According to Gaudapada Karika on Mandukya Upanishad 2.32:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥

na nirodho na cotpattirna baddho na ca sādhakaḥ | na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityeṣā paramārthatā || 32 ||

  1. There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.

Is this what realized advaitin feels like? Then, there is no god for realized advaitin.

I also generally observed that many atheists don't have so much problem with advaita. They like final conclusions of advaita especially. Is it because advaita is just a ticket from theism to atheism for its practitioners? And thus atheists easily self identify with this advaita. Is this the reason for its popularity in educational institutions compared to other theistic schools like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism? What an atheist is now, it has to take realization of advaitin to be called same. What an atheist believes now, that is paramarthic reality of advaita in one sense.

Can realized advaitins be called atheists then?

  • 1
    Yes, realized advaitins are "almost" atheists, at least in theory. I said "almost" because they still cling to the idea of Self even though they have completely given up the idea of God.
    – user16581
    Apr 25 '19 at 4:38
  • 1
    It seems that neither you nor Lazy Lubber know the meaning of Atheism. An atheist is he or she who does not believe in the Vedas. Many of our Non-Atheist philosophies does not believe in the existence of God!
    – user17294
    Apr 25 '19 at 7:29
  • 3
    @commomman Realized advaitins consider even vedas as unreal. So they are nAstikas. I suggest you stop passing judgment in a hurry.
    – user16581
    Apr 25 '19 at 7:35
  • 1
    @commonman If you have any arguments against my position, you are free to present them. However, assuming that others dont know about scriptures is incorrect.
    – user16581
    Apr 25 '19 at 7:41
  • 1
    the difference between the advaita and atheism is advaita asserts a positive absolute existence. atheism posits a null existence. Apr 25 '19 at 9:07

There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.

There are many Upanishad verses that propound the same theory but we can't call Upanishads as delivering atheism.

The Brihad-Aranyaka Upanishad states:

IV-iii-21: That is his form – beyond desires, free from evils and fearless. As a man, fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know anything at all, either external or internal, so does this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form – in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desire and devoid of grief. IV-iii-22: In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, a Chandala no Chandala, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect). IV-iii-23: That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see

Similarly we have:

I am always He. I am the Eternal. I am stainless. I am Vijnana. I am the Excellent. I am Soma. I am the All. I am without honour or dishonour. I am without Gunas (qualities). I am S'iva (the auspicious). I am neither dual or non-dual. I am without the dualities (of heat or cold, etc.) I am He. I am neither existence nor non-existence. I am without language. I am the Shining. I am the Glory of void and non-void. I am the good and the bad. I am Happiness. I am without grief. I am Chaitanya, I am equal (in all). I am the like and the non-like. I am the eternal, the pure, and the ever felicitous. I am without all and without not all. I am Sattwika. I am always existing. 1 am without the number one. I am without the number two. I am without the difference of Sat and Asat. I am without Sankalpa, I am without the difference of manyness. I am the form of immeasurable Bliss. I am one that exists not. I am the one that is not another. I am without body, etc. I am with asylum. I am without asylum. I am without support. I am without bondage or emancipation. I am the pure Brahman. I am He.

Maitreya Upanishad, Adhyaya 3

The Tejovindu Upanishad states:

"The nature of manas is unreal, the nature of buddhi is unreal, the nature of aham (the' I ') is unreal; but I am the unconditioned, the permanent and the unborn. The three bodies are unreal, the three periods of time are unreal, the three gunas are unreal, but I am of the nature of the Real and the pure. That which is heard is unreal, all the Vedas are unreal, the S'astras are unreal, but I am the Real and of the nature of Chit. The Murtis (Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra having limitation) are unreal, all the creation is unreal, all the tattvas are unreal, but know that I am the great S'adsiva. The master and the disciple are unreal, the mantra of the Guru is unreal, that which is seen is unreal, but know me to be the Real. Whatever is thought of is unreal, whatever is lawful is unreal, whatever is beneficial is unreal, but know me to be the Real. Know the Purusha (ego) to be unreal, know the enjoyments to be unreal, know things seen and heard are unreal as also the one woven warp-wise and woof-wise, viz., this universe; cause and non-cause are unreal, things lost or obtained are unreal. Pains and happiness are unreal, all and non-all are unreal, gain and loss are unreal, victory and defeat are unreal. All the sound, all the touch, all the forms, all the taste, all the smell, and all ajnana are unreal. Everything is always unreal-the mundane existence is unreal-all the gunas are unreal. I am of the nature of Sat.

and it further states how a Jivanmukta should be:

He is said to be a Jivanmukta, who realises: 'All this is not mine, I have no time, no space, no object, no thought, no snana (bathing), no sandhyas (junction-period ceremonies), no deity, no place, no sacred places, no worship, no spiritual wisdom, no soat, no relative, no birth, no speech, no wealth, no virtue, no vice, no duty, no auspiciousness, no Jiva, not even the three worlds, no salvation, no duality, no Vedas, no mandatory rules, no proximity, no distance, no knowledge, no secrecy, no Guru, no disciple, no diminution, no excess, no Brahma, no Vishnu, no Rudra, no moon, no earth, no water, no vayu, no akaS', no agni, no clan, no lakshya (object aimed at), no mundane existence, no meditator, no object of meditation, no manas, no cold, no heat, no thirst, no hunger, no friend, no foe, no illusion, no victory, no past, present, or future, no quarters, nothing to be said or heard in the least, nothing to be gone (or attained) to, nothing to be contemplated, enjoyed or remembered, no enjoyment, no desire, no yoga, no absorption, no garrulity, no quietude, no bondage, no love, no joy, no instant joy, no hugeness, no smallness, neither length nor shortness, neither increase nor decrease, neither adhysropa (illusory attribution) nor apavada (withdrawal of that conception) no oneness, no manyness, no blindness, no dullness, no skill, no flesh, no blood, no lymph, no skin, no marrow, no bone, no skin,

So. what is mentioned in the quote found in the question is also stated in various Upanishads. But, none of these texts are promoting atheism.

  • 4
    If this is accepted as final teaching of upanishads, as absolute truth called by gaudapada, we can say upanishads are propounding a sort of atheism ultimately. Apr 25 '19 at 7:25
  • 3
    @KrishnaVarna I dont think the upanishads propound atheism. That quote from brihadaranyaka, is about the state of deep sleep. It has two different interpretations even according to Shankara, and one of them is not atheistic. In fact, the BU says, under the command of brahman, everything moves. So it is hardly atheistic. Dont even worry about the Tejobindu upanishad. It was not quoted by Shankara anywhere and is almost certainly composed after Shankara.
    – user16581
    Apr 25 '19 at 8:01
  • @commonman It is not vrihadaranyaka. The original was correct.
    – user16581
    Apr 25 '19 at 8:05
  • @LazyLubber Please dont classify the Upanishads in that way,Some of our sects are dependent on some Upanishads like the Gopalatapani and others.So we must accept all Upanishads for survival of all the sects.
    – user17294
    Apr 25 '19 at 8:16
  • 6
    "what is mentioned in the quote found in the question is also stated in various Upanishads. But, none of these texts are promoting atheism." I think you should explain how is it not promoting atheism because no belief in worlds, God and Vedas means atheism. That person will be termed as atheist. Unless there's some explanation and context, the answer would be misleading. Reading quoted or highlighted text would plainly seem that a Jivanmukta has no belief in Vedas, worlds, God etc., Apr 25 '19 at 12:35

In addition to the great answer from Rickross, I want to add the following:

  1. The Kenopanishad says

yasyAmatam tasay matam matam yasya na veda sah/abijnatAm vijAnatAm vijnAtam avijAnatAm// Meaning : He who does not know [Brahman] as knowable, to him [Brahman] is known. Who knows [Brahman] as knowable, to him [Brahman] is NOT known.

  1. yan manasA na manute yena Ahur mano matam/tadeva Brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upAsate// Meaning : Who is never expressed by speech but by Whom speech is expressed, know That to be Brahman. What is being worshipped [different from the Self] is NOT Brahman.

The Kathopanishad says

  1. na narena avarena prokta esha suvijneyo vahudhA chintyamAnah/ananyprokte gatiratra nAsti aniyAn hi atarkyam anupramAnAd// Meaning : This [Brahman] is never known when advised by men with mundane intellect as It can become the topic of various debates.When an Acharya Who does not say it as different from the Self advices [about the Brahman], all such debates disappear.Otherwise if known as subtle, It would appear as more subtle, as Atman [Brahman] is beyond debates.

  2. tam Atmastham ye anupashyanti dhirAs teshAm shAntih shAsvati netareshAm//Meaning: Only the Wise One Who realises Him within the Self gets eternal peace, no one else.

So For the One He Who has known Brahman, 'There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated.' This is obvious from the above quotations also.

Also, I do not brand any Upanishad like the Tajovindu Upanishad etc as Minor, as many of our sects depends on Gopala-Tapani and similar other Upanishads which are believed by many to be minor. But I think they are equally important and only an Acharya's guidance regarding the authencity of a scripture is final to the disciple.The intellectuals are just no one to give their opinions in this regard.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .