What does your scripture say about non dual source of all?

[Vinayaka]

You have to give it to Hindus. Their religion can never be defined.

Within sects it can, but not overall. Newcomers to this faith, whom I'm privy to counselling, have some difficulty with that at first. But once they realise it's like 28 different religions, and there are bound to be contradictions, they generally do better. Others, because of that same information overload, leave in frustration. Hindus themselves genenerally do fine, because they don't get around much outside their state of version of Sanatana Dharma.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Happy Birthday, @IndigoChild5559 . Many happy returns of the day.

Oh thank you! I'm having an awesome birthday. I got cards from my friends in Sisterhood. A good friend of mine just gave me a lovely gift and some sunflowers. A gentleman from synagogue is taking me out to a nice restaurant this afternoon before Shabbat. I will be spending time with my grand daughter on Saturday evening. On Sunday I'm going with my brother to see Cruella. I'm like, this really softens the blow of turning the big 6 0. LOL

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is 'dualism' among Gods, not two but one.
Hindu dualism is category-wise. 'God / Gods / Goddesses' and humans.
Hindu non-dualism is 'just Brahman, just all that exists - no God / Gods / Goddesses'. (There are shades in this kind of non-dualism)

But Brahman is God, is he not? And yes, I understand the concept that Brahman is all that exists. He is all the gods and men and everything, yes?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Do you believe that the Bible and the Quran teach absolute dualism?

If you mean dualism between God and Their Creation, yes, I believe the Qur'an teaches this. I believe that God is separate and distinct from Their Creation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you believe that the Bible and the Quran teach absolute dualism?

Mostly, yes. But Jews do teach that we have the "divine spark" within all of us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But Brahman is God, is he not? And yes, I understand the concept that Brahman is all that exists. He is all the gods and men and everything, yes?

NOT NECESSARILY.

I am a strong atheist Hindu. For me Brahman is the 'stuff' that all things in the universe - humans, animals, vegetation and non-living things - without any exception, are composed of. I do not worship Brahman or any other entity. Brahman will not come to help me if I am in any trouble. Brahman does not grant me any salvation or eternal life. Brahman has not created any law, ethics or morals for humans. I came up with creation 13.78 billion years ago and will last till this illusion folds up. Being Brahman, I already have eternal life. What I am composed of (Brahman) is never going to be destroyed. I do not need any God or Allah.

Samkhya - Wikipedia (Arguments against Ishvara's existence)

 

[SalixIncendium]

Salix, I do not see videos because of my hearing problem. If the video is not hocus-pocus and only focus in the first minute, I will see more of it.
I see, it is music, something that I abandoned a few years ago. I loved Western music in my youth (60's - Cliff Richard, Connie Francis), etc. For West it was perhaps 50's music. We used to get it late in India). Later I loved only Indian classical music.

Yes, the band's name is Focus, a Dutch rock band that hit the scene in 1969 whose vocalist (and keyboardist) Thijs van Leer, made rock yodeling a thing.

I still love my music, and I listen to a pretty wide variety from the Doors, to Mozart, to Alice In Chains, to Lindsey Stirling, to Tori Amos, to Tool, to Ravi Shankar. I've been know to listen to country and western from time to time as well.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But Brahman is God, is he not? And yes, I understand the concept that Brahman is all that exists. He is all the gods and men and everything, yes?

It depends on what one calls "God." Yes, all is Brahman, or more specifically Para Brahman (or Nirguna Brahman, as we Advaitins refer to it), but Advaita posits "gods and men and everything" are a result of avidya (ignorance) of Brahman as a result of Maya.

If one views "God" as a deity, then that is not Brahman (at least not Para Brahman). Deities exist within Brahman, but again, these deities are perceived in pragmatic/transactional reality and are Maya. Brahman is not a he. Nor it is a she. Brahman transcends gender.

ETA: I just read @Aupmanyav's response to this as well. I should point out that though we both identify as Advaitin, @Aupmanyav's views are a bit different than mine, as I identify with Adi Shankara's views on Advaita, while @Aupmanyav has a more materialist view. That's not to invalidate his views, they're just different, and I'm pointing this out to eliminate any confusion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I still love my music, and I listen to a pretty wide variety from the Doors, to Mozart, to Alice In Chains, to Lindsey Stirling, to Tori Amos, to Tool, to Ravi Shankar.

For me, everything, even Kabuki, but not Western. Perhaps because I stopped listening to it (after marriage).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Do you believe that the Bible and the Quran teach absolute dualism?

No.

Most of the Bible speaks in dualistic terms about God and creation but some texts could be interpreted as non-dualistic. For example:

"In Him we live and move and exist." (Acts 17:28)

 

[bharti]

IMHO, if a religion claims to teach what is 'beyond our mind-senses', then it surely is hocus-pocus.

Not at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are welcome.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is that what underlies the mind senses different for you or me?

By what we have discussed previously, it is totally different. You stress on 'universal consciousness'. I do not think anything like that exists. For me, it is 'physical energy'.

 

[Martin]

Within sects it can, but not overall. Newcomers to this faith, whom I'm privy to counselling, have some difficulty with that at first. But once they realise it's like 28 different religions, and there are bound to be contradictions, they generally do better. Others, because of that same information overload, leave in frustration. Hindus themselves genenerally do fine, because they don't get around much outside their state of version of Sanatana Dharma.

It's much the same with Buddhism, there are many schools and sub-schools with diverse assumptions, teachings and practices. Maybe this diversity and plurality is a feature of the Dharmic traditions? It can be a challenge for new-comers!

 

[Vinayaka]

It's much the same with Buddhism, there are many schools and sub-schools with diverse assumptions, teachings and practices. Maybe this diversity and plurality is a feature of the Dharmic traditions? It can be a challenge for new-comers!

I think it is a feature, because of the basic view of tolerance, and that the individual is on his own, pervading each faith. Abrahamic faiths also have many divisions, but the differences there don't seem to be as wide.