Atheistic Advaitis the worst oxymoron's and their fallacies

[Pleroma]

Atheistic Advaitis are fooling around with themselves without realizing the fact that the concept of Ishavara in Advaita is essentially a theistic one. These people are the worst oxymoron’s and should not be taken seriously. They also have a strawman of Advaita and probably have arrived at the conclusion without studying the shashtras clearly and by cherry picking individual verses. If Shankara was alive he would have slapped such people.

 

[Madhuri]

Atheistic Advaitis are fooling around with themselves without realizing the fact that the concept of Ishavara in Advaita is essentially a theistic one. These people are the worst oxymoron’s and should not be taken seriously. They also have a strawman of Advaita and probably have arrived at the conclusion without studying the shashtras clearly and by cherry picking individual verses. If Shankara was alive he would have slapped such people.

I don't know enough about Advaita to either agree or disagree with you. But I think in order to make the OP a valid statement, you need to provide a compelling argument. What is the strawman? What arguments have you seen made by Advaitins that are clearly illogical?

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheistic Advaitis are fooling around with themselves without realizing the fact that the concept of Ishavara in Advaita is essentially a theistic one.

Isn't the decision about whether such a concept is theistic or not a very personal one?

Who can tell with any true authority whether it is?

What difference does it make for anyone else if they judge wrong one way or the other?

These people are the worst oxymoron’s and should not be taken seriously.

Because?

They also have a strawman of Advaita and probably have arrived at the conclusion without studying the shashtras clearly and by cherry picking individual verses. If Shankara was alive he would have slapped such people.

So you consider that mistake (if it is one) more serious and misguided than most others that one might find among people that consider themselves Advaitis?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Gee, I wonder who the OP is possibly referring to?

I really love how you try to speak for Hinduism and Hindus about what is "right" and "wrong".

 

[Maya3]

Pleroma makes posts like these every week or so to start a debate.
I'm not taking the bait.

Maya

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Atheistic Advaitis are fooling around with themselves without realizing the fact that the concept of Ishavara in Advaita is essentially a theistic one. These people are the worst oxymoron’s and should not be taken seriously. They also have a strawman of Advaita and probably have arrived at the conclusion without studying the shashtras clearly and by cherry picking individual verses. If Shankara was alive he would have slapped such people.

Are you talking about a westernised version of Advaita where Brahma is seen not as God but as the experience of non-duality? Something like that?

 

[Poeticus]

I was always under the impression that Advaita can be either atheistic or theistic, depending on which lens one puts on. In terms of it believing in "God", in the Abrahamic sense, it comes across, at least to me, as atheistic. An impersonal absolute reality can hardly be seen as "God". It is much more intricate and transcending, this impersonal absolute reality---a more sophisticated expression of absoluteness, not held under omnimax assumptions that are privy to logical fallacies. Then, there is the equating of various deities with Brahman, which I see as theistic. We see this with Vaishnava, Shaiva, and Shakta schools of thought, among various other schools as well. Either way, the popularity of Advaita, at the end of the day, is contextually time-related. I wonder how things would have been if Samkhya, or, say, Mimamsa, were the more popular schools of thought---at least either in the West among Hindus, or online (since Advaita is largely popular either online or in the West; it's popularity in Bharat, to say the least, whimpers far behind the folkish variations of Smartism).

 

[Vinayaka]

After much discussion with our resident 'atheist', I accept it as part of Hinduism. As Poeticus alluded to, it more or less depends on whether or not you view Brahman as God or not. If you don't, you can claim to be atheist. If you do, then you can say you're a theist. In the end, I don't see the definitions as mattering much. It won't affect how you live your dharma, one way or another.

But ... as with AIT, many people (myself included) have taken on our resident atheist on his 'atheism', and argued until they are blue in the face. There is no winning an endless argument like that. My advice would be not to waste your time, and focus on something more fruitful than this. Let it be.

 

[ShivaFan]

I've known Advaitists who have elements of either/or. That is why those who really object to the absolute impersonalist wing use terns such as "Mayavadis" and when preaching to the West use the term "impersonalisrs" to distingush from Advaita as a whole. While using such terms, which personally I think clarifies their argument, they are often subject to severe attacks for using such terms, I often find such advocates of the Ishvara point of view also always present scripture quotes, historical examples and the lives of Saints and miracles to back their argument.

I don"t think there is a need to place Advaita as front and center as some huge debate, I think if you want to promote Personality of God better to use the method of the example I gave and only from Sampradayas of authority and lineage.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you talking about a westernised version of Advaita where Brahma is seen not as God but as the experience of non-duality? Something like that?

Why do you want to term it as a westernized version? I have not read any of the Western philosophies, I do not know Harris or Dawkins. All my conclusions are based on science and what Hindu scriptures say. And I am a proud Hindu 'advaitist' atheist. 'Advaita', the word itself means 'non-duality', and Krishna advises us to abandon all dualities. That is exactly what I have done.

"Jneyah sa nitya-sannyasi, yo na dveshti na kankshati;
nirdvandvo hi maha-baho, sukham bandhat pramucyate." BG 5.3

One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, free from all dualities, O mighty-armed Arjuna, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated.

Pleroma is welcome to all debates, in which I would joyfully participate, but don't they better suit 'Same Faith debate' section?

 

[punkdbass]

Why do you want to term it as a westernized version? I have not read any of the Western philosophies, I do not know Harris or Dawkins. All my conclusions are based on science and what Hindu scriptures say. And I am a proud Hindu 'advaitist' atheist. 'Advaita', the word itself means 'non-duality', and Krishna advises us to abandon all dualities. That is exactly what I have done.

"Jneyah sa nitya-sannyasi, yo na dveshti na kankshati;
nirdvandvo hi maha-baho, sukham bandhat pramucyate." BG 5.3

One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, free from all dualities, O mighty-armed Arjuna, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated.

Pleroma is welcome to all debates, in which I would joyfully participate, but don't they better suit 'Same Faith debate' section?

Hey Aup, I have a question for you that I've been thinking about lately, given your unique beliefs.

Do you think life/existence is ultimately purely biological/material, or do you think there is some sort of mysterious "spirit" that drives the creative processes of life? My current understanding of Hinduism is that most Hindu's believe some form of the later, and that the "deities" they worship are symbolic of this very real spirit that pervades all of existence (I'm not in any way saying you are wrong for not sharing this belief). Anyhow, I'm curious to hear your thoughts here,

Thanks

 

[Pleroma]

I don't know enough about Advaita to either agree or disagree with you. But I think in order to make the OP a valid statement, you need to provide a compelling argument. What is the strawman? What arguments have you seen made by Advaitins that are clearly illogical?

The very word Advaitic atheist is a strawman and a oxymoron.

Ishvara is a person, an anthropomorphic God. Of course this should not be confused with the creator sky god of the Abrahamic faiths instead this doctrine is known an Emanationism.

Emanationism in the Hindu religions

"...(Brahman, the Godhead, said) `May I be many and born as many', and thus He made Himself into the world as it exists within Himself. So it has been (also) said `By His mere wish He throws out and withdraws the universe in its enturety.' Also it is elsewhere said - `The Great Lord having drawn on Himself the picture of the world by the brush of His own Will is pleased when looking thereon.' S'ruti also says `As the spider throws out and takes back its thread, so Ishvara (God) projects and withdraws the universe.' Thus the one great Lord becomes the material cause from which the world is made, as says the Text, `May I be many.'..."

Foolish atheistic advaitis do not recognize that Ishvara is literally real so much so that you can have a dialogue with him.

 

[Pleroma]

Are you talking about a westernised version of Advaita where Brahma is seen not as God but as the experience of non-duality? Something like that?

Yes, these foolish neo-advaitis who do not know anything about the Vedas and the Upanishads are making their own version of Advaita and are promoting it as if this is what Shankara has taught. Whether its western or eastern is irrelevant one has to recognize that such people are Brahma Rakshas. Ishvara is purushottama and he is a God in an emanationist sense. He literally exists, he is neither symbolic nor unreal.

 

[Pleroma]

Isn't the decision about whether such a concept is theistic or not a very personal one?

No, it cannot be decided on a personal level. This is why we have tradition and scriptures. If you are making your own version of Advaita or Tibetan Buddhism which is entirely atheistic or anti-theistic then you can pretty much stay away from Advaitism otherwise you are welcoming scorn and ridicule.

Yidam practise slams your atheistic views to the bottomless ocean. Both Padmasambhava and Shankara would have slapped you for holding such a view.

Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche explains the importance of the yidam:

When we consider all the great masters of the Indian and Tibetan traditions, we find that in every case, their accomplishment came about through their practice of a yidam. They chose a deity and guarded that practice like their very life force, and on the basis of that complete commitment to the path of deity yoga, they practised the stage of generation, the stage of completion, and integrated these arriving at their final realisation of complete accomplishment and enlightenment.
But nowadays there are people who say, “Oh, what a lot of bother! Deities and mantra, I hate all that. I’m just going to meditate.” And they sit there, and close their eyes, and that’s what they call practice. They say, “I just want to do effortless meditation.” But as Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said, “Although there are people like that, I’ve not seen them gaining any sign of attainment.”

In one of the texts of Ratna Lingpa’s cycle of Vajrakilaya practice, there is a passage which recounts how on one occasion Yeshe Tsogyal asked Guru Rinpoche about the nature of kyérim practice. “Do we really need a yidam deity?”, she questioned. Guru Rinpoche replied, “If there is no yidam, where is the source of siddhis? Without siddhi, how could there be enlightenment?”
In fact, if we look at the great masters of the Indian and Tibetan traditions of Vajrayana practice, we find there is no-one who did not meditate upon a yidam deity.

In the Nyingmapa school, all the great vidyadharas have had a main yidam deity which they practised. If their practice was of a peaceful deity, it was almost always Vajrasattva. If it was a wrathful deity, it was almost always Vajrakilaya. Guru Rinpoche and Vimalamitra themselves attested to the fact that Vajrakilaya was their yidam deity.

Nowadays however, the Nyingmapas are perhaps the worst when it comes to practising a yidam on a daily basis. When Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö was giving the Rinchen Terdzö empowerment, he scolded us as Nyingmapa practitioners and said, “You Nyingmapas don’t do any kind of regular daily practice. You don’t even say the Sampa Lhundrupma prayer; you just lie around all day! We Sakyapas must do the path empowerment practice of Hevajra every day , which takes about two or three hours. You don’t do anything. You just lie around. You don’t do any kind of regular practice.”

He said to us, “If you want yidam deities, you Nyingmapas have more than anybody.” He showed us all the texts of the Rinchen Terdzö, which consists of dozens and dozens of volumes, and said, “This is filled with sadhanas of the three roots—lama, yidam and dakini—but none of you practises any of them.”
What he said was true. Perhaps the reason is that so many of us in the Nyingma tradition place great emphasis on the Dzogchen tradition and its effortlessness. Often we make the mistake of just paying lip service to effortlessness, while really just being kind of lazy.

Look at someone like Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. No-one would question that his realisation was higher than anyone’s, and yet day and night he would recite prayers and mantras and do his practice. And he was inseparable from Vimalamitra! Look at the kind of effort that he put into his practice. Then there are others who just don’t do very much of that at all. They just sit there with their mouths open.

On one occasion, I asked Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, “Is it necessary for someone with realization to recite prayers and mantras?” And he replied, “Someone who has that kind of realisation is like space. What harm could recitation possibly do to space?” And he continued, “To recite even a single mani mantra, or to recite the Vajra Guru mantra a few times, is only going to help. It’s not going to hurt, is it?”

Atheistic Advaitis are such an annoying people who are so ignorant about Advaita but still arrogantly maintain that this is what the sruti is saying no one laughs at such people more than me.

Yidam deity practise.

Who can tell with any true authority whether it is?

That's why we have deity yoga to mock at anti-theists like you.

What difference does it make for anyone else if they judge wrong one way or the other?

We do not take misrepresentations of our traditions very lightly, we will tolerate anything but not misrepresentations. People like you are misguiding the whole world.

Because?

You can stick with Theravada or Zen Buddhism but don't mess around with Advaita. Advaita doesn't support your fanciful imaginations of atheism and anti-theism. It slams you straight on your blue face.

 

[Pleroma]

All my conclusions are based on science and what Hindu scriptures say.

What is science dude? Science is nothing but western philosophy so you are interpreting Advaita from a western perspective and not from its own milieu. Your conclusions are absurd and baseless.

And I am a proud Hindu 'advaitist' atheist. 'Advaita', the word itself means 'non-duality', and Krishna advises us to abandon all dualities. That is exactly what I have done.

No, you actually should be ashamed and regretful of your position because you are having a strawman of Advaita. Yes Krishna says us to abandon all dualities but he also says God is personal why don't you accept it O! cherry picker. No, you will not accept it because you are embarrassed to believe in the existence of a personal God which contradicts with your foolish scientific mindset. Advaita do not give a damn about science. According to Advaita the world of science is all an illusion and only a state of mind. Stop mixing Advaita with science. Advaita doesn't agree with your position what you have got is a strawman.

 

[Pleroma]

I was always under the impression that Advaita can be either atheistic or theistic, depending on which lens one puts on. In terms of it believing in "God", in the Abrahamic sense, it comes across, at least to me, as atheistic.

Advaita is purely theistic from an emanationism sense. This is the correct traditional view. Atheistic advaita is delusional and its all fool's errand.

 

[Jainarayan]

* * * MOD POST * * *

When posting in a DIR please keep rules 3 and 10 in mind and post accordingly. Rule 3: do not make comments that can be construed as trolling or inflammatory; Rule 10: there is no debating permitted in a DIR. ​

 

[Chakra]

Why do you want to term it as a westernized version? I have not read any of the Western philosophies, I do not know Harris or Dawkins. All my conclusions are based on science and what Hindu scriptures say. And I am a proud Hindu 'advaitist' atheist. 'Advaita', the word itself means 'non-duality', and Krishna advises us to abandon all dualities. That is exactly what I have done.

"Jneyah sa nitya-sannyasi, yo na dveshti na kankshati;
nirdvandvo hi maha-baho, sukham bandhat pramucyate." BG 5.3

One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, free from all dualities, O mighty-armed Arjuna, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated.

Pleroma is welcome to all debates, in which I would joyfully participate, but don't they better suit 'Same Faith debate' section?

I just want to say something here. Duality here does not mean separation of Jiva and Brahman, but rather, the dualities we face in life (win/loss, happiness/sorrow, etc).

 

[Chakra]

Atheistic Advaitis are fooling around with themselves without realizing the fact that the concept of Ishavara in Advaita is essentially a theistic one. These people are the worst oxymoron’s and should not be taken seriously. They also have a strawman of Advaita and probably have arrived at the conclusion without studying the shashtras clearly and by cherry picking individual verses. If Shankara was alive he would have slapped such people.

I agree that Ishvara is a theistic concept. It's sad to see that Advaitins today have believed that Devas like Brahman, Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva etc do not exist. Adi Shankara certainly believed that they exist in the sense that I exist and you exist.

Like I've said before, Adi Shankara's Advaita has been "hacked" by many people to support their own notions of truth and in order to have some support from the Vedas for it.

 

[ShivaFan]

Advaita is like an auction where everything is sold, as "Everything". When it becomes Atheist Advaita, however, there is simply an announcement that nothing worth a bid exists. Dvaita is an auction where only the most luxury items are sold.

Only the highest bidder "wins". But all the bids must be made using only one currency otherwise "10" can have multiple values depending on the rate of exchange and bidding becomes chaos and meaningless.

The one currency is God. But it can have multiple denominations of one, two, five, ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred, five hundred, one thousand, multiple thousands even. There are different faces and pictures on each bill. Many try to counterfeit the real thing.

If the auction will use Rupees, bring a big suitcase. To hold the rupees. Especially if it is a Dwaita auction. But there will be background music and one silver coin free to all. But you must use the coin somehow before leaving, you could "pool coins" with your new friends to bid on something then figure out how to share it later. Knowing how to raise your hands is basic to the bid. If it is the Advaita auction, the items on the block can range from a letter opener to a slave. You may have to wait a long time before the bicycle you wanted goes to block. Don't fall asleep or you miss your chance. At the Atheist Advaita auction, there will only be discussions about the other auctions, but a good place to perhaps meet a girl.