I posted this is another thread, but this is what I feel may b the right definition of advaita, if it can be defined. Samkhya, Nyaya, Jaina, Carvaka/Lokayata, Mimamsa are all atheistic. Even advaita is properly neither atheism nor theism, but transtheism where emphasis may fall on either nontheistic view/practice or theistic view/practice, and may express itself cataphatically, apophatically, or both.
Transtheism means that one is concerned not with God as a supreme being, a creature; but rather the ground of being itself, that which all partite identities take their basis on - including a hypothetical supreme being.
However, some will take the doctrine of ajativada (often taken as the apex teaching), as an extension of vivartavada, itself a branch of satkaryavada, as stating that the effect is pre-existent, in subtle form, in the cause; that is to say, that Ishvara is as much the source of Brahman (insofar as the two can even be divided; which is only at a lowly conceptual level), as Brahman is the source of Ishvara, neither being the source of the other but the same reality expressed in two modes, there being no actual process of divergence or projection.
If we take Ishvara to be an effect of Brahman's transaction with maya. Moreover, many of our traditions emphasize a balance between self-identification with nirguna and saguna forms of brahman as parabrahman. We are not just impersonalists.
Some of us choose to set the nirguna over the saguna. Others don't. And we all find adequate basis in scripture and tradition. The most important factor is one's own realizations on the matter, which is given equal weight by Shankaracharya to shruti itself.
Objects and perceptions are as real as their infusion with the nondual awareness of brahman. Ishvara, and perception of Ishvara, insofar as it is emersed in the nondual awareness of Brahman, is 'real,' as are any other objects which seem to be discrete things to the discursive awareness which uses object as a means of seeming to change its subjective nature.
As Brahman's consciousness can never actually be transfused, remaining everywhere full at all times, there is no actual infusion, no actual emersion into Brahman, and no actual unreality. Illusion itself a symptom of transaction.
The ink and paper advaita is basically a paper tiger incapable of supporting the weight of the inaccessible one, particularly where secondary sources are relied on rather than shruti & bhasya in conjunction with yukti. Such secondary sources give rise to divisive viewpoints which do not accurately represent the primary texts of the tradition.
Yes, properly read shruti alone gives rise to brahmajnana, but truthful words - even those not subject to stultifying translations - do not make for a true reading unless the applicant is prepared, and this almost always requires proper guidance and, far more importantly, initiation . Otherwise only the grossest level of meaning is understood without empowerment in the more subtle levels of speech and meaning.
Our parampara comes from Siva as adi-guru and acknowledges the Vedas as divinely revealed. In our lineages, worship of the Gods plays a key role whether we take it as a means, an end, or both.
A question I think is more relevant however is: does a higher level of formed reality exist which is eternal in nature, and not subject to subject-object-mode distinction? Ie, is there a saguna brahman (parabrahman) beyond this transient and projected subreality.
Advaita doesn't much comment on this and leaves it open for personal realization. Paradvaita (Trika) posits this as Parashiva, although to say "this" is still a misnomer.
This is Idam (Maha), and Shiva (or, if you prefer, Shakti in the mode of Samrasa) is Aham. However, at the Parashakti/Parashiva level - beyond all other levels yet pervading and constituting them, there is neither "I am" nor "this is" so to speak Parashiva as a 'this' or an 'a,' encounterable object among other objects is incorrect.
Transtheism means that one is concerned not with God as a supreme being, a creature; but rather the ground of being itself, that which all partite identities take their basis on - including a hypothetical supreme being.
However, some will take the doctrine of ajativada (often taken as the apex teaching), as an extension of vivartavada, itself a branch of satkaryavada, as stating that the effect is pre-existent, in subtle form, in the cause; that is to say, that Ishvara is as much the source of Brahman (insofar as the two can even be divided; which is only at a lowly conceptual level), as Brahman is the source of Ishvara, neither being the source of the other but the same reality expressed in two modes, there being no actual process of divergence or projection.
If we take Ishvara to be an effect of Brahman's transaction with maya. Moreover, many of our traditions emphasize a balance between self-identification with nirguna and saguna forms of brahman as parabrahman. We are not just impersonalists.
Some of us choose to set the nirguna over the saguna. Others don't. And we all find adequate basis in scripture and tradition. The most important factor is one's own realizations on the matter, which is given equal weight by Shankaracharya to shruti itself.
Objects and perceptions are as real as their infusion with the nondual awareness of brahman. Ishvara, and perception of Ishvara, insofar as it is emersed in the nondual awareness of Brahman, is 'real,' as are any other objects which seem to be discrete things to the discursive awareness which uses object as a means of seeming to change its subjective nature.
As Brahman's consciousness can never actually be transfused, remaining everywhere full at all times, there is no actual infusion, no actual emersion into Brahman, and no actual unreality. Illusion itself a symptom of transaction.
The ink and paper advaita is basically a paper tiger incapable of supporting the weight of the inaccessible one, particularly where secondary sources are relied on rather than shruti & bhasya in conjunction with yukti. Such secondary sources give rise to divisive viewpoints which do not accurately represent the primary texts of the tradition.
Yes, properly read shruti alone gives rise to brahmajnana, but truthful words - even those not subject to stultifying translations - do not make for a true reading unless the applicant is prepared, and this almost always requires proper guidance and, far more importantly, initiation . Otherwise only the grossest level of meaning is understood without empowerment in the more subtle levels of speech and meaning.
Our parampara comes from Siva as adi-guru and acknowledges the Vedas as divinely revealed. In our lineages, worship of the Gods plays a key role whether we take it as a means, an end, or both.
A question I think is more relevant however is: does a higher level of formed reality exist which is eternal in nature, and not subject to subject-object-mode distinction? Ie, is there a saguna brahman (parabrahman) beyond this transient and projected subreality.
Advaita doesn't much comment on this and leaves it open for personal realization. Paradvaita (Trika) posits this as Parashiva, although to say "this" is still a misnomer.
This is Idam (Maha), and Shiva (or, if you prefer, Shakti in the mode of Samrasa) is Aham. However, at the Parashakti/Parashiva level - beyond all other levels yet pervading and constituting them, there is neither "I am" nor "this is" so to speak Parashiva as a 'this' or an 'a,' encounterable object among other objects is incorrect.
