Search the Community

In Advaita Vedanta studies, an analogy using the example of clay and pots (made of clay) is often used to illustrate the nature of Turiya and the three "normal" states of consciousness, namely waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The analogy goes like this - This analogy/example has a limited purpose, to illustrate and evoke in the mind of the student the relationship between Turiya/Atman and the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep. If taken too far -- for e.g. some worthies might start going into the details of comparing the chemical compositions of the clay, the firing process, the presence of the potter, etc to try and prove that the pots are indeed apart from the clay, it has gone beyond the point of utility of the example. Another example often used is that of Gold and ornaments made of gold. While Turiya is called the "4th state", it really is not a state at all. It is the Reality in which the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep rise and fall. That implies that Turiya is always present and available. People have argued as to why then is Turiya called the "4th"? It is done so with the intention of gradually drawing the student's attention from the everyday experiences of waking, dreaming and deep sleep to the ever-present reality of Pure Awareness (aka Turiya). This type of practice is known as "arundhati nyāya or arundhati darśana nyāya" in classical Indian systems, wherein the student's attention is gradually guided from the most obvious to the most subtle (the most subtle being the actual topic of study).

I recently had some conversations with one of my spiritual mentors and subsequently one of my spiritual brothers. The topic of being stable in the Self-knowledge came up. Being stable in the Self-knowledge to me means, never losing track of the fact that it is the Self that is witnessing all the drama which unfolds on a daily basis upon the body and the mind. Have a hard day at work or at home or in traffic or ______ (fill the blanks in)? If we get caught up in the issues (and hence suffering), then we are not stable in Self-knowledge. Because being stable means we will not suffer one bit. Even if the occurrences obfuscate our true blissful and unaffected nature for even an instant, in the very next instant the knowledge will pull us out of suffering, like a safety line will pull a bungee jumper out of the river as he/she takes a plunge. Being stable means our peaceful nature is never dependent on or is threatened by any occurrence or event. Our true nature is like the sky, which unaffected by the different shapes, sizes of clouds, winds and storms that blow across it. Similarly, irrespective of samsāra and its processes (good or bad), we are always the unaffected, unafflicted awareness.

https://www.medhajournal.com/non-dual-awareness-is-without-attributes-but-what-about-love/

In Vedantic study, there is a concept called "jahad ajaha lakshana", which means the proposition of abandoning the literal and grasping that which is the essence behind the literal. The following example is given --

https://www.medhajournal.com/close-encounters-of-the-fourth-kind/

I have great respect for the philosophies and teachings of Sri Ramanuja. Even when I subscribed completely to Advaitic views, I still held Sri Ramanuja and his vedantic works in highest regard. He was a leader who led from the front, his life and the way he lived were an example and illustration of his teachings. In this post, I want to share Sri Ramanuja's views on Vedanta, Brahman, Atman and certain Upanishads that I find very interesting. Not just Ramanuja, there are so many other greats from the Sri Vaishnava tradition that have contributed so much to Vedanta and to Hindu thoughts in general. So often their thoughts and views get completely neglected or overlooked because of the perception that Advaita is the only explanation to Vedanta in the west. Interestingly Sri Ramanuja himself studied Advaita Vedanta for several years with the teacher Yadava Prakasa, who was considered the most advanced Vendantin during that period. Rest assured Ramanuja knew and understood what he was talking about and found as different. Brahma Sutras authored by Veda Vyasa is considered as the foundation and authority of Vedanta by everyone. Ramanuja's commentaries on Brahma Sutras called Sri Bhashya is considered as one of his major contribution to Vedanta. We can get into how Ramanuja justifies his interpretation of Vedanta as accurate in a little bit. Let's first take a look at Brahman and Atman as explained by Sri Ramanuja. This quoted part above feels like the core difference in Ramanuja's philosophy from that of Advaita teachings. The Ultimate or universal is not the same as the parts it comprises. Sounds quite simple and nice. It is actually as simple as it sounds. All individual or local jivas constitute modes or are qualities of the universal body of Brahman. So there is the local body, mind and intellect collectively as 'jiva' which is not exactly the same as the universal collective body, mind and intellect of all, aka 'brahman'. Read further and he states that jiva or local is identical with the ultimate or universal self (paramatman). Identical does not mean they are essentially the same. Here lies the major difference in the views. The word 'self' can be also misleading in this context. Our likeness with Brahman does not imply we are that entirely. In Vaishnava tradition, one can become like or in the image of Vishnu, but not exactly as the same one exact Vishnu. To continue.... Edit: Forgot to mention that Ramanuja's teacher Yadava Prakasa later changed his views and become one of Ramanuja's disciples accepting his explanation of Vedanta.

Before one criticizes another tradition or tries to posit comparative analyses, the following questions should be taken into consideration. Why are you interested in the differences? You will know, deep in your heart why. Is it to prove X is better than Y? Do you think having a transactional (mercantile) attitude towards spirituality is going to serve you well in the long run? Have you actually learnt in their entirety, the systems that you are comparing? I'll take Advaita Vedanta for instance. Many a sharpshooter has tried to do these type of comparative studies of AV (AV vs This or That). Hold on a second...are you actually qualified to do so? If you want to do justice to your intellect and your spiritual path, you need to first qualify as a student. In Ancient India, there was a healthy tradition of debates between different schools of thought/sprituality. But that required a deep understanding of both positions (that which you are speaking for, and that which you are critiquing). If AV vs "X, Y or Z" is your topic of choice, you need to qualify as a serious student first, before you get the right to criticize it. In order to be considered a serious Advaita Vedantin, the following conditions need apply -- Sādhanā chatustāya - The Four Means What are they? The four means are -- Viveka - The ability to discriminate real from unreal (Real here means that which has independent Self-nature - aka the Self). This at least needs to manifest in the ability to discern what doesn't have independent self-nature (aka phenomena). vairagya - Non-attachment Shadsampat - The six virtues -- Shama - Tranquility of the mind (reducing the modifications of the mind) Dama - Control of the senses uparati - cessation of the need for sensory activities (not craving experiences), implying a sense of contentment titikshā - Fortitude - The ability to persevere with the inquiry/practice. Come what may, I WILL NOT give up until I have full understanding shraddhā - Respect for the tradition, the teachings and it's preceptors. samādhāna - Focus that will allow one to pursue the inquiry Mumukshutva - Burning Thirst for Liberation If you don't have these, then you are not a serious student of Advaita Vedanta. These are the qualities that qualify one to be an Advaita Vedantin (adhikāri). If you haven't done your homework, your comparisons are going to be in vain. Some of the shoddy comparisons I find pertaining to Advaita Vedanta prompted me to write this post. Somethings we should avoid doing is setting up straw man arguments. This is 101 in debates. Otherwise the comparisons/debates become farcical. What constitute straw man arguments? Attributing cherry-picked/out of context, or incomplete facts towards one party of the comparison/debate, or, worse still, half-truths (or half-lies). For instance - "Advaita Vedanta says World is False/illusory". Yes, but when taken in context of the second part of the statement - The World is none other than Brahman who is Absolute Reality, it doesn't seem as shocking or dramatic anymore. Or take for instance the statement - "Advaita Vedanta says that the limited being cannot experience the Universal Being". No where in any upanishads or commentaries of the various Advaita Vedanta masters is that said. Instead, when we study deeper, we find that Advaita Vedanta says the Universal Being (Brahman) appears to the individual being in different forms depending on the state he/she is in (waking, dreaming, deep-sleep). The list can go on and on...but I'll stop here. Hari Om Tat Sat

There is a distinction -- in my view -- between the non dual Brahman that Vedanta talks about and the nondual that Abhinavagupta describes in Monism of the Kashmir Shaivism. The first one states that Brahman alone is real and everything else is unreal. This seems to be about subject and object. It concludes that Brahman is the only real thing and all else is mithya, false or unreal. Whereas the Abhinavagupta's nondual seems to be stating consciousness and energy are not two separate phenomenon, but they are one.

https://www.medhajournal.com/the-art-of-listening/

A talk about spiritual enlightenment: https://youtu.be/ghsFEVeLbCk This talk discusses the following:1)Why seek Spiritual Enlightenment?2) Hedonic treadmill - A psychological theory which is related to the motivations behind seeking spiritual enlightenment.3) Some misconceptions about spiritual enlightenment.4) How duality or sense of separation is created.and more...

https://www.medhajournal.com/tai-chi-as-a-practical-tool-for-self-realization/

Sadhana Chatushtaya - Fourfold qualifications for a spiritual seekerhttps://youtu.be/rq8B2_ugwTk

http://www.medhajournal.com/eastern-intuition-and-western-cognition-where-and-how-do-they-meet/

A Shamatha Meditation Based on Symbolism, Visualization, Mnemonics and Classical Conditioning. This 3-level meditation method is based on pure psychology and a completely rational method to develop focus, objectivity, discipline, inner purification, a desire for liberation, inner stillness, understanding ‘destructive normality’, and a preparedness to walk on the path of spirituality. You can read the disclaimers given at the top to understand the objective of the meditation: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/a-shamatha-meditation-based-on-symbolism-visualization-mnemonics-and-classical-conditioning/

https://www.arshabodha.org/adiShankara/DrigDrishya-9.pdf

http://www.swamij.com/pdf/Panchadashi9580164.pdf

This is a valuable document that is the translation of 30 minor upanishads. Now even though they are called "minor", they are priceless and a sincere seeker is well advised to get a copy (free) and read, contemplate and meditate on them. https://ia800303.us.archive.org/10/items/thirtyminorupani00xxxxuoft/thirtyminorupani00xxxxuoft.pdf

I’m translating the Sanskrit word “Vasana” as bondage. Literally it means “Tendency” or even “addiction”. What are these? Deha Vasana - Bondage of the body. This is tied to the misidentification with the body. The body and the gross senses rule supreme and everything is done to ensure a regular “fix”. This is easy to understand and easiest to let go of. For example, addiction to pleasure producing things and activities (such as sex, food, etc etc). Loka Vasana - bondage of the world. This has to do with identities and labels and the value ascribed to them. If one attaches to the label of “upper middle class” human being. One will do anything to at least maintain that “stature”, no matter how much trouble they would have to endure, how many heads they would have to trample in order to do so. It has to do with our perceived place in this world and what we do to uphold those imaginary identities. This is a harder (and more subtle) addiction to get rid of. Shastra Vasana - bondage of scripture. This is when one is so enamored by scriptures and the intellectual prowess one requires to maintain “mastery” over the scriptures that they fail to see the truth behind the words (addicted to the messenger rather than the message). This is a very subtle addiction and the hardest to get rid of. One who succumbed to this will seldom realize it. They will be full of themselves and their “knowledge”.

Dear all, I successfully published my first book 'The Truth About Spiritual Enlightenment: Bridging Science, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta' in Amazon. It is available in both kindle and paperback versions. I am able to provide the kindle book for free for five days using KDP select. The kindle book will be available for free from 24th Nov, 2017 to 28th Nov, 2017. I invite the members of this forum to take advantage of this free promotion. Kindle version: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078494FQB Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1973364549 Here is the description of the book: "Spiritual enlightenment is becoming a buzzword. Enlightenment is a popular niche for people who write or read about self-help, meditation, healing, psychology and more. But do you really understand what enlightenment is? Is it some kind of altered state of consciousness, a solution to get high without drugs, a way to live life in 24/7 bliss, a myth or a complete scam? Is there any scientific basis to enlightenment or spiritual awakenings? This book has the answer to these questions. This book attempts to bridge spiritual teachings of Vedanta and Buddhism with science. It gives you a practical and reasonable path to end your suffering and live a peaceful, satisfied and happy life. Above all, it will help you to find your own way and follow your own light. The book will also introduce you to some important concepts in psychology, which are related to spiritual awakening. The concepts and solution presented in this book are based on the author’s own experience. It also has a chapter that narrates author’s own spiritual journey which led to a complete spiritual transformation. The book also has a separate chapter which talks about scientific research done on spiritual enlightenment."

I thought I'd write a bit about Non-duality, based on statements like -- Non-duality claims there is only One and not two, and that it is possible to know there is underlying non-separateness without being a single "thing". That there are still individuals but they are not separate. Somehow the notion that Non-duality implies "a One Thing", has taken hold. What does Non-duality really mean? Some statements towards that end -- The Non-dual cannot be described in words The mind cannot reach Non-duality Non-dual means no duality - in other words, no subject-object distinction Subject-object duality is our primary day to day experience. Everything we experience is predicated on the subject-object duality. I, the subject, experience objects that are separate from me. In experiencing these objects, I come to know them. Our reality is what we know, and we know objects. Even my body is an object to me, the "I". My mind, is an object to me, the "I". Mind I define as a stream of objects rising and falling in consciousness. That begs the question -- who is this "I"? An exercise that I found very useful, (I borrowed from Papaji, the Advaita master from India (Ramana Maharshi's student)) is to have someone inquire thus -- "In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are". The usual response is "I am XYZ". Then response becomes "that took more than a fraction of a second..it took maybe 1 or 2 seconds even to respond to". In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are. Depending on the individual, the eventually are stumped as they don't get an answer. They cannot articulate anything about their identity. So, then the follow-on question is - "What do you know about who you are in a fraction of a second?" After some more attempts, it becomes clear "I know I am". In essence, this is who "I" is. Existence and awareness. We can't even say whether "I am aware because I exist...or I exist because I'm aware". They are one and the same. So then, this begs the question - what about all these objects that we know? Do they exist separately from "I" (or the I AM)? Isn't our experience predicated on our being and being aware? So how can the objects exist independent of the "I"? Counter-arguments ensue..."but they existed before...your parents saw you...your children will see after you". But what are your parents and your children? Are they too not objects to your "I"? We make assumptions about our model of reality on the basis of the experiences we have. Most are oblivious to the "being and being aware" or the "I AM". The reality is a construct of objects. We identify with these objects. We might go from the "I am XYZ...of ABC nationality, Male or Female, etc etc" model to "I am not separate from others but there is no inherent "oneness"" model. Still, these are models based on subject-object duality. "I" the subject am still experiencing "objects". These objects are "things". Non-duality, says there is no subject-object separation at all. There is no One, there is No Two. There are No "Things". "One" and "Two" are in the domain of things. When we operate from the perspective of "I" and "things", it is duality. Whether we see separateness or non-separateness. Whether we see unity or diversity. If there is an "I" and an "Other", it is duality. Things appear and disappear. What is the only constant in this dualistic model? The "I". What are the characteristics of "I"? Presence, now! There is no past, there is no future. Only naked awareness, right here, right now. How can one then say, that the "I" in me, is separate and distinct from the "I" in you? Where is the possibility of "me and you" in "right here, right now"? All there is, is presence. What happens when we stay abiding with "I"? Even the "I" disappears. When "I" and "things" both are gone, then there is non-duality.