• 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!

[Hindu Only] Yoga Vasistha

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I think before we pursue this, we need to clearly define what is "real" and what is "unreal.' How are you defining real?

You are correct. Advaita darshan has finely tuned definitions of sat, asat, and mithya. Understanding of the darshana requires understanding these categories.

sat’ (true) is that which remains the same at all three periods of time.

asat’ (untrue) is defined as that which has no locus of existence at any time. The classical example for asat is vandhyA putraH or the son of a barren women.

mithya’ (myth) is neither sat nor asat.
...

Dvaitins and vishistaadvaitins used to argue that there could only be sat or asat and that there was no ground for a third category called ‘mithya’. It was finally Madhusudan Saraswati’s ‘Advaita Sidhi’ that resolved the issue.

Advaita teachers define the world as mithya: it is similar to an ornament that is not permanent like gold, so it does not fulfill the definition of real. Yet it has transactional utility so it is not unreal either. Actual knowledge of gold removes the ignorance that an ornament has any reality separate from gold.
...

A fine modern discussion can be found here.

Analysis of error - Part 2: vedAnta paribhAshA analysis
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
The answer to query “Who Am I?” cannot be found Intellectually, since the true I, the subject of the I, is prior to intellect.

The answer is "you cannot find it" because it is already here. It is not hidden away, to be found after an extended search.

The source/existence...whatever we wish to call it cannot be touched by thought. It is the *one* thing that cannot be touched by thought. If you have seen this for yourself, then the search ends. for there is no more runway. There is no magic that takes one beyond the intellect and reveals something new - after several years.

But to fully round it off -

Q: Who am I?
A: Not a useful question. You are the questioner or in other words, you are yourself. Case closed.

A better question is,

Q: Per Advaita, who is in ignorance?
A: I say 'per Advaita' because, if you had never encountered Vedanta, you would not consider yourself to be in ignorance. But as Advaita came along and told you that you are in ignorance (and has kindled your curiosity), you have to follow the line of questioning to figure out what this is about. The simple answer is, you are in ignorance.

Q: Ignorant about what?
A: There are two perspectives to existence. You are familiar with one, but ignorant about the other.

Q: What are these two perspectives?
A: The first is your current perception of existence. You are an individual, a specific person in time and space. There are many others like you. There is a past, present and future. You were born and will die someday.

The second perspective is where you see the role of thought. You see that everything is a thought - including yourself, other people, space, time (past, the present, the future). All are thoughts. Yet, you infer a substratum that powers thought, but is not touched by thought and is therefore not within time or space. Without time, there is no beginning and there is no end and also no eternity. Hence, no birth and no death. This substratum exists. Nothing else can be said about it for any adjective./noun in relation to it is incorrect. Calling it existence too is not entirely correct.

The Advaita ignorance is ignorance of the second perspective.

Q: Does this knowledge produce change?
A: Yes and No. The individual's circumstances do not change. The individual's actions and destiny will not change (change from what??). What does change is that the search comes to an end. The realization of the absence of non-existence (and hence, no birth and no death) can be profound.

Q: If this is so simple, who do most seekers not see it?
A: Because of the baggage created by scholars for nearly 3000 years - obfuscating and mystifying it to ridiculous levels. This baggage creates false expectations and these expectations become the barrier. Simply put, they are looking for something that does not exist and hence, the search never ends.

The other complication is Advaita is the *only* branch of Vedanta that supports the concept of Jivanmukti. No other branch supports it for their conception of Moksha is very different and only happens after mortal death. This concept creates the stereotype of a "Jnani" - which leads to confusion. How do you identify a Jnani? Are we supposed to emulate them? There is no way to know these things and people get lost in their own assumptions.

Now, go back to the Mahavakyas and see them again in the light of the above and things will fall into place.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The universe of objects and jiva-s exist in whose mind? In ego mind or in brahman’s prakriti?

God in the Quad:

There was a young man who said ‘God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there’s no one about in the quad.’

God replies:

‘Dear Sir: Your astonishment’s odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”

Excerpt From
Bernardo Kastrup On-the-Plausibility-of-Idealism
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
The questions posed here are logical and cannot be answered by falling back on authority. Quoting pages from books or posting online videos do not help.

I would like to emphasize once again that what others think does not matter. They can say anything and will go unchallenged because they are not here to answer questions.

This will sound caustic, but as the only response you can muster is quotes from other people, it should be obvious to you that you do not have an answer yourself. That is a problem (for you) and that means you have homework to do.

So, once again, never mind what others think or say. What do you have to say? Anirvachaniya is an excuse and not an answer.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
What do you have to say?
Although this was not addressed to me, I have something to say.

Kaivalya :
There remains one - Bramhan' alone, after kaivalya moksha of the false/illusory jeeva - dream character.
The individual ego , ahaMkAr , actually has to blend into Bramhan' i.e. dissolve, merge, like a rock of salt into the salty ocean, or like the wave subsides back into the ocean.

Bramhan' is always Bramhan', but the false jeev "i-ness" has dissolved. This is what happens at Kaivalya, which is the extreme kind of moksha .

This is samAdhi avasthA. Final samAdhi.
You are calling this shunyavAda - but it is advaita - because One remains, not zero.


A bubble in the bubble-wrap popped.

---
As a side note -- this is why other schools of VedAnta dread advaita because it ends in kaivalya .
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Others? What others? There is only Brahman. :)

Although this was not addressed to me, I have something to say.

Kaivalya :
There remains one - Bramhan' alone, after kaivalya moksha of the false/illusory jeeva - dream character.
The individual ego , ahaMkAr , actually has to blend into Bramhan' i.e. dissolve, merge, like a rock of salt into the salty ocean, or like the wave subsides back into the ocean.

Bramhan' is always Bramhan', but the false jeev "i-ness" has dissolved. This is what happens at Kaivalya, which is the extreme kind of moksha .

This is samAdhi avasthA. Final samAdhi.
You are calling this shunyavAda - but it is advaita - because One remains, not zero.


A bubble in the bubble-wrap popped.

---
As a side note -- this is why other schools of VedAnta dread advaita because it ends in kaivalya .

And 'brahman is all' too.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
The following is for theistic advaitins only (those who understand Brahman’ to be selfless consciousness, intelligence, Being, Presence, SacchidAnanda, and not inert physical energy.)

ameyAtmA.png

If we meditate on this sacred 3D space between the stars, it is a good metaphor for understanding turIyAvasthA. The substratum of Being that is Brahman’ as the 4th (turIya) , beyond, and the foundation of the 3 ordinary states of jAgRut (waking), Swapna (dream) , sushupti (deep sleep) (as well as the in-between swoon states that give a lot of clues of Divine presence).

The sacred silence in the dark space between the stars is a Presence. I am Presence, Being, Silence, Silent Existence. This infinite is my soul and body.

As long as I am in this consciousness, I remain Jeevan-mukta, and after leaving the body, Videha-mukti is obtained.

If N human beings attain perfection in Being the infinite Presence, that immeasurable Self-Being is then their AtmA, their Core, and their Astitva (existence).

After these N humans leave the body in a state of Videha-mukti, they are no longer in individual consciousness, but there exist very very very very subtly thin N identifiers within the infinite paramAtmA -- which the successful mukta are not conscious of because they are in the selfless turIya.

Metaphorically only, they can be thought of as N very pale stars far away in the Brahman’-sky unaware of their individual presence, due to being in the consciousness of infinite Presence (which they really are). This is not physical or literal, but metaphorical.

These N subtle markers are also without any ‘sankalpa’ (resolve), but are so devoid of individual ego and so selfless that they inherit the Divine Brahman’-sankalpa. Reference for this last statement is also found in ShripAd Shrivallabh CharitrAmRuta which speaks of

Individual muktas without individual sankalpa (in kaivalya) but potentially inheriting Cosmic sankalpa as property of Brahman-MAyA (entropy, intelligence, control, balance?) so as to have the useful potential of playing a divya (Divine) role.

----

The difference between advaita-kaivalya-moksha and the VishishTAdvaitic sAmipya,sAyujja,sArupya,saRshTi, is that these latter muktas are also potentially in the infinite Brahman-turIya consciousness (potentially sarvadnya – omniscient) , although need not be, but are aware of being an individual divine presence and acknowledge other divine presences, especially that of a central paramAtmA, at various points in time. They may go in and out of samAdhI in this way.
 
Last edited:
Top