The Validity of Advaita

[Stormcry]

Indeed, यच्चकिञ्चित्जगत्सर्वं दृश्यते श्रूयतेऽपि वा । अन्तर्बहिश्च तथ्सर्वं व्याप्य नारायणः स्थितः । So indeed satyam-jagat!

Better you provide the verse "The world is real" The world is pervaded by Vishnu, that doesn't mean world is real. It means Adhishthan over the world is real, not the world itself.

Krishna: "The view of dualistic men that “the duality in the form of the body etc perceptible with the senses in the form of so many names and forms (world), and consisting of the five gross elements cannot be refuted” – is a meaningless talk." (11.28.37)

Yeah, that's utter foolishness.

Only there is no need for conjectures like vyāvahārika, prātibhāsika, pāramārthika, anirvacanīya, mithyātva, whose durghaṭva has to be considered bhūṣaṇam!

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

'Paramartha' 'Mithya' are logical expressions which are often used in Vedanta. They're vital. Without them Brahman can not be revealed in its true form as without second and touch of worldly things.

 

[Aupmanyav]

यच्चकिञ्चित्जगत्सर्वं दृश्यते श्रूयतेऽपि वा । अन्तर्बहिश्च तथ्सर्वं व्याप्य नारायणः स्थितः ।

Well, the only difference is that what advaitists term as Brahman has been replaced by Narayana with all its theistic properties. Since I do not find any proof of that, I stick solely with Brahman. This is in line with today's science also. But go ahead, one hat does not fit all people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, that's utter foolishness.

It is not foolishness, it is difference of opinion which you should respect, young man.
:from one who may have seen thrice the number of winters or more than you:
'Satyam bruyat, priyam bruyat ..'.

 

[Stormcry]

It is not foolishness, it is difference of opinion which you should respect, young man.
:from one who may have seen thrice the number of winters or more than you:
'Satyam bruyat, priyam bruyat ..'.

Not disrespecting actually .. I think sometimes harsh words are for establishing the point firmly. They'd not be taken personally. I respect other's view but I've just repeated what scripture said..

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Well, the only difference is that what advaitists term as Brahman has been replaced by Narayana with all its theistic properties.

Are you suggesting someone meddled with the śruti?

Since I do not find any proof of that

Proofs abound, and they are quite elaborate. The earliest of śrutis (assuming for a moment that they appeared over period of time one after the other as you propose) leave no room for contriving a characterless, activity-less, colorless, and attribute-less brahman. The śrutis came centuries before the advaitists at any rate.

I stick solely with Brahman

Why would i want to convince you of anything else?

This is in line with today's science also

It is very much a possibility that tomorrow's science itself may not agree with today's.

But go ahead, one hat does not fit all people.

Exactly, which is why unitary-homogeneity of everyone and everything as proposed by māyāvāda is untenable.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Chakra]

HLK, how do we know which verses are parmarthika and vyavaharika? It seems to me that we have to go to an outside source like Adi Shankara to see which verses are which, which destroys the point of Shruti. Shruti needs to have one unified purport, not a bunch of contradictory views that makes no sense and cannot be construed by a deep analysis of the Shastra.

Regards

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Better you provide the verse "The world is real"

I would and nothing less than śruti-vākyas itself, but would you have the conviction to accept them? If you were to only hide behind "figurative" and other conjectures at the face of evidence from śruti, for me that would be undermining the value of śruti-vākyas (of course, wouldn't be much of a problem for māyāvādis for whom all śrutis that don't support their view becomes ayathārtha-pratipādaka; finally settling for five-six that too half-verses as the only portion of vedas that are valid!). The conversation here was not to prove my point, nor to disprove anything. I am not obliged to convince you of my conviction, nor are you expected to do so.

The world is pervaded by Vishnu, that doesn't mean world is real. It means Adhishthan over the world is real, not the world itself.

The exact word is Nārāyaṇa, it is impossible to pull the veil of common noun. Yeah, the real pervaded the unreal! All the activities that the attribute-less brahman is made to do, heck be even subjected to his own māyā to become īśvara, being otherwise powerless. Yeah, well the brahman won't mind anyways.

Krishna: "The view of dualistic men that “the duality in the form of the body etc perceptible with the senses in the form of so many names and forms (world), and consisting of the five gross elements cannot be refuted” – is a meaningless talk." (11.28.37)

Yeah, that's utter foolishness.

[Assuming this is not from one of those interpolated versions and your translation is correct] Please have the duel with dualists, perhaps Kumārila Bhaṭṭa might be offended, if at all.

'Paramartha' 'Mithya' are logical expressions which are often used in Vedanta.

See, if they are only "logical expressions" they are part of mithyātva and lose their implication, if at all. If not, they are as real as brahman which undermines the concept of mithyātva as proposed by māyāvāda untenable.

They're vital. Without them Brahman can not be revealed in its true form as without second and touch of worldly things.

Vital conjectures for advaita to support other conjectures. Brahman is established in the śrutis and śrutis being svataH-pramāṇa need no conjectures to understand their import.

Moreover, these concepts as defined in māyāvāda were borrowed from the buddhists. See Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's opposition to bifurcation of reality:
सत्या चेत्संवृतिः केयं मृषा चेत्सत्यता कथम् । सत्यत्वं न च सामान्यं मृषार्त्थपरमार्त्थयोः ।।
तस्माद्यन्नास्ति नास्त्येवा यदस्ति परमार्त्थतः । वञ्चनार्त्थमुपन्यासो लालावक्त्रासवादिवत् ।।


श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you suggesting someone meddled with the śruti? .. The śrutis came centuries before the advaitists at any rate. .. Why would i want to convince you of anything else? .. It is very much a possibility that tomorrow's science itself may not agree with today's. .. Exactly, which is why unitary-homogeneity of everyone and everything as proposed by māyāvāda is untenable.

Advaita also is as old as 'Shrutis'.
"इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न l"
Eyam visritiryata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na ..
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, ..
"हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेकासीत l"
Hiranyagarbhah samavartatāgre bhutasya jātah patirekāsita ..
IN the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha, born Only Lord of all created beings, ..

I do not know how many thousand people heard what is given in shrutis. The Vedas, the Mukhya (Principal) Upanishads, the Aranyakas, the Brahmanas. And what was the time period when these revelations came. I consider Vedas to be at least as old as 8,000 years, and the last revelations must have come before 1,000 BC, a period encompassing at least 5,000 years.

"It appears to me therefore that the oldest Vedic calendar like the oldest hymn, was sacrificial; and that the sacrifice or the year commenced with Aditi at the vernal equinox in or near Punarvasu." Bal Gangadhar Tilak, "Orion or the Antiquity of Vedas", Page 205.

That is why Aditi, the Goddess of Punarvasu, is the Mother of Adityas. That is why Taittirya Samhita termed Aditi as the beginning and end of the year (Ubhayataru). That is why they said Aditi is the Samvatsara (the Yajna cycle).

Of course, we have different views and there is no question of our changing them. We both have come to them only after our different studies. If science tomorrow tells something new and I am still here, then I would change my views. Though generally science does not throw away all its views but only modifies them, like it happened with the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. It is not that the theory of unity-homogeneity is untenable, it may be very much so, but still people have the right to have different views.

 

[Stormcry]

HLK, how do we know which verses are parmarthika and vyavaharika?Regards

It can be known by the teachings of Smruti. Smruti has revealed the philosophy of Veda in the most explicit way. Vyavaharika are those who deal with duality which is of the nature of non-brahman and Paramarthika are those which deal with brahman in its 'Ekmeva Advitiya' nature....

Krishna:

"Whatever superimposed on me in different aspects is negated, taking this stand on me veda posits duality as a mere illusion and then denying it , ultimately becomes satisfied." (BP 11.21.43)

This is the end of veda, Veda ultimately denies the duality and accept Brahman alone.. "All is Brahman without second"- This is the ultimate teaching of Veda and whatever is negated is obviously Vyavaharika. Because non-dual is the absolute negation of duality.

Anything that states reality of worldly related things without accepting brahman alone are Vyavaharika. This can be simply concluded by Vedantic Logic.

Krishna says:
"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 only Reality. The modifications are said to be Vyavaharik" (BP 11.24.17)

In Vishnu Purana also, Sage Parashara called the creation of Brahman as उपचार - Figurative Application. So you can not take creation of world from brahman as real. This is the most subtle understanding of Advaitian Vedantists. In Veda, contradictions are obvious, because there are two great entities, Brahman and Maya. Some are spoken through MayA ie Vyavaharika level and some like 'Aham Brahmasmi' are through Paramarthika. See, Veda end is not about contradiction but it is the end of the contradiction, accepting ONLY BRAHMAN.

Hari Narayana..

 

[shivsomashekhar]

HLK, how do we know which verses are parmarthika and vyavaharika? It seems to me that we have to go to an outside source like Adi Shankara to see which verses are which, which destroys the point of Shruti. Shruti needs to have one unified purport, not a bunch of contradictory views that makes no sense and cannot be construed by a deep analysis of the Shastra.

Regards

I am not supporting one over the other, but according to Advaita, the Shruti does have a unified purport. The Advaita purport in a single line would be "brahma satya, jagat mithya, jiva brahmaiva na paraha".

Advaita does not admit any contradictory views within Shruti. Such criticisms of Advaita come from other traditions as they differ in their interpretations. it should be noted that these other traditions also disagree with each other.

 

[Stormcry]

I am not supporting one over the other, but according to Advaita, the Shruti does have a unified purport. The Advaita purport in a single line would be "brahma satya, jagat mithya, jiva brahmaiva na paraha".

Advaita does not admit any contradictory views within Shruti.

Eg. Karma and knowledge. Adi Shankar has discussed about this total contradiction between knowledge and karma parts of Veda.

I don't know whether you understand Advaita. Can you solve my doubt, Veda says the world gets created from Brahman and yet say Brahman is always Ekmeva and Advitiya. Thus how creation which is of the nature of duality can occur in Brahman? This isn't contradiction as per your own understanding of Advaita.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Eg. Karma and knowledge. Adi Shankar has discussed about this total contradiction between knowledge and karma parts of Veda.

Shankara never says any part of the Veda is wrong and therefore, there is no contradiction. All he says is Karma cannot by itself lead to liberation. Jnana alone leads to liberation.

I don't know whether you understand Advaita. Can you solve my doubt, Veda says the world gets created from Brahman and yet say Brahman is always Ekmeva and Advitiya. Thus how creation which is of the nature of duality can occur in Brahman? This isn't contradiction as per your own understanding of Advaita.

The world is non-different from Brahman and therefore the existence of the world (as a distinct entity) is unreal. In that sense, all duality is unreal as Brahman alone is real.

 

[Chakra]

I am not supporting one over the other, but according to Advaita, the Shruti does have a unified purport. The Advaita purport in a single line would be "brahma satya, jagat mithya, jiva brahmaiva na paraha".

Advaita does not admit any contradictory views within Shruti. Such criticisms of Advaita come from other traditions as they differ in their interpretations. it should be noted that these other traditions also disagree with each other.

Of course. It is a misconception that Tattva-vada and VA are just "dvaita" when in reality they are as different from each other as they are different from Advaita.

 

[Stormcry]

Shankara never says any part of the Veda is wrong and therefore, there is no contradiction. All he says is Karma cannot by itself lead to liberation. Jnana alone leads to liberation.

I also don't say there's wrong in Veda, but the way we interpret may be wrong. I don't know whether you read his Upanishada Bhashya..

आदि शंकर : कर्मविषये चानुक्तिः ग्यनकर्मविरोधः तद्विरोधित्वात.... In Karma-Khanda, the knowledge of self can not be mentioned, because it is the counter of Karma. The supreme knowledge of self is opposite to the karma. Thus who knows the self as Brahman from him Karma can not be done. He doesn't see any action as a need and any action is not without need.

The world is non-different from Brahman and therefore the existence of the world (as a distinct entity) is unreal. In that sense, all duality is unreal as Brahman alone is real.

I was talking about contradiction. What you've said is not mentioned in the context of the creation verses of Veda. Thus I said there's a contradiction.

Bhedavadi think that 'The world emerges from Brahman' as a reality. But I think this is not so. Because in such verses purpose and meaning are actually different. The verse is to establish the fact the brahman is the cause of all and so whatever is effect is not different from the cause. In vedanta, Cause and effect are always considered as one. The purpose of their unification is to deny the existence of effect. In other words, the world doesn't exist at all. It is like a dream and so unreal.

However Bhedavadi thinks irrationally and so the contradiction appears. In fact Veda has a unified purport but you know what is possible speaking through Maya? What is good and bad about duality, which itself is not real...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can you solve my doubt, Veda says the world gets created from Brahman and yet say Brahman is always Ekmeva and Advitiya. Thus how creation which is of the nature of duality can occur in Brahman? This isn't contradiction as per your own understanding of Advaita.

There is no controversy. See, how many things a carbon atom makes, Diamond, Coal, Graphite, and perhaps more. All pure carbon. The ways of Brahman are inscrutable.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Advaita also is as old as 'Shrutis'.
"इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न l"
Eyam visritiryata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na ..

If only you were aware of the struggle in fitting nāsadīya within the schemata of māyāvāda

Of course. It is a misconception that Tattva-vada and VA are just "dvaita" when in reality they are as different from each other as they are different from Advaita.

Could be because of the nomenclature and translations - what is popularly known as dvaita, isn't really "dualism"! Though the likes of Madhūsūdana Saraswati didn't fall into this trap, or perhaps the nomenclature as such is itself a recent one. It is like the term hindu - not established but generally accepted.

The ways of Brahman are inscrutable.

Inscrutable (anirvacanīya) yet ultimately unreal, why? else, if following the advaita thesis, anirvacanīyatva would devolve upon brahman too. So it is not so much an appreciation as it is a basis for negation.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

For advaitists, Brahman is the only reality. And at least till now, we do not know all about it. 'Neti, neti'. 'Inscrutable' was just a matter of saying. Perhaps someday we will know more about it - energy.

Nasadiya fitted in nicely at that time, it fits nicely even now. The beautiful.

However, please give me the etymology for the word 'anirvacaniya'. 'Nirvacaniya' would mean 'without words', then why 'anirvacaniya'? What is the difference? 'Cannot be put in words' is a stance and I do not accept it. Perhaps it can be, sometime in future. How do we know (that it will not be possible, always? This is a pre-supposition/prejudice.