I'm 27 and I don't want to be reincarnated

[Aupmanyav]

Similar arguments will be mentioned by quacks I mentioned in the earlier post: That will make you too a suspect, promoting your quackery and disparaging serious thinking.

Which shows that I am on the right track, as endorsed by the sages and scriptures: Not necessarily. Scriptures mention Lord Brahma born on the lotus sprouting out from Lord Vishnu's navel while he was reclining on a coiled thousand-headed serpent along with his consort, Mother Lakshmi, in a milk ocean. Do you think it is true? And what about vimanas and brahmastras? Did we really have them? And apsara and gandharvas? Do they exist?

Atman distinct from Jivatman: As per Sankara, you have already lost 'Advaita' - 'Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'

Proof lies in experiential understanding through meditation and samadhi: Experience through samadhi is cannot be varified by other people. It can be enlightenment or delusion. Therefore, it would not be acceptable as per Vaisheshika pramana system.

I have discussed and showed its variance from advaita: I have shown above that you are not an Advaita follower because you see a difference between Atman and Jivatman.

Falsehood will not .. came to an end: Again, your senseless silly stories not connected with the discussion.

 

[ajay0]

That will make you too a suspect, promoting your quackery and disparaging serious thinking.

Show me where I have varied from Advaitan and Vedic dharma/ Buddha dharma which teaches reincarnation/rebirth.

Which shows that I am on the right track, as endorsed by the sages and scriptures: Not necessarily. Scriptures mention Lord Brahma born on the lotus sprouting out from Lord Vishnu's navel while he was reclining on a coiled thousand-headed serpent along with his consort, Mother Lakshmi, in a milk ocean. Do you think it is true? And what about vimanas and brahmastras? Did we really have them? And apsara and gandharvas? Do they exist?

I am not talking about puranic stories, but about the advaitan philosophies which has been taught by the upanishads and testified to by medieval and modern sages.

As per Sankara, you have already lost 'Advaita' - 'Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'.

Jivo Brahmaiva Na Parah (individual is not different from this higher consciousness)

I would say it is you who lost it, considering your negation of Brahman being pure consciousness.

The Jivatman or mind-body complex is a manifestation of Brahman or pure consciousness, though it comes under the domain of Prakriti, unlike the Atman or Self which is Brahman or pure consciousness itself.

The whole aim of Advaita is to focus attention on the changeless Self, and not the mind-body complex which is subject to change.


Those who have no faith in the Divine Essence, which is the Self in them, get easily abducted by the cooings of their emotions, or the barkings of their intellect, or the whisperings of their flesh. - Swami Chinmayananda

Experience through samadhi is cannot be varified by other people. It can be enlightenment or delusion. Therefore, it would not be acceptable as per Vaisheshika pramana system.

Since vaisheshika also promotes meditation and Self-realisation through nirvikalpa samadhi, which is a state of meditation, your above remark is baseless. Also vaisheshika accepts the authority of the scriptures.

I have shown above that you are not an Advaita follower because you see a difference between Atman and Jivatman.

The Atman or Self is distinct from the mind-body complex , though the latter is a manifestation of Brahman.

Sayings of Advaitan sages in this regard...

I can perceive and know my body, sense-organs and mind. Therefore I am evidently the subject, distinct and separate from all of them. – Atmananda Menon

The Adjunct of the God-principle, the total body-mind-intellect equipment, constitutes the lower nature of the Self, called the Prakriti. - Swami Chinmayananda

Falsehood will not .. came to an end: Again, your senseless silly stories not connected with the discussion.

It is just an illustration of similar fraud stuff happening in India, and to further elucidate the reason why you stated that you needed a chain mail armour in the other forum due to criticism from scholars who refused to entertain your fraudulent views, and hence had to leave it for here, where not much people know about advaita and hence pose as an advaitan without censure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would say it is you who lost it, considering your negation of Brahman being pure consciousness.: Where is 'consciousness' in that declaration. You are unnecessarily adding it from your own side. Don't put words in Sankara's mouth.

Since vaisheshika also promotes meditation and Self-realisation through nirvikalpa samadhi, which is a state of meditation, your above remark is baseless.: If you mean deep thinking by Meditation, then Vaisheshika has no problem with it, otherwise it has nothing to do with unsound methods which cannot be verified.

I can perceive and know my body, sense-organs and mind. Therefore I am evidently the subject, distinct and separate from all of them. – Atmananda Menon: This Menon fellow sees 'distinct and separate from all of them'. He does not understand Advaita.

"Yadā bhūta-pṛthag-bhāvam, eka-stham anupaśyati;
tata eva ca vistāraḿ, brahma sampadyate tadā." BhagawadGita 13.31
(When a person abandons the idea of difference in things and sees them situated in one, he sees its expansion, then he realizes Brahman.)

The Adjunct of the God-principle, the total body-mind-intellect equipment, constitutes the lower nature of the Self, called the Prakriti. - Swami Chinmayananda: To see Prakriti and Purusha as separate is not Advaita but Samkhya. In Advaita, there is only one ' "Dwiteeyo nasti".

It is just an illustration of similar fraud stuff happening in India, and to further elucidate the reason why you stated that you needed a chain mail armour in the other forum due to criticism from scholars who refused to entertain your fraudulent views, and hence had to leave it for here, where not much people know about advaita and hence pose as an advaitan without censure.: It is not necessary that every one should agree to my views. They or you are welcome to have a different view. If the fools do not understand what I am saying, it is not my fault. Staying in a forum depends on whether one enjoy being there. I am a person of science. I certainly do not like to associate myself with "koop mandukas" (frogs in a well). I also do not want that "koop mandukas" should define Hinduism. So why should it be strange that I left that or any other forum?

I got 65 results from the Google search of my posts in www.hindudharmaforums.com, if you want to discuss any of them, you are welcome.
https://www.google.co.in/search?ei=zWJnWt3fPIn58gWhpbzwAg&q=Aupmanyav+site:+www.hindudharmaforums.com&oq=Aupmanyav+site:+www.hindudharmaforums.com&gs_l=psy-ab.12...20003.20003.0.22253.1.1.0.0.0.0.208.208.2-1.1.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.qT6gddysio8

 

[ajay0]

Where is 'consciousness' in that declaration. You are unnecessarily adding it from your own side. Don't put words in Sankara's mouth.

The translation is taken from the net from an another site.

That Brahman is taken as pure consciousness is an established one, and all Advaitans substitute Brahman as pure consciousness to provide proper perspective in these sayings.

This is however hard for you to comprehend who ignorantly and deludedly keep on negating the teaching of Vedas and Shankara that Brahman is pure consciousness, inspite of intense criticism from all quarters and insisting on your own pov being correct like an obstinate child.

If you mean deep thinking by Meditation, then Vaisheshika has no problem with it, otherwise it has nothing to do with unsound methods which cannot be verified.

No, I don't mean deep thinking as being the same as meditation, which I have already covered. That is manana or contemplation.

Meditation and samadhi has been emphasized by Rishi Kanada in the Vaisheshika sutra for transending the senses.

'Asamahita-antahkaranah Upsamhrita-samadhayah Tesam Cha'

This however is obviously confusing to you because you have no idea what meditation and samadhi is, which is integral to both vaisheshika and advaita, and which is a sure sign of the fact of your ignorance of this subject.

However, that would be inconvenient for your showing off as an advaitan or vaisheshikan to delude others, and hence you can easily take care of the same by stating their irrevalence and unsoundness inspite of what the sages stated.

This Menon fellow sees 'distinct and separate from all of them'. He does not understand Advaita.

A world famous sage and Advaitan scholar like Atmananda Menon is now considered by you as ignorant of Advaita, while you who have been branded as senile and deluded by other scholars is the true 'Advaitan' in your pov.

This itself is a clear sign of delusion.

The Adjunct of the God-principle, the total body-mind-intellect equipment, constitutes the lower nature of the Self, called the Prakriti. - Swami Chinmayananda: To see Prakriti and Purusha as separate is not Advaita but Samkhya. In Advaita, there is only one ' "Dwiteeyo nasti".

Chinmayananda , who is a distinguished sage and scholar, and who brought Upanishads and Advaita to the masses through numerous Jnana Yajnas is similarly seen as philosophically incorrect by you.

He has only related the concept of Prakriti-Purusha to the Self for better clarity and perspective in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Even Krishna talks about Purusha-Prakriti and Brahman while teaching Arjuna in the Gita for better clarity of teaching.

This itself is further proof that shows that you have no idea of Advaita or Sankhya.

It is just an illustration of similar fraud stuff happening in India, and to further elucidate the reason why you stated that you needed a chain mail armour in the other forum due to criticism from scholars who refused to entertain your fraudulent views, and hence had to leave it for here, where not much people know about advaita and hence pose as an advaitan without censure.: It is not necessary that every one should agree to my views. They or you are welcome to have a different view. If the fools do not understand what I am saying, it is not my fault. Staying in a forum depends on whether one enjoy being there. I am a person of science. I certainly do not like to associate myself with "koop mandukas" (frogs in a well). I also do not want that "koop mandukas" should define Hinduism. So why should it be strange that I left that or any other forum?

Have you ever been flexible enough to think why all the rest are 'fools' and you are not.

I got 65 results from the Google search of my posts in www.hindudharmaforums.com, if you want to discuss any of them, you are welcome.
https://www.google.co.in/search?ei=zWJnWt3fPIn58gWhpbzwAg&q=Aupmanyav+site:+www.hindudharmaforums.com&oq=Aupmanyav+site:+www.hindudharmaforums.com&gs_l=psy-ab.12...20003.20003.0.22253.1.1.0.0.0.0.208.208.2-1.1.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.qT6gddysio8

You can discuss your introductory thread where you discussed your pseudoadvaitan views, and got branded as senile by a senior scholar over there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see no reason why Brahman and Consciousness should be equated. Rest tomorrow.

 

[ajay0]

I see no reason why Brahman and Consciousness should be equated. Rest tomorrow.

You see no reason, but it is a fundamental Upanishadic and Advaitan teaching .

And since you do not know Advaitan philosophical analysis (Neti-neti), meditation and samadhi, it is easier to deal with it by rejecting these fundamentals of Advaita, and keep posing as Advaitan without anyone being the wiser.

To those who know, it is as absurd as stating that a multi-storey building can be built of ice like an igloo, as ice is harder than steel as shown by the movie where Titanic is wrecked by an iceberg. And then insisting obstinately on this position with mule like stubbornness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You see no reason, but it is a fundamental Upanishadic and Advaitan teaching.

And since you do not know Advaitan philosophical analysis (Neti-neti), meditation and samadhi, it is easier to deal with it by rejecting these fundamentals of Advaita, and keep posing as Advaitan without anyone being the wiser.

Don't quote the word "fundamental' so frequently, otherwise you sound like a Bible-thumper or a mullah. Hinduism is not Christanity or Islam. Except 'dharma', there is nothing 'fundamental' in Hinduism. If Brahman is 'Neti-neti', then how do you know that it is consciousness? That negates 'Neti-neti'.

The fact is that upon the so-called death (I do not believe in birth or death) , our atoms disperse and form parts of things they are absorbed by. For example, the carbon in your (or mine) body will change into carbon-di-oxide. It will remain in atmosphere. Either it will come down with rain as carbonic acid or it will be absorbed by vegetation in its chlorophyll cycle to give carbon atoms for the growth of the tree/bush/grass and the oxygen part will be exhaled by the vegetation. Water, which forms some 60% of our body will directly go to the atmosphere as water vapor. This will come down as rain.

So, there is no mechanism by which human consciousness can survive. It is extinguished upon the so-called death. And there is no proof of existence of anything like 'atma' except in pseudo-science reports like that of this Ian Stevenson.

As I have mentioned previously, Brahman does not need consciousness. What will it do with consciousness? Where is Brahman's consciousness stored if it has any? It does not care about what is happening in the universe, and if something happens Brahman is not going to react to it. Brahman is nirlipta, nirvikara. It just exists. That is all that it does. So, there is no proof of a universal consciousness as expounded by many people. That is ignorance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman is not some external thing out there to ponder about and conceptualise endlessly.: Sure Brahman is nothing external. All things are Brahman without any exception. That is mentioned in our scriptures (Sarvam khlu idam Brahma). That there is nothing other than Brahman, that also is mentioned in our scriptures (Ekam sad, dwiteeyo nasti). Bhagawad Gita mentions the three way Brahman can be known:

"Dhyānenātmani paśyanti, kecid ātmānam ātmanā;
anye sāńkhyena yogena, karma-yogena cāpare." BhgawadGita 13.25
(Some perceive Brahman by contempletion on self, others by thinking, still others by philosophical discussion and working without desires.)

So, if you believe in Bhagawd Gita, it clearly says that Brahman can be understood by contemplation, thinking and philosophical discussions, and not without it.

 

[ajay0]

Don't quote the word "fundamental' so frequently, otherwise you sound like a Bible-thumper or a mullah. Hinduism is not Christanity or Islam. Except 'dharma', there is nothing 'fundamental' in Hinduism. If Brahman is 'Neti-neti', then how do you know that it is consciousness? That negates 'Neti-neti'.

Hinduism, especially the Hindu philosophies have a logical framework and methodology to it, following which one attains Self-realisation, as testified by many sages and saints, both ancient and modern.
You can't trifle with it.

There are some folks who practiced pranayama without guidance of qualified teachers, and ended up with brain damage.

Dharma is stated to be truth in action, while adharma is falsehood in action.

Obviously falsehood which is clearly contradictory to the teachings of the ancient and modern sages is adharma, no matter how much you claim it to be dharma.

With respect to Dharma , Chinmayananda stated thus....

Something without which a substance cannot be that very substance is called its Dharma or essence; e. g., heat in fire, cold in ice. Those who have no faith in the Divine Essence, which is the Self in them, get easily abducted by the cooings of their emotions, or the barkings of their intellect, or the whisperings of their flesh. They slip into devolution and come to live as biped animals, when they lose their faith in the Divine core which is the Essential Being.

If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself as distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy, peaceful and free from bonds. – Ashtavakra Gita


Negation of the Self as pure consciousness in thought, word and deed thus is the greatest falsehood and adharma possible.

So, there is no mechanism by which human consciousness can survive. It is extinguished upon the so-called death. And there is no proof of existence of anything like 'atma' except in pseudo-science reports like that of this Ian Stevenson.

This is clear charvak philosophy, not endorsed by the other dharmic philosophies, and one can clearly state this in an atheistic or materialistic forum.

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Dr. Brian Weiss and Dr. Michael Newton and many others have created a good body of work which states that reincarnation is a possibility, even though they came up in the west where there is no such traditional idea or theory related to reincarnation, and which goes contrary to christian and materialistic conditioning as well.

In India too there are techniques by which one gets to know their past lives created by yogis here, and there is a good body of work in this regard too.

I know my past lives as well.

As I have mentioned previously, Brahman does not need consciousness. What will it do with consciousness?

Why do you need consciousness yourself ! Just shed it. If Brahman does not need it, why do you need it.

Shed it and come back over here for further discussion.

Where is Brahman's consciousness stored if it has any? It does not care about what is happening in the universe, and if something happens Brahman is not going to react to it. Brahman is nirlipta, nirvikara. It just exists. That is all that it does. So, there is no proof of a universal consciousness as expounded by many people. That is ignorance.

It is ignorance for those who lack understanding of Advaitan philosophy, meditation and samadhi under a realized sage or saint or advaitan institution, which as I stated earlier, you have no idea of, as you are just a mere armchair reader who read this and that and synthesised it with vague speculation to form your pov, without a good teacher or company of scholars.

This is why you have ended up deluded and subjected to intense criticism from all quarters. I am not surprised at this as I have seen many similar retired elderly men in parks and so on vaguely speculating on this and that, and even talking to themselves. I think if they had volunteered their services in some charitable institution or NGO or teaching underprivileged children, they could have done something more productive or constructive .

 

[ajay0]

"Dhyānenātmani paśyanti, kecid ātmānam ātmanā;
anye sāńkhyena yogena, karma-yogena cāpare." BhgawadGita 13.25
(Some perceive Brahman by contempletion on self, others by thinking, still others by philosophical discussion and working without desires.)

So, if you believe in Bhagawd Gita, it clearly says that Brahman can be understood by contemplation, thinking and philosophical discussions, and not without it.

The translation is wrong.

BG 13.25: Some try to perceive the Supreme Soul within their hearts through meditation, and others try to do so through the cultivation of knowledge, while still others strive to attain that realization by the path of action.

( Swami Mukundananda)

Some perceive God in their own self by the self through the Yoga of meditation, others by the Yoga of Knowledge, and still others by the Yoga of Action.

( Swami Ramsukhdasji )


It is meditation, and cultivation of knowlede ( jnana yoga - Neti neti) and karma yoga emphasized in this verse.
Not contemplation and (vague) thinking.

You have deliberately omitted meditation from this. You are trying to fool the wrong person, dude.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can't trifle with it.: You can't trifle with it. If it is a flat earth, then it is flat. If it is the sun going around the earth it is. Yes, there are many people like you. Such people should be put in museums. They are relics of past. They do not belong to 21st Century.

Those who have no faith in the Divine Essence, which is the Self in them, get easily abducted by the cooings of their emotions, or the barkings of their intellect, or the whisperings of their flesh. They slip into devolution and come to live as biped animals, when they lose their faith in the Divine core which is the Essential Being.: That was very irresponsible of Swami Chinmayananda. That means he is making the Samkhya philosophers who did not believe in existence of Ishwara as barking dogs. Even Swami Chinmayananda (my homage to him) has no right to demand that all Hindus should be theists. See: Samkhya - Wikipedia.

"The Sankhya-tattva-kaumudi commenting on Karika 57 argues that a perfect God can have no need to create a world (for Himself) and if God's motive is kindness (for others), Samkhya questions whether it is reasonable to call into existence beings who while non-existent had no suffering.
The Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra in verse no. 1.92 directly states that existence of "Ishvara (God) is unproved". Hence there is no philosophical place for a creationist God in this system. It is also argued by commentators of this text that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist."
Samkhya - Wikipedia

Negation of the Self as pure consciousness in thought, word and deed thus is the greatest falsehood and adharma possible.: Negation of self does not compulsorily require a belief in what you call as 'pure consciousness'.

So, there is no mechanism by which human consciousness can survive. It is extinguished upon the so-called death. And there is no proof of existence of anything like 'atma'.

This is clear charvak philosophy, not endorsed by the other dharmic philosophies, and one can clearly state this in an atheistic or materialistic forum.

There is nothing Chavakist in this. This is pure Advaita. If I am Brahman, then how can I have a separate 'atma'?

I know my past lives as well.: Sure, Who are you. Alexander or Jada Bharat. This medical condition is known as Culture-bound syndrome - Wikipedia.

Why do you need consciousness yourself ! Just shed it. If Brahman does not need it, why do you need it.: There are three levels of truth as expounded by Sankara. We exist in 'Vyavaharika'. Conciousnes is essential in 'Vyavaharika'.

Where is Brahman's consciousness stored if it has any? It does not care about what is happening in the universe, and if something happens Brahman is not going to react to it. Brahman is nirlipta, nirvikara. It just exists. That is all that it does. So, there is no proof of a universal consciousness as expounded by many people. That is ignorance.

It is ignorance for those who .. good teacher or company of scholars.

You have gone on a sermon binge, but note that you have not answered even one of the questions

This is why you have ended up deluded and subjected to intense criticism from all quarters.: I have earned 5816 ratings from my friends during my time in Religious forums here. This does not show any 'intense criticism' from my fellow members. They like me and I like them. Only you are railing against me like Don Quixote against the wind-mill.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The translation is wrong.

If the translation is wrong, show me what word corresponds to "Supreme Soul" or "God" in the original. People don't spare even BhgawadGita with their ignorance and lies.
Copy and Paste master, no application of mind.

 

[ajay0]

You can't trifle with it.: You can't trifle with it. If it is a flat earth, then it is flat. If it is the sun going around the earth it is. Yes, there are many people like you. Such people should be put in museums. They are relics of past. They do not belong to 21st Century.

And if you practice pranayama without the guidance of a qualified teacher you will get brain damage.

And if you try to understand advaita as a mere armchair reader and speculator, you are going to get branded senile and deluded by other scholars.

These are obvious things.

Those who have no faith in the Divine Essence, which is the Self in them, get easily abducted by the cooings of their emotions, or the barkings of their intellect, or the whisperings of their flesh. They slip into devolution and come to live as biped animals, when they lose their faith in the Divine core which is the Essential Being.: That was very irresponsible of Swami Chinmayananda. That means he is making the Samkhya philosophers who did not believe in existence of Ishwara as barking dogs. Even Swami Chinmayananda (my homage to him) has no right to demand that all Hindus should be theists. See: Samkhya - Wikipedia.

What are you talking about!

This is an excerpt of Chinmayananda in his commentary on the bhagavad Gita, not sankhya.

Even Krishna talks about Sankhya, as well as the personal God and impersonal Self in the Gita.

"The Sankhya-tattva-kaumudi commenting on Karika 57 argues that a perfect God can have no need to create a world (for Himself) and if God's motive is kindness (for others), Samkhya questions whether it is reasonable to call into existence beings who while non-existent had no suffering.
The Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra in verse no. 1.92 directly states that existence of "Ishvara (God) is unproved". Hence there is no philosophical place for a creationist God in this system. It is also argued by commentators of this text that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist."
Samkhya - Wikipedia

Sankhya is stated by some to be theistic and some to be atheistic. I have never commmented on it.

Even sankhya however teaches Purusha to be consciousness which you deny. Along with meditation and samadhi.

Negation of self does not compulsorily require a belief in what you call as 'pure consciousness'.
There is nothing Chavakist in this. This is pure Advaita. If I am Brahman, then how can I have a separate 'atma'?

How does it become advaita, when even Shankara emphasises the Self or Brahman to be pure consciousness.

It is just your own deluded pov, which varies from the upanishads and shankaracharya's teachings.

It is very hard at this age to grasp these things.

Sure, Who are you. Alexander or Jada Bharat. This medical condition is known as Culture-bound syndrome - Wikipedia.

I was not a believer in reincarnation earlier. Just came upon it and understood it. There is no cultural conditioning here.

Even if it there is cultural conditioning, still people have the right to discuss views on reincarnation here without any adverse criticism of any sort as it is a fundamental teaching of Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism and as rebirth in buddhism.

There are three levels of truth as expounded by Sankara. We exist in 'Vyavaharika'. Conciousnes is essential in 'Vyavaharika'.
You have gone on a sermon binge, but note that you have not answered even one of the questions.

But you have not understood consciousness as in Advaita, through neti-neti, meditaion and samadhi and keep projecting your pov as advaita. This is why scholars brand you as senile and deluded and all other witty criticisms.

: I have earned 5816 ratings from my friends during my time in Religious forums here. This does not show any 'intense criticism' from my fellow members. They like me and I like them. Only you are railing against me like Don Quixote against the wind-mill.

You were not able to do the same in the hdf, as the hindu scholars there did not put up with your pseudoadvaitan views and gave good witty criticism .

Here it is easy , as no one knows advaita, and you can go around fooling people successfully as you tried to do unsuccessfully with me, in the earlier post.

Medical quacks operating in an area leave town when the health inspector pays a visit, and tries their luck in other areas with gullible people. There is no rocket science in this.

 

[ajay0]

If the translation is wrong, show me what word corresponds to "Supreme Soul" or "God" in the original.
Copy and Paste master, no application of mind.

Brahman is referred to as supreme soul or God by both these masters. There is nothing much more to it, as Brahmans is referred to as God, though impersonal by the Jnanis.

Whereas you on the other hand, deliberated omitted 'meditation' (dhyana) and put contemplation and thinking instead to serve your agenda. I could find the verse translation wrong both linguistically and philosophically at first sight itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I asked you a simple question - "show me what word corresponds to "Supreme Soul" or "God" in the original"
You have not mentioned any word in the original verse which relates to them.

 

[ajay0]

I asked you a simple question - "show me what word corresponds to "Supreme Soul" or "God" in the original"
You have not mentioned any word in the original verse which relates to them.

Ask these Swamis themselves. Why they along with most others equate Brahman with impersonal God in Hinduism!

For me Brahman is equable with Self and God in an impersonal sense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And if you try to understand advaita as a mere armchair reader and speculator, you are going to get branded senile and deluded by other scholars.:
And you are such a person who has achieved enlightenment by Samadhi. You are a person with GD (Grandoise Delusion).
Grandiose delusions - Wikipedia

This is an excerpt of Chinmayananda in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, not sankhya.:
OK. So what Swmi Chinmayanada says is different from Samkhya. Similarly, what Advaita says also is different from what Swami Chinmayananda says. There is neither personal God in Advaita and nor an impersonal God. Only one thing exists in the whole world and that is Brahman. Even an impersonal God would be a 'dwiteeya' in Advaita, and there is no place for a 'dwiteeya' in Advaita.

Even sankhya however teaches Purusha to be consciousness which you deny.:
That is immaterial for me. I do not follow Samkhya. I am an Advaitist.

How does it become advaita, when even Shankara emphasises the Self or Brahman to be pure consciousness.:
How does it matter to me. Sankara had his views, I have mine. Why should it be necessary for me to follow one person or the other? This is Hinduism.

Still people have the right to discuss views on reincarnation here without any adverse criticism of any sort as it is a fundamental teaching of Hinduism:
Again fundamental. I have no problem with your discussing reincarnation and thinking that you were Alexander or Jada Bharat. It is only that I do not believe in that. Advaita does not allow it.

But you have not understood consciousness as in Advaita, through neti-neti, meditaion and samadhi and keep projecting your pov as advaita. This is why scholars brand you as senile and deluded and all other witty criticisms.
The only 'witty' (sic.) senile criticism that I have encountered is yours. If you believe in 'Neti-neti', then there is nothing more to discuss anything beyond it, not even God, personal or impersonal. 'Neti-neti' finishes all guess work. If I believe in only one thing to exist in the universe, then it is certainly Advaita. No meditation or samadhi can add or subtract anything from it.

You were not able to do the same in the hdf, as the hindu scholars there did not put up with your pseudoadvaitan views and gave good witty criticism .
Here it is easy, as no one knows advaita, and you can go around fooling people successfully as you tried to do unsuccessfully with me, in the earlier post.
Don't say that. We have many people here who know much more than you do. Do not have 'Grandoise Delusion' about yourself. HDF is a forum for ignorant people. It is not good to be in company of fools. One himself becomes a fool It was no fun being there. I am not aware of the 'good witty criticism' that you are talking about. If I am not wrong, I think they make it necessary for any post to start with a namaste. It certainly does not suit my temperament. In the Vedanta forum topic also, I got tired of your ignorance and stopped posting there. I think you are talking about that topic. If you want I can start it again there also.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ask these Swamis themselves. Why they along with most others equate Brahman with impersonal God in Hinduism!

For me Brahman is equable with Self and God in an impersonal sense.

That is fine. What it is to you is for you. What it is to me is for me. I think about things myself. I do not go after Swamis and Acharyas. For me two are enough, Sankara and Buddha.

 

[ajay0]

That is fine. What it is to you is for you. What it is to me is for me. I think about things myself. I do not go after Swamis and Acharyas. For me two are enough, Sankara and Buddha.

Kindly give that allowance to the discussion of reincarnation over here by me as well.

 

[ajay0]

And if you try to understand advaita as a mere armchair reader and speculator, you are going to get branded senile and deluded by other scholars.:
And you are such a person who has achieved enlightenment by Samadhi. You are a person with GD (Grandoise Delusion).
Grandiose delusions - Wikipedia

I have never stated over here I have attained enlightenment or nirvikalpa samadhi, just samadhi.

That you put this over here is just proof to me of your delusion, commented elsewhere by others as well.

This is an excerpt of Chinmayananda in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, not sankhya.:
OK. So what Swmi Chinmayanada says is different from Samkhya. Similarly, what Advaita says also is different from what Swami Chinmayananda says. There is neither personal God in Advaita and nor an impersonal God. Only one thing exists in the whole world and that is Brahman. Even an impersonal God would be a 'dwiteeya' in Advaita, and there is no place for a 'dwiteeya' in Advaita.

This is just your totally delusional understanding being projected here to bore others.

Swami Chinmayananda is a respected scholar and sage, and his institution has taught Advaita to millions.

Your idol Narendra Modi idolises him and released a stamp bearing his picture in 2015.

Tell Modi to release your stamp as well as your advaita is better than Chinmayananda's.

Even sankhya however teaches Purusha to be consciousness which you deny.:
That is immaterial for me. I do not follow Samkhya. I am an Advaitist.

Even Advaita teaches Brahman to be pure consciousness, which you deny.

How does it become advaita, when even Shankara emphasises the Self or Brahman to be pure consciousness.:
How does it matter to me. Sankara had his views, I have mine. Why should it be necessary for me to follow one person or the other? This is Hinduism.

That is not hinduism but delusionalism and quackery.

Still people have the right to discuss views on reincarnation here without any adverse criticism of any sort as it is a fundamental teaching of Hinduism:
Again fundamental. I have no problem with your discussing reincarnation and thinking that you were Alexander or Jada Bharat. It is only that I do not believe in that. Advaita does not allow it.

Fine , keep your views to yourself, and allow others to discuss these views without adverse comments.

But you have not understood consciousness as in Advaita, through neti-neti, meditaion and samadhi and keep projecting your pov as advaita. This is why scholars brand you as senile and deluded and all other witty criticisms.
The only 'witty' (sic.) senile criticism that I have encountered is yours. If you believe in 'Neti-neti', then there is nothing more to discuss anything beyond it, not even God, personal or impersonal. 'Neti-neti' finishes all guess work. If I believe in only one thing to exist in the universe, then it is certainly Advaita. No meditation or samadhi can add or subtract anything from it.

Neti-neti is understanding that nonconceptual awareness is that which is left after negation of all worldly experiences and impermanent phenomena.

It is an integral part of advaita. But since you do not know advaita, neti-neti, it is convenient for you to negate Neti-Neti instead so as to pose as an advaitan to project an aura of fake substance,and disguise your ignorance of it, and also meditation and samadhi.

This of course, works fine with people ignorant of advaita, but not with those who know advaita.

You were not able to do the same in the hdf, as the hindu scholars there did not put up with your pseudoadvaitan views and gave good witty criticism .
Here it is easy, as no one knows advaita, and you can go around fooling people successfully as you tried to do unsuccessfully with me, in the earlier post.
Don't say that. We have many people here who know much more than you do. Do not have 'Grandoise Delusion' about yourself. HDF is a forum for ignorant people. It is not good to be in company of fools. One himself becomes a fool It was no fun being there. I am not aware of the 'good witty criticism' that you are talking about. If I am not wrong, I think they make it necessary for any post to start with a namaste. It certainly does not suit my temperament. In the Vedanta forum topic also, I got tired of your ignorance and stopped posting there. I think you are talking about that topic. If you want I can start it again there also.

HDF is a forum of scholars of advaita, where you understandably found it hard to portray yourself as Advaitan.

A quack will similarly find it going hard in an assembly of doctors or medical practicioners .

Calling HDF scholars as fools, and yourself solely as intelligent is itself a sign of major delusion.