Mayavadi Philosophy: Analysis and Refutation - By Suhotra Swami

[Guest guest]

hare krishna

 

Here is something people on this forum might be interested in

looking into:

 

http://www.suhotraswami.com/books/Mayavadi_Philosophy.html

 

I found it pretty interesting.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> hare krishna

>

> Here is something people on this forum might be interested in

> looking into:

>

> http://www.suhotraswami.com/books/Mayavadi_Philosophy.html

>

> I found it pretty interesting.

>

 

Just my 2 cents, but I'm not sure that I agree with this statement:

 

"jnana is of 3 kinds: knowledge of self, God and oneness.

the knowledge of oneness is being rejected. Knowledge of self and God

explains everything nicely, including the oneness too. No need of

such a separate department of knowledge."

 

I'm not sure how he is defining "oneness" in this case. But if it

falls under the general heading of "jnaana," then why must it be

rejected? "Oneness" is a component of Achintya bedhaabedha, and we

don't reject that.

 

I think what he is trying to say is that we reject the concept

of "oneness" divorced from the other components of jnaana, such as

knowledge of the Lord as the parama purusha and of ourselves as

spirit souls who are His constitutional servants.

 

Maayaavaadi concept of "jnaana" is no doubt rejected. While they say

some things about Brahman which we do accept, there are other things

which they say which are to be rejected, such as the idea that

Brahman has no form, qualities, etc. But then, this is not jnaana, as

it is a falsehood. We may call it as "jnaana" in a tongue-in-cheek

sense, but factually it is nothing more than incomplete knowledge of

the Supreme extrapolated to the point of incorrect conclusions.

 

Also, another point is that he mentions that the Kumaaras

were "impersonalists" in the context of "Mayavada philosophy is very

old."

 

Certainly they may have been "impersonalists," but they were not

maayaavaadis! Brahmavaadis who are happy meditating on the impersonal

aspect of Brahman are not the same as maayaavaadis, who falsely think

that they are the same as that Brahman!

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

>

> Just my 2 cents, but I'm not sure that I agree with this statement:

>

> "jnana is of 3 kinds: knowledge of self, God and oneness.

> the knowledge of oneness is being rejected. Knowledge of self and

God

> explains everything nicely, including the oneness too. No need of

> such a separate department of knowledge."

>

> I'm not sure how he is defining "oneness" in this case. But if it

> falls under the general heading of "jnaana," then why must it be

> rejected? "Oneness" is a component of Achintya bedhaabedha, and we

> don't reject that.

>

> I think what he is trying to say is that we reject the concept

> of "oneness" divorced from the other components of jnaana, such as

> knowledge of the Lord as the parama purusha and of ourselves as

> spirit souls who are His constitutional servants.

 

Krishna prabhu jnana is of three kinds:

 

1) Tat-padartha-jnana

Knowledge of the Constitutional Identity of Bhagavan.

 

2) Tvam-padartha-jnana

Knowledge of the Constitutional Identity of the Jiva

and his Relationship with Bhagavan

 

3) Jiva-brahma-aikya-jnana

Knowledge of the Oneness of the Jiva and Brahma or the knowledge

which makes one seek Kaivalyam.

 

Out of these three number 3 is unfavorable to bhakti. The oneness of

achintya bheda abheda comes under category 2. And hence its not

against bhakti.

 

 

> Also, another point is that he mentions that the Kumaaras

> were "impersonalists" in the context of "Mayavada philosophy is

very

> old."

>

> Certainly they may have been "impersonalists," but they were not

> maayaavaadis! Brahmavaadis who are happy meditating on the

impersonal

> aspect of Brahman are not the same as maayaavaadis, who falsely

think

> that they are the same as that Brahman!

 

I agree with you on this point. I guess I made this point in reply to

aravinds post "Mayavadis as Mahajans".

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet