Why Advaita Vedanta first?

[Stormcry]

Vedas are not about non-duality or duality, they are about multiplicity.

But Veda finally states All is Brahman without a second. So there's no multiplicity. Veda is all about Brahman, anything other than non-dual Brahman is just the meaning, not the aim.

 

[Shantanu]

Yes, Advaita is the truth of Veda. If Veda were about Duality, it'd not have criticized Dualistics in Upanishada-s. The truth is that moksha is possible only if there is unification of Atman & Brahman and I don't think Bhedavadi would ever attain Moksha. Because they're worshiping Duality - which is maya.I truly believe that the final conclusion is Advaita ... pure monism. The difference is all about how we get there The person who's brahmavadi attains Moksha, Mayavadi who accept duality and existence of maya don't.

Is the promise of Advaita-led Moksha of any use to humans engaged in a struggle for existence with dignity that requires realisation? Which comes first: living or dreaming?

 

[Vinayaka]

I am what I always was - Star-dust, Brahman.

You missed the point as usual. The point was that since they no longer have any 'I' consciousness, they don't know who you're talking about. They can't distinguish between 'you' and 'I'. You, on the other hand, have lots of 'I' in you yet. Getting there by logic isn't the same. In fact, I don't personally believe you can get there by logic at all. Of course you will disagree, and you're entitled to. Logic, the intellectual process, will overcome intuition whenever it can.

 

[Kirran]

You missed the point as usual. The point was that since they no longer have any 'I' consciousness, they don't know who you're talking about. They can't distinguish between 'you' and 'I'. You, on the other hand, have lots of 'I' in you yet. Getting there by logic isn't the same. In fact, I don't personally believe you can get there by logic at all. Of course you will disagree, and you're entitled to. Logic, the intellectual process, will overcome intuition whenever it can.

I agree on this one.

It's all very well knowing that if you hadn't eaten for three days, you'd need to eat. The feeling of not having eaten in three days would, however, be quite a different thing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You missed the point as usual. The point was that since they no longer have any 'I' consciousness, they don't know who you're talking about. They can't distinguish between 'you' and 'I'. You, on the other hand, have lots of 'I' in you yet. Getting there by logic isn't the same. In fact, I don't personally believe you can get there by logic at all. Of course you will disagree, and you're entitled to. Logic, the intellectual process, will overcome intuition whenever it can.

I get the point, Vinayaka. The thing is that I straddle two worlds, parmarthika and vyavaharika, and both are true in their own ways.

My brother leaves for his seven-days South India tour on 28th. By air to Madurai and then to Rameshwaram and Kanyakumari. He is a village Hindu. I have asked him to see if he can visit Thiruchirapalli, Thanjavur and Koombakonum on his return journey to Chennai which will be by road/rail (?).

 

[Vinayaka]

Well, now that was predictable.

 

[Maya3]

Tends to be an inconvenient answer when a friend casually asks how you are.

Stardust or no, it´s still nice to use the body you have now to it´s full potential, you can laugh with it, eat with it, drink coffee with it and tell people how you are feeling with it

Maya

 

[Kirran]

Stardust or no, it´s still nice to use the body you have now to it´s full potential, you can laugh with it, eat with it, drink coffee with it and tell people how you are feeling with it

Maya

Damn right I liked that nice mix of possible bodily activities.

What's more, to be a touch esoteric, we can use it as the arrow which, using the bow of sadhana, we shoot towards the target of Shiva (God-realisation).

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe there are certain karmas to go through where a physical body is totally necessary.

 

[Kirran]

I take it as the inverse - certain karmas are necessary because of the physical body.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mat kar tu abhimān re bande, jhooti teri shān re, mat kar tu abhimān.
tere jaise lākhon* āye, lākhon is māti ne khāye, rahā na nām nishān re bande, mat kar ..
māyā kā andhakār nirālā, bāhar ujālā under kālā, is ko tu pehchān re bande, mat kar ..
tere pās hain hire moti, mere man-mandir mein jyoti, kaun huā dhanwān re bande, mat kar ..

Don't be proud, O Man, your glister is false, don't be proud.
Thousands like you came, thousands this soil ate, don't be proud
the darkness of 'maya' is unique, it is light outside, dark inside, understand this, don't be proud
you have diamonds and pearls, I have light in my heart, who is richer, don't be proud.
(* 'lakh' actually is a hundred thousand and not thousand)

.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

That is your constitutional right according to Hindusim, Poeticus. Why should anyone mind?A-la Poeticus' post above, no reason why they are not entitled to their different views.

The problem is, if Advaita is loosely interpreted to the point where everyone begins to draw their own conclusions on the basis of "all is one", then these conclusions are likely not what the founder had in mind.

In which case, these "neo" ideas are not really Advaita.

 

[Kirran]

The problem is, if Advaita is loosely interpreted to the point where everyone begins to draw their own conclusions on the basis of "all is one", then these conclusions are likely not what the founder had in mind.

In which case, these "neo" ideas are not really Advaita.

But isn't denouncing purported members of your own religious sect/philosophy because they don't ascribe to the traditional interpretations essentially fundamentalist?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

But isn't denouncing purported members of your own religious sect/philosophy because they don't ascribe to the traditional interpretations essentially fundamentalist?

I do not think so. Since Advaita means Shankara's doctrine, if I draw my own conclusions without caring to study Shankara or if I am spinning up my own theories, I should not be calling these new ideas Advaita.

I have to find a different name for it. Note that I am not denouncing neo ideas. I am just saying that it is not appropriate to use the label Advaita, because this label means something specific and is not a catch-all term.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't believe that pointing out differences is the same as denouncing. Although I've often been accused of it, especially with regard to differences between Abrahamics and Dharmics. Saying, 'I'm not a Christian' does not mean that I hate Christianity. Saying, "these aren't the traditional or orthodox views," isn't saying you're against something, it's just pointing out the obvious, at least to you. Then again, it is incredibly difficult to read tone on here ... a screen, with words.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am just saying that it is not appropriate to use the label Advaita,

Many of the classical terms and understandings have been altered or misappropriated. Not just advaita, but yoga, karma, samadhi, and dozens more.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

No arguments here. I've also come to that conclusion by my own reasoning. But I don't feel that's all there is. While experience may be the incorrect word, some deeper understanding is, I think, possible.

It is all Brahman; Brahman is here and now. It is not something to be found in future.

Should this not be it? What are we expecting when we look for a deeper realization of the above? Any realization can only be within the field of experience (and hence, dual).

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Just to be clear, this is neo-Advaita and not traditional Advaita. However, like I said earlier, Advaita is a lot more complex than "all is one" or just quoting some mahavakyas.

In the context of Vinayaka-ji's question, how many do you think actually are able to conceive the difference?

Completely agree Tattva-ji. Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva do not get enough credit for their immense contribution to Vedanta.

I would agree, though with a reservation that the fault, if at all, is entirely on the shoulders of followers of the two systems itself, for not having done enough to make them accessible (though to a significantly lesser extent w.r.t. Śri Rāmānujīyas). But then they have their own rationale. Only wishing Dharmakīrtis words don't turn out to be true for sincere adhyātmik aspirants:
वहति न पुरः कश्चित् पश्चान्न कोऽप्यनुयाति मां

न च नवपदक्षुण्णो मार्गः कथं न्वहमेकतः ।​

भवतु विदितं पूर्वव्यूढोऽधुना खिलतां गतः

स खलु बहलो वामः पन्था मया स्फुटमूर्जितः ॥​

Therefore, if this is a criticism, this is a reflection of the state of affairs in medieval India and applies equally to Shankara and Madhva.

It wasn't intended as a criticism at all, nor is it vested with the idea of casteism. Though, i believe that with the proposition of unity, doing away with caste-system wouldn't have been unreasonable, and the contrast is that, it wasn't so. If at all construed as a criticism, it would still apply to māyāvāda alone, given its two-level reality, and caste being vyāvahārika why should be it even considered w.r.t. any pāramārthika pursuits but for tradition; and because women and śudras were considered ineligible for vedādhyayana they would ipso facto be denied mokṣa per advaita. Contrast this with Śri Madhva's position - even as he accepts the reality of world - that for the purpose of mokṣa varṇa is what matters, and irrespective of the varṇa one can achieve mokṣa, and women too, and establishes as a tenet of his siddhānta by including this in the brahmasūtra-bhāṣya.

I am not aware of Shankara restricting Moksha by gender or class. I would like to see a reference.

From what i know readily:
ब्राह्मण, ब्राह्मणस्यैव विशेषतोऽधिकारः सर्वत्यागेन ब्रह्मविद्यायामिति ब्राह्मण ग्रहणम् । … ब्राह्मण गुरुमेव आचार्यं शमदमादिसम्पन्नम् अभिगच्छेत् । मु•उ•भा १/२

जन्तूनां नरजन्म दुर्लभमतः पुंस्त्वं ततो विप्रता
तस्माद्वैदिकधर्ममार्गपरता विद्वत्त्वमस्मात्परम् । वि•चू

On the other hand, Madhva introduced the concept of eternal damnation based on the varna of the soul, which is peculiar to his doctrine.

The 'eternal damnation' is not based on varṇa nor was it 'introduced' by Śri Madhva. The concept is that there are three types of jīvas, a) those that are sattvik and progress towards knowledge, b) those that are predominantly rajasik and will continue being born as humans, and c) those that predominantly tamasik and will continue in the path of ignorance.

Now consider this:
आसुरीं योनिमापन्ना मूढा जन्मनि जन्मनि ।
मामप्राप्यैव कौन्तेय ततो यान्त्यधमां गतिम् ॥ भगवाद्गीता/१६/२०
श•भा• आसुरी योनिम् आपन्नाः प्रतिपन्नाः मूढाः अविवेकिनः जन्मनि जन्मनि प्रतिजन्म तमोबहुलास्वेव योनिषु जायमानाः अधो गच्छन्तो मूढाः माम् ईश्वरम् अप्राप्य अनासाद्य एव हे कौन्तेय, ततः तस्मादपि यान्ति अधमां गतिं निकृष्टतमां गतिम् । ‘माम् अप्राप्यैव’ इति न मत्प्राप्तौ काचिदपि आशङ्का अस्ति, अतः मच्छिष्टसाधुमार्गम् अप्राप्य इत्यर्थः ॥

I think it is more likely that the idea of everyone eventually going to mokṣa is what is peculiar and inconsistent with our scriptures.

The thing is that I straddle two worlds,

I think there are two options - videha-kaivalya and jivanmukta. The former is devoid of any experience of the vyāvahārika, the latter still experiences prārabdha and therefore cannot be brahman. Even those experiencing sayujya with saguṇa-brahman (íṣvara) cannot fully identify themselves as such per brahmasūtra-jagadvyāpāravarjyam- until aikya with nirviśeṣa when there is absolutely no experience of this world (being mithyā). How do you manage to straddle two worlds śrīmān!?

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Thanks for the references.

From what i know readily:
ब्राह्मण, ब्राह्मणस्यैव विशेषतोऽधिकारः सर्वत्यागेन ब्रह्मविद्यायामिति ब्राह्मण ग्रहणम् । … ब्राह्मण गुरुमेव आचार्यं शमदमादिसम्पन्नम् अभिगच्छेत् । मु•उ•भा १/२

I checked the entire second chapter of the first Mundaka and I do not see Shankara excluding women from obtaining Moksha. His usage of the male gender comes directly from the Upanishad and this is indeed how most scripture is written. The usage of "wise man" or "Brahmana" was never construed by Shankara to mean exclusion of women. It would also be inconsistent of Shankara, if took such a position, given that the tradition says his famed debate with Mandana was judged by Mandana's wife, Ubhaya Bharati. Or that he would comment on the Brhadaranyaka where Yajnavalkya holds metaphysical discussions with his wife Matreyi (a Brahmavaadini) and not address his alleged gender bias.

जन्तूनां नरजन्म दुर्लभमतः पुंस्त्वं ततो विप्रता
तस्माद्वैदिकधर्ममार्गपरता विद्वत्त्वमस्मात्परम् । वि•चू

This is Viveka Chudamani, verse 2. Shankara here talks about how rare human birth is and even more rare the birth of a male Brahmana who has steadfastness in Vaidika Dharma and thorugh discrimination attains Liberation. Again, this does not exclude women from liberation. I have mentioned earlier that once we get into interpretation, anything becomes possible.

The 'eternal damnation' is not based on varṇa nor was it 'introduced' by Śri Madhva. The concept is that there are three types of jīvas, a) those that are sattvik and progress towards knowledge, b) those that are predominantly rajasik and will continue being born as humans, and c) those that predominantly tamasik and will continue in the path of ignorance.

My mistake. I assumed it was by Varna instead of Guna. The idea is the same, though. Tattavada states that not all jivas will be liberated and in fact, some will - in due time - spiral down to eternal hell - a position not taken by other leading schools of Vedanta.

I think there are two options - videha-kaivalya and jivanmukta. The former is devoid of any experience of the vyāvahārika, the latter still experiences prārabdha and therefore cannot be brahman. Even those experiencing sayujya with saguṇa-brahman (íṣvara) cannot fully identify themselves as such per brahmasūtra-jagadvyāpāravarjyam- until aikya with nirviśeṣa when there is absolutely no experience of this world (being mithyā). How do you manage to straddle two worlds śrīmān!?

Though, this is for Aupmanyav, I want to add my comment. videha kaivalya is completely unambiguous. On the other hand, jivan-mukti is fraught with confusion. How do we know that someone is a Mukta? As far as onlookers are concerned, he looks and acts like everyone else and therefore, it can only be sentiment that would make us accept that a certain individual is a Mukta and nothing more. We can never be certain.

More importantly, how does the individual himself know he is a Mukta? For if he truly is liberated, then there is no Vyavaharika and therefore, there is no liberated individual at all, which is paradoxical. He can never tell himself he is now liberated for there is no one there (Paramarthika) to make such an observation.

Note: My usage of "he" and "himself" should not be taken to mean that I exclude women from being able to obtain Mukti

 

[George-ananda]

Is the promise of Advaita-led Moksha of any use to humans engaged in a struggle for existence with dignity that requires realisation? Which comes first: living or dreaming?

The Advaita-led live and work with compassion with both hands while detached from the results in a state of love and bliss. They tread the mystical path with practical feet while in body.