PDA

View Full Version : Maya Dreamer Analogy



sanathan
15 October 2012, 07:32 AM
a) The sufferer is the individualised Consciousness which is like a character acting in a dream. This "being" is imagined/created from the underlying pure consciousness as many imagined characters are created in a dream by the Consciousness of the dreamer. So, in the relative plane of the dream-like existence, the 'being' suffers but the Pure Consciousness which is the substratum of the 'being' remains unaffected, in the same way, as a dreamer is unaffected by the sufferings of the dream characters in his dream.

Pranamam!

I have few questions or doubts in this regard:

You have said dreamer is unaffected..that is not true..it is the dreamer who is actually being affected with his dreams..maybe not in the same way as the dream character is seen(for example a dreamer sees himself chased by a tiger and got injured in dream , though he is not injured really ..he has experienced the fear of the chasing and ill-feeling of injuries..and that fear makes him wake-up). Otherwise a bad dream can not make him wake-up.

Your statement "This "being" is imagined/created from the underlying pure consciousness" .. by whom it got imagined and to whom it is imagined ? I mean who is the creator of this imagination and who is the experiencer of this imagination?



b) This 'being' has apparent existence under the influence of MAyA i.e. it is a creation of MAyA just like the existence of dream characters in a dream of a dreamer. The dream characters in a dream has their own existence with their own 'i' as they have separate consciousnesses but their consciousnesses are nothing but a reflection of the Consciousness of the dreamer alone. We can clearly see that these consciousnesses don't exist in reality.

What is the substratum of "Maya" ?
dream characters don't have their own existence..those are being experienced by dreamer himself.. It is the same person who experiences in waking state..experiences dream and can co-relate both the experiences..that means there is a continuation . I didn't get what you are trying prove with this simple point. Every one knows that he is the experiencer of his own dream that is what he can say in waking state too.



c) Within the dream-like existence of this world the 'being' is bound by the laws of the Waking state and Dreaming state (Ref : MAndukya Up.). The sufferings and enjoyment of gross/subtle objects etc. are available to the 'being' as per its own Karmas in that realm.



OM

I can not see any logic here. Maybe I am not convinced..

First of dream-like existence can not be proved..because dream can not be identified as dream while you are in dream. Same applies to world if at all this is dream-like . I can only see one thing that you have imagined the world as dream like thing to pure consciousness by taking your dream state and waking state comparison. It is not either logical nor has any valid proof.

IF world is just an appearance on pure-consciousness.. then the very saying itself becomes dream. You can not say it is dream until you comeout from it..once you come out ..you can not communicate to dreamer.

Just little thinking is enough to show the hollowness of this theory(it is a kind of imagination of mind..isn't it?).



How does it become free ? It becomes free when it realises that it is nothing but the Self. This realisation comes from grace of God, grace of Guru, Meditation/SamAdhi, renunciation, contemplation on the teachings of the Upanishads and acting accordingly etc.


What becomes free? is it illusory conscious-being? or "Self"..conscious-being which is illusory in character as you said already can not become free..because its existence itself is false..then "Self" doesn't need to be free as it is always free or unaffected. So becoming free is an absurd as per your theory itself..

devotee
16 October 2012, 12:16 AM
Namaste Sanatahan,


It is not either logical nor has any valid proof.

Just little thinking is enough to show the hollowness of this theory(it is a kind of imagination of mind..isn't it?).

So becoming free is an absurd as per your theory itself..

I would have loved to answer your questions which are certainly good questions from seeker's point of view. I can only assure you that each of your questions is either already answered which you have missed or have answers which can be provided if anyone is interested.

However, your language is too harsh. I am not used to such a language. Please forgive me. Moreover, if you are a confirmed dualist, then also I would ask for your forgiveness as I am not here to change the views of people who are on the path of duality ... as this has been forbidden by our Gurus.

In fact, it doesn't appear that you are seeking any answer, you are trying to prove superiority of your understanding over what I have posted. I am not interested in playing this game. Sorry !

OM

sanathan
17 October 2012, 12:57 AM
In fact, it doesn't appear that you are seeking any answer, you are trying to prove superiority of your understanding over what I have posted.

OM
Pranamam!

I have posted the reply on my stand y'day, but couldn't see that still here..anyway let me explain it again.
I am not here to prove my superiority , in fact all the points I have raised are just kind of questions to know what exactly TRUTH is. I don't consider myself as learned first..then where is the point of consider myself as superior.

Maybe my way of putting the points is little harsh..pardon me for that.

My intention is very clear that how do we accept if something looks illogical ..so I want to know the logical explanation for everything whatever been told by anyone.

I am following the concept of "Sruthi-Yukthi-Anubhava" of vedic learning.

devotee
18 October 2012, 12:59 AM
Namaste Sanathan,

Believing your words in your last post, the following is the explanation of questions raised by you :



You have said dreamer is unaffected..that is not true..it is the dreamer who is actually being affected with his dreams..maybe not in the same way as the dream character is seen(for example a dreamer sees himself chased by a tiger and got injured in dream , though he is not injured really ..he has experienced the fear of the chasing and ill-feeling of injuries..and that fear makes him wake-up). Otherwise a bad dream can not make him wake-up.

Dreamer is unaffected unless he imagines that he is affected because all events are nothing but imagination within his own mind. Moreover, the analogy of Brahman and World has no parallel, so the dream and dreamer is only a close approximation of the way the reality really acts.


Your statement "This "being" is imagined/created from the underlying pure consciousness" .. by whom it got imagined and to whom it is imagined ? I mean who is the creator of this imagination and who is the experiencer of this imagination?

You have to come out of the fixation of there being an eternal "who" and "whom" for anything to take place. The being isn't imagined by "someone" ... the imagination occurs and that causes "someone" born with a distinct 'i". What is imagination ? Imagination is nothing but subtle creation of objects, events and thoughts etc. within consciousness. This is the nature of the consciousness to imagine or to create a world on its canvas.


What is the substratum of "Maya" ?

Let's first understand what we mean by MAyA ? MAyA is slightly different from magic or creation of unreal thing out of thin air. MAyA is the nature of Brahman when it is not in the Fourth state i.e. Turiya. The power of MAyA when the Brahman is not in the fourth state, creates apparently three states i.e. Waking, Dreaming and the God-state.

The hardness and sparkle of diamond is attribute of Carbon in its diamond state. The softness and blackness are attributes of Carbon in Graphite state. Is Carbon substratum of Hardness of Diamond or Softness of Graphite ? Is Carbon substratum of sparkle of Carbon or the blackness of Graphite ? Actually, the nature of Carbon works and creates Diamond and Graphite in different states.


dream characters don't have their own existence..those are being experienced by dreamer himself.. It is the same person who experiences in waking state..experiences dream and can co-relate both the experiences..that means there is a continuation . I didn't get what you are trying prove with this simple point. Every one knows that he is the experiencer of his own dream that is what he can say in waking state too.

The very fact that you are unable to understand doesn't prove that it was so simple and meaningless as you want to say above. If you really try to understand, you can understand how the consciousness works by the above example. Science has not worked enough on how the Consciousness works but by adopting the same tool as Science uses i.e. by close and critical observation of natural phenomena we may try to understand how it works. Mind is not brain ... it works through brain and is the individualised consciousness which sees itself as a different being from the world. See, there is actually one individualised consciousness in the phenomenon of dreaming i.e. that of the dreamer. Now, in the dream there are many characters which don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer i.e. they have different "i"s than the "i" of the dreamer. What is the substratum of the "i" of his dream friend in the dream (let's mark that the friend acts as an independent individual in the dream without taking any help from the dreamer on how to act in the dream, so it has apparently its own independent "i" ) ? As there is only one Consciousness i.e. that of the dreamer, the substratum of the "i" of the dream friend must be Consciousness of the dreamer. Similarly, if there is any dream enemy in the dream, the substratum of the "i" of the dream enemy also has the same consciousness of the dreamer.

Please pause for a minute and try to find answer to these questions :

a) How the same substratum of consciousness of the dreamer creates separate consciousnesses of the various characters of the dream world ?

b) How does the Consciousness of the dreamer create an enemy character which acts against its own individualised consciousness ?

c) Who decides what role each of the dream character would play in the dream ? It is certainly not decided by the dreamer, as the dreamer is not aware how a particular dream character is going to act the next moment. In fact, if the dreamer would have known, he would have never allowed his dream enemy to stab him in the dream ... but it happens. How ?

d) Are the characters real or imaginary ? They are certainly not real but if they are unreal/non-existent, then how are they able to think and act in their own capacity as real characters in the dream ?


I can not see any logic here. Maybe I am not convinced..

If you try then there are chances that one can understand but if one doesn't want then there is no hope as the subject is really very difficult to understand.


First of dream-like existence can not be proved, because dream can not be identified as dream while you are in dream. Same applies to world if at all this is dream-like . I can only see one thing that you have imagined the world as dream like thing to pure consciousness by taking your dream state and waking state comparison. It is not either logical nor has any valid proof.

I am unable to understand what you want to say. It appears that you have just to disapprove what has been proposed without making any effort in trying to understand.

I would like you seek scientific answers to these day-to-day-phenomena :

a) Take a large piece of iron slab. We know that more than 99 % of the space within every atom is space. In fact, there is no proof that the rest of the balance volume of the matter is rock-solid if we enter into the sub-atomic particles (quarks and anti-quarks) and see their structures. If we consider the string theory, then there is nothing which can be considered rock-solid in the atoms. Why do we not see the huge space in the iron slab or experience the space when there is hardly anything within the slab which is not space ?

b) We all know that the light is nothing but electromagnetic wave. There is actually no color in the universe in absolute sense as the difference is only in wavelengths of the light-waves. How do we see color in absence of any color in the universe ? Let's remember that two people can see different color for the same wavelength of light ... it is another issue that you try to brand the other person color-blind !

c) We all know that no two atoms can actually touch each other ... there always remains a distance between the two. If that is so, how do we get the feeling of touch and feeling of hardness and softness of anything ?

d) There is actually no smell in the world ... there are various particles with special characteristics. A slight disturbance in your brain may make you completely free from all smells. Now, is the smell in the particles or in the mind ?

e) The atomic particles have neither the property of a food nor of a poison, a gem or a piece of common sand rock. How just a change in the spatial arrangement of the same particles give rise to completely different objects ? Does it look logical ? But it does happen. How ?

Think deeply before you brush aside all the above questions as meaningless if you really want to know the answer.


IF world is just an appearance on pure-consciousness.. then the very saying itself becomes dream. You can not say it is dream until you come out from it..once you come out ..you can not communicate to dreamer.

You have to change your understanding of the word, "appearance". Moreover, the dream cannot be said to be either real or unreal.


Just little thinking is enough to show the hollowness of this theory(it is a kind of imagination of mind..isn't it?).

This is no way to discuss. If you really think it so, there is no point in discussing Advaita with you. Please be happy with your own understanding. I have nothing to prove here.


What becomes free? is it illusory conscious-being? or "Self"..conscious-being which is illusory in character as you said already can not become free..because its existence itself is false..then "Self" doesn't need to be free as it is always free or unaffected. So becoming free is an absurd as per your theory itself..

The word "illusion" has to be carefully understood. Your understanding is wrong. Let's see how it is : When we say that there is snake where actually the rope is that doesn't mean that "nothing exists where snake was seen" ... this is case of wrong-identification. So, the "being" in reality doesn't exist as the dream characters in reality don't exist but it doesn't mean that they are completely unreal as their substratum is something real. So, the "being" is real and rock-solid in the waking state and the dreaming state but it loses its reality/existence in Turiya state e.g. there is no graphite in the diamond state of Carbon and there is no diamond in graphite state of carbon and both are unreal from Coal state of carbon but that doesn't mean that graphite/diamond are completely unreal and are born out of nothing.

Advaita tells us that this world is a reality from VyAvaharika point of view but is unreal from the parmarthika point of view. When you say that something is "real" or when you say that "something is unreal" ... you must know from what state you making the statement. You cannot claim from Waking and Dreaming states that the world is unreal ... this statement is true only from Turiya state.

OM

sanathan
18 October 2012, 02:57 AM
Pranamams!

Thanks for the answers.




Dreamer is unaffected unless he imagines that he is affected because all events are nothing but imagination within his own mind.



In my opinion, the person who is dreaming doesn't have any choice to imagine (that he is affected )or not to imagine. am I wrong?
In general when I dream, I experience various feelings , and I call that experiencing is effect on dreamer.

Maybe dream objects are imaginations, but the experience they are generating are not imaginations. Also we will know that the objects are imaginary only after we come out from dream, isn't it?





You have to come out of the fixation of there being an eternal "who" and "whom" for anything to take place. The being isn't imagined by "someone" ... the imagination occurs and that causes "someone" born with a distinct 'i". What is imagination ? Imagination is nothing but subtle creation of objects, events and thoughts etc. within consciousness. This is the nature of the consciousness to imagine or to create a world on its canvas.



As per my knowledge,

In our current state , when we think something..that thought is related to a being (i.e experiencer of it), so in general , when something is imagined..we conclude that there is a being who does that and experiences(knows) it. With this view I have asked "to who /on whom " this imagination taken place.

Now you have clarified that there need not be a being to something gets imagined, my doubt is how come imagination is known as such without there being "knower" of it. is my point clear?

Let me be more clear:

for example if I think or imagine something..I know that I have imagined such and such..and then only I call that as imagination. so all the while a knower(being) is present to generate , experience and to establish the existence of very imagination.

If you say "imagination is subtle creation of objects etc., within consciousness" , then generally I tend to ask "who calls that as imagination if there is no experiencer(being) of the same exists to whom that imagination belongs to".

Not sure if I made my points clear yet, and we both are common plane to discuss.

I am trying to contemplate on the line you have said i.e "The being isn't imagined by "someone" ... the imagination occurs and that causes "someone" born with a distinct 'i". "
Will come up with more doubts if my mind generates any :)

thanks for the patience.

sanathan
18 October 2012, 05:59 AM
Let's first understand what we mean by MAyA ? MAyA is slightly different from magic or creation of unreal thing out of thin air. MAyA is the nature of Brahman when it is not in the Fourth state i.e. Turiya. The power of MAyA when the Brahman is not in the fourth state, creates apparently three states i.e. Waking, Dreaming and the God-state.



I have asked "what is the substratum of Maya" .

So from your explanation, it seems like "Maya" is the nature of Brahman when it is not in Turiya state..am I right? if so , then how Brahman has come out from Turiya state and having Maya as its nature? I think Brahman is nothing but consciousness itself.






See, there is actually one individualised consciousness in the phenomenon of dreaming i.e. that of the dreamer. Now, in the dream there are many characters which don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer i.e. they have different "i"s than the "i" of the dreamer. What is the substratum of the "i" of his dream friend in the dream (let's mark that the friend acts as an independent individual in the dream without taking any help from the dreamer on how to act in the dream, so it has apparently its own independent "i" ) ? As there is only one Consciousness i.e. that of the dreamer, the substratum of the "i" of the dream friend must be Consciousness of the dreamer. Similarly, if there is any dream enemy in the dream, the substratum of the "i" of the dream enemy also has the same consciousness of the dreamer.


Dream characters don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer, that is right..but then why do we need to assume that they have individuality at all?, they are just characters being experienced by dreamer as different from himself, what is the need to assign an "i" to the characters, which is subjective term. All that you know is your existence by your experience(subjectivity) and others existence by their activities(objectivity), I can not see any need to assume some "i"ness to dream characters and then deduce their substratum to dreamer's consciousness.

If I am not mistaken, the same you have said above can be applied to waking state world, and deduce all the persons you are interacting to your consciousness right? .

If at all that is true, then the person who knows as such shouldn't any more interact with the others as separate from his consciousness and can never respond in different ways..but you and me who are already came to know this fact..still acting as we are different and debating. That is the reason I have asked is this really TRUE? or again just an imagination of mind?

What ever you speak or think , that just again coming from your mind/brain..so the thought or idea that says "there is only one consciousness exists, and world is just an appearance due to MAYA" is also coming from his mind which perceives world as different from him..

So he is perceiving the world with same mind and thinking that world as illusory with same mind, how can the second thought(world is illusory) of same mind which negates the first thought(experience of world as different from him) can be proved as TRUE? you know what I am saying?

How can a thought negate another thought while both are at the same plane.

Now you may say world is "vyavaharika satya" and TURIYA is absolute, but they are identified as vyavaharika and paramartha from mind only. am I wrong?

My whole point is that "world is just vyavaharika" can not be known now while we are in world..so why we are speaking so? even it can not be known to TURIYA because TURIYA is that which doesn't have any thing else but itself, so TURIYA state doesn't know the existence of world..so how can TURIYA speak about the nature of world ?

That is what I asked as "can a person who is in waking state communicate to his own dreaming state?" , that is not possible as all we know , then why do we negate the dream state as false while we are in waking state..it is of no use right? even we negate it now, again when we go to sleep, we still dream and experience it, so negating the dream as false from waking state is of no use..and using this simile to show the world's relative reality is also not logical in my opinion.








I would like you seek scientific answers to these day-to-day-phenomena :

a) Take a large piece of iron slab. We know that more than 99 % of the space within every atom is space. In fact, there is no proof that the rest of the balance volume of the matter is rock-solid if we enter into the sub-atomic particles (quarks and anti-quarks) and see their structures. If we consider the string theory, then there is nothing which can be considered rock-solid in the atoms. Why do we not see the huge space in the iron slab or experience the space when there is hardly anything within the slab which is not space ?
What does it prove?
Are you trying to use the nature of atoms at sub-atomic level to deny your own experience of it as an iron slab? the material is same only the person's experience changes based on his perception of it..

That is my whole point in raising the concerns in first post against your post.






You have to change your understanding of the word, "appearance". Moreover, the dream cannot be said to be either real or unreal.
why it can not be said to be real or unreal?

if it is unreal , then the very concept is not known to you now..but we are discussing about dream as such and such..that itself proves "dream" is real.



So, the "being" is real and rock-solid in the waking state and the dreaming state but it loses its reality/existence in Turiya state If being itself loses its existence, then who is saying there is such a state called "TURIYA" ?

Now you are saying that there is "TURIYA" that mean as a being you are aware..how? someone has told to you..how that someone knows it? so there is some one who knows that state..if there is no being at all..nothing to be told ..and that knowledge have not been known to you.




Advaita tells us that this world is a reality from VyAvaharika point of view but is unreal from the parmarthika point of view. When you say that something is "real" or when you say that "something is unreal" ... you must know from what state you making the statement. You cannot claim from Waking and Dreaming states that the world is unreal ... this statement is true only from Turiya state.

OM from turiya state there is no chance of making statements..so even "world is unreal" can not be spoken from turiya.

devotee
19 October 2012, 12:04 AM
Namaste Sanathan,



In my opinion, the person who is dreaming doesn't have any choice to imagine (that he is affected )or not to imagine. am I wrong?
In general when I dream, I experience various feelings , and I call that experiencing is effect on dreamer.

I have already given you the definition of the word, "Imagination" and yet you are asking this question, is surprising. All the effects on the dreamer is meaningless as actually nothing is happening except the act of sleeping which is the reality. Therefore, the characters, the events and all feelings are "imagination" (creation of images) within mind. The dreamer is sleeping only ... why should he be affected by anything which is just an imagination in mind ... but yet he is affected which is only mental.


As per my knowledge,
In our current state , when we think something..that thought is related to a being (i.e experiencer of it), so in general , when something is imagined..we conclude that there is a being who does that and experiences(knows) it. With this view I have asked "to who /on whom " this imagination taken place.

You have to think slightly differently. There is consciousness and there are mind-waves within consciousness. Having mind-waves on consciousness is like generation of thoughts in our mind. Now, this creates ahamkar i.e. "i" or the being that you are referring to. The "i" thought is the mother-thought in the consciousness which gives birth to a being. Let's remember that this "i" thought is not permanent i.e. the existence of a "being" is not necessary for the consciousness to work within or outside us. When we are in deep sleep, this "i" vanishes i.e. it merges into the Consciousness that we are. When we are awake, it rises again. Within one individualised consciousness i.e. mind, there may be different "i"s sometimes, acting at different times through the same consciousness which gives rise to "multiple personality disorder".


Now you have clarified that there need not be a being to something gets imagined, my doubt is how come imagination is known as such without there being "knower" of it. is my point clear?

Oh ! It is we who are discussing this issue are terming those mind-waves as imagination. What is so difficult about it ? There is vast ocean of consciousness and it is having mind-waves on it. "i" thought within the mind-waves gives rise to individuality and the being.


for example if I think or imagine something..I know that I have imagined such and such..and then only I call that as imagination. so all the while a knower(being) is present to generate , experience and to establish the existence of very imagination.

Please refer above, If it is not clear, I can't help any more.


If you say "imagination is subtle creation of objects etc., within consciousness" , then generally I tend to ask "who calls that as imagination if there is no experiencer(being) of the same exists to whom that imagination belongs to".

This is already answered above and if it is still not clear, I can't help any more. :)

OM

devotee
19 October 2012, 12:53 AM
Namaste Sanathan,


I have asked "what is the substratum of Maya" .
So from your explanation, it seems like "Maya" is the nature of Brahman when it is not in Turiya state..am I right? if so , then how Brahman has come out from Turiya state and having Maya as its nature? I think Brahman is nothing but consciousness itself.

How Brahman has come out of Turiya state ? This is not the right question. Nature of anything is nature of that thing. The Brahman has four states and the nature of Brahman in the four states is as has been described in MAndukya Upanishad or as experienced by the Rishis who wrote these Upanishads. There is no answer to this question.


Dream characters don't identify themselves with the individuality of the dreamer, that is right..but then why do we need to assume that they have individuality at all?, they are just characters being experienced by dreamer as different from himself, what is the need to assign an "i" to the characters, which is subjective term. All that you know is your existence by your experience(subjectivity) and others existence by their activities(objectivity), I can not see any need to assume some "i"ness to dream characters and then deduce their substratum to dreamer's consciousness.

This is no logic. How can a character act independently without its own individuality ? The character must first distinguish itself from others to be able to act against others and if it does that it must have individuality.

If it is not clear to you, I can't help you further. I don't think it is so difficult to understand. It appears to me that you are arguing for the sake of an argument, you don't really want to understand this.


If I am not mistaken, the same you have said above can be applied to waking state world, and deduce all the persons you are interacting to your consciousness right? .

If at all that is true, then the person who knows as such shouldn't any more interact with the others as separate from his consciousness and can never respond in different ways..but you and me who are already came to know this fact..still acting as we are different and debating. That is the reason I have asked is this really TRUE? or again just an imagination of mind?

That is where you got it completely wrong. This is different from "intellectual knowing". This knowing is actually "feeling oneness with everyone's consciousness". On Self-realisation, you feel one with the entire world's consciousness, so at the time of feeling one-ness, there is total cessation of individuality and no interaction can occur. When you regain your individuality after coming out of that state, you can interact again.


What ever you speak or think , that just again coming from your mind/brain..so the thought or idea that says "there is only one consciousness exists, and world is just an appearance due to MAYA" is also coming from his mind which perceives world as different from him.

This is what is experienced by the self-realised persons and you too can realise the same Truth. The statement does comes from mind which carries an impression after coming from the state of One-ness of mind ... just like our mind carries the impression of a good sleep even when there is no "i" in deep sleep.


So he is perceiving the world with same mind and thinking that world as illusory with same mind, how can the second thought(world is illusory) of same mind which negates the first thought(experience of world as different from him) can be proved as TRUE? you know what I am saying?

I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.


How can a thought negate another thought while both are at the same plane.

How do you say that both are on the same plane ? Then there won't be any necessity to differentiate between VyAvhArikA satyam from ParmArthikA satyam.


Now you may say world is "vyavaharika satya" and TURIYA is absolute, but they are identified as vyavaharika and paramartha from mind only. am I wrong?

No, there is a difference. The individualised Consciousness sees this world as world (i.e. VyAvhArika) whereas the pure unconditioned sees the world as "Self" (i.e. ParmArthika).


My whole point is that "world is just vyavaharika" can not be known now while we are in world..so why we are speaking so?

The Self-realised saints belonged to this world and experienced Turiya in this world alone.


even it can not be known to TURIYA because TURIYA is that which doesn't have any thing else but itself, so TURIYA state doesn't know the existence of world..so how can TURIYA speak about the nature of world ?

I have already answered this if you can locate.


That is what I asked as "can a person who is in waking state communicate to his own dreaming state?" , that is not possible as all we know , then why do we negate the dream state as false while we are in waking state..it is of no use right?

I think I used the term "VyAvharikA satyam and I think you discussed on this point too. I told you that this world cannot be negated from Waking or the Dreaming states.


even we negate it now, again when we go to sleep, we still dream and experience it, so negating the dream as false from waking state is of no use..and using this simile to show the world's relative reality is also not logical in my opinion.

I don't think there is any use discussing this subject with you. Why do you want to discuss this issue at all ?


What does it prove?
Are you trying to use the nature of atoms at sub-atomic level to deny your own experience of it as an iron slab? the material is same only the person's experience changes based on his perception of it.

Ah ! I don't think it was so difficult to figure out. What I am trying to tell you that the world is actually not as we perceive it by our mind and our sense organs. It appears so because of our mind. Our mind creates the perception of "seeing" something different than what the object really is. Our mind creates the illusion of colors where there is none. Our mind creates the illusion of "hearing" where there is only vibration within a certain range in the medium. Our mind creates the illusion of "touch" and "taste". If you can understand what I am trying to say .... this world is not really as we perceive and yet we so strongly cling to its being a "reality".


why it can not be said to be real or unreal?

How can an unreal object acts in its own capacity different from others without a conscious effort acting on it ?


if it is unreal , then the very concept is not known to you now..but we are discussing about dream as such and such..that itself proves "dream" is real.
If being itself loses its existence, then who is saying there is such a state called "TURIYA" ?
Now you are saying that there is "TURIYA" that mean as a being you are aware..how? someone has told to you..how that someone knows it? so there is some one who knows that state..if there is no being at all..nothing to be told ..and that knowledge have not been known to you.

from turiya state there is no chance of making statements..so even "world is unreal" can not be spoken from turiya.

To tell you the truth, I don't think there is any use discussing Advaita with you. What is the harm if you accept that the world is the only Truth and the whole of Advaita is completely illogical and that the Advaitins are crazy people who have fancy ideas without any substance ? There are more people like you than there are Advaitins. Believe me, there is absolutely no harm. :)

I quit this discussion here.

OM

sanathan
19 October 2012, 06:56 AM
I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.


Right,
While we are in dream, we act along with that..we don't even have a choice of thinking whether the happenings there are true or not.
When we come out from dream, then we realize that ..whatever has been experienced till now is just a dream(and we have given a name 'dream' to it after we come out from there..), but we experienced that during that time as reality only. Remember one thing that all this discrimination about dream and waking state is happening at waking state only.

By using this example, you(who is not yet realized or liberated) are assuming the current waking state will be a dream-like state to realized self.

I am objecting this comparison , because we are now in waking state(i.e dream-like when compared to paramarthika level) , and can not know it is illusory and there is some other paramarthika state exists. You may say , realized saints have told that ..but how does a waking person(i.e realized) can communicate to dreamer(i.e waking i.e us ).

We all know that waking state person can not communicate to dreamer, but then why we are thinking that a realized person can communicate to waking person.

You may say realized person will talk to us after he is coming out from realized state, but that is again not logical..since the world is dream-like thing..the very sayings of realized person are nothing but dream-like ..after all the very concept of realization is dream-like.

Simple fact is we can not prove anything if we negate our own experience of world as illusory or vyavaharika or whatever you may call, because the very thought says so itself belongs to the same mind and it becomes illusory eventually.


I can conclude from your words and knowledge one thing that "world is not true in the sense that the current experience of world is not "full", we are just experiencing it very little and there is more to experience it ".

Thanks any way for all your teachings, and sorry that some times my questions irritated you. But I don't stop searching ultimate TRUTH..

sanathan
19 October 2012, 07:37 AM
I have already given you the definition of the word, "Imagination" and yet you are asking this question, is surprising. All the effects on the dreamer is meaningless as actually nothing is happening except the act of sleeping which is the reality. Therefore, the characters, the events and all feelings are "imagination" (creation of images) within mind. The dreamer is sleeping only ... why should he be affected by anything which is just an imagination in mind ... but yet he is affected which is only mental.



Nothing is happening except sleeping? strange..then we we call him as dreamer? we should use sleeper rather, in that case . What do you mean by effect? I guess your definition of effect is "physically effected" .. yeah?
If there is no effect on dreamer..then we don't need to have this much discussion.. but the very fact that we are discussing on the nature of dream itself proves there is some effect on dreamer. Also what do you mean by effect is only mental? where is mind..is it isolate? not so..so the very being himself having mind has been affected. that is what I call effect..




You have to think slightly differently. There is consciousness and there are mind-waves within consciousness. Having mind-waves on consciousness is like generation of thoughts in our mind. Now, this creates ahamkar i.e. "i" or the being that you are referring to. The "i" thought is the mother-thought in the consciousness which gives birth to a being. Let's remember that this "i" thought is not permanent i.e. the existence of a "being" is not necessary for the consciousness to work within or outside us. When we are in deep sleep, this "i" vanishes i.e. it merges into the Consciousness that we are. When we are awake, it rises again. Within one individualised consciousness i.e. mind, there may be different "i"s sometimes, acting at different times through the same consciousness which gives rise to "multiple personality disorder".


How come consciousness has mind-waves in it? mind-wave as the name itself suggests is the wave in mind..not in consciousness..if consciousness itself contains mind waves..that itself proves there is a being always.
You said "i" thought is just production of mind wave and it is ahamkara..but mind itself can not exist with out a being(i) .

Next you mentioned "i" vanishes in deep-sleep..that is also not right, if "i" itself vanishes..the person after waking from deep-sleep can not say that he had sound sleep, so there must be someone who experiences deep sleep also thought he doesn't have the knowledge during that time..so "i" is not vanished..but his knowledge of knowing outside objects doesn't shine forth.
ANother logical reason is , if "i" vanishes in deepsleep, then after waking up a new "i" should have been created and the person's indivduality should change, but that is not the fact.




Oh ! It is we who are discussing this issue are terming those mind-waves as imagination. What is so difficult about it ? There is vast ocean of consciousness and it is having mind-waves on it.

:) But how we came to know that there were mind waves dear? where 'we' themselves not exist.
"There is vast ocean of consciousness and its having mind waves"..is being said by you who is the knower of it, so without being you to know that ..how does that consciousness and mind waves' existence is said by you..

I don't know why my point is not understandable .

My point is very simple that any fact can not be known as a fact without being a knower of it. but you are iterating something as fact and denying the knower of the fact at that state..that is really hard to understand for me.

sanathan
19 October 2012, 07:38 AM
Pranamams!



This is no logic. How can a character act independently without its own individuality ? The character must first distinguish itself from others to be able to act against others and if it does that it must have individuality.

If it is not clear to you, I can't help you further. I don't think it is so difficult to understand. It appears to me that you are arguing for the sake of an argument, you don't really want to understand this.


You might not have read my lines carefully, I didn't say dreamer has no individuality, but I objected your assumption that other characters of dream which have been experienced by dreamer need not to have individuality or subjectivity which anyway we can not prove. I am not arguing for your information, I am putting all my doubts and understanding infront of you so that can get clarified .



On Self-realisation, you feel one with the entire world's consciousness, so at the time of feeling one-ness, there is total cessation of individuality and no interaction can occur. When you regain your individuality after coming out of that state, you can interact again.


So, there is an exit after self-realisation, and regaining of individuality..this has been objected by me, what is the meaning of realization then? also where does from this individuality or mental thought or mind-wave has come from into pure consciosuness(i.e realized self), what is the assurance of getting a complete bliss without ineturrption.




This is what is experienced by the self-realised persons and you too can realise the same Truth. The statement does comes from mind which carries an impression after coming from the state of One-ness of mind ... just like our mind carries the impression of a good sleep even when there is no "i" in deep sleep.


Ah, it seems like we are revolving around same thing again and again.
How is mind connected to consciousness? and the very connection itself has the issue..you are just assuming it and repeating , but not showing any valid proof.



I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.


This is the crux of our discussion..get hold on it, will be back.




How do you say that both are on the same plane ? Then there won't be any necessity to differentiate between VyAvhArikA satyam from ParmArthikA satyam.


I said about two thoughts 1. "All this world is vyavaharika satya or illusory at paramathika satya" 2. "This world is real because I am experiencing it"

These 2 thoughts are in the same mind..but here 1st one is negating the validity of second thought. That is the issue I have raised..let me know if my point is clear.




The Self-realised saints belonged to this world and experienced Turiya in this world alone.
TURIYA can't be experienced in this world as per my knowledge..refer Manukya.Up . If it is really experienced in this world , then that itself proves there is a "knower" of it..which you have discarded as just ahankara.




I don't think there is any use discussing this subject with you. Why do you want to discuss this issue at all ?

Because I want to find the TRUTH as it is .. I don't have any fear to discuss about TRUTH.




Ah ! I don't think it was so difficult to figure out. What I am trying to tell you that the world is actually not as we perceive it by our mind and our sense organs. It appears so because of our mind. Our mind creates the perception of "seeing" something different than what the object really is. Our mind creates the illusion of colors where there is none. Our mind creates the illusion of "hearing" where there is only vibration within a certain range in the medium. Our mind creates the illusion of "touch" and "taste". If you can understand what I am trying to say .... this world is not really as we perceive and yet we so strongly cling to its being a "reality".

I can fully understand your words, but it is difficult for me to make you understand about my question it seems.

Let me put one more time here:

Whatever you said above is again coming from the same mind which creates illusions such as seeing, hearing,touch etc.,(as per you), so what proof you have left to prove your very own words..the words came from the same mind which produces illusions..

Please just read my lines few times.




How can an unreal object acts in its own capacity different from others without a conscious effort acting on it ?

First define what is unreal object and whether it exists even as unreal.




To tell you the truth, I don't think there is any use discussing Advaita with you. What is the harm if you accept that the world is the only Truth and the whole of Advaita is completely illogical and that the Advaitins are crazy people who have fancy ideas without any substance ? There are more people like you than there are Advaitins. Believe me, there is absolutely no harm.

I quit this discussion here.

OM

I won't stop searching the TRUTH . but same time I can not leave logic aside.

Thanks for your patient answers.

devotee
20 October 2012, 02:07 AM
Namaste Sanathan,

This discussion has derailed this thread and I request you to please open your own thread for these questions so that the purpose for which this thread was created is not lost.

I have no intention to discuss this issue any more but I would like you to note these flaws in your understanding :

a)
You may say realized person will talk to us after he is coming out from realized state, but that is again not logical..since the world is dream-like thing..the very sayings of realized person are nothing but dream-like ..after all the very concept of realization is dream-like.

You have yet to understand that dream, dream characters and dream events are neither real nor unreal like this world. It depends upon from what state you are seeing. It is not abnormal to carry impressions of dream to waking state and vice-versa. You are free to have your understanding but on what authority are you asserting in this manner ? Are you a Self-realised soul ? Why don't you first reach that stage ?

b)
How come consciousness has mind-waves in it?

Mind and consciousness are not different. Mind is individualised consciousness but when we use the term consciousness we usually mean Cosmic Consciousness. I have told this earlier too. It is in the nature of Consciousness to have mind-waves.

c)
Next you mentioned "i" vanishes in deep-sleep..that is also not right, if "i" itself vanishes..the person after waking from deep-sleep can not say that he had sound sleep, so there must be someone who experiences deep sleep also thought he doesn't have the knowledge during that time..so "i" is not vanished..but his knowledge of knowing outside objects doesn't shine forth. ANother logical reason is , if "i" vanishes in deepsleep, then after waking up a new "i" should have been created and the person's indivduality should change, but that is not the fact

You have no idea what "i" means or in what context it has been used. The first characteristic of presence of "i" i.e. ahamkAr is that it should be able to distinguish itself for other things around it. In deep sleep, there is no such differentiation ... how can there be an "i" ? Please remember that existence of an "i" means presence of Consciousness but the reverse of it is not true.

Again, the impression of having a good sleep is not recorded by "i". The consciousness exists and is witness even when there is no "i". After every deep sleep, there is a new 'i" but it is attached to all the earlier impressions in mind (samskArs) and therefore, acts as the earlier one.

d)
You might not have read my lines carefully, I didn't say dreamer has no individuality, but I objected your assumption that other characters of dream which have been experienced by dreamer need not to have individuality or subjectivity which anyway we can not prove. I am not arguing for your information, I am putting all my doubts and understanding infront of you so that can get clarified .

You didn't read my answer properly. I was talking about dream characters and not the dreamer. You said that dream characters have no "i". I said that if that was so, dream characters would not have acted independently (at least seemingly) as they do in the dream. What is the basis of saying that the dream characters have no "i"s ? Cannot one dream character differentiate itself from all others in the dream ?

e)
So, there is an exit after self-realisation, and regaining of individuality..this has been objected by me, what is the meaning of realization then?

How can you object to this ? How do you know what Self-realisation means ? How can you take upon yourself to define how it should be ? We have to go by what the Self-realised say. If you say that it doesn't mean anything or then Self-realisation is meaningless ... you are free to have your opinion ... but that is just your opinion.

f)
How is mind connected to consciousness? and the very connection itself has the issue..you are just assuming it and repeating , but not showing any valid proof.

Please correct your understanding of mind and consciousness. Mind is nothing but individualised consciousness. How do you know that "I am assuming" ? I am repeating again and again because this was told by me in the beginning itself and yet you forget it.

g)
I said about two thoughts 1. "All this world is vyavaharika satya or illusory at paramathika satya" 2. "This world is real because I am experiencing it". These 2 thoughts are in the same mind..but here 1st one is negating the validity of second thought. That is the issue I have raised..let me know if my point is clear.

I think I agreed that both the statements are coming from the same mind but I also said this :" I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.". How do you see the dream with the same mind and take it as real and then negate its reality on waking up ?

No one knows how it happens but the awakened person is free to merge its mind with the cosmic consciousness and also come back to individualised consciousness with the impressions of oneness carried to individualised consciousness. You cannot say that it is impossible as you are not a Self-realised soul and you are also not the rule maker of what should happen to a Self-realised soul. It may be wrong but I or you are not in the right capacity cannot deny it.

If you insist otherwise, please tell me what is your authority for claiming so.

h)
TURIYA can't be experienced in this world as per my knowledge..refer Manukya.Up . If it is really experienced in this world , then that itself proves there is a "knower" of it..which you have discarded as just ahankara.

I would like to know on what authority you are claiming this.

i)
Whatever you said above is again coming from the same mind which creates illusions such as seeing, hearing,touch etc.,(as per you), so what proof you have left to prove your very own words..the words came from the same mind which produces illusions..

Yes, the mind creates illusion but who said that it cannot analyse and differentiate between the real and unreal at least on intellectual level ?

j)
First define what is unreal object and whether it exists even as unreal.

I told you that you have to first decide from what plane/state you are saying this. If we are talking on absolute terms then Only the unchanging essence i.e. the fourth state of Brahman alone is Real and everything else is unreal. On this reality the imagined beings, objects and activities are all unreal. Here "Imagination" term is used for the generation of mind-waves on the vast bosom of Consciousness.

k)
I won't stop searching the TRUTH . but same time I can not leave logic aside.

I request that you can very well do it in some other thread as this discussion is derailing the purpose of this thread. BTW, shall I tell you that logic is used with axioms applicable to a particular scenario. Here, you don't know the nature of Consciousness, you also don't know what mind is and how it works, You have no idea how it feels on awakening .... how are you applying logic without having proper framework of applicable axioms ? I can't wish you best of luck in your pursuit of Truth that you claim as you are sailing without a compass.

This is my last post on this issue. I shall ask Satay to move this part of discussion in this thread to some other thread.

OM

sanathan
20 October 2012, 07:48 AM
Pranamams!





This discussion has derailed this thread and I request you to please open your own thread for these questions so that the purpose for which this thread was created is not lost.

I have no intention to discuss this issue any more but I would like you to note these flaws in your understanding :


This is my last post in this thread, just giving my answers to some of your questions on my stand.




a)

You have yet to understand that dream, dream characters and dream events are neither real nor unreal like this world. It depends upon from what state you are seeing. It is not abnormal to carry impressions of dream to waking state and vice-versa. You are free to have your understanding but on what authority are you asserting in this manner ? Are you a Self-realised soul ? Why don't you first reach that stage ?


I am first searching the TRUE philosophy, without knowing what is TRUTH..how can I do sadhana and achieve self-realization or GOD-realization..if I just blindly follow some path and assume what ever I achieved is the "self-realization" ..that won't help me in reality..because there maybe a possibility of falling down from that state to illusory world again as we are going to dream every night even after realising the last night's dream was just illusion.

Regarding , dream characters illusoriness: I have certainly understood what you are saying..but I am just objecting the point that there is continuation of "knower" from one state to another..and without that "knower" we can not talk about dream state. but you are denying the very "knower" as the product of maya. which anyway can not be proved.

Also the dream itself is not illusion , but the way we have experienced it as "REAL" in dream was because of the attachment with our worldy objects and their impressions in the mind of dreamer.

You are considering the consciousness on which the dream is happening , but the very mind where it is happening is not isolate entity..it belongs to "dreamer"..otherwise why he experiences his own dream.




b)

Mind and consciousness are not different. Mind is individualised consciousness but when we use the term consciousness we usually mean Cosmic Consciousness. I have told this earlier too. It is in the nature of Consciousness to have mind-waves.


Again, just assumption..you are always leaving one thing aside that without being a knower/experiencer of that mind or consciousness ..we can not prove such a fact.




c)

You have no idea what "i" means or in what context it has been used. The first characteristic of presence of "i" i.e. ahamkAr is that it should be able to distinguish itself for other things around it. In deep sleep, there is no such differentiation ... how can there be an "i" ? Please remember that existence of an "i" means presence of Consciousness but the reverse of it is not true.

Again, the impression of having a good sleep is not recorded by "i". The consciousness exists and is witness even when there is no "i". After every deep sleep, there is a new 'i" but it is attached to all the earlier impressions in mind (samskArs) and therefore, acts as the earlier one.

Able to distingiush it from others is not the characteristic of "Ahankara"..which is jada by itself..there must be a pure "knower" who is misidentifying himself with body is the distinguisher. In deep sleep there is no such differentiation because "his" knowledge doesn't shine forth and not interacting with objects. witnessing is called knowing in my language and who does that is called as "knower"..I use "i" to that knower. there can be no pure consciousness without having a conscious-being holding it..you have yet prove pure consciousness..you are just assuming ..but the very person who says so is the proof for "knower" of having that knowledge exists.




d)

You didn't read my answer properly. I was talking about dream characters and not the dreamer. You said that dream characters have no "i". I said that if that was so, dream characters would not have acted independently (at least seemingly) as they do in the dream. What is the basis of saying that the dream characters have no "i"s ? Cannot one dream character differentiate itself from all others in the dream ?

dream characters have their base in the impressions stored in mind of a person.. same impressions have been materialised as "dream" which is the experience of dreamer..why do you want to establish the "i"ness to dream characters?
In fact dream is not in control of dreamer..any jada impressions(karma vasanas) can not act upon dreamer on their own, so there is a controller of this, I believe sastras must call him as "GOD".




e)

How can you object to this ? How do you know what Self-realisation means ? How can you take upon yourself to define how it should be ? We have to go by what the Self-realised say. If you say that it doesn't mean anything or then Self-realisation is meaningless ... you are free to have your opinion ... but that is just your opinion.

How do you believe someone is self-realized? which is subjective term..this is why I objected.. if at all the self-realization is "pure consciousness" as said by you then again why "mind-waves" occur in that pure consciousness again after realization ..and why does he still want to talk to illusory world ..since he is realized..he should know that "the world he is seeing after come out from realization is just illusory as dream..so why he wants to talk and preach to illusory persons which are anyway don't exist." , that is why I am objecting what you call as realization may not be true..




f)

Please correct your understanding of mind and consciousness. Mind is nothing but individualised consciousness. How do you know that "I am assuming" ? I am repeating again and again because this was told by me in the beginning itself and yet you forget it.



I will correct once you show the proof or give logical explanation..mind is related to one being..so as consciousness..without being an experiencer or knower of his own mind..there can be no mind or consciousness..but you are putting the very knower as product of imagination in pure consciousness..which has no valid proof, that's why I said you are assuming such and such..



g)

I think I agreed that both the statements are coming from the same mind but I also said this :" I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.". How do you see the dream with the same mind and take it as real and then negate its reality on waking up ?



What we negate? we just negate the way we thought the dream (i.e happening really)..but not the very experience which we have gone through while dreaming..if dream itself was false..then there is no chance of talking about it in waking..that itself proves we have experienced something..but the way we feel the dream as something really happening(when comapred to waking state)during that time is false..that means our way of knowing or way of thinking or way of experiencing by misidentification is false..not the very experience itself and objects itself.
The way we get attached with objects is due to avidya..but not the objects themselves..this is what I can deduce from the DREAM-WAKIGN comparison..



No one knows how it happens but the awakened person is free to merge its mind with the cosmic consciousness and also come back to individualised consciousness with the impressions of oneness carried to individualised consciousness. You cannot say that it is impossible as you are not a Self-realised soul and you are also not the rule maker of what should happen to a Self-realised soul. It may be wrong but I or you are not in the right capacity cannot deny it.

If you insist otherwise, please tell me what is your authority for claiming so.

The very concept of carrying the impression from pure-consciousness to an imagined "I" is not possible if there is no "experiencer" of both..actually the very concept that "there is some impression of oneness" points that there is a "knower" of it..otherwise that fact is not known to us as such..but what you said is "there is no knower" at that state..then how do you know that state as such and such or different from a rock-like state or jada state which doesn't know itself...




h)

I would like to know on what authority you are claiming this.


Logical authority..show me if my statement is illogical and how.




i)

Yes, the mind creates illusion but who said that it cannot analyse and differentiate between the real and unreal at least on intellectual level ?

All these are not of use logically until we say there is one conscious-being or knower to whom all this is happening..mind,intellect are not isolated terms..they aways belong to someone and work for that being.




j)

I told you that you have to first decide from what plane/state you are saying this. If we are talking on absolute terms then Only the unchanging essence i.e. the fourth state of Brahman alone is Real and everything else is unreal.

There is no chance of talking from ABSOLUTE state..and if there is no knower at that state..then that fact can not be know to current knower.



k)

I request that you can very well do it in some other thread as this discussion is derailing the purpose of this thread.

This was my last post on this issue. Thanks for discussing the issue.

OM
Thank you, I am out of this thread.

sanathan
20 October 2012, 10:32 AM
After every deep sleep, there is a new 'i" but it is attached to all the earlier impressions in mind (samskArs) and therefore, acts as the earlier one.


You are always going by imaginations..without showing a valid proof or logic, above is the best example.

Please read Shankaracharya's BSB for sutra "Jnota eva" (II.iii.18), Shakara has clearly mentioned the individual soul is knower.. and Chandogya(8.12.4) establishes this fact as "He who knows 'I smell this' is the self" . You are putting a new theory that the "i" who is knower himself vanishes with every sleep..

There is a new "i" after coming out from dream..show me proof? but the person who is waking from dream says..he was there before and can remember everything as 'his' experience, as per your theory the new 'i' should say.."my mind has information as such and such" and he shouldnot say "I was happy y'day" which is pure subjective..

I don't think we need to discuss anymore as you are relying more on your "thoughts"which are completely opposite our own current experience and also different from Acharya's words or sastra.

jopmala
21 October 2012, 11:04 AM
namaste to all

I think discussion with advaitin is meaningless because they insist on one aspect of bhagaban that is Brahma is non dual and nirguna nirvishes and nirakara but the thing they do not see is that the same scriptures again say that Brahma is also sagun sakara and savishes. Their sagun sakar savishes Brahma is lower than nirgun nirakar Brahma . Though they accept only one nirguna nirvishes Brahma but they have to acknowledge Iswara ( lower brahma which is sagun savishes) and Maya to make nirguna brahma sagun but at a lower position and at the same time they say only brahma is truth and rest is Mithya . They make their brahma a magician .Our scriptures( Gita) say that we the jivas are the part of Brahma ( advaitin does not accept). Aham Brahmasmi does not mean that Brahma is non dual. we are born from our parents and so we are part of them but that does not mean that myself and my parent is same . We are same in the sense that we belong to them but there is difference also . I can not reach to my father/mother position and also they but we are whole. we see that bhagavan is both this and that. I mean in Gita Sri Krishna clearly describes what he is . So advaitin version of Brahma is one sided. If there is 'YES' there must exist 'NO' and no in between. If there is light there must have dark and that is all about Brahma. This states of consciousness etc are all imagination of advaitin only to justify their misconception. Their ways of acquiring jnan and then getting moksha is not for all. common people can not practice it.Sri krishna is not for a particular class of devotee and also Gita establishes Bhaktimarg over jnan marg for sadhan bhajan. I do not understand how advaitin claim that Gita supports non dualistic concept of Brahma whereas every chapter of Gita clearly speaks of who is Krishna and who is jiva and also what jiva will do to achieve his goal that is krishna.Brahma being conditioned by Maya becomes jiva is totally unacceptable. Advaitin "Maya" and "Mama Maya" of Gita is not same. If you go through advaitin concept of Maya , it seems that It is Maya which is all powerful and not nirguna nirakar brahma.Advaitin always try to convince people with no justification. I want to know where this all powerful maya has come from ? why nirguna brahma has delegated his power to maya and then himself got conditioned and trying to get rid of maya by doing jnan marg. whose jnan the jiva need ? Bhakti sashra describe that jiva is nitya dasa of sri krishna therefore sri krishna is sri krishna and jiva is jiva. father is father always and son is son. but jiva comes from sri krishna so it is part not the whole.The " Aham Brahmasmi is always truth when there is bhakta and bhagavan. we can not say brahma is only this.Brahma is dual non dual or anything else.I request advaitin not to put any limit to his Brahmatwa by drawing any line.

devotee
21 October 2012, 09:49 PM
Namaste Japmala,

First of all, I would like to request you that if you are a confirmed dualist, please don't start a fight in Advaita section with the Advaitins. Please also remember that Advaitins are no fools the way you are describing.

I wish this was not raised in this thread but as you have raised this issue, let me tell you why people face problem when discussing with Advaitins.

a) Wrong application of Logic :

A logical argument which is valid in one situation may be invalid in other situation. This part is always missed by people while discussing Advaita. You must be sure under which framework of Axioms you are arguing with logic. The laws which govern one situation are not valid in another situation. You can't apply the laws of Newtonian mechanics when the speed in nearing velocity of light or at atomic distances.

... How do you know what are the valid axioms in a particular situation ? By keen observation and analysis and learning from people who know the subject matter. But most of the times, I find that people don't listen at all to what the Advaitins say .... they themselves (Non-Advaitins) don't understand how it works and they keep finding their own arguments and their own wrong inferences. In the above discussion, Sanathan doesn't know how the Consciousness works or mind works and what exactly Mithya means but starts applying his logic in without respecting the frameworks of the Axioms in the context of Advaitic discussion. So, it doesn't reach anywhere, as it is bound to be.

b) Not understanding the correct meaning of key-words used

Every field of knowledge has some special key-words which is used by the professionals of that field. The same words may have a different meaning in other fields but you must understand what exactly it means in the context of that field of knowledge about which we are talking.

The words, Mithya, Reality, Unreal, Consciousness, Self, Mind etc. have their slightly special meanings in Advaita which must be understood correctly. I have seen people misinterpreting "Mithya" in their own way when this word has a very special meaning in Advaita. In the above discussion too, Santhan refuses to accept that Mind is Individualised Conditioned Consciousness ... without thinking that if Mind is not consciousness then what exactly it is ? In the above discussion he also says that even in deep sleep 'i" exists etc. ... when you start discussing in this manner, how Advaitin can discuss with you ?

c) Not coming out of their belief system

Advaita shatters the common belief system. You must be ready to break free from the shackles of the common belief system to be able to discuss Advaitic philosophy.

Now, I will tell you where you are getting it wrong :



I think discussion with advaitin is meaningless because they insist on one aspect of bhagaban that is Brahma is non dual and nirguna nirvishes and nirakara but the thing they do not see is that the same scriptures again say that Brahma is also sagun sakara and savishes.

This shows that you have no idea what Advaitins believe or say. Please rest assured that Advaitins accept both the aspects of Brahman. So, you should not be so unhappy with the Advaitins now !


Their sagun sakar savishes Brahma is lower than nirgun nirakar Brahma . Though they accept only one nirguna nirvishes Brahma but they have to acknowledge Iswara ( lower brahma which is sagun savishes) and Maya to make nirguna brahma sagun but at a lower position and at the same time they say only brahma is truth and rest is Mithya .

Can you quote any known Advaitin where it is said that Saguna Brahman is lower than Nirakar Brahman ? I am not aware. Saguna Brahman is created under the influence of MAyA from NirAkAr Brahman. NirAkAr Brahman is more important to know. Why ? Because it is the ultimate reality and the Upanishads say that It is to be known (Ref : MAndukya Upanishad). The terms Lower Brahman and Higher Brahman is not for the sake of comparison of superiority of one with respect to other.


They make their brahma a magician.

This is just your prejudice against the Advaitins. You don't understand what the Advaitins believe in.


Our scriptures( Gita) say that we the jivas are the part of Brahma ( advaitin does not accept). Aham Brahmasmi does not mean that Brahma is non dual. we are born from our parents and so we are part of them but that does not mean that myself and my parent is same . We are same in the sense that we belong to them but there is difference also . I can not reach to my father/mother position and also they but we are whole. we see that bhagavan is both this and that.

Advaitins say, "Jivo Brahmaiva naparah" ===> Jiva is Brahman alone and nothing else. If you read Bhagwad Gita Chapter 2 and chapter 13 carefully, you will understand that there is only one Truth which manifests as both Jiva and Ishvara and that is Brahman.


I mean in Gita Sri Krishna clearly describes what he is.

I agree. However, Lord Krishna is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman, isn't it ? Doesn't Bhagwad Gita says so ?


This states of consciousness etc are all imagination of advaitin only to justify their misconception.

This shows that you have not read VedAnta otherwise, you would not have
said so. Please read Upaniishads and particularly MAndukya Up.


Their ways of acquiring jnan and then getting moksha is not for all. common people can not practice it.

Agreed. That is why it is forbidden to discuss Advaita to a person of less intellect (Now, please don't jump at me. This is the term used in VedAnta and this only means that a person who cannot see beyond the reality of duality).


Sri krishna is not for a particular class of devotee and also Gita establishes Bhaktimarg over jnan marg for sadhan bhajan. I do not understand how advaitin claim that Gita supports non dualistic concept of Brahma whereas every chapter of Gita clearly speaks of who is Krishna and who is jiva and also what jiva will do to achieve his goal that is krishna.

Bhagwad Gita has been interpreted by Bhakti-yogis and Jnana-yogis differently. However, Bhagwad owes its teaching to VedAnta. If you have read Kathopanishad, please remember what it says, "He who sees many (duality), goes from death to death". I can tell you the verses in Bhagwad Gita where the verses talk of Non-duality.


Brahma being conditioned by Maya becomes jiva is totally unacceptable.

Why does Mandukya Upanishad says, "This (fourth) is the Self and it is to be known" when it describes other three states of Brahman in Waking, dreaming and Deep Sleep states ? When the Upanishad starts with that Brahman has four parts, how come it says that Fourth is Self without adding the earlier three states of Brahman ?


Advaitin "Maya" and "Mama Maya" of Gita is not same. If you go through advaitin concept of Maya , it seems that It is Maya which is all powerful and not nirguna nirakar brahma.

How do you claim this ? Krishna's MAyA is the same as the Advaitin's MAyA. Krishna Himself says that MAyA is very powerful, "Mama MAyA durtyayA".


Advaitin always try to convince people with no justification. I want to know where this all powerful maya has come from ? why nirguna brahma has delegated his power to maya and then himself got conditioned and trying to get rid of maya by doing jnan marg.

MAyA is the nature of Brahman when the Brahman is not in the Turiya state.


whose jnan the jiva need ?

Jiva has to know that It is Brahman Itself.


Bhakti sashra describe that jiva is nitya dasa of sri krishna therefore sri krishna is sri krishna and jiva is jiva. father is father always and son is son. but jiva comes from sri krishna so it is part not the whole.

What do understand from the term, "Nitya Dasa olf Krishna" ? Please elaborate. Moreover, Advaitins are forbidden to change the views of Bhaktas by their Gurus. So, if you believe that Jiva and Krishna are different there is no issue.

As far as Ishava (Saguna Brahman) is concerned please note that Ishvara is not Brahman ... it is only the third aspect of Brahman. This aspect of Brahman gives birth to Jivas and then also merges all the Jivas back into Itself on annihilation.


The "Aham Brahmasmi is always truth when there is bhakta and bhagavan.

Aham BrahmAsmi means, "I am Brahman" so it speaks of non-duality. If you are seeing a different meaning to it, I have no issues. I don't intend to change the belief system of anyone.


we can not say brahma is only this.Brahma is dual non dual or anything else.I request advaitin not to put any limit to his Brahmatwa by drawing any line.

Advaitins have their right to have their own belief system or not ? If yes, please let them have their own understanding of Brahman ... why are you bothered at all ?

OM

Omkara
21 October 2012, 10:14 PM
In my observation,Advaita Vedantins are quite arrogant.Their standard response of advaitins when someone questions the logic of their beleifs is a condescending "you are not intellectually mature enough to understand advaita".Most modern neo-advaitins are completely uninterested in reading the works of traditional advaita acharyas and love to make up their own theories intead.They fly into a rage when asked for scriptural proof of their beleifs,because there is none!

For them,people who do not convert to their viewpoint are "on the path of duality".Of course,it is not tyeir responsibility to provide proof or cogent logical arguments.Others have to accept what they say blindly!

devotee
21 October 2012, 11:47 PM
In my observation,Advaita Vedantins are quite arrogant.

No. If you have ever participated in Advaitic discussion or read talks of Advaitic Gurus, you have to realise that it is not an easy subject at all. Is it easy to comprehend that this solid world before you is a handiwork of MAyA ? Any person of average intelligence will always be quick to dismiss such an idea as ridiculous.

I can see that this world is unreal, believe me, I have no doubts over it. Now, you come and say that either I should accept your views or I will be labelled as an "arrogant" ... then what am I supposed to do ?

OM

Omkara
21 October 2012, 11:55 PM
I lean towards monism too,but when advaitins constanly insinuate that their opponents are against advaita only because they have not understood advaita properly and that their opponents are too intellectually immature to understand advaita,it is irritating.

devotee
22 October 2012, 02:02 AM
I lean towards monism too,but when advaitins constanly insinuate that their opponents are against advaita only because they have not understood advaita properly and that their opponents are too intellectually immature to understand advaita,it is irritating.

I agree if anyone does it in an unfair manner. I feel, it is better to bow out of discussion with people who don't understand our viewpoint or are not listening to our viewpoint than indulge in such fights. :)

OM

sanathan
23 October 2012, 03:01 AM
Thanks to moderators for creating new thread.


I find that people don't listen at all to what the Advaitins say .... they themselves (Non-Advaitins) don't understand how it works and they keep finding their own arguments and their own wrong inferences. In the above discussion, Sanathan doesn't know how the Consciousness works or mind works and what exactly Mithya means but starts applying his logic in without respecting the frameworks of the Axioms in the context of Advaitic discussion. So, it doesn't reach anywhere, as it is bound to be.

Pranamams!

Dear Devotee,

I have listened all your words, but you didn't answer any of my questions with proper logic, but just put assumptions and asked me to believe them.

Yes, I don't know how consciousness works and what mithya is..do you know it?..is there any knower at all to know how consciousness works? that disproves your theory of pure-cosnciosuness.

I don't know why you can not see a simple logic .

You are iterating same things..that there are some mind waves in consciousness , but how do you know that man? then you have given answer that "self-realizaed" person knows it..so there is a knower of that state..that disproves your statement that "it is pure consciosuness without a knower of it".

And there are many statements made by you are just assumptions or imaginations of your own, not advaitic..one such I pointed out was "after every sleep a new "i" is created .." ..please first read sastras and also use logic , mere imaginations can't help you or me.

For your information..all these discussions are happening between you and me ..who are subjects, but you are denying the very subject as illusion ..but you forget one fact that..to declare such fact.."you" are required who is again a knower of that fact..otherwise that fact itself can not be declared.

If you are really searching TRUTH or already found the TRUTH..then you should not have any fear to think on each and every point I have raised here should be able to answer it..
If you just want to stick to your pre decided thoughts or convictions, then ofcourse you won't dare to try to think on my points .

sanathan
23 October 2012, 03:12 AM
Krishna's MAyA is the same as the Advaitin's MAyA. Krishna Himself says that MAyA is very powerful, "Mama MAyA durtyayA".

Is it? then whom does Krishna refer as "can't overcome it".. is there anyone else other than Krishna and Maya?
You have one cosnciousness , one maya..now tell me who is that can not overcome "maya"..
I know your answer ..it goes like this.. an illusory being created by the maya in consciosuness can not overcome it..do you see any logic there?

Does the illosry being achieve any thing fruiteful by do sadhana..as per your theory..the "i" vanishes after every sleep..so why do "i" need to try to overcome this maya at all..anyway it will get vanished after sleep..if itself vanishes what is there to get liberated? Think on..

sanathan
23 October 2012, 03:17 AM
If you read Bhagwad Gita Chapter 2 and chapter 13 carefully, you will understand that there is only one Truth which manifests as both Jiva and Ishvara and that is Brahman.

Is it so..? so you don't want to read other chapters "carefully"..is this not the play of ahankara? since the theory of yours can be establsihed by you with 2,13 chapters..you will put more stress on them..and ignore others as "secondary".. Very well.. don't we want TRUTH as it is? do we go behind them where our ego satisfies with out pre-decided notions ?

sanathan
23 October 2012, 07:53 AM
You have no idea what "i" means or in what context it has been used. The first characteristic of presence of "i" i.e. ahamkAr is that it should be able to distinguish itself for other things around it. In deep sleep, there is no such differentiation ... how can there be an "i" ? Please remember that existence of an "i" means presence of Consciousness but the reverse of it is not true.

I don't know what "I" means? funny..you are finally trying to deny my experiences also :)
Let us first talk about our current state..

I perceive the outer world using my senses..my mind is used to think..so all the while "I" know myself doing as such and , yes I can also distinguish myself from whatever is "known as world" to me..

So in waking state or current state.. "I" am there, "world" is there..and I am experiencing/perceiving this world using my knowledge..when my knowledge is in contact with world through the senses and mind. Do you agree on this interpretation ? This is every one's general experience..if you oppose your general experience..then we have no chance to discuss.because with this view only I am discussing with you , or with this view only anyone in this world will interact with others.

First conclude your stand on "your" current experience.

devotee
25 October 2012, 02:01 AM
Namaste Sanathan,

My guess that you are here for playing a game 'I win -you lose" has been proved by your posts. So, please forgive me ... I don't intend to play this game as I had told earlier.

You may brush aside all whatever I stated ... it really doesn't matter. Yes, just for your kind information, I should point out here to you that there is no Upanishad or the Vedas (Samhita parts) that I have not read ... so, please rest assured about my knowledge of the Sastras. And there is hardly anyone prominent Advaitic Guru which I have not read extensively. I have also read extensively on MahAyAna Buddhism and Sufism which have many things in common to Advaita. ... and if you are interested to know ... I am a practising Advaitin. Still you want to teach me Advaita !

The above information is given to you to assure you that I am not assuming things when I talk on Advaita. As far as your logic is concerned, you can easily find lots of chinks in your logic, if you don't use the axioms of one state into other state. You are fast moving from one state i.e. waking state to Turiya in discussion without taking care that all the axioms that you are using are valid only in Waking state from where you are speaking and if you carry them to Turiya, it is violated. Again, the axioms that that you have chosen for the common people don't apply to people who are Self-realised. So, you will keep getting illogical inferences because logic used is absurd. Moreover, you are assuming wrongly on Deep-sleep state ( cannot have an 'i' as it is a state of undifferentiated Consciousness) , "waht happens in Turiya or what should happen in Turiya state", "How should self-realised feel/act", "'i' is Jeeva" etc. etc. ... which are all absurd from Advaitic point of view. This has to be corrected first if you want to learn Advaitic teachings properly.

But that is purely dependent upon you want. You actually don't want to learn but you want to teach me a subject about which you have no idea.

Forgive me for discussing the subject with you. I should not have entered into a discussion with you at all in the first place. It was my mistake ... but I am a human being and prone to committing mistakes.

OM

jopmala
25 October 2012, 02:22 AM
Dear Devotee

With all respect I like to say that there is no question of any kind of fighting with you rather would like to learn from you or sharing my own thoughts etc. Since HDF is a open forum ( if I am not wrong ), I think you should welcome everybody in any section so that proper discussion take place. I agree that I am not as intellectual as you are . You are doing the job of a teacher and preacher for advaita in HDF . I have great respect for you. I am non dualist and at the same time dualist also. To me both the aspect of Brahma (nirgun nirakan and sagun sakar) is absolute. The same brahma is nirgun in tatta and sagun in Lila as we see same person in a family plays different role of daughter sister mother grandmother . I believe that Brahma , Atma , Bhagavan is same tatta. He is murta and amurta , karta and akarta ,nirgun and gunpalak , bhut dharak but not bhutastha , all pervading and aja but take birth with the help atma maya. I have not read Upanishad so much as you have but within that little scope I find that Brahma is both murta and amurta ( Briha. Upa-2/3/1 ) sagun sakar ( Swet upa- 3/16),” He desired , May I be many , may I go forth “- (Taitti upa 2/6) , “ tadatmanang swayam kuruta” – (Taitti-2/7), “from a blazing fire countless sparks of various kinds but similar form are shot forth similarly from the imperishable being various kinds of beings emerge forth and return to it later on” – (Mun upa-2/1/1) , Taitti 3/6 says “ bliss is bramha. From bliss these creatures are verily born , having been born by bliss they live and having departed into bliss again they enter”. Chhando upa 1/1/2-3 says “ sa aba rasanang rasatama” Taitti 2/7 says : “raso baisa ……” he is rasaswarup.

I also refer to you to go through Gita - 4/13, 8/6, 9/4, 9/5 ,13/13 ,14/3,14/27 ,15/7,15/18 ,18/46 . I have not touched srimad bhagavat yet. By the way, May I know why you people do never quote from srimad bhagavat ? All these mantras will prove that jiva is part of brahma and jagat is not dream but real because brahma himself can be felt in every part of this real jagat . This is what “Aham Brahmasmi” or "sarbang khalidang brahma" is . In Gita 14/27 Sri Krishna says “ brahmonohi pratisthaham”.
The relation between Jiva and brahma or jiva atma and paramatma is veda and aveda( according to sri chaitanya charitamrita it is achintya ved-aveda ) justlike blazing fire and its sparks sparks are also fire but part of the big fire having qualities of fire. Brahma bivu and jiva anu..Jiva has come from Brahma ,going towards brahma and enter into brahma. Our love affection prem happiness desire to live jnan buddhi etc all comes from brahma itself. The attraction between them is natural. Bhagavan is dear to jiva and so also jiva are dear to bhagavan. Without children one can not become mother, without wife one can not become husband and so without jiva there can be no brahma. Nirgun nirakar nirvishes personality is unthinkable ( Ken upa -2/3) where there is no Lila no creation. Only personality. and tatta nothing else. We can not communicate with that. But when that personality becomes murta vyakta and creator of this rup rasamaya jagat, we can think of him. This is confirmed by sri Krishna in Gita -12/1-5 . Dehabhimani trigunadhin Jiva can not think of triganitita nirgun tatta. Therefore for the jiva bhagavan takes avatara with the help of maya to do lila ( Gita 4/6) so that jiva can establish relation of Das-pravu, father-son,sakha-sakhi,kanto-kanta with him and can reach him. This relation is full of honey ( madhur) “ madhu kharati tad bramha” It is right to say that brhamha is without second but he himself transforms into jagat-(taitt-2/7). So jagat is not mithya. It is asat in the sense that it is naswara . It is not apparent rather phenomenal.He is both sat and asat ( gita- 9/19-sadsachhamarjun). Gita 15/12-20 solve many problems. Therefore I find nothing wrong to say that I am non dualist since there is brahma everywhere and nothing else in this jagat but at the same I am dualist because nirgun nirakar brahma is beyond my reach so he is my sagun sakar brahma sri Krishna with whom I can establish a relationship of bhakta and bhagavan. Both the brahma is same personality and absolute but difference comes from which angle one looks at. Question can not be asked why same brahma becomes many because it is his desire. I think you are very much aware of this.

I am confused seeing the contradiction in your post.

1) Sri Krishna is both sagun and nirgun brahma , how this is accepted by you ? For you I think he is mere Isware like shiva and ganesh only third aspect of brahma ? Being sakar how can sri Krishna be nirgun brahma?
2) once you say advaitin accept both nirgun nirakan and sagun sakar brahma as same then you again say iswar ( sagun brahma) is not brahma raher third aspect of brahma .Nirgun nirkar brahma is important to know because it is the ultimate reality. Why ?
3) According to you there are four tatta brahma iswara maya and jiva . but so far I know it is brahm jiva and maya only three tatta.
4) Jiva has to know not only it is brahma itself but brahma is in everywhere also . Bijang mang sarbabhutanang – Gita 7/10 and many more mantras in Gita will show that.
5) How could nirgun brahma have a nature ( quality) like maya ?
6) Why nirgun nirakar brahma has come under the influence of maya to become iswara or what is the need on the part of nirgun nirakar brahma to have an powerful maya which in turn will project jagat which is mithya.Magician do magic to make audience delighted and also himself enjoy the foolishness of audience but can nirgun nirakar brahma have the same purpose or what else. In Gita shri Krishna says that by his kripa , smaranagata bhakta can overcome maya ( mameba je prapadante) but acquiring jnan how one can overcome maya because the ultimate nirgun nirakar brahma never say just like sri Krishna in gita “ mama maya durattaya” . In Gita maya is trigunamoyee ( satta raja tama ) but how advaitin claims to have any gun under a nirgun nirakar brahma ? Since there was no jagat before maya then how and why maya has projected jagat upon brahma or has brahma and maya come into existence at the same time?
7) I do not think that you are here in HDF to shift your own belief or trying to make other to shift their own belief system. HDF to me is such a platform where every one can share own belief system with other. Is it a crime?
I know very well you do have also many mantras to prove that brahma is nirgun nirakar and jagat is dream etc. Ultimately the conclusion is brhama is both nirgun nirakar and sagun sakar and why not both aspect is absolute.

sanathan
25 October 2012, 04:14 AM
I should point out here to you that there is no Upanishad or the Vedas (Samhita parts) that I have not read ... so, please rest assured about my knowledge of the Sastras. And there is hardly anyone prominent Advaitic Guru which I have not read extensively. I have also read extensively on MahAyAna Buddhism and Sufism which have many things in common to Advaita. ... and if you are interested to know ... I am a practising Advaitin. Still you want to teach me Advaita !


It remembered me Kathopanishad vakya "yamevaisha vrinuthe thena labhya".

Dear Friend,

Whatever you may learn about Brahman , is not complete..and the way you are putting here as Brahman as known by you ..is not full and also shows your ahankara though you are trying to relegate the same thing as illusion.

It is like, whatever thoughts in your mind are the only TRUTHs , and remaining world is illusion.

I too don't want to discuss anymore with you..

devotee
25 October 2012, 08:25 AM
Namaste Japmala,



To me both the aspect of Brahma (nirgun nirakan and sagun sakar) is absolute. The same brahma is nirgun in tatta and sagun in Lila as we see same person in a family plays different role of daughter sister mother grandmother . I believe that Brahma , Atma , Bhagavan is same tatta. He is murta and amurta , karta and akarta ,nirgun and gunpalak , bhut dharak but not bhutastha , all pervading and aja but take birth with the help atma maya. I have not read Upanishad so much as you have but within that little scope I find that Brahma is both murta and amurta ( Briha. Upa-2/3/1 ) sagun sakar ( Swet upa- 3/16),” He desired , May I be many , may I go forth “- (Taitti upa 2/6) , “ tadatmanang swayam kuruta” – (Taitti-2/7), “from a blazing fire countless sparks of various kinds but similar form are shot forth similarly from the imperishable being various kinds of beings emerge forth and return to it later on” – (Mun upa-2/1/1) , Taitti 3/6 says “ bliss is bramha. From bliss these creatures are verily born , having been born by bliss they live and having departed into bliss again they enter”. Chhando upa 1/1/2-3 says “ sa aba rasanang rasatama” Taitti 2/7 says : “raso baisa ……” he is rasaswarup.

I agree though I would have stated similar things from Advaitic point of view.


I also refer to you to go through Gita - 4/13, 8/6, 9/4, 9/5 ,13/13 ,14/3,14/27 ,15/7,15/18 ,18/46 .

In BG 4.13, he talks about creating the four Varnas. I have no issues with that.
BG 8.6 talks of something different. I don't know why you selected this verse.

BG 9.4, 9.5, 13.13,14.13,15.17,15.18,18.46 : No issues.


I have not touched srimad bhagavat yet. By the way, May I know why you people do never quote from srimad bhagavat ?

Srimad Bhagwad is basically for Bhakti Yoga and our path is different. Moreover Upanishads and other parts of Vedas are the highest authority, so if we agree on that, it serves the purpose.


All these mantras will prove that jiva is part of brahma and jagat is not dream but real because brahma himself can be felt in every part of this real jagat . This is what “Aham Brahmasmi” or "sarbang khalidang brahma" is . In Gita 14/27 Sri Krishna says “ brahmonohi pratisthaham”.

Actually, Bhakti Yoga aims for reaching Ishvara through bhakti whereas Jnana yoga aims at going beyond that to the fourth state of Brahman. Now, Ishvara and both the waking and dreaming states are within the same realm i.e. Brahman with MAyA. So, imho, there is no harm to consider the world as real from a Bhakta's perspective.

The Jnana Yogi cannot stop here otherwise he cannot aim for attaining the fourth state.

Sri Krishna says, "Brahonohi pratishthaham" ... exactly ! By saying this here he discloses that He is the Nirguna Brahman too.


The relation between Jiva and brahma or jiva atma and paramatma is veda and aveda( according to sri chaitanya charitamrita it is achintya ved-aveda ) justlike blazing fire and its sparks sparks are also fire but part of the big fire having qualities of fire. Brahma bivu and jiva anu..Jiva has come from Brahma ,going towards brahma and enter into brahma. Our love affection prem happiness desire to live jnan buddhi etc all comes from brahma itself. The attraction between them is natural. Bhagavan is dear to jiva and so also jiva are dear to bhagavan. Without children one can not become mother, without wife one can not become husband and so without jiva there can be no brahma.

No issues. Ishavara and beings are related to each other as you say. All beings are created by Ishavara and they end up into Ishvara. Ishvara is the source and end of all beings.


Nirgun nirakar nirvishes personality is unthinkable ( Ken upa -2/3) where there is no Lila no creation. Only personality. and tatta nothing else. We can not communicate with that. But when that personality becomes murta vyakta and creator of this rup rasamaya jagat, we can think of him. This is confirmed by sri Krishna in Gita -12/1-5 . Dehabhimani trigunadhin Jiva can not think of triganitita nirgun tatta. Therefore for the jiva bhagavan takes avatara with the help of maya to do lila ( Gita 4/6)

Wait ! So, God takes the help of MAyA to come into being as Saguna Brahman. Right ?


so that jiva can establish relation of Das-pravu, father-son,sakha-sakhi,kanto-kanta with him and can reach him. This relation is full of honey ( madhur) “ madhu kharati tad bramha” It is right to say that brhamha is without second but he himself transforms into jagat-(taitt-2/7). So jagat is not mithya.

Wait ! Brahman has transformed itself into Jagat. Right ? Therefore, Jagat is actually Brahman which is being seen as Jagat. That is what Advaita says that seeing Jagat as Jagat is wrong as Brahman is behind the veil of this Jagat.


It is asat in the sense that it is naswara.

Agreed.


It is not apparent rather phenomenal.

As Jagat is actually Brahman, then appearance of Jagat is apparent only.


He is both sat and asat ( gita- 9/19-sadsachhamarjun). Gita 15/12-20 solve many problems. Therefore I find nothing wrong to say that I am non dualist since there is brahma everywhere and nothing else in this jagat but at the same I am dualist because nirgun nirakar brahma is beyond my reach so he is my sagun sakar brahma sri Krishna with whom I can establish a relationship of bhakta and bhagavan. Both the brahma is same personality and absolute but difference comes from which angle one looks at. Question can not be asked why same brahma becomes many because it is his desire. I think you are very much aware of this.

You are quite knowledgeable to talk like this. I agree that we can't be perfect dualist or non-dualist. To tell you the truth, the Advaitins too pray to God as father or mother (praying to Him/Her as master-slave is forbidden in Advaita). So, there is certain duality and it is required. How is one going to pray for His grace without accepting duality ?


I am confused seeing the contradiction in your post.

1) Sri Krishna is both sagun and nirgun brahma , how this is accepted by you ? For you I think he is mere Isware like shiva and ganesh only third aspect of brahma ? Being sakar how can sri Krishna be nirgun brahma?

I think you have already quoted quite a few verses which indicate this. Moreover, I would like you to refer these verses : 18.50 to 18.54, 12.3 to 12.4, 4.34 to 4.39, 5.24 to 5.28, 7.24, 7.17-18, 8.123-13 and 9.15. The sufficiently indicate that Lord Krishna alone is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.

Now, what we think about Lord Shiva and Ganesha ? Advaitins believe that all forms of God point towards only one Ishvara with slightly varying attributes and therefore, we don't differentiate between the different forms of God.


2) once you say advaitin accept both nirgun nirakan and sagun sakar brahma as same then you again say iswar ( sagun brahma) is not brahma raher third aspect of brahma .Nirgun nirkar brahma is important to know because it is the ultimate reality. Why ?

That is what VedAnta says. MAndukya Upanishad says that the fourth (Turiya) has to be known. Moreover, Nirguna NirAkAr Brahman is the Ultimate reality. So, it is better to know the ultimate reality. However, imho, Bhakti may also lead one to reach the ultimate because Krishna assures the Bhaktas in BG.


3) According to you there are four tatta brahma iswara maya and jiva . but so far I know it is brahm jiva and maya only three tatta.

This is because you are considering Brahman and Ishvara the same ... but there is a slight difference. Ishvara means and is the Lord of all beings and waking and dreaming states whereas the Brahman in its unconditioned state i.e. the fourth is not vyAvhArik.


4) Jiva has to know not only it is brahma itself but brahma is in everywhere also . Bijang mang sarbabhutanang – Gita 7/10 and many more mantras in Gita will show that.

No issues.


5) How could nirgun brahma have a nature ( quality) like maya ?

VedAs have simply state that within Nirguna Brahman arose desire which led to this creation ... why, how and when ... the scriptures are not unanimous on this. The Purush Sukta says it better ... perhaps even the gods don't know about it. Let's understand that by logic we cannot know Brahman. It is pointless. Brahman has Nirguna aspect as the scriptures say and we must accept that. MAyA is nature which projects the waking and dreaming states and veils the Reality. No one can say "how it is and why".


6) Why nirgun nirakar brahma has come under the influence of maya to become iswara or what is the need on the part of nirgun nirakar brahma to have an powerful maya which in turn will project jagat which is mithya.

I cannot tell you the motive behind there having MAyA and creation. The scriptures are not unanimous on this issue. The Advaitic Gurus say that this question arises from preconditioing of mind. There is no need to have any "why" behind either MAyA and the creation.


Magician do magic to make audience delighted and also himself enjoy the foolishness of audience but can nirgun nirakar brahma have the same purpose or what else.

I have answered this question above.


In Gita shri Krishna says that by his kripa , smaranagata bhakta can overcome maya ( mameba je prapadante) but acquiring jnan how one can overcome maya

Please read Bhagwad Gita verses where He praises Jnani over all other Bhaktas. He says, "Jnani Bhakta is most dear to me. He is of my swarupa alone". Then He also says, "There is nothing as purifying as Jnana. All Karmas are burnt in Jnana". So, actually, we believe that by His grace, the Bhakta also get Jnana and then becomes free. Advaita position is that it is Jnana alone which can get us overcome MAyA.

OM

Omkara
28 December 2012, 08:47 AM
In the Brahma Sutras, `vaidharmyAchcha na svapnAdivat.h' states that the world is not akin to a dream, being of a different nature.

The mANDUkya Upanishad explicitly rejects the theory that this world s like a dream or a magical creation: svapnamAyAsarUpeti sR^iShTiH anyaiH vikalpitA.

In the Gita, Krishna rejects those who think that this world is not real, as demons: asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH

wundermonk
28 December 2012, 08:58 AM
In the Brahma Sutras, `vaidharmyAchcha na svapnAdivat.h' states that the world is not akin to a dream, being of a different nature.

The mANDUkya Upanishad explicitly rejects the theory that this world s like a dream or a magical creation: svapnamAyAsarUpeti sR^iShTiH anyaiH vikalpitA.

In the Gita, Krishna rejects those who think that this world is not real, as demons: asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH

None of which contradicts the Advaitin position.

The BS sutra that you quoted is Shankara's response to Yogachara. The difference is subtle but it makes all the difference. I made a thread on this issue here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=10137).

Omkara
28 December 2012, 09:05 AM
My post was directed towards devotee and other neo advaitins who keep using this analogy despite the fact that it has been disowned by Shankaracharya himself.

wundermonk
28 December 2012, 09:13 AM
This is a public message board. PPl are free to comment to any post as long as it is within the rules of the board...

Wanna speak with devotee alone? Private Messaging is your friend.

Now, back to the actual argument on hand, if we may.

Omkara
28 December 2012, 09:29 AM
Of course, I was only pointing out that my post was in the context of the posts above and not intended as a general challenge to advaitins.

Very well, how about the Mandukya Upanishad quote? Since the previous verse talks about Parinamavada, it is clear from the context that this verse is talking about Vivartavada alone.

Frankly, no matter how many times advaitins claim that their mithya is different from asat or that their position is not simply the buddhist position with slight difference in terminology, they have struggled to substantiate this.Eg. See Madhusudhana Saraswati's response in the Advaita Siddhi when asked to differerentiate mithyatva and asat.It is another matter that by definition everthing that is not real is unreal...

wundermonk
28 December 2012, 10:38 AM
There are varying levels of reality accepted by Advaita. We can keep going around in circles, calling each other neo-this, neo-that, etc. But for a long time (before dismissing another's opionion by calling him neo-this, neo-that became fashionable), "neither real nor unreal" was considered by Advaita to be a valid ontological classification.

Another thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9870) I started may point towards this.

philosoraptor
28 December 2012, 10:13 PM
A philosophical system that must rest on redefining the very nature of reality is not one that is established on sound footing. That Advaitins accept "varying levels of reality" is not a response to the original objection, viz that things are either real or they are not.

wundermonk
28 December 2012, 11:06 PM
As I specified in the thread I linked to, "nonexistence" has been analyzed in quite a bit of depth by ALL Hindu Darshanas. To talk of logic and philosophical system, etc., requires one to be equipped with the mode of argumentation employed by the different Darshanas. The entry barrier into the Tarka arena is high.

philosoraptor
29 December 2012, 01:41 AM
Yes, let's stipulate that I am obviously not sophisticated enough or qualified enough to participate in the tarka debates you alluded to previously, and that you have direct experience of such debates based on retained memories from a previous lifetime centuries ago. Still, I would venture a guess that the unwarranted need to redefine reality and non-reality in Advaita, such that a thing can be classified within it as neither real nor unreal, is fascinating solely to those who start off accepting Advaita as true and correct, and not to those without the pre-existing bias towards that system of thinking.

regards,

wundermonk
29 December 2012, 02:51 AM
Sure, why not regarding retained memories of past lifetimes? ;)

Actually, even those are not required...To intelligently debate Hindu Darshanas, one can very well read the works of many modern philosophers and read through articles in like the Journal of Indian Philosophy, Philosophy - East and West, etc. The type of issues debated in papers/books in these journals are modern day versions of Tarka.

I repeat, to intelligently critique ANY of the Hindu darshanas needs equipping oneself with knowledge in Nyaya/Vaiseshika treatises, Mimamsa treatises, Samkhya treatises and Advaita treatises. There are many modern commentaries on these. Without that, many critiques are not rigourous and are merely superficial.

philosoraptor
29 December 2012, 09:17 AM
Sure, why not regarding retained memories of past lifetimes? ;)

Actually, even those are not required...To intelligently debate Hindu Darshanas, one can very well read the works of many modern philosophers and read through articles in like the Journal of Indian Philosophy, Philosophy - East and West, etc. The type of issues debated in papers/books in these journals are modern day versions of Tarka.

I repeat, to intelligently critique ANY of the Hindu darshanas needs equipping oneself with knowledge in Nyaya/Vaiseshika treatises, Mimamsa treatises, Samkhya treatises and Advaita treatises. There are many modern commentaries on these. Without that, many critiques are not rigourous and are merely superficial.

Note that knowledge of what shruti actually says is not included in the above, which has sort of been my point all along....

wundermonk
29 December 2012, 12:18 PM
Note that knowledge of what shruti actually says is not included in the above, which has sort of been my point all along....

Whether you like it or not, 6 Darshanas with irreconcilable differences in aspects of epistemology, soteriology, ontology, nature of divinity and its relationship with the rest of the universe, are acknowledged to be Astika (based on the Vedas).

Now, there are three options before us:

(1)Throw one's weight around claiming only 1 subsect of one of the 6 Darshanas are the true purport of the Vedas and all others are false.

(2)Throw one's weight around claiming one particular subsect of one of the 6 Darshanas is DEFINITELY NOT the true purport of the Vedas. (I am tending to see quite a bit of this option of late on HDF.)

(3)Be amazed at the fact the same set of scriptures and society gave rise to such diverse yet beautiful and rich philosophy and theology. Be amazed that Indian philosophers thrashed out issues millenia before the rest of the world came to grapple with similar issues - Problem of Induction, nature of consciousness, etc. Try and learn from the various dialectics of our Acharyas about the very nature of philosophical disputation. Every person needs a philosophy to live by and the Astika Darshanas provide some of the most beautiful of such philosophies. Sit back, relax and immerse in such beautiful legacy of expansive knowledge left to us by philosophers who did their best to preserve such knowledge for future generations like us.

The 3rd is the approach I personally tend to follow. It has made me a more humble person and more willing to consider alternative points of view within the beautiful Astika traditions of Sanatana Dharma.

My last post on this thread.

philosoraptor
29 December 2012, 02:06 PM
Whether you like it or not, 6 Darshanas with irreconcilable differences in aspects of epistemology, soteriology, ontology, nature of divinity and its relationship with the rest of the universe, are acknowledged to be Astika (based on the Vedas).

Pranams,

I neither like, nor dislike it. I merely note that it is an evasive and argumentative tactic when offered in this context. If all 6 darshanas being "astika" means that one cannot disagree with any of them, then this is really nothing more than a refined way of telling people to shut up and stop disagreeing. In that case, you can extend the same courtesy to the commentators in each of those traditions, all of whom disagree with each other on many cardinal points. You may also note that many of my criticisms are themselves offered by the likes of Madhva and Ramanuja. Maybe you have heard of them. Certainly they are no light-weights in the area of tarka, and they would certainly not be laughed out of a good debate. But all of this is besides the point - when one has doubts about the logical consistency of a philosophy, dismissing his doubts because he hasn't employed the formalities of an ancient tarka debate is neither humble nor convincing. It has all the appearance of someone employing a bluff, or worse, just a game of one-upmanship for someone with a personal grudge. Case-in-point: The question of Brahman having attributes. It's a legitimate question that comes up even in contemporary Hinduism. The Chinmayanandas, Vivekanandas, and Sai Babas of this world do not stop to define their terms anymore than the cheerleaders of Advaita do on this forum. But they all say the same thing, nay, they insist that their view is correct and all other views are just lower understandings or some such thing. I don't have to redefine English words to point out that evidence from shruti does indeed show that Brahman has attributes. And if I am mistaken in my understanding of the shruti, someone who actually knows what he is talking about doesn't need to complain of the lack of tarka formalities to point out how it is so. Which is why I correctly deduced that this is all merely evasive, not really substantive in the least bit.

Merely saying that Advaita has an explanation for this or that is not convincing per se. It's the validity of the explanations themselves which is being questioned.



Now, there are three options before us:

(1)Throw one's weight around claiming only 1 subsect of one of the 6 Darshanas are the true purport of the Vedas and all others are false.

(2)Throw one's weight around claiming one particular subsect of one of the 6 Darshanas is DEFINITELY NOT the true purport of the Vedas. (I am tending to see quite a bit of this option of late on HDF.)

(3)Be amazed at the fact the same set of scriptures and society gave rise to such diverse yet beautiful and rich philosophy and theology. Be amazed that Indian philosophers thrashed out issues millenia before the rest of the world came to grapple with similar issues - Problem of Induction, nature of consciousness, etc. Try and learn from the various dialectics of our Acharyas about the very nature of philosophical disputation. Every person needs a philosophy to live by and the Astika Darshanas provide some of the most beautiful of such philosophies. Sit back, relax and immerse in such beautiful legacy of expansive knowledge left to us by philosophers who did their best to preserve such knowledge for future generations like us.


I prefer the 4th approach:

(4) Accept that the shrutis speak in a consistent fashion about the nature of the Absolute Truth, and that man-made explanations of what the shruti says are precisely that - man-made, when they do not give satisfactory or consistent explanations of what is contained in shruti. Reject puerile attempts to derail discussion based on ad hominem attacks and barbs about one's lack of qualification, while accepting that we are all at some level not really all that qualified, and that we are just having preliminary discussions to point ourselves in the right direction rather that writing definitive commentaries on the texts. Study the texts and derive conclusions based on evidence found therein, and give greater weight to the simplest explanations which explain the greatest body of evidence over more complicated explanations based on lesser standards of evidence. Recognize that those whose sole participation in the debate consists of barbs and jibes rather than substantive argument are probably just insecure at some level.

regards,