I have never accepted the existence of even one soul, whether in Vyavaharika or in Paramarthika.
You did say you enter and exit Paramarthika "all the time". Without souls, who is entering Paramarthika?
You are asking about ‘where’ and ‘now’ — two components of space-time that are, according to you inadmissible for brahman. You are correct that space-time is inadmissible in respect of brahman. But is your question admissible then?
There is nothing wrong with the question. Not unless both parties are already in agreement.
Only consciousness is real. Yajnavalkya and Shuka exist timelessly as guru forms in consciousness, as consciousness.
Do they exist as individual entities? If so, we have introduced diversity. If they are not distinct entities, how is this not Shunyavada?
All entering and exiting is for the illusions of Vyavaharika, there is none in Paramarthika. That is why our sages said, there is no seeker, nothing sought, no Moksha.
Then Paramarthika is an illusion too. Without seekers and without moksha, there is no such thing as a Paramarthika state.
Are you suggesting that the water that became wave disappears and no longer exists after the wave subsides? The substance of the wave is, was, and will always be the ocean. Atman(s) is always Brahman.
If the wave merges back into the ocean, it has lost its identity, forever (Shunyavada?). So, the wave no longer exists or there is no 'liberated entity' and hence, no liberation. That is why, I say you cannot have it both ways. By your logic, something was liberated, but it does not exist in a form where it can know or feel that it was liberated because it has lost its identity. If there is no liberated entity, then there was no liberation.
Back to the Yajnavalkya example - your position is that Yajnavalkya and Shuka are both now Brahman and have no individual identity. In effect, they no longer exist - or more precisely, ceased to exist the moment they found Moksha (so who is the liberated entity? It cannot be Brahman for Brahman does not need liberation). This is classic Shunyavada.
It is very difficult to abandon one's prejudices.
Indeed. Case in point, most of these prejudices are caused by sentiment and reverence. If there is real hunger, then prejudices can and will go. Unless you are too old
The Ramana description you posted is in line with my post #1 that realization is intellectual. But I am not sure if you can see that just yet. We will return to this later.
All our teachers, Shri Krishna, Shri Shankara, Buddha, Shri Ramana, and including Gaudapada taught Advaita as individuals. How did these advaita masters teach as body-mind entities? Who else is there to egoistically demand of the non dual awareness as to how it should be?
They are no different from you as their realization is intellectual. And the Buddha is not an Advaita master.
You are confounded because you seem to consider that jivatman-s are real.
There are only two options - they are real or unreal. If they are real, I assume you agree that we are violating Advaita. But if they are unreal, who finds Moksha?
No. Jivatman is like an image on a mirror. JivAtmA-s are like many images of one moon in many water puddles.
The moon is real and water puddles are real. Every puddle is different from the other. Is this a good example?
Jivatman-s are like many dream characters in a dream. The non dual atman acts as non dual seer.
Let's double click into what you say here. I am assuming that your dream here is Maya and Brahman is the seer.
If so, who gets Moksha?
Is there is a liberated entity or not?
Can you also please answer the Yajnavalkya question? Where is he now?
Only an experience of nirvikalpa samadhi can reveal that the seer, seen, and seeing is non dual.
Reveal to whom??
a) To the dream character/jivatama - who is not real or
b) To the dreamer (Brahman)?
Revelation cannot happen to an unreal entity (jivatma) and Brahman does not need revelation. So,
who are we talking about here? This is the exact point where
@ajay0 gets confused. If you make a small adjustment of permanent dream characters, then the logic becomes very simple. But then it becomes Bhedabheda and is no longer Advaita. In reality, Ajay and some others on this thread are already making this adjustment.
A jivan mukta sage, though appearing to be body, is not the body.
But Ramana was his body. He ate for himself, not for others. He massaged his own feet when he was in pain; not someone else's. Other than sentiment, what data do you have that can differentiate Ramana from others?
I think your confusion is that you consider jivatman to be real entities. Although your premise is “There is no one seeking. No one liberated”, you still are passionately arguing with ignorant ‘jivas’ like Atanu. It suggests that your mind is not clear of garbage of notion of real jiva entities.
Didn't I clear this up already? 'No one seeking; no one liberated' was a statement by Gaudapada. If there is no one, who was he talking to?
Please do not mind my post. I dearly like your incisive thoughts. But, you must first clarify to yourself, if there is no seeker, no one liberated, with whom and about what you are arguing? You must answer this here.
I am not minding your posts. I am glad to see you are staying objective without getting emotional. You have been an Advaitin for years. I assume you have already seen the statement from Gaudapada and you have already rationalized it. When Gaudapada said there is no seeker and nothing to seek,
who was he talking to? When Shankara commented on the text, who was he commenting for? I assume you asked yourself these questions when you first read the Mandukya Karika?
The short answer lies in the difference between Paramartha Sathya vs. Samvritti (Vyavaharika) Sathya. But I am puzzled that you would choose to hinge on this or that you do not know this already?
At present, you (and all of us) have the nagging notion that the jivatman-s are real. This is similar to the situation of a dream, in which a man does not know that he is in a dream.
Who is the entity who will wake up from this false reality? The false jivatma or something else? if it is something else, please explain.