Advaita Vedanta: Qualified Non-Dualism

Aupmanyav said:
Nice reply, but what is important is to understand.

"Jneyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī, yo na dveṣhṭi na kānkshati'
nirdvandvo hi mahā-bāho, sukham bandhāt pramucyate."

One who neither hates nor desires, know him to be always renounced. Free from all dualities, (the person) easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O Mighty-Armed (Arjuna).

I did not say that, Krishna said that. Be a 'nitya-sanyasi'.
Click to expand...
The duality you are freed from has to do with the inclination to sin. It does NOT refer to being freed from your female counterpart. Without her you would die.
 
donnann said:
Aupmanyav said:
Nice reply, but what is important is to understand.

"Jneyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī, yo na dveṣhṭi na kānkshati'
nirdvandvo hi mahā-bāho, sukham bandhāt pramucyate."

One who neither hates nor desires, know him to be always renounced. Free from all dualities, (the person) easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O Mighty-Armed (Arjuna).

I did not say that, Krishna said that. Be a 'nitya-sanyasi'.
Click to expand...
The duality you are freed from has to do with the inclination to sin. It does NOT refer to being freed from your female counterpart. Without her you would die.
Click to expand...
Nirdvandva, one who is not in doubt and knows his/her way of duty. And no hate or desire. If one is married, he/she will sure engage in sex. That is part of a person's 'dharma'. Sex is an important part of a person's life, it is a 'purushartha' (one of the things in which a man or women should engage). Nothing wrong with that. Nearly all our great sages were married and had many children. Whether man or woman, you are not supposed to leave your spouse, you have duties towards him/her to fulfill and to elders and children. So no question of dying without her.

That is the essence of Krishna's teaching. Remaining in the world like a lotus growing from water, doing one's duty but not getting emotionally involved.
 
Perhaps I am entering this too late but, my understanding of Advaita and Non-duality is that I am the one being, mind, consciousness, awareness and not two or a being plus me - another being. More to the point, if I ask myself who/what am I? I come away with the realization that there is only on me - not two - an individual me and a universal Me. Not two tells me that there is only one of anything or any condition in all of creation, even if it looks like there are a huge number of separate, individuals and things. So for me, splitting up the basic concepts of Advaita into: Brahman, Parabrahman, Atman, Ishvara, etc. is counter productive and leads nowhere. "I am" is just about as good as it gets for me. I am that or I am all, etc. is 2nd best so long as I retain a sense of my Real Self and not get lost in my separate ego again (which I often am!). Somehow this discussion is going away from the True 'I' and not towards it. What happened to the teachings of Ramana Maharshi?
 
jimrich said:
Perhaps I am entering this too late but, my understanding of Advaita and Non-duality is that I am the one being, mind, consciousness, awareness and not two or a being plus me - another being. More to the point, if I ask myself who/what am I? I come away with the realization that there is only on me - not two - an individual me and a universal Me. Not two tells me that there is only one of anything or any condition in all of creation, even if it looks like there are a huge number of separate, individuals and things. So for me, splitting up the basic concepts of Advaita into: Brahman, Parabrahman, Atman, Ishvara, etc. is counter productive and leads nowhere. "I am" is just about as good as it gets for me. I am that or I am all, etc. is 2nd best so long as I retain a sense of my Real Self and not get lost in my separate ego again (which I often am!). Somehow this discussion is going away from the True 'I' and not towards it. What happened to the teachings of Ramana Maharshi?
Click to expand...

I agree. It seemed like there were a lot of responses by people who do no understand the idea of monism/advaita/etc. There is only parabrhman/paramasiva/etc. In Kashmir Shaivism we talk of Shakti/sadasiva/iswara/etc. but those are just aspects of Paramasiva not separate, because nothing is ever separate. Separation or ideas of things being separate is just misidentification due to ignorance whether primal, maya or karmic.

I apologize, I steered away from advaita Vedanta right into Trika/Kashmir Shaivism. But its all the same, accept Trika has 36 tattvas and Advaita feels that maya is somehow separate from Brahman. :p

Its humorous to see Vedanta monks talk about sitting in Samadhi for long periods of time and how that is some tremendous achievement. I do too every night, its called susupti or deep sleep. The true yogi is abides in his true nature with full awareness in the waking, dreaming and deep sleep states aka. suprabuddha.
 
Qu'otar said:
I can hopefully posts links, now...

In talking from the progression from atman to Atman, one must come face to face with Ishvara. As Atman, one is One, so it is Barhman at that point. in my understanding.
Click to expand...

Is this in one sense a progression from the personal to the impersonal?
 
jimrich said:
Perhaps I am entering this too late but, my understanding of Advaita and Non-duality is that I am the one being, mind, consciousness, awareness and not two or a being plus me - another being. More to the point, if I ask myself who/what am I? I come away with the realization that there is only on me - not two - an individual me and a universal Me. Not two tells me that there is only one of anything or any condition in all of creation, even if it looks like there are a huge number of separate, individuals and things. So for me, splitting up the basic concepts of Advaita into: Brahman, Parabrahman, Atman, Ishvara, etc. is counter productive and leads nowhere. "I am" is just about as good as it gets for me. I am that or I am all, etc. is 2nd best so long as I retain a sense of my Real Self and not get lost in my separate ego again (which I often am!). Somehow this discussion is going away from the True 'I' and not towards it. What happened to the teachings of Ramana Maharshi?
Click to expand...

Yes, I find all these concepts quite confusing! Isn't everything Brahman in the final analysis?
 
Mrs Malaprop said:
Yes, I find all these concepts quite confusing! Isn't everything Brahman in the final analysis?
Click to expand...
Given that this thread has been dormant for years and given that the posters of the responses you replied to have, similarly, not been on the forum for several years, it is highly unlikely that they will be responding to your posts.

I just don't want you to be frustrated if you don't hear back.
 
RabbiO said:
Given that this thread has been dormant for years and given that the posters of the responses you replied to have, similarly, not been on the forum for several years, it is highly unlikely that they will be responding to your posts.

I just don't want you to be frustrated if you don't hear back.
Click to expand...

No worries. Maybe it will provoke some interest.
 
Mrs Malaprop said:
Yes, I find all these concepts quite confusing! Isn't everything Brahman in the final analysis?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is. You see, it is the ocean, waves rise, waves subside.

complex.jpg
 
Qu'otar said:
Here is a starting point to a discussion on Advaita Vedanta. The Advaita varietal is split into Strict Non-Dualism (All is One) and Qualified Non-Dualism (All is One from the perspective of Brahman, but is the Many from the perspective of objective reality). I pretty much go with the second in my philosophy.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to your views, but objective reality is not the absolute truth, strict non-dualism is. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top