Again, it will help if you can give a clear description of what exactly you believe Brahman is. I am having to guess at what you think Brahman is because you have not yet clarified your position. It sounds like from the above you think Brahman is neither personal or impersonal, neither with...
I completely agree with this. The Upanishads are full of apparent contradictions, and it is understandable why, they are not coherent philosophical treatises, they are religious texts appended to the Vedas, and have been composed by several authors over several centuries, in much the same way...
I had to laugh here you just agreed Brahman is the knower, then you are indirectly agreeing Brahman is a sentient entity because only a sentient entity knows. I don't think you realise that your arguments ends up proving my position rather than yours.
Anyway, no, actually it does not say that...
It has the same meaning in Sanskrit too. You are playing word games. It is like trying to debate that "pain" in Sanskrit does not mean "pain" in English. There are various words very closely related in Sanskrit for consciousness such as chaitaniya, cit, vedana, chetana. Almost every language in...
Transferring post from Sayak's thread "Why Materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument"
Prajnana is a synonym for consciousness. It is often translated as consciousness:
Here:
"Rig Veda proclaims 'prajnanam brahma that is, prajnana is Brahma, Prajnana means awareness, consciousness...
Although Brahman has for the last 3000 years or so been interpreted as God by Hindus, and is a word that is often translated as the Hindu concept of God, very recently so-called Secular Atheist Hindus are attempting to translate Brahman as just "energy" or "universal field" or some insentient...
Sure. Can you also clarify to me in simple language what your position on the nature of Brahman is. What do you even mean by 'Ur-field'?
I am not that new Sayak, I grew up watching the Mahabharata, Ramayana, I spent hours on hours talking about Dharmic philosophy with my Gyanis at the Gudwara...
The emboldened is really the crux of the problem here because it exposes a massive arrogance problem. Sayak thinks(arrogantly) that the last 1500 years of hermenuetics of the Upanishads(i.e. Vedanta philosophy) is all useless, they all got all the Upanishads wrong, and that he is the only one to...
Thank you, I am not actually against you, because I consider dualism philosophically an acceptable position and a far more stronger position than materialism. I am metaphysically an idealist, but in practice a dualist. As you have pointed out yourself, for an Advaita dualism is a pragmatic...
Cont.
As the readers will now clearly see, if they did not know anything about Vedanta philosophy before, Vedanta is theistic philosophy, i.e. philosophy about God(Brahman) Its principal philosophical problems is about the relationship between three entities: God(Brahman/Ishvara)...
^^ I will once again repeat. In big letters, as Sayak has a habit of avoiding his opponents arguments, but when everybody can see I have made the argument, they will see Sayak is deliberately avoiding the argument, which thereby automatically discredits him:
And as usual you are selectively...
And as usual you are selectively citing. What about the Upanishads that say "Then Brahman will that he shall be many, then Brahman thought, Brahman is the Lord, Worship Brahman the creator etc
Verily in the beginning, All this was Atman, one only, there was nothing else blinking whatsorever...
^^ Just to back up what I said that Brahman is pure consciousness in traditional Hindu understanding:
Brahman or the Supreme Self is beyond time and space, causation. He is limitless. He is tranquil. He shines with equal effulgence in all bodies. He cannot be any particular thing. He is...
Not really sure what there is to get lost about. The post is in standard clear English and makes clear points, sticking to the analogy of matter as a "ghost" where ghost is something you see, but is not really there; likewise matter is something you see etc but isn't really there.
It isn't, it just standard Hinduism 101 that anybody else who knows Hinduism can recognise. This is why I keep telling you if you were having debate with me among Hinduism experts, you wouldn't stand a chance. You are misrepresenting materialist and sometimes Buddhist ideas as Hindu. In Hinduism...
Indeed, once you examine reality your ultimate conclusion is the field in which reality is not "matter" but "mind" or mind-field. The same mind that generates our waking reality also generates our dream reality. There is a proof for this. In dreamless sleep mind is absent, and space, time and...
This is the problem, even a dream image occupies dream space and has dream mass in relation to the dream observer. Physics deals with images in waking space with waking mass. It is only that we call latter "matter" Also space itself, as I demonstrated with (3) itself appears not to exist.
Thinking you just saw a ghost, but actually nothing was there, but hey that's matter too. We think it is there, we can be absolutely sure we can see something solid in front of us, we can hear it, we can touch it, smell it and taste. Then surely it is there right? Right, but the person who saw a...
Sorry been away.
^^ The above does not refute the actual argument being made. The above only proves that evolution, in the beginning at least was a very slow process that took tens of millions of years for each component to form. However, all that proves is that it takes time for the system to...