$)CRe: Re: $)CRe: Re: Shankaracharya on Ramana Maharshi

[hbdave]

$)CHemant wrote:

>  $)C
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "hbdave" <hbd at DDIT.ERNET.IN>
> To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 2:17 PM
> Subject: Re: $)CRe: Re: Shankaracharya on Ramana Maharshi
>
>  $)C> $)CHemant wrote:
> >
> > > Only one remark
> > > Kashmir Shaivism treats the world as absolutely real and never mithya as
> in
> > > SAnkara advaita.
> > >
> > > Hemant
> >
> > "Absolutely real and not Mithya" would mean that the world exists
> independent
> > of any basis (i. e. Shiva and Parvati). My understanding was that Kashmir
> > Shaivism believed in illusory world, but I may be wrong, not being very
> well
> > studied it. I think any list member knowledgable in this line of thought
> may
> > clarify.
> >
> > Still my first  (mukhya) interpretation is independent of whether Kashmir
> > Shaivism considers World as absolute reality or not.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > -- Himanshu
>

Thanks for the extract from Kshmir Shaivism web-site. On reading  that,
several things are not clear.  My purpose of discussing this is only to see if
Shankara Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism can be shown compatible. As mentioned
in my other mail, I think time has come for finding out common and compatible
ideas, rather than discuss differences.

>
>   ''Although Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta both teach nondualism, the
> non-dualism of Kashmir Shaivism is quite different from that of Advaita
> Vedanta. Essential to this difference is Advaita Vedanta's proposition that
> this universe is untrue and unreal,

I think this is not entirely correct representation. Advaita Vedanta (as taught
by
Adi Shankara) says "this world is Mithya", i.e., it does not have an existence
independent of a basis (brahman). The world is accepted as a vyavaharika satta.

In fact, what is envisaged is a series of realities - phenomenal, empirical and

ultimate.
I remember to have read that in Kashmir Shaivism, the triad Shiva, Shakti and
Nara (i.e. explained as "world as a phenomenal reality" by the translator of
Trishika
Vivarana by Abhinavagupta) are considered as realities, but Nara (observed
world) is not explicitly said to be Ultimate or Absolute  Reality.

> that it is a false projection of maya.
> This theory is completely opposed to the Kashmir Shaiva theory of reality.
> To counter this proposition Kashmir Shaivism argues that, if Shiva is real,
> how could an unreal substance emerge from something that is real?

On reading  the text mentioned above, it is not clear if by "unreal" what is
being rejected is phenomenal existence. If by "unreal" what is meant is
asat (non-existent), then Advaita has no difference with K. Shaivism
on that ground. Advaita will readily agree that from real Shiva (brahman)
a world as an imagined  relative reality does emerge. Advaita never says
that world is unreal (asat) in the sense that "horns of hare" are unreal.

> If Shiva,
> the ultimate essence of existence, is real, his creation must also be real.

Yes, but what is the "level" of this reality? Please see above.

>
> For the Kashmir Shaiva this universe is just as real as its creator.''

Yes, "as real as its creator". Advaita would agree to that, but who is the
creator? Is it Para vaak? Or, lower level vaak like Pashyanti, Madhyama,
or Vaikhari?

>
>
>  I hope this extract from the Kashmir Shaivism web-site will be found
> helpful.
>
> Hemant

My purpose of writing all these has already been mentioned, so do not
get me wrong.

Best wishes,
Himanshu