Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

[Guest guest]

If you want to really understand anything in Vedas, you have to seek from a knower. How did you understand vaishnavism ? By submitting to the guru. Similarly, you have to submit to Sankara and learn if you want to understand Sankara. You can defintely not learn by thinking that you are so intelligent to ask questions that He cannot answer. If you want to really understand, recite the second verse of Thotakashtakam once, where Thotaka is praying to Sankara to give understanding of all tattvas or atleast mentally for a second submit to the acharya. I have already answered your questions and I will repeat it for your benefit.

 

1. Is sadguna Brahman and nirguna Brahman the same according to advaita ?

 

Yes. There is no difference between the Lord and His Self and His expansions. The Lord and the expansions are known through attributes (sadguna brahman) and the Self is attributeless (nirguna brahman). These are both aspects of the One Absolute Truth (brahman).

 

2. If sadguna Brahman is just maya then

 

Brahman is satya and not mAyA. So I am not even attempting the answer to questions on this wrong premise.

 

3. If advaita says that there is no material body or jiva but there is only the "one self" then what is that which comes under the influence of Karma and maya. How can something that does not exist can undergo birth and death repeatedly (reincarnation). Surely advaita does not intend to say that karma and its effects are only maya. If the "one self" undergoes re-incarnation how is it that Brahman comes under the influence of "maya". If you say that it is sadguna Brahman then go back to question 2.

 

Question 2 is on a wrong and so parts of this question are also wrong. Saying that according to advaitam the Lord/brahman is bound by mAyA and therefore it is not correct is a false argument. Brahman does not come under the influence of mAyA. As Krishna and Sankara clarify, mAyA is the Lord's energy and the Lord is the controller. This mAyA has higher aspect (jIvAs) and lower aspect (matter).

 

The Self is unborn. As the Lord is the Self within all beings, He is unborn. But the self of my body - the jIvA, is born, dies and gets liberated because it is part of mAyA. All this is but like a dream because it is all mAyA. If the jIvA were real and is bound in the material world and can be liberated by His grace, then why wont the all compassionate and all powerful Lord not liberate them all ? The Lord is not interfering with the freewill of the jIvA because the jIvA is not real and so its suffering. It is only His lIlA.

 

It does not mean we dont pursue the path of knowledge and devotion. As of today, the mAyA seems to bind us and we need to come out of it, which is done by cultivation of knowledge and devotion.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

Let me at the outset clearly say that there is no disrespect meant for anyone (including Sri Adi Sankaracharya) by my questions.

 

I like to know clearly what the concepts of Advaita are and so my questions ?

 

Let me reiterate my questions and this is not directed at Ram only. Advaitists in this forum, please try to answer questions with reference to works written by Sri Adi Shankaracharya himself. This way there will be no confusion to people like me, so that we can refer to any of HIS works if possible.

 

1. What is the concept of creation ? How does Adi Shankara interpret creation as given in Vedas ?

 

2. Ram has explained in his post that "Sadguna Brahman" and "Nirguna Brahman" are the same. But my understanding of Advaita is that it says that "Sadguna Brahman = Isvara = GOD" emerges from "Nirguna Brahman = Atman = Purusha" and so do the "individual Selves". The "individual selves" are identical to the "Purusha".

 

"Sadguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes)" emerges from "Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without attributes)". In essence Brahman has split into two different things as attributes are given only to things perceived in duality. Also it is this "Sadguna Brahman" that unites "Nirguna Brahman" with "Prakrti = inert matter" for creation. Refer links below. (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part12/chap6.htm)

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap33.htm

 

3. According to advaita (as I know it) Jivatman = Individual Selves which is identical to purusha. Otherwise why the famous "aham Brahmasmi" interpreted as "I am Brahman" in advaita.

 

So Ram's explanation of his theories on advaita is false and unsatifactory.

[Gauracandra]

I've always been under the idea that there were a number of paths in Vedic times, and that the impersonal path was certainly one of them. Being personalists I don't think means we need to deny the existence of an impersonal path as well. I do think that mayavada philosophy was practiced in Vedic times, and as such has every right to claim to be Vedic.

[Guest guest]

1. Creation is a complex topic. A simplistic understanding is God created material world.

 

2. Is there a direct statement by Adi Sankara that sadguna brahman comes from nirguna brahman.

 

ananda mayo 'bhyAsAt. brahman is blissful by repetition. pUrnam adah pUrnam idam. The "cause and effect" are complete. Even though one can say So all the manifestations of brahman are brahman and non-different from brahman. That is the Lord is non-different from brahman.

 

3. If brahman is one, how can there be individual selves ? So "my theory of advaita" about the individual self being an illusion is correct. The statement that aham brahmAsmi can only be directly translated as "aham = brahman". Saying "aham qualitatively = brahman" is not direct. Once we understand, I am the jIvAtmA, the next step is to understand I am brahman. That is there is nothing but the Lord.

[Guest guest]

Gauracander equated advaitam with impersonalism. I beg to differ. Advaitam does not negate the personal God. avyakto paro nArAyanA. nArAyanA is beyond the manifestations. sadguna brahman is full of transcendental exchanges.

[shvu]

 

Raghuraman,

 

You haven't answered my earlier question about the unsatisfactory answers you got for your Qs on Advaita.

 

 

I like to know clearly what the concepts of Advaita are and so my questions ?

 

 

Imagine my suprise. Your earlier post which had a format like "if the answer to 3 is this, go to 2, if it is something else, go to 2 again", just didn't appear to be by someone who "clearly wanted to know".

 

 

Let me reiterate my questions and this is not directed at Ram only. Advaitists in this forum, please try to answer questions with reference to works written by Sri Adi Shankaracharya himself. This way there will be no confusion to people like me, so that we can refer to any of HIS works if possible.

 

1. What is the concept of creation ? How does Adi Shankara interpret creation as given in Vedas ?

 

 

Just like it is. Literally, so to say. This and your earlier questions such as "What is Maayaa?", "What is sadguna Brahman?", etc, imply that it would help you to get a rudimentary understanding of Advaita. Try the Bhaja Govindam first, and then Viveka Chuudaamani or aatma-Bhoda. That should help. You can also read the Advaita FAQ at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

 

 

2. Ram has explained in his post that "Sadguna Brahman" and "Nirguna Brahman" are the same. But my understanding of Advaita is that it says that "Sadguna Brahman = Isvara = GOD" emerges from "Nirguna Brahman = Atman = Purusha" and so do the "individual Selves". The "individual selves" are identical to the "Purusha".

 

 

He is right. The one and only Nirguna Brahman takes on attributes to achieve some specific purpose, which ultimately is aiding in Upaasana, Dhyaana Yoga or Bhakti Yoga. Hence, "Sadguna Brahman" and "Nirguna Brahman" are one and the same. What is your question here?

 

 

3. According to advaita (as I know it) Jivatman = Individual Selves which is identical to purusha. Otherwise why the famous "aham Brahmasmi" interpreted as "I am Brahman" in advaita.

 

 

"Individual selves are identical to the Purursha" is incorrect. As long as there are "individual souls", they are different from one another and are also different from the Purusha. "aham Brahmaasmi" is when there are no individual souls, Purusha, etc. The Vaakya itself, is from the the Brhadaaranyaka with the full verse as follows,

 

This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self. Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish to the owner; how much more so when many are taken away! Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this. - Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10

 

It is the Brhadaaranyaka of the Yajur Veda which says thus and is not something that was invented by Advaitins. It has to be understood correctly in it's context, or else it is misleading. It is one of the much misunderstood tenets of Advaita, especially by some, belonging to other schools who haven't traditionally studied the Puurva-paksha before proceeding to criticize it.

 

Again, what is your question here?

 

Cheers

 

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

"What answers did you receive Raghuraman, and why were they unsatisfactory? "

 

Shvu,

No need to get offended or get defensive. I stated this generally and not because of this discussion thread particularly. The answer is in my questions itself.

 

The main problem for me with advaita is how do you explain repeated births of jivas which apparently is Brahman. How can Jiva=Brahman be born in the first place. What is it that is born, dies and gets liberated. Material body does not get liberated. Illusory JIVA cannot be liberated as it is not ETERNAL and will surely disapperar just like body. After reading creation theories (ajAti vAda etc.) I understand that there is only Brahman. Where is creation ???

 

 

"Imagine my suprise. Your earlier post which had a format like "if the answer to 3 is this, go to 2, if it is something else, go to 2 again", just didn't appear to be by someone who "clearly wanted to know"."

 

That is your problem. I wanted my question to be clear. Assuming a particular kind of answer I put some more questions.

[Guest guest]

Raghu, BG chapter 2 clearly specifies that the self within us is unborn - ajah. But the same Gita talks about reincarnation. This can be adequately explained by Sankara because for Sankara, the Self (brahman) is unborn. But the illusory self - jIvA - is born, dies and get liberated. Srimad Bhagavatham also confirms this by saying that the self has three states of which two - bondage and realization are dream like. (Ref. niyamas of bhakti yoga thread for exact reference).

 

On the other hand if you consider the jIvA to be real and same as brahman in quality, then you cannot explain why it is not ajah with sAstric reference.

[Guest guest]

The post above is mine.

[shvu]

 

 

The main problem for me with advaita is how do you explain repeated births of jivas which apparently is Brahman.

 

 

Apparently? Refer to my above post which contains the verse from the Brhadaaranyaka. If you disagree with the Brhadaaranyaka, I would be interested to know why. Anyway, how do you explain repeated births of Jiivas which *are not* Brahman ?

 

 

How can Jiva=Brahman be born in the first place.

 

 

 

Why can't Jiiva = Brahman be born? If you think it is impossible, I would like to know how.

 

 

What is it that is born, dies and gets liberated. Material body does not get liberated. Illusory JIVA cannot be liberated as it is not ETERNAL and will surely disapperar just like body.

 

 

With due respect, your knowledge of Advaita is based on hearsay, in all probability from iskcon sources. Now, I happen to know for a fact that the knowledge of Advaita among iskcon circles (right from the founder) is extremely poor, with most of it being incorrect. Unless you have taken the time and effort to read and learn ther basics about Advaita from a reliable source, such trivial questions will persist.

 

 

After reading creation theories (ajAti vAda etc.) I understand that there is only Brahman. Where is creation ???

 

 

Ajata Advaita is from a Paramaartika perspective, where there is no duality and hence, no Creation, etc. Your confusion is due to mixing up the two.

 

Cheers

 

[gHari]

<CENTER><IMG SRC=http://home.earthlink.net/~jay540/Acintya-Bheda-Abheda.gif>

</CENTER>

FROM SHASTRA:<blockquote>

!. The Ultimate Reality looks like a triangle.

 

2. The Ultimate Reality looks like a circle.</blockquote>

 

If I conclude that it is triangular, I am mistaken. If I conclude that it is circular, I am mistaken. It is afterall a cone which is seen as different shapes from different vantage points.

 

A creature with only two-dimensional vision must be told the two sastric truths, since the real three-dimensional truth of reality's cone nature is quite beyond its comprehension.

[Guest guest]

Traiangle = no differene between our self and brahman.

Circle = difference between the self and brahman

Cone = difference is used in the sadguna brahman for the purpose of pastime but with the realization that none but the Self exists

 

 

Triangle = Ultimate is attributeless

Circle = Full of attributes

Cone = brahman is full of attributes and without it

 

 

Sankara did give the Cone. It is just that we think of it as the Circle or Triangle due to lack of understanding.

[Dkrishna]

JAI SRI RAM

JAI SRI HANUMAN

 

Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhava or any vaishanava say that advaita philosophy have many faulted(wrong) thinking on vedanta or veda or BG or shashtra or Puranic thinking.

 

That why Sri Ramanuja was born and spread the real meaning of Brahman concept but give importance to Saguna brahma instead of Nirguna brahma.

 

Have anyone read " Sri Narayaneenam" composed by famous advaitin "Narayana Bhattatiri" Who was staunch follower of Sri Sankaracharya philsophy ?

 

From that we can learn Narayana or krishna is ultimate brahman

 

Please let me know ,if I make any mistake on that

 

Sri Guruvayaroopa sharam sharam !!!