken rope for a snake. This appears to be okay to me. But you continue "In Nara's language a Pink Unicorn never exists". Does this mean your non-knowledge of snake is equated with pink unicorn? Does that mean that non-knowledge of snake means non-existence of snakes?

Regards,

narayan

You have mistaken my comparison. My argument is your imagination cannot come out of nothing which you have not seen in reality. The imagination should be stitched from parts you have seen in reality. Non-Knowledge of snakes does not mean non existence of them. Non existence of something in full or in parts means the knowledge of and imagination of non-existant parts also do not exist.

Let me explain more. If I am self-luminous brahman. The world does not exist for me. Since world never existed for me I will always see the world as non existent. There is no question of a maya or imagination affecting my state because all these creations were unreal for me from the beginning. However if I can mistake world for something real then the world by its parts must have had counterparts in reality because of which mistaken impression arises. But see the disconnection the world of reality does not have any attributes - nirgunam as per advaita. The world has gunam as per observation. Therefore there is no question of any counter imposition because the comparison is meaningless. There is nothing in the world of nirgunam which has form or shape either like a rope or snake. These are gunam and nirgunam are contradictory states where no super-imposition can work. Madhva , Vallabha and Ramanuja were no fools. They called the bluff right where it was to start. In Vallabha's situation nirgunam and gunam existed right at the beginning when there was no avidya or maya. See where he called the bluff of advaita? Sravna this answer should explain the meaningless of the rope-snake analogies you have been making use of.

 

[sravna]

You have mistaken my comparison. My argument is your imagination cannot come out of nothing which you have not seen in reality. The imagination should be stitched from parts you have seen in reality. Non-Knowledge of snakes does not mean non existence of them. Non existence of something in full or in parts means the parts also do not exist.

Let me explain more. If I am self-luminous brahman. The world does not exist for me. Since world never existed for me I will always see the world as non existent. There is no question of a maya or imagination affecting my state because all these creations were unreal for me from the beginning. However if I can mistake world for something real then the world by its parts must have had counterparts in reality because of which mistaken impression arises. But see the disconnection the world of reality does not have any attributes - nirgunam as per advaita. The world has gunam as per observation. Therefore there is no question of any counter imposition because the comparison is meaningless. There is nothing in the world of nirgunam which has form or shape either like a rope or snake. These are gunam and nirgunam are contradictory states where no super-imposition can work. Madhva , Vallabha and Ramanuja were no fools. They called the bluff right where it was to start. In Vallabha's situation nirgunam and gunam existed right at the beginning when there was no avidya or maya. See where he called the bluff of advaita? Sravna this answer should explain the meaningless of the rope-snake analogies you have been making use of.

The counterparts of the realities which exist in the physical world are the sum of these realities in the spiritual world. There is no one to one correspondence between the physical and spiritual reality. The right sum of gunams make nirguman. That is brahman cannot be specified by any single or a set of attributes or gunams.

I would say you are seeing the disconnected reality of the spiritual world, in the physical world. This appearance of disconnecetdness is due to the power of maya

 

[sravna]

Everything finally is brahman. The snake has its body and soul the latter really representing the snake. Its body on the other hand is too made up of a number of souls though at a lower level of evolution. Both the soul of the snake and its body are all brahman seen at different levels of brahman. Once all these souls fully evolve they become brahman

 

[subbudu1]

The counterparts of the realities which exist in the physical world are the sum of these realities in the spiritual world. There is no one to one correspondence between the physical and spiritual reality. The right sum of gunams make nirguman. That is brahman cannot be specified by any single or a set of attributes or gunams.

I would say you are seeing the disconnected reality of the spiritual world, in the physical world. This appearance of disconnecetdness is due to the power of maya

This is not only not logically proven it has never been practically demonstrated. Unless you give a concrete example where a spiritual reality of the brahman gets warped through maya into a physical world for all purposes your statement is a myth.

 

[subbudu1]

Once all these souls fully evolve they become brahman

This is shuddha-advaita of vallabha's concept stolen into kevala-advaita. What you just said is not really advaita

Its odd and funny but we look at smarthas and many of their gurus advaita as spoken by shankara is rarely propagated. It is one of the warped versions of it that sustains the faith of the smarthas.

 

[renuka]

Everything finally is brahman. The snake has its body and soul the latter really representing the snake. Its body on the other hand is too made up of a number of souls though at a lower level of evolution. Both the soul of the snake and its body are all brahman seen at different levels of brahman. Once all these souls fully evolve they become brahman

Just to add here..Souls do not evolve, they are as in the pure state as ever..its the Kleshas of Avidya that need to be removed for the the the effulgence of the Soul to be revealed.

Once Avidya is absent what verily is ..Is Brahman.