What is Mayavada?

shvu · March 14, 2001

This thread is to discuss the article What is Mayavada?

My view :

This article was written by someone (whose name is not mentioned) who does not know what Mayavada is. Apparently he has written this article based on hearsay and fancy and except perhaps for the names, everything else is wrong. If anyone who reads this disagrees with my view, feel free to explain why.

People who wish to read about Advaita(a better term than Mayavada), please refrain from reading this article.

Cheers

animesh · March 14, 2001

Dear Shvu,

This is a really very nice topic. I think that rather than discussing why the article "What is Mayavada?" not good, we should discuss what Mayavada (or better Advaita doctrine) really is.

animesh · March 15, 2001

Advaitism states that the real, essential identity of the individual self, is nothing Brahm Itself. Enlightenment is to understand this identity. Brahm dwells in all beings. Brahm is said to be essentially nirgun, but all gunas equally belong to It. Because of illusion (maya) or ignorance (avidya), a person feel the difference between his real self and Brahm. Vedas are considered to be eternally valid and other scriptures are valid only so long they do not conflict with teachings in vedas.

shvu · March 15, 2001

Hi Animesh,

While reading this article, I saw an option saying discuss this article. I thought it was necessary to point out that the article had several shortcomings and definitely was not something to be read by someone who wishes to learn about Advaita. They would get a wrong picture, which is what the author seems to have intended. It is mostly Iskcon propoganda material.

Having said that I can move on to Advaita. You have put Advaita in a few words beautifully. I will add a couple of points.

1. Advaita says that the the Jiva is Brahman plus Maya, and enlightenment is removal of Maya. So essentially there is only one Atman and no duality, which is why it is named as Advaita.

2. What is Maya?

Maya is often translated as Illusion, which is incorrect. Maya mean to measure. It means that the world exists as long as I exist as a reference point. In other words, If I am not, the world is not. This is obvious in our day-to-day life. Where is the world when I am asleep?

3. Advaita says that Jivan-mukti is possible. A person can be enlightnened while still alive. Examples are Shankara, Ramana, Ramakrishna et al.

Cheers

shvu · March 16, 2001

Hi All,

Some may be wondering what is wrong with the article. The answer is almost everything. This article was written by Prabhupada in The Teachings of Chaitanya. Not only is it incoherent and inconsistent, most of the information is wrong too. I will just post the inconsistence here because to show the errors as well would make the post too long.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...Shankaracharya, the greatest teacher of mayavadi philosophy....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shankara is Great.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Lord Chaitanya admitted that Shankaracharya was an incarnation of Lord Siva...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shankara is an avatar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually he never considered the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, to be impersonal or to have no body or form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shankara's philosophy is not impersonal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Shankara most unceremoniously tried to explain that Brahman, or the Supreme Absolute Truth, is impersonal...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a minute...It is impersonal now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He also cunningly tried to switch the doctrine of by-product into the doctrine of change...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shankara just turned into a cunning fellow.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Such a conclusion regarding the Absolute Truth and the relative truth should be acceptable to any sane man...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now Shankara is insane.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Thus this cosmic manifestation is not false, as Shankaracharya maintains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either Shankara lied or was ignorant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sripada Shankaracharya has inceremoniously obscured the Krishna consciousness...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now he is inceremonious.

Shankara has come a long way from being a great Avatar to an inceremonious and insane person.

Cheers

animesh · March 16, 2001

Well, there is nothing bad if someone does not believe in Advaita philosphy. Everyone is entitled to have his opinion. But I do not like the argument made that Shankaracharya intentionally preached wrong things in order to delude atheists. According to the article, even somebody who is no less an authority than an incarnation of Lord Siva can lie. It can be claimed that this kind of lie was not bad because it was intended to delude atheists. But are there only atheists at that time? Were there no theists? There were all the three - theists, atheists and agnostics. Now also there are all the three. If we say that Shankara wanted to delude people, then this may be true regarding whoever tries to preach anything. Why can't we say that all the great acharyas including even Ramanujacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu intentionally preached wrong things in order to delude people. I read another article in which it is claimed that Gautam Buddha was Himself an incarnation of God, but He intentionally preached wrong things to make sure that atheists believe in Him and then go straight to hell. This indicates that God preaches people something and if they believe in Him, then they go to hell. But it is also claimed that oe should always follow God's wish. So, how is one going to know when God is saying correct things and when He is not? How do we know that God did not preach wrong things to Arjuna? How do we know that Vedas which are claimed to be first spoken by God are not all wrong?

If somebody says that Gautam Buddha was himself an incarnation of God, but did not talk about God because many wrong deeds were prevalent in society, then I can agree with him. But, making a statement that He intentionally taught wrong things so that all those who believed in Him could go to hell, is not proper.

At the end, I would like to make one clarification. Some of reader may think that I am trying to call Ramanujacharya and Chaitanya as liars. No, I have no such intention. In fact, I have great regard for them not because they were incarnations of God, but becase they did not distinguish between people on the basis of caste and status in society. All I am trying to argue is that it is not proper to say that an incarnation of Siva or an incarnation of Hari can intentionally try to preach wrong things to people. Because, then the contents of all the scriptures become doubtful, though not necessarily false.