Fundamental problem in advaita

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

This is the fundamental problem of Advaita as I recognize it.

I am not claiming I know everything.

 

Advaita recognizes different states of perception of truth, but the ultimate truth is that there is only one TATVAM ie Brahman.

 

They interpret the Mandukya Upanishad teachings of ChaturVyuhas(Taijasa, Prajna etc.) of Bhagavan as states of Jivas and Turiya(fourth) form of Bhagavan as Brahman ie "Man minus EGO".

 

To explain more, the first three states(waking, dreaming, sleeping) as states where the unreal Jiva appears to exist and when the Jiva attains realization(Turiya) it becomes Brahman.

 

Problem:

 

It is said that Jiva(reflection of Brahman) is unreal. Brahman is the only reality.

 

Then what is enveloped by maya. One cannot say that the unreal(non-existent) Jiva is enveloped by Maya, since that which does not exist cannot be bound.

 

Obviously Brahman cannot be bound by Karmas or Maya or EGO. I think advaitists agree to this.

 

So the question remains as to what undergoes effects of the Karmas.

[maadhav]

if advaita is gyan yoga, (as i understand it is)

then krishna says in gita it is one of a few yogas.

so it cannot be a problem for those who feel it easier than other yogas. krishna however says it is not easy for most.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jnan yoga isn't Kevala Advaita. Krishna doesn't speak of Kevala Advaita anywhere in gita.

 

Jnan yogis will eventually reach Krishna. Kevala Advaitins have a different goal altogether. To them Krishna is only saguna brahman and not the ultimate brahman. Their goal is the undifferentiated brahman.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

It is not a wonder that no advaiti wants to confront the problem here. They do not have any answer, for the very postulaion of one reality in advaitam is FALLACY.

[Guest guest]

Most do not know advaita.

 

I am surprised that such a knowledgeable person thinks wrt advaita as below:

 

"It is said that Jiva(reflection of Brahman) is unreal. Brahman is the only reality."

 

Can you show me anywhere that Jiva is said to be unreal in Advaita. It is what original Buddhists said.

 

To this Shankara said "If nothing exists outside the conciousness then how the perception of that nothing arises?".

 

Shankara says that Jiva is real, only its perception through the sense organs is not perfect. He gave an example that a real rope is percieved as a snake in darkness. But for the perception of the snake a rope has to be there.

 

People have not read or understood Shankara at all.

 

 

[Guest guest]

So that you read it twice.

 

Most do not know advaita.

 

I am surprised that such a knowledgeable person thinks wrt advaita as below:

 

"It is said that Jiva(reflection of Brahman) is unreal. Brahman is the only reality."

 

Can you show me anywhere that Jiva is said to be unreal in Advaita. It is what original Buddhists said.

 

To this Shankara said "If nothing exists outside the conciousness then how the perception of that nothing arises?".

 

Shankara says that Jiva is real, only its perception through the sense organs is not perfect. He gave an example that a real rope is percieved as a snake in darkness. But for the perception of the snake a rope has to be there.

 

People have not read or understood Shankara at all

 

Of course, you have said that your knowledge on the subject is not complete.

[Guest guest]

What does Shankara say about the world? Does it exist?

 

And can you explain anirvachaniya according to Shankara please?

[Guest guest]

I have already stated it above.

 

If the world did not exist then how did its consiosness arise?

 

Now please answer a question for me.

 

How do achieve salvation? (or whatever you call Mukti in your terminology.

 

[Guest guest]

Any quotes from Shankara?

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Most do not know advaita.

 

I am surprised that such a knowledgeable person thinks wrt advaita as below:

 

"It is said that Jiva(reflection of Brahman) is unreal. Brahman is the only reality."

 

Can you show me anywhere that Jiva is said to be unreal in Advaita. It is what original Buddhists said.

 

 

Truly sir, I am not knowledgeable at all, but thank you for acknowledging the fact that such a thought is Buddhism period.

 

 

To this Shankara said "If nothing exists outside the conciousness then how the perception of that nothing arises?".

 

Shankara says that Jiva is real, only its perception through the sense organs is not perfect. He gave an example that a real rope is percieved as a snake in darkness. But for the perception of the snake a rope has to be there.

 

People have not read or understood Shankara at all.

 

 

I am talking from pAramArthika view. This is the comlete and perfect TRUTH and knowledge according to advaita. So in this sense. Other views in vyAvahArika sense are lower level of realization, but not the perfect knowledge. This is what I was talking as different states of knowledge in the first post. One, according to advaita, after reaching higher stages from vyAvahArika level, goes to pAramArthika level. This level is referred to as ajAti VAda.

 

In this stage, according to advaita, one realizes through jnana that maya has no reality at all. In other words MAYA and consequently this whole creation both do not exist. Brahman becomes identical to ATMAN and this state is referred as Turiya(See my first post). ATMAN as per advaita is Brahman(I will not differ here as it is the TRUTH and ATMAN is a term that refers to the same object ie Brahman).

 

But the observer(Jiva) is referred to as AnAtman in advaita too as in Buddhism. This Jiva is unreal in the ultimate realization and so JIVA does not exist in the paramartika sense.

 

So my question remains as to what undergoes Karma and reincarnation. But suddddenly, just now I realize that in pAramArtika sense there is no creation at all and so Karma also does not exist as per advaita.

 

So one can conclude this way that awareness exists but no perception in mukti. But what gets mukti when there is no Jiva or creation or karma. So one might think Brahman gets mukti. Wait but when there is no creation or karma or maya then there is no mukti too. So there is no Veda too. Only the undifferentiated element called Brahman exists with pure awareness and having no perception(of different objects). Well objects or nothing else exist, except BRAHMAN.

 

This is what Buddhism teaches. Well this is Buddhism.

[Guest guest]

Dear Raghuramji

 

pAramArthika view is for the Self realised and Gods. vyAvahArika for most of us.

 

Krishna can say that all is Him only. He can also say that there is no Karma for Him. He will also say that there is no creation but His Leela only. But can I say these? That is till I really realise that? What is the use of theoretical claims.

 

"In other words MAYA and consequently this whole creation both do not exist."

 

In this statement you yourself seem to be pre-stating that Maya and creation are synonumous.

 

Dear Raghuramji, I do not want to argue and earn ephitets like Asura, fanatic etc. But I will just point out a difference in the views. And both views are His.

 

When you say that I am an eternal Dasa serving the Lord, then who is serving? Surely the Dasa is serving the Lord? But the Lord Himself has said that all work is done by Him alone. So how you feel that You as a Dasa are serving. How can you claim the doership?

 

For me this is contradictory. To feel that I am serving has a pride/sense of doership and this does not go well with Advaita. And this sense of doer ship is contradictory to Gita.

 

May be you have your own valid justification. I will not relish to contest those. But to learn from you i will gladly read what you write.

 

 

Advaita also believes that all paths are valid since all karma is done by Him and will not be in vain.

 

Regards

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

Atanuji

 

Time after time as i read your postings . My respect for you increases. Keep up your good work.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Dear Raghuramji

 

pAramArthika view is for the Self realised and Gods. vyAvahArika for most of us.

 

Krishna can say that all is Him only. He can also say that there is no Karma for Him. He will also say that there is no creation but His Leela only. But can I say these? That is till I really realise that? What is the use of theoretical claims.

 

 

An objective TRUTH or Fact does not depend on a person and his perception. For example, if all the people in Earth were to believe that the Earth is flat or even correctly as spherical the Earth is still spherical. Similarly I am trying to state the objective fact as recognized in Advaita.

 

I am trying to state an objective FACT or TRUTH as recognized by advaita. This TRUTH is recognized in pAramArtika level and is the absolute FACT as per advaita.

 

So let us drop lower levels of understanding (as stated in Advaita) which is subjective and also subject to MAYA as per advaita.

 

It is true that Lord Krishna is not subject to Maya or Karma. It, however, does not imply non-existence or deny the vry existence of Karma or Maya(Avidya).

 

But, as per advaita, the absolute TRUTH or FACT is that there is one reality(Brahman) and the very existence of creation, Karma etc. is denied.

 

ie none of this we see as creation even exist in reality.

 

 

"In other words MAYA and consequently this whole creation both do not exist."

 

In this statement you yourself seem to be pre-stating that Maya and creation are synonumous.

 

Dear Raghuramji, I do not want to argue and earn ephitets like Asura, fanatic etc. But I will just point out a difference in the views. And both views are His.

 

 

 

I am getting very good responses from you sir. So to learn from you is very good for me as well. Since you have some anubhava in Advaita it is better for me atleast to gain knowledge of your perspectives.

 

As for Maya and creation, it is said, in advaita, that the whole creation is maya or illusion.

 

 

When you say that I am an eternal Dasa serving the Lord, then who is serving? Surely the Dasa is serving the Lord? But the Lord Himself has said that all work is done by Him alone. So how you feel that You as a Dasa are serving. How can you claim the doership?

 

For me this is contradictory. To feel that I am serving has a pride/sense of doership and this does not go well with Advaita. And this sense of doer ship is contradictory to Gita.

 

May be you have your own valid justification. I will not relish to contest those. But to learn from you i will gladly read what you write.

 

 

Advaita also believes that all paths are valid since all karma is done by Him and will not be in vain.

 

 

 

You must have heard of the Slokha used by madhvas.

 

Naham Karta Hari Karta.....

 

There is no doubt that Lord is the doer. But, unlike advaita, we recognize the existence of other entities except Brahman or Lord. The existence of these entities does depend on Brahman and is REAL. Even in Mukti we are his servants. Now it is true that all activities and free will are facilitated by Brahman so that it functions from moment to moment(depending on Brahman). But the FREE WILL itself comes from Svabhava of Jiva. Jiva, with its svabhava, has no begining or anihilation.

 

Free will, mind, intellect, body, existence of everything and whatever you think of is functioning because of Brahman. In other words Brahman makes possible that everything can function every moment aftre moment. That is why Lord is called as the real doer.

 

I think I am clear here and would explain more if needed.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

So my question remains. Since none of these things exist except Brahman, then Vedas are illusion too, for there is not the other to teach in the first place. Mukti is also illusion. Then what is that advaita preaches. NOTHING...

[Guest guest]

Clap Clap Clap

[Guest guest]

fantastic...

[Guest guest]

 

clap clap clap

 

fantastic...

 

 

 

Are these caustic comments or genuine ? Why is it that these people choose to remain anonymous ?

[Guest guest]

Shri Raghuraman

 

You have said:

 

 

“But, as per advaita, the absolute TRUTH or FACT is that there is one reality (Brahman) and the very existence of creation, Karma etc. is denied.”

 

 

My comment: Karma is only negated for Jnani but even then not fully. Karma with respect to other Jivas (who are not Jnani) remains. So, if a Jnani has a family to maintain, he has to maintain it.

 

 

 

You have said:

 

 

“There is no doubt that Lord is the doer. But, unlike advaita, we recognize the existence of other entities except Brahman or Lord. The existence of these entities does depend on Brahman and is REAL.”

 

 

My comment: If there are real distinctly different individuals that serve Lord as Dasa, then they really do the serving and not the Lord. There is contradiction.

 

 

 

Again you have said:

 

“So my question remains. Since none of these things exist except Brahman, then Vedas are illusion too, for there is not the other to teach in the first place. Mukti is also illusion. Then what is that advaita preaches. NOTHING...”

 

 

Specially note your statement: “there is not the other to teach in the first place”

 

 

My comment: Your statement indicates that you grant that there is another beside Brahman to teach (that some one else is doing some work). And again this contradicts Gita.

 

 

 

Advaita only says that the nounmenon and the phenomenon are one and the same. Vedas exist otherwise there would be no knowledge of Vedas. All things exist in Brahman and not outside. That is how an Advaitin can say that yes the Lord does everything.

 

 

An eternal servant serving the Lord contradicts Gita, wherein the Lord states that He alone is the doer.

 

 

 

 

For us, who are on the spiritual road, all these arguments are not fruitful and not significant. There is a proverb in Bengali that Adar byabsai jahajer khabar jene ki korbe.

 

 

Atanu

 

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

------

clap clap clap

fantastic...

------

Are these caustic comments or genuine ? Why is it that these people choose to remain anonymous ?

 

.

.

 

you're anonymous too!!

[Guest guest]

"Advaita only says that the nounmenon and the phenomenon are one and the same."

 

Does shankar say that?

[Guest guest]

Yes. The nounmenon has become the phenomenon.

[Guest guest]

Through maya alone isn't it? Vivarta vada?

[Guest guest]

No. Maya only makes the phenomenon believe that it is different from the subject.

[Guest guest]

I don't think in Kevala Advaita it's accepted that the phenomenon and nueomenon are both real. But i don't know much of keval advaita. Here is what Gaudapada says.

 

Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika-

 

III-19. This unborn (Self) undergoes modification through Maya and not in any other way. For, if the modifications are to be a reality, the immortal would tend to be mortal.

III-20. The disputants think of the very unborn Self on terms of birth. How can the Self that is unborn and immortal tend towards mortality?

 

III-21. The immortal can never become mortal. So, too mortal can never become immortal. For a change in one’s nature cannot ever take place in any manner.

 

III-22. How can the entity that is immortal remain unchanged according to one to whom a thing that is immortal by nature can be born, since it is a product (in his view) ?

[Guest guest]

Yes. Read the 3 statements already made.

 

 

"Advaita only says that the nounmenon and the phenomenon are one and the same."

 

Yes. The nounmenon has become the phenomenon.

 

No. Maya only makes the phenomenon believe that it is different from the subject.

 

 

 

 

Now please answer who is serving the Lord eternally?