Brahman and the Advaita Vision

[Shantanu]

Yes.

Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad Gītā says:

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca​

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [B.G. 14.27]

Lord Brahmā, the creator of the universe prays:

panthās tu koti-śata-vatsara-sampragamyo
vāyor athāpi manaso muni-puńgavānām
so 'py asti yat-prapada-sīmny avicintya-tattve
govindam ādi-purusham tam aham bhajāmi​

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, only the tip of the toe of whose lotus feet is approached by the yogīs who aspire after the transcendental and betake themselves to prānāyāma by drilling the respiration; or by the jñānīs who try to find out the nondifferentiated Brahman by the process of elimination of the mundane, extending over thousands of millions of years.[B.S. 5.34]



Yes. The Absolute Truth is Kṛṣṇa. He is Parmātmā and Brahman also.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate​

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān." [S.B. 1.2.11]

I am not sure what you mean by 'brahmātmā'.

If you mean - soul, like you and me; then you are right. Kṛṣṇa is not brahmātmā. Individual souls are like the particles of sunshine or sparks of fire. Although they are same as the sun and fire respectively, still they are not the sun and fire. Similarly, we souls are also same as Kṛṣṇa in nature - both are sat-chīt-ānanda. Still, quantitatively we are not same. Kṛṣṇa is infinite and we (souls) are infinitesimal.

yasmin sarvani bhutany
atmaivabhud vijanatah
tatra ko mohah kah soka
ekatvam anupasyatah​

One who always sees all living entities as spiritual sparks, in quality one with the Lord, becomes a true knower of things. What, then, can be illusion or anxiety for him? [Sri Isopanisad 7]



Yes. The dimension of soul is described as:

bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate​

"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9]

Because the soul is infinitesimal, it becomes covered by māyā. In other words, the consciousness becomes contaminated through association of matter and false identification with this gross body made up of 5 senses, mind, intelligence and ego.



Yes.



Yes. Consciousness is the symptom of soul, which is by nature sat-chīt-ānanda. It is through this consciousness we become aware or conscious of our pains and pleasures and daily events and incidents etc.



Yes. The truth-consciousness has it's foundation in the Absolute Truth & Infinite Consciousness - Supreme Lord. And actions through our karma and consciousness, for Lord's satisfaction is dharma. So, it is through dharma we will realize the sat-chīt-ānanda Lord.



Yes.



Yes.

However, we must know what the Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa says in this regard:

kleśo ’dhika-taras teṣām
avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
dehavadbhir avāpyate​

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied. [B.G. 12.5]



Consciousness is the symptom of soul. The nature of Soul is sat-chīt-ānanda. Chīt means it is full of knowledge. Soul spreads throughout the body by this consciousness principle and becomes conscious of pains, pleasures etc. through this consciousness.

Vrindavan Dasji, Your ideas have clarified my doubts. I have experienced this personally without knowing anything of the scriptures. So thank you.

 

[Shantanu]

Vrindavana Dasji,
Returning to the meaning of Brahman as Sat-chit-ananda, what does your definition of Sat as eternal actually mean? I thought eternal means something that had no beginninng and no end. Can you explain why you have restricted the meaning of 'Sat' to eternal? Does 'Sat' also not mean 'Reality' or Existence?

 

[Surya Deva]

The word Sat does not mean eternal. It means as you say truth, reality or existence. The word 'Ananda' means eternal/never ending.

Sat-Chit-Ananda is mistakenly thought by some Vedantist to be a description of Brahman and hence seen as contradictory. However, Sat-Chit-Ananda is not a description, but a logical indicator of what the nature of Brahman is based on analyzing the empirical world. Such as Brahman is consciousness. This word 'consciousness' only a logical indicator, because we don't actually have any description for consciousness, because it is not something which can be described. All we know is that it is there. Likewise, we cannot describe Brahman, but we do know that it Sat-Chit-Anande.

 

[Shantanu]

The word Sat does not mean eternal. It means as you say truth, reality or existence. The word 'Ananda' means eternal/never ending.

Sat-Chit-Ananda is mistakenly thought by some Vedantist to be a description of Brahman and hence seen as contradictory. However, Sat-Chit-Ananda is not a description, but a logical indicator of what the nature of Brahman is based on analyzing the empirical world. Such as Brahman is consciousness. This word 'consciousness' only a logical indicator, because we don't actually have any description for consciousness, because it is not something which can be described. All we know is that it is there. Likewise, we cannot describe Brahman, but we do know that it Sat-Chit-Anande.

If Sat means Reality/Truth/Existence as I thought, it must also mean that Brahman is also energy, would you not agree?

 

[Surya Deva]

No, because energy comes under the category of maya. I am sure you heard the Vedic saying, "Brahma Satya, Jagat Mitya" All of empirical reality is considered illusory. Its ultimate cause is Brahman, but the effect is not a real transformation of the cause, but rather an appearance of the cause, in the same way a mirage of an oasis is not a real transformation of an oasis, but only an appearance.

Anything which is empirical is by definition not Brahman, it is Maya. In the same way whatever you see in the reflection in the mirror is not you, though it is an emanation from you.

The sharp duality between Brahman and Maya is based on the analysis of reality into two main ontological and irreducible categories: self and not self/consciousness and matter/observer and observed. So, as energy is something which comes in the category of self/matter/observed, it is not self/consciousness/observer.

 

[TenjikuZero]

A REVIEW:
The reason Ekanta and others have stopped posting may be because these nondual conceptions do not make perfect sense and is not evidenced from reality. Maya or illusion transformation from Brahman to creation is unscientific and inconsistent with the idea that all Brahman is is satchitananda. The source of Brahman is Sri Krishna who is more than satchitananda. Sri Krishna is physical energy, will, intelligence, and has the powers for regeneration of the universe as in creation and dissolution. Brahman is not a personal God but the Nature of Reality for 99 per cent of human beings. Brahman union is the purpose of our existence as advaita. The way that has been opened for us to do so is through the atma. We do have a jivatma spirit that is a piece of Brahmatma/Paramatma and the way to approach union and realise it is through the truth-search and action mechanism of dharma. Life in the transactional world is conducted through dharma in which Ishwara is the Ruler of Nature as Vishnu. Vishnu is not a personal God but the Preserver of Nature. If truth-based dharma is performed in this knowledge (which is different to faith) Brahman too is realised as satchitananda. And as Vrindavan Das has elaborated, Paramatma is Sri Krishna and can get the atma and jiva to do certain things if it wants to. Very few people truly realise this aspect or Sri Krishna. In normal circumstances the source of Brahman as Sri Krishna is not realised. This gives rise to non-dual advaita. But that is not the highest level of realisation as Ekanta thinks. The highest level are attained by very few exceptional truth-seekers who give up everything in their quest for ultimate knowledge. Vrindavan Das's references earlier in this thread from the Bhagavad Gita are spot on.

Seems like you are a better fit for a Dwaita Philosophy then. I'm an Advaitin, yet I do not have anything against the Dualist philosophies. Different strokes for Different folks..as every being is unique. If You think Vaishnava Dualism seems to be your thing, go for it, by all means.

As for your criticisms against Advaita, what can I say? Ours is not a philosophy which is/can be explained easily in dualistic terms...after all it IS called Advaita for a reason .

I'm not sure how Advaita seems unscientific whereas a Dualist worldview with a "God" sounds more scientific....Where did this "God' come from? Surely a philosophy requiring "God" would be deemed rather less scientific than one that does not require it..does it not? Imho the problem with dualism is that it by its own nature has a 'hierarchy". It makes no sense to me. Who created God? Can anyone answer this? from A dualistic POV? If the God is eternal..then why do you have issues with an eternal Brahman?

If one were to talk about Brahman in astrophysics terminology, I would think of it as the superstrings(SuperStrings/M-theory). Infinite universes are created and destroyed every second...and Infinite parallel universes exist. In a parellel universe(or in another universe which is parallel but say..2 seconds ahead of ours) You might still exist...In infinite universes you might not exist. M-Theory/SuperStrings explains that there was neither beginning nor end to the creation/destruction of universes. We are but small frogs in the well who think that the universe we live on is the only universe, but it could not be further from the truth.

Ekanta was rightly hesitant to simply "answer" all such questions because a lot of such answers should come from within. None of us are enlightened masters here, and to think that one is enlightened is probably the biggest form of idiocy. Thus I believe Ekanta was being true to the Advaita tradition of asking people questions/small hints and letting them come upon their own answers through introspection. I am a firm believer in the notion that everyone should work out their own enlightenment. There is no "recipe". I learn by asking people questions after I have thought about an issue for some time, and have come to some conclusions. Based on their replies to my questions, I can verify certain conclusions of mine. I never take an answer someone else gives me as the "truth" without questioning it thoroughly.

We have an old saying in my native tongue, which translates into the following
"What you see with your eyes is not the truth, what you hear with your ears is not the truth, Truth can be only arrived at by thoroughly investigating the evidence using critical thinking"

Most of the Advaita philosophers were those who sought seclusion to delve deep into their own selves. They sought to master their own self than seek some deity/god.The basic premise of Advaita is to "know" one's own "self". By knowing the "self" one knows "Everything", because self= brahman.

My apologies for a long and meandering post. I conclude by saying that it's ok if you do not understand Advaita philosophy and prefer the Dvaita ones. However it is unfair to criticize something which one does not understand. Let us adhere to the Sanatana Dharmic concept of accepting those who are different from us.

:namaste

PS: Have you ever had a dream, that you were so sure was real?

 

[Ekanta]

If Shantanu feels dvaita is appealing then its right for him. It would be wrong for me to advocate advaita to him. And if he becomes a good dvaita, he will one day end up as an advaita. Thats vedantic judo

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Returning to the meaning of Brahman as Sat-chit-ananda, what does your definition of Sat as eternal actually mean? I thought eternal means something that had no beginninng and no end. Can you explain why you have restricted the meaning of 'Sat' to eternal? Does 'Sat' also not mean 'Reality' or Existence?

Sat means eternal. It also means reality, but in the sense of being eternal.

For anything to have a beginning or an end, it must be ‘created’ within time. When we say that a tree is one hundred years old, it means that the body of that tree has come into existence, in time, a hundred years ago. So the body of the tree is temporary/asat. However, the soul of that tree is a part of eternal Lord who is eternal & beyond time. Therefore it is sat/reality.

Lord Bramhā confirms this as follows:

isvarah paramah krishnah
sat-cit-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam​

isvarah -- the controller;
paramah -- supreme;
krishnah -- Lord Krishna;
sat -- comprising eternal existence;
cit -- absolute knowledge;
ananda -- and absolute bliss;
vigrahah -- whose form;
anadih -- without beginning;
adih -- the origin;
govindah -- Lord Govinda;
sarva-karana-karanam -- the cause of all causes.

Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. [B.S. 5.1]

Realization of impersonal Brahman is realization of His sat feature, or His aspect of eternity, and Paramatma realization is realization of His sat and cit features, His aspects of eternity and knowledge. But realization of the Personality of Godhead is realization of all the transcendental features -- sat, cit and ananda, bliss. When one realizes the Supreme Person, he realizes these aspects of the Absolute Truth in their completeness. Vigraha means "form." Thus the Complete Whole is not formless. If He were formless, or if He were less than His creation in any other way, He could not be complete. The Complete Whole must contain everything both within and beyond our experience; otherwise He cannot be complete.

Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is Brahman Himself, confirms this and the eternal (sat/śāśvat)feature of Brahman as:

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca​

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [B.G. 14.27]

Here also Lord Kṛṣṇa confirms His and soul’s sat or eternal feature:

na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ
na tvaḿ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param​

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. [B.G. 2.12]

aham evāsam evāgre
nānyad yat sad-asat param
paścād ahaṁ yad etac ca
yo ’vaśiṣyeta so ’smy aham​

Brahmā, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who existed before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead. [S.B. 2.9.33]

Lord/Parmātmā/Brahman and the soul, all are eternal. This is the sat feature.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

No, because energy comes under the category of maya. I am sure you heard the Vedic saying, "Brahma Satya, Jagat Mitya" All of empirical reality is considered illusory. Its ultimate cause is Brahman, but the effect is not a real transformation of the cause, but rather an appearance of the cause, in the same way a mirage of an oasis is not a real transformation of an oasis, but only an appearance.

The saying "Brahma Satya, Jagat Mitya" is not a Vedic saying. It is a phrase coined by Adi Guru Śankarācharyā.

This phrase has more to do with the Buddhist teachings.

Lord advents to teach religion and religious principles according to time, place and circumstances.

In the Bhagavad Gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa declares:

yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharata
abhyutthanam adharmasya
tadatmanam srijamy aham​

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion -- at that time I descend Myself. [B.G. 4.7]

paritranaya sadhunam
vinasaya ca dushkritam
dharma-samsthapanarthaya
sambhavami yuge yuge​

To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium. [B.G. 4.8]

Lord Buddha, is an incarnation of Lord Vīśnu - one of the 10 incarnations (daśavatār). He advented to put an end to mindless animal slaughter that had started happening in the name of Vedic sacrifices. Therefore, He taught non-violence. To stop this animal slaughter, He denied the Vedas. As Vedas point towards Supreme Lord, He denied the existence of Lord also. One of Buddha's main teachings, to elevate people to the spiritual platform, was that people should serve each other. In this way, they will achieve the highest good.

With time, people lost the essence of this teaching of Buddha of serving each other, and got preoccupied with material things, in the name of serving others.

It was then Lord Śiva appeared as Śankarāchāryā.

To pull out people from the material conception of life, he taught - "Jagat Mīthyā". To reestablish the Vedas, which tell us about spiritual existence, he taught the world - "Brahma Satya".

Thus - "Brahma Satya, Jagat Mitya"

 

[TenjikuZero]

If Shantanu feels dvaita is appealing then its right for him. It would be wrong for me to advocate advaita to him.

I totally agree.

And if he becomes a good dvaita, he will one day end up as an advaita. Thats vedantic judo

Interestingly enough, Almost all the Advaitins I know come from Dvaita traditions (Albeit a lot from Advaitia-ish dvaita traditions like Shaivism). I'm yet to see anyone I know of go the opposite way(unless of course they are new to Hinduism and check diff schools of philosophy before settling on one).

 

[Shantanu]

No, because energy comes under the category of maya. I am sure you heard the Vedic saying, "Brahma Satya, Jagat Mitya" All of empirical reality is considered illusory. Its ultimate cause is Brahman, but the effect is not a real transformation of the cause, but rather an appearance of the cause, in the same way a mirage of an oasis is not a real transformation of an oasis, but only an appearance.

Anything which is empirical is by definition not Brahman, it is Maya. In the same way whatever you see in the reflection in the mirror is not you, though it is an emanation from you.

The sharp duality between Brahman and Maya is based on the analysis of reality into two main ontological and irreducible categories: self and not self/consciousness and matter/observer and observed. So, as energy is something which comes in the category of self/matter/observed, it is not self/consciousness/observer.

You have not answered precisely what property in Brahman caused/causes its transformation into what you describe as being illusion (creation, pragmatic and transcational world)/Maya, if it is not its energy content, have you? - I am after a simple answer not a convuluted meandering post please.

 

[Shantanu]

If Shantanu feels dvaita is appealing then its right for him. It would be wrong for me to advocate advaita to him. And if he becomes a good dvaita, he will one day end up as an advaita. Thats vedantic judo

You apparently seem to be a person who does not keep to his words (as I understood them), for earlier I thought you said you will not post any more to explain your understanding on this topic/thread which is why I thanked you for your contribution in order to wave you good bye. This is also what you wrote:
Originally Posted by Ekanta
Im saying that if your interested, go and read yourself, explanations are easily available. If you dont, I draw the appropriate conclusion of your behaviour.

Have you now changed your mind and are ready to answer my questions on nondual advaita?

 

[Shantanu]

Seems like you are a better fit for a Dwaita Philosophy then. I'm an Advaitin, yet I do not have anything against the Dualist philosophies. Different strokes for Different folks..as every being is unique. If You think Vaishnava Dualism seems to be your thing, go for it, by all means.

As for your criticisms against Advaita, what can I say? Ours is not a philosophy which is/can be explained easily in dualistic terms...after all it IS called Advaita for a reason .

I'm not sure how Advaita seems unscientific whereas a Dualist worldview with a "God" sounds more scientific....Where did this "God' come from? Surely a philosophy requiring "God" would be deemed rather less scientific than one that does not require it..does it not? Imho the problem with dualism is that it by its own nature has a 'hierarchy". It makes no sense to me. Who created God? Can anyone answer this? from A dualistic POV? If the God is eternal..then why do you have issues with an eternal Brahman?

If one were to talk about Brahman in astrophysics terminology, I would think of it as the superstrings(SuperStrings/M-theory). Infinite universes are created and destroyed every second...and Infinite parallel universes exist. In a parellel universe(or in another universe which is parallel but say..2 seconds ahead of ours) You might still exist...In infinite universes you might not exist. M-Theory/SuperStrings explains that there was neither beginning nor end to the creation/destruction of universes. We are but small frogs in the well who think that the universe we live on is the only universe, but it could not be further from the truth.

Ekanta was rightly hesitant to simply "answer" all such questions because a lot of such answers should come from within. None of us are enlightened masters here, and to think that one is enlightened is probably the biggest form of idiocy. Thus I believe Ekanta was being true to the Advaita tradition of asking people questions/small hints and letting them come upon their own answers through introspection. I am a firm believer in the notion that everyone should work out their own enlightenment. There is no "recipe". I learn by asking people questions after I have thought about an issue for some time, and have come to some conclusions. Based on their replies to my questions, I can verify certain conclusions of mine. I never take an answer someone else gives me as the "truth" without questioning it thoroughly.

We have an old saying in my native tongue, which translates into the following
"What you see with your eyes is not the truth, what you hear with your ears is not the truth, Truth can be only arrived at by thoroughly investigating the evidence using critical thinking"

Most of the Advaita philosophers were those who sought seclusion to delve deep into their own selves. They sought to master their own self than seek some deity/god.The basic premise of Advaita is to "know" one's own "self". By knowing the "self" one knows "Everything", because self= brahman.

My apologies for a long and meandering post. I conclude by saying that it's ok if you do not understand Advaita philosophy and prefer the Dvaita ones. However it is unfair to criticize something which one does not understand. Let us adhere to the Sanatana Dharmic concept of accepting those who are different from us.

:namaste

PS: Have you ever had a dream, that you were so sure was real?

If you want to contribute to the thread you should answer the specific questions rather than tell me what I am fit for from your premature assumptions.

 

[Surya Deva]

You have not answered precisely what property in Brahman caused/causes its transformation into what you describe as being illusion (creation, pragmatic and transcational world)/Maya, if it is not its energy content, have you? - I am after a simple answer not a convuluted meandering post please.

Brahman cannot itself be transformed into anything, for Brahman is infinite and infinite always remains infinite. This is supported by the Sruti, "That is infinite, this is infinite, the infinite comes from the infinite, if the infinite is taken from the infinite, the infinite alone remains" Hence, this is why we conclude that the finite empirical reality we perceive is illusory(Maya) It is not really existent.

To answer the ultimate questions as to why the empirical reality appears to be existent requires one to know the first cause before time, and that is impossible to be answered because the limitations of reason. All we can know is about our empirical reality(phenomenon) and the fact that there does indeed exist a transcendent reality(noumenon) but our mind is delimited from knowing it. In order to know this transcendent reality an entirely different means of knowledge is advocated in Advaita - self-knowledge or realization.

Human beings are highly arrogant creatures, even though their mind is delimited from knowing the transcendental, it does not stop them from imagining/fantasizing/conceptualizing what the transcendental is like, and creating narratives and stories about it. This is why in Advaita this is called Saguna Brahman. To a rational human being myself, I am humble enough to admit the limits of my mind, and hence I dedicate myself in search of Nirguna Brahman.

 

[Shantanu]

Brahman cannot itself be transformed into anything, for Brahman is infinite and infinite always remains infinite. This is supported by the Sruti, "That is infinite, this is infinite, the infinite comes from the infinite, if the infinite is taken from the infinite, the infinite alone remains" Hence, this is why we conclude that the finite empirical reality we perceive is illusory(Maya) It is not really existent.

To answer the ultimate questions as to why the empirical reality appears to be existent requires one to know the first cause before time, and that is impossible to be answered because the limitations of reason. All we can know is about our empirical reality(phenomenon) and the fact that there does indeed exist a transcendent reality(noumenon) but our mind is delimited from knowing it. In order to know this transcendent reality an entirely different means of knowledge is advocated in Advaita - self-knowledge or realization.

Human beings are highly arrogant creatures, even though their mind is delimited from knowing the transcendental, it does not stop them from imagining/fantasizing/conceptualizing what the transcendental is like, and creating narratives and stories about it. This is why in Advaita this is called Saguna Brahman. To a rational human being myself, I am humble enough to admit the limits of my mind, and hence I dedicate myself in search of Nirguna Brahman.

Firstly, I do not accept that the empirical reality is finite whilst Brahman is infinite.

Second, you have told us that Brahman cannot be transformed into our transactional reality but then have not told us how this transactional reality came into being independent of Brahman, as far as I understand your post.

For these reasons, I have a direct objection to your argument that we live in a transactional world of illusion (which is mithya), as a mirage. To create a mirage one must have a desert sands, real oasis and sunlight. There must therefore be corresponding entities of the material universe within Brahman, the absolute reality and a mechanism for this transformation, or it is clear that this reality is not part of the Brahman reality.

The real explanation may be a lot simpler. To me advaita is the transcendental experience of the Reality of Brahman that has been created by a higher power for us human beings, in other words one does not get Sat-Chit-Ananda existing for no reason or purpose. Thus we say that we live in a non-transcendental world of vyvaharika from which our purpose is to raise ourselves to the transcendental reality. The process of the attainment of advaita is built into vvaharika (and its sub-reality the pratibhasika) through the truth-consciousness mechanism. To transcend simply means that the jiva changes from a material plane of existence to a spiritual/meditative plane where there is no ego or desire, just sat-chit-ananda to be experienced through the atma. So atma is potentially Brahman and thus, Brahman is the transcendental Reality.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

If Shantanu feels dvaita is appealing then its right for him.

What is right ...is right!

And if he becomes a good dvaita, he will one day end up as an advaita. Thats vedantic judo

Can you provide a scriptural verse to support your statement? A Vedic verse maybe...

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Seems like you are a better fit for a Dwaita Philosophy then. I'm an Advaitin, yet I do not have anything against the Dualist philosophies. Different strokes for Different folks..as every being is unique. If You think Vaishnava Dualism seems to be your thing, go for it, by all means.

Different strokes for different folks?!! I want to become a Doctor by studying Medical books myself, without any guidance and the way I feel is correct. Happens? Will you allow me to perform surgery on your body? After all, I am a Doctor now...in my own way. Different strokes for different folks!

As for your criticisms against Advaita, what can I say? Ours is not a philosophy which is/can be explained easily in dualistic terms...after all it IS called Advaita for a reason .

Can you explain advaita in non-dualistic terms? To begin with, maybe if there is no diversity in Brahman, how do we see a variety all around us in the marterial world. How is something coming from nothing?

I'm not sure how Advaita seems unscientific whereas a Dualist worldview with a "God" sounds more scientific....Where did this "God' come from? Surely a philosophy requiring "God" would be deemed rather less scientific than one that does not require it..does it not? Imho the problem with dualism is that it by its own nature has a 'hierarchy". It makes no sense to me. Who created God? Can anyone answer this? from A dualistic POV? If the God is eternal..then why do you have issues with an eternal Brahman?

If Brahman is eternal, why do you have a problem with eternal God? Who created Brahman, can anyone answer this? Is there not a hierarchy all around...the food chain, survival of the fittest, employee serving the employer, servant serving the master etc. When we see the reality all around, are a part of it and accept it in a relative term, why not in an Absolute term? If variegatedness is in everything, why do you think there is no variegatedness in the spiritual world? In this background, advaita is scientific and makes sense to you?!!.

If one were to talk about Brahman in astrophysics terminology, I would think of it as the superstrings(SuperStrings/M-theory). Infinite universes are created and destroyed every second...and Infinite parallel universes exist. In a parellel universe(or in another universe which is parallel but say..2 seconds ahead of ours) You might still exist...In infinite universes you might not exist. M-Theory/SuperStrings explains that there was neither beginning nor end to the creation/destruction of universes. We are but small frogs in the well who think that the universe we live on is the only universe, but it could not be further from the truth.

Even in astrophysics terms, the structure of the universe, atomic time, the life of universe, parallel universes, black holes, universal expansion....everything can be explained from a dualistic point-of-view. However, can you explain it from Advaita point of view?

 

[Ekanta]

Can you provide a scriptural verse to support your statement? A Vedic verse maybe...

I can, but what amazes me is that even though the upanishads are filled with them, you havent seen them. So what good would it do?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I can, but what amazes me is that even though the upanishads are filled with them, you havent seen them. So what good would it do?

Please provide a few.

 

[Surya Deva]

Firstly, I do not accept that the empirical reality is finite whilst Brahman is infinite.

Empirical reality is of course finite, because everything within empirical reality has a beginning, middle and end. The trees, mountains, planets, stars, even this universe has a beginning, middle and end. Your body also has a beginning, middle and end.

Brahman is infinite because Brahman has no beginning, middle or end. Brahman is the absolute substance which underlies all of reality and hence the first cause of reality.

Second, you have told us that Brahman cannot be transformed into our transactional reality but then have not told us how this transactional reality came into being independent of Brahman, as far as I understand your post.

Yes, I cannot tell you this because it is not possible to tell you this. If you ask me something which is impossible for me to answer, then it would be right for me to say I cannot answer it. This question has been even asked of Shankara, and he has responded the same way. It is impossible for the mind which is limited in time and space and causality to know that which is outside of time, space and causality. The mind can only know through reason that something exists outside of time, space and causality, for there has to be a first cause and ultimate substance to make sense of reality.

Advaita establishes the existence of Brahman and its nature as Sat-Chit-Ananda using logical arguments. However Advaita cannot answer why this illusory transactional reality came into being i.e., why does there appear to be a creation[ and why does Brahman appear to individuate into many jivas.

This vacuum is supposedly explained by the Dvaita, but it is no explanation, it is just a cop-out - "god did it". When humans do not understand anything, they simply fall back on 'god did it'

For these reasons, I have a direct objection to your argument that we live in a transactional world of illusion (which is mithya), as a mirage. To create a mirage one must have a desert sands, real oasis and sunlight. There must therefore be corresponding entities of the material universe within Brahman, the absolute reality and a mechanism for this transformation, or it is clear that this reality is not part of the Brahman reality.

The mirage is merely an analogy and no analogy is perfect. The point is the effect is only an appearance of the cause, rather than being a real transformation of the cause. In a mirage of an oasis, though the mirage in its apparent form as an oasis is illusory(and mithya) the mirage is a resultant of a real substance which when filtered through the senses and the mind produces an optical illusion. In like manner, this phenomenal world or transactional world is a sensory illusion of a real substance which is being filtered through our senses and mind.

We actually today have physical proof for this in physics. Although the world is 99.9999% empty space, it appears to be very solid and physical, because when filtered through our senses and mind it creates the illusion of solidity and physicality. If you factor quantum physics the world becomes even more diametrically opposed to our senses, at the quantum level of reality there is no reality as such, but all of the universe exists in one superpositioned state. There is no separation or locality. This has been experimentally proven by Bell's experiment.

Advaita assets the same conclusion there is no separation or locality in reality. What appears to be a physical reality of separation, is only a sensory reality of name and form. All substances that we differentiate in our empirical reality are not substances, but rather names for forms that we perceive. If we see a piece of wood in a certain configuration we say 'chair' in another configuration we say 'table' In like manner all empirical objects we perceive from macroscopic to microscopic are name and form, not substances. The common substance behind all name and form is consciousness itself. All empirical objects take place in consciousness.

The senses and the mind are what differentiate reality into a plurality of things, when in actual fact there is no plurality of things, it is just one unified substance.

The real explanation may be a lot simpler. To me advaita is the transcendental experience of the Reality of Brahman that has been created by a higher power for us human beings, in other words one does not get Sat-Chit-Ananda existing for no reason or purpose.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that there is a higher power even beyond Brahman?