Seeking to Understand Advaita

[jg22]

Surya Deva,

I therefore know my Advaita far better than they do

Okay, this is your claim. If you know Advaita better than the so-called traditional teachers, and if your view of Advaita is correct, then it should be perfectly in line with what Shankaracharya taught. Is this a valid assumption to make? For the rest of this post, I am going to assume this: that what you say is what Shankaracharya also says, because he is the Acharya for Advaita Vedanta. With that in mind, let me examine your statements.

Scriptures are composed by humans and thus anything that comes from humans is biassed and fallible.

Please show me where Shankaracharya has said Shruti is fallible/authored by fallible people. Please show me any Shruti, Smriti, Bhashya, or prakarana grantha which is authoritative for Advaita Vedanta, which says Shruti is a fallible source of knowledge. If you can, I will believe you. if you can't, then you are not presenting Advaita as it has been presented by the Acharyas, including Shankaracharya, and there is no obligation to take you seriously.

The fact is perception and reasoning are the only independent and valid means to test knowledge.

Please show me where any Advaita Acharya has said that Shruti is not a svatah pramana. Show me where Shankaracharya has said that perception and reasoning are the only valid, independent means of knowledge. I can show you countless texts which say otherwise, and yet you claim to know what Advaita teaches, so I would like to see these texts that I have missed, thanks.

When the scriptures themselves say that Brahman is indescriable, infinite, eternal, absolute, but the scriptures still attempt to illustrate Brahman through stories, metaphors, descriptions and illustrations...

It is because Brahman is formless and beyond description that Shruti teaches using indirect, laukika examples. That is the only way to teach Brahman.

hence it can safely be concluded that scripture only offer a human perspective on Brahman, and not absolute knowledge of Brahman

What would an 'absolute' knowledge perspective be?

Now if scripture was indeed perfectly comprehensive then ask me why the need for the Brahma Sutras?

Yes, it is perfectly comprehensive, but it is not perfectly comprehensible. Vedanta is an exceedingly subtle siddhanta, since, afterall, it seeks to make known the subtlest of all realities. It has to resort to less subtle ideas through adhyaropa apavada in order to convey the knowledge of that reality. Therefore, because it is so subtle, and because the human mind is so fickle, the Acharya is required to remove the doubts from the mind. The Brahma Sutras logically reconciles all the apparent discrepancies the shishya might see.

Hence perception and reasoning is used to validate the truths of scripture.

Exactly, they are auxiliary aids to remove doubts from the mind.

Therefore, I am fully at liberty to disagree with previous exponents(if something contradicts evidence) and contribute my own original version of Advaita

That is the crux of it, I think. You are presenting your own version of Advaita, and then disagreeing with anything that contradicts your version- including, I argue, Shankara's Advaita. This is one you've blended with modern science, one you selectively choose which bits of traditional teaching to accept and ones which to reject according to your whim. You believe that the only independently valid means of knowledge are sense perception and reasoning, and that anything which deviates from these cannot be proven, and therefore must be dismissed, including, I presume Shruti. This is not the version of Advaita promoted by Shankaracharya, or any traditional teacher of Vedanta. I am under no compulsion to accept what you say regarding what Advaita is or isn't if you don't even follow what established teachers have said. This is your own personal philosophy, not siddhanta.

We are in a better position to understand Advaita today in terms of empirical science than Shankara was.

Science deals with the objective, empirical world of objects. Vedanta deals with the subject, I,; the import of Vedanta relates to this only, and that subject cannot be probed, proven, or disproven by any instrument of knowledge used with science. Science is one thing, Advaita is another.

Please do not play the appeal to tradition fallacy.

In this regard, appealing to tradition is not a fallacy. The source of Vedanta teaching is the prasthana trayi. These are ancient, sanskrit texts which have been translated, taught, and explained by dedicated teachers to students since the inception of the teaching. It is an approved method; it works. A person who has dedicated his life to understanding the Vedanta texts as they have been expounded by previous teachers , learning sanskrit, learning the methodology, and has jnanam, is indisputably a greater authority for knowing what Advaita Vedanta is than a self-proclaimed upstart with none of the aforementioned qualifications.

Scripture can only serve as a secondary means and it must be validated by perception and reasoning to be considered valid knowledge.

Show me a scripture or bhashya which says that. Thanks.

 

[jg22]

If there is anything within scripture which cannot be independently validated, it is dismissed as unproven.

Show me a scripture or bhashya with says that, too. As far as I know, Shruti is an independent means of knowledge; that is to say, its claims are self-evident, and do not need to be validated by any other means of knowledge in order to be true. The only conflict between shabda pramana and the other pramanas arises when the Shruti appears to be making claims regarding objects evident to the other means of knowledge, and yet seems to be contradicting them. Shankaracharya has said, if Shruti says fire is cold, then we cannot accept it, because sense perception has already proven fire is hot. Therefore, we have to take an indirect meaning from the Shruti. That is the method of interpretation. With regards to the Self, and other realities non-perceptible to the other means of knowledge, the Shruti cannot contradict or be contradicted by any other means of knowledge, and therefore it is an independent means of knowledge. If you disagree with any of this, then please show me where Shankaracharya has said otherwise; I am trying to follow and understand what Shankaracharya teaches, because he is the primary authority for understanding Vedanta. If what you believe regarding Advaita is in line with what Shankaracharya has said, then I can happily accept what you say about Advaita. If you cannot defend or prove your ideas by showing Shankaracharya has said the same, then your words are your own personal philosophy only, and do not represent the standard Vedanta teaching, so I do not need to accept.

If Advaita is going to become scientific knowledge in the future it will become so because of independent empirical scientific evidence, and not because scientists will accept Advaita scriptures.

Who says Advaita will become a scientific theory in the future? That is your prerogative, your desire, not mine. I don't think Advaita has anything to do with modern science, they are both separate spheres of knowledge I think.

I can show that my understanding of Advaita is entirely consistent with traditional Advaita Vedanta.

You can start by quoting from Shruti or Shankaracharya to back up all your claims regarding the status of Shruti pramana. Thank you.

I said it was great saying of Advaita, I did not say it was in the Upanishads.

When you say 'mahavakya', mahavakya refers to the four famous proclamations of the Upanishads. The only mahavakyas are the sentences found in the Upanishads, which summarise the entire import of the Upanishads. There is no mahavakya outside of the Upanishads. To avoid confusion, don't use the word mahavakya if you are not referring to the sentences in the Upanishads, because you are misusing the word. Thank you.

you have reinterpreted this statement to mean something different and not consistent with Advaita philosophy: Brahman is the absolute truth, the world is relative truth.

I have not reinterpreted anything. Paramarthika Satyam= Absolute truth. Vyavaharika Satyam= Transcational/Practical truth. What is transactional, such as this world, is relative to that which is absolute, Brahman. In both instances, we find the word 'Satyam'. Satyam means truth, or reality. Nowhere do we find the word 'non-existent'. The world is mithya, not because it is non-existent, but because it is practical/transactional only, and has no independent existence apart from Brahman, the Satyam. There are not two Satyams here. There is one Satyam, which is seen either as paramarthika, or vyavaharika, transactional, or relative, and absolute. When we include nama-rupa upadhi with Brahman, we have Vyavaharika Satyam. When we negate the name-rupa upadhi from Brahman, we have Paramarthika Satyam.

I am not going to repeat again what I have said regarding the definition of 'unreal' or mithya, since you are insistent on your view. I am not going to comment on your Samkhya assertion, because you have ignored my explanation of Satyam/mithya in my previous post, ignored the link I gave you which clears up misconceptions about mithya, ignored the very clear verses from Chandogya, Taittiriya and Brahma Sutras, as well as the verse prior to your 'mahavakya' in the Brahmajnanavalimala. If you will not meet me halfway by responding to those points, then I should not waste my time responding to yours.

The entire illusion of empirical reality disappears when one gains knowledge.

I have already refuted this claim showing you the Panchadashi (see especially 7-179, 7-180).

Just because something has practical significance does not mean that it in fact really existent. A hologram of a monster could be used to scare you, it serves a practical purpose to scare you, but there is no real monster. The rising and setting of the sun can be used to create a measurement of time to serve the practical purpose of organizing our activities, but it does not mean the sun does set or rise. Money is another good example, for money does not really exist, it is just a material which has been given a certain arbitrary value, and it serves a practical purpose.

The locus for all illusory phenomena is always something which exists. A hologram of a monster is nothing but the play of light. The rising and setting of the sun is nothing but the sun seen from a certain vantage point. Money is nothing but paper. In all the examples, there is some material which is seen in a certain way. We don't barter with nothing, we barter with paper which we call money. We don't see the rising and setting of nothing, we see the apparent rising and setting of the sun. We don't see the monster without the light. We don't perceive a mirage without sand and heat etc. There is an existent thing in all examples; there is no non-existence- only existence perceived variously.


I eagerly await your citations from Shruti and Shankaracharya to prove your statements regarding pramana etc.


Edit- On further reflection, I don't think there is any benefit for me to argue with you. I have a fiendish urge to to try and always cement my views by knocking down others. Perhaps you can relate to it. I think it is better if I don't act on it in this instance. I don't want to bring up any resentment or ill will with you or anybody else, and I don't think this kind of jalpa is helpful anymore. I am trying hard to follow Vedanta closely and reform the way I've been before, so I am going to humbly bow out of this debate.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Surya Deva]

Okay, this is your claim. If you know Advaita better than the so-called traditional teachers, and if your view of Advaita is correct, then it should be perfectly in line with what Shankaracharya taught. Is this a valid assumption to make? For the rest of this post, I am going to assume this: that what you say is what Shankaracharya also says, because he is the Acharya for Advaita Vedanta. With that in mind, let me examine your statements.

No not a valid assumption, because Shankaracharya his views and works do not define Advaita, Shankaracharya is considered nor the first nor the last exponent of Advaita. He learned Advaita from Gaudapada, and he and Gauadapa did not agree completely with one another. While Gauadapada was purely Advatist and rejected the reality of everything other than Brahman, Shankara made a concession and introduced this theory of relative and pragmatic reality but which is still illusory in relation to the absolute.
Advaita Vedanta has had many teachers and exponents such as Yajnavalkya, Ashtavakra, Gaudapada, Shankara, Sadananda, Vidyaranya to modern day teachers like Nisargattamaharaj, Ramanana Maharishi, Swami Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda. In order to insist that we only consider Shakara teachings is to falsely misrepresent Advaita Vedanta as being only Shankaras and this position is not even taken by traditional Advaita Vedanta ashrams in India like Kailasha Ashram.

I am not against Shankara, I am just against the kind of traditional fundamentalism and myopia you are now showing that we must only accept Shankaras version. I know why you are insisting on Shankara, because you have now realized the Panchadasi I cited completely contradicts your position, so you are now playing the shifting the goalpost fallacy to accepting only Shankaras position. But I will proceed to show you the views of several famous Advaita exponents, including Shankara and you will see they clearly do not support your position. They unequivocally say the universe is an illusion.

Please show me where Shankaracharya has said Shruti is fallible/authored by fallible people. Please show me any Shruti, Smriti, Bhashya, or prakarana grantha which is authoritative for Advaita Vedanta, which says Shruti is a fallible source of knowledge. If you can, I will believe you. if you can't, then you are not presenting Advaita as it has been presented by the Acharyas, including Shankaracharya, and there is no obligation to take you seriously.

No, this is my position that Shruti could be a fallible source of knowledge, and hence why for a rational person it cannot be considered evidence. You can only preach to the converted not to the unconverted. The unconverted cannot be convinced with "Scripture says" They must be convinced through independent means of knowledge. Now for the record I am already converted. I believe Shruti is directly revealed. I believe in the Risis.

Please show me where any Advaita Acharya has said that Shruti is not a svatah pramana. Show me where Shankaracharya has said that perception and reasoning are the only valid, independent means of knowledge. I can show you countless texts which say otherwise, and yet you claim to know what Advaita teaches, so I would like to see these texts that I have missed, thanks.

No, they do indeed accept Sruti as the highest Pramana. Advaita is based on the Sruti of the Upanishads. However, they rationally demonstrate it using reason and perception. That is why Advaita adapts the Samkhya categories because Samkhya is purely based on reason and perception, Advaita reconciled the Samkhya with Advaita Vedanta to produce a more logical and consistent Samkhya which is compatible with Sruti. Hence Advaita Vedanta is Samkhya Plus.

It is because Brahman is formless and beyond description that Shruti teaches using indirect, laukika examples. That is the only way to teach Brahman.

What would an 'absolute' knowledge perspective be?

Absolutely, as Brahman is formless and beyond description, any description, examples, stories and illustrations about Brahman can only be taught as indicators, like signs, the finger pointing at the moon. They cannot be read as purely literal. For example when the Upanishads say "Then Brahman thought, I want to become many" that cannot be read literally, because Brahman cannot think anything because Brahman is partless. This is why the formal hermeneutics of Advaita is required to make scripture sensible.

Yes, it is perfectly comprehensive, but it is not perfectly comprehensible. Vedanta is an exceedingly subtle siddhanta, since, afterall, it seeks to make known the subtlest of all realities. It has to resort to less subtle ideas through adhyaropa apavada in order to convey the knowledge of that reality. Therefore, because it is so subtle, and because the human mind is so fickle, the Acharya is required to remove the doubts from the mind. The Brahma Sutras logically reconciles all the apparent discrepancies the shishya might see.

I agree, the Brahma Sutras clearly show that the Upanishads teach Advaita and the apparent contradictory statements can be reconciled when contextualized and seen intertexually within the Vedas.

That is the crux of it, I think. You are presenting your own version of Advaita, and then disagreeing with anything that contradicts your version- including, I argue, Shankara's Advaita. This is one you've blended with modern science, one you selectively choose which bits of traditional teaching to accept and ones which to reject according to your whim. You believe that the only independently valid means of knowledge are sense perception and reasoning, and that anything which deviates from these cannot be proven, and therefore must be dismissed, including, I presume Shruti. This is not the version of Advaita promoted by Shankaracharya, or any traditional teacher of Vedanta. I am under no compulsion to accept what you say regarding what Advaita is or isn't if you don't even follow what established teachers have said. This is your own personal philosophy, not siddhanta.

A rational human being only accepts rational and independent means of knowledge such perception and reasoning. This is because scripture is not falsifiable, like somebody claiming there is an invisible pink unicorn, and this is rational people discard those statements. In any case your objection is moot, because I do in fact believe in the scripture of Shruti, but if I were to attempt to convince a rational person I would not copiously cite Shruti, I would give rational evidence. This my friend, is exactly what Shankara did in formal debates.

Science deals with the objective, empirical world of objects. Vedanta deals with the subject, I,; the import of Vedanta relates to this only, and that subject cannot be probed, proven, or disproven by any instrument of knowledge used with science. Science is one thing, Advaita is another.

False, Advaita does not tell us anything about the transcendental reality, because it is indescribable and transcendent, Advaita only indicates its existence through both the authority of Shruti and rational arguments. Advaita very much deals with the empirical, but ultimately shows that the empirical is illusory. Modern science does exactly the same thing: It is in fact from modern science that conclusions about the existence of the following are being purported based on empirical evidence:

The holographic model of the universe(Maya)
Consciousness as the ground of reality(Brahman)
The non-existence of objective reality(Naam-Rupa)
The subtle body OBE and NDE research(Jiva)
Reincarnation and past life memory research
Multidimensional universe as a function of string activity(Gunas)
Mental phenomenology and the exploration of structures of consciousness(Yoga)
Quantum field and quantum forces(Akasha and Prana)

Modern scientists today are are empirically verifying everything Advaita says., so Advaita is becoming a scientific reality. Unfortunately, traditional Advaitins rather than welcoming this and actively dialoguing wiith scientists like Swami Vivekananda or Krishnamurthi did, are insisting on keeping a dead religious tradition of scriptural study in original Sanskrit alive. I was told by Vedanta acharyas in India that all my knowledge of Vedanta was not valid unless I learned Sanskrit and Sanskrit grammar and officially accepted renunciation in the Shankara tradition. Then, a few actually told me, "Well not really, you can acquire the same texts we study here, and study by yourself" Just because I read English translations does not make my knowledge and understanding of Advaita any less valid. I have read all the core texts of the tradition and thus my knowledge is informed by the traditional research in the area and the modern. I have not neglected study of any of the core texts, and if a traditionalist comes and tells me my knowledge is not valid because I did not learn it in Sanskrit or have not followed the tradition, I will just tell them to buzz off and then welcome them into the 21st century.

In this regard, appealing to tradition is not a fallacy. The source of Vedanta teaching is the prasthana trayi. These are ancient, sanskrit texts which have been translated, taught, and explained by dedicated teachers to students since the inception of the teaching. It is an approved method; it works.

This is the 21st century, things have changed, teaching methods have changed, new research is available. Today one can learn Advaita simply by attending a college course at university or through self-study using English translations.

 

[Surya Deva]

Show me a scripture or bhashya which says that. Thanks.

Scripture, scripture scripture lol I have already shown you the Panchadasi, which is universally recognized as a core text in all Advaita Vedanta ashrams and courses in the world. Even you cite from that text, so it curious why you would not accept it now just because it blatantly does not support your position? You are proving to be inconsistent.

I mean how many verses did I cite from that text which very explicitly called the universe unreal?

I will cite more, if not for your benefit, for the benefit of other readers to clearly show them that Advaita does unequivocally teach the universe is unreal, an illusion, and anybody claiming to be Advaitin who does not accept this is very clearly going against the Advaita teachings and cannot be considered an Advaitin.

 

[Pleroma]

Surya Deva's personal incredulity and ignorance has reached its peak. jg22 has made an immense effort to show that your position is fundamentally flawed and I am with jg22. This might be the third time that I am advising you that you go and find an atheistic religion rather than coming here preaching us as to what advaita is.

This is a big problem among westerners these days who think that they can somehow do away with the gods and somehow make a global pesudo religion based on their pesudo-scientific claims. jg22 is absolutely right, Advaita and Modern Science has nothing to do with each other and they are based on a different epistemology. Schrodinger never really understood Hinduism deeply and correctly and many view scientists as god as though they are infallible and same is the problem with Surya Deva.

Surya Deva is not an Hindu and not an Advaiti and many real practitioners of Advaita here have disagreed with him and it really contradicts with any core text of Advaita whether you take that of Shankaracharya or even prior Advaita texts for that matter. For god sake please don't misrepresent Hinduism, we are not really eager to make it a global religion ignoring the basic tenets of Advaita. If you want to accept Advaita accept it as it is don't misrepresent it and preach your own version of crypto-Advaita. Surya Deva's knowledge in advaita definitely sucks.

 

[Surya Deva]

Seeing as I have cited one of the core texts of the Advaita school here and it agrees with me, I am on very strong ground here. The verses sites in those text are supporting everything I am saying: Ishvara is an illusion, it does not really exist. The universe is an illusion, it does not really exist.

Any rational human being can see that I am right here. If this was an academic discussion there would be absolutely no controversy that my statements that Advaita considers the universe and god an illusion, because in rational secular discussion evidence cannot be ignored. I have cited evidence and that evidence is supporting my position.

The reason why despite me openly citing from the text, that my fellow Hindus have still continued to hold onto their positions, is because they are irrational. They deny evidence, even when it is obvious to hold onto their faulty views. I will shortly cite from several scriptures from all previous Advaita exponents to show that Advaita most definitely does say the universe, god, soul etc are illusions.

Btw I was reading a thread recently entitled "Israelites were polytheistics" and was struck me was how the Christian and Jewish members on this board did not even consider it controversial and accepted it, as clearly the scholarship has proven this matter and settled it. This is a far cry from our Hindu contingent, who will stubbornly hold onto irratial and falsified views, vituperating against the scholarship. This is an indictment on Hindus and it shows Hindus to be incapable of rational engagement. They could learn a lot from their Abrahamic peers in how to discuss rationally.

 

[Pleroma]

"The system prevalent in Hinduism is defined by the Smartha philosophy; this theory allows for the veneration of numerous deities, but on the understanding that all of them are but manifestation of the one divine power (a belief sometimes called kathenotheism). That ultimate divinity is termed Brahman or Atman, and is believed to have no specific form, name or attribute.[34] Only a Smartha, or follower of the Advaita philosophy, would have no problem worshiping every imaginable deity with equal veneration; as the view is that all names and forms of deities are merely manifestations of the same God. Other Hindu sects such as Vaishnavism and Shaivism conform more closely to a Western understanding of what a monotheistic faith is. For instance, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu as being the one and only true God, an attitude that resonates with that of the Abrahamic religions. However, it is Advaita philosophy that defines the Smartha sect of mainstream Hinduism, and imparts to Indic spiritual and religious traditions their renowned liberalism."

Perhaps you and your Abrahamic peers could learn a lot of liberalism from us and how we accept all deities rather than say "Thou shall have no gods beside me" and say that those who worship other gods are devil worshippers.

No matter what you say, Adi Shankara did not hold your views and he encouraged the worship of Hindu deities and we worship Ishvara and he exists, he is as real as Brahman. Its you who need to be taught a lesson, not us. Your views on Advaitha are fundamentally flawed.

 

[Ekanta]

Remeber its three GRADES of reality...

1. prātibhāsika sattā: never-real
2. vyāvahārika sattā: practically-real
3. pāramārthika sattā: absolutely-real

Brahman is more real than Ishvara, but only from the perspective of brahman-realization. For most seekers Ishvara is more important and real than brahman. Its a matter of what is practical for the seeker. Hence Ishvara is called: "practically real". What is practically real is a MIX of brahman and illusion. We cant hail it to the position of brahman (absolutely-real), but neither can we lower it to the position of illusion only (never-real).

So, even if advaita recognizes brahman as the absolutely-real, it also recognizes Ishvara-worship as a stepping stone to brahman-realization.
Just take yoga as an example, its impossible to concentrate on brahman, since its no object. So how can you achieve samadhi if you have no object (practically real) to concentrate on? Its impossible!

Just my thoughts about this debate.

 

[Surya Deva]

Remeber its three GRADES of reality...

You do realize the obvious contradiction in this statement yes? The truth is one, whole, singular, absolute, there cannot be grades or levels of truth. As Brahman is defined an infinite and absolute substance, there can be no parts within Brahman. The idea of grades of reality is basically a practical consideration, in much the same way we have time and modes of time(past, present future, quick, slow) or space and types of distance(near, far, up, down, left, right) or types of matter(organic, inorganic, mental) they are not really existent realities, for they rely on only name for their existence, but they allow us to be practical. The rising and the setting of the sun, for example, is obviously not existent, but we still use it for practical everyday language.

Shankara was making a concession to the religious and cultural life at the time in India, where everybody worshiped gods and goddesses, trees, rivers, animals and was reforming against it. Hence he made a concession that they can do this worship by considering all of these as forms of the absolute one Brahman. He himself showed this can be done through his devotional poems(Bhaja Govindham etc) His grades of truth are not actually philosophy, but politics. He disagreed with the teacher of his tradition Gaudapada who was pure Advaitin and did not even accept Shankara cocession of grades of reality, because it is obviously contradictory to Advaita philosophy.

Advaita philosophy does not teach that we should worship Ishvara and it does not recognize worship of Ishvara as a valid means to bring about liberation. As ignorance(avidya) is the cause of bondage(samsara) knowledge(jnana) is the only means to liberation(moksha/mukti) This is consistent with the Shruti of the Upanishads, for they constantly enjoin the seeker to realize the self, meditate on and contemplate on the truth of Brahman/atman, purify the mind/intellect etc.

However, I am open to being corrected, please show me where in the Shruti of the Upanishads it says we should worship Ishvara?

or most seekers Ishvara is more important and real than brahman.

Do you realize that is a slippery slope? If the seeker decides it is more important to them to worship senses pleasure and materials considering them more real than Brahman then they are just deepening their avidya and further distancing themselves from jnana. To regard Maya and her products more real than Brahman is the official definition of ignorance in Advaita.

Just take yoga as an example, its impossible to concentrate on brahman, since its no object. So how can you achieve samadhi if you have no objective (practically real) to concentrate on? Its impossible!

The aim of Advaita is not to concentrate on Brahman(this is impossible, because Brahman is not an object) but to realize Brahman through chitta shuddi(mental purification) through yoga. Yoga is an auxiliary practice that indirectly brings about Brahman realization through chitta shuddi(mental purification) In order to achieve this the Darsana of Yoga exists.

 

[Ekanta]

To regard Maya and her products more real than Brahman is the official definition of ignorance in Advaita.

I said, Ishvara is brahman + maya... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.
I said, Ishvara is more relevant for most seekers than brahman... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.
You consider Ishvara as maya only... although its well-know, Ishvara cant exist without brahman as base... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.

 

[Pleroma]

I said, Ishvara is brahman + maya... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.
I said, Ishvara is more relevant for most seekers than brahman... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.
You consider Ishvara as maya only... although its well-know, Ishvara cant exist without brahman as base... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.

It should be like one cannot exist without the other, we need both Ishvara and Brahman.

 

[Ekanta]

Damn I did it again. Im sorry Surya Deva... I should have used kinder words. I regret them.

 

[Surya Deva]

I said, Ishvara is brahman + maya... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.
I said, Ishvara is more relevant for most seekers than brahman... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.
You consider Ishvara as maya only... although its well-know, Ishvara cant exist without brahman as base... you ignore it as it fits ur agenda.

I did not really ignore anything. I also said that Ishvara is the superimposition of Brahman on Maya and I also cited the same Panchadasi to state that. It is also says very clearly that Ishvara is unreal, an illusion and also says very clearly that Maya deludes us. Maya produces a great magical show for us, including projecting the products of jiva and ishvara.

The idea that Brahman is the base of Ishvara does not mean Ishvara is real in Advaita philosophy. The theory of causality in Advaita philosophy says the effect is an appearance of the cause and not what many here have misinterpreted as the Samkhya theory of pre-existent effect, which says the effect is pre-existent in the cause. Hence in the popular example of snake and rope, the rope(cause) is the base, but the effect(snake) is an appearance of the rope, but is actually unreal and not present in the rope.

 

[Ekanta]

Hence in the popular example of snake and rope, the rope(cause) is the base, but the effect(snake) is an appearance of the rope, but is actually unreal and not present in the rope.

So what you actually say is that the rope is present in all... congratulations.

 

[Surya Deva]

So what you actually say is that the rope is present in all... congratulations.

I never really denied the existence of Brahman now did I? Brahman is real, and all the products by the projecting power of Brahman(maya) are unreal, much like the snake in the rope.

Why are so many Hindus here attacking me for being loyal to my philosophy? Don't attack the messenger. I am merely telling you what my philosophy Advaita Vedanta teaches: Ishvara, Jiva and the universe is unreal, it an illusion which ends on self-realization. I have already proven this is exactly what it teaches by citing one of the recognized core texts of the philosophy.

If people claiming to be Advaitin do not accept the theory of Maya, which is central to Advaita and explaining why Brahman despite being a singular, unchanging, reality of pure consciousness appears as this pluralistic, changing, finite reality of matter, then they are not Advaitins and shouldn't pretend to be representatives of this philosophy. It's like somebody claiming to be atheist, rejecting the notion that atheism rejects god.

 

[Ekanta]

Brahman is the base of Ishvara

As you say yourself, the reality of Ishvara is brahman. Or do you mean brahman is real and Ishvara an illusion?

Ishvara, Jiva and the universe is unreal

And now suddenly there is no brahman in Ishvara. Or do you mean brahman viewed as Ishvara, Jiva and the universe is lack of knowledge?

Which one is it now?

Its comes down to this play of words... Is Ishvara brahman with the limiting adjuct of maya or is Ishvara without any kind of reality as its basis?
What does it mean when we say "Ishvara is unreal". Does it mean Ishvara as an idea is wrong perception of the non-dual brahman. Or does it mean brahman never was the basis of Ishvara?

I feel the controversy here, at least partially, is a matter of how we use words. The folks who have discussed here have used the words in different ways.

 

[Surya Deva]

As you say yourself, the reality of Ishvara is brahman. Or do you mean brahman is real and Ishvara an illusion?

And now suddenly there is no brahman in Ishvara. Or do you mean brahman viewed as Ishvara, Jiva and the universe is lack of knowledge?

Which one is it now?

Its comes down to this play of words... Is Ishvara brahman with the limiting adjuct of maya or is Ishvara without any kind of reality as its basis?
What does it mean when we say "Ishvara is unreal". Does it mean Ishvara as an idea is wrong perception of the non-dual brahman. Or does it mean brahman never was the basis of Ishvara?

I feel the controversy here, at least partially, is a matter of how we use words. The folks who have discussed here have used the words in different ways.

No, this is not a semantic issue. The issue here is in your understanding. I will clarify again in a step by step process:

1. Advaita means not-two, this means that there is only one reality which is Brahman. Brahman is substance of pure consciousness and is infinite, whole, eternal, endless, uncaused absolute.

2. Anything other than Brahman is non-existent, unreal. Such as universe, individuals, god(including every dimension of the universe, free will, mind, thought, desire, emotions, karma, reincarnation, devas, lokas etc etc)

3. The things other than Brahman are projected by a creative power within Brahman called Maya like a hologram or a reflection, in the same way the magician produces an illusion. Although Brahman is the base of the hologram, the reality of Brahman is the complete opposite of the holographic version of universe, individuals and god.

4. The cause of this illusion is ignorance of perception. The means to end the illusion is knowledge to negate the ignorance and clear the perception. In the same way the snake in the rope is an ignorance of perception, and the illusion ends when knowledge dawns and negates the ignorance and clears the perception​

 

[jg22]

Surya Deva,

I believe the contention we are having is over the word 'unreal' and what it means. You have defined it as non-existent. You should clarify what you mean by non-existent, and I think this will solve the disagreements cropping up.

If we say non-existence in this context means absolutely without any basis in reality whatsoever, then numerous problems arise. If a thing is absolutely non-existent like the hare of a horn, the son of a barren woman, or a fairy at the end of my garden, then it cannot be perceived at all, for there is no locus or real basis for its perception. If you say that Ishwara has this kind of non-existence, then you are an atheist, and contradict the Shruti which teaches that Ishwara is the creator and sustainer of the universe. This is why you are alarming many Hindus on the board. If you say that the Jiva is non-existent in this way, then you are denying your own existence, and contradicting Shruti which teaches that the Jiva is a conglomeration of the Atman (Real) and the non-Atman (mithya nama-rupa). If you say that the Jagat is totally non-existent in this way, you are denying your own perception, and contradicting the Shruti which says that the whole world has come from, and has its basis in Brahman. The consciousness of the Jiva is Brahman. The consciousness of Ishwara is Brahman. That in which the whole world of objects subsists is consciousness, which is Brahman. For those reasons we can't say that Jiva, Ishwara, or Jagat are totally non-existent, because the basis of all three is a conscious reality, an existence- Brahman. That is why we don't say mithya means totally non-existent. We have to qualify the meaning of the word in order to account for perception and the words of Shruti. Mithya in the context of Vedanta means dependent existence, which is to say, having no independent existence. Independent existence can only be attributed to Brahman. We say Jiva, Jagat, Ishwara are mithya because they have no existence independent of Brahman; they are Brahman, seen through Maya. Nirguna Brahman is the adhisthanam for everything sentient and insentient. When we enquire into the svarupa of the Jiva, we find Brahman. Likewise with Ishwara and Jagat. We negate the superficial differences conjured up by name and form and then arrive at the common substratum behind everything. That is why by knowing Brahman everything becomes known. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says, 'Idam brahma, idam kshatram, ime lokah, ime devah, imani bhutani, idam sarvam yad ayam atma,'- everything is the Self, Brahman.

This is my last post (promise!) on the topic, and I am not going to labour the point further if you choose to stick to the definitions you prefer.

All the best.

 

[Surya Deva]

Surya Deva,

I believe the contention we are having is over the word 'unreal' and what it means. You have defined it as non-existent. You should clarify what you mean by non-existent, and I think this will solve the disagreements cropping up.

There is no semantical issue. Non-existent means it is not existent, like the snake in the rope, the blueness in the sky, the silver in the pearl, the rising the setting of the sun etc. They are illusions, caused by faulty perception of reality, and they are not actually existent.

The position of Advaita is clear, and clear in the name of the philosophy itself: There is one non-dual reality of an infinite consciousness. This non-dual reality of infinite consciousness is divided and fragmented by the jiva into infinite divisions, and each of those divisions are seen to be separate realities, when actually their reality is arbitrarily created through language. As advaita says its existence is only name and form, it does not say it actually has any real existence or corresponds to anything.

You cannot accept the fact that Advaita does in fact deny the real existence of ishvara, jiva and the universe, and you trying to reinterpret the meaning of "unreal" to mean not unreal. That is not acceptable, when it is clear the core texts of Advaita say unreal, illusion, appearance, delusin and anybody that accepts them as real to be dullards, ignorant, foolish. Basically if you do not accept the core philosophical theory of Advaita of Maya, then don't call yourself Advaitin. If you don't like the philosophy - reject it and adopt another, but please don't misrepresent the philosophy, this is insulting to us genuine Advaitins.

I honestly do not appreciate all this flack I am getting from fellow Hindus for being loyal to the philosophy of Advaita. This thread is about what Advaita teaches and that is what I am describing here. Please stop misrepresenting Advaita just because it not convenient for you.

If you say that Ishwara has this kind of non-existence, then you are an atheist, and contradict the Shruti which teaches that Ishwara is the creator and sustainer of the universe.

Advaita is atheist, because it does not accept the real existence of Ishvara. Ishvara, as has already been unequivocally proven by copious citing from the Panchadasi is a product of Maya, an illusion. Ishvara is indeed the creator and the sustainer of the universe, but as there has been no creation in Advaita and hence no sustaining, Ishvara has never been a reality.

This is why you are alarming many Hindus on the board. If you say that the Jiva is non-existent in this way, then you are denying your own existence, and contradicting Shruti which teaches that the Jiva is a conglomeration of the Atman (Real) and the non-Atman (mithya nama-rupa).

No, Shruti does not say that. Advaita says the reflection of Brahman on the illusory products of Maya produce Ishvara and Jiva. I already cited exactly what the Advaita texts say "Ishvara and Jiva are created by Maya" Advaita does not say at all that Jiva is real or base on any real reality. So yes, this means that I do not really exist. There are no individuals.

If you say that the Jagat is totally non-existent in this way, you are denying your own perception, and contradicting the Shruti which says that the whole world has come from, and has its basis in Brahman.

Again, I am telling you exactly what Advaita says. The Jagat is unreal. If you don't accept this philosophy, fine don't be an advaitin, but don't expect us advaitins to not adhere to our own philosophy and what our core texts say. Our perception is faulty, so yes we deny our own perception. This perception of ours shows the world to be solid, when it isn;t' it shows the sun to set and rise, when it doesn't. Hence our perception is actually contradictory to the actual reality of things.

The consciousness of the Jiva is Brahman. The consciousness of Ishwara is Brahman. That in which the whole world of objects subsists is consciousness, which is Brahman. For those reasons we can't say that Jiva, Ishwara, or Jagat are totally non-existent, because the basis of all three is a conscious reality, an existence- Brahman.

Again, as I have already told you many times before: Advaita theory of causality says the effect is an appearance of the cause. This means yes the effect is totally non-existent, but the actual cause of the effect is existent.

That is why we don't say mithya means totally non-existent. We have to qualify the meaning of the word in order to account for perception and the words of Shruti. Mithya in the context of Vedanta means dependent existence, which is to say, having no independent existence. Independent existence can only be attributed to Brahman. We say Jiva, Jagat, Ishwara are mithya because they have no existence independent of Brahman; they are Brahman, seen through Maya.

This has already been refuted by the citations from the Panchdasi. Yes, it does indeed say it is unreal. You are the one denying the meaning of mithya as unreal, simply because you don't find it convenient.

Nirguna Brahman is the adhisthanam for everything sentient and insentient. When we enquire into the svarupa of the Jiva, we find Brahman. Likewise with Ishwara and Jagat. We negate the superficial differences conjured up by name and form and then arrive at the common substratum behind everything. That is why by knowing Brahman everything becomes known. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says, 'Idam brahma, idam kshatram, ime lokah, ime devah, imani bhutani, idam sarvam yad ayam atma,'- everything is the Self, Brahman.

You assume that Jiva is an actual real entiity who we inquire into. There is no Jiva to begin with in the first place. The Panchadasi explicitly says "There is no reality no jiva"

This is my last post (promise!) on the topic, and I am not going to labour the point further if you choose to stick to the definitions you prefer.

All the best.

The one forcing new definitions here is yourself. You are in denial that mithya means unreal, despite the fact that I have now explicitly shown citations from the Panchadasi that state over and over again jiva, ishvara and world are not real, illusions, projections of maya.

 

[Surya Deva]

As I promised earlier I am going to cite several recognized Advaita texts which are used as text books of study for Advaita philosopy(all these books I have studied myself as part of my formal traditional educationin Advaita) I have previously copiously cited from the Panchadasi of sage Vidyanaya on the subject of the unreality, illusory nature of the universe, jiva and ishvara and established unequivocally that the Panchadsi does indeed validate my position that jiva, ishvara and the universe are illusions produced by Maya.

jg22 imposed a fallacious condition that I only cite from Shankara's works, as if Advaita is a philosophy that Shankara invented. I refuted this by showing Advaita is a very ancient philosophy and Shankara was neither the first or the last exponent of it. He enjoys the reputation of being one of the best exponents, but it would be a false representation to say Advaita is Shankaras. Now, having said that, I am going to in fact cite from of Shankaras most celebrated works and also a recognized core text in all Advaita, the vivekachudamani and establish my position again:

Background

The Vivekachudamani (Sanskrit: विवेकचूडामण&#2367 is a famous Sanskrit poem composed by Adi Shankara in the eighth century. It expounds the Advaita Vedanta philosophy[1] and is in the form of 580 verses in the Shardula Vikridita metre. In Vivekachudamani, Shankara describes developing Viveka—the human faculty of discrimination—as the central task in the spiritual life and calls it the crown jewel among the essentials for Moksha.[2] The title Vievekachudamani translates to Crest Jewel of Discrimination.[3] Apart from the Vivekachudamani, Shankara wrote commentaries on the Brahmasutra, the Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu Sahasranamam and the Upanishads.[4] Through the centuries, the Vivekachudamani has been translated into several languages and has been the topic of many commentaries and expositions.​

Now I will cite all relevant verses from the Vivekchudamani stating the the universe, ishvara and jiva etc are unreal appearance, delusion or an illusion:

1. 17. The man who discriminates between the Real and the unreal, whose mind is turned away from the unreal, who possesses calmness and the allied virtues, and who is longing for Liberation, is alone considered qualified to enquire after Brahman

1.20. A firm conviction of the mind to the effect that Brahman is real and the universe unreal, is designated as discrimination (Viveka) between the Real and the unreal.

1.63. Without causing the objective universe to vanish and without knowing the truth of the Self, how is one to achieve Liberation by the mere utterance of the word Brahman ? -- It would result merely in an effort of speech.​

Nature of Maya

2.108. Avidya (Nescience) or Maya, called also the Undifferentiated, is the power of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three Gunas and is superior to the effects (as their cause). She is to be inferred by one of clear intellect only from the effects She produces. It is She who brings forth this whole universe.

2.109. She is neither existent nor non-existent nor partaking of both characters; neither same nor different nor both; neither composed of parts nor an indivisible whole nor both. She is most wonderful and cannot be described in words.

2.110. Maya can be destroyed by the realisation of the pure Brahman, the one without a second, just as the mistaken idea of a snake is removed by the discrimination of the rope. She has her Gunas as Rajas, Tamas and Sattva, named after their respective functions.

2.111. Rajas has its Vikshepa-Shakti or projecting power, which is of the nature of an activity, and from which this primeval flow of activity has emanated. From this also, mental modifications such as attachment and grief are continually produced.

2.112. Lust, anger, avarice, arrogance, spite, egoism, envy, jealousy, etc., -- these are the dire attributes of Rajas, from which the worldly tendency of man is produced. Therefore Rajas is a cause of bondage.

2.113. Avriti or the veiling power is the power of Tamas, which makes things appear other than what they are. It is this that causes man’s repeated transmigrations, and starts the action of the projecting power (Vikshepa).

2.114. Even wise and learned men and men who are clever and adept in the vision of the exceedingly subtle Atman, are overpowered by Tamas and do not understand the Atman, even though clearly explained in various ways. What is simply superimposed by delusion, they consider as true, and attach themselves to its effects. Alas ! How powerful is the great Avriti Shakti of dreadful Tamas !

2.123. From Mahat down to the gross body everything is the effect of Maya: These and Maya itself know thou to be the non-Self, and therefore unreal like the mirage in a desert.

2.169. There is no Ignorance (Avidya) outside the mind. The mind alone is Avidya, the cause of the bondage of transmigration. When that is destroyed, all else is destroyed, and when it is manifested, everything else is manifested.

2.170. In dreams, when there is no actual contact with the external world, the mind alone creates the whole universe consisting of the experiencer etc. Similarly in the waking state also; there is no difference. Therefore all this (phenomenal universe) is the projection of the mind.

2.171. In dreamless sleep, when the mind is reduced to its causal state, there exists nothing (for the person asleep), as is evident from universal experience. Hence man’s relative existence is simply the creation of his mind, and has no objective reality.​

The illusion of Jiva

2.196. The Jivahood of the Atman, the Witness, which is beyond qualities and beyond activity, and which is realised within as Knowledge and Bliss Absolute – has been superimposed by the delusion of the Buddhi, and is not real. And because it is by nature an unreality, it ceases to exist when the delusion is gone.

2.197. It exists only so long as the delusion lasts, being caused by indiscrimination due to an illusion. The rope is supposed to be the snake only so long as the mistake lasts, and there is no more snake when the illusion has vanished. Similar is the case here.

2.198-199. Avidya or Nescience and its effects are likewise considered as beginningless. But with the rise of Vidya or realisation, the entire effects of Avidya, even though beginningless, are destroyed together with their root – like dreams on waking up from sleep. It is clear that the phenomenal universe, even though without beginning, is not eternal – like previous non-existence.​

On unreality

3.205. When the unreal ceases to exist, this very individual soul is definitely realised as the eternal Self. Therefore one must make it a point completely to remove things like egoism from the eternal Self.

3.218. Seeing the reflection of the sun mirrored in the water of a jar, the fool thinks it is the sun itself. Similarly the stupid man, through delusion, identifies himself with the reflection of the Chit caught in the Buddhi, which is Its superimposition.

3.227. All this universe which through ignorance appears as of diverse forms, is nothing else but Brahman which is absolutely free from all the limitations of human thought.

3.228. A jar, though a modification of clay, is not different from it; everywhere the jar is essentially the same as the clay. Why then call it a jar ? It is fictitious, a fancied name merely.

3.232. If the universe, as it is, be real, there would be no cessation of the dualistic element, the scriptures would be falsified, and the Lord Himself would be guilty of an untruth. None of these three is considered either desirable or wholesome by the noble-minded.

3.234. If the universe be true, let it then be perceived in the state of deep sleep also. As it is not at all perceived, it must be unreal and false, like dreams.​