Eastern Mind
22 September 2011, 03:08 PM
Hi,
I try to make the heart of this question of mine as understandable as possible.
What does advaita (oneness, not-two) really mean? Could you explain it, please?
What happens to jivas after liberation according to advaita vedanta?
Do jivas lose their identity, individuality, etc becoming one with Siva? Or
Can they become One with Siva and yet preserve their individuality?
But if they preserve their individuality then it is dvaita, isn't it?
One friends says that if jivas lose their individuality when become One with Shiva it means jivas 'perish' but how could one that is not born 'perish'? Or if they perish it means they would not even know they are liberated...
So he says they remain individual entities after liberation as well but their conscioussness is in harmony with Siva and this harmony is called Oneness (advaita).
Hoping I was able to write out this question in a way that others can also understand it. :)
I do appreciate every answer. Thanks in advance.
Vannakkam adevotee: I guess we won't really know until we get there, (nirvikalpa samadhi) but here is what I understand philosophically.
All is Siva (Brahman) . Pieces (souls) naturally break off. After a process, they return to Brahman. So for awhile they may appear separate.
One analogy I've heard used is the ocean, and the water cycle. Water evaporates, becoming separated from the source, the ocean. Each water droplet is likened to the soul. But eventually through the river of life, circle of reincarnation, going down small streams, rivers, etc, this water droplet merges back to the source, merging forever from whence it came.
What you and your friend are having is the classic monist-pluralist or advaita-dvaita discussion.
There are some confusing words from English involved at both ends of this circle in the argument. Creation/emanation/spewing forth/ becoming separated is one area and dissolving/merging/ending/perishing is the other. There are probably a few more words for these two processes in translations.
Aum Namasivaya
Ananda
22 September 2011, 10:32 PM
Hello adevotee108,
What does advaita (oneness, not-two) really mean? Could you explain it, please?
Well, there are (atleast) two answers for your question. It means that everything is brahman, or śiva (ie only brahman exists- there is no second thing), and also that brahman and the atman are identical (so therefore, they are not two (dvaita)).
Do jivas lose their identity, individuality, etc becoming one with Siva? Or
Can they become One with Siva and yet preserve their individuality?
Let's take a closer look at your questions here. Your questions assume there is a difference in identity between the jiva and śiva and that therefore when the jiva 'becomes one' with śiva its identity changes to something else (or is destroyed or lost).
What is the nature or identity of the jiva? According to advaita, the identity of the jiva is śiva, but this fact is not apparent for as long as incidental attributes belonging to objects (ie body and mind) are continuously superimposed onto the subject due to lack of discrimination between the two. The subject is the atman- the very essence of the jiva. Through discrimination one separates all of the superimposed attributes that constitute the atma's limitations as the jiva from the atman itself and it then manifests as its true form, śiva. To illustrate;
...And hence it is that everyone superimposes every kind of activity, which really belongs to the name of realm and form, onto the Self, and superimpose the property of light (which really belongs to the Self alone) onto name and form. And since people superimpose name and form onto the Self, they become utterly confused with fancies such as 'This is my Self' , 'No, it is not of that nature' , 'It is capable of action', 'No, it is not capable of action', 'It is pure', 'It is not pure', 'It is in bondage', 'It is free', 'It is motioneless', 'It goes', 'It comes', 'It exists', 'It does not exist'. - Brihadaranyaka Bhasya of Shankara. IV.iii.7
As another poster has pointed out, one does not 'become one with śiva', because one is śiva! All talks of becoming liberated, and becoming one with śiva, are meant figuratively (and from the point of view of ignorance). To illustrate this there is the story of the woman who 'loses' her necklace, and then goes around looking for it. She becomes very sad about losing the necklace, and goes asking people to help her find it. Just then, somebody points out that the necklace she has lost is around her neck- the woman had simply forgotten that she was still wearing it when she went to put it on! With great relief, she says 'I have found my necklace after having lost it!', when, in fact she had never lost it, she had simply forgotten it was there already. In this illustration, the woman never really lost or found the necklace, but her mistaken idea that she had lost it created in her the impression that she really had, and therefore when she did realize her mistake there was a palpable sense of having found it again, even though this too is not really true.
In the same way, bondage and liberation (or 'separation' and 'becoming one' again) are not really true because the Self is ever free. But for those who firmly identify with their limiting adjuncts (ie the body and the mind) there arises in them the strong impression of being a limited jiva, separate from God, submerged in wordly experience and in need of liberation. This is what the Shruti is there for, and that is what the Teacher is for- guiding towards 'liberation' by pointing out the mistake in identifying with the limiting adjuncts in the first place;
This 'conjunction' of the Knower of the Field (subject/atman) and the Field (object) is essentially superimposition, of the nature of wrong knowledge. It is, however, possible to separate out the Knower of the Field, as the inner fibres of a piece of munja grass may be separated from its outer stalk. It can then be known as we have defined it, through a discriminative knowledge of of the Knower of the Field, acquired in the manner already described. It is then possible to be aware of the Absolute, that which we are here to know, void of all apparent conditioning adjuncts, as expressed in the formula 'It is not said to be either real or unreal'. Whoever does this acquires the clear conviction that the non-existent is appearing as if existent, like elephants conjured forth by magic, or like dream-visions or cloud-palaces. And, in the case of one in whom this clear vision has arisen, wrong knowledge (superimposition) disappears, because it is in contradiction with right knowledge, and because its origin (non-discrimination) has been removed.- Shankara, Bh.G.Bh. XIII.26
Essentially, with the help of the teacher and the methods of self-enquiry set out by Vedanta, this non -discrimination between the Self and the limiting adjuncts which is the cause of all wrong views pertaining to oneself (such as I am born, I am in bondage, I am a limited individual, God is other, I am enlightened etc) is uprooted by right knowledge. This right knowledge is in the form of the re-cognition of what has always been true, of what I always have been, that of 'I am brahman'. This brahman is never bound, and so is beyond the necessity for liberation, and, therefore, all those views to the contrary such as needing to become enlightened, being limited etc are relative and have import only in the domain of ignorance. From the standpoint of the highest truth, those notions are nothing more than palaces in the sky.
To answer your first question, then, the identity of the jiva is śiva- it does not become śiva, nor become one with śiva. The only thing that is lost or destroyed in 'enlightenment' are the notions which cover this fact, the false ideas which make the jiva and śiva seem different!
To answer your second question; the true nature of the jiva is not individual, since it is śiva which all-pervading, one without a second (advaita). Individuality pertains only to the body/mind and its constituents, not to the atman which is what the jiva actually is. When you say 'individuality' what you are really referring to are qualities and attributes pertaining to either the body or the mind, which are falsely being attributed to the jiva, to the atman- that is superimposition. If you remove this superimposition by discerning the atman, the subject, from every object of knowledge, then you will see directly that the atman is not limited or demarcated by the body and mind in any way, and that it is infact all-pervading awareness containing all bodies and minds. We can say, in a sense, that the jiva is a conglomeration of the Self and the body/mind through superimposition, and that therefore it doesn't really exist, but this is imprecise because the root of the notions 'I' and 'I know' pertain to a conscious subject (ie atman), and not a non-existence or inert (non-conscious) matter. So, therefore, the jiva is none other than the atman when it is covered over by the confusion of superimposition.
What happens to jivas after liberation according to advaita vedanta?
This is a difficult question to answer. From the point of view of one who is not 'enlightened'- from the point of view of one who sees himself as a limited person, a body/mind, he sees other body/minds as distinct individual selves, and therefore he sees others who can be enlightened or not enlightened. Since this one sees others who are or aren't enlighted, the ones which he sees called 'enlightened' are still individuals with bodies and minds like the unenlightened. However, the enlightened ones don't seem to suffer like others do- they are serene, at peace, wise. The enlightened ones aren't selfish, they are morally superlative in all respects. From the point of view of an unenlightened person, an enlightened person has become one with God, and therefore his soul or his atman won't reincarnate again once his body dies.
From the point of view of the enlightened one, there are no other selves which are or are not enlightened. For the jnani, he is not a jnani, he is brahman only. He is never liberated because he was never bound. He does not see himself as his body or his mind- he sees the body and mind as equally as he sees other bodies and minds; they all appear within him, he does not own one more than another, he does not possess. The jnani is brahman, he has not become something else, he has never transmigrated, he has never reincarnated; his atman cannot travel anywhere, because it is not limited in terms of time and space. He will not go anywhere when the body dies, because he is not inside of the body; the body is inside of him, as are all the bodies as pots contained in the one all-pervading space. There is no 'before' or 'after' for the jnani, since he is eternal and there is no sequence of cause and effect within him. There is no birth, no death, no ignorance and no liberation- all of this is the fancy of maya, from which he is utterly free.
As you see, then, the question 'what happens to the jiva after liberation?' can not be asked from the standpoint of liberation, since it no longer makes any sense.
One friends says that if jivas lose their individuality when become One with Shiva it means jivas 'perish' but how could one that is not born 'perish'?
The only thing that perishes is false knowledge.
So he says they remain individual entities after liberation as well but their conscioussness is in harmony with Siva and this harmony is called Oneness (advaita).
That is not the advaita view.
My friend says jivas cannot become 100% one with Siva even after liberation because becoming one with Siva would mean losing their individuality and losing individuality would mean the jivas' death but as they were never born they cannot die either -> they can't become one with shiva.
Individuality is not the true nature of the jiva. Your friend has overlooked this fact. The true nature of the jiva is atman- the sense of limitedness pertaining to individuality is a consequence of wrong knowledge, of superimposing the attributes of objects (ie the body/mind) onto the subject (ie the Knower of them, the atman). Your friend would be correct if it were true that the jiva is nothing over and above individuality, but this is not true, since the jiva 'survives' the process of discrimination and removal of superimposition. It survives because its Self, its atman, is brahman.
Your friend assumes from the outset that there is a duality between the Self and śiva, and that therefore the Self must always be limited as an individual. It is on the basis of this assumption that his nice reasoning proceeds, however, the assumption is false, and therefore so is his reasoning.
So according to my friend advaita does not really mean total oneness with shiva losing individuality of jivas but advaita means the harmony between the jivas' consciousness and Siva.
Advaita means identity, it does not mean harmony. Harmony between two distinct entities means a relationship, a duality, therefore not Advaita. Your friend is basically saying 'advaita doesn't mean advaita', which is amusing.
Understand that if there is 'oneness' ie not-two, then there is only one entity that exists ie śiva, and therefore the Self of the jiva is śiva. There cannot be any distinction between the two entities, nor can one entity merge into another or separate from another. There is no one becoming another, there is simply śiva who is one's own Self, and appearing as this whole universe, including all of our wrong views about him! There aren't two consciousnesses, and nor is consciousness a possessive attribute that the jiva or śiva has. Consciousness is the very essence of oneself, and it cannot be multiple or split into individual parts because it is not an object (it does not pertain to the 'Field'). It is instead of the nature of the Subject, the Sakshi (or witnessing awareness) through which one has knowledge of objects which appear, through the limiting adjuncts, to be other than oneself, thus giving rise to the contrary notions of 'I', 'you', and 'this' respectively.
Hope I've helped.
:)
Hello Eastern Mind,
One analogy I've heard used is the ocean, and the water cycle. Water evaporates, becoming separated from the source, the ocean. Each water droplet is likened to the soul. But eventually through the river of life, circle of reincarnation, going down small streams, rivers, etc, this water droplet merges back to the source, merging forever from whence it came.
From where did you hear this analogy? Is it supposed to represent the advaita view? If so it doesn't do a very good job!
If we call ocean, droplet and streams name and form of water, then what is the advaita view here? The view is 'all is water only'. The whole charade of water from the ocean evaporating and being deposited as streams to merge with the ocean again is all maya- the viewpoint from name and form only. Water remains water, whether it be in the form of the ocean, the droplet or the streams. In this analogy, the water is brahman, all apparent transformations are maya, and therefore the atman 'droplet' is no droplet at all, it is simply water being discussed in terms name and form, in terms of maya. From the highest standpoint of the water here, there is no such thing as ocean, droplet or streams, there is just water. Translating this, there is no distinction within brahman by which an atman could separate and then merge back into it, the atman and brahman are forever identical.
People like to use the ocean analogy so much, but I think it is rather misunderstood. An ocean, despite its vastness and greatness compared to a drop of water, is still in the realm of name and form. The nature or identity of the ocean and the droplet are completely identical because they are both water. The analogy does not represent a droplet merging with the ocean when understood correctly, it represents the identity of the ocean and the droplet through the negation of superimposed attributes (name and form) by the understanding 'all this is water only'. In the same way, there is no merging of a separate atman into a greater brahman, since any notions of size pertaining to either are mutually limiting for both of them, and brahman is by nature said to be without limitations!
We might say that the droplet represents the jiva under bondage, and the ocean represents Isvara who rules over the jiva and is himself ever free. But this view is limited and relative to the domain of self-ignorance. Furthermore, since the jiva under bondage cannot be equivalent to the Isvara who is his ruler and who is not bound, objections in the form of 'both cease to exist' when there is a merger of the two are apt, and this is, no doubt, why so many people misunderstand the advaita view. The bound jiva will not merge into the Isvara- no, they are mutually exclusive from the relative standpoint. But what is the higher standpoint? It is that the jiva is not bound, it is not a droplet, but it is instead the atman whose nature is identical to brahman but appears otherwise for as long as the name and form is being superimposed on it. Then, what is the Isvara, the ocean? This too, is only water, brahman, again Isvara is sensible from the standpoint of superimposition only. If the Self is covered by name and form, then it appears limited like a droplet, and therefore logically it follows that there is an entity which is less limited, and which is the ruler, like the ocean.
Through discriminative self-enquiry the nature of both the jiva and Isvara is recognised, both being identical as brahman. Hence, sarvam khalv idam brahma.
:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.