What is satya-advaita, or oneness with truth?

[Shantanu]

Reality is multi-faceted to an almost infinite degree, so it does require an almost limitless set of true statements to describe it.

In addition to there being individual truths about what is correct or true and what is incorrect or false, there is something known as Truth as being a property of Reality (that describes Reality). Hinduism describes that set with the over-arching title of "Truth", as a category, and not a property of Reality.

Satya-advaitins (satya means truth, advaita means oneness) seek the meaning of this endless stream of questions concerning Reality and call it the Truth as a category and are permanently striving mentally to align and accomodadate themselves within it so that the category Truth is in effect their 'God' for all practical purposes or the supreme source of their inspiration and resulting lifestyle. The mind is focussed on Truth at all times, and truth-seeking at all times.

A particular doctrine or philosophy 'achintya bheda-abheda tattva' in Hinduism believes that when this process is at its peak the Supreme Personal God will appear to the individual to confirm the process of satya-advaita. It is known as Vedanta. This is when truth becomes a religious term.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Mind is truth-seeking at all times, but individual truth, as perceived by materially conditioned mind - is 'relative'. Absolute Truth can be known only when Absolute Truth makes itself known to us.

A person, reading this RF thread with red glasses will say - "today everyone is using a red background".

Another person with blue glasses will say - "No, everyone is using a blue background".

Another person wearing yellow glasses will say - "No, no, you are both wrong. I saw everyone is using a yellow background".

Now you see, nobody would be telling a lie from his own point-of-view, but their observations would all be incorrect and not the same. This is because the medium through which they are observing is of different colors. Had they been using colorless glasses, their observations would not have been contradictory.

Similarly, when one Veda is understood by people with different natures, different explanations arise. None of the sages is wrong from their own perspective, but in actuality, none of their explanations are correct. This is because, like the colors of the glasses, the medium by which they wish to understand the Vedas is covered by the modes of external potency (māy&#257.

When one surrenders to a sad-guru, the pure devotee who is not enveloped by the external potency of the Supreme Lord, who is beyond the three modes of nature, who is unattached and desireless, and hears from him about the Complete Knowledge, then he will be able to understand the actual meaning of the Vedas.

In relation to the Absolute Truth, the Śvetāśvatara Upniṣad (6.8) says:

na tasya karyam karanam ca vidyate
na tat-samas cabhyadhikas ca drsyate
parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca​

This verse says that in His transcendental spiritual Form, the Supreme Lord is present everywhere simultaneously. There is no one equal to Him, what to speak of greater than Him. Besides that, it is easy to understand that the All-powerful Absolute Truth - One without a second - cannot be many. Therefore, one cannot know the Absolute Truth without His desiring it. If one could know or capture the Supreme Lord by some method, then that method would be equal to or greater than the Supreme Lord. I have one opinion; you have another opinion - in this way innumerable living entities will have innumerable opinions. Would it be correct to say that all these opinions are valid methods of achieving the Absolute? Whatever you or I can achieve by our desire would have to be inferior to us. In other words, that Absolute Truth would not be the Supreme Lord but our servant. If the Absolute Truth were subservient to us, then the Complete would not remain complete; the Infinite would not remain infinite.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The obsession with inferior and superior appellations betrays itself.

 

[Shantanu]

Mind is truth-seeking at all times, but individual truth, as perceived by materially conditioned mind - is 'relative'. Absolute Truth can be known only when Absolute Truth makes itself known to us.

A person, reading this RF thread with red glasses will say - "today everyone is using a red background".

Another person with blue glasses will say - "No, everyone is using a blue background".

Another person wearing yellow glasses will say - "No, no, you are both wrong. I saw everyone is using a yellow background".

Now you see, nobody would be telling a lie from his own point-of-view, but their observations would all be incorrect and not the same. This is because the medium through which they are observing is of different colors. Had they been using colorless glasses, their observations would not have been contradictory.

Similarly, when one Veda is understood by people with different natures, different explanations arise. None of the sages is wrong from their own perspective, but in actuality, none of their explanations are correct. This is because, like the colors of the glasses, the medium by which they wish to understand the Vedas is covered by the modes of external potency (māy&#257.

When one surrenders to a sad-guru, the pure devotee who is not enveloped by the external potency of the Supreme Lord, who is beyond the three modes of nature, who is unattached and desireless, and hears from him about the Complete Knowledge, then he will be able to understand the actual meaning of the Vedas.

In relation to the Absolute Truth, the Śvetāśvatara Upniṣad (6.8) says:

na tasya karyam karanam ca vidyate
na tat-samas cabhyadhikas ca drsyate
parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca​

This verse says that in His transcendental spiritual Form, the Supreme Lord is present everywhere simultaneously. There is no one equal to Him, what to speak of greater than Him. Besides that, it is easy to understand that the All-powerful Absolute Truth - One without a second - cannot be many. Therefore, one cannot know the Absolute Truth without His desiring it. If one could know or capture the Supreme Lord by some method, then that method would be equal to or greater than the Supreme Lord. I have one opinion; you have another opinion - in this way innumerable living entities will have innumerable opinions. Would it be correct to say that all these opinions are valid methods of achieving the Absolute? Whatever you or I can achieve by our desire would have to be inferior to us. In other words, that Absolute Truth would not be the Supreme Lord but our servant. If the Absolute Truth were subservient to us, then the Complete would not remain complete; the Infinite would not remain infinite.

Vrindavana Dasji, a sad-guru cannot make a swine of a person into a knowledgeable person no matter how devotedly he surrenders to the sad-guru, do you accept that?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Pashus are not capable of either devotion or surrender, so it seems to me an invalid premise.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

The obsession with inferior and superior appellations betrays itself.

The Supreme Person who created the universes, stars, moons, galaxies, plants, humans, birds, laws like action-reaction, inertia, entropy, fire, air, ether, different species....everything we know and we do not know, cannot be at the same level as you and me.

If you say that no 'person' has created all this; then I must point to the fact that logically, something cannot come from nothing.

Even if we are Brahman, which has been molded into a form like cups and plates, still there is the need for a potter's wheel, water, clay and a potter to do this. It cannot happen 'on it's own'!

If you differ on this, I am willing to learn. But you must prove and validate your claim.

 

[Shantanu]

Pashus are not capable of either devotion or surrender, so it seems to me an invalid premise.

Do not pashus in human form go to their local babaji/swamiji/guruji in India to seek blessings and knowledge?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Vrindavana Dasji, a sad-guru cannot make a swine of a person into a knowledgeable person no matter how devotedly he surrenders to the sad-guru, do you accept that?

Actually, surrendering to a sad-guru is the only way this is possible. Scriptures are full of stories confirming this.

Please reflect on the story of Maharishi Valmiki. He was a most dreaded dacoit - Ratnākar Dāku. Later, he surrendered to Narada Muni, by whose mercy he became a great Rishi. He even wrote the epic: Rāmayan, much before Lord Rāmchandra appeared.

You can find the story here: Story Time - Valmiki rishi

Another such story is that of Mrigari - the hunter. He would half-kill all animals and would take pleasure seeing them suffering. Such was his cruelty...Narada and Mrigari the hunter

 

[Shantanu]

Actually, surrendering to a sad-guru is the only way this is possible. Scriptures are full of stories confirming this.

Please reflect on the story of Maharishi Valmiki. He was a most dreaded dacoit - Ratnākar Dāku. Later, he surrendered to Narada Muni, by whose mercy he became a great Rishi. He even wrote the epic: Rāmayan, much before Lord Rāmchandra appeared.

You can find the story here: Story Time - Valmiki rishi

Another such story is that of Mrigari - the hunter. He would half-kill all animals and would take pleasure seeing them suffering. Such was his cruelty...Narada and Mrigari the hunter

So people of sattvic nature, rajasic nature and tamasic nature can all be turned into saints by a sadguru. This is wonderful, if true.

 

[iamfact]

If you say that no 'person' has created all this; then I must point to the fact that logically, something cannot come from nothing.

But how did the Supreme Person come to be?



Not looking to debate, just curious of your view.

 

[TenjikuZero]

But how did the Supreme Person come to be?

Bingo!

 

[En'me]

But how did the Supreme Person come to be?



Not looking to debate, just curious of your view.

I don't really get it. Isn't time subjective to Him? Or, if you follow advaita, to It (Brahman)? Rendering our scope of reality within time very limited, especially when trying to understand the very opposite, the unlimited.

 

[iamfact]

I don't really get it. Isn't time subjective to Him? Or, if you follow advaita, to It (Brahman)? Rendering our scope of reality within time very limited, especially when trying to understand the very opposite, the unlimited.

Sorry I don't understand how that relates to my question. Could you explain more?

 

[En'me]

Sorry I don't understand how that relates to my question. Could you explain more?

Because you have asked "But how did the Supreme Person came to be" I answered from the perspective of time rather than source oforigin.

By your question, you probably asked from what source did the Supreme Person come to be, or has sprang forth from. If we take that the Supreme Person sprang from yet a higher source, we are donating a point in time, a beginning for the Supreme Person.

From this I have extracted and backtracked, the view that since time is subjective to that Supreme Person, He does not need a point in time (beginning) to manifest Himself, out of himself, nothing or all (i.e. different sources), thus collapsing your question on the explanation of basis of limited reality of our intelligence (on the matter of time, in this case).

 

[Vrindavana Das]

But how did the Supreme Person come to be?



Not looking to debate, just curious of your view.

On this point, I accept the authority of the scriptures.

In the Bhagavad Gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa declares:

na me viduḥ sura-gaṇāḥ
prabhavaḿ na maharṣayaḥ
aham ādir hi devānāḿ
maharṣīṇāḿ ca sarvaśaḥ​

Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and sages. [B.G. 10.2]

yo mām ajam anādiḿ ca
vetti loka-maheśvaram
asammūḍhaḥ sa martyeṣu
sarva-pāpaiḥ pramucyate​

He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds — he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins. [B.G. 10.3]

Arjuna says, for Kṛṣṇa:

svayam evātmanātmānaḿ
vettha tvaḿ puruṣottama
bhūta-bhāvana bhūteśa
deva-deva jagat-pate​

Indeed, You alone know Yourself by Your own internal potency, O Supreme Person, origin of all, Lord of all beings, God of gods, Lord of the universe! [B.G. 10.15]

In the Bramha Samhītā, Lord Brahma, engineer of the Universe declares:

īśvarah paramah krishnah
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahah
anādir ādir govindah
sarva-kārana-kāranam​

Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. [B.S. 5.1]

panthās tu koti-śata-vatsara-sampragamyo
vāyor athāpi manaso muni-puńgavānām
so 'py asti yat-prapada-sīmny avicintya-tattve
govindam ādi-purusham tam aham bhajāmi​

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, only the tip of the toe of whose lotus feet is approached by the yogīs who aspire after the transcendental and betake themselves to prānāyāma by drilling the respiration; or by the jñānīs who try to find out the nondifferentiated Brahman by the process of elimination of the mundane, extending over thousands of millions of years. [B.S. 5.34]

The scriptures are full of these confirmations.

 

[iamfact]

Because you have asked "But how did the Supreme Person came to be" I answered from the perspective of time rather than source oforigin.

By your question, you probably asked from what source did the Supreme Person come to be, or has sprang forth from. If we take that the Supreme Person sprang from yet a higher source, we are donating a point in time, a beginning for the Supreme Person.

From this I have extracted and backtracked, the view that since time is subjective to that Supreme Person, He does not need a point in time (beginning) to manifest Himself, out of himself, nothing or all (i.e. different sources), thus collapsing your question on the explanation of basis of limited reality of our intelligence (on the matter of time, in this case).

Great answer I see where you're coming from.

 

[Shantanu]

Bingo!

Did you not know that the Supreme was always there, so how it came to be does not arise.

 

[Mikes80]

Mind is truth-seeking at all times, but individual truth, as perceived by materially conditioned mind - is 'relative'. Absolute Truth can be known only when Absolute Truth makes itself known to us.

A person, reading this RF thread with red glasses will say - "today everyone is using a red background".

Another person with blue glasses will say - "No, everyone is using a blue background".

Another person wearing yellow glasses will say - "No, no, you are both wrong. I saw everyone is using a yellow background".

Now you see, nobody would be telling a lie from his own point-of-view, but their observations would all be incorrect and not the same. This is because the medium through which they are observing is of different colors. Had they been using colorless glasses, their observations would not have been contradictory.

Similarly, when one Veda is understood by people with different natures, different explanations arise. None of the sages is wrong from their own perspective, but in actuality, none of their explanations are correct. This is because, like the colors of the glasses, the medium by which they wish to understand the Vedas is covered by the modes of external potency (māy&#257.

When one surrenders to a sad-guru, the pure devotee who is not enveloped by the external potency of the Supreme Lord, who is beyond the three modes of nature, who is unattached and desireless, and hears from him about the Complete Knowledge, then he will be able to understand the actual meaning of the Vedas.

In relation to the Absolute Truth, the Śvetāśvatara Upniṣad (6.8) says:

na tasya karyam karanam ca vidyate
na tat-samas cabhyadhikas ca drsyate
parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca​

This verse says that in His transcendental spiritual Form, the Supreme Lord is present everywhere simultaneously. There is no one equal to Him, what to speak of greater than Him. Besides that, it is easy to understand that the All-powerful Absolute Truth - One without a second - cannot be many. Therefore, one cannot know the Absolute Truth without His desiring it. If one could know or capture the Supreme Lord by some method, then that method would be equal to or greater than the Supreme Lord. I have one opinion; you have another opinion - in this way innumerable living entities will have innumerable opinions. Would it be correct to say that all these opinions are valid methods of achieving the Absolute? Whatever you or I can achieve by our desire would have to be inferior to us. In other words, that Absolute Truth would not be the Supreme Lord but our servant. If the Absolute Truth were subservient to us, then the Complete would not remain complete; the Infinite would not remain infinite.

What creates the colored glasses? Words and concepts create beliefs. These beliefs created by words and concepts create the colored glasses. These colored glasses are what colors reality and truth, with untruths.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Personal supreme being/God and nothingness are 2 different ego I concepts for the same singularity of oneness. Nothing matters except oneness.

Both oneness and duality exist simultaneously.

The living being is one with God in quality (individual soul and Supreme Soul - both are eternal, full of knowledge and bliss). However, quantitatively one is infinitesimal and the other is infinite.

For example, sun and sunbeam. Both are same in quality (oneness), yet sunbeam is not sun (duality).

This is explained as Achintya bhed-abheda (doctrine of inconceivable oneness and duality) by the Supreme Lord.