Shankara's concept of maya

[Guest guest]

praNAms atagrasin (ata) prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Since the objections raised here against shankara philosophy requires

detailed study...For the sake of brevity, I donot want to go into the

details of those. Sri VK prabhuji & Sri Sadananda prabhuji have already

addressed those issues appropriately. If you dont mind prabhuji, just I

would like to bluntly share my thoughts against your objections.

 

ata prabhuji

 

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

shortcomings:

 

bhaskar :

 

It is always necessary to keep in mind that *shAstrAdhyayana* (scriptural

studies) should not be done *on our own* as it is near to impossible to get

the crux of the siddhAnta in the particular context. Considering the

subtelity & complexity of the subject matter dealt in shAstra-s, it badly

requires proper quidance & personal interaction with a

shrOtrIya/brahmaniShTa guru from a bonafide saMpradAya.

 

ata prabhuji:

 

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?

 

bhaskar :

 

the perceiver & being perceived (jnAtru & jnEya) distinctions can be there

only in two avasTha-s i.e. waking & dreaming...but in suShupti there is no

distinction as such..& these three avasthA-s are very much in our

experience & being witness to these states, devoid from qualities of waker

& dreamer we could objectify both waker & his world & it is not the

advaia which is saying there is no duality there...it is shruti itself

which is asserting this ultimate truth..(na kAnchana kAmayati...atra vEdA

avEda, mAta amAta etc. etc. Kindly see bruhadAraNyaka shruti)

 

ata prabhuji:

 

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:

 

bhaskar :

 

Not so prabhuji, if you know the method of teaching of vEdAnta. The

adhyArOpa apavAda is the teaching method adopted my shrutis to teach the

absolute non-dual brahman.

 

ata prabhuji:

 

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

 

bhaskar :

 

this problem & question comes to the person who is already under the spell

of avidyA..anyway brahman cannot ask this question...mAya/avidyA is there

for those who are asking this question...Infact, this is what the answer

given by shankara in gIta bhAshya & sUtra bhAshya to the question with

regard to *locus of avidyA*.

 

ata prabhuji:

 

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?

 

bhaskar :

 

there is no existence of *snake* in a rope prabhuji...it is our avidya

about rope which is causing us to perceive non-existent snake in the

rope...

 

ata prabhuji:

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

saguNa / nirguNa, para / apara brahman both are given by shruti itself what

is the problem here prabhuji?? Being a sincere student of shAstra shankara

promptly admits it & explains to his followers how it can be reconciled

with the parama siddhAnta of brahmaikatva.

 

ata prabhuji :

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji I am sorry..this is really a tall claim...shankara has not

concocted any stories to market his siddhAnta..Kindly see prashnOpanishad

maNtra in which it has been clearly stated that OmkAra is the para & apara

brahman. You may interpret this maNtra differently according to your

affiliation to some particular school...but pls. dont say that shankara's

observations do not have the basis in shruti-s.

 

ata prabhuji:

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

again, this is the problem born out of *own study* of text or *studying*

advaita from other school's AchArya's writings. We cannot take individual

sUtra & arrive at our own siddhAnta prabhuji...we have to study complete

*adhikaraNa* to understand the gist of that adhikaraNa...the sUtra which

you are referring above comes under anandamayAdhikaraNa..so, to understand

the above sUtra you have to *atleast* study the complete sUtra-s which come

under this adhikaraNa. By the way have you studied the sUtra *avibhAgEna

drushtatvAt* *AtmEti tUpagacchaNti grAhayanticha* etc. etc. which are

clearly advocates the true nature of jIva which is nothing but

brahman..Further, if you go to sUtra *ShAstra druShtyA tUpadEShO

vAmadEvavat* the vishaya vAkya here is Indra's assertion to pratardana that

he is *paramAtman* again, clearly identification of jIva with brahman.

 

So, prabhuji, kindly study advaita under a bonafide AchArya with great

degree of shraddhA if at all you are interested in advaita jnAna mArga. It

helps us to avoid sweeping remarks on shankara philosophy...if you have

only intention to refute shankara then plenty of material available for

that in other schools' Acharya's writing.

 

Kindly pardon me if I hurt your feelings.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar