Advaita Vedanta confusion

Okay, so according to Advaita philosophy, Atman and Brahman are one and the same, and Ishvara is Brahman in maya (that being Brahman with a personality, with qualities...the God one would worship). Now according to the Gita, Ishvara's(Krishna) divine mystery is that although the Atman resides in him, he does not reside in Atman, he transcends Atman. Now if Atman is identical to Brahman, how does this work? Because 1st: Ishvara is Brahman in maya, illusion, so if any form of Brahman transcends Atman, wouldn't it be the one outside of maya? and 2: If Brahman is the divine ground, everything, wouldn't Ishvara be the same thing as Brahman anywho? How can anything transcend Atman if Atman is God??? Please help rid of my confusion, or correct any misunderstandings I may have made. Thank you.

 

Ok - here's a few thoughts.
One way to see it is that the Brahman is the godhead beyond the cosmic manifestation, whilst Ishwara is the manifest godhead. However, that doesn't mean that Ishwara is 'in maya' in the sense of being controlled by it, or being under maya's dominance. Krishna sys in the Gita that although he appears in this world like an ordinary human being, he is not subject to Nature or Prakriti in the way we are. He is master of Prakriti, He is Purusha. Just as maya is the creative power of Brahman, so Shakti is the creative power of Ishwara. Really, the terms are synonomous. As you suggest, they are in one sense the same; it's a question of different ways of seeing. The Bhagavad Gita is like a compilation of much of the Indian philosophy that had gone before.
Ishwara is controller of Shakti, His creative power in the cosmos, which gives birth to, and controls all forms in the cosmos.
I'm not sure He says He is not in the Atman - He does say he's not in beings although they are in Him.(ch.9). He also says that the entire cosmos is pervaded by Him. This is mystery which defies a purely rational explanation - it has to be grasped intuitively. It has to be experienced - seen in a spiritual experience.

Here are the verses I assume you mean, trans Sri Aurobindo:

4. By Me, all this universe has been extended in the ineffable mystery of My Being; all existences are situated in Me, not I in them.

5. And yet all existences are not situated in Me, behold My Divine Yoga; Myself is that which supports all beings and constitutes their existence.

6.It is as the great, the all-pervading aerial principle dwells in the etheric that all existences dwell in me, that is how you have to concieve of it.

In Essays on the Gita, Sri Aurobindo says of this:

"This supreme secret is the mystery of the transcendent godhead who is all and everywhere, yet so much other and greater then the universe and all its forms that nothing here contains Him, nothing expresses Him really, and no language which is borrowed from the appearances of things in space and time and their relation can suggest the truth of His unimaginable being. The consequent law of our perfection is an adoration by our whole nature and its self-surrender to its divine source and posessor. Our one ultimate way is the turning of our entire existence in the world, and not meerly of this or that in it, into a single movement towards the Eternal. By the power and mystery of a divine yoga we have come out of His inexpressible secrecies into this bounded nature of phenomenal things. By a reverse movement of the same yoga we must transcend the limits of phenomenal nature and recover the greater consciousness by which we can live in the Divine and Eternal".

 

Also, Krishna is Paramatman - the Supreme Self, and higher than Atman. I have heard it said that the relation of Atman and Paramatman is like the relation of Atman to the lowe parts of the human being - mind, life-force, body. The 'soul of the soul' if you like.

It's worth noting too that the Gita is not just an expression of Advaita philosophy. In stressing the Purushottama - the Supreme Person - it is also the basis of other philosophies like the 'qualified non-dualism' of Chaitanya.

 

What I'm referring to is a translation by Eknath Easwaren(sp?). In his introduction, and also from various other sources, it is said that Atman does not dissolve into Brahman, but actually IS Brahman. They are the exact same thing. But than, in his introduction to Chapter 15 he sais :

"Krishna has said that he is the Atman; but the paradox is that he also transcends the Atman. In this highest aspect Krishna is Ishvara, the cosmic Lord, who abides in his own mystery. The liberated Self enjoys union with Krishna and lives in Krishna's highest home. But the Self does not become Krishna: the immortal soul, even when liberated from its mortal journeying, does not become God."

It is contradicting, but I guess you are right, it is his divine mystery, only to be understood through samadhi or what have you. Feel free to elaborate further on the passage I just gave you.

 

In the passage you've quoted here, the author is really giving the Vaishnava view, not strictly that of Advaita. Esp. when he says the liberated soul lives with Krishna in his 'highest home'.
I assume he's refering to ch 15, vs.5 - 6.
Different schools of Indian philosophy would interpret this somewhat differently. For traditional Vaishanvas (worsippers of Vishnu or Krishna) Krishna's Supreme Abode means the transcendent, eternal abode of Sri Krishna, Goloka. Here, they believe, the liberated souls live with Krishna after death, in eternal bliss. But they do remain separate from Him - they don't merge into His existence or become Krishna themselves.
They believe that the Atman is one with Brahman only in a qualitative sense, like sparks of an original big fire, or drops of the ocean - butthe living entity(Jiva/Jivatma) is an eternal individual, and liberation or moksha consists in realizing the right relationship with Krishna.
These ideas come from philosphies of dualism, and 'abheda beha' - qualified non-dualism.

The idea that the goal of Yoga is a merging into Brahman, the One Self behind all appearances, is more characteristic of the Advaita line. Here, the individual is seen as something only temporary, even as an illusion. The true existing reality is Brahman only, and all else is either falsehood or delusion. From this perspective, there really are no separate beings. The goal is to realize one's own identity with Brahman.

I hope our friend Bhaskar might have something to say on this - he probably knows more than me about the Advaita tradition.

 

Actually BBB, There are also other abodes of krishna where Sri Vaishnavas believe they go, these are collectively called Vaikuntam. In each place, the supreme God is worshipped differently.

Anyway, with that said, there is nothing like this in advaita... In advaita, there is brahman and there is maya, when a seeker gains a dispassionate feeling toward material things and the worldly life, he then dwells in the question of "who am I" and then realizes through self inquiry and ofcourse a bit of self effort that he is none other than brahman and all this is brahman. Maya is illusion - it is the "idea" I am this body... and it is defeated when one through self inquiry with a feeling that " iam not this" , "neither am I that" , one realizes his true nature.

 

Dear Jedi,

Yes you're right, there are said to be millions of Vaikuntha Lokas - however, for Krishna's devotees, Krishna's own Loka is thought of as the highest and the goal. That is according to Prabhupada. He says( in his Bhagavatam) if I recall correctly, that all the other Vaikuntha Lokas are presided over by forms of Narayana, who is thought of here as an expansion of Krishna, who is the original form, the primeval Lord Govinda.

I mentioned only Gokula in an attempt to keep things as simple as possible. I think people need to get a view of the basics before getting into too much detail - all that can actually become a distraction I think, if one is too tied up in minute detail.

 

Well, I guess you are right ... just making sure you knew about other lokas. But actually the difference between them is not that one is higher than the other because all of them are where Sriman Narayana is worshipped, the difference however is that in Goloka you are more intimately involved with Sri Krishna as a friend, a lover or a mother or a father... but in other lokas you are the child while narayana is the presiding father and Laxmi is the mother. but you know all this BBB, maybe more than you need to know...anyway it does not really matter and is off the topic anyway.

 

Advaita Vedanta for Dummies

see we are all God and so don't do or say anything that God wouldn't say or do and if you say or do something that is less than God, then apologize for not being God

 

Your doubts are a result of linguistic errors.

Ishwara is Brahman weilding the power of maya, or Brahman, associated with the creative power of maya. Ishwara is not different from Brahman, being independent of maya, not under its influence.

The word atman is used in various ways. It often refers to paramatma or brahman, it also refers to the individual limited soul as experienced by the jiva under influence of maya.

When Krishna says he transcends atman, he is referring to the jiva state.

Ishwara controls maya, and is not subject to it. Maya has many meanings and aspects. Illusiona nd delusory power is one aspect. Another aspect of maya is creative power. Maya also means love.

Again the term atman here refes to the jiva, the limited conditioned soul. This state can be transcended to experience oneness with brahman or paramatma.

I am glad you are reading Eknath Eashwaran, he is a very clear-thinking and logical commentator. It might take you a while to get used to the play of jargon, though.

 

This is definitely not the view of advaita vedanta. Advaita says that you are the self. Brahma tat tvam asi bhavaya atmani - Experience that Brahman is you, your own true self.

 

Thanks Bhaskar, you cleared everything up for me. I knew of the term Jiva, but like with the different yogas, Krishna switches between meanings very quickly, one second yoga means karma yoga, and next its jnana. It makes much more sense now. And also, I did understand that Krishna wasn't controlled by maya, I just used bad wording. Another thing, I shouldn't have used Advaita for the title of this thread, because I'm not to sure about or concerned with the seperate sects. I just believe in the basic Dharma the Gita teaches, and I thought that Advaita was the philosophy that embodied it's teachings in the simplest manner. And about Eknath Easwaren...I also have his translations of the Upanishads and the Dhammapada, and they are definantly the simplest, down to earth translations I have read. I haven't/can't read the original Indian texts, but by the way he words things it seems that he does a good job of getting the original flow/poetry of them into english.

 

You are most welcome. You might also like Swami Chinmayananda's works.

 

It's a good idea to look at perhaps two or three Gita translations if you're serious about it, because often, what is not brought out fully in one version is in another.


As to different Yogas - the Gita isn't necessarily about only one type of Yoga - Krishna mentions different paths - Jnana or knowledge, Bhakti or devotion, and Karma or works. Different types of temprament may find one way suits them better than another. Often though, in practice, these are combined, at least to some extent. In the end, it is said that all these paths converge.

 

Any recommendations for specific Gita translations???

 

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, 1972 edition.

This Gita translation and commentary will present a philosophical point of view that is different from that which supports the answers that Bhaskar gave you in response to your earlier questions to him regarding the relationship of Krishna and the jivas, or individual souls.

Please be objective when reading different Gita translations, and don't let them confuse you, because there is no reason for confusion if you take it slowly and digest thoroughly.

There are two major branches of Vedic philosophy relating to the soul and its relationship to God. Put very simply: Advaita-siddhanta...the philosophy that there is ultimately no difference between the individual soul and the supreme soul; and Dvaitadvaita...the philosophy that holds that the supreme being and the jivas are eternally separate entities, though the jiva in its pure state shares the eternal, knowledgeable, and blissful qualities of the supreme being.

The Bhaktivedanta Gita translation presents the Dvaita philosophy.

 

I have 3 copies - Srila Prabhupada's, Sri Aurobindo's, and Prabhavananda/Isherwood.

This site has several versions

http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/

 

Swami Chinmayananda
Swami Sivananda
Sri Aurobindo
Swami Prabhavananda
Dada Vaswani

 

You can read this online or buy it here:

http://www.asitis.com/

 

Bhagavad Gita : A New Translation (Paperback)
by Stephen Mitchell

This is the one I have, I really dig it. There is an introduction and all, but it is not filled with commentary... I have my own companion book I read along with it.

Paths to God : Living the Bhagavad Gita (Paperback)
by Ram Dass



Although I love both books, it will never replace my main holy book that is my bible, Remember Be Here Now by Ram Dass... no book has ever come close to that book for me... It's mixing together of all the religion, its focus on the here now as the door way, its cookup for a sacred life, the trippy psychedelic brown section covers my wall. and I've read it soooo many times... I always have it with me when i trip... and it introduced me to my guru Neem karoli Baba.

And Remember Be Here Now got me into the gita which I also love... I love the bible as well, but can't really understand it well with out Yogananda's book about Christ which helped explain its wisdom to me.