[Hindu Only] Simple argument against Advaita

[kalyan]

Since Brahman is pure undifferentiated knowledge in advaitam, and brahman's essential nature is veiled by veiling nescience(avidya), causing it to observe pluralities in itself. Veiling means elimination of light, as advaitins do not admit an attriibutive light distinct from the substantive nature of brahman, and this substantive nature of brahman is the light of knowledge, the postulated elimination of light would be the destruction of substantive nature of brahman(light here means knowledge). knowledge is eternal and light of knowledge is veiled by nescience/avidya...

If the light is concealed by nescience, concealment should take 1 of 2 forms.
1. It must obstruct the generation of light
2. It must annhilate the existing light

Since light is not subject to process like generation as per advaita, the concealment posited can be nothing but annhilation......when advaitin asserts that it is eternal and immutable, he is sayin though nescience is there nothing is concealed in brahman and in the same breath they say brahman observes plurality

It is illogical.. any counter arguments?

 

[George-ananda]

Since Brahman is pure undifferentiated knowledge in advaitam, and brahman's essential nature is veiled by veiling nescience(avidya), causing it to observe pluralities in itself. Veiling means elimination of light, as advaitins do not admit an attriibutive light distinct from the substantive nature of brahman, and this substantive nature of brahman is the light of knowledge, the postulated elimination of light would be the destruction of substantive nature of brahman(light here means knowledge). knowledge is eternal and light of knowledge is veiled by nescience/avidya...

If the light is concealed by nescience, concealment should take 1 of 2 forms.
1. It must obstruct the generation of light
2. It must annhilate the existing light

Since light is not subject to process like generation as per advaita, the concealment posited can be nothing but annhilation......when advaitin asserts that it is eternal and immutable, he is sayin though nescience is there nothing is concealed in brahman and in the same breath they say brahman observes plurality

It is illogical.. any counter arguments?

I would add a third form;

3. A sheath is placed over the light.

Analogy: Put a sock over a lightbulb. The light source is unaffected and shines through to the external world in a veiled form.

From Wikipedia: A Kosha (also Kosa; Sanskrit कोश, IAST: kośa), usually rendered "sheath", is a covering of the Atman, or Self according to Vedantic philosophy.

The five sheaths (pancha-kosas) are described in the Taittiriya Upanishad.[2] From gross to fine they are:

1. Annamaya kosha, "foodstuff" sheath (Anna)
2. Pranamaya kosha, "energy" sheath (Prana/apana)
3. Manomaya kosha "mind-stuff" sheath (Manas)
4. Vijnanamaya kosha, "wisdom" sheath (Vijnana)
5. Anandamaya kosha, "bliss" sheath (Ananda)

 

[Aupmanyav]

You think you can weaken advaita (and science) by these ill-informed arguments? Spare the thought.
First go through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

Brahman in so many forms.

 

[kalyan]

I would add a third form;

3. A sheath is placed over the light.

Analogy: Put a sock over a lightbulb. The light source is unaffected and shines through to the external world in a veiled form.

We are talking about concealment/hidden, vedantik knowledge is about uncovering the part of brahman which is hidden.....Your analogy is countering the principal statement that concealment happened, a cloth/object is not obstructing the light/knowledge. Also knowledge is brahman, so you cannot attribute flowing of light/knowledge as that becomes an attribute and advaita collapses to duality

 

[George-ananda]

We are talking about concealment/hidden, vedantik knowledge is about uncovering the part of brahman which is hidden.....Your analogy is countering the principal statement that concealment happened, a cloth/object is not obstructing the light/knowledge

I read this several times. If you could please restate more simply, I will respond. I am not understanding your point above.

 

[kalyan]

I read this several times. If you could please restate more simply, I will respond. I am not understanding your point above.

when you said light/knowledge is flowing, first off you are admitting that nirguna brahman has an attribute of flowing and it becomes then saguna......2nd, your analogy permits the light to flow through the object right ? then that is not concealment(we are talking about completely hidden part which avidya/maya/nescience does)

 

[George-ananda]

when you said light/knowledge is flowing, first off you are admitting that nirguna brahman has an attribute of flowing and it becomes then saguna......2nd, your analogy permits the light to flow through the object right ? then that is not concealment(we are talking about completely hidden part which avidya/maya/nescience does)

When does Advaita talk about a part of Brahman being completely hidden? Veiled and limited by Maya is the idea, not completely hidden.

 

[kalyan]

When does Advaita talk about a part of Brahman being completely hidden? Veiled and limited by Maya is the idea, not completely hidden.

knowledge is not subject to generation per advaita, read my first point in the op, brahman is pure undifferentiated knowledge, brahman does not have an attribute knowledge that flows, it is the knowledge itself...So veiled cannot mean partially allowing the flow of light/knowledge, if you accept this advaita has to collapse to duality with brahman having separate attribute like flowing and knowledge..Hope you understood what I am trying to say here...

 

[George-ananda]

knowledge is not subject to generation per advaita, read my first point in the op, brahman is pure undifferentiated knowledge, brahman does not have an attribute knowledge that flows, it is the knowledge itself...So veiled cannot mean partially allowing the flow of light/knowledge, if you accept this advaita has to collapse to duality with brahman having separate attribute like flowing and knowledge

Brahman is held to be pure infinite consciousness, not knowledge.

 

[kalyan]

Brahman is held to be pure infinite consciousness, not knowledge.

Are you sure, yes brahman is many things(your statement not knowledge would be wrong) ...upanishad says and I quote satyam jnanam anantam brahma

 

[George-ananda]

Are you sure,

Yes.

yes brahman is many things(your statement not knowledge would be wrong) ...upanishad says and I quote satyam jnanam anantam brahma

What is your translation of 'satyam jnanam anantam brahma' in mostly English words?

 

[George-ananda]

Are you sure, yes brahman is many things(your statement not knowledge would be wrong) ...upanishad says and I quote satyam jnanam anantam brahma

I got this from the Advaita Vision website

satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma (Part 3)
Posted on April 9, 2012 by Meenakshi
Go to Part 2

Till now we have seen that Brahman is anantam satyam…limitless existence. Now let us consider the word, j~nAnam Even this word has a regular meaning and an implied meaning. The regular meaning would be ‘knowledge of something; Computer knowledge, book knowledge, pencil knowledge etc mean the knowledge of a computer, the knowledge ‘of ’ a pencil. I perceive an object, then it enters my mind, as it were, and a corresponding thought modification takes place in the mind. This thought (vRRiti) itself is cognition.

When a thought modification does not take place in the mind, meaning, when a thought is not generated, then cognition does not take place; for e.g., I might be sitting in front of the television, but might be thinking about my child. In spite of the movie running on the screen and the familiar music in the background, I am blissfully unaware of it all because the mind is generating another thought, the child thought. I can ‘know’ the movie and music only when the mind entertains the respective thoughts. Hence, knowledge of an object is its thought in the mind.

This being so, any knowledge is limited in nature, since it is limited to that particular object. Pencil knowledge is limited to pencil. Knowing a pencil does not amount to knowing a computer. If we take the meaning of jn~Anam as knowledge of an object, we will be deriving the meaning in a limited sense, which would be a contradiction to the earlier statement declared by theUpanishad. Knowledge ‘of ’ an object limits the knowledge to the object. Looking at it differently; the knowledge is generated in the mind hence it is limited to the thought in the mind. We are now compelled to take the implied meaning of the word j~nAnam since the regular meaning contradicts limitlessness. Let us take a look at the implied meaning.

Any knowledge, cognition, has three parts, as it were, name (nAma), form (rUpa) and awareness (chit). To arrive at the correct meaning of j~nAnam we have to remove the ‘name and form’ parts and appreciate only the awareness. j~nAnam is the awareness which is without names and forms. This awareness principle is limitless. The pencil cognition is there, awareness is there; the pencil cognition is not there, but awareness is there. This limitless awareness is the cause for all objective knowledge to take place. The Upanishad declares brahman as anantam satyam and anantam j~nAnam, limitless existence and limitless knowledge. This is the meaning of the statement satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Hahahaha, first it was Gaudiyas...now its your turn Adwaitins

As for the topic, this debate has literally gone on for centuries. Read the story of Paundrak and Krsna in Bhagavatam, and you will see my opinion

 

[kalyan]

Hahahaha, first it was Gaudiyas...now its your turn Adwaitins

As for the topic, this debate has literally gone on for centuries. Read the story of Paundrak and Krsna in Bhagavatam, and you will see my opinion

This is a serious discussion and nothing related to gaudiyaas or their cooked up imaginary stories( well for the most part)

 

[kalyan]

I got this from the Advaita Vision website

satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma (Part 3)
Posted on April 9, 2012 by Meenakshi
Go to Part 2

Till now we have seen that Brahman is anantam satyam…limitless existence. Now let us consider the word, j~nAnam Even this word has a regular meaning and an implied meaning. The regular meaning would be ‘knowledge of something; Computer knowledge, book knowledge, pencil knowledge etc mean the knowledge of a computer, the knowledge ‘of ’ a pencil. I perceive an object, then it enters my mind, as it were, and a corresponding thought modification takes place in the mind. This thought (vRRiti) itself is cognition.

When a thought modification does not take place in the mind, meaning, when a thought is not generated, then cognition does not take place; for e.g., I might be sitting in front of the television, but might be thinking about my child. In spite of the movie running on the screen and the familiar music in the background, I am blissfully unaware of it all because the mind is generating another thought, the child thought. I can ‘know’ the movie and music only when the mind entertains the respective thoughts. Hence, knowledge of an object is its thought in the mind.

This being so, any knowledge is limited in nature, since it is limited to that particular object. Pencil knowledge is limited to pencil. Knowing a pencil does not amount to knowing a computer. If we take the meaning of jn~Anam as knowledge of an object, we will be deriving the meaning in a limited sense, which would be a contradiction to the earlier statement declared by theUpanishad. Knowledge ‘of ’ an object limits the knowledge to the object. Looking at it differently; the knowledge is generated in the mind hence it is limited to the thought in the mind. We are now compelled to take the implied meaning of the word j~nAnam since the regular meaning contradicts limitlessness. Let us take a look at the implied meaning.

Any knowledge, cognition, has three parts, as it were, name (nAma), form (rUpa) and awareness (chit). To arrive at the correct meaning of j~nAnam we have to remove the ‘name and form’ parts and appreciate only the awareness. j~nAnam is the awareness which is without names and forms. This awareness principle is limitless. The pencil cognition is there, awareness is there; the pencil cognition is not there, but awareness is there. This limitless awareness is the cause for all objective knowledge to take place. The Upanishad declares brahman as anantam satyam and anantam j~nAnam, limitless existence and limitless knowledge. This is the meaning of the statement satyam j~nAnam anantam brahma.

well to cut the story short, he last statement in bold concludes it no ?That was exactly my point

Brahman is held to be pure infinite consciousness, not knowledge.

You said brahman is not pure knowledge which would be wrong. So as brahman is pure knowledge, you have yet to clarify my previous post which is below:

knowledge is not subject to generation per advaita, read my first point in the op, brahman is pure undifferentiated knowledge, brahman does not have an attribute knowledge that flows, it is the knowledge itself...So veiled cannot mean partially allowing the flow of light/knowledge, if you accept this advaita has to collapse to duality with brahman having separate attribute like flowing and knowledge..Hope you understood what I am trying to say here...

 

[Chakra]

You think you can weaken advaita (and science) by these ill-informed arguments? Spare the thought.
First go through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

Brahman in so many forms.

So you think that Brahman has several forms?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman is energy. Give it (or it assumes) any form you like (or it likes for that moment). Form matters for us, not for it. All forms are Brahman only. There is none other.

 

[Terese]

Hahahaha, first it was Gaudiyas...now its your turn Adwaitins

As for the topic, this debate has literally gone on for centuries. Read the story of Paundrak and Krsna in Bhagavatam, and you will see my opinion

What canto is that?

 

[निताइ dasa]

What canto is that?

Canto 10, Chapter 66

 

[kalyan]

why does not the same logic apply to the atma as per Visista-advaitA ?