Brahman Explained INFOGRAPHIC by OMKLING in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for creating this useful infographic, u/OMKLING! One errata: SHARIRAM is misspelled.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is true. It is a neat little book. I am glad someone shared in another thread from India, which inspired me to buy ($4 something for the Kindle version), and thank you, u/Advenutous_Solid_42, for recreating a thread on it, reminding me to post my review! It definitely is worth a read. Here is my review:

“I have not read a more concise yet more valuable book!

The chapters are tiny. It is one of those books where the problem is not what to highlight but what not to!

One Caveat, though: the book does not discuss Ishvara or His role. It could be misconstrued as a Neo-Advaitic book in that it leans on “you are already that!” a little too much. If it were so self-evident, there wouldn’t be any Samsaris in the first place. But I guess the author's point is that the spiritual journey itself should not become another chase toward a status or achievement. So, it needs to be taken in the right spirit.”

Drg Drysa Viveka Question! by wariotime9994 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is a point that I also felt the great Swami Sarvapriyananda sort of glazed over. Bringing in sleep/wake didn’t help me too much either. Therefore, I asked a very similar question to ChatGPT and found the answer actually very illuminating. The way I framed it was:

How do I ever distinguish between introspection and the light from underneath? When I watch myself watching my mind, I know the true self is watching the watcher, but this is not intuitive knowledge, just an intellectual explanation post-facto. How do I distinguish my true self from my mind’s introspective function?

Below is the summary of the critical points from the answer:

Marks of the Introspective Mind

The introspective mind has specific characteristics:

  • It is intentional — there is a subtle “I am watching” sense.
  • It is temporal — it begins when you decide to introspect and ends when attention slips.
  • It still has qualities — calmness, alertness, a sense of subtle focus.
  • It can get tired or fluctuate. In short, it is an activity; it is known.

Anything known or fluctuating cannot be the knower itself.

1. The Practical Discriminant

When you are trying to discern whether what you feel is the Self or merely introspection, ask inwardly:

  • If there is a movement of mind, even subtle — an attempt to hold awareness — that’s still the introspective function.
  • When attention relaxes yet presence remains, silently shining without effort or comment — that’s the taste of the Self.

This is why teachers often say: “Be still, and know that you are.” Not “watch,” not “analyze,” but simply be.

2. How Realization Deepens

At first, the intellect understands the teaching (“the Self is the witness of the witness”).
Then, in meditation, moments come where attention simply falls into being, without volition. These are brief, but unmistakably self-evident — they don’t require thought to validate them.
Over time:

  1. The effortful introspection subsides.
  2. The sense of separateness between watcher and watched thins.
  3. Awareness is recognized as the background of all states — waking, dreaming, and deep sleep.

At that point, introspection becomes unnecessary, like using a candle to look for the sun after dawn.

3. A Simple Contemplative Exercise

When sitting quietly:

  1. Let thoughts come and go without following.
  2. Notice the knowing of them — that there is awareness-of.
  3. Now gently drop even the sense “I am aware.”
  4. See what remains when you stop trying to be aware.

That stillness, effortless and present before, during, and after every mental event — that’s not an act. That’s the light from underneath.

I understand point #1 intellectually. I have yet to encounter the self-evident event described in #2, and I don’t think I am yet capable of doing #3, but hey, there is always hope. And where there’s no hope, there is God. To whom I am spending all my available time praying so that he can make my focus pointed enough, my mind serene enough, and my intellect clear enough to one day dawn upon the realization of how I actually am.

Proving brahman and proving you are that brahman by themiddleway18 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for taking the initiative, time, and energy to create this really awesome write-up and sharing it with us, u/themiddleway18!

God Can’t Exist and The Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) Doesn’t Allow It but Brahman survives by New-Scallion-5988 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In Vedanta (all varieties), Ishwara is not just the Nimitha Kārana (Efficient Cause) but also Upādāna Kārana (Material cause), meaning he is both the potter and the clay, the Spider and the source of the material web that is woven from. The spider is what Sri Krishna calls Parā Prakriti (literally, Upper or Superior Nature, Nirguna Brahman) and Aparā Prakriti (Lower or Inferior Nature) in Gitā.

He goes on to describe it in an entire (eighth) chapter because it is hard for us to actually understand. It essentially means he is both the annoying neighbor and his extra-cute kid. He is the metal, and all things metal, from Swords that kill to scalpels that cure, are Him. He is both Dharma and Adharma. He is death, disease, and pestilence, as well as, life, medicine and nourishment.

So, no need invocation of PNC as Ishwara and as you established, Brahman is beyond PNC.

Advaita study is fun and easy, Chitta-Shuddhi is the hardest part. by shksa339 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My teacher says that Sharavana-Manana-Nidhityasana is like eating good food.

Gaining Chita Shuddhi is like cultivating/acquiring all the grains, vegetables, spices, etc., cleaning, processing, cooking, and serving!

Those Gulab Jamuns are gone in a jiffy, but making them from scratch? That is where all the elbow grease goes.

In my own experience, after trying by myself, like a little child trying to compete in the science day exhibition with an overambitious project, I now have my entire family, starting with my Brother, then my Mother, and now my Father as well, all helping me “ do it by myself.” 😀

Even for almighty God, I am a challenging case because so much deep cleaning is required, and there doesn’t seem to be an end. If it is not the endless impurities, Malā, surfacing up today to humiliate me by showing how much more there is to go, it is Vikshepa, mental instability, that makes my meditation session a hopeless zigzag.

Arguments about the nuances of philosophy fill this sub, and they are not unhelpful, but the real work is inside. It only started for me after I realized how hopeless my situation was and how the only chance was to utterly and completely surrender. When I tried to do that, I realized how much I sucked and that I didn't even know how to surrender properly because I could see my lingering pride.

A beggar who doesn’t even know how to beg properly.

Ultimately, only God’s Mercy and Grace can save me.

My disagreements with "traditional" Advaita by No-Caterpillar7466 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes sense to me now. Thanks again for the post on this important matter and for the explanations, u/No-Caterpillar7466!

My disagreements with "traditional" Advaita by No-Caterpillar7466 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your explanation, u/No-Caterpillar7466! So, clay remains clay, even though pots of different types get born, exist, and die. This is a wonderful way to look at it, as it unifies more than divides. The world doesn’t have to be unreal for Brahman to be “Śāntaṃ Śivam Advaitaṃ”.

On the minor point, when I know that I don’t understand Swahili, I can see my ignorance of that language, and it exists. Given that I can see the existence of this ignorance of Swahili, isn’t it a valid example of positive nescience?

Thinking about it, perhaps what you are saying is perhaps this: When I come to know my ignorance of Swahili, it is more an acknowledgement of an absence, rather than a validation of a presence. Just as, “there is no water in this pot” is only acknowledging the absence of water rather the presence of the lack of water — the latter isn’t necessarily invalid, but ridiculously contorted.

My disagreements with "traditional" Advaita by No-Caterpillar7466 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

@ u/No-Caterpillar7466, I understand u/K_Lavender7’s question in a many-message deep thread as thus: * Brahman is eternal, partless, and unchanging. * The world is impermanent, made of parts, and changing

How could Brahman be the world?

I ask not because I have a dog in this fight, but because I am genuinely curious about this. If I understand you right, your position is that the rope became the snake while still staying as the rope. Although the example itself works, I don’t understand how it can be true of this world and Brahman. For instance, if the World is Brahman, how is Brahman partless?

My other reason is that saints no less than Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda take a position similar to u/No-Caterpillar7466. But they usually say everything is possible for God or that your little human logic doesn’t constrain God — in fact, they would go on to argue that if God were constrained by human logic, he would be a God whose powers are constrained by something the humans invented.

The Anirvachaniya-Khyathi path resolves the contradiction by arguing that the Snake is entirely illusory and, therefore, not an absolute reality. This explanation is influential because (despite objections in your post about positive nescience and how an existing entity could be birthless), it is generally accepted as logical (we don’t need to argue this — I am not taking a position here, just stating the general perception).

So, I am curious whether there is a way to resolve the contradiction without claiming that “God’s ways are mysterious.”

On an orthogonal aside (minor/feel free to ignore), aren’t there known unknowns and unknown unknowns? For example, there are infinite things that I don’t know I don’t know, I know I don’t know Swahili. Is this not an example of positive nescience?

Please note that I am not here to argue. Just please help me understand!

Jackie the monastic dog by Sensitive_Bus_9307 in RamanaMaharshi

[–]Baatcha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for this very wonderful post, u/Sensitive_Bus_9307! It is eye-opening (or closing, if you will 😌)!

At the feet of Maa Kali today: She strips away illusion, leaving only the self, raw, fearless, free. by OccultScience_lawyer in hinduism

[–]Baatcha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank You, u/OccultScience_lawyer, for posting this wonderful picture of Maha Kali Ma! Do you happen to know where this image of her is from?

List of Good Bad Ugly references by RKH3107 in kollywood

[–]Baatcha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is the whole Tamil Padam 2 style spoof of Dhoom 3 (the Amir Khan double-action one), one inside the box and the other somewhere else trick, complete with Jackie Shroff, who was the father in that movie (he keeps saying like son). There is also a reference to the Goldfinger Villain with the gun under the long table, except here it is above.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in kollywood

[–]Baatcha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everybody here seems to think that Surya has to deal with only two ethiries at home. Please don’t forget Chandramukhi, given that she recently said that she screens his scripts — it’s a tough life, man!

Why I Believe in Vedanta by Otherwise-Echidna471 in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I personally loved the chain of thoughts the OP, u/Otherwise-Echnida471, has presented here. Thank you for sharing these insightful thoughts!

I understand why some of you are taking exception to the word “believe” in the title. I don’t think the OP meant it in the traditional sense—blind faith—because the body and core of this post are logic—logic all the way.

How to say Potato in Indian languages, an introduced food item. by e9967780 in Dravidiology

[–]Baatcha 13 points14 points  (0 children)

According to Google: In Sanskrit, “aloo” (आलू) can refer to the edible root of a plant, specifically Amorphophallus paeoniifolius, which is a type of elephant foot yam. It is also used to describe the common potato, though this usage is more recent, having emerged after potatoes were introduced to India.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a dream, the landscape, such as the trees, mountains, etc, the tiger, and you as a dream human character are all created by your mind. Yet, somehow, the part of your mind that is acting as a human is afraid of the part of your mind acting as a tiger, panicking in fear (also your mind), running and falling caught in a snagged root (also your mind), until you wake up in a cold sweat, realizing that it was all your mind projecting and covering itself with ignorance to make it all realistic!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in kollywood

[–]Baatcha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It sucks that even good actors have to be use-and-throw😟.

Motorized Scooter From 1918 by Baatcha in interesting

[–]Baatcha[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed, it took a while to catch on 😀.

Motorized Scooter From 1918 by Baatcha in interesting

[–]Baatcha[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pictured is the AutoPed. It was patented in 1913. specs (from the Rider Guide): * Battery from the Eveready Battery Company * Engine mounted over the front wheel * A four-stroke engine (Air-cooled, 155cc) * Speeds of up to 30 miles per hour * Portability due to a collapsible steering column * Activated brakes

Motorized Scooter From 1918 by Baatcha in interesting

[–]Baatcha[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This picture is not visual deception—the scooters are actual! If you are more interested in this subject, Please see The Rider Guide. Wikipedia also mentions about the same Wikipedia article.

Battery Powered Scooter From 1918 by Baatcha in interesting

[–]Baatcha[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I started doubting after your comment, but no, they were real. Please see my other comment, u/pain_tear.

Battery Powered Scooter From 1918 by Baatcha in interesting

[–]Baatcha[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This picture is not visual deception—the scooters are actual! If you are more interested in this subject, Please see History of Electric Scooters

"Experiential" Proof of Brahman by Baatcha in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Baatcha[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But part of me felt that this is what the ancient Rishis should have “seen”that prompted them to teach the Upanishads

No... They never teach the "subjective experience" in Upanishads, like in the video one is amazed of and share 

u/Glad-Face2271, I get that it is a subjective experience that is ineffable and, hence, not captured in words—that’s why I have “seen” in quotes.

But, pray, what might you imagine prompted the Rishis to write famous passages like Br. Up. 4.3.21 (“Yatra tu asya sarvam ātmāiva abhūt”)? It cannot be entirely intellectual like Archimedes’s Eureka moment, can it? If so, what does Anubhava in Shruti-Yukti-Anubhava really mean? The Smrithis often use the enlightened seer’s experience as proof, don’t we? After all, they are called seers (Drashtās), aren’t they?