AdhyAsa (was Fate and Free Will)

[Guest guest]

Jay:

">When the 'ultimate knowledge' dawns, the previously presumed object - i.e.

a

>separate universe - is effectively destroyed.

 

Then how come all the 'realized' people are still walking on this earth?

If their 'ultimate knowledge' has destroyed this world, where do they come

back to? ... etc."

 

D: Very funny! I still don't know what point you are trying to make with

what you have been writing on this subject if not to try to trip members up

in their responses. Your erudite quoting from the scriptures shows that you

are perfectly able to answer questions such as these. I carefully chose the

word 'effective' in my last answer and also emphasised (for the sake of

possible readers who might not be at your level) that language ultimately

fails and runs into paradox when discussing these topics. The separate

universe is 'effectively destroyed' for the 'realised person' upon

'realisation' because it is then 'known' that there is no separation, no

subject-object relationship. All of the words in quotation marks are equally

available for ridicule but this is inevitable. Obviously to us the

previously presumed person still appears to exist as does the previously

presumed world (at least as much as they existed to begin with). Outwardly,

nothing changes. You still see what you presume to be a separate person

walking around on a presumed earth because you are still making the error of

superimposition. As far as the previously presumed person who is now

'realised' is concerned, this mistake is no longer made and the non-dual

reality is 'known'. The world and 'other people' are still seen but known

not to be 'other'.

 

If you do not find any of this sort of dialogue helpful in understanding the

situation in which we find ourselves, then simply avoid pursuing it. It will

help neither myself, yourself nor anyone on the group simply to ridicule it.

 

Since this discussion now seems clearly off topic for 'Fate and Free Will' I

have changed the Subject. I suggest that, if you wish to pursue it, you post

the articles that you mentioned and generate some sensible points for

discussion.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-jI,

>D: Very funny! I still don't know what point you are trying to make with

>what you have been writing on this subject if not to try to trip members up

>in their responses.

 

Not really.

>Your erudite quoting from the scriptures shows that you

>are perfectly able to answer questions such as these.

 

Thanks, I take it as a compliment.

 

When shruti is interpreted with the aid of brahma-sootras,

the knowledge of parabrahman that one gets is

exactly the same knowledge that one gets by studying Geetha.

That is why they are known as prasthAna-traya.

 

They have to be quoted because adhyAsa-theory makes all the

three topsy-turvy. Many people think that Vedic thought

has culminated in adhyAsa-theory. Veda, sootras, and geetha

have to quoted to show that that is not the case.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-jI

>You still see what you presume to be a separate person

>walking around on a presumed earth because you are still making the error of

>superimposition.

 

That is when humans made this adhyAsa-theory as well.

 

In fact, that is the reason why something called "vEda" which

no one made or apourushEya is needed to understand Parabrahman

and His creation - what we have called earth.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Sri Jay Nelamangala said:

>Questions arise because when Shrutis and sootra say it

>is Parabrahman that is cause of the world,some one came

>along and made the adhyAsa-theory and said it is avidyA

>that is cause of the world.

>

>Hence all these questions are being asked to show how

>adhyAsa-theory is not vEdAnta.

 

 

I can't resist jumping in with my 2 cents. Not being an

'authentic' Hindu but only an American McDonald's version, you can

take my ideas with a considerable grain of salt.

 

Gaudapada was the guru of the guru of Shankara, and he is the

Advaitin par excellence who argued that the 'world' (Jagat) is an

illusion superposed by Avidhya upon Brahman. He was also accused of

being a Buddhist by Vedantic opponents, with whom I think Sri Jay

would probably sympathize.

 

My feeling is that Gaudapada was indeed influenced by the

Buddhists and by ideas evolving from the Prajnaparamita Sutras. But

I also believe that these Buddhist Sutras in turn 'rediscovered' a

very subtle and transcendent experience that was at least implicit in

the Upanishads but that is difficult to describe in ordinary language.

 

Basically, this is the 'nondual' experience, in which the

distinction between 'subject' and 'object' evaporates. This is the

ultimate meaning of 'Atman is Brahman' (Aham Brahmasmi) in the

Upanishads. (So you can't say that Shankara and company are

inventing something not in the Vedas, Parabrahman notwithstanding!

Please see further explanation below.) This experience can only be

fully understood by those who have actually had the experience. It

is often called Pure Consciousness, since subject and object

disappear but consciousness remains. You cannot really argue that

these people have not had such an experience, since you cannot put

yourself in their head, although you are not compelled to believe it

yourself. Why not be generous and grant that they have had some

amazing experience, which they describe as the dissolution of subject

and object?

 

Why should we care about the experience? Speaking for

myself, I am interested in it, because I see it show up in one form

or another throughout the 'mystical' traditions of the world. (And I

do not mind using the word 'mystical', as it correctly connotes the

mystery and transcendence of the experience compared to ordinary

experience.) The widespread appearance of the nondual experience

throughout the world adds great credence to it, in my opinion, and

this is important for someone such as myself who has not experienced

it. It remains a credible and inspiring aspiration. And those who

have had it do concur in describing it as ultimate bliss, peace and

truth, which is reason enough to be interested in it!

 

I do believe that 'ordinary' people such as the present

company can get a glimpse of it from some of our most beautiful

mundane experiences, such as glimpsing the Himalayas for the first

time or from the truest and most inspired forms of love (not love

based on self-interest).

 

Now, Jay, if you grant that the nondual experience exists for

some, in which subject and object somehow disappear, then you must

explain the apparent dualism of ordinary experience, in which subject

and object are apparently there. The Adhyasa theory, it seems to me,

explains this as ignorance 'superposing' the objective world upon the

Pure Consciousness, like the snake upon the rope. Surely the

subject-object distinction adds something to experience that was not

there before in the nondual experience. This is like the rope on the

snake or the silver on the shell.

 

Note an important and subtle distinction. Both subject and

object appear together when Avidhya superimposes Adhyasa on Brahman.

It is not the case that subject remains when Adhyasa is eliminated.

Only Pure Consciousness remains, which is sometimes called the Self,

which causes confusion since this sounds like the 'subject' of the

subject-object distinction. As Ramana said, who remains to say the

he or she has an experience?

 

But the vast majority of mankind has dualistic consciousness.

This includes Christians, Muslims and Dvaita Hindus. Truly the poor

Advaitins are a persecuted minority! And for those with dualistic

consciousness, the notion of God, Ishwara and Parabrahman is

necessary. They are as real as the dualistic consciousness itself,

and disappear when the dualistic consciousness disappears.

 

You keep quoting the Gita, but in truth the Gita contains

several philosophical viewpoints, including elements of both

dualism and nondualism. It is trying to reach everyone and

synthesize the Hindu tradition.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

 

 

< snip >

 

 

My feeling is that Gaudapada was indeed influenced by the

Buddhists and by ideas evolving from the Prajnaparamita Sutras. But

I also believe that these Buddhist Sutras in turn 'rediscovered' a

very subtle and transcendent experience that was at least implicit in

the Upanishads but that is difficult to describe in ordinary language.

 

 

 

 

KKT: I think you might be

interested in this book:

 

Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism:

The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-Karika

(Suny Series in Religious Studies)

by Richard King, Gaudapada Acarya

 

A review I find at amazon.com:

 

Reviewer: SEE SIN HENG, TONY from SINGAPORE

 

The origins of the school of thought known as the Advaita Vedanta

in medieval India is a subject that is fraught with numerous

controversies. This is a very important study on the relationship

between the Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. It is important

because it approaches the study of Advaita Vedanta from a historico-

philosophical perspective, that is, it situates Advaita Vedanta

squarely within the context and influence of Mahayana Buddhism.

This is a context that is usually ignored in present-day studies.

This is an approach that is at once distinctive and penetrating,

for it gives us a deeper insight into how the medieval Indian

philosophers (i.e. Sankara) understood their project, rather

than imposing our usualy presuppositions on them. What is the

relationship between Advaita Vedanta and MAhayana Buddhism?

Is it appropriate to view Sankara as a Buddhist in disguise?

What is the philosophical basis of Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana

Buddhism? These are but some of the questions that the author

explores. This is a must-buy for any serious student of Indian

thought in general. BE WARNED though, because just as this work is

illuminating, it may also be deconstructive of our most deeply

entrenched beliefs about Advaita Vedanta and MAhayana Buddhism.

 

 

Peace,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

>He was also accused of

>being a Buddhist by Vedantic opponents, with whom I think Sri Jay

>would probably sympathize.

 

On the contrary, Buddist said "shoonya" is the origin of the world,

to which Sri GoudapAda and Sri Shankara said no, and said

it is not "nothingness" but it is "avidyA" (ignorance) that is the origin of

the world.

 

So, as far vEdAntins are concerned, it is like saving the sheep ( i.e., creation

) from

the mouth of fox (shoonya) and feeding it to tiger (avidyA).

 

In either case, Veda which establishes "Parabrahman as the Creator" is lost.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 09:29 PM 4/15/2003 +0000, phamdluan2000 wrote:

 

Hello KKT,

 

This is indeed a good book. I recommend it too. And the review certainly

sounds provocative!

 

--Greg

 

.....

 

 

thought in general. BE WARNED though, because just as this work is

illuminating, it may also be deconstructive of our most deeply

entrenched beliefs about Advaita Vedanta and MAhayana Buddhism.

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin-jI,

>You cannot really argue that

>these people have not had such an experience, since you cannot put

>yourself in their head, although you are not compelled to believe it

>yourself. Why not be generous and grant that they have had some

>amazing experience, which they describe as the dissolution of subject

>and object?

 

There is no doubt that they were extraordinary people.

 

But the fundamental here is that a human being's experience is limited by

that human being, and that is why you need apourushEya vEda to establish

parabrahman, and that apourushEya vEda estalishes parabrahman as

something that is "limitless", and therefore no human being can claim that

He has completely "understood", or "experienced" God. Whatever his/her

experience or "knowledge" is, it is vAsanA-maya or limited by him/her and

limited to him/her. That is why it is not the Parabrahman established by Veda.

 

As establishing this Infinite Parabrahman, Veda necessarily became infinite as

well,

and be free from all human defects as well, hence it has to be apourushEya as

well,

and for this reason became svatah-pramANa or self-establishing.

 

If someone talks of Parabrahman outside of such a Veda,

( starting from one's own experience, devotion, knowledge, or action)

then it is definitely not Vedic Parabrahman, and those who are

'shrOtreeya" and "brahma-niShTa" simply ignore all such concepts for the

simple reason that it did not come from Veda.

 

Whatever "knowledge", "understanding", "experience" that a human being has

about God, can only be partial. This is established in several upanishats

such as :

 

"yadi manyasE suvEdA iti daharamEvApi noonam tvam vEthha brahmaNo roopam"

(If you think you have understood parabrahma-svaroopa well enough, then what

you have

understood is very little indeed).

 

"yasyAmatam tasya matam matam yasya na vEda sa ha"

(One who thinks he has understood God, has not understood God at all.

One who has understood that God can not be known completely, he has understood

it)

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste !

 

 

Dear Sri KKT:

 

Thank you very much for the book reference:

>Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism:

>The Mahayana Context of the Gaudapadiya-Karika

>(Suny Series in Religious Studies)

>by Richard King

 

That is indeed widely accepted as one of the best books on the

subject. In fact, I already have it but have only read sections of

it ... in part because of the time I spend on this list. Your kind

advice will hopefully get me back to the books!

 

But please be sure to read Nanda's article, which I referred to in

message 16650, if you are interested in this subject (the

relationship of Buddhism and Hinduism).

 

 

 

Sri Jay Nelamangala said:

>On the contrary, Buddist said "shoonya" is the origin of

>the world, to which Sri GoudapAda and Sri Shankara said no,

>and said it is not "nothingness" but it is "avidyA" (ignorance)

>that is the origin of the world.

>

>So, as far vEdAntins are concerned, it is like saving the sheep

>(i.e., creation) from the mouth of fox (shoonya) and feeding it

>to tiger (avidyA).

>

>In either case, Veda which establishes "Parabrahman as the

>Creator" is lost.

 

 

Sri Jay,

 

You evidently love the down-to-earth 'God as Creator' and dislike

more 'abstract' consciousness-based approaches to Reality!

 

But Consciousness IS Reality! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, as

we say! :-)

 

Guess who else is addicted to 'God the Creator'! Why, your

Christian and Muslim brothers, some of whom are so eager to convert

or kill you! I wonder what kind of a reaction that will get from

you! :-)

 

Also, it is not quite correct to say that Sunya (Emptiness) 'creates'

the world. Emptiness is more an attitude of mind than a metaphysical

reality. Check out Nanda's site under Buddhism:

http://home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/

 

Actually, I am going to weasel a bit and say that it is my own

personal non-academic view that no great harm is done by equating

Sunya and Self (or Sunya and Consciousness). It is all

trans-conceptual anyway!

 

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Bejnamin-jI.

> You keep quoting the Gita, but in truth the Gita contains

>several philosophical viewpoints, including elements of both

>dualism and nondualism. It is trying to reach everyone and

>synthesize the Hindu tradition

 

Firstly, VedOpanishats have neither come to establish dualism or nondualism or

any other ism.

Instead, they have come about to establish parabrahman.

 

As the essence of these upanishats, Geetha too establishes the same

parabrahman.

 

Calling what is established by Geetha as "saguNa brahman" and what is

established by

upanishats as "nirguNa brahman", and saying SriKrishna of the Geetha is the

lower "saguNa brahman"

and that there is a higher "nirguNa brahman" - is all coming from outside of

the Veda and

also of the Geetha. Therefore non-vEdAntic.

 

When SriKrishna says "mattaha parataram na anyat asti dhananjaya"

(There is nothing higher than Me). Philosophy simply ends there.

 

Any other theory is simply a mockery on Geetha and therefore is non-vEdantic.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Jay!

 

I just said:

>Guess who else is addicted to 'God the Creator'! Why, your

>Christian and Muslim brothers, some of whom are so eager to convert

>or kill you! I wonder what kind of a reaction that will get from

>you! :-)

 

I might have added another similarity between your attitude and that

of the Christians and Muslims. You all idolize the scriptures. I

think idols in human or animal form are safer ... they don't lead to

conceptual errors and heated debates! And the Hindu idols are always

smiling, which puts me in a good mood when I see them!

 

Please don't take any of my comments as offensive! But I do observe

that dualistic Dvaitas and Bhaktis - as you seem to be - tend to get

a bit more insistent on their version of the truth. It is an effect

of dualism. Dualism leads to statements such as 'To be or not to be

.... That is the question'. Actually this mode of thinking is merely

mundane, fails to scale the heights of Wisdom, and is often a source

of problems.

 

Please fly away to the tranquil azure skies of nonconceptual,

nondualistic consciousness! Replace divisive concepts with

illuminating Consciousness!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Jay,

 

Maybe a naive question are you a follower of Swami Prabhupada or one of his

colleagues? About ever 2 years or so, one of them comes in trying to convince

folks that advaita is seriously flawed...

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Greg,

 

No, not at all. I am not a follower of ISKON.

-

Greg Goode

advaitin ; advaitin

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:48 PM

Re: Re: AdhyAsa (was Fate and Free Will)

 

 

Jay,

 

Maybe a naive question are you a follower of Swami Prabhupada or one of his

colleagues? About ever 2 years or so, one of them comes in trying to convince

folks that advaita is seriously flawed...

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Jay.

 

I am just trying to get my moorings right in the deluge caused by

you. I thought I should reread all your posts carefully and seek

clarifications as I go by, wherever absolutely necessary.

 

You said in your reply to Shri Benjamin Root:

 

QUOTE

 

As establishing this Infinite Parabrahman, Veda necessarily became

infinite as well,

and be free from all human defects as well, hence it has to be

apourushEya as well,

and for this reason became svatah-pramANa or self-establishing.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Is this not like creating a parallel Reality as we now have two

apouruSeya 'entities' in Parabrahman and Veda. Isn't that duality

again? Or is it that you think there can be the impossibility of two

apouruSeya entities? A solution to this problem may be to construe

Veda as a synonym for Prabrahman. In that case, Veda will become

unavailable to us as a pramAna to help 'know' Parabrahman.

 

Our confusion about our real identity is obvious and glaring. No one

needs to produce any proof for that because we keep asking the

question "Who am I?". If Veda promises a satisfactory answer to this

question, then there certainly is an explanation in it for how this

confusion comes about in the first place. What is wrong in calling

the 'mechanics' of that confusion adhyAsa? If you therefore reject

adhyAsa as superimposition, then you ought to explain to us the

correct Vedic alternative for it.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair,

>I am just trying to get my moorings right in the deluge caused by you.

 

Don't get personal with me. I did not get personal with you, because I know

you are only a follower of advaita.

Same way, the objections that are raised here are not mine either, they come

from other Acharyas.

So, instead of getting personal with each other, let us study shAstra together

properly.

>Is this not like creating a parallel Reality as we now have two

>apouruSeya 'entities' in Parabrahman and Veda. Isn't that duality

>again?

 

It is a problem for you becuase, you have already assumed there is no duality,

and then you are looking at Veda.

 

Instead, take the entire veda, do the samanvaya using sootras, don't even

think of opposing Geetha - then whatever you get, go with that. If duality

is what comes out, so be it. If plurality is what comes out, so be it.

If non-duality is what comes out, so be it.

 

Have you done your homework first before asking 'Isn't that duality again?'

-

Madathil Rajendran Nair

advaitin

Saturday, April 19, 2003 4:31 AM

Re: AdhyAsa (was Fate and Free Will)

 

 

Namaste Shri Jay.

 

I am just trying to get my moorings right in the deluge caused by

you. I thought I should reread all your posts carefully and seek

clarifications as I go by, wherever absolutely necessary.

 

You said in your reply to Shri Benjamin Root:

 

QUOTE

 

As establishing this Infinite Parabrahman, Veda necessarily became

infinite as well,

and be free from all human defects as well, hence it has to be

apourushEya as well,

and for this reason became svatah-pramANa or self-establishing.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Is this not like creating a parallel Reality as we now have two

apouruSeya 'entities' in Parabrahman and Veda. Isn't that duality

again? Or is it that you think there can be the impossibility of two

apouruSeya entities? A solution to this problem may be to construe

Veda as a synonym for Prabrahman. In that case, Veda will become

unavailable to us as a pramAna to help 'know' Parabrahman.

 

Our confusion about our real identity is obvious and glaring. No one

needs to produce any proof for that because we keep asking the

question "Who am I?". If Veda promises a satisfactory answer to this

question, then there certainly is an explanation in it for how this

confusion comes about in the first place. What is wrong in calling

the 'mechanics' of that confusion adhyAsa? If you therefore reject

adhyAsa as superimposition, then you ought to explain to us the

correct Vedic alternative for it.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages