//In the interest of beneficial discussion, i hope its not taken as personal attacks.//
Alright, but do we know what is Matter? Has anyone ever experienced matter or a physical world outside his Consciousness?
A deaf person doesn't hear any śabda, does that mean there is no possibility of śabda at all? Your contention is: "why can't a blind person see?" For that person, perhaps, but cannot be generalized. The very nature of matter is that it is cognized by a sentient thing. The possibility of cognition is characteristic to conscious beings. What you are proposing is that because it is perceived it is unreal, if so why?
How does this prove Atman and Brahman are different? Krishna starts his instructions by pointing out the eternal nature of all beings, Atman, which is immortal.
sarve vayamataḥ param - vayam indicates us making continued difference later too. There is no way that the verse can be interpreted by foregoing two things: a) immortality of all beings b) eternal difference with unrestrained emphasis at all three times.
If they are all one, how can they not be?
If difference is unreal, it cannot exist BG 2-16 at all, to circumvent this you need mithyātva, which is yet unproven.
For the sake of instructing Arjuna, Krishna would have used pronouns. Its impossible to explain something without considering duality.
Well, its merely a surmise, that Kṛṣṇa
would have done so.
How then, would you expect Krishna to communicate with Arjuna? I mean, without the "I" and the "you"?
Going by advaita standard it should have been like in iṣṭasiddhi - bowing to Himself, teaching to Himself and finally pronouncing that pursuing yuddha is futile, and endorsing Arjuna's initial view of retiring to the forest as a mendicant.
Good response.. But its not like my point or some others point, well it is Krushna's point even though he made clear distinction b.w 3 eternal entities most of the ppl in the forum (subscribing to advaita) instead of reading BG, lift random verses from internet translations and quote them. They have no answers to the post I made above because they dont know the context where it was said and well they dont know how to explain that at all
I'd agree Kalyan, but i think most of us find your tone (intended or otherwise) too confrontational, not that there aren't others who have (and still do) followed similar line of discussion without anybody labelling them, but the forum is generally on the antagonistic side of things to everything non-advaita and Vaiṣṇavism. But i think mutual respect should come unasked. We Vaiṣṇavas have a had a long and respectable tradition of not making chiding/personal comments even on most hostile philosophical adversaries, let us live up to it.
How does tattvavaada or dvaita explain the eternalness of Prakriti in BG ?
Eternality of all three tattvas and more are accepted, jaḍa prakṛti exists in its subtle and the most elementary form, Lakṣṃī, cit-prakṛti and the controller of jaḍa too exists, so do all jīvas, undifferentiated time and space, sancita karma as svabhāva, all dependent on Nārāyaṇa.
The distinctions are made from the conventional perspective. For Brahman, everything is one.
Bg 6.29: With the mind harmonised by Yoga he sees the Self abiding in all beings and all beings in the Self; he sees the same everywhere.
sarvabhūtasthaṃ-ātmānaṃ sarva bhūtāni ca ātmani | īkṣate yoga-yukta-ātmā sarvatra samadarśana.
He who is established in the ātmā (who is Kṛṣṇa) īkṣate that ātma in all other beings all other beings as being established in that ātma. For context you have to just read the previous verse:
yuñjannevaṃ (having established oneself in this way - as elaborated previously), sadātmānaṃ yogī vigatakalmaṣaḥ (devoid of impurity) sukhena brahmasaṃsparśam-atyaṅtaṃ sukhamśnute with pleasure enjoys the association of brahman
Now how can there be association and subsequent enjoyment specified as one enjoying due to association with the other, if it were merely enjoyment of its own?
Still unconvinced, Kṛṣṇa in 6-31
sarvabhūtasthitaṃ yo māṃ bhajati-ekatvaṃ-āsthitaḥ It is clear that sarvabhūtasthaṃ is Kṛṣṇa, even ekatva cannot be interpreted towards advaita for the very verse specifies how - bhajati (impossible unless you accept two) and since the sarvabhūtastha has to be propitiated thru bhakti, it certainly cannot that the jīva who is being guided to pursue bhakti is itself the object.
Yes, Jiva is eternal, in the sense, the real nature of jiva is Brahman.
If so, it is pointless for creation to exist, for if jīva by nature is brahman, it impossible to delude itself unto anything else, for nothing can relinquish its own nature. Usual answer is 'but the delusion is mithyā', mithyātva itself is yet unproven. Also directly contradicts uttamaḥ puruṣastvanyaḥ the Supreme is totally different from both kṣara and akṣara and lokatrayamāviśya bibharti entering the three worlds upholds, why would such an uttama puruṣa delude Himself into thinking that He is upholding all the worlds, which are but mithyā?
Okay, What is the nature of Atman(jiva in your terms)? -- sat-chit-ananda
What about Krishna/Brahman? -- sat-chit-ananda
R.H.S are equal.
Hence, Atman=Brahman
Jīva (sat-cit-ānanda) X yogyata see taitt.up
Brahmaṇ (sat-cit-ānanda) X infinite satyam-jñānaṃ-anaṅtaṃ
Where is Krishna saying both are separate?
In the entire BG
Bg 8:3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge (Adhyatma); the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.
Brahman and his nature are non-different. Brahman is Adhyatma.
Brahmaṇ, ātmā, paramātma, puruṣa, puruṣottama, all primarily convey one supreme brahmaṇ - Nārāyaṇa (see Bhāgavata). Application elsewhere is in the secondary sense. So there is no explaining away the supposed "10000" atman=brahman anywhere in tattvavāda and afaik, even in V-advaita.
नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।
