On Philosophical Dichotomy

[Guest guest]

Comments or reactions welcome,

 

Antoine

carrea

 

#####################

On Philosophical Dichotomy

Advaita of Sri Sankara and Sakta Advaitism

 

While the Advaita of Sri Sankara achieves unity by the sublimation of the

'many' as a mere appearance, the Sakta Advaitism seeks to obtain this by

recognizing in the 'many' a real manifestation of the One. All Vedanta

philosophy is an attempt at the solution of the One and the Many.

The kingpin of Sankara's Advaita system is the doctrine of Maya and the

division of Reality into the Paramartha (metaphysical) and the Vyavahara

(empirical). The Maya doctrine maintains that the non-dual Being is the

only real existence (Paramarthika) while the 'many' are only the appearance

(Vyavaharika) of it conjured up by ignorance. Appearance means that the

objets experienced are not actually there while they are experienced

(Mithya). All the time the multiplicity is experienced, the non-dual

reality alone has been experienced. A snake experienced on a rope in

comparative darkness is given as an example of this philosophical doctrine.

The implication of this doctrine is, therefore, that creation and created

objects have never been in existence (Ajati), and that one says these are

there only because of ignorance which corresponds to the darkness which

leads to the perception of a snake in the rope. By explaining the

phenomenal world in this way, Sankara achieves the non-duality and the

immutability of the one Existence; but in the eyes of a critic, this is

achieved only by compromising the non-dual oneness of Reality; for he has

to admit; for he has to admit an entity called Ignorance which must

necessarily be separate from that non-dual existence. If for any reason it

is said to exist in the non-dual existence then it will be admitting

Svagatabheda (internal difference) in the non-dual existence, and if it is

regarded as separate, dualism comes in. Besides, in the ligth of this

doctrine both bondage and liberation and the spirit seeking liberation

become all unreal. As a critic of Advaita has humorously put it, all the

teachings of the ``Sastras about liberation become like consolation given

to a sterile woman on the death of he son``.

 

In contrast to this version of Advaita, the Shakta school maintains that

the non-dual unitary Existence has an internal polarity which is only a

distinction without a difference. The non-dual Brahman is not only Pure

Being but pure Will also. It is Being-Will. Though these are separately

spoken of, they are just like fire and its heat, which form one and the

same entity. The concept of Being without Will is as good as Nihil (sunya)

and Will without Being is a fictitious assumption. So according to Sakta

doctrine the non-dual reality is Being-Will. It can change into

multiplicity in a real sense without losing its integrity as a Whole. That

change mutates the causal substance is a law that governs the entities of

the limited world. It cannot hold good with. It cannot hold good with the

Infinite and the Absolute Being, unless we make its absoluteness a

meaningless expression and reduce its entity into that of a stock or stone.

So according to Sakta version of Advaita, the Non-dual Entity as Will or

Sakti, changes in a real sense into the world of multiplicity Jivas and

Jagat, without however forfeiting its non-dual status as Being. This looks

illogical, but in no way more so than when Kevaladvaita posits an ignorance

while at the same time describing the ultimate Being as non-dual. Besides,

in the Sakta version of Advaita, creation being real, bondage, liberation

and the scriptures which teach the way for liberation all become real.

 

These basic metaphysical differences also imply ethical differences between

them. For Sri Sankara, all actions hove got only reference to the illusory

level Vyavahara (empirical life). Though works done in the proper spirit of

detachment may be an indirect cause for spiritual illumination, these have

to be abandoned or renounced at a certain stage, as the aspirant should

become absolutely workless in the sate of Jnana. No combination of Karma

and Jnana is allowed in his system. But in the Sakta doctrine, there is no

such dichotomy between Jnana and Karma. Upasana and Jnana go hand in hand.

The Sakta system is simply a system of rituals accompanied with

meditations, but is is based on a non-dual interpretation of Reality.

>From the Introduction of The Saundarya-Lahari of Sri Sankaracarya

 

Also at http://antoinecarre.com/symbols/sriyantra/advaita_2.htm

[Guest guest]

>Comments or reactions welcome,

>

>Antoine

>carrea

>

> #####################

>On Philosophical Dichotomy

>Advaita of Sri Sankara and Sakta Advaitism

>

>While the Advaita of Sri Sankara achieves unity by the sublimation of the

>'many' as a mere appearance, the Sakta Advaitism seeks to obtain this by

>recognizing in the 'many' a real manifestation of the One. All Vedanta

>philosophy is an attempt at the solution of the One and the Many.

>The kingpin of Sankara's Advaita system is the doctrine of Maya and the

>division of Reality into the Paramartha (metaphysical) and the Vyavahara

>(empirical).

 

I would be careful to call, first as Shankara's advaita system -

since adviata was there even before Shankara. He brought this into

focus. Hence we use out of reverence to him as Shankara's advaita

philosophy.

 

Next as doctrine of Maya - This is generally how advaita is referred

to by the dvaitins - but the truth is it is doctrine of oneness of

Brahman and jiiva. Maya applies to Maya too in the sense it is a

fictious factor brought in to explain the inexplicable until one

realizes that no explanations are deemed necessary.

 

 

> By explaining the

>phenomenal world in this way, Sankara achieves the non-duality and the

>immutability of the one Existence; but in the eyes of a critic, this is

>achieved only by compromising the non-dual oneness of Reality; for he has

>to admit; for he has to admit an entity called Ignorance which must

>necessarily be separate from that non-dual existence.

 

This is the mistaken understanding by the critics (at times refusal

to understand the correct import of advaita). There is absolutely no

compromising of non-dual oneness of reality. The explanations are

available in Mandukya U. using dream analysis. The compromise that

the critic talks about is as good as the one mind projecting many in

the dream. Ignorance exists as a separate entities in the minds of

only those who see the separate entities. Hence ignorance is also

part of the plurality. It has no existence by itself as separate

from the non-dual existence. See the discussion of thorn to remove

thorn.

 

> If for any reason it

>is said to exist in the non-dual existence then it will be admitting

>Svagatabheda (internal difference) in the non-dual existence, and if it is

>regarded as separate, dualism comes in.

 

The critic's statement is due to lack of understanding or the

implication of not understanding the nature of non-duel existence and

the implication of mithya which is different from satya and astya.

These aspects are being brought out by Madhusuudana in his Advaita

Siddhi as definitions of falsity - See Shree Anand Hudli's notes on

this text.

> Besides, in the ligth of this

>doctrine both bondage and liberation and the spirit seeking liberation

>become all unreal.

 

Not unreal - but mithya or in the same order of reality as plurality.

One who feels bound is the one who is seeking for liberation . Both

notions are in the mind of ignorant but as real as the ignorance. The

unreality is only from the totality or Brahman.

>As a critic of Advaita has humorously put it, all the

>teachings of the ``Sastras about liberation become like consolation given

>to a sterile woman on the death of he son``.

 

but only to a sterile woman who thinks she has a son who died - not

to a salient one. She has a feeling of a loss that she never

incurred and the liberation is gaining what she never lost to start

with. The humor only reflects the lack of understanding or

misinterpretation of the theory.

 

 

The rest I am not qualified to comment

 

Hari Om!

Sadanadna

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623