How can one prove that one is an advaitin?

[Shantanu]

It is all very well to say that one is an advaitin: meaning someone who has merged with Brahman.

But what is the proof that one is an advaitin: what does one have to do in real life physically in order to demonstrate that one is an advaitin. In other words what practices are necessary for one to be able to say that 'I am an advaitin'. Dharma does not seem to be a necessary part of this advaitism.

In my opinion one needs to demonstrate to oneself that one is seeking to merge with Brahman. I do that by clock checking for messages from Brahman: This is done by visiting a digital clock and with having had a prior agreement with Brahman that a '7' in clock times (1.15, 2.41, 3.04 4.03, 5.20, 6.10, 7.00, 8.08, 9.25, 10.42, 11.32, 12.04, 13.30, etc) means that there has been a message to act in certain ways to aid my survival with dignity: I am tuning in to Brahman as the religious practice of being an advaitin. Positive messages and negative messages from the clock are equally important in this practice of Brahmanism.

I have been doing this for close to 20 years, and it gives me satchitananda (Existence-Awareness-Bliss), so real peace of mind to enable me to live my life contentedly.

It only works if one considers Brahman to be Pure Consciousness.

I consider myself to be an Advaitin practicising Brahmanism.

How do you practice your advaitism?

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought being an Advaitin meant simply adherence to the Advaita doctrine? You make it seem considerably more involved than that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, no demonstration is required. If the person thinks he has understood 'advaita', then he/she is an 'advaitist'. An 'advaitist' may keep his/her 'Parmarthika' understanding and 'Vyavaharika' actions separate. He/she is not required to limit his/her actions in 'Vyavaharika' in any way. In 'Vyavaharika' I can love or get angry, and can like or hate something. In 'Vyavaharika', action according to 'dharma' is essential for all Hindus, whatever be his/her views. No one can escape it. Do not mix up the two levels.

 

[Shantanu]

All I am concerned with is to merge my thoughts with Brahman as fully as is practicable in this life. I do not consider that there are two levels of vyvaharika and paramarthika. That is purely theoretical and hypothetical.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't think anybody can 'prove' much at all. What is proof anyway? I also don't think it matters.

 

[Shantanu]

I don't think anybody can 'prove' much at all. What is proof anyway? I also don't think it matters.

You are quite right. It is not about proving anything other than whether ones ritualistic practices on an assumed Consciousness makes the boat float.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see as much use in proving one is an advaitin as I see in one proving they are partial to the color blue. If one understands and accepts advaita, then one is advaitin.

I don’t practice advaita. In practice, I follow my dharma. Advaita is a philosophy or worldview. Bringing back my color analogy, practicing advaita, in my opinion, is akin to practicing liking the color blue.

 

[Shantanu]

One can only practice advaita if one believes that Brahman is Pure Consciousness and is the Doer.

 

[Shantanu]

If Brahman Consciousness is the Ultimate Truth it would be wrong not to tap into Its knowledge on what is dharma, and make It the Doer even if It is not the Doer naturally. Of course, If Brahman Consciousness is not the Ultimate Reality what is advaita for? One just gets one with ones dharma.

 

[Shantanu]

In all my truth seeking endeavours of consultation with what I perceived to be the Ultimate Reality, It did not provide confirmation of its Existence as Brahman Consciousness.

 

[Shantanu]

So practicising Brahmanism is futile and serves no ends.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One can only practice advaita if one believes that Brahman is Pure Consciousness and is the Doer.
If Brahman Consciousness is not the Ultimate Reality what is advaita for? One just gets one with ones dharma.
So practicing Brahmanism is futile and serves no ends.

Sorry, disagree. Brahman does nothing and there is no 'Pure Consciousness'.
'Advaita' is an understanding as Salix said and 'Dharma' is a requirement of living, of a society.
I would phrase it like this: "Belief in Brahman is of no use ..". Perfectly OK, if that floats your boat.

 

[Shantanu]

Sorry, disagree. Brahman does nothing and there is no 'Pure Consciousness'.
'Advaita' is an understanding as Salix said and 'Dharma' is a requirement of living, of a society.
I would phrase it like this: "Belief in Brahman is of no use ..". Perfectly OK, if that floats your boat.

Thank you for this clarification Aupmanyav guruji. I too have found no evidence that Brahman is pure Consciousness that one can get messages from to perform ones dharmic duties. I am now an atheist again after some years of searching whether there is a God who has been protecting me from the persecution that I have suffered in the United Kingdom. I resisted my persecutors myself using my own intelligence and wisdom designed to aid my survival with dignity.

 

[Shantanu]

Thank you for this clarification Aupmanyav guruji. I too have found no evidence that Brahman is pure Consciousness that one can get messages from to perform ones dharmic duties. I am now an atheist again after some years of searching whether there is a God who has been protecting me from the persecution that I have suffered in the United Kingdom. I resisted my persecutors myself using my own intelligence and wisdom designed to aid my survival with dignity.

I am happy to say that I have received concrete proof of God's existence as God Consciousness that an advaitin can access in his practice.