Hinduism according to Advaita

[Spirit_Warrior]

Hari Om,

I felt a primer on Advaita was necessary, because there are some misunderstanding and confusion about what it teaches on here. Therefore, in the spirit of discussion and education, I felt I would inform about the basic doctrines, methods and tenets of Advaita in the same manner and spirit they are communicated in introductory primers(prakarana granthas)

First, some explanations for why this thread is called "Hinduism according to Advaita" It is to acknowledge and also disclaim that Advaita is not the only perspective on Hinduism, there are diverse perspectives of HInduism from various traditions and different Hindus belong to different schools of thought will tell you something different about Hinduism. I will not be speaking for everybody, but only speaking for Advaita. Advaita claim is not that it's merely just a philosophy within Hinduism --- Advaita IS Hinduism. It claims to give you the real meaning of the Vedic scriptures, the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita, covering both the sruti and smriti. It presents you a full, coherent, comprehensive, impersonal account of all of Hinduism and provides you with the knowledge and the means by which you can attain moksha or liberation. You do not need anything else but Advaita. It is the full truth. If you follow and practice what it says you are guaranteed liberation.

Advaita Hinduism is a cosmic religion, which has rightly been called Sanatana Dharma, because it as eternal as the universe. Its truth are not conditioned by place and time, by race, geography or even by species; It is not anthrocentric, ethnocentric or even geocentric. It covers the entire history of the cosmos, from origin, to intern period to its dissolution. It covers the entire nature of reality from the lowest level to the highest. It covers all being from the lowest bacteria to the highest Brahma as the supreme lord. There is no religion higher than this, because it includes the truths of all religions.

Now, I will begin with a series of posts on Advaita(the first one will follow immediately, the rest later)

Note: I will introduce the official Sanskrit terms too as we go, sometimes along with the English word or in brackets.

 

[Shrew]

subscibe

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Anubandha Chutashtaya

All Advaita primers start with a part explaining the four connections re:

1. Who is qualified for Advaita(adhikaari)
2. What is the subject matter of Advaita(visaya)
3. What is the end-result of Advaita(prayojana)
4. What is the relationship between the above(sambanda)​

(1) Advaita is not for all and sundry. It is specifically for those who are qualified for it, they must have certain prerequisite qualifications(I will cover this when I cover sadhana chutashtaya) However, the best way to understand it, it is for a spiritual seeker. Note, I say spiritual seeker, not just a religious seeker. A spiritual seeker does not necessarily have a religion, but they have a yearning for something other than wordly things, they have a sense that there is something beyond this world, something beyond the normal pursuits of life like sensory pleasures, wealth, career and fame. It is for them Advaita shastra exists to help them understand what it is they are seeking.

(2) The subject matter of Advaita is Brahman. Brahman is not God as is commonly understood, unless you qualify your understanding of what God is. Brahman is the absolute existence, the absolute reality that is both immanent in the form of its projective power(maya) and transcendental; it is the substratum of infinite universes which every moment appear and disappear into it like bubbles in soapy water. It is not just the source of existence, it is the source of all consciousness and knowledge, all happiness, hence it known as satchitananda.

Brahman is beyond matter, energy, space, time, perception, speech and thought and yet it is also the source of all of them. Brahman is neither unknowable or knowable. This means you cannot say anything positively about Brahman like you are talking about some object of knowledge or person, such as Brahman's name is w, Brahman age is x, Brahman created this universe at y time, Brahman lives in z place, because Brahman is not an object which you can situate in time and space and assign attributes too. At the same time you can say what Brahman is through elimination of what Brahman isn't or the method of negation(neti neti) (I will cover this when I cover viveka)

(3) The Goal of Advaita is to liberate you from samsara or the cycle of birth and rebirth by destroying your ignorance that your Self is separate from Brahman and this is Self-realisation, realising your Self as Brahman. This is not a cognitive or conceptual process, the cognitive aspect is first revealing the teaching and methods to you, this is shravanam(listening) You must then deeply reflect on the teaching by challenging them, questioning them and removing every bit of doubt that you attain a level of full conviction, this is mananam(contemplation) and finally you must practice, integrate and meditate, so that an intuitive/meditative realisation of Brahman occurs, this is nidhidhyasnam(meditation)

(4) The relationship is you the seeker though Advaita shastra will learn of the identity of your Self as Braman and the sadhana or the means by which you will attain the ultimate goal of moksha or liberation from samsara. However, as I already stated Advaita Hinduism is a cosmic religion, liberation from samsara is not a walk in the park, we do not measure time of sadhana in terms of minutes, hours, days, years or even decades, we measure it in terms of kalpas(each kalpa is 4.32 billion years) If one thinks they are going to attain to the final goal of Brahman, the source of infinite universes and all of existence in just 6 months of practice of 1 hour daily meditations or pujas, they are going to be very disappointed with what Advaita tells them.

Just think of it like this, just our observable universe is approx 100 billion light years in diameter, containing 2 trillion galaxies, which contain 100 sextillion stars, which contain 10^24 planets and you, humans supposedly only recently emerged from apes, want to attain identity with the Lord of infinite such universes in just a few months? Does really one think that it is going to be that easy?

(I will further explain why it takes so long later)

The aim of Advaita is not to make you realise Brahman in this life time because that is the ultimate cosmic goal of your cosmic body(covered later) the aim of Advaita is to put you on the right track and give you a momentum that will continue in your next life time and then the next and the next. If you put in intense efforts now towards realising Brahman, the efforts will create positive samskaras or impressions/engrams in your chitta or soul memory, which will produce a motive force that always pushes in the direction of Brahman. If you can achieve this in this lifetime, then that would be a massive achievement in itself, the aim to keep on progressing one mile at a time rather than asking "Are we there yet" every mile of the journey.

 

[wicketkeeper]

I appreciate what you are doing in this thread Spirit Warrior as I have just begun reading the Upanishads - The Principal Upanishads by Alan Jacobs. I resonated with The Isa Upanishad straight away and will read it numerous times, and will do so with the following chapters.

I am checking on which books to add, and would appreciate any recomendations.

 

[sayak83]

Hari Om,

I felt a primer on Advaita was necessary, because there are some misunderstanding and confusion about what it teaches on here. Therefore, in the spirit of discussion and education, I felt I would inform about the basic doctrines, methods and tenets of Advaita in the same manner and spirit they are communicated in introductory primers(prakarana granthas)

First, some explanations for why this thread is called "Hinduism according to Advaita" It is to acknowledge and also disclaim that Advaita is not the only perspective on Hinduism, there are diverse perspectives of HInduism from various traditions and different Hindus belong to different schools of thought will tell you something different about Hinduism. I will not be speaking for everybody, but only speaking for Advaita. Advaita claim is not that it's merely just a philosophy within Hinduism --- Advaita IS Hinduism. It claims to give you the real meaning of the Vedic scriptures, the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita, covering both the sruti and smriti. It presents you a full, coherent, comprehensive, impersonal account of all of Hinduism and provides you with the knowledge and the means by which you can attain moksha or liberation. You do not need anything else but Advaita. It is the full truth. If you follow and practice what it says you are guaranteed liberation.

Advaita Hinduism is a cosmic religion, which has rightly been called Sanatana Dharma, because it as eternal as the universe. Its truth are not conditioned by place and time, by race, geography or even by species; It is not anthrocentric, ethnocentric or even geocentric. It covers the entire history of the cosmos, from origin, to intern period to its dissolution. It covers the entire nature of reality from the lowest level to the highest. It covers all being from the lowest bacteria to the highest Brahma as the supreme lord. There is no religion higher than this, because it includes the truths of all religions.

Now, I will begin with a series of posts on Advaita(the first one will follow immediately, the rest later)

Note: I will introduce the official Sanskrit terms too as we go, sometimes along with the English word or in brackets.

Link to an english translation of Advaita primer please, if possible.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Link to an english translation of Advaita primer please, if possible.

I was looking for a link to Tattva Bodha, which is the standard introductory primer in Advaita ashrams because it a straight up book of definitions used in Advaita and a great reference guide to learn all core concepts. I could not find a reliable one, except one which is a commentary on it here: http://www.vedanta.gr/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SwParam_IntroVedanta-Tattvabodha_ENA4.pdf

However, I found what is my absolute favourite primer on Advaita, Vivekchudamani which is attributed to Shankara(though some scholars have doubts) which is considered one of the core texts of Advaita in the Advaita community. This is a rather large text though consisting of approx 600 verses. This one is a brilliant translation with an excellent introduction at the start: http://www.realization.org/down/sankara.vivekachudamani.chaitanya.pdf

I recommend the translations done by Ramakrishna Math, Chinmaya Mission and Advaita Ashram

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji

Hari Om,

I felt a primer on Advaita was necessary, because there are some misunderstanding and confusion about what it teaches on here. Therefore, in the spirit of discussion and education, I felt I would inform about the basic doctrines, methods and tenets of Advaita in the same manner and spirit they are communicated in introductory primers(prakarana granthas)

First, some explanations for why this thread is called "Hinduism according to Advaita" It is to acknowledge and also disclaim that Advaita is not the only perspective on Hinduism, there are diverse perspectives of HInduism from various traditions and different Hindus belong to different schools of thought will tell you something different about Hinduism.

surely main differences are over personal and impersonal beleif , ..and the refinements in between ?

I will not be speaking for everybody, but only speaking for Advaita. Advaita claim is not that it's merely just a philosophy within Hinduism --- Advaita IS Hinduism. It claims to give you the real meaning of the Vedic scriptures, the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita, covering both the sruti and smriti. It presents you a full, coherent, comprehensive, impersonal account of all of Hinduism and provides you with the knowledge and the means by which you can attain moksha or liberation. You do not need anything else but Advaita. It is the full truth. If you follow and practice what it says you are guaranteed liberation.

this is perhaps the main differnce , on one hand the desire for liberation , on the other the desire for illumination (to know God) this is why in the Gita Bhagavan Sri Krsna explains very carefully to arjuna that there are differnt Margs or paths for each mentality of person , ....

Advaita Hinduism is a cosmic religion, which has rightly been called Sanatana Dharma, because it as eternal as the universe.

Here we must be carefull in our understanding of Sanatana Dharma and understand that it is both Law and Nature , ...yes you could call it ''Cosmic'' but only in the sence that all space time and matter exist within the supreme , much like our own being universe's also go through a cycle of creation and dissolution yet ultimatly they all stem from the eternal nature of the supreme , as Krsna says of himself ''never was there a time when you and I didnot exist'' explaining then to Arjuna that the difference lay in the the full knowledge posessed by Krsna where by he understands and remembers all his previous incarnations , and the incomplete knowledge of Arjuna which renders him blind to his previous births , ...

Its truth are not conditioned by place and time, by race, geography or even by species; It is not anthrocentric, ethnocentric or even geocentric. It covers the entire history of the cosmos, from origin, to intern period to its dissolution. It covers the entire nature of reality from the lowest level to the highest. It covers all being from the lowest bacteria to the highest Brahma as the supreme lord. There is no religion higher than this, because it includes the truths of all religions.

To be fair surely all religions seek after the same truth , or guidlines by which to live that are harmonious with that truth , it is only that there are very few in any one individual religion who will ever fully understand this truth , this is then hampered by argument as to whether enlightenment is by Gods Grace or whether it is our inherent true nature ?

As the Supreme is Sat-cit-ananda, eternaly blissfull and full in knowledge, that Supreme is the ultimate truth , ....as there can be no other truth one realising this truth realises the true nature of God . Which ever Marg or religious tradition he arives at this knowledge through is also most perfect , therefore can there realy be a superior or higher religion ?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Namaskaram Ji



surely main differences are over personal and impersonal beleif , ..and the refinements in between ?

Hari Om,

Yes, and this is a core difference. You see personal or saguna Brahman is an ethnocetric and even sectarian concept, because every image of God is informed by the time, place, language, geography, culture and mythology of that place. So in Vaishnavism Vishnu is supreme, and he lives in a place called Vaikunth and he takes avatars to intervene on Earth when adharma reach a certain extent. In Christianity, Saguna Brahman is Jehova/Yaweh/Jesus and in Islam Allah. In Taoism the Mandate of Heaven. In Advaita Vedanta we take a liberal smartist approach, you can take any deity as your saguna Brahman(ishtadeva) because the understanding of Advaita is that you will eventually need to go beyond this to realise the impersonal nirguna Brahman which is without attributes but is the nature of satchitananda.

Just consider this idea, suppose as the Puranas tell us there is life on countless planets in this universe and in other universes, how could they possibly have the same names of God? Would they know who Krishna, or who Jesus is? Probably not. However, would they know the same truth that there is an absolute reality, the substratum and source of infinite universes whose nature is satchitananda. Indeed, if they have reached the same level of spiritual development as our Rishis did. This is another reason why Advaita Hinduism is cosmic.

this is perhaps the main differnce , on one hand the desire for liberation , on the other the desire for illumination (to know God) this is why in the Gita Bhagavan Sri Krsna explains very carefully to arjuna that there are differnt Margs or paths for each mentality of person , ....

In fact I agree and I will cover this when I cover the sadhana topic.

Here we must be carefull in our understanding of Sanatana Dharma and understand that it is both Law and Nature , ...yes you could call it ''Cosmic'' but only in the sence that all space time and matter exist within the supreme , much like our own being universe's also go through a cycle of creation and dissolution yet ultimatly they all stem from the eternal nature of the supreme , as Krsna says of himself ''never was there a time when you and I didnot exist'' explaining then to Arjuna that the difference lay in the the full knowledge posessed by Krsna where by he understands and remembers all his previous incarnations , and the incomplete knowledge of Arjuna which renders him blind to his previous births , ...

It is cosmic because it deals with the cosmos, countless galaxies, countless planets and and countless universes. In contrast, in a terrestrial religion like Christianity, it is geocentric, it deals with only recent history going back 6000 years and its ultimate goal is an eternal heaven on Earth(When Earth is not eternal) So you could not export Christianity to say another planet, but you could Advaita Hinduism. As Advaita is abstract and impersonal anybody that is capable of rational thought is capable of relating to it and understanding it.

To be fair surely all religions seek after the same truth , or guidlines by which to live that are harmonious with that truth , it is only that there are very few in any one individual religion who will ever fully understand this truth , this is then hampered by argument as to whether enlightenment is by Gods Grace or whether it is our inherent true nature ?

I will cover this in detail when I cover why Advaita includes every religion, but I will tell you briefly now why: Advaita accepts the separation between Jiva(soul) Ishvara(God) and Jagat(universe) at the relative level of reality. Hence we recognise Dvaita and Shankara himself encourages bhakti towards Ishvara. The next level up we recognise there is an intermediate fuzzy reality where jiva, jagat and jagat become part and parcel of one another. Hence we recognise viseshadvaita. Then the final level up is when jiva, ishvara and jagat merge into the one reality of Brahman. This is Advaita. Finally, we also recognise that reality is both with difference and no difference at all. Hence we recognise bhedaabedha too. While, you can include every other perspective under Advaita, you cannot under the others. The analogy is this, at the summit of a mountain, all vantage points below are included, but at at a lower vantage the higher vantages are not included.

We have a concept of grace in Advaita but grace in Advaita is a function of ones karma or ones own self-effort, it is not about winning the favour of some God, as this would violate the law of karma.

As the Supreme is Sat-cit-ananda, eternaly blissfull and full in knowledge, that Supreme is the ultimate truth , ....as there can be no other truth one realising this truth realises the true nature of God . Which ever Marg or religious tradition he arives at this knowledge through is also most perfect , therefore can there realy be a superior or higher religion ?

In Advaita yes, we do consider Advaita the highest religion. Not because other religions are false, but because all other religions are sublimated by Advaita. It is not an attitude of supremacy or arrogance but respect and tolerance for all other religious perspectives, because we understand why you are coming from that position. As we ourselves were once in that position too.

 

[Valjean]

Advaita?
-- M-theory with Holi powder tossed about.

 

[Terese]

Hari Om,

So in Vaishnavism Vishnu is supreme, and he lives in a place called Vaikunth and he takes avatars to intervene on Earth when adharma reach a certain extent. In Advaita Vedanta we take a liberal smartist approach, you can take any deity as your saguna Brahman(ishtadeva) because the understanding of Advaita is that you will eventually need to go beyond this to realise the impersonal nirguna Brahman which is without attributes but is the nature of satchitananda.
.

Vaisnavism and Advaita are not at all mutually exclusive. And not all Advaitins are smarthas. One can read Sri Adi Shankaracharya's Brahma Bashya and his commentary on the Vishnu Sahasranam and see.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The Epistemology of Advaita

Epistemology is a term in Philosophy and it means the study of knowledge, including methods for ascertaining validity and reliability of knowledge and how knowledge is obtained. In Sanskrit we call this pramana shastra. Considering the claim Advaita is making of being the cosmic religion and of asserting such transcendental truths like Brahman, one should rightfully ask how we know?. It could be just somebodies fantasy, or it could be some abstract philosophy which has no correspondence in reality or it could just be clever deception by Brahmins to keep people duped. All of these are real criticisms raised by critics of Advaita past and present.

To understand what is the epistemology of Advaita I will introduce another philosophical term, hermenutical philosophy it means a philosophy that has been derived from the exegesis and interpretation of a text. Heidigger, the great German philosopher of the 20th century, for example, is somebody who derived his philosophy through exegesis of texts, particularly classical Greek texts. Similarly Adishankarcharya derives his philosophy from the prasthantrayi or the triple canon of Hindu scriptures which form the foundation of Advaita Hinduism. They are:

1. The 13 principal Upanishads, as the start of the Sruti literature on Brahman(other Upanishads being later compositions are not recognised)
2. The Bhagvad Gita, as the start of Smriti literature on Brahman
3. The Brahma Sutras, as the start of the yukti or attempt to bring the sruti an smriti together​

Where do we first get our knowledge that such a thing called Brahman exists? It is from the Rishis or seers of the Upanishads. Would we know otherwise there is such a thing called Brahman? Consider this analogy: Suppose you are living in South America in 1600 and you have been told by a European traveller on the other side of the Earth in the Northern Hemisphere that on the others side there is a continent called Europe from which they come. Is there any way you could ever known this? No, the only means of knowledge that could reveal it is testimony or shabd. Similarly, to one who has never heard of something like Brahman, let alone that Brahman is actually their own Self, there is no way they could know such a reality exists. This is why the testimony of the Rishis and Lord Krishna is the principal means of knowledge of Brahman(mukhya pramana) in Advaita. For other types of knowledge that is not Brahman related, Advaita admits Samkhya-Yoga-Vaiseshika-Nyaya shastras too. It is also for this reason modern Advaitins accept the authority of modern science on material matters(as that is their field of investigation) Swami Vivekananda is such an example who was a patron of science.

Does this mean Advaita is mere theology which hinges upon your belief in the Upanishads and Bhagvad Gita? Consider the analogy again. Although you first required somebody to come from Europe to tell you Europe exists, later they can explain to you by showing you maps, explaining the Earth is spherical etc, and eventually by taking you there themselves on their ships. Hence the rational means of knowledge re: inference and perception(anumana and pratyakshya) can be provided as supporting proofs. Similarity, Shankara does not just stop at testimony, he provides supporting reasons, arguments and evidence for every point he makes, including for why Brahman exists(Thus Brahman is in some sense knowable through reason) This is why Advaita is not theology, but philosophy. I will share some of those arguments Shankara adduces during this primer and try to reason what I tell you, rather than just expecting you to accept it on faith.

Indian philosophies are known as "systems of thought" or darsanas. They are called systems because they attempt to be comprehensive, covering all areas of philosophy. Philosophical thinking is known as vichara and a system of philosophy should consist of:

1. Pramana vichara: Epistemology: What is true knowledge?
2. Tatta vichara: Metaphysics: What exists?
3. Shrishti vichara: cosmology: When did it begin?
4. jiva vichara: Ethics: How to live properly?
5. Atma vichara: Psychology: Who am I?
6. Moksha vichara: Soteriology: How do I end suffering?​

If either of these are missing it is considered a fault in the philosophy. Advaita covers every area and hence it is recognised worldwide as a system of philosophy. Advaita thought has been refined rigorously over centuries and several primers have been composed to further sharpen and elucidate its concepts. The great mathematician and logician Alfered Whitehead allegedly called it the "most impressive metaphysics the human mind has conceived."

The final question to cover is Adaita actually really there in the Upanishads? This forms the hermeneutical part of Advaita which is covered in Shankaras bhasyas(commentaries) on the Brahma sutras, which is about bringing together the 13 Upanishads and interpreting in them the single philosophy of Advaita. If you ask an Advaitin, we will say categorically Advaita is not just Shankara's interpretation, it is the true doctrine of the Upanishads and there is a continuous lineage of Advaita teaching up to Shankara, Shankara was merely its greatest expounder. However, is this question really that important for the seeker who is seeking liberation, do they want to ask where the fruit came from, or eat the fruit?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Vaisnavism and Advaita are not at all mutually exclusive. And not all Advaitins are smarthas. One can read Sri Adi Shankaracharya's Brahma Bashya and his commentary on the Vishnu Sahasranam and see.

Sure, I know that there are certain samapradayas or traditions of Vaishnavism that are Advaitist. Shankara composed devotional literature, including hymns on Vishnu, Shiva and Divine Mother. His liberal attitude, which I don't think was common in his day and age, was because he accepted any saguna concept of God, because ultimately the seeker had to drop it to come to the real nirguna Brahman of satchitananda as ones own Self. Many Vaisnavas would probably not accept this, although you tell me. Ramakrishna was intensely and deeply devoted to Maa Kali, and then when Advaitic realisation dawned on him, Maa Kali herself came in a vision to him to tell him it is time for him to go beyond her.

Most Hindus today do have smartists attitudes, that is they are liberal, worship Vishnu one one day, Shiva the next, Divine mother the next, with a general understanding they are all one. In the sectarian age this sort of harmony, unity and oneness was not so common, the Vaishnavas considered Vishnu the supreme, the Shaiva Shiva and the Shaktas Divine mother. Shankara helped break down many barriers, which then also precipitated the liberal Bhakti movement.

 

[Terese]

In the sectarian age this sort of harmony, unity and oneness was not so common, the Vaishnavas considered Vishnu the supreme, the Shaiva Shiva and the Shaktas Divine mother.

We have valid scriptural reasons. We do not say this and that because we want it to be so. Saying Visnu is Supreme does not make one less inclined to harmony, unity and oneness.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

We have valid scriptural reasons. We do not say this and that because we want it to be so. Saying Visnu is Supreme does not make one less inclined to harmony, unity and oneness.

Indeed it does not, but it does put one at odds with another group saying another deity is supreme, and this was the only point I was making when I said Advaita is not ethnocentric. In principle even a Christian or a Muslim could adopt Advaita and still maintain Jesus and Allah as their chosen deity. Ramakrishhna adopted this idea so he switched his saguna concept to Jesus and Allah and practised living as Christian or a Muslim, and had vision(darsana) of Jesus and Allah. In effect, and it is something I will cover later today when I cover sadhana, in Advaita it really does not matter what religion you are, if you practice your religion with faith and dedication, you too can attain to Saguna Brahman realisation. However, will this also lead to Nirguna Brahman realisation? This is a very good question and I will cover it, because Advaita views on this vary in the community.

 

[Terese]

Indeed it does not, but it does put one at odds with another group saying another deity is supreme, and this was the only point I was making when I said Advaita is not ethnocentric. In principle even a Christian or a Muslim could adopt Advaita and still maintain Jesus and Allah as their chosen deity. Ramakrishhna adopted this idea so he switched his saguna concept to Jesus and Allah and practised living as Christian or a Muslim, and had vision(darsana) of Jesus and Allah. In effect, and it is something I will cover later today when I cover sadhana, in Advaita it really does not matter what religion you are, if you practice your religion with faith and dedication, you too can attain to Saguna Brahman realisation. However, will this also lead to Nirguna Brahman realisation? This is a very good question and I will cover it, because Advaita views on this vary in the community.

That's because Advaita Vedanta is a philosophy, not a religion. i agree, anyone can adopt it, just as how anyone can adopt Visistadvaita or Tattva Vedanta. Vaisnavism is a religion, Advaita is not. Also, Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda were Neo-advaitins. Different from Shankaracharya's Advaita philosophy. I don't think Adi Shankaracharya would approve of being anything else other than Vedantic, and not adhering to sruti.

Also, i would like to ask you why Vaishnavism/Shaktism/Saivism is ethnocentric. We don't believe our culture is superior to other cultures. Although this is also a hard assessment, as religion and culture are highly intertwined in Indian culture.

Apologies for sounding stern, but this is something i had to bring out onto the table. Thank you for this Advaita thread, and apologies for derailing it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is to acknowledge and also disclaim that Advaita is not the only perspective on Hinduism, there are diverse perspectives of HInduism from various traditions and different Hindus belong to different schools of thought will tell you something different about Hinduism. I will not be speaking for everybody, but only speaking for Advaita. Advaita claim is not that it's merely just a philosophy within Hinduism --- Advaita IS Hinduism.

Sure, Advaita is Hinduism, but so is Dvaita also. I do not think any advaitist ever claimed that advaita only is Hinduism. And advaita is not one philosophy. There are various colors of it. My advaita can be different from your advaita. Sankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha, had different takes on advaita. Madhva and Chaitanya also are finally advaita in their own ways. You see, Spirit_Warrior, Hinduism is a very complex thing, if one goes beyond worship of deities.

There is no re-birth/re-incarnation in my advaita. Moksha/Nirvana/enlightenment is understanding. One has to do whatever one will do in this life only. When you merge back in Brahman, there is no 'you' to come back.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sure, Advaita is Hinduism, but so is Dvaita also. I do not think any advaitist ever claimed that advaita only is Hinduism. And advaita is not one philosophy. There are various colors of it. My advaita can be different from your advaita. Sankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha, had different takes on advaita. Madhva and Chaitanya also are finally advaita in their own ways. You see, Spirit_Warrior, Hinduism is a very complex thing, if one goes beyond worship of deities.

Hari Om Aupmanyav,

I think we need to be accurate with terms, otherwise terms are meaningless. Only Shankara's tradition is known as Advaita, the philosophy of non dualism between jiva, jagat and ishvara. Ramunja tradition is known as Viseshadvaita. Vallabha's tradition is known as Suddha Advaita. Madhva's tradition is known as Dvaita. Each tradition is one school of Vedanta philosophy and each has its own position(siddhanta) I am speaking here only for Advaita Vedanta and not for any other school, and nor am I denying that they exist or their right to have their own interpretations and positions.
I have said this explicitly in the OP.

There is no re-birth/re-incarnation in my advaita. Moksha/Nirvana/enlightenment is understanding. One has to do whatever one will do in this life only. When you merge back in Brahman, there is no 'you' to come back.

There is also a term for this, it is called "materialism" this is the doctrine that only matter, including solid matter, energy, forces, atoms, fields, quantum, information exists and it denies that anything immaterial exists.

Advaita is a school of "idealism", because it ultimately denies that matter exists, only Brahman as pure consciousness exists.

The purpose of words when used in communication is going to communicate meaning to the other person. If we take any word to mean anything, if I say bring me an apple, and you bring an orange or worse a cabbage, then we could say you did not understand the meaning. Similarly, my only criticism of you calling your materialist views 'Advaita' is that you are using words meaninglessly. This is why several people(I am definitely not the first) have pointed out to your philosophy is not Advaita, in much the same way if you bring an orange instead of an apple, you would be reminded that an orange is not an apple. However, that you have a right to have your own interpretation and views I do no deny. I would call your position "Charvaka"

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is also a term for this, it is called "materialism" this is the doctrine that only matter, including solid matter, energy, forces, atoms, fields, quantum, information exists and it denies that anything immaterial exists.

Spirit_Warrior, kindly continue. You have started a very nice topic and I will like to hear more from you.

However, what is 'material' has not been defined by any person till now. Is the electric current flowing in a wire, 'material'? Is a wave material because particles are supposed to be material? Gravity waves are born at the expense of mass. According to Quantum Mechanics, photons arise out of pure vacuum, material out of 'nothing' and either turn from virtual to real or dissipate back into pure vacuum. So, you see, calling my views as materialistic would not be correct.

p.s. - even if I move my hand, it will create gravity waves which will reverberate all through the universe, a billion light-years of it.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

However, what is 'material' has not been defined by any person till now. Is the electric current flowing in a wire, 'material'? Is a wave material because particles are supposed to be material? Gravity waves are born at the expense of mass. According to Quantum Mechanics, photons arise out of pure vacuum, material out of 'nothing' and either turn from virtual to real or dissipate back into pure vacuum. So, you see, calling my views as materialistic would not be correct.

I am glad you brought this distinction up. Hence, why some materialists, use the word 'physicalism' which really is just a more precise definition of materialism, which can include such things like information as matter. Some also use the term 'naturalism'. The understanding of 'physicalism' is also present in traditional Dharmic religions, for example the "gunas" are not material entities in the sense of being solid things, but physical entities that constitute the entire field(kshetra) of nature.

I understand the basic point you are bringing up in the problem of giving a definition, it is a classical problem with any taxonomy, such as Zeno's paradox of when does a pile of grains become a 'heap' The answer is, it is arbitrary. We just decide at some point by consensus that it is a heap. Just like we decide when a rock is pebble, a mountain, an asteroid, a moon, a planet or when a star is a red dwarf, white dwarf, sun. We need words in order to communicate and we must agree on meanings. So you cannot call Dvaita Advaita and Dvaita Advaita, otherwise it's just meaningless. Wittgenstein would say "nonsense - non sense"

Spirit_Warrior, kindly continue. You have started a very nice topic and I will like to hear more from you.

Thank you The points you bring up about problems in defining words is a valid, extremely fascinating and interesting discussion, but it is better discussed in the Philosophy forum than here. So I will continue posting about Advaita and only respond to Advaita related questions.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Sadhana Chutashtaya

This will probably be one of the largest, if not largest sections of this primer, so I am going to break it up into manageable chunks to read. I will break it up into three sections. I will also give citations from the official Advaita primers to show these are not just my personal views, but the views of the school.

1. Overview of Sadhana
2. Sadhana Chutushtaya or the four connections of Sadhana
3. Detailed break down of Sadhana Chutshtaya​

Overview of Sadhana

The difference between Advaita and Neo Advaita explained:

Sadhana is the real crux of Advaita. It is what separates the chaff from the wheat. The imposters from the genuine sadhikas or practitioners of Advaita Hinduism(No it is not just a philosophy, it is a religion and that is how it is traditionally understood. If it was just a philosophy, there would be no sadhana) For a Sadhika of Advaita sadhana is the most important thing in their life, because it is sadhana that will get to the final goal of liberation and not just merely just intellectual knowledge. This is what differentiates traditional Advaita from Neo-Advaita, where just intellectual understanding is sufficient and is described by weasel words like "enlightenment" This new-age form of Advaita is purely based on self-declaration of "enlightenment" It is like I tell you a joke, and then you say "I get it " Similarly, Neo-Advaitins read the absolute truth Advaita teaches(paramatika satyam) ignore the empirical practical truth(vyavaharika satyam) and then self-declare "I get it, now I am enlightened, I am THAT"

The Advaita shastras are very clear that realisation is NOT just cognitive or intellectual understanding but direct experience of the Self as Brahman. Vivekachudamani cites:

55. The true nature of Reality is to be known by a first-hand personal experience through the eye of clear understanding(mind), and not through the report of learned men. The beauty of the moon is enjoyed through one‘s own eyes. Can one appreciate it through the description by others?
63. A disease is not cured by merely repeating the name of the medicine, without taking it.Similarly, without direct realization, none can be liberated by a mere utterance of the word ‗Brahman.
64. Without achieving the dissolution of the world of perceptions and without realizing the Truth of the Self, how can one achieve full liberation by a mere repetition of the word, ―Brahman‖? Surely it will result only in a wasteful effort of speech.
65. Without eliminating his enemies and without bringing the splendor of the whole kingdom under his sway, by merely repeating, ―I am the Emperor,‖ one cannot become an emperor.
​

‘Understand that Neo-Advaitic interpretations are not just by new-age non-duality proponents, Neo-Advaita interpretations have even creeped into modern Advaita Ashrams. Some Advaita Ashrams twist words like 'anubhava' to just mean intellectual understanding, when it actually means direct experience. Advaita shastras also make it clear that one must first attain Nirvikalpha Samadhi of Yoga to attain a pure mind, this what is mean by 'a personal experience through the eye of clear understanding/pure mind. Again I will cite the VC:

354. When the non-dual Self is realized in nirvikalpa samadhi* , the heart‘s ‗knot of ignorance‘** is completely destroyed.
358. By association with conditioning adjuncts, the many, a person is apt to think of the Self as full of diversity; but my removing these one gains one‘s own Immutable Self. Hence, until the dissolution of conditionings, let the wise person remain devoted to the practice of Nirvikalpa Samadhi.
361. The Real Nature of Supreme Self is extremely subtle and cannot be peceived by the coarse vision of the outward-bound mind. It is accessible to noble ones with extremely pure intellects, through samadhi, brought about by extraordinarily subtle mind.
​

Some scholars suggest VC is not the work of Shankara, because it has too much emphasis on Samadhi, but this is not true Shankara also says Samadhi is necessary in his bhasyas too. Other official Advaita primers like Panchadashi also state the same. So when Advaita shastra is clear that one must practice Yoga to attain Samadhi to realise the Self, why do some modern Neo-Advaitins insist it is only intellectual understanding? Because gaining intellectual understanding is infinitely easier than attaining Samadhi and also because it is subjective, anybody can self-declare their "enlightenment" and then become a guru. On the other hand, Yoga shastra gives clear objective indicators(lakshanas) for one who as attained Samadhi(I will cover this in the third section) Hence, why traditional Advaitins do not take Neo-Advaitins seriously.