The Validity of Advaita

[Poeticus]

Worshiping Gods just to worship Gods is silly idolatry. Gods are tools, to be discarded once they've served their purpose.

Seyorni,

Help me out with this one, if you may be kind to do so. Is my distaste
of your quoted comment above just an illusion ?

BTW, "worshipping Gods just to worship Gods" is actually a valid and
quite staunchly an authentic, Vedic pramana (aka: injunction by Shruti),
supported in numerous instances in the Veda-s. I can understand your
notion of Gods being just "tools", but such a notion is nowhere sanctioned
nor endorsed in Shruti (including the Mukhya Upanishads).​

 

[Vinayaka]

In my honest opinion, thinking one does not have any more need for the Gods is generally just ego. Lots of Hinduism's greatest saints were bhaktars to the end of their lives on this planet.

 

[Poeticus]

Lots of Hinduism's greatest saints were bhaktars to the end of their lives on this planet.

Every single Vedic (Vedic & Upanishadic) Rishi
known in Hinduism, all of whom achieved moksha/
amrita-m BTW, had a staunch belief in the Gods
to the end of their lives. I know of none who didn't.​

 

[Vinayaka]

Every single Vedic (Vedic & Upanishadic) Rishi
known in Hinduism, all of whom achieved moksha/
amrita-m BTW, had a staunch belief in the Gods
to the end of their lives. I know of none who didn't.​

I do see Advaitic Monism as the Ultimate reality though. It's just on how you get there that differs between Saiva Siddhanta and Advaita Vedanta. We see it as a progressive 4 stages, whereas some Advaitins go straight there (or claim to) via the intellect/discussion book study method.

 

[DreadFish]

This really doesn't make any sense,the fact that someone exists is always true,it cannot be sometimes true and sometimes false!!!!!!!!If this someone dies,then the fact that he is dead is as true as the fact that he existed before his death.....

True only from a certain, relative, point of view. From an absolute point of view, all these distinctions are not there. But, they do exist from relative perspectives.

If it was only one ,then why are we experiencing samsaara?????Why is there need for false reality,i.e illusion????

Yeah, while, ultimately, we live in only one reality, there are different relative perspectives that we experience. This is what I would call different "realities". From these perspectives, there are real things that we experience, but they are only as real as the experience, which is fleeting and relative to other things.

This is where my Buddhist leanings show; everything exists in relation to everything else, but it is not in contradiction with an advaitic standpoint. While, strictly speaking, Advaita Vedanta may say that everything is just an illusion and only Brahman exists, other advaitic schools such as Kashmiri Shaivism and some forms of tantra will say that "maya" is the play of the universe and that it's just our misconception that the things experienced in maya are real, in and of themselves. So, it is all just the whole, but the "illusion" is just our misconception of relative, limited points of view.

At the level of absolute reality, there is just the Self, or in zen, the One Mind, that is not separate from form but not limited to forms. The problem is in taking the content to be real, in and of itself, at the cost of recognizing the whole.

 

[bhootarajaru]

True only from a certain, relative, point of view. From an absolute point of view, all these distinctions are not there. But, they do exist from relative perspectives.

The highest form of reality that you guys suppose is still an experience ,i.e the exp of satchitananda.My question stands against your acceptence of reality of satchitananda exp and unreality of worldly exp!!!

 

[bhootarajaru]

Certainly it can. There are different realities (small r) at different levels of consciousness.
For example, the people In my dreams last night were real people -- at the level I was experiencing them, ie: dream state. They were not Objectively Real (big R), of course.

So... the people in my dream were real at one point, and now they are not. I've moved into a different reality where they don't exist. Now my reality involves a Toshiba laptop which I'm busily banging away at. It's real -- but only for now. If I wake up to the next level it will no longer be real. I will have transcended it just as I did the people in last night's dream.

Reality is a nested series of dream states, each subjectively real till the illusion, Maya, is shattered on waking to the next state. Only in the highest state does the experienced reality of the subject conform to the Objective Reality described by physicists and Rishis.

You can deem the people you dreamt to be unreal,only when you accept the reality of dream. How does it make sense if dream itself is unreal???will this unreal dream trigger another unreal dream???Whats the reason for this unreal dream??

1.

Just because they appear and vanish you cannot say that they are unreal. For the same reason assume that lightning is unreal and approach it. You will experience the consequences. Since dream itself is not unreal, you cannot conclude that the awaken world is unreal by drawing an analogy with dream. There is no evidence for the waking world to be known as unreal finally.

 

[DreadFish]

The highest form of reality that you guys suppose is still an experience ,i.e the exp of satchitananda.My question stands against your acceptence of reality of satchitananda exp and unreality of worldly exp!!!

Well, the experience of the Self is explained by people like Ramana and Nisargadatta as not a thing you experience, not any kind of object that you say "this is it!", but something that you are. It is intuitive, not gross experience.

If it were indeed an object experience, then it would be appropriate to say that this experience too would be impermanent and pass. But it is said that at the level of the Self, there is no experiencer or object of experience. We can't describe things here.

Anyway, im not denying that relative things are real. Im just saying that they are only real in relation to other things in a vast web of interactions.

 

[Stormcry]

1.

Just because they appear and vanish you cannot say that they are unreal.

It means it's the fault of your intelligence not of that concept. The thing which is before the creation and at the end must be in the middle too. Note that its the essential nature of the reality that it is present at all times and it's the essential nature of unreality is that it has no existence at all times.So this world which is appearing in the middle must be Brahma alone. There are two truths which look different but are one. First, there's no creation of world and second, this world is Brahman. Through the angle of Maya, Brahman has Adhisthan over this world and through the angle of supreme truth, this world is nonexistent as there's Brahma alone and as what appears differently from Brahma is Avidya.

For the same reason assume that lightning is unreal and approach it. You will experience the consequences.

So what? In dream too we experiences the same real consequences. What mind thinks in waking state is as illusory as what mind thinks in a dream. Because both sthuls and suksha are born out of Maya. We see sukshmata in a dream while sthulata in waking state. Besides you should know that dreamless state is the origin of waking and dream states as it is well known that from sukshatama , panchabhutas are born. So it's foolish to say that matter is real than subtle nature of Mind,intellect and prana.

Since dream itself is not unreal, you cannot conclude that the awaken world is unreal by drawing an analogy with dream.

I've already explained that both sthula is as illusory as sukshma in a dream. So waking state is certainly untrue like that in a dream. And btw, we don't use this analogy. Scriptures uses it to explain unreality of the world.

There is no evidence for the waking world to be known as unreal finally.

Not really. There are lot of proofs in scriptures. Some are logical and some are complete in itself. Like, Brahma alone is real, this world is Brahma.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it was only one, then why are we experiencing samsaara? Why is there need for false reality, i.e illusion?

Molecules and their properties, sub-atomic forces. Rocks also are molecules but they do not experience samsara. Depends on how a thing is constituted. One needs to analyse the why and how of perception.

The highest form of reality that you guys suppose is still an experience,

The highest form of reality is not experienced, it is realised, understood, with the help of knowledge and analysis.

 

[bhootarajaru]

It means it's the fault of your intelligence not of that concept. The thing which is before the creation and at the end must be in the middle too. Note that its the essential nature of the reality that it is present at all times and it's the essential nature of unreality is that it has no existence at all times.So this world which is appearing in the middle must be Brahma alone. There are two truths which look different but are one. First, there's no creation of world and second, this world is Brahman. Through the angle of Maya, Brahman has Adhisthan over this world and through the angle of supreme truth, this world is nonexistent as there's Brahma alone and as what appears differently from Brahma is Avidya.

There's no reason for one to regard the universe to be an illusion.Except your theoretical steps,there is literally no way to discard the whole universe as an illusion!!!

Its really hard to regard a thing(universe),which is present today ,to be absent tomorrow. It might be or it might not,but even the fact that it was present at sometime and is absent now,suffices the status of reality.

It is as said by krishna in bagavadgeetha that prakruthi and souls are eternal.How can you discard this eternal prakruthi as unreal???

If you hold that one which never is sublated or destroyed as a real entity,then where is the scope of this unreality to affect reality in-midst of reality??????

You must account for the existence of illusion!!! Without it there would not be any samsaara at all,because as per you illusion is samsaara we are exp.

Here the question is where is this illusion?From where does this illusion arise??Who sees this illusion??The one who sees the illusion must be an ignorant???

Is the eternity of the prakruthi different from the eternity of your nirguna brahman???

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brain, Brain Information, Facts, News, Photos -- National Geographic

You can find a lot of information about the anatomy and physiology of brain in this video or select another at https://www.google.co.in/search?q=h...GACQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1455&bih=705&dpr=1.1.

 

[Valjean]

Seyorni,

Help me out with this one, if you may be kind to do so. Is my distaste
of your quoted comment above just an illusion ?​

Of course. You, yourself are maya, from my standpoint. Vyavaharika is as much a dream as prabthibsika.​

Every single Vedic (Vedic & Upanishadic) Rishi
known in Hinduism, all of whom achieved moksha/
amrita-m BTW, had a staunch belief in the Gods
to the end of their lives. I know of none who didn't.​

There are levels of belief. I can say, truthfully, that there is a computer in front of me. I can also say, perfectly honestly, that there is not a computer in front of me, that it is an illusion. I can believe, at one level, that Rhett rejected Scarlett at the end of Gone With the Wind, while, at the same time, realising that it was all just a play of light across a blank screen.

As for those Rishis who achieved Moksha, if they realised Unity they also realised that duality and plurality were illusions, that only a single, timeless, undifferentiated Consciousness actually existed.
How can you have Gods -- individual entities, entities that were not Self -- and still realise Brahman?
Unity and diversity are incompatible. Dvaita and advaita are incompatible. Once you've transcended the material world, once you're consciousness has expanded to perceive Unity/Brahman, you've also transcended the Gods.

Once you've broken the jar, the air within and without can no longer be differentiated. A wave is not separate from the sea.
​

You can deem the people you dreamt to be unreal,only when you accept the reality of dream. How does it make sense if dream itself is unreal??

You weren't listening. The dream is real. What I said is that it is un-Real. real and Real are different. There are several subjective realities and one objective Reality. Reality differs in different levels of consciousness. A dream is subjectively real, but objectively unreal. A dream is real whilst you're dreaming it, whilst you're actually in 2nd state, but from the standpoint of waking state, last night's dream is an illusion.

There's no reason for one to regard the universe to be an illusion.Except your theoretical steps,there is literally no way to discard the whole universe as an illusion!!!

Certainly there is. The reality we experience in everyday life does not conform to the reality described by relativity theory or quantum mechanics.
Our "reality" is generated in our brains, pieced together from electrochemical sensory inputs. It's not what's really out there. It's an abstract representation.
The brain is not a reliable generator of Real reality. Changes in the brain can radically alter perceived reality. Cf: The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat.The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our senses are very limited. Our major sense, for example, can perceive only a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, and of the visual impulses that do reach the brain, most are filtered out and never reach consciousness. Moreover, our visual sense is easily fooled: Optical illusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its really hard to regard a thing(universe),which is present today ,to be absent tomorrow. It might be or it might not,but even the fact that it was present at sometime and is absent now,suffices the status of reality.

What's even harder is to understand that there is no today and tomorrow, that time itself is an illusion.
I'm not arguing that a thing is not real. I'm arguing that it is not Real.

Here the question is where is this illusion?From where does this illusion arise??Who sees this illusion??The one who sees the illusion must be an ignorant???

Beats the heck out of me. I can't explain the illusion, but it's clear it exists. Who sees it? We all do, save those perceiving Turiya, who've achieved such a samadhi.
If "ignorance" means unawareness or a failure of perception then yes, we're ignorant.

 

[atanu]

BTW, "worshipping Gods just to worship Gods" is actually a valid and
quite staunchly an authentic, Vedic pramana (aka: injunction by Shruti),
supported in numerous instances in the Veda-s. I can understand your
notion of Gods being just "tools", but such a notion is nowhere sanctioned
nor endorsed in Shruti (including the Mukhya Upanishads).
​

As for those Rishis who achieved Moksha, if they realised Unity they also realised that duality and plurality were illusions, that only a single, timeless, undifferentiated Consciousness actually existed.
​

How can you have Gods -- individual entities, entities that were not Self -- and still realise Brahman?
Unity and diversity are incompatible. Dvaita and advaita are incompatible. Once you've transcended the material world, once you're consciousness has expanded to perceive Unity/Brahman, you've also transcended the Gods...
​

Both the above are excellent and valid points, IMO. I think I have an understanding that reconciles these two incompatibles.

I agree that Veda is about worship and worship. But again, there is indeed abheda taught very strongly. So, what did Vedic rishis worship? Do we imagine that all of them to be non enlightened? It seems highly improbable.

How I reconcile:

Brahman is One Without A Second and Brahman is the Self. No one can deny that. Scriptures exhort us to know the One wthout a second Self in order to be free. Can non dual Self be known as a second? Or can a second be the Self? It is an impossiblity. So, a knower of Brahman must abide in and as advaita.

But then can the advaita Self know and assert "I am That"?

I think that although Brahman is pure Knowledge, in advaita mode there cannot be any knowing or any expression thereof. In order to express the experience of advaita, an "I" (mind) must exist as a second to reflect the non dual Brahman.

And, in this mode, the worship of the transcendental non dual Self will be automatic and inevitable.

It is said that Yajurveda (knowledge of worship) originated with Prajapati going around worshipping its own Self. I understand it as Mind (Prajapati-Creator) worshipping its own Source. So, IMO, no scripture, including the Buddhistic variety, is really devoid of worship.

What I wish to say is expressed with utmost finesse in Mandukya Karika:

Mandukya Karika Of Gaudapada

Gaudapada's Karika on Mandukya Upanishad

IV-100. Having realised the non-dual state that is hard to perceive, deep, unborn, uniform and serene, we offer our salutations to It, as best as we can.

 

[Ekanta]

(Mandukya Karika) "Having realised the non-dual state that is hard to perceive, deep, unborn, uniform and serene, we offer our salutations to It, as best as we can. "

Very nice quote... its funny how you can read the same thing over and over and still find new interesting things.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Agree, very nice.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Dear Advaitin-s,

What is the validity of Advaita?

The qualifier of this validity is
on the grounds of:​

1. What makes Advaita true?
2. How does Advaita refute Dvaita?
3. How does Advaita refute other
   Vedantic schools of thought?
4. How does Advaita keep itself in
   line with or true to Shruti?

I feel it is a very good question, and the basis for establishing any siddhanta.

For any thesis to be accepted as a shastra worth the effort of adhyayana it needs to establish the following known as anubandha chatushtaya:
1. Vishaya (~ topic/subject) 2. Adhikarin (ideal candidate) 3. Prayojana (benefit which is the rationale for inquiry) 4. Sambandha (pratipadaka - that which conveys knowledge and pratipadya - that which is conveyed)

For mayavada it can be considered thus:
1. Jiva-Brahma-Aikya/Advaita; 2. Mumukshu (one who wishes aikya-jgnaana and ajgnaana/avidya nivritti); 3. Moksha; 4. Shastras are the pratipadakas of jiva-brahma-aikya/advaita (pratipadya).

The siddhanta is therefore summarized thus - as the shastras proclaim thro' prajgnaanam brahma, ayamaatmaa brahma, ahambrahmaasmi, tattvamasi, their true purport is to establish the non-duality between jiva and brahman, by the knowledge of which the adhikarin attains moksha which is ajgnaana nivritti.

What makes Advaita true?

There is nothing that makes advaita naturally/de facto true in which case there wouldn't have been ~22 different siddhantas. Much like contemporary "scientific theorization" each philosophical system begins with its supposition based on interpretation of shrutis and then proceed to reconcile those that contradict with appropriate logical constructs.

How does Advaita refute Dvaita? How does Advaita refute other Vedantic schools of thought?

The main contention of advaita of Sri Shankara's time was largely with naiyayikaas, saankhyas, vaisheshikaas, and purva-mimansakas, and of course buddhists. Nevertheless, advaita itself has borrowed several concepts from various schools but predominantly from Bhaatta darshana, and buddhism - a fact that was highlighted even by Vedanta Desika (~13 century).
The dvaita as conceived and refuted by Sri Shankara can be illustrated (adapted from his own in Ch Up) as follows:
Once a group of bandits kidnapped a just-born prince; the king did not give into their demands and therefore the child-prince was brought-up by the bandits imbibing in him bandit-like qualities. Once, after several years, the bandits attacked the retinue of one of the ministers of the king and took the minister captive. This minister recognized the now grown up prince among the bandit and conveyed to him his true identity as the heir of the kingdom upon realizing which the prince immediately killed the bandits and went on to become a king.
So similarly, the ajgnana due to which the prince (brahman) thought of himself as bandit (jiva) and therefore separate (dvaita) was destroyed with knowledge (shruti) conveyed by the minister (guru) resulting in prince becoming the king (jiva-brahma aikya).

How does Advaita keep itself in line with or true to Shruti?

Ontologically:
One Real - brahman nirguna-nirakara-nirvishesha-nirdharmi - its nature: chaitanya which is svaprakasha (interpreted as ajgneya ~ unknowable); satya - not false; jgnaana - not jada; ananta - devoid of limits
Avidya/maya - sadasadvilaxana: unlike both real and unreal
Moksha - sadasadvilaxana-vilaxana: unlike sadasadvilaxana

Epistemologically:
Shastras convey brahman by stating what It is not;
Those that convey otherwise are to be considered as atattvaavedaka and vyaavaharika (reality limited to practical purposes) which vanish at the dawn of paramarthika reality.

Reconciliations: (Just an instance)
Shrutis also say brahman to be sarvajgna, ishvara, etc; jiva to be anu, as undergoing band-moksha etc
By considering "qualities" ascribed to brahman and jiva as mithya what remains is "pure chaitanya" undifferentiated. This is therefore paramaarthika satya.

Refutations:
Both Vishishstadvaita Sri Ramanuja and Tattvavada of Sri Madhva have refuted this interpretation, its validity as established in the anubandha-chatushtaya, as well as logical constructs and the polemics were very much alive until the arrival of brits imposing english leading to the gradual decline of sanskrit. For e.g., Sri Shankara's siddhanta (including early siddhi-trayas) were challenged and refuted by Sri Madhva, followed by Sri Vyasaraja (nyayamruta) which was challenged by Madhusudana Saraswati in Advaitasiddhi which was refuted by Ramacharya Vyasa's Nyayamruta Tarangini and Anandabhattaraka's Nyayamritakantakkodhara, the tarangini was refuted by Brahmananda Saraswati's Brahmaanandiya which was later refuted by Vanamali Mishra.

Advaita is certainly not a philosophy in some high citadel which is the only one dealing with ultimate truth as it is presented to be; but for a lack of open-mindedness and equal lack of honest inquiry into truth there is nothing that makes it irrefutable.

As for my opinion, having studied and practiced advaita, FWIW, it is but a logical delirium that leads one to hypocrisy of treading along mithya with the hope of seeing paramarthika; while the former is an indispensable fact of life, the latter an unknowable! I find realist systems more rational, in that there is no need to first claim something to be unreal, and then appropriate provisional reality to it.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

As for my opinion, having studied and practiced advaita, FWIW, it is but a logical delirium that leads one to hypocrisy of treading along mithya with the hope of seeing paramarthika; while the former is an indispensable fact of life, the latter an unknowable!

You fail to see 'paramarthika'?! It is all around you as far as your eyes can see. What is it, if it is not That?

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

You fail to see 'paramarthika'?!

How did you construe that śrīmān?

It is all around you as far as your eyes can see. What is it, if it is not That?

Indeed, यच्चकिञ्चित्जगत्सर्वं दृश्यते श्रूयतेऽपि वा । अन्तर्बहिश्च तथ्सर्वं व्याप्य नारायणः स्थितः । So indeed satyam-jagat! and brahman is ananta-kalyāṇa-guṇa-pūrṇa, i haven't a single doubt about it. Only there is no need for conjectures like vyāvahārika, prātibhāsika, pāramārthika, anirvacanīya, mithyātva, whose durghaṭva has to be considered bhūṣaṇam!

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Stormcry]

Its really hard to regard a thing(universe),which is present today ,to be absent tomorrow. It might be or it might not,but even the fact that it was present at sometime and is absent now,suffices the status of reality.

It seems you're layman in Vedanta. Krishna says in Uddhava Gita:

"That which did not exist before the creation, nor will persist after the creation, does not exist in the middle except in name alone. The effect is the same as the cause through which it came in existence and by which it stands revealed! Such is my opinion." (11.28.21)

Such is the opinion of Krishna, that the world doesn't exist at all in the middle as well. The effect is said to be non-existent and it is equaled to the cause. This is the core philosophy of Vedanta. Saying the world is real is absolute meaningless talk.

It is as said by krishna in bagavadgeetha that prakruthi and souls are eternal.How can you discard this eternal prakruthi as unreal???

They're eternal in regard with Maya, just as for a dreamer dream is real but for the person who's awake that dream is non-existent, unreal..

"Krishna: The one substance viz Brahman alone is Real" [28.20]

If you hold that one which never is sublated or destroyed as a real entity,then where is the scope of this unreality to affect reality in-midst of reality??????

It affects is illusion. Though world gets created there's no effect in Brahman, even as gold is gold before making ornaments of it, it is gold only when in the form of ornaments and though the ornaments are melted, it remains as gold. Brahman is without second and changeless.

Here the question is where is this illusion?From where does this illusion arise??Who sees this illusion??The one who sees the illusion must be an ignorant???

Krishna says: "Sorrow, elation, fear, anger, greed, enticement, desire and such other modifications are seen where pride is prevalent. Birth and death are also there, but none of these are having any effect on Atman."


There's illusion is itself illusion. We don't say it arises. Even If it arises, it must be from brahman. Because before the world there was brahman alone. Mind sees illusion, which is upadhi of paramatma. The self is different from mind. So it is also not proper to say non-existent thing sees illusion. Because illusion itself is non-existent.

Just as the image of moon is the effect of moon and water, in the same way Jiva is the effect of Pratyagatma and Upadhi [Mind,Intellect,Prana]..