praGYaanaM brahma

[Aupmanyav]

You are just trolling. Kindly see the title of the thread. Brahman-Atman is the consciousness within. One has no separate consciousness that can be used to be conscious of Brahman.

Atanu you are transgressing Rule 10. You are commenting on my beliefs. And also, you have not put your spectacles on. The title of the topic is "Prajnanam Brahma" (Consciousness is Brahman) and I was explaining my view on consciousness to Makaranda, and you jump in for no reason. I have been a member of this forum far longer than you. Why do you say that I was trolling?

I, and several others, are repeatedly requesting you to desist posing as an advaitin.

I have a right in the forum as well as in Hinduism to hold on to my views, what other people think is none of my concern. Why are you advising me? Who gives you that right?

 

[atanu]

Aitreya Upanishad 3.3
.....All this is guided by Consciousness, is supported by Consciousness. The basis is Consciousness. Consciousness is Brahman.

.... Therefore, we can never have the consciousness of Brahman. ..... when I believe in one eternal constituting all things in the universe?

You are just trolling. Kindly see the title of the thread. Brahman-Atman is the consciousness within. One has no separate consciousness that can be used to be conscious of Brahman. You usually have no idea of what you say.

It is the directive of the scripture to know the Self-Brahman.

I, and several others, are repeatedly requesting you to desist posing as an advaitin.

Atanu you are transgressing Rule 10. You are commenting on my beliefs. ...Why are you advising me? Who gives you that right?

Sri Aupmanyav

I have full respect for you as my elder and I have said that several times.

That does not stop me from saying that you are trolling this thread, and many other threads, in your endeavour to impose your brand of atheism-materialism on Advaita and Hindu Dharma.

No teacher of Hindu dharma or of advaita has taught what you are repeatedly posting here in Hindu Dharma Dir. Your stand of no rebirth and no consciousness beyond body both go against the very basic tenet of Hindu Dharma, as shown in the post cited below.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3701061-post45.html

This thread is about the shruti (which is considered infallible in Hindu Dharma) "Consciousness is Brahman"

Now, On one hand you say that "All is Brahman" and on the other "We can never have the consciousness of Brahman". You are not even ready to acknowledge the contradictions in your own statements, as highlighted in blue and red fonts above.

I have full right to point out that your view is not of Hindu Dharma, which considers sruti as infallible. I have full right to state that you are repeatedly violating the Dir rule, by repeatedly parading a plain Lokayata (ancient India atheism) as advaita. Your brand of so-called advaita is simple western western materialism that sees nothing beyond the body-brain as the source and end of consciousness. Neither Hinduism nor Buddha agrees to that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just mention your views. Do not comment on my views. That is against the rule. It is a blue Directory.

 

[Poeticus]

Just mention your views. Do not comment on my views. That is against the rule. It is a blue Directory.

That's not how the BlueDIRs work,
Aup. The BlueDIRs are for members
that fully identify with that DIR.​

 

[atanu]

Just mention your views. Do not comment on my views. That is against the rule. It is a blue Directory.

It is Hindu dharma Dir. It is not my or or your view.

Your views are not in conformity to the basic Hindu dharma tenets and they do not belong here as view of Hindu dharma. Many non hindu seekers who have little knowledge of Hindu dharma will be mislead by your posts.

Now, with folded hands, I request you to kindly not destroy the intended enquiry of the two key sruti statements, of the OP. I have already pointed out that that 'Brahman is consciousness' is given in this enquiry, since the statement is sruti.

My question was:

Why when brahman is stated to be consciousness, the Self is stated as 'Neither consciousness' and 'nor non-consciousness'. I suggested that the view of brahman in the Aitereya sruti is from the perspective of All. Self on the other hand, is advaita atman.

.........

Kindly do not first try to invalidate sruti and then discuss, if you have to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aupmanyav: Atheistic
Empirical science (measurement of objects) is the way to gain knowledge of reality.
The self of the individual is an emergent property of a brain, is a limited human consciousness and cannot (as current empirical science stands) know Brahman, and Brahman is an objective reality 'out there' in the same category as things like gravity, atoms, string field, etc.

Makaranda, I will not comment of theistic advaita. I have rejected it for myself many years ago (if a Hindu theist is facing problems in a discussion, I still come to his/her help in forums that I frequent. And I think I am not a weak debater). I am not against their having theistic beliefs . I will comment only on your reading of my views. Yes, I believe all knowledge will come from scientific experiments and not from arm-chair philosophizing. It is not that we should not be thankful to the scriptures. They put us on the journey and I believe they still teach us something.

Who says that we cannot know Brahman? The enlightened know Brahman sufficiently if not fully, and in times to come we would know more. In spite of human brain being limited, temporary, and illusory, it is a wonderful machine and all that we have got. Do not deride human brain, it has been very successful till now. We have gone beyond the discovery of Higgs Boson ("Beyond the Higgs Boson" --Searching for the Existence of Unseen Particles) and have recorded radiation from the period between 'cosmic inflation' and the Big-Bang about which we did not know anything previously (Stanford Physicists Make Major Cosmic Discovery, Expanding Big Bang Theory « CBS San Francisco). These are exciting times. Hindus should not disregard the advance in science and hark back like the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree with Makaranda's post here. This atheistic Advaitan is in essence no different at all from western atheistic-materialism. In an English speaking forum of people of all backgrounds they assume you believe in something different. Even the Bahgavad Gita makes no sense from your perspective.

Is there any need to try to be different? A scientist is looking for truth, an advaitist also is looking for truth. Why make a scientist into a western atheistic-materlialist? There are eastern scientists also, and like Einstein, Bohr and Planck, they are not all materialists. There are scientists with great interest in spirituality. BhagavadGita is one of the most important books for me. It is not a book of science but it is a book about the science of life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The implication here is that there is a thing called human consciousness, which is (an emergent, transient property of the human brain?) subjective, limited and different (read: irreconcilable) from another thing called Brahman consciousness, which, if I speak rightly, you identify as an objective and eternal physical reality, which is either the sum total of all physical objects and energy, or an energetic substance underlying all of the other objects and energy (I'm not sure which you subscribe to).

Yes, I take Brahman consciousness as the consciousness of a photon in a double-slit experiment and different from human consciousness. The objective and eternal physical reality is the photon or an energy wave, consciousness is only its property. A friend asked in another forum 'Is a photon a particle or a wave?' He himself offered a reply saying that 'a photon is neither a particle nor a wave. It is a photon.' I believe Brahman is something like that.

 

[atanu]

....the Big-Bang about which we did not know anything previously (Stanford Physicists Make Major Cosmic Discovery, Expanding Big Bang Theory « CBS San Francisco). These are exciting times. Hindus should not disregard the advance in science and hark back like the Abrahamic religions.

Most Hindus do not disregard the advances of science. You are bent upon mis-leading the public.

Hindu scriptures and most Hindus however hold that the sat-chit-ananda is not in the perceived object but is the very Self of the perceiver and is the very nature of Brahman. Sat-chit-ananda is not a born object of evolution.

You simply step aside this teaching and yet claim yourself to be a Hindu. I protest. I object to that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj were not atheists, materialists, or reductionists.

Sankara did not accept Ishwara at the level of 'Parmarthika Satya'. What is Sankara's 'Parmarthika Satya' if not absolute reductionism? 'Brahma Satyam jagan-mithya'. And Sankara and Buddha are my gurus. At the 'Vyavaharika' level, you can have as many Gods and Goddesses as you want. I do not label myself as materialist, or I would not have been posting in this forum and others like it. You are welcome to term me as any. That does not affect me. If you can label Ramana and Nissargadatta Maharaj as theists, then I differ from them too. Do not read 'the absolute' as a God. That is what theists like to do. It could be my type of Brahman, the substrate, without being a God or Supreme Soul. This is a quick reply, more follows.

 

[atanu]

Sankara did not accept Ishwara at the level of 'Parmarthika Satya'. What is Sankara's 'Parmarthika Satya' if not absolute reductionism? 'Brahma Satyam jagan-mithya'. And Sankara and Buddha are my gurus. At the 'Vyavaharika' level, you can have as many Gods and Goddesses as you want. I do not label myself as materialist, or I would not have been posting in this forum and others like it. You are welcome to term me as any. That does not affect me. If you can label Ramana and Nissargadatta Maharaj as theists, then I differ from them too. Do not read 'the absolute' as a God. That is what theists like to do. It could be my type of Brahman, the substrate, without being a God or Supreme Soul. This is a quick reply, more follows.

Do it in a debate forum.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's not how the BlueDIRs work, Aup. The BlueDIRs are for members that fully identify with that DIR.

I fully identify with the directory and Hinduism, or it is that I have to seek approval of members whose views may differ from mine? Does that mean that if my views differ from yours, I cease to be a Hindu? Are you going to issue a Fatwa like in Islam? And declare me a 'tankhia'?

Do it in a debate forum.

Then why you people are attacking my views?

 

[Poeticus]

Just mention your views. Do not comment on my views. That is against the rule. It is a blue Directory.

I fully identify with the directory and Hinduism, or it is that I have to seek approval of members whose views may differ from mine? Does that mean that if my views differ from yours, I cease to be a Hindu? Are you going to issue a Fatwa like in Islam? And declare me a 'tankhia'?

Aup, please re-read your initial post.
You state that someone commenting
on your views is against the rules
since we are in the BlueDIR. I simply
reiterated that, that is not how the
BlueDIRs work. Any member of a
BlueDIR can comment on someone
else's views. The only thing that is not
allowed is debate, for which separate
DIRs exist.

Furthermore, the VedantaDIR is not
even a BlueDIR. It's a GreenDIR.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

They're just two separate fields of enquiry, with little overlap. Science is the investigation and measurement of the objective world. It deals with objects. Things. Vedanta is more concerned about an investigation into the nature of the self, the subject. If you want to know about the world, do science. If you want to know about the self, look to Vedanta. Can one do both?

That is your view Makaranda. I do not think these are two different subjects. How can you separate the question 'What exists?' from science and make it purely spiritual, removed from reality? What is the study of Psychology? It tries to understand self. Can you separate Chemistry from Biology or Biology from Physics. We separate them just for our convenience. The nature of self also cannot be understood without the knowledge of Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

 

[atanu]

Aup

I fail to understand why you cannot take your views onto some debate forum?

You believe "All is Brahman". But do you believe the following?

Brahman is sat-chit-ananda (Existence-Intelligence-Bliss), distinct from the phenomenon. Without things, the Brahman consciousness is not annihilated. Brahman lives on without resort to form-name.

Living beings are conditioned sat-chit-ananda souls and not bodies-minds.

The consciousness is derived from the Purusha-Soul and not from Prakriti-Mind/Body.

The conditioned souls migrate from body to body as per vasana-s and the karma, till perfection of karma/bhakti/jnana.


If you do not hold to the above views then you do not hold the Hindu dharma view. Merely born in India or in Hindu family may not be sufficient to call yourself a Hindu, as Buddha is not so called. As Mahavira is not so called. As Guru Nanak is not so called.

Agreed, that at the paramarthika level, there is no deity and none of the above remains true. Yet, at paramarthika level there is no atheist too. So, on this account, you have actually befooled yourself. And it reveals your lack of forethought only.

The above does not have any negative connotation. You may be at the pinnacle of realisation, yet your views are not of those of Hindu Dharma.

 

[Elector]

Kindly give me one reason why should I drop Vedanta or Advaita when I believe in one eternal constituting all things in the universe?

Hello Aupmanyav-ji,

I do not wish to burden you with anymore criticism, however I would like to comment on this idea...
"One eternal entity" is monism and not non-dualism. There is a reason why Shri Shankaracharya's Vedanta is called A-dvaita vAda (the doctrine of non-dualism) and not Ekatva vAda (the doctrine of Oneness).
Monism is more akin to the ancient Greek philosophies which saw the universe as constituted from one entity (like "water", "fire", "air", etc.). Materialism (the doctrine that only physical matter exists), and Idealism (the doctrine that only mental reality [note mind =/= Consciousness] exists) are other forms of Monism. All these forms of monism are - from the standpoint of Advaita Vedanta - dualistic, in that they admit a duality between their substance (matter/mind/water/etc.) and "Existence" implicit in the statement "Matter/Mind/Water exists". Advaita Vedanta is not monism. Brahman is defined as Sat and Chit, Existence and Consciousness, and hence does not admit any dualism from which Monism suffers. We can't say that someone who believes that "physical energy" constitutes all things is an Advaitin anymore than we can say that the Greek philosopher who says all things are made of "water" is an Advaitin.

 

[ametist]

Aup, why dont you want to change title? Do you feel in some way you are devoted to that title? If so do you want to reflect on once again all those told by others of the same title to search if they are really inside of you or not?

 

[George-ananda]

BhagavadGita is one of the most important books for me. It is not a book of science but it is a book about the science of life.

What do you take to be the reality of Krishna in the song? Was He just a smart man?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aup, I fail to understand why you cannot take your views onto some debate forum?

There is no need to do that. As Poeticus pointed out in his post above, Vedanta is a green DIR. If I asked you to stop discussions in this DIR, I was wrong.

But do you believe the following?
Brahman is sat-chit-ananda (Existence-Intelligence-Bliss), distinct from the phenomenon. Without things, the Brahman consciousness is not annihilated. Brahman lives on without resort to form-name.
Living beings are conditioned sat-chit-ananda souls and not bodies-minds.

That is an extension on Brahman. Works for some people but not for me. Sure, Brahman is Sat-Chit, but I believe there is no Ananda or Duhkha at the Brahman level. That is for humans and other living beings. If Brahman is eternal, so is its consciousness. Even without nama-rupa, Brahman exists. I think that was the situation before Nucleosynthesis at the time of beginning of the universe.

"Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons. The first nuclei were formed about three minutes after the Big Bang, through the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis." Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But we must not mistake the consciousness of Brahman for human consciousness. The two things are very different. As I have mentioned elsewhere, consciousness of Brahman is like the consciousness of a photon in a double-slit experiment.
There is nothing such as a 'soul'. You forget that I am an atheist Hindu.

The consciousness is derived from the Purusha-Soul and not from Prakriti-Mind/Body.

You must also remember that I am an advaitist. Therefore, I do not believe in there being two things (Purusha and Prakriti). That is 'Samkhya'.

The conditioned souls migrate from body to body as per vasana-s and the karma, till perfection of karma/bhakti/jnana.

I have already mentioned that I do not believe in existence of any such thing as soul and therefore, I do not believe in re-birth. Of course, I believe in enlightenment which is complete understanding of things and which is achieved by 'jnana'.

If you do not hold to the above views then you do not hold the Hindu dharma view. Merely born in India or in Hindu family may not be sufficient to call yourself a Hindu, as Buddha is not so called. As Mahavira is not so called. As Guru Nanak is not so called.

Now, Atanu, nobody has given you the authority to decide the Hinduness of any person. Of course, it does not restrict you from having certain views about different people. For you, I may be a non-Hindu, but as far as my belief goes, I am an atheist, advaitist Hindu. It is clearly mentioned in my profile.

Agreed, that at the paramarthika level, there is no deity and none of the above remains true. Yet, at paramarthika level there is no atheist too. So, on this account, you have actually befooled yourself. And it reveals your lack of forethought only.

I agree that at the highest 'Parmarthika' level, there are no atheists since there are no humans, animals, vegetation, or non-living objects. There, the only thing which exists is Brahman and none other than Brahman. This was very well known to our sages. That is why they said 'Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second).

The above does not have any negative connotation. You may be at the pinnacle of realisation, yet your views are not of those of Hindu Dharma.

Yes, I agree, at the 'Parmarthika', there is no Hinduism also. After all, views, philosophies, religions, belong to humans. At that level, what exists, is only Brahman.

Good, that finally, at least at one place, we agree.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All these forms of monism are - from the standpoint of Advaita Vedanta - dualistic, in that they admit a duality between their substance (matter/mind/water/etc.) and "Existence" implicit in the statement "Matter/Mind/Water exists". .. We can't say that someone who believes that "physical energy" constitutes all things is an Advaitin anymore than we can say that the Greek philosopher who says all things are made of "water" is an Advaitin.

But Elector, advaita does not accept the existence of anything other than the basic substrate, i.e., Brahman. What we perceive are only illusions, appearances, like the rope and the snake. That is what Sankara said "Brahma Satyam, jagan-mithya". And in my view that basic substrate is 'physical energy'. Brahman is only its traditional Hindu name. Search in all the universe, is there anything other than Brahman. If you want to give it a modern scientific name, it is 'physical energy'. These are not two different things. This is what really exists and gives rise to mass, space, and time. If you still have problems about it, let us discuss it further.