Dear Shri sangom, from what I see described as Advaita by sravna and some others is actually a watered-down version of VA. The only reality in Advaitam is the pure consciousness which cannot even have a substratum upon which this pure conciousness inheres as that would result in duality. Your posts on the Advaita and its Fallacies thread are insightful. I would like sravna and others to read them and comment.
Cheers!
Shri Nara,
What I thought was advaita all these years was probably wrong. What Sravna says might be the correct position as of today. One thing I know is that advaita has had to make many compromises all through because it had many fallacies. These were accentuated probably due to two compulsions for Sankara; one, interpreting the Upanishads and Bhagavadgeeta in terms of his monism, and two, to show that his monism was not a copy of Buddha's. Perhaps it has become a watered-down version of VA or even Dvaitam by now due to the several adjustments. That way there will now be not even one fallacy in it as Shri Sravna claims.
For more info on some of the compromises in advaita, pl. refer "Compromises in the history of advaitic thought" - From the earliest times to the days of Brahmananda Saraswati - Mahamahopadhyaya Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastri in Rao Bahadur K. Krishnaswami Rao Endowment Lectures under the auspices of the Madras University, 1940.
Glimpses of wisdom from (the Late) Shri V. Subrahmanya Iyer, an advaitin scholar, contemporary of Ramana Maharishi, Tutor to the Maharaja of Mysore; he replaced Ramana Maharishi as Paul Brunton's Teacher and lived up to the 1940's or so.
01. We need not doubt that mystics saw Shiva, Jesus, etc. That they saw visions may be an undeniable fact. But the question is “Was what they saw the Truth?" In insane asylums you find patients who make similar claims. They no doubt had such vision but they never stopped to inquire if their visions be true. Vedantins take all the facts, science, religion, art etc. and then ask of them, which is the truth? We collect as much evidence as possible, even contradictory, and then proceed to examine all of it. We are not opposed to anything, but say, "Analyze, how far is it true?”
02.Mind splitting i.e. one part of the mind is perfectly sane, in regard to worldly duties, but in the other part generally dealing with religious beliefs they are insane. This is the condition of many yogis.
03. Yogic trance is no better than hypnotic trance as there is no duality in the deepest stages of both, because they are both deep sleep. The intermediate stages of dream are paralleled by hypnotic and yogic and mental experiences and visions. The only differences between all these three lies in the manner in which the state is induced and whether it is involuntary or voluntary.
04.There is no agreement among the views of mystics. Eckhart's experiences are not the same as those of the Sufis or of the Hindu mystics. Therefore we say that mysticism does differ and is not fundamentally the same everywhere as is claimed. But more important than this is the epistemological question which we ask of the mystics. That they have had experiences is true, but that what they experienced is true is another matter. How do they know that it is the Ultimate or the Almighty or the Reality that they have come in contact with through their ecstasies?
05.Sastras are simply books which are held in reverence and deemed to be infallible; they may have nothing to do with truth. For philosophers they have no value. Yet common people worship them.
06.The religious way says: Believe! and you will be saved. The Vedantic way says: Doubt! and you will be saved.
07.Most commentaries on the ancient books are merely the work of imagination. Every commentator goes on imagining as he likes.
08.The glamour of yoga, mysticism and religion is mesmeric. It is extremely difficult to get anyone out of it, but when the spell does break they regrettably rush to the opposite extreme of gross materialism, as in Russia. That there is a third and higher path available-philosophy--they do not know.
09.We speak of the ancients as being all knowing, but the truth is that they knew some things but were ignorant of others. We have to use discrimination when estimating their knowledge.
10.Those mystics who say you have to rise beyond reason are insane. Common sense tells you that the only way to distinguish between stone and a fruit is to use your intelligence. Otherwise you will try to eat stones! That is, to arrive at the truth of any matter or objects, you must use reason. How much more when you want to arrive at the truth of life, and the universe? This is the only way.
11.If people ask why should reason arrogate the final appeal to itself, we reply: Your use of the word why is sufficient proof that you are seeking a reason for your satisfaction. Thus unconsciously you make the reason highest.
12.Knowledge is the only means of attainment, not yoga.
13. There are two samadhis, one yogic empty trance, and the other keen concentrative thinking.
14.Those who talk of "the experience of Brahman” talk nonsense. They need Semantic training. For you cannot have experience without a subject-object relation, i.e. duality, which is not Brahman.
