Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That is for the theists and non-advaitists. Not for me. Remember, I am an atheist. We also need to remember that in Paramarthika, even Osama bin Laden was none other than Brahman.
-
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
- Thread starter shivsomashekhar
- Start date
That is for the theists and non-advaitists. Not for me. Remember, I am an atheist. We also need to remember that in Paramarthika, even Osama bin Laden was none other than Brahman.
advaita means non dual. The subject without a second is truth-intelligence-infinity. Whatever is cognizable is object and is not real. The subject is real. That You Art.
What is the need of saying “There is no one seeking.....” and then add “No one understands....”.
What is the need of saying “There is no one seeking.....” and then add “No one understands....”.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
'You are That' and 'Everything is That', I have no problem with that. But where from you bring in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Atanu,
About 1500 hundred years ago, there was an author named Gaudapada - a forerunner of the Advaita line. He authored a text named Mandukya Karika, also known as Gaudapada Karika. You can look him up on Wikipedia for more information.
In case you are confused, I am not the author of the Mandukya Karika. Specifically, this quote is from Gaudapada and not from me. It is reasonable to assume (on the basis of common sense) that when Gaudapada says "there are no jivas", someone is saying this line to someone. If you disagree with Gaudapada - which is what it sound like - I will leave it to you to explain yourself as you believe you are well versed with Advaita
Again, it is Gaudapada's quote and not mine. You will have to start with how you reconciled it with your understanding of Advaita - as you evidently seem to disagree with G or you are failing to understand his instruction.
@ajay0, forgive me, but I am unclear on your position. Are you an Advaitin or a more general Yogi/Vedantin/Neo-Vedantin?
The Atman is Brahman and yet has distinct identity - like a wave in the ocean.
It is embodied (jiva) and is bound.
There are countless such jivas.
Through meditation, Bhakti and association with pure souls, it can become aware of its true nature and this awareness is Moksha.
This is the description of Vishishtadvaita, which is an offshoot of the Bhedabheda doctrine. Can you please explain where this differs from Advaita?
Wrong concept.
'You are That' and 'Everything is That', I have no problem with that. But where from you bring in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The knower of non dual self or the Turiya is called prabhu. Monster may be in your mind, perhaps.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Well, your views. ''Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman).
"Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti; nasi, nasti, na nasti kinchana" (What exists is one, there is no second; no, no, no, not in the least).
"Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti; nasi, nasti, na nasti kinchana" (What exists is one, there is no second; no, no, no, not in the least).
"Ayamatma Brahma" (This self is Brahman), "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman), "So~ham" (So I too am), "Tat twam asi" (You are That)", "Shivo~ham" (I am Shiva). Nothing that I have added. What else can an 'advaitist' say?The knower of non dual self or the Turiya is called prabhu. Monster may be in your mind, perhaps.
Last edited:
Wrong concept. ''Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" does not say that A (Bin Laden) is equal to B (Brahman).
Your logic makes no sense to me. If Advaita posits that all is Brahman (B), how is Bin Ladin (A) not Brahman?
To me, this makes as much sense as stating, "This wave that rocks the boat gently is the ocean; this other wave that tears the boat to shreds is not."
ajay0
Well-Known Member
It is the neo-advaitans who are usually criticized for advocating the line of thinking that you put over here.
Advaita says that the embodied Jiva has no distinct identity and is Brahman itself.
But it also emphasizes like Vishistadvaita, the importance of spiritual practices like meditation, study and contemplation of the scriptures, satsang or holy company for realizing this fact, and not mere intellectual realisation, unless such intellectual realization can generate conviction and enable one to abide constantly in the state of pure consciousness or present moment awareness, realizing it to be the truth.
A is an individual. B is the whole: Truth, Intelligence, Infinity. How can A, Bin Laden, be same as the limitless brahman?
A and B are not same on literal terms. Shankara bhasya on 'tat tvam asi' gives detailed clarification on this. The atma is identical to brahma. That does not mean that Bin Laden is brahma. Furthermore, brahma being non dual does not brook a second. We can understand this with the commonly used advaitic metaphor. A wave is not the ocean but the essence of wave and essence of ocean is non dual.
On the other hand, we can surely say that ocean is all waves similar to upanishads saying 'sarva khalvidam brahma'. It is not same as saying 'bharti is brahma'.
Last edited:
Yes. Shankara himself prescribes 'Vivekachudamani' as guideline for discriminating the atma. The advaitic tradition teaches 'drigdrishya viveka' -- the discriminative sepration of the seer (the subject) from the seen (object). Without such discrimination and abidance, the meaning of 'tat tvam asi' will remain obscure. Mere intellectual reading of Gaudapada cannot uproot the effects of beginning-less ego identification (wrong knowledge).
You are qualifying your nondualism. What you are describing is Vishishtadvaita. In Advaita, the individual is the same as the whole. That is nondual.
What do you mean by "literal terms?"
The individual (Bin Laden, you, me) is illusory. As I see it, the individual is nothing more than a vehicle of experience for the Atman in vyavaharika. The "individual" is a mask donned by Brahman as Atman to experience temporal existence in vyavaharika. All individuals, even Bin Laden, in their true nature, are Atman, which is the same as Brahman.
The ocean manifests itself as a wave, just as Atman/Brahman manifests Itself as an individual. When the wave "dies," its true nature remains the ocean. When the individual dies, its true nature remains Brahman.
"Let him contemplate Brahman as adoration and all desires will fall down before him in adoration. Let him contemplate Brahman as the Supreme Lord and he will be endowed with supremacy. Let him contemplate Brahman as the destructive agent and his enemies who hate him and also those who do not hate him will perish. This he who is in this man and that he who is in yonder sun, both are one." ~ Taittiriya Upanishad
I agree. But then is 'A' (an illusory Bin) equal to B (brahman -- the truth, intelligence, infinity)?
That is why it is said that brahman is beyond mind and word.
In my opinion, we are saying the same thing but the sameness is lost in semantics.
Paramarthika is not a separate realm. Paramarthika is a concept signifying the absolute lack of ignorance that veils the truth from mind. And when there is no veil-no ignorance, there are no A and B. There is only the non dual, the eko advittiyam. Even in vyavarika state of mind (ignorant state) the eko advittiyam is true but not known due to attachment to form etc.
I think we are not saying different things. Yet it is nature of word to create variety.
Last edited:
No, parmArtha means A does not exist or is not "vAstaviktA". Therefore, pArmArthically speaking Bin Laden is mithya. The AtmA alone is satya. We cannot pin a BinLaden to the alipta AtmA.
I use the statement Z is Brahman' very restrictively, and only when Z is
(i) A Brahman'-JnAni , who is essentially the AtmA (knows who they are), but appear as Z to the outer world
(ii) When sAkshAt Shri Hari mUrtimanta Brahman' takes avatAr as Mukunda I say "Mukunda is [sAkshAt] Brahman'"
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Right. So where does God come in? Of course, variety is interesting.There is only the non dual, the eko advittiyam. Even in vyavarika state of mind (ignorant state) the eko advittiyam is true but not known due to attachment to form etc.