|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
 Posted - Jul 04 2012 : 1:33:51 PM
|
My understanding is that the key concept of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada.
Ajativada means nonarising, noncreated etc.
That means, by default, everything is illusory. |
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Jul 04 2012 : 5:44:39 PM
|
That seems like a statement, or is it a question ?
Yes, everything is illusion, even the idea that everything is illusion. 
The circular logic of that perfect symmetry can be vaguely frustrating. Like trying to undo a knot only to find out you are the string. |
 |
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Jul 04 2012 : 6:03:06 PM
|
It may not be the key concept, but it seems to be one of the key concepts. It depends on who you ask, and how you utilize the Advaita principles.
The practice of negating the manifest world is neti neti: not this, not that. But Advaita can also be used as a means of affirming knowledge--not just negating. So, you could say: Divinity is manifesting Herself on this Earth.
The door swings both ways when seeking the end of knowledge. It's more like a dance than an attempt to arrive at a fixed conclusion. If you fixate on "everything is illusory", then you are making the dance stagnant, rigid, one-directional. Better to say (in my opinion): Everything is illusory and not illusory at the same time. Then the dance remains fluid and mysterious, as it's meant to be.
You have to be willing to swallow the pill of paradoxical truth to see how far down the rabbit hole goes.  |
|
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Jul 04 2012 : 6:05:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by karl
Yes, everything is illusion, even the idea that everything is illusion.
Exactly!  |
|
|
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - Jul 04 2012 : 6:50:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by karl
Yes, everything is illusion, even the idea that everything is illusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Bodhi Tree
If you fixate on "everything is illusory"
I don't think the point is to go around saying everything is illusory.
Logically illusion is just whats left over by default since nothing is created in the first place i.e. ajativada. The emphasis is on ajativada.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 06 2012 : 12:03:40 PM
|
Hi KechariConfusion & All,
quote:
Originally posted by KechariConfusion
My understanding is that the key concept of Advaita Vedanta is Ajativada.
Ajativada means nonarising, noncreated etc.
That means, by default, everything is illusory.
Advaita (which literally means "non-dual" in Sanskrit) works fine as reality, but can be a bit problematic as a philosophy, because as soon as you've made something a philosophy -- it's conceptual and dual.
Ajativada is just one concept in Advaita, and, as with most concepts regarding illusion, the illusion referred to is the illusion of limited mind, prior to awakening to our true nature.
Here are a couple of links you might find useful.
1. Adi Shankaracharya wasn't big on Ajativada; he taught an alternate view, called Vivartavada:
"According to this, the effect is merely an apparent transformation of its cause — like illusion. For example, in darkness a man often confuses a rope to be a snake. But this does not mean that the rope has actually transformed into a snake."
Source: Wkipedia Article: Advaita Vedanta
Also:
Wikipedia article on Ajitavada.
|
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Jul 06 2012 : 2:18:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KechariConfusion
quote:
Originally posted by karl
Yes, everything is illusion, even the idea that everything is illusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Bodhi Tree
If you fixate on "everything is illusory"
I don't think the point is to go around saying everything is illusory.
Logically illusion is just whats left over by default since nothing is created in the first place i.e. ajativada. The emphasis is on ajativada.
Well no, that's correct, but the upshot is thats what is proposed. In effect you chase ideas back to the point at which they dissolve. It's not easy to explain but it's simply a way of breaking the habit of attachment.
You go round and round the logic loop until you have to give up. That's possible when guided, but for modern times I'm not sure it's a good idea, even though it's a good tool to use alongside DM.
After you have refuted the illusion you realise that you are stuck with the illusion, however the status has changed. The illusion including the body is malleable because it is a projection. It's still reality though from a new perspective. The real self is able to swim in the new reality because it's now seen as part of the whole and no longer separated. In essence 'am' is generating the illusion and 'I' is free to be in union with the whole illusion. Illusion is the wrong name though because that's not the case either, only for practice should it be considered as illusion.
If it was really illusion then 'i' would be free to control the illusion. Then you can see the contradiction because 'I' then attempts to take control of it and becomes deluded by success 'pleasure' and defeat 'suffering'. Identification happens and separation occurs.
This is why the snake and the rope makes sense. In the dark ' without self knowledge and the unity of I with everything the rope is mistaken for a snake. With self knowledge the rope is seen for what it is.
By now your either hopelessly baffled  or my descriptions are so amazingly great you have transcended already ( I think not ).
So to think of he world as an illusion is useful, but it isn't an illusion. It may not be a snake, but it is most certainly the rope and you are merged with it at that point where no separation can remain. In unity. It's a perspective thing and really quite impossible to explain, but that's an attempt.
I'm not sure I want to post this now  it sounds crazy when I read it back. Too late pressed the button. |
|
|
|
Yuri
Russia
37 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2012 : 01:52:01 AM
|
I think any concept is correct ONLY if it is useful, i.e if it helps spiritual development.
And on different levels of spiritual development different concepts are useful; so different concepts are correct for different people, and also to the same guy at different times of his life.
Ramana Maharshi used to give very different answers to the same questions of different people. When asked why, he answered - I'm giving them answers which they can understand.
So the point is not if the world is an illusion or not - but what are the practical implications of this concept for our life and development. I.e. how can we apply it in our life. |
|
|
|
Yuri
Russia
37 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2012 : 02:05:19 AM
|
One more comment. If by advaita we understand non-duality, then advaita of Shankara is not the only Advaita. There are others, like Shuddadvaita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuddha_advaita
quote:
Unlike Advaita, the world of Maya is not regarded as unreal, since Maya is nothing else than a power of Ishvara. He is not only the creator of the universe but is the universe itself. Vallabha cites the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad account, that Brahman desired to become many, and he became the multitude of individual souls and the world. Although Brahman is not known, He is known when He manifests Himself through the world.
|
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2012 : 05:41:54 AM
|
Yes, that is true Yuri.
Whatever tool in the bag it is, they are all just tools. Choose the best one at the time, none of them are the perfect tool. Explore them and learn to use them. Drop them when they don't appear to do the job.
Marahashi was an old soul, he was wise enough to know what to say and when to say it. Right speech, right mind, right action. |
|
|
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2012 : 3:05:55 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
You are right that Gaudapada has more emphasis on non-origination than Adi Shankara. Gaudapada basically stole intact verses from Nagarjuna, used phrases that were found in Aryadeva etc. since he was trying to compete with Buddhism.
In my opinion, any viewpoint that is "realist", including allmighty Kashmir Shaivism or Tsongkhapa, is a lower view that the nonrealists (Gaudapada, Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Candrakriti).
Adi Shankara doesn't impress me. There are contemporary accounts of him in the literature. He strikes me as much more ordinary as some people would make him seem. |
|
|
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2012 : 3:10:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Yuri
One more comment. If by advaita we understand non-duality, then advaita of Shankara is not the only Advaita. There are others, like Shuddadvaita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuddha_advaita
I also used to think that all nondualities are the same, since by definition they are nondual.
There are actually two nondualities:
A. Everything is one, Monism i.e. kashmir shaivism
B. Everything is illusory i.e. Gaudapada, Nagarjuna, Aryadeva etc.
Then you have some late people like Adi Shankara or Tsongkhapa where crypto-realism has slipped in. |
Edited by - KechariConfusion on Jul 07 2012 3:18:16 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2012 : 4:48:26 PM
|
Hi Kechariconfusion and all,
If anyone is interested in this subject, it is very useful to read Yogani's book on self-inquiry where he touches on the nature of advaita. Advaita can be a very confusing subject when approached at the level of the mind. This is because the mind is essentially dvaita and not advaita. In other words it is the one thing that cannot comprehend advaita.
The two statements above for example are the same, that everything is one, and everything is illusory. One follows from the other and vice-versa. But it is not something that can be understood, only something that can be realized.
It is also true that if everything is unreal, then everything is real. Everything is unreal to one who is lost in the dream state, but everything is real to one who is awake. As Nisargadata once said to one of his students: "everything in your world is unreal, everything in my world is real". This really sums up all advaitic teaching.
Yogani's book outlines the stages that have to be passed through in order to come to this realization of advaita. |
|
|
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - Jul 07 2012 : 6:38:19 PM
|
Hi Christi,
The nature of the mind is rather easy. You got "now" on one hand, and the conceptualizing mind on the other.
I am talking more about Advaita Vedanta philosophy.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Everything is unreal to one who is lost in the dream state, but everything is real to one who is awake. As Nisargadata once said to one of his students: "everything in your world is unreal, everything in my world is real". This really sums up all advaitic teaching.
This is certainly the opposite of Gaudapada, Nagarjuna etc. who would say the world is illusory, and our concepts make things seem real....ergo the ubiquitous rope and snake analogy.
Thus an awake person loses the delusion of realism. |
Edited by - KechariConfusion on Jul 07 2012 7:06:57 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 02:10:24 AM
|
Hi Kechariconfusion,
Things are not always as simple as they seem and seeming opposites are not always opposites. This is the nature of the mind.
When you awaken, you awaken into reality, into what is always already the case. This is true for any awakened person, any advaita teacher, any sage. The confusion here is arising from the way some teachers teach. You see, some teachers don't mention this. They will simply say that all is unreal. It is a teaching method designed to help people let go of the conceptualizing mind, and awaken from false identification.
People often look at the method and make it into a philosophy, another concept in the mind. So they will say: "so-and-so says that everything is unreal", or they will say: "so-and-so says that everything is real". In fact, they were never meant to be ontological statements, only techniques for working with the mind in order to attain liberation.
One of the teachings of the Buddha was that there is no "self". So many people go around saying that they have no "self". One day one of the Buddha's monks questioned him on this. He said to the Buddha: "Is it true there is a self ?", and the Buddha said: "no, it is not true". Then the monk asked: "Is it true there is no self?", and the Buddha said: "no it is not true". Then the monk asked: "Is it true there is both a self, and no-self?". The Buddha replied: "no it is not true". Then the monk asked: "is it true there is neither self nor not-self?", and the Buddha said: "no, it is not true".
So you see, all our concepts are only just that, concepts. They have no substantial reality beyond the ephemeral world of the mind. When we let go of identification with conceptual existence they loose, or rather are seen to never have had, any relevance or bearing on truth itself. So statements such as "the world is real" or "the world is an illusion" are just concepts in the mind which have nothing to do with what is always already true, which is truth itself, reality itself.
It is true that the mind fabricates an artificial world and layers it over reality giving the illusion of reality, much like a rope might appear to be a snake. You could say that an awake person loses the delusion of an artificially fabricated universe and awakens to that which always was true, before identification with the body and the contents of the mind took place.
|
|
|
|
jeff
USA
971 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 11:22:19 AM
|
Hi Christi,
Thank you for the very informative post. Do you think that there are ongoing "layers" of perception? You discribed "awakening" into the unobscured view of the world, but then does it expand into an unobscured view of not being a "separate human"? And so on, and so on?
|
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 11:55:55 AM
|
Not being separate from your world is what it is. The fact that their are individuals and animals and other things is unimportant to the whole being in unity.
Two things run simultaneously and are tied together by one.
Therefore the world is real.
The people in it are real.
And The world is illusion
The people in it are illusion.
This is an acceptable place because you are able to be in unity and then the world stretches out as you expand into it and with it. It's similar to the idea of a big bang explosion, but there is no beginning or end and you and your world are what is created.
The expansion goes from nothing at all to infinity. At the smallest point which is sort of beyond unity there everything is, the world unfolds until it is real, but the point where it and you start remains. So people are individuals at the point where expansion occurs ( and expansion goes far beyond that point ), but everything is unity at the same time.
Nothing changes, but in a way everything changes because there is no requirement to interfere, yet nothing that is done affects the unity, but it does affect the expanded self.
I'm useless at explaining this. It's easier just to do the DM and work at it than asking what it is. Primarily it's impossible to describe because anything described will be incorrectly interpreted.
You are already where you think you are going, it's only necessary to realise that is the case. You see the world as in unity and it doesn't matter that it seems separate, thats just the magic of it. |
|
|
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 1:54:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
One of the teachings of the Buddha was that there is no "self". So many people go around saying that they have no "self".
This is outdated old info. Atman means identity, especially in the buddhist context. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of many including scholars such as Karl Brunnholzl.
So people and things are empty of the identity imputed by their mere conceptual labels. |
|
|
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 2:07:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by karl
Therefore the world is real.
The people in it are real.
You claim that things exist in the first place?
For things to be real, they would have to a)arise from itself b) arise from something other c) arise from both
For something to arise from itself, would bring up many logical contradictions. Why would something need to arise, if it already exists? And if arising is part of the object's nature, you would have infinite arisings.
Something cannot arise from other, because a giraffe could then arise from a plasma TV. Or the traditional analogy, darkness could arise from flames.
So one cannot claim that anything exists. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 4:06:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KechariConfusion
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
One of the teachings of the Buddha was that there is no "self". So many people go around saying that they have no "self".
This is outdated old info. Atman means identity, especially in the buddhist context. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of many including scholars such as Karl Brunnholzl.
So people and things are empty of the identity imputed by their mere conceptual labels.
Hi Kechariconfusion,
It makes no difference. The self is our identity, it is that which we identify with. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4363 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 4:30:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeff
Hi Christi,
Thank you for the very informative post. Do you think that there are ongoing "layers" of perception? You discribed "awakening" into the unobscured view of the world, but then does it expand into an unobscured view of not being a "separate human"? And so on, and so on?
Hi Jeff,
There are really 2 stages to the process. The first is coming into the witness, knowing ourselves to be the observer of everything that arises. In the witness state there is still duality (dvaita) as we see ourselves as being separate from that which we observe around us. The second stage of the process is the union of the witness with that which is witnessed. The second stage is the falling away of the active agent, the idea that there is someone "witnessing" everything that happens. Instead, everything simply is. Everything arises within the Self, and is not separate from it. The experience of this is one of unity and love.
The key to the first stage is inner silence, and the key to the second stage is surrender.
Yogani discusses this process in more detail here:
http://www.aypsite.org/350.html |
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 5:11:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KechariConfusion
quote:
Originally posted by karl
Therefore the world is real.
The people in it are real.
You claim that things exist in the first place?
For things to be real, they would have to a)arise from itself b) arise from something other c) arise from both
For something to arise from itself, would bring up many logical contradictions. Why would something need to arise, if it already exists? And if arising is part of the object's nature, you would have infinite arisings.
Something cannot arise from other, because a giraffe could then arise from a plasma TV. Or the traditional analogy, darkness could arise from flames.
So one cannot claim that anything exists.
I didn't claim something exists neither did I deny something exists. That's the dichotomy. Both are true. It's really not important just a mind related exercise.
If you go around denying existence (neti neti ) it ends in nothingness, an intellectual dead end. It's like exploring the dark side of the Moon and denying the illuminated side.
The answer is to accept both positions without prejudice then the whole can be seen.
Self-object-self all arises together, all is in uniti. Eventually it all fades away, then you can stop intellectualising and just go with the flow. It's always interesting to read how others conceptualise these things, none are wrong, they are all stages, like bits of a jigsaw puzzle or seeds which will eventually germinate.
Christi says it far better than I do.
|
Edited by - karl on Jul 08 2012 5:21:01 PM |
|
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 5:29:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by karl
It's like exploring the dark side of the Moon and denying the illuminated side.
Yes...I can already hear the heartbeat thumping as Pink Floyd reaches the climax of the song "Eclispe"  :
All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy
Beg, borrow or steal
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say
All that you eat
Everyone you meet
All that you slight
Everyone you fight
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
When the sun is eclipsed by the moon. |
|
|
|
jeff
USA
971 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 5:31:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Originally posted by jeff
Hi Christi,
Thank you for the very informative post. Do you think that there are ongoing "layers" of perception? You discribed "awakening" into the unobscured view of the world, but then does it expand into an unobscured view of not being a "separate human"? And so on, and so on?
Hi Jeff,
There are really 2 stages to the process. The first is coming into the witness, knowing ourselves to be the observer of everything that arises. In the witness state there is still duality (dvaita) as we see ourselves as being separate from that which we observe around us. The second stage of the process is the union of the witness with that which is witnessed. The second stage is the falling away of the active agent, the idea that there is someone "witnessing" everything that happens. Instead, everything simply is. Everything arises within the Self, and is not separate from it. The experience of this is one of unity and love.
The key to the first stage is inner silence, and the key to the second stage is surrender.
Yogani discusses this process in more detail here:
http://www.aypsite.org/350.html
Hi Christi,
Thanks. My question was more about the "ongoing" nature of what you describe as the second stage. Does not the experience of unity continue to expand as obstructions are removed? With perception and understanding growing?
|
|
|
|
KechariConfusion
USA
44 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 5:38:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by karl
If you go around denying existence (neti neti ) it ends in nothingness, an intellectual dead end. It's like exploring the dark side of the Moon and denying the illuminated side.
The onus is on you to prove that things exist. I am free from the views of existence and nonexistence.
Nagarjuna - "If I had a opinion, I would be at fault; as I alone have no opinion, I alone am without fault."
Buddhapalita - "It is not that we claim non-existence, we merely remove claims for existing existents" |
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2012 : 5:48:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bodhi Tree
quote:
Originally posted by karl
It's like exploring the dark side of the Moon and denying the illuminated side.
Yes...I can already hear the heartbeat thumping as Pink Floyd reaches the climax of the song "Eclispe" :
All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy
Beg, borrow or steal
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say
All that you eat
Everyone you meet
All that you slight
Everyone you fight
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
When the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
I like the Moon.
It's funny these conversations. It's as if you learn to ride a bike and there are all these people talking about the best way to ride a bike and what it might be like when riding a bike. Yet everyone is already riding it, they only need to look down and see they are turning the pedals then they will be laughing at the absurdity of their mistake
You can't say 'look down and see your legs spinning effortlessly around' because everyone denies they even know what a bike is and there are lots of theories. Instead you have to join in with the flow of the denial. Of course, somewhere there is doubt, otherwise it wouldn't be like that. I love how the outside is the perfect mirror for the inside. Maybe Ive not yet discovered I'm holding the handlebars much fun. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Advaita Vedanta atheistic?
