Seeking to Understand Advaita

[Surya Deva]

On the unreality of Ishvara and Jiva

3.243. This contradiction between them is created by superimposition, and is not something real. This superimposition, in the case of Ishwara, is Maya or Nescience, which is the cause of Mahat and the rest, and in the case of the Jiva (the individual soul), listen – the five sheaths, which are the effects of Maya, stand for it.

3.244. These two are the superimpositions of Ishwara and the Jiva respectively, and when these are perfectly eliminated, there is neither Ishwara nor Jiva. A kingdom is the symbol of a king, and a shield of the soldier, and when these are taken away, there is neither king nor soldier.

3.293. This objective universe is absolutely unreal; neither is egoism a reality, for it is observed to be momentary. How can the perception, "I know all", be true of egoism etc., which are momentary ?​

Hence it has been clearly established again that Advaita does indeed teach the universe, ishvara, jiva are unreal and illusions.

Another claim that both jg22 and Shantarom made that realization in Advaita is only cognitive, not a direct experience of the vanishing of unreality. There claims are now being refuted by the Vivekachudamani:

4.317. With the cessation of selfish action the brooding on the sense-objects is stopped, which is followed by the destruction of desires. The destruction of desires is Liberation, and this is considered as Liberation-in-life

4.318. When the desire for realising Brahman has a marked manifestation, the egoistic desires readily vanish, as the most intense darkness effectively vanishes before the glow of the rising sun.

4.319. Darkness and the numerous evils that attend on it are not noticed when the sun rises. Similarly, on the realisation of the Bliss Absolute, there is neither bondage nor the least trace of misery.

4.320. Causing the external and internal universe, which are now perceived, to vanish, and meditating on the Reality, the Bliss Embodied, one should pass one’s time watchfully, if there be any residue of Prarabdha work left.​

The practice of Raja Yoga meditation and attaining samadhi in order to attain realization

4.332. He who has devoted himself to meditation on the Reality (Brahman) and is free from Nescience, attains to the eternal glory of the Atman. But he who dwells on the unreal (the universe) is destroyed. That this is so is evidenced in the case of one who is not a thief and one who is a thief.

4.333. The Sannyasin should give up dwelling on the unreal, which causes bondage, and should always fix his thoughts on the Atman as "I myself am This". For the steadfastness in Brahman through the realisation of one’s identity with It gives rise to bliss and thoroughly removes the misery born of nescience, which one experiences (in the ignorant state).

4.334. The dwelling on external objects will only intensify its fruits, viz. furthering evil propensities, which grow worse and worse. Knowing this through discrimination, one should avoid external objects and constantly apply oneself to meditation on the Atman.

4.338. He is free who, knowing through his mind the Self in moving and unmoving objects and observing It as their substratum, gives up all superimpositions and remains as the Absolute and the infinite Self.

4.339. To realise the whole universe as the Self is the means of getting rid of bondage. There is nothing higher than identifying the universe with the Self. One realises this state by excluding the objective world through steadfastness in the eternal Atman.

4.340. How is the exclusion of the objective world possible for one who lives identified with the body, whose mind is attached to the perception of external objects, and who performs various acts for that end ? This exclusion should be carefully practised by sages who have renounced all kinds of duties and actions and objects, who are passionately devoted to the eternal Atman, and who wish to possess an undying bliss.

4.341. To the Sannyasin who has gone through the act of hearing, the Shruti passage, "Calm, self-controlled." Etc., prescribes Samadhi for realising the identity of the universe with the Self.

4.342. Even wise men cannot suddenly destroy egoism after it has once become strong, barring those who are perfectly calm through the Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Desires are verily the effect of innumerable births.

4.343. The projecting power, through the aid of the veiling power, connects a man with the siren of an egoistic idea, and distracts him through the attributes of that.

4.344. It is extremely difficult to conquer the projecting power unless the veiling power is perfectly rooted out. And that covering over the Atman naturally vanishes when the subject is perfectly distinguished from the objects, like milk from water. But the victory is undoubtedly (complete and) free from obstacles when there is no oscillation of the mind due to the unreal sense-objects.

4.345. Perfect discrimination brought on by direct realisation distinguishes the true nature of the subject from that of the object, and breaks the bond of delusion created by Maya; and there is no more transmigration for one who has been freed from this.

4.346. The knowledge of the identity of the Jiva and Brahman entirely consumes the impenetrable forest of Avidya or Nescience. For one who has realised the state of Oneness, is there any seed left for future transmigration ?

4.347. The veil that hides Truth vanishes only when the Reality is fully realised. (Thence follow) the destruction of false knowledge and the cessation of misery brought about by its distracting influence.

4.348. These three are observed in the case of a rope when its real nature is fully known. Therefore the wise man should know the real nature of things for the breaking of his bonds.

4.349-350. Like iron manifesting as sparks through contact with fire, the Buddhi manifests itself as knower and known through the inherence of Brahman. As these two (knower and known), the effects of the Buddhi, are observed to be unreal in the case of delusion, dream and fancy, similarly, the modifications of the Prakriti, from egoism down to the body and all sense-objects are also unreal. Their unreality is verily due to their being subject to change every moment. But the Atman never changes.

4.353. When the Atman, the One without a second, is realised by means of the Nirvikalpa Samadhi, then the heart’s knot of ignorance is totally destroyed.

4.354. Such imaginations as "thou", "I" or "this" take place through the defects of the Buddhi. But when the Paramatman, the Absolute, the One without a second, manifests Itself in Samadhi, all such imaginations are dissolved for the aspirant, through the realisation of the truth of Brahman.

4.355. The Sannyasin, calm, self-controlled, perfectly retiring from the sense-world, forbearing, and devoting himself to the practice of Samadhi, always reflects on his own self being the Self of the whole universe. Destroying completely by this means the imaginations which are due to the gloom of ignorance, he lives blissfully as Brahman, free from action and the oscillations of the mind.

4.356. Those alone are free from the bondage of transmigration who, attaining Samadhi, have merged the objective world, the sense-organs, the mind, nay, the very ego, in the Atman, the Knowledge Absolute – and none else, who but dabble in second-hand talks.

4.357. Through the diversity of the supervening conditions (Upadhis), a man is apt to think of himself as also full of diversity; but with the removal of these he is again his own Self, the immutable. Therefore the wise man should ever devote himself to the practice of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, for the dissolution of the Upadhis.

4.362. When the mind, thus purified by constant practice, is merged in Brahman, then Samadhi passes on from the Savikalpa to the Nirvikalpa stage, and leads directly to the realisation of the Bliss of Brahman, the One without a second.

4.363. By this Samadhi are destroyed all desires which are like knots, all work is at an end, and inside and out there takes place everywhere and always the spontaneous manifestation of one’s real nature.

4.364. Reflection should be considered a hundred times superior to hearing, and meditation a hundred thousand times superior even to reflection, but the Nirvikalpa Samadhi is infinite in its results.

4.365. By the Nirvikalpa Samadhi the truth of Brahman is clearly and definitely realised, but not otherwise, for then the mind, being unstable by nature, is apt to be mixed up with other perceptions.
​

Thus it is firmly established that Jnana/realization is not cognitive, but an actual real transformative experience of samadhi where the reality of the supreme Brahman is experienced in meditation. Hence Advaita prescribes Raja Yoga. The idea that Jnana is just cognitive is put forward by later modern traditionlal scholaistic schools like Swami Dayananda's Arsh Vidya, who interpret Jnana as just formal scriptural study, reading the scriptures and studying Sanskrit grammar. In actual fact Advaita prescribes the practice of meditation to directly experience Jnana within.
These scholaistic scholars of Vedanta whom I met in abundance in India, have little spiritual attainment, and are often found to be vain, arrogant and intolerant.

 

[Pleroma]

No matter how much you cite from what, you lost all your credibility when you called Ishvara a flying Spaghetti Monster. C'Mon Hindus, is this what our Sanatana Dharma teaches us? That Ishvara is a flying Spaghetti Monster? If no one finds that offensive and if every other Hindu accept it then I really doesn't want to post anything in the Hinduism DIR. Do whatever you want and go ahead and make your own god damn man made global religion. I will definitely not be a part of it because I stand for the truth.

 

[jg22]

With due respect, Surya Deva, none of the things you cite from Panchadashi contradicts anything I've said unless we take your definition of 'unreal' for granted. If we do take your definition of unreal, then, as I have pointed out, numerous problems arise, and saying 'but this is what Advaitins actually teach' does not resolve those problems, because Advaitins don't teach what you are saying.

The examples of the snake in the rope and the silver in the pearl are not examples of total non-existence, they are examples of prahtibasika satta. The snake is not totally non-existent, because it is nothing other than the rope seen in darkness. The rope is being perceived, and the rope represents an existent thing. The existence of the snake is an appearance on the locus of the rope. That is why, when we remove the darkness, we see that all along the snake was nothing other than the rope. Therefore, the snake is not totally non-existent, because it is the rope, and the rope exists. Likewise, with the silver seen in mother-of-pearl. One sees from far off a glint, and the misconception arises that there is silver there, being seen. When one approaches, one discovers that the previous idea 'this is silver' is sublated by the recognition 'this is mother-of-pearl only'. In both cases, there is an existent vastu which is the locus for superimposition of various ideas, such as 'this is a snake, no, it is a rope' and 'this is silver, no it is pearl'. In both instances, the locus of superimposition and that which is superimposed share a common identity- the object being perceived. Taking these examples and applying them properly to Vedanta, we see that what appears as Jiva, Ishwara and the Jagat is really nothing other than Brahman- which is to say, all three are Brahman upon close analysis, and have no reality apart from Brahman.

They are illusions, caused by faulty perception of reality, and they are not actually existent.

If one perceives reality, albeit wrongly, then the illusions cannot be totally non-existent, for they are misperceptions of an existent thing (reality). Which is to say, an illusion is reality, though wrongly seen, and subject to later negation by jnanam.

As advaita says its existence is only name and form, it does not say it actually has any real existence or corresponds to anything.

The illustration is given to show that names and forms have no independent existence. It is not to deny any and all existence.

'Just as by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all modification being only a name, but the truth being that all is clay...'

Take the example above, from the Chandogya Upanishad. 'All that is made of clay' refers to different names and forms, such as pot, cup, plate etc. It says that modification is only apparent, because it refers only to a name, such as 'pot'. Modification is only apparent ie mithya, because in reality all the different names and forms are nothing but clay, prior to, during, and after their manifestation. What is perceived before a pot is 'made' is clay. What is perceived once the pot is 'made' is clay, with the superimposed name and form 'pot'. The superimposition is apparent only, because the substance, clay, never really undergoes any change or transformation; the name and form called 'pot', 'plate', or 'cup' have no independent existence from the existence of the clay. Which is to say, the pot, the plate, and the cup, are all nothing but clay. This is what the Upanishad is saying. It is not teaching anything about non-existence. The Upanishads say that by knowing Brahman, everything becomes known, in the same way that by knowing one piece of clay everything 'made' from clay becomes known, ie the identity of all names and forms in the single substance is recognised. The Chandogya Upanishad then says, 'In the beginning, all this was Pure Being, One without a second.'. 'This' refers to the modification of unmanifest name and form after srishti. Everything is the one Sat only- the seeming transformation of the one into the many is only an apparent reality, just as the clay only seemingly becomes diverse names and forms; its nature doesn't actually change because the diverse names and forms have no independent existence- they don't exist separate from their material (or essential) substratum. They are not totally non-existent (lacking any kind of locus for manifestation and perception), they are dependently existent. This is borne out by the Upanishad which then says '...Let me appear under different names and forms', where 'Me' refers to the Pure Being ie Brahman just mentioned. The Upanishad states emphatically that it is Brahman that appears as everything in the universe, including Jiva and Ishwara. Therefore, we cannot call any of it non-existent, as this goes against the teaching of the Upanishads. Your use of the Panchadashi to bolster your views is desperate and based on a wrong understanding of the word 'unreal'.

Basically if you do not accept the core philosophical theory of Advaita of Maya, then don't call yourself Advaitin. If you don't like the philosophy - reject it and adopt another, but please don't misrepresent the philosophy, this is insulting to us genuine Advaitins.

Maya is not the core philosophical theory of Advaita. Aikyam of Jiva and Ishwara (in Brahman) is the core idea. What I don't like is your mangled interpretation which clings to a few verses of a text (wrongly understood) and is forced to reject vast swathes of Shruti, Smriti, and the words of Shankaracharya, in order to save face. It is ironic you would say this thing to me, when you have made it very clear that you liberally accept or reject Shruti and the words of teachers according to your whim and standards, which as I have said are not the standards by which others understand Vedanta. You have made it clear that you are an atheist (this is not taught in Shruti, and condemned by Shankaracharya), that you only accept reasoning and perception as independent pramanas (this is not taught in Shruti, and condemned by Shankaracharya), that you reject the pragmatic teaching of Shankaracharya which utilises various grades of Satyam to account for perception of the (dvaitam) world, and for the benefit of teaching (this does not contradict Gaudapada, which was your reason for rejecting Shankaracharya), and that you don't bother to try to understand Vedanta as it is taught by traditional teachers (ie those who are in a parampara, have learned the sanskrit which is the language of all the Vedanta texts, have studied the texts for many years, and know the proper methodology for teaching), and instead rely on english translations and your own presumptions only. I would invite you to examine your own statements in light of your admonishment about mis-representing Advaita, then perhaps you will understand why it is your words that others find insulting, and why the 'I'm a genuine Advaitin and everybody else is wrong' angle isn't convincing anybody.

You cannot accept the fact that Advaita does in fact deny the real existence of ishvara, jiva and the universe, and you trying to reinterpret the meaning of "unreal" to mean not unreal.

Nowhere in Shruti or Smriti is the non-existence of the Jiva, Ishwara, and Jagat taught. Your understanding of 'unreality' clashes with countless texts which declare the identity of Ishwara and Jiva as Brahman, which is the eternally existing reality.

 

[jg22]

it is clear the core texts of Advaita say unreal, illusion, appearance, delusin and anybody that accepts them as real to be dullards, ignorant, foolish

First, your 'core text' ie the Panchadashi is neither Shruti, Smriti, Yukti or Bhashyam; it is an independent treatise (prakarana grantha), and so even if it did contradict something Shankaracharya has said (which it doesn't), it would not be Shankaracharya's words that we reject. Second, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meanings of the word 'real' and 'unreal' in the context of Vedanta. These words have very specific meanings, which is why many traditional Vedanta teaches decry english translations as clumsy and misleading. You have admitted that you don't rely on scriptures, and when you do use them, you stick with english translations. So it is ironic, then, that you dismiss the claims of Advaitins which teach the texts in their native language as misunderstanding the meanings of the words, when you do not even know the words you say they misunderstand.

The words 'real' and 'unreal' in english connotate at face value something which exists and does not exist respectivelly. The word 'real' (or true) used in the context of Vedanta, Satyam, refers to something which exists, but with the qualification that it exists in all three phases of time, never changes, and can not be sublated or subsumed by anything else. By this definition, only Brahman can be called Satyam. Yet, this does not mean, then, that everything else is therefore non-existent (as the english word might indicate). That which is not Satyam is called mithya, a dependently existing thing, and it can not be called either Satyam or non-existent. It cannot be called non-existent, for, as I have said and showed, a non-existent thing has no locus for its appearance or manifestation. The world, for example, is something we experience, so we cannot call it totally non-existent. And yet, the world changes, does not always exist, and is sublated by knowing its source (Brahman), therefore we cannot call it Satyam either. Mithya means that which is not totally existent, nor totally non-existent, and therefore is dependently existent only. This is the subtlety in meaning of the words which are very clumsily translated into english and become misunderstood by so many people, therefore opening Advaita up to charges of denying the existence of the world and the self, charges which Advaita is not guilty of.

I honestly do not appreciate all this flack I am getting from fellow Hindus for being loyal to the philosophy of Advaita.

What you are loyal to, and this cannot be disputed by anybody (and may be congratulated), is your strong adherence to your preconceived ideas which have been informed (and you freely admit) primarily by reasoning and perception, as well as science, and your own ingenuity.

Please stop misrepresenting Advaita just because it not convenient for you.

It might be wise to invest in a mirror. You have declared yourself that Advaita should be adapted and changed to fit into modern worldviews, that it should become science, that we should reject the words of teachers if they do not conform to current understandings (read: your understanding of Vedanta), that Shruti (the end of the Vedas) is not the primary authority for Vedanta, and it should be rejected if it does not stand up to reason and perception, and so many other things which run contrary to Vedanta as it has been taught from time immemorial. I have not said any of these things, you have, and yet you claim that I find Vedanta inconvenient! I am thoroughly amused.

Advaita is atheist, because it does not accept the real existence of Ishvara.

You have badly misunderstood it. Shankaracharya roundly condemns those who deny the existence of Ishwara in his refutation of the Samkhyas, Buddhists, and Charvakas. Ishwara is not non-existent; not one word of Shruti or Smriti can be supposed to support this idea. Your citation of Panchadashi, as I have already said, does not say Ishwara is non-existent, but you think it does because you have misunderstood the word unreal.

Advaita does not say at all that Jiva is real or base on any real reality. So yes, this means that I do not really exist.

So, tattvamasi is a meaningless statement, then? So, the pravesha shruti in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which describes how Brahman 'enters' all the bodies as the Jiva is meaningless? So Krishna, then, when he says he is the Kshetrajna in all the Kshetras is talking nonsense? So the countless texts which say that the Jiva's consciousness is none other than the consciousness which illuminates the whole world are nonsense? So Jiva, then being non-existent and being without any basis of reality, does not have the Atman as its svarupa, and is himself not Brahman, thus rendering the brahmajnanavali mala meaningless when it says 'Jivo Brahmaiva na aparah'? So since you do not really exist, you can never say 'ahambrahmaasmi', and thus you can never get moksha, since a non-existent being cannot know anything, right?

You are the one denying the meaning of mithya as unreal, simply because you don't find it convenient.

No, I am denying that mithya means non-existent because I have spent a lot of time and energy studying Vedanta, and will continue to do so. I am denying mithya means non-existent because that is what I have read and heard from the texts, and from teachers new and old, traditional and non-traditional. Read any website, any book devoted to explaining Vedanta or the concept of mithya, hell, read the wikipedia article on Advaita Vedanta; none of them will say that Ishwara, Jiva or Jagat are non-existent. This is your own unique misunderstanding, and why you find it convenient to condemn everybody else as not being genuine Advaitins.

There is no Jiva to begin with in the first place. The Panchadasi explicitly says "There is no reality no jiva"

What it means is that the Self which is the basis for the Jiva does not really become bound in samsara, and therefore its subsequent liberation through jnanam is equally unreal, since the Self of the Jiva, which is Brahman, is always untouched and ever-free. The 'jivahood' of the Jiva is unreal because it arises only through the conflation of the subject and object. What the Jiva actually is, is the consciousness (Brahman) which illuminates (and activates) the body/mind complex, and appears, through mutual superimposition, to be a limited individual being. It is not a denial of the existence of the Jiva, or a denial of the essence of the Jiva, or a denial of the one who thinks he is bound (but in reality is not). It is a denial of the status of the Self as Jiva, which is realized only when jnanam dawns. Until that point, the Self is taken to be an individual living being, identified with or as the body and mind, and subject to samsara. Hence at no point is the Jiva non-existent; neither in ignorance (when the Jiva is the Atman identified with the body/mind) or knowledge (when the Atman sheds its limitations), because the Jiva is really nothing other than Brahman.


I've said before, and now broken a promise, that I wouldn't get into a heated exchange on this topic and would stop posting about it. There are countless resources you can go to for accurate information about Vedanta, so I feel that my participation in a debate of this nature is wholly superfluous. In short: read a book. Now I really am bowing out!

Peace.

Edit- Just saw your news posts. They will have to wait for another time, or somebody else can take you up on them.

 

[Surya Deva]

Lol, I am just going to declare that I have flat out won this debate, as there are no external impartial judges here to decide, but I know for a fact that if we were having a formal debate in a secular academic environment, this matter would have been settled that Advaita philosophy teaches that the universe is unreal and an illusion:

Vivekachudamani 3.293. This objective universe is absolutely unreal; neither is egoism a reality, for it is observed to be momentary. How can the perception, "I know all", be true of egoism etc., which are momentary ?

Vivekachudamani 1.20. A firm conviction of the mind to the effect that Brahman is real and the universe unreal, is designated as discrimination (Viveka) between the Real and the unreal.

Vivekachudamani 3.232. If the universe, as it is, be real, there would be no cessation of the dualistic element, the scriptures would be falsified, and the Lord Himself would be guilty of an untruth. None of these three is considered either desirable or wholesome by the noble-minded.​

The matter is settled for all rational people that Advaita teaches the universe is an illusion, unreal, false. This is conclusive proof. It is very explicitly stated in all the Advaita text books.

 

[Pleroma]

LOL, book knowledge only leads to blindness.

 

[Ekanta]

Actually what you proclaim, Surya Deva, is more neo-advaita (or pseudo-advaita) than advaita.

Ishvara, jiva, jagat (universe) are mithya, real and unreal:
Brahman is the real. Maya is the unreal.
The mix is Ishvara, jiva, jagat.

Hence the view that Ishvara, jiva, jagat are unreal can never be right. (but since you dont understand the meanning of real/unreal, you interpret it that way)
When the wrong view is gone, Ishvara, jiva, jagat is realized to be non-different form brahman, the real. What is gone is the wrong view, not Ishvara, jiva, jagat. Thats the meaning of the statement "they are unreal".

From Shankara's Viveka Chudamani (Translated by Swami Madhavananda):
---

247. Hence those two terms (Ishvara and Jiva) must be carefully considered through their implied meanings, so that their absolute identity may be established. Neither the method of total rejection nor that of complete retention will do. One must reason out through the process which combines the two.

248-249. Just as in the sentence, "This is that Devadatta", the identity is spoken of, eliminating the contradictory portions, so in the sentence "Thou art That", the wise man must give up the contradictory elements on both sides and recognise the identity of Ishvara and Jiva, noticing carefully the essence of both, which is Chit, Knowledge Absolute. Thus hundreds of scriptural texts inculcate the oneness and identity of Brahman and Jiva.

251. All modifications of clay, such as the jar, which are always accepted by the mind as real, are (in reality) nothing but clay. Similarly, this entire universe which is produced from the real Brahman, is Brahman Itself and nothing but That. Because there is nothing else whatever but Brahman, and That is the only self-existent Reality, our very Self, therefore art thou that serene, pure, Supreme Brahman, the One without a second.

 

[Surya Deva]

First, your 'core text' ie the Panchadashi is neither Shruti, Smriti, Yukti or Bhashyam; it is an independent treatise (prakarana grantha)

Yes, I know it is not Shruti. It can come under the category of Smriti though, as Smriti can be used to include any non-shruti text, as being human-authored and non-revealed. The Panchadasi is a text book that teaches Advaita philosophy, it is a recognized core text book of the Advaita philosophical school and is taught in virtually all traditional Vedanta ashrams. So sorry, this is widely recognized as being an official, reliable and authoritative text for Advaita.

and so even if it did contradict something Shankaracharya has said (which it doesn't), it would not be Shankaracharya's words that we reject.

Now I have actually cited one of Shankarcharyas mostly widely celebrated and recognized texts, and you are correct it does not contradict what the Panchdasi says, and it exactly the same stuff: The universe is an illusion, completely unreal, a delusion that ends when one attains correct perception of reality.

Who do you think you are kidding by pretending it does not say that? Do you think people are blind and cannot read themselves what the text is saying?

Second, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meanings of the word 'real' and 'unreal' in the context of Vedanta. These words have very specific meanings, which is why many traditional Vedanta teaches decry english translations as clumsy and misleading. You have admitted that you don't rely on scriptures, and when you do use them, you stick with english translations. So it is ironic, then, that you dismiss the claims of Advaitins which teach the texts in their native language as misunderstanding the meanings of the words, when you do not even know the words you say they misunderstand.

Again do you think we are blind that we cannot read the texts explicitly define the context of the word "unreal" and also say illusion, a trick, delusion and call people who believe in the universe dullards, idiots? Any rational human being can see in plain sight that unreal here doe indeed mean unreal.

Yet, this does not mean, then, that everything else is therefore non-existent (as the english word might indicate).

It is pretty obvious to anybody, except one who is deliberately being blind, that a philosophy that explicitly calls itself non-two, does not accept the existence of anything other than one one reality. There is no something else in Advaita, meaning non dualism. You cannot be non-dualist if you accept more than once reality/substance.

You can try all you want but you will not convince a single rational person with all this semantic gymnastics that unreal doesn't mean unreal. When the context of the word has also made it very clear it used to describe something which is illusory, a trick as if by produced by a magician, false like a dream/hallucination/mirage.

Mithya means that which is not totally existent, nor totally non-existent, and therefore is dependently existent only. This is the subtlety in meaning of the words which are very clumsily translated into english and become misunderstood by so many people, therefore opening Advaita up to charges of denying the existence of the world and the self, charges which Advaita is not guilty of.

No it doesn't, it means unreal and the translation I just cited is done by Swami Madhavananda Published by Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta. This is somebody who is an expert in Sanskrit and an expert in Advaita Vedanta.

And for the record the translation does actually make it clear that Maya is neither completely real or completely unreal. However, it does say explicitly that all of Maya's products are absolute unreal and disappear like a dream on realization.

What you are loyal to, and this cannot be disputed by anybody (and may be congratulated), is your strong adherence to your preconceived ideas which have been informed (and you freely admit) primarily by reasoning and perception, as well as science, and your own ingenuity.

If there is anybody here who is sticking to false views of Advaita, that is unequivocally YOU, for by actually holding the universe is in some way real you completely go against the entire philosophy:

.232. If the universe, as it is, be real, there would be no cessation of the dualistic element, the scriptures would be falsified, and the Lord Himself would be guilty of an untruth. None of these three is considered either desirable or wholesome by the noble-minded.​

You are not an Advaitin. You are a critical realist, critical realism says exactly the same philosophy you speak: There is a fundamental reality, and there is a dependent relative reality. Stop pretending to be Advaitin, when you clearly accept many levels of reality. Advaita are non-dualist monistic idealists, we accept only one reality and that is Brahman/Atman.

I am also going to call out o your obvious strawman fallacy. I told you that I use Advaita to explain modern science, I don't actually mix the two together. I will only draw a correspondence when it is purely explicit: Like theory of Maya is virtually identical to the holographic universe theory in science. This is why philosophers of science draw these parallels.

It might be wise to invest in a mirror. You have declared yourself that Advaita should be adapted and changed to fit into modern worldviews, that it should become science, that we should reject the words of teachers if they do not conform to current understandings (read: your understanding of Vedanta), that Shruti (the end of the Vedas) is not the primary authority for Vedanta, and it should be rejected if it does not stand up to reason and perception, and so many other things which run contrary to Vedanta as it has been taught from time immemorial. I have not said any of these things, you have, and yet you claim that I find Vedanta inconvenient! I am thoroughly amused.

Another strawman. I said that for a rational person Shruti is not authority, they accept the authority of perception and reasoning. I am not convinced of Shruti because of faith, but because perception and reasoning has validated Shurti for me. This in turn has made me believe the Shruti really is revealed from a non-human source i.e. The Risis directly experienced the truths of Advaita in their meditation. I have myself experiences some of those truths, like my subtle body for instance(which I understand is actually illusory)

You have badly misunderstood it. Shankaracharya roundly condemns those who deny the existence of Ishwara in his refutation of the Samkhyas, Buddhists, and Charvakas. Ishwara is not non-existent; not one word of Shruti or Smriti can be supposed to support this idea. Your citation of Panchadashi, as I have already said, does not say Ishwara is non-existent, but you think it does because you have misunderstood the word unreal.

Both core Advaita texts I have cited so far explicitly state Ishvara and Jiva are unreal, illusory and disappear on realization. They are called products of Maya, appearances. The Advaita texts explicitly state that those who believe in existence of the products of Maya are deluded and stupid. Put two and two together.

So, tattvamasi is a meaningless statement, then? So, the pravesha shruti in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which describes how Brahman 'enters' all the bodies as the Jiva is meaningless? So Krishna, then, when he says he is the Kshetrajna in all the Kshetras is talking nonsense? So the countless texts which say that the Jiva's consciousness is none other than the consciousness which illuminates the whole world are nonsense? So Jiva, then being non-existent and being without any basis of reality, does not have the Atman as its svarupa, and is himself not Brahman, thus rendering the brahmajnanavali mala meaningless when it says 'Jivo Brahmaiva na aparah'? So since you do not really exist, you can never say 'ahambrahmaasmi', and thus you can never get moksha, since a non-existent being cannot know anything, right?

If Shruti, and even the Gita was comprehensive by itself, there would be no need for Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta is a hermenutical philosophy based on Shruti, Brahma Sutras and Gita. The actual philosophy of Advaita is based on the prakaranas granthas, the textbooks which explain the philsophy of Advaita and argue it. Advaita Vedanta both works as a hermenutics of Shruti and as independent metaphysical philosophy.

No, I am denying that mithya means non-existent because I have spent a lot of time and energy studying Vedanta, and will continue to do so. I am denying mithya means non-existent because that is what I have read and heard from the texts, and from teachers new and old, traditional and non-traditional. Read any website, any book devoted to explaining Vedanta or the concept of mithya, hell, read the wikipedia article on Advaita Vedanta; none of them will say that Ishwara, Jiva or Jagat are non-existent. This is your own unique misunderstanding, and why you find it convenient to condemn everybody else as not being genuine Advaitins.

You clearly have not read these texts properly, as I have demonstrated now in this thread. So far I have cited both the Panchadasi and the Vivekachudamani and they explicitly say that everything else other than Brahman is non-existent. I personally think you are not reading the text, but reading what you want to read.

 

[Surya Deva]

Actually what you proclaim, Surya Deva, is more neo-advaita (or pseudo-advaita) than advaita.

This is actually a common adhominem fallacy which some traditional scholastic schools of Advaita who maintain worship of ishvara and tradition and maintain Jnana is just scriptural study make against modern Vedanta teachers like Swami Vivekananda, Nirsargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharishi.
It is an adhominem fallacy because they do not actually show that their philosophy is wrong, they automatically just assume it to be wrong.

If you are going to show me that my Advaita is pseudo-advaita, you are going to have to demonstrate it conclusively by citing from the core texts like I am doing. So far, the core texts are unanimously supporting what I say.

Ishvara, jiva, jagat (universe) are mithya, real and unreal:
Brahman is the real. Maya is the unreal.
The mix is Ishvara, jiva, jagat.

No :no: for somebody who just accused me of being a pseudoadvaitin, you just totally shot yourself in the foot. Brahman is real, Maya is not unreal, Maya is neither totally real or totally unreal. Ishvara, Jiva, Jagat are unreal.

Here is the proof:

Vivekachundamani 2.108. Avidya (Nescience) or Maya, called also the Undifferentiated, is the power of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three Gunas and is superior to the effects (as their cause). She is to be inferred by one of clear intellect only from the effects She produces. It is She who brings forth this whole universe.

Vivekachudamani 2.109. She is neither existent nor non-existent nor partaking of both characters; neither same nor different nor both; neither composed of parts nor an indivisible whole nor both. She is most wonderful and cannot be described in words.​

Hence the view that Ishvara, jiva, jagat are unreal can never be right. (but since you dont understand the meanning of real/unreal, you interpret it that way) When the wrong view is gone, Ishvara, jiva, jagat is realized to be non-different form brahman, the real. What is gone is the wrong view, not Ishvara, jiva, jagat. Thats the meaning of the statement "they are unreal".

Wrong again my friend:

Vivekachudamani 196. The Jivahood of the Atman, the Witness, which is beyond qualities and beyond activity, and which is realised within as Knowledge and Bliss Absolute – has been superimposed by the delusion of the Buddhi, and is not real. And because it is by nature an unreality, it ceases to exist when the delusion is gone.
​

Jesus, do Hindus ever concede anything when they are blatantly and conclusively proven to be wrong?

 

[Surya Deva]

No matter how much you cite from what, you lost all your credibility when you called Ishvara a flying Spaghetti Monster. C'Mon Hindus, is this what our Sanatana Dharma teaches us? That Ishvara is a flying Spaghetti Monster? If no one finds that offensive and if every other Hindu accept it then I really doesn't want to post anything in the Hinduism DIR. Do whatever you want and go ahead and make your own god damn man made global religion. I will definitely not be a part of it because I stand for the truth.

The flying spaghetti monster is a fiction, and so is Ishvara according to Advaita, and Advaita is based on Sruti of Vedanta. Advaita does not prescribe worship of either the flying spaghetti monster or Ishvara

 

[Pleroma]

Sorry, I have better things to read and learn. I really don't have time for this crack pottery and an apparent lack of wisdom.

 

[Vinayaka]

No ordinary man will ever understand advaita. One has to experience advaita. Just my two bits on something I 'know' nothing about.

 

[Ekanta]

IshAvAsyam idam sarvam - All this IS Ishvara.
Omityetadaksharamidam sarvam - Om IS the whole of this universe.
sarvam khalvidam brahma - All this IS Brahman.
Vasudeva Sarvam iti - Vasudeva IS all this.

They all got it wrong. Its a bird, no its a plane, no... its a flying spaghetti monster

 

[Surya Deva]

Okay, Ishvara is relatively more real than the flying spaghetti monster in our empirical reality The flying Spaghetti monster is vikalpha-vritti, word fantasy. Ishvara is not fantasy but pramana-vritti(valid knowledge) So ishvara is as real and you and I are real, as the universe is real, as chairs, tables, planets, stars and galaxies are real, as reincarnation is real, as laws of karma are real, as devas, pretas, yakshas and lokas are real. Ishvara is the cosmic intelligence and mind which has create this universe and all jivas.

But boys and girls, it is STILL vritti! All vrittis are modifications of the field of mind or Maya/prakriti and all vrittis must be ceased for you to attain to the final reality of Self/Brahman. As the Yoga sutras state explicitly:

1.2-4. Yoga is the cessation of all modifications/activities/oscillations of the mind, then the essential Self is revealed, at other times the self is misidentified(superimposed in Vedanta) with the modifications of the mind​

In the final chapter of the Yogasutras vrittis are defined as guna activity. In other words jagat, jiva, ishvara are all guna activity. The aim of Yoga is completely still the guna activity and go beyond the gunas to the transcendental reality, the absolute Nirguna Brahman, the infinite, partless, absolute, unchanging reality.

Do you now understand how illogical and contradictory it is to insist that there are several realities? Can you now see how illogical it is to posit levels and parts to reality? How do you define a level? How do you separate one level from another? Yes, exactly, through arbitrary linguistic divisions. In the same way you divide a a single united Earth into several countries a single untied humanity into races; a single united life into several organisms; a single united universe into galaxies, solar systems, planets etc. This is why Advaita does NOT recognize divisions in reality. There is only one unified and infinite field of consciousness.

There is no need to worship Ishvara, Ishvara is equally as unreal from the point of view of actual reality as the flying spaghetti monster, both are vrittis, one is verbal fantasy delusion and one is correct knowledge delusion. The Advaitin needs to ultimately negate everything, absolutely everything they know in meditation. In the final stage even their object of meditation has to go.

 

[Ekanta]

It has been established long ago that you're not advaitin but pseudo-advaitin (fake advaitin). All your arguments belong in that category, so stop pretenting.

 

[Pleroma]

Its a simple fact and any common roadside Hindu Advaiti knows that Ishvara is not the product of a mind but mind itself is the product of Ishvara. Your scholarly consensus sucks.

 

[Surya Deva]

Its a simple fact and any common roadside Hindu Advaiti knows that Ishvara is not the product of a mind but mind itself is the product of Ishvara. Your scholarly consensus sucks.

You have a rather poor understanding of what is "mind" in Advaita philosophy. There is chitta(mind field) anthakarana(internal instrument) and manas(processing mind) Which one do you mean by "mind" ?

And there are no common roadside Hindu Advaitins. Advaita because it is a highly abstract and purely philosophical type of Hinduism is inaccessible to common Hindus. You use the word "Advaiti" almost synonymously with 'Hindu' oblivious that most Hindus are actually Dvaitis or Visesvadvatis, which are theistic branches of Vedanta who accept complete separation or partial separation between god, souls and nature and all accept a personal creator god who is Lord(Ishvara). Advaitins are not theistic, because we reject the existence of a personal creator god.

You will simply need to respect the fact that Advaitins are also a school of Vedanta, in fact we are the oldest and original school of Vedanta. Stop misrepresenting what we teach: We teach jiva, jagat and ishvara are illusions, not real. We are atheist.

 

[Surya Deva]

I will add there seems to be an obvious persecution complex with what seems like the majority of Hindus posting on this forum against atheist Hindu schools like Advaita. We are treated like heretics and abused and insulted.

So much for tolerant Hindus, eh?

 

[Music]

Surya deva,

You're right that the world is an illusion and brahman alone is real, according to advaita. But in my understanding, there are levels even in dream-like states, differences between various objects such as pot, tree etc. Based on this, it would be reasonble to conclude that iswra is the highest entity even though in ultimate terms, he too is an illusion.

 

[Pleroma]

You have a rather poor understanding of what is "mind" in Advaita philosophy. There is chitta(mind field) anthakarana(internal instrument) and manas(processing mind) Which one do you mean by "mind" ?

And there are no common roadside Hindu Advaitins. Advaita because it is a highly abstract and purely philosophical type of Hinduism is inaccessible to common Hindus. You use the word "Advaiti" almost synonymously with 'Hindu' oblivious that most Hindus are actually Dvaitis or Visesvadvatis, which are theistic branches of Vedanta who accept complete separation or partial separation between god, souls and nature and all accept a personal creator god who is Lord(Ishvara). Advaitins are not theistic, because we reject the existence of a personal creator god.

You will simply need to respect the fact that Advaitins are also a school of Vedanta, in fact we are the oldest and original school of Vedanta. Stop misrepresenting what we teach: We teach jiva, jagat and ishvara are illusions, not real. We are atheist.

No, atheistic Advaitis are crypto-pseudo Advaitis because they don't know what our traditional Acharyas knew. It is the Acharyas who represent true Advaita. Western atheistic Advaitis are not true Advaitis because they are delusional. Any one from tradition knows that as so many people here have already said that they are wrong and they have a serious misunderstanding.