aham brahmasmi --why so confusion ?

[Aupmanyav]

At the moment, does not seem possible unless we prepare a laboratory shack. It can only be experimental, no colonies. Of course, Swarga and Naraka are better places. At least Naraka will have water and food for the supervisors if not for punished.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Surrendering A to B , A and B are different,

if self is same as Kanniah/Krushna, then what is the need for surrendering ? , surrendering the self to Krushna, this itself says Krushna is different from self.......

Surrender is needed because there's an illusory self / ego that has assumed its existence due to ignorance. Self/Atman cannot be surrender because it is all that exists. I've clearly pointed out in my previous post, surrender of ego is what takes place.
Self is an endless ocean, ego is like a wave, surrendering implies merging back to its Substratum. Bhaktas consider this Self as Krishna and do the same.
A and B are never different. B assumes its different from A, due to ignorance. But once is surrender, it'll start to realize the oneness.

it is termed as highly dangerous by the poorva acharyas because the person who attained self sees himself and enjoys, there would be no one with him, as an outsider one cannot imagine that,

In Hare Krishna tradition too, they say the same thing, its dangerous. How can it be dangerous when there is no duality? You Alone exist, danger can't even peek in. Not realizing this oneness is the root cause of all fears.

 

[kalyan]

Surrender is needed because there's an illusory self / ego that has assumed its existence due to ignorance. Self/Atman cannot be surrender because it is all that exists. I've clearly pointed out in my previous post, surrender of ego is what takes place.
Self is an endless ocean, ego is like a wave, surrendering implies merging back to its Substratum. Bhaktas consider this Self as Krishna and do the same.
A and B are never different. B assumes its different from A, due to ignorance. But once is surrender, it'll start to realize the oneness.


In Hare Krishna tradition too, they say the same thing, its dangerous. How can it be dangerous when there is no duality? You Alone exist, danger can't even peek in. Not realizing this oneness is the root cause of all fears.

Well you are just posting your views...This is neither the Vedic position nor BhagawadGita position...Hare Krushna tradition I am assuming Iskcon?I am surprised to know that Isckon also held the atman = brahman view! Surrender A to B...If A is B's disguise then even the statement is utterly absurd and illogical....The statement makes sense if A and B are completely different!

 

[Acintya_Ash]

If A is B's disguise then even the statement is utterly absurd and illogical....The statement makes sense if A and B are completely different!

You're talking like a Dvaitin ignoring all the oneness. Even Vishistadvaita doesn't deny qualitative oneness of Atman and Brahman

 

[kalyan]

You're talking like a Dvaitin ignoring all the oneness. Even Vishistadvaita doesn't deny qualitative oneness of Atman and Brahman

There is no oneness of Atman and Brahman.

When Sri Krushna said :

na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param

translation,: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be

when he is saying, I and you are eternal , then what does 'I' and 'you' refer to ? does it refer to physical bodies or the atma inside the body ? I think you know the answer...So this is called shareera-atma bhAvam......one can called 'aham' to refer to physical body or the atma inside it due to their unbreakable relationship... Likewise when the atma of real 'you/I' not the physical body is Maha Vishnu, you can clearly say just as Krushna said in above sloka 'aham brahmasmi' because the real atma being Maha vishnu himself.

Also refer to my post #88, you have failed to even explain a little bit of it what Sri Krushna said and that which I quoted in 88.

If one could not understand this, there is really absolutely NO point in prolonging this discussion !

This is the word of Shruti:

"AnEna jIvEnAtmanAanupravisya nAma rUpE vyAkaravaNI iti”

Bhagawan enters through a jIva into anything which has form and name is above says.
Same ofcourse is mentioned by Sri Krushna said he enters through a jIva into everything and becomes atma to a jIva.

I or you cannot determine what is what... It is the Shastram or the Vedam that should decide and that is the highest authority... Advaita/dwaita are just concepts understood by individuals from the vedam alone.. The advaita/dvaita/visista-advaita are called mathams..... Vedam is the only clear one....... Vedam says about kaivalyam and moksham and how atma attains moksham very clearly.. The kaivalyam is a term coming from shruti....No one can counter shruti. If Krushna himself said anything against Shruti(which ofcourse he cannot), then we need to think over it...Why we accept Krushna as Bhagawan ? because he is the only one that Vedam described to be and Krushna confirmed that through his sayings in BhagawadGita and activities/attributes that Krushna did/possess are exact with the Vedam view of the bhagawan......It is all vedam.....if Advaita counters it by discarding the concept of kaivalyam as per you, then advaita as described by you itself is not a valid pramana!

 

[Chakra]

Let me just state that absolute identity is rejected by Vishistadvaita. "Oneness", in the sense of body-soul relationship, is not.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Likewise when the atma of real 'you/I' not the physical body is Maha Vishnu, you can clearly say just as Krushna said in above sloka 'aham brahmasmi' because the real atma being Maha vishnu himself.

I agree with the above. Sri Vishnu is the Self of our Self, ie our Innermost Self.
You are saying knowing Vishnu(Brahman) is easier than knowing Atman, right? You said the sadhana for attaining Atman is more difficult than the one for attaining Brahman.
That appears logically flawed.
How can you know something beyond yourself, when you haven't even known Yourself?
How can you get a PG degree before getting a UG degree? without UG, you aren't even qualified for PG. Think!

Vedam says about kaivalyam and moksham and how atma attains moksham very clearly.. The kaivalyam is a term coming from shruti.

This is a semantic issue. Aup-ji has explained it beautifully.

The problem is about understanding the meaning of 'moksha', 'mukti', 'nirvana', 'jnana', etc. Do we or our purported soul goes anywhere after death? There is no evidence of that. Can anyone tell me where 'swarga' and 'naraka' are located, a million yojanas above the North Pole or a million yojanas below the South Pole. There is no going anywhere. Therefore, 'moksha', 'mukti', 'nirvana', 'the dawn of jnana' etc. should be considered as release from bondage of ignorance, release from our prejudices, release from our fears, release from the thought that we are going to get 72 'houris' in heaven. This is a hankering after continuance of life, the fear of extinction. But a 'mukta', a 'jnani' knows that there is no extinction. Lord Krishna said that there was no time when we were not there and there won't be any time when we won't be here. We, being none other than Brahman, have nothing to fear, no death, no birth, we are eternal, avyaya. There is nothing more to know when one knows this. That is why Upanishads said 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati'.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।

If Krushna himself said anything against Shruti(which ofcourse he cannot), then we need to think over it.

Jai Sri Krishna!

.if Advaita counters it by discarding the concept of kaivalyam as per you, then advaita as described by you itself is not a valid pramana!

Advaita cannot be false, because it's in sync with our daily experiences.

 

[kalyan]

I agree with the above. Sri Vishnu is the Self of our Self, ie our Innermost Self.

Then why there is any need of argument from your side..

You said the sadhana for attaining Atman is more difficult than the one for attaining Brahman.
That appears logically flawed.

Can u see the atma? Ofcourse not as it is only eatablished by vedam but have people seen Sri Krushna? Ofcourse yes and out of his innumerable atttibutes saulabhya is the one of greatest...This shoukd answer ur confusion.

This is a semantic issue. Aup-ji has explained it beautifully.

I would not talk or want to get the opinion of self claimed atheist with no ideology in these tattvik discussion

Advaita cannot be false, because it's in sync with our daily experiences.

I am not discussing falsity but if anything is against vedam, it is taken with a pinch of salt because even Maha Vishnu did not start it..Sorry Krushna

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Then why there is any need of argument from your side..

Arguments are caused by ego, which i believe as my illusory self that i have to adopt for surviving in this world. It is but a bundle of samskaras and product of karmic history. And beyond ego lies Vishnu, the Innermost Self, which is Changeless and is the Sakshi of all changes.
Do you believe the same?

Can u see the atma? Ofcourse not as it is only eatablished by vedam but have people seen Sri Krushna? Ofcourse yes and out of his innumerable atttibutes saulabhya is the one of greatest...This shoukd answer ur confusion.

Have you seen Sri Krishna personally? No. It is Faith in Scripture and Veda Vyaas. Faith is a great catalyst to Truth, but not Truth. Krishna is our Atman. Atman is self-proved, Vedic proofs are secondary. I can't see myself but i know that I exist. The similar experiences of the mystics all over the world gives me sufficient faith to practice Advaita.

I would not talk or want to get the opinion of self claimed atheist with no ideology in these tattvik discussion

Ignore the label for a moment, just try to understand the point that he's conveying.

I am not discussing falsity but if anything is against vedam

You aren't discussing falsity nor am I. VA also accepts Narayana's nature is impersonal, similar to Atma's, so let us attain that.

 

[kalyan]

Atman is self-proved, Vedic proofs are secondary

Atma is self proved ? who proved it , have your senses seen it ? You are in a point of total confusion.......from where the concept of 'Atma' came to be known ? Think.........and the answer is it is again from the 'VEDAS'
Vedas are the source of everything, the people who brought out advaita took the vedic references plus extra, that extra which is pointed by you is not valid......They are not secondary, they are the top most authority!

Have you seen Sri Krishna personally?

Yes in archa avatara today ! you need to understand 5 different forms of Vishnu, otherwise you could not have asked this question

 

[Aupmanyav]

See, here is Lord Krishna.

 

[Chakra]

Arguments are caused by ego, which i believe as my illusory self that i have to adopt for surviving in this world. It is but a bundle of samskaras and product of karmic history. And beyond ego lies Vishnu, the Innermost Self, which is Changeless and is the Sakshi of all changes.
Do you believe the same?

Hmm, so we were originally Vishnu, the changeless one, and then we got deluded by maya (or we pretended to be deluded by maya...whatever, I don't fully care to know) and became trapped in karma and samsara?

Have you seen Sri Krishna personally? No. It is Faith in Scripture and Veda Vyaas. Faith is a great catalyst to Truth, but not Truth. Krishna is our Atman. Atman is self-proved, Vedic proofs are secondary. I can't see myself but i know that I exist.

If that is what you believe in, then you cannot be considered a Vedantin. Vedantins of all sampradayas, including Adi Shankara, accept that Vedas are the highest proof and the final authority. Even if Krishna said something contrary to Vedas, Vedantins would not accept his words as authoritative. That's how much "faith" they had in the Vedas. Classic neo-advaita.

The similar experiences of the mystics all over the world gives me sufficient faith to practice Advaita.

And what about the experiences of Vaishnava mystics who interacted with Vishnu?
If faith and experience were the only criteria for a philosophy to be considered valid, religions like Christianity and Islam would be considered valid (and I mean the entire religion, not just bits of them). In Vedanta, if your experiences parallel the message of the Vedas, then your experience can be considered valid. Of course, if you believe that the philosophy of the Vedas IS Advaita, then there's no problem. I will say that it was quite clever of Advaitins to classify all of shruti into either vyavaharika and paramarthika and introduce the concept of mahavakyas to override the Bheda Shrutis.

Btw, how does one experience Advaita?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Btw, how does one experience Advaita?

By 'viveka', Analysis; and, of course, by study of scriptures.

"Einstein wouldn’t like it: New test proves universe is ‘spooky’

The new experiment, conducted by a group led by Ronald Hanson, a physicist at the Dutch university’s Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, and joined by scientists from Spain and England, is the strongest evidence yet to support the most fundamental claims of the theory of quantum mechanics about the existence of an odd world formed by a fabric of subatomic particles, where matter does not take form until it is observed and time runs backward as well as forward.

The Delft researchers were able to entangle two electrons separated by a distance of 1.3 kilometers (eight-tenths of a mile) and then share information between them. Physicists use the term “entanglement” to refer to pairs of particles that are generated in such a way that they cannot be described independently. The scientists placed two diamonds on opposite sides of the Delft University campus, 1.3 km apart. Each diamond contained a tiny trap for single electrons, which have a magnetic property called a “spin.” Pulses of microwave and laser energy are then used to entangle and measure the “spin” of the electrons."
Hindustan Times, New Delhi, October 23, 2015

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes in archa avatara today ! you need to understand 5 different forms of Vishnu, otherwise you could not have asked this question.

This is only to explain "archā avatara" to Terese and others who might not know about it.The Deity takes the "archā avatara" for the convenience of the devotees (ease of approach - Saulabhya). He is physically present in statue, a figure, or even a picture. "Archā" is worship. Saint Meera, one of the greatest Vaishnava saints, would not abandon the image of Lord Krishna which was given to her in childhood even for a moment.

Meera and her Krishna (Representation in a TV serial)

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Atma is self proved ? who proved it , have your senses seen it ? You are in a point of total confusion.......from where the concept of 'Atma' came to be known ?

It can be perceived by Discrimination. Even Christian traditions have the concept of soul. Lao Tzu's Tao is indeed Brahman.

Vedas are the source of everything, the people who brought out advaita took the vedic references plus extra, that extra which is pointed by you is not valid.

You say they are not valid yet you've failed to refute it. Advaita is the heart and soul of Upanishads.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Hmm, so we were originally Vishnu, the changeless one, and then we got deluded by maya (or we pretended to be deluded by maya...whatever, I don't fully care to know) and became trapped in karma and samsara?

Dear axlyz, Creation is a Lila/sport of Vishnu, that's what Puranas are repeatedly stressing. That's why Shankara calls the world "mithya". Delusion is only apparent, not actual.

If that is what you believe in, then you cannot be considered a Vedantin. Vedantins of all sampradayas, including Adi Shankara, accept that Vedas are the highest proof and the final authority.

I do revere the Vedas. Vedas are experience of our sages, they are indeed precious, but only pointers. Its our duty to go beyond flowery words of shastras and amass our own experience, Sri Krishna says so in Gita 2.45.
trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā
nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna
nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
niryoga-kṣema ātmavān

And what about the experiences of Vaishnava mystics who interacted with Vishnu?

I'm open ended about it.

 

[kalyan]

Christian traditions have the concept of soul. Lao Tzu's Tao is indeed Brahman

I would not waste my time on recently popped up inferior religion views , may be you should think how they arrived at he concept of the soul.

It can be perceived by Discrimination

discrimination cannot prove a thing called 'atma' exists.......perceiving means you are inferring something from some other thing that which you have already encountered through senses which is called anumana.....anumana/ perception cannot establish existence of 'atma' because 'atma' is not something belonging to material realm..So to say you perceive atma from materialistic knowledge is a joke

trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā
nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna
nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
niryoga-kṣema ātmavān

this verse does not fit the context you are trying to explain....try the 16th chapter 24th verse

tasmAt shAstram pramANam tE kAryAkAryavyavasthitau |

he says vedas are the only highest supreme authority

You say they are not valid yet you've failed to refute it. Advaita is the heart and soul of Upanishads.

How can advaita accept vedas. ? most of the advaitans seem to not know advaita correctly.......advaita does not accept duality when it accepts vedas as the source of knowledge, advaita collapses to duality ....for establishing brahma, they take the info from vedas but in the end shankara said vedas are mithya

 

[kalyan]

Adi Shankara, accept that Vedas are the highest proof and the final authority

Shankara although he attained brahma jnamam from vedas, says finally vedas are mithya because if not advaita collapses

 

[Aupmanyav]

And what about the experiences of Vaishnava mystics who interacted with Vishnu?

I'm open ended about it.

You can ask me. I have interacted with both, Lord Rama and Lord Krishna.

Shankara although he attained brahma jnamam from vedas, says finally vedas are mithya because if no advaita collapses

For the knowledgeable, nothing collapses, neither the Vedas, nor 'advaita'.

 

[kalyan]

For the knowledgeable, nothing collapses, neither the Vedas, nor 'advaita'.

In paramaarthika, vedas are mithya and aparamaarthika, because there cannot be something which is jnanam and that gives jnanam, that is against advaita