-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Advaita and Its Fallacies
- Thread starter sangom
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Sri Suba42,
This article is straight copied from Sri Sadananda's article. I would be glad if you would acknowledge and show credit to the author. The present article gives an impression that it is your own, which is not the case.
Regards,
narayan
suba42,
better still, just provide the url here with a summary. folks can click and view, if they are interested.
suba42,
better still, just provide the url here with a summary. folks can click and view, if they are interested.
The url: [Advaita-l] Seven untebles of Advaita.
Regards,
narayan
Shree Narayan,
I did not claim copyright of anything. Yes. Whatever is written is not my discovery and totall works of Sri Sadananda and many others. If you could find it in the wobsites, why did not you release it before? Tipical Tamil Brahmin??? You do not do anything of your own and when someone else does it, you make a hue and cry???
I did not claim copyright of anything. Yes. Whatever is written is not my discovery and totall works of Sri Sadananda and many others. If you could find it in the wobsites, why did not you release it before? Tipical Tamil Brahmin??? You do not do anything of your own and when someone else does it, you make a hue and cry???
ADHVAITAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS
3. Svarupanupapaththi: What is the nature of Avidya? Is it positive(real) or negative or both or neither? If it is positive then how can it be Avidya? Avidya means ignorance and ignorance means absence of knowledge. To regard Ignorance as positive is to accept self-contradiction. Moreover if Ignorance is positive, how can it be ever destroyed? No positive entity can be destroyed. As the Advaitin admits that ignorance is removed by Knowledge, Ignorance can never be positive. And if Avidya is negative , then how can it project this world illusion on Brahman? To Say that Avidya is both positive and negative is to embrace self-contradiction. And to say that it is neither positive nor negative is to give up all logic.
The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramaaNa can establish Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.
Answer : PramaaNa is the means of knowledge. Knowledge is required to eliminate the ignorance. To establish that ones is ignorant of something one need not have a pramaaNa. That I don’t know chemistry or I do not know something in chemistry is self-evident – in fact what is self-evident is the lack of knowledge of chemistry or lack of knowledge of that something. What is needed to established to myself that I am ignorant of chemistry or that something. For others to establish that I am ignorant of chemistry or that thing then pramaaNa or means of testing is required. But to establish for myself that I am ignorant no pramaaNa is required. PramaaNa is required to establish the fact which may contradict my own day to day experience. No one has to teach me that I am the body, I am the mind or I am the intellect. But pramaaNa is required to establish that I am not the body, nor the mind and not the intellect. Avidya is established automatically when the shaasthra contradicts my direct experience and reveals the truth. In the face of the truth, ignorance that I had, falls off in spite of my day to day experience. That sun neither raises nor sets is established through pramaaNa in spite of my day to day experience of sun raise and sun set. Essentially I don’t need shaastra as a pramaaNa to establish that I am ignorant. What shaastra can do is to illumine the knowledge which when it dawns on me, the ignorance that I had is eliminated.
What establishes the fact that sun raises in the morning and sets in the evening – that is direct perception. Hence experiences are basis for the ignorance too. But I may not perceive that I am ignorant till the knowledge dawn on me. PramaaNa is required to establish true knowledge. Ignorance cannot cover Brahman or much less anything. It is not a positive thing to cover something. But Advaita provides a rational explanation of the cause of not-seeing the truth as truth. What covers my knowledge that there is really no sun raise and no sun set. First, direct experience of the sun raise and sun set, and second the lack of proper understanding of that experience. We say ignorance as though covers the knowledge but truth is that ignorance is not a positive to cover anything. Ramanuja’s criticism of Advaita is therefore baseless. In fact that there is avidya that is covering the truth itself is only an explanation for the apparent facts.
The truth is, there is nothing other than Brahman. Everything that is seen or appears to be there is only mithya including the concepts to explain that which is not there. Explanation of Maya and avidya applies to Maya and avidya too.
PraNaam.
3. Svarupanupapaththi: What is the nature of Avidya? Is it positive(real) or negative or both or neither? If it is positive then how can it be Avidya? Avidya means ignorance and ignorance means absence of knowledge. To regard Ignorance as positive is to accept self-contradiction. Moreover if Ignorance is positive, how can it be ever destroyed? No positive entity can be destroyed. As the Advaitin admits that ignorance is removed by Knowledge, Ignorance can never be positive. And if Avidya is negative , then how can it project this world illusion on Brahman? To Say that Avidya is both positive and negative is to embrace self-contradiction. And to say that it is neither positive nor negative is to give up all logic.
The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramaaNa can establish Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance. Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.
Answer : PramaaNa is the means of knowledge. Knowledge is required to eliminate the ignorance. To establish that ones is ignorant of something one need not have a pramaaNa. That I don’t know chemistry or I do not know something in chemistry is self-evident – in fact what is self-evident is the lack of knowledge of chemistry or lack of knowledge of that something. What is needed to established to myself that I am ignorant of chemistry or that something. For others to establish that I am ignorant of chemistry or that thing then pramaaNa or means of testing is required. But to establish for myself that I am ignorant no pramaaNa is required. PramaaNa is required to establish the fact which may contradict my own day to day experience. No one has to teach me that I am the body, I am the mind or I am the intellect. But pramaaNa is required to establish that I am not the body, nor the mind and not the intellect. Avidya is established automatically when the shaasthra contradicts my direct experience and reveals the truth. In the face of the truth, ignorance that I had, falls off in spite of my day to day experience. That sun neither raises nor sets is established through pramaaNa in spite of my day to day experience of sun raise and sun set. Essentially I don’t need shaastra as a pramaaNa to establish that I am ignorant. What shaastra can do is to illumine the knowledge which when it dawns on me, the ignorance that I had is eliminated.
What establishes the fact that sun raises in the morning and sets in the evening – that is direct perception. Hence experiences are basis for the ignorance too. But I may not perceive that I am ignorant till the knowledge dawn on me. PramaaNa is required to establish true knowledge. Ignorance cannot cover Brahman or much less anything. It is not a positive thing to cover something. But Advaita provides a rational explanation of the cause of not-seeing the truth as truth. What covers my knowledge that there is really no sun raise and no sun set. First, direct experience of the sun raise and sun set, and second the lack of proper understanding of that experience. We say ignorance as though covers the knowledge but truth is that ignorance is not a positive to cover anything. Ramanuja’s criticism of Advaita is therefore baseless. In fact that there is avidya that is covering the truth itself is only an explanation for the apparent facts.
The truth is, there is nothing other than Brahman. Everything that is seen or appears to be there is only mithya including the concepts to explain that which is not there. Explanation of Maya and avidya applies to Maya and avidya too.
PraNaam.
Shree Narayan,
Whatever is written is not my discovery and totall works of Sri Sadananda/QUOTE]
This should have been put upfront and not after someone pointed out.
Rest are petty comments and does not merit reply
Regards,
narayan
Shree Narayan,
I have never said that this is my invention / discovery, and I do not have any requirement to say that whatever is given by me is my discovery . You have acted like a policeman finding out a culprit. If asked in a normal way, I would have definitely said that this is my not invention / discovery. Had I been so brainy. I would have had gone deep in to Nirvikalpa Sammadhi and merge with Maker Nirguna PraBrahman in the Dimensionless State Which has created 100's of Dimensions and we are in the 3rd Dimesnion. By the way, I am Raja Yoga practicer.
You did not have the ability to produce the negations for the 7 Non-entinels (Sapta Vidha anupapadhadhti) of Sri Ramanuja in his Sri Bhashya???
By the way, if you are really interested to know about the Nirguna PraBrahman in the Dimensionless State, give me your email address, so as to enable me to send the physical evidence and metaphysical findings of the Maker of this Universe. (IF AT ALL, YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED!!!)
This pointer from you was un-necessary.
PraNaam,
B.Subramanian.
I have never said that this is my invention / discovery, and I do not have any requirement to say that whatever is given by me is my discovery . You have acted like a policeman finding out a culprit. If asked in a normal way, I would have definitely said that this is my not invention / discovery. Had I been so brainy. I would have had gone deep in to Nirvikalpa Sammadhi and merge with Maker Nirguna PraBrahman in the Dimensionless State Which has created 100's of Dimensions and we are in the 3rd Dimesnion. By the way, I am Raja Yoga practicer.
You did not have the ability to produce the negations for the 7 Non-entinels (Sapta Vidha anupapadhadhti) of Sri Ramanuja in his Sri Bhashya???
By the way, if you are really interested to know about the Nirguna PraBrahman in the Dimensionless State, give me your email address, so as to enable me to send the physical evidence and metaphysical findings of the Maker of this Universe. (IF AT ALL, YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED!!!)
This pointer from you was un-necessary.
PraNaam,
B.Subramanian.
Last edited:
ADHVAITAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS
4. AnirvachaniyatvAnupapaththi: Avidya is defined by the Advaitin as Indefinable. It is described as indescribable. This is a clear self-contradiction. To avoid this the advaitin says that Avidya is not absolutely indescribable, that to call it indescribable means that it cannot be described either as real or as unreal. Indescribability is equated with being neither real nor unreal. But this is absurd. This shows that Advaitin is giving up all logic.
The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the(false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual soul's {Jiiva.} Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.
Answer : This aspect is already covered in the first. This is the chicken and egg situation. Locus of avidya is not Brahman but jiiva who is the product of avidya. Avidya is beginning less from Jiiva’s point since beginning and end are concepts within time and time itself is in the mind of jiiva. Hence from Jiiva’s point, avidya arises before time is conceptualized and time is conceptualized only after the first two thoughts. Hence to ask whether it is Jiiva first or avidya first, is untenable question since before and after and cause and effects are within the realm of time. Scripture can provide some answers to this.
“Existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning and it is one without a second. He saw – and decided to become many” – Here is the origin of Iswara from the primordial cause. Creation begins with Iswara who has no ignorance. Ignorance starts with the identification with the created as I am this and this. How does it happen is unexplainable since the explanations are within the realm of intellect.
Who is the locus for avidya – When the creation began, the locus of Maya is Iswara and after the creation has taken place misunderstanding that the creation is real is due to delusion and how that happens is anirvacaniiyam. The locus of that ignorance is jiiva. Ignorance is eliminated form Jiiva when the knowledge dawns on him. Avidya is not attribute for existence or non-existence. Besides Brahman is not opposite to avidya. In fact that there is avidya or ignorance is known as knowledge only by the illumination of the avidya by consciousness which is Brahman. It is like seeing the darkness. I cannot see anything in pitch dark. But that it is pitch dark – that I can see. In what light I can see that it is pitch dark – that light is not opposite to darkness since it can illumine darkness without destroying it, as I say that I can see that it is dark. Can I say darkness is covering the objects and that is the reason I cannot see. Darkness is not some positive thing to cover and uncover. Lack of enough light to illumine the objects for human equipment to see is the problem. But even in pitch darkness, I know I am there. Since I am self-luminous or self-consciousness entity. I don’t need any pramaaNa to prove that I exist and I am onsciousness. Nothing can cover me.
PraNaam.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
4. AnirvachaniyatvAnupapaththi: Avidya is defined by the Advaitin as Indefinable. It is described as indescribable. This is a clear self-contradiction. To avoid this the advaitin says that Avidya is not absolutely indescribable, that to call it indescribable means that it cannot be described either as real or as unreal. Indescribability is equated with being neither real nor unreal. But this is absurd. This shows that Advaitin is giving up all logic.
The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the(false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual soul's {Jiiva.} Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.
Answer : This aspect is already covered in the first. This is the chicken and egg situation. Locus of avidya is not Brahman but jiiva who is the product of avidya. Avidya is beginning less from Jiiva’s point since beginning and end are concepts within time and time itself is in the mind of jiiva. Hence from Jiiva’s point, avidya arises before time is conceptualized and time is conceptualized only after the first two thoughts. Hence to ask whether it is Jiiva first or avidya first, is untenable question since before and after and cause and effects are within the realm of time. Scripture can provide some answers to this.
“Existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning and it is one without a second. He saw – and decided to become many” – Here is the origin of Iswara from the primordial cause. Creation begins with Iswara who has no ignorance. Ignorance starts with the identification with the created as I am this and this. How does it happen is unexplainable since the explanations are within the realm of intellect.
Who is the locus for avidya – When the creation began, the locus of Maya is Iswara and after the creation has taken place misunderstanding that the creation is real is due to delusion and how that happens is anirvacaniiyam. The locus of that ignorance is jiiva. Ignorance is eliminated form Jiiva when the knowledge dawns on him. Avidya is not attribute for existence or non-existence. Besides Brahman is not opposite to avidya. In fact that there is avidya or ignorance is known as knowledge only by the illumination of the avidya by consciousness which is Brahman. It is like seeing the darkness. I cannot see anything in pitch dark. But that it is pitch dark – that I can see. In what light I can see that it is pitch dark – that light is not opposite to darkness since it can illumine darkness without destroying it, as I say that I can see that it is dark. Can I say darkness is covering the objects and that is the reason I cannot see. Darkness is not some positive thing to cover and uncover. Lack of enough light to illumine the objects for human equipment to see is the problem. But even in pitch darkness, I know I am there. Since I am self-luminous or self-consciousness entity. I don’t need any pramaaNa to prove that I exist and I am onsciousness. Nothing can cover me.
PraNaam.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
5. Pramananupapaththi: By what pramana or means of valid cognition is AvidyA cognized? Avidya cannot be perceived, for perception can give us either an entity or a non-entity. It cannot be inferred for inference proceeds through a valid mark or middle term which AvidyA lacks. Nor can it be maintained on the authority of the scriptures for they declare Maya to be a real wonderful power of creating this wonderful world which really belongs to God.
Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Shankara would have us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness, obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this(impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it -equally absurd.
Answer :– I think Ramanuja haphazardly criticizes the Advaita without correct understanding of the import of Advaita. Bhagavaan Shankara does not say that Brahman is covered by avidya. But for Jiiva the Brahman is appeared to be covered since he does not know the truth. Shankara gives a common experience to illustrate the point. Just like dark clouds covering the sun – In principle clouds cannot cover the sun since he is so large compared to the size of the earth and the size of the clouds. And clouds exists because of the sun and the clouds that are covering the sun is seen only because of the sun – without the Sun, one cannot even see the clouds that are covering the sun. In the light of consciousness only the ignorance is known. If it is able to illumine the ignorance, then how can it be covered. Brahman is ekameva advitiiyam – one without a second and there is nothing that can cover it. Luminosity or self-luminosity of Brahman is not compromised any way since it is only in the light of that consciousness only the ignorance also is known. Obstruction is also a mithya since it is not real since it can be destroyed. It is apparent but appears to be real to the one who is deluded by the appearance. Hence intrinsic nature of luminous Brahman is not compromised just as clouds cannot cover the intrinsic nature of the luminous Sun.
PraNaam.
Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Shankara would have us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness, obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this(impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it -equally absurd.
Answer :– I think Ramanuja haphazardly criticizes the Advaita without correct understanding of the import of Advaita. Bhagavaan Shankara does not say that Brahman is covered by avidya. But for Jiiva the Brahman is appeared to be covered since he does not know the truth. Shankara gives a common experience to illustrate the point. Just like dark clouds covering the sun – In principle clouds cannot cover the sun since he is so large compared to the size of the earth and the size of the clouds. And clouds exists because of the sun and the clouds that are covering the sun is seen only because of the sun – without the Sun, one cannot even see the clouds that are covering the sun. In the light of consciousness only the ignorance is known. If it is able to illumine the ignorance, then how can it be covered. Brahman is ekameva advitiiyam – one without a second and there is nothing that can cover it. Luminosity or self-luminosity of Brahman is not compromised any way since it is only in the light of that consciousness only the ignorance also is known. Obstruction is also a mithya since it is not real since it can be destroyed. It is apparent but appears to be real to the one who is deluded by the appearance. Hence intrinsic nature of luminous Brahman is not compromised just as clouds cannot cover the intrinsic nature of the luminous Sun.
PraNaam.
ADHVAITAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS
6. Nivartakanupapaththi: There is no remover of Avidya. The advaitin believes that knowledge of the unqualified attributeless Brahman removes Avidya. But such knowledge is impossible. Discrimination and determination are absolutely essential to knowledge. Pure identity is a mere abstraction. Identity is always qualified by difference and distinction. Hence there can be no knowledge of an undifferentiated attributeless thing. And in the absence of such knowledge nothing can remove Avidya.
The removal of Avidya by Brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that Avidya has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya, the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated{nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of Divine Grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.
Answer : First, Ramanuja’s statement is not a criticism of Advaita but proposition of his axiomatic statements of the nature of the reality. His proposition that Brahman is not nirguNa contradicts not only Advaita but also scriptural statements. He provides a narrower meaning of nirguNa that He is without any durguNa. – “ nirguNo, nishkRio, nityo, nirvikalpo niranjanaH” says the shruthi.
“Whatever exists should have attributes” is a declarative statement of Ramanuja. This is applicable to only objects – and is true since objects have naama, ruupa and guNa. But objects are jadam they are not swayam prakaashatvam – some thing else has to illumine the objects- but for self-luminous self, nirguNa is absolutely valid statement. The reasoning is simple. Knowledge of the objects occurs by pratyaksha or anumaana etc. through the knowledge of the guNaas only. They are known through the mind and intellect since the mind and intellect can only grasp that which have guNaas. To that extent only Ramanuja is right. But that which is guNaatiita that which is beyond the intellect, it cannot be comprehended by any thing. It is known only because it is self-luminous and no pramaaNa is required to establish that.
‘Liberation is a matter of divine grace’ – that Advaita does not contradict.
In fact liberation occurs through knowledge which is not purusha tantra – it is by divine grace only “Brahman can be known” – or “aham Brahmaasmi can be realized. It is not knowing an object – since when one knows the object, one does not become an object. But knowing Brahman is becoming Brahman – brahmavit brahaiva bhavati – is the shruti. Hence it is not objective knowledge but subjective recognition or realization. As long as I have a notion (ego) that I am different from Brahman, I can never know Brahman. Only complete surrenderence of ones ego leads to the true knowledge of oneself. But even in Ramanuja’s teaching, it is the knowledge alone that brings moksha. It is the knowledge of ones complete dependence on the Lord which happens when one completely surrenders ones ego. Other than the fact that the nature of the moksha is different in the two doctrines, but the means is the same. In both cases bhakti leeds to Jnaana – but is that Jnaana is different in the two doctrines. In one it is aham Brahmaasmi is the knowledge in the other I am eternal servent of the Lord. Both are gained by
complete surrenderence to the Lord which can happen only under bhakti. Hence Shankara defines bhakti in VivekachuuDaamani as ‘ moksha kaaraNa saamaagrayam bhaktireva gariiyasi| atmaanubhava sandhaanam bhaktirityabhidiiyate’. Of all paths for moksha bhati is the supreme and ones establishment of oneself in his own self is the said to be true bhakti.
PraNaam.
6. Nivartakanupapaththi: There is no remover of Avidya. The advaitin believes that knowledge of the unqualified attributeless Brahman removes Avidya. But such knowledge is impossible. Discrimination and determination are absolutely essential to knowledge. Pure identity is a mere abstraction. Identity is always qualified by difference and distinction. Hence there can be no knowledge of an undifferentiated attributeless thing. And in the absence of such knowledge nothing can remove Avidya.
The removal of Avidya by Brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that Avidya has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya, the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated{nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of Divine Grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.
Answer : First, Ramanuja’s statement is not a criticism of Advaita but proposition of his axiomatic statements of the nature of the reality. His proposition that Brahman is not nirguNa contradicts not only Advaita but also scriptural statements. He provides a narrower meaning of nirguNa that He is without any durguNa. – “ nirguNo, nishkRio, nityo, nirvikalpo niranjanaH” says the shruthi.
“Whatever exists should have attributes” is a declarative statement of Ramanuja. This is applicable to only objects – and is true since objects have naama, ruupa and guNa. But objects are jadam they are not swayam prakaashatvam – some thing else has to illumine the objects- but for self-luminous self, nirguNa is absolutely valid statement. The reasoning is simple. Knowledge of the objects occurs by pratyaksha or anumaana etc. through the knowledge of the guNaas only. They are known through the mind and intellect since the mind and intellect can only grasp that which have guNaas. To that extent only Ramanuja is right. But that which is guNaatiita that which is beyond the intellect, it cannot be comprehended by any thing. It is known only because it is self-luminous and no pramaaNa is required to establish that.
‘Liberation is a matter of divine grace’ – that Advaita does not contradict.
In fact liberation occurs through knowledge which is not purusha tantra – it is by divine grace only “Brahman can be known” – or “aham Brahmaasmi can be realized. It is not knowing an object – since when one knows the object, one does not become an object. But knowing Brahman is becoming Brahman – brahmavit brahaiva bhavati – is the shruti. Hence it is not objective knowledge but subjective recognition or realization. As long as I have a notion (ego) that I am different from Brahman, I can never know Brahman. Only complete surrenderence of ones ego leads to the true knowledge of oneself. But even in Ramanuja’s teaching, it is the knowledge alone that brings moksha. It is the knowledge of ones complete dependence on the Lord which happens when one completely surrenders ones ego. Other than the fact that the nature of the moksha is different in the two doctrines, but the means is the same. In both cases bhakti leeds to Jnaana – but is that Jnaana is different in the two doctrines. In one it is aham Brahmaasmi is the knowledge in the other I am eternal servent of the Lord. Both are gained by
complete surrenderence to the Lord which can happen only under bhakti. Hence Shankara defines bhakti in VivekachuuDaamani as ‘ moksha kaaraNa saamaagrayam bhaktireva gariiyasi| atmaanubhava sandhaanam bhaktirityabhidiiyate’. Of all paths for moksha bhati is the supreme and ones establishment of oneself in his own self is the said to be true bhakti.
PraNaam.
ADHVAITAM IS NOT FALLACIOUS
7. Nivrtyanupapaththi: In the last point we were told that there is no remover of Avidya. This point tells us that there is no removal of Avidya. Avidya is said to be positive (Bhavarupa) by the Advaitin. How then can a positive thing be removed? A thing which positively exists cannot be removed from existence by knowledge. The Bondage of the soul is due to karma which is a concrete reality and cannot be removed by abstract knowledge. It can be removed by Karma, Jnaana, Bhakti and Prasada. The ignorance of the soul is destroyed when the karmas are destroyed and when the soul flings itself on the absolute mercy of the Lord who pleased by Soul's constant devotion, extends his grace to it.
The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which wedwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya;knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.
Answer : The reality of avidya is already touched upon in the earlier objections and already shown that avidya does not come under either real and or unreal. The objection is based on Ramanuja propositions and based on these propositions he rules out Advaita. Even in Advaita, knowledge discloses the reality of oneself and the reality of the world - real is true and that reality is the dismissal of ones own notions about oneself as I am this and that which are objects and re-educating oneself that I am the sat-chit-aananda which is ekameva advitiiyam. All are in me and I am in all of them, yet I am different from all of them is the knowledge that Krishna emphasizes. Sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica atmani – All are in me and I am in all of them- is the teaching.
PraNaam.
7. Nivrtyanupapaththi: In the last point we were told that there is no remover of Avidya. This point tells us that there is no removal of Avidya. Avidya is said to be positive (Bhavarupa) by the Advaitin. How then can a positive thing be removed? A thing which positively exists cannot be removed from existence by knowledge. The Bondage of the soul is due to karma which is a concrete reality and cannot be removed by abstract knowledge. It can be removed by Karma, Jnaana, Bhakti and Prasada. The ignorance of the soul is destroyed when the karmas are destroyed and when the soul flings itself on the absolute mercy of the Lord who pleased by Soul's constant devotion, extends his grace to it.
The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which wedwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya;knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.
Answer : The reality of avidya is already touched upon in the earlier objections and already shown that avidya does not come under either real and or unreal. The objection is based on Ramanuja propositions and based on these propositions he rules out Advaita. Even in Advaita, knowledge discloses the reality of oneself and the reality of the world - real is true and that reality is the dismissal of ones own notions about oneself as I am this and that which are objects and re-educating oneself that I am the sat-chit-aananda which is ekameva advitiiyam. All are in me and I am in all of them, yet I am different from all of them is the knowledge that Krishna emphasizes. Sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica atmani – All are in me and I am in all of them- is the teaching.
PraNaam.
This is the email received from Sri Sadananda (kuntimaddi sadananda [email protected]) on 23.05.2011, regarding the refutations on the Saptha Vidha anupapaththi of Sri Ramanuja in his Sri Bhaashya. The above cited posts have been only with his divine help. Salutations to him.
Another email received from Prabuddha Bharata [email protected], on 24.05.2011 is as follows:
Dear Subramanian Balachandran,
Thank you for your mail introducing yourself.
Ramanujcharya’s untenables against Advaita Vedanta has long been ‘untenable’ i.e. answered and dissolved long time back over and over again. Please go through Madhusudan Saraswati’s works or Chitsukacharya’s (Tattwa-pradipika) or Sri Harsha’s (Khandana-khandana-khadya)
Thank you for remembering us.
Yours in the Atman,
Swami Satyamayananda
PraNaam.
Another email received from Prabuddha Bharata [email protected], on 24.05.2011 is as follows:
Dear Subramanian Balachandran,
Thank you for your mail introducing yourself.
Ramanujcharya’s untenables against Advaita Vedanta has long been ‘untenable’ i.e. answered and dissolved long time back over and over again. Please go through Madhusudan Saraswati’s works or Chitsukacharya’s (Tattwa-pradipika) or Sri Harsha’s (Khandana-khandana-khadya)
Thank you for remembering us.
Yours in the Atman,
Swami Satyamayananda
PraNaam.
Last edited:
Dear All,
I should thank you all to have given me an opportunity to become a member of Advaita Vedanta Anusandhana Kendra in order to know the refutations to the 7 Untenables of Sri Ramanuja in his Sri Bhaashya, which have been falsified time and again!!!
Hence Adhvaitham - The concept that Paramaathmaa - Nirguna PraBrahman which has formed this Universe comprising of 100s of Dimensions is indeed existing as every Jeevaathmaa.
PraNaam.
I should thank you all to have given me an opportunity to become a member of Advaita Vedanta Anusandhana Kendra in order to know the refutations to the 7 Untenables of Sri Ramanuja in his Sri Bhaashya, which have been falsified time and again!!!
Hence Adhvaitham - The concept that Paramaathmaa - Nirguna PraBrahman which has formed this Universe comprising of 100s of Dimensions is indeed existing as every Jeevaathmaa.
PraNaam.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 4K
Latest posts
-
Why people risk their lives to make millions of bangles in India
- Latest: Suresh ente sure
-
-
-
-
