PDA

View Full Version : What is the path of liberation in Advaita



sanathan
09 October 2012, 12:25 AM
I would like to know the exact path(sadhana) to be followed to get liberated from samsara and achieve brahmananda as per Advaita .

I have few minor questions related to the main question:

1. How do we validate the path (i.e are there any pramanas from sruthi?)
2. How do validate the state achieved after sadhana is same as what sruthi reveals as brahmanubhava?
3. Is the goal(brahmananda) a positive state of anandanubhava or just liberation from samsara?

Amrut
10 October 2012, 05:11 AM
I would like to know the exact path(sadhana) to be followed to get liberated from samsara and achieve brahmananda as per Advaita .

I have few minor questions related to the main question:

1. How do we validate the path (i.e are there any pramanas from sruthi?)
2. How do validate the state achieved after sadhana is same as what sruthi reveals as brahmanubhava?
3. Is the goal(brahmananda) a positive state of anandanubhava or just liberation from samsara?

If you want ot understand Advaita, please read Sri Ramana Gita.

In Advaita, on can meditate on OM or do Neti-Neti. Neti-Neti is for very strong mind and pure soul. Most of people go for OM.

But OM does not suit everyone. OM uproots all desires, good, bad, divine, etc and makes one neutral. OM chanting is only suitable for sanyasins or for people who only want Moksha.

Some points to consider:

The only goal should be Moksha
Withdrawal form social life
Not to give any importance to any activity, or any issue, as all is within Maya which is illusion.

If you hav desires adn wnat them to be fulfilled, OM will make one neutral and remove the desire, but you want the desire to fulfill and so go for it, again OM willl neutralise it. This will be a kind of tug-of-war and one will not be happy

Unlike other paths like dvaita, there is no oppurtuinity for emotional outlet. One can be angry to Lord Ram or Shiva, but in Advaita there is no perosnal God. Only Atman, which is you.



1. How do we validate the path (i.e are there any pramanas from sruthi?)

Upnishads and Gita can be helpful in Advaita vedanta. One has to learn Prakarana Granth created by Sri Adi Shankaracharya like Tatva Bodh nad Vivekchudamani. After the study of prakarana granth, one can read Gita and later on Upnishads (if needed). When one is mature, Guru gives Ashtavakra Gita.

Ashtavakra Gita is not to be read by everybody. Read only if given by Advaita Realized guru.


2. How do validate the state achieved after sadhana is same as what sruthi reveals as brahmanubhava?

Imagine you are visiting a Zoo. A Tiger Breaks free from cage and comes in your direction. If you spot the tiger, will you run towards him or away from him? Obviously away from him. Is it necessary for tiget to tie a board round his neck that "I am Tiger" No. It does not need intro or convincing. There are no doubts when Tiger is standing right in front of you. In the same way, when one is realized, there is no need ot convience oneself that the state you ahve experienced or are abiding is the final state of Self Realization.

Deep Peace and ultimate power are one and the same thing says Sri Ramana Maharshi.


3. Is the goal(brahmananda) a positive state of anandanubhava or just liberation from samsara?

It is deifnintely not a negative state of depression or lonelyness.

the State is Sat-chit-Ananda

Sat = Truth = existance in all 3 states - waking, dream and deep sleep
Chit = chaitanya = the most subtle. Subtle thing like air and akash spread vast and occupy every space. So Atman is the subtlest and hence it is everywhere
Ananda = Bliss. there is no duality. there is no observer and object of observation. Only You are present as pure consciousness. So there is no fear, no death. It is feeling of completeness. when you feel your physical body, you feel it's boundaries, when you are one with Brahman / Atman, you are infinite without boudaries. It is a state with fear and death and hence it is pure bliss and deep peace.

Sri Ramana Maharshi says only those with verry pure mind by birth due to tremendiou merits earned in past lives or one who is pure by practising intense meditation in this and past life qualify to live Advaita Vedanta.

I do not want to disheart you or anyone else, but presen fact. Please read Sri Ramana Gita. Even Prakaran Granth like Vivekchudamani has described the adhikara or qualifications required for reading and digesting scriptures.

One can apply advaita in practical life, but advaita is not for everybody. It requires a Guru, as it is direct dealing with mind and the path is invisible. Only a realized soul can guide you to ultimate state.

Aum

Amrut
10 October 2012, 05:24 AM
Please refer

Vedanta is Living Experience (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2008/05/vedanta-is-living-experience.html)

What is Advaita Vedanta? Can it be applied in today’s Practical Life? (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2009/08/what-is-advaita-vedanta-can-it-be.html)

Different Paths of Self Realisation (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2009/09/different-paths-of-self-realisation.html)

Spiritual Essence - Spirituality in a nut shell (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2010/02/spiritual-essence-spirituality-in-nut.html) - Based on Advaita

Advaita Vedanta Basics - Guru (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2008/05/advaita-vedanta-basics-guru.html)

Advaita Vedanta Basics - Importance of a Guru (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2008/05/advaita-vedanta-basics-importance-of.html)

sanathan
10 October 2012, 06:08 AM
If you want ot understand Advaita, please read Sri Ramana Gita.

In Advaita, on can meditate on OM or do Neti-Neti. Neti-Neti is for very strong mind and pure soul. Most of people go for OM.

But OM does not suit everyone. OM uproots all desires, good, bad, divine, etc and makes one neutral. OM chanting is only suitable for sanyasins or for people who only want Moksha.

Some points to consider:

The only goal should be Moksha
Withdrawal form social life
Not to give any importance to any activity, or any issue, as all is within Maya which is illusion.

If you hav desires adn wnat them to be fulfilled, OM will make one neutral and remove the desire, but you want the desire to fulfill and so go for it, again OM willl neutralise it. This will be a kind of tug-of-war and one will not be happy

Unlike other paths like dvaita, there is no oppurtuinity for emotional outlet. One can be angry to Lord Ram or Shiva, but in Advaita there is no perosnal God. Only Atman, which is you.



Aum

Pranamams!

Thanks for the references, will go through them when time permits.

So in Advaita we have two paths 1. Meditate on OM 2.Neti Neti

What are these two methods , and how to follow them?

Meditation on OM means? need to meditate on the sound generated by OM? if so why only the sound OM..why not others..how is it different from other sounds?

Neti neti ..I think is negating everything that comes into your mind as illusion..if so how long we will do that negation..and when my mind will stop generating thoughts which need to be negated ?

And as per you neti-neti method needs string mind, OM is suitable for sanyasis. But I don't have any pre-requisite. I am neither a sannyasi , nor have a strong mind.

Withdrawal from social life is the pre-requisite for a mumukshu? - I don't think it is possible for me , also for the majority of the people..so a mumukshu who is a householder doesn't have a path to get liberated ?

sanathan
10 October 2012, 06:28 AM
Imagine you are visiting a Zoo. A Tiger Breaks free from cage and comes in your direction. If you spot the tiger, will you run towards him or away from him? Obviously away from him. Is it necessary for tiget to tie a board round his neck that "I am Tiger" No. It does not need intro or convincing. There are no doubts when Tiger is standing right in front of you. In the same way, when one is realized, there is no need ot convience oneself that the state you ahve experienced or are abiding is the final state of Self Realization.


I didn't get it.
In the case of tiger-fear example, I am already aware of tiger and its cruelty..that causes me to run away from it when it comes to wards me..but realization is not that kind of already known(or experienced) thing with which I am stick to once I get it.




It is deifnintely not a negative state of depression or lonelyness.

the State is Sat-chit-Ananda

Sat = Truth = existance in all 3 states - waking, dream and deep sleep
Chit = chaitanya = the most subtle. Subtle thing like air and akash spread vast and occupy every space. So Atman is the subtlest and hence it is everywhere
Ananda = Bliss. there is no duality. there is no observer and object of observation. Only You are present as pure consciousness. So there is no fear, no death. It is feeling of completeness. when you feel your physical body, you feel it's boundaries, when you are one with Brahman / Atman, you are infinite without boudaries. It is a state with fear and death and hence it is pure bliss and deep peace.



Aum

Hmm, it is very difficult me to understand all these terms and concepts in one go :) let me try to understand your words slowly..please
try to forgive me if my questions are childish.

Sat-chit-ananda is the Atman , so what does it mean by Sat-chit-ananda?

Since currently my state is knowing the things around me, I believe myself as knower and objects are known things..the relation between me and objects is knowledge of myself.

You said there will be no observer and object of observation..without being observer how the state is known to be Ananda and to whom it is known as such? or how can I (the current seeker) believe the liberated state is really of Ananda if there will be no knower or observer?

In one sentence you said that "there is no observer and object to be observed" , very immediately you said "it is feeling of completeness" , my doubt is how come the "feeling of completeness" is possible without being an observer of the same.

Amrut
20 October 2012, 04:17 AM
Namaste,

Sorry I did not get any email notification, so could not answer your queries.

Currently I am very busy in office work. I will answer it in short time.

Amrut
20 October 2012, 05:09 AM
Pranamams!

Thanks for the references, will go through them when time permits.

So in Advaita we have two paths 1. Meditate on OM 2.Neti Neti

What are these two methods , and how to follow them?

Meditation on OM means? need to meditate on the sound generated by OM? if so why only the sound OM..why not others..how is it different from other sounds?

Neti neti ..I think is negating everything that comes into your mind as illusion..if so how long we will do that negation..and when my mind will stop generating thoughts which need to be negated ?

And as per you neti-neti method needs string mind, OM is suitable for sanyasis. But I don't have any pre-requisite. I am neither a sannyasi , nor have a strong mind.

Withdrawal from social life is the pre-requisite for a mumukshu? - I don't think it is possible for me , also for the majority of the people..so a mumukshu who is a householder doesn't have a path to get liberated ?

Namaste,

Neti-neti is not suited for all, even for advaitins and most sanyasins. It requires very very strong minds. That is why there is OM. Entire Mandukya Upanishad explains about OM.

OM is the universal or primodal sound that goes on and on. From Brahman came OM, from OM maya and from maya this universe. So OM can control everything and can take one above maya. OM sound goes on by itself and so is called pranav mantra or primary mantra.

Sanyasi mean to renounce the attachment of worldly objects, persons, issues, places, etc. the attachment is in the mind. So it is mental renunciation. Sanyas is a state of mind, and not a way of living. A sanyasi mind is not a demanding mind and only demands to satisfy bare necessities for living. Advata Vedantin lives a simple life, not much socially active.

You only interact that is necessary and do things that are only necessary. i.e. there is no need to watch TV channel or read newspaper. Advaita Vedantin considers this world as maya i.e. illusion and tries to remain neutral to anything that is happening around him/her. This is necessary for spiritual progress and to meditate. OM will remove any desire good or bad and makes one neutral.

OM is the only mantra which silences itself and merges mind into it’s source verry naturally (sahaj)


I didn't get it.
In the case of tiger-fear example, I am already aware of tiger and its cruelty..that causes me to run away from it when it comes to wards me..but realization is not that kind of already known(or experienced) thing with which I am stick to once I get it.

When you experience Samadhi, you will know it is Samadhi. There is no need to ask or confirm anyone :)


Sat-chit-ananda is the Atman , so what does it mean by Sat-chit-ananda?

I have already explained this as said in shastras. This is the closet thing that atman can be explained other than maun.

You said there will be no observer and object of observation..without being observer how the state is known to be Ananda and to whom it is known as such? or how can I (the current seeker) believe the liberated state is really of Ananda if there will be no knower or observer?


In one sentence you said that "there is no observer and object to be observed" , very immediately you said "it is feeling of completeness" , my doubt is how come the "feeling of completeness" is possible without being an observer of the same.

Shastras say that state of Samadhi cannot be explained but only experienced because there is no second one to observe or feel.

But they also try to give us some visualization. This is you I say you feel completeness. When you come down from Samadhi into waking state, you bring all the knowledge and peace and bliss. It is like saying I feel happy after deep sleep or I do not know anything in deep sleep. In deep sleep, you do not know anything, but in Samadhi, you are aware of yourself. In both states, you cannot say anything, but when you come down, you express it. When you come from deep sleep, you forget that you are atman, but when you come from Samadhi, you know that you are Brahman and so you can say that I am atman and not this body.

If one stays in Samadhi, than one is maun, silent. In this state of non-duality, you will explain it to whom? There is no second one. But for upliftment of seekers of truth, God sends saints to lower level in between waking and Samadhi so that they can explain what they had felt in Samadhi.

Sri Ramakrishna says that a Jivan Mukta is a person who can enter into Samadhi and come back again to this world many times. It is like a room separated from outer infinite space. But the separation has a window from which the person can peep into this infinite space or sky.


If you are interested in understanding Advaita Vedanta, please read Tatva Bodh and then Vivek Chudamani many times, then try to read Gita and later Sri Ramana Maharshi.

Else, bhakti o karma may suit you.

Sri Ramana Maharshi says advaita is for pure mind. Self Enquiry is for pure minds.

Also please go through the links in free time with cool mind. I think they can be helpful.

EDIT:

I just read todays quote on my blog (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.com/) by Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Sarada Maa

Some persons must perform selfless work a long time before they can practice dispassion and direct their minds to the spiritual ideal. P. 267

- Sri Ramakrishna

Desire maybe compared to a minute seed. It is like a big banyan tree growing out of a seed, which is no bigger than a dot. Rebirth is inevitable so long as one has desires. It is like taking the soul from one pillowcase and putting it into another; only one or two out of many men can be found who are free from all desires.

- Sri Sarada Maa

Aum

Indiaspirituality

Amrut
20 October 2012, 05:23 AM
Neti neti ..I think is negating everything that comes into your mind as illusion..if so how long we will do that negation..and when my mind will stop generating thoughts which need to be negated ?

Neti-neti is negation. After Negating everything, you as SELF only remain. You cannot negate yourself. It depends upon you and grace of God. There is no fixed time. this is not just a mental thought process. You ask the question and the mind goes deep inside into source

e.g. ask Who am I - and then mind goes beyond the thought, and mind and goes into samadhi. TI is difficult to explain. But in neti-neti it is going deep within finding the source fro mwhere everything is originating. simple saying - I am not body, I am not mind will not help.

An e.g. of neti neti is Atma Shatak by Sri Adi Shankaracharya

Ref:

AtmaShatak / Nirvan Shatak (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2008/02/blog-post.html)

Nirvana Shatakam Stotra Lyrics by Adi Shankaracharya (http://www.hindudevotionalblog.com/2008/12/nirvana-shatakam-stotra-lyrics-by-adi.html)

Atma-Shatakam / Nirvana Shatakam - The Song of the Self (http://www.swamij.com/shankara-atma-shatakam.htm)

sanathan
26 October 2012, 01:12 AM
Pranamams!


Neti-neti is not suited for all, even for advaitins and most sanyasins. It requires very very strong minds. That is why there is OM. Entire Mandukya Upanishad explains about OM.

OK.



OM is the universal or primodal sound that goes on and on. From Brahman came OM, from OM maya and from maya this universe. So OM can control everything and can take one above maya. OM sound goes on by itself and so is called pranav mantra or primary mantra.

So, sound of "OM" is different from "akasa" which is one of pancha bhutas?
But it is another sound that can be heard by us, how is it different and can lead us to liberation?
I mean ..howcome a sound vibration leads us to liberation ?
What we need to meditate on while doing japa of OM..only on the sound it generates or on its meaning as "BRAHMAN" sat-chit-ananda ?




Sanyasi mean to renounce the attachment of worldly objects, persons, issues, places, etc. the attachment is in the mind. So it is mental renunciation. Sanyas is a state of mind, and not a way of living. A sanyasi mind is not a demanding mind and only demands to satisfy bare necessities for living. Advata Vedantin lives a simple life, not much socially active.

You only interact that is necessary and do things that are only necessary. i.e. there is no need to watch TV channel or read newspaper. Advaita Vedantin considers this world as maya i.e. illusion and tries to remain neutral to anything that is happening around him/her. This is necessary for spiritual progress and to meditate. OM will remove any desire good or bad and makes one neutral.

But , now a days most of Advaita gurus preach in TVs and internets..so what does it mean?
They want to uplift the people who are in Maya? or They still see "maya" people..that means they still are in illusion because they see world as existent? and the people to whom they preach are TRUE or FALSE or MAYA(i.e not true ,not false) ?

Even a true guru preaches to his sishyas.., so does that GURU also sees the illusory world as TRUE and assuming that his teaching will benefit some other people? that means the very theory he is preaching is contradicting his activity..am I wrong?



When you experience Samadhi, you will know it is Samadhi. There is no need to ask or confirm anyone :)


Yes, I might know it is Samadhi..but is that ultimate? how do we validate it is same "brahmanubhava" ?
Since vedanta suthras say by attaining Brahman "Anavrithi sabdaat" , same is confirmed in Gita as "nacha punaravarthino".. which means there will be no return after achieving that Brahman state..but samadhi is not so, even after getting samadhi ..they return back to world and see the illusory world and interacting with it. So samadhi can't be same as brahmanubhava as said by sruthi. this is why I asked how do we validate the state we achieve is the ultimate .





Shastras say that state of Samadhi cannot be explained but only experienced because there is no second one to observe or feel.

Experienced by whom? and how does he experience if he doesn't have any medium to do so ?



But they also try to give us some visualization. This is you I say you feel completeness. When you come down from Samadhi into waking state, you bring all the knowledge and peace and bliss. It is like saying I feel happy after deep sleep or I do not know anything in deep sleep. In deep sleep, you do not know anything, but in Samadhi, you are aware of yourself. In both states, you cannot say anything, but when you come down, you express it. When you come from deep sleep, you forget that you are atman, but when you come from Samadhi, you know that you are Brahman and so you can say that I am atman and not this body.


in samadhi you are aware of yourself? then there is a knower and knowledge , and has a experience of bliss right..?
But as far as I know this is not what advaita says.. because Advaita says nirvisesha(attributeless) brahman is the ultimate state..where there is no separate you and awareness..in such case there is no question of feeling bliss.

In another thread while talking to Devotee, his explanation of ultimate state is different where pure consciousness exists..but here you are saying some thing different which says "you are aware of yourself and experience bliss"..this why I often confused with Advaita..what exactly it tries to say and what is the path of sadhana.



If one stays in Samadhi, than one is maun, silent. In this state of non-duality, you will explain it to whom? There is no second one. But for upliftment of seekers of truth, God sends saints to lower level in between waking and Samadhi so that they can explain what they had felt in Samadhi.

Who is GOD..he is again part of "maya" isn't it? then how can he controls the self which is in "samadhi" which is beyond maya ?

Also what is the need of coming back to world to upliftment of seekers who are all nothing but illusory objects to a realized soul, is there anything else different from him? that means even after realization , still he is under maya and can see world .

Amrut
27 October 2012, 06:23 AM
Pranamams!

So, sound of "OM" is different from "akasa" which is one of pancha bhutas?
But it is another sound that can be heard by us, how is it different and can lead us to liberation?
I mean ..howcome a sound vibration leads us to liberation ?
What we need to meditate on while doing japa of OM..only on the sound it generates or on its meaning as "BRAHMAN" sat-chit-ananda ? .

Namaste,

Sorry I am not getting notifications so I am late on replying you.

Just as by hearing the waves of ocean , one can reach the ocean, by being aware of origin of OM, one can enter into Samadhi.

DO NOT practice meditating OM by yourself. Self Realized Guru is needed.

Akasha is one of 5 tatvas. Please note that it is said Atman is AkashVAT and not Atman is Akasha meaning Atman is like Akasha. Akasha is very subtle and spreads everywhere. It is everywhere. Water is subtle than earth and so spread out occupies max space it can. Air is subtler than water and so it can penetrate where water cannot do or water cannot exists. Akasha is subtle than air and so it exists where there is no atmosphere. Atman is subtler than akasha and so it’s found everywhere. Generally we live in duality. We are told atman is not this not this, then the question arises, so how does atman look like? One needs to visualize it. Hence just for visualization and explanation sake, it is said Atman is AkashaVAT.

Similarly Atman is PrakashaSVARUPA. It is not said, Atman is Prakasha. It is PrakashaSvarupa meaning it is like prakash. Light has quality of giving knowledge. It is it’s nature. Imagine you are in a dark room and there is a glass lying on table. But you are not able to see it due to darkness. Switch on the light and you can see glass. Glass was always there but it is light that make you to know it. Similarly Atman is awareness / consciousness. Without awareness you cannot experience / see anything.



But , now a days most of Advaita gurus preach in TVs and internets..so what does it mean?
They want to uplift the people who are in Maya? or They still see "maya" people..that means they still are in illusion because they see world as existent? and the people to whom they preach are TRUE or FALSE or MAYA(i.e not true ,not false) ?

Even a true guru preaches to his sishyas.., so does that GURU also sees the illusory world as TRUE and assuming that his teaching will benefit some other people? that means the very theory he is preaching is contradicting his activity..am I wrong?

I do not know about the mental state of TV gurus, but teachings of Self Realization are not given in masses. There can be lacs of devotees, but disciples can be counted on finger tips. Shankaracharya had only 4 disciples, which he send to establish 4 maths in 4 corners of India.



Yes, I might know it is Samadhi..but is that ultimate? how do we validate it is same "brahmanubhava" ?
Since vedanta suthras say by attaining Brahman "Anavrithi sabdaat" , same is confirmed in Gita as "nacha punaravarthino".. which means there will be no return after achieving that Brahman state..but samadhi is not so, even after getting samadhi ..they return back to world and see the illusory world and interacting with it. So samadhi can't be same as brahmanubhava as said by sruthi. this is why I asked how do we validate the state we achieve is the ultimate .

Generally, when one attains Samadhi, he/she stays in this state of nirvikalp Samadhi for 21 days, after that the connection with body permanently drops i.e. body drops. But if God / Brahman wishes, God will bring back him / her from Samadhi and have pseudo ego for pseudo identity just to hang in around with body and then gives him / her order to preach / teach. If this does not happen, then body drops, as the work of body is over, body is just a tool to reach this state. In some cases, God brings back the mind but does not send the Jnani to do any work, but orders him to stay in peace, in advaita state. Doing work, not doing work, using super natural powers, not using them, all depends upon the order of God.

*
Sri Ramakrishna says that Sri Adi Shankaracharya kept Ego if knowledge. Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana maharshi kept interest in food. When one asked to Sri Ramakrishna that you a realized soul is having an interest in food, Sri Ramakrishna replied, that it is only thing that is binding me with my body as mother Kali has given me some work to do. If I look interest in everything then all that I see will be Brahman and then to whom you you teach? I will quit this body. But I have Maa Kali's work to do. Still time has not come to drop this body.


Experienced by whom? and how does he experience if he doesn't have any medium to do so ?

in samadhi you are aware of yourself? then there is a knower and knowledge , and has a experience of bliss right..?
But as far as I know this is not what advaita says.. because Advaita says nirvisesha(attributeless) brahman is the ultimate state..where there is no separate you and awareness..in such case there is no question of feeling bliss.

In another thread while talking to Devotee, his explanation of ultimate state is different where pure consciousness exists..but here you are saying some thing different which says "you are aware of yourself and experience bliss"..this why I often confused with Advaita..what exactly it tries to say and what is the path of sadhana.

I do not know which thread you are referring to. But I said the same thing only pure consciousness exits and that is you. You are consciousness / awareness / atman / Brahman / Peace / Bliss – one and the same thing. Ways to express are different. There is no one to experience – all merges into one thing SELF. But to make one understand rishis try to explain unexplainable. So they say you experience peace and bliss. Actually you are bliss / peace. There is no one to experience and so it is indescribable. Still rishis make valiant effort to explain this state by giving analogies and examples and making use of logical conclusions.

These things are difficult to explain and better experienced. When you will experience Samadhi, all doubts will vanish :) Advaita is indeed difficult to explain and understand.

A Self Realized Guru is required. If you do not have a guru, simply pray to God to show you a way and take you ahead in spirituality.

Q & A cannot give satisfactory answers. Questions will keep rising and this will go on and on. Pray to God to give proper direction. There should be only one goal – moksha. If it is not then it will be difficult to live advaita life.



Who is GOD..he is again part of "maya" isn't it? then how can he controls the self which is in "samadhi" which is beyond maya ?

God is the one who can enter into duality and return back to non-dual state at will . Both God and Soul have upadhis. God is not influenced by them.

Soul is bound by 5 koshas – panch mahabhuta. Soul is ignorant, alpashaktiman
God takes adhara of Maya – i.e. entire cosmos / shakti, but is maya pati meaning God controls maya and is not influenced by it like souls. God is all powerful, knowledgeable, omnipresent, etc.

There are 6 attributes / qualities of God like Tyaga, Ashvarya, all powerful, etc (I do not remember all of them)

If you take away 5 sheaths form soul and take away maya or shakti from god, then what remain is the Pure Atman / Brahman.


Also what is the need of coming back to world to upliftment of seekers who are all nothing but illusory objects to a realized soul, is there anything else different from him? that means even after realization , still he is under maya and can see world .


As explained above, It is not a personal wish, but wish of God. Jnani stays in between Samadhi state and normal state. He / she is always connected with Go and lives on intuitions.

If one tries to uplift society by himself / herself, such un-riped Guru and disciples will undergo endless sufferings. It is like Blind leading Blind.

Aum

sanathan
30 October 2012, 01:32 AM
But I said the same thing only pure consciousness exits and that is you. You are consciousness / awareness / atman / Brahman / Peace / Bliss – one and the same thing. Ways to express are different. There is no one to experience – all merges into one thing SELF. But to make one understand rishis try to explain unexplainable. So they say you experience peace and bliss. Actually you are bliss / peace. There is no one to experience and so it is indescribable. Still rishis make valiant effort to explain this state by giving analogies and examples and making use of logical conclusions.

These things are difficult to explain and better experienced. When you will experience Samadhi, all doubts will vanish :) Advaita is indeed difficult to explain and understand.



Aum

Pranamams !

Taittiriya says "anandi bhavati".. how do we negate experiencer of his own bliss while sruthi says so?

Yes, it is difficult to understand Advaita.

The very current state where I experience various feelings(one such is bliss), and always craving for happiness though from materials, and if advaita says the very experiencer who is the current person(I am not talking about ego which causes for misidentification of himself with body..but individual self) striving for happiness and trying to achieve that state won't be there at realized state..then why do I need to do sadhana?..if 'I'(current person who is suffering in samsara) am not there to experience the ultimate bliss..then why do I need to follow that path?

This is biting me since long time.

shiv.somashekhar
31 October 2012, 08:04 AM
Experienced by whom? and how does he experience if he doesn't have any medium to do so ?

....

in samadhi you are aware of yourself? then there is a knower and knowledge , and has a experience of bliss right..?
But as far as I know this is not what advaita says.. because Advaita says nirvisesha(attributeless) brahman is the ultimate state..where there is no separate you and awareness..in such case there is no question of feeling bliss.

In another thread while talking to Devotee, his explanation of ultimate state is different where pure consciousness exists..but here you are saying some thing different which says "you are aware of yourself and experience bliss"..this why I often confused with Advaita..what exactly it tries to say and what is the path of sadhana.

This is precisely the problem with Advaita. Most people do not seem to understand the implication of non-duality. Without duality, there is no individual who can experience bliss or anything else, as that requires division. There is no distinct Shankara soul anymore (there never was, according to Advaita) and so he cannot be sent back to help humanity. Such a concept of a "returning Jnani" contradicts the Advaita concept of Moksha.

The Advaita concept of Moksha is really no different from that of Buddhism or Sankhya where Moksha is not about attaining bliss, but is about end of identity and therefore, end of pain. This is why, some of the earliest critics of Advaita criticized the doctrine as "covered Buddhism".

Some of the arguments leveled by rival schools against Advaita on this topic are quite valid. Without an identity, it is really a void and is therefore not as attractive as their own models which have the soul continuing to exist as a distinct entity after Moksha, in the presence of Vishnu, etc.

The Vaishnava description of Moksha is not without problems. Someone said " If all I do in heaven is sit around and praise God for eternity, after 500, 000 years of this, I think I would get a little bored". Some Hare Krishnas have a similar theory that all souls were originally with Vishnu/Krishna (in the Moksha state), then they got bored and came down to earth. And now they are all trying to go back.

There are more open questions with the concept of Moksha, but I have to stop now, due to lack of time.

wundermonk
31 October 2012, 12:54 PM
This is precisely the problem with Advaita. Most people do not seem to understand the implication of non-duality. Without duality, there is no individual who can experience bliss or anything else, as that requires division. There is no distinct Shankara soul anymore (there never was, according to Advaita) and so he cannot be sent back to help humanity.

Why is this a "problem" for Advaita?


Such a concept of a "returning Jnani" contradicts the Advaita concept of Moksha.

By a "returning Jnani" I guess you are referring to a Jivanmukta? Could you spell out how exactly the idea of a Jivanmukta contradicts Moksha?


The Advaita concept of Moksha is really no different from that of Buddhism or Sankhya where Moksha is not about attaining bliss, but is about end of identity and therefore, end of pain. This is why, some of the earliest critics of Advaita criticized the doctrine as "covered Buddhism".

I believe there is a rather LARGE difference between Advaitic soteriology and Buddhistic soteriology. Between Samkhya and Advaita, the differences are rather minor.


Some of the arguments leveled by rival schools against Advaita on this topic are quite valid. Without an identity, it is really a void and is therefore not as attractive as their own models which have the soul continuing to exist as a distinct entity after Moksha, in the presence of Vishnu, etc.

This probably has to do with the understanding of consciousness in each school of thought. Theistic schools tend to believe that ALL consciousness is intentional. This follows from their realist world view. Advaita (being an idealist school) would certainly promote the supremacy of objectless consciousness over anything else. So, the "arguments leveled by rival schools" basically boils down to a question of metaphysics and ontololgy.

Amrut
31 October 2012, 01:14 PM
Pranamams !

Taittiriya says "anandi bhavati".. how do we negate experiencer of his own bliss while sruthi says so?

Yes, it is difficult to understand Advaita.



Namaste,

You have to take into account the reference to context i.e. with what reference the statement is being said.

If you read one upnishad and then an another you will find contradictory statements. These are not contradictory, but they just look like.

Even if the read Vivekchudamani, initially it is said there is prarabhdha for jnani too, while later it is said that there is no prarabhdha

The first answer was said to a questioner who saw that saints also suffer diseases. This questioner is practical i.e. has a practical approach in life. So the answer to this questioner is that yes they do have and then the explanation is that though in this life he may be a saint, he is suffering the fruits of karma of his past lives. To add to it, it is told that prarabhdha is like an arrow which is released from the bow, it is on the way to hit the target, it cannot be stopped. So upon birth one has to pass through these phases. But jnani does not associate himself with body and hence with disease.

Later on when the disciple has matured, who has a different mindset from the first one, he is said that jnana burns all 3 karmas - agami, prarabhdha and sanchit. This disciple has pure sattva and so this kind of explanation is given to him.

As I have said earlier, the statements like experiencing bliss, etc are said just ot make on understand what Atman is like. One needs to visualize Atman. Out minds has this habit. If you read a novel, where a natural scene is described or any personality is described, our mind tries to create an image i.e. It imagines and visualizes it. So it's told that one experiences bliss.

As @shiv.somashekhar has said, there is no bliss. It is correct, but one may take it negatively. If there is no peace, just a void, then why to meditate? For whom? So just to make one understand than atman or brahman is a positive state and not a blank void, this is said.


The very current state where I experience various feelings(one such is bliss), and always craving for happiness though from materials, and if advaita says the very experiencer who is the current person(I am not talking about ego which causes for misidentification of himself with body..but individual self) striving for happiness and trying to achieve that state won't be there at realized state..then why do I need to do sadhana?..if 'I'(current person who is suffering in samsara) am not there to experience the ultimate bliss..then why do I need to follow that path?

This is biting me since long time.

Sri Ramana Maharshi gave an e.g. Of a burning dead body. Sri Ramana Maharshi said, the fire after burning the corpse also extinguish. It does not continue to burn.

This fire may be equated with OM or any mantra. With the help of mantra, all other desires are burned or up-rooted. But only one desire is left – 'i want liberation' this is also a thought, a desire. So when one has burned all desires and only one desire i.e. 'I want liberation' remains, Shastras like Ashtavakra Gita teaches such a matured sadhaka to drop this wish too.

Ashtavakra Gita, in order to break this thought makes one realize who you are. All you have to do is 'abide in SEFL ' or better 'just be' i.e. 'just be as you are'

Ashtavakra Gita argues, who is the one who is meditating?, who is chanting this mantra?, who is raising questions? and who is reading this shastras?. It says, who is guru and who is disciple. If you think you are a meditator then you are in duality. Practising ashtanga Yog is foolish as who practises?

Sri Ramana Maharshi says ask 'Who am I' this is not a question or just a mental repetition. It is the inner exploration, where after asking this question 'Who am I' mind merges into the source or heart or atman as atman is the source of everything.

If any question arises, ask 'who is the questioner' and the mind will find the source of this questioner, finally merging into atman.

But imagine, if this is said to a beginner, before meditating, if one says, 'I am Brahman', then he/she has nor detached himself/herself from the body, and unlike the matured seeker, he/she has not up-rooted all desires except the only desire to be free, he/she will drop all the he/she is doing and just think that everything is over, there is no need to do anything.

The truth is eternal, i.e. You are Brahman. But the question is do you know that you are Brahman?

We do not know and hence there is 'khoj' – exploration. Just philosophically talking 'I am Brahman' is of no use.

In this statement You are That i.e. You are Brahman i.e. I am Brahman.

The middle word ARE or AM is important. Just replace ARE with ARE NOT or AM with AM NOT. The whole meaning changes.

In this statement ' I AM THAT' THAT is brahman is already brahman. But the statement becomes non-dual only when 'I' becomes THAT i.e. I AM THAT – this is the realization.


That Brahman is nothing but 'I' or SELF this 'I' is not ego but Atman.

So one has to find Who am I to know the real I – Atman / Brahman. When one realizes the real I you say, I am THAT

I know this is very subtle and difficult to understand. I tried my best.

Now, in Sri Ramakrishna's simple words, Why Meditate?

As explained above, just by logical conclusion that I am Brahman, you do not know that you are brahman. It is just an information and not knowledge or experience or better knowledge out of direct experience.

Sri Ramakrishna gave an e.g.

Suppose a thorn has pierced into your feet. Just by saying that I am not hurt, there is no thorn, it is illusion, the thorn and so that pain will not go away. One has to take another thorn, remove the pierced thorn with the help of this second thorn and than throw away both the thorn.

In this e.g. First thorn is the ignorance, second is jnana (bookish knowledge) or meditation or material knowledge. Dropping of both thorns meaning dropping both jnana and ajnana (from mind). As soon as one drops the thought than I am under influence of maya and that I want liberation, without any delay, one enters into this indescribable non-dual state.

This can only be experienced and not explained. One has to have a faith in Advaita philosophy which was established as a result of experiences of innumerable saints since time immemorial.

Always remember that the words are to be taken with reference to context with the mindset of questioner and are not applied to all types of people. Also note that one updesha is not valid for entire life time. As one progresses, definitions change

e.g. - live a balanced life. So work, enjoy, rest, meditate (spiritual activities) and sex.

Later I was told, may has 3 gunas, so divide 24 hours by 3 i.e. 8 hours. Meditate for 8 hours, work for 8 hours and sleep for eight hours. Balanced life :D

If you take literal meaning, still you will be in trouble.

e.g. In Gita, chapter six is titled Atma-Sayyam Yog. Now if you take Atma as Brahman, then how can you control Brahman. Who controls whom?

So in this chapter, atman is to be taken as mind.

To avoid this confusion, some saints have changed the title like Yoga of Self Control, or Yoga of Meditation, Or Abhyasa Yoga, but the traditional name, which is given as end note after chapter ends, is Atma sayyam yog.

The reason for this way of explanation is that we connected with mind, body ego, intellect and soul.

In day-2-day talk, we say, 'I am sick'. We do not say, 'My body is sick' or 'this body is sick'

We take it for granted that I am Body

When we say, I ma bored or I am happy, these are Gunas of mind. So, it goes without saying that 'I am Mind'

If you say, I am dumb or I am idiot or I am genius, you are referring yourself as intellect.

When you are I am (emotionally) hurt, or simply say, you are hurting me, you are identifying yourself with Ego.

If you say, I am immortal and take birth in one form or another, you are referring yourself as incarnated soul.

It is this identification with Ego, mind, body, intellect or incarnated soul is with all laymen.

Shastras are written for laymen, who are ignorant of truth and live in duality. They are not written for jnanis. Jnanis do not need shastras. They are shastras themselves, as earlier said, shatras are a collection of of experiences of innumerable saints since time immemorial.

In Gita Lord Krishna says, go there or leave everything and come to me (technically it is go to me or go there). There is no where to go. If at all you want to go go deep inside yourself.

This is the way of teaching.

Ashtavakra Gita talks directly from standpoint of supreme reality. It is said from the grave of Karma. It is not for common men and hence not famous as Bhagavad Gita.

When the (so called or self proclaimed) Gurus on TV channels explain bhagawat, they do not talk from standpoint of supreme reality. In bhagawat, there is everything, duality, non-duality, to renounce everything, but the 'kathakars' skip this portions and keep telling stories. Stories and personal experiences attract masses, but not tatva Jnana. Few are interested in tatva Jnana.

What is needed is a limited matured audience (lions) and not masses (sheeps and goats, which move in heards of hundreds or even thousands).


The very current state where I experience various feelings(one such is bliss), and always craving for happiness though from materials, and if advaita says the very experiencer who is the current person(I am not talking about ego which causes for misidentification of himself with body..but individual self) striving for happiness and trying to achieve that state won't be there at realized state..then why do I need to do sadhana?..if 'I'(current person who is suffering in samsara) am not there to experience the ultimate bliss..then why do I need to follow that path?

This is biting me since long time.


The identification with body will be destroyed. You are looking for material comforts and also for moksha. Both cannot go hand-in-hand. What will be left will be the real you and not what you know yourself.

Again, this is difficult to explain.

Sri Ramana Maharshi in 40 verses on Reality / truth says that both Ajnani and Jnani has bodies. For ajnani, body is limited to physical body bound by space and time, while a jnani's body is infinite, the substratum of entire universe – Brahman.

Please, do not argue that if you experience something (body) when you are in duality. You will be confused. This is just for explanation and I wont be able to answer you.

IF you re directly told the truth bluntly, then something similar like your response will happen.

I think dvaita is much easier than advaita, as you enjoy this world and worship god, chant his name, sing his glories and just move one.

Advaita is for pure mind. You will only get clarity when you experience detachment. This can only happen by the grace of God and Guru. Only this experience can completely satisfy your above question and argument. No explanation can fully satisfy or uproot your doubt permanently.

Aum

Amrut
31 October 2012, 01:32 PM
@wundermonk and @shiv.somashekhar

Namaste,

Sorry, after typing long reply and hitting submit button I came to know about the reply from @wundermonk

It is said, you are bliss. Remember Atman is Sat-Chit-Anand. Why is this attributes given? - just for our understanding.

Sat means, truth. Truth is always present in all tenses, past, present and futue. So Atman was, is and will remain.

Chit - Chaitanya. Atman is not gross. It is the most subtle, subtler than 5 elements. Chit also means consciousness / awareness. Some say both consciousness and awareness are different and that from awareness there is consciousness. But that is another debate. I think it's just a translation glitch. I use them interchangeably, because of by poor translation skills.

Ananda - Happiness or Eternal bliss. Since there is no duality, there is no fear, there is no sorrow, so there is ananda. Ananda is the only state or quality, though tempered, that is experienced by all of us. The only difference is that this ananda is (in hindi) {vikar wala ananda } and not pure ananda. It is conditioned, it depends upon others and the worldly objects, while ananda attributed to brahman is eternal and independent.

Returning Jnani:

From pure advaita standpoint, there is no return, no Jnani / ajnani. Who is the second one? there is no argument, just maun (silence)

Advaita does not contradicts return of jnani. If that would be the case, there would be no Adi Shankaracharya and so not Gita and our shastras, whom we are discussing :)

The detachment is permanent. Keeping a body is optional and depends upon divine plan. Else one can only attain Jnana after one dies.

As @wundermonk has said, Jivan muktas are free souls. They do not experience this world like we do, but behave like ajnani and do karma and stay within maya and it's laws, for the good of all, else people will not believe in them or they may think that a great saint or realized saint can leave the way you are telling, but we, ajnanis, cannot live like you live.

In either cases mind does not exists. Sri Ramana Maharshi says, the mind of Jnani is Brahman itself

Refer:

http://www.hindu-blog.com/2011/10/knowledge-alone-destroys-ignorance-as.html

http://prashantaboutindia.blogspot.in/2009/04/ramana-maharshi-says-jnanis-mind-is.html

Aum

sanathan
31 October 2012, 11:23 PM
You are looking for material comforts and also for moksha. Both cannot go hand-in-hand. What will be left will be the real you and not what you know yourself.

Pranamams!

No, I am not looking for material comforts, what I meant was "we are always craving for happiness" (but due to ignorance we are thinking it comes from materials..so attached with them)..but the main point is "we" always in want of happiness..that means our nature is "being happy", this is what also supported by sruthi (ex: Anandi bhavati). Now my question is .. if the very "being"(please note that I am not referring to body or mind or intellect ..but the very experiencer who has knowledge and experiences the bliss) doesn't exist after liberation..then why he has to do sadhana ..and what is the meaning of liberation.. am I understandable?

Regarding material comforts..yes we need them but not as ultimate goal..but as a pave to do our sadhana properly we need them ..nobody can ignore it.

If you take a healthy(mentally and physically) person and ill-healthy person, then surely we know that healthier one has more chance to do sadhana to get liberated..so the primary bodily and mental needs are required...only thing we don't want is attachment with them. Am I wrong?

shiv.somashekhar
01 November 2012, 04:37 PM
As @wundermonk has said, Jivan muktas are free souls. They do not experience this world like we do, but behave like ajnani and do karma and stay within maya and it's laws, for the good of all, else people will not believe in them or they may think that a great saint or realized saint can leave the way you are telling, but we, ajnanis, cannot live like you live.

There is no such thing as a free (liberated) soul in Advaita as that will contradict the fundamental premise of non-duality. The existence of a liberated soul is only possible in non-advaita systems where the soul continues to exist as a distinct entity after liberation. This is why I mentioned earlier that the Moksha concept of Advaita is really no different from that of Buddhism.

wundermonk,

I say Buddhist moksha = Advaita moksha as in both cases, there is no individual soul anymore and with no identity, there is no experiencer. Hence, there is no question of coming back.

wundermonk
01 November 2012, 11:55 PM
wundermonk,

I say Buddhist moksha = Advaita moksha as in both cases, there is no individual soul anymore and with no identity, there is no experiencer. Hence, there is no question of coming back.

An experiencer presupposes an experienced. However, for an idealist school of thought (like Advaita) which believes in primacy of consciousness, consciousness is experience itself. It is neither the "experiencer" nor the "experienced".

At this point, an Advaitin will point towards his analysis of dreams to make his point. Consciousness alone shines in deep sleep without any correlative object of consciousness.

Amrut
02 November 2012, 01:03 AM
There is no such thing as a free (liberated) soul in Advaita as that will contradict the fundamental premise of non-duality. The existence of a liberated soul is only possible in non-advaita systems where the soul continues to exist as a distinct entity after liberation. This is why I mentioned earlier that the Moksha concept of Advaita is really no different from that of Buddhism.


Deleted previous reply

Alternatively, 'Free Soul' maybe a translation glitch. I find Jivan mukta a better word. Janak was said to be a videhi and was a jivan mukta. Jivan does not imply return of soul so so the concept of a (individual) soul which is free is also solved :) For me there was misunderstanding, which is now solved.

i have not studies Buddhism so cannot comment, but Sri Ramakrishna said that There is no difference in the teachings of Lord Buddha and Advaita.

Kindly note that Sri Ramakrishna has said Teachings of Lord Buddha and not Buddhism, as it was at his life time.

Aum

devotee
02 November 2012, 01:21 AM
Namaste Shiv,


There is no such thing as a free (liberated) soul in Advaita as that will contradict the fundamental premise of non-duality. The existence of a liberated soul is only possible in non-advaita systems where the soul continues to exist as a distinct entity after liberation. This is why I mentioned earlier that the Moksha concept of Advaita is really no different from that of Buddhism.

Here the fallacy is that you are not a realised soul and you are asserting how the Consciousness or the liberated Soul should behave after 'liberation' which is illogical. Non-duality does mean "no other". So an idea of a separate being as liberated soul different from Brahman is not possible. But let's remember that the 'soul' even when bound was already within the Brahman and there was no separation at that time too. So, the separation when in bondage was actually imagined within the Consciousness. So, it is not that at first the soul was a separate being and later on merges into Brahman … it was all along Brahman alone. All beings are like thought-waves on the bosom of Infinite ever witness Consciousness. So, the difference between liberated being and the being in bondage is that one thought-wave imagines that it is separate from Brahman and the other realises that it is Brahman. Now, how this thought-wave which has realised that it is Brahman, should behave cannot be decided by you or me. It behaves as it should. The Self-realised saints say that a Self-realised soul can incarnate at will (i.e. willingly accept the influence of MAyA, let's remember that a Self-realised soul is master of MAyA) for the benefit of mankind. To counter them or to have our own theory, we first have to attain Self-realisation.

OM

shiv.somashekhar
02 November 2012, 07:52 AM
Namaste Shiv,

The Self-realised saints say that a Self-realised soul can incarnate at will (i.e. willingly accept the influence of MAyA, let's remember that a Self-realised soul is master of MAyA) for the benefit of mankind. To counter them or to have our own theory, we first have to attain Self-realisation.

OM

Shankara in his BSB, clearly says "Jagat mithya" and "Jiva brahmaiva no parah". Your argument contradicts "Jagat Mithya" and therefore is incorrect. Moksha according to Advaita is when the individual no longer exists as an individual and the universe is no longer real, or in other words does not exist anymore.

Without an identity and with no universe (that is, there is no makind and no Maya), the point of a self-realized soul returning to the world does not arise.

shiv.somashekhar
02 November 2012, 07:57 AM
An experiencer presupposes an experienced. However, for an idealist school of thought (like Advaita) which believes in primacy of consciousness, consciousness is experience itself. It is neither the "experiencer" nor the "experienced".

No experiencer is key to the point. It is not the case that the soul was liberated and is now blissful. There is no one to recognize the bliss. There is no one to look back and say "Oh, I was under the mistaken perception that the universe is real and now I am liberated and am full of bliss". This is the key drawback of the dream analogy. I can realize my dream is a dream, only when I can wake up, recall it and compare it with my waking state, which is not possible in Advaita. A fram of reference is essential for any identification/recognition to take place and that is the big missing piece in the Advaita concept of Moksha, which is also what makes it similar to Buddhist moksha.

This is how I see it and I would like to hear your thoughts.

wundermonk
02 November 2012, 08:16 AM
No experiencer is key to the point. It is not the case that the soul was liberated and is now blissful. There is no one to recognize the bliss. There is no one to look back and say "Oh, I was under the mistaken perception that the universe is real and now I am liberated and am full of bliss". This is the key drawback of the dream analogy. I can realize my dream is a dream, only when I can wake up, recall it and compare it with my waking state, which is not possible in Advaita. A fram of reference is essential for any identification/recognition to take place and that is the big missing piece in the Advaita concept of Moksha, which is also what makes it similar to Buddhist moksha.

This is how I see it and I would like to hear your thoughts.

The point of Advaitic soteriology and the use of dream analogy is the following, per my understanding.

The Advaitin points to the dream experience and its sublation on waking to open up the door to possibility of yet another experience which sublates even the waking experience.

Just like how one individuated consciousness (the dreamer's) is able to create a dream where the "I" consciousness/ego persists (a dreamer is able to identify himself/herself in a dream and also able to identify others in a dream all via his own consciousness/mind complex) and yet there are other objects/people in a dream, the non-dual experience whose essence is pure undifferentiated consciousness can create poles (duality) in the waking experience.

That which persists right through the dream experience, waking experience and soteriological experience and is continuous all through these three states is the foundational consciousness.

Again, the point of Advaitic soteriology is that there is no "other" that needs to be experienced of which a "subject" is the experiencer.

Without an objectless witness (saksin/atman) there can not be a claim of the form "Ah. I had a dreamless sleep." To this extent, both the Samkhyan and the Advaitin would agree.

Where the Advaitin would differ from the Samkhyan is that the Advaitin would claim that pure objectless consciousness has no differentiating attributes. Absent any attribute (or even any object of consciousness) that is capable of differentiating one pure consciousness from another, there is no need to posit multiplicity of consciousnesses. There is just one universal eternal unchanging consciousness - nothing else.

I really can not comment on Buddhist soteriology for two reasons.

(1)I have not studied Buddhist texts.
(2)No one has been able to articulate in a sufficiently clear manner what exactly is sunya/void/nibbana/emptiness. If sunya/void/nibbana/emptiness is pure consciousness without any object of experience, then I can agree that Buddhist nibbana = Advaitic moksha. But if the Buddhist rejects the permanent unchanging existence of consciousness, then I have no idea what Buddhist soteriology is even about.

devotee
02 November 2012, 10:36 PM
Namaste Shiv,


With all due respect, I see a lot of Advaitins providing a non-advaitin description of moksha.
Shankara in his BSB, clearly says "Jagat mithya" and "Jiva brahmaiva no parah". Your argument contradicts "Jagat Mithya" and therefore is incorrect. Moksha according to Advaita is when the individual no longer exists as an individual and the universe is no longer real, or in other words does not exist anymore.
Without an identity and with no universe (that is, there is no makind and no Maya), the point of a self-realized soul returning to the world does not arise.

OK. Can you tell me whether there really was a world and an individual Jeeva before Self-realisation ? Did a Self-realised soul exist in reality before he attained realisation ? Advaita VedAnta says that there is no individual soul in reality at any point of time ... before realisation or after-realisation. The Realisation is not materialising into anything which was not already there. This point has to be very correctly remembered. So, your assertion that after realisation there is no individuality and there is no world is correct but it was the same thing to start with. The problem is that when we start thinking of an individual we think it different from Self in the beginning and we imagine that it merges into Self after realisation ... this idea may not create much problem in explaining many issues but fails in some vital issues.

Moreover, I also said that Self is the ever present witness in all states ... therefore, even when all vibrations of thought-waves of individuality has ceased to exist ... the memory is there in the ever witness Consciousness and is capable of giving birth to that though-wave of individuality again. If that was not there, the Self-realised soul would have immediately died after realisation or might never have come out of SamAdhi/one-ness with the Reality and would have never regained his individuality after experiencing One-ness. This is how the world is created again and again in the same way as it was in earlier Kalpas.

I admit that words have limitations to explain the actual phenomenon correctly. Let's remember what Yama says in Kathopanishad : the Truth cannot be known through logic (why ? because the Truth is what it is ... it is not a function of logical arguments) . Advaita VedAnta emphasizes on experiencing the Truth and the Truth is that the Self-realised souls can reincarnate for the good of the world. If it doesn't appear logical, we have to accept the limitations of logic to explain the actual phenomenon.

OM

shiv.somashekhar
03 November 2012, 09:19 AM
Without an objectless witness (saksin/atman) there can not be a claim of the form "Ah. I had a dreamless sleep." To this extent, both the Samkhyan and the Advaitin would agree.

Where the Advaitin would differ from the Samkhyan is that the Advaitin would claim that pure objectless consciousness has no differentiating attributes. Absent any attribute (or even any object of consciousness) that is capable of differentiating one pure consciousness from another, there is no need to posit multiplicity of consciousnesses. There is just one universal eternal unchanging consciousness - nothing else.



The above underlined statement is my interpretation of Advaita too.

From a purely logical perspective, how is this any different from a void? I recall someone once writing that everything in life is a miracle. The way I see it, the statement means the same as "nothing in life is a miracle". The reason is, for a miracle to have meaning and significance, there should exist a "non-miracle".

Advaita says the nature of consciousness is bliss. They have to say this, as they cannot allow for duality. But this only brings it closer to the void.

I think, we agree on the following -

1. As there is no more division after moksha, there is no universe and no individual soul and so, there is no possiblity of a returning soul.

2. There is no soul after moksha as brahman/consciousness is all that exists. It is not the case that the soul continues to exist as an individual while somehow, realizing it is Brahman (as commonly perceived by many Advaitins).

3. If there is only a single consciousness, then it is hard, if not impossible for us to differentiate such a state from a void. as in both cases, there is no cognizer and nothing to cognize. One would have to accept the Advaita claim of bliss, purely as an article of faith. And this is not anything new. Like I said earlier, Advaita has been criticized as prachana baudha, since very early times. Modern scholars have speculated the possibility of Gaudapada creating Advaita by combining Vedanta and Buddhism.

wundermonk
03 November 2012, 11:29 AM
From a purely logical perspective, how is this any different from a void? I recall someone once writing that everything in life is a miracle. The way I see it, the statement means the same as "nothing in life is a miracle". The reason is, for a miracle to have meaning and significance, there should exist a "non-miracle". Advaita says the nature of consciousness is bliss. They have to say this, as they cannot allow for duality. But this only brings it closer to the void.

What do you mean by "void"? How is that different from unconsciousness?


1. As there is no more division after moksha, there is no universe and no individual soul and so, there is no possiblity of a returning soul.

I agree with the former statements but not the latter. Why would the former imply the latter?


2. There is no soul after moksha as brahman/consciousness is all that exists. It is not the case that the soul continues to exist as an individual while somehow, realizing it is Brahman (as commonly perceived by many Advaitins).

I think there may be a misconception here. What is meant by consciousness in Advaita is pure consciousness. Your pure consciousness is the same as mine. This (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=93401#post93401) post may be to the point.


3. If there is only a single consciousness, then it is hard, if not impossible for us to differentiate such a state from a void. as in both cases, there is no cognizer and nothing to cognize.

As before, I am unclear what is meant by "void" here. Could you elaborate? Keep in mind that in Advaita, even in deep sleep, there is consciousness. Again, by void do you mean unconsciousness like, say, a stone?


Like I said earlier, Advaita has been criticized as prachana baudha, since very early times. Modern scholars have speculated the possibility of Gaudapada creating Advaita by combining Vedanta and Buddhism.

Why do you insist on comparing Advaita with Buddhism? Do you agree with Buddhist thought and would somehow like to make Advaita seem subordinate to it? If as per you Advaita = Buddhism, and you insist on putting down Advaita that would seem to make you against Buddhism too. Is that your position?

What exactly is YOUR position that you would like to uphold and defend in this exchange? What is your conception of an ideal soteriology per your understanding of Hinduism? Or do you claim there is no afterlife/soteriology of any sort?