[Hindu Only] Yoga Vasistha

[ajay0]

I asked 'who is this realizer?' and once again, you are avoiding the question.

As an Advaitin, you should be able to answer this fundamental question and yet you are unable to. Ask yourself why and see where it takes you. Good luck.

Did the answer to this question lead to wisdom for you !

No, so why do you persist with it ?

 

[SalixIncendium]

1. You say 'until'. This is a specific point in time when the transition (from ignorance to wisdom) occurs. For this to be true (pre-moksha, moksha, post-moksha), time has to be real or outside Maya. Is that your position?

No. Time is an attachment. Time exists only in maya. Instead of thinking in terms of time, it may help to think in terms of 'temporary/permanent.'

2. There is a specific entity here that moves from ignorance into wisdom. For this entity to know that it was formerly ignorant and is now wise, it has to retain its identity. Else, who was ignorant and who is now wise?

Identity is also an attachment. As with time, such attachments are a product of ignorance.

3. If the number (a combination of ignorant and wise) of such entities is greater than zero, how is this Advaita?

I think you mean 'one' rather than 'zero.' Again, it's ignorance of Atman, and thereby Brahman, that illudes one into perceiving multiplicity.

Perhaps it would help to step away from the 'ignorant/wise' mindset and to think in terms of 'ignorant/liberated.'

 

[Aupmanyav]

While the mind may be able grasp the concept of Brahman, it cannot know Brahman.

That is not 'Advaita'. You are forgetting "Tat twam asi" (That is what you are), a basic premise in 'Advaita', 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here (are) Brahman). But then, your views may not exactly be the same as mine.

1) Advaita says that the embodied Jiva has no distinct identity and is Brahman itself.
2) If there is no distinct identity, who gets liberated?

There are two worlds. Paramarthika and Vyavaharika. Brahman in Vyavaharika is no different from Brahman in Paramarthika. But in Vyavaharika, there is 'maya'. One who cannot get rid of 'maya' keeps on searching. The one who has pierced the veil of 'maya' realizes the truth - 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati' (One who comes to know Brahman becomes Brahman (or understandsthat there is no second - 'dwiteeyo nasti'). The second world is but an illusion with all things contained in it including all jeevas that the person erroneously perceives. What is a person? It is an illusion. There is no person, only Brahman. Time also belongs to the second world.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That is not 'Advaita'. You are forgetting "Tat twam asi" (That is what you are), a basic premise in 'Advaita', 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here (are) Brahman). But then, your views may not exactly be the same as mine.

As I see it, one can experience Brahman, but I don't think this experience is an experience of intellect. I attribute the difficulty of explaining such an experience to that. I can observe my brain and its conceptualization of Brahman, therefore that conceptualization is not me. While I am 'that' in my perspective from vyavaharika, in my perspective as I from Paramartika, the 'that' is illusory.

If that's not the accepted view of Advaita, I'm okay with that. While I've studied, I am not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. I only speak from my experiences.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, 'Tat twam asi' was an advice in Vyavaharika, from a father to his son. When someone realizes this then all dualities get dissolved.
Multiple identities are in Vyavaharika only. In Paramarthika, 'Eko sad' (What exists is One).
You people are not understanding Paramarthika and Vyavaharika. The two states have their differences; one is truth, the other is only an illusion.

 

[ajay0]

As I see it, one can experience Brahman, but I don't think this experience is an experience of intellect. I attribute the difficulty of explaining such an experience to that. I can observe my brain and its conceptualization of Brahman, therefore that conceptualization is not me. While I am 'that' in my perspective from vyavaharika, in my perspective as I from Paramartika, the 'that' is illusory.

This is accurate and well stated.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This is accurate and well stated.

Thank you.

 

[ajay0]

There are three levels of reality in Advaita Vedanta...

Paramarthika , Vyavaharika , Pratibhasika ...


The Ultimate Reality (paramarthika satya) does not depend upon mental activity for its existence in any way. Illusions and hallucinations (which are pratibhasika satya) have no existence apart from the mind that imagines them. Relative reality (vyavaharika satya) also depends upon mind for its existence, but the functioning of the mind is not enough in itself. ~ Rishi Lamichhane

(Here satya means truth)


Advaita Vedanta- Three levels of reality

Paramarthika Satya deals with the absolute truth. Vyavaharika Satya deals with relative truth.

Prathibasika Satya deals with a delusional idea of reality present only in the individual's mind and imagination.

Paramarthika can be said to be of a sattvic mode, while Vyavaharika deals with a rajasic mode and Prathibasika deals with a tamasic mode.

It is important to distinguish between the Paramarthika, Vyavaharika and Prathibasika in our spiritual and temporal affairs in life, so as to make sound judgements which makes all the difference between prosperity and failure.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Did the answer to this question lead to wisdom for you !

No, so why do you persist with it ?

What an admission!

You consider yourself to be an Advatin; you do not have an answer to the most basic question of all and you are not even concerned about it. Instead, you are wondering why someone would ask the question!

What I found or did not find does not help you. When you claim to be following Advaita, you ought to be able to answer basic questions. Failing to do so and continuing in denial, while inundating us with countless quotes (by unknown people) amounts to nothing more than shoddy scholarship.

It is important to distinguish between the Paramarthika, Vyavaharika and Prathibasika in our spiritual and temporal affairs in life, so as to make sound judgements which makes all the difference between prosperity and failure.

Like I said earlier, you are clueless about Advaita fundamentals.

Advaita is for Sanyasins/Parivrajakas - people who have given up worldly life (no desire for a son, this world, the next world, etc.) and are seeking the truth. It is *not* a device for finding prosperity or reforming rapists and other criminals.

Advaita deals with the Moksha Purushartha and has nothing to do with worldly life (reforming criminals, etc.,). You have confused Artha and Kama with Moksha.

I would recommend the opening verses of Upadesha Sahasri where Shankara clearly defines the Mumukshu and the objective of Brahma Vidya. But from what I see in your posts, you have strayed too far from the tenets of Advaita to come back. It maybe simpler to continue living with your version of Advaita and exchange frubals with other Advaita scholars here like @atanu, etc.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

No. Time is an attachment. Time exists only in maya. Instead of thinking in terms of time, it may help to think in terms of 'temporary/permanent.'

So time is Maya. How do you explain that instant or moment when you move from ignorance to liberation? Isn't that moment also within Maya, in which case the moment after it (post-liberation) also within Maya?

Identity is also an attachment. As with time, such attachments are a product of ignorance.

Who is attached? If you say the jiva is attached, then either -

a) The jiva is real and should persist permanently. But as we have multiple jivas, permanency of jivas violates the Advaita principle.
b) If the jiva (and therefore, multiple jivas) is not real, then no one is attached; no one is in ignorance.

Perhaps it would help to step away from the 'ignorant/wise' mindset and to think in terms of 'ignorant/liberated.'

OK. Someone or something transits from ignorance to liberation. After this transition, can this entity look back and say I was ignorant before, but now I am not?

As I see it, one can experience Brahman, but I don't think this experience is an experience of intellect.

Who is this experiencer? If he is real then we have many real experiencers and if not, then there is no experiencer and hence, no experience.

I am curious about something along the above lines. Where do you think acclaimed liberated people such as Yajnavalkya, Shuka and Ramana are now?

 

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste

This is a general post for all interested readers on the thread (and who would like to have a conversation, as there may be someone who doesn't ).

All of the questions below point to the on-going dream of Brahman' that He weaves along with MAyA. Brahman' and MAyA are a team.
Years ago I wrote a story on this. In 2009-2010 to be precise.

So time is Maya. How do you explain that instant or moment when you move from ignorance to liberation? Isn't that moment also within Maya, in which case the moment after it (post-liberation) also within Maya?

Yes, yes and yes. They are all phenomena within the framework of mAyA OR within the dream. The dream character who got liberated stopped existing on mAyA's stage, in the on-going dream. Dream continues...

Who is attached? If you say the jiva is attached, then either -

a) The jiva is real and should persist permanently. But as we have multiple jivas, permanency of jivas violates the Advaita principle.
b) If the jiva (and therefore, multiple jivas) is not real, then no one is attached; no one is in ignorance.

Jivas are all dream characters as long as they are not dream-liberated up to videha-mukti. They stop showing up in the on-going dream only after the dream-body dies. A pop in the bubble-wrap. It is all a part of the script. MAyA is the script writer-director, and Brahman' the producer.

OK. Someone or something transits from ignorance to liberation. After this transition, can this entity look back and say I was ignorant before, but now I am not?

There are 2 station stops before final disappearance.
(i) Jeevan-mukti : The dream character continues to show up in Brahman's dream, but looks back and says "I have realized the game."
(ii) Videha-mukti : The dream-body of this jeev dream-dies, and the jeev is no more a dream-character.

Who is this experiencer? If he is real then we have many real experiencers and if not, then there is no experiencer and hence, no experience.

Experiencer is a dream-character, and yes, there are many dream-experiencers. Each character is experiencing something. PLEASE NOTE: Dream-characters in the on-going dream-soup of Brahman'.

I am curious about something along the above lines. Where do you think acclaimed liberated people such as Yajnavalkya, Shuka and Ramana are now?

Again 2 choices in this case of videha-mukti (dream-gross-body has died).
(i) The liberated dream-character wishes to stay in spiritual dream-body, therefore, after dream-body died, they put in an application to continue dream-role as onlooking Sant AtmA.
(ii) The liberated dream-character wants out, full nirvAnA, so director-mAyA says OK, congratulations! And the character no longer exists in the dream. Pop in the bubble-wrap.
* Sometimes, a scripted sankalpa drives the choice of whether the disembodied dream character should continue in a spiritual-dream-body to increase overall quality of the dream, or help dream-characters attain peace.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita is for Sanyasins/Parivrajakas - people who have given up worldly life (no desire for a son, this world, the next world, etc.) and are seeking the truth. It is *not* a device for finding prosperity or reforming rapists and other criminals.

That is not correct, Shiva. Advaita is for all. Where the people falter is trying to practice what is true in Paramarthika in Vyavaharika. In Vyavaharika there is elephant and you have to run when it goes after you. In Paramarthika there is no you, no elephant. In Vyavaharika, there will be religious conflicts, conflicts between nations, etc. One has to do in Vyavaharika what is essential for Vyavaharika. Vyavaharika has the question of survival, there is none of that in Paramarthika, you are eternal. Basically, follow your 'dharma' in Vyavaharika and be unattached, as Krishna said:

"Yoga-sthaḥ kuru karmāṇi, saṅgaṁ tyaktvā Dhanañjaya;
siddhy-asiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā, samatvaṁ yoga ucyate." BhagawadGita 2.48
Perform your duty equipoised abandoning all attachment, O Arjuna; taking success or failure as the same, such equanimity is called (anasakti) yoga.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So time is Maya. How do you explain that instant or moment when you move from ignorance to liberation? Isn't that moment also within Maya, in which case the moment after it (post-liberation) also within Maya?

Haha, that is the 'event horizon', Shiva. In 'maya' time exists, as soon as one crosses the barrier, time ceases to exist.

Who is attached? If you say the jiva is attached, then ..

Again the Paramarthika/Vyavaharika problem. Jeeva exists in Vyavaharika and in Paramarthika, only Brahman.

OK. Someone or something transits from ignorance to liberation. After this transition, can this entity look back and say I was ignorant before, but now I am not?

Yeah, sure, the person can look back. One can easily flit back and forth between Parmarthika and Vyavaharika.

Who is this experiencer? If he is real then we have many real experiencers and if not, then there is no experiencer and hence, no experience.

True, experience and experiencer is in Vyavaharika. In Parmarthika, there is no experience and no experiencer.

Where do you think acclaimed liberated people such as Yajnavalkya, Shuka and Ramana are now?

Very simple. They are dissolved in nature as you and me also would be after our apparent death, like salt in the ocean. That is why Buddha said even Indra and Brahma would not find 'Tathagata' after his death, however hard they may try.

Concentrate, Shiva, on what I say. You would not find any person explaining 'advaita' in more simpler and scientific terms than myself, without any obfuscation, because I have been there. But remember, keep Paramarthika and Vyavaharika separate, they are two different worlds.

 

[atanu]

Like I said earlier, you are clueless about Advaita fundamentals.

Advaita is for Sanyasins/Parivrajakas - people who have given up worldly life (no desire for a son, this world, the next world, etc.) and are seeking the truth. It is *not* a device for finding prosperity or reforming rapists and other criminals.
.

But your premise is ‘There is no one seeking, no one liberated....’.

Why are you imposing sanyasins/parivrajakas and ignorant jiva-s (people other than you) on a pure premise? Just to insult others? Please investigate whether the ‘no seeker, no one liberated’ is just a conceptual veil over your normal ignorant mind, full with notion of ‘other ignorant people’?
...

 

[ameyAtmA]

Actually I agree that advaita-marga and teevra-vairAgya go hand-in-hand.
Strong desire for moksha is a serious pre-requisite (mumukshatva).
Although Shri KRshNa defines sanyAs as karma-yog throughout the Geeta - 2,5,18.. it is easier said than done the way He does it.

Advaita is for those who have no interest to participate in the world and are here just for thread-bare mandatory duties and interact with humans only when thread-bare essential, or mandatory. Exception being sadhu-sanga.
For those who are recluses and hermits.
For those who prefer solitude and cannot handle a lot of activity or social obligations.
The large spiritual organizations are also like being back in the world for them. You just changed your social circle that is all.
Engaging people in karma yog at an organizational level is a very good thing, but it is not for these types.

As for helping others - they do what they can (remotely if possible) within their radius of vairAgya - depending on how intense it is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But your premise is ‘There is no one seeking, no one liberated....’.
Why are you imposing sanyasins/parivrajakas and ignorant jiva-s like us on a pure premise? Just to insult others?
Please investigate whether the ‘no seeker, no one liberated’ is just a conceptual veil over your normal ignorant mind, teeming with ‘ignorant people’?...

What a nice civilized post!

Advaita is for those who have no interest to participate in the world and are here just for thread-bare mandatory duties and interact with humans only when thread-bare essential, or mandatory. Exception being sadhu-sanga.
For those who are recluses and hermits.
For those who prefer solitude and cannot handle a lot of activity or social obligations.
The large spiritual organizations are also like being back in the world for them. You just changed your social circle that is all.
Engaging people in karma yoga at an organizational level is a very good thing, but it is not for these types.
As for helping others - they do what they can (remotely if possible) within their radius of vairAgya - depending on how intense it is.

What about King Janaka? What about Sage Vashishtha and so many others? Did not they participate in the world? An enlightened person may participate actively in all worldly affairs. It is difficult and only a few will manage it, but there is no bar to it. Did not Krishna participate in worldly affairs? In wars and in love? What did he leave out?

 

[ameyAtmA]

Haha, that is the 'event horizon', Shiva. In 'maya' time exists, as soon as one crosses the barrier, time ceases to exist.

I look at your "event horizon" as a border-state between Brahman's on-going dream and Brahman's TurIyAvasthA (and the dream characters who have dream-awakened also see this horizon from within the dream).

 

[ameyAtmA]

What about King Janaka? What about Sage Vashishtha and so many others. Did not they participate in the world? An enlightened person may participate actively in all worldly affairs. There is no bar to it. Did not Krishna participate in worldly affairs? In wars and in love? What did he leave out?

That is what I am saying. They were the exceptions and are examples of enlightened beings or Parameshwar svayam. I am not saying what I wrote is a rule, but it applies to many who are seekers.

Also, I did not say they do not participate, but that they do not have a self-driven motivation apart from what they think is necessary to do out of duty or compassion. They do not have vAsanA of their own, like a personal ambition or passion for some worldly activity and even if they do, they may not have the motivation to bring it out to the world.

 

[atanu]

I am not a Jnani or in Sahaja samadhi, the incessant abidance in brahman taught by Shri Ramana. I do not know about anyone else.

Since in this thread @shivsomashekhar often cites Shri Ramana, I am linking a valuable document from Shri Ramanasramam.

https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Gems.pdf

The book is worth reading, especially the chapters on 'Self Realization' and 'Jnani' that have direct relation to this thread. I have also extracted two passages from the book dealing with his teaching on 'Self Realization' and his comment on the state of a 'Jnani'. Both these show that our friend @shivsomashekhar is attached to a particular view from POV of Jiva. He seems not to understand that as a body-mind called @shivsomashekhar, he has no correct view of total freedom of Brahman to take up or discard names-forms.

Ramana on Jnani -- the realised (Chapter VII)

A JNANI HAS ATTAINED LIBERATION EVEN WHILE alive, here and now. It is immaterial to Him as to how, where and when He leaves the body. Some Jnanis may appear to suffer, others may be in samadhi; still others may disappear from sight before death. But that makes no difference to their jnana......

Illustrations are given in the books as to how a Jnani who is in the sahaja state intellect and who always sees only the Self, can move about and live in the world like everyone else. For instance,you see a reflection in the mirror, you know the mirror to be the reality and the picture in it a mere reflection. In order tosee the mirror, is it necessary that one should cease to see the reflection in it?​

Or again take the screen illustration: There is a screen. Onthat screen first appears the figure of a king. He sits on a throne.Then before him in that same screen a play begins with variousfigures and objects and the king on the screen watches the playon the same screen. The seer and the seen are mere shadows on the screen, which is the only reality supporting these pictures. In the world also, the seer and the seen together constitute the mind and the mind is supported by, or based on, the Self.

Ramana on Self Realisation (Chapter VIII)

THE STATE WE CALL REALIZATION IS SIMPLY being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything.....

Mukti or Liberation is our Nature. It is another name for us. Our wanting mukti is a very funny thing. It is like a man who is in the shade voluntarily leaving the shade, going into the sun, feeling the severity of the heat, making great efforts to get back into the shade, and then rejoicing.....

It is false to speak of realization. What is there to realize? The real is as it is, ever. How to realize it? All that is required is this: We have realized the unreal, i.e., regarded as Real what is unreal. We have to give up this attitude........

The illustration given in the books is this: We dig a well and create a huge pit. The akasa (space) in the pit or well has not been created by us. We have just removed the earth which was filling the akasa there......

Effortless and choiceless awareness is our Real State. If we can attain It or be in It, it is all right. But one cannot reach It without effort, the effort of deliberate meditation. All the age- long vasanas (latent tendencies) carry the mind outwards and turn it to external objects. All such thoughts have to be given up and the mind turned inward. For most people effort is necessary.....

When we have vikalpas (false concepts) and are trying to give them up, i.e. when we are still not perfected, but have to make conscious effort to keep the mind one-pointed or free from thought, it is Nirvikalpa Samadhi. When through practice we are always in that state, not going into samadhi and coming out again, that is the sahaja (natural) state. In sahaja one always sees oneself. He sees the jagat (world) as swarupa (Reality) orBrahmakara (form of Brahman). Eventually, what was once the means becomes itself the goal, whatever method one follows.Dhyana (meditation), jnana, bhakti and samadhi are all names for ourselves, for our Real State.​

...

Self realisation, for most will require meditation practice and going through Nirvikalpa samadhi to attain Sahaja samadhi. Those who have already completed these tasks in previous lives may not require to traverse this path. And a Jnani can perfectly exist as the Self, while still in body observing the world as mAyA, without getting entangled like we do.

...

May Ramana guide.

 

[atanu]

I asked 'who is this realizer?' and once again, you are avoiding the question.

As an Advaitin, you should be able to answer this fundamental question and yet you are unable to. Ask yourself why and see where it takes you. Good luck.

I asked “Who is asking this question”?