Is advaita vedanta based on Identity crisis

[Vinayaka]

Beg to differ. But if you insist on describing me thus, is there anything that I can do (except to register my dissatisfaction)? You are branding me unfairly, and I do not expect a Hindu to do so knowingly.

I thought you said that yourself. Forgive me if I am mistaken. I am an idiot with regard to all the schools, etc. Is there another school of atheist Hindu?

 

[Vinayaka]

No, the concise yoga vasistha. Attributed to sage Vasistha, lord Rama's Guru.
It is designed to be an "all you need to know" book of truth and liberation. I figured everyone would know this Scripture

I don't. I guess I'm not a Hindu either.

 

[atanu]

Sure.

But at the same time atheists are accepted, I have never met a Hindu who feels threatened or upset if someone doesn´t believe in God.

The Gita also speak of this, I forget which verse, but it says that if a person cannot focus on God, or don´t have the inclination to do so there are other ways, good works for example.

Maya

Maya

This is the exact problem I am alluding to.

Gita prescribes good work surrendering the fruits to Ishwara, as a path called Karma Yoga. In all paths taught in Gita, Ishwara is the focus.

What Aup has been writing is neither advaita nor Hindu dharma. I am sorry for this. But I cannot knowingly say otherwise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I thought you said that yourself. Forgive me if I am mistaken. I am an idiot with regard to all the schools, etc. Is there another school of atheist Hindu?

And what did I say myself? Did I ever say that I belong to the Charvak or the Lokayata or the Ajivaka school (as if anybody knows what these schools believed)? I have always said that I am an atheist 'advaitist' hindu and quite orthodox at that. Ishavasya Upanishad, Verse 12:

"Andham tamah pravishanti ye' sambhut imupasate,
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah."

(Into blinding darkness enter those who worship the unmanifest, and into greater darkness those who worship manifest alone.)

What Aup has been writing is neither advaita nor Hindu dharma. I am sorry for this. But I cannot knowingly say otherwise.

This is because you do not know the expanse of Hinduism. How can there be a duality of jiva and an Ishwara in 'advaita' which literally means non-duality. Even Lord Krishna asks you to leave all dualities.

"Eko Brahma, dwiteeyo nasti neh na nasti kinchana"

 

[Aupmanyav]

MaitraVarunih,

Vidya and avidya are not mentioned in the original text of Ishavasya Upanishad. That is a later manipulation. Here is the original text from Wikisource (ईशावास्‍य उपनिषद् - Wikisource).

अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽसम्भूतिमुपासते ।
ततो भूय इव ते तमो य उ सम्भूत्याँ रताः ॥१२॥

The verse and the translation given by me are correct.

 

[Stormcry]

Madhava was influenced by Christian and Muslims
Shankara was influenced by Buddhist practice
Sage vasistha was influenced by advaita, sankaya, and Jainism.

Hindu becomes almost a new religion every few hundred years..

Could it be said that anyone who considers the Vedas divine Scripture, a Hindu.

So funny !

The original hindu dharma posits only one thing which is unity of soul and bramhan. Other non-advaita sects are arised due to ignorance. They are just effects of kaliyug.

See this bhagavata purana verse.

[ You already know that the essence of all upanishadas is the the non-dual unity of atma and bramhan . Only this is the given subject of bhagavat purana . The aim of this ( bhagavat purana ) is “kaivalya moksha “ ( unity of atma-bramhan) only . [BP 12.13.12]

 

[Maya3]

Maya

This is the exact problem I am alluding to.

Gita prescribes good work surrendering the fruits to Ishwara, as a path called Karma Yoga. In all paths taught in Gita, Ishwara is the focus.

What Aup has been writing is neither advaita nor Hindu dharma. I am sorry for this. But I cannot knowingly say otherwise.

Sure, but it does not say that you MUST believe.

If there is a God there is. Believing or not makes no difference.

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

And what did I say myself? Did I ever say that I belong to the Charvak or the Lokayata or the Ajivaka school (as if anybody knows what these schools believed)? I have always said that I am an atheist 'advaitist' hindu and quite orthodox at that. Ishavasya Upanishad, Verse 12:

Okay. Sorry I offended you with my ignorance. I looked for atheism and Hinduism, and that's what I found.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Madhava was influenced by Christian and Muslims.

By mAdhava, do you mean vidyAraNya or madhvAchArya? Wherein did either mention or advocate Christianity or Islam in their writings? If anything, you seem to be influenced by Christianity, especially with your claims that Christ was anything other than a liar.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Okay. Sorry I offended you with my ignorance. I looked for atheism and Hinduism, and that's what I found.

No, Vinayaka. I do not easily get offended. But who can gauge the depth of Hinduism? :flower: Metta.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Shankara was influenced by Buddhist practice.
Sage vasistha was influenced by advaita, sankaya, and Jainism.
Hindu becomes almost a new religion every few hundred years..
Could it be said that anyone who considers the Vedas divine Scripture, a Hindu.

1. What is wrong if Sankara was influenced by Buddha? After all, Lord Buddha is an avatara of Lord Vishnu as far as Hinduism goes.
2. Vasishtha is a primordial sage of this manavantara of Vaivasvata Manu. The others are Kashyapa, Atri, Vishvamitra, Gautama, Jamadagni, Bharadvaja. Advaita too is primordial (existed in the beginning). The other philosophies came much later, just about 3,000 years ago.
3. That is known as 'yuga-dharma'. It depends on time and place (kala, desha). However, the kernel 'dharma' does not change.
4. Sure, only a Hindu would say so. But the reverse is not true. One who does not consider Vedas as divine does not automatically becomes a non-Hindu. Some philosophies in Hinduism do not accept 'Shabda' (Shruti, Vedas) as 'pramana' (conclusive proof). A philosophical difference is denoted by 'mata' (opinion).

 

[Contemplative Cat]

So funny !

The original hindu dharma posits only one thing which is unity of soul and bramhan. Other non-advaita sects are arised due to ignorance. They are just effects of kaliyug.

See this bhagavata purana verse.

[ You already know that the essence of all upanishadas is the the non-dual unity of atma and bramhan . Only this is the given subject of bhagavat purana . The aim of this ( bhagavat purana ) is “kaivalya moksha “ ( unity of atma-bramhan) only . [BP 12.13.12]

You have a point but your attitude is intolerant of others. That itself is duality.
Jainism, Buddhism, sankhya, they all have methods to offer advaita.
Buddhism is like advaita, but the self is the mind, and Brahman is the Not Self.
Sankhya is like advaita, but the SAT and the CHIT are divided apart.
(To be honest idk anything about Jainism though)

Different oppinions keep it fresh. But as long as we can get to that most basic nondual reality....

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Nothing is wrong with Buddha

1. What is wrong if Sankara was influenced by Buddha? After all, Lord Buddha is an avatara of Lord Vishnu as far as Hinduism goes.
2. Vasishtha is a primordial sage of this manavantara of Vaivasvata Manu. The others are Kashyapa, Atri, Vishvamitra, Gautama, Jamadagni, Bharadvaja. Advaita too is primordial (existed in the beginning). The other philosophies came much later, just about 3,000 years ago.
3. That is known as 'yuga-dharma'. It depends on time and place (kala, desha). However, the kernel 'dharma' does not change.
4. Sure, only a Hindu would say so. But the reverse is not true. One who does not consider Vedas as divine does not automatically becomes a non-Hindu. Some philosophies in Hinduism do not accept 'Shabda' (Shruti, Vedas) as 'pramana' (conclusive proof). A philosophical difference is denoted by 'mata' (opinion).

What

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even 'nothing'* is not wrong with Buddha, since who can claim to understand Brahman completely? Nothing wrong with Sankara too, if his views at times were similar to Buddhism.

Buddha warned that people should not contemplate about existence of God or the origin of universe. He said these contemplation are not for all people, and they do not help in life; on the contrary, they could cause mental anguish and madness. It is the Hindus who still persist in doing that for the heck of it.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Ah, that makes sense

 

[Stormcry]

Hello,

Need some help !

In my user cp, there is no any option of signature. Besidea At the bottom of my page, there is an instruction: you may not post attachments.

Can someone tell me what ia this happening ? How to activate them ?

Hari narayana

 

[atanu]

Sure, but it does not say that you MUST believe.

If there is a God there is. Believing or not makes no difference.

Maya

Gita has very strong words for those who believe and teach that this world has no basis in divine. It condemns those who believe that our existence is chance. Kindly confirm it from Gita.

But again that is not the main point. We will not find anything of what 'aup' is writing here in any Hindu dharmic scripture. So, IMO, it is wrong of him to propound his views as those of Hindu dharma.

 

[atanu]

. How can there be a duality of jiva and an Ishwara in 'advaita' which literally means non-duality. Even Lord Krishna asks you to leave all dualities.

"Eko Brahma, dwiteeyo nasti neh na nasti kinchana"

Do you mean to say that you are abiding as the advaitam, eh?

Actually, either you do not comprehend that the advaitam is transcendental to our phenomenal realm of sleep, dream, and waking or you are misleading Western Hindus intentionally.

In the phenomenal states of sleep, dream, and waking states that we are in, 'sarvesvara' is The Lord, as taught in Upanishad. Surrender to Ishwara is taught in Gita.

On the other hand, show me a single verse from any Hindu scripture that supports your atheistic view and that says that our birth and this world are due to chance.

 

[atanu]

This is because you do not know the expanse of Hinduism. How can there be a duality of jiva and an Ishwara in 'advaita' which literally means non-duality. Even Lord Krishna asks you to leave all dualities.

"Eko Brahma, dwiteeyo nasti neh na nasti kinchana"

Where in Gita it is taught that Ishwara and Jiva are same?

Can you show the exact verses wherein Lord Krishna says "leave all dualities" ? Do these verses teach that Ishwara and Jiva are same?

Aup you are either wrongly informed or you are deliberately trying to mislead many people who are new to Hinduism.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

They are not the same, they are not different.
They are the same in essence, but different in quality.