Has this question at some point in your seeking crossed your mind?

Our experienced world is a world of duality.

The teachings of non-dual tradition say - this manifest world is the union of the Knower and the Known. Every knowledge we know and can know is a state of duality.

If everything we perceive is only a dual-state knowledge - if our world is only duality - could it even be possible to comprehend the non-dual truth that the masters and the tradition point at?

Why are the Upanishads and Vedas, which are the very core of the school of Advaita Vedanta , not discussed here more frequently?

Most of the posts seem to be digressed from the core topic,and the discussion very often sound like mere prattle!

Do the fellow subredditors agree?

Am i wrong?

🙌

Swami Prakasanandendra Saraswati belongs to the lineage of Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati school of thought in the post-shankarite Advaita Vedanta schools.

This video is part of a playlist called Misconceptions About Sankara https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMddRSWoHnQZEddh4sOOXn-1SL4dnXCKL&si=7Ibd0hFym1pxoHaC based on the book titled Misconceptions about Shankara authored by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a noted Advaita scholar-monk of 20th century.

In this video, Swami Prakasanandendra Saraswati, delves into complex Advaita Vedanta concepts, specifically addressing the nature of Brahman, the status of the empirical world, and the misconceptions held by post-Shankara schools regarding these teachings.

Key Concepts Discussed:

• Brahman and Ishwara (0:42-14:57): The Swami explains that Brahman and Ishwara are synonymous in Shankara's Bhasha. He critiques post-Shankara interpretations that categorize Ishwara as a 'lower' level of Brahman or as a causal entity possessing qualities. He clarifies that causality is merely an adhyaropa (superimposition) or a teaching method used to lead the seeker toward the realization of the non-dual Brahman.
• The Empirical World (15:01-35:00): The video explores different schools of thought regarding the reality of the empirical world (vyavaharika). It contrasts the views of Siddhantalesha Sangraha and other Advaitin scholars who propose competing theories, such as Ishwara-srishti-vada (God as the creator) and Jiva-srishti-vada (the individual as the creator, often illustrated by dream analogies).
• Critique of Post-Shankara Divisions (17:13-20:00): A significant portion of the discussion focuses on how later commentators created artificial divisions—such as drishthi-srishti-vada—that do not exist in the original texts of Shankara, Gaudapada, or the Brahma Sutras. The Swami emphasizes that Shankara himself never differentiated his teaching from that of his predecessors.
• The Need for Reconciliation (35:00-49:51): The Swami argues that many later Advaitin schools retained contradictory, parallel doctrines without reconciling them, leading to intellectual friction. He emphasizes his own approach, which seeks to drop 'extreme' and illogical stances that contradict Anubhava (experience), logic, and Shankara's own writings, aiming for a unified, coherent understanding.

If Moksha is the sole purpose of life, sanyaasa seems like the obvious conclusion. Why keep one foot in samsara at all?

But here's my honest hesitation: my upbringing was nowhere near a renunciate life. And I fear that if I renounce, my "detachment" would quietly decay into tamas – inertia dressed up as vairagya.

The Gita keeps pointing me toward karma yoga instead: stay in the world, act selflessly, surrender the fruits. But I don't know if that's clarity or the mind negotiating terms to stay comfortable

For anyone who's lived inside this question: did clarity come before you chose or only after you'd lived the choice for a while? How did you decide?

Infact I have felt the same way before too when I read other books I am wondering why am I still attached to this world or my ego

Is it because I am afraid of the unknown?
Or
Is it because of the strong desires and karmas I still have in me?

I have clear picture of what I should do for realisation and to keep up my practice to rest in ‘I AM’ (I know I can’t practice it because I’m already that)

Does anyone know how to speed up this process? Because the moment I wake up in the morning the ‘ I‘ springs up and identifies itself as a doer

Because I need realisation now and I think I have waited long enough

You dont have to lose hobbies or interests. I love to make music , I love watching documentaries, I love going for walks, I love my personality. All those things are love and love is selfless. When you get interested in a deep topic, that interest brings you to pure Perceiving. So get lost in dance, get lost in Interests. That is the flow state. What's not flow state is to do something because you feel lack or fear or boredom. Center yourself first if you feel lack, then go for the walk or read the book AND MOST IMPORTANTLY when you go for that walk stay present. Usually when we feel lack during meditation we stop being present, we get lost in thought. So do alllll the things you love but with utter presence. It will feel more intimate, not less.

Personality and ego are not the same things either. Personality is the coloring or flavor of that localization of awareness in the dream. My personality is I love conspiracies, deep talks, horror, aliens, all sorts of things. That isnt ego. Ego is when awareness has a personality and identifies as the body/personality. Then the personalities diluted with ego, lack, fear. The personality will be moreso selfish and not creative and open.

Personality, hobbies, is how awareness expresses love. Its going to experience itself totally in all ways. Alllll personalities are personalities of The Self. In a dream it just appears to be divided up into many personalities because its subjectively experiencing itself from each localization of itself! Spirituality should make you feel more alive, more intimate with experince. Not less.

*I also understand words cannot truly express the infinite nature of reality. But we can point a finger toward the light and encourage others to see. I also understand that "i" is just an illusion. I wish you all the best, be Most Excellent to eachother! ✌️👁🧘‍♂️

I'm interested in studying ^(Advaita Vedanta as a beginner.) Where should I start? Are there any online classes available? Is there a community I could join to learn alongside others? If there is a community available, I would like to join it.

Following deep study of Nididhyasana texts (particularly the Avadhuta Gita and Ashtavakra Gita) and continuous contemplation, the following crystallised.

It seems the mind operates within a single context that may be understood through multiple dimensions. Like a portfolio viewed from different measures of risk, these dimensions are not the context itself but perspectives through which the context may be discerned.

As understanding deepens, judgement gives way to dispassionate observation. Observation gives rise to insight. Insight quiets persistent thought, allowing it to yield to motion. Motion, as the natural state, gives rise to peace.

The mind need not be conquered, only understood. Feelings arise within the mind, are prolonged by the mind, are satisfied by the mind, and are resolved by the mind. They are therefore subject to the mechanics of the mind. Seeing this directly changes one's relationship to experience. What once appeared absolute is recognized as process, and in that recognition, peace becomes possible.

With these words what is spoken points beyond itself and becomes still.

No offense to anyone of course.

I wanted to discuss this with someone who's familiar with stuff like IKS, and effects of orientalism on Hinduism, etc.

Did the notion of Advaita as the "default" representation of Hinduism arise from 19th century British Orientalist scholarship?

Orientalist scholars often preferred Advaita because its abstract monism (oneness) resembled Western philosophical Idealism (like that of Kant or Hegel) and seemed more "rational" to the Western mind than the "messy" polytheism and idolatry of popular Hindu practice. Advaita thereby rose in popularity in reformist circles of Bengal, where people like Rammohun Ray, Vivekananda, etc. popularized it. Leading to all this hype over Advaita Vedanta, despite the fact that most Hindus 'lived reality' isn't aware of these esoteric principles.

Do you agree with the analysis? If yes, then how to tackle that popularity of such a large thing is result of a partial foreign influence?

Same as above

If mantras work mainly because of their sound, meter, and the rhythmic breathing that comes with chanting, why do people say that chanting them internally is more powerful? Wouldn’t silent chanting remove those elements? Can someone explain the basics of a mantra?

Hi everyone I was wondering why is it that we have to realize who we are to get moksha, why does samsara exist for those who don’t realize that we are the ultimate reality when we’re the ultimate reality regardless

किं ज्योतिस्तवभानुमानहनि मे रात्रौ प्रदीपादिकं

स्यादेवं रविदीपदर्शनविधौ किं ज्योतिराख्याहि मे ।

चक्षुस्तस्य निमीलनादिसमये किं धीर्धियो दर्शने

किं तत्राहमतो भवान्परमकं ज्योतिस्तदस्मि प्रभो ॥

Meaning :

Guru: What provides you with light?

Sishya: By day, the sun, by night, a lamp.

Guru: What is the light that sees these lights?

Sishya: The eye.

Guru: What is the light that illumines the eye?

Sishya: The intellect.

Guru: What is it that knows the intellect?

Sishya: It is the "I".

Guru: Therefore, you are the light of lights.

Sishya: Truly, I am That. (I realize that I am)

Recently came across this magnificent ekashloki by adi shankaracharya which beautifully explains how each aspect of this world is interconnected with each other.... Aham bramhaasmi 🕉️🪷

The bouncer at the door glaring at me - why did I make him like that? He's great though I love him he's my creation. The perfect girl who rejects me, why did I make her like that, must have been a reason, how entertaining. The rain leaking through my roof - hey I'm not perfect at creation but it's my atmospheric work that gives texture to my world. This mind body that gets me round and endures so much, what a wonder it is. So I find myself loving everything because it's mine, all my creation and that feels so safe too like I'm always at home wherever I am and I think I'm on the path towards unconditional love of everything when I thought Advaita was all about detachment I've found out it's the opposite, like I've ended up in the opposite place to where I thought I was heading..

As the title states.

I accept non-duality, and intellectually its truth is in some sense quite obvious to me. However,perhaps it sounds strange, and I know it's a roadblock I need to overcome, but I find it impossible for me to meditate, because I can't let go of my ego. Not because I would consider myself egocentric, but rather I am afraid that when I (the ego) is lost, the world will also really be lost, irremediably. I do not even mean this in some cryptic sense, but in an almost literal nihilistic one, since I will no longer be directly aware of it, or even be a background field for it. I know or believe at a certain level this is not a well-founded or rational fear, but when it comes to non-dual teachings and the stilling of the mind, there cannot be any real room for doubt, since you are fundamentally giving up control. And I don't know how you can give up control when you aren't certain it won't end horribly, even if on a more discursive mundane level when you are very strongly dictating the mind you can kind of somewhat convince yourself it won't end badly.

I have a doubt.

Pujya Swamiji says that the theory of Karma is about "belief"; it can neither be proved nor disproved.

But then he says that we have this human incarnation since we were not enlightened in the past life (else we would not have had this human incarnation).

How can we reconcile these statements? Isn't incarnation (rebirth) a result of unfructified karma?