Advaita Manjari - post 1

[Guest guest]

First Little Background:

 

Shree Krishna K. had asked me to respond to some of the questions he

raised with respect to Advaita concepts. I promised to respond but could

not find enough time to write it down. This is almost a year ago. I

even forgot what the original questions were that he posed. Meanwhile

our friend Jay N. kept pouring mails after mails in Advaitin and

AdvaitaL lists and now in Vaadaavali list of his interpretation of

Advaita from his dvaita books and from his learning of Shree

Vidyaaranya’s book. If he wants to criticize Advaita, I had advised him

first to read original Shankara works. I do get the impression that he

does not really want to learn but wants to continue his criticism of

Advaita based on what he has learned. That is why I gave up responding

directly to his mails. Shree Vidya Sundareshan in AdviataL list has

tried to correct him. I and Jay N. had exchanged many mails in the

past. He is a great puzzle to me – his latest mail asking me to show

where he misquoted Advaita is like asking what is the relation between

Seeta and Rama after listening to whole Ramayana. One of course can

interpret it as deep philosophical question pertaining to

jiiva-paramaatma sambandha. If anyone is really interested one can go

back to archives of Advaitin and AdvaitaL lists to see the exchanges of

Jay N and the responders.

 

I do not claim myself as an expert of either Advaita Philosophy or

shaastra-s. What is presented is only my understanding of Advaita and

is in response to the what I believe is the misinterpretation of

Advaita. Due to time constraints I will only respond to any comments or

questions if it helps to clarify what I have written. The rest I leave

it to the questioners to think deeply either to accept it or reject it.

A friend of mine from the list also has warned me that one can wake up a

person who is sleeping but one cannot wake up person who is pretending

to sleep. I realize that the statement applies equally to me. I am

posting this not only to Vaadaavali list but to Advaitin and AdviataL

lists since some of the experts in that list can correct me if I am

wrong. For many, the write-up may be very elementary. I will try to

post in small segments.

 

Some segments of the write-up I posted to my friends to correct my

English, but since they are all too busy, I decided to post whatever I

have written. The write up is not complete and hopefully it will evolve

into better versions as I keep posting the segments in sequence. I

thank my teachers, as well as many friends from the lists particularly

Shree Vidya Sundareshan and Shree Anand H. who clarified some of the

concepts of Advaita through their posts. My thanks also to Shreeman

S.M.S. Chari maama for clarifying the VishishTaadvaita concepts.

 

 

 

--\

-----

 

Advaita Manjari

(post 1)

 

K. Sadananda

(Disciple of H.H. Swami Chinmayanandaji)

 

Shree Krishna Paramaatmane namaH! Shree gurubhyonamaH|

 

Many questions were raised in the past in the internet lists - Advaitin,

AdviataL and Vaadaavali lists - in relation to advaitic understanding of

the nature of the reality, moksha and means of attaining it, shaastra as

pramaaNa, samanvaya, questions about saakshee, valid knowledge,

validation process, paroksha and aparoksha j~naana, apourusheya of

veda-s, perception of objects, visheshaNa and visheshya, lakshNa,

knower-known-knowledge, prama-bhrama and pramaaNa, khyaati vaada-s,

anirvachniiyam aspect of Advaita, avidya (bhaava or abhaava), Brahman

with or without attributes, lower and higher nature of Brahman, and many

others. Many of them are seemingly unrelated, but deeper analysis shows

that they have some relevance in understanding the nature of reality.

In Indian philosophy, it has been well recognized that epistemological

and ontological issues are intimately connected. Some of the topics

will be discussed based on my understanding of these terms. The topics

are addressed not necessarily in any particular order, but perhaps will

evolve into some order as we proceed to address the issues involved.

The goal is to relate the apparently unrelated concepts and unite them

as a garland of flowers, using the fundamental concepts of Advaita.

Hence this article is titled as Advaita Manjari, a garland of flowers,

in adoration of my teacher, H.H. Swami Chinmayanandaji, who taught me

everything that I know, with abundant love.

 

Samanvaya: Sumanvaya means consistency. Human intellect looks for

consistency, and therefore cannot accept that which is not consistent.

Emotional mind can accept different degrees of inconsistencies depending

on the degree of blockage (or dullness) of that intellect. In many

cases, a human intellect due to its limitations cannot see clearly the

consistency or even inconsistency in the statements, because of

emotional attachments, sometimes even intellectual attachment to a

particular philosophy. However, as it becomes sharper or subtler, it

gains more discriminative power to detect and to detest inconsistencies

in life as well as in the experiences gained. Religion is actually

addressed to that intellect that detests inconsistencies in life, when

that intellect starts to examine its life experiences. Mundaka Up. says

– “pariiksha lokaan karma chitaan brahmaano .....” –It says, a seeker

after critically examining all his life-time experiences comes to a

conclusion that any action or any series of actions are not consistent

with the solution to the fundamental problem that he is facing in his

life. After critically examining all the accomplishments that one has

gained throughout his life, he recognizes that one cannot gain through

action moksha, which is unlimited and eternal. Once he recognizes the

inconsistency in terms of goal versus the effort, scripture advises him

that he should go in search of a teacher who can guide him to achieve

that ultimate goal of life. In Brahmasuutra-s, suutras 4 says ‘tattu

samanvayaat’, declaring that vedaanta is self-consistent and teaches

about ‘Brahman’ which cannot be known otherwise. In this article,

‘samanvaya’ is used in a more general sense with the hope to establish a

high degree of self-consistency in all the concepts. I am going to use

the term in more general sense and not necessarily in the narrow

definition of consistency of statements of prastaanatraya. The three

philosophies – Adviata, VishishhTadvaita and dvaita provide

self-consistent models based on the Vedic statements while finding fault

with each other. There are books and books available in each philosophy

criticizing other models while establishing the supremacy of theirs. I

will not present that kind of discussion here since my purpose is only

clarification of any misunderstandings of Advaita from my perspective,

and occasionally present criticism of some concepts that do not seem to

be consistent with current understanding of the nature of the world -

that too from my persepctive.

 

Samanvya therefore is interpretation of the scriputral texts as well as

the scietific and/or logical analysis of the world or obejcts, and our

experiences in a self-consistent way that a human mind can appreciate

and evolve - recongnizing very well that the hightest reality is beyond

the human comprehension. Even this apect has to be consistent, for a

human mind to accept. Since we are at an age where relatavistic nature

of the universe is becoming increasingly evident through scientific

analysis, the scriptural interpretations should be consistent with the

objective knowledge of the world, while pointing something beyond the

objective nature of the world. We will try to approach the subject from

this persective.

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

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

http://companion./