praGYaanaM brahma

[Aupmanyav]

I do not even understand the expression 'Krishna consciousness'. I am not a theist, so the theist portions of BhagwadGita do not appeal to me.

"Sarva-dharmān parityajya, mām ekam saraṇam vraja;
aham tvām sarva-pāpebhyo, moksayisyāmi mā sucah."

Confronted with such verses, I think in this way that it is not a God Krishna who is speaking but the writer means one should find refuge in my kind of Brahman.

 

[atanu]

Let me endeavour to bring back the topic:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3694410-post11.html

 

[Elector]

But Elector, advaita does not accept the existence of anything other than the basic substrate, i.e., Brahman. What we perceive are only illusions, appearances, like the rope and the snake. That is what Sankara said "Brahma Satyam, jagan-mithya". And in my view that basic substrate is 'physical energy'. Brahman is only its traditional Hindu name. Search in all the universe, is there anything other than Brahman. If you want to give it a modern scientific name, it is 'physical energy'. These are not two different things. This is what really exists and gives rise to mass, space, and time. If you still have problems about it, let us discuss it further.

Perhaps you may want to consider reexamining your argument. To put in a more formal way, what you're basically saying is this:

1) To believe that everything is Brahman, renders one an Advaitin.
2) I believe that everything is Brahman, therefore I'm an Advaitin.
3) I believe that "Brahman" means "physical energy".

Please note that this is a fallacious argument because the word "Brahman" used in (1) does not denote the same thing that "Brahman" denotes in (2) and (3).
"Brahman" is merely a word. If you deprive it of its rightful Upanishadic definition then it is futile to use it. Vedanta defines Brahman as Sat-chit-ananda, not physical energy. If you say that you disagree with the Upanishadic definition and you have your own 'matam' then it amounts to saying that you do not subscribe to Vedanta but to your own personal opinion - which is perfectly fine, however, it does not conform to Vedanta. And this brings us back to square one: How is any of your beliefs Vedantic?
Hope you'll take this post in the right spirit and not as an attack on your personal opinion.

 

[Makaranda]

Sankara did not accept Ishwara at the level of 'Parmarthika Satya'. What is Sankara's 'Parmarthika Satya' if not absolute reductionism? 'Brahma Satyam jagan-mithya'. And Sankara and Buddha are my gurus. At the 'Vyavaharika' level, you can have as many Gods and Goddesses as you want. I do not label myself as materialist, or I would not have been posting in this forum and others like it. You are welcome to term me as any. That does not affect me. If you can label Ramana and Nissargadatta Maharaj as theists, then I differ from them too. Do not read 'the absolute' as a God. That is what theists like to do. It could be my type of Brahman, the substrate, without being a God or Supreme Soul. This is a quick reply, more follows.

Again, Aupmanyav, I must insist that you are attentive to what I am saying here. Shankaracharya accepted the existence of Ishwara, devas, moksha, and samsAra at the vyavahArika level. You do not. The difference is important to understand. For all intents and purposes, these things do exist; in our every day transactional reality, these things are said to exist. Their existence is dependent (mithyA), not non-existent (tuccham). To deny the existence of God, of the Atma (!), of karma, of samsara, of devas, etc, is to go against not only Shankaracharya but the whole thrust of Vedanta. If there is no karma, no samsAra, no Atma, and no God to grant the grace needed for moksha, then Vedanta has no purpose- what is the point in a teaching? (this is a rhetorical question, please do not attempt to answer it).

In your view these things have as much existence as the horned hare; which is to say, these things have no existence whatsoever. It is a wrong understanding of mithyAtvam, which has lead you down a confused road of speaking from both sides of your mouth. In one moment you pay respect to Shankara, and in the next you say there is no eternal Atma. Your posts are, frankly, quite alarming to read. Please read verses 12-13 of the first chapter of Shankaracharya's opus, upadesha sAhasrI. This text contains the essence of the (Advaita) Vedanta teaching, and these verses describe the correct attitude and mindset with which one should approach the teaching. The verses refute the 'I am the body' notion, and assert the relative reality of 1)karma 2)samsara/rebirth 3)the devas 4)the possibility of freedom from samsara and 5)the eternality of the self (Atma). The self (Atma) of every individual (jIva) is none other than Brahman- the secondless existence, consciousness, and limitless peace. To say they are different, and further to say that the difference between the two cannot be bridged, is to deny the most fundamental and basic teachings.

In one post you have said you are Brahman, the eternal physical energy constituting all things, in another post you have said that 'human' consciousness is totally different from Brahman consciousness, and in another post you have identified yourself with the body and said 'before I was born, after I will die'. There is no clarity in this vision. Respectfully, I think there is very little jnAnam in your words, even if you are up to date with the latest scientific discoveries. It seems to be cursory only- pamphlet knowledge. It is like you have taken a couple mahAvAkyas (and ignored others), stripped them entirely of correct context and meaning, and then tried to shoehorn them into a materialistic understanding of the world.

Here is a thought experiment. Let's for a moment change what you call the physical energy substratum of the universe from 'Brahman' to 'Loopnova'. This is a word I just made up- the intention here is to show how the way you use the word 'Brahman'- the way you strip it of all context and meaning as defined by Vedantins themselves- renders it without any meaningful relation to Vedanta, and, furthermore, reveals how totally foreign to Vedanta all of your views are.

Perhaps I can put it like this. The Loopnova is a physical, empirically observable and testable (can be subject to scientific experimentation, perhaps at a future date) energetic substratum for all of time, space, and matter. We have begun to detect the existence of the Loopnova through experiments in quantum physics, whereby we realize that there may be a sentience, or a kind of consciousness, which is similar to subatomic particles called photons, which act as though possessing sentience when scrutinized in a double slit experiment. The Loopnova, if indeed it has a kind of consciousness, is utterly different from human consciousness, which is totally ephemeral, an emergent and transient property of the brain, and does not exist before or after life of the body. The Loopnova is eternal, but this in no way confirms the existence of any kind of afterlife or rebirth, nor has it anything at all to do with a God or gods (which are all non-existent), supra-sensuous entities or realities, or a soul, which is also non-existent. Enlightenment, or jnAnam, is our deepening search, through scientific advancement, for knowledge of the Loopnova; therefore, to be scientifically literate, as opposed to superstitious minded (which is what the aforementioned supernatural beliefs entail), is what constitutes enlightenment.

Now, let's be honest with ourselves; does this sound anything like Hinduism, or anything like Vedanta? I don't think it does, therefore, if we replace the word 'Loopnova' with 'Brahman', why then, all of a sudden, should we now call it as either? It is Brahman in name only; the content of the word carries none of the connotations commonly understood by Vedantins as the meaning of the word. Therefore, why use the word? The only similarity I can fathom between your views and that of other Advaitins is that you use the word Brahman, and to justify the word you quote a mAhAvAkya ad-nauseum, pillaged from its natural definition and context. I mean no disrespect to you when I say that your views, your understanding of Advaita, shares infinitely more in common with the nAstika ChArvAka/LokAyatika of Brhaspati- which is a philosophy of materialism, of atheism, which rejects the notion of Veda as a pramAna, rejects the existence of the soul and asserts the transiency of consciousness/identity of the self and the body, rejects the existence of God and all supra-sensuous realities, and asserts that the only way to gain any knowledge is through empirical enquiry alone. This is the very opposite of Vedanta. In fact, the great Advaitin master vidyAranya, in his critique of all the different philosophies of his day, the Sarva Darshana Sangraha, ranking the various systems from top (least correct) to bottom (most correct), places the ChArvAka view, which is very similar to your view, at the very top of the list- which is to say, according to vidyAranya, it is the least correct viewpoint. On the contrary, he places Advaita at the very bottom, suggesting it is most correct. Therefore, the two viewpoints are the polar opposites. How can you then masquerade the one as the other? It looks from here like the former in the guise of the latter, with the name of the latter. So it is alarming that there is the possibility that somebody new inquiring about Vedanta should hear from you what amounts to the honeyed words of ChArvAka- thus drawing them away from the common, and accepted, understanding of Vedanta.

I hope at least you can understand why you are drawing much ire to you, Aupmanyav. Please think deeply about it.

 

[Poeticus]

Perhaps you may want to consider reexamining your argument. To put in a more formal way, what you're basically saying is this:

1) To believe that everything is Brahman, renders one an Advaitin.
2) I believe that everything is Brahman, therefore I'm an Advaitin.
3) I believe that "Brahman" means "physical energy".

Please note that this is a fallacious argument because the word "Brahman" used in (1) does not denote the same thing that "Brahman" denotes in (2) and (3).
"Brahman" is merely a word. If you deprive it of its rightful Upanishadic definition then it is futile to use it. Vedanta defines Brahman as Sat-chit-ananda, not physical energy. If you say that you disagree with the Upanishadic definition and you have your own 'matam' then it amounts to saying that you do not subscribe to Vedanta but to your own personal opinion - which is perfectly fine, however, it does not conform to Vedanta. And this brings us back to square one: How is any of your beliefs Vedantic?
Hope you'll take this post in the right spirit and not as an attack on your personal opinion.

Again, Aupmanyav, I must insist that you are attentive to what I am saying here. Shankaracharya accepted the existence of Ishwara, devas, moksha, and samsAra at the vyavahArika level. You do not. The difference is important to understand. For all intents and purposes, these things do exist; in our every day transactional reality, these things are said to exist. Their existence is dependent (mithyA), not non-existent (tuccham). To deny the existence of God, of the Atma (!), of karma, of samsara, of devas, etc, is to go against not only Shankaracharya but the whole thrust of Vedanta. If there is no karma, no samsAra, no Atma, and no God to grant the grace needed for moksha, then Vedanta has no purpose- what is the point in a teaching? (this is a rhetorical question, please do not attempt to answer it).

In your view these things have as much existence as the horned hare; which is to say, these things have no existence whatsoever. It is a wrong understanding of mithyAtvam, which has lead you down a confused road of speaking from both sides of your mouth. In one moment you pay respect to Shankara, and in the next you say there is no eternal Atma. Your posts are, frankly, quite alarming to read. Please read verses 12-13 of the first chapter of Shankaracharya's opus, upadesha sAhasrI. This text contains the essence of the (Advaita) Vedanta teaching, and these verses describe the correct attitude and mindset with which one should approach the teaching. The verses refute the 'I am the body' notion, and assert the relative reality of 1)karma 2)samsara/rebirth 3)the devas 4)the possibility of freedom from samsara and 5)the eternality of the self (Atma). The self (Atma) of every individual (jIva) is none other than Brahman- the secondless existence, consciousness, and limitless peace. To say they are different, and further to say that the difference between the two cannot be bridged, is to deny the most fundamental and basic teachings.

In one post you have said you are Brahman, the eternal physical energy constituting all things, in another post you have said that 'human' consciousness is totally different from Brahman consciousness, and in another post you have identified yourself with the body and said 'before I was born, after I will die'. There is no clarity in this vision. Respectfully, I think there is very little jnAnam in your words, even if you are up to date with the latest scientific discoveries. It seems to be cursory only- pamphlet knowledge. It is like you have taken a couple mahAvAkyas (and ignored others), stripped them entirely of correct context and meaning, and then tried to shoehorn them into a materialistic understanding of the world.

Here is a thought experiment. Let's for a moment change what you call the physical energy substratum of the universe from 'Brahman' to 'Loopnova'. This is a word I just made up- the intention here is to show how the way you use the word 'Brahman'- the way you strip it of all context and meaning as defined by Vedantins themselves- renders it without any meaningful relation to Vedanta, and, furthermore, reveals how totally foreign to Vedanta all of your views are.

Perhaps I can put it like this. The Loopnova is a physical, empirically observable and testable (can be subject to scientific experimentation, perhaps at a future date) energetic substratum for all of time, space, and matter. We have begun to detect the existence of the Loopnova through experiments in quantum physics, whereby we realize that there may be a sentience, or a kind of consciousness, which is similar to subatomic particles called photons, which act as though possessing sentience when scrutinized in a double slit experiment. The Loopnova, if indeed it has a kind of consciousness, is utterly different from human consciousness, which is totally ephemeral, an emergent and transient property of the brain, and does not exist before or after life of the body. The Loopnova is eternal, but this in no way confirms the existence of any kind of afterlife or rebirth, nor has it anything at all to do with a God or gods (which are all non-existent), supra-sensuous entities or realities, or a soul, which is also non-existent. Enlightenment, or jnAnam, is our deepening search, through scientific advancement, for knowledge of the Loopnova; therefore, to be scientifically literate, as opposed to superstitious minded (which is what the aforementioned supernatural beliefs entail), is what constitutes enlightenment.

Now, let's be honest with ourselves; does this sound anything like Hinduism, or anything like Vedanta? I don't think it does, therefore, if we replace the word 'Loopnova' with 'Brahman', why then, all of a sudden, should we now call it as either? It is Brahman in name only; the content of the word carries none of the connotations commonly understood by Vedantins as the meaning of the word. Therefore, why use the word? The only similarity I can fathom between your views and that of other Advaitins is that you use the word Brahman, and to justify the word you quote a mAhAvAkya ad-nauseum, pillaged from its natural definition and context. I mean no disrespect to you when I say that your views, your understanding of Advaita, shares infinitely more in common with the nAstika ChArvAka/LokAyatika of Brhaspati- which is a philosophy of materialism, of atheism, which rejects the notion of Veda as a pramAna, rejects the existence of the soul and asserts the transiency of consciousness/identity of the self and the body, rejects the existence of God and all supra-sensuous realities, and asserts that the only way to gain any knowledge is through empirical enquiry alone. This is the very opposite of Vedanta. In fact, the great Advaitin master vidyAranya, in his critique of all the different philosophies of his day, the Sarva Darshana Sangraha, ranking the various systems from top (least correct) to bottom (most correct), places the ChArvAka view, which is very similar to your view, at the very top of the list- which is to say, according to vidyAranya, it is the least correct viewpoint. On the contrary, he places Advaita at the very bottom, suggesting it is most correct. Therefore, the two viewpoints are the polar opposites. How can you then masquerade the one as the other? It looks from here like the former in the guise of the latter, with the name of the latter. So it is alarming that there is the possibility that somebody new inquiring about Vedanta should hear from you what amounts to the honeyed words of ChArvAka- thus drawing them away from the common, and accepted, understanding of Vedanta.

I hope at least you can understand why you are drawing much ire to you, Aupmanyav. Please think deeply about it.

Game.
Set.
Match.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

1) To believe that everything is Brahman, renders one an Advaitin.
2) I believe that everything is Brahman, therefore I'm an Advaitin.
3) I believe that "Brahman" means "physical energy".

How is any of your beliefs Vedantic? Hope you'll take this post in the right spirit and not as an attack on your personal opinion.

Oh, don't worry about attacks on personal opinion. It is a discussion and you have the right to ask. So,

1) I am an 'advaitist', believer in Brahman's non-duality (Don't know about Vedanta).
2) What constitutes all things is known as Brahman in Hinduism.
3) Closest to what constitutes all things in science is 'physical energy'.
4) Therefore, Brahman is 'physical energy'.

If various books and people say differently, they do not affect my personal opinion. If they find my view faulty, it is their problem. I am completely satisfied with it. I am not afraid to walk alone.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shankaracharya accepted the existence of Ishwara, devas, moksha, and samsAra at the vyavahArika level.

As far as my views go, I do not find Gods and Goddesses useful at the 'Vyavaharika' level. Of course, culturally they are important to me. If others cannot do without them, I have no problem with them. You see, Sankara was a head of a ascetic sect. He had his responsibilities to the sect and to the public at large. I do not have any such responsibility. So, the views are bound to differ. That in no way creates any confusion in my beliefs or my respect to Sankara and Buddha, two people whom I consider my gurus. Why cannot one have respect for people with different views? I respect Madhvacharya just as well. They are great Acharyas of my religion. They had great knowledge. You see, divergent views are more important than convergent views, because they help in arriving at truth. You know what Kabir said about critics (Nandak niyare rakhiye, angan kuti chhavay, etc. - Keep the critic close, let them have a hut in your courtyard, etc.). That my views are being criticized, I am very happy about it. Where I refer to 'I', it is a reference to the illusory 'I'. The illusory 'I' cannot have the properties of the real 'I'. The illusory 'I' will die only for the people who do not understand, the real 'I' does not die and will be born again as part of millions of living and non-living things (the samsaric cycle). Goes without saying that I am not a course-book advaitist.

Let's for a moment change what you call the physical energy substratum of the universe from 'Brahman' to 'Loopnova'. This is a word I just made up - the intention here is to show how the way you use the word 'Brahman'.

Do all Hindus mean exactly the same by the word Brahman? I am sure, Madhvacharya also used the word Brahman. Was his meaning the same as that of Sankara? That is why the many streams of Vedanta. So, what is wrong if I have another take on the word Brahman?

Perhaps I can put it like this. The Loopnova is a physical, empirically observable and testable (can be subject to scientific experimentation, perhaps at a future date) energetic substratum for all of time, space, and matter. We have begun to detect the existence of the Loopnova through experiments in quantum physics, whereby we realize that there may be a sentience, or a kind of consciousness, which is similar to subatomic particles called photons, which act as though possessing sentience when scrutinized in a double slit experiment. The Loopnova, if indeed it has a kind of consciousness, is utterly different from human consciousness, which is totally ephemeral, an emergent and transient property of the brain, and does not exist before or after life of the body. The Loopnova is eternal, but this in no way confirms the existence of any kind of afterlife or rebirth, nor has it anything at all to do with a God or gods (which are all non-existent), supra-sensuous entities or realities, or a soul, which is also non-existent. Enlightenment, or jnAnam, is our deepening search, through scientific advancement, for knowledge of the Loopnova; therefore, to be scientifically literate, as opposed to superstitious minded (which is what the aforementioned supernatural beliefs entail), is what constitutes enlightenment.

:jiggy: Bravo, Makranda. Your Loopnova is exactly like my Brahman.

Now, let's be honest with ourselves; does this sound anything like Hinduism, or anything like Vedanta?

People have resistance to new thoughts, that is understandable. It is certainly 'advaita', acceptance of the existence of just one entity in the universe. I have no hesitation to say that this is Hinduism where genuine inquiry is valued. Where genuine inquiry and difference of views is not accepted, I would not call it Hinduism.

you quote a mAhAvAkya ad-nauseum, pillaged from its natural definition and context.

I have clearly mentioned in the forum what Mahavakya I do not accept and which are the ones that I accept and I have given my reasons for that. Why do you call it pillaging? I am a Hindu, I have a right to use them. What is wrong if my interpretation differs from those of others? Is it that they had just one single interpretation previously and mine is the only one that differs? If they had the right to differ, why I cannot have the same right?

 

[atanu]

.... Why cannot one have respect for people with different views? I respect Madhvacharya just as well. They are great Acharyas of my religion. They had great knowledge. You see, divergent views are more important than convergent views, because they help in arriving at truth. ....

:thud:

It is you alone who is allergic to diversity and thus want us to believe that a table and a chair are both table only. Every one has a right to a view. But your view is not of Hindu dharma in general and not of advaita. But you want us to believe your view is a valid hindu dharma view.

The thread is "Consciousness is brahman", you say you do not believe it and then claim that you are an advaitist and a Hindu. And so goes with all your concepts.

You are misleading one and all saying that you believe only the paramarthika view, and you reject all vyavaric concepts such as karma, rebirth, soul etc. etc.

In the OP itself, is given the description of the Param, the Prabhu, the advaita shiva atma. Let us see how much of that tallies with YOUR parmarthika view.

Mandukya 7
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, un-inferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

None of the attribute indicated for the non dual truth tallies with your paramathaika view. Where is physical energy (which is evidently measurable) mentioned? The non dual is incomprehensible but is the essence of the discerning capacity in all three states of existence, namely, waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

In short, the non dual param is the CONSCIOUSNESS.

.......
You are just bluffing. Any one reading your posts will immediately recognise that you are not open to other people pointing out facts that contradict your views. To me, you do not seem well read and neither do you seem to have any experience of the non dual brahman spoken of in the Upanishad.

Your views simply are not those of Hinduism.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupmanyav ji :namaste

I do not even understand the expression 'Krishna consciousness'. I am not a theist, so the theist portions of BhagwadGita do not appeal to me.

"Sarva-dharmān parityajya, mām ekam saraṇam vraja;
aham tvām sarva-pāpebhyo, moksayisyāmi mā sucah."

Confronted with such verses, I think in this way that it is not a God Krishna who is speaking but the writer means one should find refuge in my kind of Brahman.

If one talkes only the verses of the gita that one likes , then one takes these verses out of context , in which case one canot say that one is even reading the Gita ....

if one is not acknowledging the gita to be the words of sri Krsna , then one is only applying what one reads to ones material life ......

therefore you read the gita not to learn but to support your own argument ....

it is very telling that you say ...'' my kind of Brahman.'' .......

is thia not ahamkara ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. which rejects the notion of Veda as a pramAna, .. places the ChArvAka view, which is very similar to your view, at the very top of the list .. So it is alarming that there is the possibility that somebody new inquiring about Vedanta should hear from you what amounts to the honeyed words of ChArvAka- thus drawing them away from the common, and accepted, understanding of Vedanta.

I do not reject Vedas. My view is based on Nasadiya Sukta which negated the existence of Gods and Goddesses before creation of the universe. I do not reject the wisdom of other scriptures for many things. Of course, I do not also consider every word to be a revelation by a God. Sankaracharya Vidyaranya lived in the 14th Century. He did not have excess to what we know today. Therefore, his views and mine cannot be compared. How can you claim that even if Vidyaranya lived in the 20th Century, his views would have been the same as in 14th Century? And if they were, would Vidyaranya not be eligible to be termed as a 'koopa manduka'? That is the difference between Hinduism and other religions, while Christianity is fixed on a six-day creation of the universe and Islam says that Allah rent the moon. We should move with the times. Kindly read this Readings from a 20th Century Hindu Law Book (Smriti). This is how we should accept the changes. There is nothing strange in Vidyaranya putting Charvak philosophy at the top and advaita at the bottom, since he was himself an advaitist. It would be extremely unfortunate if somebody new to Hinduism came here and saw that the only difference between the Abrahamic regions and Hinduism is that where as the Abrahamics worship just one God, Hindus worship a plethora of Gods and Goddesses, otherwise there is no difference. He would not know all the brain-work that goes into making Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

it is very telling that you say ...''my kind of Brahman.'' .. is thia not ahamkara ?

No Ratikala, it is very simple. It is a difference of view, 'matantara', which is not a crime in Hinduism. There are people who are ready to accept Jesus in Hinduism, I suppose acceptance of Mohammad would not be far behind. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/158827-does-hinduism-acknowledge-jesus-avatar.html

 

[Aupmanyav]

:thud:
It is you alone who is allergic to diversity and thus want us to believe that a table and a chair are both table only. Every one has a right to a view. But your view is not of Hindu dharma in general and not of advaita. But you want us to believe your view is a valid hindu dharma view.

Sorry to see that you had a fall. Did you hurt yourself? So I am allergic to diversity that is why my putting a different view point has enraged the members of this forum? Is that what you want to say, Atanu? Both table and chair are Brahman. Every one has a right to a view, but you have the right to decide if my view is Hindu or not. Truely, Atanu, it is a disgusting argument from all angles. :sarcastic

The thread is "Consciousness is brahman", you say you do not believe it and then claim that you are an advaitist and a Hindu. And so goes with all your concepts.

You have some reading or understanding difficulty? I have always said that the consciousness of Brahman is different from Human consciousness.

You are misleading one and all saying that you believe only the paramarthika view, and you reject all vyavaric concepts such as karma, rebirth, soul etc. etc.

Kindly tell me in what way I have mislead people? I have just given my view. Ishwara in Vyavaharika is false in Parmarthika. I accept only what is true at all levels, only the unconditional truth. What is wrong with that?

Where is physical energy (which is evidently measurable) mentioned? The non dual is incomprehensible but is the essence of the discerning capacity in all three states of existence, namely, waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

What do we know about energy. Even scientists do not claim what you are claiming. "The universe contains 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy (for a total of 95.1%) and 4.9% ordinary matter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy. we have to know a whole lot about energy. Don't be so smug. Brahman (energy) is always fully awake, I do not know it either to sleep or dream.

In short, the non dual param is the CONSCIOUSNESS.

:ROFL: Did I ever say that it was unconscious? Don't be a joke, Atanu.

Any one reading your posts will immediately recognise that you are not open to other people pointing out facts that contradict your views. To me, you do not seem well read and neither do you seem to have any experience of the non dual brahman spoken of in the Upanishad. Your views simply are not those of Hinduism.

My view are mine. They may match with some views in the scriptures or they may not. There are Vaishnava/Shaiva/Shakta/Smarta scriptures. Not all of their views are common. If they do not match, that does not worry me. Have I asked anyone to follow my views? I have no problems with your disagreement with my views. But nobody has appointed you to be the judge.

 

[atanu]

... There are Vaishnava/Shaiva/Shakta/Smarta scriptures. Not all of their views are common. If they do not match, that does not worry me. Have I asked anyone to follow my views? I have no problems with your disagreement with my views. But nobody has appointed you to be the judge.

No school however disregards that Brahman is consciousness. No school disregards sruti regarding rebirth and karma. No school disregards teachings on Soul (jiva atman and param atman). The differences are on emphasis only.

Whereas, clearly, you are a Lokyata. You have nothing in common with any of teachers you mention, Shankara or Ramana. You are a Lokayata. Simple. There is nothing wrong in that. However, it is, IMO, untruthful activity to pose as a believer of Hindu Dharma.

 

[George-ananda]

I do not even understand the expression 'Krishna consciousness'. I am not a theist, so the theist portions of BhagwadGita do not appeal to me.

"Sarva-dharmān parityajya, mām ekam saraṇam vraja;
aham tvām sarva-pāpebhyo, moksayisyāmi mā sucah."

Confronted with such verses, I think in this way that it is not a God Krishna who is speaking but the writer means one should find refuge in my kind of Brahman.

Aup, You say you revere the Gita but really you don't acccept the obviously intended meaning of who Krishna really is. The author clearly did not intend the interpretation you are taking from the Gita.

You might want to reflect awhile on all this and maybe fairly consider a more traditional reading of the Gita and interpretation of Brahman. I personally believe the traditional teachings of the great minds of our tradition are both objectively and subjectively more satisfying than scientific atheism which only sees the surface.

I have no desire to pick on you, we're just trying to have our beliefs not misrepresented to others.

 

[Poeticus]

You might want to reflect awhile on all this...

...And take another break
from RF and recollect on
what has been said and
offered, instead of carelessly
arguing on and on in this DIR.​

 

[Makaranda]

As far as my views go, I do not find Gods and Goddesses useful at the 'Vyavaharika' level. Of course, culturally they are important to me. If others cannot do without them, I have no problem with them. You see, Sankara was a head of a ascetic sect. He had his responsibilities to the sect and to the public at large. I do not have any such responsibility. So, the views are bound to differ. That in no way creates any confusion in my beliefs or my respect to Sankara and Buddha, two people whom I consider my gurus. Why cannot one have respect for people with different views?

You have also denied the vyavahArik reality of samsAra, Atma, karma, Ishwara, and moksha (as commonly understood). I believe this brings you beyond the circumference of acceptability with reference to Advaita Vedanta. You may think of Shankara as your guru, but frankly I do not think Shankara would presently think of you as his student.

I assume you have not read the upadesha sAhasrI verses I requested you read- verses written by your guru, Shankara.

Do all Hindus mean exactly the same by the word Brahman? I am sure, Madhvacharya also used the word Brahman. Was his meaning the same as that of Sankara? That is why the many streams of Vedanta. So, what is wrong if I have another take on the word Brahman?

You can have whatever take you like, only don't call it Advaita Vedanta, which has a very specific take on the word Brahman, one which you reject.

It is certainly 'advaita', acceptance of the existence of just one entity in the universe

There are people who say that the universe is composed of one material substance only. They are called monists. They deny there is any duality such as matter and spirit. They are also materialists. This does not make them Advaitins. The word 'Advaitin' with reference to Hinduism has a specific meaning- it does not simply mean one who accepts the existence of just one entity in the universe. It means one who accepts and follows a non-dualistic interpretation and understanding of the Upanishads (which is Vedanta).

I have clearly mentioned in the forum what Mahavakya I do not accept and which are the ones that I accept and I have given my reasons for that. Why do you call it pillaging?

You have answered your own question:

I have clearly mentioned in the forum what Mahavakya I do not accept and which are the ones that I accept

To pillage is to take forcefully. You have taken certain mAhAvAkyas, and left others, and then forced the mAhAvAkya to fit your preconceived notions- notions which are not congruent with the Upanishads (or the other mAhAvAkyas) or Advaita Vedanta.

The word Brahman with reference to Advaita Vedanta has a very specific meaning. The meaning of the word is revealed in the Upanishads. You select certain verses at your convenience, and ignore or reject others. Therefore you are not going to have the meaning of the word as revealed by the Upanishads and understood in Advaita Vedanta, but rather you are going to have a partial and distorted definition, which you then apply to your own philosophy and call it Advaita.

I do not reject Vedas.

When you selectively mine verses from Vedic texts and reject others, then you are appealing to a different authority (your own, evidently) for your understanding and not seeking to understand those verses in their proper and whole context. If you reject one verse but accept another,essentially you are saying some verses are wrong and some verses are right. This means there is a standard external from the Veda with which you compare it, and if the Veda fails to match that standard, or fails to fit in with it, then you do indeed reject the Vedas. This standard I believe and have demonstrated is similar to chArvAka and is not in agreement with Advaita Vedanta.

Another problem with your approach that I have not thus far mentioned is your reliance on empirical observation to provide knowledge of reality. Just like the chArvAkas, I assume you reject the existence of supra-sensuous realities such as Ishwara, devas, karma, Atma etc because these things cannot be proven to exist via the empirical method of scientific experimentation (that is, they cannot be the object of sense perception or inference). It's a well known fact, however, and a foundational teaching in Vedanta, that the purpose of all the Vedic texts is to reveal those things which cannot be the object of those means of knowledge called sense perception and inference. In other words, the Vedic texts themselves are the means of knowledge for knowing those things such as Ishwara, devas, rebirth etc which can't be known by any other means, such as empirical observation. Therefore, when you deny the existence of these things, you do in fact reject the Vedas as an authoritative means of knowledge. Further, by saying that Brahman can become an object of scientific measurement, not only are you contradicting the Vedic texts which say that Brahman is not a measurable object, but you are also charging the Vedic texts with redundancy; for what can be known through multiple means of knowledge need not be known by any one in particular. In other words, the rishis and all the gurus are out of a job! We might as well all become phd students of quantum physics rather than become Vedanta students, because, after all, Brahman may simply be found using a very strong microscope! You'd make Vedanta redundant, unnecessary and useless in lieu of scientific enquiry of the material world.

Sankaracharya Vidyaranya lived in the 14th Century. He did not have excess to what we know today. Therefore, his views and mine cannot be compared.

You've missed the point I think. Vedanta deals with eternal truths, regardless of time and space. VidyAranya was an exemplary Advaitin. As an Advaitin his views are the very opposite of yours. Therefore, the implication is: you ought to re-examine your views if you, too, consider yourself an Advaitin.

Nobody is saying you are not entitled to your view, Aupmanyav, nobody at all. I would not force you to change what you believe. The issue, is however, to say that your view is X when in fact it is clearly Y. If everybody else here who follows X thinks your view is Y, and they show how by explaining what is X, what is not X, and how X differs from Y, and yet you insist that your view is X even though it looks exactly like Y under another name, then you ought to seriously consider renaming it to Y, or P or Z or whatever else you might like, just not X. I think to do otherwise at this point is merely stubbornness, and is ignoring the concerns of mis-representation raised by the followers of X.

 

[Poeticus]

You have also denied the vyavahArik reality of samsAra, Atma, karma, Ishwara, and moksha (as commonly understood). I believe this brings you beyond the circumference of acceptability with reference to Advaita Vedanta. You may think of Shankara as your guru, but frankly I do not think Shankara would presently think of you as his student.

I assume you have not read the upadesha sAhasrI verses I requested you read- verses written by your guru, Shankara.


You can have whatever take you like, only don't call it Advaita Vedanta, which has a very specific take on the word Brahman, one which you reject.




There are people who say that the universe is composed of one material substance only. They are called monists. They deny there is any duality such as matter and spirit. They are also materialists. This does not make them Advaitins. The word 'Advaitin' with reference to Hinduism has a specific meaning- it does not simply mean one who accepts the existence of just one entity in the universe. It means one who accepts and follows a non-dualistic interpretation and understanding of the Upanishads (which is Vedanta).



You have answered your own question:



To pillage is to take forcefully. You have taken certain mAhAvAkyas, and left others, and then forced the mAhAvAkya to fit your preconceived notions- notions which are not congruent with the Upanishads (or the other mAhAvAkyas) or Advaita Vedanta.

The word Brahman with reference to Advaita Vedanta has a very specific meaning. The meaning of the word is revealed in the Upanishads. You select certain verses at your convenience, and ignore or reject others. Therefore you are not going to have the meaning of the word as revealed by the Upanishads and understood in Advaita Vedanta, but rather you are going to have a partial and distorted definition, which you then apply to your own philosophy and call it Advaita.



When you selectively mine verses from Vedic texts and reject others, then you are appealing to a different authority (your own, evidently) for your understanding and not seeking to understand those verses in their proper and whole context. If you reject one verse but accept another,essentially you are saying some verses are wrong and some verses are right. This means there is a standard external from the Veda with which you compare it, and if the Veda fails to match that standard, or fails to fit in with it, then you do indeed reject the Vedas. This standard I believe and have demonstrated is similar to chArvAka and is not in agreement with Advaita Vedanta.

Another problem with your approach that I have not thus far mentioned is your reliance on empirical observation to provide knowledge of reality. Just like the chArvAkas, I assume you reject the existence of supra-sensuous realities such as Ishwara, devas, karma, Atma etc because these things cannot be proven to exist via the empirical method of scientific experimentation (that is, they cannot be the object of sense perception or inference). It's a well known fact, however, and a foundational teaching in Vedanta, that the purpose of all the Vedic texts is to reveal those things which cannot be the object of those means of knowledge called sense perception and inference. In other words, the Vedic texts themselves are the means of knowledge for knowing those things such as Ishwara, devas, rebirth etc which can't be known by any other means, such as empirical observation. Therefore, when you deny the existence of these things, you do in fact reject the Vedas as an authoritative means of knowledge. Further, by saying that Brahman can become an object of scientific measurement, not only are you contradicting the Vedic texts which say that Brahman is not a measurable object, but you are also charging the Vedic texts with redundancy; for what can be known through multiple means of knowledge need not be known by any one in particular. In other words, the rishis and all the gurus are out of a job! We might as well all become phd students of quantum physics rather than become Vedanta students, because, after all, Brahman may simply be found using a very strong microscope! You'd make Vedanta redundant, unnecessary and useless in lieu of scientific enquiry of the material world.



You've missed the point I think. Vedanta deals with eternal truths, regardless of time and space. VidyAranya was an exemplary Advaitin. As an Advaitin his views are the very opposite of yours. Therefore, the implication is: you ought to re-examine your views if you, too, consider yourself an Advaitin.

Nobody is saying you are not entitled to your view, Aupmanyav, nobody at all. I would not force you to change what you believe. The issue, is however, to say that your view is X when in fact it is clearly Y. If everybody else here who follows X thinks your view is Y, and they show how by explaining what is X, what is not X, and how X differs from Y, and yet you insist that your view is X even though it looks exactly like Y under another name, then you ought to seriously consider renaming it to Y, or P or Z or whatever else you might like, just not X. I think to do otherwise at this point is merely stubbornness, and is ignoring the concerns of mis-representation raised by the followers of X.

^​

 

[Makaranda]

Okay that made me laugh but I hope my posts aren't construed as debating. Just trying to explain to Aupmanyav why he's getting a hard time lately on the forum.

 

[atanu]

Okay that made me laugh but I hope my posts aren't construed as debating. Just trying to explain to Aupmanyav why he's getting a hard time lately on the forum.

Debating? You are shown to make killing after killing. Poor Aup.

 

[Makaranda]

Haha, but seriously, not trying to pass my own views off as authoritative or anything, rather voicing the concern of a majority of members in the DIR (and I think we can all agree on some basic axioms of Vedanta, no matter how differently we interpret the details).

Apologies if the tone of my posts are combative, and no offense is intended towards Aupmanyav.