Questions For Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta

[punkdbass]

You are already a guru and do not need to consult any other. Continue with your studies in Hinduism if you so desire. In one of the forums my title is 'Search, be your own guru'. I am mostly against this guru business.If there is a distinction between Vishnu/Krishna and other deities, then he is not the Brahman. Vishnu/Krishna can be Brahman only if he eschews/forgets other deities, otherwise he would not be 'ekameva'. And my view of 'ekameva' eschews the difference between any God and humans, or even animals, vegetation and non living. That is strictest 'advaita', real 'ekameva', and as my signature says "Sarve kahlu idam Brahma".

Thanks for the words of encouragement, and your explanation. I know that, in my research of Hinduism thus far, Advaita is the place for me. But as Swami Sivananda seemed to suggest: "Brahman is impersonal, but becomes a personal God only though its association with Maya...Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal (hence the personal God vanishes with knowledge of the Eternal?). It is not unreal also, because it exists [relatively] til knowledge dawns in you. (hence the personal Deities are real to one under Maya, and thus very important)"

The point I'm trying to get to here is that I feel like I am still heavily influenced by Maya, in which case the Deities (personalities that appear distinct from Brahman) are very much real. I had an interesting experience with Krishna last night.. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as long as I haven't attained full "Self-Realization," I'm comfortable having a personal relationship with Krishna.. and seeing as I'm still influenced by Maya, I think it is important that I don't completely ignore/dismiss Krishna. Perhaps one day I will no longer feel this desire for relationship with Reality (which implies slight separateness), and rather will be a living, conscious, embodiment of Reality... if indeed upon Self-Realization, one comes to realize their essential oneness and equalness with Krishna (the Personable God) or Brahman (the Absolute).

 

[Poeticus]

That is strictest 'advaita', real 'ekameva', and as my signature says "Sarve kahlu idam Brahma".

No, it is not. You are misleading him. To dislodge one of the most important facets of "strict" Advaita-m -- which would be the tradition of the Guru-Shishya -- is to take the "strict" out of the Advaita-m, making your [form of] Advaita-m not even "strict" nor original. In fact, it is not even traditional nor anything that Adi Shankara professed nor commented upon in his bhashyam-s. I'm deeply distressed with the intellectual dishonesty you have been providing to an honest seeker, like Punkdbass, who has been patient and very kind and very respectful of Dharma. He doesn't deserve this at all. He deserves better.

However, I'm sure you, Aup, can definitely provide a non-theistic approach that can and may be highly beneficial to seekers such as Punkdbass. So, I hope this post of mine isn't taken too harshly - in fact, I'm all ears for an "agnostic/atheistic" approach, especially if it is Shrutically valid.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

No, it is not. You are misleading him. To dislodge one of the most important facets of "strict" Advaita-m -- which would be the tradition of the Guru-Shishya -- is to take the "strict" out of the Advaita-m, making your [form of] Advaita-m not even "strict" nor original. In fact, it is not even traditional nor anything that Adi Shankara professed nor commented upon in his bhashyam-s. I'm deeply distressed with the intellectual dishonesty you have been providing to an honest seeker, like Punkdbass, who has been patient and very kind and very respectful of Dharma. He doesn't deserve this at all. He deserves better.

Aupamanyav never claimed to speak for Adi sha~Nkara though, he was just giving his own views of advaita.

 

[Poeticus]

Aupamanyav never claimed to speak for Adi sha~Nkara though, he was just giving his own views of advaita.

Yes, that is correct. But, doesn't Punkdbass want the views of the "founding father" of Advaita-m?

 

[Sb1995]

Off topic, I got a big exam/midterm tomorrow. Can all of you please say a little quick prayer/mention in your prayers for me. It will be much appreciated thanks so much

 

[punkdbass]

Yes, that is correct. But, doesn't Punkdbass want the views of the "founding father" of Advaita-m?

Yes of course. Perhaps many of you are wondering, given the nature of a lot of my questions, why I have not been reading Sri Adi Shankara's works to learn more directly about Advaita Vedanta... right now I am mainly focusing on reading the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads sort of on their own. After I get more comfortable with these texts, then I want to move onto learning about Advaita Vedanta directly from Sri Adi Shankara.. this is not something I want to jump into unprepared though, which is why I'm going to stick to reading the BG and Upanishads for quite some time first. I get the feeling this learning process is sort of similar to Kabbalah when it comes to Judaism.. to properly learn Kabbalah, you should first develop a deep understanding of Torah (written traditions), Oral Torah/Talmud (oral traditions), Hebrew, Jewish law, Jewish culture, etc.. and then you will be better prepared to learn the esoteric spirituality of the Kabbalah rather than get lost in its labyrinth. Likewise, I get the feeling that Advaita Vedanta should be treated in a similar manner. One should immerse themselves with the Vedas, Upanishads, Gita, etc. before getting into Advaita Vedanta. That being said, my gut does tell me that Advaita Vedanta is a bit more accessible than Kabbalah - it is more straightforward and direct, whereas I'm not exaggerating when I describe Kabbalah as a "labryinth," it's super easy to get lost in the extremely complicated, esoteric, obtuse symbolism and metaphoric language of the Kabbalah... I've tried but given up lol.

And maybe Aup's views are in line or not in line with Shankara's, I wouldn't know because I havent really read anything by Shanakara.. but I do respect Aup's views and he has often given me some very useful guidance on a lot of the weird things I think about. I appreciate your concern though मैत्रावरुणिः, thanks!

Namaste

 

[Poeticus]

Just looking out for you, bro. And, I think you have a good "study strategy", starting with the Gita first, followed by the Upanishads, then onto the works of various Vedantic thinkers/Guru-s, like Shankara. All the best. But, please don't hesitate to ask for confirmation of any views you receive here in the HinduDIR.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That would borderline nihilism. And, nihilism, my friend...the Vedas do not tolerate.

But, according to Advaita, isn't Brahman alone real and all else is illusion?

 

[punkdbass]

But, according to Advaita, isn't Brahman alone real and all else is illusion?

I used to think along such lines, but I've come to realize that perhaps such a "reductionist" statement in which you try to reduce all truth and reality to a single line are not always that useful. Perhaps this will help:

Swami Sivananda said the following statement best characterizes Advaita philosophy: “Brahman(the absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.” But he later clarifies what he means by saying "the world is unreal":

"the world is not an illusion, it is relatively real while Brahman is absolutely real. The world is the product of maya/ignorance. Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal. It is not unreal also, because it exists til knowledge dawns in you."

So if you were to ask is the world not real(i.e. is the world an illusion)? It would appear the answer would be that the world is not real on an absolute level, but on a pragmatic level, it is relatively real. It exists until Realization dawns in you. I think the key point here is that it does an unenlightened person no good to tell himself the world is not real because as long as you live under Maya, the world is relatively real to you... so why would you ignore this very real thing so long as you are under the influence of Maya? It would appear that only an enlightened person can say, with confidence and truth, that the world is not real - for them, there is no longer relativity. Now how exactly does one go about transcending the world of duality/relativity and eternally enter the world of non-duality, I have yet to find out.

 

[Poeticus]

But, according to Advaita, isn't Brahman alone real and all else is illusion?

Please check out post #25.

On a side note, please check out these forums on Advaita: Hindu Dharma Forums: Advaita. I'd recommend surfing the heck out of that place.

 

[punkdbass]

Please check out post #25.

On a side note, please check out these forums on Advaita: Hindu Dharma Forums: Advaita. I'd recommend surfing the heck out of that place.

I forgot to reply to your post! I remember reading through that on my phone and laughing out loud for the whole thing lol not as a sign of disrespect of disagreement, but I just like how creatively you worded everything haha.

Yes, that is indeed funny, and I do agree to an extent. I just wish that people here didn't use the term vedAnta to refer specifically to advaitavedAnta, because I'm a vedAntI who does not believe in kevalAdvaita and it pains me to see that people think that vedAnta in general sees Ishvara as nothing more than a reflection of brahma onto mAyA (despite that being only an advaitI concept). That's certainly not true in the case of the philosophy of the sampradAya which I follow and I consider my views to be just as "vedAntic" as that of advaitI-s

These are great points. Although I have mainly only been exposed to Advaita Vedanta, and indirectly some Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (which I've enjoyed), there is also Dvaita advaita as you pointed out. A few people here have point out the apparent trend that westerners are typically more exposed to Advaita vs. the other 2 forms of Vedanta. But thanks for reminding me that Advaita is not THE Vedanta, rather there are 3 main types of Vedanta (that I'm aware of anyways). Swami Sivananda describes these as "3 main schools of metaphysical thought, all stages on the way to Ultimate Truth, all are complementary to each other, not contradictory." However, interestingly, he also does say that "All of these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realization of the Absolute or transcendental Brahman," for what its worth.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

These are great points. Although I have mainly only been exposed to Advaita Vedanta, and indirectly some Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (which I've enjoyed), there is also Dvaita advaita as you pointed out. A few people here have point out the apparent trend that westerners are typically more exposed to Advaita vs. the other 2 forms of Vedanta.

I think that the reason for that is because advaita, especially in the watered down form often taught by guru-s and yogI-s in the west (especially by people like rAmakR^iShNa, vivekAnanda, and others), has particularly atheistic biases, viewing brahma not as a deity which is to be supplicated and which grants mokSha, but merely as an "underlying reality/foundation of creation;" that form of thinking is particularly appealing to those Westerners who leave Abrahamic religions because they consider them to be dogmatic and naturally, those individuals would gravitate towards new-age, watered down/less bhakti-based forms of advaita vedAnta rather than towards mainstream Hinduism, which is quite devotion or belief based. On top of that, advaita was more well rooted than other darshana-s not only in the West, but also partially in bhArat, in part because of sha~Nkara-s chAturmaTha sthApana, so there are historical reasons for it as well.

But thanks for reminding me that Advaita is not THE Vedanta, rather there are 3 main types of Vedanta (that I'm aware of anyways).

There's also the shuddhAdvaita of and tattvavAda/dvaita vedAnta of madhvAchArya/Ananda tIrtha.

Swami Sivananda describes these as "3 main schools of metaphysical thought, all stages on the way to Ultimate Truth, all are complementary to each other, not contradictory." However, interestingly, he also does say that "All of these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realization of the Absolute or transcendental Brahman," for what its worth.

shivAnanda probably has a bias towards advaita vedAnta, hence he's indirectly stating that even though the paths are different, advaita is the eventual conclusion. This is a very common trend, especially among neo-Hindus. It's akin to radical universalist Hindus saying "my religion considers all religions to be the same, therefore my religion is better than yours." Apparently, they can't see the fallacy in their own statements. Clearly, if you believe vishiShTAdvaita or dvaita to be the ultimate truth, you are not going to reach the conclusion of advaita. It's funny how much nonsense is spewed under the pretense of "ekaM sadviprA bahudhA vadantyagniM..."

 

[Poeticus]

It's funny how much nonsense is spewed under the pretense of "ekaM sadviprA bahudhA vadantyagniM..."

Which brings me to my point:

Did you know that it's dedicated to the Shri Vishve-Devah? ​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Which brings me to my point:

Did you know that it's dedicated to the Shri Vishve-Devah? ​

Yes, and...?

 

[punkdbass]

Hmm I'd just like to back up for a moment and look at this more simply.. If you consider the Bhagavad Gita to be a divine, authoritative scripture, then it's pretty obvious Sri Krishna associates Himself with Ultimate Reality. So we can discuss and debate all day the technicalities of it, but it would appear, correct me if I'm wrong, that a Hindu could not deny the fact that Lord Krishna as a personal Deity(or Vishnu if you will) plays a vital, REAL role in Ultimate Reality. And if Swami Sivananda is correct in saying the 3 main vedanta paths are not meant to contradict each other, then that would imply an Advaita Hindu would not disagree with this.

Thinking about things this way.. accepting that Krishna does in fact play a real, vital role in Reality, without knowing the specifics... can bring one great comfort. If you can accept this, then you won't need to stress over all the minute details of just how exactly Krishna is involved with Reality, or trying to understand the distinctions between Advaita and Vishishtadavaita. Sure, of course you can try to learn more about these things, but you should feel no need to stress out about it since you know the personal Lord aspect of Brahman (gahh I forget the exact Sanskrit word, it starts with an I..) plays a real, vital role in Reality.

Apparently, मैत्रावरुणिः implied earlier that Sri Shankara and his Advaita would not really disagree with any of this. I'm definitely looking forward to one day reading Sri Shankara's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Hmm I'd just like to back up for a moment and look at this more simply.. If you consider the Bhagavad Gita to be a divine, authoritative scripture, then it's pretty obvious Sri Krishna associates Himself with Ultimate Reality. So we can discuss and debate all day the technicalities of it, but it would appear, correct me if I'm wrong, that a Hindu could not deny the fact that Lord Krishna as a personal Deity(or Vishnu if you will) plays a vital, REAL role in Ultimate Reality. And if Swami Sivananda is correct in saying the 3 main vedanta paths are not meant to contradict each other, then that would imply an Advaita Hindu would not disagree with this.

Thinking about things this way.. accepting that Krishna does in fact play a real, vital role in Reality, without knowing the specifics... can bring one great comfort. If you can accept this, then you won't need to stress over all the minute details of just how exactly Krishna is involved with Reality, or trying to understand the distinctions between Advaita and Vishishtadavaita. Sure, of course you can try to learn more about these things, but you should feel no need to stress out about it since you know the personal Lord aspect of Brahman (gahh I forget the exact Sanskrit word, it starts with an I..) plays a real, vital role in Reality.

Apparently, मैत्रावरुणिः implied earlier that Sri Shankara and his Advaita would not really disagree with any of this. I'm definitely looking forward to one day reading Sri Shankara's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.

The word you're probably looking for is iShTadevatA, . Anyway, I don't have a problem with advaitavedAnta, but if you assume that the ultimate conclusion of dvaitavedAnta is advaita, then that doesn't follow as per common sense and seems to imply some sort of superiority of advaita. In addition, regardless of whether Adi sha~Nkara viewed viShNu as greater than shiva or not, the view that Ishvara is merely merely a reflection of brahma onto mAyA just like jIva-s indicates that once one attains brahmaj~nAna, there is no need for worship; bhakti is merely a process leading to the end goal of mokSham/jivanmuktI. This runs contrary to the views of vaiShNava-s wherein singing the names of hari itself is akin to mokSha. Also, this is a bit off topic, but if it doesn't matter to you "how exactly Krishna is involved with Reality," then why are you even interested in vedAnta in the first place (especially since the relationship between paramAtmA and the jivAtmA is practically the main purpose of the vedAnta darshana)?

 

[punkdbass]

The word you're probably looking for is iShTadevatA, . Anyway, I don't have a problem with advaitavedAnta, but if you assume that the ultimate conclusion of dvaitavedAnta is advaita, then that doesn't follow as per common sense and seems to imply some sort of superiority of advaita. In addition, regardless of whether Adi sha~Nkara viewed viShNu as greater than shiva or not, the view that Ishvara is merely merely a reflection of brahma onto mAyA just like jIva-s indicates that once one attains brahmaj~nAna, there is no need for worship; bhakti is merely a process leading to the end goal of mokSham/jivanmuktI. This runs contrary to the views of vaiShNava-s wherein singing the names of hari itself is akin to mokSha. Also, this is a bit off topic, but if it doesn't matter to you "how exactly Krishna is involved with Reality," then why are you even interested in vedAnta in the first place (especially since the relationship between paramAtmA and the jivAtmA is practically the main purpose of the vedAnta darshana)?

I get what you are saying here and agree with you. As for your last question, you have misunderstood my previous post; the intent of my previous post was to express agreement with most of what you and मैत्रावरुणिः have been saying in this thread. I'm too lazy now to try and clear up the miscomunication, plus I've already hijacked this thread enough lol. To clarify: It does matter to me how Krishna is involved with Reality; but I've accepted the fact that I will never know 100% exactly how He is, i.e. I'll never fully know the Divine Plan, my knowledge will always be somewhat limited, I'm okay with that. I'm soooo interested in Vedanta for so many reasons! If you still have your doubts, feel free to PM me and and I can explain more, I don't want to take this thread any more off topic.

Again, all of this stuff lately keeps bringing me back to the end of Ch. 10 in the Gita.. "But what need has thou, O Arjuna, for the manifold details of this wisdom? (Understand simply: ) I, the Unchanging and Everlasting, sustain and permeate the entire cosmos with but one fragment of My Being!" Or from the Mundaka Upanishad: "Realize him as the One behind the many and stop all vain talk."

Namaste

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

It does matter to me how Krishna is involved with Reality; but I've accepted the fact that I will never know 100% exactly how He is, i.e. I'll never fully know the Divine Plan, my knowledge will always be somewhat limited, I'm okay with that.

praNAm,
I actually agree with you completely, the same is the case with me...

 

[Aupmanyav]

And maybe Aup's views are in line or not in line with Shankara's, I wouldn't know ..

My views are from Sankara, only that I do not subscribe to 'pragmatic reality' (Vyavaharika) where there are deities. I accept only the 'absolute reality' (Paramarthika) where there is none other than Brahman. I, sort of, while talking philosophy, like it 'neat'. I agree, the last mile is difficult, it takes time, and is neither advisible nor necessary for all people.

Thinking about things this way.. accepting that Krishna does in fact play a real, vital role in Reality, without knowing the specifics.. can bring one great comfort.

And what about 'Maryādā Purushottama (the most proper) Rāma'? 'Rāma' reverberates in a Hindu heart equally strongly.

 

[Philomath]

Everytime I see Jaskaran Singh post I wonder why he posts the same video over and over.......then I realize it's his signature