How does one get the knowledge? What is meant for knowledge? What is true knowledge?

 How does one get the knowledge? What is meant for knowledge? What is true knowledge? –all this of which must be dealt with the seeker of truth in order to realize thee ultimate truth.

The self-knowledge does not destroy the world but it exposes the unreal nature of the world which appears as waking   and experienced as reality by the person within the waking.  Same way the unreality of the dream was exposed when waking took place.

People talk of liberation. They are only forming an idea. Idea is mere imagination; imagination is possible only in ignorance. People, who are so confused as to be unable mentally separate the formless witness from the three states, speak of gaining liberation. But all such ideas are only possible in waking experience which come and go, the formless witness or soul needs no liberation.

 The destruction of the world and man within the world does not mean that they should become imperceptible to the senses but there should arise a determination of their unreal nature; for if that were not the case, people may find emancipation without any effort on their part as during dreamless sleep and fainting.

That consciousness remains as the sole real factor, means that there should be a realization of ultimate truth or Brahman as the sole unity and not a mere absence of the cognition of the world; otherwise there would be no such thing as emancipation in this very life not in next world and next life

Emancipation can occur without yoga. What can be done by yoga can be done by Gnana. Yoga alone leads to Samadhi, but Gnana also liberates self from experiencing the illusion as reality.

If it is said that one get Gnana in Samadhi in which there is no duality, it is no better than sleep. If it be said that there is a direct cognition in profound contemplation in which there is no difference between the perceiver and the perceived and in which no duality can occur; then why not admit the same in deep slumber. If it be objected that there is no knowledge of the nature of consciousness, which is the innermost self in deep sleep, then one admits that self-knowledge only is true knowledge and not the absence of duality.

 That consciousness remains as the sole real factor, means that there should be realization of consciousness, which is ultimate truth or Brahman as the sole entity and not a not a mere absence of the cognition of the universe; otherwise there would be no such thing as emancipation in this life.

Those people, who talk of experiencing the ultimate reality, do not know that the word experience implies something else, a second to be experienced, i.e. duality, i.e. non-reality, and those who talk of "direct knowledge" of reality again do not perceive that knowledge implies a second thing to be known; i.e. duality exists. i.e. no reality in waking experience.  To know the ultimate reality means to know the complete negating of all that is not this reality. Hence one does not make an object of it.

Advaita says that the universe of course is illusory, but there is Brahman, that exists forming the very substratum of all things.

 Sunyavadin Buddhists declared nonexistence of Entity, a Void. This is just as much unwarranted finality, for it means one is viewing it from a particular standpoint as to declare its existence. Silence alone is called for. The absence or presence of the objective world and even existence and non-existence is always referred to witnessed only; it still leaves the formless witness untouched.

Existence means existence in the sense of the formless witness. When one reduces everything to consciousness, formless witness, Gnana, or even Mind, giving up all imaginations in truth it is unborn. One sees the waking experience come and go, but that is not the same as seeing him come and go, which one can never do.

First one has become aware of the existence of a formless witness in order to distinguish it from the changeable objects in this world, but finally   discards that position and rejects even the idea of Atmic existence after perfect understanding and assimilation of what is what. Then we may assert nothing about it. Not even existence or nonexistence i.e. silence alone is demanded by the truth.

“All is consciousness” meaning: “the whole universe is consciousness” because the universe is created out of consciousness. If consciousness is everything, how can there be anything other than consciousness. Hence silence is the nature of the consciousness, which is the innermost self.

The understanding comes after one becomes aware the self is not the form but self is formless consciousness, when all doubts have been cleared, all discussions ended, nothing more to assimilate.  There is no initiation for the realization of truth. 

Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is no real, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the reflection alone is real. Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied reality. There is nothing in his words or teaching to show that he considered truth to be non-existent like horns of a hare. He could not have held the foolish view that something came out of nothing. It is true; some of his disciples misunderstood and misinterpreted him. his idea was that the truth which cannot be designated by a name , or described is words and of which one cannot even say whether it is existent or none extent , is like non-existent.  The idea is quiet in agreement with the view of Upanishads. An object which cannot even be talked about, is, for all practical purposes, as good as non-extent. But it is not non-existent in the sense that the son of barren woman is non-existent.  This subtle idea, Buddha's contemporaries and even his disciple fail to catch. In one passage Buddha says clearly: Srmana Guutama was an atheist. It is annihilation of non-existent of truth that he teaches. So will people attribute to me atheism, which is not mine? So will they ascribe me to the theory of non-existent, which again is not mine. 

From these similar statements of Buddha it is clear that he was not an atheist. All philosophers old and new arrive at the same point. Orthodox Advaita (monism) that is inevitable; the people of thoughtful temperament cannot find peace and quietude until they do so. Moksha (liberation) is in the realization of oneness with God. They speak of God Goddesses, devotion and devotee, only in an in accurate way only from the standpoint of dvaithi.  After realization oneness with God, there is no distinction between go and devote and the word "devotion" has no meaning.   

Sage Sri,Gaudapada’s rational exposition of Advaita: - that whatever is seen, whether external or internal, whether by the ordinary persons or yogis, is unreal.

 Nisargadatta Maharaj :- If you seek reality you must set yourself free of all backgrounds, of all cultures, of all patterns of thinking and feeling. Even the idea of being man or woman, or even human should be discarded.

Advaitin disagree with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - nonentity. Advaitin believe there is some reality, even though things are not what they appear to be. If one knows the truth, he will know what to do to find inspiration for action. Seeker of truth‘s subject is to know what is it that is Real.

Buddhism says: all things are illusory and noting exists.  However, Advaita avers that it is not so.  Advaita  says that the universe of course is illusory, but there is Brahman, that exists forming the very substratum of all things.