Seeking to Understand Advaita

[George-ananda]

What exactly is meant by 'unreal'?

The 'real' is that which is not subject to change. Only Brahman is real. Everything else has what I call relative-reality, it is based on the perceiving entity. The typical example we can all grasp is our nightly dreams. While the dream is occuring, we believe the events to be real..

Our entire universe is a dream of Brahman.

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: What is nice about those posts? They are full of personal attacks?

Personal attacks? I don’t think so. They are direct responses to the things you write – counterattacks, if you will. In most instances you are the primary aggressor.
In case you forgot, I never responded to any of your posts until you called me a falsifier of the Tradition. By doing so you insulted me – no big deal – my Guru – and through him the entire Paramparā – and generations of my family. Should I accept your behavior? No.
You’ve attacked every Advaitin on the forums and vilified their positions – often employing falsities and distortions – in the attempt to promote yourself as the sole Advaitin.
Is your behavior acceptable? No.
So you can play the victim as much as you like, you can cry foul, and you can even ask the Moderators to delay my posts, but you won’t be able to change the fact that it is you that insult and attack others.
Why don’t you tell us why you lied about the Kailāsa Āśrama? Why did you feel the need to vilify a Mahātma of the caliber of Pūjya Svāmiji Dayānanda Sarasvatī of AVG? Why did you lie about learning Advaita Vedānta from some of the best Indian teachers – when it is obvious that you did not?
These questions are a reaction to the things you write – they are not personal attacks – nobody would ask them if you did not write such things in the first place.

Sūrya Deva wrote: It is not fair that I should be openly ridiculed, insulted and bullied just because I have a different view.

You have openly ridiculed, insulted, and bullied several people that have a different view from yours, is it fair when you do it?

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

I apologize for my belated response – unfortunately spare time is a wealth I do not posess. Nonetheless I would like to thank JG22, Maya3, Ekānta, Vināyakaji, Jainji, and Śuddhasattvaji for the nice words they wrote about me – they are like flowers at the feet of my Guru.
My posts are ever in the spirit of Sevā – Sevā is not just any kind of service but rather selfless service performed with a sense of gratitude; it is service infused with respect for the ones served.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: Which Vedanta?

The Vedānta or Uttara Mīmāmsā is a system based on the Brahmasūtra of Bādarāyana or Vyāsa – a logical analysis of the Upaniṣads. The Vedānta system has the following traditional branches:

1. Advaita or Kevalādvaita of Śaṅkarācārya
2. Dvaita of Madhvācārya
3. Bhedābheda of Bhāskarācārya
4. Acintya-Bhedābheda of Baladeva
5. Dvaitādvaita of Nimbārkācārya
6. Śuddhādvaita of Vallabhācārya
7. Viśiṣṭādvaita of Rāmānujācārya
8. Śivādvaita of Śrīkaṇṭha
9. Viśeṣādvaita of Śrīpati
10. Avibhāgādvaita of Vijñānabhikṣu
11. Śākta-Viśiṣṭādvaita of Pañcānana
12. Śāktādvaita of Hārītāyana

The Vedānta system has modern branches as well – for example, the Neo-Vedānta of Svāmī Vivekānanda. Each one of these branches – traditional and modern – has its own Ācārya, its own Paramparā, and its own Siddhānta.
The Ācārya extensively comments the Prasthānatraya establishing in this way the Siddhānta of the specific branch. Each branch considers its Siddhānta the sole and only purport of the Śruti and the commentary of the Ācārya the sole and only key to unlock the Siddhānta.
In other words, you are not a Viśiṣṭādvaitin if you do not accept the words of Rāmānujācārya as the final authority of Viśiṣṭādvaita.
This is not a dogmatic statement – the words of the Ācāryas are time-tested and they lead the sincere and prepared student to the full understanding of the Siddhānta.
The Siddhānta of each branch is based on the commentaries – Bhāṣya – of their Ācārya – every successive commentary from members of the branch is considered a sub-commentary and serves to elucidate specific topics of the original commentary.
The Ācārya of the Advaita Vedānta is Śaṅkarācārya – his Bhāṣya is the sole and only key to unlock the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. No one can consider him/herself an Advaita Vedāntin if (s)he does not accept the words of Śaṅkarācārya as the final authority of Advaita Vedānta.
Everything I write is from the standpoint of Advaita Vedānta. Traditional Advaita Vedānta. Ādi Śaṅkarācārya’s Paramparām.
I am not here to debate or to impose the vision of Advaita Vedānta on others. And I am not here to discuss so called “personal opinions” because they are subjective and that which is subjective begins and ends with the individual.
I am here to share the teaching of Advaita Vedānta with those who are interested.

Sūrya Deva wrote: There is obviously no harmonious agreement (weasel word) between all Vedantins.

There is no harmonious agreement between the different branches of Vedānta but there is harmonious agreement within the specific branches. The Siddhānta of every specific branch is one and the same for all the members of that specific branch. The – short version – of the Advaita Siddhānta is Brahma satyaṁ jaganmithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ – Brahman is Satyam, Jagat is Mithyā, and the Jīva is (essentially) none other than Brahman – and no Advaita Vedāntin disagree with that.
The various sub-schools within a branch of Vedānta may disagree on some issues but they never disagree on the Siddhānta. The harmonious agreement between Śruti, Bhāṣya, and Paramparā – the Upaniṣads, the commentaries, and the teachers – produces the Siddhānta. If they were not in (harmonious) agreement the Siddhānta would be impossible.
The Advaita Siddhānta is one and the same for all Advaita Vedāntins. That’s why there is no disagreement between Ekānta, JG22, and I.

Sūrya Deva wrote: This will bring us into what really is the crux of Shantoham's posts: The authority of Sankarcharya.

No – keep your eyes on the ball. Your contention is that JG22, Ekānta, and I are misrepresenting and falsifying the teachings of Advaita Vedānta. Our contention is that your claims are antagonistic to the fundamentals of the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. The authority of Śaṅkarācārya was never in discussion.
According to the Advaita Paramparā, Śaṅkarācārya is the greatest Vedantin. There was not and will not be another like him. Na Bhūto Na Bhaviṣyati.
All the confusion lies in your head. You refuse to engage in proper study and you prefer to “understand” Advaita largely through what its critics say about it. No wonder you are confused. Do not blame the so-called bogey of Māyāvāda for your confusion. All the Māyā and all the Vāda is of your own making!

Sūrya Deva wrote: The position held by Shantoham and JG22 is that Shankara's views define what Advaita Vedanta teaches, but it is clear I do not accept Shankara's authority – and why is that?

Because you are not an Advaita Vedāntin, you are a Sūryadevin. Your opinions do not represent the teachings of Advaita Vedānta. Your lack of understanding of Śaṅkarācārya’s authority only proves our contention.

 

[Shântoham]

Sūrya Deva wrote: In philosophy one does not base their understanding on the commentary of somebody.

In philosophy maybe – I let the philosophers on these forums decide if your statement is correct – but Advaita Vedānta is not a philosophy. Approached as a Darśanam Vedānta can be understood as a philosophy – this approach leads to erudition, comparison, and speculation but it does not lead to liberation – Mokṣa. And Mokṣa is the sole and only goal of Vedānta.
Vedānta is not a philosophy, not a school of thought, not a system of ideas, not a religion; it is a Pramāṇa – a means of direct knowledge for revealing the non–dual nature of reality.
To understand how things are, it is necessary to correct misunderstandings, which requires knowledge. Knowledge is the only correction needed because only knowledge — not practices or experiences — removes ignorance. The removal of ignorance is liberation.
For those who seek this knowledge, a teacher who is grounded in the Scriptures, trained in the traditional method of interpretation, and established in an understanding of Advaita will be necessary to ensure the knowledge of the Ṛṣis, as envisioned by the Ṛṣis, is understood without distortion or addition.
The teachings of Vedānta use words very precisely and very carefully. Vedānta is a means of knowledge which uses words in order to guide the student’s mind to gain the direct and immediate recognition of the non-dual nature of reality.
This timeless, liberating knowledge has been enshrined in the Upaniṣads. Being the end of the Vedas (both literally and metaphorically) the Upaniṣads are also known as Vedānta (end, Anta, of Veda).
How is Vedānta a Pramāṇa and not the other Scriptures? Vedānta is Pramāṇa because it provides Mahāvākyas that equate Aham as Brahman – without these Mahāvākyas there is no liberation as Śaṅkarācārya says in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 58: Na yogena sāṁkhyena karmaṇā no na vidyayā bramhātmaikatva bodhena mokṣaḥ siddhyati na anyathā…
Only a Scripture that provides the equation Jīvo Brahma Eva becomes a Pramāṇa. No other Scripture other than Vedānta does that.

Sūrya Deva wrote: A philosophy is built up based on independent argument.

Again, maybe – see above – but Advaita Vedānta is not a philosophy, it is a tool to remove ignorance. It is Mokṣa-Śāstra – a practical how-to-do manual for attaining Jīvanmukti.

Sūrya Deva wrote: The commentaries are helpful to get the insights of others, but at the end of the day you need to form your own interpretations.

In Advaita Vedānta the commentaries – expecially the ones from Śaṅkarācārya – define the Advaita Siddhānta and therefore they are the sole authority in establishing the Siddhānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: To appeal to the authority of one commentator and then regard them to be the official interpretation is not philosophy.

In Advaita Vedānta the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya are the main interpretation of the Siddhānta – respected and revered by the entire Paramparā.

Sūrya Deva wrote: As we know for a fact there are literally several hundreds of commentaries on the Upanishads, Gita and Brahma Sutras.

In Advaita Vedānta there is only one commentator – Bhāṣyakāra – of the Prasthānatraya: Śaṅkarācārya. All other commentaries are sub-commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya’s Bhāṣyam.

Sūrya Deva wrote: It means these texts are open to interpretation, hence why there are so many interpretations.

The Prasthānatraya is open to interpretations because there are different levels of spiritual maturity. The Advaita vision, though, accommodates all other interpretations – without compromising in the least its own central premises – while other interpretations are unable to do the same. Tairayaṁ Na Virudhyate (Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 3.17).

Sūrya Deva wrote: How then could one maintain that we accept as dogma that only one person's commentaries and interpretations are defining?

Because – far from being a dogma – Śaṅkarācārya’s commentaries are the defining interpretation of Advaita Vedānta. The same way Rāmānujācārya’s commentaries are the defining interpretation of Viśiṣṭādvaita. And of Madhvācārya’s commentaries are the defining interpretation of Dvaita Vedānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: It is irrelevant to the philosophy of Advaita whether these doctrines are really present in the Upanishads or not, because Advaita as a philosophy stands alone because it is based on philosophical argument to justify these doctrines.

The Advaita Vedāntins, of course, accept the Upaniṣads as their sole authority – and Śaṅkarācārya’s commentaries as the main key to unlock the teachings of the Upaniṣads. As a matter of fact, Vedānta and the Upaniṣads are synonymous. The Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta is not merely derived from the Upaniṣads, it is the purport of the Upaniṣads.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Thus Sankara far from being the founder of the school of Advaita Vedanta philosophy is a student of a student of a student.

In Advaita Vedānta Śaṅkarācārya is the Ādya-Jagadguru. If you were an Advaita Vedāntin you would know and respect this fact.

Sūrya Deva wrote: To Sankara are attributed dozens of works, but only a few are actually considered to be really composed by him...

All scholars accept the Upadeśasāhasrī and the commentaries of the Brahmasūtra, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, and Taittirīya Upaniṣad as written by Śaṅkarācārya. The vast majority of the scholars accept the Upadeśasāhasrī and the commentaries of the Prasthānatraya as written by Śaṅkarācārya. These are the texts that define the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. For a traditional Advaitin, though, the authorship of a text is secondary to its capacity to remove ignorance.

Sūrya Deva wrote: After Sankara there have been dozens of exponents of school who have contributed their own works…

The most important part you miss here is that those teachings did not compromise or contradict Śaṅkarācārya and Advaita Tattva.

 

[Shântoham]

Sūrya Deva wrote: So in a tradition of Advaita philosophy which has 3000 years of history of development of thought and dozens of exponents, why should I only accept Shankara's version as defining?

Because there are not different versions of the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta there is only one main version – Śaṅkarācārya’s.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Sorry I am not going to accept the dogma of Shantoham and JG22, no matter how loud they shout and kick and scream at me.

No one here wants you to accept any dogma – we are simply showing that your claims are contrary to the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. You are not an Advaita Vedāntin you are a Sūryadevin.

Sūrya Deva wrote: This just disqualifies them to me as mature members, and while they get away with it on this forum because they are pandering to the majority, they would never get away with it in a formal setting like an academic debate…

LOL… I would like to see you demonstrate in an academic setting the relative importance of Śaṅkarācārya in Advaita Vedānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Advaita Vedanta samapradya (tradition) did not begin with Shankara and nor did it end with him.

The Advaita tradition did not begin with Śaṅkarācārya but it was defined by his commentaries. Only the commentaries of the Ācārya define the Siddhānta of a specific branch of Vedānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: It is clear for anybody to see my thought comes from the Advaita Vedanta tradition, and it is not something I made up.

No – it is something you made up – a concoction of your own making. More specifically a verbalization of your own misconceptions. Despite your numerous claims you do not represent the Advaita Siddhānta to any meaningful extent.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Those accusing me of this do this only to undermine my status as an Advaitin because they hold different doctrinal views(which is perfectly permissible) and are insecure I hold onto other views, or simply they are ignorant of the key philosophical thoughts and history of Advaita.

LOL… Those accusing you of this are Advaita Vedāntins who clearly see that your claims have little to do with Advaita Vedānta – Advaita Vedāntins that you attacked in an attempt to promote yourself as the sole and only Advaitin. Your status as an Advaitin is a mere product of your fertile imagination – another product of your own misconceptions.

Sūrya Deva wrote: In fact I hold onto a very pure form of Advaita which is officially known as "Absolute Non Dualism" which was held by Shankara's beloved teacher Gaudapada, which arguably was consistent with the times of the Upanishads and made no concession to householders.

First, Gauḍapāda was not Śaṅkarācārya’s beloved teacher. He was his Paramguru. Second, Kevalādvaitavāda has only one Bhāṣyakāra: Śaṅkarācārya – not Gauḍapāda. One Bhāṣyakāra, one Siddhānta, one Kevalādvaitavāda. Not two. To postulate a pure and a less pure form of Advaita is utter nonsense.

Sūrya Deva wrote: While, Shankara did make a concession to householders and his form of Advaita is a more diluted, less purer form of Advaita.

Your claim that Śaṅkarācārya did make a concession to householders is once again utter nonsense. Dharmaśāstra prescribes two paths – Pravṛtti and Nivṛtti. Śaṅkarācārya considers Nivṛtti indispensable for Mokṣa. We can find this in the introduction of both Aitareya and Muṇḍaka Bhāṣya. In Muṇḍaka, Śaṅkarācārya acknowledges the right to knowledge of the Vedas for people in all stages of life. However, he specifically says that the knowledge of Brahman founded on monasticism is the means for Mokṣa. He admits that there are many householders in the traditional line of Knowers of Brahman. But he dismisses it by saying: “…The co-existence of light and darkness cannot be made possible even by a hundred injunctions, much less by mere indications…”.
In Aitareya, Śaṅkarācārya takes the stance against people proclaiming renunciation while engaging in domestic life – Gṛhasta. According to Śaṅkarācārya, the wish to be engaged in domestic life is the result of desire and so it cannot be considered renunciation. Also, he says that monasticism is obligatory for the one who has not attained Self-Knowledge but is desiderous of Liberation – a Mumukṣu. Śaṅkarācārya maintains that the physical and mental control which is needed for the realization of the Self is not possible when engaged in any stage of life other than Saṁnyāsa. The highest result for a householder will be merging with the deity (Hiraṇyagarbha) and not Mokṣa. Śaṅkarācārya did not make any concession to householders.

Sūrya Deva wrote: So How about we agree that I represent the purest form of Advaita of Gauadapada and Shanoham et al represent an impure form of Shankaras, his students student?

Or, more accurately, you are a Sūryadevin and Śāntoham et al are Advaita Vedāntins.

Pranāms

P.S. – Sūrya Deva wrote: Mandan Misra in the 8th century (who started a rival sub-school Bhatta Mimassa)…

Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā is a sub-school of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā founded by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa. In all probability Maṇḍana Miśra was an elderly contemporary of Śaṅkarācārya. A Mīmāṃsaka turned Advaitin. He never started a rival sub-school of Advaita – the differences between
Maṇḍana Miśra and Śaṅkarācārya are distinct but minimal; the similarities are striking and abundant. Furthermore, Śaṅkarācārya is the Kevalādvaitavāda’s Ācārya while Maṇḍana Miśra – like Gauḍapāda – is not.

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: First of all, Shantoham need to be clear what kind of Vedanta he is talking about?

LOL… Kevalādvaitavāda of Śaṅkarācārya. As if there was any doubt.

Sūrya Deva wrote: It has already been demonstrated that the view of Advaita I accept is indeed a legitimate view and is by Gaudapada, called "Absolute non-duality"…

LOL… I guess you think that something has been established simply because you say it has. The term Kevalādvaita – absolute non-duality – indicates the teachings of the Śruti unfolded by the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya. In fact Śaṅkarācārya does not define himself as an Advaitin but as an Aupaniṣada – a follower of the Upaniṣads. The term Aupaniṣada also refers to Brahman – that which is knowable only through Scripture.
It is unfortunate that your utter ignorance of the Advaita Vedānta tradition prevents you from enjoing its profound depth.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Gaudapada is the earliest known founder of the Advaita Vedanta tradition...

LOL… Your implication that because Gauḍapāda precedes Śaṅkarācārya historically his teachings are somewhat purer than Śaṅkarācārya’s is total nonsense. Śaṅkarācārya is the Ācārya of the Advaita Vedānta tradition – not Gauḍapāda – his commentaries define the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. Gauḍapāda’s Kārikā without Śaṅkarācārya’s Bhāṣya is just a riddle. To separate the two is futile – it serves no purpose – except to create confusion.
Who beside you separates Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkarācārya? No one – not even the direct followers of Gauḍapāda from the Śrī Sansthāna Gauḍapadācārya Maṭha (the Kavaḷē Maṭha) which publish a well known edition of the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā with Śaṅkarācārya’s Bhāṣya. They also agree with the most common scholarly opinion on the matter: …On the whole, we may say that Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary on the Kārikās follows Gauḍapāda’s arguments quite closely, but it presents a more consistent philosophical view.
The Kārikā – without the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya – tend to confuse entirely anyone who is starting out on the journey of learning Advaita Vedānta and takes this as the main authorative text. This text more than any other has led many to misunderstand Advaita Vedānta and has led to belief that Advaita is another form of Buddhism. A true understanding of Advaita leaves no ground whatsoever to confuse the two so opposite teachings.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Hence, as my views are virtually identical to Gaudapada then I am obviously an Advaitin.

LOL… Technically that would make you an Aśparsa Yogin – not an Advaita Vedāntin. An Advaita Vedāntin is a follower of Śaṅkarācārya – and you claim not to be one.
Apparently, though, you are not even an Aśparsa Yogin – Aśparsa Yoga requires an intense focus on Brahman, while you are busy on another thread “Rethinking Brahman”… LOL…
I am afraid you are nothing but a Sūryadevin…

Sūrya Deva wrote: In a formal secular debate, scripture or tradition is invalid… As a rational philosopher I do not recognize tradition as valid form of knowledge.

It does not matter how you define Advaita Vedānta and how much reasoning you deploy to support your definition. It matters only how Advaita Vedānta defines itself. And if your definition agrees with it you are an Advaita Vedāntin; and if your definition disagrees with it you are not an Advaita Vedāntin.
Vedānta is the Upaniṣads – the end portion of the Vedas. The Vedas are not verse literature like poems and stories – they appear that way only to the superficial reading of the ignorant – even one with academic degrees.
They are a highly sophisticated and complex body of Sanskrit words. Some of these words are descriptive – Karmakāṇḍa and Upāsanakāṇḍa – they describe that which is not directly known to us – heaven, hell, God, Dharma, Karma, etc. And some of these words are introductive – Jñānakāṇḍa – they introduce that which is directly known to us – self-evident Ātmā Caitanya.
A competent Guru unfolds the Sanskrit words of the Vedānta – gradually removing our ignorance of our true nature – this removal of ignorance introduces us to our true nature – self-evident consciousness. In fact this consciousness – which is our true self – cannot be known as an object because is self-evident in any experience – or lack of it.
Advaita Vedānta defines itself as a Pramāṇa. Vedānta is Pramāṇa in the sense that it makes me recognize that I am the knower in all the known and I am Aprameyam. In the process the Pramāṇa leaves clear understanding that I am pure consciousness that pervades all the knowledge of all Pramās. Pratibodha viditaṁ matam – Brahman is known in every thought (Kena Upaniṣad 2.4).
It is a fact that Āptavākyas are the only Pramāṇa for the knowledge of the Self. The reason of using the word ‘only’ is not merely because the Śāstra is justifying itself but because no other Pramāṇa has any reach to that which is the very light behind all senses.
Except Śabda Pramāṇa all other Pramāṇas require the help of some perceptual basis to directly or indirectly reveal their respective objects and thus are not the right means to know the Self. All logic too require the help of some perceptual evidence to finally prove their point, otherwise logic itself becomes baseless and thus illogical. That is why we cannot reach the same conclusions of the Vedānta purely through logic or reason. To differ is indeed like saying that the boat is redundant after crossing the river. If merely by some logic and reason we can so easily come to the same conclusions of the Vedānta then we should wonder why is it that thousands of so very intelligent people in the world are not coming to such conclusions. Once the facts have been revealed by Vedānta they do become very obvious but till then we can rarely even imagine the possibility.
A Pramāṇa is that independent means which when aligned with the Pramata (subject) and the Prameya (object) brings about Pramā – the knowledge. The Pramā thus brought about has to be Anadhigatam (not known earlier), Asandigdham (free from all doubts), and Abādhitam (non-negatable by any other Pramāṇa). All Pramāṇas are means and therefore there is no problem if they come under the category of Aparavidyā. What is important is that they bring about the Pramā, which in the case of the Self is that Jñāna-Vṛtti which having brought about the awareness of the Self drops and it all culminates in bringing about awakening of that which is eternal – the Paravidyā.
The word Anadhigatam implies that the Pramāṇa is not even meant to know that which is already known. The Self which is always existing and self-revealing doesn’t require any Pramāṇa. The ignorance is only regarding our Brahma-Svarūpata, and therefore the Śabda Pramāṇa is only meant for that. Asandigdham implies that the knowledge thus brought about is so very clear and direct that there are no more doubts about it. Finally Abādhitam implies that the knowledge thus brought about doesn’t require any validation by any other Pramāṇas. It brings about direct knowledge, the very realization. Understanding brought about with the help of logic certainly is merely a possibility but not the knowledge brought about by using the appropriate Pramāṇa properly. So there is no question of any dependence on logic or experience thereafter. Logic – if used – is only to eliminate our previous erroneous presumptions. Śravaṇa, Manana, and Nididhyāsana together contribute to complete the process of realisation handling all the three aspects respectively.

 

[Shântoham]

Veda is a body of revealed knowledge handed down by teaching through countless generations to us. The latter portion of Veda is singled out as Vedānta owing to the uniqueness of its subject matter, which is self-knowledge. What self-knowledge can solve is self-ignorance and self-ignorance is the cause of our primary problem of insecurity and unhappiness.
This body of revealed knowledge has always been existing as a living tradition handed down through teaching from one generation to the next in India. It has survived many centuries of suppression only because of its intrinsic worth.
As knowledge, it is communicable by anyone who has correctly learnt it in full from a competent Guru. Again, as knowledge, it is available to anyone who is a qualified seeker.
Why should we hear it only from a Guru? To understand a single word of a given Upaniṣad, mere knowledge of Sanskrit or just that Upaniṣad, is not sufficient; but that of the entire Śāstra, is required.
However, knowledge of the whole Śāstra, is gained only word by word – how do we break this catch-22? The Guru Śiṣya Paramparā provides the answer, for, when you hear it from a Guru, you hear the meaning of a given word from the one who knows the whole. That Guru, as a student, would have heard it from his Guru, who knows the whole, and so on.
Along with the knowledge, the method of communicating the knowledge has also been handed down by the tradition. This teaching tradition is called Sampradāya. The Guru who imparts the knowledge would himself have been taught by his Guru by using this evolved method. In this lineage of Gurus, Śaṅkarācārya occupies a special place since he is totally identified with the Sampradāya and has left behind this legacy in the written form. His commentaries are not only the earliest that are available but are also extremely thorough in providing the teaching in full.
Therefore Śruti Vākya is the direct means of knowledge. The highest aspirants can gain the highest knowledge simply by Śravaṇa. The rest of us understand the meaning of Vedānta Vākya through Mananam and Tarka. Śrī Sureśvarācārya says: Vedānta-śravaṇam yatnād upāyas tarka eva ca – hearing of Vedānta texts is aided by Tarka (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya Vārttika 2.4.213).
Śruti is aided by our universal experience of Ātman, for Śruti simply removes our misconceptions of what we already are. Śaṅkarācārya says: Na dharmajijñāsāyām iva śrutyādaya eva pramāṇam brahmjijnāsāyām, kim tu śrutyādayo’nubhavādayaśca yathā sambhavam iha pramāṇam anubhavāvasānatvād bhūtavastuviṣayatvāt ca brahmajnānasya – Śruti is not the only means of knowledge in the case of enquiry into Brahman, as it is in the case of enquiry into Dharma. However Śruti as well as our experience – as the case may be – is also here the means – for knowledge of Brahman culminates in the experience of an already existing entity (Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 1.1.2).
Therefore logic only as it is in concordance with Śruti and our universal experience can be of use, not intellectual speculation. Śaṅkarācārya says: Nānena miṣena śuṣkatarkasya atrā’ātmālābhaḥ sambhavati – this Ātman is not achieved by logic (Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 2.1.6). Śrutyanuhrihīta eva hyatra tarko’nubhavāngatvenāśrīyate – only that logic is admitted which is in consonance with Śruti and experience (Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 2.1.6).
One must never forget that Śāstra is the final Pramāṇa, as it removes the notions of agentship, leaving our natural state to shine forth. Śaṅkarācārya says: Prāmtṛtvam hyātmano nivartayatyantyam pramāṇam nivartayadeva cāpramāṇī bhavati svapnakālapramāṇam iva prabodhe – Śāstra is the ultimate means of knowledge as it removes the agentship of Ātman, it ceases as a means of knowledge just as the means of dream-knowledge cease on waking (Bhagavadgītā Bhāṣya 2.31).
Api cāntyam idam pramāṇam ātmaikatvasya pratipādakam, nātah parm kincidākānkśyam asti – for this Śāstra is the final Pramāṇa as it establishes the unity of the Self, for there is nothing left to be sought to be known subsequently (Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 2.1.14).
Śrutivākyādeva kaivalyam – knowledge comes from Śruti alone. Śrī Sureśvarācārya says: Tattvamasyāditastasmād āgamādeva nānyataḥ āikātmyavastunaḥ sākshād vyutpattir avicālinī – therefore from the Śāstra alone we get Tat Tvam Asi and from nowhere else is there the unwavering direct knowledge of the One Reality, the One Self (Introduction to Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya Vārttika).
The bottom line has to be that logic and reason function in the realm of not-Self (Anātman), and make use of perception (Pratyakṣa) and worldly inference (Laukika Anumāna) while enquiry into and knowledge of the Self (Brahmavidy&#257 functions in the realm of Ātman, using inference based upon the Scriptures (Śāstrīya Anumāna) as a means of knowledge.
The Vedic Scriptures should not be regarded as ancient musings (in a dead language) recorded by primitive people. The teaching of Advaita Vedānta provides a record of the truth directly realized by generations of past Sages and of the methods and teachings that can help us to the same understanding.
At no time are we asked to accept anything that is contrary to reason or in conflict with our own experience. Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkarācārya both insist that: Niścitaṁ yuktiyuktaṁ ca yattadbhavati netarat – that which is stated by the Scripture and supported by reason is true and nothing else (Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 3.23). The truth of the Scriptures has been verified innumerable times over the several thousand years since they were written down. This can also be realized by anyone who desires enlightenment above all else and is willing to follow the discipline of developing control of the mind and senses, dispassion and discrimination. It is true that the Scriptures were written in a language which is now accessible only to a few, so that ideally one should commit to a prolonged course of study from a teacher who is both enlightened and is able to interpret and utilize the teaching methodology that has been proven to work. Disciplines – Sādhanas – alone will not achieve the desired end; only self-knowledge can remove self-ignorance.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

P.S. – Sūrya Deva wrote: In Shankaras formal refutation with other philosophies in his works and debates not once does he say "The Upanishad says this"…


LOL… Obviously you never really read the commentaries of Śaṅkarācārya – where most objections are resolved on the strength of Śruti and Smṛti statements.


Sūrya Deva wrote: Ask yourself how could you convince a non-Hindu of the concepts of Advaita Vedanta?


LOL… And why would I do that? As I already told you – unlike you – I don’t have a Messiah complex; I don’t need to convince a non-Hindu or even a Hindu of the concept of Advaita Vedānta. The Prārabdha Karma will lead the suitable candidates to Advaita Vedānta – the rest will get there in due time.


Sūrya Deva wrote: Just because it was once tradition to find a Guru, study Sanskrit and beg for alms, does not mean an Advaitn living today in the 21st century has to do the same.


Guru, Śāstra, and Sanskrit are a must even in this day and age. The teaching methodology of Vedānta has not changed since the times of Śaṅkarācārya. It needs not changing because it does its job quite adequately.


Sūrya Deva wrote: One can today learn Advaita philosophy at university in English translations and forgo all these traditions.


At university you can get a degree but you cannot get Mokṣa. In fact there are plenty of Saṁsāri scholars but not even one Mukti scholar. In case you forgot, Mokṣa – not erudition –is the sole and only goal of Vedānta.
With all due respect to scholars, the difference between one who does an academic study of Śaṅkarācārya’s works and one who lives and breathes Advaita Vedānta is the following. The former thinks that Śaṅkarācārya was like a university professor of philosophy and thinks that the Advaita Siddhānta is open to personal interpretation. The latter uses Yoga as a method for achieving a goal – Upāya – an aid to attaining the insight of Aupaniṣada Ātmajñāna – in line with what Śaṅkarācārya describes as Upakurvantu Nāma in Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 2.1.3 – and with the help of the internal organ that has been purified by meditation – Dhyāna-saṁskṛtena antaḥkaraṇena (Bhagavadgītābhāṣya 13.24) – he follows Sureśvara explicit teaching in Naiṣkarmyasiddhi 1.52: Sarva-karma-tat-sādhana-saṁnyāsas tato yogābhyāsas tataś cittasya pratyak-pravaṇatā – from that follows the renunciation of all actions and their means, from that (renunciation) follows the practice of contemplation, from that (contemplation) originates the inclination of the mind toward the Self...
Śruti and Bhāṣya are contrary to self-study for reasons that are well known to every Advaita Vedāntin. The fact that you don’t know them proves once more that you are not a Vedāntin.
You can conceptually learn Vedānta at college but – and it is a very essential but – Vedānta needs to be taught not learned. It is a means of knowledge that knocks off ignorance. It seems you have been learning Vedānta, not yourself as awareness. Śravaṇa is very difficult owing to the tendency of the ego to interpret the meaning of words according to its Avidyā. If you get most of your knowledge by reading or from occasional teachings your Avidyā will cause you to misunderstand the true meaning of the words.
Constant and consistent interaction and clarification with the Guru is required in order to grasp the intended meaning.

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: This part of my reply is going to be decisive in declaring me the winner of this debate…

LOL… The only debate here is between you and your lack of understanding of the Advaita Siddhānta – such a “debate” cannot have a winner – I am just going to point out your wrong interpretations of the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Shantoham argues that I have taken the Panchadasi quotes out of context (rather difficult to do, as I cited copious verses from it and many times the verses are in sequence)…

LOL… Your quotes are out of context because the interpretation you give to them is contrary to the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. The context is not determined by your interpretation of the Pañcadaśī but by the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. If your interpretation of the Pañcadaśī contradicts the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta it loses its context. The Pañcadaśī does not contradict the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta – only your interpretation does.

Sūrya Deva wrote: But ironically he produces his own barrage of quotes not just from the text in question (Panchadasi) but outside texts like the Upanishads, Gita, Brahma sutras and commentaries.

LOL… My so called barrage of quotes shows that what I post is in agreement with the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta. It is the traditional way to demonstrate that one own contention is in line with the Siddhānta – thus extablishing the authority of the contention.
An Advaitin has Prāmāṇya Buddhi in Śāstram – as the only means of self-knowledge. You have stated that I quote from Śāstram to support my own views. In fact, it is the opposite. The settled view is that Śāstram is indeed the ONLY authority in the matter of self-knowledge and hence I quote from there; and I quote so that I avoid, even inadvertently, saying ‘my opinion’.
Since the time even before Śankarācāryā, there have always been two schools of thoughts: Āstika Darśanās (those that accept Śāstram as a Pramāṇam) and Nāstika Darśanas (those that do not accept Śāstram as Pramāṇam). These two schools run as parallel rails, always together, but never meet. They can never meet because of the basic difference.
If you accept Śāstram as a Pramāṇam, then your posts will be contributing to the forum. If you do not accept Śāstram as a Pramāṇam, then your posts will constantly cause conflicts. Śāstram denotes the Upaniṣads, Bhagavadgītā, Brahmasūtras, Śaṅkarācārya Bhāṣya, and the Prakaraṇa Granthās by Ācāryas of the Advaita Vedānta tradition.
Personal statements are acceptable only to the extent they are supportive to Śāstram – otherwise they carry no authority.
If your position is indeed that you do not accept Śāstram as a Pramāṇam, then your posts in this forum will serve no useful purpose.
We tend to promote traditional Advaita Vedānta because we know that it works.

Sūrya Deva wrote: This is not valid, Shantoham has to prove his claims by using only the Panchadasi that the quotes I made from the same to prove that Ishvara is a creation of Maya are taken out of context.

LOL… In fact I refuted all your claims using specifically the Pañcadaśī. Try reading my posts – instead of using them to promote yourself. If you want to switch to the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi I will refute you using specifically that text. You can change texts as much as you want – the Siddhānta – from which the contest of the texts is determined – remains the same.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Note, this is the same man that told us all "All Vedantins are in harmonious agreement"…

LOL… I told you that the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta is the result of the harmonious agreement between Śruti, Bhāṣya, and Paramparā. If they were not in (harmonious) agreement the Siddhānta would be impossible.
The Advaita Siddhānta is one and the same for all Advaita Vedāntins. That’s why there is no disagreement between Ekānta, JG22, and I.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Here is what Shantoham claims they mean…

LOL… that’s not my claim – if it was I would be a Sūryadevin just like you – it is the teaching of the author of the text and his main commentator – who was a direct disciple of the author. The commentator further states: …this Māyābimbaḥ – Cit reflected in Māyā or Cit conditioned by Māyā – which has mastery over the very Māyā is called Īśvara… Īśvara by virtue of the mastery over Māyā is omniscient – Sarvajñaḥ… Sarvajñaḥ also signifies Sarvaśaktimān – the one who is endowed with all powers… Thus Cit through the conditioning of Māyā plays the role of Īśvara who is Sarvajñaḥ, Sarvaśaktimān, and of course Sarvavyāpī – omnipresent – because Brahman is so.

Sūrya Deva wrote: We need to ask at this point is this even Advaita?

LOL… You bet it is!

Sūrya Deva wrote: What Shantoham is presenting here is not Advaita but Visesadvaita.

LOL… The word you are looking for is Viśiṣṭa – Viśeṣādvaita belongs to Śrīpati – and as much as you know little of Advaita Vedānta you know even less of Viśiṣṭādvaita – what to speak of Viśeṣādvaita.
According to Viśiṣṭādvaita Īśvara refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within itself. Īśvara, the universe, and the living beings are fundamentally real and distinguishable from one another – they are distinct but mutually inseparable entities. The individual selfs and the universe exist as Īśvara’s attributes. Therefore, Viśiṣṭādvaita literally means non-duality of the qualified, since Īśvara – the sole reality – is qualified by innumerable glorious attributes – including individual selves and universe – which are real. Advaita teaches that only Brahman is real – universe and living beings are a temporary manifestation in Brahman – their reality depends on Brahman as much as ocean and waves derives their respective reality from water.
Don’t forget even for a brief instant that Viśiṣṭādvaita is after all Advaita – there are similarities between Viśiṣṭādvaita and Kevalādvaita but also necessary and fundamental distinctions.

Sūrya Deva wrote: If all this time Shantoham has been arguing for Visesadvaita and not Advaita, then he owes us (especially me) an apology for misleading us all this time. This thread is for "Understanding Advaita" it is not "Understanding Visesadvaita"…

LOL… If I am a Viśiṣṭādvaitin then my Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and his Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and his Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and his Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and his Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and his Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and his Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and his Guru is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… all the way to Śaṅkarācārya… then Śaṅkarācārya is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and Govindapāda is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and Gauḍapāda is a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… and therefore – as a self-proclaimed follower of Gauḍapāda – you are a Viśiṣṭādvaitin… LOL…

 

[Shântoham]

Sūrya Deva wrote: Let us look at those citation again which very explicitly say Ishvara is a product of Maya, and this time I will also cite the surrounding verses around it to make the context clear:

LOL… Even if you copy & post the entire text you will not make the context clear. The context of a text is extablished by the Siddhānta – therefore only the Siddhānta can clarify the context. Only a person that has imbibed the knowledge of the whole Śāstra can clarify the context and not someone who just reads books.
If verse 6.133 very explicitly says that Īṣvara is a product of Māyā it would be in contradiction with all those verses – 1.16-17, 3.38, and 4.12, for example – which state that Māyā is the power of Īśvara. Why would the text contradict itself? Or Śruti? Or Bhagavadgītā? Or Bhāṣya? It would not do such a nonsensical thing.
But since I already refuted your claims in a previous post there is no need for me to repeat myself – no matter how many times you plan to post those verses. LOL…
I will nevertheless unfold the context a little for the ones that are interested. The first five chapters of the text contain the suffix Viveka in their titles – because they deal with various types of discrimination that help in understanding the principles of Advaita Vedānta better. This is the Prakaraṇa portion of the text – where the Siddhānta is defined – it unlocks the rest of the text. That’s why the verses I used to refute your interpretation of verse 6.133 – 1.16-17, 3.38, and 4.12 – come from this portion of the text and traditionally are considered leading verses in respect to the rest of the text – especially the second part – when it comes to define and understand Īśvara, Māyā, and the relationship between the two.
The five chapters from the 6th to the 10th contain the suffix Dīpa in their titles – because they throw light – Dīpa means light or lamp – on the subtler aspects of Advaita Vedānta. Their main function is the refutation of contentions contrary to the Advaita Siddhānta.
And the five chapters from the 11th to the 15th contain the word Ānanda in their titles – because their subject-matter is the Pūrṇatvam arising out of the realization of Brahman.
Chapter six – from which you quote profusely to support your contention – deals with five topics: 1) universal superimposition (Verses 1-17), 2) Jīva and Kūṭastha (Verses 18-56), 3) different views of the Ātmā (Verses 57-101), 4) Īśvara and Māyā (Verses 102-209), 5) Jīvanmukti (Verses 210-290).
Its title is Citradīpa because Brahman is explained by comparison with the canvas on which a picture is drawn – Citra. Just as there are four stages in the painting of a picture, there are four stages in the apparent modification of Brahman. In the painting of a picture the four stages are: a clean white canvas, the canvas stiffened with starch, the canvas with outlines drawn on it with a black pencil, and the canvas with colors applied to the picture. The corresponding four stages with regard to Brahman are: pure Consciousness, Consciousness as the indwelling controller in all beings, Consciousness as associated with the totality of subtle bodies, and Consciousness as associated with the totality of gross bodies.
The bulk of your citations come from the fourth topic – Īśvara and Māyā – and the rest comes from the fifth topic – Jīvanmukti. In them the author explains that Brahman is pure consciousness, infinite, devoid of parts, and all-pervading. Māyā or Prakṛti, which is the power of Brahman, is neither real nor unreal; it is indeterminable. Māyā can be looked upon in three ways. For the ordinary people it is real. For the Jñāni it does not exist at all. For those who try to understand Māyā through reasoning it is indeterminable. Māyā projects the universe without in anyway affecting Brahman. Making the impossible happen is the nature of Māyā.
Brahman reflected in Māyā is Īśvara. Īśvara controls Māyā, but the Jīva is under the control of Māyā. Īśvara is the indweller and inner controller – Antaryāmi – in every living being. He is omniscient and is the cause of the universe. He causes the manifestation of the universe and creates beings in accordance with their past Karma. Creation is like the unrolling of a painted canvas. If the painted canvas is rolled up, the picture is no longer visible. In the same way, when the Karma of living beings is exhausted, Īśvara withdraws the universe into Himself. Then the universe and all beings remain in a latent form till the commencement of the next cycle of creation. Īśvara is the cause of the inanimate objects through the tamasic aspect of Māyā. He is the cause of the Jīvas through the reflection of pure consciousness in Māyā. Brahman is unconditioned by Māyā, while Īśvara is conditioned by Māyā and is the creator of the universe. The Upaniṣads declare that Brahman is reality, consciousness, and infinity. The sense organs and the mind cannot grasp it.
Hiraṇyagarbha is the totality of the subtle bodies of all Jīvas. Virat is the totality of all gross bodies.
The whole world is a creation of Īśvara and Jīva. From the determination of Īśvara to create, down to His entrance into the created objects as the inner controller, is the creation of Īśvara. From the waking state to liberation is the creation of the Jīva.
A person who has realized his identity with the changeless Self that is pure Consciousness is not affected by anything that happens to the body.
Detachment, knowledge of the Reality and giving up desire-prompted actions mutually assist one another. Detachment arises from the realization that the happiness arising from objects is impermanent. Knowledge of the Reality is attained by hearing the Scriptures, reflecting on them, and contemplation. Cessation of desire-prompted activities results from control of the mind. Of these three, the knowledge of the Reality is the most important. These three come to a person who has acquired a vast store of merit – Puṇya – in innumerable past lives. The summit of detachment is the total absence of desire even for the pleasures of the world of Brahmā. The summit of the knowledge of the Reality is reached when a person experiences his identity with the supreme Self as firmly as an ordinary man identifies himself with his physical body. The height of cessation of desire-prompted activities is the complete forgetfulness of all worldly affairs even in the waking state as in the state of deep sleep.
Enlightened people may behave in different ways according to their fructifying Karma, but there is no difference in their knowledge of the Reality or in the nature of their liberation.
The universe is like a picture drawn on the supreme Brahman. When we ignore the distinctions, which are all caused by Māyā, pure Consciousness alone remains.
This chapter, when regularly studied, frees the intelligent aspirant from the delusion that the world is absolutely real, even though he may continue to see the world as before.

Pranāms

P.S. – Sūrya Deva wrote: Soul, God and universe ultimately disappear on realization because they are illusions produced by Maya.

Nothing disappears. Śaṅkarācārya has this to say in Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya 4.1.19: As long as the body of the Jñāni lasts there will be Bheda Darśanam, that is, the Jñāni will be experiencing the world of duality through his sense/motor organs/mind. This is required for the Jñāni’s Prarabdha Bhoga. After the fall of the body, that is death, this Bheda Darśanam will no more be there.
At the end of Bhagavadgītā Bhāṣya 2.16 Śaṅkarācārya says the Jñāni – Tattvadarśī – will view all dualities as unreal, merely appearing as though they are real, just as mirage-water. The Bheda is seen as Mithyā by the Jñāni.

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Sūrya Deva wrote: This post is going to be the death knell to Shantoham's position…

LOL… Don’t exaggerate.

Sūrya Deva wrote: In fact I would not be surprised if he does not post here again after this.

LOL… Spot on, as usual.

Sūrya Deva wrote: He says explicitly here Brahman and Maya are the same reality.

LOL… It’s not going to be so easy to put words in my mouth… LOL… The Siddhānta is clear – Brahman and Īśvara are the same reality. Māyā cannot be separated from Brahman.
There is only one non-dual Brahman inseparably endowed with the potential to manifest – as the sun is inseparably endowed with the power of illumination and fire is inseparably endowed with the power to heat.
Brahman’s inseparable potential to manifest is called Māyā. The other name for Māyā is Prakṛti.
Māyā or Prakṛti is the name for the universe in an undifferentiated and unmanifest form – like a seed is a tree in an undifferentiated and unmanifest form, or the stillness of water is a wave in an unmanifest and undifferentiated form.
From the perspective of the manifest universe, Brahman with its potential to manifest is called Īśvara. It is merely a name, not a different character. Another name for Īśvara is Saguṇa Brahman.
From the perspective of Brahman there is no controller, no reflection, and no medium! There is only the Reality that is either manifest – when it gets the name universe (Jagat) – or unmanifest – when it gets the name Īśvara.
The phrase, ‘Īśvara is consciousness reflected in Māyā’ or ‘Māyā creates Īśvara’, is a shorthand way to indicate that Īśvara is the name given to consciousness (Satyam-Jñānam-Anantam Brahman) associated with the manifest form of the universe. More strictly, Īśvara is the name given to consciousness (Brahman) associated with the unmanifest form of the universe. The name given to the unmanifest form of the universe is Māyā. So Īśvara is the name for consciousness (Brahman) associated with Māyā. We can understand Īśvara as the total universal natural law and order poised for manifestation.
Two things need clearing at this point: what is meant by ‘consciousness (Brahman) associated with Māyā’? And what is Māyā? Brahman is associated with Māyā as the sun is associated with its inseparable power to illumine, and fire with its inseparable power to heat, or water with its power to wet. This is not a possessor-possessed association: Brahman does not possess Māyā. Māyā is Brahman’s inseparable potential to manifest. Another way of saying this same thing is: Māyā is the inseparable potential of consciousness to manifest.
There aren’t two things, Brahman and Māyā. Māyā has no independent existence outside Brahman, it is ‘as though’ existent, Mithyā. And, being Mithyā, it can be resolved back into that on which it is dependent, namely, consciousness (Brahman). Ultimately there is only consciousness in truth. Of even more importance is to note that there are not three separate entities either: Brahman, Īśvara, and Māyā. There is only one, non-dual, secondless Brahman.
The step before full manifestation can be imagined as Brahman poised for manifestation: i.e. Brahman (pure existence-consciousness) together with its potential to become manifest (Māyā Śakti). An analogy that is useful is of undisturbed water: i.e. water with its potential to manifest in the form of waves, ripples, etc. This potential is the stillness of water.
Undifferentiated and unmanifest in this stillness of water are countless waves, ripples, breakers, foam, etc. Only when the stillness is disturbed do these become manifest. Stillness of water can thus be seen as unmanifest waves, ripples, etc.
Similarly Māyā is the unmanifest form of the universe: three undifferentiated and unmanifest powers of knowledge, action, and materialisation (Jñāna, Krīyā, and Dravya Śaktis). In this poised state Māyā can be described as being ‘under control’ as there is no movement, no manifestation, no differentiation.
So finally all the concepts come together: the perceptible universe can be described as Īśvara manifest, i.e. the power of consciousness made manifest. And Īśvara, poised immediately prior to manifestation, is consciousness (Brahman) ‘together with’ its manifesting power (Māy&#257 under control, i.e. undifferentiated and unmanifest. Īśvara is consciousness with Māyā under control.
When the equipoise of Māyā is ‘disturbed’ (due to universal Prārabdha) the three undifferentiated and unmanifest powers (Jñāna, Krīyā, and Dravya Śaktis) become manifest as the three Guṇas (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas), which combine in different proportions to form the primordial elements, which themselves re-combine to manifest as the subtle and gross universe of names and forms. Pervading all this changeable roll-out is the changeless consciousness Brahman.

Sūrya Deva wrote: The only means to liberation is not worship worship of Ishvara, but only through knowledge.

LOL… I never said that liberation is through worship of Īśvara – even if, in the case of Kramamukti, Arcanā and Upāsanā lead the Bhakta to the higher Loka it is Jñāna that takes him to Mokṣa. I only spoke of Īśvara and Bhakti to refute your claims that Avaita Vedānta is atheistic. It is not, it never was, and it never will be.
There are two Yogas or means of evolution towards Mokṣa – one is Karma Yoga and the other is Jñāna Yoga. There is no separate Bhakti Yoga. Loke’smin dvividhā niṣṭā ... Jñāna yogena sāṅkhyānāṁ karma yogena – two paths have been ordained by Me in the very beginning (of creation). One is the path of Jñāna and the other path of Karma (Bhagavadgītā 3.3).
Karma Yoga cannot give Mokṣa since Mokṣa is not Aprāptasya Prāptam – the gaining of something that one does not intrinsically have. Beside action that is finite cannot give a result that is of infinite nature. Karma Yoga can purify the mind and a purified mind is the instrument needed for Jñāna. Hence, Karma Yoga gives Cittaśuddhi and with that, one can gain knowledge. Jñāna Yoga leads to Jñāna – the knowledge of reality. Bhakti is essential for both Karma Yoga and Jñāna Yoga. Karma Yoga involves Īśvarārpita Buddhi (to do our duty, to the best of our abilities, with devotion) and Prasāda Buddhi (the attitude to accept the fruits of our actions as a reward from Bhagavān), which is possible only if one has Bhakti towards Īśvara.
Bhakti is essential for Jñāna – that leads to Ananya Cinta or single pointed inquiry of Jñāna Yoga. Here Bhakti for Īśvara turns into Bhakti for Ātmavicāra – hence in Vivekacūḍāmaṇi 32 Śaṅkarācārya says:

Mokṣa kāraṇa sāmaagryām bhaktireva garīyasī|
Svasvarūpa anusandhānam bhaktir ityabhidhīyate||
Svātma tattvānusandhānam bhaktir ityapare jaguḥ|

// Among the means and conditions necessary for Mokṣa, Bhakti alone is supreme. A constant contemplation of one’s own Real Nature is called Bhakti. Others say that Bhakti means a constant enquiry into the Truth of one’s own Self //

 

[Shântoham]

Therefore, Bhakti is essential for Jñāna as well as Karma to transform them into Yoga.
It is only when you undergo a thorough study of Advaita Vedānta under a competent Guru and obtain an understanding of the teaching method will you appreciate this. Till then there is no point in carrying on this discussion for you keep holding on to the un-advaitic and un-sampradāyic notions about Īśvara.
Those – like you – who claim that Advaita Vedānta has little or no place for Bhakti do not know the texts of the Advaita tradition at all. Prior to Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, Śri Vidyāraṇya had already discussed Bhagavad-Bhakti in the context of Jīvanmukti, in the Jīvanmuktiviveka. Even in the Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya, there is a reference to Bhakti along with Dhyāna and Praṇidhāna as a means to Ātma-Darśana. It is that Ātmā- Darśana that takes one to a state free of scriptural injunctions, but note that this Ātmā-Darśana happens while in the earthly body; it does not have to wait for the death of the body. The loss of distinction of Bhagavān and Bhakta and therefore the non-application of dualistic Bhakti is also after such Ātmā-Darśana, not before. Abiding in the state of Ātmā-Darśana IS what is called Abheda Bhakti.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Now let us look at what the Panchadasi says explicitly. Again I will produce the preceding and proceeding 5 verses to show the context clearly…

LOL… Through the Siddhānta I refuted all your claims in my previous posts. Now I will refute your claims using your own sources. Your claims are simple: 1) Māyā is illusion; 2) Īśvara, Jīva, and Jagat are produced by Māyā; 3) Jīva, Īśvara, and Jagat ultimately disappear on realization because they are illusions produced by Māyā.
To support your claims you post verses from the English translations of the Rāmakṛṣṇa Maṭh – does the Rāmakṛṣṇa Maṭh agree with your interpretation of the Advaita Siddhānta?
In A summary of Māṇḍūkya Kārikā – the Apendix of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad translated by Swāmī Śarvānanda – Swāmī Tyāgīśānanda writes: …It is not implied thereby that the world is unreal; for it could not be unreal inasmuch as it is nothing but the real Ātman itself. From the standpoint of this highest realization, there could be no realation between the world and God, for both are the same. God exists as the creator only so long as the world of appearances is considered as a reality, and a cause is sought for it. In other words, God is as much real as the world; neither of them should therefore be considered as mere illusion… (pg. 34). …But really why this Ātman appears as different from itself is inexplicable, and it is this inexplicability that is denoted by the word Māyā. The illustrations of dream, illusions, the castle in the air, and the like are given only to show the inexplicable nature of world phenomena and to emphasise the capacity of ignorance to cloud the real nature of a thing and make it appear as something different. These and other illustrations are not to be taken as arguments for proving the unreal nature of the world phenomena, as ignorant opponents of Advaita are prone to do. Illustrations are always meant only to illustrate particular points and should not be stretched to cover all points; for they would cease to be illustrations… (pg. 40). …Another misunderstanding also needs to be cleared. Gauḍapāda is not a believer in the idea that the world will vanish into nothing when the Truth is realized. Everything may remain, but one will not consider then real and, therefore, would not get attached to them. This is the only result of realization, and as attachment constitutes the only bondage, there is no more bondage for one when one realizes everything as the Self. Thus Jīvamukti or liberation in the embodied state is the the last word of philosophy and religion – its only rational prop and proof. It is when one realizes that one becomes a true Brāmaṇa… (pg. 50).
In the Editorial of the Vedānta Kesari of May 1993 Swāmī Tyāgānanda writes: …The Vedāntins don’t claim that the world is absolutely unreal. They say that it is neither real nor unreal. It is a mixture of existence and nonexistence… (pg.7-8). …The Upaniṣads point out that whatever is perceived is in reality Brahman alone. What this means is that the creation of the world is only an appearance. The apparent existence of the world does not contradict the absolute Being of the supreme Reality. As a matter of fact, it is this absolute Being that seemingly lends the world its existence… …just as it is correct to say that the “snake” that is perceived is in reality nothing but a rope, similarly the Upaniṣads point out that the “world” that is perceived is in reality nothing but Brahman… (pg.10-11). …At Mukti the apparent reality of the world vanishes and the free soul “sees” Brahman where we ignorant ones see the unreal world… (pg.11).
In The charming power of the Upaniṣads Swāmī Raṅganāthānanda writes: …If everything is the Ātman or Brahman, the universe of name and form cannot be an illusion. The Upaniṣads consider it as Māyā; but this does not mean illusion… …all our experiences and knowledge in the sphere of Māyā are experiences and knowledge of the Ātman coming through the sense organs. Hence they are not illusory, but true… (pg. 10).
In The spiritual heritage of India Swāmī Prabhāvānanda writes: …Māyā, this apparent world, has its basis in Brahman, the eternal… …It is not nonexistent, yet it differs from the Reality, the Brahman, upon whom it depends for its existence… (pg. 284). …The world of thought and matter has a phenomenal or relative existence, and is superimposed upon Brahman, the unique, absolute reality… (pg. 286). …Īśvara is Brahman united with Māyā – the combination which creates, preserves, and dissolves the universe in an endless and beginningless process… (pg. 288).
In Meditation and spiritual life Swāmī Yatīśvarānanda writes: …The word ‘unreal’ should not be misconstrued. The perception of a snake in place of a rope is not false in the sense of there being absolutely nothing to account for the appearance of the snake. The rope forms the substratum, the basis, on which is superimposed the idea of the snake. Māyā is not an illusion in the sense of mere nothingness. It is a term coined to explain how the one immutable Brahman appears as this manifold universe… (pg. 468-69). …First of all, an aspirant sees the many, and then he tries to see the One in the many, both the One and the many appearing as real. Advancing further, he realizes that the One alone is real in the true sense of the term, and the phenomenon has only a secondary reality which is entirely dependent on the existence of the One… (pg. 470).
In Insights into Vedānta Swāmī Sunirmalānanda writes: …Māyā according to Advaita Vedānta is that power which veils the Truth and makes It appear as many. Māyā consists of three qualities, Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas… The words Māyā, Prakṛti, Avidyā, and so on are synonyms. The Prakṛti of Sāṃkhyans is a real entity, but that of Advaita is relatively real… (pg. 234-35).
In Journey from many to one Swāmī Bhāskarānanda writes: …Saguṇa Brahman and Nirguṇa Brahman are essentially one and the same… (pg. 25).
In the Complete Works vol. 2 Swāmī Vivekānanda writes: …The word Māyā generally is used, though incorrectly, to denote illusion, or delusion, or some such thing… (pg. 89).

After taking in consideration this random selection of quotations it seems that the Rāmakṛṣṇa Maṭh does not agree with your interpretation of the Advaita Siddhānta. And they are Neo-Vedāntins – what to speak of traditional Vedāntins?

 

[Shântoham]

In post #130 you quoted the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) – A Peer-Reviewed Accademic Resource – to support your claims – does the IEP agree with your interpretation of the Advaita Siddhānta?
In http://www.iep.utm.edu/adv-veda/ we read: …According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and immanent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (Māy&#257. The world has no separate existence apart from Brahman…
…Brahman thus cannot be known as an individual object distinct from the individual self. However, it can be experienced indirectly in the natural world of experience as a personal God, known as Saguņa Brahman, or Brahman with qualities. It is usually referred to as Īśvara...
…Brahman appears as the manifold objects of experience because of its creative power, Māyā. Māyā is that which appears to be real at the time of experience but which does not have ultimate existence. It is dependent on pure consciousness...
…Brahman appears as the manifold world without undergoing an intrinsic change or modification. At no point of time does Brahman change into the world. The world is but a Vivarta, a superimposition on Brahman. The world is neither totally real nor totally unreal. It is not totally unreal since it is experienced. It is not totally real since it is sublated by knowledge of Brahman…
…The creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the world are overseen by Īśvara. Īśvara is the purest manifestation of Brahman. Brahman with the creative power of Māyā is Īśvara...
…The Pramāṅas do not contradict each other and each of them presents a distinct kind of knowledge. Nonfoundational knowledge of Brahman cannot be had by any means but through Śruti, which is the supernaturally revealed text in the form of the Vedas (of which the Upaniṣads form the most philosophical portion). Inference and the other means of knowledge cannot determinately reveal the truth of Brahman on their own...
…Mokṣa (liberation), which consists in the cessation of the cycle of life and death, governed by the Karma of the individual self, is the result of knowledge of Brahman...

After taking in consideration this random selection of quotations it seems that even the IEP does not agree with your interpretation of the Advaita Siddhānta. Who does? Perhaps the Buddhists… LOL…

Sūrya Deva wrote: This is Advaita.

LOL… Not according to Śruti and Bhāṣya.

Sūrya Deva wrote: I am an Advaitin.

LOL… No, it has been proven once more that you are just a Sūryadevin.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Shantoham is a Visesadvaitin.

LOL… A what?

Sūrya Deva wrote: One must ask why is he even posting here…

LOL… Because here is where you keep on distorting the Advaita Vedānta Siddhānta.

Sūrya Deva wrote: And how could he have the gall to call a genuine Advaitin a non Advaitin?

LOL… I never called a genuine Advaitin a non Advaitin – I called a Sūryadevin a Sūryadevin. If it quacks like a duck…

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

This post is addressed to the OP and to those who sincerely are trying to understand Advaita.
It has been claimed that only Brahman exist and that, in reality, there has never been any creation. Both these ideas are presented as pure Advaita.
Both of these ideas are pure Advaita from a certain standpoint (the Pāramārthika only), but putting them together in a certain way, and then applying them to the creation, which is Mithyā, makes for confusion.
One can say: “In reality there is only the Pāramārthika. There is no creation”. That’s okay to say from the standpoint of the Pāramārthika. That's okay to say from the standpoint of the reality which is only Pāramārthika. But what about from the standpoint of the creation, of Mithyā, of experience?
The creation is Mithyā. If you call the creation Mithyā, and you say there is no creation, then you are effectively saying that Mithyā is Tuccham, non-existent. Vedānta doesn't say that.
From the standpoint of the creation you can’t say that there never has been a creation. What you can say is this creation is Brahman, Mithyā Brahman, not Pāramārthika Brahman. It has a dependent reality.
While you are within the creation, it exists as Mithyā, which although depending on Brahman for its existence, does not mean that it does not exist to be experienced.
One cannot transactionally experience the son of a barren woman, the horn of a rabbit, etc. (that which is non-existent) here within the creation, because they do not exist to be experienced.
One can experience heat/cold, hunger/ thirst, pain/pleasure, etc. So those things which can be experienced are Mithyā Brahman, or also can be referenced as being in the given scheme of things, or Īśvara Śṛṣṭi, because our individual minds did not make them up.
If we say there is only Brahman, there has never been any creation, then we effectively have only two orders of reality, Pāramārthika Brahman, and Tuchham. If Tuccham doesn't exist, then we just have Pāramārthika. That’s okay too from thr standpoint of the Pāramārthika.
But Vedānta teaches us there are three orders of reality, Pāramārthika, Mithyā and Tuccham. While Tuccham, being non-existent, doesn’t really need to be discussed, Mithyā does.
If we leave out or dismiss the creation, we’ve left out and dismissed Mithyā, and the teachings of Vedānta do not do that.
So from the Pāramārthika standpoint, it is true there is no creation, but from the creation standpoint, there is; and we call it Mithyā, which is a word which accounts for what the creation is, or explains it.
I do not like the phrase apparent reality because it makes for confusion. Instead the phrase, dependent reality, is used which is felt to convey more accurately what the creation is.
Why can what we see and experience be called Īśvara Śṛṣṭi? Because it is not the creation of our individual minds.
We can see that the creation is highly logical, orderly and complex, and that it is held together by, and functioning through, an intricate set of laws, which our individual minds cannot change or make to function differently.
*That* is the intelligence which is manifest and operating here, woven through the creation warp and woof. That intelligence is a called a power of Brahman; and we also call that intelligence Īśvara, which is Brahman manifest as the creation.
So, that is why those born as Hindus, within that tradition, whose very culture is based upon this understanding, do not have any problem with seeing every manifest thing as Īśvara or divine, which being a manifestation of Brahman it would have to be. And unlike the son of a barren woman, one can have a transactional relationship with Īśvara, which means one can see every single thing as divine, and relate to it as such, or one can choose one single thing to focus on and relate to it as such.
Sometimes words such as the above may seem dualistic, but we have to use them to understand the experience of the creation. If we are trying to understand the creation which is here to be experienced, and we just say, there never has been one, that isn’t exactly correct.
So Mithyā is not some sort of intermediate teaching, which is later withdrawn and replaced by the teaching of Pāramārthika Satyam, as in everything is actually only Brahman and in reality, there has never been any creation. This statement only applies from the standpoint of Pāramārthika Satyam, and not from the standpoint of the creation, which exists to be experienced and has a dependent reality.
Brahma satyam. Brahman is being. The Jīva is Brahman. I am Brahman.
Jīvatvam is Mithyā. I do not depend upon name and form for my being. Or one can say, my being does not depend on name and form for existence.
Jagan mithyā. Name and form depend upon me. The creation depends upon me for its existence. The creation (the whole Jagat) all name and form, depend upon me/Brahman for their existence. Therefore, I am the whole.

Pranāms

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Mithyā means "unreal"
Māyā means "illusion"

This is my way of looking at it.

I do not believe that Mithya can be dismissed as unreal, or it can't be viewed as absolutely real. Because of a mistranslation of this word (I don't know if it can be better translated into English), some think that the universe identified as mithya, to be an illusion or false. This belief consequently gets people to believe that the cosmos can be discounted as if it was absolutely non-existent.

I see Mithya more as upsetting the mind or causes confusion in the way the mind perceives the One Existence.