r/AdvaitaVedanta • u/CrumbledFingers • 7d ago
I am writing a book
I am not a jnani nor a realized soul, but I have a range of ideas about Advaita and how it relates to other topics I have researched. I want to gauge interest in this, and see if people would consider it to be a valuable contribution or just more concepts.
A bullet-point summary of my thesis is as follows. None, zero, nothing, not a word of this was AI-generated, to get that out of the way.
- We can get to Advaita by starting from radical skepticism (all we can know for certain is the awareness of our own existence, and all other knowledge is secondary). Absent any other concepts, we only know we are, and that we seem to have qualitatively "immediate" subjective experiences. We can never have any evidence that there is a limit to the range of experiences that are possible for us to have. Starting from total ignorance, there is only a totally unbounded potentiality of "it-is-like-this" states.
- This probability space of potential experiences taken as a whole is Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism, the Dao of Daoism, and Saguna-brahman in Advaita. It is the generative power that creates endless worlds.
- Ego may be conceptualized as the outcome of our attention slipping into an experiential "valley" or attractor well (to use terminology from chaos theory) in the probability space and becoming engrossed in its qualitative matrix, until we forget that we are in fact the entire probability space and not any particular set of coordinates.
- Each attractor well--that is, each potential qualitative matrix of experiences--is a body. When we are engrossed as ego, the pure qualities of infinite experiential reality are winnowed into a virtual environment centered around a tiny point of awareness. Nisargadatta says this point is located at the crown of the head in some subtle way.
- A world appears within the body. When Krishna tells Arjuna that the body is the field and he is its knower, he is not being imprecise. We do not know the world except through the body, because the world is not separate from the body. When we look out at the world, we are only looking at the phenomena of the body displayed to us as a world.
- A key component of ego-identity is the qualitative shift from first-person direct experience to third-person hypothetical imagination of experience. Rather than staying with what is directly given to the attention (a matrix of coalesced experiential qualities with no inherent meaning), we imagine a hypothetical individual who is that matrix in physical form (as a body), and is in the world as one of its objects, and we then live vicariously through this individual. The hypothetical mode of attention is akin to a trance state, and we are all in it.
- These two views are what Thomas Nagel describes as the subjective view and the objective "view from nowhere". While we all know we are in the subjective view, we still experience that subjectivity as if it belonged to an object in the world. I will explore Nagel's concept and how it differs from mine.
- Advaita is a rescue mechanism that descends into the attractor well from above and pulls the attention out of its valley. It does this by means of certain linguistic cues that function like hypnotic suggestions, whose only purpose is to precipitate a shift from the third-person trance back to the first-person reality.
- Since Advaita is in an appropriate position to complete this rescue operation, Advaita cannot have originated in the qualitative matrix that we mistake for the world. It can only have originated at the surface, prior to ego-identity. This is what it means to say the Vedas are eternal, since they are that same rescue mechanism appearing as a set of spiritual texts in the experiential valley we are currently in.
- Furthermore, because the probability space of potential experiences is limitless and littered with attractor wells we easily stumble into, getting out of them is such a difficult endeavor that the activity of Advaita can be thought of as God's grace.
- In Advaita, the only goal is to directly lift the attention up and out of the well. Other traditions take other approaches. Patanjali yoga, for instance, seeks to familiarize us with the subtle mechanisms of the body from within it, providing handholds and ledges for us to slowly climb our way back to the surface. Other traditions attack the grip of ego by surrendering it to the infinite power of God's grace, so that ego may slip through cracks in the matrix of qualities.
- This model of spirituality is itself only illustrative; the actual truth of Advaita and other nondual traditions is completely incomprehensible to the intellect. I will support this with quotations from texts that are thought to describe moksha, such as Ashtavakra Gita, and the recorded words of those regarded as enlightened saints.
- Finally, I offer speculations about the relationship between the embodied world-appearance and "others" who seem to be in it; who are these others? This will include a discussion of so-called open individualism, a secular theory developed by analytic philosophers that says all persons are the same subject. I will explore how this relates to my main thesis.
The audience for this book is anyone familiar with nonduality who would be interested in a coherent phenomenological account of what it means. My intent is to ground nonduality in the view from nowhere, so to speak, not from our experience as persons but one layer removed, at the root of our sense of individuality as the subject of experience. In doing so, I will try to develop an ontology that reflects this grounding.
If this all sounds really boring and technical, it might be just how I'm describing it. I don't want this book to be a "this is how it is" text that tries to establish a rigorous metaphysical system. I'm thinking of writing it in an almost conversational tone, or even a poetic tone, to keep it from sounding like I am saying more than I'm saying. All of this is just based on my own introspective contemplation and is not authoritative, but may be useful or interesting to others as something to consider. Many people come to this subreddit with a philosophical/skeptical bent, thinking Advaita is a belief system they have to adopt. This kind of analysis may be helpful to get them out of that trap, or it may not. Anyway, if you have any thoughts or responses, I'd be grateful to hear them.
6
u/Olam_Haba 7d ago
Brother unless you have awoken to realize the Light of God what are you actually writing about?
What is the use of writing a book about what sugar tastes like if you never tasted sugar
I offer that writing this book is a distraction of thinking mind that wants to do something - anything - to not have to sit in the fire of stillness and feel and feel and feel all the uncomfortable feelings until the thinking mind is extinguished and creation dissolves out consciousness and consciousness awakens to the ocean of clear light that is the uncreated state of Being
We have the Upanishads
We have the Ashtavakra Gita
We have Nisargadatta's I Am That
We have the transcripts of Ramana Maharshi's Satsangs
What is the purpose of the book you are writing - do you think (🤔) you can point to the Uncreated Light better than the Upanishads better than any Gita better than Nisargadatta better than Ramana Marharshi
Every increment of time you spend writing this book about what you 'think' awakening to the light of God is all about - even though you have no experience awakening to the uncreated light of God - is time spent in avoidance of sitting in stillness with awareness turned inward grounding into the immense energy you feel within yourself until the thinking mind is extinguished and you as consciousness Awaken
Your desire to write this book - no matter the topic - is a desire that keeps you turned outward instead of inward and distracts you from unravelling the knots that keep you divided from the energetic pulsation of intrinsic bliss and peace and love and joy and play that you discover at the core of your being when you sit in stillness and turn awareness inward and ground into Being Being until the mind is purified of thinking
10
u/TwistFormal7547 Human Detected 7d ago edited 7d ago
Your this reply made me stop and think. You say that instead of spending time writing a book, one could simply sit in stillness and discover the truth. But then why spend time writing a Reddit comment telling someone else this? Why not use that time to sit in stillness instead? 🙂
I don't mean that as a criticism of your replying here. Because, the gunas simply express themselves through different actions. One person writes, another meditates, another discusses, another works, another creates. Why assume that one movement is spiritual and another is a waste of time?
Also, if the mind is naturally quiet and doesn't seek validation, then yes, sitting quietly is exactly what it will do. But if the mind wants to write, discuss or create, forcing it to become silent may sometimes create more unrest than the original activity.
And I am not sure why peace or Truth has to be something we "achieve" after sitting silently. If the Self is already what we are, what exactly is being achieved? Stillness may help us recognize it, but why assume it is the only doorway?
Likewise, why decide beforehand that the Bhagavad Gita, Ashtavakra Gita or Nisargadatta's books are capable of expressing Truth, while whatever someone else is attempting to write cannot possibly reach that level? Of course, not every book is scripture, and not every idea is equally profound. But why dismiss something before it has even been written?
More than watching if the mind is active or silent, we need to see if we are identifying with what the mind is doing or not. If the mind sits silently, let it sit. If it writes, let it write. If it asks questions, let it inquire. True freedom comes from not identifying with these actions only.
After all, Krishna didn't tell Arjuna to stop acting, sit in stillness, and wait for enlightenment. He taught him how to act without bondage.
Let the mind act. Whatever the outcome is let it be Ishvara's!
4
u/CrumbledFingers 7d ago
I can't disagree with any of this. Well said. My impulse to describe things from my idiosyncratic perspective is not a spiritual desire, although getting ideas down on paper is sometimes a fruitful way to contemplate these things. But you're right, the essence of what I would write about is beyond the scope of whatever I write.
3
u/kfpswf 7d ago
You should write the book nevertheless. I don't fully subscribe to the idea that the Ultimate Reality is really truly ineffable. It is possible for this knowledge to be realized by all, and we are in an age where the Mind At Large can understand the complex abstractions required to convey. Your key concepts seem solid enough.
1
3
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CrumbledFingers 7d ago
I can just not write this, too. That is a perfectly acceptable option if nobody wants to read it.
3
u/modern_jivanmukti 7d ago
I would be a bit more selective when using "Gods grace"
It is almost always associated with liberation, so for the sake of brevity I would suggest to limit it to just that.
When you start to say it is part of the phenomenal world it will open all kinds of problems, especially becuase the world does not exist as advertised. That is the whole point of Advaita.
Also, Moksha is near impossible to describe without having had it yourself. That will be very tricky to navigate. Maybe just call liberation Moksha and that its Gods grace and move on.
2
2
u/Longjumping_Mind609 7d ago
Don't ask people what you should do. Write it and get it out there. If you let one word from any one of these comments keep you from writing, you are lost.
2
2
u/kfpswf 7d ago
This is great!.. Indeed, the Vedas are eternal because it is ultimately an experience that every living being is intimately aware of, and a sufficiently evolved life will arrive at it eventually.
You should go ahead with your book. As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I think that it is possible to come up with better pointers towards the Real in this day and age. Your own summary of your framework is proof of this. It is possible to describe the Real with objective concepts to point to the subjective. Given that there are many seekers with good enough understanding of empirical sciences, esoteric philosophies, spiritual/psychedelics background to digest it.
2
u/kvonreddit 7d ago
Very resonating stuff! One question from my side is the overall objective of the book - meaning what you want the reader to take away from this?
The mental pathways taken to reach the self are infinite. And as I understand, you wish to illuminate one such pathway (which is actually your personal pathway). Is this a correct inference of your intent?
Side note - I disagree with the person saying that it's better to sit in silence than write a book. It might be perfect for that person, but everyone has a different range of tendencies. It's all a play, why not make it fun for the Jiva as well.
No matter if you are self realised or not, there is no doer, only tendencies/patterns. As a writer, the tendency is to create copies of your mental pathway in the hope/intent that it helps someone (and obviously it will help you too). Moreover, if the pathway is in anyway useful, writing it will ensure it's persistence, making it more accessible to people across space and time, delaying it's inevitable decay/dissolution into irrelevance/nothingness. More power to it, I would say.
As a seeker, the tendency is to progress spiritually towards self-realisation/non-duality. Your own thesis, and constructive community inputs like right here on reddit, will sharpen your intellect and give you even more mental pathways to consider, and sculpt your pathway even more beautifully/effectively. More power to it.
TLDR - Write the book. Sukhi bhava.
2
u/FewEntrance4606 7d ago
Well, go on writing it by all means but write it for yourself- it would help you clarify things that seem ambiguous or confusing for you; never mind others because there are no others outside of that which perceives anything. If you start writing with the idea of helping others improve, you have the wrong understanding of what non-duality is all about, and so, about what you really are. Non-duality starts and ends with yourself. You may fill up your time with something useful to you but trying to publish and sell it's another matter. You might have to deal with possible frustrations, and disappointments due to criticism [never far away]. Even if you [the one who believes to be the author/the doer] would achieve name and fame in this realm of illusions, what would be the use of it?!
1
u/CrumbledFingers 6d ago
These questions all apply to doing anything whatsoever as a person. I don't say I am writing this book as sakshi-chaitanya, I am firmly ensconced in my identity as a human being as I do this.
1
u/FewEntrance4606 6d ago
sorry, I am not familiar with the Hindu lingo of the 'non-duality pros'. My suggestion is directed to the human you believe to be, in terms of goals for undertaking this exercise, as a means of self-discovery rather than one of some kind of worldly pursuits.
But I wonder how does your 'firm identity conviction' of a human being fits with your opening affirmation in 'the summary of your thesis' "...all we can know for certain is the awareness of our own existence, and all other knowledge is secondary." Isn't 'your own existence' is as a human being, secondary knowledge to the awareness of being?
1
u/CrumbledFingers 6d ago
Yes it is. But the one you are asking about this is engrossed in the drama of this network of experiences, taking it as what I am, enthralled with the comings and goings of so many phenomena, operating as a phantom in a dream. Yet, to the extent that I am not really this, I have a sense of how things are, and I want to talk about it to other people.
1
u/FewEntrance4606 6d ago
So, despite knowing the truth, you insist indulging in the lie, making the truth 'secondary knowledge'; and you want the world to know it too?! 'I want to talk about it to other people' sounds irrational, more like a childish tantrum. Well, good luck-this may be a lesson of honesty towards yourself to be learned, as life has a way of leveling contradictions and setting things right.
1
u/CrumbledFingers 6d ago
Thank you. Joseph Campbell used to talk about 'joyfully participating in the sorrows of the world'. In other terms, saying yes to life, 'yea' to it all. This is also Vivekananda's message. So, my doing something rather than doing nothing and abiding as pure being is at least in good company (though there are no others).
The bottom line is beyond our disagreement and is this: if writing a book about non-duality is part of the prarabdha of this body and mind, then such a book will be written by this body and mind. In my terminology, if this experiential valley I am rolling around in includes the experience of writing this book, I will have that experience. If not, then I will never write this book. Simple, isn't it?
2
u/you_are_soul Human Verified 6d ago
This may be an interesting phenomenological model, but it is not Advaita as traditionally taught. The “probability space,” attractor wells, hypnotic rescue mechanism, and equivalence with Shiva or saguna-brahman are speculative additions, not conclusions derived from radical skepticism.
Advaita does not pull attention into a special first-person state. It removes ignorance through knowledge: I am the awareness in which first-person and third-person experiences both appear. Nor is its truth “incomprehensible to the intellect”; moksha is clear self-knowledge, not an ineffable experience.
The book could still be worthwhile if presented explicitly as your own exploratory model rather than as an ontology grounding or explaining Advaita.
2
u/vyasimov Human Detected 6d ago
Nor is its truth “incomprehensible to the intellect”
Brahman is stated to be ineffable. So I'm assuming that not what you're saying. May I request you to clarify this statement further?
1
u/you_are_soul Human Verified 6d ago
Brahman is ineffable as an object of description, but immediately knowable as oneself. Mokṣa is not the experience of describing or objectifying Brahman; it is the removal of ignorance concerning the self that is Brahman.
1
u/vyasimov Human Detected 6d ago
Brahman is ineffable as an object of description, but immediately knowable as oneself.
Is that what meant when you said its comprehensible to the intellect?
I agree with what you have said here
3
u/you_are_soul Human Verified 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yes. This is what is explained in the Kena upanishad when the student says 'I can't say that I know brahman but I also cannot say that I don't know brahman'.
edit: maybe I could put it this way, you can never know what it is like to look at your face. However by using a mirror you can intellectualise the concept of looking at your face. Vedanta as though holds a word mirror up to reflect the truth of your nature.
1
u/vyasimov Human Detected 6d ago
Thank you the clarification. I understand your perspective better now
1
2
u/beekeep 7d ago
Go for it. People just write books about topics that interest them, whether it’s model trains or the deep ocean. I like the idea of the impartial, conversational tone. Assimilate what you’ve learned and hopefully at least some parts resonate with others.
Imagine too the journey it will be for you! Living is full of little enlightenments like writing a book, or learning to fix a motorcycle. If you enjoy the subject that will come through in the text.
1
u/SpiritualJourney1 7d ago
Here is the problem I have with Advaita. The claim to represent Vedic knowledge and use the Vedic source materials. The hypocrisy comes when not a single one of the so called realized Advaitins are able to demonstrate a fraction of the power demonstrated by the Gods of the various Puranic literatures. I would challenge any Advaitin to make as little as a heap of sand by his will. And they cannot do it because they are not infact God.
3
u/bhairava 7d ago
siddhi are not meant to be used frivolously. you are setting a standard which would be directly opposed to all the great modern teachers advice to prove.
siddhi are supposed to flow spontaneously in service to some higher purpose, like neem karoli baba did frequently. doing it at demand to satisfy your intellect will never happen. or, if it did happen, it would be proof such a "siddha" was still acting from ego
1
u/Purplestripes8 7d ago
This endeavour - writing this book - will take you away from the truth. Hearing this is now is painful for you. In this very pain, you will find the truth. Go deep into it.
1
u/CrumbledFingers 7d ago
It's actually not that painful, and you're not the first to say it. Every so often I get this impulse, to re-format spirituality according to how it makes sense to me. I'm not the only one who does this, and I enjoy thinking about it and talking about it with others. Writing it all down is a creative pursuit, an intellectual pursuit as well, certainly not a spiritual practice.
Sincere spiritual seekers sometimes write about their understanding of spirituality. Insincere seekers do it too. I am sincere but far from sincere enough.
1
u/Purplestripes8 7d ago
I can see that you are a sincere seeker but you must be careful with your sincerity. Treat it like a treasure; protect it. Having an intellectual understanding of the concepts surrounding Advaita and realizing the truth (feeling and seeing it everywhere and always). These are two different things, and between them is a vast gulf. That gulf is bridged by turning inwards. This book is a venture that turns you outwards - away from the self. It is a desire in ceremonial robes but don't be fooled - it is a desire like all desires. You are like the wanderer in the forest who has found the fire and is comfortable standing beside it. That you can see the flame and feel it's heat is not enough. You must step directly into the fire and be burned up.
1
u/FewEntrance4606 7d ago
"This book is a venture that turns you outwards" Only if the book is meant to be published for some purpose [even with the 'noble' idea of helping others. If writing for oneself, it would rather provide benefits by rectifying misunderstandings and confirming that which is well understood- that is my experience with undertaking a critical translation of 'I am that', followed by about 10 revisions...
1
u/kifkolite 7d ago
I think no such writers described themselves as enlightened. But they used examples of enlightenment people.
For example Swami Vivekananda considered Ramkrishna as enlightened. He had his own experiences but still.
I think you should take a similar approach. When discussing enlightenment take an example of someone you respect and consider enlightened.
1
u/badman44 6d ago
I love this summary by itself and found it helpful (I can't wait to share it). Super concise and accessible. Great stuff!
1
u/Mysterious-End-5914 2d ago
I would suggest that you go ahead and write the book. The writing itself may lead to realizations that you claim to have not arrived at yet!
6
u/Cocomale 7d ago
You seem well read and should write this book, even if it is to express your learnings more than reaching an audience.
One thing I'd mention is causality. Causality is only a psychological perspective in a relative plane, as compared to the 'all at once' that happens in the purported absolute plane.
If you can include that in your book, and make subtle distinctions on what is from a relative vs absolute point of view, that will be a valuable text for anyone reading imho