• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • 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.

Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sowbagyavathy Dear Renuka,

1. Brahman can and would be on its own. Brahman need not couple with Maya or anything else. When everything is Brahman,such Brahman can only be alone. The world of forms are included in the Brahman. Any learned person would see the world of forms as brahman; such person would not attribute shapes and forms to Brahman. All the 'world of forms' are not permanent. Face of the earth changes all the time, but still stays as earth. So does this universe. Nothing really changes. That's why I said, 'Brahman need not accompany Maya' to be able to become the world of forms (as seen in the first paragraph of the article). I don't see any forms at all. So, there is no question of 'brahman accompanying Maya' at any stage. Brahman is real. It's power has to be real; it can't be an illusion. So, Brahman's power can't be Maya.

2. I don't see any changes around me; I don't see any forms. The world and the universe is formless, in my opinion. All that seems to change, are changing within presribed formulae. I see everything in order. So, I skip the point number two. Does not apply to me, really.

3. I am not saying Maya is confused on it's own. I am saying Maya can't exist on it's own. Maya is the result of the imagination of a confused mind. Yes, it is the confused mind that projects the illusion. If not for the confused mind of the subject, Maya can not exist. Why do you say, Maya is the perception and interpretation of the mind, in general? It is not. The mind has to imagine something unreal for Maya to exist. When I see the rope in the dim light, if my mind interprets the object as rope without any imagination of snake at all, there is no Maya. When when I mistake the rope to a snake, Maya creeps in.

Try this for size - when I don't differentiate between a rope and a snake, I don't suffer from Maya either. When I step on it, I don't care it stays still since it is rope, nor I care if it bites me since it is a snake. Can you imagine such a condition? That is the condition where you are free from Maya.

Cheers!

Rewrite the bold sentence as follows in advaita parlance: When I am self realized I see only the brahman. If not I mistake the physical world as real. Here physical world is what is unreal. Maya is a generic term that is used to describe the cause of the above.

You are free from maya only when you are free from false perception. What you instead say is you do not care about maya. But that doesn't really free you from the effects of maya.
 
EXTRACTS FROM "SRI RAMANOPADESA NUL MALAI_VILAKKAURAI"
PP 314-15 1987 edition.
ADVAITA is the experience of clearly apprehending that,in reality,the SELF,being consciousness,shining continuously as 'I AM' alone exists, and that all that appears in duality
consisting of the body,mind and world entirely unreal.
Therefore,since doing belong to the dualistic state where the mind and body appear to be real,non-duality cannot be expressed through doing. On the contrary should anyone think
that non-duality might be expressed through doing, they would(be showing themselves to be) be bereft of the experience of the TRUTH of non-duality.

Ps:- For a lay man like me without sound knowledge of Vedic Scriptures,The topic under discussion by very knowledgeable persons appear to be too abstract.
Shall be thankful if someone explains in simple language how the three great Vedantic
Philosophies namely Advaitha,Visistadhvaitha and Dwaita is relevant to an ordinary hindu in leading his day to day life.
 
Sowbagyavathy Dear Renuka,

1. Brahman can and would be on its own. Brahman need not couple with Maya or anything else. When everything is Brahman,such Brahman can only be alone. The world of forms are included in the Brahman. Any learned person would see the world of forms as brahman; such person would not attribute shapes and forms to Brahman. All the 'world of forms' are not permanent. Face of the earth changes all the time, but still stays as earth. So does this universe. Nothing really changes. That's why I said, 'Brahman need not accompany Maya' to be able to become the world of forms (as seen in the first paragraph of the article). I don't see any forms at all. So, there is no question of 'brahman accompanying Maya' at any stage. Brahman is real. It's power has to be real; it can't be an illusion. So, Brahman's power can't be Maya.

2. I don't see any changes around me; I don't see any forms. The world and the universe is formless, in my opinion. All that seems to change, are changing within presribed formulae. I see everything in order. So, I skip the point number two. Does not apply to me, really.

3. I am not saying Maya is confused on it's own. I am saying Maya can't exist on it's own. Maya is the result of the imagination of a confused mind. Yes, it is the confused mind that projects the illusion. If not for the confused mind of the subject, Maya can not exist. Why do you say, Maya is the perception and interpretation of the mind, in general? It is not. The mind has to imagine something unreal for Maya to exist. When I see the rope in the dim light, if my mind interprets the object as rope without any imagination of snake at all, there is no Maya. When when I mistake the rope to a snake, Maya creeps in.

Try this for size - when I don't differentiate between a rope and a snake, I don't suffer from Maya either. When I step on it, I don't care it stays still since it is rope, nor I care if it bites me since it is a snake. Can you imagine such a condition? That is the condition where you are free from Maya.

Cheers!

1)Then why are you still demarcating Maya and Brahman as 2 distinct entities? When you are saying When everything is Brahman,such Brahman can only be alone. The world of forms are included in the Brahman so where is the distinct demarcation? When your very own words echo Ekam Eva Advaitam Brahman why do you chose to view Maya as distinct from Brahman?
May be you have given forms to Maya and Brahman hence this opinion.
Maya is just a function not an entity which has a demarcated form.

2)Ok point 2 agreed..thats reality.


3) Ok can we 1st define Confusion?When you say confused mind..what do you exactly mean?
Your snake in the dark rope explanation is just pointing out awareness on your part that its actually a rope becos you are able to deduce thats its a rope and that doesnt spell that anyone is not under the influence of Maya if he/she is able to see the rope and not think its a snake.

3) Ok I dont really know..may be you might be actually not under the influence of Maya anymore a.k.a Jeevan Mukta(I am not being sarcastic..you might be a Jeevan Mukta..I would not know) but if someone doesnt care about impending danger it doesnt all the while translate as being free from Maya..insanity is an example.



P.S Dear Raghy sir,its a pleasure to "debate" with you..you are 1 fine gentleman.
lots of love
renu
 
Last edited:
Dear KrishnaJi..
I had pasted this article in an earlier in this thread..I paste it again..its explains well;

Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistadvaita

Discourse of Sathya Sai Baba during the Summer Course in Spirituality and Indian Culture
held for College Students at Brindavan, Whitefield, Bangalore District in May 1972
Published by Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust
Web posted at Feb 17, 2002

In the Atma-Tathva all are eternal. In the world-sense all are ephemeral. Though we know that this body and the sense of the workaday world are purely ephemeral, we make the mistake of treating them as permanent. Atma-Tathva which is Jnana is permanent. Though we do not accept it, it still exists. It is above all experiences of losses and difficulties and nothing can shake it. This Atma-Tathva is the embodiment of truth. It is also the embodiment of delight or 'Ananda Swarupa'.

There are several passages in the Gita where the eternal existence of the soul has been referred to. Krishna says: "There was never a time when you were not there. All the others, Bhishma, Drona and others also have been ever there. The world is also there always. I who am the Iswara, you who are the Jiva and this world which is Jagat - all the three have always been existing." These three, Jiva, Iswara and Prakriti have been in existence at all times - they were there even before the creation, and they will continue to be there. Though the physical bodies may be undergoing transformation, this Atma-Tathva remains eternal and changeless.

There are three approaches or three schools of philosophy which have been propounded to enable us to know this Tathva. These three are Dvaita, Advaita and Visishtadvaita. Let us first try to understand what is Dvaita or duality. Dvaita propounds that Jiva and Prakriti always exist, are always there and they will never become one. The permanence of these two entities, though they are different is accepted.

Visishtadvaita postulates 'Chit' and 'Achit' in the phenomenal world and accepts the phenomena of appearance and illusion. It states that both are true and valid. Visishtadvaita has also established the oneness of Jagat, which is Jada or inert, and of Jiva, which is full of consciousness. Visishtadvaita also says that Jada and Chaitanya, i.e., inertness and consciousness, are the manifestations of the same principle of divinity and therefore are considered equally valid. Because these two entities cannot merge with each other, they have been postulated as different aspects of the same form and as part and parcel of the same principle.

Jagat, the world, Jiva, the consciousness, and Purusha, the Supreme are not three separate entities but are one and the same from the ultimate point of view. The greatness of Visishtadvaita lies in proclaiming their unity. Though the appearances may be different and there may be varieties of experience, it is asserted that in all these, there is one thing present, namely, the unifying spirit. Followers of Visishtadvaita use the analogy of gold. Though the ornaments may be of different shape, the gold is the same. They go even a step further. If God has not these subtle and gross bodies, the very nature of God will be incomplete. I will give an example. Let us take the kingdom and his people. Without the king, there cannot be the kingdom; without the people, there can be no kingdom, and without the people, there can be no king. They are all interdependent. Because all these three are in a way inextricably interconnected with one another, Visishtadvaita has propounded the unity of the three entities. When we take into consideration the nature of the king and the people then we shall be able to grasp that there is also the principle of non-duality or Advaita here. The king also is one among the people and he is also a man. The king is the lawgiver and the people are those who are regulated and bound by the law. Though the ruler and the ruled may appear to be separate, as human beings they are one and the same.

Just as we are told about the oneness of Jada and the Chaitanya, we find Chaitanya or consciousness in inertness and we find the features of inertness in consciousness as well. Therefore, in a way they are inseparable. The inertness cannot exist without consciousness. Consciousness cannot exist without inertness. In the workaday world, we may mistake and think that conscious force cannot enter into inert matter and vice-versa. But that is a mistaken idea. We all believe that this whole world is permeated by Sabda or sound. But where there is movement or motion, there alone does Sabda originate. We close our eyes many a time every minute. As our eyelids move, they do make a little noise, but the noise is so inaudible that we are unaware of it. Because it is inaudible, we cannot deny the presence of sound. Just as we are not able to recognise the sound which is inaudible, in the same way we are not able to recognise consciousness in Jada and we are not able to recognise the element of Jada in consciousness.

There are two aspects present in this illusion. One is 'Parinama' or evolution. The other is 'Vivarta'. Vivarta is the property which makes us think that there is a change though the substance remains the same. It is made to appear to have a different shape and form. When we are walking alone, we may come across a rope but get deluded to imagine it as a serpent. The rope does not go and the serpent does not come. It is all an illusion. Vivarta is the quality which makes us forget the real thing and makes us impose upon that, some other thing which is not there. It is the effect of Maya. Parinama is the property of evolution or change like milk turning into curd. If there is no milk, we cannot change it into curd. Parinama is that which changes what is there. Maya is present both in Parinama and Vivarta.

Today we live under the influence of Vivarta. Though we are Atma Swarupa, we forget the supreme reality and we live with that Dehabhranti or the body illusion. We mistake our ephemeral existence to be the real existence. We are not afraid of the rope, but we are terribly afraid of the serpent. We are not afraid of the Atma but we are afraid of life. Though we are Atma Swarupa and should be free from fear, unfortunately we are lost in fear and illusion.

'Upadhis' or containers apart, there is only one reality, just as there is only one sun shining in the sky. When we fill a thousand pots with water, the same sun is reflected in these thousand pots. Because the thousand pots are there and they are filled with water, which has the quality of reflection, the one sun seems to be split up into a thousand suns. This is only a feeling and is not true. The truth is that there is only one sun shining in the sky. Likewise, this body may be compared to the pot which is filled with water and the same Atma is reflected in each pot, and appears to be separate.

Several persons put the question: "Swami, please tell us where the Atma goes after the death of the body?" When the pot breaks and the water spills on the ground, where does the sun, which has hitherto been reflected in the water, go? The sun has not come and has not gone. But it has appeared as a reflection because there is water in the pot. And when the pot is broken and the water has run out, the reflection has disappeared.

There is another question. If the same sun is reflected in all pots, would not all the reflections have the same value? The reflection has the same value but the pots are of different value. One pot may be an earthen pot, another may be one of copper, another of brass, another of silver, another of gold. Therefore, the value of the pot varies according to one's wealth, one's position, one's education, but the Atma Swarupa has the same value. So all these differences are illusory. They are created by things relating to the body. The Atma-Tathva is one and indivisible.

On the bank of a river, once a group of children were tending their cows. It was monsoon time and all of a sudden a furious current of water developed. Because it was a fast current, one bear which had slipped into the water was drawn into the midstream and was being carried away. One of the boys looked at the floating mass, and from a distance, it appeared to him to be a bundle of blankets floating in the water. He said to his companions, "I shall jump into the water and get the bundle of blankets out," and so he jumped into the water. With the mistaken idea that it was a bundle of blankets, the boy embraced with his hands the bear. Then the bear also embraced him with its own hands. However much the boy tried to extricate himself, the bear did not leave him. It held him fast. The boys on the shore shouted, "Oh, my dear companion, leave that bundle and come away." The boy in the water, struggling to escape cried out, "Though I want to escape from it, it does not allow me to escape."

So in this river of life, Maya plays like the bear and we mistake it to be a bundle of blankets. Hoping that it would offer us solace, comfort and happiness, we jump into the river and try to catch it. At a later stage when we want to extricate ourselves from it, we find it impossible to do so. This illusion is created by Maya but the divine principle is always one. Visishtadvaita has been teaching from time immemorial that though the forms are different, there is only one Purusha which is the unity in the diversity and multiplicity of forms.

Coming to Advaita, we have to understand the word to mean non-duality. What is not two is Advaita. What is that which is not two? Brahman alone is not two. In the Gita, Lord Krishna taught this principle to Arjuna at several places. He says for instance:

"Vrishneenaam Vaasudevosmi; Pandavanam Dhananjaya."
"Among the Vrishnees, I am Vaasudeva. Because I am the son of Vasudeva, I am Vaasudeva. Among the Pandavas I am Arjuna."
Though He is one, here He represents Himself as two. He further says, "I am Eswara, you are the Jiva, and the heroes who are ranged against you constitute the Jagat, the world. This Jagat is all reflected as in a mirror. You are considering that you are separate and all these people are separate from you. You are thinking that you and they are different. Jiva, Eswara and Prakriti, all three entities have been there from time immemorial." Then Arjuna asked, "If these entities, Jiva, Eswara and Prakriti have been ever in existence and Jiva and Eswara are one, how do you know about Jagat and why do I not know anything about it? When you and I are one, how is it that you know and I do not know? Please tell me the secret of this." Krishna said, "Arjuna! You also can know, but you do not focus your mind upon the goal. Therefore, you do not know. But my mind is always steadily riveted on that reality. Therefore, I know it. And that is the essential difference between us two." Arjuna could not grasp this. He said, "You are trying to hoodwink me, oh, Krishna!" To this, Krishna said, "Arjuna! I shall never utter false or deceitful words. I am Satya Swarupa. Therefore there is no place for falsehood or deceit in My words. It is because of the effect of Maya that you have become subjected to illusion and you are attributing falsehood even to Me!"

Then He wanted to teach Arjuna by an example. He asked Arjuna, "How old are you?" Arjuna said, "I am eighty years old." Krishna asked, "Tell me, three years ago, on such and such a day, where were you?" Arjuna could not recollect and said: "Lord! I do not remember where I was on that day three years ago." Krishna said, "Then you do not remember where you were. You accept you were in a particular place three years ago. If you were not there how could you be here today? You admit today that you do not know where you were three years ago." Krishna patted Arjuna on his back and continued, "Do not feel embarrassed. I shall put to you another question. Please tell me how old you were when king Drupada was bound and brought by you to your kingdom." Arjuna replied, "I was at that time 16 years old, Oh Lord!" Krishna then asked, "Do you remember when you got married to Subhadra?" Arjuna said immediately, 'I certainly remember, I was married in my twenty-second year." Then Krishna questioned: "An event such as the marriage which took place fifty years ago and the incident of bringing king Drupada bound to your capital which happened long long ago, are remembered by you but you do not remember what happened just three years ago. Why is it? The secret is this. The nature of Maya is that it makes you attach importance to some events such as birthdays and wedding days but not to others."

To experience joy and sorrow alike is the secret of Samadhi. Rama has been able to demonstrate this Samadhi quality, i.e., one who is not elated by joy and one who is not downcast or depressed by sorrow, however enormous it may be. Not only Rama, but all Avatars have demonstrated this state of Samadhi. Rama, who got ready for the coronation ceremony at 7 o'clock, at the same time and in the same stride, took the decision and left for the forest. He was not elated at the prospect of becoming the future king and he did not get depressed or frustrated when he was asked to go to the forest. Krishna always used to be smiling whether it was Rudrabhumi, the sacrificial field, or Yuddhabhumi the battlefield. Wherever He used to be, He remained an embodiment of Ananda. That was why His words which were uttered on the battlefield have acquired the name of Gita. Gita means song. We sing when we are happy. Does one sing when one is unhappy or sorry? When Krishna could sing even in the midst of a battle, it means that He can always remain cheerful and happy.

The real nature of Avataras is that they are always overflowing with the spirit of delight and joy. Just as the ocean rises and surges up when there is full moon in the sky, in the same way when I look at the devotees, My Heart overflows with limitless, boundless love for them. Everything is Rasa Swarupa. There can be no change in the attitude, in the affection and in the thoughts of God, but the ignorant attribute the changes they imagine or differences they see to God out of their petty-mindedness. When divine power fulfils some of our desires, we praise God, but when the same power does not satisfy our desires, we straightaway condemn Him. Man commits sin and he has to undergo the punishment for the sin. But then he says, "Oh God! You have no mercy, you are subjecting me to this punishment." People cannot stand test and trial.

People remember those days to which they attach some special significance and they do not forget them. Because they do not attach importance to other days, they do not find a place in their memory. And there lies the difference between Jiva and Deva. Jiva imagines some as necessary and others as unnecessary and dwells on differences. As far as Deva is concerned, there is nothing which is necessary for Him and which is not necessary for Him. He remains a spectator of all. For a spectator, the past, the present and the future are all the same. He can visualise all the three periods of time. He remains as Atma Swarupa during all the three periods of time.

Though God is one, as a result of our love for him, we establish different kinds of relationship with God. Some may address him as father, others as mother, others as Christ, others as Siva, others as Hari and so on. It is only the difference which is born out of illusion, but there is only one God behind all these relationships.

Here is an example which is within the range of experience of all. Everyday we take and enjoy Ghee, butter, buttermilk, curd etc. All these are ultimately derived from milk. Milk is Advaita. Butter is Visishtadvaita. Buttermilk is Dvaita. Both Dvaita and Visishtadvita are derived from Advaita. Therefore, it is said that wisdom is Advaita Darshanam. Wisdom reveals to us the Brahma Thatva. It is described as 'Sathyam Jnanam Anantham Brahma'. Brahma is that which is truth, that which is endless and that which is all knowing. The word Brahma is derived from the root 'Bruhi'. Bruhi means that which does not change. It is called Brahma-Thatva because it does not change and because it remains eternal. We must adopt the theory of 'Raso Vai Saha' in order to attain this Brahma-Thatva. The entire world or universe is born out of Rasa, God Himself, who is Rasa Swarupa. That which is born out of Rasa cannot be 'Nirasa' or devoid of Rasa.

Pundits classify Rasa into nine categories. They are called Navarasas. According to my view, there are no Navarasas or nine Rasas. There are only two Rasas. The emotions of Daya, Prema and Anugraha merge in Karuna Rasa. The emotions of Kama, Krodha and Lobha merge in Sringara Rasa. Sringara Rasa misleads us whereas Karuna Rasa leads us. Therefore, to recognise our duty, we must take recourse to Karuna Rasa. Only through Karuna Rasa, can we enjoy the proximity of the Lord. That is the real ecstasy or bliss. Karuna Rasa offers to us pure selfless love. Selfish love leads to an aspect of Sringara Rasa and that is Moha. Moha Rasa may be compared to the water that is stagnating in the pond. Karuna Rasa may be compared to the water that flows through a river. Moving water ever remains pure. Still water gets contaminated and becomes stagnant. Stagnant water sometimes becomes poisonous because worms breed in it. Flowing water always remains pure, and surely and finally reaches the ocean of Anugraha or God's grace.

I will give now an example. There is a girl in one house. There is a young man in another house. Their houses are almost side by side. But the girl does not know anything about the young man, and the young man does not know anything about the girl living in the neighbouring house. One day, the girl fell seriously ill. That day all the people in the house were hectic and several doctors were called in. When the boy in the neighbouring house heard the noise, he thought it was a disturbance to his studies, and, therefore, he closed his window and started reading. But in course of time, as a result of destiny, this boy got married to that girl in the neighbouring house. The marriage took place in the morning. In the afternoon the girl developed a stomach ache and the bridegroom felt very anxious for the girl and her stomach ache. Where and when did he develop this attachment to the girl? Because he got married to her, even a little stomach ache upset him. When the same girl fell dangerously ill some time ago, he did not feel even the slightest anxiety for her because at that time there was no attachment or relationship with that girl. So, Abhimana and Mamakara, affection and attachment, are responsible for all joys and sorrows. We must try to attain that serene state of mind, that equanimity which enables you not to be elated by joy or depressed by sorrow. When you are able to attain that equanimity of mind, then you can attain Samadhi.

The word Samadhi has been variously interpreted by our scholars. When some falls unconscious during Sankirtan or when someone becomes stiff during Yoga, they think it is a state of Samadhi. But this is not real Samadhi. The very meaning of the word is conveyed by the two syllables that make the word 'Sama' and 'Dhi' - Sama means equal, Dhi means Buddhi. So to be untouched by joy and sorrow, to take them in the same stride is Samadhi.

Earlier, I was dealing with the four Purusharthas, namely, Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. These are comparable to the steps of a ladder. Dharma is firmly planted on the ground, and if we ascend the ladder step by step, we reach the highest rung, the goal of Moksha. So we deem Prakriti as Dharma. And our destination is Moksha or Purusha. Artha and Kama are the intermediary stages between Purusha on the one hand and Prakriti on the other.
 
EXTRACTS FROM "SRI RAMANOPADESA NUL MALAI_VILAKKAURAI"
PP 314-15 1987 edition.
ADVAITA is the experience of clearly apprehending that,in reality,the SELF,being consciousness,shining continuously as 'I AM' alone exists, and that all that appears in duality
consisting of the body,mind and world entirely unreal.
Therefore,since doing belong to the dualistic state where the mind and body appear to be real,non-duality cannot be expressed through doing. On the contrary should anyone think
that non-duality might be expressed through doing, they would(be showing themselves to be) be bereft of the experience of the TRUTH of non-duality.

Ps:- For a lay man like me without sound knowledge of Vedic Scriptures,The topic under discussion by very knowledgeable persons appear to be too abstract.
Shall be thankful if someone explains in simple language how the three great Vedantic
Philosophies namely Advaitha,Visistadhvaitha and Dwaita is relevant to an ordinary hindu in leading his day to day life.

Dear Shri Krishnamurthy,

In addition to the excellent article posted by Renuka, let me say the following:

The three great vedantic philosophies which are deep reflections on fundamental questions regarding existence, the world we live in etc., may not have a direct impact on the day to day life of a person.There are two aspects to learning, one is the important experiences in our day to day life and other is the knowledge of deeper issues which generally helps in defining our life philosophy. The latter helps in giving the perspective to the former. It is in the latter role of giving us the right perspective that our great vedantic philosophies help us out. A good understanding of them in that sense may be invaluable to our day to day life.
 
First I will start with maya because it is easy to relate. You see the physical world around you. You perceive them through your five senses and then through your mind. You deduce something about it Now the thing, is the knowledge you gain this way is in no way related to the real knowledge. What you gain this way is false knowledge. This is because your perceptions are misleading you. They make you see reality in a certain way which is far from the truth. The physical world exsts for you to learn and realize what false knowledge is and then lead you to the correct knowledge. Maya is the term used to refer to the cause of this false perception.

Since the physical reality disppears after self realization by the jiva ( I am simplifying a bit) there is an absolute reality beyond that which exists forever. That reality is sheer experience and is called brahman. Since brahman is the absolute reality it has to be in the nature of brahman which is responsible for this "illusion" of physical universe or in other words the power of maya should be in the nature of brahman.

Just as you want me to take for granted the beginning of the universe, I rely on the scriptures when I say certain things about brahman and maya. At this point I am more concerned in showing that advaita is a consistent philosophy

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Sir, there can be only just 'knowledge'. There can not be 'false knowledge' or for that matter, 'real knowledge' as such. Unless you know what is the so called real knowledge or the so called false knowledge, you may not criticise others of acquiring 'false knowledge'. I do not know about you; the knowledge I acquired so far had been very real, nothing false about them.

Next you are saying, my perceptions are misleading me. No, that cannot be correct. We always learn new things. When I was an young kid, my knowledge was, my village was the best village in all over the country. Was that a false knowledge? No! Because, I knew only one vilage, naturally that was the best. Only when I stepped in to the next village, I had something to compare with my village.

You are very welcome to explain 'real knowledge' and 'false knowledge'. But, as I see it, as we keep learning, our understandings improve or change and we learn new things. The knowledge we acquired before becomes outdated.

This 'false perception' and Maya sounds funny to me. No matter what I say, people are going to say, I have been mislead and what I see is false caused by Maya. Who is the authority to say this? This world is very real. When I feel hungry, it is very real; when I eat, such hunger vanishes, that is very real; I go to work regularly, that is very real; I don't even check my bank account to see if I had been paid or not, that is also very real; my wife thinks I am a nincompoop, not worth living, that is also very real.

If Brahman is a reality, we should be able to see it. Anything we can't see, we can only imagine. Unless we have seen it before, there can't be an uniform imagination. All of us have seen a snake; so, all of us can imagine a snake when we see a rope. But rope is the reality, seen by all of us. Similarly, if Brahman is the reality, we should be able to see Brahman, physically. If Brahman can be seen only spiritually, then Brahman can only be imagined. I disagree with this, please. In my opinion, we can see, feel brahman physically.

In my opinion, the concept .Maya' is an imagination. It does not even exist. Since we have not seen Brahman, we are not identifying it when we see it physically everyday.

Cheers!
 
1)Then why are you still demarcating Maya and Brahman as 2 distinct entities? When you are saying When everything is Brahman,such Brahman can only be alone. The world of forms are included in the Brahman so where is the distinct demarcation? When your very own words echo Ekam Eva Advaitam Brahman why do you chose to view Maya as distinct from Brahman?
May be you have given forms to Maya and Brahman hence this opinion.
Maya is just a function not an entity which has a demarcated form.

2)Ok point 2 agreed..thats reality.


3) Ok can we 1st define Confusion?When you say confused mind..what do you exactly mean?
Your snake in the dark rope explanation is just pointing out awareness on your part that its actually a rope becos you are able to deduce thats its a rope and that doesnt spell that anyone is not under the influence of Maya if he/she is able to see the rope and not think its a snake.

3) Ok I dont really know..may be you might be actually not under the influence of Maya anymore a.k.a Jeevan Mukta(I am not being sarcastic..you might be a Jeevan Mukta..I would not know) but if someone doesnt care about impending danger it doesnt all the while translate as being free from Maya..insanity is an example.



P.S Dear Raghy sir,its a pleasure to "debate" with you..you are 1 fine gentleman.
lots of love
renu

Sowbagyavathy Dear Renuka, Greetings.

I am not a gentleman. My wife thinks, I am voilent, less than a human being! Thanks for the compliment, anyway. I may not deserve it though.

1. Maya is an illusory effect; it is not real. Brahman on the other hand is real. So, Maya and Brahman do not exist together. Everybody says 'when you get out the clutches of Maya, you can realise Brahman'... that means what? Maya out; brahman in! is it not? So, how can Maya be the power of Brahman? How can be Maya connected to Brahman? I don't think it is possible.

2. When I say 'confused mind', I refer to someone who lacks insight. Everyone would make an error in judgement that is not a big deal. We go away and fix the error in the next time. All in all, mostly, we always realise whatever is happening around us and act accordingly. All these preachings that declares 'everything around you false, etc' makes me wonder what ever is going on! I think, something very simple is missed altogether and people are complicating their lives chasing this 'Brahman'. The sad fact is, when they do stumble upon this Brahman, they may not recognise it.

Dear Renuka, I am not a jeevan Mukhta! I am just a practical person... trying to be a practical person. I just want to enjoy life; what ever is left anyway.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Sowbagyavathy Dear Renuka, Greetings.

I am not a gentleman. My wife thinks, I am voilent, less than a human being! Thanks for the compliment, anyway. I may not deserve it though.

1. Maya is an illusory effect; it is not real. Brahman on the other hand is real. So, Maya and Brahman do not exist together. Everybody says 'when you get out the clutches of Maya, you can realise Brahman'... that means what? Maya out; brahman in! is it not? So, how can Maya be the power of Brahman? How can be Maya connected to Brahman? I don't think it is possible.

2. When I say 'confused mind', I refer to someone who lacks insight. Everyone would make an error in judgement that is not a big deal. We go away and fix the error in the next time. All in all, mostly, we always realise whatever is happening around us and act accordingly. All these preachings that declares 'everything around you false, etc' makes me wonder what ever is going on! I think, something very simple is missed altogether and people are complicating their lives chasing this 'Brahman'. The sad fact is, when they do stumble upon this Brahman, they may not recognise it.

Dear Renuka, I am not a jeevan Mukhta! I am just a practical person... trying to be a practical person. I just want to enjoy life.

Cheers!

Dear RaghyJi,

1)I will paste my reply to Srvana in a post here about getting away from the clutches of Maya:

Sravna said: Jivas if they have had complete realization would indeed be released from the effect of maya and become one with brahman

I(renu) said:

Embodied Atmas(jeevas) upon realization would be indeed not anymore under the influence of Maya and verily is Brahman.

I have used the word not anymore under the influence becos being released from the effect of Maya makes it sound that Jeevas were imprisoned.
Maya never really imprisoned any Jeeva..It has a delusional effect but to journey through the influence of Maya is an option so there no actual bound effect.

I have used the word Is verily Brahman becos by saying Becoming One with Brahman there is still certain amount of Qualified Non Dualism in that statement and we are still seeing Jeeva and Brahman as separate entities even though you meant an amalgamation here..You need two or more to amalgamate but In Advaita there is Only One and Two is just One occuring Twice.


I chose to write this to Sravna even though I knew perfectly that he knew what he was saying but I just put in the correction on technical grounds so that there will be no loop hole..Maya and Brahman are not like Bordering Countries like India Pakistan..that once you cross the border of Maya you enter the territory of Brahman.
I repeat myself..Maya is a function and not a well demarcated entity or even a geographical location.

renuka
 
Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Sir, there can be only just 'knowledge'. There can not be 'false knowledge' or for that matter, 'real knowledge' as such. Unless you know what is the so called real knowledge or the so called false knowledge, you may not criticise others of acquiring 'false knowledge'. I do not know about you; the knowledge I acquired so far had been very real, nothing false about them.

Next you are saying, my perceptions are misleading me. No, that cannot be correct. We always learn new things. When I was an young kid, my knowledge was, my village was the best village in all over the country. Was that a false knowledge? No! Because, I knew only one vilage, naturally that was the best. Only when I stepped in to the next village, I had something to compare with my village.

You are very welcome to explain 'real knowledge' and 'false knowledge'. But, as I see it, as we keep learning, our understandings improve or change and we learn new things. The knowledge we acquired before becomes outdated.

This 'false perception' and Maya sounds funny to me. No matter what I say, people are going to say, I have been mislead and what I see is false caused by Maya. Who is the authority to say this? This world is very real. When I feel hungry, it is very real; when I eat, such hunger vanishes, that is very real; I go to work regularly, that is very real; I don't even check my bank account to see if I had been paid or not, that is also very real; my wife thinks I am a nincompoop, not worth living, that is also very real.

If Brahman is a reality, we should be able to see it. Anything we can't see, we can only imagine. Unless we have seen it before, there can't be an uniform imagination. All of us have seen a snake; so, all of us can imagine a snake when we see a rope. But rope is the reality, seen by all of us. Similarly, if Brahman is the reality, we should be able to see Brahman, physically. If Brahman can be seen only spiritually, then Brahman can only be imagined. I disagree with this, please. In my opinion, we can see, feel brahman physically.

In my opinion, the concept .Maya' is an imagination. It does not even exist. Since we have not seen Brahman, we are not identifying it when we see it physically everyday.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

Let me stop using bombastic terms such as "maya", "brahman", "false knowledge" etc. What you call something that you learn whether right or wrong. You call it knowledge? What when you come to know that it doesn't reflect the truth? Wrong or misleading or false knowledge ?

Do you think your understanding of the world is due to your physical senses or due to your mind? Why do you want to place so much more emphasis on what you see, feel, hear than what you think?, that you even ask proof for a brahman that is physical? Mind grasps the higher truths based on the inputs given by the physical senses.

Higher realities which are grasped by the mind may not be accessible to the physical senses. Would you then reject the existence of such realities just because you cannot see them or feel them? Similarly there are limitations of mind. Not all have highly developed mind. Thus mind can not also see the truth or see through the veil. There is again false perception of reality.

So without the use of those terms do you agree that one can say there is a higher reality than what can be physically perceived, that false perceptions and false knowledge are possible and that physical reality is transient etc?
 
Dear friends in support of Advaita,

Here is a hypothetical set of situations.
A person is worshipping a murthi let us say Vishnu. Over a period of time as he worships it, the mind becomes full of it. It comes to a stage when that person thinks that murthi is everywhere. But everywhere he sees the form of this murthi. He first thinks that he is sees himself different from the murthi. Then he sees that the murthi is encompassing everyone. He decides to ignore the existence of the world. He moves out of the body and still nothing in known to him apart from the murthi- all dhyana is in that only. He continues to experience the full magnificence of the lord although he might feel part of him and feel merged in him. At what stage does he realize and how does he know in such a situation and with such a deep concentration on god's attributes that the god's attributes are no attributes. Isnt advaita a mockery of the progress of this person?

Another person talks of gyana and bhakti believes in advaita. A necessary condition for him to experience is that the world is unreal. What is the nature of this unreal world. Nothing can affect him. It means not even thoughts should affect him. Let us say that this person has brain situation where he can imagine different things. For instance he may see the world as false. He knows that a lot of things happen around him but his concetration power allows him to focus on something of his choice, things affect his body and his mind , yet he views them as illusions affecting him and ignores them. Since he is least interested in life, death does not cause him fear. Since he is fully convinced because of his brain situation that he is not the real sufferer he believes it to be so. This man has conceived all his ideas of illusionary nature of the world even when he is affected by his brain. Why then should this person's experiences not be stated as a mere brain condition and not a result of some true experience? Did we have any evidence of any purushas not in a human body without effect of brain who could proclaim truths on advaita? Isnt this then just a belief in advaita on our part, even if it may be true, that somebody somewhere supposedly experienced some state?

There is no logical way to this, since advaita's fundamental stand is on the need for intuition and experience. Intuition and experience while being under the effect of brain and maya cannot be taken as a valid experience. If one is free of maya ,it is a belief that somebody is. But why should another person take the dream of someone seriously?
This is where Sankara resorted to the pramana of Vedas. But as rightly pointed out by Madhva, Ramanuja and Vallabha this condition of fulfilling vedas is not true at all. The great egalitarian Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had no hopes in advaita either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear friends in support of Advaita,

Here is a hypothetical set of situations.
A person is worshipping a murthi let us say Vishnu. Over a period of time as he worships it, the mind becomes full of it. It comes to a stage when that person thinks that murthi is everywhere. But everywhere he sees the form of this murthi. He first thinks that he is sees himself different from the murthi. Then he sees that the murthi is encompassing everyone. He decides to ignore the existence of the world. He moves out of the body and still nothing in known to him apart from the murthi- all dhyana is in that only. He continues to experience the full magnificence of the lord although he might feel part of him and feel merged in him. At what stage does he realize and how does he know in such a situation and with such a deep concentration on god's attributes that the god's attributes are no attributes. Isnt advaita a mockery of the progress of this person?

Another person talks of gyana and bhakti believes in advaita. A necessary condition for him to experience is that the world is unreal. What is the nature of this unreal world. Nothing can affect him. It means not even thoughts should affect him. Let us say that this person has brain situation where he can imagine different things. For instance he may see the world as false. He knows that a lot of things happen around him but his concetration power allows him to focus on something of his choice, things affect his body and his mind , yet he views them as illusions affecting him and ignores them. Since he least interested in life, death does not cause him fear. Since he is fully convinced because of his brain situation that he is not the real sufferer he believes it to be so. This man has conceived all his ideas of illusionary nature of the world even when he is affected by his brain. Why then should this person's experiences not be stated as a mere brain condition and not a result of some true experience? Did we have any evidence of any purushas not in a human body without effect of brain who could proclaim truths on advaita? Isnt this then just a belief in advaita on our part, even if it may be true, that somebody somewhere supposedly experienced some state?

There is no logical way to this, since advaita's fundamental stand is on the need for intuition and experience. Intuition and experience while being under the effect of brain and maya cannot be taken as a valid experience. If one is free of maya ,it is a belief that somebody is. But why should another person take the dream of someone seriously?
This is where Sankara resorted to the pramana of Vedas. But as rightly pointed out by Madhva, Ramanuja and Vallabha this is not true at all. The great egalitarian Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had no hopes in advaita either.

No one is supporting or disputing here..

Ok 1 simple Question?

Can we see Love?
Love is "felt" not "seen".
Same way..Advaita is "felt" and not "seen"..its maturity of Spiritual Realization.
 
No one is supporting or disputing here..

Ok 1 simple Question?

Can we see Love?
Love is "felt" not "seen".
Same way..Advaita is "felt" and not "seen"..its maturity of Spiritual Realization.

I understand that advaita is always paraded as a theology of matter of experience. Neither do ordinary people see these lakshanas in people who make such a claim nor can we logically argue in favor of such a philosophy. If this is agreed this thread can be closed.

Advaita is bound to be logically flawed as it places some preconditions on experience, for which not even one can be observed to fulfill.

Advaitic followers tried to write commentary on Vedas, all of which have been indisputably proven false by great legends. That is the only thing that should be discussed if at all anything. For everything else the precondition is experience which could be a hyperbole for all we know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear friends in support of Advaita,

Here is a hypothetical set of situations.
A person is worshipping a murthi let us say Vishnu. Over a period of time as he worships it, the mind becomes full of it. It comes to a stage when that person thinks that murthi is everywhere. But everywhere he sees the form of this murthi. He first thinks that he is sees himself different from the murthi. Then he sees that the murthi is encompassing everyone. He decides to ignore the existence of the world. He moves out of the body and still nothing in known to him apart from the murthi- all dhyana is in that only. He continues to experience the full magnificence of the lord although he might feel part of him and feel merged in him. At what stage does he realize and how does he know in such a situation and with such a deep concentration on god's attributes that the god's attributes are no attributes. Isnt advaita a mockery of the progress of this person?

Another person talks of gyana and bhakti believes in advaita. A necessary condition for him to experience is that the world is unreal. What is the nature of this unreal world. Nothing can affect him. It means not even thoughts should affect him. Let us say that this person has brain situation where he can imagine different things. For instance he may see the world as false. He knows that a lot of things happen around him but his concetration power allows him to focus on something of his choice, things affect his body and his mind , yet he views them as illusions affecting him and ignores them. Since he is least interested in life, death does not cause him fear. Since he is fully convinced because of his brain situation that he is not the real sufferer he believes it to be so. This man has conceived all his ideas of illusionary nature of the world even when he is affected by his brain. Why then should this person's experiences not be stated as a mere brain condition and not a result of some true experience? Did we have any evidence of any purushas not in a human body without effect of brain who could proclaim truths on advaita? Isnt this then just a belief in advaita on our part, even if it may be true, that somebody somewhere supposedly experienced some state?

There is no logical way to this, since advaita's fundamental stand is on the need for intuition and experience. Intuition and experience while being under the effect of brain and maya cannot be taken as a valid experience. If one is free of maya ,it is a belief that somebody is. But why should another person take the dream of someone seriously?
This is where Sankara resorted to the pramana of Vedas. But as rightly pointed out by Madhva, Ramanuja and Vallabha this condition of fulfilling vedas is not true at all. The great egalitarian Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had no hopes in advaita either.

Dear Friend,

Every theory is a result of intuition and if you are not going to trust intuition how come such theories have been validated by physical evidence and turns out to be "correct". The difference in spiritual experiences is that you are trying to access the deepest mental reality which cannot be physically validated. If you trust your intuition on the former, why not on the latter?

Just as you give little importance to such physically inaccessible realities , so do the scriptures treat the physical realities and teach us not to give it undue importance. Also if you dismiss the experience of the spiritual reality as some dream not worthy of trust , how trust worthy are the perceptions by the physical senses? How can you you take them to reflect reality?
 
Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Let me stop using bombastic terms such as "maya", "brahman", "false knowledge" etc. What you call something that you learn whether right or wrong. You call it knowledge? What when you come to know that it doesn't reflect the truth? Wrong or misleading or false knowledge ?
Sir, I have no problem in using those terms. But, when we use some terms during discussions, we are required to define such terms clearly. If we learned something few years back and come to know later on that such informations learned were wrong, then such informations are called 'mis informations'. But in this discussion, I am not worried about the word 'false knowledge' or what ever. If we say something is 'false', then we do have an obligation to show why it is false, don't we? on request, we may even have an obligation to show what is not false or real. We learn so much; but we cherish and keep only some of the informations we learned. If someone tells us, such information learned in this physical world are misleading, we would like to know the reason.

Do you think your understanding of the world is due to your physical senses or due to your mind? Why do you want to place so much more emphasis on what you see, feel, hear than what you think?, that you even ask proof for a brahman that is physical? Mind grasps the higher truths based on the inputs given by the physical senses.
Yes, my understanding of this world was possible by using all my senses and processing the informations in my brain. My senses provide object informations; so, I pay more emphasis to such informations. I am not asking for physical proof for brahman; I have it already. Unfortunately, you are not accepting my proof. You are stating that Brahman can be only experienced through spiritual knowledge and also states that Brahman is real. Anything real can be sensed with our senses; hence the request. How do I sense Brahman so that my mind could grasp it, please? ( As per my view, I experience the brahman all the time).

Higher realities which are grasped by the mind may not be accessible to the physical senses. Would you then reject the existence of such realities just because you cannot see them or feel them?
Can you kindly provide an example for this, please? Thank you.

Similarly there are limitations of mind. Not all have highly developed mind. Thus mind can not also see the truth or see through the veil. There is again false perception of reality.
Sir, this can happen to anybody due to error in judgement. Error in judgement can last for years. Error in judgement can not be seen as Maya though.

How do you know the concept of Brahman is not a false perception of reality, please?

So without the use of those terms do you agree that one can say there is a higher reality than what can be physically perceived, that false perceptions and false knowledge are possible and that physical reality is transient etc?
Sir, there are things which are not physically perceived like Early Sensory Perception (ESP), Psychic capacities, Psycho kinetic capacities etc. When you say physical reality is transient, of course it is transient. Everything changes all the time. The time keeps moving on, placing everything in transient. Sir, I am not agreeable to the term 'false knowledge' please.

Sir, I am discussing this subject with my worldly experiences. Since this discussion is not the usual type with quoting from scriptures etc, it may be quite frustrating. Thank you for your patience.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Sir, I have no problem in using those terms. But, when we use some terms during discussions, we are required to define such terms clearly. If we learned something few years back and come to know later on that such informations learned were wrong, then such informations are called 'mis informations'. But in this discussion, I am not worried about the word 'false knowledge' or what ever. If we say something is 'false', then we do have an obligation to show why it is false, don't we? on request, we may even have an obligation to show what is not false or real. We learn so much; but we cherish and keep only some of the informations we learned. If someone tells us, such information learned in this physical world are misleading, we would like to know the reason.

Yes, my understanding of this world was possible by using all my senses and processing the informations in my brain. My senses provide object informations; so, I pay more emphasis to such informations. I am not asking for physical proof for brahman; I have it already. Unfortunately, you are not accepting my proof. You are stating that Brahman can be only experienced through spiritual knowledge and also states that Brahman is real. Anything real can be sensed with our senses; hence the request. How do I sense Brahman so that my mind could grasp it, please? ( As per my view, I experience the brahman all the time).

Can you kindly provide an example for this, please? Thank you.

Sir, this can happen to anybody due to error in judgement. Error in judgement can last for years. Error in judgement can not be seen as Maya though.

How do you know the concept of Brahman is not a false perception of reality, please?

Sir, there are things which are not physically perceived like Early Sensory Perception (ESP), Psychic capacities, Psycho kinetic capacities etc. When you say physical reality is transient, of course it is transient. Everything changes all the time. The time keeps moving on, placing everything in transient. Sir, I am not agreeable to the term 'false knowledge' please.

Sir, I am discussing this subject with my worldly experiences. Since this discussion is not the usual type with quoting from scriptures etc, it may be quite frustrating. Thank you for your patience.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

My argument is based on the correctness of the reality that the mind interprets in spite of contradicting physical evidence. Consider the evolution of the scientific theories. The laws of gravity were first framed by Newton. Later Einstein improved on them and it is now the accepted view of gravity. He is considered to have improved over Newton because his theory was more in line with physical evidence or greater in accuracy with respect to physical measurements. But what does quantum theory say? At the microscopic level measurements themselves may not be objectively made. Probabilities are used instead. The accuracy of physical evidence here is compromised at that level. This is thought to be because of the nature of the physical reality itself and not measurement error.

If even at some level physical reality is unreliable according to science how can we totally place comfort in such reality? On the other hand , my opinion is , a good big picture first without basically relying on physical evidence would have explained away such seeming unreliability, well enough. Since we solely trusted physical evidence , quantum physics remains as one of the least understood theory in science even though it finds good practical use. In my view we are trying to place the cart before the horse by giving undue and much more importance to tangible evidence than sensible interpretations.

We seem to trust matter over mind and that in my opinion is the crux of the problem.
 
Dear Friend,

Every theory is a result of intuition and if you are not going to trust intuition how come such theories have been validated by physical evidence and turns out to be "correct". The difference in spiritual experiences is that you are trying to access the deepest mental reality which cannot be physically validated. If you trust your intuition on the former, why not on the latter?

Just as you give little importance to such physically inaccessible realities , so do the scriptures treat the physical realities and teach us not to give it undue importance. Also if you dismiss the experience of the spiritual reality as some dream not worthy of trust , how trust worthy are the perceptions by the physical senses? How can you you take them to reflect reality?
If someone says he has realized that he is the brahman this is a very profound statement. As per your definitions based on my understanding a unified experience is possible. I assume it is not bound by law of time. Why is it then the so-called realized people fail to answer basic questions on the present and the past. For instance can you locate anyone person in last 100 years who could pinpoint facts about human life which occurred accurately without least bit of hesitation? You do keep hearing of stories of some seers pinpointing location to different idols and stuff like that. But this knowledge is not comprehensive which should be the case of a realized brahman. Such seers should have no difficulty lifting mount himalayas and explaining the correct meaning of symbols in our puranas. This is not the case is it?

So as I again like to reiterate that experience of oneness with brahman should imply all the abilities of a brahman. This is nowhere the case. Then one must look at the sincerity of the person's experience. If person is sincere then we must question if the person's mental makeup has made him experience something like this. How many people are aware that what Ramana might have experienced in childhood might possibly be a seizure. It may not , I would hope so for the benefit of all devotees. But one must raise that question, was it a seizure or not. These conditions have been documented well in medical research.

In other cases there are no such experiences of being one with brahman and no claim is made either. But people gain belief in these gurus because of other traits. May be they acquired siddhic powers. I dont know if all that is true. But even then they are just powers acquired not related to the knowledge of being one with brahman. So even here the Gurus case is questionable.

We have this peculiar situation that people claim to be one with brahman and having realized that world is illusion. Yet these experiences are not beyond question because no evidence has been demonstrated. I have mentioned this a hundred times and I am never tired of repeating this because it has to be driven hard like a nail on climbing path.

Also if you dismiss the experience of the spiritual reality as some dream not worthy of trust , how trust worthy are the perceptions by the physical senses? How can you you take them to reflect reality?
Dear I dont dismiss the possibility that there may be realities much more significant and trustworthy than mundane experiences. My only complain is that no evidence is being offered apart from quotes from scriptures( which has been strongly disputed and has not been properly answered) that such experiences do indeed occur in the first place and then again no evidence is offered that these experiences can be more trustworthy than real day to day experiences.

If a person does puja and meditation his mind may achieve radiance. May be some have seen special powers as well. I dont know and I wont divert the topic by disputing them. But then again neither effect is a proof that the individual is one with brahman.

The difference in spiritual experiences is that you are trying to access the deepest mental reality which cannot be physically validated. If you trust your intuition on the former, why not on the latter?
Many people have intuitions of the tomorrow which never come true. Neither has anyone been cent percent accurate with his intuitions. This means that there could be intuitions which are seemingly true but never true. A schizophrenic is sure and definite about his experiences. Even holy men can suffer from these effects may be not. But proof is just not there to the ordinary man and he is rightly questioning about these experiences which have no logical ground from his point of view.

Thanks,
Subbudu
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The approach of Science and looking for physical evidence only is flawed for the following reason:

It is necessary to frame the right metaphysics before embarking to study the physical universe. Philosophy does this role. But the approach of western and eastern philosophies has been different as the former was more analytical and the latter more holistic in trying to explain things. I think eastern philosophy in general and hinduism in particular got the approach right as it is necessary to have a correct idea of the whole before getting into the nitty gritties. How do you know what sort of a thing this universe is? For all you might know it might be really a conscious entity trying to delude you in to believing things. You then cannot trust anything that you see, hear, feel etc. That is exactly the reason the focus was on the mental thing. A feeling of certainty in the mind comes only from spiritual expereince and no physical evidence can substitute it. It is for this feeling, that mental experiences were given a very high priority.

These deep intuitions grasp the truth in the totality and directly and gets you the big and the correct picture. Once you are sure and frame a consistent metaphysics you can embark upon the analysis of the physical universe as you now have a firm basis to do that. The big picture however cannot rely on physical evidence but are directly grasped truths as you are making conclusions about the nature of reality itself. Science ultimately cannot stand on its own and may fall apart if it solely relies on physical evidence in support of its theories.
 
The approach of Science and looking for physical evidence only is flawed for the following reason:

It is necessary to frame the right metaphysics before embarking to study the physical universe. Philosophy does this role. But the approach of western and eastern philosophies has been different as the former was more analytical and the latter more holistic in trying to explain things. I think eastern philosophy in general and hinduism in particular got the approach right as it is necessary to have a correct idea of the whole before getting into the nitty gritties. How do you know what sort of a thing this universe is? For all you might know it might be really a conscious entity trying to delude you in to believing things. You then cannot trust anything that you see, hear, feel etc. That is exactly the reason the focus was on the mental thing. A feeling of certainty in the mind comes only from spiritual expereince and no physical evidence can substitute it. It is for this feeling, that mental experiences were given a very high priority.

These deep intuitions grasp the truth in the totality and directly and gets you the big and the correct picture. Once you are sure and frame a consistent metaphysics you can embark upon the analysis of the physical universe as you now have a firm basis to do that. The big picture however cannot rely on physical evidence but are directly grasped truths as you are making conclusions about the nature of reality itself. Science ultimately cannot stand on its own and may fall apart if it solely relies on physical evidence in support of its theories.

Dear Sravna,
Let me put my deep intuition about the advaitins here . You want me to trust my intuitions. So here is my intuition and whether you agree or not deep within you know this is right.

My intuition - It is my strong intuition that advaitins here have strong impressions since childhood about advaita and it is because of their gut feeling alone they argue in favor of advaita. It is their gut feeling and their intuition but they have not discovered a logical proof. They want to discover and explain that so called logical proof based on their gut feeling alone.

You see here this is what my deepest intuition about advaitins in the forum tells me. Do you want me to go by this intuition or give you a patient hearing on your logic. Which would you prefer and which is the one which would be trusted by people here? Logical reasoning with you, right? Does it really matter what my intuition is, right? There is no reason for your intuition about advaita to be true any more than mine, yet we contradict each other. So goes the trust in this intuition system.

Let me boldly express what is both my intuition and what is evidence based. Therefore such a statement attains great credibility because of satisfying both intuition and evidence.

Here it is:
Fact and intuition-Shankaracharya worked out advaita based on what his other teachers like Govindapada and gaudapada taught. His vision of vedanta was a modification of buddhistic precepts as gaudapada acknowledged. I read some bit of the work of gaudapada where he endorses a particular school of buddhism. It was because it was a compromised buddhism that Shankara was able to garner support from buddhists. Because he decimated the Buddhists and other superstitious schools of hinduism he won universal appeal. He won arguments against purva -mimasakas which was a superstitious school.
To shankara's credit he must have been the leading philosopher of his times. Like Newton was to Science, Shankara was to Hindu philosophy. But Newton's theories have now been modified and some are no longer considered valid. Why should one not question Shankara in the same way?

Fact-So Shankara became the champion of vedic hindus. Once in that seat any critiscism cannot be easily answered. To top it he was considered an avatara of Shiva. If one believes these prophecies in puranas one should also believe the word of vaishnavas that the puranas contain prophecy that Shiva was sent by Vishnu to mislead the buddhists into the Vedic path. Which prophecy is more valid than the other. Should we not view both with sceptism?

Fact- Age of smarthas begins. Shankara has been linked to God. If anyone questions Shankara disregard him. The age of dissenters begins.

Fact- The old smartha groups tried to refute the arguments of opponents. Compromise philosophy spoke of the different vedantic traditions being stepping stones to Advaita. However there was not much time for a detailed discussion on the nature of answers to opponents and their validity. So we dont really know if these answers were really answers.Reason : The British age started and people were busy looking for jobs. Meanwhile the Sadhujan had already embraced advaita. It was easy to see why this was popular just as it is easy to see why Buddhism was popular. To add to it , there was this intended or unintended effect of supposed powers of these sadhus. Nobody had the time to refute anything which advaitins had to say. The sanskrit knowledge was reduced in this time. The advaitins didnt have to resort to lengthy refutations because they were never challenged at an argumentative level by many. The vaishnavas had already locked themselves into supersitions. They just had to declare that advaitins were egoistic and frauds. That was all. The followers in these schools continued. It also helped that the vaishnavas had by then become a separate caste. So smarthas could be easily thrown out of their mind since they were anyway some inferior grade and different caste people. No arguments needed .

Effect - Advaita goes unchallenged. Easy excuse for fake swamis. Easy take for swamis who dont believe in rituals. The modern advaita does not really require belief in anything apart from select sutras in upanishads and Gita. It is very easy you know. You dont have to worry about something contradicting science because the select verses have been chosen already. Easy take for people who wanted to visit every temple,mosque or church for blessings and miracles( they can remove their guilt of visiting some different gods, by proclaiming all religions are valid in line with advaita )

Fact -For the Orthodox brahmin of today, situation is more simple. They think-Shankara was Lord Shiva. He was right . He established Vedanta by defeating Buddhists. Stories passed down about Shankara contain many miracles. So thats all that is needed for convincing. Can continue same acharam madi etc and occasionally visit velankanni amman or some mosque if someone is not feeling well at home. For that also advaita comes handy.

In other words this forum is exactly indicating what my intuition already told me. Here is an example again of evidence supporting intuition- which is real and forceful debate on Advaita stopped by the mid 16 th century or so. Not many people realized that many of the ancestors of modern orthodox smarthas were troubled by the arguments of anti-advaitins. They felt like converting to these philosophies which some bold people who dared to go by their logic, did. This should not make modern smarthas realize that there is nothing silly about embracing Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita which are probably more in line with Vedas.
Appaiah Dikshithar the last great debater of advaita probably did rescue the situation for advaitins. But his real impact is not easy to evaluate because the debates were stopped soon after the arrival of British.

If anyone has the guts they should start there. Sri Sangom gave me a link to Appaiah's work. But I am no scholar in Sanskrit accepted with due humility. If I start this translation then it will be many years from now.

So let us all start from where our forefathers left. Let us be bold and be prepared to change our philosophy by going into the real arguments presented during that age when debates stopped. If you believe in Vedas , it is Vedas that should win, not some philosophy which tried to twist the Vedas.
 
Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Sir, I humbly request you to address my quries in full, please. My post #314 in this thread is not fully addressed. In reply, I find references to scientific theories, Newton and Quantum physics etc. I am neither interested in Eastern philosophies nor in western philosophies. Actually, I am not interested in any philosophies.

Kindly address my post #314, please. Only after establishing about Brahman and Maya, I can progress to saguna Brahman. For me, Brahman is the reality; real in this world; I meet brahman in all shapes and sizes everyday. I searched for maya every where; so far I have not been successful. Since Maya is not present, I am not able to see it.

I know you are very learned person. But, I am not. I humbly request you to discuss at my level, please. In my opinion, if one says something is real, then one should be able to say how to see it or experience it or feel it.

I say Brahman is real; I can direct you any time to Brahman. But you do not accept it; you think what I see is just Mayaa. So, that's why I am again and again I am asking you about Brahman, please.

Cheers!
 
Shri Subbudu,

I am not saying that anyone's philosophy is above criticism. It is just that I find Sankara's philosophy so neat and compelling and something which is free of contradictions. I am more attracted towards the philosopher Sankara than any of his other persona. In this thread I have not found any arguments that attacked the consistency in the philosophy per se but found more of unsubstantiated attacks both on advaita and on Sankara. I would be happy if the debate directly focuses on any perceived lacunae in advaita rather than just putting it down.
 
Shri Raghy,

OK, let me answer you. You are experiencing brahman when ever you exercise total self control. When your wife is angry at you, you don't focus on her anger but on the frivolity in focusing on it, then you are seeing or experiencing a different higher reality which I call brahman. Experiencing brahman in the physical world is thus possible and the great rishis of the past acquired vast powers sheerly through their immense self control. With that self control they were in direct touch with brahman. I am bringing in the aspect of self control now because that can be inferred to be the essence of brahman. Any thing in self control is like something which is in equilibrium , totally imperturbable. And control of senses and mind is the main theme in the gita.
 
I am giving below the views of a Scholar in another forum.


From: kalyani <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM
Subject: Empathy Vs Compassion and Adwaitam
To:


People, many a times, misunderstand Empathy to Compassion.
Often times we help and serve others out of Empathy and not compassion, though the help or service doesn't differentiate but the spirit with which a service rendered assumes much importance in ones spiritual progression.

Jnanis and Saints show compassion, as they see all beings as ONE without discrimination thus their service and help is pure devoid any reward or expectations.
People who have no realization of unity of all beings no doubt do commendable action by helping others but is out of Empathy.

Adwaitam -is Tatvamasi - All are One. This statement cannot be understood in Awake (Jagrat) state if one has no experience of Transcending the tri states of Jagrat(awake), Swapna(dream) and sushupti( deep sleep). When one transcends these three states ends in a Fourth state called Turiya ( actually Turiya is neamed and defined for the sake of explanation else It is the ONly reality existing).

The Buddihsts transcended the three states and concluded as Shunyam implying emptiness, forgetting even to be aware of emptiness there is a witness required and this witness is nothing but the SELF or Aatman.

Just like deep sleep is common to all without discrimination of genders or a dog or cat or any animal or any insect, etc.,, the state of Turiya (simply called aatma) has no discrimination whether it is a dog, animal or human beings or has any gender difference. The best is to realize in this way unless one upon sadhana arrives at this state.

But for the state of Turiya, the other three states of jagrat, swapna and sushupti is not possible exist, as these tri states are temporary while Turiya is existing without change like silence prevails always everywhere.

This is the reason Upanishads declare (Taittreyopanishad)

That(signifying aatma) transcends Time and space. Time and space are valid only in Jagrat state; and the world exists for one who is Awake, while for the one in deep sleep world doesn't exist or a sleeping being is not aware of this world.

Knowing the state of Turiya , by the grace of The Mother Parashakti is not enough and one by his constant efforts has to merge into it( layam of Jagrat, Swapna and sushupti in Turiya). Those who have merged their tristates into Turiya is a Jnani ; since Jnani's conscious and aware at all times of his true unchangeable,ever existing, Nature of Oneness a Jnani is naturally compassionate towards all beings.

Compassion, arising out of knowledge of ones true nature SELF and identification of this SELF as all pervading, is true love and the help and service to others are natural. while help or service out of empathy is not out of Love.

K. Vaidyanathan
 
Last edited:
Shri Raghy,

OK, let me answer you. You are experiencing brahman when ever you exercise total self control. When your wife is angry at you, you don't focus on her anger but on the frivolity in focusing on it, then you are seeing or experiencing a different higher reality which I call brahman. Experiencing brahman in the physical world is thus possible and the great rishis of the past acquired vast powers sheerly through their immense self control. With that self control they were in direct touch with brahman. I am bringing in the aspect of self control now because that can be inferred to be the essence of brahman. Any thing in self control is like something which is in equilibrium , totally imperturbable. And control of senses and mind is the main theme in the gita.

Sri.Sravna Sir,

Thanks for your input. This still does not address post #314 in full though. To stay in total control is a piece of cake! I have seen some of the very experienced mental health professionals staying in full control in the presence of yellig abusive persons. If we don't take it personally, we are not going to respond; we can be in total control. Are you trying to say, brahman is a 'state of mind' here? Total self control is a state of mind. Kindly clarify this and address #314 in full, please. Thanks.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Sri.Krishnamurthy Sir, Greetings.

In my opinion, Love is important to develop empathy. Empathy is experiencing in full or in part of the pain and suffering of someone else and helping them in such a way, the person's dignity is maintained intact.

Just to show compassion, I don't think one has to go through all the four stages refered in that mail. One does not have to be saint for that. By the way, there were instances where, saints who acted upon religioue edicts acted without an iota of compassion.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Shri Raghy,

More than just the act of control, how that control happens is what that counts. For example you can control emotions by suppressing them or really not experiencing them, the latter being true self control. If someone has achieved such self control in an irreversible way , he has indeed truly achieved full mental development or in other words capable of spiritual experiences. In religious terminology, mind becomes one with soul and self realization has occurred or brahman is experienced. Thus higher reality or brahman is just that experience.

Tell me what exactly I have to respond to, in your earlier post?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top