[Advaita-l] (Alleged) Internal Inconsistencies in the Advaita Tradition

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

As Einstein put it, things should be stated in simple terms though not in
simplistic terms. I agree with you that even the most complex topics can be
explained in simple terms once the teacher understands the subject. I do not
think the advaita preceptors would have complicated the subject to increase
their self-importance. I think they were responding to the polemic pressures
on one hand and the needs of their students on the other. In addition to it,
they have to resolve the doubts that arise in their mind when reading
sankara's works with a philosophical construct that helps them create a
consistent world view.

My point is that when there are multiple philosophical constructs in a
tradition, one opposed to the other, then it is an inconsistency. When the
different views are not opposed to each other, then it is valid differences
in interpretation (pata bheda).

The purpose of this post is to determine if the advaita tradition has
internal inconsistencies or valid differences in interpretation.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Namaste Rajaramji,
>
> If you permit I will start with a personal experience. When  I went to
> college and had to learn calculus. Seeing that a relative gave me a book
> called "Calculus made easy" by Silvanus P. Thompson and calculus became my
> most favourite subject. I understand that the book I read 55 years ago is
> still selling. Yet nobody had made it a textbook even at the introductory
> level as it may reduce the importance of the self-important teachers. The
> teachers do not want to say how simple the subject is as that would reduce
> their own importance.
>
> It is my belief that the ancient stalwarts kept the subjects as they really
> are. Lord Buddha's teachings are very simple and he gave many examples to
> illustrate his points. T illustrate the pointt that nothing is separet in
> this world he took a leaf which fell from a tree and showed that it simply
> could not have had a separeate existence. Upto the first generation of
> writers in Buddhism, ie Ashwaghosa and nagarjuns things remained clear and
> simple and the muudles started appearing only later. In the matter of
> Advaita  Gaudapada and Adi Sankara kept things simple and may be Sridhara
> and madhusoodana saraswati wanted make things still simpler. But in between
> these two groups there were other scholars, many of whom  were probably not
> required in Advaita.  Had everybody not gone to show their mastery over
> advaita philosophy, things would have been better of the people of this
> time. I have no objection if some teachers prepare lecture notes of what
> they
>  teach to their disciples but problem starts when these notes in the form
> of books are avalable to all but  the very writer-teachers of these notes
> being personally not avalilable to all. Correct me If I am wrong.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
>
> --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] (Alleged) Internal Inconsistencies in the Advaita
> Tradition
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 2:18 PM
>
> I saw that the links were more of a survey of different opinions but will
> definitely re-read them if you say that it reconciles the differences. I
> think your opinion that there can be multiple models is valid. IMO, maya is
> anirvacaniya and hence it is possible to come up with alternate
> explanations
> of vyavaharika satyam - a sort of metaphysical subjectivism. Also, each
> acharya has an intellectual tendency which decides how he frames the
> problem
> and solution to metaphysical problem within the framework of the tradition.
>
>
> My point in asking the question is to learn how the tradition views the
> differences, if they indeed perceive them.
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
> svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:43:06 +0100
> > > From: rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] (Alleged) Internal Inconsistencies in the
> > Advaita Tradition
> > >
> > > Hare Krishna. I dont know why you say that the internal inconsistency
> is
> > > an allegation. There are two primary classifications
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm sure Sri Anand Hudli will address the details of your concerns if he
> > wishes to,
> > but it is sometimes a fruitless exercise to talk around in circles.
> Please
> > re-read the
> > four links that he sent to his earlier posts and work through them in a
> > little more
> > detail. I would also like to point out to you that what one sees as an
> > internal
> > inconsistency is not necessarily so in another's viewpoint. I am butting
> in
> > here
> > only because I fully agree with him that the so-called inconsistency is
> > indeed only
> > an allegation.
> >
> > To really "get" advaita, one needs to give up a lot of one's
> > preconceptions. It is
> > like having to give up the preconceptions based on classical physics in
> > order to
> > truly get into quantum physics. There, a photon is neither merely a wave,
> > nor
> > merely a particle, nor merely a combination of both, although described
> as
> > if it
> > were indeed both a particle and a wave. So also in advaita, a jIva (or
> for
> > that
> > matter, ISvara) is neither merely a pratibimba, nor merely an AbhAsa etc.
> >
> > Turning to the advaita concept of adhyAsa, you would agree, I suppose,
> that
> > your
> > current characteristic of being son of so-and-so, living in such-and-such
> a
> > place,
> > holder of this-or-that educational degree, employee of such-and-such a
> > company
> > etc do not really characterize your true nature. I would like you to
> think
> > about
> > how these incidental characteristics of your current situation relate to
> > the jIva
> > that is in your physical body. How separable are these from jIva-hood? I
> > trust
> > that if you can see through this issue, you will be able to understand
> that
> > each
> > author in the advaita tradition uses one or the other model of jIvahood,
> in
> > order
> > to explain a certain point in a certain way. Some authors use multiple
> > models
> > in the same text. That one sees an inconsistency is more a function of
> > one's
> > perspective, rather than a reflection on that particular author or on the
> > tradition
> > as a whole.
> >
> > Please do not see my words above as a personal comment. It is easy to say
> > jIva and objectify the word and talk about it as if it were an entity
> > amenable to
> > external analysis. Rather than arm-chair theorizing about jIva and
> ISvara,
> > I think
> > it is high time we all reminded ourselves that when we say jIva, we are
> > really
> > talking about our own selves, not some external entity out there.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vidyasankar
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>