Understanding Advaitism (Svetaashvatara Upanishad 1.6)

[Guest guest]

Dear raja_ram prabhu,

Hare Krsna! I enjoy cavorting with you around a bush of your choice,

but in your next post pls take some time to outline a broad

ontological frame of reference, because only that can provide a

context for discussion. So far you have avoided even explaining

what you mean by "oneness" ("Advaita"), etc. How can I understand when

you won't clarify the meaning of the words you are using?

 

> ...But there are a number of other

> quotations where Sankara clearly establishes that God is eternal and

> transcendental. He clearly talks about Savisesha Samadhi referred to

> by Vaishnavas.

 

Anyone with a claim to explaining Vedanta has to acknowledge these

things. But Sripada Sankara's unique twist in the tail is the ultimate

inferiority given to realization of Isvara w.r.t. a hypothetical

nirvisesa state. Correct nor not?

 

Also, Sankarites understand "material" in different ways. That

Narayana is not "material" in our _current_experience_of_materiality_

is naturally beyond debate if the Vedas are pramANa. Yet why does

Sankara apply his idea of sad-asat and cause-effect to the 4 primary

Vyuhas, explicitly disagreeing with shaastra? Isn't this odd? You

didn't address this.

 

What is "material"? There are many levels of reality (illusion?)

between our present level of consciousness and the ultimate. And

actually the jiva can choose annihilation at any LEVEL of

consciousness (see below). This is an important point, because

Sankarites can, and often do, shift their frame to higher levels of

consciousness. But my point is that the ultimate end is the same.

Merely taking cognizance of some level of consciousness makes no

difference to the ultimate end. Let me explain:

 

No one can speculate about any "ananda", etc. in the nirvisesa state,

which is a state of non-experience. It is ontologically impossible to

both lose one's individuality (in the Sankarite sense) and to

experience anything. And anyone who attains that state attains it

permanently; they don't come back to tell us about it. As soon as

individuality and personality are lost, one cannot support the body

nor express oneself. So the state of realization advocated by Sankara

is either imaginary, or else it is spiritual 'suicide'. The liberation

of sayujya-mukti, merging into the body of the Lord, was only given to

demons who were so troublesome they could not be neutralized in any

other way.

 

The only real difference between Sankarite nirvisesa realization and

the sunyavadi end that certain Buddhist schools aspire for is the

LEVEL at which annihilation is sought after. In the Buddhist case, it

is at the level of material mind. In the Sankarite case, it is at a

higher superconscious level. For example, we can detonate a bomb

underwater, or above the water. An explosion in the atmosphere may be

more spectacular and produces more sound to human viewers than a

submarine explosion. But the subsequent, permanent state attained is

the same -- debris. Similarly, deep, dreamless sleep is a possibility

at any level of consciousness. The Sankarite end is to

ultimately fall into such a state at some higher level of

consciousness. The 'savikalpa' ecstacies of the Mayavadis PRIOR to

their final end is NOT indicative of a permanent ecstatic experience.

Rather, it is the exciting acceleration of the whirlpool that

ultimately ends in getting flushed down the gutter. The same

rajo-tamasic principle holds at every level: BG 18:38- "agre

'mrtopamam pariname visam iva" - nectar at first but poison in the

end; and ignorance all along.

 

Thus, the *ultimate* Sankarite/Buddhistic end is the same -- complete

non-experience. Only the atmosphere in which annihilation is chosen

differs. This state of non-experience is the polar opposite of the

_ever-increasing_ bliss of rasa that Vaisnavas aspire for, which

requires one to maintain one's individuality while completely

dedicating oneself in an eternal labour of love. It involves balance

and ETERNAL GROWTH in love, not withdrawal or any headlong plunge into

final exhaustion. Compared with the real end of nirvisesa-vaada, this

is "same" in one sense, but differs in qualitative DEGREE. One is

non-experience, the other is the fullness of love. Nirvisesa-vaada is

rajo-tamasic philosophy driven by rajo-tamasic motivation at the

deepest level.

 

BTW, this *ultimate* end of the Mayavaadis is different from the

brahma-bhuta stage of "oneness" that Gaudiya Vaisnavism acknowledges

and respects, as in the case of the "Brahmavaadis".

 

 

> 2)Considering themselves different from the controller, the jivas

> wander in the great wheel of brahman. The said jivas here are not

> ignorant about the existence of the controller in which case the

> upanishad would have said that the jivas unaware of the controller

> wander in the great wheel of brahman. But the said jivas in this

> case are wandering in ignorance of the identity of the oneness

> between themselves and the controller.

 

This is needless nitpicking. The question of self-realization is

ultimately one of recognizing Relationships. The awareness of the

subject/object is inextricably linked to the discussion of a

relationship (something for Advaitists to ponder over). So whether the

verse in question speaks of the jiva's being aware or unaware of the

existence of a controller is not even relevant to the point being

made. It is focussing on the Relationship, and that obviously assumes

that one is aware of the other.

 

Now you are calling this relationship "oneness". But you do so without

explaining what kind of "oneness". Why do you keep avoiding this

question?

 

> Sv. Up. verse clearly

> eliminates absolute duality not advaitam.

 

Prabhu, you've really got to construct a good ontological argument,

BEFORE we can quibble over individual quotes. I tried to lay mine out

as briefly as possible in my previous post, and said more in this one.

 

Anyone with commmonsense will eliminate the possibility of "absolute"

duality as Ultimate Truth, and no school of Vedanta even considers

that idea. But the language of the Up. also clearly

eliminates total undifferentiatedness as an Ultimate Truth (though it

could certainly be a subjective state of illusion under the Lord's

potency, just like the conditioned state of separateness.) The

language and the subject matter make this clear. I don't see what you

are trying to nitpick here. For instance, if I say that "the dog

cannot eat the cat", will you argue that it does not rule out the

possibility that the dog can drink the cat?? It must be obvious to the

intellect and the intuition that that is not a possibility that my

statement was intending to admit, given the

_fundamental_characteristics_ of the subjects under discussion (dogs,

cats, predation and consumption). Similarly, the

subject-object-relationship triune is a

_fundamental_property_of_consciousness -- which is ultimately the

subject of discussion in the Upanisads. This property of consciousness

is reflected in human language itself, as in the statement of the Sv.

Up. So until you explain your understanding of the ontology of

consciousness, and what you mean by "oneness", it makes little sense

to nitpick like this. Don't you agree?

 

> 3) Before criticizing Sankara, it would be proper to understand why

> he says this world has sad asad lakshanam. It is a separate topic

> itself and would like to deal with separately after you agree with

> the position of Iswara according to Sankara.

 

I look fwd to that. But before you can start explaining the details of

applying sad-asad laksanam to the "world", you really should lay out a

broad Advaitist understanding of consciousness and its possibilities.

That will give me a _frame_of_reference_. Among the attempts I have

seen, they all suffer from the defect of logical priorities, which I

elaborated on in my previous posts. Unless you can correct my

understanding.

 

Yours faithfully,

Carl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------ Sponsor --------------------~-->

You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how.

http://us.click./_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM

--~->

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school.

<*>

achintya/

 

<*>

achintya

 

<*> Your