PDA

View Full Version : Advaita seems so empty and impersonal to me leaving a void in me...



Elizabeth108
25 October 2012, 10:03 AM
Namaste All,

Here is my background in short but detailed:
I come from the western culture and live in Europe. Christianity is the major religion in my homeland and so I was brought up in that as a child. My family was not so religious. Yet this path is where I am from due to my cultural background.

Later, at the beginning of my 20s going to university I turned away from Christianity to Vaishnava path. I met Hare Krishna people, I love the Bhagavad-Gita and Vaishnava mantras (not only the HK one).

Then I got into such a group of people who introduced me to the views of advaita. It was new and even interesting to me. This group of people were shaiva as well.

By now, since I withdrew from this group I have just realized how empty and impersonal advaita is to me. The lack of God (like Krsna in Vaishnavism) makes it very hard for me. This leaves a void in me and I feel lost.
I regard Vishnu and Shiva as two facets of the One. The Vaishnava path seems more personal to me than Saiva (and advaita) path.

I love the person of Ramana Maharshi (followers of his introduced me to shaivism and advaita) but His teaching (Self Enquiry, Who am I)is too high and impersonal to me. What shall I do? Would choosing the Vaishnava path exclude Ramana for example? What am I to do?

Thank you very much for your answers!

Twilightdance
25 October 2012, 10:10 AM
The lack of God (like Krsna in Vaishnavism) makes it very hard for me. This leaves a void in me and I feel lost.
I regard Vishnu and Shiva as two facets of the One. The Vaishnava path seems more personal to me than Saiva (and advaita) path.

I don't know what you mean by advaita exactly, but devotion to personal forms of God are integral to both the orthodox tradition of shankara and modern derivatives of non-dualism inspired by ramana maharshi or otherwise.

Elizabeth108
25 October 2012, 10:18 AM
I don't know what you mean by advaita exactly, but devotion to personal forms of God are integral to both the orthodox tradition of shankara and modern derivatives of non-dualism inspired by ramana maharshi or otherwise.


Thank you for your answer and question, as well.

A-dvaita (non-dual), to me, means that Self is that exists and everything other is maya (not real). You are That (Self).
But is it a true teaching that Krishna is that same Self, the Overself, living in the heart of every entity - this way it is also included in advaita? - Because if this later is accepted as worshipping an istha devata in advaita then ... advaite seems personal too and the ishta devata can fulfill that void in me knowing that I am (part of) That.

namahsivaya
25 October 2012, 10:21 AM
Namaste Elizabeth,

I also think you have some wrong notions of Advaita. I am an Advaitan and I worship Shiva primarily and other deities as well. Shiva IS God to me as an Advaitan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of God in Advaita. I believe the main thing is that Advaita teaches that ultimately God is formless and beyond all forms and that our souls are ultimately indistinguishable from that ultimate reality.

Elizabeth108
25 October 2012, 10:40 AM
Namaste Elizabeth,

I also think you have some wrong notions of Advaita. I am an Advaitan and I worship Shiva primarily and other deities as well. Shiva IS God to me as an Advaitan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of God in Advaita. I believe the main thing is that Advaita teaches that ultimately God is formless and beyond all forms and that our souls are ultimately indistinguishable from that ultimate reality.

Namaste Namahsivaya,

Then does advaita mean that God is Formless but one can worship Him through his manifested forms (Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.)?

Then I am misled regarding the concept of a-dvaita, dvaita, ishta devata, etc.
Could you clarify what's the difference between a-dvaita and dvaita if both include worship of an ishta devata? For example if one has an ishta devata (Shiva) to worship then it is dualism, isn't it? Or Shiva is "only" one of the manifasted forms of the Formless?

Thank you for patience and help.

Omkara
25 October 2012, 10:52 AM
Why not try Vallabhacharya's Shuddadvaita philosophy which is a Vaishnava nondualist philosophy with a personal God?

Jainarayan
25 October 2012, 11:24 AM
Namaste.


Why not try Vallabhacharya's Shuddadvaita philosophy which is a Vaishnava nondualist philosophy with a personal God?

Then there is Achintya Bhedabheda: "inconceivable oneness and difference". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

And Vishishtadvaita: advaita with qualifications.
It is non-dualism of the qualified whole, in which Brahman alone exists, but is characterised by multiplicity. It can be described as qualified monism/nondualism or attributive monism.

Asesha Chit-Achit Prakaaram Brahmaikameva Tatvam - Brahman as qualified by the sentient and insentient modes (aspects or attributes) is the only reality.

It is a school of Vedanta philosophy which believes in all diversity subsuming to an underlying unity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita

It seems to me the differences between them are miniscule, except that Achintya Bhedabheda comes out of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, proposed by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

philosoraptor
25 October 2012, 11:35 AM
I think Elizabeth has correctly perceived the impersonalist conclusion that results from Advaita. If Brahman is indeed all that exists, and everything else is maya, then by the same logic the whole concept of devotion and devotional interactions is also relegated to a category of illusory perception, i.e. not real, not permanent, merely a means to an end, etc.

It is probably for this reason, as well as many others, that people will often get different explanations of Advaita from different people. Some people explain Advaita in a way that is more reminiscent of Bhaaskara's bedha abedha philosophy, in my observation. Whether they admit it or not, many Advaitins in my observation seem to have problems explaining away the maya part and its ramifications on sadhana.

Eastern Mind
25 October 2012, 11:48 AM
Vannakkam Elizabeth et al: I've heard this dilemma summarised succinctly with, "Use form to find formless."

Many of us here share similar problems as you. Advaita without a clear path to it just doesn't cut it for us. We are not at the mountaintop of advaita so we look for something more practical, and often find it in bhakti or seva.

Aum Namasivaya

wundermonk
25 October 2012, 12:02 PM
Advaita seems so empty and impersonal to me leaving a void in me

The same philosophy that seems "empty and impersonal" to you has been a source of perennial and continuing elevation to so many others. It has drawn, benefitted from and produced some of the finest minds and philosophers in India (and around the world).

Each of us is in a different reincarnation cycle. As a result, our perception of God/Truth/Reality is bound to be different.

We have different spiritual/material needs depending on where we find ourselves on the different hierarchy of needs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/800px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png

Seeker123
25 October 2012, 01:23 PM
I posted the following in a different thread but see that this is relevant here as well:

"I was just listening to Swami Paramarthananda today expounding Kaivalya Upanishad. The Upanishad talks about Ishwara in
1. Arupa Ishwara (formless consciousness in all)
2. Anekarupa Ishwara (manifold forms - i.e. all agni, jala everything is Ishwara)
3. Ekarupa Ishwara (one form - Ishta devata) - this is the easiest to conceive and be devoted to"

So Advaita clearly recognizes the role of Isha devata. Even Adi Sankara was a great devotee.

Could you clarify what's the difference between a-dvaita and dvaita if both include worship of an ishta devata?
The main difference I think is that ultimately advaita believes God is formless consciousness and it is that formless consciousness that is everything. I dont think dvaita accepts that.

For example if one has an ishta devata (Shiva) to worship then it is dualism, isn't it?
Yes there is dualism for all advaitins as long as we perceive body as real. Gnanis however are able to clearly see that body is mithya (as though real) and everything is formless consciousness.

Or Shiva is "only" one of the manifasted forms of the Formless?
Anekarupa Ishwara means every form is God. God is limitless then can any form be away from God? Since this itself is difficult to conceive we start by worshipping Ishta devata who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent - typically this is seen as Shiva but can also be Vishnu, Devi, Ganesha etc...

Elizabeth108
25 October 2012, 03:53 PM
Namaste to You All,

Thank you so much for all of your anwers I got so far. They are of great help to me, I need to re-read them to understand them more and more.
Thank You for your patience with me, too.

Namaste

TatTvamAsi
25 October 2012, 04:32 PM
First, I'm glad you titled your thread correctly -- "...seems so empty an impersonal to me..."

This shows that you are aware of an oft-missed and subtle notion of frame of reference.

The answer simply is that you are not ready for the path of Advaita. That maybe a good thing for both you and other Advaitins! :)

That's why there are so many paths in Hinduism. You do not have to conform to the "only path" like in the desert cult Christianity. Depending on your (spiritual) evolution, birth, surroundings, and upbringing, you will fit into a path that is right for you.

Most westerners who take an interest in Hinduism are naturally attracted to Hare Krishna or Vaishnavism. HK has many similarities to the desert cults where there is a "Supreme Personality of Godhead" and all other "Gods/Goddesses" are subservient or are the "wrong" way etc.

Thus, HK was the initial step away from that zombie-worshiping cult (christianity) for you. Remain in it and study the Gita with focus. You could be a HK (if you're serious) the rest of your life. It takes lifetimes to progress. By jumping from one path to another, like many westerners do in many things in life, you will not only not progress, it will drag you backwards.

Think of it like going to a university. You are first unsure of your major (field of inquiry/study) and so for the first two years you take all the "basic" requirements; tools to help you specialize in a particular path (field of study) such as Calculus, basic Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History etc. Once you've been in that setting for a while (2 years in this case), you have a better grasp of what is involved in terms of rigor, aptitude, and interest among other things. Then, you decide on a major and dive in like a rock through water. After your junior year (3rd year), if you jump ship from say, Math, to History, there will be a "sandhya", or an in-between period, where your mind will have to reinitialize and prepare for the other path; it is essentially a 'shock' to the system. Again, after a couple of semesters/quarters in History, if you decide that's not for you and then declare yourself a computer science (CS) major, you will again have to adjust to that frame of mind to do well (assuming your goal is to do well and not just get a certificate at the end with some scribbling - I think those are called degrees and you can get them on the 3rd aisle of WalMart for $89.95).

Self-inquiry (atma-viCArA) is the same, except in this instance it takes lifetimes. This is why birth matters. You were born a christian in europe for a reason. If you're completely certain (nobody is) that you've outgrown worshiping ***, then you should take some time off and contemplate (meditate on this).

It is always better to choose ONE path and stick with it. The question is not whether it is the best path, but whether it's the best path for you!

Elizabeth108
25 October 2012, 05:03 PM
First, I'm glad you titled your thread correctly -- "...seems so empty an impersonal to me..."

This shows that you are aware of an oft-missed and subtle notion of frame of reference.

I know I have no right to degrade anything I do not understand/know really. I just tried to express my personal experience and how I feel about the advaita path so far. In the meantime, I really tried my best to avoid even the shadow of hurting others. That's why I put it that way. :)


The answer simply is that you are not ready for the path of Advaita. That maybe a good thing for both you and other Advaitins! :)

That's why there are so many paths in Hinduism. You do not have to conform to the "only path" like in the desert cult Christianity. Depending on your (spiritual) evolution, birth, surroundings, and upbringing, you will fit into a path that is right for you.

You are right and I agree with you. I try to find the path that is for me. :)


Most westerners who take an interest in Hinduism are naturally attracted to Hare Krishna or Vaishnavism. HK has many similarities to the desert cults where there is a "Supreme Personality of Godhead" and all other "Gods/Goddesses" are subservient or are the "wrong" way etc.

Thus, HK was the initial step away from that zombie-worshiping cult (christianity) for you. Remain in it and study the Gita with focus. You could be a HK (if you're serious) the rest of your life. It takes lifetimes to progress. By jumping from one path to another, like many westerners do in many things in life, you will not only not progress, it will drag you backwards.

As for HK and Vaishnavism (outside ISKCON), I met with HK people here in Europe but after having read different versions of the BG translations/explanations, I perefer the Vaishnava (not HK) path for certain features and teachings. If I "choose" between those two.


Think of it like going to a university. You are first unsure of your major (field of inquiry/study) and so for the first two years you take all the "basic" requirements; tools to help you specialize in a particular path (field of study) such as Calculus, basic Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History etc. Once you've been in that setting for a while (2 years in this case), you have a better grasp of what is involved in terms of rigor, aptitude, and interest among other things. Then, you decide on a major and dive in like a rock through water. After your junior year (3rd year), if you jump ship from say, Math, to History, there will be a "sandhya", or an in-between period, where your mind will have to reinitialize and prepare for the other path; it is essentially a 'shock' to the system. Again, after a couple of semesters/quarters in History, if you decide that's not for you and then declare yourself a computer science (CS) major, you will again have to adjust to that frame of mind to do well (assuming your goal is to do well and not just get a certificate at the end with some scribbling - I think those are called degrees and you can get them on the 3rd aisle of WalMart for $89.95).

Self-inquiry (atma-viCArA) is the same, except in this instance it takes lifetimes. This is why birth matters. You were born a christian in europe for a reason. If you're completely certain (nobody is) that you've outgrown worshiping a rotting corpse, then you should take some time off and contemplate (meditate on this).

What I know is, that I respect those who remain in Christianity but I am against some of its teachings. I can't and don't wish to deny my cultural background because I must have been born in that for a reason. Yet, we all are here to progress, continue our 'growth' until we get back to the Source.
With this in mind, I can say I don't wish to return to Christianity as my path but advaita is still high for me here and now. So I am looking for my place to fit in between taking the steps one by one. :)


for you[/B]!

As I have written it before, I don't want to jump here and there, I just try my best to find the right stair for me now. :)
As for me now, I am in need of a path containing advaita involving a kind of personal attribute to grasp. But that being personal does not mean total separation.
For example: I am now part of the Self/Overself/Vishnu/The One so I am the same as Its essence and the ultimate goal is to become One with It in the end again. This is how I can describe it. Krishna is one of the possible ishta devatas to worship.

Eastern Mind
25 October 2012, 06:29 PM
The same philosophy that seems "empty and impersonal" to you has been a source of perennial and continuing elevation to so many others. It has drawn, benefitted from and produced some of the finest minds and philosophers in India (and around the world).


Vannakkam: I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. Are you implying that Advaita is the highest path, of that it is the one that works for you?

Certainly I'm not sure of the place a western psychologist's writings has in all this. Not sure if this intellectualisation of humanity fits Hinduism. I'm more prone to using Patanjali and his 8 rungs as a basis for this kind of analysis. His 'pyramid' works for me.

In any discussion of Advaita, it seems that intellectualised Advaita and experiential advaita tend to get overlapped. I think souls the likes of Ramana Maharshi lived in the Oneness Consciousness others can only speak about.

Maybe, Wundermunk, you can clarify for me.

Aum Namasivaya

Omkara
25 October 2012, 09:44 PM
The problem a theist could have with Advaita is that the Saguna Brahman he prays to is an illusion just like everything else,and is ultimately just a mirage.That is why I prefer monist traditions that do not amke this distinction between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.

Omkara
25 October 2012, 09:50 PM
I think Elizabeth has correctly perceived the impersonalist conclusion that results from Advaita. If Brahman is indeed all that exists, and everything else is maya, then by the same logic the whole concept of devotion and devotional interactions is also relegated to a category of illusory perception, i.e. not real, not permanent, merely a means to an end, etc.

It is probably for this reason, as well as many others, that people will often get different explanations of Advaita from different people. Some people explain Advaita in a way that is more reminiscent of Bhaaskara's bedha abedha philosophy, in my observation. Whether they admit it or not, many Advaitins in my observation seem to have problems explaining away the maya part and its ramifications on sadhana.

This is my experience too.When I started reading up on hinduusm (with neo-advaita),as everyone does,the impressions I came away with were closer to bedha abheda than advaita.Only later did I realize whai I had read about Advaita was misleading.Much of modern neo advaita is simply pseudo Vishishtadvaita.

devotee
25 October 2012, 11:32 PM
Namaste Elizabeth,

People have many misconceptions about Advaita and your post arises from a similar misconception. Advaita has to be practised under a Self-realised Guru but we think that all that is available on internet is Advaita and there is nothing beyond that. Believe me, it is NOT-empty but full of bliss and peace. Moreover, Advaitins too pray to God for His grace for their worldly and spiritual desires. On the top of it, the Self-realised Guru of an Advaitin takes enough care of his/her worldly issues and spiritual aspirations ... so much so that he/she never feels alone.

BTW, as TTA and others have suggested, this may not be a suitable path for you. You must choose a path that suits you naturally as you are born with unique samskArs and tendencies.

OM

Amrut
26 October 2012, 06:24 AM
Namaste All,

Here is my background in short but detailed:
I come from the western culture and live in Europe. Christianity is the major religion in my homeland and so I was brought up in that as a child. My family was not so religious. Yet this path is where I am from due to my cultural background.

Later, at the beginning of my 20s going to university I turned away from Christianity to Vaishnava path. I met Hare Krishna people, I love the Bhagavad-Gita and Vaishnava mantras (not only the HK one).

Then I got into such a group of people who introduced me to the views of advaita. It was new and even interesting to me. This group of people were shaiva as well.

By now, since I withdrew from this group I have just realized how empty and impersonal advaita is to me. The lack of God (like Krsna in Vaishnavism) makes it very hard for me. This leaves a void in me and I feel lost.
I regard Vishnu and Shiva as two facets of the One. The Vaishnava path seems more personal to me than Saiva (and advaita) path.

I love the person of Ramana Maharshi (followers of his introduced me to shaivism and advaita) but His teaching (Self Enquiry, Who am I)is too high and impersonal to me. What shall I do? Would choosing the Vaishnava path exclude Ramana for example? What am I to do?

Thank you very much for your answers!

Namaste Elizabeth,

I have not read all the posts, but would like to point out simple things.

As you have said, In Dvaita, there is a personal God with whom you can talk, share your thoughts, offer food, even vent out anger and frustration. while in advaita there is no form of God. So one has to neautralize likes and dislikes.

Indeed advaita is not for everybody. Sri Ramana Maharshi in Sri Ramana Gita says that Advaita is for the ones who have purified themselves through intense meditations or are pure by birth as a result of their merits (good karma).

Advaita is difficult than dvaita in a sense that in advaita there is no option for an emotional outlet.

In Sri Ramakrishna's words, Bhakta is like being a Kitten (Cat's Child). Kitten does only 'meau meau' when it needs anything. It is the mother who searches her child, grabs her in her mouth and then takes her to a safe place. If a kitten requires food, all it has to do is 'meau meau', and mother does the rest.

A Jnani is like a infant monkey. Baby monkey has to grab her mother, that too upside down) by his/her own strength. When mother jumps, the baby has to be careful. If it loses it's grip, it may fall and may have injuries.

I hope you must have got the neck.

Kitten surrenders and then mother (God - Rama, Krishna, Shiva) picks her child, and takes her child to safety, while a baby monkey has to steadfastly hold onto the Mother i.e. Jnana marg sadhaka (follower of Jnana Marg) has to steadfastly hold onto the idea of Brahmabhavana - i.e. I am not the body, thought, mind, but I am the Atman and discard everything that is not Atman. This Atman is the mother monkey.

So if an Advatin keeps Atman in his/her center of life, and does not give importance to anything else he/she can quickly reach to the pinnacle of spiritual truth i.e. mother monkey reaches the topmost branch in no time.

On the other hand a bhakta is entirely dependent upon God.

This is the basic difference.

Sri Ramana's Maharshi has said there are 3 paths (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2009/05/three-paths.html) to realise true nature.

A bhakta dances, cries in joy and estacy, in the name of God, while a Jnani stays calm, unperturbed with anything that is going around him/her. deep peace and eternal Bliss are experienced as a result of clinging to the truth.

It is not that Jnani has no emotions. Jnani has a bhava - Shanta Bhava (Bhava of Peace). Maun (silence) is the only expression that has potential to express Atma-Sthiti - State of Self Realization. This the reason why Sri Ramana Maharshi was Maun many times. Sri Ramana Maharhi when approached by Mahatma Gandhi through a messenger and when asked about his role in freedom struggle, Sri Ramana Maharshi simply replied, " I see this world as you see cinema, pictures come and go on screen, but nothing happens to the screen. I am that screen"

Bhakti is more simple that Jnana. Both lead you to same destination. So if you are comfortable with Bhakti, then continue with it. Some people do pure bhakti and then have divine vision of their beloved deity, while others have a mixture of Jnana nad bhakti. Such bhaktas shift to Jnana Marg after maturity.

This had happened to a devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

I do not remember the name of that devotee, but he was a Ganesh Bhakta and later after meeting Sri Ramana Maharshi he realized that Sri Ramana was his Guru, but was confused as what to do, worship Ganesh or follow Advaita. Later he realized that it was his maturity of bhakti that Lord Ganesha had arranged a meeting with Sri Ramana Maharshi.

So do not worry, you can drop advaita, if it's dry for you. Go ahead with Bhakti.

All paths lead to same destination.

Aum

Indiaspirituality

Some links that may be of help:

When I seek the 'I', I see nothing. (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2011/02/when-i-seek-i-see-nothing.html)

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

Four Paths: Which Path to Choose (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2009/09/different-paths-of-self-realisation.html#FourPaths)

Am I following a correct path? (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2009/09/am-i-following-correct-path.html)

Amrut
26 October 2012, 06:53 AM
Regarding your feeling


Advaita seems so empty and impersonal to me leaving a void in me...

the first link i.e. When I seek the 'I', I see nothing. (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2011/02/when-i-seek-i-see-nothing.html) will be helpful.

I understand what you are saying. Nothing wrong in it :)

If you read Atmashatak / Nirvana Shatak (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-0VEDfVSSTcJ:sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/aatmasha.pdf+Atmashatak&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiWfgy--G_k0Mfqfjwa1fmkvj0-gd7ZGq1IbuGOrVid-Q6d8hZpgqPi0KZbxo6svmOGNPf7IDN-s4Zk-P4-BnavHhRtlm_KM3USixc7dtbTlufWM0anVBM0_BPlivtvZzHSlZ7M&sig=AHIEtbQLFXSUOcInlJm5oOCYpFyEdJPBTw) or this link (http://www.stutimandal.com/gif_adi/nirvana_shatakam.htm), you will understand that Advaita is separating yourself (as Atman) from everything else. Entire advaita is explained or rather condensed in this 6 verses)

We are all connected with our body. Bhakta uses his/her body for God. Bhakta says, let my hands clap when someone sings glories of God, let my mouth speak only of God, etc. So Bhakta uses his /her senses for God, while a Jnani detaches himself/herself from these senses.

Now when you try to apply it in your life, you think that if I am not this not this then there will be a void and there will be a fear of insecurity. Every emotion will be sucked out of you and you feel dry. All the excitement will fade away. The reason is that our mind is clinged with our body. It tries to fulfill it's desires through body. Mind is constantly hunting for more sense objects through 5 senses through our body. Mind runs behind senses. Now when you try to pull back the senses adn try to pull back the mind and try to calm down, it will be a question of life and death, as mind is nothing but continuous flow of thoughts, says shastras and Sri Ramana Maharshi. Mind desperately tries to go extrovert. Now when the mind is made introvert i.e. it is pulled back from senses, all excitement fades away and you feel dry. I think this is what you are experiencing. As mind has habit of being extrovert. This is something new to you. Mind is not accustomed to it and so you have this kind of feeling (of Void), as if everything is stolen from you. Am I right?

In this case many, like you, feel insecurity, but if you jump into insecurity, you will realize that you are most secured. You will realize that you are detached from body (this happens after regular meditation) and that it were emotions and extrovert tendencies that where making you unhappy and inducing these fear.

Detached state is not a negative state. It is followed by release of tension, and every other stress and any quality. Peace of mind follows. You will have not experienced this type of deep peace in your entire life. It's indescribable.

It is not negative. But never mind, if you are comfortable with bhakti, go ahead with it. Advaita is another path, not THE ONLY PATH :)

On the other hand, if you are of emotional nature, then Dvaita will suit you. You already have bhava (emotion). It has to be turned towards God. It is easy to stay extrovert, and live for God, then try to detach yourself from what is not Atman.

Good luck for spiritual journey.

Aum

Indiaspirituality

kallol
26 October 2012, 11:49 AM
The state of mind, can be achieved through many means.

Just like knowledge can be achieved through many means - through plain text, through pictures, through brail, through sound, through vision, many many. All lead to the same point.

Similarly state of mind can be achieved through physical or metaphysical ways of pursuits. Dvaita, Advaita or any other means cannot surely proclaim that their way is the only way to moksha.

It may be combination and I am 100% sure that none are purely this or that. So get along with whatever suits you. The path will meander along touch all possible ways.

Enjoy the journey of mind.

Seeker123
26 October 2012, 01:36 PM
Namaste,

Just wanted to clarify. In traditional Adi Sankara's Advaita there is no mention of equally valid paths to the same goal. Gnana yoga, i.e. knowledge of Sastras under a Guru is the only path for Moksha. This does not mean devotion, meditation and social work (Bhakti, Raja, and Karma yoga) are useless. They are essential contributory factors. For knowledge to work the mind needs to be pure and focused. Purity is attained by devotion and social work while focus is attained by meditation.

Hinduism is rich and satisfies seekers of all types. I am sure you will make spiritual progress if you are earnest.
Best wishes

kallol
26 October 2012, 10:52 PM
The moot point is conditioning of mind.

Why is knowledge required ? - to condition the mind

Can one achieve the same condition by bhakti alone ? Possibly yes. However it is known that through extreme bhakti they also gain the knowledge. examples are many.

Bhakti is a very powerful tool, which can reach out to learned and not learned people. Yes it can have pitfalls but then even gyan marg has pitfalls in considering themselves as superior.

Amrut
27 October 2012, 12:51 AM
Namaste,

Just wanted to clarify. In traditional Adi Sankara's Advaita there is no mention of equally valid paths to the same goal. Gnana yoga, i.e. knowledge of Sastras under a Guru is the only path for Moksha. This does not mean devotion, meditation and social work (Bhakti, Raja, and Karma yoga) are useless. They are essential contributory factors. For knowledge to work the mind needs to be pure and focused. Purity is attained by devotion and social work while focus is attained by meditation.

Hinduism is rich and satisfies seekers of all types. I am sure you will make spiritual progress if you are earnest.
Best wishes


There is surrender and devotion, but to the SELF / Atman or Brahman. Sri Ramana Maharshi says, surrender of EGO to the SELF is the Real Bhakti.

There is bhava, but it is Shanta bhava.

It is true that without Jnana there is no mukti, as even in dvaita marga, when you have divine vision of God, you are still in Dvaita i.e. devotee and your God. But God himself takes you from Dvaita to Advaita.

It happened to Narasinh Mehta and Sri Ramakrishna. Both were on Dvaita marg, but later they also realized their true nature Atman.

It is true that without knowledge there i no mukti, as in knowledge you are in advaita state, which is the highest one.

If you observe the life of saints or avatars, they have all had their true knowledge, i.e. advaita experience of Nirvikalp samadhi like Sri Ramakrishna, Buddha, Shankaracharya, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, though they preached bhakti, they had realized their true nature, else there is no mukti.


The only difference in Jnana marg is that from day one your goal is to realize true nature and abide in it.

While in Bhakti and Yog, the goals may change and later God / Shakti takes control and takes to beyond dvaita / Maya / Shakti.

TEchnically, one has both experience in any order i.e. to experience only SELF exists and then everything you see is SELF / Brahman or vice versa.

In Advaita it's first Nirvikalp Samadhi and then you see that everything else i.e. this world is brahman itself, it's not different.

In Yog you have experience that It's all same shakti everywhere and then you go beyond shakti to experience the breathless / Pulseless state of Nirvikalp samadhi as Atman is the source (Udbhava Sthana) of everything, even Breath.

In bhakti, you see God in everything and later one is taken into non-dual state where the ego of a devotee and the desire of having divine vision is nullified and one enters into infinite peace and Uninterrupted Bliss.

Aum

Elizabeth108
27 October 2012, 01:44 PM
Namaste to All,

Thank you again for all of your really helpful answers! :)

I have just found this article about advaita: (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Advaita)

After having read it through - especially its part about Ishvara - it seems more clear to me, too regarding my question. According to this article, advaita itself is not impersonal, it just seems so (it's not by chance I keep on using the word "seems" when talking about my view.



Īshvara
Īshvara (pronounced as /iːʃvərə/, literally, the Supreme Lord)—According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Ishvara. Ishvara the manifested form of Brahman on the pragmatic level; his actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.
Ishvara is Saguna Brahman, or Brahman with innumerable auspicious qualities. He is all-perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, Creator of the world, its ruler and also destroyer. He is causeless, eternal and unchangeable, and yet the material and the instrumental cause of the world. He is both immanent (like whiteness in milk) and transcendent (like a watch-maker independent of a watch). He may be even regarded to have a personality. He is the object of worship. He is the basis of morality and giver of the fruits of one's Karma.
Ishvara himself is beyond sin and merit. He rules the world with his Maya, his divine power. This association with a "false" knowledge does not affect the perfection of Ishvara, in the same way as a magician is himself not tricked by his magic. While Ishvara is the Lord of Maya, and Maya is always under his control, the living beings (jīva) are the servants of Maya (in the form of ignorance). This ignorance is the cause of the unhappiness and sin in the mortal world. While Ishvara is Infinite Bliss, humans are miserable because of their ignorance.
Ishvara can also be visualized and worshipped in anthropomorphic form as deities such as Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva.




My question now is that how correct is this article? Is that explanation/description of Advaita valid?

Thank you for your help.

Namaste!

shiv.somashekhar
27 October 2012, 09:24 PM
To the OP,

What do you want? Or what is it that you are looking for?

If your interest is in being a Hindu, then you should leave the philosophical part out of it. That is, Advaita, Dvaita, etc., are hardly of relevance.

On the other hand if your interest is spiritual, then the differences between available options is clear enough for you to pick whatever suits your preference. I would strongly discourage you from relying on internet articles to educate yourself on this subject.

The problem here is how Hinduism is incorrectly protrayed to the west as a choice among philosophies, while in reality they matter little to Hinduism. In India, philosophical speculation always was and still is confined to a tiny group of people. Unfortunately, the western view of Hinduism covers up this fact and projects the Hindu as one who has the Veda and philosophical speculation as the main part of his belief.

Amrut
28 October 2012, 03:57 AM
Namaste to All,

Thank you again for all of your really helpful answers! :)

I have just found this article about advaita: (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Advaita)

After having read it through - especially its part about Ishvara - it seems more clear to me, too regarding my question. According to this article, advaita itself is not impersonal, it just seems so (it's not by chance I keep on using the word "seems" when talking about my view.

My question now is that how correct is this article? Is that explanation/description of Advaita valid?

Thank you for your help.

Namaste!

This looks like good explanation, though I agree that one should leave the philosophical part. But in the beginning such questions arise.

Sri Ramakrishna explains formless God and God with form.

Formless God is like infinite ocean, while God with form is like freezed water i.e. ice.

Both are water. God takes a concrete form by freezing bhakti of his bhakta.

I could not translate the above line effectively. Maybe someone can translate the this line better.

In hindi: Bhakti rupi thandi se ishwara jam ke ek rupa le lete hai. Vastutah woh pani hi hai.

God is attributed with 6 qualities like all powerful, tyaga (renunciation), ashvarya (glory - falling short of words), etc.

Sri Ramakrishna says, when God is not doing any work of creation, preservation and destruction, I call it Brahman, and when it does this work, I call it as Kali (or simply God)

As we go ahead in spirituality our perception changes and so does our views and definition.

More important is to know about the path which you want to practice.

Please read books written by saints then relying on net. Though net is a good resource, it may seem to be confusing many times.

Aum

Seeker123
31 October 2012, 01:58 PM
Moksha is not conditioning of mind. Conditioning can be achieved by medicines such as tried by Huxley and others. The same thing with experience which is temporary. The Upanishads describe Moksha as directly attained through the study of scriptures/Upanishads under a Guru (time permitting I will provide the quotes). Various analogies are given to stress this - archer, driver, churning and so on. It is like learning Calculus, once we learn for an adequate period we know it. In the same way we have to know we are "one indivisible consciousness which alone is real". To know this we need to learn - Shravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana is essential. For the knowledge to work mind needs to be prepared and that is where devotion, meditation, Karma yoga comes but those alone cannot take one into Moksha. Experience, Nirvikalapa Samadhi etc alone is not Moksha. Attached links provides more clarification.

http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/manypaths1.html
http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/moksha1.html

Amrut
01 November 2012, 01:09 AM
Moksha is not conditioning of mind. Conditioning can be achieved by medicines such as tried by Huxley and others. The same thing with experience which is temporary. The Upanishads describe Moksha as directly attained through the study of scriptures/Upanishads under a Guru (time permitting I will provide the quotes). Various analogies are given to stress this - archer, driver, churning and so on. It is like learning Calculus, once we learn for an adequate period we know it. In the same way we have to know we are "one indivisible consciousness which alone is real". To know this we need to learn - Shravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana is essential. For the knowledge to work mind needs to be prepared and that is where devotion, meditation, Karma yoga comes but those alone cannot take one into Moksha. Experience, Nirvikalapa Samadhi etc alone is not Moksha. Attached links provides more clarification.

http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/manypaths1.html
http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/moksha1.html

Samadhi cannot be attained by any medicines. Nirvikalp samadhi is not moksha. One attains moksha by steadying oneself into this state of samadhi till there is no need to meditate or make any special effort for it.

Study the life of Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Totapuri baba (Advaita Guru of Sri Ramakrishna).

Sri Ramana Maharshi had the experience of samadhi and then left for arunacha. Sri Maharshi meditated in virupaksha cave for many years to stabilize in samadhi, some call it to attain sahaj samadhi.

Sri Totapuri baba was a staunch advaita vedantin, but did not had experienced maya and that just like fire and it's warmth, maya is inseparable from brahman. He had experience of nirvikalp samadhi and it took 50 years of practice, but after the meditation was over, he was in dvaita. It was Maa Kali who made it realize that his sadhana was not over and that experience of both maya i.e. presence of God / Brahman everywhere is necessary along with nirvikalp samadhi. For the first time in life, he went to Kali maa's temple. Sri Totapuri had experience of samadhi and so he could teach Sri Ramakrishna advaita vedanta, but did not experience the power of God i.e. Maya.

Sri Ramana Maharshi has also mentioned this in his work 'Who am I'. Sri Maharshi says that when you see Jagdamba (God) even in your wife when you are egoless.

What I want to say is that until you have experienced both nirvikalp Samadhi and that everything else is Brahman, you are not free. This can be in any order. Yogis first experience this power of shakti and then go beyond it to experience nirvikalp Samadhi.

One goes beyond mind into Brahman, but all desires are not up-rooted, so mind awakes (as it is not destroyed) and pulls one into dvaita. Again after meditating, mind calms down and one again goes beyond mind into Brahman. This goes on till all desires have been up-rooted. This is why Sri Ramana Maharshi has said there should be mano nasha and not mano laya.

So one should not stop after first experience of Samadhi, but try to make this state permanent. This, according to me, was Sri Ramana Maharshi was doing in caves of Arunachala.

I am not an authority in advaita. It’s just a personal opinion.

Aum

Ref:

Who am I by Sri Ramana Maharshi
40 verses on Reality by Sri Ramana Maharshi
Sri Ramakrishna Jivan Charitra (in Gujarati)
Sri Ramana Maharshi - Jivan ane Karya (In Gujarati) - Sri Ramana Maharshi - Life and Works
Discourses on Gita and Ashtavakra Gita (which is based upon Ajat Vaad)

Amrut
01 November 2012, 01:16 AM
Todays quotes from by Blog. They are inline with this discussion

Thursday, Nov 1 2012
One becomes silent on realizing the true nature of Brahman. P. 280

- Sri Ramakrishna

This world is moving around like a wheel. That indeed is the last birth in which one gets rid of all desires completely.

- Sri Sarada Maa

The less passion there is, the better we work. The calmer we are, the better for us and the more the amount of work we can do. When we let loose our feelings, we waste so much energy, shatter our nerves, disturb our minds, and accomplish very little work

- Swami Vivekananda

brahman
01 November 2012, 04:33 AM
Namaste All,

Here is my background in short but detailed:
I come from the western culture and live in Europe. Christianity is the major religion in my homeland and so I was brought up in that as a child. My family was not so religious. Yet this path is where I am from due to my cultural background.

Later, at the beginning of my 20s going to university I turned away from Christianity to Vaishnava path. I met Hare Krishna people, I love the Bhagavad-Gita and Vaishnava mantras (not only the HK one).

Then I got into such a group of people who introduced me to the views of advaita. It was new and even interesting to me. This group of people were shaiva as well.

By now, since I withdrew from this group I have just realized how empty and impersonal advaita is to me. The lack of God (like Krsna in Vaishnavism) makes it very hard for me. This leaves a void in me and I feel lost.
I regard Vishnu and Shiva as two facets of the One. The Vaishnava path seems more personal to me than Saiva (and advaita) path.

I love the person of Ramana Maharshi (followers of his introduced me to shaivism and advaita) but His teaching (Self Enquiry, Who am I)is too high and impersonal to me. What shall I do? Would choosing the Vaishnava path exclude Ramana for example? What am I to do?

Thank you very much for your answers!






Dear Elizabeth108,


Search for truth in Advaita starts from a belief. A belief that everything is Brahman, which is obtained from three canonical texts of vedantha together called Prasthana Thraya(includes 10 principal Upanishads, Brahmasutra and the Bhagavad gita) .
Or in other words the search for truth in Advaita proceeds from an a priori induction, that 'All is Brahman'. (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma).

So the first point to be postulated is that Advaita it not mere skepticism as many people think.

The Dicta(Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma) gives a generalized form of what this world is all about, and the seeker comes to a final conclusion that ‘This world’ (idam) is Brahman alone.

This conclusion doesn’t give any kind realization to the seeker student; hence he needs to hear how this Brahman relates to oneself or to himself. That he hears from a realized teacher.

The Guru instructs the disciple that ‘he himself is That’ or ‘He himself is Brahman’ (this is derived from the Great Dicta called Tattvamasi).

Then the seeker himself needs to find out ‘who he actually is’ or ‘who am I’ (koham)

In order to find who we are we cannot omit the existence of this world saying all is Maya.

The second point to be noted is that Advaita is not mere Maya Vada.

There starts an a posteriori induction, in which the world is scientifically scrutinized. For the purpose of scrutinizing the world we may even resort to the methodology of modern science (metaphysics) rather than sticking ourselves to the traditional methods as mentioned in the Upanishads.

Towards the end of the search the seeker combines both these knowledge or results of the previously noted inductions (both a priori and a posteriori) and comes to a conclusion using a methodology called dialectics (or science of union which is called yoga buddhi in Sanskrit) in order to trodden the ‘vision’ of the absolute as ‘I’ is Brahman itself’ or ‘I am Brahman’ (Ahman Brahmasmi).

Further stages of contemplation drive the seeker towards Ayam atma Brahma, Prajanam Brahman etc... towards the full vision of the Absolute or being One with it .

--------------------
--------------------
A Kind Note: In our age, to know about a single fraction of organism such as the eye, a person should have twelve years of preparatory study for the familiarization of the language used as the medium of instruction at the university level, then five years to know of the body in which eyes are placed, then another two years or so to have a thorough examination of the eye. Even after that effortful career an ophthalmologist does not claim that s/he knows(so is with the present writer).

If factual knowledge of an eye is so elusive, the vision of truth, that is ‘I’ can sound like a far cry…. No wonder the rishis, the seers, say That is far(tad doore, Isa vasya). Love:)

kallol
02 November 2012, 09:49 AM
Thanks Indiaspirituality.

Yes Seeker123 you are right also. Knowledge is the only one way to the end. However knowledge comes through many means. There was gravity, laws of motion, or relativity before and after Newton or Einstein. They only helped us to discover those.

Yes we learn physics by studying. But there are plenty who are uneducated yet knowledgeable in physics (even Newton and Einstein are like these).

Neither we can claim that in one life, even if we study scriptures, will be able to achieve moksha. Neither can we say that it is must as we do not know the past lives. The learning is a continuous process over many lives and then the assimilation and lead the life accordingly.

If you notice most of the great men, started with bhakti and gained knowledge on the way and became bigger bhaktas - Ramakrishna, Chaitanya, Mirabai, Ramana, etc.

Bhakti is a marg for normal people. Gyan marg is more appealing for intellectuals.

Again there is no escape from knowledge. The only risk, I see, is that the intellectuals after getting knowledge, become more possessive and acquire supremacy complex.

However it is always recommended that one go through the scriptures if they have access to, as that will help them organize their thought process and act as a guide for the conditioning of the mind and body.

Amrut
02 November 2012, 10:48 AM
Thanks Indiaspirituality.

Bhakti is a marg for normal people. Gyan marg is more appealing for intellectuals.

Again there is no escape from knowledge. The only risk, I see, is that the intellectuals after getting knowledge, become more possessive and acquire supremacy complex.

I agree with you. Jnana gives you clarity, which a bhakta may / may not have. A bhakta can progress ahead without any knowledge, simply by chanting God's name, but advaita requires one to know what you are doing.

Ego is the real problem in advaita, and one who takes it for granted that 'I am Atman', from scriptural studies, without realizing the same cannot be explained that he/she is wrong. No proof can be given.

This is why Jnana is not just for intellectuals, but for pure hearted.

These days, under heavy western influence and vote bank polities, we and politicians all say that if one deserves, then one should get knowledge and education and that caste system is the biggest evil. Politicians create this hype and pass reservation bills favouring minorities.

I personally think that intellect is not the only criteria. Pure heart or good human being with big heart is necessary, infact compulsory.

If a guru has 2 students, one who is highly skilled with a photographic memory but has more of rajas and tamas gunas or simply say has destructive mind, and another student, who is not so intelligent, but is pure hearted, then whom should Guru give knowledge?

According to me, to the one who is pure hearted. It will take more time for not-so-intellegent pure and big hearted disciple to grasp the teachings, but the knowledge is safe in his hands. Not only this disciple will use it for right purpose, but will also not pass on to undeserving and destructive mind.

Imagine nuclear technology is given to terrorists? what is the result of this? Terrorists are smart, intelligent, tech savvy (more than us, as they hack into our system), better organized, disciplined and has management skills. So even they should be deserving of all knowledge. But what will be the result - destruction.

Traditional e.g. is Ram - Ravan.

If you compare ability of both, Ravan has everything that Rama has. Ravan was a great devotee of Lord Shiva, a brahmin and so dharmagna and shastragna (knower of dharma shastra and scriptures), tapasvi (deep meditator), ayurvedacharya, dancer (did tandav nrutriya), singer (Shiva Tandav stotra is universally accepted and sung even today), Raj Niti (laxman was ordered to learn niti from dying Ravan), etc.

But still he was called Rakshas - a demon. Why? because of his mind, his nature.

I am straying form the topic, but great rishis were more intelligent than us and created caste system, based on karma, with a purpose.

Brahmins are the ones who are one with Brahman, or they are engaged in spiritual activities and doing good for all, even kings respect them. Brahmins traditionally cannot earn, but live on donations and alms.

Similarly, about all other castes. Khstriyas protect all 3 castes, vaishyas, do business and run the society and shudras are helping class. They all have devotion to God in decreasing order.

Even and our politicians are capable, but we all know how they are :)

Giving admissions to lower grade student falling in SC (Scheduled Caste) or ST (Scheduled tribe) and then they go on to become IAS or govt servants, we all know how much do they work. I whole heatedly agree that they should be given an opportunity, give them free education and all facilities like books, food, residence and education free. But not to compromise on nature and intellect.

Coming back to topic, if one is not pure hearted, advaita is not for him/her. Sri Ramana Maharshi has also said the same in Sri Ramana Gita.

In Advaita, the problem is, from day one we are taught - I am Brahman. If I am Brahman, then to whom should I surrender. How will ego vanish. Then the technical argument continues, that ego is illusionary and explains snake-rope analogy to prove it. However, the fact is we are seeing snake and keep saying that we are seeing the rope. This is a big problem and you cannot prove that the one speaking about truth is not established in truth. Many stop their spiritual practices and no one can prove them that they are wrong. You cannot convince them. A pure hearted would accept his/her mistake, like a soldier who never runs away from battle field, a pure hearted disciple takes Ram-bana (blows to his ego) by his Guru or anyone else (whom God has made an instrument to make a true disciple realize his/her mistake).

There should be a ring master :D - a realized Guru, like Lord Krishna and there should be disciple like Arjun, a devoted and surrendered disciple who will always say, Oh God, give me what is best for me. He always asked Krishna, his Guru to give him what is best for him. So even if Jnana was the best and Sri Krishna had praised Jnana a lot, Sri Krishna said, Karma is the best (for you).

This is the reason why, Sri Adi Shankaracharya has said, after learning scriptures, when one realizes and says, 'I do not know anything' is a true disciple and progresses on spiritual path. Ego is subdued in this statement. True state of mind spontaneously admitted and expressed out of realization that 'I do not know anything'.

Mind becomes neutral.

I personally think that, neutral mind (which is a strong mind), no big demands other than what is necessity i.e. living a simple life, big heart and habit of let-go, strong faith and surrender, and later dispassion in society are all necessary for one to successfully follow and practice advaita principles. Being intellect is an advantage.

Note: a Neutral mind can live in peace and without any external thing i.e. dependencies are bare minimum. Such is mind is strong mind according to my understanding.

For developing a pure heart with divine sattvik qualities like faith and surrender, bhakti is essential. So many saints, as you have noted started their spiritual journey as bhaktas. Though this is generally true, there are many who by merits of punya (good) karmas in past lives and by intense meditation are born with pure heart and mind, do not require to again pass through all steps of karma and bhakti. Even following pure Jnana marg is possible, but to succesfully follow it and realize truth is very rare.

Aum

Seeker123
02 November 2012, 11:08 AM
Namaste,

Upanishads repeatedly discuss that Moksha is only through knowledge and the others such as Bhakti, Karma, meditation are contributory factors only - there are no 4 paths etc etc. The problem is one of avidya - i.e. ignorance who am I, what God is, and what world is. This ignorance is removed by knowledge. The links I gave which are based on the Upanishads clearly explain that. Please review it if you get a chance. Scriptures are Sabda pramana. They are the mirror that reveal the subject "I".
When one says scriptural learning is the way it does not mean that Moksha is guaranteed in this life just by reading. Reading also involves reflecting, assimilation - that is what Sravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana means. It also requires a pure, focused mind where Karma yoga, Bhakthi, meditation comes in. It may take more lives depending on one's prarabdha.
If someone attained Moksha without scriptural reading it is likely that they had done their reading in past lives. But they are the exception and not the norm. In worldly affairs there are genius and there are commoners. A 10 year tendulkar probably did not need a lot of instructions but we cannot say we can become a good cricketer if we just follow in his foot steps.
If someone acquired supremacy complex post knowledge then it is clear that he has not acquired the knowledge!
I don't want to belabor this issue. Among friends let us agree to disagree. My sincere good wishes for your spiritual growth.

Amrut
02 November 2012, 11:36 AM
Namaste,

Upanishads repeatedly discuss that Moksha is only through knowledge and the others such as Bhakti, Karma, meditation are contributory factors only - there are no 4 paths etc etc. The links I gave which are based on the Upanishads clearly explain that. Please review it if you get a chance. Scriptures are Sabda pramana. They are the mirror that reveal the subject "I".
When one says scriptural learning is the way it does not mean that Moksha is guaranteed in this life just by reading. Reading also involves reflecting, assimilation - that is what Sravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana means. It also requires a pure, focused mind where Karma yoga, Bhakthi, meditation comes in. It may take more lives depending on one's prarabdha.
If someone attained Moksha without scriptural reading it is likely that they had done their reading in past lives. But they are the exception and not the norm. In worldly affairs there are genius and there are commoners. A 10 year tendulkar probably did not need a lot of instructions but we cannot say we can become a good cricketer if we just follow in his foot steps.
If someone acquired supremacy complex post knowledge then it is clear that he has not acquired the knowledge!
I don't want to belabor this issue. Among friends let us agree to disagree. My sincere good wishes for your spiritual growth.

+1 I agree with you

kallol
02 November 2012, 11:50 PM
I do not see any disagreement. What is said is absolutely true.