Advaita questions

[Martin]

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

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

Sure, two levels of reality, or two types of Brahman, but that is adequately described by the distinction between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.
I don't see the need to introduce the idea of Maya as illusion, which is how I've heard many Advaitans talk about it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"avidyāyāmantare vartamānāḥ svayaṁ dhīrāḥ paṇḍitaṃ manyamānāḥ l
jaṅghanyamānāḥ pariyanti mūḍhā andhenaiva nīyamānā yathāndhāḥ ll"

Katha Upanishad 1.2.5 (associated with Katha Shakha of Krishna Yajurveda), Prathama Adhyaya (First Chapter), Dvitiya Valli (Second vine), Pancham Mantra (Fifth verse).

Translation: Living in the midst of ignorance and deeming themselves intelligent and enlightened, the ignorant go round and round staggering in crooked paths, like the blind led by the blind.

Note: I do not think it is a word by word translation, but OK, close enough.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

By some. Others may have a different definition. Or do you mean to say that this alone is correct and all others are wrong?
I suggest you never do that in Hinduism, because this makes Hinduism into an Abrahamic religion.
Accept the existence of, and respect, alternative views. They also were written by Acharyas, Acharya Guadapada, for example.
He was perhaps the guru of the guru of Adi Sankaracharya.

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

Nothing is totally an illusion except what we may see in a dream, because at the base of all illusions is Brahman. At the base of what we took as a snake was a rope.
The problem is that BhagawadGita addresses both realities, Vyavaharika as well as Paramarthika.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure, two levels of reality, or two types of Brahman, but that is adequately described by the distinction between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.
I don't see the need to introduce the idea of Maya as illusion, which is how I've heard many Advaitans talk about it.

You address me as Aupmanyav. That is an illusion, maya, bhranti, ignorance, avidya, and what not. You fail to see me as Brahman, that really I am. Or if I take you as Meerkat only. I am not seeing you as Brahman which you really are. Or even when I see meerkats as meerkats and not as Brahman, which they really are. There are people in Hinduism who would address us only as 'Brahman' and possibly see us as Brahman too.

This is no joke but deep contemplation. This is perfection in 'Advaita' belief. If one does not see that, then, the person is a half-baked Advaitist. Only a few can achieve this distinction.

 

[ajay0]

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.

Before studying advaita, it is important to study the principle of
critical examination as taught by Kabir to distinguish between
truth expounded by sages and falsehood expounded by pseudo-scholars and fraudsters who have proliferated in large numbers in recent times.


Kabir on the need for critical examination to weed out the false and fraudulent...

The Bhagavatam has also prophesized of false interpretations of the vedas in the Kali Yuga by speculative pseudoscholars.Source:Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.32


The Vedic scriptures had made special mention of the
pseudoscholar Virochana who misinterpreted Brahman as his body and spread ignorance amongst his fellows foolishly while posing as a wise man.

It is important for us to learn from these warnings to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of Maya herself while discussing about Maya.

 

[Martin]

You address me as Aupmanyav. That is an illusion, maya, bhranti, ignorance, avidya, and what not. You fail to see me as Brahman, that really I am. Or if I take you as Meerkat only. I am not seeing you as Brahman which you really are. Or even when I see meerkats as meerkats and not as Brahman, which they are. There are people in Hinduism who would address us only as 'Brahman' and possibly see us as Brahman too.

I could also see you as a manifestation of Brahman, along with trees and mountains and such. There are other ways of looking at it. Non-Advaita ways.
Anyway, that's probably enough for the moment, time to reflect and digest.

 

[ajay0]

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).

...

This is very insightful. Thank you for this.

 

[Martin]

Before studying advaita, it is important to study the principle of
critical examination as taught by Kabir to distinguish between
truth expounded by sages and falsehood expounded by pseudo-scholars and fraudsters who have proliferated in large numbers in recent times.


Kabir on the need for critical examination to weed out the false and fraudulent...

The Bhagavatam has also prophesized of false interpretations of the vedas in the Kali Yuga by speculative pseudoscholars.Source:Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.32


The Vedic scriptures had made special mention of the
pseudoscholar Virochana who misinterpreted Brahman as his body and spread ignorance amongst his fellows foolishly while posing as a wise man.

It is important for us to learn from these warnings to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of Maya herself while discussing about Maya.

So there are competing versions of Advaita? OK.

 

[ajay0]

So there are competing versions of Advaita? OK.

No, as per the vedic scriptures and Srimadbhagavatham there are genuine truths as expounded by the vedic sages and falsehoods as expounded by the likes of Virochana and pseudoscholars in the Kali Yuga.

It is just a warning given by these sages so that one does not stray away from the path due to mirages and illusions of Maya.

 

[Valjean]

Sure, two levels of reality, or two types of Brahman, but that is adequately described by the distinction between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.
I don't see the need to introduce the idea of Maya as illusion, which is how I've heard many Advaitans talk about it.

More than two levels -- you experience at least two already.
Not two types of Brahman. The ultimate Reality just doesn't lend itself to discussion. Reality is unity; a single entity.

You can project anything you want onto a featureless screen, but the images aren't really qualities of the screen. The screen is blank -- just images -- illusions.

On Maya:
The concept of illusion is fundamental to philosophical Hinduism. When we say the world is illusion we mean it literally, it's not metaphorical.

At night I dream. The dream is my reality. I perceive the world I dream of as real. I'm unaware of any other reality. but, in fact, it's Maya -- an illusion -- which becomes apparent as soon as I wake into the next level; the one I'm in now.

But this level is just another illusion. The computer, my cat, my body -- all another level of dream -- yet I don't perceive it as such. It all seems very real.
Yet if I manage to wake to the next level, this illusion, too, will disappear and it will be obvious that my current waking-state was just another dream.

Expanding awareness through stacked levels of reality is what the Hinduism is all about. The ultimate goal is Unity; a merger with the universe; with Brahman. The goal is to transcend all the levels, become fully awake, and become Brahman.

 

[atanu]

Sure, two levels of reality, or two types of Brahman, but that is adequately described by the distinction between Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.
I don't see the need to introduce the idea of Maya as illusion, which is how I've heard many Advaitans talk about it.

Can I request you to state your concept of maayaa and why you think that it is an unnecessary concept? You may point me to the post, if you have already explained.

 

[Valjean]

Before studying advaita, it is important to study the principle of
critical examination as taught by Kabir to distinguish between
truth expounded by sages and falsehood expounded by pseudo-scholars and fraudsters who have proliferated in large numbers in recent times.


Kabir on the need for critical examination to weed out the false and fraudulent...

The Bhagavatam has also prophesized of false interpretations of the vedas in the Kali Yuga by speculative pseudoscholars.Source:Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.32


The Vedic scriptures had made special mention of the
pseudoscholar Virochana who misinterpreted Brahman as his body and spread ignorance amongst his fellows foolishly while posing as a wise man.

It is important for us to learn from these warnings to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of Maya herself while discussing about Maya.

Sages are all well and good, but they must be transcended. One must see for oneself. That's the point.
For an enlightened one, the whole of the Vedas is useless drivel.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So there are competing versions of Advaita? OK.

Different, not competing. Someone accepts one, someone the other. That is no problem. Having reasonable different views is OK in Hinduism.

Within the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism there are many sub-schools, of which Advaita is possibly the oldest. The many schools of Vedanta are: Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia (name of the teacher, Acharya, given in bracket)

• Advaita : Non-dualism (Gaudapada, Sankara)
  
• Vishishta-advaita : Qualified Non-dualism (Ramanuja)
  
• Dvaita-advaita : Dualistic Non-dualism (Nimbarka)
  
• Shuddha-advaita : Pure Non-dualism (Vallabha)
  
• Dvaita : Dualism (Madhva - Not really Advaita but still considers arising from one. Sorry, I do not understand that correctly)
  
• Achintya Bheda Abheda Advaita: Inconceivable one-ness and difference (Chaitanya)
• Aupādhika Bheda-Abheda Advaita (Difference - non-difference) which is probably non-existent now (Bhaskara).

All teachers (Acharyas) are to be respected whether one believes in their philosophy or not. That is the Hindu religious etiquette.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For an enlightened one, the whole of the Vedas is useless drivel.

For the enlightened, that was Bachelors. Then they completed their Master's and/or Doctoral. One does not dismiss the books that one reads at lower levels, one loves them. After all, what they know now has its source in those books.
So, the first commandment - Do not disrespect. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti' (Wise people say in various ways).

 

[ajay0]

For an enlightened one, the whole of the Vedas is useless drivel.

The enlightened one has purified his consciousness of raag-dvesh,cravings and aversions and thus realised that Brahman is pure consciousness.

Such a one does not need the vedas or teachings of enlightened masters who have realized that Brahman is pure consciousness.His own words themselves have the value of scriptures.

Sages are all well and good, but they must be transcended. One must see for oneself. That's the point.

But Virochana had his own speculative interpretation which contradicted the vedic dictum that Brahman is pure consciousness. It is for this reason that the Vedic sages sets him as an example of foolish delusion and a case study and warning for everyone to profit from .

See for yourself, but if your understanding contradicts the teachings of the vedas and enlightened sages, it means you are a clear victim of delusion. Period.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Expanding awareness through stacked levels of reality is what the Hinduism is all about. The ultimate goal is Unity; a merger with the universe; with Brahman. The goal is to transcend all the levels, become fully awake, and become Brahman.

Following your logic, how do you know this "fully awake" state is not yet another illusion to be eventually transcended?

If the goal is to become Brahman, what are you now?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Different, not competing. Someone accepts one, someone the other. That is no problem. Having reasonable different views is OK in Hinduism.

Within the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism there are many sub-schools, of which Advaita is possibly the oldest. The many schools of Vedanta are: Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia (name of the teacher, Acharya, given in bracket)

• Advaita : Non-dualism (Gaudapada, Sankara)
  
• Vishishta-advaita : Qualified Non-dualism (Ramanuja)
  
• Dvaita-advaita : Dualistic Non-dualism (Nimbarka)
  
• Shuddha-advaita : Pure Non-dualism (Vallabha)
  
• Dvaita : Dualism (Madhva - Not really Advaita but still considers arising from one. Sorry, I do not understand that correctly)
  
• Achintya Bheda Abheda Advaita: Inconceivable one-ness and difference (Chaitanya)
• Aupādhika Bheda-Abheda Advaita (Difference - non-difference) which is probably non-existent now (Bhaskara).

All teachers (Acharyas) are to be respected whether one believes in their philosophy or not. That is the Hindu religious etiquette.

Bheda-Abheda (Bhartrprapancha) is older than Advaita. Most people today who consider themselves Advaitins are actually following Bheda-Abheda.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wikipedia gives around the same time to Bhaskara as to Sankara, 8th Century. But what you say is correct. As per our previous discussions I have a doubt that my views may be more aligned with Bheda-Abheda. I will read more about it.

Following your logic, how do you know this "fully awake" state is not yet another illusion to be eventually transcended?

Let me make a guess - If it does anything, acts, then it is not Brahman. When it is at rest, it is Brahman.

 

[atanu]

Bheda abedha considers individual souls to be amshas (parts) of brahman. I do not know of any Advaita teacher teaching that or any advaitin (other than the fake or misguided ones) believing that souls are parts.

...

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Wikipedia gives around the same time to Bhaskara as to Sankara, 8th Century.

Yes, Bhaskara came shortly after Shankara and is the first known critic of Advaita. He criticized Shankara for replacing the traditional interpretation of Vedanta with a Buddhistic interpretation.

But Bhedabheda goes back to a more remote past - at least to the time of Bhartrprapanca. Unfortunately, Bhartrprapanca has been forgotten today to the point where he has no wiki page.

Let me make a guess - If it does anything, acts, then it is not Brahman. When it is at rest, it is Brahman.

You say, if it acts "it is not Brahman". What is it then?
How do you define "at rest"?