05-16-2005, 07:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+May 15 2005, 08:41 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ May 15 2005, 08:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ethnic Pride equates to walking down the slippery slope and eventual destruction (of what?) - , I want to understand this cross over point<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>k.ram</b>,
IMHO, wrapping religion too tightly in any ideology that springs from <i>the bodily concept of life</i> (dehaatmabuddhi) leads to the spiritual essence being stifled out and gradually extinguished. The first precept of Vedanta is: "you are not the body (gross or subtle), you are the Soul/Self". Illusion (maya) is dehaadhyaasa -- superimposition of the body (on the Self), or IOW, mistaking the body for the Self. This bodily concept of life does not pertain only to the gross and subtle bodies, but also to our "extended false ego", such as caste, community, nation, race, etc.
To put it another way, Vedic literature draws a well-known distinction b/w shruti and smriti, the latter being subordinate to the former. If smriti does not constantly adapt to time, place and circumstance, and acknowledge its subservience to shruti (which it must strive to embody in the best possible way), then religion dies out. We will only be left with the <i>hollow shell of smaarta religiosity</i>.
So the cross-over point in this discussion revolves around the delicate task of balancing some temporary socio-cultural imperatives with upholding the universal and eternal Truth of the Veda. I am cautioning that there is the real risk that these ideologies would (and have) become a runaway menace, and are reducing "sanatana dharma" to an ethnic or sectarian descriptive. Whiskey-sipping Vajpayee was quoted as saying, "I am a pucca sanatani Hindu". <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I am even prepared to accept that in the last century, certain mish-mash theories of "Vedanta" MAY have played some positive socio-cultural role while riding a wave of nationalistic sentiment. I agree there was a real danger that this nationalistic wave could have been solely hijacked by completely atheistic philosophies (pinkos), and Vedic religion could have been pushed out of sight. So this Hindu nationalism brand of preaching may have at least given "religion" a place at the table.
But IMHO, along with serving this (debatably) useful purpose, some serious damage has been done to the understanding of Vedanta itself, because the standard-bearers of these religious ideologies (pretending to be genuine philosophies) have left behind a confused mish-mash of philosophical jargon (I will give one example below). "Hinduism" will become another Judaism. Just take a look at the pathetic theological mess that is modern Judaism (no offence intended to Jewish folk). Dunno when exactly things went wrong with them, but I'm afraid their notions of "tikkun olam" ("repairing the world") is more applicable to their own theology than the state of the universe.
In fact, in the example I give below, I will show that this mish-mash mayavad is <i>self</i>-contradictory, and incorrect <i>even according to the authority (Sripada Shankara) off whom they claim their reputation</i>, i.e., one can demonstrate the flawed nature of this concoction without even going into a comparative explanation of (genuine) Advaita with other schools. It is an additional matter that Shankara's mission itself was not to give a <i>complete </i>understanding of Vedanta, but to establish its superiority over the shunyavadi (so-called Buddhist) theorists. A simple understanding of the historical circumstance of his mission, along with a reading of his commentaries will make it clear <i>whom and what he was addressing</i>.
<b>sunder</b>,
I now give a first example of mayavad concoction, one which is not even faithful to Shankara's explanations, and actually echoes the Shunyavadi scatterbrains whom he smashed in debate. I hope this will illustrate to you why I prefer using the word "mayavadi" to "Advaitin", because most of mayavadi argument is an insult to true Advaita itself (and we're not even getting into Vaishnavism here). The "mayavadis" were those jealous abbots and monks who considered Ramanuja's preaching a challenge to their ceremonious authority. Analogous to the politics of Vatican popery, although these guys based their authority on Shankara, they actually started using all sorts of argument, including atheistic shunyavaad, just to try to combat Vaishnava preaching. Of course, later on they even used their royal influence in Tamil country to brutally persecute and drive out the Vaishnavas.
The present example deals with the very definition of "maya". The Ramakrishna mission that Vivekananda founded publishes many books, and one will note that even within this set theire is plenty of inconsistency -- what to speak of the inconsistency b/w what Vivekananda said and what Ramakrishna said. Many "swamis" in this mission define maya as a "dream", <i>non-existence</i>, some mental projection (classic shunyavaad). They quote the line from the viveka-cudaamani -- brahma-satyam jagan-mithya. "Mithya" means "false", therefore all except brahman is non-existent, according to their simplistic explanation. You, I, and the computer in front of you...its all a dream...wake up and realize you're God!
But the Vedanta definition of sat and asat, or real and unreal is not in terms of simple existence and non-existence. Rather it is in terms of eternality and transience. <b>nitya-anitya vastu viveka</b>. Several quotes from the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita will support this. <b>This explanation is also supported by several genuine Advaitin publications, and IIRC its also on the Sringeri Matha website.</b> Maya is mistaking the "snake for the rope", <i>both</i> of which exist. Maya is the mistake of <i>perception</i> (not of existence), because of the superimposition of one memory onto another object. But in their convoluted theory, the mayavadis take this "superimposition" word and tie their gamchas/langots in knots, giving weird, circular psychological theories, and shutting out questions by saying, "it makes no sense to ask questions, because actually all this does not exist"! Then, sir, why are you wasting your time talking about it??
Several Ramakrishna mission books define maya the shunyavadi way. In fact, even Sri Ramakrishna disputed this mayavadi definition, given by one of his gurus, Totapuri. Sri Ramakrishna spoke of vidya-maya and avidya-maya, which is basically what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and most of the Vaishnav acharyas before him have explained (also called yogamaya and mahamaya), and Lord Chaitanya's teachings are very well-known in that part of the country. This world exists, but is temporary, and maya is the illusion that we can derive any sort of satisfaction from it. The Soul by its very nature seeks eternal pleasure (anandamayo 'bhyasaat), and since this material world is transient, its efforts to find bliss here are doomed to failure. Maya is the illusion that the individual soul is the Enjoyer, the center. This is false ego. Et cetera.
No need to go into further details of Vaishnava theory. It should be sufficient to show the inconsistencies within the Ramakrishna mission itself to establish the case that there's a lot of hodge-podge here. Why RK mission? Because they have appropriated the role of modern speaker for "Hinduism". Forget Hinduism, <i>they cannot even claim that right on Advaita</i>. I'm not sure why Vivekananda had a peculiar fascination for Buddhism. Was it because Westerners (towards whom the Indian intelligentsia looked) had a greater "respect" for Buddhism? After all, the swami's mission was to rstore the "self-respect" of Hindus. Was it a way of also including Buddhism under the 'Hindu' umbrella? If so, it should have been done without diluting Vedanta and making a mockery of it.
Expedient social compromises are okay, but philosophical contortions just to accommodate a practical end are ridiculous (and also devious when they are intellectually dishonest) -- a point which should be central to this discussion. I am perfectly alright with respectfully associating with any grade of mayavadi or Buddhist or anythone else for that matter, <i>and acknowledging what we share in common</i>. But it just makes no sense to me how anyone can conceive of artificially "synthesizing" these disparate philosophies into some new animal.
More significantly, the debunking of this shunyavadi theory of maya also means that the mayavadi castle built on this fundamental concept comes tumbling down like a ton of bricks. If this material energy exists (albeit temporarily), then one has to explain this "non-uniformity" within Existence. Whence we get into parinama-vaada, vivarta-vaada, etc., and the existence of multi-potencies. Once we get into that, the real debate begins, and Lord Chaitanya's Teachings give the most elegant, natural, and complete understanding thus far.
<b>Kaushal</b> ji,
Thanks for the opportunity.
<b>k.ram</b>,
IMHO, wrapping religion too tightly in any ideology that springs from <i>the bodily concept of life</i> (dehaatmabuddhi) leads to the spiritual essence being stifled out and gradually extinguished. The first precept of Vedanta is: "you are not the body (gross or subtle), you are the Soul/Self". Illusion (maya) is dehaadhyaasa -- superimposition of the body (on the Self), or IOW, mistaking the body for the Self. This bodily concept of life does not pertain only to the gross and subtle bodies, but also to our "extended false ego", such as caste, community, nation, race, etc.
To put it another way, Vedic literature draws a well-known distinction b/w shruti and smriti, the latter being subordinate to the former. If smriti does not constantly adapt to time, place and circumstance, and acknowledge its subservience to shruti (which it must strive to embody in the best possible way), then religion dies out. We will only be left with the <i>hollow shell of smaarta religiosity</i>.
So the cross-over point in this discussion revolves around the delicate task of balancing some temporary socio-cultural imperatives with upholding the universal and eternal Truth of the Veda. I am cautioning that there is the real risk that these ideologies would (and have) become a runaway menace, and are reducing "sanatana dharma" to an ethnic or sectarian descriptive. Whiskey-sipping Vajpayee was quoted as saying, "I am a pucca sanatani Hindu". <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I am even prepared to accept that in the last century, certain mish-mash theories of "Vedanta" MAY have played some positive socio-cultural role while riding a wave of nationalistic sentiment. I agree there was a real danger that this nationalistic wave could have been solely hijacked by completely atheistic philosophies (pinkos), and Vedic religion could have been pushed out of sight. So this Hindu nationalism brand of preaching may have at least given "religion" a place at the table.
But IMHO, along with serving this (debatably) useful purpose, some serious damage has been done to the understanding of Vedanta itself, because the standard-bearers of these religious ideologies (pretending to be genuine philosophies) have left behind a confused mish-mash of philosophical jargon (I will give one example below). "Hinduism" will become another Judaism. Just take a look at the pathetic theological mess that is modern Judaism (no offence intended to Jewish folk). Dunno when exactly things went wrong with them, but I'm afraid their notions of "tikkun olam" ("repairing the world") is more applicable to their own theology than the state of the universe.
In fact, in the example I give below, I will show that this mish-mash mayavad is <i>self</i>-contradictory, and incorrect <i>even according to the authority (Sripada Shankara) off whom they claim their reputation</i>, i.e., one can demonstrate the flawed nature of this concoction without even going into a comparative explanation of (genuine) Advaita with other schools. It is an additional matter that Shankara's mission itself was not to give a <i>complete </i>understanding of Vedanta, but to establish its superiority over the shunyavadi (so-called Buddhist) theorists. A simple understanding of the historical circumstance of his mission, along with a reading of his commentaries will make it clear <i>whom and what he was addressing</i>.
<b>sunder</b>,
I now give a first example of mayavad concoction, one which is not even faithful to Shankara's explanations, and actually echoes the Shunyavadi scatterbrains whom he smashed in debate. I hope this will illustrate to you why I prefer using the word "mayavadi" to "Advaitin", because most of mayavadi argument is an insult to true Advaita itself (and we're not even getting into Vaishnavism here). The "mayavadis" were those jealous abbots and monks who considered Ramanuja's preaching a challenge to their ceremonious authority. Analogous to the politics of Vatican popery, although these guys based their authority on Shankara, they actually started using all sorts of argument, including atheistic shunyavaad, just to try to combat Vaishnava preaching. Of course, later on they even used their royal influence in Tamil country to brutally persecute and drive out the Vaishnavas.
The present example deals with the very definition of "maya". The Ramakrishna mission that Vivekananda founded publishes many books, and one will note that even within this set theire is plenty of inconsistency -- what to speak of the inconsistency b/w what Vivekananda said and what Ramakrishna said. Many "swamis" in this mission define maya as a "dream", <i>non-existence</i>, some mental projection (classic shunyavaad). They quote the line from the viveka-cudaamani -- brahma-satyam jagan-mithya. "Mithya" means "false", therefore all except brahman is non-existent, according to their simplistic explanation. You, I, and the computer in front of you...its all a dream...wake up and realize you're God!
But the Vedanta definition of sat and asat, or real and unreal is not in terms of simple existence and non-existence. Rather it is in terms of eternality and transience. <b>nitya-anitya vastu viveka</b>. Several quotes from the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita will support this. <b>This explanation is also supported by several genuine Advaitin publications, and IIRC its also on the Sringeri Matha website.</b> Maya is mistaking the "snake for the rope", <i>both</i> of which exist. Maya is the mistake of <i>perception</i> (not of existence), because of the superimposition of one memory onto another object. But in their convoluted theory, the mayavadis take this "superimposition" word and tie their gamchas/langots in knots, giving weird, circular psychological theories, and shutting out questions by saying, "it makes no sense to ask questions, because actually all this does not exist"! Then, sir, why are you wasting your time talking about it??
Several Ramakrishna mission books define maya the shunyavadi way. In fact, even Sri Ramakrishna disputed this mayavadi definition, given by one of his gurus, Totapuri. Sri Ramakrishna spoke of vidya-maya and avidya-maya, which is basically what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and most of the Vaishnav acharyas before him have explained (also called yogamaya and mahamaya), and Lord Chaitanya's teachings are very well-known in that part of the country. This world exists, but is temporary, and maya is the illusion that we can derive any sort of satisfaction from it. The Soul by its very nature seeks eternal pleasure (anandamayo 'bhyasaat), and since this material world is transient, its efforts to find bliss here are doomed to failure. Maya is the illusion that the individual soul is the Enjoyer, the center. This is false ego. Et cetera.
No need to go into further details of Vaishnava theory. It should be sufficient to show the inconsistencies within the Ramakrishna mission itself to establish the case that there's a lot of hodge-podge here. Why RK mission? Because they have appropriated the role of modern speaker for "Hinduism". Forget Hinduism, <i>they cannot even claim that right on Advaita</i>. I'm not sure why Vivekananda had a peculiar fascination for Buddhism. Was it because Westerners (towards whom the Indian intelligentsia looked) had a greater "respect" for Buddhism? After all, the swami's mission was to rstore the "self-respect" of Hindus. Was it a way of also including Buddhism under the 'Hindu' umbrella? If so, it should have been done without diluting Vedanta and making a mockery of it.
Expedient social compromises are okay, but philosophical contortions just to accommodate a practical end are ridiculous (and also devious when they are intellectually dishonest) -- a point which should be central to this discussion. I am perfectly alright with respectfully associating with any grade of mayavadi or Buddhist or anythone else for that matter, <i>and acknowledging what we share in common</i>. But it just makes no sense to me how anyone can conceive of artificially "synthesizing" these disparate philosophies into some new animal.
More significantly, the debunking of this shunyavadi theory of maya also means that the mayavadi castle built on this fundamental concept comes tumbling down like a ton of bricks. If this material energy exists (albeit temporarily), then one has to explain this "non-uniformity" within Existence. Whence we get into parinama-vaada, vivarta-vaada, etc., and the existence of multi-potencies. Once we get into that, the real debate begins, and Lord Chaitanya's Teachings give the most elegant, natural, and complete understanding thus far.
<b>Kaushal</b> ji,
Thanks for the opportunity.