Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

  1. #21
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    To explain sadhana, one has to take into account duality and later negate it.

    Duality is not negated from day one.

    If I say, who is the one who is meditating? What will you do? stop meditating.

    Acharya Shankara Bhagavadpada has also said in Tai. Up. 1/11 speak truth, follow dharma. When there are not two, how can he speak such?

    Hence first duality is accepted, then negated, ultimately only non-dual Brahman remains

    Advaita is the topmost philosophical truth, but not all can digest it. Else there will be just maun

    Advaita does not ask us to rest or stop before entering into the non-dual state.

    Aum
    Last edited by Amrut; 23 November 2013 at 11:24 AM. Reason: added last line
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  2. #22
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    Namaste,

    I will continue from where I had left.

    Even if you take the famous statement

    ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रहैव नापरः
    अनेन वेद्यं सच्छास्त्रमिति वेदान्तडि्ण्डिमः - - ब्रह्म ज्ञानावलीमाला - २०


    brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparah
    anena vedyam sacchAstram iti vedAntaDiNDimah–Brahma Jnanavali mala- 20


    20. Brahman (ब्रह्म) is real, the universe is mithya (मिथ्या, it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal. The jiva (जीव) is Brahman (ब्रह्म) itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct SAstra (शास्त्र). This is proclaimed by Vedanta.

    In this statement too there are two things - Jiva and Brahman. Then it is said that both are same. So there has to be 2 which are now one right?


    Lets take Mahavakya-s

    'I am Brahman' and 'You are that'

    In 'I am Brahman', there are two things 'I' and 'Brahman'. So this also defeats non-duality. Same is the case with another Mahavakya.

    So how to explain this. Does this mean that there is duality and then later on 2 becomes one?

    According to me, the explanation is this:

    The laxyArtha of this statement is non-duality. This statement is only true when 'I' realizes itself as 'Brahman'. So the word 'am' is important and implies non-duality.

    In this case, one has to ask 'Who am I'. When one realizes the true nature of 'I', the statement becomes true and our direct experience.

    Now if we say, there were two but not one, atleast in the beginning, then it would violate shruti which says Brahman is indivisible. Hence we have to say, 'it appears to be 2' and not 'it transforms into 2'. This also becomes experience.

    When you say, milk changes into curd, the process is irreversible process and both objects have different characteristics. IF you burn a cloth, it gets transforms into ash. Here too there is a permanent irreversible change. Also the residue is left which shows change i.e. ash shows that once there was something else (cloth). In other words, it leaves the traces.

    While in famous snake-rope analogy, when snake disappears and rope appears, there is no path that is left, no evidence that once there was snake. This is the difference between mithyA and anitya. Former e.g. of cloth-ash was anitya, while later was that of mithyA.

    Hence we cannot even say that this world is anitya (impermanent). But thi is difficult to understand, hence you will find some statements in shastra-s which say this world is impermanent, which are generally aimed to cultivate vairagya. At a proper time, the anitya is substituted by mithya.

    Always remember that upadesha-s have to be practically applied. When disciple is not ready, attempts are made to prepare him to get ready.

    I hope this clears doubts.

    Aum

    Indiaspirituality
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  3. #23

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    Quote Originally Posted by Indiaspirituality Amrut View Post
    We can also take e.g. of moon. Moon does not have it's own light, but it reflects the light of Sun. In the same way, Light of Atman (Brahman) falls on mind and intellect, which in turn gets reflected. It is this reflected light that we see.

    Moonlight has different characteristics than sunlight. Moonlight is cool and milky while, while sunlight is golden yellow and warm / hot in nature. One can look into the full moon at midnight, but one cannot look into the sun at midday.

    Even though we say that there are differences and so duality, in reality, the reflected light of moon, was never moon's own, nor moon has capacity to retain the light by itself even for few minutes. There is no question of moon becoming self luminous. No part and whole theory

    In the same way, the consciousness (light), which is falls on mind, gets reflected by mind.

    In other words, consciousness (light) shines the mind, and from within the mind it itself shines, as though appearing that it is the mind that is actually emanating light (moon emanating it's own light).

    We can say in the e.g. of moon and moon light -

    Never was the light separate from sun,
    Never did moon independently emanated light by it's own,
    Never did moon reflected only a part of light
    Never did moon retain sunlight and reflected own it's own.
    Never did moon separated sunlight and divided into small fragments. Moon reflects everything that falls upon itself.

    In short moon does not have any capacity to remain self luminous.

    The part and whole philosophy does not account in this e.g. of moonlight.

    Mind which stands for moon, is jaDa (gross). It cannot function by itself without the power of soul (moon light). Moon does not have it's existence on new-moon day

    Soul was never separated. Moon light is actually sun-light.

    Aum

    Indiaspirituality
    Very nice explanation. The moon - mAnas-chandra reflecting the light of SuryanArAyaNa - AtmA.

    Everyone agrees that there cannot be moon-illumination without sun. However, this means the existence of moonlight is

    School A] anitya, transient and fully dependant on sun[light]
    School B] mithya, of no consequence, an appearance.

    No school of SanAtana Hindu Dharma (or at least Vedic Dharma) disagrees with this either.

    Therefore, this is a matter of choice and preference:

    School A: ParamAtmA is not a fool to reflect His light on the moon and bring awareness of His beauty. Therefore, had it not been for the moon's Love of the Sun, it would be the civic duty of the moonlight to sing about the Sun and Sunlight and alleviate worldly misery of all such moons.

    School B: Of what consequence is a reflection of the REAL on a transient fleeting surface or on a sheer appearance? Our goal is the quest for the real. Only Sun is really real as in - it is the ultimate source [and sink] - sarva kAraNa kAraNam (cause of all causes). Therefore, since Veda-vedAnta says there is only ONE Reality, the Sun, I cannot be anything else other than the Sun, since I exist - by observation.

    This is why, there is really no contradiction between any schools.

    _/\_

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~
    Last edited by smaranam; 25 November 2013 at 01:48 AM. Reason: School - typo
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  4. #24
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    Namaste Smaranam ji,

    Interpretations are based upon one's nature (mental make-up) and mental purity. More pure the person, less is the clash within himself, hence less is the clash his/her mind observes.

    When someone writes a commentary explaining veda-s, it is more a reflection of 'his understanding of veda-s' then the veda-s themselves.

    In either case, it is the sun which has it's independent existence

    Hence we all look towards the ultimate goal.

    In abheda bhakti, those non-dual statements are for lifting us from duality, as I have explained in my last post.

    MithyA can also be taken as temporary in the beginning.

    In all schools, there are two identities.

    1. Independent supreme reality, the one without second
    2. Dependent identities

    Also mind is of utmost importance and so is the bhAva.

    Aum
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  5. #25

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    Namaste (All)

    The only argument that can come up is "I am sunlight (shakti), but not Sun." [It is only a matter of appreciation of Sun. This is why VishishTa advaita (of RAmAnuja) says that the Supreme Lord experiences Himself through the entites i.e. sunlight in varying degrees (they become the medium).]


    To this The Absolute POV says:
    The very definition of I AM xyz (acc. to kevaladvaita) is: THE SOURCE IS xyz
    I AM Sun == The Source is Sun

    Because the ONLY ONE who has any authority to say " I AM " is the absolute ultimate owner of anything.

    Sunlight cannot be the owner of anything. It is an owned commodity.

    I am happiness is a figure of speech. Really I AM the ONE WHO owns that happiness.

    Therefore, From the absolute POV "I am sunlight [in varying degrees]" is of no consequence or almost meaningless, because it is like the happiness in 'I AM' saying "I am happiness [in varying degrees]" or intelligence in 'I AM' saying "I am intelligence [in varying degrees]" which again is not solid or complete.


    ***CAUTION:
    Therefore "I AM Sun" should not be mistaken as an owned commodity (tatastha shakti) speaking this statement. It cannot speak. Only the owner (Sun) can speak.

    _/\_

    om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~
    Last edited by smaranam; 25 November 2013 at 03:39 AM. Reason: added: "To this the Absolute POV says" to make the parties explicit, to avoid misunderstandings
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  6. #26
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    Namaste,

    Sun and it's sunlight or say Sun and heat or fire and warmth cannot be separated

    Brahman and mAyA

    Brahman + mAyA = Ishvara (controller of mAyA)

    The difference is in analogy and how we interpret a particular analogy

    Aum
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  7. #27

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    Last edited by smaranam; 25 November 2013 at 03:53 AM. Reason: ~ ~
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  8. #28

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    ~~ ~~ ~~
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  9. #29
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    572
    Rep Power
    820

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    Hi.,

    Again excellant message and packed with a lot of useful information for Advaita followers.

    The objective here is whether they have rational support or not to claim it as scientific and rational. From your message, you seems to agree that such claims are not required or hard to defend as Advaita is more of an faith driven "experience" rather than rational understanding and following. Correct me if i am wrong here.

    Rationally you are advocating duality as reality and transcending that duality as the ultimate goal. That ends the philosophy of Advaita and its fundamental tenet of Mithyatva. If vyavahArika itself is not Mithya, then Advaitm is again lost! If vyavahArika if Mithya, then you are in the cyclic confusion where you ought to explain where is the other reality that you have to transcend?

    Advaitm cannot be destination but the single reality! You are not something else in any state of reality and you are always that Advaitic Brahman! You are fantastically walking over this issue and your message is really useful for many of the Advaita seekers.

    Thanks
    Hare Krshna!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    572
    Rep Power
    820

    Re: Advaita Vedanta scientific and rational

    Advaita is the topmost philosophical truth, but not all can digest it. Else there will be just maun

    Advaita does not ask us to rest or stop before entering into the non-dual state.



    How contradicting the above two are

    To certify it as topmost philosophical truth, we have to talk about it right? but it cannot be talked about, described or experienced!
    How can you enter in to a state when you never lost or put in to any other state? How such Brahman ever loose its own reality when the other way around is advocated as the topmost where there must be no second to compete with?

    The popular story about Shankara picking flowers remind me of this duality as reality! Mother, i cannot see more than one flower ( cos he is jivan Muktha - but he saw a mother, responded to her and oh he also saw 'a flower')

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Creation and Advaita !
    By nirotu in forum Advaita
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 28 April 2015, 10:34 PM
  2. A Personal Hindu Library
    By saidevo in forum Dharma-related Websites
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 17 March 2009, 12:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •