Pranam Maharaj 🙏🙏🙏 Jai Shree Ramakrishna Listening to Your lectures have been a great consolation. Seeking Your blessings for the removal of obstacles in my Spiritual Path.
"The flower is not apart from seeing". "The seeing is not apart from consciousness". In other words. the seer beyond space and time impassively experiences what is seen in the conscious field within space and time. This explains how the observer and observed are nondual. But one should also know why they are nondual. It is for the perpetual duality cycles of nature to happen in the conscious field which mediates them. But the duality cycles (Rajas/Tamas) of nature sustain itself by "satvik guna" or balance or dharma. eg summer/winter duality cycle mediated by the conscious field is sustained by spring. So, both purusha and prakrithi are INCOMPLETE without each other. It is just like saying Advaitha and Dvaitha are incomplete without each other or how Shiva and Shakthi are incomplete without each other.
"(All) things are just constructions of the imagination…" Ashtavakra Gita I believe that brain is also imagined and in reality seeing and imagining is the same faculty of Consciousness (The Self).
"Ahstravakra Gita" It is a fake version of Bhagavad Gita created out of thin air by East India company agents. Nothing is an illusion including emotional dualities based on false identification with thoughts and body. Consciousness within space and time which mediates all duality cycles of nature is an attribute of the immortal and omnipresent self beyond space and time. So, consciousness is not equal to the self even though it is also its "svarupa". Consciousness cannot experience anything on its own because the self is the impassive experiencer (but not the doer) of all qualities (born out of intelligent energy) through the conscious field.
Advaita is the living heart of many religions Qoran says " I am the One, who was not born and did not give birth" (sourate 112) "I am that I am" (Torah, Exodus 3.14) "The Father and I are one" "before Abraham was, I Am" (Gospels)
@@unified2002 Al Hallaj is a good example of how truth can find ways to express despite bigotry and fear. Another great voice said " Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing" . In truth, forgive them because they do not know who they are. One without a second. 🙏
Those are cherry quotes taken out of context, non duality was born in india influenced 3rd century greek philosophy but not as clear or depth then later. Sufis was influenced which in turn influenced chirstanity and jews, thats why no main text of abharmic religions contains non duality, infact it contradicts them.
@@Rohit-jc2sm some comments :. Sufis come from islam, derived itself from christianity, derived itself from judaïsm. Greek philosophy is much older than 3rd century BC, at least 6th century BC with Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides of Elea said what is is and what is not is not. You can find almost the same teaching in Bhagavad Gita chapter 2. V.16. All roads lead to Kashi🙏
@@GeorJiadvaita no, non dual teachings are not present in judaism or chirstanity and islam, sufis got it first then during spain conquest from them some chirstains and jews took the concept and tried to interpate their scriptures in non dual way.
Swami Ji, it's a great way to explain seer and the seen. Thru this drik-drushya viveka I clearly separate atma and anatma. From this to understand Advaita I will have to go to kaarya-karana prakriya, take the path of adhyaropa-apavaada prakriya and clearly have the prathyabhijna by bhaga-thyaga-lakshna vrutti and claim my nondual status of - Advaita. But in the example you demonstrated here how is nonduality proved 🤔. The whole process of cognising the vase and flowers is explained. But the seer, myself,and the seen, the vase and flowers are still there - in my mind and out there. If the flower and vase are physically removed then the same is not seen and cognised by me. Yes, I can remember it. Having had the experience once it gets stored in the memory. But how do we explain nonduality in this scenario. Moreover Advaita is explained in paramarthika satta. In vyavaharika and prathibhasika duality is experienced. It's prathyaksha pramanam, a jyeshta pramanam, very powerful pramanam. Hope you would clear the confusion.
It is very easy to prove nonduality. But we should understand why Shiva and Shakthi are nondual instead of how they are nondual. To prove "nonduality" one must understand Dvaitha Vedic metaphysics in depth, especially about the 3 gunas (mostly ignored by modern interpreters of Advaitha). It also means, Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other. The 3 "dynamic" gunas compete with each other to control matter (Sri Krishan Bhagavad Gita Chapter 14 verse 5 and 10). Both subtle and gross matter of microcosm and macrocosm have all the 3 gunas including wake/dream/sleep cycles. Now, how to prove it. Simple. Breath, prana shakthi and the conscious field are connected. Kriya yoga says subtle release and control of breath can lead to voluntary transformation from wake to dream to deep sleep state 'mediated" by the same conscious field of Athma/Paramathma. It is just like how one can delay "aging" by doing pranayama life long. it also means, both the conscious field and the 3 gunas are NOT just limited to the subtle body or Sukshma sharira
?? In the flower example, there should be something there in the first place to reflect the light. otherwise, we dont have the experience of seeing a flower. So how can the flowers be only in consciousness?
Think about a notion, there "has to be something" prior to reflected light perception, is nothing more then a mere assumption, an idea. Even when "unreflected" light is perceived directly (from "source") makes no difference. Only experience is, all the rest is a mental deconstruction and rationalization of that experienced phenomena. Thoughts and dreams also fall under that principle. Do objects in a dream have to be "there" independently to be perceived?
My finite mind wonders, if I see an electric pole in front of the car I am driving, the car hits it, the pole collapses on the car and both the car and myself, sitting in it, are totally damaged... was (in reality) the pole NOT THERE? Why am I injured, in pain or even barely alive.... if the pole I saw was only an object of my consciousness and not actually there? How can an object not exist if all my senses(touch, sight, hearing, smell, taste) perceive it to be real? Like, the food I am eating, or the clothes I am wearing?
Wake state experience is NOT an illusion even though temporary and limited. Advaitha does not say maya and mithya are illusions. May be its modern interpreters do (wrongly)
The illusion of subject⇔object distinction, or an independent existence, demonstrated on perception of (bucket of) flowers is essential. It does not matter how "dire" are the circumstances. Pole, damaged car, pain - how can you claim ad hoc their existence without your (witness) consciousness? Imagine your mind don't even have words to formulate their "identity" in a language…
Would it also be correct to state: "the Consciousness that sees (let's call it "Subject") and the perceived thing (let's call it "Object") are intrinsically linked, as 1) both ones "emerge" from and in the same Universe, and are ruled by the same laws of Nature, 2) Consciousness alone has (maybe) no way of knowing itself (let's call it "Self-Consciousness") deprived of external stimuli. Isn't therefore the perception itself of a "Subject" and an "Object" as separated just an "illusion", although still useful in and by itself (for example, to communicate concepts by defining attributes)? Hence, is this dualistic "illusion" anyway useful in the path of eventually realizing a non-dualistic spiritual mind? After all, as far as I get it, non-duality does not negate the "reality" of the world, it just reasseses the nature of "Knowing", or am I mistaken? However, isn't this logic in part making the "Truth" unknowable (at least in a logical way)? Or can spirituality offer a direct "way out"?
I could go even further... if both Subject and Object are indeed part of the Universe we live in (is this arguable?), isn't the Consciousness litteraly "the Universe experiencing itself"? Is this correct to state in the frame of non-dualism? Are then all apparent separated "Subjects" (let's say, individuals) just like "fragments of an enormous (apparently) fragmented mirror"? Thanks.
@@84longedo It is very simple. But one should study both Advaitha and Dvaitha because both are incomplete without each other. Advaitha focuses mainly on the subject/observer and Dvaitha focuses on the object/observed. The reason why modern interpreters of Advaitha wrongly assume that maya and mithya are "illusions" because of their lack of knowledge of Dvaitha Vedic metaphysics which talks about the 3 dynamic gunas that compete and control matter (Sri Krishan Bhagavad Gita Chapter 14 verse 5 and 10) and Sankhya Vedic metaphysics (mentioned by Sri Krishna as well) which combines Advaitha and Dvaitha and talks about their interdependency. It is the reason why even if you visit a remote village in India, people who never heard of all these metaphysics simply say without shiva (Advaitha) there is no shakthi (duality capable or Dvaitha) and without shakthi, there is no shiva.
@@indianmilitary Thanks. I am not sure I have fully grasped your comment. But thanks for your explanation. I have (unfortunately) just a basic background in western phylosophy (so I might be expressing myself very poorly). I mainly came up with a very personal idea, latter to realize it already had been there in some form, in many cultures. It seems to me, that the "problem" of defining what "Reality" is has been addressed with different approaches, but all systems still seem (to me) to converge toward an ultimate view. The simplest (I mean with that, the one requiring less caveats) and self-evident of which, to me, seems inherently non-dual. I may be wrong, because all these things are words, and words are "models" of that "something" mind would like to talk about. Probably, realizing that ultimate Reality might allow to reveal how precarious are our attempts at describing it.
Good points, however introduction of adjectives like "useful" can only lead astray. Truth can only be experienced without an "agent mediator" - intellect at futile attempt to interpret and explain reality.
@@torimusblake6377 Maybe that's what I meant by "a way out". The intellect function can understand the idea, but is not equipped to lead to It, as it is probably still rooted in the processes of the thinking mind.
I m not sure what book he is referring to about Jews non-dual philosophy? Every religion has Advtiya? Really? Islam/Christianity states anywhere I m Allah/God?? Really? Have u heard any Muslim/Christian religious figure say it ever? Is Swami Sarvapriyananda bigger scholar on Islam/Xtians than their own? This is a great disservice to Sanatana Dharma because the Abrahamics are constantly at the business of appropriation of others cultures/philosophy. I m not sure if he realizes it, but our so called Gurus are a big problem on this topics. For folks who has no clue what I m talking about... just today Rajiv Molhota published his new book on this topic -- "Battle For Consciousness Theory" 🤷
For Muslims, most notably, perhaps wahdat al-wujud among other metaphysical stance. For Christians, it's there in the Christian philosophy that's, like, clearly an apophatic Neoplatonic nature (like of the Pseudo-Dionysius) or related to what a lot of the so-called mystics and saints write about. Meister Eckhart, for example. There are a lot of examples, really, it's just usually deemed as either slightly heretical to being full-blown heretical of a stance within Christianity and Islam with some exceptions. The wikipedia article on non-dualism lists examples.
Swami is no way doing any disservice, some strands of vairious religion do talk about advaita not the whole of religion. Rajiv malhotra talked with Swami Sarvapriyananda a couple of times too so don't worry he won't be annoyed, he won't attack Ramkrishna Mission ingact he has great respect for the mission. Whether Church or Mosque does it or not that's their problem/agenda. Why would I lose my inclusiveness because of there exclisivity.
I think you have missed the essence of spirituality..your last sentence has a clue..if you wear tinted glasses like Malhotra while looking at the world,you are bound to crash.
@@Nico-Tine why such mental gymnastics when u clearly know it's considered as blasphemous or heretical by the main stream of those religions? R u saying they know about their stuffs less than us?? First show me the mention of concept of non-duality in their core books Bible/Quran like it exists in the Vedas for Hindus.
@@sumitdutta7043 u r confused, I have no problem about ur inclusiveness rather ur naivety! Don't dilute/claim the achievement of the ancient Hindu Rishis as a common realization in Islam/Christianity without giving any proof from Quran/Bible. Why don't u go and ask their religious leaders? Warning: u may lose ur life for being blasphemous :)
Around 06:15 Would the flowers exist or not if nobody ever saw them? Do flowers deep in the Amazon forest exist or not? Did galaxies that were discovered only recently, exist prior to their discovery? Now you will perhaps say that all these facts only exist in your consciousness and hence nothing is outside of it, to which I will say the following: what about unknowable facts that are unknowable even in principle, such as those that lie outside the lightcone of the present day observer? You will say that you can imagine such things and hence they too exist in your consciousness. But what about things that you cannot even imagine at present but which will be unraveled in the future, like the aforementioned consequence of the theory of relativity? What do you say about those? You can't say they exist in your imagination for I will then say, please give me an example of such a thing, and you won't be able to do so. But as I have already said before, both the universe and the observer are vectors in Hilbert space and it is only in this sense can they be thought of as being equivalent to each other, or if you will, projections of each other.
In Advaita Vedanta, the universe is akin to a simulation or an optical illusion produced by *Maya*. These concepts illustrate how perceived reality, such as flowers, galaxies, or unknowable facts, is not truly independent or pre-existing in the way we assume. Just as a simulation can create the illusion of objects and events that seem real but do not exist outside of the program, *Maya* creates the appearance of a world that seems real within the limits of perception and thought. This challenges the idea that we only see things that already exist, as what we perceive is shaped by the illusion of reality, not by an external, independent existence.
@@tvm73827 But this is not what the Swami is referring to when he is saying that there doesn't exist anything beyond his own personal experience. He is not saying that what he perceives is illusory, but something that exists only in his own realm of perception and not outside of it. Now let's come to how illusory everything really is. The snake is illusory, true, but it's constituted of the body of the rope which is the reality behind it. Similarly the reality behind everything is a vector in Hilbert space which is one with Brahman but it's perceived as something completely different, as a flower or a human being or even a thought for that matter.
@@sombh1971 I have no idea what you are having a problem with. Swamiji discusses the concept of nonduality, specifically Advaita Vedanta, contrasting it with Western philosophical views. How Advaita perceives the self and consciousness as unified, unlike Western dualism. In a Hilbert space context, this can be likened to how vectors in Hilbert space represent states that are superimposed, reflecting nonduality and unity, as opposed to distinct, separate states in classical interpretations. Just because you are perceiving something doesn't mean it is true even though it exists in some other form in reality (as he says in this video and I guess so are you) But it is also possible that it doesn't even exist (Swamiji has mentioned it at other times - a mirage for instance)
@@tvm73827 "optical illusion" produced by "maya" nope. Maya is the "creative" energy of Brahman. Maya is absolutely real. So, is our material realm. Modern interpreters of Advaitha have a serious misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge of 3 dynamic gunas 'mediated' by the conscious field (Dvaitha metaphysics explains in detail) which compete to control matter. (sri krishna in Bhagavad Gita cha 14 verse 5 and 10) It also means. Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other. So, you can't interpret Maya as the illusion through which Brahman falsely appears as the universe. In the same way, Mithya does not mean false either. Mithya means temporary existence. eg Tasks in your office may be temporary but not false. So, you have to finish them. Observer/Observed split is not just limited to wake/dream/deep sleep states. The split also exists in Turiya (transcendental consciousness), cosmic consciousness (sat chit ananda state) and so called "divine" consciousness. The split disappears only in the so called "unity consciousness". In other words, without nonduality nothing can be perceived in at least 6 states of consciousness including wake/dream and deep sleep. Point is the same flower could be experienced differently in different states of consciousness. In the wake state, the experience of the flower will be different. In other states of consciousness, the same flower could be experienced as "thought image" or pashyanthi. So, it does not mean, it doesn't exist or an illusion.
@@sombh1971 1. "Would the flowers exist or not if nobody ever saw them" Only in the unity consciousness it cannot be perceived or experienced because of the disappearance of the observer/observed split. But It does exist in other states of consciousness because the omnipresent conscious field is the mediator of all duality cycles of nature (including wave/particle) or Rajas/Tamas guna of both subtle and gross matter for both microcosm and macrocosm. So, since you cannot perceive a flower in the 'amazon forest" in the wake state (with limited experience), it does not mean the flower or the forest does not exist. 🤣🤣 Moreover, the same flower could be experienced differently in different states of consciousness. In the wake state, the experience of the flower will be different. In other states of consciousness, the same flower could be experienced as "thought image" or pashyanthi. So, it does not mean, it doesn't exist. Point is the perception of observer/observed split in different states of consciousness does not mean the observer/observed is not nondual. In other words, in all states of consciousness nonduality exist because without the conscious observer (also the impassive experiencer but not the doer) nothing can be perceived or experienced in any form or no duality cycles of nature can happen. In the same way, without intelligent energy and its qualities to experience in the conscious field, Brahman will be powerless. So, they always exist together (nondual) for the perpetual duality cycles of nature of both subtle and gross matter. 2. Now, how to confirm "nonduality" in the wake state with observer/observed split? Breath and the conscious field are connected through "prana shakhti". Kriya Yoga says that if we focus on our breath, release it slowly, control it (5 to 10 seconds) and repeat it, We go from the wake state to dream state and then to deep sleep state. This transformation can take place only in the conscious field of athma (aka Paramathma). Another obvious example is the young/old duality cycle of body or intelligent energy which also can be controlled voluntarily as well. A person who practices "pranayama" or breath control consistently all his or her life can delay aging. It also means, conscious field is omnipresent and not just limited to human "subtle body" This proves TAT TVAM ASI (SAMA VEDA) which says you (immortal, conscious and immanent athma) are already that (immortal, conscious, omnipresent and transcendent Brahman). 3. Modern interpreters of Advaitha have a serious misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge of 3 dynamic gunas in the conscious field (Dvaitha metaphysics explains in detail) which compete to control matter. (sri krishna in Bhagavad Gita cha 14 verse 5 and 10) It also means. Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other. So, you can't interpret Maya as the illusion through which Brahman falsely appears as the universe. In the same way, Mithya does not mean false either. Mithya means temporary existence. eg Tasks in your office may be temporary but not false. So, you have to finish them.
@@sumitdutta7043 , Swami is neither a Rishi nor God. And he doesn't belong to Traditional Guru Parampara. So it's ok to call out such people for making false claims. And, What's wrong with casteism??
@@achyuthcn2555so why are you even listening to non-bonafide monk as per your limited understanding. Birth based caste system is total crap in current age. Puri Shankarâcharya said that marriage between different castes or lower caste is like marrying an animal, and you even support that.
@@sumitdutta7043, Birth based caste system is only crap to those who haven't read any shastras and have no respect for Rishis and traditional Acharyas. Puri Shankaracharya says what's there in shastras. If you don't like it it's your problem.
![ATEEZ(에이티즈) - [GOLDEN HOUR : Part.2] Preview](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4PfgRPBUVo/mqdefault.jpg)
The way swamiji can clarify the point of question is startling, even scary, sometimes.
It's the great blessing having him in this troubled times.🙏
Just too wonderful to appreciate !! Thanks Swamiji!
Pranam Maharaj 🙏🙏🙏
Jai Shree Ramakrishna
Listening to Your lectures have been a great consolation.
Seeking Your blessings for the removal of obstacles in my Spiritual Path.
॥जय श्रीरामकृष्ण||
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Namaskar Swami Sarvapriyanandaji Maharaj 🙏🏻
We love u Maharaj
শুভ জন্মাষ্টমী ❣️❣️❣️
প্রণাম মহারাজ ❣️🙏🙏🙏❣️
Happy janmashtmi
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
There is not one body, neither mind why we astone, immaculate.
"The flower is not apart from seeing". "The seeing is not apart from consciousness". In other words. the seer beyond space and time impassively experiences what is seen in the conscious field within space and time. This explains how the observer and observed are nondual. But one should also know why they are nondual. It is for the perpetual duality cycles of nature to happen in the conscious field which mediates them. But the duality cycles (Rajas/Tamas) of nature sustain itself by "satvik guna" or balance or dharma. eg summer/winter duality cycle mediated by the conscious field is sustained by spring. So, both purusha and prakrithi are INCOMPLETE without each other. It is just like saying Advaitha and Dvaitha are incomplete without each other or how Shiva and Shakthi are incomplete without each other.
"(All) things are just constructions of the imagination…"
Ashtavakra Gita
I believe that brain is also imagined and in reality seeing and imagining is the same faculty of Consciousness (The Self).
"Ahstravakra Gita" It is a fake version of Bhagavad Gita created out of thin air by East India company agents. Nothing is an illusion including emotional dualities based on false identification with thoughts and body. Consciousness within space and time which mediates all duality cycles of nature is an attribute of the immortal and omnipresent self beyond space and time. So, consciousness is not equal to the self even though it is also its "svarupa". Consciousness cannot experience anything on its own because the self is the impassive experiencer (but not the doer) of all qualities (born out of intelligent energy) through the conscious field.
Advaita is the living heart of many religions
Qoran says " I am the One, who was not born and did not give birth" (sourate 112)
"I am that I am" (Torah, Exodus 3.14)
"The Father and I are one" "before Abraham was, I Am" (Gospels)
Look what the Muslims did to Mansur Al Hallaj.
@@unified2002 Al Hallaj is a good example of how truth can find ways to express despite bigotry and fear. Another great voice said " Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing" . In truth, forgive them because they do not know who they are. One without a second. 🙏
Those are cherry quotes taken out of context, non duality was born in india influenced 3rd century greek philosophy but not as clear or depth then later. Sufis was influenced which in turn influenced chirstanity and jews, thats why no main text of abharmic religions contains non duality, infact it contradicts them.
@@Rohit-jc2sm some comments :. Sufis come from islam, derived itself from christianity, derived itself from judaïsm.
Greek philosophy is much older than 3rd century BC, at least 6th century BC with Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides of Elea said what is is and what is not is not. You can find almost the same teaching in Bhagavad Gita chapter 2. V.16.
All roads lead to Kashi🙏
@@GeorJiadvaita no, non dual teachings are not present in judaism or chirstanity and islam, sufis got it first then during spain conquest from them some chirstains and jews took the concept and tried to interpate their scriptures in non dual way.
जय श्री गुरुदेव, आपका नालायक सेवक गुरुजी।
जय श्री स्वामी विवेकानन्द, जय श्री सच्चिदानन्द, जय श्री रामकृष्ण परमहंस नमोस्तुते।🙏🏼
Swami Ji, it's a great way to explain seer and the seen. Thru this drik-drushya viveka I clearly separate atma and anatma. From this to understand Advaita I will have to go to kaarya-karana prakriya, take the path of adhyaropa-apavaada prakriya and clearly have the prathyabhijna by bhaga-thyaga-lakshna vrutti and claim my nondual status of - Advaita.
But in the example you demonstrated here how is nonduality proved 🤔. The whole process of cognising the vase and flowers is explained. But the seer, myself,and the seen, the vase and flowers are still there - in my mind and out there. If the flower and vase are physically removed then the same is not seen and cognised by me. Yes, I can remember it. Having had the experience once it gets stored in the memory. But how do we explain nonduality in this scenario. Moreover Advaita is explained in paramarthika satta. In vyavaharika and prathibhasika duality is experienced. It's prathyaksha pramanam, a jyeshta pramanam, very powerful pramanam.
Hope you would clear the confusion.
It is very easy to prove nonduality. But we should understand why Shiva and Shakthi are nondual instead of how they are nondual. To prove "nonduality" one must understand Dvaitha Vedic metaphysics in depth, especially about the 3 gunas (mostly ignored by modern interpreters of Advaitha). It also means, Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other. The 3 "dynamic" gunas compete with each other to control matter (Sri Krishan Bhagavad Gita Chapter 14 verse 5 and 10). Both subtle and gross matter of microcosm and macrocosm have all the 3 gunas including wake/dream/sleep cycles.
Now, how to prove it. Simple. Breath, prana shakthi and the conscious field are connected. Kriya yoga says subtle release and control of breath can lead to voluntary transformation from wake to dream to deep sleep state 'mediated" by the same conscious field of Athma/Paramathma. It is just like how one can delay "aging" by doing pranayama life long. it also means, both the conscious field and the 3 gunas are NOT just limited to the subtle body or Sukshma sharira
??
In the flower example, there should be something there in the first place to reflect the light. otherwise, we dont have the experience of seeing a flower. So how can the flowers be only in consciousness?
Think about a notion, there "has to be something" prior to reflected light perception, is nothing more then a mere assumption, an idea. Even when "unreflected" light is perceived directly (from "source") makes no difference. Only experience is, all the rest is a mental deconstruction and rationalization of that experienced phenomena. Thoughts and dreams also fall under that principle. Do objects in a dream have to be "there" independently to be perceived?
Is the vase of flowers there and therefore I am seeing them 𝙤𝙧 because I am seeing them therefore the vase of flowers is there?
The latter. How many times have you walked by a thing without paying any attention to it.
No one can see light. By itself. Only objects can be seen through reflection.
Athma is self-luminous. It does not need any other light.
@@indianmilitary light needs an objector matter to know its existence …soul needs a body to know its existence.
@@indianmilitary soul needs a body for its existence….cannot identify itself without a body
Take away all assumptions and received knowledge parroting from your claims and try again.
@@torimusblake6377 philosophy is about truth not thought….no assumptions
Swamiji is what your saying the same as Tibetan's say 'it's merely imputed?'
My finite mind wonders, if I see an electric pole in front of the car I am driving, the car hits it, the pole collapses on the car and both the car and myself, sitting in it, are totally damaged... was (in reality) the pole NOT THERE?
Why am I injured, in pain or even barely alive.... if the pole I saw was only an object of my consciousness and not actually there?
How can an object not exist if all my senses(touch, sight, hearing, smell, taste) perceive it to be real? Like, the food I am eating, or the clothes I am wearing?
Wake state experience is NOT an illusion even though temporary and limited. Advaitha does not say maya and mithya are illusions. May be its modern interpreters do (wrongly)
The illusion of subject⇔object distinction, or an independent existence, demonstrated on perception of (bucket of) flowers is essential. It does not matter how "dire" are the circumstances. Pole, damaged car, pain - how can you claim ad hoc their existence without your (witness) consciousness? Imagine your mind don't even have words to formulate their "identity" in a language…
Would it also be correct to state: "the Consciousness that sees (let's call it "Subject") and the perceived thing (let's call it "Object") are intrinsically linked, as 1) both ones "emerge" from and in the same Universe, and are ruled by the same laws of Nature, 2) Consciousness alone has (maybe) no way of knowing itself (let's call it "Self-Consciousness") deprived of external stimuli. Isn't therefore the perception itself of a "Subject" and an "Object" as separated just an "illusion", although still useful in and by itself (for example, to communicate concepts by defining attributes)? Hence, is this dualistic "illusion" anyway useful in the path of eventually realizing a non-dualistic spiritual mind? After all, as far as I get it, non-duality does not negate the "reality" of the world, it just reasseses the nature of "Knowing", or am I mistaken? However, isn't this logic in part making the "Truth" unknowable (at least in a logical way)? Or can spirituality offer a direct "way out"?
I could go even further... if both Subject and Object are indeed part of the Universe we live in (is this arguable?), isn't the Consciousness litteraly "the Universe experiencing itself"? Is this correct to state in the frame of non-dualism? Are then all apparent separated "Subjects" (let's say, individuals) just like "fragments of an enormous (apparently) fragmented mirror"? Thanks.
@@84longedo It is very simple. But one should study both Advaitha and Dvaitha because both are incomplete without each other. Advaitha focuses mainly on the subject/observer and Dvaitha focuses on the object/observed.
The reason why modern interpreters of Advaitha wrongly assume that maya and mithya are "illusions" because of their lack of knowledge of Dvaitha Vedic metaphysics which talks about the 3 dynamic gunas that compete and control matter (Sri Krishan Bhagavad Gita Chapter 14 verse 5 and 10) and Sankhya Vedic metaphysics (mentioned by Sri Krishna as well) which combines Advaitha and Dvaitha and talks about their interdependency.
It is the reason why even if you visit a remote village in India, people who never heard of all these metaphysics simply say without shiva (Advaitha) there is no shakthi (duality capable or Dvaitha) and without shakthi, there is no shiva.
@@indianmilitary Thanks. I am not sure I have fully grasped your comment. But thanks for your explanation. I have (unfortunately) just a basic background in western phylosophy (so I might be expressing myself very poorly). I mainly came up with a very personal idea, latter to realize it already had been there in some form, in many cultures. It seems to me, that the "problem" of defining what "Reality" is has been addressed with different approaches, but all systems still seem (to me) to converge toward an ultimate view. The simplest (I mean with that, the one requiring less caveats) and self-evident of which, to me, seems inherently non-dual. I may be wrong, because all these things are words, and words are "models" of that "something" mind would like to talk about. Probably, realizing that ultimate Reality might allow to reveal how precarious are our attempts at describing it.
Good points, however introduction of adjectives like "useful" can only lead astray. Truth can only be experienced without an "agent mediator" - intellect at futile attempt to interpret and explain reality.
@@torimusblake6377 Maybe that's what I meant by "a way out". The intellect function can understand the idea, but is not equipped to lead to It, as it is probably still rooted in the processes of the thinking mind.
I know this is the e jnana path, but some of the thinks that swami says and I can’t follow I them by faith
I m not sure what book he is referring to about Jews non-dual philosophy? Every religion has Advtiya? Really? Islam/Christianity states anywhere I m Allah/God?? Really? Have u heard any Muslim/Christian religious figure say it ever? Is Swami Sarvapriyananda bigger scholar on Islam/Xtians than their own? This is a great disservice to Sanatana Dharma because the Abrahamics are constantly at the business of appropriation of others cultures/philosophy. I m not sure if he realizes it, but our so called Gurus are a big problem on this topics. For folks who has no clue what I m talking about... just today Rajiv Molhota published his new book on this topic -- "Battle For Consciousness Theory" 🤷
For Muslims, most notably, perhaps wahdat al-wujud among other metaphysical stance. For Christians, it's there in the Christian philosophy that's, like, clearly an apophatic Neoplatonic nature (like of the Pseudo-Dionysius) or related to what a lot of the so-called mystics and saints write about. Meister Eckhart, for example. There are a lot of examples, really, it's just usually deemed as either slightly heretical to being full-blown heretical of a stance within Christianity and Islam with some exceptions. The wikipedia article on non-dualism lists examples.
Swami is no way doing any disservice, some strands of vairious religion do talk about advaita not the whole of religion.
Rajiv malhotra talked with Swami Sarvapriyananda a couple of times too so don't worry he won't be annoyed, he won't attack Ramkrishna Mission ingact he has great respect for the mission.
Whether Church or Mosque does it or not that's their problem/agenda. Why would I lose my inclusiveness because of there exclisivity.
I think you have missed the essence of spirituality..your last sentence has a clue..if you wear tinted glasses like Malhotra while looking at the world,you are bound to crash.
@@Nico-Tine why such mental gymnastics when u clearly know it's considered as blasphemous or heretical by the main stream of those religions? R u saying they know about their stuffs less than us?? First show me the mention of concept of non-duality in their core books Bible/Quran like it exists in the Vedas for Hindus.
@@sumitdutta7043 u r confused, I have no problem about ur inclusiveness rather ur naivety! Don't dilute/claim the achievement of the ancient Hindu Rishis as a common realization in Islam/Christianity without giving any proof from Quran/Bible. Why don't u go and ask their religious leaders? Warning: u may lose ur life for being blasphemous :)
Around 06:15 Would the flowers exist or not if nobody ever saw them? Do flowers deep in the Amazon forest exist or not? Did galaxies that were discovered only recently, exist prior to their discovery? Now you will perhaps say that all these facts only exist in your consciousness and hence nothing is outside of it, to which I will say the following: what about unknowable facts that are unknowable even in principle, such as those that lie outside the lightcone of the present day observer? You will say that you can imagine such things and hence they too exist in your consciousness. But what about things that you cannot even imagine at present but which will be unraveled in the future, like the aforementioned consequence of the theory of relativity? What do you say about those? You can't say they exist in your imagination for I will then say, please give me an example of such a thing, and you won't be able to do so.
But as I have already said before, both the universe and the observer are vectors in Hilbert space and it is only in this sense can they be thought of as being equivalent to each other, or if you will, projections of each other.
In Advaita Vedanta, the universe is akin to a simulation or an optical illusion produced by *Maya*. These concepts illustrate how perceived reality, such as flowers, galaxies, or unknowable facts, is not truly independent or pre-existing in the way we assume. Just as a simulation can create the illusion of objects and events that seem real but do not exist outside of the program, *Maya* creates the appearance of a world that seems real within the limits of perception and thought. This challenges the idea that we only see things that already exist, as what we perceive is shaped by the illusion of reality, not by an external, independent existence.
@@tvm73827 But this is not what the Swami is referring to when he is saying that there doesn't exist anything beyond his own personal experience. He is not saying that what he perceives is illusory, but something that exists only in his own realm of perception and not outside of it.
Now let's come to how illusory everything really is. The snake is illusory, true, but it's constituted of the body of the rope which is the reality behind it. Similarly the reality behind everything is a vector in Hilbert space which is one with Brahman but it's perceived as something completely different, as a flower or a human being or even a thought for that matter.
@@sombh1971 I have no idea what you are having a problem with. Swamiji discusses the concept of nonduality, specifically Advaita Vedanta, contrasting it with Western philosophical views. How Advaita perceives the self and consciousness as unified, unlike Western dualism. In a Hilbert space context, this can be likened to how vectors in Hilbert space represent states that are superimposed, reflecting nonduality and unity, as opposed to distinct, separate states in classical interpretations. Just because you are perceiving something doesn't mean it is true even though it exists in some other form in reality (as he says in this video and I guess so are you) But it is also possible that it doesn't even exist (Swamiji has mentioned it at other times - a mirage for instance)
@@tvm73827 "optical illusion" produced by "maya" nope. Maya is the "creative" energy of Brahman. Maya is absolutely real. So, is our material realm. Modern interpreters of Advaitha have a serious misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge of 3 dynamic gunas 'mediated' by the conscious field (Dvaitha metaphysics explains in detail) which compete to control matter. (sri krishna in Bhagavad Gita cha 14 verse 5 and 10)
It also means. Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other. So, you can't interpret Maya as the illusion through which Brahman falsely appears as the universe. In the same way, Mithya does not mean false either. Mithya means temporary existence. eg Tasks in your office may be temporary but not false. So, you have to finish them.
Observer/Observed split is not just limited to wake/dream/deep sleep states. The split also exists in Turiya (transcendental consciousness), cosmic consciousness (sat chit ananda state) and so called "divine" consciousness. The split disappears only in the so called "unity consciousness". In other words, without nonduality nothing can be perceived in at least 6 states of consciousness including wake/dream and deep sleep.
Point is the same flower could be experienced differently in different states of consciousness. In the wake state, the experience of the flower will be different. In other states of consciousness, the same flower could be experienced as "thought image" or pashyanthi. So, it does not mean, it doesn't exist or an illusion.
@@sombh1971 1. "Would the flowers exist or not if nobody ever saw them" Only in the unity consciousness it cannot be perceived or experienced because of the disappearance of the observer/observed split. But It does exist in other states of consciousness because the omnipresent conscious field is the mediator of all duality cycles of nature (including wave/particle) or Rajas/Tamas guna of both subtle and gross matter for both microcosm and macrocosm. So, since you cannot perceive a flower in the 'amazon forest" in the wake state (with limited experience), it does not mean the flower or the forest does not exist. 🤣🤣
Moreover, the same flower could be experienced differently in different states of consciousness. In the wake state, the experience of the flower will be different. In other states of consciousness, the same flower could be experienced as "thought image" or pashyanthi. So, it does not mean, it doesn't exist.
Point is the perception of observer/observed split in different states of consciousness does not mean the observer/observed is not nondual. In other words, in all states of consciousness nonduality exist because without the conscious observer (also the impassive experiencer but not the doer) nothing can be perceived or experienced in any form or no duality cycles of nature can happen. In the same way, without intelligent energy and its qualities to experience in the conscious field, Brahman will be powerless. So, they always exist together (nondual) for the perpetual duality cycles of nature of both subtle and gross matter.
2. Now, how to confirm "nonduality" in the wake state with observer/observed split?
Breath and the conscious field are connected through "prana shakhti". Kriya Yoga says that if we focus on our breath, release it slowly, control it (5 to 10 seconds) and repeat it, We go from the wake state to dream state and then to deep sleep state. This transformation can take place only in the conscious field of athma (aka Paramathma).
Another obvious example is the young/old duality cycle of body or intelligent energy which also can be controlled voluntarily as well. A person who practices "pranayama" or breath control consistently all his or her life can delay aging. It also means, conscious field is omnipresent and not just limited to human "subtle body"
This proves TAT TVAM ASI (SAMA VEDA) which says you (immortal, conscious and immanent athma) are already that (immortal, conscious, omnipresent and transcendent Brahman).
3. Modern interpreters of Advaitha have a serious misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge of 3 dynamic gunas in the conscious field (Dvaitha metaphysics explains in detail) which compete to control matter. (sri krishna in Bhagavad Gita cha 14 verse 5 and 10)
It also means. Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other. So, you can't interpret Maya as the illusion through which Brahman falsely appears as the universe. In the same way, Mithya does not mean false either. Mithya means temporary existence. eg Tasks in your office may be temporary but not false. So, you have to finish them.
Only religions based on Vedic knowledge are true. Shaivism, Vaishnavism etc are true and Abrahamic faiths are not.
Yes what you say is the only truth and Swami is false .
Puri math Shankaracharya is non casteist😂
I don't take the above as Truth.
@@sumitdutta7043 , Swami is neither a Rishi nor God. And he doesn't belong to Traditional Guru Parampara. So it's ok to call out such people for making false claims.
And, What's wrong with casteism??
@@achyuthcn2555so why are you even listening to non-bonafide monk as per your limited understanding.
Birth based caste system is total crap in current age.
Puri Shankarâcharya said that marriage between different castes or lower caste is like marrying an animal, and you even support that.
@@sumitdutta7043, Birth based caste system is only crap to those who haven't read any shastras and have no respect for Rishis and traditional Acharyas.
Puri Shankaracharya says what's there in shastras. If you don't like it it's your problem.
@@achyuthcn2555Where is birth based caste system mentioned in the Shruthi? Pls show the verses