Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

[ajay0]

Obscured to whom?

As I have stated earlier, it is the natural state of Awareness or pure consciousness or Self that perceives. This perception is obscured by the likes and dislikes of the mind instilled by conditioning.

The state of naked awareness and the mind and its impressions on top of it, are two different things.

Mental content comes and goes due to its transient nature. The state of Awareness is the constant factor in all experiences and is of a permanent nature though it is often ignored because of its obvious nature and simplicity.


As Gilbert Schultz put it, " Naked awareness is the background to all perceptions, thoughts, concepts and beliefs; in fact all activities. Without that cognition nothing could appear at all. Because it has always been here -- the mind does not notice it. "

And this is where your logic becomes inconsistent. According to you, there are two selves -

and

Putting them together, there are two possible answers to my question above. The natural state is obscured either to this egoistic, illusory self or to the one true self. For the former, there can be no awareness of truth as it is illusory, unreal and temporary. That is, this false self can never have a "I see the truth" moment in an Advaitic sense. If it is the latter, it is the one, permanent self and it cannot have new revelations. It is always clear, without doubt and without change.

The natural state is the naked cognizing presence or Awareness devoid of any transient mental content. It is the Self itself.

Another inconsistency is with this concept of two selves. Since one of them is illusory, there really is only one self - the one true, single self. As this one unchanging self cannot attain moksha and there is nothing else per Advaita, there is no one else and so, no one attains moksha.

This is true . The Self or Awareness is a constant factor in all experiences. It does not come and go.

We only tend to ignore it because of its obvious and simple nature and focus instead on our imaginary mental projections, conceptualizations and emotions which obscure the natural state of awareness or Self.. The worst part is taking these mental projections , conceptualizations and emotions as the ‘I’ instead of the Self or Awareness which is the background of all these .


It is the Self or Awareness that constitutes the true ‘I’.


The actions of a person who identifies with the true Self or Awareness is different from a person who identifies with the egoistic self propped up by thoughts, mental projections , concepts and emotions.


A dialogue between Baba Loknath and a disciple will illustrate this further…

To the question, "What is the path to a happy and peaceful life?" Baba Loknath spontaneously replied, "Do whatever you like, but do it consciously, with a sense of awareness." The questioner, however, continued, "If You give Me permission to do as I please, then what would You say if I hit somebody's head with a stick?" Baba smiled and replied, "Do it and see. I asked you to perform all actions consciously. Once you become conscious and aware, you will find that your conscience will prevent you form hurting anyone." The evils in society are perpetrated because awareness is absent. All evil actions are the result of unconsciousness


I have also explained the same in this thread of mine…

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vyavaharika and Paramarthika are also dualistic perceptions for a true and honest advaitan, if they become mere labels or mental creations. They are useful for the dualists but not for the advaitan.

They are just as important for an advaitist to know the difference (our existence itself is in Vyavaharika). If we remain in Paramarthika, then there is no one to talk to and nothing to talk about.
You yourself say that "The advaitan uses labels for practical purposes but does not identify with it. He identifies only with the true Self or pure consciousness." That is exactly what I am doing. I agree to your statement till the words 'true self' but not to any fictitious 'pure consciousness' pervading the universe.

This is important when you take into account recent incidents of cruelty towards harmless animals arising out of a dualistic perception.

That too is Vyavaharika. In Paramarthika it is "Brahma havih Brahmāgnau Brahma āhutam".

As Sri Muruganar stated, " The Self, our Being, is awareness."

My homge to Sri Muruganar, but obviously, our views are different.

Even taking Vyavaharika into account, one has to go by the scriptural injunction of 'Prajnanam Brahman' or Brahman being pure consciousness, and not creating other perceptions out of one's conditioning.

How many times I will need to explain that I do not go with this view? I consider that human consciousness ends with the death of the body and Brahman has no need for it.

 

[ajay0]

They are just as important for an advaitist to know the difference (our existence itself is in Vyavaharika). If we remain in Paramarthika, then there is no one to talk to and nothing to talk about.

The advaitan dwells in the paramarthika and at same time deals with the vyavaharika skillfully.

Hence the reason why Krishna stated thus, “ Yoga is skill in action.”

Duryodhana was a true vyavaharika but in the end was defeated by the pandavas lead by Krishna who was established in the paramarthika.

The enlightened Janaka was in Paramarthika reality, but conducted his duties in the relative sphere without any issues.

Lahiri Mahasaya was an enlightened teacher and worked as a householder and accountant in the railways till his retirement.

The nondualist is more effective and efficient than the dualist as he lives in the present, and not in past memories or future worry with its consequent psychological and physical issues.

You yourself say that "The advaitan uses labels for practical purposes but does not identify with it. He identifies only with the true Self or pure consciousness." That is exactly what I am doing. I agree to your statement till the words 'true self' but not to any fictitious 'pure consciousness' pervading the universe.

If you state that the Self or pure consciousness is fictional, it is refuting the teachings of Rama, Krishna and the sages who taught all to reside in the Self or pure consciousness.

Without the Self there is no advaita or nonduality, as matter-consciousness is bound to result in dualistic perception.

As Sri Rama himself stated, “" The mistaking of the body for the Self is called Maya. This Maya is responsible for the creation of Samsara."

The asura Virochana also considered the body to be the Self misunderstanding the teachings of his Guru Prajapati, and preached the asuras to worship the body as the Self or Atman.

That too is Vyavaharika. In Paramarthika it is "Brahma havih Brahmāgnau Brahma āhutam".

Unnecessary cruelty towards harmless animals and eating of food is completely unrelated. The above mantra is used before eating food by dedicating it to Brahman.

Eating non-vegetarian food is a practical need for some to maintain the physical body due to lack of vegetarian food, and is not counted as cruelty.

How many times I will need to explain that I do not go with this view? I consider that human consciousness ends with the death of the body and Brahman has no need for it.

As per the scriptures Brahman itself is pure consciousness. Hence the question of Brahman having no need for consciousness does not arise.

The egotistic little self actually obscures the true Self or pure consciousness, and the whole of Vedanta is involved in unveiling the Self within by inquiry or meditation.


The egotistic little self is attracted to external objects and matter due to the tendency of the senses to flow outward. This creates great resistance to the practice of inquiry and meditation due to external attraction for sensation and sense-pleasures.

As Swami Krishnananda stated, “ There is a constitutional disparity between the ‘chitta’ or the mind and the nature of the Self. There is a tendency in the mind to go outward in the direction of the objects located in space and time, and this tendency of the mind is precisely the opposite of what is required by the nature of the Self. As long as the mind is prone to this tendency, as long as it is habituated to this activity of moving towards objects of sense, it would not be possible to restrain it for the purpose of making it harmonious with the nature of the Self. “


The greater the ignorance and conditioning, the harder this task becomes, as habituated mental-emotional patterns are taken to define oneself. And by sheer force of habit this artificial identity is maintained.
The ego would even consider such attempts to explore the self as threatening due to its brittle and illusory nature.

As Eckhart Tolle stated, “ Any teaching that puts the spotlight of attention on the workings of the ego will necessarily provoke egoic reaction, resistance and attack. “

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you state that the Self or pure consciousness is fictional, it is refuting the teachings of Rama, Krishna and the sages who taught all to reside in the Self or pure consciousness.

Kindly do not quote sages and scriptures in every sentence. It does not impress me at all. I go by what my mind finds as the best answer. Secondly, do not put 'self' and your 'pure conciousness' both in one sentence. I may agree to 'self' but I will not agree to consciousness.

And finally about 'self'. Even the universal 'self' or Brahman has a question mark. Where did it arise from? Did it arise from 'absolute nothing'? Like in science we have virtual particles which keep on changing into real particles and vice-versa. In this connection, I am reminded of Nasadiya Sukta of RigVeda which said "Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent." Are existence and non-existence related? You see, if we go that far into it, things become real hazy. And the answer to this question is not available today. We might get somewhere near the answer in 50 or 100 years.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The advaitan dwells in the paramarthika and at same time deals with the vyavaharika skillfully.

Ajay, with all due respect, dozens of quotes by other people is no substitute for logic. It does not matter how famous they are or how many followers they may have or how ancient they may be. They are of no value when they contradict simple logic – as in this case.

You have not been able to provide direct answers to very simple, basic questions. As explained earlier, neither of your two selves are capable of moksha/realization (in an advaitic/non-dual sense). There is no third entity that can get realized, be passively aware, dwell in paramarathika, etc. This repudiates the fundamentals of advaita. Unfortunately, your sentiment will prevent you from seeing this, much less accepting it. Like most others, you will find that it is easier to continue to do more of the same (meditation techniques, breathing techniques, etc.,) and take comfort in discovering more quotes by allegedly enlightened celebrities.

I will leave you with the question again. You do not have to answer it here, but I will remind you once again that a spiritual belief that fails basic tests of logic is of no value - no matter how prominent it may be.

Did Shankara achieve moksha? If yes, does he still exist as a distinct, realized entity? If yes, you have subscribed to duality, contradicting advaita. If not, you are admitting that there is no more a distinct realized soul and thereby, have subscribed to something very close to Buddhist Nirvana, thus contradicting advaita.

do you side more with choice 1 or 2??

There is no hidden self to be discovered later. This is it. Yourself as you know it now is your only self. Some of the ancients (not just in India) realized the role of thought. They saw that everything was a thought, but they also realized that there was no getting out of it. For the entity that would attempt to escape thought is itself a thought. However, many others did not understand this simple concept and mystified it, generating vast amounts of literature around a simple idea, which has only served to distract and confuse people.

The only moksha (if we are to use the word) is to understand that there is no such thing as moksha. There are no hidden realms to be discovered through Yoga and there is no such thing as eternal bliss. That is pure poppy-cock invented by some speculators.

But this is not what people want. People like the promise of permanence, pleasure without pain and a method/technique that will get them there. Since the demand is real, we have suppliers in the form of Gurus who are willing to provide the necessary promises and techniques. It is win-win.

It only takes a minute or so to see through this charade. But your sentiment is your biggest obstacle and prevents you from seeing anything. Unfortunately, there is no technique that can free you from this sentiment. It has to happen on its own and until then you can only continue doing more of what you are already doing.

 

[DanielR]

Ajay, with all due respect, dozens of quotes by other people is no substitute for logic. It does not matter how famous they are or how many followers they may have or how ancient they may be. They are of no value when they contradict simple logic – as in this case.

You have not been able to provide direct answers to very simple, basic questions. As explained earlier, neither of your two selves are capable of moksha/realization (in an advaitic/non-dual sense). There is no third entity that can get realized, be passively aware, dwell in paramarathika, etc. This repudiates the fundamentals of advaita. Unfortunately, your sentiment will prevent you from seeing this, much less accepting it. Like most others, you will find that it is easier to continue to do more of the same (meditation techniques, breathing techniques, etc.,) and take comfort in discovering more quotes by allegedly enlightened celebrities.

I will leave you with the question again. You do not have to answer it here, but I will remind you once again that a spiritual belief that fails basic tests of logic is of no value - no matter how prominent it may be.

Did Shankara achieve moksha? If yes, does he still exist as a distinct, realized entity? If yes, you have subscribed to duality, contradicting advaita. If not, you are admitting that there is no more a distinct realized soul and thereby, have subscribed to something very close to Buddhist Nirvana, thus contradicting advaita.



There is no hidden self to be discovered later. This is it. Yourself as you know it now is your only self. Some of the ancients (not just in India) realized the role of thought. They saw that everything was a thought, but they also realized that there was no getting out of it. For the entity that would attempt to escape thought is itself a thought. However, many others did not understand this simple concept and mystified it, generating vast amounts of literature around a simple idea, which has only served to distract and confuse people.

The only moksha (if we are to use the word) is to understand that there is no such thing as moksha. There are no hidden realms to be discovered through Yoga and there is no such thing as eternal bliss. That is pure poppy-cock invented by some speculators.

But this is not what people want. People like the promise of permanence, pleasure without pain and a method/technique that will get them there. Since the demand is real, we have suppliers in the form of Gurus who are willing to provide the necessary promises and techniques. It is win-win.

It only takes a minute or so to see through this charade. But your sentiment is your biggest obstacle and prevents you from seeing anything. Unfortunately, there is no technique that can free you from this sentiment. It has to happen on its own and until then you can only continue doing more of what you are already doing.

Hm, we've talked about this before and I think I agree with you, I have some kind of conclusion of that, would you mind checking out the 'Present Moment thread' started by me, I replied there to a post of yours! Sorry haha, I don't want to repeat what I said there, I don't want to bother people ^^Thank You Shiv!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

The only moksha (if we are to use the word) is to understand that there is no such thing as moksha. .. But your sentiment is your biggest obstacle and prevents you from seeing anything. Unfortunately, there is no technique that can free you from this sentiment. It has to happen on its own and until then you can only continue doing more of what you are already doing.

Moksha, Nirvana, Salvation, Deliverance is enlightenment, knowing, understanding that all which exists originated from a blob of energy 13.78 billion year ago with a growl (and not a bang. I think you might have heard that on Youtube). 'All modification being only a distortion in name' as Chhandogya Upanishad said "vāchāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ". If one understands that, there are no doubts left. Knowledge is the instrument with which one can remove the cob-web, coming not just from the scriptures but also from science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia
The Video above covers the first 760,000 year.

Epoch Time Temperature Energy

Planck epoch <10(−43) s >1032 K (>1019 GeV)
The Planck scale is the scale beyond which current physical theories do not have predictive value. The Planck epoch is the time during which physics is assumed to have been dominated by quantum effects of gravity.

Grand unification epoch <10(−36) s (>1016 GeV)
The three forces of the Standard Model are unified (assuming that nature is described by a Grand unification theory).

Inflationary epoch, Electroweak epoch <10(−32) s 1028 K...1022 K
Cosmic inflationexpands space by a factor of the order of 1026 over a time of the order of 10−33 to 10−32seconds. The universe is supercooled from about 1027 down to 1022 kelvins.[3] The Strong Nuclear Forcebecomes distinct from the Electroweak Force.

Quark epoch 10(−12) s...10(−6) s >1012 K (100 MeV)
The forces of the Standard Model have separated, but energies are too high for quarks to coalesce into hadrons, instead forming a quark-gluon plasma. These are the highest energies directly observable in experiment in the Large Hadron Collider.

Hadron epoch 10(−6) s...1 s >1010 K
Quarks are bound into hadrons. A slight matter-antimatter-asymmetry from the earlier phases (baryon asymmetry) results in an elimination of anti-hadrons.

Neutrino decoupling 1 s 1010 K (1 MeV)
Neutrinos cease interacting with baryonic matter. The spherical volume of space which will become Observable universe is approximately 10 light-years in radius at this time.

Lepton epoch 1 s...10 s 1010 K...109 K
Leptons and anti-leptons remain in thermal equilibrium.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis 10 s...10(3) s 109 K...107 K (100 keV...1 keV)
Protons and neutronsare bound into primordial atomic nuclei, hydrogen and helium-4. Small amounts of deuterium, helium-3, and lithium-7 are also synthesized.

Photon epoch 10 s...1.2×10(13) s (380 ka) 109 K...4000 K
The universe consists of a plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons; temperatures remain too high for the binding of electrons to nuclei.

Recombination 380 ka 1100 4000 K
Electrons and atomic nuclei first become bound to form neutral atoms. Photons are no longer in thermal equilibrium with matter and the Universe first becomes transparent. Recombination lasts for about 100 ka, during which Universe is becoming more and more transparent to photons. The photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation originate at this time. The spherical volume of space which will become Observable universe is 42 million light-years in radius at this time.

Dark Ages 380 ka...150 Ma 1100...20 4000 K...60 K
The time between recombination and the formation of the first stars. During this time, the only source of photons was hydrogen emitting radio waves at hydrogen line. Freely propagating CMB photons quickly (within ~500 ka) red-shifted to infrared, and Universe was devoid of visible light.

 

[ajay0]

And finally about 'self'. Even the universal 'self' or Brahman has a question mark. Where did it arise from? Did it arise from 'absolute nothing'? Like in science we have virtual particles which keep on changing into real particles and vice-versa. In this connection, I am reminded of Nasadiya Sukta of RigVeda which said "Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent." Are existence and non-existence related? You see, if we go that far into it, things become real hazy. And the answer to this question is not available today. We might get somewhere near the answer in 50 or 100 years.

Where Brahman arose from , and other conceptualized questions is not an issue in advaita. The issue is to find Brahman as one's own Being and pure consciousness which is of the nature of peace and bliss, as Krishna taught in Bhagavad Gita.

This is done by giving up all conceptualizations as taught by Rishi Vasistha and abiding in non-conceptual awareness.

Kindly do not quote sages and scriptures in every sentence. It does not impress me at all. s.

We have to go by the sayings of the sages in advaita vedanta so as to be on track, so as not to get caught in our own imaginary ramblings , which can end up in delusion or error.

You can take these sayings as a sort of checklist to keep on track and not go to some imaginary wonderland.

In an operating theatre or when a plane is ready for takeoff, there is adherence to standard checklists so that no vital detail is left out.

This has been found to greatly reduce the chances of error and fatal accident by omission.

I have found checklists useful in my own work as well.

In this sort of philosophical discussion of a certain degree of complexity like advaita , it pays to keep in mind the sayings of ancient and modern sages, so that one is not mislead by imagination to the world of delusion.

Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot regarded by the world as personification of evil , were those who ended up as mass murderers by paranoia due to excess of imagination and delusion, missing reality as it is due to their imaginary conceptualizations.

As Nisargadatta Maharaj stated, " We miss the real by lack of attention and create the unreal by excess of imagination."

And there is no limit to imagination and delusion in this field.

The case of the Asura Virochana is a typical example of one who misunderstood the teachings of the Self being pure consciousness , and implied it to be the body, due to his imagination, and preached the same to the other asuras.

This is a case that is often referred to highlight the dangers of misunderstanding in Advaita.

I go by what my mind finds as the best answer.

I would like to again state Burt Harding's teaching over here, " Your true nature is awareness and not what your mind is producing. "

Without attentive non-conceptual awareness, one is bound to get caught in a parade of conceptualizations.

Secondly, do not put 'self' and your 'pure conciousness' both in one sentence. I may agree to 'self' but I will not agree to consciousness.

The self with 's' in small letter refers to the egotistic little self, while the Self with 'S' in capital letter, as often used by the likes of Rama and Krishna and sages , refers to pure consciousness.

You are right to say not to put the egotistic little self and 'pure consciousness' in one sentence as both are mutually exclusive to one another.

I may agree to 'self' but I will not agree to consciousness.

Why do you accept the egotistic little self to be reality and not accept pure consciousness even though Rama, Krishna and the sages accepted the fact of Brahman being pure consciousness !

Through contemplation of this question itself , you can get an insight to the teachings of the sages, which can lead you to the truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, ajay0, your views to you, my views to me. I am happy with that. Are you?

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem

1. Qul yaa-ai yuhal kaafiroon
2. Laa a'budu ma t'abudoon
3. Wa laa antum 'aabidoona maa a'bud
4. Wa laa ana 'abidum maa 'abattum
5. Wa laa antum 'aabidoona ma a'bud
6. Lakum deenukum wa liya deen.

1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!
2. I worship not that which ye worship,
3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
4. Nor will I worship those whom you have worshiped.
5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6. To you be your Way, and to me mine

Surah Al-kafirun, Al-Qur'an al-Kareem

 

[ajay0]

Well, ajay0, your views to you, my views to me. I am happy with that. Are you?

The asura virochana and Indra likewise had different views with respect to the Self or Brahman
though both were taught by the same Guru Prajapati. My understanding is that we tend to see things coloured by the dominant past conditioning influences in the mind and it takes nonconceptual awareness to identify this fact.

Imho, we must identify the truth and align ourselves with it, rather than committing oneself to falsehood which is an asuric mode of living, as the wise sages, Rama and Krishna have taught us in the past.

All the best.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, I have a science background. I remember discussing Big-Bang, evolution, plate tectonics and Periodic table of elements with my Smriti-writer grandpa. That may have been different from your background.

Panchatattvāmayi vyākhya syātsamkshepakritā pura; yatau bhumau jale vāyou samlīnānyeshu bhūrishah.
(In earlier times the universe was taken as composed of five elements, this must have been said for brevity; because Earth, water and air are composed of many elements.)
"Vishweshwara Smriti", 1950.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Just thought I'd chime in to thank @ajay0, @Aupmanyav, and @shivsomashekhar for their contributions ITT. I took more away from this thread than I have watching hours of YouTube videos. This thread is testament that discussions including differing views can be great teaching tools.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are welcome Salix.

 

[ajay0]

Yeah, I have a science background. I remember discussing Big-Bang, evolution, plate tectonics and Periodic table of elements with my Smriti-writer grandpa. That may have been different from your background.

I have a science background myself. The scientific philosophy is however different from the advaita philosophy.

The scientific method , focussed on external phenomena through critical analysis of it, results in relative knowledge. But there is still duality involved as in subject and object during perception of matter , ’I’ the scientist, ‘this’ and ‘that’ due to mental activity.

Pure consciousness, as taught by Advaita, is beyond the subject-object nexus. And this is perceived in meditation through the stilling of mental activity, as taught by Patanjali :

Yoga is the settling of the mind into silence. When the mind has settled, we are established in our essential nature, which is unbounded Consciousness. Our essential nature is usually overshadowed by the activity of the mind.


This leads to the dissolution of subject and object as there is no conceptualisation through thought, and hence nondual perception of Advaita.

The scientific method uses thought in analysis, and here too it is when thought comes to a state of abeyance at times that creative insights come out.

Albert Einstein also perhaps referred to this instinctively when he said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”


An article on advaita and science.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The scientific method , focussed on external phenomena through critical analysis of it, results in relative knowledge. But there is still duality involved as in subject and object during perception of matter , ’I’ the scientist, ‘this’ and ‘that’ due to mental activity.

Pure consciousness, as taught by Advaita, is beyond the subject-object nexus. And this is perceived in meditation through the stilling of mental activity, as taught by Patanjali :

But so long as there is any perception at all, we still have duality. Consequently, the ontological relationship between Jiva and Brahman as defined by Advaita is violated.

This leads to the dissolution of subject and object as there is no conceptualization through thought, and hence non-dual perception of Advaita.

Who is in this thoughtless state? Brahman? Obviously, it cannot be the illusory self. If it is neither Brahman nor the illusory self, we are out of options.

Dual, non-dual, Advaita, Dvaita, Brahman, Shruti, seer, seen, mind and consciousness are all within the realm of thought. If thought goes, they go too. But thought never goes, as there is no one who can observe such a state.

For hypothetically, if a thoughtless state was possible, there is no way to recognize it, remember it and talk about it. Therefore, it does not exist.

 

[ajay0]

That is the problem with Advaita. The mokhsa/realization/awareness - whatever you wish to call it, is not possible for the false self (for this self cannot exist after moksha) and this moksha is also not possible for Brahman (or the true self) as Brahman cannot attain moksha. In essence, moksha is not possible for either of the two selves.

Awareness and the mind/ego cannot co-exist. Either one is there or the other.

Hence the reason why moksha is not possible for the false self, because it is the dissolution of the false self that reveals the Self or Brahman within resulting in Moksha or realization.

The false self’s role in all this is obscuring the true Self through endless conceptualizations leading to repetitive mental-emotional patterns as in a groove .

These mental-emotional patterns and false self feed and sustain each other as in a vicious cycle.

As Jean Klein stated, " Who is this 'I' ? Nothing other than the mind. And who knows the mind? The true 'I'. "

You are left with two choices here -

1. Keep the individual self/identity permanent per the Shankara quote you posted earlier -

Thus one should know oneself to be of the nature of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss[Sat-Chit-Ananda].


As explained above, for this quote to work, there has to be a knower who has to persist beyond moksha. A knower who was previously ignorant and gained new knowledge/realization. This knower cannot be illusory and therefore, this is no different from bedhabedha as we simultaneously have both a distinct identity of a realized soul and Brahman (which did not gain any new knowledge).

I have explained this above and will endeavor to further explain it.

The knower is the watcher or witness which is Brahman itself, without any obscuring by the egoistic little self.

The knower who was previously ignorant , as you mentioned, is the egoistic self or false self. The watcher or witness or true Self is behind this. The dissolution of the false self or ‘knower’ as you put it, leads to the unobscuring of the Self within which is the real knower , and which is of the nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda or Existence-Consciousness –Bliss.

This is the reason why when people practice meditation or thoughtless awareness without any concepts, they experience peace and bliss. The false self for the time being, had ceased to exist, and the true Self is revealed with the accompanying feelings of bliss and peace.

I have experienced this for myself heeding the instructions of my Advaitan teacher, and hence my conviction in this regard.

Without practice of meditation or thoughtless awareness, it is hard to comprehend Advaita,. Anyone who does so without meditation, is bound to lose himself in endless concepts which are but transient mental content, even leading to excess of imagination and delusion.


The false self or ‘I’ as one puts it, is a mental concept and the primary identification with associated secondary identifications of caste, gender, nationality, race, religion, financial status, sexual orientation, ideology and so on, so as to reinforce the false 'I' and give it an aura of substance.


The true Self is the naked cognizing presence or awareness in oneself prior to all concepts and conceptualizations. Meditation helps to bring about this state resulting in experiential understanding and not just mere intellectual understanding.

As Jean Klein puts it, “ Your body, senses, mind and all other states come and go, but you are this timeless presence (awareness).

What we usually do is to ignore this state of Awareness or naked cognizing presence in oneself, due to the incessant activitiy of mind and identify instead with the transient content of the mind, senses, body etc.

As Ramana Maharshi puts it,” Ego is the ‘I’ – thought. In its subtle form it remains a thought, whereas in its gross aspect it embraces mind, senses and the body. “


The clear and present presence or Awareness is the true ‘I’ or Self or pure consciousness devoid of any thought, emotion or conceptualisations.

2. Or accept that there can be no one who gains moksha in Advaita. As the false self is illusory it does not persist after Moksha and so, it cannot be it. Brahman obviously cannot gain moksha. So, per Advaita logic, no one gains Vedantic moksha - which leads to Shunyavaada.

Another way to put this. If you agree that the 7th Century Shankara attained moksha, does he still exist now as an individual soul or not? If yes, then we have duality. If not, then we are admitting to Buddhist style nirvana, as there is no one who attained moksha (since Brahman cannot attain moksha).

As Bhaskara (8th Century CE) put it -

vigiitam vicchinna-muulam mahaayaanika-bauddha-gaathitam maayaa-vaadam vyaavarnayanto lokaan vyaamohayanti - Commentary on BSB 1.4.25

Brahman or awareness is a constant state. Moksha is just the dissolution of the false illusory self of conceptualisations, mental-emotional patterns one tends to identify with as ‘I’ with its numerous secondary identifications of gender, caste, religion, race, nationality, ideology and so on.

As Jean Klein puts it, " We are completely unaware of our true nature because we constantly identify ourselves with our own body, our emotion and our thoughts, thus losing sight of our unchanging nature which is pure consciousness. "

Another way to put this. If you agree that the 7th Century Shankara attained moksha, does he still exist now as an individual soul or not? If yes, then we have duality. If not, then we are admitting to Buddhist style nirvana, as there is no one who attained moksha (since Brahman cannot attain moksha).

Advaita means no two, only one. Oneness with the universal Self of pure consciousness.

Individual soul and others are just concepts which obscures the Self or Awareness or pure consciousness.

The consciousness devoid of mental content within Shankara is the Self which is said to be of a permanent nature by the sages and is eternal. So no duality.

Again, mere intellectual understanding is not enough to perceive this. In Advaita, 70 % of knowledge is gained by field work as in practice of meditation or thoughtless awareness devoid of mental content and concepts. The rest 30% belongs to intellectual understanding through study.

It is meditation that enabled me to make sense of advaitan teachings, prior to which I had similarly confused it with intellectual concepts and conceptualisations of some grand object out there somewhere.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Awareness and the mind/ego cannot co-exist. Either one is there or the other.

Ah, such a long post! Tell me, Ajay0, when I am in my 'Paramarthika' mode, what will I be aware of? There will be no thing to be aware of.

 

[ajay0]

Ah, such a long post! Tell me, Ajay0, when I am in my 'Paramarthika' mode, what will I be aware of? There will be no thing to be aware of.

First get in to the paramarthika mode of nondual perception through cessation of the incessant mental activity through meditation as Patanjali and the sages taught . Then you will realise it is but awareness or pure consciousness.

As I said earlier, mere intellectual understanding is just 30% of Advaita. Understanding without meditation is bound to result in excess of imagination and delusion, which is exactly what results in dvaita or duality.

The false or egoistic self is then perceived to be a product of imagination, a mental creation. And the naked awareness is revealed as the true Self or true 'I' .

As Jean Klein stated, " Who is this (false) 'I' ? Nothing other than the mind. And who knows the mind? The true 'I'. "

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have attained Nirvana, enlightenment, Moksha. I have one feet in 'Paramarthika' and the other in 'Vyavaharika'. With your prejudices Moksha does not seem possible for you in this birth. You have much to learn and any number of Jean Kleins cannot help you. Stop reading trash, find the truth yourself - Be your own Guru.