Is Jiva the same thing according to Ramanuja and Shankara?

[ajay0]

I typically use the term nonduality rather than Advaita to describe my worldview because I am not as well studied in the Upanishads or the Vedas as many that identify as Advaitin, and I feel to self-identify as Advaitin would be an affront to those that have studied. I also feel, primarily from my experiences with a local Vedanta group, that there is more dogma and ritual tied to Advaita than to a worldview rooted in experiential understanding of nondual perception.

Am I incorrect in this conclusion?

Advaita has a set philosophy and methodology to it, and faith in the master and method is important for executing it.

Upon questioning Ramakrishna, Vivekananda as a skeptical teenager had the non-dual perception all of a sudden by Ramakrishna's aid. But Vivekananda had no substantial understanding of Advaita then, and the experience terrified him instead.

With more maturity and knowledge of Advaita, Vivekananda had such experiences later on, but it did not unsettle him then.

Rituals are just preparatory aids for expansion of consciousness, like mantras. The dogmas, are a sort of intellectual preparation for experiential understanding. Experiential understanding itself later on sorts out empirically all that is learnt through dogma in the preparatory stage.


For example, it is taught thus...

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


Obviously, people at first instance, would find it hard to figure this out. Virochana, as per the Upanishads, thought that the body is Brahman, because it was tangible to him. Other pseudo-scholars thought that their son is Brahman.

But it is upon Nirvikalpa samadhi, upon annihilation of all the vasanas in the causal body, that one perceives this empirically as fact, and not as just some mere dogmatic teaching.

I have elucidated this in this post of mine.

Does Atman travels after death in advaita vedanta?

 

[Shantanu]

I typically use the term nonduality rather than Advaita to describe my worldview because I am not as well studied in the Upanishads or the Vedas as many that identify as Advaitin, and I feel to self-identify as Advaitin would be an affront to those that have studied. I also feel, primarily from my experiences with a local Vedanta group, that there is more dogma and ritual tied to Advaita than to a worldview rooted in experiential understanding of nondual perception.

Am I incorrect in this conclusion?

You seem to have got the notion that Advaita is synonymous with non-duality, am I right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

You seem to have got the notion that Advaita is synonymous with non-duality, am I right?

I believe my post was clear on what I perceive to be the similarities and differences. Two varieties of the same fruit, but the same fruit nonetheless.

I presume you intend to make a point using my view as an example?

 

[Shantanu]

I believe my post was clear on what I perceive to be the similarities and differences. Two varieties of the same fruit, but the same fruit nonetheless.

I presume you intend to make a point using my view as an example?

You seemed to suggest that you were not minded to call yourself an advaitist because in Hinduism advaita is non dual and one needs to study Upanishadic scriptures to realise this non-duality.
Nothing can be farther from the truth. In Hinduism advaita simply means the existence of the self in the perceived reality, that may be dual or non-dual.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You seemed to suggest that you were not minded to call yourself an advaitist because in Hinduism advaita is non dual and one needs to study Upanishadic scriptures to realise this non-duality.

In Hinduism, Advaita means "not two" or "not divided." Yes, I did say that the reason I don't self-identify as Advaitin is, in part, because I have not studied the Upanishads or the Vedas. I also stated that in my experience, there appears to be dogma associated with the term which is not part of my worldview.

Nothing can be farther from the truth. In Hinduism advaita simply means the existence of the self in the perceived reality, that may be dual or non-dual.

You do realize you're insinuating that Advaita may be Dvaita or Advaita, yes?

 

[Shantanu]

In Hinduism, Advaita means "not two" or "not divided." Yes, I did say that the reason I don't self-identify as Advaitin is, in part, because I have not studied the Upanishads or the Vedas. I also stated that in my experience, there appears to be dogma associated with the term which is not part of my worldview.



You do realize you're insinuating that Advaita may be Dvaita or Advaita, yes?

When a person has realised that he or she is an avatar of God, then only does advaita become non-dual. The state of avatar-hood is attained through intense yoga in the process of practising satya-advaita or oneness with truth, that is truth accommodation during which the person carries out God's wishes according to dual relationship where guidance is received through surrender to God. Prior to the state of avatar being attained a person therefore goes through various stages of duality until the final Realisation is complete. That is the Hindu view. It is not your worldview of non-duality.

Does this answer your question?

 

[SalixIncendium]

When a person has realised that he or she is an avatar of God, then only does advaita become non-dual. The state of avatar-hood is attained through intense yoga in the process of practising satya-advaita or oneness with truth, that is truth accommodation during which the person carries out God's wishes according to dual relationship where guidance is received through surrender to God. Prior to the state of avatar being attained a person therefore goes through various stages of duality until the final Realisation is complete. That is the Hindu view. It is not your worldview of non-duality.

Does this answer your question?

If you mean the last one where I asked if you realized that you were insinuating that Advaita may be Dvaita or Advaita, no, it does not. I don't recall asking another one.

I will further suggest that the very definition of Advaita, as I understand it, stands in opposition to your suggestion that Advaita is dual until one realizes that one is an avatar of God. Again, it is my understanding that Advaita means "not two" or "not divided." I do not see how something that is undivided can be dual.

I'm not looking for a debate here. If you want to believe that Advaita can be Dvaita, then please, by all means, do so. But this is not my understanding of Advaita, nor do I believe it is the generally accepted philosophy.

 

[Shantanu]

If you mean the last one where I asked if you realized that you were insinuating that Advaita may be Dvaita or Advaita, no, it does not. I don't recall asking another one.

I will further suggest that the very definition of Advaita, as I understand it, stands in opposition to your suggestion that Advaita is dual until one realizes that one is an avatar of God. Again, it is my understanding that Advaita means "not two" or "not divided." I do not see how something that is undivided can be dual.

I'm not looking for a debate here. If you want to believe that Advaita can be Dvaita, then please, by all means, do so. But this is not my understanding of Advaita, nor do I believe it is the generally accepted philosophy.

There is obviously a distinction to be drawn between religion and philosophy.

Satya-advaita is yoga, whereas Advaita Vedanta as propounded by several posters here is a philosophy for scholarly and intellectual discourse. Some would draw implications from the understanding of this version of Advaita to develop the worldview of universal Hinduism like @ajay0 seems to have done.

Through the path of satya-advaita one undergoes constant change by the discovery of new facts and this includes various elements of bhakti and duality as well as finally the non-duality as a state of being at one with God (an avatar).

Many Americans have chosen to be selective in their adoption of nondualism from Hinduism but without the framework of the Hindu scriptures (Upanishads or Vedas) or through the practice of yoga. So you would need to explain precisely what this nondualism worldview is if it is distinct from versions of advaitic thought within Hinduism, because to my mind this philosophy does not provide an experience of Advaita and is therefore aptly termed nondualism, meaning simply that one is part of the universe.

 

[ajay0]

If you mean the last one where I asked if you realized that you were insinuating that Advaita may be Dvaita or Advaita, no, it does not. I don't recall asking another one.

I will further suggest that the very definition of Advaita, as I understand it, stands in opposition to your suggestion that Advaita is dual until one realizes that one is an avatar of God. Again, it is my understanding that Advaita means "not two" or "not divided." I do not see how something that is undivided can be dual.

Quite true.

These days, almost every one claims themselves to be an Avatar or enlightened. Most of them end up in prison due to some kind of false conduct or criminal activity. Some of them are of deliberate malicious intent and some are due to delusion caused by senility or mental health issues . I am sympathetic towards the latter for obvious reasons. Gullibility of most people also unfortunately tend to support and harden these harbored delusions of Avatarhood and enlightenment.

 

[ajay0]

I typically use the term nonduality rather than Advaita to describe my worldview because I am not as well studied in the Upanishads or the Vedas as many that identify as Advaitin, and I feel to self-identify as Advaitin would be an affront to those that have studied. I also feel, primarily from my experiences with a local Vedanta group, that there is more dogma and ritual tied to Advaita than to a worldview rooted in experiential understanding of nondual perception.

Am I incorrect in this conclusion?

Here I would also like to mention western enlightened masters like Byron Katie and Jed McKenna who are authentic nondualist masters in their own right, with their own methods. Byron Katie's 'The Work' and Jed Mckenna's ' Spiritual Autolysis' can be stated to be their versions of Jnana Yoga. They would also be more effective for westerners due to cultural compatibility and better communication. I am a great admirer of Jed Mckenna, and his books are available in the net.

So Advaita is not the only philosophical path to nondual perception.

 

[Shantanu]

There is nothing to be gained from bland nonduality except imposition of human values upon the rest of ones fellow beings, in my view criminally.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Through the path of satya-advaita one undergoes constant change by the discovery of new facts and this includes various elements of bhakti and duality as well as finally the non-duality as a state of being at one with God (an avatar).

If being one with God you mean, having a fellowship with God i.e. having a divine relationship with Him, considering Him as our father, and us his children and always remaining immersed in His thoughts, feeling his holy presence in our daily lives, then that cannot be non duality.

 

[Shantanu]

If being one with God you mean, having a fellowship with God i.e. having a divine relationship with Him, considering Him as our father, and us his children and always remaining immersed in His thoughts, feeling his holy presence in our daily lives, then that cannot be non duality.

No; being one with God means I am God as an avatar living a life, that is infallibly. That is nondual and that is the Hindu advaita.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

No; being one with God means I am God as an avatar living a life, that is infallibly. That is nondual and that is the Hindu advaita.

The word avatara means 'to descend' (a deliberate descent of a deity on Earth). When Ishwara the personal God descends, he brings along with him partial or complete divine qualities. The word avatara is used in hinduism for such divine incarnations.
Its true that divinity lies within all of us, which needs to be awakened but since most of us (including the celestials) are still in ignorance, living a wordly life of sensual pleasures, we can't call ourselves as avataras.

There's a difference between avatara and manifestation.
The former is the descent of a personal God in earthly form with divine powers or intellect. The latter is mostly used in advaita and/or samkhya studies, to describe creation of the cosmos. Since it is known that nothing is literally created, the word manifestation is used for the appearance of Brahman as sentient and insentient beings.

 

[Shantanu]

The word avatara means 'to descend' (a deliberate descent of a deity on Earth). When Ishwara the personal God descends, he brings along with him partial or complete divine qualities. The word avatara is used in hinduism for such divine incarnations.
Its true that divinity lies within all of us, which needs to be awakened but since most of us (including the celestials) are still in ignorance, living a wordly life of sensual pleasures, we can't call ourselves as avataras.

There's a difference between avatara and manifestation.
The former is the descent of a personal God in earthly form with divine powers or intellect. The latter is mostly used in advaita and/or samkhya studies, to describe creation of the cosmos. Since it is known that nothing is literally created, the word manifestation is used for the appearance of Brahman as sentient and insentient beings.

Divine is a Christian phenomenon not applicable to Hindu thought: In our way of comprehension we pursue truth and dharma which incorporates justice. We follow the lessons of the Mahabharatta and the Ramayana.

Accordingly, an avatara or incarnation of God who has attained the status of being God on Earth has to be judged by the contribution that he or she has made to the cause of dharma. Recall Jada Jada hi dharmasya, glanir bhavati bharata, abhyuthanam dharmasya, tadatmanam srijamyham (I forget the precise shloka from Bhagavad Gita that @Aupmanyav would be better placed to provide).

Literally, we need to tear the heart out of British culture.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

'Consciousness is not limited by the boundaries of the body. It only seems to be because consciousness, being so subtle, is only perceivable when it has a reflecting medium, such as the body or mind.

IMHO, there is nothing 'local' about 'atman'. It is universal, incorporating all things, living and non-living. To deny that is to move away from 'advaita'.

Greg,
My 2 cents advice: If one is discussing kevala advaita vedAnta, it is best for oneself and for others, to refrain from using the word jivAtmA and to refrain from using the word AtmA as a local individual entity.

So when the sages say that Brahman dwells in the cave of hridaya, i guess they don't literally mean that, right? (That 'IT' becomes localized or restricted to a certain place in hridaya). As you've all described that the infinite cannot be localized or confined but only seems to be so, due to the reflecting medium.

Here hridaya probably refers to the mind then.
So, what they're actually saying is that atman shines on the reflecting medium (the mind or hridaya).
I could be wrong but this was just my interpretation.

 

[ajay0]

So when the sages say that Brahman dwells in the cave of hridaya, i guess they don't literally that, right? (That 'IT' becomes localized or restricted to a certain place in hridaya). As you've all described that the infinite cannot be localized or confined but only seems to be so, due to the reflecting medium.

Here hridaya probably refers to the mind then.
So, what they're actually saying is that atman shines on the reflecting medium (the mind or hridaya).
I could be wrong but this was just my interpretation.

Hridaya means the heart. It is actually a reference to consciousness.

'The Heart is the seat of Consciousness or Consciousness itself.' - Ramana Maharshi


Here is an article where Ramana Maharshi elaborates on this.

Sri Ramana Maharshi on Heart

 

[Shantanu]

So when the sages say that Brahman dwells in the cave of hridaya, i guess they don't literally mean that, right? (That 'IT' becomes localized or restricted to a certain place in hridaya). As you've all described that the infinite cannot be localized or confined but only seems to be so, due to the reflecting medium.

Here hridaya probably refers to the mind then.
So, what they're actually saying is that atman shines on the reflecting medium (the mind or hridaya).
I could be wrong but this was just my interpretation.

Through the path of satya-advaita one reaches the destination where there is nothing that is not Paramatma/God: hridaya (heart) is God; I am God so that every part of my body and mind is God. All actions are God's actions. There is nothing but God. That is the nature of paramarthika, the absolute truth.

In vyvaharika or visible reality of course the hridaya is the heart that pumps blood around every part of the body and so it is the core essential organ of the body that makes everything work, including the consciousness in the mind. Hence I said that we need to tear the 'heart' out of British culture as our dharma so that the blood does not flow and reach the nooks and crannies of the body.

But everything in vyvaharika is an illusion, that is of secondary importance so it does not matter if your actions result in any specific outcomes: one does ones dharma and forgets about everything. One is oblivious to that because I repeat the paramarthika is the absolute truth in which there is nothing but God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So when the sages say that Brahman dwells in the cave of hridaya, I guess they don't literally mean that, right?

Not right.
Like Ameya, their views might differ from what I describe, which is perfectly OK and valid. Shades - of 'advaita', Greg. Most Hindus do not have the God-less view as I have.

 

[Shantanu]

Not right.
Like Ameya, their views might differ from what I describe, which is perfectly OK and valid. Shades - of 'advaita', Greg. Most Hindus do not have the God-less view as I have.

Aupmanyav, you describe Brahman as being all there is, I describe God as being all there is. We both believe that dharma is the essential element in both views. Swadharma is the best dharma for ones survival depends on it. So is there really a difference in our views on advaita? You were once my guruji - at Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board where I learnt about paramarthika and vyvaharika from you. So have we fallen out because of what might be semantics of the Ultimate Reality?