Need Vedanta help

[Anonymous No.22901111]

Calling all Guenonbros, Vedantabros etc
I understand that there is a lot of variation in the Hindu tradition, but I need some help figuring out the more mainstream Advaita views on Brahman.
We say Atman = Brahman, right? This is the realisation that frees man from the cycle of reincarnation? Now, the Atman is the individual soul. But what is Brahman in this? I thought it was the ineffable principle that is the source of everything, but Atman can't actually *be* Brahman if that is the case, can it? Atman is soul, and soul can only be itself - we can say that Atman is the principle of soul or the cosmic soul, in which case Brahman would be the World Soul of Platonism. But we could also argue that there's ways to connect Brahman to the Platonic hypostasis of Intellect. If Atman *is* Brahman, however, I am not so sure we can say that Brahman is the ineffable transcendent source. Then again, this formula is supposed to liberate man from the cycle of reincarnation (including presumably incarnation as a divinity), which may suggest that Brahman is in fact precisely the ineffable source.
Help me bros. I NEED to know how to properly characterise Brahman - I can't afford to be some kind of Brahman-misunderstanding clown.

[Anonymous No.22901164]

>>22901111
Brahman is a spook, read Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.22901167]

>>22901111
You can’t escape reincarnation because you are all conscious experiences. You are here forever

[Anonymous No.22901168]

>>22901111
>traditionalism
>metaphysics
Guess which one doesn't need the other?

[Anonymous No.22901186]

>>22901168
You have never read the Traditionalist School.

[Anonymous No.22901196]

>>22901167
Sniff sniff
Smells like avidya

[Anonymous No.22901204]

>>22901111
>We say Atman = Brahman, right? This is the realisation that frees man from the cycle of reincarnation?
Yes

>Now, the Atman is the individual soul. But what is Brahman in this? I thought it was the ineffable principle that is the source of everything, but Atman can't actually *be* Brahman if that is the case, can it?
Atman is the non-individualized infinite Consciousness that is the same as Brahman. The individual soul is the Jiva or Jivatman., which refers to the combined aggregate of both the unintelligent subtle body (sukshma sarira), intellect (buddhi), mind (manas) etc along with the Atman-Brahman that dwells within its heart and illuminates its intellect from within; the liviing being is formed of the combination of both of these. The Atman-Brahman remains the ineffable principle that is the source of everything, and anything that would seem to contradict this (like having thoughts, perceptions etc that are distinct from the thoughts of others) is only a part of the assemblage of that particular jiva.

There is a trend in some types of post-Shankara Advaita (namely Padmapāda and Prakāśātman) to regard the Jiva as identical with Brahman, but in Shankara's works he describes the Jiva as an image of Brahman and speaks about the different images being bound and liberated as comparable to different reflections of the moon that change while the prototype moon remains as it is; however Shankara still agrees partially with the view of Padmapāda et al to the extent that he would regard the inner Self that is present within the jiva-image as being identical with the Atman-Brahman.

>Atman is soul, and soul can only be itself - we can say that Atman is the principle of soul or the cosmic soul, in which case Brahman would be the World Soul of Platonism.
The World Soul of Platonism is comparable to Saguna Brahman or Hiranyagarbha which forms the universe and the elements and space in a pantheistic manner as products of its own body, but this Hiranyagarbha is again only an image of the Supreme Brahman that is the final limit. Like in Neoplatonism, the universal intellect/Hiranyagarbha is emanated or projected as an image from the ineffable One.

TLDR: read Shankara

[Anonymous No.22901206]

>>22901186
Tradition has nothing to do with it (metaphysics).

[Anonymous No.22901209]

>>22901206
>You have never read the Traditionalist School.

[Anonymous No.22901210]

>>22901164
t. hylic

[Anonymous No.22901226]

>>22901209
You sure look mad.

[Anonymous No.22901229]

>>22901204
your idolater religion is a total waste of time, there is only one God and he is Jehovah

what a desperate soul

[Anonymous No.22901232]

>>22901204
Thank you so much anon, you have done me a great service. Shankara sounds like a very wise man, and you yourself demonstrate your learning when you summarise him so eloquently. You have my gratitude. Many blessings to you, I hope you attain your goals.

[Anonymous No.22901262]

>>22901204
You've gotten far more tolerable recently Guénonfag, good on you. Carry on bhai.
>>22901210
Hylics fear me o shishu

[Anonymous No.22901504]

>>22901204
>which refers to the combined aggregate of both the unintelligent subtle body (sukshma sarira), intellect (buddhi), mind (manas) etc along with the Atman-Brahman that dwells within its heart and illuminates its intellect from within; the liviing being is formed of the combination of both of these.
>Atman is the non-individualized infinite Consciousness that is the same as Brahman.
Is Averroes the closest Western/Arabic philosopher to realizing Atman=Brahman? It sounds very similar to the unity of the intellect proposed by him, along with the boilerplate Aristotelian understanding of soul.

[Anonymous No.22901599]

>>22901504
>Is Averroes the closest Western/Arabic philosopher to realizing Atman=Brahman?
I wouldn’t say it’s just Averroes among the Western/Arabic world, far from it. To just remain in the Arabic world for now, many Sufis have taught and believed things like this for centuries. And many of these Sufis or Muslim theologians with ideas which seem similar, themselves were also heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, so you can look at the Neoplatonists like Plotinus, too, for similar ideas.

Fariduddin Attar, for instance, whose “Conference of the Birds” is one the most well-known works of Persian poetry and one of the most prominent works of Sufi literature, devoted this whole mystical poem of his to the concept of non-dual annihilation [fana] in God, and many other Sufis besides taught and wrote similar things.

Admittedly, many of these throughout history may count instead as poets, or simply obscurer spiritual teachers/dervishes of various Sufi orders who didn’t write much down or gain repute as formal theologians or philosophers. If you want one who falls clearly into the category of philosopher/theologian, Ibn Arabi’s concept of the Unity of Being (Wahdat al-Wujud) can also be read very closely to this monistic idea of a teaching like Advaita Vedanta.

Here is another examples from the recorded teachings of a 15th-century Naqshbandi Sufi, Khwāja Ubaidallah Ahrar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwaja_Ahrar

“[Khwāja Ubaidallah] Ahrar’s teaching was recorded in the Nafahāt al-Uns and the Rashahāt. The following is typical:

“‘There are two kinds of pride. One is the pride we all know and this is to be rejected. The other, acceptable pride is not to place one’s trust in anything but the Supreme Reality. This is a noble pride and it leads to annihilation.’

"’Khwāja Muhammad Pārsā told us that the continuous prayer, zikr dawam, reaches a stage at which the substance of the prayer and the substance of the heart become one and the same. In my opinion, the meaning of this must be that the substance of prayer is composed of letters and breath. The substance of the heart is a subtle awareness embracing both form and content. When prayer reaches perfection these two substances unite and it is no longer possible to separate the prayer from him who prays. At that moment nothing but the object (that is reality) can enter and both prayer and the one who prays become nothing with the object - reality.’

[Anonymous No.22901604]

>>22901599
“The author of the Rashahāt reports that Ubaidallāh Ahrār once said to him: ‘The sum of all the various sciences is revelation, the acts of Muhammad and the law. The sum of all these is the science of Sufism. The sum of Sufism is the assertion of Presence. They say that at all levels, there is only one Presence; but that this is perceived according each person's own capacity. This statement is very hard and subtle. To grasp it, reason, imagination and thought must all be brought to bear. Those possess the required intelligence who are able to take their own reality as a mirror and search for the signs that will reveal it. To this they must devote themselves entirely. In the light of the Presence, the subtle elements of the reality will little by little reveal themselves. Those who have become aware of the mystery of destiny are at peace. For they know that the visible universe is completely void and non-existent. They know also that the Supreme Reality is manifested in every light and shade of this cosmic illusion. Their peace resembles that of the wavers re-absorbed into the ocean.
“‘Such an intimate contact with reality is to be attained that neither can wash it away nor fire burn it up.”
(Source: J.G. Bennett’s “The Masters of Wisdom”, Chapter Nine)

[Anonymous No.22901612]

>>22901599
“The author of the Rashahāt reports that Ubaidallāh Ahrār once said to him: ‘The sum of all the various sciences is revelation, the acts of Muhammad and the law. The sum of all these is the science of Sufism. The sum of Sufism is the assertion of Presence. They say that at all levels, there is only one Presence; but that this is perceived according each person's own capacity. This statement is very hard and subtle. To grasp it, reason, imagination and thought must all be brought to bear. Those possess the required intelligence who are able to take their own reality as a mirror and search for the signs that will reveal it. To this they must devote themselves entirely. In the light of the Presence, the subtle elements of the reality will little by little reveal themselves. Those who have become aware of the mystery of destiny are at peace. For they know that the visible universe is completely void and non-existent. They know also that the Supreme Reality is manifested in every light and shade of this cosmic illusion. Their peace resembles that of the wavers re-absorbed into the ocean.

“‘Such an intimate contact with reality is to be attained that neither water can wash it away nor fire burn it up.”
(Source: J.G. Bennett’s “The Masters of Wisdom”, Chapter Nine)

[Anonymous No.22901875]

>>22901599
>>22901612
I guess what I was looking for was a confirmation that I understood what you were saying, and that Averroes was my point of reference. I'm not familiar enough with the rest of the Arabic world to make a definitive claim about Arabic thought.

[Anonymous No.22902214]

>>22901875
Got it. Sadly, I can’t even speak very intelligently on Averroes. I’m also not the poster you were responding to, I just thought you were implying Averroes would be the “closest” of only a small number of Westerners/Arabs speaking of ideas like the identity of Atman and Brahman in Advaita Vedanta.

His idea of the unity of intellect indeed sounds similar; I just was adding the point that the same idea has been put by many Sufis besides, besides mystics, theologians and philosophers of the West (Meister Eckhart is commonly brought up in this respect), so it’d be hard to put Averroes as the “closest Western/Arabic philosopher” in this respect, especially if you count certain spiritual writers/poets, mystics, and religious teachers or sages with a strong philosophical content to their sayings/teachings/writings etc. as philosophers (loosely).

[Anonymous No.22902653]

>>22902214
Ah, I see. I have one last question then, for my sake.
>unintelligent subtle body (sukshma sarira)
What exactly is a subtle body? I hear the terms "gross body" and "subtle body" often in these circles, and I'm not sure if it refers to something material/immaterial, if it is referring to something intense or faint (like a kind of qualia), if it is referring to a structure of sorts, etc. All of those possible meanings kind of make sense, but I wouldn't know definitively.

[Anonymous No.22902791]

>>22901504
>Is Averroes the closest Western/Arabic philosopher to realizing Atman=Brahman? It sounds very similar to the unity of the intellect proposed by him, along with the boilerplate Aristotelian understanding of soul.

Yes, and Ibn Arabi famously refuted him when he was 20.ought you

>>22901599
>Ibn Arabi’s concept of the Unity of Being (Wahdat al-Wujud) can also be read very closely to this monistic idea of a teaching like Advaita Vedanta.

It's not at all. Read beyond new age boomer wikipedia for once. Ibn Arabi is explicitly against metaphysics like Advaita Vedanta and a Guenonian perennialism.

[Anonymous No.22902802]

>>22902653
>What exactly is a subtle body?
The gross body refers to the physical body made up of elements while subtle body refers to something that exists as a sort of invisible inner body that is always found alongside/within any gross body that is still alive; this subtle body where the sensations of the body and knowledge are all integrated, where thoughts take place etc, where the mind and intellect are located. The "subtle" part refers to how this isn't visible in the way that the physical body is.

The subtle body isn't technically immaterial though because it's still made up of the tanmatras (invisible and rudimentary subtle elements from which gross elements are produced); which are themselves comprised (like all objects) of various combinations of the gunas or primordial qualities. This subtle body is what is said in Advaita to be what transmigrates from body to body after death.

[Anonymous No.22902821]

>>22901111
I like to think of the Atman Brahman relationships as that of between the cell and the body. Or sometimes I use a monadic image: the Atman is the Brahman in microcosm or "locally instantiated" if you will. Atman is Brahman as the latter relates to the sensory complex of a given individual, whereas Brahman is "at large", without this reference. You might also think of it as the Atman is Brahman as the subject, whereas Brahman is objective consciousness, that is, the consciousness pervading everything without a distinguishing identity

[Anonymous No.22903039]

>>22902791
I don't get why you bring up Ibn Arabi. What makes him relevant here? Could you give a brief rundown? I'm interested.
>>22902802
Ah, that helps a bit. I'll stew on that. Thank you!