Basic principles of Advaita Vedanta?

[Rick O'Shez]

I find Advaita intriguing but I am struggling to understand the basic principles.

Is it basically a form of monism or non-dualism, where there is only Brahman and no Atman? And is reincarnation involved?

I appreciate there will be different interpretations and nuances, but I'm hoping we can focus on basic principles.

 

[Maya3]

I find Advaita intriguing but I am struggling to understand the basic principles.

Is it basically a form of monism or non-dualism, where there is only Brahman and no Atman? And is reincarnation involved?

I appreciate there will be different interpretations and nuances, but I'm hoping we can focus on basic principles.

I can only explain it the way I understand it.

The basic principle is that you are that. Tat tvam Asi. This is the same as the energy of God, everything else in the universe comes from this source. The goal is to realize this.
Yes there is reincarnation, but the innermost self, Atman is always the same.

Maya

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes there is reincarnation, but the innermost self, Atman is always the same.

So in Advaiti does non-duality mean that Atman and Brahman are the same?

 

[Sumit]

 

[anadi]

Yes it's non-dualism (a - not; dva - two; therefore Advaita - not-twoness, non-duality).

There is Atman as well as Brahman, but in reality they are the same. Atman is a drop, Brahman is the ocean, but both are water.

Reincarnation is involved, the Jivatman (individual soul/self/living entity) is bound by it's karma and identification with Prakriti (nature; the bodymind...). When the Jivatma realizes that it is not what it percieves but is the unpercieved substratum of experience, it realizes it's true self or the Atman, wich is not different from Brahman. So the drop merges into the ocean and loses it's individual existence and is thus liberated from the cycle of birth and death.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So in Advaiti does non-duality mean that Atman and Brahman are the same?

Yes, Brahman is the 'self'.

 

[George-ananda]

I find Advaita intriguing but I am struggling to understand the basic principles.

Is it basically a form of monism or non-dualism, where there is only Brahman and no Atman?

Brahman and Atman are the same thing.

And is reincarnation involved?

Yes, the path to reaching Self-Realization/Brahman-Realization takes many experiences on the physical and spiritual planes. We have a non-permanent soul that lasts for many lifetimes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is Atman as well as Brahman, but in reality they are the same. Atman is a drop, Brahman is the ocean, but both are water.

I like that analogy as I walk by the sea every day.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, Brahman is the 'self'.

Could you say how you view Atman/Brahman from an atheistic perspective?

 

[Bhaguri]

Could you say how you view Atman/Brahman from an atheistic perspective?

Depends on what you mean by atheist, as it means different things to different people. Their beliefs can range from not believing in the existence of Atman/Brahman to believing in both.

 

[Stormcry]

There's no Brahman nor self.. the highest perception above all

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's no Brahman nor self.. the highest perception above all

Could you explain?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Could you say how you view Atman/Brahman from an atheistic perspective?

What am I composed of (energy, physical energy)? And what all other things in the universe are composed of (again energy, physical energy)? Then, is not Brahman (energy, physical energy) my 'self'? Am I, or can I be anything else.

Please note: I write 'energy, physical energy' to stress the point that it is not some kind of divine energy. A poster described my belief as materialistic monism.

Welcome to the forum, Bhaguri.

 

[Stormcry]

Could you explain?

There's Brahman/Atma (Astika)
There's not Brahman/Atma (Nastika-Buddhists)
Brahman is there and also Brahman is not there (Mishra-Vadi)
Brahman is one with Atma (Inferior advaita)
Brahman is not one with Atma (Dualistics)
Brahman is one with atma and also it is not one with Atma ( Bhedabheda)

All these are superimpositions on Brahman and are imagined on the true basis of absolute truth. (This is the highest aspect of advaita)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's Brahman/Atma (Astika)
There's not Brahman/Atma (Nastika-Buddhists)
Brahman is there and also Brahman is not there (Mishra-Vadi)
Brahman is one with Atma (Inferior advaita)
Brahman is not one with Atma (Dualistics)
Brahman is one with atma and also it is not one with Atma ( Bhedabheda)

I wish I understood that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A poster described my belief as materialistic monism.

Yes, I see. I've had those leanings myself, maybe non-theist monism anyway. I find it's not always easy to pigeon-hole meditative experiences.

 

[Maya3]

What am I composed of (energy, physical energy)? And what all other things in the universe are composed of (again energy, physical energy)? Then, is not Brahman (energy, physical energy) my 'self'? Am I, or can I be anything else.

Please note: I write 'energy, physical energy' to stress the point that it is not some kind of divine energy. A poster described my belief as materialistic monism.

Welcome to the forum, Bhaguri.

I agree with this. And not to argue, but how can this not be divine, it sounds pretty divine to me weather you believe it is divine in the classical sense, or just divine in itself.
Either way it is amazing, look at our beautiful universe.

Maya

 

[DreadFish]

I agree with this. And not to argue, but how can this not be divine, it sounds pretty divine to me weather you believe it is divine in the classical sense, or just divine in itself.
Either way it is amazing, look at our beautiful universe.

Maya

Yeah, when all is just the same "substance", and I use that term loosely, there is no use in differentiating it as "divine" or "not divine". In fact, stressing it to be one and not the other is evidence of duality. Beyond even "neither divine nor not divine" would be closer. "None of the above" is probably the most accurate with words. They're both just ideas that reflect a conditioned point of view favoring a certain worldview over another.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Either way it is amazing, look at our beautiful universe

Absolutely! I recently got into amateur astronomy, it's fascinating to look out at distant galaxies.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"None of the above" is probably the most accurate with words

Yes, words are often not up to the task.