Exploring Advaita Vedanta

[Orbit]

I've been exploring Advaita Vedanta (Hindu philosophy) recently. Is any one else interested in discussing this? Here's what I've been reading: http://www.vedantaadvaita.org/AdvaitaVedanta_2.htm

 

I'm particularly interested in the view of consciousness. I'm not so much interested in the reincarnation aspect. The basic idea of Advaita Vedanta is that consciousness is all; consciousness is God; we are God. Obviously the word "god" here has noting to do with Abrahamic God. It is a term of convenience for the unknowable, indescribable, infinite.

[Joshpantera]

Count me in. I've known of this through academic works like Joseph Campbell, but I have not gotten deeply into the practice itself. 

 

The first interesting issue that I've found is this: 

 

In other words, the personality undergoes change. So, it is clear that the mind undergoes change. The question is, “Is there an awareness of these changes of the mind and if so how does that awareness take place?” That which changes cannot itself be aware of the changes. It follows that, besides the changing mind, there must be a changeless conscious principle. The question is, “what is the proof?”  The proof lies in the fact that, in spite of the changes of the mind, I regard myself as the same conscious entity...

 

Right away I can think back on the changes I've witnessed over the years. I can relate to the idea of an unchanging principle. It's awareness itself. I've honed in on this through Peter Russell and I believe he's taken it from Advaita Vedanta.  It seems that awareness goes all the way down.

[Orbit]

For inspiration as we read:

 

[Orbit]

The relation of the Brahman (universal nondual consciousness) to the Atman (self/soul) interests me. I have heard Hindus describe it like this: "Atman is a drop of water; Brahman is the ocean; they are one". To what extent are we one with the universe? Is Brahman a higher reality, forever hidden from us? Can we only know Brahman through the Atman? Atman has also been described as the reflection of Brahman. How is our individual consciousness connected to that of the universe? What kind of thing would the consciousness of the universe be? What counts as consciousness? Pick one, lol.

[Guest Furball]

Maybe the higher reality of brahman is hidden from those who never sought it through atman. Those that did will be rewarded with the knowledge of brahman, or a greater knowledge, or perhaps more time to evolve greater knowledge of brahman through another life somewhere else.

[Ellinas]

As I understand it (and this is entirely off the top of my head - I'll look at Orbit's link at greater leisure) the point is that self is ultimately the same as Brahman.  The emphasis is very much on the "being one".

 

Picking through my musings over this over a fairly extended period of time, the way I've tended to look at this is to say:

1. At the purely physical level, I cannot exist apart from my locality, which cannot exist apart from the environment, which cannot exist apart from the planet and so on into the cosmos.
2. From this standpoint to say we are all children of the universe is not a spiritual statement; rather it's a statement of the bloomin' obvious.
3. Although others might take issue with this, I maintain that I have a consciousness and that "I" (self) exist.  I cannot otherwise explain that I can see the screen now in front of me.
4. If I have a consciousness, it comes from somewhere.  I cannot accept that it comes from electrochemical activity in my head as an emergent property, as it would be little more than an illusion and "I" could not then be aware of that consciousness.  The only alternative I can see is that consciousness comes from consciousness.  My little self in that sense may be seen as being part of the greater whole in  way that reflects the physical position.  In occult terms "as above, so below", I suppose.

I accept that is just a personal opinion that is utterly unprovable.

 

One thing that also strikes me is that the idea that all is consciousness need not be limited to our minds.  If I understand the Hindu position correctly (and I may be well off the mark) then it would make sense to see literally everything as consciousness.  I suppose that may take us somewhere down the route of "esse est percipi", with the whole of being an expression in or of Brahman consciousness.

 

At this point I find my head begins to hurt and I begin to crave a strong coffee.

[Joshpantera]

In a nut shell, I've learned that the whole 'atman is brahman' thing and 'tat tvam asi' are basically saying that ultimate reality is your own ground of being. Brahman is perceived as a transcendent energy consciousness which flows throughout the whole of existence, both transcendent and immanent existence. This is referred to as Panentheism. You're connecting with transcendent energy consciousness which is also immanent deep within you. 

 

At least that's what I've taken from various scholarship without having actually practiced AV. 

 

I haven't ever read into the arguments against AV so I googled it to see what came up. Here's an atheist critique that we can consider and decide whether the criticism holds any merit: https://robertcpriddy.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/some-reflections-on-advaita-vedanta/

 

Right away the criticism seems to subscribe to the Aryan invasion theory, which, I've learned is hotly debated as a racist motivated theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans

 

The blogger goes on to conclude, after this first egregious error:

 

Vedanta is ultimately an empty ideology which entraps ‘aspirants’ in a labyrinth of abstractions and confuses people about reality… like other forms of monotheism theology, it is a social power tool. It is often extremely otherworldly in its orientation, due to its cardinal denial of the reality of matter, the self, the world and so on. 

 

I'm afraid this guys doesn't quite understand what he's talking about. From what I understand something like "atman is brahman," or "tat tvam asi," actually disarms religious social control. There's no sense of a middle man church or organization standing between the people and ultimate reality in the way that it is seen in the west. In this sense ultimate reality is within you and "is" you. Membership to an organization is completely an aside. The western religions absolutely depend on people not knowing this in order to maintain their self important positions of authority and control. I see this philosophy as a much more powerful tool to disarm religious social control than anything else and this guy has demonstrated a very poor understanding of what he's trying to criticize. 

[Orbit]

Knowing the Brahman through the Atman is where meditation comes in. Meditation is where we explore our own consciousness (Atman). In Advaita Vedenta, the question asked during meditation is "Who is it that is asking?" It is a quite literal philosophical interrogation of the psychological self. According to some Vedanta teachers, when you move past certain conceptual stages in this interrogation, you reach a stage of consciousness that is pure, where you know Brahman through the Atman (the "causal").

 

In Advaita Vedanta there are three "Bodies". The "gross" or physical, where the physical work of the senses and the brain goes on. Then there is the "subtle" or psychological, where we experience and process emotion. The third state, at which we experience the Atman, is called the "causal".

 

Right now in my own meditation I'm working with the subtle level. Most people when they first start mediation struggle with the gross level (trying to concentrate). While I'm looking forward to the causal experience, I'm not in a rush. There's quite a lot of work to be done in the subtle.

 

It might be a nice experiment for us to try a few meditations on "who are you that is asking?" and compare notes on what our thoughts are. It's definitely a shift away from my normal meditation practice. Let me know what you collectively think, O readers.

[Orbit]

In a nut shell, I've learned that the whole 'atman is brahman' thing and 'tat tvam asi' are basically saying that ultimate reality is your own ground of being. Brahman is perceived as a transcendent energy consciousness which flows throughout the whole of existence, both transcendent and immanent existence. This is referred to as Panentheism. You're connecting with transcendent energy consciousness which is also immanent deep within you.

That is my understanding also. God is immanent (in the Atman) and transcendent (in the Brahman).

 

I'm afraid this guys doesn't quite understand what he's talking about. From what I understand something like "atman is brahman," or "tat tvam asi," actually disarms religious social control. There's no sense of a middle man church or organization standing between the people and ultimate reality in the way that it is seen in the west. In this sense ultimate reality is within you and "is" you. Membership to an organization is completely an aside. The western religions absolutely depend on people not knowing this in order to maintain their self important positions of authority and control. I see this philosophy as a much more powerful tool to disarm religious social control than anything else and this guy has demonstrated a very poor understanding of what he's trying to criticize.

I agree. It is actually quite radical to tell people to seek answers from within themselves; it undercuts all political and religious authority. It is probably one of the reasons that Hinduism is a relatively easygoing religion and philosophy: Hindus do not believe in the idea that there is only one true path to spiritual fulfillment. I should also bring up the relative lack of hierarchy and formal organization in Hinduism to begin with. Scholars recognize that there is the Hindu religion as popularly practiced on the mythic level (corresponding to the subtle) and there is the underlying Hindu philosophy in the Vedanta (corresponding of the causal). Many Hindus practice their religion without ever bothering with the Vedanta. And that's not a problem in Hinduism.

[Ellinas]

It might be a nice experiment for us to try a few meditations on "who are you that is asking?" and compare notes on what our thoughts are. It's definitely a shift away from my normal meditation practice. Let me know what you collectively think, O readers.

 

"I, of myself, ask of myself that I, of myself, might be known".

 

I don't claim that as any great insight - particularly as it is the result of the train ride to work...

[Orbit]

If anybody's still reading, I came across something interesting. In Advaita Vedanta, the formulation about the nature of the universe is "not-two, all is one". It's panentheistic.

 

In so-called Neo-Advaita, the formulation is "not-one, not two". A paradox.

 

What philosophical basis do you see for this? What does one imply that the other does not?

[Joshpantera]

This issue runs deep, but the all is consciousness idea is actually idealist pantheism: http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.pantheismwiki.htm

 

Monist idealist pantheism

 

Monist idealist Pantheism or Monistic Idealism holds that there is only one type of substance, and that substance is mental or spiritual. Some versions hold that the ultimate reality consists of a single cosmic consciousness. This version is common in Hindu philosophies and Consciousness-Only schools of Buddhism, as well as in some New Age writers such as Deepak Chopra.This is distinguished from pandeism in that pandeism asserts that the whole of reality was at some time sentient.

 

Hinduism

 

It is generally asserted that Hindu religious texts are the oldest known literature that contains Pantheistic ideas.[23] In Hindu theology, Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all things in this Universe, and is also the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall be. This idea of pantheism is traceable from some of the more ancient Vedas and Upanishads to vishishtadvaita philosophy. All Mahāvākyas (Great Sayings) of the Upanishads, in one way or another, seem to indicate the unity of the world with the Brahmam. It further says “This whole universe is Brahman, from Brahman to a clod of earth." Pantheism is a key component of Advaita philosophy. Other subdivisions of Vedanta do not strictly hold this tenet.

 

 

In contrast below is explained the theistic implication of panentheism: 

 

Many Unitarian Universalists consider themselves pantheists. The Islamic religious tradition, in particular Sufism and Alevism has a strong belief in the unitary nature of the universe and the concept that everything in it is an aspect of God itself, although this perspective leans closer to panentheism and may also be termed Theopanism. Many traditional and folk religions including African traditional religions and Native American religions can be seen as pantheistic, or a mixture of pantheism and other doctrines such as polytheism and animism.

 

Distinction from related concepts

 

Some other theological models have attempted to incorporate the perceived benefits of pantheism with the perceived benefits of classical monotheism.

 

The term panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") was formally coined in Germany in the 19th Century to express a philosophical synthesis between traditional theism and pantheism, that God is substantially omnipresent in the physical universe but also in a sense exists "apart from" or "beyond" the universe as its Creator and Sustainer.[24] Thus panentheism is not compatible with pantheism, in which God and the universe are synonymous—with no part of God considered as being distinct from the universe.[25][26]

[Joshpantera]

Those of us who do not believe in a creator God that transcends the universe are not actually panentheist's, although it seems that some people around here have claimed it in order to express the totality of transcendent and immanent, and I get that. It's not to confine oneself to the deluded idea that the universe is all that exists. But deeper pantheism simply means "all." It's about wholeness, period. And that's why I stick to pantheism. While we've so far suggested that Advaita Vedanta is panentheism, there's a deeper layer below the surface description yet to consider. 

 

Consciousness, in the sense it's used in Advaita Vedanta is just wholeness and continuous. Brahman is the beyond and everything right down to our own personal being. That's a continuous, unbroken interconnection and interdependence, the very tenants of pantheism. 

 

Orbit wrote: In so-called Neo-Advaita, the formulation is "not-one, not two". A paradox.

 

What philosophical basis do you see for this? What does one imply that the other does not?

 

I see it braking down in terms of the fundamental consciousness is not really "one" if there is no "two", it's just an unbroken and undivided wholeness. To say one, suggests the existence of more than one. 

 

So, "not one, not two."

 

I went over this with Antlerman once before. You might also frame the paradox as:

 

"not monistic (one), not dualistic (two)."

 

He's actually going beyond monism in the sense that technically it's not really one, it's simply whole, continuous and undivided. And I get that deeper insight too. For basic reference we say "all is one," but that still falls short of the real insight. 

 

In a very strict sense of hair splitting, there's no such thing as immanent or transcendent either when you really get down to it during this focus. There's just wholeness and undivided continuous-ness. And the limits of our human perception (time and space) of the continuous and undivided wholeness causes us to refer to the territory beyond where thought can reach as, "transcendent." But that also seems to fall short of the real insight which goes beyond all categories, such as transcendent verses immanent, or any other combination of, "this verses that..."

 

The Brahman transcendent energy consciousness couldn't be anything other than an unbroken, all pervading and continuous presence. That's truly "not one, not two."

 

Or in Sanskrit, "neti neti." Meaning, "not that, not that." 

 

Not anything that can be named, conceptualized or mentioned. So the Neo-Advaita paradox expresses deep philosophical meaning that takes the issue farther than a lot of people may ever go with it. Beyond monism, beyond dualism - "not that, not that."   

 

In this light one might also declare: 

 

"not transcendent, not immanent." 

 

All paradoxes being variations of the,"neti, neti" realization and understanding.

[Orbit]

I've talked to Antlerman about the non-dual too, and he comes down on the neo-Advaita side. I think I'm more attracted to the traditional Advaita Vedanta's claim that all is one. I like it. It feels good, intellectually and emotionally. It's elegant. The underlying physics that makes the universe possible is "one" to me, uniting everything from our consciousness to gravity. Yes, I'm a panentheist, seeing Atman as immanent and Brahman as transcendent but I don't anthropomorphize it as a deity. I confuse people, but it works for me.

[Joshpantera]

But you do understand the meaning of "not one, not two," right? 

[Orbit]

But you do understanding the meaning of "not one, not two," right? 

 

I take it to mean "unknowable by the rational mind".

[Joshpantera]

That sounds about right. And monism is a good point of reference as a metaphor for the unknowable. I'm not against monism in the way that A-man seems to be. It's just not the full the depth of the idea. 

[Orbit]

That sounds about right. And monism is a good point of reference as a metaphor for the unknowable. I'm not against monism in the way that A-man seems to be. It's just not the full the depth of the idea. 

 

I really think it's just a matter of emphasis. The non-dual points to the unknowable in neo-Advaita, to the mystery of all things. In Advaita Vedanta the non-dual points to the unity of all things, which I really like. In the end, I think both truths serve the same master.

[Ellinas]

As far as I can see, the "not one, not two" idea indicates that the "eternal", "infinite" or "ultimate" (choose whatever term you want) has no number.  That goes back to Joshpantera's undivided whole - without form or boundary.

 

I understand the idea; I also understand that the concept is beyond grasp in the sense that I cannot visualize - for want of a better word - such a mode of being.

 

But while that whole may be seen as that to which number has no relevance, equally it may be seen as unitary, that being a necessary part of an undivided whole.

 

So, is there also a paradox of "one, but not one"...?

 

I'd have to ponder that one (pun intended).

[Joshpantera]

 

That sounds about right. And monism is a good point of reference as a metaphor for the unknowable. I'm not against monism in the way that A-man seems to be. It's just not the full the depth of the idea. 

 

I really think it's just a matter of emphasis. The non-dual points to the unknowable in neo-Advaita, to the mystery of all things. In Advaita Vedanta the non-dual points to the unity of all things, which I really like. In the end, I think both truths serve the same master.

 

The neo-Advaita seems to be what is emphasized in Joseph Campbell's work on eastern religion. And that's what I mean if I say God is a metaphor for the mystery of existence. The mystery of the existence of one, that appears to be many.

 

The mystery equally serves as the unity of all things because everything that exists, does so in absolute mystery. The mystery can be thought of as the one, which is common to all. Then Ellinas's paradox comes to mind: 

 

"one, but not one." 

[Orbit]

I'm actually having an interesting discussion on a Hindu board elsewhere about whether the gods are real or symbolic. I take the Advaita position that they are symbolic, but a surprising number of people in there think they are real. For me, it starts a discussion about the nature of reality. What is "real"? Is experience "real"? If they have a mental/emotional experience of a god in a meditative state, is that "real"? It sparks an interest in phenomenology--that meanings are real to us.

[Joshpantera]

They all represent something. Kali, for instance, could feel very real under certain conditions. If you were harnessing the feeling or emotion associated with darkness you might mistake that feeling or emotion for the mythological God used to represent it. In this example the God is "real, and not real." Depends on which perspective you're coming from. Plus, our deeper insight about paradoxes engulfs the situation. The mystery underlying the existence of feeling and emotion trumps all. So there's different levels of experience and consideration all of which, by what I understand of Advaita Vedanta, all paths lead to the same destination in the end..... 

[Ellinas]

In one sense the issue of whether "the gods" are real does not bother me.  But that comes from a position that accepts the possibility of survival of personality beyond this physical reality and who sees the concept of "the gods" (as opposed to "god") as constructs through which such personalities may be understood without needing to accept literal truth of mythological stories.  It matters not whether the personality actually exists - it is the experience of the attributes of the personality that is in issue.  Symbol or otherwise is all one.  Hence, I choose my position but see no reason to die in a ditch over whether I'm right.  And symbols can be very powerful in the mind that conceives of them.

 

Also, if all is consciousness, those symbols exist within that consciousness just as much as each one of us, it seems to me.

[Joshpantera]

Yeah, I can imagine in a situation where consciousness is the common factor to all of existence the question of what are the Gods gets pretty straight forward and unavoidable. What could they be, aside from the one consciousness (Brahman) viewing itself from different perspectives? And that's granting that they even have an existence outside of our own minds and emotions. Aside from that they're representations of our own conscious minds which can still only be Brahman looking around at itself in immanent form. 

[Joshpantera]

Here's a blog that gives reference to Campbell's presidency of the New York chapter: http://donaldsimons.blogspot.com/2013_05_01_archive.html

 

God, "Brahman" in Vedanta, is everything.  There is nothing that is not Brahman.  Therefore, when Prabhavananda says "Whenever you think of God, He thinks of you," what he is really saying is, "Whenever you think of God, everything thinks of you." 

 

A good read on Vedanta overall.