What is the path of liberation in Advaita

[sanathan]

But I said the same thing only pure consciousness exits and that is you. You are consciousness / awareness / atman / Brahman / Peace / Bliss – one and the same thing. Ways to express are different. There is no one to experience – all merges into one thing SELF. But to make one understand rishis try to explain unexplainable. So they say you experience peace and bliss. Actually you are bliss / peace. There is no one to experience and so it is indescribable. Still rishis make valiant effort to explain this state by giving analogies and examples and making use of logical conclusions.

These things are difficult to explain and better experienced. When you will experience Samadhi, all doubts will vanish Advaita is indeed difficult to explain and understand.



Aum

Pranamams !

Taittiriya says "anandi bhavati".. how do we negate experiencer of his own bliss while sruthi says so?

Yes, it is difficult to understand Advaita.

The very current state where I experience various feelings(one such is bliss), and always craving for happiness though from materials, and if advaita says the very experiencer who is the current person(I am not talking about ego which causes for misidentification of himself with body..but individual self) striving for happiness and trying to achieve that state won't be there at realized state..then why do I need to do sadhana?..if 'I'(current person who is suffering in samsara) am not there to experience the ultimate bliss..then why do I need to follow that path?

This is biting me since long time.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Experienced by whom? and how does he experience if he doesn't have any medium to do so ?

....

in samadhi you are aware of yourself? then there is a knower and knowledge , and has a experience of bliss right..?
But as far as I know this is not what advaita says.. because Advaita says nirvisesha(attributeless) brahman is the ultimate state..where there is no separate you and awareness..in such case there is no question of feeling bliss.

In another thread while talking to Devotee, his explanation of ultimate state is different where pure consciousness exists..but here you are saying some thing different which says "you are aware of yourself and experience bliss"..this why I often confused with Advaita..what exactly it tries to say and what is the path of sadhana.

This is precisely the problem with Advaita. Most people do not seem to understand the implication of non-duality. Without duality, there is no individual who can experience bliss or anything else, as that requires division. There is no distinct Shankara soul anymore (there never was, according to Advaita) and so he cannot be sent back to help humanity. Such a concept of a "returning Jnani" contradicts the Advaita concept of Moksha.

The Advaita concept of Moksha is really no different from that of Buddhism or Sankhya where Moksha is not about attaining bliss, but is about end of identity and therefore, end of pain. This is why, some of the earliest critics of Advaita criticized the doctrine as "covered Buddhism".

Some of the arguments leveled by rival schools against Advaita on this topic are quite valid. Without an identity, it is really a void and is therefore not as attractive as their own models which have the soul continuing to exist as a distinct entity after Moksha, in the presence of Vishnu, etc.

The Vaishnava description of Moksha is not without problems. Someone said " If all I do in heaven is sit around and praise God for eternity, after 500, 000 years of this, I think I would get a little bored". Some Hare Krishnas have a similar theory that all souls were originally with Vishnu/Krishna (in the Moksha state), then they got bored and came down to earth. And now they are all trying to go back.

There are more open questions with the concept of Moksha, but I have to stop now, due to lack of time.

[wundermonk]

This is precisely the problem with Advaita. Most people do not seem to understand the implication of non-duality. Without duality, there is no individual who can experience bliss or anything else, as that requires division. There is no distinct Shankara soul anymore (there never was, according to Advaita) and so he cannot be sent back to help humanity.

Why is this a "problem" for Advaita?

Such a concept of a "returning Jnani" contradicts the Advaita concept of Moksha.

By a "returning Jnani" I guess you are referring to a Jivanmukta? Could you spell out how exactly the idea of a Jivanmukta contradicts Moksha?

The Advaita concept of Moksha is really no different from that of Buddhism or Sankhya where Moksha is not about attaining bliss, but is about end of identity and therefore, end of pain. This is why, some of the earliest critics of Advaita criticized the doctrine as "covered Buddhism".

I believe there is a rather LARGE difference between Advaitic soteriology and Buddhistic soteriology. Between Samkhya and Advaita, the differences are rather minor.

Some of the arguments leveled by rival schools against Advaita on this topic are quite valid. Without an identity, it is really a void and is therefore not as attractive as their own models which have the soul continuing to exist as a distinct entity after Moksha, in the presence of Vishnu, etc.

This probably has to do with the understanding of consciousness in each school of thought. Theistic schools tend to believe that ALL consciousness is intentional. This follows from their realist world view. Advaita (being an idealist school) would certainly promote the supremacy of objectless consciousness over anything else. So, the "arguments leveled by rival schools" basically boils down to a question of metaphysics and ontololgy.

[Amrut]

Pranamams !

Taittiriya says "anandi bhavati".. how do we negate experiencer of his own bliss while sruthi says so?

Yes, it is difficult to understand Advaita.

Namaste,

You have to take into account the reference to context i.e. with what reference the statement is being said.

If you read one upnishad and then an another you will find contradictory statements. These are not contradictory, but they just look like.

Even if the read Vivekchudamani, initially it is said there is prarabhdha for jnani too, while later it is said that there is no prarabhdha

The first answer was said to a questioner who saw that saints also suffer diseases. This questioner is practical i.e. has a practical approach in life. So the answer to this questioner is that yes they do have and then the explanation is that though in this life he may be a saint, he is suffering the fruits of karma of his past lives. To add to it, it is told that prarabhdha is like an arrow which is released from the bow, it is on the way to hit the target, it cannot be stopped. So upon birth one has to pass through these phases. But jnani does not associate himself with body and hence with disease.

Later on when the disciple has matured, who has a different mindset from the first one, he is said that jnana burns all 3 karmas - agami, prarabhdha and sanchit. This disciple has pure sattva and so this kind of explanation is given to him.

As I have said earlier, the statements like experiencing bliss, etc are said just ot make on understand what Atman is like. One needs to visualize Atman. Out minds has this habit. If you read a novel, where a natural scene is described or any personality is described, our mind tries to create an image i.e. It imagines and visualizes it. So it's told that one experiences bliss.

As @shiv.somashekhar has said, there is no bliss. It is correct, but one may take it negatively. If there is no peace, just a void, then why to meditate? For whom? So just to make one understand than atman or brahman is a positive state and not a blank void, this is said.

The very current state where I experience various feelings(one such is bliss), and always craving for happiness though from materials, and if advaita says the very experiencer who is the current person(I am not talking about ego which causes for misidentification of himself with body..but individual self) striving for happiness and trying to achieve that state won't be there at realized state..then why do I need to do sadhana?..if 'I'(current person who is suffering in samsara) am not there to experience the ultimate bliss..then why do I need to follow that path?

This is biting me since long time.

Sri Ramana Maharshi gave an e.g. Of a burning dead body. Sri Ramana Maharshi said, the fire after burning the corpse also extinguish. It does not continue to burn.

This fire may be equated with OM or any mantra. With the help of mantra, all other desires are burned or up-rooted. But only one desire is left – 'i want liberation' this is also a thought, a desire. So when one has burned all desires and only one desire i.e. 'I want liberation' remains, Shastras like Ashtavakra Gita teaches such a matured sadhaka to drop this wish too.

Ashtavakra Gita, in order to break this thought makes one realize who you are. All you have to do is 'abide in SEFL ' or better 'just be' i.e. 'just be as you are'

Ashtavakra Gita argues, who is the one who is meditating?, who is chanting this mantra?, who is raising questions? and who is reading this shastras?. It says, who is guru and who is disciple. If you think you are a meditator then you are in duality. Practising ashtanga Yog is foolish as who practises?

Sri Ramana Maharshi says ask 'Who am I' this is not a question or just a mental repetition. It is the inner exploration, where after asking this question 'Who am I' mind merges into the source or heart or atman as atman is the source of everything.

If any question arises, ask 'who is the questioner' and the mind will find the source of this questioner, finally merging into atman.

But imagine, if this is said to a beginner, before meditating, if one says, 'I am Brahman', then he/she has nor detached himself/herself from the body, and unlike the matured seeker, he/she has not up-rooted all desires except the only desire to be free, he/she will drop all the he/she is doing and just think that everything is over, there is no need to do anything.

The truth is eternal, i.e. You are Brahman. But the question is do you know that you are Brahman?

We do not know and hence there is 'khoj' – exploration. Just philosophically talking 'I am Brahman' is of no use.

In this statement You are That i.e. You are Brahman i.e. I am Brahman.

The middle word ARE or AM is important. Just replace ARE with ARE NOT or AM with AM NOT. The whole meaning changes.

In this statement ' I AM THAT' THAT is brahman is already brahman. But the statement becomes non-dual only when 'I' becomes THAT i.e. I AM THAT – this is the realization.


That Brahman is nothing but 'I' or SELF this 'I' is not ego but Atman.

So one has to find Who am I to know the real I – Atman / Brahman. When one realizes the real I you say, I am THAT

I know this is very subtle and difficult to understand. I tried my best.

Now, in Sri Ramakrishna's simple words, Why Meditate?

As explained above, just by logical conclusion that I am Brahman, you do not know that you are brahman. It is just an information and not knowledge or experience or better knowledge out of direct experience.

Sri Ramakrishna gave an e.g.

Suppose a thorn has pierced into your feet. Just by saying that I am not hurt, there is no thorn, it is illusion, the thorn and so that pain will not go away. One has to take another thorn, remove the pierced thorn with the help of this second thorn and than throw away both the thorn.

In this e.g. First thorn is the ignorance, second is jnana (bookish knowledge) or meditation or material knowledge. Dropping of both thorns meaning dropping both jnana and ajnana (from mind). As soon as one drops the thought than I am under influence of maya and that I want liberation, without any delay, one enters into this indescribable non-dual state.

This can only be experienced and not explained. One has to have a faith in Advaita philosophy which was established as a result of experiences of innumerable saints since time immemorial.

Always remember that the words are to be taken with reference to context with the mindset of questioner and are not applied to all types of people. Also note that one updesha is not valid for entire life time. As one progresses, definitions change

e.g. - live a balanced life. So work, enjoy, rest, meditate (spiritual activities) and sex.

Later I was told, may has 3 gunas, so divide 24 hours by 3 i.e. 8 hours. Meditate for 8 hours, work for 8 hours and sleep for eight hours. Balanced life

If you take literal meaning, still you will be in trouble.

e.g. In Gita, chapter six is titled Atma-Sayyam Yog. Now if you take Atma as Brahman, then how can you control Brahman. Who controls whom?

So in this chapter, atman is to be taken as mind.

To avoid this confusion, some saints have changed the title like Yoga of Self Control, or Yoga of Meditation, Or Abhyasa Yoga, but the traditional name, which is given as end note after chapter ends, is Atma sayyam yog.

The reason for this way of explanation is that we connected with mind, body ego, intellect and soul.

In day-2-day talk, we say, 'I am sick'. We do not say, 'My body is sick' or 'this body is sick'

We take it for granted that I am Body

When we say, I ma bored or I am happy, these are Gunas of mind. So, it goes without saying that 'I am Mind'

If you say, I am dumb or I am idiot or I am genius, you are referring yourself as intellect.

When you are I am (emotionally) hurt, or simply say, you are hurting me, you are identifying yourself with Ego.

If you say, I am immortal and take birth in one form or another, you are referring yourself as incarnated soul.

It is this identification with Ego, mind, body, intellect or incarnated soul is with all laymen.

Shastras are written for laymen, who are ignorant of truth and live in duality. They are not written for jnanis. Jnanis do not need shastras. They are shastras themselves, as earlier said, shatras are a collection of of experiences of innumerable saints since time immemorial.

In Gita Lord Krishna says, go there or leave everything and come to me (technically it is go to me or go there). There is no where to go. If at all you want to go go deep inside yourself.

This is the way of teaching.

Ashtavakra Gita talks directly from standpoint of supreme reality. It is said from the grave of Karma. It is not for common men and hence not famous as Bhagavad Gita.

When the (so called or self proclaimed) Gurus on TV channels explain bhagawat, they do not talk from standpoint of supreme reality. In bhagawat, there is everything, duality, non-duality, to renounce everything, but the 'kathakars' skip this portions and keep telling stories. Stories and personal experiences attract masses, but not tatva Jnana. Few are interested in tatva Jnana.

What is needed is a limited matured audience (lions) and not masses (sheeps and goats, which move in heards of hundreds or even thousands).

The very current state where I experience various feelings(one such is bliss), and always craving for happiness though from materials, and if advaita says the very experiencer who is the current person(I am not talking about ego which causes for misidentification of himself with body..but individual self) striving for happiness and trying to achieve that state won't be there at realized state..then why do I need to do sadhana?..if 'I'(current person who is suffering in samsara) am not there to experience the ultimate bliss..then why do I need to follow that path?

This is biting me since long time.

The identification with body will be destroyed. You are looking for material comforts and also for moksha. Both cannot go hand-in-hand. What will be left will be the real you and not what you know yourself.

Again, this is difficult to explain.

Sri Ramana Maharshi in 40 verses on Reality / truth says that both Ajnani and Jnani has bodies. For ajnani, body is limited to physical body bound by space and time, while a jnani's body is infinite, the substratum of entire universe – Brahman.

Please, do not argue that if you experience something (body) when you are in duality. You will be confused. This is just for explanation and I wont be able to answer you.

IF you re directly told the truth bluntly, then something similar like your response will happen.

I think dvaita is much easier than advaita, as you enjoy this world and worship god, chant his name, sing his glories and just move one.

Advaita is for pure mind. You will only get clarity when you experience detachment. This can only happen by the grace of God and Guru. Only this experience can completely satisfy your above question and argument. No explanation can fully satisfy or uproot your doubt permanently.

Aum

[Amrut]

@wundermonk and @shiv.somashekhar

Namaste,

Sorry, after typing long reply and hitting submit button I came to know about the reply from @wundermonk

It is said, you are bliss. Remember Atman is Sat-Chit-Anand. Why is this attributes given? - just for our understanding.

Sat means, truth. Truth is always present in all tenses, past, present and futue. So Atman was, is and will remain.

Chit - Chaitanya. Atman is not gross. It is the most subtle, subtler than 5 elements. Chit also means consciousness / awareness. Some say both consciousness and awareness are different and that from awareness there is consciousness. But that is another debate. I think it's just a translation glitch. I use them interchangeably, because of by poor translation skills.

Ananda - Happiness or Eternal bliss. Since there is no duality, there is no fear, there is no sorrow, so there is ananda. Ananda is the only state or quality, though tempered, that is experienced by all of us. The only difference is that this ananda is (in hindi) {vikar wala ananda } and not pure ananda. It is conditioned, it depends upon others and the worldly objects, while ananda attributed to brahman is eternal and independent.

Returning Jnani:

From pure advaita standpoint, there is no return, no Jnani / ajnani. Who is the second one? there is no argument, just maun (silence)

Advaita does not contradicts return of jnani. If that would be the case, there would be no Adi Shankaracharya and so not Gita and our shastras, whom we are discussing

The detachment is permanent. Keeping a body is optional and depends upon divine plan. Else one can only attain Jnana after one dies.

As @wundermonk has said, Jivan muktas are free souls. They do not experience this world like we do, but behave like ajnani and do karma and stay within maya and it's laws, for the good of all, else people will not believe in them or they may think that a great saint or realized saint can leave the way you are telling, but we, ajnanis, cannot live like you live.

In either cases mind does not exists. Sri Ramana Maharshi says, the mind of Jnani is Brahman itself

Refer:

http://www.hindu-blog.com/2011/10/kn...orance-as.html

http://prashantaboutindia.blogspot.i...s-mind-is.html

Aum

[sanathan]

You are looking for material comforts and also for moksha. Both cannot go hand-in-hand. What will be left will be the real you and not what you know yourself.

Pranamams!

No, I am not looking for material comforts, what I meant was "we are always craving for happiness" (but due to ignorance we are thinking it comes from materials..so attached with them)..but the main point is "we" always in want of happiness..that means our nature is "being happy", this is what also supported by sruthi (ex: Anandi bhavati). Now my question is .. if the very "being"(please note that I am not referring to body or mind or intellect ..but the very experiencer who has knowledge and experiences the bliss) doesn't exist after liberation..then why he has to do sadhana ..and what is the meaning of liberation.. am I understandable?

Regarding material comforts..yes we need them but not as ultimate goal..but as a pave to do our sadhana properly we need them ..nobody can ignore it.

If you take a healthy(mentally and physically) person and ill-healthy person, then surely we know that healthier one has more chance to do sadhana to get liberated..so the primary bodily and mental needs are required...only thing we don't want is attachment with them. Am I wrong?

[shiv.somashekhar]

As @wundermonk has said, Jivan muktas are free souls. They do not experience this world like we do, but behave like ajnani and do karma and stay within maya and it's laws, for the good of all, else people will not believe in them or they may think that a great saint or realized saint can leave the way you are telling, but we, ajnanis, cannot live like you live.

There is no such thing as a free (liberated) soul in Advaita as that will contradict the fundamental premise of non-duality. The existence of a liberated soul is only possible in non-advaita systems where the soul continues to exist as a distinct entity after liberation. This is why I mentioned earlier that the Moksha concept of Advaita is really no different from that of Buddhism.

wundermonk,

I say Buddhist moksha = Advaita moksha as in both cases, there is no individual soul anymore and with no identity, there is no experiencer. Hence, there is no question of coming back.

[wundermonk]

wundermonk,

I say Buddhist moksha = Advaita moksha as in both cases, there is no individual soul anymore and with no identity, there is no experiencer. Hence, there is no question of coming back.

An experiencer presupposes an experienced. However, for an idealist school of thought (like Advaita) which believes in primacy of consciousness, consciousness is experience itself. It is neither the "experiencer" nor the "experienced".

At this point, an Advaitin will point towards his analysis of dreams to make his point. Consciousness alone shines in deep sleep without any correlative object of consciousness.

[Amrut]

There is no such thing as a free (liberated) soul in Advaita as that will contradict the fundamental premise of non-duality. The existence of a liberated soul is only possible in non-advaita systems where the soul continues to exist as a distinct entity after liberation. This is why I mentioned earlier that the Moksha concept of Advaita is really no different from that of Buddhism.

Deleted previous reply

Alternatively, 'Free Soul' maybe a translation glitch. I find Jivan mukta a better word. Janak was said to be a videhi and was a jivan mukta. Jivan does not imply return of soul so so the concept of a (individual) soul which is free is also solved For me there was misunderstanding, which is now solved.

i have not studies Buddhism so cannot comment, but Sri Ramakrishna said that There is no difference in the teachings of Lord Buddha and Advaita.

Kindly note that Sri Ramakrishna has said Teachings of Lord Buddha and not Buddhism, as it was at his life time.

Aum

[devotee]

Namaste Shiv,

There is no such thing as a free (liberated) soul in Advaita as that will contradict the fundamental premise of non-duality. The existence of a liberated soul is only possible in non-advaita systems where the soul continues to exist as a distinct entity after liberation. This is why I mentioned earlier that the Moksha concept of Advaita is really no different from that of Buddhism.

Here the fallacy is that you are not a realised soul and you are asserting how the Consciousness or the liberated Soul should behave after 'liberation' which is illogical. Non-duality does mean "no other". So an idea of a separate being as liberated soul different from Brahman is not possible. But let's remember that the 'soul' even when bound was already within the Brahman and there was no separation at that time too. So, the separation when in bondage was actually imagined within the Consciousness. So, it is not that at first the soul was a separate being and later on merges into Brahman … it was all along Brahman alone. All beings are like thought-waves on the bosom of Infinite ever witness Consciousness. So, the difference between liberated being and the being in bondage is that one thought-wave imagines that it is separate from Brahman and the other realises that it is Brahman. Now, how this thought-wave which has realised that it is Brahman, should behave cannot be decided by you or me. It behaves as it should. The Self-realised saints say that a Self-realised soul can incarnate at will (i.e. willingly accept the influence of MAyA, let's remember that a Self-realised soul is master of MAyA) for the benefit of mankind. To counter them or to have our own theory, we first have to attain Self-realisation.

OM