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

[brahman]

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!

Dear Elizabeth108,


Search for truth in Advaita starts from a belief. A belief that everything is Brahman, which is obtained from three canonical texts of vedantha together called Prasthana Thraya(includes 10 principal Upanishads, Brahmasutra and the Bhagavad gita) .
Or in other words the search for truth in Advaita proceeds from an a priori induction, that 'All is Brahman'. (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma).

So the first point to be postulated is that Advaita it not mere skepticism as many people think.

The Dicta(Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma) gives a generalized form of what this world is all about, and the seeker comes to a final conclusion that ‘This world’ (idam) is Brahman alone.

This conclusion doesn’t give any kind realization to the seeker student; hence he needs to hear how this Brahman relates to oneself or to himself. That he hears from a realized teacher.

The Guru instructs the disciple that ‘he himself is That’ or ‘He himself is Brahman’ (this is derived from the Great Dicta called Tattvamasi).

Then the seeker himself needs to find out ‘who he actually is’ or ‘who am I’ (koham)

In order to find who we are we cannot omit the existence of this world saying all is Maya.

The second point to be noted is that Advaita is not mere Maya Vada.

There starts an a posteriori induction, in which the world is scientifically scrutinized. For the purpose of scrutinizing the world we may even resort to the methodology of modern science (metaphysics) rather than sticking ourselves to the traditional methods as mentioned in the Upanishads.

Towards the end of the search the seeker combines both these knowledge or results of the previously noted inductions (both a priori and a posteriori) and comes to a conclusion using a methodology called dialectics (or science of union which is called yoga buddhi in Sanskrit) in order to trodden the ‘vision’ of the absolute as ‘I’ is Brahman itself’ or ‘I am Brahman’ (Ahman Brahmasmi).

Further stages of contemplation drive the seeker towards Ayam atma Brahma, Prajanam Brahman etc... towards the full vision of the Absolute or being One with it .

--------------------
--------------------
A Kind Note: In our age, to know about a single fraction of organism such as the eye, a person should have twelve years of preparatory study for the familiarization of the language used as the medium of instruction at the university level, then five years to know of the body in which eyes are placed, then another two years or so to have a thorough examination of the eye. Even after that effortful career an ophthalmologist does not claim that s/he knows(so is with the present writer).

If factual knowledge of an eye is so elusive, the vision of truth, that is ‘I’ can sound like a far cry…. No wonder the rishis, the seers, say That is far(tad doore, Isa vasya). Love

[kallol]

Thanks Indiaspirituality.

Yes Seeker123 you are right also. Knowledge is the only one way to the end. However knowledge comes through many means. There was gravity, laws of motion, or relativity before and after Newton or Einstein. They only helped us to discover those.

Yes we learn physics by studying. But there are plenty who are uneducated yet knowledgeable in physics (even Newton and Einstein are like these).

Neither we can claim that in one life, even if we study scriptures, will be able to achieve moksha. Neither can we say that it is must as we do not know the past lives. The learning is a continuous process over many lives and then the assimilation and lead the life accordingly.

If you notice most of the great men, started with bhakti and gained knowledge on the way and became bigger bhaktas - Ramakrishna, Chaitanya, Mirabai, Ramana, etc.

Bhakti is a marg for normal people. Gyan marg is more appealing for intellectuals.

Again there is no escape from knowledge. The only risk, I see, is that the intellectuals after getting knowledge, become more possessive and acquire supremacy complex.

However it is always recommended that one go through the scriptures if they have access to, as that will help them organize their thought process and act as a guide for the conditioning of the mind and body.

[Amrut]

Thanks Indiaspirituality.

Bhakti is a marg for normal people. Gyan marg is more appealing for intellectuals.

Again there is no escape from knowledge. The only risk, I see, is that the intellectuals after getting knowledge, become more possessive and acquire supremacy complex.

I agree with you. Jnana gives you clarity, which a bhakta may / may not have. A bhakta can progress ahead without any knowledge, simply by chanting God's name, but advaita requires one to know what you are doing.

Ego is the real problem in advaita, and one who takes it for granted that 'I am Atman', from scriptural studies, without realizing the same cannot be explained that he/she is wrong. No proof can be given.

This is why Jnana is not just for intellectuals, but for pure hearted.

These days, under heavy western influence and vote bank polities, we and politicians all say that if one deserves, then one should get knowledge and education and that caste system is the biggest evil. Politicians create this hype and pass reservation bills favouring minorities.

I personally think that intellect is not the only criteria. Pure heart or good human being with big heart is necessary, infact compulsory.

If a guru has 2 students, one who is highly skilled with a photographic memory but has more of rajas and tamas gunas or simply say has destructive mind, and another student, who is not so intelligent, but is pure hearted, then whom should Guru give knowledge?

According to me, to the one who is pure hearted. It will take more time for not-so-intellegent pure and big hearted disciple to grasp the teachings, but the knowledge is safe in his hands. Not only this disciple will use it for right purpose, but will also not pass on to undeserving and destructive mind.

Imagine nuclear technology is given to terrorists? what is the result of this? Terrorists are smart, intelligent, tech savvy (more than us, as they hack into our system), better organized, disciplined and has management skills. So even they should be deserving of all knowledge. But what will be the result - destruction.

Traditional e.g. is Ram - Ravan.

If you compare ability of both, Ravan has everything that Rama has. Ravan was a great devotee of Lord Shiva, a brahmin and so dharmagna and shastragna (knower of dharma shastra and scriptures), tapasvi (deep meditator), ayurvedacharya, dancer (did tandav nrutriya), singer (Shiva Tandav stotra is universally accepted and sung even today), Raj Niti (laxman was ordered to learn niti from dying Ravan), etc.

But still he was called Rakshas - a demon. Why? because of his mind, his nature.

I am straying form the topic, but great rishis were more intelligent than us and created caste system, based on karma, with a purpose.

Brahmins are the ones who are one with Brahman, or they are engaged in spiritual activities and doing good for all, even kings respect them. Brahmins traditionally cannot earn, but live on donations and alms.

Similarly, about all other castes. Khstriyas protect all 3 castes, vaishyas, do business and run the society and shudras are helping class. They all have devotion to God in decreasing order.

Even and our politicians are capable, but we all know how they are

Giving admissions to lower grade student falling in SC (Scheduled Caste) or ST (Scheduled tribe) and then they go on to become IAS or govt servants, we all know how much do they work. I whole heatedly agree that they should be given an opportunity, give them free education and all facilities like books, food, residence and education free. But not to compromise on nature and intellect.

Coming back to topic, if one is not pure hearted, advaita is not for him/her. Sri Ramana Maharshi has also said the same in Sri Ramana Gita.

In Advaita, the problem is, from day one we are taught - I am Brahman. If I am Brahman, then to whom should I surrender. How will ego vanish. Then the technical argument continues, that ego is illusionary and explains snake-rope analogy to prove it. However, the fact is we are seeing snake and keep saying that we are seeing the rope. This is a big problem and you cannot prove that the one speaking about truth is not established in truth. Many stop their spiritual practices and no one can prove them that they are wrong. You cannot convince them. A pure hearted would accept his/her mistake, like a soldier who never runs away from battle field, a pure hearted disciple takes Ram-bana (blows to his ego) by his Guru or anyone else (whom God has made an instrument to make a true disciple realize his/her mistake).

There should be a ring master - a realized Guru, like Lord Krishna and there should be disciple like Arjun, a devoted and surrendered disciple who will always say, Oh God, give me what is best for me. He always asked Krishna, his Guru to give him what is best for him. So even if Jnana was the best and Sri Krishna had praised Jnana a lot, Sri Krishna said, Karma is the best (for you).

This is the reason why, Sri Adi Shankaracharya has said, after learning scriptures, when one realizes and says, 'I do not know anything' is a true disciple and progresses on spiritual path. Ego is subdued in this statement. True state of mind spontaneously admitted and expressed out of realization that 'I do not know anything'.

Mind becomes neutral.

I personally think that, neutral mind (which is a strong mind), no big demands other than what is necessity i.e. living a simple life, big heart and habit of let-go, strong faith and surrender, and later dispassion in society are all necessary for one to successfully follow and practice advaita principles. Being intellect is an advantage.

Note: a Neutral mind can live in peace and without any external thing i.e. dependencies are bare minimum. Such is mind is strong mind according to my understanding.

For developing a pure heart with divine sattvik qualities like faith and surrender, bhakti is essential. So many saints, as you have noted started their spiritual journey as bhaktas. Though this is generally true, there are many who by merits of punya (good) karmas in past lives and by intense meditation are born with pure heart and mind, do not require to again pass through all steps of karma and bhakti. Even following pure Jnana marg is possible, but to succesfully follow it and realize truth is very rare.

Aum

[Seeker123]

Namaste,

Upanishads repeatedly discuss that Moksha is only through knowledge and the others such as Bhakti, Karma, meditation are contributory factors only - there are no 4 paths etc etc. The problem is one of avidya - i.e. ignorance who am I, what God is, and what world is. This ignorance is removed by knowledge. The links I gave which are based on the Upanishads clearly explain that. Please review it if you get a chance. Scriptures are Sabda pramana. They are the mirror that reveal the subject "I".
When one says scriptural learning is the way it does not mean that Moksha is guaranteed in this life just by reading. Reading also involves reflecting, assimilation - that is what Sravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana means. It also requires a pure, focused mind where Karma yoga, Bhakthi, meditation comes in. It may take more lives depending on one's prarabdha.
If someone attained Moksha without scriptural reading it is likely that they had done their reading in past lives. But they are the exception and not the norm. In worldly affairs there are genius and there are commoners. A 10 year tendulkar probably did not need a lot of instructions but we cannot say we can become a good cricketer if we just follow in his foot steps.
If someone acquired supremacy complex post knowledge then it is clear that he has not acquired the knowledge!
I don't want to belabor this issue. Among friends let us agree to disagree. My sincere good wishes for your spiritual growth.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Upanishads repeatedly discuss that Moksha is only through knowledge and the others such as Bhakti, Karma, meditation are contributory factors only - there are no 4 paths etc etc. The links I gave which are based on the Upanishads clearly explain that. Please review it if you get a chance. Scriptures are Sabda pramana. They are the mirror that reveal the subject "I".
When one says scriptural learning is the way it does not mean that Moksha is guaranteed in this life just by reading. Reading also involves reflecting, assimilation - that is what Sravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana means. It also requires a pure, focused mind where Karma yoga, Bhakthi, meditation comes in. It may take more lives depending on one's prarabdha.
If someone attained Moksha without scriptural reading it is likely that they had done their reading in past lives. But they are the exception and not the norm. In worldly affairs there are genius and there are commoners. A 10 year tendulkar probably did not need a lot of instructions but we cannot say we can become a good cricketer if we just follow in his foot steps.
If someone acquired supremacy complex post knowledge then it is clear that he has not acquired the knowledge!
I don't want to belabor this issue. Among friends let us agree to disagree. My sincere good wishes for your spiritual growth.

+1 I agree with you

[kallol]

I do not see any disagreement. What is said is absolutely true.