Advaita questions

[atanu]

We're all mad, and obsessed with discussing the ineffable. It's futile, we know, but... well... we're mad!

Well, I do not agree with you. Most, Hindus are not, at least.

First, we are the very effable products of the ineffable -- if we agree that the reality is ineffable. So, it deserves a discussion. Second, Buddhism has indeed generated more arguments and literature than any other religion on this and it has also given rise to a great confusion that 'things' create awareness. Many, I have found, believe that 'dependent arising' means that awareness is born of things.
...

 

[Martin]

I was reading the Wiki article on Saguna Brahman, and according to that, the Advaita of Adi Shankara retained both Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman, but declared the former to be merely illusory. Possibly that's how the idea of Maya emerged?

Saguna brahman - Wikipedia

The article also says that according to the
Bhagavad Gita, Saguna Brahman is immortal, imperishable and eternal.

 

[Martin]

Well, I do not agree with you. Most, Hindus are not, at least.

First, we are the very effable products of the ineffable -- if we agree that the reality is ineffable. So, it deserves a discussion. Second, Buddhism has indeed generated more arguments and literature than any other religion on this and it has also given rise to a great confusion that 'things' create awareness. Many, I have found, believe that 'dependent arising' means that awareness is born of things.
...

So what is the "correct" view in your opinion? There seem to be three possibilities here:
1. Awareness is dependent on things.
2. Things are dependent on awareness.
3. There is a mutual dependence.

And as for ineffable, perhaps these discussions are just "fingers pointing at the moon" as the Zennies would put it.

 

[atanu]

So what is the "correct" view in your opinion? There seem to be three possibilities here:
1. Awareness is dependent on things.
2. Things are dependent on awareness.
3. There is a mutual dependence.

It is not my opinion, actually. 'Prajnanam Brahman' is a well-known sruti, which I have no reason to disagree to. According to Vedanta, consciousness is Brahman and has the following five essential characteristics.

First. Consciousness, chit, is not the mind or the body. Although we feel that consciousness is a property of the body, Consciousness actually is distinct and illumines the mind and the body and all organs within the mind. Consciousness is not a part of our body or our mind. On this point, the teaching of Vedanta is different from that of science, which says that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of bodily processes.

Second. Consciousness pervades and illumines the mind and body enabling the body-mind to function.

Third. Consciousness is not limited by the mind and body. It exists apart from the mind and body. it is not limited to this particular brain or by the body. Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of brain-body as evident from the fact that a dead body has no competence for awareness.

Fourth. Consciousness is known in the functioning of the mind and body. Through the functioning of the mind and body, we can know consciousness

Fifth. Without the mind and body, consciousness although present is not reflected, due to lack of contrast.

And as for ineffable, perhaps these discussions are just "fingers pointing at the moon" as the Zennies would put it.

In my understanding, Brahman is ineffable because it is the very source of mind and word. It is said that mind and word return from it.
...

 

[Martin]

Useful/useless, I thought we were searching for truth. Find our relationship with what exists.

Yeah, though we term Brahman as 'nirguna', we do associate attributes with it: Eternal, Changelss, form-independent, without desires ('vikaras', blemishes, that is a nice word, being attached to something), etc. A desire to be worshiped or a desire to help a devotee will be a 'vikara', blemish, not suiting Brahman's exalted position. Of course, 'Nirguna' cannot have a devotee since the devotee himself/herself/itself will be none other than Brahman. If you find any other attribute which suits Brahman, add it.

By "useful" I just mean what currently resonates, or what works for me, in pursuit of the "truth".
The pre-Advaita meaning of Saguna Brahman makes more sense to me, since everything is Brahman. And Maya just sounds like an article of faith, or a belief, something added on later. Also I see very little support for these Advaita ideas in core texts like the Upanishads, which for me is significant.
Obviously I will keep an open mind, but at this stage I don't think Advaita is for me.

 

[Martin]

It is not my opinion, actually. 'Prajnanam Brahman' is a well-known sruti, which I have no reason to disagree to. According to Vedanta, consciousness is Brahman and has the following five essential characteristics.

First. Consciousness, chit, is not the mind or the body. Although we feel that consciousness is a property of the body, Consciousness actually is distinct and illumines the mind and the body and all organs within the mind. Consciousness is not a part of our body or our mind. On this point, the teaching of Vedanta is different from that of science, which says that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of bodily processes.

Second. Consciousness pervades and illumines the mind and body enabling the body-mind to function.

Third. Consciousness is not limited by the mind and body. It exists apart from the mind and body. it is not limited to this particular brain or by the body. Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of brain-body as evident from the fact that a dead body has no competence for awareness.

Fourth. Consciousness is known in the functioning of the mind and body. Through the functioning of the mind and body, we can know consciousness

Fifth. Without the mind and body, consciousness although present is not reflected, due to lack of contrast.



In my understanding, Brahman is ineffable because it is the very source of mind and word. It is said that mind and word return from it.
...

According to Vedanta - fair enough. You made reference to Buddhism, so I assumed you were comparing different ideas about consciousness across the Dharmic traditions. That's a big topic!

 

[atanu]

According to Vedanta - fair enough. You made reference to Buddhism, so I assumed you were comparing different ideas about consciousness across the Dharmic traditions. That's a big topic!

I think, the subject appears to be big but actually is simple.

Consciousness is jnana, which is of two kinds: prajnana and vijnana, the latter rises (in variety of forms) contingent upon subject-object division. If we get that concept clear, Vedanta and Buddhism have no contradiction.

...

 

[Martin]

I think, the subject appears to be big but actually is simple.

Consciousness is jnana, which is of two kinds: prajnana and vijnana, the latter rises (in variety of forms) contingent upon subject-object division. If we get that concept clear, Vedanta and Buddhism have no contradiction.

...

I don't agree, and actually consciousness is viewed quite differently across the Dharmic traditions.
However a debate of this sort isn't really appropriate for a DIR, and would be better held elsewhere.

 

[SalixIncendium]

However a debate of this sort isn't really appropriate for a DIR, and would be better held elsewhere.

I’ll echo this sentiment.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of putting up a mod post.

 

[atanu]

I don't agree, and actually consciousness is viewed quite differently across the Dharmic traditions.
However a debate of this sort isn't really appropriate for a DIR, and would be better held elsewhere.

Agreed about the DIR part. However, if you wish to explain how dharmic traditions differ fundamentally in respect of awareness and jnana, please do so in another thread.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Multiple instances of inaccurate, carelessly stated information on this thread. FYI, for anyone who may be attempting to find useful information here.

Consciousness is jnana,...

It is not. A dictionary check can clear it up. Someone earlier stated that Maya is ignorance. That is incorrect too.

Why do we continue to see so much of misinformation around Advaita on these discussion forums? Because we have a curious combination of -

a) Westerners who read a Vivekananda book or two and consider themselves experts in Advaita and Hinduism. Expert to the level where they are ready to teach and correct others.

b) Desi-s who have read too much and have become pedantic (myself, included). We have difficulty keeping things simple and I find that our responses are mostly useless.

c) Another class of posters who find it necessary to constantly quote Kabir and unknown Europeans in support of their views on Advaita. Views that are hard to identify with Advaita.

avidyāyāmantare vartamānāḥ svayaṁ dhīrāḥ paṇḍitaṃ manyamānāḥ |
jaṅghanyamānāḥ pariyanti mūḍhā andhenaiva nīyamānā yathāndhāḥ ||

 

[sayak83]

I thought Maya was the result of avidya?
Avidya being the assumption that the world of appearances is real.

Avidya is ignorance (it literally means the absence of knowledge).

 

[sayak83]

Multiple instances of inaccurate, carelessly stated information on this thread. FYI, for anyone who may be attempting to find useful information here.



It is not. A dictionary check can clear it up. Someone earlier stated that Maya is ignorance. That is incorrect too.

Why do we continue to see so much of misinformation around Advaita on these discussion forums? Because we have a curious combination of -

a) Westerners who read a Vivekananda book or two and consider themselves experts in Advaita and Hinduism. Expert to the level where they are ready to teach and correct others.

b) Desi-s who have read too much and have become pedantic (myself, included). We have difficulty keeping things simple and I find that our responses are mostly useless.

c) Another class of posters who find it necessary to constantly quote Kabir and unknown Europeans in support of their views on Advaita. Views that are hard to identify with Advaita.

avidyāyāmantare vartamānāḥ svayaṁ dhīrāḥ paṇḍitaṃ manyamānāḥ |
jaṅghanyamānāḥ pariyanti mūḍhā andhenaiva nīyamānā yathāndhāḥ ||

Ok. More clearly..
Maya is the ignorance induced perception of distinction of essences when there is none in reality.

 

[Martin]

Multiple instances of inaccurate, carelessly stated information on this thread. FYI, for anyone who may be attempting to find useful information here.



It is not. A dictionary check can clear it up. Someone earlier stated that Maya is ignorance. That is incorrect too.

Why do we continue to see so much of misinformation around Advaita on these discussion forums? Because we have a curious combination of -

a) Westerners who read a Vivekananda book or two and consider themselves experts in Advaita and Hinduism. Expert to the level where they are ready to teach and correct others.

b) Desi-s who have read too much and have become pedantic (myself, included). We have difficulty keeping things simple and I find that our responses are mostly useless.

c) Another class of posters who find it necessary to constantly quote Kabir and unknown Europeans in support of their views on Advaita. Views that are hard to identify with Advaita.

avidyāyāmantare vartamānāḥ svayaṁ dhīrāḥ paṇḍitaṃ manyamānāḥ |
jaṅghanyamānāḥ pariyanti mūḍhā andhenaiva nīyamānā yathāndhāḥ ||

I think this kind of thing is inevitable on a discussion forum, and fortunately there are other sources of information. You get lots of different answers and opinions, and some are more helpful than others.
What I value most is contributions from those with a wider knowledge of Hinduism, people who can place particular teachings in a larger context, and make connections where appropriate.

 

[atanu]

According to Vedanta - fair enough. You made reference to Buddhism, so I assumed you were comparing different ideas about consciousness across the Dharmic traditions. That's a big topic!

I think, the subject appears to be big but actually is simple.

Consciousness is jnana, which is of two kinds: prajnana and vijnana, the latter rises (in variety of forms) contingent upon subject-object division. If we get that concept clear, Vedanta and Buddhism have no contradiction.

...

Not in debate mode, but as an information,
please allow me to clarify.

Brahman is defined as ‘satyam-jnaanam-anantam’ and also ‘praajnanam’.

jnaanam is wide spectrum with a base meaning ‘to know’. It encompasses ‘knowledge in the mode of subject-object division’ (vijnana) or ‘knowledge in absence of subject-object division’ (praajnana).

Furthermore, jnaanam may signify 1) a state of being (jnaptih jnanam ), indicating awareness-consciousness; 2) as an instrument (jnayate anena iti janam), or 3) as a substratum (jnanam asti asminiti), it is that which knows or possesses knowledge. It is consciousness.

All three usages apply in respect of the truth called brahman.

(my 1/2 cent).
...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let me add one more attribute to Brahman to the four that I have already mentioned, that of Omni-presence.
The four: Eternal, Changeless, Form-independent, Uninvolved.
Not adding Omni-powerful because there is none other than it to compare with.
Aalso not adding Omni-scient, since I do not agree that knowing is one of the properties of Brahman (ref.: Atanu, Consciousness). Brahman does not need to know anything.

I was reading the Wiki article on Saguna Brahman, and according to that, the Advaita of Adi Shankara retained both Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman, but declared the former to be merely illusory. Possibly that's how the idea of Maya emerged?

You have either written it wrong or understood it wrong, Sankara considered 'the latter' (and not the former), i.e., Saguna Brahman, to exist in the lesser reality (Vyavaharika) and not in the absolute reality (Parmarthika).

It is for you to decide whether Advaita is for you or not. It is not for many Hindus too. Actually, Madhvacharya (Dvaita) and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Hare-Krishnas) considered it to be criminal.

"The article also says that according to the Bhagavad Gita, Saguna Brahman is immortal, imperishable and eternal."
Which is OK. Brahman is Brahman, whether Nirguna or Saguna. Furthermore, since there is nothing other than Brahman in the world, all things are eternal including you and me. Form, birth and death are just 'maya', illusions. That is what Lord Krishna said in BhagawadGita:

"na tu evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ, na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ;
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ, sarve vayam ataḥ param." BG 2.12

na - never; tu - but; eva - certainly; aham - I; jātu - at any time; na - did not; āsam - exist; na - not; tvam - you; na - not; ime - all these; jana-adhipāḥ - kings; na - never; ca - also; eva - certainly; na - not; bhaviṣyāmaḥ - shall exist; sarve vayam - all of us; ataḥ param - hereafter.

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

 

[Martin]

Let me add one more attribute to Brahman to the four that I have already mentioned, that of Omni-presence.
The four: Eternal, Changeless, Form-independent, Uninvolved.
Not adding Omni-powerful because there is none other than it to compare with.
Aalso not adding Omni-scient, since I do not agree that knowing is one of the properties of Brahman (ref.: Atanu, Consciousness). Brahman does not need to know anything.You have either written it wrong or understood it wrong, Sankara considered 'the latter' (and not the former), i.e., Saguna Brahman, to exist in the lesser reality (Vyavaharika) and not in the absolute reality (Parmarthika).

It is for you to decide whether Advaita is for you or not. It is not for many Hindus too. Actually, Madhvacharya (Dvaita) and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Hare-Krishnas) considered it to be criminal.

"The article also says that according to the Bhagavad Gita, Saguna Brahman is immortal, imperishable and eternal."
Which is OK. Brahman is Brahman, whether Nirguna or Saguna. Furthermore, since there is nothing other than Brahman in the world, all things are eternal including you and me. Form, birth and death are just 'maya', illusions. That is what Lord Krishna said in BhagawadGita:

"na tu evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ, na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ;
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ, sarve vayam ataḥ param." BG 2.12

na - never; tu - but; eva - certainly; aham - I; jātu - at any time; na - did not; āsam - exist; na - not; tvam - you; na - not; ime - all these; jana-adhipāḥ - kings; na - never; ca - also; eva - certainly; na - not; bhaviṣyāmaḥ - shall exist; sarve vayam - all of us; ataḥ param - hereafter.

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

I quoted the Wiki passage correctly, please read more carefully. Shankara declared Saguna Brahman to be a mere illusion. But according to the 'Gita, Saguna Brahman is imperishable and eternal, which doesn't sound like an illusion at all. Meanwhile Brahman is eternal, changeless, everywhere and everything, but then Maya (an illusion) was added on to Brahman, sort of.
I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me, so it seems I'm not one of the chosen.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I quoted the Wiki passage correctly, please read more carefully. Shankara declared Saguna Brahman to be a mere illusion. But according to the 'Gita, Saguna Brahman is imperishable and eternal, which doesn't sound an illusion at all.

That is correct. Where does the Gita say the universe/world is an illusion or that Krishna's form is ultimately unreal?

The answer is nowhere. There are no illusions in the text of the Gita. The world is real, people are real, Krishna is real and eternal. The word Maya in the Gita (7.14) is used to mean Krishna's divine power. This is interpreted by all traditional commentators (including Shankara) to mean worldly life (attachments, desires, Karma, etc.), which is hard to overcome.

Saguna Brahman is a peculiar problem in Advaita because of non-duality. Simply put, there is no room for two entities (Saguna Brahman and Atman) in a non-dual paradigm. This constraint leads to several other logical complications with the doctrine, which IMHO, most Advaitins fail to grasp. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

I quoted the Wiki passage correctly, please read more carefully. Shankara declared Saguna Brahman to be a mere illusion. But according to the 'Gita, Saguna Brahman is imperishable and eternal, which doesn't sound like an illusion at all. Meanwhile Brahma is everything, but then we add on Maya... Hmmm!

But doesn't Vedanta declare every-thing an illusion, ultimately?
Reality's different at different levels. What level was the Gita addressing?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But according to the 'Gita, Saguna Brahman is imperishable and eternal, which doesn't sound like an illusion at all.

I did not use illusion for Saguna Brahman and neither did Sankara. We term 'maya' and the 'perceived world' to be the 'lesser reality' (Vyavaharika) since they too are based in and on Brahman, as opposed to the greater reality (Paramarthika) which is Brahman only and nothing else. The 'lesser reality' also is a reality. But the real 'seeing' or 'understanding', when one sees Brahman in everything, everywhere without any exception.

BhagawadGita has statements of both kinds. 1. Where Brahman is said to constitutes all things and, 2. Where Krishna is the Supreme God, Supreme soul or entity. This is because of interpolations in BhagawadGita by Vaishnavas. To be frank, we do not have the Gita as it may have been written at the beginning of Christian era or a little before that by an anonymous poet. But if one takes Krishna to be the Brahman and not as a personal God, then the ambiguity dissolves.

"I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me, so it seems I'm not one of the chosen."

It is not as difficult as you seem to think. Take the computer screen which is before you. In Vyavaharika, it will be glass; in Parmarthika, it will be Brahman (since all things are Brahman). Both things are real in their different senses. Of course, it does not bar you from having any other view including rejection of 'maya' in toto as venerable Madhvacharya did in 11th Century.
"In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, there are two realities: Vyavaharika (empirical reality) and Paramarthika (absolute, spiritual reality). .. The theory of māyā was developed by the 9th Century Advaita Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara." Maya (religion) - Wikipedia