[Hindu Only] Yoga Vasistha

[atanu]

.

And in taking these positions, they are relying on the reality of multiple Jivatmas and with or without their knowledge, they are admitting multiple Atmans. In other words, they think they are following #2, but in reality they are all following #3 - which is not Advaita.

I will put the question in reverse order now. Does admitting innumerable unborn Jiva-s mean that one admits innumerable unborn atman-s?

I am trying to understand only.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Guess what... ALL are right. How is that possible?

First I would like to thank @shivsomashekhar and everyone else for this thread. Thanks @atanu for raising those critical questions.

*Also, this post is not an attempt to fit into a school or sampradAy, but show that multiple appearances of liberation are One AtmA.

@ajay0 hit the nail on the head with "And the enlightened, free of vasanas, find that a true Oneness is behind the apparent objective multiplicity."

This is what I call "Bramha-bhAv" --- like you have jeev-bhaav, shiv-bhaav, daas-bhaav, sakhi-bhaav, radha-bhaav, similarly Brahman-bhaav .
Believe it or not, "I am Brahman' " is a bhaav. BhAv is not sentiment, emotion or theory. It is much higher than that.

BG 9.11 avajAnti mAm muDhA manushiM tanumAshritaM |
param bhAvamajAnanto mama bhUtamaheshwaraM ||
The ignorant think that I, the Lord of all beings who has taken up a human form, am an insignificant living being. They do not recognize or understand My Highest State (BhAv).

BG 7.17 Out of these 4 (Art, arthArthi, jidnyAsu, jnAni), the jnAni, who is in Yog / One with Me (yukta AtmA) , is the best. This is because the JnAni knows Me in Truth (tatvatah: ) , I am very very dear to them and they are also very dear to Me.

BG 7.18 All these (4) are good beings, but the JnAni is My AtmA, sAkshAt svaroop,
because their mind and intellect is One with Me , therefore they are well-situated in the Highest State.

BG 7.19 After many births the one with spiritual knowledge (jnAnvAn) worships Me thus:: All of this is nothing but VAsudev (vAsudev sarvamiti) , and such a being is very rare.

------
3. Among the remaining entities, some are bound in samsaar, others have ascended to higher planes as bhakta of a form of their Bhagvan, but they may not be sarvadnya - omniscient or in Brahman-bhAv. They may be in daas-bhaav or jeev-bhaav. They do not point to multiple AtmA, but only to multiple jiva-reflections in the kaleidoscopic mirror, within the AtmA, even after they stop transmigrating. The gradations of mukti (sAmipya,sArupya,sAyujja,kaivalya) all appear within Brahman's dream.


In short , everything is in Brahman', or an extention. Call it mAyA, world , mithya, leela, prapancha, does not matter. It is all happening within , because this is how Brahman' is. Time is within MahAkAla - kalosmi....

 

[SalixIncendium]

@SalixIncendium, you commented that I am putting words in your mouth.

'liberation can be achieved while experiencing temporal existence in maya'. These are exactly your words along with your analogy of the dreamer waking into eternity. This is not logically possible unless you admit multiple dreamers and hence, multiple souls. To be fair, I am not entirely clear about your position yet as you avoided my question on the present whereabouts of Yajnavalkya - twice. Feel free to prove me wrong.

"Logically?" Do you think logic has a place or is a thing in Paramartika? It does not take multiple oceans to create multiple waves.

As I understand it, Yajnavalkya was a Vedic sage that is said to have coined the term 'Advaita.' If you're asking about the whereabouts of his jiva in vyavaharika, given over 2700 years has passed in maya, I would guess that it has expired and remains somewhere in Bihar. If you are asking of the whereabouts of the Atman that experienced temporal existence as Yajnavalkya, well...that would be Paramartika.

Prove you wrong? No. That's isn't my intent here. The sole reason I am responding to your posts here is to offer my perspective. If you feel my views don't align with Advaita, I have no problem with that. My views don't require you to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Aupmanyav when you claim to enter and exit a Paramarthika state, you have admitted multiple souls, as you have acknowledged. This is not Advaita. You have also admitted that Yajnavalkya no longer exists - which is on the lines of Shunyavada. Moreover, accepting sarvam khalvidam brahma is not specific to Advaita because this is accepted by all schools of Vedanta.

Innumerable animate and non-animate things seem to exist in Vyavaharika including you and me. This is 'maya'. How does it negate 'advaita'? I did not say that Yajnavalkya does not exist, I said he is diffused in a trillion things by now and he now is omnipresent. Seen in a non-advaitic way, perhaps we each have an atom in us which constituted him, otherwise, we are none other than the Ocean, i.e., Brahman. In time, I too will become omnipresent. I neither have any problem with other views in 'advaita' nor if they accept 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma'.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

How is this an admission of multiple Atmans !

Simple. Multiple enlightened individuals (Baba x, Baba y, etc.,) => multiple Atmans

Brahman is obscured by layers of vasanas in some, more such vasanas in the vicious, lesser number of vasanas in the virtuous and no vasanas at all in the enlightened.

Multiple enlightened individuals => multiple Atmans

And the enlightened, free of vasanas, find that a true Oneness is behind the apparent objective multiplicity.

Oneness behind multiplicity => Bhedabheda and not Advaita (a very common mistake). Besides, your multiplicity is not apparent. It is real because your version of the enlightened person engages with the world and is permanent. Baba x is always Baba x and does not lose his identity. Same with Baba y and Baba z and so on. Moreover, if you see the world as apparent or false, why bother to reform it? You cannot tap dance around this - calling the world apparent when it is convenient while yet treating it as real.

I will put the question in reverse order now. Does admitting innumerable unborn Jiva-s mean that one admits innumerable unborn atman-s?

Yes, once you have admitted the continuation of the individual after Moksha. Like Ramana continuing as Ramana after Moksha, Aup continuing as Aup after Moksha, the various Babas known to Ajay continuing as the same Babas after enlightenment and reforming the world. If you say individuality is lost at Moksha, then that is termination and not liberation. The person no longer exists and is Shunyavada. If you have other alternatives, please present them here.

@ameyAtmA, your view is not Advaita. You have synthesized a number of different belief systems into a new hybrid and therefore, the right thing to do here is to find a new name for it. I am happy to recommend names.

"Logically?" Do you think logic has a place or is a thing in Paramartika?

Let's get this right. There is no such state as 'Paramarthika'. If you disagree, please explain the logic of a state which contains no one or can be seen by no one. Paramartha Sathya is the truth from a different frame of reference as described by Nagarjuna in Madhyamaka Buddhism and later borrowed by Advaita.

It does not take multiple oceans to create multiple waves.

Multiple waves => multiple Atmans and hence, not Advaita. If you say the wave merges into the ocean and loses identity, then you have effectively killed it and therefore its existence and that is Shunyavada. In other words, with the disappearance of the wave, there is no "liberated entity" and hence, no liberation. You cannot have it both ways.

If you are asking of the whereabouts of the Atman that experienced temporal existence as Yajnavalkya, well...that would be Paramartika.

You say the Atman that was Yajnavalkya (A1) is now in Paramarthika. By similar logic,

The Atman that was Shuka (A2) is now in Paramarthika
The Atman that was Janaka (A3) is now in Paramarthika
The Atman that was Upavarsha (A4) is now in Paramarthika

if A1, A2, A3 and A4 are distinct, we have multiple Atmans and that is not Advaita. If they are not, they do not exist anymore and that cannot be Advaita either.

Innumerable animate and non-animate things seem to exist in Vyavaharika including you and me. This is 'maya'. How does it negate 'advaita'?

Already explained. You said you enter and exit Paramarthika. Just like you do, you should expect others to do the same. Multiple souls in Paramarthika and hence, not Advaita. If Vyavaharika is Maya and no real entity is in this Vyavaharika state, then who enters the Paramarthika state?

 

[atanu]

Yes, once you have admitted the continuation of the individual after Moksha. Like Ramana continuing as Ramana after Moksha, Aup continuing as Aup after Moksha, the various Babas known to Ajay continuing as the same Babas after enlightenment and reforming the world. If you say individuality is lost at Moksha, then that is termination and not liberation. The person no longer exists and is Shunyavada. If you have other alternatives, please present them here.

You have probably not read post 79 wherein I linked Shri Ramana’s observations on the very topic that we are discussing. Let me reproduce a portion again.

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 to see the mirror, is it necessary that one should cease to see the reflection in it?​

...

All our teachers, Shri Krishna, Shri Shankara, Buddha, Shri Ramana, and including Gaudapada taught Advaita as individuals. How did these advaita masters teach as body-mind entities? Who else is there to egoistically demand of the non dual awareness as to how it should be?

You are confounded because you seem to consider that jivatman-s are real. No. Jivatman is like an image on a mirror. JivAtmA-s are like many images of one moon in many water puddles. Jivatman-s are like many dream characters in a dream. The non dual atman acts as non dual seer. Only an experience of nirvikalpa samadhi can reveal that the seer, seen, and seeing is non dual.

Atman is the seer of the dream. It may see the dream or it may not. Internally Atman is brahman, which is ‘existence, knowledge, infinity’. There is no diversity, no boundary, no break in knowledge and no break in existence, and no second.

A jivan mukta sage, though appearing to be body, is not the body.

I think your confusion is that you consider jivatman to be real entities. Although your premise is “There is no one seeking. No one liberated”, you still are passionately arguing with ignorant ‘jivas’ like Atanu. It suggests that your mind is not clear of garbage of notion of real jiva entities.

Please do not mind my post. I dearly like your incisive thoughts. But, you must first clarify to yourself, if there is no seeker, no one liberated, with whom and about what you are arguing? You must answer this here.

There is a mistake in your comprehension that can be cleared only if you (the temporal mind) experience the non dual and the notion that jivatman-s are real entities is wiped out. At present, you (and all of us) have the nagging notion that the jivatman-s are real. This is similar to the situation of a dream, in which a man does not know that he is in a dream.

Before making up your mind on efficacy of Nirvikalpa samadhi. Please read about it in post 79.

...

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Aupmanyav when you claim to enter and exit a Paramarthika state, you have admitted multiple souls, as you have acknowledged. This is not Advaita. You have also admitted that Yajnavalkya no longer exists - which is on the lines of Shunyavada. Moreover, accepting sarvam khalvidam brahma is not specific to Advaita because this is accepted by all schools of Vedanta.

I have already accepted that.

If any other human is doing this flip-flop successfully, then he/she too is Brahman in Paramarthika and Shivasomashekhar in Vyavaharika.

I have never accepted the existence of even one soul, whether in Vyavaharika or in Paramarthika. I accept none other than Brahman both in Vyavaharika as well as in Parmarthika. The things and creatures animate or inanimate, that you refer to are nothing other than illusions due to existence of Brahman (Brahma satyam, Jagan-mithya ..), like you may see in a multi-mirrored room with just one reality.

I have explained my position about Yajnavalkya and Shuka in an earlier post, but it seems you have not read that. You read me wrong about Yajnavalkya. Nothing is ever created, nothing is ever destroyed. Lord Krishna said:

"Nāsato vidyate bhāvo, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ;
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ’ntas, tu anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ" BhagawadGita 2.16

(Of the non-existent, there is no permanence, and of the eternal there is no non-existence, By studying the nature of both, seers of truth have concluded this.)

 

[bharti]

Where are Yajnavalkya and Shuka now?

You are asking about ‘where’ and ‘now’ — two components of space-time that are, according to you inadmissible for brahman. You are correct that space-time is inadmissible in respect of brahman. But is your question admissible then?

Only consciousness is real. Yajnavalkya and Shuka exist timelessly as guru forms in consciousness, as consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. then who enters the Paramarthika state?

All entering and exiting is for the illusions of Vyavaharika, there is none in Paramarthika. That is why our sages said, there is no seeker, nothing sought, no Moksha.

"Manobuddhyahaṅkāra cittāni nāhaṃ,na ca śrotrajihve na ca ghrāṇanetre;
na ca vyoma bhūmir na tejo na vāyuḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham." etc.
Atma Shatkam - Wikipedia - (There are five more verses in Atma Shatakam)

 

[SalixIncendium]

Multiple waves => multiple Atmans and hence, not Advaita. If you say the wave merges into the ocean and loses identity, then you have effectively killed it and therefore its existence and that is Shunyavada. In other words, with the disappearance of the wave, there is no "liberated entity" and hence, no liberation. You cannot have it both ways.

Are you suggesting that the water that became wave disappears and no longer exists after the wave subsides? The substance of the wave is, was, and will always be the ocean. Atman(s) is always Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is very difficult to abandon one's prejudices.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I have never accepted the existence of even one soul, whether in Vyavaharika or in Paramarthika.

You did say you enter and exit Paramarthika "all the time". Without souls, who is entering Paramarthika?

You are asking about ‘where’ and ‘now’ — two components of space-time that are, according to you inadmissible for brahman. You are correct that space-time is inadmissible in respect of brahman. But is your question admissible then?

There is nothing wrong with the question. Not unless both parties are already in agreement.

Only consciousness is real. Yajnavalkya and Shuka exist timelessly as guru forms in consciousness, as consciousness.

Do they exist as individual entities? If so, we have introduced diversity. If they are not distinct entities, how is this not Shunyavada?

All entering and exiting is for the illusions of Vyavaharika, there is none in Paramarthika. That is why our sages said, there is no seeker, nothing sought, no Moksha.

Then Paramarthika is an illusion too. Without seekers and without moksha, there is no such thing as a Paramarthika state.

Are you suggesting that the water that became wave disappears and no longer exists after the wave subsides? The substance of the wave is, was, and will always be the ocean. Atman(s) is always Brahman.

If the wave merges back into the ocean, it has lost its identity, forever (Shunyavada?). So, the wave no longer exists or there is no 'liberated entity' and hence, no liberation. That is why, I say you cannot have it both ways. By your logic, something was liberated, but it does not exist in a form where it can know or feel that it was liberated because it has lost its identity. If there is no liberated entity, then there was no liberation.

Back to the Yajnavalkya example - your position is that Yajnavalkya and Shuka are both now Brahman and have no individual identity. In effect, they no longer exist - or more precisely, ceased to exist the moment they found Moksha (so who is the liberated entity? It cannot be Brahman for Brahman does not need liberation). This is classic Shunyavada.

It is very difficult to abandon one's prejudices.

Indeed. Case in point, most of these prejudices are caused by sentiment and reverence. If there is real hunger, then prejudices can and will go. Unless you are too old

....

The Ramana description you posted is in line with my post #1 that realization is intellectual. But I am not sure if you can see that just yet. We will return to this later.

All our teachers, Shri Krishna, Shri Shankara, Buddha, Shri Ramana, and including Gaudapada taught Advaita as individuals. How did these advaita masters teach as body-mind entities? Who else is there to egoistically demand of the non dual awareness as to how it should be?

They are no different from you as their realization is intellectual. And the Buddha is not an Advaita master.

You are confounded because you seem to consider that jivatman-s are real.

There are only two options - they are real or unreal. If they are real, I assume you agree that we are violating Advaita. But if they are unreal, who finds Moksha?

No. Jivatman is like an image on a mirror. JivAtmA-s are like many images of one moon in many water puddles.

The moon is real and water puddles are real. Every puddle is different from the other. Is this a good example?

Jivatman-s are like many dream characters in a dream. The non dual atman acts as non dual seer.

Let's double click into what you say here. I am assuming that your dream here is Maya and Brahman is the seer.

If so, who gets Moksha?
Is there is a liberated entity or not?
Can you also please answer the Yajnavalkya question? Where is he now?

Only an experience of nirvikalpa samadhi can reveal that the seer, seen, and seeing is non dual.

Reveal to whom??

a) To the dream character/jivatama - who is not real or
b) To the dreamer (Brahman)?

Revelation cannot happen to an unreal entity (jivatma) and Brahman does not need revelation. So, who are we talking about here? This is the exact point where @ajay0 gets confused. If you make a small adjustment of permanent dream characters, then the logic becomes very simple. But then it becomes Bhedabheda and is no longer Advaita. In reality, Ajay and some others on this thread are already making this adjustment.

A jivan mukta sage, though appearing to be body, is not the body.

But Ramana was his body. He ate for himself, not for others. He massaged his own feet when he was in pain; not someone else's. Other than sentiment, what data do you have that can differentiate Ramana from others?

I think your confusion is that you consider jivatman to be real entities. Although your premise is “There is no one seeking. No one liberated”, you still are passionately arguing with ignorant ‘jivas’ like Atanu. It suggests that your mind is not clear of garbage of notion of real jiva entities.

Didn't I clear this up already? 'No one seeking; no one liberated' was a statement by Gaudapada. If there is no one, who was he talking to?

Please do not mind my post. I dearly like your incisive thoughts. But, you must first clarify to yourself, if there is no seeker, no one liberated, with whom and about what you are arguing? You must answer this here.

I am not minding your posts. I am glad to see you are staying objective without getting emotional. You have been an Advaitin for years. I assume you have already seen the statement from Gaudapada and you have already rationalized it. When Gaudapada said there is no seeker and nothing to seek, who was he talking to? When Shankara commented on the text, who was he commenting for? I assume you asked yourself these questions when you first read the Mandukya Karika?

The short answer lies in the difference between Paramartha Sathya vs. Samvritti (Vyavaharika) Sathya. But I am puzzled that you would choose to hinge on this or that you do not know this already?

At present, you (and all of us) have the nagging notion that the jivatman-s are real. This is similar to the situation of a dream, in which a man does not know that he is in a dream.

Who is the entity who will wake up from this false reality? The false jivatma or something else? if it is something else, please explain.

 

[ameyAtmA]

realization is intellectual

As I said earlier, we have to be careful with the words , they can be mistaken for "acceptance of a theory".
If you mean it is a bhAv then that is what I said in this post #102 but bhAv is a certain consciousness, not just understanding. Bhakti is driven by bhAv and is a spectrum. It is just a matter of where you want to be on the spectrum and how flexible you are.

(Back in 2013 I said in a forum that the advaita realization is basically a bhAv. Brahman'-bhAv . The post got deleted. Perhaps because I had coined that word, and the idea appeared radical)

Shri KRshNa mentions bhAv in Geeta several times. Abiding in Advaita, Brahman-bhAv is also a kind of bhakti. Bhajate mAm . bhAvanA, bhAv, mayi cha anannyayogena bhaktir-avyabhichAriNi.... Shri KRshNa wants avyabhichAri bhakti via anannya-yog

BG 9.34 manmanAbhava madbhakto madyAji mAm namaskuru
mAmevaishyasi yuktvaivam AtmAnam matparAyaNah: ||
Always keep your mind in Me, be devoted to Me, worship Me, offer obeissances to Me, surrender your-self to Me. This way you will come to Me and stay in yog with Me.

Here, shloka 9.34 need not show duality if you don't want it to. It can be advaita bhakti or anywhere on the spectrum. Bhakti means absorption.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You did say you enter and exit Paramarthika "all the time". Without souls, who is entering Paramarthika?

What is a soul? When you see me as Aupmanyav, you are in Vyavaharika, you are experiencing illusions. I AM THAT. Well, you too are THAT, if you realize, and stop seeing yourself only as Shivasomashekhar. That is when Sankara bowed to a chandala.

All the Ramana or Nissargadatta rhetoric about 'I AM' is just that. 'Ayamatma Brahma' and 'Tat twam asi'. Accepting these two is 'Moksha'. There are no further conflicts.

Then Paramarthika is an illusion too. Without seekers and without moksha, there is no such thing as a Paramarthika state.

Paramarthika simply means 'the final answer', that will always remain, though our views about it change constantly as we get to know more. We (humans) have not yet reached that stage. Though there are indications in Quantum Mechanics and 'Many World' theories. RigVeda suggested in 'Nasadiya Sukta' that existence and non-existence are related. Quantum Mechanics says that 'virtual particles' can arise out of force fields (Nothing, Ex-nihilo) and they can turn into 'physical particles'. There is no basic difference. They can disappear just as well. Perhaps Brahman too is not bound by the human concept of existence and non-existence. I stop at this point and leave it to our future generations to investigate and find the answer (Paramarthika). I do not think the answer will be available in my life-time. Have I explained my view clearly?

 

[ajay0]

Shivasomasekhar is living in labels like advaita and bhedabheda rigidly to the point that he forgets that labels are meant to serve man and not man to serve labels slavishly.

Swami Krishnananda, a great advaitan scholar himself, had once stated he was an advaitan, vishistadvaitan and dvaitan as well, as he found all such frameworks useful and important . He was not rigid to the point that he negated everything else impractically and was not fixated on labels.

This was because his advaitan nondual perception was based on experiential understanding through meditation, and not in mere intellectual understanding which is bound to be limited and superglued to labels and theories.

Meditative awareness transcends the intellect, and unless meditation is attempted, one is bound to live in delusions and pratibhasika satya.

It is like mistaking gutter water for drinking water and adamantly stating the same to everyone, and even drinking it to show the strength and force of one's deluded conviction to impress everyone, including well-wishing critics.

 

[atanu]

The Ramana description you posted is in line with my post #1 that realization is intellectual. But I am not sure if you can see that just yet. We will return to this later.

Huh? Ramana says:

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

Ramana on Self Realisation (Chapter VIII)
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) or Brahmakara (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.
​

So. Ramana clarifies that sadhana is required and he also clarifies that nirvikalpa samadhi is a stepping stone to the Sahaja samadhi - effortless abidance as the non dual.

And the Buddha is not an Advaita master.

Okay. Buddha is a teacher, nonetheless. But surely Ramana, Shankara, and Gaudapada after having realised the non dual truth taught the world in their body-mind. Were they bhedabheda believers?

There are only two options - they are real or unreal. If they are real, I assume you agree that we are violating Advaita. But if they are unreal, who finds Moksha?

No. There are NOT only two options. It only shows your ignorance and vehemence. You are absolutely clueless about distinctions between sat (true), asat (untrue), and mythya (neither sat nor asat). You are confused and cannot understand what @ajay0, @ameyAtmA, and @SalixIncendium are telling you repeatedly.

You are confused because you think that sat or asat are the only two options. Let us see.

• Sat is true without break. Brahman is sat.
• Asat is untrue. Son of a barren mother is untrue. It is untrue without break. Barren mother’s son is non existent.
• Mythya is neither sat nor asat. Illusion, ignorance, mAyA belong here. Dream characters and jiva-s belong here. The example is a rope perceived as a snake. There is a substratum that is sat. On that an appearance is perceived as true. So, it is neither sat nor asat. Ignorance is also beginningless but amenable to be removed through jnana.

...

So. I will repeat what Ramana says about Jnanis-the realised ones.

https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Gems.pdf
Ramana on Jnani -- the realised (Chapter VII)

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 to see the mirror, is it necessary that one should cease to see the reflection in it?​

...
More on Mithyatva:

Mithyatva - Wikipedia

 

[atanu]

Shivasomasekhar is living in labels like advaita and bhedabheda rigidly to the point that he forgets that labels are meant to serve man and not man to serve labels slavishly.

Swami Krishnananda, a great advaitan scholar himself, had once stated he was an advaitan, vishistadvaitan and dvaitan as well, as he found all such frameworks useful and important . He was not rigid to the point that he negated everything else impractically and was not fixated on labels.

This was because his advaitan nondual perception was based on experiential understanding through meditation, and not in mere intellectual understanding which is bound to be limited and superglued to labels and theories.

Meditative awareness transcends the intellect, and unless meditation is attempted, one is bound to live in delusions and pratibhasika satya.

It is like mistaking gutter water for drinking water and adamantly stating the same to everyone, and even drinking it to show the strength and force of one's deluded conviction to impress everyone, including well-wishing critics.

It seems that @shivsomashekhar is unaware that sat, asat, and mytha are three kinds. He insists that either jiva exists or does not. He seems to be unaware of the mytha category, to which ignorance and mAyA belong. I have tried to deal with this in post 116.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

What is a soul? When you see me as Aupmanyav, you are in Vyavaharika, you are experiencing illusions. I AM THAT. Well, you too are THAT, if you realize, and stop seeing yourself only as Shivasomashekhar. That is when Sankara bowed to a chandala.

What illusion am I experiencing? I am not aware of any.

All the Ramana or Nissargadatta rhetoric about 'I AM' is just that. 'Ayamatma Brahma' and 'Tat twam asi'. Accepting these two is 'Moksha'.

I am not aware of anyone who has read those statements and has refused to accept them. But they do not consider themselves as having attained Moksha. Are they all wrong?

Shivasomasekhar is living in labels like advaita and bhedabheda rigidly to the point that he forgets that labels are meant to serve man and not man to serve labels slavishly.

Swami Krishnananda, a great advaitan scholar himself, had once stated he was an advaitan, vishistadvaitan and dvaitan as well, as he found all such frameworks useful and important . He was not rigid to the point that he negated everything else impractically and was not fixated on labels.

Thanks for finally clearing this up! This kind of neo-vedantic approach of "anything works, everything is one" is not supported by tradition. So, I was right when I suspected that you are a Universalist and a Neo-Vedantin. This is all I really needed to know.

Ramana clarifies that sadhana is required and he also clarifies that nirvikalpa samadhi is a stepping stone to the Sahaja samadhi - effortless abidance as the non dual.

Ramana himself performed no Sadhana. So, the necessity of Sadhana is questionable. I would advise you to exercise your own intellect in these matters and be willing to challenge such instructions. I can certainly see Ramana advocating for Sadhana as he saw people around him were unable to see what he saw. He also read a lot of books and he may have surmised that Sadhana techniques from these books may get them there. We will never know because Ramana is not here to clarify.

Before we go further, do me a favor and please avoid quoting others. We are discussing plain logic and we do not need statements of authority from anyone. They are not useful because you interpret them one way and I interpret them some other way. These people are not available to explicate their statements or to engage in a Q&A session. Therefore, I am not interested in what others think. What do you think?

Okay. Buddha is a teacher, nonetheless. But surely Ramana, Shankara, and Gaudapada after having realised the non dual truth taught the world in their body-mind. Were they bhedabheda believers?

They were not. They are no different from you and there is no confusion for their realization is intellectual as explained in post #1. If post #1 is unclear, I am happy to explain again and again.

No. There are NOT only two options. It only shows your ignorance and vehemence. You are absolutely clueless about distinctions between sat (true), asat (untrue), and mythya (neither sat nor asat).

Don't get emotional. So, we have three modes now? Cool! We are finally making some headway.

Sat is true without break. Brahman is sat. (Agreed)
Asat is untrue. Son of a barren mother is untrue. It is untrue without break. Barren mother’s son is non existent. (Agreed)

Mythya is neither sat nor asat. Illusion, ignorance, mAyA belong here. Dream characters and jiva-s belong here. The example is a rope perceived as a snake.

Perceived by whom? Would have to be someone real.

There is a substratum that is sat. On that an appearance is perceived as true. So, it is neither sat nor asat.

Perceived by whom? Would have to be someone real.

Ignorance is also beginningless but amenable to be removed through jnana.

a) Who is ignorant?
b) What happens to this entity when ignorance is removed?
c) Who goes into Nirvikalpa Samadhi?
d) Who comes out of Nirvikalpa Samadhi?

For all 4 questions, can you apply your sat/asat/mithya framework and classify these entities? I can wait if you need additional time.

Again, I will thank you to keep the discussion grounded on logic. Please tell me what you think and refrain from quoting others.

 

[atanu]

a) Who is ignorant?.

I have several times asked back "Who is asking this question?" You have failed to answer clearly. There are obviously many minds and few of them are clear and most very dark (ignorant). Minds are not true beings, although there may be such notions in most dark ignorant minds. Mostly the question "Who is ignorant?" is appropriate. What is true in consciousness is phenomenally true, since consciousness is true. Most shastras and practices are for the scenario when the notion of jivahood fills mind. Shri Ramana has spoken about it often. And in the texts cited in this thread, he is shown saying that sadhana is required for most people.

But the anomaly in your position is as below.

When you begin with ajAtivAda and a premise 'There is no one seeking liberation and no one liberated' and yet ask "Who is ignorant?", it is evident as to where the confusion is located. In a stretch of street there may be some areas that are lighted and some areas that are dark. A question such as "To whom the darkness belongs?", is inappropriate. In this case there is no one in dark. You cannot, on one hand, claim to be abiding in non dual reality and yet see ignorant others.
...

 

[atanu]

Ramana himself performed no Sadhana. So, the necessity of Sadhana is questionable.

So, Ramana is lying?

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

Ramana on Self Realisation (Chapter VIII)

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.....​

...