An atheist question about Hinduism

[kalyan]

Yes, you are wrong. Gaudapada (Shankara's Guru's Guru) says in his Karikas -

No Jiva is ever born. There does not exist any cause which can produce it. This is the highest truth that nothing is ever born - MK 3.48

Shankara's commentary on this karika - All these ideas regarding the discipline of the mind, ideas regarding devotional exercises are given as means to the realization of the nature of the ultimate reality. They have, in themselves, no meaning, whatsoever. The truth is that no jiva is ever born....

There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth - MK 2.32

Shankara's commentary on this karika - This verse sums up the chapter. When duality is perceived to be illusory and Atman (Brahman) is alone known as the sole reality, then it is clearly established that all our experiences - ordinary or religious, verily pertain to the domain of ignorance. Then one perceives, there is no dissolution, birth, liberation.... [there is a lot more here, but this will do for this discussion]

1. Aupamanyav has always been clear that he accepts that Brahman alone exists and as you can see, his position does not negate they key principle of Advaita.

2. Atheist means different things to different people. There are devout Christians who would label Ramanuja as an atheist for he did not accept Jesus Christ as the only true God and his savior. Without understanding Aupmanyav's definiton of atheism and why he considers himself one, there is little point in criticizing him.

3. The problem is most people who claim to known Advaita possess a very superficial understanding of it obtained from internet articles. You yourself say above that Aupamanyav must be wrong in his views (on Advaita) and then you follow up saying you are not really sure, calling out for expert opinions!

Is that a valid commentary of gaudapada u are quoting from ...gaudapada who said is not there but we still see the world no ?...the fact that jiva is in samsara is a proof that world is existing real or not it does matter from advaita because the point is attain or come out of avidya and maya.....but do u come out of maya? Please do tell me how do you come out of avidya...just by knowing brahman exists in everything as substratum without strong ideals will again bind u in samsara...how do attain brahma jnanam as adi shankara said?

Aupman does not accept brahman as brahman..

 

[kalyan]

Brahman of Shruti, according to whom? This Brahman has been described very differently by different schools of Vedanta.

Per Advaita, any description you provide for the Nirguna Brahman is incorrect (neti neti). If you call it Ananda, etc., then it is not it. Any description/attributes you provide can only hold good for Saguna Brahman, which is transient and ultimately unreal. I do not have to provide supporting quotes as I am sure you already have them.

Regards,

If one accepts advaita, he has to accept it in full , like he has to accept the maya, and brahmans reflection in maya and causing, jiva, isvara, prakriti even if it is empirical reality as per advaita, one has to accept it and then have to accept all adi shankara commentaries on vedas saying 'Vishnu is that Brahman'....my point is you cannot take 1 aspect of it and say i am an advaitin, it should be accepted with all the parts that come along with it, if everyone takes 1 aspect and mixes with others it is total chaos!

now my only question to you is how did 'Adi Shankara attain the brahma jnana' from what ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ha ha, if I were to accept so many things, then where is advaita?

 

[atanu]

Ha ha, if I were to accept so many things, then where is advaita?

It is just a joke for you. Isn't it? But you forgot that if there is a 'you' to do selecting or rejecting there is no advaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have nothing to select, since there are no other things to select from. 'Aham Brahmasmi'/'Tat twam asi'.

 

[kalyan]

I have nothing to select, since there are no other things to select from. 'Aham Brahmasmi'/'Tat twam asi'.

how can you quote from vedas if you reject them?
now, what i feel is for u to go back to drawing board and re-analyze your priorities....am saying this for your benefit only as you are going nowhere with your confused ideology.

 

[atanu]

Yes, there is a difference. When did I not accept that? Perhaps if you look deeply, then there is no difference. But did Sankara had a copy-right on Advaita? If it was so the other branches of Vedanta would not have come up (Bheda-Abheda, Upadhika, Vishishta, Dvaitadvaita,
Shuddha, Achintya). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta#Schools_of_Vedanta

We have discussed this before. None of these schools define or understand brahman as you do. And that is the point.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Here, it will be sufficient to remind you that Aup defines his Brahman as energy, and often further qualifying it with 'like electricity'. So Aup's definition is correct and acceptable for a Hindu but Vedic-upanishadic definitions are not?

Per Advaita, any definition of Brahman (Vishnu, Ananda, electricity, etc.,) is only applicable in a relative sense and is ultimately incorrect. More on this, below.

Second. What remains after Neti Neti? That is swarupa lakshana of Brahman and advaitins accept 'Prajnanam Brahman' as a mahavakya and 'Satyam-jnanam-anantam' as the swarupa lakshana of Brahman.

Once you attribute a Swarupa Lakshana to Brahman, then it is no longer Nirguna Brahman. To quote the relevant commentary of Shankara on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6 (translated by Madhavananda. The paraphrasing is my own) -

...How through these two terms 'neti, neti' (not this, not this) is it sought to describe the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words refer to something that has no distinguishing marks such as name or form or action or heterogeneity or species or gunas (qualities). Words denote things through one or other of these. But Brahman has none of these distinguishing marks. Hence, it cannot be described as 'It is such and such' as we can describe a cow by saying 'There moves a white cow with horns'. Brahman is described by means of name, form and action superimposed on it in such terms as Vijnanam Ananda Brahma [knowedge, bliss, Brahman], Pure Intelligence, Brahman and Atman. When, however, we wish to describe its true nature free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, then it is an utter impossibility. Then there is only one way left and that is to describe it as 'Not this, not this' by eliminating all possible specifications of it that have been known....

Kena Upanishad 1.3 says the eyes does not go there, nor speech nor the mind. Therefore, no word can describe it (including Ananda) and no thought can touch it.

So, what then about the apparent contradictions? In his text, Aparokshanubhuti, Shankara argues that Shruti texts talking about Prarabdha, etc., are meant only for ignorant people and one should accept only those Shruthis from which proceeds true knowledge (check verses 90 - 99). He makes a similar argument in his BSB, where he says non-dual Shruti takes precedence over dual Shruthi.

 

[kalyan]

Shankara argues that Shruti texts talking about Prarabdha, etc., are meant only for ignorant peopl

^^what shruti texts shankara told not to accept and how shankara attained the knowledge to overcome maya?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

how can you quote from vedas if you reject them?
now, what i feel is for u to go back to drawing board and re-analyze your priorities....am saying this for your benefit only as you are going nowhere with your confused ideology.

Kalyan, with all due respect, Atanu has some knowledge on Advaita and therefore it makes sense for him to challenge differing interpretations. You, on the other hand, are clueless on Advaita (by your own admission) and therefore, it is inappropriate to mock or criticize others over their views on Advaita.

You appear to be knowledgeable about Sri-Vaishnavism and obviously, your views are welcome on those threads. However, when it comes to Advaita, you should be asking questions instead of mocking and criticizing. Or simply stay away.

Thank you,

 

[kalyan]

Kalyan, with all due respect, Atanu has some knowledge on Advaita and therefore it makes sense for him to challenge differing interpretations. You, on the other hand, are clueless on Advaita (by your own admission) and therefore, it is wrong to mock and criticize others over their views on Advaita.

You appear to be knowledgeable about Sri-Vaishnavism and obviously, your views are welcome on those threads. However, when it comes to Advaita, you should be asking questions instead of mocking and criticizing.

Thank you,

No am not mocking and yea i agree i dont know much of advaita.. but from what i can tell shankara did not reject any part of shruti as he commented on entire shruti . So want to know which shruti text he denied and you are not answering 2nd q which is on what shankara depended on to attain brahma jnanam which is very valid q no? Ok in my opinion he depended on vedam itself to acquire that jnanam. Differ? This was a sincere q to an aspirants because 1 cannot say i reject vedas but am advaitin because until you attain jnanam from vedam you cannot come out of avidya..no? ..can any advaitin answer this?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

But did Sankara had a copy-right on Advaita? If it was so the other branches of Vedanta would not have come up (Bheda-Abheda, Upadhika, Vishishta, Dvaitadvaita,
Shuddha, Achintya). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta#Schools_of_Vedanta

But they all have different names. Like it or not, Advaita, by default, has come to mean, Shankara's doctrine. If we want to differ from him, it makes sense that we use a different name to avoid confusion during communication.

But, I am not convinced that your view is so different from Shankara's. As I have said elsewhere, Shankara had the difficult jobs of blending Buddhist (Mahayana/Madhyamika) views with Vedanta and therefore, the logic works only up to a point. We will see conflicting statements, where liberation is the highest goal and there is no such thing as liberation. There are other issues too, which make Advaita a bit too abstract and therefore, prone to interpretation.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

What I am trying to say is that people see a difference where perhaps there is none. You are dividing the world into two spheres, materialism and non-materialism, and thereby complicating things. What exists is only one. If Brahman is different from these then there should be no energy, gravitation, magnetism, light, heat, mass, dark energy, dark matter, normal matter or anti-matter.

I am not dividing the world, because I believe materialism is false. What I'm saying is that what you are referring to is essentially materialism and can be the basis of no genuine spirituality. What can spiritual effort and discipline mean to one with such a worldview? There can be no transcendence or transformation. All there can be is occasional vague feelings of awe or beauty and attempts at merely worldly and psychological contentment. If such a view is spiritual, then every worldview can be spiritual.

For you Brahman is just a metaphor, like the person who says God is a term for our collective ideals or someone such thing. That is the extent of your belief in him.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

But, I am not convinced that your view is so different from Shankara's.

Really? Shankara was close to a materialism for which Brahman is essentially just a metaphor for all material or physical things?

 

[Aupmanyav]

how can you quote from vedas if you reject them?

When and where did I say that I reject Vedas? Only that I understand them in a different way than others. I have the highest regard for Vedas.

Kalyan, do not hesitate. Ask questions. Both Bhakti and Jnana (Advaita, etc.) are very deep. Sankara did not reject the 'shrutis', he said some are for beginners and others are for advanced students. The same can be said of all that Sankara said, some are for beginners and others are for advanced students. This holds good even in Bhakti.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And that is the point.

That is not at all the point. They understand Brahman in their own way, I understand Brahman in my own way. If I should consider Brahman in the way they do, why should not they consider Brahman in the way I do?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, I am not convinced that your view is so different from Shankara's. As I have said elsewhere, Shankara had the difficult jobs of blending Buddhist (Mahayana/Madhyamika) views with Vedanta and therefore, the logic works only up to a point. We will see conflicting statements, where liberation is the highest goal and there is no such thing as liberation. There are other issues too, which make Advaita a bit too abstract and therefore, prone to interpretation.

When did I say that science understand electricity, light, time, gravity, the fundamental forces. They don't, they are only trying to understand (if I would say in Hindi), the 'jhamela' (the mystery). Let us see how far they can go. I have given my interpretation of liberation earlier. Even on Sept. 3, there was a report in 'Nature' that "LHC (Large Hadron Collider at CERN) signal hints at cracks in physics' standard model" (http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-signal-hints-at-cracks-in-physics-standard-model-1.18307):

".. in particular decays, short-lived particles called B-mesons create taus more frequently than they create muons. (Taus and muons are heavier cousins of electrons.) But the standard model says that once the particles’ mass differences are taken into account, the decays should occur at exactly the same rate."

Sankara is my guru, it is natural that my views will be similar to his views. Same for Lord Buddha. He too is my guru because he taught me to accept views only after I am convinced of them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What can spiritual effort and discipline mean to one with such a worldview? There can be no transcendence or transformation. All there can be is occasional vague feelings of awe or beauty and attempts at merely worldly and psychological contentment. If such a view is spiritual, then every worldview can be spiritual.

For you Brahman is just a metaphor, like the person who says God is a term for our collective ideals or someone such thing. That is the extent of your belief in him.

They mean the same as what they mean to a theist. Knowledge of science does not mean abandonment of one's 'dharma'. Knowledge of science supports the view of non-duality. If one believes in non-duality then it transforms all views of the person. Transcendence is from ignorance. The feeling of awe and beauty is not an occasional feeling, it is constant and persisting. Brahman is not a metaphor for me, it is the one single truth that exists.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I am not dividing the world, because I believe materialism is false. What I'm saying is that what you are referring to is essentially materialism and can be the basis of no genuine spirituality. What can spiritual effort and discipline mean to one with such a worldview? There can be no transcendence or transformation. All there can be is occasional vague feelings of awe or beauty and attempts at merely worldly and psychological contentment. If such a view is spiritual, then every worldview can be spiritual.

For you Brahman is just a metaphor, like the person who says God is a term for our collective ideals or someone such thing. That is the extent of your belief in him.

Really? Shankara was close to a materialism for which Brahman is essentially just a metaphor for all material or physical things?

Jeremy, what is your understanding of Brahman and the concept of Moksha per Advaita?

 

[atanu]

I have nothing to select, since there are no other things to select from. 'Aham Brahmasmi'/'Tat twam asi'.

Aupmanyav, you fooling others and yourself as well. I reproduce a part of your definition of brahman from your page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aupmanyav

I believe in existence of Energy (as in physics, light, electricity, etc.) and equate that with 'Brahman'. My 'Brahman' constitutes all things in the universe, assumes all forms, has attributes (physical and not divine)

There is no Brahman in your definition/understanding. There is "I", "Me", and "My Brahman". Your ""I" and "Me" is over-ruling the scripture.

It is your personal idea of Brahman that you are talking about. And while on one hand claiming to be Hindu and Advaitic, you are imposing your own personal fancy definition over the teaching of revered scripture.

The cited sentence clearly shows that it is not the Brahman that you believe in. It "Aupmanyav's Brahman".

Aupmanyav you are apparently a sweet person and you surely are intelligent enough to understand that you are not talking of the Brahman of the scriptures. If you are trying to distort understanding of 'Brahman' of scriptures intentionally and with some particular purpose then you will reap appropriate reward.

Aum.