Seeking to Understand Advaita

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: I try not to think too in the box of scripture. Scripture for me is always secondary to the primary and rational means of knowledge like perception and reasoning.

Of course, because you are not a Vedāntin you are a Sūryadevin. A Vedāntin relies on Tarka and Pratyakṣa supported by Śruti and Bhāṣya.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Although you seem to be a fan of scriptures and you've probably read more scriptures than I have, in what seems to be the original Sanskrit and you seem to be fond of using precise Sanskrit words…

You seem surprised about my methodology. It is the traditional methodology utilized by Vedāntins to discuss Vedānta related topics. Don’t you recognize it? Didn’t you claim to have studied Vedānta in India with the best Svāmis?

Sūrya Deva wrote: …which sort of renders your post inaccessible to many non-Sanskrit familiar people…

My posts were addressed to Śuddhasattvaji and not to the non-Sanskrit familiar people.

Sūrya Deva wrote: …I am much less so reliant in scriptures and I prefer using simple English translations to make Advaita understandable and simple to understand for the common modern English speaking person...

I do the best I can according to time and circumstances.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Your posts were very long and difficult to read due to the heavy use of Sanskrit terms, but I got through them in the end.
.For a Vedāntin they could be interesting.

Sūrya Deva wrote: It appears our primary disagreement is on whether this Mayic reality or vyavaharika is relatively real or unreal and whether liberation or enlightenment is cognitive or does empirical reality disappear altogether?

I would have appreciated your lengthy response if it had contained even a bit of Vedānta as taught by Śaṅkarācārya and the Ācāryas.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Yoga sutras: Confirming Jnana is experiential knowledge and not conceptual knowledge

1.48 The experiential knowledge that is gained in that state is one of essential wisdom and is filled with truth.

1.49 That knowledge is different from the knowledge that is commingled with testimony or through inference, because it relates directly to the specifics of the object, rather than to those words or other concepts.

Patañjali wrote – ṛtaṃ bharā tatra prajñā– and not: The experiential knowledge that is gained in that state is one of essential wisdom and is filled with truth.
He then wrote – śruta anumāna prajñābhyām anya viṣaya viśeṣa arthatvat – and not: That knowledge is different from the knowledge that is commingled with testimony or through inference, because it relates directly to the specifics of the object, rather than to those words or other concepts.
If you check your sources – the place where you borrowed the verses – you can read that it is an interpretative translation. In other words, it is not what Patañjali wrote but what the interpreter thinks.
As Vedāntins we understand these verses in the light of the Yogasūtra-Bhāṣya-Vivaraṇa, Śaṅkarācārya commentary to Vyāsa’s Yogasūtra-Bhāṣya. And they do not agree with you.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Many modern Advaita gurus like to pretend that jnana is only cognitive when we intellectualize the attitude that that all is Brahman through understanding the scripture, passing off book knowledge for Jnana. However, if one actually reads the scriptures they do not say any such thing, they say it is actual. All duality literally disappears and one can no longer see anything else, hear anything else, feel anything else, taste anything else or smell anything else than Brahman. This is confirmed by the Yogasutras as well that all subjective and objective divisions disappear and one attains nirbija samadhi.

The Pañcadasī itself refutes your claim. Pañcadasī defines the role of knowledge in 7.175 – the prime objective of knowledge of the real (Tattva-Vidyāy&#257 is to promote constant remembrance (Saṃsmṛtau) of the magical nature (Indra-Jālatva) of the world – Nirbhandhas tattva-vidyāyā indra-jālatva-saṃsmṛtau…
In Pañcadasī 7.179 we learn that the knowledge of the real does not cause the disappearance the word but produce instead the conviction that the world is an appearance. I guess those Svāmis were correct after all.
Pañcadasī 7.180-182 presents your very same argument using the very same verses quoted by you – All duality literally disappears and one can no longer see anything else, hear anything else, feel anything else, taste anything else or smell anything else than Brahman. Pañcadasī 7.183-189 refutes your argument in its entirety using Bhāṣya and Tarka. In brief – the world of duality only disappears in deep sleep and Videhamukti not in Jīvanmukti. Mere absence of duality has very little value. It is the rise of the knowledge of the Self which is essential factor in liberation. Your claims are not in agreement with the Siddhānta.

 

[Shântoham]

Sūrya Deva wrote: The reason why empirical mayic reality disappears is for the same reason you yourself said the snake disappears in the rope, it was never there in the first place. Likewise this entire empirical reality has never been there in the first place, and this is why it disappears like a phantom on realization.


Unfortunately Śruti and Bhāṣya disagree with you. Why? I see a snake and panic. However, on investigating, I find out that it is really a rope. Another guy passes by. He also panics and asks me what it is. I tell him it is a rope. As far as I am concerned, the snake has resolved into the rope. The snake perceived previously is only a rope. There was only rope before when the misconception occurred to me. There is only rope now when the misconception has been removed. The reality of the rope thus becomes important. In a similar manner, it is the reality of the world that is important. That it is in reality Brahman is important. Whether I am realized or not, the world is Brahman only, like the rope is rope only whether I panic or have found out the truth. That is why we have been saying here that it is only the appearance that is all there to be negated like we undo the appearance of the snake to reveal the identity of the rope. That appearance is the HiraNmayapātra. Uncover it. Reality shines forth.
Thus, I don't find any need to bring in the word Anirvacanīyā here and build on it. What Śaṅkarācārya did was to call the appearance of the world Māyā and not its reality. This topic is discussed in Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 2.1.14. The topic title is Ārambhaṇadhikaraṇam – The world (effect) is non-different from Brahman (the cause). The whole discussion presents exactly the opposite of what you have concluded. To quote only certain pertinent statements from the Bhāṣya of 2.1.14-16:

1. That the effect is not different from the cause is shown here (in 2.1.14)
2. Rope appears as a snake. It is not transformed into actual snake.
3. The phenomena of the universe manifest only because Brahman exists. They cannot certainly appear without Brahman. Therefore, the world (effect) is not different from Brahman, the cause.
4. The effect (world) is non-different from the cause (Brahman) because it is existent in the cause, identically even, prior to its manifestation, though in time it is posterior.
5. Brahman is in all time neither more nor less than that which is. So the effect also (the world) is in all time only that which is. That which is, is the only. Hence, the effect is non-different from the cause.
6. As a piece of cloth is not different from the threads, so the effect (world) is not different from its cuase (Brahman).
7. Thus, it is established that the effect, the world, is identical with its cause, Brahman. Therefore, by knowing Brahman everything is known. As the whole world is an effect of Brahman and non-different from it, the promise held out in the scriptural text “what is not heard is heard, what is not perceived is perceived, what is not known is known” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.I.3) is fulfilled.

World is not a *part* of Brahman. Neither does it *belong* to Brahman. The world is Brahman.


Pranāms

 

[Maya3]

Shantoram,

Thank you!

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

Shantoham, I too am glad you're here, and that you have both the knowledge and the will to take this chap on. I have neither of the above, and I think I speak for a lot of Hindus here.

 

[SageTree]

I've been planning a thread clarifying advaita for sometime, I'll try to start it in the next few days and do it in series. I'm behind in my "to-do" posts though. SageTree has already sent me a few letter bombs on account of still, after a month, not posting a Buddhism/Hinduism thread.

Hey! Those bombs were full of strawberry jam!

Not stop diddling around here giving our your world class answers,
and get to work!


**hugs**

I kid though, Brother. Good things come to those who wait, no?

No pressure and take your time dude.

btw... my birthday is on Dec 3rd, in case you wondered

 

[Ekanta]

Shantoham, nice posts!
It takes a lot of effort to present it formally right as you did. Time, energy and knowledge not available to all.

 

[Surya Deva]

What is nice about those posts? They are full of personal attacks?

*Post deleted*

I am sorry but we cannot hope to have any fruitful discussion when comments like these are made. During the course of this thread I have been insulted and ganged up by several usual members because I have a different view from others. I have attempted to support my view, but when they argue for their view they invariably have to include insults, other members of the pack have to jump in to make quips and congratulate what is bullying behaviour. It is actually really appalling.

I know it is perfectly possible to have a debate about doctrinal differences without all this bullying, name calling. I request the Mods to intervene and stop this general air of nastiness. It is not fair that I should be openly ridiculed, insulted and bullied just because I have a different view.

 

[Jainarayan]

I have neither of the above, and I think I speak for a lot of Hindus here.

I've occasionally peeked into this thread and had my mind blown to smithereens so you speak for me too. I look at it this way: I respect and admire the knowledge of folks like Shantoham, Shuddhasattva, even Surya Deva (and of course you ), and their ability to bat these things around. It's interesting to read and watch, but me, I love God, try to keep a personal relationship with Him, try to do as He asks the best I can, worship Him as best I can, but at the end of my life(ves), I'll just let Him sort it all out and surprise me as to whether I Self-realize or spend eternity with Him, my friends, pets, relatives... wait, scratch the relatives :biglaugh: enjoying unending bliss in Vaikuntha or Goloka.

OK, so that contributed nothing to the thread. Do carry on...

 

[Jainarayan]

Time, energy and knowledge not available to all.

Some people have natural gifts and talents.

 

[Surya Deva]

Namaste,

I will respond to the arguments of Shantoham that can be responded to, and ignore all the personal attacks and nasty tone and refrain from responding in kind to them.(I trust these attacks will not continue) I think in this case it would be much better not breaking up his posts into quotes, because there are too many of them. I will summarize his basic arguments, make a few quotes and respond.

Which Vedanta?

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.

This is an obvious wrong claim which cannot even stand up to trivial research. We know there are least six schools of Vedanta, and then each of these schools have their own sub-schools and they do indeed strongly disagree with one another and have very different doctrines:

Wiki:
Advaita, Dvaita, Viseshaadvaita, Bhedabheda, Sri Lakshmi Visishtadvaita, Shuddhādvaita​

There is obviously no harmonious agreement(weasel word) between all Vedantins. On the contrary it shows us, Vedanta is far from a harmonious school of philosophy and there are wide disagreements between various schools. If these are all based on the prasthantrayi or triple canon of the Upanishads, Bhagvad Gita and Brahma Sutras, it means the triple canon can be interpreted in multiple ways.

This will bring us into what really is the crux of Shantoham's posts: The authority of Sankarcharya. The position held by Shantoham and JG22 is that Shankara's views define what Advaita Vedanta teaches, but it is clear I do not accept Shankara's authority - and why is that? In philosophy one does not base their understanding on the commentary of somebody. A philosophy is built up based on independent argument. There have been more than a hundred commentaries on say Plato's Phaedo. The commentaries are helpful to get the insights of others, but at the end of the day you need to form your own interpretations. To appeal to the authority of one commentator and then regard them to be the official interpretation is not philosophy.

As we know for a fact there are literally several hundreds of commentaries on the Upanishads, Gita and Brahma Sutras. It means these texts are open to interpretation, hence why there are so many interpretations. How then could one maintain that we accept as dogma that only one person's commentaries and interpretations are defining? It makes no sense. It is an appeal to authority fallacy if there ever was one.

Advaita, meaning the philosophy of non-dualism has a long history going back to the Upanishads, where we find in Indian philosophical thought the first clear appearances and clear exponents of it like Yajnavalkya. Even within the Upanishads we can see the development of thought, especially by the time of the Svestavatra and Maitrayni Upanishad, we see a more systematic presentations of the ideas. In later Upanishadic times treatises like the Ashtavarika Samhita, regarded by many scholars to be pre-shankara are found expounding Advaita.

However, it is not until Gaudapada(6th-7th century) who himself claimed to have a teacher, that the first known attempt is made of constructing a hermeneutical philosophy derived from the Upanishads and hence a systematic school of Advaita philsophy is formed with core philosophical doctrines. The first treatise to this is Gaudapada's Mandukiya karika which makes several rational arguments to support the philosophy as derived from his interpretation:

Gauḍapāda is one of the early and most reputed philosophers of the Vedānta school in the Indian system of thought, who is believed to have lived roughly during 500 C.E. In the spiritual lineage, Gauḍapāda is regarded as the grand preceptor of Śaṅkaracarya [8th c. C.E.], the systematizer of Advaita Vedānta. Gauḍapāda is best known for his analytical exposition on the tenets of Advaita Vedānta that provided a firm ontological grounding to Vedānta philosophy. Gauḍapāda’s expository interpretation of the Upaniṣadic literature in the light of logical reasoning is a critical apparatus of epistemological exposition in the Advaita tradition.According to Gauḍapāda’s thesis, the ultimate ontological reality is the pure consciousness, which is bereft of attributes and intentionality. The world of duality is nothing but a vibration of the mind (manodṛśya or manaspandita). The pluralistic world is imagined by the mind (saṁkalpa) and this false projection is sponsored by the illusory factor called māyā. The origination of the individual soul, which experiences the world of duality, is figurative. The finitude of the individuality of the soul is caused due to nescience (avidy&#257, while in reality its nature is identical with the ultimate soul – pure consciousness. The knowledge of non-difference between the individual and the supreme soul alone leads to liberation.
Gauḍapāda’s influence has probably been most far-reaching in the development of Advaita Vedānta through the ages. He is well-known for his conception of ‘contact-less contemplation’ (asparśa yoga) a key soteriological notion of Advaita Vedānta. More famous is his doctrine of non-origination (ajāti-vāda), with which he establishes the eternality and non-duality of consciousness. The philosophy of Gauḍapāda may be characterized as absolute non-dualism and establishes this doctrine both by the method of affirmation and negation (adhyāropa and apavāda). He explains the doctrine of advaita-vāda using illustrations such as “quenching of fire-brand” (alātaśānti) and the phantasmagoric city (gandharva-nagara) to systematically expound the falsity of the world.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/gauḍapad/#SH4a

​

Thus we can see some very clear Advaita philosophical doctrines are propounded by Gauadapada which form my own understanding of the philosophy

1) Ajativada - there has been no creation, the entire universe, soul and God is an illusory projection
2) Asparsa Yoga - The mind free of all activity/desires in order to achieive the transcendental state

It is irrelevant to the philosophy of Advaita whether these doctrines are really present in the Upanishads or not, because Advaita as a philosophy stands alone because it is based on philosophical argument to justify these doctrines.

After Gaudapada, we have his student Govinda Bhagvatapada, whose student Shankaracharya contributes to the philosophy, continuing the tradition by authoring his own commentaries on select Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahma Sutras and thus establishing the triple canon of Vedanta. Thus Sankara far from being the founder of the school of Advaita Vedanta philosophy is a student of a student of a student. To Sankara are attributed dozens of works, but only a few are actually considered to be really composed by him(the rest are believed t have been composed by his students). After Sankara there have been dozens of exponents of school who have contributed their own works: Padmapada, Survesa, Mandan Misra in the 8th century(who started a rival sub-school Bhatta Mimassa) Vicaspati Misra in the 9th century(who started the sub school Bhamati Advaita) and Prasātman in the 10th cenury (who started the sub school Vivana Advaita) Since: Vimuktātman (tenth century), Sarvajñātman (tenth century), Śrī Harṣa (twelfth century), Citsukha (twelfth century), ānandagiri (thirteenth century), Amalānandā (thirteenth century), Vidyāraņya (fourteenth century), Śaṅkarānandā (fourteenth century), Sadānandā (fifteenth century), Prakāṣānanda (sixteenth century), Nṛsiṁhāśrama (sixteenth century), Madhusūdhana Sarasvati (seventeenth century), Dharmarāja Advarindra (seventeenth century), Appaya Dīkśita (seventeenth century), Sadaśiva Brahmendra (eighteenth century), Candraśekhara Bhārati (twentieth century), and Sacchidānandendra Saraswati (twentieth century).

So in a tradition of Advaita philosophy which has 3000 years of history of development of thought and dozens of exponents, why should I only accept Shankara's version as defining(and which version, there are several works attributed to him)? Sorry I am not going to accept the dogma of Shantoham and JG22 , no matter how loud they shout and kick and scream at me.(This just disqualifies them to me as mature members, and while they get away with it on this forum because they are pandering to the majority, they would never get away with it in a formal setting like an academic debate) Advaita Vedanta samapradya(tradition) did not begin with Shankara and nor did it end with him.
It is clear for anybody to see my thought comes from the Advaita Vedanta tradition, and it is not something I made up. Those accusing me of this do this only to undermine my status as an Advaitin because they hold different doctrinal views(which is perfectly permissible) and are insecure I hold onto other views, or simply they are ignorant of the key philosophical thoughts and history of Advaita.

In fact I hold onto a very pure form of Advaita which is officially known as "Absolute Non Dualism" which was held by Shankara's beloved teacher Gaudapada, which arguably was consistent with the times of the Upanishads and made no concession to householders. While, Shankara did make a concession to householders and his form of Advaita is a more diluted, less purer form of Advaita. So How about we agree that I represent the purest form of Advaita of Gauadapada and Shanoham et al represent an impure form of Shankaras, his students student?

 

[Surya Deva]

Perception and reasoning vs scripture

Shantoham argues that because my understanding of Advaita is based on accepting only rational evidence and not "Sruti and Bhasaya" or scripture and commentaries on scriptures makes me a Suryadevin, meaning it is all my opinion, as opposed to a Vedantin. I will now argue why this is false.

First of all, Shantoham need to be clear what kind of Vedantin he is talking about? There are 6 major different types and several dozens of sub-types and they all disagree with one one another significantly. If he means specifically Advaita, It has already been demonstrated that the view of Advaita I accept is indeed a legitimate view and is by Gaudapada, called "Absolute non-duality" and Gaudapada is the earliest known founder of the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Hence, as my views are virtually identical to Gaudapada then I am obviously an Advaitin.

Secondly, rational evidence has a higher place than Sruti why? I will argue in two stages

1) Bhashya is higher than Sruti
2) Perception and reasoning is higher than bhasya

1) Sruti is not comprehensible itself and if read literally would lead to many contradictions and absurdities like the "flamingo said" The Upanishads are the works of pre-classical Indian philosophy, they abound in metaphors, allegories, symbolism, myths and mysticism. In order to extract from them a comprehensive and consistent interpretation a hermeneutical analyis is required which it itself requires reasoning.

2) Bhasaya is not conclusive or formally convincing. A single text, especially verse literature like poems and stories can be interpreted in numerous ways based on which kind of hermenenutical methods you apply. The triple canon of Vedanta has lead to six completely distinct schools of interpretations and hundreds of interpretations. A commentary is never conclusive and sometimes a commentary itself requires a commentary and that too another commentary. Thus one can never really arrive at a concensus on what is the correct interpretation.
Rational philosophy on the other hand does not rely on literal scripture or commentary, it relies purely on argument based on independent evidence. It is formally convincing insofar as the validity, soundness and consistancy of the arguments. Advaita is not just a system hermeneutics, but also a rational philosophy. It gives rational arguments to prove its points independent of scripture and commentary, in the parakarana granthas. This is why Advaita is considered a philosophy, and not just scriptural interpretation(theology)

In a formal secular debate, scripture or tradition is invalid.In Shankaras formal refutation with other philosophies in his works and debates not once does he say "The Upanishad says this" He rationally demonstrates every point of Advaita cogently. Logical arguments can be found given in several of the parakarana granths that even one unfamiliar with Sruti and its commentaries can follow e.g. we find many logical definitions, and logical arguments.

Ask yourself how could you convince a non-Hindu of the concepts of Advaita Vedanta? Would you say "Well, our scripture says this and our great religius leader, the teacher of the entire world and incarnation of Shiva's commentary says this" They will just turn around and say "Sorry, I don't accept your scripture" Do you seriously think Shankara would have won a single debate like this? Advaita philosophy is far more sophisticated than just scriptural exgesis. It is a highly rational philosophy based on strong rational arguments. I did not invent any of those arguments. I simply followed the arguments and found that they were valid, sound and consistent and accepted the philosophy. Hence Advaita is not my faith, the scriptures from which the philosophy is derived is of secondary importance. Advaita as a philosophy can stand on its own.

Traditions are irrelevant to philosophy. It is ruled out as a valid means of knowledge even in the Indian philosophical tradition(cf Nyaya sutras) Just because it was once tradition to find a Guru, study Sanskrit and beg for alms, does not mean an Advaitn living today in the 21st century has to do the same. One can today learn Advaita philosophy at university in English translations and forgo all these traditions. As a rational philosopher I do not recognize tradition as valid form of knowledge.

 

[Surya Deva]

Panchadasi, Maya and Ishvara, Part 1:

This part of my reply is going to be decisive in declaring me the winner of this debate, because I am going to produce smoking gun proof from the Panchadasi which will validate everything I said so far about what Advaita teaches

1) There is only Brahman
2) Soul(Jiva) Ishvara(God) and Universe(Jagat) are illusions
3) The means to liberation is not through worship of Ishvara, but through knowledge(by meditation)

Shantoham argues that I have taken the Panchadasi quotes out of context(rather difficult to do, as I cited copious verses from it and many times the verses are in sequence) but ironically he produces his own barrage of quotes not just from the text in question(Panchadasi) but outside texts like the Upanishads, Gita, Brahma sutras and commentaries. This is not valid, Shantoham has to prove his claims by using only the Panchadasi that the quotes I made from the same to prove that Ishvara is a creation of Maya are taken out of context. Note, this is the same man that told us all "All Vedantins are in harmonious agreement"

Here is what Shantoham claims they mean:

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.

We need to ask at this point is this even Advaita? This thread is about "Understanding Advaita" but what Shantoham is presenting here is not Advaita but Visesadvaita. In Visesadvaita the universe(jagat) soul(jivas) and god(ishvara) are all distinct but one. The power of Maya or illusion is what causes us to perceive them as separately. This is why it is called visesa meaning qualified, advaita meaning non dualism: qualified non dualism.

Advaita is strict non-dualism: There is only Brahman, no soul, no universe and no God. Soul, God and universe ultimately disappear on realization because they are illusions produced by Maya.
If all this time Shantoham has been arguing for Visesadvaita and not Advaita, then he owes us(especially me) an apology for misleading us all this time. This thread is for "Understanding Advaita" it is not "Understanding Visesadvaita"

Let us look at those citation again which very explicitly say Ishvara is a product of Maya, and this time I will also cite the surrounding verses around it to make the context clear:

6.133. Maya transforms the immutable Kutastha, the every association-less Atman, phenomenally into the form of the universe. Casting the reflections of Atman on itself, Maya creates Jiva and Ishvara​

First 5 precedes verses:

6.132. Maya is dependent, for in the absence of a cognizing faculty the effects of Maya cannot be experienced. Again in one sense it is independent too, for it can make the non-attached Athman appear to be attached
6.131. Maya exhibits the appearance and disapperance of the world, just as by rolling and unrolling a picture on a canvas it is exhibited or withdrawn
6.130. Maya is looked upon in three ways - from the point of view of knowledge and Sruti it is neglible; for empirical reason it is indefinable and for ordinary people it is real
6.129. Since the effects of Maya are undeniable manifest, its existence cannot be denied. Being stultified by knowledge, it cannot really be said to exist. From the point of view of absolute knowledge it is always inoperative and negligible
6.128. All people admit in their experience existence of Maya. From the logical point of view Maya is inexplicable. Sruti too declares it to be neither non-existent or existent.​

First 5 proceeding verses:

6.136. The magic show looks wonderful and inexplicable as long as the magician is not directly known, when the magician is so known, the magic show is known as such and is no longer wonderful.
6.137. Those who believe in the reality of the world regards the effects of Maya as wonderful. But since the effects of Maya are astonishing, one need not wonder at its power.
6.138. By raising objections to the wonderfulness of Maya we do not solve the mystery. Besides we can also raise serious counter objections. What is essential is that we should eradicate Maya by systematic inquiry. Further arguments are useless, so do not indulge in them.
6.139. Maya is an embodiment of marvelousness and doubt; the wise must carefully find out the means and make effort to remove it.
6.140. (Doubt): But the nature of Maya must be determined before trying to eradicate it(Reply): All right, do so! Apply the popular definition of magic on Maya​

Summary of points made:

Maya is existent from the point of view of ordinary peopel, but not really existent from point of view of knowledge
Maya can make worlds seem to appear and dissappear
Maya can appear to transform the immutable and unbound Atman(Brahman), into the universe, soul and God
The magic show of Maya looks wonderful, but when Maya the magician becomes known, it no longer becomes wonderful
There is no need to be astonished by the show of Maya
Maya should be eradicated by systematic inquiries, by understanding the world, soul and God are an illusion

Now that I made the context clear of 6.133 it becomes even more obvious that the Panchadais is explicitly saying the universe, soul and God are an illusion, and we should not be amazed by these things, but rather we will lose our wonder when we realize it is a magic show.

 

[Pleroma]

All this debate is pointless, a simple Wikipedia page sheds more light for someone seeking to understand Advaita than the so called self proclaimed experts here.

Surya Deva, what you're trying desperately to do here is somehow or the other make the doctrine of Advaita as atheistic so that you can call yourself as an Advaiti but the truth of the matter is that the doctrine of Advaita takes both the Ishvara and Jiva very seriously, they have existence even though you (The Self) is the Akshara behind the Ishvara giving him his strength and light. Both Ishvara and Jiva are pragmatically true. It doesn't qualify your definition of atheism. Its just simple double standards, you want to be an Advaiti but you don't want to accept that you're a theist because Advaita takes the existence of Ishvara very seriously and you want to somehow or the other twist the doctrine of Advaita and make it atheistic which is not going to happen because the doctrine as propounded by the Acharayas from time immemorial have accepted the pragmatic existence of both Jiva and Ishvara.

Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Īsvara - The Supreme Lord

Īsvara (pronounced [ˈiːʃvərə], literally, the Lord) Parama Īshvara means "The Supreme Lord".

According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Lord. Isvara is Brahman with Maya — the manifested form of Brahman. Adi Shankara uses a metaphor that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya, it appears as the Ishvara or Supreme Lord. The Ishvara is true only in the pragmatic level. God's actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.

Ishvara is false and true

Ishvara is, in an ultimate sense, described as "false" because Brahman appears as Ishvara only due to the curtain of Maya. However, just as the world is true in the pragmatic level, similarly, Ishvara is also pragmatically true. Just as the world is not absolutely false, Ishvara is also not absolutely false.

Ishvara in the Vedas

The sole proof for Ishvara that Adi Shankara gives is Shruti's mentions of Ishvara, as Ishvara is beyond logic and thinking. This is similar to Kant's philosophy about Ishvara in which he says that "faith" is the basis of theism. However, Adi Shankara has also given few other logical proofs for Ishvara, but warning us not to completely rely on them:

1. The world is a work, an effect, and so must have real cause. This cause must be Ishvara.

2. The world has a wonderful unity, coordination and order, so its creator must have been an intelligent being.

3. People do good and sinful work and get its fruits, either in this life or after. People themselves cannot be the giver of their fruits, as no one would give himself the fruit of his sin. Also, this giver cannot be an unconscious object. So the giver of the fruits of [[karma is Ishvara.

If Ishvara did not exist then the whole doctrine of Karma Yoga doesn't make sense at all and by saying that knowledge is the only way to achieve liberation you are indirectly saying that those who are on the path of Karma Khanda have no future in achieving liberation and that they should give up Karma in order to know Brahman and that is very silly and ignorant.

 

[Straw Dog]

Materialism is basically Advaita in reverse: Advaita denies the real existence of matter, considering it to be illusory and states that everything is simply consciousness. No kind of matter, whether it it be physical or qualia exist. The logic for this is that while consciousness cannot be reduced to matter, matter can be reduced to consciousness through the critique of naam-rupa, meaning name and form. Similar to the linguistic-constructivists theory of reality. Whatever we call matter only has linguistic conceptual categories for its existence, not ontological realities, for example distinctions of the body like head, torso, feet, toes only exist in language, but not in the body itself. Extended further: distinctions like here and there, up and down, this and that, inner and outer again only have a linguistic existence. A classical example in Advaita is to ask what is the common substance of a gold necklace, a gold ring and a gold statue? The answer is gold of course, necklace, ring and statue are just names for different forms of gold. Likewise, the substratum of reality of name and form is the undifferentiated field of consciousness. This applies equally to atoms, subatomic particles, quarks etc, hence why Neil Bohr said their existence is only insofar as we are conscious of them.

Thus through the critique of naam-rupa Advaita attempts to logically prove that the only actual real substance is consciousness. This entire reality emanates from and dissolves into consciousness. On the hand, the reverse, of reducing consciousness to matter is logically impossible and are held by us Advaitins to be illogical. Scientists will eventually have to concede that reality is a consciousness field(which exists across a continuum of consciousness states: waking, dreaming and sleep) and not a material field, in the same way they had to concede the Earth orbits the sun and not vis versa. The hard problem of consciousness is the impossible problem.

I don't understand the jump between how we interpret reality through linguistic conceptual categories and why this implies that everything is consciousness. Doesn't this just mean that we always interpret and grid information through our perceptual/ conceptual apparatus? What do you mean by "field of consciousness"? Why can't it just be an "undifferentiated field" in which we impose our artificial distinctions upon? What do you mean by "substance"? Are you not also utilizing conceptual categories in order to discern the fundamental reality? Why is consciousness itself not a category when plugged into our theories?

PS: Also, there is such a classification as non-material physical properties and forces. Materialism isn't the same as physicalism. Something can be both non-material and still be considered physical.

 

[Surya Deva]

Panchadasi, Maya and Ishvara: Part 2

This post is going to be the death knell to Shantoham's position, in fact I would not be surprised if he does not post here again after this.

He states:

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.

He says explicitly here Brahman and Maya are the same reality. On the contrary I have said that Ishvara is an illusory product of Maya like jiva and jagat. The only means to liberation is not worship worship of Ishvara, but only through knowledge. Now let us look at what the Panchadasi says explicitly. Again I will produce the preceding and proceeding 5 verses to show the context clearly

6.194. As the dull witted imagine that the Akasha reflected in the cloud is the akasha absolute, so the indiscriminating do not see the distinction between Brahman and Ishvara​

First preceding 5 verses:

1.93. In a piece of cloth stiffened with starch the starch becomes one with the cloth; by the process of mutual superimposition the ignorant conceive Ishvara to be one with Paraatman(Brahman)
1.92. Superficially it looks as if Brahman were the cause of world and that Ishvara were a real entity. This cannot be explained except by the mututal superimposition of the true nature of Brahman on Ishvara and the creativity of Ishvara on Brahman
1.91. The Shruti explains clearly that from Brahman, who is truth, knowledge and infinity, arose Akasha, air, fire, water, earth, herbs, food, bodies and so forth
1.90. Our reply is that Acharya Suresvara holds Brahman to be the cause of the world, but he has taken for granted the mututal superimposition of Ishvara and Brahman even as that of Jiva and Kutastha
1.89. Thus Suresvaracharya, the author of Vartikka, has attributed the cause of the animate and inanimate creation to Paratman and not to Ishvara.

First 5 proceeding verses:

1.95. By deep inquiry and by the application of the rules of interpretation to the Vedic text we come to know that Brahman is associationless and unconditioned by Maya, whereas Ishvara is the creator conditioned by Maya.
1.96 The Vedas declare Brahman to be truth, knowledge and infinity, and also that speech and other organs cannot grasp it. Thus it is determined Brahman is associationless.
1.97. Another Sruti says that Ishvara, the lord of Maya creates the universe, whereas the Jiva is conditioned by Maya. So Ishvara associated with Maya is the creator
1.98. As the deep sleep state passes into dream state, so Ishvara is who is known as the sheath of bliss transforms himself into Hiryanagarbh , when the one wills to be many
1.99. There are two types of Sruti text describing the creation of the world either as gradual evolution or instantaneous. There is no contradiction, for the dream world sometimes arises gradually out of deep sleep, but at other times it arises instantaneously.​

Summary of points made

1. A view has been advanced that Brahman is the cause of the world
2. This view is not consistent with Advaita, because it mistakes Ishvara to be Brahman
3. The Sruti does declare that the world of animate and inanimate has come from Brahman
4. But this is not the literal meaning. It confuses Ishvara with Brahman, by mixing up Brahman nature with Ishvara and Ishvaras creatorship with Brahman
5. The dull-wittied and ignorant mistake Brahman to be Ishvara
6. Through inquiry we know can that Brahman and Ishvara are separate, Brahman is pure, associationless and is not under the influence of Maya, Ishvara conditioned by Maya creates through the power of Maya.

Now let us see what the Panchadasi has to say explicitly about those who worship Ishvara:

6.206. The forms of Virat , such as Ishvara, Hiryanagarbh, Virat, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Indra, Agni, Ganesha, Bhairava, Mairala, Marika, Yaksas, demons
6.207. Brahmanas, Ksatraiyas, Vaisyas, Sudras, cows, horses and other beasts, birds, fig, banyan and mango trees, wheat, rice and other cereals and grasses
6.208. Water, stones, earth, sticks, chisels, axes and other implements are all manifestations of Ishvara. Worshiped as Ishvara they grant fulfillment of desire
6.209. In whatever form Ishvara is worshiped, the worshiper obtains the appropriate reward through that form. If the method of worship and conception of the attributes of the deity worshiped are of high order, the reward is also of a high order; but if otherwise, it is not
6.210. The liberation(Moksha) however can ONLY be obtained through knowledge of reality and NOT otherwise. The dreaming does not end until the dreamer awakes
6.211. In the secondless principle Brahman, the whole universe, in the form of Jiva and all animate and inanimate objects, appears like a dream
6.212. Maya has created Ishvara and Jiva, represented by the sheaths of bliss and the sheath of intellect respectively. The whole perceptible world is a creation of Jiva and Ishvara
6.213. From the determination of Ishvara to create, down to his entrance into created objects, is the creation of ishvara. From the waking state to ultimate release, the cause of pain and pleasure, is the creation of Jiva
6.214. Those who do not know the nature of Brahman, who secondless and assocationless fruitlessly quarrel over Jiva and Ishvara, which are creations of Maya.​

Hence it has now been absolutely established that the Panchadasi explicitly says Brahman is the only reality, the universe, Jiva and Ishvara are illusions produced by Maya, and liberation can only happen when one gains knowledge of Brahman and the illusory nature of universe, jiva and Ishvara.

This is Advaita. I am an Advaitin. Shantoham is a Visesadvaitin. It is another school of Vedanta, and as this thread is about Advaita, one must ask why is he even posting here if he he is not representing the school, and how could he have the gall to call a genuine Advaitin a non Advaitin?

 

[Straw Dog]

Consciousness sure seems to disagree with itself a lot. It should be more tolerant of its own views.

 

[Surya Deva]

Wiki: Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. The term was coined by Otto Neurath in a series of early twentieth century essays on the subject, in which he wrote:
"According to physicalism, the language of physics is the universal language of science and, consequently, any knowledge can be brought back to the statements on the physical objects."[1]
In contemporary philosophy, physicalism is most frequently associated with the mind-body problem in philosophy of mind, regarding which physicalism holds that all that has been ascribed to "mind" is more correctly ascribed to "brain" or the activity of the brain. Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.
The related position of methodological naturalism says that philosophy and science should at least operate under the assumptions of natural sciences (and thus physicalism). Physicalism is a strong form of metaphysical naturalism.[2]
The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc. Because it claims that only physical things exist, physicalism is generally a form of ontological monism.

I am not sure this is consistent with the substance of Maya in Advaita. All productions of Maya re souls, God and the universe(consisting of higher and lower dimensions and realms) are indeed considered to be nature matter(metaphysical naturalism) at the same time they cannot exist in the first place without consciousness.

 

[Straw Dog]

I am not sure this is consistent with the substance of Maya in Advaita. All productions of Maya re souls, God and the universe(consisting of higher and lower dimensions and realms) are indeed considered to be nature matter(metaphysical naturalism) at the same time they cannot exist in the first place without consciousness.

Or rather they cannot be categorized and named without consciousness. I don't understand why nature itself cannot exist without consciousness for reasons made in an earlier post on this page.

 

[Surya Deva]

Or rather they cannot be categorized and named without consciousness. I don't understand why nature itself cannot exist without consciousness for reasons made in an earlier post on this page.

As whatever know to exist is based on our categorization and classification, devoid of that what remains? Nothing. Only consciousness remains. This is why we say all of this world is consciousness only and once we empty it of all our categorization and classifications only the ground of it consciousness remains.

 

[Straw Dog]

As whatever know to exist is based on our categorization and classification, devoid of that what remains? Nothing. Only consciousness remains. This is why we say all of this world is consciousness only and once we empty it of all our categorization and classifications only the ground of it consciousness remains.

Is 'consciousness' itself not a category being used for the purposes of your philosophy?

Devoid of categorization and classification, only the pure conscious experience remains. It's an emptying of the mind. Ceasing to make distinctions between things involves letting go of judgment in order to center one's consciousness within that which is.

It still seems like a leap in logic to then say that therefore 'Consciousness is the ground of all cosmic being'. It's generalizing an individual experience beyond the context in which the experience initially arose. All these assumptions are still being made from a particular perspective.