vijnAnavAda and advaita

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

What is the exact the difference between the vijnAnavAda of Buddhism

and advaita philosophy? Is it only the presence or the absence of the

substratum as accepted by the philosophers of these schools? Advaitins

also say that as long as ignorance/upAdhi persists one sees the world.

Is not the world then projection of our own mind? Or does it has some

sort of reality and exists outside?

 

What is the real nature of the world? Is the concept of world

according to advaita lies somewhere between idealism and realism?

 

I have feeling that I am missing something here. Pointers from

shankara's perspective will be very much appreciated.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Vinayaka ji,

World is mind only, in the pure subjective level is the central

theme that the Doctrine of Vijnana vada is bothered about. Here

Advaitins specifically in the strength of admitting the relative

existence of World in its own Satta, ridicules the Vijnana Vadins to

raise the question: `If world is mind only and others exists not

apart from it, then in whose mind do you think the world resides

in ?' Denying the absolutism and theistic assumptions Vijnana Vadins

may answer thus: `Such a residence for mind is due to the collective

hallucination of conglomerated impressions that are immediate to the

mind-mind co-ordination which is devoid objectivity' This ViparyAsa

Maya, (Subjective hallucination) or the mental creation is a

sopAdhika manO dharma – the innate ingredient of mental character,

that which constructs the five skandas accounting for the objective

world. The desiderative conclusion for Vijnana vadins is that the

Vijnana arises (originate) as and when the mano dharmas manifest and

finally realization of such false ideation (abhUta parikalpa ) ends

with the state of mukti in the channel of middle path. In Madhyanta

VibhAga – Laksana Pariccheda, Vasubandu advocates that `subjective

origination of hallucination (Kalpita), dependence (paratantra) and

perfected (parinispanna) are taught on account of false ideation

where non-existence of duality (dvaya-abhava) alone finally

persists. This dvaya-abAva is the ultimate state of non-existence

cum non-non-existence; for the middle path alone is retained.

Vasubandu says `na sUnyam nApi cAsUnyam tasmAt sarvam vidhIyate –

sattvAd asattvAt sattvAc ca madhyama pratipaccasa |'. Thus in my

view, Vijnana vada as conceived by Vasubandu is one idealism that

falls between the Sunya vada – absolute nihilism and the pseudo

realism. The fortiori of Advaita extends to transcend such

idealistic, nihilistic boundaries; for its realism in phenomenal

realms seriously accounts for the pragmatic utility of `inter-

subjective idealism' unlike the Vijnana vadins.

With Narayana Smrthi,

[Guest guest]

Vinayakaji,

 

This site gives good information about vijnAnavAda, and you can easily

draw parallels with the Advaita.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/consciousness.htm

 

This passage particularly seems relevant here:

 

" In the systematised Yogachara school of Maitreyanatha, Asanga and

Vasubandu, the pristine Absolute Consciousness or Vijnaptimatrata is

the Absolute Reality. Through individual Ignorance (Avidya),

Vijnaptimatrata appears as the three vijnanas; viz: Alayavijnana,

Manas or Klishto-manovijnana, and Pravritti-vijnana, by which is meant

the six consciousnesses - the five sense-consciousnesses (seeing,

hearing, etc) and the manovijnana or mind-consciousness - that make up

mental and sensory reality [Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, The Yogachara

Idealism, p.87]. Here the Alayavij-nana is no longer the Absolute but

one of the facets of relative Consciousness; the repository of the

vasanas or bijas. As Chatterjee explains, " none of these eight

vijnanas is ultimate. Consciousness is disturbed owing to the impact

of a wrong idea " , and once this is eliminated and the agitation calmed

down, consciousness " regains its eternal quiescence " [ibid p.107].

There is the parallel here with (and obviously a derivation from an

early form of) Samkhya, in which the purusha or

consciousness-principle is distinct from the principles of nature and

psycho-physical existence (or prakriti). The difference is that

whereas Samkhya implies of multiplicity of consciousnesses, Yogachara,

like Advaita Vedanta, refers to only one, which is also the underlying

substratum of existence. It is not the case that Advaita influenced

Yogachara however; more the reverse. "

 

-------------------------------

 

If I understand it correctly, the vijnAnavAdis consider the same

entity, the vijnAptimAtratA to be the Absolute, as well as a

storehouse of the vAsanAs. This one entity only manifests as three,

and is the entire changing existence. This, of course, has been proven

false by Advaita, since an Absolute cannot have any

defects/modifications (vAsanAs).

 

The philosophy rests on the principle on " mind-only " , i.e. all that

exists is mind, and hence all the modifications etc. observed are the

mind. There, however, is no unchanging substratum for the changes to

occur, and this, like other philosophies of Buddhism, is the biggest

contradiction it has with Vedanta.

 

Wikipedia also gives more information (mainly historical) about this

school:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogacara

 

Please point out if there are any errors in the above.

 

Hari Om.

~Vaibhav.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Antaryami.

 

Your post 38327 refers.

 

I am not a scholar and my understanding of advaita is a product of

reading, listening to contemporary scholars and reflection. As such,

the followng passages of your message has confused me.

 

QUOTE

 

" Here Advaitins specifically in the strength of admitting the

relative existence of World in its own Satta, ridicules the Vijnana

Vadins to raise the question: `If world is mind only and others

exists not apart from it, then in whose mind do you think the world

resides in ?' "

 

UNQUOTE

 

Looks like you are here admitting a plurality of subjects. I have

been taught that the answer to the riddle of the world is in a

single-subject - non-subject equation, where the mind itself is a non-

subject and which ends up in the totality of me of which nothing else

that there is ever exclusive. While upholding the " satta " of the

world (as you say), advaita, unlike vijnAnavAda has made sure that

the totality is not in any way mutilated by creation (divisions).

Alaya-vijnAna is not fortified against mutilation like the totality

of Advaita and that, to my eyes, is the only major difference between

it and vijnAnavAda.

 

You have ended your post thus:

 

QUOTE

 

" The fortiori of Advaita extends to transcend such idealistic,

nihilistic boundaries; for its realism in phenomenal realms

seriously accounts for the pragmatic utility of `inter-subjective

idealism' unlike the Vijnana vadins. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

Are you calling Advaita 'inter-subjective idealism'? It would be a

great help if you kindly elaborate on your understanding of advaita

(with comparative reference to vijnAnavAda) in a couple of

paragraphs. In doing so, I request you, Sir, to avoid Sanskrit quotes

and words as much a possible in order for the lay ones amongst us to

easily understand your approach.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " vskhire " <vskhire wrote:

 

> The philosophy rests on the principle on " mind-only " , i.e. all that

> exists is mind, and hence all the modifications etc. observed are

the

> mind. There, however, is no unchanging substratum for the changes

to

> occur, and this, like other philosophies of Buddhism, is the

biggest

> contradiction it has with Vedanta.

 

Dear Vaibhav-ji,

 

Thanks for the reply. Being advaitins, if we say that the world has

an independent existence, then there will be a good deal of

confusion! And like buddhists if we negate substratum for this false

appearance, it becomes a very funny proposition.

 

Here is one pointer on this topic which I got in the works of swami

vivEkAnanda. It makes the stand of the advaitin very clear(it

appelas to me very much at least). I am giving the related excerpt

for the reference of the group members.

 

" How are perceptions made? The wall opposite sends an impression to

me, but I do not see the wall until my mind reacts, that is to say,

the mind cannot know the wall by mere sight. The reaction that

enables the mind to get a perception of the wall is an intellectual

process. In this way the whole universe is seen through our eyes

plus mind (or perceptive faculty); it is necessarily coloured by our

own individual tendencies. The real wall, or the real universe, is

outside the mind, and is unknown and unknowable. Call this universe

X, and our statement is that the seen universe is X plus mind.

 

What is true of the external must also apply to the internal world.

Mind also wants to know itself, but this Self can only be known

through the medium of the mind and is, like the wall, unknown. This

self we may call Y. and the statement would then be, Y plus mind is

the inner self. Kant was the first to arrive at this analysis of

mind, but it was long ago stated in the Vedas. We have thus, as it

were, mind standing between X and Y and reacting on both.

 

If X is unknown, then any qualities we give to it are only derived

from our own mind. Time, space, and causation are the three

conditions through which mind perceives. Time is the condition for

the transmission of thought, and space for the vibration of grosser

matter. Causation is the sequence in which vibrations come. Mind can

only cognise through these. Anything therefore, beyond mind must be

beyond time, space, and causation.

 

To the blind man the world is perceived by touch and sound. To us

with five senses it is another world. If any of us developed an

electric sense and the faculty seeing electric waves, the world

would appear different. Yet the world, as the X to all of these, is

still the same. As each one brings his own mind, he sees his own

world. There is X plus one sense; X plus two senses, up to five, as

we know humanity. The result is constantly varied, yet X remains

always unchanged. Y is also beyond our minds and beyond time, space,

and causation.

 

But, you may ask, " How do we know there are two things (X and Y)

beyond time, space, and causation? " Quite true, time makes

differentiation, so that, as both are really beyond time, they must

be really one. When mind sees this one, it calls it variously — X,

when it is the outside world, and Y, when it is the inside world.

This unit exists and is looked at through the lens of minds.

 

The Being of perfect nature, universally appearing to us, is God, is

Absolute. The undifferentiated is the perfect condition; all others

must be lower and not permanent.

 

What makes the undifferentiated appear differentiated to mind? This

is the same kind of question as what is the origin of evil and free

will? The question itself is contradictory and impossible, because

the question takes for granted cause and effect. There is no cause

and effect in the undifferentiated; the question assumes that the

undifferentiated is in the same condition as the

differentiated. " Whys " and " wherefores " are in mind only. The Self

is beyond causation, and It alone is free. Its light it is which

percolates through every form of mind. With every action I assert I

am free, and yet every action proves that I am bound. The real Self

is free, yet when mixed with mind and body, It is not free. The will

is the first manifestation of the real Self; the first limitation

therefore of this real Self is the will. Will is a compound of Self

and mind. Now, no compound can be permanent, so that when we will to

live, we must die. Immortal life is a contradiction in terms, for

life, being a compound, cannot be immortal. True Being is

undifferentiated and eternal. How does this Perfect Being become

mixed up with will, mind, thought — all defective things? It never

has become mixed. You are the real you (the Y of our former

statement); you never were will; you never have changed; you as a

person never existed; It is illusion. Then on what, you will say, do

the phenomena of illusion rest? This is a bad question. Illusion

never rests on Truth, but only on illusion. Everything struggles to

go back to what was before these illusions, to be free in fact. What

then is the value of life? It is to give us experience. Does this

view do away with evolution? On the contrary, it explains it. It is

really the process of refinement of matter allowing the real Self to

manifest Itself. It is as if a screen or a veil were between us and

some other object. The object becomes clear as the screen is

gradually withdrawn. The question is simply one of manifestation of

the higher Self. "

 

Source:

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_6/vol_6_fra

me.htm

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Madhathilnair ji,

My revered gurus always remind me to quote the Sanskrit original

source as and when I present my views. I present these quotes not to

confuse people, but for my own convenience, so that I need not

search for the references at a later stage. In fact I have a very

strong opinion about quoting the original scriptural references, for

it reflects one's Shraddha in Sastras. After all, it is the only way

for us to acknowledge the richness of our Parampara. More than all,

im sure most of my other friends here will not recognize my views

unless it is supported by proper references and Sanksrit quotes.

 

Now, I shall present a brief note on Vijnana Vada and Advaita, to

derive and display the doctrinal dichotomies between them.

Vasubandhu formulates the pure consciousness to be the sole reality,

which he calls it, the Vijnapti matra, which is subjected to various

modifications as elaborated in the Trimsika – Sthiramati's

commentary against the unalterable Caitanya as conceived by the

Advaitins. There are gradations in the consciousness according the

Vijnana Vadins vide, Pravrtti vijnana, nivrtti vijnana and the Alaya

vijnana. The first two are connected to mind and that evolves the

diverse appearances while the Alaya vijnana that becomes the

storehouse for all the impressions. Advaitins does not regard such

gradations and never calls caitanya the collective cognition of a

variety impression carrying the seeds of impulses of the mano-

dharmas. Vasubandhu is not certain enough to explain his concept of

Alaya vijnana, for he is skeptic about its essential nature. He

says `though the Alaya vijnana is permanent in pure bliss, it is

subjected to three fold modifications. Vasubandu at one place

says `true nature of mind alone is Vijnaptimatra, as it remains in

all times in mere `such ness' and is inseparable (1) while he talks

about a state of trance (Arhat) where VijnApti alone exists in the

cessation of mind. All these views set forth by vijnana vadins in my

view is close to the theory of indeterminable difference-cum-non

difference where the ontology oscillates between the predications of

insubstantiality of different modes of idealism; out of the absolute

realms of practical utility.

 

My intention to mark Advaita conception of Consciousness as `inter

subjective idealism' is to account for the systematic governance of

relative `presence' of sattas not against the absolute `existence'

of the ultimate reality. Inter subjectivity in Advaitic perspective

is only to indicate the non-difference between subjective and

objective consciousness (PramAtr- Visaya Caitanya). I only pointed

out the various roles that `one' subject may `seemingly' assume at

various planar levels of perceptions. `riupam drsyam – locanam drk;

tat drsyam drktu mAnasam' says Vidyaranya. Drk is the Subject that

performs functional roles at different planes of `reality' while the

cessation of `inter subjective' planar differences that ends with

the `existence' pure subject alone (Drgeva ) which is unseen (natu

drsyate). Such a cessation is the Prapancopasama as we all know

where the non-dual subject is never mutilated.

 

(1) " Sarva kalam thatha bhavat " / Prathamo laksanenaiva nihsvabhavo

parah punah | na sva svayam bhava etasya apara nihsvabhavata|| " -

(Vasubandhu's Trimsika)

[Guest guest]

--- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

" Thanks for the reply. Being advaitins, if we say that

the world has an independent existence, then there

will be a good deal of confusion! And like buddhists

if we negate substratum for this false appearance, it

becomes a very funny proposition. "

 

No I didnt mean to imply the world has independent

existence, rather the existence of the world is

present only because of the supreme Consciousness. I

like a dialogue by Sri Ramana Maharshi which explains

this beautifully.

 

 

Question: " Brahman is real. The world is illusion " is

the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say,

" The world is reality. " Which is true?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They

refer to different stages of development and are

spoken from different points of view. The aspirant

starts with the definition, that which is real exists

always. Then he eliminates the world as unreal because

it is changing. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self

and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then,

that which was originally rejected as being unreal is

found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the

reality, the world also is real. There is only being

in Self-realisation, and nothing but being.

 

Question: Sri Bhagavan (Ramana Maharshi) often says

that Maya (illusion) and reality are the same. How can

that be?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Sankara was criticised for his

views on Maya without being understood. He said that

 

1. Brahman is real, 2. The universe is unreal, and 3.

The universe is Brahman.

 

He did not stop at the second, because the third

explains the other two. It signifies that the universe

is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if

perceived apart from the Self. Hence Maya and reality

are one and the same.

 

Question: So the world is not really illusory?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: At the level of the spiritual

seeker you have got to say that the world is an

illusion. There is no other way. When a man forgets

that he is a Brahman, who is real, permanent and

omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he

is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies

that are transitory, and labours under that delusion,

you have got to remind him that the world is unreal

and a delusion. Why? Because his vision which has

forgotten its own Self is dwelling in the external,

material universe. It will not turn inwards into

introspection unless you impress on him that all this

external material universe is unreal. When once he

realises his own Self he will know that there is

nothing other than his own Self and he will come to

look upon the whole universe as Brahman.

 

There is no universe without the Self. So long as a

man does not see the Self which is the origin of all,

but looks only at the external world as real and

permanent, you have to tell him that all this external

universe is an illusion. You cannot help it. Take a

paper. We see only the script, and nobody notices the

paper on which the script is written. The paper is

there whether the script on it is there or not. To

those who look upon the script as real, you have to

say that it is unreal, an illusion, since it rests

upon the paper. The wise man looks upon both the paper

and script as one. So also with Brahman and the

universe. "

 

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Vedanta/Ramana_on_creation.html

 

 

~Vaibhav.

 

 

Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. To know how, go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html

[Guest guest]

Thank you so much for this vaibhav, he explains this very well and reduces my

ignorance.

 

 

vaibhav khire <vskhire

advaitin

Saturday, December 1, 2007 9:27:50 PM

Re: Re: vijnAnavAda and advaita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns@ > wrote:

 

" Thanks for the reply. Being advaitins, if we say that

 

the world has an independent existence, then there

 

will be a good deal of confusion! And like buddhists

 

if we negate substratum for this false appearance, it

 

becomes a very funny proposition. "

 

 

 

No I didnt mean to imply the world has independent

 

existence, rather the existence of the world is

 

present only because of the supreme Consciousness. I

 

like a dialogue by Sri Ramana Maharshi which explains

 

this beautifully.

 

 

 

Question: " Brahman is real. The world is illusion " is

 

the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say,

 

" The world is reality. " Which is true?

 

 

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Both statements are true. They

 

refer to different stages of development and are

 

spoken from different points of view. The aspirant

 

starts with the definition, that which is real exists

 

always. Then he eliminates the world as unreal because

 

it is changing. The seeker ultimately reaches the Self

 

and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then,

 

that which was originally rejected as being unreal is

 

found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the

 

reality, the world also is real. There is only being

 

in Self-realisation, and nothing but being.

 

 

 

Question: Sri Bhagavan (Ramana Maharshi) often says

 

that Maya (illusion) and reality are the same. How can

 

that be?

 

 

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Sankara was criticised for his

 

views on Maya without being understood. He said that

 

 

 

1. Brahman is real, 2. The universe is unreal, and 3.

 

The universe is Brahman.

 

 

 

He did not stop at the second, because the third

 

explains the other two. It signifies that the universe

 

is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if

 

perceived apart from the Self. Hence Maya and reality

 

are one and the same.

 

 

 

Question: So the world is not really illusory?

 

 

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: At the level of the spiritual

 

seeker you have got to say that the world is an

 

illusion. There is no other way. When a man forgets

 

that he is a Brahman, who is real, permanent and

 

omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he

 

is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies

 

that are transitory, and labours under that delusion,

 

you have got to remind him that the world is unreal

 

and a delusion. Why? Because his vision which has

 

forgotten its own Self is dwelling in the external,

 

material universe. It will not turn inwards into

 

introspection unless you impress on him that all this

 

external material universe is unreal. When once he

 

realises his own Self he will know that there is

 

nothing other than his own Self and he will come to

 

look upon the whole universe as Brahman.

 

 

 

There is no universe without the Self. So long as a

 

man does not see the Self which is the origin of all,

 

but looks only at the external world as real and

 

permanent, you have to tell him that all this external

 

universe is an illusion. You cannot help it. Take a

 

paper. We see only the script, and nobody notices the

 

paper on which the script is written. The paper is

 

there whether the script on it is there or not. To

 

those who look upon the script as real, you have to

 

say that it is unreal, an illusion, since it rests

 

upon the paper. The wise man looks upon both the paper

 

and script as one. So also with Brahman and the

 

universe. "

 

 

 

http://www.kheper. net/topics/ Vedanta/Ramana_ on_creation. html

 

 

 

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. To know how, go to

http://help. / l/in// mail/mail/ tools/tools- 08.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-mkp{

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}

#ygrp-mkp hr{

border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#ygrp-mkp #hd{

color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}

#ygrp-mkp #ads{

margin-bottom:10px;}

#ygrp-mkp .ad{

padding:0 0;}

#ygrp-mkp .ad a{

color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}

-->

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{

font-family:Arial;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{

margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{

margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

-->

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,

sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}

#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}

#ygrp-text{

font-family:Georgia;

}

#ygrp-text p{

margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#ygrp-tpmsgs{

font-family:Arial;

clear:both;}

#ygrp-vitnav{

padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}

#ygrp-vitnav a{

padding:0 1px;}

#ygrp-actbar{

clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}

#ygrp-actbar .left{

float:left;white-space:nowrap;}

..bld{font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-grft{

font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}

#ygrp-ft{

font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;

padding:5px 0;

}

#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{

padding-bottom:10px;}

 

#ygrp-vital{

background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}

#ygrp-vital #vithd{

font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:upp\

ercase;}

#ygrp-vital ul{

padding:0;margin:2px 0;}

#ygrp-vital ul li{

list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;

}

#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{

font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-ri\

ght:.5em;}

#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{

font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-vital a{

text-decoration:none;}

 

#ygrp-vital a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;}

 

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{

color:#999;font-size:77%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov{

padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{

padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{

list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{

text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}

#ygrp-sponsor #nc{

background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad{

padding:8px 0;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{

font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%\

;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{

text-decoration:none;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{

margin:0;}

o{font-size:0;}

..MsoNormal{

margin:0 0 0 0;}

#ygrp-text tt{

font-size:120%;}

blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}

..replbq{margin:4;}

-->

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

 

 

[Guest guest]

John,

 

 

 

Could you please delete the message to which you are replying. This last

message of yours consisted of a single sentence of comment followed by pages

of the earlier message. I think we will soon have to start awarding yellow

cards to persistent offenders.

 

 

 

Also, your messages are coming through with lots of html formatting at the

end - I have left just part of this below in case you can work out why this

is. Do you perhaps have a complex 'signature' inserted at the end of your

posts?

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

From John Miller [johnnyzmilleriii]

 

#ygrp-vital{

background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}

#ygrp-vital #vithd{

font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform

:uppercase;}

#ygrp-vital ul{

padding:0;margin:2px 0;}

#ygrp-vital ul li{

list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;

}

#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{

font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;paddin

g-right:.5em;}

#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{

font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-vital a{

text-decoration:none;}

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, of course, sorry about that.

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaskar

 

Explains a lot.

 

Dinesh

 

vaibhav khire wrote:

>

>

> Ramana Maharshi: Sankara was criticised for his

> views on Maya without being understood. He said that

>

> 1. Brahman is real, 2. The universe is unreal, and 3.

> The universe is Brahman.

>

> He did not stop at the second, because the third

> explains the other two. It signifies that the universe

> is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if

> perceived apart from the Self. Hence Maya and reality

> are one and the same.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Vinayakaji wrote:#38339

Quoting Swami Vivekananda:

" How are perceptions made? The wall opposite sends an impression to

me, but I do not see the wall until my mind reacts, that is to say,

the mind cannot know the wall by mere sight. The reaction that

enables the mind to get a perception of the wall is an intellectual

process. In this way the whole universe is seen through our eyes

plus mind (or perceptive faculty); it is necessarily coloured by our

own individual tendencies. The real wall, or the real universe, is

outside the mind, and is unknown and unknowable. Call this universe

X, and our statement is that the seen universe is X plus mind.

 

What is true of the external must also apply to the internal world.

Mind also wants to know itself, but this Self can only be known

through the medium of the mind and is, like the wall, unknown. This

self we may call Y. and the statement would then be, Y plus mind is

the inner self. Kant was the first to arrive at this analysis of

mind, but it was long ago stated in the Vedas. We have thus, as it

were, mind standing between X and Y and reacting on both. "

 

 

|||||||||

 

Namaste Vinayakaji,

Just a note to remind the list members that Kantian Idealism has nothing

to do with Advaita and is in fact altogether different. It is wrong to

state that we don't know the wall as it is. The 'as it is' of the wall is

what makes it knowable. You need to read 'Vedanta-Paribhasa' to aquaint

yourself with the very clear distinction between Idealism and Advaita. eg.

 

" The perceptuality of objects such as jar, however, consists in their not

being different from the (Consciousness associated with the) subject.

 

Objection: How can a jar etc. be one with the Consciousness limited by the

mind, since it contradicts our experience of difference, as when we sqay,

" I see this " ?

 

Reply: The answer is this. The absence of difference from the subject

does not indeed man identity; it means having no existence apart from that

of the subject. " ((End Quote))

 

If I might add my own understanding of how the two systems of thought can

get mixed up. Advaita does not deny the existence of mental modifications

and that we have awareness in the form of mental modifications. It

resists falling into the simplistic trap of saying that all that we are

aware of is merely mental modifications by going on to ask how those

mental modifications which are of inert objects come to be _able_ to be in

the mind. In other words what does it mean that I _can_ be aware of

objects. Read the Preamble to B.S.B. to get the force of this line of

inquiry.

 

Moreover any explanation of Advaita that leaves out adhyasa

(superimposition) and upadhis (limiting adjuncts) is missing the point.

They are core principles and not optional extras.

 

Sorry if I seem a little forceful but people are led astray by novelties

and waste a lot of time in muddles.

 

Best Regards,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

Yours is always a head

Held straight upright

Right above the muddle.

 

You have answered the ones

Who suspect idealism

At every turn.

 

Please be with us more often.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva quoted:

 

> Reply: The answer is this. The absence of difference from the

subject does not indeed mean identity; it means having no existence

apart from that of the subject. " ((End Quote))

>

___________

 

Then ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

> It (advaita) resists falling into the simplistic trap of saying

that all that we are aware of is merely mental modifications by

going on to ask how those mental modifications which are of inert

objects come to be _able_ to be in the mind. In other words what

does it mean that I _can_ be aware of objects.

[Guest guest]

Here is an small video of Albert Einstein's protege David Bohm on

perception.

 

Regards,

Ravi

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sorry the link is here

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=4n2vp2zlhj

 

On Dec 4, 2007 11:05 PM, Ravi Ande <ravi.ande wrote:

 

> Here is an small video of Albert Einstein's protege David Bohm on

> perception.

>

> Regards,

> Ravi

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

> If I might add my own understanding of how the two systems of

thought can

> get mixed up. Advaita does not deny the existence of mental

modifications

> and that we have awareness in the form of mental modifications. It

> resists falling into the simplistic trap of saying that all that we

are

> aware of is merely mental modifications by going on to ask how those

> mental modifications which are of inert objects come to be _able_ to

be in

> the mind. In other words what does it mean that I _can_ be aware of

> objects. Read the Preamble to B.S.B. to get the force of this line

of

> inquiry.

>

> Moreover any explanation of Advaita that leaves out adhyasa

> (superimposition) and upadhis (limiting adjuncts) is missing the

point.

> They are core principles and not optional extras.

 

 

 

Namasthe Dear Michael-ji,

 

First of all, taking as an independent comment, I personally don't see

nothing wrong with the statement of vivEkAnanda. As I have mentioned

in my previous post, it appeals to me very much.

 

Secondly, though I have the treatise vEdAnta paribhAsha with me, I

have not gone through yet. My exposure to sUtrabhAshya also is very

limited one. Barring certain passages and that of critical works, I

have not gone through the same at full length.I shall be soon start my

study of sUtrabhAshya and have noted down many points on which I have

to give special focus. The nature of external world/objects is one of

them. Shall surely try to study the adhyAsa bhAshya in the light of

your comments.

 

Finally, the interpretations of prasthAnatraya by the swamiji whom I

am trying to follow, differs considerably nay drastically from the

views of the later exponents of the shankara's advaita including that

of Sri dharmarAja adhvarindra and he has given cogent reasons for his

stand also.

 

Considering all these, I can say only this much, that, I will be able

to appreciate these issues in a better way after spending couple of

years in study and contemplation.

 

Needless to say that there will be always views/corrections of

scholars on the issues discussed in the forum and members can

accept/reject according to their judgment on the merits the views

expressed.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Note from List Moderators: You have been repeatedly enclosing all the previous

posters' messages while sending your reply. We request you and other new members

to observed the list guidelines - keep the minimum appropriate part of the

previous messages while sending your reply. Thanks again for your cooperation.

In this message, the unnecessary part is removed and please follow this example.

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Moreover any explanation of Advaita that leaves out adhyasa

> (superimposition) and upadhis (limiting adjuncts) is missing the

point.

=============

 

Hi Michaelji,

 

How does the worshipping of 'avatars' and the like fit into this

scheme of things? Some of them are even charlatans!

 

Is it not just the superimposition of the avatar's face and id on to

one's own inner mind and belief system?

 

In true advaita why the need for so much blatant dvaita.....Hu.

[Guest guest]

Michael - PraNAms

 

 

Needs some points for clarification.

 

If I understand Kantian philosophy, he assumes some

transcendental framework for the mind, related to

cause-effect, reason, sensibility and understanding

(process) of the mind, which are structural. Contents

that include the perception and discrimination (of the

contents) based on the intrinsic structure of the mind

occurs due to variations in the senses input. Senses

input is beyond the mind and hence is vastu tantram or

depends on the object that is perceived. (This part is

true for advaita also, since mind does not manufacture

the sense input from the object which appear to exist

independent of the existence of the mind that is

sensing) Hence in Kantian model also the sensibility

is divergent based on sense input which is

discriminatory enough for the mind to distinguish this

vs. that. Although the knowledge of the object based

on the sensibility and understanding structure of the

mind is subjective, the subjectivity comes in the

subsequent cognitive process (beyond the volition)

that mind 'processes' before the existence of the

object with those particular attributes is established

'out there'. Cognition of space and time by the mind

in the Kantian model is inherent with the mental

structure, if I understand correctly. I gather it is

similar to dvaitic postulation of the 'sakshii' that

perceives the time and space independent any mental

input. Let me know if I am correctly interpreting

Kantian model.

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

Advaita does not deny the existence

> of mental modifications

> and that we have awareness in the form of mental

> modifications. It

> resists falling into the simplistic trap of saying

> that all that we are

> aware of is merely mental modifications by going on

> to ask how those

> mental modifications which are of inert objects come

> to be _able_ to be in

> the mind.

 

To put this from my understanding, the mind gets the

input from the senses and the input that it gets does

not depend on the mind but on the object that is

perceived. Local mind does not create the sense input.

The integration of all sense input and cognition and

recognition process occurs in the mind before the

knowledge of the object out there is established. The

existence of object 'out there' is established by the

mind when the knower (chidaabhaasa, as 'I know') and

the known (as 'this is known') vRittis (aham and idam

vRittis)are established in the mind as subject-object

thoughts, in the light of consciousness that I am.

Thus both subject and object are known via the mind in

the presence of the consciousness that illumines both

the subject and object vRittiis.

 

Is there an object separate from the mind that

perceives - Yes, otherwise mind cannot gather sense

input that discriminates one object from the other.

 

But the knowledge of the existence of the object out

there is established only by the mind with

consciousness reflected through it.

 

Is there an object 'out there' independent of the

mind? - if we pose question that way, I would say, it

is an indeterminate problem. You can never know. One

can infer, but for that too mind is required. The

same question can be raised about the existence of the

objects or the world the deep sleep state -Vedanta

says the objects exist in a 'potential form' or

avyakta form. Hence the analogy of the dream world is

perfect - vision from the individual mind inside the

dream of the objects perceived in the dream vs the

vision of the total mind (waker's mind) that is

projected. Hence in Mandukya, mantra 5 and 6

emphasizes the vision both from vyaShTi and samaShTi

points.

 

Let me know what you think.

 

By the by if you find time discuss your understanding

of Vedanta ParibhaaSha for us.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Hupa-ji.

 

We know who you are and why you are asking this question to Mike-ji.

The past is still very fresh in our minds.

 

Mike-ji was on idealism and advaita. Not on avatArs or charlatans.

Please therefore don't exhume issues long buried and drag the debate

to things personal.

 

This is a request.

 

If you meant the worship of iStadevatA in reference to advaita, the

issue has been amply covered on this forum. You can also refer to

Prof. V.K.-ji's discourses on Daivattin Kural in our archives.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " hupa_ramdas " <hupa_ram>

wrote:

>

> How does the worshipping of 'avatars' and the like fit into this

> scheme of things? Some of them are even charlatans!

>

> Is it not just the superimposition of the avatar's face and id on to

> one's own inner mind and belief system?

>

> In true advaita why the need for so much blatant dvaita.....Hu.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ravi Ande " <ravi.ande wrote:

>

> Here is an small video of Albert Einstein's protege David Bohm on

> perception.

>

> Regards,

> Ravi

>

 

Namasthe,

 

The following two videos on the related subject are also worth seeing

and thought provoking.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I & feature=related

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4 & feature=related

 

Best Regards,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

> " The perceptuality of objects such as jar, however, consists in

their not

> being different from the (Consciousness associated with the) subject.

>

> Objection: How can a jar etc. be one with the Consciousness limited

by the

> mind, since it contradicts our experience of difference, as when we

sqay,

> " I see this " ?

>

> Reply: The answer is this. The absence of difference from the

subject

> does not indeed man identity; it means having no existence apart

from that

> of the subject. " ((End Quote))

 

Dear Michael-ji,

 

Can you kindly explain what does the author mean when he says 'it

means no existence apart from that of the subject.'?

 

Best Regards,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@> wrote:

>

>

> > " The perceptuality of objects such as jar, however, consists in

> their not

> > being different from the (Consciousness associated with the)

subject.

> >

> > Objection: How can a jar etc. be one with the Consciousness

limited

> by the

> > mind, since it contradicts our experience of difference, as when

we

> sqay,

> > " I see this " ?

> >

> > Reply: The answer is this. The absence of difference from the

> subject

> > does not indeed man identity; it means having no existence apart

> from that

> > of the subject. " ((End Quote))

>

> Dear Michael-ji,

>

> Can you kindly explain what does the author mean when he says 'it

> means no existence apart from that of the subject.'?

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

 

Sri Vinayakaji,

 

One possibility is that this eliminates the notion of a process and

emphasizes immediate correspondence. In the context of the upadhis,

the subject-object duality is determined simultaneously. If I see a

hare with horn, then that is the reality relative to my

consciousness, at the relative level. It is not that there is a hare

with ears which I see as hare with horn, due to the intervention of

mind. That understanding/perception is not mine; if it is yours, then

such is your version of relative truth. Only the truth of " Is " is our

common absolute.

 

Barring such technicality, Swamiji's centralizing of the mind, in one

sense, is stressing on the reality idealized by each of us: I am

subject, there is a mind, it perceives object. Given this starting

point, how can we go forward? That has practical intention for the

teaching is geared to the listener. (The word " mind " has perhaps

alternatives in " upadhis " or even Ishvara, as intermediary levers

used for understanding from different standpoints.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Barring such technicality, Swamiji's centralizing of the mind, in one

> sense, is stressing on the reality idealized by each of us: I am

> subject, there is a mind, it perceives object. Given this starting

> point, how can we go forward? That has practical intention for the

> teaching is geared to the listener. (The word " mind " has perhaps

> alternatives in " upadhis " or even Ishvara, as intermediary levers

> used for understanding from different standpoints.)

>

 

In retrospect, whether or not a teacher has the " practical " intention,

the choice in manner of expression will colour the truth that is being

articulated. I think, here people are often too quick to conclude that

the truth is in itself differently concluded. Unless the teacher openly

proposes/writes down a logical outline/comparison of philosophy, it is

best to give room for the intent and content. Since Swami Vivekananda

actually suggested that the Kantian understanding of mind was earlier

in the Vedas (which indeed could be), that point could be contested in

itself. As to whether Swami V. was talking Advaita or not in his wall

analogy, etc. that is a separate issue (see first two sentences above).

Also to mention, Swami Vivekananda admittedly saw a gradation of valid

understandings within the scripture; thus very well, among the various

understandings of the mind found in the scripture, one can perhaps find

Kant's version (more or less) as well: it does not mean Swami

Vivekananda thought it the final statement of Advaita but can still be

useful tool for stressing the message. (Let us not forget the audience

to whom he was generally lecturing. Whether American or educated

Indian, they probably heard/worshipped more of Kant than the Vedas.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Sadanandaji writes:

" s there an object 'out there' independent of the

mind? - if we pose question that way, I would say, it

is an indeterminate problem. You can never know. One

can infer, but for that too mind is required. "

 

||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Sadanandaji,

Instead of taking a point by point review of your post which inevitably

would lead over ground that has already been contested let me just try to

concisely offer a perspective on why the Advaitic philosophy is unique on

the matter of the subject/object divide.

 

I am taking as text Brh.Up.II.iv.11,12 and Shankara's comm.

What is the primal situation that we are cast into according to Sutra 11?

It is a dynamic manifold of sensation, awareness and consciousness. It is

a non-reflexive pure immediacy. This is the Upanishad's intuition of the

given. There is as yet no rational reflection on the nature of the mind

or mental modifications. In this given manifold there is no doubt as to

what we perceive. We perceive objects. It is only when we begin to

reflect on our perceptions that we get the false idea that what we are

perceiving are mental modifications and that the 'real object' is out

there and only established as a matter of inference.

 

At the beginning, middle and end of the Universe there is only Brahman,

pure consciousness, pure existence. The object is a limiting adjunct

(upadhi) of pure consciousness, the witness (Saksin) is pure consciousness

that has the mind as its limiting adjunct. As with the salt metaphor

everything is in solution in pure consciousness, there is no barrier to

the reception by the mind of the object, they are of the one nature.

 

Still the doubt remains: what of the organs? Are they not individual and

particular, perhaps diseased or defective? May they not distort the

object so that in fact the object is different for me and for you? Here,

the distinction ought to be made between the psychological and the

metaphysical. The psychological deals with changeful sense data, the

metaphysical with the unchanging being of the object. It is the latter

which underwrites what Vedanta-Paribhasa calls the 'perceptuality' of the

object i.e. what makes it capable of being perceived at all.

 

Quoting Commentary:

..... " the Sruti considers the organs to be of the same category as the

objects, not of a different category. The organs are but modes of the

objects in order to perceive them, as a lamp, which is but a mode of

colour, is an instrument for revealing all colours. Similarily, the

organs are but modes of all particular objects in order to perceive them,

as is the case with a lamp. Hence no special care is to be taken to

indicate the dissolution of the organs for these being the same as objects

in general, their dissolution is implied by that of the objects. "

 

This is a difficult passage but the gist of it is, I think, the

following. The object is simply the object as smelt, tasted, heard etc.

There are not two categories of object (a) the felt, sensed object (b) the

occult object. To be an object is to be an object-for-me. The object is

the sensible, tastable, smellable etc. according to whatever senses apply

to it. The organs are in that sense wrapped up in the objects and hence

there is no special care to be taken in their progressive dissolving back

into pure consciousness.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> In retrospect, whether or not a teacher has the " practical " intention,

> the choice in manner of expression will colour the truth that is being

> articulated. I think, here people are often too quick to conclude that

> the truth is in itself differently concluded. Unless the teacher openly

> proposes/writes down a logical outline/comparison of philosophy, it is

> best to give room for the intent and content. Since Swami Vivekananda

> actually suggested that the Kantian understanding of mind was earlier

> in the Vedas (which indeed could be), that point could be contested in

> itself. As to whether Swami V. was talking Advaita or not in his wall

> analogy, etc. that is a separate issue (see first two sentences above).

> Also to mention, Swami Vivekananda admittedly saw a gradation of valid

> understandings within the scripture; thus very well, among the various

> understandings of the mind found in the scripture, one can perhaps find

> Kant's version (more or less) as well: it does not mean Swami

> Vivekananda thought it the final statement of Advaita but can still be

> useful tool for stressing the message. (Let us not forget the audience

> to whom he was generally lecturing. Whether American or educated

> Indian, they probably heard/worshipped more of Kant than the Vedas.)

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Namasthe Sri Putran-ji,

 

This is what swami vivEkAnanda says about kant elsewhere:

 

" According to Shankara, God is both the material and the efficient

cause through Mâyâ, but not in reality. God has not become this

universe; but the universe is not, and God is. This is one of the

highest points to understand of Advaita Vedanta, this idea of Maya. I

am afraid I have no time to discuss this one most difficult point in

our philosophy. Those of you who are acquainted with Western

philosophy will find something **very similar** in Kant. But I must

warn you, those of you who have studied Professor Max Müller's

writings on Kant, that there is one idea most misleading. It was

Shankara who first found out the idea of the identity of time, space,

and causation with Maya, and I had the good fortune to find one or two

passages in Shankara's commentaries and send them to my friend the

Professor. So even that idea was here in India. Now this is a peculiar

theory — this Maya theory of the Advaita Vedantists. The Brahman is

all that exists, but differentiation has been caused by this Maya. "

 

As far as my exposure to his works goes, he has never told anywhere

that there is **absolutely no difference** between advaita and kantian

theory.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.