Shankara's concept of maya

[Guest guest]

After some time studying Shankara's scriptures I have found these

shortcomings:

 

1.The difficulty of explaining our perception of

multiplicity, if such difference does not even exist in the first

place. If reality is one, or more accurately "no other" (adviata) how

is it that we perceive difference, or perceive at all without the

duality of perceiver and perceived?

 

Although Shankara's doctrine of "maya" offers an explanation of the

perception of multiplicity, it does so at the expense of introducing

other dilemmasfor example he says that his maya is neither real nor

unreal. It is 'mithya' (false). Were it real, it would compromise

Sankara's insistence on there being no other reality than that of

Brahman. If maya is considered unreal, it could have no impact on

reality, such as creating the perception of multiplicity.It should be

obvious that Sankara's explanation of maya creates further problems:

 

 

 

2.To whom or what does Brahman present the illusion of maya?

Furthermore, if Brahman is simplisticly one, as defined by Sankara,

how can an illusion which is by definition different from Brahman in

nature exist at all? If there is no other, as per Sankara, how can

Vedic revelation such as the Gita have any meaning, when it

presupposes a difference between seeker and that which is sought?

In order to salvage his theory in the face of obvious doctrinal

problems Sankara posits two levels of truth, along with two

accompanying aspects of Brahman. He says that the innumerable sacred

writings on devotion that posit a distinction between individual soul

and God, are relative to what he calls practical reality

(vyavaharika), and designed for persons not yet capable of

understanding the higher ultimate (paramarthika) truth of his non

duality.

 

For Sankara, Krsna is Brahman with material qualities (saguna). The

qualityless (nirguna) ultimate Brahman, appears with material

adjuncts (saguna) in order to serve as an object of devotion for

those requiring such. Thus when the Krsna of Sankara speaks about his

ultimacy, eternality, etc. it is the nirguna Brahman speaking in the

form of saguna

Brahman.

 

3.While all of this sounds

interesting, it is important to note that the two levels of Brahman

concept is itself an addition to the sacred literature on the part of

Sankara. It has no scriputral basis, and in terms of logic it is

merely a conjecture in an effort to save the entire edifice of

advaita Vedanta from caving in.

 

4.In his commentary on Vedanta sutra, Sankara introduces the concept

of 'paramarthika' and 'vyavaharika' reality along with the unaffected

and affected Brahman in reference to Vedanta sutas' seventeenth

aphorism of its first book and chapter (Vs.1.1.17). Ironically this

sutra explicitly points out the difference between the individual

soul and Brahman, 'bhedavyapadesacca'. Sankara's explanation of this

sutra is his own invention and it departs radically from the text of

Badarayana's, in which there is absolutely no mention of anything

remotely resembling the notion of a two tier Brahman in the entire

treatise.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "atagrasin" <k1c2@h...> wrote:

> After some time studying Shankara's scriptures I have found these

>

shortcomings:

>

> 1.The difficulty of explaining our perception of

> multiplicity, if such difference does not even exist in the first

> place. If reality is one, or more accurately "no other" (adviata)

how

> is it that we perceive difference, or perceive at all without the

> duality of perceiver and perceived?

>

> Although Shankara's doctrine of "maya" offers an explanation of

the

> perception of multiplicity, it does so at the expense of

introducing

> other dilemmasfor example he says that his maya is neither real

nor

> unreal.

 

Namaste A,

 

Would you please quote Sankara's passages wherein he actually uses

the word Maya, as opposed to avidya, so we may better understand you.

 

Also where does he say there is a two tier system of Brahman. This

is just a concept for understanding, as all is Brahman.

 

Badarayana talked about all this creation, not having happened at

all. As it all disappears on bodiless moksha, it never could have

ever happened.

 

So Maya never happened..............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Many of so-called shortcomings were raised by Bhagavan Ramanuja in his

Shree Bhaashya on Brahmasuutras. There are seven untenables according

to Shree Ramanuja in Advaita Vedanta and I have addressed those in the

past and you can download it from advaitin archives. You will find that

the so-called shortcomings are only shortcomings in our understanding of

Advaita Vedanta.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--- atagrasin <k1c2 wrote:

> After some time studying Shankara's scriptures I have found these

> shortcomings:

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Many of so-called shortcomings were raised by Bhagavan Ramanuja in

his

> Shree Bhaashya on Brahmasuutras. There are seven untenables

according

> to Shree Ramanuja in Advaita Vedanta and I have addressed those in

the

> past and you can download it from advaitin archives. You will

find that

> the so-called shortcomings are only shortcomings in our

understanding of

> Advaita Vedanta.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

> --- atagrasin <k1c2@h...> wrote:

>

> > After some time studying Shankara's scriptures I have found

these

> > shortcomings:

 

Namaste

 

Sada-ji's articles on the Seven Untenables appeared long ago in the

list. I am not able to locate it. ( This is why I would like

everyone to choose the proper title to their posts so that the later

tracing of it becomes manageable). If somebody (Sunder-ji?) can help

me find it, OK. Otherwise I have kept a copy of it in my own

personal files and I can repost it for the benefit of the

discussion on the present thread. Let me wait for members' response.

 

PraMAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The article is readily available at the following URL:

 

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m23130.html

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> > There are seven untenables

> according

> > to Shree Ramanuja in Advaita Vedanta and I have addressed those in

> the