Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

[Aupmanyav]

What flak! You can only post a message. Neither I can punch you, nor you can punch me. That is why I said it is futile. It is debatable whether your views are pseudo-Advaita or mine. But it seems that you do not have the intelligence to understand this. I can take it for eons, but what is the end result? I will go always my way, you will always go your way. You are only spoiling the atmosphere at the forum. Your post make 'zill' difference.

 

[ajay0]

What flak! You can only pot a message. Neither I can punch you, nor you can punch me.

I and other advaitans can counter your pseudo-advaitan views. That is enough.

That is why I said it is futile. It is debatable whether your views are pseudo-Advaita or mine.

It is your posts that are varying from advaita , not mine. Anyone can study advaitan philosophical points on the net, and see that your posts vary greatly from it.

Pseudo-scientific or pseudo-atheistic or pseudo-abrahamic views are similarly identified and dealt with through criticism in the science forums, atheist forums or abrahamic forums.

Try to put Hindu idol worship points as Islamic in the Islam Dir in order to convert them to your pov, and you will realise what I mean.

I can take it for eons, but what is the end result? I will go always my way, you will always go your way. You are only spoiling the atmosphere at the forum. Your post make 'zill' difference.

I can also take it for eons. I am only half your age, and can continue with it for the next half century if needed, and deal with other pseudo-advaitans too that may come up in the future.

Similarly many other advaitans will come here and deal with pseudo-advaitan views as well.

You are only spoiling the atmosphere at the forum. Your post make 'zill' difference.

If pseudo scientists upon criticism in the science forum complain that their critics are spoiling the atmosphere at the forum or that their posts make 'zil' difference , it will only make 'zil' diference to the science adherents attitude.

Same too for the atheist forums, abrahamic forums and materialism forum.

Similarly in the vedanta forum.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You keep proving time and again consistenly that you have no knowledge of Vedanta and validating the criticism you are getting from all quarters ..: That is my view. You have no right to criticize it according to the rules of this forum. What criticism? I only see you barking.

What are you trying to prove by quoting people. Ramana, Ramakrishna), Vivekananda, Nirmala Shrivastava (whom I consider to be a fraud), expressed their views. I have mine. I do not agree with them. It is as simple as that.

This was intended for earlier premise that the vaisheshika philosophy has interpolations. That it has no reference to buddhism shows that the original text is largely uncorrupted.: Originally Vaisheshika did not accept Sabda. Later it did. That shows that Kanada's philosophy was modified, interpolated.

Well, they and I did not realise that you are a great man who is a greater advaitan than shankara, ramana, nisargadatta and Ramakrishna combined. Even greater than Krishna.: It is not a question of being greater or lesser. It is just that my views are different. I differ with BhagawadGta also. That is a theist work. I am an atheist. Though some of the Gita verses have Advaita flavor.

More delusionary comments.: My view. You don't agree with that. That is OK. I do not have any problem with that. I am not asking you to follow it.

But when he starts putting those views to others, then it is obviously incorrect and improper.: A forum is for expressing one's views. If you do not like that, don't reply, put me on ignore or leave the forum.

But they are all consistent and centered on the same teachings of neti-neti, meditation and samadhi which you have no idea what is!: I have my ideas. They have theirs. And there the story ends. I have told you that I guard my independence fiercely. If you want to follow them wagging your tail, I have no objection to it.

Vast majority of Hindus are like that. If you can't adapt to it, not our headache.: I feel sorry that vast majority of Hindus are superstitious, go against modern science, unable to move forward. This kind of mentality is going to harm Hinduism in future. That is why I express my views.

It is a hinduism forum with quality scholars. If your views diverge from Hinduism, obviously you can get in trouble over there as well. Don't blame India Divine or HDF forums, blame yourself for being rigid and not flexible enough to consider advaita from the perspective of the sages and scriptures.: For you they are quality scholars, for me they are 'frogs in the well'. If views do not diverge, it won't be Hinduism. View have always diverged in Hinduism. You have your perspective of Advaita, I have my perspective of Advaita. With me, scriptures or sages, all have to undergo scrutiny.

If you have found anything like that, why don't you give me the link or indicate the topic and post number. I have been asking you for that for quite a long time.

"Here is a recent post itself. ..Here is a thread in the dharmic forums I found ..": Where is the post or the link to the thread?

Leave it, Ajay0. You cannot defeat me in a debate. You are just like a child before me. You are too immature to spar with me. You are incapable of independent thought. All that you can do is to quote scriptures or sages. I have repeatedly told you that I do not accept them as 'pramana' unless verified by evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I and other advaitans can counter your pseudo-advaitan views. That is enough.: I see no other Advatist countering my views. They are wiser than you. It is only you. And who is to decide whether my view is correct or yours? I have a right in Hinduism to form my views. No one can take away this right from me.

Anyone can study advaitan philosophical points on the net, and see that your posts vary greatly from it.: Is that how you got your views? Then there is no need for sadhana, meditation or samadhi.

Try to put Hindu idol worship points as Islamic in the Islam Dir in order to convert them to your pov, and you will realise what I mean.: Why should I try to convert Muslims to Hinduism? Why should I go to an Islamic or a Christian forum? It is their world. Hinduism forum is my world. If anyone likes our views then they would themselves come to us. There are many members in this forum who were not Hindus to begin with. Some Hindus believe in idols some don't. What right do you have to criticize those who worship idols?

I can also take it for eons. I am only half your age, and can continue with it for the next half century if needed, and deal with other pseudo-advaitans too that may come up in the future.: May you live for hundred winters. Does that mean that you would continue to spout your ignorance for hudred years? That will be a misfortune for Hinduism.

If pseudo scientists upon criticism in the science forum complain that their critics are spoiling the atmosphere at the forum or that their posts make 'zil' difference, it will only make 'zil' diference to the science adherents attitude.: OK, continue in your ignorance.

 

[ajay0]

You keep proving time and again consistenly that you have no knowledge of Vedanta and validating the criticism you are getting from all quarters ..: That is my view. You have no right to criticize it according to the rules of this forum. What criticism? I only see you barking.

If a quack is proved wrong, he is bound to get criticised. What you have stated on samadhi having nothing to do with thoughtless awareness, has been clearly proven to be quackery by the sayings of the advaitan masters.

Pseudo scientific and theistic views will be criticised in the science and atheistic forums respectively. There is no rule over here that condones quackery and pseudo-scholarship.

What are you trying to prove by quoting people. Ramana, Ramakrishna), Vivekananda, Nirmala Shrivastava (whom I consider to be a fraud), expressed their views. I have mine. I do not agree with them. It is as simple as that.

Similary I expressed through the views of the above masters, that your views are fraudulent and delusionary. It is as simple as that.

This was intended for earlier premise that the vaisheshika philosophy has interpolations. That it has no reference to buddhism shows that the original text is largely uncorrupted.: Originally Vaisheshika did not accept Sabda. Later it did. That shows that Kanada's philosophy was modified, interpolated.

Where is this written or substantiated that originally vaisheshika sutra did not accept Sabda as pramana!

It is not a question of being greater or lesser. It is just that my views are different. I differ with BhagawadGta also. That is a theist work. I am an atheist. Though some of the Gita verses have Advaita flavor.

Your views are delusionary. It is all there is to it. A quacks views are considered delusionary no matter what objections he puts.

But when he starts putting those views to others, then it is obviously incorrect and improper.: A forum is for expressing one's views. If you do not like that, don't reply, put me on ignore or leave the forum.

A forum is for expressing right view and negating wrong views if they contract the fundamentals associated with that forums philosophy. If you do not like that, don't reply, put me on ignore or leave the forum as you did with HDF forum or India Divine Forum.

I feel sorry that vast majority of Hindus are superstitious, go against modern science, unable to move forward. This kind of mentality is going to harm Hinduism in future. That is why I express my views.

You can express your views to your elderly friends. Nothing wrong with that. Changes in philosophical outlook will not make much difference anyway at this age .

For you they are quality scholars, for me they are 'frogs in the well'. If views do not diverge, it won't be Hinduism. View have always diverged in Hinduism. You have your perspective of Advaita, I have my perspective of Advaita. With me, scriptures or sages, all have to undergo scrutiny.

You are just expressing your pov of Hinduism.

Duryodhana and Ravana had divergent views from Krishna and Rama, but they could not be stated to be Hinduism.

"Here is a recent post itself. ..Here is a thread in the dharmic forums I found ..": Where is the post or the link to the thread?

You can find it in the post by clicking on the term 'post' or 'thread' !

Leave it, Ajay0. You cannot defeat me in a debate. You are just like a child before me. You are too immature to spar with me. You are incapable of independent thought. All that you can do is to quote scriptures or sages. I have repeatedly told you that I do not accept them as 'pramana' unless verified by evidence.

I would say all the thoughts expressed applies to you. Nuff said.

 

[ajay0]

I and other advaitans can counter your pseudo-advaitan views. That is enough.: I see no other Advatist countering my views. They are wiser than you. It is only you. And who is to decide whether my view is correct or yours? I have a right in Hinduism to form my views. No one can take away this right from me.

You are delusional to ignore Tattvaprahav's and Atanus posts countering your views.

Anyone can study advaitan philosophical points on the net, and see that your posts vary greatly from it.: Is that how you got your views? Then there is no need for sadhana, meditation or samadhi.

I am talking about the common layman.

Why should I try to convert Muslims to Hinduism? Why should I go to an Islamic or a Christian forum? It is their world. Hinduism forum is my world. If anyone likes our views then they would themselves come to us. There are many members in this forum who were not Hindus to begin with. Some Hindus believe in idols some don't. What right do you have to criticize those who worship idols?

I am saying that if you mess with the philosophical fundamentals of a forum, you will be subjected to criticism , just as you had a clear taste of it in the HDF and India Divine forums. Lol....

May you live for hundred winters. Does that mean that you would continue to spout your ignorance for hudred years? That will be a misfortune for Hinduism.

I will counter ignorance for a half century if needed based on my age and physical fitness. It is also a very meritorious activity that increases my good karma and destroys much of my bad ones. So bring it on !

That will be a misfortune for Hinduism.

That will actually be a misfortune for quackery.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are just expressing your pov of Hinduism.

What is religion if not POV? There are so many religions and then different POV in each religion.

Judaism has Orthodox Judaism (Haredi Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism), Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism.
Chritianity has Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church of the East, Protestantism, Restorationism, etc.
Islam has Sunnis, Shias, Sufism, Ahmadiyyas, Ibadi, Mahdavia, Quranists, etc.
Jainism has Digambaras, Shwetambaras, Murti Pujaks, Sthanakvasis, Terapanthis, etc.
Buddhism has Mahayanists, Theravadins, Vajrayanis, Pure Land Buddhism and Zen.

As for Hindus, we should not be talking about POVs. There are a many as the stars in the sky. We have Shaivas, Vaishnava, Shakta, Smarta. Tantra and those who are none of them, being just 'village Hindus'. Each of these have Sub-sects with various POVs. We have six darshanas. One of them, Vedanta, has six further POVs - Dvaita, Advaita, Shuddhadvaita, Bhedabhedadvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Acintya Bhedabhedadvaita. In Advaita, we have Gaudapadacharya Math, and the four established by by Sankara and four established by his disciples in Kerala. There are ten ascetic tradition (akharas) with various traditions - Dashanami Sampradaya - Wikipedia. Different brahmins groups have different traditions like the Iyers - Iyer - Wikipedia.

The POV of Hinduism is very clear. It is 'dharma'. As long as a person fulfills his 'dharma', he is a Hindu, what beliefs he has is immaterial. It is his prerogative. As I wrote recently in another topic, we have all these kind of Hindus:

"In Hinduism, it is 'as you like it'.
- I am a strong atheist believing in existence of only one entity, Brahman, constituting all things in the universe, but that is not a God.
- Other believe in Brahman to be the Supreme Soul, but never interfering with the happenings of the world.
- Then there are people who believe there are two, Brahman and Shakti (the power of Brahman).
- Then there are those who believe that Gods are forms of this Brahman.
- Then there are those who believe that there are three, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
- Then there are those who believe that one of the three above is the Supreme God and the rest are his helpers.
- Then there are those who believe that Shakti/Durga is the creatrix and she has created all Gods.
Lastly, there are those who believe that definitely there are many Gods and Goddeses and each is different from the other."
God, Goddess,Goddesses,Deva=One and the same?

What you explain is your POV. What I try to explain is my POV. Tell me when all these people can have their POVs, why can't I have my own POV. What in Hinduism or what authority stops me from having my own POV?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Post: Sure, Tattva said something and I presented to him a different POV. If he is interested in replying and if he has time for it, then he will reply to me. We have had many such conversations during our stay here. Tattva is a very erudite poster here and knows Sanskrit. People here admire him, our different beliefs notwithstanding.

Thread: That again was a nice thread in which many of the members participated and expressed their various views. No one won or lost. Of course, I do not agree that Hinduism is Vaidika Dharma. They had different Gods and different way to please the Gods. Their ways have not been totally forgotten, but they do not form the stuff of modern Hinduism. Modern Hinduism derives from the beliefs and practices of Indigenous Indian and not from the Aryan migrants. Though Vaidika Dharma is now a part of Hinduism.

I do not know what you were trying to prove or have proved by quoting the post or the thread?

 

[ajay0]

I do not know what you were trying to prove or have proved by quoting the post or the thread?

Just that your views have been found to be untrue yourself by conversing with others or by others criticism as well, and not just mine.

What is religion if not POV? There are so many religions and then different POV in each religion.

Judaism has Orthodox Judaism (Haredi Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism), Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism.
Chritianity has Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church of the East, Protestantism, Restorationism, etc.
Islam has Sunnis, Shias, Sufism, Ahmadiyyas, Ibadi, Mahdavia, Quranists, etc.
Jainism has Digambaras, Shwetambaras, Murti Pujaks, Sthanakvasis, Terapanthis, etc.
Buddhism has Mahayanists, Theravadins, Vajrayanis, Pure Land Buddhism and Zen.

As for Hindus, we should not be talking about POVs. There are a many as the stars in the sky. We have Shaivas, Vaishnava, Shakta, Smarta. Tantra and those who are none of them, being just 'village Hindus'. Each of these have Sub-sects with various POVs. We have six darshanas. One of them, Vedanta, has six further POVs - Dvaita, Advaita, Shuddhadvaita, Bhedabhedadvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Acintya Bhedabhedadvaita. In Advaita, we have Gaudapadacharya Math, and the four established by by Sankara and four established by his disciples in Kerala. There are ten ascetic tradition (akharas) with various traditions - Dashanami Sampradaya - Wikipedia. Different brahmins groups have different traditions like the Iyers - Iyer - Wikipedia.

There are different philosophical traditions and sects within Hinduism, but all of them have a coherent foundational basis in the Vedas, just as Islamic sects all have the quran at the core of their tradition. Same with all the christians sects which base their teachings on the bible with little variance of rituals or customs.

The POV of Hinduism is very clear. It is 'dharma'. As long as a person fulfills his 'dharma', he is a Hindu, what beliefs he has is immaterial. It is his prerogative. As I wrote recently in another topic, we have all these kind of Hindus:

"In Hinduism, it is 'as you like it'.
- I am a strong atheist believing in existence of only one entity, Brahman, constituting all things in the universe, but that is not a God.
- Other believe in Brahman to be the Supreme Soul, but never interfering with the happenings of the world.
- Then there are people who believe there are two, Brahman and Shakti (the power of Brahman).
- Then there are those who believe that Gods are forms of this Brahman.
- Then there are those who believe that there are three, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
- Then there are those who believe that one of the three above is the Supreme God and the rest are his helpers.
- Then there are those who believe that Shakti/Durga is the creatrix and she has created all Gods.
Lastly, there are those who believe that definitely there are many Gods and Goddeses and each is different from the other."
God, Goddess,Goddesses,Deva=One and the same?

Dharma has its basis in truth, not falsehood as Dharma is truth in action. If dharma is based on falsehood, it ceases to be dharma and becomes adharma.

The Mahabharatha also states a cautionary approach and need for deliberation in this regard, " When vice assumes the aspects of virtue and virtue itself wholly seems as vice, and virtue, again, appears in its native form, they that are learned should discriminate it by means of their reason."


Philosophy misunderstood can easily end in the suicide of the community.- Swami Chinmayananda ( Bhagavad Gita translation and commentary)

What you explain is your POV. What I try to explain is my POV. Tell me when all these people can have their POVs, why can't I have my own POV. What in Hinduism or what authority stops me from having my own POV?

But all these philosophical traditions are based on the vedic teachings, with Brahman being pure consciousness accepted as a fundamental. None of them diverges from this fact except for yourself.

If some tom, peter and harry comes up with a pov after vague speculation, it obviously will not be accepted as Hindu view as you found out to your peril in other forums and this as well.

If some elderly person starts proclaiming himself to be the Avatar of Krishna as a result of hours of vague speculation after reading the Gita, it obviously will not be accepted as well, no matter how much he insists on it to be true, or at least as his pov which he has a right to when criticized , while trying to influence potential gullibles for ego-gratification. There are indeed cases of this sort hence the need for vigilant attention , and which would not have ballooned up to criminal cases if they had been nipped in the bud by Hindu scholars and critics.

The elderly person can declare his pov that he is Krishna to be correct adamantly, when presenting his views, which he has a right to as part of freedom of speech as put in the constitution. But the others also have a right to speech in criticising the elderly person's pov even if he does not like it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just that your views have been found to be untrue yourself by conversing with others or by others criticism as well, and not just mine.

Yes, others may not have agreed to my views. But So What? Their views are their views, my views are my views. POVs.

How does that affect me? I am perfectly happy in standing alone. I do not need the crutches of acceptance of other people.

Ekla Cholo Re (Walk Alone - Famous Bengali Song)
Rabindra Nath Tagore - Ekla Chalo Re - Wikipedia

 

[ajay0]

Yes, others may not have agreed to my views. But So What? Their views are their views, my views are my views. POVs.

How does that affect me? I am perfectly happy in standing alone. I do not need the crutches of acceptance of other people.
POV: Point of View.

In the time of Krishna as well , there was a character called Paundraka who was of the deluded pov that he was Krishna and attired himself in Krishna's dress.

But just because Paundraka attired himself in Krishna's dress and deludedly pointed out himself as Krishna, it does not necessarily mean his pov is correct.

Similarly with the elderly man who considers himself to be the avatar of Krishna because of a reading of the Gita and vague speculation, and is averse to any suggestions or criticism that he is not.

He has a right to his pov, but that does not necessarily mean that he is the Avatar. He will similarly state that he does not need the crutches of acceptance of other people upon criticism, but the very fact that he responds to such criticism shows that his feelings are hurt that people do no see him as Krishna, leading to low self-esteem.

 

[ajay0]

Ekla Cholo Re (Walk Alone - Famous Bengali Song)
Rabindra Nath Tagore - Ekla Chalo Re - Wikipedia

There is a difference between treading an unchartered path, and mistaking gutter water for drinkable water ( even if warned or criticised for it) and drinking it adamantly to prove a point.

 

[Shantanu]

There is a difference between treading an unchartered path, and mistaking gutter water for drinkable water ( even if warned or criticised for it) and drinking it adamantly to prove a point.

The only water worth drinking is the one that makes you survive in dignity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He has a right to his pov, but that does not necessarily mean that he is the Avatar.

Again you do not know avaita. An advaitist would never say that. Remember the story of Sankara and the Chāndāla.

In each of your post in this topic you have mentioned 'Quack' many a times. I wonder if you were a duck in your previous birth!

I have two gurus Sankara and Buddha. From Sankara, I learnt non-duality ((Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah). From Buddha I learnt analysis. His 'Kalama Sutta' is the father of 'Occam's Razor'. He asked people not to believe the following unless checked one has checked what they say by oneself. I quote:

"1. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), 2. nor upon tradition (paramparā), 3. nor upon rumor (itikirā), 4. nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), 5. nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), 6 nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),7. nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), 8. nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), 9. nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), 10. nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)."
Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia

Now, let us sum up what has been discussed in the topic.

1. God exists.
You say - That is what the sages say and that is written in scriptures.
I say - That is not evidence enough. Where is the proof?
2. Brahman is Consciousness.
You say - That is what the sages say and that is written in scriptures.
I say - That is not evidence enough. Where is the proof?
3. Samadhi (thoughtless awareness)
You say - You have experienced it, I have not.
I say - Any Tom, Dick and Harry (including you and me) who has practiced meditation seriously for some time, knows about thoughtless awareness. It is not something very special. This stage can be brought about very quickly by many people. It does not take me more than two or three minute to reach that stage.
4. Nirvikalpa Samadhi
You say - You have not achieved that, but scripture and sages say that in that stage you get the secrets of universe.
I say - If you have not achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi, then you should not say anything about it. You are not entitled for that.

If you say that it is what the sages say and that is written in scriptures (Yeah, I have also read about it and do not believe it), I would again say 'That is not evidence enough. Where is the proof?'

From thoughtless awareness after you have stilled the monkey mind, you have to come back to thinking. That is the time when you can think very succinctly and may get good answers if you have the proper background knowledge (that means a very broad kind of knowledge covering all subjects that one can think of, you may not be master of any, but at least you can understand the meaning). If one goes beyond thoughtless awareness and does not return to thinking, one would land in hallucinations. Beyond thoughtless awareness neither God sends any Gabriel to you to tell you any secrets, nor any door of 'simsim' opens for you.

Now, do I get a sensible reply from you or you will it be 'Quacking, Quacking and more Quacking' again.

 

[ajay0]

Again you do not know avaita. An advaitist would never say that. Remember the story of Sankara and the Chāndāla.

The advaitan also knows how to distinguish between a tiger and a lamb, and similarly between genuine and the fraudulent.

I have two gurus Sankara and Buddha. From Sankara, I learnt non-duality ((Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah). From Buddha I learnt analysis. His 'Kalama Sutta' is the father of 'Occam's Razor'. He asked people not to believe the following unless checked one has checked what they say by oneself. I quote:

"1. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), 2. nor upon tradition (paramparā), 3. nor upon rumor (itikirā), 4. nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), 5. nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), 6 nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),7. nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), 8. nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), 9. nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), 10. nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)."
Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia

And I have stated about Buddha's Kalama sutta in your context in this post....

Now, let us sum up what has been discussed in the topic.

1. God exists.
You say - That is what the sages say and that is written in scriptures.
I say - That is not evidence enough. Where is the proof?

I have not stated that God exists, only that Brahman is pure consciousness. My own advaitan teacher did not refer to God, but he emphasized Awareness or pure consciousness.

2. Brahman is Consciousness.
You say - That is what the sages say and that is written in scriptures.
I say - That is not evidence enough. Where is the proof?

Proof that Brahman is consciousness is atained by samadhi alone, and the proof is made permanently visible and tangible in nirvikalpa samadhi.

And I have stated the same in this post.

Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

3. Samadhi (thoughtless awareness)
You say - You have experienced it, I have not.

Which makes sense, because you keep talking false and deluded views of advaita which contradicts the teachings of advaitan scriptures and sages.

I deducted this much before you stated this here.

I say - Any Tom, Dick and Harry (including you and me) who has practiced meditation seriously for some time, knows about thoughtless awareness. It is not something very special. This stage can be brought about very quickly by many people. It does not take me more than two or three minute to reach that stage.

Which as usual shows your ignorance about meditation. Meditation is hard work. RAmana maharshi emphasized meditation for two hours daily to ensure a constant thread of awareness in all activities.

4. Nirvikalpa Samadhi
You say - You have not achieved that, but scripture and sages say that in that stage you get the secrets of universe.
I say - If you have not achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi, then you should not say anything about it. You are not entitled for that.

Then by that logic, you are not even supposed to enter the domain of Advaita, as you do not know Samadhi itself. Lol....

From thoughtless awareness after you have stilled the monkey mind, you have to come back to thinking. That is the time when you can think very succinctly and may get good answers if you have the proper background knowledge (that means a very broad kind of knowledge covering all subjects that one can think of, you may not be master of any, but at least you can understand the meaning). If one goes beyond thoughtless awareness and does not return to thinking, one would land in hallucinations. Beyond thoughtless awareness neither God sends any Gabriel to you to tell you any secrets, nor any door of 'simsim' opens for you.

These are just delusionary comments about a subject you know little at all.

Thoughtless awareness is the natural state. An enlightened sage who is established in this stage,can employ thought at will intelligently and intuitively, when needed, and then switch off at will.

It is those who indulge in incessant thought and vague speculation who get lost in delusions.

As Nisargadatta stated, ' You miss the real by lack of attention and create the unreal by excess of imagination.'

In each of your post in this topic you have mentioned 'Quack' many a times. I wonder if you were a duck in your previous birth!

Now, do I get a sensible reply from you or you will it be 'Quacking, Quacking and more Quacking' again.

I am referring to 'quack' as in fraudulent. If doctors criticize quacks , does it mean that they were ducks in past lives!

Of course quacks are known to put forward this kind of absurd line of reasoning, to escape scrutiny.

 

[Shantanu]

Thoughtless awareness is the natural state. An enlightened sage who is established in this stage,can employ thought at will intelligently and intuitively, when needed, and then switch off at will.

It is those who indulge in incessant thought and vague speculation who get lost in delusions.

When you have objectives then thoughtless awareness is of no use. Incessant thought and vague speculation to analyse the situation that surrounds you leads you to find the path that charts your progress towards your objectives. This only works if you believe and surrender to God as Paramatman.
Of course if you have no objectives in life as your dharma you engage in thoughtless awareness to be at one with the universal consciousness through meditation.

 

[ajay0]

When you have objectives then thoughtless awareness is of no use.
Of course if you have no objectives in life as your dharma you engage in thoughtless awareness to be at one with the universal consciousness through meditation.

The focus is on having goals/objectives, not desires which create a feverish and agitated mindset contrary to mental equanimity as taught by Krishna. Have goals, but do not worry feverishly about the outcome or results and work in Awareness or spirit of Karma yoga which brings about chitta shuddhi or purification of mind, and reveals Awareness as the Self.

Incessant thought and vague speculation to analyse the situation that surrounds you leads you to find the path that charts your progress towards your objectives. This only works if you believe and surrender to God as Paramatman.

Incessant thought and vague speculation is more prone to delusion than the truth, and it is thought that springs out of Awareness or no-mind that is intuitive in nature and leads to the solution of the problem. Vague speculation is unorganised thought that leads one to endless imaginary delusions.

Delusional people are victims of a thought process gone out of hand and excessive imagination, leading to thick veiling of the Self or Awareness. Neurosis, paranoia, hypochondria, megalomania and other psychological disorders stems from such a disorderly thought process or untamed mind .

As Nisargadatta stated, " If your awareness is clear and full, a mistake is less probable."

 

[Aupmanyav]

The advaitan also knows how to distinguish between a tiger and a lamb, and similarly between genuine and the fraudulent.

Irrespective of whether it appears in the form of a tiger or a lamb, it is still Brahman. How do you know whether one is fraud or you yourself are ignorant?

a quack doctor decides to prescribe his own medicines, he will only be doing harm to himself and to others even if he may delusionally think that his medicine is effective and better than standard ones.

Who are you to decide for the person who is getting the medicine whether the medication is right or wrong? You can only warn and express your opinion. There is no guarantee that your opinion is correct. It was believed for ages that a iron ball falls faster than a feather, that life comes up in sweat (Svedaja), that the earth is flat, and of course, Lord Brahma appeared on the lotus growing out of the navel of Lord Vishnu (that much for scriptures and sages).

I have not stated that God exists, only that Brahman is pure consciousness. My own advaitan teacher did not refer to God, but he emphasized Awareness or pure consciousness.

Did he tell you any reason for his belief or he just made an ad-hoc statement?

Proof that Brahman is consciousness is atained by samadhi alone, and the proof is made permanently visible and tangible in nirvikalpa samadhi.

Since you attained that knowledge in a thoughtless state, the conclusion also is thoughtless. What proof other than your own personal experience or that of other people can you provide for it? Any tangible evidence?

.. because you keep talking false and deluded views of advaita which contradicts the teachings of advaitan scriptures and sages.

Contradiction of the opinion of scriptures and sages is not a crime in Hinduism. The conclusion must depend on proof.

Ramana maharshi emphasized meditation for two hours daily to ensure a constant thread of awareness in all activities.

I greatly admire Ramana Maharshi, but I would differ with him on that. I think that would be very harmful/dangerous for a person and a complete waste of time. It is an invitation to madness and will lead to hallucinations only. It is because of such meditation that we hear people going mad. Surely, people take time to get the first experience of thoughtless awareness, but once they experience it, it is not at all difficult to repeat the experience in minutes. One must come back to thinking after reaching the stage of thoughtless awareness. The whole purpose of thoughtless awareness is to clear the mind of monkey thoughts so that one could think better. I suggest that one should try to meditate for ten minutes with intervals. Coax the mind to leave the monkey thoughts and not try to dominate mind by trying to do meditation for two hours. Mind cannot be controlled by such harsh ways, it will rebel.

Then by that logic, you are not even supposed to enter the domain of Advaita, as you do not know Samadhi itself. Lol.

Leave out your lolling. We are talking of serious things here, your lolling looks very foolish. You said there is a 'nirvikalpa samadhi' which you have not experienced but believe it because scriptures and sages mention it. I ask for a more tangible proof of that. I say there is no 'nirvikalpa samadhi', it is fiction of mind. What is important is to imbibe fully in life the conclusions that one has arrived at after deep thinking. That is what BhagawadGita terms as 'being established' ('tasya prajna prathishthita' - they understand it well).

These are just delusionary comments about a subject you know little at all. Thoughtless awareness is the natural state. An enlightened sage who is established in this stage,can employ thought at will intelligently and intuitively, when needed, and then switch off at will.

Well, I am that enlightened sage. It is your ignorance which does not allow you to accept this.

I am referring to 'quack' as in fraudulent. If doctors criticize quacks, does it mean that they were ducks in past lives!

I would prefer if you would cut down on inneundoes, ad-hominems and lols to concetrate on the subject of discussion.

 

[ajay0]

Irrespective of whether it appears in the form of a tiger or a lamb, it is still Brahman. How do you know whether one is fraud or you yourself are ignorant?

You can find that out for yourself by petting a lamb and a tiger.

A true advaitan enlightened sage however is said to inspire friendliness in fierce animals as well. Ramana Maharshi had a tiger near his cave in Arunachala who used to leave when visitors came .

Who are you to decide for the person who is getting the medicine whether the medication is right or wrong? You can only warn and express your opinion. There is no guarantee that your opinion is correct.

A quack will similarly question a doctor who is criticizing him.

I and other advaitans like Tattvaprahav and Atanu and those in the HDF and India divine forums are also expressing our criticism based on the scriptures and sagely sayings, to ensure that people do not mistake sewer water for drinking water.

Did he tell you any reason for his belief or he just made an ad-hoc statement?

He was able to see the fact directly after his enlightenment. He practiced being in a state of present moment awareness alone meticulously, and did not practice any form of Bhakti yoga.

Since you attained that knowledge in a thoughtless state, the conclusion also is thoughtless. What proof other than your own personal experience or that of other people can you provide for it? Any tangible evidence?

You have to find the proof for yourself by practicing the guidelines set by advaitan scriptures and advaitan teachers. No one will drop it in front of a lazy person.

I greatly admire Ramana Maharshi, but I would differ with him on that. I think that would be very harmful/dangerous for a person and a complete waste of time. It is an invitation to madness and will lead to hallucinations only. It is because of such meditation that we hear people going mad. Surely, people take time to get the first experience of thoughtless awareness, but once they experience it, it is not at all difficult to repeat the experience in minutes. One must come back to thinking after reaching the stage of thoughtless awareness. The whole purpose of thoughtless awareness is to clear the mind of monkey thoughts so that one could think better. I suggest that one should try to meditate for ten minutes with intervals. Coax the mind to leave the monkey thoughts and not try to dominate mind by trying to do meditation for two hours. Mind cannot be controlled by such harsh ways, it will rebel.

This is just delusionary comments due to ignorance of the subject.

It is easy to practice thoughtless awareness for a few seconds but soon one finds thoughts streaming unconsciously in the mind with respect to this or that, due to habit.

It is this incessant stream of unchecked thoughts and emotions that follow, that result in delusions. Thoughtless awareness does not create hallucinations of any sort as there is no active imagination in the first place.

Meditation for two hours in the early morning or brahmamuhurtha ensures a constant flow of awareness throughout the day easily without much effort. This is why the brahmamuhurtha is emphasized a lot in Hinduism.
The bliss and joy attained in meditation also creates a positive attitude as well instead of a negative mental attitude which greatly helps in work or play.

Leave out your lolling. We are talking of serious things here, your lolling looks very foolish.

What to do ! It is your foolishness in this and other forums that makes me lol. Thanks for the entertainment, though.

You said there is a 'nirvikalpa samadhi' which you have not experienced but believe it because scriptures and sages mention it.

How foolish. Nirvikalpa samadhi is just samadhi made permanent.

I ask for a more tangible proof of that. I say there is no 'nirvikalpa samadhi', it is fiction of mind.

It is just your foolishness and delusion.

I have highlighted the sayings of 'nirvikalpa samadhi' by advaitan sages in this post.

http://www. https.com//www.religiousforums.com/threads/bhedabheda-vs-advaita.201604/page-11#post-5478552

In this context I would like to put a saying of Swami Narayananda from his book , ' A practical guide to Samadhi'.


Apart from these real Jivan-Muktas, there are some Sadhakas who take up Jnana-Yoga. They read treatises on the subject and by constant reading they come to a mental understanding of the nature of the Self or Atman. But these people do not attain Samadhi and cannot gain real wisdom. Mere book knowledge is always very shallow. They do not gain the permanent, steady state of the mind and perfect Wisdom which come only after Nirvikalpa Samadhi. But these people are too hasty to think that they have gained True Wisdom and begin to call themselves Jivan-Muktas.

-- Swami Narayananda ( A practical Guide to samadhi )

Well, I am that enlightened sage. It is your ignorance which does not allow you to accept this.

Lol. It is just megalomania and delusion.

I would prefer if you would cut down on inneundoes, ad-hominems and lols to concetrate on the subject of discussion.

It is hard to cut down on this when you keep talking foolishly and deludedly. But thanks for the laughs.I appreciate that.

 

[Shantanu]

The focus is on having goals/objectives, not desires which create a feverish and agitated mindset contrary to mental equanimity as taught by Krishna. Have goals, but do not worry feverishly about the outcome or results and work in Awareness or spirit of Karma yoga which brings about chitta shuddhi or purification of mind, and reveals Awareness as the Self.



Incessant thought and vague speculation is more prone to delusion than the truth, and it is thought that springs out of Awareness or no-mind that is intuitive in nature and leads to the solution of the problem. Vague speculation is unorganised thought that leads one to endless imaginary delusions.

Delusional people are victims of a thought process gone out of hand and excessive imagination, leading to thick veiling of the Self or Awareness. Neurosis, paranoia, hypochondria, megalomania and other psychological disorders stems from such a disorderly thought process or untamed mind .

As Nisargadatta stated, " If your awareness is clear and full, a mistake is less probable."

You are right in saying that if one uses ones own intelligence to determine the truth one can get totally deluded results. But if you surrender to God, He comes and points to the right actions that helps you understand the reality and simultaneously determines the path that one needs to adhere to in order to preserve oneself with dignity.