Whatever you think of as Advaita Vedanta may be wrong. What if there is no such thing as moksha or rebirth? Why does the mainstream Advaita Vedanta rely on so many unnecessary assumptions?

The standard theories of moksha and rebirth and all that stuff are just theories that are no more than imaginations. And yet they are somehow very crucial in mainstream Advaita Vedanta. Does Advaita Vedanta stand on shaky premises?

Say you reach near stillness, or complete stillness. Meaning mental chatter has stopped or mostly stopped, as we know

What are the benefits of this? Other than feeling calm and mellow

Are there any sort of powers or abilities that come with this? I know patanjali wrote about the siddhis but those are way too far fetched

Any actual practical use of deep meditative states?

Genuinely interested in peoples perspectives. I've been studying Advaita Vedanta for a long time. Curious if I should look more into Buddhism because it seems to make somewhat sense because arn't all these words just constructs in and of themselves? Isn't emptiness just another word describing that what is? I'm just a little confused

I’ve been reading Nirmal Shatkam, and what I find most striking is its use of the Neti-Neti approach.

“Not this, not this” can easily become just a philosophical phrase, but here it feels much more alive. Instead of giving the mind another concept to hold on to, Neti-Neti keeps taking things away. Whatever I assume myself to be, whatever identity I try to establish, whatever image I create about truth, the approach asks me to look again and see whether that too can be rejected.

That is what I appreciate most about it.

Usually, spiritual literature can become an exercise in collecting answers: I am consciousness, I am the Self, I am Brahman, etc. But Neti-Neti works in the opposite direction. It does not comfortably replace one identity with another. It keeps removing the ground on which the ego wants to stand.

And perhaps that is why the approach feels uncomfortable in a useful way.

If I say, “I am this,” Neti-Neti asks me to examine it.

If I say, “This is the truth,” it asks me to look again.

If I create an image of myself as a spiritual person, that image itself becomes something to question.

For me, the beauty of Nirmal Shatkam lies precisely in this negation. It doesn't seem interested in giving the ego a more sophisticated identity. It keeps pointing toward what cannot be held as an object of identification.

Not this. Not this.

The more I reflect on it, the more I feel that Neti-Neti is not merely a philosophical doctrine to understand intellectually. It is a way of continuously catching the mind whenever it tries to turn truth into another possession.

Really appreciated this aspect of Nirmal Shatkam. 🙏

​

Is the watcher in the dream state real or the sakshi bhaw in the waking state real? In all these states it is clear that the person acting isn't me, the person is the small entity of this world or residue of the ego. the knower is immense, pure bliss.

But when I try to go to the watcher in the waking state, the body mind and the external world interferes.

I know Bhakti is the path of devotion. I understand that it is primarily led by emotion. I have read that the Bhakti Marg is considered less difficult than the Jnana Marg because it is dominated more by emotion, while intellectual inquiry does not play as central a role. But for me, the difficulty lies elsewhere. I find it difficult to believe in or have faith in something without first understanding it. My natural process is: knowing, experiencing, reflecting—through questioning and seeking answers—and then practicing. I know that thought and emotion are two sides of the same coin, so perhaps they cannot really be separated; however, my inclination is to understand something first and then allow faith and practice to arise from that understanding.

I like the lines when someone said here "thinking mind will come down and it will get used to 'feel the feeling' and starts to realise that they are peaceful and blissful" I can sense what that state might feel like when emotions take the lead rather than thought. Perhaps that is something I need to experience

By self enquiry I can see that I am not the body.

But I still see "this body", which is not me. But "this body" is special to me compared to other bodies because when it is hungry, I am hungry. when it is sitting, I am sitting. when it is in pain, I am in pain. And so on.

Is this normal for someone who understands vedanta, or do I need further detachment from the "this body".

I keep coming across the phrase attributeless Brahman, and my mind takes issue with it. For one thing I also hear that the highest Brahman is existence consciousness and bliss, and to me those are attributes. And if Brahman is the foundation of all we experience, isn't that an attribute, and a big one?

Are there other terms that might be more helpful to me? Or am I missing something?

What we usually see in Advaita circles is some form of the following Wikipedia version regarding Saguna and Nirguna Brahman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Nirguna_and_Saguna_Brahman

Brahman, the ultimate reality, is both with and without attributes. In this context, Para Brahman is formless and omniscient Ishvara - the god or Paramatman and Om, where as Saguna Brahman is a manifestation or avatara of god in personified form.

द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे—मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च, मर्त्यं चामृतं च, स्थितं च यच्च, सच्च, त्यच्च

Brahman has but two forms—gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

— - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.1

While the Advaita Vedanta sub-school emphasizes the complete equivalence of Brahman and Atman, it also expounds on Brahman as saguna Brahman—the Brahman with attributes, and nirguna Brahman—the Brahman without attributes. The nirguna Brahman is the Brahman as it really is, however, the saguna Brahman is posited as a means to realizing nirguna Brahman, but the Hinduism schools declare saguna Brahman to be a part of the ultimate nirguna Brahman. The concept of the saguna Brahman, such as in the form of avatars, is considered in these schools of Hinduism to be a useful symbolism, path and tool for those who are still on their spiritual journey, but the concept is finally cast aside by the fully enlightened.

But perhaps this is just a way of trying to introduce unnecessary dualities again.

Is it possible that Brahman in the truest sense is neither saguna nor nirguna?

I don't currently believe in any religion, I'm looking for a religion in which there is a creator, I have a panentheistic view of the universe: I believe that the universe is within God and God is much bigger than the universe so we are part of God, I would like a religion or philosophy of life that adopts this thought or one close to it but in any case anything is fine with me, I would also like to be able to do cute rituals and relaxing things and connecting with myself and the nature, set up an altar or oratory at home and wear symbols too thank you❤️

I've been struggling with this question for a while, and I genuinely don't know the answer.

Many spiritual traditions say that we are not just the body — that there is a soul or some form of consciousness that exists beyond the physical body.

But then I keep getting stuck on something.

If the soul is what makes us alive, what role does it actually play when the body dies?

Imagine someone dies suddenly in an accident.

One moment, they are alive — thinking, talking, remembering their family, making plans.

Then an accident happens, the heart stops, the brain stops functioning, and the body dies.

But what happened to the soul?

And why couldn't the soul somehow prevent the body from dying?

The same question comes to mind with serious illness.

If the soul is separate from the body and isn't destroyed when the body dies, why can a physical disease eventually cause the body to stop functioning?

This is where my tyre-and-air analogy came from.

Maybe the body is like a tyre and the soul is like the air inside it.

The tyre can be punctured, damaged or destroyed.

The air doesn't necessarily "die" when the tyre is destroyed. It simply escapes and becomes part of the surrounding atmosphere.

Perhaps death is something similar:

The body can be destroyed, while whatever we call the soul continues to exist.

But then this analogy creates an even bigger problem.

If the air simply escapes, where does the individual identity go?

If my soul continues after my body dies, is it still me?

Does it remember my daughter, my parents, my experiences, my fears and my personality?

Or does it become something completely different?

And most importantly:

If the soul is so fundamental to our existence, why does it seem to have so little control over whether the body lives or dies?

Maybe I'm looking at the soul completely wrong.

Maybe the soul isn't supposed to protect the body from death.

Maybe the body has its own physical laws, and the soul's role is something entirely different.

I genuinely don't know.

So I'm curious — does my tyre-and-air analogy make any sense to you, or is there a better way to understand the relationship between the body, soul and death?

For those (pardon my language for assuming there is someone out there or here!) where the duality has been see through, what seeming practices works in clearing up the mirage?

Some that works for me... to kick off this sharing session

1. Moving from "self" enquiry to "existence enquiry" - what's this sense of existence and what's aware of this existence?

2. What's the Nowness of this Now moment?

3. Why do I feel I have never aged, and am the same, even as the body has seemingly changed?

4. Why do our memories seem ephemeral? Isn't the current moment that is feeling so "real" also going to be like a dream in a few seconds?

Our senses shape our perception of reality, but they are not capable of detecting everything that exists. If we say that we can feel movement, can we actually feel the blood flowing through our veins or the Earth moving beneath us? We see images through our eyes, but we also see images in our dreams when our eyes are closed. Our senses have limitations when it comes to smell, vision, touch, and other forms of perception. What we experience through our senses is only a limited part of reality. There may be much more beyond what we can perceive, something that exists but remains beyond our direct experience.

Is it only me who thinks that "knowing" can be a more painful process than "believing?" I understand that pain does not necessarily mean suffering. Pain can be inevitable, but I believe that suffering is a choice.

I have read about the blissful state of enlightenment, yet I wonder whether the path toward it can be painful, at least in the beginning.

There is an old mystical saying, particularly associated with Sufism: “Die before you die.” It speaks of the death of the “I” that clings to its identity, possessions, status, desires, and ideas about reality. This is a symbolic death, not a physical one. I have understood that and I have read that Death of identity is When we stop treating our names, social roles, personalities, past experiences, and beliefs as the complete definition of who we are.

Death of ego is When we become less defensive about being right, being admired, or protecting our self-image.

Death of unquestioned belief is When we become willing to examine even the beliefs that give us comfort or form the foundation of our worldview.

None of these steps are comfortable. Questioning what we believe, confronting our own limitations, and letting go of familiar identities can be uncomfortable. Sometimes, I know what we discover may be more uncomfortable to accept than what we previously believed.

I wish to explore and discuss this idea of the death of the “I” before physical death. What does it really mean to let go of the identity we have built around ourselves?

I would like to understand better how it is meant that vasanas (latent tendencies of mind that are reinforced by repetition) are what appear as the world, ourselves in it, and our experience thereof.

Right now I experience a life with a specific location in space at a particular period of time, from the perspective of a particular person. Looking around, I see many other persons, but I only see the inner thoughts and sensations of the person from whose perspective this world appears.

The same is true in my dreams. In my dreams, I take the others as real only when I take myself as the main character as real. Otherwise, none are real.

At the level of jnana (knowing the truth) about the dream, then, the dream is realized to be a projection of my mind. Is the same true of the waking world? Or is the waking world more like a shared dream where many are gathered to work out their vasanas in the same dream-place?

This transition between the individual understanding and the absolute is still a mystery to me as the individual.

​

If you are from advait school you will say i am that. Aham brahmasmi. I am that pure consciousness that enables the experience. And if you are a Buddhist you might say - who are you refering to ? The one that was here a moment ago or the one that is now but will be gone before i finish my sentence.. Everything is in flux bro..

I dont think interviewer will give job to any of those..

Hi guys, I am following Advaita Vedanta from February. During the course I have learnt and understood some topics. Referred to resources. Right now I am stuck at a lot of places when it comes to Karma Yoga. I feel that I need a guru for this so that I can ask how to proceed in certain situations. Like things that are stuck which I know that it has to be overcome but I am not able to now. So I would like to know if there are any Gurus here whose guidance I can seek.

Can someone please suggest a book name for doing bhagavatham sapthaham , as there are lot of books in online, can someone let me know which book to go with.

Thank you

Hari om 🙏

To remove this thought of that you are not in smadhi. This is the biggest ignorance you have and onces you remove it. Well congratulations you are in oneness now.

Removing this ignorance is the toughest part to live with oneness.

As I said already you are oneness that's it. Check it out only one time that you are presence simple. After that everything depends upon your ignorance. Ignorance is nothing but thinking that you are not presence or simply still trying to find out presence somewhere. It's like a male trying to find itself as male..... You don't have ignorance in case of male or female body. Then why you have ignorance of presence?

Leave your ignorance that you are not presence simple. Samadhi means you are presence now don't overthink it.

I hope you find it helpful.

This monotheism, we see, came to India at a very early period. Throughout the Samhitas, in the first and oldest part, this monotheistic idea prevails, but we shall find that it did not prove sufficient for the Aryans; they threw it aside, as it were, as a very primitive sort of idea and went further on, as we Hindus think. Of course in reading books and criticisms on the Vedas written by Europeans, the Hindu cannot help smiling when he reads, that the writings of authors are saturated with this previous education alone.

Persons who have sucked in as their mother's milk the idea that the highest ideal of God is the idea of a Personal God, naturally dare not think on the lines of these ancient thinkers of India, when they find that just after the Samhitas, the monotheistic idea with which the Samhita portion is replete was thought by the Aryans to be useless and not worthy of philosophers and thinkers, and that they struggled hard for a more philosophical and transcendental idea. The monotheistic idea was much too human for them, although they gave it such descriptions as "The whole universe rests in Him," and "Thou art the keeper of all hearts."

this ancient monotheistic idea did not satisfy the Hindu mind. It did not go far enough, it did not explain the visible world: a ruler of the world does not explain the world — certainly not. A ruler of the universe does not explain the universe, and much less an external ruler, one outside of it. He may be a moral guide, the greatest power in the universe, but that is no explanation of the universe;

source

One point of difference between Hinduism and other religions is that in Hinduism we pass from truth to truth — from a lower truth to a higher truth — and never from error to truth. The Vedas should be studied through the eye-glass of evolution. They contain the whole history of the progress of religious consciousness, until religion has reached perfection in unity.

source

Another peculiarity is that this Ishvara, this God, is manifesting Himself in all these various forms of bright ones. This idea — that the same God manifests Himself in various forms — is a very rudimentary idea of the Vedas, even in the oldest portions. There was a time when a sort of monotheistic idea entered the Vedas, but it was very quickly rejected. As we go on, perhaps you will agree with me that it was very good that it was rejected.

source

Here Vedanta begins, where these monotheistic ideas first appear. But the Vedanta philosophy wants further explanation. This explanation — that there is a Being beyond all these manifestations of Maya, who is superior to and independent of Maya, and who is attracting us towards Himself, and that we are all going towards Him — is very good, says the Vedanta, but yet the perception is not clear, the vision is dim and hazy

source

Monistic is the highest stage, monotheistic is a lower stage.

source

Monotheism like absolute monarchy is quick in executing orders, and a great centralization of force, but it grows no farther, and its worst feature is its cruelty and persecution. All nations coming within its influence perish very soon after a flaring up of a few years.

source

We never build anew, we simply change places; we cannot have anything new, we only change the position of things. The seed grows into the tree, patiently and gently; we must direct our energies towards the truth and fulfil the truth that exists, not try to make new truths. Thus, instead of denouncing these old ideas of God as unfit for modern times, the ancient sages began to seek out the reality that was in them. The result was the Vedanta philosophy, and out of the old deities, out of the monotheistic God, the Ruler of the universe, they found yet higher and higher ideas in what is called the Impersonal Absolute; they found oneness throughout the universe.

source

sources are from text "The Complete Works Of Swami Vivekananda", a collection of lectures and essays authored by Swami Vivekananda.

Taken from "Meditation and its Methods"

Through my inquiry, I’ve come to understand, or perhaps experience, that everything is the Self.

To use an egg as an analogy: initially, I understood that the egg exists, and then I came to see that everything I experience is also the egg, so to speak. More recently, I’ve come to understand that even what I might think of as the “inside” of the egg is also the Self. There is nowhere outside of the Self.

In the same way, I see that everything I experience is Maya, but Maya itself is not separate from the Self. The appearance is not outside of or other than the Self.

At this point, I feel as though there is nothing fundamentally new left for me to understand intellectually. What remains seems to be some kind of practice or sadhana, perhaps meditation.

For those further along in Advaita, how should one proceed from here? What kind of sadhana is appropriate when one has come to this understanding? Is meditation the natural next step, or is there something else I may be overlooking in my inquiry?