praGYaanaM brahma

[Aupmanyav]

Aup, why dont you want to change title? Do you feel in some way you are devoted to that title? If so do you want to reflect on once again all those told by others of the same title to search if they are really inside of you or not?

What title are you talking about, Ametist? I have not understood the purport of your post.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

But we must not mistake the consciousness of Brahman for human consciousness. The two things are very different. As I have mentioned elsewhere, consciousness of Brahman is like the consciousness of a photon in a double-slit experiment.

I can kind of see why atanu doesn't view you an actual advaitin. Seriously, you think the conscious of brahman is like a "photon"? Are you even reading what you're saying?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What do you take to be the reality of Krishna in the song? Was He just a smart man?

Many questions involved in this George. First, if there was just one Krishna? Whether the Krishna of Nandgaon who took his herd to Vraja for grazing was the same as the King of Dwarika? Was Krishna an indigenous God whom Hindus had been worshiping before the migration of Aryans in India (Note that he is not mentioned in the Vedas). If he is historical then why what he said in Gita is in Panini's Sanskrit which came into existence between 800 and 400 BC (the probable time when Panini may have lived)? I do not know. The evidence does not tell us much other than mythical stories. However, BhagwadGita is a wonderful and very wise creation. There is no doubt about that. I have always taken its help in solving my problems in life. The krishna.com Gita sits on my bookmark bar and I use it scores of times in a day. (I could download it to my computer. That would eliminate times when I want to use it and internet connection is not available. But I suppose I have just been lazy.)
Hare-Krishna.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Seriously, you think the conscious of Brahman is like a "photon"?

Yes, Jas, (honest to God) at the moment I cannot find any better explanation than that.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Yes, Jas, (honest to God) at the moment I cannot find any better explanation than that.

Honest to god? I thought you said you were an atheist, hehe...

 

[Poeticus]

Was Krishna an indigenous God whom Hindus had been worshiping before the migration of Aryans in India (Note that he is not mentioned in the Vedas). If he is historical then why what he said in Gita is in Panini's Sanskrit which came into existence between 800 and 400 BC (the probable time when Panini may have lived)? I do not know.

Why do you persistently treat the
veda-s as if they are scriptures?​

 

[ametist]

What title are you talking about, Ametist? I have not understood the purport of your post.

I meant the title of your religion written underneath your name. But I read the rest of my post and I too am not sure what I meant by it now

 

[Poeticus]

Was Krishna an indigenous God whom Hindus had been worshiping before the migration of Aryans in India (Note that he is not mentioned in the Vedas).

Shri Krishna is an avatar of Lord Shri Vishnu,
He who is the Wide-Strider; He who spaced
out the universe(s) with Three-Steps (could
have done it in half-a-step, if ya ask me ,
but three's more symbolic, I guess). Plus, it's
common knowledge that various Gods and
Goddesses are not mentioned in the revelations
pertaining to karma-kanda since it was not
necessary. They not being "mentioned"
does not invalidate Them nor does Their
credibility come into question.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do you persistently treat the vedas as if they are scriptures?

They are important books for Hindus, historically as well as spiritually. Am I not citing 'Nasadiya Sukta' in every tenth of my posts? Am I not citing the 30-day dawn mentioned in the Vedas? Moreover, I perhaps have a family interest in RigVeda of which the seventh book was written by Vasishthas (my people, my line) and a verse was written by my Gotra person, Upamanyava. One clansman, Aupamanyava, was a commentator on RigVeda 3,000 years ago. What else would one require to consider the book special?

 

[Ravi500]

Many questions involved in this George. First, if there was just one Krishna? Whether the Krishna of Nandgaon who took his herd to Vraja for grazing was the same as the King of Dwarika? Was Krishna an indigenous God whom Hindus had been worshiping before the migration of Aryans in India (Note that he is not mentioned in the Vedas).

Wish to state here that Arya means noble or a civilized person in Hinduism. It does not have any racial connotation whatsoever, as made up by the european pseudoscholars in the 19th century.

I have stated this before that it is the tremondous negative karma created by the european scholars in distorting the universalist Arya culture into a race related one lead to the second world war and the tremondous destruction and suffering that followed in its wake.

All sects of Hinduism are also unanimous in their consensus that Arya means the cultured or civilized one, and does not have any racial connection whatsoever.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I meant the title of your religion written underneath your name. But I read the rest of my post and I too am not sure what I meant by it now

I am what I mention - Atheist, Advaitist, and Hindu. I know, it takes time to understand patently simple but apparently very complex things. Once you come to it, you would wonder as to why did it take you so long to understand?

Hindu because no other religion would accept it, they have their God beliefs (barring Buddhists and Jains). Advaitist (believer in non-duality) because it all perhaps started with 25 grams of superheated atomic glob some 13.75 billion years ago. And atheist because for that and for evolution, you don't really need Gods. As they say in Samkhya, the result is inherent in cause.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He who spaced out the universe(s) with Three-Steps (could have done it in half-a-step, if ya ask me , but three's more symbolic, I guess).

Your guess is not correct, Poeticus. It had to be three.

'Viṣhṇu’s Three Strides': I am sure that you would not read it, but Tilak has an excellent description of Gods and Goddesses who traversed the universe in three steps or had three abodes. Apart of Vishnu, Savitri did it in RV I, 35, 6; Agni did it in RV I, 95, 3; Ashwins did it in RV VIII, 8, 23; and it is the basis of the Trita Aptya story of RigVeda VIII, 47, 15. If anybody is interested, it can be checked at Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak — The Arctic Home in the Vedas — Chapter 10 (page 303 onwards).

 

[Ravi500]

Aupmanyav. You have unfortunately wasted 71 years of your life with a superficial understanding of Advaita.

At least now , try to learn from Atanu and Makaranda, the intrinsics of Advaita leaving your ego aside and being open-minded.

Atanu is a scientist, the very thing you hold as divine. So he can be actually considered as a god if you want as per your beliefs.

Also note that being a scientist, he is still not interpreting advaita according to his scientific knowledge, which is much, much superior to yours as well.

Makaranda's patience and his ability to articulate concepts with precision is truly exemplary. I admire the way he showed patience with you in going to great lengths in elaborating advaitic concepts to you.

You have a golden opportunity in this forum to learn from the likes of Atanu and Makaranda, which would be hard to get elsewhere. In this way you will only improve yourself, the quality of the forum, and the readers over here will also get benefitted. And considering the greatness of Advaita, which is productive of tremondous good karma, when understood and practiced with precision, you will actually be doing a work of great religious merit.

This is the only positive in this situation.

However if you persist in your views ( which is not sanctioned by the scriptures ) without having the intellectual honesty and open-mindedness to change your views you will only beget great religious demerit. This is the negative.

Choice is yours.

I hope the Vedantists will give Aups the space and time to learn and understand the intrinsics of Advaita and be patient with him, if he shows flexibility in changing his approach and shows open-mindedness .

That would be a meritorious karma on our part.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Arya was also the name of the people who came from Central Asia and settled in India and later merged with Hindus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. great religious merit .. beget great religious demerit.

merits and demerits, pap and punya, heaven and hell, reward and punishment, gods and men, body and soul - my definitions to not match with yours.

 

[Ravi500]

merits and demerits, pap and punya, heaven and hell, reward and punishment, gods and men, body and soul - my definitions to not match with yours.

And what indeed may be your definition !!

I only know the accounts of the scriptures and enlightened masters.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Spooky action at a distance - now between three photons.
Spooky action at a distance goes multicast

 

[George-ananda]

Many questions involved in this George. First, if there was just one Krishna? Whether the Krishna of Nandgaon who took his herd to Vraja for grazing was the same as the King of Dwarika? Was Krishna an indigenous God whom Hindus had been worshiping before the migration of Aryans in India (Note that he is not mentioned in the Vedas). If he is historical then why what he said in Gita is in Panini's Sanskrit which came into existence between 800 and 400 BC (the probable time when Panini may have lived)? I do not know. The evidence does not tell us much other than mythical stories. However, BhagwadGita is a wonderful and very wise creation. There is no doubt about that. I have always taken its help in solving my problems in life. The krishna.com Gita sits on my bookmark bar and I use it scores of times in a day. (I could download it to my computer. That would eliminate times when I want to use it and internet connection is not available. But I suppose I have just been lazy.)
Hare-Krishna.

Aup, what you say is fine but misses the heart of my point.

In your view Krishna's consciousness can only have been created by an assemblage of physical matter and that consciousness will end permanently when that assemblage breaks down.

How can you accept the Gita and not accept the transcendent nature of Krishna's consciousness? The story makes no sense to me from your worldview.

Please don't respond with more history but with the heart of my question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In your view Krishna's consciousness can only have been created by an assemblage of physical matter and that consciousness will end permanently when that assemblage breaks down.

How can you accept the Gita and not accept the transcendent nature of Krishna's consciousness?

I do not know about Krishna other than what my mythology says. The creation of mythological stories is a very interesting subject. Names and places may have been added later.

Rama's Lanka is taken as Srilanka but that cannot be definitely proved. The Yaudheyas of the region around Multan also called their main city as Ayodhya. Yes, scriptures and people say that Gita was spoken by Krishna and reported by Sanjaya through his 'divya' sight and hearing while sitting a hundred and five miles away (Kurukshetra-Hastinapur).

What I have in hand is a collection of some 700 verses. And I can get very good advice on some points about life from it. Therefore I accept some parts of the advice, other parts do not appeal to me. It is as simple as that (I like to keep things simple).

 

[George-ananda]

I do not know about Krishna other than what my mythology says. The creation of mythological stories is a very interesting subject. Names and places may have been added later.

Rama's Lanka is taken as Srilanka but that cannot be definitely proved. The Yaudheyas of the region around Multan also called their main city as Ayodhya. Yes, scriptures and people say that Gita was spoken by Krishna and reported by Sanjaya through his 'divya' sight and hearing while sitting a hundred and five miles away (Kurukshetra-Hastinapur).

What I have in hand is a collection of some 700 verses. And I can get very good advice on some points about life from it. Therefore I accept some parts of the advice, other parts do not appeal to me. It is as simple as that (I like to keep things simple).

So you are saying there are parts of the Gita that do not appeal to you.

I don't know what part could be more central than the nature of Krishna consciousness which seems diametrically opposed to the physicalist's view of consciousness.