Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Pursuant to Shri. Nara's contention that advaita is untenable, I have made an effort to answer some of the perceived flaws attributed to advaita. My anwers are in bold. This is a preliminary attempt but I am willing to pursue further with those who are so inclined.



I. The nature of avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.


Avidya need not be either real or unreal. Avidya is unreal for brahman which is the true reality. It is real with respect to jivas but this has no consequence on non-dualism. Avidya therefore need not be either real or unreal.



II. The incomprehensibility of avidya. Advaitins claim that avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible (anirvacaniya). All cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.


When avidya is real in the case of the jivas, it is something which is not understood by them who take the physical reality as true reality. In the case of brahman where there is no ignorance, avidya is absent and in a sense incomprehensible. In other words one cannot perceive illusion.



III. The grounds of knowledge of avidya. No pramana 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 (knowledge of Brahman). 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.


Avidya as an obscuring layer or as positive nescience should be interpreted as just the "cause" which is responsible for the lack of knowledge

IV. 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 jiva. Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual jiva be the locus of avidya: the existence of the individual jiva is due to avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.


Avidya could have caused the existence of the individual jiva but the jiva thus caused has been blemished by avidya and carries those effects.



V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Sankara 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.


Brahman and the reality through maya are co-existing realities, the latter being a relative reality. The effect of avidya is only on the relative realty and brahman itself is unaffected.


VI. 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.


Right knowledge makes your mind balanced. Realizing brahman which is nirguna or one that is balanced seems like a more logical description of how liberation is achieved.



VII. The removal of avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we dwell 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.


There is no question of non-duality collapsing because knowledge that releases us from bondage is the knowledge of brahman or of the ultimate truth.

 

[subbudu1]

Pursuant to Shri. Nara's contention that advaita is untenable, I have made an effort to answer some of the perceived flaws attributed to advaita. My anwers are in bold. This is a preliminary attempt but I am willing to pursue further with those who are so inclined.



I. The nature of avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If avidya is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.


Avidya need not be either real or unreal. Avidya is unreal for brahman which is the true reality. It is real with respect to jivas but this has no consequence on non-dualism. Avidya therefore need not be either real or unreal.



II. The incomprehensibility of avidya. Advaitins claim that avidya is neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible (anirvacaniya). All cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.


When avidya is real in the case of the jivas, it is something which is not understood by them who take the physical reality as true reality. In the case of brahman where there is no ignorance, avidya is absent and in a sense incomprehensible. In other words one cannot perceive illusion.



III. The grounds of knowledge of avidya. No pramana 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 (knowledge of Brahman). 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.


Avidya as an obscuring layer or as positive nescience should be interpreted as just the "cause" which is responsible for the lack of knowledge

IV. 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 jiva. Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; avidya cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual jiva be the locus of avidya: the existence of the individual jiva is due to avidya; this would lead to a vicious circle.


Avidya could have caused the existence of the individual jiva but the jiva thus caused has been blemished by avidya and carries those effects.



V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Sankara 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.


Brahman and the reality through maya are co-existing realities, the latter being a relative reality. The effect of avidya is only on the relative realty and brahman itself is unaffected.


VI. 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.


Right knowledge makes your mind balanced. Realizing brahman which is nirguna or one that is balanced seems like a more logical description of how liberation is achieved.



VII. The removal of avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we dwell 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.


There is no question of non-duality collapsing because knowledge that releases us from bondage is the knowledge of brahman or of the ultimate truth.

Dear Sravna,

I am neutral to this advaita dvaita question. But there are certain things I want to add here.
Avidya , time , space are all conditions of Maya as per advaita. Maya is the cause of ignorance as per advaita.
Advaita also declares that brahman is this self luminous individual. Thus one need not worry as per advaita, when and where it came into existence. Because these are all constructs of Maya. Before Maya there is no concept of time. So there is this separate thing called Maya which is suggested to come up. The only way one can make some sense of this rather self-contradictory argument of duality is that maya by its very nature is conceived of by brahman like any of its knowledge. The existence of maya promotes the possibility of avidya and leads to an association with a concept called maya,when avidya dissappears there is no concept of maya. Here is the logical difficulty of advaita that this self luminous brahman is able to produce something which can clouds its own knowledge. We are having to deal with something that is not in the nature of brahman- call it avidya, maya etc. Here is a blog on this subject in support of advaita.
The Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - Nonduality: What is the nature of maya?

This quote from there leads somewhere but as I said it is a complex subject and needs lot of thinking from someone to be convinced.

The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA

I however still find all this difficult to relate. Best of luck

 

[sangom]

Dear Sravna,

I am neutral to this advaita dvaita question. But there are certain things I want to add here.
Avidya , time , space are all conditions of Maya as per advaita. Maya is the cause of ignorance as per advaita.
Advaita also declares that brahman is this self luminous individual. Thus one need not worry as per advaita, when and where it came into existence. Because these are all constructs of Maya. Before Maya there is no concept of time. So there is this separate thing called Maya which is suggested to come up. The only way one can make some sense of this rather self-contradictory argument of duality is that maya by its very nature is conceived of by brahman like any of its knowledge. The existence of maya promotes the possibility of avidya and leads to an association with a concept called maya,when avidya dissappears there is no concept of maya. Here is the logical difficulty of advaita that this self luminous brahman is able to produce something which can clouds its own knowledge. We are having to deal with something that is not in the nature of brahman- call it avidya, maya etc. Here is a blog on this subject in support of advaita.
The Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - Nonduality: What is the nature of maya?

This quote from there leads somewhere but as I said it is a complex subject and needs lot of thinking from someone to be convinced.

I however still find all this difficult to relate. Best of luck

Shri Subbudu,

I do not know anything about you, but I am not at all knowledgeable in philosophy. But i happened to read a number of books and heard many pravacanas on advaita (because that gives a certain "status".) My simple doubt is that if Sankara's advaita was so logically perfect and fault-free, would Ramanuja have been able to create even a ripple among the very learned pundits of those days and push forward his Visishtadvaita view point and get so many followers? Will Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbaraka and others have been able to branch off further and establish their own brands of philosophy which are all opposed to advaita? Clearly, no, according to me.

Sankara seemed to have learnt all the lessons from Buddhism and used those to counter Buddhism itself; and this includes part of Buddhistic philosophy (śūnyavāda).

While we talk a lot about maayaa and avidyaa, all that Sankara said was "adhyaasa" or "adhyaaropa", appendage to Brahman. Fortunately, Sankara was able to escape with his advaita. I believe that he was able to do so because it was the acme of the Pallava rule, vedic brahmanism was spreading with full vigour in the south and the rulers were favourably disposed towards the revival of anything based on vedas and vedic (brahmanic) ideas.

 

[Nara]

Pursuant to Shri. Nara's contention that advaita is untenable, I have made an effort to answer some of the perceived flaws attributed to advaita. My anwers are in bold. This is a preliminary attempt but I am willing to pursue further with those who are so inclined.

sravna, since you have cited my name I am responding. As I have stated here, unless there is external terms of reference there is no scope for meaningful exchange.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I am neutral to this advaita dvaita question. But there are certain things I want to add here.
Avidya , time , space are all conditions of Maya as per advaita. Maya is the cause of ignorance as per advaita.
Advaita also declares that brahman is this self luminous individual. Thus one need not worry as per advaita, when and where it came into existence. Because these are all constructs of Maya. Before Maya there is no concept of time. So there is this separate thing called Maya which is suggested to come up. The only way one can make some sense of this rather self-contradictory argument of duality is that maya by its very nature is conceived of by brahman like any of its knowledge. The existence of maya promotes the possibility of avidya and leads to an association with a concept called maya,when avidya dissappears there is no concept of maya. Here is the logical difficulty of advaita that this self luminous brahman is able to produce something which can clouds its own knowledge. We are having to deal with something that is not in the nature of brahman- call it avidya, maya etc. Here is a blog on this subject in support of advaita.
The Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta - Nonduality: What is the nature of maya?

This quote from there leads somewhere but as I said it is a complex subject and needs lot of thinking from someone to be convinced.

I however still find all this difficult to relate. Best of luck

Shri Subbudu,

The contradiction of self luminous brahman clouding its own knowledge is avoided when you realize that brahman whose knowledge is clouded is a lower manifesatation. Pure brahman with its power of maya allows for alternate transient realities where it exists in lesser forms. It is the lower reality forms whose knowledge is clouded. Pure brahman is unaffected by maya.

 

[sravna]

sravna, since you have cited my name I am responding. As I have stated here, unless there is external terms of reference there is no scope for meaningful exchange.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

The objections cited in my post to Advaita are Ramanuja's seven fundamental objections to advaita. They can be found at Ramanuja - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[Nara]

....The objections cited in my post to Advaita are Ramanuja's seven fundamental objections to advaita. They can be found at Ramanuja - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

sravna, It seems the answers you have given are nothing more than your own understanding. Please provide some acceptable authority for the answers you have given, then we can evaluate whether the answers you have given make sense. I will let you choose whatever authority you want from the three widely recognized and accepted categories, namely, (i) pratyaksham/observation, (ii) anumanam/logical analysis, and (iii) shruti/testimony.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, It seems the answers you have given are nothing more than your own understanding. Please provide some acceptable authority for the answers you have given, then we can evaluate whether the answers you have given make sense. I will let you choose whatever authority you want from the three widely recognized and accepted categories, namely, (i) pratyaksham/observation, (ii) anumanam/logical analysis, and (iii) shruti/testimony.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

I think an argument has an intrinsic merit which should be the basis on which a debate should proceed. My responses directly address Ramanuja's objections to advaita. It is up to you to chose to respond. Your insistence that a logical analysis needs a support other than its own merit doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

[sravna]

Folks,

Consider this:

Jiva 1 - - - - |
Jiva 2 -------|----------------->Brahman
Jiva 3 - - - - |
etc veil of maya

Beyond the veil there is a projection of lower realities made up of a number of jivas. It is a one way path between the jivas and brahman. Whereas brahman has a unified experience in spite of the veil of maya, the jivas do not because of the veil. Jivas see through the veil and become one with brahman when they become spiritual and establish the interconnectedness.

 

[sangom]

Folks,

Consider this:

Jiva 1 - - - - |
Jiva 2 -------|----------------->Brahman
Jiva 3 - - - - |
etc veil of maya

Beyond the veil there is a projection of lower realities made up of a number of jivas. It is a one way path between the jivas and brahman. Whereas brahman has a unified experience in spite of the veil of maya, the jivas do not because of the veil. Jivas see through the veil and become one with brahman when they become spiritual and establish the interconnectedness.

Shri Sravna,

This topic is way above my ability and understanding. The advaita-visishtadvaita dispute has been going on for centuries and much greater intellects (so the public perception is) have not been able to settle this dispute despite the fact that they well knew the rules of debate as per ancient Indian conventions and yet have not find one final, decisive winner till now Here you are trying to revive that debate without specifying any rules of debate except perhaps whatever you may say as the rules!

Mine is a simpleton's doubt: You have stated "Avidya could have caused the existence of the individual jiva but the jiva thus caused has been blemished by avidya and carries those effects." Does not this lead to a situation of "I don't know from where this adhyaasa (and not adhyaaropa, if we truthfully follow Sankara, I feel) came, but having come, it is clouding the individual jeevas and is giving rise to their inability to perceive Brahman". If this is accepted, it will follow that the locus of avidya and hence that of adhyaasa is the jeeva itself. The objection then is how the perfect reality of Brahman gives rise to the avidya-laden jeevas? At what stage the avidya gets hold of jeeva?

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

This topic is way above my ability and understanding. The advaita-visishtadvaita dispute has been going on for centuries and much greater intellects (so the public perception is) have not been able to settle this dispute despite the fact that they well knew the rules of debate as per ancient Indian conventions and yet have not find one final, decisive winner till now Here you are trying to revive that debate without specifying any rules of debate except perhaps whatever you may say as the rules!

Mine is a simpleton's doubt: You have stated "Avidya could have caused the existence of the individual jiva but the jiva thus caused has been blemished by avidya and carries those effects." Does not this lead to a situation of "I don't know from where this adhyaasa (and not adhyaaropa, if we truthfully follow Sankara, I feel) came, but having come, it is clouding the individual jeevas and is giving rise to their inability to perceive Brahman". If this is accepted, it will follow that the locus of avidya and hence that of adhyaasa is the jeeva itself. The objection then is how the perfect reality of Brahman gives rise to the avidya-laden jeevas? At what stage the avidya gets hold of jeeva?

The point is even though brahman is the cause of avidya it is not affected by it. The relative realities keep coming and going. In each such reality, jivas come into being afflicted by avidya.

 

[sangom]

The point is even though brahman is the cause of avidya it is not affected by it. The relative realities keep coming and going. In each such reality, jivas come into being afflicted by avidya.

How can anyone, which will be all relative reality as per your terminology, make categorical assertions like "even though brahman is the cause of avidya it is not affected by it"? Only the Brahman can make any statement about itself and by definition, it can't because it is Nirguna, without any attribute; see how Sankara has taken the entire hindus for a ride

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

I do not know anything about you, but I am not at all knowledgeable in philosophy. But i happened to read a number of books and heard many pravacanas on advaita (because that gives a certain "status".) My simple doubt is that if Sankara's advaita was so logically perfect and fault-free, would Ramanuja have been able to create even a ripple among the very learned pundits of those days and push forward his Visishtadvaita view point and get so many followers? Will Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbaraka and others have been able to branch off further and establish their own brands of philosophy which are all opposed to advaita? Clearly, no, according to me.

Sankara seemed to have learnt all the lessons from Buddhism and used those to counter Buddhism itself; and this includes part of Buddhistic philosophy (śūnyavāda).

While we talk a lot about maayaa and avidyaa, all that Sankara said was "adhyaasa" or "adhyaaropa", appendage to Brahman. Fortunately, Sankara was able to escape with his advaita. I believe that he was able to do so because it was the acme of the Pallava rule, vedic brahmanism was spreading with full vigour in the south and the rulers were favourably disposed towards the revival of anything based on vedas and vedic (brahmanic) ideas.

I also humbly submit that I am not an expert either beyond reading a few books. I have never been able to relate to any of these philosophies. I think it is taking too much of a logical step for me to accept a philosophy blindly. Even concepts of Vishitadvaita of god full of positive attributes fail to impress me. If there is something positive then there has to be something negative like a satan. I would rather reconcile with a god that is neither positive nor negative , because both these terms are just relative words. Even as I have said so, I find it difficult to relate to the concept of duality that comes about because of maya or avidya.

At this point of time, I am just a thinking man. There does not seem to be a living person who has put forward advaita convincingly enough. About the past , I dont know. May be it was taught well and some people did understand it well. I dont know. I find visishtadvaita , dvaita with equal defects if not more.

 

[subbudu1]

sravna, It seems the answers you have given are nothing more than your own understanding. Please provide some acceptable authority for the answers you have given, then we can evaluate whether the answers you have given make sense. I will let you choose whatever authority you want from the three widely recognized and accepted categories, namely, (i) pratyaksham/observation, (ii) anumanam/logical analysis, and (iii) shruti/testimony.

Cheers!

Nara and others, I think the person who really took on the questions of SV after the times of Desikar, was Appaiah Dikshithar.
If this exercise on defending advaita needs to be a given a fair representation, then we need to look for quotes from his work. I dont have a reference to his works. But that is where this whole exercise has to start.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

The contradiction of self luminous brahman clouding its own knowledge is avoided when you realize that brahman whose knowledge is clouded is a lower manifesatation. Pure brahman with its power of maya allows for alternate transient realities where it exists in lesser forms. It is the lower reality forms whose knowledge is clouded. Pure brahman is unaffected by maya.

In my understanding Brahman is unchanging. So where is the question of lower and higher manifestation? This seems self contradictory.

Where is the concept of relative understanding if there is but one and that one is self luminous brahman?

The only way I can see some sense in this is to say Avidya is also a Vidya actually. Vidya has many dimensions. One dimension of it is the perception that gives rise to duality another is the perception that gives rise to unity. But who is to say which is superior to which? Which means duality and monism is actually equally true. This is getting an answer beyond advaita.

 

[sangom]

Originally Posted by sravna Shri Subbudu,

The contradiction of self luminous brahman clouding its own knowledge is avoided when you realize that brahman whose knowledge is clouded is a lower manifesatation. Pure brahman with its power of maya allows for alternate transient realities where it exists in lesser forms. It is the lower reality forms whose knowledge is clouded. Pure brahman is unaffected by maya.

I am not sure whether there is any authentic pronouncement by Sankara or any of the well-known advaitin scholars regarding a "self-luminous" brahman; IMHO, the moment the Brahman becomes "anything" with a definable attribute like "luminous" or "self-luminous" even, it ceases to be "nirguna" and will be "saguna" brahman.

 

[sangom]

Nara and others, I think the person who really took on the questions of SV after the times of Desikar, was Appaiah Dikshithar.
If this exercise on defending advaita needs to be a given a fair representation, then we need to look for quotes from his work. I dont have a reference to his works. But that is where this whole exercise has to start.

Shri Subbudu,

Appayya Dikshita's Siddhantalesa sangraha is downloadable from here. I will recommend this however for folks like us who are only pretending as scholars

 

[sravna]

In my understanding Brahman is unchanging. So where is the question of lower and higher manifestation? This seems self contradictory.

Where is the concept of relative understanding if there is but one and that one is self luminous brahman?

The only way I can see some sense in this is to say Avidya is also a Vidya actually. Vidya has many dimensions. One dimension of it is the perception that gives rise to duality another is the perception that gives rise to unity. But who is to say which is superior to which? Which means duality and monism is actually equally true. This is getting an answer beyond advaita.

Shri Subbudu,

Every view comes with its own set of problems which needs to be addressed. The theory of advaita address questions people have about reality in a totally consistent manner.. Duality in my opinion is not a consistent description of reality. Also, Duality and non-duality cannot be both true. Since my purpose of the thread is to defend advaita, I will focus on that.

Brahman indeed is unchanging. But the physical realities could be the basis of its experiences which it enjoys in totality. Do not ask me to cite verses that support this interpretation. But I think Sankara's view is that the physical realities exist because it is a sport or recreation or lila of brahman.

For the jivas the physical realities are a totally learning experience going through all sorts of stages and expereinces so that finally they become totally balanced or nirguna. Nirguna should taken as meaning having no excess or features of one guna but a perfect balance of them

 

[saarangam]

IMO when a member is either defending or contradicting the advaita philosophy of Samkara
the arguments should be supported by citations from Samkara's works.In the absence of such references the POV expressed by the person can only be considered as his personal views and not as an argument for or against Samkara's philosophy.

 

[sravna]

IMO when a member is either defending or contradicting the advaita philosophy of Samkara
the arguments should be supported by citations from Samkara's works.In the absence of such references the POV expressed by the person can only be considered as his personal views and not as an argument for or against Samkara's philosophy.

If this is what is in accordance with the tradition of these debates and how this debate is desired to be conducted, I agree to provide the citations.

 

[subbudu1]

If this is what is in accordance with the tradition of these debates and how this debate is desired to be conducted, I agree to provide the citations.

Dear Sravna,

Your discussion will be fruitful if you quote shankara or his leading lights of shankaran brotherhood, to establish your views.
There is one more thing lacking in your arguments, per say. You need to provide a convincing reason why the perception of a single brahman is a higher reality compared to the lower reality of duality. Why should these perceptions not be viewed as peers?

Regards

 

[subbudu1]

If we look at history of India, I find the religions of buddhism and jainism promoting a pessimistic outlook in life. They needed to be discarded inspite of their egalitarian outlook. They stunted India's growth. But Indian religion never outgrew this pessimism once it gripped India.

Advaita was the major philosophical contender but it seemed to have appealed to these pessimistic intellectuals. Renouncing life at 20 , doing bhakti, ignoring world as an illusion was the order of the day. The vishitadvaita and dvaita came along. They thought they rejected neo-buddhism but they discarded material achievements as some kind of inferior rank ambitions. In other words they also advocated this continuous bhakti and neglect of human will power.

In ancient India much before buddhism and jainism this did not seem to be the case. And philosophical speculations was confined to the retirement days. Rest of the time was probably spent in material ambitions, in living long by regular exercise , work , diet etc. This seems to have been a more positive outlook which benefited the country.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Your discussion will be fruitful if you quote shankara or his leading lights of shankaran brotherhood, to establish your views.
There is one more thing lacking in your arguments, per say. You need to provide a convincing reason why the perception of a single brahman is a higher reality compared to the lower reality of duality. Why should these perceptions not be viewed as peers?

Regards

Shri Subbudu,

If you are asking why the perception of a jiva is inferior compared to that of brahman, it is because brahman is nirguna and is not affected by anything unlike that of jiva which can be affected by sufferings and have adverse experiences. The experience of brahman can be thought of as the sum of experiences of all the jivas.

If you connect all the expereinces of a jiva that it underwent in all its lives the result would be one of peace /bliss. This is because the expereince of a jiva at any birth I would think, depends on the totality of the experiences it underwent.

To sum up it is the nirguna feature of brahman that is the reason for its blissful existence.

 

[sangom]

If we look at history of India, I find the religions of buddhism and jainism promoting a pessimistic outlook in life. They needed to be discarded inspite of their egalitarian outlook. They stunted India's growth. But Indian religion never outgrew this pessimism once it gripped India.

Advaita was the major philosophical contender but it seemed to have appealed to these pessimistic intellectuals. Renouncing life at 20 , doing bhakti, ignoring world as an illusion was the order of the day. The vishitadvaita and dvaita came along. They thought they rejected neo-buddhism but they discarded material achievements as some kind of inferior rank ambitions. In other words they also advocated this continuous bhakti and neglect of human will power.

In ancient India much before buddhism and jainism this did not seem to be the case. And philosophical speculations was confined to the retirement days. Rest of the time was probably spent in material ambitions, in living long by regular exercise , work , diet etc. This seems to have been a more positive outlook which benefited the country.

Shri Subbudu,

Your above views are in sync with mine. But I will shift the blame for the pessimistic outlook from Buddhism and Jainism (which you do), to the vedic priesthood of the poorvamīmāmsa era who indulged in rank cruelty to animals (yajñas) and stipulating exorbitant dakṣiṇās for conducting such yajñas, and living lavish lives, etc. (For the last point we do not have much of references that can be readily pinpointed but if one reads the vedas - esp. yajur, we will get the truth.)

Buddhism, Jainism came up as open rebellion because kṣatriyas were spearheading these. But from within the brahmanas and the meeker people with independent thinking came the upaniṣads which tried to put the resistance in a milder and more instructive form.

"advaita" in reality was the adaptation of the śūnyavāda of buddhism into an acceptable philosophy under the vedic umbrella (so that it can rank as a darśana and not be rejected as yet one more heretic religion.) IMHO, Sankara did not provide a fool-proof deductive background to his philosophy. (In this respect Shri Sravna is perhaps following Sankara himself, saying "these are the truth", and insisting that we accept his truths and proceed from there.) This shortcoming is most blatant in the case of his supposition of "adhyāsa or adhyāropa", with the result there are irreconcilable differences in the advaitin camp itself. Please read this and this.

The very fact that right from Suresvara and Padmapada themselves had very different ideas about advaita is proof enough (for a dull brain like me) that the Guru did a shoddy job of elucidating his philosophy even to his four direct śiṣyas.

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

Your above views are in sync with mine. But I will shift the blame for the pessimistic outlook from Buddhism and Jainism (which you do), to the vedic priesthood of the poorvamīmāmsa era who indulged in rank cruelty to animals (yajñas) and stipulating exorbitant dakṣiṇās for conducting such yajñas, and living lavish lives, etc. (For the last point we do not have much of references that can be readily pinpointed but if one reads the vedas - esp. yajur, we will get the truth.)

Buddhism, Jainism came up as open rebellion because kṣatriyas were spearheading these. But from within the brahmanas and the meeker people with independent thinking came the upaniṣads which tried to put the resistance in a milder and more instructive form.

"advaita" in reality was the adaptation of the śūnyavāda of buddhism into an acceptable philosophy under the vedic umbrella (so that it can rank as a darśana and not be rejected as yet one more heretic religion.) IMHO, Sankara did not provide a fool-proof deductive background to his philosophy. (In this respect Shri Sravna is perhaps following Sankara himself, saying "these are the truth", and insisting that we accept his truths and proceed from there.) This shortcoming is most blatant in the case of his supposition of "adhyāsa or adhyāropa", with the result there are irreconcilable differences in the advaitin camp itself. Please read this and this.

The very fact that right from Suresvara and Padmapada themselves had very different ideas about advaita is proof enough (for a dull brain like me) that the Guru did a shoddy job of elucidating his philosophy even to his four direct śiṣyas.

Shri Sangom,

Advaita and other philosophies which talk about the nature of reality cannot give you proof in the way a scientific theory can. The best you can do is to present a consistent view free of contradictions. This is where I think Advaita scores overwhelmingly over other philosophies including the western ones which in my view are riddled with contradictions.