Advaita Puns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

this just cracked me up and I needed to post it where people would find it funny. I'm sure many of you have seen it.

Go on, tell me there is no one here to find this funny.

(Incidentally, Absolute and Relative are intertwined, so the relative "self-affirms". Beauty is beauty because it is beauty, even if it is empty. Good and bad are empty and nothing, but good is good and bad is bad. No problem.)

I have seen a growing trend in those following Non-Duality, particularly the New Age Non-Duality, that devotion is not necessary at all. Even reading scriptures isn't necessary at all, since the reality is non-dual anyway and there is no 'you'. Work is useless and meaningless anyway. Meditation is not required. Aham brahmasmi. There is no me, no world, no nothing. Blah blah. So apparently there is nothing to do and nothing to feel. This is extremely self deceptive and the height of escapism to remain with our own individual illusions.

The reality might be Non-Dual, but look at our daily lives. Look at the facts of our life. We live in suffering. We live in deep anxiety. We live in confusions. We live believing that duality itself is the truth and lack faith in situations which threaten our sense of safety or ego. We live in loneliness. We live in boredom. So, it is wrong to deceive ourselves by saying that we don't need devotion or practice or selfless work or meditation. We do. Either devotion to some form of God which we feel close to and is our ideal, or devotion to the guru. The guru can either be a living one or even the scriptures themselves. The ultimate guru is within, which shows us the way. Meditation is important to watch the fickle mind and settle it down, eventually ceasing needless agitation of the mind. Selfless work is important to do good to others, to see divinity in others and to make good use of your physical life.

Non-Duality is not nihilism. It doesn't reject meaning. There is a meaning to devotion, and to other dualistic ways of seeing God or the truth. It rather is necessary for us with fickle minds and impurity in the heart to practice selfless work(karma yoga), devotion (bhakti yoga) and meditation (raja yoga). Karma yoga and bhakti yoga remove the impurity of the heart and raja yoga or meditation ceases the scattering of the mind. This creates the ground for realization to be conducive. It isn't that there is nothing to do. Rather, there is a lot to undo. And undoing is not inaction, rather, it is a non-action.

Kind of a rant I know, but seeing the nihilistic and lazy spirit growing in Neo Non-Duality reminded me of how tamas and sattva seem so very similar in nature but are drastically different.

What is the difference between Purusha and Brahman? Is it just the same thing explained through the different approaches of Sankhya and Advaita respectively? Sankhya believes that Prakriti and Purusha are fundamentally different, whereas Advaita says that Brahman alone appears as nature and soul, or the object and subject. So is Purusha and Brahman the same thing, just different in their relation with the manifest universe? To my understanding Purusha is just brahman seen as fundamentally different from Prakriti, and Brahman is just purusha seen as a Non-Dual truth, not really a separate truth apart from the manifest universe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Scientific evidences for non-dualism

• The String theory : The String Theory states that every sub atomic particle is basically made up of small vibrational strings which oscillates around in different frequencies to form different sub-atomic particles like Quarks, Photons, Gluons, Bosons, etc. and then all sub-atomic particles come together to form different atoms and then different atoms come together to form different molecular structures, which is the base for all life forms for us
• So this means that basically, everything is just vibration to the core, and all we are doing is living in a delusion where we se non solid things as solid things
• Our consciousness is not included in this illusion because it is not inside our body. There is no part in our brain where your “self” or your consciousness resides, as said by sir Sam Harris.
• By taking our consciousness to the core of this illusion, we can break through this illusion and attain what we call “enlightenment”. Note that enlightenment here is not some supernatural bullshit because of which we will know everything in the universe, but rather a realization that we are living in an illusion.

Philosophical evidences for non-dualism

• The uncertainity of our consciousness : As said in an earier point, there is no place in our brain where our consciousness resides. And this is why Sam Harris said that the self is an illusion, but Advaita or non-dualism says that everything else is an illusion and only and only the self is real.
• Everything else is an illusion because of the string theory, and the only part on our body which is not physical is our consciousness because it is not present anywhere in our body. So vice versa of what Sam Harris has said is true. Only our self is real, and the rest of the world is an illusion, even our thoughts and our mind.

The standard narrative I have heard wrt to siddhis in vedanta and elsewhere is that you might come across them while on your sadhana, but they are distractions to the final goal and are to be discarded. The only goal for an advaita vedantic sadhaka is jivanmukti. The sadhana begins in earnest once you have renounced your desires for attainments in this world as well as the next (ihamutrartha phala bhoga viraga). Any demonstration of siddhis is frowned upon, and you are not even supposed to discuss them and any other spiritual experiences except with your guru.

I haven't come across mention of siddhis in the prakarana granthas I have read so far (drg drishya viveka,aparokshanubhuti, vivekachudamani), but advaitic lore does speak of them. Not to mention they are mentioned everywhere in the puranas (e.g., vishwamitra and trishanku), but these mainly come from the yogic or tantric traditions. These tradtions do mention siddhis explicitly (ashta maha siddhis, for e.g.).

Does advaita mention anything at all about siddhis? Are there any popular accounts of jivanmuktas who have demonstrated them? Or does advaita hold that siddhis don't exist? I have asked this question to a couple of swamis, and they repeat the standard line.

My motivation came from thinking whether there are any empirical implications for the advaitic claim on the nature of reality, or is it just a realization that only you are privy to. I.e., how would we scientifically establish vedanta in the 21st century before a skeptical audience? The straightforward answer to this or any other claim on the nature of reality is to demonstrate a real effect in a controlled laboratory setting that follows from the theory.

I think it can be looked at as either. At this stage in my investigation, I see support for both points of view.

Within advaita itself, it sees its thesis (brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahiva naparah) as a statement on the actual nature of reality. I.e., it is actually the case that brahman alone is real, the jagat is unreal, and jiva and brahman are actually the same. However, in doing so, I think it steps on the territory of science. Some scientists have actually been enthusiastic about this idea. E.g., JC Bose invested a great deal of time in trying to prove a monistic view of reality; Schrodinger and Bohm were to some degree enthusiastic about vedanta. I think the recent developments in the philosophy of consciousness (panpsychism, literature on the hard problem of consciousness) might also hint that nondualistic idealism as in advaita is a correct view of the nature of reality as it actually is. So it might well be the case that advaita is a correct ontology, it's just that science hasn't caught up yet.

But advaita vedanta can also be seen as only a description of a particular state of consciousness arrived through contemplative practices - basically, as a phenomenology of experience. I have heard this said by Sthaneshwar Timalsina. This will explain why different vedantic acharyas arrived at different seemingly contradictory phenomenologies based on the prasthana trayi - there just are many different ways of describing your experience, or perhaps even different kinds of experiences. It will also explain the seeming difficulties that lie in deriving any empirically demonstrable theory or claim from the advaitic thesis (i.e., how can something "mental" like consciousness give rise to something "physical", for instance). But it would still satisfy the requirement that the practice of advaita vedanta leads to atyantika duhkha nivrrtti - maybe the description that atman = brahman is indeed a very blissful and satisfactory state of the mind, irrespective of whether it is true or not.

What do you think of this issue, and why? Do you know of any literature that deals with this specific issue?

His teachings are a bit unconventional but makes sense. I was wondering if y'all knew about him and if yes what your views are on him? He has both English as well as Hindi channels. He also has a reddit page and maybe one of the people who work with him comment here on this subreddit and post sometimes. u/AcharyaPrashant_

vairagya is a necessary pre-requisite for moksha as per vivekachudamani - giving up all the fruits in this life and the next - as well as mumukskutva - an intense longing for liberation. I also read in some text (aparokshanubhuti?) that one should have disinterest in everything from Brahma to our body just as we would have disinterest in the excrement of a crow.

Does this mean that sannyasa is a pre-requisite for advaitic realization? Is it possible to do advaita sadhana and attain jivanmukti while staying engaged with the world as a normal person (and not a monk)?

Thanks in advance.

Sometimes I wake up and I think "You know ... I just wanna get high, make pizza rolls, and watch some kung fu movies". So I do it. And it's cool. And I don't have any guilt or misgivings about the ramifications of what I'm doing. I'm just along for the ride.

I was wondering about the similarities as well as the differences between the two. Both talk of a background reality as well as maya in a way, although it is put differently in kashmiri shaivishm. But I know that they have their differences in philosophy as well. Can somebody elaborate on this?

This, as well as the beliefs associated by some of its proponents, can stagnate progression or realisation. There is a trend of individuals who cling to some idea spoken by some lofty Guru.

There are the lost, and then those actively held captive by ideology.

Do you, and why? What is it you reject?

posted upon the advice of someone else to share here. Please delete if not welcome.

Absolutist answer giving statements, common to the Vedas, is the anti-thesis of Zen because no thing is fixed.

My post in the advaita group: 'Bring what you believe to be the truth in/of itself and I will come to refute it if it is not in alignment with actuality.

A large bulk of Eastern philosophy is just pure speculation and asserting answers to ultimate metaphysical claims which in themselves cannot be answered. A better answer would be: I don't know.

Notice one thing. Its always the men talking absolute hogwash and sitting in circles debating hard whilst the women are working hard & waiting for the men to wake up from their spell. 😃😃😃

Treating existence and oneself as if its a problem to solve. Diabolical.'

A few days back I had made a post on Yoga being Dharmic and that the purpose of Yoga is to integrate with the absolute, citing sources from Swami Vivekananda to Patanjali Yoga Sutras to the 'Father of Modern Yoga' - Tirumalai Krishnamacharya who also has written in his books clearly that oneness of Atman and Brahman is the goal and innate nature of Yoga, and so philosophy cannot be distinguished from practice of Yoga. I argued with many people in the Yoga subreddit about this and showed clearly the Dharmic roots using direct, original references which I had read.

Now it has become necessary to again mention the true intent of 'Bhaja Govindam' within the Hinduism subreddit because there have been appropriation attempts off lately, and exclusivist tendencies that have dismissed the philosophical angle of Bhaja Govindam in a disrespectful manner.

With this said, I'd like to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to any Sampradayas and every individual is obviously free to understand the devotional hymn of Bhaja Govindam as they want and as per their Sampradaya, but even if there are 100s of interpretations, the true intent of why Adi Shankara wrote Bhaja Govindam remains the same, and these interpretations do not affect the original purpose of it.

The roots of Bhaja Govindam lie in Advaitic tradition and so it is not possible to separate devotion and philosophy, This is not my personal opinion but that of Scholars and Adi Shankara himself has written an extensive commentary on it, affirming that the purpose of the sloka is to point out the non-dual truth. I refer to two sources here.

Mahadevan translation ; Check Page 18 and 19 in this where it is confirmed that 'Govindam' points to any deity and so it is just a pointer to the non-dual truth. Any God can be replaced with Govindam.

Coming to the refrain of the sloka ie., the repeating verse throughout.

भज गोविन्दं भज गोविन्दं गोविन्दं भज मूढमते ।

सम्प्राप्ते सन्निहिते काले नहि नहि रक्षति डुकृङ्करणे ॥ १॥

Commentary of refrain

This is the translation of Adi Shankara's commentary by Swami Chinmayananda.

The word " मूढमते " here refers to ignorance, and so the person who is ignorant and overly obsessing over semantics and grammar " डुकृङ्करणे " , such a seeker should instead focus their thoughts on God Govinda is the explanation here. Bhakti in Advaita or any s

While there are texts like Yoga Vasishtam that assert free will. On the other hand there are many vedantic texts that imply that we (jivas) are merely puppets of Brahman. Which one is correct according to you and why?

I have had numerous derealization (loss of sense of reality) episodes before but only a few of depersonalization (loss of sense of self). I’d like to mention that I was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol in any of the episodes. They happened 100% sober.

It was always a very scary experience, set off by stressors that seem very odd to me now: making eye contact with people was a HUGE trigger (I don’t know why), talking for extended periods of time, worrying about environmental issues, worrying about money, and so on.

Derealization would happen very suddenly and I’d feel like the world was an illusion, like a stage with actors and objects, and I was just witnessing a play. Sometimes it was even more nefarious, and leaned more into the Truman Show.

I had a depersonalization attack occur when I was living on pennies and dimes in a bad rent situation with an abusive landlord. I thought long and hard about taking my life and I lost about two hours of memory, during which time I apparently traveled to my mother’s house totally separated from my ego/identity. I distinctly remember viewing myself from an “outside” perspective and thinking “how silly it was of (my name) to try something like that!”, referring to myself in third person as if I wasn’t me.

Cut to November 2019. I was at rock bottom and I had stumbled across a very strange (at the time) guided meditation online called “The Template”. I decided to try meditation out on my own and had my first definitive experience of “sat-cit-ananda”, and when I say it was like heaven on earth, I can’t stress it enough. I was reduced to tears for the next few days, because it completely changed me.

Things I was previously obsessed with became pointless, nonsensical, etc. Seven years of atheism went out the window because I knew what I felt that night had to be God, Brahman, whatever you want to call it. It was the most peaceful feeling I had ever felt, almost like being back in the womb. Since learning about Advaita Vedanta and training myself to see the Atman/Brahman in everyone/everything around me, I have not looked back, and I haven’t had another dissociative episode.

In a way, I feel like I was inadvertently reaching for the same thing (enlightenment) that Advaita Vedanta is all about, but in a very bleak and harmful way. Kind of like groping around in the dark. Now, I know that the world is indeed illusory, but I’m not afraid anymore. I don’t get “triggered”. I can stare people in the eye all day

Revelation and Reason in Advaita Vedanta by K Satchidananda Murthy

Although it provides a scathing critique of Advaita doctrines in book 2, it neatly lays out the teachings of Advaita in a clear fashion.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105444

I recall starting to read a book whose name I don't recall now (vedanta sara? vedanta paribhasha?), and it discussed the pramanas (pratyaksha, anumana, etc) in some detail. But I don't recall reading about samkhya or nyaya-vaisheshika concepts in any of the classical prakarana granthas that I have read so far.

So my question to those who have explored this: how does advaita vedanta make use of samkhya and nyaya-vaisheshika? Is a detailed study of the latter two useful in advaitic sadhana?

Edit: I suppose the same can be asked about vyakarana (e.g., a study of laghu siddhanta kaumudi, etc.), but at least the latter is important in understanding the text of the sanskrit works.

Any books recommendations about vedanta in general and specifically about advaita vedanta?

Could anyone advice me on what books I can read to start practicing this philosophy? I’ve tried other Hindu sects but none of their philosophy matched what I found with this particular one ( advaita Vedanta).

At the moment I am watching the YouTube videos of Swami Tadatmananda from the Arsha Bodha Center. He’s a really awesome Swami but I want to make sure I see other varieties so I know I’m going towards the right path.the Bhagavad Gita helped me the most and really changed my life, but I haven’t found the right guru yet to help implement this philosophy into my life better.

Thank you for your advice and hope all of you are having a wonderful day

I mostly listen to Swami Sarvapriyananda and Rupert Spira. I’m also open to non-advaita podcasts that are somewhat related, like Joseph Campbell, Ram Dass, Sufism, etc

I was first introduced to Advaita after looking for a non-Christian interpretation of Neoplatonism and absolutely loved what I found.

The more I think about it the more I believe that Neoplatonism is the closest one can get to western Advaita.

Neoplatonism believes like Advaita that the world is essentially monistic with everything being an emanation of The One/ The Good (god without attributes) and from (emanating) the One comes the Nous which is intelligent and creates (God with attributes). It is from The Nous that the Spiritual is created / Emanated and here exist spiritual beings, angels, demons etc and I would argue it is here that the Hindu deities would should be as it is the last layer before the material world and where they could exert influence and power from. From the Spiritual the material world is emanated and it is the least you pure form of the one.

Obviously this is a mixing of systems and they won’t alight perfectly however I do think the link is there.

Would be great to know from those more knowledgeable than myself what I have misinterpreted here.

Like they talk about how Krishna is everything and all life is krishna....but yeah you better chant hare krishna or you wont get to run with the cows on Goloka!

Sense of self is simply a projection of the mind which dies with the body regardless of realization. Brahmaan is the Ultimate Reality!

I just wanted to know which of the following between dvait and advait is real according to gita. I have also heard that advaita was popularised by adi shankaracharya only because buddhism was on rise and Adi wanted to bring people back to vedas and not get into Shunya/Maya thought.

I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the Netflix show yet, but the monologue in question (last episode) was incredible, right?! Lots of really thoughtful dialogues in this show, which one might not expect in horror.

Here's the "I am" (what happens when I die) monologue:

Myself. My self. That’s the problem. That’s the whole problem with the whole thing. That word, “self.” Thats not the word. That’s not right, that isn’t…How did I forget that? When did I forget that? The body stops a cell at a time, but the brain keeps firing those neurons. Little lightning bolts, like fireworks inside and I thought I’d despair or feel afraid, but I don’t feel any of that. None of it. Because I’m too busy. I’m too busy in the moment. Remembering. Of course. I remember that every atom in my body was forged in a star. This matter, this body is mostly empty space after all, and solid matter? It’s just energy vibrating very slowly. There is no me. There never was. The electrons of my body mingle and dance with the electrons of the ground below me and the air I’m no longer breathing. And I remember there is no point where any of that ends and I begin. I remember I am energy. Not memory. Not self. My name, my personality, my choices, all came after me. I was before them and I will be after, and everything else is pictures, picked up along the way. Fleeting little dreamlets printed on the tissue of my dying brain. And I am the lightning that jumps between. I am the energy firing the neurons, and I’m returning. Just by remembering, I’m returning home. And it’s like a drop of water falling back into the ocean, of which it’s always been a part. All things… a part. You, me and my little girl, and my mother and my father, everyone’s who’s ever been, every plant, every animal, every atom, every star, every galaxy, all of it. More galaxies in the universe than grains of sand on the beach. And that’s what we’re talking about when we say “God.” The cosmos and its infinite dreams. We are the cosmos dreaming of itself. It’s simply a dream that I think is my life, every time. But I’ll forget this. I always do. I always forget my dreams. But now, in this split-second, in the moment I remember, the instant I remember, I comprehend everything at once. There is no time. There is no death. Life is a dream. It’s a wish. Made again and again and again and again and again and again and on into eternity. And I am all of it. I am everything. I am all. I am that I am.

Any books recommendations about vedanta and advaita vedanta?

Any books recommendations about vedanta in general and specifically about advaita vedanta?