Seeking to Understand Advaita

[Surya Deva]

In other words Shankara's presentation of Advaita is not pure like teacher Gaudapada, he dilutes it for mass consumption. However, that said, Shankara never claims transactional reality is real, it is only real from the point of view of the ignorant. It is unreal like a dream or a mirage from the point of view of the realized. Many dualists who regard Shankara as "jagatguru" thus are happy accepting Shankara, because he does not militate agaisnt their household and devotional practices and even legitimates it(Shankara has no power to legitimate anything, he is not an apta) However, what they don't understand is from Shankara actual point of view this reality is an illusion and he says it explicitly in his works.

2) Inconsistency. If you really do accept Shankara as a reliable authority, then why do you not accept what Shankara is saying here:

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.
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.​

No, my friend, nobody is taking Shankara statements out of context or misunderstandings what unreal(mithya means) here He is saying it very explicitly what unreal means:

"false like a dream" "vanishes"

You are just not honest enough to accept that is exactly what Shankara is saying, because it is inconveniant to you(i am guessing you are a bhakta correct?) The reason you keep posting barrages of posts here despite saying you will not do so, is because you know that what I am telling about Advaita on this forum is justified by Advaita texts itself. If it was just my opinion, you would have just dismissed me as some crackpot - but you have been forced to engage me because I am showing my views are actually the doctrine of Advaita. You are not following the doctrines and I am. I am a real Advaitin and you are now proving to be an imposter. Not accepting the core doctrine of Advaita that entire universe is an illusion is like an atheist not accepting atheism means no belief in God.

Advaita is Mayavada, whether you like it or not. Don't like it? Fine don't be Advaitin. There are other schools of Vedanta to choose from that suit your beliefs. But to say you are an Advaitin while rejecting its core doctrines is to commit a category fallacy.

 

[Ekanta]

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.

Yes, the universe percieved as material is unreal. But you confirm the reality of the material universe by denying it. You deny whats not there, thats the irony.

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.

Yes, you must realize that the universe is brahman itself. Right now you confirm the reality of the material universe by denying it. Thats the dualistic view. Not advaita. Again you deny whats not there, thats the irony.

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.

Exactly, so stop approving the reality of the material universe by denying it. You thereby deny the universe as it really is, i.e. brahman. You simply reveal your dualistic non-advaitic viewpoint by doing so.

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.

Exactly, the material universe doesnt appear in deep sleep. As such its proven to be unreal, so why do you fight the unreal? Brahman, which is the real in all states, at all times, in all states, cant be denied anywhere. Hence there is no contradiction for advaita. But for you there is contradiction , since you refuse to accept the advaita view that the universe is brahman.

... nobody is taking Shankara statements out of context or misunderstandings what unreal (mithya means)

Indeed you are. See below...

here He is saying it very explicitly what unreal means: "false like a dream" "vanishes"

Yes, the dream you fight, is a ghost of your own mind (flying spaghetti monster?).
What shankara meant is indicated below...

Viveka Chudamani:
229. None can demonstrate that the essence of a jar is something other than the clay (of which it is made). Hence the jar is merely imagined (as separate) through delusion, and the component clay alone is the abiding reality in respect of it.

230. Similarly, the whole universe, being the effect of the real Brahman, is in reality nothing but Brahman. Its essence is That, and it does not exist apart from It. He who says it does is still under delusion – he babbles like one asleep.

231. This universe is verily Brahman – such is the august pronouncement of the Atharva Veda. Therefore this universe is nothing but Brahman, for that which is superimposed (on something) has no separate existence from its substratum.

232. If the universe, as it is [i.e. perceived as non-brahman/unreal only], 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.

 

[Surya Deva]

The original verse:

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.

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.​

The interpretation by Ekantha:

]Yes, the universe percieved as material is unreal. But you confirm the reality of the material universe by denying it. You deny whats not there, thats the irony.

The impartial reader can clearly see the original verse says only universe, it does not say "material universe" that Ekantha has arbitrarily added on to it. The original verse admits of no duality of there being a material universe and spiritual universe, it simply says universe. Thus Ekanthas interpretation is not supported by the text. If it had instead said, "The material universe is false, but the spiritual universe is true" then there would be justification for Ekanthas interpretation, but otherwise it is an obvious forgery.

Here again, we can see Ekantha committing the same forgery:

Vivekdachudamani 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.​

Ekanthas interpretation:

Exactly, the material universe doesnt appear in deep sleep. As such its proven to be unreal

Again, the verse says the word 'universe' it does not say material universe or admit of there being any such thing as a 'spiritual universe'

This tendency for flagrant forgery is very common with bhaktas(one reason why I have so much contempt for them) Bhaktas are constantly caught by Sanskrit scholars of forging translations. They will add words and meanings that are not even supported by the text. For example, Vridavanadas translated this statement in the Upanishad, "I am Brahman" as "I am Brahman, the eternal slave of the parabrahman"

It is very hard to trust bhaktas when they resort to such blatant dishonesty.

 

[Ekanta]

LOL, you are amazing Surya Deva.

Why do you think I said "material universe"? I did so to highlight "the universe percieved as something different from brahman".

But even that you could not understand, or perhaps you misinterpreted it on purpose to set up a new strawman... In either case its pitiful.

Personally I've given up on you, the reason I post is mostly for other readers.

 

[Surya Deva]

The text says "universe" and in the context described it means the entire creation of maya, including ishvara, jiva from the highest dimension(sattva) to the lowest dimension(tamas)

The term does not say "material universe" it says only universe. In Advaita there is no such thing as a spiritual universe.

It is obvious, as it was made obvious earlier when you made a positive statements about Advaita, that you are ignorant about this philosophy.

What are your credentials in Advaita anyway?

 

[Surya Deva]

Btw just to highlight that post again to make it clear you were proven wrong, and you never conceded you were wrong(troll)

Originally posted by Ektantha:

Ishvara, jiva, jagat (universe) are mithya, real and unreal:
Brahman is the real. Maya is the unreal.
The mix is Ishvara, jiva, jagat.

My reply:

No for somebody who just accused me of being a pseudoadvaitin, you just totally shot yourself in the foot. Brahman is real, Maya is not unreal, Maya is neither totally real or totally unreal. Ishvara, Jiva, Jagat are unreal.

Here is the proof:
Vivekachundamani 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.

Vivekachudamani 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.

Originally posted by Ekantha
Hence the view that Ishvara, jiva, jagat are unreal can never be right. (but since you dont understand the meanning of real/unreal, you interpret it that way) When the wrong view is gone, Ishvara, jiva, jagat is realized to be non-different form brahman, the real. What is gone is the wrong view, not Ishvara, jiva, jagat. Thats the meaning of the statement "they are unreal".

My reply:

Wrong again my friend:

Vivekachudamani 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.

Here we have clear proof that Ekantha was wrong in both of this categorical statements and he never made any concession. This is somebody who clearly knows next to thinking about Advaita, calling somebody who has years of scholarship within it a pseudoadvatin(I call troll)

Ekantha either tell us your credentials in the field of Advaita or bow out of this discussion and let people who are educated in it debate it.

 

[Ekanta]

Hmm, nobody agree with you Surya Deva...
Not shruti, not bashya, no acharya, no swami and no one on this forum.

At least a warning bell should be ringing, but... there is nothing... just a thick fog.

And your credentials? You told us yourself... its all your own imagination.

To me its case closed even before it began.

 

[Surya Deva]

Hmm, nobody agree with you Surya Deva...
Not shruti, not bashya, no acharya, no swami and no one on this forum.

At least a warning bell should be ringing, but... there is nothing... just a thick fog.

And your credentials? You told us yourself... its all your own imagination.

To me its case closed even before it began.

Yes cased closed for me too as far your as credentials for participating in this debate. I do not doubt Shantoram or jg22 have credentials to debate Advaita formally(their posts clearly reflect they have an education in Advaita philosophy) and our disagreement is doctrinal, but you obviously have none and I would say your activity in this debate could be calling trolling. Hence I have decided to exclude you from this debate as far I am concerned. I will gladly debate with somebody with me who is equally knowledgeable in this area but has doctrinal differences, but I will not debate with somebody who has no knowledge in the area and is being rude and offensive to me.

 

[Ekanta]

Yes, poor you, everyone is against you... you never misquoted me and you never ridiculed me... you are always nice and right.
Between, ask Shantoram or jg22 if what I said was wrong...

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Nothing Ekānta has said so far is wrong. He is a Vedāntin. He knows the Siddhānta. These are his credentials. And they are more than sufficient.

Pranāms

 

[Surya Deva]

Nothing Ekānta has said so far is wrong.

Here you go:

Originally posted by Ektantha:

Ishvara, jiva, jagat (universe) are mithya, real and unreal:
Brahman is the real. Maya is the unreal.
The mix is Ishvara, jiva, jagat.

Vivekachundamani 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.

Vivekachudamani 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.​

Originally posted by Ekantha
Hence the view that Ishvara, jiva, jagat are unreal can never be right. (but since you dont understand the meanning of real/unreal, you interpret it that way) When the wrong view is gone, Ishvara, jiva, jagat is realized to be non-different form brahman, the real. What is gone is the wrong view, not Ishvara, jiva, jagat. Thats the meaning of the statement "they are unreal".

Vivekachudamani 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.​

He knows the Siddhānta.

It is clear he doesn't.

 

[Surya Deva]

It's quite simple: any accurate citation from the Bhashyas to support your claims will refute my contentions- so why go to Prakarana Granthas,which themselves rely on Bhashya? Why go to the rivulet when you can go to the fountain source? I contend this is because 1) You are afraid Bhashya will not support your position, 2) there is far less wiggle-room for contorting the meaning of Bhashya than there is for Granthas, because Bhashya is an explanation of the Shruti, and therefore an explanation of Advaita Vedanta, whereas the Granthas are summaries in general or particular on various subjects within Vedanta, and 3) You are not well enough familiar with Bhashya. I hope that, over the course of my post, I can demonstrate all three of these points.

False, Prakarana Granthas do not rely on Bhasya. They present the philosophy of Advaita in a systematic formal manner with arguments. One does not even have be too familiar with Sruti, because the prakarana granthas explain the philosophy using rational arguments.

Bhasaya is not decisive, because bhasaya meaning 'commentary' is interpretative. There is not just one single bhasaya on the Upanishads, Gita and Brahma Sutras, there are hundreds. This is why a commentary, being a secondary source is never conclusive. The primary source of Advaita are the prakarana granthas because they present the philosophy independently and formally.

Your position, as I just argued in the previous post, is nothing but an appeal to authority fallacy by imposing this fallacious and religious condition that Shankara's words should be regarded as gospel and we should ignore every other expontent in the tradition, even Shankaras predecessors. You falsely portray Advaita as being Shankaras, when it clearly isn't. Ashtavakra, Gauapada, Vidyaranya, Sadananda and modern Advaita teachers like Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda are also exponents of Advaita Vedanta. Shankara is not the only one.

Besides, even if we accepted your fallacious condition that Shankara's opinions should be regarded as decisive, you have proven yourself to be inconsistent anyway in accepting Shankaras authority, for you do not even accept Shakaras own work Vivekdachudamani and the clear and explicit statements within it calling the universe an illusion.

Now, the reason I have started with Shankaracharya is so that we can establish a solid basis for discussion going forward. I am going to comment on your citations from the Prakarana Granthas (and disclose the proper meaning behind them), but I am also going to quote from Shankaracharya to refute your claims, and since it is established that Shankaracharya is a firm authority, my refutations will be decisive. Now we will move on to the debate proper.

You have started with a fallacy which imposes a fallacious condition that we only accept Shankaras opinions as authority, when Shankara is just another exponent among others of Advaita philosophy which tradition traces to the Upanishads. You have done it unilaterally, without even discussing whether I accept your condition. In fact your entire position is premised on nothing but an appeal to authority fallacy.

I want to begin, once again, by explaining the meanings of Satyam and mithya. I contended, and still do, that most of your misinterpretations of Vedanta, and most of your false claims, have stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of the correct meaning of these words.

Stawman fallacy: I have already refuted your argument long time back where you interpret mithya to mean dependently real by showing that the texts are not just saying unreal, they are also saying illusion, delusion, false like a dream, vanishes like a mirage, a trick, an impossibility made to look possible. I am still waiting for you refute this stronger argument, rather than the strawman of this argument.

I am going to compose a post later to show that Advaita is unanimous on the fact this universe is an illusion and Advaita is indeed Ajativada and Mayavada. In fact I really find it bizarre how you deny the theory of Maya in Advaita, because it the central doctrine of the philosophy and without it nothing is intelligible within Advaita(such as how Brahman becomes many)

I have noticed that you have flip-flopped considerably from your first standpoint (of regarding mithya as totally non-existent) and now do admit, in recent posts, that Jiva/Jagat/Ishwara has SOME reality, since you now concede that Brahman is their basis. Irreguardless of this, I am going to bring up your previous claims and refute them anyway (since this is beneficial for anybody sitll labouring under some confusion about the meaning of the words), and later I will point out how you are still confused about the status of Jiva/Jagat/Ishwara.

I have admitted no such thing. Let me clarify my position so there are no doubts on it. Jagat(universe) Ishvara(God ) and jiva(soul) are illusions and Brahman is NOT their cause. The cause of Jagat, Ishvara and Jiva is Maya, a creative and illusory power which belongs to Brahman. (If you read my earlier posts here, I have never said otherwise, but if you think I have, then either you have misread or my choice of words were improper)

Why can Brahman not be the cause of this universe? Simple answer, Brahman is beyond causality according to Sruti, Advaita and by definition of Brahman. If we say Brahman is the cause, then Brahman becomes a part of causality. Hence Advaita advances its own theory of causality: vivartvada

Vivartavada - The theory of illusory causation in monistic Vedanta​

ORIENTALIA Definition of Vivartavada in Jaina and Jainism Oriental Encyclopedia

Brahman is not the cause of this universe directly, but Brahman's illusory power of Maya is the cause of this universe. I have already cited from the Panchadasi and the Vivekachudamani which state this exactly.

Snce the non-existent is non-existent, by that very fact it cannot be perceived, therefore it cannot be distinguished from anything else, or pointed out as idam, this, in order to say 'this is non-existent'. You have conflated the word asat with the word mithya; I cannot set aside a non-existent thing, because it is not there to set aside. I can set aside a mithya thing- because though it is not totally non-existent, it is not Satyam (permanent, unchanging, unsublatable) either- and that is what Viveka prescribes. In Viveka I am setting aside all that is mithya, all that is dependent, all that comes and goes, in order to discover that which does not come and go, which is eternal and independent.

As the perceiver(jiva) itself is admitted to be an illusion, there is NO setter to set aside anything, and as there is no setter to set aside anything, there is nothing to set aside:

Panchadasi: 6.235. The Sruti decalres that in fact there is no destruction and no origination; none in bondage and none engaged in practice for liberation; no aspirant for liberation and none liberated. This is the transcedental truth.​

An illusion is by definition something that is perceived but which is not really there, it is a trick of perception. For example look at this optical illusion:

The actual image is static and only has a fixed number of white dots at the intersection of each line. But the actual image appears to be creating a scintillating gird with white and black dots appearing and disappearing randomly. What is the cause and the effect here? If we say the actual image is the cause and the effect is the scintilalating grid, then we encounter an ex-nihilo impossibility of explaining how does the static, unchanging grid with a fixed number of only white dots create an effect of a dynamic, changing scintillating gird with appearing and disappearing black and white dots. Thus it is impossible that the actual image is the cause of the scintillating grid. So what is the cause? The cause is a trick of perception, an illusion created by ones perception of the actual image, where the perception is actually non-existent in the actual image.

The real existent here is the actual image
The power of illuson is neither totally existent or totally non-existent
The perception is totally non-existent

Similarly:

Brahman is the real existent
Maya, the power of illusion is neither totally existent or totally non-existent
Jagat, Jiva and Ishvara are totally non-existent

Just as in the example of the grid we can see we encounter an impossibility of ex-nihilo creation if we consider the actual static image of the grid to be the cause of the effect of the dynamic scintillating grid, likewise Advaita philosophers encountered an impossibility of an ex-nihilo creation by regarding Brahman to the cause of the universe. For it lead to an obvious problem: How does an infinite, eternal, unchanging pure consciousness create a finite, temporal, and changing universe, individual souls and god? It is impossible. Hence the answer is the theory of Maya: There is no universe, souls or god , it is an illusion or trick of perception.

Hence again this:

6.235. The Sruti decalres that in fact there is no destruction and no origination; none in bondage and none engaged in practice for liberation; no aspirant for liberation and none liberated. This is the transcedental truth.​

I thus submit it is not me who is misunderstanding the theory of causality in Advaita, but you. Which is surpring to me, because you sound like somebody who has some education in Advaita, so it is curious how do you not know about Vivartavada and ajativada?

 

[Ekanta]

Just do clearify... since Im again quoted.. by Surya Deva...
I wrote in a "normal" way but we couldnt agree.
I wrote in a simplified way but we couldnt agree. [quess I shouldnt have done that... as it ended up even worse... I used "maya" in a simplified way, indicating its effect of superimposition only...]
What am I supposed to do? ... quit...

 

[Ekanta]

in Advaita the actual source substratum for all naam-rupa is Maya and not Brahman.

The substratum (source) for all names and forms is Brahman (Sat).

This might be the explanation why there is no agreement in this thread, so... even if I dont plan to participate anymore, my tip, if anyone is still interested, is to investigate this further.

 

[Shântoham]

Here you go:

Vivekachundamani 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.

Vivekachudamani 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.
​

Vivekachudamani 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.

It is clear he doesn't.

Namaskāram

You seem confused. What Ekānta is saying is in agreement with the Siddhānta. What you are saying is contrary to the Siddhānta.
You see, the quarrel here is not between our – JG22, Ekānta, and I – understanding of the Siddhānta and your understanding of the Siddhānta.
The quarrel is between knowledge of the Siddhānta and ignorance of the Siddhānta. The (Advaita) Vedānta Siddhānta as taught by Śruti, Bhāṣya, and Paramparā and the spurious concoction you are trying to pass as Siddhānta.
Let me briefly define the above terms for you:

Śruti – the Scriptures.
Bhāṣya – the commentaries of the Ācāryas.
Paramparā – the traditional lineage of teachers that preserves the Siddhānta pure and undistorted by bestowing the Upadeśa to the qualified students by means of a precise and systematic teaching methodology – the Saṁpradāya.

The harmonious agreement between Śruti, Bhāṣya, and Paramparā produces the Siddhānta.
The Siddhānta is one and the same for all Vedāntins. That’s why there is no disagreement between Ekānta, JG22, and I.
No one here is trying to debuke your spurious concoction – its ridiculousness could only be missed by a naïve beginner. We are simply showing that your claims are contrary to the Siddhānta.
Posting selected verses of the Pañcadasī and Vivekacūḍāmaṇi to support your spurious claims only shows your ignorance of the Siddhānta.
It is like posting selected verses of the Prabodhasudhākara to prove that Mokṣa is the result of Bhakti and not Jñāna. Or posting selected verses of the Yoga Tārāvali to prove that Mokṣa is the result of Kuṇḍalinī Yoga and not Jñāna.
Both claims are spurious and contrary to the Siddhānta. Your claims are equally spurious and contrary to the Siddhānta.
If they weren’t you will have no problem posting the relevant portions of Śruti and Bhāṣya to show that your claims are in accord with the Siddhānta. But you never do. You post selected verses and then tell us what they mean. All we hear is your opinion and not the opinion of Śruti and Bhāṣya.
One more thing – concerning JG22 you wrote in post #101: The reason you keep posting barrages of posts here despite saying you will not do so, is because you know that what I am telling about Advaita on this forum is justified by Advaita texts itself.
No – don’t flatter yourself. The reason why JG22 reluctantly continues to respond to your posts is because I asked him to do it. Due to personal commitments I cannot keep up with your frantic posting. And he was kind enough to oblige me.
You then wrote: If it was just my opinion, you would have just dismissed me as some crackpot – but you have been forced to engage me because I am showing my views are actually the doctrine of Advaita.
Wrong again. We do dismiss you as a crackpot – to be precise an opinionated blowhard. But we are forced to reluctantly engage you because you keep on presenting your spurious claims as they were the Siddhānta.
If you were to say, “…In my opinion…” or “…According to my personal view…” we would stop responding to your posts and we would let you ramble on like the opinionated blowhard you really are. Unfortunately you persist in presenting yourself as a Vedāntin.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: I am not a big fan of making copious amounts of citations from scriptures, as I favour ones own independent conclusions based on ones own perception and reasoning.

With your own perception and reasoning you can support your own opinions. There is nothing wrong with that – you are fully entitled to your own opinions. They reflect your level of understanding.
Vedānta though is not based on personal opinions and interpretations. Vedānta is based on Śruti and Bhāśya. Without Śruti and Bhāśya there is no Vedānta.
The final and conclusive opinion of Śruti and Bhāśya is called Siddhānta – Siddha means result and Anta means end. Therefore the Siddhānta is the authoritative opinion of Śruti and Bhāśya – the end result of Śruti and Bhāśya.
The Paramparā is the custodian of the Siddhānta – it keeps it pure and undistorted. The Siddhānta, therefore, is what is taught by the Paramparā. The precise teaching methodology employed by the Paramparā is called Saṁpradāya.
A Vedāntin is one who conveys the Siddhānta. The more clearly and accurately a Vedāntin conveys the Siddhānta the more clearly and accurately it reflects his/her own level of understanding.
For a Vedāntin perception and reason are valid only when supported by Śruti and Bhāśya. Supported by here means in accord with. By Śruti we also mean Smṛti (Bhagavadgīt&#257 and Nyāya (Brahmasūtra).
To be a Vedāntin is to be in agreement with the Siddhānta. The agreement derives from a proper understanding of the Siddhānta and not from personal interpretations. For example, JG22 and Ekānta are Vedāntins.
Despite your numerous claims you do not represent the Siddhānta to any meaningful extent. You are not a Vedāntin you are a Sūryadevin. You just represent your personal opinions.
Although you are fully entitled to them, I am not interested in your personal opinions – for the simple reason that they are just that… personal… they begin and end with you. I am only going to correct your misrepresentations of the Siddhānta.
Because as a Vedāntin I care that the Siddhānta is properly presented without distortions or misrepresentations.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: However, as you have asked for a reference, I will cite the Panchadasi which is a pretty standard accepted traditional textbook for Advaita Vedanta:

VI.135 Maya transforms the immutable Kutastha, the ever association-less Atman, phenomenally into the form of the universe. Casting the reflection of Atman on itself, Maya creates Jiva and Isvara

VI.154 It is said by the Sruti that Jiva and Isvara are creations of Maya, being reflections of Atman in it. Ishvara is like the reflections of the sky in the cloud; jiva is like the reflection of the sky in water.

VII.5 The Sruti says that Maya reflecting Brahman, creates both Jiva and Isvara. Jiva and Isvara, in their turn, create the whole of the rest of the universe.

Therefore Ishvara is indeed a product of Maya as I originally stated.

I apologize for my lack of clarity – I asked for references from Śruti (Upaniṣads) and Bhāṣya (Paramparā’s commentaries) and not from Prakaraṇagranthas (introductory texts) which are subordinate to Śruti and Bhāṣya.
There is no mention of Māyā creating Īśvara in any of the principal Upaniṣads. It means that if your contention is correct the Pañcadasī would contradict Śruti. Not only – it would contradict itself – as we shall see.
Pañcadasī is a Prakaraṇagrantha – traditionally it is studied together with the commentary (Tik&#257 of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Pandita – a disciple of the author(s) of the Pañcadasī. The name of the commentary is Tātparyabodhinī Padadīpikā. The text and the commentary are further unfolded using a beautiful commentary by a great Telugu scholar Brahmasri Rayaprolu Linganna Somayaji. The name of the commentary is Kalyana Piyusha.
The Sanskrit of the Pañcadasī is very simple and conventional but at the same time is so terse that the careless reader is likely to miss the full significance of the work.
A Prakaraṇagrantha is a type of text that introduces and expounds the technical terms and concepts of Vedānta to the beginner student.
The terms Māyā and Īśvara are introduced and explained in Pañcadasī 1.16. What is Māyā?
Māyā is Prakṛti. Pañcadasī 1.15 explain that Prakṛti is the primordial substance composed of three elements – Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas – and Brahman, which is pure consciousness, is always reflected in it. Prakṛti has two natures – Māyā and Avidyā. When Sattva predominates, Prakṛti is known as Māyā. When Rajas and Tamas predominate, Prakṛti is called Avidyā (Pañcadasī 1.17). What is Īśvara? Brahman reflected in Māyā is the omniscient Īśvara, who controls Māyā. This statement is in perfect agreement with Śruti.
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.10 says: Know Prakṛti to be Māyā. And know Maheśvara to be the Lord of Māyā. The whole universe is the body of Maheśvara.
The author of Pañcadasī – unlike you – is a Vedāntin and knows the Siddhānta. In fact he mentions Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.10 in Pañcadasī 6.123, 6.157 and 6.197.
Paiṅgala Upaniṣad 1.4 and Nṛsiṁha Uttara Tāpanīya Upaniṣad 9 – both mentioned several times in Pañcadasī – confirm what is stated by Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.10.
There is no contradiction between the Pañcadasī and Śruti.
Pañcadasī 1.16 is also in perfect agreement with Smṛti – Bhagavadgītā 4.6 and 7.13-14; Bhāgavatam 3.5.25, for example. And in perfect agreement with Bhāśya – Bhagavadgītā Bhāśya 4.6, 7.14, 9.10, 13.19, 13.29, 14.3, 15.1, 15.16; Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 108, for example.
There is no contradiction between the Pañcadasī and Smṛti or Bhāśya.
The text itself confirms that Māyā is the power of Īśvara in the following verses: 3.38, 4.12, 6.103, 6.123, 6.157, 6.186, and 6.197.
Therefore there is no contradiction between the Pañcadasī and the Siddhānta.
The Siddhānta is clear – Brahman and Īśvara are the same reality. Māyā is the power of Īśvara under His total control. Since Īśvara controls Māyā He cannot be a product of Māyā as the effect cannot control the cause.
Brahman and Īśvara are the same reality – Brahman with its power of Māyā is designated as Īśvara who is the material and efficient cause of the whole universe. Brahman is called Nirupādhika or Nirguna Brahman – or Brahman as it is, without the phenomenal adjuncts and characteristics of Prakṛti. Īśvara is called Sopādhika or Saguṇa Brahman – Brahman with the totality of all the phenomenal adjuncts and attributes.
They are also designated as Para and Apara Brahman, which does not signify higher and lower, as it is mistakenly thought of by some, for they are not related and neither are they two Realities, but the same Reality in its Trascendent and Relative aspects – as viewed by us.
From the Relative point of view Brahman is conceived as Īśvara and He possesses Māyā (Māyādhīśa or Māyīn) as His active power under His control with which He projects the universe through its Triguṇas (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.3 and 4.9-10). He is the Paramātman of the universe which is like unto His body, and hence He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is immanent in the universe as Īśvara and transcendent as Brahman. Īśvara controls the universe from within – Antaryāmīn – as its essence.
Brahman has to be realized through the study of Vedānta – Śravaṇam and Mananam – and deep contemplation – Nididhyāsanam – that is not generally very easy for most people (Bhagavadgītā 12.5; Katha Upaniṣad 1.3.14 and 2.1.1; Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 2).
However, one may reach it through the grace of Īśvara also, since Brahman alone appears as Īśvara. Hence devotion to Īśvara is advocated even for those who wish to realize Brahman, to make the path somewhat easy (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.20; Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 476).
Māyā is Brahman’s innate and natural, inseparable, spontaneous power of appearing as many, appearing as the universe with its beings. We can only infer Māyā from its effect – this universe of experience (Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 108). Though we experience Māyā through its effect, the universe of multiplicities, it is not an independently existing separate entity apart from Brahman (Advaita), any more than the waves can exist apart from the ocean. They are integral to the ocean, though we speak of the ocean and its waves, as if both are separate.
So what about the verses you quoted – Pañcadasī 6.133, 6.155, and 7.3 – are they wrong? No, they are quoted out of context. Having defined Māyā and Īśvara in Pañcadasī 1.16 all other verses dealing with Māyā and Īśvara are interpreted in the light of that definition. Hence Māyā, by its properties of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, creates the distinction between Īśvara, Jīva, and Jagat.
Māyā does not create Īśvara and Jīva – it creates the apparent distinction between Īśvara and Jīva. Mokṣa is the removal of such distinction. On liberation one recognizes that the entire creation and every part of it, including the Jīva, is one limitless conscious being, Īśvara, and the truth of Īśvara is Brahman.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: No, I gave you a mouthful of citations from the Panchadasi which clearly show Ishvara is an illusory product of Maya.

You quote a verse and then you tell us what it means. You posit yourself as authority. A Vedāntin quotes a verse and then (s)he quotes Śruti and Bhāṣya to demonstrate the harmony between them. If a Vedāntin employs Tarka or Pramāṇam (s)he does it in harmony with Śruti and Bhāṣya. A Vedāntin always posit Śruti and Bhāṣya as authority. That is how the Siddhānta is demonstrated.
Hence what you say is personal opinion and what a Vedāntin says is the Siddhānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Panadasi is not personal opinion, it is a recognized text book of Advaita Vedanta in virtually every Vedanta ashram. It is based on the hermeneutical school of Advaita Vedanta which is directly based on Shruti. I have now also cited from the Vivekachudamani, a classical work of Shankara and it has been shown the same view is expressed that Ishvara is an illusory product of Maya.

Pañcadasī is not personal opinion but how you decontestualize its verses to support your claim is personal opinion. If you cannot demonstrate the harmony between Pañcadasī and the Siddhānta – by quoting Śruti and Bhāṣya to support your contention – everything you say is personal opinion.

Sūrya Deva wrote: No I am familiar with the Sruti and the Bhasaya of Shankara. Here is a list of texts I have read on Advaita

LOL… to be familiar with Śruti and Bhāṣya does not mean reading books – it means to be able to quote at will the relevant passages of Śruti and Bhāṣya needed to support the Siddhānta. This ability is the result of consistent and systematic study of the Scriptures for a prolonged length of time under a competent and living teacher. Competent teacher is the one who directs his disciples to the Scriptures as the authority. Competent teacher is the one who himself was a competent student. One who has done Śravaṇam, Mananam, and Nididhyāsanam under a competent teacher – thus both Sampradāya (a methodology of teaching) and Guru Paramparā (a lineage of teacher-taught) are established.
Systematic teaching involves a teaching that follows a Sampradāya – a methodology.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Now, care to tell me what your own credentials are sir? I will start to ask this question to anybody who faults my scholarship from this point on.

LOL… are you really that insecure? If you like I can PM you my credentials – but I don’t think it will make you any less insecure. Suffice to say that I was born and raised in a family associated with Vedānta for generations. Most importantly, a Vedāntin can guess my credentials by reading my posts.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Nope, I have not denied the centrality of the Bhagvad Gita.

I said you denied the centrality of Bhagavadpāda not Bhagavadgītā. Bhagavadpāda is Śaṅkarācārya. And YES you denied – and continue to deny – his centrality.
Naturally you are fully entitled to your opinions – expecially since you are a Sūryadevin pretending to be a Vedāntin – but for us Vedāntins Śaṅkarācārya is not a mere person he is a Jñāni – his Bhāṣya is the foundation of our understanding of the truth.
For us only the two terms Bhāṣyakāra and Bhagavadpāda fully describe the incomparable grandiosity of his magnificient vision. He is Jagadguru.
His intellectual grasp was unrivalled. His emotional piety was unequalled. He was the severest of logicians. At the same time, he was the most uncompromising upholder of the authority of Śruti.
Any student desirous of liberation must turn to his works. And all the teachers who come in the Sampradāya (Tradition) use his works to expound the trascendental truths of the Scriptures. This is how we see the greatest among Ācāryas:

alabdhvātiśayaṃ yasmād vyāvṛttāstamabādayaḥ
garīyase namastasmā avidyāgranthibhedine

// I offer salutations to the supreme teacher who cuts the knot of ignorance and to whom the superlatives have returned without finding anyone greater than Him //

Sūrya Deva wrote:The Bhagvad Gita is not binding on me because it is not Sruti.

It appears that not even Śruti is binding on you. Only your opinion is binding on you. In fact you are a Sūryadevin not a Vedāntin. If you were a Vedāntin Smṛti as part of the Prasthānatraya would represent the heart of your understanding.

Sūrya Deva wrote: I will do no such thing because I cannot read Sanskrit.

Therefore you should talk less and listen more. You may learn something. By writing “…if you can point out the exact terminology we can then connect it to Śruti and Bhāṣya and thru them to the Siddhānta. In this way – and only in this way – we can establish if your contention is valid – not selectively posting other people translations of the Texts and then claiming loudly that it is the contention of Vedānta. A Text can only be accepted in relation to the Siddhānta and not in relation to personal opinions…” I gave you a full description of the traditional exegetical method… something – that despite your many claims – you seem to know little about.

Sūrya Deva wrote: The translation I cited of the Panchadasi is by Swami Swahananda of the Ramakrishna Matha, who is an expert in Sanskrit and Advaita Vedanta Siddhanta, and thus his translation is reliable.

And if you read the Publisher’s Note you will see that it says that the translation is faithful to the spirit of the text rather than to the letter. It means that the translation is at best interpretative. A translation to be authoritative must contain the Devanāgarī, the transliteration, the word-by-word breakdown, the translation, and an exhaustive commentary.
Most of the paperbacks published by the Rāmakṛṣṇa Mission – containing only the Devanāgarī, the translation, and a few notes – are not authoritative translations. They were never meant as such. They are meant as a general presentation of the Texts attempting to arouse the curiosity of the people – expecially Western intellectuals.
After all Vedānta is still an oral teaching. Mouth to ear – not page to eye.

Sūrya Deva wrote: If, however, you believe the translation is faulty then you must demonstrate it by showing us what the correct translation is and give us a detailed work-by-word breakdown so we can verify for ourselves. Until then, any accusation that the translation is faulty is baseless.

You see – here you go again making spurious claims. I never said that the translation is faulty – is less than accurate, but it is not faulty – I said that your interpretation of the verses is contrary to the Siddhānta.

 

[Shântoham]

Sūrya Deva wrote: Creation does not require a sentience. A volcano creates hot lava; Planet Earth creates plants, animals and humans.

Is this your best Advaita reply? LOL… you really do not know the Siddhānta… I’ll give you a hint: … Nāma rūpe satyaṃ tābhyāmayaṃ prāṇashcchannaḥ…

Sūrya Deva wrote: Advaita does not prescribe worship of Ishvara.

This is – once again – your opinion. Śruti and Bhāṣya say differently. Śaṅkarācārya, commenting on the Bhagavadgītā verse 13.18, says: …Who is fit to attain this right knowledge? He who is devoted to Me, who regards Me, Vāsudeva, the Supreme Lord, the Omniscient, the Supreme Guru, as the Self, the Soul, the Essence, of everything, i.e., he who is possessed, as it were, with the idea that all that he sees or hears or touches is nothing but the Lord, Vāsudeva. Thus devoted to Me, and having attained the right knowledge described above, he is fit to attain to My state, i.e. he attains Mokṣa…
In the Bhāṣya to the Brahmasūtra 2.3.41 – …The attainment of Mokṣa is possible indeed through the Knowledge owing ONLY to the grace of Īśvara...
Again in the Sūtra Bhāṣya 3.2.5 we find: …In the case of some persons indeed who strenuously meditate on the Lord and who, their ignorance being dispelled at last, obtain through the favour of the Lord extraordinary powers and insight, that hidden equality becomes manifest – just as through the action of strong medicines the power of sight of a blind man becomes manifest; but it does not on its own account reveal itself to all men. Why not? Because 'from him,' i.e. from the Lord there are bondage and release of it, viz. the individual soul. That means: bondage is due to the absence of knowledge of the Lord's true nature; release is due to the presence of such knowledge. Thus Śruti declares, 'When that God is known all fetters fall off; sufferings are destroyed and birth and death cease. From meditating on him there arises, on the dissolution of the body, a third state, that of universal Lordship; he who is alone is satisfied' (Svet. Up. 1.11), and similar passages…
Again, in 2.2.42 Śaṅkarācārya says: …Concerning this (Bhāgavata) system we remark that we do not intend to controvert the doctrine that Nārāyaṇa, who is higher than the Undeveloped, who is the highest Self, and the Self of all, reveals Himself by dividing Himself in multiple ways; for various scriptural passages, such as 'He is onefold, He is threefold' (Ch. Up. 7. 26.2) teach us that the highest Self appears in manifold forms. Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing concentration of mind on the highest Being which appears in the Bhāgavata doctrine under the forms of reverential approach, etc. and for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from Smṛti and Scripture…
These are just a few samples from innumerous such passages teaching the greatness of Īśvara and the need for Bhakti.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Upasana is meditation and not worship.

Upāsanā is worship. You don’t need to take my word for it – just check the Monier-Williams – or any other reliable Sanskrit dictionary.
In the Scriptures – Śruti and Smṛti – worship is indicated by the words Upāsanā and Upāsate. If you like I can quote some of the relevant verses for you.
In fact Upāsanā is often explained as Upa = Samīpe which gives the sense: Āsanam, sitting, close to the deity. In other words it means relating oneself to the deity in one Bhāva or the other. This is the heart of Bhakti.

Sūrya Deva wrote: As Shankara is just one of many Advaita exponents, I am not obliged to only accept his views.

You can do whatever you like – as you are not a Vedāntin. I don’t care about your personal opinions. My sole purpose is to correct your misrepresentations of the Siddhānta and the Tradition.
Śaṅkarācārya is not one of many Advaita exponents. His Bhāṣya is the sole key to unlock the Śruti. He is the Adhiṣṭhāna of the Advaita Paramparā. All Advaita Ācāryas base their understanding of the Siddhānta on him. And Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā without Śaṅkarācārya’s Bhāṣya is just a riddle.

Sūrya Deva wrote: I will accept what Advaita philosophy teaches in the prakarana granths only if it is rational and can be demonstrated by perception and reasoning.

The Prakaraṇagranthas introduce and expound the technical terms and concepts of Vedānta to the beginner student. The Prasthānatraya contains the teaching of the Vedānta. A Vedāntin learns the Siddhānta thru the Prasthānatraya – as taught by the Paramparā – not the Prakaraṇagranthas. The Prakaraṇagranthas prepare the qualified student for the study of the Prasthānatraya. And thru the study of the Prasthānatraya the qualified student imbibes the Siddhānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Whether Advaita is actually a valid hermeneutics of Shruti is of secondary importance to me, what is important is whether Advaita can stand up as an independent and rational philosophy and not just a theological exgesis.

Of course, because you are not a Vedāntin you are a Sūryadevin.

Sūrya Deva wrote: If you can show me through the prakaranas granthas a rational reason for Bhakti to ishvara I will accept it.

Your strategy is quite amusing. If someone quotes Śaṅkarācārya as authority you say “I don’t follow Śaṅkarācārya, I follow Gauḍapāda”. If someone quotes Smṛti as authority you say “I don’t follow Smṛti, I follow Śruti”. If someone quotes Śruti as authority you say “I don’t follow Śruti, I follow the Prakaraṇagranthas”. If someone quotes Prakaraṇagranthas as authority you say “I don’t follow Prakaraṇagranthas, I follow perception and reason”.
So, who do you follow? You follow Sūrya Deva. You are the only authority in your world.
That is why I say: you are not a Vedāntin.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Appeal to authority… is not going to convince me.

Questioning the authority of the Scriptures is not a new thing. Even in the olden days, there were people like the Cārvākas who did not accept the Śruti Pramāṇam. If one were to agree that there could be things beyond the reach of the senses, then it is possible to talk about the Śruti, not otherwise. To give an example, if you were to convince a blind person that an object such as the Sun exists, you could argue that the heat felt during the day time by the blind person is due to the Sun. Similarly, you could perhaps convince him/her that the rising tide in the ocean felt during certain days is due to the moon. But how can you convince him/her about the existence of the stars. No perceptible effect of the stars is felt by the blind. You will only have to say that you have an extra sense, that of sight, which allows you to see the stars. In similar fashion, the Śruti provides us with an “extra sense” that allows us to “see” things, not seen by those with the usual sense organs.
Science operates in the sphere of Indriyaviṣaya, objects that can be perceived by the senses. But the Veda provides knowledge about Atīndriyaviṣaya, things that are beyond sense perception.
Śrutiṣca naḥ pramāṇaṃ atīndriyaviṣayavijñānotpattau – Śruti is our source of knowledge of something that is beyond the reach of senses and mind. (Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya).
If one were to interpret Śaṅkarācārya’s view of Science, he agrees that in its own sphere of objects known through the senses, Science is valid. But regarding things that are beyond the reach of the senses, the Veda is the authority. And, we must remember that in such cases:
Śrutivirodhe nyāyābhāṣatvopagamaatḥ – Reasoning that is against Śruti is a fallacy. (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya).

Sūrya Deva wrote: Show me the prakarana grathas which say we should worship Ishvara and if you demonstrate it conclusively and it is rational, I will have no problem retracting my position and worshiping Ishvara myself.

The texts I mentioned in my previous post – Bhaktirasāyana, Gūḍhārtha-Dīpikā, Prabodhasudhākara, and Bhaja Govindam – are Prakaraṇagranthas. And there are plenty more.
The strange thing is that you seem under the impression that I have to demonstrate to you the validity of Bhakti in the Advaita Tradition. A simple visit (virtual if not in person) to any traditional Advaita institution will put the matter to rest real quickly. The only person who seems confuse about this is you.

 

[Shântoham]

Sūrya Deva wrote: So far the two prakarana granths I have cited Panchadasi and Vivekachudamani say the exact opposite to worshiping Ishvara. They call Ishvara an illusion and delusion my friend. That is not going to make me worship Ishvara now, is it?


You don’t seem to have any problem worshiping your ego and your opinions therefore the only thing preventing you from worshiping Īśvara – the basic reality of everything – is your lack of spiritual and emotional maturity.
Anyhow, you are young (31? 32?), life has its ways to correct your wrong assumptions.
You see, you can try to use the Prakaraṇagranthas to justify your spurious claims but you only show your lack of knowledge in regard to Vedānta. Every Prakaraṇagrantha begins with a Maṅgalācarana – a verse in praise of the Guruḥ – and who is Guruḥ? Gururbrahmā gururviṣṇuḥ gururdevo maheśvaraḥ gurur eva paraṁbrahma… Guruḥ is Īśvara – the basic reality of everything. Bhakti to Īśvara is implicit in every vedāntic text. Furthermore every text, to be valid, must establish the Anubhanda Catuṣṭaya – Adhikarī (for whom the text is meant), Viṣaya (subject matter of the text), Prayojana (purpose of the text), and Sambandha (relation of the text with Prayojana and Adhikar&#299. Who is the Adhikarī? The Mumukṣu. Who is the Mumukṣu? Someone who has developed the right qualifications. How does one develop those qualifications? Thru the grace of Īśvara and the practice of Karma-Yoga and Upāsanā-Yoga in the spirit of Bhakti. Therefore the Prakaraṇagranthas do not need to tell us to worship Īśvara; the Adhikarī has already established a relationship with Īśvara – that is why (s)he is an Adhikarī.
Once again, Bhakti to Īśvara is implicit in every vedāntic text.


Pranāms