MAYAVADIS,hear hear.

[primate]

Is there..?

[raghu]

 

To me fundamental oneness is actually the simplest solution to the puzzle of origin and human conscious existence, which is intuitively (and scientifically) the best solution.

 

I don't see how "oneness" is a solution to anything, but as I had indicated previously, many proponents of Advaita pass it off as the obviously intelligent answer to anything and everything, while those who do not accept Advaita are considered by them as being provincial-minded. Never mind that these same self-styled Advaitins cannot even speak basic Sanskrit or ever picked up a treatise on Vedanta.

 

 

And apart from Iskcon’s emphasis on a personal god, I don't see much difference between non-duality in Advaita Vedanta and Iskcon's notion of 'inconceivable oneness and difference'.

 

I'm not going to argue this, because iskcon has plenty of its own vocal proponents here. Besides which, many of them like theist, ghari, ranjeet, and sonic yogi are highly influenced by mayavada. So maybe you and they have a lot in common.

[primate]

 

I don't see how "oneness" is a solution to anything...

 

When viewed as a puzzle or problem that can be solved in principle, the question of what underlies our conscious perception and how it originates can be most concisely answered by assuming oneness, i.e., conscious perception and its origin are one and the same thing. They are not separate entities and they are ultimately the same stuff: consciousness. I find the inherent simplicity of such a theoretical framework scientifically attractive and my intuition tells me that it is most probably true. And, although I am not a religious scholar, it is also what attracts me in Advaita Vedanta, the idea’s of Iskcon, and Buddism.

[Amlesh]

Nothing in this world is one without interconnection.

Take an organisation for example.

[primate]

 

Nothing in this world is one without interconnection.

Take an organisation for example.

An 'organisation' may be just materal illusion, i.e., our limited conscious perception of (underlying) reality, which is one.

[Amlesh]

 

An 'organisation' may be just materal illusion, i.e., our limited conscious perception of (underlying) reality, which is one.

You used the word "may".

[bhaktajan]

Advaita Vedanta is a sub-school of the Vedanta (literally, end or the goal of the Vedas, Sanskrit) school of Hindu </ST1:Pphilosophy [metaphysical analysis of creation and its component 'elements'].

Actually there are 4 advaithas :

1. Kaivala advaitha (By Sri Sankara) [impure Monoism]

2. Suddha advaitha (By Sri Vishnuswami) [Pure Monoism]

3. Vishista advaitha (By Sri Ramanujacharya) [Qualified Monoism]

4. Dvaita advaitha (By Sri Nimarkacharya) [Dualistic Monoism]

The very essential core belief of Advaita Vedanta is that you, physical manifestations, the universe and beyond are who you are, you are that, and thus you are your own Guru. You are the source of all knowledge, because you are knowledge itself.>

Other major sub-schools of Vedanta are Dvaita and Visishtadvaita. Advaita (literally, non-duality) is a monistic system of thought. "Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman).

[Vishishtadvaitam, Dvaita and Advaita are two of the three major traditions of Vedanta alive to this day. The first two are Vaishnava traditions and the latter is a Smarta tradition.]

Jnana yoga —the yoga of knowledge;

Dvaita — an opposing philosophy that accepts duality; (dualism).

Vishishtadvaita — an opposing philosophy that propounds "qualified nonduality".

[Above Data is from Wikipedia & Forum postings by Gokulkr & matarisvan]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Secret learnings of the Hare Krishna Maha-Mantra chanting students of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami:

Foolish interpreters unnecessarily tackle the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam when they have no access to the subject matter. There is no use in nondevotees’ meddling with the two topmost Vedic literatures, and therefore Sankaracarya did not touch Srimad-Bhagavatam for commentation.

In his commentation on the Bhagavad-gita, Sripada Sankaracarya accepted Lord Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but later on he commented from the impersonalist’s view. But, being conscious of his position, he did not comment on the Srimad-Bhagavatam.

According to Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Sripada Sankaracarya preached the Mayavada philosophy for a particular purpose. Such a philosophy was necessary to defeat the Buddhist philosophy of the nonexistence of the spirit soul, but it was never meant for perpetual acceptance. It was an emergency. Thus Lord Krsna was accepted by Sankaracarya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his commentation on Bhagavad-gita. Since he was a great devotee of Lord Krsna, he did not dare write any commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam because that would have been a direct offense at the lotus feet of the Lord.

Lord Siva, speaking to Parvati-devi, foretold that he would spread the Mayavada philosophy in the guise of a sannyasi brahmana just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This sannyasi was Sripada Sankaracarya. In order to overcome the effects of Buddhist philosophy and spread Vedanta philosophy, Sripada Sankaracarya had to make some compromise with the Buddhist philosophy, and as such he preached the philosophy of monism, for it was required at that time. Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Mayavada philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Mayavada philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of them. This Krsna consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of Mayavadi. Strictly speaking, both Buddhist philosophy and Sankara’s philosophy are but different types of Mayavada dealing on the platform of material existence. Neither of these philosophies has spiritual significance. There is spiritual significance only after one accepts the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita, which culminates in surrendering unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Generally people worship Lord Siva for some material benefit, and although they cannot see him personally, they derive great material profit by worshiping him.

The name Sambhu means Lord Siva. His disciplic succession is also known as the Visnusvami-sampradaya, and the current Visnusvami-sampradaya is also known as the Vallabha-sampradaya. The current Brahma-sampradaya is known as the Madhva-Gauòiya-sampradaya. Even though Lord Siva appeared to preach Mayavada philosophy, at the end of his pastime in the form of Sankaracarya, he preached the Vaisnava philosophy: bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam muòha-mate. He stressed worshiping Lord Krsna, or Govinda, three times in this verse and especially warned his followers that they could not possibly achieve deliverance, or mukti, simply by word jugglery and grammatical puzzles. If one is actually serious to attain mukti, he must worship Lord Krsna. That is Sripada Sankaracarya’s last instruction.

According to Mayavadi philosophers, Vedanta refers to the Sariraka commentary of Sankaracarya. When impersonal philosophers refer to Vedanta and the Upanisads, they are actually referring to the commentaries of Sankaracarya, the greatest teacher of Mayavadi philosophy. After Sankaracarya came Sadananda-yogi, who claimed that the Vedanta and Upanisads should be understood through the commentaries of Sankaracarya. Factually, this is not so. There are many commentaries on Vedanta and the Upanisads made by the Vaisnava acaryas, and these are preferred to those of Sankaracarya. However, the Mayavadi philosophers influenced by Sankaracarya do not attribute any importance to the Vaisnava understandings.

There are four different sects of Vaisnava acaryas—the Suddhadvaita, ViSistadvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Acintya-bhedabheda. All the Vaisnava acaryas in these schools have written commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra, but the Mayavadi philosophers do not recognize them. The Mayavadis distinguish between Krsna and Krsna’s body, and therefore they do not recognize the worship of Krsna by the Vaisnava philosophers. Thus when the Mayavadi sannyasis asked Lord Caitanya why He did not study the Vedanta-sutra, the Lord replied, “Dear sirs, you have asked why I do not study Vedanta, and in answer to this I would speak something, but I am afraid that you would be sorry to hear it.”

“We shall be very much pleased to hear You,” all the sannyasis replied. “You appear just like Narayana, and Your speeches are so nice that we are taking great pleasure in them. We are very much obliged to see and hear You. Therefore we shall be very glad to hear patiently and accept whatever You say.”

The Lord then began to speak on Vedanta philosophy as follows: Vedanta-sutra is spoken by the Supreme Lord Himself. The Supreme Lord, in His incarnation as Vyasadeva, has compiled this great philosophical treatise. Since Vyasadeva is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord, he cannot be likened to an ordinary person, who has the four defects which arise due to contact with material existence. The defects of a conditioned soul are: (1) he must commit mistakes; (2) he must be illusioned; (3) he must possess the tendency to cheat others; and (4) all his senses must be imperfect. We must understand that the incarnation of God is transcendental to all these defects. Thus whatever has been spoken and written by Vyasadeva is considered to be perfect. The Upanisads and Vedanta-sutra aim at the same goal: the Supreme Absolute Truth. When we accept the import of Vedanta-sutra and the Upanisads directly as they are stated, we become glorified. The commentaries made by Sankaracarya, however, are indirect and are very dangerous for the common man to read, for by understanding the import of the Upanisads in such an indirect, disruptive way, one practically bars himself from spiritual realization.

[bhaktajan]

Patanjali, one of the greatest authorities on the yoga system, has tried to conceive an imaginary form of the Supreme Lord.

In summary it should be understood that all these materialistic philosophers have tried to avoid the Supreme Personality of Godhead by putting forward their own mentally concocted philosophies. However, Vyasadeva, the great sage and incarnation of God head, has thoroughly studied all these philosophical speculations and in answer has compiled the Vedanta-sutra, which establishes the relationship between the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the importance of devotional service in ultimately achieving love of Godhead. The verse janmady asya yatah [sB 1.1.1], which appears in the very beginning of Vedanta-sutra, is explained in Vyasadeva’s Srimad-Bhagavatam. In Srimad-Bhagavatam Vyasadeva establishes from the very beginning that the supreme source of everything is a cognizant, transcendental person.

According to Srimad-Bhagavatam, there are twelve mahajanas, or great souls, and these are: (1) Brahma, (2) Lord Siva, (3) Narada, (4) Vaivasvata Manu, (5) Kapila (not the atheist, but the original Kapila), (6) the Kumaras, (7) Prahlada, (8) Bhisma, (9) Janaka, (10) ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comBali</st1:place>, (11) Sukadeva Gosvami and (12) Yamaraja. According to the Mahabharata, there is no point in arguing about the Absolute Truth because there are so many different Vedic scriptures and philosophical understandings that no one philosopher can agree with another. Since everyone is trying to present his own point of view and reject others, it is very difficult to understand the necessity for religious principles. Therefore it is better to follow in the footsteps of the great mahajanas, great souls; then one can achieve the desired success. Lord Caitanya’s teachings are just like nectar, and they hold whatever is needed. The best way is to take to this path and follow it.

 

##########################################################

In the Bhagavad-gétä the Lord explains His personal rays (the brahmajyoti), the dazzling effulgence of His personal form, in this way:

“I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.”

Brahman, Paramätmä and Bhagavän are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth.

Brahman is the aspect most easily perceived by the beginner;

Paramätmä, the Supersoul, is realized by those who have further progressed; and

Bhagavän realization is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth.

This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gétä where Lord Kåñëa says that He is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattaù parataraà nänyat.

Therefore Kåñëa is the source of the brahmajyoti as well as the all-pervading Paramätmä. Later in the Bhagavad-gétä (10.42) Kåñëa further explains:

“But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.”

Thus by His one plenary expansion, the all-pervading Paramätmä, the Lord maintains the complete material cosmic creation. He also maintains all manifestations in the spiritual world.

Therefore the Lord is addressed as püñan, the ultimate maintainer.

[bhaktajan]

The Personality of Godhead, Çré Kåñëa, is always filled with transcendental bliss (änanda-mayo ’bhyäsät). When He was present at Våndävana in India five thousand years ago, He always remained in transcendental bliss, even from the beginning of His childhood pastimes.

In His village of Våndävana He enjoyed Himself with His mother, brother and friends, and when He played the role of a naughty butter thief, all His associates enjoyed celestial bliss by His stealing. The Lord’s fame as a butter thief is not reproachable, for by stealing butter the Lord gave pleasure to His pure devotees.

Everything the Lord did in Våndävana was for the pleasure of His associates there. The Lord created these pastimes to attract the dry speculators and the acrobats of the so-called haöha-yoga system who wish to find the Absolute Truth.

Of the childhood play between the Lord and His playmates, the cowherd boys, Çukadeva Gosvämé says in Çrémad-Bhägavatam (10.12.11):

“The Personality of Godhead, who is perceived as the impersonal, blissful Brahman by the jïänés, who is worshiped as the Supreme Lord by devotees in the mood of servitorship, and who is considered an ordinary human being by mundane people, played with the cowherd boys, who had attained their position after accumulating many pious activities.”

Thus the Lord is always engaged in transcendental loving activities with His spiritual associates in the various relationships of çänta (neutrality), däsya (servitorship), sakhya (friendship), vätsalya (parental affection) and mädhurya (conjugal love).

Since it is said that Lord Kåñëa never leaves Våndävana-dhäma, one may ask how He manages the affairs of the creation.

This is answered in the Bhagavad-gétä (13.14–18): The Lord pervades the entire material creation by His plenary part known as the Paramätmä, or Supersoul. Although the Lord personally has nothing to do with material creation, maintenance and destruction, He causes all these things to be done by His plenary expansion, the Paramätmä. Every living entity is known as ätmä, soul, and the principal ätmä who controls them all is Paramätmä, the Supersoul.

This system of God realization is a great science. The materialistic säìkhya-yogés can only analyze and meditate on the twenty-four factors of the material creation, for they have very little information of the puruña, the Lord. And the impersonal transcendentalists are simply bewildered by the glaring effulgence of the brahmajyoti.

If one wants to see the Absolute Truth in full, one has to penetrate beyond the twenty-four material elements and the glaring effulgence as well.

#################################################

Three progressive/consecutive stages of Yoga [linking], as per the Bhagavad-gita:

□ Karma yoga = Yoga of actions —the science of good actions vs. bad actions.

□ Jnana yoga [pron: 'gyna-na'] = Yoga of knowledge (aka sankhya or dhyana) —the science of intellectual research and understanding [Note: "vi-jnana" = realized/pragmatic knowledge]

□ Bhakti yoga = Yoga of Devotion [Note: the prime speaker of this is <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> himself in the Bhagavad-gita]

##########################################################

The Three progressive stages of enlightenment {the Hindu Trinity*}:

I— Bhagavan (God Personage as "He who alone Possesses of all Six Opulences"—all wealth, all strength, all beauty, all intelligence, all fame & most renounced).

II—Paramatma (God as the life-force localized within the nucleus of each and every animate and inanimate particle of the Creation).

III—Brahman (God as the omnipresent/omniscient vacant space, which is occupied by all the animate and inanimate particles that compose the Creation).

[*NOTE: All of Creation is accounted for in these three categories, beyond these three categories no additional separate entities exists, all things are accounted for in this Hindu Trinity—as revealed in the Vedic literatures].

##########################################################

5 Subjects of The Bhagavad-gita ['song of God']:

□The soul,

□material energy (prakriti),

□karma vs. vikarma vs. akarma

□Time and its constituent properties/perview.

□Isvara—God as: Controller/Source of Sacrifice/Possessor of all Opulences/Mysterious Personality of Godhead revealed as <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>.

[bhaktajan]

erzats:

Jnana yoga [pron: 'gya-na']

 

erzats:

(aka sankhya or dhayana)

 

 

erzats:

According to Srimad-Bhagavatam, there are twelve mahajanas, or great souls, and these are: (1) Brahma, (2) Lord Siva, (3) Narada, (4) Vaivasvata Manu, (5) Kapila (not the atheist, but the original Kapila), (6) the Kumaras, (7) Prahlada, (8) Bhisma, (9) Janaka, (10) Çukadeva Gosvämé, (11) Bali Mahäräja and (12) Yamaräja.

 

 

[bhaktajan]

erzats:

Originally there was only one Veda, and there was no necessity of reading it. People were so intelligent and had such sharp memories that by once hearing from the lips of the spiritual master they would understand.

 

They would immediately grasp the whole purport. But five thousand years ago Vyäsadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali-yuga.

 

He knew that eventually the people would be short-lived, their memories would be very poor, and their intelligence would not be very sharp.

 

“Therefore, let me teach this Vedic knowledge in writing.”

 

He divided the Vedas into four: Åg, Säma, Atharva and Yajur. Then he gave the charge of these Vedas to his different disciples.

 

He then thought of the less intelligent class of men—stré, çüdra and dvija-bandhu. He considered the woman class and çüdra class (worker class) and dvija-bandhu.

 

Dvija-bandhu refers to those who are born in a high family but who are not properly qualified. A man who is born in the family of a brähmaëa but is not qualified as a brähmaëa is called dvija-bandhu.

 

For these persons he compiled the Mahäbhärata, called the history of India, and the eighteen Puräëas. These are all part of the Vedic literature: the Puräëas, the Mahäbhärata, the four Vedas and the Upaniñads.

 

The Upaniñads are part of the Vedas. Then Vyäsadeva summarized all Vedic knowledge for scholars and philosophers in what is called the Vedänta-sütra. This is the last word of the Vedas.

 

Vyäsadeva personally wrote the Vedänta-sütra under the instructions of Närada, his Guru Mahäräja (spiritual master), but still he was not satisfied. That is a long story, described in Çrémad-Bhägavatam. Vedavyäsa was not very satisfied even after compiling many Puräëas and Upaniñads, and even after writing the Vedänta-sütra.

Then his spiritual master, Närada, instructed him, “You explain the Vedänta-sütra.” Vedänta means “ultimate knowledge,” and the ultimate knowledge is Kåñëa. Kåñëa says that throughout all the Vedas one has to understand Him: vedänta-kåd veda-vid eva cäham. Kåñëa says, “I am the compiler of the Vedänta-sütra, and I am the knower of the Vedas.”

Therefore the ultimate objective is Kåñëa. That is explained in all the Vaiñëava commentaries on Vedänta philosophy. We Gauòéya Vaiñëavas have our commentary on Vedänta philosophy, called Govinda-bhäñya, by Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa. Similarly, Rämänujäcärya has a commentary, and Madhväcärya has one.

The version of Çaìkaräcärya is not the only commentary. There are many Vedänta commentaries, but because the Vaiñëavas did not present the first Vedänta commentary, people are under the wrong impression that Çaìkaräcärya’s is the only Vedänta commentary.

Besides that, Vyäsadeva himself wrote the perfect Vedänta commentary, Çrémad-Bhägavatam. Çrémad-Bhägavatam begins with the first words of the Vedänta-sütra: janmädy asya yataù [sB 1.1.1].

And that janmädy asya yataù is fully explained in Çrémad-Bhägavatam. The Vedänta-sütra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth: “The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates.”

This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Çrémad-Bhägavatam. If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (sva-räö). We develop our consciousness and knowledge by receiving knowledge from others, but for Him it is said that He is self-effulgent.

The whole summary of Vedic knowledge is the Vedänta-sütra, and the Vedänta-sütra is explained by the writer himself in Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

We finally request those who are actually after Vedic knowledge to try to understand the explanation of all Vedic knowledge from Çrémad-Bhägavatam and the Bhagavad-gétä.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Happy New Years,

Bhaktajan

[kaisersose]

 

erzats:

 

They would immediately grasp the whole purport. But five thousand years ago Vyäsadeva put the Vedas in writing for the people in this age, Kali-yuga.

 

Incorrect. Vyasa did not "put the Vedas in writing". He just reorganized a single Veda into multiple Vedas.

 

The Samhitas were not written down and remained oral until at least 1000 AD.

 

Cheers

 

[bhaktajan]

Vyasadeva personally wrote the Vedanta-sutra under the instructions of Närada, his Guru Maharaja (spiritual master), but still he was not satisfied. That is a long story, . . .

 

 

The great sage Vyasadeva saw anomalies in the duties of the millennium. This happens on the earth in different ages, due to unseen forces in the course of time.

 

The great sage, who was fully equipped in knowledge, could see, through his transcendental vision, the deterioration of everything material, due to the influence of the age. He could also see that the faithless people in general would be reduced in duration of life and would be impatient due to lack of goodness. Thus he contemplated for the welfare of men in all statuses and orders of life.

 

He saw that the sacrifices mentioned in the Vedas were means by which the people’s occupations could be purified. And to simplify the process he divided the one Veda into four, in order to expand them among men.

 

Formerly there was only the Veda of the name Yajur, and the four divisions of sacrifices were there specifically mentioned.

 

But to make them more easily performable, the Veda was divided into four divisions of sacrifice, just to purify the occupational service of the four orders.

 

Above the four Vedas, namely Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva, there are the Puranas, the Mahabharata, Samhitas, etc., which are known as the fifth Veda.

 

Sri Vyasadeva and his many disciples were all historical personalities, and they were very kind and sympathetic toward the fallen souls of this age of Kali. As such, the Puranas and Mahabharata were made from related historical facts which explained the teaching of the four Vedas.

 

There is no point in doubting the authority of the Puranas and Mahabharata as parts and parcels of the Vedas.

 

In the Chandogya Upanishad (7.1.4), the Puranas and Mahabharata, generally known as histories, are mentioned as the fifth Veda.

 

SB 8.24.54:

Sukadeva Gosvami:

When Satyavrata had thus prayed to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who had assumed the form of a fish [matsya-rupa avatara; which occurred just before the 7th {Vaivasvata aka Satyavrata ~SB 2.7.12} of 14 Manus lifetime --we are presently in the 7th Manu's lifespan], the Lord, while moving in the water of inundation, explained to him the Absolute Truth.

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead thus explained to King Satyavrata the spiritual science known as sankhya-yoga, the science by which one distinguishes between matter and spirit [in other words, bhakti-yoga], along with the instructions contained in the Puranas [the old histories] and the saàhitäs. The Lord explained Himself in all these literatures.

 

From the heart of the topmost demigod, Brahma, came the subtle transcendental vibration, and from this subtle sound vibration arose the syllable om, greatly potent and self-luminous.

Using this omkara, Lord Brahma created the original Vedas and taught them to his sons, Maréci and others, who were all saintly leaders of the brahmana community.

This body of Vedic knowledge was handed down through the disciplic succession of spiritual masters until the end of Dvapara-yuga, when Lord Vyasadeva divided it into four parts and instructed various schools of sages in these four samhitas.

[bhaktajan]

SB 12.6.50:

"Çréla Vyäsadeva separated the mantras of the Åg, Atharva, Yajur and Säma Vedas into four divisions, just as one sorts out a mixed collection of jewels into piles. Thus he composed four distinct Vedic literatures."

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

When Lord Brahmä first spoke the four Vedas with his four mouths, the mantras were mixed together like an unsorted collection of various types of jewels. Çréla Vyäsadeva sorted the Vedic mantras into four divisions (saàhitäs), which thus became the recognizable Åg, Atharva, Yajur and Säma Vedas.

 

[raghu]

 

When viewed as a puzzle or problem that can be solved in principle, the question of what underlies our conscious perception and how it originates can be most concisely answered by assuming oneness,

 

What a very non-concise way of stating something concisely!

 

 

i.e., conscious perception and its origin are one and the same thing. They are not separate entities and they are ultimately the same stuff: consciousness. I find the inherent simplicity of such a theoretical framework scientifically attractive and my intuition tells me that it is most probably true. And, although I am not a religious scholar, it is also what attracts me in Advaita Vedanta, the idea’s of Iskcon, and Buddism.

 

If we assume that the sun and the moon are one, that might make stargazing simpler and more palatable for simple minded persons who cannot conceive of multiple heavenly objects in the sky. However, merely assuming they are the same does not make it so, and simplicity does not prove correctness.

 

Which just gets back to the point that there is nothing that is inherently "intuitive" or "scientific" about Advaita - these are nothing more than pompous claims by armchair Vedantins who cannot have a discussion that is based on evidence and logic.

[primate]

 

What a very non-concise way of stating something concisely!

 

 

 

If we assume that the sun and the moon are one, that might make stargazing simpler and more palatable for simple minded persons who cannot conceive of multiple heavenly objects in the sky. However, merely assuming they are the same does not make it so, and simplicity does not prove correctness.

 

Which just gets back to the point that there is nothing that is inherently "intuitive" or "scientific" about Advaita - these are nothing more than pompous claims by armchair Vedantins who cannot have a discussion that is based on evidence and logic.

I stated that assuming oneness, obviously, allows for a more concise answer or solution to ontological questions than does the assumption of non-oneness, which needs at least one extra category. I didn’t state that the statement itself is necessarily concise.

 

As to my intuition; you can’t disagree that I intuit oneness to be the correct perspective. My intuition is just what it is. As to science; simplicity does not prove correctness, but science favours a simple model or theory above more complex models with equal explanatory power (Occam’s razor).

[tackleberry]

 

 

If we assume that the sun and the moon are one, that might make stargazing simpler and more palatable for simple minded persons who cannot conceive of multiple heavenly objects in the sky. However, merely assuming they are the same does not make it so, and simplicity does not prove correctness.

.

Just playing the devil's advocate here.

 

What if the advaitin argues that all these so-called dissimilar objects are essentially atoms, and hence there's no real distinction? Diamond and graphite are distinct in forms and attributes, but that's only an illusion, because as carbon atoms, they're one and the same.

 

Wouldn't the advaitin argue along a similar basis that all material forms, even if perceived with the senses, are ultimately illusory, and the substratum (Brahman) alone is real?

[Amlesh]

 

Just playing the devil's advocate here.

 

What if the advaitin argues that all these so-called dissimilar objects are essentially atoms, and hence there's no real distinction? Diamond and graphite are distinct in forms and attributes, but that's only an illusion, because as carbon atoms, they're one and the same.

 

Wouldn't the advaitin argue along a similar basis that all material forms, even if perceived with the senses, are ultimately illusory, and the substratum (Brahman) alone is real?

THen still the philosophy expounded by the Bhagwata gets the standing ovation.

Each atom combines to make the whole.

 

Sri Krishna, "I am the thread that interconnects all the pearls"

 

One is one when all elements are interconnected.

[Gaea]

 

One is one when all elements are interconnected.

 

... isn't that the advaitya argument?

[primate]

 

THen still the philosophy expounded by the Bhagwata gets the standing ovation.

Each atom combines to make the whole.

 

Sri Krishna, "I am the thread that interconnects all the pearls"

 

One is one when all elements are interconnected.

Perhaps it’s better to say: All is one when all is interconnected. And Krishna is the thread that interconnects all, whereby Krishna is simultaneously smaller than the smallest (atom, proton/neutron, quark, etc.) and larger than the largest and all pervading. To me this strongly suggests that Krishna actually is all. All = One.

[Amlesh]

 

Perhaps it’s better to say: All is one when all is interconnected. And Krishna is the thread that interconnects all, whereby Krishna is simultaneously smaller than the smallest (atom, proton/neutron, quark, etc.) and larger than the largest and all pervading. To me this strongly suggests that Krishna actually is all. All = One.

 

Agreed.

We are relative.. He is absolute.

We are part.. He is whole.

[raghu]

 

I stated that assuming oneness, obviously, allows for a more concise answer or solution to ontological questions than does the assumption of non-oneness, which needs at least one extra category. I didn’t state that the statement itself is necessarily concise.

 

As to my intuition; you can’t disagree that I intuit oneness to be the correct perspective. My intuition is just what it is. As to science; simplicity does not prove correctness, but science favours a simple model or theory above more complex models with equal explanatory power (Occam’s razor).

 

You are confused about Ockham's Razor. It is not merely simplicity that is favored by Ockham's Razor, but rather the simplest explanation (i.e. making the fewest assumptions) of the available evidence.

 

Therein lies the problem with your hypothesis, since evidence gathered by the senses and by our direct experience supports the view that everything is different, while you merely ignore that and assume that it is all one. This would certainly not be a valid applicaton of the Ockham principle. But, I agree that your theorizing *sounds* just scientific enough to appeal to people of a quasi-intellectual bent.

[raghu]

 

Just playing the devil's advocate here.

 

What if the advaitin argues that all these so-called dissimilar objects are essentially atoms, and hence there's no real distinction? Diamond and graphite are distinct in forms and attributes, but that's only an illusion, because as carbon atoms, they're one and the same.

 

Wouldn't the advaitin argue along a similar basis that all material forms, even if perceived with the senses, are ultimately illusory, and the substratum (Brahman) alone is real?

 

That would be more of a sankhya-like argument. The problem is that it is not correct to say that everything is "one" merely because everything can be broken down into atoms. If he wanted, he could have said that everything is made of the same "stuff," but that is not what he said.

 

Diamond and graphite are different, although both are ultimately made of atoms, the end products have different properties. The mere fact that they are made of atoms does not make their reality as diamond and graphite any less. Furthermore, if the atoms are real, then anything made of atoms must also be real. You can not make illusions out of real components. And if the end products (i.e. diamond and graphite) are real, then their differences are also logically real.

 

Ultimately what this boils down to is whether we are all individual beings with distinct consciousness, or if we are all really the same Brahman as is postulated by Advaita. Our everyday experience leads us to believe that we are individual beings - we live distinct lives, we have different life experiences at any given time, we do not all get liberation at the same time, etc. It requires fewer assumptions to conclude that we are different, while it takes more assumptions to assume that we are all ultimately the same. Which is one of the many logical flaws in his view. I say "one" because I do not think it possible to fully bring out all the fallacies in his philosophy in just one short posting without sacrificing brevity.

[primate]

 

You are confused about Ockham's Razor. It is not merely simplicity that is favored by Ockham's Razor, but rather the simplest explanation (i.e. making the fewest assumptions) of the available evidence.

 

Therein lies the problem with your hypothesis, since evidence gathered by the senses and by our direct experience supports the view that everything is different, while you merely ignore that and assume that it is all one. This would certainly not be a valid applicaton of the Ockham principle. But, I agree that your theorizing *sounds* just scientific enough to appeal to people of a quasi-intellectual bent.

An alternative version of Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", which translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity.This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. (from Wikipedia)

 

So it seems we are both correct. However, starting out from the doctrine that all material perception is illusory, which is generally accepted on this forum by both dualists and monists, monism is the best solution because monism, obviously, makes the least assumptions about reality and postulates the fewest entities.

 

You might now argue that dismissing sensory experience as an illusion renders the scientific method useless anyway. But I am not denying that we consciously perceive material reality the way we do. The ultimate goal of science, however, is to define a theory which describes what it actually is that we perceive. When such a theory concludes that what we perceive as the material world is in fact a conscious illusion, then this must ultimately be verifiable by empirical scientific methods. Moreover, in modern quantum physics, it is already apparent that, at the most fundamental level, material reality is something different altogether than the causal (action reaction like) macroscopic world we (commonly) think we perceive..

[Amlesh]

 

... isn't that the advaitya argument?

no.

This is Bhagwata Dharma.

Each one is part and parcel of god.

With or without liberation.. none loses his identity.