Advaita : Did Brahman split into multiple souls?

[Red_Drag0n]

Hey guys, i'm having some difficulty understanding a few things while going through the sixth chapter of Chandogya Upanishad, where Sage Aruni AKA Uddalaka was teaching his son Swetaketu about Brahman. Below i'm quoting the first few verses from chapter six, where Brahman willed to become many.

"It (Being or Brahman) thought: ‘May I be many; may I grow forth.’ It created fire. That fire thought: ‘May I be many; may I grow forth.’ It created water. That water thought: ‘May I be many; may I grow forth.’ It created food (i.e. earth or matter). That is why, whenever it rains anywhere, abundant food is produced. From water alone is edible food produced.

Of all these living beings, there are only three origins: those born from an egg, those born from a living being and those born from a sprout.

"That Brahman thought: ‘Let Me now enter into those three deities/devtaas by means of this living self and let Me then develop names and forms.’

"That Brahman, having thought: ‘Let Me make each of these three tripartite,’ entered into these three deities/devtaas by means of the living self and developed names and forms.

"It made each of these tripartite; and how these three deities/devtaas became, each of them, tripartite, that learn from me now, my dear, said Aruni to his son Swetaketu.

The Threefold Development further explained.

"The red colour of gross fire is the colour of the original fire; the white colour of gross fire is
the colour of the original water; the black colour of gross fire is the colour of the original
earth. Thus vanishes from fire what is commonly called fire, the modification being only a
name, arising from speech, while the three colours (forms) alone are true.

"The red colour of the sun is the colour of fire, the white the colour of water, the black the
colour of earth. Thus vanishes from the sun what is commonly called the sun, the
modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the three colours alone are true.

"The red colour of the moon is the colour of fire, the white the colour of water, the black the
colour of earth. Thus vanishes from the moon what is commonly called the moon, the
modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the three colours alone are true.

"The red colour of lightning is the colour of fire, the white the colour of water, the black the
colour of earth. Thus vanishes from lightning what is commonly called lighting, the
modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the three colours alone are true.

Question 1 : Now, food according to upanishadic terms, is matter or earth and not actual food or vegetation. So when it says, (check the maroon text) that from water alone edible food is produced, what does it mean? Does it mean that water first produces physical matter or earth and then from earth edible food (vegetation) grows?

Then in later verses (check the green text) Brahman thinks of entering into the three deities/devtaas by means of this living self, in order to develop names and forms. The deities or devtaas here are the three elements- fire, water and earth.

Brahman again wills, "Let me make each of these three (devtaas) tripartite,’ entered into these three devtaas by means of the living self and developed names and forms."

Question 2 : What does it mean by the three devtaas being tripartite? And is the living self mentioned here, Brahman?

Question 3: And now the most important question ... When Brahman, the supreme cosmic spirit , wished to develop into many names and forms , did this supreme cosmic spirit split into countless individual spirits or jeeva atmas, and created separate individual identities in this process, when it split or broke away from the whole??

The advaitists say, there is no duality and that our original selves (jeevatmas) are the same as the spirit whole aka Brahman.

Yes it may be true, that the basic substance or essence of the jeevatmas, is actually Brahman. Just like the basic substance of a clay pot is actually clay.
So when we speak of Jivatma A , Jivatma B and Jivatma C , i guess the basic substance/essence is the same in all these three individuals (they are fragments of the cosmic spirit Brahman). But IMO, when the spirit whole, divided or become many, it's fragments became separate souls (jivatmas) each having their own individuality. Like if Jivatma A gets injured, only A will feel pain thru the indriyas and not B or C ... If C commits a heinous crime , then C will go to hell along with it's subtle body to suffer and not A or B.
So it seems that we (trillions of souls) are not one big soul, that has entered or penetrated various flesh bodies, just like air enters an empty house ... In other words, we are not connected to each other. If our flesh bodies were connected by one big soul Brahman , then we would all suffer, enjoy, laugh, cry, feel etc. at the same time. Isn't it so? Correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste

Chandogya Up. is my favorite although I don't dive into upanishads now.

Answer to Q1. The pancha-mahA bhUta are AakAsh (space, directions property), VAyu (air, gases), Tej (fire, heat-warmth-light ), Aap (Water, liquids), PrithvI (earth - solids).

This is true, however, Uddalaka wants to explain Truth to Shvetaketu, and uses multiple means, where his real goal is "Tat tvam asi, Shvetaketu!"

Since food in the form of crops and vegetation can only grow if you water the plants, food is the consequence of water in the context that Sage AruNi is explaining. Further, life and a living body (solid state) is the consequence of food. Hence both food and body (bones, muscles, tissue) is the 5th element of the mahabhUta i.e. Earth (PRthvI).

That was just my take. If you read Swami GambhirAnanda's commentary on Shankara Bhasya of the Upanishad, he refutes the idea that food = earth in the direct sense , but explains it is in the indirect sense -- because food grows by seed sprouting out of earth by means of water and Sun (fire). Moreover, both food and earth are matter in solid state.
The Aap devatA gives rise to food and we can agree by common sense.

Answer to Q3: Bramhan did not split into multiple jeevAtmA, it appeared as jeevAtmA.
What that means is that Bramhan is the substratum of life. Source, basis, substance, cause of life.
Read my thread on Chatuh:shloki BhAgvat if you would.

Question 2a : What does it mean by the three devtaas being tripartite?
Answer to Q2a:
The three-fold devatA. Here, what is a devatA? The Divine governing principle of a property of nature - in this case Fire, Water and Earth element or solids.
Three-fold or tripartite (as your translation says) because they co-exist to assist in life. We cannot have just air, just heat or just water, we need all three to live.

When sun shines, sow a seed, plough the earth, water the crops, food grows, you eat it and survive. Simple.

Question 2b: And is the living self mentioned here, Brahman?
Answer to 2b: Yes, it is none but Bramhan, without which no life can exist. However, the illusory state of a person's mind should NOT be mistaken as Bramhan. That would be a mistake.

*My advice: Chandogya Upanishad is one of the best to study and understand the Truth. Keep going!
However, at some point, may you realize the whole point of all this. Do not dwell too much on the details, so as to lose track of the sAra (gist, main idea) , and the goal, of why we began the study in the first place.

Today, it is enough for me to instantly note by mere common sense that Bramhan is the Ultimate Infinite Eternal Source of All Potential.
There is not even any need for the neti neti exercise in this case.
This is enough for me to relinquish doership and ownership to our Beloved Eternal Source and reach the same spot in this very same ChAndogya Up. which says (3.17.8)
"You are undecaying
You are unchanging
You are the vital force made completely fine."

 

[ameyAtmA]

So when we speak of Jivatma A , Jivatma B and Jivatma C , i guess the basic substance/essence is the same in all these three individuals (they are fragments of the cosmic spirit Brahman). But IMO, when the spirit whole, divided or become many, it's fragments became separate souls (jivatmas) each having their own individuality. Like if Jivatma A gets injured, only A will feel pain thru the indriyas and not B or C ... If C commits a heinous crime , then C will go to hell along with it's subtle body to suffer and not A or B.
So it seems that we (trillions of souls) are not one big soul, that has entered or penetrated various flesh bodies, just like air enters an empty house ... In other words, we are not connected to each other. If our flesh bodies were connected by one big soul Brahman , then we would all suffer, enjoy, laugh, cry, feel etc. at the same time. Isn't it so? Correct me if i'm wrong.

A flaw in your statements: JeevAtmA A,B,C,X is not commiting crime or getting injured. It is the manifest body that got injured, the illusory and misled pseudo-virtual mind of body A that commited a crime.

The AtmA inside the body is called jeeva + AtmA. It is close to prANa (life-breath) but not prANa, and is pure and untouched by the journeys taken by the quantum field called "body"

So, yes, A,B,C are going there own ways, but those are just like molecules of water in a stream or pond or glass going their own ways. Nothing alarming about that.
At the same time they all are one mass and continuous, and continue beyond the glass, earth limiting the pond or stream, and connected to the mountains, hills, valleys , table, room, house....

SomeOne is supplying the potential and kinetic energy to those water molecules.

 

[George-ananda]

Advaita : Did Brahman split into multiple souls?

Well, simple old me understands the seeming many as sparks/rays all of the One/Brahman. Maya (intentional illusion on Brahman by Brahman) creates the play/drama we see around us.

 

[ajay0]

Question 3: And now the most important question ... When Brahman, the supreme cosmic spirit , wished to develop into many names and forms , did this supreme cosmic spirit split into countless individual spirits or jeeva atmas, and created separate individual identities in this process, when it split or broke away from the whole??

Brahman is pure consciousness. - Rig Veda

If you notice, we are all conscious beings. It is consciousness that separates us from inanimate matter and energy.

Awareness or pure consciousness is what we are, but we identify with our impermanent mind-body-intellect and secondary identities such as that of gender, caste, creed, profession, nationality, groups or gangs due to lack of self-knowledge, and which eventually becomes a source of suffering, as these secondary identities are of an impermanent nature.

As Jeevatma's , our purpose thus is to disidentify with all false identities and identifications which are a creation of thought, and identify with our true self, which is known as Self or Being, that is pure consciousness or Awareness.

As Vicki Woodyard stated, ": Awareness is who we are and forgetting that leads to suffering.”

The advaitists say, there is no duality and that our original selves (jeevatmas) are the same as the spirit whole aka Brahman.

Duality is created by thought and in turn spurs the thinking and emoting process that blurs the Self or Awareness , which can be perceived only in a quiet mind.

An analogy is of the moon reflected clearly in a pond when it is calm and unagitated. However when agitated by a stone, the image wavers.

This is why Krishna emphasized equanimity of mind in the Bhagavad Gita, as the Self or Awareness is felt or perceived clearly in an equanimous mind .

 

[atanu]

Hey guys, i'm having some difficulty understanding a few things while going through the sixth chapter of Chandogya Upanishad, where Sage Aruni AKA Uddalaka was teaching his son Swetaketu about Brahman. Below i'm quoting the first few verses from chapter six, where Brahman willed to become many.





Question 1 : Now, food according to upanishadic terms, is matter or earth and not actual food or vegetation. So when it says, (check the maroon text) that from water alone edible food is produced, what does it mean? Does it mean that water first produces physical matter or earth and then from earth edible food (vegetation) grows?

Then in later verses (check the green text) Brahman thinks of entering into the three deities/devtaas by means of this living self, in order to develop names and forms. The deities or devtaas here are the three elements- fire, water and earth.

Brahman again wills, "Let me make each of these three (devtaas) tripartite,’ entered into these three devtaas by means of the living self and developed names and forms."

Question 2 : What does it mean by the three devtaas being tripartite? And is the living self mentioned here, Brahman?

Question 3: And now the most important question ... When Brahman, the supreme cosmic spirit , wished to develop into many names and forms , did this supreme cosmic spirit split into countless individual spirits or jeeva atmas, and created separate individual identities in this process, when it split or broke away from the whole??

The advaitists say, there is no duality and that our original selves (jeevatmas) are the same as the spirit whole aka Brahman.

Yes it may be true, that the basic substance or essence of the jeevatmas, is actually Brahman. Just like the basic substance of a clay pot is actually clay.
So when we speak of Jivatma A , Jivatma B and Jivatma C , i guess the basic substance/essence is the same in all these three individuals (they are fragments of the cosmic spirit Brahman). But IMO, when the spirit whole, divided or become many, it's fragments became separate souls (jivatmas) each having their own individuality. Like if Jivatma A gets injured, only A will feel pain thru the indriyas and not B or C ... If C commits a heinous crime , then C will go to hell along with it's subtle body to suffer and not A or B.
So it seems that we (trillions of souls) are not one big soul, that has entered or penetrated various flesh bodies, just like air enters an empty house ... In other words, we are not connected to each other. If our flesh bodies were connected by one big soul Brahman , then we would all suffer, enjoy, laugh, cry, feel etc. at the same time. Isn't it so? Correct me if i'm wrong.

Non dual deep sleep consciousness apparently breaks into apparent "Me" and "World" in dream. There is no actual change involved.

 

[Red_Drag0n]

@ ameyAtma, Thanks for the explanation brother. So you're saying that Brahman didn't split. That we're NOT fragments of the whole. That we are only one soul Brahman, (the soul that penetrated/entered various lifeless material bodies and gave them life.)
If so, then Brahman is like energy or electricity that powers up our gross/subtle bodies, just like electricity powers up each homes. I hope i'm right.

So if we (the atmas in us) are not fragments or splitted parts, then why do some sects or schools of philosophy believe that we emerge from Brahman and again merge back into Brahman. I think this theory or belief comes from the RamaKrishnaMission of Calcutta or maybe from some other schools of thought. But this theory is certainly out there.
IMO, when something emerges from something else, it means it's a part of something else. A part that broke away from the whole. So if we go by this theory, then isn't it obvious that we emerged or splitted from the whole, to become innumerable souls which are nothing but parts or fragments as per this theory, and later during videha mukti (moksha upon death) these parts again merge back in the whole. Would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.


And speaking of Chandogya Upanishad, since it's a massive text, i jump started from the sixth chapter, thinking here i would find how Brahman became the jeevas, but so far (the material i came across, like the verses i quoted here) doesn't properly explain such things in detail. It stops at "water then becomes food/matter" ... Yeah matter includes both food and our bodies as you said in your post, i.e. food helps in building our bodies, but it doesn't speak how the jeevas appeared on this wordly platform in the first place OR how the mahabhutas created the first man or woman or any other animal (including flesh and subtle bodies) . Like what makes Brahman decide that it will become this or that creature and then how the formation occurs thru the mahabhutas (in a chronological order), that's what i'm looking for in these vedic scriptures ... I'm more interested in knowing how creatures first appeared ... Does the Chandogya or any other upanishads speaks of the creation process in great detail? Thanks

 

[Red_Drag0n]

@ajay0, Isn't awareness and intellect part of the same mental process or antah-karana, which in turn is part of the subtle body, which in turn is part of prakriti? ... I mean how can awareness exist without the manas(mind) or buddhi(intellect)? ... If one's physical brain stops functioning, then will there be awareness or consciousness? Thanks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Red_Drag0n, you are not paying attention to the basic premise of the Upanishad:

"Yathā soumya! ekena mritpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛinmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syāt,
vāchāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛittiketyeva satyaṃ."

(Just as, O gentle enquirer, by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all modification being only distortion in matter of naming, but the truth is that all that is but clay.)

What is a soul? I do not know anything like 'a soul'. If humans or other living beings have a soul, then a stone also must have a soul, even a grain of sand, since all that arose from Brahman only. Separate, where is the separation? To see separation or difference is not 'Advaita'. The whole universe is an ocean, and water and fish are not separate. Are they both not constituted by Brahman? Similarly on the surface of earth, you and myself seem to be separate, as different entities, separated by the distance, but are we both anything other than Brahman, including the air and water that seems to separate us? This separation or difference is a mirage, an illusion, 'Maya', not seeing things in their ultimate truthfulness. When you realize, accept and internalize that, it is 'jnana', enlightenment, moksha, nirvana, emancipation, deliverance. You have broken all bonds of 'avidya', ignorance. That is why the books said:

"Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), 'Ayamatma Brahman' (This self is Brahman), 'So Aham' (I too am that), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are), etc.

"Pūrnam adah pūrnam idam pūrnāt pūrnam udachyate;
pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya pūrnam eva avashishyate."
That is the whole (Brahman), this (the universe) is whole, from that whole(Brahman) arises this whole (the universe);
Take out this whole (the universe) from that whole (Brahman), what remains is still the whole (Brahman).

That is the story of 'this' and 'that'.

 

[Red_Drag0n]

What is a soul? I do not know anything like 'a soul'. If humans or other living beings have a soul, then a stone also must have a soul, even a grain of sand, since all that arose from Brahman only.

And how do you suppose the grain of sand or stone to attain moksha?

There's no doubt all is Brahman, but Brahman can be classified into two categories. Inorganic (non living inanimate objects) and organic (living beings made of consciousness / awareness).

MulaPrakriti AKA Pradhana AKA Maya, is the avyakta or unmanifested primordial matter which is Brahman's shakti, from which the mahabhutas springs forth and creates/manifests everything, (both non living and the gross flesh bodies & mind of the living) ... but mula prakriti or the mahabhutas doesn't gives life to the body. It's the Atma (consciousness) & prana (vital life force) that gives us life. And this Atma within us can only attain moksha. Non living objects like stone river etc. are all Brahman or made of mahabhutas but they lack atma and so cannot attain moksha.

I spoke of separateness of the soul, because there's a theory or belief, that the soul emerges from Brahman and again merges back into Brahman. This theory IMO is either of the Bhamati sub school of advaita OR comes from the RamaKrishnaMission group. They even give the example of pot in an ocean. They say when the pot breaks, the pot water gets mixed in the ocean water. So, IMO, if something emerges from a whole, it means it's breaking or splitting away from the whole, ending up by creating many parts. If a particular school of advaita can hold such a belief or theory of separateness then there's ought to be some truth to it. That's why i brought up this discussion of separateness. I'm here to understand Advaita and not just those few verses of Chandogya bro.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They do not need to, since they have no illusions. Illusions belong to thinking minds. Classify Brahman in categories - you are moving away from 'advaita'. The other knowledgeable will answer your further questions, because my views differ from theirs, as also from your initial understanding.

Non living objects like stone river etc. are all Brahman or made of mahabhutas but they lack atma and so cannot attain moksha.

If they arise from Brahman, then they all must be exactly like Brahman only. You see my 'advaita' is 'ghor-advaita' - 'advaita' without any exception whatsoever.

Kindly note: There is no Hindu philosophy stream like 'ghor-advaita'. These are my personal views.

If a particular school of advaita can hold such a belief or theory of separateness then there's ought to be some truth to it.

It does not necessarily follow.
I appreciate your effort to understand 'advaita'. Various people will find their truth in their own way. My truth may be different from theirs, and Hinduism does not mind it (as long as you get your truth).

Furthermore, if you are Brahman, you do not need moksha. That is why Adi Shankaracharya said:

"Na me dveşarāgau na me lobhamohau, mado naiva me naiva mātsaryabhāvaḥ;
na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokşaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Shatkam, Verse 3

"I have no liking or dislike, nor greed or affiliation, nor pride or envy. I have no duty (dharma), nor any money, nor any desire (kāma), nor even liberation (mokṣa). I am the form of eternal bliss, I am Shiva, indeed I am Shiva."

That "It is written in the books" is not an argument in Hinduism.

 

[Red_Drag0n]

It's totaly fine bro. Every one of us has the right to hold on to their preferred views and beliefs. You ever heard of the term panchikarana bro? It's the modification or mixing of the 5 great elements during the process of creation/manifestation. I think this belief comes from the samkhya school of philosophy but now accepted by other schools of vedanta as well.
The physical water, fire, earth, etc. that we see here in this world are not in their pure original state. They are all in their mixed impure state.
Whereas the pure form can only be found in their subtle state.
... Now the grossified earth that we see here has 50% pure subtle earth in it and the rest 50% contains one fourth of the other pure subtle elements in it. Only through this mixture, the elements become physical. So i guess nothing remains as pure Brahman when it manifests into physical form. They're all modifications. The only pure form of Brahman is the atma in us, but that too remains veiled by Maya.

 

[ameyAtmA]

You are welcome, Red_Dragon

@ ameyAtma, So you're saying that Brahman didn't split. That we're NOT fragments of the whole. That we are only one soul Brahman, (the soul that penetrated/entered various lifeless material bodies and gave them life.)
If so, then Brahman is like energy or electricity that powers up our gross/subtle bodies, just like electricity powers up each homes. I hope i'm right.

Yes, Bramhan is like that. What I and others here gave you is the highest advaita

So if we (the atmas in us) are not fragments or splitted parts, then why do some sects or schools of philosophy believe that we emerge from Brahman and again merge back into Brahman. I think this theory or belief comes from the RamaKrishnaMission of Calcutta or maybe from some other schools of thought. But this theory is certainly out there.

The theory is our there because, AchArya (spiritual teachers) are wise, they see that Truth is kaliedoscopic, non-linear, multi-dimensional and have to address each seeker with what would be the best method with which they can relate to the Truth.

IMO, when something emerges from something else, it means it's a part of something else. A part that broke away from the whole. So if we go by this theory, then isn't it obvious that we emerged or splitted from the whole, to become innumerable souls which are nothing but parts or fragments as per this theory, and later during videha mukti (moksha upon death) these parts again merge back in the whole. Would love to hear your thoughts on this matter.

My suggestion would be to NOT carry any pre-conceived notions while studying the Upanishads, because it will only delay the process. It is not easy I know.
You in the ordinary sense were not in the current form to begin with. So where is the question of your current form splitting from Bramhan'?

Take ChhAndogya. Where did MahaRshi AruNi say anything about Shwetaketu splitting from Bramhan?

Look at the example he gives: Just like the juices (he means sap) of different trees cannot tell "I am the juice of this tree, I am the juice of That tree.." when they are all mixed, because they are all JUICE (SAP), similarly, AtmA cannot be separated from Bramhan'.
Extend this to honey from different combs, water from different rivers when in the ocean, ...

but it doesn't speak how the jeevas appeared on this wordly platform in the first place OR how the mahabhutas created the first man or woman or any other animal (including flesh and subtle bodies) . Like what makes Brahman decide that it will become this or that creature and then how the formation occurs thru the mahabhutas (in a chronological order), that's what i'm looking for in these vedic scriptures ...

VAsanA - latent tendency is the cause of manifesting in a form. Simply put, the subtle dormant latent tendency to fly will manifest a bird. Not that simple, it is gradual, but this is just for demo.
Bramhan' does not take this action "now I shall be a bird", it is the natural tendencies that take shape.

I would go one step at a time. What works best for you?

If you trust the upanishads, then read them with an open mind , focusing on what they are saying in sequence, setting aside other questions. They will get answered in due course.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They are all in their mixed impure state. Whereas the pure form can only be found in their subtle state. .. Now the grossified earth that we see here has 50% pure subtle earth in it and the rest 50% contains one fourth of the other pure subtle elements in it.

It is all Brahman, the rest is your perception.. When there is nothing other than Brahman, what would you mix with things to make them gross?

"Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti .." (What exists is one, there is no second).
Sankara said: "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya .." (Brahman is the truth, the observed is illusion ..).

But go on, study all views on the puzzle.

 

[ajay0]

@ajay0, Isn't awareness and intellect part of the same mental process or antah-karana, which in turn is part of the subtle body, which in turn is part of prakriti? ... I mean how can awareness exist without the manas(mind) or buddhi(intellect)? ... If one's physical brain stops functioning, then will there be awareness or consciousness? Thanks.

Awareness or the Self and the mind are different from each other.

As Sri Muruganar stated, " The Self, our Being, is awareness."

And as Burt Harding stated, " Your true nature is awareness and not what your mind is producing."

The mind, intellect and body are part of Prakriti while the Self or Awareness is Purusha.

Awareness or the Self is independent of the physical brain and exists independently.

In dreams we are aware of the content of our dreams, and in deep sleep we are aware later on that there was no dream content. All this shows a conscious entity.

The mind is just an aggregate of thought and emotions that follow.

Thoughts appear in the mind every second, in a continuous stream, and these constant thought disturbances --- each dying, yielding its place to a new one --- give us the apprehension of a solid factor called the mind. Similarly, the tip of a flame also, (it can be experimentally proved) is never steady, but the flickering is so fast, that it gives us an illusion of a definite shape and solidity. - Swami Chinmayananda


Thus the mind is just a thinking and emoting process seeded and fertilized by external conditioning forces.
Hence it is obviously not true and of any substance.

The Self or Awareness is the constant in all experiences, and the only thing worth remembering.

As George Gurdjieff stated, " Remember your Self always and everywhere."

"Don't ever lose awareness of your Being. " - Sri Ramana Maharshi


Suffering arises due to forgetfulness of the Self and getting emotionaly involved with the transient things around us.

It is like in a cinema theatre when we are seeing a gripping action or thrilling horror film. By getting emotionally involved with the cinema and identifying with the characters, we will experience emotional rollercoaster highs and lows forgetting that it is just a film. There are some who have died of heart attacks in cinema theatres due to too much emotional identification with the cinematic content.

This is the same thing that happens in the transient world around us, where we get too attached to impermanent external phenomena forgetting the Self within us, which is our true identity and source of peace and bliss.

As Mata Amritanandamayi stated, " If you constantly maintain self-awareness, you will experience peace and happiness. "

This is because the Self is our natural state, and peace and joy accompanies it naturally.

 

[Red_Drag0n]

The theory is out there because, AchArya (spiritual teachers) are wise, they see that Truth is kaliedoscopic, non-linear, multi-dimensional and have to address each seeker with what would be the best method with which they can relate to the Truth.

I understand that the guru will teach only that which the student can grasp, or only in a certain manner, which the guru feels would be right for that time period. But if every guru try to oversimplify these valuable wisdom of knowledge, in order to preach the commom masses and in the process, end up distorting it, then will it even remain 'Advaita'? ... It would then give rise to some other school of philosophy. I mean this emerge and merge theory, as far as my knowledge goes, is nowhere present in accepted advaitic teachings or in other words, it's nowhere present in the three accepted theories of Advaita, namely Pratibimba vada, Avasa vada, and DrishSrishti vada.

But the emerge/merge theory, comes close to the theory of Avaccheda vada (pot in an ocean theory). When the pot breaks, the pot water merges in the ocean water. Here, there is merging back. But not emerging or emanating. So the emerge/merge theory goes against pure advaita.

So, does pure advaita (accepted advaitic theories that i listed above) even say that we emerge or emanate from Brahman?

According to KrishnaNanda we don't emerge from Brahman. I came across an article written by Swami Krishnananda, of divine life society, where he compared Neo Platonism with Advaita.
Plotinus's Neo platonism almost comes close to advaita but there are few differences. The swami said, that according to Plotinus's neo platonism theory, everything emanates or overflows or spreads or pervades from the 'ONE' ... but according to advaita, creation doesn't emanate or emerge or spread or pervade from the ONE , instead the advaitins say, there is only the Absolute and the world is it's appearance. Do all advaitists believe this or just the Abhasa-vada theorists hold this view? Thanks.

You said that i should not go into too much details or i would deviate away from the main thing, but my path is of careful research, thorough exhaustive studies, taking notes, asking questions etc. In order to properly understand Brahm and it's creation i need to get to the depth of it.

 

[ajay0]

You said that i should not go into too much details or i would deviate away from the main thing, but my path is of careful research, thorough exhaustive studies, taking notes, asking questions etc. In order to properly understand Brahm and it's creation i need to get to the depth of it.

Advaita is not a theory which is then subjected to different interpretations by people adhering to different beliefsets.

One can never understand Advaita that way, because it is beliefs that create the false self that obscures the Self or Awareness.

As the nondualist master Nirmala stated, " Our thoughts and beliefs have an effect on how reality appears."

Consequently one cannot apprehend or perceive reality properly through the mind with its conditioned likes and dislikes, beliefs and opinions.

And as Harbhajan Singh Bhajan stated, " Any mistake you ever make will occur when you become attached to your emotions as reality."

The Self or Awareness is nondual because there is not an observer and observed through mental interpretation. And obviously this cannot be understood just intellectually but more importantly , experientially.

It is experiential understanding through meditation that results in proper perception and brings about harmonious understanding. Otherwise the perception is bound to be distorted by mental interpretations based on our personal beliefs and opinions.

Indra and the demon Virochana engaged in study about the Self with Prajapati. Virochana concluded erroneously that the Self is the body, and exhorted other Asuras to worship the body as Brahman or Self.
Indra however enquired better and realised the true nature of the Self as pure consciousness.

In Shankaracharya's time, there were people who stated that the Self or Brahman is their son. Shankaracharya had spoken and lamented about their foolish and erroneous interpretations in his works.

Such erroneous interpretations by Virochana and others happened because of our tendency to interpret things as per our conditioned belief-sets and opinions. And such erroneous interpretations will continue to happen.

As the enlightened master Matthew Kahn stated, " Most people do not see their beliefs. Instead, their beliefs tell them what they see. This is the simple difference between clarity and confusion. "

 

[Red_Drag0n]

@ajay0, I know bro that one must realize or experience this truth by deep meditation, but meditation is not for everybody. In my opinion, one must attain the basic knowledge first. By that i mean all theories and beliefs of every sects. Even the flawed ones. (One must be familiar with darkness or faulty paths, in order to recognize the light). And then, after knowing the various roads, i'll choose only that, which will suit me. Consider me, to be an outsider or an entity from another galaxy, who's only studying the various cultures and religions of this world. At the momment, he has no interest in spiritual progression or to realize the truth via sadhana. He's only an ordinary being, an observer, and only wishes to study.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But if every guru try to oversimplify these valuable wisdom of knowledge, in order to preach the commom masses and in the process, end up distorting it, then will it even remain 'Advaita'? .. It would then give rise to some other school of philosophy. I mean this emerge and merge theory, as far as my knowledge goes, is nowhere present in accepted advaitic teachings or in other words, it's nowhere present in the three accepted theories of Advaita, namely Pratibimba vada, Avasa vada, and DrishSrishti vada.

But the emerge/merge theory, comes close to the theory of Avaccheda vada (pot in an ocean theory). When the pot breaks, the pot water merges in the ocean water. Here, there is merging back. But not emerging or emanating. So the emerge/merge theory goes against pure advaita.

So, does pure advaita (accepted advaitic theories that i listed above) even say that we emerge or emanate from Brahman?

According to KrishnaNanda we don't emerge from Brahman. Do all advaitists believe this or just the Abhasa-vada theorists hold this view? Thanks.

You said that i should not go into too much details or i would deviate away from the main thing, but my path is of careful research, thorough exhaustive studies, taking notes, asking questions etc. In order to properly understand Brahman and it's creation i need to get to the depth of it.

Red_Drag0n, Hinduism does not consider any theory of advaita or any other stream as a distortion. Those who propounded them were sincere people and had thought about things for many years. They have their arguments. It is another thing that you/me or anyone else may not accept them. If it gives rise to a new school, Hinduism is not worried about it.

As I said, Hinduism is a free form religion. These theories do not affect its bed-rock, action according to 'dharma' (fulfilling duties and engaging in righteous action). That is why Hinduism does not deny heaven even to followers of other religions if they have acted according to 'dharma'. I am an atheist advaitist but I gladly bow not just to Sankara, but also to Buddha, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Madhva and Chaitanya. They were like researchers/scientists of yore and whose theories one may consider as not adequate, like Newton, but still respect them.

Yeah, I too believe in being never separated and always being 'It'. Where can I separate from It/myself? Even in Andromeda, it is all Brahman only. The pot and the water contained in it are still Brahman, that would not change, mix or don't mix. When Brahman pervades/constitutes all things in the universe, we are already mixed-up. No, it is not necessary for every strain of 'advaita' to accept 'Abhasa-vada' (believe me, I have learnt a few new terms from your post). Brahman does not to create anything, it has no need or desire to to create anything, and no thing is created. It is only 'Abhasa', an illusion, 'Maya' and the problem in our understanding, ignorance, IMV. That is why Sankara's theory was called 'Mayavada'.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is experiential understanding through meditation that results in proper perception and brings about harmonious understanding. Otherwise the perception is bound to be distorted by mental interpretations based on our personal beliefs and opinions.

While I appreciate that experiential understanding of Advaita or nondualism can be attained though meditation (I practice regularly), couldn't it also be true that such an understanding can be attained though spontaneous mystical experience?