PDA

View Full Version : Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational



Sriram257
11 November 2013, 03:59 PM
Fellow Advaitins ,

This is my personal opinion, I have gone through other philosophies and I found that most people follows those philosophies since it simply appeals to them emotionally, but I find only Advaita Vedanta to be rational and absolutely scientific in nature. I also believe that one can arrive at Advaita with out even reading the scriptures after all the scriptures are mere expressions of the thoughts of the Rishis nothing more than that. It is interesting to find that advaitins are more modern in their own approach.

I would also like to add that even if other schools of thoughts prove Advaita to be a Buddhist school in disguise, that will also not be an issue for Advaita since Advaita is not dependent on the scriptures but dependent on itself.

:)

kallol
13 November 2013, 01:28 AM
Thanks. We respect your personal view. However Science is still nascent compared to what advaita says. And definition of rationality varies from person to person.

So there might be few questions asked.

wundermonk
13 November 2013, 03:59 AM
Dear sriram

Welcome. I will play the purvapakshin (devil's advocate) here.

(1) Science itself presupposes a metaphysical position - a form of realism. That is, the external world exists independent of any observer whose real nature can be verified by employing certain epistemological tools. How is this compatible with Advaita?

(2) Advaita's claim: Jiva (in essence) = Brahman (in essence). If "Jiva" suffers, does "Brahman" suffer? If "Jiva" does not suffer, who/what suffers?

brahman
13 November 2013, 04:11 AM
Fellow Advaitins ,

This is my personal opinion, I have gone through other philosophies and I found that most people follows those philosophies since it simply appeals to them emotionally, but I find only Advaita Vedanta to be rational and absolutely scientific in nature. I also believe that one can arrive at Advaita with out even reading the scriptures after all the scriptures are mere expressions of the thoughts of the Rishis nothing more than that. It is interesting to find that advaitins are more modern in their own approach.

I would also like to add that even if other schools of thoughts prove Advaita to be a Buddhist school in disguise, that will also not be an issue for Advaita since Advaita is not dependent on the scriptures but dependent on itself.

:)








Dear Sriram,

‘Advaita- Vedānta', as stated by Saṅkara, is not mere utterances of our ancient seers; it is a methodological representation of the same truth found in the Upaniṣads in a rather scientific format with a varied epistemology.

Vedānta, known in common parlance is different from the one elaborated by the master Saṅkara; but then again, it is agreed that the threefold authoritative text books of Advaita-Vedānta, the Bhagavad Gīta , the Upaniṣads and the Brahmasūtras, commonly known as Vedānta, are the utterances of our ancient seers in a metaphorical manner.

It is also agreed that one can reach the state of Vedānta without even reading the scriptures; but, to save the truth from falling into absurdity of mere belief, scepticism and cult, to express the same truth in words, a scientific method is always recommended.

Science after all is a rational game; it is a play of our intellect on experiments and observations in laboratory conditions. End result of all these calculations are some kind of knowledge attained by the observer about the thing being observed.

Advaita Vedānta is a science and hence it has to be scientific. But, it is a totally different epistemology that Advaita Vedānta speaks of; here the observer and observed are not different; instead it belongs to the same stratum of existence which is nothing other than one Consciousness-Reality that knows both the subject and the object. Or in other words, finally, these two, the observer and the observed, finds homogeneity within that same Consciousness- Reality that which gives room for all these kinds of human reasoning.

After all, more than satisfying our intellectual curiosity, ensuring happiness in life has always been the ultimate goal of Saṅkara; philosophy for him was only a value-science alone.

Love:)

yajvan
13 November 2013, 03:26 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
 


you mention,

I also believe that one can arrive at Advaita with out even reading the scriptures after all the scriptures are mere expressions of the thoughts of the Rishis nothing more than that.

The notion of our seers ( ṛṣi-s¹) are a bit more profound then what you offer... they did not think of the knowledge, but they cognized it within consciousness , truth (satyaṁ). This is considered śruti ( that is which is ~heard~ within consciousness).

It is from their level of expanded awareness that this śruti is cognized. And from here we are given the ṛg ved and other bodies of knowledge. This should not be confused with smṛ́ti which is 'remembered' and handed down in writing by our enlightened authors.

This is the fundamental building block of sanātana dharma considered ārṣa¹ dharma.

iti śivaṁ


ṛṣi-s called out in the mahābhārata are marīci , atri , aṅgiras , pulaha , kratu , pulastya , vasiṣṭha are given as the names of the ṛṣis of the first manvantara , and they are also called prajāpati-s
ṛṣi-s are also called 'kavi' defined as gifted with insight , intelligent , knowing , enlightened , wise
ārṣa - belonging to or derived from ṛṣi-s

rama_t
13 November 2013, 05:38 PM
Namasthe.

Advaita or Dvaita or Visistadvaita. Which one is true is to verified within ones core of heart but not to be like based on some reading as these were preached by their insight.

We can discuss to understand what exactly they mean but showing bias towards something is not going to help. If one has reached that state and living in that state, then surely you are welcome to share.

Without doing sadhana , liking disliking something is not going to help.
How many people who are discussing realized Brahman..?

SD is not an intellectual philosophy but spiritual science revealed after lot of hard work. Kindly respect all but not criticise without base of practice.

I am determined to reach that state. We all should.

yajvan
14 November 2013, 07:09 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
 

you mention,


I find only Advaita Vedanta to be rational and absolutely scientific in nature.

Here is a position from the dvaita¹ point of view. They would say if the SELF (ātman) is one without a second, then that infers that if one person gains mokṣa then all should also gain mokṣa at that time.

The advaitin would say not so. Here is the example. Take multiple pots and fill them with water. Place them in the sun. We will see multiple reflections in each pot of the same sun. Break one pot and only one pot's reflection is gone not all of them. The same with the veil of ignorance being lifted from the person and experiencing the full rays of liberation.

The jīva ( a living being ) is of the reflected light of the Supreme... the jīva is the body + ego + intellect + etc. and sees multiplicity
about him/her and assumes all are like him. The person is within individuality. Let's look at this word for a moment.

individuality
a. the quality or character of a particular person or thing that distinguishes them from others of the same kind,
b. separate existence
There is more to this word if we dis-assemble it: in + divi + duality

in is rooted in 'inv' which = to infuse strength , invigorate , gladden
divi¹ - look to its 2nd derivation and we have 'div' - this means to play, sport, joke; we also know it means to shine and be bright. most see this in the word deva ( rooted in 'div'). Yet the 1st derivation of 'div' is to cause to lament , to pain.
duality - more then 1; and in sanscrit it is dvaitaSo, from my point of view in + divi + duality is that strength that infuses more differences and that can bring pleasure (sport) or pain (div).
This is what many wish to avoid on this earth (pain or div) , yet is fueled (strengthened or in) by continuing a high level of 'me' ness, of self-centeredness.

Advaita suggests there is a way out of this pickle. Unity in the mist of diversity. Within the multiplicity of the whole universe there is commonality of Being, the foundation of existence. If one associates ( identifies) and realizes this natural level, then there harmony in one's vision of the world. The diversity moves to the background, and the underlying unity becomes obvious. Like the moon showing in the daytime. One sees it but it is completely out-shined by the brilliance of the sun.

iti śivaṁ

words

divi = is also the blue jay or kikīdiví
dvaita = duality , duplicity , dualism ; from dvi meaning two
daivata - or relating to the divine

grames
15 November 2013, 08:47 AM
Dear Yajvan.,

It has been questioned many times but unanswered....

"If Brahman is the One and Only consciousness existing and real, there is no scope or room for a separate locus of experience that is independent and individual to a particular Jiva". In other words, accepting such independent and individual experience means, giving room for "Swagadha bedha" to undivided or undividable as there nothing else to divide the Brahman. ( Unless, Brahman is considered non-homogeneous and non-homogeneous brahman means Swadadha behda which is not Advaita again)

In your example, there is no possibility for a "pot to break its Self or itself" and the only reality which can break the Pot or the reflection in the Pot is "Brahman" or the Original Self itself. Regardless of the pot or medium of reflection, the consciousness is still with Brahman or Brahman is the ONLY consciousness and real. So, Pot cannot act, break or think or get release and you obviously agree to all of these ( from ur other post regarding Moksha).

This is something the classical Advaita haven't answered yet but the modern Advaitin accept Brahman to be a "complex compound" attributing "Swagadha Bedha" to Brahman or nullifying the position of "Advaitam".

Just curious to know if i made any sense in the above point!

Hare Krshna!

wundermonk
15 November 2013, 09:34 AM
Regardless of the pot or medium of reflection, the consciousness is still with Brahman or Brahman is the ONLY consciousness and real. So, Pot cannot act, break or think or get release

Does consciousness act/break/think? It appears to me that any action/breaking/thinking implies a change. In other words, does consciousness change? Any change implies a prior and a posterior state. What are these two states for consciousness?

yajvan
15 November 2013, 01:07 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
 

Dear Yajvan.,

It has been questioned many times but unanswered....

"If Brahman is the One and Only consciousness existing and real, there is no scope or room for a separate locus of experience that is independent and individual to a particular Jiva". In other words, accepting such independent and individual experience means, giving room for "Swagadha bedha" to undivided or undividable as there nothing else to divide the Brahman. ( Unless, Brahman is considered non-homogeneous and non-homogeneous brahman means Swadadha behda which is not Advaita again)

In your example, there is no possibility for a "pot to break its Self or itself" and the only reality which can break the Pot or the reflection in the Pot is "Brahman" or the Original Self itself. Regardless of the pot or medium of reflection, the consciousness is still with Brahman or Brahman is the ONLY consciousness and real. So, Pot cannot act, break or think or get release and you obviously agree to all of these ( from ur other post regarding Moksha).

This is something the classical Advaita haven't answered yet but the modern Advaitin accept Brahman to be a "complex compound" attributing "Swagadha Bedha" to Brahman or nullifying the position of "Advaitam".

Just curious to know if i made any sense in the above point!

Hare Krshna!
What can be separate if we assume ( according to the śāstra-s) that brahman is bhūman ( whole, full, plentiful, without break or pause) ?

That said, I did not follow what you are offering here:

In your example, there is no possibility for a "pot to break its Self or itself" and the only reality which can break the Pot or the reflection in the Pot is "Brahman" or the Original Self itself

You see, it all depends on the vantage point of the conversation and who is doing the looking .... the viyogin¹ or the yogin¹.

iti śivaṁ

words

viyogin - separated; individual
yogin - in union with the whole

grames
16 November 2013, 10:56 AM
Wonderful Question! Does consciousness act? As per "Advaita" for the status of "Advaitm" it shouldn't! Why so? If it has to act, it will then require the substratum, medium or instruments to act! ( we can extend this list for any meaningful definition or scientific understanding of what "Action" or Kriya means). To uphold the "Advaitm" of Brahman, it is described and explained or promised as "nishKriya", "nirGuna" and "nishKala" Tattva. If anyone of these three compromised, the Brahman is no longer "Advaitm" as there is an external agency that require participation along with the subject "Brahman". Now, the question of nothing being "external" but yet, the so called "Dream" is going on in the substratum of Brahman itself will be the defense as many neo advaita describes this dream life as "bubble in the sea water where its all ONLY water and also all changes are with in the substratum of water"! This is "bedha" but to understand this example having two subjects, we need to understand what is essential for to be in "no difference" and in "non Difference" state.

No difference is not Advaitam unless it is qualified with "Absolute"! Water bubble is not "Absolutely different" from water, every one should agree. :). Same time, water bubble is not sea or the substratum itself. Only few agree even though it warrants rational agreement with understanding. (Little more technical - What projected the Bubble out of the Sea water is not sea water itself but the combination of wind, earth rotation, salt and mineral content of the sea water etc. Likewise, "undivided Brahman or indivisible homogeneous Brahman cannot project a dream outside its own substratum with out an agent. If the agent is with in Brahman, then such agent then acts nullifying the nishKriya requirement and ultimately the Advaitm. The existence of such "dream" not in Brahman realized state warrants a differentiation separating "realized" from "unrealized" and that differentiation cannot be Brahman as the factor of difference cannot be part of Brahman as Brahman is nirGuna! The appearance of Bubble on the substratum of Brahman with the differentiation factor in, require the supportive "time" for its existence and the factor of time cannot be part of Brahman as it is nishKala which does not undergo the changes due to time!

But the contrary looks more rational and scientific as we witness and experience and also the Shruti support with legitimate and grammatical interpretations! Emphasizing the first part being rational and scientific as ourselves are witnesses, it just brings millions questions of attesting the "still not explained" Advaita philosophy as scientific and rational and that is the reason behind the questioning!

Hare Krshna!

grames
16 November 2013, 11:03 AM
viyogin - separated; individual
yogin - in union with the whole

Are you saying they are two different reals?? Only Yogin must be real and even the viyogin must be a dream word that is not real!

Even saying Yogin in "union" with the Whole is very incorrect... looks like that attributes the existence of something else called Yogin :).

The rational doubt is that, why or what is that idea or theory with evidence that insists on a rule that, we are not Separate? I am very curious to learn and read on why the "reality" of different states of existence and consciousness should not be accepted albeit the very same are the necessity to explain the states of consciousness to uphold a Brahman alone as the Only reality!

Hare Krshna!

smaranam
16 November 2013, 05:56 PM
The rational doubt is that, why or what is that idea or theory with evidence that insists on a rule that, we are not Separate? I am very curious to learn and read on why the "reality" of different states of existence and consciousness should not be accepted albeit the very same are the necessity to explain the states of consciousness to uphold a Brahman alone as the Only reality!

Hare Krshna!
praNAm

I do hear you, of course, and really should not be saying anything here, but it seems that "Brahman alone is the reality" is merely supposed to be a bhAva that allows the one in consciousness of brahman-bhAva to ignore the various states of existence and consciousness.

Further, 'the various states of consciousness have their source in the One Original Brahman' is the idea. You may have to make many hops to get to the original though. It is just that the advaita followers take this oneness dead-seriously :) So much, that making even one hop away from the . is a crime sort of. That is the only way to stay in that bhAva.

.
~ ~
aaaaa
aum

Hare KRshNa ~

harih
20 November 2013, 01:26 AM
Namaste all

Interesting discussion.
I hope to take up the point raised by Sri Grames.

Duality gives rise to fear͵ as the Upanishads say. It gives rise to Soka and Moha. (Tatra ko moha kah sokha EKATVAM aunpashyatah). According to the Bhagavad Gita duality gives rise to kaama krodha and lobha. Now what is common to all these terminologies is͵ they ALL give rise to SORROW in one way or the other.

Advaita gives rise to fearlessness and sorrow-less-ness.

Yo vai Bhooma tad vai Sukham is what the Sruti say.

Sukham is not in the little things; it is in the Big Bigg Brahman.

the sadhu
20 November 2013, 10:31 AM
Dear sriram

Welcome. I will play the purvapakshin (devil's advocate) here.

(1) Science itself presupposes a metaphysical position - a form of realism. That is, the external world exists independent of any observer whose real nature can be verified by employing certain epistemological tools. How is this compatible with Advaita?

(2) Advaita's claim: Jiva (in essence) = Brahman (in essence). If "Jiva" suffers, does "Brahman" suffer? If "Jiva" does not suffer, who/what suffers?

No one suffers, jivas are illusory because its just a body and brain. I don't exist only God exists, in fact any individual object is an illusion, only God exists.

"Names and forms are like banglesand braclets, while Vishnu is like Gold" -adi shankara

Amrut
23 November 2013, 08:51 AM
Dear Yajvan.,

It has been questioned many times but unanswered....

"If Brahman is the One and Only consciousness existing and real, there is no scope or room for a separate locus of experience that is independent and individual to a particular Jiva". In other words, accepting such independent and individual experience means, giving room for "Swagadha bedha" to undivided or undividable as there nothing else to divide the Brahman. ( Unless, Brahman is considered non-homogeneous and non-homogeneous brahman means Swadadha behda which is not Advaita again)

In your example, there is no possibility for a "pot to break its Self or itself" and the only reality which can break the Pot or the reflection in the Pot is "Brahman" or the Original Self itself. Regardless of the pot or medium of reflection, the consciousness is still with Brahman or Brahman is the ONLY consciousness and real. So, Pot cannot act, break or think or get release and you obviously agree to all of these ( from ur other post regarding Moksha).

This is something the classical Advaita haven't answered yet but the modern Advaitin accept Brahman to be a "complex compound" attributing "Swagadha Bedha" to Brahman or nullifying the position of "Advaitam".

Just curious to know if i made any sense in the above point!

Hare Krshna!

Namaste,

To clear certain concepts, one has to sit at the feet of Guru, digest his teachings and meditate the advaita way, as taught by Guru.

Regarding pot breaking, it is true that Brahman alone can break and not the pot itself. Advaita is indeed the path of grace. Certain statements are to be taken as destination. IF you talk from ajat vada, then there is no creation, no maya, hence only pure consciousness i.e. Brahman.

When you meditate, on OM, you are separating yourself by dis-associating with that is separate from you. In this process, you become a witness. A witness does not act. After regular meditation, OM continues by itself and one has to be aware of the source. Mind merges into the source of consciousness.

The type of teaching or this explanation looks dual, but it is not.

Throughout the meditation, be it years, one think does not change - The observer. You will experience that thoughts itself are hindrance, you may also experience that everything floats inside you. Finally when all desires are uprooted, only Brahman remain i.e. there is no observer. Throughout the process, there is no change experienced, as far as observer is concerned. Finally the experience of duality itself gets dissolved.

From this standpoint, one can say that it was always brahman. I may not be able to explain you, but at no time you experience yourself as point of light. Once you become knower, you are separate from the object that you know. This is the conclusion of a Jnani that I am Brahman, I was never separate from Brahman.

Not by acquiring Jnana, but by removing ajnana one is established in Self. Here the word 'to remove' is also used in dual sense for explanatory purpose. Actually it is dis-association. Neti-Neti, naa-iti, naa-iti, not-this, not-this.


e.g. If you say - This is a rose flower

It means that

1. You are the knower of rose flower.
2. You are not rose flower.

In the same way, whatever that can be described, cannot be 'I'. It is only Brahman that cannot be described, says Shruti-s. It it could be described, means that there is someone who knows Brahman and that knower is separate from Brahman. Jiva is described in upanishads Sv. Up. 5.9.

Now regarding experience of pleasure and pain, etc which you conclude that it indicates duality, the answer is -

The pleasure and pain, duality is perceived when one associates with that is non-self. i.e. Atman or say for convenience Jiva associates with body and 5 senses.

If you are not associated with them, then there is no experience of pleasure or pain.

In deep sleep, no matter what be your physical condition e.g. a broken leg or some acute pain like that of bladder stone, nothing is experienced. A person in deep sleep always sleeps calmly. If the Jiva, the individual and is constantly trapped in body, or that the body is real and the pain is real, then the pain should be continuous. It should be experienced in deep sleep also. But we all know this is not the case.

This also concludes that Atman is already achieved. So what is it that is responsible for pleasure and pain?

It is ignorance (avidyA). Out of ignorance of true nature, sense of individuality arises and with is Ego. This ego is responsible for keeping us in duality. 4 functions of antakaraNa come into play and mind enters into the body made up of panch mahAbhuta-s. Please do not take the statement 'entering into body' literally. It is only for explanatory purpose. Mind associates itself with body. It cannot do anything by itself nor can it experience anything. Hence it experiences by associating with 5 senses and works by associating itself with karmendriya-s. All this is done in search of ananda. One always tries to search for ananda, even though one is athiest. There is nothing wrong to search for ananda, what is wrong is to search outside, when it is inside says Sri Ramana Maharshi.

Our whole life is centered around this ananda. We create bank balance, invest in schemes to be ready just incase anything bad happens in future. In short we work for dukh-nivrritti (removal of sorrow).

In this process, over a period of time, mind becomes slave of senses and cannot control itself. Senses drive mind and any direction.

The culprit is association. If we dis-associate 'I', which is awareness, consciousness, with 5 senses and with body, then mind will enter into the infinite domain. Thoughts cease, breath stops, only pure consciousness remains. This is nirvikalp samadhi.

The revelation that 'I am Brahman' is said from stand point of supreme reality. We are not experiencing it daily. If I say thus, still I am wrong, as in deep sleep I experience happiness, but do not remember it when I wake up.

There is one nyaya- KiTa Brahmara nyAya. By constantly meditating on Brahman with abheda bhAva, one verily becomes Brahman. But after realizing Brahman, one realizes that one was never separate from Brahman, nor one experience that I am part and Brahman is whole. There is no experience to say this - I am part and Brahman is whole. To say this, one has to know Jiva and Brahman. In this case shruti is violated. Even by experience, one does not experience separateness.

---

Constant meditation makes the meditation effortless. OM continues by itself. No extra effort is needed except that you sit in meditation. After this stage, the Real Self is waiting and then whatever is to be done is done by someone else (Real Self) and you as an individual have not hand in it - says Sri Ramana Maharshi.

I hope this helps

Aum

Indiaspirituality

P.S.: Under ignorance one feels duality. It is accepted by advaita as vyavahArika satya.

Amrut
23 November 2013, 09:18 AM
Namaste,

I will give another e.g.

Paramatman is like an electricity say 240 V. When we split it and take only a part of voltage and current say 5 V, it is the same electricity. We can switch on a bulb and it will glow, due to electricity. We cannot see electricity, but we can see glow.

Now's lets attach a regulator (like fan's speed regulator). If I change the settings and increase power, bulb will glow more bright. In this case too it is due to same electricity.

Taping electricity does not mean that electricity is separated at anytime, nor can a spark of electricity remain extant for even few moments. It cease to exist. So to think a spark to be eternal, means it can live and can light bulb forever (till the filament aka. body is not burned or broken.). As soon as you change bulb, same spark of electricity will again make the bulb flow it is reaches it end of life and this goes on. This argument is not valid. It was always electricity that lit the bulb.

We can also take e.g. of moon. Moon does not have it's own light, but it reflects the light of Sun. In the same way, Light of Atman (Brahman) falls on mind and intellect, which in turn gets reflected. It is this reflected light that we see.

Moonlight has different characteristics than sunlight. Moonlight is cool and milky while, while sunlight is golden yellow and warm / hot in nature. One can look into the full moon at midnight, but one cannot look into the sun at midday.

Even though we say that there are differences and so duality, in reality, the reflected light of moon, was never moon's own, nor moon has capacity to retain the light by itself even for few minutes. There is no question of moon becoming self luminous. No part and whole theory :)

In the same way, the consciousness (light), which is falls on mind, gets reflected by mind.

In other words, consciousness (light) shines the mind, and from within the mind it itself shines, as though appearing that it is the mind that is actually emanating light (moon emanating it's own light).

We can say in the e.g. of moon and moon light -

Never was the light separate from sun,
Never did moon independently emanated light by it's own,
Never did moon reflected only a part of light
Never did moon retain sunlight and reflected own it's own.
Never did moon separated sunlight and divided into small fragments. Moon reflects everything that falls upon itself.

In short moon does not have any capacity to remain self luminous.

The part and whole philosophy does not account in this e.g. of moonlight.

Mind which stands for moon, is jaDa (gross). It cannot function by itself without the power of soul (moon light). Moon does not have it's existence on new-moon day :)

Soul was never separated. Moon light is actually sun-light.

Aum

Indiaspirituality

Amrut
23 November 2013, 09:41 AM
Namaste,

I will continue from second last post


The pleasure and pain, duality is perceived when one associates with that is non-self. i.e. Atman or say for convenience Jiva associates with body and 5 senses.

If you are not associated with them, then there is no experience of pleasure or pain.

When you witness an accident, you feel compassion for the victim. But if you are not present at the accident spot, do you experience any compassion?

Every moment many are born (happiness), many die (sorrow), but do we experience happiness and sorrow every moment? Why? because we are not aware or conscious of this facts. So it is the consciousness that matters and not the incidents.

EDIT: Now let us add one more factor. The victim is your relative. Now just being compassionate will not do, you will have to act. The impact of incident is more. If the relative is blood relative, the impact on mind is still greater. If you do not know the victim, the impact is low and you may move on. So it is the association or clinging, how much mind gives importance that matters and not the accident itself. By thinking of this world as mithyA (illusion or impermanent), one looses interest and dis-associates with sense objects and persons, and in this process mind becomes introvert.

Consciousness is of utmost importance in advaita and separating it from 5 senses and sense objects and body is like separating milk from mixture of milk and water. Hans (swan) as this ability. Hence swam is an important symbol in Advaita. The one who can separate non-self from self and abide in Self is called as Rajhansa or say paramhansa.

Samadhi is consciousness it is not unconsciousness else it will be deep sleep.

Aum

Indiaspirituality

grames
23 November 2013, 10:29 AM
Excellent posts! Just want to pick two lines....

Advaita is indeed the path of grace.
In the same way, Light of Atman (Brahman) falls on mind and intellect, which in turn gets reflected. It is this reflected light that we see.

The fundamental problem or question is not YET answered...
For mind and intellect to reflect the Brahman, they have to have existence eternally!
In the example, it means, the Moon has to be real to reflect the Brahman.

Rotating the side of argument...

Its not Jiva which has to do the "OM" pranava to realize itself as Brahman but its Brahman which is "eternally" THE PRANAVA and thus, no kind of vada or philosophy can explain this "RATIONALLY" ever. The trap is in the three requirements of nirGunattva, nishKala and nishKriyattva for the Brahman!

The 5V if it can act on itself, it is never separate from the 240 volt! Sounds very good. There is no factor that will ever separate the source 240V then what separated this 240V to a mere 5V? That separator has to be real if there is a possibility of 5V. ( in our case, some transformer).

Everything else in your messages can be explained rationally but after compromising the Brahman as separate entity from Jiva. This is unacceptable to Advaita!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
23 November 2013, 11:18 AM
Excellent posts! Just want to pick two lines....

Advaita is indeed the path of grace.
In the same way, Light of Atman (Brahman) falls on mind and intellect, which in turn gets reflected. It is this reflected light that we see.

The fundamental problem or question is not YET answered...
For mind and intellect to reflect the Brahman, they have to have existence eternally!
In the example, it means, the Moon has to be real to reflect the Brahman.

Rotating the side of argument...

Its not Jiva which has to do the "OM" pranava to realize itself as Brahman but its Brahman which is "eternally" THE PRANAVA and thus, no kind of vada or philosophy can explain this "RATIONALLY" ever. The trap is in the three requirements of nirGunattva, nishKala and nishKriyattva for the Brahman!

The 5V if it can act on itself, it is never separate from the 240 volt! Sounds very good. There is no factor that will ever separate the source 240V then what separated this 240V to a mere 5V? That separator has to be real if there is a possibility of 5V. ( in our case, some transformer).

Everything else in your messages can be explained rationally but after compromising the Brahman as separate entity from Jiva. This is unacceptable to Advaita!

Hare Krshna!

Namaste,

This is the reason why I had said that one has to practically live the advaita way to understand.

Let us take that mind has to separately exists. Still every time our focus is one Jiva and Brahman.

I again say that in Nirvikalp samadhi, there is no mind, no body, no world, no mAyA. Hence they all end in Jnana. So they are not eternal.

You do not visualize or see that mind is burned off. 'I' disassociates itself.

Advaita says there is non-duality, as this statement has to be taken as a destination and as parmarthika satya. I am talking in this way, as we will have to apply it practically.

The idea is to first separate 'I' (consciousness) form that is not 'I'. Here too there is duality. But one does not stop being just a witness. One has to transcend or rise above or go beyond mind and 3 guNa-s. In this state, there is no separate identity. This is the last stage.

Adi Shankara also says 'vyavahArika satya'. Certain things are to be accepted, else one cannot give upadesha.

Even if you take Neti-Neti, still you are separating what is 'not you' (not this, not this is neti neti).

Then who come Adi Shankara even talk about neti neti and meditating on OM.

Advaita does not reject dvaita on vyavarAhika satya. two levels of truth are found in shastras too Please refer Br. Up. 2.3.6 and few verses before it. Refer Patanjali Yoga Sutra 2.22.

Any philosophy, though however great and impressive and intellectual it may be, if it fails to rise a seeker to absolute truth, then is it of any use.

One of the 4 mahAvAkya-s is 'satvam khalu-idam Brahma' meaning everything 'else' is also Brahman.

See here too the word else is present. Why? Whatever you see is not different from Brahman. It is Brahman itself.

The only question is - Is Brahman transformed i.e. permanently changed or not?

Advaita says, Brahman appears as different things under influence of mAyA. When one goes beyond mAyA, one experiences pure Brahman. Brahman is not experienced separately so that it can be defined or described.

Other religio-philosophical schools say something different, hence they say that Jiva exists eternally and so does this world and Ishvara.

This is a philosophical difference. If advaita was only philosophical, then it would be more or less like nyAya.

As you progress, you will realize it, else it is difficult to understand intellectually. It is the realization that is of advaitic nature.

IF I deny this world and body form day one and so not put concept of vyavaharika satya, then it would be difficult to even talk about anything. What to talk, everything is mithyA. Then Adi Shankara would not have written commentaries.

One has to explain from ground level and has to lift disciple to another level. Hence upadesha is given on adhikAra bheda. This is the reason why, in Shankara BhASya you wont find acharya sticking to one truth.

The correct teaching is 'adhyAropa apavAda' i.e. (false) superimposition followed by subsequent retraction

First attributes are given to Brahman and said that 'Brahman created this world', etc then later on in the same shruti, the attributes are retracted by saying 'Brahman is neither this nor that'. This happens mostly via becoming a witness. This teaching is found in Gita and in upanishads

I have attempted to explain this here (http://https://sites.google.com/site/understandingadvaita/adhyaropa-apavada)

IF you analyze Gita,

Ch 1: First lord lets Arjuna do what he wants
Ch 2: Arjuna surrenders. Bhagavan gives qualities of Self Realized soul BG 2.55-59 (one has to show road map, hence trailor. Real picture now begins, or should I say, Gita is over with chapter 2)
Ch. 3: Explains karma
Ch 6: control of mind
Ch 7-10: Bhakti
Ch 11: virAta svarupa
Ch. 12: teaches bhakti
Ch13: witness (lshetra-kshetragya). refer last verse. Which 2 things bhagavan is talking? it is shown in 13.12 and 13.13 in Shankara bhashya. In Ramanuja it is 13.13 and 13.14)
Ch.18: Moksha-SanyAs Yoga. Why Moksha, Why SAnyAsa. What is sanyAsa?

See, bhagavan does not ask us to be a witness from chapter 1. First to do karma and purify mind, then steady mind by doing bhakti, then comes Jnana. First step is to be a witness. Last words of Arjuna is naSto moha smritir labdhA meaning 'my ignorance is destroyed'. GItA starts with a mohAndha (blinded by attachment - me and mine - DritarAShTra)

I hope you get it.

You cannot apply what is said for advanced seeker to a newbie. Hence advaita which corresponds to 4th ashram should not be studied in first ashram :) , except you are pure by birth.

So one has to prepare for advaita Jnana. Hence Adi Shankara in his tatva Bodh, which is very basic, talks about anitya (not eternal) and dosha darshan. Even tough the world is real, it is not eternal. Everything is temporary, including our body, we realize this when we go to smaSAna - cremation ground, but never bother ;)

Aum

Amrut
23 November 2013, 11:22 AM
To explain sadhana, one has to take into account duality and later negate it.

Duality is not negated from day one.

If I say, who is the one who is meditating? What will you do? stop meditating.

Acharya Shankara Bhagavadpada has also said in Tai. Up. 1/11 speak truth, follow dharma. When there are not two, how can he speak such?

Hence first duality is accepted, then negated, ultimately only non-dual Brahman remains :)

Advaita is the topmost philosophical truth, but not all can digest it. Else there will be just maun :)

Advaita does not ask us to rest or stop before entering into the non-dual state.

Aum

Amrut
24 November 2013, 02:45 AM
Namaste,

I will continue from where I had left.

Even if you take the famous statement

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रहैव नापरः
अनेन वेद्यं सच्छास्त्रमिति वेदान्तडि्ण्डिमः - - ब्रह्म ज्ञानावलीमाला - २०


brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparah
anena vedyam sacchAstram iti vedAntaDiNDimah–Brahma Jnanavali mala- 20


20. Brahman (ब्रह्म) is real, the universe is mithya (मिथ्या, it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal. The jiva (जीव) is Brahman (ब्रह्म) itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct SAstra (शास्त्र). This is proclaimed by Vedanta.

In this statement too there are two things - Jiva and Brahman. Then it is said that both are same. So there has to be 2 which are now one right?


Lets take Mahavakya-s

'I am Brahman' and 'You are that'

In 'I am Brahman', there are two things 'I' and 'Brahman'. So this also defeats non-duality. Same is the case with another Mahavakya.

So how to explain this. Does this mean that there is duality and then later on 2 becomes one?

According to me, the explanation is this:

The laxyArtha of this statement is non-duality. This statement is only true when 'I' realizes itself as 'Brahman'. So the word 'am' is important and implies non-duality.

In this case, one has to ask 'Who am I'. When one realizes the true nature of 'I', the statement becomes true and our direct experience.

Now if we say, there were two but not one, atleast in the beginning, then it would violate shruti which says Brahman is indivisible. Hence we have to say, 'it appears to be 2' and not 'it transforms into 2'. This also becomes experience.

When you say, milk changes into curd, the process is irreversible process and both objects have different characteristics. IF you burn a cloth, it gets transforms into ash. Here too there is a permanent irreversible change. Also the residue is left which shows change i.e. ash shows that once there was something else (cloth). In other words, it leaves the traces.

While in famous snake-rope analogy, when snake disappears and rope appears, there is no path that is left, no evidence that once there was snake. This is the difference between mithyA and anitya. Former e.g. of cloth-ash was anitya, while later was that of mithyA.

Hence we cannot even say that this world is anitya (impermanent). But thi is difficult to understand, hence you will find some statements in shastra-s which say this world is impermanent, which are generally aimed to cultivate vairagya. At a proper time, the anitya is substituted by mithya.

Always remember that upadesha-s have to be practically applied. When disciple is not ready, attempts are made to prepare him to get ready.

I hope this clears doubts.

Aum

Indiaspirituality

smaranam
24 November 2013, 10:35 PM
We can also take e.g. of moon. Moon does not have it's own light, but it reflects the light of Sun. In the same way, Light of Atman (Brahman) falls on mind and intellect, which in turn gets reflected. It is this reflected light that we see.

Moonlight has different characteristics than sunlight. Moonlight is cool and milky while, while sunlight is golden yellow and warm / hot in nature. One can look into the full moon at midnight, but one cannot look into the sun at midday.

Even though we say that there are differences and so duality, in reality, the reflected light of moon, was never moon's own, nor moon has capacity to retain the light by itself even for few minutes. There is no question of moon becoming self luminous. No part and whole theory :)

In the same way, the consciousness (light), which is falls on mind, gets reflected by mind.

In other words, consciousness (light) shines the mind, and from within the mind it itself shines, as though appearing that it is the mind that is actually emanating light (moon emanating it's own light).

We can say in the e.g. of moon and moon light -

Never was the light separate from sun,
Never did moon independently emanated light by it's own,
Never did moon reflected only a part of light
Never did moon retain sunlight and reflected own it's own.
Never did moon separated sunlight and divided into small fragments. Moon reflects everything that falls upon itself.

In short moon does not have any capacity to remain self luminous.

The part and whole philosophy does not account in this e.g. of moonlight.

Mind which stands for moon, is jaDa (gross). It cannot function by itself without the power of soul (moon light). Moon does not have it's existence on new-moon day :)

Soul was never separated. Moon light is actually sun-light.

Aum

Indiaspirituality

Very nice explanation. The moon - mAnas-chandra reflecting the light of SuryanArAyaNa - AtmA.

Everyone agrees that there cannot be moon-illumination without sun. However, this means the existence of moonlight is

School A] anitya, transient and fully dependant on sun[light]
School B] mithya, of no consequence, an appearance.

No school of SanAtana Hindu Dharma (or at least Vedic Dharma) disagrees with this either.

Therefore, this is a matter of choice and preference:

School A: ParamAtmA is not a fool to reflect His light on the moon and bring awareness of His beauty. Therefore, had it not been for the moon's Love of the Sun, it would be the civic duty of the moonlight to sing about the Sun and Sunlight and alleviate worldly misery of all such moons.

School B: Of what consequence is a reflection of the REAL on a transient fleeting surface or on a sheer appearance? Our goal is the quest for the real. Only Sun is really real as in - it is the ultimate source [and sink] - sarva kAraNa kAraNam (cause of all causes). Therefore, since Veda-vedAnta says there is only ONE Reality, the Sun, I cannot be anything else other than the Sun, since I exist - by observation.

This is why, there is really no contradiction between any schools.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

Amrut
24 November 2013, 11:55 PM
Namaste Smaranam ji,

Interpretations are based upon one's nature (mental make-up) and mental purity. More pure the person, less is the clash within himself, hence less is the clash his/her mind observes.

When someone writes a commentary explaining veda-s, it is more a reflection of 'his understanding of veda-s' then the veda-s themselves.

In either case, it is the sun which has it's independent existence :)

Hence we all look towards the ultimate goal.

In abheda bhakti, those non-dual statements are for lifting us from duality, as I have explained in my last post.

MithyA can also be taken as temporary in the beginning.

In all schools, there are two identities.

1. Independent supreme reality, the one without second
2. Dependent identities

Also mind is of utmost importance and so is the bhAva.

Aum

smaranam
25 November 2013, 02:27 AM
Namaste (All)

The only argument that can come up is "I am sunlight (shakti), but not Sun." medium[/B]).]


To this The Absolute POV says:
The very definition of I AM xyz (acc. to kevaladvaita) is: [I]THE SOURCE IS xyz
I AM Sun == The Source is Sun

Because the ONLY ONE who has any authority to say " I AM " is the absolute ultimate owner of anything.

Sunlight cannot be the owner of anything. It is an owned commodity.

I am happiness is a figure of speech. Really I AM the ONE WHO owns that happiness.

Therefore, From the absolute POV "I am sunlight " is of no consequence or almost meaningless, because it is like the happiness in 'I AM' saying "I am happiness [in varying degrees]" or intelligence in 'I AM' saying "I am intelligence [in varying degrees]" which again is not solid or complete.


[I]***CAUTION:
Therefore "I AM Sun" should not be mistaken as an owned commodity (tatastha shakti) speaking this statement. It cannot speak. Only the owner (Sun) can speak.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

Amrut
25 November 2013, 02:40 AM
Namaste,

Sun and it's sunlight or say Sun and heat or fire and warmth cannot be separated :)

Brahman and mAyA

Brahman + mAyA = Ishvara (controller of mAyA)

The difference is in analogy and how we interpret a particular analogy :)

Aum

smaranam
25 November 2013, 02:49 AM
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

smaranam
25 November 2013, 03:45 AM
~~ ~~ ~~

grames
25 November 2013, 11:27 PM
Hi.,

Again excellant message and packed with a lot of useful information for Advaita followers.

The objective here is whether they have rational support or not to claim it as scientific and rational. From your message, you seems to agree that such claims are not required or hard to defend as Advaita is more of an faith driven "experience" rather than rational understanding and following. Correct me if i am wrong here.

Rationally you are advocating duality as reality and transcending that duality as the ultimate goal. That ends the philosophy of Advaita and its fundamental tenet of Mithyatva. If vyavahArika itself is not Mithya, then Advaitm is again lost! If vyavahArika if Mithya, then you are in the cyclic confusion where you ought to explain where is the other reality that you have to transcend?

Advaitm cannot be destination but the single reality! You are not something else in any state of reality and you are always that Advaitic Brahman! You are fantastically walking over this issue and your message is really useful for many of the Advaita seekers.

Thanks
Hare Krshna!

grames
26 November 2013, 12:00 AM
Advaita is the topmost philosophical truth, but not all can digest it. Else there will be just maun :)

Advaita does not ask us to rest or stop before entering into the non-dual state.



How contradicting the above two are :)

To certify it as topmost philosophical truth, we have to talk about it right? :) but it cannot be talked about, described or experienced!
How can you enter in to a state when you never lost or put in to any other state? How such Brahman ever loose its own reality when the other way around is advocated as the topmost where there must be no second to compete with?

The popular story about Shankara picking flowers remind me of this duality as reality! Mother, i cannot see more than one flower ( cos he is jivan Muktha - but he saw a mother, responded to her and oh he also saw 'a flower')

Amrut
26 November 2013, 02:19 AM
Namaste Grames,

Please do not mix 2 standpoints - practical and top-most (Parmarthika). The way you are raising doubts, I would not be able to ever satisfy you. The only thing that can satisfy you is your own inner experience.

What is more important is how one can experience this non-dual state. For this in order to communicate and teach others, dual tone has to be picked up. If you tenuously stick to non-duality or even brahma satya jagat mithya, then you wont ever understand advaita. As I have earlier said, some statements are updeshaka like tat tvam asi.

Why Adi Shankara said is more important than What he said. Upadesha-s are given on adhekara bheda and depend upon mental make-up.

Let me just add some more info for you and Smaranam ji (~ ~ ~ ) and others

When you say - I am God, then it sounds very rude and egoist. One may revolt, how can you say such a thing.

Here lies the problem in understanding the statement.

I will give my personal opinion.

Ego is individuality. When will ego arise? when you say what you are not.

So, when you identify 'I' with body or 'Jiva', then the problem starts like moon trying to think that he is Sun. Moon cannot be sun.

Now with a priori, that 'I' is Jiva, you say, I am God. This is mean that Jiva first accepts it's jivahood and then proclaims that 'I am Brahman'. Advaita says that 'I am not jiva'. What it means? - Do not identify yourself (I) with Jiva. This 'I' is not Jiva, it is Brahman. Moon is not Sun, only sun can be called as Sun.

When you say ‘I am Brahman’ with assumption, I am Jiva, then it is a double mistake

1. Wrong assumption that I am Jiva
2. Jiva assuming that I am Brahman

There is universal wrong identification of 'I' with body, ego and Jiva. This identification is because of error or say avidya (ignorance). Hence it is said that the root cause of all duality is ignorance.

When I say I = individuality, then I = Ego. When I say I = Shiva, then I am annihilating the Ego.

This means what we thought of an egoist statement is actually a statement or an upadesha which is uprooting Ego.

I ≠ Jiva
I = Shiva

When you say, I = Jiva, this statement does not contain Ishvara i.e. it forgets Ishvara. When you say I = Shiva, then Ego is not present in this statement, only Shiva is present or remembered.

Should I stress one more time, I = Shiva (Brahman - Sun).

--

Now regarding the world being mithyA.

Earlier I had talked about mithyA and anitya

In mithyA, when superimposed object is removed or negated, then no trace of object is found after negation (snake does not leave it’s traces)

In anitya, traces are left e.g. cloth burned into ashes. Ashes are visible, even when cloth is desctoyed.

In Nirvikalp Samadhi, there is no experience of mAyA, nor do we see burned ego floating within us, nor do we see any world, we do not see anything. It’s just pure consciousness.

If transformation of this world is real and irreversible, then in Nirvikalp Samadhi, one has to see the world too and one has to experience oneself as point of light (size of Jiva as in Sv. Up.). Note point of light is just for representing small size.

One does not experience anything but just Brahman, without any trace of ego, Jiva, world, mAyA, etc.

Hence this world is to be taken as mithyA.

Also note that a Jnani, by saying ‘I am Brahman’, does not snatch away the power and functions of Ishvara. Infact, Jnani never wishes for any siddhi-s. It’s just pure unbroken, undivided, immutable consciousness.

Should I repeat again, while one does neti-neti, negates non-self, then in the netire process, nothing new is created, nothing new is formed, nothing is transformed, nothing new is achieved. It’s same old consciousness.

As one progress, one detaches from what is non=self and hence ego is annihilated or fades or dissolves gradually until not even a trace of ego remains.

The difference between Jnani and ajnani is that Jnani knows this true nature, while ajnani does not.

Ramana Maharshi says that 'I am Brahman' becomes only true when one realizes 'I' is Brahman. Hence ask Who am I? until the questioner dissolves thereby realizing True nature.

I hope this clears out confusion

Aum

smaranam
26 November 2013, 03:33 AM
Let me just add some more info for you and Smaranam ji (~ ~ ~ ) and others

When you say - I am God, then it sounds very rude and egoist. One may revolt, how can you say such a thing.

Here lies the problem in understanding the statement.

I will give my personal opinion.

Ego is individuality. When will ego arise? when you say what you are not.

So, when you identify 'I' with body or 'Jiva', then the problem starts like moon trying to think that he is Sun. Moon cannot be sun.

Now with a priori, that 'I' is Jiva, you say, I am God. This is mean that Jiva first accepts it's jivahood and then proclaims that 'I am Brahman'. Advaita says that 'I am not jiva'. What it means? - Do not identify yourself (I) with Jiva. This 'I' is not Jiva, it is Brahman. Moon is not Sun, only sun can be called as Sun.

When you say ‘I am Brahman’ with assumption, I am Jiva, then it is a double mistake

1. Wrong assumption that I am Jiva
2. Jiva assuming that I am Brahman

There is universal wrong identification of 'I' with body, ego and Jiva. This identification is because of error or say avidya (ignorance). Hence it is said that the root cause of all duality is ignorance.

When I say I = individuality, then I = Ego. When I say I = Shiva, then I am annihilating the Ego.

This means what we thought of an egoist statement is actually a statement or an upadesha which is uprooting Ego.

I ≠ Jiva
I = Shiva

When you say, I = Jiva, this statement does not contain Ishvara i.e. it forgets Ishvara. When you say I = Shiva, then Ego is not present in this statement, only Shiva is present or remembered.

Should I stress one more time, I = Shiva (Brahman - Sun).

This was precisely the message in post# 25 :

To this The Absolute POV says:
The very definition of I AM xyz (acc. to kevaladvaita) is: THE SOURCE IS xyz
I AM Sun == The Source is Sun

Because the ONLY ONE who has any authority to say " I AM " is the absolute ultimate owner of anything.

Sunlight cannot be the owner of anything. It is an owned commodity.


***CAUTION:
Therefore "I AM Sun" should not be mistaken as an owned commodity (tatastha shakti) speaking this statement. It cannot speak. Only the owner (Sun) can speak.

Those ~~ s were actually just explaining that these words are not fighting against you, they are supporting :)

Also added a line : "Who is saying it? If it is [individual ego] then that is wwrong becs sunlight cannot say I AM this or that. Only the Sun can.

but then deleted it just in case it is again mistaken as a fighting purvapakshi or something :)

Amrut
26 November 2013, 05:25 AM
This was precisely the message in post# 25 :


Those ~~ s were actually just explaining that these words are not fighting against you, they are supporting :)

Also added a line : "Who is saying it? If it is [individual ego] then that is wwrong becs sunlight cannot say I AM this or that. Only the Sun can.

but then deleted it just in case it is again mistaken as a fighting purvapakshi or something :)

No issues. I understand :)

Jai Shri Krishna

grames
26 November 2013, 11:20 AM
Namaste Amrut.,

Nice reply and for some reason i believe it is repeating the same you have already conveyed. I do understand what you are explaining and also have understood your previous messages but not 'convinced' as 'rational'. You are right that these explanations will not 'satisfy' my rational curiosity and i have discussed with very staunch advaitins regarding the "reality" ascribed to even the status of reality. The three major fundamental requirements for "Advaitm" is yet to be answered and none of your messages here attempts to answer them. You are actually teaching what is "Advaita" and i think this forum has many of them already from great writers like devotee, atanu etc. You are adding to that very nicely and i appreciate it. To help you and this discussion, let me put the majors where you can add more information and value to this thread if you can add knowledge.

Ajnana - The cause of multiple is not rationally explained. First challenge is, its location and second challenge is its reality itself. BhavaRupaAjnana is also not satisfactory from the rational point of view. So, rationally defend your Brahman if you know the truth and also educate and help to understand this 'philosophy' has answers to this fundamental question.

Upadhi - The medium that causes the multiplicity - Brahman alone exists but there are individual Jivas who attains independent Mukthi - ekaJiva vada is tricky and unsatisfactory for rational seekers. So, what causes this "reflection" of Brahman as Jiva and how the Ajnana utilizes the Upadhi for multiplication - This is the very source and pivot in explaining the Saguna Brahman from Nirguna Brahman - and in expanded form the world and its "mithyatva" because it is only the reflection of "One Brahman".

Maya - What is it? Is it real or unreal? Is it just like a "Reflection" of Brahman or something different from Brahman but always associated with Brahman?

Status of Reality - When the qualifier is positive ascribing reality to only one, what is the reality of "status of reality"? Such relative realities are possible if and only if there are more perceivers and the sarvam kalvidam Brahma means, Brahman is never absent anywhere, any time and at any point as He is the Only one Present with out a "Second real"! Since, there is no second real, there is no one else who is real to perceive the varying status of reality! Since, Mind, body and Ego are unreal which does not have any sort of "reality", they do not have power, ability to give another "I" to the "Brahman" who is always real in all four status and thus, cannot override that supreme consciousness. It is now the question of, what is that which "super impose" and overrides this One reality when there is no status to anything else which can be real and to act, to superimpose which warrants a reality that can be given only by this Supreme Brahman only ( which He won't and He doesn't as He is NirGuna and NishKriya)

Last but very important - when you say what is that "Not I" should be removed, what is that "I" should be fully understood or established first in place and since both are not mutually possible at the same time and locus, you MUST admit that, both of them will never happen if we attribute "positiveness" to them so, establishment of what is that "I" should negate what is that "I am Not" or establishment of what is that "I am Not" should establish "what is that I am"!

Take the points seriously and if you can answer them convincingly, i am sure "advaita" is then "Scientific and Rational".

Advaita has a different status and it is very popular, respectful among its mass of believers and followers and has a tradition that upholds it for ages. None of them require additional prefix of being it rational and scientific!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
27 November 2013, 12:20 AM
Namaste Amrut.,

Nice reply and for some reason i believe it is repeating the same you have already conveyed. I do understand what you are explaining and also have understood your previous messages but not 'convinced' as 'rational'. <content clipped>

Hare Krshna!

Namaste Grames,

Please accept my apologies that I am not able to give answer your doubts.

I understand what you are saying. I am more of a meditative creature :)

I only think what helps me to progress in spirituality.

Rational thinking is good, but mind is such that it keeps asking questions. Hence I like what Sri Ramana Maharshi has said, Ask who is the questioner, and the questioner will dissolve.

Please understand that the purpose of spirituality is to calm down mind. Less the no of dis-satisfied desires, more is the peace within. the purpose of meditation is also the same. In meditation, mind calm down.

Please understand that I am not trying to defend Advaita. I am not that knowledgeable who could quote shastra-s at will. I was just trying to clear doubts and share what I have learned and understood.

I will refer to your questions and if possible, I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge. My english is weak. It will take time to understand what exactly are you saying. In case of doubt, I will ask for clarification, so that it will save unnecessary typing, you know length of my articles :)

To the best of my knowledge, no body has been able to explain the beginning of this universe and how Brahman got deluded or Jiva was formed. This is why samsAra (universe) is called as anAdi (beginningless), but it ends in Jnana.


Take the points seriously and if you can answer them convincingly, i am sure "advaita" is then "Scientific and Rational".

Even if I am able to answer questions rationally, it is not end of road. New questions may arise from my answers and this would go on.

Hare Krishna

Amrut
28 November 2013, 09:00 AM
Namaste

Let me attempt to answer this.




Ajnana - The cause of multiple is not rationally explained.


Ajnana alone is not cause of multiplicity. Individuality (ego) is the cause of multiplicity.

Ignorance + Ego = Action. Only ego or only ignorance cannot produce action. We need them both.

Associating with what you are not and long time association with non-self leads to error that 'I' am body is nothing but ajana. It arises out of ego, which is individuality.

SamsAra and so ajnAna is anAdi (beginningless). Hence case of Brahman getting deluded is unknown.

We can take e.g. of electricity. Same electricity can light many bulbs. But in period of time, bulb things that this light is my very own. This is ego, false assumption.

Consciousness when gets trapped in 5 mahabhuta-s, it is called as jiva, which are multiple. But in reality, it is the long association with 5 mahabhuta-s that makes one think that one is limited by space and time. Ajnana is in false association and assumption that 'I am body'.

Now the reality part.

Though the jiva and this world looks real, and we experience this world, according to shastra-s, real (satya) is that which is present in all times, in all states.

Asatya (unreal / False) is that which is not present at all times (eternal), waking, dream and deep sleep.

MithyA is that which is neither real nor unreal.

Ajnana ends in Jnana. Hence it is not eternal or real.

I didnt understand


First challenge is, its location and second challenge is its reality itself.

why you need location? everything is in mind.


Upadhi - The medium that causes the multiplicity - Brahman alone exists but there are individual Jivas who attains independent Mukthi - ekaJiva vada is tricky and unsatisfactory for rational seekers. So, what causes this "reflection" of Brahman as Jiva and how the Ajnana utilizes the Upadhi for multiplication - This is the very source and pivot in explaining the Saguna Brahman from Nirguna Brahman - and in expanded form the world and its "mithyatva" because it is only the reflection of "One Brahman".


Jiva-s do not attain mukti, ajnana is removed. Brahman is there and is only one. The difference is in the realization of truth.

Jnani knows he is Brahman
Ajnani does not know that he is Brahman

mAyA causes Brahman to appear as multiple. 5 mahabuta-s are upadhi-s. When you remove upadhi-s like piling layers of onion, what remain si pure consciousness - Brahman.

Brahman + Maya = Ishvara

For explanatory purpose it is said that Ishvara creates everything from his mind. Hence this world is a mental reflection. Later on the upadhi-s are retracted, by saying ‘ that which is neither being nor non-being BG 13.13)’, mind cannot reach there, etc,

One Brahman is realized. Upon realization there is no mishrita anubhuti (mixed experience) of many jiva-s, mAyA, world, etc. Hence Brahman is only one. There is no second to experience it separately.

Ajnana does not utilizes upadhi. It is mAyA which makes it look what it is not. Ref. Snake - rope analogy.


MithyAtva is justified, as no trace of snake is left when rope is seen. If snake had been real, it’s traces of being present like it’s curvy foot prints or marks should be present. If snake is destroyed or transformed, then it’s end product i.e. ash should be left, which is not the case, hence mithyAtva is justified.



Maya - What is it? Is it real or unreal? Is it just like a "Reflection" of Brahman or something different from Brahman but always associated with Brahman?

mAyA is power of Ishvara (SAguNa Brahman).

As explained earlier, it is neither real nor unreal.

Since mAyA is not real, it does not exist in pure consciousness. Though mAyA is called anAdi (beginningless), it ends in Jnana.

mAyA and Ishvara are like fire and warmth, inseparable. Brahman can exist without mAyA, but mAyA cannot exist without Brahman. Brahman is like a screen. mAyA is projection.

Whatever is projected on screen, does not effect the screen. A movie may have a bloody scene, but not even a trace of blood is found on screen.


Status of Reality - When the qualifier is positive ascribing reality to only one, what is the reality of "status of reality"? Such relative realities are possible if and only if there are more perceivers and the sarvam kalvidam Brahma means, Brahman is never absent anywhere, any time and at any point as He is the Only one Present with out a "Second real"! Since, there is no second real, there is no one else who is real to perceive the varying status of reality! Since, Mind, body and Ego are unreal which does not have any sort of "reality", they do not have power, ability to give another "I" to the "Brahman" who is always real in all four status and thus, cannot override that supreme consciousness. It is now the question of, what is that which "super impose" and overrides this One reality when there is no status to anything else which can be real and to act, to superimpose which warrants a reality that can be given only by this Supreme Brahman only ( which He won't and He doesn't as He is NirGuna and NishKriya)

Brahman is one without a second, but it's reflections are many like many images of sun in different pots filled with water.

Upon inquiring 'Who am I', and going to the source, the relative existence (individuality) is lost and what remains is pure consciousness.

Brahman by itself cannot do anything, but everything happens in it's presence.

Sun, does not do anything. Sun only shines. It i the nature of sun to give light. It cannot give darkness. But the entire ecosystem functions and we are alive because of sun. But sun itself does not do anything, nor is it involved with anything.

Clouds form and they do not let us view the Sun. This does not mean sun does not exist. Remove the cloud of ignorance and Sun will be revealed. Brahman is not respeonsible for karma that is done under ajnana. In Jnana, no karma can be done, as there is no ‘I’



Last but very important - when you say what is that "Not I" should be removed, what is that "I" should be fully understood or established first in place and since both are not mutually possible at the same time and locus, you MUST admit that, both of them will never happen if we attribute "positiveness" to them so, establishment of what is that "I" should negate what is that "I am Not" or establishment of what is that "I am Not" should establish "what is that I am"!

To understand 'I', one has to ask ' Who am I' inquire and finally what is left is just 'I', but this is not ego, it is pure consciousness. The questioner melts in source. Only pure consciousness remains.

If you say 'you' and 'they', i.e. second person and third person, then the cannot exist without 'I', the first person. The existence of first person is self evident.

While counting 10 people, every time the count stop at 9. Then someone says - count yourself. The person (first person) forget himself to count. The moment he remembered to count himself, his exploration and anxiety to find the 'lost' one ends here and now.

--

So, Grames ji, did I pass in your rational test. Or does my answers raise new questions?

Aum

Indiaspirituality

grames
28 November 2013, 10:04 AM
You are a delight and i admire your gentleness and profound messages. Hope we both are benefiting and learning equally.

No. I am not going to certify anything premature. Remember this, what is inconclusive is not going to gain our complete commitment and when we say we cannot conclude, it is only our arguments but it is not a question on your personal and individual conviction.

When you say, "Hence case of Brahman getting deluded is unknown", i believe you are accepting and agreeing that, It is "Brahman" who is in fact getting deluded. This is not the position of Advaita schools and Brahman is always situated in jnana and escaping that with "Anadi" will not help! Cos, it doesn't matter "when" Brahman is deluded when the seriousness is regarding the possibility of such Brahman getting deluded in first place.

Second knot is that, there is no Saguna Brahman yet until unless Maya exists beforehand. For the Saguna Brahman to come in to being, Maya has to be already there (not in terms of time alone but as a force - I am asking not for a "prior" as in time but the availability of one such)

mAyA is power of Ishvara (SAguNa Brahman).

Since, Maya has no trace in Advaitic Nirguna Brahman, that doesn't exist as real at all! The Saguna Brahman itself now require justification of its very existence to uphold and utilize the Maya to create the multiple reflection etc. and everything else.

All the knots are in these two itself! Unlock these two and that's how it can be rational!

Some of the pointers....

There is no common factor between a tree and lion - It is paradoxical to claim, a lion is neither a tree nor non-tree or a tree as neither a lion nor a non-lion! Similarly, when real and unreal are upheld as two positives, it is paradoxical to claim something is neither real nor unreal!

Individuality is the effect and not the cause! Not sure how can you attribute what you claim individuality as non-eternal but as the cause!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
30 November 2013, 10:17 AM
You are a delight and i admire your gentleness and profound messages. Hope we both are benefiting and learning equally.

No. I am not going to certify anything premature. Remember this, what is inconclusive is not going to gain our complete commitment and when we say we cannot conclude, it is only our arguments but it is not a question on your personal and individual conviction.

When you say, "Hence case of Brahman getting deluded is unknown", i believe you are accepting and agreeing that, It is "Brahman" who is in fact getting deluded. This is not the position of Advaita schools and Brahman is always situated in jnana and escaping that with "Anadi" will not help! Cos, it doesn't matter "when" Brahman is deluded when the seriousness is regarding the possibility of such Brahman getting deluded in first place.

Second knot is that, there is no Saguna Brahman yet until unless Maya exists beforehand. For the Saguna Brahman to come in to being, Maya has to be already there (not in terms of time alone but as a force - I am asking not for a "prior" as in time but the availability of one such)

mAyA is power of Ishvara (SAguNa Brahman).

Since, Maya has no trace in Advaitic Nirguna Brahman, that doesn't exist as real at all! The Saguna Brahman itself now require justification of its very existence to uphold and utilize the Maya to create the multiple reflection etc. and everything else.

All the knots are in these two itself! Unlock these two and that's how it can be rational!

Namaste,

Thank you for kind words.

Let me try to unlock the knots :D

‘Brahman getting deluded’ was just a way to describe. Please do not take word by word meaning. Try to understand what am I trying to say.
Ishvara exists as Brahman (NirguNa Brahman) in turiyA avasthA. To call Ishvara, we have to add 6 upAdhi-s. Why are they called upAdhi-s? If we remove these attributes, then what is left, pure consciousness – Brahman.
In order to view this world or perceive duality, mAyA has to be taken into account. Names and forms are nothing but superimpositions. Beyond mAyA and it’s 3 guNa-s, there is no saguNa Brahman. It his conveyed in the word itself – sa-guNa (with guNA) :)
From ajAta vAda, there is no ishvara. Self is real Ishvara, it is Brahman.
To explain the creation, somehow, false attributes guNa-s are added, later on they are retracted so that only pure Consciousness remains.

Some of the pointers....

There is no common factor between a tree and lion - It is paradoxical to claim, a lion is neither a tree nor non-tree or a tree as neither a lion nor a non-lion! Similarly, when real and unreal are upheld as two positives, it is paradoxical to claim something is neither real nor unreal! The common factor between tree and lion is name and form, it’s existence at one place at one time.

Real is that which is present at all places at all times – all pervading, omnipresent, as consciousness, without which nothing can be experienced.

Remove these common factor of name and form and what is left is Jnana.

e.g. Mango Tree.

As soon as I said this word – Mango Tree, a shape of ‘Tree’ came up. Since it was a mango tree, you may have visualized some mangoes too ;)

Mango tree is both a particular shape and a name associated with that shape.

Now gently remove the name ‘Mango Tree’

What is left is just a shape.

Now remove the shape too. What is left – Blank or you can say only the knowledge of Mango tree.

In the whole process, you are not negated – You are present. If you are not present, then you would not have visualized all these J

We can take analogy of snake and rope.

Snake is dependent upon rope. Rope is AdhAra (base) upon which snake is superimposed. Without rope snake cannot exist.

Hence rope is eternal (real). Snake became unreal (false or non-existent) only when you were able to see rope, not before, hence it cannot be called as unreal. Unreal is that which is not present at any time. What is left is the in between – that which cannot be categorized as either real or unreal. Hence it is mithyA.



Individuality is the effect and not the cause! Not sure how can you attribute what you claim individuality as non-eternal but as the cause! Both have to exit. One cannot be without another. Ignorance and Ego produce action. I didn’t denied that Ignorance is root cause. I only said that Ego also has to be taken into account, else no activity can be done. Just ignorance is not enough. If you do not have sense of individuality, then can you do anything? There is no second.

When either ignorance is removed or when Ego is destroyed, you abide in Self.

If individuality is just an effect, then when ego is uprooted or dissolved, then one would not get moksha. One ha to remove the cause and not effect.

If you get fever, you will have to destroy virus and not the effects that virus produce i.e. increase in temp. Just curbing high temp does not mean that the cause (virus) is also destroyed.

So Grames ji, did I find a master key ;)

Aum

Anirudh
30 November 2013, 02:18 PM
Namaste IS Amrutji,



Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational


There is a lot of discussion on Advaita these days.

I am not sure whether my question is any where near the intellectual level of this discussion, how ever when I get to read about Advaita one question appear in to my mind...

Since the title has two related words to my question, posting it here...

Lets us say, one person finds his house burning and his beloved are locked inside. What would Advaita teach us to do in that situation?

Answer to my question will help me to understand the practicability of Advaitam....

Amrut
01 December 2013, 02:28 AM
Namaste IS Amrutji,

Since the title has two related words to my question, posting it here...

Lets us say, one person finds his house burning and his beloved are locked inside. What would Advaita teach us to do in that situation?

Answer to my question will help me to understand the practicability of Advaitam....

Namaste Anirudh ji,

Advaita belongs to 4th ashram, which is sanyAsa ashram. However, not all belong to this ashram, even mentally. A sanyAsin does not have any house, nor any family.

But let me give you the answer, which is practical and is connected with advaita.

You will do what you can to save everything you can.

Why? When everything is mithyA, then why?

The answer is in the very question you have raised. If you were a true practising advaitins, you would not think in this direction.

Perhaps, advaita does accept practical living, dvaita, bhakti, nitya karma, but only upto a certain point. Advaita says, this is not the end of road, go ahead, still ahead there is aforest of sandalwood, but do not stop, there is goldmine, oh no do not stop here either, there is diamond mine, there is platinum.

When someone lives a practical life, and is deeply attached to his belongings, family and wealth, you simply cannot give upadesha of tyAga. So you give him upadesha that he can follow. By following this updesha - 'Save your family and home' will give him a moral strength and say, if he saves his family, his mind will calm down. So we say, it was in your prArabhda to pass through this phase. Everything happened or you did was instinctive and this act of saving does not act as an hinderance in your spiritual progress. Pray to God that you reached there in time and were able to save your family. Have faith in Lord. There must be some reason for this incident to happen, may be it is connected with the karma of your past life lives. Do not loose faith in Rama. He is very compassionate, but at the same time a perfect judge who gives us fruits of our actions. Do not question him. Sing his praise.

Now, you may ask, where advaita, that - Brahma satya jagat mithyA? right? say yeeeess :D

The thing is you may not be well prepared and purified enough to practice advaita, but this does not mean that we should not make any efforts to make us fit and get inwardly pure.

The answer above is said keeping this intention in mind. After the chitta is purified, certain questions do not arise in mind. Also RAma will not create such situations which will hamper your spiritual progress. If such situation arises, then there is something that we will have to learn from it. It all depends upon how we perceive and take thing - positive or negative.

Preparation is also a part of Advaita. After you are ready for tatva Jnana, by strengthening your faith in RAma, RAma himself will make arrangements for your meeting with your Guru. RAma will also give you sad-buddhi and will develop strong faith and attraction in your heart for the medium he has chosen for your kalyANa.

Until you are not ready, it is always good to give advice in such a way that you learn to take things positively, connect every incident with divinity and wish of Lord RAma, increase faith in your beloved deity, thereby purifying you and making you ready for tatva Jnana.

Till you become sufficiently pure, one has to wait, have patience :)

Jai shri RAma

P.S. You can call me Amrut (without ji ;) )

Amrut
02 December 2013, 12:17 AM
Jai shri RAma,

I would also like to give alternate explanation.

All smArta-s were advaitins or all advaitins earlier were smArta-s. smArta-s worship 5 deities and the daily rituals is called panchyatna puja. All 5 forms of God - Ganesha, Shiva, shakti, Vishnu and Surya are considered as equal manifestations of same divinity. sometimes Surya is worshipped as Surya Narayana.

smArta-s are the once who follow smtiri-s. there are 18 smriti-s, some of them are Manu Smriti, Apastamba Dharma Smriti, Gautam, Yagnavalkya, Atri, Daksha, Shankha, etc.

Smriti-s are typing called as notes from memory. Great Rishi-s what had mastered Veda-s wrote smriti-s in accordance with Veda-s (shturi-s). Hence even shruti-s are also important to smArta-s.

Smriti-s are also called as dharma Shastra-s (laws code, code of conduct) and are created for universal well being nad harmony.

Adi Shankaracharya has quoted many smriti-s in his bhashya-s. Which means that he himself gave importance to them.

Dharma Shastra-s, which provide moral and ethical laws, permit us to take sword for self protection and also allow Brahmins who are starving to take up occupations like trading and even take up the dharma of sword as a last resort.

I hope you have got your answer :)

If we stick to Brahma Satya Jagat Mithya, then dharma shastra-s are also useless and everything is illusion.

So until, you attain inner purity, you will have to do nitya karma and carry out your duties. Adi Shankara also repaired, reconstructed many temples and also re-installed the deity of famous Jagannath Puri and built one of his math, Puri Math right there.

Adi Shankaracharya only established advaita as highest philosophical truths. He himself did not gave Jnana to any Grihastha and gave utmost importance to Sanyasa for attaining Brahma-vidya, as one can fully devote all 24 hours to God.

But for masses, he also composed hyms for various deities and as I have said repaired temples, reconsecrated Sri Yantra-s. This means he encouraged deity worship, shakta-s Tantra (in pure form), karma kand (mimAmsA), but he did not consider them as the supreme goal. So he asks us to rise above them after you attain inner purity.

Unfortunately his life i.e. biography, as some say, is corrupted and hence rejected by rivals, and only his prasthantrayi Bhashya is considered as authentic and are undoubtedly attributed to Adi Shankaracharya. If we blend even some of his hymms, his biography and his bhashya-s, we can understand why he is called as Jagat Guru.

Adi Shankara also commented on Vishnu Sahasranama and has commented on Patanjali Yoga Sutra, a short 28 verse hym, which is considered as an essence of Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, perhaps, according to Adhaviya shankara Digvijay (written by VidyaraNya Svami), his Guru Govindapada is considered as incarnation of Shesha Naaga and the same shesha Naaga was born earlier as Maharshi Patanjali.

Saundarya Lahiri is also considered as very powerful composition on Devi bhavAnI, specially the first 40 verses (out of total 100) are said to be very potent. Then there is Dakshinamurti stotra, Shiva Panchakshara stotra and Veda Sara Shiva Stotra is also attributed to him, all considered authentic atleast by Kanchi Paramacharya.

EDIT: Citing 12 purANa-s which includes 3 up-purANa-s in his Vishnu Sahasranam Bhashya shows that he was in full support of purANa-s and he did not devised symbolic meaning. Hence he even propagated bhakti. He also cited tamasic and rajasic puranas which means that unlike Vaishnava-s he did n't considered them as leading to hell, or in other words, those verses are an interpolation

In short he blended Yoga, Tantra (shakta), Karma Kand, Bhakti into Advaita, and established advaita as the final destination.

Aum

Anirudh
02 December 2013, 07:11 AM
Namaste IS Amrutji,

Thank you very much for taking time to explain me.



Advaita belongs to 4th ashram, which is sanyAsa ashram.

Although don't even know 1% of Advaitam, this statement makes sense to me. My spiritual level is too low to take up sanyAsa and also the purpose of my life (my perceived) do not allow me.

Honestly must admit that will take some time to understand your reply completely.

How ever, you reply clarified that Advaitam is not for ordinary people as it can't be practised in the concrete jungle lifestyle.

Amrut
02 December 2013, 08:48 AM
Namaste IS Amrutji,

Thank you very much for taking time to explain me.


Although don't even know 1% of Advaitam, this statement makes sense to me. My spiritual level is too low to take up sanyAsa and also the purpose of my life (my perceived) do not allow me.

Honestly must admit that will take some time to understand your reply completely.

How ever, you reply clarified that Advaitam is not for ordinary people as it can't be practised in the concrete jungle lifestyle.

Namaste,

As per my understanding Advaita is not for those who wish to fulfill desires. Also no of desires has to be less. That is why even in prakaraNa granth-s, which are very basic texts like Atma Bodh, Vivekchudamani (basic though profound in knowledge), qualifications are given.

If advaita could have been practiced by all, there wont be any of these qualities like four main qualities like
vivek, vairAgya, ShaTa sampattis (Sat sampatti - Sama, dama, uprati, titikshA, sraddhA and samAdhAna) and mumukshu.

This explains it all :)

Until then we will have to prepare ourselves to be qualified. Total mastery is not expected, but they have to be present up to a certain extent. Only Guru can know if you qualify for Advaita.

The problem is in this e-age :D, everything is floating on net, including Brahma Sutra-s, which are definitely not for laymen. People write commentaries even if they are not authorized by a Guru or by God. God should order them to write down commentaries.

Alas, all are pouncing to write commentaries, may be some of them do not even meditate, who knows.

Certain things should not be thrown to masses.

Aum

grames
03 December 2013, 12:22 PM
Namaste Amrut.,

Very interesting reply and i am sure, useful for already convinced. :)

Sorry to say this, but you haven't answered my questions.

First, you are not explain or at least saying what it means when you say "Brahman is getting deluded" and no i do not understand what you are saying. My question is very much focused on, Advaitic Brahman having the possibility of "Getting deluded"! and not about the time when it got deluded, or status before and after delusion or deluded Brahman and Nirguna Brahman both existing in all four states forever! Its only pointed question on "Whether the Advaitic Brahman can be deluded or not!"

You are again, not explaining the super impositions or the source of Maya! You are explaining the effect!

No explanation for "Saguna Brahman" coming in to existence and the cyclic inter-dependency of existence of Maya beforehand of existence of Saguna Brahman!

You confused more now.... Ishvara u said is Saguna Brahman + Maya but now you are saying that IShavaara is Nirguna Brahman with 6 upadhis. I am lost. But, same you immediately saying, removing that 6 upadhis will leave the Brahman as pure conscious, and i hope that is what you mean "Nirguna" Brahman!

The example i stated is misunderstood...

For one, name and form is real and can be compared with another real where there is a commonality of name and form! When you compare a real with unreal where there is no commonality, the fundamental identity of objects and their reality of name and form is lost. In other words, calling an object and its existence when ultimately one is real and the other is unreal has no commonality and that is what is called "Paradoxical" meaning such cannot exist!

You cannot build anymore on top of what cannot exist and so why that crux require a meaningful explanation!

"
Real is that which is present at all places at all times – all pervading, omnipresent, as consciousness, without which nothing can be experienced.

Remove these common factor of name and form and what is left is Jnana.
"

The above statements are coming from one particular thought but not rational. Even if we take your definition of real as something that exist always and at all place, all pervading etc. what should be unreal? The opposite of it? or another positive entity? ( Not sure if you are understanding what is positive entity means - Not having knowledge can be identified as Ignorance when they are mutually exclusive. Or Ignorance when being positive has nothing to do with the knowledge - here ignorance is positive and dawn of knowledge does not have to have any effect of the positive entity ignorance - but using that knowledge you can destroy the positive entity called ignorance)

So, driving the theories to fit in to the conclusion is not rational but building the framework which comfortably explains the conclusion with out compromise is what i am looking for.

So, the questions remain open and you haven't unlocked them yet!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
04 December 2013, 02:13 AM
Namaste Grames,

So the saga continues. Didn't I say, the questions will continue.

I will attempt to answer rationally, though I am poor at reasoning.

'Brahman getting deluded' has not to be taken literally

Ok. My Bad. Brahman appears to be different due to the influence of mAyA. Consider that you are standing in essel world, where there is a room of different types of mirrors (new e.g :D )

So there are concave, convex, different types of mirror. you see yourself fat, slim, elongated, etc. The imperfections in mirror does not mean there is imperfection in 'You'.

Now please have mercy and do not raise further questions on this e.g. itself.


"Whether the Advaitic Brahman can be deluded or not!"

No, if taken from standpoint of supreme reality.

See, answers can be given from practical POV and Turiya POV. We should not mix both of them. Explanations will differ and we will never be able to get answers.



You are again, not explaining the super impositions or the source of Maya!

Source means the starting point. This is what I understand. But both are said to be beginningless. So I cannot say that the source of mAyA is Brahman. I can only say that Brahman can exist without mAyA, as experienced in turiya state, but not vica versa.


No explanation for "Saguna Brahman" coming in to existence and the cyclic inter-dependency of existence of Maya beforehand of existence of Saguna Brahman!


You confused more now.... Ishvara u said is Saguna Brahman + Maya but now you are saying that IShavaara is Nirguna Brahman with 6 upadhis. I am lost. But, same you immediately saying, removing that 6 upadhis will leave the Brahman as pure conscious, and i hope that is what you mean "Nirguna" Brahman!

The Brahman when endowed with mAyA (guNa-s) is called as saguNa Brahman. Ishvara = SaguNa Brahman.

upAdhi-s are also within mAyA.

So it is NirguNa Brahman + mAyA = Ishvara = SaguNa Brahman.

Remove six upAdhi-s, then what is left is NirguNa Brahman.

the very word sa-guNa means with guNa-s. guNa-s are within mAyA. Outside mAyA there are no guNa-s.

All Clear?


The example i stated is misunderstood...

For one, name and form is real and can be compared with another real where there is a commonality of name and form! When you compare a real with unreal where there is no commonality, the fundamental identity of objects and their reality of name and form is lost. In other words, calling an object and its existence when ultimately one is real and the other is unreal has no commonality and that is what is called "Paradoxical" meaning such cannot exist!

You cannot build anymore on top of what cannot exist and so why that crux require a meaningful explanation!


Real is that which is present at all places at all times – all pervading, omnipresent, as consciousness, without which nothing can be experienced.

Remove these common factor of name and form and what is left is Jnana.


The above statements are coming from one particular thought but not rational. Even if we take your definition of real as something that exist always and at all place, all pervading etc. what should be unreal? The opposite of it? or another positive entity? ( Not sure if you are understanding what is positive entity means - Not having knowledge can be identified as Ignorance when they are mutually exclusive. Or Ignorance when being positive has nothing to do with the knowledge - here ignorance is positive and dawn of knowledge does not have to have any effect of the positive entity ignorance - but using that knowledge you can destroy the positive entity called ignorance)

So, driving the theories to fit in to the conclusion is not rational but building the framework which comfortably explains the conclusion with out compromise is what i am looking for.

If you do not allow me to take definition of real as per advaita, then I would not be able to give any answers.

Real is that which is present at all places at all times – all pervading, omnipresent, as consciousness, without which nothing can be experienced.

Unreal is that which do not exist at any time.

There is a priori of names and forms are real. I went to the root cause - names and forms.

I = Jiva is also an a priori

I didn't get about 'positive identity'




Sorry to say this, but you haven't answered my questions.

So, the questions remain open and you haven't unlocked them yet!



Did I answer them now??

Did I found master key.

Aum

Amrut

grames
04 December 2013, 08:39 AM
Dear Amrut.,

Many thanks and i am closing this discussion as i know it is very difficult to provide any reasoning or rational explanations and i appreciate the attempts you have made.

As you requested, no more questions and the conclusion i take is, i do not see anything rational yet to get convinced that this 'faith' has rational background but just as a "faith". Again, there is no right or wrong attached to this and it is just my personal opinion.

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
04 December 2013, 09:14 AM
Dear Amrut.,

Many thanks and i am closing this discussion as i know it is very difficult to provide any reasoning or rational explanations and i appreciate the attempts you have made.

As you requested, no more questions and the conclusion i take is, i do not see anything rational yet to get convinced that this 'faith' has rational background but just as a "faith". Again, there is no right or wrong attached to this and it is just my personal opinion.

Hare Krshna!

Dear Grames,

It is nice to communicate with you. May be someone else more learned and intelligent then me can give you satisfactory answers.

Hare Krishna

Sriram257
13 December 2014, 12:56 AM
I have seen many replies. But let me clarify my statement. I will still say Advaita Vedanta is scientific. It is called Brahma Vidya.

Brahma means absolute. Vidya means Science. Hence it is the science of the Absolute which distinguishes itself from the other sciences.

I called it rational, since logic is only limited to one state which is the waking state. But the rationality of Advaita analysis the 3 states of Jagrat, Swapna and Sushupti.

Finally Advaita is something that can be verified. So it is not something which you just take on faith. That is the reason I say it goes beyond Shastra.

The Shastra itself declares "Tatra Veda aveda tatra tapa atapa". There the Veda is no longer Veda. So we use the Shastra to verify Advaita, but once verified the Shastra can be kept aside.

grames
14 December 2014, 01:00 PM
Hi.,

Re-opening this thread??

A is the only thing in the universe and to experience that universe, you should be that A because you are that A!

The above is a declaration of a newbie scientist. Now, he has cleverly connected all logical fallacy in to a simple paradoxical statement like the one above so that, you cannot question his verdict. Here is why it is paradoxical

1. You must become that A to know you are actually that A
2. Anything else that is not A does not exist including you - really.
3. Anything else that is not real, can not give you idea of real - So, A alone can give you the experience
4. You are that A anyways - But you do not have experience of A because you are in between point 2 and 3 - The paradox knot that will never leave you
5. Since A is the only one, there is no experience and only experienced alone remain - the Sat! What is Experienced is also temporary however divine that is.
6. Since A is always in that experience, now we are in a cyclic confusion - Where did anything else came from and going through and on what substratum
7. Oh no, A is the only Being....so there is no Becoming - of anything else to A
8. No you should not ask any question on the pt 7 - if A is the only Being, why am i not A - Immediate answer is, No you Are that. But , no i am not that - because i have different experience NOW! No you are that, but now you are neither that nor something else! Another Paradox.

U know what, this bullets can be extended to infinity - all will be answered with paradoxes in between and not sure if that is called scientific and rational! Rationality requires support of a Fact - that fact cannot come from unreal sources - they must be real and here the only fact that is real is A itself! So, A is A - no further proof required! Thats the only rationality left and this situation and position is called, WASTE OF TIME!

Hare Krshna!

devotee
14 December 2014, 11:27 PM
Namaste Grames,



Re-opening this thread??

A is the only thing in the universe and to experience that universe, you should be that A because you are that A!

The above is a declaration of a newbie scientist. Now, he has cleverly connected all logical fallacy in to a simple paradoxical statement like the one above so that, you cannot question his verdict. Here is why it is paradoxical

1. You must become that A to know you are actually that A
2. Anything else that is not A does not exist including you - really.
3. Anything else that is not real, can not give you idea of real - So, A alone can give you the experience
4. You are that A anyways - But you do not have experience of A because you are in between point 2 and 3 - The paradox knot that will never leave you
5. Since A is the only one, there is no experience and only experienced alone remain - the Sat! What is Experienced is also temporary however divine that is.
6. Since A is always in that experience, now we are in a cyclic confusion - Where did anything else came from and going through and on what substratum
7. Oh no, A is the only Being....so there is no Becoming - of anything else to A
8. No you should not ask any question on the pt 7 - if A is the only Being, why am i not A - Immediate answer is, No you Are that. But , no i am not that - because i have different experience NOW! No you are that, but now you are neither that nor something else! Another Paradox.

U know what, this bullets can be extended to infinity - all will be answered with paradoxes in between and not sure if that is called scientific and rational! Rationality requires support of a Fact - that fact cannot come from unreal sources - they must be real and here the only fact that is real is A itself! So, A is A - no further proof required! Thats the only rationality left and this situation and position is called, WASTE OF TIME!


Great questions ! It only shows that you have not understood Advaita well.

It appears you have moved from Bangalore and you are now in USA. :)

OM

Ekam
15 December 2014, 09:01 AM
Hi.,

Re-opening this thread??

A is the only thing in the universe and to experience that universe, you should be that A because you are that A!

The above is a declaration of a newbie scientist. Now, he has cleverly connected all logical fallacy in to a simple paradoxical statement like the one above so that, you cannot question his verdict. Here is why it is paradoxical

1. You must become that A to know you are actually that A
2. Anything else that is not A does not exist including you - really.
3. Anything else that is not real, can not give you idea of real - So, A alone can give you the experience
4. You are that A anyways - But you do not have experience of A because you are in between point 2 and 3 - The paradox knot that will never leave you
5. Since A is the only one, there is no experience and only experienced alone remain - the Sat! What is Experienced is also temporary however divine that is.
6. Since A is always in that experience, now we are in a cyclic confusion - Where did anything else came from and going through and on what substratum
7. Oh no, A is the only Being....so there is no Becoming - of anything else to A
8. No you should not ask any question on the pt 7 - if A is the only Being, why am i not A - Immediate answer is, No you Are that. But , no i am not that - because i have different experience NOW! No you are that, but now you are neither that nor something else! Another Paradox.

U know what, this bullets can be extended to infinity - all will be answered with paradoxes in between and not sure if that is called scientific and rational! Rationality requires support of a Fact - that fact cannot come from unreal sources - they must be real and here the only fact that is real is A itself! So, A is A - no further proof required! Thats the only rationality left and this situation and position is called, WASTE OF TIME!

Hare Krshna!

Namaste.

What's the problem with paradoxes? And who calls them paradoxes and by what standard this judgement is made?

grames
15 December 2014, 11:57 AM
Namaste.

What's the problem with paradoxes? And who calls them paradoxes and by what standard this judgement is made?

Paradoxes are not problem by itself.. knowing what it means is!

5*0 = 10*0 => thus 5 = 10 is called a paradox!

There are many variant of paradoxes and what i have listed is not about "any school of philosophy" but just iterated the statement and subsequent explanation justifying that statement with paradoxes.

It is not about judgement - discussion is always open and judgement and conviction happens only at individual level or its personal. My expression might be totally due to my own understanding and limitation or this is what i see as my experience and possible conviction and does not alter or change yours as long as you have your own.

Hare Krshna!

Sriram257
08 March 2015, 09:25 AM
"A is the only thing in the universe and to experience that universe, you should be that A because you are that A!

The above is a declaration of a newbie scientist. Now, he has cleverly connected all logical fallacy in to a simple paradoxical statement like the one above so that, you cannot question his verdict. Here is why it is paradoxical

1. You must become that A to know you are actually that A"

Nice but your premise is wrong, you must not become "A" you are already "A".

Now another mistake you have made, you are right in saying "A" is the only thing in the universe this is fine. Now you say to experience that universe viz "A" you should be "A" is a very wrong statement.


Now a question may come to your mind, what are the conditions to experientially know the Brahman. So it is good that you are not asking this from merely a philosophical point of view but from the experiential point.

For this one must obviously use the mind the Veda says " Manasaiva anudrastavyam" this means that it must be known through the mind only.

Now another question may arise is Advaita Jnanam a type of Samadhi, the answer is no.

Advaita Jnanam is knowledge not a type of Samadhi. The reason being that Samadhi is something that has a beginning and has an end as well.

But is there a way to know the Advaita experientially the answer is a definite Yes. Initially we treat it as Brahmanubhava, but once having the Brahmanubhava one realises that there is no separate Brahmanubhava otherwise there will be an experiencer of the Advaita State. The Advaita State will become something to be experienced. This is definitely not the case.

The only question that remains is that if every thing is Advaita then why is there this division of the experiencer and the experienced. ?

Another question will be what will be the state of a Jnani who experiences this ?

The answer is that once Advaita is experientially known and also one realises that there is no separate state of Advaita to be experienced but that Advaita is knowledge. One will understand this, till then what ever answers given will not satisfy you.

As for the Jnani, he is already fulfilled hence seeing the world also he is fulfilled and without the world also he is fulfilled. He has solved his problem of deficiency or lack.

I believe you are a follower of Iskcon, it is fine. But the problem is that I have read the works of Prabhupada and I can definitely tell you that he has no idea of what Advaita is. He calls it Mayavada. According to him Maya is illusion but remember an Advaitin never says that Maya is illusion.

An Advaitin never says that the world is an illusion.

grames
08 March 2015, 03:56 PM
Namaste.,

Very old thread...

Even now, you do not and cannot go beyond the Paradox of A and Experiencing A! If you know the paradox, you know what i am talking about and if you do not know it is a paradox, you are advaitin :)

Its futile to assume the school of TattvaVada or derivatives of it did not understand Advaita and until the time of Sri MadhuSudha, no advaitin ever put forth the wague argument of "they did not know advaita" as their supporting statement and made it a closed group taste based argument.

If nothing else has reality, A has no business to know it as A cos it is already A and also with that awareness intact in all kala and all levels of experience or anuBhava or knowledge progress! Any preaching or philosophy you can put forth with this idea is a Paradox - its either you know it or you don't want to admit on the fear of loosing the interest in the faith itself.

Hare Krshna

devotee
08 March 2015, 07:33 PM
Namaste Grames,


Paradoxes are not problem by itself.. knowing what it means is!

5*0 = 10*0 => thus 5 = 10 is called a paradox!


I would not call it a paradox but wrong result obtained due to fallacious use of rule of mathematics due to one's ignorance or done deliberately/mischievously. Real paradoxes don't apply rules wrongly ... the apparent impossibility perceived in paradoxes is due to lack of knowledge of some hidden rules.

I think this is what you keep doing in your arguments against Advaita ! ... and you get wrong results every time !! :)

OM

grames
08 March 2015, 09:18 PM
Dear Devotee.,

I think we already had enough arguments in the subject of Advaita and for you i am ignorant and do not have understanding of advaita. That is fine. Be it.

But, here is the definition of paradox

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

So, a Lion being neither Tree nor non-tree or divide by zero and then equate all number as one and same - are few examples of Paradoxes.

Advaita, with the understanding of A is all but A has to know it is A - is just another Paradox. (unless proven otherwise). The crux of this paradox is, A is always aware of itself!

Again, its my ignorance that is warranting again and again for a possibility of my very own understanding but alas, i am still ignorant and incapable of comprehending. That point alone is taken well.

Hare Krshna!

devotee
09 March 2015, 03:38 AM
Namaste Grames,

I just wanted to point out my opinion on use of "Paradox" where mathematical rule (division by zero is not permitted) has been clearly violated to arrive at a wrong conclusion.

You may like to see this definition :

"a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true."

This is the history of this word :

"Word Origin and History for paradox Expand
n.
1530s, "statement contrary to common belief or expectation," from Middle French paradoxe (14c.) and directly from Latin paradoxum "paradox, statement seemingly absurd yet really true," from Greek paradoxon, noun use of neuter of adjective paradoxos "contrary to expectation, incredible," from para- "contrary to" (see para- (1)) + doxa "opinion," from dokein "to appear, seem, think" (see decent ). Meaning "statement that is seemingly self-contradictory yet not illogical or obviously untrue" is from 1560s."

In your definition too :

"a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

"Seems" says that the conclusion derived is only apparent and not real.

****************

It was just a friendly reminder as per my opinion. It is not necessary that I must be right from all angles. I didn't want to start any argument here. If I did, I am sorry.

OM

Sriram257
09 March 2015, 07:23 AM
"Very old thread...

Even now, you do not and cannot go beyond the Paradox of A and Experiencing A! If you know the paradox, you know what i am talking about and if you do not know it is a paradox, you are advaitin :)"

Wrong you did not clearly read what I said, I said Brahman is not something that has to be experienced, I said that you know you are Brahman experientially . "A" is not experiencing "A" as you put it. Brahman or Atman is the source of experience it is not an experience.

"Its futile to assume the school of TattvaVada or derivatives of it did not understand Advaita and until the time of Sri MadhuSudha, no advaitin ever put forth the wague argument of "they did not know advaita" as their supporting statement and made it a closed group taste based argument."

Again you are assuming things here, I said that "Prabhupada" has no understanding of Advaita since I have clearly read his works and I have read Shankara's works as well.


"If nothing else has reality, A has no business to know it as A cos it is already A and also with that awareness intact in all kala and all levels of experience or anuBhava or knowledge progress! Any preaching or philosophy you can put forth with this idea is a Paradox - its either you know it or you don't want to admit on the fear of loosing the interest in the faith itself. "

Again where does Advaita Siddhanta say that nothing else has reality ? Please don't assume things here 1st know what the Advaita Siddhanta is and then respond. All I see are assumptions here and not a proper understanding of it.

The only proper objection I have seen to Advaita Vedanta is by Ramanuja so I am not assuming that other Acharyas did not have an understanding.

But I can say for certain that "Prabhupada" does not have any understanding of Advaita. He has merely made Strawman attacks.

So I fail to see whatever Paradox you are pointing out to.

However to be fair you can still question on seat of Avidya and so on but this has been answered in a million ways.

What ever arguments you make you are making the following assumptions

1.Brahman is the object of experience.

This is definitely not true, Brahman is not the object of experience but that into which all experiences.

2. Jiva becomes Brahman.

This is again an assumption that Jiva becomes Brahman, viz wrong, Jiva does not become Brahman he is already Brahman.

Please learn Advaita atleast conceptually and then respond. Please do not bring the same old arguments to me.

Sriram257
09 March 2015, 08:02 AM
"Even now, you do not and cannot go beyond the Paradox of A and Experiencing A! If you know the paradox, you know what i am talking about and if you do not know it is a paradox, you are advaitin :)"

It took me some time to understand your statements, now you are saying that the universe is Brahman and the knower of Brahman is also Brahman.

Therefore Brahman is experiencing Brahman. Yes not denying it so what is so paradoxical. Your objection will then be how can the experiencer and the experienced be same. The answer is that they can be same, but this cannot be decided merely on the basis of logic.

Since I have stated long time back that logic is something limited to the waking state.

Advaita takes into consideration all of the 3 states, the Vicharana done on the 3 states is what I am giving the name reason but not necessarily what you understand as viz relation to causation.

It is due to this that I saw Advaita is quite rational meaning reasoning applied to 3 states and not merely the waking state. It is the absolute science. :)

grames
09 March 2015, 11:29 AM
Dear Devotee.,

Very quick reply...
i agree 'divide by zero' is not allowed - because??
What i am seeking here is, you agreeing that, doing so results in Paradox ( There is a Book called Book of Paradox and lets not debate more on just the word paradox)

The statement i have provided is that, like how divide by zero results in paradox, similarly A known A or A not Knowing A is a Paradox with that Crux of A always aware of itself!

If you do understand this, my case is closed.

Hare Krshna

Sriram257
09 March 2015, 10:16 PM
" similarly A known A or A not Knowing A is a Paradox with that Crux of A always aware of itself! "

Question still remains do you consider Brahman to be an object of experience ?

There is a story of a King who forgot his own Kingship, then later he remembered his own Kingship. So my question here is that where is the paradox here ? It was his own Kingship that he has recognised, he has not got knowledge of something other than himself. He did not know himself and later came to know himself.

So the logic of your paradox fails here.

devotee
09 March 2015, 10:48 PM
Namaste Sriram,


Your objection will then be how can the experiencer and the experienced be same. The answer is that they can be same, but this cannot be decided merely on the basis of logic.

What happens is that when we say that anything is logical or otherwise, we take axioms applicable to waking state and then try to judge a phenomenon as logical / illogical. That is why we are unable to understand the actual phenomenon and how and why this happens.

I have found that Dream phenomenon can explain to a great extent on this issue. "Dream" is a phenomenon which is created by mind i.e. conditioned consciousness and with careful study of dreams we can understand how consciousness works (not fully but to some extent) which can at least prove that "our logic" cannot be applied to Reality as It is. In a dreamer's dream, in reality, there is Only one consciousness i.e. of the dreamer. However, the dreamer sees many objects and characters (even enemy characters) in the dream which are projected and powered by his own consciousness. While dreaming he forgets what he really is. The characters in the dream are able to differentiate among themselves, act without taking any clue from the dreamer and the dreamer doesn't know what the characters would do the next moment. So, apparently, One Consciousness of the dreamer creates and experiences Itself as many conditioned consciousnesses of so many characters (which apparently have their own minds and "self(s)") and objects.

When we don't know the characteristics of any material, we cannot say for sure how it should act. We don't know the characteristics of Consciousness exactly and therefore, applying our logic on how it works will result into fallacious results.

OM

Sriram257
10 March 2015, 05:10 AM
Awesome this is what I have been saying all along thanks for summarising my point. However I refuse to accept that consciousness or Brahman is some thing whose characteristics is to be understood. As stated previously Brahman or consciousness is that into which everything resolves. Brahma Vidya is the only thing that can be called science every thing else is nescience.

devotee
08 April 2015, 07:59 PM
Namaste,

I was expecting Grames to respond but perhaps he is busy somewhere else. Some members have shown interest in this discussion and wanted this discussion to continue fruitfully. So, I will proceed with my points ... if Grames joins back, it would be welcome.

In my opinion, the terms we use in discussion must be thoroughly analysed and understood before we proceed because the subject is extremely subtle and difficult to grasp. Let us understand these words :

What is Scientific ?

Science is the field of study concerned with discovering and describing the world around us by observing and experimenting.

Anything which is logical and can be proved through logical arguments (arguments should be based on observations and experiments) is scientific.

*********************

Consciousness

"Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as : sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is. As Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

Ref : [/I][/B]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness


Dictionary defines Consciousness as :


noun1.the state of being conscious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscious); awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2.the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people:the moral consciousness of a nation.


3.full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life:to regain consciousness after fainting.


4.awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge:consciousness of wrongdoing.


5.concern, interest, or acute awareness:class consciousness.


6.the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.

7.Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition



*****************

Based on above explanation and definition of Consciousness we should agree that :

a) Without Consciousness we cannot be aware of our existence and also cannot know whatever is going around "us".
b) With this we further conclude that if any object can perceive presence of another object or feel anything or take any course of action due to change of situation ... it must have consciousness.

We will deal with other terms in next posts.

OM

devotee
08 April 2015, 09:28 PM
Namaste,

There are other terms like "Real" / "Unreal" and "Existence" "Non-existence" which also must be understood carefully to discuss the subject of Advaita VedAnta.

What is Real ? Advaita VedAnta defines Real as, "That which is changeless. That which cannot be created or destroyed." If anything is perceived as something at one point of time and as something else at another point of time, then it is not real. Then there is something which is real. Moreover, in our common understanding we think that anything is real if we can perceive its existence by our sense organs like, by seeing, hearing or touching etc. But this definition is flawed because our sense organs can perceive something which actually is not there. How ? I will give some examples :

a) Scientifically, no two molecules can "touch" each other as at less than a given distance, two unbonded molecules very strongly repel each other. However, still we feel the "touch" of things and can describe whether an object is soft / hard or solid or liquid etc.

b) There is no color in reality. Perceptions of all colors are produced by impulse generated by optical nerves when electromagnetic light-wave falls on our retina. an electromagnetic wave of a certain wavelength produces effect of one color and another produces another. However, in reality, all electromagnetic waves are just forms of energy and have no colors in real sense. This is also proved by the fact that the same color can be perceived different by two persons if one of the two is "color-blind". This term, "Color blind" doesn't mean that the person is really "color blind" ... it only means that his mind interprets electromagnetic wave of certain wavelength differently than what is interpreted by the majority of the world. It is like something is written in Chinese and if I don't see those characters, they seem just some meaningless art to me but to one who knows Chinese can see the message with those characters. The characters are the same and I am right in my own way and the person knowing Chinese is right in his own way.

c) Smell : It is similar to our perception of "color" in the universe. There is no smell in any atom / molecule in real sense. When molecules of a certain "smelly" thing strike our "nose smell-sensing nerves" we perceive certain smell. However, this smell may not be the same for a dog, a man, a cow for the same object.

So, our sense organs cannot be relied upon for testing reality of anything. We cannot say that if we can't see or touch or smell something then it has no existence. Something can always exist even we don't perceive it. Also, our perception of an object is not because the object is like that in reality but it is due to the special way our mind is designed to perceive that thing.

OM

devotee
09 April 2015, 05:43 AM
Namaste,

The biggest issue raised against Advaita VedAnta is that how One appears as Many and how can this world be accepted as illusory ? The exact answer lies in the Nature of Brahman and that doesn't act as per logic of this world we live in and that is the problem. However, we can understand this phenomenon by critical observing and analysing our Dreams. Let's take example of a dream :

a) Let's us assume that I see a Dream where I am travelling with my family in a train. I watch happy scenes inside the train enjoying the journey with my family and suddenly the train meets serious accident. I lose my family and my limbs and the dream becomes tragic. Now, let's analyse this dream :

i) There is Only one Consciousness and that is that of the Dreamer. It was the same before watching the Dream, during the Dream and even after the Dream. This Consciousness works as the Witness while the Dream is in progress and that is how we remember the details of the dream. So, the Dreamer's Consciousness remains changeless during the whole process.

ii) There are many characters in the dream. The character of my wife, son, daughter, the train, the fellow travellers etc. My wife acts in her own way and she doesn't act as I desire in the dream or during the dreaming process. She acts as an independent individual. She takes her own decision and even goes against my wishes ... may be she picks up fight with me during the journey on certain issue. Now, what is "She" in the dream ? Is she just like an actor who is not conscious but acts like a character in a Cinema ? If that was so, then her role must be written by someone who is conscious and must have been enacted before. However,. as I am unaware of how she would behave and also due the fact that she goes against me during the dreaming process ... indicates that she doesn't act a pre-decided role and even though she has no Consciousness of her own, she acts exactly as if she is fully conscious entirely independent from me. Therefore, we must admit that she behaves like a Conscious being which is different from me. This is because she is able to differentiate herself from me and others ... and also "I", as dreamer and the actor in the dream differentiate her as a different conscious being.

The same is the condition with my son, daughter and all the passenger and also the train. The train behaves exactly as a Train should behave and even goes against my wishes even in my wildest dreams i.e. meeting a serious accident etc.

===> By definition, if anything or any being can identify other object as "other" i.e. different from itself then there must be consciousness in that object. That is if anything and any being is aware of its existence and existence of "others" ... there must be consciousness within the object and the being. Therefore, apparently every being and object in the dream must have a different consciousness.

===> However, we have already agreed upon the fact that there is, in Reality, Only One Consciousness and that is the Dreamer's Consciousness. This Dreamer's Consciousness is responsible for apparent consciousness in the dream characters. This phenomenon is peculiar to Consciousness and it is called "ChidAbhAsa" in the language of Advaita VedAnta. ChidAbhAsa can be understood as "Reflected Consciousness" i.e. apparent many Consciousnesses of many characters which has Only one substratum i.e. the Consciousness of the Dreamer.

This phenomenon only explains the peculiar characteristics of Consciousness that One Consciousness can create illusion of many Consciousness even when the Original Consciousness remains undivided and unchanged.

OM

devotee
09 April 2015, 08:26 PM
Namaste,

To get a better perception of ChidAbhAsa, one may refer to these links : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chidabhasa
http://www.advaita-vision.org/seven-stages-of-chidabhasa/#more-4055
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/panch_08.html

**************

Now that said, let's see the scriptural support for what we have discussed so far. So, far on this forum I have been quoting from Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita. However, in this thread I will use verses from Srimad-Bhagwatam which is considered a Vaishnava Scripture and all Vaishnavas accept it as their authority. Chapter 6 to 29 of the Eleventh Skandha of Bhagawatam has been compiled as Uddhava Gita and I will quote from that.

There is but One Reality

Chapter VIII, Verses 18-21 : Lord Krishna is asked by the Devatas led by Lord BrahmA : "Who are You ?". In Verse 22 Lord Krishna says :

"O Sages, if your question refers to the AtmAn, then the Reality being One and undivided, such a question is inadmissible".

In Verse 24 He says : "Understand this rightly that by mind, speech, sight and other organs, I alone am cognised and nothing else".

In verse 30-31 He says : " Till a man's notion of multiplicity (that there are many real beings and things) is put to stop by reasoning, he is as good as asleep even though awake - for he is ignorant - as one fancies oneself awake in the dream. As objects other than the AtmAn are unreal, diversity caused by them is false as also Its to other Lokas (heavenly abodes with its causes as the case of man seeing dreams."

In Verse 34 : "One should look upon this universe as a hallucination, being a phantasm of the mind, now seen and the next moment destroyed - like dream, and extremely shifting like a circle of fire. It is the One Consciousness that appears as multiple form."

Chapter XVII verses 54-56

"As imaginations and dream-perceptions are unreal, so also, O Uddhava, is the relative existence of sense-experience of the AtmAn. Even though the sense-world is unreal, the relative existence of a man who dwells on sense-objects is never at an end as troubles come in the dream."

"O Uddhava, look upon the delusion of plurality as caused by the non-perception of AtmAn."

XVIII, verses 60 :

"The world consisting of friends, neutrals and foes affects a man with pleasure and pain, is a phantasm of his mind owing to ignorance and nothing but that."


On reflected Consciousness

Chapter XIII, verse 32 : The One Supreme Self alone dwells in the bodies and in one's own body as the moon is reflected in so many vessels of water. And all bodies are of the same nature.

What is Real ?

Chpater XIV, verse 16 : That which, when one object is transformed into another, abides at the beginning, middle and the end and remains when those objects return to their cause, is verily the Reality.

Chapter XIX verses 17 :

That from which a thing originates and into which it dissolves, abides also in the intermediate stage. That alone is Real. The modifications have a mere phenomenal existence, as in the case of metallic and earthen wares.

How Brahman projects this world

Chapter XXII verse 22

"This world of changes which was originally non-existent is a RAjasika projection of the Brahman and appears because of It (i.e. Brahman). But the Brahman is Self-existent and Self-effulgent. Hence the Brahman alone appears in multiple forms and organs and the gross elements."

Why so ? because of this argument given by Lord in the preceding verse :

"That which is neither before nor after is also non-existent in the interim. It is a mere name. I am of the opinion that whatever (the World/Jiva etc.) is caused or brought to light by some other thing (i.e. Brahman) must be that (i.e. Brahman) and nothing else."

XXIII Verses 35 - 36 :

"This AtmAn is self-effulgent, birthless, unknowable, Knowledge, Absolute, Omniscient, One (there is nothing else except this), indivisble and beyond speech for under Its direction speech and the PrAnas function."

"The delusion of the mind consists in this that it imagines duality in the Absolute AtmAn, for except one's own Self the duality has no foundation."

OM

smaranam
09 April 2015, 11:16 PM
Namaste

FYI, what Devoteeji is calling "Uddhava GeetA Chapter 8+" is essentially Shrimad BhAgavat Canto 11, Chapter 13+
The "Uddhava GeetA" begins with SB 11.5 (Canto 11 Chapter 5) where SaNakAdi kumAr and Devas visit Shri KrshNa in DwArIkA and glorify Him, then ask questions. After this Uddhav asks and KRshNa answers.

So the verses above are SB 11.13.21,22, 30.... , SB 11.22.xx just keep adding 5 to the chapter numbers in the post above.

Also this post may be considered complimentary to the subject here : Especially Point #3 : AtmA inside is AtmA outside (SB 6.16.6 - 11, SB 11.22.11 - Uddhav Gita Chap 17)
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?11466-Shrimad-BhAgvat-says-points-to-ponder-about-the-Supreme-Lord-and-His-Creation&p=104682#post104682

---
Uddhav makes KRshNa repeat many things He told Arjuna as well such as VibhUti Yoga, sAnkhya, yoga dhyAna jnAna bhakti and much more -- archanA, varNa+Ashram dharma, vidyA definitions of (sham dam et al daivI guNa), advaita, yoga siddhis which Uddhav says are bestowed on Yogis by Shri KRshNa (NArAyaNa), (where desirelessness is one of many siddhis), and KRshNa also explains what is sAtvic and what is nirguNa, moral stories of self-realization, story of DattAtreya... Therefore this dialogue is called Uddhava GeetA.
---

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

devotee
10 April 2015, 01:00 AM
Thank you, Smaranam ! You have aptly connected the missing dots in setting relation of Uddhava Gita with Srimad Bhagwatam. :)

OM

Sriram257
15 April 2015, 10:54 PM
"From advaita pov, it shouldn't be! But this answer is not acceptible to you guys! If it is acceptible, advaita and its preaching breaks to dust or paradox.

This is acceptible position of TattvaVada where God is expereinced by the Grace of God (dharmaButa Janana)."

If I wanted to disprove another Siddhanta I would have easily done it, it's preaching would have been broken to dust and all I would here is the same rambling.


"The paradox or the crux you are conveniently by passing is that, The Brahman here never ever forgets He is Brahman! :)"

I have answered this already previously , the logic of the waking state cannot be applied to Brahman, Brahman not only has no forgetfullness nor remembrance. Your only question remains who gets the realisation, since Brahman cannot have forgetfulness, therefore you again turn and ask for the locus of Ajnana.

Since you are more concerned with logic I will give you the logic. Jiva is the locus of Ajnana, it is like the relation between seed and tree. You may blame this as "Anavasta Dosha" or infinite regress. Well I would say that even Tattva Vada and even Vishistadvaita falls into the same trap since both cannot answer the beginning of karma and Janma. The relation between karma and Janma is like the tree and seed, if this is acceptable to you then applying the same case to Jiva and Ajnana should have no issues.

Advaita is not a believe it is the Supreme Science.

Science is not simply about "quasars" or "fields". You my friend have not even gone into the basics of why we use science ?

It is an inquiry into the world, science is nothing but an inquiry into the world, why are we inquiring into the world. To find out the truth. What is the truth ? It is that which does not change. That which does not change is the Brahman. This is a scriptural statement, should I take this merely on faith or should I verify it for myself.

I must verify it for myself. How is that done, by inquiry this is where we have Sampradaya and teaching methodology.

Where as in Tattva Vada or any Bhakti school that any loka like Goloka or Vaikunta exists has to be taken merely on faith nothing more. So I fail to see how it is rational.

In Advaita we have investigation and inquiry. Where ever we have proper and rational investigation into the nature reality and truth, it is called science.

Hence Advaita is definitely science and an absolute one.



Hare Krshna[/QUOTE]

Sriram257
27 April 2015, 11:23 PM
"What does not change is Brahman - we all happily agree. But, the problem of "Advaitam" or Advaita is not about what is that does not change - it is about how that "does not change" brought an universe of ordained affairs and whether this creation has any reality rationally or not! The hard and pinching truth is, the world exists and the philosophical and scientific apparatus to "deny" this as non existence ( not even as temporary) or not real ( again not as an positive entity) is not available in the school of advaita is the subject matter of discussion."

The whole issue is that you are again stating that "Advaita" claims the world to be non existent, Advaita does not claim the world to be non existent. The world is Brahman it has no existence apart from Brahman that is what "Advaita" is saying.

"This entire discussion happens in a world that does not exist for a Brahman, who we are promised as just us - or the one consciousness with out any breaks of parts. Its totally business of Brahman and just Brahman itself - why this hard struggle if everyone automatically loose their identity and individuality once the dream is over? ( Even time has to be part of the dream - so will the dream get over). Which dream objects will have the consciousness to loose itself or release itself from the dream? That is over stretching of an imagination and illogical, unscientific and also deny the very power and unchangeable state and status of the brahman itself. If the dream object's consciousnesses or will takes over the "dreamer" desire, or will such situation puts down the power of Brahman and His will and here no dreamer is wanting or willing the dream objects to disappear on their super heroic effort. As long as i dream, no dream objects can overrule my own conciseness and what my subtle impressions and senses dictate."

As already stated before the logic of the waking state cannot be applied to Brahman, you are assuming the logic of the waking state to be true and then applying the same to Brahman. This is already divided into Vyavaharika Satta and Paramarthika Satta. You are saying that this conversation is happening in a world that does not exist for Brahman, I am saying the conversation is happening in Brahman. Now only a question remain can a world exist along with Brahman, the answer is a definite yes. The world exists but at the same time it's existence is not apart from Brahman. Now coming to the dream, it is not that once the dream gets over everyone the person realises Brahman, this means you do not have any understanding of Advaita itself. The Brahman is the dream as well as the dreamer. When seen from the stand point of the Brahman the dream has no existence apart from the Brahman. Your objection is that if Brahman is homogeneous in nature why do we see this world around us ? This answer is given with the concept of Mithya. Mind you mithya does not mean illusion. If you think it is illusion you are mistaken. This is the reason I am saying that you do not even know basics of Advaita itself.

"For questions regarding lokas etc, to be true or irrational even giving up on them does not change the philosophical tenets as unscientific or irrational. Interestingly, existence of layered universe is not totally wrong idea as per NASA observations."

So you say Vaikunta and Goloka exist, believing something which is not within your experience is the 1st sign of conflict, whether they exist or not is another argument but the bottom line is that they are not within your experience. You are believing something which is not within your experience. This approach is not rational in any way. Therefore a mere belief system nothing more than that. There is no process of investigation or verification done here.