(Question answered by Martin, Ramesam, Charles and Dennis)
Q: I have a few doubts regarding Advaita. I was fascinated by this philosophy when I started perusing different philosophies but, on reflection, I found it to be untenable or a logical travesty at best.
I suspect that ajAtivAda is the ultimate tenet of advaita – creation never happened, ontologically speaking. And yet, inexplicably, this vyAvahArika world with its jIva-s exists. And, to end his purported suffering, the jIva has to realize this ontological oneness or sole existence of unqualified Brahman.
Now, to be a little antagonistic, according to the frame of reference of the jIva, his realization will not have any effect on the pAramArthika Brahman because jIva, world and liberation are all only vyAvahArika truth. As ajAtivAda explicitly states, jIva, world, liberation and bondage do not exist.
I suspect that advaita is also not a realization (mental state) of the jIva as Brahman cannot be an object of knowledge or experience so, at the apparent instant of realization (apparent because of ajAtivAda) nothing really happens from the point of the jIva also. Even for the jIvanmukta, his mind and body exist, yet neither his body nor mind can get liberation because it will turn Brahman into a subject.
What can a jIva know other than the conceptual and hardened knowledge about Advaita and the pAramArthika reality? It can neither be direct experience nor realization as it would fall in the domain of experience. Even nirvikalpa samAdhi is an experience. And Advaita maintains that anything that can be an object, or is experienced, beginning or ending in time doesn’t have an absolute reality.
I think there is an unbridgeable gap between absolute and relative reality. Even if you strive for liberation, that process itself has no meaning in the absolute sense (and by the way, the jIva cannot make Brahman an objective thought in the mind. As Charles pointed out, from the absolute viewpoint it is as if there is an unchanging screen and, from the relative point of view, nothing ever enables the jIva to experience that reality.
Even gurus like Ramana say that ‘destroying the questioner’ is also just another thought in the mind. I mean to say that, from the point of view of the world, nothing would ever make the jIva realize Brahman, as he cannot escape his cognitive closure and, from the point of view of absolute reality, he is already Brahman.
Using dysphemism I say that, even if one’s life is extremely dissolute, it won’t be a problem, since you are eternally Brahman. From the pAramArthika viewpoint, you (the jIva) do not exist at all and you can do absolutely nothing as regards realizing, experiencing, knowing Brahman as that would reduce Brahman to an object. So there’s no real difference between being a highly revered saint or the most corrupt, mass murderer.
As two unbridgeable realities will never bridge , it renders whole Advaitic tradition moot and futile. It’s like solipsism: even if it’s true, you can never escape from it. Similarly, even if Brahman exists, your life (whether good, horrendous or saintly) has no relevance.
I think this tradition was invented to escape from the poor living conditions of the world – they made elaborate jugglery to convince themselves that world is unreal. Even if pAramArthika reality is true, it does not benefit the jIva in any way as he cannot close that gap. And from that absolute viewpoint, the jIva does not even exist.
I now sincerely believe that this whole Advaita is just a mental speculation like solipsism and that its unfalsifiable concepts have no bearing for anyone in this world. I believe when investigations into AI and neural correlates of consciousness may eventually show that it is all parallel, time lag processing in the extremely complex brain.
To summarize my question succinctly: in the Advaita tradition, does an unbridgeable gap exist that no teaching can reconcile?
A (Martin): The questioner, taking his position exclusively from the relative vyAvahArika standpoint, stays fixedly there and denies any other possibility, namely, that there may be a higher perspective – in doing so he cuts the ground from under his feet. That is why he finds an unbridgeable gap between two ‘realities’, one of which he alone contemplates. The whole exercise seems to be purely mental, and confusing at that; that is why he cannot get out of his (self-created) solipsism.
Consciousness escapes solipsism, or the latter is the only valid one from its purview, even in the face of ajAtivAda. The two ‘realities’ he refers to are, in fact, bridgeable – actually they are not two, but one, since the lower or empirical one is a superimposition on the higher one, as mind is a superimposition on consciousness. Teaching, reflection, and a type of meditation (nididhyAsana) are that bridge.
True, the higher cannot be accessed by the lower (ordinary, unaided mind), but there is the Advaitic doctrine or teaching coming in one’s succor, something that has to be assimilated so that negative or wrong views will drop off. The questioner then contrasts empirical doctrines and concepts, which are falsifiable, with metaphysical concepts, which are not so, though they may have a degree of adequacy in respect of ultimate reality. All metaphysical concepts are sublatable (different from falsifiable) except the highest one… when it results in brahmavidyA, the mind ‘ceasing to be mind’. Furthermore, all doctrine is clothed in language, and is thus vyAvahArika, but reality, ‘what is’, is amenable only to intuition, which is universal and operates on a prepared, mature mind. For this, the shAstra are a conditio sine qua non.
A (Ramesam):
Q: I suspect that ajAtivAda is the ultimate tenet of advaita – creation never happened, ontologically speaking.
Ramesam: Correct.
Q: And yet, inexplicably, this vyAvahArika world with its jIva-s exists.
Ramesam: It helps to think that jIva-world together as one entity. That is to say jIva and world are not two separate entities; jIva occurs along with the world and world exists along with the jIva. They do not exist separately.
Q: And, to end his purported suffering, the jIva has to realize this ontological oneness or sole existence of unqualified Brahman.
Ramesam: It may be helpful to picture that Advaita is not so much about giving a solution to ‘suffering’ per se, but is more about investigating into the nature of Reality – what exactly is the really real Reality, what is this ‘suffering’ and does it really exist, and if it does for whom is it?
Therefore, the purported end of the inquiry comes not with the ending of suffering but with a clear understanding of the fact that ‘I mistook myself to be a separate finite jIva but I am actually non-different from brahman which is All that is As-Is.’ Thus the end of suffering is only a by-product.
Q: Now, to be a little antagonistic, according to the frame of reference of the jIva, his realization will not have any effect on the pAramArthika Brahman because jIva, world and liberation are all only vyAvahArika truth. As ajAtivAda explicitly states, jIva, world, liberation and bondage do not exist.
I suspect that advaita is also not a realization (mental state) of the jIva as Brahman cannot be an object of knowledge or experience so, at the apparent instant of realization (apparent because of ajAtivAda) nothing really happens from the point of the jIva also.
Ramesam: As long as the concept that ‘I am a jIva (a finite limited separate individual)’ exists, an apparent jIva exists and s/he may have a point of view (pov). The point of realization (though it is not exactly a ‘point’ in time), comes with the ending of the concept of separation. Hence a jIva is not anymore there to have a pov. S/he is a jIvanmukta.
Q: Even for the jIvanmukta, his mind and body exist, yet neither his body nor mind can get liberation because it will turn Brahman into a subject.
Ramesam: What exists after Self-realization is an apparent body-mind that formerly housed a seeker who claimed ownership to it as ‘my body, my mind.’ Now the body-mind has no such claimant of ownership. It is just one of the innumerable ‘other things’ (which we cumulatively call the world).
Therefore, after realization, the entire ‘thing’ that is ‘As-Is,’ an Oneness, is Itself brahman.
[This is a bit difficult to wrap our mind around in one go; it will help to break it down into several steps for a proper grasp.]
Q: What can a jIva know other than the conceptual and hardened knowledge about Advaita and the pAramArthika reality? It can neither be direct experience nor realization as it would fall in the domain of experience. Even nirvikalpa samAdhi is an experience. And Advaita maintains that anything that can be an object, or is experienced, beginning or ending in time doesn’t have an absolute reality.
Ramesam: You are right. Therefore, you cannot call Self-realization to be an experience in the usual sense of the term we are accustomed to. It can at best called a non-objective intuitive immediated (not through any ‘means or medium’) experience, where there is no distinct ‘experiencer‘ exists claiming “it is ‘my’ experience.”
Q: I think there is an unbridgeable gap between absolute and relative reality. Even if you strive for liberation, that process itself has no meaning in the absolute sense (and by the way, the jIva cannot make Brahman an objective thought in the mind.
Ramesam: Please bear in mind that vyAvahArika and pAramArthika are just notional terms introduced as a part of the teaching. If there are two or more than two, it is NOT Advaita anymore. At any given moment, there has to be ONE only. If the two words are causing some confusion, better take another approach rather than trying to force-fit things to that concept.
Q: As Charles pointed out, from the absolute viewpoint it is as if there is an unchanging screen and, from the relative point of view, nothing ever enables the jIva to experience that reality.
Even gurus like Ramana say that ‘destroying the questioner’ is also just another thought in the mind. I mean to say that, from the point of view of the world, nothing would ever make the jIva realize Brahman, as he cannot escape his cognitive closure and, from the point of view of absolute reality, he is already Brahman.
Using dysphemism I say that, even if one’s life is extremely dissolute, it won’t be a problem, since you are eternally Brahman. From the pAramArthika viewpoint, you (the jIva) do not exist at all and you can do absolutely nothing as regards realizing, experiencing, knowing Brahman as that would reduce Brahman to an object. So there’s no real difference between being a highly revered saint or the most corrupt, mass murderer.
As two unbridgeable realities will never bridge , it renders whole Advaitic tradition moot and futile. It’s like solipsism: even if it’s true, you can never escape from it. Similarly, even if Brahman exists, your life (whether good, horrendous or saintly) has no relevance.
I think this tradition was invented to escape from the poor living conditions of the world – they made elaborate jugglery to convince themselves that world is unreal. Even if pAramArthika reality is true, it does not benefit the jIva in any way as he cannot close that gap. And from that absolute viewpoint, the jIva does not even exist.
I now sincerely believe that this whole Advaita is just a mental speculation like solipsism and that its unfalsifiable concepts have no bearing for anyone in this world. I believe when investigations into AI and neural correlates of consciousness may eventually show that it is all parallel, time lag processing in the extremely complex brain.
Ramesam: I am afraid your statements above are half-truths in the sense that they are neither fully correct nor completely incorrect. However, they seem to be arising out of a mixed up view and lack of clarity in some respect.
Advaita uses several teaching tools (upAya-s) and a large number models, sometimes contradictory to one another, in order to tell us about something that is basically not amenable for communication. It is an effort to eff the ineffable. Therefore, there is a large scope for confusion if things are not seen in proper perspective. The confusion gets confounded if one mixes elements of one model into another taking all the teaching models themselves to be the Truth.
I suggest a different and what appears to me to be a simpler model. I request you to take a look at a short Article “ABC of Advaita” at: http://beyond-advaita.blogspot.com/2016/07/abc-of-advaita.html
We can then discuss further. It is also highly advisable you proceed afresh in small steps rather than taking the whole thing in one gulp.
Q: To summarize my question succinctly: in the Advaita tradition, does an unbridgeable gap exist that no teaching can reconcile?
Ramesam: No, that is not a correct understanding.
Advaita is the most logical and consistent siddhAnta that our ancient Sages arrived at after a great introspective deliberation, inquiry and unbiased observation. It is like Quantum Physics quite counterintuitive, but not unknown though being ‘unknowable’ at the same time.
A (Charles): This question illustrates why one cannot read one’s way to mokSha. The inquirer has clearly spent considerable time perusing Advaita works, and aside from some understandable problems expressing his or her thoughts in a non-native language, this individual has obviously learned about many Advaita concepts (like ajAti vAda) and given the teachings serious thought.
However, Advaita is not a philosophy that can be studied like “different philosophies developed throughout history.” According to the tradition itself, Advaita can only be studied under the auspices of a guru who can unfold the texts correctly. And it is technically not a philosophy at all, but rather a pramANa, or means of acquiring knowledge.
It’s correct to say that mokSha is neither direct experience nor realization, including nirvikalpa samAdhi. This would be the experiential view of enlightenment, which the questioner incorrectly assumes to be the traditional teaching. We must be careful not to confuse terms like ‘experience’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘samAdhi’. Samadhi is an experience and has nothing directly to do with mokSha, which is Self-Knowledge, j~nAna.
We are not trying to make the mind reduce Brahman to an object, as the questioner claims, but rather avoid precisely that problem – through careful unfolding of the teachings (under the guidance of a proper teacher). From an Absolute perspective, correct, there is nothing special about one jIva compared to another. From the relative point of view, however, one had better pay attention to dharma!
The questioner appears to continually mix up the Absolute and relative orders of reality. For example, it’s quite true to say that the process of striving for liberation has no meaning in the Absolute sense. Yet that has nothing to do with the relative set of conditions faced by the jIva, which require preparation for mokSha via chatuShTaya sampatti. If this seems paradoxical, it is only so when viewed from the perspective of a jIva.
We really cannot discuss the Absolute conceptually at all. “Words fall back from it, together with the mind.” And if one does not have a clear view of the difference between reality and existence, one is liable to misapply terms from Western philosophy. The creation exists but is not real. It is a dependent reality, i.e., mithyA. This is not the same thing as saying “the creation never happened ontologically.” Ontology is the study of “isness,” being, existence. Yet existence and reality are not the same. My dreams exist because I perceive and can remember them, but are they real? Similarly, we know the world exists because we perceive events taking place, but is it real?
Advaita posits a substrate on which this apparent world is superimposed, yet the substrate cannot be discussed in words and concepts, since all available words and concepts are part of the superimposition. The texts therefore use pointers instead, words like Brahman, j~nAna, mokSha. Advaita takes the nondual substrate to be the Absolute Reality, with all else apparent and relative.
Further, Advaita is not a scientific theory on which tests of falsifiability would apply. If something can be falsified, it is mithyA and not satya. Neural correlates of consciousness have been discussed at length elsewhere on this site, and summarily dispatched. 🙂 Time will tell what AI brings to our understanding, but any such intelligent entity will still be mithyA, so I’m not sure it matters!
“To summarize my question succinctly: in the Advaita tradition, does an unbridgeable gap exist that no teaching can reconcile?”
No! If reality is nondual and Brahman is one without a second, there is no “unbridgeable gap.” If I AM Brahman, then I am ALREADY the ultimate reality. This is the very meaning of the word, Advaita. There are not two things. Tat tvam asi.
A (Dennis): You say: “I suspect that ajAtivAda is the ultimate tenet of advaita – creation never happened, ontologically speaking. And yet, inexplicably, this vyAvahArika world with its jIva-s exists”.
This really sums it all up. The ‘bottom line’ of Advaita is that there is no world (separate from Consciousness) and that no jIva has ever been born (i.e. all apparent jIva-s are also nothing but Consciousness). And Advaita does not offer any explanation of why there appears to be a world. It is anirvachanIya – inexplicable.
When a jIva attains enlightenment, nothing really happens. The jIva was already free because there was no jIva separate from Consciousness. All that happens is that the mind-intellect of the jIva now knows that he was and is already free and nothing other than Consciousness. It is, however, not true that nothing happens from the point of view of the jIva. Before enlightenment, the jIva believed he/she was bound to saMsAra. (This has nothing to do with Brahman not being an object of knowledge, as you rightly point out.) It is not true that “nothing happens from the point of view of the jIva” – this is to confuse paramArtha and vyavahAra. Lots of things happen all the time in vyavahAra, as I’m sure you know! But, to repeat, nothing gets liberation in reality (as you say) because there is only Brahman, which is already unlimited.
The other point of misunderstanding is that knowledge and experience are not regarded as synonymous in Advaita. ‘Loss of self-ignorance’ is not an experience. Experiences have to have a beginning and an end in time. Thus, nirvikalpa samAdhi is an experience, as you rightly point out – it has both a beginning and an end. But loss of ignorance has only a beginning. Once Self-knowledge has dawned, it is permanent.
This distinction between vyavahAra and paramArtha is crucial in Advaita. At the empirical level, behavior is important. It does make considerable difference whether you behave well or badly, as I am sure you will admit. This is why traditional Advaita devotes so much of its teaching to topics such as dharma and karma. It is not meaningful to say that, from a pAramArthika viewpoint, a jIva could ‘live a dissolute life’ because, from that viewpoint, there are no jIva-s! You can only speak of jIva-s and their behavior at the vyAvahArika level.
There is no need to look for a ‘bridge’ between the two levels. In reality, there is only one level, so no need for a bridge! It is ‘no benefit to the jIva’ because he/she does not exist as a separate entity. There is only Brahman.
I doubt very much that you will be convinced by any of this. But it is also the case that you cannot convincingly argue otherwise! Impasse.
For the benefit of all those Indians who are familiar with Hindi, I cannot recommend more the excellent YouTube Videos of Swami Haribrahmendrananda Teertha, Adi Shankara Brahma Vidya Peetham, Ujeli, Uttarkashi.
This is a superb Series of talks that explain in simple language the entire logical framework of Advaita, and Shankara ‘s approach in explicating the intricate philosophical concepts of no-twoness. Almost all of the misconceptions like those presented by the Questioner here will be clarified leaving no scope for further doubt.
The link is: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=01+GhataBhashyam
regards,
Hi,
I sincerely thank you all for your responses.
I may have a problem in wording my thoughts accurately as im not a native speaker.I didn’t mean to say that there’s a gap between two realities as it would violate the absolute non-duality of ajativada, that only Brahman exists.What I mean a gap is an, epistemological gap or cognitive gap that exists for jiva.I, m not confusing two realities when arguing for the futility of advaita tradition, in my opinion.I know many different shades of advaita tradition exist from the purist traditional to the assimilation of yogic methods to the neo movements , which only talks from paramarthik reality.
Frankly speaking other than Dennis answer I found others answers to be cop out.Dennis has rightly pointed out that advaita fails to give convincing explanation of the world.And Dennis you mentioned that from jiva pov, only thing that changes is that he gets a new understanding of the world and of himself.To be as precise as possible, in the (body mind ,consciousness complex) of that person in relative plane ,his mind-itellect will have deepened a new thought(understanding) that only absolute is non-sublatable.He will still experience the world like any of us.Dennis in response to Q 383(Alzeimer) , i think you answered that from absolute level.But what will happen to that person’s mind in the relative plane??.Imagine a person after years of austerity and sharvana,manana and so one, became jivanmukta(ie his mind developed an understanding) and slowly the Alzheimer’s eats away his achievement.
I believe that advaita also requires certain necessary dogmas that make it worthwhile, to be considered at the empirical level.I’m not challenging on doctrine of ajativada as it can neither be proven nor disproven just like solipsism.So the dogmas are
1)A person have different kinds of body(gross,subtle).And if he fails to get self knowledge(understanding with mind) in this birth ,his subtle body will continually transmigrate into different species and be bound to samsara.
2) I compared the saint to a dissolute beacuse advaita also rests on concept of karma,karmaphala,ishwara ,merits and destiny at the empirical level.If one doesnt believe in the above concepts then living austere life is not only pointless but also foolish.
3)To resolve the doubt ,particular inference or interpretation(advaita) of upanishads is final and absolute authority.
If a person doesnt believe in the above,how can you argue for the efficacy of self-knowledge?As paramartha maintains that person along with world doesn’t exist.And at the relative level,if a person doesnt belive the concept, that if he doesn’t get self knowledge ,his illusory subtle body will remain bounded to samsara.On this issue i talked gap exists for jiva.
Advaita is the most logical and consistent siddhAntathat our ancient Sages arrived at after a great introspective deliberation, inquiry and unbiased observation.////
It’s difficult to argue after that.But lets try, every philosophy(yes advaita is yet another view point for it’s non believers).Whether it’s advaita,bhedaabheda, vishitadvaita, Christianity,they all resorts to inexplicability and ineffabIlity at some level to circumvent the explanation.
Advaita-fails to give explanation of the world .It uses ishwara as relative plane but it’s not convincing. Yes gaudapada karikas explicitly maintains world doesn’t exist at all.It doesnt mean that world exist as brahman but, is not created, as that would be the form of classical bhedaabheda which says that everything is brahman yet forms and world exist, and there simultaneous oneness and differnce with it.But advaita posits that brahman is the only real and not sublatable reality.The concepts of three planes of reality is only a teaching concept,but in reality only paramrtha exist.The locus of jiva and world is an achilees heel of advaita.Just to defend the internal and external homogeneity of brahman it radicalises into world doesnt exits idea.Morever it also doesnt preserve the individulity at moksha because of the literalist and strictest non duality requirement.
bhedaabheda,vishitadvaita,dvaita-Believes that world is created,Gods lila or of same nature yet inexplicably different from God inorder to preserve Gods transcendence.It didn’t take the abheda srutis to its literalist understanding as advaita and didnt resort to a copout of maya.But the problem arises of how and why a perfect ,transcendent God created this world .It resorts to all sorts of inexplicable explanation(ex nihilo ,expanding of brahman yet aloofness) that preserves Gods trascendence.Just like inexplicable nature of maya in advaita, bhedabaheda has inexplicable oneness and differnce. Inspite of its problems ,at least they preserves individuality at Moksha.
Christianity -Triune God yet one, is also inexplicable ,aslo with the problem of evil.
Cleraly all the above traditions cannot fully explain the philopshical problems.Its upto a neutral observer to decide on which inexplicable he has to rest his faith.And I’m sure proponents of there respective traditions will proffer elaborate mechanisms to defend this.I respect your view, if you believe that it’s consistent and logical.I also at a time found it to be consistent,but now I have contrary opinions about it.
However, Advaita is not a philosophy that can be studied like “different philosophies developed throughout history.” According to the tradition itself, Advaita can only be studied under the auspices of a guru who can unfold the texts correctly. And it is technically not a philosophy at all, but rather a pramANa, or means of acquiring knowledge.////
I think that’s an exclusivist view to prevent outsider for objective assessment of the tradition. Morever,In that case neither You nor I Could ever hope for self knowledge in this birth.As traditional purist maintains that only hereditary utterly renounced brahmins are eligible for self knowledge.And it also recognizes sanyasa as a necessary prerequistive.
Regard,
Evidently the questioner keeps mixing the absolute with the relative (points of view), and, in doing so, gives only lip service to the former, not taking it really to heart. Of course, only the former is unsublatable (as he says), the rest being mithya. Why doesn’t he keep this in mind?
‘I didn’t mean to say that there’s a gap between two realities as it would violate the absolute non-duality of ajativada, that only Brahman exists.’ — Gaudapada, and all spiritual doctrine, is couched in a language that is elliptical: one needs to understand it and not take it literally and exclusively.
‘epistemological gap or cognitive gap that exists for jiva’ — (I would say, for an untutored jiva).
Under points 1 to 3 he makes, doesn’t he accept, or know, that the relative is subsumed under the absolute, contained in it? The same can be said about samsara – point 1.
About the different religions/philosophies he says that they all resort to inexplicability and ineffability at some level to circumvent the explanation. — That is a psychological fallacy or innuendo – What explanation? They are upayas, means of knowledge, stratagems if you wish.
‘Advaita-fails to give explanation of the world .It uses ishwara… ‘ — Ishvara is a symbol for Immanent ‘God’ – there are the two aspects.
‘Yes gaudapada karikas explicitly maintains world doesn’t exist at all. It doesn’t mean that world exist as Brahman’. — Advaita teaches that manifestation (world) is not other than Brahman.
‘in reality only paramartha exist’ — (ultimately exists, rather), everything else being mithya, not nothingness.
About the Achilles heel of Advaita he mentions, AV is radical enough, but not to the extent of denying any reality to the world and jiva (again mithya… which is not a subterfuge).
About the individuality of/at moksha, Moksha can be said to be a state of mind whereby the false is desidentified with so that the real shines forth.
‘world is created, Gods lila or of same nature yet inexplicably different from God’. –They are provisional steps to prepare the mind (also there is neti neti as an important procedure in AV).
‘… in order to preserve God’s transcendence. — ’God’ is also immanent, symbolized by Ishvara.
‘… inexplicable nature of maya’. Maya is only a mistaken view, not a positive force, and the result of avidya.
Re The various traditions (inexplicable?), they are Inexplicable to the unaided, unprepared mind, as with paradoxes and apparent contradictions… intuition (right understanding) is sine qua non… Teacher at least convenient, if not absolutely necessary; so AV is not an exclusivist view in the sense he says it is.
Re “objective assessment” of the tradition (as he puts it), there is no such thing: it is either an informed or an uninformed account (understanding) of the tradition.
Mohit
If you leave aside all the Sanskrit terminology and theory, there are only two possible explanations for our experience in the world.
The first plausible hypothesis is that I am some complex of a body-mind, which is born into the world with (but seemingly separate from) other sentient and insentient objects. Some logical reflection on this quickly takes me to the conclusion that fundamentally, from a psychological perspective I am not fundamentally different from other humans, and indeed all that I am today, is the outcome of the programming of nature and nurture; it had little to do with “me”. And from a materialistic perspective, I am no different from any other thing – being made up of the same building blocks of matter. I am as nothing – a grain of sand in an infinite universe – arising out of that universe, wholly dependent on that universe for life, and dissolving back into the universe. The error in my thinking, the maya, and the cause of all bondage and suffering, is that I am separate from all that is, and that I have to beat out a path for my own existence and happiness. Gaudapada’s “no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom” is true in the sense that there is no separate “me”. If I dropped that erroneous notion of a separate ‘I’, then perhaps life would be radically different. But that is up to me to investigate and experiment with.
The second plausible hypothesis is that I am the awareness in which the perceptions of the world / body / thoughts / feelings arise. A sort of solipsism, except that even the thought-feeling of “I” is just an arising in awareness. Under this hypothesis, the erroneous thought is the one that mistakenly identifies this awareness with a conceptual body-mind, in which it posits it is located, thereby creating an “I”, and therein experiencing an external world. As opposed to seeing that the body-mind and world are all just appearances in awareness.
I guess a third hypothesis is that we and the world were created by some other, all powerful being – God – which can lead to an infinite regress: who created god? And if there is some omnipotent, omniscient god, how can there be anything that exists separately from that being. If anything is separate from him, he cannot be infinite, omnipresent.
So I think we are back to two plausible hypotheses. I can never know which is “true”, or why it (the universe or the dream) has arisen. But both point to the illusory nature of a separate “ego”, which is the most fundamental of our assumptions about the world, from which springs all of our problems. Advaita – and no doubt others – are simply pointers to this truth. Advaita is perhaps the most beautifully poetic and comprehensive of these pointers. But it is a pointer nevertheless. It is up to us to investigate and assimilate.
To paraphrase Nisargadatta, to really assimilate the truth, you need to live it. Again that is up to each of us to investigate how we live it. After all, in both hypotheses, we are fundamentally free; we put ourselves in societal chains because of our conditioning, In many cases, austerity I suspect is an inevitable by-product of that process; in Advaita it is advised as a precursor, to aid in detachment from the world, in order to be able to investigate it objectively, dispassionately.
Regards,
venkat
I forgot to say in the above, that all I really can be certain of is that I exist, and that I am aware. The Sat-Chit of Vedanta.
What exactly that “I’ is I don’t know – it is all assumptions, accretions, hypotheses associated with that “I”, that I have accumulated through memory. Through investigating these assumptions, Advaita says one may find peace. The Ananda.
Many thanks to Martin and Venkat for their clear responses to Mohit’s concerns.
I would just like to add a couple of points.
If we assume that reality is non-dual, then it is a fact of life that this reality cannot be amenable to definition or objectification of any kind, for the simple reason that this would require subject-object duality. This is not a deficiency in the teaching of Advaita. Indeed, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad specifically utilizes its teaching of ‘neti, neti’ to state what Brahman is NOT, the idea being that reality is whatever ‘is left’ when everything (else) has been negated. Shankara says (Br.U. 4.4.20) that ‘the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with Brahman should be established, but that the false identification with things other than That should stop’.
The ‘conclusion’ of Advaita (brahma satyam, jagat mithyA, jIva brahmaiva nAparaH) is not an obvious one, not even intuitive. It has to be approached obliquely. There are many metaphors, stories etc. in the scriptures to help in this, but the scriptures are in Sanskrit (because that was the written language of the times) and overly concise (because the material had to be memorized in the early days, in order to pass on from teacher to disciple). This is why a qualified teacher is needed; it is not a means for retaining exclusivity!
Finally, Advaita is available for anyone who genuinely wants to follow that path – and always has been. Brahmins stand for an attitude of mind dominated by sattva and a clear, controlled mind is a prerequisite for attending to the teacher. Minds enmeshed in tamas (shUdra) or rajas (kShatriya) will be unable to concentrate sufficiently. Similarly, saMnyAsa represents a mind that has effectively renounced the usual worldly pursuits (i.e. desires) and has mumukShutva. Shankara says (Br. U. 3.5.1) that ‘this monasticism is a part of Self-knowledge because it is the renunciation of desires which contradict Self-knowledge, and are within the province of ignorance’.
Dennis
HI
Thanks everyone, for reading my long tirades and taking your preicious time in responding to it.I think we cannot convince each other and as Dennis pointed earlier ,its better to soon call impasse.
Before calling it , i have one genuine query(Dennis) regarding the condition of jivanmukta.Please answer it from the relative perspective as advaita tradition is itself in relative reality for individuals.
The way i understand advaitic reallization happens in a relative world in a mind of an individual .And realization, or to be more clear, self knowledge is a retrained mind which doesnt localise its thought to himself.It can best be a, deepened inferential knoweldge about the absolute realty and nothing more than that.So in a jivanmukta(mind,body,conscouness ) complex , his mind has a subconscious or extremlely deep understanding that everything including(world,jiva,even his extremely deep understanding,mind itself which is processing this thought) is unreal and only brahman is unsublatable or absoltelly real.Its to be remembered ,the above reasoning is just an inferential analysis by a trained mind of a jivanmukta.And advaita traditiion maintains that this knowedge is must for a person to be liberated, as liberation and bondage are said to be condition of mind.
But lets play a devil advocate. If, i do lobocotomy of that jivanmukta or to be more benign, he gets various mental illness such as alzeimer which wipes away his entire inferential knowledge of that absolute, how unfortunate for that person.A traditional advaita after years of rigorous chatuShTaya sampatti and toiling became jivanmukta(ie free from identifciation as an individual) but alas the( knoweldge of gateless gate that he has matured) is detsroyed day by day, as the disease progresses .As adviatists famoulsy say that, liberation is not of an indiviual but freedom from that individuality,neverthless alzeimer has eaten away that very understanding of mind which is processing the above idea.
I have undesrstood by reading about the pov of jivanmukta from this site and from other, that a jivanmukta still has working mind,he cries ,laughs ,read newspapers(ramana maharishi) but the mind of a jivanmukta doesnt dereference the above to a specific individual.
Now consider (lobotomized or dementia effected jivanmukta ),he will still do the actions of mind,but his ability not to derefence is lost or even his entire self knowldge of absolute is vaporized.
If one doesnt beliefe in the concept of rebirth(anyway which, even advaita itself ultimately subsumes by concept of adhyaropa apavada),in this very life suffering continues (freedom from individuality is lost).In this very issue i have raised that a gap exist for advaitist in my op.And still i cant belief why just a retraining of mind into accepting the underlying substrate to be brahman or dereferncing is said to remove suffering.Even if we accect that self knowledge(de identification with jiva to be precise) from the jiva’s mind pov, removes suffering ,but this very holy grail can be lost by unfortunate happnings of the world.
Of course you can wipe the platform along with the question by answering it from an absolute plane ie no jiva exist ,no one is in bondage , no suffering no liberation.But i think that reasoning would cause adavita tradition to collpase into an extreme form of nihilism.and only neos would answer in that way. I have oberved that this site represents a view closer to traditional and am expecting a holistic response to my query from a relative plane.
On a personal note , after deeply reflecting about advaita in general, when you take its own logic to its end ,theres nothing but pure metaphyscial and existential nihilsim lurking in its very kernel.Though i am an agnostic i will still prefer atheism or even some naive variety of theism over it.No matter how impropable is pure materialsm,or how the idea of deity involves philopshical and logical contradiction,at least you can do something about it.Advaita,buddhism(particulary madhyamika,zen ) all these traditions have nihilism when they are taken to their final frontier.Its my reason of turnoff.
Regards,
Mohit,
In your last paragraph, you concluded that Advaita and Buddhism have nihilism as their base. This could not be farther from the truth for either model. Because you are trying to understand both models using only your intellect which cannot bridge the gap for an experiential understanding of what both models ultimately are putting forth.
How can nihilism be the result of Advaita which has as its basis, the realization of Brahman? If anything, Advaita could be called a form of Eternalism, not Nihilism.
As for Buddhism, the rejection of extreme views about ultimate reality is only a negation of the personalization of experience and any self-view which ultimately transcends all experience, Nibbana. How can Nibbana be Nihilism if you understand what is being put forth?
Neither system can be measured from an existential point of view as both transcend this and what is left is not some kind of Nothingness. This is a huge mistake. Only through deep contemplation of your own experience can you come to any understanding of all this. It is a completely different way of living from the usual ‘self’ oriented life. It is an upheaval of everything you have conceived and this is why it is said to be ineffable.
Hang in there and see this to its end. When it becomes the only thing you are interested in, some changes will take place that will give you the confidence you are looking for.
Mohit
Your very question centred around a lobotomised jivanmukta betrays a bargain your ego is trying to strike: give me an assurance of the eternal cessation of suffering and bliss (even if I go senile), and then I might believe in this philosophy.
Are you lobotomised right now? What is the point of speculation? Any answer to this question will also be speculation – how would anyone be able to prove its veracity? Its a pointless question.
As far as nihilism goes, I’ve no idea why everyone runs scared of it. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as “The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence”. Yes, so what is the problem?
The real question is are you deeply interested in a true understanding of yourself and the world, or are you interested in crutches? If the former, you should care about truth more than anything else, irrespective of whether it brings you ananda or not.
Mohit,
In response to your concerns about Alzheimer’s:
Enlightenment means gaining Self-knowledge. It relates to the jIva and is an event in the mind. It does not confer immunity to disease, as was exemplified by Ramana and Nisargadatta. Alzheimer’s is a disease of the brain, which is a part of the gross body of the jIva. Bodies grow old, cease to function correctly and die. If a brain suffers a stroke, those functions that were governed by the affected part of the brain, be they speech, movement or whatever, become disabled or inoperative. If that part of the brain responsible for reasoning or retrieval of memory is lost, the related functions are lost.
So, yes, if a j~nAnI succumbs to brain disease, the functions of the body-mind will inevitably be affected but so what? If your dream-self was involved in a serious accident last night and ended up in intensive care, is your waking self concerned? You are not your waking self either. Consciousness does not get Alzheimer’s.