Who is our True God? (Hinduism)

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

The Staff has noticed that the ongoing debate in this thread is getting rather intense. Please refrain from making personal comments about other members, and keep Rule 1 and other forum rules in mind while posting:

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[Surya Deva]

If you think that you know more about Advaita than our traditional scholars then there is no one more deluded than you are.

Adhominem fallacy(calling me deluded for not agreeing with your traditional scholar) and appeal to authority fallacy(appealing to the authority of a traditional scholar) There is not just one traditional scholars, there are many and scholars do not always agree with each other.

I think we can consider this debate over as I no longer believe you are being rational, and you have failed to engage with any of the points I made in my recent post to you.

 

[Pleroma]

There is nothing to address in your recent post except your life story.

 

[Surya Deva]

There is nothing to address in your recent post except your life story.

Yes there is indeed, my "life story" is only one part of that post. You ignored everything else, such as:

Matter is a creation of the human mind and the human mind, intelligence etc is the creation of Ishvara.

According to who? This is neither the position of QM or Advaita. Where are you getting this from? Please cite your references

You are just restating your argument/ideas/beliefs. I have just shown you with clear citations from the Samkhyakarika that mind and matter are both considered to be products of prakriti i.e., matter. What we call subjective and objective i due to the ahamkara which artifically splits the field of Prakrit into subjective and objective divisions, but in physical matter and mind are one causal system made out of matter. This position is known as neutral monism today in philosophy.

Whatever you believe is irrelevant to my the original argument that Samkhya and Advaita do not recognize a substance dualism between mind and body/mind and brain/mind and physical matter, they are considered considered part of prakriti/maya.

AND

Advaita is not theistic. I know, I have studied all the core texts of this philosophy I would NOT be Advaitin if it was theistic, as I am closer to atheist.

 

[Pleroma]

I have already cited numerous evidences from theoretical physicists like Bernard D'Espagnat and other experimental physicists like Vladko Vedral, Anton Zeilinger who has won a noble prize and many many quantum researchers who are anti-realists and who have already renounced realism and imply that the only thing which must be real is the human mind.

Our traditional scholars knew what mind was and they also knew what intelligence was and these are not made of matter because these are created by Ishvara and they exist in the noumenon.

Bhagvad Gita, chapter 7, verse 4.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, spiritual intelligence and false ego; thus these are the eightfold divisions of my external energy.

Only these things exist out there in the physical world and this empirical reality is constructed by this mind created by god and is not same as matter. It can be known only from God, science cannot know it.

 

[Surya Deva]

I have already cited numerous evidences from theoretical physicists like Bernard D'Espagnat and other experimental physicists like Vladko Vedral, Anton Zeilinger who has won a noble prize and many many quantum researchers who are anti-realists and who have already renounced realism and imply that the only thing which must be real is the human mind.

You have not actually cited anything that clearly says that these quantum physicists you cite say the human mind produces physical reality(this position is known as naive idealism in philosophy) I honestly doubt that such intelligent men would be naive idealists. However, I am open to being corrected, cite direct quotations from them saying this

Our traditional scholars knew what mind was and they also knew what intelligence was and these are not made of matter because these are created by Ishvara and they exist in the noumenon.

Which traditional scholars? This term 'traditional scholar' you use is pretty ambiguous, what do you mean traditional scholars?

hagvad Gita, chapter 7, verse 4.

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, spiritual intelligence and false ego; thus these are the eightfold divisions of my external energy.

Only these things exist out there in the physical world and this empirical reality is constructed by this mind created by god and is not same as matter. It can be known only from God, science cannot know it.

Do you realize the passage you just cited contradicts the position you are attempting to establish?

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, spiritual intelligence and false ego; thus these are the eightfold divisions of my external energy.

I told you that Samkhya philosophy and Advaita philosophy regard physical matter and mind to be products of prakriti/maya. The above says exactly the same point(except not explained in depth as in the the source philosophy) the bhutas(earth, water, fire, air, ether) the manas(mind) are said to be one substance(maya/prakriti)

Therefore you have actually proven what I have been telling you for a long time: there is no substance dualism between mind and matter in Hindu philosophy. They are both regarded as the same substance of prakriti/maya, which is inert matter/energy.

 

[Pleroma]

You have not actually cited anything that clearly says that these quantum physicists you cite say the human mind produces physical reality(this position is known as naive idealism in philosophy) I honestly doubt that such intelligent men would be naive idealists. However, I am open to being corrected, cite direct quotations from them saying this

ScienceDirect.com - The New Scientist - Reality check

Read the above article.

"To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" says Michael Brooks.

"Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality".

- Vladko Vedral

"The researchers take this to mean we have to abandon the idea of an objective reality. “Maybe Bohr and Heisenberg were right after all,” Aspelmeyer says."

“Physics doesn’t tell us how nature is, it only tells us what we can say about nature.”

"The moon doesn't exist when no body looks at it"

- David Mermin.

"What we call reality is only a state of mind"

- Bernard D'Espagnat.

Which traditional scholars? This term 'traditional scholar' you use is pretty ambiguous, what do you mean traditional scholars?

Scholars who know how to perform Vedic rituals, Brahmanas and who know all the secret vidya of the Upanishads.

Do you realize the passage you just cited contradicts the position you are attempting to establish?

I told you that Samkhya philosophy and Advaita philosophy regard physical matter and mind to be products of prakriti/maya. The above says exactly the same point(except not explained in depth as in the the source philosophy) the bhutas(earth, water, fire, air, ether) the manas(mind) are said to be one substance(maya/prakriti)

Therefore you have actually proven what I have been telling you for a long time: there is no substance dualism between mind and matter in Hindu philosophy. They are both regarded as the same substance of prakriti/maya, which is inert matter/energy.

Why the heck only your interpretation of the scriptures is right and the others are wrong? This is a common complaint by those who argue with you. Your view is wrong, science itself falsifies your view, do you know that these five bhutas, manas, buddhi and ahankara are anthropomorphic gods? No you don't know that, so please go and read about Hinduism instead of pushing your views on others.

 

[Surya Deva]

To track down a theory of everything, we might have to accept that the universe only exists when we're looking at it" says Michael Brooks.

"Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality".

- Vladko Vedral

"The researchers take this to mean we have to abandon the idea of an objective reality. “Maybe Bohr and Heisenberg were right after all,” Aspelmeyer says."

“Physics doesn’t tell us how nature is, it only tells us what we can say about nature.”

"The moon doesn't exist when no body looks at it"

- David Mermin.

"What we call reality is only a state of mind"

- Bernard D'Espagnat.

None of the above quotes say what you claim, that a human mind creates the physical reality.

why the heck only your interpretation of the scriptures is right and the others are wrong? This is a common complaint by those who argue with you. Your view is wrong, science itself falsifies your view, do you know that these five bhutas, manas, buddhi and ahankara are anthropomorphic gods? No you don't know that, so please go and read about Hinduism instead of pushing your views on others.

We are not talking interpretation here. I told you that there is no substance dualism between mind and matter in Hindu philosophy. I offered you clear citations from the foudational text of the Samkhya school itself showing that mind and matter are considered to be products of prakriti/maya. Now you just cited the Gita and proved my point that indeed five bhutas, manas, buddhi, ahamkara etc are products of prakriti/maya.

 

[Pleroma]

None of the above quotes say what you claim, that a human mind creates the physical reality.

All those quotes imply that a metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs along with the five bhuthas retrospectively create reality.

We are not talking interpretation here. I told you that there is no substance dualism between mind and matter in Hindu philosophy. I offered you clear citations from the foudational text of the Samkhya school itself showing that mind and matter are considered to be products of prakriti/maya. Now you just cited the Gita and proved my point that indeed five bhutas, manas, buddhi, ahamkara etc are products of prakriti/maya.

Your interpretation is wrong, In the Gita Krishna says those are my external energies and explicitly states that these are products of God. They are different from matter.

 

[Surya Deva]

All those quotes imply that a metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs along with the five bhuthas retrospectively create reality.

No they do not. They may suggest that consciousness has a role to play in objective reality or the construction of objective reality, but they certainly do not say what you were claiming that a human mind creates reality and they certainly do not say "metaphysical sense organs along with the five bhutas create reality"

Your interpretation is wrong, In the Gita Krishna says those are my external energies and explicitly states that these are products of God. They are different from matter.

No, he does not, he says they are products of his creative energy prakriti/maya

1. : unmanifested cosmic energy or potential matter that in Sankhya philosophy is constituted of the three gunas and that in contact with purusha produces a disequilibrium among the gunas which in turn results in the production of the manifested world
2
: the phenomenal world : matter, nature​

Prakriti - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Do you ever accept you are wrong Pleroma even when it is obvious?

 

[Pleroma]

No they do not. They may suggest that consciousness has a role to play in objective reality or the construction of objective reality, but they certainly do not say what you were claiming that a human mind creates reality and they certainly do not say "metaphysical sense organs along with the five bhutas create reality"

You are very late and your knowledge is out dated, go and update it.


“QUANTUM PHYSICS AND VEDANTA”: A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'S SCIENTIFIC REALISM
[]QUANTUM PHYSICS AND VEDANTA[]: A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'S SCIENTIFIC REALISM - Duquette - 2011 - Zygon® - Wiley Online Library

No, he does not, he says they are products of his creative energy prakriti/maya

1. : unmanifested cosmic energy or potential matter that in Sankhya philosophy is constituted of the three gunas and that in contact with purusha produces a disequilibrium among the gunas which in turn results in the production of the manifested world
2
: the phenomenal world : matter, nature​

Prakriti - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The three gunas exist in the Agnisoma Mandala and the master of the Agnisoma Mandala is the Sun-god, Savithru.

Do you ever accept you are wrong Pleroma even when it is obvious?

I really have to ask that question to you because your position on Advaita have shown by me to be fundamentally flawed.

 

[Surya Deva]

The three gunas exist in the Agnisoma Mandala and the master of the Agnisoma Mandala is the Sun-god, Savithru.

Again you have simply stated your beliefs again and not engaged with the argument. I originally said that in Hindu philosophy(both Samkhya and Advaita) that mind and physical matter are considered products of prakrit/maya, meaning matter. I supported this directly with the citation from the foundational text of Samkhya the Samkhyakarika from where the tattvas classifications used in the Gita come from. You then posted a quote from the Gita confirming exactly what I said to you, which says that the bhutas, manas, buddhi ahamkara etc are all the same products of prakriti. You then said prakriti is not matter, but I have now shown you a clear definition of prakriti and prakriti has indeed proven to be matter(made out of the gunas)

In fact for someone even with basic comprehension power it is clear in the Gita quote itself: Where it says the bhutas(physical elements) manas(mind) buddhi(intelligence) and ego(ahamkara) and sense organs(jnanaindriyas) and motor organs(karmaindriyas) are all the same creative energy of prakriti. Hence there is no substance dualism between physical matter and mind, they are both considered the same substance, just as I told you.

I do not expect any concession from you because I have now ruled out that you are rational and I have given you a fair chance to argue. This is the reason why there will be no further discussion or debate between me and you on any topic. In the words of Anne Robinson, "You are the weakest link, goodbye"

 

[Pleroma]

Running away from a discussion is considered to be cowardliness.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

All the gods in the Vedas exists in his pleroma, he is the master of the pleroma which means all gods are under him.

As for the agamas I never said that they are invalid, but I don't do idol worship, if you can show me the gods worshipped in our temples then I will accept them and for now I don't deny their existence either.

Hiranyagarbha is the God of the Gods. He is the true God of the Hindus. The one who is REAL and exists independent of the mind. He is the Brahman that we all can see and become.

He is the owner of Yoga.

Who is the owner of this world and our bodies? Who owns it?
It is He, Hiranyagarbha. This world and this body belongs to him, take no pride for what you do.

To whom shall all the glory in the world belong?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the first-born Savithru.

Who is the destroyer of death and gives us immortality?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the master of Agnisoma Mandala.

Who is the one who stimulate our minds into the path of righteousness?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the Pushan.

He is the God of the Gods and none beside him.

The Original Teachings of Yoga: From Patanjali Back to Hiranyagarbha

Who taught us yoga? To whom does all forms of Yoga belong to?
It is He.

Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding: Hiranyagarbha

Hiranyagarbha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can a non-hindu worship hiranyagarbha? does he have an equivalent to gods in our European systems?

 

[Mlecch]

can a non-hindu worship hiranyagarbha?

Vedic Hiranyagarbha is the god Brahma. He is rarely worshiped in Hinduism.

 

[Unseeking seeker]

Hiranyagarbha is the God of the Gods. He is the true God of the Hindus. The one who is REAL and exists independent of the mind. He is the Brahman that we all can see and become.

He is the owner of Yoga.

Who is the owner of this world and our bodies? Who owns it?
It is He, Hiranyagarbha. This world and this body belongs to him, take no pride for what you do.

To whom shall all the glory in the world belong?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the first-born Savithru.

Who is the destroyer of death and gives us immortality?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the master of Agnisoma Mandala.

Who is the one who stimulate our minds into the path of righteousness?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the Pushan.

He is the God of the Gods and none beside him.

The Original Teachings of Yoga: From Patanjali Back to Hiranyagarbha

Who taught us yoga? To whom does all forms of Yoga belong to?
It is He.

Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding: Hiranyagarbha

Hiranyagarbha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speaking from direct experience, Hiranyagarbha or cosmic egg, is in the head, representing us in singularity. We recognise this as a part of the kundalini energisation process. The egg splits, one becomes two, as Shiva & Shakti ~ male & female polarities. Both descend to heart together, resulting in an explosion of bliss, illuminating the central vein, Sushumna.

 

[Vinayaka]

Speaking from direct experience, Hiranyagarbha or cosmic egg, is in the head, representing us in singularity. We recognise this as a part of the kundalini energisation process. The egg splits, one becomes two, as Shiva & Shakti ~ male & female polarities. Both descend to heart together, resulting in an explosion of bliss, illuminating the central vein, Sushumna.

Since you're a newcomer, I'll point this out. ... Welcome to these forums, by the way. The post you responded to was made in 2012. (in the line right above each post) The poster was last active here in 2018. So if you're looking for a discussion, most likely you won't get one.

 

[Unseeking seeker]

Yes, sure Vinayaka, I did not see it is an old thread. Anyway, no harm done, in case anyone wants to re-intitate the discussion.