What is the path of liberation in Advaita

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste Shiv,

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

Shankara in his BSB, clearly says "Jagat mithya" and "Jiva brahmaiva no parah". Your argument contradicts "Jagat Mithya" and therefore is incorrect. Moksha according to Advaita is when the individual no longer exists as an individual and the universe is no longer real, or in other words does not exist anymore.

Without an identity and with no universe (that is, there is no makind and no Maya), the point of a self-realized soul returning to the world does not arise.

[shiv.somashekhar]

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".

No experiencer is key to the point. It is not the case that the soul was liberated and is now blissful. There is no one to recognize the bliss. There is no one to look back and say "Oh, I was under the mistaken perception that the universe is real and now I am liberated and am full of bliss". This is the key drawback of the dream analogy. I can realize my dream is a dream, only when I can wake up, recall it and compare it with my waking state, which is not possible in Advaita. A fram of reference is essential for any identification/recognition to take place and that is the big missing piece in the Advaita concept of Moksha, which is also what makes it similar to Buddhist moksha.

This is how I see it and I would like to hear your thoughts.

[wundermonk]

No experiencer is key to the point. It is not the case that the soul was liberated and is now blissful. There is no one to recognize the bliss. There is no one to look back and say "Oh, I was under the mistaken perception that the universe is real and now I am liberated and am full of bliss". This is the key drawback of the dream analogy. I can realize my dream is a dream, only when I can wake up, recall it and compare it with my waking state, which is not possible in Advaita. A fram of reference is essential for any identification/recognition to take place and that is the big missing piece in the Advaita concept of Moksha, which is also what makes it similar to Buddhist moksha.

This is how I see it and I would like to hear your thoughts.

The point of Advaitic soteriology and the use of dream analogy is the following, per my understanding.

The Advaitin points to the dream experience and its sublation on waking to open up the door to possibility of yet another experience which sublates even the waking experience.

Just like how one individuated consciousness (the dreamer's) is able to create a dream where the "I" consciousness/ego persists (a dreamer is able to identify himself/herself in a dream and also able to identify others in a dream all via his own consciousness/mind complex) and yet there are other objects/people in a dream, the non-dual experience whose essence is pure undifferentiated consciousness can create poles (duality) in the waking experience.

That which persists right through the dream experience, waking experience and soteriological experience and is continuous all through these three states is the foundational consciousness.

Again, the point of Advaitic soteriology is that there is no "other" that needs to be experienced of which a "subject" is the experiencer.

Without an objectless witness (saksin/atman) there can not be a claim of the form "Ah. I had a dreamless sleep." To this extent, both the Samkhyan and the Advaitin would agree.

Where the Advaitin would differ from the Samkhyan is that the Advaitin would claim that pure objectless consciousness has no differentiating attributes. Absent any attribute (or even any object of consciousness) that is capable of differentiating one pure consciousness from another, there is no need to posit multiplicity of consciousnesses. There is just one universal eternal unchanging consciousness - nothing else.

I really can not comment on Buddhist soteriology for two reasons.

(1)I have not studied Buddhist texts.
(2)No one has been able to articulate in a sufficiently clear manner what exactly is sunya/void/nibbana/emptiness. If sunya/void/nibbana/emptiness is pure consciousness without any object of experience, then I can agree that Buddhist nibbana = Advaitic moksha. But if the Buddhist rejects the permanent unchanging existence of consciousness, then I have no idea what Buddhist soteriology is even about.

[devotee]

Namaste Shiv,

With all due respect, I see a lot of Advaitins providing a non-advaitin description of moksha.
Shankara in his BSB, clearly says "Jagat mithya" and "Jiva brahmaiva no parah". Your argument contradicts "Jagat Mithya" and therefore is incorrect. Moksha according to Advaita is when the individual no longer exists as an individual and the universe is no longer real, or in other words does not exist anymore.
Without an identity and with no universe (that is, there is no makind and no Maya), the point of a self-realized soul returning to the world does not arise.

OK. Can you tell me whether there really was a world and an individual Jeeva before Self-realisation ? Did a Self-realised soul exist in reality before he attained realisation ? Advaita VedAnta says that there is no individual soul in reality at any point of time ... before realisation or after-realisation. The Realisation is not materialising into anything which was not already there. This point has to be very correctly remembered. So, your assertion that after realisation there is no individuality and there is no world is correct but it was the same thing to start with. The problem is that when we start thinking of an individual we think it different from Self in the beginning and we imagine that it merges into Self after realisation ... this idea may not create much problem in explaining many issues but fails in some vital issues.

Moreover, I also said that Self is the ever present witness in all states ... therefore, even when all vibrations of thought-waves of individuality has ceased to exist ... the memory is there in the ever witness Consciousness and is capable of giving birth to that though-wave of individuality again. If that was not there, the Self-realised soul would have immediately died after realisation or might never have come out of SamAdhi/one-ness with the Reality and would have never regained his individuality after experiencing One-ness. This is how the world is created again and again in the same way as it was in earlier Kalpas.

I admit that words have limitations to explain the actual phenomenon correctly. Let's remember what Yama says in Kathopanishad : the Truth cannot be known through logic (why ? because the Truth is what it is ... it is not a function of logical arguments) . Advaita VedAnta emphasizes on experiencing the Truth and the Truth is that the Self-realised souls can reincarnate for the good of the world. If it doesn't appear logical, we have to accept the limitations of logic to explain the actual phenomenon.

OM

[shiv.somashekhar]

Without an objectless witness (saksin/atman) there can not be a claim of the form "Ah. I had a dreamless sleep." To this extent, both the Samkhyan and the Advaitin would agree.

Where the Advaitin would differ from the Samkhyan is that the Advaitin would claim that pure objectless consciousness has no differentiating attributes. Absent any attribute (or even any object of consciousness) that is capable of differentiating one pure consciousness from another, there is no need to posit multiplicity of consciousnesses. There is just one universal eternal unchanging consciousness - nothing else.

The above underlined statement is my interpretation of Advaita too.

From a purely logical perspective, how is this any different from a void? I recall someone once writing that everything in life is a miracle. The way I see it, the statement means the same as "nothing in life is a miracle". The reason is, for a miracle to have meaning and significance, there should exist a "non-miracle".

Advaita says the nature of consciousness is bliss. They have to say this, as they cannot allow for duality. But this only brings it closer to the void.

I think, we agree on the following -

1. As there is no more division after moksha, there is no universe and no individual soul and so, there is no possiblity of a returning soul.

2. There is no soul after moksha as brahman/consciousness is all that exists. It is not the case that the soul continues to exist as an individual while somehow, realizing it is Brahman (as commonly perceived by many Advaitins).

3. If there is only a single consciousness, then it is hard, if not impossible for us to differentiate such a state from a void. as in both cases, there is no cognizer and nothing to cognize. One would have to accept the Advaita claim of bliss, purely as an article of faith. And this is not anything new. Like I said earlier, Advaita has been criticized as prachana baudha, since very early times. Modern scholars have speculated the possibility of Gaudapada creating Advaita by combining Vedanta and Buddhism.

[wundermonk]

From a purely logical perspective, how is this any different from a void? I recall someone once writing that everything in life is a miracle. The way I see it, the statement means the same as "nothing in life is a miracle". The reason is, for a miracle to have meaning and significance, there should exist a "non-miracle". Advaita says the nature of consciousness is bliss. They have to say this, as they cannot allow for duality. But this only brings it closer to the void.

What do you mean by "void"? How is that different from unconsciousness?

1. As there is no more division after moksha, there is no universe and no individual soul and so, there is no possiblity of a returning soul.

I agree with the former statements but not the latter. Why would the former imply the latter?

2. There is no soul after moksha as brahman/consciousness is all that exists. It is not the case that the soul continues to exist as an individual while somehow, realizing it is Brahman (as commonly perceived by many Advaitins).

I think there may be a misconception here. What is meant by consciousness in Advaita is pure consciousness. Your pure consciousness is the same as mine. This post may be to the point.

3. If there is only a single consciousness, then it is hard, if not impossible for us to differentiate such a state from a void. as in both cases, there is no cognizer and nothing to cognize.

As before, I am unclear what is meant by "void" here. Could you elaborate? Keep in mind that in Advaita, even in deep sleep, there is consciousness. Again, by void do you mean unconsciousness like, say, a stone?

Like I said earlier, Advaita has been criticized as prachana baudha, since very early times. Modern scholars have speculated the possibility of Gaudapada creating Advaita by combining Vedanta and Buddhism.

Why do you insist on comparing Advaita with Buddhism? Do you agree with Buddhist thought and would somehow like to make Advaita seem subordinate to it? If as per you Advaita = Buddhism, and you insist on putting down Advaita that would seem to make you against Buddhism too. Is that your position?

What exactly is YOUR position that you would like to uphold and defend in this exchange? What is your conception of an ideal soteriology per your understanding of Hinduism? Or do you claim there is no afterlife/soteriology of any sort?