That is what Vedanta philosophy is, an exegesis of the Upanishads. Every Vedanta philosopher has interpreted the Upanishads and come up with a certain view. Now, whether Shankara already had a pre-existing interpretation which he looked to justify by finding it in the Upanishads, or whether he...
^^ Yanjnavalkya is considered an Advaita Rishi, as the Advaita interpretation is more visible in his teaching. However, I am not sure how Yajnavalkya supports your position(which by the way you still have not clarified) which is either Brahman is beyond consciousness or not conscious.
It makes...
I think you may find my thread "The nature of Brahman in the Upanishads" helpful. Non-duality or Advaita refers to 'Brahman' in the Upanishads. The Upanishads constantly make statements like "Everything is Brahman" "You are Brahman" "Self is Brahman" which lends to a non-dualistic...
I think it is worth saying, as Aupmanyav was the first to strike, that 'Hindus' like Aupmanyav, often jump on other Hindus, in this case a non-Hindu asking Hindus about common Hindu concepts that Hindus believe, and I find it disruptive. In other threads Sayak has jumped on me for "peddling...
I can add a bit more now, because of lack of time last night, I omitted these points: Matter and consciousness dualism, known famously(basically to anybody who knows Indian philosophy) as Samkhya philosophy is the main philosophy that underpins Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. All of...
My position: Although I would think that anybody who understands the English language, reading my posts will make it absolutely clear that my position is Brahman is God. I have, as a rational actor in a debate like this, backed up my interpretation directly from the Upanishads. I have shown the...
What is this man's problem? The Upanishad, and the Bhagvad Gita do indeed argue for dualism between consciousness and matter, it is a very well known philosophy called Samkhya. Some of the Upanishads such as Shvetavatara Upanishad and Maitriyani Upanishad are called Samkhya upanishads.
It was...
Nope, saying that a contradiction is not logically possible, is not the same thing as saying that you believe in duality. A lot of people know that I am in fact an Advaitist, a non-dualist. That does not mean non-dualists are illogical.
This is going nowhere, it is clear you are not rational.
You don't get it do you? You just admitted your position is absurd. You are saying Brahman is both sentient and insentient. It is like you saying you both alive and dead.
I knew you were not rational for a long time, but I never thought you would admit to it.
Brahman cannot simultaneously be sentient and insentient.
No, you have not defended it with the Upanishads, you have cited an Upanishad that says Brahman is sentient.
You are clearly not rational. A rational debate can only happen between rational actors. Good day.
It seems like English might not be your first language
I am not sure how it cannot be clear that I arguing FOR the side that Brahman is a sentient entity, the Hindu concept of God, a conscious, thinking, feeling entity. I have repeated in several posts.
On the other hand, your position is not...
^^ I think it is clear from the above Sayak has no position to debate, and is neither willing to engage the arguments of his opponents. Instead he just wants to waste our time with endless fallacies, avoiding arguments, strawman, adhominems, bait and switch and emotional appeals. He has clearly...