Advaita and the -isms

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The preamble to the BSB is a vital segment to be considered while

interpreting the prastAna-traya of AchArya. Whenever we find any fault or

contradictory statements in His bhAshyam-s, we have to remember what the

AchArya has taught us in the preamble. If the entire Vedanta is a jig-saw

puzzle, then the preamble gives the clue to the final picture.

 

Brahman is changeless, homogenous and One without a second. How then did

this world of plurality come about? The absence of Knowledge of the Self

about its own true nature give rise to the wrong Knowledge. This wrong

knowledge is what we see in this empirical world as name and form

(nAma-rUpa). The notion that I am a seeker of Truth, studying the Veda-s,

longing for the metaphysical Knowledge to rise in me, is all out of

ignorance. Even the text called the Veda-s is in the realm of Ignorance.

Since Brahman is homogenous in nature, the plurality which we experience in

this world is out of sheer Ignorance. The fact that we are considering

ourselves to a Subject experiencing the Objects is also out of Ignorance.

When the preamble says 'all Worldly and Vedic behaviour', it essentially

imples this subject-object relationship in this empirical world. So what we

see and experience in this world is not the Self. It is an illusion over the

real nature of the Self. This is where advaita differs from the Realists.

The realists take the world 'as such' to be real. In advaita, the world in

its true nature is Real. But the name and form which is evident to other

means of knowledge such as perception, is Unreal. The material cause on

which this play of name and form takes place is the True Self. So in

advaita, the material cause of this world is the Self, which is Real in

nature. This is the limit to which realism is advocated in advaita.

 

Now if advaita is not with the realists, is it with the idealists? No.

To the idealist, there is no such thing as 'gross' in this world. Everything

that we perceive exist only in our mind. Here, advaita differs from

Idealism. Advaita doesnt hold the view that everything is a result of

modification of the mind. Advaita doesnt say that the World is Unreal

(Chittaranjanji, please note). What advaita says is that there should be

'something' in front of me for the illusion to take place. The modification

of the mind doesnt come out of nowhere. The impressions on the mind doesnt

come out nowhere. The presence of the rope is mandatory for the

snake-illusion to arise. The presence of the shell is mandatory for the

silver-illusion to arise. The presense of Brahman in front of me is

mandatory for the computer-screen-illusion to arise. Brahman with an

illusionary appearance of a 'chair' is mandatory for me to sit on it.

The problem with some proponents of advaita is that they fail to recognize

the importance of Ignorance in the system. After admitting ignorance and the

resulting notions of subject and object, they tirelessly defend the

idealistic view in advaita in vain. Once the empirical experience has been

accepted, we should not leap to 'subject=object' conclusions in one leap.

That indeed is a big leap, which will end up in absurdities.

 

If we read the much debated BSB sUtra in this light, there wont be any

ambiguities. There is a pillar in front of you and you are perceiving it. It

is a perfect logic and it doesnt contradict advaita. It is not that AchArya

failed to understand the Buddhists, like our dear friend Benjaminji

concludes. AchArya knew what He was talking all along. If anyone concludes

otherwise, it is their wrong understanding of advaita, not AchArya's. There

is nothing in that sUtra that contradicts advaita. Also, AchArya didnt write

any single word in his commentary that contradicts the true teaching of the

Veda-s.

 

Reading all this should not lead one to the erroneous conclusion that

Ignorance is the cause of this world.

 

The material cause of the world is Brahman.

The efficient cause is also Brahman in its nature as unknown.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji,

 

One point I would like to make in respect of your excellent essay is

that I don't hold nama-roopa to be necessarily unreal. There is a

sense in which it is unreal and a sense in which it is real, and its

true status can only be determined through the resolution of the

meanings of samanya and vishesha. In Advaita, names (or words) point

only to universals, and in this light, what the name points to is the

real because the universal is the para state of objects wherein they

abide in identity with Brahman. One can't conceive of the universal

because such an effort tends to particularise the universal, which is

a contradiction in terms. (One may note that in nyaya the universal

remains indeterminate.) The vishesha in itself, seen "divested" of

the samanya, is unreal. It is my firm conviction that there is more

of the mystical in Advaita than is evident at the surface.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> The preamble to the BSB is a vital segment to be considered while

> interpreting the prastAna-traya of AchArya. Whenever we find any

fault or

> contradictory statements in His bhAshyam-s, we have to remember

what the

> AchArya has taught us in the preamble. If the entire Vedanta is a

jig-saw

> puzzle, then the preamble gives the clue to the final picture.

>

> Brahman is changeless, homogenous and One without a second. How

then did

> this world of plurality come about? The absence of Knowledge of the

Self

> about its own true nature give rise to the wrong Knowledge. This

wrong

> knowledge is what we see in this empirical world as name and form

> (nAma-rUpa). The notion that I am a seeker of Truth, studying the

Veda-s,

> longing for the metaphysical Knowledge to rise in me, is all out of

> ignorance. Even the text called the Veda-s is in the realm of

Ignorance.

> Since Brahman is homogenous in nature, the plurality which we

experience in

> this world is out of sheer Ignorance. The fact that we are

considering

> ourselves to a Subject experiencing the Objects is also out of

Ignorance.

> When the preamble says 'all Worldly and Vedic behaviour', it

essentially

> imples this subject-object relationship in this empirical world. So

what we

> see and experience in this world is not the Self. It is an illusion

over the

> real nature of the Self. This is where advaita differs from the

Realists.

> The realists take the world 'as such' to be real. In advaita, the

world in

> its true nature is Real. But the name and form which is evident to

other

> means of knowledge such as perception, is Unreal. The material

cause on

> which this play of name and form takes place is the True Self. So in

> advaita, the material cause of this world is the Self, which is

Real in

> nature. This is the limit to which realism is advocated in advaita.

>

> Now if advaita is not with the realists, is it with the idealists?

No.

> To the idealist, there is no such thing as 'gross' in this world.

Everything

> that we perceive exist only in our mind. Here, advaita differs from

> Idealism. Advaita doesnt hold the view that everything is a result

of

> modification of the mind. Advaita doesnt say that the World is

Unreal

> (Chittaranjanji, please note). What advaita says is that there

should be

> 'something' in front of me for the illusion to take place. The

modification

> of the mind doesnt come out of nowhere. The impressions on the mind

doesnt

> come out nowhere. The presence of the rope is mandatory for the

> snake-illusion to arise. The presence of the shell is mandatory for

the

> silver-illusion to arise. The presense of Brahman in front of me is

> mandatory for the computer-screen-illusion to arise. Brahman with an

> illusionary appearance of a 'chair' is mandatory for me to sit on

it.

> The problem with some proponents of advaita is that they fail to

recognize

> the importance of Ignorance in the system. After admitting

ignorance and the

> resulting notions of subject and object, they tirelessly defend the

> idealistic view in advaita in vain. Once the empirical experience

has been

> accepted, we should not leap to 'subject=object' conclusions in one

leap.

> That indeed is a big leap, which will end up in absurdities.

>

> If we read the much debated BSB sUtra in this light, there wont be

any

> ambiguities. There is a pillar in front of you and you are

perceiving it. It

> is a perfect logic and it doesnt contradict advaita. It is not that

AchArya

> failed to understand the Buddhists, like our dear friend Benjaminji

> concludes. AchArya knew what He was talking all along. If anyone

concludes

> otherwise, it is their wrong understanding of advaita, not

AchArya's. There

> is nothing in that sUtra that contradicts advaita. Also, AchArya

didnt write

> any single word in his commentary that contradicts the true

teaching of the

> Veda-s.

>

> Reading all this should not lead one to the erroneous conclusion

that

> Ignorance is the cause of this world.

>

> The material cause of the world is Brahman.

> The efficient cause is also Brahman in its nature as unknown.

>

> Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ranjeet:

 

You have provided an excellent essay on the differences between

Advaita and other 'isms.' The fundamental problem that I see is that

we try hard to verbalize the unknown 'Truth' with the assumption

that everyone has the same depth of understanding our words. The

world of 'words' is full of contradiction. Here is an example of

your own statement -

 

"Brahman is changeless, homogenous and One without a second. How

then did this world of plurality come about? The absence of

Knowledge of the Self about its own true nature give rise to the

wrong Knowledge. This wrong knowledge is what we see in this

empirical world as name and form (nAma-rUpa)."

 

You have verbalized the Brahman by saying that He is changeless,

homogenous and One without a second. Then you raise the

question, "How then did this world of plurality come about?" Your

answer, "The absence of knowledge of the Self about its own true

nature give rise to wrong knowledge." Why didn't you continue with

the next question, "How did the absence of knowledge of the Self

about its own nature come?" your verbalization of the question on

the 'Truth' provided a 'verbal answer' but instantaneously brought a

new question directly focused on the same 'verbal answer.' I don't

believe that a debate on 'Truth' will ever end satisfactorily

with 'words' alone!

 

The sages of the Upanishdas have understood that the Brahmin cann't

be defined using 'words and phrases.' The statement, 'That, it is"

summarizes our inability to describe using words. The reason that we

accept the Sankara's advaita philosophy is quite simple (complex!):

We have faith in the wisdom of Sankara, the Vedas and the sages of

the Upanishads. Those who believe in other 'isms' are likely have

different understanding of the 'Truth.' The saying, that we have to

go beyond our 'intellect' to realize the truth confirms the fact

that 'Truth' can't be described by words!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote: