Why is it valuable? Does he explain it in any of his books? The more I look into this, the harder it is for me to make head or tails of it. If Atman really is Brahman then whether you become aware of it or not seems pretty pointless.
>"Enlightenment is valuable because it brings an end to suffering."
But if you are Brahman suffering is irrelevant and doesn't matter.
>"Enlightenment is valuable because it brings you supreme bliss and peace."
But if you are Brahman, you are already beyond these petty joys.
>"Enlightenment is valuable because it prevents the destruction of the subtle body/soul/what have you."
But if you are already Brahman, you don't need any of these things. You are beyond them.
>"Enlightenment grants you supreme wisdom and awareness."
You already have those, because you are Brahman.
So, the Atman is Brahman situation seems to lead to the following:
- There is nothing to gain from enlightenment because you are already perfect and complete.
- There is nothing to lose from dying unenlightened because you are already the immortal Source of all things.
- There is nothing to lose from living unenlightened because the divine Source is indifferent with respect to all conditioned things, states, feelings and actions; neither suffering nor bliss can impair the status and dignity of Brahman.
Why, then, is enlightenment valuable, desirable, important or necessary? I keep oscillating between on the one hand feeling peace, when I reflect on how Atman is Brahman, always and forever, meaning that I am already complete, already the Source, the supreme divinity. And feeling anguish and suffering on the other hand, when I reflect on how I am not enlightened, how I am stuck in ignorance, how I am not pursuing the final liberation which I should be pursuing. This seems a bit incoherent and strange to me because, as I said, even if I am not enlightened, being already Brahman, I am the supreme, divine, intellectual principle that is beyond ignorance and cannot be obscured by ignorance even while in the midst of it, so I shouldn’t feel concerned about being unenlightened, that kind of worry seems to be baseless. That’s the kind of paradoxical situation I am looking for clarification with.
Does Guenon explain this issue in any of his books?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>But if you are Brahman suffering is irrelevant and doesn't matter.
Not for the experiencing intellect though, because when the intellect comes to the right understanding and overcomes false understanding that thereby ends it's own unhappy issues, even though the Self (which is not the buddhi) was never affected
>But if you are Brahman, you are already beyond these petty joys.
Correct, but ending all the delusions and associated mental habits based on misunderstanding ends the issues that plague the mind/intellect or psychophysical complex and that makes the experiencing intellect have a blissful and tranquil experience during its remaining time
>But if you are already Brahman, you don't need any of these things. You are beyond them.
Correct, but enlightenment ends the continued transmigration of one's subtle body
Anyways, if you want your questions answered about Advaita Vedanta you should be reading through all of Shankara's authentic writings (and optionally later Advaitins too) instead of Guenon, like Guenon says the point of his works is not to exhaustively answer every question about non-dualism or enlightenment but rather to expound the unity of traditions and explore symbolism etc, Shankara's writings is where most of these kinds of questions are dealt with.
Right, but from a higher point of view, these ideas of joy, peace, bliss, they bear no final meaning, do they? I have a hard time forcing myself to do things and will only even attempt that if it is mandated by a higher sanction. If the Supreme Principle is indifferent to things, and I am also indifferent to them (admittedly for different reasons), then there's no need for me to force myself to seek enlightenment.
Thank you for suggesting Shankara. Unfortunately I am kind of stupid and have a bunch of other stuff I need to read first anyway. So I don't think I will get to it. I framed the post from a Hindu perspective chiefly because it is the best framework for the arrival at the objective and intellective picture.
>Right, but from a higher point of view, these ideas of joy, peace, bliss, they bear no final meaning, do they?
Exactly. The point of enlighnement is to bring the current consciouness to this absolute point of view, which is why it can also be seen as illusionary: it implies the understanding that this state which has been left was actually unreal, and thus nothing happened it was never left since it never existed.
But that makes our situation a bit paradoxical because, if you know that these things are illusory, in theory you should be able to remain within the illusion without succumbing to it. So, for example, if enlightenment destroys the attachment to and value of the pain-comfort axis, then simply acknowledging the meaninglessness of the axis should be sufficient, without the need to attain enlightenment. So, from this perspective, we might say that a person does senseless things, while knowing they are senseless. But the knowledge is still there.
What I am trying to get at is that there is difference between transcending the pain-comfort axis (enlightenment, going above those things) and being merely indifferent to the pain-comfort axis (being fine with whatever, assigning no final meaning to happiness or suffering). But if you *are* indifferent to it, it seems like there is no special need for or incentive towards enlightenment. Does that make sense?
These are very subtle things to talk about, and all existing philosophical vocabularies only talk about them imperfectly, because they all share a basic assumption that the talking phase is a mere ladder that gets kicked away after you don't need it anymore, i.e., once you have the insight you don't need anything proved to you, because you effectively ARE the insight - your being becomes coterminous with the being of truth itself, or rather you realize you always already were the light of truth itself.
It's also a tacit premise of much of these vocabularies that the reader or listener has already felt a certain misalignment with or disconnection from the world when he begins to study these things. These traditions aren't really aimed at people who truly can't fathom why they would ever exist in the first place, people who are going to be tapping their foot impatiently and saying you have five minutes to convince them. They are intended for the person who has already realized he is not "at home in" the material/temporal world, in a way that gnaws at him from the inside. Siddhartha by Hesse has many good descriptions of this kind of person, "always roaming with a hungry heart" and seeking something beyond himself and beyond what the temporal world can offer.
A general answer to your question of why anyone would bother seeking enlightenment or gnosis or reunion with the One (which is also recognition that one is always unified with the One) is that it is simply assumed, by all the traditions that talk about this from Neoplatonism to Hinduism and Buddhism and Taoism, that:
>humans seek the truth behind appearances, humans carry out contemplation
>humans seek joy, happiness, bliss, contentment, they seek rest from endless seeking
>humans seek the good of things, they seek the good reasons for things
and furthermore that any THOUGHTFUL human who happens to go along the path of any of these three tendencies and to develop his powers of clear thinking, thoughtful living in order to seek happiness, and thoughtful living in order to do good in the world, will NATURALLY realize that all three of these quests are actually a unified trinity, that they all converge on one another. The thoughtful contemplative man necessarily realizes that some pleasures are better and wiser than others, and then that bliss is better than pleasure, and then that there must be a highest bliss "worth" seeking, while also realizing that this bliss can't be articulated in selfish egoistic terms but necessarily takes on a moral aspect. It somehow, almost paradoxically happens that the best way to be selfish IS to be selfless, because the highest happiness a being can experience is the perfection of the being that he is, and he is a social being that seeks higher joys like joint contemplation with friends, other lovers of wisdom. And all this is revealed as objectively true, as the real nature underlying appearances. So the good is revealed as the joyous and the true.
Beyond this eudaimonaic insight, the wise man naturally contemplates the foundation of this nature of his, that makes him seek "higher" and "better" things. And his knowledge of the true nature underlying things makes him realize that his own nature coincides with the nature of the things themselves, which means the self of the world itself is a kind of perfect being, on which he is modelled, just as his own self is a perfect man in embryo.
But you see "he" has never really had it discursively proved to "him," i.e., to the "him" that that "he" started out as PRIOR to attaining these higher levels of wisdom that revealed to him the ultimate coincidence of the good, the true, and the joyous (the beautiful, the worth-wanting, the blissfully pleasurable), that all this was the goal of his journey. Rather he further ascended a ladder, on whose lowest rung he had already placed one foot. He didn't even choose, at some determinate point, to step onto the ladder while not on the ladder. Rather at the first moment he sought out this philosophy and attuned himself to it (thus ascending), he looked down and saw his foot was ALREADY on the ladder, albeit on the lowest rung. And now that he has attained higher wisdom, he realizes that it is impossible, meaningless even, to say that one is "not on the ladder." There is nothing off the ladder. The lowest grade of being, goodness, beauty, and blissfulness that one can be "in" or "at" is still ON THE LADDER of being, goodness, beauty, and blissfulness. It simply makes no sense to talk about being on or off the ladder as two distinct things. There are only lower and higher grades.
And to him at this point, the idea of descending or dismounting the ladder of being/goodness/joy is as illogical as a poorly formed sentence, it's not even factually "wrong" so much as it is logically meaningless. His ontological conception of the world has altered in the process of realizing that his ACTUAL ontology coincides with the world. The idea of "not being what he is" no longer makes sense to him.
When he gets together with other people at various points up and down the ladder, but all aware that they are on it, it's only natural to speak of people who think they're not on the ladder - i.e., from his perspective, people who haven't yet REALIZED they are on the ladder - as sleeping or sleepwalking. If one of those people says "convince me I'm on such a ladder; convince me experiencing the greatest joy and truth simultaneously is better than getting another candy bar today," it's almost like someone saying "convince me the sky is not the sky." It's borderline meaningless. But this creates a blind spot and can make him arrogant, which is bad, because it also makes it harder for him to ascend the ladder. Many sages are people who managed to get into the antechamber of real enlightenment but then stalled there indefinitely because the next levels are much more difficult, and it's constantly tempting to be dragged down into lording your demi-enlightenment over others. I strongly recommend reading Siddhartha by Hesse.
In short, it's fundamentally a clash of ontological conceptions. The believer in enlightenment tacitly accepts an ontological conception of the world in which goodness and truth and being all coincide, and accordingly in which the only meaningful way to talk about ANY entity is in terms of its proximity to or distance from "what it really is," its truest self or model, with which it "really" coincides although it has forgotten this; and when discussing the nature of this "forgetting," every system then seems to say something different and often contradictory, and there is again a profound danger of lapsing into mere mythologization, turning myths meant to guide and enlighten into idols that are then worshipped, and the purveyors and curators of these myths frequently then lapse into the aforementioned arrogance. This is a universally present dialectic in "gnostic" religions, which is why they all have periodic moments of renewal and rediscovery of their own premises.
Conversely, the unbeliever in enlightenment has an ontological conception in which the world is a meaningless material container filled with atoms, and then meaningless material experiencers (also atomic) form "thoughts" "about" the non-experiencing atoms; and a feature of the experiencers, for no reason as it's all meaningless, is to have "stances" "about" the atoms, stances which are themselves predicated on a pleasure/pain calculus that makes no sense and has no root in or meaning derived from some higher entity - pleasure and pain are a "final" calculus, and all beings are just imperfect thing-thinkers and hedonic-calculators with arbitrary pleasure/pain associations.
Ultimately the believer and unbeliever in enlightenment can "explain one another" from WITHIN their respective systems. To the believer, the unbeliever is asleep; to the unbeliever, the believer is just a particular formation of thoughts cloaking pleasure/pain calculus, no more or less dignified or worthwhile than any other, although perhaps he thinks the believer is inefficient at maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain because he doesn't see the true nature of things, which the unbeliever knows a priori. The believer can then respond to this by saying "you only think that because you haven't experienced what I've experienced"; the unbeliever then says "your experiences are delusions you just enjoy having, which further cements them"; etc.
One of the only ways out of this equilibrium that I can think of is repeated insistence on and recurrence to the manifest incoherence (and ugliness) of the materialist world-picture. This, again, is NOT a discursive proof - it's another ladder, another "pointing." By saying "look how hideous this is," you are making at least some people within the unbelieving/materialist camp search inside themselves for the feeling-and-thought "it is; it CAN'T be true, because the nature of being CAN'T be ugliness.." By making them think this, you are converting them to the believer's ontological conception, you are making them believe in the ladder of being: ugliness is badness is wrongness, therefore, what is ugly cannot be true. But this is a "pointing," a showing, not a proof. The diehard unbeliever can still say, "you've allowed this idiot to delude you by manipulating your wishful thinking, which is a delusion to which we thinker-experiencer pleasure-seekers are prone sometimes." Ultimately everybody has to decide for themselves.
Here is Plotinus representing the ladder-conception of being, for reference:
>And this inner vision, what is its operation? Newly awakened it is all too feeble to bear the ultimate splendour. Therefore the Soul must be trained—to the habit of remarking, first, all noble pursuits, then the works of beauty produced not by the labour of the arts but by the virtue of men known for their goodness: lastly, you must search the souls of those that have shaped these beautiful forms.
>But how are you to see into a virtuous soul and know its loveliness? Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful: he cuts away here, he smoothes there, he makes this line lighter, this other purer, until a lovely face has grown upon his work. So do you also: cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked, bring light to all that is overcast, labour to make all one glow of beauty and never cease chiselling your statue, until there shall shine out on you from it the godlike splendour of virtue, until you shall see the perfect goodness surely established in the stainless shrine.
>When you know that you have become this perfect work, when you are self-gathered in the purity of your being, nothing now remaining that can shatter that inner unity, nothing from without clinging to the authentic man, when you find yourself wholly true to your essential nature, wholly that only veritable Light which is not measured by space, not narrowed to any circumscribed form nor again diffused as a thing void of term, but ever unmeasurable as something greater than all measure and more than all quantity—when you perceive that you have grown to this, you are now become vision itself: now call up all your confidence, strike forward yet a step—you need a guide no longer—strain, and SEE.
And here is an unbeliever's ontological conception (Bertrand Russell), for comparison:
>Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.
>Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.
This is very interesting but mostly tangential to my main problem. To lock onto some of the things you have said, let us look at the Plotinus remark. If I already possess the nature of the Supreme Source within me, if I am "on the ladder" and my true nature is the perfection of Brahman, why should I "chisel away" at the statue of myself? Isn't it a bit of a chore? I like learning things and doing things that I find interesting or intellectually or spiritually enriching. But I do not actually enjoy esoteric practice at all, even if it is objectively good and desirable. I would like to have enlightenment, but the process of attaining it is both uncertain and arduous. One might accuse me of sloth, cowardice or torpor, and there might be something to that. But I can't help being uninterested in ascesis. I much prefer reading and talking about enlightenment and metaphysics than actually engaging in contemplation or changing myself. And it seems that metaphysics actually says that I don't need to change myself, since I already am perfect Brahman. Therefore, why should I force myself to go through the trouble? It seems meaningless to me to chase the realisation of the One, if I already am the One. So that's the major problem facing me.
Different systems have different ways of answering this. The basic answer is something like, you DO want enlightenment, you just don't realize it because you're relatively asleep or mired in sensuous life and doxa etc., and the more you rise above sensuous distractions and doxa, even if your initial desire is simply to get access to "better" sensuous pleasures via "better" doxa, you are still fundamentally ladder-climbing, i.e., climbing to a higher vantage. Once you get to that vantage it's just not possible NOT to see the truth, which is that sense/doxa is worthless. The whole way you phrase your question, in terms of "enjoyment," is like a logical contradiction. You are making use of the very scale of being that makes such determinations possible, but use of that scale implies increasing awareness of it, which necessitates noticing that it leads beyond mere trifling enjoyments and upward to true enjoyment. Once you have seen that the food you are eating isn't food you won't be hungry for it anymore, but for real food. At that point asceticism isn't a denial or rejection of food in favor of a long walking journey to get some other food, but a realization that if you want food at all, you have to walk, because where you are, there is no food.
So, the answer would be something like: when you leave the cave you don't want to go back. You just don't. If you do want to go back, you haven't left yet.
If you then ask why leave at all, they will say it's like a dreaming person asking why they should wake up. Even the question is not a real question, it's a dream delusion.
Again this isn't a very satisfying answer. In practice all these systems allow for different grades of achievement and that is why the karma and reincarnation ideas are so common among them, because it can then be argued that in your next life you will be a mystic or ascetic because you got "close" in this life to realizing it, and cleared your soul/karma up, but not enough to go further in this life evidently. So your enjoyment of metaphysics (or even of natural science, which is fundamentally a love of truth), is still "participating" in the desire for ULTIMATE knowledge and ULTIMATE union with the object of your love, you just didn't realize it enough to see that the cave can be left entirely. Again I want to stress this is not meant to convince you, and I agree it's not really satisfying, but it's how many ascetic movements in practice explain why some and not others become ascetics.
>It seems meaningless to me to chase the realisation of the One, if I already am the One.
The answer can only be given in metaphors and myths, like the analogy of sleeping vs. waking. You are not really being you if you are you-asleep. You should want to be you-awake, as that is more "perfectly" you. But this necessitates belief in the aforementioned ontology of you as perfectible & the world as hierarchies of goodness (perfectibility). You are only "virtually" the One right now.
Ultimately the only answer that can be given is something like, if only you knew, then you would know. People come back from mystic experiences and become profoundly depressed. Merrell-Wolff said the whole world felt profoundly unreal to him after his experiences, and Thomas Aquinas famously said everything he had done to that point and everything he saw was like "straw" compared to what he had experienced. The entire Divine Comedy is an unusually brilliant poet trying to capture the experience of mystic ascent, and he says he can't even remember it now that he has come back down from it, it slips away.
It's probably similar to what some people report when they do LSD, where it's not just "what a pretty light-show" but "holy frick this is what everything REALLY IS, ALL THE TIME, and I'm just living in constant deadness to it and forgetfulness of it, I need to find some way to maintain this all the time!" And then they crash back down to mundane reality when the drug wears off, which is why so many people burn out on acid, doing it again and again so they can rend the veil and come close. Another comparison I would draw (or not really a comparison because it basically is mystical experience) is with NDEs, NDErs all describe almost incomprehensible love and "rightness," they describe falling into a joy and love so overwhelming and unconditional and pure that they literally beg the beings they encounter in that realm not to make them go back, even if they are dying in the arms of their loved ones. This is more or less what mystics experience as well at the height of their experiences, and even someone like Plotinus according to Porphyry only experienced this a number of times. Being an ascetic is extremely hard work and it's not surprising people lapse back into the cave. But if you believe in karma and reincarnation you also know that you are clearing the way for all of us.
I think ultimately it comes down to knowing the game is an illusion but still having to play it seriously.
I've had these experiences. It is the sense that everything that has, or that will ever happen is perfect. The feeling of complete connection and one'ness with reality, in the most profound sense. Words aren't capable of grasping it. I've only had the experience on LSD, but as a caveat, it was an extremely risky thing to do.
The thing is, given the current circumstances, its likely impossible to reach these experiences through ascesis. The modern world is too weighty on the shoulders, so even though a process of self-isolation, reading and meditating, gaining self-knowledge, it seems a herculean feat.
However even after all this, what have we achieved? Like the other anon said, its really hard to wrap your head around knowing its all just a game and playing it seriously. Like why even play at all? It all seems ridiculous.
I had the experience on mushrooms, it felt like I was out of body in body, like the "experiencer" was gone, I was just the infinite,
I have found that this state is attainable sober, by what I understand as the "dissasociation of the dissasociator"
You get deep in meditation "one-pointedness" you objectify your vital consciousness (bodily sensations, sense impressions), and you disassociate from it, then you disassociate from your emotional consciousness (evoke emotions and feelings), then you dissaociate from your mental consciousness (your actual thoughts, you dont force them to stop, they continue but you dont see them as often, you are subsumed in that impassive dissaociation), after this,
You dissasociate from the dissasociation itself (which is the ego-sense in a pure indeterminate state) you get left with just the pure "I" after the aforementioned dissasociations, but then you dissasociate from that indeterminate "feeling of not being it, your mind and senses) and you abide as THAT.
In this state which doesnt fade, and doesnt fluctuate, everything takes on a sort of "endless depth" indescribability, or otherwise an "essencelessness" including that pure interderminate I which is usually related to some This.
>"Before attaining enlightenment, mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers.
>At the moment of enlightenment, mountains are no longer mountains, nor are rivers rivers.
>But after accomplishing enlightenment, mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers."
This actually makes sense, I think if anything would convince me, it would be that. I suppose from a higher point of view, properly speaking, the idea of choosing between an awakened and unawakened state itself makes no sense. To the higher self, it is obvious that wakefulness is the normal and only meaningful state, whereas the idea of choosing between wakefulness and sleep, rest or ascesis, ignorance or knowledge, only really exists from the perspective of the lower self which is already stuck in the middle of obscurity and ignorance. But I guess that doesn't solve the practical problem of living in ignorance. I am becoming more aware of its presence and actions, I definitely am. And I can see it and clean it up here and there. But purging even a bit of ignorance on something relatively minor and uninteresting, like, say, a psychological attachment to something, or an erroneous belief, can be pretty hard work. Trying to take on all of ignorance and overcome it is a bit of a tall order. Grappling with such a force is very exhausting, and I don't know if I have the resolve to even properly embark on the path, much less reach the final goal. Trying to force the issue hasn't worked so far, and when I try to really pressure myself into pursuing ascesis, my inner balance and stability crater. So that's why I have been thinking more and more that reaching forwards is futile and that I should just trust in the Source (which I am) to reveal its mysteries to me at some point. But all the authorities on enlightenment refer to the active processes that ascetics go through to achieve that, so whenever I remember that I am also forced to grapple with the possible naivety of my hopes. I don't know. It's a tough situation.
Well I think it's important to remember that these things aren't usually such a binary choice. In "traditional" societies (to use Guenon's/Evola's phrasing) the beauty is that the decision to live ascetically wouldn't be a decision at all, it would simply be interwoven with life at every level. All of daily life was structured according to moral and ascetic models and injunctions to be the best you can be even within your station. This not only made it easier to get started by taking on additional burdens (like fasting or giving up luxuries) but also contemplating more, trying to be more holy and pious, trying to be more mindful of your carnal side and daily peccadilloes etc. What we now call mindfulness meditation, psychoanalysis (working on yourself and becoming more mindful of your inner sins and resentments and so on) all had outlets and constant encouragements.
This, combined with the fact that everybody around you was also doing it, and you would instantly be admired and probably inspiring to your friends and family, made for a pretty positive psychological atmosphere in which it wasn't some monumental choice to become a lone, unappreciated weirdo monk or to continue as an "ordinary" person. To be ordinary was to be constantly thinking of these things and doing your best, up to and including the possibility of becoming a monk, a priest, etc.
If you do try to live a more ordered inner life, either as preparation for mystical contemplation or just for its own sake, you should keep this in mind so you don't feel like it's some thankless private choice. It's only the strangeness of the times that make it so. Even amoral Hellenistic Rome still instinctively admired sages and "gymnosophists" (monks) of all kinds, and instinctively preferred Stoic and Epicurean ataraxia and eudaimonia to hedonism. In Hellenistic Rome you didn't join a monastery, you joined a philosopher's school, but the idea and impulse were the same. None of the progenitors of modern secular utilitarian individualist hedonism, like Locke Rousseau Bentham Mill etc., ever foresaw or would have wanted what we have today. They all believed in urbanity and classical virtue, almost nobody intelligent has ever really promoted hedonism sincerely.
If you lived in any of these "traditional" societies, it wouldn't be such a black and white decision before you. Even if you ended up a complete materialist like Lucretius or sceptic like Pyrrho you would still be more interested in ataraxia and eudaimonia than today's secular hedonism. I just think that's worth considering. It's also not all-or-nothing in the sense that you don't have to decide now whether to be a completely self-negating ascetic or an asceticism-negating dissolute libertine. It sounds to me like you have doubts about consigning your whole life to something you're not sure if you'd succeed at, but the very fact that you don't immediately reject this possibility also indicates (to me anyway) that you have the contrary doubts, which I mentioned above, about the "unexamined life." You may have the Siddartha problem:
>Only slowly, among his growing riches, had Siddhartha himself taken on some of the characteristics of the child people, something of their childlike manner and fearfulness. And yet he envied them, envying them more the more he came to resemble them. He envied them the one thing they possessed that he was lacking: the importance they were capable of attaching to their lives, their passionate joys and fears, the happiness, uneasy but sweet, of their eternal infatuations. For infatuated they were—with themselves, with women, with their children, with honor or money, with plans or hopes. But this childish joy and childish folly he had not learned from them, this one thing remained unlearned; all he was learning from them were unpleasant things that he himself despised.
So going back to what I was saying about this being less of an issue in earlier societies because there would be many levels and paths available for doing what is right for you, and therefore the importance of not seeing it all as a binary choice between total dedication to enlightenment OR total renunciation of it, I think it would not be such an unreasonable thing to just do what you CAN do, while feeling no guilt for wanting to live the life of a "householder." Lots of traditional societies specifically allowed for one to become a monk after 50 or 60 when one's duties to one's family and so on were completed and one had resources stored up to support oneself. A lot of the main supporters of ascetic and monastic movements were rich or older people who simply couldn't practice that life themselves, or not yet anyway, so they would support the Buddha or the local revivalist movement so that they could be close to it and benefit from its wisdom, and then join it formally when they could. Not to say this is you, but just showing that this is an extreme case that is not even bad or all that extreme.
Also remember that these things are meant to be brutal and exhausting, and that being a monk is really hard, especially in India. There's a guy named Pannobhasa on Youtube who spent a decade or two doing meditation in a very hardcore traditional sangha in Burma and then came back, and he has described his experiences and said that he felt like he hit his plateau in the earlier parts of his time in Burma and then was always struggling to get back to that "starting point" and move past it, and he realized he just isn't going to get as far as some others might in this lifetime.
I'm just trying to convey how imperfect and individual every case is. There's a reason these things are done within traditions, with people who can guide each pupil individually and prescribe exactly what is right for their unique case. I don't think any of them would encourage you to "force the issue" or to try to push past a plateau when you don't see the way beyond it organically. In traditional societies you would, again, be enmeshed in support networks and a worldview that helped make a lot more sense of all of this, and this would probably make you feel much better about the fact that it might take decades of having little mental and personal revolutions and developments to see where you need to be and how to go forward. And then you would feel a lot better about just taking it gently and trusting in God or trusting in the Source, and not seeing this trusting and simply forging on ahead as some kind of failure to "fully" commit to "real" asceticism.
Have you read The Perennial Philosophy by Huxley? The opening part talks about the three different paths or ways to enlightenment. Also have you read Seven Storey Mountain?
If I were you I would just do things at this stage that will benefit you and people you care about no matter where you end up, like cultivating mindfulness, further developing inner moral integrity, and doing something like transcendental meditation. The latter can be done 15-30 minutes a day and it has science backing up its efficacy. It also has secular and non-culty forms, like Acem or Benson's Relaxation Revolution. If you're religious at all I would strongly recommend going to church (or your equivalent) and doing like you said, trust in the Source and ask for genuine guidance. Simply going to services and genuinely showing humility and asking to be shown the right path is itself a powerful form of meditation, look up the I-Thou relation too. If you're like me (and you may be), you have a tendency to overthink and cerebralize everything, in which case it's genuinely shocking sometimes how beautiful simple thoughts like being able to "trust" an agency outside your own can be. Sometimes I get lost in trying so hard to "figure things out" from down here that I forget there's an "up there," and it's rooting for me (and all of us).
If you get to a certain level and organically want more, then you can naturally progress to the more contemplative sides of whatever your preferred tradition is. If you don't reach that level, then you will still have turned yourself into a much clearer, more essential and less accidental version of yourself, thus better able to determine and follow your own goals, as well as be a pillar of support and inspiration for your family, your friends, your future kids, etc. Nothing to lose. Anyone can do TM and see results. Anyone can pray and enjoy the fruits of being closer to their community and God. I think you're probably like some of the western people Pannobhasa talks about (he's a westerner), who have overactive minds that find it hard to sit still and trust in the training, because they want answers and itineraries. That's not even necessarily a negative thing about the western mind either. You might end up agreeing with Evola that it makes hermeticism uniquely possible in the west, despite the modern world having lost its organic traditions, because westerners are uniquely capable of auto-generating "wet path" DIYers.
But the main thing is still that you can't really know what to do from your current point, except to "just do." Just do some TM for 90-360 days - worst case scenario it's harmless but still you gain some self-discipline practice, best case scenario you have the life-changing expansion of consciousness most people report with TM after sticking with it for a few months. Go to church - worst case scenario it doesn't solve all your doubts, but still you learn a lot about yourself, about faith, etc. Do metta prayer, do Christian TM (John Main) and Christian metta if you're Christian. Just don't jump into any overly esoteric groups and start doing some ridiculously strenuous zikr/shuckling prayer or some crazy tantric Crowleyan antinomian shit to "force" anything before you even feel any direction coming from within yourself. Try to do gentle, compassionate things, more Emerson's Nature essay than tantric shit-eating techniques. There's no rush to start levitating, you're immortal anyway.
What exactly is the difference between wet path and dry path? Please don't refer me to some books, give me your own personal examples
I agree with you on the eudaimonia thing, rather than choosing hedonism, I've found that whenever I am acting hedonistically it is more so the result of just relaxing and living instinctively. It's not a conscious choice. But I suppose that my conscious ideal that I am living right now is an "eudaimonic" one - read philosophy, read mystical writings, engage with mystical arts, try to cultivate a trust with God, stuff like that. And in the rest of my time, I do live hedonistically by just doing whatever is most comfortable or interesting in an inferior sense, even a merely social sense, by coming to this board, other places like this etc. But the worry is that this isn't enough. Eudaimonia may help stabilise or ennoble me a bit - may. But it won't transform me and shatter the human condition. That requires serious ascesis.
And here we go to the practical side of things. You have recommended some stuff like meditation etc. I do actually have a proper practice, I practice Taoist Nei Gong. But it is painful, gruelling and unpleasant, and it feels like a chore. I can enumerate countless advantages I have obtained through Nei Gong, but pleasure, comfort or fulfilment of my curiosity and interest is not one of them. Practicing gives the benefits of a genuine rejuvenation, but it is maybe the single most unpleasant thing in my life. It is not fun. And I suppose that is what makes it ascesis. But I just don't want to do it, even though it's good for me, even though I would like to do it. If ascesis is about becoming aware of the eternal present, then one thing I can say about Nei Gong is that the present hurts. I suppose I should just transcend the "phenomenon of pain and discomfort". But if I already had that kind of detachment, I probably wouldn't need to practice ascesis. It's a serious headache. I want to love it for its own sake, but I just can't. It sucks.
Why the long face?
you're right, of course these people will just write mountains of scholastic cope in response because they want to feel like they need to preserve the existence of their niche
yh duh if there are no niches then no reality only nothingness
we just beat pedophilia boys.
Some animals are more equal than others. but all are equal before god. and unequal before YWH who creates three teired hitler jugend kremlin child rape system.
you haven't really understood the purpose of all this
you think that there's some thing called atman and there is another thing called brahman and those two things are somehow the same, only one and that by knowing this you'll (you?) get some reward, become aware(aware of what?)
but the teaching is about you, yourself, those are nothing but arbitrary names
forget guenon and everything else and startover, read 'Nature of man according to Vedanta by John Levy, then Atmananda Krishna Menon's Notes on spiritual discourses
I don't think we are on the same page.
enlightenment is freedom, pure ontological freedom, Brahman is the last apsect of the illusion you have to get rid off, that's why the Vedantic system confuse you, because is flawed and Guenon was a shallow guy scared of industrialisation and the rise of materialism, so he tried to find a new religion that can supplant christianity, none of that is really related to freedom and enlightenment, true enlightement can only be achieved if you realise that Brahman is just another obstacle of your mind
Unironicaly shri Aurobindo
Doesn't Kant and Fichte provide adequate criticism to Guenon?
lol
>Brahman is the last apsect of the illusion you have to get rid off,
the Brahman-Atman is the only thing that is non-illusory...
>Mistaking the image of God for God
The Brahman-Atman is not an image of God but It is the highest Lord and unconditioned Absolute, appearing in conjunction with the contingent illusion of all psycho-physical complexes simultaneously while illuminating them from within and without.
>when he was usually against Western distortions of Vedic Tradition.
Advaita has always been popular among the actual intellectual elite of India (Sanskrit-fluent Brahmins) ever since Vachaspati Mishra's 9th-10th century commentaries on Shankara's writings made those writings more accessible to a wider audience, very long before Europeans started to engage with India in modern times. All the missionaries that were the first travelers in India reported as such, that while commoners were more prone to folk-worship and bhatki that Advaita was among the most common views found in the educated intellectual class and monks.
>What I am trying to get at is that there is difference between transcending the pain-comfort axis (enlightenment, going above those things) and being merely indifferent to the pain-comfort axis (being fine with whatever, assigning no final meaning to happiness or suffering). But if you *are* indifferent to it, it seems like there is no special need for or incentive towards enlightenment. Does that make sense?
It does make sense, but the additional value of pursuing enlightenment could be seen in terminating the chain of transmigration (since you would lose the understanding that makes you indifferent in the next life) and also that there is a further aspect of blissfulness to enlightenment which is not found to the same extent in a mere stoic-like indifference.
>(since you would lose the understanding that makes you indifferent in the next life)
I don't believe that reincarnation is going to be reproducing me in particular so that is not a concern for me.
My understanding of things is also that no amount of blissfulness or suffering is relevant at all once we look at the highest plane, that of Brahman. However, being and knowledge are their own good in that plane. But at the same time, not existing on that plane, it is difficult to see these things as good in themselves, to transform both one's value system and state of being into something else. And since we do partake in Brahman even as these incarnate beings overcome by Maya, there seems to be no need or imperative to do so.
I am kind of repeating myself here, but I am just throwing my observations your way to see if you can propose any new perspectives or poke holes in my reasoning somewhere. I am not trying to impose my views on you, just to see if I can glean a new perspective and view things from a different angle, via discourse.
I know Advaita has always been around but its importance has been exaggerated by Indomaniacs like Schopenhauer because the spiritually dead enjoy how superficially deep and shocking it appears. "You are God" is something every new age lackwit loves saying. But the sentiment is genuinely disgusting to anyone else because the notion that the One could ever be subsumed by illusion is the blasphemy of blasphemies. The closest you can come to defeating Truth is the fact that you can temporarily hide parts of it from mortals, but Truth always wins, it can't be overcome by a lie.
> the notion that the One could ever be subsumed by illusion is the blasphemy of blasphemies
> but Truth always wins, it can't be overcome by a lie.
You are the one telling lies by incorrectly implying that Advaita teaches that the One is “subsumed by illusion”
not that anon, but the Advaita paradigm on itself end up in that contradiciton, a problem Shankara never really addresses, the only answer advaitins can articulate is that brahma is just not involved in the illusion even when he's the one proyecting it, a total contradictionin terms, is important to not that this flaw in the advaita system is what created the dwaita system
>not that anon, but the Advaita paradigm on itself end up in that contradiciton, a problem Shankara never really addresses
No it doesn't, "subsumed" means "absorbed into", as in Brahman is absorbed into illusion, but Shankara in fact refutes the contention that Brahman is affected by the illusion in multiple places throughout his writings.
>the only answer advaitins can articulate is that brahma is just not involved in the illusion even when he's the one proyecting it, a total contradictionin terms,
That's like saying "The artist paints the painting without being a figure within the painting itself, a total contradiction in terms", in other words that's just nonsense.
yes, Fichte's absolute-other already refutes the notion of atman on an ontological level, and Kant's trascendental principle of aperception refutes the atman as a "thing on itself made of conciousness" on a gnoseological and phenomenological level
Mistaking the image of God for God has to be the most amateurish mistake in metaphysics. I'm amazed that Guenon was so big on Advaita, the West's favorite form of Hinduism, when he was usually against Western distortions of Vedic Tradition.
Guenonbros...
>read book that is specifically written to promote one belief system
>act as if it were somehow surprising that it does not fully agree with another belief system
Fricking Discord "Christians"...
No explanation needed once you realize the vanity of existence, and if you haven’t, no amount of explanations will do. I guess this is why easterners believed in karma, some people just get it right away and others, well, it may take them a few more lives.
If you are looking down on me for earnestly exploring the topic, then you will probably have to stick around for a few more lifetimes yourself. I say this for your benefit and not mine.
I'm struggling with the same view as you. I think the knowledge of the brahman-atman is for us just a step into attaining ataraxia. What we do in this life ultimately doesn't matter and we are heading into the absolute when the illusion comes to an end, but this doesn't mean we should live in hedonism, it just means we should try to maximize our natural tendencies in this life.
As in: be an ethical person, attain knowledge in a way it's not too tortuous, frick prime pussy etc. No need to live an ascetic life, which is nothing but a degeneration.
>What we do in this life ultimately doesn't matter and we are heading into the absolute when the illusion comes to an end, but this doesn't mean we should live in hedonism, it just means we should try to maximize our natural tendencies in this life.
I think this is what the Bhagavad Gita is about and why I recommend it to anyone with metaphysical interests. Arjuna basically tries to make the argument that, because everything is non-dual, we should just let go, walk the path of least resistance and embrace unity with the world in the sense that modern progressives and Theosophic type people say we should. Krishna contradicts him and asserts the exact opposite - if everything is illusory, you have nothing to be afraid of or to pity, all that remains is to step forward and fight vigorously. The knowledge of the illusion should push us onward to strive after our dharma, not to neglect it. But this does become a bit more problematic in an age like ours where Dharma is very difficult to identify and even more difficult to pursue.
"In Sankara's system, the appeal to scriptures occurs first to confront the problem of the aspirant's natural ignorance through postulating central theistic concepts like that of an omnipotent God who acts as a creator, world regulator, and so forth. These are necessary for the development and the maturation of moral qualities that are indispensable to the pupil, as he proceeds on the spiritual path of knowledge. And it is precisely on this path that theistic tenets are shifted to the domain of the pupil's own experience. For Sankara, theistic statements like those relating to the creation of the universe may be validated or demonstrated in an immediate and direct way through such teaching strategy as the examination of the three states. It leads the pupil to take the broadest possible phenomenological perspective the -witness-standpoint- from which scriptural postulates like the creation of the world find an exact correspondence with the content of his experience.
Concerning the discipline of knowledge, it is significant for Sankara to anchor theistic principles in immediate experience rather than speculation and faith. The qualified student who follows the spiritual discipline of nivrtti is able to develop a strong sense of discrimination which, in turn, allows him to directly apprehend the reality of his being as the witnessing consciousness that is not taking part in the world of samsara, but from which samsara itself arises. This however, still stops short of the final aim of AdvaitaVedanta, which is the eradication of all sense of duality. To achieve this goal, it is once again necessary to appeal to the scriptures to eliminate such limiting adjuncts as the states,lordship, and individuality, which are provisionally taught in the scriptures. Let us recall that for Sankara the Upanisadic teachings constitute the last means of knowledge because they eliminate all superimpositions, including all factors of knowledge. And the last and most subtle superimposition to be cancelled is the Absolute as witness. The aspirant's realization of his eternal freedom is concomitant with the elimination of the wrong notion that there is anything second for consciousness to create,witness,sustain, or pervade, like the limiting adjuncts of the states.
Ultimately, the 'knowers of the tradition tell us, the Self never sleeps, dreams, or wakes up. The existence of three distinct states is accepted because of the student's natural but erroneous perception of a stable and variegated world.And the lordly and witnessing qualities of the Absolute, which are assumed for the same reasons, are taught as the characteristics of that entity which one should strive to realize.At the level of the nivrtti discipline, identifying with the self so conceived, brings forth a fundamental shift in the identity of the student which is conducive to the final realization of the statefree and nonconceptual reality."
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:dd733c9d-780f-4012-b451-ad5677f1b928
>le thesis shilling SSS’s anti-traditional modernist talking points
>le dogma is le bad… forget all about Sruti being a supernaturally revealed source of infallible spiritual knowledge… it’s actually the creation of your subjective ignorance, even though the chances of it revealing the truth about ultimate reality would in that case be ~0%
SSS has already been refuted many times, most notably by Shankara himself in Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1-4-3 (pic related)
>Concerning the discipline of knowledge, it is significant for Sankara to anchor theistic principles in immediate experience rather than speculation and faith. The qualified student who follows the spiritual discipline of nivrtti is able to develop a strong sense of discrimination which, in turn, allows him to directly apprehend the reality of his being as the witnessing consciousness that is not taking part in the world of samsara, but from which samsara itself arises.
that's the difference between vedanta taken as a simple theoretical subject, just like any other philosophical system, and vedanta taken as a valid discipline, a sadhana or method of self-realization
There is no way to derive that consciousness is “that from which samsara itself arises” from experience unless you are deluding yourself. It can only be accepted on scriptural claims, since the facts of experience can be explained via other alternative perspectives and explanations without recourse to that one position. This confirms the essential role of the Sruti scripture in providing the aspirant with knowledge which is not known via others means. This is in itself not a bad thing whatsoever and it aligns with the basic presuppositions of being a Hindu, it only seems to be a bad thing if you are a modernistgay trying to make Vedanta into “le empirically-based system that doesn’t require accepting any le scriptural dogma”; but this is entirely at odds with what Shankara writes.
How can we ourselves be Brahman? It’s true that Eeshvara is omnipresent, but Advaita ignores our individuality itself. And we have Shaastra Pramaanas for the principles of distinction between jeeva and Eeshvara.
'सत्य आत्मा सत्यो जीवः सत्यं भिदा सत्यं भिदा सत्यं भिदा मैवारुवण्योा मैवारुवण्यः' इति भाल्लवेायश्रुतिः ।
The Bhaallaveya Shruti says: “The Aatma (Paramaatma) is true, the jeeva is true, their distinction is true, their distinction is true, their distinction is true. (Paramaatma is) not pleased, not pleased, not pleased by those who deny the truth of this distinction.”
-Brahma Sutra Bhaashya of Shripaada Madhvacharya, Adhyaaya 1, Paada 2, Sutra 12
Another major flaw is considering Brahman nirguna, which is wrong:
'पृथग् वक्तुं गुणास्तस्य नशक्यन्तेाऽमितत्वः ।
यतोाऽतोा ब्रह्मशब्देान सर्वेाषां ग्रहणं भवेात् ॥
एातस्माद्ब्रह्मशब्दोायं विष्णोारेाव विषेाशणं ।
अमिता हि गुणा यस्मान्नान्येाषां तमृतेा विभुम् ॥' इति पाद्मे ।
It is said in the Padma Puraana, as follows: The qualities (gunas) of Brahman cannot be individually described, for they are (verily) innumerable. Hence He is called Brahman, which means absolutely perfect, so that all His qualities may be (at least) collectively denoted. And for this reason, this word, Brahman, is invariably used to denote Vishnu (as distinguished from other deities). For except the Brahman, none are of immeasurable qualities.
-Brahma Sutra Bhaashya of Shripaada Madhvacharya, Adhyaaya 1, Paada 2, Sutra 12
>How can we ourselves be Brahman?
Because Brahman is the inner Self of all beings, i.e. 'He is the inner Self of all beings' (Mundaka Upanishad 2-1-4)
'He dwells as the inner Self of every living being' (Svetasvatara Upanishad 3.2)
>but Advaita ignores our individuality itself.
No, it says that individuality pertains to the jiva which is an image or appearance of the Atman-Brahman and does not pertain to the true self, the inner spiritual core of the jiva is the same supra-individual Atman-Brahman that is in all beings, and the psycho-physical aggregate of buddhi, manas, sthula sarira etc found in each person is individual.
>The Bhaallaveya Shruti says: “The Aatma (Paramaatma) is true, the jeeva is true, their distinction is true, their distinction is true, their distinction is true. (Paramaatma is) not pleased, not pleased, not pleased by those who deny the truth of this distinction.”
The "Bhaalaveya Shruti" doesn't exist anon, nobody had ever cited it before Madhva, and nobody before or after Madhva has ever claimed to have access to it. It is one of many fake scriptural quotations which Madhva makes up entirely, which other Vedantins were criticizing him for doing within a century or two of his life. There is a whole book by Roque Mesquita detailing the hundreds of fake quotations that Madhva invented.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Padma Purana quotes was also forged by Madhva since he also does this with existent texts but even if it wasn't then Smriti is still supposed to be interpreted on the basis of Sruti and not vice-versa, furthermore there are other and more important Smriti texts such as the Bhagavad-Gita which say that the Lord is without gunas (13.15 & 13.32)
1. Brahman being formless
The first issue is that Smaartism considers Brahman formless. While the Upanishads mainly speak of the formless aspect of Brahman, they do hint that Brahman has a divine and inconceivable form and can only be seen by devotees who have been granted the ability to do so.
महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः ।
पुरुषान्न परं किंचित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः ॥ ११ ॥
The avyakta (formless) is higher than Mahat, the Purusha is higher than avyakta. There is nothing higher than Purusha. He is the end and He is the Supreme goal.
-Katha Upanishad, Valli 3, Mantra 11
Purusha-Tattva refers to the level of Brahman and the ‘formless’ refers to the material energy, Prakrti.
अव्यक्तात्तु परः पुरुषो व्यापकोऽलिङ्ग एव च ।
यं ज्ञात्वा मुच्यते जन्तुरमृतत्वं च गच्छति ॥ ८ ॥
न संदृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्शुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् ।
हृदा मनीषा मनसाभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥ ९ ॥
Beyond the Avyaktam is Purusha, all-pervading and devoid of linga (indicative mark), whom knowing the mortal is freed and attains immortality. His form stands not within the fold of vision. None sees him with the eye. By the intellect controlling the mind, and by constant meditation is he revealed. Whoso knows that becomes immortal.
-Katha Upanishad, Valli 6, Mantras 8–9
Bhaashya by Shripaada Madhvaachaarya: No one can see the form of Vishnu through his senses, except when He assumes a body and incarnates; and even the mere seeing of incarnation-forms of the Lord does not lead to Release, unless the person seeing realises the Lord in that Form through Jñāna Dṛsti. The Yogin gets release only when he sees the Lord through wisdom-vision, never by physical sight of the senses.
पुरुष: स पर: पार्थ भक्त्या लभ्यस्त्वनन्यया ।
यस्यान्त:स्थानि भूतानि येन सर्वमिदं ततम् ॥ 22 ॥
The Supreme Divine Personality is greater than all that exists. Although He is all-pervading and all living beings are situated in Him, yet He can be known only through devotion.
Bhaashya by Shripaada Madhvacharya: ‘paramam saadhanamaaha purusha iti‘ - Shri Krishna speaks about the Supreme Subject as the Purusha.
-Bhagavad Geeta, Chapter 8, Shloka 22
>they do hint that Brahman has a divine and inconceivable form and can only be seen by devotees who have been granted the ability to do so.
Nothing in that passage (Katha 3-11) talks about a divine and inconceivable form, it just says that Brahman is beyond the Mahat and Prakriti, which is perfectly in agreement with Advaita. Furthermore it's important to understand that Advaita doesn't hold that Brahman has no nature whatsoever, but rather that this inherent nature (1) escapes objectification by the mind, (2) is not comprised of gunas or some combination of them and (3) can be indicated apophatically, this why Shankara in his bhashyas often says that Brahman is free of "phenomenal qualities" and "worldly qualities", referring to the gunas.
The second passage in your post, Katha 6-8/9, also doesn't say anything that disagrees with Advaita, Shankara interprets that passage as the Brahman-Atman being revealed as one's own Self in the pure yogi or jnani who has a controlled mind
>The Supreme Divine Personality is greater than all that exists. Although He is all-pervading and all living beings are situated in Him, yet He can be known only through devotion.
>Shri Krishna speaks about the Supreme Subject as the Purusha.
In Gita 8.22. according to Shankara's bhashya it says "tu labhyah" which means "indeed reached" and not "only reached", i.e. the text is not saying Brahman is only reached through that and not via other paths but the Gita describes multiple types of yoga and God-realization.
-Bhagavad Geeta, Chapter 8, Shloka 22
बृहच्च तद्दिव्यमचिन्त्यरूपं सूक्ष्माच्च तत्सूक्ष्मतरं विभाति ।
दूरात्सुदूरे तदिहान्तिके च पश्यन्त्विहैव निहितं गुहायाम् ॥ ७ ॥
न चक्षुषा गृह्यते नापि वाचा नान्यैर्देवैस्तपसा कर्मण वा ।
ज्ञानप्रसादेन विशुद्धसत्त्वस्ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं ध्यायमानः ॥ ८ ॥
That shines as vast, heavenly, of unthinkable form and subtler than the subtle, much farther than the distant, near, also here, and seen fixed in the cavity, by the intelligent. He is not grasped by the eye; nor by speech; nor by other senses; nor by tapas; nor by karma; when one’s mind is purified by the clearness of knowledge, then alone he sees the indivisible (Brahman) by contemplation.
-Mundaka Upanishad, Mundaka 3, Khanda 1, Mantras 7–8
सर्वत: पाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम् ।
सर्वत: श्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति ॥ 14 ॥ (Shri Krshna said,)
“Everywhere are His (Brahman’s) hands and feet, eyes, heads, and faces. His ears too are in all places, for He pervades everything in the universe.”
-Bhagavad Geeta, Chapter 13, Shloka 14
In fact, in many places, Eeshvara has been said to:
Possess thousands of heads
Possess thousands of arms
Have his hands and feet everywhere
Have a Golden glow (Hiranya-varna)
Many consider this “symbolism” of Eeshvara being omnipresent and omnipotent. However, this is not true. It is indeed the description of the form of Eeshvara:
पश्यन्त्यदो रूपमदभ्रचक्षुषा सहस्रपादोरुभुजाननाद्भुतम् ।
सहस्रमूर्धश्रवणाक्षिनासिकं सहस्रमौल्यम्बरकुण्डलोल्लसत् ॥ ४ ॥
“The devotees, with their perfect eyes, see the transcendental form of the Purusha who has thousands of legs, thighs, arms and faces — all extraordinary. In that body there are thousands of heads, ears, eyes and noses. They are decorated with thousands of helmets and glowing earrings
and are adorned with garlands.”
>-Mundaka Upanishad, Mundaka 3, Khanda 1, Mantras 7–8
Similarly to the Katha verses, Shankara comments on that verse by explaining it as one realizing the formless Atman-Brahman as one's own self. Again, if you read Shankara's bhashya on Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.1, it's clear that he holds that Brahman has a transcendental uncompounded nature which escapes objectification by the mind, he says that the Taittiriya verse about "satyam (truth), knowledge (jnanam) anantam (infinite) work apophatically but again this only makes sense if Brahman has some apophatic ineffable nature of its own which is being indicated apophatically, otherwise saying "jnanam" and "ajnanam" would both be equally true of since there would be no referent that would make one of these correct and the other incorrect.
>“Everywhere are His (Brahman’s) hands and feet, eyes, heads, and faces. His ears too are in all places, for He pervades everything in the universe.”
>-Bhagavad Geeta, Chapter 13, Shloka 14
Shankara says of this verse: The existence of the Knower of the field is revealed through the adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures. And the Knower of the field is spoken of as such because of the limiting adjuncts of the field. The field, too, is diversely differentiated as hands, feet, etc. All diversity in the Knower of the field, caused by the differences in the adjunct-the field-, is certainly unreal. Hence, by denying it, the nature of the Knowable has been stated, in, 'That is called neither being nor non-being.' Although the unreal form is caused by the limiting adjuncts, still, for the comprehension of Its existence it is said, '(It) has hands and feet everywhere, etc., by assuming this as a quality of the Knowable.
In other words, Brahman is being figuratively identified as having organs everything even though the Upanishads state that Brahman is really without these, like in Isha Upanishad verse 8 which says that Brahman is "without sinews" and "bodiless"
>. However, this is not true. It is indeed the description of the form of Eeshvara:
The Sruti says otherwise (Isha 8 being one of multiple examples) and Sruti overrules Smriti in matters of comparative scriptural authority
-Shrimad Bhaagavatam, Canto 1, Chapter 3, Shloka 4
Shripaada Madhvacharya says:
Bhaashya by Shripaada Madhvacharya: Brahman should not be conceived as one without body, He having heard to possess body, described of Blissful form, of Golden Glow, one to be meditated in the form abiding in the inner space, described merely as Bliss; not as of Blissful form, how can there be Golden Form for one who is formless? how can He be meditated as one abiding in the inner space? having one's own form, he is referred as Purusha having thousands of heads, the Creator having Golden Colour, the Sun-coloured, transcending Darkness, That One having hands and feet in all directions, having universal sight. Bhagavan, the Resplendent One having Wisdom, Glory, Valour, Bliss, Splendour, Energy is said to be complete in all respects. In the Supreme One are heard having the various forms of Energy, which are natural like Wisdom, Valour and Action, He who is Knower of All, Blissful is the Brahman, On a fragment of His Bliss other creatures live, Without beginning, middle or an end; of everlasting energy, Transcending the brilliance of the thousands of moons, Having endless attributes and endless facets in each one of those endless attributes, having further endless forms, having Knowledge and Power, having immeasurable energy, Turiya, i.e. having a form with all-pervading vision, the Wise One knowing Brahma) and all the others, who other than Mukunda can call himself as Bhagavan?, His is the Glory, all pervading, Extremely Complete in all sense are His Pleasures, Wisdom and Glory. Even if one considers oneself having accomplished, that is entirely due to Yourself being the Supreme.
All these (attributes) are not exclusive from one another. „The Brahman is Wisdom and Bliss‟ „Bliss, indeed, is Brahman' 'Truth, Wisdom and Eternal is the Brahman' 'Whose austerity, verily, is Wisdom' 'You do enter That Resplendent One. Hail ! – thus in upanishads. Who has no gross body made up of flesh, corpulence or bones. 'The all pervading nature of the immutable is not due to Yoga, but because of His being Supreme and Truth‟, thus in Varaha Puraana.- His body being fragrant due to illuminating wisdom and strength of the Truth, Wisdom and Ignorance, Pleasure and Displeasure are That Sri Vishnu, the Supreme, and Immutable, thus, in Paingi Text. This body of mine is ever blissful; I am not created by Nature. Being Complete in all respects and all pervading I am Narayana Himself, thus in Brahm Vaivarta Puraana. Therefore, by Impulse (as it were), all these distinct forms are shown by inherent Power. He was neither born from the womb of Devaki, nor was He born of Vasudeva, Dasharatha nor Jamadagni. Even though ever Blissful and undecaying, He revels in this manner for creating delusion, thus, in Padma Puraana. Creator of Universe, indestructible, enjoyer of Supreme Pleasures, (Sri Rama); even though the embodiment of Wisdom Himself, for the sake of people, displays his ignorance (as it were) wandering in search for His beloved (Sita). He, whose feet are adored by Brahma, who mourns like a normal human being and shows extreme attachment for woman wandering over all places. Even though he was complete in all respects, the valourous son of Dasharatha to make the words of Rudra true, behaved as though he was defeated, even though he was not, ever victorious Parashurama being devoted to Bhishma did not kiIl him, even when the latter did not marry Amba. Who can be more compassionate than him, thus, in Skanda Puraana.
Taatparyya Nirnnaya: 'Brahmi' means related to Brahman. Even for the men of Wisdom, because of diversity of thoughts at the time of departure, there is life hereafter, on account of the accumulated effects of Karma (actions). With the destruction of the accumulated effects of Karma (actions), there springs about the memory of the Lord without fail. Then comes the deliverance. 'In such of the forms as conceived' thus having been told (in Gita). baaNa means the body. Since Shri Vishnu does not have a gross body or is also not different from the body, He is known as 'nir-vaana' or as having Thousand Heads, also.
-Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Shloka 72
Not only this, but even the Naaraayana Sukta describes Naaraayana the same way:
सहस्र शीर्षं देवं विश्वाक्षं विश्वशंभुवम् ।
विश्वै नारायणं देवं अक्षरं परमं पदम् ॥
This universe is the Eternal Being (Naaraayana), the imperishable, the supreme, the goal, with thousands of heads and thousands of eyes, the resplendent
2. Size of the Aatma
Except Vedaanta, all other philosophies consider all entities to share one single infinite Aatma. However, Smaartism is again, an exception. It considers the word ‘aatma’ to refer to only Brahman, which is again flawed.
In the Brahma Sutras (Adhyaaya 2, Paada 3, Sutras 19–31), there is a discussion on the size of the aatma. Here are select Sutras:
19. “(the individual soul is atomic on account of the scriptural mention) of departure, going and returning.”
21. “If it be objected that (the soul is) not atomic, because of the scriptural mention of what is not that, (we reply:) no, on account of the topic being something else.”
In fact, Shripaada Adi Shankaracharya himself quotes these two pramanas:
एषोऽणुरात्मा चेतसा वेदितव्यो यस्मिन्प्राणः पञ्चधा संविवेश ।
प्राणैश्चित्तं सर्वमोतं प्रजानां यस्मिन्विशुद्धे विभवत्येष आत्मा ॥ ९ ॥
This subtle (atomic) Aatman should be known by the mind as being in the body, whose prana entered in five different forms; the mind in all creatures is pervaded by these pranas. When it is purified, then the Aatman shines out of itself.
-Mundaka Upanishad, Mundaka 3, Khanda 1, Mantra 9
bālāgraśatabhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca |
bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kalpate ||
“Take thou the hundredth part of the point of a hair, divide it into a hundred parts again; then as is a part of this hundredth part of a hundredth, such shalt thou find this Spirit in man, if thou seek to separate Him; yet 'tis this in thee that availeth towards Infinity.”
-Shvetaashvatara Upanishad, Adhyaaya (chapter) 5, Mantra 9
Still, he denies the fact that the soul (Aatma) is atomic in size.
29. But that declaration (as to the atomic size of the soul) is on account of its having for its essence the qualities of that (viz. the Buddhi), even as the Intelligent Lord (Brahman, which is all-pervading, is declared to be atomic).
The word ‘but’ refutes all that has been said in Sutras 19-28, and decides that the soul is all-pervading, because the all-pervading Brahman Itself is said to have entered the universe as the individual soul, which again is stated to be identical with It. How then is the soul declared to be atomic ? Such declarations are on account of its preponderating in the qualities of the Buddhi (intellect) so long as it is imagined to be connected with the latter and in bondage. Passing out, going, and coming are qualities of the Buddhi and are only imputed to the individual soul. For the same reason also, i.e. limitation of the intellect, is the Atman regarded as atomic. It is like imagining the all-pervading Lord as limited for the sake of Upasana, devout meditation.
>Except Vedaanta, all other philosophies consider all entities to share one single infinite Aatma.
That's incorrect, at least Jainism, Samkhya and Nyaya all accept a plurality of selves or purushas, certain types of mimamsa accept that there are a plurality of omnipresent Atmas that spatially overlap with each other
>In the Brahma Sutras (Adhyaaya 2, Paada 3, Sutras 19–31), there is a discussion on the size of the aatma. Here are select Sutras:
>19. “(the individual soul is atomic on account of the scriptural mention) of departure, going and returning.”
>21. “If it be objected that (the soul is) not atomic, because of the scriptural mention of what is not that, (we reply:) no, on account of the topic being something else.”
As Shankara explains, that section brings up for discussion the possible position of the souls atomic size only to then subsequently refute that contention in 2-3-29 when it says "But such appellation (occurs) owing to the dominance of the modes of that (intellect) as in the case of the supreme Self"
>This subtle (atomic) Aatman
Subtle doesn't mean atomic but has a totally different meaning
>“Take thou the hundredth part of the point of a hair, divide it into a hundred parts again; then as is a part of this hundredth part of a hundredth, such shalt thou find this Spirit in man, if thou seek to separate Him; yet 'tis this in thee that availeth towards Infinity.”
>-Shvetaashvatara Upanishad, Adhyaaya (chapter) 5, Mantra 9
I don't know which translation that is but every one I look at speak of the soul as both tiny AND also infinite, which in the context of other Sruti verses speaking of the Atman's omnipresence and pervading all things suggests that this verse is just talking about the omnipresent infinite Atman appearing atomic when identified with individual intellects.
For example:
T.N.Sethumadhavan's translation:
Know the embodied soul to be a part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair
divided a hundred times; and yet it is infinite.
Swami Tyagisananda's translation:
That individual soul is as subtle as a hair-point divided and sub-divided hundreds of times. Yet he is potentially infinite. He has to be known.
Swami Gambhirananda's translation:
That individual soul is to be known as of the size of the tip of a hair imagined to be divided into a hundreth of its hundreth parts; and (yet) it happens to be infinite
>Passing out, going, and coming are qualities of the Buddhi and are only imputed to the individual soul. For the same reason also, i.e. limitation of the intellect, is the Atman regarded as atomic.
Is that from Madhva's Bhashya? That reasoning suggests that Shankara's interpretation is in fact the correct one, because the identification as atomic is not inherent in Atma but is only due to the apparent conjunction with Buddhi
However, the basic fact remains: The word ‘Aatma’ can refer either to the jeeva soul or Paramaatma, Eeshvara.
Shripaada Ramanujacharya, on the other hand, correctly interprets that the Aatma is atomic in nature and the all-pervading ‘Aatma’ is actually Paramaatma, which is associated with Buddhi.
29. But (the Atma) is designated as that because it has that quality (viz. knowledge) for its essential quality; as in the case of the intelligent (prâgña) Self.
The 'but' discards the objection. Because that quality, viz. the quality of knowledge, is the essential quality, therefore the Atma is, in the passages quoted, designated as knowledge. For knowledge constitutes the essential quality of the Atma. Similarly, the intelligent highest Atma is occasionally called 'Bliss,' because bliss is its essential quality. Compare 'If that bliss existed not in the ether' (Taitt. Up. II, 7, 1); 'He perceived that bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1). That bliss is the essential attribute of Brahman is proved by texts such as 'That is one bliss of Brahman'; 'He who knows the bliss of Brahman is afraid of nothing' (Taitt. Up. II, 4, 1).--Or else the analogous case to which the Sûtra refers may be that of the intelligent Brahman being designated by the term 'knowledge,' in texts such as 'Truth, knowledge, the Infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1). That knowledge is the essential quality of Brahman is known from passages such as 'together with the intelligent Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He who is all-knowing' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9).
20. On account of (its) passing out, moving and returning.
The Atma is not omnipresent, but on the contrary, of atomic size (anu).--How is this known?--Since Scripture says that it passes out, goes and returns. Its passing out is described in the following passage 'by that light this Self departs, either through the eye, or through the skull, or through other parts of the body' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 2). Its going in the following text 'all those who pass away out of this world go to the moon,' and its returning in the text 'from that world he comes again into this world, for action.' All this going, and so on, cannot be reconciled with the soul being present everywhere.
>Shripaada Ramanujacharya, on the other hand, correctly interprets that the Aatma is atomic in nature and the all-pervading ‘Aatma’ is actually Paramaatma, which is associated with Buddhi.
Holy moron
22. If it be said that (the soul) is not atomic, on account of scriptural statement of (what is) not that; we say no, on account of the other one being the topic.
The passage 'He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Prânas, the person consisting of knowledge' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 7) introduces as the topic of discussion the personal Atma, and further on in the same chapter we read 'the unborn Atma, the great one' (IV, 4, 22). The personal Atma, being expressly called great, cannot, therefore, be atomic!--Not so, we reply. 'Since the other one is the topic.' In the second text quoted that Self which is other than the personal Atma--i.e. the highest Atma (prâjña) constitutes the topic. In the beginning of the chapter, indeed, the individual Atma is introduced, but later on, between the two texts quoted, the instruction begins to concern itself with the highest Atma, 'he by whom there is known the Atma of intelligence' (pratibuddha âtmâ; IV, 4, 13). It is this latter Atma which, in 22 is called great, not the individual Atma.
Hence, Shripaada Ramanujacharya’s and Shripaada Madhvacharya’s explanations make more sense, as they explain all ambiguity in the Shaastras, especially the Upanishads.
3. Hari-Hara abheda and Pancha-Brahma Devatas
The concept of Hari-Hara abheda and five devatas being forms of Brahman, is also flawed as the Vedas perfectly support Vaishnavism, which Shripaada Ramanujacharya proved.
Shaivas also interpret the Vedas in a Shaiva way, which is also acceptable. However, the concept of five devatas being forms of Brahman, is flawed as there is no direct support for it.
There are also statements in the Vedas that support the Vaishnava explanation:
एको ह वै नारायण आसीन्न ब्रह्मा नेशानो नापो नाग्नीषोमौ नेमे द्यावापृथिवी न नक्षत्राणि न सूर्यो न चन्द्रमाः ।
“Alone indeed there was Naaraayana, not Brahma, not Eeshaana, not water, neither fire nor Soma, neither Heaven nor Prtvi (the Earth), not the stars, not Surya and not the moon. He being alone, did not rejoice.”
-Maha Upanishad, Mantra 1
>Hence, Shripaada Ramanujacharya’s and Shripaada Madhvacharya’s explanations make more sense, as they explain all ambiguity in the Shaastras, especially the Upanishads.
Ramanuja and Shankara actually agree on most points about what the text of the Brahma Sutra is saying but interpret those passages as signifying different metaphysics while Madhva often gives it a wildly different interpretation and takes the text to be talking about something else entirely
> is also flawed as the Vedas perfectly support Vaishnavism,
The Sruti identifies Brahman both with names of Vishnu and also with names of Shiva like Hara (Svetasvatara 1.10) and Rudra (Svetasvatara 4.21 & 4.22 & 4.12 & 3.5), it's kind of arbitrary to say that one of these identifications overrules the others. The Shaivist commentators of course disagree that anyone proved that Vishnu is described or taught as supreme in the Sruti.
> However, the concept of five devatas being forms of Brahman, is flawed as there is no direct support for it.
That isn't taught in Shankara's unquestionably authentic writings but is just seems part of the Smarta movement, however Shankara talks about meditating on various forms of Brahman as an aid for meditation for those who cannot meditate on the formless Brahman, how many forms you choose to meditate on doesn't change much in practical terms
>The Subaala Upanishad (Khanda 5) also mentions that Rudra is the presiding deity of Ahankaara-Tattva. This supports the Vaishnava doctrine.
Except that most people agree that "Rudra" is associated with Shiva and is considered a name of Shiva, and some of the iconography mentioned about Rudra in the Vedas matches that of Shiva
>Smaartism rejects the Vaishnava and Shaiva aagamas
Shankara explains in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya that certain ideas conflicting with the Upanishads are to be found in both texts, some later Advaitin philosophers accepted some of the Agamas but interpreted them in an Advaitic manner
>The Bhaagavatam perfectly supports this
Advaitins have written Bhashyas on the Srimad Bhagavatam interpreting it in an Advaitic manner FYI and it also talks about illusions and maya in the text
>Which Puraanas will Smaartas adhere to? Actually none! Because Smaartism is meant for the lower Smrtis and NOT any Puraanas.
Shankara actually cites Puranas throughout his works, just in his Brihadaranyaka Bhashya alone he cites the Siva-Purana, the Vishnu-Purana and the Vayu Purana, however Shankara rightfully interprets the Puranas and other Smriti according to Sruti and not vice-versa, so he reads them in an Advaitic light as teaching non-dualism.
>There are certain contradictions in the Puraanas, which cannot be explained by Advaita
Advaita can explain this by pointing to the Sruti verses which say that one Atma resides in all beings at once, certain lower deities can use their powers to appear as other forms and creatures even though one Atman resides in all at once
प्रत्यगानन्दं ब्रह्मपुरुषं प्रणवस्वरूपम् । अकार उकार मकार इति ।
तानेकधा समभरत्तदेतदोमिति ।
यमुक्त्वा मुच्यते योगी जन्मसंसारबन्धनात् ।
ॐ नमो नारायणायेति मन्त्रोपासकः । वैकुण्ठभुवनलोकं गमिष्यति ।
तदिदं परं पुण्डरीकं विज्ञानघनम् । तस्मात्तटिदाभमात्रम् ।
ब्रह्मण्यो देवकीपुत्रो ब्रह्मण्यो मधुसूदनोम् ।
सर्वभूतस्थमेकं नारायणम् । कारणरूपमकार परं ब्रह्मोम् ।
एतदथर्वशिरोयोधीते ॥
The Yogin having pronounced (the name of) Him who is complete bliss, who is the Brahma-Purusha and who is of the nature of Pranava (Om)—a combination of A, U, and M—is released from the bondage of birth and mundane existence. He who practises the manṭra "Om-Namo-Naaraayanaaya" reaches Vaikuntha (the abode of Vishṇu). It is this lotus (heart). It is replete with vijnaana: It has the brilliancy of lightning. The son of Devaki is Brahmanya. Madhusudana is Brahmanya. Naaraayana who pervades all elements, who is one only, who is the cause Purusha and who is causeless, is known as Param Brahman. The Aṭharvaṇa Upanishaḍ teaches this.
-Naaraayana Upanishad, Mantra 4
ॐ अथ पुरुषो ह वै नारायणोऽकामयत प्रजाः सृजेयेति ।
नारायणात्प्राणो जायते । मनः सर्वेन्द्रियाणि च ।
खं वायुर्ज्योतिरापः पृथिवी विश्वस्य धारिणी ।
नारायणाद्ब्रह्मा जायते । नारायणाद्रुद्रो जायते ।
नारायणादिन्द्रो जायते । नारायणात्प्रजापतयः प्रजायन्ते ।
नारायणाद्द्वादशादित्या रुद्रा वसवः सर्वाणि च छन्दाꣳसि ।
नारायणादेव समुत्पद्यन्ते । नारायणे प्रवर्तन्ते । नारायणे प्रलीयन्ते ॥
ॐ अथ पुरुषो ह वै नारायणोऽकामयत प्रजाः सृजेयेति ।
नारायणात्प्राणो जायते । मनः सर्वेन्द्रियाणि च ।
खं वायुर्ज्योतिरापः पृथिवी विश्वस्य धारिणी ।
नारायणाद्ब्रह्मा जायते । नारायणाद्रुद्रो जायते ।
नारायणादिन्द्रो जायते । नारायणात्प्रजापतयः प्रजायन्ते ।
नारायणाद्द्वादशादित्या रुद्रा वसवः सर्वाणि च छन्दाꣳसि ।
नारायणादेव समुत्पद्यन्ते । नारायणे प्रवर्तन्ते । नारायणे प्रलीयन्ते ॥
From Naaraayana emanates Praana, Manas, the several organs of sense and action, Aakaash, Vaayu, Agni, Aapas and Prthivee that supports all. From Naaraayana, Brahmaa is born. From Naaraayana, Rudra is born. From Naaraayana, Indra is born. From Naaraayana emanates Prajāpaṭi (the divine progenitor). From Naaraayana emanates the twelve Aadityas, Rudras, Vasus, and all the Chhandas (Vedas). From Naaraayana only do (all these) proceed. Through Naaraayana do (they) prosper. In Naaraayana (they) are absorbed. The Rgveda teaches this.
-Naaraayana Upanishad, Mantra 1
The Subaala Upanishad (Khanda 5) also mentions that Rudra is the presiding deity of Ahankaara-Tattva. This supports the Vaishnava doctrine.
At the same time, there are statements in the Vedas, which have declared 'Rudra' to be the greatest. It is said that there is none mightier than Rudra.
The Smaarta philosophy here, has difficulty explaining this.
Possible Objection: But haven't Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Ganapati and Surya been called 'Brahman'? Doesn't it imply that they are all forms of the Supreme Lord?
Explanation: In that case will you also accept that Indra, Agni, Mitra and Varuna are also Brahman? It is their indweller and innermost Aatma, who is being glorified as Brahman. According to Vaishnavas, it's Shri Vishnu.
the indweller of Surya is none other than Praana (who is the indweller of the eye and ear, as per the Prashna Upanishad) and in turn, the indweller of Mukhya Praana is Shri Vishnu.
Hence, every devata who is glorified as Brahman cannot be Brahman and moreover, Shripaada Madhvacharya quotes a mantra which says that “The indweller of all is revealed in the Upanishads only.”
Using the Upanishads, it is easy to prove that Shri Naaraayana is the Supreme Brahman and he is the Sarva-Paramaatma.
4. Incompatibility with the Puraanas
Smaartism rejects the Vaishnava and Shaiva aagamas, as they do not support Hari-Hara abheda and they also directly support the ideas of Vishishtaadvaita Vedanta and Dvaita Vedaanta, as they speak of difference between jeeva and Eeshvara.
The Vaishnava Puraanas directly support the Paancharaatra philosophy. According to the Vaishnava aagamas, Shiva, Brahmaa, Surya, etc., are jeevas, who are expansions of Vishnu, but not directly Vishnu. Shiva is considered to be an expansion of the Sankarshaana Vyuha of Vishnu. The Bhaagavatam perfectly supports this:
भवानीनाथै: स्त्रीगणार्बुदसहस्रैरवरुध्यमानो भगवतश्चतुर्मूर्तेर्महापुरुषस्य तुरीयां तामसीं मूर्तिं प्रकृतिमात्मन: सङ्कर्षणसंज्ञामात्मसमाधिरूपेण सन्निधाप्यैतदभिगृणन् भव उप-धावति ॥ १६ ॥
In Ilāvṛta-varṣa, Lord Śiva is always encircled by ten billion maidservants of Goddess Durgā, who minister to him. The quadruple expansion of the Supreme Lord is composed of Vāsudeva, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Saṅkarṣaṇa. Saṅkarṣaṇa, the fourth expansion, is certainly transcendental, but because His activities of destruction in the material world are in the mode of ignorance, He is known as tāmasī, the Lord’s form in the mode of ignorance. Lord Śiva knows that Saṅkarṣaṇa is the original cause of his own existence, and thus he always meditates upon Him in trance by chanting the following mantra.
Shrimad Bhaagavatam, Canto 5, Chapter 17, Shloka 16
The Shaiva aagamas have a concept called “Chakras”, where Vishnu and Brahmaa are presiding deities of one chakra, and Shiva is the Supreme God. Similarly, the Shaiva Puraanas directly support the Shaiva aagamas:
This wheel of dissolution has Vidyārūpa Kalā. This healthy region is presided over by Rudra himself. This region is attainable by those who desire the propitiation of Rudras. O sage, it yields the Sāyujya of Rudras gradually through Sālokya Viṣṇu was born from a thousandth part of Rudra. In the form of Vāmadeva wheel he is the presiding deity of the principle of water. He is associated with Lakṣmī Śakti on the left. He is the protector of all. He has four arms. He has eyes as splendid as the lotus. He is dark-complexioned and bears the characteristics of Śaṅkha etc. Of him alone is the set of lour Vāsudevas in the Vyaṣṭi form. It bestows liberation on the devotees of Viṣṇu engaged in worship through meditation. This set of four consists of Vāsudeva, Aniruddha, Saṃkarṣaṇa and Pradyumna. This excellent wheel of sustenance is well known Sustenance means the protection of the existing universe along with its creator until the completion of the pleasures of the souls, the reapers of the fruit. Protection is the activity of Viṣṇu. In the sustenance also the lord has five activities, viz; creation etc, The deities of whom Pradyumna is the chief are absolute and without distress. They cause bliss to liberated souls. O Brahmin, this wheel of sustenance which is permanent is presided over by Viṣṇu. It is the highest abode. This region is attainable by those who serve the lotus-feet of Viṣṇu. This wheel yields Sālokya etc. to the devotees of Viṣṇu. Brahmā was born of a thousandth part of Viṣṇu. He has the face of Sadyojāta and is the presiding deity of the principle of earth. He is accompanied by the goddess of speech on his left. He is the creator and lord of the universe. He has four faces. He is red in complexion and his form is possessed of Rajas attribute. Hiraṇyagarbha, Virāṭ, Puruṣa and Kāla, the four constitute his personal form. O Brahmin, this wheel of creation is the cause of Brahma’s sons and other sages. It bestows desires and happiness to the devotee Those who have the knowledge of creation know this to be the function of Brahman. Creation is the process of re-unification of the soul with the body previously annihilated—the body which along with the means, ancillaries and results comes out of Prakṛti for gradual enjoyment. It is pleasing as long as it holds good.
Shiva Puraana, Kailaasa Samhita, Chapter 15
Vaishnavas reject the Shaiva Puraanas as “taamasic” and Shaivas reject the Vaishnavas reject the Vaishnava Puraanas as “taamasic”. Which Puraanas will Smaartas adhere to? Actually none! Because Smaartism is meant for the lower Smrtis and NOT any Puraanas.
5. Inability to Explain the Concept of Multiple Aatmas shared by Devatas
There are certain contradictions in the Puraanas, which cannot be explained by Advaita, due to its nonacceptance of different entities having different souls.
The Garuda Puraana says that Draupadi was an avataara of Bhaarati, the wife of Vaayu.
The Naarada and Vaayu Puraanas mention that she was an avataara of Shachi, Yami (Shyaamala, the wife of Yama) and Bhaarati, the wife of Vaayu.
Advaita Vedaanta can never explain these contradictions, while Dvaita Vedaanta explains it perfectly. When a devata takes an avataara, their bodies can accommodate other aatmas, along with the amsha of the devata. Hence, Draupadi was a mixed avataara of five different Goddesses: Shachi, Shyaamala, Bhaarati and the Usha-Devis. This is the real reason why she had five husbands. The complete story is mentioned in the Garuda Puraana.
Similarly, Arjuna was an avataara of Indra and Nara. Please note that this is possible only in the case of devatas and not other living entities.
6. Kalpa-Bheda as an Excuse for Contradictions in the Puraanas
Modern-day Smaartas say that the contradictions in the Puraanas (such as Vishnu giving rise to Shiva and Brahmaa and Shiva giving rise to Vishnu and Brahmaa) are due to Kalpa-bheda, which is wrong. It is a fabricated explanation, based on manvantara-bheda (which is the explanation for only a few instances of differences in the literature). Not only this, but as per Smaartism, Brahman becomes formless and everything merges into him, during Maha-Pralaya, after several Kalpas. Hence, this explanation itself is wrong.
Many even say that the previously discussed contradictions, such as Draupadi being an avataara of different Goddesses, is also due to Kalpa-bheda.
Here’s a common sense question to verify the truth in this:
If moksha is permanent, then how come the same jeevas appear again during different cycles of time and Maha-Yugas, and the same Raamaayana and Mahaabhaarata take place? Doesn’t this violate the concept of moksha itself, as it would imply that moksha is only eternal, till Maha-Pralaya, after which the same soul is born in the same situation and the same circumstances repeat?
Also, the Chhaandogya Upanishad (Prapaathaka 8, Khanda 15, Mantra 1) says that one who attains Brahmaloka (Paramapadam, not to be confused with Satyaloka, the abode of the Chaturmukha Brahmaa) never returns. How is it possible for the liberated soul to reappear again, in the next Kalpa or Manvantara? How is it possible for the same exact avataaras to take place?
All the explanations of Kalpa-bheda have little or no basis and in fact, the explanation given for the contradictions in the Puraanas usually has nothing to do with difference of time! Moreover, this violates the concepts of the Vedas. It’s true that certain avataaras of Shri Vishnu, especially at the end of Yugas, do recur sometimes, but the situation won’t be exactly the same and nor will the same living entities reappear.
Here's the most important part:
If this explanation of Kalpa-bheda or Manvantara-bheda has to be accepted, it should be supported by the Vedas. According to modern-day Smaartas, during one cycle of creation, the formless Brahman first assumed the form of Vishnu, in another cycle, it was Shiva. Such explanations must be supported by the Vedas or else they cannot be considered valid.
एको ह वै नारायण आसीन्न ब्रह्मा नेशानो नापो नाग्नीषोमौ नेमे द्यावापृथिवी न नक्षत्राणि न सूर्यो न चन्द्रमाः ।
“Alone indeed there was Naaraayana, not Brahma, not Eeshaana, not water, neither fire nor Soma, neither Heaven nor Prtvi (the Earth), not the stars, not Surya and not the moon. He being alone, did not rejoice.”
>If moksha is permanent, then how come the same jeevas appear again during different cycles of time and Maha-Yugas, and the same Raamaayana and Mahaabhaarata take place? Doesn’t this violate the concept of moksha itself, as it would imply that moksha is only eternal, till Maha-Pralaya, after which the same soul is born in the same situation and the same circumstances repeat?
There is no requirement to take the Puranas as literal historical accounts instead of as being inspired stories using fictional characters or fictional stories about real people simply as a means to illustrate spiritual teachings through parables. Even so I'm not aware of any Smritis saying that the same jeeva appeared again on earth after having already attained moksha before, but if any text says that it would suggest that the story within that text was fictional.
Madhva is making a fool of himself by making these arguments about not accepting texts as authentic when Madhva himself forged hundreds of fake scriptural quotations including to non-existent """Sruti""" which nobody has ever read or heard of.
>The biggest flaw of Smaartism is: It is highly similar to Buddhism and differs from even the other Advaita philosophies, such as Shuddhaadvaita, Kashmiri Shaivism and Nath Shaivism.
When Madhva accuses Advaita of being similar to Buddhism he does not understand what he is talking about, for example Madhva says the Advaitic liberation is similar to the Buddhist void which is wrong because in the Advaitic Moksha even after bodily death there remains an infinite, undecaying, self-sufficient Brahman whose non-dual awareness is self-luminous, and 99% of Buddhism does not accept any metaphysically independent self-luminous eternal awareness like this
>“The Supreme Person is real. Austerities are real, and Lord Brahmā is also real. Because the living entities and the total material energy(of which this material world is a part) have taken birth from the supreme reality, they are also real.”
Which scripture is that from? Is it another one of Madhva's forgeries or do you have a citation for it?
>However, shockingly, Buddhism perfectly says that the world is an illusion and false.
Usually Buddhist philosophy doesn't mean that the world is illusory in the same sense that Advaita does, if you want I can explain more in detail but I suspect the effort would be wasted
>which he says in his commentary on the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad.
It's not an authentic work of his and is not written in his characteristic style, computer-based analysis has also suggested it's not his either and even some traditional teachers in the Advaitin mathas have agreed it wasn't written by him but was written by a later figure. Lastly, even in that passage the author is say there ISN'T a void anywhere and he says the text is clarifying that this is not so
-Maha Upanishad, Mantra 1
Here itself, the possibility of Shri Shiva or any other deity appearing first from the formless Brahman, is reduced to dust. Even though Smaartas consider Brahman to be formless, they should accept that Shri Vishnu appeared first.
7. Similarity with Buddhism and Dissimilarity with other Advaita Philosophies
The biggest flaw of Smaartism is: It is highly similar to Buddhism and differs from even the other Advaita philosophies, such as Shuddhaadvaita, Kashmiri Shaivism and Nath Shaivism.
For example, Shuddhaadvaita accepts that the universe is real, as the Jagat itself is said to be same as Brahman. This has pramaanas from the Shaastras, too.
14035024a brahma satyaṁ tapaḥ satyaṁ satyaṁ caiva prajāpatiḥ
14035024c satyād bhūtāni jātāni bhūtaṁ satyamayaṁ mahat
“The Supreme Person is real. Austerities are real, and Lord Brahmā is also real. Because the living entities and the total material energy(of which this material world is a part) have taken birth from the supreme reality, they are also real.”
However, shockingly, Buddhism perfectly says that the world is an illusion and false.
O Sons of Victorious Buddha, the Three planes of Existence are of the mind only.
-Dasabhumika Sutra
Neither ordinary beings nor enlightened ones exist outside of the precious mind.
-Vajrapanjara Tantra
All things external and internal are designated by the mind. Apart from the mind nothing else exists.
-Samputa Tantra
All realities are of the mind's delusion. Apart from the mind nothing exists. All appearances are due to the Mind's delusion.
-Samputa
Ignorance gives rise to existential forms.
-Hevajra Tantra
In fact, Shripaada Adi Shankaracharya himself says that his doctrine is similar to Buddhism, which he says in his commentary on the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad.
In the case an apprehension may arise that there is merely a void everywhere which would be non different from the Buddhistic idea. Hence the text says siva eva kevalah, siva who is pure by nature and not void.
-Svetaashvatara Upanishad, Chapter 4, Mantra 18
Credits: Vīrasaiva
Hence, for these reasons, the philosophy of Smaarta-Dharma is untenable for those who want to learn the Shaastras thoroughly and gain a good understanding of the Vedas. Nevertheless, these are my personal views.
Now, one may ask: If Smaartism has so many flaws, then why do people still follow it?
The answer is: Secularism and ignorance. It is highly secular, as it has concepts such as Hari-Hara abheda and non-difference between Pancha Devatas. Secondly, people do not even know the Shaastras properly, as they are vast and haven’t even read most of the Upanishads.
Importantly, people blindly follow and defend Advaita, just because Smaartism uses it and Smaartism has Hari-Hara abheda. These are the simple reasons why many follow Smaartism.
Thank you for reading.
Harihi Om.
>the philosophy of Smaarta
>Smaartism
kek these names
>In fact, Shripaada Adi Shankaracharya himself says that his doctrine is similar to Buddhism, which he says in his commentary on the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad.
Shankara preaching crypto-buddhism confirmed
As you can tell, buddhism and advaita are nihilistic and no amount of guénonian coping can change this fact. There is more to religion and spirituality than this cult of meaningless.
Just become Muslim like Guenon. It works, just trust me bro!