scholarly journals A Contemporary Interpretation of Mayavada: Advaita Vedanta and the Affirmation of the Material Universe

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicholas Parkin

<p>Mayavada (the doctrine of maya) is the Advaitin explanation of how the infinite Brahman is manifested as the finite material world. Brahman is unchanging and perfect; the locus of the changing and imperfect world. This paper has two aims. The first is to show that mayavada affirms the reality of the material world, despite the claims of Paul Deussen and Prabhu Dutt Sharstri to the contrary. To achieve this end a world-affirming mayavada is formulated based on the metaphysics of Swami Vivekananda, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and Sri Aurobindo. The second aim is to show that world-affirming mayavada is a plausible metaphysical position which should be taken seriously in contemporary metaphysical debate. To achieve this some pluralist arguments against nondualism are rejected, and it is explained how world-affirming mayavada is preferable to pluralism when accounting for the ontological problems that arise from limitless decomposition and emergence due to quantum entanglement. Hence the conclusion of this paper will be that mayavada is a plausible metaphysical position which affirms the reality of the material world.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicholas Parkin

<p>Mayavada (the doctrine of maya) is the Advaitin explanation of how the infinite Brahman is manifested as the finite material world. Brahman is unchanging and perfect; the locus of the changing and imperfect world. This paper has two aims. The first is to show that mayavada affirms the reality of the material world, despite the claims of Paul Deussen and Prabhu Dutt Sharstri to the contrary. To achieve this end a world-affirming mayavada is formulated based on the metaphysics of Swami Vivekananda, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and Sri Aurobindo. The second aim is to show that world-affirming mayavada is a plausible metaphysical position which should be taken seriously in contemporary metaphysical debate. To achieve this some pluralist arguments against nondualism are rejected, and it is explained how world-affirming mayavada is preferable to pluralism when accounting for the ontological problems that arise from limitless decomposition and emergence due to quantum entanglement. Hence the conclusion of this paper will be that mayavada is a plausible metaphysical position which affirms the reality of the material world.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
David J. Neumann

AbstractSwami Vivekananda was the most influential pioneer of a Yogi Christ, illustrating well over a century ago how the life and teachings of Jesus might be incorporated within a larger Hindu worldview—and then presented back to Western audiences. Appropriation of Jesus, one of the central symbols of the West, might be viewed as the ultimate act of counter-Orientalism. This article begins by providing a brief biography of Vivekananda and the modern Hinduism that nurtured him and that he propagated. He articulated an inclusivist vision of Advaita Vedanta as the most compelling vision of universal religion. Next, the article turns to Vivekananda's views of Christianity, for which he had little affection, and the Bible, which he knew extraordinarily well. The article then systematically explores Vivekananda's engagement with the New Testament, revealing a clear hermeneutical preference for the Gospels, particularly John. Following the lead of biblical scholars, Vivekananda made a distinction between the Christ of the Gospels and the Jesus of history, offering sometimes contradictory conclusions about the historicity of elements associated with Jesus's life. Finally, the article provides a detailed articulation of Vivekananda's Jesus—a figure at once familiar to Christians but, in significant ways, uniquely accommodated to Hindu metaphysics. Vivekananda demonstrated a robust understanding and discriminating use of the Christian Bible that has not been properly recognized. He deployed this knowledge to launch an important and long-lived pattern: an attractive, fleshed out depiction of Jesus of Nazareth, transformed from the Christian savior into a Yogi model of self-realization. Through his efforts, Jesus became an indisputably Indian religious figure, no longer just a Christian one. The Yogi Christ remains a prominent global religious figure familiar to Hindus, Christians, and those of other faiths alike.


2018 ◽  
Vol 73. (4) ◽  
pp. 535-535
Author(s):  
Simran Raina

The paper examines the metaphysical and ethical approaches underlying the image of the self and the other in Advaita Vedānta (hereafter AV). AV examines the nature of the conceptual division between the self and the other, referred to by the terms ‘I’ (asmad) and ‘you’ (yuṣmad) respectively. Behind the mundane expressions of these terms AV identifies superimposition — adhyāsa as a metaphysical precursor, which generates a cognitive error in all such expressions where we use personal pronouns ‘I’ and attributes such as ‘fat’, ‘tall’ etc. thereupon. The position of AV is that the distinction between the self and the other is due to a cognitive error caused by superimposition. In other words, to see differences in reality is ignorance (avidyā). Moreover, if this ignorance is replaced by true knowledge, i.e., knowledge of reality as Advaita, i.e., Non–duality, we shall see the development of a different kind of understanding revealing the underlying unity of self and other. This knowledge of the underlying unity generates a different attitude which dissolves social problems such as socio–political inequality, hatred and violence, etc. grounded in the ‘self’–‘other’ distinction. Like any piece of knowledge, the knowledge of the realization of an underlying non–duality or advaita brings about an attitude change towards reality. In this case, the attitude of taking granted the distinction between ‘I’ and ‘you’ is changed to seeing non–duality in all individuals. However, in principle, since AV advocates non–duality, it cannot meaningfully talk about morality or ethics, since ethics presupposes duality between ‘I’ and ‘you.’ So the challenge is to show that, according to AV, the non–duality of self and other is the source of morality. In addition, an ethics of active love is proposed which is congruent with AV’s metaphysical commitments. The ethics of active love develops when one gives up the idea of differences and identifies oneself with others. It is a well known fact that the root of most social evils is the discrimination between ‘I’ and ‘You’. Moreover, it is the ego (I) that creates a rift between one man and another, and as a result, society suffers from various problems such as violence, hatred, social discrimination and corruption, etc. The conception of the oneness of all beings advocated by AV creates a spirit of love and harmony among individual selves, and this love is the foundation stone of ethics or morality. Taking recourse to the AV’s exposition of the issue, a moral interpretation of the underlying unity of self and other is also intended. The aim of the paper is twofold: 1. To examine and present the metaphysical position of AV vis–à–vis the distinction between self and other. 2. To respond to the problem of the possibility of moral or ethical actions within AV metaphysics with a new kind of morality that is based on the identification of one’s self with others. In other words, an ethics based on and compatible with Advaita metaphysics


Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 655
Author(s):  
Jeffery D. Long

This essay will pose and seek to answer the following question: If, as Swami Vivekananda claims, the four yogas are independent and equally effective paths to God-realization and liberation from the cycle of rebirth, then what must reality be like? What ontology is implied by the claim that the four yogas are all equally effective paths to the supreme goal of religious life? What metaphysical conditions would enable this pluralistic assertion to be true? Swami Vivekananda’s worldview is frequently identified with Advaita Vedānta. We shall see that Vivekananda’s teaching is certainly Advaitic in what could be called a broad sense. As Anantanand Rambachan and others, however, have pointed out, it would be incorrect to identify Swami Vivekananda’s teachings in any rigid or dogmatic sense with the classical Advaita Vedānta of Śaṅkara; this is because Vivekananda’s teaching departs from that of Śaṅkara in some significant ways, not least in his assertion of the independent salvific efficacy of the four yogas. This essay will argue that Swami Vivekananda’s pluralism, based on the concept of the four yogas, is far more akin to the deep religious pluralism that is advocated by contemporary philosophers of religion in the Whiteheadian tradition of process thought like David Ray Griffin and John Cobb, the classical Jain doctrines of relativity (anekāntavāda, nayavāda, and syādvāda), and, most especially, the Vijñāna Vedānta of Vivekananda’s guru, Sri Ramakrishna, than any of these approaches is to the Advaita Vedānta of Śaṅkara. Advaita Vedānta, in Vivekananda’s pluralistic worldview, becomes one valid conceptual matrix among many that bear the ability to support an efficacious path to liberation. This essay is intended not as an historical reconstruction of Vivekananda’s thought, so much as a constructive philosophical contribution to the ongoing scholarly conversations about both religious (and, more broadly, worldview) pluralism and the religious and philosophical legacies of both Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. The former conversation has arrived at something of an impasse (as recounted by Kenneth Rose), while the latter conversation has recently been revived, thanks to the work of Swami Medhananda (formerly Ayon Maharaj) and Arpita Mitra.


Author(s):  
Suren Naicker

This article focuses on the metaphors employed by Swami Vivekananda. The aim was to explain otherwise abstruse philosophical principles within the Hindu school of thought, with especial emphasis on Swami Vivekananda’s version of Advaita Vedanta, which maintains that there is no duality of existence despite the appearance of such. Using conceptual metaphor theory as a framework, and corpus linguistics as a tool, the metaphors used in Vivekananda’s Complete Works have been explored and it is concluded that he more often than not draws on the water frame to explain concepts. This is contrary to mainstream Western religions, which seem to employ primarily the family frame to conceptualise God metaphorically; this is not so within Vivekananda’s Hinduism – though he does use the said frame. Hence, Vivekananda’s water-related metaphors are analysed here under various themes, and parallels are drawn between Christian mysticism and Vivekananda’s Hinduism, showing that there are significant similarities between these two influential traditions.


1982 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 468
Author(s):  
Albert Adams ◽  
William M. Indich

Author(s):  
Alberto Anrò

AbstractThe present paper is a continuation of a previous one by the same title, the content of which faced the issue concerning the relations of coreference and qualification in compliance with the Navya-Nyāya theoretical framework, although prompted by the Advaita-Vedānta enquiry regarding non-difference. In a complementary manner, by means of a formal analysis of equivalence, equality, and identity, this section closes the loop by assessing the extent to which non-difference, the main issue here, cannot be reduced to any of the former. The following sections of this study will focus on the assessment of the eventual possibility of causation and transformation in non-difference.


Philotheos ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-25
Author(s):  
Deepa Majumdar ◽  

Bréhier revives the possibility of Indian Upaniṣadic influence on Plotinus, specifically in the area of mysticism – asking what in Plotinus’ philosophy is foreign with respect to the Greek philosophical tradition. After Bréhier there are vigorous defenses of Plotinus’ Greek origins – not all of which respond directly to the key issues he raises, or address Plotinus’ mysticism specifically. My purpose in this paper is not to answer Bréhier, but to revisit him, for the purpose of delineating paradigmatic differences between Plotinus’ metaphysics and that in Advaita Vedānta. Starting with differences in their respective texts and conceptions of the Divine, I explore concrete concepts (Māyā, tolma, the forms, gun․as, etc.), so unique to each tradition that they comprise the heart and essence of their differences. I assert as well that their metaphysical distinctions imply dissimilarities in their modes of mysticism. In this effort I uphold numinous experience above historical influences. This paper therefore has four parts: (1) Revisiting Bréhier, Armstrong, and Others; (2) Defining Terms: Texts, Methods, and Conceptions of the Divine (Striking Similarities); (3) Contrasting Advaita Vedānta and the Enneads (Paradigmatic Differences); and (4) Conclusion.


1968 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Hinck ◽  
Swami Satprakashananda

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document