A few questions on Advaita and their answers

[devotee]

[size =3 ] Namaste Satay,

You expressed desire to know my stand on your doubts & I am writing it down below :

Q1. Why Brahman got deluded to begin with ? Why if I am Brahman, I can’t find my ‘self’ ? How is it that the all pervading Brahman whose nature is sat-chit-ananda got deluded or has the impression of delusion or has a dream of delusion ?



Answer : Let’s try to see the way I see it :

The Brahman is infinite consciousness. Let’s forget ourselves & the world for a moment & see a vast infinite space filled completely with Consciousness. Though it is infinite but the Consciousness is one alone. Now, this Consciousness is has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself. It vibrates at various frequencies in its four different parts or layers. Let’s remember Maandukya Upanishad which describes this Atma or Brahman having four parts. The first two parts have infinite sets of vibrations at different coordinates of time & space combination (this time & space is within mental realm) within the infinite consciousness. So, there is one set of vibration at some point of space & time & we call it "Devotee". This entity "Devotee" has, in reality, no separate identity on its own but having a unique vibration of the Consciousness it seemingly acquires a separate identity & characteristics. To understand this further, let’s visualize a vast infinite Ocean in front of us. The Ocean is one but within its vast expanse, the water molecules are not having similar vibration everywhere. So, at some places, you see minor waves, somewhere high waves, somewhere hot water current, somewhere very cold water, somewhere peaceful bed of water, somewhere water vapour, somewhere icebergs etc. etc. …. there are infinite spots & each spot has a different characteristics of its own due to varied levels of vibration of the molecules. The Brahman or Atma has much more possibilities to offer than this simplistic example (let’s remember that Atma is unique … it cannot be compared with anything we know ..… so we must visualise more than what we are used to) …. these infinite spots having different vibrations can have individuality & a mind of their own (all these manifestation can be perceived only within our mental realm) which can differentiate itself from others … which can feel pains & pleasures.

When did it happen … how did it happen ? It never “happened” ... and so there is no question of how it “happened” ? This question comes from our conditioned mind which likes to believe that everything must have an origin. However, if everything must have an origin then even God must have an origin … so this explanation of the universe through “origin” theory doesn’t clear all doubts. The reality is something unique & for understanding that we must think beyond our conditioned way of thinking. There was never an origin & there will never be an end. Does it sound like, “Matter & energy can neither be created nor be destroyed” ? There are only changes in levels of vibrations which in turn changes the forms & perceptible characteristics of the “spots” on the bosom of the infinite ocean of consciousness.

The question was, “Why Brahman got deluded to begin with ?”. Here, we are mixing different possibilities from different states & creating confusion for ourselves. The Brahman has different characteristics & possibilities in different states (of vibration). The Carbon comes in the form of carbon black, graphite & diamond. The carbon black, diamond & graphite are all same substance & yet they are completely different. In a coal mine, you can find coal, graphite & diamond all together. They are all carbon but coal is not graphite & graphite is not diamond or vice-versa. So, Brahman in the first two states of existence i.e. waking & dreaming states is not called Brahman as it is not perceived as sat-chit-ananda then. It is not omnipotent, it is not omniscient, it is not the lord of all, it is not the cessation of all activities (vibrations). In these two states, because of the apparent individuality acquired, there is duality. There is "Devotee" …. there is the world which is different from "Devotee" & there is God. There is the fourth one too which is the primal peaceful ocean of infinite consciousness (on cessation of all vibrations/activities) where all the three states appear & disappear which cannot be described by anything we know or can know within our mental realm (i.e. within the first two states).

So, when Brahman is known as Brahman or perceived as Brahman in common parlance, there is no delusion as when we talk of Brahman, it is either the third state which is in our mind or the fourth state which is in our mind. This mind doesn’t perceive things in the first two states as Brahman due to our conditioned way of thinking. There is nothing which can delude it. The delusion is one of its characteristics within these two states … it is its inherent property.

If I am Brahman why I can’t find my own “self” ? Who says you cannot ? You are Brahman & you have to realize this Truth to be out of this world of delusion, pains & pleasures. This is the game we are all in. We have to change our vibration by treading on the path of Jnan Yoga & attain realization of our true state.

Q2. The neo advaitins are quick to say that muslim and christian scriptures teach the same thing as hindu scripture … that muslims and christians are brahman but then they turn around and attack anyone that questions them. Why do the neo advaitins get upset when questioned if everything is brahman? It doesn't make any sense!


Ans : Perhaps it is me, you are talking about as Neo-Advaitin. That is OK. Let me try to offer the answer to your question :

If anything is unconditioned Truth, it must be available to the entire mankind without any bias to race, country & scriptures. The Pratyaksha Pramaana is available that the One-ness has been attained in non-Hindu religions too irrespective of whatever they worship, whatever they think of God or whatever scriptures they have etc. The intense Bhakti takes you to one-ness of God irrespective of name & form you use. Al Mansoor Hallaz was a Muslim by faith … but he attained One-ness with God & proclaimed, “ I am the Truth” ! Rabia & Rumi were among others who attained One-ness with God though they belonged to Islam & might have never read Advaita Vedanta. Jesus too said, “I and my father are one”. Ramkrishna too proved this Truth by following different paths.

Advaitins cannot see “others” different from Brahman … otherwise they cannot follow this path. They always try to see the One-ness but they have to interact with this world within duality otherwise no interaction is possible and we have to go a long way before we can drop our ego completely.

I won’t say that Muslim & Christian scriptures too teach the same thing … but I can say with confidence that whether anyone worships Allah or Jesus or Krishna or Shiva or whatever chosen deity …. if the devotion is intense enough … if the love is intense enough … they all will attain the same Reality as Reality is one alone.

I cannot say what you mean by your later part of the question … as I see it, they don’t get upset on that question … they very well know the answer. But who is there to listen & understand ? No one can make anyone understand this complicated Truth unless he tries to understand that very carefully. What happens, as I see, is that the other person is in no mood to listen & understand but to attack by bringing in illogical arguments …. & there the communication breaks as the minimum requirement for a meaningful communication is not fulfilled. For a proper communication to be possible, there should be someone to say something & there should be someone ready to listen to that thing. But it doesn’t happen. You can understand that it can only bring bitterness & breakdown of communication. It is like you are trying to teach Quantum Mechanics to a student of Arts/Commerce but he doesn’t understand (expectedly), doesn’t listen to you but keeps attacking whatever you say ( & also your teachers & ideals). After a certain point of time, you are going to be irritated unless you are very advanced in spirituality or seasoned & can take it all calmly. The neo-advaitins you are talking about, including me, are not so much spiritually advanced or seasoned enough to take it all calmly. If they were, they, perhaps, would not have been on this forum in the first place.

I am surprised that you didn’t ask this question from a dualist. They too get irritated … imo, much more than the neo Advaitins … use more derogatory terms & sarcastic language etc. But perhaps, they are just normal human beings … & neo-advaitins are just not normal ! I will ask you to please check how many times the so called neo-advaitins on this forum criticized any of paths of devotion or their Gurus in derogatory terms & how many times the normal human beings, following the paths of devotion criticised Advaita & its teachers ! No one can accept derogatory terms being used against his Guru(s) & traditions. Advaitins are no exception. [ /size]

(to be continued in my next post ...)

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Satay,

You also asked me to answer questions which were posted by Grames in one of the recent threads. I am giving the answers below :

Q3. Questions posed by Grames in his post : You wanted to know the answers to questions posed by Grames in one of his post. Let me try to answer those :

Advaita does not stop you from performing Karma or Janana Yoga but the ultimate objective of such Yoga or results of performing so much Sadana is not clear.

It is crystal clear … nothing is clearer than this. I wanted to write on what the Advaitin actually do & why in the thred-series, “Aham Brahmasmi” but could not do it. It needs a lot of time & I don’t have so much time.
This Saadhna is to know, “who you really are” … removal of ignorance … realization of Self … by attaining which all your Karmas get roasted. You attain absolute freedom.

There is no pursha Artha's in Advaita and what is Karma? What is Artha? What is Dharma? What is Moksha? Truely they all are dreams or dream objects and they have no reality in them.

This question comes from the conditioned way of thinking when you can’t think beyond your body-mind- entity & resulting duality.
Once you realize Self, there is nothing which remains unattainable though the desire to attain anything is not there in the first place.

If you have to deny the controller aspect of spiritual realm, it is how your philosophy will be but Vaishnavas happily believe that it is Hari who is Supreme,

This, surprisingly, has come from our esteemed friend who claims that he knows Advaita more than the Advaitins know !

The third state of Brahman/Atma is the Controller of all, the lord of all. He alone is known as the Ishvara, Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Krishna etc. He IS supreme.

He is the one who made all the arrangement in this world for this Soul to experience His Supremacy

To experience his Supremacy ? Why this omnipotent God has any desire to “experience” supremacy ? That shows he was not happy in his unconditioned state ! He was bored as a normal human being by being all alone !! No. This concept of God brings down God to the level of humans like the doctrines of Abrahimic religions.

Lord Krishna said in BG, “The actions don’t bind me because I don’t have attachment to results of the Karma” ? [BG 4.14] If he really has desire to experience his Supremacy, how can this statement be true ? It is hard to believe that God will create this horrible world full of pains just to enjoy his experience of Supremacy among his own created beings ! This reduces God to the level of a megalomaniac human King.

So for Advaitin, work is encouraged but the goal is hidden or fruit of your work is hidden.

No, it is not hidden. Please read my above post.

Becoming Brahman is the delusion

“Becoming” is really a delusion. You have to realize that you are Brahman. You can’t be what you are already not. There is nothing which can be added from outside to make a non-Brahman Brahman.

and extra ordinary promise or declaration where the desired people are promised that "They are God"

Isn’t it a silly notion ? Who promises to whom ?

Such people even when they read Shruti, worship Lord do not know the real purpose behind such acts

Such people very well know. You can only say that you don’t know. How can you claim so confidently about others ?

and how many have answers for why are you in this situation in first place.

Please refer to my answer above. However, what is the answer of a dualist ? Why did God create such a world ? Why did he create beings & left him to suffer the pangs of hunger, the pains of illness & death ? Just to feel that He is God ? Can He be called compassionate as we call him ? Why did God allow India to be conquered by the mlechhas for centuries & its habitants humiliated worse than animals ? Why innocent children from poor countries are trafficked to Arab Countries & Western countries for sex & acting as their slaves ? Why does he allow an innocent girl to be raped by a lecher & sold in the market ? What was the need of creating such a horrible world ? You may say that it is because of their Karma. But how did they start doing bad karma in the first place ? Why such desires were given to him ? Why hunger was given to him ? By doing so, didn’t God know that this situation was inevitable ? If He didn’t know then how can He be called omniscient ?

Lord Krshna for them is just a "JivanMukta" and what else you can call as delusion? What is Lord Krshna for you? Brahman? Realized Jivan Mutka? One of us? Or twhat?

Who said that Lord Krishna is just a Jivan Mukta ? One can be Mukta (libertaed) when he is bonded or have illusion of bondage at any point of time. Lord Krishna’s incarnation was devoid of any bondage since its coming into this world in the form of a human being. Lord Krishna is what He is. Though speaking as a human being … he makes it clear that He is the supreme reality. He is God, the third state of Brahman … he is the Atman in the hearts of all beings. Lord Krishna’s birth is divya/alaukik ( not of this world) … it can’t be understood by our limited mental powers of perception. He is what he says about himself in Bhagwad Gita. Arjuna says in BG, “You alone know yourself by yourself”. (BG 10.15)

The only way you can equate all of them (all forms/names of God) is by only one rule of Advaitam and that too in absolute reality sense and if you have any different philosophical point to justify that all devatas are indeed same and with same ranks, i would be very much delighted to continue the conversation after such response.

And my friend claims that he understands Advaita ! This is not Advaita, my dear friend. Considering Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Mother Goddess & other devas as manifestation of the same supreme reality is not Advaita. It is Hinduism. It is what is taught to a Hindu child by his parents since he starts understanding this world. This understanding is in his blood. This is how I have been taught. Those who have come from other religions can have problems accepting this. Those who are very sectarian in their attitude can also have this problem. The westerner Hindu faces this problem as normally he joins a sect of Hinduism. But this is not what is taught to a common Hindu.
Advaita is something different. It doesn’t talk of equality of different forms & names of God … it talks about Only one reality which manifests itself in all the three states & it is what is the fourth. It proclaims, “Thou are That !”. In Advaita, the creator & the creation are not different.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

These questions are food for thought for all dualists. These are the questions which took me towards Advaita :

Question : The dualists say that we should all sing praise of God … we should worship God ... we should love God etc. & then God will love us. In what form should I love him ? How can I know that only BG is correct & the Bible is wrong ? How can I know that Padma Purana is correct & Shiva Purana is wrong ? Who can tell me what is really right & what is really wrong ? Why should God bother whether anyone criticizes him or praises Him ? Is He not mature enough to be free from effects of all such praises/ condemnation ? What will God do to an atheist if he is otherwise a very nice fellow but doesn't worship/love him as he doubts His very existence ?

OM

[satay]

Namaskar,
Thanks devotee for answering. I respect your point of view.

[AwareConsciousness]

The question of brahman's delusion is interesting. It would seem that brahman is unconcerned with being enlightened or deluded. Either way it is brahman simply manifest. Inquiries into our consciousness can lead us back to enlightenment away from delusion but even then, that is just another movement of brahman. We will never truly know the desires of brahman. We can only end our personal suffering by accepting that ATMAN=BRAHMAN, that we are part of the whole.

[grames]

Namaste all,

I am responding to one of the best answers that is written on this forum for various questions raised to know more insight in to Advaita. Though, the initial reading of this response looks very clear and convincing, a deep rational analysis with respect to our Shrutis, BS and BG and our day to day anubhava of real life, i tempt to raise more critical questions to get a deeper fitting answers from our beloved Devotee or for that matter, any scholar of Advaita.

Let me classify the response (two messages together) in to two namely, one where Devotee explains his understanding of what is "Advaita" as per his/her understanding. Set of Questions i am raising on his own description of what Advaita is. Secondly, what the stand of classical advaita on some of the idea he has proposed here, for which i would like to get some praanama from any 'classical' scholar's work or from Shrutis, BS or BG or bhasyas. To, in nutshell one set is for the personal writing of Shri Devotee and another set though not complete for actual Praamana that are available to support his personal description here. Though, i am restricting this response to only for the first option and will wait for Shri Devotee to take this conversation to "Praamana" based discussion so that more insights, clarity and truth can be shared with open mind and sincerity to the scared texts.

Before anything, i greatly appreciate Shri Devotee for his deeper understanding, language skills and extra ordinary example he put forth to explain his concept of advaita and finally his compassion and quest for Truth. Also, i believe he was never given a satisfactory answers that he had in his mind which he has raised at the later part of this message, by any Vaishnava school or Theistic school where God is Personal though answers for all such questions are in fact available and i will give 'excerpts' from great scholars who answered those questions with the support of proper Praamanas.

Now, to Devotees 'personal' explanation of what Advaita is... or answers to the questions...

Now, this Consciousness is has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself.

So, you are advocating that the Brahman is going to manifest?? How such manifestation happens for a nirVishesha Brahman when He is not having such qualities? If it is just His "Cit" that manifest, then such "Cit" becomes His quality/guna as Brahman is not affected by such manifestations and He manifests the Cit which is not inherent of what He is, which is against the concept of Brahman is Cit.

It vibrates at various frequencies in its four different parts or layers.

Nice statement. I am sure you are trying to explain the Maandukya here where the different states of "experience is narrated. But, the comparison or reasoning is very nice but the rational is missing something heavily here. Since, Brahman is Cit, Cit having four layers or parts mean Brahman having parts? Parts as in what? You are unknowingly advocating division of Brahman even if you mean to say the Parts are temporary,illusion or even super imposition etc. Brahman has no parts and if we have accept even 'tatasthalakshana", it is still imparting division to the Brahman. So, parts cannot mean layers, division, section, consciousness ( division of consciousness is absolutely oxymoron), perception, degree of realization etc. So, what these four states mean then? States of Brahman? It cannot be as you cannot impart division/parts to Brahman and that is against Shruti Vakyas. Secondly, your statement attracts more objection or doubt here as you are importing 'differences' to this infinite conscious entity called Brahman by saying, 'vibrates at various frequencies'. It has two Doshas. First one being nirVishesha, NirGuna Advaita Brahman 'vibrating' its(??) consciousness and then becoming a entity that perform action on itself. The next one being, Vibrating at "various" frequencies meaning Brahman is not equally distributed and not an undivided harmonious or congruous entity. So, explain me how such Brahman who is considered sat,cit and Ananta vibrates only the 'cit' portion? If such vibration happens, don't you think Brahman will no longer be NirVisesha?? and also partless? Sat Cit and Ananta though three words but are One which is Brahman is what 'Advaitam' means right? OR am i understanding with conditioned state of mind only?

The rest of the response is very good if these fundamental principles are acceptable as is.

When did it happen … how did it happen ? It never “happened” ... and so there is no question of how it “happened” ?

This is trick in plain words. What is that, that didn't happen? The vibrations? the manifestations due to Vibrations? Or the individuality that was assumed as the result of vibrations at different point in space and time? You only painstakingly wrote that, all such things "happened" but now you are asking back :when did it happen: ??? Are we lost? So, if your first paragraph is true to your heart, you have to accept that "it happened" at least because you explained that "its how it happens or happened" . So, there is no more question of "orgin" of that incident and the doubt is not about the origin of that incident with respect to Kala at all. You can simply say it is eternal and you get much more support from Shruti Vaks for that claim. Jiva is eternal, the big A, AtMan is also eternal and you are teaching the individual identity is due to the big A Atman's cit vibrations and thus creates duality or assumes duality because of individuality. But regardless, why do you say it never happened and don't you think it is misleading and self contradicting? Your subsequent law of conservation of energy is something very different and cannot be applied to the "Advaitic" Brahman at least as how you explained. The LCE talks about "transformation" of one form of energy to another but Advaitic Brahman does not transform at all in to another form of energy. . (Advaitic Brahman is monolithic energy and no transformation happens for that energy and it exist only AS IT IS eternally and that is how classical Advaita approaches the idea of Brahman).

Now whatever you built after these fallacious assumptions are not even ready or worthy yet to discuss until you clear the doubts i raised. So, i request you to substantiate proper praamana for your beautiful explanation of "advaita" and if you are interested, we can jump to more "praamana" based conversation to understand "Advaita" better first and then if at all it opens room for further inquiry then we can do that happily with sincerity and mutual respect.

janmadyasya Yatah! --- This is the knot for your beautiful explanation but only problem is, it has to be interpreted as how Shri Badrayana wants and not as how any particular school of philosophy wants.

[kd gupta]

Aum namah shambhavay cha mayobhavay cha namah shankaray cha mayaskaray cha shivtaray cha
urvārukamivabandhanānmṛtyormukṣīya māmṛtāt ||
Urvarkam+iva+bhandhanat+mritoh+mukshiya+ma+amratat

In advaitin language…

Gyani says, prabhu , I am matured so keep me away from all worldly relations, bondage which are like death similarly as ripe cucumber breaks off the parental body , but my parmatma shiva, not from the Immortality .

In Krsn language….

Na hi dehabhritaa shakyam tyaktum karmaanyasheshatah;
Yastu karmaphalatyaagi sa tyaageetyabhidheeyate.

Verily, it is not possible for an embodied being to abandon actions entirely; but he who
relinquishes the rewards of actions is verily called a man of renunciation.
Nature, and your own nature, too, will urge you to do actions. You will
have to abandon the idea of agency and the fruits of actions. Then no action will bind you.

My dear grames , this is now YOU only to choose .

[devotee]

Dear Grames,

Please go through your posts below in different threads & the present threads. In all these posts, you are not asking questions for clarification. You are giving your own “fatwa” (the final verdict ) on issues related with Advaita. Most of you what you so aggressively assert in these posts just expose your ignorance even more. You use your condescending tone & sarcastic manner to “ask” for clarification !

No, this is not how clarifications are asked for. This is the way a pleader fights to win over his opponent by hook or by crook.

See these :

There is no pursha Artha's in Advaita and what is Karma? What is Artha? What is Dharma? What is Moksha? Truely they all are dreams or dream objects and they have no reality in them. If you have to deny the controller aspect of spiritual realm, it is how your philosophy will be

So for Advaitin, work is encouraged but the goal is hidden or fruit of your work is hidden. Becoming Brahman is the delusion and extra ordinary promise or declaration where the desired people are promised that "They are God" and guide them to work more in that direction of attaining/experiencing such oneness with Brahman. Such people even when they read Shruti, worship Lord do not know the real purpose behind such acts and how many have answers for why are you in this situation in first place. Lord Krshna for them is just a "JivanMukta" and what else you can call as delusion? What is Lord Krshna for you? Brahman? Realized Jivan Mutka? One of us? Or what? Can you talk about it clearly before we come back to discussing the ranks of Deities or Devatas?

The only way you can equate all of them is by only one rule of Advaitam and that too in absolute reality sense and if you have any different philosophical point to justify that all devatas are indeed same and with same ranks,

in nutshell one set is for the personal writing of Shri Devotee and another set though not complete for actual Praamana that are available to support his personal description here.

First of all, if you are not a Vaishnava, there is no concept of Deities to you in absolute reality and you cannot have one such unless you have to accept the "differences" as it becomes a necessity to justify the concept of Supreme Lord or various Devata.

If your belief is all but One Brahman in absolute reality, you should not have even the concept of Ista Devata and such Ista Devata are only relative reality and when you accept the term "relative", naturally ranking or differences between such realities are rationally true. Trying to equate such "Devata" as same with no difference is like comparing all the "paddle" of the boats and claiming they all are one and same with respect to their purpose though they are independent, unique and may be priced differently and used differently. So when your position is to even deny the temporary "devata" as relative reality with respect to the Absolute realization, what is the pride in ranking them as same with out any merit or praamanas? Shouldn't it be different as long as you are in relative reality and you pronounce such differences by various names and perceive various forms? So such differences which obviously will rank them in order isn't?

Now, to Devotees 'personal' explanation of what Advaita is... or answers to the questions...

Please note that you have given no Pramaan to prove anything you say above. However, just see your tone & language in the highlighted parts of your statement & have no pramaana to stand on ! They also show how much you know about Advaita & also other paths of devotion e.g. Shaivism or Shaktism.

0000000000000000000000000000000

Do you think, I should have any inclination to offer any explanation to whatever you have asked for seeing your such strong bias & your language used ? How can you ? I have nothing to gain by winning any argument here. Someone said that you should not “Assume” as by doing so you are actually making an ass of you & me.

I find that your this post asking for clarification is full of such assumptions :
a) You have assumed that everything I explained was a fig of imagination of my mind without any authority.

=> No. This is based on Shruti & also on teaching I received from my Guru who is from one of the orders of Sankara. Keeping in view of your attitude, I am afraid, you may not hesitate to ridicule him too … so I shall give you scriptural Pramaana to remove your doubts.

b) You have assumed that I have played with words to trick anyone.
=> What shall I gain by doing so ?

Advaita has been explained in many ways. Why ? Because it cannot be described by anything we know & can know. So, the best possible examples are offered. I have offered mine. The question is how does it contradict the Shruti ? Please try to prove that it against Shruti by quoting scriptural texts from Shruti ( As Advaita Vedanta doesn't rely upon Puranas).

OM

[devotee]

Dear Grames,

As you have already asked, let me try to answer your queries :

So, you are advocating that the Brahman is going to manifest??

This is how you read ? Did I say that “Brahman is going to manifest” ? I said, “this Consciousness has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself”.

How such manifestation happens for a nirVishesha Brahman when He is not having such qualities? If it is just His "Cit" that manifest, then such "Cit" becomes His quality/guna as Brahman is not affected by such manifestations and He manifests the Cit which is not inherent of what He is, which is against the concept of Brahman is Cit.

First of all read Aitreya Upanishad which proclaims, “Prajnaanaam Brahma” i.e. Consciousness is Brahman. This Consciousness is called as the SELF & It is everything that was, is & what will be (Maandukya Upanishad … so it is called “Sat” (real, which exists) & it is blissful in its third and fourth states. As I told in my post in reply to Satay that when we say Brahman we think of only the third & the fourth states of Brahman. Moreover, the first two states are conditioned states & not the unconditioned state of Brahman. So, that is why Brahman is called Sat-Chit-Ananda. It is not perceived so in the first two states.

Read the Upanishad & ask these questions from yourself :

What is the meaning of Sat-Chi-Ananda ? Description of which parts (states) of the Ataman in Mandukya Upanishad talks about Sat-Chit-Ananda ? Does it describe the Waking & Dreaming States as Sat-Chit-Ananda ? Does Maandukya Upanishad talks about nirVishesha, Nirguna Brahman in the first two states ? You are mixing Turiya, the unconditioned reality with the first two states. Please read this Upanishad first.

but the rational is missing something heavily here. Since, Brahman is Cit, Cit having four layers or parts mean Brahman having parts? Parts as in what? You are unknowingly advocating division of Brahman even if you mean to say the Parts are temporary,illusion or even super imposition etc. Brahman has no parts and if we have accept even 'tatasthalakshana", it is still imparting division to the Brahman. So, parts cannot mean layers, division, section, consciousness ( division of consciousness is absolutely oxymoron), perception, degree of realization etc. So, what these four states mean then? States of Brahman? It cannot be as you cannot impart division/parts to Brahman and that is against Shruti Vakyas.

I am sorry but do you know what this question appears to me ? “The whole Ramayans is over & the question asked is, “I understood the whole Ramayana but I could not understand whose father Sita was. Can you please tell me ?””. I very well referred to Maandukya Upanishad which is Shruti & here you are claiming that it is against Shruti when it is very clear from your post that you didn’t find time to read that Upanishad as you were devoting your time in making preparations to attack me.

Please read the Upanishad first & then we shall discuss. Refer Maandukya Upanishad Verse 2.

Secondly, your statement attracts more objection or doubt here as you are importing 'differences' to this infinite conscious entity called Brahman by saying, 'vibrates at various frequencies'. It has two Doshas. First one being nirVishesha, NirGuna Advaita Brahman 'vibrating' its(??) consciousness and then becoming a entity that perform action on itself.

This makes it clear that you didn’t read the Upanishad I referred to. Please understand the first two states it talks about.

The next one being, Vibrating at "various" frequencies meaning Brahman is not equally distributed and not an undivided harmonious or congruous entity. So, explain me how such Brahman who is considered sat,cit and Ananta vibrates only the 'cit' portion? If such vibration happens, don't you think Brahman will no longer be NirVisesha?? and also partless? Sat Cit and Ananta though three words but are One which is Brahman is what 'Advaitam' means right? OR am i understanding with conditioned state of mind only?

The vibration is the activities which the Upanishad talks about …. on cessation of which the unconditioned state Turiya is attained & which is to be realised. So, till the time the activities are there, the vibrations are there …. the Unconditioned Turiya is not attained. The vibrations & resulting restlessness are very high in the first two states.
Your other questions are repeated ones & I have already answered them.

This is trick in plain words. What is that, that didn't happen? The vibrations? the manifestations due to Vibrations? Or the individuality that was assumed as the result of vibrations at different point in space and time? You only painstakingly wrote that, all such things "happened" but now you are asking back :when did it happen: ??? Are we lost? So, if your first paragraph is true to your heart, you have to accept that "it happened" at least because you explained that "its how it happens or happened" . So, there is no more question of "orgin" of that incident and the doubt is not about the origin of that incident with respect to Kala at all. You can simply say it is eternal and you get much more support from Shruti Vaks for that claim.

Your logic is not understandable to this less intelligent mind. How do you conclude that it must have an origin ? I said, the Ataman or the Brahman or the Infinite Consciousness has four parts/states. The three parts/states have activities (vibrations) & the fourth states is without any activity (Maandukya Upanishad).

How does it prove that this state of having four parts (states) must “happen” ? Did I really write “painstakingly” that it all happened ? Where did I write this, my dear friend ? Please enlighten me. You know my mind even better then myself !

Jiva is eternal, the big A, AtMan is also eternal and you are teaching the individual identity is due to the big A Atman's cit vibrations and thus creates duality or assumes duality because of individuality. But regardless, why do you say it never happened and don't you think it is misleading and self contradicting?

Mind your words, please ! I am not “teaching” this. This is what the Upanishad says. And I never said that it ever happened ! AND please note down : Jiva is eternal as Brahman/SELF & not as Jiva.

Your subsequent law of conservation of energy is something very different and cannot be applied to the "Advaitic" Brahman at least as how you explained. The LCE talks about "transformation" of one form of energy to another but Advaitic Brahman does not transform at all in to another form of energy.

I never said that Brahman is some sort of energy ! Then why could it have been stated to be indescribable ? You read more than what is written & understand the mind of the writer even much more than the writer himself !
What I was referring to is this : Please read & understand carefully.
Everything that we see & perceive within the first two states also is nothing but Brahman. Brahman is beginningless & indestructible & so are the matter & energy …. the vibrations of various spots in infinite coordinates on the vast infinite expanse of Consciousness (Brahman) keeps varying & present this manifested world. I also said that this is inherent property of the Brahman in the first two states. It never happened & so there is no question as to why this happened.

Now, can you understand the above ? No ? OK. Can you answer this question : When did water become ice or water vapour & why ? It all depends upon the level of vibration of the water molecules. The states keep changing. But who can say when it all started i.e. when the molecules started vibrating & why ? It is inherent nature of the molecules to vibrate & keep changing their forms depending upon at what level of vibration the molecules are.
You can say that there must be a time when water became ice …. But then you are assuming that water in liquid form was present in the beginning & not the ice. This phenomenon of changing of water into various forms is eternal. When did matter become energy or energy become matter ? No one can say when it all started & why. That is why Rig Veda says on creation, “Perhaps He (God) knows or perhaps he too doesn’t”. Actually, this questions are arising out of conditioned mind which thinks that everything must have an origin to start with. It is difficult to accept that there is only changing of forms … there is no creation in reality. It is the Consciousness alone which is manifesting itself in varied forms.

Advaitic Brahman is monolithic energy and no transformation happens for that energy and it exist only AS IT IS eternally and that is how classical Advaita approaches the idea of Brahman

Please teach me “Classical Advaita” where this all is written ! Brahman is not monolithic energy. And what do you understand by “AS IT IS” ? In reality or when perceived by mind in the two states ? Water & Ice both do remain H2O As It Is in both the states but they do have different characteristics in the two states.

Please quote the exact correct sentence from your source & then I can comment on what it means.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It seems that you want to show that you know better than me. If that is your motive, I quit here. However, please read the Shruti first before shouting at the top of your voice that what anyone has said is against Shruti. This is no way to discuss things. Do you note that you have made it completely clear that you have never read Maandukya Upanishad & you were not even aware of Aitreya Upanishad’s Mahaavaakya, “Prjnaanaam Brahma” ? Still you want to show that you know it best ! You could have done justice to my efforts if you had tried to understand what I said & first consulted the scriptures I referred before shouting that I was wrong !

I have no desire to prove anything & so unless you read the Upanishads, I don't think there is any point discussing all this. When you complete reading scriptures, please let me know & then we shall discuss.

With love ...

Devotee

[grames]

Haa haa!

With love but with out love .
Secondly, i expected this kind of response and i know you will assume i haven't read Upanishads as that is the usual response i get from "Advaitins".
Also, what i wrote in different threads are in fact what "Advaita" in one way or other is and i can give you bhasya references if you care to know. Also, please note that i am not here to preech you what Advaita is either as i know you are very well convinced and not in a state to receive "questions", objections and it is very evident from this response of yours.

I pick only one of your answer and i also have no further interest to discuss with you on this subject anymore as i believe we both are "Self" satisfied already at least with our perception about each other.

This is how you read ? Did I say that “Brahman is going to manifest” ? I said, “this Consciousness has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself”.

This Conscious/ness = Cit = Brahman in all states. Period.

It is just ilfate for many that, "Prajnaanaam Brahma" is translated to suite the philosophy where the context and spirit of that Shruti vakya advocates only one meaning which is, "Brahman the Knower, possess consciousness as His KalyanaGuna or auspicious attribute. . The Sanskrit word Prajna occurs several times in verses 56 to 68 of Chapter 2 of the Gita. The Lord refers in these verses to the Sthitha Prajna or the knower with steady wisdom and not to mere consciousness.

The Upanishads, Gita and the Brahma Sutras, which form the Prasthana Traya or the Scriptural Trinity of Vedanta, clearly refer to the twin aspects of Life Spirit and consciousness as the Self in the human body.

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

Great understanding, dear ! Be happy with that ! Who told you to study Advaita in the first place ?

Please concentrate on your bhajan kirtan. Advaita is not for everyone.

OM