Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

[ajay0]

If citing the Buddha's Kalama Sutta for himself opportunistically and to justify his actions, a quack doctor decides to prescribe his own medicines , he will only be doing harm to himself and to others even if he may delusionally think that his medicine is effective and better than standard ones.

I know two acquaintances of mine, who had their health irreparably damaged after ignorantly attending quack doctors, and which harmed their career prospects and personal life.

The culture of fraud is a major problem in India due to lack of proper quality control and ignorance, and this is why many gullible people end up being duped by fraud doctors and fraud spiritual teachers eager for ego-gratification .

Also the Buddha stated thus, "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."

Regarding the 'advaita' you talk about, this has been subjected to criticism by many over here and hence cannot be certified as 'not blamable'.

Similarly, I have not seen yet till now any wise person praising your interpretation of advaita. It fails that
certification criteria as well.


I also don't see how your interpretation of advaita, undertaken and observed, leads to benefit and happiness. There is no room for meditation in all this as it does in true advaita. Many research papers and articles in fact are in existence which shows the efficacy of meditation in creating a healthy individual and psychologically healthy human being. Kiran Bedi's meditation programmes for prisoners in jail convicted of crime, has been a big hit and replicated all over the world as well. It has been shown to be effective in dramatic reformation of the characters of many prisoners.


Vipassana Meditation Courses In Prisons

Vipassana Meditation Courses For Correction Facilities

Britain's most dangerous prisoners to get meditation lessons

Meditation linked to lower stress among prison inmates

You can see for yourself clearly that your interpretation of advaita does not meet Buddha's standards as well, and hence cannot be certified by anyone as not blamable, praised by the wise, and leading to benefit and happiness.

Hence the reason why I feel this is all a delusional stunt , which is quite evident upon critical examination as Kabir and Buddha taught us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also the Buddha stated thus, "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."

Regarding the 'advaita' you talk about, this has been subjected to criticism by many over here and hence cannot be certified as 'not blamable'.

I have found my belief in 'advaita' to be absolutely beautiful, neither rejecting the Hindu meaning of 'advita' (non-duality) nor rejecting the current observations of science. If others are not satisfied with it, how does that affect me?

 

[ajay0]

I have found my belief in 'advaita' to be absolutely beautiful, neither rejecting the Hindu meaning of 'advita' (non-duality) nor rejecting the current observations of science. If others are not satisfied with it, how does that affect me?

Your personal 'belief' in advaita is just a subjective perception.

It does not conform to the standard definition and understanding of true advaita, nor does it have any bearing to the links between advaita and science which I have posted earlier. Consciousness, which is the focal point of advaita and quantum physics, is totally rejected in your subjective interpretation of advaita.

A quack doctor can also have great belief and delusional subjective perception with respect to his medicine able to heal cancer, aids and all kinds of diseases, proclaim that it is highly scientific and better than standard ones issued by certified doctors in the market.This enables him to gratify his ego, and make followers of gullible people as well, at the cost of their health.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All interpretations are subjective. That is what is meant by the word 'interpretation'. They will differ from one person to another. I never said that my interpretation is 'standard'. I do not know what exactly is 'standard' advaita? Vishishtadvaita, 'Bhedabheda', 'Shuddhadvaita', 'Acintya Bhedabheda' or Gaudapada/Sankara? I only know that one who accepts Brahman as the sole entity in the universe is an 'advaitist'. There is no other requirement.

 

[ajay0]

All interpretations are subjective.

If everyone had their own subjective interpretations of advaita or the scientific method and stubbornly stood by it, you will have 8 billion interpretations of advaita and scientific method on earth which may vary with each other, with no progress of significance.

I do not know what exactly is 'standard' advaita?

Standard advaita is what has been stated by the rishis who compiled the Upanishads, Gaudapada, Adi Shankaracharya,Kabir, Guru Raidas in the medieval era and modern enlightened masters like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta maharaj, H.w.Poonja, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, Atmananda Menon, Annamalai Swami,Sree Narayana Guru,Dada Gavand, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Krishnananda,Anandmurti Gurumaa,Jaya Row,Robert Adams, Jac'O'Keffee, Sailor Bob Adamson, Gilbert Schultz, John Wheeler, Burt Harding, Eckhart Tolle,Jean Klein, Francis Lucille,, Metta Zetty, Jeff Foster, Jed Mckenna, Douglas Harding,Charlie Hayes, Adyashanti, Mooji, Douglas Harding, Jan Frazier, Ilie Cioara, Franklin Merrell Wolff and so on

The four mathas established by Shankaracharya in the four corners of India in the nineth century,and which exists to this day, also institutes the standard advaita that was taught by the Rishis and Shankaracharya.

I only know that one who accepts Brahman as the sole entity in the universe is an 'advaitist'. There is no other requirement.

But Brahman as per the true advaita, implies consciousness, which you constantly reject, and which as per your subjective interpretation is physical energy.

Suppose a certified doctor prescribes a certain medicine for a person, and a quack doctor, studying this prescription, starts prescribing the same medicine to gullible patients for similar symptoms of disease , also completely created by himself rather than the standard pharmacist through his own subjective interpretation of medicine. In such a scenario obviously it is the poor patient's health that will go for a toss.


There are many issues of such sorts of a fraudulent nature happening in India and the world, and hence the need to pour more light on these subjects, in order to dispel gullibility brought about by ignorance, and potential victims .

 

[Aupmanyav]

The four mathas established by Shankaracharya in the four corners of India in the nineth century, and which exists to this day, also institutes the standard advaita that was taught by the Rishis and Shankaracharya.

But Brahman as per the true advaita, implies consciousness, which you constantly reject, and which as per your subjective interpretation is physical energy.

Good. I get it now. Only Sankara's Advaita is the standard advaita. Vishishtadvaita, Bhedabheda, Shuddhadvaita and Acintya Bedabheda advaita are spurious, non stndard. I think Sankara's advaita differs from Gaudapada's advaita. So the latter also is non-standard. If there are so many non-standard advaitas, IMHO, one more will not make much difference.

"Shankara maintained the need for objectivity in the process of gaining knowledge (vastutantra), and considered subjective opinions (purushatantra) and injunctions in Śruti (codanatantra) as secondary." (Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia) Sankara is my guru. However, he did not give any reason for terming Brahman as 'pure consciousness', or did he? Do you know of any such region?

 

[ajay0]

Good. I get it now. Only Sankara's Advaita is the standard advaita. Vishishtadvaita, Bhedabheda, Shuddhadvaita and Acintya Bedabheda advaita are spurious, non stndard. I think Sankara's advaita differs from Gaudapada's advaita. So the latter also is non-standard. If there are so many non-standard advaitas, IMHO, one more will not make much difference.

Shankara's Advaita is obviously the standard Advaita vedanta, while Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita is obviously the standard Vishistadvaita vedanta , and Madhava's Dvaita is the standard Dvaita vedanta. The same goes for the rest.

These are not versions of Advaita Vedanta but that of Vedanta. This is a very amateurish error.

"Shankara maintained the need for objectivity in the process of gaining knowledge (vastutantra), and considered subjective opinions (purushatantra) and injunctions in Śruti (codanatantra) as secondary." (Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia)

This is a viewpoint of Rambachan. Here again you can see that he considered subjective opinions/perceptions as secondary, and that the affirmations of the srutis themselves need to be confirmed by direct experience (anubhava) of samadhi. This shows that intellectual knowledge needs to be complemented by direct experiential knowledge of Brahman through meditation and samadhi .

It is experiential knowledge by meditation that confirms the intellectual knowledge studied and analysed through neti-neti.

Sankara is my guru. However, he did not give any reason for terming Brahman as 'pure consciousness', or did he? Do you know of any such region?

Brahman as pure consciousness is perceived in nirvikalpa samadhi. This is a direct experience of truth and any mental definitions will restrict this experience. Reasoning has a vital role to play in the methodology of neti-neti whereby one gets to the conclusion that non-conceptual awareness is the basis of reality. This lays the foundation through meditation for direct perception through Samadhi.

Direct perception of the sun and moon will reveal that there is a sun and moon. Direct perception of saturn and neptune using a telescope will reveal that these exists. Similarly direct perception of Brahman in samadhi through neti-neti and meditation will reveal that Brahman is pure consciousness.


Some sayings of Shankara in this regard...


I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual


Always Pure Consciousness I am one without a second, all and all-pervading like the ether before the
creation of air and other elements.

All beings are by nature pure Consciousness. Itself. It is due to Ignorance that they apppear to be
different from It. Their (apparent) difference from It is removed by the teaching 'Thou art Existence '.

Ever free and different from names, forms and actions I am the supreme Brahman, the Self, consisting
of pure Consciousness and always without a second.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shankara's Advaita is obviously the standard Advaita vedanta, while Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita is obviously the standard Vishistadvaita vedanta, and Madhava's Dvaita is the standard Dvaita vedanta.

This shows that intellectual knowledge needs to be complemented by direct experiential knowledge of Brahman through meditation and samadhi. It is experiential knowledge by meditation that confirms the intellectual knowledge studied and analysed through neti-neti.

Brahman as pure consciousness is perceived in nirvikalpa samadhi. This is a direct experience of truth and any mental definitions will restrict this experience. Reasoning has a vital role to play in the methodology of neti-neti whereby one gets to the conclusion that non-conceptual awareness is the basis of reality. This lays the foundation through meditation for direct perception through Samadhi.

What's in a name? Coin another name, not that I am enamored of them - Vijnānādvaita Vedānta. "Vācharambhanam Vikāro Nāmdheyam". What difference does it make?

I equate meditation and samādhi with deep contemplation. "Neti-neti" does not always need to remain "Neti-neti". When that happens, it is "jnāna". Brahman is perceived when one is established in "advaita" (tasya prajnā pratishthitā). Till one considers Brahman to be something other than self, one has further to go.

My revered Guru, Sankara, did not know about the researches of Einstein, Heisenberg and Planck. Did not know about Relativity, Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics. I don't blame him. Knowledge increases as time goes by. Our future generations will know more than what we know today. So quoting old passages does not help much and is not beneficial (like if you will quote Aristotle and Newton today).

 

[ajay0]

What's in a name? Coin another name, not that I am enamored of them - Vijnānādvaita Vedānta. "Vācharambhanam Vikāro Nāmdheyam". What difference does it make?

Coin another name for what! The vedantic streams were established by adept and well-established scholars through a rigorous philosophical exegesis.

Any Tom, Dick and Harry with superficial credentials and fragile theories with numerous holes, cannot come up and state one fine day, that they are creating a new stream of vedanta, to an audience ignorant about vedanta.

I equate meditation and samādhi with deep contemplation.

This is your subjective opinion. A quack doctor can state persuasively to a prospective gullible client suffering from heart disease, that he equates cardiology with foot massage, and regular foot massage will easily solve his heart problem.

"Neti-neti" does not always need to remain "Neti-neti". When that happens, it is "jnāna".

Without understanding the philosophical methodology of 'Neti-neti' , it would be unwise to pass comments on it. Nowadays, many talk about advaita and neti-neti without any scholarly aptitude and memorised sanskrit verses, in parties and conversations in order to convey an air of fake substance before a gullible and ignorant audience, so as to appear impressive and create followers for ego-gratification and other needs.This is tantamount to dishonesty and breach of trust, imho.

Neti-neti, as a method of inquiry, brings about through reasoning the philosophical conclusion that non-conceptual awareness is the only constant thing in a world that is marked by impermanence. This provides the foundation for meditation and samadhi. The exercise of Neti-Neti, through negation of all that which is impermanent and transitory leads eventually to that which is true and concrete.

My revered Guru, Sankara, did not know about the researches of Einstein, Heisenberg and Planck. Did not know about Relativity, Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics. I don't blame him. Knowledge increases as time goes by. Our future generations will know more than what we know today. So quoting old passages does not help much and is not beneficial (like if you will quote Aristotle and Newton today).

Shankara's Advaitan philosophy is a potent and effective philosophy on its own right, and the scientific method is a potent philosophy as well in its own right.

Mixing both together, will only increase confusion instead of clarity, and we will have neither advaita nor science. It is similar to using a sledgehammer in a heart operation or a surgeon's scalpel for digging a well.

Identifying the right place for advaita and science in their proper spheres can help one to lead a balanced life of quality, instead of a mass of confusion and error.

 

[Shantanu]

Any Tom, Dick and Harry with superficial credentials and fragile theories with numerous holes, cannot come up and state one fine day, that they are creating a new stream of vedanta, to an audience ignorant about vedanta.

The reality is more important than theories of vedanta. To know reality it requires a combination of scholarship and the capacity and amenability to adopting the revealed religion, if one is revealed that is. If it is not revealed than one is stuck with Consciousness or some other form of advaita as far as one's knowledge limit is concerned. If the religion is revealed one has attained the highest reality, namely Bhaktivedanta.

 

[ajay0]

The reality is more important than theories of vedanta.

Advaita Vedanta is not just theory in the form of neti-neti and jnana yoga, but experiential understanding in the form of meditation as well.

Just as chemistry has both theory and practicals, same is the case for advaita. Lack of such experiential understanding through meditation and samadhi, is the reason for a lot of vague and never-ending superficial talk on this subject. For some this eventually results in delusion powered by excess of imaginative speculation.

I too used to similarly pester a teacher of mine in this regard , and it was the experience of samadhi that helped to put in clarity, order and perspective the prior intellectual understanding I had acquired.

To know reality it requires a combination of scholarship and the capacity and amenability to adopting the revealed religion, if one is revealed that is. If it is not revealed than one is stuck with Consciousness or some other form of advaita as far as one's knowledge limit is concerned. If the religion is revealed one has attained the highest reality, namely Bhaktivedanta.

Well, I am glad that you have been revealed the true religion, as you put it in your own words, and have attained the highest reality, namely bhaktivedanta. Bravo !

But, as stated earlier, you have been talking about how the British government has deemed you mentally unfit to perform your duties without error, and had been registering your anger in this regard quite emotively. If I may ask,why did bhaktivedanta fail to ensure your mental fitness or clarity of mind then.

And still so in terms of mental equanimity as well, subsequently, as you still harbor a lot of anger against those who you feel had judged you incorrectly, and refuse to leave the subject.

 

[Shantanu]

Advaita Vedanta is not just theory in the form of neti-neti and jnana yoga, but experiential understanding in the form of meditation as well.

Just as chemistry has both theory and practicals, same is the case for advaita. Lack of such experiential understanding through meditation and samadhi, is the reason for a lot of vague and never-ending superficial talk on this subject.

I too used to similarly pester a teacher of mine in this regard , and it was the experience of samadhi that helped to put in clarity, order and perspective the prior intellectual understanding I had acquired.



Well, I am glad that you have been revealed the true religion, as you put it in your own words, and have attained the highest reality, namely bhaktivedanta. Bravo !

But, as stated earlier, you have been talking about how the British government has deemed you mentally unfit to perform your duties without error, and had registering your anger in this regard quite emotively. If I may ask,why did bhaktivedanta fail to ensure your mental fitness or clarity of mind.

And still so in terms of mental equanimity as well, subsequently, as you still harbor a lot of anger against those who you feel had judged you incorrectly, and refuse to leave the subject.

Advaita describes the varying procedures that may be adopted in the quest to attain reality, which is the purpose of vedanta, the goal: Am I right or wrong?

 

[ajay0]

Advaita describes the varying procedures that may be adopted in the quest to attain reality, which is the purpose of vedanta, the goal: Am I right or wrong?

How do you interpret reality !

 

[Shantanu]

How do you interpret reality !

Reality is subjective: it is the knowledge that you live by come what may.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and fragile theories with numerous holes, cannot come up and state one fine day, that they are creating a new stream of vedanta, to an audience ignorant about vedanta.

Neti-neti, as a method of inquiry, brings about through reasoning the philosophical conclusion that non-conceptual awareness is the only constant thing in a world that is marked by impermanence.The exercise of Neti-Neti, through negation of all that which is impermanent and transitory leads eventually to that which is true and concrete.

Mixing both together, will only increase confusion instead of clarity, and we will have neither advaita nor science. Identifying the right place for advaita and science in their proper spheres can help one to lead a balanced life of quality, ..

Holes? What holes? Tell me about one. I have no audience. You and me are discussing our views.

The problem is that I do not have any reason to believe in your 'non-coneptual awareness'. If you have one, kindly tell me that. Right, I have negated everything except Brahman. That is why I am an atheist. And as I have mentioned earlier, Brahman has no need for awareness. What will it do with awareness? It does not do or desire anything. Brahman just exists.

There is no confusion. Everything is absolutely crystal clear. There is no division between philosophy and science.
"Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." - Philosophy - Wikipedia

 

[Shantanu]

Holes? What holes? Tell me about one. I have no audience. You and me are discussing our views.

The problem is that I do not have any reason to believe in your 'non-coneptual awareness'. If you have one, kindly tell me that. Right, I have negated everything except Brahman. That is why I am an atheist. And as I have mentioned earlier, Brahman has no need for awareness. What will it do with awareness? It does not do or desire anything. Brahman just exists.

There is no confusion. Everything is absolutely crystal clear. There is no division between philosophy and science.
"Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." - Philosophy - Wikipedia

If someone could find a hole in my conception ( The Nature of Reality ) I would recommend him for the Nobel Prize: what cannot be answered is for God to reveal in due course if this is for the betterment of mankind.

 

[ajay0]

Holes? What holes? Tell me about one. I have no audience. You and me are discussing our views.

I have listed all the holes in the preceding posts.

The problem is that I do not have any reason to believe in your 'non-coneptual awareness'.

It is not my 'non-conceptual awareness' but that taught by Advaita itself. You have unwittingly revealed a glaring hole here itself.

This is similar to a fraud electrician touching a naked electric wire stating he does not believe in electric shocks to his colleagues.

Right, I have negated everything except Brahman. That is why I am an atheist. And as I have mentioned earlier, Brahman has no need for awareness. What will it do with awareness? It does not do or desire anything. Brahman just exists.

Brahman is pure consciousness as taught by the upanishads and modern enlightened masters. It is a well-established axiom.

I find your negation of it synonymous with a quack doctor saying to a gullible village simpleton, that cancer can be removed by taking a lot of rain water mixed with pottasium permanganate three times a day. It is as absurd as that.

There is no confusion. Everything is absolutely crystal clear. There is no division between philosophy and science.
"Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." - Philosophy - Wikipedia

That is as absurd as saying that there is no difference between relativism, nihilism, existentialism, deontology and science as these philosophies can be proven with exactitude in the laboratory in chemical experiments.

Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: 'what shall we do and how shall we live . - Leo Tolstoy

Hence the reason why I stated that science and Advaita ought to be put in their proper spheres for a balanced life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have listed all the holes in the preceding posts.

It is not my 'non-conceptual awareness' but that taught by Advaita itself. You have unwittingly revealed a glaring hole here itself.

Brahman is pure consciousness as taught by the upanishads and modern enlightened masters. It is a well-established axiom.

That is as absurd as saying that there is no difference between relativism, nihilism, existentialism, deontology and science as these philosophies can be proven with exactitude in the laboratory in chemical experiments.

Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: 'what shall we do and how shall we live . - Leo Tolstoy

Hence the reason why I stated that science and Advaita ought to be put in their proper spheres for a balanced life.

Don't be vague in your answers. I said mention the 'hole' clearly and I will give my reply on it. I am in the 'discuss' mood. And do not give absurd similes. That is entanglement in words - 'Shabda-jala', moving away from what is being discussed.

Yes, people may believe in 'non-conceptual awareness' - to just see and not think any further about that. Keep seeing for ages, but nothing comes out of it. It is absolutely useless. Because the moment something comes out of it, it is no longer 'non-conceptual awareness'. You have introduced concepts into it. Advaita is analysis, it is not 'non-conceptual awareness'.

What is this 'pure consciousness'? What is its medium? Where does it reside? What does it do? What does it desire? And why?
Buddha said do not believe in 'axioms' - nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu)', nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher' (samaṇo no garū). That takes care of Upanishads as well as axioms and modern enlightened masters. No one has certified their enlightenment. Different Upanishads say different things. You choose what you like the most.

If a philosophy cannot be proven with science, does it mean that it should go unquestioned and allowed to run riot?
Again quoting Tolstoy. Yes, science can answer what should one do and how should one live - first fix the parameters. It is too much reading that has befuddled you.

As I have already said I find no imbalance in my life, 'no, not in the least' (nānāsti kinchana).

 

[ajay0]

Don't be vague in your answers. I said mention the 'hole' clearly and I will give my reply on it. I am in the 'discuss' mood. And do not give absurd similes. That is entanglement in words - 'Shabda-jala', moving away from what is being discussed.

The holes are clearly your own misinterpretation of advaita. It is clearly evident to all in the preceding posts. And you gave a 'hole' on your own as well.

Brahman being physical energy instead of pure consciousness as the wise sages put it, disregard for the philosophical methodology of neti-neti due to ignorance of it. All these are glaring holes.

Yes, people may believe in 'non-conceptual awareness' - to just see and not think any further about that. Keep seeing for ages, but nothing comes out of it. It is absolutely useless. Because the moment something comes out of it, it is no longer 'non-conceptual awareness'. You have introduced concepts into it. Advaita is analysis, it is not 'non-conceptual awareness'.

All these highlights your own delusional ignorance of this subject due to deficiencies in knowledge of Advaita and too much of vague and superficial speculation.

It is similar to a quack doctor trying to destroy faith of the patient in standard and approved medicines with showmanship and persuasive speech,and to try out his own quack medicine, to the patients peril.

Through Neti-neti properly applied one comes to the conclusion that the non-conceptual awareness or 'I am' is the fundamental reality that is constant in all experiences, and all else is prone to change and impermanent.

Meditation results in experiential understanding of this intellectual fact, especially the experience of Samadhi.

What is this 'pure consciousness'? What is its medium? Where does it reside? What does it do? What does it desire? And why?

That is something which the true advaitan knows, not the pseudo-advaitan.

This is similar to a quack doctor stating that he does not believe in bacteria and viruses, these are just illusions, and if they do exist, similarly asks as you stated ," What is its medium? Where does it reside? What does it do? What does it desire? And why?". In this way the quack doctor similarly pushes the case of his own quack medicine.

Buddha said do not believe in 'axioms' - nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu)', nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher' (samaṇo no garū). That takes care of Upanishads as well as axioms and modern enlightened masters. No one has certified their enlightenment. Different Upanishads say different things. You choose what you like the most.

I have already stated about Buddha's Kalama sutta in this regard in this post.

If a philosophy cannot be proven with science, does it mean that it should go unquestioned and allowed to run riot?

But in your case, your knowledge of both philosophy and science (quantum physics) is deficient. I have stated the importance of consciousness in quantum physics as the quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger himself put it, but you keep on wilfully ignoring it, as it is hard for your ego to accept the fact that you have been wrong all along.

Anyone can make errors as no human is infallible, but it takes wisdom and humility to accept it gracefully and move forward.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman being physical energy instead of pure consciousness as the wise sages put it, disregard for the philosophical methodology of neti-neti due to ignorance of it. All these are glaring holes.

Through Neti-neti properly applied one comes to the conclusion that the non-conceptual awareness or 'I am' is the fundamental reality that is constant in all experiences, and all else is prone to change and impermanent.

Meditation results in experiential understanding of this intellectual fact, especially the experience of Samadhi.

That is something which the true advaitan knows, not the pseudo-advaitan.

I have stated the importance of consciousness in quantum physics as the quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger himself put it, but you keep on wilfully ignoring it, .. Anyone can make errors as no human is infallible, but it takes wisdom and humility to accept it gracefully and move forward.

Do you know what Brahman is? If not, then why do you say that Brahman is 'pure consciousness'? You do not know. You have only heard or read that. That is not sufficient proof. Science starts the other way round. All things in the universe are composed of atoms, and the atoms are composed of physical energy. That is why Brahman could be energy. That is the closest that one can guess. How would otherwise 'pure consciousness' change into substance?

Similarly, we know one property of Brahman/energy. It always changes. Why it is known as 'not changing' is because it never even for the smallest moment of time - Planck's instant (5.39 × 10 raised to power −44 second) - abandons this property. It creates and dissipates 'virtual particles'. You have some background of science. This should not be new to you. If we know these properties of Brahman, then 'Neti-neti' is no longer true. And, in the time to come we will know more about it. If you apply 'Neti-neti' to Brahman then you cannot even say that it is some 'pure consciousness' (whatever you mean by it).

OK, a pseudo-advatist is asking you the question, kindly enlighten him. Whatever is an intellectual fact is known by experiments, observation, and analysis. The experience of Samadhi cannot be translated into words because it is 'non-conceptual'. It cannot be conceptualized. To conceptualize it will destroy it. You will only be coming up with falsehood. It is only to be experienced.

Again you cite Schrodinger. He was suitably impressed by Hindu mysticism but we are not dealing with mysticism here. I have said it umpteen times that I am not in the least impressed by what others have said unless it what is said stands scrutiny. Show me where I have faltered and I will change my views.