$)C Comparitive judgement

[$)CHemant]

 $)C
----- Original Message -----
From: "hbdave" <hbd at DDIT.ERNET.IN>
To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: $)CRe: Re: $)CRe: Re: Shankaracharya on Ramana Maharshi


 $)C> $)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

What I am writing is not very origanal but I hope it will be of some use.

In the philosophy of Sri Sankara, Brahman is One without a second, devoid of
any creative power, relationless, without any qualities and --- if at all
the world is accepted, however provisionally --- completely transcendent of
it. The logical consequence of this concept of Brahman is that the world is
unreal, and so is the individual soul. However the world and the individual
soul may be explained, there is no gainsaying that they are not REAL. Maya
is and is not the power of Brahman; the former if the world be accepted and
sought to be explained, the latter if one has already gone beyond the sense
of its reality. Individual soul is either a limitation, false in the last
analysis of Brahman or a reflection, false again of Brahman in maya which
itself is unreal.
Inconviniently enough the world persists as a false appearance in eternal
Time and an eternally persistent false appearance could very well be
described as an inexplicable mystery, an uncategorisable illusion.
            In the Saiva darsana the Brahman is not devoid of will and
creates the world by a power of self limitation, Atma samkoca. This is root
of the philosophical difference between the two types of non-dualism.
Interestingly Kashmir Saivism has many similarities with Sri Aurobindo's
Purna Advaita. Sri Aurobindo was himself completely unfamilier with Kashmir
Saivism. The one capital difference between Aurobindo and Saivism is that
Saivism does not have anything resembling Aurobindo's concept of
transformation, rUpAntara. Here Saivism asserts like Sankara, deha pAta eva
pUrNa moksha.

Hemant