Maya Dreamer Analogy

[sanathan]

Pranamams!

This is no logic. How can a character act independently without its own individuality ? The character must first distinguish itself from others to be able to act against others and if it does that it must have individuality.

If it is not clear to you, I can't help you further. I don't think it is so difficult to understand. It appears to me that you are arguing for the sake of an argument, you don't really want to understand this.

You might not have read my lines carefully, I didn't say dreamer has no individuality, but I objected your assumption that other characters of dream which have been experienced by dreamer need not to have individuality or subjectivity which anyway we can not prove. I am not arguing for your information, I am putting all my doubts and understanding infront of you so that can get clarified .

On Self-realisation, you feel one with the entire world's consciousness, so at the time of feeling one-ness, there is total cessation of individuality and no interaction can occur. When you regain your individuality after coming out of that state, you can interact again.

So, there is an exit after self-realisation, and regaining of individuality..this has been objected by me, what is the meaning of realization then? also where does from this individuality or mental thought or mind-wave has come from into pure consciosuness(i.e realized self), what is the assurance of getting a complete bliss without ineturrption.

This is what is experienced by the self-realised persons and you too can realise the same Truth. The statement does comes from mind which carries an impression after coming from the state of One-ness of mind ... just like our mind carries the impression of a good sleep even when there is no "i" in deep sleep.

Ah, it seems like we are revolving around same thing again and again.
How is mind connected to consciousness? and the very connection itself has the issue..you are just assuming it and repeating , but not showing any valid proof.

I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.

This is the crux of our discussion..get hold on it, will be back.

How do you say that both are on the same plane ? Then there won't be any necessity to differentiate between VyAvhArikA satyam from ParmArthikA satyam.

I said about two thoughts 1. "All this world is vyavaharika satya or illusory at paramathika satya" 2. "This world is real because I am experiencing it"

These 2 thoughts are in the same mind..but here 1st one is negating the validity of second thought. That is the issue I have raised..let me know if my point is clear.

The Self-realised saints belonged to this world and experienced Turiya in this world alone.

TURIYA can't be experienced in this world as per my knowledge..refer Manukya.Up . If it is really experienced in this world , then that itself proves there is a "knower" of it..which you have discarded as just ahankara.

I don't think there is any use discussing this subject with you. Why do you want to discuss this issue at all ?

Because I want to find the TRUTH as it is .. I don't have any fear to discuss about TRUTH.

Ah ! I don't think it was so difficult to figure out. What I am trying to tell you that the world is actually not as we perceive it by our mind and our sense organs. It appears so because of our mind. Our mind creates the perception of "seeing" something different than what the object really is. Our mind creates the illusion of colors where there is none. Our mind creates the illusion of "hearing" where there is only vibration within a certain range in the medium. Our mind creates the illusion of "touch" and "taste". If you can understand what I am trying to say .... this world is not really as we perceive and yet we so strongly cling to its being a "reality".

I can fully understand your words, but it is difficult for me to make you understand about my question it seems.

Let me put one more time here:

Whatever you said above is again coming from the same mind which creates illusions such as seeing, hearing,touch etc.,(as per you), so what proof you have left to prove your very own words..the words came from the same mind which produces illusions..

Please just read my lines few times.

How can an unreal object acts in its own capacity different from others without a conscious effort acting on it ?

First define what is unreal object and whether it exists even as unreal.

To tell you the truth, I don't think there is any use discussing Advaita with you. What is the harm if you accept that the world is the only Truth and the whole of Advaita is completely illogical and that the Advaitins are crazy people who have fancy ideas without any substance ? There are more people like you than there are Advaitins. Believe me, there is absolutely no harm.

I quit this discussion here.

OM

I won't stop searching the TRUTH . but same time I can not leave logic aside.

Thanks for your patient answers.

[devotee]

Namaste Sanathan,

This discussion has derailed this thread and I request you to please open your own thread for these questions so that the purpose for which this thread was created is not lost.

I have no intention to discuss this issue any more but I would like you to note these flaws in your understanding :

a)

You may say realized person will talk to us after he is coming out from realized state, but that is again not logical..since the world is dream-like thing..the very sayings of realized person are nothing but dream-like ..after all the very concept of realization is dream-like.

You have yet to understand that dream, dream characters and dream events are neither real nor unreal like this world. It depends upon from what state you are seeing. It is not abnormal to carry impressions of dream to waking state and vice-versa. You are free to have your understanding but on what authority are you asserting in this manner ? Are you a Self-realised soul ? Why don't you first reach that stage ?

b)

How come consciousness has mind-waves in it?

Mind and consciousness are not different. Mind is individualised consciousness but when we use the term consciousness we usually mean Cosmic Consciousness. I have told this earlier too. It is in the nature of Consciousness to have mind-waves.

c)

Next you mentioned "i" vanishes in deep-sleep..that is also not right, if "i" itself vanishes..the person after waking from deep-sleep can not say that he had sound sleep, so there must be someone who experiences deep sleep also thought he doesn't have the knowledge during that time..so "i" is not vanished..but his knowledge of knowing outside objects doesn't shine forth. ANother logical reason is , if "i" vanishes in deepsleep, then after waking up a new "i" should have been created and the person's indivduality should change, but that is not the fact

You have no idea what "i" means or in what context it has been used. The first characteristic of presence of "i" i.e. ahamkAr is that it should be able to distinguish itself for other things around it. In deep sleep, there is no such differentiation ... how can there be an "i" ? Please remember that existence of an "i" means presence of Consciousness but the reverse of it is not true.

Again, the impression of having a good sleep is not recorded by "i". The consciousness exists and is witness even when there is no "i". After every deep sleep, there is a new 'i" but it is attached to all the earlier impressions in mind (samskArs) and therefore, acts as the earlier one.

d)

You might not have read my lines carefully, I didn't say dreamer has no individuality, but I objected your assumption that other characters of dream which have been experienced by dreamer need not to have individuality or subjectivity which anyway we can not prove. I am not arguing for your information, I am putting all my doubts and understanding infront of you so that can get clarified .

You didn't read my answer properly. I was talking about dream characters and not the dreamer. You said that dream characters have no "i". I said that if that was so, dream characters would not have acted independently (at least seemingly) as they do in the dream. What is the basis of saying that the dream characters have no "i"s ? Cannot one dream character differentiate itself from all others in the dream ?

e)

So, there is an exit after self-realisation, and regaining of individuality..this has been objected by me, what is the meaning of realization then?

How can you object to this ? How do you know what Self-realisation means ? How can you take upon yourself to define how it should be ? We have to go by what the Self-realised say. If you say that it doesn't mean anything or then Self-realisation is meaningless ... you are free to have your opinion ... but that is just your opinion.

f)

How is mind connected to consciousness? and the very connection itself has the issue..you are just assuming it and repeating , but not showing any valid proof.

Please correct your understanding of mind and consciousness. Mind is nothing but individualised consciousness. How do you know that "I am assuming" ? I am repeating again and again because this was told by me in the beginning itself and yet you forget it.

g)

I said about two thoughts 1. "All this world is vyavaharika satya or illusory at paramathika satya" 2. "This world is real because I am experiencing it". These 2 thoughts are in the same mind..but here 1st one is negating the validity of second thought. That is the issue I have raised..let me know if my point is clear.

I think I agreed that both the statements are coming from the same mind but I also said this :" I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.". How do you see the dream with the same mind and take it as real and then negate its reality on waking up ?

No one knows how it happens but the awakened person is free to merge its mind with the cosmic consciousness and also come back to individualised consciousness with the impressions of oneness carried to individualised consciousness. You cannot say that it is impossible as you are not a Self-realised soul and you are also not the rule maker of what should happen to a Self-realised soul. It may be wrong but I or you are not in the right capacity cannot deny it.

If you insist otherwise, please tell me what is your authority for claiming so.

h)

TURIYA can't be experienced in this world as per my knowledge..refer Manukya.Up . If it is really experienced in this world , then that itself proves there is a "knower" of it..which you have discarded as just ahankara.

I would like to know on what authority you are claiming this.

i)

Whatever you said above is again coming from the same mind which creates illusions such as seeing, hearing,touch etc.,(as per you), so what proof you have left to prove your very own words..the words came from the same mind which produces illusions..

Yes, the mind creates illusion but who said that it cannot analyse and differentiate between the real and unreal at least on intellectual level ?

j)

First define what is unreal object and whether it exists even as unreal.

I told you that you have to first decide from what plane/state you are saying this. If we are talking on absolute terms then Only the unchanging essence i.e. the fourth state of Brahman alone is Real and everything else is unreal. On this reality the imagined beings, objects and activities are all unreal. Here "Imagination" term is used for the generation of mind-waves on the vast bosom of Consciousness.

k)

I won't stop searching the TRUTH . but same time I can not leave logic aside.

I request that you can very well do it in some other thread as this discussion is derailing the purpose of this thread. BTW, shall I tell you that logic is used with axioms applicable to a particular scenario. Here, you don't know the nature of Consciousness, you also don't know what mind is and how it works, You have no idea how it feels on awakening .... how are you applying logic without having proper framework of applicable axioms ? I can't wish you best of luck in your pursuit of Truth that you claim as you are sailing without a compass.

This is my last post on this issue. I shall ask Satay to move this part of discussion in this thread to some other thread.

OM

[sanathan]

Pranamams!

This discussion has derailed this thread and I request you to please open your own thread for these questions so that the purpose for which this thread was created is not lost.

I have no intention to discuss this issue any more but I would like you to note these flaws in your understanding :

This is my last post in this thread, just giving my answers to some of your questions on my stand.

a)

You have yet to understand that dream, dream characters and dream events are neither real nor unreal like this world. It depends upon from what state you are seeing. It is not abnormal to carry impressions of dream to waking state and vice-versa. You are free to have your understanding but on what authority are you asserting in this manner ? Are you a Self-realised soul ? Why don't you first reach that stage ?

I am first searching the TRUE philosophy, without knowing what is TRUTH..how can I do sadhana and achieve self-realization or GOD-realization..if I just blindly follow some path and assume what ever I achieved is the "self-realization" ..that won't help me in reality..because there maybe a possibility of falling down from that state to illusory world again as we are going to dream every night even after realising the last night's dream was just illusion.

Regarding , dream characters illusoriness: I have certainly understood what you are saying..but I am just objecting the point that there is continuation of "knower" from one state to another..and without that "knower" we can not talk about dream state. but you are denying the very "knower" as the product of maya. which anyway can not be proved.

Also the dream itself is not illusion , but the way we have experienced it as "REAL" in dream was because of the attachment with our worldy objects and their impressions in the mind of dreamer.

You are considering the consciousness on which the dream is happening , but the very mind where it is happening is not isolate entity..it belongs to "dreamer"..otherwise why he experiences his own dream.

b)

Mind and consciousness are not different. Mind is individualised consciousness but when we use the term consciousness we usually mean Cosmic Consciousness. I have told this earlier too. It is in the nature of Consciousness to have mind-waves.

Again, just assumption..you are always leaving one thing aside that without being a knower/experiencer of that mind or consciousness ..we can not prove such a fact.

c)

You have no idea what "i" means or in what context it has been used. The first characteristic of presence of "i" i.e. ahamkAr is that it should be able to distinguish itself for other things around it. In deep sleep, there is no such differentiation ... how can there be an "i" ? Please remember that existence of an "i" means presence of Consciousness but the reverse of it is not true.

Again, the impression of having a good sleep is not recorded by "i". The consciousness exists and is witness even when there is no "i". After every deep sleep, there is a new 'i" but it is attached to all the earlier impressions in mind (samskArs) and therefore, acts as the earlier one.

Able to distingiush it from others is not the characteristic of "Ahankara"..which is jada by itself..there must be a pure "knower" who is misidentifying himself with body is the distinguisher. In deep sleep there is no such differentiation because "his" knowledge doesn't shine forth and not interacting with objects. witnessing is called knowing in my language and who does that is called as "knower"..I use "i" to that knower. there can be no pure consciousness without having a conscious-being holding it..you have yet prove pure consciousness..you are just assuming ..but the very person who says so is the proof for "knower" of having that knowledge exists.

d)

You didn't read my answer properly. I was talking about dream characters and not the dreamer. You said that dream characters have no "i". I said that if that was so, dream characters would not have acted independently (at least seemingly) as they do in the dream. What is the basis of saying that the dream characters have no "i"s ? Cannot one dream character differentiate itself from all others in the dream ?

dream characters have their base in the impressions stored in mind of a person.. same impressions have been materialised as "dream" which is the experience of dreamer..why do you want to establish the "i"ness to dream characters?
In fact dream is not in control of dreamer..any jada impressions(karma vasanas) can not act upon dreamer on their own, so there is a controller of this, I believe sastras must call him as "GOD".

e)

How can you object to this ? How do you know what Self-realisation means ? How can you take upon yourself to define how it should be ? We have to go by what the Self-realised say. If you say that it doesn't mean anything or then Self-realisation is meaningless ... you are free to have your opinion ... but that is just your opinion.

How do you believe someone is self-realized? which is subjective term..this is why I objected.. if at all the self-realization is "pure consciousness" as said by you then again why "mind-waves" occur in that pure consciousness again after realization ..and why does he still want to talk to illusory world ..since he is realized..he should know that "the world he is seeing after come out from realization is just illusory as dream..so why he wants to talk and preach to illusory persons which are anyway don't exist." , that is why I am objecting what you call as realization may not be true..

f)

Please correct your understanding of mind and consciousness. Mind is nothing but individualised consciousness. How do you know that "I am assuming" ? I am repeating again and again because this was told by me in the beginning itself and yet you forget it.

I will correct once you show the proof or give logical explanation..mind is related to one being..so as consciousness..without being an experiencer or knower of his own mind..there can be no mind or consciousness..but you are putting the very knower as product of imagination in pure consciousness..which has no valid proof, that's why I said you are assuming such and such..

g)

I think I agreed that both the statements are coming from the same mind but I also said this :" I have already answered this above. Moreover, when you act in the dream , you feel in your mind that it is all reality but when you are awakened, you say that all that happened in the dream was illusory.". How do you see the dream with the same mind and take it as real and then negate its reality on waking up ?

What we negate? we just negate the way we thought the dream (i.e happening really)..but not the very experience which we have gone through while dreaming..if dream itself was false..then there is no chance of talking about it in waking..that itself proves we have experienced something..but the way we feel the dream as something really happening(when comapred to waking state)during that time is false..that means our way of knowing or way of thinking or way of experiencing by misidentification is false..not the very experience itself and objects itself.
The way we get attached with objects is due to avidya..but not the objects themselves..this is what I can deduce from the DREAM-WAKIGN comparison..

No one knows how it happens but the awakened person is free to merge its mind with the cosmic consciousness and also come back to individualised consciousness with the impressions of oneness carried to individualised consciousness. You cannot say that it is impossible as you are not a Self-realised soul and you are also not the rule maker of what should happen to a Self-realised soul. It may be wrong but I or you are not in the right capacity cannot deny it.

If you insist otherwise, please tell me what is your authority for claiming so.

The very concept of carrying the impression from pure-consciousness to an imagined "I" is not possible if there is no "experiencer" of both..actually the very concept that "there is some impression of oneness" points that there is a "knower" of it..otherwise that fact is not known to us as such..but what you said is "there is no knower" at that state..then how do you know that state as such and such or different from a rock-like state or jada state which doesn't know itself...

h)

I would like to know on what authority you are claiming this.

Logical authority..show me if my statement is illogical and how.

i)

Yes, the mind creates illusion but who said that it cannot analyse and differentiate between the real and unreal at least on intellectual level ?

All these are not of use logically until we say there is one conscious-being or knower to whom all this is happening..mind,intellect are not isolated terms..they aways belong to someone and work for that being.

j)

I told you that you have to first decide from what plane/state you are saying this. If we are talking on absolute terms then Only the unchanging essence i.e. the fourth state of Brahman alone is Real and everything else is unreal.

There is no chance of talking from ABSOLUTE state..and if there is no knower at that state..then that fact can not be know to current knower.

k)

I request that you can very well do it in some other thread as this discussion is derailing the purpose of this thread.

This was my last post on this issue. Thanks for discussing the issue.

OM

Thank you, I am out of this thread.

[sanathan]

After every deep sleep, there is a new 'i" but it is attached to all the earlier impressions in mind (samskArs) and therefore, acts as the earlier one.

You are always going by imaginations..without showing a valid proof or logic, above is the best example.

Please read Shankaracharya's BSB for sutra "Jnota eva" (II.iii.18), Shakara has clearly mentioned the individual soul is knower.. and Chandogya(8.12.4) establishes this fact as "He who knows 'I smell this' is the self" . You are putting a new theory that the "i" who is knower himself vanishes with every sleep..

There is a new "i" after coming out from dream..show me proof? but the person who is waking from dream says..he was there before and can remember everything as 'his' experience, as per your theory the new 'i' should say.."my mind has information as such and such" and he shouldnot say "I was happy y'day" which is pure subjective..

I don't think we need to discuss anymore as you are relying more on your "thoughts"which are completely opposite our own current experience and also different from Acharya's words or sastra.

[jopmala]

namaste to all

I think discussion with advaitin is meaningless because they insist on one aspect of bhagaban that is Brahma is non dual and nirguna nirvishes and nirakara but the thing they do not see is that the same scriptures again say that Brahma is also sagun sakara and savishes. Their sagun sakar savishes Brahma is lower than nirgun nirakar Brahma . Though they accept only one nirguna nirvishes Brahma but they have to acknowledge Iswara ( lower brahma which is sagun savishes) and Maya to make nirguna brahma sagun but at a lower position and at the same time they say only brahma is truth and rest is Mithya . They make their brahma a magician .Our scriptures( Gita) say that we the jivas are the part of Brahma ( advaitin does not accept). Aham Brahmasmi does not mean that Brahma is non dual. we are born from our parents and so we are part of them but that does not mean that myself and my parent is same . We are same in the sense that we belong to them but there is difference also . I can not reach to my father/mother position and also they but we are whole. we see that bhagavan is both this and that. I mean in Gita Sri Krishna clearly describes what he is . So advaitin version of Brahma is one sided. If there is 'YES' there must exist 'NO' and no in between. If there is light there must have dark and that is all about Brahma. This states of consciousness etc are all imagination of advaitin only to justify their misconception. Their ways of acquiring jnan and then getting moksha is not for all. common people can not practice it.Sri krishna is not for a particular class of devotee and also Gita establishes Bhaktimarg over jnan marg for sadhan bhajan. I do not understand how advaitin claim that Gita supports non dualistic concept of Brahma whereas every chapter of Gita clearly speaks of who is Krishna and who is jiva and also what jiva will do to achieve his goal that is krishna.Brahma being conditioned by Maya becomes jiva is totally unacceptable. Advaitin "Maya" and "Mama Maya" of Gita is not same. If you go through advaitin concept of Maya , it seems that It is Maya which is all powerful and not nirguna nirakar brahma.Advaitin always try to convince people with no justification. I want to know where this all powerful maya has come from ? why nirguna brahma has delegated his power to maya and then himself got conditioned and trying to get rid of maya by doing jnan marg. whose jnan the jiva need ? Bhakti sashra describe that jiva is nitya dasa of sri krishna therefore sri krishna is sri krishna and jiva is jiva. father is father always and son is son. but jiva comes from sri krishna so it is part not the whole.The " Aham Brahmasmi is always truth when there is bhakta and bhagavan. we can not say brahma is only this.Brahma is dual non dual or anything else.I request advaitin not to put any limit to his Brahmatwa by drawing any line.

[devotee]

Namaste Japmala,

First of all, I would like to request you that if you are a confirmed dualist, please don't start a fight in Advaita section with the Advaitins. Please also remember that Advaitins are no fools the way you are describing.

I wish this was not raised in this thread but as you have raised this issue, let me tell you why people face problem when discussing with Advaitins.

a) Wrong application of Logic :

A logical argument which is valid in one situation may be invalid in other situation. This part is always missed by people while discussing Advaita. You must be sure under which framework of Axioms you are arguing with logic. The laws which govern one situation are not valid in another situation. You can't apply the laws of Newtonian mechanics when the speed in nearing velocity of light or at atomic distances.

... How do you know what are the valid axioms in a particular situation ? By keen observation and analysis and learning from people who know the subject matter. But most of the times, I find that people don't listen at all to what the Advaitins say .... they themselves (Non-Advaitins) don't understand how it works and they keep finding their own arguments and their own wrong inferences. In the above discussion, Sanathan doesn't know how the Consciousness works or mind works and what exactly Mithya means but starts applying his logic in without respecting the frameworks of the Axioms in the context of Advaitic discussion. So, it doesn't reach anywhere, as it is bound to be.

b) Not understanding the correct meaning of key-words used

Every field of knowledge has some special key-words which is used by the professionals of that field. The same words may have a different meaning in other fields but you must understand what exactly it means in the context of that field of knowledge about which we are talking.

The words, Mithya, Reality, Unreal, Consciousness, Self, Mind etc. have their slightly special meanings in Advaita which must be understood correctly. I have seen people misinterpreting "Mithya" in their own way when this word has a very special meaning in Advaita. In the above discussion too, Santhan refuses to accept that Mind is Individualised Conditioned Consciousness ... without thinking that if Mind is not consciousness then what exactly it is ? In the above discussion he also says that even in deep sleep 'i" exists etc. ... when you start discussing in this manner, how Advaitin can discuss with you ?

c) Not coming out of their belief system

Advaita shatters the common belief system. You must be ready to break free from the shackles of the common belief system to be able to discuss Advaitic philosophy.

Now, I will tell you where you are getting it wrong :

I think discussion with advaitin is meaningless because they insist on one aspect of bhagaban that is Brahma is non dual and nirguna nirvishes and nirakara but the thing they do not see is that the same scriptures again say that Brahma is also sagun sakara and savishes.

This shows that you have no idea what Advaitins believe or say. Please rest assured that Advaitins accept both the aspects of Brahman. So, you should not be so unhappy with the Advaitins now !

Their sagun sakar savishes Brahma is lower than nirgun nirakar Brahma . Though they accept only one nirguna nirvishes Brahma but they have to acknowledge Iswara ( lower brahma which is sagun savishes) and Maya to make nirguna brahma sagun but at a lower position and at the same time they say only brahma is truth and rest is Mithya .

Can you quote any known Advaitin where it is said that Saguna Brahman is lower than Nirakar Brahman ? I am not aware. Saguna Brahman is created under the influence of MAyA from NirAkAr Brahman. NirAkAr Brahman is more important to know. Why ? Because it is the ultimate reality and the Upanishads say that It is to be known (Ref : MAndukya Upanishad). The terms Lower Brahman and Higher Brahman is not for the sake of comparison of superiority of one with respect to other.

They make their brahma a magician.

This is just your prejudice against the Advaitins. You don't understand what the Advaitins believe in.

Our scriptures( Gita) say that we the jivas are the part of Brahma ( advaitin does not accept). Aham Brahmasmi does not mean that Brahma is non dual. we are born from our parents and so we are part of them but that does not mean that myself and my parent is same . We are same in the sense that we belong to them but there is difference also . I can not reach to my father/mother position and also they but we are whole. we see that bhagavan is both this and that.

Advaitins say, "Jivo Brahmaiva naparah" ===> Jiva is Brahman alone and nothing else. If you read Bhagwad Gita Chapter 2 and chapter 13 carefully, you will understand that there is only one Truth which manifests as both Jiva and Ishvara and that is Brahman.

I mean in Gita Sri Krishna clearly describes what he is.

I agree. However, Lord Krishna is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman, isn't it ? Doesn't Bhagwad Gita says so ?

This states of consciousness etc are all imagination of advaitin only to justify their misconception.

This shows that you have not read VedAnta otherwise, you would not have
said so. Please read Upaniishads and particularly MAndukya Up.

Their ways of acquiring jnan and then getting moksha is not for all. common people can not practice it.

Agreed. That is why it is forbidden to discuss Advaita to a person of less intellect (Now, please don't jump at me. This is the term used in VedAnta and this only means that a person who cannot see beyond the reality of duality).

Sri krishna is not for a particular class of devotee and also Gita establishes Bhaktimarg over jnan marg for sadhan bhajan. I do not understand how advaitin claim that Gita supports non dualistic concept of Brahma whereas every chapter of Gita clearly speaks of who is Krishna and who is jiva and also what jiva will do to achieve his goal that is krishna.

Bhagwad Gita has been interpreted by Bhakti-yogis and Jnana-yogis differently. However, Bhagwad owes its teaching to VedAnta. If you have read Kathopanishad, please remember what it says, "He who sees many (duality), goes from death to death". I can tell you the verses in Bhagwad Gita where the verses talk of Non-duality.

Brahma being conditioned by Maya becomes jiva is totally unacceptable.

Why does Mandukya Upanishad says, "This (fourth) is the Self and it is to be known" when it describes other three states of Brahman in Waking, dreaming and Deep Sleep states ? When the Upanishad starts with that Brahman has four parts, how come it says that Fourth is Self without adding the earlier three states of Brahman ?

Advaitin "Maya" and "Mama Maya" of Gita is not same. If you go through advaitin concept of Maya , it seems that It is Maya which is all powerful and not nirguna nirakar brahma.

How do you claim this ? Krishna's MAyA is the same as the Advaitin's MAyA. Krishna Himself says that MAyA is very powerful, "Mama MAyA durtyayA".

Advaitin always try to convince people with no justification. I want to know where this all powerful maya has come from ? why nirguna brahma has delegated his power to maya and then himself got conditioned and trying to get rid of maya by doing jnan marg.

MAyA is the nature of Brahman when the Brahman is not in the Turiya state.

whose jnan the jiva need ?

Jiva has to know that It is Brahman Itself.

Bhakti sashra describe that jiva is nitya dasa of sri krishna therefore sri krishna is sri krishna and jiva is jiva. father is father always and son is son. but jiva comes from sri krishna so it is part not the whole.

What do understand from the term, "Nitya Dasa olf Krishna" ? Please elaborate. Moreover, Advaitins are forbidden to change the views of Bhaktas by their Gurus. So, if you believe that Jiva and Krishna are different there is no issue.

As far as Ishava (Saguna Brahman) is concerned please note that Ishvara is not Brahman ... it is only the third aspect of Brahman. This aspect of Brahman gives birth to Jivas and then also merges all the Jivas back into Itself on annihilation.

The "Aham Brahmasmi is always truth when there is bhakta and bhagavan.

Aham BrahmAsmi means, "I am Brahman" so it speaks of non-duality. If you are seeing a different meaning to it, I have no issues. I don't intend to change the belief system of anyone.

we can not say brahma is only this.Brahma is dual non dual or anything else.I request advaitin not to put any limit to his Brahmatwa by drawing any line.

Advaitins have their right to have their own belief system or not ? If yes, please let them have their own understanding of Brahman ... why are you bothered at all ?

OM

[Omkara]

In my observation,Advaita Vedantins are quite arrogant.Their standard response of advaitins when someone questions the logic of their beleifs is a condescending "you are not intellectually mature enough to understand advaita".Most modern neo-advaitins are completely uninterested in reading the works of traditional advaita acharyas and love to make up their own theories intead.They fly into a rage when asked for scriptural proof of their beleifs,because there is none!

For them,people who do not convert to their viewpoint are "on the path of duality".Of course,it is not tyeir responsibility to provide proof or cogent logical arguments.Others have to accept what they say blindly!

[devotee]

In my observation,Advaita Vedantins are quite arrogant.

No. If you have ever participated in Advaitic discussion or read talks of Advaitic Gurus, you have to realise that it is not an easy subject at all. Is it easy to comprehend that this solid world before you is a handiwork of MAyA ? Any person of average intelligence will always be quick to dismiss such an idea as ridiculous.

I can see that this world is unreal, believe me, I have no doubts over it. Now, you come and say that either I should accept your views or I will be labelled as an "arrogant" ... then what am I supposed to do ?

OM

[Omkara]

I lean towards monism too,but when advaitins constanly insinuate that their opponents are against advaita only because they have not understood advaita properly and that their opponents are too intellectually immature to understand advaita,it is irritating.

[devotee]

I lean towards monism too,but when advaitins constanly insinuate that their opponents are against advaita only because they have not understood advaita properly and that their opponents are too intellectually immature to understand advaita,it is irritating.

I agree if anyone does it in an unfair manner. I feel, it is better to bow out of discussion with people who don't understand our viewpoint or are not listening to our viewpoint than indulge in such fights.

OM