Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: Genuine Questions on Advaita

  1. #1

    Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Many praNAms

    Please address the following questions on Advaita that have been lurking in the mind.

    First, premises or axiomatic understanding - subject to checks.

    1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
    2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
    3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
    4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
    omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...
    om namostav anantAya sahastramUrtaye
    sahastrapAdAkshashirorubAhave
    sahastranAmne purushAya shAsvate
    sahastra koti yuga dhAriNe namah:


    QUESTIONS
    1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
    is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
    Why or Why not?

    2. In other words, such a state of existence as described above, i.e. tUryAvasthA, should and does it enable manifestation of NArAyaNa i.e. Parameshwar?

    3. Or, in other words, does such a state of existence command the entire YogamAyA at disposal ?
    If the answer to this is yes, then it must imply that this state as described in Qn 1. is UTOPIAN, TOO THEORETICAL, because otherwise...

    4. How do you explain aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha avatAr as opposed to the pUrNa avatAr or pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn Shri KRshNa?

    Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

    For us jivas, we are infinitsimal, but Advaita blames that infinitesimalness on our ignorance and conditioning (vices, faults, 3 gunas ). So we have very little shakti at our disposal.
    However, if all avatArs (fractional, of full) are pUrNa Bramhan, in tUryAvasthA, very pure, what makes one a part of NArAyaNa and another more NArAyaNa and another less NArAyaNa?

    thank you so much!

    _/\_

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  2. #2

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam View Post
    Many praNAms

    Please address the following questions on Advaita that have been lurking in the mind.

    First, premises or axiomatic understanding - subject to checks.

    1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
    2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
    3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
    4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
    omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...
    om namostav anantAya sahastramUrtaye
    sahastrapAdAkshashirorubAhave
    sahastranAmne purushAya shAsvate
    sahastra koti yuga dhAriNe namah:


    QUESTIONS
    1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
    is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
    Why or Why not?

    2. In other words, such a state of existence as described above, i.e. tUryAvasthA, should and does it enable manifestation of NArAyaNa i.e. Parameshwar?

    3. Or, in other words, does such a state of existence command the entire YogamAyA at disposal ?
    If the answer to this is yes, then it must imply that this state as described in Qn 1. is UTOPIAN, TOO THEORETICAL, because otherwise...

    4. How do you explain aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha avatAr as opposed to the pUrNa avatAr or pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn Shri KRshNa?

    Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

    For us jivas, we are infinitsimal, but Advaita blames that infinitesimalness on our ignorance and conditioning (vices, faults, 3 gunas ). So we have very little shakti at our disposal.
    However, if all avatArs (fractional, of full) are pUrNa Bramhan, in tUryAvasthA, very pure, what makes one a part of NArAyaNa and another more NArAyaNa and another less NArAyaNa?

    thank you so much!

    _/\_

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya


    Some people get a glimpse of atma in their life time. Should we label this as partial? There are some people who can see atma any time they want to- I suppose we could label this as fully realized. Conscience is awareness. Atma is
    soul. When people translate atma as self then they confuse people because they cannot distinguish between selfish ego and soul. Brahman is identical to atma. To separate these would not be advaita. It would be dualism. They are both seen as one.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    53
    Posts
    639
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by jthomasnaz View Post
    Some people get a glimpse of atma in their life time. Should we label this as partial? There are some people who can see atma any time they want to- I suppose we could label this as fully realized. Conscience is awareness. Atma is
    soul. When people translate atma as self then they confuse people because they cannot distinguish between selfish ego and soul. Brahman is identical to atma. To separate these would not be advaita. It would be dualism. They are both seen as one.
    Namaste.

    I agree with you, but it is so difficult to speak of it.

    Consciousness is all-pervasive. We all manage to capture a tiny part of it and call it our 'Soul' or 'Atman'.

    This is where the duality comes in...when we say 'what's inside is my Soul and what's 'out there' all belongs to Shiva'.

    It's like the awareness stops at the very edge of our body and mind, shoving this huge wedge between Jivatman and Paratman.

    Yes, we can see Shiva, but we cannot be Shiva.

    When I pray to Ardharnareshwar, this all comes into play. The Tantric unity between Shiva and Shakti creating the Divine Balance within and without...but it's still going to be Shiva/Shakti no matter from which Advaitist standpoint you come from...until, you realise that Duality is Non-Duality.

    That's the beauty of it all.

    Then, I am drawn back to the motto on the Indonesian Flag and the European Union: "Unity In Diversity".

    There are two paths you can take - that of total nihilism or that of total acceptance...both lead to the same place.

    When we remove that 'wedge' and lose our body, our thinking mind and believing there's an 'inside' and an 'outside' is when the two will become one.

    Aum Namah Shivaya

  4. #4

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Namaste
    Quote Originally Posted by jthomasnaz View Post
    Some people get a glimpse of atma in their life time. Should we label this as partial?
    No. This is not a realized person, and not in the picture for our thread. I used the word 'partial' for avatArs. The aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha or Avesha avatArs - beings empowered by the Supreme Lord, but not the Supreme Lord in entirity.
    These beings are fully Self-realized of course, else they would never be in the avatAr category.

    Actually, I have an answer to that from Shri KRshNa Himself "I come cloaked in different suits, that is why all My powers are not manifest in that form."

    (All powers not being manifest in one avatar form is different from KRshNa choosing not to manifest power (aishwarya) in front of Mother Yashoda.)

    There are some people who can see atma any time they want to- I suppose we could label this as fully realized. Conscience is awareness.
    This is what I am focusing on, thank you. If these people are Bramhan, pUrNa Bramhan, then should they or should they not also potentially manifest as Parameshvar? If Bramhan is the source of omni-science-potence-presence, then these beings, fully realized acc. to you, must automatically have/be that - YES? or NO?

    If YES, then advaita and tUriyAvasthA is a theoretical never-reachable utopian goal for earthlings, and bhakti - devotion towards Parameshwar is the wise spiritual goal and practice.

    If NO (which is how I initially looked at advaita) then advaita is talking about Atma-bhAv, tadAtmictA. "We are ONE IN SPIRIT. You are Me, You are My AtmA just as I am Yours. The reason we are one, is because you are very very very dear to Me. As a result, you care not for any selfish individual endeavors/existence independant of Me" This is why the basis of advaita bhAv (which I suspect is the bhAv, sentiment, nishThA alone), is

    L O V E. U N I V E R S A L L O V E. In the bhakti language it is P R E M

    This is Bramhan-nishThA. Again, for this also, there has to be devotion to Parameshwar, because it is His Grace that can bring this state. YashodA could not tie little DAmodar (KRshNa) with the rope - it was always 2 fingers short, no matter what she did - she kept getting longer and longer ropes. It was only when KRshNa (appearing as a 2 yr old) finally decided to shower His causeless mercy on her, only because of her extreme pure love for Him, did the rope fit.

    I think the following explains it somewhat, but HLK may have to crease out some ambiguities.

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    Once Sri Rama asked Hanuman how he looked at him.

    Hanuman Replied:

    As a body, I am your das (servant) and you are my lord (master, prabhu)
    As a jiva, I am ansha (part) and you are whole (purNa)
    but from Tatva Jnana, hey RAma, I am you and you are me. We are not different.
    Advaita talks from this third POV - Atma bhAva and not jiva bhava.

    In advaita, there is no experiencer. So if you say that ‘I am experiencing unity’ , it is not ultimate state - advaita. You are still experiencing something, be it peace, bliss or oneness. Bramhan is beyond
    unity and multiplicity. Upanishadas say about unity only to discard plurality which is an illusion.
    Thanks for this, HLK.
    (Feedback - The statements in red give rise to ambiguity/conflict at least for learning readers. They speak an advanced language which is best understood internally in parA not externally in vaikharI because vaikhari vANI gives rise to six blind men and the elephant )

    Again, the last statement, "Upanishads talk about unity to discard plurality which is an illusion" can be best understood in terms of patriotic oneness, community spirit, universal brotherhood and oneness etc. Because the goal of the upanishads is to develop the spirit, the attitude of oneness - sama darshana.

    vAsudeva sarvam iti

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~
    Last edited by smaranam; 26 July 2013 at 09:13 PM. Reason: bhakti
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  5. #5

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam View Post
    If NO (which is how I initially looked at advaita) then advaita is talking about Atma-bhAv, tadAtmictA. "We are ONE IN SPIRIT. You are Me, You are My AtmA just as I am Yours. The reason we are one, is because you are very very very dear to Me. As a result, you care not for any selfish individual endeavors/existence independant of Me" This is why the basis of advaita bhAv (which I suspect is the bhAv, sentiment, nishThA alone), is

    L O V E. U N I V E R S A L L O V E. In the bhakti language it is P R E M

    This is Bramhan-nishThA.
    I just wanted to add that, while this was the understanding, I met advaita followers who were deep into technical jargon where they dissected the grammar basics - subject verb object, and implied that you cannot have a devotional relationship with BhagvAn - which made the jiva averse to the philosophy.

    In any case, a good advaita teacher, Dr. Sadananda, once said,

    "The statement (mahAvAkya) is Aham BramhAsmi, and not Aham IshvarAsmi"

    Just remembered that, and which could be an answer to the original qn above. However, the Dattatreya followers and all those siddha followers seem to be more into the yoga siddhi kind of stuff (they look for miracles from the Guru). Same with some Shaiva sects. Intense yog, meditation, tapascharyA brings siddhis, no doubt, but bhakti is a different story altogether - more on madhurya than aishvarya. The miracle of VaishNav Gurus is to turn the bhakta-gaNa madly in love with KRshNa.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  6. #6
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    53
    Posts
    639
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam View Post
    Namaste


    No. This is not a realized person, and not in the picture for our thread. I used the word 'partial' for avatArs. The aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha or Avesha avatArs - beings empowered by the Supreme Lord, but not the Supreme Lord in entirity.
    These beings are fully Self-realized of course, else they would never be in the avatAr category.

    Actually, I have an answer to that from Shri KRshNa Himself "I come cloaked in different suits, that is why all My powers are not manifest in that form."

    (All powers not being manifest in one avatar form is different from KRshNa choosing not to manifest power (aishwarya) in front of Mother Yashoda.)



    This is what I am focusing on, thank you. If these people are Bramhan, pUrNa Bramhan, then should they or should they not also potentially manifest as Parameshvar? If Bramhan is the source of omni-science-potence-presence, then these beings, fully realized acc. to you, must automatically have/be that - YES? or NO?

    If YES, then advaita and tUriyAvasthA is a theoretical never-reachable utopian goal for earthlings, and they had better have/develop bhakti - devotion towards Parameshwar.

    If NO (which is how I initially looked at advaita) then advaita is talking about Atma-bhAv, tadAtmictA. "We are ONE IN SPIRIT. You are Me, You are My AtmA just as I am Yours. The reason we are one, is because you are very very very dear to Me. As a result, you care not for any selfish individual endeavors/existence independant of Me" This is why the basis of advaita bhAv (which I suspect is the bhAv, sentiment, nishThA alone), is

    L O V E. U N I V E R S A L L O V E. In the bhakti language it is P R E M

    This is Bramhan-nishThA. Again, for this also, there had better be devotion to Parameshwar, because it is His Grace that can bring this state. YashodA could not tie little DAmodar (KRshNa) with the rope - it was always 2 fingers short, no matter what she did - she kept getting longer and longer ropes. It was only when KRshNa (appearing as a 2 yr old) finally decided to shower His causeless mercy on her, only because of her extreme pure love for Him, did the rope fit.

    I think the following explains it somewhat, but HLK may have to crease out some ambiguities.



    Thanks for this, HLK.
    (Feedback - The statements in red give rise to ambiguity/conflict at least for learning readers. They speak an advanced language which is best understood internally in parA not externally in vaikharI because vaikhari vANI gives rise to six blind men and the elephant )

    Again, the last statement, "Upanishads talk about unity to discard plurality which is an illusion" can be best understood in terms of patriotic oneness, community spirit, universal brotherhood and oneness etc. Because the goal of the upanishads is to develop the spirit, the attitude of oneness - sama darshana.

    vAsudeva sarvam iti

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~
    Namaste.

    Bhakti is the answer.

    Our inquiries, our sadhana, our faith and belief can only take us so far.

    In the end, a huge 'leap of faith' is required and that takes love.

    I am intrigued by Adi Shankaracharya and how, one one hand, he can write magnificent treatises on Advaita Vedanta, but on the other, writes beautiful poems and hymns about Bhakti.

    One has to ask, which came first, Jnana or Bhakti?

    Some say you must know to love, others say you must love to know.

    Both go together...hand in hand.

    There is not one without the other. There is not Shiva without Shakti, nor Shakti without Shiva.

    Aum Namah Shivaya

  7. #7

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
    Namaste.

    Bhakti is the answer.

    Our inquiries, our sadhana, our faith and belief can only take us so far.

    In the end, a huge 'leap of faith' is required and that takes love.

    I am intrigued by Adi Shankaracharya and how, one one hand, he can write magnificent treatises on Advaita Vedanta, but on the other, writes beautiful poems and hymns about Bhakti.

    One has to ask, which came first, Jnana or Bhakti?

    Some say you must know to love, others say you must love to know.

    Both go together...hand in hand.

    There is not one without the other. There is not Shiva without Shakti, nor Shakti without Shiva.

    Aum Namah Shivaya
    This is wonderful, Necromancer. It could be our poster. I agree with both your posts, as "I hear what you say"
    Thanks for the inputs.

    _/\_
    Last edited by smaranam; 26 July 2013 at 06:46 AM. Reason: typo
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  8. #8
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1352

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Namaste Smaranamji,

    1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego
    2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.
    3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.
    4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent,
    omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...
    I will reply in detail later. Just a few quick points.

    According to Tatva Bodh, Jiva and Atman are different

    Jiva in plain words is the indwelling spirit

    the attachment of body and the feeling that 'I' am body is the one that produces bondage. Such a bound soul is called Jiva-atman or simply Jiva.

    Jiva is defined by Adi Shankara in Tatva Bodh and other prakaraNa granths as the one who associates itself with karma and fruits of karma, experiences pleasure and pain by associating with mind, body, intellect and ego. Jiva travels from one body to another and is trapped in the cycle of birth and death.

    Atman is Sat-Chit-Ananda same as Brahman.

    If you look at Sv Up. verse 5.8 just the verse before you quoted i.. 5.9, irt says

    Of the size of a thumb, but effulgent like the Sun, the Jiva possesses both volition and individuality. It is endowed with the qualities of the mind and heart (Atman). Therefore it is seen as another entity, small as the point of a goad. 5.8

    The individual soul (Jiva) is extremely subtle like the point of a hair divided and subdivided many times. Yet it has the potential for infinity. He is to be realised (as none other than the paramatman). 5.9

    Same is said in Shiva Gita 10.26 (as in Sv. Up. 5.9)

    Later in 10.37 and 10.38 it says that without Knowledge or before merging with Brahman, Jiva is not destroyed.

    After merging with Brahman, jiva is destroyed.

    Now the question is Jiva or Jiva-bhAva? It has to be found out

    According to Advaita, Brahman never really divides itself, as it voids it's definition
    It cannot transform into anything. Brahman is unchanging.

    So it is Brahman under to illusion of mAyA (the illusionary creative power) called Ishwara appears to create this universe. This is the theory of Advaita, as I have understood.

    So jiva-bhava is false superimposition upon Brahman under the false notion of Ego. 'I' associates with panch-mahabhuta.

    Ishwara has upAdhi-s. It takes AdhAra of vidha mAyA, but is mAyA's swami and so not bound by it.

    Jiva has upAdhi-s of a-vidhA mAyA i.e. panch mahAbhuta

    If you remove both upAdhi-s what remains is NirguNa Brahman.

    In your 1st point, there is a a priori i.e pre-assumption that jiva is separate, which in reality is not. Hence no question of merging. Only wrong notion is realized.

    Now regarding confusion of jiva, ishwara, Brahman.

    there are 3 types of shruti-s -

    bheda shruti-s: they describe jiva nad ishwara / Brahman as completely different
    a-bheda shruti-s: They talk about oneness of Jiva nad Shia i.e Brahman
    ghaTak shruti-s: They connect bheda nad abheda, like ishwara is antar yAmi.

    Now regarding the quote by H-L-K

    Please read it very slowly with cool mind.

    In advaita, there is no experiencer. So if you say that ‘I am experiencing unity’ , it is not ultimate state - advaita. You are still experiencing something, be it peace, bliss or oneness. Brahman is beyond

    unity and multiplicity. Upanishads say about unity only to discard plurality which is an illusion.
    The only consistency according to GauDapAda, Adi Shankara and later on re-discovered by Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati is adhyAropa apavAda

    It is false Superimposition (adhyAropa) Followed by Retraction (apavAda)

    As HLK has said, first attributes are attached and then contradicted later on in the same shruti.

    e.g. Attribute of witness is added and then it is said that it cannot be reached through mind, eyes, speech, etc.

    The concept of witness is introduced since the objective is to indicate that 'I' am not any object of observation. But later on, even the attribute of being a witness is removed, as to see something, there has to be another (an object that can be seen and oberver).

    Hence Brahman cannot be a witness also. So the false attribute of being a witness is also negated by saying that Brahman is beyond 5 senses and mind.

    It is not possible to describe Brahman, hence it cannot be taught positively. No attribute can be given to describe it. It shows that all attributes are also false and they also has to be negated. Hence the only method to explain Brahman is negative approach or false superimposition and retraction or negation of false super imposition.

    In gita same thing is observed in 13.13 and 13.14 (note in some version version 1 in chapter 13 is not found, and was not commented by Adi shankara. Hence the number in followers of Ramanuja might by 13.14 and 13.15)

    ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते।
    अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते।।13.13।।

    13.13 I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being.

    सर्वतः पाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्।
    सर्वतः श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति।।13.14।।

    13.14 That (Knowable), which has hands and feet everwhere, which has eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, which has ears everywhere, exists in creatures by pervading them all.


    सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम्।
    असक्तं सर्वभृच्चैव निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च।।13.15।।

    13.15 Shining through the functions of all the organs, (yet) devoid of all the organs; unattached, and verily the supporter of all; without quality, and the perceiver of qualities;


    did you notice - neither being nor non-being. Then attributes of omnipresence -- then retraction of these qualities as devoid of all organs, without quality.

    Please refer to shankara bhasya from link in my signature 'Gita Super Site' in verse 13.14. Select both hindi commentary (Sri Harikrishandas Goenka ) and english commentary (Swami Gambhirananda)

    another e.g. to make things easy.

    न हि कश्चित्क्षणमपि जातु तिष्ठत्यकर्मकृत्।
    कार्यते ह्यवशः कर्म सर्वः प्रकृतिजैर्गुणैः।।3.5।।

    3.5 Because, no one ever remains even for a moment without doing work. For all are made to work under compulsion by the gunas born of Nature.

    यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन।
    ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा।।4.37।।

    4.37 Just as burning fire turns fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge turn all Karma to ashes.

    Is this not contradictory? So first something is said, then it is retracted or negated.

    To a matured sadhaka, shastras say that all karmas are destroyed. All means prArabhdha, AgAmi and sanchit. So even prArabhdha is destroyed. Gita also says that one cannot be free from any karma and so one should practice nitya karmas.

    Upadeshas are said from adhikAra bheda.

    Now you got he point as why in Sv. Up. even though the size of jiva is given, it says, it has to be experienced as infinite.

    I hope the theory of Advaita is understood.


    Regarding bhakti, without bhakti, one cannot under Jnana. Bhakti is the foundation.

    If you notice the reason or incident of spontaneous composition of Bhaja Govindam, you will understand why it was created and why it is necessary to surrender to Ishwara (God with form)

    I will write about avatar and jnani later, but one word sums up, it is I am Brahman and not I am Ishwara.

    To sum up

    • Jiva and Atman are different in Adviata
    • bhakti is important for mental purification (bhakti not from Vaishnava POV)
    • Bhakti means an attitude of non-difference with Brahman
    • False Superimposition followed by Retraction is traditional teaching according to Swami Sacchidanandendra Saraswati.


    Aum

    Amrut
    Last edited by Amrut; 26 July 2013 at 10:07 AM.
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  9. #9
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1352

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Pranams,

    We will take one point at a time. OP's posts marked with Purple

    1. AtmA inside body of a creature is consciousness - distinct from mind, intellect, ego

    Jiva and Atman are different. Atman is not inside body.

    2. Brahman is essentially all-pervading consciousness and substratum of everything.

    Right

    3. Shvetasvatara Up. says AtmA is atomic but pervades the body.

    Again it is jiva and not atman.

    For explanation, In Utara Gita Chapter 2 and Shiva Gita Chapter 10, it is said that though jiva resides in heart, through 72000 nadis, Jiva spreads in the body. At another verse in Shiva Gita, it is said that though Jiva is said to reside in heart, it resides in Head (pineal Gland)

    As explained in earlier post, Jiva appears to be of a particular size, it has to be experienced as infinite.

    4. Parameshvar/BhagavAn is essentially Brahman with a pure functional ahaMkAr, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. Everywhere simultaneously, with infinite limbs, eyes...


    I did not get it by pure functional ahamkAra?

    I have not read anywhere that Bhagavan / Ishwara has ego.

    Brahman along with mAyA, appears as Ishwara.

    Brahman and mAyA are inseparable like fire and it's warmth, Sun and it's rays.

    So wherever there is Brahman there is also mAyA. Hence Bhagavan is also called as omnipresent - Vishnu - the one who pervades

    <some content cropped>

    Since Avatar vAda is not supported in Upanishads, and Advaita does not talk much about it, at times help of Yog has to be taken.

    QUESTIONS

    1. When the individual is Self-realized fully, NO ignorance, No vikAr (blemishes, faults), No shadripU (six vices of kaam krodh lobh moha matsar), beyond guNa, NO ego, NO sense of individuality, identity, me you they,
    is this not what Brahman is? So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
    Why or Why not?


    Answer:

    As explained earlier, no change takes place. There is no transformation, only false notion and superimposition is removed.

    Smaranam ji asked: So then, the purest of the pure one as above, are they supposed to be that very same Brahman as in omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent and when manifest, are necessarily with 8 major and 18 siddhis including Ishitva?
    Why or Why not?


    Answer:

    Yes. Please do not mix any vikArA-s with Atman or pure consciousness. In pure consciousness, none of them are present. Just like when one is seeing shadow one cannot see sun, and when one turns towards sun, one does not see shadow.

    When consciousness i.e. Brahman identifies itself with panch mahAbhuta in simple words when pure consciousness gets embodies in body and identifies itself with body, and mind then in this case it cannot be pure consciousness and hence it acquires all qualities of mind and in due course due to karma, etc it has vikAra-s. In this case, it does not know itself to be omnipresent Brahman.

    In the same way, when 'I' detaches from mind and body and merges in Brahman, it looses it's own identity and becomes Brahman.

    So when one is identifying itself as pure Brahman, it is not aware of worldly consciousness, as one is in nirvikalp samadhi. After 21 days, connection with body drops permanently says Sri Ramakrishna.

    Not attaching with rAga and dveSa and transforming them with into something divine is different. So a Jnani can be short tempered as seen in some vedic Rishis like VAmdev, DurvAsA, Parshurama, etc. I hope you are getting point.

    After merging with Brahman, a Jnani's body does not become free from defects or diseases. In case of yogis it may be true.

    Regarding Siddhis, it is said that all Jnani-s are purNa or full of shakti. Some exhibit some not, all according to divine plan. I do not know if they have all asTasiddhi.

    Whether they have 18 siddhis or 8 maha-siddhis, it does not make difference to their Jnana.

    So a body may remain impure or subtle body may not be able to grasp all the qualities of Ishwara.

    But Jnani's can cast of their bodies and take avatar like Ishwara and can perform great miraculous deeds, as in case of Sai Baba. Some say he was an avatar of a siddha, some say an avatar of Dattatraya.

    Question:

    2. In other words, such a state of existence as described above, i.e. tUryAvasthA, should and does it enable manifestation of NArAyaNa i.e. Parameshwar?

    3. Or, in other words, does such a state of existence command the entire YogamAyA at disposal ?
    If the answer to this is yes, then it must imply that this state as described in Qn 1. is UTOPIAN, TOO THEORETICAL, because otherwise...


    Answer:

    NArAyaNa can descent on earthly plane with purest of all 5 bodies, while a Jnani is born as a ajnani and so Jnani's body cannot sustain strong pure energy that is necessary to perform miracles.

    If by any means A Jnani or a Yogi, purifies his subtle and physical body by intense tapas, and gradually increasing the capacity to store and hold subtle energies, then we have examples of great Yogis performing miracles. Great e.g. is Mahaavatar Babaji, a deathless saint.

    So by Yogic Process, anything can be achieved. Mind is capable of doing anything. Adept Yogis are masters of their body and mind and hence masters of 5 tatva-s.

    Question:

    4. How do you explain aMsha avatArs, vibhUtis, shaktyAvesha avatAr as opposed to the pUrNa avatAr or pUrNa purushottam BhagvAn Shri KRshNa?

    Are these partial avatars not in the purest state? If yes, what makes them partial? What "covers" the Yoga shakti partially?

    aMsha avatars are not the direct descent of Ishwara. Ishwara instead chooses a body and then enters into it, e.g. Parashurama.

    If you notice, Rama and Krishna were not born through normal inter-course.

    Sita was not born out of any human womb. Balrama was transferred from one womb to another.

    Please correct me if I am wrong.

    It is said that Mind is the cause of body i.e. Mind creates body. Here the mind of Ishwara is all powerful and purest.

    Hence the cosmic mind, which is all powerful and purest of the pure, can create any body and can take any of the 16 kala-s.

    e.g. Narayana was born as Krishna with full 16 kalA-s. Rama was born of 12 kalA-s and parashurama of 6-7 kala-s (please give correct figures).

    In case of bound jiva, it cannot have all 16 kalA-s, hence it cannot possess all 16 kalA-s

    Question:

    For us jivas, we are infinitsimal, but Advaita blames that infinitesimalness on our ignorance and conditioning (vices, faults, 3 gunas ). So we have very little shakti at our disposal.
    However, if all avatArs (fractional, of full) are pUrNa Bramhan, in tUryAvasthA, very pure, what makes one a part of NArAyaNa and another more NArAyaNa and another less NArAyaNa?


    I hope you can device an explanation from the above explanation.

    If we talk from standpoint of supreme reality i.e. ajAta vAda, then this world does not exist and so no question of the above questions.

    But for practical reality, in which we all live, Jiva, mind, Ishwara etc all are different and hence have different attributes.

    Miracles of saints like Raghvendra Swami, Sai Baba, Ranchoddas ji Maharaj, etc are unknown after their leaving of their physical body.

    Brahman is like electricity. Bodies are like bulbs of different volts.

    We have to take this e.g. to understand. Upadesha-s are given from adhikAra bheda.

    When time comes to rise above them, then the method of adhyAropa apavAda is used for negation of what is it said.

    --------

    Some notes:


    We, as advaitins, do not think in this line, the way you are thinking. It does not matter if body stays or drops after Jnana. The purpose of Body is fulfilled. Body is tool.

    Even the question like existence of Jiva after Realization, does not count as Jnani is pure consciousness. Advaitins do not think that Jiva remains are Self Realization.

    Rather say, Jiva-BhAva does not remain. Jiva is just a bhAva and not reality according to Advaita. Hence all thoughts, emotions, etc which we see in Self Realized are nothing but expressions of God himself, else if there is any wish say so as to witness and take part in Lila, then one is not free from duality, hence Advaitins do not wish it.


    Advaita 'Teaches' that Jiva is Shiva ... and asks one to rise above Jiva BhAva.

    From Jiva bhAva, one should not interpret Advaita. This is my personal opinion, as the a priori like Jiva is different, Ishwara is different and Jiva is eternal and remains jiva after Self Realization and stays in Vaikuhtha, is not the way of Advaita. To a mature sAdhaka, there is no process of transformation of Jiva back to Becoming Shiva. Jnana is not given, A-jnana is removed.

    A Priori of separateness has to be dropped to understand subtle Advaita Concepts, as definitions of Brahman, as given in shruti-s cannot be violated.

    I admit that initially even Advaitin thinks and even experiences transformation. It is natural. Afterall, we do experience this world, as real . So in the beginning, subtle concepts are not given. One is told to do doSha darshan and generate dispassion accompanied by discrimination. Then illusion part is focussed. Later mAyA is not talked, but only Brahman is talked.

    The e.g.s are all dev-rishis and not manava-s. They have certain work to do and hence they experience both in full measure. From advaita POV< all these wishes are put in by bhagavan himself. They are like Krishna's flute - Hollow and empty.

    For a laymen, experiencing both lila and being Jnani is rare, though Jnani after completing meditation sees that everything else is brahman. But thats not pure type of bhakti which is a goal of revered tradition of Vaishnava-s.

    In Advaita, we are taught as Nivikalp Samadhi as the last stage. If we think. What will happen after last stage, then the stage (Nirvikalp Samadhi) is not 'Last Stage'

    Hope this helps.

    Aum

    Amrut
    Last edited by Amrut; 26 July 2013 at 11:49 AM. Reason: Added Last Line
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  10. #10

    Re: Genuine Questions on Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
    Namaste.

    I agree with you, but it is so difficult to speak of it.

    Consciousness is all-pervasive. We all manage to capture a tiny part of it and call it our 'Soul' or 'Atman'.

    This is where the duality comes in...when we say 'what's inside is my Soul and what's 'out there' all belongs to Shiva'.

    It's like the awareness stops at the very edge of our body and mind, shoving this huge wedge between Jivatman and Paratman.

    Yes, we can see Shiva, but we cannot be Shiva.

    When I pray to Ardharnareshwar, this all comes into play. The Tantric unity between Shiva and Shakti creating the Divine Balance within and without...but it's still going to be Shiva/Shakti no matter from which Advaitist standpoint you come from...until, you realise that Duality is Non-Duality.

    That's the beauty of it all.

    Then, I am drawn back to the motto on the Indonesian Flag and the European Union: "Unity In Diversity".

    There are two paths you can take - that of total nihilism or that of total acceptance...both lead to the same place.

    When we remove that 'wedge' and lose our body, our thinking mind and believing there's an 'inside' and an 'outside' is when the two will become one.

    Aum Namah Shivaya


    When we see Shiva through atma we no longer distinguish between them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Advaita is a separate philosophy from Shaiva path?
    By adevotee108 in forum Advaita
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18 January 2012, 05:20 AM
  2. A few questions on Advaita and their answers
    By devotee in forum Advaita
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08 March 2011, 04:06 AM
  3. The Bickerings/Complaints
    By sm78 in forum Feedback
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08 January 2011, 12:13 PM
  4. Advaita Primer ...
    By yajvan in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22 January 2010, 12:28 PM
  5. Tattvas
    By grames in forum Advaita
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14 October 2009, 07:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •