Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 171

Thread: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    vivarana gets its name after Sri Prakashatman (10th century) which is based on Sri Padmapada's Panchapadika.
    In this case it is considerably later than Kashmiri Monistic Shaivism, which at least dates by 8th century C.E. (when Shiva-drishti was written by Acharya Somananda). His immediate disciple Utpaladeva wrote Ishvarapratyabhijna, and Abhinavagupta commented upon it is 10—11 century.

    Moreover, Paradvaita (known also as Svatantrya-vada, Spanda-darshana, Pratyabhijna-darshana etc.) seems to precede even Shankara's Vedanta, since Shankara is usually considered to have lived in 8—9 century.

  2. #12
    Into blind darkness enter those who follow ignorance;
    into even greater darkness go those who follow knowledge.
    It is distinct, they say, from knowledge.
    It is distinct, they say, from ignorance
    -Isa Upanishad

    Isin't Brahma neither knwoledge nor ignorance? However both exist because of brahma. so avidya doesn't cast anything particularly dark on brahma nor vidya cast anything particularly luminous on brahma?? Both these are exist within the qualified brahma or the universe~and none in non-qualified brahma?

    I'm just asking is it our mental bias for ignorance and knowledge is the root cause for so much philosophising to make brahma free from the bias?

    I'm just thinking here~and I have a feeling, not making much sense...ha ha
    Last edited by Singhi Kaya; 14 May 2006 at 07:56 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    Namaste Arjuna,

    Maya is inherent in Dvaita, and of course Dvaita is inherent in Advaita.

    It is the actual perception of duality that is the creative action of Maya.

    Maya is “creative illusion”, and the veritable illusion of Jivatman being somehow disconnected from the absolute unity of Paramatman is the very nature of Maya as Avidya.

    The whole of Advaita Vedanta is beautifully presented in the Mandukyopanishad.

    Prajna (Brahma) is absolutely non-different from Turiya (Brahma) until the very moment that duality is invoked or imagined.

    Om is Om, as one whole unit; however, Om may be perceived as being composed of discrete elements, as A + U + M.

    All possible subdivisions are always implied in the whole, but those parts are only fleeting components of the eternal reality that lies beyond all duality. And one who perfectly knows that eternal reality does not see any diversity, but rather perceives the whole reality all at once.

    Like a well-trained musician who so perfectly knows the tune that there is no thought of individual notes and their particular relationships. That sage musician merely conceives the perfect intention and the whole is perfectly expressed in all its diversity. The time of performance passes in an instant for the minstrel who is totally immersed in the one creative moment of the whole perfect expression.

    The perfect composer knows his creation as a whole that is non-different from himself, while the ignorant audience can only appreciate all of the individual flourishes and wonder how such an uninterrupted flow of perfectly arranged individual components could ever have been conceived. And this is essentially the difference of Vidya and Avidya.

    The science of the Pranava teaches A. U. M., but this Vidya alone is Avidya. The whole (the so-called fourth foot ~ the Turya) must be comprehended and conceived as the one perfect unity that it truly is.

    Shaiva Siddhanta is not entirely synonymous with Shaiva, and Shri Shankaracarya was surely devoted to Shiva, so I find your regular opposition of Shaiva vs. Shankara rather distasteful.

    How is Shankaracarya’s Vedanta “mistaken in some issues”?

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    In this case it is considerably later than Kashmiri Monistic Shaivism, which at least dates by 8th century C.E. (when Shiva-drishti was written by Acharya Somananda). His immediate disciple Utpaladeva wrote Ishvarapratyabhijna, and Abhinavagupta commented upon it is 10—11 century.

    Moreover, Paradvaita (known also as Svatantrya-vada, Spanda-darshana, Pratyabhijna-darshana etc.) seems to precede even Shankara's Vedanta, since Shankara is usually considered to have lived in 8—9 century.
    So what?

    I can see that you want to put down Sri Shankara advaita in each of your post, without any proof or knowledge about it. Either you want to say that your tradition is older, or philosophically superior, or morally different. Looks like an inferiority complex to me.

    Shankara tradition traces its origin to Lord Narayana, and through a disciplic succesion through Vyasa and in modern times through Govindapada and Shankara. It is not a "new" tradition as you would like to view it. Kashmiri Monism may date to the 8th century, but advaita vedanta is much older than that.

    And it is very narrow minded to view Advaita vedanta as different from other Monistic traditions. What is the need to do so?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Namaste Arjuna,
    Maya is inherent in Dvaita, and of course Dvaita is inherent in Advaita.
    It is the actual perception of duality that is the creative action of Maya.
    Maya is “creative illusion”, and the veritable illusion of Jivatman being somehow disconnected from the absolute unity of Paramatman is the very nature of Maya as Avidya.
    The whole of Advaita Vedanta is beautifully presented in the Mandukyopanishad.
    Prajna (Brahma) is absolutely non-different from Turiya (Brahma) until the very moment that duality is invoked or imagined.
    Om is Om, as one whole unit; however, Om may be perceived as being composed of discrete elements, as A + U + M.
    All possible subdivisions are always implied in the whole, but those parts are only fleeting components of the eternal reality that lies beyond all duality. And one who perfectly knows that eternal reality does not see any diversity, but rather perceives the whole reality all at once.
    Like a well-trained musician who so perfectly knows the tune that there is no thought of individual notes and their particular relationships. That sage musician merely conceives the perfect intention and the whole is perfectly expressed in all its diversity. The time of performance passes in an instant for the minstrel who is totally immersed in the one creative moment of the whole perfect expression.
    The perfect composer knows his creation as a whole that is non-different from himself, while the ignorant audience can only appreciate all of the individual flourishes and wonder how such an uninterrupted flow of perfectly arranged individual components could ever have been conceived. And this is essentially the difference of Vidya and Avidya.
    The science of the Pranava teaches A. U. M., but this Vidya alone is Avidya. The whole (the so-called fourth foot ~ the Turya) must be comprehended and conceived as the one perfect unity that it truly is.
    Thank U for this nice exposition, it is interesting

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Shaiva Siddhanta is not entirely synonymous with Shaiva, and Shri Shankaracarya was surely devoted to Shiva, so I find your regular opposition of Shaiva vs. Shankara rather distasteful.
    I use a word Shaiva frequently as a synonim of Monistic (Tantric) Shaiva, for it is troublesome to write long titles each time!
    Yes, there are several Shaiva traditions, which all technically are "Shaiva" since they call God as "Shiva".

    I do not put Shankara himself into opposition to Shaivism, since i believe he was a Shrividya follower (and thus a Monistic Shaiva). The issue is with his Vedanta as presented in his commentaries upon Prasthana-trayi.
    Please, excuse me if i used somewhere as unpleasant expression. Following Shri Bhaskararaya, i do accept and respect Shankara as one of Shrividya Acharyas.

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    How is Shankaracarya’s Vedanta “mistaken in some issues”?
    This requires time; i hope in a few days i will write a post on this theme and then will expect Ur reply.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    So what?
    This interpretation might have been borrowed from Kashmiri Monism, that's all. But may well have been developed independently, as a necessary logical conclusion of Advaita.
    I asked for its source in order to undertand who developed this view, Shankara himself or his followers.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    I can see that you want to put down Sri Shankara advaita in each of your post, without any proof or knowledge about it.
    Philosophical arguement is not "putting down." I several times pointed out that my knowledge of Vedanta is rather limited; i am opened to discussion and can change my opinion — for example, when U mentioned a view which is close to Paradvaita position, i learned that Vedanta subsequently came to similar conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Shankara tradition traces its origin to Lord Narayana, and through a disciplic succesion through Vyasa and in modern times through Govindapada and Shankara. It is not a "new" tradition as you would like to view it. Kashmiri Monism may date to the 8th century, but advaita vedanta is much older than that.
    Please, mythology aside. Every tradition claims it is from Shiva, Narayana or Brahma — and in a sense it may be true, but definitely not in a historical sense!
    The earliest exponent of Advaita-vedanta as far as i know may be Govindapada (or Gaudapada, his Guru). And for Kashmiri Monism Vasugupta and Vatulanatha lived previously to them.
    However, i have no wish to argue on history, since this is of little importance and no use.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    And it is very narrow minded to view Advaita vedanta as different from other Monistic traditions. What is the need to do so?
    What was a need for Shankara to wander around India and argue with various panditas? Perhaps there is a sense in inquiring philosophically which Monistic tradition is more perfect and accurate in its exposition of Monism.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    This interpretation might have been borrowed from Kashmiri Monism, that's all. But may well have been developed independently, as a necessary logical conclusion of Advaita.
    I asked for its source in order to undertand who developed this view, Shankara himself or his followers.
    In the sourthern part of India, philosophical views cannot be derived from any independent thought without soundly justifying it. Sri Shankara's Philolosophy addressed the needs of his time. Later vedantins improvised it only when there was a need. The schools of Bamathi and Vivarana arose only to address particular charges against advaita by Bhaskara and later by Ramanuja.( and others)

    There are no monistic traditions in the South other than advaita vedanta that has answered critics soundly. This may not have been a problem with Kashmiri Monism, which thrived in different circumstances.




    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Philosophical arguement is not "putting down." I several times pointed out that my knowledge of Vedanta is rather limited; i am opened to discussion and can change my opinion — for example, when U mentioned a view which is close to Paradvaita position, i learned that Vedanta subsequently came to similar conclusions.
    But if you do not know about Advaita vedanta, you should refrain from making statements you made earlier. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that Paradvaita is the true Monism, which is somewhat offensive to the followers of advaita vedanta. And then you call advaita as "defective" and yet confess that you do not know it.

    I do not enter philosophical arguments because everything has been said and done by vedantins. There is no new criticizm that you are going to come up with, that have not been done by the school of Dvaita, Advaita vedanta will have all the answers to your charges , all you need to look up the proper commentaries.

    People are always jumping in here by quoting from Sri Shankara's commentaries and finding fault with them (that includes Vaishnavas here), without the least knowledge that it has been addressed very soundly by his followers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    What was a need for Shankara to wander around India and argue with various panditas? Perhaps there is a sense in inquiring philosophically which Monistic tradition is more perfect and accurate in its exposition of Monism.
    Sri Shankara was mainly concentrating on Buddhists, the Jains, some of the dualists like Shankyas, the followers of Nyaya Vaisheshika, Purva Mimansins etc. I am not sure if he was against other monistic traditions and there is not much evidence in his works. Obviously, he has objected to the unvedic practices of other monistic traditions, but it is unlikely that he went after their philosophical doctrines.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    But if you do not know about Advaita vedanta, you should refrain from making statements you made earlier. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that Paradvaita is the true Monism, which is somewhat offensive to the followers of advaita vedanta. And then you call advaita as "defective" and yet confess that you do not know it.
    I deem that Abhinavagupta knew Advaita-vedanta of his time (10-11 cent.) perfectly, and he criticized it in Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini and other works, and modern scholars of Shaivism also have a decent knowledge of Advaita-vedanta as well (for instance, B. N. Pandit).

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    I deem that Abhinavagupta knew Advaita-vedanta of his time (10-11 cent.) perfectly, and he criticized it in Ishvarapratyabhijnavivriti-vimarshini and other works, and modern scholars of Shaivism also have a decent knowledge of Advaita-vedanta as well (for instance, B. N. Pandit).
    I guess so - even other traditions of advaita, that of Vijnanabikshu, Vallabha, Sridhara Swami etc - have had similar issues.

    Your views are remarkably similar to that to Vallabha in a kind of personal God and the grace of God (pushti). As far as I know, these concepts are not alien to Shankara advaita and these criticisms against advaita are a result of improper understanding.

    Regarding Abhinavagupta's charges, which advaitin vedantins have cared to address his issues and in which work? If nobody has addressed them anytime, it means it was not taken seriously. Unless the charges are coming from a well known tradition , I am sure they would be ignored. I am almost sure advaita vedanta has taken only Vishistadvaita and Dvaita seriously when coming to defending its position and has not really bothered itself with other schools which are only an essential rehash of one of these schools.

    You just cant say that advaita is defective because Abinavgupta found it incorrect. What were his arguments, and what were the counter arguments provided to him, and what were his counter and so on. That should be the way you should check the validity of their arguments. If you read just one side of the debate, it will always appear as if the arguments are valid.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Kashmiri Monistic Shaivism, which at least dates by 8th century C.E.
    Shri Shankaracarya lived in the 8th century, and his Advaita philosophy came directly from Shri Gaudapada, whose Karikas date from the 4th or 5th century!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •