The Validity of Advaita

[Poeticus]

Dear Advaitin-s,

What is the validity of Advaita?

The qualifier of this validity is
on the grounds of:​

1. What makes Advaita true?
2. How does Advaita refute Dvaita?
3. How does Advaita refute other
   Vedantic schools of thought?
4. How does Advaita keep itself in
   line with or true to Shruti?

 

[Stormcry]

Dear Advaitin-s,what is the validity of Advaita?​

As if you wanna know validity of Sun in the sky.

What makes Advaita true?

Strong support from Upanishads and Puranas make Advaita true. Even more strong support - In entire scriptures there's not even one verse saying 'Atma is different from Brahman". However there are thousands of shruti & Puranas verses ready to show oneness of atma & brahman. "Aham Brahmasmi" "tat tvam asi" "atmaiva idam sarvam" & so on...

How does Advaita refute Dvaita?
[*]How does Advaita refute other
Vedantic schools of thought?

Advaita doesn't refute anyone. They know refuting is a full of dualities and certainly a game of maya. Who says I am right others are wrong, doesn't know the truth and is considered in the influence of Maya. Advaitians stay silent even as shruti gets silent after negating everything and getting happy in Brahman. Refuting is a game of childs.

How does Advaita keep itself in
line with or true to Shruti?

There's no need to keep sun shining.....

Hare Krishna Thank you​

​

 

[Makaranda]

What makes Advaita true?

Scriptural support, reasoning (logic) and my own experience makes it true for me.

How does Advaita refute Dvaita?

It doesn't! Empirically or provisionally it is accepted. It is negated at the higher level, but Dvaita cannot tread there, so there is no harm in it.

How does Advaita refute other
Vedantic schools of thought?

Shankara debated a few other Vedantins (Bhartrprapancha) in his commentaries and so did his disciples but the major opponents of Advaita back in the day weren't other schools of Vedanta, but rather the mimAmsakas and the buddhists.

How does Advaita keep itself in
line with or true to Shruti?

Very easily! There's lots of shruti support.

 

[Poeticus]

Shankara debated a few other Vedantins (Bhartrprapancha) in his commentaries and so did his disciples but the major opponents of Advaita back in the day weren't other schools of Vedanta, but rather the mimAmsakas and the buddhists.

What is your opinion
on Purva Mimamsa ?​

 

[Makaranda]

I don't think much about it, to be honest

To each his own, really. In my limited understanding of Purva Mimamsa gained through criticism of it by Shankara and others, I am lead to believe it is suitable for those who are desirous of material or spiritual wealth in this world or the next. The Vedas cater to every taste and desire man encounters- hence there is the Karma Kanda portion, as well as the Jnana Kanda. For some the Karma Kanda is their refuge. Advaitins, however, will draw on shruti such as Mundaka Upanishad, 1.2.9-10 to suggest that the results of all actions (including Vedic actions) are perishable, and therefore not worth seeking for their own sake ultimately, but are rather helpful only for purification of the mind in preparation for self-knowledge.

But my own opinion is not much at all. I think if someone truly desires spiritual or material wealth, then I am nobody to tell him/her otherwise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What makes Advaita true?: Scientific observation. Can't find any other entity in the universe other than energy.
How does Advaita refute Dvaita?: Davitist have their beliefs. Advaitist have their own. Both are part of Hinduism. Both have to exist together. Why refute?
How does Advaita refute other Vedantic schools of thought?: Same as above.
How does Advaita keep itself in line with or true to Shruti?[/QUOTE]'Sarvam khalu idam Brahma' Chhandogya U.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Following a path if people have reached to IT, Is proof f eating the pudding.
Rest are mind delusions.

Love & rgds

 

[Stormcry]

Scientific observation. Can't find any other entity in the universe other than energy.

The same scientific observation.. I mean common sense too says that each people have different consciousness. Each have different mind, intellect and further says material is true which is formed from energy while Advaita says both material & energy are illusions.. it's clear that science refutes Advaita's one consciousness. Science believes what we see what we think but doesn't wanna accept the fact that all human senses have limitations. Seeing the vastness of universe our sense' power is NOTHING.. I see science a game of fun. The scientists say work can not be done by any external force... Same scientists say that this universe is running working on its own. There's no controller. There's no god... Even Fools are better than such scientists..at least they don't know anything and don't say such funny things..

Advaita is not the thing which can be proved by material science. It is experienced and explained by some higher observations & logics on self that are recorded by our divine sages in various scriptures.

 

[bhootarajaru]

The same scientific observation.. I mean common sense too says that each people have different consciousness. Each have different mind, intellect and further says material is true which is formed from energy while Advaita says both material & energy are illusions.. it's clear that science refutes Advaita's one consciousness. Science believes what we see what we think but doesn't wanna accept the fact that all human senses have limitations. Seeing the vastness of universe our sense' power is NOTHING.. I see science a game of fun. The scientists say work can not be done by any external force... Same scientists say that this universe is running working on its own. There's no controller. There's no god... Even Fools are better than such scientists..at least they don't know anything and don't say such funny things..

Advaita is not the thing which can be proved by material science. It is experienced and explained by some higher observations & logics on self that are recorded by our divine sages in various scriptures.

I accept your stand on scientists, but its hard to differentiate these foolish scientists stand and advaita's stand. Scientists don't accept any creator for the creation i.e universe, advaiti's are the same too,they accept that everything other than brahman as unreal,so where is the difference between those foolish scientists and the people thinking that everything is illusion???

 

[DreadFish]

The same scientific observation.. I mean common sense too says that each people have different consciousness. Each have different mind, intellect and further says material is true which is formed from energy while Advaita says both material & energy are illusions.. it's clear that science refutes Advaita's one consciousness. Science believes what we see what we think but doesn't wanna accept the fact that all human senses have limitations. Seeing the vastness of universe our sense' power is NOTHING.. I see science a game of fun. The scientists say work can not be done by any external force... Same scientists say that this universe is running working on its own. There's no controller. There's no god... Even Fools are better than such scientists..at least they don't know anything and don't say such funny things..

Advaita is not the thing which can be proved by material science. It is experienced and explained by some higher observations & logics on self that are recorded by our divine sages in various scriptures.

Though I would add that for there to be a controller there has to be something separate to control. If God and the individual are both just the Self, there is nothing separate controlling anything. So the whole, of which the known universe is a part, actually is working on it's own.

I also dont take the not-two-ness of Advaita to mean that there is literally a singular consciousness, so the apparent different awarenesses of individuals doesn't conflict anything to me. The point is that there is no separation. Looking at Advaita through thought will never make sense.

Even from a current scientific paradigm, all appearances of substantial difference and separateness are just a product of the way our brain processes sense data. As Aup said, it's all just energy.

 

[Valjean]

Nothing makes advaita true, it just is -- at an ultimate level, and Vedanta is specifically focused on Ultimate Reality.
Of course, dvaita is true as well. There are different truths at different levels or consciousness.

Dualism is subjectively true in our present level of consciousness, but we know that the material world we live in is not really possible -- it violates the laws of physics. It's an illusion, a dream.

Real reality is an undifferentiated, unified quantum Reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, we live in two realities, the absolute and the perceived.

 

[Stormcry]

Yes, we live in two realities, the absolute and the perceived.

We don't live in two realities. We live in one reality which is Brahma itself. Jiva perceives false reality, is itself a false reality (Avidya) . The two things which are completely contradictory to each other can not exist simultaneously. Atma is always beyond Purusha(Akshara) and Prakriti(kshara)

 

[DreadFish]

We don't live in two realities. We live in one reality which is Brahma itself. Jiva perceives false reality, is itself a false reality (Avidya) . What you've said is like saying the person is awakened in his dream.

Actually, people can basically be awake in their dreams by being fully lucid

 

[Stormcry]

Actually, people can basically be awake in their dreams by being fully lucid

Awakening is possible only when there's actual awakening. Because whoever gets awakened for him there's no dream at all. So people gets awakened in dream, is meaningless

 

[Valjean]

Actually, people can basically be awake in their dreams by being fully lucid

I'm feeling lucid in the sky, with diamonds, right now -- but I haven't taken my meds recently....

 

[Maya3]

Nope we don´t think it´s illusion, that´s a misconception.

Maya

 

[bhootarajaru]

Nothing makes advaita true, it just is -- at an ultimate level, and Vedanta is specifically focused on Ultimate Reality.
Of course, dvaita is true as well. There are different truths at different levels or consciousness.

Dualism is subjectively true in our present level of consciousness, but we know that the material world we live in is not really possible -- it violates the laws of physics. It's an illusion, a dream.

Real reality is an undifferentiated, unified quantum Reality.

This really doesn't make any sense,the fact that someone exists is always true,it cannot be sometimes true and sometimes false!!!!!!!!If this someone dies,then the fact that he is dead is as true as the fact that he existed before his death.....

 

[bhootarajaru]

We don't live in two realities. We live in one reality which is Brahma itself. Jiva perceives false reality, is itself a false reality (Avidya) . The two things which are completely contradictory to each other can not exist simultaneously. Atma is always beyond Purusha(Akshara) and Prakriti(kshara)

If it was only one ,then why are we experiencing samsaara?????Why is there need for false reality,i.e illusion????

 

[Valjean]

This really doesn't make any sense,the fact that someone exists is always true,it cannot be sometimes true and sometimes false!!!!!!!!If this someone dies,then the fact that he is dead is as true as the fact that he existed before his death.....

Certainly it can. There are different realities (small r) at different levels of consciousness.
For example, the people In my dreams last night were real people -- at the level I was experiencing them, ie: dream state. They were not Objectively Real (big R), of course.

So... the people in my dream were real at one point, and now they are not. I've moved into a different reality where they don't exist. Now my reality involves a Toshiba laptop which I'm busily banging away at. It's real -- but only for now. If I wake up to the next level it will no longer be real. I will have transcended it just as I did the people in last night's dream.

Reality is a nested series of dream states, each subjectively real till the illusion, Maya, is shattered on waking to the next state. Only in the highest state does the experienced reality of the subject conform to the Objective Reality described by physicists and Rishis.

Reaching this state is the whole point of Hinduism. Many techniques of waking oneself up (Yogas) have been developed, which may or may not involve the use of Gods.
Worshiping Gods just to worship Gods is silly idolatry. Gods are tools, to be discarded once they've served their purpose.

"If this someone dies,then the fact that he is dead is as true as the fact that he existed before his death....."

And one other thing (as long as I'm ranting). Time, too, is an illusion. There is no Real "before" or "after."

Time is different in different places and to different observers (Einstein) It's not a single, directional, unfolding history. It explodes into a thousand different time lines at every moment (Everett).

Schroedinger's kitty is both dead and alive.