Worship of God in Advaita Vedanta

[SalixIncendium]

I found this perspective by Swami Sarvapriyananda on the relativity of dualistic worship of God in Advaita Vedanta to be quite interesting. A question is presented in the video that if a true nondualist worships God, is it irrational in such a way that s/he is only worshiping her/himself from a nondual perspective?

In this video, he discusses Brahman alone being real is from the perspective of the ParamArthika level...from the perspective of Absolute reality, and worship of God is performed at the VyAvahArika level...from a relative or temporal perspective, and that there is no philosophical conflict from an advaita perspective, that dvaita is true from the VyAvahArika perspective. There is nothing disingenuous about an Advaitin being a devotee.

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is real from the perspective of ParamArthika, while Saguna Brahman is real from the perspective of VyAvahArika.

What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

 

[Vinayaka]

I found this perspective by Swami Sarvapriyananda on the relativity of dualistic worship of God in Advaita Vedanta to be quite interesting. A question is presented in the video that if a true nondualist worships God, is it irrational in such a way that s/he is only worshiping her/himself from a nondual perspective?

In this video, he discusses Brahman alone being real is from the perspective of the ParamArthika level...from the perspective of Absolute reality, and worship of God is performed at the VyAvahArika level...from a relative or temporal perspective, and that there is no philosophical conflict from an advaita perspective, that dvaita is true from the VyAvahArika perspective. There is nothing disingenuous about an Advaitin being a devotee.

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is real from the perspective of ParamArthika, while Saguna Brahman is real from the perspective of VyAvahArika.

What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

I agree. Many of the great saints like Patanjali and the modern day Ramana Maharishi found God within while sitting in a temple. So it's from two separate perspectives. In monistic Saiva Siddhanta, the conclusion of non-dual reality is the same as it is in Advaita Vedanta. Where we differ is on how to get to that point.

I think most traditional avaitins see dualistic worship as having its place. It's only in the simplistic intellectual versions of modern day Vedanta where they claim the uselessness of it all. There is this tendence to say 'I'm there, so there is nothing else to do.' intellectually.

 

[George-ananda]

What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

Pretty much "Agree'.

I understand it as Bhakti Yoga (devotion to a form of God) is one of the most recommended and common spiritual paths in Hinduism. Eventually the devotion leads to merger.

The Bhagavad Gita basically speaks of devotion to Krishna (an avatar of God) and mergence in Krishna/God/Brahman.

 

[Jainarayan]

A question is presented in the video that if a true nondualist worships God, is it irrational in such a way that s/he is only worshiping her/himself from a nondual perspective?

I haven't seen the video yet. I probably will at lunch. It may support my own ideas or show the flaws in my thinking. Anyway... I've thought about this myself... as an Advaitin, would I be worshiping myself? I think the answer is actually no. This is māyā, under which we've forgotten what we are. Through bhakti or any of ones preferred yogas, the idea is to realize oneself as Brahman. I think it's not unlike looking in a mirror. Looking at the mirror is the means, but after a time of studying ourselves we see what we really look like. OK, so maybe that was more of my UPG and MUS.

 

[ajay0]

The advaitan can remain a strict nondualist or can worship Saguna Brahman or the dualistic God , realising Him to be pure consciousness in a personal form, for easy worship, focus and reverence.

Adi Shankara, the proponent of Advaita Vedanta, also worshipped the Shivalingam. Same too with Ramana Maharshi who was a nondualist and worshipper of the Shivalingam.

Shirdi Sai Baba similarly taught Advaita and nondualism, and at the same time worshipped the personal God.

Same with Sri Ramakrishna who was nondualist and at the same time worshipped the Divine Mother as a personalised form of the pure consciousness.

It is not just the intellect, but the emotions too can be used as a tool to attain the state of pure consciousness. Faster even.


Love is one of the greatest stimulants to the will. Under the influence of love the will can do almost anything. ~ Yogananda

 

[Shantanu]

The advaitan can remain a strict nondualist or can worship Saguna Brahman or the dualistic God , realising Him to be pure consciousness in a personal form, for easy worship, focus and reverence.

Adi Shankara, the proponent of Advaita Vedanta, also worshipped the Shivalingam. Same too with Ramana Maharshi who was a nondualist and worshipper of the Shivalingam.

Shirdi Sai Baba similarly taught Advaita and nondualism, and at the same time worshipped the personal God.

Same with Sri Ramakrishna who was nondualist and at the same time worshipped the Divine Mother as a personalised form of the pure consciousness.

It is not just the intellect, but the emotions too can be used as a tool to attain the state of pure consciousness. Faster even.


Love is one of the greatest stimulants to the will. Under the influence of love the will can do almost anything. ~ Yogananda

One cannot worship and despise the Ultimate Reality: a choice has to be made or one will be accused of being all things to all humans for winning popularity. One is either a dualist or a non-dualiist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

One cannot worship and despise the Ultimate Reality: a choice has to be made or one will be accused of being all things to all humans for winning popularity. One is either a dualist or a non-dualiist.

Are you implying that both jnana and bhakti yogas cannot be practiced concurrently by an advaitin in the pursuit of realization of pure consciousness? Because it would appear by the answers I am getting here and elsewhere indicate the contrary.

 

[Shantanu]

Are you implying that both jnana and bhakti yogas cannot be practiced concurrently by an advaitin in the pursuit of realization of pure consciousness? Because it would appear by the answers I am getting here and elsewhere indicate the contrary.

One may go down the path of concurrent bhakti and jnana yoga carefully (I started with total devotional bhakti) but in the final assessment Consciousness is found to be a non-dual realisation. Indeed bhakti is found to be an impediment to truth seeking (jnana) on account of the fact that it involves attachment to a God. The experience is valuable however for it shows the value of non-attachment in the pursuit of realisation. God only made His presence in vyavahrika known to me, He did not assist me in the pursuit of jnana. I had to do that myself from total detachment from God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

If I think, then I am in Paramarathika. No question of a God there. Otherwise, I go along.
'Pure consciousness': Being in Parmarthika mode. Bhakti: Possible in 'Vayavaharika' mode.

 

[ajay0]

I would also like to add that there are spiritual organisations like the Mata Amritanandamayi Mission and Prajapita Brahmakumaris where both Nirguna meditaion ( meditation on the formless Brahman) and Saguna meditation (meditation on Brahman with form) are taught.

In the Brahmakumaris meditation as in witnessing (sakshi bhav) or awareness is emphasized (Nirguna meditation), along with meditation on God Shiva as a point of light (Saguna meditation).

 

[Shantanu]

Dharma is eternal and indelible aspect of Consciousness.

I posted this in another thread but it raises the issue of what Nirguna Brahman is. If it is satchitananda as I suspect and Consciousness is the Doer, then one could say that Brahman has attributes other than being Truth/Existence-Awareness-Bliss. So what does Nirguna mean, I have still to find out.

 

[atanu]

I found this perspective by Swami Sarvapriyananda on the relativity of dualistic worship of God in Advaita Vedanta to be quite interesting. A question is presented in the video that if a true nondualist worships God, is it irrational in such a way that s/he is only worshiping her/himself from a nondual perspective?

In this video, he discusses Brahman alone being real is from the perspective of the ParamArthika level...from the perspective of Absolute reality, and worship of God is performed at the VyAvahArika level...from a relative or temporal perspective, and that there is no philosophical conflict from an advaita perspective, that dvaita is true from the VyAvahArika perspective. There is nothing disingenuous about an Advaitin being a devotee.

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is real from the perspective of ParamArthika, while Saguna Brahman is real from the perspective of VyAvahArika.

What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

I agree. Ramana Maharshi warned “Do not apply advaita to Guru and God”.

 

[Shantanu]

There is nothing disingenuous about an Advaitin being a devotee.

I disagree: Saguna God and other gods in vayavahrika is just the reality that needs to be taken into account when the absolute truth is that of Brahman as Pure Consciousness and the Doer. There is no scope for devotion any more once this realisation has taken hold.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I posted this in another thread but it raises the issue of what Nirguna Brahman is. If it is satchitananda as I suspect and Consciousness is the Doer, then one could say that Brahman has attributes other than being Truth/Existence-Awareness-Bliss. So what does Nirguna mean, I have still to find out.

I disagree: Saguna God and other gods in vayavahrika is just the reality that needs to be taken into account when the absolute truth is that of Brahman as Pure Consciousness and the Doer. There is no scope for devotion any more once this realisation has taken hold.

Pure Consciousness is that which is aware. It is the witness; the observer. If Pure Consciousness is the "Doer," tell me, what can awareness do, bearing in mind that any action is observed by the witness and therefore not the observer, and not Pure Consciousness.

 

[Shantanu]

Pure Consciousness is that which is aware. It is the witness; the observer. If Pure Consciousness is the "Doer," tell me, what can awareness do, bearing in mind that any action is observed by the witness and therefore not the observer, and not Pure Consciousness.

As you know I am still exploring the Nature of Consciousness from my personal experiences of how I have conducted my dharma over decades and from an analysis of this evidence am led to the describing my Consciousness (that is the source of my inspirations for any action that I have undertaken) as being the Doer, whereas I am the witness. Accordingly we humans are helpless although in full control of our actions at the same time. Hence advaita. As to how I should reconcile this with your question, it may well be that we are not dealing with 'Pure' Consciousness in Brahman but which as Doer is unknowable and operates through our consciousness.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...it may well be that we are not dealing with 'Pure' Consciousness in Brahman but which as Doer is unknowable and operates through our consciousness.

I think we're heading in the right direction here. In my view, the doer is jivatman. In other schools of philosophy, suksma sarira, the subtle body, is the doer, but at as I understand it, Adi Shankara didn't have much use in this philosophy, as he felt it was an obstacle to realization, a rationalization which I tend to agree with.

 

[Shantanu]

I think we're heading in the right direction here. In my view, the doer is jivatman. In other schools of philosophy, suksma sarira, the subtle body, is the doer, but at as I understand it, Adi Shankara didn't have much use in this philosophy, as he felt it was an obstacle to realization, a rationalization which I tend to agree with.

Would that mean that the jivatman is our consciousness?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Would that mean that the jivatman is our consciousness?

As I see it, the jivatman is, at least in part, the mutable part of consciousness, that part which is subject to change, while Paramatman is immutable; unchanging Pure Consciousness; that which witnesses.

 

[Shantanu]

As I see it, the jivatman is, at least in part, the mutable part of consciousness, that part which is subject to change, while Paramatman is immutable; unchanging Pure Consciousness; that which witnesses.

The way I see it currently, our bodies and mind constitute what is known as jivatman, the atman being the consciousness energy within our atoms, molecules and thus living tissues and mind; this consciousness energy consisting of the blends of gunas (given to us by genetics) and the totality is the jivatman.

An advaitin transcends his jivatman by becoming one with the universal consciousness (Brahman) which some may term Paramatman: and since I have had incontrovertible personal evidence that Brahman is the source of all our wisdom leading us into our actions in this material world, Brahman is the sole Doer and the jivatman is the witness/observer of all actions performed. Brahman is therefore satchitananda and the advaitin also becomes satchitananda. This means Brahman does everything to generate truth or reality (existence) and is also pure awareness that are imparted to the jivatman.The third component of satchitananda is bliss which Brahman is and this too is imparted to the jivatman through perfect knowledge and existence.

That is how I understand my existence now.