Reslity from advaita's perspective

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

hi

only four MAHAVAKYAS are sounding like advaita...........AYAMATMA BRAHMA....TATVAMASI.......SATYAM JNANAM ANANTHAN

BRAHMA.... EKAMEVA ADVITHIYAM BRAHMA.......just for thought...

Actually there is still some amount of Dualism in most of it.

Ayam Atma Brahma....talks about Ayam Atma and Brahman...there is 2 being equated as the same here.

Tat Tvam Asi...Tat and Tvam...also 2 noted


Sathya Jnanam Ananatham Brahma
Sathyam Brahma
Jnanam Brahma
Anantham Brahma

Its describes Brahman as Truth,Wisdom and Infinity. Again its multiple.


Ekam Eva Advaitam Brahman...comes very close to absolute Advaita...then again some amount of Dualism exists becos one has to perceive this situation.If one perceives it that means the perceiver and the perceived exists..hence 2 again.

So which Mahavakya is actually totally Advaita?

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

It is nice to see that even at your age you have the enthusiasm to think about perspectives that are fresh but I would say that you need to take care of your health first.

Coming to the topic, even though you say what is reality is difficult to know, I think it is necessary to give your definition of reality. I think it is the basis on which we can have a discussion. Philosophy is only about logic and so as long as you are able to defend your logic, I think that is all that matters. But it is also true that a consistent logic very likely represents the truth.

So can you try to define what reality is? and if there are different levels of reality what are they? and how do our experiences fit into the concept of reality?

Alternately you can say why your reality is not definable?

Dear Sravna,

The human existence appears to be an inexplicable riddle because all of us come here (are born) without any trace of conscious choice from our side, and we live here without actually knowing for sure why we are all here. Till finally this objectiveless "existence" grinds to a halt and the person is no more seen or heard and the physical body rots and eventually perishes (except the skeleton, if the body is not burnt). If one looks at these sequence of events which describes all humans without any exception whatsoever, one sometimes starts wondering whether this is for real or whether there is something underlying this so-called drama. It is this underlying something which I believe is what our philosophies called Reality. In any case, that is my understanding and my definition of Reality.

Whether there are different levels within the Reality or not, is not verifiable and talk about different levels of Reality are all but imagination at best.

Our experiences have nothing much to do directly with Reality as, our existence itself forms the starting point for the inquiry about Reality. But I feel some people get into a state of ecstasy very similar to an intravenous morphine injection, due to a variety of causes, and subsequently mistake that ecstatic state to be Brahmaananda, etc., where as, it is actually fooling oneself and perhaps others too!

Hope I have been able to respond to all your points. Please let me know if I have missed any.

 

[sangom]

Actually there is still some amount of Dualism in most of it.

Ayam Atma Brahma....talks about Ayam Atma and Brahman...there is 2 being equated as the same here.

Tat Tvam Asi...Tat and Tvam...also 2 noted


Sathya Jnanam Ananatham Brahma
Sathyam Brahma
Jnanam Brahma
Anantham Brahma

Its describes Brahman as Truth,Wisdom and Infinity. Again its multiple.


Ekam Eva Advaitam Brahman...comes very close to absolute Advaita...then again some amount of Dualism exists becos one has to perceive this situation.If one perceives it that means the perceiver and the perceived exists..hence 2 again.

So which Mahavakya is actually totally Advaita?

Brahmaiva Satyam
Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithyaa. Jeevo Brahmaiva Na/ Parah.

These are not mahavakyas per definition. The Vedic mahavaakyas could not get rid of "aham" concept and the closest to advaita is Brahmaivaahamasmi.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

The human existence appears to be an inexplicable riddle because all of us come here (are born) without any trace of conscious choice from our side, and we live here without actually knowing for sure why we are all here. Till finally this objectiveless "existence" grinds to a halt and the person is no more seen or heard and the physical body rots and eventually perishes (except the skeleton, if the body is not burnt). If one looks at these sequence of events which describes all humans without any exception whatsoever, one sometimes starts wondering whether this is for real or whether there is something underlying this so-called drama. It is this underlying something which I believe is what our philosophies called Reality. In any case, that is my understanding and my definition of Reality.

Whether there are different levels within the Reality or not, is not verifiable and talk about different levels of Reality are all but imagination at best.

Our experiences have nothing much to do directly with Reality as, our existence itself forms the starting point for the inquiry about Reality. But I feel some people get into a state of ecstasy very similar to an intravenous morphine injection, due to a variety of causes, and subsequently mistake that ecstatic state to be Brahmaananda, etc., where as, it is actually fooling oneself and perhaps others too!

Hope I have been able to respond to all your points. Please let me know if I have missed any.

Yes Shri Sangom thanks for responding.

Let me go step by step.

You think that there is something latent to the sequence of events describing all humans. It seems that you would be inclined to believe that the latent thing has an objective. Am I correct?

If so, what objective can you ascribe to it?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Think about this also. Is it possible that there need not be a larger objective for any existence?

 

[sangom]

Yes Shri Sangom thanks for responding.

Let me go step by step.

You think that there is something latent to the sequence of events describing all humans. It seems that you would be inclined to believe that the latent thing has an objective. Am I correct?

If so, what objective can you ascribe to it?

My dear Sravna,

I believe there has to be something latent to this seen universe, though it is not my view that That latent something must have an objective. It may just be sufficient if there is some cosmic law in operation and this latent something obeys that cosmic law.

The objective has never been clear to humans, I believe and so the various religions and their priesthood built up such explanations as was possible for them and these priesthoods convinced (even compelled to get convinced of whatever they said!) their lay followers their views and made these sacrosanct and therefore, unquestionable, mainly because they knew they themselves were on shaky grounds. It is my view that the objective of this existence is the experiencing of the results of various Karmas which have remained not-experienced (just like a ball thrown up but has been stopped in mid-air from falling down, as if by magic.).

 

[sravna]

My dear Sravna,

I believe there has to be something latent to this seen universe, though it is not my view that That latent something must have an objective. It may just be sufficient if there is some cosmic law in operation and this latent something obeys that cosmic law.

The objective has never been clear to humans, I believe and so the various religions and their priesthood built up such explanations as was possible for them and these priesthoods convinced (even compelled to get convinced of whatever they said!) their lay followers their views and made these sacrosanct and therefore, unquestionable, mainly because they knew they themselves were on shaky grounds. It is my view that the objective of this existence is the experiencing of the results of various Karmas which have remained not-experienced (just like a ball thrown up but has been stopped in mid-air from falling down, as if by magic.).

Dear Shri Sangom,

Think about this. As humans we have objectives. We have objectives as individuals and as a society. The objective of a society that does not believe in anything latent could be to conquer all things external and so rule over the universe. To stretch it it has to be a permanent control. It is at least very likely to be an objective, right?

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Think about this. As humans we have objectives. We have objectives as individuals and as a society. The objective of a society that does not believe in anything latent could be to conquer all things external and so rule over the universe. To stretch it it has to be a permanent control. It is at least very likely to be an objective, right?

My dear Sravna,

It is not entirely correct to say that "as humans, (per se), we have objectives". If at all there is a pan-human objective, it is merely to survive, increase comforts (and reduce hardship), to procreate and...to live as long as possible. All these are purely biological, i.e., emanating from the very existence of the body and its urges. Objectives other than these, if and where they exist, cannot be termed pan-human; they are mostly due to societal compulsions or even family compulsions. Very rarely you may find someone yearning to become (and becoming) an artist or scientist or even a rebel, terrorist, mafia goon, etc.

Hence, it appears to me as though the latent "something" need not, by itself have some 'objective' incorporated into it; it will suffice if that latent objective obeys some 'higher' law or force, or such higher law or force comprises this latent something also.

I do not agree that a society which does not believe in anything latent will invariably have an objective of conquering all things external nor the vice versa, viz., if a society believes in something latent beneath this human existence, then all such societies will live at peace with nature and will not conquer all things external. History is full of wars fought by both kinds of societies and, at the same time, there are still primitive tribes each living at peace within certain marked geographical limits and at peace with both nature and other similar tribes which may not be friendly with one another.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

What you say as biological needs are the most basic needs. That is needed for survival. Don't you believe as each level of needs are met higher objectives surface? So can we say that these objectives are latent in every human?

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

What you say as biological needs are the most basic needs. That is needed for survival. Don't you believe as each level of needs are met higher objectives surface? So can we say that these objectives are latent in every human?

Dear Sravna,

I have to disagree with what you say. The "higher objectives" you refer to are all society imposed, or compulsions from family, friends or peers. If you look at primitive, tribal populations they do not seem to have any such "higher objectives". Therefore, it will not be correct to say that such higher objectives are latent in every human; they are all artificially created.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I have to disagree with what you say. The "higher objectives" you refer to are all society imposed, or compulsions from family, friends or peers. If you look at primitive, tribal populations they do not seem to have any such "higher objectives". Therefore, it will not be correct to say that such higher objectives are latent in every human; they are all artificially created.

Yes Shri. Sangom I understand but Compulsion may only be a driving force for setting an objective. Some may set an objective by compulsion and some may do it by own volition. Left to themselves I think people would go for these objectives having satisfied a lesser objective. There is something called satiation that makes you seek these higher objectives.

As you reach higher levels there is more balance and permanence in your satisfaction.

Tribal people may not have built rockets or supercomputers. But you cannot say they do not have higher objectives. Being human they do get satisfied for doing something intelligent or in helping others.

 

[Jaykay767]

for the sake of continuity, i have added my comments to my earlier thread. if one comes with an open mind & carefully analyzes Advaita/our ancient scriptures, one will come realize Shankara is absolutely spot on.

 

[renuka]

Yes Shri. Sangom I understand but Compulsion may only be a driving force for setting an objective. Some may set an objective by compulsion and some may do it by own volition. Left to themselves I think people would go for these objectives having satisfied a lesser objective. There is something called satiation that makes you seek these higher objectives.

As you reach higher levels there is more balance and permanence in your satisfaction.

Tribal people may not have built rockets or supercomputers. But you cannot say they do not have higher objectives. Being human they do get satisfied for doing something intelligent or in helping others.

Dear Sravna,

I dont feel many humans are objective driven..in fact where is the time to be so objective driven?

Mostly just go thru phases of life..student phase..employment phase..marriage phase..and a steady state of some kind is sought at every phase.

BTW I do not get it when you say "As you reach higher levels there is more balance and permanence in your satisfaction"

Reaching higher and being satisfied? Isn't that intense desire in other words?


I have personally noted that people with the most desires are usually very religious and observe all kinds spiritual practices.

They desire to reach the highest state of spiritual realization..they mediate etc purely for reaching higher states.

This to a great extent I feel only drags us down..I feel anything done with intense desire to seek a higher level only adds to Kama and Ahamkara.

Its like a vicious cycle of deception..we think that we are getting somewhere but actually we are "falling".

The best is just flow along with life..I am not saying one should not be religious or spiritual but what I feel is one should drop being too obsessed with the idea called Higher Values.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I dont feel many humans are objective driven..in fact where is the time to be so objective driven?

Mostly just go thru phases of life..student phase..employment phase..marriage phase..and a steady state of some kind is sought at every phase.

BTW I do not get it when you say "As you reach higher levels there is more balance and permanence in your satisfaction"

Reaching higher and being satisfied? Isn't that intense desire in other words?


I have personally noted that people with the most desires are usually very religious and observe all kinds spiritual practices.

They desire to reach the highest state of spiritual realization..they mediate etc purely for reaching higher states.

This to a great extent I feel only drags us down..I feel anything done with intense desire to seek a higher level only adds to Kama and Ahamkara.

Its like a vicious cycle of deception..we think that we are getting somewhere but actually we are "falling".

The best is just flow along with life..I am not saying one should not be religious or spiritual but what I feel is one should drop being too obsessed with the idea called Higher Values.

Dear Renuka,

I am not being obsessed about being spiritual. I dont set conscious goals and try to reach them though such an approach would be helpful for some. In fact the spirituality sets the right balance of any desire including any ego satisfaction. I have experienced it. So when people say that I do something for ego satisfaction, I know it is not the fact and need not be the case.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I am not being obsessed about being spiritual. I dont set conscious goals and try to reach them though such an approach would be helpful for some. In fact the spirituality sets the right balance of any desire including any ego satisfaction. I have experienced it. So when people say that I do something for ego satisfaction, I know it is not the fact and need not be the case.

Dear Sravna,

I did not mean that you are obsessed with spirituality.
I meant that I have noticed many people who claim to meditate etc..are actually very desire ridden.

I really do not know if one actually ever reaches the right balance in life.

BTW is there something as a wrong balance?

Just yesterday I was discussing with my husband that I feel those who seem balanced are actually individuals who have high levels of anxiety and dare not face extremes of situations.

I know this cos I myself tend to avoid situations that could upset my "balance"..I avoid extremes of any kind not becos I feel I cannot handle such situations.

I prefer making my life a very time table sorts so I know what to face and what to expect.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I did not mean that you are obsessed with spirituality.
I meant that I have noticed many people who claim to meditate etc..are actually very desire ridden.

I really do not know if one actually ever reaches the right balance in life.

BTW is there something as a wrong balance?

Just yesterday I was discussing with my husband that I feel those who seem balanced are actually individuals who have high levels of anxiety and dare not face extremes of situations.

I know this cos I myself tend to avoid situations that could upset my "balance"..I avoid extremes of any kind not becos I feel I cannot handle such situations.

I prefer making my life a very time table sorts so I know what to face and what to expect.

Yes Renuka you can strike the right balance. By that I mean to be with equanimity in any situation. It is not a desire. It is a state of mind in which you can be your real self.

 

[sravna]

BTW I do not get it when you say "As you reach higher levels there is more balance and permanence in your satisfaction"

Reaching higher and being satisfied? Isn't that intense desire in other words?

Dear Renuka,

By balance in satisfaction I mean not only self or ego satisfaction. It is self satisfaction and also through the satisfaction of others, in the right balance. Finally you may reach a stage when you are satisfied not only when you help others but someone helps someone else.

 

[sangom]

Yes Shri. Sangom I understand but Compulsion may only be a driving force for setting an objective. Some may set an objective by compulsion and some may do it by own volition. Left to themselves I think people would go for these objectives having satisfied a lesser objective. There is something called satiation that makes you seek these higher objectives.

As you reach higher levels there is more balance and permanence in your satisfaction.

Tribal people may not have built rockets or supercomputers. But you cannot say they do not have higher objectives. Being human they do get satisfied for doing something intelligent or in helping others.

Dear Sravna,

It looks like you are trying to make arguments in order to subserve your own view viz., that humans are innately driven by so-called "objectives" and that as a person goes on achieving one objective after another and thus climbs up the ladder of objectives, as per your ideas, one reaches a more and more balanced state (of what? is not clear). To me, however, it looks as if you are getting confused in the bargain and mixing up "desires" with objectives, which are presented here as something holier than desires.

Desires spring from and relate to the biological needs and if we confuse persons who "desire" higher and higher achievements in the religious ladder, then we will only be degrading the so-called "spiritual" line to no more than ordinary mortal desires.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

It looks like you are trying to make arguments in order to subserve your own view viz., that humans are innately driven by so-called "objectives" and that as a person goes on achieving one objective after another and thus climbs up the ladder of objectives, as per your ideas, one reaches a more and more balanced state (of what? is not clear). To me, however, it looks as if you are getting confused in the bargain and mixing up "desires" with objectives, which are presented here as something holier than desires.

Desires spring from and relate to the biological needs and if we confuse persons who "desire" higher and higher achievements in the religious ladder, then we will only be degrading the so-called "spiritual" line to no more than ordinary mortal desires.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I do not want to make much out of the distinction between desire and objective. In a broader sense both mean something sought. So I think we do seek something higher and higher when lower level needs are met. That is the reason I say these higher goals are latent in us and surface naturally at the right time.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

Seeking even a higher objective in life including a spiritual one is still only a desire.

Seeking is a fast forward mode..it goes on accumulating...there is never a finish line cos desires will accumulate.

Why don't you try "reverting" instead of seeking?

Its actually harder to revert..cos revert involves unlearning our beliefs,habits,unlearning our behaviour,goals etc.

Its like walking backwards.

Try walking backwards..you will notice that your mind stands still cos all focus is on balance....but when you walk forward your mind can even day dream while walking.

So revert and unlearn..be like the curious case of Benjamin Button when a person 'aged' in reverse and died as a baby.

Unlearn the higher goals in life..become a baby once again..feel free to even become a spermatozoa and ovum again!

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

You reach a higher state only when you transcend a lower state. When you transcend you cannot reverse. It is an irreversible process. It ensures that the progress you make is not lost.

I think unlearning is an important part of real learning. You learn many things only to understand the futility of it all.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

You reach a higher state only when you transcend a lower state. When you transcend you cannot reverse. It is an irreversible process. It ensures that the progress you make is not lost.

I think unlearning is an important part of real learning. You learn many things only to understand the futility of it all.

Dear Sravna,

Revert does not mean getting into a lower state.

Revert mean going back to the original state.

An original state is nothing but purity.

Going "higher" does not make one pure..it only adds to the dust that covers the mirror.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Revert does not mean getting into a lower state.

Revert mean going back to the original state.

An original state is nothing but purity.

Going "higher" does not make one pure..it only adds to the dust that covers the mirror.

Renuka,

Great, We are saying the same thing but using different terms. We are indeed going back to the original state by unveiling of ignorance. I am just calling the ignorance free state as a higher state.

 

[sangom]

Renuka,

Great, We are saying the same thing but using different terms. We are indeed going back to the original state by unveiling of ignorance. I am just calling the ignorance free state as a higher state.

Desire or objective, fast forward or revert, whatever it may be, I feel the true position is that of the butcher Dharma Vyaadha in the Mahabharata (also known as Vyaadha Geetha). Keeping superstitious ideas like veil of ignorance, unveiling the veil by desiring to climb higher and higher in a so-called 'spirituality ladder', keeping the erroneous notion that the Parabrahman is something different and remote from our own selves, trying to achieve a nebulous "aananda" state associated with Parabrahman, etc., etc., are all misunderstandings of the advaita vedaanta, imo. Instead, it is far, far better to try and remain whatever and wherever you are and do nididhyaasana (deep meditation) about the Parabrahman and how IT is related to this world and, having understood the relationship, keep quiet. That is why the adage கண்டவர் விண்டிலர், விண்டவர் கண்டிலர்.

 

[Vaagmi]

Desire or objective, fast forward or revert, whatever it may be, I feel the true position is that of the butcher Dharma Vyaadha in the Mahabharata (also known as Vyaadha Geetha). Keeping superstitious ideas like veil of ignorance, unveiling the veil by desiring to climb higher and higher in a so-called 'spirituality ladder', keeping the erroneous notion that the Parabrahman is something different and remote from our own selves, trying to achieve a nebulous "aananda" state associated with Parabrahman, etc., etc., are all misunderstandings of the advaita vedaanta, imo. Instead, it is far, far better to try and remain whatever and wherever you are and do nididhyaasana (deep meditation) about the Parabrahman and how IT is related to this world and, having understood the relationship, keep quiet. That is why the adage கண்டவர் விண்டிலர், விண்டவர் கண்டிலர்.

Desire or objective, fast forward or revert, whatever it may be, I feel the true position is that of the butcher Dharma Vyaadha in the Mahabharata (also known as Vyaadha Geetha). Keeping superstitious ideas like veil of ignorance, unveiling the veil by desiring to climb higher and higher in a so-called 'spirituality ladder', keeping the erroneous notion that the Parabrahman is something different and remote from our own selves, trying to achieve a nebulous "aananda" state associated with Parabrahman, etc., etc., are all misunderstandings of the advaita vedaanta, imo.

May or may not be true. Let the advaitins answer this.

Instead, it is far, far better to try and remain whatever and wherever you are and do nididhyaasana (deep meditation) about the Parabrahman and how IT is related to this world and, having understood the relationship, keep quiet.

Is this also not advaitam? It can be completed with this sentence -- that is what is called the state of samadhi. You become one with parabrahman and find yourselves unlimited ananda (whatever it means). So this too is advaitam perhaps complete in its final stages which went unsaid in the earlier point. LOL.

And now a different view of this:

All this vindavar kandilar kandavar vindilar, nidhidhyasana leading to sayujyam etc., are not for the ordinary human being--who is called the Aam aadmi or the man in the street. It is high sounding, highly complicated ideas, difficult to achieve for ordinary souls struggling in their daily lives.

Yet every soul here needs something to clutch to. Something to place the faith with. That something may be just imaginery and may not be solving the issues but serves the role of a solid rock to rest on and recuperate for further struggles that are in store. For some souls with a comfortable life too there is a need for something to touch or hold on to whenever the fear of loss of all the comforts haunt them. For some other souls (there are a variety of them in this world) the question as to what happens when one dies is a very disturbing question and needs a plausible answer. There are souls here who would to shower their love on something which just receives them and is eligible to receive such love. They are disappointed with their other coinhabitants on this earth.

So believe in God as an independent entity. Have hope that he gives you what you deserve when you deserve it. Believe in his total command of everything and believe that its all his scheme. After your time here believe that he will take you. As you are capable of showering immense amount of love and affection accept God as the object for all that attention and love him with all that you have. He may come or may not. But your journey in this tough world would have become that much more easy and pleasant.

So love God. (God is not only love he can be loved too). Make your task easy by giving him a shape and form and worship him (h deleberate). Take the example of great bhaktas of the past and try to follow their advices. When one of the Savants sings "வெண்ணை அளைந்த குணுங்கும் விளையாடு புழுதியும் கொண்டு திண்ணெனவிவ்விராவுன்னை தேய்த்துக்கிடக்க நானொட்டேன். எண்ணை புளிப்பழங்கொண்டு இங்கெத்தனை போதுமிருந்தேன் நண்ணலறிய பிரானே நாரணா நீராட வாராய்" you find the love expressed as the love of a mother to her child who is highly playful and naughty. That kind of an innocent and simple love is possible for every human being here on earth. If you can get your mind trained and brought to that level you will enjoy your temporary and brief stay in this planet. Try it. To love is beautiful. To love God is beautiful and satisfying beyond words. So try that. Dont waste time on analysing nirguna brahmam and saguna brahmam and their technical difference. That is dukhrinjkarane. And it "nahi nahi rakshathi". Yes certainly wont.LOL.