How to understand incarnation from advaita perspective?

[Guest guest]

>From : H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

I am placing before the learned members some of the thoughts of a friend of mine who read all the postings on this subject and posed the following questions to me.. He is a student of Vedanta and has studied Upanishads with

Sri Sankara's commentaries in the traditional way. I quote:

< Of what use are these questions and answers to a mumukshu and serious seeker of Truth?Are we not speculating upon the subject matter? What is Advaita Perspective itself? In the advaitic perspective where is the place for incarnation,reincarnation, the various gods mentioned in the theological texts? As the seeker of Truth one should examine these vital points in an impartial manner.

Adwaita is anuBavAtmica , not purAnAtmica. Unless we know ourselves in the true perspective how can we talk of What, Why, How of Brahman? Is it possible at all? Should we not devote ourselves to know what we are in reality which is paravidya instead of dealing with unverifiable subjects which comes under aparavidya? >

I could not answer him as my failiarity with the subject under discussion is almost nothing. I request the learned members to clarify the above raised points.

With respectful and warm regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on Answers India.

So, what’s NEW about the NEW Messenger? Find out.

[Guest guest]

>sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in>

 

Shree Sreenivasa murthyji PraNAms.

 

I see a sense of contradiction in the very questioning of your friend. Let

me present my understanding to the best I can. Hope it will help your

friend, although it is better for him to ask directly to have a clarr

understanding.

 

> < Of what use are these questions and answers to a mumukshu and

>serious seeker of Truth?

 

That there is a seeker of the truth different from the truth, itself is a

notion. Questions and answers are within that reference of vyavahaara, to

the one who takes the vyavahaara as real; they are as valid as the above

question that differs from the questioner. Hence one should get confused

between reference from which the questions and answers are given and the

absolute nature of advaita. The one who recognizes that these questions

and answers have no relevance from pAramArthika point, will not have the

above question either.

 

 

>Are we not speculating upon the subject matter?

 

No this is the Vedanta study and whole of Bhagavad Gita as yoga shaastra

discusses these aspects. No speculation, but clarification of the

understanding the smRit pramANa. – Krishna declares – yathA yathA hi

dharmasya … - describing his avataras. They are as relevant as the seeker

who thinks he is different from the sought.

 

>What is Advaita Perspective itself? In the advaitic perspective where is

>the place for >incarnation,reincarnation, the various gods mentioned in the

>theological texts? As the >seeker of Truth one should examine these vital

>points in an impartial manner.

 

Advaita is not against dvaita. Advaita is in spite of dvaita. Mandukya

makes this very clear. Turiiyam is not a fourth state but in and through

all the three states. From samaShTi point, Iswara is as real as the jiiva

who thinks there is creation ‘out there’. As long as there is sAdhaka, there

is SAdhana and sAdhya. Only in the complete realization, one realizes he is

sAdhaka, sAdhana and sAdhya, yet different from sAdhaka, SAdhana and sAdhya.

 

> Adwaita is anuBavAtmica , not purAnAtmica. Unless we know

>ourselves in the >true perspective how can we talk of What, Why, How of

>Brahman?

 

We experience advaita all the time, when we go to deep sleep state. Hence

it is not lack of advaita experience. What is lacking of understanding that

the advaita is the truth in spite of dvaitic experiences. I am not sure

what he means by purAnAtmika? Talking of and about Brahman is not different

from inquiry of oneself too, since end equation is aham brahmaasmi. That is

the realization and that is the knowledge that is needed understanding the

advaita anubhava that he mentions. Experience or anubhava involves dvaita.

It is again the understanding the substratum of the triad – the experiencer,

the experience and experiencing is one and the same Brahman that I am.

 

>Is it possible at all? Should we not devote ourselves to know what we are

>in reality which is paravidya instead of dealing with unverifiable subjects

>which comes under aparavidya? >

 

>From dvaita only one can go advaitic understanding. All SAdhana are within

dvaita. Knowing Brahman is knowing oneself.

It is also an understanding that aparavidya is no independent existence

without the substantive Brahman. Hence even Vedas are also classified as

apara vidya. But using Vedas as pramANa we transcend to know the absolute

truth. Please not that aparavidya includes para in it as the very

substantive. All one need to do is to understand how to remove the letter

‘a’ in aparavidya, by seeing the Brahman, the consciousness as the all

pervading even in apara.

 

Hope this helps your friend.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

> I could not answer him as my failiarity with the subject under

>discussion is almost nothing. I request the learned members to clarify the

>above raised points.

> With respectful and warm regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

 

_______________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/