Chakra's four questions

[Chakra]

That is pretty much Vishistadvaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it? I don't know. I go my lonely way. I bow to both, Sri Ramanujacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I bow to all Acharyas of Hinduism except Sri Vallabhacharya because he kept the Acharyaship within the family. I do not like that. India has suffered from dynastic rule for the last 60 years.

 

[Kirran]

Is it? I don't know. I go my lonely way.

Certainly a laudable endeavor, but if that is the case, why call yourself a follower of Advaita Vedanta? I am simply curious.

Although I recognise that your 'Religion' says advaitist Hindu, so perhaps you would say you are advaitist=nondualist, but not within the tradition of Advaita Vedanta per se?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think I adhere to the core of Sankara's advaita. 'Brahma satyam jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'. The rest of the things are not that important. Looking at the Nasadiya Sukta, you could even call me a 'Vedantist'.

 

[Ekanta]

Aupmanyav... there is a contradiction. You say you "adhere to advaita", yet you say "I go my lonely way".
For example you say: "I extend Brahman even into Vyavaharika, and therefore, do not need Gods and Goddesses." But Brahman is reached by using maya! If we look at the upanishads, they mostly talk about karma/upasana even if jnana is the goal. Its like dreaming of food, but neglecting the cooking. Then what do we end up with? It can only be personal ideas of Brahman (which themselves are but Vyavaharika).

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Brahman is not separate from its consciousness. Heat is not separate from its fire. Light is not separate from its lamp. Energy (I believe in the physical type) is not separate from its properties, Srimati Radha is not separate from Sri Krishna, Mother Sita is not separate from Lord Rama, Shiva is not separate from Mother Parvati, Lord Vishnu is not separate from Mother Lakshmi, sun is not separate from Chhaya, Kamadeva is not separate from Rati and life is not separate from its tribulations, so to say. Inseparables.

This seems like a more or less orthodox position, for a Hindu and for Advaita Vedanta, to me. However, I wonder why you call yourself an atheist. Do you mean this term in something like the Buddhist/Jain/Taoist sense of non-theism, or do you mean it in the quite different modern Western sense, more or less associated with naturalism?

I have seen you say things that smack more of the latter than the former.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aupmanyav... there is a contradiction. You say you "adhere to advaita", yet you say "I go my lonely way". For example you say: "I extend Brahman even into Vyavaharika, and therefore, do not need Gods and Goddesses." But Brahman is reached by using maya! If we look at the upanishads, they mostly talk about karma/upasana even if jnana is the goal. Its like dreaming of food, but neglecting the cooking. Then what do we end up with? It can only be personal ideas of Brahman (which themselves are but Vyavaharika).

Brahman is also reached using 'viveka' (analysis). I am not a mahatma, but in my own muddled way, I have tried to fulfill my dharma. As for upasana, whom should I worship, when I am myself it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This seems like a more or less orthodox position, for a Hindu and for Advaita Vedanta, to me. However, I wonder why you call yourself an atheist. Do you mean this term in something like the Buddhist/Jain/Taoist sense of non-theism, or do you mean it in the quite different modern Western sense, more or less associated with naturalism? I have seen you say things that smack more of the latter than the former.

I consider myself an orthodox Hindu. I call myself an atheist because I am what constitutes the whole universe, and there is no other to be termed as God. I am a strong atheist in the Western sense and refute even the possibility of existence of any God or Goddess. The deities that I mention in my posts (or in my signature) are culture figures of my people. I respect their stories because these stories contain the ethics and morality of Hinduism. They are the my beacons and that of my people. Do not know about Dao, but Buddhism and Jainism do not have God concept (the devas are not Gods like in Hinduism). Yes, I am a naturalist because nature is none other than Brahman.

 

[Ekanta]

Brahman is also reached using 'viveka' (analysis). I am not a mahatma, but in my own muddled way, I have tried to fulfill my dharma. As for upasana, whom should I worship, when I am myself it.

The thing is (according to advaita) that one is not fit for jnana untill one has a pure and concentrated mind. Those are reached by karma and upasana. If we neglect it, we turn the whole advaita tradition upside down.
When it comes to the word viveka (discrimination) its used at different levels, like "dharma-adharma-viveka" and ātma-anātma-viveka etc.
Aupmanyav you do what you want of course . But I do see some contradictions to traditional advaita.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I consider myself an orthodox Hindu. I call myself an atheist because I am what constitutes the whole universe, and there is no other to be termed as God. I am a strong atheist in the Western sense and refute even the possibility of existence of any God or Goddess. The deities that I mention in my posts (or in my signature) are culture figures of my people. I respect their stories because these stories contain the ethics and morality of Hinduism. They are the my beacons and that of my people. Do not know about Dao, but Buddhism and Jainism do not have God concept (the devas are not Gods like in Hinduism). Yes, I am a naturalist because nature is none other than Brahman.

This doesn't really make sense.

The modern Western sense of atheism is contrary to orthodox Hinduism and certainly Advaita Vedanta (and, indeed, Buddhism, Jainism, and Daoism). Atheism in this sense means naturalist in a quasi-materialist, definitively non-supernatural and non-spiritual (in a meaningful sense, obviously some naturalists, like Dawkins et al, like to talk about how can still be spiritual whilst be materialists, where they seem to just mean straining for some vague feeling of awe), sense. Now, it is notoriously hard to pin point what actually defines materialism and naturalism in the modern Western sense, but suffice it to say that in their normal uses they are beyond orthodox Hinduism, as they exclude its clearly spiritual, supernatural, and idealist aspects.

Do you believe Brahman is a material being, or in other words is just a metaphor for all that exists? Do you believe that he is conscious or transcends consciousness, rather than lacks it all together? Do you believe the Vedas are divinely revealed?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The thing is (according to advaita) that one is not fit for jnana untill one has a pure and concentrated mind.

Concentration is no problem, we have techniques, and I have not found it difficult. As for keeping the mind pure, there are limits which I have not been able to cross. But no worries, I have not done badly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now, it is notoriously hard to pin point what actually defines materialism and naturalism in the modern Western sense, but suffice it to say that in their normal uses they are beyond orthodox Hinduism, as they exclude its clearly spiritual, supernatural, and idealist aspects.

Do you believe Brahman is a material being, or in other words is just a metaphor for all that exists? Do you believe that he is conscious or transcends consciousness, rather than lacks it all together? Do you believe the Vedas are divinely revealed?

I agree that materialism is hard to define. Mass may change into energy and energy can disappear in the womb of what it arose from, 'absolute nothing'. Who knows? But I do not think it is beyond orthodox Hinduism. Hinduism never shied from questions and investigations. I do not believe in supernaturals, idealism is but a goal. Nature spiritualism, to feel for nature, is advocated by orthodox Hinduism. Parents advice the children not to pluck leaves from trees.

Since we have not been able to define what is material and what is non-material, this question does not arise. Sure, it stands for all that exists and which is a form of physical energy that was there at the time of Big Bang or whatever happened. Like in the double-slit experiment, I think consciousness comes to fore by the act of observation. Since I do not believe in divine, I take Vedic richas to be the creation of the writers who are mentioned in the Vedas. One is supposed to be my progenitor, Upamanyu, son of Vyaghrapada.

 

[von bek]

@Aupmanyav, I would definitely classify your viewpoint as materialism. If you disagree, I apologize for falsely labeling you. I have always considered you a materialist all these years I have known you. I guess the question becomes, is materialism possible within a Hindu framework? As an outsider to Hinduism, I will not dare to even attempt an answer. What I do know is that I consider you Hindu, 100 percent.

I know the Charvakas were materialists and are considered nastika, but is that because of their materialism?

 

[Chakra]

Nastika is used to refer to those who do not accept the authority and conclusions of the Vedas. Nothing more is implied by the term.

 

[von bek]

Nastika is used to refer to those who do not accept the authority and conclusions of the Vedas. Nothing more is implied by the term.

Thank you. I also have really appreciated reading your posts here on RF. I feel like I have learned a lot about Vaishnavism from you. It is from reading your posts and following your sources that I discovered Shankara worshipped Vishnu. (I thought he was a Shaiva.)

 

[Chakra]

Thank you von bek. I always enjoy reading your messages on the Buddhist DIR as well, so I'm glad we can interact here.

Now, to Aup.

1) I did not discuss whether Sankara was a theist or an atheist. I was expressing my views. Sankara accepted Brahman in Parmarthika and Gods and Goddesses in Vyavaharika. I extend Brahman even into Vyavaharika, and therefore, do not need Gods and Goddesses.

You said that an advaitin MUST be an atheist. Honestly, it would make things a lot clearer if you could just stop using the term to describe your personal beliefs. When Advaita is mentioned, Shankara's teachings are recalled, not a simple "nondualistic belief" like yours. It's like me using the term Smartha to describe my belief, because Smartha means "one who follows the tradition". Clearly the term Smartha has some more meanings to it, as we can see today.

Secondly, as per Shankara, when Brahman is "extended" into Vyavaharika, then it becomes Saguna Brahman whose worship Shankara has recommended.

2) If you note, I said 'Advaita' necessarily has to be atheist because by definition it cannot accept the existence of entities other than Brahman. IMHO, Sankara solved this problem by proposing two (or three realities - the one that is not much talked about - Pratibhasika).

An "Advaitist" would also be classified as a non-evolutionist because he believes that evolution was illusory. He can be classified as a denier of everything with that logic.

3) If you remember, I have tried to explain this earlier also. Change is when something changes its normal course. Now if change (as in case of virtual particles) is natural to energy/Brahman, then doing that even a million times in a second cannot be termed as change. Change will be if energy/Brahman stops doing that at any time. That is why I believe that even with all the changes, Brahman is changeless. It does not change its natural ways, and all 'maya' is because of this un-changing change. There is no problem about energy/Brahman being immutable. Apart from Hindu philosophies, even science accepts this.

I'll going to reply to this later.

4) What is the origin of my views? It is Upanishads and Sankara. Am I saying anything other than what they have said?

Uh, yeah, you are.

adiyen

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I do know is that I consider you Hindu, 100 percent.

I know the Charvakas were materialists and are considered nastika, but is that because of their materialism?

Thanks for accepting me as a Hindu. I have had such a tough time making others accept that and I still have not succeeded with some. It was, as Axlyz said, because of not accepting Vedas. However, I accept and revere Vedas (I accept Nasadiya Sukta and many others), though I do not consider them 'divine'.

An "Advaitist" would also be classified as a non-evolutionist because he believes that evolution was illusory. He can be classified as a denier of everything with that logic.

That immediately brands me as an advaitist irrespective of what Sankara may have said, denier of everything except the universal substrate, Brahman.

Uh, yeah, you are.

Take you time and tell me exactly what.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji
[

Brahman is not separate from its consciousness. Heat is not separate from its fire. Light is not separate from its lamp. Energy (I believe in the physical type) is not separate from its properties, Srimati Radha is not separate from Sri Krishna, Mother Sita is not separate from Lord Rama, Shiva is not separate from Mother Parvati, Lord Vishnu is not separate from Mother Lakshmi, sun is not separate from Chhaya, Kamadeva is not separate from Rati and life is not separate from its tribulations, so to say. Inseparables.

in many respects I like this answer , ...you speak as any true Hindu would , with conviction about the nature of Brahman in the same breath as speaking of the inseperable nature of the supreme in his many incarnations with his Shakti , his divine consort , ....(Consorts)

yet later on you go on to say that you beleive in their being only as characters in ''stories''

The deities that I mention in my posts (or in my signature) are culture figures of my people. I respect their stories because these stories contain the ethics and morality of Hinduism. They are the my beacons and that of my people. ........ Yes, I am a naturalist because nature is none other than Brahman.

from this one could be led to understand that you do not veiw shastra as revealed knowledge , ....as by this meassure there is no true being to reveal them , ...?

this leads to the question of Satyam , ....
who revealed this inperishable science , ...?

sri-bhagavan uvaca
imam vivasvate yogam
proktavan aham avyayam
vivasvan manave praha
manur iksvakave 'bravit


The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikṣvāku.
Bhagavad Gita ch ... 4 V ...1

​

Please do not think that I do not regard you as Hindu , ....I think from many things you say that you are very much Hindu , I am just not sure that you are nececarily Advaitin although you may find that aspects of Advaita come closest to how you preceive things to be , ...allthough personaly I am not sure that all these lables are realy nececary , ...especialy Theist and Atheist , ....these titles keep causing so much contention here , ....to my mind as long as one is not telling another how to think then surely we should all be allowed our freedom to explore the meanings we attribute to aspects of faith ,
...after all are these thoughts (and expressions of , ..) not a nececary part of our spiritual development ?
(that question is to all , not just Aupmanyav ji alone , ...)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Who revealed this imperishable science?

The Lord himself, Brahman. Who else. Is there anyone or anything else in the universe? Ratiben, I am an 'advaitist', many people are 'Vedantists'. There knowledge is colored by Shastras, my knowledge is like that of a village Hindu, only what he feels. What do I know about Shastras? Perhaps that is the difference. I follow my 'advaita' very closely. I am you and you are me. Other people feel it differently, I feel it this way. I am happy in my way, I am happy in their way also. I have solved my problems. Let them solve their problems in their own way. SriKrishnarpanamastu.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I agree that materialism is hard to define. Mass may change into energy and energy can disappear in the womb of what it arose from, 'absolute nothing'. Who knows? But I do not think it is beyond orthodox Hinduism. Hinduism never shied from questions and investigations. I do not believe in supernaturals, idealism is but a goal. Nature spiritualism, to feel for nature, is advocated by orthodox Hinduism. Parents advice the children not to pluck leaves from trees.

Since we have not been able to define what is material and what is non-material, this question does not arise. Sure, it stands for all that exists and which is a form of physical energy that was there at the time of Big Bang or whatever happened. Like in the double-slit experiment, I think consciousness comes to fore by the act of observation. Since I do not believe in divine, I take Vedic richas to be the creation of the writers who are mentioned in the Vedas. One is supposed to be my progenitor, Upamanyu, son of Vyaghrapada.

Well, the point is what you believe is the nature of reality, and it seems to me that you hold to a materialism that cannot be squared with orthodox Hinduism or Advaita Vedanta. You sound closer to the Charvakas, as others have said.