PDA

View Full Version : nirgun brahman maya and sagun brahman



jopmala
03 December 2013, 10:41 PM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrutji

To continue my discussion with you I have shifted my post from " you are God part I" to this new thread.

If you don’t mind, I want to have some more discussion with you. if you interested you can respond my to doubts. I will be happy
1. If maya is power of Brahman and since jiva is Brahman then why not maya be regarded as power of jiva ?
2. If we consider that there is no other entity besides nirgun Brahman and this creation is just like a dream ,actually no creation exists it is a projection etc and so my question is for which creation nirgun Brahman by taking adhar of maya becomes sagun
3. If maya is ajnan and if maya can be crossed by jnan then how can this concept of jnan and ajnan be regarded as a power. can any creative power be crossed over by just knowing it in scriptures ? Is it not indirect jnan ?
4. Acoording to you mAyA is beginning less, hence it cannot be said that it was created by Brahman or Ishvara. mAyA cannot stay without Brahman. My question is if it is so then can Brahman remain whole or becomes dual here. Further when Brahman exists independently that is when Brahman is nirgun and before Brahman takes adhar of maya where does maya stay in between so that adhar of it can be taken by Brahman ?
5. According to you Maya is projector and Brahman is screen. who is the operator here ? again projector means having the power of projection of its own but maya is the power of Brahman. can any power act without its holder’s will ? the concept is shakti and shaktiman and one can not be separated from other. how can shakti operate or maya project without shaktiman or without Brahman. projector and screen are two different independent equipment for picturisation but you can not separate maya from Brahman
6. On the one hand you are saying mAyA is dependent upon Ishvara but actually what is happening . There is nirguna Brahman and nothing else then maya comes ( from where ? ) Brahman becomes sagun that means without maya Brahman can not become sagun then who is dependent on whom. next ,according to you though Brahman become sagun but everything that is creation or projection is done by maya and not by sagun Brahman. how this can happen. how can power act independently. why don’t you say sagun Brahman is creating or projecting everything not maya
7. Since maya can not stay without Brahman then we have to consider that both nirgun Brahman and sagun Brahman are co existing otherwise if there is only one Brahman that is nirgun where will maya stay without Brahman ? brahman without maya that is nirgun and brahman with maya that is sagun exists together in the same state. Is it ?
8. Is this maya ( which you are talking) the same which is also found in Gita ? in BG chapter 7 verses 4, 5 and 6 bhagavan says this is my eight fold divided nature which is insentient. I am the origin and also the dissolution of the whole world. then again in chapter 14 verse 3 says that prakriti is my womb on that I cast my seed whence spring all beings. suprsingly advatin says this world is nothing but dream. Is their dream world and world created by bhagavan according to Gita matching . above all everything is done by sri Krishna whom you reagard as iswara or sagun Brahman but you say creation or projection is done by maya .
9. You say this maya can be crossed over only through jnan ( in jnan maya ends) but Gita says only bhakti can help to cross this maya and nothing else ( chapter 7 verse 14
10. If we make a sequence we find first nirgun Brahman next maya and then third one nirgun Brahman + maya that is sagun Brahman. Now if maya can not exist without Brahman ( definitely nirgun Brahman) then which is correct 1) there is no nirgun Brahman because maya is always with Brahman 2) maya is independent because nirgun brahman can have no power. 3) nirgun Brahman and sagun brahamn exists in the same state at the same level otherwise we shall not get maya since nirgun brahman can not have it.

Amrut
04 December 2013, 08:31 AM
Namaste Jopmala ji,

You can call me Amrut. I will try my best to answer your doubts. Replying back may take time because of busy schedule.


1. If maya is power of Brahman and since jiva is Brahman then why not maya be regarded as power of jiva ?

We will explain 'I am Brahman' in different way.

Lets say 'I is Brahman'. Shall I extend this statement further by saying 'I is not jiva'

Advaita is about searching 'I'. Is 'I' associated with jiva or is 'I' something else. Search ends when 'I' is realized as pUrNa vastu (Brahman).

If we think, I am Jiva, then after some meditational . yogic practice, Jiva gets transformed into Brahman, then what we generally think that 'How can I be Brahman, a Jiva cannot never be Brahman' will be right.

Here there is a priori (presumption) that 'I' is Jiva i.e. 'I am Jiva'.

Advaita, finds the root cause or truth behind this very statement that 'I am Jiva'. According to Sri Ramana Maharshi, you will have to ask the question, 'Who am I'. Search ends into you realizing yourself as Brahman.

Kindly note that no transformation has taken place.

If I assume that I am Jiva, it would mean that earlier I was not Brahman, which according to advaita is not correct as Atman / Brahman was already Brahman. Under wrong notion, it wrongly associated itself with Body and assumed itself as body. Ego means a sense of individuality. When Ego is destroyed, mind too is destroyed. With no sense in individual existence, naturally 'I" as ego is destroyed and the real 'I' (first person - Brahman) is revealed.

Lets take the question again


1. If maya is power of Brahman and since jiva is Brahman then why not maya be regarded as power of jiva ?

The difference between jiva and Brahman is that, Brhaman is not deluded by mAyA, while Jiva, which is under ignorance is deluded by wrong association with what is non-self.

Only after dis-associating with non-self, by being a witness, and realizing one's true nature, one can say from direct experience that 'I am Brahman', not before.

Saying before would be like, seeing a snake, as saying that 'I am seeing a rope'. This is not correct.

-----

Apart from this, I would like to share a few points.

There are different ways of explaining.
Explanation is given keeping in mind mental make-up of questioner
Explanation depends upon current mental status of question (and that of answerer, if he is not realized)
One question can have 2 answers and both are correct, but for person with different mindset.
Answer is given by keeping in mind the ability of questioner to put solution provided into action or practice.


There may be more factors, but these are what I can remember now.

Remember that certain updesha-s or statements are updeshaka, they are like a destination to be reached e.g. thou art that.

I humbly request you to please read my other posts in threads

Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational
Krishna never used ' Vaikuntha ' word
You are GOD - part 1

This will reduce my typing a lot.

Let us understand basic terms:

Reality, Truth, satya

That which is eternal, unchanging, present at all times, immutable, undivided, infinite, knowledge is called as as real.

e.g. Brahman

Unreal, False, asatya

That which do not exist at any time.

e.g. rabbit horn

MithyA

That which is neither real nor unreal. This means that it is in between real and unreal.

mithYA is that which is not totally unreal, but is not even real (eternal).

In other words, mithyA is that which is not present at all times. But it can be experienced in any one state.

mAyA is called as anAdi. This means that it is without beginning. but it ends in Jnana. mAyA is triguNAtmikA - that which has 3 guNa-s. Brahman is beyond guNa-s.

Since mAyA ends in Jnana, Brahma sthiti, it cannot be real. We all know that truth is one. Hence there cannot be two things that can be true.

In this sense, mAyA, though experienced in waking state, as real, ends in Jnana.

Experience in waking state are not experienced in dream state and vice versa.



2. If we consider that there is no other entity besides nirgun Brahman and this creation is just like a dream ,actually no creation exists it is a projection etc and so my question is for which creation nirgun Brahman by taking adhar of maya becomes sagun

As I have earlier said, certain statements are our benchmarks. We will have to realize the truth.

If we take ajAta vAda, then there is no creation. But ajAta vAda is for only those who abide in Self.

When we actually experience duality, this world, thinking of it as mere mental projection or as an illusion is not acceptable. This does not mean that the above statement that this world is illusion is fallacy. We are not in a position to understand the reality behind this statement.

As e.g. to explain would be

in presence of Sun, the whole ecosystem runs. Sun does not do anything. Sun is a shakshi. Rest everything happens.

Brahman and mAyA are inseparable. To do anything, you will have to take AdhAra of guNa-s i.e. mAyA, without mAyA, there can be no work. When Brahman is resting, it is called as nirguNa, when acting, it is called as sa-guNa.

If we take all guNa-s or say 6 upAdhi-s from Ishvara (SaguNa Brahman), then what is left is nirguNa Brahman.

I will requote your question.


2. If we consider that there is no other entity besides nirgun Brahman and this creation is just like a dream ,actually no creation exists it is a projection etc and so my question is for which creation nirgun Brahman by taking adhar of maya becomes sagun

Does this seem contradictory?

First you say that there is no creation. But at the same time you accept that there is a creation. This is because we all experience this world, hence it is hard to think of it as mental projection.

Let's take the word 'mithyA' into account. Please go back and read the explanation of terms mithyA, that I gave.


3. If maya is ajnan and if maya can be crossed by jnan then how can this concept of jnan and ajnan be regarded as a power. can any creative power be crossed over by just knowing it in scriptures ? Is it not indirect jnan ?

This question is also not clear.

Just by mere reading nothing is going to happen. Hence this truth or transcending mAyA has to be done by nidhidhAsana or simply say meditation.

How to transcend or cross over mAyA - by dis-associating with it. How? By being a witness and doing self enquiry or chant OM and merge in it's source (here the word 'merge' is said for explanatory purpose.


4. Acoording to you mAyA is beginning less, hence it cannot be said that it was created by Brahman or Ishvara. mAyA cannot stay without Brahman. My question is if it is so then can Brahman remain whole or becomes dual here. Further when Brahman exists independently that is when Brahman is nirgun and before Brahman takes adhar of maya where does maya stay in between so that adhar of it can be taken by Brahman ?

Brahman and mAyA are inseparable. Brahman can stay alone.

By saying that there is no mAyA, means, mAyA is not experienced by a Jnani in nirvikalp samadhi.

It is called nirguNa Brahman when it does not do any work. Advaita focusses on this Brahman, hence you will find statements giving importance to NirguNa Brahman.

To explain in different words

Advaitin associates with NirguNa Brahman and a bhakta associates himself with mAyA or experiences saguNa Brahman with the help of mAyA.

Brahman and mAyA are both there. Is it necessary that Brahman has to do some work? Is activity compulsory?

I said when Brahman takes AdhAra.

More later.

Aum

Amrut
04 December 2013, 09:24 AM
Namaste,

You can take AdhAra as association, if the word is a misnomer.

You must be aware of manifested universes. I think everything is latent.

By Definition, NirguNa Brahman is said so when he is not doing anything.

When you say, 'will', then it may be taken as saguNa Brahman. This word 'will' creation' etc is also for explanatory purpose. Else we cannot take it as illusion.

If we take creation as real, then it should not end in Jnana, which, according to Advaita, is not true.

I humbly request you to please reconsider all questions.

To understand properly, we will have to study a sampradAya in systematic manner.

Also the traditional teaching of adhyAropa apavAda has to be learned to understand those Gita verses.

Aum

jopmala
05 December 2013, 09:00 PM
Namaste Amrutji
I must thank you for your kind response but I am sorry I am not convinced. I am just puzzled due to so many contradictions in your reply

first I find there are four entities that is nirgun Brahman ,maya , sagun Brahman and jiva. out of that, nirgun Brahman is only truth, sagun Brahman is apparent since it melts into nirgun by shading maya and jiva also ultimately becomes Brahman. But maya is different from these three entities because maya is not Brahman and also anadi or beginningless.

Now see the contradictions are :

1) (i) maya is anadi that is beginningless but it ends in jnan which means not starting point but has ending point (ii) Maya is the power of nirgun Brahman but nirgun Brahman is not the source of maya that is maya does not originate in nirgun Brahman (iii) though Brahman is nirgun but it can take the association of maya ( iv) Brahman can stay alone but Brahman and maya are inseparable (v) maya is the power of Brahman, it is inseparable from Brahman and maya is dependent on Brahman but Brahman has to take the association of maya to act (vi) maya can not act of its own because it is dependent on Brahman still it is said that projection imposition or delusion etc are done by maya. To me , all these are done by Brahman not maya since without Brahman maya can not act. (vii) though maya is beginningless not part of brahman but maya is not a separate entity . it depends on Brahman

(viii) what is manifested universe. do you want to say there are manifestations of Brahman or delusion by maya. please confirm otherwise there will be another contradiction

2) you say jiva is deluded by maya. I think you should say jive is deluded by Brahman since maya is the power of Brahman and not independent to act that is ultimately it is brhaman who is doing all these acts of projection imposition of delusion by taking the association of maya. If you agree that maya is independent and can act then your statement is correct.

3) I understand your argument that ‘I’ is not associated with jiva but at the end of search ‘I’ is Brahman . please tell me whom do you call jiva I mean what constitutes the ‘jiva’.

4) To me, as per your version of advaita, i) there is no nirgun Brahman since it takes association of maya which can not be separated from Brahman (ii) maya is independent since it is beginningless and is able to delude jiva (iii) Brahman has no qualities , all the qualities belong to maya since brahman by associating with maya become qualified that is sagun Brahman ( iv) brahman is not the controller of maya because maya is beginning less and not created by Brahman. even with the end of maya sagun Brahman also loses its identity (v) Brahman is not beginingless since it ends in jnan. ending point is also starting point. (vi) brahman is deluded by maya since jiva being Brahman fights hard to shade maya only to know its true identity that is brahman

5) I think advaitavada or mayavada still unable to give a clear conception of maya and therefore conception of non dual entity of Brahman is not free from ambiguity . if you say being a member of particular sampradaya and for the sake of that sampradaya some conceptions though not clear have to be accepted without questioning, I respect that mindset and promise not to disturb you further. Thank you once again.

Amrut
06 December 2013, 03:07 AM
Namaste Jopmala ji,

It is not that concepts cannot be questions, but some things are better not questioned, or say, I never thought about them, as I am more concerned of my own spiritual progress, let the world be created 1 day before my date of birth :) . I am a meditative creature and hence you may find me connecting with meditation and practical application.

Also note that my own study is very limited and I have a weak memory. Only that which is required for my personal spiritual progress is important. Rest all I forget :)

Let me try to answer your queries.

If I say that Jiva or mAyA were created by Ishvara (be it saguna or niguna, let us ignore distinction between the two for time being), then it would mean that there was a time when there was no mAyA, no jiva and no samsAra.

I have read somewhere in Shankara Bhashya (or may be in panchdasi) that mAyA and samsAra are beginningless. Hence I cannot say that there was a time when there was just NarAyaNa and then he created mAyA. Sometimes it is said form OM came mAyA. I will explain your first question later on about how Brahman GOT associated.

Again, the problem may be due to the way in which a concept is explained.

First we say it is illusion, then we say, Brahman 'Getting' deluded, we say Brahman 'associated' with mAyA (which means an action - to associate), then Brhaman 'became' saguNa, then Brahman 'created' the world. All these indicate actions - to associate, to get deluded, to create, etc.

then there is another vAda - ajAta vAda, which says there is no creation :)

Why is so much fuss about it?

The answer is that the answers are given on adhekAra bheda. There is manda adhikAri, Madhya and uttam adhikAri.

For manda adhikAri: aarambh vAda or pariNAma vAda are explained. E.g. milk gets changed into curd, etc, hence the creation is explained.

For madhyam adhikAri, we can g ofurther and say this world is illusion

For uttama adhikAri (who experiencesSaamdhi, but cannot stay in it for ever), ajAta vAda is explained.

To one student we can say that - though a person becomes Jnani, he still has to enjoy / suffer his praArabhdha. Then to another we say, that there is no prArabhdha is also destroyed and that a Jivan mukta can quit body at will.

Which one is correct?

The answer is both, because of adhikAra bheda.

Not all can digest when we say this world is an illusion or just a mental projection, hence for them, creation, delusion, etc theories are created. In the same way, laymen will not believe when he sees a Jnani suffering from a disease and hence we will have to explain them the concept of prArabhdha.

So, the answer depends upon mental make-up and 2 answers can be quite contrary.

So when I try to explain the process of creation, then it will definitely contradict -Brahma satya jagat mithyA :D and vice versa.

Some explains of Adi Shankara emphasizing bhakti and karma kand.


For example, in the Bhashya for the Ishavasyopanishad 9, at the end Shankara says: न हि शास्त्रविहितं किञ्चिदकर्तव्यतामियात् [Nothing enjoined by the scriptures can be unworthy of performance.] Of course, it is another matter that the Mundakopanishad Chapter I - Section 2, for example, has extensively criticized the karma portions of the Veda.
The Bhashya in the Brihadaranyka Upanishad 4.4.22 where the mantra: तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसा अनाशकेन itself speaks volumes on Shankara's respect, regard and devotion to the veda pUrva bhAga. He concludes the discussion thus: एवं कर्मकाण्डेन अस्य एकवाक्यतावगतिः [In this manner, that is, the relevance of the Veda PUrva-prescribed nitya karma that are meant for acquiring chitta shuddhi, the Moksha-teaching Jnana KANda becomes aligned as one 'complete shAstra'.] Thus, for Shankara, the Veda pUrva bhAga is an indispensable element in the attaining of the goal of the Upanishads.


In the Bhashya to the Brahmasutra 2.3.41 - तदनुग्रहहेतुकेनैव हि ज्ञानेन मोक्षसिद्धिर्भवितुमर्हति [ The attainment of Moksha is possible indeed through the Knowledge owing ONLY to the grace of Ishwara.

Source (http://creative.sulekha.com/a-major-embarrassment-to-the-dvaitins_474576_blog)

If we take above explanation as authentic and correct theory, then what about the verses in which Adi Shankara has said that the world is mithyA? And what about GauDapadAcArya’s KArikA?

I think this is creating confusion. It also makes one think that Adi Shankara’s theory is inconsistent.

Let us take e.g. of Sun. This e.g. may not be a perfect e.g., but will help us understand some concepts.

Sun and it’s warmth (hence the rays) are not separable from Sun. You cannot expect Sun to emit cool waves. Sun can only give light, not darkness. The whole eco system of our earth works because of Sun (sun rays), climate change, day and night, motion of earth around Sun (earth’s orbit) etc everything happens because of Sun. What what doe sun himself do? It just happens.

Rose attracts honey bees. It is the nature of Rose flower to naturally emit rose fragrance. There is no extra effort. Honey bees are attracted towards rose flower getting attracted by fragrance.

This explanation can give rise to another set of questions. The answer is that this answer convinces the mind of questioner and he can proceed spiritually. Later new doubts may arise and appropriate answer can be given.

If I give explanation totally from pArmAthika saya, then eventhough I may convince you or win an argument or emerge victorious in a debate, it is not going to help you or me. It I the win of intellect and ego. What I am interested is how can a person progress spiritually.

Hence there are PrakaraNA grahta-s, when Gita, then Upanishad-s and lastly Brahma Sutra-s are to be studied in this order. Then there are other texts like ASTAvakra gItA, Yog VasisTa, etc are to be studied. This is step by step rising of disciple higher and higher.

As one progresses higher, old concepts are replaced by newer subtler one, often contradicting earlier concepts, only with the intention to raise disciple to the next level or say further increase purity.

From Br. Up. Bhashya given above and fomr Tai. Up. 1/11 bhashya, we can see that Adi Shankara did supported Karma Kand and also bhakti. For both, you cannot do karma kand by thinking that this world is just an illusion. Hence the theory of advaita is to be applied only when a person gets inwardly pure enough to renounce the very karma that gave him inner purity and become qualified to walk the path of 4th ashram, the path of renunciation.

--
Answers

(i) (ii) and (iii) are already explained

(v) mAyA is dependent upon Brahman for it’ existence. Brahman can exist without mAyA, but not vice versa. Dependecy is explained in relation to existence and not ceation. Again mAyA is Brahman’s power, hence it is his very own.

While acting, he is called as sa0guNa Brahmana. While resting, it is called as nirguNa Brahman. Both as aspects of same Brahman.

(vi) is explained in e.g. of Sun

(vii) answer given in (v)

(viii) Brahman is substratum. Again the definition of Real has to be counted. Since this world ends, it is not real. Hence we have to take it as delusion of mAyA and not actual creation. Brahman appears to be manifested as this world – this is said from pAramArthika satya

More later. Short of time

Aum

Amrut
08 December 2013, 05:23 AM
Namaste Jopmala ji,

My apologies for delay in response. I am involved in another thread.

What is jiva?

Before answering the above question, please understand that answer is given from adhikAra bheda. You will have to consider vyavahArika satya and pArmArthika satya. Answers are different for person with different levels of consciousness.

Also note that Advaita covers everything from Charvaka to Non-duality. charvaka can be made a good human being.

Ok. So Adi Shankara has explained jiva in Tatva Bodh as

The reflection of Brahman, which identifies itself with gross physical body due to ego is called as jiva.

In my version of advaita :), both nirguNa Brahman and saguNa Brahman exits. The definitions are based on 'activity'.

How can they be both?

Let's take an example of a married doctor - general practitioner.

A doctor is the one who is checks patient and gives medicine. In short a doctor heals patients. In other words when a person is doing the 'job' or 'activity' of healing people, he is called as doctor.

When a doctor, along with his wife is jogging on a beach in the morning, he is not a doctor, he is just a husband, as he is fulfilling his duty as a husband.

A same person can be

A husband to a wife
A son to a mother
A father to a child
A brother to a sister or brother

To all family members he will love, but the love for all is not same. A son wont look to his mother or sister or daughter with the same eye as he looks at his wife.

Brahman has 2 aspects.

NirguNa and SaguNA.

For rest of questions, I think a systematic study is required, else it will create confusion. Depending upon mental make-up and inner suprity, certain answers are given.

To one, I will say, Ishvara is the creator of this world.He created Om, from OM came mAyA and from mAyA came this world and us.

To other I will say, this world is not 'created', but 'appears'. This creation is not eternal, hence accordingly to shastra-s, it cannot be called as real. IT is also not unreal. Hence it lies somewhat in between, that which is experienced only in one state of consciousness (waking) and not in dream or in deep sleep. IT is also not experienced in turiya avastha

To uttam adhikAri - The world was never created, only Brahman exist.

Though the above answers appear contradictory, they are not. They are correct for different people who are on different plane of evolution.

It is perfectly right to say that it is saguNa Brahman to whom all prayers go, as to nirguNa Brahman it cannot reach. But the same NirguNa Brahman appears to us in the form of Guru and Ishvara as saguNa, for us to transcend us beyond guNa-s, beyond his mAyA and without their grace one cannot cross this terrible ocean of samsAra. All happens by the grace of Ishvara. Ishvara is the controller of mAyA, while nirguNa Brahman is the one one which mAyA rests, and saguNa Brahman is the one which has will to create, to help, to bless, to listen to our prayers.

In other words, SaguNA Brahman is always rooted in nirguNa Brahman or in knowledge of Self. He is both nirguNa at the same time saguNa. The definitions are based on 'action'.

For a uttam adhikAri, the thoughts or say questions of mAyA, creation, etc do not arise. Hence no need to explain all this. In every seach, in every action, he sees that there is someone who is questioning, who is the one who is questioning? Who is this 'I' ... and the search or say inner exploration begins. See he does not even think of the world. His mind is totally introvert. His consciousness is highly evolved.

Are you getting it? I am getting repetitive.

Aum

jopmala
09 December 2013, 08:22 PM
Namaste Amrutji
I respect your view that your personal spiritual progress is important to you and I think we are all in the same journey of achieving spiritual progress in our own chosen way. So when we meet one another in the halt station we just try to exchange our own experience and views and again starts our own journey without following each other’s way. I do not think we are here to win a debate or something else. Hence I don’t want you to say that we are engaged in an unnecessary debate. If you want to continue I welcome if you don’t, no problem.

1) what is in shankara bhashya or in panchadasi , it is there and I don’t have the ability to pass on comment on that but I like to mention Tattiriya Upanishad (2.6) which says “ I am one now but will become many”. Therefore initially it was one and jiva maya samsara were all included in one only. Gita also says that bhagavan has his apara prakrati and para prakriti. Though we say maya and samsara beginningless but initially there was one and that one is the source of all entities.

2) According to you jiva is deluded by maya but my question is where is jiva. It is only Brahman and Brahman is deluded by maya to become jiva and now trying to get rid of maya to return to its original entity.

3) I agree that the whole eco system of our earth works because of sun. day and night climate change motion of earth around sun etc everything happens because of sun but you miss the point what sun does himself. you also miss the point why honey bees are attracted towards rose flower. This is so because the sun and the rose has the qualities to do their work. sun is active always with all his power and rose also has fragrance to attract but you have made Brahman nirgun and nirvishes whereas Brahman is having all the aishourayas but you deny that aishourayas of Brahman and call him nirgun etc.you can not ignore the main point of discussion because it is nirgun Brahman whom you are attaching with maya to form sagun Brahman. According to you nirgun Brahman is the ultimate truth but this ultimate truth is just calm and quite and inactive. My point is how maya can be associated with nirgun Brahman

4) see, my point here is there is only Brahman which is nirgun. now how can you attribute him power as maya. if nirgun Brahman can not become sagun without the association of maya then how can you call sagun Brahman as the controller of maya. You are just making some statements like “ maya is the power of Brahman” “ Brahman is the controller of maya” “ maya can not exist independently that is without Brahman” etc etc but you are not putting arguments how these statements are true. If maya is the power of Brahman , how you can separate maya from Brahman to become nirgun Brahman. How nirgun Brahman comes in contact with maya ( since maya is separate from him as Brahman is nirgun nirvishes) to become sagun whereas shastra says maya can not come on the way of Brahman. when you are saying that nirgun Brahman associates with maya to become sagun Brahman , do you mean to say that Brahman is being deluded by maya. how can maya which is dark or ignorance come with Brahman. these are the basic points you are avoiding by making some statements only.

5) Now you are saying Ishvara is the creator of this world.He created Om, from OM came mAyA and from mAyA came this world and us.
I want to ask you who is Ishvara ? Is he not sagun Brahman ? According to you Ishvara ,OM,maya, world and if you reverse the sequence world,maya,OM ,Ishvara but the fact according to you is Ishvara himself being created by Nirgun brahman with the association or adhar of maya.How is this argument.

6) My basic question is if Brahman is nirgun ,it can not become sagun since you maintain that nirgun Brahman is the ultimate truth that is in turiya avastha where there is no maya no action. you can not start from bottom , you have to start from top from ultimate truth . you have to accept that both aspects of Brahman that is nirgun Brahman and sagun Brahman are ultimate. On the one hand you are saying nirgun Brahman + maya = sagun Brahman on the other hand you are saying sagun Brahman is the controller of maya since nirgun Brahman has nothing to do. Is this argument acceptable ? how can you put one aspect of brahman on the other.I do not understand why Brahman needs the association of maya to become qualified that means maya only possess the qualities but maya is not independent. if maya is not independent that is maya is always with Brahman then how is Brahman nirgun. These arguments only confuse me more and more.

7) your example of a doctor only suggests that in whatever way you approach ,you will approach to the doctor only. husband son father brother all the aspects are same that is the doctor himself. there is no turiya avastha .it is his will to become what he is and when. he can do it because he is qualified by himself.

8) My last point is you are bringing maya which represents darkness, ajnan delusive or illusive power with brhman which represents jnan truth light that means you are associating two opposite entities to form a third entity that is sagun Brahman. I simply do not understand how can you mingle day and night light and darkness jnan and ajnan.

can you stand with all these arguments before Gita ?

the sadhu
09 December 2013, 09:46 PM
Namaste
Maya isn't a thing its simply a phenomena that
occurs when an intellect,& sense organs are present.

Maya is illusion, Maya is mistaking qualities of Brahman as separate objects. When they are really qualities of a singular nature.

For example, Tod is not 'tod', Tod is a label/name we have given a limited quality of Brahman we (in relative terms) call a human being.

The famous Advaita saying is;
A person sees a snake in the woods but upon closer inspection it is revealed to be a rope.

In the same way Tod doesnt exist, only the quality of Brahman called man.

Amrut
10 December 2013, 12:49 AM
Thank you Jopmala ji

I would remain very busy upto 25th Dec. In between if I get time, I may reply.

To just make a note that you had a long discussion with another member devotee ji as far as Gita is concerned :)

So I suggest that we should not enter into this discussion.

I will try my best to reply to your doubts.

One e.g. comes to my mind, if it helps.

mAyA are like glasses. Original nature of Brahman is with guNa, but due to the effect of mAyA, as we are within mAyA, we see Brahman through mAyA. Hence we see him with guNA-s. Remove the glasses and what you see is pure consciousness.

The mystery of how can nirguNa can associate with mAyA, how the world is created, why should you rise above mAyA, when it is just an illusion and that jiva never exited it is only Brahman , etc remain. It will try to answer them, but please accept delays.

A short answer is vyavahArika satya and pArmArthika satya. Why two are needed? again, will take time to answer.

When you rise above guNa or say simply chant God's name, you are filled with his devotion and want nothing but to attain and serve Lotus feet of beloved God.

Here, tamas and rajas are already renounced. Sattva remains. shat-sampatti and 4 qualities are already present within you. What we think of moving forward, in the end actually we come to know that all we did was disassociating non-self with Self.

for sake of explanation dual tone, the world was created, brahman associated with mAyA, etc are used. If we do not use this dual tone and act of creation, student wont be able to progress ahead. But after a certain level of progress, you are given explanation in a different way. Only when you reach the truth, then you can reconcile all the approach and harmonize them to know that though they appear of opposite nature, the end result obtained is actually the same.

More later.

Aum

ameyAtmA
11 December 2013, 01:52 AM
Dear jopmala and friends,

This article just might help : http://walkwithmukunda.blogspot.in/#!/2013/12/what-is-bramhan-how-does-it-appear-as.html

NOTES: The Truth is One. Bramhan' or BhagvAn are the same Principle of Truth. That same One is the ultimate consumer of all experiences. [hint: The Lord is the consumer of all yadnya (sacrifices) ].

Before rebelling at the shlokas that follow...
PLEASE NOTE: The Absolute Truth = Self, AtmA, is nirAgas (ni = without rAga = affectionate attachment, possessiveness).
It is the Ultimate Causal Truth Principle. There is no EGO. Even if you call the same Truth as BhagvAn. When one asks "How can the Supreme Truth think wrongly, have sammoha?" they are imposing an imagined EGO on this Purest Most Innocent Conscious Truth. MAyA is the Nature. Its Own Nature. There is really no seperate thing called mAyA. MAyA is like mother's pampering. Mother-in-Self wants the beings to eat nice food, have cozy blankets to sleep. But who is the bhoktA (experiencer) of all this?
The Conscious Self. (The Self is the upadRshTA, anumantA, bhartA, bhoktA, maheshwara BG 13.23)

If you leave a silver utensil out in the open, its surface will temporarily react with the atmospheric elements. Is this irreversible? Does that make silver stop being silver? Also, deep inside a thick plate of rusted silver, is pure silver. Only the surface is exposed to atmospheric mAyA. The earth's atmosphere is really a part of earth. If the atmosphere makes the earth's surface rust, deep inside it is pure elements and this is what helps the earth know I am earth, not rust.

So... where does bhakti fit into all this if all is One? To be seen later.


...and, it will not take your shradhhA-bhakti away. How and why can be seen in a future post.

As a pre-cursor to this article, some may want to read this first:
Bhakti and DnyAna feed back into each other (http://walkwithmukunda.blogspot.in/#!/2013/12/getting-started-with-study-of-scriptures_10.html)

The first thing to do is to remove the ignorance of being what is not one’s True Self, and lose the ego : the ego that says I did this, conquered that and created thus – when it is really prakRti (God-given nature) that is simply working naturally.

***Let us worry about whether and why Bramhan' got deluded, whether we are jivas or devas, and one or many, as a second step. (Please see BhAgvat verses in the next upcoming post on this topic).

A] Our first goal is to realize the eternal, steady, pure, faultless in us – the Self. Why should it matter if this Self is grand or small? It is pure that is all. How did Bramhan' get deluded? Whether one's take is
“jivas got deluded, not Bramhan'” or
“all are points in Bramhan so some points in Bramhan got deluded to think themselves as illusiory jivas”
how does it matter? They are both saying the same thing. If you say that jivas live in service of Bramhan'-seen-as-BhagvAn, these are again different waves of the BhagvAn consciousness talking to each other and Him. “The hand said to the toe – how are you this morning?” “The head smiled at the heart”

:) mama mana mandire nisadina raho S S KRshNa murAri S Shri KRshNa MurA S S S rI S S S...

Amrut
15 December 2013, 10:19 AM
Namaste Jopmala ji,

Sorry for delayed response, I am busy and was involved with another thread.

Until now, all I was trying to to project things in a positive way, so that we can progress spiritually, but it looks like to answer the questions and the seeming contradiction, I will have to talk the language of mAyAvAda :D eehhh actually, if someone wants to accuse, it should be mithyAvAda, as God's divine power, mAyA, is very important to Vaishnavas as Ishvara does his lilA through mAyA, hence I think that VAishnava-s philosophy couls be said as mAyAvAda, talks about Lord's glory and his lilA - don't mind ji. btw, Advaita is BrahmavAda, as it is Brahman that is final destination and not mAyA ;)

Actually, I had noted down response in points (about 22), but didn't knew how to convey properly.

So, lets begin mAyAvAda, but first, lets talk about some considerations.

Since HDF rule says that large amount of text is a spam, or in other words it is better to publish an article in Blog or website and point a link and then discuss it, I have shifted this article here (https://sites.google.com/site/understandingadvaita/advaita-creation-and-it-s-practicability)

btw, you may also visit adhyAropa apavAda (https://sites.google.com/site/understandingadvaita/adhyaropa-apavada)

We should also understand that even though we both may disagree with the logic presented, let the disagreement remain but let us not enter into 'refutation mood' :D, however, certain doubts can be cleared taking care that both of us will not go beyond a certain point.

Hari OM
Jai Shri Krishna

jopmala
15 December 2013, 10:49 AM
Namaste


I am interested to know advaitic view of maya. Advaitavada is saying that there is Brahman only and nothing else. Before one proves that jiva is deluded by maya which is the power of brahman he has to prove that jiva exists . then again where does jiva exist in dream or in true jagat . if delusion also happens in dream then he must say in whom or where the dream is taking place . dream also needs a adhar to take place. According to me advaitic view should say that it is Brahman which is deluded by his own power maya and become jiva. As and when this maya leaves him, jiva gets back its own svarupa that is Brahman itself. On the one hand advaitic view says there is Brahman only and nothing else but on the other hand it starts with jiva being deluded by maya which is contradictory to me.

On the one hand advaitic view says nirgun Brahman and his power maya a subject which is beyond thinking, beyond imagination , beyond understanding etc etc but I am surprised to see that everybody here is trying to think and define it by undergoing certain spiritual process that is nidhidyashana etc. This is also a contradiction.states of consciousness etc are all imaginery. So high thinking philosophy has been propagated on the subject which is not real but appears to be real that is Brahman appears as jiva and jagat but actually there is no jiva and jagat .Fact is that the real subject that is Brahman which is not thinkable definable or understandable. Therefore advaitic people are busy with a subject which is neither sat nor asat, not real but appears to be real, a dream, delusion, illusion. Is this "neti neti".

Amrut
15 December 2013, 11:20 AM
Namaste


I am interested to know advaitic view of maya. Advaitavada is saying that there is Brahman only and nothing else. Before one proves that jiva is deluded by maya which is the power of brahman he has to prove that jiva exists . then again where does jiva exist in dream or in true jagat . if delusion also happens in dream then he must say in whom or where the dream is taking place . dream also needs a adhar to take place. According to me advaitic view should say that it is Brahman which is deluded by his own power maya and become jiva. As and when this maya leaves him, jiva gets back its own svarupa that is Brahman itself. On the one hand advaitic view says there is Brahman only and nothing else but on the other hand it starts with jiva being deluded by maya which is contradictory to me.

On the one hand advaitic view says nirgun Brahman and his power maya a subject which is beyond thinking, beyond imagination , beyond understanding etc etc but I am surprised to see that everybody here is trying to think and define it by undergoing certain spiritual process that is nidhidyashana etc. This is also a contradiction.states of consciousness etc are all imaginery. So high thinking philosophy has been propagated on the subject which is not real but appears to be real that is Brahman appears as jiva and jagat but actually there is no jiva and jagat .Fact is that the real subject that is Brahman which is not thinkable definable or understandable. Therefore advaitic people are busy with a subject which is neither sat nor asat, not real but appears to be real, a dream, delusion, illusion. Is this "neti neti".

Namaste,

Please read the above post again. It will answer all doubts. I think nothing needs to be separately answered.

I have made few additions since posting.

Aum

jopmala
15 December 2013, 11:39 AM
Namaste,

Please read the above post again. It will answer all doubts. I think nothing needs to be separately answered.

I have made few additions since posting.

Aum
Namaste Amrutji

I have posted without seeing your post. well , I am reading your post and coming back

Amrut
16 December 2013, 06:51 AM
Namaste Jopmala ji,

No problem, please take your time.

I also found creation theories on advaita-vedanta.org website here (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html)

I hope this will help you answer your questions.

The explanation given is simple. Still if possible, I will try to brief.

Jai Shri Rama

grames
16 December 2013, 01:16 PM
A quick note...

This is just to correct the misinformation presented here assuming "MayaVada" as derogatory term but historically the philosophical school's are identified by the core of "the foundational" principle of the creation and sustenance and not the ultimate destination because, at least in principle all vedantic schools are believed to guide the practitioner to the very same goal.

The creation and existence solely resting in Sunya - identified as SunyaVada - though they rejected the authority of Veda.
The creation and existence solely resting on the Maya - identified as "MayaVada" and they do accept the authority of the Veda mostly - MayaVada is not exclusively meant only for "Shankara Advaita" but in general, this term popularly identified Advaita of Shankara school - There are other Advaita schools which does not attribute the creation and sustenance to Maya alone.
In the same line, Vaishnava schools must be identified differently fitting to the cause of creation and sustenance but since all schools are identifiable by the three reals as fundamental truth instead of "One Brahman", they do not carry these label. TattvaVada, RasaVada, BrahmaParinma Vada etc. are some of the names identifying these schools.

If they do not help to identify the proper school, it is fine to refer the actual school by most agreeable terms but surely, these are not deregatory and these are utilized not just by ISKCON but by the very acharyas belonging to the same sampradaya.

So, for those where name and form is not important, whether a label is derogatory or not should be secondary but what it identifies should be of prime importance.

grames
16 December 2013, 03:57 PM
Hi.,

sarvam hyetad brahmāyamātmā

When everything is Brahman, from which stand point the adhyAropa happens? Such adhyAropa as the method of Shruti teaching invalidates the above picked verse (and everything described as well - as it states everything is Brahman and that must include your super imposition theory - if everything is Brahman, the Shruti is not just "teaching" but actually saying, it is product of Maya and avidya - The stand point of Shri Shankara which modern advistins are abusing and raping but still claiming that these kind of theories are Shankara advaita) as meaningless. Shri Shankara clearly states that, Avidya and Adyasa is/are anadi and building the philosophy of Advaita on top of these is the school of Shri Shankara - Introducing a counter contradicting theory of adyaRopa being any different from Adyasa should not be attributed to Shri Shankara. A more sincere and serious theological evaluation of Shri Shankara may show the path to the Reals!

Shri Shankara is only asked to stand and provide authenticity but he is the one who strongly says, "ALL these are non-existent" and non-real" and not as something transiently real. (Such attribution to Shri Shankara is wrong and please state your school or version of advaita or at least start to have some way of identifying and agreeing this is your own idea - These are NEOs idea and at least acknowledge that).

To reduce this complex confusion in one liner answer, the meaning of adhyAropa means the witness less Brahman is always "in" conscious and need not require anything else that is anyway never existing or non-existent to go through the negation of what is that has no space/substratum to happen.

If the super imposition is not already existent, it cannot come in to existence to play or act! If such super imposition is just a teaching, there are no two to start the process of teaching since super imposition itself is not there on the Real Brahman but only in the teaching! Unless until, we admit that, such super imposition is actually on the vastu Brahman, there is no room for admitting this theory as Shri Shankara's in first place.

Proving these as paradox is much simpler if these as mere teaching style and not actually a phenomena on the Real Brahman. If it is true, the Real Brahman is always the real Brahman as in clay - There is no Pot - The pot is in the teaching - to impart a knowledge - about whom? To the very Self same Brahman that is not super imposed at all - and about its very nature. What is not super imposed does not require a release in first place (ajatiVada meets its end here) - it is always in its constitutional state of release and sat chit ananda - why waste time teaching something picking whatever style to the one that is never super imposed or in any sort of illusion??? Remember, admitting that Brahman is super imposed will throw away this theory as ineligible to explain that super imposition which is the Shankara Advaita stand - and force you to move back to Shri Shankara's original idea of avidya as the real cause but anadi!

brahma jijnasa
17 December 2013, 08:25 AM
Namaste Amrut

I will have to talk the language of mAyAvAda eehhh actually, if someone wants to accuse, it should be mithyAvAda, as God's divine power, mAyA, is very important to Vaishnavas as Ishvara does his lilA through mAyA, hence I think that VAishnava-s philosophy couls be said as mAyAvAda, talks about Lord's glory and his lilA - don't mind ji. btw, Advaita is BrahmavAda, as it is Brahman that is final destination and not mAyA

The reason why Vaishnavas call Advaita philosophy "Mayavada" is that Advaita philosophy says that Brahman can be overcome by maya and thus fall under the influence of illusion. According to Advaita every living being in this material world is this Brahman in maya. So Advaita is called mayavada or "Brahman under the influence of maya".
Needless to say that Vaishnavas do not accept this view because according to the Vaishnavas Brahman can not fall under the influence of illusion. Vaishnava philosophy can not be called mayavada because according to the Vaishnavas Brahman can not fall under the influence of illusion.

One more thing. Vaishnava understanding is that Ishvara or the Lord who is the Supreme Brahman (parabrahman) performs his pastimes (lilas) with the help of his own power called yogamaya which is His internal potency. This yogamaya power has nothing to do with the illusion in which there are all living beings in this material world.
However there is one another potency of the Lord called just "maya" or sometimes "mahamaya". This is the power of the Lord by which He keeps all living beings in this material world in illusion about their true spiritual identity as the eternal spiritual souls. Because they are under the influence of this illusion all living beings think "we are this material body" and thus they think that their true identity is body and not the spiritual soul (atma or jivatma). This is their illusion.
So it's not that the Lord falls under the influence of illusion, but He has his own potency (energy) called mahamaya which He uses to keep all the living beings in this material world in illusion! Thus illusion is not something separate or independent of the Lord, but it is His own power that He can use as He wants. When He wants to keep living beings in illusion about their true spiritual identity, He uses his mahamaya potency to overcome the living beings, and when He wants to liberate living beings from the illusion and material existence of repeated birth and death He gives them liberation (mukti) as an expression of His grace. We can even say that in this case He uses his yogamaya potency to award mukti to the jiva soul and thus this liberated soul (mukta) becomes a part of His pastimes (lilas) in His eternal abode of Vaikuntha.
This is a Gaudiya vaishnava explanation of the terms mahamaya, yogamaya, illusion, liberation (mukti), and how they are related to jivas and the Lord, Vishnu.

regards

Amrut
17 December 2013, 10:00 AM
Just a quick note.

That mayavada and accusation was wrote on a light note. Actually My in reply, I had written words like - enjoying naa :D , so thats what mayavad says, etc.

But when I shifted my article to my website, I had to remove that stuff :D

I will reply to the answers. Please give me some time. I also request members to just take one issue at time a time.

So Grames ji :D, it looks like you have developed an philia (affinity) for this mayavadi ;) and you keep following me. See these days weird things are happening and efforts are made to legalize two males coming too close for comfort. I am not in favour of this.

Also kindly note that I am a poor rational fellow. So I will present advaita according to my understanding. Now the logic is excellent, good, bad, illogical, unacceptable, faulty logic, praiseworthy is another thing and just knowing it is another.

We are free to disagree. What shall I do if God has chosen me to go to hell and follow that demon who walked on earth and just like God took away that wicked soul when he was 32, he may also take me away the same way. But this is my fate and this is God's wish.

I was simply chanting Rama nama, and he made arrangements to meet my Guru and then I started chanting OM. After that when I was confused as I had habit of chanting Rama nama, I simply surrendered to God and he himself erased his name and OM would continue. Still I feel great when I visit Hanuman temple or even hear about Rama nama, my heart is filled with joy and bhakti. But it is chosen for me to be an advaitin.

When I chanted Rama nama, the mantra used to continue to pop up and continue many times against my wish. I also used to chant Hanuman ji name and some days the chanting was so powerful that I could not even sleep, it would go on by itself till 2-3 am in night, but it would not have any ill effect. This was before I was taught Advaita.

All I did was to remain open and prayed to give me what is best for me. I didnt had any goal, I didnt study any shastra-s, just Rama nama and Hanuman ji nama. Thats it. Rest is all wish is Rama. He changed my path from Yoga to Bhakti or Advaita.

btw, MimAmsaka-s, NyAyikA-s, Jains, Buddhists also have good reasons to accuse advaita. Have you heard using this word?

Aum

grames
17 December 2013, 11:07 AM
Dear Amrut.,

I am laughing and smiling after reading this message of yours and of course, i don't fall in love with faceless entities or entities that are not conceivable or 'get conceived' :) So, be assured that you are safe, kept at a distance and also respected as a dear brother with no non-natural attraction of any sort. :D

I personally appreciate the change that Lord Rama bestowed on you and good luck and wishes for you to progress in your spiritual quest. Just a curious question though... if you were so close and enlightened that, Lord Rama Himself removed/erased His name from your mind, what was the need or necessity to presue anything more? Was Lord Rama was not fulfilling your quest or didn't show His svaRupa as S.Brahman at least? Was it all pure emotions with no logic, reasoning, wanting, desire, affinity, faith, pride?

Looks like you have very very big heart and enlarged space in your brain to accommodate every principles that are spoken as simply "Advaita" and with so much storage, you do not care if they are time tested, acharya's versions or supported by the Pramana etc. but they are fine, as you are satisfied fully. If that is the stance, i can only remember the cat that keeps its eye closed when it is about to meet the death assuming there is nothing else is there. Do you know the story of "Blind cat" assuming the world is non existing?

What an advaitin wants can be different but when such philosophy is presented in the public forum, even a ordinary like me can expect a coherent flow, as that is possible in the sytem of Advaita and also to be honest presenting the system as is with out adulteration!.

Amrut
18 December 2013, 01:44 AM
Namaste,

Let me be clear one more time.

I am not contesting anyone. Since an ender member has asked for clarification, I have tried to reply him to the best of my knowledge.

You will have to accept Advaita concepts like 2 levels of truths and 3 levels of truth, ignorance (avidya) is the root cause, adhikAra bheda, different explanations for different people depending upon their mental make-up, etc

If you are questioning the basic tenets of Advaita, then you are dialling wrong number. It is work of vidvans not mine. Not all are solders.

adhyAropa apavaDa is rediscovered by Swami Sacchidanendendra Sarasvati of Holenarsipur, who was direct disciple of shringeri Shankaracharya and I have provided commentaries of Adi Shankara which says that it is a traditional method.

Either you accept it or you do not.

I have observed here on HDF that non-advaitins who do not practice advaita, always have this kind of problems about authentic teachings. It is non-Advaitins who shout too much against advaita and tag neo advaita which is a word coined by a westerner. Practising Advaitins have never argued in this way.

It looks like non-advaitins are more expert and have a better understanding than practising advaitins. Separate Adi shankara from everything other than prasthantraiyi is a standard practice. Separate him from his biography is another practice.

BJ ji,

You / Vaishnava-s have wrong concept that Brahman actually gets deluded. Brahman never gets deluded. Jiva it is just a mental reflection according to Advaita.

Also note that mAyAvAda is taken as derogatory sense, as vaishnava-s have used it for derogatory purpose using Padma Purana verse. In this thread, I have not taken that word seriously.

Also note that accusation is done when nothing is left to question. It is a sign of intolerance. Logical objections are a different issue.

Aum

grames
18 December 2013, 11:22 AM
Dear Amrut.,

Why is this emotional burst? As you as well know, end of the day it is not just the philosophy but the effect of our faith that shows its worth. Any religion or faith that does not help a person to show the signs of love, care and affection for fellow jivas is useless and in fact, should be given up.

For the fact, to give out more insights and refutation on the concepts of Advaita, it is actually the vaishnavas who took more pains to learn and mastered it for purvaPaksha and such practice helped not just the school of Advaita and even every other vedantic schools by giving out answers after their philosophical synthesis. If it is in the domain of vidvans, not sure on what authority you are contesting a Vaishnava questions here or deny a vaishnava question asking for your own acharya version? I believe, as a follower of Advaita, you must be more sincere and respectful to your very own acharya and if Shri Shankara is sitting on the top of your acharya chain, i am sure you will go back, find an answer and tell me why Shri Shankara will be against such concepts or at least correct me and like minded people here about why and how it is still not violating Shri Shankara concept of Avidya and Adyasa as the cause of world!

The intention here is not to contest you as a person but to make sure you are providing proper knowledge for someone who is seeking to get some help by visiting this site. What is there on your personal website is your complete domain and no one is going to ask you any question whether it is right or wrong.

brahma jijnasa
18 December 2013, 11:23 AM
Namaste Amrut

Also note that mAyAvAda is taken as derogatory sense, as vaishnava-s have used it for derogatory purpose using Padma Purana verse. In this thread, I have not taken that word seriously.

In fact, the term mayavada by itself is not derogatory. It just means "philosophy which teaches that Brahman falls under the influence of illusion".
Here I do not want to comment on the statements in the Padma Purana at all. Vaishnavas usually call Advaitins as mayavadis and that has nothing to do with Padma Purana.


You / Vaishnava-s have wrong concept that Brahman actually gets deluded. Brahman never gets deluded. Jiva it is just a mental reflection according to Advaita.

I do not understand what you want to say. I thought Advaita teaches that we are all Brahman, just not realized it yet.

regards

Amrut
19 December 2013, 06:39 AM
Namste Grames ji,

I do not deny what you say. What I am saying is that the way you describe is not the only way to progress. Not all saints take part in debates even for good reasons and to sharpen their skills and find answers and to make their faith stronger.

Hence to sharpen your skills, you will have to interact with like-minded people and you should not push those who do not wish to go beyond certain limit. A little exploration is good to understand basic concepts, but then I do not dig too much. Meditation is the key to me.

In order to enjoy the discussion and to bring something good out of brain storming sessions, both members (or more than two members) should enjoy the debate and have natural tendency to ask logical questions.

I hope you are getting my point. We will remain friends - positively - not to far not too close :D :D

----------

Namaste BJ ji,

I have given answer to this in this thread and in other threads in which I recently interacted. I understand and do not expect that you should read all of my posts.

I hope you must have read atleast posts on this thread.

In brief,

Brahman 'appears' to be deluded. Brahman is NOT deluded. I have given e.g. of Sun being veiled (covered) by clouds. Here Sun is Brahman, consciousness and clouds represent ignorance.

Also note that Jiva is reflection like Sun reflected in lake. It is an image and not actual separation.

Hence Jiva is not actually present, though we experience it.

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.

If you think that Brahman is deluded and becomes jiva, it breaks basic tenet of Advaita, that Brahman is indivisible, as there are many jiva-s.

I request you to please read my posts in this thread ( specially post #2 and #11) and read post #31 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=111251&postcount=31) in another thread. This post will also help you understand Advaita better. If you find this post of interest, please read my earlier posts as well.

I have made a lot of efforts to clarify Advaita concepts.

I to do not wish to talk about padma purana verses, btw, I have already given given answers to the accusations on my website here (https://sites.google.com/site/understandingadvaita/dispelling-doubts)

Aum

jopmala
19 December 2013, 09:32 PM
Namaste Amrutji
Sorry, I was busy in some personal business. Lets come to the discussion.
Amrutji, I never make any difference between ways of realization of truth be it vaishnab or advaita anything but since all the paths are followed by such great saints or great personalities that they are far more ahead of us in terms of spiritual experience, knowing the ultimate truth. Therefore I am not in the business of finding faults in any philosophy which are advocated by great great truth realized personalities. There is no comparison between them and us . I am just concerned the easiest way of finding the truth as is stated in Gita ( 1-2/12) and I like to mention that you yourself also acknowledge that advaita philosophy is not for all to understand. I have asked you some questions on maya only out of curiosity. Now seeing your humble submission I am a little discouraged to ask further. Actually I appreciate your involvement in advaita.I was specific on maya ,sagun Brahman but you have avoided that part and posted details of advaitavada.
1) I am surprised to know the level of imagination in advaita. I know that truth is one and only but you have divided truth into various level. now truth is “there is only Brahman and nothing else”. Are you dividing Brahman in different levels of truth ? since Brahman can not be divided , so the levels are all imaginary. I think it is misuse of the term ‘satya’ when it is associated with words like empirical or vyavaharika since truth is always ultimate. Difference may exist in level of experiencer of truth but truth is one and only .truth does not have any level of its own. when father points towards apple and tries to convince his child to accept it as moon ,though this may be accepted by child as truth but actually it is just cheating on the part of father . I think you have got my point. Great Brahman can not cheat us like this way.
2) you are saying words like “self”, “ one is under ignorance” etc .who is this “one” or “self” that means you are accepting the existence of jiva otherwise who experiences the false truth in vyavaharika level or empirical level ? Is it Brahman under cover? Who requires jnan to get rid of avidya or maya. I do not see anything else than Brahman.Will you accept if I say that Brahman from its paramarthika level comes down to vyavaharika level and again trying to go into paramarthika level. you are saying same entity into different level or different entity into defferent level . I am in a fix here. please let me know who is in paramarthika level and who is in vyavaharika level . In your example of sun and cloud it is clear that the experiencer is not sun itself. Your example holds good only when it is experienced by a second entity like Me. I mean if sun is real and if I am real and different from sun then only you can say sun can not be veiled. sun itself can not experience whether it is veiled by cloud or not.Further, if sun is supposed in paramarthika level and one is supposed in the vyavaharika level then how will you explain your example. How could I know what is there on the ground level when I myself is staying under water.
3) paramarthika level of truth is reserved for Brahman only. In vyavaharika level the experiencer or the experiences everything is under ignorance.How can one( who is one I do not know) practice jnan which means truth being in the vyavaharika level.see the position in the vyavaharika level where self, creation , and even sri Krishna everything is under ignorance and just perception ( perceived ?) no real existence and on the other hand there is paramarthika level where there is only truth or jnan or Brahman. Now how this perceived truth turns into ultimate truth is a confusion to me. If my existence is real that is if jiva exists then it can happen but where is jiva . Let me ask you where from you are starting from Brahman or from jiva. Is Brahman realizing Brahman or jiva realizing Brahman. The truth is one but that truth is being perceived from two levels and the perceiver is the truth itself. Is this your argument in favour of practical advaita ?
4) sun is there but its rays are here that does not mean sun has been divided but yes sun is truth its rays are also truth . When raw gold is used for making ornaments, would you say raw gold has been divided into parts ? One is division and another is transformation. If I say sun is truth but rays are perceived then problem arises. clouds which is also truth cover the rays of sun not the sun itself since cloud can not stand before sun . Should I think sun is in paramarthika level and its rays and this universe is in perceived level ?
5) I can not reserve one sit for nirgun Brahman and another sit for sagun Brahman in different level ( 3rd and 4th ). I have only one Brahman staying in the same level having two aspects only.I can not refer to Brahman to nirguna aspect and iswara to sagun aspect. To me, his both aspects are real.I never take this universe as illusion. you lower the status of sagun Brahman since nirguna Brahman is your destination.if a path to spirituality can not be followed by all what is the use of that path. for this reason sri Krishna teaches arjuna to follow Brahman with form and qualities. I do not seek the grace of maya nor I believe that this world is sorrows. you accept maya as the illusive power of Brahman but you do not accept jiva as the power of Brahman. If ‘I” means self and sri Krishna stays in the same level e.g. vyavaharika satya what makes him different from me. Sruti does not say only about Brahman with out form and qualities , sruti also says about Brahman with forms and quality but it is advaita which put Brahman without form in one level and Brahman with form in another level.I know you are limited but in search of infinity, you want to understand which is beyond your understanding, you want to define which is undefinable, you want to think which unthinkable. I pray for you.

Amrut
21 December 2013, 08:48 AM
Namaste Jopmala ji,

I try to avoid quoting shastra-s, but it looks like I will have to quote them :( . If I enter deep, then it would be unfair not to answer Grames ji's questions.

Well, I tried to reply in brief, but the reply runs 9 pages. More I check, I end up adding more stuff.

I do not even know if you would read the entire article split into two parts. It is such a pain to read loooonnng articles.

I explained the whole theory so that doubts can be naturally removed, hence I did not separately answered these questions about mAyA, jiva and Brahman.

For the purpose of creation, we have to take mAyA and Ishvara. Hence they are accepted. Be it NiguNa becoming or expressing through mAyA as saguNA or let the niguNa aspect be sidelined, the theories are given only for those who have questions. At the absolute level, there is no creation at all and hence there is no mAyA that is experienced. Ishvara cannot be defined without mAyA. Though he fully controls mAyA and mAyA is his own energy, yet he has ot take AdhAra of mAyA for creation. When Bhagavan in Gita says to transcend 3 guNa-s, it means to enter into nirguNa Brahman, where there is no mAyA.


1) I am surprised to know the level of imagination in advaita. I know that truth is one and only but you have divided truth into various level. now truth is “there is only Brahman and nothing else”. Are you dividing Brahman in different levels of truth ? since Brahman can not be divided , so the levels are all imaginary. I think it is misuse of the term ‘satya’ when it is associated with words like empirical or vyavaharika since truth is always ultimate. Difference may exist in level of experiencer of truth but truth is one and only .truth does not have any level of its own. when father points towards apple and tries to convince his child to accept it as moon ,though this may be accepted by child as truth but actually it is just cheating on the part of father . I think you have got my point. Great Brahman can not cheat us like this way.

Two Levels of Truth

I understand, but this is not a cooked up opinion of Adi Shankara, but it is supported by Shruti-s and Smriti (Gita)

For, when there is duality, as it were, one sees another …but when all has become just his Ātman, what could one see and through what? .. - Br. Up. 4.5.15

Full verse is

IV-v-15: Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something, one smells something, one tastes something, one speaks something, one hears something, one thinks something, one touches something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one touch and through what, what should one know and through what ? Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known ? This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, Not this’. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered – it never feels pain, and never suffers injury. Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower ? So you have got the instruction, Maitreyi. This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear. Saying this Yajnavalkya left.


Source (http://www.astrojyoti.com/brihadaranyakaupanishad2-6.htm)

It is also found in Gita

13.17 And the Knowable, though undivided, appears to be existing as divided in all beings, and It is the sustainer of all beings as also the devourer and originator.

Sure the levels are imaginary, or they do not exist, but for whom? - the one who is rooted in Brahman.

But for us, who experience duality, we have to explain in dual tone and hence the theories are explained and upadesha-s are explained in dual tone only, but as said, the final destination is non-duality. First dual is assumed, at times it is also proved, but later on it is negated. When I say duality is accepted under ignorance and is applicable to those who are under ignorance, this means that jiva, as having limited capacity and Ishvara as all powerful is also accepted. I should say that the teaching is done by ‘Proof by Contradiction’. One begins with acceptance of duality. Then one is taught the real nature, intellectually, and is asked to contemplate. The final destination is the removal of duality. Whole time, throughout this process, advaita gives importance to laxyArtha and not vAcyArtha.

Not too many verses Speak of Advaita - WHY?

You may not find too many verses strictly speaking of advaita i.e. non-duality of Brahman, but this is because there is conscious effort to lift one from duality to non-duality.

Suppose you wish to reach Himalaya from South end, say kanyakumari, then a road map will be described. In the entire process, and describing in-between stations, like Maharashtra, Gujarat, etc, you wont find a description of Himalayas. The description only occurs when the route finally enters into Himalayas.

Hence, One has to accept when Brahman as a vishaya, a destination and then the question occurs that you accepts Brahman as supreme, that must be different from him. This is true and hence Jiva bhAva is also accepted. But accepting is a different issue. and getting rid of it is another. The attempts are made to slowly lift a seeker step by step.

Take Man. Up. It connects with 3 states - waking, dream, deep and the final is turiya.

So one dives deep within and until one reaches the forth state, all duality is accepted. But when one reaches the final state, to the astonishment, the seeker, does not experience any of the duality.

If the jiva and samsAra are real, then even in the final state, seeker must experience them. But there is no mixed experienced. The experience is of non-dual type.

Two Levels of Truth in Yoga School

Two levels of truths is not only accepted by Shruti-s, but it is accepted by dualist schools like Patanjali Yoga Sutra

कृतार्थ प्रति नष्टमऊयनष्ट तदन्यसाधारणत्वात्* ॥ २२ ॥

2.22 Though the object of experience becomes unreal to him who has reached the state of liberation, it remains real to all other beings.

P.Y.S. by Swami Prabhavananda of Ramakrishna Ashram, Page 90

Another translation.

2.22 For the one who has attained the goal [of liberation, the seen] disappears [yet, the seen] is not destroyed because of it's common universality.

krta = done
arthan = purpose, goal
prati = towards, for
naSta = destroyed
api = even though
anaSTam = not destroyed
tad = that
anya = other
sAdhAraNatvAt = because of, due to commonality, universality

Kriya Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and the Siddhas by Marshal Govindan, Page, 86

The author has also connected it with Thirumandiram.

Satya

The term satya is also not misused. Infact the word ‘satya’ in vyacahArika satya is said only for explanatory purpose only, as truth can be only one. But if we discard what we experience then how can one actually start in Advaita.

We will see it in my reply to your second doubt.


2) you are saying words like “self”, “ one is under ignorance” etc .who is this “one” or “self” that means you are accepting the existence of jiva otherwise who experiences the false truth in vyavaharika level or empirical level ? Is it Brahman under cover? Who requires jnan to get rid of avidya or maya. I do not see anything else than Brahman.Will you accept if I say that Brahman from its paramarthika level comes down to vyavaharika level and again trying to go into paramarthika level. you are saying same entity into different level or different entity into defferent level . I am in a fix here. please let me know who is in paramarthika level and who is in vyavaharika level . In your example of sun and cloud it is clear that the experiencer is not sun itself. Your example holds good only when it is experienced by a second entity like Me. I mean if sun is real and if I am real and different from sun then only you can say sun can not be veiled. sun itself can not experience whether it is veiled by cloud or not.Further, if sun is supposed in paramarthika level and one is supposed in the vyavaharika level then how will you explain your example. How could I know what is there on the ground level when I myself is staying under water.

As said earlier, Jiva is accepted at empirical level, but at the same time, one is educated that you wrongly think of yourself as 'Jiva'.

Again, Brahman is not deluded, it APPEARS TO BE deluded.

If we accept that Brahman BECOMEs JIVA then we violate shruti, which says, BG 2.20.

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचि-
न्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो
न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

2.20 Never is this One born, and never does It die; nor is it that having come to exist, It will again cease to be. This One is birthless, eternal, undecaying, ancient; It is not killed when the body is killed.

If we take BG 2.20 into context, then theory of the world being created would means that once there was no creation and then it is created. The one which has birth, also has death.

Satya

contd

Now the definition of satya and asatya is also not mine. They are given by Bhagavan in BG 2.16

नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभि ।।2.16।।

2.16 Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.

So which is true, the world is created and hence jiva-s were once created?

For time being, we can overlook the commentaries by acharya-s.

In plain words,

satya is defined as the one which has NO NON-EXISTENCE is permanent, unchanging, undecaying, etc ...

asatya means that which has NO EXISTENCE AT ANY TIME

Hence we cannot take this world, which constantly change, this body, which constantly change as satya. It voids the definition of satya, according Advaita tenet.

The truth is one, hence the only thing that qualifies to be called as real (satya) is Brahman ( Satyam Jnanam anantam Brahma - Tai. Up. 2.1.1)

At no cost we can afford to violate the definitions of real and unreal.

Hence we have to tag this experience as something different than the two. Adi Shankara called this mithyA, which in simple words can mean - Temporary.

Gita herself says that same about the world in BG 8.15

The only thing is we take everything that is changing, moving, etc as mithyA, hence even subtle worlds like heaven, etc also fall under this category.

Further Katha Up. says

1-II-10. I know that the treasure is impermanent, for that which is constant cannot be reached by things which are not constant

Again this is not my stand, but what shastra-s say, and of course it is Advaita interpretation.


3) paramarthika level of truth is reserved for Brahman only. In vyavaharika level the experiencer or the experiences everything is under ignorance.How can one( who is one I do not know) practice jnan which means truth being in the vyavaharika level.see the position in the vyavaharika level where self, creation , and even sri Krishna everything is under ignorance and just perception ( perceived ?) no real existence and on the other hand there is paramarthika level where there is only truth or jnan or Brahman. Now how this perceived truth turns into ultimate truth is a confusion to me. If my existence is real that is if jiva exists then it can happen but where is jiva . Let me ask you where from you are starting from Brahman or from jiva. Is Brahman realizing Brahman or jiva realizing Brahman. The truth is one but that truth is being perceived from two levels and the perceiver is the truth itself. Is this your argument in favour of practical advaita ?

This question is very sensible. We start from duality as we are under ignorance. Hence we will have to show step by step. This is practical application of Advaita.

But we do not say that Jiva BECOMES Brahman. We say, - you wrongly think yourself i.e. 'I' as Jiva. Search the real 'I'

Since we have forgotten our true nature, hence one must get rid of this 'wrong belief', for which duality has to be accepted.

But the question is how can you reach that is unreachable.

Advaita a Path of Grace

The answer is - there is no path to be reached. What is actually happening is negation of what is non-Self. Hence it is said, that - You are already Brahman. But the way it is taught it looks like there is a path, there is travel like in Mandukya upanishad where by chanting OM, first one comes in contact with waking and tune waking with 'A', then Dream with 'U' ...

So, we take help of mind, which is technically not capable of reaching the unreachable.

But in this process, we only calm down mind and destroy what is within the mind - the vasanas (sarvAn partho manogatAt). This we do it with the help of OM. OM is one such mantra which has capacity to take one beyond 3 states.

But the chanting is done by mind. This is true, but not completely true. I have a personal experience. After certain practice, chanting goes on by itself. We are taught to be a witness. A witness cannot enjoy or suffer or act. Hence one is just a witness of the entire process of chanting OM. The mantra goes on by itself, though pop up (you do not decide which thoughts should come up, nor you have any control of the entire procedure), OM uproots thoughts and this goes on. In between a stage comes, when temporarily no thoughts pop up, consciousness is fully drawn into the source of OM. Just like fire after burning corpse does not continue but is extinguished, similarly, OM fades into it;s source - Brahman.

Since you didn't do it yourself, the entire process is TOTALLY dependent upon OM, which happens by God's grace, as it is said in upanishads

The one realizes the Self, whom the Self Chooses


4) sun is there but its rays are here that does not mean sun has been divided but yes sun is truth its rays are also truth . When raw gold is used for making ornaments, would you say raw gold has been divided into parts ? One is division and another is transformation. If I say sun is truth but rays are perceived then problem arises. clouds which is also truth cover the rays of sun not the sun itself since cloud can not stand before sun . Should I think sun is in paramarthika level and its rays and this universe is in perceived level ?

From pArmArthika satya, there is no mAyA, as well. mAyA comes into picture, when we talk about creation :)


condt in next post

Amrut
21 December 2013, 08:51 AM
...contd


5) I can not reserve one sit for nirgun Brahman and another sit for sagun Brahman in different level ( 3rd and 4th ). I have only one Brahman staying in the same level having two aspects only.I can not refer to Brahman to nirguna aspect and iswara to sagun aspect. To me, his both aspects are real.I never take this universe as illusion. you lower the status of sagun Brahman since nirguna Brahman is your destination.if a path to spirituality can not be followed by all what is the use of that path. for this reason sri Krishna teaches arjuna to follow Brahman with form and qualities. I do not seek the grace of maya nor I believe that this world is sorrows. you accept maya as the illusive power of Brahman but you do not accept jiva as the power of Brahman. If ‘I” means self and sri Krishna stays in the same level e.g. vyavaharika satya what makes him different from me. Sruti does not say only about Brahman with out form and qualities , sruti also says about Brahman with forms and quality but it is advaita which put Brahman without form in one level and Brahman with form in another level.Unfortunately, I will have to say, that even Ishvara cease to exist in Jnana. In other words, the upadhi-s of Ishvara (which makes him Ishvara) are absent, when one is beyonf mAyA. Hence Pure consciousness is left.

Brahman + mAyA = Ishvara

Ishvara – mAyA = Brahman.

In either case, Brahman always exists. In Jnana, it exists as pure self, in Ajnana, he appears as if endowed with upadhi-s and has taken form.

We cannot see or experience both at a time. You can either see Krishna, Rama or you see their nirguNa aspect, Brahman.

If we say, both nirguNa Brahman switches to saguNa, then again, when saguNa is present, there is no nirguNa. This also violates shruti. Hence we will have to take it that Ishvara is Brahman, but is wrongly perceived with qualities. (I know you will not like this )

But under ignorance, we simply cannot say that there is no Ishvara, as it is the Brahman in reality and we need Ishvara’s grace to rise above mAyA.

To rise a person step by step, shruti will explain saguNa Brahman too, as we have seen in Gita at many place. This fact also cannot be denied.

The final destination is not reached until there is duality.

The full destruction is Ego is only possible in non-duality.

Also after reaching this state, nothing more needs to be achieved says Sv. Up.

Sv. Up says

I-12: This is to be known as eternally existing in one’s own self. Indeed, there is nothing to be known beyond this. As a result of meditation the enjoyer, the enjoyed and the power which brings about the enjoyment – all are declared to be the three aspects of Brahman.


And it also prescribes path of OM chanting

I-13: Fire is not perceived in its source, the fire-stick, till it is ignited by percussion. The subtle essence of fire, nevertheless, is not absent in the stick; for fire can be obtained from the source, the fire-stick, by striking again. (The state of the Atman before and after realization). By meditating on the Pranava, the Atman is perceived manifestly in the body, (but it was there in a latent state even before realization).


We will have to note that after reaching this state, the state of Jnana is permanent (after the world is negated, mind is destroyed, ego is destroyed), and hence there is no further need to meditate and strive for this state, which is completeness

Shastra-s say, we so not return back

मामुपेत्य पुनर्जन्म दुःखालयमशाश्वतम्।
नाप्नुवन्ति महात्मानः संसिद्धिं परमां गताः।।8.15।।

8.15 As a result of reaching Me, the exalted ones who have attained the highest perfection do not get rebirth which is an abode of sorrows and which is impermanent.

Sure advaita is not for everyone. IT is said in shastra-s too, like to pointed as in BG 12.5

The thing is advaita is a sub school of Vedanta. Vedanta is the end part. It also represents the 4th ashram.

For chitta shuddi, one has to do karma kand. It is explained in Upadesha Sahasri.

So there are two steps – Karma Kand and Vedanta.

There is veda-s (samhitA and BrAhmaNa-s) for karma kand and then there is araNyaka for introspection and finally Vedanta for Jnana (as per advaita).

Hence first we have to do chitta shuddi by doing nitya karma and singing glories of God and there by get inwardly pure. After getting inwardly pure, you will have to renounce the very karma that gave you purity.

Bhakti is the easiest path

I will have agree that bhakti is the easiest path and all can practice it. Sri Madhusudan Sarasvati says, For masses, Krishna Bhakti is the best and for SanyAsins, Advaita is best.

To start advaita, vairAgya is a must. Hence not all can practice Advaita.

Since Advaita is not for masses, it should not propagated aggressively and thrown to masses. A philosophy which say completely reverse to what you believe, see and experience is not acceptable to all. Not all can digest it.

Advaita is useful as it gives what you want.

Advaita ends with only one position – non-dual.

The final goal is all that matters, hence advaita is useful for those seeking for peace, completeness and eternal happiness. One comes to realize that after having all that he wanted, cultured children, wife, family, wealth, etc, something is missing – there is no peace. We all hanker for happiness and the whole life is spend in avoiding or being prepared for anything ‘unfavourable’ to come. Investments, FD’s, job, business, etc is all for maintenance of Happiness or say for dukh nivritti. All try to search for freedom, happiness and peace. Also no one wants to die, and even think of death regularly even though all have seen cremation ground and know our fate too. Hence one also wants immortality. We can see this ‘wanting to be eternal’ by increased use of stuff that keeps us look young and stay fit.

To sum up, all are in search for peace, happiness, completeness and immortality. There is nothing wrong to search for happiness. What is wrong is to search outside, when it is inside. When one realizes this, one abandons material life and becomes introvert. Gita starts with Arjuna Vishada Yoga. Vairagya, temporary nature of this world, etc are all necessary to practice advaita. Such person who has realized that his search for happiness outside is futile will enter into the domain of advaita.

Advaita assures that after you realize Jnana, it will stay permanent. Also you do not need to meditate, worship, or do anything in order to maintain this state of oneness with Brahman. Advaita also says that all is achieved once Realization is achieved AND there is nothing more left ot be achieved once the Self is Realized.

Few Last Words

When we discuss all these, we may feel that there is no bhakti or no value for SaguNa Brahman. In the entire process, the path or sadhana is not explain, only the beginning and end are explained.

Duality under ignorance is described and then the removal of duality end in Jnana, which is the final state is described.

The the question is how?

This point is not much stressed. If we stress this point - how? and teach way to meditate, then we can project Advaita positively, which acknowledge Ishvara as an aspect of NirguNa Brahman and need for his grace and Guru's grace.

Hence I have explained the process of Meditation. While meditating, we feel increasing amount of bliss and deep peace and of course this is the motivating factor to meditate more. From absolute standpoint, one can say that you are still under ignorance and discard it, but this statement is not applicable to the one who is meditating.

As one matures, Guru can even say the above statement that you still are under ignorance, but that is not in the beginning of sadhana. A disciple is very matured and takes it in right way and works hard to remove ignorance.

This aspect is not discussed and cannot be discussed as it is highly subjective. Each one needs to be guided or taught in different way due to several factors.

A personal Experience

I personally have observed that as I progressed, my reverence towards deities have increased. When I asked, I was told that how can you not respect the same divinity (Ishvara) whom you have surrendered, chant his name (OM) and highly revere, manifests through any medium, be it Guru, a saint or an idol. It is just that your path is not to give importance to it. As you will progress, the reverence for Ishvara will increase, but stop not till thou (your) goal is reached.


I know you are limited but in search of infinity, you want to understand which is beyond your understanding, you want to define which is undefinable, you want to think which unthinkable. I pray for you.Thank you for your prayers :)

By God's grace I will surely be able to reach this state in this life itself.

I too pray for your spiritual success.

phew, it must have taken more than 2 hours to write this.

Aum

jopmala
22 December 2013, 02:20 AM
Namaste Amrutji

You are great. I appreciate you for your best efforts to convince me. you have kept yourself busy for long two hours and taken so much pain to type. You really deserve appreciation . The difference of opinion between you and me is separate issue. That difference of opinion is permanent. still I am sure healthy discussion with due respect to each other throws light on the concepts which directly or indirectly help to understand the philosophy. I shall definitely read your post and will not come back with more questions on advaita since you have written so much. But I may have some questions on Gita. I once again appreciate your advaita-prem.

Amrut
22 December 2013, 02:54 AM
Namaste Amrutji

You are great. I appreciate you for your best efforts to convince me. you have kept yourself busy for long two hours and taken so much pain to type. You really deserve appreciation . The difference of opinion between you and me is separate issue. That difference of opinion is permanent. I shall definitely read your post and will not come back with more questions on advaita since you have written so much. But I may have some questions on Gita. I once again appreciate your advaita-prem.

No problem Jopmala ji,

Once I begin to write or type, or speak, I get lost and keep typing, many times my aching fingers would remind my the time I have been typing !!!

Let the differences remain. It is not a problem :)

Understanding and accepting are two different things. Of course if the understanding is not correct, then it needs to be corrected.

Afterall all paths and systems are setup by Ishvara.

Do not worry about any concepts that are unclear. Just chant God's name and everything will be unfolded at a right time. Trust God. Also we do not have to find answers for all questions. After sometime, they may fade away from memory.

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

I always try to talk more about meditation and even advise to take refuge in Krishna, Rama, Shiva, as it is much easier. Even Advaitins in the beginning take their aadhaara and accept their supremacy.

Rather than why and how this world was created and explaining 2 levels of truth, I think it is more important to understand how can we cross this ocean of samsAra. To this, I give quotes from modern saints like Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharshi, because pure advaita is difficult to understand and more difficult to apply practically.

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

I will give one e.g.

vAsanA-s do not have any shape. We all have sensual desire, which is natural. When I walk on the road and spot a beautiful girl, her face is captured and stored in my mind. When meditating, whenever this vAsanA pops up, then I recall her face. This is MenakA for me. If I like any heroine / actress, then she will pop up in mt mind.

Now since I realize that this should not happen and is not good. I will take steps

1. Stop looking at private parts of any women
2. Stop seeing movie songs
3. Stop watching movies or step out when sensual scenes are played
4. Pray to RAma, as he is maryAdA purushottama, hence he will definitely help me to uproot this desire. Even while meditating I can pray to him to take away his desire and only he is capable to uproot it OR pray to Sita mata or Hanuman ji (a brahmacAri) or Adi Shakti to take away this desire.
5. I can even pray simply to Paramatman, not visualizing any form to take away this desire.

Here there is a fear and hence an alertness that I should not look at private parts of a women or avoid seeing film songs or be alert during meditation.

If I fail to be aware, consequences follow and meditation breaks.

Now,

If I am able to hold one to OM, then the thought passes and fades away. Here too thoughts take shape, but you hold yourself and not allow yourself to get dragged in it.

Further,

You are so naturally conscious, due to purity of mind and God's and Guru's grace that desires, which are unstable energies, are uprooted even before taking shape. Here one can literally feel that Paramatman himself is acting during meditation and uprooting thoughts and desires even before they take shape. During this time, you are totally disconnected with this world and body. You are not aware of time. It is a different feeling.

What I explained last is actual core advaitic meditation. But how many can actually practice in this way and that too regularly? IF I cannot hold on to OM and thoughts and desires keep interfering my meditation, in the end, I will quit being frustrated. The purpose is defeated. Better to surrender to any form of God or pray to Paramatman.

Hence better take aadhaara of any for of God and pray.

If there is no fear and if the surrender and faith are strong, then there is no question to stray away from path. There is peace and bliss. Such persons are very rare.

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

So I try to explain in a way that people can apply in their life. Hence you will not see me calling this world as illusion except in this thread. Better explain what one is able to digest and apply.

Some people call me as 'Neo' due to this behaviour, as I often quote Sri Ramakrishna. Let it be.

But one thing is for sure, Advaita is not for everybody. Definitely not for the masses.

Adi Shankara has just 4 disciples. Just think, an undisputed winner, who has travelled length and breadth of our country has just 4 disciples. We may take the 5th disciple if we include Kanchi Math. But thats it.

The question is why?

Another question is did Adi Shankara debated with all? No, he debated only with scholars and ofcourse established Advaita as supreme philosophy, as he was himself realized, else he could not have achieved what he ha achieved.

For laymen, you do not dissect sanskrit words. You do not teach sanskrit grammar and pile up layers. Masses are attracted with lofty characters, they look for a hero, a role model. Hence Adi Shankara repaired temples, re-installed Jagannath ji in Puri. He bathed in rivers chanting mantras and re consecrated Sri Yantra-s. This he did for us - laymen.

These things are completely ignored and often his life is separated from his philosophy that his works are restricted only to prasthantrayi.

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

A mother will give mink to infant baby, high-protein food to growing kids, liquid food to sick kid. This does not mean that she does not like the sick kid and hence she gives just liquid but gives good quality food to other kids.

Upadeha-s are given keeping in mind the questioner.

We should give you is best FOR YOU and not what is best FOR ME.

Aum

Amrut
22 December 2013, 08:11 AM
Namaste,

I have removed one line from Post #41, as it may have offended Vaishnava-s.

I apologize for the lapse.

Aum

sanathan
25 December 2013, 03:48 AM
If I assume that I am Jiva, it would mean that earlier I was not Brahman, which according to advaita is not correct as Atman / Brahman was already Brahman. Under wrong notion, it wrongly associated itself with Body and assumed itself as body.

Namasthe Amrut,

After going through yours' and devotee's posts about Advaita philosophy , only few basic questions are not understood by me. I have quoted one of them above , let me elaborate it in more detail.

1. Please explain me what is "it" in the above bold line .

I have been trying to understand it logically first (also looking for scriptural support),

2. I got to know 2 concepts from your posts 1.Brahman 2. Maya

Wanted to understand about the exact relation between these 2.

Brahman as per my limited knowledge is "consciousness-bliss-existence" , it can not act or think, it can not be diluted by anything, it can not be touched by maya.

Maya is sat-asath or anirvachaneeya tattva.

Now how the Brahman which can not be polluted or can not be touched by maya became substratum of maya (I am assuming that both some how combinely causing this universe to appear,let me know if it is wrong).

I mean, what is the exact relation between "Brahman" and "Maya" and how they are in contact with each other. (it would be great if you can show me some scriptural statements for this).

jopmala
25 December 2013, 07:05 AM
Namaste

I am not sure there will be any satisfactory answer from them since so far my discussion is concerned with Amrutji, I have got only confusion.

While they talk of two levels of truth, in paramarthika level there is only brahman and rest that is jiva and jagat etc which are not actually true but appear to be true are in vyavaharika level. Sri krishna and self ( jiva according to them) are staying in vyavaharika level and jiva seeks his false grace ( according to me) here to upgrade him to paramarthika level. I say it false grace because sri krishna is not ultimately true but appear to be true . There is no sri krishna actually . when we say sri krishna it is a kind of bhrama/ illusion and nothing else. In fact 'we' are also a bhram or illusion. hence the grace from sri krishna is also a illusion. In vyavaharika level every thing is illusion ,untrue or appear to be true .

Question is who is experiencing these illusion . it is self who is also illusion. if the experiencer is brahman then advaita would be violated since brahman can not be found in vyavaharika level ,although ultimately the experiencer will rediscover him as brahman, the ultimate truth but they can not accept brahman under ignorance in vyavaharika level. Though there is a equation brahman + maya = brahman with attributes but that does not mean that brahman is under ignorance. rather it means brahman is the controller of maya but the fact is that without maya brahman is not activated . I do not understand how maya is controlled by brahman when it has no power or qualities to act. This vyavaharika level of truth is totally a confusion and how the so called self takes him from vyavaharika level to paramarthika level even in present life ( jivam muktha) is another level of confusion.

Actually advaita beliver should clarify the conception of jiva and maya clearyly so that relation among these three tatta that is brahman, jiva and maya could be understood properly. they only talk of brahman satya even jiva is also ultimately brahman but they can not say what happens to maya. they can not say maya is also brahman since it would violate advaita. though brahman is nirguna nirvishes but maya is power of brahman , how ? no satisfactory answer. we can not assume that brahman and maya combine somehow to create universe. this ' some how' should be clarified. if some one say this is advaita and you have to accept it , then there will be no argument at all.

Now my question is in which level of truth our vedas /upanishad which they claim to be the source of advaita philosophy are considered. if they are in vyavaharika level then ultimately they are also untrue. veda upanashid means source of jnan or store house of jnan from where advaitavada itself is originated. Is jnan also untrue ? if veda upanishada also appear to be true( not actually true) then the advaita is also a philosophy of just appear to be ,actually there is nothing.

devotee
25 December 2013, 08:02 AM
Namasthe Sanathan,


If I assume that I am Jiva, it would mean that earlier I was not Brahman, which according to advaita is not correct as Atman / Brahman was already Brahman. Under wrong notion, it wrongly associated itself with Body and assumed itself as body.


After going through yours' and devotee's posts about Advaita philosophy , only few basic questions are not understood by me. I have quoted one of them above , let me elaborate it in more detail.

1. Please explain me what is "it" in the above bold line .

I have been trying to understand it logically first (also looking for scriptural support),

“It” is conditioned consciousness. It is just a thought-wave on the infinite ocean of consciousness that is Ishvara which in association with MAyA assumes its separates existence i.e. a thought-wave acts as a separate conscious individual just like a dream-character assumes that it is different from the dreamer (when the dream-character is nothing but a thought-wave of the dreamer and there is only one consciousness of the dreamer which powers both the dreamer and the dream-character). This thought-wave is capable of accumulating other thought-waves (called samskaars or impressions which is the cause of various possibilities in he life-cycles of Jeeva) and can act as a separate entity called a Jeeva and can exist in different forms and names.

Scriptural support on how Jeeva is created by association of Prakriti with Brahman :

Sarasvati Rahasya Upanishad :

“Satyam bhaati chichhaayaa darpaNe prativimbavat, tena chitprativimbena trividhaa bhaati saa punah”

==> As reflected image is perceived as real in a mirror, in the same way reflection of consciousness in Prakriti is perceived as real. (47-48)

Shaktidvayam hi MAyaya vikshepaavriti rupkam, Vikshepshaktirlingaadi BrhamANantam jagat srijeta. Antardrigdrishyayorbhedam bahishcha Brahmansargayoh. AavriNotyapara shaktih saa sansaarasya kaaranam.


==> Vikshepa (powr of projection ) and aavarana (veiling power) are two powers of MAyA. The power of projection creates from lingadeha i.e. Jeeva’s body to the whole universe. The aavaraNa power covers (puts veil upon) the difference between seer and seen and also the difference between Brahman and the world.

Chitichchhaayaa samaaveshaat Jeevah syaat vyaavhaarikah. Asya .JeevatvamAropAt sAkshiNyapyabhvaasate. Aavritau tu vinashtaayaam bhede bhaatepyaati tat.


===> When the reflection of consciousness falls on Prakriti as the material cause, then in this world the vyaavhaarik Jeeva comes into being. Because it is imposed on consciousness, it is also perceived as the witness. When the aavarana (veiling power of MAyA) i.e. ignorance (state when reality is covered) is removed, the reality of difference is known and the state of Jeevahood is destroyed.


Rudra Hridayopanishad


Kalpitau parmau Jeevashivaroopena kalpitau. Tatvascha Shivah sAkashat chit jeevah cha svatah sadA. ChichchidAkArato bhinnaa na bhinnaa chitvahaanitah.Chitashchinna chidAkArAtbhidyate jadaroopatah. Bhidyate chejjajado bhedshidekaa sarvadA khalu. Tarkascha pramANAchcha chidektvavyavasththite. Chidekatvaparigyane na sochati na muhyati. Advaitam parmAnandam Shivam yAti tu kevalam. (42-45)


===> The difference between Jeeva and Ishvara (God) is imagined due to MAyA. In reality, the Jeeva made of Consciousness is none but Ishavra itself. The difference between Jeeva and Ishvara is perceived due to differences in names and forms. In reality, there is no difference between the two. If there were real difference between the two then consciousness forms of the both would get violated. The difference seen between one consciousness (Ishvara) and the other (Jeeva) is due to delusion. The non-difference of consciousness is a proven fact by logic and by (experiential) proof. Therefore, by knowing the non-difference in consciousness man becomes free from delusion and sufferings and is established as non-dual blissful Shiva alone.

There are many Upanishads (within accepted 108 main Upanishads) where you can find the same truth stated in different manners.


2. I got to know 2 concepts from your posts 1.Brahman 2. Maya

Wanted to understand about the exact relation between these 2.

Brahman as per my limited knowledge is "consciousness-bliss-existence" , it can not act or think, it can not be diluted by anything, it can not be touched by maya.

There is slight misunderstanding here. Actually, Consciousness-bliss-existence is Ishvara state of Brahman. So, it can create, sustain and annihilate in this state which is the third state of Brahman. The fourth state is avyAvahArik which is the Nirguna Brahman which is the substratum of everything and which alone is the reality.


Now how the Brahman which can not be polluted or can not be touched by maya became substratum of maya (I am assuming that both some how combinely causing this universe to appear,let me know if it is wrong).

Truly speaking, there is no explanation of “how”. The reality is as it is and there is no real “why” and “how” which can explain the reality. If it could be explained as it is, it could not have been beyond all mental concepts. I will try to explain to the best of my ability :

Let’s first differentiate between Nirguna Brahman (fourth state of Brahman) and Saguna Brahman (Ishvara, he third state). Nirguna Brahman doesn’t do anything as it is AvyAvhArik and which cannot be understood by any concepts known to mind. Now, Ishvara (which is also known as the saguna Brahman) and MAyA manifest together simultaneously on the substratum of Nirguna Brahman. Ishvara is the third state of Brahman. Ishvara too is born due to MAyA and therefore, Ishvara is not the cause of MAyA but the cause of both the MAyA and Ishvara is the Nirguna Brahman. MAyA and Ishvara together create this phenomenal world. Ishvara is the origin and end of the whole universe. Ishvara is created by the power of MAyA from the Nirguna Brahman but It is not deluded like the Jeeva and It is not bound by MAyA but is the master of MAyA. What is MAyA ? It is the power of Brahman in its third state which veils the reality and projects this phenomenal world. Now in the whole process Nirguna Brahman is unaffected … the whole prapancha (phenomenon) is like a dream played on the bosom of consciousness of the dreamer where dreamer is not affected.


I mean, what is the exact relation between "Brahman" and "Maya" and how they are in contact with each other. (it would be great if you can show me some scriptural statements for this).

It is already explained above.

OM

Amrut
25 December 2013, 10:29 AM
Namaste Sanathan,

I greatly appreciate you taking time to understand concepts of Advaita specially the time dedicated to read all those short posts of mine :D

Jopmala ji had asked for these questions :) I explained the entire concept so that he may find answers himself. As if the concept is clear, then we ourselves can think a little bit (not too much) and can answer ourselves.

Ok. Much has been said by Devotee ji (Nice to see you Devotee ji)

I have already given scriptural proof for 2 levels of truths and the definitions of sat, asat and mAyA. We must take them into account. Our definition of real and Advaita's definition of real are quite different.

I will try to answer as much as I can.


1. Please explain me what is "it" in the above bold line .

‘I’ is technically ‘Aham’ or Atman. ‘I-ness’ is aham-kAra aham = ‘I’ and kara = doer’ . Hence Here, the ‘I’ is Aham, but not the doer. When it gets associated with what is non-Self i.e. simply gets associated, then it becomes jiva i.e. conditioned consciousness.

But here, ‘I’ wrongly associates itself as body.

So my statement

Under wrong notion, it (I) wrongly associated itself with Body and assumed itself as body.


I have been trying to understand it logically first (also looking for scriptural support),

I will try to get some, but Devotee ji has already provided them.


2. I got to know 2 concepts from your posts 1.Brahman 2. Maya

Wanted to understand about the exact relation between these 2.

Brahman as per my limited knowledge is "consciousness-bliss-existence" , it can not act or think, it can not be diluted by anything, it can not be touched by maya.

Maya is sat-asath or anirvachaneeya tattva.

Now how the Brahman which can not be polluted or can not be touched by maya became substratum of maya (I am assuming that both some how combinely causing this universe to appear,let me know if it is wrong).

I mean, what is the exact relation between "Brahman" and "Maya" and how they are in contact with each other. (it would be great if you can show me some scriptural statements for this).

OK.

Short answer for the relationship between Brahman and mAyA is Relationless relationship.

We use the theory of Proof contradiction.

The theories of creation are given for explanatory purpose. All disciples are in duality. Hence duality is presumed. Later on when one reaches the final goal, same assumption is negated. (Remember the definition of 'Real)

Let us say, this world is Brahman by the power of Brahman, mAyA. Ishvara creates this world and jiva-s. We also find shruti-s explaining the creation of world and talking about duality.

We see this trend in Upanishads. ‘Initially they may say, there was nothing but only Brahman or Atman.’ ‘Then Brahman breathed in’, ‘world was created through mAyA’, ‘Brahman became many’.

But later on the same shruti-s say, ‘the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman itself’, we have statements like ‘only knower of truth can teach what the truth is’, when we have statements like ‘Brahman is beyond speech, mind, intellect’, ‘Nothing which nothing else remains to be known’, ‘Knower of truth do not return back to this temporary, mundane, transient world, which is an adobe of sorrows’, etc

All duality ends in Jnana, hence our assumption and explanation by various shruti-s about creation of this world, jiva, etc is also negated by same shruti-s by saying non-duality.

Wrong assumption is negated in Jnana.

From standpoint of supreme reality: There is no mAyA. As in Jnana, there is no experience of any guNA-s.

There is no mAyA and hence no creation and no saguNa Brahman.

Why I say, there is no mAyA

1. There is no experience of any guNa-s or of separatedness in Nirvikalp Samadhi
2. The definition of mAyA is that which is not there

mAyA is mA + yA. yA stands for feminine. mA means that which is not there. Hence mAyA means ‘that which is not there’ (I found this explanation in a commentary on Tatva Bodh)

As I have said Jopmala ji, under ignorance, it is not good to say, Ishvara is illusion.

I would say, that Ishvara is upadhi i.e. name and forms are superimpositions on Self. But Brahman remains :D

We definitely need Krishna's grace, as who else is going to lift the veil of
ignorance? Without entering into non-dual state, how can I say that this world is illusion (at it is not my experience, it is just a logical conclusion).

After passing SSC exam, I can say that now, I do not need to study and appear in exam anymore, not before. Advaita does not say - just sit and do nothing to remove Ignorance.

Krishna's grace is real and Krishna will stay real as pure consciousness even in Jnana. This 'I' (conditioned consciousness) will not be there. Pada, dhAma means consciousness. This is explained by Vaishnava Acharya as well including mAdhvAcArya. I had described them in another post

refer here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=111119&postcount=8) and here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=111266&postcount=12)

Now this time, I have reality cut down my explanation from 4 pages to 2 pages.

By this I do not deny stay at Vaikuntha / Goloka. But I should say, they have provided alternate explanations.

Aum

jopmala
25 December 2013, 12:35 PM
Namaste

just two quick points

1. should we see ocean in its wave or wave in the ocean

2. if jiva a reflection of consciousness falls on prakriti then how it in due course turns into real that is brahman. Can reflection ever turn into real.

3. what is the basis of brahman being in two different states. In one hand brahman is one and only but on the other hand one aspect of brahman is in fourth state( paramarthika satya) and another aspect of brahman is in third state( vyavaharika satya). Is it not a kind of division of brahman. Is it not lowering down one aspect to another aspect of brahman since they are in separate state of truth. brahman in fourth state is truth but brahman in third state is illusion . fourth state and third state can not be considered as same and so also brahman in two different states also are not same. I think this need to be clarified .

devotee
25 December 2013, 10:58 PM
Namaste Japmala,

In my humble opinion, it is better if a staunch worshiper of Saguna Brahamna (and who feels that Advaita is a misleading path) doesn't indulge into a discussion of Advaita with Advaitins. However, the questions raised here are quite pertinent and help the discussion in hand and therefore, I feel an explanation is needed :



1. should we see ocean in its wave or wave in the ocean

I was expecting this question. We have to understand here that wave and ocean are actually one entity. It is the nature of the ocean to have waves or no-waves. However, when a wave rises and it assumes that it is different from the ocean, reality is obscured and the wave goes into delusional experience. The reality is that Ocean and wave are single entity and not two.

I will quote Kabir here. Let me apprise you of the fact that Kabir never read Upanishads and went on this path mainly through his experience. Kabir says :

" Everyone has seen merging a drop (of water) into Ocean but I have seen merging Ocean into a drop (of water)"

This above saying shows how it feels when individual Jeeva attains one-ness with Brahman. Consciousness is neither matter nor energy with which we can equate it. It is neither. It has very special characteristics which we rarely perceive in this universe. I have given example of dream-phenomenon which throws light on some of the special characteristics of the consciousness. Our Dream-analysis shows that :

a) One Consciousness can manifest as many conditioned consciousnesses and still remaining one alone.

b) Consciousness can create thought-waves which can apparently act as separate thinking and acting individuals

c) Consciousness can create illusions of time and space highly disproportionate to the reality

Please understand that Time and space in this phenomenal world has only relative existence and therefore any comparison with our mental concept would lead us to erroneous conclusion. During dreaming time, we see the whole world inside us ... do we have so much space inside ? It is the nature of consciousness to create illusions of time and space.



2. if jiva a reflection of consciousness falls on prakriti then how it in due course turns into real that is brahman. Can reflection ever turn into real.

Again, if the above explanation is understood correctly, this question also gets answered. The fact is that Consciousness and its reflection on Prakriti must always be seen together and not separately. Shruti says that God (Saguna Brahman) is undifferentiated mass of consciousness ... so division in consciousness is only falsely perceived. If we assume that Jeeva and God two separate consciousnesses then their being forms of consciousness gets violated. The verses quoted by me from two Upanishads above say the same thing.


3. what is the basis of brahman being in two different states. In one hand brahman is one and only but on the other hand one aspect of brahman is in fourth state( paramarthika satya) and another aspect of brahman is in third state( vyavaharika satya). Is it not a kind of division of brahman.

It is not. It appears to be so but that is because we are unable to understand how consciousness behaves and because it is impossible to understand by mind how Nirguna Brahman behaves. But the truth has been verified again and again by Jnana Yogis in Nirvikalpa SamAdhi ... and it is also repeated in many places in VedAnta. But it is not possible to understand the phenomenon exactly only by logic and that is why Death says in Kathopanishad that "It (Atman/Self) cannot be known by reading scriptures, or by doing tapas or by any other method ... it can be known only by whom Self chooses to reveal Itself".

If someone wants to have fair understanding of the phenomenon, I would say that one should read Dream-analysis given by me in another thread which is not the exact replica of what really happens but can give an idea of what can happen which appears defying all logic. The Dreamer remains one consciousness all along i.e. before, during and after dreaming but Dreamer's Consciousness apparently creates many individualised consciousnesses during dream. How does a dream-character act as an individual taking the reflection of dreamer's consciousness when the consciousness of the dreamer is always undivided ?


Is it not lowering down one aspect to another aspect of brahman since they are in separate state of truth. brahman in fourth state is truth but brahman in third state is illusion . fourth state and third state can not be considered as same and so also brahman in two different states also are not same. I think this need to be clarified .

Nirguna Brahman remains always as it always was in the same way as the dreamer remains unchanged whether dreaming or not-dreaming.

OM

sanathan
25 December 2013, 11:16 PM
It is conditioned consciousness. It is just a thought-wave on the infinite ocean of consciousness that is Ishvara which in association with MAyA assumes its separates existence


Namasthe !

Ok,
I was trying to understand about that "conditioned consciousness" , I mean how did it happen to became "conditioned" .




Scriptural support on how Jeeva is created by association of Prakriti with Brahman :

Sarasvati Rahasya Upanishad :



Rudra Hridayopanishad




Were these upanishad quotes used by Shankaraacharya or any of his direct disciples?




Truly speaking, there is no explanation of how. The reality is as it is and there is no real why and how which can explain the reality.
Ok, I was asking "how or why" because the nature of Brahman is explained in such a high esteem that it is beyond eyerything , but same time it acts as the substratum of Maya to cause the "conditioned-consciousness" , there I got confused about its dual nature.(i.e being beyond everything and same time being substratum of Maya).

sanathan
25 December 2013, 11:42 PM
I is technically Aham or Atman. I-ness is aham-kAra aham = I and kara = doer . Hence Here, the I is Aham, but not the doer. When it gets associated with what is non-Self i.e. simply gets associated, then it becomes jiva i.e. conditioned consciousness.

But here, I wrongly associates itself as body.

So my statement

Under wrong notion, it (I) wrongly associated itself with Body and assumed itself as body.



Yeah, I got it (also it seems your definition is bit different from Devotee's), and that's why my question about howcome pure-consciousness(I) can wrongly associate itself.




Short answer for the relationship between Brahman and mAyA is Relationless relationship.

We use the theory of Proof contradiction.

The theories of creation are given for explanatory purpose. All disciples are in duality. Hence duality is presumed. Later on when one reaches the final goal, same assumption is negated. (Remember the definition of 'Real)

Let us say, this world is Brahman by the power of Brahman, mAyA. Ishvara creates this world and jiva-s. We also find shruti-s explaining the creation of world and talking about duality.

We see this trend in Upanishads. Initially they may say, there was nothing but only Brahman or Atman. Then Brahman breathed in, world was created through mAyA, Brahman became many.

But later on the same shruti-s say, the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman itself, we have statements like only knower of truth can teach what the truth is, when we have statements like Brahman is beyond speech, mind, intellect, Nothing which nothing else remains to be known, Knower of truth do not return back to this temporary, mundane, transient world, which is an adobe of sorrows, etc

All duality ends in Jnana, hence our assumption and explanation by various shruti-s about creation of this world, jiva, etc is also negated by same shruti-s by saying non-duality.

Wrong assumption is negated in Jnana.

From standpoint of supreme reality: There is no mAyA. As in Jnana, there is no experience of any guNA-s.

There is no mAyA and hence no creation and no saguNa Brahman.

Why I say, there is no mAyA

1. There is no experience of any guNa-s or of separatedness in Nirvikalp Samadhi
2. The definition of mAyA is that which is not there



Hmm, I didn't get it quite clearly.

you explained how to negate world once Brahman is realized, and co-ordinated the contradicated Shruthi vakyas , but my question was about the very reason of this relationship (or you may call it relationless-relation) between pure-consciousness and Maya .

So you are assuming this relationless relationship based on the different shruthi vakyas (i.e some talk about creation, some talk about non-dual state)? or there are any explicit shruthi vakyas to support these assumptions?

Did you get what I am asking?

The relationship or relationless-relationship between Brahman and Maya was explained in Shruthi anywhere? or we need to conclude as such based on duality (current) and non-dual(state to be realized) states propagated by Shruthi?

devotee
26 December 2013, 01:31 AM
Namaste Sanathan,


Ok,
I was trying to understand about that "conditioned consciousness" , I mean how did it happen to became "conditioned".

What does "Conditioned" mean ? It has these specialities :

a) It is under delusion of being different from Brahman. This arises from MAyA.
b) It gathers SamskArs i.e. impressions gathered during waking consciousness.

So, the cause is MAyA.


Were these upanishad quotes used by Shankaraacharya or any of his direct disciples?

I don't think so. I have not seen.


I was asking "how or why" because the nature of Brahman is explained in such a high esteem that it is beyond everything , but same time it acts as the substratum of Maya to cause the "conditioned-consciousness" , there I got confused about its dual nature.(i.e being beyond everything and same time being substratum of Maya).

I am unable to understand how this question arises.

OM

sanathan
26 December 2013, 04:55 AM
I am unable to understand how this question arises.



Namasthe!

Ok , let me elaborate:

The entity BRAHMAN which is pure consciousness, which is beyond Maya, which is nirguna, which can not act or think , which is absolute .... is somehow substratum of Maya for this world to appear - please correct me if this sentence has any wrong notions.

Maya on its own is not a sentient entity, can not think , can not act on its own , anirvachaneeya .

So here the question arises , How Brahman can be substratum of Maya while both the entities can not on their own get into relation or association because neither Brahman can will(think/act) for it, nor Maya can - please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that neither BRahman nor Maya can act on their own or can will to associate with other.

That's why I wanted to know , is there any logical explanation from Shruthi to explain this phenomena of association between Maya and Brahman.

Or we need to come to this conclusion based on co-ordination of various statements of shruthi (i.e statements about creation of world etc., + statements about ultimate non dual state of Brahman).

jopmala
26 December 2013, 06:48 AM
Namaste Japmala,

In my humble opinion, it is better if a staunch worshiper of Saguna Brahamna (and who feels that Advaita is a misleading path) doesn't indulge into a discussion of Advaita with Advaitins.

OM

Namaste devotee

I respect your humble opinion since I am vaishnab in the line of sri chaitanya mahaprabhu, I should not indulge into advaita discussion with any one. Chaitanya mahaprabhu does not approve of advaitavada of sri sankaracharya. during mahaprabhu's period many advaita pandit like prakashananda and sarbovoam pandit leaving their advaita belief surrenderes to mahaprabhu . But now it is interesting for me to see those who believe in advaitavada claims to be "advaitian vaishnab" ( newly coined) and even tries to snatch chaitanya mahaprabhu to their camp. The fact is that chaitanya mahaprabhu use to call advaita beliver " pasandi" since according to them jiva is brahman. According to chaitanya mahaprabhu jiva is nitya dasa of sri krishna. Therefore to understand the philosophy as well as the tendency of so called advaitian vaishnab who treat sri krishna as God or Iswara in the imaginary 3rd state of consciousness (that means sri krishna is not ultimate), I like to interact with advaitin people . Is it a crime ?

devotee
26 December 2013, 09:05 AM
Namasthe Sanathana,


The entity BRAHMAN which is pure consciousness, which is beyond Maya, which is nirguna, which can not act or think , which is absolute .... is somehow substratum of Maya for this world to appear - please correct me if this sentence has any wrong notions.

Here some corrections are required. When we say Brahman, we are in habit of using the word for both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. However, both the states of Brahman do not behave exactly in the same manner. So, we must be careful in what context we are using the term. Here, it is clear that you are talking about Nirguna Brahman. We cannot say that “It cannot act or think” as nothing can be said about it. Yes, it doesn’t think or act as all phenomena dissolve into it. Nirguna Brahman is described in MAndukya Upanishad as this :

“That is called the fourth (state). Neither inward nor outward-turned consciousness, nor the two together, not even undifferentiated mass of consciousness, neither knowing nor unknowing, invisible, ineffable, intangible, devoid of characteristics, inconceivable, indefinable, its sole essence being the consciousness of its own Self, the coming to rest of all relative existence, utterly quiet, peaceful, blissful, without a second, this is the Self and that is to be known.”


Maya on its own is not a sentient entity, can not think , can not act on its own , anirvachaneeya

MAyA is never without its substratum i.e. Nirguna Brahman as it has no existence of its own. Now, perhaps we are tempted to think that MAyA is some entity. Actually, it is not an entity that we can ever think of. It is like inherent power of Conditioned Consciousness which is capable of creating dreams. Now, that power can be manifest and can also be unmanifest. So, when Brahman is without MAyA i.e. when the MAyA is unmanifest, Brahman is Nirguna Brahman. When MAyA is manifest, Brahman acts like Saguna Brahman and is causal state for the two states of beings.


So here the question arises , How Brahman can be substratum of Maya while both the entities can not on their own get into relation or association because neither Brahman can will(think/act) for it, nor Maya can - please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that neither BRahman nor Maya can act on their own or can will to associate with other.

This is fallacious understanding because it has been based on some assumption about Nirguna Brahman which is not exactly correct. The real nature of Nirguna Brahman is incomprehensible and indescribable. Forming any opinion about Nirguna Brahman is not possible.


That's why I wanted to know , is there any logical explanation from Shruthi to explain this phenomena of association between Maya and Brahman.

Or we need to come to this conclusion based on co-ordination of various statements of shruthi (i.e statements about creation of world etc., + statements about ultimate non dual state of Brahman).

MAyA arises from Nirguna Brahman and as soon it arises, Ishvara is created or we can say that Nirguna Brahman is perceived as Ishvara when MAyA is manifest. So, it is not that MAyA is some entity which comes into contact with another entity called Nirguna Brahman etc. for creation. It is more or less like mind of a person. The mind of a person can exist with thoughts and can also be without any thought as in deep sleep state. The impressions like pictures, sound etc, stored in subconsciousness cannot do anything without the power of mind reflected into those. The power of mind i.e. conditioned consciousness which in essence is Infinite non-dual Consciousness itself.
Now that said, let me clarify here that it is not possible to exactly explain how and why it all happens. However, it does happen because it has been experienced by the Self-realised souls so many times by many persons and it can be experienced by anyone who can tread the path shown by Self-realised Gurus. So, there should be no doubts. Yes, one can always doubt the experience of those people. But how and why shall so many people lie who had no personal gains involved in doing so. Again, if that was untrue, it would have not been experienced by people in the same way who didn’t read VedAnta before experiencing the Truth. Moreover, not only in Hinduism, Advaita has been experienced by Buddhists (though they use different terminology for saying it), Jains who didn’t believe in the Vedas. It has also been experienced by Sufis saints (“I am the truth” – Al Mansoor Hallaz). This truth echoes in assertion of Jesus, “I and my father are one”. This was experienced by ardent form-worshipper Sri Ramkrishna Paramhansa. I myself know of one Vaishnava saint in Varanasi who talks of Advaita even though he has never read VedAnta. He says that it is gained by his own realization in meditation.

Again, as you are rational thinking person, try to see this from another angle. The God-worship most probably would have started due to fear of unknown forces which presumably were responsible for rains, thunder, prosperity, calamity or whatever happened to man. As no one in the universe had control over Nature forces, it would have been an easy deduction to assume an entity called God which was omnipotent and omniscient. If we see how the various religions have grown we can see such tendency in assuming a God and then try to resolve all issues by that assumption. The fear of God was so ingrained in man that many strict religious laws were created by men which were different in different cultures. Now, in such a scenario when it was so easy to assume a God why should a man create a theory of non-duality and for what ?

Therefore, going against the easy and commonly accepted path could not have been easy. When everything looked so real in this universe, it would require exemplary courage, very strong reason and conviction to declare that everything is actually One and the differences seen is false.The entire theory of Advaita as described in MAndukya Upanishad cannot be imagined in mind. This Advaita has attracted scientists like Erwin Schrodinger who gave us the famous Schrodinger’s wave equation.

A cat will remain a cat even if I am unable to prove it a cat. My ability to prove or otherwise doesn’t change the reality. Reality remains what it is. Again, I am not here to make one accept Advaita philosophy. I have also no intention to defend it. I am here to share what I have understood by my own study and reasoning process. Being a student of science and practising Engineer, I like to reason and discuss things logically. If it helps even one person, it is a bonus for me.

Some Vaishnavas believe that we are “PAkhandis” ( PAsandi .. meaning imposter). We are demonic and we are ….. (suitable for many other uncivilised adjectives). But it doesn’t change the Truth. Does it ?

OM  

Amrut
26 December 2013, 09:07 AM
Namaste Jopmala ji,

The differences will remain. But we should also remain in peace with each other :)


Namaste

just two quick points

1. should we see ocean in its wave or wave in the ocean

:)

Duality of wave and ocean is naturally perceivable. The art is to see water, a common factor, and not the difference. Besides, waves are never separate from Ocean, even when viewed from duality.


2. if jiva a reflection of consciousness falls on prakriti then how it in due course turns into real that is brahman. Can reflection ever turn into real.

You didnt get the point. You are seeing topsy turvy. Brahman appears to be jiva. Brahman is actually jiva, but under the influence of mAyA, ignorance, appears to be bound. Actually it is always Brahman. There is no process that once it was reflection, which is unreal and later on it became real.



3. what is the basis of brahman being in two different states. In one hand brahman is one and only but on the other hand one aspect of brahman is in fourth state( paramarthika satya) and another aspect of brahman is in third state( vyavaharika satya). Is it not a kind of division of brahman. Is it not lowering down one aspect to another aspect of brahman since they are in separate state of truth. brahman in fourth state is truth but brahman in third state is illusion . fourth state and third state can not be considered as same and so also brahman in two different states also are not same. I think this need to be clarified .

You are finding it hard time to accept 2 levels of truth, even after showing proofs from scriptures.

As I have said, explanation can only be in dual tone - to become, to transform into many, in advaita there is no mAyA, there is no world, there is no explanation.

IT is not a kind of division, as divisions are only for explanation sake and they are not real, as in Jnana, there is no higher or lower Brahman, no vyavahArika, no absolute truth. There is just one truth.

For sake of explanation of theory of creation, SaguNa Brahman (and mAyA) has to be taken into account.

Even if we take SaguNa Brahman and NirguNa Brahman as two aspects of same reality, still nirguNa by definition cannot have saguNa and saguNa cannot have nirguNa (as an aspect), as Brahman is infinite. So each cannot be a part of another.

Any one can be explained or experienced at a time. Both cannot be experienced simultaneously.

Hence some schools take into account SaguNa only, neglecting nirguNa, while nirguNa Brahman can only be accepted only when one rises above mAyA, beyond guNa-s and hence beyond Ishara, into pure consciousness. Hence acceptance is only upto a point for each aspect for any one school.

Advaita is very difficult to understand, apply and experience. MAybe during Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's time, most Advaitins (mostly after Sri Harsha) were satisfied in just believing about NirguNa and in scriptural debate. Without experience, this is just empty talk, hence attempts are to be made to realize what shrutis say.

There is no issue with Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (SCM), as he himself took sanyAsa from an ek DanDI sansasin, when all 4 Vaishnava matha-s were already established, so he could have taken trI DAnDI sanyasa, that Vaishnava-s take. The SanyAsa Guru obliged.

My heart says, SCM and Sri Madhva were faultless. They must have fought against this scriptural pundits and not contested actual advaitins, who remained in peace, in absolute truth.

Whenever I have a look at the picture of SCM and Sri MAdhva, I feel that they are so humble and spreading love and devotion. I feel devotional vibrations in SCM stronger than in Sri MAdhva.

If you are established in Truth, no one can shake you. The reason for conversion and acceptance of any Guru means the journey is incomplete.

By making them his disciples, SCM, only did good to them.

We also see from time to time great Advaitins are born, and so are Vaishnava-s, Shaiva-s and Yogi-s. They rule their days and in this time, they help others swim across samsAra. Then their era ends.

There is deterioration in dharma and lowering of consciousness and hence Just Sri RAmAnuja was not enough. There had to be 4 + SCM + Sri VallabhAcArya. Same was for Shaiva-s and yogi-s.

Avatars work according to the conditions / situations prevailing in their time.

Hari OM

devotee
26 December 2013, 09:14 AM
Namaste Japmala,


The fact is that chaitanya mahaprabhu use to call advaita beliver " pasandi" since according to them jiva is brahman. According to chaitanya mahaprabhu jiva is nitya dasa of sri krishna. Therefore to understand the philosophy as well as the tendency of so called advaitian vaishnab who treat sri krishna as God or Iswara in the imaginary 3rd state of consciousness (that means sri krishna is not ultimate), I like to interact with advaitin people . Is it a crime ?

No, it is not a crime. You are most welcome. However, it is not your path and therefore, you have made many assumptions about Advaita and Advaitins which is not correct. If you really want to understand Advaita, you must learn what they say instead of trying to prove that they are wrong. This won't lead you to anywhere. This theory in itself is difficult to understand by people of ordinary intellect and when you are having a bias towards it, understanding this becomes next to impossibility.

Now that said, may I suggest that your statement about God i.e. the third state of consciousness is not free of errors ? A minute difference in expression can destroy the real understanding. For your information, I daily chant bhajan of Rama and Krishna ... is it not surprising ???

OM

Amrut
26 December 2013, 09:38 AM
Namasthe!

Ok , let me elaborate:

The entity BRAHMAN which is pure consciousness, which is beyond Maya, which is nirguna, which can not act or think , which is absolute .... is somehow substratum of Maya for this world to appear - please correct me if this sentence has any wrong notions.

Maya on its own is not a sentient entity, can not think , can not act on its own , anirvachaneeya .

So here the question arises , How Brahman can be substratum of Maya while both the entities can not on their own get into relation or association because neither Brahman can will(think/act) for it, nor Maya can - please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that neither BRahman nor Maya can act on their own or can will to associate with other.



Namaste Sanathan :)

Devotee ji has given good explanation of manfest and unmenifest.

If we say that Brahman is beyond speech, etc, then there is no mAyA, hence there is no creation also. This is called as ajAta vAda.

But for creation, Ishvara and mAyA has to be taken into account. This is only for explanation purpose, and is lower truth and shruti-s describing are less authoritative.

I say so because, the explanation or answer provided gives only mental satisfaction and removes our query for time being. But still the feeling of incompleteness remains.

Only after knowing NirguNa Brahman, the seeking ends. There is nothing left to be done, there is nothing more to be achieved, there needs no further effort to remained rooted in Brahman.

Hence shruti vAkya-s explaining the absolute reality are considered by Advaitins as higher authority, as it is phaLa-shruti of moksha.

So when we talk about mAyA, then SaguNa Brahman, another aspect of Brahman has to be considered. But Ishvara is actually pure consciousness, but appears in different names and forms. Hence Ishvara can take us to nirguNa State.

Please understand that the words, 'can take', 'rise', 'to become', etc are in dual tone and are only for explanatory purpose. Why?

Because after knowing the theory of creation, there is no inner transformation. But the search for the first person, the 'I', the Real 'I' and dis-associating it with jiva-bhAva and everything that is non-self, that one experiences detachment and peace rising out of strong vairAgya, renunciation. Less the number of dis-satisfied desires, more is the peace within, more is the bliss experienced.

Here too there is duality. But one learns to be aware. Being aware means to do nothing. TO clap, we have to make effort. But to remain silent, what kind of effort do we have to make? nothing. So technically, remaining silent is easy, but in practice, we know how difficult it is. We cannot remain aware, silent, doing nothing.

It is this art to 'Just be', that needs to be learned at the feet of a Guru. Later on, nothing 'else' remain. After storm, there is peace, stability. Suddenly the noise mutes, and what is left is pure consciousness.

Sanathan, it is the experience even in dhyAna that everything is inside you, including thoughts and this world. Yes, this world too, when consciousness expands this happens. You are just an observer.

In dhyAna, one really experiences fading away of all thoughts and river of peace and bliss descends.

You really can reach the forth state, the turiya, where there is no second one. The only thing is you cannot describe it. Hence give e.g. that approximately explain like Atman is 'as vast as AkAsh', 'Atman is like Light i.e. Jnana Svarupa', etc or it can be explained by 'proof by contradiction'. First assume duality, later on negate it. This method is called 'adhyAropa apavAda'.

Other methods like moving from gross sheaths to subtler, moving from one state of consciousness (waking) to another and finally reaching turiya is one and the same thing.

Last but the least, you have to accept definitions of Real and unreal and two levels of truth. Advaita alsos has the third - PrAtibhAsika atya, that which is true for one state i.e. dream.


That's why I wanted to know , is there any logical explanation from Shruthi to explain this phenomena of association between Maya and Brahman.

Or we need to come to this conclusion based on co-ordination of various statements of shruthi (i.e statements about creation of world etc., + statements about ultimate non dual state of Brahman).

I do not know any direct verse from shruti. Maya is being described a illusive power of God. We take inference by putting all dots together taking in order

1. There was nothing else
2. Brahman breathed in and created this world
3. Though undivided, it appears to be divided
4. Brahman is neither being, nor non-being, it is indescribable.


I guess I have summarized everything and have no further answers. IF you are not getting satisfactory answers from me, then please accept my apologies, as it is my inability to answer them convincingly.

I would also like to thank you and Jopmala ji for taking time to understand Advaita.

We will have to stop at some point, as too much stressing on a point would make anyone of us loose patience. I also see that I should not go beyond a point, i.e. when tenets of Advaita are also questioned, then I would have to enter into a high-end hair splitting logical debate, which I do not wish to.

Maybe you both may wish to continue with devotee ji

I wish you good luck in your spiritual journey. May Sri Krishna grace descend upon you all. Thank you for considering me worthy of answering your doubts and thank you for your patience.

Jai Sri Krishna

Amrut

sanathan
27 December 2013, 04:23 AM
Namasthe Devoteeji and Amrutji !

I absolutely salute your knowledge and clarity on the subject, and I respect your views(path) on Shasthra, that is the reason ofcourse I am putting my questions here to understand the TRUTH.






Here, it is clear that you are talking about Nirguna Brahman. We cannot say that It cannot act or think as nothing can be said about it. Yes, it doesnt think or act as all phenomena dissolve into it.

Yes, I am talking about nirguna Brahman or the ultimate reality (In fact I am trying to understanding the TRUTH as it is whatever it maybe).
I said it can not think or act because if it can do so, then it can not be called nirguna (thinking or acting would be its attribute and it becomes saguna).



MAyA is never without its substratum i.e. Nirguna Brahman as it has no existence of its own. Now, perhaps we are tempted to think that MAyA is some entity. Actually, it is not an entity that we can ever think of. It is like inherent power of Conditioned Consciousness which is capable of creating dreams. Now, that power can be manifest and can also be unmanifest. So, when Brahman is without MAyA i.e. when the MAyA is unmanifest, Brahman is Nirguna Brahman. When MAyA is manifest, Brahman acts like Saguna Brahman and is causal state for the two states of beings.
Ok, but the same question of mine pertains here too..(in fact one more doubt added)

1. Being a non-dual consciousness, how can Brahman be explained as substratum of Maya or Maya manifests from that non-dual Brahman, I understand that it can not be explained . (Maya should be there within Brahman inherently to manifest, but then the definition of non-dual Brahman gets violated with that).

2. What causes this Maya to get manifested from Brahman . Seems like this also can not be explained using scriptures.

As you have given mind/thoughts analogy to explain this Maya and Brahman, I am understanding the Maya manifestation from Brahman is also uncertain same like mind's manifestation after deep sleep. But this uncertainity about manifestation of Maya from Brahman gives a room for below questions:

1. If the manifestation of Maya and its dissolution is uncertain and happens one after another , then why the conditioned-self needs to worry about sadhana to come out from this illusory world, anyway it would happen like we are getting deep-sleep without any sadhana, also nothing would harm the ultimate TRUTH(i.e Brahman) and other realities if any.

2. Even if we do sadhana and get rid of this maya, it would any way going to manifest again as mind manifests after deep sleep.









Now that said, let me clarify here that it is not possible to exactly explain how and why it all happens. However, it does happen because it has been experienced by the Self-realised souls so many times by many persons and it can be experienced by anyone who can tread the path shown by Self-realised Gurus. So, there should be no doubts. Yes, one can always doubt the experience of those people. But how and why shall so many people lie who had no personal gains involved in doing so. Again, if that was untrue, it would have not been experienced by people in the same way who didnt read VedAnta before experiencing the Truth. Moreover, not only in Hinduism, Advaita has been experienced by Buddhists (though they use different terminology for saying it), Jains who didnt believe in the Vedas. It has also been experienced by Sufis saints (I am the truth Al Mansoor Hallaz). This truth echoes in assertion of Jesus, I and my father are one. This was experienced by ardent form-worshipper Sri Ramkrishna Paramhansa. I myself know of one Vaishnava saint in Varanasi who talks of Advaita even though he has never read VedAnta. He says that it is gained by his own realization in meditation.

  Yeah, I agree that there must be some truth behind this, but as I raised question of the permanency of this state(i.e non-dual state) above, I wanted to rely more on Shruthi than personal experiences.

In all the above examples you have given about experiences of various teachers one thing is common that all have returned back from that state to world where they taught that truth, it is exactly matching with every day experience of deep-sleep and waking state which is natural.

That's why I am worrying whether the non-dual state is permanent or Maya would manifest again and will cause the conditioned consciousness.

In fact that is the reason I am trying to search for actual truth behind the relation of Brahman and Maya.

devotee
27 December 2013, 06:17 AM
Namasthe Sanathan,

Before I try to clarify your doubts let me make it very clear that I am trying to express what cannot be expressed. If that handicap was not there, VedAnta would not have produced 6 different VedAntic schools within Hindu Dharma. If the reality could have been so easily expressed in words, it would not have resulted in other paths like Kashmir Shaivism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, Sufism etc. which in one way or the other agree to Advaita philosophy though speaking in different languages and also fighting against each other to prove that their understanding is better than all others.
So, your questions are quite pertinent and I am acting under a sure handicap and within that limitations, I am making my attempt again :

I said it can not think or act because if it can do so, then it can not be called nirguna (thinking or acting would be its attribute and it becomes saguna).
In fact, that is what happens. The same Brahman when lies only in bliss aware of its own consciousness alone, it is Nirguna Brahman but as soon as MAyA arises, it is perceived as Saguna Brahman. Now, this phenomenon is the most difficult aspect to understand when you try to see it from Advaita VedAnta point of view. Advaita VedAnta says that it happens Only apparently. Nirguna Brahman remains as it always is. What I want to say that it is not correct to say that Nirguna Brahman turns into Saguna Brahman … the same Nirguna Brahman appears to become Saguna Brahman when seen through the veil of MAyA.
Again, I would like to emphasize that the potential of Nirguna Brahman to think or act cannot be doubted here but it is sure that it doesn’t think or act. How ? Mind can be utterly peaceful and free from any disturbances without any thought and without any activity and then it can be compared with Nirguna Brahman (Mind is also Consciousness so I am doing this comparison). But even in that state it doesn’t lose its character as “consciousness”. That is why it has been said about Nirguna Brahman, “It is neither knowing not unknowing”. See the difference is so fine, so subtle that you miss by a hair-width of philosophy and you reach a wrong conclusion. When the Upanishad says that it cannot be described, it cannot be described … that is all. You try to express it in words and the Truth is violated !


MAyA is never without its substratum i.e. Nirguna Brahman as it has no existence of its own. Now, perhaps we are tempted to think that MAyA is some entity. Actually, it is not an entity that we can ever think of. It is like inherent power of Conditioned Consciousness which is capable of creating dreams. Now, that power can be manifest and can also be unmanifest. So, when Brahman is without MAyA i.e. when the MAyA is unmanifest, Brahman is Nirguna Brahman. When MAyA is manifest, Brahman acts like Saguna Brahman and is causal state for the two states of beings.
Ok, but the same question of mine pertains here too..(in fact one more doubt added)


1. Being a non-dual consciousness, how can Brahman be explained as substratum of Maya or Maya manifests from that non-dual Brahman, I understand that it can not be explained . (Maya should be there within Brahman inherently to manifest, but then the definition of non-dual Brahman gets violated with that).
In this body, the conditioned consciousness is one or many ? It is one alone. Does it become many when it is dreaming ? It appears to have become many in dream but it is One all the time. I must tell you that not only Nirguna Brahman is non-dual but the Saguna Brahman too is non-dual. So, when MAyA is manifest and non-duality of Saguna Brahman is not violated, how can it violate the non-duality of Nirguna Brahman when MAyA is not manifest.
I am repeating : MAyA is not an entity. So, there is no question of violation of duality. It is just two states of Brahman … one with ignorance and another without it. One when Brahman is apparently in action and another when it is not. Gaudapad has tried to explain this phenomenon with Firebrand in action and when not in action in Alatasanti PrakaraNa.


2. What causes this Maya to get manifested from Brahman . Seems like this also can not be explained using scriptures.

= This is not a valid question. Why ? MAyA is beginningless. So, there was no time when MAyA was absent. Yes, MAyA is annihilated on Self-realisation for the realized Jeeva. So, there is no time when it started or it starts after realization and therefore “What causes MAyA to manifest” becomes meaningless. MAyA doesn’t affect a Self-realised soul even when He is not in SamAdhi state. He becomes the master of MAyA on Self-realisation (Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman – Shruti says).

As you have given mind/thoughts analogy to explain this Maya and Brahman, I am understanding the Maya manifestation from Brahman is also uncertain same like mind's manifestation after deep sleep. But this uncertainity about manifestation of Maya from Brahman gives a room for below questions:

1. If the manifestation of Maya and its dissolution is uncertain and happens one after another , then why the conditioned-self needs to worry about sadhana to come out from this illusory world, anyway it would happen like we are getting deep-sleep without any sadhana, also nothing would harm the ultimate TRUTH(i.e Brahman) and other realities if any.
The Reality is very complicated and let me agree at this juncture that it is difficult for me too to paint a real picture as I am not sure if I understand It exactly as It is. As I told you, MAyA is beginingless. Now that means that Nirguna and Saguna Brahman are (??) “ALWAYS” present together … but all along there is Only One Brahman. The only difference is that Nirguna Brahman is the sole Reality but the same Reality is perceived as Saguna Brahman when seen through the veil of MAyA … it is like a rope and snake analogy. It would help if we see from the state of perceiver. The perceiver sees Nirguna Brahman when he has been able to remove the veil of MAyA on Self-realisation and when the perceiver is in delusion he perceives the Saguna Brahman at the same place where Nirguna Brahman was seen. What does it mean ? It is One Reality alone but is perceived differently from different states of the perceiver.
But again, arising of doubts in the above explanation cannot be ruled out as it cannot be explained in words exactly. You must experience It. It has been explained like experience of a dumb person eating sweatmeat … he knows the taste of it but is unable to express how it exactly tastes.


2. Even if we do sadhana and get rid of this maya, it would any way going to manifest again as mind manifests after deep sleep.
As I said earlier, on Self-realisation, the soul becomes one with Brahman and is master of MAyA. So, it is upto him to voluntarily accept the bindings of MAyA or remain free from it. When it accepts the bindings of MAyA, reincarnations of Great Gurus happen. But even when they accept the bindings of MAyA … it is only apparently … just like a drama played fully aware that it is all just a drama.


In all the above examples you have given about experiences of various teachers one thing is common that all have returned back from that state to world where they taught that truth, it is exactly matching with every day experience of deep-sleep and waking state which is natural.

I think I have explained the status of Self-realised souls in my response above

OM

Amrut
27 December 2013, 09:48 AM
2. What causes this Maya to get manifested from Brahman . Seems like this also can not be explained using scriptures.

As you have given mind/thoughts analogy to explain this Maya and Brahman, I am understanding the Maya manifestation from Brahman is also uncertain same like mind's manifestation after deep sleep. But this uncertainity about manifestation of Maya from Brahman gives a room for below questions:

1. If the manifestation of Maya and its dissolution is uncertain and happens one after another , then why the conditioned-self needs to worry about sadhana to come out from this illusory world, anyway it would happen like we are getting deep-sleep without any sadhana, also nothing would harm the ultimate TRUTH(i.e Brahman) and other realities if any.


2. Even if we do sadhana and get rid of this maya, it would any way going to manifest again as mind manifests after deep sleep.

Namaste,

Some questions were already answered, but it may not have convinced you. I will skip them.

Still in brief, mAyA is anAdi (beginning) and anirvacaniya (indescribable). So no one knows when mAyA was created. Also one cannot explain the ways of mAyA. This is because Bhagavan has said in Gita that there was no time when I was absent or you were absent. There are similar other quotes.

But since mAyA ends in Jnana, hence anything created through mAyA must not be considered as real (eternal, changeless, etc -- thats the definition of real). WE know this world is constantly changing and is going ot end, then a new world will be created. Hence we cannot say this world is changeless. Hence it falls under the category of mithyA.

As said earlier, the word mAyA means 'that which is not', hence the association with nirguNa also falls under illusion :D

No need to worry how nirguNa got ASSOCIATED and became saguNa, as all these is going to end in Jnana.

Still for sake of explanation it is said that it got associated, then world was created, etc.

Now-a-days, I do not much read shastra-s. Some statements are in my memory, but not the exact quotes with verse no. If you are not in touch with shastra-s, you forget them.


what matters is where you are i.e. where your consciousness is. Truth remains truth, but we do not experience it. Advaita does not say that Ignorance should not be removed.

I again repeat, this world is an illusion has to be experienced. First there is just a belief. This statement turns true (for me), when I experience it.

In deep sleep, we are not consciousness, while in samadhi, one is consciousness (but not as a separate entity). After Self Realization, the duality does not continue.

There are 2 statements

I am Brahman AND
Everything else is Brahman

'I am Brahman' indicates direct experience of Nirvikalp Samadhi. According to Sri Ramakrishna, a person can remain in this state, where there is no trace of mAyA or ego for 21 days, after that the body drops permanently.

When one completes meditation, dvaita i.e. duality is again perceived. This means that though you had an experience of Nirvikalp samadhi, the consciousness falls back and is dragged again into the body.

Why does this happen?

Vivek Chudamani says that Moksha is nothing but destruction of desires and VC and other prakaraNa grantha-s and Gita explain mind as the home of thoughts and desires (sarvAna partho mano gatAt)

As per this theory, there can be two logical conclusions

1. First, the mind is completely destroyed and then only one enters into Nirvikalp samadhi

2. Mind calms down temporarily (i.e. sleeps) and one enters in samadhi, but again one is pulled down.

The second one is what actually happens. Hence we see some people who may have the glimpse of non-duality, but cannot stay in it permanently.

As Per Sri Ramana Maharshi, there are two things

1. mano laya
2. mano nASa

When mind is completely calm, one enters into samadhi. But not all desires are destroyed, hence the desires spring up again and duality is yet again perceived. Again thoughts and desires are uprooted and mind again enters into samadhi and this goes on until, no thought or desire remains. What was dumped inside has all thrown out or it must be burned inside by the power of tapas and off course grace of Guru and God.

After the mind is destroyed, then there is no experience of duality. It is like seeing only water inside ocean, wave, water bubbles, and even ice.

When one wakes up or say completes the meditation in this way, then one can stay in this state for 21 days and then body drops. Thisi s for majority of people.

But for some selected souls, Ishvara, for the good of all, brings in pseudo ego.

Still, when one comes down, then one sees divinity everywhere. Here too there is maun. To teach, they still come down. They see duality, but are not affected by it. Bhagavan says, Jnani also behaves like ajnani. This is for the good of disciples.

So Jnani is always in touch with or say rooted in or conscious of Self, Brahman, but still he perceives duality while talking. They are loosely bound to body. for this they purposefully keep or develop some choices like liking for a particular food, etc. IF they do not then body might drop.

Also Jnani do not plan anything, but everything happens spontaneously, and Jnani is consciously aware that Ishvara is doing work, through this (his own) body. Jnani remains witness. Or say, Jnani works on intuition and does not think. It is difficult to believe but this is a fact. This is also very rare. Jnani-s are rare.

For them, Everything else is also Brahman. This world is no more an illusion, but Brahman itself. They see Brahman / divinity / energy in everything and hence they are above rAga-dveSa.

Their behaviour looks normal or may look abnormal, but this does not have any effect on their state.

A Jnani always remains a witness of everything that is happening and is an abode of Bliss.

Now please do not create another doubt from my answers. I will give you a chocolate ;)


That's why I am worrying whether the non-dual state is permanent or Maya would manifest again and will cause the conditioned consciousness.

In fact that is the reason I am trying to search for actual truth behind the relation of Brahman and Maya.

Other doubts are already answered.

Non-dual state is permanent, as shruti-s say, by reaching this, one do not return i.e. consciousness do not fall back in body. Ishvara . mAyA or prakruti or prArabhdha controls the body, but Jnani is detached from it.

After mano nASa, the state is permanent. Dropping of body does not change the state or consciousness.

So for a Jivanmukta, this world is Brahman

Brahma satya, jagat mithyA, jagat satyam

But the view is not as we see.

When you see anyone, you clearly see physical body and not Ishvara, who is in our heart. This is because our consciousness is rooted in physical body or waking consciousness.

On the other hand, when one sees Ishvara, then one does not see this physical body. So it's either Ishvara or body, not both together.

You cannot see darkness or shadow when you are facing sun. You only see brightness.

I hope this clears doubts and does not raise any other

Hari OM

jopmala
29 December 2013, 12:56 AM
Namaste Japmala,



No, it is not a crime. You are most welcome. However, it is not your path and therefore, you have made many assumptions about Advaita and Advaitins which is not correct. If you really want to understand Advaita, you must learn what they say instead of trying to prove that they are wrong. This won't lead you to anywhere. This theory in itself is difficult to understand by people of ordinary intellect and when you are having a bias towards it, understanding this becomes next to impossibility.

Now that said, may I suggest that your statement about God i.e. the third state of consciousness is not free of errors ? A minute difference in expression can destroy the real understanding. For your information, I daily chant bhajan of Rama and Krishna ... is it not surprising ???

OM
Namste devotee
Come on devotee ,you are a matured man . you are supposed to understand that in todays world which is your path or which is my path does not make any sense. afterall these are all part of hindu dharma and some way or other interlinked. everybody wants to know as much as possible. Knowing and following totally different issue.every body is trying to understand different philosophies prevailing ( may be you are a exception) but who is following what is his personal. when I am in the process of knowing advaita philosophy, may be there are some confusion arising out of style of questioning that does not mean I try to prove you wrong. see I know vaishnabism ( of course so far possible with my ordinary intellect) and when I come in contact with advaia naturally I face certain questions about both philosophy. I know very well that I will not ask you about vaishnab part. But I expect to clear confusion of advaita from you advaitin people. This is the real fact . so I have no any mean or hidden agenda to prove you wrong since I have no expertise on your subject.

Now reading your post I want to put my views before you . If you like to respond I will appreciate.

My statement expresses your opinion because you say in 4th state there is only nirguna Brahman and nothing else and god or sagun Brahman exists in empirical level. so it is not my opinion.

From POV of argument if Brahman is one and only then how he is into different level of truth. Nirguna Brahman in paramarthika level is real but that same Brahman when takes the adhar of maya becomes isvara or god or sagun Brahman and exists in vyavaharika level and so he is unreal. Can Brahman in any level of truth become unreal ? Are you saying that both 4th state and 3rd state are same.

If maya is never without its substratum i.e. nirguna Brahman, if maya is power of Brahman,if maya is consisting of three gunas , if maya is not independent then how can Brahman ever be nirguna or nirvikara irrespective of its states. By “conditioned consciousness” you always refere to jiva. Do you mean now that maya is a power of jiva.

If maya is not independent for action, how it can manifest or unmanifest by itself. Is it correct to say maya is manifest or maya is unmanifest or it should be Brahman is manifest and Brahman is unmanifest.

your statement is “ maya arises from nirguna brahman and as soon as it arises, isvara is created”. The statement hints that maya is an entity. But the point is when maya is not without its substratum i.e. nirguna Brahman , where is the question of arising of maya from nirguna Brahman. if Brahman does not want ,how can maya arise ? Do you mean in paramarthika satya maya is there with brahman ? Another point , when you say saguna Brahman is created by maya, I am totally confused. How can servant creat her master. How can saguna Brahman be the controller of maya if he himself is created by maya .

According to Gita this universe is nothing but part of sri krishna’s divine glories, his vibhuti or splendor , He says I am the light in the sun I am OM, I am the Rik sama yajur Vedas, I am the Himalayas. I creat these all, I am the origin of these all. I am the father mother sustainer and the grandsire of this world. These are his divine manifestations, portion of his splendor. If you call them false then sri Krishna also becomes false .Gita says “ He who knows the reality of these manifold manifestations and the yogic power of mine, becomes united with me.” Gita also says “ I am sat and I am asat” . BG says both maya and jiva is my apara and para prakriti but you accept only maya as his power and accept jive as brahman itsef instead of his prakriti.

vaishnab can not support advaitavada because :

In vaishnabism, there is very close relationship between bhagavan and bhakta. vaishnab worship only and only sagun Brahman. There is no place of nirguna Brahman in vaishnabism because vaishnab enjoy the rasa of bhagavad lila. Nirguana Brahman can not have lila. vaishnab never believe that jagat is false or anything like this. jiva is never considered as bhagavan but nitya dasa of bhagavan. According to vaishnanism jiva is not reflection of bhagavan . Jiva is under the controll of maya but bhagavan is master of maya. Bhakata believes in aishouraya and madhurya of sri Krishna. There are no states of realization or truth in vaishnabism. Here bhakta has to cry to be able to enjoy closeness of bhagavan since both bhagavan and bhakta loves eath other. bhakta does not want to become sugar but wants to enjoy the sweetness of sugar that does not mean jiva is divisional part of bhagavan. Its like sun and its rays. ball of fire and its spark. It is a part but belongs to whole also having character of whole as well . Vaishnab does not care for jnan. vaishnab is always in search of his beloved sri Krishna. Jnan is considered a hinder to bhakti path. You know very well of gopies. do they care for jnan of sri Krishna instead they just want to have a look of sri Krishna.
If any vaishnab approves of advaitavada it will not be considered as vaishnab view. it will be his personal choice but he would not have any philosophical backing.

Amrut
29 December 2013, 03:27 AM
Hare Krishna Sri Jopmala Prabhuji

What you say is right. Bhakta does not want to become sugar, but wants to taste the sweetness of sugar, while an advaitin will first inquire, I think myself as body or Jiva, is it correct? what does shruti says, what does our acharya say? search, dive deep within, I want to know truth, I want to be eternally free and be eternally peaceful and full of bliss. Ananda is my nature, sorrow cannot touch me. I am not going to let myself remain trapped in this horrific cycle of birth and death, I feel myself incomplete, something is lacking, I want fullness, freedom from sorrow, I want to be FREE and be IMMORTAL.

I fully understand what you say.

Advaita does not neglect the whole of dvaita from the beginning. It only asks us to transcend dvaita, as Jnana is the means of Final Release, which, acc. to Advaita, is what shruti-s always say as final destination, param pada, param dhAma.

Prabhuji, you will have to drop parinAma vAda and adopt vivarta vAda and ajAta vAda to understand advaita.

Bhakti is an integral part of advaita. I personally feel that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprubhu must have criticized buddhists and people WRONGLY following Sri Adi Shankara, calling them as mAyAvAdi-s (but now I am enjoying this term ;) )

I found answers to your questions. The problem is if I type it, fresh questions would be raised and this discussion will go on. But you are trying hard to understand. So I have spend a few hours to share my thoughts.

Vedic knowledge and becoming free are within the realm of ignorance only.
Veda is ultimately an illusion.

So how can veda and the knowledge obtained, which itself is unreal can give rise to real knowledge - I am Brahman. On this basis one may wonder whether the direct knowledge of supreme self is also an illusion or whether it is real?

If it is illusion, then the liberated effect would also be an illusion, and in that case what would be the point of upanishadic disciple? If, on the other hand, we say that the direct knowledge of the Self is real, then how could real direct knowledge arise from illusionary upanishadic texts?

If this objection is raised, we must draw attention to two different ways in which it can be answered

1.

If we take the phrase 'direct kowledge arises through the holy texts' to means that such direct knowledge consists in the mere mental idea to which the texts give rise, then such knowledge would be illusionary. It would be as illusionary as a dream-sword used to slay dream-tiger. Still, it will be enough to destroy ignorance. (another e.g. dream-pounding-tiger may help one wake up). And being itself inseparable from Ignorance, it will be destroyed with the latter. Liberation, which will mean becoming established in one's own naturem will be attributed figuratively to one who was never involved in erroneous knowledge and its destruction, just as waking p is attributed to a dreamer who was never really involved with the sword or tiger.

But it is not the case that, on this view, bondage will be an illusion and liberation, therefore, also an illusion? let it be even so. No harm will result to the supreme reality.

But how (when the upanishads are unreal) can the supreme reality be established as real? There is no occasion to raise such a doubt. Know that the supreme reality is self-evident an self-established. For superimposed fancies could not sustain themselves for an instant without the supreme reality as their substratum. So let it be enough, when considering the objection this way, to say that knowledge of the supreme reality will supersede automatically when wrong ideas are removed.

2.
In considering the other way of answering the objection, we begin that when perception and the other empirical means by noting that when perception and the other empirical means of knowledge are put into operation to secure direct knowledge of their various objects, the final result is the emergence of a mental idea (vritti). The subsequent result of this mental idea is the manifestation of the consciousness of the Self, which is in fact eternally self-established. The cognition resulting is this in reality nothing other than the eternal self-established principle called consciousness. In the same way, in the context of enlightenment also, there is a manifestation of consciousness as a result of the mental idea that arises from a recognized means of knowledge, namely the upanishadic text. This, too, may be spoken of figuratively as the 'result' of the operation of (an in itself admittedly illusionary) means of knowledge. There is thus no occasion to raise baseless objections.

Quotes:

1. 'There is no destruction and no creation. There is no one bound and no one undergoing spiritual disciple. There is no one seeking liberation and no one who has attained liberation. This is the highest truth (G.K. II.32)

Shankara's commentary: If duality is spread forth, while in truth only the Self exists, then the conclusion is that all experience, secular and Vedic, belongs to the realm of Ignorance alone.

2. But how can the Veda put an end to the notion of duality if the Absolute in its true nature remains beyond the scope of its activity? We reply that there is nothing wrong here, (since its function is to negate duality). For duality is superimposed on the Self through Ignorance, just as the snake is on the rope ... The Self is invariable present amidst all these (superimpositions of contradictory false notions such as 'I am happy', 'I am unhappy' and so forth) ... Therefore 'happiness' and the other mental experiences are distinctions that are merely imagined in the Self, which in fact has no distinctions. And thus it follows that the purpose of the Vedic texts when they predicate 'non-happiness' and other negative attributes of the Self is merely to terminate such ideas as 'I am happy' and so on. And there is the maxim of one (DraviDAcArya, different from DramiDAcAya) who knew the true tradition for interpreting the texts, 'Its validity stems from the fact that its function is to negate'. (G.K.Bh.II.32)

3. If you say that knowledge and ignorance as experienced by the mind (SureSvara T.B.V.II.578) are attributes of the Self, that is wrong. For we are directly aware of them as objects. Discrimination and non-discrimination lie in the mind and are objects of perception, like a patch of colour. A patch of colour, being an object of perception, cannot be an attribute of the perceiver. And the Ignorance is formulated in one's own experience as 'I am confused, my understanding is not clear'. In the same way, the clear discrimination arising from knowledge is also a matter of experience. Men of knowledge communicate their knowledge to others and others also receive it. Therefore, knowledge and ignorance belong to the realm of name and form. Name and form are not attributes of the Self. For there is that other upanishadic text, 'the ether, verily, is that which determines name and form. That within which the lie is the Absolute. (Chand. VII.xiv.1). And this name and form are merely imagined in the Absolute, like day and night in the sun. From this standpoint of the highest truth, they do not exist (Tai.Bh.II.8)

4. But how can the fact that the Self is the Absolute, which is true, be conveyed the the Upanishads, when the latter are by nature illusionary?... There is nothing wrong here. For we find practical results such as death occurring from the mere suspicion that one has been poisoned. And we also see that a dream snake-bite and bathing in water in a dream exert their due effects in the context of dream.

If it were to be claimed that such experiences were illusionary, our reply would be as follows. The snake-bite and the bathing in the water on the part of the dreamer are illusionary. But the knowledge whereby he is aware of having the dream, known technically as the 'resultant congnition' (plaha), is real. For it is not contradicted on waking. (B.S.Bh.II.i.14)


5. Here an opponent objects: To say that knowledge is the resultant cognition (phala) arising from the application of a means of knowledge (pramANa), and also that it is of the nature of the light of the Self , eternal, constant and raised above all change, is a contradiction.

To such an objector the Teacher replies, 'There is no contradiction. Why not? Well, that which is eternal and raised above all things the recognized means of knowledge , as this is what such means of knowledge are for. Because the ideas arising from acts of perception and the rest are transient, the eternal and constant knowledge (that is the natural essence of the Self) appears (in them) to be transient. Hence it is spoken of figuratively as the 'result' (phala) of the application of such means of knowledge. (U.S., prose, para 108)

Source: The Method of the Vedanta – A Critical Account of the Advaita Traditiona, Svami SatchidAnandendra Sarasvati, translated by A. J. Alston, Page 64-66.


Some more:

5. 'This doctrine (of existence of pupil, texts and teacher) is accepted only for the purpose of teaching. When the truth is known, duality no longer exists'. (G.K.I.18)

ibid, page 60

6. And again, this (the metaphysical part of the upanishads) is the final means of knowledge proclaiming the unity and sole reality of the Self. After that nothing further could be required (B.S.Bh.II.i.14)

7. For once the true nature of the Self is known, there can no longer be any more experience of the means of knowledge puts an end to the condition of the Self as a knower whose knowledge comes through the empirical means of knowledge. An in putting an end to this condition, the final means of knowledge, just as the means of knowledge present in a dream cease to be such on waking (Bh.G.Bh.II.69)

8. Realization of the Absolute is not anywhere found either to destroy or create any reality. What it is invariably found to do is to put and end to Ignorance. So here also, the sense of not being the Absolute and the sense of not being totality of all that exists, which are induced by Ignorance alone, should be put to an end by realization of the Absolute. (Brihad.Bh.I.iv.10)

9. [U]We admit that the soul is subject to the evils of transmigration before enlightenment, and that perception and other means of empirical knowledge pertain only to this realm. For there are texts such as 'But where everything has become the Self, what could one see an with what?' (Brihad.II.iv.14) which show that, on enlightenment, perception and the other empirical means of knowledge cease. Bot can you object against us that if perception and the other empirical means of knowledge fall away, the Veda, as an authoritative means of knowledge, falls away with them. For this is precisely our own doctrine. We base our doctrine that the Veda itseld disappears at enlightenment on the authority of the passage (Brihad IV.iii.22) which begins 'Here the father is no father' and goes away to say, 'And the Vedas are no Vedas'. (B.S.Bh.IV.i.3)

ibid Page 62-63

devotee
29 December 2013, 07:05 AM
Namaste Japmala,

My dear friend, I just wanted to stop acrimony which is created in such discussions because it starts with a strong bias. Did you ever find an Advaitin trying to denigrate Vaishnavism or Shaivism or Shaktism ? When someone says that Vishnu is Supreme ... we say, "Yes, He is". When someone says that Lord Shiva is the Supreme ... we accept that. We equally worship Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva and Mother Goddess treating them as supreme ... as there is a change of form alone but the Saguna Brahman the Supreme Lord is the same. Advaita doesn't exclude or denigrate any path. ... but there is tendency among Vaishnavas, or should I use the term "Internet Vaishnavas" who are hell bent on proving the supremacy of their path over any other. In fact, there are many Shaivas too on this forum and I have rarely seen them trying to waste time over proving supremacy of their path over others.

Again, I have seen people taking shelter under some doubtful sayings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for going whole hog against Advaita. Dear Sir, I am 100 % sure that sayings of Mahaprabhu has been distorted and mutilated. Why do I think so ? If MahAprabhu was so much against Advaita as people try to say, he would not have accepted an Advaita Sannyasi as his Guru. Again, he named his path, "Bheda-Abheda Achintyaswaroop" ... meaning "Jeeva and Brahman are different and also without any difference and the exact relationship cannot be conceptualised" (this is my understanding of the term). If he really believed that both are completely different, he would certainly not have chosen this term. I believe that during hid time, Advaita must have got corrupted by some self-declared Advaita Sannyasis and that might be harming the people's faith. .... I really can't say but somehow, I hate to believe that MahAprabhu was so much against Advaita philosophy and the path. A sentence said in a particular context and time can have one meaning and the same sentence stated at different time will have a different meaning ... we must know in what context the statement has been given.

I love Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, Lord Shiva, Mother Goddess ... I am not Pasandi which you keep saying again and again quoting MahAprabhu out of context. I am also on this path to seek truth as you are ... I follow a strict discipline everyday for meditating for attaining oneness with Brahman. Why am I doing all this ? Because I am a PAsandi, as you say ?

I keep reading scriptures and I have read most part of Shruti and Bhagwad Gita's exact translation from Sanskrit ... why should I do this if I am a PAsandi and not serious on my path ? ... and Why must I prove it again and again to the Vaishnavas that my path too is a valid path ???

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

I am sorry, I had to say all this as in spite of giving ample scriptural proof and logic ... this doesn't end. I am not blaming you but dear sir, believe me that there is something seriously wrong with the quotes of MahAprabhu ... it is certainly being used out of context. Once you clearly understand the path of Advaita VedAnta, you yourself will say that all rumours being spread against Advaita philosophy is highly unfair.

I will answer your questions on Advaita in my next post.

OM

devotee
29 December 2013, 08:23 AM
Namaste Japmala,



My statement expresses your opinion because you say in 4th state there is only nirguna Brahman and nothing else and god or sagun Brahman exists in empirical level. so it is not my opinion.

From POV of argument if Brahman is one and only then how he is into different level of truth. Nirguna Brahman in paramarthika level is real but that same Brahman when takes the adhar of maya becomes isvara or god or sagun Brahman and exists in vyavaharika level and so he is unreal. Can Brahman in any level of truth become unreal ? Are you saying that both 4th state and 3rd state are same.

See, the word "state" has been used for convenience of our mind which is working under serious handicap due to being bound to gross world's concepts and can't perceive the Reality as It is. The fact is that Nirguna and Saguna Brahman always existed. It is not that there was once Nirguna Brahman and from that Saguna Brahman came into being. That is why MAndukya Upanishad likes to call it "ChatuspAt" (Four parts) . Why so ? Because of the fact that MAyA is beginning-less. Are there two Brahman ? No. The same Brahman which is Nirguna is perceived as saguna when perceived through MAyA. So, when a deluded being like me would see ... he would see saguna Brahman where actually Nirguna Brahman is. Now, that said, MAyA (with Nirguna Brahman as substratum) is always in action and is responsible for creating the apparent states of Ishvara (i.e. Brahman in action ). It is dreamlike situation. The entire creation of the three states is nothing but ldream-thoughts of Brahman. The reality is that nothing is ever born and no one ever dies ... this all happens in dream-like situation.

I can see that you have difficulty in accepting the terms "real" and "unreal". Actually, there is not much issue involved here. As far as we human beings (or all beings in this universe) in this world are concerned, Ishvara is as real as we are. When we say that Ishvara is unreal ... that is when the Jivahood is destroyed on Self-realisation. Then you are one with Brahman and enjoy bliss and there is nothing but Brahman alone.

There is no question of Brahman becoming unreal at any level. That is gross misunderstanding. Brahman is the sole reality. The same Nirguna Brahman perceived by deluded beings is seen as saguna Brahman. Brahman doesn't change and there is no change of state.


If maya is never without its substratum i.e. nirguna Brahman, if maya is power of Brahman,if maya is consisting of three gunas , if maya is not independent then how can Brahman ever be nirguna or nirvikara irrespective of its states. By “conditioned consciousness” you always refere to jiva. Do you mean now that maya is a power of jiva.

I have posted in reply to Sanathan on similar issue. We must try to understand how our mind works and that can make us understand how Consciousness works. This is because Mind is Consciousness and Brahman too is Consciousness ... so they have many things in common. "Consciousness" can exist without thought-waves and with thought-waves ... that is the closet difference between Nirguna and Saguna Brahman. When Self-realisation occurs, the two worlds i.e. Vishva and Taijasa disappear and saguna Brahman is realised as Nirguna Brahman. MAyA is not power of Jeeva. MAyA is power of God. God cannot act without MAyA as God in its absolute "state" doesn't do or act but enjoys bliss without any disturbance. . Ishvara is the origin and end of Jeeva and everything that is in this universe. Ishvara is the master of MAyA. Jeeva is slave of MAyA but can become master of MAyA by experiencing one-ness with God on Self-realisation. Jeeva merges back into Brahman as water drop merges in to water on Self-realisation.


If maya is not independent for action, how it can manifest or unmanifest by itself. Is it correct to say maya is manifest or maya is unmanifest or it should be Brahman is manifest and Brahman is unmanifest.

As I have already stated, MAyA is beginningless ... so question of manifesting by its own or becoming unmanifest by its own doesn't arise. It is the nature of Brahman to be or without MAyA (apparently perceived to be with MAyA but remaining without MAyA ... the real Nature of Brahman can be understood only on Self-realisation) . When Self-realisation occurs, MAyA ends for that Self-realised soul and he merges into Nirguna Brahman in Nirvikapla SamAdhi jus as a pot of water merges into sea-water. See, the actual phenomenon cannot be described. Because Nirguna Brahman cannot be described. So, if there are still some questions ... they may remain in any sort of mental exercise. My Guru ji says that all our questions will be answered without any trace of doubts on Self-realisation. Advaita VedAnta has been proved by experiencing the Truth by thousands of Advaitins in the past and anyone can experience it and verify the Truth.


your statement is “ maya arises from nirguna brahman and as soon as it arises, isvara is created”. The statement hints that maya is an entity. But the point is when maya is not without its substratum i.e. nirguna Brahman , where is the question of arising of maya from nirguna Brahman. if Brahman does not want ,how can maya arise ? Do you mean in paramarthika satya maya is there with brahman ? Another point , when you say saguna Brahman is created by maya, I am totally confused. How can servant creat her master. How can saguna Brahman be the controller of maya if he himself is created by maya .

See, you must understand that MAyA is beginingless and therefore, such questions are not valid. The reality is Nirguna Brahman but there is MayA and there are two worlds and there is Ishvara which is the master of the worlds. Please don't go after words, "Saguna Brahman is Created" etc. ... these expressions are used because there is no better expression in that context. If that was no so, why would Mahaprabhu say that it was "Achnityaswaroop". You may use your words and your expressions but I am summarising the Truth herein below :

1. Nirguna Brahman is the sole reality which is the peaceful, blissful state of Brahman. Actually there is no Ishvara, no Jeeva and nothing else. This is the highest Truth.

2. There is dream-like situation created due to MAyA which is associated with Brahman. MAyA is beginningless. So, Nirguna Brahman and saguna Brahman which is in essence Nirguna Brahman alone are always present. MAyA ends on Self-realisation and then Nirguna Brahman can be experienced. Brahman can be realised in its absolute state i.e. Nirguna state and can also be realised in saguna state .

In the above expression .. a lot of expressions give an impression of expression possible in duality ... but that is mental handicap of Jeeva. Jeeva in its bound state cannot conceptualise the Reality. The Truth as it is can be realised Only on Self-realisation.

In Mahopanishad, the teacher says to his Shishya, "You should not worry over how MayA arose. You should instead work for ending the MAyA and attain Self-realisation". This was perhaps the reason that Lord Buddha refused to answer any questions on AtmA and God .... let's start seeking the Truth and our way out of misery.

3. You are never ever born and you never die. You are none but Brahman. You are not bound by Karma and you are free from all bondage of MAyA ... actually you are master of MAyA and not a slave of it. But this Truth has to be experienced ... merely parroting the scriptures and indulging mind-twisting debate won't help. When the mind is completely peaceful and free from its sanskars (VAsanAs) ... the Reality shines.

4. Ishvara is not a less important entity for the Advaitin. Ishvara is none but Nirguna Brahman taking care of Jeeva out of extreme compassion ... by his grace alone, the Reality will shine. Ishvara can be worshipped in any form and in any name. It doesn't affect Ishvara. How much you love Him is most important for Him. He will show us the Truth if we prove our worth to Him.

5. You can have any human relationship with God. You are happy to have slave-master relationship with God. We are happy to have Son-father(mother) relationship with God. You want to maintain your separate identity always by remaining different from God ... we want to merge ourselves into God and become one with Him ... losing any difference between Him and us.

6. You worship image of God, sing and dance for pleasing him. We meditate on God by cutting off from the whole world in solitude. You try to look for God outside you. We try to find Him within us. We see God not only in temples and sacred places but in all beings and in all places including in our own hearts.

.... we can discuss endlessly my dear friend and it won't ever end. You won't be able to see the way I see it due to difference in our beliefs and faiths. So, this debate will never end. To me it is as crystal clear as as anything. I can't doubt on the veracity of this Truth that is Advaita. I have unending doubts on duality ... I have no doubts in non-duality. You can always catch a word and start a new argument ... the realty is that I am trying to express which cannot be expressed. But by being indescribable, the Reality doesn't change.

Let's respect each others path. I bow to you .. the same Brahman shines in you also. You are also on the path of Truth. I am not on your path but I am also ardently seeking Truth. So, we are one in purpose and goal.

Thanks for your patience ....

OM

Devi Dasi
01 January 2014, 06:44 AM
Hare Krsna,

I don't know what to say because the sages and saints have already said quite beautifully. There are times when appears to be contradictions but the confusion is simply our limitation in human state and material condition. We don't perceive the fullness of reality, because the fullness of reality is infinite, and nothing which is finite can actually grasp it. That aspect of our nature which is in fact part and parcel with infinity is layered over with "ideas" about reality, rather than the extremely rare "perception" of reality which comes with turiya consciousness and I certainly don't pretend such enlightenment.


"There are different manifestations of the Lord. He is one, but He has become many. He divides Himself into two different expansions, one called kalā and the other vibhinnāḿśa... There is no difference, however, among Them. This is very nicely explained in the Brahma-saḿhitā (5.46): dīpārcir eva hi daśāntaram abhyupetya. With one candle one may light a second candle, with the second a third and then a fourth, and in this way one can light up thousands of candles, and no candle is inferior to another in distributing light. Every candle has the full potential candlepower, but there is still the distinction that one candle is the first, another the second, another the third and another the fourth.

Similarly, there is no difference between the immediate expansion of the Lord and His secondary expansion."
-Srila Prabhupada Purport to Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.21.32Without a doubt there IS a LORD who IS a PERSON. Full infinity INCLUDES the finite and is missing nothing, is therefore encompassing all forms, as well as formlessness. But at no time is the transcendental reality without the PERSONHOOD of the Absolute, such as taught by Shuyata Philosophies of anatman and atheistic stance of voidism without Paramatman...at least if we place our philosophies in accordance with what is taught in Srimad Bhagavad-Gita. If there is ultimately no Lord Krsna, what is the purpose of having Bhagavad-Gita or this discussion? This is one of the pitfalls of the neo-Advaitins who say, "we don't need guru, we don't need scriptures, we don't need to conform to Vedic principles," and then invent a New Age paradigm pretending to be Sanathana Dharma. (No one here I don't believe, but for discussion purposes to distinguish respected Advaita schools WITHIN Sanathana Dharma which are DHARMIC.)

This is the fine line between who is a pakundi or not, who is manifesting demonic qualities or not by denying the Presence of Lord as a nastik world-view. So let's take care that a pakundi is in reality a sadhu nindak who rejects Vedas and ultimately Vedic (Dharmic) principles, who puts his own jiv-atman in worshippable role above Lord, and not get angry and label fellow forum participants with such perjorative labels simply because of disagreements on posts. (This is a general observation and not a scolding of anyone here in particular.)

Advaitins, rightly or wrongly per Philosophical disputes, do not worship their own jiv-atmans but the underlying inner witness antharajami which we call Paramatman. As such (if I'm not mistaken) cannot be labeled truly atheistic. They may be voidists to some degree, but if they accept Vedas and shastras, have to accept sarguna as well as nirguna regardless of which they label as primary. Have to accept ONENESS, which, as a concept that incorporates impersonal aspect, cannot be impersonal... since ONE is not the same as VOID, or zero.

According to Gaudiya Vaishnava school (please let no one become a sadhu nindak against Lord Mahaprabhu Chaitanya) Lord Krsna has a transcendental body, and is therefore not a form in sarguna made of material modes of nature, but due to our limitations of understanding cannot really grasp the true reality and form of Absolute Lord.

As to what is illusory for our benefit (as we call virat form) or only one of the transcendental aspects (we call nirguna) there are without doubt infinities upon infinities which no language could even describe regarding mystic opulences of the Supreme Being...but without a doubt he is a PERSON who can relate to us personally, since every being created is part and parcel. Every human being and even every animal has a personality, a non-Personality cannot create Personalities because it has to be derivative.

In ultimate sense, there is perhaps something which Philosophically words cannot describe which incorporates what appear to be contradictions in this dimension of time-space reality, but in higher dimensionality are one-in-being.

-please forgive my mistakes


tad ejati tan naijati
tad dure tad v antike
tad antar asya sarvasya
tad u sarvasyasya bahyatah

The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.


(Excerpt Purport by Srila Prabhupada)
"Here is a description of some of the Supreme Lord's transcendental activities, executed by His inconceivable potencies. The contradictions given here prove the inconceivable potencies of the Lord. "He walks, and He does not walk." Ordinarily, if someone can walk, it is illogical to say he cannot walk. But in reference to God, such a contradiction simply serves to indicate His inconceivable power. With our limited fund of knowledge we cannot accommodate such contradictions, and therefore we conceive of the Lord in terms of our limited powers of understanding.

For example, the impersonalist philosophers of the Mayavada (http://vedabase.net/m/mayavada) school accept only the Lord's impersonal activities and reject His personal feature.

But the members of the Bhagavata (http://vedabase.net/b/bhagavata) school, adopting the perfect conception of the Lord, accept His inconceivable potencies and thus understand that He is both personal and impersonal. The bhagavatas know that without inconceivable potencies there can be no meaning to the words "Supreme Lord."


We should not take it for granted that because we cannot see God with our eyes the Lord has no personal existence. Sri (http://vedabase.net/s/sri) Isopanisad refutes this argument by declaring that the Lord is far away but very near also. The abode of the Lord is beyond the material sky, and we have no means to measure even this material sky. If the material sky extends so far, then what to speak of the spiritual sky, which is altogether beyond it? That the spiritual sky is situated far, far away from the material universe is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (http://vedabase.net/g/gita) (15.6 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/6/en2)). But despite the Lord's being so far away, He can at once, within less than a second, descend before us with a speed swifter than that of the mind or wind. He can also run so swiftly that no one can surpass Him. This has already been described in the previous verse. Yet when the Personality of Godhead comes before us, we neglect Him...


In this connection, two words the revealed scriptures often apply to the Lord -- saguna ("with qualities") and nirguna (http://vedabase.net/n/nirguna) ("without qualities") -- are very important. The word saguna does not imply that when the Lord appears with perceivable qualities He must take on a material form and be subject to the laws of material nature. For Him there is no difference between the material and spiritual energies, because He is the source of all energies. As the controller of all energies, He cannot at any time be under their influence, as we are. The material energy works according to His direction; therefore He can use that energy for His purposes without ever being influenced by any of the qualities of that energy. (In this sense He is nirguna (http://vedabase.net/n/nirguna), "without qualities.") Nor does the Lord become a formless entity at any time, for ultimately He is the eternal form, the primeval Lord. His impersonal aspect, or Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman) effulgence, is but the glow of His personal rays, just as the sun's rays are the glow of the sun-god...



In the Brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma)-samhita (http://vedabase.net/s/samhita) (5.35 (http://vedabase.net/bs/5/35/en2)) it is said that Govinda (http://vedabase.net/g/govinda), the primeval Lord, enters everything by His plenary portion. He enters the universe as well as all the atoms of the universe. He is outside in His virat (http://vedabase.net/v/virat) form, and He is within everything as antaryami (http://vedabase.net/a/antaryami). As antaryami (http://vedabase.net/a/antaryami) He witnesses everything that is going on, and He awards us the results of our actions as karma (http://vedabase.net/k/karma)-phala (http://vedabase.net/p/phala). We ourselves may forget what we have done in previous lives, but because the Lord witnesses our actions, the results of our actions are always there, and we have to undergo the reactions nonetheless.
The fact is that there is nothing but God within and without.

Everything is a manifestation of His different energies, like the heat and light emanating from a fire, and in this way there is a oneness among His diverse energies. Although there is oneness, however, the Lord in His personal form still enjoys unlimitedly all the pleasures enjoyed minutely by the tiny part-and-parcel living entities."

Amrut
02 January 2014, 01:15 AM
Namaste ji,

there is difference between formless and nirguNa, as per advaita.

NirguNa does not mean an aspect, that is inconceivable by material eyes, and that which is made up of special kind of spiritual body. nirguNa is also not the Brahma Jyoti.

NirguNa means that which does not contain any guNa-s. Without mAyA, there is nothing that can be created, be it material or spiritual. This includes Vaikuntha / Goloka too and the forms of god are called as upAdhi-s, while the Sat-Chit-Ananda is not a svarUpa laxaNa, but a taTastha laxaNa. they are not to be experienced separately.

Even the forms of God comes under the realm of relative reality, which is Brahman + mAya = Ishvara.

Brahman + avidya mAyA = jiva, which is nothing but a reflection and not a division something changes into something. You see it violates the definition of Brahman.

In turiya avasthA, there is no personal God. refer Mandkya Upanishad 7 and 12.

To understand Advaita, you must adpot vivarta vAda nad ajAta vAda. PariNama vAda though may be adopted to explain the theory of creation, it is only for explanatory purpose and is not that which is prime advaitic vAda.

You need to properly know the basic Advaita tenets and definitions of certain terms :D

Hari OM

devotee
02 January 2014, 04:27 AM
Namaste Devi,


There are times when appears to be contradictions but the confusion is simply our limitation in human state and material condition. We don't perceive the fullness of reality, because the fullness of reality is infinite, and nothing which is finite can actually grasp it. That aspect of our nature which is in fact part and parcel with infinity is layered over with "ideas" about reality, rather than the extremely rare "perception" of reality which comes with turiya consciousness and I certainly don't pretend such enlightenment.

Rightly expressed.


Without a doubt there IS a LORD who IS a PERSON. Full infinity INCLUDES the finite and is missing nothing, is therefore encompassing all forms, as well as formlessness. But at no time is the transcendental reality without the PERSONHOOD of the Absolute, such as taught by Shuyata Philosophies of anatman and atheistic stance of voidism without Paramatman...at least if we place our philosophies in accordance with what is taught in Srimad Bhagavad-Gita.

God is pure Consciousness pervading this universe thoroughly without a break. As He is Consciousness Himself, He knows all our thoughts, actions and whatever is there. So, all our thoughts and emotions actually arise due to Him ... It is all His power. If I sincerely think that He is in person and He is my father, He would come in the form that I worship ... there is no doubt about. Let's again refresh our knowledge. "God is pure Consciousness and He is omniscient and He is omnipotent".

If you worship/love Her as your mother, He would appear to you as Mother and take care of you like that ... if you love Him as father, he affectionately acts towards you as father. My Guru ji says that the desireless God does desire one thing, "Our unconditional love". You love Him/Her with all your heart, with all sincerity and more than anything else in this world ... and He can't stop Himself from being near to you. So, He does have a personality if you believe Him to be such and that is also the easier path.

In my childhood, I came across one Vaishnava Sannyasi (who was also Guru of my father) and who had many yogic powers (he created Ghee out of river water during a Yagna and turned sand into sugar when these things were found short for the occasion) ... was a hard-core believer in a personal God. We all know how Mother goddess used to come in person to Ramkrishna Paramhansa. In fact, when Swami Vivekananda refused to believe Ramkrishna (on his vision of God), and challenged him, he touched Swami Vivekananda with his hands and showed the vision of Mother Goddess KAli in person. There are many such examples.

There is one Nidhi-van in Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh, India. It is believed that Nidhi-van was the place where Lord Krishna did the famous RAAs Leela with RAdhA and other Gopis. Devotees believe that this is repeated every night. No one is allowed to stay in Nidhi-van at night after 10:00 pm. Even the monkeys in the area leave that place for unknown reasons. Yesterday, there was a special program on ZEE TV on this issue. The TV team went there to find the truth. In the garbha-griha (where RAdhA-Krishna's images are there), the priests, leave a new Saree, some sweets (laddoos), two wooden (green) tooth-brushes, some ornaments for RAdhA RAni etc. This procedure was done in front of the TV team and the Nidhi-vana was locked from all sides as is done everyday. The TV team was not allowed to enter the area but the TV made sure that there was no soul left by mistake inside the area and that all entries into the vana was properly locked by 5 different locks. The keys were kept in the custody of a trusted person who stayed outside and the TV team kept making rounds of the whole area to make sure that nobody entered there. In addition to that, at all entry points Cameras were installed which took pictures continuously without a break.

The night passed peacefully without any disturbance. In the morning, the TV crew entered the temple with the main priest ... they were the first to enter there after opening the locks ... and they found this : This Saree (Hindu women's garment) which was left neatly packed was opened as if someone had left it there after wearing it. The sweets/laddoos were broken and only half of it remained, everything of women's sringaar for RAdhA RAni was mixed up which was left neatly at night while closing the doors and locking them.

The big question is .... Who did it ? There was none left inside at night ... no one was seen entering the Vana either by the cameras or the the crew. The walls are so high that no one can scale the walls. Can it be anyone except Lord Krishna and Mother RAdha RAni ? I will vote for a "Yes". ... and I still remain an Advaitin. :)

OM

kallol
02 January 2014, 05:08 AM
Om

Namaste :)

Wish you all a very happy, prosperous, healthy new year.

This seems to be a good topic. Unfortunately the followers of saguna Brahman and nirguna Brahman find it difficult find a common ground. This is unfortunate as the highest revered in these field did not find these as limitations to achieve the moksha.

Any idea which is all inclusive will have more universal appeal than the ideas which are exclusive. These does not mean that the people following ideas which promote exclusivity cannot achieve moksha. From the POV of the all inclusive idea other ideas are part of it.

Energy in its most primitive form is one. This one primitive energy has given rise to different forms of energies. The same energies have given rise to different elements and elementals. Though we know the elementals are ultimately the same primitive energy, their characteristics are totally different. One is living one is dead. One is nirguna (wrt the elementals) other is saguna.

What is saguna ? That which can be percieved. Percieved by what ? The senses. What happens when we percieve them ? The changes, the forms, the shapes, etc etc brings in reactions in the mind which has natural tendency to get attached to so called saguna elementals. This phenomenon is maya. Without senses - no saguna - no maya. Saguna starts from the subtle bodies state itself and manifests further in gross bodies in terms of body senses (5 senses) or artifical senses. So the start of the Maya is with the start of the subtle world. However we should recognise that the Maya is only a state of the mind and not the saguna world. As soon as the mind dissolves the maya is lost. So for a moksha achieved person the maya is illusion which he has removed.

Now nirguna - saguna. Though the same primitive energy is filling this universe, the gross bodies we see around us does not seem related to that. The physics says it is related. We have proved it one way - matter to energy but finding it to findout that primitive energy form. But the science is moving fast. It will do one day. For our 5 senses - gross matter is saguna and the primitive energy is nirguna. Both are connected. One is primal form one for our senses.

It does not stop with the primal energy. We can still find the primal energy. Just like visual bodies are out of that primal energy, similarly the primal energy should be out of something. What is that ? This form is still saguna in absolute terms. It changes, has properties, etc, etc. Actually upto this is the gross bodies. The bodies are floating in the primal form of energy where the energies of different hues penetrate the bodies to different extent depending on their wave, frequency and amplitude.

Just like bodies are out of the energy, similarly energy should be out of something. What is that something ?

Beyond this primal energy, is the subtle world - which forms the mind, intellect, etc. Can we prove these in labs or our five senses ? - no. But we know these are there. These also have properties and these also are subject to change. These also have the frequency and waves. The thoughts pass through the mind are representation of these. This form is the basis for the birth of the gross world which starts with the energy.

Still we have the frequency and waves. But going further down we have the final entity which does not have any frequency or wave. This is the final level, where there is no ripple - only stillness - unchangeable, without any property. This is so fine that it penetrates everything and fills up everything. This state is the consciousness. The mind is only part of the subtle level and mind is the only vehicle for us to know. Once we move beyond mthe subtle level, mind is lost and there is no direct information of the consciousness possible.

Just like the bodies are made of different layers of existence - energy, sub-atoms, atoms, molecules, bodies - similarly in another way we are made of these three states - gross body, subtle body and the final state consciousness. Without any of them we would not be there.

The whole sansar of God is a connected system from the top to the bottom out of same susbstance only in different manfestations.

My 2 pice.

Amrut
02 January 2014, 06:29 AM
Namaste,

The thing we find it hard to explain the God as a person is not rejected from day one. We worship Ishvara, but then we also transcend names and form and Ishvara without it's attributes is nothing but NirguNa Brahman, which is not a void. 'I' never cease to exist and NirguNa Brahman is not the zero state.

Names and forms has to be transcended. This is the fact from Advaita POV.

We do respect vedic karma kand, deity worship and they are both important to advaitins, but not final destination.

MAyA as illusion is projected out of context and blown out of proportion.

OM Tat Sat

jopmala
02 January 2014, 08:38 PM
Namaste devotee and amrutji


I thank you both for taking efforts to explain advaitavada so elaborately. By the way amrutji, I am not prabhuji because I am not a member of Gaudiya Math family ( ISKON etc). My vaishnabism is far different from their’s. I do not like sarcastic note.


So far, we have lots of discussion on nirguna saguna Brahman and maya. I would like to draw your attention to Gita chapter 12 verse 2,3, where sri Krishna replies to Arjuna that “those who pray to me as the saguna form, they are my most beloved, this is my opinion.
But again he says,those who pray to me as nirguna , they also realize me but it is not easy to pray to nirguna Brahman. So I would say to you that you pray to me as saguna Brahman.”

In this verse of Gita, it is crystal clear that there is no difference in his aspects be it nirguna or saguna but difference lies in the ways to realize him. But advaitavada says that only nirguna Brahman is real and saugna Brahman alongwith its dream –creation is not real.My point is - when this verse is clear that Brahman can be realized by following as saguna or nirguna, why advaitavada say only nirguna Brahman is the ultimate destination. why saguna Brahman can not become ultimate destination. May I conclude that advaitin has no confidence on or does not believe in what sri Krishna says in Gita.Advaitin says that saguna Brahman is not ultimate destination rather it takes seeker to nirguna Brahman. Treating saguna Brahman differently from nirguna Brahman , Is this in consonance with the above verse of Gita.


Please let me know why a person should follow nirguna Brahman as his destination as depicted in advaitavada instead of following what Sri Krishna ‘s opinion in verse 2-3/12 of Gita. It may be some one's personal choice. But it should be remembered that sri krishna has given a choice . After all sri krishna is not an ordinary deity. He is brahman . why should one disregard sri krishna's opinion.


For your kind information, Chaitanya mahaprabhu has not followed advaita system of realizing truth. He has not studied Vedanta which is required in advaita. He has not done asana dhayana etc . Actually Chaitanya mahaprabhu becomes sannyasi in the line of advaita not because he likes the philosophy which he has never practiced. He even never teaches his followers to follow advaitavada. He always teaches to stay away from advaitavada. He is not a admirer of advaitavada.

kallol
02 January 2014, 09:38 PM
Om

Namaste :)

The path Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has shown is the easiest to comprehend and align. The advaita path is more abstract. This will be difficult to follow by the laymen. The same is the case with Sri Krishna.

However said, let us not compare ourselves with Sri Chaitanya or Sri Krishna. they already have all knowledge inside them. They are already in the peak of achievement where the nirguna or saguna does not make any difference. They have indicated in enough words that advaita is not for common people. Nirguna Brahman is more tough to comprehend than Saguna Brahman. So better focus on Saguna Brahman. there is nothing wrong in it. This definitely has to be the focus of the common man.

Again as one matures in spirituality, then their words should be carefully read again. "but it is not easy to pray to nirguna Brahman".

Here lies the catch. The basic form of brahman is nirguna. If you seek this you become nirguna. If you continue to seek Saguna you remain within saguna. What you seek - you will get.

devotee
02 January 2014, 09:40 PM
But again he says,those who pray to me as nirguna , they also realize me but it is not easy to pray to nirguna Brahman. So I would say to you that you pray to me as saguna Brahman.”

He never said this, "So I would say to you that you pray to me as saguna Brahman." ===> So, may be you would like to correct that.


But advaitavada says that only nirguna Brahman is real and saugna Brahman alongwith its dream –creation is not real.My point is - when this verse is clear that Brahman can be realized by following as saguna or nirguna, why advaitavada say only nirguna Brahman is the ultimate destination. why saguna Brahman can not become ultimate destination. May I conclude that advaitin has no confidence on or does not believe in what sri Krishna says in Gita.Advaitin says that saguna Brahman is not ultimate destination rather it takes seeker to nirguna Brahman. Treating saguna Brahman differently from nirguna Brahman , Is this in consonance with the above verse of Gita.

We are wasting our time here. I think you are not reading our posts at all.


Please let me know why a person should follow nirguna Brahman as his destination as depicted in advaitavada instead of following what Sri Krishna ‘s opinion in verse 2-3/12 of Gita. It may be some one's personal choice. But it should be remembered that sri krishna has given a choice . After all sri krishna is not an ordinary deity. He is brahman . why should one disregard sri krishna's opinion.

Follow the path that suits you, sir !


For your kind information, Chaitanya mahaprabhu has not followed advaita system of realizing truth. He has not studied Vedanta which is required in advaita. He has not done asana dhayana etc . Actually Chaitanya mahaprabhu becomes sannyasi in the line of advaita not because he likes the philosophy which he has never practiced. He even never teaches his followers to follow advaitavada. He always teaches to stay away from advaitavada. He is not a admirer of advaitavada.

I don't believe a word in this canard. MahAprabhu would lose his status as God-realised soul if he disrespected his Guru's philosophy and his Guru ! That would be unbecoming of MahAprabhu. BTW, I would ask him an explanation, if I ever meet him and then I would clarify your doubts.

Happy New Year ! Let's be happy and respectful to each other's path. :)

OM

Amrut
02 January 2014, 11:49 PM
Namaste devotee and amrutji


I thank you both for taking efforts to explain advaitavada so elaborately. By the way amrutji, I am not prabhuji because I am not a member of Gaudiya Math family ( ISKON etc). My vaishnabism is far different from their’s. I do not like sarcastic note.


So far, we have lots of discussion on nirguna saguna Brahman and maya. I would like to draw your attention to Gita chapter 12 verse 2,3, where sri Krishna replies to Arjuna that “those who pray to me as the saguna form, they are my most beloved, this is my opinion.
But again he says,those who pray to me as nirguna , they also realize me but it is not easy to pray to nirguna Brahman. So I would say to you that you pray to me as saguna Brahman.”

In this verse of Gita, it is crystal clear that there is no difference in his aspects be it nirguna or saguna but difference lies in the ways to realize him. But advaitavada says that only nirguna Brahman is real and saugna Brahman alongwith its dream –creation is not real.My point is - when this verse is clear that Brahman can be realized by following as saguna or nirguna, why advaitavada say only nirguna Brahman is the ultimate destination. why saguna Brahman can not become ultimate destination. May I conclude that advaitin has no confidence on or does not believe in what sri Krishna says in Gita.Advaitin says that saguna Brahman is not ultimate destination rather it takes seeker to nirguna Brahman. Treating saguna Brahman differently from nirguna Brahman , Is this in consonance with the above verse of Gita.


Please let me know why a person should follow nirguna Brahman as his destination as depicted in advaitavada instead of following what Sri Krishna ‘s opinion in verse 2-3/12 of Gita. It may be some one's personal choice. But it should be remembered that sri krishna has given a choice . After all sri krishna is not an ordinary deity. He is brahman . why should one disregard sri krishna's opinion.


Namaste Jopmala ji,

Sorry I didnt knew. I thought it is a matter of respect to call Prabhuji to the followers of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu ji

As said by Kalok ji, We have seen in Gita that Krishna asks Arjuna to be a Karma yogi and not a SanyAsin, even though Sri Krishna has himself Glorified Jnana.

Hence Krishna has asked us to do what is best for us and not what is THE BEST.

We Advaitins consider names and forms under the realm of mAyA. Though Ishvara himself is above mAyA as he is the controller of mAyA, it is the art to see Pure consciousness in the names and forms, to attain complete non-duality and complete destruction of ego.

IMHO, the easiest path is bhakti, this is what Sri Krishna is pointing out. But according to us, the final destination has to be non-duality, where Ishvara exists as Pure Consciousness, full of Bliss and peace.

when one chants Sri Krishna's name, and one gets darshan, still one is in duality. But the devotee has given heart and soul to his beloved God, hence it is the duty of the Lord to take you to the highest form. It happened in the case of Sri Ramakrishna (via a Guru) and to Narasimh Mehta.

Bhagavan has given two options. Difficult means difficult to majority of people. There are some souls, who are called as Yoga BrasTa JivAtmA, who are either born in rich family or in poor but pious family. Advaita can be taught to them, as they have already walked 80 kms out of total 100 km in their past life / lives.

Advaita is direct path, while the path of bhakti is indirect means to realize non-duality. There is no difference between Krishna Tatva and his form, technically speaking and Krishna can exist without name and form as pure consciousness.

The edge of bhakti marg is that anyone can follow it, but for Jnana marg, the pre-requisites are renunciation and strong desire for liberation.

Bhagavan has not said that since Jnana marg is difficult, it should not be followed.

We can see in Gita in various places where Jnana and Jnani is praised. We see the use of words like 'those who know', 'Jnani is my Atman (out of 4 types of devotees)'. Hence Bhagavan has also said that one can practice Advaita / Jnana Marg.

Another instance is Bhagavan considering himself as OM. OM is given high importance in all 10 upanishads and other famous and not-so-famous upanishads. An entire Upanishad, Mandukya Upanishad, is dedicated to explaining OM. Meditation on OM is always that of NirAkAra Brahman. Bhagavan cannot go against upanishads. Bhagavan's teachings cannot be different from Upanishads.

Advaita is also bhakti, but bhakti of NirAkAra, nirguNa Brahman, bhAva is abheda. what we get is peace.

As one progresses on the path of Advaita by chanting OM, ego melts and one experiences detachment and sense of awareness heightens. There is a flow of peace and bliss. A person becomes very humble from within, as ego melts.

This is my understanding.

Both paths are very different in approach. Hence I can understand what Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has said. After one becomes mature, except God and guru, nothing can affect you. when the surrender is strong, being in company of anyone will not matter as you have surrendered to that supreme reality, who controllers the whole of the universe. He can easily protect you. Hence there is no fear to lose bhakti here.

Hari OM

yajvan
09 January 2014, 02:51 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Regarding māyā , you can ask yourself this as the litmus paper test:

Am I in the world or is the world in me ? Pending your answer you will know what end of māyā you are on.

....but of course I am in the world - then the world of differentiated awareness and the world of objects exist, and māyā has its full affects.

... the world is in me - then the ~world~ has dissolved and there is only Being; where can there be one bit of difference if everything is an extension of one's Self. This māyā then is of little import as it creates the world of differences.

iti śivaṁ

kallol
13 January 2014, 05:09 AM
Om

Namaste :)

Why it is Bhakti - Karma - Jnana and not the other way round ?

There is no multiple path to mukti. There is only one route - the route of Jnana.

However to achieve this Jnana, the mind has to be tuned in a certain way. It is just like - for doing PhD, the person has to study hell lot of subjects to tune his brain and mind.

The fact is that the PhDs we do are still percievable, provable wthin the realms of the five senses. The spiritual science is beyond that. So the tuneing of the mind is more important.

Tuning of mind in thi case is a bit different as it is felt by the great Rishis (Chatainya, Ramana, Ramakrishna, the rishis of yore, etc, etc). It starts with belief & faith (bhakti). The starting point is bhakti - that is why the temples and the dictates from the gurus. "Have belief in what I say or Have beleif in what sciptures say". Basically the laymen does not have the capability to understand the complete impact of the information he is getting. So just believe and move on. Move on with what ?

Here starts the karma. The karma of puja, rituals, food, festive occasions, ceremonies, services, etc. Now both bhakti and karma normally starts with sakama intentions - that is expecting something in return. However as the time passes by the tend towards niskama.

This is the main objective of the first 2 steps Bhakti and Karma - to move people from sakama intentions to niskama intentions. This leads towards less desire and less ego.

With this to barriers out of the way the information that is being continuously being fed to the person - slowly sinks in and the person moves from one information level to the next. The main objective is met. Another soul is accelerating towards mukti. In that journey the knowledge level transfrom from saguna to nirguna to mix of saguna-nirguna - actually it does not matter.

In all these the bhakti rises, karma rises but the paradigm changes from sakama to niskama - from physical to mental.

If you comapre with a PhD scholar - he also takes the same journey. He is given a research subject of which he does not know anything. He has only one thing - complete faith and belief in his guide. Blidly he does what is told and as he does he acquires more knowlege and the confidence. As he move along, he, at one point of time can move along without support and then at the end become complete master of the subject. Hisrespect for guide grows and his karma becomes more focussed and driven by knowledge.

We all have to move in this way - through multiple lives. The one which we are seeing in this life is the after effect of the life in past life. That is why I am not Tendulkar or Ramakrishna or Chaitanya. What is visible of them today is not out of this life alone but a cumulation of several lives before.

jopmala
09 August 2014, 01:48 PM
Namaste
In verse 12 of chap XIII of BG shri Krishna says “ I will now describe what one should know and knowing which one will attain to life eternal. It is Brahman, My attributeless aspect without beginning and end and said to be neither sat nor asat”. I would like to draw the attention of those who claim nirgun nirakar Brahman is ultimate. Here sagun sakar Brahman sri Krishna swayam saying that “ Matparam Brahman” that means my attributeless aspect. I think making differentiation between nirgun Brahman and sagun Brahman and also considering nirgun Brahman is ultimate reality and sagun Brahman is a product of maya is nothing but a crime. The basic point is nirgun Brahman having attributeless can not become sagun with the help of maya which is not an independent power to exercise by itself to create iswar or sagun Brahman. Calling iswar , sagun Brahman which does not exist ultimately is not acceptable . The question is why there is only one nirgun brahman but many sagun brahman like Ram, Krishna, ganesh etc et c. how is it ? if there is only one nirgun Brahman why there will be more than one sagun Brahman ? Since jiva is unable to understand nirgun nirakan Brahman as has been said by sri Krishna swayam in verse 5 of chapter XII of BG, they simply create confusion . advaitavad itself unable to explain maya properly.


Further, verse 13 of XIII says that “ this nirvishesh Brahman which is neither sat nor asat , everywhere are his hands and feet. His eyes, heads and faces are on all sides and everywhere are his ears. He remains encompassing all”. (Same verse can be seen in swetaswar upa-3/16) .
Verse 14 says “ He ( nirvishesh Brahman) seems to have the functions of the senses and is yet devoid of the senses, is unattached and yet sustains everything, is unaffected by the gunas and enjoys them” . This is how nirgun nirvishesh Brahman has been described in Gita where sagun sakar sri Krishna is saying that Brahman is my attributeless aspect. He does not say that I am the attribute aspect of ultimate nirgun Brahman. Jnan in Gita does not mean advaita jnan rather it is samkhya jnan. There is a difference between advaita and samkhya.

Sriram257
01 May 2015, 07:20 AM
good to know.