Does reincarnation exist in Advaita?

[Shuddhasattva]

Oy, more neoadvaita.

 

[Maya3]

Falldown theory isn't gaudiya, btw, it's an iskcon corruption.

However, I'll take a slightly different (non-traditional advaita, but traditional paradvaita) stance on this one: a liberated being may choose, of their own sovereign and perfect free will (svatantrya) to undergo rebirth in order to bring moksha to those who toil in samsara - or simply to delight in material manifestation, which far from being some sort of cosmic torture chamber from which escape is the only solution, may be redeemed as an eternal, true 'paradise,' non-exclusive from the unmanifest realms of pure consciousness.

When I ask mySelf what the best possible outcome for the universe is, the answer I get is "all patterns of matter, energy and information being arranged so as to give rise to the maximum number of sentient beings, each experiencing infinite bliss and consciousness." It need not be bad place.

I absolutely agree with this. I think it is very possible that you might choose to manifest. Some people may come back to help the world, or just because it's fun, just for the Lila of it all

Maya

 

[Pleroma]

andhaÌ tamaÕ praviÙanti ye'vidyÀmupÀsate,
tato bhÓya iva te tamo ya u vidyÀyÀÌ ratÀÕ.

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone.

It is a fact that those who only worship the unmanifested and the impersonal go into a greater darkness. When there is a physical God to guide us to the truth why not worship and surrender ourselves to him?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

andhaÌ tamaÕ praviÙanti ye'vidyÀmupÀsate,
tato bhÓya iva te tamo ya u vidyÀyÀÌ ratÀÕ.

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone.

It is a fact that those who only worship the unmanifested and the impersonal go into a greater darkness. When there is a physical God to guide us to the truth why not worship and surrender ourselves to him?

This. Atanu-ji has an excellent post on the need for synergy in focusing on both nirguna and saguna aspects of parabrahman in the advaita context.

 

[Jainarayan]

...just because it's fun, just for the Lila of it all

Maya

Which is what Shankaracharya says is the nature of Brahman:

Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is recreation or play of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe. Creating the world for any incentive slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. Creating the world for gaining something is against His perfection. Creating the world out of compassion is illogical, since the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning, when only Ishvara existed.
Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jg22]

Surya Deva,

Reincarnation breeds an attitude of complacency, "Nevermind, I will do it in my next lifetime" this creates lazy habits in your mind and basically you keep on going round and round the wheel of samsara. This is why the concept of reincarnation can be a hindrance, you must start your practice now, you must have a burning desire for liberation and put all your efforts towards liberation. It is possible to attain enlightenment in a single lifetime for the sincere seeker.

Or maybe we can have a different attitude towards it: Shruti teaches punah janma to make the jiva see the far reaching impact of all his actions- not just fructifying in this life, but also in his next as prarabdha karmas. So this idea will make him aware the responsibilities he has to his own well being and the well being of other jivas, as long as he sees himself as a kartr and bhoktr. Also, he will start to get some semblance of the nature of his identity as an eternal being, since he will be going through countless janmas. I don't think Shruti will ever teach something that hinders people from the highest purushartha, since that would be hindering it own intention!

Relative reality is illusory in terms of Absolute reality, so if we speak absolutely, then nothing within reality re ishvara, jiva, world exists.

I see you are continuing to conflate vyavaharika satyam with asatyam. If a thing is relatively real, then it is not non-existent, but dependently existent; dependent on the independent existence, the paramarthika satyam. Jiva, Ishwara, and jagat are the vesha upadhis of Satyam. If we take away the jivahood of jiva, if we negate the kartr and bhoktr-ness from it, then we see that it is none other than Brahman. We do not see it is non-existent. If we negate the Ishwarahood of Ishwara- that is, his position as creator, sustainer, etc, then we see that he, too, is Brahman only, and not non-existent, and that therefore I, the apparent jiva, am identical with the Lord in essence. The same applies to the world. As a limited, small jiva I perceive myself to be different from the whole world and different from God. But when I know that I am truly Brahman, then I know that I am all, and neither the whole universe or God are separate from me, because Brahman is the sole Satyam for everything.

 

[DanielR]

Falldown theory isn't gaudiya, btw, it's an iskcon corruption.

However, I'll take a slightly different (non-traditional advaita, but traditional paradvaita) stance on this one: a liberated being may choose, of their own sovereign and perfect free will (svatantrya) to undergo rebirth in order to bring moksha to those who toil in samsara - or simply to delight in material manifestation, which far from being some sort of cosmic torture chamber from which escape is the only solution, may be redeemed as an eternal, true 'paradise,' non-exclusive from the unmanifest realms of pure consciousness.

When I ask mySelf what the best possible outcome for the universe is, the answer I get is "all patterns of matter, energy and information being arranged so as to give rise to the maximum number of sentient beings, each experiencing infinite bliss and consciousness." It need not be bad place.

Hey, is Paradvaita like Kashmir Shaivism??

And I know I often say thanks, but thanks anyway to all who contributed

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Yes, paradvaita is Trika (Kashmir Shaivism - something of a misnomer name).

Also, paradvaita can refer to the doctrine of ajativada (birthlessness) in advaita which is in many respects comparable in its outlook.

 

[DanielR]

Ah, okay

 

[DanielR]

Falldown theory isn't gaudiya, btw, it's an iskcon corruption.

However, I'll take a slightly different (non-traditional advaita, but traditional paradvaita) stance on this one: a liberated being may choose, of their own sovereign and perfect free will (svatantrya) to undergo rebirth in order to bring moksha to those who toil in samsara - or simply to delight in material manifestation, which far from being some sort of cosmic torture chamber from which escape is the only solution, may be redeemed as an eternal, true 'paradise,' non-exclusive from the unmanifest realms of pure consciousness.

When I ask mySelf what the best possible outcome for the universe is, the answer I get is "all patterns of matter, energy and information being arranged so as to give rise to the maximum number of sentient beings, each experiencing infinite bliss and consciousness." It need not be bad place.

Excuse my ignorance, but Iskcon and gaudiya vaishnavism is not the same?

Edit: oops, I've found the answer, sorry

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Excuse my ignorance, but Iskcon and gaudiya vaishnavism is not the same?

Iskconites would probably like you to think so, but definitely not. Iskcon is a movement spread by a counterfeit Swami who abandoned his wife and child in adverse circumstances contrary to the injunctions of sanyas to become such, and then took his message to the West. He certainly could not have "hacked it" in India (though now ISKCON itself is rather big in India, with a number of extravagant temples - it was much easier to expand bringing back vast sums of wealth harvested from Westerners).

In doing so he distorted a number of doctrines and presented mistranslations and venomous purports to Western readers.

He was a student in the Gaudiya Math, itself a relatively new movement /offshoot within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but one that I have no complaint as such with.

 

[Shântoham]

Hi DaneilR,

In Advaita there are two realities: Absolute reality and relative reality. Relative reality is illusory in terms of Absolute reality, so if we speak absolutely, then nothing within reality re ishvara, jiva, world exists. So an Advaitin who only accepts the real existence of the absolute reality treats ishva, jiva and world as practical realities. In the same for example we know Newtonian mechanics is actually wrong, but it serves a practical reality so we still use it in applications of everyday mechanics. Now, as long as you are Jiva, you will indeed experience the duality of ishvara and the world and you will indeed experience reincarnation as well. Some Advaitins make a concession to the relative reality by worshiping Ishvara for instance, despite the fact this is against our doctrine and even Krishna says not to worship his unmanfiest form or the Upanishads tell us not to worship the unmanifest. Worshiping Ishvara(Hiryangarbha) or cosmic intelligence is like worshiping your computer. Pure Advaitins do not worship Ishvara and do not believe in real existence of Jiva, free will and reincarnation. Pure Advaitins practice Jnana to end the illusion of relativity reality and attain liberation.

Have you noticed how some people claiming to be Advaitin start defending Ishvara worship and idol worship and literally become obsessed with it? They cease practicing Jnana and start practicing bhakti to ishvara.

Reincarnation breeds an attitude of complacency, "Nevermind, I will do it in my next lifetime" this creates lazy habits in your mind and basically you keep on going round and round the wheel of samsara. This is why the concept of reincarnation can be a hindrance, you must start your practice now, you must have a burning desire for liberation and put all your efforts towards liberation. It is possible to attain enlightenment in a single lifetime for the sincere seeker.

Namaskāram

In Advaita there are two realities? Worshiping Īśvara is against our doctrine? Pure Advaitins do not worship Īśvara? And they do not believe in the real existence of Jīva, free will, and reincarnation? Pure Advaitins practice (?) Jñāna?

It would be interesting to see you back this up with Śruti and Bhāśya.

Pranāms

P.S. – what is a pure Advaitin?

 

[Surya Deva]

In Advaita there are two realities? Worshiping Īśvara is against our doctrine? Pure Advaitins do not worship Īśvara? And they do not believe in the real existence of Jīva, free will, and reincarnation? Pure Advaitins practice (?) Jñāna?

It would be interesting to see you back this up with Śruti and Bhāśya.

The word reality here is improper and misleading if not contextualized, but I could not really think of another word. In Advaita the only existent reality is Brahman who is Sat-Chit-Ananda. This is absolute reality(paramatika satyam) and the reality that is produced from Maya(which we falsely call matter) which produces Jiva and Ishvara, which then produce the rest of the world is the temporal pragmatic reality(vyavahrika satyam) but which is an illusion:

Panchadasi

2.97. If we abstract from the cosmos the existence which underlines it, all the worlds and all objects are reduced to a mere illusory appearance. What does it matter even if they still continue to exist?

6.129. Since the effects of Maya are undeniably manifest, its existence canot be denied. Being stultified by knowledge, it cannot be really said to exist. From the point of view of absolute knowledge it is always inoperative and hence neglible.


6.133. Maya transforms the immutable Kutastha, the every association-less Atman, phenomenally into the form of the universe. Casting the reflections of Atman on itself, Maya creates Jiva and Ishvara

6.136. The magic show looks wonderful and inexplicable so as long as the magician is not directly known, but when the magician is so known, the magic shown is known as such and is no longer wonderful.

6.235. The Sruti decalres that in fact there is no destruction and no origination; none in bondage and none engaged in practice for liberation; no aspirant for liberation and none liberated. This is the transcedental truth.

6.236. Maya is said to the desire fulfilling cow. Jiva and Ishvara are its two calves. Drink of its milk of duality as much as you like, but the truth is non duality.​

Hence it is established that ishvara, jiva and world are unreal. This is why a Pure Advaitin does not worship Ishvara, for Ishvara is an illusory product of Maya and the Shruti very explicitly tell us not to worship the unmanifest impersonal energy. An Advaitn does not have to worship anything, an Advaitin listens to the Shruti, contemplates on the Shurti and meditates on the Shruti to realize the paramatika sayam while practicing chittashuddi or purification of their mind so that the meaning of the Shruti awakens their Jnana. In order to achieve this Advaitin practices Yoga to still the activities of the mind to awaken the Jnana within.

Please cite a recognized Advaita text which says we should worship Ishvara?

 

[Jainarayan]

Please cite a recognized Advaita text which says we should worship Ishvara?

Isn't the Bhagavad Gita an Advaita text, part of the Prasthānatrayī? The Bhagavad Gita speaks extensively on worshipping Ishvara.

 

[Surya Deva]

That's your personal incredulity, do you know about Akhanda Upasana?

No Advaiti sees Ishvara as separate from himself. I and Hiranyagarbha are One.

For once I actually agree with you are indeed a part of Ishvara: In the sense that Ishvara is like the internet and you, jiva, are a computer connected to the cosmic internet. However, jiva and ishvara are products of maya and in essence insentient/unconscious.

The Ishvara/Hiryangarbh is Mahat(cosmic intelligence) superimposed on Brahman and because cosmic intelligence is the very first product of Maya it is known as 'Mahat' or the great one. Mahat is the closest in quality to Brahman and this is why it said to be produced by the Sattva guna of Maya. As a large and pure mirror reflecting the sun shines so bright that it looks like the sun, similarly the insentient Mahat reflecting the highest and brightest light consciousness, seems to be be sentient, when an actual fact it is very much insentient(jada) and purely impersonal.

The Mahat then splits up into many jivas as atomized units(hence why I agree with you that jiva is a part of Ishvara) and jiva then goes to produce the rest of the world.

The Jiva in ignorance worships Ishvara, mistaking Ishvara to be Brahman. Ishvara is nothing but natural processing system and jiva a single module within that processing system: Cosmic AI and Individual AI.

 

[Surya Deva]

Isn't the Bhagavad Gita an Advaita text, part of the Prasthānatrayī? The Bhagavad Gita speaks extensively on worshipping Ishvara.

I disagree, Krishna in the Gita says "Worship me" as in worship the supreme Atman(the authors of the Gita uses the character of Krishna to personify the Atman) Krishna explicitly says not to worship his unmanifest energy(Maya and her products Ishvara etc) and warns that those who worship these inferior manifestations go to these inferior places.

 

[Jainarayan]

What is Ishvara, but the manifest form of Brahman? And is Krishna not a personification and manifestation of Brahman, i.e. Ishvara?

Sure, He says in 12.4 "But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me."

But did you miss 12.5? "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied."

He says that those who worship the deities go to the deities, yet if a devotee chooses to worship another deity, He will make that devotee's faith in the chosen deity steadfast, but worship is done in an incorrect way. However, all worship ultimately goes to Him. So I don't think that is germaine to this subject. He also states that from time to time (actually milennium to milennium) He descends and takes form. He speaks in the B.G. as a manifest form.

 

[Surya Deva]

The Gita must be understood in terms of historical context. The Gita is an interpolation of the Mahabharata, meaning it has been added later by an anonymous author, possibly within the Vaishnava tradition. It is also called Gitaupanishad, because the Gita very much reads like an Upanishad, as most Upanishads are dialogues and Gita is a dialogue too, but it is notesworthy. because the character Krishna is used as personification of the Brahman/Atman by the author to present an Upanishadic like philosophy but which alsoa attempts to reconcile many different philosophies in India at the time and present a unified coherent account. The Gita is not considered Shruti in Advaita, but it is considered a good text to explain Advaita philosophy when interpreted through the hermenutics of Advaita. However, without the Advaita exegesis, the text is unreliable.

For example the Gita begins by explaining Jnana, but then goes onto explain Raja Yoga, then Karma Yoga, and then it goes onto explain Bhakti to Krishna, covering the entire gamut of philosophies that were present in India at the time: Samkhya, Vedanta, Yoga and Mimassa. It is clear then the Gita is an attempt at reconciliation, but the author does not seem to be aware of the obvious contradictions their approach produces, especially in the unusual concept of God it advanced. As expert scholars of Indian philosophy Gita point out:

The Gita combines together different conceptions of God without feeling the necessity of reconciling the oppositions or contradictions involved in them. It does not seem to be aware of the philosophical difficulty of combining the concept of God as unmanifested, differenceless entity with the notion of Him as the super-person Who incarnates Himself on earth in the human form and behaves in the human manner. It is not aware of the difficulty that, if all good and evil should have emanated from God, and if there be ultimately no moral responsibility, and if everything in the world should have the same place in God, there is no reason why God should trouble to incarnate Himself as man, when there is a disturbance of the Vedic dharma. If God is impartial to all, and if He is absolutely unperturbed, why should He favour the man who clings to Him, and why, for his sake, overrule the world-order of events and in his favour suspend the law of karma? (S. Dasgupta, Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, 1991, vol.2, p. 533).​

Thus if we read the Gita literally it actually proves to contradictory and makes the text unreliable. However in Advaita this text because of its sheer importance in India has been reinterpreted and then included in the Advaita canon. For a modern Advaitin like me who is conversant with the secular scholarship on Gita, this text does not hold a lot of importance and I use it only sparingly within the framework of Advaita.

Vedanta rejects a personal creator god, so Krishna has been reinterpreted in the Gita as another teacher or Brahmajnani teaching the truth of Advaita. It is not uncommon for example for Upanishadic teachers to use theistic like illustrations "Then Brahman thought, I want to become many" or Upanishadic teachers to declare "Aham Brahmasmi" so Krishna claim to be being the supreme lord are not problematic for Advaita.

 

[Jainarayan]

You realize of course that you are a "voice crying in the wilderness", right? It should be clear by now that 99% of the denizens of this forum don't see things the same way you do. We like our Puranic Hinduism. At least I do, because I see lots of morality stories in them. I think some of them are hilarious, especially the marriage of Shiva and Parvati, and Krishna's antics. True or not, mythology or not, fictions or not, they are part and parcel of the morality teachings of Hinduism. I think there are very few educated Hindus in the west and in India who believe Lord Rama lived millions of years ago. Hinduism is quite colorful and full of hyperbole, with lots of lessons in that hyberbole. I think you are doing Hindus a great disservice, even being condescending, patronizing and insulting, and selling Hindus short. I don't know what this is based in, but it's not getting you anywhere. For what it's worth, and not to sound full of myself, I've derived a lot of personal growth and improvement from the Hinduism you condemn. I've made a lot of positive changes in my outlook and attitudes because of whatever Hinduism is, or whatever it is that I practice.

 

[Surya Deva]

I am not debating Puranas with you here or asking you what your personal opinions are on my views on Hinduism. I am telling you the Advaita point of view on the Bhagvad Gita and as well the secular-evidenced based scholarship point of view. From an Advaita point of view there is no reincarnation, no ishvara, no jiva, no world, no free will, no bondage and no liberation. This is pretty loud and clear:

6.235. The Sruti decalres that in fact there is no destruction and no origination; none in bondage and none engaged in practice for liberation; no aspirant for liberation and none liberated. This is the transcendental truth.​

Can I make it anymore explicit ? Should I make a huge billboard and emblazen this citation on it, or write it out in neon letters? It is not my fault that Hindus are not accepting what their very own Shruti is saying. My views are backed up through and through by Shruti, by modern secular scholarship and by modern science. I am on very strong ground. So please don't condemn me for actually being loyal to my religion.