Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

[ajay0]

Brahman consists physical energy and consciousness energy which in turn is made up of guna consciousness (tamas, rajas and sattva) that is powered by Sri Krishna to generate deities like Jesus, Brahma, Shiva, Allah, Saraswati that people relate in their normal lives so it is not impersonal: Brahman therefore is partly nirguna (physical energy) and partly saguna (consciousness energy).

This is stated nowhere in the vedas or scriptures, and is not consonant with reason too.

Every conditioned person would put up their own viewpoint and personal God, negating that of the others.

The taliban states that their version of personal God is true, and the rest all is false.

 

[Shantanu]

This is stated nowhere in the vedas or scriptures, and is not consonant with reason too.

Every conditioned person would put up their own viewpoint and personal God, negating that of the others.

The taliban states that their version of personal God is true, and the rest all is false.

Yes of course it is not stated in the Vedas or scriptures. But I have the benefit of extensive scientific education in the modern era.

Perhaps you can tell me what is Brahman composed of in terms of atoms and molecules that we learn at school and colleges.

 

[ajay0]

Yes of course it is not stated in the Vedas or scriptures. But I have the benefit of extensive scientific education in the modern era.

I have the benefit of scientific education in the modern era as well. You however have been stating here and in your blog that you have been judged mentally unfit to perform your duties as a scientist and flaying the UK government in this regard for wrong assessment, from what I recall.

Perhaps you can tell me what is Brahman composed of in terms of atoms and molecules that we learn at school and colleges.

The focus over here is the vedantic philosophy, not the scientific philosophy. There is no need to mix the two.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The two are not different, however, the subject requires a very balanced analysis. Prejudices are pitfalls.

 

[Shantanu]

You however have been stating here and in your blog that you have been judged mentally unfit to perform your duties as a scientist and flaying the UK government in this regard for wrong assessment, from what I recall.

If people who do not know God tell me that I am mentally ill for following God, what effect should that have on me? Should I make myself popular by doing what they want me to do or should I go my own way knowing what I do know to be the truth? I follow truth come what may. It charts my future. I am unconcerned about what others tell me about my mental state. For I was engrossed in science and published 35 scientific papers when God told me to stop that noddy work and move onto something higher. So I did that. And I have been following God ever since.

Today I am a free man with an adequate income from my pension and a very good family life within which I perform my dharma.

The focus over here is the vedantic philosophy, not the scientific philosophy. There is no need to mix the two.

One must start by knowing as much science as possible with as much up-to-date analysis from the scientific angle. Then one finds that that does not answer all the questions, so one turns to religion to explain the universe.

 

[ajay0]

The two are not different, however, the subject requires a very balanced analysis. Prejudices are pitfalls.

The vedantic philosophy, especially the advaitan, deals with the study of consciousness, which is a subjective phenomenon through discrimination between the real and unreal (neti-neti ) , and application of the conclusion derived (by philosophical analysis) through meditation to attain nondual or advaitan perception.


Science begins with empirical observations and measurements, questioning natural phenomena, creating a hypothesis representing educated guesses to the question posed based on observations and information already known,testing of the hypothesis in controlled experiments, processing and analysing the data acquired to check whether the results supports the hypothesis, course correction if not, and further testing for verification if it does support the hypothesis till a credible scientific theory is evolved , briefly put.

The only similarity between the advaitan and scientific philosophy I can see here is that both employ reasoning based on empirical observations. The advaitan on the nature of consciousness and the impermanence of all external phenomena, while the scientist on the nature of external phenomena and the rules of cause and effect governing it.

The scientist arrives at scientific theories on the nature of external phenomena, while the advaitan through the philosophical exercise of neti-neti comes to the conclusion that nonconceptual awareness is the nature of reality as it is.

Neti neti - Wikipedia

The application of this philosophical conclusion of nonconceptual awareness being the basis of reality through meditative awareness, results in enlightenment.

The ancient rishis were those who had attained enlightenment such and wrote the upanishads based on their teachings in this regard. The testimony of these ancient rishis is upheld by medieval enlightened masters like Gaudapada, Adi Shankaracharya, Guru Raidas, Kabir and modern enlightened masters like Sri Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Annamalai Swami, Sree Narayana Guru, Anandmurti Gurumaa, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Vimala Thakkar, Dada Gavand, Sri Yukteshwar, Robert Adams, Gilbert Schultz, Sailor Bob Adamson, Jean Klein, Francis Lucille, Eckhart Tolle, Metta Zetty, Jeff Foster, Jed Mckenna, Douglas Harding,Charlie Hayes, John Wheeler, Adyashanti, Mooji, Burt Harding, Jan Frazier, Ilie Cioara, Franklin Merrell Wolff and so on.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I find the scientific explanation of consciousness is not in conflict with my advaita.

 

[ajay0]

I find the scientific explanation of consciousness is not in conflict with my advaita.

How does the scientific explanation of consciousness create the advaitan or nondual perception! How does it come to the same conclusion as Neti-neti !

Also what do you mean by 'my advaita '. As i stated before, advaita is a philosophy , just as the scientific method or nihilism or existentialism or relativism or absurdism or objectivism! Why do you state it as if it belongs to you solely!

I have never heard of anyone saying 'my scientific method', 'my nihilism' , 'my existentialism' , 'my relativism' , 'my absurdism' or 'my objectivism'.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

If people who do not know God tell me that I am mentally ill for following God, what effect should that have on me?

No disrespect meant, but you do realize that there is no shortage of lunatics and delusional people who believe they are seeing/conversing with gods, aliens, spirits, Satan, etc? Obviously, they may benefit from some medical treatment. And obviously, when you meet people who make such claims, the most likely conclusion will be that the person is flaky or a con-artist.

Again, no disrespect. If you replace the word God in your statement with "aliens" or "Santa Claus", you yourself would dismiss it as lunacy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How does the scientific explanation of consciousness create the advaitan or nondual perception! How does it come to the same conclusion as Neti-neti ! Also what do you mean by 'my advaita'?

'my advaita' (note the humble small 'm', it is not capital 'M") because I have not read anyone giving the same twist to 'advaita' as I do.
No God, no atma, no universal consciousness; consciousness being just a product of brain function, ceasing to exist after death; the chemical recycling of the material of the body, no difference between existence and non-existence, just phases, etc. All this and everything in the universe arising from energy just by expanasion.

"Belgian priest and scientist called George Lemaitre put forward another idea. In 1927, he proposed that the Universe began as a large, pregnant and primeval atom, exploding and sending out the smaller atoms that we see today.

Around 13.8 billion years ago, all the matter in the Universe emerged from a single, minute point, or singularity, in a violent burst. This expanded at an astonishingly high rate and temperature, doubling in size every 10-34 seconds, creating space as it rapidly inflated. Within a tiny fraction of a second gravity and all the other forces were formed. Energy changed into particles of matter and antimatter, which largely destroyed each other. But luckily for us some matter survived."
Big Bang: How the Universe was created

".. big-bang theory, which says that 14 billion years ago the entire observable universe was “roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom”
What came before the big bang?
Creation of the universe - Google Search

I believe that 'neti, neti' is not true and we will be able to understand the process of creation of the universe better as the time goes by. "Neti, neti' says that we will never be able to understand it. I do not think that is true.

 

[ajay0]

'my advaita' (note the humble small 'm', it is not capital 'M") because I have not read anyone giving the same twist to 'advaita' as I do.

Then what you are saying is not advaita, it is as plain and simple as that.

If anyone gives a different interpretation of the scientific method or relativism which differs from its core meaning, and uses it in discussions, it will only increase confusion and the scope for never-ending vague and erroneous speculation. In scholarly circles, it will be rejected outrightly due to the emphasis on rigorous accuracy and scorn for imprecision.

I believe that 'neti, neti' is not true and we will be able to understand the process of creation of the universe better as the time goes by. "Neti, neti' says that we will never be able to understand it. I do not think that is true.

This is your pov, and which states your rejection of advaita, so be it. But you cannot state your personal point of view to be advaita then.

If anyone rejects the need for empirical observations and measurements in the scientific method ,and goes straight into hypothetis, based on some wild guesses and shoddy research, and presents a preconceived conclusion with some selected data that supports it, it then cannot be termed as the scientific method, no matter how much the person stubbornly states it to be.

Similarly, if anyone states that nihilism stands for the upholding of sacred values,and stands on this position stubbornly, it only reflects his or her aptitude as a scholar.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then what you are saying is not advaita, it is as plain and simple as that.

This is your pov, and which states your rejection of advaita, so be it. But you cannot state your personal point of view to be advaita then.

If anyone rejects the need for empirical observations and measurements in the scientific method, and goes straight into hypothesis, based on some wild guesses and shoddy research, and presents a preconceived conclusion with some selected data that supports it, it then cannot be termed as the scientific method, no matter how much the person stubbornly states it to be.

Similarly, if anyone states that nihilism stands for the upholding of sacred values,and stands on this position stubbornly, it only reflects his or her aptitude as a scholar.

It will be pertinent to consider at this stage as to who has the copy-right on 'advaita'? And it is not 'shoddy research', it is what the top-most scientists are saying today. Not agreeing to that is regression. A different phase is not nihilism, even RigVeda accepts it.

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हृदि प्रतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ll
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent)
The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 10: Hymn 129, Verse 4

No, I have not rejected 'advaita'. "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah", "Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma", "Ayamatma Brahma", "So'ham", "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti", "Aham Brahmasmi", "Tat twam Asi"; I accept all these. Where do I falter?

 

[Shantanu]

No disrespect meant, but you do realize that there is no shortage of lunatics and delusional people who believe they are seeing/conversing with gods, aliens, spirits, Satan, etc? Obviously, they may benefit from some medical treatment. And obviously, when you meet people who make such claims, the most likely conclusion will be that the person is flaky or a con-artist.

Again, no disrespect. If you replace the word God in your statement with "aliens" or "Santa Claus", you yourself would dismiss it as lunacy.

Well, whether I am flaky, a con-artist, lunatic or delusional will come out from my views about life generally. Such is the courage of my conviction that I am open about myself, see here: Shantanu Panigrahi's Blog.

 

[ajay0]

It will be pertinent to consider at this stage as to who has the copy-right on 'advaita'?

This is similar to the one whom I had described earlier who ignores important phases of the scientific method, presents his conclusions based on selective data, stubbornly states that his version of the scientific method is the true one, and that no one has a copyright on the scientific method upon meeting inevitably with criticism.

Kabir, the enlightened advaitan sage, had emphasized the need for critical examination to discern the true from the false. I had put a thread discussing this topic which you had also discussed in a spirit of enquiry.

Imo, Kabir's teaching of critical examination is also an important development tool to bring to personal application to correct any personal errors or mistakes as well which is bound to happen, as no one is infallible, and error can emerge in anyone.

And it is not 'shoddy research', it is what the top-most scientists are saying today. Not agreeing to that is regression.A different phase is not nihilism, even RigVeda accepts it.

The link between advaita and quantum physics started after Werner Heisenburg discussed with Rabindranath Tagore on the nature of Brahman. In his own words, "After these conversations with Tagore some of the ideas that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense. That was a great help for me. "

Erwin Schrodinger's wave equation was found to have a parallel in Advaita Vedanta to the vrittis or mental waves in the mind.

Vedanta teaches us that the mind is made of waves or ‘vrittis’ and these ‘mind waves’ become the objects which we see around us in this physical universe through the basis of consciousness.

In the presence of Atma or consciousness, the observed waveform in the mind collapses to project the world out there as a 'particle'.

This is similar to quantum physics where before interaction with an observing system, the observed system was a wave and the moment after interacting with the observing system, the observed wave function collapsed to become a particle.

Hence you can see here that the connecting link between Advaita and quantum physics, is actually consciousness itself, which you had been ironically negating for long, in an apparently counterproductive exercise which you were not aware of.

Some sayings of Erwin Schrodinger which establishes the primacy of consciousness in this regard...


'Vedanta teaches that consciousness is singular, all happenings are played out in one universal consciousness and there is no multiplicity of selves.'

'There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind.'


Here you can see here that it is consciousness that is the focal point of these quantum physicists in their interest in vedanta.

No, I have not rejected 'advaita'. "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah", "Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma","Ayamatma Brahma", "So'ham", "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti", "Aham Brahmasmi", "Tat twam Asi"; I accept all these. Where do I falter?

You have rejected Neti-neti, which is important to come to the philosophical conclusion in Advaita Vedanta that non-conceptual awareness is the basis of reality, and from which meditation starts.

You have rejected also 'Prajnanam Brahman' - Brahman is pure consciousness.'


In the scientific method, if one rejects the need for empirical observations, measurements and controlled experiments, it would cease to be the scientific method, no matter how much anyone may stubbornly and persistently argue about it stating that he is right.

Same in the case of advaita too.

Considering all this, I hope you would critically reexamine your beliefs and graciously modify it so as to make it proper and precise, as the wise Kabir taught us all to do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vedanta teaches us that the mind is made of waves or ‘vrittis’ and these ‘mind waves’ become the objects which we see around us in this physical universe through the basis of consciousness.
In the presence of Atma or consciousness, the observed waveform in the mind collapses to project the world out there as a 'particle'.

You have rejected Neti-neti, which is important to come to the philosophical conclusion in Advaita Vedanta that non-conceptual awareness is the basis of reality, and from which meditation starts.
You have rejected also 'Prajnanam Brahman' - Brahman is pure consciousness.'

Yeah, I reject "Prajnanam Brahma". I would put that in pseudo-science. Yeah, I reject 'neti-neti'. After all Brahman is some entity. We know some of its properties, we will know more in the time to come.

You see, respect is one thing and agreeing is another. I respect all the deities and sages. What they say may not be important for me but it is important for theists. It brings them peace and propels them towards righteousness. Why should I grudge that? For myself, I do not need a God, I cannot agree to the existence of God, since I am an 'advaitist'. If I do this, I would be denying 'advaita' and accepting 'dvaita'. As for ethics and morality, 'dharma', they are social rules and exist independent of the existence of deities.

 

[ajay0]

Yeah, I reject "Prajnanam Brahma". I would put that in pseudo-science. Yeah, I reject 'neti-neti'. After all Brahman is some entity. We know some of its properties, we will know more in the time to come.

If you reject prajnanam Brahman and neti-neti,it is obviously not advaita as I stated earlier but pseudo-advaita. Any one who similarly uses the scientific method selectively with distortions, cannot be called a scientist either.

Obviously you have a delusional understanding of Advaita and Brahman, which is understandable because it is a complex philosophy which needs a subtle intellect to philosophically comprehend correctly along with meditative awareness .

And one needs a certain amount of physical and intellectual health as well in this regard. Once a man approached Swami Vivekananda to discuss about philosophical matters. Even though Vivekananda explained it properly a number of times, the man was still not able to comprehend it. Eventually Vivekananda advised him to eat good nutritious food consistently so as to strengthen his body and mind, as he felt a sound mind is needed for grasping these concepts without error. It is a fact that a sound mind dwells in a sound body.

In a similar manner , an old man once met Swami Vivekananda in Rajasthan in the company of his friends and discussed philosophical concepts with him. He argued with Vivekananda similarly , not able to properly comprehend him . After some time of fruitless teaching, Vivekananda kept silent and did not respond to the old man's queries. This enraged the old man and he left the place shouting and cursing to the surprise of Vivekananda's friends. When they asked Vivekananda why he kept silent, he burst into laughter saying that he was ready to go to any length to teach his young friends, but understood the futility of saying this all to the old who are rigidly set in their ways and mindset.

Imho, philosophy, like chess and mathematics, is a young man's game , and the mental deterioration that comes with age makes it harder to grasp such concepts properly.

Shankaracharya himself conceived and developed the advaitan philosophical system in his twenties.

In Napoleon's outstanding successes in the Italian front in spite of his inexperience, relatively meager and impoverished resources, the fact that the enemy generals who opposed him were senile and incapable of efficient reconnaissance and study, is considered as a reason for their failure by historians.

There is a mandatory retirement age in all government institutions, considering the fact that with advancing age the probability of erroneous thought and action increases, leading to defects in the work performed.

 

[Shantanu]

If you reject prajnanam Brahman and neti-neti,it is obviously not advaita as I stated earlier but pseudo-advaita. Any one who similarly uses the scientific method selectively with distortions, cannot be called a scientist either.

Obviously you have a delusional understanding of Advaita and Brahman, which is understandable because it is a complex philosophy which needs a subtle intellect to philosophically comprehend correctly along with meditative awareness .

And one needs a certain amount of physical and intellectual health as well in this regard. Once a man approached Swami Vivekananda to discuss about philosophical matters. Even though Vivekananda explained it properly a number of times, the man was still not able to comprehend it. Eventually Vivekananda advised him to eat good nutritious food consistently so as to strengthen his body and mind, as he felt a sound mind is needed for grasping these concepts without error. It is a fact that a sound mind dwells in a sound body.

In a similar manner , an old man once met Swami Vivekananda in Rajasthan in the company of his friends and discussed philosophical concepts with him. He argued with Vivekananda similarly , not able to properly comprehend him . After some time of fruitless teaching, Vivekananda kept silent and did not respond to the old man's queries. This enraged the old man and he left the place shouting and cursing to the surprise of Vivekananda's friends. When they asked Vivekananda why he kept silent, he burst into laughter saying that he was ready to go to any length to teach his young friends, but understood the futility of saying this all to the old who are rigidly set in their ways and mindset.

Imho, philosophy, like chess and mathematics, is a young man's game , and the mental deterioration that comes with age makes it harder to grasp such concepts properly.

Shankaracharya himself conceived and developed the advaitan philosophical system in his twenties.

In Napoleon's outstanding successes in the Italian front in spite of his inexperience, relatively meager and impoverished resources, the fact that the enemy generals who opposed him were senile and incapable of efficient reconnaissance and study, is considered as a reason for their failure by historians.

There is a mandatory retirement age in all government institutions, considering the fact that with advancing age the probability of erroneous thought and action increases, leading to defects in the work performed.

What use is this philosophy if it does not fill the belly?

 

[ajay0]

What use is this philosophy if it does not fill the belly?

If philosophies are for filling the belly, you perhaps might have a wrong understanding of what philosophy is all about.

Philosophy is the search for truth and wisdom. Not food.

For disciplines pertaining to material production, you can study economics or agricultural science.

 

[Shantanu]

If philosophies are for filling the belly, you perhaps might have a wrong understanding of what philosophy is all about.

Philosophy is the search for truth and wisdom. Not food.

For disciplines pertaining to material production, you can study economics or agricultural science.

If you are not alive there is no philosophy, right?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You start and end by citing names. I have told you, I go by what seems correct to me and not always by what is mentioned in the shastras and by sages. Buddha spoiled me :

• Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
• nor upon tradition (paramparā),
• nor upon rumor (itikirā),
• nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
• nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
• nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
• nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
• nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
• nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
• nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
• Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, enter on and abide in them."

Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia