Does Atman travels after death in advaita vedanta?

[ajay0]

In the traditional Advaita Vedanta philosophy, the idea of Shakti is not accepted. It is always unitary pure consciousness or Atman or Brahman which is the one and only reality. Everything else is classified under the idea of maya or illusion.

In a general Vedantic sense considering other Vedantic philosophies and Tantra, Shakti is taken into account.


Sri Ramakrishna states in this regard...

The Shakti or Power of Brahman is the manifest aspect of the unmanifest Brahman, the personal aspect of Impersonal Brahman. Brahman and Shakti are inseparable: they are static and dynamic, like energy bottled up and energy released. The one cannot be conceived of without the other: Brahman is inconceivable without Shakti, Shakti is inconceivable without Brahman. It follows that Brahman is acosmic and cosmic as well as transcendental and relative. These seemingly opposing aspects — unmanifest and manifest, static and dynamic, acosmic and cosmic, transcendental and relative—are identical. In each case the same Being is seen from different viewpoints which balance and supplement each other. Both concepts, Brahman and Shakti, are indispensable to the health and fullness of spiritual life. - Sri Ramakrishna

 

[Shantanu]

In satya advaita too there is no concept of Shakti.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

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

Ok, so what did they exactly mean by embodied then, if they didn't really mean 'IT' to be a fragment that is enclosed / trapped by bodies?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. 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.

The thing is, if the shakti or potential remains in his pocket (within him), then this avyakta Brahman can never be Nirguna.
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.

I do not think that would be the correct use of 'nirguna'. The correct use, IMHO, is "without gunas'.

Again, IMHO, there is nothing in Brahmans pocket, it does not have a pocket. it sure does what is natural for it, i.e., changing constantly. That property never changes, it is never still for even a Planck's moment (example - Feynman's diagrams). But that is not any change. Change will require something to happen if it is not happening earlier or something which was always happening stops to happen. Brahman presents no such change. That is why it is known as unchangeable. But because of that there is this seeming creation, living beings with their brains and minds, all illusions. The Brahman idea is very much 'Quantum and uncertainty like'.

Ok, so what did they exactly mean by embodied then, if they didn't really mean 'IT' to be a fragment that is enclosed / trapped by bodies?

No fragments. It is continuous, like an undulating ocean with waves rising and subsiding, in reality, vibrating at the same place.

https://www.quora.com/Can-energy-be-described-in-a-single-form

How can the religious and scientific understanding of Brahman be different?
If it is, then one of the understandings of Brahman is wrong.

 

[ameyAtmA]

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.

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.

OK.... a few days ago our focus was ontology from the human perspective.
Now, from another level - from Bramhan's level :

I said in the earlier post "This is how Bramhan' is nirguNa at the level we care about."
At the time I did not explain this.

What it means is that there are multiple levels of reality.

Just as the dream world is unreal to the waker, what appears as the gross world to us, is actually a "dream world" at the highest pAramArthika turIya level at which Bramhan' eternally is.

We are looking at it from our level, but we are Bramhan's dream characters. Who are we to make statements? Do our dream characters have any say in our waking world?

So at the highest paramArtha level of satya, Truth, Bramhan' does not carry mAyA and Her guNas just as we the waker do not carry around our dream characters, dream place and dream things IN our waking state.

This is how Bramhan' , eternally the turIya substratum (fourth, the foundation apart from the waker, dreamer and deep sleeper) , is perpetually

(i) not only beyond the guNas
(ii) but also has nothing to do with the dream-guNas at the highest level, hence without guNa at the pArmArthic level

Trying to mix 2 or 3 levels of reality is not possible. Can you fly the dream-airplane that you were flying in the dream last night, today in the waking state?

Similarly, Bramhan' in the ever-awakened state is ever nirguN

The mAyA = what mesmerizes and sends Him into the dream world, which is the waking world with respect to us, is His Shakti w.r.t. our waking state.

Bramhan's triguNAmtak shakti is His power to dream up this universe. The airplane was concrete last night, similarly the universe is concrete w.r.t. the wakers at RF, who are Bramhan's dream characters.

What is waking to false selves, (3 guNas, shakti) is dream to Bramhan' (unreal guNa, mAyA)

This is why KRshNa says and I repeat from the last posts :

BG 7.14 daivI hyeshA guNamayI mama mAyA duratyayA |
mAmeva ye prapadyante mAyAmetAM taranti te ||
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)

he nAtha nArAyaNa vAsudeva ~