Guest guest Posted November 29, 1999 Report Share Posted November 29, 1999 f. maiello wrote: >here's Sankara's advaitic formula: > > 1. Brahman is the only Reality. > 2. The world is an illusion. > 3. Brahman is the world.* > >*the third axiom is translated as "jiva is not apart >from brahman." however, jiva is also the perceptual >hub of jagat and Isvara (the world and God). jiva >has *created* the world and God (drishti-srishti vada >[the creation-follows-perception doctrine] which is >called forth by the nature of this third axiom). > >What this apparent contradiction of ideas is saying is that the world >is an illusion on its *own terms*, but is Reality as Brahman Itself! >Moreover, it's important to understand that the world, or anything >in it, is not an aspect of Brahman, but Brahman Itself. That is, every >concept, object, event and perception in and of the world is AT ONCE >the Entirety. > >Moreover, it should be understood clearly that the only condition where >illusion arises is if any conceivable thought or thing in Life is >believed to be a separate reality apart from its substratum source in >the Absolute (Brahman). Aside from that, everything is real and is >Brahman itself. As the Upanishads tell us, "All this, verily, is >Brahman." So that, whenever something is spoken of in these pages >as not real, it is meant, not real apart from its substratum source >in Brahman. The idea that the world is purely an illusion is a >misconception commonly attributed to Advaita Vedanta; whereas it's >really not saying that at all! It is vitally important to understand >this. If not, we're propounding dualism. Advaita is telling us the >entirety of what is, Manifest and Unmanifest, Immanent and >Transcendental, >Relative and Absolute, Phenomenal and Noumenal, Physical and Spiritual, >is ONE BEING.) If this explication is correct, it seems to me that axiom #2 is very misleadingly stated, for your explication seems to boil down to: "The idea that the world is other than Brahman is an illusory idea." This is quite a bit different than saying "The world is an illusion." If your explication is correct, the distance between Shankara and Aurobindo is dramatically reduced; perhaps is 'illusory'. But . . . is this explication correct? I can't tell yet, but I share Aurobindo's frustration at knowing what Shankara really means given the manifold interpretations proffered, and given the tendency of many Advaitins to continue using the "world is illusion" line when Shankara allegedly meant something else. But many thanks for trying to clear this up for me. Namaste, -- Max P.S. - As one who almost entered the Christian ministry in my youth, and who has studied a good deal of 'critical' Christian theology and history of Judaism/Christianity, I sort of quince whenever you suggest that Jesus' message is identical to Advaita or Buddha. This is just not the case. Many who cite NT passages in support of such a view often cite passages which are now recognized by most scholars as not having even been said by Jesus. Ultimately Jesus' way may lead to the same 'place' that Advaita leads (I believe this), but the message and the way are very different. The oneness of God nevertheless allows for many avenues into God, and each avenue should be allowed to retain its own style and courseway. --------------------------- DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Max Harris wrote: > "Max Harris" <max_harris > > I sort of quince > whenever you suggest that Jesus' message is identical to Advaita > or Buddha. This is just not the case. Many who cite NT passages > in support of such a view often cite passages which are now > recognized by most scholars as not having even been said by Jesus. > Ultimately Jesus' way may lead to the same 'place' that Advaita > leads (I believe this), but the message and the way are very > different. The oneness of God nevertheless allows for many > avenues into God, and each avenue should be allowed to retain > its own style and courseway. Dear Max, could you please elaborate a little bit on the topic? I have the impression that the messages are at least very similar. Especially taking into account 'non-canonical' gospels as well (Gospel of St.Thomas, for example). With peace, Lilia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 1999 Report Share Posted December 2, 1999 Namaste, Lilia Stepanova. I'm not sure how much detail I should go into on this matter as it leans a bit away from the purpose of the list, so I will give a brief response and if you have additional questions you may send me a private post, unless you feel confident this matter is of interest to enough list members. The issue: How similar is the message of Jesus to the 'message' or central teaching of Advaita Vedanta. The first problem is that of knowing what the message was. I think critical scholarship todays supports the view that the message of the historical Jesus is not the same thing as what either the churches or the New Testament present. In other words, that whatever Jesus said was modified by believing communities prior to being deposited in the NT, and the interpretation of the NT has been subject to layer upon layer of development, along varying lines, in the history of Christianity. Nevertheless, whether we limit our issue to what the historical Jesus probably taught or to what Christianity now teaches, I think the answer will be htat there are substantial differences between these messages and the teachings of Advaita Vedanta. [but this is not to suggest that they both can't lead to the 'same place': intimacy with God, or moksha. But even trying to say this makes me feel like I'm distorting both conceptions. The end reality may be the same, but the conceptual avenues seem irreconcilable, or at least not reducible to one conception.] You mention the Gospel of Thomas. Listmembers might be interested to know that this gospel was not discovered until 1945, in Egypt. It was initially believed to be a Christian Gnostic text, which would put it farther from the historical Jesus than the NT texts; but recent scholarship suggests it may not be gnostic and may in fact be as old as the NT texts, but from a different community. I tend to agree with the new view. Schoarly attempts to reconstruct the teachings of the historical Jesus tend to come up with something different than the NT. There are a few main groups of views. I agree with those who see the historical Jesus as a Galiean Hasid with a prophetic calling who came to see himself, perhaps because of the enthusiasm of his followers, as a messiah. At ay rate, Jesus, Judaism and Christianity see God as separate from the creation, and the creation as real. They see the soul as a real being which doesn't dissolve into God but can be in communion with God. The goal is intimate communion, a dualistic relationship, rather than moksha through realization of identity. i just don't see how these two views, Judaic-Christian and Vedantic, can be said to be the same. [Although the "Realistic Advaita" Vedanta of Aurobindo might be considered a bit more compatible with Judaic-Christian views, this can't be pushed too far, as the inherent dualism of hte latter plus the doctrine of the trinity of Christianity are real problems to any Vedanta.] Hope this sufficiently answers your inquiry. Namste, -- Max >Lilia Stepanova <ls691035 > >On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Max Harris wrote: > >> "Max Harris" <max_harris >> >> I sort of quince >> whenever you suggest that Jesus' message is identical to Advaita >> or Buddha. This is just not the case. Many who cite NT passages >> in support of such a view often cite passages which are now >> recognized by most scholars as not having even been said by Jesus. >> Ultimately Jesus' way may lead to the same 'place' that Advaita >> leads (I believe this), but the message and the way are very >> different. The oneness of God nevertheless allows for many >> avenues into God, and each avenue should be allowed to retain >> its own style and courseway. > >Dear Max, > >could you please elaborate a little bit on the topic? I have the >impression that the messages are at least very similar. Especially taking >into account 'non-canonical' gospels as well (Gospel of St.Thomas, for >example). > >With peace, > >Lilia --------------------------- DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 1999 Report Share Posted December 2, 1999 >"Max Harris" <max_harris > >The issue: How similar is the message of Jesus to the >'message' or central teaching of Advaita Vedanta. For a non-dual perspective on the original teachings of Jesus (as far as we know what they were), I can highly recommend "The Gospel According to Jesus" by Stephen Mitchell. Mitchell is trained in Zen and reveres Ramana Maharshi - at the same time, he knows Hebrew and ancient Greek, and has really done his homework on the Bible (the translations from the gospels in this book are Mitchell's own). I found the book quite illuminating, and everybody I've ever recommended it to has raved about it. Warren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1999 Report Share Posted December 3, 1999 > > Max Harris [sMTP:max_harris] > Tuesday, November 30, 1999 9:15 AM > advaitin > Shankara's Formula > > "Max Harris" <max_harris > > P.S. - As one who almost entered the Christian ministry in my > youth, and who has studied a good deal of 'critical' Christian > theology and history of Judaism/Christianity, I sort of quince > whenever you suggest that Jesus' message is identical to Advaita > or Buddha. This is just not the case. Many who cite NT passages > in support of such a view often cite passages which are now > recognized by most scholars as not having even been said by Jesus. > Ultimately Jesus' way may lead to the same 'place' that Advaita > leads (I believe this), but the message and the way are very > different. The oneness of God nevertheless allows for many > avenues into God, and each avenue should be allowed to retain > its own style and courseway. [Madhava Replies:] This notes is taken from Dr. Radha Krishnan's foreward on the book "Advaita and Visistadvaita" (A Ph.D thesis on Satadushani) By Dr. Radhakrishnan ---- The two --- advaita and visistadvaita are not rival creeds but are recognized as fully orthodox. Even Sankara who is a great protagonist of Advaita is said to have written poems of a devotional nature, e.g. ----"Save me from pride, O Vishnu, cure my restless mind Still my thirst for the waters of this world's mirage Be Gracious, Lord, to this Thy humble creature, And rescue him from the ocean of this world.----" The Marathi poet Tukaram did not feel drawn to the way of advaita though he knew all about it. "I do not seek Divine knowledge. I shall ever desire dual consciousness. Thou shalt ever remain my Lord and I Thy worshipper." The distinction between the Absolute Brahman and Personal God is not peculiar to Hindu Thought. A Christian classic Theologia Germanica says: "To God, as Godhead, appertain neither will nor knowledge, nor manifestation nor anything that we can name or say or conceive. But to God as God, it belongth to express himself, and know and love Himself, and to reveal Himself to Himself." Ruysbroeck says that to attain the Supreme, we must go out "beyond all things into emptiness." No teacher of the Advaita holds that the world is absolutely unreal or illusory. It is real as a manifestation of being but unreal as a self-subsisting entity. End. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1999 Report Share Posted December 3, 1999 > No teacher of the Advaita holds that the world is absolutely > unreal or illusory. It is real as a manifestation of being but > unreal as a self-subsisting entity. > -- Dr. Radhakrishnan yes, this is beautifully simple and clear, and probably as close as we can get to describing the nature of maya. however, it's important to remember that we can never finally reach it in words, simply because words are inherently locked in Relativity. as such: brevity in word leads to levity in Mind leads to truth in Heart. however, words can never *be* the truth........... for, as they approach truth, they approach zero (silence). this is why from the very first, Jagathguru Dakshinamoorthi, uttered not a word, transmitting thus the Source in its unknowable Totality. OM svaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.