shankaracharya

[theist]

shvu,

 

I appreciate you explainations of the advaita viewpoint.In all honesty it sounds like word jugglery.It also sounds rather morbid when compared to the dualistic conceptions of vaisnavism.

 

No need to every worry about me being offended by someone holding a differing viewpoint or challenging mine.

 

Hare Krishna

 

By morbid I was meaning that the 'extinquishing' of the jiva's awareness of individual self and lacking of loving relations with Krishna appears like a state of death.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by theist (edited 04-24-2002).]

[abhi_the_great]

A genuine doubt I have, re Advaitha. Somebody can kindly throw light on this.

 

On one hand we say, "Everything is Brahman".

On the other we say, "This world is an illusion".

 

My argument now is: If everything is brahman, this world is also part of that everything. Then how can this world be illusion? Isn't it contradictory to say the world is brahman and illusion at the same time?

[Shashi]

Originally posted by abhi_the_great:

Isn't it contradictory to say the world is brahman and illusion at the same time?

AbhiJi, it is being known as "simultaneously one and different" as proposal by the Mahaprabhu Krishna Chaitanya. Very difficult for the understanding because it is being only realised in the state of the liberating realisation.

 

 

[Rati]

It is not really a question of having to reconcile those two statements, because it is just a question of the nature of the world that is under the influence of mahAmAyA. It is based on brahman and in essence it is brahman, however the phenomena that manifest within it are of a transitory and impermanent nature. It is not that they lack reality, just that they are more shadow like in substance. The illusion is that the nitya baddha jIvas perceive those transitory phenomena as having relative permanence and attach more importance to the physical body than they should, and in the process become attached to the body and the transitory objects of the senses. The Vaishnava via spiritual insight views the body as something entirely different: as a temple of viSNu. For such an enlightened person it is all of the kingdom of bhagavAn and this world of appearances is just another variety of His divine pasttimes (lIlA). The nihilist says that the world is false and all of its existence must be negated. The personalist views it as this dark little corner of Godhead (comprised of Goloka, Dwaraka and Vaikuntha) where the fallen jIvas reside and into which bhagavAn descends as His various avatAras for the benefit of those temporarily lost souls.

 

I had this clever professor of music composition in college once who made a poignant remark. When I told him I had a new idea for a piece of music he said, "OK, think of that composition. Now you can remember it in an instant, whereas it might be a twenty minute performance. I can think of any symphony I have heard performed and remember its essence by thinking of it for a couple of seconds." That is the nature of our illusory perception of the passage of time. While we are going through life, time can seem to drag on when we are suffering. However, at the time of death all the events of an entire lifetime flash before us in a few seconds.

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-24-2002).]

[shvu]

 

shvu,

I appreciate you explainations of the advaita viewpoint.In all honesty it sounds like word jugglery.It also sounds rather morbid when compared to the dualistic conceptions of vaisnavism.

That is your background. When I view tattvavaada and other positions from an advaitic perspective they fall way short. This is how it is with everone. But the fact is, Advaita has withstood and successfully debunked criticism from several quarters over the centuries and stands strong even to this day, thus proving it appears attractive to many and is also based on sound logic.

 

By morbid I was meaning that the 'extinquishing' of the jiva's awareness of individual self and lacking of loving relations with Krishna appears like a state of death.

Again, this is from a deluded perspective as the Jiiva is incapable of imagining anything about Mukti. Any picture, good or bad, will invariably be false.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

I think that a good place for raising questions about the intricacies of Advaita will be www.advaita-vedanta.org

 

There are some very knowledgeable participants there, who can give a scriptural perspective. Also, you may search the Hindunet for old discussions between Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (Advaita) of UIUC and Hari Krishna Susarla (ISKCON) of Rice univ. At times their discussions became acrimonious, but for most part very informative. I don't have the urls.

[theist]

shvu wrote:

That is your background. When I view tattvavaada and other positions from an advaitic perspective they fall way short. This is how it is with everone. But the fact is, Advaita has withstood and successfully debunked criticism from several quarters over the centuries and stands strong even to this day, thus proving it appears attractive to many and is also based on sound logic.

Withstanding strong criticize is also relative.The dualist would say they just won't accept defeat.

 

Maya also appears attractive to many.When we talk of many this points to the existing individuality of the jiva.You have yet to harmonize how the jiva knows no beginning or end yet becomes broken off from the Brahman and covered by maya and then becomes absorbed(extinquished) in liberation.

 

Again, this is from a deluded perspective as the Jiiva is incapable of imagining anything about Mukti. Any picture, good or bad, will invariably be false.

Yes the jiva when under the influence of the deluding energy cannot see clearly.This holds true for all schools.But Krishna can impart the revelation into the heart of jiva.

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

Brahman is the all pervading aspect of God,Visnu.

The word illusion can have more then one meaning.

It can mean the illusion of the magician.

The material manifestation is comprised of one substance,God,Brahman,yet due to the magician's tricks,we percieve a multitude of variety,we are fooled by the magician into believing nature is going on chaotically,that there is no God,so many illusory beliefs, that are simply the result of the master magicians tricks.

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I think that a good place for raising questions about the intricacies of Advaita will be www.advaita-vedanta.org

 

There are some very knowledgeable participants there, who can give a scriptural perspective. Also, you may search the Hindunet for old discussions between Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (Advaita) of UIUC and Hari Krishna Susarla (ISKCON) of Rice univ. At times their discussions became acrimonious, but for most part very informative. I don't have the urls.

I followed many of those discussions for years..some very informative stuff indeed!

 

some...

 

'Get Down in the Get Down'

 

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-24-2002).]

[shvu]

 

Withstanding strong criticize is also relative.The dualist would say they just won't accept defeat.

They would never say that. Back then, there was a strong tradition of polemics. There were rules and according to rules, the loser had to convert over to the winner's System. This is how a new founder would bring in promiment personalities from other camps into his own. This is how Shankara defeated Puurva Mimaamsa. This is also how Raamaanuja and Maadhva laid foundation for their traditions. This being the case, if Advaita was not founded on sound logic, it would have vanished long ago, under the criticism of these two schools.

 

You have yet to harmonize how the jiva knows no beginning or end yet becomes broken off from the Brahman and covered by maya and then becomes absorbed(extinquished) in liberation.

Exactly what will establish this? Will quoting from some specific source achieve this? Please let me know.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

...At times their discussions became acrimonious, but for most part very informative. I don't have the urls.

Go to www.dejanews.com and search for their names, chaitanya, etc. That should be fun reading. Those were the days when Iskcon folks strongly mantained the Maadhva connection and *scriptural proof* of chaitanya's divinity. I must say Shrisha Rao and HP Raghunandan did a good job of clarifying things.

 

Cheers

 

 

[theist]

They would never say that. Back then, there was a strong tradition of polemics. There were rules and according to rules, the loser had to convert over to the winner's System. This is how a new founder would bring in promiment personalities from other camps into his own. This is how Shankara defeated Puurva Mimaamsa. This is also how Raamaanuja and Maadhva laid foundation for their traditions. This being the case, if Advaita was not founded on sound logic, it would have vanished long ago, under the criticism of these two schools.

I would say that since debates have been going on for centuries, and the opposing schools still have ardent proponents, someone is not admitting defeat.

 

Why say the Advaita school is founded on sound logic and not say the same for the dualist perspective?

 

The idea that I am not equal to the Supreme Being in the sense that I can be overwhelmed by maya due to my eternal infitesimal and dependent nature is far more logical than saying I am everything that is (God)but have only forgotten the fact and now am in need of seeking salvation to be free of maya's rule over me.

 

 

Exactly what will establish this? Will quoting from some specific source achieve this? Please let me know.

No quote will be effective for us in such an absolute way as we may accept different interpretaions or explanations of their meaning and intent.

 

Just your own words would suffice.

 

 

Hare Krishna

[shvu]

 

I would say that since debates have been going on for centuries, and the opposing schools still have ardent proponents, someone is not admitting defeat.

Debates are carried out between people and it all comes down to the calibre of the people in question. While there are Advaitins who lost to others there are others who lost to Advaitins too. The point is, Advaita did not vanish like Puurva-Mimaasa and Buddhism and has stood it's ground (Keeping in line with the rules of debate, that is).

 

Why say the Advaita school is founded on sound logic and not say the same for the dualist perspective?

Because here we are discussing Advaita being word jugglery (or not), etc.

 

The idea that I am not equal to the Supreme Being in the sense that I can be overwhelmed by maya due to my eternal infitesimal and dependent nature is far more logical than saying I am everything that is (God)but have only forgotten the fact and now am in need of seeking salvation to be free of maya's rule over me.

That is not what the scriptures say. And what the scriptures say summarily overrides everything else.

 

Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati (To know Brahman is to become Brahman), tattvamasi (You are that), aham brahmasmi and so on. Advaita very clearly draws from the Vedas to show the purport of the Vedas is, there is no duality. All that exists is Brahman and since I exist, I am that too. Very simple. And since this is what the Vedas say, traditions which state the soul is somehow different from Brahman are false.

 

Cheers

 

[gHari]

Parambrahman

[Guest guest]

Philosophy is only for the intelligence ultimately. The truth has to be realized personally through a process - like bhakti to Lord Krishna.