Why should things Exist? (Advaita vs. Shunya)

February 27, 2004

Namaste,

Vishalji:

So the two different philosophies of Advaita and sunyaVada

are similar at the very fundamental level. Difference arises

only when we try to explain it words.

Ranjeetji:

SankarAchArya doesnt think so.

You may please refer His BrahmasUtra BhAshya.

Chittaranjanji:

It might appear that way when reason has done its job of

taking one to the indescribable, but there is a vast

difference between Advaita and Sunyavada which comes to

the fore if one considers that Brahman is Satchitananda.

When we speak through the instruments of logic, we forget

that Brahman is living, vibrantly living. Sat, chit and

ananda are His essential natures which are reflected as

attributions in the chitta of Savikalpa and which are

absorbed into Himself in Nirvikalpa. How does one

logically formulate love in a rational system? Brahman

is all Love. Brahman is purnam, full, not sunya.

Brahman is the lack of all privation.

Benji:

Vishalji is correct. There is so much confusion on this point.

Since this is a topic I love, I cannot help offering some opinions,

for what they are worth.

Shankara was only criticizing the false understanding of Shunya as

nihilism. Shunya was only ever intended to serve the exact same

purpose as the 'Neti, neti' of the Brihadaranyaka. What remains

after the purgation of ego and object and all other dualistic

discrimination is none other than pure consciousness, which is

undeniable. The consciousness that denies itself is automatically

refuting its own denial. So if Buddha had any intelligence (which he

did) then he could not have meant nihilism.

But the pure consciousness also remains 'empty' in so far as it is

indescribable, and Shankara says this too in the Vivekachudamani. To

describe requires ego, mind, discrimination, concepts, objects and

language. Shunya is the state of consciousness that transcends mind,

the nondual state of consciousness, just like Advaita.

You can verify all of this by reading the very famous scripture of

the Shunyavada called the Astasahasrika, which is part of the

Prajnaparamita literature, at

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/TPW8000L.htm

It is rather abstract, and you have to read a substantial portion of

it many times to get the spirit. Let us examine some excerpts, so

that we may see the fundamental spiritual affinity with Advaita.

Please do ponder these, so that you may rejoice at how the truth

arises in different schools, provided the seekers are wise,

intelligent and sincere.

(1) "That thought (of Perfect Wisdom or enlightenment) is no thought,

since in its essential original nature thought is transparently

luminous."

Comment: This shows that the only 'nihilism' is the purgation of the

dualistic thought which discriminates subject and object, leaving

only pure, infinite, transparent, luminous consciousness. Shankara

would have no problem with this.

(2) "He courses in a sign [i.e. discriminates at the dualistic level

of consciousness] when he courses in the idea that 'form is empty',

or 'I course', or 'I am a Bodhisattva' "

Comment: Another refutation of nihilism. He who actually says that

'form is empty' is falling back into the dualistic trap of

discrimination. Nihilism itself is a dualistic theory which

contradicts the true spirit of shunya.

(3) "Does there exist, or can one apprehend, in this state of absence

of thought either a 'there is' or a 'there is not'?" (Answer: No.)

Comment: Again a refutation of either affirmation or nihilism, both

of which are conceptual. As Advaita says, maya neither is nor is

not, as either alternative requires discrimination, and realization

is beyond dualistic discrimination.

(4) "Thus the fact that all dharmas are without own-being is the same

as the fact that they are uncreated."

Comment: Dharmas (things, objects, samsara, maya) do not exist as

independent objects (e.g. material objects). They exist like the

dream objects, an analogy frequently used in Advaita too. Hence,

they are 'uncreated', contrary to the prakriti of samkhya or of any

dualistic theory of creation. Gaudapada (the paramaguru of Shankara)

echoes this in his doctrine of ajativada expounded in his Mandukya

Karika.

(5) "Because all dharmas are unborn, and do not go forth. When he

courses thus, a Bodhisattva comes near to all-knowledge."

Comment: A reiteration of ajativada. All apparent objects are

illusions. Hence, they are uncreated or 'unborn'. They are only in

consciousness, like the dream objects. Hence, there is only

consciousness, which is undeniable. This is the sole reality. This

is pure Advaita.

(6) "For not two different things are magical illusion and beings,

are dreams and beings. All objective facts also are like a magical

illusion, like a dream."

Comment: Here is the famous dream analogy, just as in the

Vivekachudamani or Yoga Vasistha. This is also the essence of

Shunya. It is not nihilism but the affirmation of the sole reality

of pure nondual consciousness, just like Advaita.

(7) "And, being empty, they are also inexhaustible. And what is

emptiness, that is also immeasurableness. Therefore then, according

to ultimate reality, no distinction or difference can be apprehended

between these dharmas."

Comment: This is the fullness or 'purnam' which Chittaranjanji was

referring too. As Vishalji said, shunya and purnam are the same,

like two sides of a coin, however contradictory that may seem. If

there is no dualistic discrimination, then what remains is pure

unlimited consciousness, like infinite space, which is none other

than the Brahman of the Upanishads.

(8) "Perfect wisdom is great, unlimited, measureless and infinite

because form, feelings, etc., are so."

Comment: This perfect wisdom or pure consciousness is not different

from the Atman or the vast universe, once one is at the nondual level

of consciousness. How could it be, since all duality has been

annihilated? There is only the unlimited reality which is Pure

Consciousness, which includes all the illusory manifestations, now

recognized as mere illusory manifestations.

(9) "For it is the same as space, and exceedingly great..."

Comment: As you see, I was not exaggerating in comparing Shunya to

infinite space. The space analogy appears often in this work. It

has all the overtones of the 'purnam' of the Self, since it is Pure

Consciousness.

(10) "The quarrels, contentions and contradictions of those who

oppose my dharma will simply vanish away."

Comment: True nondual sages CANNOT argue with each other. There is

nothing to argue about in the realm of nonduality. Hence, insofar as

an Advaitin or Buddhist is sincerely nondual, there remains nothing

in Pure Consciousness to argue about. The Yoga Vasistha says this

too.

It is essential to realize the fundamental spiritual affinity of all

nondual paths. Otherwise, these different paths are mere human

creations. There must be a single enlightened nondual state to

strive towards, otherwise it is only imagination and self-deception.

Anyhow, some reputable scholars have suggested that the criticisms of

Vijnanavada and Shunya in Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bashya may have

been inserted by later students. This may seem shocking to the

pious, but it was common practice to add to revered texts and to use

another's name as one's own. This was not always malicious; the

students in question may have felt sure in their hearts that they

knew what they were talking about.

Finally, there may indeed be some difference in the flavor of the

different nondual schools *for the student*. At that level, he is

still partly in the conventional world of discrimination and

concepts, and the conceptual description of nondual consciousness

(which must necessarily contain some error) may legitimately vary

from school to school. But at the ultimate level, there is only the

realization, and I cannot believe that this varies arbitrarily from

school to school. That would make it all a man-created concoction.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

February 27, 2004

Namaste Benji.

Your post 21120.

You have a good case there and you have argued it very well.

Buddhism has been engaging my attention lately and I am tempted to

think that "shUnyA" is a misnomer for what Buddha had in mind. Had

Shankara met Buddha, I am sure, the two would have just embraced and

kept quiet.

By the way, was it Buddha himself who christened the Buddhist

Ultimate "shUnyA" or is it a mistake on the part of his disciples?

While they lay great stress on the kArmic theory, the followers of

Buddha seem to ignore it in the case of their Master. For them

everything begins with him. They often tend to forget that he, like

Sankara, was only a link in a beginningless and endless kArmic chain

and derived immensely from vEdic thoughts. This may be due to the

blinding lustre of his supreme personality.

Talking about karma, Buddhists believe that the prayer to grant the

ability to change things that can be changed, to accept those that

cannot be changed and differentiate between the two has its origin in

their karmic scenario. However, I find that vEdantins do also lay

great stress on this prayer and there are Christians who proudly

proclaim that it is a purely Christian prayer. Will anyone be able

to say when and where exactly did this lofty prayer first crystallize?

By the way, where is our Jayaramanji who set this ball rolling? See

where we have reached from the Big Bang - through Berkely, Hume,

Kant, Plato, Socratese et al to Buddha! Any one needs more evidence

that the universe is expanding?

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

____________________

>

> Shankara was only criticizing the false understanding of Shunya as

> nihilism. ...........>

> You can verify all of this by reading the very famous scripture of

> the Shunyavada called the Astasahasrika, which is part of the

> Prajnaparamita literature, at

February 27, 2004

Namaste Benjaninji,

I knew that you will be the first person coming up with this.

> Vishalji is correct. There is so much confusion on this point.

> Since this is a topic I love, I cannot help offering some opinions,

> for what they are worth.

Me too.

> Shankara was only criticizing the false understanding of Shunya as

> nihilism.

This is one of the most illogical statement. Dont tell me that SankarAchArya

was here to put followers of shUnyavAda into the right track !

> Shunya was only ever intended to serve the exact same

> purpose as the 'Neti, neti' of the Brihadaranyaka. What remains

> after the purgation of ego and object and all other dualistic

> discrimination is none other than pure consciousness, which is

> undeniable. The consciousness that denies itself is automatically

> refuting its own denial. So if Buddha had any intelligence (which he

> did) then he could not have meant nihilism.

This is one new definition of shUnyavAda (except for those who have known

our friend Benjaminji for quite some time).

'Neti Neti' has nothing to do with shUnyavAda. 'Neti Neti' is the unique

method taught in the Upanishads for the realization of the Self. The logical

ground on which ShUnyavAda builds up its negation theory is

'inter-dependence'. This method has nothing to do with the 'Neti Neti' of

Br.Up. 'Neti Neti' is the process of negating the wrong identification of

the Self with the conglomerate of body, mind and so on. On the other hand,

shUnyavAda doesnt even consider the existence of the Self.

> But the pure consciousness also remains 'empty' in so far as it is

> indescribable, and Shankara says this too in the Vivekachudamani. To

> describe requires ego, mind, discrimination, concepts, objects and

> language. Shunya is the state of consciousness that transcends mind,

> the nondual state of consciousness, just like Advaita.

'Neti Neti' is employed because Brahman is indescribable. We cannot describe

Brahman. All we can do is to negate the wrong notions about Brahman. I didnt

understand what you mean by 'remains empty'.

> Please do ponder these, so that you may rejoice at how the truth

> arises in different schools, provided the seekers are wise,

> intelligent and sincere.

What to say about the authors of the various polemical works? Silly,

dull-minded and insincere? :-)

> As Advaita says, maya neither is nor is

> not, as either alternative requires discrimination, and realization

> is beyond dualistic discrimination.

This one went above my head ! mAya is anirvachiniya because the process of

description requires discrimination which is short of realization? Can you

please elaborate on this?

> Anyhow, some reputable scholars have suggested that the criticisms of

> Vijnanavada and Shunya in Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bashya may have

> been inserted by later students. This may seem shocking to the

> pious, but it was common practice to add to revered texts and to use

> another's name as one's own. This was not always malicious; the

> students in question may have felt sure in their hearts that they

> knew what they were talking about.

Can you please give reference to works of reputable scholars wherein this

point is mentioned?

> Finally, there may indeed be some difference in the flavor of the

> different nondual schools *for the student*. At that level, he is

> still partly in the conventional world of discrimination and

> concepts, and the conceptual description of nondual consciousness

> (which must necessarily contain some error) may legitimately vary

> from school to school. But at the ultimate level, there is only the

> realization, and I cannot believe that this varies arbitrarily from

> school to school. That would make it all a man-created concoction.

There you go, to the pAramArthika level where words turn back. The

final solace !

Hari Om

February 27, 2004

Namaste Nairji,

SankarAchArya may have had nothing against Buddha per se. But He was tearing

apart the Buddhist theories that were floating among the intellectuals

during His time which He foresaw as a threat to the Vedic religion. I am not

sure whether Buddha really preached shUnyavAda. Buddha was opposed to the

ritualistic practises in Vedic religion. He didnt follow or ridicule the

jnAna side of it. It was simply not his style.

By the way, if Sringeri SankarAchArya and an AchArya from Uduppi were to

meet, will they take up arms and fight?

And if they dont, does that prove anything?

Hari Om

-

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

>

> You have a good case there and you have argued it very well.

> Buddhism has been engaging my attention lately and I am tempted to

> think that "shUnyA" is a misnomer for what Buddha had in mind. Had

> Shankara met Buddha, I am sure, the two would have just embraced and

> kept quiet.

>

> By the way, was it Buddha himself who christened the Buddhist

> Ultimate "shUnyA" or is it a mistake on the part of his disciples?

>

February 28, 2004

Namaste Ranjeetji.

I really meant that Sankara wouldn't have seen anything to object to

in Buddha's teachings.

Please take this as a lay opinion as I am not a scholar in either

advaita or Buddhism. From what very little I know, I have a feeling

that the last stop of advaita and Buddha (not Buddhism, like advaita

is not Hinduism) are the same. As it is a feeling, it is a matter of

the heart. I believe there is peace in thinking that way. I am least

equipped to thrust my head into all this. Benji, with the vast

reading he has done, might do that effectively. I hope you appreciate

my situation.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_______________________

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> SankarAchArya may have had nothing against Buddha per

se. ..............

> By the way, if Sringeri SankarAchArya and an AchArya from Uduppi

were to

> meet, will they take up arms and fight?

> And if they dont, does that prove anything?

February 28, 2004

Dear Nairji,

Namaste.

You can be assured that I am also not a 'scholar' in these issues. But yes,

I have read SankarAchArya's refutals of Buddhist theories. I dont believe

that SankarAchArya was refuting anything without clearly understanding the

opponent's position.

Myself and Benjaminji had discussed these issues many a times in his

ClearVoid list. So it wont be long this time.

Hari Om

-

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

> Please take this as a lay opinion as I am not a scholar in either

> advaita or Buddhism. From what very little I know, I have a feeling

> that the last stop of advaita and Buddha (not Buddhism, like advaita

> is not Hinduism) are the same. As it is a feeling, it is a matter of

> the heart. I believe there is peace in thinking that way. I am least

> equipped to thrust my head into all this. Benji, with the vast

> reading he has done, might do that effectively. I hope you appreciate

> my situation.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

February 28, 2004

Namaste Benjaminji,

Buddha had "reached" the Truth, therefore he could not have seen

anything but the Truth. But the Buddha consistently refused to speak

about the unspeakable.

What Buddha gave to his disciples was not a philosophy, it was a set

of precepts. The Buddhist philosophies were formulated much later,

and it is in the way that these philosophies were formulated that

they differ from Advaita.

Benjaminji, you repeat over and over again that what the Buddhist

means by emptiness is the same consciousness that Advaita speaks of,

but then why doesn't the Buddhist say so? It is not that

consciousness is an unfamiliar term to the Buddhist; but the Buddhist

refuses to see consciousness as a persisting "thing". In Vijnanavada,

consciousness is momentory, and it is the momentory flash of

consciousness that reveals the duality of subject and object. In

Advaita, consciousness is the unchanging witness, not a series of

momentory flashes. In the objection to Advaita that the Buddhist

raises (in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya) that Advaita is saying the same

thing as what the Buddhist is saying in another garb, Shankara

replies that it is not so, that the Buddhist qualifies consciousness

as momentory, existing, not existing, and so on, and therefore it is

that Advaita speaks of a persisting entity that is outside of these

momentory cognitions.

Again, the Buddhist categorically denies a substratum to the world.

Advaita says that even an illusion cannot be without a substratum,

and that the substratum of the Universe is Brahman alone. The

Upanishads never say that objects and the world are empty, they say

that Brahman has entered all these things to their very tips like a

sheath in a sword.

As far as shunyavada is concerned, it is interesting to see what

Shankara says: "As for the view of the absolute nihilist, no attempt

is made for its refutation since it is opposed to all means of valid

knowledge."

The word sunya has one connotation, and the word purna has another

connotation. It is not for no reason that Advaita goes to such

lengths to refute nihilism. The denial 'neti, neti' is the denial of

the world as being the Self, and not the denial of the world

to "posit" emptiness. The Self is the Life that sees, it is the Life

surging with Energy, it is not nihilum. I would submit that Advaita

is to be seen as the non-duality that enfolds the reality of dvaita

and vishistadvaita, as the indescribable limit of conception growing

larger than what conception can grasp. The word Brahman comes from a

root which means "to grow".

With regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Vishalji:

>

> So the two different philosophies of Advaita and sunyaVada

> are similar at the very fundamental level. Difference arises

> only when we try to explain it words.

>

> Ranjeetji:

>

> SankarAchArya doesnt think so.

> You may please refer His BrahmasUtra BhAshya.

>

> Chittaranjanji:

>

> It might appear that way when reason has done its job of

> taking one to the indescribable, but there is a vast

> difference between Advaita and Sunyavada which comes to

> the fore if one considers that Brahman is Satchitananda.

> When we speak through the instruments of logic, we forget

> that Brahman is living, vibrantly living. Sat, chit and

> ananda are His essential natures which are reflected as

> attributions in the chitta of Savikalpa and which are

> absorbed into Himself in Nirvikalpa. How does one

> logically formulate love in a rational system? Brahman

> is all Love. Brahman is purnam, full, not sunya.

> Brahman is the lack of all privation.

>

> Benji:

>

> Vishalji is correct. There is so much confusion on this point.

> Since this is a topic I love, I cannot help offering some opinions,

> for what they are worth.

>

> Shankara was only criticizing the false understanding of Shunya as

> nihilism. Shunya was only ever intended to serve the exact same

> purpose as the 'Neti, neti' of the Brihadaranyaka. What remains

> after the purgation of ego and object and all other dualistic

> discrimination is none other than pure consciousness, which is

> undeniable. The consciousness that denies itself is automatically

> refuting its own denial. So if Buddha had any intelligence (which

he

> did) then he could not have meant nihilism.

>

> But the pure consciousness also remains 'empty' in so far as it is

> indescribable, and Shankara says this too in the Vivekachudamani.

To

> describe requires ego, mind, discrimination, concepts, objects and

> language. Shunya is the state of consciousness that transcends

mind,

> the nondual state of consciousness, just like Advaita.

>

> You can verify all of this by reading the very famous scripture of

> the Shunyavada called the Astasahasrika, which is part of the

> Prajnaparamita literature, at

>

> http://www.buddhistinformation.com/TPW8000L.htm

>

> It is rather abstract, and you have to read a substantial portion

of

> it many times to get the spirit. Let us examine some excerpts, so

> that we may see the fundamental spiritual affinity with Advaita.

> Please do ponder these, so that you may rejoice at how the truth

> arises in different schools, provided the seekers are wise,

> intelligent and sincere.

>

> (1) "That thought (of Perfect Wisdom or enlightenment) is no

thought,

> since in its essential original nature thought is transparently

> luminous."

>

> Comment: This shows that the only 'nihilism' is the purgation of

the

> dualistic thought which discriminates subject and object, leaving

> only pure, infinite, transparent, luminous consciousness. Shankara

> would have no problem with this.

>

> (2) "He courses in a sign [i.e. discriminates at the dualistic

level

> of consciousness] when he courses in the idea that 'form is

empty',

> or 'I course', or 'I am a Bodhisattva' "

>

> Comment: Another refutation of nihilism. He who actually says that

> 'form is empty' is falling back into the dualistic trap of

> discrimination. Nihilism itself is a dualistic theory which

> contradicts the true spirit of shunya.

>

> (3) "Does there exist, or can one apprehend, in this state of

absence

> of thought either a 'there is' or a 'there is not'?" (Answer: No.)

>

> Comment: Again a refutation of either affirmation or nihilism, both

> of which are conceptual. As Advaita says, maya neither is nor is

> not, as either alternative requires discrimination, and realization

> is beyond dualistic discrimination.

>

> (4) "Thus the fact that all dharmas are without own-being is the

same

> as the fact that they are uncreated."

>

> Comment: Dharmas (things, objects, samsara, maya) do not exist as

> independent objects (e.g. material objects). They exist like the

> dream objects, an analogy frequently used in Advaita too. Hence,

> they are 'uncreated', contrary to the prakriti of samkhya or of any

> dualistic theory of creation. Gaudapada (the paramaguru of

Shankara)

> echoes this in his doctrine of ajativada expounded in his Mandukya

> Karika.

>

> (5) "Because all dharmas are unborn, and do not go forth. When he

> courses thus, a Bodhisattva comes near to all-knowledge."

>

> Comment: A reiteration of ajativada. All apparent objects are

> illusions. Hence, they are uncreated or 'unborn'. They are only

in

> consciousness, like the dream objects. Hence, there is only

> consciousness, which is undeniable. This is the sole reality.

This

> is pure Advaita.

>

> (6) "For not two different things are magical illusion and beings,

> are dreams and beings. All objective facts also are like a magical

> illusion, like a dream."

>

> Comment: Here is the famous dream analogy, just as in the

> Vivekachudamani or Yoga Vasistha. This is also the essence of

> Shunya. It is not nihilism but the affirmation of the sole reality

> of pure nondual consciousness, just like Advaita.

>

> (7) "And, being empty, they are also inexhaustible. And what is

> emptiness, that is also immeasurableness. Therefore then, according

> to ultimate reality, no distinction or difference can be

apprehended

> between these dharmas."

>

> Comment: This is the fullness or 'purnam' which Chittaranjanji was

> referring too. As Vishalji said, shunya and purnam are the same,

> like two sides of a coin, however contradictory that may seem. If

> there is no dualistic discrimination, then what remains is pure

> unlimited consciousness, like infinite space, which is none other

> than the Brahman of the Upanishads.

>

> (8) "Perfect wisdom is great, unlimited, measureless and infinite

> because form, feelings, etc., are so."

>

> Comment: This perfect wisdom or pure consciousness is not different

> from the Atman or the vast universe, once one is at the nondual

level

> of consciousness. How could it be, since all duality has been

> annihilated? There is only the unlimited reality which is Pure

> Consciousness, which includes all the illusory manifestations, now

> recognized as mere illusory manifestations.

>

> (9) "For it is the same as space, and exceedingly great..."

>

> Comment: As you see, I was not exaggerating in comparing Shunya to

> infinite space. The space analogy appears often in this work. It

> has all the overtones of the 'purnam' of the Self, since it is Pure

> Consciousness.

>

> (10) "The quarrels, contentions and contradictions of those who

> oppose my dharma will simply vanish away."

>

> Comment: True nondual sages CANNOT argue with each other. There is

> nothing to argue about in the realm of nonduality. Hence, insofar

as

> an Advaitin or Buddhist is sincerely nondual, there remains nothing

> in Pure Consciousness to argue about. The Yoga Vasistha says this

> too.

>

> It is essential to realize the fundamental spiritual affinity of

all

> nondual paths. Otherwise, these different paths are mere human

> creations. There must be a single enlightened nondual state to

> strive towards, otherwise it is only imagination and self-deception.

>

> Anyhow, some reputable scholars have suggested that the criticisms

of

> Vijnanavada and Shunya in Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bashya may have

> been inserted by later students. This may seem shocking to the

> pious, but it was common practice to add to revered texts and to

use

> another's name as one's own. This was not always malicious; the

> students in question may have felt sure in their hearts that they

> knew what they were talking about.

>

> Finally, there may indeed be some difference in the flavor of the

> different nondual schools *for the student*. At that level, he is

> still partly in the conventional world of discrimination and

> concepts, and the conceptual description of nondual consciousness

> (which must necessarily contain some error) may legitimately vary

> from school to school. But at the ultimate level, there is only

the

> realization, and I cannot believe that this varies arbitrarily from

> school to school. That would make it all a man-created concoction.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

February 28, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> the prayer to grant the

> ability to change things that can be changed, to accept those that

> cannot be changed and differentiate between the two has its origin

in

> their karmic scenario. However, I find that vEdantins do also lay

> great stress on this prayer and there are Christians who proudly

> proclaim that it is a purely Christian prayer. Will anyone be able

> to say when and where exactly did this lofty prayer first

crystallize?

>

Namaste,

This is the Serenity Prayer, attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr,

an Amerivan theologian. However, he attributed it to a German

theologian of the 18th century, Oettinger. Some have traced it to

Boethius, a 5th century Roman Philosopher. It has become famous since

its adoption by Alcoholics Anonymous.

More information from sites below:

http://www.skdesigns.com/internet/articles/prose/serenity_t.html

The Serenity Prayer

written by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)

Original, unabridged version

God, give us grace to accept with serenity

the things that cannot be changed,

courage to change the things

which should be changed,

and the wisdom to distinguish

the one from the other.

Living one day at a time,

Enjoying one moment at a time,

Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,

Taking, as Jesus did,

This sinful world as it is,

Not as I would have it,

Trusting that You will make all things right,

If I surrender to Your will,

So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,

And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)

==========================================================

http://www.aahistory.com/prayer.html

It is uncertain how old the Serenity Prayer is or who really wrote

it.

It may date as far back as Boethius, a philosopher (500 A.D.), who

wrote "Consolidation of Philosophy" during his time in prison, before

the Christians martyred him. Reinhold Niebuhr, often credited with

writing the Serenity Prayer, accredited Friedrich Oetinger, an 18th

century theologian. In 1947, Niebuhr read it in an obituary notice in

the New York Tribune. He liked it so much that he shared it with Bill

W. (of Alcoholics Anonymous). It seemed so fitting for AA that it has

ever since been associated with the group. "

Reinhold Niebuhr:

"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in a lifetime;

therefore we must be saved by hope.

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in

any

immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith.

Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.

Therefore we are saved by love."

Regards,

Sunder

February 28, 2004

Namaste Nairji, Ranjeetji, Chittaranjanji,

To Nairji:

Thank you, Nairji, for the compliment. All I ever wanted was a

receptive audience, not disciples! Your polite words help to fulfill

that need. You do not need to believe any of it. All I ask is that

you have faith in my sincerity, however misguided that might be.

All indoctrination is abhorrent. In fact, I have been reading lately

about how 'left-wing' professors in the USA try to indoctrinate their

students, sometimes making their grade depend on the student's

acquiescence, which is of course highly unethical. (Right-wing

professors are apparently an extinct species in our educational

system, or at least they are too afraid to speak up. I think

something similar happened in India, which is curious!)

If you think this doesn't affect you, then please realize that these

left-wing professors are highly predisposed to criticizing Brahmins

and Hinduism (if they think about India at all). And many of these

professors are Indian and even Hindu by birth! You can read more

about it at places like Rajeev Malhotra's Infinity Foundation

website, e.g.

http://tinyurl.com/3yegx

and many others. So any kind of proselytization is unacceptable.

But I do love to see a beautiful continuity in the vast

multi-thousand year old Indian spiritual experiment, which is

ultimately timeless insofar as it reflects the truth. Perhaps this

is my imagination, and of course it must not be exaggerated. So that

is why I simply provided some quotations from a scripture having some

considerable affinity to Advaita, in my opinion. You can read these

words yourself and see if they resonate with you in any way. Also,

you can decide the degree to which they resonate. I think that

having an open and receptive spirit can never harm one's spiritual

progress.

For orthodox Hindus, there are the shruti, in which they simply have

faith, and that is that. They piously study those scriptures, and

many of them indeed reach moksha, which proves the effectiveness of

those particular scriptures. But rational and skeptical people such

as myself need to look for patterns in human spiritual development;

that becomes a criterion of truth. The whole nondual approach

becomes much more convincing to me when I see it reflected throughout

the world, in many different traditions, not just Indian. For

example, it has appeared from time to time in Islam and Christianity.

Meister Eckhart is one famous Christian example. This recurring

pattern adds to its credibility, for a rational and inquisitive mind

such as mine. I have the feeling that we are getting to something

elemental involving not just the human mind but consciousness in

general.

Nairji, you are correct that the word 'shunya' has caused a lot of

confusion. Also it may not have been used by the Buddha, though

there are references to it in early Buddhism. It is inevitable that

in expressing the inevitable, the sages should have to use ordinary

words in unusual ways. I rather like the word, not because it

expresses nihilism, but because to me it connotes a sense of vast

pure space, as does nondual consciousness. The word 'purnam' also

has such a connotation, as does 'Brahman' itself (which comes from

the Sanskrit root for 'to swell'). Do you not agree that emptiness

and swelling share a similarity? The vastness of space is also the

emptiness of space, in which colorful maya dances like a cosmic

illusion, and that vastness is none other than Brahman, which the

sages of the Upanishads tried to express poetically. The word

'shunya' should be considered another kind of poetry, not to be taken

too literally.

Then you mention that some Buddhists claim that all started with the

Buddha. You are quite right to think that this is false. I have no

doubt that Buddha received inspiration from the Upanishads, either

directly or indirectly. Part of the problem is that the Buddha was

reacting against rituals and animal sacrifices, as were the sages of

the Upanishads. Another problem is that many modern Buddhists in

India are Ambedkarites, which gives them a hostile predisposition

towards so-called upper castes. Even from over here, I can tell that

religion and politics make an unholy mixture in India! I do not want

to get involved in that mess, but please remember that Buddhism

primarily flowered in Far Asia, where it influenced the lives of

billions. The Communist crushing of religion in China was a

calamity, but I see signs that China may be recovering. Would you

not prefer that it resume Buddhism rather than embrace one of the

more dogmatic religions? :-)

Do not worry about the sprawling nature of this discussion. I think

it is marvelous that people like Chittaranji can even bring Plato in

on it!

To Ranjeetji,

Ranjeetji, your approach is too scholarly (in the nit-picky sense)

and too literal. Salvation is to be found in the living spirit, not

in the dead letter! That is the first lesson of Hinduism, by the

way, which is why it allows so much creative confusion and produces

so many true saints and mystics. Just consider those quotations I

gave with an open mind. If they trigger a flash of spiritual insight

in you, then that is fine. If they don't, that is also fine. And

don't worry about all the disputes between various scholars in

different schools. The real mystics didn't argue, only their lesser

disciples who took their Ph.D.s too seriously! (There's always a lot

of ego invested in an honorary title.) But here is a great reference

by an authentic Hindu scholar on the underlying unity of the Advaita

tradition in Vedanta, Buddhism, and Kashmir Shaivism (which we never

talk about):

Chandradhar Sharma, 'The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy',

Motilal Barnasidass, 1996. Sharma was Professor of Philosophy at the

University of Jabalpur.

Then there is the great work of Surendra Dasgupta on Indian

Philosophy in 5 volumes, and also of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in 2

volumes. Dasgupta is quite sympathetic to my unifying view;

Radhakrishnan somewhat less so. For example, in this article

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/gup.htm

Dasgupta starts out with the provocative words, "The scheme of

Vedanta philosophy is surprisingly similar to the idealism of

Vasubandhu" (a Buddhist Vijnanavadin). So much for BSB II.2.28. I

could go on and on. As I said before, the Yoga Vasistha is permeated

with unmistakable idealism, as is much of Mahayana Buddhism, as well

as the works of Ramana, Nisargadatta, and all those distinguished

sages who are truly accomplished mystics rather than accomplished

scholars.

As for authors using another's name, I do not have the references

with me, but I can assure you that there are many reputable scholars

who are quite convinced that the Vivekachudamani was written

centuries after Shankara. This does NOT mean that it fails to

reflect the spirit of Advaita; indeed, I hope it does since I often

quote from it to back up my views (as I will below).

And as for my contention that Advaita is beyond dualistic

discrimination, beyond 'real' or 'not-real'... You say this went

above your head. Really? You should recognize these as classic

Advaitin words. I need not give references. Please see what our own

Sadaji has said.

To Chittaranjanji:

Chittaranji, this message is already too long. I am glad you have

such an open mind, e.g. your love of Plato. I had thrown him in the

trash can, perhaps for being too European. :-) Now, thanks to you, I

will take him out and give him another chance.

Now, you did say something about Buddhism, to which I should respond.

You say that the Vijnanavadins qualify consciousness as momentary,

whereas the Advaitins believe in the eternal unchanging witness, so

these views are incompatible. Also, the Buddhists (you say)

categorically deny a substratum whereas the Advaitins affirm it as

Brahman. Also you say that the Upanishads never say that the objects

and world are empty. Let me deal respond briefly.

The Advaitin above all want to transcend any dualistic consciousness,

any consciousness that sees differences, since Brahman the sole

reality is One. Hence, to realize Brahman requires transcending the

dualistic and discriminating mind. As Shankara says in the

Vivekachudamani:

"Beyond all delusion-created distinctions, this Whatever shines by

its own light, eternal, fulfilled, indivisible, infinite, formless,

inexpressible, nameless and indestructible." 238

"Seers know this supreme Reality, free from the distinctions of

knower, known and knowledge, infinite, complete in itself and

consisting of pure Awareness." 239

" 'Not this, not this' (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6) means that

nothing one can think of is real, like a rope mistaken for a snake,

or like a dream. Carefully getting rid of the apparent in this way,

one should then come to understand the oneness of the Lord and the

individual." 246

"Just as the things like places, time, objects and observer imagined

in a dream are unreal, so the world experienced in the waking state

too is created by one's own ignorance. Since the body-creating

forces, self-identification, and so on, are also unreal, you are that

still, unblemished, non-dual, supreme Reality of God. " 252

I could go on and on. These are nothing but echoes of the

Upanishads, e.g. the Katha when it says

"What is here, the same is there and what is there, the same is here.

He goes from death to death who sees any difference here."

and the Brihadaranyaka when it says

"As a lump of salt dropped into water becomes dissolved in water and

cannot be taken out again, but wherever we taste the water it tastes

salt, even so, my dear, this great, endless, infinite Reality is Pure

Consciousness alone."

Clearly the idea is that there is only Pure Consciousness, in which

there are no distinctions, and moksha consists in the realization of

this fundamental truth. We all agree that this is the essence of

Advaita.

So where do the 'distinctions' come from? From thought, from the

dualistic mind, without which these distinctions would never be

'superposed' on the undivided unity of consciousness. It is this

thinking mind which sees a world of objects distinct from the self,

distinct from the seer, distinct from consciousness, just like the

dream objects, which seem real and distinct from us and each other

while we are asleep, but are seen to be nothing but figments of

consciousness once we awaken. This is pure Advaita and Shankara.

Now how does that differ from what I quoted yesterday from the

Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra, perhaps the most famous scripture

of Mahayana? I will repeat some of the excerpts.

(A) "For not two different things are magical illusion and beings,

are dreams and beings. All objective facts also are like a magical

illusion, like a dream."

(B) "Does there exist, or can one apprehend, in this state of absence

of thought either a 'there is' or a 'there is not'?" (Answer: No.)

since in its essential original nature thought is transparently

luminous."

(D) "Thus the fact that all dharmas [things] are without own-being is

the same as the fact that they are uncreated."

(E) "Perfect wisdom is great, unlimited, measureless and infinite

because form, feelings, etc., are so."

(F) "For it is the same as space, and exceedingly great..."

I won't repeat all my comments. You can clearly see a similar

rejection of conceptual thought which discriminates objects and

posits their independent reality (B,C,D). These apparent objects are

called unreal (i.e. without own-being) and compared to dream objects

(A,D).

This unreality of the apparent objects is the same as the 'emptiness'

of the apparent objects, and it is also the same as the illusory

nature of maya. Emptiness is another expression of maya. Just as

maya deludes us into seeing a world of objects distinct from Brahman

or consciousness, so does the mind cause consciousness to appear to

fragment into objects each possessing its 'own-being' (which is

essentially the definition of matter). Hence, emptiness is nothing

but the affirmation of the sole reality of consciousness, for what is

left if apparent objects are reduced to emptiness? Their appearance

does not vanish into nothing but remains as an appearance, just as in

the dream. And what is a dream but consciousness in which the mind

is deluded into believing in the imaginary objects?

Perhaps the words 'Brahman' and 'consciousness' are not explicitly

used, but (E) and (F) sound just like the vision of Brahman in the

Upanishads. With the entire universe emptied of any reality

independent of consciousness, then all of space is reduced to

consciousness or Brahman (F). This consciousness which is all

reality is unlimited and not different from the illusory phenomena

which dance in it, such as form and feeling (E), just as there is

nothing that is not Brahman, when viewed from the level of the

realized sage.

You say that the Upanishads never say that objects are empty. On the

contrary, I assert that sage Yajnavalkya DOES assert this in

different words. Remember that emptiness means nondual

consciousness, which does not discriminate subject and object, which

does not see objects as existing independently of consciousness.

Indeed, this lack of independent existence is the very 'emptiness' of

the objects. Now compare these famous words of Yajnavalkya from

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which express the very essence of nondual

realization:

"For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one

sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of

another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self,

then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and

through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one

speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what

should one know and through what? Through what should One know That

owing to which all this is known-through what, my dear, should one

know the Knower?"

You say that shunya and purna have different connotations; I answered

that above. You also bring up Shankara's objections to certain forms

of Buddhism with which he was familiar. I too do not wish to reduce

consciousness to momentary flashes, as this would be nothing but

another superposition of discriminating thought upon the undivided

purity of consciousness. Shankara did not have access to all of

Buddhist thought but only to some narrow and distorted

representations of it. Also, I do not accept that he was incapable

of error in his interpretation of what he heard. At any rate, I care

only for what I read in the great inspired scriptures such as the

Prajnaparamita or the Lankavatara, not what later commentators may

have said. Speaking of the Lankavatara, I will finish with another

excerpt which is once again redolent with nondual, nondiscriminating

consciousness:

"All that is seen in the world is devoid of effort and action because

all things in the world are like a dream, or like an image

miraculously projected. This is not comprehended by the philosophers

and the ignorant, but those who thus see things see them truthfully.

Those who see things otherwise walk in discrimination and, as they

depend upon discrimination, they cling to dualism. The world as seen

by discrimination is like seeing one's own image reflected in a

mirror, or one's shadow, or the moon reflected in water, or an echo

heard in a valley. People grasping their own shadows of

discrimination become attached to this thing and that thing and

failing to abandon dualism they go on forever discriminating and thus

never attain tranquility. By tranquility is meant Oneness, and

Oneness gives birth to the highest Samadhi which is gained by

entering into the realm of Noble Wisdom that is realizable only

within one's inmost consciousness."

Enough said. Think what you wish. It is a fascinating subject.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

February 28, 2004

Namaste Benji.

Your post 21139.

Your ability to draw up so much from so many different sources and

write at length is awesome.

There definitely is meeting ground between Sankara's advaita and

Buddha. Perhaps, it is time history made another non-dual thrust

forward encompassing the two, which in essence are never twain. What

we need for that thrust to materialize is a preceptor of the stature

of Sankara or Buddha and, if it does materialize, it will sure carry

on its wings many a present-day advaitin and buddhist.

Perhaps, the salvation of the Indian subcontinent and surrounding

areas and non-dualists all over the world lies in such a meeting of

hearts. Is this pure wishful thinking? Can't be. During my week-

long sojourn of Buddhist Sri Lanka in June last, my guide and me were

talking philosophy almost all the time. Our mutual sincerity and

empathy bowled me over so much so that at the end of the trip we

embraced each other and wept in sheer abandon. Believe me, I had gone

there anticipating hostility for the Indian involvement in Sri

Lanka! So, there are an immense lot of people whose hearts are in

the right place! Let us therefore forget our heads and hope for what

now most would think impossible.

Regarding pUrna, I would, for the time being, like to reserve my

comments. April will give us a better opportunity with the

pUrnamada... verse.

Thanks and praNAms.

Madathil Nair

February 28, 2004

Namaste Benjaminji,

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Nairji, Ranjeetji, Chittaranjanji,

>

> To Nairji:

> Thank you, Nairji, for the compliment. All I ever wanted was a

> receptive audience, not disciples!

Let me assure you that you have a receptive audience for your

fascinating posts.

Before I proceed further, I want to clarify that I am here not

intending to dispute the things you've said in your message, but

would rather take a different approach and try to convey something

which I believe is important in the understanding of Advaita Vedanta.

To begin with, I believe you and I have something in common between

us. I feel a resonance with your words, and at the same time I have

this intense urge to protest at what you are saying. First, let me

explain the resonance. I have walked the same road that you have and

I've breathed the same breath. I have had that same understanding in

which Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta coalesce into a unified

stream, and for many years I thought that Shankara was being rather

pedantic in refuting the Buddhists. But that view has changed over

the years. It would be a long and arduous task to explain it all, but

there is one thing I would like to say here: Advaita is not Idealism.

Idealism is one of the paths of Advaita Vedanta. So, in this respect,

you are right in comparing Buddhism with Advaita; but I think you are

wrong in restricting Advaita to the path of via-negativa alone.

Ajativada and vivartavada can be explained in two ways:

(1) That there is no creation because all this universe is

illusion, vacuity, emptiness, and hence creation is itself an

illusion,

and

(2) That there is no creation because all these things are real

and unchanging and eternal, hence creation and destruction is the

illusion of change of unchanging things.

We need to keep both in mind when we speak about Advaita. The second

vision is the one that enfolds also the path of Bhakti to a Personal

God in a truly logical manner.

When I say the world is real, I don't of course mean that the world

is of a nature that cannot be reached, or be inconceivable, by Self.

If I must speak in a manner that grammar, which is commensurate with

the structure of the world, would allow me to rightly speak, then I

cannot say it otherwise, i.e., I cannot say that the object is

nothing but consciousness. Shankara accused the Buddhists of not

having learnt grammar properly.

You mention something about the Hindu abiding in his faith in the

Vedas and Agamas. This is true, but it might also be somewhat

misleading. If you read the translations of the fragments of

surviving Hindu empiricism (Charvaka), they are as extreme and

radically sceptical as the scepticism of David Hume. The Charvakas

were philosophers too in a "Hindu Pyrrhonian" tradition. Again, the

philosophy of Nyaya is completely rational – it does not really

derive anything in its epistemology or metaphysics from a faith in

the Vedas. Yet, in the Vedic tradition, Nyaya is an arm of the Vedas –

it is the kshatriya guarding the citadels of the Vedic fort. The

Vedic tradition, it seems, is rather complex.

I believe that this faith in the Agamas has been eroded in modern

Hinduism. In my own case, I did not come to Advaita from a pious

faith. Piety and faith were as far away from my soulless existence as

the extremest form of materialism and scientific culture would have

it be. It might surprise some people here -- considering my "bigoted"

views on the unquestionability of the Vedas and Vedic animal-

sacrifice -- that it was rationality that brought me to Advaita. It

was the culmination of a disillusionment with the schools of our

learning combined with a dilettantish exploration into relativity

theory, quantum physics and cognitive science that took me into an

intense phase of ratiocination – and soon this reasoning was rapidly

spiralling into the vortex of consciousness. I feel that in some

respects your introduction to non-duality is similar to mine, but of

that I cannot be sure.

If I disagree with you, it is not to create a holy war, but it is due

to the spirit of exactitude that Advaita as a philosophy endeavoured

to adhere to.

With regards,

Chittaranjan

February 29, 2004

(2) That there is no creation because all these things are real

and unchanging and eternal, hence creation and destruction is the

illusion of change of unchanging things.

praNAm Naik prabhuji

Hare krishna

Kindly pardon me for the intrusion....I am not able to get your above

observation properly. Which is the source text of advaita you are holding

to establish eternal reality of things parallel to brahman prabhuji?? or

else you mean to say through vivarta parabrahman himself existing as

objects which are real & eternal?? Frankly speaking, this is the first

time I am seeing the alternative meaning of ajAta vAda. When shruti says

AtmavA idamagra asit it does not imply that there is one more reality of

eternally existing things!! as we know, shruti categorically denies the

eternal reality of names & forms of the object by saying vAchArambhaNam

vikAro ....mruttikEva satyam etc. Ofcourse, shankara do agree that braman

becomes an object but it is within the purview of empirical thought &

expression dealing with transformation etc. in its special aspect of name &

forms. So, empirically speaking, mAyA is the causal potentiality of the

world which in turn projected by avidyA or we can say superimposition.

This, I think acceptable to shankara saMpradAya. In my humble opinion,

it is not possible to accept the eternal reality of objects apart from

parabraman in pAramArthika satya also (in transcedental reality). I'm

humbly requesting you & other scholars in advaita to clarify my doubt.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 29, 2004

Namaste Bhaskarji,

It causes me acute embarassment and makes me want to run away when

you address me as prabhuji. If you don't mind, Sir, I would request

you to drop this appellation.

What I wrote is what I understand of Shankara's Advaita and I have

not come across any other coherent interpretation that would compel

me to change my mind so far. It could be that I am mistaken, but

until my intellect and heart speaks to me about it, I am continuing

with this interpretation.

I am aware that if I begin to reply to your post, it would start a

new thread which would most probably preempt the discussion that has

been reserved for later this year under the topic of "Real and

Unreal". I would entreat you to wait until then because of the nature

of this topic. Meanwhile I will clarify a few things to indicate the

direction in which I see the answers, but if these clarifications

lead to more questions, I think it would be best to agree to keep

them pending for now.

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> (2) That there is no creation because all these things are real

> and unchanging and eternal, hence creation and destruction is the

> illusion of change of unchanging things.

>

> praNAm Naik prabhuji

> Hare krishna

>

> Kindly pardon me for the intrusion....I am not able to get

> your above observation properly. Which is the source text of

> advaita you are holding to establish eternal reality of

> things parallel to brahman prabhuji??

None. There are no Advaita texts that hold an eternal reality in

parallel to Brahman. I am not saying that there is a parallel eternal

reality.

The source texts of Advaita from which I understand that the world is

the eternal reality are the commentaries of Sri Shankaracharya on the

Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads.

> or else you mean to say through vivarta parabrahman himself

> existing as objects which are real & eternal??

Yes.

> Frankly speaking, this is the first time I am seeing the

> alternative meaning of ajAta vAda.

Adi Shankara says it himself in the commentaries of Brahadaranyaka

Upanishad as also in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Both the cause and the

effect are eternal. And this is not said merely in the context of

vyavaharika sathya, but in the context of Brahman that is

undifferentiated before creation and the objects that are

differentiated in Brahman. The differentiation is anirvaniya.

> When shruti says AtmavA idamagra asit it does not imply that

> there is one more reality of eternally existing things!!

It is true that there does not exist one more reality of eternally

existing things. The world is not one more reality. The world is like

the statue in the block of granite when undifferentiated, and is the

statue revealed when "created". This is explained in the discussion

about obstruction in Adi Shankara's bhashyas.

> as we know, shruti categorically denies the eternal reality

> of names & forms of the object by saying vAchArambhaNam

> vikAro ....mruttikEva satyam etc.

I believe you have said something incorrect here. The word is

eternal, so how can the name not be eternal? See Adi Shankara's

debate with Nyaya for a confirmation that the word is uncreated and

eternal.

It is not name and form that is denied, but the limitation of name

and form as belonging only to the realm of sense that is denied. This

is the crossroad where stands the door of revelation to the true

meaning of existence.

> Ofcourse, shankara do agree that braman becomes an object but

> it is within the purview of empirical thought & expression

> dealing with transformation etc. in its special aspect of name &

> forms.

Yes, but that special aspect of the union of name and form is

eternal.

> So, empirically speaking, mAyA is the causal potentiality of

> the world which in turn projected by avidyA or we can say

> superimposition. This, I think acceptable to shankara saMpradAya.

I don't know about others' acceptance, but it is not acceptable to

Shankara. The efficient cause is Brahman alone, and none other.

Brahman creates the Universe through His own Maya. The world is not

projected by avidya; avidya can neither project nor do anything, it

is unreal and only masks the world with confusion. Avidya

necessitates the notion of superimposition.

Superimposition is not what the world is; it is a certain peculiarity

of how the world appears divorced and skewered through avidya. The

world under avidya conceals its substratum, and this world as it is

seen under avidya, seemingly divested of its true substratum, is not

seen as subsisting in Brahman but is seen as independent, and this

world seen as such (separated) is the cause of the theory of

superimposition. Superimposition can only arise in duality, and the

duality of the superimposed-world and Brahman-on-which-superimposed

is false. When the superimposition is removed, the world doesn't go

away, but the superimposition goes away together with the

itselfnesses of objects and then they are not itselfnesses, but One

It-Self or Brahman. Then it becomes Vishishtadaita. But this world is

all like that statue, and when it is seen like that, it becomes

Advaita. Anirvaniya stands between Vishishtadvaita and Advaita. That

anirvaniya is swantantriya and Yogamaya for Brahman, and maya with

the obscurations of avidya for us. This is my humble opinion.

> In my humble opinion, it is not possible to accept the eternal

> reality of objects apart from parabraman in pAramArthika satya also

(in transcedental reality).

You are right.

> I'm humbly requesting you & other scholars in advaita to

> clarify my doubt.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

I am not a scholar Bhaskarji. I try to say what I sincerely believe

so that I may be corrected if need be and learn on my way.

With regards,

Chittaranjan

February 29, 2004

Namaste Bhaskarji,

praNAm Naik prabhuji

CN prabhuji:

It causes me acute embarassment and makes me want to run away when

you address me as prabhuji. If you don't mind, Sir, I would request

you to drop this appellation.

bhaskar:

Sorry to find you in an embarassing situation. We, at ISKCON, used to call

our co-aspirant's names by suffixing *prabhuji*. Our erstwhile guruji at

ISKCON used to say, so that we could always remember the *prabhu* the

indweller of all of us all the time. So, pls. be clear that *prabhuji* is

not a qualified designation, it is ultimately addressing our own swarUpa

:-))

CN prabhuji:

What I wrote is what I understand of Shankara's Advaita and I have

not come across any other coherent interpretation that would compel

me to change my mind so far. It could be that I am mistaken, but

until my intellect and heart speaks to me about it, I am continuing

with this interpretation.

bhaskar:

thats very good prabhuji. Please note I am also a late starter in this

direction . So there is every possibility that I might have mistaken

shankara's words. Kindly feel free to correct me prabhuji, I too open for

corrections.

CN prabhuji:

I am aware that if I begin to reply to your post, it would start a

new thread which would most probably preempt the discussion that has

been reserved for later this year under the topic of "Real and

Unreal". I would entreat you to wait until then because of the nature

of this topic. Meanwhile I will clarify a few things to indicate the

direction in which I see the answers, but if these clarifications

lead to more questions, I think it would be best to agree to keep

them pending for now.

bhaskar :

Yes, I agree with you, I donot want to digress the ongoing topic i.e.

shUnyavAda Vs advaita. But I thought, after reading your mail, I should

share with you whatever flashed in my mind. Kindly pardon me prabhuji for

my extempore assertions. I shall stop here my reply prabhuji by reserving

my comments to the rest of your mail.

While on the subject, I humbly request you, if possible, to quote the exact

references from sUtra & brhadAraNyaka bhAshya of shankara where exactly he

declares that cause & effect are eternally real. As far as my limited

knowledge goes, shankara clearly states that in reality there is nothing

which may be called as effect. Again quoting the vAchArambhaNa vikAro

nAmadhEyam from chAndOgya & TaitirIya araNyaka which says he is born in

diverse ways, while he is really never born etc. Again, as said above, I

may be wrong in my interpretation. Hence, I humbly request you to correct

me prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS: If you have ready references from the shankara bhAshya as regards to

your observations, you can directly e-mail to me prabhuji. If time

permits, we can discuss it off the list.

February 29, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar prabhuji,

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> praNAm Naik prabhuji

> While on the subject, I humbly request you, if possible, to

> quote the exact references from sUtra & brhadAraNyaka bhAshya

> of shankara where exactly he declares that cause & effect

> are eternally real. As far as my limited knowledge goes,

> shankara clearly states that in reality there is nothing

> which may be called as effect.

Brahma Sutra Bhasya Chapter I, Section IV, Topic 8 on "Brahman as

Material Cause". Those who know how to read this correctly do not

understand that the cause is real and the effect is unreal. But for

an unambiguous explanation see Shankara's commentary on Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad, Chapter I, Section II. There is no abiguity whatsoever in

the explanations provided here by Shankara that both the cause and

the effect are real.

One needs to interpret Shankara's Advaita by maintaining a coherence

with the following assertions in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya:

1. That Brahman is the Material Cause

2. That Brahman is the Efficient Cause

3. That creation belongs to Ishwara alone and not to a jiva

4. That the world is not sublated when one jiva gets mukti

It is true that there is mayavada in Shankara, but the entire

mayavada of superimposition arises only for the world as seen in

avidya or in the vyavaharika sathya-mithya provisionally called

vyavaharika sathya. The matrix of sathya-mithya is not the truth of

Advaita, it is the appearance of sathya-mithya that characterises the

jiva to whom the prescriptive message of Advaita is directed at as a

means of grasping the substance instead of grasping what the senses

are always running after. Even in ordinary experience, one cannot

grasp what a thing is by grasping the conglomerate of attributes, but

once the substance is grasped everything about the thing is grasped.

ISKCON ignores the context of mayavada in Advaita when it criticises

Advaita.

> Again quoting the vAchArambhaNa vikAro nAmadhEyam from chAndOgya

> & TaitirIya araNyaka which says he is born in diverse ways,

> while he is really never born etc.

That is correct. The birth and death of the Unborn and Unchanging is

the anirvacaniya of Time. The Lord's Vikshepa Shakti doesn't create

things out of nothing; it only presents the undifferentiated in

Brahman by differentiating it and presenting it in the world of

senses.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

With regards,

Chittaranjan

February 29, 2004

Namaste Benjaminji,

Benjaminji:

" Ranjeetji, your approach is too scholarly (in the nit-picky sense)

and too literal. Salvation is to be found in the living spirit, not

in the dead letter! "

Neither is it found in verbal gymnastics.

Benjaminji, if I am taking things in a very literal sense, then you are merely

rushing through the scriptures. A superficial reading will only bring out wrong

notions. Try eating the cake instead of just licking it at the surface. Your

case is no way different from the scholars who called SankarAchArya a

'prachchanna budha'. Advaita and Buddhism (whatever branch) are totally

different.

[.....]

Benjaminji:

" And as for my contention that Advaita is beyond dualistic

discrimination, beyond 'real' or 'not-real'... You say this went

above your head. Really? You should recognize these as classic

Advaitin words. I need not give references. Please see what our own

Sadaji has said. "

I do recognize these words. Please check your original message. You had tied up

'mAya' with these words and came out with some logic series of logic.

The lack of independent existence which backs up the 'Emptiness' theory is alien

to advaita tradition. Even in the Buddhist tradition, this inter-dependence is

also used in the very same manner to prove the momentary nature of the Subject

itself. I havent gone through any of the Buddhist scriptures deeply. I would

appreciate if you could provide some Buddhist links wherein the notions of

Ignorance, Knowledge, liberation are explained. As you know, these are crucial

in advaita as I understand it. Or is it that you believe only the liberation

part of it is same, and not the various methods in both the traditions?

Benjaminji, going on with this discussion is futile. I appreciate your sincere

efforts to equate advaita with shUnya-vAda or Idealism. Like Nairji mentioned,

there is peace in thinking that way. But it is far from the Truth. You can be

assured that everytime you bring up this issue, I will be here to counter it for

whatever it is worth :-)

Hari Om

February 29, 2004

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

CN prabhuji:

Brahma Sutra Bhasya Chapter I, Section IV, Topic 8 on "Brahman as

Material Cause". Those who know how to read this correctly do not

understand that the cause is real and the effect is unreal. But for

an unambiguous explanation see Shankara's commentary on Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad, Chapter I, Section II. There is no abiguity whatsoever in

the explanations provided here by Shankara that both the cause and

the effect are real.

bhaskar:

Thanks for the kind references prabhuji. Would it be possible for you to

quote the exact sUtra & original sanskrit text of the Br. Up. So that I

can also look into it in my books...as you know, printed versions of these

scriptures have different numbering system.

CN prabhuji:

1. That Brahman is the Material Cause

2. That Brahman is the Efficient Cause

3. That creation belongs to Ishwara alone and not to a jiva

4. That the world is not sublated when one jiva gets mukti

bhaskar:

I am not denying the above. But my problem is in understanding of

*eternality* of nAma rUpAtmaka jagat in the pAramArthika satya. This

discussion just reminds me one kArika from goudapAdAchArya,which clearly

says all these names & forms are just for the purpose of leading the mind

to the truth (*upAya* *nAsti bhEdaH* are the exact sanskrit words used by

goudapAdAchArya) but in reality there is no diversity on any account.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS: Sri Sunder prabhuji. is it OK, this thread heading towards a different

track now!!

February 29, 2004

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> >

> PS: Sri Sunder prabhuji. is it OK, this thread heading towards a

different

> track now!!

Namaste,

Thanks for asking! I do not wish to control the flow of

discussion. However, as a courtesy to the Leader of the Monthly Topic

discussion, it would be best to tie the other threads to the main

topic. Otherwise it may be hard to find leaders in the future to

invest their time. As both yourself and Chittaranjanji are scheduled

for different topics later this year, you may want to carry on this

thread off-list, and we can post them later on. Other suggestions are

welcome!

Regards,

Sunder

February 29, 2004

Namaste Sri Sunder,

> Thanks for asking! I do not wish to control the flow of

> discussion. However, as a courtesy to the Leader of the Monthly

Topic

> discussion, it would be best to tie the other threads to the main

> topic. Otherwise it may be hard to find leaders in the future to

> invest their time. As both yourself and Chittaranjanji are

scheduled

> for different topics later this year, you may want to carry on

this

> thread off-list, and we can post them later on. Other suggestions

are

> welcome!

>

My 2 cents,

I wish these discussions carry on in the list - may be called

reality of namarUpa jagat or something to the effect. In my opinion,

this is a very crucial topic that everyone can benefit from. When we

spent a few weeks and a few dozen messages discussing when

Vaishnavism and Saivism began (and many times we have already

discussed advaita and sUnya), there is nothing wrong in discussing

the real essense of Advaita, though it is slightly off from topic of

the month. Posting debates after the fact don't seem to evoke the

same interest in me.

Again, this is just my opinion.

Thanks,

Savithri

February 29, 2004

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar prabhuji,

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> > praNAm Naik prabhuji

>

> > While on the subject, I humbly request you, if possible, to

> > quote the exact references from sUtra & brhadAraNyaka bhAshya

> > of shankara where exactly he declares that cause & effect

> > are eternally real. As far as my limited knowledge goes,

> > shankara clearly states that in reality there is nothing

> > which may be called as effect.

>

> Brahma Sutra Bhasya Chapter I, Section IV, Topic 8 on "Brahman as

> Material Cause". Those who know how to read this correctly do not

> understand that the cause is real and the effect is unreal. But

for

> an unambiguous explanation see Shankara's commentary on

Brhadaranyaka

> Upanishad, Chapter I, Section II. There is no abiguity whatsoever

in

> the explanations provided here by Shankara that both the cause and

> the effect are real.

>

> One needs to interpret Shankara's Advaita by maintaining a

coherence

> with the following assertions in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya:

>

> 1. That Brahman is the Material Cause

>

> 2. That Brahman is the Efficient Cause

>

> 3. That creation belongs to Ishwara alone and not to a jiva

>

> 4. That the world is not sublated when one jiva gets mukti

>

>> Chittaranjan

Namaste Chittaranjanji and all,

That the effect is non-different from the cause is advaita. But

that the effect is as real as the cause is not advaita. The effect

has a lesser reality than the cause. The movie and the screen. The

snake and the rope. Here I am meaning 'substratum' for 'cause'.

Like the spider spinning out the threads out of its mounth, weaving

a web and ultimately withdrawing them into itself, Ishwara (the

saguna brahman) creates the world out of Himself, abides IN it and

abides AS it and withdraws it finally into Himself. As the creator,

He is transcending it and as constituting it as its essence, He is

immanent in it. He is in the world and as the world. This is the

theological aspect of causation from the point of view of the saguna

brahman. Philosophically speaking there is no causation.

According to advaita there is no Creator in the ultimate sense. The

Supreme brahman being actionless cannot be said to create. The

universe is an appearance of brahman and not a creation. It is only

vivarta of brahman appearing through avidyA. As such the universe

has no existence or reality apart from brahaman. This does not mean

that both brahman and the world are equally real. The world is real

not as the world but as brahman.

So It is difficult to agree with you, Chittaranjanji, when you

say: "Both the cause and the effect are real". There is a shade of

difference in their 'reality'.

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

February 29, 2004

Namaste Professorji,

Sir, I must apologise that I will not be able to continue this

discussion as I will be away for the next two days. Also, I am

unprepared at the moment for this rather involved topic, but I'll try

to provide replies as best as possible.

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji and all,

> That the effect is non-different from the cause is advaita.

True.

> But that the effect is as real as the cause is not advaita.

But that would be a contradiction if the effect is non-different from

the cause.

> The effect has a lesser reality than the cause.

Sir, either it is real or it is not real, it can't have a lesser

reality.

> The movie and the screen. The snake and the rope. Here I am

> meaning 'substratum' for 'cause'.

The movie and the screen, the snake and the rope, are all real in the

light of paramarthika sathya.

> Like the spider spinning out the threads out of its mounth, weaving

> a web and ultimately withdrawing them into itself, Ishwara (the

> saguna brahman) creates the world out of Himself, abides IN it and

> abides AS it and withdraws it finally into Himself.

If He abides AS it, then it is real. When Brahman creates out of

Himself, there is really no "out of" Brahman, the term "out of" being

used only metaphorically. The spider, the thread, the mouth, the

weave are all Brahman. The spinning out, the weaving and the

withdrawing is His Maya which is Himself again.

> As the creator, He is transcending it and as constituting it as its

essence, He is immanent in it.

Yes, that is Brahman, the substratum. Transcending does not mean the

world is separate from Brahman. There is nothing else from Brahman

that Brahman can transcend from.

> He is in the world and as the world.

He is AS THE WORLD. That is what I mean.

> This is the theological aspect of causation from the point of view

> of the saguna brahman.

Sir, Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are the same just as the new

moon and the full moon are the same. It is merely what is seen of

Brahman that is different, not Brahman Himself.

> Philosophically speaking there is no causation.

Because the cause and the effect are both eternal, there is no

causation in the sense of "creating" anything.

> According to advaita there is no Creator in the ultimate sense.

Yes Sir, I agree because everything is eternal.

> The Supreme brahman being actionless cannot be said to create.

The Supreme Brahman is actionless even when "creating". This is the

sign of true omnipotence that He does not even have to put in the

effort of acting to create. In other words, He is so powerful that He

acts by His mere presence.

> The universe is an appearance of brahman and not a creation.

We need to analyse the word "appearance" here. The world is an

appearance because what is in Brahman appears, or shows forth, to the

senses. We have to read appearance as the appearance that a person

makes on the stage. The person is not unreal, he has merely appeared.

Likewise, the world which is Brahman itself appears by the

differentiating power of Maya. Vikshepa Shakti is not false, it does

not create anything new, it is the power to show forth what is in

Brahman. What we see every moment is Brahman. That it is not known is

avidya. When it becomes known, it is the opening of the third eye.

> It is only vivarta of brahman appearing through avidyA.

Vivarta is the unchanging nature of things. There is no creation, no

destruction because everything is eternal, everything is Brahman.

Time drapes the magic of the change over eternal things to perplex

us, and it makes it appear that things change when in reality things

are eternal. That inexplicability is anirvanaiya. The confusion that

things change is the result of avidya, of attributing ephemerality to

things when it is the attribute of Time.

> As such the universe has no existence or reality apart from

> brahaman.

The universe is Brahman, it can never be apart from Brahman.

> This does not mean that both brahman and the world are

> equally real. The world is real not as the world but as brahman.

Sir, the world in its para state is Brahman. It merely appears or

shows forth through the projection of Maya. The same Brahman is

called Nirguna when the world is para, and Saguna when He is showing

forth the world. Creation does not mean separation from Brahman, but

the showing forth of what is in Brahman as creation. The power by

which it shows forth is the Vikshepa Shakti of Brahman.

> So It is difficult to agree with you, Chittaranjanji, when you

> say: "Both the cause and the effect are real". There is a shade of

> difference in their 'reality'.

Sir, but there cannot be shades of reality. It is either real or

unreal.

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

With regards,

Chittaranjan

February 29, 2004

Namaste Benjaminji

very well said.

You have exactly taken the words from my mouth :-))

Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

>>>