Is Mukti A Myth?

[Justin]

 

Justinji, lets be practical for a while as you ask for proofs. What proof is there that a Vaikunta or a Kailasa exists?

The scriptures are proof. Whereas for a monist, the scriptures themselves is an illusion.

 

 

What proof is there to prove the Kurma, Varaha, Matsya, Narasimha, Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma avatars. It is just the books(you may call it pramana,scriptures,mahagrantha whatever).

Now you understand the scriptures are the pramana. FYI...pramana = proof in vedic literature.

 

None of the above can be proved and hence as you say, is just imaginary. What proof is there about Monoism. Is it all not speculation? As you exist, so are the other beings, living and non-living.

It has been proved beyond doubt by veda apaurusheya. Only that monism hasn't been proved.

 

 

The base of existance of all these can be known through realization of the Atman(proof again?).

There is no proof for Atman (individual soul) being the realization of the existence.

 

It can go on and on with no end with innumerous dualist/monoist perceptions. We may get lost in the plurality world. The oneness is just the base of what you sense through your sense organs and the experiencer of all these senses. Cant we be more scientific in our approach?

No science can explain oneness. Science explains only the differences. Those so-called scientists who try to explain oneness are quacks. None of their assertions have been proven. It was a vain attempt by Vivekananda to reconcile science with monism.

 

One of my Gurus used to say (a monoist again), "Just because you exist, everything Exists". This can mind-boggle anybody. Just imagine the 'I' within you does not exist. Everything is extinct to you. What is the truth?

That is solipsism. Monism is solipsism

 

If everything was real, the Charvakas and the Westerners perceptions are right. No need of spirituality. Enjoy the world. Make money. Afterall, no proof to know what happens after death and no proof that any thing called "God" exists. Is all our exercise is not just inferance?

What you are talking is materialism, not dualistic religious philosophies. No dualistic religious philosophy teaches people to make money and enjoy life. In fact the opposite. OTOH, monism says whatever you do in life is fine. It accepts even atrocities and crimes as maya.

 

No offense here either dude, Blind beliefs are not dealt with a questioning mind and do not believe in sheep-herd mentality these days. In this scientific age, no person will be convinced with the loads of stories either in Puranas, The Bible or may it be any other book. They need proof as you rightly said. If you say that this is God, sing and dance in his glory or if you say that there is Atman, it is the base of all, again the big question is ?? proof ??. I feel we should be able to get it by sharing our experiences.

No offense here either dude, but going by the quackery of quantum science with religion and the many followers who try to use it as a mask to call an irrational philosophy rational, it reflects sheep herd mentality. These people do not understand monism as taught by Sankara and neither quantum science.

 

That was a mind-twisting thought Justin. Cheers to you. Cheers again mate.

No worries mate. Fair dinkum.

[Justin]

Dear Ravindran,

 

 

I am surprised to see your scientific turn after all that science bashing you did in the forum 'Does free will exist?'

I am okay with classical science which have conclusive evidence. Not okay with scientific quackery.

 

It is not only that the experience of oneness is cosidered as hallucination or delution( false notion) by scientific psychology, but the entire religious ideas no matter whatever shades and doctrine it takes up is diagnosed as neurosis and psychosis (madness). You and I ( I mean Dualist and Monist) both are in the same condition as for as science is concerened.

How much do you know about me to assume "you and I are in the same condition"? Science is not against God. It does not say there is a God, nor does it say there is no God. It does not accept nor deny Atma.

 

It surely does not accept that a pig, skunk and a human are ONE. No scientist in the right frame of mind will accept such a absurd conclusion without evidence.

 

It has established beyond doubt that people who experienced this sense of oneness were neurotic. FYI..these people were not even Advaitin's. They just went through a Near Death Syndrome which they thought they experienced bliss. Such people are mentally challenged.

 

 

No !You cannot use science to make other spiritual insight as madness and save your own as real and healthy. Either you accept science and be consistant and reject religion in totality with all its varieties, or you reject science in which case you cannot use it to judge religious insights and ideas , as science deals with merely the 'material realm' - your previous stance.

Science is valid when it has definite evidence of occurance. It relates well with dualism. It does not in any way align itself with monism.

 

I think your previous anti-science stance is better- atleast you are consistant with that position.

Sorry to say you did not understand my position. I do not consider twisting scientific theories to suit religious ideologies as "Science". I have respect for Science as well as religion.

[kaisersose]

I do not know if you are new here or just an old member with a new name...

 

 

Dear Ravindran,

It surely does not accept that a pig, skunk and a human are ONE. No scientist in the right frame of mind will accept such a absurd conclusion without evidence.

 

A scientist will not accept you are not the body either, nor will he accept a Krishna or a Radha. So what is the point being made? Somehow, Advaita is not compliant with science, unlike other religious doctrines? Like I said before, from the perspective of a scientist, the guy who asserts he sees Krishna everywhere belongs to the loony bin too for lack of evidence.

 

And FYI (in case you are not aware), the above piece on the pg/skunk/human is the Hare Krishna distortion of Advaita - something they persistently hold on to, in spite of havng never read a single line of the doctrine. Advaita does not say a pig, skunk and a human are one. Feel free to differ, if you can furnish evidence. Quoting Prabhupada or Bhakti Vinoda or someone else from that set, will prove nothing, for obvious reasons (they did not read a single line of Advaita either and were just as ignorant about the doctrine).

 

Not very smart to make incorrect assertions of other doctrines without bothering to learn their basics.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by kaisersose

"... the guy who asserts he sees Krishna everywhere belongs to the loony bin too. ..."

......................................................................................

But you do see how a 'kept-Woman' [mistress, other than one's wife] always sees how her 'sugar-daddy' [financial benefactor] has privided her with all facitities to live an opulant life --everyday she strolls the best city street-scapes admireing her good fortune and thus, she gladly observes her daily duties --all in pursuit of her enjoying the daily fruits of her work and dutifull penances.

 

She sees her master's presence in all beautiful & glitterring things.

 

............................................................................................

Similarly the theist sees lessons embodied in daily work that will culminate with service to the Lord.

 

-

 

The form which is known as Human-like [2 arms, 2 legs etc] is based of very precise mathematical laws of physics that are ABSOLUTE -- This is a great meditation: How the body form is asthetically definitive --this is a great meditation.

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The primodial Chicken came first.

Which came first, Manu or an ape? Manu came first--so all scriptures etc have descended down through time and we have only remnants.

 

The beautiful people with rich karma had worked eons for their 15 minutes of glory.

 

All because they don't see the void as attractive?

[kaisersose]

 

Krishna everywhere belongs to the loony bin too.

 

But you do see how a 'kept-Woman' [mistress, other than one's wife] always sees how her 'sugar-daddy' [financial benefactor] has privided her with all facitities to live an opulant life --everyday she strolls the best city street-scapes admireing her good fortune and thus, she gladly observes her daily duties --all in pursuit of her enjoying the daily fruits of her work and dutifull penances.

 

She sees her master's presence in all beautiful & glitterring things.

 

-------------------------------

Similarly the theist sees lessons embodied in daily work that will culminate with service to the Lord.

 

-

 

The form which is known as Human-like [2 arms, 2 legs etc] is based of very precise mathematical laws of physics that are ABSOLUTE -- This is a great meditation: How the body form is asthetically definitive --this is a great meditation.

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The primodial Chicken came first.

Which came first, Manu or an ape? Manu came first--so all scriptures etc have descended down through time and we have only remnants.

 

The beautiful people with rich karma had worked eons for their 15 minutes of glory.

 

All because they don't see the void as attractive?

 

Hey Buddy,

 

I do not understand a thing - as is usually the case with your posts. I am sure I am not the only one either.

But as long as you are clear about what you write, I am happy for you.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by kaisersose

"... the guy who asserts he sees Krishna everywhere belongs to the loony bin too. ..."

 

 

"... I do not understand a thing - as is usually the case

I am sure I am not the only one either.

I am happy for you. ..."

 

 

...............................................................................

The reason my writting bypasses you is because your self-learning stunts your senses.

 

The parallels 'I am trying' to illustrate uses people and symbolism from daily life--where real people embody the fancy-intellectualism you purport to explain mysteries of life and ancient Philosophies and principles of life.

 

Krishna is your sugar-daddy and you are the neglected mistress.

 

I am saying that the souls' perdictament is the same.

...................................................................................

Originally Posted by kaisersose

A scientist will not accept you are not the body either, nor will he accept a Krishna or a Radha.

 

Krishna Consciouness is the "Science of the soul" ---we are the scientists of the souls--Talk to us we'll tell you.

 

Therefore Krishna Consciouness is universal and absolute [sanatana dharma], therfore Krishna Consciouness is non-sectarian.

 

Krishna Consciouness is not biased, it is thee Science of the soul that all can see for them selves by dedicating their best & base efforts.

 

Bhaktajan

[Justin]

 

I do not know if you are new here or just an old member with a new name...

I am a new member with a new name. That shouldn't be your concern though.

 

A scientist will not accept you are not the body either, nor will he accept a Krishna or a Radha. So what is the point being made?

Did I claim the point of you or I being not the body? What are you contesting against? Or are you sore that I pointed Advaita is not compatible with science so you started pointing fingers at me?

 

Somehow, Advaita is not compliant with science, unlike other religious doctrines? Like I said before, from the perspective of a scientist, the guy who asserts he sees Krishna everywhere belongs to the loony bin too for lack of evidence.

The guy in the looney bin did not make any associations with science in this thread. Whereas the other guy in the looney bin who thinks he and the looney bin are ONE and the same, started relating the looney bin and himself to science

 

And FYI (in case you are not aware), the above piece on the pg/skunk/human is the Hare Krishna distortion of Advaita

I do not know and do not care who has made similar statements in the past. Calling a distortion a distortion may hurt your's and other sensitive people. The best thing to do is clarify why it is not a distortion rather than assume things about others beliefs which have not been expressed in this thread.

 

- something they persistently hold on to, in spite of havng never read a single line of the doctrine.

That is true for most. I have hardly seen Advaitis who are knowledgeable in other doctrine's apart from the things told to them by other monists. They do not even know science well enough to be careful not to associate solipsism or monism with. It baffles me how people just claim their version to be the truth without analyzing other philosophies.

 

Advaita does not say a pig, skunk and a human are one. Feel free to differ, if you can furnish evidence.

Please read the posts by Ravindran. If not ask any advaitin if he thinks of a pig, skunk, desk or a commode to be different or one.

 

Quoting Prabhupada or Bhakti Vinoda or someone else from that set, will prove nothing, for obvious reasons (they did not read a single line of Advaita either and were just as ignorant about the doctrine).

I agree. We haven't come to that stage yet where you already started assuming things about my religious beliefs which I have not expressed.

 

 

Not very smart to make incorrect assertions of other doctrines without bothering to learn their basics.

Agree again. Although after reading your previous posts, I must assume you have little idea of visishtAdvaita, tattvavAda, and achintyabhedabheda yourself

[kaisersose]

 

Did I claim the point of you or I being not the body? What are you contesting against? Or are you sore that I pointed Advaita is not compatible with science so you started pointing fingers at me?

You completely missed the point. That was an example. There is no point in bringing science into the picture and criticizing Advaita from a scientific standpoint. Science is not interested n religion and just as it rejects Adaita, it rejects Dvaita too. That was my point, which you evidently missed. I say this because, you appear to hold that science is supportive of Dualistic religion - which is certainly not true.

 

 

That is true for most. I have hardly seen Advaitis who are knowledgeable in other doctrine's apart from the things told to them by other monists. They do not even know science well enough to be careful not to associate solipsism or monism with. It baffles me how people just claim their version to be the truth without analyzing other philosophies.

I asked for evidence. Individual interpretations - or misinterpretations - of Advaita, mean nothing without substantiation. Theist, for example, just the other day said "Krishna is not an island - that is Mayavada nonsense". Which Mayavadin said Krishna is an island? That was theist's own personal concoction which is the point I am making. One also sees other "expert" descriptions of Advaita here from time to time, such as Advaitins aspire to be God, Advaita says “I am you and you are me” and such other junk. Needless to say, none of these ridiculous assertions have ever been backed up with evidence. The Pig/skunk/human claim falls into this category too, if no evidence can be presented to back it up.

 

 

Please read the posts by Ravindran. If not ask any advaitin if he thinks of a pig, skunk, desk or a commode to be different or one.

I have been an advaitin before and at no point did I think they were the same. That proves you wrong. And anyway as I said earlier, individual opinions from unsubstantiated sources proves nothing. Let us see any one of Shankara, Vachaspati, Vidyarana, Chtisukha, etc., say something on these lines and you have an argument. Else, you do not have one, which I assume you have no problems accepting.

 

 

Agree again. Although after reading your previous posts, I must assume you have little idea of visishtAdvaita, tattvavAda, and achintyabhedabheda yourself

Partially Correct. I think I know more Tattvavada than most posters here. But any points I make on these doctrines can be substantiated. If they cannot be substantiated, then I have no problem admitting my criticism was wrong. I am not relying on misinformed third party sources, which is more than what I can say for people who have criticized Advaita here in the past. In almost all cases, their view of Advaita was grossly incorrect for they drew their information from incorrect sources. One gentleman quoted a whole bogus text, attributed it to Shankara and proved Shankara taught Gaudiya Vaishnavism! ANother thought anyone who disagreed with his point of view was a Mayavadin. Apparently, that is not a problem to them, as they keep repeating the same nonsense, ad nauseum.

 

Cheers

[Justin]

 

You completely missed the point. That was an example. There is no point in bringing science into the picture and criticizing Advaita from a scientific standpoint. Science is not interested n religion and just as it rejects Adaita, it rejects Dvaita too. That was my point, which you evidently missed. I say this because, you appear to hold that science is supportive of Dualistic religion - which is certainly not true.

The example you provided was totally offbase. You did not understand what is being discussed but just get upset if Advaitic proponents get questioned on their position. If someone says the concept of a flying teapot and quantum science is similar, you are saying I cannot question their position. If you have a problem of people bringing in science, go and pick on the person who brought it in the first place. You cannot attack the person asking for clarifications.

 

 

I asked for evidence. Individual interpretations - or misinterpretations - of Advaita, mean nothing without substantiation. Theist, for example, just the other day said "Krishna is not an island - that is Mayavada nonsense". Which Mayavadin said Krishna is an island? That was theist's own personal concoction which is the point I am making. One also sees other "expert" descriptions of Advaita here from time to time, such as Advaitins aspire to be God, Advaita says “I am you and you are me” and such other junk. Needless to say, none of these ridiculous assertions have ever been backed up with evidence. The Pig/skunk/human claim falls into this category too, if no evidence can be presented to back it up.

I really don't care what others have said in the past. It is not I who is saying pig/skunk/humans are one. It is the advaitins. So go and pick on them.

 

I have been an advaitin before and at no point did I think they were the same. That proves you wrong.

You were not an advaitin at all because you do not understand it in the first place. You had a wrong notion that you were one

 

And anyway as I said earlier, individual opinions from unsubstantiated sources proves nothing. Let us see any one of Shankara, Vachaspati, Vidyarana, Chtisukha, etc., say something on these lines and you have an argument. Else, you do not have one, which I assume you have no problems accepting.

These arguments are coming from members in this forum. Sankara, vachaspati and others are not members of this forum. If you have a problem with the present members, you can go talk to them. The other part you are contradicting yourself is that you say I am wrong. You are no Sankara or vachaspati yourself to say I am wrong

[kaisersose]

No one's upset, my friend. Calm down.

 

 

The example you provided was totally offbase. You did not understand what is being discussed but just get upset if Advaitic proponents get questioned on their position. If someone says the concept of a flying teapot and quantum science is similar, you are saying I cannot question their position. If you have a problem of people bringing in science, go and pick on the person who brought it in the first place. You cannot attack the person asking for clarifications.

OK, as long as you do not say Science supports Dvaita, I have no argument. You were saying something like that until recently though. But like I said, if you are not going to say it anymore....

 

 

I really don't care what others have said in the past. It is not I who is saying pig/skunk/humans are one. It is the advaitins. So go and pick on them.

You were the one who said it, dude and we have proof by looking at your previous posts. Refresh your memory. No Advaitin said a pig/skunk/human are the same and as I said earlier, you have no evidence to substantiate your claim (you would have presented it by now if you had any) which means your case just fell off the sidewalk.

 

You were not an advaitin at all because you do not understand it in the first place. You had a wrong notion that you were one

Sure, you are free to have any opinion you like. It doesn't change anything, however.

 

 

These arguments are coming from members in this forum. Sankara, vachaspati and others are not members of this forum. If you have a problem with the present members, you can go talk to them. The other part you are contradicting yourself is that you say I am wrong. You are no Sankara or vachaspati yourself to say I am wrong

Again missed the point totally. You are wrong and so is anyone who talks Advaita which is not found in Shankara's teachings. Could be you, me, Ravindran, Prabhupada, anyone. Really simple third grade logic, I would imagine? Or fourth grade, perhaps? Certainly not later than that.

 

Cheers

[Justin]

 

No one's upset, my friend. Calm down.

OK, as long as you do not say Science supports Dvaita, I have no argument. You were saying something like that until recently though. But like I said, if you are not going to say it anymore....

You were the one who said it, dude and we have proof by looking at your previous posts. Refresh your memory. No Advaitin said a pig/skunk/human are the same and as I said earlier, you have no evidence to substantiate your claim (you would have presented it by now if you had any) which means your case just fell off the sidewalk.

From your previous posts it seemed you were very depressed. Good to know you are keeping your cool

 

For the last time I said science supports a philosophy based on reality than a philosophy based on illusion. Whether you think that reality doctrine is Dvaita is your prerogative. Looks like you are here merely to pick up a fight under your kaisersose id. You remind me of a split personality who takes on multiple ids in different forums. But of course as you said, I have no evidence to substantiate my claim. Its just a suspicion

[Bart Happel]

 

From your previous posts it seemed you were very depressed. Good to know you are keeping your cool

 

For the last time I said science supports a philosophy based on reality than a philosophy based on illusion. Whether you think that reality doctrine is Dvaita is your prerogative. Looks like you are here merely to pick up a fight under your kaisersose id. You remind me of a split personality who takes on multiple ids in different forums. But of course as you said, I have no evidence to substantiate my claim. Its just a suspicion

 

Your style of debating is really interesting, but it will not provide real answers in my opinion. My advice is: Don’t continuously revert other people's arguments. Answer questions as they are stated, and pose questions when you genuinely do not understand something. Maybe then you will learn something..

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Justin]

 

Your style of debating is really interesting, but it will not provide real answers in my opinion. My advice is: Don’t continuously revert other people's arguments, that’s very uninteresting. Answer questions as they are stated, and pose questions when you genuinely do not understand something. Maybe then you will learn something..

 

Kind regards, Bart

Hmm...Looks like you have a genuine interest in my well being. Otherwise you would not have picked on me consistently instead of advicing the other posters.

 

Thanks much. I will take your advice and hope you take this advice from me - please do not try to post something you do not understand. Because if you do, members like me will want to clarify or correct some misunderstandings.

[Bart Happel]

That's Ok with me.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Dear Justin,

 

More over -as a second thought - Science cannot be against monism as science itself is striving to be monistic. Physicsts now are in search of a unified field - one single stuff which accounts for everything in existence.Grand Unification it is called in physics. (And Stephen Hawking's pet term for it is Theory of Everything (TOE). It has not been achieved yet but science is dreaming about it , Physists are working seriously on it ever since Albert Einstein who innograted this work. And there is nothing in principle that this cannot be achieved. In fact this is an ideal to be achieved in science and there is all the reason to assume that sooner or latter it is likely to be achieved , going by the reductionistic histroy of science ) . Science is monistic by its very essential nature.

 

The difference between spiritusl monism and scientific monism however is regarding the nature of this single basic stuff of the universe. Science holds that this single stuff to be material - matter, energy or string ( the latest verson). Whereas the spiritual monism holds it to be the spirit - Cit, Atman ,consciousness.

 

Science is materialistic monism and Advaida is spiritual monism . Science does not reject monism . In fact it approves of it and strives to reach that perfection. What it rejects is the category called 'spirit' and by that rejection all gods go as false categories, and all religion becomes delution system ( false belief).

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

I am not sure if you understand either Science or Monism. Science is the best way to understand the world around us. Science can never be monistic by its very nature. What is monism? Monism is saying there is only one reality, the nature of which is sat chit ananda. Science never claims itself to have those attributes (worse monists claim that this reality is attributeless). Those physicists who are researching a unified field have to understand there are 2 things in the picture

1) A Scientist

2) The field they are trying to research

The above can only be dualistic by the very nature of it. If a scientist says reality of the world is a fiction of your mind, then his very assertion (that reality of matter is a fiction of your mind) is itself a fiction of his mind. So there is no credibility of him using science to explain reality (which monism says cannot be explained, again a huge self-contradiction). In effect, science also becomes a mind made reality which is unreal. Such a person is not a scientist but is misusing science to align with his agenda.

 

Albert Einstein has been oft misquoted. But in vain. He never ever concurred with a Monistic theory. Those who quote him do not realize what he contributed to the world. A quote lifted from a speech can easily be conveyed incorrectly if viewed without the context. Hence context is important. Many of the people who cite Einstein on religion will not be able to tell what Einstein wrote in a telegram to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein and what Einstein's statements were on God. Many idiots quote the following statement of Einstein "God does not play dice with Universe", but will not be able to explain the context in which it was made or when it was made and where and Neils Bohr's retort to it. Here's a quote from Einstein:

"Those who are purposely insular in order to convince like-minded individuals to believe in the supernatural are frustrating but not overtly sinister. It is the defamation of scientific iconoclasts which is unacceptable."

So it is a lame way for the monist to use science. He or she is just misusing science to explain in a rational way because of the lack of rationality in the monistic philosophy.

[srikanthdk71]

 

The scriptures are proof. Whereas for a monist, the scriptures themselves is an illusion.

 

Now you understand the scriptures are the pramana. FYI...pramana = proof in vedic literature.

 

When I talk about Science, I ask for scientific proof, No mate, No proof for either monoist or dualist perspective coz scriptures are not considered to be scientific when it says about an Ocean of Milk where Vishnu is resting on a Serpant or a half-crescent moon bearing Shiva. FYI, i know about scriptures and what pramana means.

 

 

It has been proved beyond doubt by veda apaurusheya. Only that monism hasn't been proved.

 

It is a belief that Vedas are Apaurusheya. It certainly is not beyond doubt for any rational scientific thinking mind.

 

 

There is no proof for Atman (individual soul) being the realization of the existence.

 

No science can explain oneness. Science explains only the differences. Those so-called scientists who try to explain oneness are quacks. None of their assertions have been proven. It was a vain attempt by Vivekananda to reconcile science with monism.

 

Let me also try. Where are all your experiences perceived and given a shape? Is it not your mind? How can a thought araise? Mind again. Now, tell me 'Is the mind True or False'. If mind is True. I agree Atman is False. Is your Mind active in Deep Sleep? No. That alone proves Mind is Untrue. It is not Nityam and Satyam. Now, tell me who was the experiencer of your Deep Sleep, I call it Atman. I think there is no quackery here. It is a straight-forward simple analysis.

 

Now let me also clear your Dvaitin and Advaitin tussles in your Mind. If you and Paramatma have no link, how can he(God/Vishnu/Krishna/Shiva whatever) bestow anything on you and how can you know him. The question of authorization arises. I think i am quite natural in a neutral standpoint in saying so. So, now if at all there is a link, is there anything more left? Are you not just one of the limbs of the eternal?

 

 

That is solipsism. Monism is solipsism

 

Think... and think again.. before coming to a conclusion. If you are satisfied in glorifying the thoughts of others, think again. If you still are comfortable, so be it.

 

 

What you are talking is materialism, not dualistic religious philosophies. No dualistic religious philosophy teaches people to make money and enjoy life. In fact the opposite. OTOH, monism says whatever you do in life is fine. It accepts even atrocities and crimes as maya.

 

No offense here either dude, but going by the quackery of quantum science with religion and the many followers who try to use it as a mask to call an irrational philosophy rational, it reflects sheep herd mentality. These people do not understand monism as taught by Sankara and neither quantum science.

 

No worries mate. Fair dinkum.

 

Yes, exactly. Dualism leads to materialism. When you believe that you and the paramatma are different independent entities, what authority has any god to control you? I do what I like. I enjoy this world. I will enjoy material pleasures coz everything is real.

 

And one more thing about the Atrocities and Crimes as Maya, Advaita believes it is like a single Scale starting from 0 to 100. The 0 end is BAD and the 100 end is GOOD. It is upto the individual to traverse on that path. As per me, that is what Krishna says when he talks about Sukha/Dukha to stand on the this scale on 50 and balance both.

 

I feel that I have neither spoken like a scientist nor a religious bent individual. I am trying to fill in the shoes of a common man who is deluded by various Gods, Atman, Dvaita, Advaita, Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, SP,...is there an end?

 

Great again... i thought for a while like a fresher. That was refreshing.

[jeffster]

Hello again, Srikant & other monists in this debate. It is likely that I cannot convince you of the personalist stance, as my ability to convey in totality the Vaishnava conception is, unfortunately, not mature enough, my knowledge of scripture being somewhat lacking, although I have firm faith in the Vaishnava conception and conclusions.

Re: Brahma-samhita, it would behoove some of you there in India or some other learned investigators there to visit the Adi-kesava temple, inquire from the administrators or pujaris some history of the temple, and see if they can shed some light on the issue of Brahma-samhita.

As far as the Ishopanishad goes, Prabhupad translated this book because it serves as a bridge between the monist and Vaishnava conceptions. Re: verse 8, if it were simply attempting to establish Divinity as an impersonal absolute (brahman), it would have been enough to call it unembodied and leave it at that. End of story. But the verse clearly states "kavir manishi" meaning omniscient philosopher. Brahman is not capable of speaking as it has no senses and also you cannot speak to it. But you CAN speak to a philosopher and a philosopher can speak to you. You can speak to Krishna and Krishna can speak to you, and He gives His supreme philosophy in Gita. Therefore, the text is bridging the gap between impersonal monism and a personal Vaishnava conception. You may say that I am interpreting the text, but I would say that I am interpreting the text correctly and attempting to make this subtle point.

Vaishnavas accept Divinity in 3 parts: Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan. They represent being, knowledge and bliss. Generally monists only accept brahman, yogis generally are attuned to Paramatma, Vaishnavas accept all three but perceive (through practice, consisting of bhakti and surrender) the sweetness of Bhagavan.

You state that "...any form is confined to boundaries. So it cannot cover the entire cosmos." But it was the incarnation Vamana, as a dwarf brahmana, who covered the entire universe in just 3 steps, demonstrating that He could do what no jiva could, thereby proving His divinity. You are making a mistake thinking that the body of the Divine Person, Sri Krishna, is somehow limited. There is nothing limited about Krishna in any respect. If you read about Krishna lila in Dwarka, Krishna had, what, over 16,000 (?)queens, right there demonstrating His divinity, as no jiva earthly king has likely ever had over 200 wives, and He expanded into a separate form for each wife. In fact each wife, covered by maha-maya, thought that only she was married to Krishna. Then when Krishna left the palaces to go to the assembly hall, His forms merged into one, and He then entered the assembly hall as one Divine Person. Only Narada knew of this little Divine trick.

Pranams to all,

jeffster/AMdas

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hello again, Srikant & other monists in this debate. It is likely that I cannot convince you of the personalist stance, as my ability to convey in totality the Vaishnava conception is, unfortunately, not mature enough, my knowledge of scripture being somewhat lacking, although I have firm faith in the Vaishnava conception and conclusions.

Re: Brahma-samhita, it would behoove some of you there in India or some other learned investigators there to visit the Adi-kesava temple, inquire from the administrators or pujaris some history of the temple, and see if they can shed some light on the issue of Brahma-samhita.

As far as the Ishopanishad goes, Prabhupad translated this book because it serves as a bridge between the monist and Vaishnava conceptions. Re: verse 8, if it were simply attempting to establish Divinity as an impersonal absolute (brahman), it would have been enough to call it unembodied and leave it at that. End of story. But the verse clearly states "kavir manishi" meaning omniscient philosopher. Brahman is not capable of speaking as it has no senses and also you cannot speak to it. But you CAN speak to a philosopher and a philosopher can speak to you. You can speak to Krishna and Krishna can speak to you, and He gives His supreme philosophy in Gita. Therefore, the text is bridging the gap between impersonal monism and a personal Vaishnava conception. You may say that I am interpreting the text, but I would say that I am interpreting the text correctly and attempting to make this subtle point.

Vaishnavas accept Divinity in 3 parts: Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan. They represent being, knowledge and bliss. Generally monists only accept brahman, yogis generally are attuned to Paramatma, Vaishnavas accept all three but perceive (through practice, consisting of bhakti and surrender) the sweetness of Bhagavan.

You state that "...any form is confined to boundaries. So it cannot cover the entire cosmos." But it was the incarnation Vamana, as a dwarf brahmana, who covered the entire universe in just 3 steps, demonstrating that He could do what no jiva could, proving His divinity. You are making a mistake thinking that the body of the Divine Person, Sri Krishna, is somehow limited. There is nothing limited about Krishna in any respect. If you read about Krishna lila in Dwarka, Krishna had, what, over 16,000 (?)queens, right there demonstrating His divinity, as no jiva earthly king has likely ever had over 200 wives, and He expanded into a separate form for each wife. In fact each wife, covered by maha-maya, thought that only she was married to Krishna. Then when Krishna left the palaces to go to the assembly hall, His forms merged into one, and He then entered the assembly hall as one Divine Person. Only Narada knew of this little Divine trick.

Pranams to all,

jeffster/AMdas

 

Dear Jeffster, a good exposition indeed. I must admit that atleast I am not here atleast to prove that Vaishnavas are inferior or the Shaivas or monoists are superior. I may been strong on my words on many of my points but I mean no abuse to any faith. But yes, i follow Advaita and believe as it speaks only about you and yourself and doesnt make you to get confused in between the innumerous Gods. It is more convincing to our experiences for that matter to any person who meditates (not a concentration exercise or a mala jap).

 

Anyway, we are all sailing on the same spiritual journey. The paths may be different, the goal is the same.

[bija]

 

Great again... i thought for a while like a fresher. That was refreshing.....

 

.....Anyway, we are all sailing on the same spiritual journey. The paths may be different, the goal is the same. by srikanthdk71

 

Just got home from the hustle and bustle...laughed my guts out...very refreshing....thx:P I can see you have a sense of humor Sri

 

Whatever we call ourselves...there is a common goal maybe...humor! Thx...needed a fresher too.. There ya' go...who would want that quality to diminish into nirguna.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

I am not sure if you understand either Science or Monism. Science is the best way to understand the world around us. Science can never be monistic by its very nature. What is monism? Monism is saying there is only one reality, the nature of which is sat chit ananda. Science never claims itself to have those attributes (worse monists claim that this reality is attributeless). Those physicists who are researching a unified field have to understand there are 2 things in the picture

1) A Scientist

2) The field they are trying to research

The above can only be dualistic by the very nature of it. If a scientist says reality of the world is a fiction of your mind, then his very assertion (that reality of matter is a fiction of your mind) is itself a fiction of his mind. So there is no credibility of him using science to explain reality (which monism says cannot be explained, again a huge self-contradiction). In effect, science also becomes a mind made reality which is unreal. Such a person is not a scientist but is misusing science to align with his agenda.

 

Albert Einstein has been oft misquoted. But in vain. He never ever concurred with a Monistic theory. Those who quote him do not realize what he contributed to the world. A quote lifted from a speech can easily be conveyed incorrectly if viewed without the context. Hence context is important. Many of the people who cite Einstein on religion will not be able to tell what Einstein wrote in a telegram to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein and what Einstein's statements were on God. Many idiots quote the following statement of Einstein "God does not play dice with Universe", but will not be able to explain the context in which it was made or when it was made and where and Neils Bohr's retort to it. Here's a quote from Einstein:

"Those who are purposely insular in order to convince like-minded individuals to believe in the supernatural are frustrating but not overtly sinister. It is the defamation of scientific iconoclasts which is unacceptable."

So it is a lame way for the monist to use science. He or she is just misusing science to explain in a rational way because of the lack of rationality in the monistic philosophy.

 

Dear Not-HeeHee,

Monism is a general philosophic term refering to any philosophy that hold that there is only one stuff behind the apparant multiciplity. As a gereral philosiphic technical term it does not restrict itself to the Special Advaida doctrine of the sankara or spiritualist. It can and does refer to the brand of philosophy that the whole world is made of mater - one kind of matter and there is no spirit or soul or consciousness . Spirit if at all exists it is an epiphenomenon - a by-product of matter - or simply a poeitic lie with out any substance to it.This is called the Material Monism.

 

In what you are refering to as monism in your post you are limiting to what is is technically called Spiritual Monism which assumes that everything is made up of pure spirit.- no matter - matter is an illusion.- the classical indian advidic position.

 

Philosophically it is true that Physics - is Material Monistic. There is no misundrerstanding on my part of either monism or science. I am using a standard terminology of Philosophy of Science.

 

In Philosophy Knowlegde is offen conceptualised in terms of the subject - object dichotomy. There is a subject who knows an object.There are disciplines which deals with the subject ( Say psychology) and disciplines which deal with the objects ( Say Physics) In Physics and in most of the natural sciences which are based on the objectivity criterion , there is no way to admit the category of a scientist. Subject and subjectivism are not the valied category of objective material sciences. Natural sciences simply deal with the object side . For a physist, a scientist is a conclomoration of atoms - just a omplex arrey of matter - and nothing else Hence there is no duality.

 

It is true that physics is fundamentally monistic in the material sense. Physics simply does not admit a nonmaterial category, at the first place and at the second believes that all matter is ultimately is of one stuff. This is the meaning of Grand Unification.

There is only one force or energy that is expressed as the many forces and million things of the universe. This is the belief and value in physics.

 

I am not off-quating Einstein or lifting his statement out of context in my post. In fact it is Einmstein who first suspected that behind the multitude of forces there is one fundamental force, going by his success in unifying gravity and mechanics. Then he attempted to integrate Electromagnetism in to his general theory of relativity (of Gravity) but failed. He till his death was attempting on the unification problem - unifying all forces in to one single systyem or theory. Thus it was Einstein who innograted the unified field theory of physics which others picked up and are continues to work. I was refering to this in my post.

 

Out of the four fundamental forces of universe: Gravitational , Electromagnetic, Strong nuclear force and Week nuclear force, except gravitation all other three has been already unifird at pressent. Gravity stands alone so far refusing to unite. But work is on. Physicists believes that Gravity too will one day join the union leaving us with one single fundamental force of the universe.

 

At present there are only two fundamental theories: (1) Quantum theory which account for all three forces by a single theory ,(2) General theory of relativiuty of gravitation . Physists are working on the final unification of this two theories together. Superstring theory is supposed to be a strong contestant for the final Grand Unification. Once we succeed in this attempt then we will have one single force under the entie multidyde of manifestations, and one single theory explaining everything in the universe. Science is Monistic - ( material monistic - I must qualify).

 

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[jeffster]

Hello Srikant,

There are the gods, generally jivas who act as deputed agents (demigods) of the Supreme, and then there is the God of the Gods, I forgot the Sanskrit for this. We need not be confused, Krishna's position as God of the gods is clearly superior to that of any of the demigods.

The paths are different, thereby leading to different destinations. Generally, merging into Brahman for monists; going to Vaikuntha, Krishnaloka

(Vrndaban, Dwarka or Mathura), Ram loka, etc. for Vaishnavas.

Pranams, Jeffster/AMdas

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

 

It has established beyond doubt that people who experienced this sense of oneness were neurotic. FYI..these people were not even Advaitin's. They just went through a Near Death Syndrome which they thought they experienced bliss. Such people are mentally challenged.

 

Derar Justin,

I believe that by 'science' here you mean specifically psychology. Because Physics or chemistey of biology doesnot deal with people's experience and mind. Madness, mentally challenged, and neuroses are the subjerct matter of psychology.

 

I am a psychologist by training and profession. I know the theoritical stance you are talking about. The same theory rejects religious experience, religious belief and and religious practice too as neuroses. By this theory your chanting Hare krishna mantra repetedly is Obsessive compulsive neurosis. Your belief in Krisna in Delution.

 

No ! you canot use scientific psychology partially to dismiss your opponents religious belief as madness and your own as sane. All that I am asking you is to be consistent in your argument. If you are applying scientific psychology then apply it consistently. With that I will have no problem . But if you apply it selectively to your convenience to reject monistic spiritual thought as madness but fail to apply it to dualistic religious thought , then I have a problem with your argument. I would point out to you , then , that you are not consistent in applying your principle.

 

You dont see your 'scientic proof'' argument is a double edged razer. Your argument is a self distructive argument. You and your opponent are sailing in the same boat, as for as the scientific psychology is concerned. You make a hole in the boat thinking to drown your opponent you sink too.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[bija]

 

It has established beyond doubt that people who experienced this sense of oneness were neurotic. by Justin

 

It is interesting Ravindran that you have a psychology background. It may interest you to read some of Stanislav Grof's writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Grof He is one of the founders of Transpersonal Psychology...which sees the entities development on a more spiritual scale. Even such things as affliction, NDE, spiritual emergence crisis, non-ordinary states of consciousness etc...as potentialy transformative, leading to deeper actualization.

 

This idea of NDE etc as catagorized as mentally challenged is not a full picture.

 

Both mystical advaitin and dvaitin experiences can allow the human organism a much broader vision of the self and the environment. Infact many of the great mystics may have walked through realms of what some psychologists would say is pathology. In my opinion such outlook is an extremely limited outlook of the human experience.

 

I am sure you know these things. Justin, you may like to read up on this as well. Very interesting subject matter.

 

Infact if we do not develop deeper insight into human condition....our actions may be very much pathology. It is considered sane to enter mass scale war and killing, often justified, but a profound mystical awakening (even oneness) is considered illness. Very odd really.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear bija ,

 

I am aware of Stanlislav Grof's work and other broder perspectives too. In fact I personally to these broader theories than the narrow psychological theories. I am deeply spiritual like you.

 

The above post is addressed to a specific argument of justin and intented to show the problem with his narrow perspective of spirituality.

 

As to my own understanding the dualism-monism fight is quite unwarented, and arises out of our own limitation to grasp the complete truth. I shall give an anology to illustrate my claim. Look at your hand. You have five fingers and A palm. this you can look at with different perspectives : One you can narrowly focus on your fingers alone neatly cut off from the palm ( ignore the palm) and argue that there are five different things. Or you can narrowly look at the palm alone withoue cognising the fimngers and argue there only one thing ( palm)

 

Even when you look at the whole hand the perspective of emphasis will give rise two different versions: (1) You can emphasise the fingers and argue that they are five things attached to one palm; Or you can give emphasis on palm and argue there is only one that has grown - extended itself -in to five extentions.

 

If we see only the souls then there are many. If we only see Krisna the supersoal then there is only one. If we see the soul and krishna then there are two possible position depending on our emphassis. We might argue from the souls's perspective souls are all different and are just attached to a supersoul. ( I beliecve this is the dualist Vaishnava stance) or we might argue, from the Krishna's perspective, that there is only one suprer soul Paramatma and all the individual souls are extentions of this one supersoul. This is my position. I am a monist in this sense. I may not be a Sankarian monist in this sense but non-the-less a monist as I see only one supersoul with trillions of extentions . With all the trillion extended parts the whole is one single thing. I dont deny my fingers but I see them as extentions of my one complete whole hand. I dont deny that there are souls but I see them as extentions of Krishna only.

 

This is why I dont see any contradiction between you and me. We are saying the same thing in different language. I say there is only one . you say there are many with a connecting one. There is no fundamental difference between us. I know that you know Krishna as supersoul by your experience and not from books.

 

Though I haven no fundamental problem with you expecxially, I do have serious problem with the partial seers - whome I call pure dualist- who do not recognise the whole or see the oneness principle behind the apparent dualism and plurality, though they may quote verbally krishna is a supersoul of all souls , mechaniocally. Sharp rigid dualism cannot go with the presence of Krishnsa as supersoul. That is why I call myself a monist, and have problem with 'pure dualists'.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[bija]

 

This is why I dont see any contradiction between you and me. post by Ravindran

Though I haven no fundamental problem with you expecxially, I do have serious problem with the partial seers - whome I call pure dualist- who do not recognise the whole or see the oneness principle behind the apparent dualism and plurality, though they may quote verbally krishna is a supersoul of all souls , mechaniocally. Sharp rigid dualism cannot go with the presence of Krishnsa as supersoul. That is why I call myself a monist, and have problem with 'pure dualists'. by Ravindran

Thx for sharing about your psychology background...nice to know that these 'more spiritual' psychology theories are out there assisting people in balanced life.

 

We seem to be very similar Ravindran...Lord Caitanya spoke from the view of inconveivable simultaneous oneness and difference. From your below statement we are much same.

 

 

We might argue from the souls's perspective souls are all different and are just attached to a supersoul. ( I beliecve this is the dualist Vaishnava stance) or we might argue, from the Krishna's perspective, that there is only one suprer soul Paramatma and all the individual souls are extentions of this one supersoul. This is my position. by ravindran

 

 

As to my own understanding the dualism-monism fight is quite unwarented, and arises out of our own limitation to grasp the complete truth. ravindran

I am growing in realization gradually, it is nice to know vision will develop. Also grateful for what you are sharing in the last days. Very nice of you to so graciously share your spiritual feeling..nice to meet you online...thank you.

 

Ofcourse our personal internal bhajan and aspiration may differ...but such sacred ground should not be a point of contention...instead very relishable. Thx.