aham brahmasmi --why so confusion ?

[Aupmanyav]

Vedas belong to Vyavaharika, but Paramarthika too has its own knowledge structure (spooky action at a distance), something that we do not understand till now. (http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/aham-brahmasmi-why-so-confusion.180458/page-7#post-4477838)

 

[kalyan]

Vedas belong to Vyavaharika, but Paramarthika too has its own knowledge structure (spooky action at a distance), something that we do not understand till now. (http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/aham-brahmasmi-why-so-confusion.180458/page-7#post-4477838)

Paramarthika has only brahman...Vedas are mithya as i already said in Paramarthika...are u accepting duality in Paramarthika? If you quote from Vyavaharika then u should just bow down to concept of jIva and iswara

 

[Aupmanyav]

Where is the duality? I only said that we do not know what knowledge structure exists in Parmarthika. What it knows, cares for, or what it does not care for. But it is not inactive by its nature. It is not 'jada', it is dynamic (quantum entanglement or what science terms as 'spooky action at a distance' - if two electrons at a distance of 1.3 km. are aware of each other instantaneously. The same entanglement/awareness can exist at a distance of 1.3 light years or 1.3 million light years). We do not yet understand why and how of that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

"Wave function collapse

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function - initially in a superposition of severaleigenstates - appears to reduce to a single eigenstate (by "observation"). It is the essence of measurement in quantum mechanics and connects the wave function with classical observables like position and momentum. Collapse is one of two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time; the other is continuous evolution via the Schrödinger equation. However, in this role, collapse is merely a black box for thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. Calculations of quantum decoherence predict apparent wave function collapse when a superposition forms between the quantum system's states and the environment's states. Significantly, the combined wave function of the system and environment continue to obey the Schrödinger equation.

In 1927, Werner Heisenberg used the idea of wave function reduction to explain quantum measurement. Nevertheless, it was debated, for if collapse were a fundamental physical phenomenon, rather than just the epiphenomenon of some other process, it would mean nature was fundamentally stochastic, i.e. nondeterministic, an undesirable property for a theory. This issue remained until quantum decoherence entered mainstream opinion after its reformulation in the 1980s. Decoherence explains the perception of wave function collapse in terms of interacting large- and small-scale quantum systems, and is commonly taught at the graduate level (e.g. the Cohen-Tannoudji textbook). The quantum filtering approach and the introduction of quantum causality non-demolition principle allows for a classical-environment derivation of wave function collapse from the stochastic Schrödinger equation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

 

[Ekanta]

Something which doesnt make sense to me is this: If individual souls are eternal, they must have entered samsara at a certain point and will get liberation at a certain point. So we have a beginning and an end (of samsara in time).
Now the questions arise...
If there was an enternity before samsara, how could it ever come to the time of the start of samsara, its logically impossible.
If there is an enternity after samsara, liberation is so far back i would never have happend, its logically impossible.
If samsara is limited in time, its a limitation on the eternity of God itself, since why would something eternal stage a limited thing, what would it do all the other eternity?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Something which doesn't make sense to me is this: If individual souls are eternal, ..

Good, you sure are asking good questions. Have you asked yourself about existence of soul or you accept that as an a-priori?

 

[Ekanta]

Have you asked yourself about existence of soul or you accept that as an a-priori?

Well ultimately Im advaita. The question doesnt arise! The question was for those who belive in the eternity of an idividiual soul.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin, nāyam bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyah;
ajo nityah śāśvato 'yam purāno, na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre." BG 2.20

This is never born nor dies at any time, does not come to be, will not come to be, and will not again come to be,
the unborn is eternal, permanent and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain.

 

[kalyan]

adi Shankara bhagawatpAda is one of the greatest vaishnava aggresara, in Bhagawadgita commentary where Ramanuja himself used 'sarva niyanta sarveswara' for the meaning of word 'Iswara' in 'Iswara sarva bhootanam' sloka, shankara uses the term 'vasudeva suruhu narayanaha', the son of vAsudeva is iswara............I am amazed by how much of vaishnavite shankara really is, the onlly difference comes in the ideology advaita, but that does not matter much as Adi shankara is greatest vedantin with vedas as his prana!

 

[atanu]

think you missed the point but thats ok.advaita is jiva brahma ekatva vaada and that is not what was mentioned in BG...You guys should not try to TWIST BhagawadGita essence of vedas where Krushna clearly mentions multiple times about Purusha and Prakriti, Kshetram and Kshetrajna, Shareera atma and atttibutes of atma and he alone is Purushothama..

Can you give the meaning of verse you posted. It has very deep meanings and is related to previous verse..Either way advaita or not you have to do service to the feet of Sri Krushna the supreme Brahma(as even mentioned by Shankara) is what all matters.

You are correct. At the mental level that most of us are in, service at the feet of the Lord is all that is required.

Yet that does not overrule the teaching that the "advaita turiya atman must be known". Same is taught in Gita too. One cannot be a separate atman and know the advaita atman. Advaita atman cannot be known from a third person perspective.

A non-dual samadhi gives Jnana.

 

[kalyan]

You are correct. At the mental level that most of us are in, service at the feet of the Lord is all that is required.

Yet that does not overrule the teaching that the "advaita turiya atman must be known". Same is taught in Gita too. One cannot be a separate atman and know the advaita atman. Advaita atman cannot be known from a third person perspective.

A non-dual samadhi gives Jnana.

Read my post #88

 

[Acintya_Ash]

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

But my friend, Vedas say and you believe it, Don't you wanna know it?

 

[kalyan]

But my friend, Vedas say and you believe it, Don't you wanna know it?

do you think vedas are simply a book written by veda vyasa ?
Think as to why Vedas are called Shabda Pramana ? There is no knowing of unmaterialistic thing from materialistic world, and moreover as I said, you even are talking about the concept of 'atma' because vedam mentioned it....otherwise you could not have even know the term.....

 

[Acintya_Ash]

There is no knowing of unmaterialistic thing from materialistic world, and moreover as I said, you even are talking about the concept of 'atma' because vedam mentioned it

I agree Vedas spoke of it and I came to know of Atman via Bhagavad Gita. That doesn't mean you can't know your Self without reading the Vedas. Experience comes first, then come concepts. A concept without experience is bogus.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

do you think vedas are simply a book written by veda vyasa ?

Yes, just like Tao Te Ching is a book written by Laozi and Dhammapada was written by Gautama Buddha.

 

[kalyan]

Yes, just like Tao Te Ching is a book written by Laozi and Dhammapada was written by Gautama Buddha.

well then I would leave you to @तत्त्वप्रह्व to answer this..............Vedas are eternal and exist from time immemorial and no one wrote it per se, even Sri Maha Vishnu did not write it......as for the meaning of what vedam means, you need to take some time to explore it....

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

well then I would leave you to @तत्त्वप्रह्व to answer this

!! Well, i still think it is pointless to discuss śrutis based on third-party translations unless one knows saṃskṛtaṃ and accepts the translation 'with' knowledge !! Its surprising how such discussions soon end up being display of ignorance of both one's own preferred school of thought as well as those of the others'. Not to mention making childish surmises without realizing that the questions (and assumptions from which they arise) themselves are illogical and baseless.

FWIW, with this:

Yes, just like Tao Te Ching is a book written by Laozi and Dhammapada was written by Gautama Buddha.

It is simply and explicitly conceded that Acintya_Ash's pov is neither vaidika nor aupaniṣadika for transgressing apauruṣeyatva and consequently prāmāṇya of the śrutis. So if it were a vāda, this conceding would conclude the debate.
However, this is not in line with traditional advaita. Neo-advaita perhaps (?), where such things are prevalent, for eg., on the one hand neo-advitins classify all non-(neo)advaita schools as being the same as abrahamic religions, but display idealism (esp when dealing with the international audience/market) in including the same abarahamic ideas into their theo-philosophical ideology by claiming all religions preach the same and come up with symbols such as this:

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Vedas are eternal and exist from time immemorial and no one wrote it per se, even Sri Maha Vishnu did not write it......as for the meaning of what vedam means, you need to take some time to explore it....

I'm not denying it, just like samsara is anadi, Veda too is. If not, how would liberation ever be possible?

It is simply and explicitly conceded that Acintya_Ash's pov is neither vaidika nor aupaniṣadika for transgressing apauruṣeyatva and consequently prāmāṇya of the śrutis. So if it were a vāda, this conceding would conclude the debate.

Hasty Conclusions! When did i deny apauruṣeyatva? "brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati"

for eg., on the one hand neo-advitins classify all non-(neo)advaita schools as being the same as abrahamic religions

Some may do it because they are all centered on Bhakti. I personally don't consider someone devoted to Christ/Allah as inferior to Vaishnavas/Advaitins, inspired by Srila Prabhupada.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is simply and explicitly conceded that Acintya_Ash's pov is neither vaidika nor aupaniṣadika for transgressing apauruṣeyatva and consequently prāmāṇya of the śrutis. So if it were a vāda, this conceding would conclude the debate.

Apaurusheyatva! Who am 'I"? If I am Brahman, then, what I say is 'apaurusheya' (not by a human but by Brahman). "This self is Brahman" (Ayamatma Brahma).

 

[kalyan]

!! Well, i still think it is pointless to discuss śrutis based on third-party translations unless one knows saṃskṛtaṃ and accepts the translation 'with' knowledge !! Its surprising how such discussions soon end up being display of ignorance of both one's own preferred school of thought as well as those of the others'. Not to mention making childish surmises without realizing that the questions (and assumptions from which they arise) themselves are illogical and baseless.

FWIW, with this:

It is simply and explicitly conceded that Acintya_Ash's pov is neither vaidika nor aupaniṣadika for transgressing apauruṣeyatva and consequently prāmāṇya of the śrutis. So if it were a vāda, this conceding would conclude the debate.
However, this is not in line with traditional advaita. Neo-advaita perhaps (?), where such things are prevalent, for eg., on the one hand neo-advitins classify all non-(neo)advaita schools as being the same as abrahamic religions, but display idealism (esp when dealing with the international audience/market) in including the same abarahamic ideas into their theo-philosophical ideology by claiming all religions preach the same and come up with symbols such as this:



नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

totally agree,