My Spiritual Self and Advaita Vedanta

[mystic_seeker]

In my spiritual quest for truth, I have become puzzled by some of the teachings of Advaita Vedanta:

 

 

"According to advaita [non-duality], what is called the universe is in reality not other than brahman. Similarly, what is called the jIva [individual soul with ego] is in reality, the Atman [self], which is also nothing other than brahman Itself. The real jIva is the Atman, which is unchanging, ever free, and identical with brahman. ... This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever."

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/

 

 

Contrary to the last sentence of the quote (which I underlined), it seems to me that Advaita Vedanta logically implies that a human person, like me (Bob), would be identical with God.

 

Argument:

(1) Bob (Jiva) = Atman (Self)

(2) Atman (Self) = Brahman (God)

Therefore Bob (Jiva) = Brahman (God).

 

The only wiggle-room would be if there is a type of reality besides Brahman, but the doctrine of maya and non-duality of the Advaita Vedanta preclude this. So how can the webmaster of advaita-vedanta.org maintain that: "This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever" ???

 

Any help is appreciated.

[sanatan]

He can't. Your argument is correct.

 

The advaitins can't provide a satisfactory explanation for how we got into this mess, either.

[mystic_seeker]

Dear Sanatan,

 

Thanks for your help. Would you happen to know, roughly speaking, what percentage of Hindus accept Advaita Vedanta?

 

I would image since Vaishnavas constitute approximately 70% of all Hindus and since much of Vaishnavism is non-Advaita (namely Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitadvaita) that the dominant interpretation among Hindus is not Advaita Vedanta.

 

Am I wrong?

[Guruvani]

 

Dear Sanatan,

 

Thanks for your help. Would you happen to know, roughly speaking, what percentage of Hindus accept Advaita Vedanta?

 

I would image since Vaishnavas constitute approximately 70% of all Hindus and since much of Vaishnavism is non-Advaita (namely Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitadvaita) that the dominant interpretation among Hindus is not Advaita Vedanta.

 

Am I wrong?

 

According to the figures you give then you are right.

However, in that 70% Vaishnava figure is included the Shaivites, because actually Lord Siva is a Vaishnava and promotes Vaishnavism.

According to Wikipedia, Shaivism is included in Vaishnavism and the 70% Vaishnava statistic.

 

Shankaracharya has a significant following in India, but I think the Vaishnavas surely outnumber the impersonalists by more than 2 to 1.

 

My guess is that the Christian (British) influence has also been a blow to the impersonal monists of the Advaita school.

 

Personalism is more popular in the modern age than monism.

[mystic_seeker]

Dear Guruvani,

 

Thanks! Its good to know that Personalism is more popular than monism. Personally, I have always had an attraction to Ramanuja and Madhva myself.

[mystic_seeker]

 

According to Wikipedia, Shaivism is included in Vaishnavism and the 70% Vaishnava statistic.

 

I just checked adherents.com and they say that Shaivism is not included in the 70% statistic:

 

Hindus: 70% Vaishnavites, 25% Shaivites, 2% new-Hindus and reform Hindus.

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_314.html

 

That only adds up to 97% though and it is an old statistic from:

 

The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1998 (K-111 Reference Corp.: Mahwah, NJ), [source: 1997 Encyc. Britannica Book of the Year]; pg. 654.

[sanatan]

Never could see the logic in impersonalism, and the teachers/followers were an uninspiring lot back in my early seeker days...Bhakti rules, definitely.

[shvu]

 

In my spiritual quest for truth, I have become puzzled by some of the teachings of Advaita Vedanta:

 

Contrary to the last sentence of the quote (which I underlined), it seems to me that Advaita Vedanta logically implies that a human person, like me (Bob), would be identical with God.

 

Then your understanding of Advaita is incorrect.

 

 

Argument:

(1) Bob (Jiva) = Atman (Self)

(2) Atman (Self) = Brahman (God)

Therefore Bob (Jiva) = Brahman (God).

 

This is not advaita. These 2 equations are true for all vedanta traditions. The conclusion you draw is flawed and incorrect for all traditions of vedanta including Advaita.

 

 

The only wiggle-room would be if there is a type of reality besides Brahman, but the doctrine of maya and non-duality of the Advaita Vedanta preclude this. So how can the webmaster of advaita-vedanta.org maintain that: "This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever" ???

 

Any help is appreciated.

 

The webmaster is perfectly correct. Surprising that you would not post this question on that web site and instead post it elsewhere where there is no one knowledgeable of Advaita. No surprise then, that you will receive incorrect responses.

 

Comparing Vaishnavas to Advaitins is comparing apples and oranges. Viashnava/Shauva/Shakta classification is based on the icon worshipped. Advaita/Dvaita/etc is a classification of different traditions of Vedanta. There are many advaitins who worship Vishnu and Advaita has been the dominant tradition of Vedanta since its birth.

 

Vaisnava A's beliefs != Vaishnava B's beliefs if A and B are from different traditions. According to A, B is hell-bound and according to B, A is hell-bound. When there is much of disagreement amongst Vaishnavas, what is the good sense in lumping them into one group?

 

More questions? Go post them on the advaita vedanta website if you are really interested in meaningful answers.

 

Cheers

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

This is not advaita. These 2 equations are true for all vedanta traditions.

 

Madhva sees the soul as seperate and different from God. Vallabha sees the soul as like God. Ramanuja sees the soul as different from God, but of the same nature. And to put it simply, Nimbarka sees the soul as different from God. Those two equations are not applicable to any school of Vedanta besides Advaita.

 

 

Vaisnava A's beliefs != Vaishnava B's beliefs if A and B are from different traditions. According to A, B is hell-bound and according to B, A is hell-bound. When there is much of disagreement amongst Vaishnavas, what is the good sense in lumping them into one group?

 

Vaishnava A's basic beliefs = Vaishnava B's basic beliefs if A and B are from different traditions. There are a few minor differences, such as daily practices (Ramanuja recommends puja, Chaitanya recommends chanting, for example). According to A, B is NOT hell-bound and according to B, A is NOT hell-bound.

 

There is little disagreement among Vaishnavas in basic beliefs. What are basic beliefs?

 

That there is no God (demigods don't count) but Vishnu

That Bhakti (devotion) to Vishnu is important to salvation

That karma is real

That reincarnation is real

That puja is legit

etc., etc., etc.

 

The only thing that shouldn't be lumped into one group are Hindus. You have Advaitins, Vishishtadvaitins, Shuddhadvaitins, Dvaitins, Dvaitadvaitins, and such in one school (Vedanta) alone. Nevermind about the other schools, the other sects, and the fact that Hinduism is a largely personal religion (so people can have "unorthodox" ideas).

[mystic_seeker]

Dear shvu,

 

I thank you for joining this discussion, but all you have done is denied my conclusion. You have not addressed my original question which was to explain how "the webmaster of advaita-vedanta.org [can] maintain that: "This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever"

 

I gave 2 equations:

 

Argument:

(1) Bob (Jiva) = Atman (Self)

(2) Atman (Self) = Brahman (God)

Therefore Bob (Jiva) = Brahman (God).

 

You said, regarding my 2 equations:

 

 

This is not advaita. These 2 equations are true for all vedanta traditions. The conclusion you draw is flawed and incorrect for all traditions of vedanta including Advaita.

 

I find this very hard to believe. As Arjuna Haridas has mentioned below Sri Madhwacharya (Madhva) denies the 2 equations I mentioned. Consider the comments of Professor B.A. Krishnaswamy Rao:

 

 

The relation between the three entities (tatwatraya), viz, Iswara, chit (animate beings) and achit (inanimate matter) is a matter of fundamental speculation in all the systems of Indian Philosophy. The relation is conceived of in different ways in the different systems. Advaita regards the chit as non-different from Iswara or Brahman and the achit as mere illusion lacking in substance. ... Sri Madhwacharya, however, regards the world of animate and inanimate beings as essentially different from Him [brahman] and essentially different from one another. --Page 109, Outlines of the Philosophy of Sri Madhwacharya (Bangalore: Swetadweepa Publications, 2003).

 

Ramanuja also denied the complete identity of Brahman and Atman, holding that there was some difference between God and devotee. Swami Tapasyananda notes:

 

 

Sankara establishes this unity of Brahman by his theory of Adhyasa i.e. the superimposition of the multiplicity on the unitary Brahman, the non-dual Sat-Chit-Ananda. Ignorance, also called Maya, is the cause of this super-imposition. In other words the multiplicity is ultimately unreal. As already stated, Ramanuja totally rejects this theory. The plurality of Jivas and the changeful order of Nature are for him even ultimately real. --Pages 37-38, Sri Ramanuja: His Life, Religion & Philosophy (Mylapore, Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1992).

 

 

The webmaster is perfectly correct. Surprising that you would not post this question on that web site and instead post it elsewhere where there is no one knowledgeable of Advaita. No surprise then, that you will receive incorrect responses. ...More questions? Go post them on the advaita vedanta website if you are really interested in meaningful answers.

 

The webpage I gave you has no forum. Do you know a good Advaita forum I should go to?

[Avinash]

If you go through that web site, you will find the answer to your question there iself.

Consider the argument

(1) Bob (Jiva) = Atman (Self)

 

Consider the name "Bob". One meaning is the person Bob including his body, his shortcomings, his social life, his likes and dislikes etc. etc. This is what people generally mean when they refer to a person. This is the sense in which you are also using the name "Bob".

But when Advaita Vedanta says Jiva = Atman,

it means that the real nature of an individual is Atman.

Let us take a parallel with Bhagavad Gita. Krsna says to Arjun,

"There was never a time when I did not exist or you or any of these kings.

There will never come a time when any of them will cease to exist."

 

This means Arjun, Krsna, kings in the war are eternal. As an example, consider any of the kings. As per the Gita shloka, the king is eternal. Does it mean that his body is eternal? No. What it really means is that the soul of the king is eternal.

[mystic_seeker]

Dear Avinash,

 

The Advaita interpretation says that the only thing that has reality is Brahman. Therefore everything else is illusion, unreal.

 

Here is a quote from Sankara:

 

 

"Just as an imaginary city in the sky, filled with shops stocked with vendable articles, houses, palaces and villages teeming with men and women, although seeming to be real, is observed to vanish suddenly, and as dream and illusion are observed to be unreal, even so all this universe of duality in its entirety, is seen to be non-real." http://www.nonduality.com/sankara.htm

 

So if the only reality is Brahman, then Bob (Jiva) only has reality to the extent that he is identical with Brahman. And this was my basic conclusion when I said in my first post: "that Advaita Vedanta logically implies that a human person, like me (Bob), would be identical with God." True, I could have added the qualification that my physical body is not God only my self is, but that is a trivial qualification in my opinion. It is trivial because the end result is that my self is still identical with Brahman.

 

Sankara admits this:

 

"When the whole universe gets resolved, there is the attainment of nonduality. The self resident in all beings will be seen to be one [= Brahman]; and all beings will be seen in the self. Otherwise, the inner self would be what is conditioned by one's own body. Then there would not be the special teaching of the Scripture that is nondual. ... And realize that nonduality thusly: 'I am the supreme Brahman'. That is, having known the self which is beyond hunger, directly immediate and unborn, and devoid of all empirical usage, live in the world as one who is inert, that is, without making known, 'I am so and so'." http://www.nonduality.com/sankara.htm

[Avinash]

Yes, that is correct. Advait Vedanta does say that in reality, everything is Brahman. Therefore, the real nature of Bob (in your example) is Brahman.

Now the question is as to why advaita-vedanta.org says that "human self is Brahman" is a wrong conclusion? This is because here the term "human self" refers to human self on which illusion is superimposed. This human self is not identical with Brahman.

[Avinash]

Let me add an analogy, which is often given in Advaita. Consider Sun and mirrors. Sun's reflections are formed in the mirrors. If Sun is Brahman, then the reflections are individual human souls. In reality, the reflections exist because of Sun. No Sun, no reflection. In that sense Sun is all there is. What does mirror signify here? A mirror signifies the illusion because of various human shortcomings.

If there are no shortcomings i.e. if Truth is realized, then it is found that in reality everything is Brahman. But, together with shortcomings, saying that an individual human self is Brahman is wrong - just as saying that a reflection is the same as the Sun is wrong.

[mystic_seeker]

 

Yes, that is correct. Advait Vedanta does say that in reality, everything is Brahman. Therefore, the real nature of Bob (in your example) is Brahman.

Now the question is as to why advaita-vedanta.org says that "human self is Brahman" is a wrong conclusion? This is because here the term "human self" refers to human self on which illusion is superimposed. This human self is not identical with Brahman.

 

Thank you Avinash. I appreciate you taking the time to understand my point, and I am glad we agree "the real nature of Bob ... is Brahman."

 

But Avinash, don't you find the Advaita Vedanta hard to accept? To accept it a person must maintain at least 3 paradoxical conclusions:

 

(1) In your case you, Avinash, must accept that your real nature is Brahman, so in a sense you are God. (I personally feel that God is superior to me and that I am God's child.)

 

(2) The human body is unreal, so when a woman is raped it is not true she was raped because the body is unreal and illusion--but that is absurd. (I just cannot see how there is no reality to the physical world. Is the physical world a lesser reality as compared to the spiritual, yes. But does the physical world have zero reality?--very hard to accept this.)

 

(3) The real nature of the human guy who raped her is Brahman so if the rape is considered real we would have to say Brahman raped her, but that is absurd.

 

For all of these and other reasons I disagree with Sankara and am sympathetic to Ramanuja and Madhva.

 

The closest I can come to Advaita is to acknowledge, as Ramanuja does, that my existence as Bob is dependent on God's existence but God's existence is not dependent on my existence. This means that Bob participates in God's existence and that God continually sustains Bob in existence:

 

 

"...I am the creator, the sustainer and the destroyer of all the worlds." Bhagavad Gita, VII, 6.

 

I think the Sun/Mirror analogy supports my view more than Sankara's non-dual view. Because God is my cause and sustainer I resemble God (the effect always resembles cause) just like the image of the Sun in the mirror resembles the actual Sun. And the image of the sun in the mirror is dependent on the Sun for its existence, but as you correctly add "saying that a reflection is the same as the Sun is wrong." This explains why the devotee is not identical with Brahman.

 

The problem for sankara is either (1) the mirror is unreal, in which case there can be no reflection and the existence of Bob is an illusion--Bob or Avinash does not exist, which is absurd, or (2) the mirror is real, in which case Sankara would have to hold there is a difference between the mirror and Brahman--but this is what his non-dual view denies. So either way the analogy seems to support my view more than Sankara's view.

 

I do very much thank you for your help, Avinash. I am not trying to be difficult. I am merely searching for the truth with all my heart.

[tackleberry]

Hi Bob,

 

I wrote a lengthy reply, but the post didn't go through. It's lost. So I'll keep it brief this time around.

 

 

***I think the Sun/Mirror analogy supports my view more than Sankara's non-dual view. Because God is my cause and sustainer I resemble God (the effect always resembles cause) just like the image of the Sun in the mirror resembles the actual Sun. And the image of the sun in the mirror is dependent on the Sun for its existence, but as you correctly add "saying that a reflection is the same as the Sun is wrong." This explains why the devotee is not identical with Brahman.***

 

Due to ignorance/mirror, there is an image /jiva. Once ignorance/mirror is destroyed, there's no jiva/image but Brahman/Sun. It's in this sense non-dualism is understood by advaitins.

 

***The problem for sankara is either (1) the mirror is unreal, in which case there can be no reflection and the existence of Bob is an illusion--Bob or Avinash does not exist, which is absurd, or (2) the mirror is real, in which case Sankara would have to hold there is a difference between the mirror and Brahman--but this is what his non-dual view denies. So either way the analogy seems to support my view more than Sankara's view.***

 

Dream is real for the dreamer, but in the awakened state, it is unreal. Likewise, the image/conditioned jiva is real until the mirror/ignorance is broken, after which the image/jiva disappears and there's only Brahman/Sun. That's why they don't say "bob=brahman", because bob=conditioned jiva/image due to presence of mirror/ignorance. Once the mirror goes, where's bob, the conditioned jiva? there's only Brahman, the one reality.

 

Hope this helps. I am not an advaitin, just playing the devil's advocate, so we can understand the concepts better.

[mystic_seeker]

Dear Tackleberry (is that like Police Academy Tackleberry? :-),

 

Sorry you lost your post. That happened to me once, but I hit back on my browser (opera) and fortunately regained my post.

 

Thanks for your explainations. I pretty much understand what Sankara and the Advaitins are saying--that is not the problem. The problem is determining if their view is true or false. There are a few ways to argue for falsity.

 

One way to argue for falsity is the reductio ad absurdum argument which I have employed above. However, Advaitins would probably respond that although some of their conclusions seem "absurd" they are true nonetheless.

 

Another way to argue for falsity is to show that there is a contradiction in the Advaita view. Since contradictions are always false this would be a serious problem for Sankara and the non-dual view. I tried to use the Sun/Mirror analogy to show that there is a contradiction in Sankara's view.

 

The contradiction is that if the mirror has zero reality (does not exist) there cannot be a reflection, but Advaitins say a reflection exists. Thus the mirror must have some reality. But if the mirror has some reality it must be different from Brahman (otherwise it could not reflect Him) and this contradicts their non-dual view. So either way there is a contradiction, which is a serious problem for Sankara and the Advaitins.

 

Ultimately, the problem is one of metaphysics (philosophy of being) and it is trans-cultural. In the West the philosopher Parmenides said something similar to Sankara. Parmenides said "being was one" (there is only 1 being) and multiplicity and change was an illusion (non-being). The problem with this view, however, is that it reduces human beings, stones, flowers, cats, laughter, etc to having zero reality. To have zero reality means that they do not exist at all. This seems to me to be very hard to maintain.

 

In contrast, many philosophers argue that there are levels of being. God is being in its highest sense, Spiritual beings are real but lower than God, and Physical beings are real too but are the lowest level of being. Similar things have been said by Madhva who maintains that both God and the devotee have real being but are different from each other. In other words, Madhva does not deny that the multiplicty exists (is real).

 

So in the end I do not think the Advaita philosophy is true. It is too stark--everything is either God or illusion--there is no in between. The real Bob is God and the illusory Bob has zero reality.

 

Of course, Sankara was no fool so I think there are many insights from the Advaitin view that can be kept. Here are two:

 

(1) Since God is infinite and we humans and flowers are finite there is a huge chasm between what the word Being means for God and what the word being means for humans and flowers. Compared to God we are similar to a dream (a lesser reality). However Sankara went too far by saying that instead of being lesser reality, flowers are zero reality.

 

(2) In meditation the devotee can come to feel that he is so "one" with God that they are the same (non-dual). Even some Christian mystics have claimed this. However, just because it feels like you are absolutely one with God during these meditative states does not mean that you are, in fact, absolutely identical with God. Let me give an analogy. Fire gives light and heat. If you put a rod of metal into the fire and let it stay there long enough the metal will begin to glow and give off light and heat. The metal will look very much like the fire and will be hot to the touch like the fire. The metal seems transformed into fire as much as that is possible. But the truth is that it is still metal. Similarly when the Devotee becomes one with God during meditation the Devotee "glows" and participates as fully as possible in God's life and thus the Devotee gets a taste of what it is to be God even though, like the metal, the Devotee is not God. Because this experience is so awesome and overwhelming I think Sankara went a bit too far and claimed absolute identity: the non-dual view.

[shvu]

 

Thank you Avinash. I appreciate you taking the time to understand my point, and I am glad we agree "the real nature of Bob ... is Brahman."

 

But Avinash, don't you find the Advaita Vedanta hard to accept? To accept it a person must maintain at least 3 paradoxical conclusions:

 

Did you read any statement by Shankara where he stipulates maintaining at least 3 paradoxical conclusions to accept his doctrine? I have not come across any such statement. The fact is, there are countless people who accept Advaita as the correct interpretation of Vedanta without maintaing paradoxical conclusions.

 

 

(1) In your case you, Avinash, must accept that your real nature is Brahman, so in a sense you are God. (I personally feel that God is superior to me and that I am God's child.)

 

A common rookie mistake. Accepting the real nature of everything as Brahman entails a lot more than that. Accepting the real nature of everything as Brahman => there is no you and there is no God. There is only Brahman.

 

 

(2) The human body is unreal, so when a woman is raped it is not true she was raped because the body is unreal and illusion--but that is absurd. (I just cannot see how there is no reality to the physical world. Is the physical world a lesser reality as compared to the spiritual, yes. But does the physical world have zero reality?--very hard to accept this.)

 

The absurdity of what you have written has its roots in your absurd understanding of Advaita. The world is unreal only when the real nature of everything is perceived and not until then. Until then, everything is real. Yet another rookie point that you have missed. But if it makes you feel better, you are not the first or the last person to make this mistake.

 

 

(3) The real nature of the human guy who raped her is Brahman so if the rape is considered real we would have to say Brahman raped her, but that is absurd.

 

Already covered in point #2

 

 

For all of these and other reasons I disagree with Sankara and am sympathetic to Ramanuja and Madhva.

 

Half knowledge is worse than no knowledge as adequately established in this case. You drew your knowledge of Advaita from improper sources and drew a whole bunch of incorrect conclusions. You can side with Ramanuja or Madhva - but not both as they disagree with each other and are two disparate systems. Perhaps you were not aware of that either?

 

 

I do very much thank you for your help, Avinash. I am not trying to be difficult. I am merely searching for the truth with all my heart.

 

If that is indeed true, then you first have some unlearning to do. Then, learn about Advaita from a credible source and make sure you get the basics right. After that you can disagree with Shankara and be sympathetic to his opponents. That way, you will at least have sound arguments to back your position.

 

Cheers

[mystic_seeker]

With all due respect Shvu, your comments display your misunderstanding of me.

 

 

Did you read any statement by Shankara where he stipulates maintaining at least 3 paradoxical conclusions to accept his doctrine? I have not come across any such statement. The fact is, there are countless people who accept Advaita as the correct interpretation of Vedanta without maintaing paradoxical conclusions.

 

Your comment is totally irrelevant. The point I made is that logically we have to accept at least 3 paradoxical conclusions if we accept Sankara.

 

 

A common rookie mistake. Accepting the real nature of everything as Brahman entails a lot more than that. Accepting the real nature of everything as Brahman => there is no you and there is no God. There is only Brahman.

 

You, because you do not fully understand me, have said a mixture of truth and falsity here. I use the word 'God' as a synonym for 'Brahman' so you are wrong to say that there would be no God. You assumed that the word 'God' as used by me meant something different from 'Brahman' but that is your mistake. Second, you prove my point because if, as you say, there is no you (bob) that is a reductio ad absurdum.

 

 

The absurdity of what you have written has its roots in your absurd understanding of Advaita. The world is unreal only when the real nature of everything is perceived and not until then. Until then, everything is real. Yet another rookie point that you have missed. But if it makes you feel better, you are not the first or the last person to make this mistake.

 

 

It is not nice to talk "down" to people. Your view makes no sense and you obviously did not read my post above about levels of reality (levels of being). If, as you say, "The world is unreal only when the real nature of everything is perceived and not until then" then, logically, the world would pass out of existence when "the real nature of everything is perceived." But something already has to exist in order to pass out of existence--and if something besides Brahman already exists then the non-dual view is wrong.

 

 

Half knowledge is worse than no knowledge as adequately established in this case. You drew your knowledge of Advaita from improper sources and drew a whole bunch of incorrect conclusions.

 

Well, since you know more than me why don't you recommend some books for me to read?

 

 

You can side with Ramanuja or Madhva - but not both as they disagree with each other and are two disparate systems. Perhaps you were not aware of that either?

 

You underestimate my level of understanding. I, of course, know that Mahva and Ramanuja have their disagreements but they agree in that they reject Sankara's non-dualism. That was my main point. I can work out later which of the two (Ramanuja or Madhva) I think is better.

 

 

If that is indeed true, then you first have some unlearning to do. Then, learn about Advaita from a credible source and make sure you get the basics right. After that you can disagree with Shankara and be sympathetic to his opponents. That way, you will at least have sound arguments to back your position.

 

Cheers

 

I am still waiting for you to suggest some books...

[shvu]

 

With all due respect Shvu, your comments display your misunderstanding of me.

 

Your comment is totally irrelevant. The point I made is that logically we have to accept at least 3 paradoxical conclusions if we accept Sankara.

 

You specifically said Advaita and not Shankara in your earlier post. Anyway, my standard recommendation is Upadesha Saahasri - straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Easily available through Ramakrishna Ashram for just 45 Rs ( ~$1) at

 

<http://www.advaitaashrama.org/publication/book-details.php?bid=357>

 

Cheers

[mystic_seeker]

Dear Shvu,

 

Thanks for the book recommendation!

 

Perhaps now you realize I am not as dense as I appear!

[vsevishie]

when it is said that a human being is not god, it is refered to that untill we didnt relise that we are god. we are not god. but we are still god.... but only his lowest form..... his lower nature.... [until we go beyong it] .

 

lower nature being all that we see - this illusionary world--the maya.

 

the reason of life- is to reach the state of god which is unmanifested. which is brahman. which is afcorse beyong the maya and beyong all the misery and pain.

 

until then we are still stupid animals cought in the webs of the 3 gunas.

 

Sattwa, Raja, and tamas.

 

 

but we will become god only after a long process, the reason they say we are god-its b/c its true,and it is said as a means to clean our mind

 

for us not to be identified with the body... the mind...the ego.... the intellect.... or the three gunas.

 

but if we think we are the body and the mind...and we arent cleaned .... how can we be god????

 

god is perfect.... we need to become perfect..... but we are him .... we just need to get it out........ allow him to bless us with supreme freedom.

 

if you look at the bhagavad gita. it is said that only once a man is clean, when he is not affected by pleasure and pain, when he is unselfish, when he does everything for god, when he controlls his body and his mind,his emotions and his intellect, ..

 

when we clean out our mind , when we destroy darkness with means of knowledge. and when we controll our desire we allow us to be freed from maya.... and we start to wonder about the truth... as we are no longer slaves to craves and our own selfish pointless needs.

 

only then we reach sattwa.... a state in which we are able to learn about the truth.... a state of happiness but it is still not the highest state....

 

 

after a person goes beyong that state.......... he becomes unmanifested... once he leaves the body.... and he becomes one with the unmanifested...and is never born again. as thier is nothing to be born... if u are unmanifested.... b/c the personality our "i" is destroyed... there is nothing to be manifested... other wize... we will be born again and again... endlesly.

 

 

 

may he bless you all with divine knowledge and happiness........

 

and may he bestow a long and happy life to Guruvani .

[sambya]

advaita ,inspite of its intellectual appeal is indeed very hard to follow.but it is not true that majority people in india are not advaitins.being born and brought up in india wherever i went i saw the dominance of advaita thought.almost alll indians are bhakti vadi in practise and advaitins at heart. for example most hindu has one chosen loved deity,but at the same time would acknowledge other dieties.this is typically advaitist attitude.belief that all religions are equally true(which forms the belief of so many hindus) is also essentially advaitic.

[bhaktajan]

This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever."

 

---implies that a human person, like me (Bob), would be identical with God.

 

Wrong. You posted it but evidently you can not read it?

It says plainly that, 'should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human...is...God,'