Advaita questions

[Aupmanyav]

Am I still Shiv? If not, what is my identity?.. I am Shiv and I am dreaming. I wake up (what am I now?) and if I return to sleep, will I will be Shiv again with the exact same objects in place as before?

Ask an true advaitist. You are never X.Y.Z. Shivsomashekhar. You were/are/will always be Brahman. If you are Shiva, you are dreaming. If you wake up, you are Brahman. Return will depend on how strong your conviction is. If it is not strong, you will be Shiva or fluctuate between being Shiva and being Brahman (intermittently ). If it is strong, You may always be Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have to live in the world you perceive. Knowing intellectually that you're dreaming the lion won't save you as long as you're dreaming. The only way to change the dream is to wake up.

The perceived world also is a reality though it may not be 'absolute reality'. It is a tough reality having lions and Covid-19. To escape being eaten by a lion, either you have to remain very calm (the Zulu do that, after some time the lion looses interest in you because you are not its natural food), or run or kill the lion. Waking up to 'advaita' does not help you there.

If the lion eats you then you fulfill the food mantra:

Harir Dātā Harir Bhoktā
 Harir Annam Prajāpatih l
Harir Vipra Sharīrāstu
 Bhūnkte Bhojayate Harih ll

Hari (Brahman) is the giver, Hari is the eater, Hari is the Lord of Populace Food;
Hari is the body of wise people, who eats and who is eaten both are Hari.

i.e., the lion, who is the eater, and you, who are being eaten, both are Brahman (does not make any difference, does it?).

 

[Valjean]

Ok. Let's follow this line of thinking.

I am currently dreaming and the phone is part of my dream. I wake up and there is no longer a phone. What am I now?

Am I still Shiv? If not, what is my identity?
Do I still have recollection of the phone?

You're whoever/whatever you perceive yourself to be. Like the phone, you've imagined yourself into being.
Do you consciously perceive yourself as Shiv? If so, you are Shiv. If you perceive yourself as
Narendra Modi, or Hanuman, or a cat, that's your reality. You are what you dream yourself to be.

If I am the phone and the book, what does that mean? The book = the phone or are they distinct entities that are part of me?

If you perceive them as distinct entities, that they are. It's your dream.
If your consciousness expands to the point that you no longer perceive them as objects separate from each other or yourself, then that's your new reality. You were only dreaming them anyway. They were your own creation.

I am Shiv and I am dreaming. I wake up (what am I now?) and if I return to sleep, will I will be Shiv again with the exact same objects in place as before?

What did you wake to? What level of consciousness? There are levels of dreaming; levels of reality nested one within the other.
If you're in 2nd-state -- REM sleep, -- and wake to 3rd state, -- waking-state -- then you are what I assume you perceive yourself to be, a 3-D person sitting in a chair reading a message on a computer monitor. That's waking-state reality.

If you wake to 5th or 6th state, your perception of yourself as a separate, tangible object in a world of other separate objects will be diminished or gone.

Brahman is the ritual
Brahman is the offering
Brahman is he who offers
To the fire that is Brahman
If one sees Brahman in every action
He will become Brahman
-- Gita. 4:24.

 

[ajay0]

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?

Sankara was already a practicing Bhakta who worshipped Saguna Brahman in the form of the Shivalingam.


He also understood Nirguna Brahman both intellectually and experientially speaking in a accurate manner without delusions.

And how do I have a choice when it comes to recognising attributes, practically speaking? Beyond recognising they they ARE just attributes?

Attributes are easily recognizable. Saguna Brahman usually comes in a form that is finite, relatable and attractive. This enables easy recognition and worship.


Nirguna Brahman is beyond form and attributes and is of an infinite nature beyond intellectual comprehension. This lack of attributes naturally prevents its easy focus and proper worship. It is consciousness that is thus the right instrument to perceive Nirguna Brahman which is pure consciousness without attributes.

 

[ajay0]

Asking "What lion?" is surely very sensible if you're about to be eaten by one. We have evolved to recognise threats.
And asking "What red light?" is very useful when driving a car or train, or whatever.

In the nondual perception one identifies a lion or tiger as such and take effective action against it.

There is no conceptualisation of advaita or dvaita in the given
situation. If such a conceptualisation takes place, it would actually slow down action and bring intellectual paralysis. It is dualism that is the cause of fear and prevents intelligent action.

Many accidents and errors have taken place because people had been a victim of their compulsive thought and emoting process, forgetting the task at hand. Even seemingly sane people had become victims of their passions created by dualistic perception, leading to criminal incidents.

In nondual perception , perception is accurate and action is instant leading to efficiency.

Advaita is nonconceptual perception .Krishna was well-established in nondual perception which was the cause of his efficient conduct and correct judgement at all times.

This was also the reason why he was able to calm down and straighten up Arjuna, who had a nervous breakdown due to his attachments.

If one is still stuck in concepts of advaita or dvaita in the presence of a tiger or a threat, it means such a person is still stuck in dualistic concepts and have only a deluded understanding of Advaita, and is actually confused. Such a one confuses Advaita with concepts , and thus lives in actual self-deception. There is a well-known saying, 'Awareness is the great nonconceptual perfection.'

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Well I'll attempt a mathematical equation for an answer:

Nirguna Brahman + Maya = Saguna Brahaman

Namaste, George-ananda
I must respectfully disagree with your mathematical equation. It does not correspond to my experience of saguna Brahman. Maya operates within and obfuscates Reality only within the realms of the senses, all five of them, in order to execute the command of Nirguna Brahman to create "unreal" guna-modified worldly experiences. For It's own sport. The first words of the Upanishads are, "All this is created for the play and habitation of the Lord." When I look around these days, I often chide that Brahman and ask if "He's" having a good time?

Experiencing saguna world(s) is not the same as experiencing saguna Brahman, per se. An experience of saguna Brahman transcends the senses (that's why divine experiences are called transcendental), is not perceived by the senses at all and therefore is not an experience of the world but is something else altogether. Saguna Brahman is only visible when the third eye opens, even if briefly.

Someone elsewhere in this thread opined that maybe a bhakti yogi could weigh in on the subject, and I'd like to. God DOES take a transcendental form. That form (Saguna Brahman) is not perceived as solid matter like we are accustomed to perceiving created things. It is also quite distinguishable as extra-ordinary, i.e, not of this realm--beautiful, glorious, awesomely so!!!--by the fact that when viewed, light is not reflected off of it (like the moon). Rather, it shines with its own Light, exactly like the sun shines, expanding rays 'n all. It's no wonder the sages use those two as examples of this truth. NOTHING is the same after one experiences that, although the balance of one's prarabdha (predestined) karma must still be enjoyed and/or endured.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Maya operates within and obfuscates Reality only within the realms of the senses, all five of them, in order to execute the command of Nirguna Brahman to create "unreal" guna-modified worldly experiences. For It's own sport. The first words of the Upanishads are, "All this is created for the play and habitation of the Lord." When I look around these days, I often chide that Brahman and ask if "He's" having a good time?

Swamini, allow me to differ with what you have said. Maya is not a part of Brahman, like shadow is not a part of sun. But yes, shadow happens because the existence of sun. Similarly 'maya' too happens because of existence of Brahman. Does the sun require the shadow for any reason? No, it does not. The 'Nirguna' does not command anything, has no need to command anything. It does not do anything, it is changeless. The universe itself is an illusion, i.e., we (Brahman) perceive the universe (Brahman) under the veil of 'maya'. Once the veil is removed, we understand and perceive Brahman in all things. Brahman has no interest in any 'sport' also, therefore kindly do not blame it for what we perceive to happen in the world. It is 'maya' only. (Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya ..)
But then, it is not necessary that you will or must have the same views as I have.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Smile, hello Aupji, just got back from a long walk. I hope you are well! I missed 3 years of not wishing you a happy anniversary in February.

Of course you may differ with me, lol. Just like old times. But if ALL is Brahman, as most agree in the abstract, how can Maya not be a part of or associated with It? I was attempting to say that Brahman "wills" and Mother Maya "acts" or "produces" accordingly. Our minds separate the two, but in Reality, they are inseparable.

Now, if you wish to argue with the Upanishads, you'll have to take that up with someone else.

Ishavasyam idam sarvam
Yat kim cha jagatyam jagat
Tena tyaktena bhunjithah
Ma gridhah kasyasvid dhanam

All this is for the play and habitation of the Lord.
All this is God, and nothing else.
​

For me, this statement is profound and profoundly revealing of "the way things are" and an instructive teaching. I interpret it as referring to Prem Lila, the Play of the Love Divine (which I was calling God's sport), as well as a reminder that God resides within all, interpenetrates all, including assuming various costumes as "us." And yes, it is Maya Herself who prevents the "us" from realizing it. Until we do, of course.

Warm, warm regards to you...!

 

[ajay0]

@ Meerkat


A word to the wise.

Advaita is a very difficult philosophy to understand properly, because the philosophical truth that it expresses is understood essentially through experiential understanding. Intellectually understanding is just a preparatory foundation for this experiential understanding.

As I explained earlier, there were frauds like Virochana, who has been showcased by ancient vedic philosophers as a text book case study of someone with deluded understanding of Brahman. There had been frauds back then, in the time of Adi Shankaracharya as well who had described their delusionary understanding of Brahman in his books, and now as well.

The Bhagavatham has also mentioned of pseudo-scholars and fraudsters in the Kali Yuga with deluded understanding of vedic philosophy. ( 12.3.32 )

The blind will only lead the blind to the ditch and many sincere seekers have drowned in the ocean of delusion being led by the blind.

In the Hinduism forum, I consider Atanu, Tattvaprahav, Ameyatma and SalixIncendium as authoritative figures in the Advaitan philosophy and having proficiency in the subject.

Studying their posts can help you get a clearer intellectual understanding of Advaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Swamini, you have complicated it. Whether 'maya' is a part of Brahman or not, but we both agree that 'maya' would not exist if Brahman did not exist.
Destruction is not a part of bomb, but the effect.
Killing is not part of bullet but effect. I am thinking about it.
Now, who is this Ishwara?

 

[Martin]

@ Meerkat


A word to the wise.

Advaita is a very difficult philosophy to understand properly, because the philosophical truth that it expresses is understood essentially through experiential understanding. Intellectually understanding is just a preparatory foundation for this experiential understanding.

As I explained earlier, there were frauds like Virochana, who has been showcased by ancient vedic philosophers as a text book case study of someone with deluded understanding of Brahman. There had been frauds back then, in the time of Adi Shankaracharya as well who had described their delusionary understanding of Brahman in his books, and now as well.

The Bhagavatham has also mentioned of pseudo-scholars and fraudsters in the Kali Yuga with deluded understanding of vedic philosophy. ( 12.3.32 )

The blind will only lead the blind to the ditch and many sincere seekers have drowned in the ocean of delusion being led by the blind.

In the Hinduism forum, I consider Atanu, Tattvaprahav, Ameyatma and SalixIncendium as authoritative figures in the Advaitan philosophy and having proficiency in the subject.

Studying their posts can help you get a clearer intellectual understanding of Advaita.

Yes, I do understand the importance of experiential understanding, though many religions would make this point, not least the other Hindu schools. And of course spiritual experiences and realisations are explained in different ways by different traditions.

 

[Martin]

Swamini, you have complicated it. Whether 'maya' is a part of Brahman or not, but we both agree that 'maya' would not exist if Brahman did not exist.
Destruction is not a part of bomb, but the effect.
Killing is not part of bullet but effect. I am thinking about it.
Now, who is this Ishwara?

If everything is Brahman, then Maya is Brahman too. Assuming the idea of Maya as illusion is actually correct.
Personally I think Saguna Brahman as a manifestation of Nirguna Brahman is more consistent with the texts, and more straightforward.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Maya' is a state of mind. It is not a thing (so to say). That is, we will not go into definition of a thing at the moment, if you permit.

 

[Martin]

'Maya' is a state of mind. It is not a thing (so to say). That is, we will not go into definition of a thing at the moment, if you permit.

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

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, it is not. Mind is the effect, brain is the cause. Brain is Brahman like all other things; atoms, energy, quanta, wave. Brahman is 'physical energy' with which we may have started at the time of Big Bang, one thing which constitute all things in the universe, perceived or unperceived - which can both exist and go into a phase of non-existence. My guess, science has not commented on it. If it is wrong, the fault is mine.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Swamini, you have complicated it. Whether 'maya' is a part of Brahman or not, but we both agree that 'maya' would not exist if Brahman did not exist.
Destruction is not a part of bomb, but the effect.
Killing is not part of bullet but effect. I am thinking about it.
Now, who is this Ishwara?

Truly, I should have confessed to all before posting anything in a thread about Advaita, that I really don't have any experience of It. (Else "I" wouldn't be here!)

Yes, we certainly agree that maya would not exist if Brahman did not exist. But Aupji, are you sure you're not parsing a little too fine here? It could be only my take on your wording so I apologize in advance if this is so. But it "feels" like you have a complete separation in your mind between cause and effect. But the Upanishadic teaching is that "fire is inherent in the firewood." Thus, destruction is inherent and therefore part and parcel of a bomb, etc. Svabhava is not the definitive answer, but if potentiality is dismissed entirely as a factor, I think it could be a mind-trap. The nature of mind is to classify, distinguish, separate, weigh, compare. It's totally built for experiencing duality, not advaita-oneness, which is why getting it to shut up is so critical in a spiritual quest.

You're a tease, you are! You or anybody else wanna meet Ishwara, the Shining One? Git outta yer head and take a humble stroll in the hridaya, your sacred heart where soul and God dwell together! But now we're into bhakti yoga... and that really WILL complicate things in an Advaita thread!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, the potentiality of 'maya' exists in Brahman. If there is a bullet, it can kill. You are right, I am completely separating cause and effect, though recognizing their relationship.
I took a stroll in my heart, I found the whole universe in it.
Thanks, Swamini, for paying attention to my blabber.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Yeah, the potentiality of 'maya' exists in Brahman. If there is a bullet, it can kill. You are right, I am completely separating cause and effect, though recognizing their relationship.
I took a stroll in my heart, I found the whole universe in it.
Thanks, Swamini, for paying attention to my blabber.

LOL, you are as dear to me as Ishwara for truly there is no difference, Aupji! I have no doubt you found the universe and more within your heart. Keep on strolling....

 

[Valjean]

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

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

 

[Aupmanyav]

I lack my wallet.
He wades in 'maya'.
(if that helps)