Advaita questions

[SalixIncendium]

Similarly, to give Brahman, the attributes of your choice to make it into Saguna Brahman is the illusion.

Is it really a choice though?

I think there are those that do understand intellectually that they are Brahman, but choose to remain attached to samsara, but I also think that there are those who are merely ignorant to their true nature, and I'm not sure that's really a choice.

 

[atanu]

It's Sankara's idea of Saguna Brahman that I'm struggling with here. And how do I have a choice when it comes to recognising attributes, practically speaking? Beyond recognising they they ARE just attributes?

saguNa and nirguNa brahman are not two different entities. The quality-less brahman that is conceived as being endowed with all qualities in order to explain creation and for the sake of meditation is the saguNa. Since we are Brahman, ultimately we have the choice. But in phenomenal existence, we are bound to preferences and karma dictates.

The distinction between Nirguna and Saguna can be understood with a simile. Although we are of the nature of featureless awareness, to our own mind-senses and to onlookers we are bodies. Similarly, Nirguna Brahman appears as the universe to the onlookers.

So Maya is just a state of mind? But isn't mind Brahman too?

mAyA is the magical creative power intrinsic in consciousness to conjure up multiplicity where there is none -- a la dream creation. For the jnani, mAyA is not ignorance. A jnani is not fooled and clearly discerns the non-dual truth underlying the forms. But that is not true of most of us who take the multiplicity of names-forms to be the ontological reality. The message of the Vedas is simple. The truth is one without a second and that must be realised.

...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it really a choice though?
I think there are those that do understand intellectually that they are Brahman, but choose to remain attached to samsara, but I also think that there are those who are merely ignorant to their true nature, and I'm not sure that's really a choice.

We cannot cut ourselves from Samsara till we are alive. We will eat, work, sleep and do all other things that humans do. Vyavaharika has its own reality, we cannot ignore that. While we live what is suggested is not to be 'lipta' and be 'anasakta' (be uninvolved). That way we follow 'dharma', avoid sorrow, and work better. Whatever form the atoms that constitute us take, they will (separately) do what is required in their specific vyavaharika situation. The flowers will spread their scent, the lion will kill for food. So, the answer to your question, IMHO: There is really no choice. It is uncertainty, randomness, probability that drives us now, and the same will drive the atoms that constitute us in their next form too. But why should we regret it if it is the way of the world, dao, ritam?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Is it really a choice though?

I think there are those that do understand intellectually that they are Brahman, but choose to remain attached to samsara, but I also think that there are those who are merely ignorant to their true nature, and I'm not sure that's really a choice.

Wowee, Salix', namaste!
I looked for a rating to apply to your post (like "let's talk more about this, it's a whole new thread!") but none sufficed.

Discussions of choice and free will are scattered throughout this DIR (and probably other religious DIRs, too, it's a huge subject for seekers), so maybe we don't need to. But I was taught by a realized Master (cannot confirm by experience but I trust) that we have 20% free will, 80% predestined karma, due to samskaras. There's willfully ignorant (Trump comes to mind) which is an exercise of free will. However, I'm struggling to come to terms with the "merely ignorant" not also having an element of choice in it. The Indwelling God speaks to us through our conscience to prod us toward the Light via our thoughts, words and deeds. To alter our behavior to conform to "goodness" or "seek knowledge" is a choice put in front of all us. It's only after repeatedly choosing "not Light" that finally conscience is subdued to abject silence and we get what appears to be the personification of evil in varying degrees as expressed by someone's ego.

I'm rambling, huh. Maybe I should stand down and finish this cup of coffee.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That indwelling God, Swamini, are our 'Samskaras', our bringing up, education, religious teaching and experience. That is our conscience.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

That indwelling God, Swamini, are our 'Samskaras', our bringing up, education, religious teaching and experience. That is our conscience.

Good morning, Aupji, but say whaaaat??!! Indwelling God is NOT my past life garbage and/or good deeds! Not, not, not!

(Also, in another post with you, I used this symbol thinking it was a happy laugh. Just discovered it's sticking my tongue out at you. Not my intent at all!)

 

[SalixIncendium]

We cannot cut ourselves from Samsara till we are alive. We will eat, work, sleep and do all other things that humans do. Vyavaharika has its own reality, we cannot ignore that. While we live what is suggested is not to be 'lipta' and be 'anasakta' (be uninvolved). That way we follow 'dharma', avoid sorrow, and work better. Whatever form the atoms that constitute us take, they will (separately) do what is required in their specific vyavaharika situation. The flowers will spread their scent, the lion will kill for food. So, the answer to your question, IMHO: There is really no choice. It is uncertainty, randomness, probability that drives us now, and the same will drive the atoms that constitute us in their next form too. But why should we regret it if it is the way of the world, dao, ritam?

But I'm not really talking about "cutting" oneself from samsara. I'm talking about living in samsara but remaining unattached to it.

One who has realized one's true nature as Brahman and dwells steadily in this knowledge performs such actions as eating, working, sleeping, etc. as karma yoga, unattached to their actions and in the interest of what is best for all, as Krishna teaches Arjuna in chapter 3 of the Gita.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

But I'm not really talking about "cutting" oneself from samsara. I'm talking about living in samsara but remaining unattached to it.

One who has realized one's true nature as Brahman and dwells steadily in this knowledge performs such actions as eating, working, sleeping, etc. as karma yoga, unattached to their actions and in the interest of what is best for all, as Krishna teaches Arjuna in chapter 3 of the Gita.

Yes, yes, yes and not only unattached to their actions but also the fruits of their actions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Wowee, Salix', namaste!
I looked for a rating to apply to your post (like "let's talk more about this, it's a whole new thread!") but none sufficed.

Discussions of choice and free will are scattered throughout this DIR (and probably other religious DIRs, too, it's a huge subject for seekers), so maybe we don't need to. But I was taught by a realized Master (cannot confirm by experience but I trust) that we have 20% free will, 80% predestined karma, due to samskaras. There's willfully ignorant (Trump comes to mind) which is an exercise of free will. However, I'm struggling to come to terms with the "merely ignorant" not also having an element of choice in it. The Indwelling God speaks to us through our conscience to prod us toward the Light via our thoughts, words and deeds. To alter our behavior to conform to "goodness" or "seek knowledge" is a choice put in front of all us. It's only after repeatedly choosing "not Light" that finally conscience is subdued to abject silence and we get what appears to be the personification of evil in varying degrees as expressed by someone's ego.

I'm rambling, huh. Maybe I should stand down and finish this cup of coffee.

I wasn't really intending to spark a free-will vs determinism discussion. Willful ignorance is, indeed, a choice, but I was speaking more of unintentional ignorance, that ignorance that is a result of maya. I'm speaking of those who are so attached to samsara that they have forgotten entirely who they are.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But I'm not really talking about "cutting" oneself from samsara. I'm talking about living in samsara but remaining unattached to it.

One who has realized one's true nature as Brahman and dwells steadily in this knowledge performs such actions as eating, working, sleeping, etc. as karma yoga, unattached to their actions and in the interest of what is best for all, as Krishna teaches Arjuna in chapter 3 of the Gita.

Yeah, does all the things as Lord Krishna said, even war without hate or anger, sex without lust, knowing that all this is but 'maya'. What is the neeed to cut one off from Samsara? As Lord Krishna said:

"jñeyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī, yo na dveṣṭi na kāṅkṣati;
nirdvandvo hi Mahā-bāho, sukhaṁ bandhāt pramucyate."

Know him as ever-renounced, one who neither hates nor desires; free from all dualities, O mighty-armed (Arjuna), (such a person) easily overcomes material bondage (and is completely liberated). B.G. 5.3
i.e., obtains enlightenment - becomes Brahman itself.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Yeah, does all the things as Lord Krishna said, even war without hate or anger, sex without lust, knowing that all this is but 'maya'. What is the neeed to cut one off from Samskaras?

Aupji, is that a typo? Did you mean cut oneself off from samsara? It's not possible to "cut oneself off" from samskaras, they are attached to and even the cause of one's birth and rebirth. Like seeds, they are only eliminated by 1) enjoying or suffering them in full or 2) getting torched by the fire of knowledge or 3) getting crispy-fried by the grace of God or guru.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Swamini. It was a typo. I have corrected it.
Cut off from Samskaras, and nothing remains.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Yes, Swamini. It was a typo. I have corrected it.
Cut off from Samskaras, and nothing remains.

For sure, that is true! If and only if....

 

[Martin]

Maya is a lack -- of insight or perception. Is a lack a thing, or a lack of a thing?

A lack of insight or perception would be avidya, wouldn't it?

 

[Martin]

saguNa and nirguNa brahman are not two different entities. The quality-less brahman that is conceived as being endowed with all qualities in order to explain creation and for the sake of meditation is the saguNa. Since we are Brahman, ultimately we have the choice. But in phenomenal existence, we are bound to preferences and karma dictates.

The distinction between Nirguna and Saguna can be understood with a simile. Although we are of the nature of featureless awareness, to our own mind-senses and to onlookers we are bodies. Similarly, Nirguna Brahman appears as the universe to the onlookers.



mAyA is the magical creative power intrinsic in consciousness to conjure up multiplicity where there is none -- a la dream creation. For the jnani, mAyA is not ignorance. A jnani is not fooled and clearly discerns the non-dual truth underlying the forms. But that is not true of most of us who take the multiplicity of names-forms to be the ontological reality. The message of the Vedas is simple. The truth is one without a second and that must be realised.

...

So consciousness conjures up multiplicity where there is none? So the phenomenal world of people and mountains we usually experience is only imagined, according to Advaita?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So consciousness conjures up multiplicity where there is none?

No. Multiplicity has a cause. Multiplicity is an appearance caused by maya. Consciousness doesn't conjure it up.

Does your brain 'conjure up' a dream? Not really. It doesn't create the dream out of nothing. Dreams are a product of experiences that create an interactive world of multiplicity in your mind.

The cause of a dream is your experiences in waking consciousness.

The cause of multiplicity in vyavaharika is maya.

So the phenomenal world of people and mountains we usually experience is only imagined, according to Advaita?

Imagined by what?

 

[Vinayaka]

Is it really a choice though?

I think there are those that do understand intellectually that they are Brahman, but choose to remain attached to samsara, but I also think that there are those who are merely ignorant to their true nature, and I'm not sure that's really a choice.

I don't think remaining attached to samsara is a choice, any more that the student in grade 3 is choosing to be in grade 3. One cannot just say, "Now I'm free," and be free. I have seen this view presented though. One does not get release until all karmas are resolved, and more.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I don't think remaining attached to samsara is a choice, any more that the student in grade 3 is choosing to be in grade 3. One cannot just say, "Now I'm free," and be free. I have seen this view presented though. One does not get release until all karmas are resolved, and more.

Wholeheartedly agree, Vinayakaji. Merely stating one is free doesn't mean it is so. And one who is free won't usually state it! We all keep speaking of samsara as if it is one thing, though. But it's more akin to an ocean (and is often referred to as such). What we get attached to and unattached to (usually with the aid and by the prodding of pain and misery) are waves in that ocean, particular forms and matters. Attaining vairagya usually doesn't happen all at once although it can by God's grace alone. Normally, one by one, the bonds of various attachments are loosened and then discarded. Such is the route to true peace.

 

[Martin]

No. Multiplicity has a cause. Multiplicity is an appearance caused by maya. Consciousness doesn't conjure it up.

Does your brain 'conjure up' a dream? Not really. It doesn't create the dream out of nothing. Dreams are a product of experiences that create an interactive world of multiplicity in your mind.

The cause of a dream is your experiences in waking consciousness.

The cause of multiplicity in vyavaharika is maya.



Imagined by what?

So multiplicity (vyavaharika) is the phenomenal world which appears to consciousness?
You seem to be saying something different to Atanu - are there different interpretations of the terminology?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So multiplicity (vyavaharika) is the phenomenal world which appears to consciousness?
You seem to be saying something different to Atanu - are there different interpretations of the terminology?

The major hurtle I've found when attempting to explain Advaita is the varying definitions of 'consciousness.' Eastern and Western philosophy define the terms quite differently.

When I speak of consciousness with regard to Advaita, I am speaking from the Eastern perspective.

"In eastern perspective consciousness intentionality is devoid of intentionality and mental representations. It is pure 'content less' awareness. It is absolute self- awareness which transcends the senses. In eastern perspective knowledge and consciousness are not one and the same. From eastern perspective standpoint consciousness is transcendent reality, and the brain is only an instrument through which consciousness manifest itself. In eastern perspective consciousness is an ontological and metaphysical problem. Consciousness here constitutes the very basis of existence and the essential nature of ultimate reality. This idea of ultimate reality was also developed by several western philosophers as well but it was either physical or mental."​

"Critical Inquiry into Eastern and Western Perspective of Consciousness" by Yadav, Vikas - International Journal of Education and Management Studies, Vol. 5, Issue 4, December 2015 | Online Research Library: Questia.

I think before we continue, we need to have clearly agreed-upon definition of consciousness.