Why Advaita Vedanta first?

[shivsomashekhar]

Well, we don't know that anyone is. I find it likely that he is, and also that many other people are. Whether we'd count them as enlightened or not doesn't really matter, it's the state of high contentment which is preferable.

He was a Sanyasi with no dependencies, no social responsibilities, none. Relatively easy for such a person to appear contented.

The test would be for Ramana to in the midst of worldly life, with a family, responsibilities, work pressure, etc. If he still appears contended - more than the people around him, that would be interesting. But by no means, would that prove enlightenment - not by the Advaita definition.

 

[Kirran]

He was a Sanyasi with no dependencies, no social responsibilities, none. Relatively easy for such a person to appear contented.

The test would be for Ramana to in the midst of worldly life, with a family, responsibilities, work pressure, etc. If he still appears contended - more than the people around him, that would be interesting. But by no means, would that prove enlightenment.

Why so? He wasn't in that situation, and so didn't need to appear contended in it. Not saying he wouldn't have been, but I don't think it matters for the purposes of happiness - he was content in the situation he was in.

 

[Vinayaka]

Celibacy, taking sannyas, is a pre-requisite in most orthodox schools, as far as I know. It certainly is in mine. So Ramana qualifies. He spent considerable time in and around Arunaleswara. The whole situation at Tiruvannamalai sort of highlights the entire oxymoron. Westerners go there to sit around Ramana Ashram, but they don't actually meditate much, or go over the the grand temple, just sit around talking about Ramana. (or so I've heard ... could have heard wrong). If it were me, I'd make a beeline for Arunaleswara, as that's where the action would be at. (for me)

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Why so? He wasn't in that situation, and so didn't need to appear contended in it. Not saying he wouldn't have been, but I don't think it matters for the purposes of happiness - he was content in the situation he was in.

The concept of Sanyasa is designed for the individual to be away from worldly clamor. The odds of contentment considerably improve with reduced responsibility.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Well, we don't know that anyone is. I find it likely that he is, and also that many other people are. Whether we'd count them as enlightened or not doesn't really matter, it's the state of high contentment which is preferable.

I replied to this post earlier, but forgot to add something.

The way I see it, the only thing that matters here is people believe Ramana was enlightened. He did not become famous because he was happy or contented. People did not take interest in him because he was happy. The only reason we know him, the only reaons we are discussing him now is because he is considered to be an enlightened person.

 

[Kirran]

The concept of Sanyasa is designed for the individual to be away from worldly clamor. The odds of contentment considerably improve with reduced responsibility.

Well then it's a way by which we can achieve greater levels of contentment.

I replied to this post earlier, but forgot to add something.

The way I see it, the only thing that matters here is people believe Ramana was enlightened. He did not become famous because he was happy or contented. People did not take interest in him because he was happy. The only reason we know him, the only reaons we are discussing him now is because he is considered to be an enlightened person.

If I may pose a question, why do you think it is that people consider Ramana to have been enlightened?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Well then it's a way by which we can achieve greater levels of contentment.



If I may pose a question, why do you think it is that people consider Ramana to have been enlightened?

Good question. This came from the person (Ganapthi muni?) who discovered him and made him famous. He told everyone that Ramana was enlightened. Ramana is not the only one; we have hundreds of acclaimed people who are believed to be enlightened.

And people believe because they want to believe in something. They do not want to be analyzing too much or running extensive tests. I should also note that not every Guru is believed to be enlightened by everyone. Everyone has his/her own idea of how an enlightened person should look/talk/act and that decides who they believe in.

This is a pretty important question. You should pose the question to yourself too . Why do you think Ramana is enlightened?

 

[Kirran]

Good question. This came from the person (Ganapthi muni?) who discovered him and made him famous. He told everyone that Ramana was enlightened. Ramana is not the only one; we have hundreds of acclaimed people who are believed to be enlightened.

And people believe because they want to believe in something. They do not want to be analyzing too much or running extensive tests. I should also note that not every Guru is believed to be enlightened by everyone. Everyone has his/her own idea of how an enlightened person should look/talk/act and that decides who they believe in.

This is a pretty important question. You should pose the question to yourself too . Why do you think Ramana is enlightened?

Interesting. A very useful perspective on this.

OK, so say that there is no 'enlightened' state. Does that not mean that believing in it, much as in Smartha one believes in Ganesha and Shakti and co. while acnowledging their existence is an illusion, can still be a useful tool in becoming happier, more content and so on, by seeking to follow a path to that high state of contentment?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Interesting. A very useful perspective on this.

OK, so say that there is no 'enlightened' state. Does that not mean that believing in it, much as in Smartha one believes in Ganesha and Shakti and co. while acnowledging their existence is an illusion, can still be a useful tool in becoming happier, more content and so on, by seeking to follow a path to that high state of contentment?

I do not know the answer to this question.

Ramana did not look for a state of high contentment. Whatever happened to him just happened out of the blue. And we do not know if he really was in such a high state of contentment as we are looking for. There is no way to know.

This question can only be answered by someone you believe searched for a high state of contentment and found what he was looking for. If there is such a person, you will have to accept this person's word on faith.

According to Advaita, we can confidently say that Moksha cannot be defined as a high state of happiness or contentment. Such a definition can only come from dualistic schools (because there is an observer who can make such observations). The Advaita Moksha is no different from that of Sankhya and Nyaya. It is neither pain nor pleasure.

 

[Vinayaka]

To add further to the doubt, there is certainly no universal definition of enlightenment. A brief search on-line will get you a ton of various understandings. The folks on this forum have been through it a few times as well.

 

[Kirran]

Ramana did not look for a state of high contentment. Whatever happened to him just happened out of the blue. And we do not know if he really was in such a high state of contentment as we are looking for. There is no way to know.

Ramana is a bad example here, then. Yogaswami or whoever is better.

This question can only be answered by someone you believe searched for a high state of contentment and found what he was looking for. If there is such a person, you will have to accept this person's word on faith.

True.

According to Advaita, we can confidently say that Moksha cannot be defined as a high state of happiness or contentment. Such a definition can only come from dualistic schools (because there is an observer who can make such observations). The Advaita Moksha is no different from that of Sankhya and Nyaya. It is neither pain nor pleasure.

Yeah, straight up. Moksha is an illusion, just like any emotion, state of mind, object, action...

 

[Kirran]

To add further to the doubt, there is certainly no universal definition of enlightenment. A brief search on-line will get you a ton of various understandings. The folks on this forum have been through it a few times as well.

Complexifies the issue when people use the same English term to refer to a variety of concepts in Dharmic thought - moksha, nirvana, nirbija samadhi, kaivalya

 

[Vinayaka]

Complexifies the issue when people use the same English term to refer to a variety of concepts in Dharmic thought - moksha, nirvana, nirbija samadhi, kaivalya

I'm laughing. Welcome to the world of internet communication. The term 'enlightenment' itself is English, and is often more applied to Buddhist thought than to Hindu thought. But the other factor, another without words to describe it, is just 'presence'. In almost all discussions, the saint, Guru, yogi, teacher, or otherwise person in question, is generally described as 'having a presence'. Vague, yes.

 

[Kirran]

I'm laughing.

Well my bringing a smile to your face further adds to what's been a wonderfully productive day.

Welcome to the world of internet communication. The term 'enlightenment' itself is English, and is often more applied to Buddhist thought than to Hindu thought. But the other factor, another without words to describe it, is just 'presence'. In almost all discussions, the saint, Guru, yogi, teacher, or otherwise person in question, is generally described as 'having a presence'. Vague, yes.

This is champion vagueness. Vagueness as a work of art. Fantastic

The sheer subjectivity of these concepts can't possibly be escaped, because by their very nature they're based upon experience. So we've got to just roll with it.

Do you consider Subramaniyaswami to have been enlightened (or to have achieved moksha, or kaivalya, or the state of yoga)? If not, did he significantly differ in any way, on any level, from the average individual?

 

[Aupmanyav]

This question can only be answered by someone you believe searched for a high state of contentment and found what he was looking for. If there is such a person, you will have to accept this person's word on faith.

According to Advaita, we can confidently say that Moksha cannot be defined as a high state of happiness or contentment. Such a definition can only come from dualistic schools (because there is an observer who can make such observations). The Advaita Moksha is no different from that of Sankhya and Nyaya. It is neither pain nor pleasure.

There is no ambiguity. Moksha is understanding the truth and removal of all doubts. Enlightenment, deliverance, nirvana, all mean just that.

Now, after Moksha, the person may choose to worship a deity or be an atheist, as he/she might wish.

 

[Kirran]

There is no ambiguity. Moksha is understanding the truth and removal of all doubts. Enlightenment, deliverance, nirvana, all mean just that.

Now, after Moksha, the person may choose to worship a deity or be an atheist, as he/she might wish.

But there are surely different levels of understanding. Intellectual understanding is one thing, but if it was that easy every Hindu would have achieved moksha, and a lot of other people besides.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure, it is not all that difficult except for peoples' prejudices. They might see the truth but still do not accept it. As an atheist, I think theists are afflicted by that, though I am not a militant atheist to object to that. Another such denial is of death. People hanker for an after-life, though many themselves are not convinced of it.

 

[Kirran]

Sure, it is not all that difficult except for peoples' prejudices. They might see the truth but still do not accept it. As an atheist, I think theists are afflicted by that, though I am not a militant atheist to object to that. Another such denial is of death. People hanker for an after-life, though many themselves are not convinced of it.

I think that in the same way that a Buddhist and Hindu can both achieve moksha, and someone who believes in reincarnation in a literal sense can achieve moksha as can one who doesn't, it's possible to be a theist of some description or an atheist of whatever kind, and still achieve moksha.

Yes, conquering the fear of death is necessary. But you can do that through belief in an afterlife or in literal reincarnation, just as you can do it without believing in those things.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The only problem is that God/Gods/soul/heaven/hell/grace etc. have no proof, but that does not seem to be a problem for theists, whether it is evolution or Big Bang. Recently a Muslim cleric asserted that earth does not go around the sun or someone may say that earth is flat and was created six thousand years ago. Whatever floats one's boat. It does not affect me. I stick with science.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

In my case, I do not label myself a theist or an atheist. The reason is the word theist means different things to different people, limiting its usefulness. Atheist being its antonym, has the same problem too.

Liberation or Moksha seems to be in a similar situation. Everyone has his or her own idea of what it means. Discussion on such topics would be futile.