An atheist question about Hinduism

[Jeremy Taylor]

Jeremy, what is your understanding of Brahman and the concept of Moksha per Advaita?

Well, I think that for you to answer that with a question turning it back to me is a little silly, but:

Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.

Moksha is to truly understand, in the entirety of our being, this truth.

But, to use Western terms, Brahman is undoubtedly not a metaphor simply for material or physical reality, even in its entirety. He is pure consciousness, or perhaps transcends conscious, but he is beneath consciousness. He the ultimate, spiritual reality.

What do Brahman and Moksha to you?

 

[atanu]

Per Advaita, any definition of Brahman (Vishnu, Ananda, electricity, etc.,) is only applicable in a relative sense and is ultimately incorrect. More on this, below.



Once you attribute a Swarupa Lakshana to Brahman, then it is no longer Nirguna Brahman. To quote the relevant commentary of Shankara on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6 (translated by Madhavananda. The paraphrasing is my own) -

...How through these two terms 'neti, neti' (not this, not this) is it sought to describe the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words refer to something that has no distinguishing marks such as name or form or action or heterogeneity or species or gunas (qualities). Words denote things through one or other of these. But Brahman has none of these distinguishing marks. Hence, it cannot be described as 'It is such and such' as we can describe a cow by saying 'There moves a white cow with horns'. Brahman is described by means of name, form and action superimposed on it in such terms as Vijnanam Ananda Brahma [knowedge, bliss, Brahman], Pure Intelligence, Brahman and Atman. When, however, we wish to describe its true nature free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, then it is an utter impossibility. Then there is only one way left and that is to describe it as 'Not this, not this' by eliminating all possible specifications of it that have been known....

Kena Upanishad 1.3 says the eyes does not go there, nor speech nor the mind. Therefore, no word can describe it (including Ananda) and no thought can touch it.

So, what then about the apparent contradictions? In his text, Aparokshanubhuti, Shankara argues that Shruti texts talking about Prarabdha, etc., are meant only for ignorant people and one should accept only those Shruthis from which proceeds true knowledge (check verses 90 - 99). He makes a similar argument in his BSB, where he says non-dual Shruti takes precedence over dual Shruthi.

I have not read your post. I told you that I will discuss, if I discuss anything with you, under "Same faith debate". It is not advisable to discuss anything here.

I have said what I had to say on this subject in post 200.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

They mean the same as what they mean to a theist. Knowledge of science does not mean abandonment of one's 'dharma'. Knowledge of science supports the view of non-duality. If one believes in non-duality then it transforms all views of the person. Transcendence is from ignorance. The feeling of awe and beauty is not an occasional feeling, it is constant and persisting. Brahman is not a metaphor for me, it is the one single truth that exists.

Well, the science stuff is mumbo-jumbo. Science has little do say directly about these spiritual truths, and to try and insert naturalistic contemporary understandings of science into such philosophical discussions is silly. But that is perhaps a different topic.

Anyway, none of what you say here seems to change the fact you are referring to non-dual in the sense we are all a part of a material world. Any reference to Brahman or anything spiritual in this framework is purely metaphorical. This is not only clearly contrary to Advaita, but it is contrary to Hinduism and any meaningful spirituality.

 

[atanu]

This is Dir. I do not know why Luis created this thread here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Tell me, Atanu, have you never used the words 'I' and 'my'? We use these words to convey our ideas to other people. The Wikipage is meant to provide information about a member to other members. If Brahman is anything like physical energy, then there is no Atanu or Aupmanyav, no other people, no this world, but just it. Yes, it is Aupmanyav's Brahman, Aupmanyav's view of Brahman, just as there is an Atanu's view of Brahman, or Sivasomashekhara's view of Brahman.

 

[Chakra]

Kindly suggest me a name which suits a non-dualist other than an 'advaitist'.

Once I get a better understanding of Sanskrit (or find a good Sanskrit translator), I will gladly give you a name that fits your beliefs. For now, you could stick to Monistic Materialist or something like that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman. Moksha is to truly understand, in the entirety of our being, this truth.

He is pure consciousness, or perhaps transcends conscious, but he is beneath consciousness. He the ultimate, spiritual reality.

Oh, so it is a he and not a she or it? Spiritual and material. However, I completely agree to first two of your sentences.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Oh, so it is a he and not a she or it? Spiritual and material. However, I completely agree to first two of your sentences.

The use of He is simply a literary expression, just as it is in traditional monotheism (the Christian God is not actually male). In many ways its use does make sense though. Brahman transcends personality, but he is not impersonal in the sense of being beneath impersonal, as a gravity or some such force may be called personality. So, the use of It, which tends, in English, to be used for the impersonal, may not be the most appropriate usage. He or She is clumsy. And I'm a traditionalist, so, call me reactionary if you like, I see no use to bow to political correctness and use She.

I am not suggesting Brahman is not material as well as spiritual. I am not repudiating the material. I am repudiating materialism, physicalism, and naturalism, which is something completely different. It is only the identification of Brahman with material reality - and, indeed, an impoverished reading of it - and nothing more, that I am objecting to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For now, you could stick to Monistic Materialist or something like that.

Thanks for the effort, Axlyz, but for the reasons mentioned, it does not really suit me or defines my views.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What we perceive as material reality (Vyavaharika) is only because of Brahman. However, I too repudiate crass materialism.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Well, I think that for you to answer that with a question turning it back to me is a little silly,

Agreed. But I have no answer without knowing your affiliation.

What do Brahman and Moksha to you?

This is my view. I believe it addresses your earlier question as well.

• Everything I experience/know is due to thought. I myself am a thought. Without thought, I do not exist, but then, there is no such thing as non-existence (as I am not there to observe it). The concept of time too is a product of thought.

• Logically, I make the following inferences (through thought). When I think about something, it comes into existence and when I stop thinking about it, it goes out of existence. However, there is this illusion of continuity through memory. Similarly, the concepts of past, present and future are created by thought. I can never preside over my own death and therefore, there is technically no point where I die or a point where I am dead (no observer).

• I infer (through thought again) that this mechanism is powered by something that is untouched by thought. It cannot be touched by thought and therefore I will never know what it is. This is practically the same as the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita Vedanta (the Brahman that can *only* be described in the negative).

• The Advaitic post-moksha state does not make sense as there is no one who can be in this liberated state; not if we want to strictly and uncompromisingly adhere to the definitions of advaita and ekatva (no time, no duality, whatsoever). The closest thing to Moksha then, is the above understanding that everything is thought and there never can be anything outside the realm of thought.

Most of these ideas can be found in the writings of -

Nagarjuna (madhyamika)
Gaudapada (ajativada)
Mandana Mishra/Vachaspathi Mishra/Prakshananda (drishti-shristi-vada)

However, they have to be inferred, first-hand, without the aid of authorities.

When you speak of a path, where are you now? And where do you want to go? If these are known, then we can talk of the path. Know first where you are and what you are. There is nothing to be reached. You are always as you really are. But you don’t realize it. That is all - Ramana

In a sense, speaking of Self-realization is a delusion...the Self always is the Self and there is no such thing as realizing it. Who is to realize what, and how, when all that exists is the Self and nothing but the Self? - Ramana