• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

ajay0

Well-Known Member
You are contradicting yourself. In the first sentence, you are saying that "Enlightenment is just the understanding..." and then in the next sentence you say that no one is getting enlightened. If no one is getting enlightened, then who is gaining this (new) understanding that the ego/false self is a delusion?


As explained earlier, the dissolution of the false self reveals Brahman or non-conceptual Awareness which is the true ‘I’ or Self. The false self is the ‘I’-thought we identify with and which encompasses the mind-body complex and its secondary associations.

When the false is seen as false, it drops off on its own. The true ‘I’ realises the falseness of the conceptual
superimposition put upon it by false identifications.

As Sailor Bob Adamson stated, “That sense of presence is expressing through you right now. But to label it, I have got to say ‘I am’. ‘I am ‘ is the knowing that there is that sense of presence there. That ‘I am’ thought is taken to be the real. It is taken to be the thing or the essence or the person or the entity that I am. I have added onto the ‘I am ‘ the events, experiences, and conditioning and formed the mental picture: ‘I’m Bob’ , ‘I’m so and so years of age’, ‘I have done this’, ‘I have done that’. All this is only a mental image, with seeming substance and independent nature. Everything is referred to that mental image then, because there is the belief that it is something substantial. "

This is where your logic fails and I have pointed it out multiple times. In your model, someone is getting enlightened or is gaining some new understanding of the false self. Who is this entity? It is not the false self and it is not Brahman .

It is Brahman or Self, as I have pointed out earlier.
Here are previous pointers in earlier posts put again for reference...

'Brahman is one, but the multiple false selves are many. The dissolution of the false selves reveal Brahman.'

'Through this disidentification with false identities, the mental-emotional patterns of thought and emotion they generate incessantly comes to an end . The cessation of mental activity reveals the Self within.'

'With the dissolution of the false self , the true 'I' is revealed with accompanying bliss.'



Brahman or nonconceptual awareness is beyond conceptual frameworks, hence all attempts to perceive it using the intellect is bound to end in failure, without the aid of meditation. There are many who have spent their whole lives doggedly trying to perceive the truth through the intellect from youth to old age, without getting anywhere.

And meditation or yoga is but the cessation of mental activity, which reveals the non-conceptual Self or Awareness.

This is the great paradox and irony of truth.


And as explained before, if there are only false selves and Brahman, no such "unveiling" is possible. Your unveiling logic only works if you have a third entity - different from the false self and either different or different/non-different from Brahman. Only then can you say that this knowledge/truth, etc., is unveiled to this third entity. And this third entity contradicts advaita. .

When a mask is removed in front of the mirror , the true physical face is seen. Would there need to be a third face somewhere else !

Similarly when the false self or false ‘I’ is removed, the true 'I' or true self is seen, and this is why it is indicated in Vedanta as Self with a capital 'S'.


If you say there is no such third entity, then there is no one who finds enlightenment and therefore, there is no such thing as enlightenment. This contradicts advaita too. Check Shankara's moksha-sadhanopadesha-vidhya in the opening verse of his Upadesha Sahasri.

Enlightenment is the dissolution of the false self to reveal the true Self, as removal of the mask reveals the true face in the mirror. This is all there is to it.

Three entities is what would contradict advaita. As the dissolution of the false self would reveal two entities , which is contradictory to advaita, which means 'no two'.


Check Shankara's moksha-sadhanopadesha-vidhya in the opening verse of his Upadesha Sahasri.

Shankara states nowhere in this verse that there are three entities. He only prescribes a set of teachings for aspirants after liberation in this verse.

In fact he states later thus...

" That name and form originally unmanifested took the name and form of the ether as they were
manifested from that Self. This element called the ether thus arose out of the supreme Self, like the dirt called foam coming out of transparent water. Foam is neither water nor absolutely different from it. For it is never seen apart from water. But water is clear, and different from the foam which is of the nature of dirt. Similarly the supreme Self which is pure and transparent is different from name and form, which stand for foam, These-corresponding to the foam-having originally been unmanifested, took the name and form of the ether as they were manifested.


Always Pure Consciousness I am one without a second, all and all-pervading like the ether before the
creation of air and other elements.


All beings are by nature pure Consciousness. Itself. It is due to Ignorance that they apppear to be
different from It. Their (apparent) difference from It is removed by the teaching 'Thou art Existence '.


Ever free and different from names, forms and actions I am the supreme Brahman, the Self, consisting
of pure Consciousness and always without a second.


There is only one level (the relative) and Jewelry is both jewelry and gold at the same time..

There is indeed a difference between the states where jewelry is undifferentiated pure gold, and where it is later moulded into different designs and forms, and later melted back into undifferentiated pure gold.

Similarly at the absolute level, everything is pure consciousness. At the relative level, names and forms emerge from this unitary consciousness , and create their false psychological sense of multiple selves due to identification with the mind-body complex.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
To determine the nature of reality, the simple approach is the best. Is there a God and if so is He of any use to me. This is better than imagining the universe and one's mind being conscious of that universe and its method of preservation. When one uses the first method of determining the Nature of Reality, it is found to be an arduous task and not accessible unless one is steadfast in one's determination to seek the truth. The Reality that emerges from that is bheda abheda, in that one determines what it takes for God to leave His work and attend to the needs of the sadhaka in his quest for knowledge.

It shows that there is simultaneous oneness and separateness between the sadhaka and God even when total union is attempted. The consciousness that develops is that of God as Sri Krishna who clarifies dharma and charts the path to perfect existence in total awareness.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
To determine the nature of reality, the simple approach is the best. Is there a God and if so is He of any use to me. This is better than imagining the universe and one's mind being conscious of that universe and its method of preservation. When one uses the first method of determining the Nature of Reality, it is found to be an arduous task and not accessible unless one is steadfast in one's determination to seek the truth. The Reality that emerges from that is bheda abheda, in that one determines what it takes for God to leave His work and attend to the needs of the sadhaka in his quest for knowledge.

It shows that there is simultaneous oneness and separateness between the sadhaka and God even when total union is attempted. The consciousness that develops is that of God as Sri Krishna who clarifies dharma and charts the path to perfect existence in total awareness.

God ultimately is impersonal or Nirguna Brahman or pure consciousness. Saguna Brahman (God with attributes) springs from the Nirguna Brahman (God without attributes) to manifest as a visible personality to the devotees, as per their worship and temperament, and guides them to Nirguna Brahman through Moksha or Nirvana.

As per Paramahamsa Yogananda, “"The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."

Some uses Saguna Brahman as a means to Moksha, some others use meditation, philosophical discrimination or work as a means to Moksha, and some use all of them.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
God ultimately is impersonal or Nirguna Brahman or pure consciousness. Saguna Brahman (God with attributes) springs from the Nirguna Brahman (God without attributes) to manifest as a visible personality to the devotees, as per their worship and temperament, and guides them to Nirguna Brahman through Moksha or Nirvana.

As per Paramahamsa Yogananda, “"The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."

Some uses Saguna Brahman as a means to Moksha, some others use meditation, philosophical discrimination or work as a means to Moksha, and some use all of them.
It is the other way round. There is nothing higher than God as Sri Krishna. Brahman is partly nirguna in that it consists of energy and partly saguna as the energy comprises the guna consciousness triad deities of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva with its devi counterparts to whom ordinary human relate in their normal lives and get their inspiration for actions. If one wishes real awareness and knowledge as a gyana yogi, one must transcend Brahman to reach Sri Krishna (synonymous to Durga) and then all is revealed.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
It is the other way round. There is nothing higher than God as Sri Krishna.

You say it is Krishna, some say it is Shiva, some say it is Devi, some say it is Subrahmanya, some say it is Jesus Christ, some say it is Allah, some say it is Waheguru, some say it is Tao, some say it is Jehovah....

There are a lot of personalities here and just one impersonal Brahman.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
You say it is Krishna, some say it is Shiva, some say it is Devi, some say it is Subrahmanya, some say it is Jesus Christ, some say it is Allah, some say it is Waheguru, some say it is Tao, some say it is Jehovah....

There are a lot of personalities here and just one impersonal Brahman.
How is it possible for a Live Entity (saguna Brahman/God) to emerge from an inert Entity (Nirguna Brahman)?
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
We come from God through the consciousness energy of Brahman which has two components: life force and soul force. God alone decides whether something is alive or dead in this chain. Here is a write up: Consciousness Energy of the Universe.

Brahman itself is pure consciousness. Life force as in prana, energy, matter are all manifestions of Brahman in the form of prakriti.
 
Last edited:

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Brahman itself is pure consciousness. Life force as in prana, energy, matter are all manifestions of Brahman in the form of prakriti.
If Brahman is pure consciousness how can it have the power to manifest itself into something else unless there was a guiding hand doing it. That guiding hand and maya (creative power) is that of Sri Krishna with his mind that utilises the consciousness energy to generate the physical world.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
If Brahman is pure consciousness how can it have the power to manifest itself into something else unless there was a guiding hand doing it. That guiding hand and maya (creative power) is that of Sri Krishna with his mind that utilises the consciousness energy to generate the physical world.

And then whose is the 'guiding hand' that created Sri Krishna ! And who created that 'guiding hand' as well!
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
And then whose is the 'guiding hand' that created Sri Krishna ! And who created that 'guiding hand' as well!
I do not know who created God: God just is - in existence and has always been. The universe is withdrawn into God and then released for another birth when God chooses.

You see ajay0, my understanding is quite simple and complete to enable me get on with my life of performing my dharma. For dharma raksati raksita.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
I do not know who created God: God just is - in existence and has always been. The universe is withdrawn into God and then released for another birth when God chooses.

See, you think Krishna created Nirguna Brahman because you are a human being and Krishna looks like a human being.

The bulls , if they worship , would think that a large bull created the universe and Nirguna brahman.

The sharks, would think that a large celestial shark created the world and Nirguna Brahman.

The donkeys, would think that a large celestial donkey created the world and Nirguna brahman.

Everyone would have an opinion, but wouldn't know or go further into the subject upon further questioning.

You see ajay0, my understanding is quite simple and complete to enable me get on with my life of performing my dharma. For dharma raksati raksita.

Simple understanding may be suffice for practical application, but does not make up for sound theoretical understanding and Samadhi.
 
Last edited:

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
See, you think Krishna created Nirguna Brahman because you are a human being and Krishna looks like a human being.

The bulls , if they worship , would think that a large bull created the universe and Nirguna brahman.

The sharks, would think that a large celestial shark created the world and Nirguna Brahman.

The donkeys, would think that a large celestial donkey created the world and Nirguna brahman.

Everyone would have an opinion, but wouldn't know or go further into the subject upon further questioning.



Simple understanding may be suffice for practical application, but does not make up for sound theoretical understanding.
The reality is that one can only know as much as God would like one to know in the course of needing to live to fulfill one's dharma: that is the most important thing. Of course if one has no idea of wanting to go about determining the ideal dharma (not the self-imagined dharma) one does not believe in God and so does not know that God alone is the source of all true knowledge and wisdom. As atheists therefore such people would do their endless pontifications that only go to satisfy their agendas and have no real value.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
The reality is that one can only know as much as God would like one to know in the course of needing to live to fulfill one's dharma: that is the most important thing. Of course if one has no idea of wanting to go about determining the ideal dharma (not the self-imagined dharma) one does not believe in God and so does not know that God alone is the source of all true knowledge and wisdom. As atheists therefore such people would do their endless pontifications that only go to satisfy their agendas and have no real value.

This is just a conditioned, personalised viewpoint expressing your personal opinions.


Brahman is impersonal, devoid of any personality. This is the reason why you are not able to comprehend it due to your lack of objectivity because of emotional filters.
 
Last edited:

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
This is just a conditioned, personalised viewpoint expressing your personal opinions.
I would not say that my opinions are conditioned. I am freethinking. My opinions are based solely on what I have experienced until the age of nearly 61. I did study the scriptures and only selected the ones that corroborated what I experienced.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
I would not say that my opinions are conditioned. I am freethinking. My opinions are based solely on what I have experienced until the age of nearly 61. I did study the scriptures and only selected the ones that corroborated what I experienced.

What you have experienced is just the outcome of your conditioning! And you chose scriptures which corroborated with it.

The christians have similar experiences of Jesus and Mary. The muslims have theirs which substantiate their own viewpoints. And so does the Shaktas.

Apparently , all of them cannot be the ultimate truth.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
What you have experienced is just the outcome of your conditioning! And you chose scriptures which corroborated with it.

The christians have similar experiences of Jesus and Mary. The muslims have theirs which substantiate their own viewpoints. And so does the Shaktas.

Apparently , all of them cannot be the ultimate truth.
No they cannot all be the ultimate truth. If something has worked for a person, why should he abandon it for a reality that is hearsay from a sage or guru or master?
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
That is what I meant by the impersonality of Brahman.
Brahman consists physical energy and consciousness energy which in turn is made up of guna consciousness (tamas, rajas and sattva) that is powered by Sri Krishna to generate deities like Jesus, Brahma, Shiva, Allah, Saraswati that people relate in their normal lives so it is not impersonal: Brahman therefore is partly nirguna (physical energy) and partly saguna (consciousness energy).
 
Top