I think it is the jiva; the character Brahman "dreams" in its experience of maya. There are other Advaitins, Swami Sarvapriyananda comes to mind, that think it is the subtle body, but I am of the mind that Adi Shankara was was correct in having little interest in this notion.
If the jiva is dreamt by Brahman, that puts the jiva/the dream entity in the unreal category. If it is unreal, how can an unreal entity be liberated - unless the liberation too is unreal? An unreal entity had an unreal liberation. It is the same as saying there was no one and nothing happened.
Perhaps you can see where I am going with this. There is the unreal and the real and we are talking about something transiting from unreal to real. Something has to transit or else we have either a) No Liberation b) Buddhist Nirvana. And this 'something' has to be real and that is where the problem is. You cannot meaningfully define this something without deviating from the basic Advaita principle of uncompromising non-duality. This should be evident by now on this thread as we have reached 127 posts.
There are two types of Advaitins. One type belongs to the 'somehow' category, does not care much for logic and is more in tune with reverence to authority. They do not care if the logic is inconsistent as they believe it is not very important. The other type wants the logic to be crisp without loose ends or ambiguity. If you belong to the first type, then skip the next paragraph and my future posts as well as they will be useless to you. But if you are of the second type, then read on.
Are you familiar with the 5 whys technique used to root cause issues? Adopt a similar 5 whos approach to this situation and see where it leads you. Start with "who is in ignorance?" and keep going until you can go no further. Do not accept answers (from others or from yourself) such as "It somehow happens", "it is beyond logic", "it should be experienced" or that it can only be known after years of sattvic food and meditation. These responses are cop-outs signaling that the person is unable to answer the question and is unwilling to admit it.
Our experiences are illusions only. Only analysis is correct.
But where is the illusion? Let's say you had a cup of coffee. Or you experienced headache earlier today. Sushma Swaraj passed away and her family is grieving. A child was born in your neighborhood and the family is rejoicing. What is illusory about any of this?
As far as I understand, Ramana and Nissargadatta Maharaj made a simple thing sound very mysterious, which required a life-time of understanding.
I cannot speak for Nisargadatta, but speaking for Ramana, he kept things simple. He was least interested in communicating and just desired to be left alone. At best, he would propose simple atma-vichara. But two things happened -
1. He read books like Viveka Chudamani, etc.
2. He saw people coming to him with questions - the questions were the same after multiple weeks of discussion. They were unable to see.
He realized that they lacked the clarity that he had. He was able to see things in a minute - which is all one needs - unless one is burdened with ideas of long and intense Sadhana culminating in a Samadhi state.
Their ideas and expectations were the obstacles. He connected that with a need for Sadhana and told them to continue with whatever Sadhana they were doing.
When he proposed Atma-vichara, he never told anyone it was a multi-year exercise. It is a very simple thing that only takes a minute or lesser. But the difficulty is, from the days of the Upanishads, there has been deliberate mystification, creating the picture of something grand and complex to be discovered - and this is the impediment. People are unable to accept that Ramana was talking about something simple and obvious and something that is not mystical. The "
Is this all?" sentiment kicks in and they go into denial trying to read something complex behind Ramana's words and they get lost - returning to the same Sadhana that they were practicing for years and they get nowhere. There was only so much Ramana could do with such people.
Consider the universe with all things and all happenings in it as a result of cosmic force without making that into an involved God/Gods/Goddesses and you are through. What is that force? We do not know that at present, we cannot know that at present. Leave it to science and future generations. Trying to get answers today will only lead us to fallacies. I have attained 'moksha', 'nirvana', 'jnana', 'enlightenment', 'deliverance'. I was not born, I would not die. I am eternal. I am Brahman.
You are also Aup. You have not reconciled that within the above view and that is a gap in your position. What is Aup and what is the ontology? You cannot dismiss Aup as an illusion as you are a person with a family and friends who know you as Aup.
I do not have any such distinctions like 'advaita' and 'neo-advaita'.
We are in agreement. You have already admitted that your view is your own and does not necessarily have to align with a traditional version of Advaita. So, there is no dispute here.
