Does Atman travels after death in advaita vedanta?

[George-ananda]

I asked you those questions because I needed to know whether we are talking about the same thing or not. Evidently we are not for the following reasons.

To me advaita is just a word with a specific meaning: it means there is no duality or separation between a human being and the wider environment, that is the universe. There is union or accommodation. That is the reality to be fathomed through meditation. The human being therefore needs to accommodate himself to being part of the wider universe. How the human being is part of the wider universe is for individual interpretations according to knowledge and experience. I describe my union as satya-advaita to distinguish it from traditional forms of Hindu Adviata. Who says I cannot do that as long as I define myself adequately. I do not use the term Brahman except by defining it as the universe to use a Hindu term. I am inseparable from Brahman. I have given my scientific reasoning for it earlier in the Blogpost that I referred readers to.

Satya-advaita is a process that determines the path to the realisation of the relationship between the individual and this Brahman. Satya means truth, in which one ascertains ones truth path through truth accommodation in ones life. The Brahman has consciousness which is available to the human being during the course of his living through the truth path. It is what I mentioned: Brahman intelligence required for survival of the human being in this world. That is what advaita means to me.

OK, thanks for the more straight forward answer this time.

I guess the name ’Satya Advaita’ sounds too much like mainstream Vedantic ‘Advaita’ that it causes confusion and very few people will figure out the whole picture.

I had learned through effort that people like you and Aup use the word ‘Advaita’ in your belief description but your beliefs are different than mainstream Hindu ‘Advaita’ beliefs.

 

[Shantanu]

OK, thanks for the more straight forward answer this time.

I guess the name ’Satya Advaita’ sounds too much like mainstream Vedantic ‘Advaita’ that it causes confusion and very few people will figure out the whole picture.

I had learned through effort that people like you and Aup use the word ‘Advaita’ in your belief description but your beliefs are different than mainstream Hindu ‘Advaita’ beliefs.

To know Brahman is a very difficult exercise and takes a very long time through the process of satya-advaita but one knows Brahman in its totality through this process.

 

[George-ananda]

To know Brahman is a very difficult exercise and takes a very long time through the process of satya-advaita but one knows Brahman in its totality through this process.

OK fine if that works for you. I was just saying it would be better if the name wasn’t similar to another renown Hindu school. But, oh well, I understand more know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Realization can take life-times or can come in a moment's time.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

But the scriptures state thus too..

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


Matter, energy , space, time and causation are considered as the manifestation of Brahman as Prakriti or nature. Brahman or pure consciousness is the absolute fundamental in all this. It is true that Brahman constitutes everything, but the same everything is pure consciousness in its most subtle level. It is this which the advaitan foccuses on, and not nama-rupa or name and form which are the grosser aspects.

It is upon enlightenment that one sees that it is Brahman or pure consciousness that is all-pervasive, and this is why meditation and experiential understanding is given a lot of importance in Advaita Vedanta as opposed to mere book learning. However some does not follow the process with due diligence and get stuck in intellectual concepts divorced from advaita, and state that theirs is true 'advaita' in delusion. This is what happened to Virochana and others mentioned in the past, and what is happening now as well, and will happen to many in the future as well. Hence the need for critical examination to distinguish between the true and fraudulent cases.

The advaitan philosophy is very hard to comprehend, and hence these sort of errors or erroneous perceptions are bound to take place every now and then.

Following are the testimony of enlightened masters of past and present declaring consciousness to be the only reality.


There is sorrow in finitude. The Self (Brahman) is beyond time, space and objects. It is infinite and hence of the nature of absolute happiness. - Shankara

Space seems broken and diverse because of the many forms in it. Remove the forms and pure space remains. So, too with the Omnipresent Self (Brahman). - Shankara


Existence or consciousness is the only reality. – Sri Ramana Maharshi


In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness alive." - Nisargadatta Maharaj


When you look at a tree or a human being in stillness, who is looking? Something deeper than the person. Consciousness is looking at its creation. - Eckhart Tolle




An account of enlightenment by Gary Weber...

Happiness Beyond Thought




So one can see enlightened masters in ancient, medieval and modern times testifying that they were able to perceive consciousness as the only reality after enlightenment.

Thanks for the clarification. So Brahman in it's subtlest form (without names,forms etc.) is the ultimate reality. Ok, that makes sense.

Why do you think the advaitins use the term 'Nirguna' when they refer to this infinite consciousness?
The word 'nirguna' means one that lacks qualities.
But when the advaitins say that nirguna brahman and maya (in their paramarthika state) are to be considered one and the same thing, and not separate entities, then aren't the advaitins turning nirguna brahman into an entity full of qualities, since maya, as we all know, is full of qualities.

An entity without attributes (nirguna brahman) cannot be the same as the one who has all the attributes (maya).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks for the clarification. So Brahman in it's subtlest form (without names,forms etc.) is the ultimate reality. Ok, that makes sense.

Why do you think the advaitins use the term 'Nirguna' when they refer to this infinite consciousness?
The word 'nirguna' means one that lacks qualities.
But when the advaitins say that nirguna brahman and maya (in their paramarthika state) are to be considered one and the same thing, and not separate entities, then aren't the advaitins turning nirguna brahman into an entity full of qualities, since maya, as we all know, is full of qualities.

An entity without attributes (nirguna brahman) cannot be the same as the one who has all the attributes (maya).

First thing, all advaitins may not have the same view. I differ from my friend George-Ananda here. I do not think that Brahman is 'universal consciousness'. Brahman according to my views has nothing to do with 'maya'. 'Maya' is the incorrect perception of humans brought about by just the presence of Brahman. There is no 'maya' in 'Paramarthika'. 'Maya' (illusions) happen in 'Vyavaharika'.

 

[ajay0]

Why do you think the advaitins use the term 'Nirguna' when they refer to this infinite consciousness?

Nirguna means attributeless,impersonal, devoid of qualities. Saguna is its opposite.

Saguna Brahman is personalised Brahman or personal God with attributes,form and qualities.

The word 'nirguna' means one that lacks qualities.

But when the advaitins say that nirguna brahman and maya (in their paramarthika state) are to be considered one and the same thing, and not separate entities, then aren't the advaitins turning nirguna brahman into an entity full of qualities, since maya, as we all know, is full of qualities.

Maya is illusion, a fictitious entity. A fictitious entity does not have qualities or a personality. It is just a false projection.

It is similar to projecting the idea of a garland or snake on the reality of a rope as per our mental projections directed by our likes and dislikes.

The garland or snake, is maya, and is of course a fiction or something of a mirage.

An entity without attributes (nirguna brahman) cannot be the same as the one who has all the attributes (maya).

Again, Maya is just the power of illusion. It is a fiction.

Mistaking a fiction to be reality and acting accordingly is what is known as maya and delusion.

Ramana Maharshi states in this regard,"Just as fire is obscured by smoke, the shining light of consciousness is obscured by the assemblage of names and forms, the world."

 

[ajay0]

OK, thanks for the more straight forward answer this time.

I guess the name ’Satya Advaita’ sounds too much like mainstream Vedantic ‘Advaita’ that it causes confusion and very few people will figure out the whole picture.

I had learned through effort that people like you and Aup use the word ‘Advaita’ in your belief description but your beliefs are different than mainstream Hindu ‘Advaita’ beliefs.

OK fine if that works for you. I was just saying it would be better if the name wasn’t similar to another renown Hindu school. But, oh well, I understand more know.

Yes, this is true.

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

The Rishis and enlightened sages of past and present consider Brahman to be pure consciousness.

However the likes of the Asura Virochana and others mentioned believed Brahman to be the physical body or their sons.

It can be great if they can keep their opinions to themselves, but they kept trumpeting their delusions , perpetuating and compounding ignorance of a difficult subject. This is why their stories were mentioned in the ancient Upanishads and later by Shankarachacharya and even Mahatma Gandhi so as to warn us about the dangers of delusion in this area and avoid gullibility.

This is very helpful in the sense that it can help us to identify fraudsters and pseudoscholars like Virochana and others easily, and ensure we are not caught in the jaws of maya permanently.

 

[ajay0]

Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you.

Atanu and Tattvaprahav, are the authentic scholars in Advaita Vedanta over here. It would be great if you can confine your discussions on Advaita and Brahman with them, if you want to get a clear picture of Advaita as it is a very difficult philosophy to comprehend.

Otherwise , you can be further misled to greater ignorance, confusion and delusion. That would be tragic as the correct knowledge of Advaitan philosophy can bring great contentment, peace and bliss to the diligent student.

 

[George-ananda]

First thing, all advaitins may not have the same view. I differ from my friend George-Ananda here. I do not think that Brahman is 'universal consciousness'. Brahman according to my views has nothing to do with 'maya'. 'Maya' is the incorrect perception of humans brought about by just the presence of Brahman. There is no 'maya' in 'Paramarthika'. 'Maya' (illusions) happen in 'Vyavaharika'.

My point is that then we should be referring to our beliefs by different names. 'Advaita' is a renown and rather well-defined Vedantic school of thought. You are free to adhere to the idea that Brahman is not 'universal consciousness' but for sematic sake, I wish you didn't call yourself 'Advaita'. Sure, as a word 'advaita' may simply mean 'not-two', but it has now been associated with the name of a major Hindu school of thought. Other schools of thought should identify with a different name as there is already too much semantic confusion in all this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

George, there are many versions of 'advaita'. I do not think they all consider Brahman to be 'universal consciousness'. Why do you insist that I do not classify myself as an 'advaitist' when you know that I am staunchly non-dualist?
Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Thank you.

Atanu and Tattvaprahav, are the authentic scholars in Advaita Vedanta over here..

Don’t be shy, @ajay0. If you can spot authentic scholars, you must be one too.

It is indeed awesome that amidst all the evil Virochanas here, somehow you and @atanu have managed to acquire scholarship in the true purport of Advaita!

Keep up the fight against evil and show the light.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I am not the first. It was Prakashatman. Vivarana - Wikipedia

Get this book from Archives.org. It would tell you about the various views that exist in Sankara's 'advaita'. It is not that a 'universal consciousness' was/is accepted by all 'advaitins'. You can't find a better scholarly book that this:
https://ia600602.us.archive.org/0/items/historyofindianp02dasg_0/historyofindianp02dasg_0.pdf

"But the central philosophical problem of the Vedanta is the conception of Brahman—the nature of its causality, its relation with maya and the phenomenal world of world-appearance, and with individual persons. Sankara’s own writings do not always manifest the same uniform and clear answer; and many passages in different parts of his work show tendencies which could be more or less diversely interpreted, though of course the general scheme was always more or less well-defined. Appaya Diksita notes in the beginning of his Siddhanta-lesa that the ancients were more concerned with the fundamental problem of the identity of the self and the Brahman, and neglected to explain clearly the order of phenomenal appearance; and that therefore many divergent views have sprung up on the subject. Thus shortly after Sankara’s death we have four important teachers, Suresvara and his pupil Sarvajnatma Muni, Padmapada and Vacaspati Misra, who represent three distinct tendencies in the monistic interpretation of the Vedanta. Suresvara and his pupil Sarvajnatma Muni held that maya was only an instrument (dvara), through which the one Brahman appeared as many, and had its real nature hidden from the gaze of its individual appearances as individual persons. In this view maya, was hardly recognized as a substance, though it was regarded as positive ; and it was held that maya had, both for its object and its support, the Brahman. It is the pure Brahman that is the real cause underlying all appearances, and the maya only hangs on it like a veil of illusion which makes this one thing .."
Surendranath DasGupta "A History of Indian Philosophy", Part 2, page 47.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"If there is only one reality, which through one ajnana appears in all diverse forms of appearances, how is the phenomenon of self-consciousness or self-recognition to be explained? To this difficulty Anandajnana’s reply is that both the perceiving and the perceived self are but false appearances in the antahkarana (an ajnana product), and that it does not in any way infect the one true self with any kind of activity. Thus there is the one Brahman and there is one beginningless, indescribable ajnana in connection with it, which is the cause of all the infinitely diverse appearances through which the former appears impure and suffers bondage, as it were, and again appears liberated, as it were, through the realization of the Vedantic truth of the real nature of the self.

In fact there is neither bondage nor emancipation. In view of the above it may be suggested that Anandajnana is following the same line of interpretation of the relation of ajnana to Brahman which was upheld by Vacaspati and Anandabodha. Anandajnana’s position as an interpreter of Sankara’s philosophy is evident from the number of able commentaries which he wrote on the commentaries of Sankara and also from the references made to him by later writers. Mr Tripathi collects the names of some of these writers, as Prajnanananda, Sesa Sringadhara, Vadivagisvara, Vadindra, Ramananda Sarasvatl, Sadananda Kasmiraka (a.d. 1547), Krsnananda (a.d. 1650), Mahesvara Tlrtha (a.d. 1650) and others."
Surendranath DasGupta "A History of Indian Philosophy", Part 2, page 195.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Maya is illusion, a fictitious entity. A fictitious entity does not have qualities or a personality.

If maya (prakriti) doesn't have any qualities, then what about the 3 gunas? I've heard that these gunas reside in maya.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I am trying to show is that differences have existed before Sankara's time and they have existed ever since Sankara's time. Differences are healthy. That existence of God, Brahman being pure consciousness or Sat-Chit-Ananda, are all debatable. They are like plaster on a rough surface to make it look smooth. It is the nature of Hinduism that it is brave enough to discuss even the most cherished views. There is nothing in Hinduism which does not have variety. Let us delight in this quality of Hinduism which is not available in many other religions.

p.s.: I have not yet given a thorough study to Sri Surendranath DasGupta's book. A truly great scholar. I had part I with me. At that time Part 2 was not available. Part 2 is wholly devoted to 'Advaita'.

"His career in teaching began with a short stint as a Lecturer in Rajshahi College. Later, he became a Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali in Chittagong College. After some time, he went back to graduate school and received a PhD from the University of Calcutta, and later went to England to work on his second PhD at the University of Cambridge. Following his return in 1924, Dasgupta joined the Presidency College as Professor of Philosophy. Later, he became the Principal of Sanskrit College, and later joined the University of Calcutta as a Professor. In 1932, he served as President of the Indian Philosophical Congress."

"The University of Warsaw made him an honorary Fellow of the Academy of Sciences. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. The Societe des Amis du Monde of Paris offered him a special reception, and M. Renou, Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Paris, wrote to him afterwards: "While you were amongst us, we felt as if a Sankara or a Patanjali was born again and moved amongst us." Kind and simple and gentle as he was, Dasgupta was always undaunted in challenging scholars and philosophers.

In the second International Congress of Philosophy in Naples, the thesis of Dasgupta's paper was that the philosophy of Benedetto Croce (1866-1952) had been largely anticipated by Dharmakirtti and Dharmottara, and that where Croce differed, he (Croce) was himself in error. On account of internal differences Croce had no mind to join the Congress, but the fact that Dasgupta was going to challenge his philosophy and prove it to be second-hand in open congress, induced him to do so.

In the same way he challenged Louis de La Vallée-Poussin, the great Buddhist scholar, before a little assembly presided over by J. M. E. McTaggart. In the meetings of the Aristotelian Society Dasgupta was a terror to his opponents, his method of approach being always to point out their errors. He inflicted this treatment on many other scholars, particularly Fyodor Shcherbatskoy (Stcherbatsky) (1866-1942) and Sylvain Lévi (1863-1935)."
Surendranath Dasgupta - Wikipedia

Surendranath DasGupta

 

[Aupmanyav]

If maya (prakriti) doesn't have any qualities, then what about the 3 gunas? I've heard that these gunas reside in maya.

That is true. All human gunas reside in Maya. The gunas of Brahman (interaction between the four or five fundamental forces) are a class apart, not a part of maya, and are to be studied only with science. No philosophical gymnastics will work there.

 

[SalixIncendium]

First thing, all advaitins may not have the same view. I differ from my friend George-Ananda here. I do not think that Brahman is 'universal consciousness'. Brahman according to my views has nothing to do with 'maya'. 'Maya' is the incorrect perception of humans brought about by just the presence of Brahman. There is no 'maya' in 'Paramarthika'. 'Maya' (illusions) happen in 'Vyavaharika'.

Doesn't this concept imply dualism? If Brahman has nothing to do with maya, that would imply a separation, and thus dualism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

George, there are many versions of 'advaita'. I do not think they all consider Brahman to be 'universal consciousness'. Why do you insist that I do not classify myself as an 'advaitist' when you know that I am staunchly non-dualist?
Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia

Perhaps for similar reasons this staunch nondualist doesn't classify himself as a Hindu?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Doesn't this concept imply dualism? If Brahman has nothing to do with maya, that would imply a separation, and thus dualism.

How? Whatever seems to happen in 'Vyavaharika' is only an illusion.
Thanks for not doubting me on non-duality.