Does Atman travels after death in advaita vedanta?

[Aupmanyav]

Sattva, rajas, tamas, the 5 great elements, etc. do they cease to exist in their subtlest state. Surely not. Then why do we call this subtlest state Nirguna. The subtle or latent state of the 3 gunas, 5 elements etc. should not be considered nirguna in my opinion.

Im not talking about our individual perceptions of the ultimate reality here, like the wise would see oneness and the ignorant would see duality ... No.

Im speaking of a time, that is before manifestation, when only the blank canvas remains. When exists no forms. Even in that state, the qualities or forms sleeps within nirguna brahman. The only thing is, it is Not nirguna. If you ask me, words like sushupti (sleeping) brahman best describes it.

Well, if you ask me, there are no three gunas and no five great elements. There is just one, and that is Brahman and none other than that. These (gunas, elements) are our conceptions, belong to the Vyavaharika world and not to Paramarthika.

The problem is created by human mind. Different minds have different capabilities. Ignorance and wisdom belong to mind, not to Brahman.

About the black canvas, we do not yet know the full secret of that. Probably, it is something like Quantum Superimposition, Decoherence. Existence and non-existence also are phases of Brahman. Brahman can be put neither as existing nor non-existing. This too is a human idea. Finally, do not dissociate science from Hindu philosophy. What is truth in one must be the truth in the other too.

"The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields.": Virtual particle - Wikipedia

 

[atanu]

The word 'fragment' was not used by Shankara in his texts and so it's not there in the ebook that i found online. Its me who's assuming it to be a fragment (the portion that has interpenetrated or pervaded all the subtle bodies.)

The reason why i used the word fragment is because, the bhamati or the avaccheda group uses the term 'embodied'.
The term embody means when you put something inside a body. And when you do that, the object becomes trapped in that body. It becomes a part of that body.

So if we are to take this term 'embody' seriously, that is, if we literally go by the exact meaning of this term, then Brahman becomes trapped or embodied by the subtle body, after its division from the whole. But the upanishads describe Brahman as indivisible.

If its really indivisible, (which cannot be fragmented and put into each subtle bodies as separate sparks of light) then why groups like bhamati and avaccheda uses terms like 'embody' in their articles? This very word, as i've explained above, means a completely different thing and should not be applied to the infinite indivisible Brahman.

Atman is indivisible. So, if you must interpret ‘embodied’ as a part that is enclosed within a body, then that part cannot be Atman.

 

[ajay0]

When you say "prakriti is a grosser manifestation of IT" you're also accepting that prakriti's grosser forms return back to its subtlest state, which as you said earlier is Nirguna Brahman. Just like clay pots after being broken loses its individuality and then only clay remains.

I hope you can see what I'm trying to say here. The subtlest state, which you call nirguna brahman, is it really devoid of qualities? I don't think so.

Sattva, rajas, tamas, the 5 great elements, etc. do they cease to exist in their subtlest state. Surely not. Then why do we call this subtlest state Nirguna.
The subtle or latent state of the 3 gunas, 5 elements etc. should not be considered nirguna in my opinion.

Im not talking about our individual perceptions of the ultimate reality here, like the wise would see oneness and the ignorant would see duality ... No.

Im speaking of a time, that is before manifestation, when only the blank canvas remains. When exists no forms. Even in that state, the qualities or forms sleeps within nirguna brahman. The only thing is, it is Not nirguna. If you ask me, words like sushupti (sleeping) brahman best describes it.

Nirguna Brahman is devoid of qualities and attributes the way names and forms in Prakriti have them.

As said earlier, there will be numerous ice sculptures and snowmen in various shapes and forms, depicting different aspects and attributes, but they are all water at a subtler level, and water vapour at the subtlest upon which they are indistinguishable from each other.

When all the snowmen and ice sculptures melt, you do not wonder whether they are all sleeping within the water or water vapour.

Sattva, rajas and tamas are the basic elements of prakriti with their characterestic qualities, but obviously they are just grosser manifestations of Nirguna Brahman.

Im speaking of a time, that is before manifestation, when only the blank canvas remains. When exists no forms. Even in that state, the qualities or forms sleeps within nirguna brahman. The only thing is, it is Not nirguna. If you ask me, words like sushupti (sleeping) brahman best describes it.

Sleeping suggests the element of Tamas which is of course Prakriti.

Brahman is pure consciousness which is subtler than the elements or Prakriti. All qualities and forms comes with Prakriti. This is why it is said that even Saguna Brahman too comes under Maya as it has name and form.

However just like we use a thorn to get rid of a thorn embedded in the flesh, Saguna Brahman enables us to come out of the grip of Maya or infatuation with name and form in the material world , easily.

 

[ajay0]

Im not talking about our individual perceptions of the ultimate reality here, like the wise would see oneness and the ignorant would see duality ... No.

These are perceptions of the enlightened masters which have been recorded in ancient times and present times. They see a unitary pure consciousness pervading all names and forms of Prakriti, thus seeing unity in diversity.

 

[ajay0]

Intellectual understanding of Advaita should be complemented with experiential understanding through meditation.

It is actually experiential understanding that enables precise intellectual understanding.

As an analogy, one can go through a detailed complex map of a city for intellectual understanding, but when one is on top of a tall building or skyscraper and views the city from this vantage point, one easily gains spatial awareness of the various spots and details of the city, much better than an intellectual study of the map.

Mere intellectual study of Advaita without experiential understanding through meditation, is can potentially result in delusionary ideas due to the sheer complexity of the subject. This is why the asura Virochana and others mentioned earlier had deluded viewpoints that diverged from Advaitan fundamentals and basics.

The potential for delusion due to hyperimagination is very high in this subject.

 

[ameyAtmA]

When you say "prakriti is a grosser manifestation of IT" you're also accepting that prakriti's grosser forms return back to its subtlest state, which as you said earlier is Nirguna Brahman. Just like clay pots after being broken loses its individuality and then only clay remains.

I hope you can see what I'm trying to say here. The subtlest state, which you call nirguna brahman, is it really devoid of qualities? I don't think so.

Sattva, rajas, tamas, the 5 great elements, etc. do they cease to exist in their subtlest state. Surely not. Then why do we call this subtlest state Nirguna.
The subtle or latent state of the 3 gunas, 5 elements etc. should not be considered nirguna in my opinion.

Im not talking about our individual perceptions of the ultimate reality here, like the wise would see oneness and the ignorant would see duality ... No.

Im speaking of a time, that is before manifestation, when only the blank canvas remains. When exists no forms. Even in that state, the qualities or forms sleeps within nirguna brahman. The only thing is, it is Not nirguna. If you ask me, words like sushupti (sleeping) brahman best describes it.

Namaste Greg

1. To understand what nirguNa and triguNAteet (beyond 3 guNas) means from the POV of an individual, Bhagvad Geeta Chapter 14 - answers the symptoms of a being who is "beyond the 3 guNas"

2. You are asking a question that is more ontological - so there are 2 things here.

a. Quiet witnessing or spirit-experience of a seeker
b. Ontological reality of the Source of all - Bramhan', in its subtlest form

1. So, this triguNAteet sthitapradnya muni experiences themselves as The Self,
See what KRshNa says -- one sympton is , prakAsham , pravRttim, moha -- when either the light - wisdom state (sattva), pravrutti - restless action state (rajas) or moha-delusion (tamas) are predominant at a point, the triguNAteet person is not disturbed by it like... "Oh now I have become lazy , this is not good"

This don't-care situation arises because they are in sAkshI bhAv -- in the consciousness of a witness who sees mud, stone gold / rain - shine / heat cold as the same --- dvandvAteet - beyond the dualities of opposites. Most important : they are disconnected from the body. They do not identify with the body-mind anymore.

So the prakruti is there but ignored.

2. Ontological reality of Bramhan' --- how can anything manifest without the potential for it to manifest?
So what is hidden in the Purest ParaBramhan' is this potential.

In Self-Realization, the goal is to realize the nishkriya (actionless) silent Source, as Pure Consciousness (see the AtmA in all and all in Atma -- then see ME, VAsudev in all and all in Me, VAsudev -- BG Chapter 9).
That does not mean the potential itself is absent in Bramhan' -- this is just for the sake of answering the ontological question. If it was, how do we explain the world?

Although the iceberg and waterfall have disappeared / not identified with, the potential source of the ice remains OR the Source , the Self does not identify with the iceberg as its reality BUT the potential for the iceberg to form , remains / exists in Bramhan'.

This is how Bramhan is NirguN at the level we care about --- what Ajay has been explaining all along

KRshNa says in the BG -- that which IS NOT cannot come into being , that which IS, cannot stop existing.
This is talking about hidden potential and its manifestation and vice-versa. Not on a time scale, but just reality wise.

Hope that helps

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nice explanation from Ameya here (AjayO is on my ignore list as per suggestions of the Mods. We tend to resort to virtual fisticuffs when we encounter each other ). See, how the philosophical Brahman morphs into a scientific Brahman:

Brahman is 'Trigunateet' (Beyond the three gunas). And it is 'Dvandvateet' (Beyond dualities - of existence and non-existence).

"Nāsato vidyate bhāvo, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ;
ubhayor api dṛṣṭah antah, tu anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ." BhagawadGita 2.16
(Illusion has no permanence and the permanent has no change. This is what the seers have concluded after studying both)

 

[ajay0]

Although the iceberg and waterfall have disappeared / not identified with, the potential source of the ice remains OR the Source , the Self does not identify with the iceberg as its reality BUT the potential for the iceberg to form , remains / exists in Bramhan'.

Imho, AmeyAtma has explained and elucidated it better.

 

[ajay0]

Aupmanyav for some reason tends to adamantly hold on to his personal opinion that Brahman is 'physical energy' , contradicting the basic fundamental of the Upanishadic philosophy and Advaitan philosophy that Brahman is pure consciousness.

Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)

Aupmanyav has been subjected to heavy criticism in other Hinduism forums by the Hindu scholars there, and it appears in this forum as well.

The moderators here advised me to put him in ignore mode. I wish everyone well and hope better understanding and sense will prevail in the end.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Although the iceberg and waterfall have disappeared / not identified with, the potential source of the ice remains OR the Source , the Self does not identify with the iceberg as its reality BUT the potential for the iceberg to form , remains / exists in Bramhan'.

This is how Bramhan is NirguN at the level we care about.

And this potential of Brahman? Isn't it Brahman's shakti? The potent or power that manifests everything?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman just exists (scientific equivalent: the force fields exist). We are product of the interaction of these force fields (which the uninitiated call atoms). Our brain and its activity results into memories and thoughts. These memories depends on how we have evolved and what information our sense organs feed it. That creates our perception, which is totally different from the actual reality out there or even inside us.

Posted in another thread in this forum: Yoga Vasishtha

 

[Shantanu]

According to the Hindu thought, we need to conduct swadyaya or self examination to realise the reality. Science does not do that much as they try through psychiatry and enforcing medications to try to understand and seemingly cure mental aberrations that exist to guide us to the truth.

 

[ameyAtmA]

And this potential of Brahman? Isn't it Brahman's shakti? The potent or power that manifests everything?

Bramhan' = the ShaktimAn = possessor of the Shakti
Potential of Bramhan' = Shakti

Yes, shakti is always with the ShaktimAn because it is His Shakti. {REF: BG 7.14 ** see below }
NOTE that ShaktimAn is in total control of His Shakti (unlike worldly beings), and it is upto Him when and whether to activate it. This is the difference, and hence, Bramhan' the ShaktimAn is NirguN. He is beyond the guNas and in full control of the guNas.

Self-Realization focuses on the ISness of the Shaktiman. It is like keeping the shakti in the pocket and not using it.
The ShaktimAn Himself lives is His own ISness devoid of ahaMkAr.

His ISness is our ISness. Look at the giant ball of the setting/rising Sun - catch it when it is 4 to 6 times bigger than the normal setting sun. Do you feel the ISness of SuryanArAyaN in and around it? I do. All those beautiful landscapes - vast ocean , coral reefs, bhavya-divya vastness ...

** REFERENCES
BG 7.14 daivI hyeshA guNamayI mama mAyA duratyayA |
mAmeva ye prapadyante mAyAmetAM taranti te ||
This is because, it is very difficult to overcome/cross/get beyond this supernatural (alaukik, adbhut, daivI) three-fold mAyA of Mine, consisting of [the 3] guNas (guNamayI).
However, one who gives themselves up to Me, worships/meditates on Me continuously, crosses My mAyA (taranti te)

Om bhur bhuva svah: |
tat savitur vareNyaM |
bhargo devasya dheemahI |
dhIyo yo nah: prachodayAt ||

 

[Aupmanyav]

BG is a Vaishnav scripture, that is why Prabhupada saw 'Demi-Gods' in it. So views will differ.

Indriyanaam-adhishthaatri Bhutanaam Cha-akhileshu Ya; Bhuteshu Satatam Tasyai Vyaapti-Devyai Namo Namah.
Chiti-Rupena Ya-Krtsnam etad-vyapya sthita jagat ; Namastasye Namastasye Namastasye Namo Namaha.

The basis of all the senses and of all existing things, and that is the Devi who is present in the entire Creation, on which everything is, was and will be. This entire Creation rests upon the Devi and is upheld by her divine power. The power and opulence of the Mother Divine is manifest everywhere, in all directions. Salutations and adorations to that Infinite Power, the glorious Mother Divine!

I don't have any preferences. I love Krishna too.
ll Shri Krishnārpanamastu ll

 

[Shantanu]

Nice explanation from Ameya here (AjayO is on my ignore list as per suggestions of the Mods. We tend to resort to virtual fisticuffs when we encounter each other ). See, how the philosophical Brahman morphs into a scientific Brahman:

Brahman is 'Trigunateet' (Beyond the three gunas). And it is 'Dvandvateet' (Beyond dualities - of existence and non-existence).

"Nāsato vidyate bhāvo, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ;
ubhayor api dṛṣṭah antah, tu anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ." BhagawadGita 2.16
(Illusion has no permanence and the permanent has no change. This is what the seers have concluded after studying both)

Aupji ignoring someone is not the way forward in the Hinduism DIR: we need to engage in fruitful discussions. We will have differences of opinion depending on our experiences. There is no need to take this personally.

As regards Brahman, Brahman is the Reality: that reality is composed of the visible and invisible world, the study of which brings one to comprehend everything. You are entirely on the wrong foot by describing yourself as a strong atheist even in Vyavaharika. You can say that you have no evidence of the existence of God but that you do not rule out that there is a God so as to keep your options open that the answer may yet be revealed to you. That is just my opinion. Please do not mind.

 

[Shantanu]

Aupmanyav for some reason tends to adamantly hold on to his personal opinion that Brahman is 'physical energy' , contradicting the basic fundamental of the Upanishadic philosophy and Advaitan philosophy that Brahman is pure consciousness.

Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)

Aupmanyav has been subjected to heavy criticism in other Hinduism forums by the Hindu scholars there, and it appears in this forum as well.

The moderators here advised me to put him in ignore mode. I wish everyone well and hope better understanding and sense will prevail in the end.

As I have mentioned to Aupji, this DIR will be finished for fruitful discussions if people ignore each other. We need to share our opinions so that readers are attracted to Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, we two had differences and the discussion was getting worse. That is what the Mods suggested. And you have to agree with Mods.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**
​

RULE 2 REMINDER:

2. Discussion/Dispute of Moderation
To ensure that members respect and abide by moderation decisions, and to respect the privacy and reputation of our members, there must be no discussion of the moderation of content or members in public areas. Furthermore, members whose content was acted upon (either edited or deleted) may not re-post the content anywhere on the forum without staff permission.

​

This is not the venue for discussion or dispute of moderator actions. If you wish to discuss/dispute moderator actions, please create a thread in Site Feedback.

 

[Shantanu]

Well, we two had differences and the discussion was getting worse.

I talk to both of you. It is more fun that way. The thing to do is not to take things personally or seriously as if life depends on it.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

NOTE that ShaktimAn is in total control of His Shakti (unlike worldly beings), and it is upto Him when and whether to activate it. This is the difference, and hence, Bramhan' the ShaktimAn is NirguN. He is beyond the guNas and in full control of the guNas.

According to you since Brahman is beyond the spell of his shakti, you're calling it Nirguna, which is ok, since the word NIR means both 'without' and 'beyond' and can mean two different things (without maya & above maya) and can give rise to confusion.
That's what happened with me.

It is like keeping the shakti in the pocket and not using it.

The thing is, if the shakti or potential remains in his pocket (within him), then this avyakta Brahman can never be Nirguna.
Here by nirguna, I mean to say, that such a brahman can never be 'without' qualities since everything stays IN him.
So i guess when the advaitins say that he is nirguna, i think they are reffering to his NIR=BEYOND feature, as in dwelling beyond maya and not the NIR=WITHOUT thingy.