• 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!

Advaita : Did Brahman split into multiple souls?

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Known to whom?
In other words, who is in Samadhi?
Adi ParA Shakti is in samAdhi of Adi Purushottam
VishwarUpiNi is in samAdhi of Vishwaroop
Shri is in samAdhi of VAsudev and simultaneously goes in and out of samAdhi without ever leaving His Lotus Feet
MahALakshmi is in samAdhI of Her Lord NArAyaN when She is tired of activity
Various points in MahALakshmi are in samAdhI of NArAyaN

NArAyaN is in samAdhI of His shakti svarUpA Adi Lakshmi
When NArAyaN is in samAdhi, MahALakshmi, Adi Shakti remains as His Potential.
When Adi Shakti is in samAdhi of Adi Purush She remains as His Potential

In short in is ParaBramhan in Potential Form only
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
Your query belies ignorance. Or you wilfully misinterpret in order to obfuscate. We know that there is no knower other than Brahman. So, asking repeatedly whether an individual Ramana is seeing Brahman is an immature question.

So, Ramana used to go into this Samadhi state often. He would then come out of this state and resume normal activity (sleep, food, conversations, etc.). What was happening during these Samadhi states if the individual Ramana was not really part of them (as you say)?

Moreover, I have already defined Samadhi as non dual atman, after Gaudapada, as below:

Mandukya Karika
3.37 Atman is beyond all expression by words and beyond all acts of the mind. It is great peace, eternal effulgence and samadhi; It is unmoving and fearless.

Your reading of the verse is inaccurate.

Shankara's commentary on this verse: The Atman is denoted by the word Samadhi as it can be realized only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration or the word is used because the Jiva concentrates his mind on Atman.

Shankara has given two possible uses of the word. In both cases, it is clear that Samadhi is used to indicate concentration (no more, no less) and that this is a mental activity. There is no merging of anything or absence of anyone. There is nothing metaphysical/mystical about it.

That is because you are taking Ramana as something other than Brahman, whereas in reality, they are the same. Taking them to be different according to my view is ignorance. There is no duality, no difference. It need not be Ramana, it could even be a stone, then also, we will say that in reality both are the same.

No, Sir. You have already accepted the existence of you, me and the stone. Even if we allow that they are all Brahman, they still remain distinct entities. The differences are real. Aup is not Shiv and Shiv is not the stone. Back to the popular clay-cup analogy. Even if two cups are from clay, that does not make it Advaita. The difference between these two cups is real and the difference between cup and clay is real. Hence, your position is not Advaita.

I will approach this differently. Can you please briefly in your own words (as few lines as possible) explain the relationship between Jiva and Brahman, according to Vishishtadvaita or Bedha-Abedha and show me how your view is different from theirs? Thank you.

not the jiva.
Presuming we are talking about real samAdhi deep and not some surface meditation

So, as an example, when Ramana Maharshi was in Samadhi on a certain day from morning 8 to 10 - what was happening (from an Advaitic perspective)? Where was Ramana during this time and who (if anyone) was in this Samadhi state?​
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
So, as an example, when Ramana Maharshi was in Samadhi on a certain day from morning 8 to 10 - what was happening (from an Advaitic perspective)? Where was Ramana during this time and who (if anyone) was in this Samadhi state?​

Namaste
I already told you:

Bramhan's Adi Shakti, His Nature, His PrakRuti, is in a very sweet restful state. She is taking a break from presiding over the illusory local mundane activity in the arms of Her Lord, the Adi Purusha
[NOTE: there is no way to tear off ParaBramhan's prakRuti from ParaBramhan;]

|| Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
No, Sir. You have already accepted the existence of you, me and the stone. Even if we allow that they are all Brahman, they still remain distinct entities. The differences are real. Aup is not Shiv and Shiv is not the stone. Back to the popular clay-cup analogy. Even if two cups are from clay, that does not make it Advaita. The difference between these two cups is real and the difference between cup and clay is real. Hence, your position is not Advaita.

I will approach this differently. Can you please briefly in your own words (as few lines as possible) explain the relationship between Jiva and Brahman, according to Vishishtadvaita or Bedha-Abedha and show me how your view is different from theirs? Thank you.
Sure, You, me and the stone exist at the level of Vyavaharika truth, that is what Sankara said, but not at the level of Paramarthika truth. They remain distinct entities only at the Vyavaharika level. The differences are illusions. Aup is Shiva and the Stone too and Shivasomashekhar too. The difference between two cups is 'maya', ignorance, that has to be understood - and this is exactly what you do not seem to have understood. That is the correct Advaita position IMHO.

As I have already said, I do not believe in existence of Jiva. You, me and the stone are wholly Brahma - Purnavataras, you may put it in this way. That is the meaning of "Purnamadah .." verse. When I do not believe in existence of Jiva, why should I trouble myself about what Bheda-Abhedis or Vishishtadvaities say about it? Of course, I can, but after my breakfast. "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya ..", You have not paid attention to this Sankara verse also. You are only seeing yourself, me and the stone in the Vyavaharika perspective only, an absolute non-advaitic position. Put on your Advaitic specs. :D
P.S. : Ramana? What? What Ramana? Who Ramana ?
Yes, What Ramana? Who Ramana? Is that not Brahman? Is it something else? For that matter, Hitler and Gaddafi too.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Please allow me to interject. Perhaps one can understand the Ramana/Brahman nonduality if one considers the relation on a smaller scale.

During my sleep state, I am dreaming. In that dream I am Salix. I interact with my surroundings in my dream as the Salix in the dream.

So who is it that is interacting? Is it the Salix that is in the dream? Or is it the Salix who is sleeping? Are they one and the same or is there a difference? As I see it, there is no duality in this relationship. The dreaming Salix is the sleeping Salix, just as Ramana is Brahman.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Please allow me to interject. Perhaps one can understand the Ramana/Brahman nonduality if one considers the relation on a smaller scale.

During my sleep state, I am dreaming. In that dream I am Salix. I interact with my surroundings in my dream as the Salix in the dream.

So who is it that is interacting? Is it the Salix that is in the dream? Or is it the Salix who is sleeping? Are they one and the same or is there a difference? As I see it, there is no duality in this relationship. The dreaming Salix is the sleeping Salix, just as Ramana is Brahman.

Namaste

Nice. You have taken the famous Mandukya route. However -- not to be critical of it -- just because Salix remains the same during all 3 states of jAgrut, swapna, sushupti, does not automatically follow that Salix is Bramhan'. I know you have other means for that, and Mandukya is supposed to be self-contained for Advaita darshan.

However, just saying that because the same person sleeps and wakes up they are Bramhan does not resonate with many.

The reason I prefer to look at the bigger picture of Adi Purushottam-Adi Shakti , is that I come from bhakti with a strong inclination towards jn~Ana (dnyAna, gyAna).
I cannot accept the Upanishads and "tat tvam asi Shwetaketo" just because they say so. I want Dev to show me how.

At first you are selfish and want to only think of the Lord and "you" , and nothing else -- i.e. the focus is on the relationship of devotee and the Supreme, bhakta and BhagavAn.
The truth is, this gift of devotion was bestowed by the Motherly side of the same Lord (which is MahALakshmi a.k.a. DurgA). The question "Why did the Lord come to some insignificant ordinary being?" Who sent Him? Did He pick the devotee?" -- leads to tracing back to events before you met the Lord of your heart. The answer to "Who sent Him to me?" is MahALaksmi-DurgA i.e. the Divine Mother, muLa praKRuti.

When you see the role of Shakti, AdiPurush-AdiPrakRuti, Shiv-Shakti, MahALakshmi-AdiNArAyaN, it is very very easy for the "you" i.e. the [false] ego to vanish, disappear, stop existing, because the prAkrut brain is now so engrossed in Their Lordships, Their beauty, Their magnificence, that they forget themselves.

Just another perspective and another kind of experience, so I thought I should put it here.

Another very subtle point :
Aupmanyav said:
Yes, What Ramana? Who Ramana? Is that not Brahman? Is it something else? For that matter, Hitler and Gaddafi too.

When I said "RamaNa? Who RamaNa? What RamaNa? " I was not acting. I really had forgotten all about that RamaNa in Shivsomshekhar's question, this is why I had to write the P.S. -- another evidence of being too engrossed in Purush-PrakRuti to even notice the so-called individual beings.

I did not mean that "RamaNa is also Bramhan", but rather ... "what are you talking about?" :)

|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||
 
Last edited:

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
Sure, You, me and the stone exist at the level of Vyavaharika truth, that is what Sankara said, but not at the level of Paramarthika truth. They remain distinct entities only at the Vyavaharika level. The differences are illusions. Aup is Shiva and the Stone too and Shivasomashekhar too. The difference between two cups is 'maya', ignorance, that has to be understood - and this is exactly what you do not seem to have understood. That is the correct Advaita position IMHO

1. Aup is Brahman
2. Aup is an illusion.

It follows that Brahman is an illusion. Do you want to rephrase your viewpoint here?

Also, if Aup is Brahman, can we replace the word Brahman with the word Aup in all the Sruti statements?

Please allow me to interject. Perhaps one can understand the Ramana/Brahman nonduality if one considers the relation on a smaller scale.

During my sleep state, I am dreaming. In that dream I am Salix. I interact with my surroundings in my dream as the Salix in the dream.

So who is it that is interacting? Is it the Salix that is in the dream? Or is it the Salix who is sleeping? Are they one and the same or is there a difference? As I see it, there is no duality in this relationship. The dreaming Salix is the sleeping Salix, just as Ramana is Brahman.

It is the same Salix in all three states and hence, there is no contradiction. But what if Salix is asleep, has a dream and Salix is Gaudapada in the dream? Where is Salix then and how do you tie it all together?

Again, if Ramana is Brahman, can I invert the subject with the predicate? Is it accurate to say Brahman is Ramana? Can I substitute the word Ramana for Brahman in the Maha-vakyas? If not, we have admitted difference between the two.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
1. Aup is Brahman
2. Aup is an illusion.

It follows that Brahman is an illusion. Do you want to rephrase your viewpoint here?

Also, if Aup is Brahman, can we replace the word Brahman with the word Aup in all the Sruti statements?
Shiva, you can do better than that. You are mixing two things.

1. Yes, Aup. is Brahman (in the Paramarthika Satya).
2. Yes, Aup. is an illusion (in the Vyavaharika Satya), because you see Aup. and not Brahman, which is Aup. Your perception is clouded.

Brahman is never an illusion. It is seen correctly in Parmarthika and incorrectly in Vyavaharika, unless the seer is an enlightened person.

This is what the Chandala asked Sankara as to what Sankara wanted to move away from his path. That made Sankara see the Chandala correctly.

Yes, you can replace Brahman in sruti with Aup. That would not make any difference. Chandogya Upanishad said:
"vācārambhanam vikāro nāma-dheyam" (Names are but distortions in the matter of speaking). What is truth, remains a truth in all times.
The word Brahman to denote 'what exists' is only a convention. There is nothing magical in the name/word 'Brahman'. You can call it 'Energy' or whatever.
 
Last edited:

DanielR

Active Member
Shiva, you can do better than that. You are mixing two things.



Brahman is never an illusion. It is seen correctly in Parmarthika and incorrectly in Vyavaharika, unless the seer is an enlightened person.

Brahman cannot be 'seen', there's so much wrong about this post, I'll give up.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
no you can't.
:) Give me your argument.
Yes, I cannot because there are hundreds of scriptures of whom billions of copies are already in use and then there is internet, in which millions of people post whatever they want to. So, it would not be possible for me to change Brahman into Aup in all books and the internet.
Brahman cannot be 'seen', there's so much wrong about this post, I'll give up.
Pardon me, Daniel. But whatever you see is nothing other than Brahman (at least in Advaita). So, how do you say that Brahman cannot be seen?
Don't try to answer the question immediately. It will take time to filter down.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You can dissect 'energy'? Many men better than us have failed in the quest. It is the last frontier of science. What is the relationship between space and energy? Where did 'energy' arise from?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Viveka Chudamani

Verse 365

श्रुतेः शतगुणं विद्यान्मननं मननादपि |
निदिध्यासं लक्षगुणम् अनन्तं निर्विकल्पकम् ||

"Reflection (manana) is hundred times superior to listening (sravana);
meditation (nididhyasana) is hundred times superior to reflection; nirvikalpaka samadhi is infinitely superior.”[8]
...
Samadhi happens by grace. It is not in intellect's power, since intellect is a reflection. Shankara, Ramana, Vidyaranya and others have extolled nirvikalpam as beyond the reach of any effort. So, it is not part of Sadhana.
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
Viveka Chudamani

Verse 365

श्रुतेः शतगुणं विद्यान्मननं मननादपि |
निदिध्यासं लक्षगुणम् अनन्तं निर्विकल्पकम् ||

"Reflection (manana) is hundred times superior to listening (sravana);
meditation (nididhyasana) is hundred times superior to reflection; nirvikalpaka samadhi is infinitely superior.”[8]
...

Samadhi is concentration as already explained in the previous post. Nirvikalpa (unwavering) Samadhi is unwavering concentration, which is the best. This is obvious and well attested in this world. An analogy is training for a marathon. Running during the initial days takes sustained effort and can be difficult. In time, with steady practice, it becomes easier and eventually, effortless. There is no magic here.

Samadhi happens by grace. It is not in intellect's power, since intellect is a reflection.

First of all, this is not in the quote and is your own addition. Secondly, concentration (unwavering or otherwise) is a mental activity. I understand that you are expecting some type of a "bells and whistles" moment of realization that will trigger a mystical Samadhi state. I can tell you that there is no such thing, but would it help?

Shankara, Ramana, Vidyaranya and others have extolled nirvikalpam as beyond the reach of any effort. So, it is not part of Sadhana.

No idea where Shankara said that, but if it is beyond the reach of effort, then why bother to write dozens of books to push the Mumukshu into action? Why do we need the Upanishads, a Upadesha Sahasri or a Ulladu Narpadu? The entire thing becomes self contradictory.

What they meant was that it is an effortless state - similar to the marathon analogy, above. But it does not happen by magic and indeed, there is no magic or mysticism, anywhere in the picture.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Nirvikalpa (Sanskrit : निर्विकल्प) is a Sanskrit adjective with the general sense of "not wavering," "admitting no doubt," "free from change or differences." In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali it refers to meditation without an object.
निः ni ("away, without, not") to the term विकल्प vikalpa ("alternative, variant thought or conception").
Nirvikalpa - Wikipedia

One does not need to be in any samadhi. When one understands completely, one is automatically 'nirvikalpa'. One cannot see it in any other way.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Samadhi is concentration as already explained in the previous post. Nirvikalpa (unwavering) Samadhi is unwavering concentration, which is the best. ....

First of all, this is not in the quote and is your own addition. Secondly, concentration (unwavering or otherwise) is a mental activity. I understand that you are expecting some type of a "bells and whistles" moment of realization that will trigger a mystical Samadhi state. I can tell you that there is no such thing, but would it help?

No idea where Shankara said that, but if it is beyond the reach of effort, then why bother to write dozens of books to push the Mumukshu into action? Why do we need the Upanishads, a Upadesha Sahasri or a Ulladu Narpadu? The entire thing becomes self contradictory.

What they meant was that it is an effortless state - similar to the marathon analogy, above. But it does not happen by magic and indeed, there is no magic or mysticism, anywhere in the picture.

I laughed at the red part hard.

Do you have nirvikalpam anubhuti? How are you so loud in your assertion? I think you are so opinionated by your Lokyata background that you are not willing to accept the role of Paramatman in realisation of the Nirvikalpam. You also do not seem to know the distinction between samAdhAna of shamAdi shhaTka-sampatti (part of Sadhana Chatustatya) where intellect plays role and the nirvikalpa samaadhi when the triad of knower-known-knowing are absorbed in the non dual atman-brahman. In the ultimate nirvikalpam there is no individual to concentrate on an object. Else, why should Shankara call ‘nirvikalpam’ infinite?

Of course the samadhi accrues to a keen pointed concentrated mind. That is the requirement and not the final result.

Who is concentrating on what in nirvikalpam? How can a seeker (an individual self) be nirvikalpam, which is described as infinite by Shankara? Nirgunam, is the infinite , devoid of the triad of knower, known, and knowing. It is one without a second. Anubhuti (realisation) of one without a second cannot contain a second.

Let us first read the relevant verses from Viveka Chudamani to know as to what actually Shankara taught.

In the next post I will refer to a discourse of Shri Shri Chandrasekhara Saraswati to demonstrate that the samAdhAna of shamAdi shhaTka-sampatti (part of Sadhana Chatustaya) when intellect plays role and the Nirvikalapa Samadhi when the triad of knower-known-knowing is absorbed in non dual atman-brahman are two different stages.

Viveka Chudamani

341. To the Sannyasin who has gone through the act of hearing, the Shruti passage,
"Calm, self-controlled." Etc., prescribes Samadhi for realising the identity of the
universe with the Self.

342. Even wise men cannot suddenly destroy egoism after it has once become strong,
barring those who are perfectly calm through the Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Desires are verily
the effect of innumerable births.

353. When the Atman, the One without a second, is realised by means of the Nirvikalpa
Samadhi, then the heart’s knot of ignorance is totally destroyed.

My note: Anubhuti of one without a second cannot comprise a second. The non dual experience is non dual.

354. Such imaginations as "thou", "I" or "this" take place through the defects of the
Buddhi. But when the Paramatman, the Absolute, the One without a second, manifests
Itself in Samadhi,
all such imaginations are dissolved for the aspirant, through the
realisation of the truth of Brahman.

My note: Paramatman manifests itself.

360. The truth of the Paramatman is extremely subtle, and cannot be reached by the
gross outgoing tendency of the mind.
It is only accessible to noble souls with perfectly
pure minds, by means of Samadhi brought on by an extraordinary fineness of the mental
state.

362. When the mind, thus purified by constant practice, is merged in Brahman, then
Samadhi passes on from the Savikalpa to the Nirvikalpa stage, and leads directly to the
realisation of the Bliss of Brahman, the One without a second.

My note: When mind is extremely subtle, it is merged in non dual. Where is the second?

363. By this Samadhi are destroyed all desires which are like knots, all work is at an
end, and inside and out there takes place everywhere and always the spontaneous
manifestation of one’s real nature.

364. Reflection should be considered a hundred times superior to hearing, and
meditation a hundred thousand times superior even to reflection, but the Nirvikalpa
Samadhi is infinite in its results.


365. By the Nirvikalpa Samadhi the truth of Brahman is clearly and definitely realised,
but not otherwise, for then the mind, being unstable by nature, is apt to be mixed up
with other perceptions.

375. The extremely dispassionate man alone has Samadhi, and the man of Samadhi
alone gets steady realisation; the man who has realised the Truth is alone free from
bondage, and the free soul only experiences eternal Bliss.

408. The wise man realises in his heart, through Samadhi, the Infinite Brahman, which
is something of the nature of eternal Knowledge and absolute Bliss, which has no
exemplar, which transcends all limitations, is ever free and without activity, and which
is like the limitless sky, indivisible and absolute.
...​

Summary:

What starts as concentration ends in anubhuti and abidance of one without a second-infinite. In this anubhuti there is no mind or a sadhak.
 
Last edited:
Top