Guest guest Posted January 24, 2004 Report Share Posted January 24, 2004 Hare Krishna Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I've been studying Jiva Gosvami's _Tattva Sandarbha_, and I recently read the portion refuting mayavadi theory. Several years ago, before encountering Srila Prabhupada's books, I was studying Vasistha's Yoga (the translation by Swami Venkatesananda -- A few years back I also bought another translation to compare them, but I've been afraid to study it thinking it might hurt my attachment to Krishna bhakti.) The philosophy presented in Vasistha's Yoga is that Brahman is real, the world-appearance and maya is not. It firmly asserts that the world has no reality whatsoever, even in appearance. It's somewhat astonishing to read, because it has the effect of completely negating the reader's faith in sense-perception. I don't know how well I can explain it in brief, except to quote that in the introduction to the book, there is one paragraph that is highlighted as the essence of the teaching. "The world appearance is a confusion, even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. I think it is better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it." I'm quoting from memory (from 9 years ago) but I think that's right. When I was studying this book, I thought that it had some authority because this was the teaching of Lord Ramacandra's guru to the Lord. When I was reading Tattva Sandarbha, it didn't seem to me that this specific theory was discussed. Unfortunately I don't have the book here; I'm reading it during my breaks at work, so I can't quote or give references today. It seemed to me that the types of mayavadi that were refuted were those that attributed some degree of reality to maya. However Vasistha presented that maya could not exist in Brahman even to the slightest degree. They were presented as completely incompatable, with maya being fully nonexistent as much as Brahman is fully existent. I would really appreciate any comments the Vaishnavas could give on this. Hare Krishna Pandu das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2004 Report Share Posted January 25, 2004 This is a very interesting topic. The idea that world-appearance is illusory sounds untenable to me. It'll be interesting to see what sastric evidence the author gives for his hypothesis - or is it just his own speculation? Even if we assume that the appearance is also illusory, not just the phenomenal world itself, then one may ask, what is the seat or support of this illusion? Or in other words, on what does this illusion rest or inhere? this is the argument pursued by Vedanta Desika and even Jiva Goswami, I believe (I remember reading about this topic of world-appearance in Dr. O.B.L. Kapoor's book on Chaitanya). If you wish, you can try to get a copy of Advaita and Visistadvaita by S.M.S Chari, a study of Vedanta Desika's Satadhushani (100 criticisms of Advaita). If you can summarise the arguments of the author, that will be nice. I haven't read the book. in your service, Aravind. The philosophy presented in Vasistha's Yoga is that Brahman is real, the world-appearance and maya is not. It firmly asserts that the world has no reality whatsoever, even in appearance. It's somewhat astonishing to read, because it has the effect of completely negating the reader's faith in sense-perception. I don't know how well I can explain it in brief, exceptto quote that in the introduction to the book, there is one paragraph that is highlighted as the essence of the teaching. "The world appearance is a confusion, even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. I think it is better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it." I'm quoting from memory (from 9 years ago) but I think that's right.When I was studying this book, I thought that it had some authority because this was the teaching of Lord Ramacandra's guru to the Lord. SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 achintya, "Pandu Das" <pandu.bms@p...> wrote: > I've been studying Jiva Gosvami's _Tattva Sandarbha_, and I recently read > the portion refuting mayavadi theory. Several years ago, before > encountering Srila Prabhupada's books, I was studying Vasistha's Yoga (the > translation by Swami Venkatesananda -- I think you are referring to "Yoga Vasishtha" if I am not mistaken. This is a smriti text which purports to be the teachings of Vasishtha Muni to Lord Raamachandra. Although that is what it is in theory, I am not sure in fact if that is the origin of the text we now know as "Yoga Vasishtha." Be forewarned - it is popular among neo- Advaitins, but its authority is far from indisputable. A few years back I also bought > another translation to compare them, but I've been afraid to study it > thinking it might hurt my attachment to Krishna bhakti.) If you are going to read any book, always read with a critical mind. I think most people who get misled fail to do this. > The philosophy presented in Vasistha's Yoga is that Brahman is real, the > world-appearance and maya is not. It firmly asserts that the world has no > reality whatsoever, even in appearance. It's somewhat astonishing to read, > because it has the effect of completely negating the reader's faith in > sense-perception. That in and of itself suggests a maayaavaadi origin of the text. Reality of the world does not need any extra confirmation. We, with our senses, know that we are real and the world around is real. Only Advaitins take issue with this - most Vaishnavas use pratyaksha and anumaana without hesitation, especially to get at the correct meaning of shruti statements. Think about this: if world has no reality whatsoever, then why do we perceive it as such? Do to mAyA? But maayaa is not real either. So, how do we come under illusion when the illusion itself does not exist? This is a contradiction. > When I was studying this book, I thought that it had some authority because > this was the teaching of Lord Ramacandra's guru to the Lord. That is what it is *alleged* to be. I for one, have difficulty accepting that a previously unknown non-shruti text could suddenly appear out of nowhere and claim to be a faithful retelling of a conversation that took place 2 million years ago. > When I was reading Tattva Sandarbha, it didn't seem to me that this specific > theory was discussed. Unfortunately I don't have the book here; I'm reading > it during my breaks at work, so I can't quote or give references today. It > seemed to me that the types of mayavadi that were refuted were those that > attributed some degree of reality to maya. However Vasistha presented that > maya could not exist in Brahman even to the slightest degree. They were > presented as completely incompatable, with maya being fully nonexistent as > much as Brahman is fully existent. > > I would really appreciate any comments the Vaishnavas could give on this. > The theory spoken of in your "Vasistha's Yoga" makes no sense. If maayaa has no reality, and does not exist in Brahman, then from where comes this illusion? Traditionally, Advaitins describe maayaa as anirvachaniiya - neither real no unreal, so nothing can be said about it. This is an example of the kind of inconsistent solution Advaitins must propose in order to reconcile the serious flaws in that philosophy. yours, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.