• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
A 21st century person will have to produce proof. Those days are gone when things were accepted without proof. But you are asking me to believe many things without proof, including that you are an enlightened soul through your samadhi experience. Now, who is a madman?
Never believe anyone who thinks knowledge can be gained from meditation and imagining things. The only way to knowledge is through hard fact finding undertaken as a mission and using discrimination to judge between right and wrong.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Never believe anyone who thinks knowledge can be gained from meditation and imagining things.

In meditation as in thoughtless awareness, there is obviously no scope for delusion through excess of imagination. One sees reality as it is, without contamination by mental projections of a conditioned mindset.

Can you elaborate on this a bit?

Sabda means using the testimony of ancient enlightened sages recorded in the scriptures, as well as those of enlightened masters in medieval times and the present. And using it as a roadmap to discriminate between the true and the illusory, or between the true and the false.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
"The Vaisheshika Sutras were written by Sage Kanada himself..
"Vaiśeṣika Sūtra was likely compiled sometime between 6th and 2nd century BCE, and finalized in the currently existing version before the start of the common era. .. According to some scholars, he flourished before the advent of Buddhism because the Vaiśeṣika Sūtra makes no mention of Buddhism or Buddhist doctrines; .."
Vaiśeṣika Sūtra - Wikipedia

Compiled means someone else did that, so interpolations are possible.
It is not me that is the external authority but the scriptures and the teacher.
If no proof of what is said is provided, then it does not matter whether it is in scriptures or said by sages, the idea cannot be taken for granted. It has to be validated by evidence.
सत्यं वदन्तमाहुर् धर्मं वदतीति (when a man speaks the Truth, they say, "He speaks the Dharma").
Nice state of delusion. :D
How come? First you say "It is not this, it is not that", and then you say Brahman is surely "consciousness". Do you not see the contradiction in the two statements?
I suppose you would say the same thing to Shankaracharya and all the advaita teachers at present teaching Neti-neti in India and all around the world.
The fact is that Brahman is not "Neti-neti". We know it pervades the whole universe and that it is unchanging and un-involved. That itself disproves "Neti-neti".
Proof is produced by the person himself through his own experiential understanding through practicing the Neti-neti, meditation and attainment of samadhi which gives definite tangible results. It cannot be manufactured for him.
If that proof cannot be verified by others then it is hardly a proof.
I have never stated such stuff here, and your stating this is further proof to me of your delusionary state compounded by dishonesty.
You have been telling me all the time that you were successful in attaining samadhi and validate what is mentioned in scriptures and by sage.
I have attained samadhi, but it is nirvikalpa samadhi that is equated with enlightenment where the state of samadhi becomes permanent.
If you have not attained 'nirvikalpa samadhi' and do not know the truth about Brahman by yourself, then what you say is meaningless - first get enlightened, know the truth and then declare anything.

I am myself Brahman, and you are telling me things as to what I am. You do not understand even one word of 'Advaita'. All your reading of books and visits to sages have been fruitless.
Try again. Abandon pride.

Aham Brahmasmi, Ayamatma Brahman, So Aham, Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahman, Eko sad Dwiteeyo nasti, Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah, Brahma Veda Brahmaiva Bhavati.

That is what is said in our scriptures.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
"Vaiśeṣika Sūtra was likely compiled sometime between 6th and 2nd century BCE, and finalized in the currently existing version before the start of the common era. .. According to some scholars, he flourished before the advent of Buddhism because the Vaiśeṣika Sūtra makes no mention of Buddhism or Buddhist doctrines; .."
Vaiśeṣika Sūtra - Wikipedia

Compiled means someone else did that, so interpolations are possible.

On that account one would not be able to trust anything of Vaisheshika at all. I find it implausible, as there is no reference to buddhism even in the common era.

If no proof of what is said is provided, then it does not matter whether it is in scriptures or said by sages, the idea cannot be taken for granted. It has to be validated by evidence. सत्यं वदन्तमाहुर् धर्मं वदतीति (when a man speaks the Truth, they say, "He speaks the Dharma).

As usual, you keep on speaking about things outside your domain of expertise and knowledge, and consistently subjecting yourself to criticism everywhere. I have stated the importance of personal experiential understanding in this regard.


How come? First you say "It is not this, it is not that", and then you say Brahman is surely "consciousness". Do you not see the contradiction in the two statements?

It is a matter of experiential understanding through meditaiton and samadhi, which has been emphasized by all scriptures and sages , which however you are ignorant of.

The fact is that Brahman is not "Neti-neti". We know it pervades the whole universe and that it is unchanging and un-involved. That itself disproves "Neti-neti".

What are you talking about ! Who said that Brahman is neti-neti. I don't have time for stupid talk !

First learn about advaita from a recognised advaitan institution and then show off as an advaitan over here.


If that proof cannot be verified by others then it is hardly a proof.

Personal understanding can be verified if it matches the accounts in the scriptures and testimony of later sages.

If you have not attained 'nirvikalpa samadhi' and do not know the truth about Brahman by yourself, then what you say is meaningless - first get enlightened, know the truth and then declare anything.

Samadhi itself is a good enough pointer and proof for the fact that the testimony of scriptures and later masters are correct . The challenge later on is to make the state of samadhi permanent.

I am myself Brahman, and you are telling me things as to what I am. You do not understand even one word of 'Advaita'. All your reading of books and visits to sages have been fruitless.
Try again. Abandon pride.

All but senile delusion which you keep repeating . If you had worked hard in your youth instead of being lazy, and learned properly advaita, meditation and samadhi under a good advaitan teacher or advaitan institution, you would not have been subjected to such criticism here and elsewhere.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
On that account one would not be able to trust anything of Vaisheshika at all.
Visheshika does not depend on Buddhism. Probably the reason is that Kanada may have lived prior to Buddha. Vaisheshika accepted Pratyaksha and Anumana if it went with evidence.
As usual, you keep on speaking about things outside your domain of expertise and knowledge, and consistently subjecting yourself to criticism everywhere. I have stated the importance of personal experiential understanding in this regard.
I have not faced any criticism here, I only have received more ratings. It is only you railing against me like Don Quixote against the wind-mill. And it is extremely foolish to say that evidence can be substituted by personal experience. What is your view about Lord Vishnu sitting beside me. Lord Shiva has gone to Kailash for his dose of marijuana prepared by Mother Parvati. Personal experience.
It is a matter of experiential understanding through meditaiton and samadhi, which has been emphasized by all scriptures and sages, which however you are ignorant of.
You do not know what samadhi or nirvikalpa samadhi is. You are in no position to talk about it. Only charlatans insist of personal experience in place of evidence.
What are you talking about ! Who said that Brahman is neti-neti. I don't have time for stupid talk !
You have said it at least 20 times, most recently in your post # 193 of Jan. 25th.
First learn about advaita from a recognised advaitan institution and then show off as an advaitan over here.
Institutions and teachers have their biases. They can mislead. One comes to know truth only by personal study and critical analysis taking all evidence in consideration. One cannot gain knowledge from "Koopa Mandookas" and "Shukas" (Parrots, who know only what has been taught to them).
Personal understanding can be verified if it matches the accounts in the scriptures and testimony of later sages.
Account in the scriptures and testimony of later sages is not enough as evidence. It should also match with science, i.e., Pratyaksha.
Samadhi itself is a good enough pointer and proof for the fact that the testimony of scriptures and later masters are correct. The challenge later on is to make the state of samadhi permanent.
What experience one gets in samadhi is a personal experience, it could be false, a hallucination. It can be accepted as evidence only if it matches Pratyaksha.
All but senile delusion which you keep repeating . If you had worked hard in your youth instead of being lazy, and learned properly advaita, meditation and samadhi under a good advaitan teacher or advaitan institution, you would not have been subjected to such criticism here and elsewhere.
'Vidya dadati vinayam', just this line shows that you have no humility and consequently no knowledge. You are welcome to make fun of my age, but it will only show your foolishness and samskaras. In a debate you should not use invective and abuses, but give arguments against the position of your opponent. I am sorry for you.
 
Last edited:

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
In meditation as in thoughtless awareness, there is obviously no scope for delusion through excess of imagination. One sees reality as it is, without contamination by mental projections of a conditioned mindset.



Sabda means using the testimony of ancient enlightened sages recorded in the scriptures, as well as those of enlightened masters in medieval times and the present. And using it as a roadmap to discriminate between the true and the illusory, or between the true and the false.
The only way to knowledge is learning science and then engaging in proactive interactions with the internal and external environment based on actions that generate responses and which then guides one to the truth from discrimination abilities. Action is the crucial element.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Visheshika does not depend on Buddhism. Probably the reason is that Kanada may have lived prior to Buddha. Vaisheshika accepted Pratyaksha and Anumana if it went with evidence.

The very fact that there is no mention of Buddhism shows that there is not much interpolation of the Vaisheshika sutra as written by sage Kanada.

I have not faced any criticism here, I only have received more ratings. It is only you railing against me like Don Quixote against the wind-mill. And it is extremely foolish to say that evidence can be substituted by personal experience. What is your view about Lord Vishnu sitting beside me. Lord Shiva has gone to Kailash for his dose of marijuana prepared by Mother Parvati. Personal experience.

Not much critical thought here.
I have answered the following in previous posts.


You do not know what samadhi or nirvikalpa samadhi is. You are in no position to talk about it. Only charlatans insist of personal experience in place of evidence.
You have said it at least 20 times, most recently in your post # 193 of Jan. 25th.

I have no experience of nirvikalpa samadhi, but that of samadhi. That is enough to realise that the scriptures are indeed pointing out to something tangible and definite.

Institutions and teachers have their biases.

So do senile armchair speculators. In terms of the ancient tradition of advaita, there are many whose personal testimony of brahman is the same, such as that of Shankara, Nisargadatta , Ramana and Ramakrishna , all who have born and lived in different times and places.

This itself is proof enough to show the validity of their teachings.

Pratyaksha in advaita is more of an internal nature, where one cognizes the effect of sense-objects on the mind through the mental modifications it creates as opposed to mental equanimity necessary for inner perception of the Self.

It is for this reason that Krishna stated in the Bhagavad Gita, " Equanimity of mind is yoga' , and of the unstable nature of the mind that has to be controlled through dispassion and practice.

Because you do not know what meditation and samadhi is, you have no idea what Krishna is stating over here in this regard.

Account in the scriptures and testimony of later sages is not enough as evidence. It should also match with science, i.e., Pratyaksha.
Accounts of the scriptures and Shankara, Nisargadatta , Ramana and Ramakrishna , all who have born and lived in different times and places is credible evidence in itself.

Taking the scientific philosophy into account here, I have also quoted Schrodinger and Werner Heisengburg who have talked about the role played by consciousness in Advaita, which as a philosophy was immensely helpful to them.

'Vidya dadati vinayam', just this line shows that you have no humility and consequently no knowledge. You are welcome to make fun of my age, but it will only show your foolishness and samskaras. In a debate you should not use invective and abuses, but give arguments against the position of your opponent. I am sorry for you.


Wah, wah, wah. You are attacking and questioning the integrity of the ancient, medieval and modern sages , stating that their teachings are wrong and yours is correct. This is foolishness and uncultured samskaras in my opinion. I feel privileged to have defended these masters from your foolish attacks on their teachings.


In a debate you should not use invective and abuses, but give arguments against the position of your opponent. I am sorry for you.

I and others have given ample arguments against your position, which you refuse to consider. This is a proof of delusion that Vivekananda had talked about in an earlier post, and I am only placing the facts here.

A spade is a spade is a spade. Similarly is delusion. And this has been pointed out by others here and in other forums, but you refuse to budge. What else is this other than delusion.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
The only way to knowledge is learning science and then engaging in proactive interactions with the internal and external environment based on actions that generate responses and which then guides one to the truth from discrimination abilities. Action is the crucial element.

Hi Shantanu,

Long time no see. :)

Hope the British government have overturned its judgement of yours as mentally unhealthy or unfit, and reinstated you back in your job. I understand it must have created a lot of hardship in your life with all kind of legal and bureaucratic troubles.

I have cited the issues caused by poor mental health in this previous post of mine as shown by the examples of pilots like Andreas Lubitz and Ahmed Shah, whose planes have had a tragic end, and this could be the reason why most governments are quite circumspect in this regard. Hopefully, things may get better in your case with better medical treatment and time.

Time heals everything, I hope.:(
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Hi Shantanu,

Long time no see. :)

Hope the British government have overturned its judgement of yours as mentally unhealthy or unfit, and reinstated you back in your job. I understand it must have created a lot of hardship in your life with all kind of legal and bureaucratic troubles.

I have cited the issues caused by poor mental health in this previous post of mine as shown by the examples of pilots like Andreas Lubitz and Ahmed Shah, whose planes have had a tragic end, and this could be the reason why most governments are quite circumspect in this regard. Hopefully, things may get better in your case with better medical treatment and time.

Time heals everything, I hope.:(
I have been a bit busy with this: Bhagavad Gita 18.65.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The very fact that there is no mention of Buddhism shows that there is not much interpolation of the Vaisheshika sutra as written by sage Kanada.: What you say makes no sense. If it does, explain how. Interpolations in Hindu texts would be done by Hindus and not by Buddhist. Possibly, in the region where Sutras were written, Buddhism had lost its importance by that time.

Not much critical thought here.: Oh, so you are the only one here with a brain. The other are fools.

That is enough to realise that the scriptures are indeed pointing out to something tangible and definite.: But since you have not experienced 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi', you do not know exactly what tangible and definite is pointed at. You just have a hazy idea and proceed to make definite declarations. Trying to step in boots bigger than you.

In terms of the ancient tradition of advaita, there are many whose personal testimony of brahman is the same, such as that of Shankara, Nisargadatta , Ramana and Ramakrishna, all who have born and lived in different times and places. This itself is proof enough to show the validity of their teachings.: Stop talking about traditions and personal testimonies. They mean zero to me if evidence for that is not produced. That is where I differ with Sankara on 'Ishwara'. There is no proof.

Taking the scientific philosophy into account here, I have also quoted Schrodinger and Werner Heisengburg who have talked about the role played by consciousness in Advaita, which as a philosophy was immensely helpful to them.: If they say that they are going beyond what science allows them to say. They have descended into mysticism.

Wah, wah, wah. You are attacking and questioning the integrity of the ancient, medieval and modern sages ..: I see nothing wrong in questioning the philosophy of sages, whether modern, medieval or modern. I am not questioning their integrity, they believed that way. I am just asking for proof. What proof have they provided for what they say? If they do not provide proof, then why should I believe them?

I and others have given ample arguments against your position, which you refuse to consider. This is a proof of delusion that Vivekananda had talked about in an earlier post, and I am only placing the facts here.: Who are these others that you are constantly talking about? What arguments have you given to me other than harking on tradition and naming former sages? I am not asking that. I am asking for proof of what you say - basically that Brahman is consciousness, or why an Advaitist must be a theist? Have you given any proof for that.

What Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Raman or Nisargadas Maharaj believed is their own business. Why should I be required to follow them blindly?

Finally, in your next post give me a solid proof for what you say. Do not talk just about tradition or name sages. We have had enough of that.

"An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or the argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, .."
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
The very fact that there is no mention of Buddhism shows that there is not much interpolation of the Vaisheshika sutra as written by sage Kanada.: What you say makes no sense. If it does, explain how. Interpolations in Hindu texts would be done by Hindus and not by Buddhist. Possibly, in the region where Sutras were written, Buddhism had lost its importance by that time.

What I meant was that if there were substantial interpolations, buddhist views would have been incorporated in the Sutra , but there is not, considering the substantial time period Buddhism was present after rishi Kanada.

It does not take much brains to realise this.

Oh, so you are the only one here with a brain. The other are fools.

But this is what most here and elsewhere are saying about you.


That is enough to realise that the scriptures are indeed pointing out to something tangible and definite.: But since you have not experienced 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi', you do not know exactly what tangible and definite is pointed at. You just have a hazy idea and proceed to make definite declarations. Trying to step in boots bigger than you.


But it is better than yours anyway who have discounted meditation and samadhi.


In terms of the ancient tradition of advaita, there are many whose personal testimony of brahman is the same, such as that of Shankara, Nisargadatta , Ramana and Ramakrishna, all who have born and lived in different times and places. This itself is proof enough to show the validity of their teachings.: Stop talking about traditions and personal testimonies. They mean zero to me if evidence for that is not produced. That is where I differ with Sankara on 'Ishwara'. There is no proof.


Proof has to be produced by oneself through following the guidelines in the scriptures and taught by masters.

If you have no proof, it shows your ignorance and lack of training.

Why should many others after following the teachings and working hard on it, had the same experience, which they testified to !


If they say that they are going beyond what science allows them to say. They have descended into mysticism.

With your superficial credentials I don;'t think you are in a position to judge world famous scientists like Heisenburg and Schrodinger.

You are only making yourself an object of jest and ridicule as said by the HDF scholars in your introductory thread over there.



I and others have given ample arguments against your position, which you refuse to consider. This is a proof of delusion that Vivekananda had talked about in an earlier post, and I am only placing the facts here.:
Who are these others that you are constantly talking about? What arguments have you given to me other than harking on tradition and naming former sages? I am not asking that. I am asking for proof of what you say - basically that Brahman is consciousness, or why an Advaitist must be a theist? Have you given any proof for that.

I have cited my own experience of samadhi.

Citing the scriptures and sages is an accepted pramana in Advaita. You don;t know this because of you have no idea of what Advaita is due to lack of sytematic study under a master or institution.

Proof that Brahman is consciousness is atained by samadhi alone, and the proof is made permanently visible and tangible in nirvikalpa samadhi.


What Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Raman or Nisargadas Maharaj believed is their own business. Why should I be required to follow them blindly?

No need to follow them. They folllowed the teachings of the scriptues, their personal teachers with dedication and came to the same conclusion.

Follow what they did , and you will cease to speak further nonsense in this regard, subjecting yourself to ridicule of senility and delusion from all quarters and forums.

I see nothing wrong in questioning the philosophy of sages, whether modern, medieval or modern. I am not questioning their integrity, they believed that way. I am just asking for proof. What proof have they provided for what they say? If they do not provide proof, then why should I believe them?

Proof can be obtained by following the scriptural guidelines. No one is going to drop it in front of a lazy person. You must earn it.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
What I meant was that if there were substantial interpolations, buddhist views would have been incorporated in the Sutra, but there is not, considering the substantial time period Buddhism was present after rishi Kanada.: What source do we have to date Kanada - how can we say that he lived before or after Buddha? Kanada or the compiler of Vaisheshika Sutra were expounding their own philosophy and may not have considered it essential to explain their differences with Buddhism. I do not think that was obligatory for Vaisheshika philosophers to do that. To think that it was obligatory for them is foolishness.

".. Vaiśeṣika Sūtra was likely compiled sometime between 6th and 2nd century BCE, .." Vaiśeṣika Sūtra - Wikipedia

But this is what most here and elsewhere are saying about you.: Show me who here are saying that? I have left the 'Koopa Mandookas' and parrots in Hindu Dharma Forum. Only that you have come from there.

But it is better than yours anyway who have discounted meditation and samadhi.: I do not discount meditation or samadhi, but I also do not consider them magic. You get ideas. The idea must be validated againt science, if not proved then it should be abandoned. Without validation, they hold no value.

Proof has to be produced by oneself through following the guidelines in the scriptures and taught by masters. If you have no proof, it shows your ignorance and lack of training. Why should many others after following the teachings and working hard on it, had the same experience, which they testified to !: I have followed the guide lines of scriptures and still have found no proof for either God or Universal Consciousness. That is why I reject them. Even after thousands of years people insist on existence of God when there is no proof for it. It is only because of their fear of future. They cannot stand by themselves and need crutches. I have no problem with that. I understand that needs of different people are different. Those who need God are welcome to think that way. However, I do not need any God. We have a word in Hindi "Bhed Chaal". The sheep follow the first without thinking. Something like that is true for humans also. They believe in God because they have been taught to think in that way since childhood. It is brain-washing.

With your superficial credentials I don't think you are in a position to judge world famous scientists like Heisenburg and Schrodinger.: When they leave science and descend into mysticism, it becomes very apparent. Only that Heienberg and Schrodinger found something deeper than their own religion. But they did not go whole hog into Hinduism. The fact is that Hinduism not only accepts myticism but very critical analysis also.

You are only making yourself an object of jest and ridicule as said by the HDF scholars in your introductory thread over there.: I am not responsible for what fool and ignorant people say. They don't know any better. I do not expect fools to know anything better.

I have cited my own experience of samadhi.: How many time do I need to say that I do not believe in personal experiences of people. For me, proof has to be better than that. By what you say, I only think that the whole story of your meditation and samadhi practice is a lie. I do not find even an iota of critical thinking in what you say. You are only ranting about scriptures and sages.

Citing the scriptures and sages is an accepted pramana in Advaita.: It may be in your view of Advaita. In my view of Advaita, nothing goes without strict scrutiny.

Proof that Brahman is consciousness is atained by samadhi alone, and the proof is made permanently visible and tangible in nirvikalpa samadhi.: Again the samadhis. :) I want a material proof.

They folllowed the teachings of the scriptues, their personal teachers with dedication and came to the same conclusion.: Good for them, but my conclusion is different. It is not necessary in Hinduism that all should come to the same conclusion - otherwise there would not have been any Advaita itself. We would have been worshiping the 33 Aryan Gods.

Follow what they did, and you will cease to speak further nonsense in this regard, subjecting yourself to ridicule of senility and delusion from all quarters and forums.: I think what you are saying is utter nonsense. Don't worry about me. Nobody is ridiculing me here. It is only you who are railing against me. You are an ignorant person coming from Hindu Dharma Forum, a regressive forum. I would be surprised if you started talking sense.

Proof can be obtained by following the scriptural guidelines. No one is going to drop it in front of a lazy person.: Thanks. I have already done my search and need no more.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
What I meant was that if there were substantial interpolations, buddhist views would have been incorporated in the Sutra, but there is not, considering the substantial time period Buddhism was present after rishi Kanada.: What source do we have to date Kanada - how can we say that he lived before or after Buddha? Kanada or the compiler of Vaisheshika Sutra were expounding their own philosophy and may not have considered it essential to explain their differences with Buddhism. I do not think that was obligatory for Vaisheshika philosophers to do that. To think that it was obligatory for them is foolishness.

Whatever that may be the Vaisheshika Sutra we have at hand highlights meditation and nirvikalpa samadhi, which you reject, and hence no vaisheshika.

From whatever knowledge the scholars have as explained in information sites, Kanada lived before Buddha. An important philosophy like Buddhism would have definitely been referred by Kanada if he had lived after Buddha. Shankara and gaudapa too refers to Buddhism in their works as they lived during that time period after Buddha.


But this is what most here and elsewhere are saying about you.: Show me who here are saying that? I have left the 'Koopa Mandookas' and parrots in Hindu Dharma Forum. Only that you have come from there.

There are numerous threads here that I found criticising your views as well, not just in HDF forums. You have faced ridicule even in secular or non-religious forums which got me laughs as well. :)

I do not discount meditation or samadhi, but I also do not consider them magic. You get ideas. The idea must be validated againt science, if not proved then it should be abandoned. Without validation, they hold no value.

Someone who does not know meditation or samadhi only will make such a remark. I have stated earlier that direct perception equals empirical observation of the scientific method.

I have followed the guide lines of scriptures and still have found no proof for either God or Universal Consciousness. That is why I reject them.

Mere armchair speculation will not do. You must go and train under a reputed teacher or institution. Otherwise you are only building castles on air.

If I can get experience of samadhi in my young age, why can't you get !

You are only making yourself an object of jest and ridicule as said by the HDF scholars in your introductory thread over there.: I am not responsible for what fool and ignorant people say. They don't know any better. I do not expect fools to know anything better.

If a lot of people criticise you, it perhaps is time then to note why.

As Navjot Sidhu used to say, " A mind is like a parachute. It functions only when it is open."

How many time do I need to say that I do not believe in personal experiences of people. For me, proof has to be better than that. By what you say, I only think that the whole story of your meditation and samadhi practice is a lie. I do not find even an iota of critical thinking in what you say. You are only ranting about scriptures and sages.

And how many times do I have to say , meditation and samadhi, and pramana of sabda counts in Advaita.


Proof that Brahman is consciousness is atained by samadhi alone, and the proof is made permanently visible and tangible in nirvikalpa samadhi.: Again the samadhis. :) I want a material proof.

Material proof will come under the domain of Prakriti which is insentient. Advaita does not concern itself with that but the transcendence of the limitations of Prakriti , which fluctuate the consciousness of man and disturb his mental equanimity , and blurs the perception of the Self or Awareness, preventing advaitan perception.

Hence the reason why Krishna stated, ' Equanimity of mind is yoga'.

Good for them, but my conclusion is different. It is not necessary in Hinduism that all should come to the same conclusion - otherwise there would not have been any Advaita itself. We would have been worshiping the 33 Aryan Gods.

From the past to the present all sages came to the same conclusion. Even bhakta yogis like Ramakrishna and Meera came to the advaitic conclusion. Everyone comes here because it is the truth.


I think what you are saying is utter nonsense. Don't worry about me. Nobody is ridiculing me here. It is only you who are railing against me. You are an ignorant person coming from Hindu Dharma Forum, a regressive forum. I would be surprised if you started talking sense.

I have seen posts here as well ridiculing you. It seems to be a habit with you. Lol...


Thanks. I have already done my search and need no more.

In this context I would like to put a saying of Swami Narayananda from his book , ' A practical guide to Samadhi'.


Apart from these real Jivan-Muktas, there are some Sadhakas who take up Jnana-Yoga. They read treatises on the subject and by constant reading they come to a mental understanding of the nature of the Self or Atman. But these people do not attain Samadhi and cannot gain real wisdom. Mere book knowledge is always very shallow. They do not gain the permanent, steady state of the mind and perfect Wisdom which come only after Nirvikalpa Samadhi. But these people are too hasty to think that they have gained True Wisdom and begin to call themselves Jivan-Muktas.

-- Swami Narayananda ( A practical Guide to samadhi )
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Whatever that may be the Vaisheshika Sutra we have at hand highlights meditation and nirvikalpa samadhi, which you reject, and hence no Vaisheshika.: We discused Vaisheshika to establish 'pramanas' in different philosophical systems. I do not reject meditation or samadhi, but I reject the different conclusions that people arrive at crediting it to their samadhi (deep concentrated thinking) experience. That is why some arrive at Advaita and some arrive at Dvaita. Different conclusions mean that not all are correct. That is why the conclusions must be weighed according to evidence. On top of it, some just fake it to show that they are realized persons.

Shankara and gaudapa too refers to Buddhism in their works as they lived during that time period after Buddha.: That Sankara and Gaudapada discussed it does not mean that everyone compulsorily had to discuss them.

There are numerous threads here that I found criticising your views as well, not just in HDF forums. You have faced ridicule even in secular or non-religious forums which got me laughs as well. :): You are welcome to your silly laughs and do not talk about regressive forums like HDF. People do differ with my views, I have always replied to them. What is strange in this? That is what happens in forums. They are meant for this kind of exchanges of view. My views in some respects are different from those of Vinayaka or Sayak or Tattvaprahva, we know our differences, but we continue to discuss things. On many things we have similar views.

I have stated earlier that direct perception equals empirical observation of the scientific method.:
No, it does not. Very well illustrated by six darshanas and five Vedanta philosophies. All people do not come to the same understanding. And if they don't, then your theory that Samadhi experience equals empirical observation is wrong.

You must go and train under a reputed teacher or institution.: Teachers and institutions are biased. That is why the title (below my name) says - 'Be your own guru'. There are scriptures and sayings of great sages. Why then you need a guru?

If I can get experience of samadhi in my young age, why can't you get !: You have got nothing till now. You are just a parrot quoting sayings of various people without understanding even an iota of Advaita. If you continue with this, I am not sure if you would be able to understand Advaita in whole of your life.

If a lot of people criticise you, it perhaps is time then to note why.: You have always been saying this. I am asking you to name one or two people who have criticized me in this forum. Difference of opinion are something different. That is not criticism as a person. That I get only from you. Go on doing that. I care two hoots for it. As I said, I do not expect anything better from you.

As Navjot Sidhu used to say, " A mind is like a parachute. It functions only when it is open.": It is your mind which dwells in a well.

And how many times do I have to say, meditation and samadhi, and pramana of sabda counts in Advaita.: Let it be the last time. You have your views, I have mine. I am not going to change my views nor I think you will change your views any time soon.

Material proof will come .. preventing advaitan perception.: That means you cannot provide me any proof, and without proof I will not accept what you say. So the matter ends there.

From the past to the present all sages came to the same conclusion. Even bhakta yogis like Ramakrishna and Meera came to the advaitic conclusion. Everyone comes here because it is the truth.: In that case, we should not have Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakta worshipers, we should only have Advaitists in Hinduism, but that is not the case.

Dharma Forum, a regressive forum. I would be surprised if you started talking sense. I have seen posts here as well ridiculing you.: Yes, HDF is regressive forum. And it was natural that I cannot remain in such a forum. "India Divine' is another forum which I left for the same reason. Point out posts here which ridicule me.

In this context I would like to put a saying of Swami Narayananda from his book ..: You know I do not place any value to what any Tom, Dick and Harry says. I do not know when you will grow up to understand this.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Whatever that may be the Vaisheshika Sutra we have at hand highlights meditation and nirvikalpa samadhi, which you reject, and hence no Vaisheshika.: We discused Vaisheshika to establish 'pramanas' in different philosophical systems. I do not reject meditation or samadhi, but I reject the different conclusions that people arrive at crediting it to their samadhi (deep concentrated thinking) experience. That is why some arrive at Advaita and some arrive at Dvaita. Different conclusions mean that not all are correct. That is why the conclusions must be weighed according to evidence. On top of it, some just fake it to show that they are realized persons.


That you have stated samadhi to be deep concentrated thinking, itself shows that you have no idea of samadhi and what you are talking about as well as usual.

Samadhi comes about in meditative thoughtless awareness, not deep concentrated thinking.

If you cannot understand the basics, why do you presume to state that this is right and that is wrong, and show off as a wise person to mislead others !


Shankara and gaudapa too refers to Buddhism in their works as they lived during that time period after Buddha.: That Sankara and Gaudapada discussed it does not mean that everyone compulsorily had to discuss them.

If Shankara and Gaudapada who came in the seventh century ad discussed buddhism, it means that vaisheshika which has no reference to buddhism indeed came before the Buddha, as scholars state it. This is the stance that was put forward.


There are numerous threads here that I found criticising your views as well, not just in HDF forums. You have faced ridicule even in secular or non-religious forums which got me laughs as well. :): You are welcome to your silly laughs and do not talk about regressive forums like HDF. People do differ with my views, I have always replied to them. What is strange in this? That is what happens in forums. They are meant for this kind of exchanges of view. My views in some respects are different from those of Vinayaka or Sayak or Tattvaprahva, we know our differences, but we continue to discuss things. On many things we have similar views.

HDF is a forum of quality scholars.Just because you were criticized by them, does not mean that they are regressive. They are just being progressive, correct and proper.

If you do not have correct and proper viewpoints, you will be criticized in hdf and also elsewhere as well, as you have found out to your peril, and other's entertainment.

I have stated earlier that direct perception equals empirical observation of the scientific method.: No, it does not. Very well illustrated by six darshanas and five Vedanta philosophies. All people do not come to the same understanding. And if they don't, then your theory that Samadhi experience equals empirical observation is wrong.


The philosophies are meant to create the intellectual background for experiential understanding through meditation and samadhi.

Because you don't have a clue on the philosophical methodology as shown by your negation of neti neti in advaita , you are just giving personal interpretations to this based on half-baked knowledge, and creating a nuisance of yourself.



You must go and train under a reputed teacher or institution.: Teachers and institutions are biased. That is why the title (below my name) says - 'Be your own guru'. There are scriptures and sayings of great sages. Why then you need a guru?


They appear biased to you, because they don't agree with your viewpoints which you alone adhere staunchly to.

A quack will feel that doctors and medical institutions are similarly biased, and his medical remedies are the best in the world. ( even if the last patient died of a seeming overdose)


If I can get experience of samadhi in my young age, why can't you get !: You have got nothing till now. You are just a parrot quoting sayings of various people without understanding even an iota of Advaita. If you continue with this, I am not sure if you would be able to understand Advaita in whole of your life.

Thick delusion.

You have always been saying this. I am asking you to name one or two people who have criticized me in this forum. Difference of opinion are something different. That is not criticism as a person. That I get only from you. Go on doing that. I care two hoots for it. As I said, I do not expect anything better from you.


Check out the past threads in this forum itself, which I found out myself after researching. Hard to understand why you keep to your deluded views inspite of the efforts of others to show you what truly is advaita !


Let it be the last time. You have your views, I have mine. I am not going to change my views nor I think you will change your views any time soon.


This is why you have been criticised for senile delusion in the HDF forum. The delusion is thick and improbable to change.


Yes, HDF is regressive forum. And it was natural that I cannot remain in such a forum. "India Divine' is another forum which I left for the same reason. Point out posts here which ridicule me.


Oh, that is news to me. You had criticism in India Divine forums as well. Lol...


In this context I would like to put a saying of Swami Narayananda from his book ..: You know I do not place any value to what any Tom, Dick and Harry says. I do not know when you will grow up to understand this.

Very convenient answer for any quack to state he is not one.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
That you have stated samadhi to be deep concentrated thinking, itself shows that you have no idea of samadhi and what you are talking about as well as usual. If you cannot understand the basics, why do you presume to state that this is right and that is wrong, and show off as a wise person to mislead others ! Samadhi comes about in meditative thoughtless awareness, not deep concentrated thinking.: Only the fool or charlatans say that samadhi is more than deep concentrate thinking. Whether anybody considers me wise or foolish, this is my view. Meditative thoughtless awareness is just a step towards deeper thinking. All this talk of the heavens opening to reveal the secrets of Brahman in 'Nirvikalpa Smadhi' is hogwash. And I do not stand for hogwash.

If Shankara and Gaudapada who came in the seventh century ad discussed buddhism, it means that vaisheshika which has no reference to buddhism indeed came before the Buddha, as scholars state it.: I understand that. It may have, but it does not make it necessary for Vaisheshika philosophers to discuss it. When I am talking about Advaita, it is not necessary for me to discuss Buddhism too. Sure, if I want I can do that.

HDF is a forum of quality scholars. Just because you were criticized by them, does not mean that they are regressive. They are just being progressive, correct and proper. If you do not have correct and proper viewpoints, you will be criticized in hdf and also elsewhere as well, as you have found out to your peril, and other's entertainment.: Peril ! Am I being threatened by something? Do you mean that they can hang me? That they are quality scholars is your view. For me they are regressive, book thumping, fundamentalists who have no knowledge of science or do not have the courage to incorporate that in their thinking. I am also being quite entertained by your ignorance. A person who does not understand an iota of Advaita flinging old sayings at me!

The philosophies are meant to create the intellectual background for experiential understanding through meditation and samadhi. Because you don't have a clue on the philosophical methodology as shown by your negation of neti neti in advaita, you are just giving personal interpretations to this based on half-baked knowledge, and creating a nuisance of yourself.: The philosophies are the different conclusions that these people have arrived at. They are not for preparing any background. Any experiential understanding must not go against pratyaksha and science. There is nothing more than deep concentrated thinking. No Gods come to you in Samadhi. This "Nirvikalpa Samadhi" is a greater hogwash. I have explained to you that once you say 'Neti-neti' you are not entitled to say anything more about Brahman. Whatever you claim Brahman to be (in your case consciousness), that is negated by 'Neti-neti' - Brahman is not consciousness. That is why I do not agree to 'Neti-neti'. Brahman has its properties. We know some. It constitutes the whole universe, it is un-involved and it is inherently changing.

They appear biased to you, because they don't agree with your viewpoints which you alone adhere staunchly to. A quack will feel that doctors and medical institutions are similarly biased, and his medical remedies are the best in the world. (even if the last patient died of a seeming overdose): I am not prescribing any medicine to anyone. I have my views and I stand by them.Therefore, I have no need for teachers or institution.
In this context I would like to put a saying of Swami Narayananda from his book ..: As explained above, I do not need to hear from any Swami. Unfortunately, there are too many in Hinduism, each with his own raaga.

This is why you have been criticised for senile delusion in the HDF forum. The delusion is thick and improbable to change.: Well, I say just the same for you, and more. That you undertand anything about Samadhi or Advaita is a lie. I don't remember happened at HDF years ago (You say two years) nor I am bothered in the least about that. It is good to move away from a retrograde forum. They don't suit me. It would be good if even Hinduism moves away from such retrograde scholars because new times will require better explanation. Quotes from scriptures and sages are not going to work This is what has happened with Christianity.

Oh, that is news to me. You had criticism in India Divine forums as well. Lol.: Go and check that too. That is another creationist anti-science forum. I think for you it is another great forum.

Check out the past threads in this forum itself, which I found out myself after researching. Hard to understand why you keep to your deluded views inspite of the efforts of others to show you what truly is advaita !: If you have found anything like that, why don't you give me the link or indicate the topic and post number. I have been asking you for that for quite a long time.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Ajay0. We are not getting anywhere in this topic. You have your views, I have my views. And both of us stick to our respective views. This discussion has become futile. This forum is not HDF or India Divine. Neither of us owns this forum. Here, people are allowed to express their views. For the sake of the forum, let us stop it.
It annoys me when I've had to tell a certain poster things 1,000 times and still the message does not sink in and we end up going through the same debate every time we interact.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Only the fool or charlatans say that samadhi is more than deep concentrate thinking. Whether anybody considers me wise or foolish, this is my view. Meditative thoughtless awareness is just a step towards deeper thinking. All this talk of the heavens opening to reveal the secrets of Brahman in 'Nirvikalpa Smadhi' is hogwash. And I do not stand for hogwash.

Yawn. You keep proving time and again consistenly that you have no knowledge of Vedanta and validating the criticism you are getting from all quarters.....



When we have tendencies that we are trying to give up, that is to say when we are still imperfect and have to make conscious efforts to keep the mind one-pointed or free from thought, the thoughtless state which we thus attain is nirvikalpa samadhi. When, through practice, we are always in that state, not going into samadhi and coming out again, that is the sahaja state. In the sahaja state one sees only the Self and one sees the world as a form assumed by the Self.

-- Ramana Maharshi


It is the thought of worldly objects that prevents the mind from going into samadhi. One becomes established in samadhi when one is completely rid of worldliness.
― Sri Ramakrishna




Present is the reality. The past is finished, and the future doesn't exist. When the Kundalini rises She elongates those thoughts and establishes in the center where there is complete thoughtless awareness. And spiritually you grow in that thoughtless awareness which in Sanskrit we call as Nirvichaar Samadhi.
― Nirmala Srivastava



The ordinary man's mind is scattered on different objects, and at the time of meditation, too, the mind is at first apt to wander. But let any desire whatever arise in the mind, you must sit calmly and watch what sort of ideas are coming. By continuing to watch in that way, the mind becomes calm, and there are no more thought - waves in it. These waves represent the thought - activity of the mind. Those things that you have previously thought deeply, have transformed themselves into a subconscious current, and therefore these come up in the mind in meditation. The rise of these waves, or thoughts,during meditation is an evidence that your mind is tending towards concentration. Sometimes the mind is concentrated on a set of ideas -- this is called meditation with Vikalpa or oscillation. But when the mind becomes almost free from all activities, it melts in the inner Self, which is the essence of infinite Knowledge, One, and Itself Its own support. This is what is called Nirvikalpa Samadhi, free from all activities.
- Swami Vivekananda




I understand that. It may have, but it does not make it necessary for Vaisheshika philosophers to discuss it. When I am talking about Advaita, it is not necessary for me to discuss Buddhism too. Sure, if I want I can do that.

This was intended for earlier premise that the vaisheshika philosophy has interpolations. That it has no reference to buddhism shows that the original text is largely uncorrupted.



Peril ! Am I being threatened by something? Do you mean that they can hang me? That they are quality scholars is your view. For me they are regressive, book thumping, fundamentalists who have no knowledge of science or do not have the courage to incorporate that in their thinking. I am also being quite entertained by your ignorance. A person who does not understand an iota of Advaita flinging old sayings at me!


Well, they and I did not realise that you are a great man who is a greater advaitan than shankara, ramana, nisargadatta and Ramakrishna combined. Even greater than Krishna.

Our deepest apologies.


The philosophies are the different conclusions that these people have arrived at. They are not for preparing any background. Any experiential understanding must not go against pratyaksha and science. There is nothing more than deep concentrated thinking. No Gods come to you in Samadhi. This "Nirvikalpa Samadhi" is a greater hogwash. I have explained to you that once you say 'Neti-neti' you are not entitled to say anything more about Brahman. Whatever you claim Brahman to be (in your case consciousness), that is negated by 'Neti-neti' - Brahman is not consciousness. That is why I do not agree to 'Neti-neti'. Brahman has its properties. We know some. It constitutes the whole universe, it is un-involved and it is inherently changing.

More delusionary comments.

I am not prescribing any medicine to anyone. I have my views and I stand by them.Therefore, I have no need for teachers or institution.

If a quack does not adhere to standard medicine but goes by his own medical views with respect to his diseases, that is tragic but understandable. But when he starts putting those views to others, then it is obviously incorrect and improper.



In this context I would like to put a saying of Swami Narayananda from his book ..: As explained above, I do not need to hear from any Swami. Unfortunately, there are too many in Hinduism, each with his own raaga.

But they are all consistent and centred on the same teachings of neti-neti, meditation and samadhi which you have no idea what is!


Well, I say just the same for you, and more. That you undertand anything about Samadhi or Advaita is a lie. I don't remember happened at HDF years ago (You say two years) nor I am bothered in the least about that. It is good to move away from a retrograde forum. They don't suit me. It would be good if even Hinduism moves away from such retrograde scholars because new times will require better explanation. Quotes from scriptures and sages are not going to work This is what has happened with Christianity.


Vast majority of Hindus are like that. If you can't adapt to it, not our headache.


Go and check that too. That is another creationist anti-science forum. I think for you it is another great forum.

It is a hinduism forum with quality scholars. If your views diverge from Hinduism, obviously you can get in trouble over there as well. Don't blame India Divine or HDF forums, blame yourself for being rigid and not flexible enough to consider advaita from the perspective of the sages and scriptures.

If you have found anything like that, why don't you give me the link or indicate the topic and post number. I have been asking you for that for quite a long time.


Here is a recent post itself.


Here is a thread in the dharmic forums I found....


More to come in the future.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Ajay0. We are not getting anywhere in this topic. You have your views, I have my views. And both of us stick to our respective views. This discussion has become futile. This forum is not HDF or India Divine. Neither of us owns this forum. Here, people are allowed to express their views. For the sake of the forum, let us stop it.

If pseudo-scientific views are put forward in the science forum, you will get flak for it. Similarly if theistic views are put in the atheistic or materialism forum , you will get flak for it .

Just like that, if pseudo-advaitan views are put in the vedanta forum, you will get flak for it as well.

If you can't take it, don't dish pseudo-advaitan views contrary to the teachings of scriptures and sages. It's as simple as that.
 
Top