Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
This is a Good Post Sayak, keep these up mate
This is a Good Post Sayak, keep these up mate
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atman and Brahman in the Upanisads
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
The most radical teaching of the Upanishad is Atman = Brahman. It is radical, because in no other religion do you find this idea, except in extreme minority Sufi or Gnostic sects, but the fact that this idea is the foundation of an entire religion and of an entire category of religion(Dharmic) makes it unique and radical. In other parts of the world a person asserting identity with God was considered the greatest heresy and people would be executed. Such as the Sufi mystic who said "Anal Haq" meaning I am the Truth and was then hanged to death.
However, even I feel uncomfortable saying "I am Brahman" because it creates feeling of arrogance, of overconfidence and pride, which reality soon deals with. For example here is me mediating "I am Brahman" and then I go out and somebody looks at me funny and it makes me feel bad. Sometimes I feel better just saying "I am one with Brahman" like Christian mystic Meister Ekhart, it produces less arrogance and produces a feeling of humility and divinity. However, I do not feel comfortable saying "I am your servant Brahman" because it produces a feeling of meekness.
Thus, I can understand why the necessity was felt for an alternative Bhakti Vedanta interpretation to justify all different kind of mood. I think Ramunjacharya's half way point between "I am Brahman" and "I am not Brahman" is healthier attitude to take.
However, even I feel uncomfortable saying "I am Brahman" because it creates feeling of arrogance, of overconfidence and pride, which reality soon deals with. For example here is me mediating "I am Brahman" and then I go out and somebody looks at me funny and it makes me feel bad. Sometimes I feel better just saying "I am one with Brahman" like Christian mystic Meister Ekhart, it produces less arrogance and produces a feeling of humility and divinity. However, I do not feel comfortable saying "I am your servant Brahman" because it produces a feeling of meekness.
Thus, I can understand why the necessity was felt for an alternative Bhakti Vedanta interpretation to justify all different kind of mood. I think Ramunjacharya's half way point between "I am Brahman" and "I am not Brahman" is healthier attitude to take.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The tone in which this is proclaimed matters. A simple matter of fact saying will be 'I am Brahman', 'I am Tathagata', 'I have realized'.
It would only be arrogant if someone says "I am Brahman and none of you are".
Also, while the Upanisads is important, one should not overly emphasize it. We have Samkhya, Nyaya, Viaseshika, Bauddha and Jaina too. My strategy for spiritual equilibrium
If I get too rational, I read Upanisads
If I get to mystical I read Nyaya-Vaisesika (and science)
If I get too attached I read Buddha
If I get too aloof, I read the poetry of the Bhakti saints.
Haven't read the Jaina works yet, they would be good for something too.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Indeed, like modern scientists of consciousness, the Upanshadic seers were trying to map out the states of consciousness based on the spectrum of experience from waking, dream and dreamless sleep. This is to point out the obvious bias we have in considering what is reality to be only that is the waking part of the spectrum, and to consider that which is dream and dreamless sleep to be unreal. However, there is a great Advaita argument for this, there is no reason to consider one more real than the other, because they are mutually contradictory meaning that when you are in one you and not in the other. You cannot use the waking elephant to negate the dream elephant and vis versa.
Advaita also takes it at face value that these states(avasthas) of consciousness actually correspond to real zones of reality. As you are interested in reading the scripture with a scientific interpretation, you may find it interesting just how strongly the states of consciousness correspond to physical reality:
1. Waking: Corresponds to the reality of objects, from large objects to particles in space and time, predictable
2. Dream: Corresponds to the fuzzy reality of the quantum, no objects as such and no space and time as such, somewhere between the real and unreal, uncertain
3. Dreamless sleep: We have no physical correlate for it as of yet, but it is called the causal reality in Advaita(karana sharira) it is undifferentiated, singular, void and the fundamental cause of both the quantum reality and the reality of objects. If we look at in term of cosmology, it would be similar to the singularity at the beginning of the universe, which contains the universe in a seed form.
2. Dream: Corresponds to the fuzzy reality of the quantum, no objects as such and no space and time as such, somewhere between the real and unreal, uncertain
3. Dreamless sleep: We have no physical correlate for it as of yet, but it is called the causal reality in Advaita(karana sharira) it is undifferentiated, singular, void and the fundamental cause of both the quantum reality and the reality of objects. If we look at in term of cosmology, it would be similar to the singularity at the beginning of the universe, which contains the universe in a seed form.
These in correspond to the three bodies, which can be classified in terms of three bodies which are classified into 5 layers(koshas):
1. Gross body(sthula sharira). It corresponds to the physical body(anamaya kosha) made up of fat, bones, blood, marrow, plasma, and reproductive tissues (7 dhatus of Ayurveda) It is considered the most impure and most perishable body and it corresponds to the waking state
2. Subtle body(sukshma sharira). It corresponds to the mind, made up of 3 layers: The vital layer(pranamaya kosha) which consists of 5 main pranas or vital energies that facilitate the communication between the mind and the physical body. The mental layer(manomaya kosha) which is what processes the information coming both from the senses(jnana indriyas) and the organs of action(karma indriyas) and also from the intellect which commands it. The individual consciousness layer(vijnanamaya kosha) which is the seat of ego(ahamkara) and which sees itself as the doer(karta) and gains merit or demerit(karma). It is seen as more pure than the gross body, it is light, it can pass through solid objects even mountains, it travels many times the speed of light and it remains in existence for the entire duration of a cycle of the universe. It corresponds to the dream state.
3. Causal body(karana sharira) It correspond to the origin of all gross bodies and all subtle does and is made up of only one layer, the bliss layer(anandamaya kosha) and it is called the bliss layer because at this level of reality there is nothing, no forms, no likes and dislikes and no pain and suffering. Here we abide in a state of pure bliss. However, this bliss is qualified by a layer of maya and avidya(ignorance) We enter into it every night we sleep, but not consciously. It corresponds to the dreamless sleep state. The causal body is also called Ishvara. In new-age terminology you call this the "Higher Self"
If you understand this schema, many of the teachings of Hinduism and generally Dharmic religions will start to make sense e.g. reincarnation and karma. As you can see the person(purusha) does not just have a physical body, but also a subtle body which is finer than it, hence on death of the physical body, the person switches to their subtle body and enters the subtle world(the dream world) This is backed up by NDE research, the NDE experiences are very much dream like experiences that the subjects remember even when their physical body was clinically dead. The person comes into association with another physical body after spending a brief period in the subtle world(consisting of various lokas) The type of body it gets is decided by the causal body -- in a way you could say God creates our new body and directs us to it based on our karma.2. Subtle body(sukshma sharira). It corresponds to the mind, made up of 3 layers: The vital layer(pranamaya kosha) which consists of 5 main pranas or vital energies that facilitate the communication between the mind and the physical body. The mental layer(manomaya kosha) which is what processes the information coming both from the senses(jnana indriyas) and the organs of action(karma indriyas) and also from the intellect which commands it. The individual consciousness layer(vijnanamaya kosha) which is the seat of ego(ahamkara) and which sees itself as the doer(karta) and gains merit or demerit(karma). It is seen as more pure than the gross body, it is light, it can pass through solid objects even mountains, it travels many times the speed of light and it remains in existence for the entire duration of a cycle of the universe. It corresponds to the dream state.
3. Causal body(karana sharira) It correspond to the origin of all gross bodies and all subtle does and is made up of only one layer, the bliss layer(anandamaya kosha) and it is called the bliss layer because at this level of reality there is nothing, no forms, no likes and dislikes and no pain and suffering. Here we abide in a state of pure bliss. However, this bliss is qualified by a layer of maya and avidya(ignorance) We enter into it every night we sleep, but not consciously. It corresponds to the dreamless sleep state. The causal body is also called Ishvara. In new-age terminology you call this the "Higher Self"
Advaita builds a highly detailed metaphysics using the guna theory. The Sattva zone of reality corresponds to Ishvara and Ishvara is the unconditioned purusha, which has not entered the cycle of birth and rebirth(samsara) and always remains pure and full of knowledge, bliss and pure awareness. Ishvara with his maya shakti projects(viksepa shakti) infinite universes and enters into each universe as creator, preserver and destroyer(trimurti) and at the same time covers this(avarna shakti) to make it look like void(The Advaita answer to the Buddhists is they have only got as far as the void)
The Rajas zone of reality corresponds to the subtle world consisting of many realms, gods, souls, spirits, demons. They are less conditioned than mortals, but they all suffer from massive ego trips because of their powers and these trips can last a long time before they realise the ultimate journey is to go back to God.
The Tamas zone of reality corresponds to the physical world, the world of mortals, who are the most conditioned and for them the highest pleasures are sex, which from the Rajas zone point of view is like trading in diamonds for paper. They only leave this zone to enter the Rajas zone when they renounce material pleasures.
That this metaphysics is actually in the Upanishads is a hermenutical question, but to a large extent everything you find in the Advaita metaphysics is present in the Upanishads in different terminologies and descriptions in an unorganised pre-systematic way, what Shankara did was merely to organise them into a coherent metaphysics.
Last edited:
I am somewhat aware of this. My main critique is, by the classical and post-classical age, the discourse has become too theory-laden (on every side) and one of my intentions of looking at the Upanisads is going back to observation and knowledge centered descriptions that underlie those theories, as they might be more amenable to my own (and scientific) exploration.
One of the reasons, I believe, that so many schools sprouted from similar kinds of meditative experiences is because the observations from them were insufficient to "fix" a theory. (similar situation in cosmology today over inflation and quantum gravity model). So I believe the way forward is to carefully document earlier observations (from Hindu, Baudha, Jaina and other mystical works) without too much theoretical baggage and them figure out a way to add more observations to them.
What do you think?
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I am somewhat aware of this. My main critique is, by the classical and post-classical age, the discourse has become too theory-laden (on every side) and one of my intentions of looking at the Upanisads is going back to observation and knowledge centered descriptions that underlie those theories, as they might be more amenable to my own (and scientific) exploration.
That's cool. I read a few years back of one of the co-founders of String theory speculating about the implications of what string theory suggests and its relationship with consciousness. He speculated, that string theory suggests that there are other dimensions/levels of matter above our own physical level, and it is theoretically possible that at higher levels of matter, there can be exotic higher dimensional/higher energy matter which could form its own worlds and even exotic higher dimensional life. He further speculates that perhaps consciousness can access each of these levels and this may explain the common accounts in all religions of other realms and angels etc.
However, this is of course highly speculative and no scientist would take it seriously, however the implications of a multi dimensional universe does lend to such speculations. String theory is almost like a modern guna theory, in guna theory the entire multidimesional universe is made up of vibrating gunas, at higher vibrational energy they produce the words of sattva and rajas, and at lower tamas. Similarly, in string theory, the vibrating quantum strings, produce a multidimensional universe, and each phase of the string modulation produces a different energy universe.
This further reinforces my faith that our Vedic religion comes from an advanced scientific people.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I would caution against such modern scientific interpretations of the Upanishadic and Yogic terms of nadis or chakras. I use to think like this too, I thought the Upanishads were merely using ancient terms to describe veins,
arteries etc but this was because at that time I didn't have enough knowledge about sharias, koshas and Ayurveda.
In fact the ancients were well aware of veins and arteries in the body, in the Ayurvedic literature:
Sushruta calculated that there were about seven hundred, siras (veins), two hundred, dhamanis (arteries). The number of the minute sira and dhamani was equal to same as the number of the hair-follicles. Sushruta Samhita had used the word dhamanis (artery) to some of the mula sthanas of srotas (origin of the channels of the circulations), but he had not used any siras as the mula sthana of a srotas (channels of the circulations).
The distinction is made clear in the Upanishad with the kosa theory, there is a physical layer(annamaya kosha, literally means food body) which is made up of food and nutrients that we eat, and those food and nutrients in turn produce all the physical organs of the body, including the arteries.
Then there is a metaphysical layer or mental layer, which is not thought to be in the body, rather the physical body is just seen as the most outside layer(like russian dolls) which is why it is called 'pranamaya' and the physical ' annamaya' here the prefix 'pra' means its comes before. Thus, the 72,000 nadis being spoken about here constitute the pranamaya kosha, not the annamaya kosha. The points where several hundreds of nadis intersect are called 'charkas"
Now, the location of the charkas and the description of the nadis actually do correspond to physical locations in the body(golaka) Hence, you will find that the chakra system corresponds very strongly to the endocrine system, and as we are finding out now the endocrine glands secrete hormones that regulate specific functions in that part of the body, just as the charkas are stated to do. This is not just true for the endrocrine system, but every biological system in the body including nervous system and sensory system corresponds to its metaphysical twin in the subtle body, the organs of senses(eyes, nose, tongue, ear, skin) the organs of action(anus, arms, legs, genital, speech).
Now there is an argument for this. The physical body is just inert dead matter(jada) and hence the physical body itself cannot configure itself into meaningful instruments that can be used e.g.Why is the physical body a perfectly functioning system, it implies there is a user for it e.g. the computer is perfectly functional system that did not just assemble itself into a fully functioning system, it implies there is a user for the system. Similarly, the inference for the subtle bodies existence is the body is a fully functioning system, hence it implies a user that uses it. I use my body, the body does not use me. As long as I am associated with this body, this body is animated, but when I am absent the body becomes inanimate and falls apart. This is why the subtle body is called "lingasharira" meaning it is the inferred or indicated body. We cannot see it, but the activities of the body infer its presence.
As the subtle body already brings the organs of action, senses and pranas with it, they provide the blueprint by which the physical body forms the anus etc, the eyes etc, and the circulation systems. It forms them according to the karma of the subtle body. If it is argued, like materialists do that these systems have all evolved gradually through random mutations, there is very blatant proof against this. Even in a single celled organism you find that it is a fully functioning system, the equivalent of a miniaturised city, with the sense organs and action organs already present in miniaturised form.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
One of the reasons, I believe, that so many schools sprouted from similar kinds of meditative experiences is because the observations from them were insufficient to "fix" a theory. (similar situation in cosmology today over inflation and quantum gravity model). So I believe the way forward is to carefully document earlier observations (from Hindu, Baudha, Jaina and other mystical works) without too much theoretical baggage and them figure out a way to add more observations to them.
What do you think?
Sorry I replied to this post before you edited this bit in. I think it is worth doing, and drawing your own interpretations. I am a free thinker and I am often interpreted the scriptures by myself, rather than rely on somebody elses commentary. I am great believer in my power of understanding. However, at the same time I must caution with certain scriptures, especially the Upanishads. The Upanishads are marked as 'presystematic philosophy' that is before the rise of the darsanas(including Buddha, Jain and Charvaka) and in fact it is the Upanishads that gave rise to the darsanas. The Upanishads are sublime poetry, but they are composed in an archaic language, they are full of archaic symbolism, they are full of metaphors, they are not coherent, but scattered, disorganised, composed by several authors, one section will say x and the other will say y. It is similar to pre-socratic philosophy, one person will say fire is the first cause, another ether, another air, another water, another some formless absolute. In Upanishad you will see one part say "Prana is the first cause" and then another "Akasha is the first cause" and in another "Consciousness is the first cause"
This was the chief argument of the Charvaka against them, they are full of contradictions, inconsistencies and seeming absurdities.
So very early attempts were made to provide a systematic, coherent and valid interpretation of the Upanishads, the earliest attempt was by Badarayana who composed the Brahma Sutras to articulate what exactly the Upanishads is talking about. See: Section 1 – Brahma Sutras – Chapter 1: Samanvaya Adhyaya
Shankara just provided a more thorough exegesis of what the Upanishad was teaching by further elaborating on Badarayana and by bringing together the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita he was able to form a solid foundation on which the Hindu religion could stand on. This is why ever since since Shankara Hinduism has proceeded forth from this foundation. He is hence considered the first reformer of Hinduism, an avatar of Lord Shiva.
Reading the Upanishads without the help of the exegesis of former scholars will be very difficult, and you likely to come up with wrong interpretations. Like Aupmanyav has come up with his own materialist interpretation of Brahman as energy, which has no support in any Vedanta tradition, even though he claims it is Advaita. Instead what I suggest is first read the Upanishads yourself, and see what you understand, then read the Vedanta shastras of Advaita, Bhedaabeda Visesadvaita, Dvaita etc, and you will find Advaita comes the closest to the true meaning of the Upanishad. The theories I told you about which are core parts of Advaita teachings re: 3 states of consciousness(Avasthas) 5 layers(koshas) and the various realms and the beings that reside in them(lokas) are all directly taken from the Upanishads. Shankara's main doctrine of Atman = Brahman is also taken directly from the Upanishads. If you read Advaita philosophy, you will be able to trace 99% of it back to the Upanishads.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Yes, but in practice, because I have seen how my peers and the swamis were applying this in my Ashram, it did seem to produce arrogant people with little compassion. I saw for example how elderly people and people who had low confidence/self esteem or challenges were treated. Even when this philosophy was exported to the West, you can see what it produced Nietzsche's religion of the superman(ubermensh) which went onto inspire Nazism, in fact the Nazis were great lovers of Vedantic literature, Himmler carried a copy of the Bhagvad Gita. In modern times it has inspired Neo-Advaita/non-duality traditions in the West, of basically deluded new-agers thinking they are enlightened.
Thus, I think there is good reason why Shankara came up with the a list of prerequisite qualifications(adhikaars) before one can even begin to study Vedanta.
The other reason I hesitate to say "I am Brahman" is that I am agnostic whether this is completely true, am I Brahman, or is Brahman something way beyond me. I certainly cannot claim to have created this universe, I cannot claim I am sustaining this universe or destroying it. I cannot claim I am the creator, sustainer and destroyer of infinite universes. As I am right now, even a gush of wind could knock me down, so it seems ill-placed to equate myself with Brahman the omnipotent. Maybe it is better to think of Brahman as a potential I will somebody, maybe in a billion lifetimes will achieve, but to prematurely declare I am that potential seems improper. If suppose I had the potential of being a great philosopher and I kept proclaiming "I am a great philosopher" I would soon be reminded I have not yet become a great philosopher. We need to move from potential to actual.
Rather, as I said recently in the Dvaita debate, rather than constantly churning the milk of mind with the thought of 'I am Brahman'(Brahma Vritti) to realise the butter of Brahma-realisation, it is better to just churn the milk of the mind with the stick of yoga sadhana, or gradual purification of the mind through yamas, niyamas, pranayama, dharana, dhyana, samadhi to eventually reveal the butter of "I am Brahman" Churning the milk will produce the butter anyway, you do not even need to know a priori that churning milk will produce butter. Similarly, you don't even need to know 'I am Brahman' to begin Yogic Sadhana. This is something I realised when I studied all religions, practically all religions have on or more of the limbs of Yogic Sadhana(everyone has prayer, everyone has ethical and moral conduct, everyone has religious services, chanting, charity, and many have contemplative and meditation practices) and therefore attaining the 'butter' is possible in everyone of them. The proof is Christian Gnostics, Islamic Sufis, American Shamans have all tasted the butter, and when they do they proclaim the same universal truths that the Rishis did.
Knowing this, forget about all the theory, the only theory you need to know is Samkhya and once you have understand that, you begin your Yoga Sadhana with full faith(shradda) and when you reach the final goal of self-realisation, the rest is just details.
Also, while the Upanisads is important, one should not overly emphasize it. We have Samkhya, Nyaya, Viaseshika, Bauddha and Jaina too. My strategy for spiritual equilibrium
If I get too rational, I read Upanisads
If I get to mystical I read Nyaya-Vaisesika (and science)
If I get too attached I read Buddha
If I get too aloof, I read the poetry of the Bhakti saints.
Haven't read the Jaina works yet, they would be good for something too.
We think very much alike on this. I to do not want to become institutionalised by just one philosophy, tradition or religion. We should learn from everything we can.
From the Upanishads I learned about Brahman(Brahma-vidya) as the supreme Self and why our ultimate aim is to achieive this Brahman-Self. It maps out the entire cosmic journey, though this journey maybe of billions of years.
From the Nyaya-Vaseshika I learned about how to reason and argue
From Samkhya I learned about the distinction between consciousness and matter, and what I am, and what constitutes me(24 tattvas) and where I am going and what I need to do
From Yoga I learned how to do sadhana and what limbs form the part of sadhana, and from the subset of Yoga Tantra I learned hundreds of different techniques of meditation, visualisation, postures, breathing, introspection etc
From Buddhism I learned about remaining present in the here and now, not spending too much time studying scripture and metaphysics
From the Bhakti traditions I learned humility and surrender to something higher than you, of selfless service
From Charvaka I learned skepticism, the primacy of perception and the need to question everything
From Ayurveda, what I so far read about it, I learned about the importance of lifestyle and diet to harmonise with your constitution
Oh and there is definitely a lot of good in Jainism. Jainism is like the spiritual mathematics side of the Dharmic tradition. The Jains were brilliant mathematicians and went to great lengths to describe the size and dimensions of the universe, the time scales and planes of reality. However, their most significant contribution, is their extensive deliberations on karma, which I found the most exhaustive I have read so far. The divide karmas into hundreds of types of subtypes.
The most significant contribution is their concept of categories which centralised around karma. It consist of 1) Jiva(living beings) 2) ajiva(non living beings, including atoms, space and time, dharma and adharma) 3)asrava(influx of karma) 4)bandha(bondage of karma) 5)samvara(stoppage of karma) 6)nirjara(shedding of karma) and 7)moksha(freedom from all karma)
It is understood to be like this we jivas are bound in samsara because karma literally physically is holding us down, here karma is not just some ethical or metaphysical principle, it is physical particles of matter which are stuck to the soul which creates inertia that the soul has to overcome and different types of karma obscure the original pure qualities of the soul(re perception, knowledge, happiness and power) So the means of release is to first stop creating any new karma by living a lifestyle which minimises karma being produced(observing the 5 yamas etc) and then to practice austerities to shed the existing storehouse of karmas. In other words, speeding up the process by which the karmas are spent up. This is a brave process which is why one who can overcome this and achieve the final end is known as a Jain(conqueror) It is not for everybody: You need to be able to face and overcome hunger, thirst, poverty, hot and cold, abuse, no clothes, no shelter and all other forms of attachments. The liberated one of Jainism is not unlike the innocent madman of Advaita, they are free like the wind, not attached to anything in this world, innocent, always happy and beaming.
From Jainism I have learned to face my karma, meaning face my challenges head on and the importance of ahimsa, to not cause any hurt to anybody else, because I know that will just be my own undoing. I have also learned from their doctrine of anekanta-vada and naya-vada, that we cannot know any absolute truth as far as we are conditioned beings and everything we learn is from some stand point or vantage. This made me learn to respect every perspective, every philosophy, every tradition, even those opposing mine. It has made me open minded.
P.S My Guru hated Jainism and he hated me for taking their side
Last edited:
I would challenge your assertion that this understanding of nondualism is so rare in other traditions, but my main reason in responding here is to clarify something regarding Mansur Al-Hallaj, who uttered 'Ana al-Haqq'.
Now, Al-Haqq (the Truth) is one of the 99 Names of God in Islam, so it's very clear that by saying this he is affirming his unity with God. But the reason he was hung wasn't because he made this assertion. During the period in which he lived, Sufi teachers held a similar attitude to you, in that they were skeptical of the value of telling people that 'I am God' when they weren't ready. It was kept as a teaching reserved for those who had achieved great devotion, great spiritual development, although teachings of unity and monism came earlier. However, Al-Hallaj had gone out and shouted this in public, in the marketplace, which was what brought down condemnation upon him. It wasn't that he taught this, it's that he taught it in public which was understood to be detrimental for people's spiritual progress.
Mansur Al-Hallaj said:
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Great post, Kirran.
Yes, Mansur Al-Hallaj, upon attaining enlightenment, uttered 'Ana al-Haqq' which meant 'I am the truth'.
And this lead to his condemnation by the islamic priests and subsequent death.
Do you think a similar thing also happened with Jesus Christ who had stated something similar, 'I and my Father are one.'
I also believe that Jesus was similarly misunderstood by the jewish priests, condemned and sentenced to death.
Considering these two tragic incidents I think it is important for all to understand the nature of enlightenment, which brings about unity with the universal self, and to understand their perception as well.
Great post, Kirran.
Yes, Mansur Al-Hallaj, upon attaining enlightenment, uttered 'Ana al-Haqq' which meant 'I am the truth'.
And this lead to his condemnation by the islamic priests and subsequent death.
Do you think a similar thing also happened with Jesus Christ who had stated something similar, 'I and my Father are one.'
I also believe that Jesus was similarly misunderstood by the jewish priests, condemned and sentenced to death.
Considering these two tragic incidents I think it is important for all to understand the nature of enlightenment, which brings about unity with the universal self, and to understand their perception as well.
Thanks!
It wasn't because he said it, it was others who knew it was true that threw him under the bus, basically, because they didn't think it was good for spiritual aspirants to hear this truth early in their spiritual evolution.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Mansur was not a mere spiritual aspirant, but had attained enlightenment and he was describing his own perception.
It was the islamic clerics who condemned him, not the sufis who merely disapproved of his actions in revealing sufi teachings to the public. Harming an enlightened one is a tremondous sin, and I don't think they would have dared to criticize or harm him. It was the orthodox islamic clerics who condemned him and later put him to death.
A similarity with Jesus in this regard, was the total clarity of mind even in the face of torture which both had to go through before eventual execution.
I see both Jesus and Mansur as enlightened masters who had to pay a heavy price for daring to reveal the truth before a conditioned society and masses.
It was the Sufis who threw him under the bus, and were instrumental in his execution, is the point I am making.
But we are way off-topic, and so I will leave it at that.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
~Great post, Kirran.
Yes, Mansur Al-Hallaj, upon attaining enlightenment, uttered 'Ana al-Haqq' which meant 'I am the truth'.
And this lead to his condemnation by the islamic priests and subsequent death.
Do you think a similar thing also happened with Jesus Christ who had stated something similar, 'I and my Father are one.'
I also believe that Jesus was similarly misunderstood by the jewish priests, condemned and sentenced to death.
Considering these two tragic incidents I think it is important for all to understand the nature of enlightenment, which brings about unity with the universal self, and to understand their perception as well.
This is what makes me question Jesus Christ and and Mansur-Al-Hajjaj's enlightenment, it seems to me they were over zealous students of Advaita like teachings which had diffused to their part of the world, and they proclaimed its truth prematurely. Hence, why I am of the opinion that it is perhaps counterproductive to reveal Advaita like truths to one who is not ready, and when I say ready I mean perhaps all mortals. If the journey to Brahman is from a blade of grass to Brahma, which covers cycles of creation, then what is the hurry to get to Brahman? Just focus on on the here and now, focus on your current level of development and refine it, churn, churn away, keep churning without asking "Am I there yet" I said to my friend once who go a 2:2 for his BA degree and was very disappointed in himself, considering myself and a few others got 1:1, I told about don't worry about it, but in your next degree aim to get just a few mark higher than you did in the previous, and that would mean you progressed. We need to measure ourselves by our own yardstick not by the yardstick of others and definitely not by the yardstick of God.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I did point out except in extreme minority sects like some Gnostic Christianity and Sufism sects, and perhaps I will add some mystery traditions. They were forced to remain obscure because in those parts of the world declaring such philosophies could get you killed. In fact, in the relatively more enlightened Greece, Socrates was forced to drink Hemlock poison for the philosophy he taught. In India, it was a different intellectual climate, it was rare, if ever that a Charvaka got executed for challenging the Vedas and the fact that the unity of Brahman and Self actually forms the foundation of the Hindu religion, and Advaita and Advaita like philosophies are prolific in Hinduism is unique to India. .
Well nondualistic idea are very common in various forms of Eastern Orthodox and Catholic monasticism, there were several medieval Christian denominations which taught these ideas, and they were also found in Aztec religion, in Chinese traditions and in Hasidic Judaism.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
They were not mere students and content with intellectual understanding, but had actually acquired this perception experientially through enlightenment, and which they shared with the masses.
I know this because I had spend time personally with enlightened masters myself.
The proclamation of it was not premature, because it is intuition that guides their actions and perhaps such words and actions were necessary at that point of time, in the overall scheme of things.
Both became great figures later on through their martyrdom, and any scholar at present, who go through their history and teachings can find and deduct the similarities of monism and will be able to comprehend the phenomenon of enlightenment better.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Thanks for this, however I would still maintain that these ideas are still rather obscure and esoteric within their respective traditions to had that much of an impact. You point to Christianity, but the average Christian you talk to has Dvaita like conceptions. As for Catholicism, Catholicism was founded on the Nicea creed which particularly declared Gnostic like ideas to be heresy. Hence, I would question to what extent they were prolific in Christianity and other Abrahamic traditions. I don't know much about the Aztec religion to share comment.
As for Chinese traditions, could you please indicate which Chinese tradition? Are you referring to Taoism?
What is notesworthy that Advaita like teachings were perceived when they were initially brought to the West through Latin and Persian translations and then by Swami Vivekananda as radically new and had a huge impact on the new religious movements