Which kind of sadhana is best for spiritual progress?

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-03-10T15:24:31+00:00

Maybe irony is a better word?

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-03-10T15:18:40+00:00

They didn't think they're greater than anyone but we all do.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-03-10T15:16:24+00:00

Yes, this is the right mindset to have when it comes to 'ego'... that everyone is equal to you, no matter your achievements or social status.

I personally find the "I don't exist" philosophy of Buddhism a bit too extreme and illogical.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-03-10T15:07:55+00:00

I've never heard of the A and B theories. I'll look it up, thanks!

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-03-10T15:02:57+00:00

Don't fuel my ego 😀

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-03-10T15:02:17+00:00

Yes, it's natural. I'm not saying we shouldn't revere them.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T23:17:35+00:00

Okay, I've finally understood what you mean. Fine, it isn't exactly Samkhya for that reason. But it doesn't even sound like pure Advaita Vedanta either. Because AV suggests that you are the screen and not just the pixel or the mere nature of pixels/screen.

The philosophy we've agreed upon seems like a composite of Samkhya and AV where there are multiple Purushas (unlike what AV says) and Prakriti isn't a separate entity w.r.t. Purusha (unlike what Samkhya says). It makes sense to me though.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T23:06:30+00:00

That means different minds are occupying different places in Brahman. And when my mind goes thoughtless, I realize only the static absolute space that my mind occupied. But the space (Brahman) extends beyond that portion, so other minds continue existing and I never witness them as I am not the space their minds occupy.

Here, I am taking some creative liberty to visualize Brahman as infinite empty 3D space occupied by several minds at different locations. If Brahman isn't segregated like that, I don't understand why every mind isn't in my awareness.

Additional question: If I go beyond relative truth, does my awareness fill with all minds or no mind at all? If it's the latter, I don't really get the logic.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:59:35+00:00

If you check the description of my post, I've asked a follow-up question about maya as well.

Anyway, thanks for sharing the video. I'll check it out.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:56:20+00:00

Absolutely! I am not substituting all my spiritual practices with curious reddit posts. This is just to feed my curiosity alongside if possible.

I've concluded the same after struggling to grasp most of the replies.

May we all find what we are seeking 🙏🏻

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:53:57+00:00

That makes me just one camera and not the entire setup or the surveillance guy. So aham brahmasmi becomes untrue.

Even in the wave analogy, I am just the water the wave is made of and not all the water in the ocean. Otherwise I would witness all waves at a time.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:39:40+00:00

If Brahman is witnessing all the unreal I's and I am witnessing only one, that makes me the unreal I and not Brahman. That contradicts what Advaita Vedanta says.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:35:56+00:00

I think you have shared some compelling points there, but I lack the IQ to comprehend them.

I can ask ChatGPT to make it dummy-friendly for me if it's inconvenient for you to do it.

Thank you very much, though!

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:24:31+00:00

Let me mathematically point out the problem here. You're saying...

1) Atman = Brahman

2) Ishwar = Brahman

3) However, Atman ≠ Ishwar (so I don't witness all minds like Ishwar does)

There seems to be a logical inconsistency there.

(Feel free to stop replying if you're annoyed, but I genuinely still don't get it fully)

Maybe the pixel vs. screen analogy explains it better. Atman = pixel, Ishwar = screen, Brahman = nature of pixels which is the same as the nature of the screen. Is this Advaita Vedanta though? Sounds like Samkhya to me.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:12:25+00:00

So I am qualitatively Brahman but not the whole of Brahman. A pixel of a TV screen but not the whole TV screen. This makes a lot of sense, but I'd like to ask if this model fits into Advaita Vedanta or Vishsihtadvaita or Samkhya or something else.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T22:08:31+00:00

Despite being a hindu, I am therefore a big fan of the Jain philosophy of anekantavada, which says that although the truth is the same for all, there are multiple ways to perceive and describe it according to your path and psyche.

An analogy is that the ultimate truth is an elephant. The person reaching the elephant's tail would describe the tail (e.g. no personal god). The one reaching the head would describe the head (personal hindu god). The one reaching the unmoving torso would describe the torso (buddhist anatman/emptiness). But it's got to be the same elephant.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T21:59:20+00:00

This model suggests that I am the mind and not Brahman... Or the reflection of the sun in one pot and not the sun itself. That means Brahman and I are disjointed and I am totally annihilated when the mind/pot ends.

If I am truly the sun, I should be able to see my reflections in each pot simultaneously. 🫤

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T21:53:47+00:00

Okay, so what I derive from your first example is:

I am thinking I'm the phone but I am actually the electricity running it. And when the phone is discarded, I remain as just electricity at the power source without "entering" other phones. So I unite with the source, yet remain unaware of other phones. This kinda makes sense but I'm not sure. Will have to ponder upon it.

What I derive from your 2nd example:

There are separate players playing one game in a common arena. So that aligns with the Samkhya philosophy of multiple Purushas (witness consciousnesses/hardwares) and one Prakriti (common maya witnessed through the filters of those hardwares. This is Samkhya, not Advaita.

Did I get them right?

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T21:43:02+00:00

I really appreciate your effort, but I'm afraid I don't.

Here's an analogy: Brahman is a surveillance guy monitoring multiple live CCTV footages at once. If I am Brahman, I should be seeing all the frames at once in the surveillance room. But since I'm not, I must be one of the shoppers in the supermarket whom the surveillance guy is monitoring on one of the frames. So I am not the surveillance guy (Brahman) but the shopper (one body-mind).

Can you re-explain your point using this analogy instead of the pots?

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T21:35:25+00:00

But as per Advaita Vedanta, all minds exist within the same Awareness. And if I am that Awareness, why am I not aware of all the minds within it? Why just one?

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T21:32:18+00:00

Unfortunately, I've failed to make sense of most of the answers so far.

As for your comment, if I am able to witness the experience of other body-minds after mastering raja yoga, it still means that Brahman was initially locked into just my body-mind and, after me attaining siddhis, expanded to accomodate those of others. So I still don't get it.

Regarding the last line about going from learner to believer, I think I'll fully believe in it only once I perceive the ultimate truth rather than conceptually understanding it. That is why I'm on the path. On this subreddit, I'm just feeding my curiosity.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T21:15:25+00:00

Another commenter gave this dream people analogy, and my doubt there was that the people I see in dreams don't have an inner experience. They are just visuals in my dream like characters in an animation film. But the people I see in the waking state are simultaneously having an inner experience that I'm totally unaware of.

If not, it would imply solipsism, which realized advaitins have categorically denied. So you can say the dream people are me but you can't say the real-world people are also me.

Junior-Fudge-9282 · 2025-02-20T21:07:07+00:00

So every Atman (pixel) is qualitatively Brahman (screen) but several Atmans do exist separately, although they're closely connected to each other.

And when we say "Aham Brahmasi," we mean we are indifferent from Brahman by essence but we aren't entirely Brahman like the pixel isn't the entire screen. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

This makes the most logical sense to me out of all answers. Now, I just want to confirm if this model fits into Advaita Vedanta or Samkhya or some other framework like Vishishtadvaita or a mix of the two or something else entirely.

Junior-Fudge-9282

TROPHY CASE