Vaada :Hindu and Indian logic and reasoning

[niranjan]

I believe in oneness, do not know God. Kindly define God.

You say that you believe in oneness. Do you know that this oneness you talk about is the monistic teaching of the impersonal God or Being Brahman which encompasses everything.

Once the sanskaras are gone, the goal of knowing itself as conscious divinity is attained. The drop soul once again becomes merged in the Ocean, that is, it realizes its true Divine indivisible and eternal nature. It has now answered the question of “Who am I?” with “I am God.”
----Meher Baba

Tatvamasi ---- Thou art That.

 

[Aupmanyav]

First define God. 'Brahman' sure is the substrate, most probably it is like 'Quantum fields' and it does constitute everything in the universe, as I have said, energy/substance/space/time. I do not understand 'divinity', 'soul'. Of course, 'Brahman' is eternal, it is 'akshara'. 'Who am I'? I am 'quantum field'. What is 'God'? You, too, are none other, because there is none other than 'Brahman', the substrate. I would not like to use the words which I do not require and which have connotations other than what I mean.

 

[niranjan]

First define God. 'Brahman' sure is the substrate, most probably it is like 'Quantum fields' and it does constitute everything in the universe, as I have said, energy/substance/space/time. I do not understand 'divinity', 'soul'. Of course, 'Brahman' is eternal, it is 'akshara'. 'Who am I'? I am 'quantum field'. What is 'God'? You, too, are none other, because there is none other than 'Brahman', the substrate. I would not like to use the words which I do not require and which have connotations other than what I mean.

And why not . It is Brahman or Being that pervades everything, hence it can be seen as God Himself.

And you cannot say that it is not involved in creation, because all creation comes from Brahman.

All the devas have sprung from Brahman . --- Atharva Veda

Ramakrishna himself says that shakti emerges from brahman , hence brahman indeed in a way is involved in creation, preservation and destruction, all which are the traits of the personal God Ishvara, who is the manifestation of Brahman.

Brahman , if not for you, has for us, the connotations of God.However you are free to believe whatever you wish to believe, but at the same time we also have the right to refute what you have said as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

See 'Brahman' as a God and pray, ask for boons, fight with others who have a different version of God. No, I am more comfortable with a non-interfering, Nirguna (without attributes) Brahman who does not send me to hell.

Is Brahman involved? Is there any creation? Or it is our illusion? We too are not really what we seem to be. So, creation is illusion of illusions. That is a question which needs to be discussed.

Probably creation, preservation, and destruction, all are illusions. Sankara said 'Jagan-mithya, Brahmaiva Satyam'. Only Brahman is truth.

Devas? What Devas? Everything is Brahman, we too are, even a serpent is. By Devas, do you mean us?

What Ramakrishna said was only a repetition of what hindu sages have been saying since ages, nothing new.

My beliefs are for me, when did I refuse you the right to hold your own views? 'Eko Sad, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti'. Hinduism accepts different view points. You are most welcome to differ.

 

[niranjan]

See 'Brahman' as a God and pray, ask for boons, fight with others who have a different version of God. No, I am more comfortable with a non-interfering, Nirguna (without attributes) Brahman who does not send me to hell..

Just because you see Brahman as God, does it mean that you have to pray to it, or ask for boons or even fight with others with a different version of God. Not at all.

Is Brahman involved? Is there any creation? Or it is our illusion? We too are not really what we seem to be. So, creation is illusion of illusions. That is a question which needs to be discussed...

Shakti , which is involved in creation, preservation and destruction is one and the same with brahman. And ramakrishna himself has said this.

Devas? What Devas? Everything is Brahman, we too are, even a serpent is. By Devas, do you mean us?...

Yes, we too are devas, because God is in us as well.

Brahman is everything, so you too are brahman.

What Ramakrishna said was only a repetition of what hindu sages have been saying since ages, nothing new..

True , what matters, is that you are not following him or the sages who preceded him.

My beliefs are for me, when did I refuse you the right to hold your own views? 'Eko Sad, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti'. Hinduism accepts different view points. You are most welcome to differ.

There are different view points , indeed, but only one truth. 2+2=4 in every society and country. Just because someone holds a view point that 2+2=5, does it mean that it is true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The idea of Brahman and God is not the same. Brahman does not need to be worshiped. Brahman does not give boons. Brahman does not send you to hell or heaven. Isavasya Upanishad says ' In darkness are those who worship the manifest, in greater darkness are those who worship the non-manifest'. If not worship, then what do you do with a God? That means you also believe in Brahman and not in a personal God.

Shakti or Maya. Illusions. As I said there is no creation, preservation or destruction. Brahman is eternal and changeless. I am following exactly what my books say. But then you must realize that sages have said various things in various books suiting various people. They knew that one medication does not work for all people.

 

[niranjan]

The idea of Brahman and God is not the same..

This is very foolish. Brahman is indeed God , the impersonal God or Being.

If not worship, then what do you do with a God?

And where has it been stated that a God has to be worshipped compulsorily?You believe in a God or not is irrevalent. And whether you worship the God you believe in or not is also not relevant. It is your own choice.But God is God .

That means you also believe in Brahman and not in a personal God...

Yup, you believe in Brahman, the impersonal God.

Shakti or Maya. Illusions.

So you yourself are an illusion, according to your logic. Then why jot all this stuff. Why not sit there and do nothing. After all everything is an illusion according to you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I am not what I seem to be. Does it make a difference if I sit or jot all this stuff? 'Do nothing' would be wrong (though it would not make any difference to Brahman). Krishna said so, 'Asangostva Akarmani' (do not be attached to inaction). The illusion must do what an illusion is required to do, i.e., action according to 'dharma'. Sankara accepted three levels of reality, Paramarthika, Pratibhasika, and Vyavaharika. Each has to be fulfilled.

 

[xexon]

Ahh. Duality at work.

Everything other than Brahman is illusion?

If everything is Brahman, is illusion not also a part a part of all that is?



x

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it was not for the levels, you would not run from a raging elephant. You would not even need to eat. Maya is not a part of Brahman (Brahman is what it is). It is destiny of the illusions, very few escape from it.

 

[niranjan]

Yes, I am not what I seem to be.

So are you saying that you are not human. Which species are you then !

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I am not what I seem to be. I am a collection of atoms. And if I look closely, I find that atoms are not solid balls, they are just 'quantum fields', waves, particles, energy. In that case, I become quite nebulous (you too). If I term myself as Aupmanyav and a human, that is an illusion of scale. There is only one specie and only one specimen, and that is Brahman.

 

[niranjan]

There is only one specie and only one specimen, and that is Brahman.

Which means Aham Bhramasmi -- I am He.

 

[niranjan]

Q: How can the reason be developed?



Sweet Mother: Oh! By using it! Reason is developed like the muscles, like the will. All these things are developed by a rational use. Reason! Everyone possesses reason, only he doesn’t make use of it. Some people are very much afraid of reason because it contradicts their impulses. So they prefer not to listen to it. Then, naturally, if one makes it a habit not to listen to reason, instead of developing, it losses its light more and more.

To develop reason you must want to do it sincerely: if on one side you tell your self “ I want to develop my reason”, and on the other you don’t listen to what reason tells you to do, then you never come to anything, because naturally, if each time it tells you
“don’t do this” or “do this”, you do the opposite, it will loose the habit of saying anything at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whom are you addressing? Does the only indication of a developed reason is that I should believe what you believe in?

 

[niranjan]

Whom are you addressing?

The post above is not addressed to anyone in particular. It is for all.

Does the only indication of a developed reason is that I should believe what you believe in?

And where have I said that. Truth is self-sustaining and independent of public opinion.

And you get to that through your own reason and intuitions.

 

[niranjan]

Logic as an explicit analysis of the methods of reasoning received sustained development originally in India before the other civilizations , the chinese and the greek , which are the only civilizations along with India that developed the systems of logic in a clear, detailed and unambigous manner.

So India was the first nation and civilization that studied and emphasized logic as the study of principles and criteria of valid inference and the method of reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, you are right. We are old hands at it. Your use of 'you' was a bit accusative, but I was wrong.

 

[siddhartha200]

Excellent thread, very educative and informative. Thanks Niranjan.

 

[niranjan]

Excellent thread, very educative and informative. Thanks Niranjan.

Thanks pal.