Karma in Advaita

[shivsomashekhar]

If i end up in a coma and my consciousness/chetana goes blank, i'll stop projecting images, objects, world etc.

No.

Consciousness is constant.

They will no longer be projected by the false me (jiva), but these same things will be projected by other waking jivas. Isn't it?

There is only one "you". There is no false version and a true version.
Your consciousness is projecting other jivas, including the concept of yourself as a jiva.

And suppose all jivas ends up in coma and lose consciousness and stops projecting the world, don't you think the world will exist even then?
I mean all the hospitals, all the beds, all the jivas lying on those beds will still continue to exist. What are your thoughts?

Nothing exists apart from your consciousness. If you are thinking of multiple units of consciousness (one per jiva), that is not Advaita. There is exactly one consciousness.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

If it is just my consciousness projecting the world, then why does everyone else experience things in the same way? Why does my projection agree with the projections of those around me?

There is only one consciousness - yours.

Other jivas have no existence apart from your consciousness.

 

[Martin]

There is only one consciousness - yours.

Other jivas have no existence apart from your consciousness.

How do you know this?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

How do you know this?

Reading.

Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, Upadesha Sahasri and Gaudapada's Karikas. There is a ton of material on Advaita that is incorrect and slows the reader down.

Most works attributed to Shankara are bogus. How do we know what is authentic?

The author of the Sutra Bhashya is considered the founding Shankara. The next question is, what other texts did this author create?

1, Upadesha Sahasri. There is a 15 page study testing this hypothesis and the conclusion is Upadesha Sahasri has a high chance of being authentic. It is very similar to the Sutra Bhashya in style and concepts. It was quoted by Shankara's direct disciple Sureshwara (though not by authorship). It has some minor differences too, but they are small enough to ignore.

2. Possibly some of the Upanishad commentaries (Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya)

2. The commentary on the Bhagavat Gita

Everything else is doubtful and we cannot reliably attribute them to the original Shankara. All his biographies say he died at the age of 32. If true, there clearly was not enough time for him to author the large number of works attributed to him by tradition.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it is just my consciousness projecting the world, then why does everyone else experience things in the same way? Why does my projection agree with the projections of those around me?
Or is Brahman projecting a general reality, and we all share in it, or something?

We all began the same way. Archeobacteria, the RNA, then DNA, was the same. The environment and evolution / mutation molded us in our different ways. So, at the base there is a commonality. That is why our perceptions are not different.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm talking about waking consciousness.

As was I. I was merely drawing a relatable analogy. If you were having a lucid dream, how would you explain waking consciousness to a character in your dream?

How do you explain the high degree of consistency in our shared experience of the world?

Is there a high degree of consistency, though? Sure, there might be in what is objectively evident, but each individual's experience is hardly consistent. Each individual jiva has their own unique set of experiences. Hence the multitude of personal worldviews.

That said, is there not consistency in what is objectively evident among characters in your dreams, including your own character?

So back to my original question, with whom is this illusion shared?

 

[Martin]

As was I. I was merely drawing a relatable analogy. If you were having a lucid dream, how would you explain waking consciousness to a character in your dream?



Is there a high degree of consistency, though? Sure, there might be in what is objectively evident, but each individual's experience is hardly consistent. Each individual jiva has their own unique set of experiences. Hence the multitude of personal worldviews.

That said, is there not consistency in what is objectively evident among characters in your dreams, including your own character?

So back to my original question, with whom is this illusion shared?

In waking consciousness, the "illusion" is shared with other jivas. There is a consistency about the way our sense organs process incoming "data", and therefore a consistency about the way we perceive things. Obviously peoples' minds work in different ways due to upbringing, etc, so individual world-views vary.

How else would you explain the consistency of our shared experience?
If my experience is only my consciousness projected, then why would my experience be similar to yours?
You haven't directly addressed this important question.

 

[Martin]

Reading.

Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, Upadesha Sahasri and Gaudapada's Karikas. There is a ton of material on Advaita that is incorrect and slows the reader down.

Most works attributed to Shankara are bogus. How do we know what is authentic?

The author of the Sutra Bhashya is considered the founding Shankara. The next question is, what other texts did this author create?

1, Upadesha Sahasri. There is a 15 page study testing this hypothesis and the conclusion is Upadesha Sahasri has a high chance of being authentic. It is very similar to the Sutra Bhashya in style and concepts. It was quoted by Shankara's direct disciple Sureshwara (though not by authorship). It has some minor differences too, but they are small enough to ignore.

2. Possibly some of the Upanishad commentaries (Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya)

2. The commentary on the Bhagavat Gita

Everything else is doubtful and we cannot reliably attribute them to the original Shankara. All his biographies say he died at the age of 32. If true, there clearly was not enough time for him to author the large number of works attributed to him by tradition.

Thanks. Reading is one thing, but I was really asking how you know this for yourself.

What in your own experience confirms that there is only your consciousness, and that other jivas don't exist apart from that?

 

[SalixIncendium]

In waking consciousness, the "illusion" is shared with other jivas. There is a consistency about the way our sense organs process incoming "data", and therefore a consistency about the way we perceive things. Obviously peoples' minds work in different ways due to upbringing, etc, so individual world-views vary.

In dream consciousness, the illusion is shared with other dream characters.

Is the there not the same consistency of experiences in your dreams as their are in waking consciousness?

How else would you explain the consistency of our shared experience?
If my experience is only my consciousness projected, then why would my experience be similar to yours?
You haven't directly addressed this important question.

I have. You are just very quick to dismiss it.

The multiplicity in waking consciousness is illusion. In Paramartika, we are of the same being.

 

[Martin]

In dream consciousness, the illusion is shared with other dream characters.

Is the there not the same consistency of experiences in your dreams as their are in waking consciousness?



I have. You are just very quick to dismiss it.

The multiplicity in waking consciousness is illusion. In Paramartika, we are of the same being.

Again this is all a bit formulaic, like you're just repeating what you've heard. Could you explain it in your own words?
Are you saying is that there is just one "universal" consciousness? And if so, what do you think happens upon enlightenment? What is it like to realise this universal consciousness, practically speaking?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Again this is all a bit formulaic, like you're just repeating what you've heard. Could you explain it in your own words?

Those are my own words. If you think I'm regurgitating another's feel free to post a reference to the material.

Are you saying is that there is just one "universal" consciousness? And if so, what do you think happens upon enlightenment? What is it like to realise this universal consciousness, practically speaking?

Yes, there is only Brahman, and upon enlightenment, one realizes one's true nature as that being.

The best way I've found to describe this realization is oneness and a familiar intimacy with everything.

 

[Valjean]

Do Advaitins on RF agree, that Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are not different but the same?

Saguna Brahman is just personalized Brahman.
We can't talk about, or even conceptualize Qualityless Reality, so Saguna Brahman, Ishwara, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, &al are just conveniences.

"Set in motion the law of karma?" Doesn't setting in motion presuppose time, change or action -- all of which are maya, and incompatable with the concept of Brahman?

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Martin said: "In waking consciousness, the "illusion" is shared with other jivas. There is a consistency about the way our sense organs process incoming "data", and therefore a consistency about the way we perceive things. Obviously peoples' minds work in different ways due to upbringing, etc, so individual world-views vary."

Aup.: It is a sort of 'maya squared". Even to a lion, a deer looks like a deer. That is consistency of misinterpretation. To lions it is none other than 'food'. Humans, color each image with their own individual palette.

What in your own experience confirms that there is only your consciousness, and that other jivas don't exist apart from that?

Only my consciousness with me till I live. Other jivas have their own individual consciousness till they live. With death, consciousness of jivas gets destroyed, annihilates, ceases to exist.

Consciousness of Brahman - what exists - is a completely different matter, which is because of four (or five) fundamental forces of nature (that is as best as we can to put it now). One understands 'maya' with enlightenment.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Saguna Brahman is just personalized Brahman.
We can't talk about, or even conceptualize Qualityless Reality, so Saguna Brahman, Ishwara, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, &al are just conveniences.

"Set in motion the law of karma?" Doesn't setting in motion presuppose time, change or action -- all of which are maya, and incompatable with the concept of Brahman?

So, if our karma and experiences are maya, then are you saying, we both having this discussion on RF is also an illusion?

 

[Martin]

So, if our karma and experiences are maya, then are you saying, we both having this discussion on RF is also an illusion?

I don't think it's an "illusion", I think it's just jivas communicating.
I could say this forum is just an appearance to my consciousness, along with everything else I experience.
I could say that my consciousness is unchanging, while my experiences are changing - though many people, including Buddhists, wouldn't agree with that characterisation of consciousness.
I could say that I sense a deeper reality, a still presence beneath the movement - though that is subjective.
The rest seems like speculation, assumption and rhetoric.
Anyway, as I mentioned before, I am currently finding the simplicity of Samkhya dualism more appealing than the intellectual convolutions of Advaita belief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, if our karma and experiences are maya, then are you saying, we both having this discussion on RF is also an illusion?

When we are ourselves illusions, then, RF and the discussions in RF also are illusions. I do not think Valjian would say anything different. He is an enlightened person.
That is not at all a problem, Martin. We all have our different views. It is perfectly valid in Hinduism. You have your arguments, I have mine.

 

[Valjean]

So, if our karma and experiences are maya, then are you saying, we both having this discussion on RF is also an illusion?

Yes, we are dreaming this discussion, as well as the keyboards and monitors.

 

[Viswa]

Anyway, as I mentioned before, I am currently finding the simplicity of Samkhya dualism more appealing than the intellectual convolutions of Advaita belief.

Hey Martin. Even in Katha Upanishad, only Samkhya is discussed.

In this appealing simplicity of Samkhya, I feel Bhagavat Gita Chapter 13 & 14 - will be very much useful for you in Discriminating Purusha and Prakriti, to understand clearly that "Prakriti is the Doer and there is only one Purusha and not many Individual Purushas - witnessing the acts of Prakriti", to experience Bliss in Right Heart (Bliss or Anandmayakosha - is the actual abode of Purusha seated in Prakriti - God's abode) where the Right heart is the abode of Purusha - connecting to everything/everybeings in this Universe and the other (all Lokas).

Soon, you will experience the Right Heart as I do. Most of the Upanishads, stresses this Heart/Hrdaya.

All the Best.

Namaste.

 

[Martin]

Yes, we are dreaming this discussion, as well as the keyboards and monitors.

How do you know this?
And how is it we're all having the same dream?

 

[Martin]

Hey Martin. Even in Katha Upanishad, only Samkhya is discussed.

In this appealing simplicity of Samkhya, I feel Bhagavat Gita Chapter 13 & 14 - will be very much useful for you in Discriminating Purusha and Prakriti, to understand clearly that "Prakriti is the Doer and there is only one Purusha and not many Individual Purushas - witnessing the acts of Prakriti", to experience Bliss in Right Heart (Bliss or Anandmayakosha - is the actual abode of Purusha seated in Prakriti - God's abode) where the Right heart is the abode of Purusha - connecting to everything/everybeings in this Universe and the other (all Lokas).

Soon, you will experience the Right Heart as I do. Most of the Upanishads, stresses this Heart/Hrdaya.

All the Best.

Namaste.

Thanks, I'll have another look at BG 13 and 14. I'm already familiar with the experience of anandamaya, and understand the heart reference.
Samkhya philosophy assumes many purushas, right?