Question for Cris and James R.,if possible...
- Thread starter Gravage
- Start date
advaita is a non-dual teaching. When asked why duality is perceived in this world, advaita has a multi-pronged answer to the question. The world of multiplicity can be explained as due to mAyA, the power of creation wielded by the Creator, who is therefore also called the mAyin. From the point of view of the individual, the perception of duality/multiplicity is attributed to avidyA (ignorance) due to which the unity of brahman is not known, and multiplicity is seen instead. This is akin to the false perception of a snake in a rope. When the rope is known, the snake vanishes. Similarly, on brahman-realization, the world of multiplicity vanishes. This does not mean that the individual's ignorance creates the external world. However, the perception of multiplicity in the world, instead of the One brahman, is due to avidyA, i.e. ignorance. When avidyA is removed, the individual knows his own Self (Atman) to be brahman, so that there is no more world and paradoxically, no more individual. Here, the Self alone IS. Removal of avidyA is synonymous with brahman-realization, i.e. moksha.
- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#3
Advaita -> Non-Dvaita -> Non-dualism : sanskrit meaning.
Literally, "non-dualism," advaita is the name of the oldest extant school of vedAnta. advaita bases itself upon the upanishads, the brahma-sUtras and the bhagavad-gItA. advaita asserts that the real, essential identity of the jIva, the individual self, is nothing other than brahman Itself. The teaching follows from upanishadic statements (mahAvAkyas) like tat tvam asi and aham brahmAsmi. It is in this cardinal doctrine that advaita differs from all other schools of vedAnta. The main tenets of advaita are detailed in commentaries written by SankarAcArya, the famous philosopher who lived in the 7th - 8th centuries A.D.
- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#1
I am not sure about Buddhism, but the vedantic view of budhhism :
No, advaita is not a mere copy of buddhism. For a few centuries now, advaita has been criticized as being "pracanna bauddham" - buddhism in disguise. This criticism stems mainly from some of the vaishNava schools of vedAnta, but it is misplaced. Firstly, there is no one "buddhism" and for the criticism to be valid, it must be specified which school of buddhism is being referred to. SankarAcArya expends a lot of effort criticizing many of the philosophical positions taken by various schools of buddhism in his commentaries. Among modern academic scholars, advaita vedAnta is most often compared with the madhyamaka and yogAcAra schools of buddhism. This has been inspired mainly by the fact that the mANDUkya kArikAs, written by gauDapAda, Sankara's paramaguru, exhibit a great familiarity with this school of buddhism.
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#4
Bhagavdgita a treatise on all vedantic schools of thought including advaita prescribes theology as well. The famous advaitic guru Adi-sankara wrote theological treatises besides advaitic vedanta.
Also see : http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#8
Sorry, i can't say the same thing again now.You don't need to respect my view, it's robust enough to withstand some disrespect, and if it isn't I'll dump it.
Haven't you been paying attention to all that's been stated by the others on this forum? It is quite annoying when someone states 'that is not correct' as if they're some god who will automatically make it wrong.
Again... faith and evidence. However... again... there ae roughly 6,000,000,000 people in the world and somehow 1/3 of them seem to share a view somewhat similar to mine. You can call that independent verification if you wish...
... with a few random errors to slightly skew the values... maybe some other errors too = uncertainty. As far as I'm concerned independent verification is impossible apart from this... and nevertheless quite irrelevant. Even in scienctific endeavours it can be quite humorous - especially when you and your comrades suffer the same... 'errant reading' trait...Anyway I give up...
I'm sorry... but I have to applaud this one... not that I'm... well... I am rubbing it in... but... I think Cris needs a... prescribed dose of these... especially when s/he goes on the "warpath". I'm sure Canute meant no offense to Cris... as it can be applied to all of us...
still funny though... heh.
MarcAC,
But if what you experience is merely natural brain function and doesn’t involve an external influence, as can be suggested by neurotheology, then how would you distinguish that from your claim of direct experience of God? The reality is that you can’t.
My only point here is the claim that you know when you clearly cannot know no matter how strong your conviction.
Appeal to quantity doesn’t help. Not long ago nearly everyone on the planet believed the world was flat.
But if what you experience is merely natural brain function and doesn’t involve an external influence, as can be suggested by neurotheology, then how would you distinguish that from your claim of direct experience of God? The reality is that you can’t.
My only point here is the claim that you know when you clearly cannot know no matter how strong your conviction.
consciousness appears to be a fundamental human experience. I have never met anyone who denied that they conscious. The trouble is that it does not seem to be observable.
My contention is that all spiritual people share a common belief that consciousness is not bound by phisical laws. Non spritual people believe that consciousness is absolutly controled by phisical laws.
The great thing about this is that we all have a common experience and all spritual people have a common belief.
Canute you have some very nice posts.
My contention is that all spiritual people share a common belief that consciousness is not bound by phisical laws. Non spritual people believe that consciousness is absolutly controled by phisical laws.
The great thing about this is that we all have a common experience and all spritual people have a common belief.
Canute you have some very nice posts.
I'm not being evasive but it's a bit hard to prove a negative. Can you point out where those extracts said that adavaita is monistic or theistic?Originally posted by everneo
How does it confirm that (i) advaita is not monistic.? (ii) no theology / God involved in advaita vedanta.? If it says so, then it is my turn to dump most of my views.
I know that some of the language used sounds theological, but it shouldn't be read as if it was a Christian text. 'God' is sometimes used as a term for cosmic consciousness, but in objective terms it is the empty God of Spinoza, and subjectively it's the emptiness of Buddhism, not a God with attributes. It's a useful word, not a thing. In advaita all 'things' are concepts, appearances without substance.
Also beware the coil of rope and snake analogy. In advaita the rope is a delusion, the snake is a delusion, and the individual subject perceiving the rope and the snake is a delusion.
Here's some relevant words.
"One cannot imagine the basic truth being put in conceptualised words more clearly, more accurately, more briefly, more laconically, more directly. Hui Neng, the Zen master, said: 'From the beginning not a thing is.' What he meant was just what he said. NOTHING alone is the source, by whatever name it's conceptually known: Source, Noumenon, Void, Consciousness, Absolute, Universal Energy, God. Nothing can be real in 'something'. Being can only be the functioning of Non-being. Hui Neng was an illiterate peasant. Perhaps that is why the cryptic, unadorned statement'.
Also -
"Spiritual seekers are like lost children in a conceptual forest created by their own imagination
Wu Wu Wei - quoted in 'The Ultimate Truth' , Ramesh Balskar.
On monism -
"Now Advaita is not the same as is usually meant by Monism, nor is it some catch-word to avoid difficulties. The word means, of course, Not-Two, but this is not the equivalent for One, though to the casual thinker it is not easy to see where the differences lies. But if we call it Monism then premising one we infer a whole series, one,two,three etc. No such series actually exists, there is just Not-Two.
A Saddhu's Reminiscenses of Ramana Maharshi
By Saddhu Arunachala (A.W. Chadwick)
Last edited:
All the required details are there in that web site. The excerpts are minimal for want of space. Let me give the url pertaining to theology / God in advaita vedanta again :
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#8
As for the monism, i follow closely the standard definition of absolute monism. The argument in one of your excerpts that 'Not-two or more, but not-one also' seems to be a paradox. Advaita's core theme is uniqueness of the ultimate reality (Brahman - not the deity brahma) and other dualism and multiplicity are illusions as a result of ignorance. When you have enough free time please go thro the contents of the site and i am sure you would come out with a couple of questions.
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#8
As for the monism, i follow closely the standard definition of absolute monism. The argument in one of your excerpts that 'Not-two or more, but not-one also' seems to be a paradox. Advaita's core theme is uniqueness of the ultimate reality (Brahman - not the deity brahma) and other dualism and multiplicity are illusions as a result of ignorance. When you have enough free time please go thro the contents of the site and i am sure you would come out with a couple of questions.
Where? I can't find them. Where's some theology, and where's some monism?
What is the standard one?
Exactly, it's inevitable. Advaita is concerned with what is, not with how things seem to be, or the paradoxes that arise in describing or conceptualising.
No questions (well, no new questions anyway). Advaita, I'll risk asserting, is based on a knowledge (belief if you like) that everything is grounded on nothing, and that even the self has only a dependent existence.
It's ultimate substrate of existence is a state of being (or in a sense perhaps even less than that), not a thing that can be conceived, perceived, discussed or described without contradictions arising. No assertion can be made about this substrate that is not both true and false. It is therefore incoherent within advaita thought to say that ultimate reality is something unique, by the opposite view it's probably the least unique thing that there is. Hence the two Brahmans as metaphors for it.
Getting into semantics ?
Here we go :
Monistic :
"The mani-fold universe and the individual self, which considers itself bound, are both superimposed upon that Transcendental Reality which is brahman. Once the superimposition is understood for what it is, the individual is no more an individual, the universe is no more the universe - all is brahman."
- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html
Google too could reveal loads of references - how advaita is monistic.
Theology :
"This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever. SankarAcArya most emphatically asserts that such is not his intention. On the other hand, he is at great pains to point out that one who is desirous of moksha needs to overcome his human shortcomings in order to achieve full liberation. Sankara prescribes rigorous prerequisite qualities for the person who is to study vedAnta. These form the practical aspect of the effort to rise above and sublate the characteristics of the human jIva, in order to understand the Atman/brahman. The non-dual reality of the Atman is revealed to the intense seeker, as an experience that defies words. One might call it a mystic experience of brahman, in which to know brahman is to be brahman. Thus, rather than being atheistic or non- theistic, advaita vedAnta is meta-theistic: it points to the basic underlying Reality of all, including what humans call God, what humans call the universe, and what humans call human. This Reality is the unchangeable brahman."
- ref : in the same page given above.
"That said, vishNu and Siva, the Great Gods of Hinduism, are both very important within the advaita tradition. The sannyAsIs of the advaita order always sign their correspondence with the words "iti nArAyaNasmaraNam ". In worship, advaitins do not insist on exclusive worship of one devatA alone. As brahman is essentially attribute-less (nirguNa), all attributes (guNas) equally belong to It, within empirical reality. The particular form that the devotee prefers to worship is called the ishTa-devatA. The ishTa-devatAs worshipped by advaitins include vishNu as kRshNa, the jagadguru, and as rAma, Siva as dakshiNAmUrti, the guru who teaches in silence, and as candramaulISvara, and the Mother Goddess as pArvatI, lakshmI and sarasvatI. Especially popular are the representations of vishNu as a sAlagrAma, Siva as a linga, and Sakti as the SrI-yantra. gaNapati is always worshipped at the beginning of any human endeavor, including the pUjA of other Gods. The daily sandhyAvandana ritual is addressed to sUrya. The sannyAsis of the advaita sampradAya recite both the vishNu sahasranAmam and the SatarudrIya portion of the yajurveda as part of their daily worship. In addition, "hybrid" forms of the Deities, such as hari-hara or Sankara-nArAyaNa and ardhanArISvara are also worshipped."
- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#6
Besides, Sankara established six authenticated religious sects devoted to six forms of the Saguna-bramhan (The state just below the Brahman - Nirguna_Brahman) viz. Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Skanda, Ganesh and Surya.
Not yet sufficient for 'some theology'.? Can give Sankara's theological works as well.
As i said earlier, advaita enables one to choose any/all of the six forms above as his/her ishta-devta(s) to proceed in the path of ultimate realization of Brahman.
Monism - The thesis that all of reality is of one kind.
other kinds of monisms :
Neutral monism - a doctrine of Hume, Russell, and Mach, denies that reality is based in either the physical or the mental, but rather in one particular kind of substance that can be classified as neutral stuff.
Partial monism - holds that if there are many realms of being, then there is still only one substance within one of the realms upon which everything is based.
If not non-dualism then it has to be the One (it does not mean this 'one' is the start of the series 1,2,3,4... but rather means 'the only being / reality'). This is nothing but monism. Else it is a paradox to say not monism also.
I have no serious objection, at present, with rest of your post.
What else?
Brahman is NOT a monist concept.
Where exactly.
That is metaphysics, not theology. It asserts the existence of concepts of God, not of a fundamental God.
Do not assume that these Gods are thought by practitioners to exist in fundamental reality. They are not, although they may be by beginners. They are mneumonics, teaching aids and friendly shorthand ways of organising life and practice. In advaita no 'things' exist, so certainly Gods don't.
You cannot have theology in a discipline whose metaphysics does not include Gods, even if it uses the concepts for practical purposes.
Fine. To each his own. That's the whole point of having a well-invented selection to choose from. It's good marketing. Do you think many people, most of whom need Gods, would turn to advaita if they were just offered the chance of learning that nothing exists, not even them? Most people assume that such an idea is nihilistic and turn away.
Of course it's a paradox, you're using dual language and concepts and thus not seeing that it's not a paradox, just a case of contradictory aspects. 'Not-two' does not mean one. You will find this asserted over and over again in the literature, usually in the introduction, so easy is it for 'not-two' to be misconstrued.
Phew.
Everneo
Dammit, I see that my last post may also be misunderstood. When I said that I don't post insults I was explaining that mine wasn't one, not criticising you.
I've pondered the theology question a bit and concluded that we are both right. Advaita does use the language of theology, as you say, but on the other hand these Gods are not fundamental. It is a metaphysical doctrine, not a religion. If all the Gods were taken away it would remain a coherent doctrine, (unlike any religion, where if you took away the Gods there wouldn't be anything left).
So there is a theology, but it is of a metaphorical kind, since ultimately it is not a theology based doctrine. I wasn't entirely wrong, but I see that I overstated my case.
Dammit, I see that my last post may also be misunderstood. When I said that I don't post insults I was explaining that mine wasn't one, not criticising you.
I've pondered the theology question a bit and concluded that we are both right. Advaita does use the language of theology, as you say, but on the other hand these Gods are not fundamental. It is a metaphysical doctrine, not a religion. If all the Gods were taken away it would remain a coherent doctrine, (unlike any religion, where if you took away the Gods there wouldn't be anything left).
So there is a theology, but it is of a metaphorical kind, since ultimately it is not a theology based doctrine. I wasn't entirely wrong, but I see that I overstated my case.