Brahman and the Advaita Vision

[Shuddhasattva]

Satkaryavada has two branches - parinamavada and vivartavada; vivartavada is the view held in advaita, which still supports the effect being inherent in the cause, but the logic is more subtle - not contradicting as you have explained. We might actually say that advaita includes parinamavada as well as vyavaharika - provisional level of truth.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Who cares if a fool calls a murderer a saint?

One man's murderer is another man's revolutionary freedom fighter.

 

[Shantanu]

One man's murderer is another man's revolutionary freedom fighter.

Truth is dharma; violence is adharma. Period.

 

[Surya Deva]

Shantanu, then shall we conclude Sri Krishna is adharmic because he killed and abetted many killings?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Truth is dharma; violence is adharma. Period.

Ahimsa is not necessarily pacifism. It is ahimsa to kill in order to avert what is clearly greater suffering.

Tell me, if a real murderer broke into your house, and was going to kill your family, what would you do?

 

[Surya Deva]

There is nothing illusory about about the pragmatic/empirical world. It is the truth we experience so the most real thing that there is. What is at fault is the conception of nothingness.

There are many truths we experience in the empirical world: like the rising and setting sun and the blueness of the sky. So shall we conclude that this is the absolute truth?

It is a widely accepted fact in physics that 99.99999% of the world is empty space, and yet our empirical reality gives us the illusion of solidity and physicality.

It thus stands to reason that empirical reality cannot be taken to be absolute. It can be negated.

I don't disagree with you that it is pragmatic though. This is why Vedanta says as well: It is Vyavahrika, transactional and pragmatic reality. It is only relatively true insofar as it serves our practical needs. The notion of time and space for instance serve our practical needs, though time and space do not really exist according to Vedanta, and even modern physicists now strongly doubt its existence: known as the problem of time in physics.

 

[Shantanu]

Shantanu, then shall we conclude Sri Krishna is adharmic because he killed and abetted many killings?

Firstly, Mahabharatta was a story which may have been based on a real conflict that took place in human history, but it should only be regarded as a story. Bhagavad Gita is believed to be a later insertion into Mahabharrata by Vyasa who realised absolute Reality. He did something very crafty by inserting his realisation into Mahabharatta in an astonishing manner. So your question is how are we to read the religious literature. From other sources we know that Sri Krishna was Vishnu avatar and was applying

Yada Yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati bharata​

Abhyuthanamdharmasya tadatmanam srjamyaham​

Parithranaya sadhuna vinashayaya cha dushtkrtam​

Dharmasansthapnarthaya sambhawami yuge yuge​

to humanity.
Just because Vishnu sanctioned the killings does not mean that we humans are to live by the apparent implications of that story, just like earthquakes killing thousands as the Reality of Earth's geology does not give us the moral/dharmic justification for violence. If you are an advaitist your first morality/dharma is to protect and preserve truth and reality. You need to be at one with reality. Killing destroys reality so you cannot be an advaitist practising non-duality at the same time as destroying Nature. This can be taken to extremes; even the cultivation of fields that kills microorganisms and plants is wrong in principle when considerening advaitic dharma. But of course we humans are not perfect. We do have purely biological urges and reactions. It does not mean that getting angry and practcising violence is truth-based dharma. Without truth-based dharma, there is no ideal advaita. This is a personal view.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Let's examine perhaps the foremost practitioner of ahimsa as karmayogin: the great emperor Ashoka.

Though absolutely dedicated to ahimsa, promoting this ideal internally and amongst his neighbors by "invading" them with gifts of medicine, food, expertise to develop infrastructure, etc., he also had networks of signal fires constructed to warn of enemy invasion and maintained a defensive army.

His heirs failed to heed this lesson, leading to invasions from the North which cracked unified Indian strength and eventually led to the downfall of India.

 

[Shantanu]

Tell me, if a real murderer broke into your house, and was going to kill your family, what would you do?

I would resist his oppression and try and protect my family restraining him with all the strength. As a last gasp thing if that failed, I would kill him to protect myself and my family as my dharma because self-preservation comes before preserving others. Similarly, If a mosquito is sucking my blood, I would flick it off me but sometimes my natural reaction of squashing it with a slap might come and take over before I took this reasoned/considered option. That is self-defence. Dharma.

 

[Surya Deva]

would resist his oppression and try and protect my family restraining him with all the strength. As a last gasp thing if that failed, I would kill him to protect myself and my family as my dharma because self-preservation comes before preserving others. Similarly, If a mosquito is sucking my blood, I would flick it off me but sometimes my natural reaction of squashing it with a slap might come and take over before I took this reasoned/considered option. That is self-defence. Dharma.

Well there you go then. From your point of view you are only just defending yourself, from another point of view you are murderer. In like manner a person fighting for their independence maybe seen as a freedom fighter or a terrorist(like Bhagat Singh) Mohammed, is regarded by his followers as a great spiritual warrior who united all of Arabia and purged it of the barbaric religions that flourished there, others consider Mohammed to be a murderous and cruel dacoit.

The point I am making is, and I think you have vindicated the point already that not all violence is adharmic. Some violence is necessary. Krishna's violence against Kansa was necessary, as was his encouragement to Arjuna to kill. Even the Dalai Lama, who comes from a religion which preaches ahimsa, agreed the killing of Osama was necessary. There are still many Muslims today who regard Osama as a hero. In China Mao is seen as a great leader who brought progression to the country, and his murder of tens of millions is seen as necessary. Matters of morality are never clear cut. They are subjective, based on interpretation, and always come from a certain point of view.

The law of karma is not subjective. It is based on cause and effect. If you perform x action you will get y result. There is nothing about it being good or bad. Brahman is indifferent to human affairs. Humans live, humans die. Wars happen, peace happens. Disaster strikes, rain grows crops. Somebody cries, somebody laughs. Star form, stars are destroyed. All of these are possibilities of the infinite existence of Brahman, one is not smaller or greater than the other.

 

[Shantanu]

There are many truths we experience in the empirical world: like the rising and setting sun and the blueness of the sky. So shall we conclude that this is the absolute truth?

It is a widely accepted fact in physics that 99.99999% of the world is empty space, and yet our empirical reality gives us the illusion of solidity and physicality.

It thus stands to reason that empirical reality cannot be taken to be absolute. It can be negated.

I don't disagree with you that it is pragmatic though. This is why Vedanta says as well: It is Vyavahrika, transactional and pragmatic reality. It is only relatively true insofar as it serves our practical needs. The notion of time and space for instance serve our practical needs, though time and space do not really exist according to Vedanta, and even modern physicists now strongly doubt its existence: known as the problem of time in physics.

Yes. There are certainly these three levels of reality within which our existence is experienced, known as paramarthika (absolute), vyvaharika (pragmatic, transactional, empirical), and pratibhasika. Life exists at the second (vyvaharika) and third (pratibhasika) levels of reality. These levels of reality are the only levels that we will gives us all the information and knowledge (truth) that we will ever be able to find and so that they must be fully experienced otherwise one will never be able to know and appreciate the ultimate level of reality, which is the Nature of Brahman-existence. Science is therefore a must and is fundamental to this quest for the truth.

What I found in my personal life is that experiencing vyvaharika fully giving due regard to all issues shows that the philosophy of seeking and trying to be at one with truth on a daily basis teaches one the ideal dharmic existence which in turn shows us the precise nature of Brahman-reality by finding the right course for one. That is how Truth Consciousness works, which is why I believe in the Vedanta structure that you have also cited. Truth Consciousness is a very powerful tool/siddhi.

 

[Surya Deva]

Firstly, Mahabharatta was a story which may have been based on a real conflict that took place in human history, but it should only be regarded as a story. Bhagavad Gita is believed to be a later insertion into Mahabharrata by Vyasa who realised absolute Reality. He did something very crafty by inserting his realisation into Mahabharatta in an astonishing manner. So your question is how are we to read the religious literature. From other sources we know that Sri Krishna was Vishnu avatar and was applying

Yep the Mahabharata is a story, most likely based on real events, which have been incorporated into a fictional narrative, like the Illiad. Yes, I agree, the scholarly concensus is the Bhagvad Gita has been added later to the Mahabharata, which immediately makes me doubt whether the character of Krishna as presented in the Gita even existed. The portrayal of Krishna differs from the Mahabharata to the Gita to the Puranas. It is a similar to the character Jesus Christ, whose portrayal is different in every Gospel. Finding out who the real historical Krishna was, is as difficult as finding out who the historical Jesus was.

The Bhagvad Gita is clearly a fabricated text, in fact some parts of it are taken Verbatim from the Upanishads, like the Katha Upanishads. It appears to have been composed by many anonymous author/s(likely early Vaishnavists), and seems to be an attempt to synthesize many philosophies concurrent in India at the time of writing. As such I treat the Gita as it should be treated, Smriti, and I do not base my understanding of Hinduism on it.

The notion of avatarship is foreign in the Vedas, it is clearly a later fabrication. If Krishna ever existed, he was an ordinary human like you and me, but an ordinary human that may have reached a very high level of spiritual development, even self-realization. I do not worship him, but I do try to learn from his example.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I don't think the BG is a forgery, per se. It is a beautiful text, full of profound wisdom. In the hands of vaishnavas yes, it does take on a "personalist" bent. However, let us not forget that Shankaracharya (or someone writing under his name and accepted as such) wrote a commentary on it, as did other advaitins, and so did the great nondual Shaiva Abhinavagupta whose work I found particularly profound. Jnaneshwar, one of the greatest poets Ma Bharat has given birth of, also translated it into Marathi and commented on it. His Amritanubhav stands as, in my opinion, the finest teaching on nonduality given.

 

[Shantanu]

Well there you go then. From your point of view you are only just defending yourself, from another point of view you are murderer. In like manner a person fighting for their independence maybe seen as a freedom fighter or a terrorist(like Bhagat Singh) Mohammed, is regarded by his followers as a great spiritual warrior who united all of Arabia and purged it of the barbaric religions that flourished there, others consider Mohammed to be a murderous and cruel dacoit.

The point I am making is, and I think you have vindicated the point already that not all violence is adharmic. Some violence is necessary. Krishna's violence against Kansa was necessary, as was his encouragement to Arjuna to kill. Even the Dalai Lama, who comes from a religion which preaches ahimsa, agreed the killing of Osama was necessary. There are still many Muslims today who regard Osama as a hero. In China Mao is seen as a great leader who brought progression to the country, and his murder of tens of millions is seen as necessary. Matters of morality are never clear cut. They are subjective, based on interpretation, and always come from a certain point of view.

Killing is adharmic. I am being adharmic when killing in self defence too. So what? It shows that I am attached to my life. I am not liberated enough, have not attained moksha. But that is not the purpose of my life. To moralise is not the purpose of my life either. Seeking the truth and exposing the truth is the purpose of my life, my mission.

The law of karma is not subjective. It is based on cause and effect. If you perform x action you will get y result. There is nothing about it being good or bad. Brahman is indifferent to human affairs. Humans live, humans die. Wars happen, peace happens. Disaster strikes, rain grows crops. Somebody cries, somebody laughs. Star form, stars are destroyed. All of these are possibilities of the infinite existence of Brahman, one is not smaller or greater than the other.

The law of karma is regulated by the Truth Consciousness mechanism where human mind is concerned. Not all murderers end up in prisons because there is a transcendental human justice system operating in Nature that protects the sattvic nature.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I suspect that if we get caught up in how we are defining adharma, ahimsa, etc., the thread will get bogged down on that subject - but as it is your thread, it is of course your decision where to take it. I suggest, for whatever it's worth, we accept our disagreements - which I feel are mostly semantic - and move on, as none of us will be dislodged from our positions on this point.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

What you say is worth a lot.
I can appreciate Brahman as being the absolute (core, essential, and constituent) form and nature of Reality from which all all other realities materialise and on which they are dependent, and I know about Ishwara as the natural truth mechanism of our pragmatic existence. I have for a long time realised that there is a part of me which has a connection with Ishwara (the natural 'order' of our pragmatic world, or Vishnu the Preserver) through what I call the truth consciousness mechanism of Nature. In a post to the website Advaita Vision recently I called this connection a 'spirit' because scientists have not found a biological tissue or organ that can be called the atma. Is this spirit what you are call Paramatma? How did you realise the existence of Paramatama, please?

The spirit you are referring to is the ātmā, jīva or jivātmā. Which means - you, me, him, her...all of us.

Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa is the 'bigger than the biggest'. This aspect is realized as the all pervading infinite Brahman. This Brahman is the effulgence coming from the body of Supreme Lord.

Parmātmā on the other hand is the Supersoul. It represents the 'smaller than the smallest' aspect of Supreme Lord. The living entity (Jīva) is one ten-thousandth the tip of a hair in size; but the Lord is so inconceivably small that He enters into the heart of this particle. As the Supreme, He can enter the atom and into the heart of the smallest, and control him as the Supersoul.

The personal feature of Supreme Lord is Bhagavān. That is Kṛṣṇa.

Lord Bramhā prays in this way:

isvarah paramah krsnah
sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam​

Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.[Bs. 5.1]

To realize Parmatmā or Bhagavān, the process is given by Bhagavān Himself.

To know Him, we have to take the instruction given by Bhagavān Himself. We cannot manufacture ideas to know Bhagavān. We cannot speculate on Bhagavān.

The Vedas inform us:

Nayam atma pravacanena labhyah: If one is very good speaker, it is not that he can understand Bhagavan.
Nayam atma pravacanena labhyo na medhaya: If one is very meritorious, great scientist, philosopher, it does not mean that he can understand Bhagavān.
Nayam atma pravacanena labhyo na bahuna srutena: If one is very highly educated, highly learned in Vedic knowledge, he also cannot understand Bhagavān.

Bhagavān can be understood by the mercy of Bhagavān. That is the process. Therefore Bhagavan is mercifully explaining Himself. We have to take advantage of it. Then we can understand Bhagavān.

athapi te deva padambuja-dvaya-
prasada-lesanugrhita eva hi
janati tattvam bhagavan-mahimno
na canya eko 'pi ciram vicinvan​

"My Lord, one who has got a little mercy of Yourself, he can understand. Others, who has not received Your mercy, he may speculate for millions of years, still he cannot understand."

These are the verdicts of the Vedas. So we can understand Bhagavan by the mercy of Bhagavān. Not by speculation, not by learning, not by speaking etc.

In other words, if we want to see the sun at night, can millions of torches/lights help us see the sun? No. Sun can only be seen by it's own mercy - sun-light. Similarly, Lord can only be known through His own mercy.

The process is given by Lord Himself:

śrī-bhagavān uvāca
mayy āsakta-manāḥ pārtha
yogaḿ yuñjan mad-āśrayaḥ
asaḿśayaḿ samagraḿ māḿ
yathā jñāsyasi tac chṛṇu​

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Now hear, O son of Pṛthā, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt. [B.G. 7.1]

patram pushpam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahritam
asnami prayatatmanah​

If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it. [B.G. 9.26]

This is real yoga, how to become attached to the service of the Lord.

yoginam api sarvesam
mad-gatenantar-atmana
sraddhavan bhajate yo mam
sa me yuktatamo matah​

And of all yogis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me -- he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion. [B.G. 6.47]

 

[Shantanu]

I don't think the BG is a forgery, per se. It is a beautiful text, full of profound wisdom. In the hands of vaishnavas yes, it does take on a "personalist" bent. However, let us not forget that Shankaracharya (or someone writing under his name and accepted as such) wrote a commentary on it, as did other advaitins, and so did the great nondual Shaiva Abhinavagupta whose work I found particularly profound. Jnaneshwar, one of the greatest poets Ma Bharat has given birth of, also translated it into Marathi and commented on it. His Amritanubhav stands as, in my opinion, the finest teaching on nonduality given.

Bhagavad Gita is profound and exquisite; the longer I have lived the more I have learnt to appreciate it.

 

[Shantanu]

I suspect that if we get caught up in how we are defining adharma, ahimsa, etc., the thread will get bogged down on that subject - but as it is your thread, it is of course your decision where to take it. I suggest, for whatever it's worth, we accept our disagreements - which I feel are mostly semantic - and move on, as none of us will be dislodged from our positions on this point.

Yes, let us examine what advaitins mean in practical terms on their focus on atma=Brahman: what results do they achieve from knowing this?

 

[DanielR]

Is Brahman a 'nothingness' or is it Bliss??

 

[Shantanu]

Brahman is neither nothingness nor is it Bliss (Ananda): ananda is a 'vyvaharika' emotion/feeling that cannot be associated with sensing or knowing Brahman, so the question of bliss does not arise.