Advaita seems so empty and impersonal to me leaving a void in me...

[kallol]

The state of mind, can be achieved through many means.

Just like knowledge can be achieved through many means - through plain text, through pictures, through brail, through sound, through vision, many many. All lead to the same point.

Similarly state of mind can be achieved through physical or metaphysical ways of pursuits. Dvaita, Advaita or any other means cannot surely proclaim that their way is the only way to moksha.

It may be combination and I am 100% sure that none are purely this or that. So get along with whatever suits you. The path will meander along touch all possible ways.

Enjoy the journey of mind.

[Seeker123]

Namaste,

Just wanted to clarify. In traditional Adi Sankara's Advaita there is no mention of equally valid paths to the same goal. Gnana yoga, i.e. knowledge of Sastras under a Guru is the only path for Moksha. This does not mean devotion, meditation and social work (Bhakti, Raja, and Karma yoga) are useless. They are essential contributory factors. For knowledge to work the mind needs to be pure and focused. Purity is attained by devotion and social work while focus is attained by meditation.

Hinduism is rich and satisfies seekers of all types. I am sure you will make spiritual progress if you are earnest.
Best wishes

[kallol]

The moot point is conditioning of mind.

Why is knowledge required ? - to condition the mind

Can one achieve the same condition by bhakti alone ? Possibly yes. However it is known that through extreme bhakti they also gain the knowledge. examples are many.

Bhakti is a very powerful tool, which can reach out to learned and not learned people. Yes it can have pitfalls but then even gyan marg has pitfalls in considering themselves as superior.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Just wanted to clarify. In traditional Adi Sankara's Advaita there is no mention of equally valid paths to the same goal. Gnana yoga, i.e. knowledge of Sastras under a Guru is the only path for Moksha. This does not mean devotion, meditation and social work (Bhakti, Raja, and Karma yoga) are useless. They are essential contributory factors. For knowledge to work the mind needs to be pure and focused. Purity is attained by devotion and social work while focus is attained by meditation.

Hinduism is rich and satisfies seekers of all types. I am sure you will make spiritual progress if you are earnest.
Best wishes

There is surrender and devotion, but to the SELF / Atman or Brahman. Sri Ramana Maharshi says, surrender of EGO to the SELF is the Real Bhakti.

There is bhava, but it is Shanta bhava.

It is true that without Jnana there is no mukti, as even in dvaita marga, when you have divine vision of God, you are still in Dvaita i.e. devotee and your God. But God himself takes you from Dvaita to Advaita.

It happened to Narasinh Mehta and Sri Ramakrishna. Both were on Dvaita marg, but later they also realized their true nature Atman.

It is true that without knowledge there i no mukti, as in knowledge you are in advaita state, which is the highest one.

If you observe the life of saints or avatars, they have all had their true knowledge, i.e. advaita experience of Nirvikalp samadhi like Sri Ramakrishna, Buddha, Shankaracharya, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, though they preached bhakti, they had realized their true nature, else there is no mukti.


The only difference in Jnana marg is that from day one your goal is to realize true nature and abide in it.

While in Bhakti and Yog, the goals may change and later God / Shakti takes control and takes to beyond dvaita / Maya / Shakti.

TEchnically, one has both experience in any order i.e. to experience only SELF exists and then everything you see is SELF / Brahman or vice versa.

In Advaita it's first Nirvikalp Samadhi and then you see that everything else i.e. this world is brahman itself, it's not different.

In Yog you have experience that It's all same shakti everywhere and then you go beyond shakti to experience the breathless / Pulseless state of Nirvikalp samadhi as Atman is the source (Udbhava Sthana) of everything, even Breath.

In bhakti, you see God in everything and later one is taken into non-dual state where the ego of a devotee and the desire of having divine vision is nullified and one enters into infinite peace and Uninterrupted Bliss.

Aum

[Elizabeth108]

Namaste to All,

Thank you again for all of your really helpful answers!

I have just found this article about advaita:

After having read it through - especially its part about Ishvara - it seems more clear to me, too regarding my question. According to this article, advaita itself is not impersonal, it just seems so (it's not by chance I keep on using the word "seems" when talking about my view.

Īshvara
Īshvara (pronounced as /iːʃvərə/, literally, the Supreme Lord)—According to Advaita Vedanta, when man tries to know the attributeless Brahman with his mind, under the influence of Maya, Brahman becomes the Ishvara. Ishvara the manifested form of Brahman on the pragmatic level; his actual form in the transcendental level is the Cosmic Spirit.
Ishvara is Saguna Brahman, or Brahman with innumerable auspicious qualities. He is all-perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, Creator of the world, its ruler and also destroyer. He is causeless, eternal and unchangeable, and yet the material and the instrumental cause of the world. He is both immanent (like whiteness in milk) and transcendent (like a watch-maker independent of a watch). He may be even regarded to have a personality. He is the object of worship. He is the basis of morality and giver of the fruits of one's Karma.
Ishvara himself is beyond sin and merit. He rules the world with his Maya, his divine power. This association with a "false" knowledge does not affect the perfection of Ishvara, in the same way as a magician is himself not tricked by his magic. While Ishvara is the Lord of Maya, and Maya is always under his control, the living beings (jīva) are the servants of Maya (in the form of ignorance). This ignorance is the cause of the unhappiness and sin in the mortal world. While Ishvara is Infinite Bliss, humans are miserable because of their ignorance.
Ishvara can also be visualized and worshipped in anthropomorphic form as deities such as Vishnu, Krishna or Shiva.

My question now is that how correct is this article? Is that explanation/description of Advaita valid?

Thank you for your help.

Namaste!

[shiv.somashekhar]

To the OP,

What do you want? Or what is it that you are looking for?

If your interest is in being a Hindu, then you should leave the philosophical part out of it. That is, Advaita, Dvaita, etc., are hardly of relevance.

On the other hand if your interest is spiritual, then the differences between available options is clear enough for you to pick whatever suits your preference. I would strongly discourage you from relying on internet articles to educate yourself on this subject.

The problem here is how Hinduism is incorrectly protrayed to the west as a choice among philosophies, while in reality they matter little to Hinduism. In India, philosophical speculation always was and still is confined to a tiny group of people. Unfortunately, the western view of Hinduism covers up this fact and projects the Hindu as one who has the Veda and philosophical speculation as the main part of his belief.

[Amrut]

Namaste to All,

Thank you again for all of your really helpful answers!

I have just found this article about advaita:

After having read it through - especially its part about Ishvara - it seems more clear to me, too regarding my question. According to this article, advaita itself is not impersonal, it just seems so (it's not by chance I keep on using the word "seems" when talking about my view.

My question now is that how correct is this article? Is that explanation/description of Advaita valid?

Thank you for your help.

Namaste!

This looks like good explanation, though I agree that one should leave the philosophical part. But in the beginning such questions arise.

Sri Ramakrishna explains formless God and God with form.

Formless God is like infinite ocean, while God with form is like freezed water i.e. ice.

Both are water. God takes a concrete form by freezing bhakti of his bhakta.

I could not translate the above line effectively. Maybe someone can translate the this line better.

In hindi: Bhakti rupi thandi se ishwara jam ke ek rupa le lete hai. Vastutah woh pani hi hai.

God is attributed with 6 qualities like all powerful, tyaga (renunciation), ashvarya (glory - falling short of words), etc.

Sri Ramakrishna says, when God is not doing any work of creation, preservation and destruction, I call it Brahman, and when it does this work, I call it as Kali (or simply God)

As we go ahead in spirituality our perception changes and so does our views and definition.

More important is to know about the path which you want to practice.

Please read books written by saints then relying on net. Though net is a good resource, it may seem to be confusing many times.

Aum

[Seeker123]

Moksha is not conditioning of mind. Conditioning can be achieved by medicines such as tried by Huxley and others. The same thing with experience which is temporary. The Upanishads describe Moksha as directly attained through the study of scriptures/Upanishads under a Guru (time permitting I will provide the quotes). Various analogies are given to stress this - archer, driver, churning and so on. It is like learning Calculus, once we learn for an adequate period we know it. In the same way we have to know we are "one indivisible consciousness which alone is real". To know this we need to learn - Shravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana is essential. For the knowledge to work mind needs to be prepared and that is where devotion, meditation, Karma yoga comes but those alone cannot take one into Moksha. Experience, Nirvikalapa Samadhi etc alone is not Moksha. Attached links provides more clarification.

http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/manypaths1.html
http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/moksha1.html

[Amrut]

Moksha is not conditioning of mind. Conditioning can be achieved by medicines such as tried by Huxley and others. The same thing with experience which is temporary. The Upanishads describe Moksha as directly attained through the study of scriptures/Upanishads under a Guru (time permitting I will provide the quotes). Various analogies are given to stress this - archer, driver, churning and so on. It is like learning Calculus, once we learn for an adequate period we know it. In the same way we have to know we are "one indivisible consciousness which alone is real". To know this we need to learn - Shravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana is essential. For the knowledge to work mind needs to be prepared and that is where devotion, meditation, Karma yoga comes but those alone cannot take one into Moksha. Experience, Nirvikalapa Samadhi etc alone is not Moksha. Attached links provides more clarification.

http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/manypaths1.html
http://www.arshavidya.org.uk/trad/moksha1.html

Samadhi cannot be attained by any medicines. Nirvikalp samadhi is not moksha. One attains moksha by steadying oneself into this state of samadhi till there is no need to meditate or make any special effort for it.

Study the life of Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Totapuri baba (Advaita Guru of Sri Ramakrishna).

Sri Ramana Maharshi had the experience of samadhi and then left for arunacha. Sri Maharshi meditated in virupaksha cave for many years to stabilize in samadhi, some call it to attain sahaj samadhi.

Sri Totapuri baba was a staunch advaita vedantin, but did not had experienced maya and that just like fire and it's warmth, maya is inseparable from brahman. He had experience of nirvikalp samadhi and it took 50 years of practice, but after the meditation was over, he was in dvaita. It was Maa Kali who made it realize that his sadhana was not over and that experience of both maya i.e. presence of God / Brahman everywhere is necessary along with nirvikalp samadhi. For the first time in life, he went to Kali maa's temple. Sri Totapuri had experience of samadhi and so he could teach Sri Ramakrishna advaita vedanta, but did not experience the power of God i.e. Maya.

Sri Ramana Maharshi has also mentioned this in his work 'Who am I'. Sri Maharshi says that when you see Jagdamba (God) even in your wife when you are egoless.

What I want to say is that until you have experienced both nirvikalp Samadhi and that everything else is Brahman, you are not free. This can be in any order. Yogis first experience this power of shakti and then go beyond it to experience nirvikalp Samadhi.

One goes beyond mind into Brahman, but all desires are not up-rooted, so mind awakes (as it is not destroyed) and pulls one into dvaita. Again after meditating, mind calms down and one again goes beyond mind into Brahman. This goes on till all desires have been up-rooted. This is why Sri Ramana Maharshi has said there should be mano nasha and not mano laya.

So one should not stop after first experience of Samadhi, but try to make this state permanent. This, according to me, was Sri Ramana Maharshi was doing in caves of Arunachala.

I am not an authority in advaita. It’s just a personal opinion.

Aum

Ref:

Who am I by Sri Ramana Maharshi
40 verses on Reality by Sri Ramana Maharshi
Sri Ramakrishna Jivan Charitra (in Gujarati)
Sri Ramana Maharshi - Jivan ane Karya (In Gujarati) - Sri Ramana Maharshi - Life and Works
Discourses on Gita and Ashtavakra Gita (which is based upon Ajat Vaad)

[Amrut]

Todays quotes from by Blog. They are inline with this discussion

Thursday, Nov 1 2012
One becomes silent on realizing the true nature of Brahman. P. 280

- Sri Ramakrishna

This world is moving around like a wheel. That indeed is the last birth in which one gets rid of all desires completely.

- Sri Sarada Maa

The less passion there is, the better we work. The calmer we are, the better for us and the more the amount of work we can do. When we let loose our feelings, we waste so much energy, shatter our nerves, disturb our minds, and accomplish very little work

- Swami Vivekananda