Advaita questions

[Aupmanyav]

Bheda abedha considers individual souls to be amshas (parts) of brahman.

Need to check. No, I would not say that we are parts. Each one of us beings/things are the whole. I go with "Purnamadah, purnamidam..", sort of Holographic.

You say, if it acts "it is not Brahman". What is it then?
How do you define "at rest"?

Illusory perception. Brahman does not act, does not change, has no need to.
Some physics (a-la-Polymath): Motion is not change, acceleration is.

 

[ajay0]

I'm still trying to understand the basic principles, and have some more questions.

Is Maya the same as Saguna Brahman? Or a consequence of Saguna Brahman?

Is it Nirguna Brahman that is identical with Atman?

Thanks!

Maya is illusion or identification with sensory objects to the point that one forgets one's identity as the Self or pure consciousness, resulting in suffering.

Maya makes you forget the Self or Self-knowledge through raag-dvesh, psychological cravings for pleasurable sensory objects and aversion for unpleasant ones.

All vices and crimes of passion like rape, murder, robbery,
physical assault and so on can be traced back to raag-dvesh or cravings and aversions.

Saguna Brahman is Brahman with attributes, as opposed to Nirguna Brahman without attributes, and its purpose lies in enabling people under the influence of Maya to stop identification with sensory objects brought about by cravings/aversions and identify with the Self instead. This identification with the Self destroys karma and brings about enlightenment and liberation.

 

[Martin]

Maya is illusion or identification with sensory objects to the point that one forgets one's identity as the Self or pure consciousness, resulting in suffering.

Maya makes you forget the Self or Self-knowledge through raag-dvesh, psychological cravings for pleasurable sensory objects and aversion for unpleasant ones.

All vices and crimes of passion like rape, murder, robbery,
physical assault and so on can be traced back to raag-dvesh or cravings and aversions.

Saguna Brahman is Brahman with attributes, as opposed to Nirguna Brahman without attributes, and its purpose lies in enabling people under the influence of Maya to stop identification with sensory objects brought about by cravings/aversions and identify with the Self instead. This identification with the Self destroys karma and brings about enlightenment and liberation.

I can understand Maya as identification with sense-objects, but how does that make sense-objects an "illusion"?

And how is Saguna Brahman an "illusion", given that it's an manifestation of Brahman?

 

[ajay0]

In short, Maya's role in the scheme of things is to bring forgetfulness of the Self in the person, while that of Saguna Brahman lies in bringing remebrance of the Self.


The Self, our Being, is awareness or pure consciousness, and anyone can behold the Self by purifying their consciousness of intense desires in the form of cravings and aversions through cultivation of mental equanimity and awareness/mindfulness.

 

[ajay0]

I can understand Maya as identification with sense-objects, but how does that make sense-objects an "illusion"?

I did not say that sense-objects are an illlusion, only that cravings and aversions for sensory objects due to past psychological memories of pleasure and pain , and because of the incessant thinking and emoting they generate, brings about forgetfulness of the Self.

The mind thus is not in present moment awareness, but is in the past or future in psychological time, in their own psychological world or reality.

Neurotics, deluded people and madmen are those who are entrenched in their own self-made psychological realities in increasing degrees respectively. The madman especially have forgotten the existential reality for his own psychological reality. Forgetfulness of the Self brings with it great psychological torture or suffering.

You can say they are extreme victims of Maya on consequence of forgetfulness of the Self , which is their true identity.

And how is Saguna Brahman an "illusion", given that it's an manifestation of Brahman?

Saguna Brahman is a personalised version of Brahman, who is operating outside the bondage of karma unlike the Jivatman or individual human soul.

Its function is to aid the Jivatman to remember its own Self and be established in it, and bring it out of the clutches of Maya.

 

[Martin]

I did not say that sense-objects are an illlusion, only that cravings and aversions for sensory objects due to past psychological memories of pleasure and pain , and because of the incessant thinking and emoting they generate, brings about forgetfulness of the Self.

The mind thus is not in present moment awareness, but is in the past or future in psychological time, in their own psychological world or reality.

Neurotics, deluded people and madmen are those who are entrenched in their own self-made psychological realities in increasing degrees respectively. The madman especially have forgotten the existential reality for his own psychological reality. Forgetfulness of the Self brings with it great psychological torture or suffering.

You can say they are extreme victims of Maya on consequence of forgetfulness of the Self , which is their true identity.



Saguna Brahman is a personalised version of Brahman, who is operating outside the bondage of karma unlike the Jivatman or individual human soul.

Its function is to aid the Jivatman to remember its own Self and be established in it, and bring it out of the clutches of Maya.

Thanks. What you're saying about forgetfulness of Self does make sense. But I've heard Advaitans talk a lot about Maya as "illusion", and I'm still not clear what they mean by that, practically speaking. If sense-objects aren't illusory, then what is?

Or is it that different versions of Advaita have different ideas about these concepts?

 

[Martin]

Different, not competing. Someone accepts one, someone the other. That is no problem. Having reasonable different views is OK in Hinduism.

Within the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism there are many sub-schools, of which Advaita is possibly the oldest. The many schools of Vedanta are: Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia (name of the teacher, Acharya, given in bracket)

• Advaita : Non-dualism (Gaudapada, Sankara)
  
• Vishishta-advaita : Qualified Non-dualism (Ramanuja)
  
• Dvaita-advaita : Dualistic Non-dualism (Nimbarka)
  
• Shuddha-advaita : Pure Non-dualism (Vallabha)
  
• Dvaita : Dualism (Madhva - Not really Advaita but still considers arising from one. Sorry, I do not understand that correctly)
  
• Achintya Bheda Abheda Advaita: Inconceivable one-ness and difference (Chaitanya)
• Aupādhika Bheda-Abheda Advaita (Difference - non-difference) which is probably non-existent now (Bhaskara).

All teachers (Acharyas) are to be respected whether one believes in their philosophy or not. That is the Hindu religious etiquette.

You're preaching to the choir here, have a look at the post I was responding to. There clearly are different versions (sub-schools?) of Advaita, which I agree shouldn't be a problem.

 

[ajay0]

Thanks. What you're saying about forgetfulness of Self does make sense. But I've heard Advaitans talk a lot about Maya as "illusion", and I'm still not clear what they mean by that, practically speaking.

Maya is just forgetfulness of the Self or awareness and nothing else.

Seeing a scary picture in the theatre, we sometimes forget that we are just seeing a film. Maya operates in a manner similar to this.

If sense-objects aren't illusory, then what is?

What brings about this forgetfulness of the Self is our cravings and aversions for sensory objects. The sensory objects , like a mirage promise lasting pleasure or happiness, but this is obviously illusory as no sensory object can give lasting joy due to the principle of satiation.


This is why maya is sometimes correlated with illusion, the illusion that lasting joy and peace is found in sensory objects.

There is nothing wrong with sensory objects as such, only our subjective likes and dislikes for them which corrupt the perception with negative emotions .

Or is it that different versions of Advaita have different ideas about these concepts?

There are no different versions of Advaita, only different versions of Vedanta, which is just a spectrum ranging from dualism to monism.

It is hard for most people generally of an emotional temperament to understand monism, so dualism with God and a virtuous framework with Bhakti is framed for them.

Bhakti is also potent in transforming negative emotions to positive ones.

 

[Martin]

Maya is just forgetfulness of the Self or awareness and nothing else.

Seeing a scary picture in the theatre, we sometimes forget that we are just seeing a film. Maya operates in a manner similar to this.



What brings about this forgetfulness of the Self is our cravings and aversions for sensory objects. The sensory objects , like a mirage promise lasting pleasure or happiness, but this is obviously illusory as no sensory object can give lasting joy due to the principle of satiation.


This is why maya is sometimes correlated with illusion, the illusion that lasting joy and peace is found in sensory objects.

There is nothing wrong with sensory objects as such, only our subjective likes and dislikes for them which corrupt the perception with negative emotions .



There are no different versions of Advaita, only different versions of Vedanta, which is just a spectrum ranging from dualism to monism.

It is hard for most people generally of an emotional temperament to understand monism, so dualism with God and a virtuous framework with Bhakti is framed for them.

Bhakti is also potent in transforming negative emotions to positive ones.

So the problem is believing that sense-objects can bring lasting joy and peace? That sounds more like ignorance than illusion.

 

[ajay0]

So the problem is believing that sense-objects can bring lasting joy and peace? That sounds more like ignorance than illusion.

The problem is loss of Self-knowledge or Awareness by cravings and aversions which generate intense thinking and emoting of an uncontrolled nature.

These sayings of enlightened sages can help comprehend this better...

Nearly all mankind is more or less unhappy because nearly all do not know the true Self. Real happiness abides in Self-knowledge alone. All else is fleeting. To know one’s Self is to be blissful always. - Ramana Maharshi


“Man’s search for happiness is an unconscious search for his true Self. The true Self is imperishable; therefore when a man finds it, he finds a happiness which does not come to an end.” - Ramana Maharshi


This world is trapped in the well of suffering. What is this suffering due to? This suffering stems from ignorance of the Self. All suffering in this world is because of ignorance. This ignorance leads to raag (craving) and dwesh (aversion) relentlessly and suffering is experienced as a consequence. Only Gnan (Self-knowledge) can cure this suffering. There is no other remedy. Gnan insulates you from suffering. -- Ambalal Muljibhai Patel


Purpose of suffering is to connect you to your Self (Awareness). It indicates that you got carried away by all the transient things around you. - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

 

[ajay0]

There is a saying by Eckhart Tolle. 'Rather than being your thoughts and emotions, be the awareness behind them.'

This is very superbly put, and this highlights in deep detail what Self-awareness is all about.

In solitude and silence, away from tv or books or radio, it is comparatively easier to anchor oneself in the Self, subtler than thoughts and emotions.

The hard part is being anchored in the Self in the strife of the world and midst of sensory objects. One who does this is considered as the true hero and wise person in yogic philosophy.

“He who in the midst of intense activity finds himself in the greatest calmness and in the greatest peace finds intense activity that is the greatest Yogi as well as the wisest man”. (Bhagavad Gita)

 

[Martin]

There is a saying by Eckhart Tolle. 'Rather than being your thoughts and emotions, be the awareness behind them.'

This is very superbly put, and this highlights in deep detail what Self-awareness is all about.

In solitude and silence, away from tv or books or radio, it is comparatively easier to anchor oneself in the Self, subtler than thoughts and emotions.

The hard part is being anchored in the Self in the strife of the world and midst of sensory objects. One who does this is considered as the true hero and wise person in yogic philosophy.

“He who in the midst of intense activity finds himself in the greatest calmness and in the greatest peace finds intense activity that is the greatest Yogi as well as the wisest man”. (Bhagavad Gita)

I experience this as a stillness beneath the movement of mind and senses.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Meerkat,

One of Swami Vivekananda's most favored disciples once approached him and Vivekananda said to him, "Ask something of me, and I will give it to you."

The student said, "I have listened to your lectures on maya and still don't completely understand what it is. What is maya?"

Swami Vivekananda stood silent, and after several moments, said to the disciple, "Ask me something else."


My point is that if a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna himself struggles to explain why maya is illusion, it will be difficult for most of us to explain as well.

The best way I've found explain that maya is (or more accurately does) is to consider what a dream is to you during sleep. During sleep, the dream is very real, and in most cases, all there is that is real from the perception of the dream. But upon waking, you know the dream is merely an illusion created by your mind, and your waking reality (vyavaharika) is what is real.

A realized person is one who has awakened from vyavaharika and has a stable perception in Paramartika (absolute reality) and knows vyavaharika is merely an illusion created in maya.

 

[Valjean]

I can understand Maya as identification with sense-objects, but how does that make sense-objects an "illusion"?

And how is Saguna Brahman an "illusion", given that it's an manifestation of Brahman?

Sense objects are illusions in the same way your dream world from last night was an illusion. It all seems very real and tangible -- till you wake up.

 

[Valjean]

So the problem is believing that sense-objects can bring lasting joy and peace? That sounds more like ignorance than illusion.

The ignorance is born of the illusion.

 

[Valjean]

Don't trust your senses. Your world is an abstraction; assembled in your brain to help you navigate the world. What you see is not real. You're seeing/hearing/ feeling/tasting/smelling abstract symbols.

A pilot with a blacked-out windscreen can navigate and land her plane by instruments alone. Those little dials are not the reality the pilot would see from the window -- but they work.

Don't trust your eyes:
25 Optical Illusions That Prove Your Brain Sucks
13 optical illusions that will blow your mind

Don't trust your ears:
Top 10 Incredible Sound Illusions - Listverse

Your non dominant senses paint similarly abstract sympolic representations or reality.
"Reality is all in your head;" all an abstract illusion.

 

[Martin]

Sense objects are illusions in the same way your dream world from last night was an illusion. It all seems very real and tangible -- till you wake up.

So have you personally experienced sense-objects as illusions, and if so, what is that actually like?

 

[Martin]

Don't trust your senses. Your world is an abstraction; assembled in your brain to help you navigate the world. What you see is not real. You're seeing/hearing/ feeling/tasting/smelling abstract symbols.

A pilot with a blacked-out windscreen can navigate and land her plane by instruments alone. Those little dials are not the reality the pilot would see from the window -- but they work.

Don't trust your eyes:
25 Optical Illusions That Prove Your Brain Sucks
13 optical illusions that will blow your mind

Don't trust your ears:
Top 10 Incredible Sound Illusions - Listverse

Your non dominant senses paint similarly abstract sympolic representations or reality.
"Reality is all in your head;" all an abstract illusion.

So what about the experience of pain when you drop a brick on your foot? Is that also just an abstract illusion?

Clearly we create a mental model of the world, and it can be an approximation, but the model is based on sensory input.
For example, colour perception is pretty consistent in humans - if it wasn't, then colour coding wouldn't be used for safety-critical situations like traffic lights and electric cabling.
But this is rather different from describing experience as an "illusion", which suggests it has no basis at all in reality.
The science of perception is one thing, the belief in Maya as illusion seems like another.

 

[Martin]

@Meerkat,

One of Swami Vivekananda's most favored disciples once approached him and Vivekananda said to him, "Ask something of me, and I will give it to you."

The student said, "I have listed to your lectures on maya and still don't completely understand what it is. What is maya?"

Swami Vivekananda stood silent, and after several moments, said to the disciple, "Ask me something else."


My point is that if a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna himself struggles to explain why maya is illusion, it will be difficult for most of us to explain as well.

The best way I've found explain that maya is (or more accurately does) is to consider what a dream is to you during sleep. During sleep, the dream is very real, and in most cases, all there is that is real from the perception of the dream. But upon waking, you know the dream is merely an illusion created by your mind, and your waking reality (vyavaharika) is what is real.

A realized person is one who has awakened from vyavaharika and has a stable perception in Paramartika (absolute reality) and knows vyavaharika is merely an illusion created in maya.

Just to check, is there a relationship between vyavaharika and Saguna Brahma in Advaita?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Just to check, is there a relationship between vyavaharika and Saguna Brahma in Advaita?

Yes. Per Advaita, Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are both Para Brahman, with the former appearing in vyavaharika and the latter in Paramartika.