Ah, perhaps @Aupmanyav might be able. I want to look them up in Wiktionary, to get a better sense of meaning, if I can.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The History of Advaita
- Thread starter Zwing
- Start date
In your understanding, does the atman have consciousness? Does the soul, and/or the soul-body?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I think what you have said id outstanding and I agree wholly with it.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Or perhaps one small 'self' is denying what the other small 'self' says because of its own prejudices. These small selves are so annoying.
Just like Self and self, atman also is written in two ways - Atman and atman.
In Devanagari script, Sanskrit and Hindi, 'atman' is written only in one way (the context shows what exactly is meant):
आत्मन्
Kindly note: the last 'n' is truncated. It is not the full sound of 'na', but known in Devanagari as 'Hrasva'.
Last edited:
Yes to atman, not sure as to soul-body. It's a vehicle, like a car. Does a car have consciousness?
The Self couldn't possibly be annoyed.Or perhaps one small 'self' is denying what the other small 'self' says because of its own prejudices. These small selves are so annoying.
Just like Self and self, atman also is written in two ways - Atman and atman.
For “self” in Sanskrit, I have found स्वयम् (svayam), which can mean “self”, or in apparently adverbial senses “spontaneously”, “voluntarily”; and also आत्मन् (ātmán) which just like Latin animus can mean “breath”, “soul”, “self”, or “essential nature”. Are there additional terms for “self” or “Self”?
I have no idea. Aup might know though.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
No, the car does not have a consciousness.
Zwing, you are correct about Swayam - myself. Swa/Sui + Ayam - by this (self).
Yeah, Self is neither annoyed nor pleased. It has no such preferences. And it is alone. Who will annoy it?
Last edited:
Alone not as a part or aspect of you that is without any other, rather alone because, other than being part of you, it is the real you…the true nature of even your physical being, which is the same as the true nature of everything else, and is merged with it (?) I sort of view Brahman as fulfilling the true, etymological meaning of the word substance: “that (ultimate reality) which stands beneath (all things)”. It is the universal substance.
Last edited:
Pertaining to Advaitic history, it seems that Advaita arose out of a scholarly tradition providing exegesis on the Upanishads. Based upon that, it seems to me that we should be able to trace a line of Advaitic or Brahmanical thinking back through the writings of at least some of the exegetes of the Upanishads. Among the earliest of these was Badarayana who in anpproximately the first century BCE authored the Brahmasūtras. I find myself wondering, what do the Brahmasūtras as well as the Gauḍapadakarikas of Gaudapada have to say with respect to non-duality?
Last edited:
Thank you. We can learn together, then.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yes, by the time of Upanishads, Aryans had assimilated with the Indigenous, and the philosophical exchange was on. The oldest Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka, by tradition as well as scholarship, is dated around 9-600 BCE, and carries the first Upanishadic declaration of Advaita - 'Prajnanam Brahma' (Brahman is Consciousness). Brahmasutra is dated much later and is quiet interesting because it is in the form of 'aphorisms'. Very short curt statements, which cannot be understood without commentary.
I may mention that the Advaita of Brahma Sutra is not my kind of Bare-bone Advaita. It is the majority kind of Advaita, which accepts souls and Supersoul.
I am giving two links of exposition of Brahmasutras by Swami Krishnananda, which I think are the best of the genre:
1. https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0/Brahma_Sutra.pdf
This has the Brahma Sutras and their explanation.
2. https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/Analysis_of_the_Brahma_Sutra.pdf
This does not go by the Sutras but discusses by subject.
I will give an example of how Swami Krishnananda discusses the aphorisms:
Atha atah Brahma-jijnasa. (This is the first line of Brahmasutras. With conjugation it becomes 'Athato Brahma-jijnasa')
Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman.
Atha: now, then, afterwards; Atah: therefore; Brahmajijnasa: a desire for the knowledge of Brahman (the enquiry into the real nature of Brahman).
Sutra literally means a string. It serves the purpose of stringing together the flowers of the Vedanta passages.
The word Atha is not used to introduce a new subject that is going to be taken up. It is here to be taken as denoting immediate consecution.
The enquiry of Brahman specially depends upon some antecedent conditions. The enquirer should be endowed with certain spiritual requisites or qualifications. Then only the enquiry is possible.
Atha i.e., after the attainment of certain preliminary qualifications such as the four means of salvation viz., (1) Nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka (discrimination between the eternal and the non-eternal); (2) Ihamutrarthaphalabhogaviraga (indifference to the enjoyment in this life or in heaven, and of the fruits of one’s actions); (3) Shatsampat (sixfold virtues viz., Sama—control of mind, Dama—control of the external senses, Uparati—cessation from worldly enjoyments or not thinking of objects of senses or discontinuance of religious ceremonies, Titiksha—endurance of pleasure and pain, heat and cold, Sraddha—faith in the words of the preceptor and of the Upanishads and Samadhana—deep concentration); (4) Mumukshutva (desire for liberation).
Those who have got an earnest desire for the knowledge of Brahman only are fit for the study of Vedanta Philosophy or Brahma Sutras. Even without possessing the knowledge of Karma Kanda which deals with religious ceremonies or sacrifices, a desire for attaining the knowledge of Brahman will arise direct from the study of the Srutis. The enquiry of Brahman does not depend on the performance of any acts.
You must know and realise the eternal Brahman. Then only you will attain eternal bliss, freedom, perfection and immortality. You must have certain preliminary qualifications for your search. Why should you enquire about Brahman? Because the fruits obtained by sacrifices etc., are ephemeral, whereas the knowledge of Brahman is eternal. Life in this earth and the life in heaven which you will attain on account of your virtuous deeds is transient. If you know Brahman, you will enjoy everlasting bliss and immortality. That is the reason why you must start the quest of Brahman or the Truth or the Ultimate Reality.
A time comes when a person becomes indifferent to Karmas. He knows that Karmas cannot give him everlasting, unalloyed happiness which is not mixed with pain, sorrow and fear. Therefore, naturally, a desire arises in him for the knowledge of Brahman or the all-pervading, eternal Soul which is above Karmas, which is the source of eternal happiness.
Charvakas or Lokayatikas think that the body is the soul. Some think that the senses are the soul. Some others think that the mind is the soul. Some think that the intellect is the soul. Some think that the soul is a mere momentary idea.
Some think that nothing exists in reality. Some think that there is a soul which is different from the body which is both agent and enjoyer of the fruits of action. Others hold that he is not a doer but is only an enjoyer. Some think that the individual soul is a part of the Supreme Soul. Vedantins maintain that the individual soul is identical with the Supreme Soul. Different schools of philosophy hold different views.
Therefore it is necessary to examine the truth of things very carefully. Knowledge of Brahman destroys Avidya or ignorance which is the root of all evil, or the seed of this formidable Samsara or worldly life. Hence you must entertain the desire of knowing Brahman.
Knowledge of Brahman leads to the attainment of the final emancipation. Hence an enquiry about Brahman through the study of the Srutis which treats of Brahman is worthwhile and should be undertaken.
The question now arises: What are the characteristics of that Brahman? The nature of the Brahman is described in the following
Sutra or aphorisms.
Yeah, it is heavy reading.
I am searching for Advaita in RigVeda, but it is going to take some time.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The following are the main/old Upanishads in Hinduism and are known as 'Mukhya' (Principal) Upanishad and revered.
Brihadaranyaka, Chhandogya, Mundaka, Prashna, Katha, Mandukya, Aitareya, Taittiriya, Kena, Isavasya, Shvetashvatara, Kausitaki, Maitrayani.
There are many others. Muktika anthology lists 108. Some of them may have verses of wisdom but many others are not cared about.
Brihadaranyaka, Chhandogya, Mundaka, Prashna, Katha, Mandukya, Aitareya, Taittiriya, Kena, Isavasya, Shvetashvatara, Kausitaki, Maitrayani.
There are many others. Muktika anthology lists 108. Some of them may have verses of wisdom but many others are not cared about.
Last edited:
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Advaita - like other mainstream Vedanta systems - separates the Atman from the body.
1. The Atman has no beginning and no end.
2. The Atman has Karma attached to it; Karma has no beginning, but it does have an end
Advaita differs from other Vedanta systems in the identity of the Atman. Other systems see the Atman as a distinct entity with its own identity and obviously also acknowledge multiple distinct Atmans. This is how Aup, Ajay, Zwing, etc are distinct and will find Moksha at different times.
Advaita dismisses all duality. Creation itself is denied by Gaudapada as unreal.Therefore, multiple, distinct Atmans are not possible (check Shankara's commentary on the Mandukya Karika 3.14) There can only be one Atman and this Atman = Brahman. And as there is nothing thing else that is considered real, it is also equally true that Brahman = Atman (Shankara's interpretation of Aham Brahmasmi and the other Mahavakhyas).
Specifically here, Zwing you are the Atman, and all duality is unreal.
Couple of questions: What was the approximate date of this, if that is known? Also, did this more philosophical understanding represent a significant break from older Hindu theology, wherein the members of the Trimurti each have a part to play in this process: Brahma/Creator, Vishnu/sustainer, and Shiva/destroyer?