PDA

View Full Version : Pointless debate about advaita



tatvam
24 August 2006, 03:14 AM
hi, just an FYI, I have not seen vedant for months and same for arjuna...not sure where they are...
hopefully they will answer soon...in the mean time, maybe you can ask these questions on another advaita forums on the net if you want or google it...

Hi Satay,
Thanks for your kind information..
Can you suggest me some name who can clarify my doubts regarding Advaita?
Thank you.

TruthSeeker
24 August 2006, 05:23 AM
Can you explain why man is under ignorance?


By God's will. Any questions?



what is impersonal absolute? is it a matter? or energy? or some thing else?


Impersonal Absolute is the concept of God without name. form and any limiting definitions.

The absolute could be considered as as static potential like a battery, that is not connected to a circuit.

When a circuit is formed (jagat), the storage potential(charge) of the battery is now experienced in the form of the current through the circuit - that is Shakti or Maya. The battery viewed in this mode is called Isvara or Personal God.

tatvam
24 August 2006, 05:39 AM
By God's will. Any questions?



Impersonal Absolute is the concept of God without name. form and any limiting definitions.

The absolute could be considered as as static potential like a battery, that is not connected to a circuit.

When a circuit is formed (jagat), the storage potential(charge) of the battery is now experienced in the form of the current through the circuit - that is Shakti or Maya. The battery viewed in this mode is called Isvara or Personal God.

Namaste truth seeker,

If it is god's will what is the Vedant's first line "No doubt the goal of Vedanta is to realise that there is no duality"
you said man is under ignorance because of God's will , please clarify me the first sentence also.
The example here you given is very good..but here the battery is not the owner of circuit and circuit is completely different from battery.
I don't think God and his jagat are never ever seperately exists.

Thank you.

TruthSeeker
24 August 2006, 06:02 AM
Namaste truth seeker,

If it is god's will what is the Vedant's first line "No doubt the goal of Vedanta is to realise that there is no duality"
you said man is under ignorance because of God's will , please clarify me the first sentence also.


Yes, from the point of view of the Absolute, only the battery is there - that is what is non dualty. When God alone existed , what could happen without the will of God? Any alternate explanations could only be subsets of this. The will itself is only an explanation, and a true reason could only be stated as unknown.




The example here you given is very good..but here the battery is not the owner of circuit and circuit is completely different from battery.
I don't think God and his jagat are never ever seperately exists.


That is just an example, but its intended meaning is clear isn't it? The circuit itself is formed of God's Maya, and Maya itself is a manifestation of God himself - hence nothing really exists apart from God.(only transformation of his Shakti, which is himself)

Battery is the owner of the circuit. It you turn it off, the circuit is dead.

tatvam
24 August 2006, 06:13 AM
That is just an example, but its intended meaning is clear isn't it? The circuit itself is formed of God's Maya, and Maya itself is a manifestation of God himself - hence nothing really exists apart from God.(only transformation of his Shakti, which is himself)

Battery is the owner of the circuit. It you turn it off, the circuit is dead.

Thanks truthseeker,
This is what exactly I wanted..I am completely accepting your statement.

But I think Advaita says "Jagat midhya" , I don't know exact meaning of midhya and if midhya means illusion..then as per you jagat is also god's manifestation..which couldn't be mere illusion but should e satyam..as God is satyam.

Thank you.

satay
24 August 2006, 09:29 AM
Hi Satay,
Thanks for your kind information..
Can you suggest me some name who can clarify my doubts regarding Advaita?
Thank you.

I am sorry...I can't suggest any such person...most advaitins will laugh at your childish posts and the only reason why I am allowing your posts to continue here is to give you a chance to prove me wrong and convince me that I should not ban your id because I am really convinced that you are not here to learn anything about advaita you and I both know that...so you can stop insulting yourself and my intelligence.

If you really want to learn about advaita why not you google the word and browse some of the sites from the thousands available on the net?

advaitin motto: ignore the ignorants!

Admin Note begins here:
I will give you another day...to prove me wrong...:coffee:

At the moment I don't see any difference between you and a maleccha missionary of an adharmic propaganda who comes to this site for the sole purpose of attacking advaita and to promote his own dogma and in the process shows his ignorance...

TruthSeeker
24 August 2006, 10:55 AM
Thanks truthseeker,
This is what exactly I wanted..I am completely accepting your statement.

But I think Advaita says "Jagat midhya" , I don't know exact meaning of midhya and if midhya means illusion..then as per you jagat is also god's manifestation..which couldn't be mere illusion but should e satyam..as God is satyam.

Thank you.

Brahman is the material and instrumental cause of jagat. But is that what you see now? You are seeing the Jagat - but where is Brahman?

That is why it is called an illusion, as it is seen apart from the Brahman. When one knows the Brahman, the jagat is no longer seen in the way as seen by ajnanins, but only as the undivided Atman. To this jnani, the jagat you see with your senses is just an illusion.(and really does not exist)

tatvam
24 August 2006, 11:33 PM
Brahman is the material and instrumental cause of jagat. But is that what you see now? You are seeing the Jagat - but where is Brahman?

That is why it is called an illusion, as it is seen apart from the Brahman. When one knows the Brahman, the jagat is no longer seen in the way as seen by ajnanins, but only as the undivided Atman. To this jnani, the jagat you see with your senses is just an illusion.(and really does not exist)
Namste truthseeker,

I am not clear..can you elaborate the above statement?

you said..Brahman is material and instrumental cause..if he is the material cause..then why jagat is illusion..does it mean Bharman is illusion?
if Brahman is the material cause ..then why jagat is seen apart from the Brahman?
who is ajnani? advaita means one and only one without two (i.e Brahman) then who is ajnani? Brahman became ajnanai?

Please explain bit clear..

Thank you.

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 02:32 AM
Namste truthseeker,

I am not clear..can you elaborate the above statement?

you said..Brahman is material and instrumental cause..if he is the material cause..then why jagat is illusion..does it mean Bharman is illusion?
if Brahman is the material cause ..then why jagat is seen apart from the Brahman?


OK, let us take the common man:

How does he see the world?

With his senses, and through the mind which sees through these senses. He sees the world composed of five gross elements and hence appears REAL to his mind.

To an advanced Yogi, or a higher being like a deva, the world of five elements has resolved into its subtle elements. If he sees this world though his senses, the appearance will be totally different from you, though he can still see you, in much more clarity and beauty.

What are the subtle elements composed of? The tAmasic ahamkara, which is infact evolved from Maya at the highest level. A very advanced Yogi sees everything only as Maya, and not like you. There is perfect uniformity in experience, and in state one is said to see the world as Brahman. This is the perspective of the personal God, where the world is seen as Isvara, or the Visva-rupa.

But Maya is itself Brahman only ultimately, so what could be seen from the absolute perspective? Even this perception of Jagat as Maya has to fall ultimately. When it does so, Jagat has no indepedent existance of any kind, even as Maya. From this perspective, Jagat you see now is called an illusion as it existed only as long as you were seeing with your senses and mind.



who is ajnani? advaita means one and only one without two (i.e Brahman) then who is ajnani? Brahman became ajnanai?

Please explain bit clear..

Thank you


Having classified the Jagat as an illusion from the ultimate perspective, why would an ajnanin exist from that perspective? They exist only for another ajnanin.

From your perspective, the ajnanin could only be Brahman, as no second to Brahman exists. Brahman exists as many - as the almighty Isvara, as the higher beings, as man, as animal and so forth, all born out of his own will and independence. How could one call him as ignorant? He exists as the all knowing all wise Isvara.

With their inability to understand this divine mystery, where the one Brahman appears as many, the ajnani frames many theories in accordance with his intellect- he calls man as sinner, he calls himself as ignorant, he wants a saviour, he created reward and punishment, he thinks God is in the sky and so forth. These questions and answers are only for satisfying the curiosity of the intellect which adds to the already existing ignorance -- they hardly matter to jnanins or Advaita.

The human intellect cannot reach out to God and his mysteries, and the very attempt to understand it with human logic is ignorance. The best way to dig into the mystery is through realizing one's self if you were really serious in seeking answers to your questions.

tatvam
25 August 2006, 03:22 AM
OK, let us take the common man:

How does he see the world?

With his senses, and through the mind which sees through these senses. He sees the world composed of five gross elements and hence appears REAL to his mind.

To an advanced Yogi, or a higher being like a deva, the world of five elements has resolved into its subtle elements. If he sees this world though his senses, the appearance will be totally different from you, though he can still see you, in much more clarity and beauty.

What are the subtle elements composed of? The tAmasic ahamkara, which is infact evolved from Maya at the highest level. A very advanced Yogi sees everything only as Maya, and not like you. There is perfect uniformity in experience, and in state one is said to see the world as Brahman. This is the perspective of the personal God, where the world is seen as Isvara, or the Visva-rupa.

But Maya is itself Brahman only ultimately, so what could be seen from the absolute perspective? Even this perception of Jagat as Maya has to fall ultimately. When it does so, Jagat has no indepedent existance of any kind, even as Maya. From this perspective, Jagat you see now is called an illusion as it existed only as long as you were seeing with your senses and mind.







Thanks truthseeker,

I understood some points of you..but still some doubts.
Let me explain my doubts..
you said a common man can see this world with his sences and through mind..so..ultimately who is experiencing ?
are sences experiencing the world ?
or human being experiencing the world through his sences?
if a human being is experiencing the world , then who is this being ?
You said advanced yogi sees it in different view..that advanced yogi was previously a common man..so how he became Yogi? could all beings become like that?

Let me ask you my doubts conretely..

1. who is experiencing the world or illusion or Maya ? (is Ahamkara can feel its existence? )
2. why different human beings are in different state(some are Ajanis , some are Jnanis) ?
3. is the world exactly equal to Brahman ?
4. is the human being or any living being exactly equal to Brahman?

Thank you

tatvam
25 August 2006, 03:43 AM
But Maya is itself Brahman only ultimately, so what could be seen from the absolute perspective? Even this perception of Jagat as Maya has to fall ultimately. When it does so, Jagat has no indepedent existance of any kind, even as Maya.





With their inability to understand this divine mystery, where the one Brahman appears as many, the ajnani frames many theories in accordance with his intellect- he calls man as sinner, he calls himself as ignorant, he wants a saviour, he created reward and punishment, he thinks God is in the sky and so forth. These questions and answers are only for satisfying the curiosity of the intellect which adds to the already existing ignorance -- they hardly matter to jnanins or Advaita.

.

Hi truthseeker,

see in the first paragraph of you in above , you said :

"Maya is itself Brahman only" , and immediately you said " Jagat has no indepedent existance of any kind, even as Maya."

it means Brahman who is maya also has no independent existance.

then it depends on whom?

But I think Advaita mean one without two.

how it fits to Advaita?

come to second paragraph , you said "with their inability to understand ...." here "their" refers to whom ?

And you said "Brahman exists as many - as the almighty Isvara, as the higher beings, as man, as animal and so forth,"

so I think here "thier" refers to Brahman only who became as men and others..so Brahman is unable to understand his creation?

Thank you.

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 03:56 AM
1. who is experiencing the world or illusion or Maya ? (is Ahamkara can feel its existence?

- The individual self. (if you can find the ultimate source of this individual self, you should be able to find out if this is different from the universal self or simply dissolves in it). But everyone admits that the experiencer is not the mind - including your own school.( VA). Mind is an insentient so how can it experience anything? So who is the experiencer according to you?

Are you calling the Ahamkara (a Prakriti evolute) as the source of "I". You have to first know that this Ahamkara is an insentient, and cannot percieve anything whatsoever by itself. So what is the source of "I" ness according to you? Which evolute of Prakriti, or is it something outside it?


2. why different human beings are in different state(some are Ajanis , some are Jnanis) ? -

The Self(Atman) is encased in five sheaths of increasing ignorance. Those who have freed themselves from these sheaths are jnanins or knowers. The common man is firmly held by all the five sheaths. The lesser the number of sheaths that blind you, the more you are towards wisdom and liberation. Refusing to accept this truth would be an "extra thick sheath" of ignorance.


3. is the world exactly equal to Brahman ?

Yes, depending on what you call as the world. Existance is Brahman. Brahman is the REAL world, and not the very finite one you see now.


4. is the human being or any living being exactly equal to Brahman?

Yes, and no. It depends on the perspective, jnanin or ajnanin.

tatvam
25 August 2006, 04:08 AM
1. who is experiencing the world or illusion or Maya ? (is Ahamkara can feel its existence?

- The individual self. (if you can find the ultimate source of this individual self, you should be able to find out if this is different from the universal self or simply dissolves in it). But everyone admits that the experiencer is not the mind - including your own school.( VA). Mind is an insentient so how can it experience anything? So who is the experiencer according to you?

Are you calling the Ahamkara (a Prakriti evolute) as the source of "I". You have to first know that this Ahamkara is an insentient, and cannot percieve anything whatsoever by itself. So what is the source of "I" ness according to you? Which evolute of Prakriti, or is it something outside it?




Thank you.
I didn't say that ahamkara is the source of self..
So Indvidual self is experiencing this world which is mere illusion as Jananis know.
and Invidual self is exactly equal to Brahman..so Brahman is experincing this illusory world .

The Self(Atman) is encased in five sheaths of increasing ignorance..so the self who exactly equal to Brahman is encased in five shealths of increasing ignorance.

did Self (=Brahman) puposefully , willingly encased with five shealths?

If puposefully engaged in this ..why he is again trying to know his absolute state?

Thank you.

tatvam
25 August 2006, 04:15 AM
4. is the human being or any living being exactly equal to Brahman?

Yes, and no. It depends on the perspective, jnanin or ajnanin.

Hi truthseeker,

So..Jnani and Ajnani are different..then how Brahman is one without two?

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 04:47 AM
Hi truthseeker,

So..Jnani and Ajnani are different..then how Brahman is one without two?

But even in VA, the individual self is of the nature of pure consciousness. What made you fall in here, associating yourself with Prakriti? What is the locus of this ignorance in VA? And how it happened?

tatvam
25 August 2006, 05:03 AM
But even in VA, the individual self is of the nature of pure consciousness. What made you fall in here, associating yourself with Prakriti? What is the locus of this ignorance in VA? And how it happened?

Hi,

first clarify me , whether Advaita theory can answer my questions?

and what is the exact meaning of "Abheda shruthi" which advatins interpreted as Brahman and invidual self of jeeva as one and the same.

Thank you.

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 05:15 AM
Hi,

first clarify me , whether Advaita theory can answer my questions?

and what is the exact meaning of "Abheda shruthi" which advatins interpreted as Brahman and invidual self of jeeva as one and the same.

Thank you.

Yes, they are. Brahman will to became many, and became many. He willed to conceal himself and he did so.

Now, would you be kind enough to explain why the "pure soul" called tatvam is now in bondage and suffering in the world, when his God is said to be omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and above all "all-merciful"?

tatvam
25 August 2006, 05:36 AM
Yes, they are. Brahman will to became many, and became many. He willed to conceal himself and he did so.

Now, would you be kind enough to explain why the "pure soul" called tatvam is now in bondage and suffering in the world, when his God is said to be omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, and above all "all-merciful"?

are you satisfied with your answer?
Brahman the "knwoledge-self" who is only one without second became many and became as Ajanani ..so knowledge-self encased with five shealths..and now trying to become "Brahman"..

Then what is the guarantee that Brahman again won't become Ajanani?

First answer me, why Brahman became many if those many individual-selves need to try again to become Brahman?

why the "sat-chit-ananda" Brahman became like indvidual-selves..if they are not at all in their Ananda state in this world?

If you answer me , I will explain you what VA said and how it is perfect.

Thank you.

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 06:54 AM
are you satisfied with your answer?
Brahman the "knwoledge-self" who is only one without second became many and became as Ajanani ..so knowledge-self encased with five shealths..and now trying to become "Brahman"..

Then what is the guarantee that Brahman again won't become Ajanani?

First answer me, why Brahman became many if those many individual-selves need to try again to become Brahman?

why the "sat-chit-ananda" Brahman became like indvidual-selves..if they are not at all in their Ananda state in this world?

If you answer me , I will explain you what VA said and how it is perfect.

Thank you.

Consider Brahman to be the ocean, and this world and yourself to be a wave(s). So the presence of the wave makes Brahman equal to a wave(ajnani) ? You have misunderstood Brahman becoming ajnani. Brahman, as ocean always remains as the sat-chit-ananda. The waves arises and disappears into the ocean - that is the ignorance you see now. Those in the wave will see plurality and ignorance, but the ocean is ever blissful and unchanging.

Your system calls the wave(ignorance) as eternal - that is the difference. But the wave arises from the ocean, has no existance apart from the ocean, and dies out in the ocean. How could you equate ocean as ignorance? I guess you dont understand?

tatvam
25 August 2006, 07:08 AM
Consider Brahman to be the ocean, and this world and yourself to be a wave(s). So the presence of the wave makes Brahman equal to a wave(ajnani) ?


Hi,
So what is the concept of indiviual self is exactly equal to Brahman ?
is Ocean = wave? or wave = ocean?
precence of wave makes whom equal to whom?
read your statement ..does it make sence?

and in your example ..wave occurs because of external force..and can you impose that on to Brahman..?
as per Advaita theory..only Brahman exists..and it became as many as per his will..but here in your example ocean doesn't want to make waves.

that is the main problem..
why Brhman became many after all individual-self neds to become Brahman again ?


Thank you.

tatvam
25 August 2006, 07:16 AM
Your system calls the wave(ignorance) as eternal - that is the difference. But the wave arises from the ocean, has no existance apart from the ocean, and dies out in the ocean. How could you equate ocean as ignorance? I guess you dont understand?

who said individual-self has existance without Brahman ? can you show me the proof from VA philosophy?

you guesssed I don't understand..and I think you know the truth..because you are a truthseeker ..right?

Thank you.

TruthSeeker
25 August 2006, 07:22 AM
who said individual-self has existance without Brahman ? can you show me the proof from VA philosophy?

you guesssed I don't understand..and I think you know the truth..because you are a truthseeker ..right?

Thank you.

I never said that VA held that individual souls had existance without the Brahman.

I did not have to guess to know you misunderstood the position of Brahman being an Anjani. You have virtually equated Brahman to Ajana in this thread. The ocean created the wave, sustains it and withdraws it- would you say that the ocean is under ignorance or Anjana? There is no ignorance or plurality of selves outside the wave, and when you come out of the wave, only the ocean exists. ( hence the wave is termed termed illusory). Only those in the wave try to get out of it, the ocean was never in bondage at all. That would amount to considerable misunderstanding of the position.

satay
25 August 2006, 08:03 AM
you guys can continue your pointless debate here.
thanks.

tatvam
28 August 2006, 10:50 PM
I did not have to guess to know you misunderstood the position of Brahman being an Anjani.

who is being an Ajnani?

You are just pulling it.
It is not the problem of answering my questions..
what is exactly true..that is the problem.
You said only Brahman was there..and as per his will he became many and he came into prakriti..which is nothing but became an Ajanani..
So..GOD himself became Ajnani..and now he tries to become Brahman again..

tell me one straight thing..If I am Ajnani and GOD only became like me ? then who became as ajnani finally?

as per Advaita.."knowledge-self" is GOD and he only existed..then from where Avidya came?
is it second element? then where is Advaita?
Knowledge and avidya are opposite I think..then how the "knowledge-self" Brhman got the avidya?

please ...think it..it is not necessary to answer quickly..I want the truth.

Thank you.

TruthSeeker
29 August 2006, 04:32 AM
From Advaita's perspective, or rather Brahman's perspective or the jnanin's perspective, there is absolutely nothing outside of Brahman - so the question of Ajnani does not arise. The question is raised by the "Ajnani", but if this the case, then why I dont see it that way...

To the more advanced, it is taught that the avidya is just your thought, and has no real existance, and when thoughts cease the avidya ceases. If you are not quite convinced, you might ask: But it cannot be my thought alone, since everybody else experiences avidya too. For such, people, it is told that the world is created by God, with all its good and evil. Now people ask, but why did he create the world of sufering? All religions draw a big blank here, becuase there could be no connection between an omnipotent God and any sort of suffering. So all such theories are nipped in the bud, including any dualist theories regarding creation.

If you reached this far, the only common problem concerning us is, why God created avidya( jagat), and from where? If you accept that God alone existed, and did not create something out of nothing, then the avidya must have come from God too - that is a logical and inevitable conclusion. Other explanations could be that God created something out of nothing, or that God just remodelled some preexisting matter and so on. Vedanta rules out the possibilities for something coming out of nothing.

So we must be at one page when we say God created avidya, from himself, through some transformation. So the only one question that remains is why did God do that?

No simple explanations can ever be given. Many monists view this problem as insignificant, yet some theories that are offered are desire, Maya, a show of prowess, Lorship, sport etc, and people take various views as to which is more appealing to them.

This is same as the chicken-egg problem. Which one came first? An atheist is not truly bothered about this question. One theist will say that God created the chicken first, and from it came the egg. Another theist will say that God created egg first and then the chicken came. Whicjh would you beleive? There is no scope to come to a conclusion. There is no way to go into the past and verify either of these.

The creation, and its mysteries are exactly identical to the problem. You are just offering an explanation to what you observe, but nothing could be proved. If you ever consider that God is omnipotent you can never reconcile with the idea that he allowed some suffering to go on in the world. The rest are just theories -- that do not really concern Advaita at all. However, to the wordly people, who still need an explanation to the phenomenon they around them, Advaita does come up with theories that match Vishsitadvaita - God created the world from his body, and the world and body are just conected to him in a soul-body relationship. Even this theory is not convincing to advaitins because, it still does not explain in anyway why God allowed suffering in the world.

So Brahman is not in Ajnana according to Advaita. It is solely a perspective from which you view things.

tatvam
29 August 2006, 05:01 AM
If you reached this far, the only common problem concerning us is, why God created avidya( jagat), and from where? If you accept that God alone existed, and did not create something out of nothing, then the avidya must have come from God too - that is a logical and inevitable conclusion.


So Brahman is not in Ajnana according to Advaita. It is solely a perspective from which you view things.

Thanks for your patience...

But I have few more doubts, you said God alone existed..and avidya came from him only..ok..but as per advaita Brahman is "knowledge-self"..then how avidya came from him?

you said Brahman is not in ajnana..but it is a prspective from which I view things..but who is this I..who is viewing in that perspective? I should be the Brahman as per advaita..then why this "I" is viewing in that perspective?
did I make the sence with my questions?

TruthSeeker
29 August 2006, 05:17 AM
You did, and your question was answered. Read again please...why dont you view this creation as a majesty of God, instead of ignorance, if that makes you feel better. Who is the ruler - God. Who are the citizens -God again,...

No one asked you to come out of this unless of your own wish, as you are indpendent, so "Brahman" is never seeking anything. It is just another thought wave that lasts for a while.