Advaita : Did Brahman split into multiple souls?

↑@ajay0

How does Nirvikalpa samadhi become an intellectual activity, when yoga is supposed to be the cessation of the modifications of the mind !

Click to expand...

How? By common sense, of course. This may be easier said than done, but please lookup a dictionary on the meaning of these words and then read Shankara's words with an open mind (without bringing in extraneous material such as Tantra, Kundalini and the like).

The Self or Awareness arises beyond the pair of opposites which the intellect is subjected to. Light can be appreciated only in its opposite of darkness, and heat can be understood only with its corresponding opposite of cold. The intellect as well as the ego are part of prakriti, and the Purusha or Self transcends them.

Click to expand...

In all your posts, you have consistently missed the fundamental concept of a frame of reference.

The concept of Purusha exists only because of Prakriti. If Prakriti goes, the Purusha goes too. You (the individual) are the ego and when it goes, everything goes along with it - including your ideas of Brahman, Purusha, Ishwara, Moksha, etc. So, the ego cannot ever go.

This is where you got it wrong. You have mistakenly concluded that you will continue to exist as someone that is not @ajay0 and is also not THE Brahman (for Brahman cannot find Moksha), but as something in between the two; an entity that is in Samadhi, in a post-Moksha state.

No such entity is possible in Advaita.

a) Brahman cannot find Moksha as the concept does not make sense.
b) @ajay0 cannot find Moksha as he cannot transform into a permanent entity. if ajaya becomes Brahman on Moksha, then where is ajay after that point? Who found Moksha?

So, what is left? See that consciousness is Brahman. The universe (including yourself) are thoughts. Things then, come together. Moksha is understanding past, present, future, creation, destruction, birth and death in this context (they are all thought). The search ends. The Mumukshu meditates on that one thought of Prajna (zero thoughts is not possible) and is relatively free. Hence, Shankara's insistence that the Mumukshu be a Sanyasi - sage advice that is ignored by modern age neo-vedantins.

Jnana here as taught by Shankara deals with experiential knowledge as in Awareness, which is seen as wisdom, and not mere intellectual knowledge.

Click to expand...

Wisdom is intellectual. Without the intellect, no experience can be recognized/identified.

You keep on confusing mere intellectual knowledge as Jnana and this is why you are having trouble even now understanding elementary concepts in advaita.

Click to expand...

Jnana means knowledge. I would recommend you look up a dictionary and not lose sight of basic meanings of words in favor of long drawn (and frankly, tiresome) mystical interpretations. You got into this situation because you did not spend enough time on fundamentals - instead, jumping straight to the colorful part of Samadhi and other end states. Go back to the basics and start over.

It is only in experiential knowledge derived through meditation that intellectual knowledge becomes complete and all intellectual concepts fall in harmony. Until then confusion and disorder will be manifest.

Click to expand...

What is needed is to give up all the fantastic interpretations. Give up the sentiment, the fear and keep things simple. If you cannot do this, a lifetime of meditation will be useless.

Good luck! May the Ishwara you pray to, show you the way. And hopefully, in the near future.

Shiva, what is Brahman does not need 'Moksha' (you said it cannot find 'moksha), it is never bound. Ego binds.

Namaste Shivsomshekhar
I appreciate the now or never attitude, because it is the same with me. I cannot live with dogma of an unreachable Lord when the Truth is [that He is] here now.

shivsomashekhar said:

↑The concept of Purusha exists only because of Prakriti. If Prakriti goes, the Purusha goes too. You (the individual) are the ego and when it goes, everything goes along with it - including your ideas of Brahman, Purusha, Ishwara, Moksha, etc. So, the ego cannot ever go.

Click to expand...

Therefore , [at least for some of us here], the best is to engaged the ego in avyabhichAri bhakti of Bramhan.

BG Chap 18:.... mayi cha ananya-yogena bhaktiravyabhichAriNI....

A win-win situation
1) [The gift of ] self-evident JnAna - that I am sat-chit-Anand, that one has been given enough darshan that they are Bramhan
2)Meditating , or in samAdhI -- nice and restful in Bramhan
3)Awake/ savikalpa / leela - samAdhi, -- at the Lotus Feet of Bramhan.

Whether eyes open or closed, whether doing your duties in the world or taking a walk, it is a walk with Mukunda. <Mukunda and devotee> is a unit called Bramhan' in Leela-mode. When Mukunda turns devotee into the One SacchidAnanda - that is SaccidAnanda mode.

No such entity is possible in Advaita.

Click to expand...

The more important question is -- Is such an entity possible ontologically. The mumukshu can live in Bramhan or in harmony with their Beloved Lord and not have to be embodied again if possible.

I don't care which siddhAnta or darshan says what. I care about ontological existence after this body dies. If ego must continue and have conscious existence , I want to be in Yog with my SwAmi and never leave His Lotus Feet OR in Yog, period.

If I have to take birth again, my prayer is that it is good, sAttvic, and KRshNa comes over early enough to revive the relationship so I never make life decisions that are binding.

So, what is left? See that consciousness is Brahman. The universe (including yourself) are thoughts.

Click to expand...

So let's make the thoughts joyfully divine.

Things then, come together. Moksha is understanding past, present, future, creation, destruction, birth and death in this context (they are all thought). The search ends. The Mumukshu meditates on that one thought of Prajna (zero thoughts is not possible) and is relatively free.

Click to expand...

JanmAshTi is around the corner. Sep 2 , 3 . kAnho gokUL Ayo hai! hAthi ghoDA pAlkhI Jai KanhayyA lAl ki!

Hence, Shankara's insistence that the Mumukshu be a Sanyasi - .

Click to expand...

I agree completely. It is far easier to dedicate oneself fully if they are a sannyAsi.

A conditional sannyAsI, cannot fulfill Gurudev's adnyA 100% but ekAnta is not difficult when KRshNa makes it easier for the hermit by making it official. So that no explanation is required for not logging into facebook for years, making Whatsapp disappear one day , not checking email indefinitely, and never calling people. Previously, the hermit did this but with guilt. KaruNAsAgar took the guilt away - by giving the license to do so.

Wisdom is intellectual. Without the intellect, no experience can be recognized/identified.

Click to expand...

True, but sometimes it comes from the heart. Intuition comes from the heart (paramAtmA supplies it) or directly from Bramhan (BhagavAn svayam).

shivsomashekhar said:

So, the ego cannot ever go.

Click to expand...

That is not correct, otherwise there would no 'jnanis', 'enlightened' or 'jeevan muktas' (basically, the people who understand Brahman).

ameyAtmA said:

If ego must continue and have conscious existence , I want to be in Yog with my SwAmi and never leave His Lotus Feet OR in Yog, period.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not every one here is a 'Vaishnava'. But who can escape the 'karshana' (pulling power, attraction) of Lord Krishna, be it a Vaishnav, Shaiva, Shakta or an advaitist.

Nanda Ke Ananda Bhayo, Jai Kanhaiya Lal Ki; Hathi Ghoda Palki, Jai Kanhaiya Lal Ki.

Aupmanyav said:

That is not correct, otherwise there would no 'jnanis', 'enlightened' or 'jeevan muktas' (basically, the people who understand Brahman).

Click to expand...

Without the ego, there is no Jnani, Jnana or Jeevan mukta.

This is the point about a frame of reference or seer vs. seen.

Who is this Jnani? Is he Aup or is he Brahman?

1. If he is Aup, he is a jiva with ego.
2. If it is Brahman, the question becomes moot as Brahman is inert and unchanging.
3. If the anwer is both (clay/cup, ocean/wave), it is not Advaita and we still have the ego, as Aup is still present in the picture.
4. if the answer is some other entity that is in between Aup and Brahman, then that is not Advaita. No such intermediate entity is admitted by Shankara or Gaudapada.

In short, the ego is the frame of reference and without this reference, there is nothing. Hence, the ego never goes.

And that is why the Advaita Moksha is pure intellectual inference. Anything else is just wishful thinking and logically untenable.

A different way of looking at this - Where are the acclaimed jivan muktas of the past now - at this moment? That is, where are Yajnavalkya, Shankara and Ramana now?

shivsomashekhar said:

Hence, the ego never goes.

And that is why the Advaita Moksha is pure intellectual inference. Anything else is just wishful thinking and logically untenable.

A different way of looking at this - Where are the acclaimed jivan muktas of the past now - at this moment? That is, where are Yajnavalkya, Shankara and Ramana now?

Click to expand...

where are they? If you say that the ego never goes. Which ego, theirs or mine?

Since I only know of my ego I presume you mean my ego. So all of them are thoughts of me?

Is this what you are implying, I'm not sure anymore if you still subcribe to the EkaJivaVada doctrine.

shivsomashekhar said:

Without the ego, there is no Jnani, Jnana or Jeevan mukta.

This is the point about a frame of reference or seer vs. seen.

Who is this Jnani? Is he Aup or is he Brahman?

1. If he is Aup, he is a jiva with ego.
2. If it is Brahman, the question becomes moot as Brahman is inert and unchanging.
3. If the anwer is both (clay/cup, ocean/wave), it is not Advaita and we still have the ego, as Aup is still present in the picture.
4. if the answer is some other entity that is in between Aup and Brahman, then that is not Advaita. No such intermediate entity is admitted by Shankara or Gaudapada.

In short, the ego is the frame of reference and without this reference, there is nothing. Hence, the ego never goes.

And that is why the Advaita Moksha is pure intellectual inference. Anything else is just wishful thinking and logically untenable.

A different way of looking at this - Where are the acclaimed jivan muktas of the past now - at this moment? That is, where are Yajnavalkya, Shankara and Ramana now?

Click to expand...

You have not correctly reproduced my comment. I said ego can and does leave even a living person, otherwise there would have been no 'jnanis'. Yeah, the 'jnani' and Aup, both are Brhman. Aup. also knows Brahman, he too is a 'jnani'. Aup. has no ego.

Brahman is inert - that is where you err. Constant change is a property of Brahman, like that of photons and electrons. It is known as unchangeable because it is never without constant change. In case of Brahman, a change would be that it does not change. You can think of a moving ball where there is no resistance against it. It will move till eternity. Not just Aup., so many other things are in picture, the 'jnani', you, Vinayaka, Sayak, animals, trees, and of course, the stone in River Ganges. All that is Brahman. You have read that in scriptures (Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma), but it has not registered with you. Brahman of 'advaita' is non-exclusive, nothing is excluded. There is nothing between Aup. and Brahman. Aup. is Sakshat Brahman.

Yeah, 'moksha', 'enlightenment', 'nirvana', all mean understanding. Aup. has always maintained that. Yajnavalkya, Sankara and Ramana dissolved in Brahman and then took different many forms. A mosquito that bit me had some thing of Sankara and the flower which I placed near the Rama image this morning also had something of Sankara. You see, the whole of Aup. will not regenerate in one thing. I arose from a million things, I will go back to a million things. That is the eternal cycle. Am I not Brahman? Read carefully. You would not find this secret anywhere else, this is 'Brahma Jnana'. It is what Yama told Nachiketa.

shivsomashekhar said:

↑@ajay0


How? By common sense, of course. This may be easier said than done, but please lookup a dictionary on the meaning of these words and then read Shankara's words with an open mind (without bringing in extraneous material such as Tantra, Kundalini and the like).

Click to expand...

You still have not properly understood advaita and hide behind words and labels which is the very source of dvaita or duality.

shivsomashekhar said:

In all your posts, you have consistently missed the fundamental concept of a frame of reference.

The concept of Purusha exists only because of Prakriti. If Prakriti goes, the Purusha goes too. You (the individual) are the ego and when it goes, everything goes along with it - including your ideas of Brahman, Purusha, Ishwara, Moksha, etc. So, the ego cannot ever go.

Click to expand...

These all reflect poor understanding of advaita. Here you are mixing up erroneous ideas of sankhya with advaita.

When the ego goes, all that is real is left behind, and that is the Self. The ego is a fiction which is created by ignorance of the Self or Awareness.

As Sree Narayana Guru stated, 'Maya covers Awareness, and is transient.'

Here maya is the mind with its transient content of thoughts and emotions that have a beginning and an end. The Self or Awareness is the only thing that is of an eternal nature.

shivsomashekhar said:

This is where you got it wrong. You have mistakenly concluded that you will continue to exist as someone that is not @ajay0 and is also not THE Brahman (for Brahman cannot find Moksha), but as something in between the two; an entity that is in Samadhi, in a post-Moksha state.

Click to expand...

All these are deluded intellectual understanding of advaita. Without proper understanding of the Self through meditation, you will keep on creating such imaginary fictitious accounts of the Self or Brahman which is actually really very simple.

The greatest truths are the simplest.

shivsomashekhar said:

a) Brahman cannot find Moksha as the concept does not make sense.
b) @ajay0 cannot find Moksha as he cannot transform into a permanent entity. if ajaya becomes Brahman on Moksha, then where is ajay after that point? Who found Moksha?

Click to expand...

Find it out through meditation on the Self within you. I have already covered these points in the vedanta forum with you.

shivsomashekhar said:

Wisdom is intellectual. Without the intellect, no experience can be recognized/identified.

Click to expand...

Again, you reveal your lack of understanding of advaita.

Chit ( awareness ) means pure knowlege. - Swami Prajnanpad

Awareness is not a matter of intellectual understanding but experiential understanding attained through meditation realising the limitation of the intellect in realizing the Self through thought, as the Self is subtler than thought or mind.

shivsomashekhar said:

What is needed is to give up all the fantastic interpretations. Give up the sentiment, the fear and keep things simple. If you cannot do this, a lifetime of meditation will be useless.

Click to expand...

The interpretations are made by you due to excessive imagination and intellectual gymnastics. The Self is the simplest in the world when understood through meditation, but it can be the most complex and complicated in the world when tried to be comprehended through the intellect and hence prone to error.