Advaita: What gives sentiency to a thing?

[SalixIncendium]

Hi.

Sorry, I didn't speak about You/Salix, only about the view of Advaitins, about Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

I understand.

I identify as Advaitin, though, so perhaps it would have been better to to speak about the philosophy itself rather than the people that find truth in that philosophy.

Medium?
Second to Brahman and act as "Medium"? Or
Brahman becomes Maya and Maya becomes medium? Or
Isn't Maya is Brahman itself? power/quality of Brahman?

When you look through your eyes, are your eyes second to you? Do you become your eyes? Or are your eyes you? Are they the power or quality of you?

Or are they a medium with which you see?

 

[Viswa]

I understand.

I identify as Advaitin, though, so perhaps it would have been better to to speak about the philosophy itself rather than the people that find truth in that philosophy.

Truth? You see Truth in Advaita?

Congratulations. Now, I have to Congrats people/Advaitins/you or Advaita philosophy?

When you look through your eyes, are your eyes second to you? Do you become your eyes? Or are your eyes you? Are they the power or quality of you?

Or are they a medium with which you see?

Sorry. I don't perceive through eye always. When eyes closed, still senses and thoughts perceived.

As there is limitations in this way, for thoughts and all senses and sense organs, it is clear to me that it is different from ME.

So, when I look through eyes, it's pretty simple that, I'm looking through it like through ears and etc., A medium to perceive sense objects.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Truth? You see Truth in Advaita?

Yes, the philosophy has validated my experiences.

Congratulations.

Thank you!

Now, I have to Congrats people/Advaitins/you or Advaita philosophy?

Evidently.

Sorry. I don't perceive through eye always. When eyes closed, still senses and thoughts perceived.

As there is limitations in this way, for thoughts and all senses and sense organs, it is clear to me that it is different from ME.

So, when I look through eyes, it's pretty simple that, I'm looking through it like through ears and etc., A medium to perceive sense objects.

So when you "see", do you become your sense organs? Are your sense organs second to you?

 

[Viswa]

Yes, the philosophy has validated my experiences.

Thank you!

Evidently.

So when you "see", do you become your sense organs? Are your sense organs second to you?

If something goes hand in hand with one's experiences, it doesn't mean it is "Truth". It might be false too. But, you are the decider. If you see it as Truth, go ahead. I'm with you in whatever you trust as Truth.

I said you that, I don't see too. Now, you are limiting and conditioning experiences and ask me to answer questions, where you failing to see the whole experiences.

As you ask this limiting question, When I see things, I don't think about differentiating or same about eyes and Me, just see things. Don't even look at eye or think about it. So, I don't see it as a medium because I never even think about it at the time of 'seeing'.
Only after that, if I think "with which I look"?, then comes differentiation of eyes different from ME.

Likewise, it is people who think about "Maya" and make it as a different entity from Brahman or same but Medium or etc.,If it is same why to separate it as a medium? Why to even think about or speak about it? It's of nothing to think about. Just power. When one gives immense importance to this power and make it as a medium, it becomes to look like Sankhya philosophy and many other.

And evidently what? To congrats Advaitin who see truth in Advaita philosophy or one should not speak about (even congrats) Advaitin, and only to Philosophy?

You see, I congratulated Advaitin. From your previous reply, you shouldn't have accepted the congratulation, as I spoked about Advaitin. So, it means, you want only congratulations and not Truth or none other remarks or etc? Only slaves to accept and congratulate and praise Advaitins, and only that is accepted to speak about Advaitin?

If an Advaitin is ready to take Congratulations, then must be ready to take whatever it maybe and face it duly and not ask others "You should only about Philosophy and not people".

Say, you shut my mouth. What about someone who seen truth and accepted by God and he says "Advaitins think ..."? You will fight him too?

Say, Billions says this. You will fight them too??

Man, these are just words. If One truly sees all these, just not give head to Congratulations and Mocking and etc.

True to my heart, I'm not mocking. I just see something and expressed what Advaitins do. If they not do that, you may say "No. You are wrong. They don't do it". If they do that, you may say "Yes. They do it. Absolutely." But, why saying "You should speak only about Philosophy and not about people, except Congrats (Appreciation kind)"?

You seek only Appreciation? Shall I recommend to Indian PM or some other if I meet them? Is there anything more you need? A statue like AdiShankara's in Kedarnath? Or Bigger than that?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I said you that, I don't see too. Now, you are limiting and conditioning experiences and ask me to answer questions, where you failing to see the whole experiences.

As you ask this limiting question, When I see things, I don't think about differentiating or same about eyes and Me, just see things. Don't even look at eye or think about it. So, I don't see it as a medium because I never even think about it at the time of 'seeing'.
Only after that, if I think "with which I look"?, then comes differentiation of eyes different from ME.

Likewise, it is people who think about "Maya" and make it as a different entity from Brahman or same but Medium or etc.,If it is same why to separate it as a medium? Why to even think about or speak about it? It's of nothing to think about. Just power. When one gives immense importance to this power and make it as a medium, it becomes to look like Sankhya philosophy and many other.

Experiencing, reading, thinking, speaking, contemplating, meditating...these all lead to understanding, no? This is the why. Without these, how does one move past avidya?

And evidently what? To congrats Advaitin who see truth in Advaita philosophy or one should not speak about (even congrats) Advaitin, and only to Philosophy?

You see, I congratulated Advaitin. From your previous reply, you shouldn't have accepted the congratulation, as I spoked about Advaitin. So, it means, you want only congratulations and not Truth or none other remarks or etc? Only slaves to accept and congratulate and praise Advaitins, and only that is accepted to speak about Advaitin?

If an Advaitin is ready to take Congratulations, then must be ready to take whatever it maybe and face it duly and not ask others "You should only about Philosophy and not people".

Say, you shut my mouth. What about someone who seen truth and accepted by God and he says "Advaitins think ..."? You will fight him too?

Say, Billions says this. You will fight them too??

Man, these are just words. If One truly sees all these, just not give head to Congratulations and Mocking and etc.

You congratulated me. I politely said, "thank you."

I don't know where you saw fighting. You spoke of what I think. I called you out and asked you how you could know what I think. It wasn't a fight. It's just that simple. Perhaps you can know and speak about what Advaita Vedanta philosophy posits, but there is no way you can speak intelligently about what all Advaitins think.

If you are offended because I called you out on your poor choice of words, then perhaps it would be wise to strive to be impeccable with them moving forward.

 

[Viswa]

Experiencing, reading, thinking, speaking, contemplating, meditating...these all lead to understanding, no? This is the why. Without these, how does one move past avidya?



You congratulated me. I politely said, "thank you."

I don't know where you saw fighting. You spoke of what I think. I called you out and asked you how you could know what I think. It wasn't a fight. It's just that simple. Perhaps you can know and speak about what Advaita Vedanta philosophy posits, but there is no way you can speak intelligently about what all Advaitins think.

If you are offended because I called you out on your poor choice of words, then perhaps it would be wise to strive to be impeccable with them moving forward.

I'm ready to move forward. But what about you? Ready to face everything? If appreciated, take it politely and also if condemned, take it politely?

Man, I actually try you to show something, how you take "Good in One hand" and not ready to see the different view in that too.

There is nothing to offend me. I'm very much loving to all people. I think textual discussions don't reflect my true expressions.

I'm sorry.

Okay, let us drop this "Advaitin" point, and I will make sure to not identify as "Advaitin" and only "Philosophy". It's my bad. I apologize. I will not speak about other man's thought, though 90% I clearly see them or rather not. Fine. Actually in my life, I see through other people's thoughts, how and what they think, and that's how I penetrated Ramanuja and Shankara and many, and came to see their preferences. Preferences reflects when one's multiple texts are read. It's nature. And only by that, I gone beyond Shankara's Advaita Vedanta to Vedanta itself. Seems, I should not penetrate hereafter, as it brings only hurt. Yeah. It's true. I lost friends because I penetrated and seen what they see, exposed them and sometimes questioned them so that they may look at it and easily look the importance of my questions as Love to tham, to see them happy. But, it went wrong. They got angry, as they were very much identified to those things as "them" itself, so it looked like "not questioning things but questioning them". I should not point out things what people think/do and it's other hidden sides. Thank you for bringing it and opening my eyes, again.

So,
"Experiencing, reading, thinking, speaking, contemplating, meditating...these all lead to understanding, no? This is the why. Without these, how does one move past avidya?"

First, Understanding about what? From experiences, reading, etc, what one understands,? What is Avidya?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's like "Aham Brahmasmi - Prajnanam Brahmam" but not "Brahmam Ahamsmi - Brahmamnam Prajna".

I do not think that twist is correct by Sanskrit.

So if everything is Brahman, is it correct to say that both purusha and prakriti are Brahman?

Purusha and Prakriti do not belong to Advaita.

 

[SalixIncendium]

First, Understanding about what? From experiences, reading, etc, what one understands,? What is Avidya?

Being.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Medium?
Second to Brahman and act as "Medium"? Or
Brahman becomes Maya and Maya becomes medium? Or
Isn't Maya is Brahman itself? power/quality of Brahman?

Maya is the false presentation of Brahman due to our own limitations of senses and perception as it developed in evolution. No, maya is neither Brahman nor the power / quality of Brahman.

Where the Advaita philosophy fail or Advaitins fail is, they think Maya dissolves after Enlightenment, but it is not.

'Vyavaharika' itself is existence in maya. Maya will not dissolve in 'Vyavaharika'. However, one can look into the house of a neighbor from the roof.

 

[Viswa]

Being.

Being?? Sorry, I couldn't understand from this one word. Shall you express more??

Also, what happens when one understands this word "Being"?

 

[Viswa]

Maya is the false presentation of Brahman due to our own limitations of senses and as perception developed in evolution. No, maya is neither Brahman nor the power / quality of Brahman.
'Vyavaharika' itself is existence in maya. Maya will not dissolve in 'Vyavaharika'. However, one can look into the house of a neighbor from the roof.

Is there "Right presentation" of Brahman?

Neither Brahman means different from Brahman?

You say, Maya is Ignorance??

 

[SalixIncendium]

Being?? Sorry, I couldn't understand from this one word. Shall you express more??

Also, what happens when one understands this word "Being"?

Not the word. The very nature of being. What one is in their true nature.

 

[Viswa]

Not the word. The very nature of being. What one is in their true nature.

So, from experiences and etc., can one understand this being?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So, from experiences and etc., can one understand this being?

Yes.

 

[Viswa]

Yes.

Sorry. My view is different and it might hurt you. Only by Mandukya verse 7 adrstam etc., I understood it. You may also read it in your free time. Not only that, in Brihadaranyaka also spoke about Adrstam Achintyam Alakshanam.

If you are free to discuss about it and see it not as an "against" to you but only to philosophy, let us move further. If not, no problem.

All the best.

Thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is there "Right presentation" of Brahman?

Yes, Quantum Mechanics. That is why it hard to catch.
See carefully, blue turning into yellow and vice-versa, appearance and disappearance.

ps - If you term that as funny, you do not understand.
That is what is happening in all around the universe all the time. Universe is no respecter of size.

 

[Viswa]

Yes, Quantum Mechanics. That is why it hard to catch.

Quantum is also object. Wave is also object. It's very easy to catch it by siddhi power called Anima, like becoming Antman. But, to attain this siddhi you have to make efforts.

All the best.

 

[Viswa]

Yes, Quantum Mechanics. That is why it hard to catch.
See carefully, blue turning into yellow and vice-versa, appearance and disappearance.

ps - If you term that as funny, you do not understand.
That is what is happening in all around the universe. Universe is no respecter of size.

You are right about Universe of Appearence and Disappearence.

You have very clear view about Quantum. But, assuming it as "Right presentation" is what looks funny for me.

But, I respect your view about quantum. True it as of coming and going. But you miss the "Observer".

 

[Aupmanyav]

I made the effort and got the result. What you think of 'Siddhis' is wrong. 'Siddhi' is attainment of the objective. Anima, laghima were never my objectives.
There is no observer, observed duality. Brahman alone exists. Why would Brahman need to observe? What will Brahman observe when all that exists is it only? Brahman has no need for anything.
My views are crystal clear, without any recourse to fuddling, mysticism.

 

[Viswa]

I made the effort and got the result. What you think of 'Siddhis' is wrong. 'Siddhi' is attainment of the objective. Anima, laghima were never my objectives.
There is no observer, observed duality. Brahman alone exists. Why would Brahman need to observe? Brahman has no need for anything.
My views are crystal clear, no recourse to mysticism.

See, you are jumping to someother.

When I say, you miss the observer, I speak about eyes and Microscope seeing the Quantum.

But, if you make Anima as objective, you can clearly observe quantum with eyes and your form becomes quantum. Relative eyes cannot perceive quantum happening, but quantum eye and microscope can.

Brahman has no need, but you are making a need to "perceive quantum" by assuming it as "Right presentation".

Say, you one day achieve this "Right view" and you clearly perceived of coming and going, what's next? Will it relieve your bondage to everything i.e. false presentation? Do you think so?

Can the normal eyes perceive the "Right presentation" asyou say?