The History of Advaita

[Vinayaka]

I’m going to have to ask a moderator to expand the title of this thread, since we are discussing much more than the history of Advaita.

A couple of thoughts pertaining to this. Firstly, do you consider yourself an Advaitin? Secondly, I have approached something similar to Advaita from an intellectual standpoint, more like a “monist” worldview, particularly of substance monism.

Monism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Because of my essential atheism, I have difficulty with any aspect of spirituality which suggests the supernatural. I am no longer a ‘spiritual’ man. I think resultingly, the concept that I currently have of Advaita is quite materialistic, meaning that it pertains to the ‘stuff’ that we perceive in the universe. For me thus far, it is less a spiritual state, and more a physical reality. For instance, to me the concept of mass-energy equivalence, and that matter can be converted to energy, and more importantly, vice-versa, is at root an ‘advaitic’ concept; the expression E=mc^2 is an ‘advaitic’ statement. What it seems to say to me, is that the two basic types of stuff that we see in the universe, matter and energy, are merely manifestations of the same underlying reality, a reality which we humans cannot perceive yet have evidence of nonetheless. What do you think of this idea?

I have no idea, nor can I pretend I do, so I will be out. My school is called monistic Saiva Siddhantha for a reason, I presume. You sound like you'd fit into the school we know as Aupvaitha. Best wishes.

 

[Vinayaka]

A person to which this happens could continue to interact with transactional reality without a noticeable external change, but internally, their perception may be changed entirely.

The ego 'I' is still experienced, but attachment and desire fall away.

Since the ego is still there, tendencies such as 'upset' will still arise, but quickly fade when there is no attachment to them.

Personally, I would think that would be a result of savikalpa samadhi, not nirvikalpa samadhi, but who knows?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Another story of Swami is about a local Vedantin who wandered around Jaffna. Swami would sneak up behind him, and touch his shoulder, and the Vedantin would jump a bit, turn, and say 'Who's that?" Swami would then chide him, and say, 'But weren't you telling me yesterday that we are all the same, that there is only one?" to make the point that the Vedantin hadn't actually realised it.

Well, not much different from the story of Chandala asking Shankara as to whom Shankara asking to keep away.
Or Sankara denying that he tried to escape the elephant, He said there is no Sankara and no elephant (or lion, whatever).

The basic problem is people trying to mix Paramarthika (Absolute truth) with Vyavaharika (Pragmatic truth). That is not possible. These are two separate truths, one eternal the other temporary. One can have an understanding of the two, but while in Vyavaharika, one has to do what Vyavaharika demands (for example, eat). Brahman does not need food, but we do. We are creatures of Vyavaharika, in Paramarthika, there is no 'we' or 'I'.

Vyavaharika: Phenomenal world, Paramarthika: Where nothing other than Brahman, the substrate of all things, exists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Happy Birth day, delayed greetings, @SalixIncendium and many returns of the day. How did you celebrate the day?

How is this realization arrived at, if perception and the intellect do not come into play?

Nice question. No realization without perception and intellect. I am not a mystic like my nice friend Vinayaka.
(Vinayaka has a better percentage of likes than me though I have not checked that recently. I admire you, Vinayaka )

 

[Vinayaka]

Nice question. No realization without perception and intellect. I am not a mystic like my nice friend Vinayaka.
(Vinayaka has a better percentage of likes than me though I have not checked that recently. I admire you, Vinayaka )

The Self is beyond the intellect, as it is beyond all time, form, and space. But the good thing is nobody will go into long emotional arguments on being right or wrong. We're allowed to have different views.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita posits that moksha (liberation) is a result of Self-realization, i.e. this Self is identical to Brahman (tat tvam asi), which is immutable, whereas Buddhism posits that nirvana (liberation) is a result of the realization of non-self. Existence/consciousness/bliss in Adviata as compared to emptiness/vacuity in Buddhism.

Buddha counted the question among his 'Acinteyyas' (imponderables), not conducing to alleviation of sorrow, though later Buddhists added terms like Bodhikaya, Dhammakaya, Tathagatgarbha for it. But sure, the difference is realization of 'Anatta' (non-substantiality) and 'Anicca" (impermanence) of Buddhism and that of existence (Brahman) and illusion (Maya) in Advaita, IMHO.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then in approaching Advaita through meditative experience, how can one be sure to arrive at self-realization rather than nirvana, since both disciplines heavily rely upon meditative practice to achieve the desired results. Is it simply a matter of the focus of the meditation and other (perhaps Yogic) practices?

Not IMHO (or you can say 'not in my not-so-humble opinion). For me, meditation is questioning, trying to find answer. It is an analytical exercise, without any mystic or esoteric overtones, purely intellectual and scientific. To each, his/her own way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since the ego is still there, tendencies such as 'upset' will still arise, but quickly fade when there is no attachment to them.

An enlightened person (so to say) has no right to be perturbed by anything. The person will not have any sexual desire beyond what is permitted, anger, pride, greed or attachment, though the person would continue to perform his duties (dharma).
The person would have won over Kama, krodha, mad, lobha, moha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita denies the multiplicity of souls - which unfortunately is a logical contradiction for Vedanta asserts the reality of a soul in bondage and its eventual liberation. But in the case of Advaita, there is no distinct soul and consequently, no bondage or liberation. Very Buddhist.

I, as an atheist Advaitist, deny even the existence of soul. Of course, no bondage or liberation, no birth or death, once the scheme is understood.
Shankara's "Nirvana Shatakam" (Six verses to Nirvana) describes it nicely: Nirvana shatakam
(Also known as 'Atma Shatakam')

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Self is beyond the intellect, as it is beyond all time, form, and space. But the good thing is nobody will go into long emotional arguments on being right or wrong. We're allowed to have different views.

Yeah, Brahman has not been completely understood by science. Time, energy, space. Won't be soon, long way to go.
@Zwing, Vinayaka's 'Aupvaitha' means 'Aupmanyav's Advaita'.
But Salix has his own take on Advaita. It is different from my Advaita.

 

[Zwing]

It may help if you describe how your analogy applies to souls and Brahman.

Advaita denies the multiplicity of souls - which unfortunately is a logical contradiction for Vedanta asserts the reality of a soul in bondage and its eventual liberation. But in the case of Advaita, there is no distinct soul and consequently, no bondage or liberation. Very Buddhist.

Sorry I didn’t get to this last evening…kind of flaked out after washing up.

One thing that I don’t precisely understand about Advaita is the exact nature of ātman. Is this “soul” in the Christian sense of the term, an incorporeal aspect of a human being which has consciousness apart from the body (including after bodily death)? Or rather, is it simply “consciousness”? Or, indeed, is it something entirely different than those, something like essential nature? What do Advaitins mean when they say “soul”?

 

[Zwing]

@Zwing, Vinayaka's 'Aupvaitha' means 'Aupmanyav's Advaita'.

Oh…hahaha, nice derivation, @Vinayaka! As a language-lover, I appreciate stuff like that.

 

[Zwing]

The Self is beyond the intellect, as it is beyond all time, form, and space. But the good thing is nobody will go into long emotional arguments on being right or wrong. We're allowed to have different views.

I do not conceive of the self in this way; self is something that each of us creates in our mind. How this is done and what comes into play during the process has ever been a central problem in western philosophy. Sigmund Freud added much to our understanding of the development of the self. Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, in his interesting book “I am a Strange Loop”, likens the development of the idea of self to the “Strange Loop” mathematical conundrum. What I am getting at, is that the idea of self is a product of the human mind, therefore it arises out of the material, specifically the brain. Any manifestation of the activity of a particular person’s brain and mind is distinct and different from the corresponding manifestation of a different human brain and mind, and therefore exhibits a duality; the self, then, as a product of the human mind, exhibits duality, and so cannot be the aspect of a human being which exhibits non-duality, that is, it cannot represent that essential nature of a human being and of every other thing in the universe. I think, therefore, that “the self”, along with all other manifestations of brain activity, cannot represent essential nature as pertains to the concept of non-duality.

Another term for self, since Freud, is ego. Freud coined the term ego (Latin for “I”) to name the human being’s concept of self, indicating it to be the result of the interaction of the id and the super-ego. If the foregoing is true, particularly that the self is a product of the human mind, then Sankara himself did not seem to associate his essential nature with his concept of self. I have just read his Atma Shatakam, wherein he seems to unequivocally deny that his essential nature, that aspect of his being which exhibits non-duality, is in any way related to his mind in general, or his concept of self in particular:

Neither am I mind, nor intelligence,
Nor ego, nor thought…

…wherein he appears to divorce all products of the human brain from his essential nature. He seems to assert in this, an awareness that there is some aspect of his being which is not a product of the activity of his brain, which is one with all other things in the universe. Since the self is something that each man creates in his own mind largely as a result of his perceptions (as Hofstadter indicates in his book), then the self is mere illusion, and part and parcel of why we cannot see the oneness of all things…the ultimate reality that subsists. What do you think of this?

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not conceive of the self in this way; self is something that each of us creates in our mind. How this is done and what comes into play during the process has ever been a central problem in western philosophy. Sigmund Freud added much to our understanding of the development of the self. Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter, in his interesting book “I am a Strange Loop”, likens the development of the idea of self to the “Strange Loop” mathematical conundrum. What I am getting at, is that the idea of self is a product of the human mind, therefore it arises out of the material, specifically the brain. Any manifestation of the activity of a particular person’s brain and mind is distinct and different from the corresponding manifestation of a different human brain and mind, and therefore exhibits a duality; the self, then, as a product of the human mind, exhibits duality, and so cannot be the aspect of a human being which exhibits non-duality, that is, it cannot represent that essential nature of a human being and of every other thing in the universe. I think, therefore, that “the self”, along with all other manifestations of brain activity, cannot represent essential nature as pertains to the concept of non-duality.

Another term for self, since Freud, is ego. Freud coined the term ego to name the human being’s concept of self, indicating it to be the result of the interaction of the id and the super-ego. If the foregoing is true, particularly that the self is a product of the human mind, then Sankara himself did not seem to associate his essential nature with his concept of self. I have just read his Atma Shatakam, wherein he seems to unequivocally deny that his essential nature, that aspect of his being which exhibits non-duality, is in any way related to his mind in general, or his concept of self in particular:

Neither am I mind, nor intelligence,
Nor ego, nor thought…

…which appears to divorce all products of the human brain from his essential nature. He seems to assert in this, an awareness that there is some aspect of his being which is not a product of the activity of his brain, which is one with all other things in the universe. What do you think of this?

In Hindu mysticism, there are two 'selfs' , partly for the lack of a better word to translate the deeper one to. Generally the deep one is capitalized for the purpose of clarity, and the small 'i' ego-self (Freud's self) is left uncapitalized. The Sanskrit term for Self-Realization is nirvikalpa samadhi, which means total merger of Atman and Brahman, or in Saiva terms, when jiva becomes Siva. This Self cannot be spoken of, is beyond time. form and space, and has to be realized to be known. It has nothing at all to do with ego, which has to be completely dropped in order for realization to occur. Nonetheless, it is the undifferentiated real You when nothing else remains, and is the goal of Advaita. Very few souls know of this Self, but many will stake a claim on it. (due the the small self's defiance.)

 

[Zwing]

This Self cannot be spoken of, is beyond time. form and space, and has to be realized to be known.

Might we also call this in English “essential nature”, then? Or, perhaps, “non-dual nature” (especially in explaining or describing Self to people who don’t know the distinction between Self and self)?

…many will stake a claim on it. (due the the small self's defiance.)

Very perceptive.

 

[Vinayaka]

Might we also call this in English “essential nature”, then? Or, perhaps, “non-dual nature” (especially in explaining or describing Self to people who don’t know the distinction between Self and self)?

Very perceptive.

Yes, I think that would work. There is a certain vibrational clarity that also isn't easily described emanating from those who know it. I'm looking forward to that in about 1000 lifetimes from now. It will be hard work for sure.

 

[Zwing]

Yes, I think that would work. There is a certain vibrational clarity that also isn't easily described emanating from those who know it. I'm looking forward to that in about 1000 lifetimes from now. It will be hard work for sure.

Will you describe your concept of atman for me, Vinayaka? Is it the Self of which you wrote above?

 

[Zwing]

Also,

In Hindu mysticism, there are two 'selfs' , partly for the lack of a better word to translate the deeper one to. Generally the deep one is capitalized for the purpose of clarity, and the small 'i' ego-self (Freud's self) is left uncapitalized.

will you present these two terms in Devanagari script? It may help me to understand the nature of this important distinction.

 

[Vinayaka]

Also,

will you present these two terms in Devanagari script? It may help me to understand the nature of this important distinction.

I don't know Devanagiri script.

 

[Vinayaka]

Will you describe your concept of atman for me, Vinayaka? Is it the Self of which you wrote above?

In my sampradaya, we distinguish between soul, and soul body. The soul is the essence of the soul body. The soul body is the etheric body that migrates from lifetime to lifetime, and called anandamaya kosha in Sanskrit (I may be wrong on that, my memory ain't that good on this kind of stuff) The core of that, which, of course would also migrate, is the Atman, which is identical in essence to Brahman, or Shiva. So yes, it would be thre Self, I guess. For the best explanation of the Self in my sampradaya, my Guru, Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, did a talk (later written down) entitled 'The Self God'. That might be helpful to you. It would be easy to find by googling.