True meaning of Oneness according to advaita? Jiva (Atman)-Brahman relation.

[adevotee108]

What does "being ONE with the Brahman" mean in fact?

Are jivas already ONE with and the SAME as It is even while jivas have their physical bodies?

Do jivas reach Oneness with it after enlighment?

What does 'advaita' (=not two) mean in this jiva (atman) - Brahman relation mean?

Is the following description true for the meaning of Oneness in advaita view:

Brahman is the Sun and jivas are its rays. So their (jivas') essence is the same and one as that of Brahman, yet Brahman (Sun) is the source, It gives the power.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté & hello adevotee108

Welcome to HDF. We will be happy to address your questions. Let me offer this ; it is our custom here to say hello and greet the reader... then upon leaving saying thank you or goodbye or what ever is appropriate. You will find this is a good way to engage the reader and stimulate positive responses.

We are simple people and take some happiness in these easy practices .

praṇām

[adevotee108]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté & hello adevotee108

Welcome to HDF. We will be happy to address your questions. Let me offer this ; it is our custom here to say hello and greet the reader... then upon leaving saying thank you or goodbye or what ever is appropriate. You will find this is a good way to engage the reader and stimulate positive responses.

We are simple people and take some happiness in these easy practices .

praṇām

Namaste,

I'm really sorry for being impolite in my earlier post. You are just right and thank you for pointing this out so straightforward and simply. In fact, I am happy to see this kind of attitude here because this makes this online community more personal this way, right? :)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté & hello adevotee108


Namaste,
this makes this online community more personal this way, right? :)

Yes, what you say is correct for HDF. Many spend time to make the site easy to be in; then the knowledge flows.

So, with the next post let me offer an idea or two for your kind consideration.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté adevotee108

Let me offer a few ideas ... you have asked good questions and I ask others to contribute as they see fit.

Note this is not considered entry level knowledge and takes some time getting used to it. So, let's start here:

jīva - is a living being; some say a being that cycles through birth and death. It is para-brahman that makes a jīva possible yet is beyond this limit.
Now within jīva ( this living being) is ātmavān and is equal to śrutipāramgataḥ meaning :
resides (gataḥ) + farther than , beyond (pāram) + that which is heard or communicated (śruti). So within us we are this fullness of para-brahman aforementioned.

When you say 'do jīva-s reach oneness with it after enlightenment ? ' - The answer is yes and no. It is 'no' because we are one with it already and there is no reaching... and it is 'yes' from the standpoint of our view now, as if there is another state. This is the hardest thing to get hold of in one's mind. We are IT ( tad-ekam) already.

It is like the space we find in a jar. We break the jar and the space is now merged with all the other space.... Yet it has always been space, never contained. And more so ( here's the brain cramp part) - the space holds the jar, and not the other way around. If there was no space ( we call ākāśa ) where could a jar reside? Every atom , every particle of the jar is residing in space... yet we think the empty space is in the jar.

We too are no different then the jar - permiated by the space ( in this analogy) brahman. There is no thing it is not. So if one says I am going from jīva to brahman, where is the traveling if both things are the same ?

This whole thinking now becomes that of pratyabhijñāhṛdayaṁ - a very big word that means the re-recognition of ones Self. No one needs to go any where, but needs to just remember who we are (really).

So let me stop here for a moment so you can collect your thoughts and others can respond. If this line of thinking is interesting we can take it a bit further in another post.

praṇām

[Friend from the West]

Hari OM

Namaste and welcome aDevotee108,

I shall defer the knowledge portion to other Divine portions, aDevotee. I will not defer privilege to say most welcome. Hope you enjoy your stay here and will look forward to seeing you around.

Om Shanti

FFTW

[kallol]

Welcome aDevotee108 to this forum.

Your question will spark an excitement amongst the forum followers. Though similar questions have come up now and then but to delve on such topics are always a pleasure.

However it may do you good if you can go through similar threads in Uttara or Advaita (under philosophy) sections.

Please post the question in relevant section where lots of traffic is there.

[Ananda]

Hello adevotee108,


Welcome to the forum.


There was a thread quite recently in which very similar questions were asked, perhaps you will find it helpful;

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8210 (http://http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8210)


Edit- I realized that you are the same author of the previous thread with the very similar questions! Were the answers given there not satisfactory? Is there some part in particular that you are struggling to understand and require clarification of? Do let us know!



What does "being ONE with the Brahman" mean in fact?


It means that one's own Self (atman) is identical in nature with Brahman- the two words relate to the same entity or reality.



Are jivas already ONE with and the SAME as It is even while jivas have their physical bodies?

The essence of the jiva, the atman, is in reality already Brahman, but it appears as all the jivas when through ignorance the qualities and attributes pertaining to individuality (egotism) ie the body\mind are superimposed onto it. There is only one atman, but it appears as many when it is not fully known. Everybody intuitively knows their own Self, but its actual nature is unclear to most because it is confused and identified with the body and such, so there is only a partial knowledge.



Do jivas reach Oneness with it after enlighment?


No. The identity of the Self and Brahman is an already established fact, it need not be brought about anew, nor can it be; it is only for lack of knowledge that any difference is perceived and believed in. When knowledge of the identity of one's Self and Brahman arises through the help of Vedanta then the ignorance of separateness is dispelled, and the previous apparent limitations are done away with, for all is seen to be but Brahman.



What does 'advaita' (=not two) mean in this jiva (atman) - Brahman relation mean?


There is no relation between atman and Brahman, for they are one and the same, and a relation is only possible between two distinct, different things. Advaita, not two, is the denial of relationships- there is only the one Self, Brahman, it is all that is, and it is you. Advaita means identity, going beyond all limitations resulting from relations, and the suffering that comes from those limitations.



Brahman is the Sun and jivas are its rays. So their (jivas') essence is the same and one as that of Brahman, yet Brahman (Sun) is the source, It gives the power.

This may be adequate at a certain point, but it is not a view representative of the higher standpoints expressed in advaita. To extend the analogy, let us say that the Sun is a name and form, and that the rays are name and form, also. The rays proceed from and are not independent of the Sun. What is the essence of both the Sun and its rays? Let us say, light and heat. The Sun is light and heat, the rays are light and heat. The reality of both is light and heat. Now, if we remove the name and the form 'Sun' and 'ray', what remains is light and heat, the reality of both- with nothing lost.

To explain the analogy, the light and heat is Brahman. The Sun and its rays we can say are Ishwara and the jivas. Ishwara and jivas are Brahman seen from the standpoint of name and form. Brahman is the essence and identity of both Ishwara and the jivas. If we go beyond name and form, maayaa, what exists is the reality alone, Brahman, without the differentiation of name and form. You are it, I am it, there is only that. To go beyond the name and form, the superimposition, is to get the knowledge of the identity of the Self and Brahman, which is moksha.


The common analogy of the ocean and the droplet which is often brought up to discuss the relationship of atman and Brahman was used in the thread I have linked above. I will quote the relevant part which I posted there since it is quite similar to the analogy you have introduced here in your thread.



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.





Hope I've helped.




:)

[adevotee108]

Dear All,

Thank You so much for your great help!
I had begun another very similar thread, yeah, but that time I myself was simply unable to clarify the questions. So I needed to left it at that.

BUT the replies I have received so far in this present thread are really more meaningful and more understandable to me, too.
Of course, I am thankful for the answers in the earlier thread, too, I just was not able to really get the meaning and I needed to modify my own questions in the meantime as well.

You have made certain points much more clearer this time. Thank you very much. :)

[Ananda]

Hello adevotee108,



I'm very glad we helped!


Don't hesitate to post again if you want further clarification later down the line; advaita is very complex and rather intimidating at first glance.






:)

[adevotee108]

Hello adevotee108,



I'm very glad we helped!


Don't hesitate to post again if you want further clarification later down the line; advaita is very complex and rather intimidating at first glance.


:)


Hello Ananda,

I am reading through again and again what you all have reeplied in the thread so that I can understand it deeper. Then I will come back with furthere possible questions if they arise. And of course, I am really interested in this advaita view, especially after gaining a bit more of clarification. So if you or anyone alse have more to share related to the specific questions, I am happy to receive them, too.


Thank you and to others as well for this attitude.



Now, I admit, I feel ashamed because of the way I started here... Sorry for that.

[adevotee108]

Namaste,

Thank you for your replies. They are really helpful to me.

Other questions that have arisen are the followings:

What is the role / place of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva within the advaita view?
Are they the same or not?
Can any of them be one's ishta devata?

As far as I have understood vaishnavism is rather dvaita and shaivism is advaita.
Is this general or ...?

Thank you for your insights.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I wrote in post 5 above,


जीव jīva living , existing , alive ; living by
jīvātman - is the living soul
We know words are not offered by the wise in a random manner. There is always a more significant meaning , and this also applies to jīva.

We can look at this word this way ji +iva ( note that i + i = long i or ī )
Now we have something interesting to consider.

ji - to conquer, to be victorious. Yet if we go further this 'ji' can also be considered 'jai'.
This 'jai' is to perish. You see how this is possible ? if one is conquered they have ~perished~, that is the connection. Yet part of this word 'jai' has 'ja' within it , and that is 'to be born or produced'.
iva - is defined as 'as if it were so' .Now we have a most interesting view on this word ji +iva . We can see it ' as if it were born, or produced; or ' as if something that is born can be conquered' .


This is the insightful part - we can be called jīva-s or living , existing , alive. The notion is, we really are an expression of the Supreme, and it is as if we are born and as if we can be destroyed. Yet this is not so with the Supreme.
So it is the Supreme in human form as jīva , as if it comes and goes , that it perhishes and that it can be conquered -
it is only as if because It is akṣara - imperishable, unalterable, stainless without beginning or end.


praṇām

[Jainarayan]

Namaste adevotee.


Can any of them be one's ishta devata?

Any deity can be one's Ishta-devata. He or She is whom you feel most strongly attracted to, and have an affinity with.

Lord Ganesha could be your Ishta-devata; Lord Surya could be; or Lord Krishna; or Maa Kali.


As far as I have understood vaishnavism is rather dvaita and shaivism is advaita.
Is this general or ...?

Thank you for your insights.

Vaishnavas tend towards either VishishtAdvaita or Achintya BhedAbheda.

VishishtAdvaita is Advaita with some qualifications. It's not pure Advaita; there are subtle differences from pure Advaita, i.e. the soul and the universe and all diversity are different, but still part of the Whole.

Achintya BhedAbheda means "inconceivable one-ness and difference". It's typically a Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective. It means that the human mind cannot comprehend that we are one, yet different from Brahman.

As a Vaishnava, and admittedly a House Blend variety and Equal Opportunity Bhakta i.e. confused, :D I waffle between VishishtAdvaita or Achintya BhedAbheda. Quite honestly, I think it's pretty immaterial and thinking about it is just a way to make your head explode like the Martians' in Mars Attacks! I'll just do my bhakti and let Lord Vishnu surprise me. ;)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste adevotee.
Any deity can be one's Ishta-devata.

If you would be so kind as to supply any references you may have that may support this position? Why so ? There would be some who look at the selection of the iṣṭa-devatā quite differently. Who would that be ?

The ṛṣi jaimini who was the student of veda vyāsa ( some call vādarāyaṇa or bādarāyaṇa); his most noted work is the upadeśa-sūtra-s. This would not be an ~easy read~ for the beginner. This outlines from a jyotish POV the selection of the iṣṭa-devatā based upon one's chart, ones past and various tendencies.

IMHO it seems to me a better way then a random selection of likes and dis-likes, but then again that is my opinion and my studies that are brought to the conversation.

praṇām

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

I don't have any scriptural or other references, only what I've picked up in my reading travels.

What I meant was that if one feels called to a particular deity, I don't see why that deity couldn't be the person's Ishta-devata. Not that it should be a random, willy-nilly selection, e.g. "Oh I like Maa Kali's image so I'll worship Her". That's why I added "He or She is whom you feel most strongly attracted to, and have an affinity with."

That tells me the deva or devi is calling you to Him/Herself. For example, as a guitar and bass player (admittedly just a noodler and "bedroom player") I felt inspired by Maa Saraswati. When I started keeping Her image near my music area, my playing improved. Then I started feeling called to Lord Krishna; I believe it was through Maa Saraswati.

Maybe my understanding is lacking of what an Ishta-devata is, but I felt She was my inspiration and helps to look after me. [added:] My bhakti is for Lord Krishna, so maybe it's better to say Maa Saraswati is my "muse", my inspiration, and Lord Krishna then is my Ishta-devata, my Supreme God.


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



If you would be so kind as to supply any references you may have that may support this position? Why so ? There would be some who look at the selection of the iṣṭa-devatā quite differently. Who would that be ?

The ṛṣi jaimini who was the student of veda vyāsa ( some call vādarāyaṇa or bādarāyaṇa); his most noted work is the upadeśa-sūtra-s. This would not be an ~easy read~ for the beginner. This outlines from a jyotish POV the selection of the iṣṭa-devatā based upon one's chart, ones past and various tendencies.

IMHO it seems to me a better way then a random selection of likes and dis-likes, but then again that is my opinion and my studies that are brought to the conversation.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste.

I don't have any scriptural or other references, only what I've picked up in my reading travels.
What I meant was that if one feels called to a particular deity, I don't see why that deity couldn't be the person's Ishta-devata. Not that it should be a random, willy-nilly selection, e.g. "Oh I like Maa Kali's image so I'll worship Her". That's why I added "He or She is whom you feel most strongly attracted to, and have an affinity with."

Thank you for your response... here is my sincere concern and please do not see it as chastising any of our fine members on HDF.

We , in the human condition, live in change. We fluctuate daily. Today I am attracted to X and tomorrow to Y. We at times seem not to have a rudder to guide the ship across the ocean of life - we live in ignornace of our true Selves.

So, one needs to be sensitive to this. I have seen people ( excluding present company) give incorrect information . Yet the listener thinking only the best takes the advice and has now gone down a wrong street in earnest.

The iṣṭa-devatā has great infuence in one's life, especially if the iṣṭa-devatā and the ātma-kāraka are tightly aligned. Hence an important choice.

Yet what is one to do? Perhaps offer the following:
It is my opinion that choosing the iṣṭa-devatā can be done by...
Or I have been told, or my personal experience has been.

Yet the best is , according to this śāstra (xyz) it is said, the selection of the iṣṭa-devatā is done as follows....


... do as you see fit.


praṇām

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Yet the listener thinking only the best takes the advice and has now gone down a wrong street in earnest.


I think many of us have been down that street. ;)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste.
I think many of us have been down that street. ;)

If I chose the 'street' then I have little angst. Yet if I have paid attention to another and with a clear mind assume this person has given good information I find that street to be a dead end, then I lose confidence. But with what ? With others suggesting the way or pointing a direction.

The road is simple and is predicated on ātmarāmaḥ. Yet we as humans make the road difficult.

praṇām

[freelight]

It means that one's own Self (atman) is identical in nature with Brahman- the two words relate to the same entity or reality.

The essence of the jiva, the atman, is in reality already Brahman, but it appears as all the jivas when through ignorance the qualities and attributes pertaining to individuality (egotism) ie the body\mind are superimposed onto it. There is only one atman, but it appears as many when it is not fully known. Everybody intuitively knows their own Self, but its actual nature is unclear to most because it is confused and identified with the body and such, so there is only a partial knowledge.

The identity of the Self and Brahman is an already established fact, it need not be brought about anew, nor can it be; it is only for lack of knowledge that any difference is perceived and believed in. When knowledge of the identity of one's Self and Brahman arises through the help of Vedanta then the ignorance of separateness is dispelled, and the previous apparent limitations are done away with, for all is seen to be but Brahman.


Hi all, thanks for sharing these fundamentals. Perhaps we can survey the dvaita (dualist) schools within hinduism, and their logics behind their points of view, the 'metaphysics' of it. Then compare such with the Advaita logics as see what is more feasible in one's own opinion or personal experience.

There appears to be a 'fluid' versatility here, on the nature of atman and Brahman being the same essence/identity, or if the atman could be of another created substance, finite, dependent upon Brahman. Seems to be many subtle layers and dimensionsal perspectives involved.

Leaning towards panentheism, I tend to favor 'simultaneous oneness and difference'....although philosophically I often espouse purely non-dual perspectives.

I like how Nisargadatta Maharaj focused on the 'I Am', and taught one to stay there, stabilizing oneself in that, where one eventually submerges in that which is even prior to consciousness, the very root of the I Am. Ramana Maharshi focuses here as well, but each teacher has their own style or naunce. I also enjoy modern teachers such as Mooji, and many others.


Paul

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I like how Nisargadatta Maharaj focused on the 'I Am', and taught one to stay there, stabilizing oneself in that, where one eventually submerges in that which is even prior to consciousness, the very root of the I Am. Paul
If you find ' I Am That' a favorable and insigtful read, then I think you may appreciate another book. It is the discourses of śrī siddharameśvara maharāj , guru of śrī nisargadatta maharāj. The book is adhyātma jñānaca yogeśvar¹. It is his discourses recorded by śrī nisargadatta maharāj.


If you seach for the book it is called Master of Self-Realization.
Here it is on Amazon's site:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0578027895/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/180-6601000-4497658?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0ESC9M1NGCF92HWQHV89&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_i=B001DT10Z6 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0578027895/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/180-6601000-4497658?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0ESC9M1NGCF92HWQHV89&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_i=B001DT10Z6)


I am a better person for reading it.

praṇām


1.adhyātma jñānaca yogeśvar - means ( roughly) the knowledge of the Self

[Mana]

Yet what is one to do? Perhaps offer the following:
It is my opinion that choosing the iṣṭa-devatā can be done by...
Or I have been told, or my personal experience has been.

Yet the best is , according to this śāstra (xyz) it is said, the selection of the iṣṭa-devatā is done as follows....



Namaste yajvan,

Such an eloquent mistress and so elegant; is the flow of time. Just the right prompt at exactly the right moment. I had been stalled in my study of Sanjay Raths lectures, at this point; a welcome cue to retake this cap indeed.

Having said that, this may not be the same, as I am calculating the path of the soul, the spiritual roots from the root of the head, and ones rsi, are these in any way related, to ones iṣṭa-devatā?

I thank you, whole heartedly.

praNAma

mana

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


iṣṭa-devatā[/size]?
There are many things one can say of the iṣṭa-devatā. Yet if you are looking at the soul we are considering the ātma kāraka.

praṇām

[Mana]

Namaste yajvan,

I am sorry, I wasn't being clear at all; I mean the importance of the rsi in being guided so otherwise said the importance of the rsi in finding the path of ones soul, I am intrigued to find who mine might be so as to see the affinity; this will be tricky who ever as I am of two possible Lagna being on the edge with out the skill to define precisely my time of birth.

I believe ātma kāraka is the graha with the highest degree of elevation in a sign; bearing in mind that rahu is inverted and counted top down as he is permanently travelling anti clockwise.


Is there a correlation between ones iṣṭa-devatā and ones rsi?

praNAma

mana

[freelight]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


If you find ' I Am That' a favorable and insigtful read, then I think you may appreciate another book. It is the discourses of śrī siddharameśvara maharāj , guru of śrī nisargadatta maharāj. The book is adhyātma jñānaca yogeśvar¹. It is his discourses recorded by śrī nisargadatta maharāj.


If you seach for the book it is called Master of Self-Realization.
Here it is on Amazon's site:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0578027895/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/180-6601000-4497658?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0ESC9M1NGCF92HWQHV89&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_i=B001DT10Z6 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0578027895/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/180-6601000-4497658?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0ESC9M1NGCF92HWQHV89&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_i=B001DT10Z6)


I am a better person for reading it.

praṇām


1.adhyātma jñānaca yogeśvar - means ( roughly) the knowledge of the Self

Thank you yajvan :)