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

[Seeker123]

I posted the following in a different thread but see that this is relevant here as well:

"I was just listening to Swami Paramarthananda today expounding Kaivalya Upanishad. The Upanishad talks about Ishwara in
1. Arupa Ishwara (formless consciousness in all)
2. Anekarupa Ishwara (manifold forms - i.e. all agni, jala everything is Ishwara)
3. Ekarupa Ishwara (one form - Ishta devata) - this is the easiest to conceive and be devoted to"

So Advaita clearly recognizes the role of Isha devata. Even Adi Sankara was a great devotee.

Could you clarify what's the difference between a-dvaita and dvaita if both include worship of an ishta devata?
The main difference I think is that ultimately advaita believes God is formless consciousness and it is that formless consciousness that is everything. I dont think dvaita accepts that.

For example if one has an ishta devata (Shiva) to worship then it is dualism, isn't it?
Yes there is dualism for all advaitins as long as we perceive body as real. Gnanis however are able to clearly see that body is mithya (as though real) and everything is formless consciousness.

Or Shiva is "only" one of the manifasted forms of the Formless?
Anekarupa Ishwara means every form is God. God is limitless then can any form be away from God? Since this itself is difficult to conceive we start by worshipping Ishta devata who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent - typically this is seen as Shiva but can also be Vishnu, Devi, Ganesha etc...

[Elizabeth108]

Namaste to You All,

Thank you so much for all of your anwers I got so far. They are of great help to me, I need to re-read them to understand them more and more.
Thank You for your patience with me, too.

Namaste

[TatTvamAsi]

First, I'm glad you titled your thread correctly -- "...seems so empty an impersonal to me..."

This shows that you are aware of an oft-missed and subtle notion of frame of reference.

The answer simply is that you are not ready for the path of Advaita. That maybe a good thing for both you and other Advaitins!

That's why there are so many paths in Hinduism. You do not have to conform to the "only path" like in the desert cult Christianity. Depending on your (spiritual) evolution, birth, surroundings, and upbringing, you will fit into a path that is right for you.

Most westerners who take an interest in Hinduism are naturally attracted to Hare Krishna or Vaishnavism. HK has many similarities to the desert cults where there is a "Supreme Personality of Godhead" and all other "Gods/Goddesses" are subservient or are the "wrong" way etc.

Thus, HK was the initial step away from that zombie-worshiping cult (christianity) for you. Remain in it and study the Gita with focus. You could be a HK (if you're serious) the rest of your life. It takes lifetimes to progress. By jumping from one path to another, like many westerners do in many things in life, you will not only not progress, it will drag you backwards.

Think of it like going to a university. You are first unsure of your major (field of inquiry/study) and so for the first two years you take all the "basic" requirements; tools to help you specialize in a particular path (field of study) such as Calculus, basic Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History etc. Once you've been in that setting for a while (2 years in this case), you have a better grasp of what is involved in terms of rigor, aptitude, and interest among other things. Then, you decide on a major and dive in like a rock through water. After your junior year (3rd year), if you jump ship from say, Math, to History, there will be a "sandhya", or an in-between period, where your mind will have to reinitialize and prepare for the other path; it is essentially a 'shock' to the system. Again, after a couple of semesters/quarters in History, if you decide that's not for you and then declare yourself a computer science (CS) major, you will again have to adjust to that frame of mind to do well (assuming your goal is to do well and not just get a certificate at the end with some scribbling - I think those are called degrees and you can get them on the 3rd aisle of WalMart for $89.95).

Self-inquiry (atma-viCArA) is the same, except in this instance it takes lifetimes. This is why birth matters. You were born a christian in europe for a reason. If you're completely certain (nobody is) that you've outgrown worshiping ***, then you should take some time off and contemplate (meditate on this).

It is always better to choose ONE path and stick with it. The question is not whether it is the best path, but whether it's the best path for you!

[Elizabeth108]

First, I'm glad you titled your thread correctly -- "...seems so empty an impersonal to me..."

This shows that you are aware of an oft-missed and subtle notion of frame of reference.

I know I have no right to degrade anything I do not understand/know really. I just tried to express my personal experience and how I feel about the advaita path so far. In the meantime, I really tried my best to avoid even the shadow of hurting others. That's why I put it that way.

The answer simply is that you are not ready for the path of Advaita. That maybe a good thing for both you and other Advaitins!

That's why there are so many paths in Hinduism. You do not have to conform to the "only path" like in the desert cult Christianity. Depending on your (spiritual) evolution, birth, surroundings, and upbringing, you will fit into a path that is right for you.

You are right and I agree with you. I try to find the path that is for me.

Most westerners who take an interest in Hinduism are naturally attracted to Hare Krishna or Vaishnavism. HK has many similarities to the desert cults where there is a "Supreme Personality of Godhead" and all other "Gods/Goddesses" are subservient or are the "wrong" way etc.

Thus, HK was the initial step away from that zombie-worshiping cult (christianity) for you. Remain in it and study the Gita with focus. You could be a HK (if you're serious) the rest of your life. It takes lifetimes to progress. By jumping from one path to another, like many westerners do in many things in life, you will not only not progress, it will drag you backwards.

As for HK and Vaishnavism (outside ISKCON), I met with HK people here in Europe but after having read different versions of the BG translations/explanations, I perefer the Vaishnava (not HK) path for certain features and teachings. If I "choose" between those two.

Think of it like going to a university. You are first unsure of your major (field of inquiry/study) and so for the first two years you take all the "basic" requirements; tools to help you specialize in a particular path (field of study) such as Calculus, basic Physics, Chemistry, Biology, History etc. Once you've been in that setting for a while (2 years in this case), you have a better grasp of what is involved in terms of rigor, aptitude, and interest among other things. Then, you decide on a major and dive in like a rock through water. After your junior year (3rd year), if you jump ship from say, Math, to History, there will be a "sandhya", or an in-between period, where your mind will have to reinitialize and prepare for the other path; it is essentially a 'shock' to the system. Again, after a couple of semesters/quarters in History, if you decide that's not for you and then declare yourself a computer science (CS) major, you will again have to adjust to that frame of mind to do well (assuming your goal is to do well and not just get a certificate at the end with some scribbling - I think those are called degrees and you can get them on the 3rd aisle of WalMart for $89.95).

Self-inquiry (atma-viCArA) is the same, except in this instance it takes lifetimes. This is why birth matters. You were born a christian in europe for a reason. If you're completely certain (nobody is) that you've outgrown worshiping a rotting corpse, then you should take some time off and contemplate (meditate on this).

What I know is, that I respect those who remain in Christianity but I am against some of its teachings. I can't and don't wish to deny my cultural background because I must have been born in that for a reason. Yet, we all are here to progress, continue our 'growth' until we get back to the Source.
With this in mind, I can say I don't wish to return to Christianity as my path but advaita is still high for me here and now. So I am looking for my place to fit in between taking the steps one by one.

for you[/B]!

As I have written it before, I don't want to jump here and there, I just try my best to find the right stair for me now.
As for me now, I am in need of a path containing advaita involving a kind of personal attribute to grasp. But that being personal does not mean total separation.
For example: I am now part of the Self/Overself/Vishnu/The One so I am the same as Its essence and the ultimate goal is to become One with It in the end again. This is how I can describe it. Krishna is one of the possible ishta devatas to worship.

[Eastern Mind]

The same philosophy that seems "empty and impersonal" to you has been a source of perennial and continuing elevation to so many others. It has drawn, benefitted from and produced some of the finest minds and philosophers in India (and around the world).

Vannakkam: I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. Are you implying that Advaita is the highest path, of that it is the one that works for you?

Certainly I'm not sure of the place a western psychologist's writings has in all this. Not sure if this intellectualisation of humanity fits Hinduism. I'm more prone to using Patanjali and his 8 rungs as a basis for this kind of analysis. His 'pyramid' works for me.

In any discussion of Advaita, it seems that intellectualised Advaita and experiential advaita tend to get overlapped. I think souls the likes of Ramana Maharshi lived in the Oneness Consciousness others can only speak about.

Maybe, Wundermunk, you can clarify for me.

Aum Namasivaya

[Omkara]

The problem a theist could have with Advaita is that the Saguna Brahman he prays to is an illusion just like everything else,and is ultimately just a mirage.That is why I prefer monist traditions that do not amke this distinction between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.

[Omkara]

I think Elizabeth has correctly perceived the impersonalist conclusion that results from Advaita. If Brahman is indeed all that exists, and everything else is maya, then by the same logic the whole concept of devotion and devotional interactions is also relegated to a category of illusory perception, i.e. not real, not permanent, merely a means to an end, etc.

It is probably for this reason, as well as many others, that people will often get different explanations of Advaita from different people. Some people explain Advaita in a way that is more reminiscent of Bhaaskara's bedha abedha philosophy, in my observation. Whether they admit it or not, many Advaitins in my observation seem to have problems explaining away the maya part and its ramifications on sadhana.

This is my experience too.When I started reading up on hinduusm (with neo-advaita),as everyone does,the impressions I came away with were closer to bedha abheda than advaita.Only later did I realize whai I had read about Advaita was misleading.Much of modern neo advaita is simply pseudo Vishishtadvaita.

[devotee]

Namaste Elizabeth,

People have many misconceptions about Advaita and your post arises from a similar misconception. Advaita has to be practised under a Self-realised Guru but we think that all that is available on internet is Advaita and there is nothing beyond that. Believe me, it is NOT-empty but full of bliss and peace. Moreover, Advaitins too pray to God for His grace for their worldly and spiritual desires. On the top of it, the Self-realised Guru of an Advaitin takes enough care of his/her worldly issues and spiritual aspirations ... so much so that he/she never feels alone.

BTW, as TTA and others have suggested, this may not be a suitable path for you. You must choose a path that suits you naturally as you are born with unique samskArs and tendencies.

OM

[Amrut]

Namaste All,

Here is my background in short but detailed:
I come from the western culture and live in Europe. Christianity is the major religion in my homeland and so I was brought up in that as a child. My family was not so religious. Yet this path is where I am from due to my cultural background.

Later, at the beginning of my 20s going to university I turned away from Christianity to Vaishnava path. I met Hare Krishna people, I love the Bhagavad-Gita and Vaishnava mantras (not only the HK one).

Then I got into such a group of people who introduced me to the views of advaita. It was new and even interesting to me. This group of people were shaiva as well.

By now, since I withdrew from this group I have just realized how empty and impersonal advaita is to me. The lack of God (like Krsna in Vaishnavism) makes it very hard for me. This leaves a void in me and I feel lost.
I regard Vishnu and Shiva as two facets of the One. The Vaishnava path seems more personal to me than Saiva (and advaita) path.

I love the person of Ramana Maharshi (followers of his introduced me to shaivism and advaita) but His teaching (Self Enquiry, Who am I)is too high and impersonal to me. What shall I do? Would choosing the Vaishnava path exclude Ramana for example? What am I to do?

Thank you very much for your answers!

Namaste Elizabeth,

I have not read all the posts, but would like to point out simple things.

As you have said, In Dvaita, there is a personal God with whom you can talk, share your thoughts, offer food, even vent out anger and frustration. while in advaita there is no form of God. So one has to neautralize likes and dislikes.

Indeed advaita is not for everybody. Sri Ramana Maharshi in Sri Ramana Gita says that Advaita is for the ones who have purified themselves through intense meditations or are pure by birth as a result of their merits (good karma).

Advaita is difficult than dvaita in a sense that in advaita there is no option for an emotional outlet.

In Sri Ramakrishna's words, Bhakta is like being a Kitten (Cat's Child). Kitten does only 'meau meau' when it needs anything. It is the mother who searches her child, grabs her in her mouth and then takes her to a safe place. If a kitten requires food, all it has to do is 'meau meau', and mother does the rest.

A Jnani is like a infant monkey. Baby monkey has to grab her mother, that too upside down) by his/her own strength. When mother jumps, the baby has to be careful. If it loses it's grip, it may fall and may have injuries.

I hope you must have got the neck.

Kitten surrenders and then mother (God - Rama, Krishna, Shiva) picks her child, and takes her child to safety, while a baby monkey has to steadfastly hold onto the Mother i.e. Jnana marg sadhaka (follower of Jnana Marg) has to steadfastly hold onto the idea of Brahmabhavana - i.e. I am not the body, thought, mind, but I am the Atman and discard everything that is not Atman. This Atman is the mother monkey.

So if an Advatin keeps Atman in his/her center of life, and does not give importance to anything else he/she can quickly reach to the pinnacle of spiritual truth i.e. mother monkey reaches the topmost branch in no time.

On the other hand a bhakta is entirely dependent upon God.

This is the basic difference.

Sri Ramana's Maharshi has said there are 3 paths to realise true nature.

A bhakta dances, cries in joy and estacy, in the name of God, while a Jnani stays calm, unperturbed with anything that is going around him/her. deep peace and eternal Bliss are experienced as a result of clinging to the truth.

It is not that Jnani has no emotions. Jnani has a bhava - Shanta Bhava (Bhava of Peace). Maun (silence) is the only expression that has potential to express Atma-Sthiti - State of Self Realization. This the reason why Sri Ramana Maharshi was Maun many times. Sri Ramana Maharhi when approached by Mahatma Gandhi through a messenger and when asked about his role in freedom struggle, Sri Ramana Maharshi simply replied, " I see this world as you see cinema, pictures come and go on screen, but nothing happens to the screen. I am that screen"

Bhakti is more simple that Jnana. Both lead you to same destination. So if you are comfortable with Bhakti, then continue with it. Some people do pure bhakti and then have divine vision of their beloved deity, while others have a mixture of Jnana nad bhakti. Such bhaktas shift to Jnana Marg after maturity.

This had happened to a devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

I do not remember the name of that devotee, but he was a Ganesh Bhakta and later after meeting Sri Ramana Maharshi he realized that Sri Ramana was his Guru, but was confused as what to do, worship Ganesh or follow Advaita. Later he realized that it was his maturity of bhakti that Lord Ganesha had arranged a meeting with Sri Ramana Maharshi.

So do not worry, you can drop advaita, if it's dry for you. Go ahead with Bhakti.

All paths lead to same destination.

Aum

Indiaspirituality

Some links that may be of help:

When I seek the 'I', I see nothing.

Spiritual Essence - Spirituality in a nut shell

Four Paths: Which Path to Choose

Am I following a correct path?

[Amrut]

Regarding your feeling

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

the first link i.e. When I seek the 'I', I see nothing. will be helpful.

I understand what you are saying. Nothing wrong in it

If you read Atmashatak / Nirvana Shatak or this link, you will understand that Advaita is separating yourself (as Atman) from everything else. Entire advaita is explained or rather condensed in this 6 verses)

We are all connected with our body. Bhakta uses his/her body for God. Bhakta says, let my hands clap when someone sings glories of God, let my mouth speak only of God, etc. So Bhakta uses his /her senses for God, while a Jnani detaches himself/herself from these senses.

Now when you try to apply it in your life, you think that if I am not this not this then there will be a void and there will be a fear of insecurity. Every emotion will be sucked out of you and you feel dry. All the excitement will fade away. The reason is that our mind is clinged with our body. It tries to fulfill it's desires through body. Mind is constantly hunting for more sense objects through 5 senses through our body. Mind runs behind senses. Now when you try to pull back the senses adn try to pull back the mind and try to calm down, it will be a question of life and death, as mind is nothing but continuous flow of thoughts, says shastras and Sri Ramana Maharshi. Mind desperately tries to go extrovert. Now when the mind is made introvert i.e. it is pulled back from senses, all excitement fades away and you feel dry. I think this is what you are experiencing. As mind has habit of being extrovert. This is something new to you. Mind is not accustomed to it and so you have this kind of feeling (of Void), as if everything is stolen from you. Am I right?

In this case many, like you, feel insecurity, but if you jump into insecurity, you will realize that you are most secured. You will realize that you are detached from body (this happens after regular meditation) and that it were emotions and extrovert tendencies that where making you unhappy and inducing these fear.

Detached state is not a negative state. It is followed by release of tension, and every other stress and any quality. Peace of mind follows. You will have not experienced this type of deep peace in your entire life. It's indescribable.

It is not negative. But never mind, if you are comfortable with bhakti, go ahead with it. Advaita is another path, not THE ONLY PATH

On the other hand, if you are of emotional nature, then Dvaita will suit you. You already have bhava (emotion). It has to be turned towards God. It is easy to stay extrovert, and live for God, then try to detach yourself from what is not Atman.

Good luck for spiritual journey.

Aum

Indiaspirituality