Problem of evil

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Alex-ji,

 

You have asked good questions. Here is my attempt to answer them as

best as I can, but of course the question of 'evil' (or avidya) can

only be finally answered in the epiphany of realisation. :-)

 

 

advaitin, "a54x" <a54x> wrote:

 

> As far as I have been able to understand so far - all is

> Consciouness. Consciousness is Love. The ego prevents us

> from realising this. We have no volition - everything

> just happens as it does and as it should. There is no

> free will.

 

What you have written above has more kinship to neo-Advaita than to

the tradition of Advaita Vedanta.

 

First of all, it is avidya (ignorance) and not the ego that 'prevents

us from realisation'. The ego is only the manifest product of avidya.

Strictly speaking, avidya does not prevent us from realising our true

nature - avidya is itself the very unknowingness of our true nature.

It is not a thing, but a privation of knowledge.

 

Secondly, we do have volition with us and it is not correct to say

that everything just happen by itself. The power of happening does

not belong to the insentient. The insentient can happen only when the

sentient impels it to happen. We do have free will to the extent that

it is the same divinity that shines through us as that which moves

the sun and the heavens. But we are contracted beings -

metaphorically speaking - and our free will is limited to the extent

that we are limited clearings of consciousness in the Divine Play of

the universe. There is only one Will, but due to our 'contraction'

(embodiment in the limited cage of the body) we only see a part of

the Will being free for us to exercise.

 

In trying to understand the nature of consciousness, we often forget

that consciousness is pulsating with life, that it is the very life

within us which is vibrant with desires, ideas - and of course will.

But will is not an action - it is the immovable shakti that produces

action. We, as bound creatures in this world, are bound to action and

are confused between the will and the action that the will produces,

but pure will is actionless - and at the same time it is the will of

the living reality in us that produces the action and in that sense

it is 'acting'.

 

Brahman is He who is actionless in His actions. That is also an

articulation of His omnipotence because He is not moved by the

greatest of actions. He is truly the Unmoved Mover.

 

 

> So Hitler was not responsible for anything he did. So

> Consciousness was responsible in which case how can it

> be termed an expression of Love?

 

Hitler is not consciousness pure - he derives his name 'Hitler' due

to the specific persona-complex superimposed on consciousness.

 

Your use of the word 'responsible' in the question already tends to

situate the problem in the context of 'good and evil'. But that is

not the way Advaita Vedanta looks at it. According to Advaita, the

cause of evil lies in ignorance. Nobody does an evil deed in the full

light of knowledge - he/she simply can't. The thief, the murderer,

the worst of the diabolics, are all impelled by the same motive - to

fulfil a need created due to the seeming privation of their innate

being.

 

What is this privation? It is the loss of fullness or plenitude. It

is also the loss of the native bliss of plenitude. The Self is

infinite and purnam - full. There is nothing lacking in It. It is

only avidya (ignorance) that generates the false notion of

limitedness, and it is because of the thralldom of this notion that

it tries to gain something which it thinks it is lacking. It has lost

its innate bliss, and thus arises the desire for happiness and

pleasure (kama). It thinks it is a limited thing bound in the body,

and therefore it tries to make up for its limitation through the

acquisition of objects, wealth, name and position (artha). Thus

arises the two purusharthas (basic aims of life) of an embodied

being - kama and artha.

 

The One Self is divided into many 'contracted' beings. When the One

is divided, then arises the question of equity between the divided

beings. We all feel a sense of this equity within our own beings

because we are that same Self in which the sense of justice resides

as the archetype of dharma. That nature that manifests on the

division of the One into many is called 'justice'. It is the wheel of

dharma set into motion. It determines the fruits of our actions and

the attributes that we acquire as traits and personae as we journey

throught this unfathomable creation. Hitlers as well as Mahatma

Gandhis get created in the process. But consciousness is not touched

by the attributes of the personae. It is always unmoved, blissful,

and loving.

 

Consiousness is the very nature of Love. And the manifestation of

Love here on earth is also an expression of Advaitam. Isn't it the

nature of love to bind and make One out of the sundered two? Love is

the call of Advaita underlying all beings.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjan-ji

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting reply. Ignorance or

lack of free will still leaves me to doubt that all that is, or ever

can be, can really be classified as an expression of Love when so

much suffering, ultimately unreal or not, occurs not only to humans

but also in nature even if ultimately they and it are unreal. Not so

much a dream but more a nightmare.

 

However, thank you for pointing out the difference with neo-

advaitism. I am encouraged to enquire more. Perhaps I have stumbled

across too advanced a site for the obvious novice I am.

 

Alex

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskar-ji,

 

 

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

> > I prefer the term 'vivartavada' to 'ajativada' though both

> > of them imply absolute non-creation. Sri Shankaracharya

> > uses the term 'vivartavada'

> Kindly give more details about the appearance of the term

> *vivartavAda* in shankara bhAshya. I'd like to look at the

> original text. Thanks in advance.

 

Ah, Bhaskarji, you are giving me lots of work to do! I remember

noting the word vivarta (in my mind) when I was reading the bhashya

(whether BS or Upanishad I don't remember now), but to refer you to

the exact place in the bhashya will mean that I have to run through

hundreds, or maybe thousands, of pages of text to find it. Give me

some time. But if you want an explanation why Shankara's doctrine of

non-creation fits in with the term 'vivartavada' rather

than 'ajativada' I'm willing to provide the same.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Naikji, Pardon me if I am asking silly

questions. Consider me an agyani. There are many

references to the creation in Bhagwat Gita. Are all

these referring to the Ishvara aspect ? This is where

the concept of "lower order of reality" confuses me. I

still cannot understand something which is neither

"real nor unreal". Can't we say that if we are seeing

a snake but really there is a rope, then the snake is

absolutely unreal - a figment of imagination. Is there

a yes or no answer for "Is maya a manifestation or

shakti of the supreme infinite spirit ?"

 

thanks and regards,

Shailendra

 

> It is Brahman doing the dividing in His 'creative'

> aspect. He is then

> called Ishvara. But creation in truth doesn't mean

> duality because

> creation is in the realm of names and forms that are

> eternal and

> inseparable from Brahman. It is only the jiva, under

> the thrall of

> avidya, that sees duality because it doesn't see the

> Oneness of the

> names and forms with the Substratum. When Brahman is

> spoken about to

> such a jiva, which is under avidya and is not able

> to see this

> Oneness, its conception conceives Brahman as one

> entity and the world

> as another. Such a divorced world (that the jiva

> conceives) is an

> upadhi (limiting adjunct) on Brahman because the

> notion of duality is

> superimposed on to the world that it sees. But when

> the jiva's third

> eye is opened, and it sees the truth, then the

> various things of the

> world are nothing but waves of Brahman's Effulgence,

> and the five

> sheaths of the jiva too are only waves in the ocean

> of Consciousness

> which is its own Infinite Self.

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Meet the all-new My - Try it today!

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji:

 

Humble praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Ram prabhuji:

 

Does it really matter prabhuji if the exact word "vivartavada" did

not appear in the original text?

 

bhaskar :

 

Ofcourse it does not matter subject to interpretation of the term

vivartavAda in shankara bhAshya. My asking for the exact reference is

quite obvious, Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji had specifically said Sri Shankara

uses the *term* vivartavAda.

 

Ram prabhuji:

 

Aren't we better of focusing on the essence of Sankara's message instead of

checking for errors on the 'actual word?'

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, my intention was only to know the reference in shankara bhAshya &

I am last man to find errors on the *actual word* said by others.

 

Ram prabhuji:

 

I would very much welcome knowledgeable persons like you to come forward to

provide your understanding of the subject matter instead of just checking

for the word usage.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, I am not able to understand my fault in asking just an

inquisitive question. Ofcourse, I do agree that one can see various

creation theories in shruti-s as well as in shankara siddhAnta. But at the

same time shruti propagating nirguNa, nirvikAri, nirviShEsha, niravayava

parabrahman as well...problem here is doing the samanvaya in accordance

with shruti-s ultimate advocation of reality. kAraNa-kArya prakriya is

only the device adopted by shruti-s to teach us brahman, it does not anyway

mean brahman himself become jIva & jagat with nAma rUpa upAdhi as explained

in vivartavAda. mruttikEmEva satyam, brahmaiva satyaM is the primordial

pronouncement of shruti-s. If god wills we will take kArya-kAraNa prakriya

under a separate thread.

 

Ram prabhuji:

 

I know that you will agree that spiritual lists like advaitin should help

the members

in enhancing their understanding the essence of the message of Sankara. I

invite you on behalf of the list once again to provide your understanding

of 'ajativada' through a series of articles.

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks for your kind invitation prabhuji. First, we will discuss adhyArOpa

apavAda & its role in shankara philosophy. We will take ajAtavAda after

discussing kAraNa-kArya (cause & effect) prakriya in shankara siddhAnta.

 

Ram prabhuji:

 

With your posting, you, I and everyone in the list can clear our doubts on

Sankara's advaita philosophy. This will also help us all to contemplate on

the subject matter and get opportunity to progress spiritually.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, I whole heartedly agree with this prabhuji.

 

Good to see your participation,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

anyway, i believe there is a prayoga of this term *vivarta-vada* in

Brahma sutras!

 

pl go to

 

www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/ bs_2-1-06.html - 42k - Cached

 

i am also glad to see our beloved prabhu-ji in this holy congrgation.

 

praNAm Adi mAtAji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly send me the exact quotes of shankara in sanskrit as I donot have

access to internet. Kindly clarify whether the term *vivartavAda*

appearing only in Sri krishnananda's purports or in original shankara

bhAshya itself. Is it in vilakshaNatvAdhi karaNa?? or

yOgapratyukthadikaraNa?? In the meanwhile, after going home, I'll check

the sUtra mentioned by you above. Thanks for your kind help.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Ah, Bhaskarji, you are giving me lots of work to do! I remember

noting the word vivarta (in my mind) when I was reading the bhashya

(whether BS or Upanishad I don't remember now),

 

bhasakr :

 

kindly pardon me for giving the trouble..since you've specifically

mentioned the term vivartavAda in shankara bhAshya...I thought you must be

knowing the reference of hand.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

but to refer you to the exact place in the bhashya will mean that I have to

run through

hundreds, or maybe thousands, of pages of text to find it.

 

bhaskar :

 

dont take that trouble prabhuji, as far as my limited knowledge goes,

shankara has not used the term *vivartavAda* in prasthAna trayi bhAshya.

brahma vivarta & brahma pariNAma vAda are the contributions of later

vyAkhyAnakAra-s as against gaudapAda-s ajAtavAda.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Give me some time. But if you want an explanation why Shankara's doctrine

of

non-creation fits in with the term 'vivartavada' rather than 'ajativada'

I'm willing to provide the same.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly do so prabhuji if you find time. I would like to study it. I think

ajAta is the more appropriate word that can be found in shankara bhAshya

for non-creation rather than brahma vivartavAda. Anyway, its my opinion.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Chittaranjan-ji - very clear explanation. I, too (as well as

Bhaskar-ji) would be interested in the references to Sri ShaMkara's use of

vivartavAda (other than in the commentary on GauDapAda's kArikA of course).

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar-ji writes...

 

(Kindly clarify whether the term *vivartavAda* appearing only in

Sri krishnananda's purports or in original shankara

bhAshya itself. Is it in vilakshaNatvAdhi karaNa?? or

yOgapratyukthadikaraNa?? )

 

Bhaskar Prabhu-ji !

 

Sadar Pranaams!

 

this is what i found ...

 

 

" Nowhere in his commentaries does sri adi sankara uses the well

known expression *vivarta-vada* that describes shankara's philosophy

in post shankara period.

 

*Vivartate * and * vivartamane* are used in shankara's bhasyas

without purely suggesting ILLUSION. "

 

SOURCE

 

http://gmishra02mmas04.pdf - 117k - View as html

 

Bhaskar-ji, your best source is your own Guru-ji! HE is the one who

can clarify all your doubts. Let us not carried away by words and

words....

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> *Vivartate * and * vivartamane* are used in shankara's bhasyas

> without purely suggesting ILLUSION. "

 

Thank you. By the way, vivartavada is not simply illusion. It is the

unfolding of the world through the mystery of speech in which

Advaitam remains uncompromised. The illusion in vivartavada is the

viparya of mixing up the attributes of Time with those of objects

giving rise to the illusion that objects change when in reality

objects are eternal - and eternally one with the unchanging Brahman.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Thanks, Chittaranjan-ji - very clear explanation. I, too (as well as

> Bhaskar-ji) would be interested in the references to Sri ShaMkara's

use of

> vivartavAda (other than in the commentary on GauDapAda's kArikA of

course).

 

Namaste,

 

Shankara does not use the word vivarta, but his

explanation of it in Brahmasutra Bhasya 2:1:25-29 is unmistakable.

Vidyaranya (circa 1350 AD) uses the word in Panchadasi and Sadananda

Yogindra (circa 1588AD)in Vedantasara. with the same implications.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

sunder-ji !

 

in this article, the author clearly says Adi Shankara uses the

expressions *viavartate* and *vivartamane* in his Bhashayas!

 

please visit this url

 

http://www.ocvhs.com/downloads/classes/gmishra02mmas04.pdf -

 

how can dr. G. mishra make such a categorical statemnt if it is not

supported by facts?

 

please let us know ...

 

thank you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

>

> > Thanks, Chittaranjan-ji - very clear explanation. I, too (as well

as

> > Bhaskar-ji) would be interested in the references to Sri

ShaMkara's

> use of

> > vivartavAda (other than in the commentary on GauDapAda's kArikA of

> course).

>

> Namaste,

>

> Shankara does not use the word vivarta, but his

> explanation of it in Brahmasutra Bhasya 2:1:25-29 is unmistakable.

> Vidyaranya (circa 1350 AD) uses the word in Panchadasi and Sadananda

> Yogindra (circa 1588AD)in Vedantasara. with the same implications.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

>

> sunder-ji !

>

> in this article, the author clearly says Adi Shankara uses the

> expressions *viavartate* and *vivartamane* in his Bhashayas!

>

> please visit this url

>

> http://www.ocvhs.com/downloads/classes/gmishra02mmas04.pdf -

>

> how can dr. G. mishra make such a categorical statemnt if it is not

> supported by facts?

 

 

 

Only the author can explain this!

 

page 10

..................." Nowhere in his commentaries does Shankara use the

well-known

expression “vivartavada” that describes ’s philosophy

in the

post-Shankara

period. Vivartate and vivartamana are used in his bhasyas without

purely suggesting

illusion.........."

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Note from the List Moderator: All members (including this member)are requested

not to include tails of the previous posters while replying a message. This is

message has been appropriately edited and members should follow this guideline

while sending the replies. To be an advaitin, the formost important thing is to

be considerate to the fellow members and avoid filling their mail boxes with

unnecessary duplicates of messages in the tail. Thanks in advance for your

coopertion.

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

Namaste,

 

In one of Sankara's commentaries he uses the word ajata seven or

eight times. I can't remember which right now, perhaps someone can

help..............ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> In one of Sankara's commentaries he uses the word ajata seven or

> eight times. I can't remember which right now, perhaps someone can

> help..............ONS..Tony.

 

Namaste,

 

Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika has 7 verses which begin with the

word 'aja', and 10 more verses where it occurs in other sections of

the Karikas. So the Bhashya also necessarily has to

use it to explain the meaning in that particular context.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder