Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Nara and others, I think the person who really took on the questions of SV after the times of Desikar, was Appaiah Dikshithar..

Dear subbudu sir, it is my understanding that Appaiah Diskthithar (AD) was more into Saivam than Adivaitam per se. In fact I have heard that his vedantic outlook was the same as VA, except that he took Shiva to be the supreme Ishwara rather than Sriman Narayana, but this may simply be a claim by the SVs. It is my understanding that he did not attempt to answer any of the questions raised against A by the proponents of VA.

SVs often say AD had enormous respect for Swami Sri Desikan (SSD). AD is supposed to have conferred the title "kavi-tarkika-simham" for SSD. He is supposed to have observed that SSD built an impenetrable fence around the green grass of VA, but for this, the grass would have been grazed away.

Cheers!

 

[saarangam]

Here is a brief sketch of the life of Appayya Deekshithar. (Courtesy: www.karnatic.com)
Appaya Dikshitar - (1554-1626)
He was a sage, saint, and scholar. He was born as Vinayaka Subramanya in Adayapalam, near Ami in the North Arcot district, to Rangarajudhwari. He had a younger brother, Acharya Dikshitar or Acchan Dikshitar. Appaya studied the holy scriptures under Guru Rama Kavi. Chinnabomma, Raja of Vellore, invited the brothers to his capital after the death of Rangaraja, who was the Chief Pundit of the State. Srinivasa Thathachari, the Dewan, had great dislike for the worshippers of Lord Siva. He censured the devotees of Lord Siva while Appayya praised the Siva Lilas and the glory of Lord Siva. Other rajas, of Thanjavur, Kalahasti, and Tirupathi also invited him.
His songs mainly praised Shiva, and it is said that he once went to Tirupathi and was told Shaivites could not enter. The sage became angry and overnight changed the face of the idol from Lord Vishnu to Lord Shiva! The priests at the temple begged Appaya Dikshitar for forgiveness, and he restored the image.
Ratna Kheta Srinivasa Dikshitar, a Sanskrit scholar and devotee of Kamakshi Devi, Kancheepuram, was the Chief Pundit of the Court in the Chola kingdom. Srinivasa came to know that Appayya was a great scholar and wanted to defeat him. He went to Kancheepuram to pray to Kamakshi Devi, who appeared before him. He asked to be a great scholar so he could beat Appaya. Devi warned him that Appaya was a great scholar and he could only get his wish if he gave his daughter Mangalambika in marriage to Appaya. Shiva also came to Appaya in a dream and told him to go to Kancheepuram to marry Srinivasa's daughter. The two were married and lived in prosperity. They had two daughters, and the younger Mangalamba was a great devotee of Shiva. Her son was Neelakanta.
Appaya's compositions include Chaturmata Sara Samgraha, which describes the four schools of Vedanta (Dwaita, Adwaita, Visishtadwaita, and Sivadwaita). Other works include Sadhana Panchaka and Sviarkamani Dipika. He was honored with the unique epithet Dikshitendra and is considered to have been an incarnation of Lord Shiva.

Incidentally the famous geetham varaveeNA mrudupANi in Mohanam is a composition of Appayya Deekshithar.

 

[Nara]

I think an argument has an intrinsic merit which should be the basis on which a debate should proceed. My responses directly address Ramanuja's objections to advaita. It is up to you to chose to respond. Your insistence that a logical analysis needs a support other than its own merit doesn't seem reasonable to me.

sravna, the intrinsic merit of any argument has to be measured against some standard. Otherwise, one can simply assert his/her argument has intrinsic merit and that would be the end of it.

Now, let us take just one of your points, one about avidya. You claim avidya is real for Jeeva, but is unreal for Brhman. Does this argument have any intrinsic merit? You can't just assert it does. You have to show why it has such merit.

Let us take the three sources of knowledge and evaluate your point. I will deal with the sources in my own order.

1. Testimony/authoritative texts
You have already stated that you are not basing your arguments on this. So, I suppose this source of knowledge is out. But, if you want to revisit this source of knowledge, please do so, kindly cite shruti vakya or any other authoritative text.

2. Pratyaksham/observation
This is of course completely out as neither Brhman nor Jeeva can be observed in any fashion. So, you are left only with #3 below.

3. Anumanam/logical analysis:
Now, you have the task of defining (i) avidya, (ii) Brhman, (iii) jeeva, and (iv) what is real and what is unreal. Next, you have to logically explain the connection between avidya on the one hand, and Brhman and Jeeva on the other. Finally you have to show why avidya is unreal to Brhman and why it is real to Jeeva in a logical way, not simply assert it.

Your argument will have intrinsic merit only if you are able to do any of the above.

This is just for this one single point of your argument. You have to do this for each and every point you assert.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, the intrinsic merit of any argument has to be measured against some standard. Otherwise, one can simply assert his/her argument has intrinsic merit and that would be the end of it.

Now, let us take just one of your points, one about avidya. You claim avidya is real for Jeeva, but is unreal for Brhman. Does this argument have any intrinsic merit? You can't just assert it does. You have to show why it has such merit.

Let us take the three sources of knowledge and evaluate your point. I will deal with the sources in my own order.

1. Testimony/authoritative texts
You have already stated that you are not basing your arguments on this. So, I suppose this source of knowledge is out. But, if you want to revisit this source of knowledge, please do so, kindly cite shruti vakya or any other authoritative text.

2. Pratyaksham/observation
This is of course completely out as neither Brhman nor Jeeva can be observed in any fashion. So, you are left only with #3 below.

3. Anumanam/logical analysis:
Now, you have the task of defining (i) avidya, (ii) Brhman, (iii) jeeva, and (iv) what is real and what is unreal. Next, you have to logically explain the connection between avidya on the one hand, and Brhman and Jeeva on the other. Finally you have to show why avidya is unreal to Brhman and why it is real to Jeeva in a logical way, not simply assert it.

Your argument will have intrinsic merit only if you are able to do any of the above.

This is just for this one single point of your argument. You have to do this for each and every point you assert.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

My response was made on the assumption that the terms used were of common understanding and did not require definition. Any way as wished by you let me describe the terms used:

Brahman - The only reality that exists and one that transcends space and time

Jiva - One of an innumerable number of illusory realities of brahman bound in space and time

Maya/Avidya - The power of brahman that projects illusory realities

Real - Something is real when the perception of it by each and every entity has to be exactly the same eventually

Unreal - Something is unreal when it is not real as defined above

Note - I am using avidya as a synonym of maya because that is the way the term is used in the objections attributed to Ramanuja

 

[sangom]

sravna, the intrinsic merit of any argument has to be measured against some standard. Otherwise, one can simply assert his/her argument has intrinsic merit and that would be the end of it.
...

This is just for this one single point of your argument. You have to do this for each and every point you assert.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara, Shri Sravna,

I feel Sravna thinks that if some things are asserted then they have to be accepted as true. In addition, I also suspect that when he talks about absolute and relative realities, he is borrowing from Relativity Physics; that is perhaps the reason for his confidently asserting what the view/s of the nirguna brahman is/will be, like:

The experience of brahman can be thought of as the sum of experiences of all the jivas.

To sum up it is the nirguna feature of brahman that is the reason for its blissful existence.

The point is even though brahman is the cause of avidya it is not affected by it. The relative realities keep coming and going. In each such reality, jivas come into being afflicted by avidya.

For the jivas the physical realities are a totally learning experience going through all sorts of stages and expereinces so that finally they become totally balanced or nirguna. Nirguna should taken as meaning having no excess or features of one guna but a perfect balance of them
etc., etc.,

Whereas the conditions in different space-time frames can be mathematically arrived at, the conditions of/obtaining in the so-called nirguna parabrahman is only imaginable. Nevertheless, Sravna has no qualms about making categorical statements about the nirguna parabrahman, how its state of bliss / its state of total balance of all experiences, etc., are there, as though he has first hand experience/testimony/ citation regarding them.

I guess he knows the lacunae in his statements because he has answered Shri Saarangam as follows:
If this is what is in accordance with the tradition of these debates and how this debate is desired to be conducted, I agree to provide the citations.

Anyway, advaita has to be spread by such methods only, IMHO

 

[sravna]

Avidya is the cause of illusion and something affected by illusion becomes bound in space and time. Higher reality brahman being an eternal entity is thus not affected by avidya. On the other hand since each and every jiva has the same perception of physical world and self, the physical or the illusory reality seems to be the true reality in the case of jiva.

 

[Nara]

sravna, I thought you are serious when you said you wanted a meaningful argument. The responses you have given are simply assertions, not logical in any way as they stand. Remember, you have forfeited on your own accord, Shruti as a source of knowledge and observation does not help you in any way. So when you say the following:

Brahman - The only reality that exists and one that transcends space and time

we have to see how logical this is on its own terms. Why is it logical to say that (a) Brahman is the only reality that exists and (b) that Brhman transcends space and time?

The same clarification is needed for all your other assertions in order to ascertain how logical they are.

Note - I am using avidya as a synonym of maya because that is the way the term is used in the objections attributed to Ramanuja

What is Maya then? Please do not keep giving assertions, explain what it is and also why your explanations make sense.

srvana, suppose that somebody makes the claim that vidya is a fruit, and the absence of this fruit is avidya, in what way this argument would have any less intrinsic merit than yours?

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Avidya is the cause of illusion and something affected by illusion becomes bound in space and time. Higher reality brahman being an eternal entity is thus not affected by avidya. On the other hand since each and every jiva has the same perception of physical world and self, the physical or the illusory reality seems to be the true reality in the case of jiva.

Shri Sravna,

Thus far you have not acceded to suggestions for providing citation to support the various statements made by you on Advaita. But now I will implore you to provide the support from vedas/upanishads or Sankara bhashya in respect of your statement that "something affected by illusion becomes bound in space and time".

 

[Nara]

Avidya is the cause of illusion and something affected by illusion becomes bound in space and time. Higher reality brahman being an eternal entity is thus not affected by avidya.

sravna, is this not a mere assertion? Why should your assertion be given any credence than a statement like the following:

vidya is the cause of illusion and illusion is the only reality, all notions of space and time is unreal and therefore are not illusion, and Brhman being eternal entity is always under the spell of avidya
​

On the other hand since each and every jiva has the same perception of physical world and self, the physical or the illusory reality seems to be the true reality in the case of jiva.

Logically, you have no basis to assert that every jiva has the same perception? How do you know that?

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, I thought you are serious when you said you wanted a meaningful argument. The responses you have given are simply assertions, not logical in any way as they stand. Remember, you have forfeited on your own accord, Shruti as a source of knowledge and observation does not help you in any way. So when you say the following:


we have to see how logical this is on its own terms. Why is it logical to say that (a) Brahman is the only reality that exists and (b) that Brhman transcends space and time?

The same clarification is needed for all your other assertions in order to ascertain how logical they are.

What is Maya then? Please do not keep giving assertions, explain what it is and also why your explanations make sense.

srvana, suppose that somebody makes the claim that vidya is a fruit, and the absence of this fruit is avidya, in what way this argument would have any less intrinsic merit than yours?
Cheers!

Shri Nara,

Me not serious? You asked me to define certain terms and I defined them in the way they have been used though in my own words. Tell me how seriously should I take your request when you ask for a logical basis for a definition?

 

[sravna]

sravna, is this not a mere assertion? Why should your assertion be given any credence than a statement like the following:

vidya is the cause of illusion and illusion is the only reality, all notions of space and time is unreal and therefore are not illusion, and Brhman being eternal entity is always under the spell of avidya
​

Logically, you have no basis to assert that every jiva has the same perception? How do you know that?

Cheers!

Nara, I have explained on the basis of the definitions of the terms used. Simply branding it as an assertion is not correct. Regarding perception by jiva there are only two possibilities. If the jiva doesn't see illusion it ceases to be a jiva and has been enlightened. Otherwise it continues to be a jiva taking the illusion to be true. This again is due to the definition of jiva. This would seem like an assertion but I am not going to change the way the terms have been defined while trying to present a consistent view.

 

[Nara]

Me not serious? You asked me to define certain terms and I defined them in the way they have been used though in my own words. Tell me how seriously should I take your request when you ask for a logical basis for a definition?

sravna, it is not only about definition only, but also about how they relate to each other in a logical way. You are avoiding the difficult aspects and confining yourself to points about which you can simply assert something. This is not a contest on who has a fertile mind to imagine something. Please discuss why your assertions must not be treated as "delusions of a confused mind", any more than the assertions of any other person like myself or any third person, stated with the flair of certitude that you show.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, it is not only about definition only, but also about how they relate to each other in a logical way. You are avoiding the difficult aspects and confining yourself to points about which you can simply assert something. This is not a contest on who has a fertile mind to imagine something. Please discuss why your assertions must not be treated as "delusions of a confused mind", any more than the assertions of any other person like myself or any third person, stated with the flair of certitude that you show.

Cheers!

Premise 1 - Brahman is eternal
Premise 2 - Anything affected by avidya is bound in space and time
Conclusion - Brahman cannot be affected by avidya

Has the above any inference? Or does it have to be more complicated?

 

[saarangam]

On the other hand since each and every jiva has the same perception of physical world and self, the physical or the illusory reality seems to be the true reality in the case of jiva.

Sri Sravana
By your own definition given in Post#29, the physical world should be real since every jiva has the same perception of the world.Then how can it be an illusory reality?There are so many terms like true reality, relative reality, illusory reality etc in your postings which have not been properly defined.

 

[Nara]

Premise 1 - Brahman is eternal
Premise 2 - Anything affected by avidya is bound in space and time
Conclusion - Brahman cannot be affected by avidya

Has the above at least a modicum of inference? Or does it have to be more complicated?

sravna, the above statement cannot be any more worthy of consideration than the following:

Premise 1 - sravna is Brahman
Premise 2 - Brhman is not affected by avidya
Conclusion - sravna is not affected by avidya and therefore whatever he says is correct

Our argument has reached a cul de sac of absurdity, if it ever left it. Thank you.

 

[sravna]

sravna, the above statement cannot be any more worthy of consideration than the following:

Premise 1 - sravna is Brahman
Premise 2 - Brhman is not affected by avidya
Conclusion - sravna is not affected by avidya and therefore whatever he says is correct

Our argument has reached a cul de sac of absurdity, if it ever left it. Thank you.

Come on Nara, the premises I use are the basis on which I am going to argue my entire case. Your response only shows your closed mind.

 

[Nara]

Come on Nara, the premises I use are the basis on which I am going to argue my entire case. Your response only shows your closed mind.

Well sravna, this is why it is important to agree on some basic rules for an argument to be meaningful. I reject yet another of your assertions that not accepting your premise is a mark of closed mindedness.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Sri Sravana
By your own definition given in Post#29, the physical world should be real since every jiva has the same perception of the world.Then how can it be an illusory reality?There are so many terms like true reality, relative reality, illusory reality etc in your postings which have not been properly defined.

Relative reality is the term used by sankara because it is not totally unreal. It is not totally unreal because the jivas consider it to be true and all the jivas have the same perception mistaking that there can be no other reality. But since that perception would change, it is not totally real. .

 

[sravna]

Well sravna, this is why it is important to agree on some basic rules for an argument to be meaningful. I reject yet another of your assertions that not accepting your premise is a mark of closed mindedness.

Cheers!

How can there be a logical proof of a premise? It can only be proved by evidence. And what are your basic rules of an argument?

 

[Nara]

How can there be a logical proof of a premise? It can only be proved by evidence. And what are your basic rules of an argument?

sravna, the existence of Brhman as a premise cannot be based on pratyaksham -- Brhman cannot be observed, cannot be based on anumanam -- logical analysis necessarily cannot start without an agreement on some axiomatic principles for which we need some other source of knowledge.

So, if you want the existence of Brahman -- whatever kind of Brhman -- to be an axiomatic principle, then, the only way to do that is to accept Shruti as authoritative. All vedantins are in agreement with this principle, namely, the existence of Brhman can only be ascertained through the Vedas.

Since only through Shruti the very existence of Brhman can be established, it follows that the nature of that Brhman cannot but be understood through Shruti. Therefore, all your arguments about Brhman being this or that must be established only through Shruti.

This is the basic rule -- cite Shruti evidence for your claims about Brhman.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Let me try this logic:

The origin of matter has to be other than matter otherwise it leads to an infinite regress. Let us hypothesize that energy created matter. But the same question remains , that of what created energy? It couldn't have been energy as again this would lead to infinite regress. Why not get rid of the notion of space and time? How can we say that our perception is infallible? I would trust my mind much more than my physical senses. We don't for example mostly perceive space and time during a deep sleep or when in deep meditation. If the notion of space and time is given up, we never have to look for a cause. The cause and effect are not differentiated.

The separation of cause and effect occurs due to the perception of space and time. What could cause the perception of space and time? It could be because of the nature of the energy and matter found in the physical world. These should have been created by something transcending space and time.

 

[sravna]

The existence of a timeless entity also means that the physical realities could not have been created at a particular time from the point of view of the timeless entity but were co-existing and inseparable from it. The apparent emanation of physical stuff from the timeless entity is therefore a perception only in the physical world. The merging of the physical entities with the eternal one is also to be taken as a certainty as the separation itself never really happened. This also points to the existence of a single reality

 

[Nara]

The origin of matter has to be other than matter otherwise it leads to an infinite regress.

No sravna, it is positing a cause for matter that would lead to infinite regress, as there then would be a need to explain the cause of that cause.

Why not get rid of the notion of space and time?

Why should we do that? You can't simply wish things away.

How can we say that our perception is infallible? I would trust my mind much more than my physical senses.

Why? Why is your mind any more trust worthy than physical senses? Your mind is no less physical than the other parts of your body. Even Vedantins do not think mind is non-physical.

We don't for example mostly perceive space and time during a deep sleep or when in deep meditation. If the notion of space and time is given up, we never have to look for a cause. The cause and effect are not differentiated.

So, are you saying what you don't perceive when you are asleep does not exist?

The separation of cause and effect occurs due to the perception of space and time. What could cause the perception of space and time? It could be because of the nature of the energy and matter found in the physical world. These should have been created by something transcending space and time.

You can't just do away with space and time just because it has the temerity to come in the way of your theories. What we are unable to explain, must remain unexplained at the present time.

You need to take into account the recent observation by the renowned physicist Stephen Hawkings that no external entity is necessary for the creation of the universe. If you make up an external entity for the creation, then you get into the problem of infinite regress as you have to now explain who created this external entity.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

No sravna, it is positing a cause for matter that would lead to infinite regress, as there then would be a need to explain the cause of that cause.

Why should we do that? You can't simply wish things away.


Why? Why is your mind any more trust worthy than physical senses? Your mind is no less physical than the other parts of your body. Even Vedantins do not think mind is non-physical.

So, are you saying what you don't perceive when you are asleep does not exist?

You can't just do away with space and time just because it has the temerity to come in the way of your theories. What we are unable to explain, must remain unexplained at the present time.

You need to take into account the recent observation by the renowned physicist Stephen Hawkings that no external entity is necessary for the creation of the universe. If you make up an external entity for the creation, then you get into the problem of infinite regress as you have to now explain who created this external entity.

Cheers!

The conclusion of your response is exactly the objection I raised.

Also, how do you say which state , whether one in meditation or one observing physical world indicates reality better? Just because something is physically observable or exists in physical form doesn't make it more real. If it comes in the way of what my mind perceives I would certainly discard such a reality. Mind or if you want to use the term brain, is the one that makes interpretation of what is physically perceived and so has to be accorded much greater importance than you are inclined to grant it.

I am not wishing away space and time but what alternative explanation have you to offer? The problem is not something which can be solved by building a giant apparatus or waiting for any such thing to happen.

 

[nachi naga]

re

Dear bandhus,

Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated (nirguna) Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of divine grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.

That whatever exists? I dont think Acharyal Ramanuja would have written his bashyam like that.

What exactly are the attributes?

If no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us Moksham,what really was Acharyal Ramanujam writing about?Did he really write like this,i have my doubt's about what you write quoting acharyal ramanujam .

How can anyone, which will be all relative reality as per your terminology, make categorical assertions like "even though brahman is the cause of avidya it is not affected by it"? Only the Brahman can make any statement about itself and by definition, it can't because it is Nirguna, without any attribute; see how Sankara has taken the entire hindus for a ride

That is why acharyal shankara is a brahman gyaani,a vishwa-swaroopam of lord shivam.Nir-gunam by definition in context with advaitham is highest in philosophical preachings.To expect a kindergardner to understand PHD classes knowledge is bound to reflect something else.

I am not sure whether there is any authentic pronouncement by Sankara or any of the well-known advaitin scholars regarding a "self-luminous" brahman; IMHO, the moment the Brahman becomes "anything" with a definable attribute like "luminous" or "self-luminous" even, it ceases to be "nirguna" and will be "saguna" brahman.

That is why a pramana was established before even debating."Brahman" by definition is what we see and perceive as "saguna" brahman.The original Brahman is "nirgunam",which is beyond ordinary human perception,comprehension etc.As how existance is/was/will be is Brahman.It's a purely belief system,which can be proved when you have faith to understand.Just like how we infer,that she is my mother and he is my father,even though i was never a witness to the recreation of my pro-creation,i admit and accept it as truth.Therefore Brahman is the destroyer of ignorance,creator of ignorance as well,sustainer of the ignorance and the destroyer of the sustenance.Brahman is three in one in reality because we experiance him/her in everyday life.From here emerged the sagunam aspect of lords and their godesses.Lord Shiva & Goddess Parvathy;LOrd Brahma & Goddess Saraswathi;LOrd Vishnu & Goddess Lakshmi.

Advaitha philosophy is propounded by Lord Shiva.
Vishista-advaitha is propounded by Lord Vishnu.

Relativity Physics

Advaitham is much older than relativity physics,which came from advaitham philosophy,imho.

You need to take into account the recent observation by the renowned physicist Stephen Hawkings that no external entity is necessary for the creation of the universe. If you make up an external entity for the creation, then you get into the problem of infinite regress as you have to now explain who created this external entity.

But stephen had Mr & Mrs.Hawkins to create him or no?

Because Brahman exists,we have space time earth cosmos universe beings etc.