Mayavada

[gopal_deo_sharma]

I am a Raam Bhakt.....so the gyaan marg and nirakar brahma is out of my league I guess....

 

Adi Jagadguru Shankaracharya was a upasak of nirakar brahma and wrote that a jeeva tatwaa can become a vishnu-tatwaa by sadhna....here is a great deal of mayavadism...like the name?

 

Mayavada Philosophy

This philosophy was established by Sripad Sankaracarya, in order to refute Buddhistic doctrine.

The Mayavadis believe that the Supreme Truth is brahman or spiritual energy which is unlimited, without form, qualities, or activity. According to Mayavada philosophy, all living entities are one with brahman, but at present, are covered by illusion, and therefore temporarily seperated from brahman. When the illusion is gone, the living entity becomes again one with the brahman and loses its identity.

The main idea is that everything is God, meaning that you too are God but somehow or other you forgot that you were God.

Out of this perspective, the Mayavadis neither accept the form nor the personality of Krsna as absolute but as creation of maya. Therefore, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu called the Mayavadis the biggest offenders of Krsna.

Mayavada-philosophy is also spread under the name "Vedanta-philosophy". The majority of all western philosophers (if they are not dogmatic followers of the Bible) who are studying Indian culture and philosophy also fall into this category because they do not differentiate between the higher, spiritual energy, and the lower, material energy. They do not have a proper understanding of the transcendent nature of God.

Since people in general do not have sufficient information about the transcendental form of God, they are easily influenced by Mayavada philosophy. Whenever we meet people who accept the Vedas we will find that it is not so difficult to establish the Personality of Godhead on the basis of sastra. Since the majority of people are neither interested in any proofs from the sastra and don't recognize sastra as such, we have to establish Vaisnava philosophy on the basis of logic. There are some fatal defects in Mayavada philosophy which we should be able to recognize when confronted with it or otherwise have to deal with the subject:

1. Since we possess individuality, it is not logical that our ultimate source doesn't possess individuality. Since we can normally observe that personality is superior to an impersonal energy, we can conclude that personality is superior to impersonal energy. Since the Vedanta sutra explains that the Absolute Truth is the source of all existence, it must also be the source of personality and possess personality.

2. The Mayavadis say that the brahman is manifested in a personal form in this material world. How can something personal be manifested from something impersonal? Where do we have an experience of such a phenomena? Lord Krsna explains in Bg 7:24 that this theory is extremely illogical and indicates a lack of intelligence.

3. It is said that brahman is unchangeable. How then can it split into different living entities within the material world? And why should it do that? In Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krsna explains (15:7) that the living entities are eternal parts and parcels of the Supreme and states than individuality is an eternal principle (Bg 2:12).

4. If we were all God, why is there so much suffering and ignorance in the world? Also, if we say that we are God but just temporarily covered by illusion, then illusion would be more powerful than God, which doesn't make any sense.

5. The speculation that Krsna's body is material clearly indicates a complete misunderstanding regarding the transcendental appearance and nature of Krsna. Krsna's body does not consist of matter and contains unlimited, varied energies and attracts even liberated personalities, who are free from material attachments. (SB 1.7.10)

6. Reality according to Mayavada philosophy is beyond material form and duality. But they are erring in the premise that there is no spiritual form or variety. The negation of these facts is a materialistic concept and doesn't provide us any information about spiritual reality.

7. The desire to become one with God is called the "last snare of maya". Because the Mayavadis got frustrated with their attempt to become the supreme enjoyer in this material world, they want to become one with the Supreme. This desire is illusory because the soul is by constitution Krsna's servant. The Srimad Bhagavatam(10:2:32) explains that the misconception of the impersonalists is caused by an impure intelligence and that consequently their realizations are not ultimate and they are thus forced to fall down again to the material platform.

8. The material world is not false ("brahma satyam, jagan mithya" is one of their favourite slogans)/ because the material world originates in the Absolute Truth, it is real but temporary. However, the belief that the material world is permanent is false-in other words the material world is real but temporary.

[gopal_deo_sharma]

According to the above given detailed philosophy.....mayavadism is something else I guess....

 

Try meditating about a shapeless thing.....no, don't meditate about an indefinite shape either....no shape

 

Try meditating about a shapeless, quality less....no,don't meditate light and also don't meditate darkness...nothing

 

Try meditating about a shapeless, quality less and endless form of absolute energy.....

 

Close ur eyes and then try it.....remember not even darkness is allowed or on that context light..... u will go crazy people....follow bhakti marg its real easy ..... after all Lord made it more easy for us by performing leelas so that we can remember him....

 

Pankajji....JKP is against gyan marg "Mayavada" from day 1 I guess so......they believe in Shakaar Brahma unlike mayavada theory of nirakar brahma.....so how can u say that they are mayavada....u said something else about mayavada.....but that is not right....if see shankaracharyas Brahma Sutra.....JKP's even are against mukti...because it ends individuality and thus cannot attain eternal bliss that is Lord Raam Lord Krishna....pls respond Pankajji...

[Pankaja_Dasa]

He believes he is God. Anything else he says after that is total rubbish.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Jesus Christ says 'hate thou sin not the sinner'. The sin is mayavada.

[gopal_deo_sharma]

 

Jesus Christ says 'hate thou sin not the sinner'. The sin is mayavada.

I guess u love jesus more than Lord Raam Lord Krishna......why u bring Jesus Christ in for?......I ain't no christian....I am a human being....I am a brahman...I don't eat meat...my Lord is Shri Raghupati Raam.....no sastra mentions jesus as "god head"......

U are talking about Shankaracharya or JKP?

Thanks for the url.....got registered to another bhakti discussion forum...

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Good luck on the forum, haribol!

[Guest guest]

where is the link to the other Bhakti forum? I don't see it.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/recommended-websites/72228-new-discussions-board.html

 

Here you go, really I don't have a clue why it was removed, because it's posted in the recommendation section. Bit unsual. Sectarianisim for Forums, who'd have thought it? hehe. Hare Krishna.. I'd like to see why the admin removed it. (and provide Sastric proofs thereof).

[Admin5]

http://www.bhaktidiscussions.com/ is a very positive forum, so there is no reason why a link to

 

that forum would have been removed, and it wasn't. Gopal_deo_sharma was probably thanking

 

you for the link to that forum that you must have given him thru a private email exchange. It

 

was not given by you to him in this thread.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Sorry, I thought I put it here. I remember now I put it in a Pm. I shall tak a humble pie now. Puspam, Pastam, Pizzam..

[gopal_deo_sharma]

 

Sorry, I thought I put it here. I remember now I put it in a Pm. I shall tak a humble pie now. Puspam, Pastam, Pizzam..

Puspam, Pastam, Pizzam? what is this? Man u really....well...got the link don't worry! Pankjji

[Guest guest]

I have tried to answer some of your points. They reflect my understanding of Advaita and my determinations based on logic, etc as well as the standard treatises.

 

 

I am a Raam Bhakt.....so the gyaan marg and nirakar brahma is out of my league I guess....

 

Adi Jagadguru Shankaracharya was a upasak of nirakar brahma and wrote that a jeeva tatwaa can become a vishnu-tatwaa by sadhna....here is a great deal of mayavadism...like the name?

Brahmavadins/Vishnuvadins or Advaitins, not mayavadis. The focus is on Brahman being the only reality. The "Aham" of every being is really the "Aham" that is (of) Ishvara/Narayana. The individuality/ego consciousness as expressed in existence is non-eternal expression of Narayana (or superimposition upon, at the level of the ego). Brahmavadins/Vishnuvadins say that the idea that the jiva is independent/distinct eternal reality is incorrect analysis, for it is Narayana who plays as multiple jivas and all jiva and material aspect, when seen for their root, resolve as the One Brahman/Narayana. "Aham Brahmaasmi".

 

The Mayavadis believe that the Supreme Truth is brahman or spiritual energy which is unlimited, without form, qualities, or activity. According to Mayavada philosophy, all living entities are one with brahman, but at present, are covered by illusion, and therefore temporarily seperated from brahman. When the illusion is gone, the living entity becomes again one with the brahman and loses its identity.

The main idea is that everything is God, meaning that you too are God but somehow or

other you forgot that you were God.

 

The supreme Truth is Brahman or Identity/Self. This Identity is non-dual. The individual mind perceives individuality and duality when it is ignorant of the Self. When the Self is realized, the “all” become pointers to the “One”. The ignorance that there is a separate and real individual identity is transcended; the universal non-dual identity is not to be attained or become one with – “Thou art That” already. A change in the plane of operation of the mind does not mean individual identity is actually merged with Brahman. The starting point itself is there is only one Identity/Self. Whatever is meant by illusion or realization is with reference to the projected mind/ego consciousness, which is non-eternal and without distinct real identity.

 

Out of this perspective, the Mayavadis neither accept the form nor the personality of Krsna as absolute but as creation of maya. Therefore, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu called the Mayavadis the biggest offenders of Krsna.

This is opinion due to difference in place of emphasis of different schools. The Dvaita schools emphasize Personality of the Lord and the Advaita schools place final emphasis on Identity that is the Lord. The Personality of Ishvara is very relevant to the personality of jiva. The personality of jiva is of the individual mind/ego, which give, according to Advaita, the incorrect idea of a separate identity. When this false notion of separate identity is transcended and the real non-dual Identity/Self is realized, the emphasis shifts from personality to Identity. Advaita schools also stress Bhakthi to Ishvara/Narayana as means to attaining His grace for final realization.

 

When the Lord is awake, He is Saguna and possessed of Personality. When He is asleep, He is Nirguna: all personality is submerged. Only He/ the Self is the eternal Reality. But again, the very identification of Personality implies that the mind is operating and within the plane of dualistic identification with jivahood. This is the Play/Projection of Krishna whose reality is nothing different from Krishna.

 

An Advaitin who says “Aham Brahmaasmi” means that this “I” is that of Narayana; He is everything and “everything” resolves to Him. But a Dvaitin thinks that it is implying that the ego-identity is somehow becoming or equated with God. This is blasphemous indeed but due to misconception on the part of the Dvaitin, who is not actually practicing Advaita but merely theorizing from the Dvaita standpoint.

 

Since people in general do not have sufficient information about the transcendental form of God, they are easily influenced by Mayavada philosophy. Whenever we meet people who accept the Vedas we will find that it is not so difficult to establish the Personality of Godhead on the basis of sastra. Since the majority of people are neither interested in any proofs from the sastra and don't recognize sastra as such, we have to establish Vaisnava philosophy on the basis of logic. There are some fatal defects in Mayavada philosophy which we should be able to recognize when confronted with it or otherwise have to deal with the subject:

Vaishnava philosophy cannot be established by mere logic. The eternal distinct reality of jiva cannot be proved by logic, nor can the absolute Personality of Krishna be thus established. When a Vaishnava shows off logic, he/she means to use logic to point out faults in Advaita.

 

1. Since we possess individuality, it is not logical that our ultimate source doesn't possess individuality. Since we can normally observe that personality is superior to an impersonal energy, we can conclude that personality is superior to impersonal energy. Since the Vedanta sutra explains that the Absolute Truth is the source of all existence, it must also be the source of personality and possess personality.

We possess Identity, which minus the non-eternal ego consciousness is non-dual Self. Identity seen in conjunction with ego-consciousness is individuality possessed of personality. The level of personality resolves to Identity when the non-eternal play of Krishna is recognized as projection/appearance of Krishna and thus resolved to His Identity.

 

2. The Mayavadis say that the brahman is manifested in a personal form in this material world. How can something personal be manifested from something impersonal? Where do we have an experience of such a phenomena? Lord Krsna explains in Bg 7:24 that this theory is extremely illogical and indicates a lack of intelligence.

Personality is at the level of mind and ego-consciousness: the misconceived identity. Impersonal is the real Identity/Self. The impersonal is not to “become” the personal, or viseversa. There is one Reality, which at the level of perception appears personal and at the level of Being/identity (the substratum truth) is impersonal.

 

3. It is said that brahman is unchangeable. How then can it split into different living entities within the material world? And why should it do that? In Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krsna explains (15:7) that the living entities are eternal parts and parcels of the Supreme and states than individuality is an eternal principle (Bg 2:12).

The unchangeable has not split into three. See His appearances as realities and think of Him as independent creator, etc., or Know Him as the One who appears and in all appearances see only Him. Your choice.

 

Your other points can be likewise answered. There are opinions in them which indicate some standard misconceptions of Advaita and some objections that naturally follow. We emphasize things differently, and this leads to apparent conflict. However Bhakthi is an integral part of the traditions of Shankaracharya; whatever be the ultimate philosophical standpoint to Bhakthi, the practical side includes and cherishes it as any other school.

[shuvo]

 

Puspam, Pastam, Pizzam? what is this? Man u really....well...got the link don't worry! Pankjji

 

Hare Krishna,

 

This thread is going to change......from the topic "Mayavadis":smash:

Isn't related:)

[gopal_deo_sharma]

 

I have tried to answer some of your points. They reflect my understanding of Advaita and my determinations based on logic, etc as well as the standard treatises.

Brahmavadins/Vishnuvadins or Advaitins, not mayavadis. The focus is on Brahman being the only reality. The "Aham" of every being is really the "Aham" that is (of) Ishvara/Narayana. The individuality/ego consciousness as expressed in existence is non-eternal expression of Narayana (or superimposition upon, at the level of the ego). Brahmavadins/Vishnuvadins say that the idea that the jiva is independent/distinct eternal reality is incorrect analysis, for it is Narayana who plays as multiple jivas and all jiva and material aspect, when seen for their root, resolve as the One Brahman/Narayana. "Aham Brahmaasmi".

The supreme Truth is Brahman or Identity/Self. This Identity is non-dual. The individual mind perceives individuality and duality when it is ignorant of the Self. When the Self is realized, the “all” become pointers to the “One”. The ignorance that there is a separate and real individual identity is transcended; the universal non-dual identity is not to be attained or become one with – “Thou art That” already. A change in the plane of operation of the mind does not mean individual identity is actually merged with Brahman. The starting point itself is there is only one Identity/Self. Whatever is meant by illusion or realization is with reference to the projected mind/ego consciousness, which is non-eternal and without distinct real identity.

This is opinion due to difference in place of emphasis of different schools. The Dvaita schools emphasize Personality of the Lord and the Advaita schools place final emphasis on Identity that is the Lord. The Personality of Ishvara is very relevant to the personality of jiva. The personality of jiva is of the individual mind/ego, which give, according to Advaita, the incorrect idea of a separate identity. When this false notion of separate identity is transcended and the real non-dual Identity/Self is realized, the emphasis shifts from personality to Identity. Advaita schools also stress Bhakthi to Ishvara/Narayana as means to attaining His grace for final realization.

When the Lord is awake, He is Saguna and possessed of Personality. When He is asleep, He is Nirguna: all personality is submerged. Only He/ the Self is the eternal Reality. But again, the very identification of Personality implies that the mind is operating and within the plane of dualistic identification with jivahood. This is the Play/Projection of Krishna whose reality is nothing different from Krishna.

An Advaitin who says “Aham Brahmaasmi” means that this “I” is that of Narayana; He is everything and “everything” resolves to Him. But a Dvaitin thinks that it is implying that the ego-identity is somehow becoming or equated with God. This is blasphemous indeed but due to misconception on the part of the Dvaitin, who is not actually practicing Advaita but merely theorizing from the Dvaita standpoint.

Vaishnava philosophy cannot be established by mere logic. The eternal distinct reality of jiva cannot be proved by logic, nor can the absolute Personality of Krishna be thus established. When a Vaishnava shows off logic, he/she means to use logic to point out faults in Advaita.

We possess Identity, which minus the non-eternal ego consciousness is non-dual Self. Identity seen in conjunction with ego-consciousness is individuality possessed of personality. The level of personality resolves to Identity when the non-eternal play of Krishna is recognized as projection/appearance of Krishna and thus resolved to His Identity.

Personality is at the level of mind and ego-consciousness: the misconceived identity. Impersonal is the real Identity/Self. The impersonal is not to “become” the personal, or viseversa. There is one Reality, which at the level of perception appears personal and at the level of Being/identity (the substratum truth) is impersonal.

The unchangeable has not split into three. See His appearances as realities and think of Him as independent creator, etc., or Know Him as the One who appears and in all appearances see only Him. Your choice.

Your other points can be likewise answered. There are opinions in them which indicate some standard misconceptions of Advaita and some objections that naturally follow. We emphasize things differently, and this leads to apparent conflict. However Bhakthi is an integral part of the traditions of Shankaracharya; whatever be the ultimate philosophical standpoint to Bhakthi, the practical side includes and cherishes it as any other school.

Man! thats a long argument...read the whole thing though...true! that Narayan is the eternal brahm but the things u said r not accepted by the followers of Gyaan marg.....u gave a bhakts intrepretation on dvaiat vedant I think.....They don't believe in Narayan being the Supreme Brahm.....because saying a name even adds an individuality and for them brahm has 0 individuality...."Aham Brahamasti" meaning they are brahm....so the little surrenderence one have toward god is also gone in this marg....

Man! I ain't against Shankaracharya....I am a moron compared to such a great man "Mahapurush".....He came to destroy buddhist effects on hindu societies.....the eleventh rudra.....he says in brahm sutra that what can u do oh! brahm u cannot speak, u cannot judge, u cannot do anything....he also says the Govind bhakti is the only path to delete maayaaa from ones self

[Guest guest]

 

Man! thats a long argument...read the whole thing though...true! that Narayan is the eternal brahm but the things u said r not accepted by the followers of Gyaan marg.....u gave a bhakts intrepretation on dvaiat vedant I think.....They don't believe in Narayan being the Supreme Brahm.....because saying a name even adds an individuality and for them brahm has 0 individuality...."Aham Brahamasti" meaning they are brahm....so the little surrenderence one have toward god is also gone in this marg....

 

In the final stage of realization, only non-dual Identity of Self is admitted. Till then as I said, the Advaitin's path can be very similar to Dvaita; i.e. Bhakthi is important. Advaita admits Ishvara in relation to jiva; the same Ishvara I also refer to as Narayana. Since the Advaitin ultimately says that the Identity behind "what is" is nondual, there is greater freedom as to how Ishvara/Narayana is approached/identified. Many will hold to the jiva identity as real and approach Ishvara with particular name and form, etc. They may give a nod to the philosophical conclusions of Advaita but in practice follow/teach a dualistic Bhakthi conception of God and jiva. Others may hold to the final philosophical conclusion and approach Ishvara in the Aham/Self within existence. They may also be extremely devoted but their devotion will be to the inner Self or in abidance in the Self. This is more akin to the jnana path that you perhaps refer to.

 

From the final philosophical standpoint, it is also possible to approach Advaita without discussing or validating Isvara (as personal God) and jiva, karma and reincarnation. The philosophy can stand alone in the assertion of the final non-dual Reality of the Self. (There is no separation/individuality when all dualistic identifications are resolved to the one Identity of Self). Taking the standpoint of the ‘I’ behind the personal identity, the philosophy rises above the reason and law that operate at the levels of superimposition. It is not obligated to affirm or negate or even consider these apparent manifestations. “Thoughts come and go; I remain the same. This ‘I’ is called the Self.” If the Self is the Self and there is neither appearance nor use of the mind, then there is neither limitation nor identification. “It is as it is” is the best we can say.

 

The above para is again heavily jnana approach. It will also tell why many who don't want to deal with the question of personal God still enter Advaita by looking from its final standpoint.

 

As far as I know, the matams of Shankaracharya advice Ishvara Bhakthi to its followers. Sri Ramakrishna also spoke in these lines. Sri Ramana Maharshi while also acknowledging the Bhakthi path spoke mainly from the state of final realization; hence his statements may seem more akin to Jnana path. However these advaita schools whether they emphasize Bhakthi or Jnana maarg are friendly with one another, recognizing that their paths have the same underlying philosophy and the followers will reach the same end.

[gopal_deo_sharma]

 

In the final stage of realization, only non-dual Identity of Self is admitted. Till then as I said, the Advaitin's path can be very similar to Dvaita; i.e. Bhakthi is important. Advaita admits Ishvara in relation to jiva; the same Ishvara I also refer to as Narayana. Since the Advaitin ultimately says that the Identity behind "what is" is nondual, there is greater freedom as to how Ishvara/Narayana is approached/identified. Many will hold to the jiva identity as real and approach Ishvara with particular name and form, etc. They may give a nod to the philosophical conclusions of Advaita but in practice follow/teach a dualistic Bhakthi conception of God and jiva. Others may hold to the final philosophical conclusion and approach Ishvara in the Aham/Self within existence. They may also be extremely devoted but their devotion will be to the inner Self or in abidance in the Self. This is more akin to the jnana path that you perhaps refer to.

From the final philosophical standpoint, it is also possible to approach Advaita without discussing or validating Isvara (as personal God) and jiva, karma and reincarnation. The philosophy can stand alone in the assertion of the final non-dual Reality of the Self. (There is no separation/individuality when all dualistic identifications are resolved to the one Identity of Self). Taking the standpoint of the ‘I’ behind the personal identity, the philosophy rises above the reason and law that operate at the levels of superimposition. It is not obligated to affirm or negate or even consider these apparent manifestations. “Thoughts come and go; I remain the same. This ‘I’ is called the Self.” If the Self is the Self and there is neither appearance nor use of the mind, then there is neither limitation nor identification. “It is as it is” is the best we can say.

The above para is again heavily jnana approach. It will also tell why many who don't want to deal with the question of personal God still enter Advaita by looking from its final standpoint.

As far as I know, the matams of Shankaracharya advice Ishvara Bhakthi to its followers. Sri Ramakrishna also spoke in these lines. Sri Ramana Maharshi while also acknowledging the Bhakthi path spoke mainly from the state of final realization; hence his statements may seem more akin to Jnana path. However these advaita schools whether they emphasize Bhakthi or Jnana maarg are friendly with one another, recognizing that their paths have the same underlying philosophy and the followers will reach the same end.

NICE!...

True that both adwait and dwait has to perform bhakti at the initial stages of their followed marg.....but u see a gyaan margi will want to end his individuality by attaining mukti.....the personality of soul will no longer exist....but a bhakti maargi will want to attain lord's divine and spiritual abodes for eternal bliss....a gyaan maargi cannot do that......Mukti will ofcourse get rid of Maayaa and all its apara properties of him but he will never experience Chaitanya that is eternal bliss...

[Guest guest]

 

NICE!...

True that both adwait and dwait has to perform bhakti at the initial stages of their followed marg.....but u see a gyaan margi will want to end his individuality by attaining mukti.....the personality of soul will no longer exist....but a bhakti maargi will want to attain lord's divine and spiritual abodes for eternal bliss....a gyaan maargi cannot do that......Mukti will ofcourse get rid of Maayaa and all its apara properties of him but he will never experience Chaitanya that is eternal bliss...

 

That's fine. I just want to mention to interested readers: there is a link mentioned in the Advaita Vedanta forum: (add extra w in beginning)

ww.advaitin.net/Discussion%20Topics/advaita-saadhanaa.pdf

containing talks on Advaita given by the former Kanchipuram Shankaracharya. I have yet to read it myself. It should be a good reference whether we support or oppose the philosophy.

[Guest guest]

 

Man! thats a long argument...read the whole thing though...true! that Narayan is the eternal brahm but the things u said r not accepted by the followers of Gyaan marg.....u gave a bhakts intrepretation on dvaiat vedant I think.....They don't believe in Narayan being the Supreme Brahm.....because saying a name even adds an individuality and for them brahm has 0 individuality...."Aham Brahamasti" meaning they are brahm....so the little surrenderence one have toward god is also gone in this marg....

 

I thought about what you said. True; some of my arguments can also be made from the Visishtadvaita standpoint. The ultimate non-duality of Identity is concluded in Visishtadvaita as well; for instance, check how that school interprets "Tattwamasi". As I understand, the primary differences are deduced from whether jiva and prakrithi are eternal attributes/modes of expression of Brahman (VA) or non-eternal superimpositions/expressions upon/of Brahman (A). (No time to discuss the arguments involved). Jiva/Prakrithi in VA is like the blue colour attribute of a blue jar, whereas in Advaita a further reduction is made to something like "energy". The Advaita conclusion is the essence of both schools and can be held highest (in the line of my arguments) even within the VA framework. It depends on how we emphasize things. Of course, VA emphasizes in such a way as to have Bhakthi follow Jnana, whereas A does it to have jnana follow Bhakthi. (In the Advaita framework, there is of course no question about the final conclusion; hence the other schools try to destroy the framework with logic, etc.)