PDA

View Full Version : Genuine Questions on Advaita



smaranam
25 July 2013, 07:47 AM
Many praNAms

Please address the following questions on Advaita that have been lurking in the mind.

First, premises or axiomatic understanding - subject to checks.

1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...
om namostav anantAya sahastramUrtaye
sahastrapAdAkshashirorubAhave
sahastranAmne purushAya shAsvate
sahastra koti yuga dhAriNe namah:

QUESTIONS
1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
Why or Why not?

2. In other words, such a state of existence as described above, i.e. tUryAvasthA, should and does it enable manifestation of NArAyaNa i.e. Parameshwar?

3. Or, in other words, does such a state of existence command the entire YogamAyA at disposal ?
If the answer to this is yes, then it must imply that this state as described in Qn 1. is UTOPIAN, TOO THEORETICAL, because otherwise...

4. How do you explain aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha avatAr as opposed to the pUrNa avatAr or pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn Shri KRshNa?

Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

For us jivas, we are infinitsimal, but Advaita blames that infinitesimalness on our ignorance and conditioning (vices, faults, 3 gunas ). So we have very little shakti at our disposal.
However, if all avatArs (fractional, of full) are pUrNa Bramhan, in tUryAvasthA, very pure, what makes one a part of NArAyaNa and another more NArAyaNa and another less NArAyaNa?

thank you so much!

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

jthomasnaz
25 July 2013, 11:14 AM
Many praNAms

Please address the following questions on Advaita that have been lurking in the mind.

First, premises or axiomatic understanding - subject to checks.

1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...
om namostav anantAya sahastramUrtaye
sahastrapAdAkshashirorubAhave
sahastranAmne purushAya shAsvate
sahastra koti yuga dhAriNe namah:

QUESTIONS
1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
Why or Why not?

2. In other words, such a state of existence as described above, i.e. tUryAvasthA, should and does it enable manifestation of NArAyaNa i.e. Parameshwar?

3. Or, in other words, does such a state of existence command the entire YogamAyA at disposal ?
If the answer to this is yes, then it must imply that this state as described in Qn 1. is UTOPIAN, TOO THEORETICAL, because otherwise...

4. How do you explain aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha avatAr as opposed to the pUrNa avatAr or pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn Shri KRshNa?

Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

For us jivas, we are infinitsimal, but Advaita blames that infinitesimalness on our ignorance and conditioning (vices, faults, 3 gunas ). So we have very little shakti at our disposal.
However, if all avatArs (fractional, of full) are pUrNa Bramhan, in tUryAvasthA, very pure, what makes one a part of NArAyaNa and another more NArAyaNa and another less NArAyaNa?

thank you so much!

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya



Some people get a glimpse of atma in their life time. Should we label this as partial? There are some people who can see atma any time they want to- I suppose we could label this as fully realized. Conscience is awareness. Atma is
soul. When people translate atma as self then they confuse people because they cannot distinguish between selfish ego and soul. Brahman is identical to atma. To separate these would not be advaita. It would be dualism. They are both seen as one.

Necromancer
26 July 2013, 05:09 AM
Some people get a glimpse of atma in their life time. Should we label this as partial? There are some people who can see atma any time they want to- I suppose we could label this as fully realized. Conscience is awareness. Atma is
soul. When people translate atma as self then they confuse people because they cannot distinguish between selfish ego and soul. Brahman is identical to atma. To separate these would not be advaita. It would be dualism. They are both seen as one.
Namaste.

I agree with you, but it is so difficult to speak of it.

Consciousness is all-pervasive. We all manage to capture a tiny part of it and call it our 'Soul' or 'Atman'.

This is where the duality comes in...when we say 'what's inside is my Soul and what's 'out there' all belongs to Shiva'.

It's like the awareness stops at the very edge of our body and mind, shoving this huge wedge between Jivatman and Paratman.

Yes, we can see Shiva, but we cannot be Shiva.

When I pray to Ardharnareshwar, this all comes into play. The Tantric unity between Shiva and Shakti creating the Divine Balance within and without...but it's still going to be Shiva/Shakti no matter from which Advaitist standpoint you come from...until, you realise that Duality is Non-Duality.

That's the beauty of it all.

Then, I am drawn back to the motto on the Indonesian Flag and the European Union: "Unity In Diversity".

There are two paths you can take - that of total nihilism or that of total acceptance...both lead to the same place.

When we remove that 'wedge' and lose our body, our thinking mind and believing there's an 'inside' and an 'outside' is when the two will become one.

Aum Namah Shivaya

smaranam
26 July 2013, 06:03 AM
Namaste

Some people get a glimpse of atma in their life time. Should we label this as partial?

No. This is not a realized person, and not in the picture for our thread. I used the word 'partial' for avatArs. The aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha or Avesha avatArs - beings empowered by the Supreme Lord, but not the Supreme Lord in entirity.
These beings are fully Self-realized of course, else they would never be in the avatAr category.

Actually, I have an answer to that from Shri KRshNa Himself "I come cloaked in different suits, that is why all My powers are not manifest in that form."

(All powers not being manifest in one avatar form is different from KRshNa choosing not to manifest power (aishwarya) in front of Mother Yashoda.)


There are some people who can see atma any time they want to- I suppose we could label this as fully realized. Conscience is awareness.

This is what I am focusing on, thank you. If these people are Bramhan, pUrNa Bramhan, then should they or should they not also potentially manifest as Parameshvar? If Bramhan is the source of omni-science-potence-presence, then these beings, fully realized acc. to you, must automatically have/be that - YES? or NO?

If YES, then advaita and tUriyAvasthA is a theoretical never-reachable utopian goal for earthlings, and bhakti - devotion towards Parameshwar is the wise spiritual goal and practice.

If NO (which is how I initially looked at advaita) then advaita is talking about Atma-bhAv, tadAtmictA. "We are ONE IN SPIRIT. You are Me, You are My AtmA just as I am Yours. The reason we are one, is because you are very very very dear to Me. As a result, you care not for any selfish individual endeavors/existence independant of Me" This is why the basis of advaita bhAv (which I suspect is the bhAv, sentiment, nishThA alone), is

L O V E (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=38852&postcount=9). U N I V E R S A L L O V E. In the bhakti language it is P R E M

This is Bramhan-nishThA. Again, for this also, there has to be devotion to Parameshwar, because it is His Grace that can bring this state. YashodA could not tie little DAmodar (KRshNa) with the rope - it was always 2 fingers short, no matter what she did - she kept getting longer and longer ropes. It was only when KRshNa (appearing as a 2 yr old) finally decided to shower His causeless mercy on her, only because of her extreme pure love for Him, did the rope fit.

I think the following explains it somewhat, but HLK may have to crease out some ambiguities.


Once Sri Rama asked Hanuman how he looked at him.

Hanuman Replied:

As a body, I am your das (servant) and you are my lord (master, prabhu)
As a jiva, I am ansha (part) and you are whole (purNa)
but from Tatva Jnana, hey RAma, I am you and you are me. We are not different.
Advaita talks from this third POV - Atma bhAva and not jiva bhava.

In advaita, there is no experiencer. So if you say that ‘I am experiencing unity’ , it is not ultimate state - advaita. You are still experiencing something, be it peace, bliss or oneness. Bramhan is beyond
unity and multiplicity. Upanishadas say about unity only to discard plurality which is an illusion.

Thanks for this, HLK.
(Feedback - The statements in red give rise to ambiguity/conflict at least for learning readers. They speak an advanced language which is best understood internally in parA not externally in vaikharI because vaikhari vANI gives rise to six blind men and the elephant :) )

Again, the last statement, "Upanishads talk about unity to discard plurality which is an illusion" can be best understood in terms of patriotic oneness, community spirit, universal brotherhood and oneness etc. Because the goal of the upanishads is to develop the spirit, the attitude of oneness - sama darshana.

vAsudeva sarvam iti

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

smaranam
26 July 2013, 06:17 AM
If NO (which is how I initially looked at advaita) then advaita is talking about Atma-bhAv, tadAtmictA. "We are ONE IN SPIRIT. You are Me, You are My AtmA just as I am Yours. The reason we are one, is because you are very very very dear to Me. As a result, you care not for any selfish individual endeavors/existence independant of Me" This is why the basis of advaita bhAv (which I suspect is the bhAv, sentiment, nishThA alone), is

L O V E (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=38852&postcount=9). U N I V E R S A L L O V E. In the bhakti language it is P R E M

This is Bramhan-nishThA.

I just wanted to add that, while this was the understanding, I met advaita followers who were deep into technical jargon where they dissected the grammar basics - subject verb object, and implied that you cannot have a devotional relationship with BhagvAn - which made the jiva averse to the philosophy.

In any case, a good advaita teacher, Dr. Sadananda, once said,

"The statement (mahAvAkya) is Aham BramhAsmi, and not Aham IshvarAsmi"

Just remembered that, and which could be an answer to the original qn above. However, the Dattatreya followers and all those siddha followers seem to be more into the yoga siddhi kind of stuff (they look for miracles from the Guru). Same with some Shaiva sects. Intense yog, meditation, tapascharyA brings siddhis, no doubt, but bhakti is a different story altogether - more on madhurya than aishvarya. The miracle of VaishNav Gurus is to turn the bhakta-gaNa madly in love with KRshNa.

Necromancer
26 July 2013, 06:24 AM
Namaste


No. This is not a realized person, and not in the picture for our thread. I used the word 'partial' for avatArs. The aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha or Avesha avatArs - beings empowered by the Supreme Lord, but not the Supreme Lord in entirity.
These beings are fully Self-realized of course, else they would never be in the avatAr category.

Actually, I have an answer to that from Shri KRshNa Himself "I come cloaked in different suits, that is why all My powers are not manifest in that form."

(All powers not being manifest in one avatar form is different from KRshNa choosing not to manifest power (aishwarya) in front of Mother Yashoda.)



This is what I am focusing on, thank you. If these people are Bramhan, pUrNa Bramhan, then should they or should they not also potentially manifest as Parameshvar? If Bramhan is the source of omni-science-potence-presence, then these beings, fully realized acc. to you, must automatically have/be that - YES? or NO?

If YES, then advaita and tUriyAvasthA is a theoretical never-reachable utopian goal for earthlings, and they had better have/develop bhakti - devotion towards Parameshwar.

If NO (which is how I initially looked at advaita) then advaita is talking about Atma-bhAv, tadAtmictA. "We are ONE IN SPIRIT. You are Me, You are My AtmA just as I am Yours. The reason we are one, is because you are very very very dear to Me. As a result, you care not for any selfish individual endeavors/existence independant of Me" This is why the basis of advaita bhAv (which I suspect is the bhAv, sentiment, nishThA alone), is

L O V E (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=38852&postcount=9). U N I V E R S A L L O V E. In the bhakti language it is P R E M

This is Bramhan-nishThA. Again, for this also, there had better be devotion to Parameshwar, because it is His Grace that can bring this state. YashodA could not tie little DAmodar (KRshNa) with the rope - it was always 2 fingers short, no matter what she did - she kept getting longer and longer ropes. It was only when KRshNa (appearing as a 2 yr old) finally decided to shower His causeless mercy on her, only because of her extreme pure love for Him, did the rope fit.

I think the following explains it somewhat, but HLK may have to crease out some ambiguities.



Thanks for this, HLK.
(Feedback - The statements in red give rise to ambiguity/conflict at least for learning readers. They speak an advanced language which is best understood internally in parA not externally in vaikharI because vaikhari vANI gives rise to six blind men and the elephant :) )

Again, the last statement, "Upanishads talk about unity to discard plurality which is an illusion" can be best understood in terms of patriotic oneness, community spirit, universal brotherhood and oneness etc. Because the goal of the upanishads is to develop the spirit, the attitude of oneness - sama darshana.

vAsudeva sarvam iti

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~
Namaste.

Bhakti is the answer.

Our inquiries, our sadhana, our faith and belief can only take us so far.

In the end, a huge 'leap of faith' is required and that takes love.

I am intrigued by Adi Shankaracharya and how, one one hand, he can write magnificent treatises on Advaita Vedanta, but on the other, writes beautiful poems and hymns about Bhakti.

One has to ask, which came first, Jnana or Bhakti?

Some say you must know to love, others say you must love to know.

Both go together...hand in hand.

There is not one without the other. There is not Shiva without Shakti, nor Shakti without Shiva.

Aum Namah Shivaya

smaranam
26 July 2013, 06:35 AM
Namaste.

Bhakti is the answer.

Our inquiries, our sadhana, our faith and belief can only take us so far.

In the end, a huge 'leap of faith' is required and that takes love.

I am intrigued by Adi Shankaracharya and how, one one hand, he can write magnificent treatises on Advaita Vedanta, but on the other, writes beautiful poems and hymns about Bhakti.

One has to ask, which came first, Jnana or Bhakti?

Some say you must know to love, others say you must love to know.

Both go together...hand in hand.

There is not one without the other. There is not Shiva without Shakti, nor Shakti without Shiva.

Aum Namah Shivaya

This is wonderful, Necromancer. It could be our poster. I agree with both your posts, as "I hear what you say"
Thanks for the inputs.

_/\_

Amrut
26 July 2013, 08:33 AM
Namaste Smaranamji,


1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...

I will reply in detail later. Just a few quick points.

According to Tatva Bodh, Jiva and Atman are different

Jiva in plain words is the indwelling spirit

the attachment of body and the feeling that 'I' am body is the one that produces bondage. Such a bound soul is called Jiva-atman or simply Jiva.

Jiva is defined by Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh and other prakaraNa granths as the one who associates itself with karma and fruits of karma, experiences pleasure and pain by associating with mind, body, intellect and ego. Jiva travels from one body to another and is trapped in the cycle of birth and death.

Atman is Sat-Chit-Ananda same as Brahman.

If you look at Sv Up. verse 5.8 just the verse before you quoted i.. 5.9, irt says

Of the size of a thumb, but effulgent like the Sun, the Jiva possesses both volition and individuality. It is endowed with the qualities of the mind and heart (Atman). Therefore it is seen as another entity, small as the point of a goad. 5.8

The individual soul (Jiva) is extremely subtle like the point of a hair divided and subdivided many times. Yet it has the potential for infinity. He is to be realised (as none other than the paramatman). 5.9

Same is said in Shiva Gita 10.26 (as in Sv. Up. 5.9)

Later in 10.37 and 10.38 it says that without Knowledge or before merging with Brahman, Jiva is not destroyed.

After merging with Brahman, jiva is destroyed.

Now the question is Jiva or Jiva-bhAva? It has to be found out

According to Advaita, Brahman never really divides itself, as it voids it's definition
It cannot transform into anything. Brahman is unchanging.

So it is Brahman under to illusion of mAyA (the illusionary creative power) called Ishwara appears to create this universe. This is the theory of Advaita, as I have understood.

So jiva-bhava is false superimposition upon Brahman under the false notion of Ego. 'I' associates with panch-mahabhuta.

Ishwara has upAdhi-s. It takes AdhAra of vidha mAyA, but is mAyA's swami and so not bound by it.

Jiva has upAdhi-s of a-vidhA mAyA i.e. panch mahAbhuta

If you remove both upAdhi-s what remains is NirguNa Brahman.

In your 1st point, there is a a priori i.e pre-assumption that jiva is separate, which in reality is not. Hence no question of merging. Only wrong notion is realized.

Now regarding confusion of jiva, ishwara, Brahman.

there are 3 types of shruti-s -

bheda shruti-s: they describe jiva nad ishwara / Brahman as completely different
a-bheda shruti-s: They talk about oneness of Jiva nad Shia i.e Brahman
ghaTak shruti-s: They connect bheda nad abheda, like ishwara is antar yAmi.

Now regarding the quote by H-L-K

Please read it very slowly with cool mind.


In advaita, there is no experiencer. So if you say that ‘I am experiencing unity’ , it is not ultimate state - advaita. You are still experiencing something, be it peace, bliss or oneness. Brahman is beyond

unity and multiplicity. Upanishads say about unity only to discard plurality which is an illusion.

The only consistency according to GauDapAda, Adi Shankara and later on re-discovered by Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati is adhyAropa apavAda

It is false Superimposition (adhyAropa) Followed by Retraction (apavAda)

As HLK has said, first attributes are attached and then contradicted later on in the same shruti.

e.g. Attribute of witness is added and then it is said that it cannot be reached through mind, eyes, speech, etc.

The concept of witness is introduced since the objective is to indicate that 'I' am not any object of observation. But later on, even the attribute of being a witness is removed, as to see something, there has to be another (an object that can be seen and oberver).

Hence Brahman cannot be a witness also. So the false attribute of being a witness is also negated by saying that Brahman is beyond 5 senses and mind.

It is not possible to describe Brahman, hence it cannot be taught positively. No attribute can be given to describe it. It shows that all attributes are also false and they also has to be negated. Hence the only method to explain Brahman is negative approach or false superimposition and retraction or negation of false super imposition.

In gita same thing is observed in 13.13 and 13.14 (note in some version version 1 in chapter 13 is not found, and was not commented by Adi shankara. Hence the number in followers of Ramanuja might by 13.14 and 13.15)

ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते।।13.13।।

13.13 I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being.

सर्वतः पाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्।
सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति।।13.14।।

13.14 That (Knowable), which has hands and feet everwhere, which has eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, which has ears everywhere, exists in creatures by pervading them all.


सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम्।
असक्तं सर्वभृच्चैव निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च।।13.15।।

13.15 Shining through the functions of all the organs, (yet) devoid of all the organs; unattached, and verily the supporter of all; without quality, and the perceiver of qualities;


did you notice - neither being nor non-being. Then attributes of omnipresence -- then retraction of these qualities as devoid of all organs, without quality.

Please refer to shankara bhasya from link in my signature 'Gita Super Site' in verse 13.14. Select both hindi commentary (Sri Harikrishandas Goenka ) and english commentary (Swami Gambhirananda)

another e.g. to make things easy.

न हि कश्चित्क्षणमपि जातु तिष्ठत्यकर्मकृत्।
कार्यते ह्यवशः कर्म सर्वः प्रकृतिजैर्गुणैः।।3.5।।

3.5 Because, no one ever remains even for a moment without doing work. For all are made to work under compulsion by the gunas born of Nature.

यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन।
ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा।।4.37।।

4.37 Just as burning fire turns fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge turn all Karma to ashes.

Is this not contradictory? So first something is said, then it is retracted or negated.

To a matured sadhaka, shastras say that all karmas are destroyed. All means prArabhdha, AgAmi and sanchit. So even prArabhdha is destroyed. Gita also says that one cannot be free from any karma and so one should practice nitya karmas.

Upadeshas are said from adhikAra bheda.

Now you got he point as why in Sv. Up. even though the size of jiva is given, it says, it has to be experienced as infinite.

I hope the theory of Advaita is understood.


Regarding bhakti, without bhakti, one cannot under Jnana. Bhakti is the foundation.

If you notice the reason or incident of spontaneous composition of Bhaja Govindam, you will understand why it was created and why it is necessary to surrender to Ishwara (God with form)

I will write about avatar and jnani later, but one word sums up, it is I am Brahman and not I am Ishwara.

To sum up


Jiva and Atman are different in Adviata
bhakti is important for mental purification (bhakti not from Vaishnava POV)
Bhakti means an attitude of non-difference with Brahman
False Superimposition followed by Retraction is traditional teaching according to Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati.


Aum

Amrut

Amrut
26 July 2013, 11:11 AM
Pranams,

We will take one point at a time. OP's posts marked with Purple

1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego

Jiva and Atman are different. Atman is not inside body.

2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.

Right

3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.

Again it is jiva and not atman.

For explanation, In Utara Gita Chapter 2 and Shiva Gita Chapter 10, it is said that though jiva resides in heart, through 72000 nadis, Jiva spreads in the body. At another verse in Shiva Gita, it is said that though Jiva is said to reside in heart, it resides in Head (pineal Gland)

As explained in earlier post, Jiva appears to be of a particular size, it has to be experienced as infinite.

4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...


I did not get it by pure functional ahamkAra?

I have not read anywhere that Bhagavan / Ishwara has ego.

Brahman along with mAyA, appears as Ishwara.

Brahman and mAyA are inseparable like fire and it's warmth, Sun and it's rays.

So wherever there is Brahman there is also mAyA. Hence Bhagavan is also called as omnipresent - Vishnu - the one who pervades

<some content cropped>

Since Avatar vAda is not supported in Upanishads, and Advaita does not talk much about it, at times help of Yog has to be taken.

QUESTIONS

1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
Why or Why not?

Answer:

As explained earlier, no change takes place. There is no transformation, only false notion and superimposition is removed.

Smaranam ji asked: So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
Why or Why not?

Answer:

Yes. Please do not mix any vikArA-s with Atman or pure consciousness. In pure consciousness, none of them are present. Just like when one is seeing shadow one cannot see sun, and when one turns towards sun, one does not see shadow.

When consciousness i.e. Brahman identifies itself with panch mahAbhuta in simple words when pure consciousness gets embodies in body and identifies itself with body, and mind then in this case it cannot be pure consciousness and hence it acquires all qualities of mind and in due course due to karma, etc it has vikAra-s. In this case, it does not know itself to be omnipresent Brahman.

In the same way, when 'I' detaches from mind and body and merges in Brahman, it looses it's own identity and becomes Brahman.

So when one is identifying itself as pure Brahman, it is not aware of worldly consciousness, as one is in nirvikalp samadhi. After 21 days, connection with body drops permanently says Sri Ramakrishna.

Not attaching with rAga and dveSa and transforming them with into something divine is different. So a Jnani can be short tempered as seen in some vedic Rishis like VAmdev, DurvAsA, Parshurama, etc. I hope you are getting point.

After merging with Brahman, a Jnani's body does not become free from defects or diseases. In case of yogis it may be true.

Regarding Siddhis, it is said that all Jnani-s are purNa or full of shakti. Some exhibit some not, all according to divine plan. I do not know if they have all asTasiddhi.

Whether they have 18 siddhis or 8 maha-siddhis, it does not make difference to their Jnana.

So a body may remain impure or subtle body may not be able to grasp all the qualities of Ishwara.

But Jnani's can cast of their bodies and take avatar like Ishwara and can perform great miraculous deeds, as in case of Sai Baba. Some say he was an avatar of a siddha, some say an avatar of Dattatraya.

Question:

2. In other words, such a state of existence as described above, i.e. tUryAvasthA, should and does it enable manifestation of NArAyaNa i.e. Parameshwar?

3. Or, in other words, does such a state of existence command the entire YogamAyA at disposal ?
If the answer to this is yes, then it must imply that this state as described in Qn 1. is UTOPIAN, TOO THEORETICAL, because otherwise...

Answer:

NArAyaNa can descent on earthly plane with purest of all 5 bodies, while a Jnani is born as a ajnani and so Jnani's body cannot sustain strong pure energy that is necessary to perform miracles.

If by any means A Jnani or a Yogi, purifies his subtle and physical body by intense tapas, and gradually increasing the capacity to store and hold subtle energies, then we have examples of great Yogis performing miracles. Great e.g. is Mahaavatar Babaji, a deathless saint.

So by Yogic Process, anything can be achieved. Mind is capable of doing anything. Adept Yogis are masters of their body and mind and hence masters of 5 tatva-s.

Question:

4. How do you explain aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha avatAr as opposed to the pUrNa avatAr or pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn Shri KRshNa?

Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

aMsha avatars are not the direct descent of Ishwara. Ishwara instead chooses a body and then enters into it, e.g. Parashurama.

If you notice, Rama and Krishna were not born through normal inter-course.

Sita was not born out of any human womb. Balrama was transferred from one womb to another.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

It is said that Mind is the cause of body i.e. Mind creates body. Here the mind of Ishwara is all powerful and purest.

Hence the cosmic mind, which is all powerful and purest of the pure, can create any body and can take any of the 16 kala-s.

e.g. Narayana was born as Krishna with full 16 kalA-s. Rama was born of 12 kalA-s and parashurama of 6-7 kala-s (please give correct figures).

In case of bound jiva, it cannot have all 16 kalA-s, hence it cannot possess all 16 kalA-s

Question:

For us jivas, we are infinitsimal, but Advaita blames that infinitesimalness on our ignorance and conditioning (vices, faults, 3 gunas ). So we have very little shakti at our disposal.
However, if all avatArs (fractional, of full) are pUrNa Bramhan, in tUryAvasthA, very pure, what makes one a part of NArAyaNa and another more NArAyaNa and another less NArAyaNa?

I hope you can device an explanation from the above explanation.

If we talk from standpoint of supreme reality i.e. ajAta vAda, then this world does not exist and so no question of the above questions.

But for practical reality, in which we all live, Jiva, mind, Ishwara etc all are different and hence have different attributes.

Miracles of saints like Raghvendra Swami, Sai Baba, Ranchoddas ji Maharaj, etc are unknown after their leaving of their physical body.

Brahman is like electricity. Bodies are like bulbs of different volts.

We have to take this e.g. to understand. Upadesha-s are given from adhikAra bheda.

When time comes to rise above them, then the method of adhyAropa apavAda is used for negation of what is it said.

--------

Some notes:


We, as advaitins, do not think in this line, the way you are thinking. It does not matter if body stays or drops after Jnana. The purpose of Body is fulfilled. Body is tool.

Even the question like existence of Jiva after Realization, does not count as Jnani is pure consciousness. Advaitins do not think that Jiva remains are Self Realization.

Rather say, Jiva-BhAva does not remain. Jiva is just a bhAva and not reality according to Advaita. Hence all thoughts, emotions, etc which we see in Self Realized are nothing but expressions of God himself, else if there is any wish say so as to witness and take part in Lila, then one is not free from duality, hence Advaitins do not wish it.


Advaita 'Teaches' that Jiva is Shiva :) ... and asks one to rise above Jiva BhAva.

From Jiva bhAva, one should not interpret Advaita. This is my personal opinion, as the a priori like Jiva is different, Ishwara is different and Jiva is eternal and remains jiva after Self Realization and stays in Vaikuhtha, is not the way of Advaita. To a mature sAdhaka, there is no process of transformation of Jiva back to Becoming Shiva. Jnana is not given, A-jnana is removed.

A Priori of separateness has to be dropped to understand subtle Advaita Concepts, as definitions of Brahman, as given in shruti-s cannot be violated.

I admit that initially even Advaitin thinks and even experiences transformation. It is natural. Afterall, we do experience this world, as real :) . So in the beginning, subtle concepts are not given. One is told to do doSha darshan and generate dispassion accompanied by discrimination. Then illusion part is focussed. Later mAyA is not talked, but only Brahman is talked.

The e.g.s are all dev-rishis and not manava-s. They have certain work to do and hence they experience both in full measure. From advaita POV< all these wishes are put in by bhagavan himself. They are like Krishna's flute - Hollow and empty.

For a laymen, experiencing both lila and being Jnani is rare, though Jnani after completing meditation sees that everything else is brahman. But thats not pure type of bhakti which is a goal of revered tradition of Vaishnava-s.

In Advaita, we are taught as Nivikalp Samadhi as the last stage. If we think. What will happen after last stage, then the stage (Nirvikalp Samadhi) is not 'Last Stage' :)

Hope this helps.

Aum

Amrut

jthomasnaz
26 July 2013, 07:22 PM
Namaste.

I agree with you, but it is so difficult to speak of it.

Consciousness is all-pervasive. We all manage to capture a tiny part of it and call it our 'Soul' or 'Atman'.

This is where the duality comes in...when we say 'what's inside is my Soul and what's 'out there' all belongs to Shiva'.

It's like the awareness stops at the very edge of our body and mind, shoving this huge wedge between Jivatman and Paratman.

Yes, we can see Shiva, but we cannot be Shiva.

When I pray to Ardharnareshwar, this all comes into play. The Tantric unity between Shiva and Shakti creating the Divine Balance within and without...but it's still going to be Shiva/Shakti no matter from which Advaitist standpoint you come from...until, you realise that Duality is Non-Duality.

That's the beauty of it all.

Then, I am drawn back to the motto on the Indonesian Flag and the European Union: "Unity In Diversity".

There are two paths you can take - that of total nihilism or that of total acceptance...both lead to the same place.

When we remove that 'wedge' and lose our body, our thinking mind and believing there's an 'inside' and an 'outside' is when the two will become one.

Aum Namah Shivaya



When we see Shiva through atma we no longer distinguish between them.

smaranam
26 July 2013, 09:25 PM
PraNAm Amrutji

Thank you for your help. I understand the part about jiva-bhava, that must be destroyed (if the desire is sayujja), so that Parameshwar can shine through. (A quick point aside from this: Radha does not have jiva-bhav, Lakshmi, PArvati do not have jiva bhav as long as She says I am Radha. Radha can be formless, all-pervading and with form).

I do not have a lot of time to address everything right now, and I shall be back to continue, however, what is this?

OP's posts marked with Purple

1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego

Jiva and Atman are different. Atman is not inside body.

Hello? AtmA is not inside body? Then how can He be all-pervading?

BG 10.20
aham AtmA gudAkesha
sarva bhUtAshayasthita
aham adischa madhyam cha
bhUtAnAm anta eva cha
I am the AtmA, O GuDAkesha, pervading all creatures (bhUta). I am their beginning, middle, and also the end.


More later.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

smaranam
27 July 2013, 12:26 AM
(...Continued from previous post/page 1. )

So some conclusions and clarifications.

'vidyA-mAyA'[/COLOR] and not vidhA-mAyA ]

1. By pure functional ahaMkAr I meant the functional potency. What you call ego is really false-ego which includes vikAr. When Ishwar knows He is Ishwar, it may be called purest of the pure functional/existential ahaMkAr.
aham AtmA gudAkesha... says aham. Aham BramhAsmi also has aham in it.

2. Your explanation verifies the premise that Bramhan-Realization can potentially be a step towards BhagvAn-realization OR It can be the end-destination for those who so desire (sAyujja).

3. To explain this further, what the various siddhAnta call jIva, need not be called jIva as in an embodied/transmigrating being. Losing jIva-bhAva in Shankara-vedanta language is [B]anartha-nivRtti where jnAna begins, or losing the false-ego that is the root cause of ignorance (avidyA), vikAr, vices, entanglement in the tri-guNa.

4. We all agree as sanAtani that anartha nivRtti is the first, the foundation and this is jnAna. (This means ALL, including the VaishNav bhakta (at least the Gaudiya Vaishnav) may give up this jiva-bhAva to be in the state of either Goloka VRndAvan or Bramha-jyoti. There is no jIva-bhAv in Goloka VRndAvan either, but there are multiple entities for the purpose of Leela.)

5. The road forks from there on. The sAyujja mumukshu gives up the existential ego, gives up all and any sankalpa (resolution - tendency for motive, motivation) and is deeply immersed in samAdhi - no thought. The bhakta retains pure existential ego and really has no individual sankalpa, but maintains the localized desire to serve Bhagvan and what follows is involuntary, although they see themselves as a participating entity. It is a samAdhi in its own way.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=103353&postcount=8

6. When HLK says sAlokya sAmIpya saRshti sArUpya mukti in VaikuNTha is being in mAyA, he is not realizing that the entities there have lost all individual sankalpa-tendencies, individual desire, and of course false-ego.
So if at all it is mAyA, it is based on vidyA and not avidyA, and technically it is LeelA. Otherwise he will have to accuse Bhagvan of the same.
Despite HanumAn's jnAna He is in dAsya-bhAva with RAm-SitA, acts as IshTa-Dev to zillion bhakta, and goes wherever there is Ram-kathA or yajna. However HanumAn is truly all-pervading.

7. The Bramhan-sAyujja mumukshu says "Jiva-bhAva has to be destroyed"
The bhakta who does not desire sAyujja says "Bramhan-bhAva has to be cultivated"
It is anartha-nivRtti approached differently. To them BrAmhi-sthiti is a bhAv (eshA brAmhi sthiti pArtha - KRshNa in BG chapter 2) just as "KRshNa is my friend" is a pure bhAv when real (not just a short-cut statement).

What stands out, is that
a. the VaishNav cannot really bypass Bramhan-realization although it appears that they are interacting with Bhagvan directly.
b. JnAna dawns at the fork.
c. Ontologically or existentially speaking the one in that (whichever) bhAv, does not [necessarily] turn out to be all-pervading, but dovetails with the all-pervading VAsudeva.

Thanks for your explanation.

_/\_

Amrut
27 July 2013, 03:33 AM
Pranam Smaranam ji,




Hello? AtmA is not inside body? Then how can He be all-pervading?



I apologize. I forgot to add the word ‘Just’

AtmA is not ‘just’ inside body?

Atman is both inside and outside, basically has same qualities as that of Brahman.

I understand that it is difficult to read such a long post. Even I would not bother to read such a long response if it does not directly concerns to me. I myself wonder how I type so much, that too without thinking or planning anything !!!

Since this has been very civil conversation and a genuine one, this time, I will summarize what I have typed down that runs upto 3 pages :)

We will have to take into account the definition and description of Brahman, as per Adi Shankara’s Advaita

Brahman is NirguNa, eternal, unchanging, undivided, indescribable, without beginning or end and real. It is the only reality.

Maya is defined as one which is not satya and not asatya. Since maya is not satya, it cannot create anything that is satya i.e. real.

Everything is created with the help of maya and nothing can be created without the help of maya, be it vaikuntha. Hence staying in Vaikuntha eternally is not final state according to advaita.

Anything that is experienced comes within the realm of maya. Maya has 3 guna-s. Hence be it pure, impure, gross, sutble, any kind of creation is created from these guna-s. Guna-s are dosha-s that need to be removed or one has to transcend them.

Since maya is not real, hence anything and everything created by maya or through maya cannot be real. Unreal cannot create real.

Now lets see the theories of creation and some a priori that you or vaishnava-s have with definition and description of Brahman

Jiva, jagat, Ishvara, it’s guna-s i..e qualities (upAdhi-s) are described. Hence they cannot be truth, as Brahman, which is only truth, is indescribable.

If Ishwara really creates something, then there is transformation like milk changing to curd. Hence it violates shruti that Brahman is unchanging.

If Ishwara is above Brahman, than again it violates shruti, as it also says that Brahman is supreme. Ishwara is Brahman + mAyA, but it is a controller of maya.

If Brahman divides itself into countless jiva, it violates shruti which says Brahman is indivisible. Hence this division cannot be real. Hence it is said that even jiva though it is said to be a particular size, it has to be experienced as infinite.

If jiva, jagat and maya are eternal and real, then it again violates shruti. As truth is only one.

Anything can be described is described on the basis of relative reality and not absolute reality. Maya is defined with relation to Ishwara or Brahman or jagat. It cannot have independent existence, hence cannot be defined independently. Hence with relation to practical reality it is truth, as we al lexperience it, but from absolute reality, it is not real either.

Why this approach is needed?

If we keep thinking of karma, karma and karma and if we keep thinking about retaining our individual identity as jiva, then how can we attain nirvikalp Samadhi, which is the final destination according to advaita?

Hence at times, the attributes are negated by saying that Brahman is not being and non-being, etc.

Now, the lengthy part in which I have attempted to explain some basic terms.

mAyA

As explained earlier, unreal mAyA cannot create anything that is real.

Anything created by mAyA has 3 guNa-s.

There is no separate creation of ‘Real’ mAyA and be it vidya or avidya or vidha or avidhA mAyA, whatever, but nothing can be permanent and real, according to Advaita.

mAyA is called beginning-less, hence it can be said than creation is also beginning-less. But if it stays eternal, then it becomes real. In Jnana sthiti, there is no mAyA, not jiva or jagat.

Advaita

Advaita is called advaita because except NirguNa Brahman, nothing is eternal, unchanging, undivided, indescribable, without beginning or end and real. If jiva, mAyA and jagat are eternal then it violates shruti. Hence in Brahma sutra Bhasya (if I remember correctly), Adi Shankara says that those who wish to associate with any form of God, are born or ascend to Brahma loka, where they are directly initiated by Sri Brahmadev and get keval Jnana.

Ego, Mind and Jiva.

Without ego, there is no mind, without mind, there is no ego says Sri Ramana Maharshi. To experience anything mind is needed. Be it Vaikuntha.

Description of jiva is given. Who is the one who sees jiva (with or without ego)? If you meditate, you will realize that you can detach yourself from thoughts, images and body / bodies. Mind is nothing but continuous flow of thoughts says Sri Ramana Maharshi and Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh defines mind as the one which does sankalp and vikalp.

The one who is defining or seeing mind, ego, body, jiva HAS TO BE DIFFERENT from it.

Brahman is indescribable

Only Brahman is said to be indescribable. Hence the only method to know is to remove ignorance. Hence mukti is called as prAptasya prApti meaning to achieve which is already achieved.

As said earlier, first one is taught to be separate from objects by being witness. To explain that ‘I’ is not objects, false attributes are added that describe Jiva, Atman, Brahman and Bhagavan. This is done so because, mind needs something to hang on to. If I am not this, not this, then the natural question arises. ‘Who Am I?’. Hence it is said, Atman is like space, all pervading. So now mind has something to hold onto, something to get itself associate with.

If this is not done, then how can you separate yourself from Objects, mind, body and intellect?. One has to look somewhere else. I think, this is the only reason for describing Jiva, Jagat, Atman and Brahman. Ishwara stuti helps on to purify mind and increase sattva. Sattvik person has capacity to let go and renounce.

Later on, these false attributes are negated by saying that Brahman is either being or not being. What is left is pure consciousness.

This is called as adhyAropa apavAda: FAlse attribution followed by retraction.

To sum up, First separate ‘I’ from associating itself with anAtmA (not Self) by being a witness. Later on rise beyond duality by dissolving triad of observer, object of observation and process of observation. No witness is left as there is nothing to see or experience.

So anything that is describable is not truth, as ‘truth is one’ according to Advaita. So if you find description of any loka, then it cannot be truth. Even glorifying God with attributes, according to advaita is superimposition on Brahman, which is technically NirguNa. Hence 6 qualities are called as upAdhi-s

Brahman and mAyA are inseparable. Brahman when works through mAyA is called Ishwara.

Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati in his work 'Method of Vedanta' quotes from moksha dharma that, ' Bhagavan showed virATa svarUpa to nArada, but said this is not my true nature.' I will give exact quote later.

Pure or impure, bhava is bhava, ahamkAra is ahamkAra, whether sthuLa or sukshma. Without ego, individuality cannot be retained, hence there is no duality.

Bhagavan is Ishwara when acting. SaguNa is separated from NirguNa else if it would have been said that nirguNa creates jiva and jagat, then it violates shruti.

Advaita only talks about Keval mukti i.e. about nirvikalp samadhi and not about vaikuntha or any other type of mukti nor did I find the word 'Leela' in Upanishad. However, my memory is not sharp so may be I have missed it.

As earlier said, that a priori (pre-assumption) that Jiva and Jagat are real and eternal has to be dropped. Hence being with Ishwara with false ego / ripe ego, etc has to be dropped.

Ego = individuality.
Desire is desire, whether it is being with Ishwara or vaikuntha or want moksha. Hence lastly these desire – ‘I want moksha’ also has to be dropped.

But with the help of this desire – ‘I want Moksha’, sAdhaka has uprootedall other desires and vAsanA-s.

guNa-s are dosha. Even sattva Guna is a dosha as sattva preserves.

This is advaita. Hence though Adviata indirectly supports sAkAra upasanA, it does not consider it as final destination.

Advaita covers all paths and approaches, but does not consider it as final destination.

If advaita accepted vaikuntha as final destination, then Adi Shankara must have mentioned it in his prakaraNa granth-s. This does not agree with final destination of revered philosophy of Vaishnav panth

Aum

Amrut

Anima Deorum
28 July 2013, 01:03 AM
The attachment of body and the feeling that 'I' am body is the one that produces bondage. Such a bound soul is called Jiva-atman or simply Jiva.

Jiva is defined by Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh and other prakaraNa granths as the one who associates itself with karma and fruits of karma, experiences pleasure and pain by associating with mind, body, intellect and ego. Jiva travels from one body to another and is trapped in the cycle of birth and death.

Atman is Sat-Chit-Ananda same as Brahman.

If you look at Sv Up. verse 5.8 just the verse before you quoted i.. 5.9, irt says

Of the size of a thumb, but effulgent like the Sun, the Jiva possesses both volition and individuality. It is endowed with the qualities of the mind and heart (Atman). Therefore it is seen as another entity, small as the point of a goad. 5.8

The individual soul (Jiva) is extremely subtle like the point of a hair divided and subdivided many times. Yet it has the potential for infinity. He is to be realised (as none other than the paramatman). 5.9

Same is said in Shiva Gita 10.26 (as in Sv. Up. 5.9)

Later in 10.37 and 10.38 it says that without Knowledge or before merging with Brahman, Jiva is not destroyed.

After merging with Brahman, jiva is destroyed.

Namaste,

Thank you for the clear and illuminating explanation of jivatman and paramatman, which I have been seeking. So Jiva describes the extraverted binding of the soul through false identification. Atman describes how the immanent effulgence of the soul can unbind it. Is this right?

That I can understand, but not paramatman or Brahma, or, ultimately, principles of union and division. This is because there are no such ultimate principles. Perhaps the real knowledge is simple. There is a way. Walk upon it.

Pranam.

smaranam
28 July 2013, 01:49 AM
Thanks AmrutJi. If you wrote that nice post for advaita students in general, I think that was just great to have on this thread.

Please note that I am aware of the advaita stand regarding Ishwar and entites. I am not contesting the final destination of Advaita, although the OP asked what being Bramhan implies to a varied group of jnana-yogis and raja-yogis. There were reasons why that was asked, and I think the answer is here or perhaps always was, but it is always good to know how different yogis look at it.

If you look at my last post closely, it was an observational post only, and again nothing absolutely new. It says there is a FORK in the path. The post says that ALL sAdhaks have to give up jIva-bhAv eventually in terms of the infinitesimalness at least, whether functional ahaMkAr is retained or not (but of course no short-cuts, sahaj-tendencies, watering things down, or hollow grandiosity - this is applicable to all across the board).
e.g. The Gopa-Gopis think KRshNa is their sakhA, child, little brother etc. They don't think He is infinite and I am infinitesimal - becs they are Bramhan in the background, not a jIva.

Advaita wants to call this VidyA-mAyA or Ishwari MAyA or YogamAyA. It hardly matters to the VaishNav as long as the tattva-jnAna is there - active or passive. Hanuman will agree. (In fact some VaishNav give up this jnana after attaining it, for the sake of pure bhakti - I know you know this already).

You may have figured by now that I am not on any one side :)

Regarding the tone being "civil", yes, it is good that the thread remains that way. Just some irrelevant FYI: On that Vivekananda thread, my second post was a reply to JefferyJi as clarification, and not to bring up a sensitive issue again :)

Thank you, for all the jnAna.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya
om namo nArAyaNAya
jai jai Shri Shri VyenkaTesha VAsudeva Govinda GopAl Radha-VRndAvanaChandra Radha-KunjabihAri KauMsAri MurAri YashodAnandanA S S ~
jai jai Shri VRndAvana dhAm
jai jai Shri Shri RukmiNi DwArakAnAyakA
jai jai Shri DwArakA dhAm
jai jai Shri PanDharpURa
Jai BadrinArAyaNa BadrivishAl
Jai Jai Shri BadrinAth dhAm
Jai Jai BholenAth Shambho Gaurihara PArvati-pataye
Jai Jai Shri KedArnAth dhAm
Jai Jai JagannAtha sacchidAnandA
Jai Jai JagannAtha-Puri dhAm...

JagannAtha SwAmi, nayana patha gAmi bhuvatu me ~

_/\_

Amrut
28 July 2013, 04:12 AM
Thanks AmrutJi. If you wrote that nice post for advaita students in general, I think that was just great to have on this thread.

Please note that I am aware of the advaita stand regarding Ishwar and entites. I am not contesting the final destination of Advaita, although the OP asked what being Bramhan implies to a varied group of jnana-yogis and raja-yogis. There were reasons why that was asked, and I think the answer is here or perhaps always was, but it is always good to know how different yogis look at it.

If you look at my last post closely, it was an observational post only, and again nothing absolutely new. It says there is a FORK in the path. The post says that ALL sAdhaks have to give up jIva-bhAv eventually in terms of the infinitesimalness at least, whether functional ahaMkAr is retained or not (but of course no short-cuts, sahaj-tendencies, watering things down, or hollow grandiosity - this is applicable to all across the board).
e.g. The Gopa-Gopis think KRshNa is their sakhA, child, little brother etc. They don't think He is infinite and I am infinitesimal - becs they are Bramhan in the background, not a jIva.

Advaita wants to call this VidyA-mAyA or Ishwari MAyA or YogamAyA. It hardly matters to the VaishNav as long as the tattva-jnAna is there - active or passive. Hanuman will agree. (In fact some VaishNav give up this jnana after attaining it, for the sake of pure bhakti - I know you know this already).

You may have figured by now that I am not on any one side :)

Regarding the tone being "civil", yes, it is good that the thread remains that way. Just some irrelevant FYI: On that Vivekananda thread, my second post was a reply to JefferyJi as clarification, and not to bring up a sensitive issue again :)

Thank you, for all the jnAna.



My pleasure Smaranam ji

I will re-read the post. Right now I am not feeling well. Though I can meditate, I cannot sit for PC for a long time.

Your posts are always civil and unbiased. There was nothing wrong on Vivekananda post, and it is a natural reaction of a bhakta. Wrong and un-necessary are different. Honestly I even forgot the Vivekananda Thread. I do not remember what I have said yesterday. Next day, after meditation everything is wiped off. That was not in my mind when I remarked 'civil'. Even that post was civil :) Be assured it's all empty here :) Frankly if someone asks about that general post I would not be able to recollect it. I have to force to think and I do not like that. I remain blank most of the time.

I remember those days when the name of Rama and Hanuman would vibrate my heart and fill me with ecstasy, with eyes getting wet. The effect of this name was so much that I could not even sleep or think of anything, as if my will, my thoughts have no power. Japa would continue for 12.00 am, or sometimes upto 2.00 am at night. The image of Hanuman ji sitting in samadhi would keep floating in front of me and I could not get rid of it even if I wanted to. I could not think or sleep.

I didn't cared about any of the advaita Jnana at that time and this bhava was nourished by reading Sri Ramakrishna.

Do not worry about your quality of posts. They are always good.

I know you are unbiased and you are just trying to evaluate and observe.

All is fine here.

Since this is a very good thread, I stepped ahead to go and right some basic concept of advaita, of course without any hidden objectives.

Your questions are natural.

Just a quick note that as one progress on spiritual path, bhakta and Advaitin develop same qualities like 4 sadhana-s and 6 qualities, vivek, vairagya

1. Vivek because only god is given importance, when selecting world or God, it's always God

2. Vairagya is absence of bhogya padartha (worldly desire) in mind. As mind is attracted towards God, worldly thoughts and desires fade away.

3 Shatsampatti:
3.1 Sham: mind control comes when one learns to choose bhagavan over world
3.2 Dam: Senses are directed towards God and hence they do not dwell in worldly objects
3.3 Uparati: It is a natural state after Sham and Dama. When both are there, Uparati comes naturally. Mind is saturated and wants to go away from worldly objects in search of bhagavan, there is vivek vairagya, sham and dam, which induces uparati
3.4 Matured sadhaka do not care about this world. Meera and Gopis did not think of their society and husband, but thought only of God. The force of attraction of bhagavan is so much that they are unconcerned with worldly activities and comments of society and hence remain neutral or indeferent to them
3.5 Shraddha: needless to explain
3.6 Samadhan: staying focused on bhagavan, one-pointedness comes in natural.

4. Mumukshtva: a devotee wants moksha or to stay with Bhagavan forever.

All these qualities naturally develop without being specially focused on. This is the edge bhakti has.

Regarding Jnani-s, after mind is completely empty, it can grasp subtle things.

Sri Ramakrishna sais that mahabhava is experienced only by avatars or dev-ansha.

Upon being asked if can a person experience both Jnana and bhakti. Sri Ramakrishna replied, generally it is not possible, but if God wishes he can make him experience.

Jivan mukta-s can be considered as perfect disciples or uttam bhakta as they follow command of bhagavan without any resistance, as there is total surrender, complete surrender. But the bhava is dasa bhava. I guess it's not prem bhava or sakhya or vatsayla bhava.

I think that is why Hanuman ji is chiranjevi, as he represents bhakti with dasa bhava.

Bhakti has it's own advantage that Advaita does not have. A genuine bhakta is also a uttam adhikari, as observed in case of Ramakrishna. All thoughts except 'I want to be with God' are uprooted by nama japa. In case of Advaitin the desire of 'moksha' remains.

For some years I was with Yog, though practicing in non-traditional way, had some kundalini experiences. So I could answer about power to perform miracles on that basis.

More later.

Aum

Amrut

smaranam
29 July 2013, 04:41 AM
I think I realize what happened here. In the OP I was using the word AtmA as the all-pervading AtmA, (aham AtmA guDAkesha). I did not state the obvious that AtmA is ONE, all-pervading, hence Bramhan. I was not bringing the jivatma-parmatma pair here at all, this is the Advaita forum, remember?

Due to not stating this - in blue above, as the 5th premise,
1. jthomasz wrote what he wrote, and mainly,
2. it gave rise to IS-Amrutji's Advaita lessons :) also because he assumed I am speaking from the VaishNav plane - although I honestly wasn't speaking from any "plane", I was speaking ontologically. Of course it is not his fault after reading my earlier posts - mainly VaishNav in content.

This is why it seems the advaitic defN of jIva was brought in and spoken about for so long (not by me :) ).

It is not a bad idea to have advaita lessons on the thread - it is good for readers not familiar with it, but
I hope the intent of this thread is clearer with this post so as to not confuse other readers - which I also tried to pinpoint in the last post:

"the OP asked what being Bramhan implies to a varied group of jnana-yogis and raja-yogis."

Moral of the story: State the obvious.

Hare KRshNa

Amrut
29 July 2013, 05:09 AM
Namaste,

I did think that you were saying from Vaishnav POV, which was either misinterpretation or a priori :(

I will re-read all posts. Please allow me to recover from my sickness. It may take a few days.

Feels good when someone points my mistakes.

Aum

Amrut

smaranam
29 July 2013, 10:08 AM
Like I said earlier, I should have been more explicit in the OP - for the premises.
Get well soon, but take plenty of rest, and don't come to HDF in the meanwhile :)

--------------

This (following) is ALL I was looking for :

(A few comments on these good points. , but Amrutji is not allowed to reply till he gets better. Others may want to comment, though.)


Regarding Siddhis, it is said that all Jnani-s are purNa or full of shakti. Some exhibit some not, all according to divine plan. I do not know if they have all asTasiddhi.

Notice the slight contradiction. Jnani is pUrNa, full of shakti, but may not have ashTa-siddhi? Also, it implies removal of ignorance brings Brahman back to being Brahman, hence 100% purity makes shakti walk up to Him, but it is not so simple or black-and-white - as seen next.


But Jnani's can cast off their bodies and take avatar like Ishwara and can perform great miraculous deeds, as in case of Sai Baba. Some say he was an avatar of a siddha, some say an avatar of Dattatraya.

THIS, is really the focal point - That when adnyAna (ignorance) is removed, Brahman is Brahman, yet "He" can "take" avatAr. So, it is this prior jnAni who is the token ID for "taking" avatAr - indicates free will, plus, so much for losing individuality. If we can pinpoint the previous births of "this" avatAr
****************it implies individuality was not lost, but the entity has lost individual consciousness, or jIva-bhAva***********. aha!

All this while, NArAyaNa remains NArAyaNa and Brahman remains Brahman.
pUrNam idam pUrNam adam ...... (IshavAsya 1)

However, note this : "avatAr of a siddha" or "avatAr of DattAtreya" shows evolution! Previous birth = a siddha. Next = avatAr (with a fraction of NArAyaNa's 16 kalAs) because the number of kalAs depends on the siddhi of that siddha.
Same with avatAr of an avatAr of VishNu. If there is no scriptural support but mere observation of devotees, then it tells that the characteristics of that avatAr are shining in this living entity irrespective of the shakti aspect.


NArAyaNa can descent on earthly plane with purest of all 5 bodies, while a Jnani is born as a ajnani and so Jnani's body cannot sustain strong pure energy that is necessary to perform miracles.

fair enough. Makes all sense.


So by Yogic Process, anything can be achieved. Mind is capable of doing anything. Adept Yogis are masters of their body and mind and hence masters of 5 tatva-s.

However we distinguish between them and the Original NArAyaNa - Adi Purush - Govinda.


aMsha avatars are not the direct descent of Ishwara. Ishwara instead chooses a body and then enters into it, e.g. Parashurama.

It is said that Mind is the cause of body i.e. Mind creates body. Here the mind of Ishwara is all powerful and purest.

Hence the cosmic mind, which is all powerful and purest of the pure, can create any body and can take any of the 16 kala-s.

e.g. Narayana was born as Krishna with full 16 kalA-s. Rama was born of 12 kalA-s and parashurama of 6-7 kala-s (please give correct figures).

Thanks. This was the treasure.


In case of bound jiva, it cannot have all 16 kalA-s, hence it cannot possess all 16 kalA-s

Of course it can't - even 1 kalA would be a wonder. Let us not think of baddha jivas in terms of kalAs.


Miracles of saints like Raghvendra Swami, Sai Baba, Ranchoddas ji Maharaj, etc are unknown after their leaving of their physical body.
Says who? Unless you mean that there are none like these today,
Sai Baba of Shirdi does His miracles till date. He gave me darshan in in 1999, and zillions have experienced miracles and they continue to - you may read any current Sai magazines.
RamaN Maharshi has healed patients after leaving body. Shrila PrabhupAd has visited people who chant the Mahamantra nicely
I saw him when I was reading his KRshna-The Supreme Personality of Godhead, and had conversations at other times.


Brahman is like electricity. Bodies are like bulbs of different volts.

Sure. Thanks!


CONCLUSION: Bramhan is realized now, but it has trail-threads to trace back to prior births of jnanis and yogis. This means we can distinguish between Adi NArAyaNa / Adi Purush Govinda or nitya-NArAyaNa and a jnAni who went from baddha to siddha. For that matter, the Lord Himself tells us about His previous avatars (such as Nar-NArAyaN Rshi).

BG 4.5 (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/4/5/en): The Personality of Godhead said: Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember all of them, but you cannot, O subduer of the enemy!
BG 2.12 (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/2/12/en): Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

Bramha-saMhitA 5.46
dīpārcir eva (http://brahmasamhita.com/e/eva) hi (http://brahmasamhita.com/h/hi) daśāntaram abhyupetya (http://brahmasamhita.com/a/abhyupetya)
dīpāyate (http://brahmasamhita.com/d/dipayate) vivṛta (http://brahmasamhita.com/v/vivrta)-hetu (http://brahmasamhita.com/h/hetu)-samāna (http://brahmasamhita.com/s/samana)-dharmā (http://brahmasamhita.com/d/dharma)
yas tādṛg eva (http://brahmasamhita.com/e/eva) hi (http://brahmasamhita.com/h/hi) ca (http://brahmasamhita.com/c/ca) viṣṇutayā (http://brahmasamhita.com/v/visnutaya) vibhāti (http://brahmasamhita.com/v/vibhati)
govindam (http://brahmasamhita.com/g/govindam) ādi (http://brahmasamhita.com/a/adi)-puruṣaḿ (http://brahmasamhita.com/p/purusam) tam (http://brahmasamhita.com/t/tam) ahaḿ (http://brahmasamhita.com/a/aham) bhajāmi (http://brahmasamhita.com/b/bhajami)
The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda (http://brahmasamhita.com/g/govinda) who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

vAsanAt vAsudevasya vAsitam bhuvana-trayam
sarva-bhUta-nivAsosi vAsudeva namostute - post VishNu SahasranAma

jthomasnaz
29 July 2013, 05:42 PM
Namaste Smaranamji,



I will reply in detail later. Just a few quick points.

According to Tatva Bodh, Jiva and Atman are different

Jiva in plain words is the indwelling spirit

the attachment of body and the feeling that 'I' am body is the one that produces bondage. Such a bound soul is called Jiva-atman or simply Jiva.

Jiva is defined by Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh and other prakaraNa granths as the one who associates itself with karma and fruits of karma, experiences pleasure and pain by associating with mind, body, intellect and ego. Jiva travels from one body to another and is trapped in the cycle of birth and death.

Atman is Sat-Chit-Ananda same as Brahman.

If you look at Sv Up. verse 5.8 just the verse before you quoted i.. 5.9, irt says

Of the size of a thumb, but effulgent like the Sun, the Jiva possesses both volition and individuality. It is endowed with the qualities of the mind and heart (Atman). Therefore it is seen as another entity, small as the point of a goad. 5.8

The individual soul (Jiva) is extremely subtle like the point of a hair divided and subdivided many times. Yet it has the potential for infinity. He is to be realised (as none other than the paramatman). 5.9

Same is said in Shiva Gita 10.26 (as in Sv. Up. 5.9)

Later in 10.37 and 10.38 it says that without Knowledge or before merging with Brahman, Jiva is not destroyed.

After merging with Brahman, jiva is destroyed.

Now the question is Jiva or Jiva-bhAva? It has to be found out

According to Advaita, Brahman never really divides itself, as it voids it's definition
It cannot transform into anything. Brahman is unchanging.

So it is Brahman under to illusion of mAyA (the illusionary creative power) called Ishwara appears to create this universe. This is the theory of Advaita, as I have understood.

So jiva-bhava is false superimposition upon Brahman under the false notion of Ego. 'I' associates with panch-mahabhuta.

Ishwara has upAdhi-s. It takes AdhAra of vidha mAyA, but is mAyA's swami and so not bound by it.

Jiva has upAdhi-s of a-vidhA mAyA i.e. panch mahAbhuta

If you remove both upAdhi-s what remains is NirguNa Brahman.

In your 1st point, there is a a priori i.e pre-assumption that jiva is separate, which in reality is not. Hence no question of merging. Only wrong notion is realized.

Now regarding confusion of jiva, ishwara, Brahman.

there are 3 types of shruti-s -

bheda shruti-s: they describe jiva nad ishwara / Brahman as completely different
a-bheda shruti-s: They talk about oneness of Jiva nad Shia i.e Brahman
ghaTak shruti-s: They connect bheda nad abheda, like ishwara is antar yAmi.

Now regarding the quote by H-L-K

Please read it very slowly with cool mind.



The only consistency according to GauDapAda, Adi Shankara and later on re-discovered by Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati is adhyAropa apavAda

It is false Superimposition (adhyAropa) Followed by Retraction (apavAda)

As HLK has said, first attributes are attached and then contradicted later on in the same shruti.

e.g. Attribute of witness is added and then it is said that it cannot be reached through mind, eyes, speech, etc.

The concept of witness is introduced since the objective is to indicate that 'I' am not any object of observation. But later on, even the attribute of being a witness is removed, as to see something, there has to be another (an object that can be seen and oberver).

Hence Brahman cannot be a witness also. So the false attribute of being a witness is also negated by saying that Brahman is beyond 5 senses and mind.

It is not possible to describe Brahman, hence it cannot be taught positively. No attribute can be given to describe it. It shows that all attributes are also false and they also has to be negated. Hence the only method to explain Brahman is negative approach or false superimposition and retraction or negation of false super imposition.

In gita same thing is observed in 13.13 and 13.14 (note in some version version 1 in chapter 13 is not found, and was not commented by Adi shankara. Hence the number in followers of Ramanuja might by 13.14 and 13.15)

ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते।।13.13।।

13.13 I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being.

सर्वतः पाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्।
सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति।।13.14।।

13.14 That (Knowable), which has hands and feet everwhere, which has eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, which has ears everywhere, exists in creatures by pervading them all.


सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम्।
असक्तं सर्वभृच्चैव निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च।।13.15।।

13.15 Shining through the functions of all the organs, (yet) devoid of all the organs; unattached, and verily the supporter of all; without quality, and the perceiver of qualities;


did you notice - neither being nor non-being. Then attributes of omnipresence -- then retraction of these qualities as devoid of all organs, without quality.

Please refer to shankara bhasya from link in my signature 'Gita Super Site' in verse 13.14. Select both hindi commentary (Sri Harikrishandas Goenka ) and english commentary (Swami Gambhirananda)

another e.g. to make things easy.

न हि कश्चित्क्षणमपि जातु तिष्ठत्यकर्मकृत्।
कार्यते ह्यवशः कर्म सर्वः प्रकृतिजैर्गुणैः।।3.5।।

3.5 Because, no one ever remains even for a moment without doing work. For all are made to work under compulsion by the gunas born of Nature.

यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन।
ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा।।4.37।।

4.37 Just as burning fire turns fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge turn all Karma to ashes.

Is this not contradictory? So first something is said, then it is retracted or negated.

To a matured sadhaka, shastras say that all karmas are destroyed. All means prArabhdha, AgAmi and sanchit. So even prArabhdha is destroyed. Gita also says that one cannot be free from any karma and so one should practice nitya karmas.

Upadeshas are said from adhikAra bheda.

Now you got he point as why in Sv. Up. even though the size of jiva is given, it says, it has to be experienced as infinite.

I hope the theory of Advaita is understood.


Regarding bhakti, without bhakti, one cannot under Jnana. Bhakti is the foundation.

If you notice the reason or incident of spontaneous composition of Bhaja Govindam, you will understand why it was created and why it is necessary to surrender to Ishwara (God with form)

I will write about avatar and jnani later, but one word sums up, it is I am Brahman and not I am Ishwara.

To sum up


Jiva and Atman are different in Adviata
bhakti is important for mental purification (bhakti not from Vaishnava POV)
Bhakti means an attitude of non-difference with Brahman
False Superimposition followed by Retraction is traditional teaching according to Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati.


Aum

Amrut




Thank you for correcting me---instead of using the word soul or jiva I should have used the term universal soul -for atma.

smaranam
30 July 2013, 01:27 AM
Namaste

After skimming the cream from the milk, we have the above, and getting ghee from the cream, we end up with this:

aMsha avatars are not the direct descent of Ishwara. Ishwara instead chooses a body and then enters into it.

This need not be a general rule for all aMsha. However, what this means is, jiva-bhUta are evolving. What makes them living and sentient is the AtmA or Bramhan. Now, when Ishwar has a sankalpa - resolve at a point in time, He looks around for an appropriately evolved entity - "kAyA" - not the sthUla - gross body, but sUkshma - subtle, kAraN - causal, linga - marker/identifier sharIra - body.
Evolved enough for His sankalpa. What does this mean? The entity has to be Self-realized of course, so a jnAni dovetailed to the infinite Bramhan, but not necessarily a perfect yogi tending towards either YogIshwar or Yogeshwar. This explains realization + less than 16 kalA. This is how a prior evolved jnAni becomes a partial avatAr.

Narayana was born as Krishna with full 16 kalA-s. Rama was born of 12 kalA-s and parashurama of 6-7 kala-s.

Yes, but these are direct descent of NArAyaNa, all transcendental, including Matsya, KUrma, VarAha. The case above does not apply here.

The bhAgvat says in this regard:
SB1.3.28
ete (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/e/ete) cāḿśa-kalāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kalah) puḿsaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pumsah)
kṛṣṇas tu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tu)bhagavān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhagavan)svayam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/svayam)
indrāri-vyākulaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vyakulam) lokaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/l/lokam)
mṛḍayanti (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mrdayanti) yuge (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yuge) yuge (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yuge)
All of the above-mentioned incarnations (KumArs, Matsya KUrma VarAha VAman DattAtreya, ParshurAm, RAm... ) are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sri)Kṛṣṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/krsna) is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

It is said that Mind is the cause of body i.e. Mind creates body. Here the mind of Ishwara is all powerful and purest.
Hence the cosmic mind, which is all powerful and purest of the pure, can create any body and can take any of the 16 kala-s.

Certainly. However, regarding the Cosmic Mind of Ishwar.
Since Bramhan is ONE without a second, is this Bramhan-Mind also ONE without a second? i.e. Are there other Bramhan-minds (of Bramhan-jnAnis) as satelites of/ parts of / aMshas of this Cosmic Mind of Ishwar ?

MY understanding is, There are - for the sake of the devotees, but all of them are tightly interconnected as ONE Cosmic Mind. This is their sAyujja. It is either
A] the same avatAr re-appearing over time, as in case of DattAtreya (ShripAd Vallabh, NRsaMha Saraswati, Swami Samartha, Gajanan Maharaj, Sai Baba, ...), OR,
B] simultaneously present like a network-graph with the Cosmic Mind in the center and a path from each jnAni's Bramhan-mind to the Cosmic Bramhan Mind (of Ishwar).

Like this: siddhAtmA1 <-----> Parameshwar <--------> siddhAtmA2

This is also how unspoken (parA) communication happens between Guru and disciple. Disciple may not, but Guru knows. Like this: Guru <-----> Parameshwar as antaryAmi <----------> Shishya (disciple)
This is why, many disciples speak of their Self-realized spiritual master as their antaryAmi directly, and consider the Guru as BhagvAn/Ishwar.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

jthomasnaz
30 July 2013, 05:32 PM
Namaste Smaranamji,



I will reply in detail later. Just a few quick points.

According to Tatva Bodh, Jiva and Atman are different

Jiva in plain words is the indwelling spirit

the attachment of body and the feeling that 'I' am body is the one that produces bondage. Such a bound soul is called Jiva-atman or simply Jiva.

Jiva is defined by Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh and other prakaraNa granths as the one who associates itself with karma and fruits of karma, experiences pleasure and pain by associating with mind, body, intellect and ego. Jiva travels from one body to another and is trapped in the cycle of birth and death.

Atman is Sat-Chit-Ananda same as Brahman.

If you look at Sv Up. verse 5.8 just the verse before you quoted i.. 5.9, irt says

Of the size of a thumb, but effulgent like the Sun, the Jiva possesses both volition and individuality. It is endowed with the qualities of the mind and heart (Atman). Therefore it is seen as another entity, small as the point of a goad. 5.8

The individual soul (Jiva) is extremely subtle like the point of a hair divided and subdivided many times. Yet it has the potential for infinity. He is to be realised (as none other than the paramatman). 5.9

Same is said in Shiva Gita 10.26 (as in Sv. Up. 5.9)

Later in 10.37 and 10.38 it says that without Knowledge or before merging with Brahman, Jiva is not destroyed.

After merging with Brahman, jiva is destroyed.

Now the question is Jiva or Jiva-bhAva? It has to be found out

According to Advaita, Brahman never really divides itself, as it voids it's definition
It cannot transform into anything. Brahman is unchanging.

So it is Brahman under to illusion of mAyA (the illusionary creative power) called Ishwara appears to create this universe. This is the theory of Advaita, as I have understood.

So jiva-bhava is false superimposition upon Brahman under the false notion of Ego. 'I' associates with panch-mahabhuta.

Ishwara has upAdhi-s. It takes AdhAra of vidha mAyA, but is mAyA's swami and so not bound by it.

Jiva has upAdhi-s of a-vidhA mAyA i.e. panch mahAbhuta

If you remove both upAdhi-s what remains is NirguNa Brahman.

In your 1st point, there is a a priori i.e pre-assumption that jiva is separate, which in reality is not. Hence no question of merging. Only wrong notion is realized.

Now regarding confusion of jiva, ishwara, Brahman.

there are 3 types of shruti-s -

bheda shruti-s: they describe jiva nad ishwara / Brahman as completely different
a-bheda shruti-s: They talk about oneness of Jiva nad Shia i.e Brahman
ghaTak shruti-s: They connect bheda nad abheda, like ishwara is antar yAmi.

Now regarding the quote by H-L-K

Please read it very slowly with cool mind.



The only consistency according to GauDapAda, Adi Shankara and later on re-discovered by Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati is adhyAropa apavAda

It is false Superimposition (adhyAropa) Followed by Retraction (apavAda)

As HLK has said, first attributes are attached and then contradicted later on in the same shruti.

e.g. Attribute of witness is added and then it is said that it cannot be reached through mind, eyes, speech, etc.

The concept of witness is introduced since the objective is to indicate that 'I' am not any object of observation. But later on, even the attribute of being a witness is removed, as to see something, there has to be another (an object that can be seen and oberver).

Hence Brahman cannot be a witness also. So the false attribute of being a witness is also negated by saying that Brahman is beyond 5 senses and mind.

It is not possible to describe Brahman, hence it cannot be taught positively. No attribute can be given to describe it. It shows that all attributes are also false and they also has to be negated. Hence the only method to explain Brahman is negative approach or false superimposition and retraction or negation of false super imposition.

In gita same thing is observed in 13.13 and 13.14 (note in some version version 1 in chapter 13 is not found, and was not commented by Adi shankara. Hence the number in followers of Ramanuja might by 13.14 and 13.15)

ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते।।13.13।।

13.13 I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being.

सर्वतः पाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्।
सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति।।13.14।।

13.14 That (Knowable), which has hands and feet everwhere, which has eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, which has ears everywhere, exists in creatures by pervading them all.


सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम्।
असक्तं सर्वभृच्चैव निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च।।13.15।।

13.15 Shining through the functions of all the organs, (yet) devoid of all the organs; unattached, and verily the supporter of all; without quality, and the perceiver of qualities;


did you notice - neither being nor non-being. Then attributes of omnipresence -- then retraction of these qualities as devoid of all organs, without quality.

Please refer to shankara bhasya from link in my signature 'Gita Super Site' in verse 13.14. Select both hindi commentary (Sri Harikrishandas Goenka ) and english commentary (Swami Gambhirananda)

another e.g. to make things easy.

न हि कश्चित्क्षणमपि जातु तिष्ठत्यकर्मकृत्।
कार्यते ह्यवशः कर्म सर्वः प्रकृतिजैर्गुणैः।।3.5।।

3.5 Because, no one ever remains even for a moment without doing work. For all are made to work under compulsion by the gunas born of Nature.

यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन।
ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा।।4.37।।

4.37 Just as burning fire turns fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge turn all Karma to ashes.

Is this not contradictory? So first something is said, then it is retracted or negated.

To a matured sadhaka, shastras say that all karmas are destroyed. All means prArabhdha, AgAmi and sanchit. So even prArabhdha is destroyed. Gita also says that one cannot be free from any karma and so one should practice nitya karmas.

Upadeshas are said from adhikAra bheda.

Now you got he point as why in Sv. Up. even though the size of jiva is given, it says, it has to be experienced as infinite.

I hope the theory of Advaita is understood.


Regarding bhakti, without bhakti, one cannot under Jnana. Bhakti is the foundation.

If you notice the reason or incident of spontaneous composition of Bhaja Govindam, you will understand why it was created and why it is necessary to surrender to Ishwara (God with form)

I will write about avatar and jnani later, but one word sums up, it is I am Brahman and not I am Ishwara.

To sum up


Jiva and Atman are different in Adviata
bhakti is important for mental purification (bhakti not from Vaishnava POV)
Bhakti means an attitude of non-difference with Brahman
False Superimposition followed by Retraction is traditional teaching according to Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati.


Aum

Amrut



I see that you have a very clear understanding of the philosophy. And you dissect the philosophy like an expert. I appreciate all that you share which is an exhaustive research. However, when I meditate on God, I see Atman. I see Brahman meditating on himself through atma. I see the universe in atma. I hope that this does not contradict the philosophy.

dharma321
01 August 2013, 04:55 AM
What do you folks have to say about Jiddu Krishnamurti, he says, if you read books and live accordingly then you are a "second hand" human being. Because, you live according to what "others" have thought... One has to set everything aside (scriptures, books... etc) and think on his own, to see the 'truth'.

brahman
01 August 2013, 06:29 AM
I see the universe in atma. I hope that this does not contradict the philosophy.


Dear jthomasnaz,



'I' and Atman are not Two( अहम् आत्मा aham ātmā) ,



Likewise is the inseparability of the Universe and Atman; there lies an ineffable secret relation of mutual dependence between them. Love:)

Amrut
01 August 2013, 10:33 AM
I will try to talk in brief. I may not reply on quote-2-quote basis but will try to cover as many points as possible.

*Regarding Siddhis, it is said that all Jnani-s are purNa or full of shakti. Some exhibit some not, all according to divine plan. I do not know if they have all asTasiddhi.


**Notice the slight contradiction. Jnani is pUrNa, full of shakti, but may not have ashTa-siddhi? Also, it implies removal of ignorance brings Brahman back to being Brahman, hence 100% purity makes shakti walk up to Him, but it is not so simple or black-and-white - as seen next.


As I have said, from Advaita POV, avatarvAda is not given importance, as the final destination is turiya, in which no mAyA exists, just pure consciousness. Hence I took the help of Yoga and logic.

First, we should separate kosha-s from jiva.

So a jnani, is not born a jnani. The jiva-bhava is destroyed, mind is destroyed, all desires ar destroyed. Sri Ramana Maharshi also said that mind of Jnani is Brahman itself.

In evolutionary process in kosha-s may or may not develop. But the 'I' is detached from kosha-s and merges in Brahman loosing it's individual identity.

Hence I said that they may or may not exhibit 8 siddhi-s.

But the catch is, all siddhis are connected with mind. Hence technically they have full energy at their disposal. Again, the word Bhagavan indicates 'all powerful, capable of doing anything'.

But in turiya state, there is no second. After 21 days, for most people body drops says Sri Ramakrishna. If there is any wish, then one has cannot go beyond mind, as Bhagavan in Gita says that all vAsanA-s are inside mind. Hence the logic of free will from Advaita POV after Self Realization is not supported. For us, sAdhaka-s, it is a dead end, we reach a point of no return. Jnani like snake casts off his skin (5 kosha-s)

But if God wishes, then Jnani-s consciousness can again be brought down. Now we enter dual plane. God gives false ego / functional ego / pseudo ego to retain individuality. This is very rare. There is a concept of Jivamukta, but Sri Ramakrishna says they are very rare and most people do not return back.

To explain the unequal distribution of power in Jnani-s and various avatAra-s, the concept of qualitatively same and qualtitatively different has to be adopted.

As I have said, kosha-s and their evolution might be different. Kosha-s are always dead. The only thing that makes them to function is Jiva, the consciousness, which is technically Brahman.

The difference between dead body and living body is the soul, Jiva or Brahman. Eyes are instruments, even dead body has instruments but not vision.

For a sAdhaka, it is an ascend, while for Avatar of Ishwara, it is a descend.

If Bhagavan brings a Jnani back to duality, then he must retain duality, at the same time be aware of his true nature.Hence qualitatively same, qualitatively different Here comes the differences of power distribution. It depends upon the capacity a body can handle. On other note, Bhagavan will make the body capable of doing work which Bhagavan wants to do for the good of all. Jnani-s return for good of all. If you have noticed, even though a Jnani may speak of non-duality, he is doing as per command of Bhagavan. This is duality. It has to be, as in pure non-dual state, there is no mAyA, no world, no second to help.

I guess this helps us to understand difference of power distribution, capacity and potential of Jnani-s and avatAra-s. Again, free will is given, as observed. In turiya state, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna and Paramhansa Hariharananda all experienced the breathless, pulseless non-dual state. So in this state, that we know as nirvikalp samAdhi, no question of any 'vikalp' (change).

To advaita sAdhaka-s this non-dual state is the central focus and not to have free will after Self Realization nor to transform this world and serve Bhagavan. This approach is necessary to enter into non-dual state. Being absolutely neutral, unconcerned and anything & everything, without any will or desire, one actually becomes a perfect 'instrument' of Bhagavan to do any work. A jivan mukta is a true bhakta, a true karma yogi, as there is no desire, no want. So there is no resistence, it's total surrender absolute surrender. Advaitin never thinks of even doing seva nor gets trapped in dayA says rAjA Janak in AshtAvakra Gita.

I hope you are getting my point as to why this approach is needed. It is left to Bhagavan to stop moksha, or bring back to duality and assign some work. Bhagavan may give some ability, give some bhava like dayA, etc, It is not the choice of Jnani. Mind of Jnani is like plain water. Bhagavan adds whatever colour he wants to add and play accordingly.

To a Jnani, work of body has been done. Time to cast off the body. Get it. Such is the attitude of Advaitins (like me ;) ).

Earlier I said,

Miracles of saints like Raghvendra Swami, Sai Baba, Ranchoddas ji Maharaj, etc are unknown after their leaving of their physical body.

You can pull my ear. I forgot to add the word 'not' before unknown

Miracles of saints like Raghvendra Swami, Sai Baba, Ranchoddas ji Maharaj, etc are not unknown after their leaving of their physical body.


This need not be a general rule for all aMsha. However, what this means is, jiva-bhUta are evolving. What makes them living and sentient is the AtmA or Bramhan. Now, when Ishwar has a sankalpa - resolve at a point in time, He looks around for an appropriately evolved entity - "kAyA" - not the sthUla - gross body, but sUkshma - subtle, kAraN - causal, linga - marker/identifier sharIra - body. 

Evolved enough for His sankalpa. What does this mean? The entity has to be Self-realized of course, so a jnAni dovetailed to the infinite Bramhan, but not necessarily a perfect yogi tending towards either YogIshwar or Yogeshwar. This explains realization + less than 16 kalA. This is how a prior evolved jnAni becomes a partial avatAr.

Ishwara may transform a weak body into strong enough and equip it with powers that are needed. Again concept of qualitatiely same, qualitatively different has to be taken :)


Since Bramhan is ONE without a second, is this Bramhan-Mind also ONE without a second? i.e. Are there other Bramhan-minds (of Bramhan-jnAnis) as satelites of/ parts of / aMshas of this Cosmic Mind of Ishwar ?

Please do not mix NirguNa and SaguNa Brahman. NirguNa is one, in case of SaguNa Brahman with relation ot this world and jiva, again, the concept of qualitatiely same, qualiitatively different has to be taken :)

Else if even the power is equally distributed, then how is it possible that one person can fight 10 persons? This is true for Jnani-s and avatAra-s too.

Sri Ramakrishna says that,

Jnani is like a big wooden log. At most 3-4 people can hang onto it and cross the ocean of samsAra (world), while an avatAra is like a big boat. Many people can comfortably sit and cross the ocean of samsAra.

Sri Ramakrishna says, Guru is middleman. He takes bhakta to Bhagavan :)

Conclusion and Summary:


So NirguNa brahman is pure consciousness the true non-dual state without mAyA and hence no question of any difference of power distribution. There is no second.

Answers regarding the doubts about free will after Self Realization, unequal power distribution, unequal capacity, etc has to be explained from either Yoga or from 'qualitatively same, quantitatively different' POV.

Jnani or an advaitin does not think as to what will happen after Self Realization. There can be nothing beyond it. IF at all Ishwara wishes to bring Jnani down to dual plane or in other words, wishes to work through the body of Jnani, it is left to God and Jnani has not choice either to help or not to help. People regularly meditating will understand this POV easily.


Aum

Amrut

Amrut
01 August 2013, 10:36 AM
Namaste,

Thank you for the clear and illuminating explanation of jivatman and paramatman, which I have been seeking. So Jiva describes the extraverted binding of the soul through false identification. Atman describes how the immanent effulgence of the soul can unbind it. Is this right?

That I can understand, but not paramatman or Brahma, or, ultimately, principles of union and division. This is because there are no such ultimate principles. Perhaps the real knowledge is simple. There is a way. Walk upon it.

Pranam.

Namaste,

I did not get your point. There is no effulgence in Atman. In simple words Advaita asks one to rise above dvaita. There is a way, and one has to walk on the path, but in the end, nothing except Brahman remains.

@jthomasnaz

Namaste :) my pleasure

Aum

Amrut

Amrut
01 August 2013, 10:46 AM
Namaste,



I see that you have a very clear understanding of the philosophy. And you dissect the philosophy like an expert. I appreciate all that you share which is an exhaustive research. However, when I meditate on God, I see Atman. I see Brahman meditating on himself through atma. I see the universe in atma. I hope that this does not contradict the philosophy.

For explanation purposes, what you say is right. But if you mean that you are witness of witness and that you see Brahman, then it is not a correct perception. It violates shruti. Brahman is indescribable.
Seeing universe inside Atma is fine, but it is not the final state, hence wise men advise to neglect this state and go further until no second one remains.


What do you folks have to say about Jiddu Krishnamurti, he says, if you read books and live accordingly then you are a "second hand" human being. Because, you live according to what "others" have thought... One has to set everything aside (scriptures, books... etc) and think on his own, to see the 'truth'.

Never read J. Krishnamurti. So no comments on his philosophy.

Just a note that when someone asked Sri Ramana Maharshi that,

'J. Krishnamurti says that there is no need of Guru',

Sri Ramana Maharshi replied.

'Who says so? After realization, one can say, but not before'

Aum

Amrut

dharma321
01 August 2013, 02:50 PM
Namaste,

Never read J. Krishnamurti. So no comments on his philosophy.

Just a note that when someone asked Sri Ramana Maharshi that,

'J. Krishnamurti says that there is no need of Guru',

Sri Ramana Maharshi replied.

'Who says so? After realization, one can say, but not before'

Aum

Amrut

I think you should read J. Krishnamurti, he says all this is a propaganda of thousands (millions?) of years, and people are 'conditioned' to think, act, be in a certain way... I hope there is someone in this forum who has read J. K.

Amrut
02 August 2013, 01:01 AM
Smaranam ji,

You have caught me in one thing for which I am yet to find a convincing answer. It is 'Free will of Jnani-s'.

Leaving aside all divine and ancient personalities, bhakta-s and Jnani-s are also have free will.

Jai Shri Krishna

smaranam
03 August 2013, 11:16 AM
Smaranam ji,

You have caught me in one thing for which I am yet to find a convincing answer. It is 'Free will of Jnani-s'.

Leaving aside all divine and ancient personalities, bhakta-s and Jnani-s are also have free will.

Jai Shri Krishna

Namaste

1. Regarding the free will of a jnAni bhakta (because there is no such thing as just a jnani or just a bhakta), only a delta amount may be left, but technically or theoretically it is all lost. This is the whole idea - To let go of individual sankalpa[*1] (will) and let the sankalpa (Will) of Parameshwar take charge of things. Some (bhakta) retain one sankalpa. Rest is with KRshNa. This is KRshNa-consciousness.

The jnAni who was once an ajnani, theoretically does not have any sankalpa[*1] left once merged (vileen) into Bramhan (the Universal Self), but they do not stop existing as an individual point in the infinite Bramhan. This is what is "dormant in the Bramhan-jyoti" acc. to achintya-bheda-abheda.

2. In this regard, the stmt "The jnani can take avatar" is not right in the sense of keval advaita - This is what I was pointing out - that it indicates free will that the jnani is not supposed to have.
Already gave a link to a post on Shripad Shrivallabh who says:

Parameshwar = sacchidananda Bramhan with sankalpa and
the disembodied siddha/jnani = sacchidananda without sankalpa.

Perhaps you did not read it, since I saw the same thing repeated in the last post. If Ishwar makes a sankalpa to dispatch this jnani some place after leaving the body, the jnani goes there. For this, the disembodied jnani's existence has to be individual (has to have a marker, identifier), although consciousness is that of Bramhan. This is the difference between individual existence and individual consciousness - was my point.

3. I am not mixing NirguNa and SaguNa. By "Bramhan-minds" I mean minds of Jnanis who have realized that they are that Bramhan. These are connected to but distinct from the Cosmic Mind of Ishwar.
I said this: siddhAtmA1 <-------> Parameshwar <-----> SiddhAtmA2. (Siddhatma need not be embodied).
Moeover, "the Cosmic Mind of Ishwar" was not my addition.


Jnani or an advaitin does not think as to what will happen after Self Realization. There can be nothing beyond it. IF at all Ishwara wishes to bring Jnani down to dual plane or in other words, wishes to work through the body of Jnani, it is left to God and Jnani has not choice either to help or not to help. People regularly meditating will understand this POV easily.

Yes, this we can relate to easily, no question of that once the sankalpa tendency is dropped.

Jai Shri KRshNa
____________________
[*1] sankalpa = resolve, motive, intent (a result of desire).

smaranam
03 August 2013, 11:36 AM
Ultimately, everything is ParaBramhan, everything that happens is the "hand of Parameshwar." This is experience. However, the fact that there are variations in power, shows the existence of multiple entities (including avatars) - be they dis/embodied, dormant/active at a point in time (kAla). YogaShakti plays [an inseperable] part in it - even though changing.


It means that the final statement of keval advaita is more of an axiom of underlying oneness that vedAnta talks about :
AtmA = Bramhan [in quality or category];
sunrays or dhUp = photons [in substance];
raindrops = H2O [in composition],

and not necessarily a literal practical reality:
(2 + 2 = 4 ; square has 4 equal sides ; a triangle has three sides).

Also, not in terms of existence: Lake water and pond water is water alright, but they occupy 2 distinct spaces, even if you keep them distilled - this cannot be ignored.

It shows Ishwar is Ishwar and the new jnani is a new jnani. Jnani is a bhakta in the consciousness of oneness with Bramhan and hence oneness with Parameshwar (tadAtmictA). They (Ishwar and jnani) are "AtmA" of each other.
(an advaita follower once said: "So basically KRshNa is telling us He is a jnani"
Well, He is telling us a lot more than that - that He is Parameshwar, and that is the whole point.)

Also, to "live" this keval axiom, 100% inactivity and dormancy is demanded so as to not become two/many)

Achintya-bheda-abheda says : as long as the evidence of subtle tendency for sankalpa remains, the natural tendency is subtle activity not dormancy. Devotees make it activity in devotion instead of activity in
the mortal world. The thought being - subtelest sharIr, and/or 5th - anandamay kosha cannot be killed, it can only be subdued. So, if at all sanlkalpa arises, the entity is with Parameshwar, not alone, and the devotion to PArameshwar will keep the entity out of material bondage of false-ego, fear, misery, vikAr, vices, rajas and tamas. This itself is freedom. e.g. Chitraketu - BhAgvat Canto 6.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

Amrut
03 August 2013, 01:06 PM
Already gave a link to a post on Shripad Shrivallabh who says:

Parameshwar = sacchidananda Bramhan with sankalpa and
the disembodied siddha/jnani = sacchidananda without sankalpa.

Perhaps you did not read it, since I saw the same thing repeated in the last post. If Ishwar makes a sankalpa to dispatch this jnani some place after leaving the body, the jnani goes there. For this, the disembodied jnani's existence has to be individual (has to have a marker, identifier), although consciousness is that of Bramhan. This is the difference between individual existence and individual consciousness - was my point.

3. I am not mixing NirguNa and SaguNa. By "Bramhan-minds" I mean minds of Jnanis who have realized that they are that Bramhan. These are connected to but distinct from the Cosmic Mind of Ishwar.
I said this: siddhAtmA1 <-------> Parameshwar <-----> SiddhAtmA2. (Siddhatma need not be embodied).
Moeover, "the Cosmic Mind of Ishwar" was not my addition.



I understand now what you are trying to tell.

But the quote

Parameshwar = sacchidananda Bramhan with sankalpa and
the disembodied siddha/jnani = sacchidananda without sankalpa.

Is an advaitic, as I understand. Same thing Adi Shankara has said.

In NirguNa brahman there is no sankalp.


Ultimately, everything is ParaBramhan, everything that happens is the "hand of Parameshwar." This is experience. However, the fact that there are variations in power, shows the existence of multiple entities (including avatars) - be they dis/embodied, dormant/active at a point in time (kAla). YogaShakti plays [an inseperable] part in it - even though changing.


It means that the final statement of keval advaita is more of an axiom of underlying oneness that vedAnta talks about :
AtmA = Bramhan [in quality or category];
sunrays or dhUp = photons [in substance];
raindrops = H2O [in composition],

and not necessarily a literal practical reality:
(2 + 2 = 4 ; square has 4 equal sides ; a triangle has three sides).

Also, not in terms of existence: Lake water and pond water is water alright, but they occupy 2 distinct spaces, even if you keep them distilled - this cannot be ignored.

It shows Ishwar is Ishwar and the new jnani is a new jnani. Jnani is a bhakta in the consciousness of oneness with Bramhan and hence oneness with Parameshwar (tadAtmictA). They (Ishwar and jnani) are "AtmA" of each other.
(an advaita follower once said: "So basically KRshNa is telling us He is a jnani"
Well, He is telling us a lot more than that - that He is Parameshwar, and that is the whole point.)

Also, to "live" this keval axiom, 100% inactivity and dormancy is demanded so as to not become two/many)

Achintya-bheda-abheda says : as long as the evidence of subtle tendency for sankalpa remains, the natural tendency is subtle activity not dormancy. Devotees make it activity in devotion instead of activity in
the mortal world. The thought being - subtelest sharIr, and/or 5th - anandamay kosha cannot be killed, it can only be subdued. So, if at all sanlkalpa arises, the entity is with Parameshwar, not alone, and the devotion to PArameshwar will keep the entity out of material bondage of false-ego, fear, misery, vikAr, vices, rajas and tamas. This itself is freedom. e.g. Chitraketu - BhAgvat Canto 6.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

I have not studied Sripad Shrivallab. Hence I do not know what he has said. On searching for the word, 'Sripad Shrivallabh' it appears just once in this thread.

The questions that you have raised are indeed subtle as to what happens after Jnana and as you have pointed out


This is the difference between individual existence and individual consciousness - was my point.I fail to understand the difference between the two.

Again, the questions raised are about what happens after Jnana. I understand that there is an a priori that the world is real and hence Ishwara descends. There is jiva, with or without sankalpa, etc. I know the logical argument that we see that Jnani retains body and works under Bhagavan or has wish to enjoy Lila or take part in Lila. However, Advaita considers this world as unreal, and so nothign real can happen. Hence this part is not given importance, atleast by saadhaka.

For an Advaitin, As I have understood, the world does not exist and hence no question to descent and be a witness, and hence no theory of part and full relation with Bhagavan.

My recent study of Adhyaropa apavada simply says that the attributes are false superimposition on Self that are laid to separate Self or 'I' from body and sense objects by being a witness. Later on being a witness also drops. What remains is just Brahman. This state cannot be described as there is no witness or separate thing to see or experience. I have tried to explain it here.
(https://sites.google.com/site/understandingadvaita/adhyaropa-apavada)
For this moron, Advaita ends here. No ascend, no descend. Rest all about Avatar, Jiva, qualitatively same, quantitatively different. Bhagavan commanding Jnani to do some work, Jnani retaining individual consciousness, but without any sankalp or sankalp of Jiva is replaced with sankalp of Jnani, etc does not arise at all. They are concepts that are taught so that the doubts arising in disciples can be satisfactorily answered. I also gave e.g. about concept of Prarabhbha, as how earlier it was said that one cannot stay without karma even for a moment and then bhagavan in next chapter says that in Jnana, all karma-s are destroyed. All Includes prarabhdha.


AtmA = Bramhan [in quality or category];
sunrays or dhUp = photons [in substance];
raindrops = H2O [in composition], There is nothing separate than you. There is no mAyA, hence one only experiences Sun and not sun rays. This is the last state.

After one merges in Brahman or knows true nature, It's just you, Self, Brahman. No other thing. This is the last state.

This is what my advaitized mind thinks and believes. Though some other knowledgeable members can shed some light on it.

What you are trying to understand, satisfactory explanation can be given from Visistadvaita POV or Achintya-bheda-abheda.

Sorry Smaranam ji if I have not understood you. This is as much as my intelligence goes :)

----------

Finally, as earlier said, here is a quote from Shiva Gita about Destruction of Jiva.

As my English is weak, I have also written Hindi Translation.

तत्तत्कर्मानुसारेण जाग्रभ्दोगोपलब्धये ।
इदं लिग्ङशरीराख्यमामोक्षान्न निवर्तते ॥ ३७ ॥

अपने किये उन कर्मो के अनुसार जाग्रतादि अवस्था में सुख-दुःख का साक्षात्कार जीव करता रहता है । सम्पूर्ण वृत्ति लिंगशरीर से उठती है । जब तक मोक्ष न हो, लिंगशरीर का नाश नहीं होता ।

According to the karma done in waking consciousness, one experiences pleasure and pain. all vrriti-s (thoughts arising in mind) arise due to ling sarira (jiva / subtle body). Until moksha is not achieved, linga sarira is not destroyed. (Shiva Gita 10.37)

आत्मज्ञानेन नष्टेनऽस्मिन्साविद्ये सशरीरके ।
आत्मस्वरुपावस्थानं मुक्तिरित्यभिधीयते ॥ ३८ ॥

जिस समय ज्ञान द्वारा जीव और ब्रह्म का भेद मिट जायेगा और अविद्या सहित इस लिंगशरीर का नाश हो जायेगा उस समय केवल आत्मा का अनुभव मात्र 'अहं ब्रह्मास्मि' इस स्वरूप में स्थिर होने से ही मुक्त होता है ।

Moment when, due to Jnana, the difference between Jiva and Brahman will be removed and avidya (ignorance) including ling sharira will be destroyed. At that time there will be the experience of only Atman in the form of 'I am Brahman' will be stabilized. Due to stabilizing or staying in this experience, one become mukta (free). (Shiva Gita 10.38)

Note: Definition of Ling Sarira is given in Shiva Gita 10.15, 10.16 and 10.17

Sanskrit Sloka:

नानाविध्यासमायुक्तो जीवत्वेन वसाम्यहम्* ।
पच्चकर्मेन्द्रियाण्येव पच्च ज्ञानेन्द्रियाणि च ।
मनोबुद्धिरहंकारश्चित्त वेति चतुष्टयम्* ॥ १५ ॥

वयवः पच्च मिलिता यंति लिङ्गशरीरताम्* ( लिग्ङशरीरताम्* ) ।
तत्राविध्यारिकमायुक्तं चैतन्यं प्रतिबिम्बितम्* ॥ १६ ॥

व्यावहारिकजीवस्तु क्षेत्रज्ञः पुरूषोऽपि च ॥ १७ ॥

Hindi Translation:


अनेक प्रकार की अविध्या के साश्रय होकर जीवरूप से भी मैं ही निवास करता हूँ । पाँच कर्मेन्द्रियाँ और पाँच ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ, मन, बुद्धि, अहंकार, चित्त इनका चतुष्टय और पाँच प्राण यह सब मिलकर लिंग शरीर को उत्पन्न करते हैं । उसी लिंग शारीर में अविद्ध्यायुक्त यह चैतन्य का प्रतिबिम्ब पड़ता है, उसी को व्यवहार में ‘जीव', ‘क्षेत्रज्ञ' और ‘पुरूष' करते हैं ।

English Translation:

Taking aadhaara (support) of Different types of avidya (ignorance), only I reside in Jiva-rUpa

OR

Associating with different types of ignorance, only I (Bhagavan Shiva) reside in Jiva-rUpa.

5 karmendriya-s (parts of action) and
5 jnanendriya-s (5 senses of knowledge),
Collection of 4 - mind, intellect, ego, chitta and
5 prana (vital air)

- Locus of all the above rise rise to ling sharira.

in this ling sharira, due to adivya (ignorance), there is a reflection of this chaitanya (consciousness).

This in relative terms is called as 'Jiva', 'Kshetragya' and 'Purusha'.

--------

Aum

Amrut

smaranam
04 August 2013, 06:26 AM
Sorry Smaranam ji if I have not understood you

Are you kidding? ... I mean ... Am I kidding myself? Using the HDF user account "IS Amrut" I have made some wonderful posts on this thread - that's if it exists.

:)

I want to thank, but whom? myself? Since there is no one else. I am serious. There is no one else. The last 2 posts made using the account name "smaranam" were not asking questions. Just don't worry about them.
They are not worthy of samAdhi-bhanga.

Who / what is this "smaranamji" by the way? Never mind. Why focus on the non-existent?

_/\_
vAsanAdvAsudevasya vAsitam bhuvana trayam
sarva deva nivAsosi vAsudeva namostute

Amrut
04 August 2013, 06:44 AM
Are you kidding? err... I mean ... Am I kidding myself? Using the HDF user account "IS Amrut" I have made some wonderful posts on this thread - that's if it exists.

:)

I want to thank, but whom? myself? Since there is no one else. I am serious. There is no one else. The last 2 posts made using the account name "smaranam" were not asking questions. Just don't worry about them.
They are not worthy of samAdhi-bhanga.

Who / what is this "smaranamji" by the way? Never mind. Why focus on the non-existent?

_/\_
vAsanAdvAsudevasya vAsitam bhuvana trayam
sarva deva nivAsosi vAsudeva namostute

Namaste,

You can thank IS Amrut ji ;) from relative reality :)

Actually, I just blogged this


Sri Ramakrishna (to Kedar) — Oh, I see. His belief is like that of the rishis. The rishis said to Ramachandra, ‘Rama, we know you are the son of Dasharatha. Bharadvaja and other rishis may take you as an avatar and worship you. But we only want Akhanda Sachchidananda (Indivisible Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute).’ Hearing this, Rama laughed and left. Source (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2013/08/sri-ramakrishna-on-attitude-of-jnani.html)

Somewhere in Hindu Dharma book, I have read about attitude of Jnani-s towards avatarhood and jiva hood. Paramacharya says that similar thing

Lets keep bull's eye our goal, Nirvikalp Samadhi and Enjoying Leela

I tried my best to answer questions, but failed to give satisfactory answer. Never mind. I will not run away by saying all this is mithyA. I have been taught to face it, with a smile. It has been a great learning experience.

btw, updated lst post with sanskrit and hindi translation of Shiva Gita 10.15-17

In the Book, Hindu Dharma, the definition of Siddha given in Sanskrit Glossary is:

One who has attained perfection, accomplished adept; liberated person; an inspired sage; one who has acquired the eight siddhis. Siddha-purusha is a master who possesses all the siddhis.

Aum

Amrut

Amrut
04 August 2013, 10:59 AM
ok, got it


The Lord speaks of the samadarsana of the wise man who is absorbed in the Atman and for whom there exists nothing [other than the Atman] including creation - and even the fact the Ishvara is the creator is of no consequence to him.

Online source not available.

Book: Hindu Dharma, part 20, chapter 2, Caste according to the Vedas and the Gita, pages 647-650

Please say thanks to me. I will appreciate it. Buy me a vada pav. I will offer it to bhagavan Krishna and then take it as prasad. Promise :)


I want to thank, but whom? myself? Since there is no one else. I am serious. There is no one else. The last 2 posts made using the account name "smaranam" were not asking questions. Just don't worry about them.
They are not worthy of samAdhi-bhanga.

It seems that no matter how much we try to understand another religio-philosophical system, we come back to our own system :)

Aum

Amrut

brahman
05 August 2013, 07:16 AM
Many praNAms

Please address the following questions on Advaita that have been lurking in the mind.

First, premises or axiomatic understanding - subject to checks.

1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...
om namostav anantAya sahastramUrtaye
sahastrapAdAkshashirorubAhave
sahastranAmne purushAya shAsvate
sahastra koti yuga dhAriNe namah:

QUESTIONS
1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
Why or Why not?

2. In other words, such a state of existence as described above, i.e. tUryAvasthA, should and does it enable manifestation of NArAyaNa i.e. Parameshwar?

3. Or, in other words, does such a state of existence command the entire YogamAyA at disposal ?
If the answer to this is yes, then it must imply that this state as described in Qn 1. is UTOPIAN, TOO THEORETICAL, because otherwise...

4. How do you explain aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha avatAr as opposed to the pUrNa avatAr or pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn Shri KRshNa?

Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

For us jivas, we are infinitsimal, but Advaita blames that infinitesimalness on our ignorance and conditioning (vices, faults, 3 gunas ). So we have very little shakti at our disposal.
However, if all avatArs (fractional, of full) are pUrNa Bramhan, in tUryAvasthA, very pure, what makes one a part of NArAyaNa and another more NArAyaNa and another less NArAyaNa?

thank you so much!

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya




Dear Smaranam,


Though Bhakti and Jnana are two distinct methodological devices for attaining the Absolute, they need to complement each other for the purpose of accomplishment.

In the case of deep devotion, the attention of the seeker is diverted completely towards the anthropomorphic personalities.

In the case of Jnaana, the attitude of the seeker is to concentrate fully on ‘the Word of The Guru’.

Faith, learning scriptures and complete sacrifice are incapable of being avoided in both cases.

===============


Answers to your questions can end up in absurd conclusions, so I kindly recommend you approach the Advaitha philosophy in a rather systematic manner.

Please read Dr. K. Sadananda’s (I guess Dr. is one of your favourite Advaitha-Teachers.) inquiry into epistemological issues related to Advaitha Vedanta.


Here we see some excerpts from his essay the ‘Critical analysis of vedAnta paribhAShA’ (http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/intro1.htm); in this he writes:


The purpose of the inquiry into Epistemological issues, as DA emphasizes in this introduction to VP, is to gain knowledge of Brahman, knowing which there is no return to the transitory world. Hence, understanding of the process by which knowledge takes place in the mind is essential to separate what is transitory from what is permanent. This discrimination is called nitya-anitya vastu viveka and is essential for Vedantins. This helps in meditation by shifting from that which is transitory to that which is permanent, as when we try to 'visualize' that because of which we have the capacity to visualize.

DA is Dharmaraja Advarindra, the author of the book ‘vedAnta paribhAShA’

VP is ‘vedAnta paribhAShA’

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge such as perception, conception, apperception etc...

==================================

Note: The Final knowledge according to Vedanta remains immediate, having no intervening medium, and remains an ineffable
mystery never ceases.

Love:)

smaranam
06 August 2013, 05:48 AM
Here is the concern : The fact that Bramhan allowed Himself to be deluded ("throttled Himself") into being covered by the body of an ant, mongoose, chimpanzee, snake, tree and moss, and worse, allowed Himself to THINK He is that ant, mongoose,,, (SB 1.2.33)
shows that the jnani can go back to being an ajnani. Then what? If there is no devotion and a live personal relationship with Parameshwar (- sakhA, suRhd, swami, priyatam, hitachintak antaryami - ThePerson), the re-deluded jnani is lost and back into the world. A bhakta may fall down, and if s/he does forget the Lord, the Lord runs to the devotee to revive the relationship at the slightest symptom of pondering over past.
If the mongoose had ID # 12345 it was Bramhan who grabbed that ID, and simultaneously innumerable other IDs. The jnani who is essentially Bramhan can also get a new ID # 67890 and come into this world - maybe after a kalpa or two of tUryAvasthA. If desires arose then, they can arise now. What's the difference?

smaranam
07 August 2013, 05:35 AM
Thanks a lot Amrutji and Bramhan... it is wierd thanking oneself.

Your True Self

Amrut
08 August 2013, 12:04 PM
Thanks a lot Amrutji and Bramhan... it is wierd thanking oneself.

Your True Self

Namaste

What you say is like seeing a snake and claiming that 'I am seeing rope'

Looks like those advaita lessons were not sufficient :D

Need some more? :D

A short one pleaasssssssseeeeeee . I promise it will be a short one

Tat Tvam Asi is a upadeshaka Mahavakya - You are That (Brahman)
One meditates with ananya bhava (a+anya = not -different) 'AyamAtmA Brahma' (Atman is Brahman)
During meditation, one realizes, pragyAnama Brahman i.e. consciousness is Brahman (consciousness is everything, awareness is the key, as it helps one separate oneself 'I' from which is not Self)
Finally one realizes that aham BrahmAsmi, I am Brahman

After steadying in this Jnana, Smaranam ji can say,


Your True Self
-----x--------x------x----- The End :) -----x--------x------x-----

anyways,


Thanks a lot Amrutji

Always pleasure talking with you.

__/ \__

Jai Shri Krishna

smaranam
09 August 2013, 02:22 AM
What you say is like seeing a snake and claiming that 'I am seeing rope'

NO. The Self sees rope, but in some corner of this illusiory world, an illusiory figure called Amrut is seeing snakes and in that very illusion demands that the Self should thank the snake - not once, but twice!

Before this the illusiory figure sees statements and makes wrong assumptions, sees questions where they were not asked, illusion within illusion, and gives basic Advaita lessons on an illusiory thread where they are unnecessary within the illusion itself. Another illusion.

Amrut
09 August 2013, 03:44 AM
NO. The Self sees rope, but in some corner of this illusiory world, an illusiory figure called Amrut is seeing snakes and in that very illusion demands that the Self should thank the snake - not once, but twice!

Before this the illusiory figure sees statements and makes wrong assumptions, sees questions where they were not asked, illusion within illusion, and gives basic Advaita lessons on an illusiory thread where they are unnecessary within the illusion itself. Another illusion.

Calm down smaranam ji

:) Namaste

That demand was on lighter mode :) If concepts are not clear, they have to be cleared, as base has to be clear. the fact that you had used Atman and Jiva interchangeably in first post and query of avatadvAda, siddhi-s, etc have an a priori that Jiva still exists after Jnana.Your questions are very logical.


First, premises or axiomatic understanding - subject to checks.

1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...

Post #40, post #1 and the double edited post #37 shows that you still need advaita lessons :) - don't mind.

Jnana is permanent .. and no doubt arises in Jnana :)

Remove pink glasses of Bhakti and wear Blue glass of Jnana (advaita) to understand advaita in advaita way.

You are fine doing bhakti. If you have noticed PrasthAntrayi does not include study of purANa-s. So one may or may not study them. PurANa- are more important as they help bhakta to cultivate bhakti rasa.

There is a knowledgeable member active in this thread. If anything is wrong, as a senior (because I consider myself as a beginner), kindly pin point my mistakes, as wrong info should be corrected.

Jai Shri Krishna

Hari OM

Mana
09 August 2013, 04:37 AM
om gurave namaḥ


Namaste,

If I might be so bold to add some thought here; In resonating with the Kashmir philosophy, all is essentially very real, and in essence it is all Naryana; We are like children in the playground.
The thought which occurs to me, is this: How can one possibly uplift another who is struggling to swim, without getting ones own feet wet again?

Surely, helping ones self is the assistance of another, themselves flailing, dying to be released; one must come down from ones abode, and get dirty in saṁskāra; I like to think that it is a matter of timing, which is why Jyotiṣ light is so very dear to me, that and my love of science ...

Pertaining to your questions smaranam; I have a though upon reading one of them:


Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

Referring to the words and imagery of swami Lakshman Jū;
Those of the coagulation of conciousness; this covering might it be just that. The necessity of coagulation in order that memory's form, how else would we otherwise know of such beings? This seems to me that it could be the cause of such covering.

Thank you all for your reflection here, it is a positively delight to discover the language, knowledge and ideas, the legend, with which you are all so very well acquainted; I can't help but feel somewhat ill equipped for such a wonderful discussion, it is also a delight to be learning.

It is a pleasure to read and learn from you All; your devotion imbues your words with a sweet flavour, the dance of a subtle tattva born of devotion, as elemental as it is divine; is this rasa not its self, of the self, and as such also very real? The mood of the playground, if you will.

Kind regards.

Amrut
09 August 2013, 12:06 PM
om gurave namaḥ


Namaste,

If I might be so bold to add some thought here; In resonating with the Kashmir philosophy, all is essentially very real, and in essence it is all Naryana; We are like children in the playground.
The thought which occurs to me, is this: How can one possibly uplift another who is struggling to swim, without getting ones own feet wet again?

Surely, helping ones self is the assistance of another, themselves flailing, dying to be released; one must come down from ones abode, and get dirty in saṁskāra; I like to think that it is a matter of timing, which is why Jyotiṣ light is so very dear to me, that and my love of science ...

Pertaining to your questions smaranam; I have a though upon reading one of them:



Referring to the words and imagery of swami Lakshman Jū;
Those of the coagulation of conciousness; this covering might it be just that. The necessity of coagulation in order that memory's form, how else would we otherwise know of such beings? This seems to me that it could be the cause of such covering.

Thank you all for your reflection here, it is a positively delight to discover the language, knowledge and ideas, the legend, with which you are all so very well acquainted; I can't help but feel somewhat ill equipped for such a wonderful discussion, it is also a delight to be learning.

It is a pleasure to read and learn from you All; your devotion imbues your words with a sweet flavour, the dance of a subtle tattva born of devotion, as elemental as it is divine; is this rasa not its self, of the self, and as such also very real? The mood of the playground, if you will.

Kind regards.

Namaste,

No questions are foolish or stupid.
All (so-called) guru-s once were newbies.

Never be afraid to put forth your opinion, but do not do it carelessly.

What matters is to speak from heart. Even OP (Original Poster) speaks from heart, but at times gets irritated. Afterall we are all humans :)

Coming back to topic, As far as advaita is concerned, as it considers this world as illusion or false perception or appearence (as some say), hence advaitins are taught not to focus or spend time on thinking about this world. We are taught to do dosha darshan i.e. fault finding. In the beginning one finds difficult to accept that this world, which we all experience, as just an illusion.

Only after having some experience in meditation, one can convince oneself that this world is not real. So advaitin do not think of this world as divine play. We have different POV :)

It is not that we are free form delusion the moment we are initiated into mahavakya-s or on OM or neti neti, etc.

It is a journey in which is about to find the source of everything. 'I' accompanies our journey, as it is consciousness. Finally 'I' which is ego melts and the real 'I' expresses itself. It is the completeness, but no one other is there to experience. This is advaita state.

I can't keep myself away from giving lessons :)

Hari OM

Mana
10 August 2013, 01:49 PM
om gurave namaḥ


Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut,

Thank you kindly! A fascinating conversation that it is indeed. I find the entirety of this beautiful tradition to be quite amazing, so please do keep on teaching, and smarnarm also, who's devotion is truly wonderful, matched by his/her knowledge also.

I have only just got a copy of the Simrad Bhagava; so I am far from an commentary, but it is wonderful to hear of its content. My study of Jyotish are leading me to broader reading; Alas, I am a very slow reader ...

Kind regards.

Amrut
11 August 2013, 05:48 AM
om gurave namaḥ


Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut,

Thank you kindly! A fascinating conversation that it is indeed. I find the entirety of this beautiful tradition to be quite amazing, so please do keep on teaching, and smarnarm also, who's devotion is truly wonderful, matched by his/her knowledge also.

I have only just got a copy of the Simrad Bhagava; so I am far from an commentary, but it is wonderful to hear of its content. My study of Jyotish are leading me to broader reading; Alas, I am a very slow reader ...

Kind regards.

Namaste Mana ji,

You are very humble. Go real slow. Take your time/ Digest teachings of our Shastra-s. Just dont be lazy. The more you try to rush, more you fall back.

We cannot understanding everything. Keep praying to Bhagavan to Show you way. Keep your goal of being one with Shiva (or anything similar), as the only goal or primary goal of your life.

Understanding occurs when Guru or Bhagavan gives us sAmarthya (potential) to grasp subtle teachings. Transformation occurs and coarse of life changes when one experiences what Shastra-s say. So just follow them the best you can.

Good luck with Jyotish shastra.

Om Namah Shivaya

Amrut
11 August 2013, 12:36 PM
Pranams,

Advaitins will find Jivanmukti Viveka of Swami Vidyaranya (http://www.scribd.com/doc/140362882/Jivanmukti-Viveka-Summary-by-SN-Sastri) useful. Summary by Shri S. N. Shastri

Jivan Mukti (http://www.scribd.com/doc/138372981/Jivanmukti) by Swami Shantananda Puri

Hari OM

smaranam
12 August 2013, 10:17 AM
the fact that you had used Atman and Jiva interchangeably in first post

I did not. That is what I am trying to tell. You ASSUMED I did - without really reading. You JUMPED to conclusions and diverted the thread.

I want the Truth, not Adi Shankara's views. The only reason this thread is in this forum is because it is based on the premise of ONE indivisible AtmA = Bramhan (- but it was a mistake to put it here. I should have known.)

**Wait, let me finish.

Remarks such as "We advaitins do not think like this"
"Prashtan trayi does not mandate puranas"
are not acceptable. If that is you answer, it means it is either unknown to you or BEYOND THE SCOPE OF your philosophy, in which case please do not reply. Let someone else do so.


Jnana is permanent .. and no doubt arises in Jnana :)
You might be surprised to hear that "permanent" ends at mahapralay according to some views, and this is what I was arriving at. Acc. to this view, no sanchit karma remain after mahapralay. So, the only way creatures can come into existence is if [points in] Bramhan get[s] deluded. For Bramhan to get deluded, the repository of Bramhajyoti becomes the candidate - these could potentially be ones 'vileen' (merged) into Bramhan in the past and forgotton all about it.

Plus, "jnana is permanent" is only a theoretical statement, it may not be practical reality, even within a kalpa. Creation is a result of vAsanA, and vAsanA can arise from the weaker points in Bramhan, not just from the repository of sanchit karma.

Kashmiri Shaiva says "Siva throttles Himself to become creatures"
If that is so, I would rather not blend into Him, I don't want to "throttle" myself, sorry.

Regarding individuality not going away after jnana, according to Shripad Shrivallabh who is Lord Dattatreya, and propounder of Advaitic oneness - He says those who are 'vileen' into me, can be brought back by Me if I want to for a purpose. It proves that the Lord knows who is who after they merge.

This seems like practical reality irrespective of mahavakyas and irrespective of Bramhan-bhUta bhAv, or brAmhi-sthiti of an individual.

Despite all of the above I can maintain Bramhan-bhAva. Nothing wrong. I can see that I am the Self, at this point. But I do feel the pain in the body if someone pinches it.


Remove pink glasses of Bhakti
Do not make assumptions about me.


and wear Blue glass of Jnana (advaita) to understand advaita in advaita way.

It is not enough to understand advaita in theory or even in bhAva. One has to see what actually is the case - ontological. For this, turning one's back on the 5th veda just for convenience, may not help.


You are fine doing bhakti.
You can't tell me what to do.


PurANa- are more important as they help bhakta to cultivate bhakti rasa.

Again you are mistaken. Puranas, especially the sAttvik purAN and its crown-jewel - Shrimad BhAgavat purAN, is FULL OF REAL TATTVA-JNANA UPTO THE BRIM, not just bhakti rasa. This tattva-jnana points to oneness (be it underlying or otherwise), yes, hence the thread is under "Advaita", but it tells a story beyond Adi-Shakara's story.

No need to reply to this post. I am going to take the thread in another direction. Thanks.

Jai Shri KRshNa

Mana
12 August 2013, 11:53 AM
Namaste smarnam,


Puranas, especially the sAttvik purAN and its crown-jewel - Shrimad BhAgavat purAN, is FULL OF REAL TATTVA-JNANA UPTO THE BRIM, not just bhakti rasa. This tattva-jnana points to oneness (be it underlying or otherwise), yes, hence the thread is under "Advaita", but it tells a story beyond Adi-Shakara's story.

Just beginning to study these wonderful scriptures; they are full of highly relevant teachings for a Jyotiṣi. This is to my mind many years ahead of our current understanding of astrophysics and has remarkable relevance to today's neurology, the universal self, not the me self.

These wonderful scriptures will help us to remember that; of that I am sure.

Kind regards.

smaranam
12 August 2013, 12:07 PM
Namaste Mana

I am happy to hear that you are studying the purAN, and especially Shrimad BhAgvat. It is the vAngmayi svarUp (literary incarnation) of Shri KRshNa.

Just this thought that another has gotten hold of the jewel makes me so so happy. I can safely say "Mana is off on a journey for a while"

Jai Shri KRshNa
om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

Mana
13 August 2013, 12:05 AM
Namaste smarnam,

I am so happy; I started reading last night and have found it instantly absorbing; this is a good sign for one who's mind has a tendency towards gymnastics ...

I love the referance already to the importance of the energy contained in the telling, over and above the grammatical correctness. Śrī must be present in order to shine, like the heavenly body's, that Anugraha.

This could take some time; I must pay tribute to modern technology, as I have the entire Śrīmad bhāgavatam, Bhāgavad gītā and the Viśnu purāṇa amongst others; all on the same e-reader!
How wonderful it would be if there was a Sanskrit dictionary available with an index of Hindu nomenclature too; how fantastic that would be ...



Kind regards.

Amrut
13 August 2013, 03:08 AM
Namaste Smaranam ji,

I am extremely sorry for derailing this thread.

Had you mentioned that though you have the thread in advaita, you are not confining to the views of Adi Shankara, things would have been very different. Also the title of thread, about genuine questions on Advaita confused me. It would be better if this thread was posted in another section, say, philosophy section.

There would be no advaita lessons, which you did not liked. Had you not quoted HLK, I would not have given long response explaining adhyaropa apavada.

Ontology, logic, etc is true for all philosophies. What I understand that, we can talk about logic, but from advaita, precisely Adi shankara Advaita POV, then I would not have repeatedly stressed on (Shankara) advaita and it's final goal.

It is now that you are saying that you do not wish to confine yourself to one system of thought.

I stepped up and explained concepts, because I personally respect you, without any hidden motives.

Later posts were said from lighter mode. I will take care not to talk in lighter mode to you in future, if at all there is any interaction between us.

However since you are so angry that you do not wish to communicate, I withdraw and unsubscribe from this thread.

Sorry for the trouble and derailing. I take back everything I have said.

Jai Shri Krishna

Amrut

smaranam
14 August 2013, 02:30 PM
Namaste Amrutji,

Things don't happen in vacuum you see.


I stepped up and explained concepts without any hidden motives.
I know you are a very straightforward person and there is no question of hidden motives such as trying to brainwash another's views etc. Such a thing never occured to me at all.


There would be no advaita lessons, which you did not liked. Had you not quoted HLK, I would not have given long response explaining adhyaropa apavada.

It is not about not liking the lessons. They were irrelevant. HLK's quote is a good example. What was my comment on it?

(Feedback - The statements in red give rise to ambiguity/conflict at least for learning readers. They speak an advanced language which is best understood internally in parA not externally in vaikharI because vaikhari vANI gives rise to six blind men and the elephant :) )

Did I say anywhere that I did not understand the statement? "best understood internally in parA vANI" was an observation. I was cautioning HLK against telling this to new people (and also to devotees who don't care for Advaita on the other thread under ISKCON) - see latest 'svadharma' thread by Bramhan - same point.

Perhaps due to my poor choice of words, you assumed I had not understood it, said, "read the statement and think coolly" and then wrote 3 pages.
Were those pages of any use to the questions at hand?
Moreover, did you even stop to find out if the OP had studied Advaita in the past or where the OP was regarding this knowledge, whether they could relate to it, and whether they had ever been in samAdhi?

At least the premises should have been a clue to the diciphering of shAstra - regarding AtmA and Bramhan. I did not even write the word 'jiva' in the premises. Or jivAtmA and ParamAtmA or any signs of duality. I kept it honestly advaitic, abiding by the forum rule.

The discussion was meant to take off from the questions themselves.
I know majority of my posting is VaishNav bhakti related, and that is what made you assume that when I say AtmA I mean jiva; that I wear pink bhakti glasses ; that I am a blank-slate kindergartner in Advaita.

First I ignored it, but it just continued through the thread without really addressing the questons - except with "We advaitins don't think like this. This is the final station"

Then when you said the Self cannot sign "Your True Self" because they had not yet understood Advaita, and insisted that the Self should come to the vyAvahAric plane to thank another - the Self was being addressed, although you thought you were addressing smaranam.
and...I don't know what happened. Something took over to make post #40. Anyways, that was not an "angry post" , it was an observation standing apart - although the decision was made to let you know what was happening.


Ontology, logic, etc is true for all philosophies. What I understand that, we can talk about logic, but from advaita, precisely Adi shankara Advaita POV, then I would not have repeatedly stressed on (Shankara) advaita and it's final goal.
It is now that you are saying that you do not wish to confine yourself to one system of thought.

Yes, but in the general section, the VishishTadvaita and achintya-bheda-abheda would take over and I already knew their answers. The point is, shastra - at least on the surface - points to ONE AtmA.
Again, I already knew what is the final goal of advaita. I wanted to know what happens afterwards or what the implications are, but it is OK now, I kind of have the answer and/or do not have the questions anymore.

Jai Shri KRshNa

smaranam
14 August 2013, 02:47 PM
KRshNa does equip the devotee with the "tools", just in case they are needed. You see, He cannot stand conflicts in the heart of the Beloved (perhaps becs its a shared heart?) so He supplies the skills to
resolve the conflict. It happens so fast - before the mind realizes what just happened.

Years ago I would get angry at myself for not being able to talk back when people hurt me or behaved unfairly. You see the ego was a lot more immature then. No matter how much I decided to "be on guard next time" when the previously offending person came along, I would forget the past and be friendly, and they would trap me again. I met a zillion of those. But years later, I thanked KRshNa for NOT giving me those weapons - in the form of the ability to talk back right away on the spot. Becs I know how much I would be wounded by hurting them. In layman terms we call it empathy. In spiritual terms today we know - it is becs your AtmA/IshTa lies in their heart.

Funnily enough, now He has made the mind assertive. And to think I tell Him make me Your pen, Your flute... but He feeds this soul instead - never to leave a corner creased.

And here, cases of the past where the other person is deliberately trying things do not apply here at all. Yet, something else got triggered - patience, as mentioned above.

Amrut
15 August 2013, 09:11 AM
Namaste,

It is true in my case that at times, 'I see only that I want to see'.

I have already forgotten the issue. It is all blank here. Only blurr memory remains and I need to stress to recall.

Be assured that there can be mata bheda, but not mana bheda :)

All is well here :) Today is a new day.

I came back to collect some of my notes from this thread. Thats how landed on this page, else I had already unsubscribed from this thread.

If you would like to continue, please create a new thread or ask admin to clear the mess. I have already taken backup of what I need form this thread.

Jai Shri Krishna.

Sriram257
30 April 2015, 01:31 PM
Namaste Smaranam,

Following is your question,

"1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
Why or Why not?"

The rest of your questions is same, well up on realisation of Brahman there are no special powers acquired, the reason is that there is a slight distinction between Brahman and Ishwara, I am no doubt Brahman but I cannot be Ishwara. It is like the clay mouse and the clay elephant, although both the clay mouse and clay elephant are both clay, there is definitely a difference with respect to the size of the elephant and the size of the mouse. Both the elephant and mouse can claim to be clay but the mouse cannot claim to be the elephant. Similarly both Ishwara and me can claim to be Brahman, but I cannot claim to be Ishwara.

Due to this distinction inspite of Brahma Jnana I cannot have Ishitva. This differentiation is made due to the inscrutable power called Maya. It is not real nor is it unreal.
I won't be able to explain the concept of "Maya" in this post. But just understand that this differentiation is due to Maya and Maya is not separate from Brahman. It is the power of Brahman.

You next question is on Amsa avatar Purnavatar and so on ?

All Avatars are within Maya since Ishwara is Brahman + Maya. Now the Jiva Samuha or bulk of Jivas is the mind of Ishwara, hence when the bulk of Jivas are actually praying to the Lord or Ishwara. The whole mind of Ishwara is on a single resolve and this resolve comes down as an Avatar. in such a case since all Jivas have willed for something to come, this resolve is what comes as an Avatar, in this case a Purna Avatar. For Amsa Avatar and so on, is dependent on the demand, if the bulk of the Jivas have a certain demand for that demand we get different Vyuha Avatars and so on.

Although I hate getting into the theoretical part of Advaita, I have answered you the questions since you were telling that these were genuine questions.

grames
30 April 2015, 04:53 PM
Dear.,

Sorry for interrupting.

If elephant and rat are not essentially same, then what you say is right. :) If elephant and rat are supposed to be essentially same, an elephant can say i am rat as well ! ( as here its not elephant which will say i am rat but the clay that will as it is clay which is both elephant and rat)

Just trying to confuse you. Take it easy

:)




Namaste Smaranam,

Following is your question,

"1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
Why or Why not?"

The rest of your questions is same, well up on realisation of Brahman there are no special powers acquired, the reason is that there is a slight distinction between Brahman and Ishwara, I am no doubt Brahman but I cannot be Ishwara. It is like the clay mouse and the clay elephant, although both the clay mouse and clay elephant are both clay, there is definitely a difference with respect to the size of the elephant and the size of the mouse. Both the elephant and mouse can claim to be clay but the mouse cannot claim to be the elephant. Similarly both Ishwara and me can claim to be Brahman, but I cannot claim to be Ishwara.

Due to this distinction inspite of Brahma Jnana I cannot have Ishitva. This differentiation is made due to the inscrutable power called Maya. It is not real nor is it unreal.
I won't be able to explain the concept of "Maya" in this post. But just understand that this differentiation is due to Maya and Maya is not separate from Brahman. It is the power of Brahman.

You next question is on Amsa avatar Purnavatar and so on ?

All Avatars are within Maya since Ishwara is Brahman + Maya. Now the Jiva Samuha or bulk of Jivas is the mind of Ishwara, hence when the bulk of Jivas are actually praying to the Lord or Ishwara. The whole mind of Ishwara is on a single resolve and this resolve comes down as an Avatar. in such a case since all Jivas have willed for something to come, this resolve is what comes as an Avatar, in this case a Purna Avatar. For Amsa Avatar and so on, is dependent on the demand, if the bulk of the Jivas have a certain demand for that demand we get different Vyuha Avatars and so on.

Although I hate getting into the theoretical part of Advaita, I have answered you the questions since you were telling that these were genuine questions.

Sriram257
30 April 2015, 09:50 PM
Namaste Grames,

It is fine, I am ok to live with interruptions, as I told you before I am absolutely fine with you having your assumptions.