Bhedabheda vs. Advaita

[ajay0]

Do you know what Brahman is? If not, then why do you say that Brahman is 'pure consciousness'?

It is my experience in meditation, Samadhi and experiential understanding.

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).

This is what I meant by lack of knowledge of advaita as it is, and too much of vague and superficial speculation. This is also why there is a mandatory retirement age for people all over the world in all government and corporate institutions.

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.

Exactly, this is why meditation and samadhi has been emphasized for this understanding of non-conceptual awareness, which you have no understanding of. You are just echoing the words of past advaitan masters, and then giving your own interpretation born of vague speculation instead of exact knowledge .

Again you cite Schrodinger. He was suitably impressed by Hindu mysticism but we are not dealing with mysticism here.

Erwin Schrodinger is a famous scientist in quantum physics. Obviously he is in a better position to judge the link between quantum physics and advaita than you are, with your superficial credentials.

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.

Personal Scrutiny of this subject can be had by anyone through practice of neti-neti , meditation and Samadhi. You are incapable of this because you have no idea what advaita, neti-neti,meditation and samadhi is all about, and think your vague speculation will cover up the deficiencies and holes.

The fact that you stated Vishistadvaita, Bhedabheda, Shuddhadvaita and Acintya Bedabheda as versions of Advaita rather than versions of Vedanta, is itself veritable proof of your poor knowledge in this subject.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I have said is the exact and the best knowledge. That you don't agree to it is OK. But you cannot understand Brahman if you go only by what others say. One who understands does not need to quote words of others. Also you need to understand and experience meditation and samadhi. I doubt if you can do that having so many prejudices and preconceptions.

 

[ajay0]

What I have said is the exact and the best knowledge.

It is just delusion. A quack doctor also claims that his medicine is exact and the best medicine there is, and the approved and certified ones are no match for it.

You can see many ads of this sort in cheap weeklies and yellow magazines in India, and even some standard magazines/newspapers due to lack of proper quality control and accountability.

That you don't agree to it is OK. But you cannot understand Brahman if you go only by what others say.

It is my experiential understanding that helped to put in perspective and clarity the intellectual knowledge I gained from books and sayings of masters.

Also you need to understand and experience meditation and samadhi. I doubt if you can do that having so many prejudices and preconceptions.

Imo, it would be better for you to practice your preachings here. This can put an end to all your vague, boring and never-ending speculation regarding the nature of Brahman, and bring clarity instead on why the scriptures and masters stated thus.

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

My views are also targeted at the western and non-hindu audience over here, so that they will not fall for fraud which is a potential issue for western tourists arriving in India.

An example is the case of a young French woman, Anne Clouet, who arrived in Rajasthan, India on February 2010, for a short vacation and gullibly took the services of fraudulent and unauthorised tour operators and guides.

She was found dead one day in her hotel with injury marks on her head and neck.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ple-threatens-fast-in-Udaipur-over-daughters-
death/articleshow/12829783.cms

It was pathetic and shameful to see her parents in India pleading with the public for information regarding the killers of her daughter.

This is the reason why I am not in favour of anyone peddling false and fraudulent views of any sort in this forum, which essentially have westerners understandably ignorant of advaita, and which is tantamount to taking advantage of their ignorance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

OK. To you, your delusion. To me, my delusion. Let others decide for themselves, science or hocus-pocus.

 

[ajay0]

OK. To you, your delusion. To me, my delusion. Let others decide for themselves, science or hocus-pocus.

That's a fair judgement. Let others decide which is true and which is fraudulent, after a proper study of the facts provided.

This will also ensure no room for gullibility and error.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You don't even have an argument other than saying that it is so written in the books or such and such person has said so. It feels as if I am having a discussion with a Christian or a Muslim.

 

[Shantanu]

What is the Sanskrit or Hindi word for this 'Consciousness' that some advaitists talk about?

 

[ajay0]

What is the Sanskrit or Hindi word for this 'Consciousness' that some advaitists talk about?

Sanskrit terms for awareness include sakshin and chit. Awareness is known in the Agamas as chitshakti, the “power of awareness,” the inner self and eternal witness. - Satguru Bodhinatha Veylanswami ( Spiritual Unfoldment Workbook)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many - Prajna, Chetana, Bodhi, etc.
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

 

[ajay0]

So , you can see that sanskrit terms for awareness is well-established in Hinduism, and to discredit Awareness or Brahman as pure consciousness hence is pure delusion and quackery.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If some philosophies or sects think that way, I differ. I have already mentioned that Brahman has no need to know, no desire to do anything, Brahman is uninvolved, nirlipta. Even knowing will be a 'vikara' because it is other than 'not knowing'. Brahman is 'nirvikara'.

 

[Shantanu]

So , you can see that sanskrit terms for awareness is well-established in Hinduism, and to discredit Awareness or Brahman as pure consciousness hence is pure delusion and quackery.

Energy is therefore consciousness. But why should one consider it pure consciousness. It has components, such as physical energy and consciousness energy.

 

[ajay0]

If some philosophies or sects think that way, I differ.

Would your opinion count anyway !

Anyway this is how the advaitan philosophy operates. If you don't like it, or can't even grasp it properly, don't blame Advaita. Blame yourself. If you had learnt it properly for a period of time under an accomplished teacher, all these delusions could have been avoided, and you would not have been subject to such criticism in this and other forums.

In any subject, you have to work hard under proven masters to grasp it. Mere vague and never-ending speculation coupled with laziness will not cover deficiencies in knowledge.

I have already mentioned that Brahman has no need to know, no desire to do anything, Brahman is uninvolved, nirlipta. Even knowing will be a 'vikara' because it is other than 'not knowing'. Brahman is 'nirvikara'.

Brahman has no desire and it can be conscious as well.

One can be conscious with no desires. It is not contradictory.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would your opinion count anyway !

It does to me and that is all that matters. Dvaitists may have another scheme, advaita would not matter to them. That is how it is in Hinduism. It is your own view (mata) that matters.

One can be conscious with no desires. It is not contradictory.

While I agree to your contention, you need to have the apparatus to be conscious - some organ to receive the impulses, some organ to process the information and some organ to store the information. Do you think Brahman has these? How does Brahman becomes conscious of anything?

 

[Shantanu]

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.

What would you expect from western society that is organised to serve a nation of morons in a police state, which is what the United Kingdom is: see this comment from me here: Communications with the Indian High Commission and the OISC

 

[ajay0]

It does to me and that is all that matters.

A quack or dunce will also count his personal opinion as infallible, and the only thing worth noting, even if the learned censure him incessantly.

Dvaitists may have another scheme, advaita would not matter to them. That is how it is in Hinduism. It is your own view (mata) that matters.

A learned view that has a solid foundation of knowledge is what matters in Hinduism, not a fragile one of holes which has been relentlessly censured.

While I agree to your contention, you need to have the apparatus to be conscious - some organ to receive the impulses, some organ to process the information and some organ to store the information. Do you think Brahman has these? How does Brahman becomes conscious of anything?

Brahman is pure consciousness in itself, independent, ever-present and static, while Prakriti is its dynamic form.

You need to have experience of samadhi to perceive this fact. In nirvikalpa samadhi, the stage of enlightenment, you will be perceiving this fact always and at all times.

Till then, it will be just a scriptural teaching for the untrained mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Nirvikalpa' Samadhi is another sham. Sure, one can empty the brain of all thoughts during meditation for a small period of time. The experience is very nice. It helps in further contemplation. But a 'nirvikalpa' samadhi that tells you the secrets of the universe is an absurdity. The brain only tells you what you want to believe.

 

[ajay0]

'Nirvikalpa' Samadhi is another sham. Sure, one can empty the brain of all thoughts during meditation for a small period of time. The experience is very nice. It helps in further contemplation. But a 'nirvikalpa' samadhi that tells you the secrets of the universe is an absurdity. The brain only tells you what you want to believe.

Nirvikalpa samadhi and samadhi are shams for those who have never experienced it, and are content with their vague and never-ending speculations till physical expiry through death.

But for the likes of those who have experienced like Ramana or Ramakrishna or Nisargadatta or Kabir, it is the ultimate experience.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Quoting names again. What is your experience? I speak from my experience and I have completed my journey..

 

[ajay0]

I speak from my experience and I have completed my journey..

It is just a delusional experience. Imo, it however has potential for a comedy script in drama or theatre .

At this age, I would suggest you spent more time with your family and grandchildren instead of regretting it later on.

Quoting names again.

Testimony of past or present reliable experts ( Sabda ) is considered as one of the six pramanas used as correct means of gaining accurate knowledge and understanding of truth.

Have you ever wondered why you never could quote any experts with respect to your so-called experience!

What is your experience?.

My experience is samadhi. And in samadhi all entanglements and confusions of the intellect ends, as you see non-conceptual reality as it is.