PDA

View Full Version : Mukthi and self-realiazation



Who am i
10 March 2014, 01:57 AM
Dear members

I have seen many advaitans telling that advaita is better than Dvaita and Vice Versa.While each one aims the soul to get liberated,there are lot of disagreements on this.

I have a query on Muktis mentioned on our puranas which is basically Duality one.I request members to give their opinion and confirm if my understanding is correct on below lines.

) sArUpya mukti : Here individual Soul acquires the form of the personal god and enjoys the same, intense bliss as its god.It necessarily means soul has realised the GOD and became like its GOD.

Is this equal to self-realization in advaita?


2) sAyujya mukti: Here soul gets absorbed into its personal God and no longer born again.

is this equal to liberation in advaita?


As per my understanding,people can choose any one path and travel based on their spiritual level.Im not sure which one is easier and which one has lot of obstacles

I will be happy if learned members clarify my doubt.

yajvan
10 March 2014, 07:43 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Dear members

I have seen many advaitans telling that advaita is better than Dvaita and Vice Versa.While each one aims the soul to get liberated,there are lot of disagreements on this.


I have not seen this occur on our HDF site ( I am not suggesting you are inferring this ). I have seen many (on HDF) choose to compare-and-contrast the two though.

Yet it is the wise advaitin who knows that the Supreme that the dvaitan-s give their adoration is none other then the Self (ātmamukhaṃ¹). Arguments and dis-agreements of who is better is that of spiritually young. The wise watch and remain neither (udāsīna¹) as the clarity of their vision remains unblemished¹ on this matter.

iti śivaṁ

words








ātmamukhaṃ = ātma + mukhaṃ

ātma = Self, or Being, some say svarūpa ( one's essential nature)
mukhaṃ = mukha = turning towards; facing



udāsīna - neither friend of foe ; indifferent
unblemished - niṣkalaṅka - stainless; without blemish

saidevo
10 March 2014, 08:52 PM
namaste.

This post might help you:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=43167&postcount=9


Dear members

I have seen many advaitans telling that advaita is better than Dvaita and Vice Versa.While each one aims the soul to get liberated,there are lot of disagreements on this.

I have a query on Muktis mentioned on our puranas which is basically Duality one.I request members to give their opinion and confirm if my understanding is correct on below lines.

) sArUpya mukti : Here individual Soul acquires the form of the personal god and enjoys the same, intense bliss as its god.It necessarily means soul has realised the GOD and became like its GOD.

Is this equal to self-realization in advaita?


2) sAyujya mukti: Here soul gets absorbed into its personal God and no longer born again.

is this equal to liberation in advaita?


As per my understanding,people can choose any one path and travel based on their spiritual level.Im not sure which one is easier and which one has lot of obstacles

I will be happy if learned members clarify my doubt.

Who am i
10 March 2014, 11:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



I have not seen this occur on our HDF site ( I am not suggesting you are inferring this ). I have seen many (on HDF) choose to compare-and-contrast the two though.

Yet it is the wise advaitin who knows that the Supreme that the dvaitan-s give their adoration is none other then the Self (ātmamukhaṃ¹). Arguments and dis-agreements of who is better is that of spiritually young. The wise watch and remain neither (udāsīna¹) as the clarity of their vision remains unblemished¹ on this matter.

iti śivaṁ

words








ātmamukhaṃ = ātma + mukhaṃ

ātma = Self, or Being, some say svarūpa ( one's essential nature)
mukhaṃ = mukha = turning towards; facing



udāsīna - neither friend of foe ; indifferent
unblemished - niṣkalaṅka - stainless; without blemish
Respected Yajvanji

Yes,you are right.Many new starters get confused which path to travel and end nowhere.My opinion is that one should start with Duality and move to Advaita once they are matured spiritually.

Who am i
11 March 2014, 12:02 AM
namaste.

This post might help you:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=43167&postcount=9
Vanakkam Saidevo,

Thanks for your link.This was really wonderfully written article.But i have some queries and would request you to clear my doubts.

In one of the lines,you mentioned as below:

[..]

This kind of mukti by VishiShtadvaita bhakti lasts until the worlds of personal gods last.

[..]

How does God's world get destroyed? Does vaikunta gets destroyed during Mahapralaya?In that case,what happens to those Enlightened souls?

[..]

Also during Maha Pralaya,Satya-loka, Tapa-loka, Jana-loka, and Mahar-loka are destroyed.I thought Those who got Videha Mukthi reside in one of these lokas and will get dissolved during Maha Pralaya.Is this correct?

Please clarify Sir.


Thanks

kallol
23 April 2014, 10:46 AM
Om

Dear " Who am I",

Mukti is a deep subject defined differently by different sects because of their varied perception of God.

In today's scientific language the definitions might vary and our understanding can be given a scientific flavor. This will free the "mukti" concept of any packaging in the name of gods.

There was some discussions happened earlier in this regard. One of them is in the link below. You may find it interesting

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=12232

karthik
23 April 2014, 11:18 AM
Dear members
I have seen many advaitans telling that advaita is better than Dvaita and Vice Versa.While each one aims the soul to get liberated,there are lot of disagreements on this.

This is where saiva siddhanta dis-agrees with them by saying that even at mukthi your aanava is there but is reduced due to blessing of shiva.It basically disagrees with all three advaita/dvaita/vishishta advaita giving many examples....taking apart words like dvaita and advaita from the vedas and establishing a separate philosophy by sankara and ramanuja was only known to create more confusion among us hindus.

http://www.skandagurunatha.org/deities/siva/home.asp

we are known as sagalar with three malas(aanavam,kanmam,mayai).vinyanakalar has two and pralayakalar has one just ego(aanavam) and they attain mukthi during Mahapralaya till then they will be born again and again.during Mahapralaya even sakthi gets absorbed into shiva and he stands alone giving some rest to all souls from endless cycle of birth.

yajvan
23 April 2014, 05:01 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Let me ask this to the esteemed HDF reader... why is the advaitin term used ? One will immediately say, yajvan it means 'not two'. Those that follow the not-two ( non-dual) philosophy.

Yes, this we know... why not just say eva-itin ? ( eva = one ) - or those that follow the philosophy of the 'one'.

Why even bring in the notion of 'not two' - why mention two ?

any thoughts on this matter ?
iti śivaṁ

karthik
24 April 2014, 02:14 AM
hariḥ

Why even bring in the notion of 'not two' - why mention two ?

any thoughts on this matter ?
Because there are souls and God.Advaitians believe we become godlike at mukthi but dvaitians dont.

Amrut
25 April 2014, 12:58 AM
Namaste,

At mahApralaya, everything gets destroyed. The realized souls, be it any type of mutki mentioned in SAstra-s, they merge permanently in hari / hara or paramAtmAn. After that there is no rebirth. They suffer no pain at the time of dissolution says bhagavAn in gItA.

Everything, gross and subtle, is made up of 3 guNa-s which becomes dormant or say stay unmanifested. paramAtmAn is beyond three guNa-s (mAyA)

In case of kaivalya mukti after the body drops, one immediately attains this state and does not have to wait for mahApralaya.

Those great souls in company of hari / hara, do not feel any pain while the world is destroyed.

There is philosophical disagreement whether vaikunTha is destroyed or not.

The lOka or pada or dhAma is explained by vaiSNava AcArya-s as jyOti which means a state of consciousness (as mAdhva says in his gItA bhASya. mAdva further goes on to quote nArada purANa in support of his explanation of the word padam)

Adi Sankara in his prabOdh sudhAkara has quoted some verses from bhAgavat purANa. He says that each bramhANDa has it's own trinity - brahma, viShNu and maheSa / Sambhu.

So in this case, there is not just one viShNu. Naturally when brahmANDa is destroyed, everything merges into Brahman called by many names like nArAyaNa / Siva / paramAtman.

My understanding says that it is the association of viShNu with paramAtmAn that viShNu bhagavAna is glorified as Brahman. They all are permanently rooted in paramAtmAn.

Interestingly Adi Sankara in pra. su. goes on to say that Krishna is the descend of this very paramAtmAn i.e. paramAtmAn taking a particular form and trinity is under his sway.

He also says that krishNa is his ISTa devatA :)

The none difference between jIva and brahman is based to bhAga-tyAga laxaNa.

jIva DOES NOT BECOME Siva

jIva does not become Siva look-a-like :) ... and jIva does not retires original Siva ... and does not perform his task :)

Advaita supports vivarta vAda and not pariNAm vAda.

This is the most common mistake that many people do. There is no 'becoming'. Milk turning into curd does not apply here.

Infact one of the mukti-s mentioned in bhAgavat is sarupya. Perhaps someone can explain what exactly it is.

Regarding the question of OP.

kaivalya mukti is related to formless aspect of Brahman. If sAyujya mukti, as I understand would mean united with / merged with a personal form of supreme Godhead. If it is formless brahman, then I think there would be no difference in kaivalya and sAyujya.

OM

hinduism♥krishna
25 April 2014, 03:19 AM
There is philosophical disagreement whether vaikunTha is destroyed or not.

It is interesting to note that even in Bhagavata Purana there is not explicit mention of eternality of Vaikuntha Loka. It is considered as Salokata Moksha. But we have Vedanta. Vedanta says that everything which have form gets destroyed at final dissolution or after realisation of Brahman. The support is as Vedanta doesn't give any exception for this and Vaikuntha has a form as it has doors to enter. Vaikuntha is a sport of god Vishnu by his Maya. Devotees themselves created this Vaikuntha.


The lOka or pada or dhAma is explained by vaiSNava AcArya-s as jyOti which means a state of consciousness (as mAdhva says in his gItA bhASya. mAdva further goes on to quote nArada purANa in support of his explanation of the word padam)Shukadeva himself declares in concluding chapters of Bhagavata Purana [12.5.11] that self itself is the Absolute Abode. So I think, there's nothing to argue on this.


Adi Sankara in his prabOdh sudhAkara has quoted some verses from bhAgavat purANa. He says that each bramhANDa has it's own trinity - brahma, viShNu and maheSa / Sambhu.Interesting, I thought that Ai Shankara never commented on Bhagavata Purana. But I have one question- Why Shankaracharya never mentioned Bhagavata Purana in Upanishada & Gita Bhashya ?


Interestingly Adi Sankara in pra. su. goes on to say that Krishna is the descend of this very paramAtmAn i.e. paramAtmAn taking a particular form and trinity is under his sway.Yes, Sant Eknatha and Dnyaneshwara says the same. They say : Just as there is no difference between between Moon and its disc, there's no diffference between Brahman and Krishna. Paramatma hold a form through his own Maya. The defination of Ishwara is Holder/Ruler of Maya.


He also says that krishNa is his ISTa devatA :)That's why I call him Advaitian Vaishnawa. :) He was a clone of Sant Dnyaneshwar.


Advaita supports vivarta vAda and not pariNAm vAda.
What's Vivarta Vada ? Requesting to explain me.



Infact one of the mukti-s mentioned in bhAgavat is sarupya. Perhaps someone can explain what exactly it is.
All Muktis are mentioned by Bhagavata Purana. No doubt , Sayujyata/Kaivalya is the highest Moksha. Because Shukadeva himself declared in Bhagavata Purana ( 12.5.11) - "The aim of all Vedanta is the unity of Atma and Brahman and this is also narrated for the same reason. The goal of this Purana is Kaivalya Moksha." [From this we have concluded that Kaivalya is nothing but the unity of Atma and Brahman.]

Another quote from padma Purana:

In second adhyaya of bhagavatam mahatmya ,

Narada muni says:

सत्यदित्रीयुगे बोधवैरग्यी मुक्तीसाधकी
कली तु केवला भक्तिर्ब्रम्हसायुज्यकरीनी ।।

Meaning =
In satya dvapar and treta yuga there were knowledge and detachment to attain liberation but in kaliyuga only bhakti(devotion) can give bramhasayujya mukti (ie. unity of Brahman & Atma).

From this we came to know that bhakti is not the highest goal as some people think and sayujyata is the final supreme state .Devotion of lord krishna in oneness with him is the highest. Because only such devotion gives us the highest bliss bramhan.

Ther's no difference between Kaivalya and Sayujyata. Kaivalya is the state of truth where there is no second.

Read how Sant Eknatha describes four types of Moksha. It's really beautiful. Read this :


In bhagavat puran, Lord krishna says: My devotees surely, without mistake come to me only.

Those who have some personal aim, some selfish desire in the worship they do for me, have
to remain satisfied with the fruit of their desire which is as a Law given to them by me. But those who are unselfish reach total unity with me.

I always remove the desires of my devotees by fulfilling them once for all and make them
unselfish and then only I, the Supreme Person take them to my abode.

O Uddhava, it was in this way that fulfilling the sexual desires of Gopis I made them free of
that bondage, the desire which binds everybody, and gave them Sayujjya Liberation.

Without verifying whether I practised debauchery with them or I killed out their very desires, ignorant people criticize my behaviour and accuse me of adultery.

If my devotees like Salokata Liberation I take them to Vaikuntha. If my devotee wants
Sameepata, I have the pleasure of being their friend.

O Uddhava, as I like you because I want to talk friendly private things, sweet things in my
mind with you, so, similarly I love that devotee to have any time the sweetest dialogue.

If my devotee wants Saroopata, I give him four arms and give him the lotus etc and make his
as beautiful as dark cloud,

I give him crown, ear-rings, waist-band, yellow apparel with golden border, rings around
ankles, Kaustubh gem.

The shape of the body, virtues with their signs, courage, valour, serenity are also given,
which are similar to my ornaments, and he appears just like me in all respects.

If Laxmi, my spouse would look at us both, she would not be able to recognize me separately. My servants stop in their service because they cannot find out who is the devotee and who is the Lord -, myself.

The attendant who holds umbrella over my head is also confused if my devotee is with me,as to who is his Lord and who is the devotee. And the man who uses feathered fan (Chawri)
cannot make out whom he has to serve.

Brahma and other deities come to bow before me but they also cannot identify me and this
devotee.

We cannot know which is the first candle and which is the second candle lit by the flame of
one candle, similarly when the devotee attains SAROOPATA (identical appearance), others
cannot make out me separately.

Just as the image in the mirror being exactly similar to the object in front of it, we feel that
the image is itself the object, Saroopata is such similarity!

(Though the Lord gives this Saroopata to the devotee, he does not give him the Shreevatsa
sign, which is the symbol of the kick of the Brahmin Bhrugu).

The Lord Vishnu says � I have no power to give that imprint of the foot of the Brahmin on my chest to others. Only Brahmins can do so. If the devotee holds with faith in the heart, the feet of the Brahmin, he will get the sign by the grace of the Brahmin.

In this Saroopata state, the only difference is �Shreevatsa� imprint. He who has this is the Lord and the other is the devotee.

Though �Saroopata� state is gained there is still the notion of duality as �This is God and
That is his devotee�.


So as long as this notion remains in the mind of the devotee, the term Saroopata is not yet fully applicable. So long as the consciousness does not grasp the essential unity, the devotee
does not enjoy the highest bliss, the highest joy.

So wise devotee therefore does not seek only Saroopata. He prays for the final state of
Sayujjyata. I know the details of this extra ordinary state and now I shall tell you about it.

This ecstasy of this state is only known by myself. O Uddhava, I shall tell you!

Though the bodies of the devotee and the God are identical with each other, there is in the mind of the devotee, a sense of �I am� and �the God is separate from me�. So, wise people do not give much value to Saroopata�.

My devotees do not touch duality. They become one with me and that is itself the true and
highest worship of Me.

The devotees and the God are one and only one, eternally, ever perfectly united, but those
who create a sense of duality, are really to be considered as without devotion and bound by
Maya.

The categories of devotees are only within the field of Maya and only those who worship
me being united and undivided from me, attain Sayujjyata.

Sayujjyata is for them who feel same sympathy for the king and beggar

He who considers his body as false as our own shadow, seemingly attached to the body, and is not attached to it, reaches this state.

The shadow is born together with us, and is always with us, but generally, nobody feels
proud and says � �This is my shadow�. Similarly, one who is not disturbed by what happens
to his physical body reaches this Sayujjyata.

O Uddhava, please understand that he, faithfully, and devotedly worships me dropping all
his attachments to objects of senses.

This state can be reached only by a person, who does not see I-ness in his body, and You-
ness in any other Being.

O Uddhava, my consciousness and his consciousness are equally vast, and that is why he is
having Sayujjyata.

He has no desire that his body should look like Lord Vishnu. He knows that the body of Lord
Vishnu and his own body are unreal, and, therefore, he does not desire Saroopata.

If we ourselves think about this matter, we realize that any physical body as such is
everywhere unreal. Then where is the scope for similarity of appearance between man and
God? And how will any wise man pray for it?

When this state is achieved, the person does not find any place empty, where Brahman is
not. The definition of Sayujjyata is to see ourselves everywhere in every creature.

Such a person looks at thousands and thousands of figures and bodies by which the world is filled, but realizes that all this is within him, and he is unbroken, continuous universal
Atman.

One who feels that occupying everything in and out is himself, he is the Atman of all the
living and the non-living in all creatures, finds that this highest state is living with him in his
house.

Only the man, who has the concept that he is singly occupying the entire world without division can reach this state.

In short, I give my devotees everything that my devotees ask or wish for whatever they want
according to their natural thinking. So, as described, my devotee attains all the four
liberations.

There are other devotees also whom I love, whose power of devotional involvement is such
that they are always indulgent selflessly in my worship.

These great devotees do not care about the three types of devotion, in which the devotee is
in difficulty, or the devotee is inquisitive about Me or the devotee wants to achieve the
human perfections. They simply, without any motive and with great love always worship me.

They do not desire the stages of liberation known as Salokata, Sameepata, Saroopata and
even Sayujjyata but only selflessly worship Me and this is the real devotion.

The effect of worship is very miraculous. By love more love is created towards me and
every moment the joy of love goes on increasing.

Such a devotee, in the ecstasy, gives up his whole life but his trust in me is so great that he
does not care a bit, his mind is never sorry about anything given up in this way.

His confirmed faith makes him think that he himself and Me, as Atman and as God are permeating in every creature. This faith is never moved, is never spoiled though others may
make efforts to create doubt distrust and disbelief in him.

He is so great in his attitude that all men and women are for him, My living images and he has so much respect for Me dwelling in all these creatures that he offers salutations most humbly even to dogs and swine.

These devotees simply discard liberation, freedom at any level in the extreme force of their
emotions for me.

However great the calamity may be, they are not afraid, nor do they request others for any
help because they believe that all these calamities are nothing, faced with the din of the name
of Rama.

Such a devotee calmly continues to recite my name with love even if there is total catastrophe or the Earth may collapse before his eyes.

When I see such loyal one-pointed love I am won over by him and without considering his
caste or status I run to his home to meet him.

Such devotees have not to go to Vaikuntha. I make their home Vaikuntha itself. Then the
dawn of knowledge arises there and groups of saints begin to gather.

Upanishads make friends with them and Religion comes to stay happily with them. Further
such great devotees like Narada, Sanaka etc have great love for their Lord.

Such devotees loudly proclaim the importance of repeating the name of God, sing about my
fame with great love and as the name of Rama is ruling in their mind the troubles arising out
of pain and pleasure do not remain there.

When there is such devotion, the Atmic bliss runs with love towards them and forgets to
leave their house.

Every blemish which comes and tries to spoil their character actually becomes their virtue.
This is the complete happiness in my devotion.

All the four liberations come to serve them in their life and whatever objects these devotees
use or experience become part of the Sayujjyata, which is their servant.

Though all powers and all pleasures and capacities become their housemaids such devotee
does not turn their attention to them, their whole faith is in the devotion only.

I also love these devotees and whenever such devotee looks I myself become the object of
their sight.

I become the speech of such devotee. I live in and out of his speech in the form of the content
and the meaning of their sentences.

He may play with pebbles. I become the pebbles and I release from bondage of this worldly life of the man towards whom this devotee looks with grace and kindness.

I shower happiness wherever he glances and I myself uplift and take him to the highest state
that man about whom he intends to do so.

Even if such devotee is faced with slight nuisance I jump to remove that trouble. Not only
this but I release from bondage those people who recite the name of that devotee.

My care about these devotees is like the love of a mother for her little child. I do not hesitate
to do any work to serve them.

As the mother pampers her child I also do so in case of my devotees. I like their love for me
and various offerings in the performances of worship are not so important to me.

I am the body and he is my Atman. I like a devotee who loves me and all the greatness of
devotion reaches its limit in that love.

I love such devotee that I become a fortress to protect him from death.

To protect such devotees from Death and destruction, I guide them towards the path of
realisation of Absolute Brahman and bring them to the state of Unity with me so that they live
in the bliss of the Atman.

Amrut
25 April 2014, 09:35 AM
Interesting, I thought that Ai Shankara never commented on Bhagavata Purana. But I have one question- Why Shankaracharya never mentioned Bhagavata Purana in Upanishada & Gita Bhashya ?

Namaste HLK,

prasthAntrayI is vedAnta, which teaches us brahma-vidyA, the highest philosophical truth. Hence, in prasthAntraiyI bhASya, Adi Sankara had to establish Advaita as the supreme goal and ultimate purport of vedAnta. *Hence GYAna is focused. bhakti is for masses, hence it is focused in independent hymns and in prabOdh sudhAkara

Even in his viShNu sahasranAma bhASya, Adi Sankara does not quote bhAgavat purANa.

prabOdh sudhAkara is lesser known work and many works attributed to Adi Sankara, if they are not in line with the core philosophy are considered as of dubious authenticity.

I think bhAgavat purANa is also mentioned in svetaSvatara up. Sankara bhASya, again a case of dubious authenticity.

bhAgavat was not mentioned by rAmAnuja in his vedAnta samgrah (read somewhere). He only mentioned viShNu purANa.

I do not pay much attention towards these issues :)

Only God knows the truth :)


What's Vivarta Vada ? Requesting to explain me.vivarta vAda is explained by snake-rope analogy

In the night if someone sees a snake, but when one throws light on it, one knows that it is a rope.

Snake was illusion and existed only until rope was not seen (due to darkness).

When one sees rope, snake vanishes and does not leave any track.

When one rises beyond mAyA one experiences supreme brahman. One also realizes that there never was this world, jIva bhAva (when one is abiding in this state). There is only one supreme Brahman.

Since snake appeared, it cannot be asat. Since it vanishes (without leaving any trace like zig-zag movement marks), it cannot be eternal, hence not real.

So snake is mithyA, that which is neither real nor false. Snake is true only until it is seen and experienced. But in either case, the experiencer never vanishes. Snake is seen due to darkness (ignorance, avidyA), wrong notion and wrong perception. In the same way this world is seen and experienced as different from Brahman.

When light is thrown on snake, i.e. knowledge dawns, snake vanishes, mAyA runs away. One enters into non-dual bliss.

So world, mAyA is true only from POV of empirical reality, where there is duality (observer and object of observation). But from absolute reality, this world is not true, as it is negated in nirvikalp samadhi. Also the worlds are destroyed and hence cannot be technically considered as permanent.

Brahman is changeless, permanent, ever-present, undivided reality. Brahman is the only tatva that qualifies to be called as real, as per BG 2.16 (advaita interpretation)

So the lower reality is that is experienced under the influence of avidyA mAyA and absolute supreme reality is Brahman only.

In pariNAm vAda, there is irreversible reaction, which is permanent, like milk changing to curd.

OM

*added later

Lokavidu
25 April 2014, 12:00 PM
namaste to all members

@hinduism♥krishna:

on views about creation there are asat karya vada and sat karya vada.

asat karya vada: the effect is utterly non existent in the cause, it is creation from nothingness. (advaita vedanta doesn't support this)

sat karya vada: the effect is exist in potential form in the cause

there are parinama vada and vivarta vada in sat karya vada.

parinama vada: there is real transformation of cause becoming effect.
(ex: milk transforms to curd), advaitin doesn't support this

vivarta vada: it is a transformationless transformation.
ex: gold becomes ornaments like ring, bangle,etc
gold never becomes ring, in fact, ring is gold in the beginning, ring is only a name for a form...advaitin support this.

all thing is only existence. existence never becomes existence. it is only existence.. existence in the form of milk now as though becomes existence in the form of curd..

from existence stand point, there is never a creation, never a destruction.
so even vaikuntha is never created, never destroyed. it is like in front of gold, there is no ring and bangle...ring is gold only. when the ring is melted or destroyed, it is still gold only in different name and form, name and form is mithya only.

there is never a separation from brahman in the beginning, and there is never a dissolution or merge to brahman in the end.

hinduism♥krishna
27 April 2014, 10:09 AM
Dhanyavad Dhanyavad... Amrut & Lokavidu (btw what do you mean by Lokavidu)


So the lower reality is that is experienced under the influence of avidyA mAyA and absolute supreme reality is Brahman only.

Once you said that Maya is not Brahman, with which I'm not agreed. As per my view, Maya is not Brahman, isn't a part of Brahmavidya.

I would like to know, did Adi Shankara teach Maya is ultimately Brahman or not ? Sant Eknath proposes that Maya is none other than brahman itself and which has not any existence and after realisation Maya along with ignorance & knowledge merges in Brahman.

We face many problems when Maya is considered different from Brahman. If we consider it different from Brahman, then it implies that Maya is something other thing and has a separate existence. The definition all is Brahman is failed here. As per my view, Considering maya different from Brahman, one can not deny existence of Maya or call it mithya. When we say Maya is Bramhan, then only its existence can be denied. It is said that when one realises brahman, maya gets merged in Brahman. It is like Maya has now become Brahman.

All is bramhan at all times. Jiva is Bramhan even though he appears in Maya. When Brahman divides himself, he himself becomes world or Maya and Jiva. This is one of the principles of Brahman vidya. So I think in any case, Maya is Bramhan.

So my view, Maya is Brahman but Brahman is not Maya. This is the same thing like Shri Krishna's words of gita " I'm the world but I'm not in the word" It means though Maya is Bramhan I'm beyond Maya... :)

I belive that cause & effect & origin of these cause and effect (Brahman) , all these are one.

Shri Krishna is teaching brahmavidya to Uddhava :

“ahametatprasankhyanam….. bhavo vidyate kwachit “ (BP 11.16.38)

Meaning:
The Krishna said - I am the knowledge of these principles and the counting of them. I am the Jeeva, I am the God, I am the wielder of Gunas and I am the Gunas themselves; and without me, who am the Atman of all, there is nothing separate existing.

Jai Krishna.... :)

ShivaFan
27 April 2014, 12:37 PM
Namaste

Sarupya - Same form (Siddhi), Salokya - Residence in the same abode of (Vaidik), Sarshti - Same opulence as (Ganapatya and Shakta)), Samipya - Intimacy with (Vaisnav), Sayujya - merging with (Saiva).

In my "opinion", only the last and Sarshti are compatible with Advaita conclusions. Those who attain Samipya will be Dvaita and in order to serve will abhor the idea of Sayuja.

All are legit forms of Mukti, but not all are compatible with Advaita. Any of these can be realized in Kashi. However, in Kashi Lord Yamaraj is not allowed to enter for the purpose of dragging away souls. He can only come to give worship, but is the only Devata blocked from entrance by Bhairava if otherwise. Yamaraj established the Lingam called Dharmeshwara in Kashi.

Om Namah Sivaya

ShivaFan
27 April 2014, 01:05 PM
Namaste

Sarupya - Same form (Siddhi), Salokya - Residence in the same abode of (Vaidik), Sarshti - Same opulence as (Ganapatya and Shakta)), Samipya - Intimacy with (Vaisnav), Sayujya - merging with (Saiva).

In my "opinion", only the last and Sarshti are compatible with Advaita conclusions. Those who attain Samipya will be Dvaita and in order to serve will abhor the idea of Sayuja.

All are legit forms of Mukti, but not all are compatible with Advaita. Any of these can be realized in Kashi. However, in Kashi Lord Yamaraj is not allowed to enter for the purpose of dragging away souls. He can only come to give worship, but is the only Devata blocked from entrance by Bhairava if otherwise. Yamaraj established the Lingam called Dharmeshwara in Kashi.

Om Namah Sivaya
Namaste

However, in my observations, any of these Muktis are for any Sampradaya if they want or so teach. These are only "favoritisms". For example, I have discovered Vaishnavs who are not taking intimacy mukti but some other, and yes including Advaita.

My school teaches the last, merging, and is very Advaitic but I don't think it would be correct to associate that school with what is Advaita today by some modern schools.

Currently, I am not interested in merging, but without qualification mukti in any of these is easy in Kashi. Ganga embraces all. Also some consider mukti as always serving the Divine or the servants of the Lord as well.

Om Namah Sivaya

Amrut
28 April 2014, 12:14 AM
Namste HLK,

mAya is split into two

Brahman + avidyA mAyA = jIva
Brahman + (vidyA) mAyA = ISvara (vidyA mAyA is simply called as mAyA)

This is the basics of advaita.

Your doubt can be easily answered by snake-rope analogy.

Snake does not have independent existence.

Rope has independent existence

What we see as snake is nothing but rope only

But rope was not snake at any time

Hope you get the answer :)

---

Namaste SF ji :)

It is not propitiatory to say that vaiSNava do not like sayujya mukti. It might be a general observation. It take your word in right spirit.

There was Meerabai who merged into bhagavAn.

There are many vaiSNava saints and Saiva saints who are of liberal mindset. Their ISTa devatA will always be their chosen deity and they do have un- shaking faith in their chosen deity. They do not come into limelight.

For advaita, explanation related to Brahman and mukti is difficult because words can be intepreted in different ways.

The word 'merging' would mean an act of dissolving, which technically does not happen. It's difficult to explain. Taking in right spirit, we can understand what does it mean from advaita POV. But if we think that a soul, individual identity), actually merges in the body of a personal deity like caturbhUja viShNu then thing is different.

In advaita at any point of time,

You CANNOT negate your own self.
You CANNOT become non-existent.
There is no death of individual soul. Hence we speak of jIva being 'wrong notion'.

So advaita begins with the search of Self. It is an inner journey. Until the true nature is realized, we are still in duality and in vyavahArika plane. So tiny jIva with limited adjuncts and the dual world is existent for us. But, there is a conscious effort to know the true nature.

Something merges, something is destroyed, shows an act, a transformation, which advaita does not accept. But under ignorance, advaita does accept mAyA and this world as relative reality.

Since GYAna is not opposite to relative reality, relative reality is not negated after Self Realization. World appears as Brahman In simple words, world appears, but GYAnI knows that duality is illusion and in reality only Brahman only exist.

e.g. we experience sun veiled (covered) by clouds, but we know that sun is never veiled by clouds

e.g. we see horizon, meeting of earth and sky, but still we know the reality :)

Only avidyA is negated by GYAna, as they are opposite to each other. Knowledge and ignorance are of opposite nature.

avidyA mAyA is gone, but vidyA mAyA remains. If we do not consider this, then jIvanmukti cannot be explained. After prArabhdha is finished, body drops, one attains videh mukti, now there is no experience other than the Self / Brahman.

In simple words, jIva shruShTi is destroyed (within mind). ISvara shruShTi remains after GYAna.

Hari OM

devotee
28 April 2014, 02:51 AM
Namaste HLK,


[FONT="Georgia"]As per my view, Maya is not Brahman, isn't a part of Brahmavidya.

MAyA is the most difficult thing to understand and in my opinion, this is why we have six different schools arising from VedAnta. Therefore, such questions are quite valuable. In my understanding :

MAyA is power of Brahman which may be manifest or unmanifest. MAyA consists of two powers : a) Power of veiling the Reality i.e. Brahman b) Power of projection (creation) of this entire universe. MAyA is neither real nor unreal. It is not Real because Brahman never changes, it remains as it is in all times ... that is why though MAndukya Upanishad describes four parts of Brahman/Self but also says that Turiya i.e. the fourth is the Self which means that all the other three parts are actually unreal and imposed on the fourth. However, MAYA is real otherwise from where this creation would take place ?

This is very disturbing ! How can anything be real and also unreal at the same time ? If it is real then it is Brahman and if it is unreal then it doesn't actually exist. Now, that is the excellent power of Brahman which is not comparable with any example that this mind can understand. It is beyond logic and beyond all mental concepts. Why ? Brahman is what It is ... always peaceful, without any prapancham (disturbances) but still for Jeeva, there is universe, the Ishvara and everything associated with it. Let's understand that it is not that MAyA merges in Brahman on realisation. It is like dreaming ends for the dreamer. MAyA is beginingless ... it is not that it was born at a specific time. It ends ... but ends for the realised Jeeva and for "all others" it continues as ever.

MAyA is mithya. It is neither real nor unreal. It is a power which apparently acts and creates this universe and veils Brahman. MAyA has no existence apart from Brahman ... it is part and parcel of Brahman. Remember what Abhinava Gupta says, "Shiva and Shakti are not aware that they are separate. They are interconnected with each other as fire and warmth are interconnected." However, on Self-realisation, MAyA is not seen any where. It is Brahman alone ... utterly peaceful and blissful without any disturbances whatsoever. It is like power of mind to create dream-like situation and power is not seen when awake.

OM

kallol
28 April 2014, 04:45 AM
Om

My understanding

I feel the Maya is born with the subtle world and is out of the subtle world where the mind belongs. That is it belongs to mind.

Maya is the shape, form and other parameters which the subtle world / gross world senses can sense, identify or percieve. It is closely related to the senses. It is the one through we transact or identify ourselves

The manifestation of the Maya is different in the subtle and gross world. One looks like virtual and other provable in labs

As the unmanifestation happens from gross world to subtle world to pure Consciousness, the Maya also moves from gross senses to mind senses.

As in unmanifestation subtle world ceases to exist so with it the Maya also cease to exist. As it is born with / out of subtle wold, it does not exist in pure consciousness state.

So a Turiya state or pure consciousness there is nothing but pure consciousness.

Who am i
28 April 2014, 05:52 AM
Respected All

Thanks for all of your responses.It is really useful for spiritual newbies like me.Couple of questions based on responses on this thread.

1.In Kaivalya stage,will there be no trace of individuality (even 0.000001 ?)

2.While Bhagvat Gita is best non-duality scripture, why does 90% of Lord Krishna devotees follow duality based worship?( posting this as i want to know general opinion of members.My intention is not to compare both of them)

Thanks

Amrut
28 April 2014, 06:04 AM
Namaste,




1.In Kaivalya stage,will there be no trace of individuality (even 0.000001 ?)

Nope :)


2.While Bhagvat Gita is best non-duality scripture, why does 90% of Lord Krishna devotees follow duality based worship?( posting this as i want to know general opinion of members.My intention is not to compare both of them)


Don't ask. This may start another vAda-yuddha. HDF has seen many in the past.

Different acharyas interpret verses in different way, hence end up in different conclusions.

Let people follow their tradition.

Thanks

Who am i
28 April 2014, 06:11 AM
Amrut

Thanks,In that case i take back my 2nd question : )

ShivaFan
28 April 2014, 03:12 PM
Namaste SF ji

It is not propitiatory to say that vaiSNava do not like sayujya mukti. It might be a general observation. It take your word in right spirit.

There was Meerabai who merged into bhagavAn.

There are many vaiSNava saints and Saiva saints who are of liberal mindset. Their ISTa devatA will always be their chosen deity and they do have un- shaking faith in their chosen deity. They do not come into limelight.

For advaita, explanation related to Brahman and mukti is difficult because words can be intepreted in different ways.

The word 'merging' would mean an act of dissolving, which technically does not happen. It's difficult to explain. Taking in right spirit, we can understand what does it mean from advaita POV. But if we think that a soul, individual identity), actually merges in the body of a personal deity like caturbhUja viShNu then thing is different.

In advaita at any point of time,

You CANNOT negate your own self.
You CANNOT become non-existent.
There is no death of individual soul. Hence we speak of jIva being 'wrong notion'.

So advaita begins with the search of Self. It is an inner journey. Until the true nature is realized, we are still in duality and in vyavahArika plane. So tiny jIva with limited adjuncts and the dual world is existent for us. But, there is a conscious effort to know the true nature.

Something merges, something is destroyed, shows an act, a transformation, which advaita does not accept. But under ignorance, advaita does accept mAyA and this world as relative reality.

Since GYAna is not opposite to relative reality, relative reality is not negated after Self Realization. World appears as Brahman In simple words, world appears, but GYAnI knows that duality is illusion and in reality only Brahman only exist.

e.g. we experience sun veiled (covered) by clouds, but we know that sun is never veiled by clouds

e.g. we see horizon, meeting of earth and sky, but still we know the reality

Only avidyA is negated by GYAna, as they are opposite to each other. Knowledge and ignorance are of opposite nature.

avidyA mAyA is gone, but vidyA mAyA remains. If we do not consider this, then jIvanmukti cannot be explained. After prArabhdha is finished, body drops, one attains videh mukti, now there is no experience other than the Self / Brahman.

In simple words, jIva shruShTi is destroyed (within mind). ISvara shruShTi remains after GYAna.

Hari OM

Namaste Amrut,

A volume of rich and valuable material here that clarifies merging. We appreciate it!

The Tejobindu Upanishad notes Jivanmukti and Videha mukti (which you note), do you have comments on that?

Thank you!

Om Namah Sivaya

Amrut
28 April 2014, 11:29 PM
Namaste Amrut,

A volume of rich and valuable material here that clarifies merging. We appreciate it!

The Tejobindu Upanishad notes Jivanmukti and Videha mukti (which you note), do you have comments on that?

Thank you!

Om Namah Sivaya

Namaste SF ji,

I have collected verses related to jivanmukta and videh mukta here (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2014/01/jivan-mukta-and-videha-mukta-in-tejo.html)

They are found in fourth chapter. Astrojyoti link (http://www.astrojyoti.com/tejobinduupanishad-4.htm)

Technically there is no difference between a jivanmukta and videhmukta.

The only difference is the presence of physical body.

What I have understood is that all the verses talk about maun, which is atma sthiti

Some differences are

Jivan mukta

30(b)-31. He is said to be a Jivanmukta who cognises: ‘I am Brahman alone, I am Chit alone, I am the supreme’. No doubt need be entertained about this; ‘I am Hamsa itself, I remain of my own will, I can see myself through myself, I reign happy in the kingdom of Atman and enjoy in myself the bliss of my own Atman’.

videha mukta

34-37. He is a Videhamukta who remains in Chinmatra alone without (even) thinking thus: ‘I am all Atman, the Atman that is equal (or the same) in all, the pure, without one, the non-dual, the all, the self only, the birthless and the deathless – I am myself the undecaying Atman that is the object aimed at, the sporting, the silent, the blissful, the beloved and the bondless salvation – I am Brahman alone – I am Chit alone’.

38. He is a Videhamukta who having abandoned the thought: ‘I alone am the Brahman’ is filled with bliss.

videha mukti is about ajAta vAda, while jivan mukti is about vivarta vAda and neti-neti.

This difference between two is due to the fact that a jivan mukta is still in the physical body and so tries to explain mukti, while in case of videha mukti, he does not make an attempt to explain mukti

A jivan mukta will negate everything and say, I am Brahman.
A videha mukta will not even say - I am Brahman.

According to Sri Ramana Maharshi, there is no difference in experience of the internal state

OM

hinduism♥krishna
28 April 2014, 11:34 PM
Namaste,
Different acharyas interpret verses in different way, hence end up in different conclusions.

Thanks

I don't think so. Interpreting should be in line with translating verses as it is, otherwise it becomes a distortion. Bhagavata purana verses are crystal clear indicating unity of Atma & brahman.... Bhagavata purana is all about Advaita Bhakti focusing on Nirguna Krishna and sometimes on Saguna Krishna especially in 10th skandha.... Remember Krishna himself says " Such a realised person is himself a complete Brahman like me" Bhagavata purana teaches us to worship Hari as one's own Atma and as Nirakara Brahman. Shukadeva's last words to Parikshita - " You yourself is the god of all. You yourself is that supreme abode. You yourself is that Brahman. You should always see your self as one with this universe & brahman" That's the theme of Bhagavata purana. In the end Shukadeva teaches topmost Bhakti of Krishna which is none other than Nirguna Bhakti - Advaitian Vaishnawism.

Shri Krishna himself was an ideal Advaitian. Because in the chapter "Krishna's everyday life" it is said that Krishna used to meditate on Atma. He used to chant Gayatri mantra and worship all gods as one with his self.

Govinda Govinda...

Amrut
29 April 2014, 05:11 AM
HLK, I know you strongly believe in advaita and so do I. But what vaishnav acharyas have interpreted have interpreted. What can I do? :) There is also Abhinavgupta who has interpreted Gita.

Hari OM

Lokavidu
30 April 2014, 07:05 PM
Namaste all

Namaste HLk:
My name is in pali language, it means the knower ot the worlds.

Yes you are.right. all is only brahman. In front of brahman, there is no maya, no bondage, no mukti, no teacher, no student. Only consciousness.


In front of gold there is no golden ring, etc.
Maya's nature can only be maya or mithya also..
Maya and brahman are not in the same ontological order.
Maya cannot exist separate from brahman, brhman can exist indepedently

Maya is the power which make gold as though becoming golden ring. Gold never becomes ring since beginning, now or in the future. Only gold exist

If the effect is only mithya then.the.power is also mithya.

yajvan
03 May 2014, 07:52 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Let me ask this to the esteemed HDF reader... why is the advaitin term used ? One will immediately say, yajvan it means 'not two'. Those that follow the not-two ( non-dual) philosophy.

Yes, this we know... why not just say eva-itin ? ( eva = one ) - or those that follow the philosophy of the 'one'.

Why even bring in the notion of 'not two' - why mention two ?

I thought to offer some ideas on this... note this is a bit more subtler and some may or may not get it, and that is fine.

The term advaitin is aligned to advaita. This advaita = a+dvaita.

a = a prefix having negative or contrary sense ; we think of it as 'not'
dvaita = duplicity or duality. We see within this word dva which comes from its original stem of dvi = 2 .
Yet if we look just one more letter down we see the sound from 'd' and is sounded as 'da'.It is this 'da' that gives a deeper meaning. This 'da' means giving or producing. Its 3rd derivative is defined as 'the act of cutting off'. Herein lies the beauty. The notion of a+dvaita now takes on
the defintion of not + cut off , or not + divided.
See the sight difference ? Sure advaita can be seen as not two, but it is more richly looked at as 'not divided' without division, wholeness.

Let's go just a bit deeper... I offered

eva-itin ? ( eva = one ) - or those that follow the philosophy of the 'one'
We are told when you have lost the concept of 'two', 'one' also goes. Why so ? Because there is no other to have a relationship with to count and consider you are one. 'One' can only exist if there is two or more. So if this multiplicity is no more, then 'one' also goes.

Is there any support for this ? If we look to the 3rd chapter, 18th śloka of the avadhūta gīta¹ it suggests the following:

nirbhinna-binna-rahitaṁ paramārtha-tattvaṁ
antar bahir na hi kathaṁ paramārtha tattvaṁ |
prāk saṃbhavaṁ na ca rataṁ na hi vastu kiñcit
jñānāmṛtaṁ samarasaṁ gaganopam'ham ||

Let me just take a few words from this to point-out the idea...
It says that the true real state (tattva = true/reality) of the Supreme (paramārtha) or highest whole truth is without (rahitaṁ = without or free from) division or interruption (nirbhinna = nir = nis = without + bhinna = division or interruption) or division (binna).

Let's just stop here for this is a mouthful. We need to look at two words again to crack the code:

nirbhinna can mean undivided suggesting unity of divisions
bhinna -does not cause us any consternation here, as it it means division, variety or multiplicity - but it is key to look at the term interruption.We come to the insight that this paramārtha is so whole, so full, it is completely beyond any word... it is complete, whole and non-interrupted. The word for this non-interrupted is satatoditam = satata + udita :

satata = perpetual , continual , uninterrupted
udita = being high above, elevatedSo, what is my point to offer ? Even considering that this paramārtha is ~one~, it suggests the notion of unity and variety, and by this insight , it is even beyond ( completely without) this also.

It is a finer point but it then applauds the wisdom offered by those fully realized beings who offer the name of advaita ( a+dvaita) as most apropos term that gets one closer to the truth.

iti śivaṁ

1. authored by dattātreya-ji, the great sage.
avadhūta = a + va + dhū + ta - one who has shaken off worldly obligation

ameyAtmA
04 May 2014, 06:45 AM
Because there are souls and God.Advaitians believe we become godlike at mukthi but dvaitians dont.

Namaste,

So, if I read this carefully...

There are
1] souls
2] God

Advaitins believe :
"WE BECOME GOD-LIKE "

But not God ? So there is still
1] us
2] God

where is the advaita? :)

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

ameyAtmA
04 May 2014, 07:21 AM
|| Om namo bhgavate vAsudevAya ||

I shall merely share some experience, putting aside the cyclic act of trying to 'crack the shAstra code' via buddhi (intellect).

This morning this person was gone. lost. dissolved. 'Someone' was feeling really deeply restful, relaxed. But it was not an active intellect-level observation. There was no one (no buddhi or manas) around to contest "Wait, keep holding ShyAm's hand" because this 'someone' knows there is no seperation of Shri KRshNa and I. I is VAsudev. I is me.

Last evening this same 'someone' came singing KRshNa's bhajan on the bus. Just softly, but there was one man who kept staring. Although the awareness of this external man had entered the consciousness, it did not trigger any thought or action or attitude. So the world was seen, but with some indifference, only intervening (or coming to surface) when necessary.

A few hours before that the same 'someone' was engrossed in vyavahAric world and nobody noticed that this 'someone' is 'TWO IN ONE' (ShyAm and me) , but this was subconscious.

But the same day in the morning on the bus, the 'someone' was actively 'TWO' and interacting internally with ShyAmsundar as always, and again no one had a clue they are 'TWO IN ONE'.

At all these times, the sAkshi inside, that 'someone', was peacefully in love with everyone, and free to be none or one and free to be two whenever they were two. Is this state constant (achala) - like it is for Achyuta (KRshNa) ? We don't know.

For all practical purposes, this is advaita dear friends. At the very same time this IS bhAgvat dharma or vaishNav dharma.

You are free to be the police and find faults. OR
You are free to love everyone and everything either consciously or subconsciously or superconsciously ; either actively or passively ; either with difference or indifferently ; either caring about the protocols or not.

'Someone' does not worry about when to do what because 'someone' has handed these controls and keys back to the beautiful Lotus Eyed ShyAm - your AtmA within. He keeps His shAstric promises.

This is the key apparently: Just let go. Don't try to control the world.

govindAya namo namah

yajvan
04 May 2014, 02:38 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Namaste,

So, if I read this carefully...

There are
1] souls
2] God

Advaitins believe :
"WE BECOME GOD-LIKE "

But not God ? So there is still
1] us
2] God

where is the advaita? :)


If I read and comprehend your post correctly, I'd offer this...

There is no difference between soul and God; we do not become god-like. There is no us and Him. Where do I get my support for this?
It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) this Supreme independent (svātantrya) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form¹.
But the form of what? It is the 'form' of everything.
This implies that solid ( body) or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this is the Supreme, Brahman.

iti śivaṁ

1. śiva sūtra-s , 1st verse.

ameyAtmA
30 June 2014, 12:47 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


If I read and comprehend your post correctly, I'd offer this...

There is no difference between soul and God; we do not become god-like. There is no us and Him. Where do I get my support for this?
It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) this Supreme independent (svātantrya) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form¹.
But the form of what? It is the 'form' of everything.
This implies that solid ( body) or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this is the Supreme, Brahman.

iti śivaṁ

1. śiva sūtra-s , 1st verse.


Namaste,

Thank You for the explanation. I agree :) I was just picking on Karthik for using those words casually the way he did.

hinduism♥krishna
03 July 2014, 04:55 AM
A jivan mukta will negate everything and say, I am Brahman. A videha mukta will not even say - I am Brahman.

According to Sri Ramana Maharshi, there is no difference in experience of the internal state




One question here. Does JivanMukta has a feeling of I am Brahman? If yes, then I don't think that there's not difference between Jivan and Videha mukta. I would call a state of Jivan Mukta as Brahmabhava, touching with Brahman's bliss, but not as a Brahmabhuta which is state wherein even feeling of I'm brahman also gets vanished. Then what remains completeness of Brahman. It is the state where Brahman itself doesn't know what's Brahman.

I may be wrong, Jivan Mukta who has still I, experiences Brahman however videha mukta becomes Brahman himself. Feeling of I'm Brahman is not a state of becoming Brahman.

Amrut
03 July 2014, 05:21 AM
One question here. Does JivanMukta has a feeling of I am Brahman? If yes, then I don't think that there's not difference between Jivan and Videha mukta. I would call a state of Jivan Mukta as Brahmabhava, touching with Brahman's bliss, but not as a Brahmabhuta which is state wherein even feeling of I'm brahman also gets vanished. Then what remains completeness of Brahman. It is the state where Brahman itself doesn't know what's Brahman.

I may be wrong, Jivan Mukta who has still I, experiences Brahman however videha mukta becomes Brahman himself. Feeling of I'm Brahman is not a state of becoming Brahman.

Namaste HLK,

See, in advaita, there is no 'I' an dhence there is no duality. So in advaita there cannot be any teaching. How can one teach? s/he has to keep a pseudo ego. ISvara himself sends realized soul down to preach.

When not teaching anyone, one is absorbed in non-dual brahman. Maun is the only experience that is capable of describing brahman. But by being maun one cannot teach everybody.

Rest words are just relative. They are said in the same way as the shruti-vacans which describe non-duality.

Technically there is no difference in the experience of both.

Hari OM

hinduism♥krishna
03 July 2014, 06:26 AM
Namaste HLK,

See, in advaita, there is no 'I' an dhence there is no duality. So in advaita there cannot be any teaching. How can one teach? s/he has to keep a pseudo ego. ISvara himself sends realized soul down to preach.

When not teaching anyone, one is absorbed in non-dual brahman. Maun is the only experience that is capable of describing brahman. But by being maun one cannot teach everybody.

Rest words are just relative. They are said in the same way as the shruti-vacans which describe non-duality.

Technically there is no difference in the experience of both.

Hari OM

These Shastras and Puranas are subjects of Ignorant people and Vedas had to come at the level of Ignorant man, thinking according to Maya. Veda's secret is that it does nothing yet people think Veda gives Moksha. It's just a great illusion. See how mysterious this is, without doing anything it removes Maya. It uses Maya itself to remove Maya. It's just like removing one thorn by another thorn. Veda cleverly assume dualities and in the end merging all dualities in the Brahman becomes quite, without saying what actually is Brahman.

These all discourses , bhashya, theories of all sages and sants are ultimately false. Because this Brahman is not in scope of Speech. It always different from described imagined words. This doesn't mean that those sages or sant were not realised. The fact is that they already knew that this Brahman is out of the scope of speech. They discoursed counterpart of Ignorance, which is knowledge itself and this knowledge is as false as Ignorance. Whatever spoken by speech is always false. If there's not even Advaita, how can someone explain it in speech by logics or anuman. Never !

Amrut
03 July 2014, 07:54 AM
These Shastras and Puranas are subjects of Ignorant people and Vedas had to come at the level of Ignorant man, thinking according to Maya. Veda's secret is that it does nothing yet people think Veda gives Moksha. It's just a great illusion. See how mysterious this is, without doing anything it removes Maya. It uses Maya itself to remove Maya. It's just like removing one thorn by another thorn. Veda cleverly assume dualities and in the end merging all dualities in the Brahman becomes quite, without saying what actually is Brahman.

These all discourses , bhashya, theories of all sages and sants are ultimately false. Because this Brahman is not in scope of Speech. It always different from described imagined words. This doesn't mean that those sages or sant were not realised. The fact is that they already knew that this Brahman is out of the scope of speech. They discoursed counterpart of Ignorance, which is knowledge itself and this knowledge is as false as Ignorance. Whatever spoken by speech is always false. If there's not even Advaita, how can someone explain it in speech by logics or anuman. Never !

Namaste,

What you say is correct, but sounds good from the mouth of GYAnI-s. As I am under ignorance, I will prefer to dive deep within and rise above duality and mAyA. SAstra-s are an authority on 'who to rise above mAyA'.

I prefer to sound positive and hence I like the way of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

Hari OM