Mani-Vidyasankar debate: Points

[Guest guest]

Mani:

Here are some points you may want to consider in your reply to Vidya's

latest posts.

Probably you already know most of them, but just in case ...

 

Discussion in newsgroup soc.religion.eastern

mAyA (was Re: The Theism of the Upanishads)

--------------------

 

[........]

vidya>> In Advaita Vedanta, God (Brahman) is defined as Being. This is in

perfect

vidya>> accordance with the Upanishad which says "sadeva sowmya idam agra AsIt."

vidya>> (sat = Being/Reality, eva = only -> Being alone, dear student, was here

in

vidya>> the beginning.) This world, not being Brahman as is, is therefore, not

vidya>> Being. However, it is not non-Being either, because, Being is the

vidya>> substratum of this world. That it is neither follows at once. Also it is

vidya>> not both, because no entity can be both Being and non-Being at the same

vidya>> time. Automatically, it can only be perceived as mithya, as mAyA. The

vidya>> same argument holds for the mAyA conceived as the power of creation too.

vidya>> Whether this mAyA is real or not is the next question. For Advaita

vidya>> Vedanta, Brahman is the only Reality. Thus mAyA is not Real, not Unreal,

vidya>> nor both, nor neither. That is the primary meaning. Illusion comes about

vidya>> only as a popular secondary meaning, because that which is mAyA is

vidya>> generally understood as illusion. As regards the world, the conclusion

of

vidya>> Advaita is that this world is a vivarta on Brahman, not a pariNAma -

i.e.

vidya>> the world-origination does not change Brahman, which continues to be the

vidya>> changeless Nirguna. In that sense, the world is one of appearances, not

of

vidya>> ultimate reality. How is that we perceive the world around us as real

vidya>> then? How is it that the world originates from Brahman, but Brahman

Itself

vidya>> is not changed by it? The answer is - that is inexplicable, that is

mAyA,

vidya>> which is "anirvachanIya", a mystery. Advaitins use mAyA in this

technical

vidya>> sense. Critics of Advaita, both Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins, purposely

vidya>> misunderstand it in the popular sense as mere illusion, and find fault

vidya>> with it.

 

vidya>> Visishtadvaitin, there are other reals. Hence he finds no problem

vidya>> in ascribing reality to mAyA too. Advaita does not differentiate various

vidya>> things in Ultimate Reality, because as the Upanishads repeatedly tell

us,

vidya>> the Highest is undifferentiated, without parts. Advaitins also maintain

vidya>> this "anirvachanIya" nature of mAyA only at the Ultimate level. The

vidya>> meaning of mAyA as neither real nor unreal occurs only at the level of

vidya>> "pAramArthika satya". At the level of "vyAvahArika satya" - mAyA is as

vidya>> real as anything else, but then that is only because one doesn't

apprehend

vidya>> the pAramArthika at the level of the vyAvahArika. To find fault with

mAyA

vidya>> at the level of objective reality is putting the cart before the horse -

vidya>> what we perceive as objectively real is due to this mysterious thing

vidya>> called mAyA; we cannot say anything about its reality or otherwise

unless

vidya>> we have known the pAramArthika satya. Visishtadvaitins easily slip into

vidya>> characterizing the Advaitic idea of mAyA as unreal. Advaita is careful

to

vidya>> point out that ultimately, if mAyA is not real, it is not unreal either.

vidya>> To argue that such a category cannot exist, that mAyA has to be either

vidya>> wholly real or wholly unreal, is being simply blind to the logic behind

vidya>> such a categorization.

 

Visistadvaita rejects the exlanation of mAyA according to Advaita, at

both

the levels. (vyAvahArika satya & pAramArthika satya) and not just at the

vyAvahArika level. One has to look carefully at the "Anirvaachaniya Khyati"

posited by Advaita to understand what exactly they are saying. This khyati

says that all things apprehended as shell-silver (an example) or any other

thing are not real, but only distortions of reality. All these presentations

are therefore mere products of Avidya. In the shell-silver case neither the

shell nor the silver is real. The silver in the shell is neither existent NOR

non-existent, a result of the inexplicable or Anirvaachaniya nescience or

Avidya.

This khyati is totally rejected by Visistadvaita, for existence or Satva

and non-existence or Asatva cannot reside in the same thing at the same place

and time. So Anirvaachaniya is not a Fact of apprehension at all. Hence the

mysterious thing called mAyA need not be introduced when another viable

explanation exists: The experience, namely "This is silver" or "This is

shell"

is contradicted in the Advaitic Khyati.

In the Visistadvaitic explanation (YathArtha Khyati) all knowledge is

yathArtha or knowledge of an object as is. The reason for the shell-silver

error is due to a very Real defect in the viewing apparatus and/or in the

the surrounding. Error is therefore due to either real defects or upadhis.

If they are not able to satisfy our practical need, then they are aprama

or false. ie. in the shell-silver case there is no silver that can be

used. Instances of perceptual error like the yellow-conch, red crystal,

a mirage, a fire brand wheel are all Real effects for Real causes. Due to

the defective sense material the "thinghood" of the thing is mis-apprehended.

The thinghood of the thing and it's difference from other things is not

grasped and illusion ensues.

 

Hence the Visistadvaita school says that if there is a viable explanation

for this worldly phenomena, there is no need to posit Avidya which is

trapped as Anirvaachaniya.

One has to read the detailed analysis of Sri Vedanta Desika to appreciate

the level of depth to which the Advaitic mAyA concept has been subjected to,

including the points raised by Vidya.

 

 

mani>> Mani - For example, consider the ontological status of mAyA, the

mani>> principle that is supposed to be the source of avidyA and hence

mani>> our bondage in this world. Other Vedantins wish to know, if

mani>> Brahman is pure, homogeneous Consciousness, admitting of no

mani>> difference whatsoever, how does mAyA fit into the picture?

mani>> Advaitins respond by saying "it is anirvacanIya

mani>> (incomprehensible)". Now you tell me, is that a response in the

mani>> context of a debate?

 

vidya>> My response to this frivolous charge is this. Don't you resort to

vidya>> incomprehensibility yourself? Let me elaborate. Visishtadvaita explains

vidya>> the relationship between the Atman and the Brahman, not as an Identity

vidya>> (even though Upanishad expressly tells us so) but as a SarIra-SArIrin

vidya>> relationship. When asked how is it that changes in the SarIra (one's

AtmA)

vidya>> do not affect the SArIrin (Brahman), what is the Visishtadvaitin's

answer?

vidya>> He cannot say that one's individual AtmA is changeless, because that is

vidya>> the Advaitic view. However, Brahman, the AtmA of this Atma, must remain

vidya>> changeless, because Upanishad says so. How does he resolve this? He

vidya>> resorts to this same mysteriousness! The Visishtadvaitin can hardly find

vidya>> fault with Advaita for saying mAyA is anirvachanIya. The double standard

vidya>> in his reasoning is patent. When the Advaitin says mAyA is inexplicable

vidya>> i.e. mysterious, that is not a proper response in the context of a

debate.

vidya>> When the Visishtadvaitin says "Mysterious are the ways of the Lord",

that

vidya>> is a wonderful response in the debate and the Advaitin should exalt him

as

vidya>> a great bhakta, I suppose!

 

 

I think the concept of Sarira-Sariri bhava has not been

examined thoroughly by Vidya here! I have not read or heard from anyone that

the Sarira-Sariri bhava has any Anirvaachaniya element at all. Vidya's charges

here are totally unfounded as there is no "mysteriousness". Sarira-sariri

bhava emphasises the spiritual synthesis of the universe and establishes the

unity of the Divine. (not identity). This concept does NOT in any way

suggest a biological organism, for this is a spiritual Analogy, used to

establish the inter-dependence of the Universe and Brahman. The absolute

co-exists with the finite centres of experience, as well as the world of

nature,

being their ground and goal. Iswara or Brahman is the real self of the

Universe. Why should this all powerful cosmic principle ensoul itself in the

matter and the selves? Does he get tainted by the imperfections of the body ?

 

The answer to these are as follows:

The universe does not become the body of Brahman due to any external

agency like Karma, as is the case of the finite self. The world is inherently

the body of Isvara and not resultant of Karma or Chance. But this is not so

with the individual soul. The finite soul is not inseperably related to matter

as it's soul. The body of the finite soul changes from birth to birth and

in the final stage it's relation with matter is once and for all severed.

But the sentient and non-sentient entities are not related to Brahman like

this. They are inseperably related to Brahman and they cannot at any instant

exist apart from it. Brahman is characterised with these 2 entities in both the

subtle (causal) and the gross (consequent) stages. In the composite being of

Brahman each substance retains it's distinctive nature.

 

The analogy of a piece of cloth woven with threads of different colors

where each thread retains it's color, is given by Sri Ramanuja.

Ramanjua states that a soul does not experince pain or pleasure only because

it is associated with the body, but because of the Karma. But the supreme self

is far removed from any evil, though he has the universe as his body, he has no

trace of Karma whatsoever.

The defects of the body do not touch the self at all. This is how Brahman

is not affected by the trappings of the finite self.

So there is no Anirvaachaniya here.

 

I'll send out points on the "Tat Twam Asi" section in a subsequent email.

 

(References: 1. The Philosophy of Sadhana in Visistadvaita by N.S.

AnanthaRangachar

2. Introduction to the VedarthaSangraha of Sri Ramanuja by SS

Raghavachar)

 

-sudarshan

[Guest guest]

sudarshan,

A LONG POSTING......BEWARE

 

good explanation. please consider adding couple of other points.

 

first of all vidya's contention that sareera sareeri bhava is not a upanishadic

statement is total ignorance regarding upanishads. the brihad aranyaka

upanishad- clearly says " yaha atmani tishtan atmanaam antharo yamayati

yam atma na veda yasya atma sareeram" clearly in the direct words sareeram

the upanishad declares the sareera sareeri bhava for the jeevatma and paramatma.

 

Note this sareera sareeri bhava relation can answer both bheda relation

since the attribute is different from substratum; the abheda relation ship

is also explained since we call " this is devadatta" denoting his body.

but we actually mean the devadatta (jeevatma). This type of analysis makes

sareera sareeri bhava a relation ship which has the master key to analyze

all the type of statements from the sruthis

 

 

In an earlier post vidya claimed that there is no statement in the

vedas which says vishnu is the highest - that is wrong - in

Rig veda there is a statement " Agnir devanaam avamo vishnu ruthhamaha"

 

meaning agni is the lowest among the gods and the vishnu is the highest.

 

 

one more aspect of the sentence - sadeva somya idam agra aseeet

eka meva advitiyam.

 

For this which means " sat only existed oh, beautiful one, at the beginning

one only without a second". For this statement, even shankara takes it as

" maaya sabalitam bramha ekameva aseet" - meaning at the beginning bramhan

combined with maya existed in the beginning without a second!!!!!

 

Why does he need to do that? see the next sentence of the upanishad

 

tat aikshata bahusyaam iti ..... meaning he(bramhan) willed to be many.

 

How can the Nirguna bramhan, with no attributes, powers etc. will? Shankara

assumes that between the first sentence and the second sentence some how

the bramhan gets mixed up with maya and appears as " ishwara" a personal god

who can will!!!. I am sure this is a torture of the vedas to bring out the

advaitic meanings from it. Note the same bramhan "tat" which is same as "sat"

wills to be many. so visistadvaitic meaning becomes very appropriate to vedas

 

this is confirmed in other vedic statements such as " so kaamayata

bahusyaam prajaayeyeti sa tapo tapyata" of taittirya upanishad. means

"he willed to create many"

 

Note one other point regarding satyam jnanam anantam bramha -

 

bramhan is unconditionally existent, is knowledge, and is infinite.

 

note the three items satyam, jnanam and anantam have to be adjectives of

bramhan. if they are not let us take the the first one only

 

bramhan is satyam - what does satyam means (existence) ie. bramhan exists.

is existence the adjective of bramhan or bramhan identically equal to

existence? if the latter, how can the same be also identically equal to

a different concept called jnanam?. for this the advaitin answers -

 

bramhan is different from being asatyam, different from being ajnanam and

different from being antavat( finite thing) . So bramhan is indescribable

according to advaitins and this statement can be only taken as a

negative connotation.

 

dont ever listen silently to an advaitin stating in english "

bramhan is existence, knowledge and infinite... because he does not know

the true advaitic position!!"

 

This negative connotation also does no good for the attribute substratum

relation ship. because the visistadvaitin can ask" do you say that

bramhan is characterised by being different from asatyam, ajnaanam and antavat?

 

then these negative descriptions becomes adjectives of a substratum which

is bramhan!! ANy object one can think of has to have a characteristic

and a object without characteristics is a non entity - this is the

argument of the visistadvaitin - which happens to be very sensible!!

 

NOw why is advaitin called " prachhana baudhha" or essentially a buddhist.

 

if advaitin accepts the existence of bramhan with no attributes, it is as

good as accepting nihilism with a twist. because how can any object exist

without characteristics? even existence is an attribute of an object !!

that is the reason an advaitin cannot confidently state that Bramhan exists.

 

because he has to say bramhan is different from the non existents! this is

the reason visitadvaitin takes strike at the advaitin stating that he is

is a buddhist in disguise!

 

 

do not make this prachhana bauddha isssue a historical issue. this is not

warranted.

 

finally, is bramhan is conscious or is he(or she) nirguna?

 

as vidya claims vishnu to mean nirguna it does not work. if he

wills to be many and wills to create, sustain and destroy this world

 

he has to be conscious to will! so bramhan is concscious and not nirguna

the way advaitin means. nirguna has to mean - without negative characteristics

`

 

and the same sentence in svetasvetara says - nirgunam guna bhotkr cha

 

meaning bramhan is attributeless and enjoyer of attributes. since the

second aspect contradicts the first attribute (nirguna) in this sentence

vedas do not mean nirguna to be attribute less but gunas to mean - three

gunas only.

 

incidentally, if one reads the bhagawadgita, - Sri Krishna says - gunaateethaha

sa uchyate - in 14th chapter. in various chapters the term "guna" is used

only to mean three gunas - ie. satva rajas tamo gunas. so ramanuja's view

point on gunas is no error! but accurate description and answers serious

allegation on vedas that they are inconsistent!

 

note I need to check vishnu purana to find the exact thing vidya mentions

in his article. may be someone should post vidyas articles on this

bhakti or prapatti group. but in GIta there are lots of places

where maya is said to be god's power -- for example "

daivee hyeshaaa gunamayee mama mayaa duratyayaa. which means

this divine maya (power) of mine (full of gunas--). note maya does not

need to mean "illusion" as the advaitin takes it to be.

 

in the sentence in rig veda " Indro mayaabihi pururoopa eeyate"

which means indra takes different forms by his power - here maya is

taken to be power even according to sayana - ie. an advaitic vedic

commentator.