Some free talk about the flow of religious wisdom

[LuisDantas]

You don't seem to know what "Atheist" means, as you keep demonstrating.

Uh, no. He knows quite well what an Atheist is.

 

[LuisDantas]

((Have you ever heard of "Elevatorgate"? Have you ever spent any time in any atheist forums?))

Why do you see that as significant ?

 

[Unguru]

Tell me, where have I done something unbecoming of a strong atheist?

Your descriptions of Brahman are 100% Pantheistic, you're categorically not an atheist. Saying you don't believe in sky faeries hardly changes it, I don't either yet I'm a monotheist (as espoused by Sikhi).
Monotheists by definition don't believe in anthropomorphic deities, neither do Pantheists. You're a Monistic Pantheist, you've already explained to me that you don't like the word "God" but that doesn't change the fact that you categorically do believe in a concept of "God".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Saving what does not exist in the first place is quite difficult.

You're a Monistic Pantheist, ..

Kindly see the definitions of the two words. For a monist, there is no 'pan', because he/she will see only one. And if I do not accept God then how can I be a theist of any kind, including being a 'pantheist'?

 

[LuisDantas]

Your descriptions of Brahman are 100% Pantheistic, you're categorically not an atheist. Saying you don't believe in sky faeries hardly changes it, I don't either yet I'm a monotheist (as espoused by Sikhi).
Monotheists by definition don't believe in anthropomorphic deities, neither do Pantheists. You're a Monistic Pantheist, you've already explained to me that you don't like the word "God" but that doesn't change the fact that you categorically do believe in a concept of "God".

And you call my post funny?

You are quite confused, fellow Dharmi.

It is not for you to decide whether @Aupmanyav - or anyone - is an atheist, particularly against his own testimonial.

In any case, he is very much an atheist. I am very surprised that you do not realize that. It is not exactly hidden.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Aupmanyav

I had intended to respond to your last post to me but came across the following, posted by Salixncendium to AT-AT, which has moved me in another direction temporarily.




I note that Salixincendium also claims to be an advaitist Hindu. Above, he writes: ...[E]xistence beyond reality, I see this as absolute truth, pure consciousness, and bliss ... satcitananda."
"Saticitananda" is a new word to me, so I looked it up and found: What is Sat-Chit-Ananda? - Definition from Yogapedia where I'm told that:

Definition - What does Sat-Chit-Ananda mean?
Sat-chit-ananda is a Sanskrit term that describes the nature of reality as it is conceptualized in Hindu and yogic philosophy. Some consider sat-chit-ananda to be the same as God or Brahman (Absolute Reality). Others use it as a term to describe the experience of realizing the unity and wholeness of all existence.

Yogapedia explains Sat-Chit-Ananda
The meaning of the individual words of sat-chit-ananda are as follows:

• Sat: truth, absolute being or existence-- that which is enduring and unchanging
• Chit: consciousness, understanding and comprehension
• Ananda: bliss, a state of pure happiness, joy and sensual pleasure

A common translation of sat-chit-ananda is "truth-consciousness-bliss." Sometimes sat-chit-ananda is considered to be a triple consciousness, where all three elements can be taken separately or considered as one because, in reality, each element is found in everything.

Some say that the experience of sat-chit-ananda is only accessible to a few advanced spiritual masters. Potentially, only 20 or 30 masters have ever been able to reach and remain in this state. It is easier for people to achieve an illuminated mind, but sat-chit-ananda is a higher state even than that.

In the philosophy of Vedanta, sat-chit-ananda is used as a synonym for the three qualities of Brahman. It is the supremely blissful experience of pure consciousness, unity and ultimate reality. Sri Aurobindo considers sat-chit-ananda to be the eternal and unified concept of the soul, which is beyond space, matter and time.

Though it is a lofty goal that may not be achieved in the practitioner's lifetime, practicing yoga can help move the individual closer to sat-chit-ananda.

The portions that I highlighted and underlined in red above leaped out at me:

1. Some consider sat-chit-ananda to be the same as God or Brahman (Absolute Reality).
2. Potentially, only 20 or 30 masters have ever been able to reach and remain in this state. It is easier for people to achieve an illuminated mind, but sat-chit-ananda is a higher state even than that.
3. Sri Aurobindo considers sat-chit-ananda to be the eternal and unified concept of the soul, which is beyond space, matter and time.
4. Though it is a lofty goal that may not be achieved in the practitioner's lifetime, practicing yoga can help move the individual closer to sat-chit-ananda.

Although I may be merely imagining doing so, I almost think that I can connect some aspects of your Brahman to my Universe. It's not a problem for me though, nor for you I hope, because neither of us is fixated on converting the other.

Regarding #2: That's a bummer, I would think.

Regarding #3: Bummer # Two. "Sat-chit-ananda" ... "is beyond space, matter and time." Aurobindo's claim raises the first IID between me and those who are in agreement with him. I'm a Monist at this time and my Universe only consists of things always moving through space over time. Thus, an Insuperably Irreconcilable Difference exists between Aurobindo claim and my Monist worldview.

Regarding #4: Bummer # Three. I'm 70 years old and my time on earth is fast approaching an end under the best of circumstances. From where I sit, I have a better chance of getting into heaven than I would trying to achieve sat-chit-ananda in this world. Especially if it's true that only 20 or 30 masters ever actually reached and remained in that state. More so if trying to achieve it ends with death.

With that, I'll close. Thanks for your time and information.

Advaita means "not two" and is the Vedanta philosophy of nondualism, which means that an Advaitin views his/herself to be identical to Brahman. There are variations to Advaita Vedanta (pure nondualism), such as Vishishtadvaita, which is qualified nondualism, and shuddhadvaita which is a form of pure nondualism whose concept of maya is different than in Advaita Vedanta.

The two links @Aupmanyav leaves in his reply might be misleading, as the former is advaita, and the latter is Bhedabheda which is technically not advaita, but dvaitadvaita, a philosophy or school which takes the stance of difference and non-difference of the self from Brahman, whereas in advaita, there is no difference between the self and Brahman; they are identical.

So to summarize, conceptualizations of the true nature of Brahman and Atman (or jivAtman) may vary slightly from school to school, which I believe to be the case between Aup's and my own views, but recognizing that they are identical is what makes one an Advaitin.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Your descriptions of Brahman are 100% Pantheistic, you're categorically not an atheist. Saying you don't believe in sky faeries hardly changes it, I don't either yet I'm a monotheist (as espoused by Sikhi).
Monotheists by definition don't believe in anthropomorphic deities, neither do Pantheists. You're a Monistic Pantheist, you've already explained to me that you don't like the word "God" but that doesn't change the fact that you categorically do believe in a concept of "God".

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not well informed on Sikhism. Does Sikhism teach one to stand in judgment of others?

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Unguru , you might go through this thread: Non-duality in Sikhism

 

[Unguru]

You are quite confused, fellow Dharmi.

Thanks for the prescription doc!

In any case, he is very much an atheist.

Yeah we get it Luis, everyone here on RF knows how much you LOVE Atheism, you don't have to butt in here, this is not your conversation.

 

[Unguru]

Kindly see the definitions of the two words. For a monist, there is no 'pan', because he/she will see only one. And if I do not accept God then how can I be a theist of any kind, including being a 'pantheist'?

Well:

My view is that Brahman is the entity with which we started at the time of (the supposed) creation and constitutes all things in the universe, humans, animals, vegetation, stone, water, air; everything without any exception whatsoever, and nothing other than that entity exists. That is indicated in the Upanishadic sayings like 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Eko Sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (what exists is one, there is no second), 'Ayamatma Brahman' (This self is Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are), 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah' (Brahman is truth, the world is an illusion (in the true sense), a living being is no different than Brahman - this saying goes to Adi Sankaracharya).

This is not atheism, let alone "Strong atheist". You've already explained how you hate Christians and hate the Abrahamic religions, you think they're the worst thing there is. Ok, fine, but neither own the word "God". Your descriptions of Brahman meet those of Pantheists and Pantheistic Monists exactly.
God and Brahman are in most cases (yes, including even those of Abrahamic religions, where you'll even find Monism there), identical concepts.
Gods often takes on other meanings, being Deities.

"God" (in the singular) is identical to Brahman, Parabrahman (and every other variation) - PERIOD.

Deities however are different, such as Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Thor, Pan, Horus etc (which neither of us believe in obviously).

You now understand that Anthropomorphic deities aren't the same as Monotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism etc now?


But still you can't see beyond your own nose.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for the prescription doc!



Yeah we get it Luis, everyone here on RF knows how much you LOVE Atheism, you don't have to butt in here, this is not your conversation.

Ah. Not your call, pal.

 

[atanu]

Well:

This is not atheism, let alone "Strong atheist". You've already explained how you hate Christians and hate the Abrahamic religions, you think they're the worst thing there is. Ok, fine, but neither own the word "God". Your descriptions of Brahman meet those of Pantheists and Pantheistic Monists exactly.
God and Brahman are in most cases (yes, including even those of Abrahamic religions, where you'll even find Monism there), identical concepts.
Gods often takes on other meanings, being Deities.

"God" (in the singular) is identical to Brahman, Parabrahman (and every other variation) - PERIOD.

Deities however are different, such as Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Thor, Pan, Horus etc (which neither of us believe in obviously).

You now understand that Anthropomorphic deities aren't the same as Monotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism etc now?


But still you can't see beyond your own nose.

Let me butt in. Aup’s advaita is not advaita of shankaracharya or of any Hindu. In advaita the intrinsic nature of reality (Brahman) is existence-consciousness. It is somewhat akin to panpsychism. Aupmanyav’s Brahman is not that.

Since, I consider this to be mis-representation (possibly wilful), I ignore it. I think it is insult to Shankaracharya and the whole of advaita school.

Something like GSoW, perhaps?????

 

[Unguru]

Let me butt in. Aup’s advaita is not advaita of shankaracharya or of any Hindu. In advaita the intrinsic nature of reality (Brahman) is existence-consciousness.

Lots of Monotheists believe the same thing.

 

[atanu]

Explain.

In Advaita Vedanta, brahman’s intrinsic nature is existence-consciousness. This is also the fundamental of any Vedanta/Hinduism school and this is based on upanishadic teachings such as ‘prajnana brahman’ and many other. From the consciousness aspect alone, a theism can be upheld.

Now if one says “I am an advaitin but my brahman is not conscious but is like electricity”, what happens?

Is such a person an advaitin? And if brahman is electricity then is there any case for theism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

God and Brahman are in most cases (yes, including even those of Abrahamic religions, where you'll even find Monism there), identical concepts.
"God" (in the singular) is identical to Brahman, Parabrahman (and every other variation) - PERIOD.

While I agree to your first sentence (most), I do not agree to your second sentence.
However, if that makes you happy, if you cannot understand the difference between 'most' and 'all', it is OK with me.

.. you don't have to butt in here, this is not your conversation.

It is not a conversation, it is a topic. Conversation is a different thing in Religious Forums.

In Advaita Vedanta, brahman’s intrinsic nature is existence-consciousness. This is also the fundamental of any Vedanta/Hinduism school and this is based on upanishadic teachings such as ‘prajnana brahman’ and many other. From the consciousness aspect alone, a theism can be upheld.

Remove this 'Prajnanam Brahma', and there are a hundred sayings which do not say that Brahman is Consciousness. Moreover, it is hocus-pocus and against science. That is why I do not subscribe to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me butt in. Aup’s advaita is not advaita of shankaracharya or of any Hindu. In advaita the intrinsic nature of reality (Brahman) is existence-consciousness. It is somewhat akin to panpsychism. Aupmanyav’s Brahman is not that.

Since, I consider this to be mis-representation (possibly wilful), I ignore it. I think it is insult to Shankaracharya and the whole of advaita school.

Something like GSoW, perhaps?????

How judgemental... and how presumptuous.

 

[atanu]

How judgemental... and how presumptuous.

Ha. Ha. I reciprocate with a like.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ha. Ha. I reciprocate with a like.

You should. There is service in being warned of our own shortcomings, particularly when we seem to be fully unaware of them.

 

[atanu]

You should. There is service in being warned of our own shortcomings, particularly when we seem to be fully unaware of them.

True. Like instead of asking why one’s view should not be held as presumptuous, going ahead and branding one as presumptuous.

There is no presumption in my observation that ‘Consciousness is Brahman’ in all of Vedanta. That is the core issue.

...