Mayavada Philosophy depresses me

[Guest guest]

 

You say it's untenable, well, show me how it's more untenable than theism?

 

I'm on the fence as to if monism or theism is the ultimate truth, so I have no sides to take. So show me why advaita is wrong or any more untenable than theism.

 

 

I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel. If you want a refutation of advaita, read any of the commentaries of Madhva or Ramanuja. If you still have questions, post them here.

[Guest guest]

 

Uh-huh. I don't suppose it matters at all to your theory that Vaishnava Vedanta does not accept that people are "created" by God? Probably not since you are too busy coming up with a cute theory to explain away all and sundry viewpoints that don't agree with yours.

 

Consider reading the Vedanta-sutras some time.

 

 

 

 

The universe makes plenty of sense, and invoking an untenable concept like Advaita is not warranted.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm calling your bluff. Show me the proof.

 

 

 

 

I am an adult who has studied higher mathematics. I can say with certainty that you are a nutcase and that people laughing at your absurd theories is to their credit.

Hari OM:

 

AS they say a snake can know the other snakes leg, you had correctly diagnosed me as a nut case, good.

 

 

"Vaishnva vedanta?" sorry i confess i have no idea about that, i had only read about one vedanta which is a collection of deep thought provoking articles which comes in the end chapters of each kanda of vedas, please be kind enough to enlighten me about the vaishnva vednata and its philisophy, particularly the theory, that God didn't create the people.

 

This universe does not make much sense to me as i had explained above , this seems to be an endless, mindless game between the so called God and His opponent to win over each other. May be if i can understand the Vaishnva vedanta it could make sense.

i am not sarcastic here, i agree that it is genuinely possible that i missed some important points, due to ignorance or arrogance, and chasing some shadows. However if you are real clever enough AND good, please try to explain to me in the best possible ways instead of getting angry or ridicule me, i do belive in the verse, "let noble thoughts come to us from all possible directions"

 

Please read the intoduction of srimad Bhagvatam written by Srila Prabupada, where he mentions the discussions between Chaitnya mahaprabhu and advaithic scholars in Kashi, there he explicility mentions the above verse. This is also recorded by Shankar Mutts, but i think writings by Srila Prabupada is more suitable for this discussion.

 

i think that chapter is called symbology or something which talks the addition in the most possible general terms, like topology. General mathematics addition specifies only linear, non-causal entity addition,

 

To given an example, 2 apples+ 2 apples is always 4 apples does not change.

 

However 2 Hydrogen atoms + 2 chlorine atoms is not 4 , but rather two Hydro-chloric acid molecule. The assumption of entities is not specified in the beginning years of mathematics so as to not confuse the children.

 

There are so many such things which we use in our daily life, but with an assumption so commonplace that we don't know there is some assumption. Those things gets revelaed when you enter non-daily life events in cosmic or micro scales.

[gokulkr]

 

I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel. If you want a refutation of advaita, read any of the commentaries of Madhva or Ramanuja. If you still have questions, post them here.

 

Refutation of Advaita By Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva cannot be accepted. All acharyas take their philosphies as supreme and refute the others.

 

So without referring any works of Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva or Sri Chaitanya, just by using vedic stanzas, upanishads, gita & brahmasutras can any non-advaitin prove that advaita is false ? answer is no. because vedas, upanishads, gita & brahmasutras tell advaita as absolute reality.

 

Just because vaishnavas, shaktas , kashmir shaivas dont agree advaita, it doesnt mean advaita is false.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara

Om Namo Surya Narayanaya

[Guest guest]

 

Refutation of Advaita By Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva cannot be accepted. All acharyas take their philosphies as supreme and refute the others.

 

Well, Advaitins take their philosophy as supreme and refute all others. And this includes so-called Advaitins who do not even know their philosophy like the ones on this forum. Yet we should listen to what Advaitins have to say about non-Advaitin religions but we should not listen to what non-Advaitins have to say about Advaita.

 

 

So without referring any works of Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva or Sri Chaitanya, just by using vedic stanzas, upanishads, gita & brahmasutras can any non-advaitin prove that advaita is false ? answer is no. because vedas, upanishads, gita & brahmasutras tell advaita as absolute reality.

 

 

So on one hand, a non-advaitin cannot refute Advaita despite quoting "vedas, upanishads, gita & brahmasutras." But on the other hand, an Advaitin can say that these scriptures "tell advaita as absolute reality" even though he has not even quoted a single one.

 

Nice double standard, that.

 

 

 

Just because vaishnavas, shaktas , kashmir shaivas dont agree advaita, it doesnt mean advaita is false.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara

Om Namo Surya Narayanaya

 

No, Advaita is not false because all other schools disagree with it. It is false because it is not consistent with what the scriptures themselves say.

[Guest guest]

 

"Vaishnva vedanta?" sorry i confess i have no idea about that,

 

 

You are correct. You don't have any idea about it, although that certainly did not stop you from making crude and inaccurate generalizations about other religions including Vaishnavism.

 

 

 

 

i had only read about one vedanta which is a collection of deep thought provoking articles which comes in the end chapters of each kanda of vedas,

 

 

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. But, I am ready to talk scripture whenever you are.

 

 

 

 

please be kind enough to enlighten me about the vaishnva vednata and its philisophy, particularly the theory, that God didn't create the people.

 

 

Be kind enough to pick up Vedanta-sutra and read it, assuming you have any interest in Vedanta.

 

 

 

This universe does not make much sense to me

 

Well, what to do? You are a nutcase who thinks that "1+1 need not always = 2" can be explained by higher mathematics. And then to back it up, you talked about not comparing apples and oranges, or hydrogen and chlorine atoms, or whatever.

 

Oh, and you still have not quoted the exact statement in which Caitanya supposedly accepted Advaita. And while you are at it, please explain the multitude of other references in the Caitanya literature in which he goes out of his way to refute Advaita. Kind of strange that he supposedly accepts Advaita and when he disagrees with it elsewhere, don't you think?

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

 

No, Advaita is not false because all other schools disagree with it. It is false because it is not consistent with what the scriptures themselves say.

 

 

There are a number of different translations for many scriptures including the Bhagavad-Gita. Some portray an advaitic outlook, some emphasize a theistic outlook. How do we tell which is right or wrong? How can we know what the scriptures really say?

 

Personally, I think it's all irrelevant. Scriptures are for the blind or for the falling looking for a net to save themselves. True experience, true knowing only comes from direct experience and subsequent analysis of that experience.

[Guest guest]

 

There are a number of different translations for many scriptures including the Bhagavad-Gita. Some portray an advaitic outlook, some emphasize a theistic outlook. How do we tell which is right or wrong? How can we know what the scriptures really say?

 

The same way you can know what any book is really saying - learn the language in which it was written, and then read the book.

 

 

Personally, I think it's all irrelevant. Scriptures are for the blind or for the falling looking for a net to save themselves.

 

 

Well, it was gokulkr's claim that, "vedas, upanishads, gita & brahmasutras tell advaita as absolute reality." So if this is true, then the logical question is how these sources supposedly "tell advaita as absolute reality." Saying that they are suddenly irrelvant is a cop-out.

 

 

 

True experience, true knowing only comes from direct experience and subsequent analysis of that experience.

 

 

So what is your experience?

[gokulkr]

 

Well, Advaitins take their philosophy as supreme and refute all others. And this includes so-called Advaitins who do not even know their philosophy like the ones on this forum. Yet we should listen to what Advaitins have to say about non-Advaitin religions but we should not listen to what non-Advaitins have to say about Advaita.

 

 

 

 

So on one hand, a non-advaitin cannot refute Advaita despite quoting "vedas, upanishads, gita & brahmasutras." But on the other hand, an Advaitin can say that these scriptures "tell advaita as absolute reality" even though he has not even quoted a single one.

 

Nice double standard, that.

 

 

 

 

No, Advaita is not false because all other schools disagree with it. It is false because it is not consistent with what the scriptures themselves say.

 

You prabhujis are happy due to gods grace. without any confusion, you are now in a position to present the authority of the pholosohy you following. But presently, i am in a very distressed position due to some personal problems. So i am not in a mood to represent the authority of advaita philosophy or to debate.

 

Please pray to Krishna that i will feel real peace in my heart with grace of Sri Adishankara.

 

Anyway i know that Advaita is absolute reality.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara

Om Namo surya narayanaya

[Guest guest]

 

You prabhujis are happy due to gods grace. without any confusion, you are now in a position to present the authority of the pholosohy you following. But presently, i am in a very distressed position due to some personal problems. So i am not in a mood to represent the authority of advaita philosophy or to debate.

 

Please pray to Krishna that i will feel real peace in my heart with grace of Sri Adishankara.

 

Anyway i know that Advaita is absolute reality.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara

Om Namo surya narayanaya

 

I do not accept that Advaita is absolute reality. However, I pray that whatever distress you are in, it will be removed as quickly as possible so that you can return to the discussion of philosophy with a fresh and open mind.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM:

 

You make more noise than any meaningful reply, you had not given reply even for the basic question , "what is vaishnava vedanata?" you are rather more interested in making noise and picking up a fight rather than meaningful discussions, sorry i am not for this game.

 

Bhagvan says in Gita, "I created this universe, all the souls, the nature, and also law (Karma) so that all the souls can derive the maximum Possible pleasure from this universe for the maximum possible time. The law gives specific duties for specific persons to be performed on specific times"

 

Later Bhagvan himself and other gurus tell the above (called Karmi) is not a very intelligent way of life, so they ask to become a Yogi (relenquishing all the fruits, but still doing the duty), Bhakta (do all duty for the sake of His pleasure alone, with no regard, whatsoever to its fruit) or a Gyani (what action and what fruits? all are illusion not disturbed by anything)

 

A lot people (probably like you) has relinquished the karma (which was quite easy), but unable to relinquish the sense enjoyments(which was difficult), so you had fallen even below Karmis, but falesly assuming you are bhaktas.

 

And because of that assumption, you want Paradise, or heaven or Vaikuntha , desperately, If God X can't give you then willing to start banging God Y for that.

 

If a person A comes and tells, I am a special messenger from God who says only Nude people will be allowed to paradise then you will remain nude until another person B comes and tells only person covered from head to toe will be allowed to paradise then you will cover.

 

If a person says remain batchelor for paradise, then you will remain so, if another tells, marry atleast 4 for paradise then you will marry so, if one person tells love all for paradise then so or if another tells hate all for paradise then let it be so.

 

Slowly you become fanatics, shouting desperately the Gods name, willing to do anything to become paradise (a true Bhakt will take the stay at world also an opportunity and blessing given by Him, he never gets angry or upset under any situation)-- but you are not a Bhakt, you don't love Him (and His creation) just for love sake, you love Him for paradise sake. Sorry but you remain in misery and also bring pain to other

 

As for me, i say what misery? what pain? even these are but part of His great melodrama, so all your shouting i take like an actor shouting at the spectator for sitting quite.

 

Aum Shanti...

[harerama]

 

The same way you can know what any book is really saying - learn the language in which it was written, and then read the book.

 

Have you ever read any books and read an analysis of it in class? You'll find that there are a multitude of ways to truly interpret what the author is saying. the same with movies. The author or director tells a story, or portrays his ideas, but what those ideas mean to you, what you get out of those ideas is inherently a subjective outcome.

 

In any case, do you know Sanskrit? How easy is it to learn? How time-consuming is it? How do you know there is only one possible interpretation for any scripture? And if there's only one possible interpretation, why are there so many different interpretations and different beliefs being espoused by the people who translate these scriptures? How sure are you that the words used in Sanskrit have correlative meanings in whatever language you want to read it in, e.g. English? Even English translations of the Bhagavad-Gita are somewhat troubling as the translations of certain passages describing Truth or spiritual reality seem somewhat mundane or wrong in scientific context. For instance describing Water, Fire, Earth, Mind, Ego, Intelligence or whatever as the eightfold elements that come from Krsna is not scientifically correct. Water is not an element as we understand elements to be. Fire is not an element either, nor is ego, or intelligence. I think I understand what Krsna means by these as "elements" but this is just an example of a passage that could be interpreted with some confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

[bija]

 

originally posted by bija

....feel in my heart that there is a place for buddhism and such. At least teaching a human being qualities of loving kindness and compassion is a good thing. I have been reading some of the Dalai Lama's books and have found them helpful in developing right view and learning to develop love for others more.

 

But as in the case of one of my spiritual guides ( my main teacher), he uses words such as bogus and non-sense paths when referring to such paths. I am sure his realisation of pure bhakti and intense desire to purely follow Lord Caitanya is the reason for this.

 

Outwardly and inwardly trying to situate myself as a Hare Krsna, I have found this preaching against mayavada and buddhism a touchy point. My conscience pricks up, you might say. Then again I am not a pure devotee. In my heart I feel God is very big and that all these philosophies are maybe a natural progression in this great mystery.

 

 

I have been reading some of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's books, in particular, Bhakti-tattva-viveka. It explains some deep truths about the nature of suddha(pure)-bhakti. This books is really beginning to soften my heart alot.

Surely this suddha-bhakti is not a cheap thing.

 

I feel pleasure when dabbling in some impersonal and voidist philosophy, along with some semblance of bhakti; can this be just another way to explore sense gratification? In a higher sense.

 

Suddha-bhakti is surely a rare gem. Everything for the pleasure of Krsna. Every speck of my own desires for gratification extinguished. Purely transcendental, without a tinge of this material sphere.

 

The only desire remaining: to pursue this suddha-bhakti.

 

In the last few days I feel I have been humbled. And understand now, why great bhakti-yoga teachers such as Srila Prabhupada have taught us to take care of the newly shooting bhakti creeper that is sprouting in the heart.

 

I found a copy of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's, Bhakti-tattva-viveka for download at the following website page. For the pleasure of devotees: www.purebhakti.com/library/index.shtml

[raghu]

 

Hari OM:

 

You make more noise than any meaningful reply, you had not given reply even for the basic question , "what is vaishnava vedanata?" you are rather more interested in making noise and picking up a fight rather than meaningful discussions, sorry i am not for this game.

 

Time is short, and your grasp on reality seems tenuous as demonstrated by your inability to correctly recall who started trouble here and who is saying what to whom. Once again I note that you continue to make embarassingly trite if not grossly inaccurate generalizations about other religions with little a care in the world for the actual facts about what they teach. Obviously, if your whole basis for recommending Advaita is your ability to knockdown strawmen, then you aren't going to convince anyone who is intelligent enough to look at the facts.

 

To find out what Vaishnava Vedanta is, I have asked you to go and read the commentaries on Vedanta-sutras by Vaishnavas like Madhva, Ramanuja, et. al. Apparently, this was still not clear to you, so I will give the step-by-step process:

 

1) Go to your local library (the place where they keep the books).

2) Do a card-catalog search for "Vedanta-sutras" and "Madhva." Repeat for different commentators' names.

3) Take a note of the books' availability and location.

4) Go to the appropriate shelves and pick up the books.

5) Take the books to the checkout counter.

6) Check out the books.

7) Go home, read the books carefully, and be happy.

8) Come back here when you have more of an idea as to what you are talking about.

 

While we are on the subject, you may want to do the same for the writings of Sri Sankaracharya, since it is rapidly becoming obvious that you have at best a fuzzy idea of what Advaita actually teaches.

 

Advaita is only one Vedanta-school. We call it "Vedanta" only formally because they have their own commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra and presume to speak on what they think is the subject of Vedanta. But factually speaking, all other Vedanta schools disagree with the atheistic conclusions of Advaita, and most Vedanta schools are in fact theistic, Vaishnava, and bhakti-oriented, which is more in keeping with what is taught in the scriptures.

 

It is a hard pill to swallow for the neo-advaitin cult gurus whose so-called "philosophy" has so caught hold of the collective Hindu imagination. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Advaita is not synonymous with Vedanta, and all other Vedanta schools are definitely united in their disagreement with Advaita.

 

As to your other question, yes I have studied Sanskrit. While some sentences can be interpreted grammatically in more than one way due to different ways of parsing based on sandhi rules or different possibilities of agreement with the different cases, context is used to help narrow down the possibilities to the one, correct meaning. If scripture does not have a singular meaning, and its meaning is instead subjective based on the whims of an unqualified reader, then it would be all together useless to go to the scripture for guidance in the first place, since one might as well claim himself to be the authority. The saying, "One who is his own guru has a fool for a disciple" is relevant here.

 

Another point that emerges is that if one does not know the language, there is no question of one claiming to "interpret" anything or defend any specific "interpretation." This is common sense.

[tackleberry]

Anyway i know that Advaita is absolute reality.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara

Om Namo surya narayanaya

[Raguraman]

 

I am disturbed by the Mayavada teaching that denies the individuality and preciousness of each jiva-soul.

 

I heard the Padma Purana predicted that the Mayavada teaching would come and spread, and it was taught by Lord Shiva who incarnated as Shankara. He taught this distorted version of Vedantic philosophy to save people from Buddhist lies, for one thing, and return the people of Bharat back to the Vedic religion, even if it was in a distorted form. It was a form of Vedanta that could "convince" those of a Buddhist bent, to turn away from Buddhism. Is this correct? Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said.

 

Who composed the Padma Purana, and where can I read it?

 

I am calling this bluff of Sankara being Lord Shiva's avatara.

 

There is not a single verse that can prove this hoax. The so called verses claimed by ISKCON is false. There is no such verse in Padma Purana.

 

On the other hand there is enough evidence and verses from scriptures that prove Sankara is a Daitya called Manimantha from Garuda Purana, Vayu Purana etc.

 

I quote some of them here.

 

Garuda Purana:

 

maNimAnnAma daityastu shaN^karAkhyo bhaviShyati |

sarveShAM saN^karaM yastu kariShyati na saMshayaH || 3:16:70

tena shaN^karanAmA.asau bhaviShyati khageshvara |

dharmAn.h bhAgavatAn.h sarvAn.h vinashyati sarvathA || 3:16:71

 

A Demon by name maNimAn will come into being as Shankara, who will, no doubt, pollute everything. This is why, O King of birds (Garuda), his name will be Shankara; he will pollute and destroy all BhAgavata Dharmas.

[Nrsinghadev]

Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7):

mayavadam asac-chastram

pracchannam bauddham ucyate

mayaiva vihitam devi

kalau brahmana-murtina

 

"The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy."

[gokulkr]

You are committed a sin by telling Sri Adi Shankara - a Daitya.

 

Have u forgotten "Bhaja Govindam", "Lakshmi Narasimha Karavalamba

Stotram" etc... which proves Adi shankara is a pure devotee of Lord Vishnu.

 

Whenver Adi Shankara was in trouble, it was Lord Narasimha comes everytime and saves him. If Adi Shankara is a Daitya, then why need for "Lord Narasimha" to save him ?

 

Hey, first Read "Bhaja Govindam" clearly and then you will know who "Adi Shankara" is.

 

How can you tell that Quotes appearing in Padma purana, Garuda purana etc.. degrading Shankara was actually given by Lord Vyasa ? It would have later inserted by Anti-advaithins.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara

Om Namo Surya Narayanaya

[raghu]

 

How can you tell that Quotes appearing in Padma purana, Garuda purana etc.. degrading Shankara was actually given by Lord Vyasa ? It would have later inserted by Anti-advaithins.

 

 

How do you know that those quotes are inserted by "anti-advaithins?" Do you have proof? Or is your sole basis for asserting this the fact that they present a picture that is inconvenient to your worldview?

 

This is a tired refrain amongst the Advaitins. They claim that theirs is the one true philosophy espoused in scripture, but whenever and wherever scripture disagrees with them, they just say it is interpolated.

[Gaea]

 

This is a tired refrain amongst the Advaitins. They claim that theirs is the one true philosophy espoused in scripture, but whenever and wherever scripture disagrees with them, they just say it is interpolated.

 

the opposite is also true, Raghu... How many times have scriptures been quoted here, only to be debunked as "Tamasic" scripture or the like? What ever is our disposition, so we follow - whether you are an advaithin, dvaithin, etc.

[Guest guest]

Gokul, weren't you always singing the praise of Sri Madvacharya and Sri Raghavendra? Whatever happened to you? Why have you given up Dvaita and taken to mayavada? Seems as if tatvAbhimAniasurAs are guiding you along the wrong path.

[Guest guest]

How many times have scriptures been quoted here, only to be debunked as "Tamasic" scripture or the like?****

 

The division into satvic, rajasic, and tamasic has been given by Lord VedaVyasa Himself. So it isn't personal opinion expressed by some members.

[Guest guest]

Except the first line, Bhaja Govindam is not about Govinda at all! It's a song to fool people into thinking that Sankara too was a devotee. In reality, that song only contains mayavada tenets, thereby denying Sriman Narayana. But sentimentalists are too, well, too sentimental to see through it!

[raghu]

 

the opposite is also true, Raghu... How many times have scriptures been quoted here, only to be debunked as "Tamasic" scripture or the like? What ever is our disposition, so we follow - whether you are an advaithin, dvaithin, etc.

 

Gaea,

 

The threefold classification of puranas into sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic classes is not arbitrary, but something that is found *in* the puranas themselves, specifically in the Padma Purana and Matsya Purana. I can provide the exact quotes if you wish.

 

I certainly hope I do not have to convince you why sattvic sources of information are more conducive to self-realization over rajasic or tamasic ones. If we cannot agree on that point, that I'm afraid there is very little possibility of rational dialog.

 

In any case, Vedantins base their conclusions on what is in shruti, with Puranas used only as dependent authorities. I think someone provided the quote earlier from the Rig Veda about how Shiva derives his power from Vishnu. For an honest person, that should be sufficient to establish Vishnu's superior position. But your friend, in typical evasive style, simply blew it off and referred to some Shiva stotras in the smriti. As if this establishes anything.

 

 

 

Gokul, weren't you always singing the praise of Sri Madvacharya and Sri Raghavendra? Whatever happened to you? Why have you given up Dvaita and taken to mayavada? Seems as if tatvAbhimAniasurAs are guiding you along the wrong path.

 

 

Yes, I noticed that too.

[Guest guest]

 

The world is real otherwise how would you experience it?? You say that the world is a void yet you have complete memory of your experience of the world as "Void",therefore the mind exists and the world is real. Simple...

 

 

Hari OM:

 

Great and simple logic i would say....

 

If you "experience" in your dream today that a Tiger attacks you, will you be alive or Dead tomorrow?

 

There is lot of subtle, mixed and confusing logic in your statements which is anethema to any logical arguments

 

1) Advaitha --- means one without the Second, while "Void" means Nothing which is similar to Buddhists/Sankyha philosphy so don't use "Void" while arguing against Advaitha

 

2) Advaitha (or for that matter, Dvaitha and even Vistadvaitha) does not talk about "experiences", rather about the "experiencer" (i.e., YOU), try to read the "Drk, Dristha & Drishti" explanations before start of arguments.

 

The basic questions for all school of thoughts is "Who is that Experiencer" who experiences the things, where does he live , what are his characteristics in three states (wake, sleep and dream) , How does he changes the state? why the experiences changes with the change of State and what is that Fourth state of experience ? How does Birth and death becomes insiginficant in that Fourth state? and so on.

 

After analyzing deep into these questions the Acharyas had formulated the three (main) schools and each one is almost justified, however, only person who enters the Fourth state (Samadhi) is said to understand the Truth. So don't try to ridicule or do character assassination of Acharyas without even understanding the basics.

 

Advaitha says (something like) God is 1 , while Jiva is 0.00000......00000.....0000.....0001 and there are trillions and trillions of Jiva but the sum total of all is still 1.0000...00...001, which can be rounded safely to 1 (without a second) (the fractional parts being discarded of "no use")

 

Dvaitha also accepts the above equation but says the fractional part can be (and should be) of decorative use to the "1" which is its real purpose and should not be just discarded.

 

Vistadvaitha is much more complex to explain here.

 

So please dont jump into an astrophysical argument forum without knowing what is the difference between a star and a planent

[Guest guest]

So that means God doesn't exist at the present moment because he has been divided into trillions and trillions of particles. So would that actually make the advaitins athiests because their theory suggests that there is no God right now?

 

 

Advaitha says (something like) God is 1 , while Jiva is 0.00000......00000.....0000.....0001 and there are trillions and trillions of Jiva but the sum total of all is still 1.0000...00...001, which can be rounded safely to 1 (without a second) (the fractional parts being discarded of "no use")