[Hindu Only] Simple argument against Advaita

[shivsomashekhar]

Maya is claimed by Sripad Sankaracharya as Anirvachaneeya (neither Sat or Asat). He says it in verse 109 of Vivekachudamani (see below) and also his Upadeshasahasri (18):

Thanks for the references. Note that only the VC verse discusses Maya. The US verse is actually discussing Brahman and not Maya.

The futility of describing Maya is explained in the VC verse and therefore Maya is deemed indescribable (anirvachaniya). There is no mention of it as a "third category" as you put it.

Maya is not a trivial concept to comprehend because all logic, all descriptions, the concepts of Brahman, Moksha, Jivanmukti, Samadhi and pretty much everything we can think of and/or comprehend are within Maya. The concept of Maya itself is within Maya. And this is why it is hard to understand.

So, is Maya real or unreal? The answer is, we have to understand that the concepts of "real" and "unreal" are within Maya and hence, there is no logical answer to that question.

Is there a start point to Maya? The answer is, there isn't one, because a start point implies time as something that is outside of Maya - which is not the case, as both time and space are within the scope of Maya.

 

[Chakra]

Thanks for the references. Note that only the VC verse discusses Maya. The US verse is actually discussing Brahman and not Maya.

The futility of describing Maya is explained in the VC verse and therefore Maya is deemed indescribable (anirvachaniya). There is no mention of it as a "third category" as you put it.

Maya is not a trivial concept to comprehend because all logic, descriptions, the concepts of Brahman, Moksha, Jivanmukti, Samadhi and pretty everything we can think of and/or comprehend are within Maya. The concept of Maya itself is within Maya. And this is why it is hard to understand.

So, is Maya real or unreal? The answer is, we have to understand that the concepts of "real" and "unreal" are within Maya and hence, there is no logical answer to that question.

Is there a start point to Maya? The answer is, there isn't one, because a start point implies time as something that is outside of Maya - which is not the case, as both time and space are within the scope of Maya.

This hurts my head. :/
Thanks for the insight.

 

[kalyan]

I would say in standard Advaita thought at the end of a day of Brahman (the end of the universe) all are liberated.
Avidya and vidya should not be thought of as parts really. A better analogy is a fog. When the fog of avidya completely lifts through the effects of vidya, liberation of the jiva occurs. Each jiva starts in a cloud of avidya and (some quicker than others) achieve liberation. So as some jivas experience liberation, some are still sitting in their fog.

If everyone is liberated, then you are indirectly suggesting that beginningless Maya will cease to exist...Prakatarthakara advaita rejects this..When you mean srandard advaita, do you mean Shankara suggested this?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. all jivas liberate .. what else do you think happens to some jivas?

Not sure. Most jivas merge back into Brahman (so to say) without tearing the veil, without understanding the machinations of 'maya'. Does not make any difference, they are recycled just like the 'jnanis'. There is no distinction with Brahman. Put anything in the grinder, it all gets pulverized.

 

[Terese]

*Eats popcorn* I am a tree compared to everyone's knowledge

 

[Aupmanyav]

to me the biggest 'flaw' in Advaita seems to be that Maya is inexplicable

I do not think that is true. Maya is eminently explainable. Kindly go through my post here: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/simple-argument-against-advaita.186561/page-3#post-4718838

Brahman is just as inexplicable too.

I agree, Brahman is a mystery, the greatest mystery of all, but not so 'maya'. IMHO, I understand 'maya' quite clearly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The one who sees the snake is the Jiva, but how does it pop up from Brahman? How can Brahman be deluded? He can't it's the Jiva.

OK, have the whole story. You are constituted by (composed of, whatever it may be) Brahman, the underlying substrate of all things in the universe. But look at your architecture. You get sensory inputs from your sense organs (also composed of Brahman). The information is passed on to the various parts of your brain through neurons (shortened ACOB, also composed of Brahman), but designed by evolution to work in a particular way without which you would not have survived and would have returned quickly to merge into Brahman. When the info reaches the memory in the brain (ACOB), it digs out similar memories, like searching Google for similar images or sentences. Based on what it finds there, the brain instructs the motor neurons (ACOB) to instruct particular muscles (ACOB) to act in a particular way - it prescribes the direction, amount of the force to be applied, the period of time for which the force is to be applied, etc. All this happens nearly instantaneously. If it is a child that you want to restrain, the hands will offer soft force. If you are in a fight, the fist will clench and you will apply the most force that you can manage.

So, in his case, though it is all Brahman, you yourself, the child, your adversary, every one. But your actions are suitably modified by your mind. Many people do not understand this. We go through whole of our life-times forgetting that this is only a play of Brahman through maya. We love, hate, ignore and take things personally.

 

[निताइ dasa]

There is no mention of it as a "third category" as you put it.

Thanks.I personally see that if you say something is neither sat or asat, then it forms a third category (which is in direct contradiction with the Gita). I think the description is way too convenient, and makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Can a real person not create a work of fiction in his head?

Another interesting thing to consider (and I was alluding to this earlier) is that even if I make a "fictional world", everything within that fictional world is actually indirectly or directly composed of objects from this world. If there exists variety in Maya, then variety must also exist in Brahman otherwise there is no way we can identify variety. Like I said before, even in the snake and rope example, both snakes and ropes are real objects and the confusion arises simply because of prior knowledge. If anything the example shows how Brahman is full of qualities.

 

[George-ananda]

If everyone is liberated, then you are indirectly suggesting that beginningless Maya will cease to exist..

I said previously that Maya has a beginning and an end. I never would have said Maya was beginingless.

 

[George-ananda]

Not sure. Most jivas merge back into Brahman (so to say) without tearing the veil, without understanding the machinations of 'maya'. Does not make any difference, they are recycled just like the 'jnanis'. There is no distinction with Brahman. Put anything in the grinder, it all gets pulverized.

Well. we disagree. I believe advaita not aupvaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As you know, that is perfectly OK, George.

 

[kalyan]

I said previously that Maya has a beginning and an end. I never would have said Maya was beginingless.

If maya has a beginning and emanated from brahman resulting in multiple jIvas when there are none, there is every chance that maya could arise again from brahman resulting in another set of jIvas no ? As maya is mithya and if it is destroyed, there is a definite probability that it could take place again...you see where i am going at ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

*Eats popcorn* I am a tree compared to everyone's knowledge

You are a tree but you know the direction of sun and constantly grow towards it. You will grow nicely, give shade and respite to many, and bear many fruits.

 

[Shantanu]

This is not a flaw....Take the snake and rope example in advaita which Shankara postulated...Its an absolute beauty...

For instance on seeing a rope in dim light and not recognizing it as a rope, a person mistakes it for a snake which he has seen elsewhere. The snake is not absolutely unreal, because it is actually experienced, and produces the same effect, such as fear and so on, as a real snake would. At the same time, it is not real, because it is no longer seen when the rope has been recognized. It is therefore described as Anirvachaneeya or what cannot be classified as either real or unreal.

The same way Maya is anirvachaneeya or inexplicable

Maya is certainly the most magically powerful aspect of Sri Krishna that generates inexplicable things about the way the universe is created and is running, including the mind.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I said previously that Maya has a beginning and an end. I never would have said Maya was beginingless.

As I said earlier, in traditional Advaita, Maya is anadi (beginning-less).

Please check the Mandukya Karika 1.16 and Shankara's commentary on it. Here is the specific line from Shankara -

"One who is called Jiva, the individual soul, subject to the laws of transmigration, sleeping under the influence of Maya which is active from time without beginning and which has the double characteristics of non-apprehending and misapprehending reality, experiences such dreams as 'This is my father, this is my son...I am happy, I am miserable'.....

Beginning-less is commonly interpreted to mean forever. However, in this context, beginning-less means it is beyond the concept of time - which is a very important difference.

 

[George-ananda]

If maya has a beginning and emanated from brahman resulting in multiple jIvas when there are none, there is every chance that maya could arise again from brahman resulting in another set of jIvas no ? As maya is mithya and if it is destroyed, there is a definite probability that it could take place again...you see where i am going at ?

I think I see where you are going but there is no problem in that. There is no belief in Advaita that this is the only universe. A playwright can write multiple plays can he not?

 

[kalyan]

I think I see where you are going but there is no problem in that. There is no belief in Advaita that this is the only universe. A playwright can write multiple plays can he not?

But whose version of advaita are you referring to ? would it be Shankara's advaita or some other later advaitin who said maya has an end ?

 

[George-ananda]

As I said earlier, in traditional Advaita, Maya is anadi (beginning-less).

Please check the Mandukya Karika 1.16 and Shankara's commentary on it. Here is the specific line from Shankara -

"One who is called Jiva, the individual soul, subject to the laws of transmigration, sleeping under the influence of Maya which is active from time without beginning and which has the double characteristics of non-apprehending and misapprehending reality, experiences such dreams as 'This is my father, this is my son...I am happy, I am miserable'.....

Beginning-less is commonly interpreted to mean forever. However, in this context, beginning-less means it is beyond the concept of time - which is a very important difference.

OK, I see your point about Maya being beginingless and must agree. I think the confusion was I am saying and still saying that our universe has a beginning and an end but Maya (Brahman's ability to create a web of myth) is beginingless. What are people's thoughts on this.

 

[George-ananda]

But whose version of advaita are you referring to ? would it be Shankara's advaita or some other later advaitin who said maya has an end ?

I think I refined my position on this in the above post #99.