Ask a nondual "person"

[SalixIncendium]

Fair enough. Is there anything in particular you would recommend to someone who would like to understand nondualism better?

Here's a good nondualism 101 article.

Nondualism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, as @Aupmanyav said, the best understanding you can get might be through first person interaction with nondualists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Our senses deceive us, or our minds do? One might argue, convincingly enough I think, that these are inseparable, but if that’s so then it’s surely the case that the object, the observer, the mechanism of observation (in this case the senses), and the act of observation are all equally inseparable. In which case, what is the source of the deception, and who or what is being deceived?

Yes, both deceive us, mind as well as senses. Source of deception is the property of Brahman. The one deceived too is Brahman, but has not been able to analyze well because of prejudices, lack of knowledge or effort. So, abandon prejudices, start with a clean state, gather knowledge (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geography, paleontology, sociology, history, religions, etc.), meditate, make effort. Do not believe in mysticism, esoterics, paranormal. Be practical. That allows one to understand.

 

[Viswa]

You want me to believe first. What remains to know after I already believe (whatever BS it may be)?

I understand now. If you only believe only after you get to know, then why to believe if you already know?

 

[Viswa]

You want me to believe first. What remains to know after I already believe (whatever BS it may be)?

Also, if you already believe everything is falsehood, why seek to know discoveries, Science, etc.?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I understand now. If you only believe only after you get to know, then why to believe if you already know? Also if you already believe everything is falsehood, why seek to know discoveries, Science, etc.?

I believe after I see evidence. There are things which I do not know, for example, the riddle of existence. Science is working on that. It won't be within my life-time, it will take time, perhaps decades, perhaps centuries. Rather than terming what I do not know as God, I will reserve my comment. Future generations may know. Most of what religions say is falsehood, And the laws emanate from societies and not from any God.

 

[Viswa]

I believe after I see evidence. There are things which I do not know, for example, the riddle of existence. Science is working on that. It won't be within my life-time, it will take time, perhaps decades, perhaps centuries. Rather than terming what I do not know as God, I will reserve my comment. Future generations may know. Most of what religions say is falsehood, And the laws emanate from societies and not from any God.

If you believe on unknown Future, why not believe on unknown Past which Religions do Remind?

 

[Viswa]

I believe after I see evidence. There are things which I do not know, for example, the riddle of existence. Science is working on that. It won't be within my life-time, it will take time, perhaps decades, perhaps centuries. Rather than terming what I do not know as God, I will reserve my comment. Future generations may know. Most of what religions say is falsehood, And the laws emanate from societies and not from any God.

How do you believe that Most of religions say is Falsehood?
Isn't it only based on your belief that "There is no God/Ishwara"?

 

[SalixIncendium]

We're getting a bit off topic here, friends.

 

[Viswa]

I believe after I see evidence. There are things which I do not know, for example, the riddle of existence. Science is working on that. It won't be within my life-time, it will take time, perhaps decades, perhaps centuries. Rather than terming what I do not know as God, I will reserve my comment. Future generations may know. Most of what religions say is falsehood, And the laws emanate from societies and not from any God.

If you have riddle of existence, why believe Advaita Vedanta, or why believe on Science, if they don't show you evidence other than "Belief"?

Isn't your belief upon Advaita Vedanta nd Future Science, is not based on "Evidence" but only "Blind Belief"?

If you can have "Belief" upon Advaita Vedanta and Science without any Evidence and only based on "Pure Belief", then why not "Believe" on "Presence of God" based on "Religious Scriptures" with the same equal "Pure Belief"?

Why Partiality?

 

[Viswa]

I believe after I see evidence. There are things which I do not know, for example, the riddle of existence. Science is working on that. It won't be within my life-time, it will take time, perhaps decades, perhaps centuries. Rather than terming what I do not know as God, I will reserve my comment. Future generations may know. Most of what religions say is falsehood, And the laws emanate from societies and not from any God.

Who you call yourself as Guru, named Shankara, himself speaks upon Ishvara.

Not just him, Patanjali too.

If they know about Falsehood and even then speak about "Ishvara", what you see no evidence more than Them?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What exists in Paramartika? Can existence exist in existence?

What about non-existence. We are too much existence oriented, cannot visualize non-existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you have riddle of existence, why believe Advaita Vedanta, or why believe on Science, if they don't show you evidence other than "Belief"?

There are hundreds of problems in science, and it is working on that. We may not know BB or emergence of Life very exactly, but there is no doubt about what must have happened. It is not that religion or philosophy provide any evidence. So what is the better thing to do? Go with sufficiently clear evidence or no evidence at all?

Who you call yourself as Guru, named Shankara, himself speaks upon Ishvara.
Not just him, Patanjali too.

Sankara was probably in 8th Century. He certainly did not know what I know today. Patanjali was 4th Century BCE. Knowledge has progressed. Sankara and Buddha still remain my gurus. They showed me the way.
More over, Sankara or even Buddha were not free birds like me. What they said was conditioned by their position in the society.

 

[Viswa]

I believe after I see evidence. There are things which I do not know, for example, the riddle of existence. Science is working on that. It won't be within my life-time, it will take time, perhaps decades, perhaps centuries. Rather than terming what I do not know as God, I will reserve my comment. Future generations may know. Most of what religions say is falsehood, And the laws emanate from societies and not from any God.

As I understood, you see, you believe what only suits you for your own "belief".

You have a strong "blind Belief", and search both science and Religions and etc., So that to find out what suits to your own "Belief".
As of now, you see only one-part from everything suits your "belief", so you take that one-part and negate other-part of Science, Vedanta, Buddhism, etc.

The problem is, not in Religions, etc., it is your seeking which must suit your "belief".

You are really not seeking Evidence from Science, Religions, etc., but you are really trying to "make Evidence" of your Own Belief, so be safe with that security of such "evidencing".

You think it is Pleasure/Joy, but it only sucks your blood which you will come to know in time. But, my wish, if you see it soon you may not suffer.

God is Present in Vyavaharika and watching including You. You believe or not, upto you. If you really want to see God, Scriptures are there to show you and a Guru will surely come. If you don't want to believe God, then be like Buddha.

 

[Viswa]

There are hundreds of problems in science, and it is working on that. We may not know BB or emergence of Life very exactly, but there is no doubt about what must have happened. It is not that religion or philosophy provide any evidence. So what is the better thing to do? Go with sufficiently clear evidence or no evidence at all?

Religions provide evidence, but only seek Belief from you. It can show you. I can assure you.

But, as I said in previous reply, I see that you seek not really to understand but to suit yourself by "making evidence" of your "strong Belief", and pick things "here and there" to support and safe yourself.

It's okay. Your life.

One thing I would say last is, choosing to evidencing your belief and save your needs,etc., or really understand?
"Choose Wise"

Take care.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Viswa, it is of no use to comment on my posts. You know my views very well. We are only repeating things again and again. What is the problem? You go your way and I go my way. Neither I can change your views nor you can change my views. Read Surah Al-Kafirun in Quran (109).

 

[Viswa]

Viswa, it is of no use to comment on my posts. You know my views very well. We are only repeating things again and again. What is the problem? You go your way and I go my way. Neither I can change your views nor you can change my views. Read Surah Al-Kafirun in Quran (109).

See, again suiting your need quoting scriptures when don't believe it, Huh??

But, you had changed my views early and I learned much. You know that too. Hope you be open to learn and come to a stage to surpass own desires, and I strongly Believe that.

Let's see. Have fun until that, and Peace bestow upon you soon.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, both deceive us, mind as well as senses. Source of deception is the property of Brahman. The one deceived too is Brahman, but has not been able to analyze well because of prejudices, lack of knowledge or effort. So, abandon prejudices, start with a clean state, gather knowledge (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geography, paleontology, sociology, history, religions, etc.), meditate, make effort. Do not believe in mysticism, esoterics, paranormal. Be practical. That allows one to understand.

It’s my conviction that all avenues of human enquiry, when followed with an open mind, lead to the door marked “mysticism”. What we find when we look beyond the surface of things, we can only truly understand if we are open to an experience which may best be defined as mystical.

 

[Zwing]

Why you perceive SalixIncendium is a result of Maya. It is incorrect knowledge. SalixIncendium is an appearance resulting form ignorance as a result of Maya.

I know that “Time, Space and Causation” are attributes which have been given to “Maya”, but it would seem helpful to understand the true etymological meaning of the term.

In Sanskrit, illusion; God's (Aup.: that is optional) physical and metaphysical creation (literally, "not this").
Mā = not, yā = this.

Given this etymology, and the fact that the meaning of "maya" (correctly माया) is "not this", meaning in expanded form "this apparition which is not reality" or simply "illusion", I think that we can say that space, time and causation are not what maya is said to be, but rather that they are things which are said to result in maya/illusion. I am not sure how the teacher ties the concept of causation to illusion, but I have a hard time thinking that space or time result in maya, as I cannot see any rational connection. As I have said, I feel that time itself does not exist outside of the human mind, as the philosopher J.M.E. McTaggart has quite famously indicated (The Unreality of Time - Wikipedia.) I also think that space is not causative of maya because space is merely infinite three dimensional extension. It is that within which universes are born and die, and within which our universe is currently expanding (possibly along with other universes too distant for us to perceive). My belief is that there is an ultimate type of substance which pervades all of space (infinitely), and which manifests as both fluctuating quantum fields of energy and the physical universes of matter that those energy fields occasionally produce in spontaneous fashion, and that this unpercieved substance is variously called “Brahman”, the “Monad”, and “absolute objective reality”. If space is that which is pervaded by Brahman, then I do not think that space is causative of maya.

Must run. To be continued....

 

[Zwing]

…sorry for having to break off. I was posting in between work and my weekly Aramaic class, and I had to catch a bus to the class or be tardy.

As I was saying, I view Brahman as the essential reality, a special indiscernible type of “stuff”, out of which everything that exists both within and without our universe, is an appearance or manifestation, which reality pervades apparently limitless space. What I think results in we humans perceiving reality in an illusory manner, and also in not being able to perceive Brahman, is that our sensory abilities are not sufficient in order to do so. Our human senses cause us to view an illusory world instead of perceiving Brahman. I would like to learn who (I assume that it was Sankaracharya) indicated space time and causation as either being or causing Maya, and their rationale for that, especially what is meant by “causation” in this context.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Given this etymology, .. then I do not think that space is causative of maya.

Richard Feynman found Brahman, and it is this:

Brahman that changes every Planck's moment but does not change, all through the time since even before BB.