2 thoughts on “Advaita Vedanta/The Non-Dualist Approach-An Analysis”

1. Looking forward to reading the book!

   Reply

2. Hello! I’ve been studying Vedānta for quite some time now. I’d like to correct something here, which is that the Samādhi. Now I’d personally state, though statements can’t be verified, that I once attained this state by grace, and I was sure it was this, because I had all my doubts removed. Ever since then, I only approached that state probably in my imagination – because even though I was able to attain a state of non-duality, it was not a state of all-awareness. Since I cannot myself get back there, I too cannot guide a person back there, and words won’t directly suffice for self-realization. But studying the various Darśana-s of Vaidika Hinduism and Buddhism (especially Zen), Kashmir Śaivism and Taoism, I was able to find my way back to remembering what that state felt like – although only a memory of that remains now. Of course, in theory I found parallels with Sūfism, but I haven’t studied Sūfism well and I did find some issue with a description I saw on YouTube – because what I saw felt like a light whiter than white, rather than a luminous blackness as I heard in the video – and the experience felt as if I had complete awareness of all things.

   Ah yes, in the 5th and 6th paragraphs, you state the exact same experience I just said above. So I guess we have some common ground. And yes, what I mentioned about how I could only get a state of non-duality that was not same was the same thing as a state of being free from all thoughts. In Advaita Vedānta, this is called Nirvikalpa Samādhi (Undifferentiated Focus), but the state of knowing is called Brahma Jñāna (Knowledge of Brahman). And of course, I also got the state of feeling that everything’s alright – but thats a much more easier thing to get, since you’d know that so clearly after your first experience and you can only forget it so much. You can remember the feeling of an experience, but experiencing it once again is different.

   [To add on about Nirvikalpa Samādhi, every perception of the mind is described as a Vṛtti (pattern or wave). As long as the Antaḥkaraṇa (mind) exists, Vṛtti exists. Samādhi of any form is absorption in a Vṛtti. Samādhi can be of two forms – Savikalpa Samādhi and Nirvikalpa Samādhi. Savikalpa Samādhi is a state of meditation where you recognize duality, but realize that is unreal. An example is an object guided meditation. Nirvikalpa Samādhi is where you do not recognize any duality. It is a state of ego death. Now, Nirvikalpa Samādhi is defined differently in the Yoga and Vedānta Darśana-s (perspectives/ schools / Aqeedah-s). In Yoga, it means the same as an ego death. This is not different from Buddhist meditation, where you contemplate on Śūnyata (emptiness). All other forms of Buddhist Samādhi is a meditation on something within this world. More precisely, this Nirvikalpa Samādhi is the absorption in Akhanda-Ākāra-Vṛtti (Undifferentiated Form Pattern). This is different from sleep in that while there is no forms in a deep dreamless sleep, you don’t focus on it in sleep. In Advaita Vedānta, it is also called Sahaja Samādhi (effortless focus). It refers to a spontaneous awareness of the ultimate truth, that you are Brahman. It comes after attaining Brahma Jñāna, and it is permanent, as you always remember that truth. But when we use the term Samādhi in the sense of attaining a state, it always means Nirvikalpa Samādhi as in Yoga. That form of Samādhi has no use in Advaita Vedānta, as non-duality is not something you experience, it’s something you become aware of in the same sense as you become aware of how you have 5 fingers – well, a natural feeling. Then there is something called Jīvan-Mukti-Ānanda (the happiness of liberation from life) – which is something you obtain when you contemplate on Brahma Jñāna. But this Ānanda (happiness) is only a limited happiness just like any other emotion, because it is obtained by the mind. The true Ānanda is not something you experience as a person, but what you realize as the nature of your true self. You become aware of it, or realize it, but experience is the wrong word. You do not experience this type of knowledge – well, that’s to say, it’s like an “aha moment”. In an “aha moment”, you attain some knowledge and also a feeling of joy. The knowledge you attain is the Jñāna and the happiness is Ānanda. What you are seeking in Advaita Vedānta is Brahma Jñāna, and Ānanda is the Svarūpa (nature) of Brahman, which is your true nature. Any other form of Ānanda is Mithyā (impermanent) because what makes you happy at one time won’t make you happy at another time. Likewise, the Ānanda of obtaining Brahma Jñāna (Jīvan-Mukti-Ānanda) is evasive unless you focus on it. But the Jñāna itself is something you remember. Now, this only makes sense if you follow Advaita Vedānta. But as I state later below, I do not agree with Advaita Vedānta because as most people explain it, the worlds seems to be described as coming from a baseless ignorance, while I instead find it to be a meaningful creation – and that’s my direct experience too. Still, studying Advaita Vedānta was very helpful for me – just as you said – you take the good parts from every ideologies and discard the rest.]

   Anyways, now I’ll comment on your 4 points as I got there.

   Principle 1: This is actually not something from Advaita Vedānta, as the World is not a manifestation of the mind in Advaita Vedānta. In fact, it does not even describe the manifestation of the world as an action of the ultimate reality, and seems to call it an error. But as for ontology, I believe it got it right. Advaita Vedānta says “Brahma Satyam; Jagan Mithyā; Jīvo Brahmaiva Nāparaḥ” (Brahman is Permanent; The World is Apparent (an Illusion); Between a Jīva (Living Being) and Brahman, there is No Difference) – which is the 21st Śloka (verse) of Vivekacūdāmani by Ādi Śankarācārya. What you said as how the world is a creation of our minds is indeed a mistake in ontology in ALL main sects of Hinduism. While Advaita Vedānta says that Creator + Creation is an illusion (which is something I recognize as pure ontology that misses the connection), all other Vedānta Darśana-s state that the World is a Creation of Īśvara (Creator) – although some do maintain that Īśvara is not separate from Jīva, but often in different ways – except for Dvaita Vedānta (Dual Vedānta) of Madhvācārya. The other ones are Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (Simultaneous Difference and Non-Difference) of Bhāskarācārya, Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta (Qualified Non-Dualist Vedānta) of Rāmānujācārya, Śuddha-Advaita Vedānta (Pure Non-Dualist Vedānta) of Vallabhācārya, Dvaita-Advaita Vedānta (Simultaneous Dualism and Non-Dualism) of Nimarkācārya, Acintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (Inconceivable Simultaneous Difference and Non-Difference) of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Modern Vedānta / Neo Vedānta. The people you stated above are the proponents of Neo Vedānta (not to be confused with Neo-Advaita which removes a lot from it, including the ontology, and can confuse people). And there is also Akṣar-Puruṣottam Darśana / Svāminārāyana Sampradāya listed under the Wikipedia page, but I didn’t understand it very well, and my conversations with ChatGPT made me feel like one of its sects is kind of idolatrous.

   A key point to add here is that the way to not mess up ontology in Hinduism is to start by studying about the earliest Darśana, which is Sāṃkhya, instead of starting with Vedānta / Advaita Vedānta. Sāṃkhya is where you have most of the etymology, but the ontology is much better in Vedānta. Bhagavad Gīta also talks about Sāṃkhya, in the chapter on Sāṃkhya-Yoga, but I think it would only be clear to you if you study Sāṃkhya otherwise by learning about it separately either from Sāṃkhya Karika or from some other texts. I thought no Vedānta schools described the Tattvas (or principles) to fit their ontology. But I was wrong as I’d later find. But first, I found a different, non-Vaidika religion called Kashmir Śaivism, which was based on the Śaiva Āgama-s and Śakta Tantra-s as compiled by Abhinavagupta. In it, the 23 Tattvas or Prakṛti like it Sāṃkhya, Prakṛti and Puruṣa are combined with an additional class of 5 Īśvara Tattvas (Divine Principles) / Śuddha Tattvas (Pure Principles) and 6 Śakti Tattvas (Principles of Divine Power) / Śuddha-Aśuddha Tattvas (Pure and Impure Principles) to form a total of 36 Tattvas. The 6 Śakti Tattvas are the elements of the veil (Māya) + Māya itself. And the other 25 Tattvas are called Aśuddha Tattvas (Impure Principles). Now after this, I found a book called Tattva Bodha by Ādi Śankarācārya himself which explained the Tattvas according to Advaita Vedānta. If you were not aware, Ādi Śankarācārya is the one who put forward the Advaita Vedānta Darśana. A Vedānta Darśana is formed by commenting on the Prasthāna-Traya (Starting out three) – which include the Upaniṣad-s / Vedānta as the Śruti Prasthāna (Śtarting out text for Revelation), Śrīmad Bhagavad Gīta as the Smṛti Prasthāna (Starting out text for Remembered Tradition) and Brahma Sūtra-s of Vyāsa as the Nyāya Prasthāna (Starting out text for Rationale). Every Darśana is based on a Darśana Sūtra-s, and Brahma Sūtras are just that for Vedānta Darśanas. I haven’t read Tattva Bodha, I was kind of fine with ontology after struggling with it for a long time, and I just collected the book for reading, and I’m in that process, but that exists now.

   One more difference is that while Advaita Vedānta considers Jagat as Mithya, Kashmir Śaivism considers it a real play of Śakti. Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta also considers the world as a real creation, but it considers Brahman to be Saguna (attribute-rich), which is something I don’t agree with. Meanwhile, Kashmir Śaivism considers the world to exist on three levels – Abheda (Non-Different, aka Advaita), Bheda-Abheda (Different and Non-Different, aka Dvaitādvaita) and Bheda (Different, aka Dvaita) – as signified by the Śuddha, Śuddhāśuddha and Aśuddha Tattvas (note that instead of hyphenating, I now combined the two words with a longer a (ā), because that’s the natural way of writing it, while the other is easier to understand for beginners). Bhagavad Gīta is another text which can be interpreted as per any Darśana – and even Abhinavagupta has a commentary on it – and I still have to look at it’s ontology well.

   But in my studies, Mithya also does not mean illusion, because the status of Mithyā is ascribed by a field of study called Khyāti-Vāda (Theories of Erroneous Cognition). There are 6, and Advaita Vedānta goes by Anirvacanīya Khyāti, which literally means indescribable error. And that puts off many seekers, but when I took a look at it, it is not indescribable, it’s just the term used. What is said is simply that Sat is that which exists in the same state (is permanent), and Asat is that which does not exist at all – while the world is something that exists, but is in a state of flux – and therefore has no permanent existence – and that’s why it’s called Mithyā. But the analogy used of destroying Avidyā or Māya is that of how the impression of a snake apparent on a rope goes away when light is shined on it, and likewise, the light of Jñāna removes Māya. But although we can realize that the snake no longer exists we can step back to see how exactly it appeared as a snake. I never saw this addressed in Vedānta guides, but unlike others, some do imply that Brahma Jñāna does not destroy the world, but merely detaches you from it. Another analogy is how knowing that the mirage is not located at the oasis does not make the mirage go away. The Upādhi (limiting adjunct) for a mirage or snake-on-rope illusion is the air, sunlight, the oasis, and also the eye and the brain. Likewise, the Upādhi for the world is described as Avidyā that is superimposed on Brahman. But Advaita Vedānta maintains that Brahman is never affected, and Māya is a superimposition, just as how the rope is never affected by the false appearance of a snake. So likewise, Mokṣa (liberation) or Brahma Jñāna (Awareness of Brahman) is obtained by the Antaḥkaraṇa (The Mind), or Sūkṣma Śarīra (Subtle Body) of the Jīva, and not by Brahman, who is never deluded. That is, Āvidya is Jada (inert) on its own, and Jīva only exists when Brahma Caitanya (The light of Brahman) is reflected on the Antaḥkaraṇa to be Jīva Caitanya. Each Antaḥkaraṇa is one entity among all the entities in Māya, and the Brahma Caitanya reflected on the whole of Māya is Īśvara (Creator). This is why ontologically Jīva and Īśvara are one – because both are Brahman when the Māya Upādhi is removed. Īśvara only controls and maintains Jagat, or as I’d like to say from my non-Advaita Vedāntic perspective, Īśvara is only existent as Brahman superimposes a reality on to it. I said from my non-Advaita Vedāntic perspective, because in Advaita Vedānta, at least as ChatGPT told me, Brahman never creates anything. But post-Ādi Śankara developments of Advaita Vedānta posit that Brahman possesses two Śakti-s (powers) – of Āvaraṇa Śakti (Power of Concealment) and Vikṣepa Śakti (Power of Projection) by which he creates the Līla. But other Darśanas like Bhedābheda Vedānta and Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta accuse Advāita Vedāntists of trying to sneak in Guṇa-s (attributes), despite calling Brahman Nirguna (attributeless) – and that’s why Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta says that Brahman is Saguna (attribute-rich). But in my opinion, Guṇa-s are the fundamental forms of the material world – which are described as three. Even if it is Brahman that produces Guṇa-s, the Guṇa-s themselves would not be a part of Brahman, and would only exist in the superimposed image. So it’s more of a problem of the philosophy being underdeveloped rather than a conflict with the philosophy. That is, Śakti is not a Guṇa, but that which generates Guṇa-s, and since Guṇa-s are generated, their status is Mithyā, which is as per Advaita Vedānta.

   In terms of describing experience, I also like Acintya-Bhedābheda Vedānta, which posits that Brahman is Inconceivable by the mind, is the same in quality, but different in quantity. That is, that which underlies each being in this reality is their Ātma, but that which underlies all beings is the Paramātma. Imagine an image on a screen. Each entity on that screen occupies a screen area, while the whole image occupies the total screen area. But in the absence of an image, there is only one screen area, so again, this is an explanation with more focus on reality itself. Since the Antaḥkaraṇa is also part of Māya, and any mental cognition deals within Māya, Brahman is indeed inconceivable by the Antaḥkaraṇa. So knowing multiple Darśanas help you see it in different angles.

   Principle 2: Again, this is a matter of ontology. Advaita Vedanta teaches you that you as the ego is only a shadow while the true self is the one behind the shadow. A shadow retains the likeness of consciousness, but only because it is provided that ability by the Creator. But it is less like a complete puppet show an more like provisional free will, I’d say. So you have the freedom to act as a limited being, but that carries consequences, according to the state of the limited world. But your true identity is the non-dual self, and once you know that, you are totally detached from the material world. In fact, you knew the material world to be under something else’s control anyways – just as Buddhists did, except in Hinduism, you are made aware of that identity as your own unconditioned self. For the same reason, if someone kills the body of your limited being, you wouldn’t care because you’re not attached to that identity. Buddhists follow the same line of thought in this matter.

   Now, is this ontologically correct? Well, you are definitely not Īśvara (Creator) in the literal sense, because Īśvara only exists as the Jagat (Creation) is created. But in the ultimate sense, as you remove the veil, both Jīva and Īśvara are one. So while you are that, when you say “I am Brahman” – who the “I” is matters. If the “I” means Antaḥkaraṇa, then you are partially correct in Kashmir Śaivism, because it holds that the Jagat is a non-dual creation of Śiva, and even beyond the Śiva Tattva, the highest form of reality is Atattva (Beyond Principles), called Parāśiva, Paramaśiva or Paramaśivaśakti – where you have all that is and will ever be. So when Advaita Vedānta considers that Jagat is in a state of free will, Kashmir Śaivism considers that reality is one, and though it one folds, there was only one way. Another way of putting it is that ultimate reality is perfect, and while the ultimate reality has free will, at it’s level, what it chooses by free will is simply what all-perfection is. To make this clear, imagine completing an obstacles course. You may plan ahead, but your steps may not be perfect. But when God plans ahead and executes his operation, he won’t make any mistakes, because he is God. Or in another sense, actually, God is not even aware of anything. It’s just that whatever God draws up on his sketchbook ends up being a reality of its own – but from the perspective of that reality, whatever God does is perfect – because he can’t wish to do X and do Y, because whatever X he wishes is the only thing that becomes as the illusory reality. Wishing is something that happens in our limited reality. This is a tough analogy to understand, but basically, even an arbitrary line drawn by God becomes a very meaningful reality, not because the line is perfect, but that which underlies that line is simply God himself.

   All that said, I wouldn’t tell a Muslim audience that I’m God, for the same reason I wouldn’t talk to a fish. They are at a different level of conditioning. When I say I’m God, I also mean that they too are God, and not that they should worship me, but worship what’s within themselves. Because despite what I said being true, when you look out of yourself, you will only see illusions, and it’s only when you look inwards that you see God. Because on the outside, there’s just matter. But you could also say that underneath all materials as its material, efficient and formal causes, there is God. Even then, they should have to get what I meant by my statement. You don’t even have to say something problematic to get, you just have to annoy a crazy guy or be at the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s just the nature of this world. That’s different from non-duality, that’s a matter of how the dualistic reality works. Despite whatever happens, when you die, where do you go to, but to God? After all, that’s the whole idea of non-duality.

   Principle 3: I’ve never heard anyone state that at all. What it can mean can only be that at the ultimate level, the egoes are non-existent, and their true nature is egoless. Trump the person in this world has an ego. But Trump the Ātma of the egoistic body does not have an ego. The state of duality is that the Ātma is in an immersive experience being the body. Or more correctly, the ego is an inert material, and it is the Ātma that powers the ego. Trump the ego + mind + material body is just as material as a stone without the Ātma powering it. So that which makes material alive, or the Ātma, is egoless.

   Principle 4: This is not actually true, as you said. Firstly, my experience did not involve any procedure at all. I was studying communism at the time, but my intent was to do good for people. And at the time I also felt socially isolated due to my ideas seeming weird for people, while I felt that I was trying to help. In that way, it was by grace that I had this realization, which I’d call Īśvara Sākṣātkāra (Vision of God). It’s something that, beyond the appearance of being a light whiter that white, something I cannot fully explain with words. It was closer to Acintya-Bhedābheda for some reason, but Kashmir Śaivism also states that Puruṣa is a limited form of being, where Śiva is delimited as the first product of Māya. That is, while Advaita Vedānta ia good for ontology, these two seem best to describe experience.

   Also, this is not true in Advaita Vedānta either. Neti Neti only helps in mental or intellectual contemplation of what Brahman is. The realization has only one Pramāṇa, which is Nididhyāsana (meditation) on the Mahāvākya-s. A Mahāvākya is any statement of the Upaniṣad-s which have an apposition between a Jīva-vācaka-pada (a word that refers to a Jīva) and an Īśvara-vācaka-pada (a word that refers to Īśvara). There are four main Mahāvākya-s. They are Prajñānam Brahma (Utimate Knowledge is Brahman), Ayam Ātma Brahma (This Ātman is Brahman), Tat Tvam Asi (You and That (Brahman) are the Same), Aham Brahmāsmi (I am Brahman).

   Now, these Mahāvākya-s only work if your mind readily gets the idea without any doubts. If you do have any doubts, you must take a few steps back from Nididhyāsana, and start with Śravaṇa (Listening) and Manana (Reflection) on the words of the Upaniṣad-s. They clear up any final doubts. But if you still have doubts after Manana, then you need to take back further steps, and attain the Fourfold Qualities for Attaining the Knowledge of Brahman (Sādhana Caṭuṣtaya) – which includes the Sixfold Virtues to Attain Samādhi (Samādhi Ṣatka Sampatti). You attain that by Niṣkāma Karma (desireless action) and Upāsana (meditation on a deity / deities) as according to the Śāstra-s. I say deities because while Īśvara is one, Īśvara has no true form, unlike Brahman, and it may also be that the reality is upheld by several deities. Which is why Hinduism is polytheistic on one level. You can pick either route, because you are doing this part according to the Śāstra-s, and the goal of this is to achieve discipline. And the whole point is to prepare you for Śravaṇa of the Veda-s. As per the Śāstra-s, once you start listening to the Veda-s, you must switch to doing that dropping Karma and Upāsana, because that comes under Karma Yoga / Bhakti Yoga, and can distract you from Jñāna Yoga. There is also a grading of students on the basis of their preparedness – and this is called Adhikāri-Bheda (Difference in Qualification). Your path will be traditionally determined on the basis of that, but internet people like me tend to jump right on to the Vedas and fall back and come back around to it. But definitely, the qualifications go a long way.

   For example, to understand one concept, you may need to hold 10 statements together in your mind. If your mind can only hold 7 statements at once, then you lack the focus to pursue this path, but it always gets better with time. The Yoga (Union (with Īśvara)) Darśana also has many techniques on achieving Ciṭṭa Śuddhi (Purification of the Mind).

   Another aphorism is that all paths lead you to the truth, and the specific path is not relevant. But what matters is that you commit to one deeply. The analogy is of digging a well. If one digs a well for 10m, they may find water. But if they dig 6m and get bored, and then go around and dig 7 different wells, they’ll dig 42m and find no water. In the study of Advaita Vedānta, I learned a lot about Saṃskṛtam, and also learned about the various meditative practices that helped me in learning other Darśanas and also learning Kashmir Śaivism, which seems more meaningful to me.

   The same idea is more generally stated in the other aphorism “a fool who persists in his folly shall become wise.” Because even if you don’t know something, you can only know it is wrong by going through with it, instead of following what others tell him or quitting halfway. Well, as with most aphorisms, there is a certain sense in which this works, and others in which it doesn’t.

   —

   In your final paragraph, I have one more disagreement, which is that good and evil cannot ultimately exist within the dualistic reality. From our individual persoectives, it of course does, but what we call bad is simply ignorance either on our end or on the other party’s end. In fact, it can always be said to be on our end, because all that happens is under the veil of ignorance, and ignorant behaviour is simply the nature of the veil. We cannot expect the veil to be better, we can only realize that it is nothing more than a veil with no other meaning to it – i.e. a play of God. In practice, what you do is not isolate yourself, but completely surrendering to God, while knowing that you instituted God at the Non-Dual level as your controller.

   There is a saying in the Rāmāyaṇa Itihāsa that states this, where Hanuman tells Rāma: “When I do not know who I am, I serve you. When I know who I am, I am you.”

   And of course, take from this what resonates with you and discard the rest – I ended up writing a lot!

   Reply