[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Problems in Advaita

In article <4k281t$4jk@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Hari Krishna Susarla <susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu> wrote:
>
>First of all, I would like to point out that my initial objections were
>actually directed to Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian. Since he proclaimed my
>ignorance of advaita philosophy, I requested him to answer my questions and
>clarify my doubts. Since he has been unable to do so, it seems that the fact
>is that he is the ignorant one. This is pretty humorous considering that he
>seemed so otherwise confident in his understanding of advaita vedanta.
>
>In article <4jvm6v$s6@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>   psista@ecn.purdue.edu(Prasad S Sista) wrote:
>
>>>The dream is not real when you come out of the dream, in the
>>>dream you never questioned its authenticity.  Same is the
>>
>>Not really. I question the authenticity of my dreams all the time...
>>  ******  Do you question the authenticity of your dreams in your dream
>>  or after waking up?? This is the million dollar question!
>
>Yes. I question the authenticity of my dreams, even when I am dreaming. Do I
>get a million dollars now? :)
    Yes. Definetly you WILL GET A MILLION DOLLARS TONIGHT IN YOUR DREAM.
    YOU MAY QUESTION THE AUTHENTICITY OF IT THOUGH :-)))))))
>
>>But if the world we experience around us, with all its qualities and
>>variegatedness is false, that still presupposes that such a world actually
>>exists *somewhere*.
>>       **** The world is not false. The different manifestations of the
>
>You are evading the question. The point is, we have a world around us with
>qualities and variegatedness. Therefore, the source from which it came must
>also have qualities and variegatedness. We conclude that the sun is hot

>also have qualities and variegatedness. We conclude that the sun is hot
>because the sunrays which we perceive are also hot. So similarly, we must
>conclude that the Absolute Truth, which is the source of everything, must hav
e
>qualities because this world (whether it is real or not) has qualities.
     *** I have a small objection here. You said 'world around us has
  variegatedness. So the source from which it came must have qualities
  and variegatedness'. Let's say for example I consider the element
  iron, the source for a knife. Is sharpness one of the properties of
  IRON since it is also a property of the knife??? Doesnt this argument
  sound absurd. How can iron by itself have sharpness as a property??
  Only when it is made into a knife does it get this property. Similarly
  So the argument that 'a source must have the same properties as the
  things it generates' is wrong(as proved above). So when we talk about
  God we are talking about something fundamental(like iron in the above
  example). You can argue that iron also has some properties. But the
  fundamental being we are talking about here doesnt.
>>   *** I disagree with you here. How does it matter whether I follow
>>  Sri Ramakrishna/Vivekananda or Shankaracharya??
>
>For example, if I want to teach medicine, I have to have a degree in medicine
.

>
>For example, if I want to teach medicine, I have to have a degree in medicine
.
> That degree is more than just a piece of paper; it is a certification of my
>abilities and knowledge by persons who have themselves been similarly
>certified. Although I don't need a degree to know some things about the
>medical sciences, in order to become an authority on medicine I must be
>trained by other authorities.
>
>So, while Vivekananda and others have some ideas that are in line with advait
a
>philosophy, the fact of the matter is that they are not authorities on advait
a
>because they are apasampradaayi. Therefore, whatever they say about advaita
>has to be taken with a grain of salt until confirmed by an authority on
>advaita.
    You have conveniently deleted the E=m*c*c example I have given. No
  problem. Yes you need a degree here. You are absolutely right. And the
  degree for a guru is that he should be SELF REALISED. Please enlighten
  me on this point. I want to know of someone who is not apasampradaayi
  on advaita other than Shankara. Can you name someone??
>
>>  to what you say if you can sincerely tell me how many of Sri Ramakrishna's

>>  to what you say if you can sincerely tell me how many of Sri Ramakrishna's
>>  or Vivekananda's books you have read. I am saying this because
>>  you have categorised their works here and not what I have written:-)
>
>I have "Thoughts of Power," "Karma Yoga," and "Chicago Addresses" all by Swam
i
>Vivekananda.
      You need to HAVE more books and READ  them too if you want a better
>
>>     *** By the way. You did not answer my question. Define god and
>>   religion in scientific terms. Please say that you dont have an
>>   answer if you dont have one because I have answers for these(scientific
>>   answers sir, purely scientific!!!)
>
>I could answer by citing Bhagavad-Gita, which is the Supreme science spoken b
y
>the Lord Himself. But, I am guessing that you probably won't care for it.
          Please do answer. The only thing is it should be SCIENTIFIC(this
  was what you said about one of the statements('that statement is not VERY
  SCIENTIFIC')
>
>>Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it

>>Then that kind of philosophy is not Absolute. Absolute Truth means that it
>>is the same for everyone. So either the world is real, or it is not. No
>>points for trying to compromise just to be politically correct :)
>>    **** Then why differences like guru and sishya
>
>Because one person is ignorant of the Absolute Truth and must seek instructio
n
    Thanks for providing the answer that I was going to write. This was
  what I meant when I said there are two states. One ignorant and one
  REALISED and free from ignorance. Beings who are ignorant cannot see the
  absolute truth and have to be enlightened. So if you are ignorant, you
  see the world as having different attributes. If you have understood the
>
> So by your argument, is dvaita an absolute
>>  philosophy??
>
>I am not a dvaitist, but yes, I would argue that dvaita is a lot closer to th
e
>actual understanding of the Absolute Truth than advaita.
        How do you know this?? Do you have an understanding of the Absolute
  truth?? Then please enlighten me. Anyway do you belong to the parampara
  of the acharyaas?? Otherwise I will have to take whatever you say with

   truth?? Then please enlighten me. Anyway do you belong to the parampara
  of the acharyaas?? Otherwise I will have to take whatever you say with
>
>>        Advaita is absolute in the sense that the world is real for
>>  people who have not REALISED that it is an ILLUSION.
>
>So, what you are saying now is that the world is ultimately an illusion.
>Presumably, the perception by REALISED persons would be correct, from an
>Absolute standpoint. Therefore, the world is illusion, and so too are tools
>and means by which we can realize this.
>
>Of course, this still does not answer any of my original questions. If the
>world is illusion, where does that illusion come from? Who is being put under

>illusion? Why is this being done? If illusion is there, then the correspondin
g
>reality is presupposed. So within this illusion there is individuality and
>variegatedness, so there must be a similar case in the source of that
>illusion.
     The source argument has already been taken care of. Now coming to where
  the illusion comes from . It comes from the ignorace of the beings.
  Why it is being done. Well I sincerely say that I dont know why.


 Why it is being done. Well I sincerely say that I dont know why.

>>So, according to you, the Absolute Truth is that everything is ONE.
>>Therefore, only in the conditioned state do we see the world as REAL. That
>>means that the world is not actually REAL.
>>                            ^^^^^^^^
>>  ***** What is this ACTUALLY?? Please clarify....
>
>A person who is really interested in the Absolute Truth generally does not
>need to clarify such words. The reason you don't like this word "actually" is

>because it requires you to make a statement of fact, but you are unable to do

>that without qualifying it. This is indeed telling.
   It is not that I like it or dont like it. I want to get a clear picture
  of what you are saying.  You are not conveying much by saying actually..
  What exactly is actually here?? I clearly pointed out the two states
  as realised and not realised. If one is not realised, he percieves the
  world as objects with different attributes. If he is(as quoted by
  realised souls) he will see the world as ONE.
>
>Krishna says this after rejecting the methods of karma and jnaana.
   It is not the verse but the interpretation that contradicts my statement.

  It is not the verse but the interpretation that contradicts my statement.
  I will surely get back to this as soon as I can get a proper translation
  of gita and find this verse. By the way I have read BG myself and have
  never come across such an interpretation.
>> this has been stated in the Mahabharata(I dont have references since
>>  I left my book back in India but I will be happy if anyone can
>>  provide reference about the Vyadyageeta). If this is not authentic,
>>  neither is the BhagavadGita. This parable is to illustrate the fact
>>  that all paths are equal and none of them is INFERIOR or superior to
>>  the other (which is the same as what advaita states)
>
      I am not backing out of the vyadhageeta argument. Let me get a
   proper translation of this and I will get right back to you on this.

>
>But please read my sentence carefully.
>>  Who is worshipping in the first place?? Only if I worship(literally sit
>>  and think about a diety) will the question of WHO I am worshipping
>>  arise.
>
>This makes no sense. You are trying to imply that one can worship any god, bu
t
>This makes no sense. You are trying to imply that one can worship any god, bu
t
>the Bhagavad-gita clearly says that worship of other gods is without proper
>are to be considered to be in proper knowledge. That is the teaching of
       I am again saying if you worship. I am not worshipping at all. then
>>WORK IS WORSHIP
>
>If so, then we must conclude that the ass (note: I am referring to the animal
,
>not a part of the anatomy) is the best of all devotees, because no one works
        Yes. You have got it wrong here again. The ass is working because
  it is being MADE to work by the master. It is afraid of his whip and
  so it works. Leave it to itself and see if it voluntarily picks up a
  cart(or atleast try to do it). I bet it wont. That is the difference sir.
  If one is afraid of going to Planet of the faithless and worships because
  he will go there otherwise then he is sure to end up there. It is
  just for the sake of working that you have to work not because you are
  afraid or because you see some fruits(or result) at the end of the road.
  That is the essence of Karma Yoga.
>
>If I work hard for my own sense gratification, does it mean I am worshiping?
>What kind of philosophy is that?
>If I work hard for my own sense gratification, does it mean I am worshiping?
>What kind of philosophy is that?
    Question answered above.
>
>What the Bhagavad-Gita says is that one must work to please Lord Krishna. Tha
t
>kind of work is karma-yoga. Not simply working to earn money to please your
>own senses.
     Sorry. I would like a quote from BG about this. I would like to
 know which part of BG you are interpreting like this.Thanks in advance.
>
>This "WORK IS WORSHIP" idea is not an advaitist teaching. It is a Vivekananda

>teaching. It is because of sentiments like this that I say that advaitists
>should learn philosophy from Sankaraachaarya's line, and not from others who
>happen to be very popular.
    I dont have any sentiments about this and I want to make it clear that i
  dont have.
>>  (which intuitively is correct also)
>
>This is all likely a misinterpretation. First of all, from what I remember of

@

>This is all likely a misinterpretation. First of all, from what I remember of

>that story, the brahmin was NOT a bhakta. He was performing austerities, yes,

>but that is not necessarily the same as bhakti. As stated in the
>Bhagavad-Gita, only by bhakti can one attain the Supreme. Other paths can onl
y
>lead you to bhakti-yoga. It is not the case that " A person who sincerely doe
s
>his duty is much better off than one who is not sincere in his bhakti..."
>While a bhakta has to be sincere, what is stated in Bhagavad-Gita is:
>
>yoginaam api sarveshaam
> mad-gatenaantar-aatmanaa
>s'raddhaavaan bhajate yo maam
> sa me yuktatamo mataha
>
>"And of all yogiis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks
>of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me -- he i
s
>the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the higest of all. That is
>My opinion." (6.47)

>My opinion." (6.47)
     Here giving up the fruits of work is surrendering to the lord.
  Thinking only of your work  and doing work for the sake of doing it
  and nothing else is doing service to the lord. So now........
>
>Furthermore, bhakti which is improperly performed yields better results than
>other yoga systems:
>
>nehaabhikrama-naa'so 'sti
> pratyavaayo na vidyate
>sv-alpam apy asya dharmasya
> traayate mahato bhayaat (2.40)
>
>"In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on

>this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear."
      The interpretation doesnt in any sense mean that IMPROERLY PERFORMED
  bhakti yields BETTER results.... I dont know how you can infer these
  things from that verse.
>>
>>     **** Advaita basically states that there are no two states and
>

>
>This after trying to convince me that there are two states?
      Sir. Please. This is really getting to my head. I meant the two
  states here as the Bhakta and the God and not the ignorant and the
   realised. Once the unrealised person realises, he is THE SAME AS GOD
  and hence the word ADVAITA. But in DVAITA , the BHAKTA can never BECOME
  one with god.(please tell me if I am wrong here)
>
>>  there is only one(a-dvaita means not dvaita ie not two but one)
>>  So it only is a means of describing the SELF. Hardly does it talk
>>  about sex desire and all other things you have just now stated.
>
>On the contrary! Sankaraachaarya condemned attraction for women in the most
>harshest of terms. He would have to, since married life is illusion. Accordin
g
>to his philosophy, one should remain celibate (to do otherwise is to indulge
>in illusion) and simply meditate and study the Absolute Truth.
     Plese quote from one of Shankara's works and I will accept it with a
  grain of salt:-)

>Of course, so-called advaitists whom I have met do not want to hear this,
@

Of course, so-called advaitists whom I have met do not want to hear this,
>because most of the time they are not serious about practicing advaita. If yo
u
    No comments on this. You are making sweeping statements here.
>
>>  Also materialism means'a doctrine that the only or the
>>   highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
>>furtherance of material progress'. I am quoting from the websters here.
>>  so where does the meaning LOOKING FOR SEX come from. It comes only from
>>  your assumptions and your obsessions.
>
>My obsessions, eh? My how you are taking this personally! Nevertheless, it is

>a fact that materialistic desires are a bigger source of motivation than most

>people realize. I don't care to convince you of it, but It is pretty obvious
>to me when I see people saying things like "WORK IS WORSHIP" and reading
>kaama-sutra (a treatise on obtaining sense gratification) while claiming to b
e
>advaitists.
>
>
>Real advaita requires that one retreat from material life. Pursuing marriage,

>family, career, and money is not compatible with advaita as I have understood

>it. If these things are illusion from the Absolute perspective, then indulgin
g
>in them will not help a person become realized.
  If you have understood it that way, you will have to reunderstand it since
  this is not what it means.
       Basically replace the tiger with a mother (human) who is helpless.
  She is not educated neither does she know of any dvaita or
advaita(basically a very poor(in terms of money)  and
 uneducated person). She decides to steal to feed her hungry kid as this
  is her only alternative(I mean that she can think of). Is she doing
  adharma or dharma if she steals??

>> ***** I have stated an extremely civilised(unique to human beings)
>>   alternative. Please ponder over this...
>
    Regards
    Prasad S Sista