nirgun brahman maya and sagun brahman

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Let me be clear one more time.

I am not contesting anyone. Since an ender member has asked for clarification, I have tried to reply him to the best of my knowledge.

You will have to accept Advaita concepts like 2 levels of truths and 3 levels of truth, ignorance (avidya) is the root cause, adhikAra bheda, different explanations for different people depending upon their mental make-up, etc

If you are questioning the basic tenets of Advaita, then you are dialling wrong number. It is work of vidvans not mine. Not all are solders.

adhyAropa apavaDa is rediscovered by Swami Sacchidanendendra Sarasvati of Holenarsipur, who was direct disciple of shringeri Shankaracharya and I have provided commentaries of Adi Shankara which says that it is a traditional method.

Either you accept it or you do not.

I have observed here on HDF that non-advaitins who do not practice advaita, always have this kind of problems about authentic teachings. It is non-Advaitins who shout too much against advaita and tag neo advaita which is a word coined by a westerner. Practising Advaitins have never argued in this way.

It looks like non-advaitins are more expert and have a better understanding than practising advaitins. Separate Adi shankara from everything other than prasthantraiyi is a standard practice. Separate him from his biography is another practice.

BJ ji,

You / Vaishnava-s have wrong concept that Brahman actually gets deluded. Brahman never gets deluded. Jiva it is just a mental reflection according to Advaita.

Also note that mAyAvAda is taken as derogatory sense, as vaishnava-s have used it for derogatory purpose using Padma Purana verse. In this thread, I have not taken that word seriously.

Also note that accusation is done when nothing is left to question. It is a sign of intolerance. Logical objections are a different issue.

Aum

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

Why is this emotional burst? As you as well know, end of the day it is not just the philosophy but the effect of our faith that shows its worth. Any religion or faith that does not help a person to show the signs of love, care and affection for fellow jivas is useless and in fact, should be given up.

For the fact, to give out more insights and refutation on the concepts of Advaita, it is actually the vaishnavas who took more pains to learn and mastered it for purvaPaksha and such practice helped not just the school of Advaita and even every other vedantic schools by giving out answers after their philosophical synthesis. If it is in the domain of vidvans, not sure on what authority you are contesting a Vaishnava questions here or deny a vaishnava question asking for your own acharya version? I believe, as a follower of Advaita, you must be more sincere and respectful to your very own acharya and if Shri Shankara is sitting on the top of your acharya chain, i am sure you will go back, find an answer and tell me why Shri Shankara will be against such concepts or at least correct me and like minded people here about why and how it is still not violating Shri Shankara concept of Avidya and Adyasa as the cause of world!

The intention here is not to contest you as a person but to make sure you are providing proper knowledge for someone who is seeking to get some help by visiting this site. What is there on your personal website is your complete domain and no one is going to ask you any question whether it is right or wrong.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Amrut

Also note that mAyAvAda is taken as derogatory sense, as vaishnava-s have used it for derogatory purpose using Padma Purana verse. In this thread, I have not taken that word seriously.

In fact, the term mayavada by itself is not derogatory. It just means "philosophy which teaches that Brahman falls under the influence of illusion".
Here I do not want to comment on the statements in the Padma Purana at all. Vaishnavas usually call Advaitins as mayavadis and that has nothing to do with Padma Purana.

You / Vaishnava-s have wrong concept that Brahman actually gets deluded. Brahman never gets deluded. Jiva it is just a mental reflection according to Advaita.

I do not understand what you want to say. I thought Advaita teaches that we are all Brahman, just not realized it yet.

regards

[Amrut]

Namste Grames ji,

I do not deny what you say. What I am saying is that the way you describe is not the only way to progress. Not all saints take part in debates even for good reasons and to sharpen their skills and find answers and to make their faith stronger.

Hence to sharpen your skills, you will have to interact with like-minded people and you should not push those who do not wish to go beyond certain limit. A little exploration is good to understand basic concepts, but then I do not dig too much. Meditation is the key to me.

In order to enjoy the discussion and to bring something good out of brain storming sessions, both members (or more than two members) should enjoy the debate and have natural tendency to ask logical questions.

I hope you are getting my point. We will remain friends - positively - not to far not too close

----------

Namaste BJ ji,

I have given answer to this in this thread and in other threads in which I recently interacted. I understand and do not expect that you should read all of my posts.

I hope you must have read atleast posts on this thread.

In brief,

Brahman 'appears' to be deluded. Brahman is NOT deluded. I have given e.g. of Sun being veiled (covered) by clouds. Here Sun is Brahman, consciousness and clouds represent ignorance.

Also note that Jiva is reflection like Sun reflected in lake. It is an image and not actual separation.

Hence Jiva is not actually present, though we experience it.

Answers can be given from practical POV and Turiya POV. We should not mix both of them. Explanations will differ and we will never be able to get answers.

If you think that Brahman is deluded and becomes jiva, it breaks basic tenet of Advaita, that Brahman is indivisible, as there are many jiva-s.

I request you to please read my posts in this thread ( specially post #2 and #11) and read post #31 in another thread. This post will also help you understand Advaita better. If you find this post of interest, please read my earlier posts as well.

I have made a lot of efforts to clarify Advaita concepts.

I to do not wish to talk about padma purana verses, btw, I have already given given answers to the accusations on my website here

Aum

[jopmala]

Namaste Amrutji
Sorry, I was busy in some personal business. Lets come to the discussion.
Amrutji, I never make any difference between ways of realization of truth be it vaishnab or advaita anything but since all the paths are followed by such great saints or great personalities that they are far more ahead of us in terms of spiritual experience, knowing the ultimate truth. Therefore I am not in the business of finding faults in any philosophy which are advocated by great great truth realized personalities. There is no comparison between them and us . I am just concerned the easiest way of finding the truth as is stated in Gita ( 1-2/12) and I like to mention that you yourself also acknowledge that advaita philosophy is not for all to understand. I have asked you some questions on maya only out of curiosity. Now seeing your humble submission I am a little discouraged to ask further. Actually I appreciate your involvement in advaita.I was specific on maya ,sagun Brahman but you have avoided that part and posted details of advaitavada.
1) I am surprised to know the level of imagination in advaita. I know that truth is one and only but you have divided truth into various level. now truth is “there is only Brahman and nothing else”. Are you dividing Brahman in different levels of truth ? since Brahman can not be divided , so the levels are all imaginary. I think it is misuse of the term ‘satya’ when it is associated with words like empirical or vyavaharika since truth is always ultimate. Difference may exist in level of experiencer of truth but truth is one and only .truth does not have any level of its own. when father points towards apple and tries to convince his child to accept it as moon ,though this may be accepted by child as truth but actually it is just cheating on the part of father . I think you have got my point. Great Brahman can not cheat us like this way.
2) you are saying words like “self”, “ one is under ignorance” etc .who is this “one” or “self” that means you are accepting the existence of jiva otherwise who experiences the false truth in vyavaharika level or empirical level ? Is it Brahman under cover? Who requires jnan to get rid of avidya or maya. I do not see anything else than Brahman.Will you accept if I say that Brahman from its paramarthika level comes down to vyavaharika level and again trying to go into paramarthika level. you are saying same entity into different level or different entity into defferent level . I am in a fix here. please let me know who is in paramarthika level and who is in vyavaharika level . In your example of sun and cloud it is clear that the experiencer is not sun itself. Your example holds good only when it is experienced by a second entity like Me. I mean if sun is real and if I am real and different from sun then only you can say sun can not be veiled. sun itself can not experience whether it is veiled by cloud or not.Further, if sun is supposed in paramarthika level and one is supposed in the vyavaharika level then how will you explain your example. How could I know what is there on the ground level when I myself is staying under water.
3) paramarthika level of truth is reserved for Brahman only. In vyavaharika level the experiencer or the experiences everything is under ignorance.How can one( who is one I do not know) practice jnan which means truth being in the vyavaharika level.see the position in the vyavaharika level where self, creation , and even sri Krishna everything is under ignorance and just perception ( perceived ?) no real existence and on the other hand there is paramarthika level where there is only truth or jnan or Brahman. Now how this perceived truth turns into ultimate truth is a confusion to me. If my existence is real that is if jiva exists then it can happen but where is jiva . Let me ask you where from you are starting from Brahman or from jiva. Is Brahman realizing Brahman or jiva realizing Brahman. The truth is one but that truth is being perceived from two levels and the perceiver is the truth itself. Is this your argument in favour of practical advaita ?
4) sun is there but its rays are here that does not mean sun has been divided but yes sun is truth its rays are also truth . When raw gold is used for making ornaments, would you say raw gold has been divided into parts ? One is division and another is transformation. If I say sun is truth but rays are perceived then problem arises. clouds which is also truth cover the rays of sun not the sun itself since cloud can not stand before sun . Should I think sun is in paramarthika level and its rays and this universe is in perceived level ?
5) I can not reserve one sit for nirgun Brahman and another sit for sagun Brahman in different level ( 3rd and 4th ). I have only one Brahman staying in the same level having two aspects only.I can not refer to Brahman to nirguna aspect and iswara to sagun aspect. To me, his both aspects are real.I never take this universe as illusion. you lower the status of sagun Brahman since nirguna Brahman is your destination.if a path to spirituality can not be followed by all what is the use of that path. for this reason sri Krishna teaches arjuna to follow Brahman with form and qualities. I do not seek the grace of maya nor I believe that this world is sorrows. you accept maya as the illusive power of Brahman but you do not accept jiva as the power of Brahman. If ‘I” means self and sri Krishna stays in the same level e.g. vyavaharika satya what makes him different from me. Sruti does not say only about Brahman with out form and qualities , sruti also says about Brahman with forms and quality but it is advaita which put Brahman without form in one level and Brahman with form in another level.I know you are limited but in search of infinity, you want to understand which is beyond your understanding, you want to define which is undefinable, you want to think which unthinkable. I pray for you.

[Amrut]

Namaste Jopmala ji,

I try to avoid quoting shastra-s, but it looks like I will have to quote them . If I enter deep, then it would be unfair not to answer Grames ji's questions.

Well, I tried to reply in brief, but the reply runs 9 pages. More I check, I end up adding more stuff.

I do not even know if you would read the entire article split into two parts. It is such a pain to read loooonnng articles.

I explained the whole theory so that doubts can be naturally removed, hence I did not separately answered these questions about mAyA, jiva and Brahman.

For the purpose of creation, we have to take mAyA and Ishvara. Hence they are accepted. Be it NiguNa becoming or expressing through mAyA as saguNA or let the niguNa aspect be sidelined, the theories are given only for those who have questions. At the absolute level, there is no creation at all and hence there is no mAyA that is experienced. Ishvara cannot be defined without mAyA. Though he fully controls mAyA and mAyA is his own energy, yet he has ot take AdhAra of mAyA for creation. When Bhagavan in Gita says to transcend 3 guNa-s, it means to enter into nirguNa Brahman, where there is no mAyA.

1) I am surprised to know the level of imagination in advaita. I know that truth is one and only but you have divided truth into various level. now truth is “there is only Brahman and nothing else”. Are you dividing Brahman in different levels of truth ? since Brahman can not be divided , so the levels are all imaginary. I think it is misuse of the term ‘satya’ when it is associated with words like empirical or vyavaharika since truth is always ultimate. Difference may exist in level of experiencer of truth but truth is one and only .truth does not have any level of its own. when father points towards apple and tries to convince his child to accept it as moon ,though this may be accepted by child as truth but actually it is just cheating on the part of father . I think you have got my point. Great Brahman can not cheat us like this way.

Two Levels of Truth

I understand, but this is not a cooked up opinion of Adi Shankara, but it is supported by Shruti-s and Smriti (Gita)

For, when there is duality, as it were, one sees another …but when all has become just his Ātman, what could one see and through what? .. - Br. Up. 4.5.15

Full verse is

IV-v-15: Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something, one smells something, one tastes something, one speaks something, one hears something, one thinks something, one touches something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one touch and through what, what should one know and through what ? Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known ? This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, Not this’. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered – it never feels pain, and never suffers injury. Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower ? So you have got the instruction, Maitreyi. This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear. Saying this Yajnavalkya left.


Source

It is also found in Gita

13.17 And the Knowable, though undivided, appears to be existing as divided in all beings, and It is the sustainer of all beings as also the devourer and originator.

Sure the levels are imaginary, or they do not exist, but for whom? - the one who is rooted in Brahman.

But for us, who experience duality, we have to explain in dual tone and hence the theories are explained and upadesha-s are explained in dual tone only, but as said, the final destination is non-duality. First dual is assumed, at times it is also proved, but later on it is negated. When I say duality is accepted under ignorance and is applicable to those who are under ignorance, this means that jiva, as having limited capacity and Ishvara as all powerful is also accepted. I should say that the teaching is done by ‘Proof by Contradiction’. One begins with acceptance of duality. Then one is taught the real nature, intellectually, and is asked to contemplate. The final destination is the removal of duality. Whole time, throughout this process, advaita gives importance to laxyArtha and not vAcyArtha.

Not too many verses Speak of Advaita - WHY?

You may not find too many verses strictly speaking of advaita i.e. non-duality of Brahman, but this is because there is conscious effort to lift one from duality to non-duality.

Suppose you wish to reach Himalaya from South end, say kanyakumari, then a road map will be described. In the entire process, and describing in-between stations, like Maharashtra, Gujarat, etc, you wont find a description of Himalayas. The description only occurs when the route finally enters into Himalayas.

Hence, One has to accept when Brahman as a vishaya, a destination and then the question occurs that you accepts Brahman as supreme, that must be different from him. This is true and hence Jiva bhAva is also accepted. But accepting is a different issue. and getting rid of it is another. The attempts are made to slowly lift a seeker step by step.

Take Man. Up. It connects with 3 states - waking, dream, deep and the final is turiya.

So one dives deep within and until one reaches the forth state, all duality is accepted. But when one reaches the final state, to the astonishment, the seeker, does not experience any of the duality.

If the jiva and samsAra are real, then even in the final state, seeker must experience them. But there is no mixed experienced. The experience is of non-dual type.

Two Levels of Truth in Yoga School

Two levels of truths is not only accepted by Shruti-s, but it is accepted by dualist schools like Patanjali Yoga Sutra

कृतार्थ प्रति नष्टमऊयनष्ट तदन्यसाधारणत्वात्* ॥ २२ ॥

2.22 Though the object of experience becomes unreal to him who has reached the state of liberation, it remains real to all other beings.

P.Y.S. by Swami Prabhavananda of Ramakrishna Ashram, Page 90

Another translation.

2.22 For the one who has attained the goal [of liberation, the seen] disappears [yet, the seen] is not destroyed because of it's common universality.

krta = done
arthan = purpose, goal
prati = towards, for
naSta = destroyed
api = even though
anaSTam = not destroyed
tad = that
anya = other
sAdhAraNatvAt = because of, due to commonality, universality

Kriya Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and the Siddhas by Marshal Govindan, Page, 86

The author has also connected it with Thirumandiram.

Satya

The term satya is also not misused. Infact the word ‘satya’ in vyacahArika satya is said only for explanatory purpose only, as truth can be only one. But if we discard what we experience then how can one actually start in Advaita.

We will see it in my reply to your second doubt.

2) you are saying words like “self”, “ one is under ignorance” etc .who is this “one” or “self” that means you are accepting the existence of jiva otherwise who experiences the false truth in vyavaharika level or empirical level ? Is it Brahman under cover? Who requires jnan to get rid of avidya or maya. I do not see anything else than Brahman.Will you accept if I say that Brahman from its paramarthika level comes down to vyavaharika level and again trying to go into paramarthika level. you are saying same entity into different level or different entity into defferent level . I am in a fix here. please let me know who is in paramarthika level and who is in vyavaharika level . In your example of sun and cloud it is clear that the experiencer is not sun itself. Your example holds good only when it is experienced by a second entity like Me. I mean if sun is real and if I am real and different from sun then only you can say sun can not be veiled. sun itself can not experience whether it is veiled by cloud or not.Further, if sun is supposed in paramarthika level and one is supposed in the vyavaharika level then how will you explain your example. How could I know what is there on the ground level when I myself is staying under water.

As said earlier, Jiva is accepted at empirical level, but at the same time, one is educated that you wrongly think of yourself as 'Jiva'.

Again, Brahman is not deluded, it APPEARS TO BE deluded.

If we accept that Brahman BECOMEs JIVA then we violate shruti, which says, BG 2.20.

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचि-
न्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो
न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

2.20 Never is this One born, and never does It die; nor is it that having come to exist, It will again cease to be. This One is birthless, eternal, undecaying, ancient; It is not killed when the body is killed.

If we take BG 2.20 into context, then theory of the world being created would means that once there was no creation and then it is created. The one which has birth, also has death.

Satya

contd

Now the definition of satya and asatya is also not mine. They are given by Bhagavan in BG 2.16

नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभि� ��।।2.16।।

2.16 Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.

So which is true, the world is created and hence jiva-s were once created?

For time being, we can overlook the commentaries by acharya-s.

In plain words,

satya is defined as the one which has NO NON-EXISTENCE is permanent, unchanging, undecaying, etc ...

asatya means that which has NO EXISTENCE AT ANY TIME

Hence we cannot take this world, which constantly change, this body, which constantly change as satya. It voids the definition of satya, according Advaita tenet.

The truth is one, hence the only thing that qualifies to be called as real (satya) is Brahman ( Satyam Jnanam anantam Brahma - Tai. Up. 2.1.1)

At no cost we can afford to violate the definitions of real and unreal.

Hence we have to tag this experience as something different than the two. Adi Shankara called this mithyA, which in simple words can mean - Temporary.

Gita herself says that same about the world in BG 8.15

The only thing is we take everything that is changing, moving, etc as mithyA, hence even subtle worlds like heaven, etc also fall under this category.

Further Katha Up. says

1-II-10. I know that the treasure is impermanent, for that which is constant cannot be reached by things which are not constant

Again this is not my stand, but what shastra-s say, and of course it is Advaita interpretation.

3) paramarthika level of truth is reserved for Brahman only. In vyavaharika level the experiencer or the experiences everything is under ignorance.How can one( who is one I do not know) practice jnan which means truth being in the vyavaharika level.see the position in the vyavaharika level where self, creation , and even sri Krishna everything is under ignorance and just perception ( perceived ?) no real existence and on the other hand there is paramarthika level where there is only truth or jnan or Brahman. Now how this perceived truth turns into ultimate truth is a confusion to me. If my existence is real that is if jiva exists then it can happen but where is jiva . Let me ask you where from you are starting from Brahman or from jiva. Is Brahman realizing Brahman or jiva realizing Brahman. The truth is one but that truth is being perceived from two levels and the perceiver is the truth itself. Is this your argument in favour of practical advaita ?

This question is very sensible. We start from duality as we are under ignorance. Hence we will have to show step by step. This is practical application of Advaita.

But we do not say that Jiva BECOMES Brahman. We say, - you wrongly think yourself i.e. 'I' as Jiva. Search the real 'I'

Since we have forgotten our true nature, hence one must get rid of this 'wrong belief', for which duality has to be accepted.

But the question is how can you reach that is unreachable.

Advaita a Path of Grace

The answer is - there is no path to be reached. What is actually happening is negation of what is non-Self. Hence it is said, that - You are already Brahman. But the way it is taught it looks like there is a path, there is travel like in Mandukya upanishad where by chanting OM, first one comes in contact with waking and tune waking with 'A', then Dream with 'U' ...

So, we take help of mind, which is technically not capable of reaching the unreachable.

But in this process, we only calm down mind and destroy what is within the mind - the vasanas (sarvAn partho manogatAt). This we do it with the help of OM. OM is one such mantra which has capacity to take one beyond 3 states.

But the chanting is done by mind. This is true, but not completely true. I have a personal experience. After certain practice, chanting goes on by itself. We are taught to be a witness. A witness cannot enjoy or suffer or act. Hence one is just a witness of the entire process of chanting OM. The mantra goes on by itself, though pop up (you do not decide which thoughts should come up, nor you have any control of the entire procedure), OM uproots thoughts and this goes on. In between a stage comes, when temporarily no thoughts pop up, consciousness is fully drawn into the source of OM. Just like fire after burning corpse does not continue but is extinguished, similarly, OM fades into it;s source - Brahman.

Since you didn't do it yourself, the entire process is TOTALLY dependent upon OM, which happens by God's grace, as it is said in upanishads

The one realizes the Self, whom the Self Chooses

4) sun is there but its rays are here that does not mean sun has been divided but yes sun is truth its rays are also truth . When raw gold is used for making ornaments, would you say raw gold has been divided into parts ? One is division and another is transformation. If I say sun is truth but rays are perceived then problem arises. clouds which is also truth cover the rays of sun not the sun itself since cloud can not stand before sun . Should I think sun is in paramarthika level and its rays and this universe is in perceived level ?

From pArmArthika satya, there is no mAyA, as well. mAyA comes into picture, when we talk about creation


condt in next post

[Amrut]

...contd

5) I can not reserve one sit for nirgun Brahman and another sit for sagun Brahman in different level ( 3rd and 4th ). I have only one Brahman staying in the same level having two aspects only.I can not refer to Brahman to nirguna aspect and iswara to sagun aspect. To me, his both aspects are real.I never take this universe as illusion. you lower the status of sagun Brahman since nirguna Brahman is your destination.if a path to spirituality can not be followed by all what is the use of that path. for this reason sri Krishna teaches arjuna to follow Brahman with form and qualities. I do not seek the grace of maya nor I believe that this world is sorrows. you accept maya as the illusive power of Brahman but you do not accept jiva as the power of Brahman. If ‘I” means self and sri Krishna stays in the same level e.g. vyavaharika satya what makes him different from me. Sruti does not say only about Brahman with out form and qualities , sruti also says about Brahman with forms and quality but it is advaita which put Brahman without form in one level and Brahman with form in another level.

Unfortunately, I will have to say, that even Ishvara cease to exist in Jnana. In other words, the upadhi-s of Ishvara (which makes him Ishvara) are absent, when one is beyonf mAyA. Hence Pure consciousness is left.

Brahman + mAyA = Ishvara

Ishvara – mAyA = Brahman.

In either case, Brahman always exists. In Jnana, it exists as pure self, in Ajnana, he appears as if endowed with upadhi-s and has taken form.

We cannot see or experience both at a time. You can either see Krishna, Rama or you see their nirguNa aspect, Brahman.

If we say, both nirguNa Brahman switches to saguNa, then again, when saguNa is present, there is no nirguNa. This also violates shruti. Hence we will have to take it that Ishvara is Brahman, but is wrongly perceived with qualities. (I know you will not like this )

But under ignorance, we simply cannot say that there is no Ishvara, as it is the Brahman in reality and we need Ishvara’s grace to rise above mAyA.

To rise a person step by step, shruti will explain saguNa Brahman too, as we have seen in Gita at many place. This fact also cannot be denied.

The final destination is not reached until there is duality.

The full destruction is Ego is only possible in non-duality.

Also after reaching this state, nothing more needs to be achieved says Sv. Up.

Sv. Up says

I-12: This is to be known as eternally existing in one’s own self. Indeed, there is nothing to be known beyond this. As a result of meditation the enjoyer, the enjoyed and the power which brings about the enjoyment – all are declared to be the three aspects of Brahman.


And it also prescribes path of OM chanting

I-13: Fire is not perceived in its source, the fire-stick, till it is ignited by percussion. The subtle essence of fire, nevertheless, is not absent in the stick; for fire can be obtained from the source, the fire-stick, by striking again. (The state of the Atman before and after realization). By meditating on the Pranava, the Atman is perceived manifestly in the body, (but it was there in a latent state even before realization).


We will have to note that after reaching this state, the state of Jnana is permanent (after the world is negated, mind is destroyed, ego is destroyed), and hence there is no further need to meditate and strive for this state, which is completeness

Shastra-s say, we so not return back

मामुपेत्य पुनर्जन्म दुःखालयमशाश्वतम्।
नाप्नुवन्ति महात्मानः संसिद्धिं परमां गताः।।8.15।।

8.15 As a result of reaching Me, the exalted ones who have attained the highest perfection do not get rebirth which is an abode of sorrows and which is impermanent.

Sure advaita is not for everyone. IT is said in shastra-s too, like to pointed as in BG 12.5

The thing is advaita is a sub school of Vedanta. Vedanta is the end part. It also represents the 4th ashram.

For chitta shuddi, one has to do karma kand. It is explained in Upadesha Sahasri.

So there are two steps – Karma Kand and Vedanta.

There is veda-s (samhitA and BrAhmaNa-s) for karma kand and then there is araNyaka for introspection and finally Vedanta for Jnana (as per advaita).

Hence first we have to do chitta shuddi by doing nitya karma and singing glories of God and there by get inwardly pure. After getting inwardly pure, you will have to renounce the very karma that gave you purity.

Bhakti is the easiest path

I will have agree that bhakti is the easiest path and all can practice it. Sri Madhusudan Sarasvati says, For masses, Krishna Bhakti is the best and for SanyAsins, Advaita is best.

To start advaita, vairAgya is a must. Hence not all can practice Advaita.

Since Advaita is not for masses, it should not propagated aggressively and thrown to masses. A philosophy which say completely reverse to what you believe, see and experience is not acceptable to all. Not all can digest it.

Advaita is useful as it gives what you want.

Advaita ends with only one position – non-dual.

The final goal is all that matters, hence advaita is useful for those seeking for peace, completeness and eternal happiness. One comes to realize that after having all that he wanted, cultured children, wife, family, wealth, etc, something is missing – there is no peace. We all hanker for happiness and the whole life is spend in avoiding or being prepared for anything ‘unfavourable’ to come. Investments, FD’s, job, business, etc is all for maintenance of Happiness or say for dukh nivritti. All try to search for freedom, happiness and peace. Also no one wants to die, and even think of death regularly even though all have seen cremation ground and know our fate too. Hence one also wants immortality. We can see this ‘wanting to be eternal’ by increased use of stuff that keeps us look young and stay fit.

To sum up, all are in search for peace, happiness, completeness and immortality. There is nothing wrong to search for happiness. What is wrong is to search outside, when it is inside. When one realizes this, one abandons material life and becomes introvert. Gita starts with Arjuna Vishada Yoga. Vairagya, temporary nature of this world, etc are all necessary to practice advaita. Such person who has realized that his search for happiness outside is futile will enter into the domain of advaita.

Advaita assures that after you realize Jnana, it will stay permanent. Also you do not need to meditate, worship, or do anything in order to maintain this state of oneness with Brahman. Advaita also says that all is achieved once Realization is achieved AND there is nothing more left ot be achieved once the Self is Realized.

Few Last Words

When we discuss all these, we may feel that there is no bhakti or no value for SaguNa Brahman. In the entire process, the path or sadhana is not explain, only the beginning and end are explained.

Duality under ignorance is described and then the removal of duality end in Jnana, which is the final state is described.

The the question is how?

This point is not much stressed. If we stress this point - how? and teach way to meditate, then we can project Advaita positively, which acknowledge Ishvara as an aspect of NirguNa Brahman and need for his grace and Guru's grace.

Hence I have explained the process of Meditation. While meditating, we feel increasing amount of bliss and deep peace and of course this is the motivating factor to meditate more. From absolute standpoint, one can say that you are still under ignorance and discard it, but this statement is not applicable to the one who is meditating.

As one matures, Guru can even say the above statement that you still are under ignorance, but that is not in the beginning of sadhana. A disciple is very matured and takes it in right way and works hard to remove ignorance.

This aspect is not discussed and cannot be discussed as it is highly subjective. Each one needs to be guided or taught in different way due to several factors.

A personal Experience

I personally have observed that as I progressed, my reverence towards deities have increased. When I asked, I was told that how can you not respect the same divinity (Ishvara) whom you have surrendered, chant his name (OM) and highly revere, manifests through any medium, be it Guru, a saint or an idol. It is just that your path is not to give importance to it. As you will progress, the reverence for Ishvara will increase, but stop not till thou (your) goal is reached.

I know you are limited but in search of infinity, you want to understand which is beyond your understanding, you want to define which is undefinable, you want to think which unthinkable. I pray for you.

Thank you for your prayers

By God's grace I will surely be able to reach this state in this life itself.

I too pray for your spiritual success.

phew, it must have taken more than 2 hours to write this.

Aum

[jopmala]

Namaste Amrutji

You are great. I appreciate you for your best efforts to convince me. you have kept yourself busy for long two hours and taken so much pain to type. You really deserve appreciation . The difference of opinion between you and me is separate issue. That difference of opinion is permanent. still I am sure healthy discussion with due respect to each other throws light on the concepts which directly or indirectly help to understand the philosophy. I shall definitely read your post and will not come back with more questions on advaita since you have written so much. But I may have some questions on Gita. I once again appreciate your advaita-prem.

[Amrut]

Namaste Amrutji

You are great. I appreciate you for your best efforts to convince me. you have kept yourself busy for long two hours and taken so much pain to type. You really deserve appreciation . The difference of opinion between you and me is separate issue. That difference of opinion is permanent. I shall definitely read your post and will not come back with more questions on advaita since you have written so much. But I may have some questions on Gita. I once again appreciate your advaita-prem.

No problem Jopmala ji,

Once I begin to write or type, or speak, I get lost and keep typing, many times my aching fingers would remind my the time I have been typing !!!

Let the differences remain. It is not a problem

Understanding and accepting are two different things. Of course if the understanding is not correct, then it needs to be corrected.

Afterall all paths and systems are setup by Ishvara.

Do not worry about any concepts that are unclear. Just chant God's name and everything will be unfolded at a right time. Trust God. Also we do not have to find answers for all questions. After sometime, they may fade away from memory.

--------------

I always try to talk more about meditation and even advise to take refuge in Krishna, Rama, Shiva, as it is much easier. Even Advaitins in the beginning take their aadhaara and accept their supremacy.

Rather than why and how this world was created and explaining 2 levels of truth, I think it is more important to understand how can we cross this ocean of samsAra. To this, I give quotes from modern saints like Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharshi, because pure advaita is difficult to understand and more difficult to apply practically.

-------------------

I will give one e.g.

vAsanA-s do not have any shape. We all have sensual desire, which is natural. When I walk on the road and spot a beautiful girl, her face is captured and stored in my mind. When meditating, whenever this vAsanA pops up, then I recall her face. This is MenakA for me. If I like any heroine / actress, then she will pop up in mt mind.

Now since I realize that this should not happen and is not good. I will take steps

1. Stop looking at private parts of any women
2. Stop seeing movie songs
3. Stop watching movies or step out when sensual scenes are played
4. Pray to RAma, as he is maryAdA purushottama, hence he will definitely help me to uproot this desire. Even while meditating I can pray to him to take away his desire and only he is capable to uproot it OR pray to Sita mata or Hanuman ji (a brahmacAri) or Adi Shakti to take away this desire.
5. I can even pray simply to Paramatman, not visualizing any form to take away this desire.

Here there is a fear and hence an alertness that I should not look at private parts of a women or avoid seeing film songs or be alert during meditation.

If I fail to be aware, consequences follow and meditation breaks.

Now,

If I am able to hold one to OM, then the thought passes and fades away. Here too thoughts take shape, but you hold yourself and not allow yourself to get dragged in it.

Further,

You are so naturally conscious, due to purity of mind and God's and Guru's grace that desires, which are unstable energies, are uprooted even before taking shape. Here one can literally feel that Paramatman himself is acting during meditation and uprooting thoughts and desires even before they take shape. During this time, you are totally disconnected with this world and body. You are not aware of time. It is a different feeling.

What I explained last is actual core advaitic meditation. But how many can actually practice in this way and that too regularly? IF I cannot hold on to OM and thoughts and desires keep interfering my meditation, in the end, I will quit being frustrated. The purpose is defeated. Better to surrender to any form of God or pray to Paramatman.

Hence better take aadhaara of any for of God and pray.

If there is no fear and if the surrender and faith are strong, then there is no question to stray away from path. There is peace and bliss. Such persons are very rare.

---------------

So I try to explain in a way that people can apply in their life. Hence you will not see me calling this world as illusion except in this thread. Better explain what one is able to digest and apply.

Some people call me as 'Neo' due to this behaviour, as I often quote Sri Ramakrishna. Let it be.

But one thing is for sure, Advaita is not for everybody. Definitely not for the masses.

Adi Shankara has just 4 disciples. Just think, an undisputed winner, who has travelled length and breadth of our country has just 4 disciples. We may take the 5th disciple if we include Kanchi Math. But thats it.

The question is why?

Another question is did Adi Shankara debated with all? No, he debated only with scholars and ofcourse established Advaita as supreme philosophy, as he was himself realized, else he could not have achieved what he ha achieved.

For laymen, you do not dissect sanskrit words. You do not teach sanskrit grammar and pile up layers. Masses are attracted with lofty characters, they look for a hero, a role model. Hence Adi Shankara repaired temples, re-installed Jagannath ji in Puri. He bathed in rivers chanting mantras and re consecrated Sri Yantra-s. This he did for us - laymen.

These things are completely ignored and often his life is separated from his philosophy that his works are restricted only to prasthantrayi.

--------------

A mother will give mink to infant baby, high-protein food to growing kids, liquid food to sick kid. This does not mean that she does not like the sick kid and hence she gives just liquid but gives good quality food to other kids.

Upadeha-s are given keeping in mind the questioner.

We should give you is best FOR YOU and not what is best FOR ME.

Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste,

I have removed one line from Post #41, as it may have offended Vaishnava-s.

I apologize for the lapse.

Aum