Advaita: What gives sentiency to a thing?

[Viswa]

Samkhya was the first Hindu school I explored, and it made a lot of sense to me. However, given it's a sort of atheist dualism, I don't think it sits well with Advaita conceptions of Brahman and Maya.

Well perception sir.

You are right, Sankhya does not speak about Brahman and only Atheist Dualism.

But, do you know!!!, No Upanishads speaks about Maya. In BG and Puranas, it is called as "Yoga Maya and My Maya", a power of Me (like a magic wand of Harry Potter, where the wand is useless without wielder), to bring Unmanifestations to Manifestations.

That's all is spoken about. It is the 'play' of Shankara or Advaita Vedanta, which gave much importance to Maya, as Illusions and such. Yoga Vasishta speaks about Illusion and Dreams concept, but not named it as Maya, just as an example of everything's uncertainty.

To speak about Brahman, there is only two things and none other. Only two things which the Brahma sutras and Upanishads and everything speaks about Brahman.

They are, "Everything is Brahman" and "Brahman is not everything".

To Understand Brahman, there are two views.
1. When one goes from bottom to top (i.e. Small to Big - limited to Unlimited), then attribute Every limitations to that Unlimited. Everything is Brahman.

2. When from top to bottom, Big cannot be attributed to Small, Unlimited not to limited existence. So, Brahman is not everything.

It is like "This is That" but "That is not This".

There is none other to speak about Brahman (also about Maya - nothing to speak about Maya except power of Brahman).

Even in Brahma sutras, only two chapters speak about "Everything is Brahman and Brahman is not everything". All other is about after death and liberation and etc.,

Brahman is not speakable but two ways to reach it by attributing "Everything is Brahman" or by negating all attributes to That as "Brahman is not this not this".

Without Sankhya, Brahmasutras and Bhagavat Gita also cannot be written. It is with the assistance of Sankhya, everything is written. Everything in Sankhya is made as "This", and said as "This is Brahman and Brahman is not this". Without 'this' (Sankhya), THAT cannot be spoke or written about.

 

[Martin]

Well perception sir.

You are right, Sankhya does not speak about Brahman and only Atheist Dualism.

But, do you know!!!, No Upanishads speaks about Maya. In BG and Puranas, it is called as "Yoga Maya and My Maya", a power of Me (like a magic wand of Harry Potter, where the wand is useless without wielder), to bring Unmanifestations to Manifestations.

That's all is spoken about. It is the 'play' of Shankara or Advaita Vedanta, which gave much importance to Maya, as Illusions and such. Yoga Vasishta speaks about Illusion and Dreams concept, but not named it as Maya, just as an example of everything's uncertainty.

To speak about Brahman, there is only two things and none other. Only two things which the Brahma sutras and Upanishads and everything speaks about Brahman.

They are, "Everything is Brahman" and "Brahman is not everything".

To Understand Brahman, there are two views.
1. When one goes from bottom to top (i.e. Small to Big - limited to Unlimited), then attribute Every limitations to that Unlimited. Everything is Brahman.

2. When from top to bottom, Big cannot be attributed to Small, Unlimited not to limited existence. So, Brahman is not everything.

It is like "This is That" but "That is not This".

There is none other to speak about Brahman (also about Maya - nothing to speak about Maya except power of Brahman).

Even in Brahma sutras, only two chapters speak about "Everything is Brahman and Brahman is not everything". All other is about after death and liberation and etc.,

Brahman is not speakable but two ways to reach it by attributing "Everything is Brahman" or by negating all attributes to That as "Brahman is not this not this".

Without Sankhya, Brahmasutras and Bhagavat Gita also cannot be written. It is with the assistance of Sankhya, everything is written. Everything in Sankhya is made as "This", and said as "This is Brahman and Brahman is not this". Without 'this' (Sankhya), THAT cannot be spoke or written about.

Sure, and the scriptures can be interpreted in different ways, according to one's assumptions and preferences. Though the assumptions are not always clearly enumerated.

From my reading, Brahman is more often associated with Self (Atman/purusha) than with everything, eg in the Mandukya Upanishad.
But with an Advaita view, Atman/Brahman can't have a second, so prakriti is relegated to mere illusion, ie Maya. Meanwhile, Samkhya allows the duality of purusha/Atman and prakriti.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You need to decide what floats your boat.

 

[ajay0]

Samkhya was the first Hindu school I explored, and it made a lot of sense to me. However, given it's a sort of atheist dualism, I don't think it sits well with Advaita conceptions of Brahman and Maya.

Sankhya is just a philosophy and methodology for enlightenment, just like Buddhism.

It is not an atheist dualism, just because it makes no mention of Brahman.

There is still focus on Purusha or consciousness and the need for attaining mastery over prakriti or nature.

I know of advaitans, genuine ones, who have a good mastery over the sankhyan philosophy as well.

The point is to select that which appeals to ones temperament for attaining enlightenment, and adhere to it.

 

[Martin]

Sankhya is just a philosophy and methodology for enlightenment, just like Buddhism.

It is not an atheist dualism, just because it makes no mention of Brahman.

There is still focus on Purusha or consciousness and the need for attaining mastery over prakriti or nature.

I know of advaitans, genuine ones, who have a good mastery over the sankhyan philosophy as well.

The point is to select that which appeals to ones temperament for attaining enlightenment, and adhere to it.

Advaita is also just a philosophy and methodology, so I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm just contrasting and comparing the two schools. Both schools emphasise the importance of realising the Self (Atman/purusha), though the underlying assumptions are quite different.
It's good to hear that some Advaitans understand Samkhya philosophy, but I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion.

 

[ajay0]

Advaita is also just a philosophy and methodology, so I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm just contrasting and comparing the two schools. Both schools emphasise the importance of realising the Self (Atman/purusha), though the underlying assumptions are quite different.
It's good to hear that some Advaitans understand Samkhya philosophy, but I don't understand how that is relevant to the discussion.

Purification of the consciousness and eliminating the bondage of Prakriti is the aim of both advaita and sankhya.

They may have different narratives, but the goal is the same.

The mountain can be tackled by different routes, but the summit is the same.

Sankhya is not atheist. There is no reference to God or gods but this cannot be interpreted as atheism.

The focus is on purifying the purusha, the witness-consciousness from the bondage of prakriti or matter.

 

[Martin]

Purification of the consciousness and eliminating the bondage of Prakriti is the aim of both advaita and sankhya.

They may have different narratives, but the goal is the same.

The mountain can be tackled by different routes, but the summit is the same.

Sankhya is not atheist. There is no reference to God or gods but this cannot be interpreted as atheism.

The focus is on purifying the purusha, the witness-consciousness from the bondage of prakriti or matter.

I don't think it's about "purifying" purusha, since, like Atman, it is already pure. It's really about about realising that purusha/Atman is our true Self.
As in "So'ham" (I am that).

Anyway, you haven't explained your objection to describing Samkhya as an "atheist" philosophy. Maybe you'd prefer "non-theist"?

 

[Viswa]

Sure, and the scriptures can be interpreted in different ways, according to one's assumptions and preferences. Though the assumptions are not always clearly enumerated.

From my reading, Brahman is more often associated with Self (Atman/purusha) than with everything, eg in the Mandukya Upanishad.
But with an Advaita view, Atman/Brahman can't have a second, so prakriti is relegated to mere illusion, ie Maya. Meanwhile, Samkhya allows the duality of purusha/Atman and prakriti.

Nope. Everything is associated with Brahman. You have to take a deep look at Brahma Sutras and Upanishads for that. "This is verily is THAT", has been repeated many times in both the above. The first Chapter of Brahma sutras, is wholly describing "Everything is That" - deeply one by one, attributing this to THAT. Brahmasutras is the major text attributed for "Brahman", and in Chapter 13 of BG it is accepted too.

But, "Brahman can be associated ONLY with self but not with everything" whereas "everything is associated with Brahman". To understand this, you have to get deep in view. "Everything is THAT" but "That is not everything".

Maya - an illusion, is a new meaning given by Advaitins, based on reading BG. In Brahmasutras, no word is used as Maya. It does not touch Maya. Only Advaitins gave it a deep importance, and Shankara in his commentary to Brahmasutras made his assumptions and preferences flow.

Actually, when one sees and reads texts of Brahmasutras and BG and Upanishads - without assumptions and preferences, then, "Everything is Brahman" but "Brahman is not this not this". They say, "Sat-chit-Ananda is Brahman, Bliss is Brahman, Prana is Brahman, Food is Brahman, Space is Brahman, Air is Brahman, Fire is Brahman, Water is Brahman, Land is Brahman". But, when the Brahman is indicated at first, then, "Brahman is neither existence nor non-existence neither prajna nor aprajna neither cause nor effect neither this nor that" - to reject everything.

Everything is attributed to Brahman (Please don't make any assumptions and re-read Upanishads and Brahma sutras and BG - You can clearly see it), and at the same time "Brahman is not everything". This is also accepted by Swami Sarvapriyananda, and he said many times "that is the treasure of all texts, and one has to understand the contradiction to understand Brahman".

"Aham Brahmasmi - Prajnanam Brahmam - Sarvam Kalavidham Brahmam" - where all this 'something/everything' is attributed to Brahman. But, when comes to Brahman, Brahman cannot be attributed to anything/everything, and only in all the negation of everything (neti neti) - negation of one assumes/preferences/knows/things/experiences/feels/thinks - THAT is.

If you speak about Mandukya Upanishad, take a look back again. It is said as "AUM is Brahman, Atman is Brahman, and Atman has four quarters" 2nd manthra. So, all four quarters is indeed Brahman. But, to know about "Brahman" as "Self" - then that is advaitam Shantam Shivam achintyam etc., (7th manthra and 12th Manthra - the fourth quarter - silence after AUM). But, other than those, all is verily Brahman, AUM is Brahman, three quarters are also Brahman. Mandukya too spoke about "Everything is Brahman" and "Brahman is not everything sensed/felt/known/experienced/thought/spoke about, not 3 states, not prjana not aprajna, etc., in the aspect of 'self' which is 'brahman'". (7th Manthra).

Hope you understand this deep contradiction, which is stressed many times by Vyasa and sages and many.

 

[Martin]

Nope. Everything is associated with Brahman. You have to take a deep look at Brahma Sutras and Upanishads for that. "This is verily is THAT", has been repeated many times in both the above. The first Chapter of Brahma sutras, is wholly describing "Everything is That" - deeply one by one, attributing this to THAT. Brahmasutras is the major text attributed for "Brahman", and in Chapter 13 of BG it is accepted too.

But, "Brahman can be associated ONLY with self but not with everything" whereas "everything is associated with Brahman". To understand this, you have to get deep in view. "Everything is THAT" but "That is not everything".

Maya - an illusion, is a new meaning given by Advaitins, based on reading BG. In Brahmasutras, no word is used as Maya. It does not touch Maya. Only Advaitins gave it a deep importance, and Shankara in his commentary to Brahmasutras made his assumptions and preferences flow.

Actually, when one sees and reads texts of Brahmasutras and BG and Upanishads - without assumptions and preferences, then, "Everything is Brahman" but "Brahman is not this not this". They say, "Sat-chit-Ananda is Brahman, Bliss is Brahman, Prana is Brahman, Food is Brahman, Space is Brahman, Air is Brahman, Fire is Brahman, Water is Brahman, Land is Brahman". But, when the Brahman is indicated at first, then, "Brahman is neither existence nor non-existence neither prajna nor aprajna neither cause nor effect neither this nor that" - to reject everything.

Everything is attributed to Brahman (Please don't make any assumptions and re-read Upanishads and Brahma sutras and BG - You can clearly see it), and at the same time "Brahman is not everything". This is also accepted by Swami Sarvapriyananda, and he said many times "that is the treasure of all texts, and one has to understand the contradiction to understand Brahman".

"Aham Brahmasmi - Prajnanam Brahmam - Sarvam Kalavidham Brahmam" - where all this 'something/everything' is attributed to Brahman. But, when comes to Brahman, Brahman cannot be attributed to anything/everything, and only in all the negation of everything (neti neti) - negation of one assumes/preferences/knows/things/experiences/feels/thinks - THAT is.

If you speak about Mandukya Upanishad, take a look back again. It is said as "AUM is Brahman, Atman is Brahman, and Atman has four quarters" 2nd manthra. So, all four quarters is indeed Brahman. But, to know about "Brahman" as "Self" - then that is advaitam Shantam Shivam achintyam etc., (7th manthra and 12th Manthra - the fourth quarter - silence after AUM). But, other than those, all is verily Brahman, AUM is Brahman, three quarters are also Brahman. Mandukya too spoke about "Everything is Brahman" and "Brahman is not everything sensed/felt/known/experienced/thought/spoke about, not 3 states, not prjana not aprajna, etc., in the aspect of 'self' which is 'brahman'". (7th Manthra).

Hope you understand this deep contradiction, which is stressed many times by Vyasa and sages and many.

Thanks, I will need to spend some time on this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, the basic difference is duality in Samkhya (of Purusha and Prakriti) and the non-duality of Advaita (however weak).
Contradictions exist only when one does not understand clearly.

 

[ajay0]

I don't think it's about "purifying" purusha, since, like Atman, it is already pure. It's really about about realising that purusha/Atman is our true Self.
As in "So'ham" (I am that).

It is the impure consciousness which is within the bondage of prakriti though karma. The impurity is but vasanas which sprout corresponding desires for sensory sensations in the inner mind and external world.

Through purification of the consciousness, purusha overcomes the domination of prakriti.

You may want to do early morning meditation, but your craving for sleep and comfort of bed would force you to abort your mission for early morning.

Or you may want to study that book on self-inquiry, but a new blockbuster movie featuring your favorite actress on the tv channel forces you to postpone the study for later.

These are all examples of prakriti dominating purusha.

Anyway, you haven't explained your objection to describing Samkhya as an "atheist" philosophy. Maybe you'd prefer "non-theist"?

Yes, it is actually non-theist.

 

[Martin]

Nope. Everything is associated with Brahman. You have to take a deep look at Brahma Sutras and Upanishads for that. "This is verily is THAT", has been repeated many times in both the above. The first Chapter of Brahma sutras, is wholly describing "Everything is That" - deeply one by one, attributing this to THAT. Brahmasutras is the major text attributed for "Brahman", and in Chapter 13 of BG it is accepted too.

But, "Brahman can be associated ONLY with self but not with everything" whereas "everything is associated with Brahman". To understand this, you have to get deep in view. "Everything is THAT" but "That is not everything".

Maya - an illusion, is a new meaning given by Advaitins, based on reading BG. In Brahmasutras, no word is used as Maya. It does not touch Maya. Only Advaitins gave it a deep importance, and Shankara in his commentary to Brahmasutras made his assumptions and preferences flow.

Actually, when one sees and reads texts of Brahmasutras and BG and Upanishads - without assumptions and preferences, then, "Everything is Brahman" but "Brahman is not this not this". They say, "Sat-chit-Ananda is Brahman, Bliss is Brahman, Prana is Brahman, Food is Brahman, Space is Brahman, Air is Brahman, Fire is Brahman, Water is Brahman, Land is Brahman". But, when the Brahman is indicated at first, then, "Brahman is neither existence nor non-existence neither prajna nor aprajna neither cause nor effect neither this nor that" - to reject everything.

Everything is attributed to Brahman (Please don't make any assumptions and re-read Upanishads and Brahma sutras and BG - You can clearly see it), and at the same time "Brahman is not everything". This is also accepted by Swami Sarvapriyananda, and he said many times "that is the treasure of all texts, and one has to understand the contradiction to understand Brahman".

"Aham Brahmasmi - Prajnanam Brahmam - Sarvam Kalavidham Brahmam" - where all this 'something/everything' is attributed to Brahman. But, when comes to Brahman, Brahman cannot be attributed to anything/everything, and only in all the negation of everything (neti neti) - negation of one assumes/preferences/knows/things/experiences/feels/thinks - THAT is.

If you speak about Mandukya Upanishad, take a look back again. It is said as "AUM is Brahman, Atman is Brahman, and Atman has four quarters" 2nd manthra. So, all four quarters is indeed Brahman. But, to know about "Brahman" as "Self" - then that is advaitam Shantam Shivam achintyam etc., (7th manthra and 12th Manthra - the fourth quarter - silence after AUM). But, other than those, all is verily Brahman, AUM is Brahman, three quarters are also Brahman. Mandukya too spoke about "Everything is Brahman" and "Brahman is not everything sensed/felt/known/experienced/thought/spoke about, not 3 states, not prjana not aprajna, etc., in the aspect of 'self' which is 'brahman'". (7th Manthra).

Hope you understand this deep contradiction, which is stressed many times by Vyasa and sages and many.

Something that puzzles me about the structure of the Mandukya Upanishad: it starts by saying Brahman is everything, and Brahman is Atman, but then the rest is all about Atman. Does this relate to what you were saying above?

 

[Viswa]

Something that puzzles me about the structure of the Mandukya Upanishad: it starts by saying Brahman is everything, and Brahman is Atman, but then the rest is all about Atman. Does this relate to what you were saying above?

Yes.
And,
Not "Brahman is everything", but "Everything is Brahman" - Vyasa and Sages were very conscious in this attribution. The difference in "is Brahman" and "Brahman is".

It's like "Aham Brahmasmi - Prajnanam Brahmam" but not "Brahmam Ahamsmi - Brahmamnam Prajna".

 

[Martin]

Yes.
And,
Not "Brahman is everything", but "Everything is Brahman" - Vyasa and Sages were very conscious in this attribution. The difference in "is Brahman" and "Brahman is".

It's like "Aham Brahmasmi - Prajnanam Brahmam" but not "Brahmam Ahamsmi - Brahmamnam Prajna".

So if everything is Brahman, is it correct to say that both purusha and prakriti are Brahman?

 

[Viswa]

So if everything is Brahman, is it correct to say that both purusha and prakriti are Brahman?

Ofcourse. Even BG Chapter 13 (I think verse 14 or 15)- says, Both Purusha and Prakriti are Eternal.

In Upanishads and Brahmasutras, From Space to Earth, From Bliss to Food - Everything is Brahman is said.

Prakriti is also Brahman, no doubt about it. Ego,Intellect,Mind,Prana,Chit - all are Brahman.

But, "Brahman is not everything".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Maybe Brahman/consciousness is like gravity, a sort of fundamental force or energy. It doesn't decide anything, but it effects everything.

It may be helpful to move away from the notion that Brahman is a thing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

An appearance to Brahman, yes.
But where does Maya fit in here?

Maya is time/space/causation, the media that manifests the reality one perceives.

Not all that dissimilar in theory from the electrical stimulation in the brain stem that activates the limbic system to manifest a dream.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But Maya is said to be an illusion, like the snake superimposed on the rope.

Maya itself isn't the illusion. Maya is the medium that manifests the illusion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Where the Advaita philosophy fail or Advaitins fail is, they think Maya dissolves after Enlightenment...

We do?

What else do I think?

 

[Viswa]

We do?

What else do I think?

Hi.

Sorry, I didn't speak about You/Salix, only about the view of Advaitins, about Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

Maya itself isn't the illusion. Maya is the medium that manifests the illusion.

Medium?
Second to Brahman and act as "Medium"? Or
Brahman becomes Maya and Maya becomes medium? Or
Isn't Maya is Brahman itself? power/quality of Brahman?