Category Archives: Q and A

Questions from visitors are answered by Dennis and other bloggers

Q. 542 ‘Doership’ and Osho

Posted on by
Reply

Q: Can you explain why Osho says that Brahman is behind all worldly activities and I am that Brahman, meaning ‘I am the doer’?

This means that the thief, the man who is blinded by lust, the greedy person who is sitting on a pile of money like a snake – all this worldly activity arises from Brahman. If I am this brahman, then I am the one who is stealing through the thief, I am the greed in the greedy person and the lust in the lecher!

Yet religious people say: “You are a thief, you will go to hell” They don’t realize that they are sending themselves to hell!

Can you explain how Advaita can say that ‘I am not the doer ego’, while Osho says if I am brahman then I am the doer?

A: Osho is not a reliable source of teaching according to Advaita. I have read a few of his books and was most impressed by his breadth of knowledge. But his sources are many and he does not always differentiate. There are several non-dual teachings and any may take you to the final understanding. But my own knowledge is now strictly oriented towards traditional Advaita (Gaudapada-Ṥaṅkara-Sureshvara).

Continue reading →

Q.541 Knowledge in the Vedas

Posted on by
23

Q: Do the Vedas really contain any advanced knowledge as so many people claim they do?

A (Martin): I’d say the Vedas contain the most fundamental and ‘advanced’ knowledge there is, though usually portrayed in the form of paradox (analogy, metaphor, story, etc.), so that one has to crack the code in order to find the wealth hidden in them. That knowledge is not like empirical science, which is cumulative and provisional, and which could be said to be somehow contained in it, even if in embryonic or potential form.

The knowledge inherent in the Vedas is metaphysical rather than mystical. According to it there is one and only reality: consciousness (Brahman, or the Absolute), which pervades the whole universe; it is immanent in it as well as transcendent… “the smallest of the small, the largest of the large”. It cannot be measured or understood by the mind, for which it is ineffable, but it is that by which the mind comprehends… it cannot be expressed in words but by which the tongue speaks… it is eye of the eye, ear of the ear, mind of the mind, as expressed in the Upanishads.

Modern physics is having a hard time trying to explain away what consciousness is in terms of physical phenomena (neuronal activity in the brain), but consciousness is not an irreducible phenomenon or datum; it is reality itself or a name or symbol for reality – since the referent of the symbol is unfathomable – everything being comprehended in it (theories, doubts, projections, emotions, things, thoughts, intelligence, observer and observed, you and I). For the Vedas reality is one, and present physics is trying to find out in which way it is so (‘theory of everything’, ‘unifying theory…’). Not all physicists are reductionist, some of them having seemingly mutated into philosophers with an understanding of the core of Vedic teachings.

Question about anubhāva

Posted on by
9

Would Shankara be likely to agree or disagree with the passage (from an AI): “In Advaita, the emphasis given to experience is not about experiencing Brahman as an object, but rather about realizing one’s own nature as Brahman through the direct, immediate experience of consciousness itself.”

Q.540 Following Bhakti Yoga

Posted on by
Reply

Q: If God is not a separate entity and just a symbol for different qualities then how does one proceed with Bhakti?

Bhakti develops unconditional love for God. But shouldn’t this love be for our loved ones rather than for a God whom I have never seen? Isn’t that closer to reality?

I was doing Naam japa and getting immense benefits out of it but these questions have confused me, and I have stopped practicing this. People who are Self-realized also do Bhakti, don’t they? To whom do they pray?

A: There are two main points here.

First, since you are asking a question about Advaita, you must appreciate that, in reality there is only Brahman, or Consciousness. From the empirical standpoint, of course, you see a dualistic world with other people etc. and, from this point of view, it is not unreasonable to speak of a god, or gods. But anything to do with this empirical point of view has to be provisional only. It all has to be acknowledged as simply name and form of that non-dual reality eventually. That ‘acknowledgement’, and the firm belief that it is true, is what we call ‘enlightenment’.

Continue reading →

YAQ (Yet Another Question) About Brahman and Experience

Posted on by
6
Greetings fellow seekers! 🙂

1. The argument goes: Brahman cannot be experienced because it is not an object. But is there perhaps another form of experience that needs no object? In Buddhism, for example, you can be aware of something (object), and you can also simply be aware (open awareness, no object).

2. Is the statement “You cannot experience Brahman, but everything you experience is Brahman” valid?

Thank you for your help. 🙂

Rick

Reality/Existence

Posted on by

Q. Is it possible for a human to fathom the true depths of reality and existence?

A (Martin): By the evidence of the ages – of innumerable sages and mystics, their outpourings, and the teachings they left us that are like the fruits of wonderful trees – the answer has to be yes! They tell us, especially to those capable of fathoming their words (‘those who have ears’), that the depth of understanding what is real and inescapable, reality itself, is practically limitless, to the point of becoming one with it in a seamless unit – no more subject-object distinction, the root of suffering.

And that is so because, as Matthew Arnold put it referring to some people: … ‘He who makes the determined effort to see life steadily and see it whole…’. There is a caveat, though: ‘Without love, the mind cannot understand’ – Sine desiderio mens non intelligit (Nicholas of Cusa). Is love anything more, or other, than that determination Matthew Arnold was speaking of? That is a high price, or is it not?

Q.539 Māyā and Brahman

Posted on by

Q: Can Advaitins explain how Māyā can be an attribute of the supposedly attributeless Brahman? Why was the creation needed if Brahman alone existed? What is Ishwara? (Quora)

A (Martin): 1) Māyā is not an attribute of Brahman which, as you say, is attributeless. Māyā is a diffuse, or polyvalent, concept which gives rise to much confusion, particularly by translating it as ‘illusion’ (see below). This concept can be viewed from the psychological, epistemological, and ontological perspectives.

Purely from the standpoint of Ṥaṅkara’s Advaita Vedanta, māyā is tied in with the concept of ‘ignorance’ (avidyā), which is prior to it; that is, avidyā is the necessary condition for māyā. Once ignorance has been annihilated by knowledge, māyā disappears. That means that from the higher (of two) point of view māyā does not exist. This is contrary to most post-Ṥaṅkara authors, with the exception of Sureśvara, who taught that māyā is a positive entity or force. If that were the case, how could a positive entity be removed by knowledge? Swami Satchidanandendra, practically alone in the 20th Cent. has defended the former Ṥaṅkarian position.

Continue reading →

Q.538 Duḥkha and Stress

Posted on by

Q: I am currently reading and enjoying ‘The Mind’s Own Physician’ in which Jon Kabat-Zinn mentions that some Buddhist scholars are beginning to translate duḥkha as ‘stress’ rather than ‘suffering’. This is personally significant as the original translation has probably caused me more confusion and difficulty than anything else.

‘Suffering’ seems a harsh appraisal of life, somewhat devoid of hope, rather negative and far from the entirety of my own experience. It suggests an improved situation ‘post enlightenment’ and fails to emphasize the positive benefits of enjoying what time we have – disturbingly at odds with Buddhist ethic and contrary to the non-dual teachings of Advaita.

There is also a danger that if the idea of suffering is repeated often enough it becomes an unhealthy and out of balance baseline perspective. Assertions that the modern era is more stressful than times past tend to go unchallenged.

Continue reading →

Consciousness Works!

Posted on by

Q: Do you think that we will fully understand how consciousness works? (Quora)

A: Some of the responders here give a mechanistic or scientific answer based on biology, neurophysiology, or even the possibility of creating artificial consciousness! – no doubt led by the word ‘how’ in the question.

How consciousness works is a superfluous, out-of-the-blue question. It works and works perfectly well. As to what consciousness is, this is at once a common-sense matter and a metaphysical one being on a par with existence itself – what is existence? We don’t ask how existence works, do we?

Existence IS. Consciousness IS. Whether they are a mystery or not, you will have to investigate…. but not scientifically.

Q.537 Need for a Guru

Posted on by

Q: The great masters, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj lay no stress on the need for a guru to reach realization. Nisargadatta states flatly in ‘I Am That’ p.149 that no individual guru is needed. He stresses ‘earnestness’, and that one is able with his determination and inner strength to reach the highest. The greatest example here of course is Ramakrishna. 

The ambiguity is significant when one reads the Q and A’s of Atmananda Krishna Menon. He states that a guru is of crucial importance, as does Vivekananda. To have disagreement on such a vital point by such highly attained individuals is significant. No doubt a guru would be desirable at any stage on the path but, especially in the west, the likelihood of finding one is low. The adage that when one needs a guru one will appear doesn’t give much hope.

A: It is highly desirable to have a qualified, traditional guru. There do not seem to be many of these around today and it is unlikely that you happen to have one conveniently close by! Consequently, the best you can do is to read books that reliably present material in the traditional manner (unfolding scriptural texts and Shankara commentaries) and listen to recorded talks from similarly reliable sources.

Continue reading →