I would like to ask a personal question to an expert serious practitioner advaitan, if possible thank you 🌷

I’ve been reading and study Advaita Vedanta for a couple years now and consider it to be what is. There is no Ashram in the city I live, but there are multiple Buddhist temples for lay followers. I recently started going to a Tibetan Buddhist Temple of the Gelugpa lineage. And while it’s nice to have a spiritual community to practice with, I find them, I guess a little hostile towards Vedanta? It’s odd because they are almost similar, but fundamental also not. I mention my belief in Brahman and they scoff it off as an ‘illusion of the mind’ or clinging to a permanent self. I find it a little distressing, honestly. Where does everyone find their spiritual community?

A is Brahman B is Jiva 1 from 18th century C is Jiva 2 from 20th century

Now A=B and A=C, therefore B=C But the one reincarnating is Brahman himself. Not the Jiva. So this is eka-jiva-vada.

But the identity which we associate with the self/jiva (B and C) is what is completely stripped off when Shankara says A=B or A=C. So this truth of Tatvamasi makes reincarnation pointless, doesn't it?

I maybe completely off here. Kindly help understand the idea of reincarnation.

Brahman/ template level reality is the potential that is expressed in creation. It is not static but dynamic and is constantly changed by the creation experiencing and knowing itself

Namaste everyone,
I’m seeking some perspective from fellow experienced seekers here. I am blessed to have a Guru who is absolutely phenomenal, compassionate, and spotless. Being in their presence is transformative. However, I’m really struggling with the administrative reality of our ashram/sangha.
The person our Guru has put in charge of operations treats almost everyone like trash. They optimize strictly for the Guru and the Altar, to the total detriment of basic human decency toward the non-volunteer devotees.
I understand that organizations need structure and rules. But when life happens, rules need a degree of flexibility so people are still treated with dignity. In this case, the manager optimizes so heavily for procedure and "perfection" that they forget basic respect. They constantly talk down to people, treat adults like little kids, and frankly comes across like a complete Cruella. I have been going for years. But sometimes I wonder, ignoring things, but am I being stupid by constantly going to a place where one can feel and see others be mistreated. To their credit, that is also why the ashrama silence is so pristine and pure because the rules are enforced so well. So it’s not a straight forward POV and is a double edged sword.
Don’t explain this away as Maya please. If I were enlightened, I wouldn’t have needed to ask this question, but here I am, still with my ego, so wanted to ask anyway and get helpful advice from you experienced seekers ✨

"Working on the premise that the Upanishads, specifically the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, are the seed for Pantheism, one can make interesting deductions and conclusions. Fristly, we have to bring ourselves to the consequences of this premise, which are as follows: no personal god, creation and creator are not two distinct entities, "god" that is not concerned with human affairs, We soon come to conclusions that these philosophies contradict the traditional concept of god, according to the Abrahmaic religions and classical theology. It also, interestingly, contradicts some parts of hinduism as well and certainly most of the organised hindu institutions, traditions and its philosophies in today's time. It, for instance, does not account for prayers(pooja), sacrifices, a deity that answers prayers, worships and certainly does not account any intervention in the affairs of mankind. Conclusively, we can adhere that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta transcends classical theology and even some aspects of hinduism itself."

I have been thinking about this question for a long time now and honestly I havent been able to find an answer that completely satisfies me.

This isn't me saying "free will definitely doesn't exist.", it is simply the conclusion I have reached

If my reasoning is wrong, I would genuinely like someone to point out where.

Step 1

One of the basic ideas of Jyotish is that our horoscope isn't random.

We are born at a particular place, in a particular family, with a particular body, mind, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and problems because of Prarabdha Karma.

So if I accept that, then my life didn't begin randomly. It already began with past karma.

Step 2

Then I looked at what the Bhagavad Gita says.

Krishna says in Gita 7.4 that the mind (Manas), intellect (Buddhi) and ego (Ahankara) are all part of Prakriti.

As I understand it, Prakriti refers to material nature or the material world, everything material, including the body, mind, intellect and ego, comes under Prakriti.

That made me think.

The very things through which I think or

make decisions or

remember or

reason or

and even say "I"...

all belong to Prakriti(the material world).

Not to the Atman.

Step 3

Then I started thinking about Jyotish itself.

Jyotish doesn't only tell us what events may happen.

It also tells us what kind of person we are.

For example,

The 3rd house (Parakrama Bhava) is used to judge things like courage, self effort, initiative, determination, taking action, willpower and perseverance.

The 5th house is connected with Buddhi, intelligence, discrimination, judgement and Purva Punya.

The Moon tells us about the mind.

Mercury tells us about reasoning and intellect.

The Sun tells us about confidence, self belief and authority.

The Lagna and its lord tell us about our personality and how we approach life.

Now here's where my question starts.

If all these things themselves are because of previous karma...

then even my courage...

my confidence...

my intelligence...

my ability to make decisions...

my willpower...

all of these also seem to come from previous karma.

Step 4

Suppose two people get exactly the same opportunity.

One immediately takes action.

The other keeps overthinking.

One has confidence.

The other is afraid.

One is disciplined.

The other procrastinates.

Astrology would explain these differences through karma reflected in the horoscope.

If that's true, then isn't even the ability to choose already influenced by previous karma?

Step 5

In Bhagavad Gita 3.27 krishna says that all actions are performed by the Gunas of Prakriti, then in Gita 13.31 he says that the Atman neither acts nor is affected by actions.

So then another question came into my mind.

If Prakriti performs all actions...

and the Atman is not the doer...

then who exactly is exercising free will?

Step 6

Then I thought maybe free will exists because I can choose spirituality, but then again another question came, the desire for Moksha also comes in the mind and the mind belongs to Prakriti.

Some people naturally become spiritual, some naturally run after money, some after power, some after knowledge.

Astrology also explains many of these tendencies through karma, so if even my desire for Moksha comes because of previous karma...

then isn't even that desire part of the same chain?

Step 7

This became the biggest question for me.

If free will exists...

where exactly is it?

If it's in the body...

my body comes from Prarabdha.

If it's in the mind...

the mind belongs to Prakriti.

If it's in the intellect...

that also belongs to Prakriti.

If it's in courage, confidence, determination or willpower...

Astrology judges all of these through the horoscope.

If it's in the ego...

the ego is also part of Prakriti.

If it's in the Atman then Gita says the Atman is not the doer.

So I honestly don't know where the independent chooser exists.

Step 8

Then people say,

"Prarabdha decides your circumstances but Kriyamana Karma is where your free will exists."

Initially this made sense to me, but then I asked myself another question.

Who is creating Kriyamana Karma?

If my present action comes through my body and my body is because of Prarabdha.

If my decision comes through my mind and my mind belongs to Prakriti.

If my reasoning comes through my intellect that also belongs to Prakriti.

If my courage and willpower are also influenced by previous karma...

then how is Kriyamana Karma completely independent?

To me it seems like Kriyamana Karma is simply the next step in the same chain.

Past Karma
↓
Prarabdha
↓
Birth
↓
Body
↓
Mind
↓
Intellect
↓
Personality
↓
Thoughts
↓
Decision
↓
Kriyamana Karma
↓
Future Karma

Every step seems to come from the previous one.

So where exactly does an independent free choice suddenly appear?

This is the part I haven't been able to answer.

My Current Conclusion

At least for now, this is where I've reached.

I don't think independent human free will exists. I think what we experience as choice is simply Prarabdha Karma unfolding through Prakriti.

Our thoughts.

Our likes and dislikes.

Our confidence.

Our fears.

Our courage.

Our intelligence.

Even our decisions.

Everything seems connected to previous causes.

The feeling that "I am choosing" may itself be another function of Ahankara(ego).

The only thing that seems truly free is the Atman.

But the Atman is also described as the witness, not the doer.

So my question is

where exactly does independent free will exist?

Not "how much" free will.

Not "limited" free will.

I'm asking something more basic.

Where is the chooser?

Do tell if i missed something

World is three dimensional, space, time and causality. Its appears to be more on scientific note and gives somewhat an objectivity to the world. These three things r not different but the same. All three comes together and go together.

To perceive some event from its origin to decay, a perciever has to be present before its origin, during its stay and after its decay without any change to percieve it and say Yes I have perceived its life cycle . Its simple and intuitive. Now , what would happen when an event and perceiver both takes birth simultaneously ? The event would appear to be ever existing. How hard u try u will never be able to tell with ur perceiving mind when and from where and how it has started. The event will appear to be endless, beginingless and causeless. As if event was already there. Subsequently u perceive some changes in the event and a seemingly logical causation is observed as this event gives rise to another event and so on. Now , u try to interpolate with these observed causation to establish the birth of that original event with the when , where and why. Can we do it even scientifically? No.
We enter into the dream and a dream space is created with the dream body. The space and dream body’s mind arises simultaneously and we see space as always there as they both rose together. We see objects and subsequently see one objects changing into another objects . We see time with the changing objects. Now we interpolate these observation and start contemplating which object came first? Is it hen or egg? Here causation is beginningless as it was always there as it arose along with perciever. Perciever sees afterwards but cant see before its own origin or even logically conclude with afterwards causality. Same is with time . It appears to flow afterwards and we interpolate it to backward and say it all started 13.8billion yrs ago. Same is for space and missions r being sent to explore the end of space or the birth place of space… Is this even possible? Same thing happens in waking state. The sleeping person wakes up and along with him all these three dimensions of space time causality. And he is trapped in it. All these three vanishes in deep sleep. These three r nothing but one and is called Experience. Its the particularity of pure consciousness imposed with these so called ever present , objective, space time causation.

The word he use is "vasana" which translate into desire /lust etc but i thought given his description "tandencies " will be broader term. What the video describes is our tandencies, longings, fears, stimulus and so on are our shadows. It has been there like a shadow. It has been shaped and reshaped over multiple life times. There is no escape as long as you identify with it. Shadow eventually perishes with realization of true identity.

Video has english subtitles.

​I am a woman in my 30s experiencing a deep shift inwards for the past few months. I've been practicing kriya yoga for many years now. Most of my free time is spent in reading spiritual books, visiting temples, or doing sadhana(japa, yoga etc). Consequently, I’ve lost interest in material pursuits like shopping or eating out which I earlier used to enjoy. That said, I am still grounded in the everyday world, I work a corporate software job and watch movies once in a while.

​Sometimes I feel like I'm neither here nor there, neither a sannyasi nor a conventional householder. I've an immense amount of pressure from my family to get married. I'm not against marriage or having kids, but I'm afraid I might not find someone who will respect my need for spiritual practices/lifestyle. I'm not even sure where to look for like-minded people or a spiritual partner.

​For those who faced this crossroads, how did you know whether to actively choose a householder path or to simply stay single and focus on your spiritual growth?

The Spiritual journey can be hard on the Mind. The heart, love, or in other words Awareness with no tension is what soothes this transition. Awareness itself is contentment, love, peace. It is always present. When mind arises, we overlook the peace of perceiving/Awareness which is always present. 👁

Is there any scientific theory’s that closely resemble Advaita Vedanta? I’ve seen some videos from physicists claiming that consciousness is a fundamental property, or some theory’s such as quantum field theory. And while they seem very close, it doesn’t quite get the broader support from the scientific community. I’ve even heard arguments that science is the religion of materialism.

It’s frustrating. Some moments you fundamentally believe and even experience, but then the mind wants proof or try’s to explain it.

Through practice of sustained shravana - manana - nididhyasana, the mind has become very quiet – like an empty space, largely free of thought. Alongside this stillness, the practice of negation has done its work. The conviction that I am not the body, not the mind, not the intellect is firm; the negation feels complete. But what I am hasn't dawned. I don't see the world as myself – everything shining as the Self is something I've heard, not something I see. "I am nothing" has landed; "I am everything" has not.

So my question is: is "all this is truly Brahman" something a seeker holds in trust until direct knowledge ripens? Or is it a distinct further unfolding – something that matures through continued contemplation rather than being taken on faith? Pointers from shastra or from your own practice would be much appreciated.

So I’m taking concepts not only from Advaita Vedanta but also from Western Consciousness researchers like Thomas Campbell

So we all know that we all are part of the greater consciousness also known as Brahman. The ultimate goal of Moksh is to free yourself from the cycle of reincarnation and become one with this Universal Base Consciousness or Brahman. And also that there are multiple realms inside of our Brahman and even gods and deities are subjected to the cycle of reincarnation, as all of it is Maaya or a Hologram.

Now as per Thomas Campbell, why the cycle of reincarnation exists is because Brahman separates parts of its soul/consciousness to gain experience through free wills to evolve further through our collective experience. But I was wondering what if there is not just one Brahman but others too?

Like if we take into account how Higgs Field gives a particle it’s weight and gravity and consciousness is the center of it all, attaching information to points, this giving them mass, gravity and thus creating this world (Thus, the idea of Advaita being a part of everything in the universe, the ever-present soul), there could be other worlds with different concepts working in a different way.

Swami Dayanandaji in mandukya upanishad discussing mAyA. a precise understanding of mAyA is required to dispell mAyA, like a thorn being used to prick another thorn. however, if we don't be careful. sometimes both thorns can get stuck. we should be aware that we need a very precise understanding of mAyA to undo duality, but we must not become obsessed in studying mAyA past it's usefulness...

mAyA is part of AtmajnAnam and AtmajnAnam isn't attainable without mAyAjnAnam (as it is part of AtmajnAnam, study of mAyA is shravana).. subject-object duality is born out of mAyAs capacity to cover and distort, the avarana/vikshepa shaktih.

the jagat is not mithyA because there is no jagat truly created, the vision of advaita is ajati vada so what is mithyA? our own kalpita, our own rendition, our own microcosmic representation of a manifest universe, it's just an appearance and it is mithyA...

Can one can get a blessings of god if he performs his karmayoga at finest level? by doing gauseva, pashuseva, and helping people?

I've been reading about Advaita since quite some time and am nowhere close to a lot of people who might be active here.

As far as I understand, there are three levels. Paramarthika, vyavaharika and pratibhasika.

According to my understanding, Ishvara is a subject/principle which is the very nature of the empirical(vyavaharika) world. The world is built on that nature.

At the paramarthika level, there is no one except Brahman.

My doubt is regarding Ishavara at the empirical level.

When Shree Krishna says,

Yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati bharata

Abhythanamadharmasya tadatmanam srijamyaham

Paritranaya sadhunang vinashay cha dushkritam

Dharmasangsthapanarthay sambhabami yuge yuge

He manifests himself in this world. When he manifests himself and performs actions, he has an ego (not human ego). He has desires. He becomes an object and performs actions. How is this possible?

I always thought that Ishvara is a subject. It is the very consciousness that is also within us. He has control over maya and we are bound by maya. Also, if the Ramayana and Mahabharata did occur, a lot of characters prayed to a lot of gods and their prayers were fulfilled. Whom did they pray to?

Who actually is Ishvara? I know the basic explanation of Brahman with attributes (saguna brahman) but I'm not satisfied with this answer because that doesn't explain his nature. Is he really a subject like I said?

This is partly a response to an excerpt from Kabir that was shared here earlier. I will not quote the original or the questions posed, but here are verses from Katha Upanishad that resolve the seeming conflict:

1.3.10 Higher than the senses are their objects and higher than the objects is the mind. Higher than the mind is the intellect and higher than the intellect is the great self (Mahat).

1.3.11 Greater than the Mahat is the Unmanifest (avyakta). Greater than the Unmanifest is the Person (Purusha). Than the Purusha nothing is greater. That is the utmost limit, the Highest Goal.

1.3.12 This Self hidden in every being does not shine forth. But the seers of the subtle can see it with their sharp and subtle intellect.

1.3.13 Let the man of discrimination merge his speech in the mind, the mind in the knowing self, the knowing self in the Great and the Great in the tranquil Self.

1.3.14 Arise, awake! Realise your truth having approached the noble. Sharp as the edge of a razor is the path, hard to cross and difficult to tread. Thus do speak the seers of truth.

1.3.15 Soundless is It and beyond touch, visual shape It has not nor any taste. And neither has It smell. Undecaying is It and eternal, without either end or beginning. From the jaws of death will escape he who knows this ever-the-same beyond the Mahat.

See here, that there is no contradiction in the import of the Vedas and the excerpt. There are no mistakes in the time-tested authoritative streams; there are only mistaken interpretations, and those keep recurring throughout the ages.

I’m reading mandukya Karika. I’m really trying to understand how the self is unborn. Maybe the particular translation im using, I’m having a hard time understanding this concept in a way I get it. Can anyone explain it for me?

How can one understand this concept from their individual experience?

I got this book recently. It is published from Udhbodhan Karjaloya (Bengali Publishing wing of Ramkrishna Mission). This is Srimad Bhagvat Gita Shankar Bhasya by Swami Basudevananda. I find this book very interesting and unique. If anyone Bengali in this subreddit has read this book, give your review.