Shankara was wrong: Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo

[Aupmanyav]

"There is no express passage which states that Punarvasu was ever the first of the Nakshatras, nor have we in this case a synonym like Agrahayana, or Orion, wherein we might discover similar traditions. There are, however, some indications about the oldest position of Punarvasu preserved in the sacrificial literature. The presiding deity of Punarvasu is Aditi, and we are told in the Aitareya Brahmana i.7, and the Taittiriya Sanhita 1.5.1, that Aditi has been blessed with a boon that all sacrifices must commence and end with her. The story begins with the statement that the Sacrifice (the mysterial sacrificial personage) went away from the gods. The gods were then unable to perform any further ceremonies, and did not know where it (the sacrifice) had gone to; and it was Aditi that helped them, in this state, to find out the proper commencement of the sacrifice. This clearly means, if it can mean anything, that before this time sacrifices were performed at random, but it was at this time resolved and fixed to commence them from Aditi. Aditi was thus the oldest and the first commencement of the sacrifice or the year In the Vajasaneyi Sanhita 4.19, Aditi is said to be ‘ubhaya shlrsham’, double -headed/' and the commentators interpret it to mean that the two termini of the sacrifices, which began and ended with Aditi, are the two heads here alluded to."
B. G. Tilak in "Orion or the Antiquity of Vedas"

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree, but remember, Aup-ji is the all pervading Brahman. He can't be wrong.

"Tat twam asi" (not me alone).

 

[Iti oj]

MOD POST!
Thread moved to Same Faith Debates!​

 

[Chakra]

"Tat twam asi" (not me alone).

Yes, exactly.

 

[Shantanu]

I know. The whole of Book VII was revealed to my forebears, the Vasishthas. There is no need for a Buddhist to leave Hinduism. It is a part of Hinduism. First understand 'advaita' before you comment on it. IMHO, 'Advaita' does not, should not accept duality of man and God. If it does, it does not remain 'advaita'.

Hello AupmanyavJi, This is Shantanu. Remember I once called you my guru. Accidentally we meet again almost two and half years later after I was banished from Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board and from Secular Café for my outrageous posts I believe. I just received an email from Religious forums and clicked into this topic to then find your name here. I was very happy so decided to post this as my updated view of advaita.

You talk about understanding 'advaita'. Both atheists and theists claim to understand the term. The way to advaita is through truth or satya-advaita, oneness with truth. What a person himself cannot ascertain should be discarded as false or kept out of the mind.

There is a path to follow, the truth path to understanding how humanity functions through consciousness. That consciousness is an intrinsic aspect of what people call Brahman. But it is differentiated. I describe it as guna-consciousness which has sattvic, rajasic and tamasic characteristics. If you study human beings you will find that this is the greatest mystery of mankind that needs to be explored by seekers of truth. Once you accept that this kind of consciousness exists there is no question of being an atheist for someone must have created such a consciousness that answers everything that we see in humanity. The guna consciousness describes God's lila, the Vishwaroopa. There is no escaping this reality. Our minds derive its thoughts from the triad components of this consciousness depending on our knowledge, mentality and upbringing. I believe that I have been given this revelation by God, for I could not have imagined it. Thoughts were planted by God into my mind for His own purposes.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Welcome, Shantanu. How are things on your side? Well, I think you know my views. One may term it as property of physical energy or its consciousness, the thing perhaps exists. I hope you enjoy your stay at Religious forums. We have a nice group of people here.

 

[Shantanu]

Welcome, Shantanu. How are things on your side? Well, I think you know my views. One may term it as property of physical energy or its consciousness, the thing perhaps exists. I hope you enjoy your stay at Religious forums. We have a nice group of people here.

Thank you for welcoming me. I enjoy reading about people's views.

I spent the last two and half years writing a Blog here: Shantanu Panigrahi's Blog. You may find it of interest. Now I feel totally free of this work and all other non-family commitments. In fact you could say I am retired now: voluntary early retirement, at the age of 58.

I am still living in the UK with my wife and daughter of 24 years of age. I go to India with my family every two years if we can save up enough for the trip.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What about your daughter's marriage? Found any suitable Odiya boy?
58 is no time to retire. Involve yourself in some job.

 

[Shantanu]

What about your daughter's marriage? Found any suitable Odiya boy?
58 is no time to retire. Involve yourself in some job.

There is no telling who we will find for her eventually, a UK citizen or an Indian citizen, an English boy or an Odiya one: a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Christian, or anyone at all for that matter. Living in the UK cuts us off our Indian customs and its possibilities to a large extent. Even if ones heart tells you to stay within Hindu traditions as being the best outcome the reality of life as an immigrant calls for adjustments to be made in what can be imposed on our daughter. I think that God will arrange the right course for us if we stay on the path of truth, justice, fairness and decency. This is the faith in following sanatan dharma, meaning the law and course being given to me and my family by God that I have realised.

As far as retirement at 58 is concerned, it may be too young from the State's point of view because the State works to extract work and usage from its citizens. But from my own needs what I meant by retirement is that I have nothing left to try and do with my life for my own interest and need, except of course to earn a little more money to improve our survivability. If no employer who knows me from my Blog and sees what I am capable of feels the need to contact me about a job that I could do for them then that determines what I can and will do with the rest of my life. I have applied for some jobs but nothing seems to be happening at the moment. If a job comes along that I can channel my knowledge and abilities to I will follow that path rather than staying at home and doing just household chores. But again I wait for the future to reveal itself whilst steadfastly staying true to my character. Let me see what is in store for the rest of my life. You could say that I am simultaneously testing my theory on the reality of sanatan dharma, Aupmanyavji.

 

[Stormcry]

Nonsense! Both the Classical Samkhya school and the Samkhya-Yoga Darshana school considered the world to be real. It was only after the influences of Jainism and Buddhism on the Hindu traditions which corrupted the Vedantic tradition and Indian philosophy.

I've very less knowledge of Samkhya Philosophy. But what I know, Lord Krishna explains Samkhya Philosophy in Uddhava Gita. So what I know is the essence of Samkhya. The core teaching of Samkhya is to prove that in the beginning, middle and in the end, there is only brahman, which remains unchanged in the process of creation and destruction of the world. To prove it Samkhya uses the idea of principles. It says so just to prove that this world is brahman itself, ie it is unreal, in other words.

If the brahman is changeless, how can the world be real. It must be unreal only. If it were real, then we would perceive this world in its true form ie brahman. But this does not happen and so it certainly means this world is unreal. It is like a dream. This is vedanta.

Lord krishna beautifully explains samkhya philosophy in Uddhava Gita..


"That which is before the beginning of the forms, is in the state of the form and remains the same after the form comes to an end is the Reality. The modifications in the forms and categories like Tejas and Parthiva etc are useful in the worldly affairs."

Thus when we say this world is unreal, the matter forms or dualities are not there at all. Brahman alone shines there. So believing in the reality of panchabhutas (world) is complete nonsense.

Though we see the form of Gokul it is clay only. Similarly, only Brahman exists before the creation of the world, in the state of existence of the world and after the end of the world.

This world which is formed with so many varieties of modifications due to the three Gunas is as unreal as a dream.

Avidya is the cause of all disturbances. If we try to prove these disturbances as true then
Avidya will have to be taken as true. But all wise people know that the very name Avidya shows that it does not exist at all, but ignorant people think that it is real. Avidya does not exist as denoted by the name of Avidya and Brahman is Real because it is Brahman. The Lord is now telling what is the Reality.

"
That from which the world comes into being as a disturbance in the original state and that which is in the beginning as well as at the end of the manifest world is called the reality."

So what here krishna saying is the truth, then this world is certainly unreal. Because it does not exist before the creation and after the dissolution.

"Samkhya is the process of separating the spirit from matter. This process cuts the knot of doubt and which has been set-forth by me - the knower of the cause and the effect from the stand point of evolution and involution"

The seeker knows through Sankhya Philosophy the permanency of Brahman in the beginning the middle and the end of everything. That's it.

The word Maya is the least frequently used words in the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Really

Sruti cannot contradict Sruti. By stating that the Vedas and the Upanishads are contradictory to each other you have made the very foundation of Hinduism to be infallible. Its a Juvenile statement.

You did not get me. But the way you are understanding shruti is definitely against Upanishada.

Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga cannot be reconciled? Oh dude please read the Gita once again.

I am not talking about Yoga. I am talking about realities of Karma and Knowledge.

Krishna is talking to us allegorical terms and in order to understand the message of the Gita completely, first you have to study the Vedas from Sampradaya.

I have sampradaya, however the knowledge of unreality of world is my personal experience gained by sharp logical reasoning. I have not gained it by any scripture.

So saying in nutshell, the philosophy of reality of world is completely refuted just by couple of logical experiments in the mind. Who sees reality of world is not different from any animal. Both believe in its reality and so lack the self. This is my view..

 

[Pleroma]

I have sampradaya, however the knowledge of unreality of world is my personal experience gained by sharp logical reasoning. I have not gained it by any scripture.

So saying in nutshell, the philosophy of reality of world is completely refuted just by couple of logical experiments in the mind. Who sees reality of world is not different from any animal. Both believe in its reality and so lack the self. This is my view..

Vyavaharika sathya or the empirical world is indeed an illusion but Saguna Brahman and the Vedic gods and their worlds are not unreal, they are very much real and are equal in reality with Nirguna Brahman.

 

[Stormcry]

Vyavaharika sathya or the empirical world is indeed an illusion but Saguna Brahman and the Vedic gods and their worlds are not unreal, they are very much real and are equal in reality with Nirguna Brahman.

Okay..this is your view..But according to my view, there's only one entity which is unchanged and that's Brahman, anything other than it is illusion. Vedic supreme and minor deities are not exceptions. Because there's creation and destruction of them and so they're impermanent ..Anything which has creation and destruction is as unreal as a dream. That's a Siddhanta.