Why Advaita is wrong

[Guest guest]

It is very easy to understand why. Let's first consider the concept of superimposition. The advaitists say that the world is false and Brahman alone is true, and they explain this with the superimposition concept. They also present the usual example of the rope and the snake. There are two problems in this example.

 

First of all, the snake may be false in relation to the rope but it is true as far as the perceiver is concerned. Second, you cannot apply this logic and say that the world is superimposed on Brahman. Because by their own admission, Brahman is Infinite and the world finite. So how can you superimpose the finite (world) on the Infinite Brahman? Hence the frailty of this dubious concept.

 

Second, they say Brahman is Satchitanand, therefore impersonal and abstract. This is even more absurd. Can there be existence (sat) without an entity? Can there be consciouness (chit) without an entity which is conscious? Or can there be Ananda without a being which experiences it? These (and other qualities and attributes) cannot exist without a being or Person to possess, experience or enjoy them. They cannot exist in isolation.

 

Therefore, Brahman is not impersonal (it may be at lower levels) but personal at the highest level. It is the Supreme Person, also called Purushotama and sat-chit-ananda is merely the list of attributes. But as I said before, attributes imply a person who possesses those attributes, otherwise those attributes wouldn't even exist to begin with. The fact that they exist shows that God is a person, Krishna or Purushotama. Everything else-the worlds, planes of being and consciouness, demigods like siva, humans, matter, plants, animals-is but a spark of his infinite energy.

[Samkhya]

Good case against Advaita. I add that what is problematical with Advaita is the very origin of the false perception of the world (maya). Talking about a "cosmic play" belongs more to mythology than to philosophy.

 

What do you mean saying that the perception of the snake is true for the perceiver?

[Guest guest]

***** Second, you cannot apply this logic and say that the world is superimposed on Brahman. Because by their own admission, Brahman is Infinite and the world finite. ******

 

Who has said this and where? Do you know Isa Upanishad?

 

***** Second, they say Brahman is Satchitanand, therefore impersonal and abstract. This is even more absurd. Can there be existence (sat) without an entity? *****

 

 

Satchidanand himself is the entity. Where from your question 'Can there be existence (sat) without an entity? ' arise?

 

Your questions and opinions have nothing to do with advaita.

 

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

And go 'merge'.

 

Your boring everybody with your nonsence.

[Rajashekhar]

[it is very easy to understand why. Let's first consider the concept of superimposition. The advaitists say that the world is false and Brahman alone is true, and they explain this with the superimposition concept. They also present the usual example of the rope...]

 

You present the arguments well. But there are a couple of errors in your thinkijng that I would like to point out. The word 'Mithya' is not 'false' but it is actually 'Asath'. As I have explained in a couple of posts before, Sathyam means Immutable. It is in this context that the sages said: "Brahma Sathyam Jagan Mithya".

 

But all the same, it is not necessarily logical to say that Brahman is 'personal' at the highest level. As one goes deeper and deeper into matter, one encounters lesser and lesser attributes. What may appear as golden color will no longer appear gold at the atomic level. As we go into subatomic levels, one finds truly no difference between two entirely different elements. In a similar way, the argument goes, that when you go higher and higher, all attributes merge in the Brahma Vastu (note the neutral gender) and the highest form of God is totally attribute-less.

 

One last remark: The Shaivites, mostly, consider Shiva as the Supreme Lord or even Parabrahman, so I suppose for them, Vishnu is a demigod that worships Shiva as the supreme. Not that it matters. After all, what is in a name, right?

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

 

 

Re

 

(Your boring everybody with your nonsence. )

 

No Govindram he is nor boring me, this is an open forum what discussion is all about, unlike you he has not ask anyone to burn the gita and that was outrageous.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

He might as well. His not learning. Take Krishna out of Gita, your left with 'nothing-, Bunch of Buddist trying to be Mayavadis.

[Guest guest]

countless saints have disputed on this subject on both sides.Shankara,Ramanuja etc and they couldnt come to a conclusion.we dont have their knowledge to enter into vedas and grasp their true meaning.So this is a useless debate.

 

advaita or dwaita can tell you how to go to heaven.They will not explain you how heaven works.It is not needed.

[Guest guest]

your views are very narrow. Do you truly believe that your narrow viewpoints will lead you to Krsna? That this is proper nature, to condemn other people's thoughts? What evidence do you have that your thoughts are right and all other opinions are wrong? Don't say the Bhagavad-Gita, there are a million different interpretations for it, and besides that, it's just a book that tries to sum up the essence of life. No book can truly be comprehensive enough to sum up the essence of life, though the Gita may be a great attempt at it.

 

Besides that, you have no idea of the authenticity of the Gita or any other historical scripture, so relying on it completely will make you weak. It's good to look to the Gita for guidance but if you depend on the Gita too much, it becomes a crutch. And once you remove the crutch, you will fall as your entire basis for life rests heavily on it.

[Guest guest]

Without debates, we should stagnate. There would've been no Hinduism. Or are you suggesting that we should simply believe, as the Christians and Muslims do, without debating or thinking or inquiring??

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

 

 

(He might as well. His not learning. Take Krishna out of Gita, your left with 'nothing-, Bunch of Buddist trying to be Mayavadis. )

 

Then you have not understood anything, you simply can not take Krishna out of the Gita.

If he is learning or not that should not be your problem.

Buddist and Mayavadis(what ever that might be)are fellow humans following the will of the lord.

This is what Krishna says

 

Some look at the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all. (2.29)

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

 

Just because some do not see the way you precive you have no right to ask them to burn The Gita which is non different from Krishna.

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You are doing every body a favour, without knowing it yourself.

 

You have exemplified what is not the gatim.

 

Thanks

[Guest guest]

Om Namab Sivayah,

 

You say satchitananda is an entity. So existence is an entity, consciousness is an entity, and so is bliss! It sounds ridiculous, and it is ridiculous. Attributes are attributes, and they *belong* to an entity, they cannot "become" an entity. Love is not an entity, it is a quality which exists if and only if there is an entity, namely the lover. Without lover, there is no love. Similarly, without the Supreme Person (Krishna), there is no satchitananda.

[Guest guest]

Mata Durge Sharnam Namah

 

***** You say satchitananda is an entity. So existence is an entity, consciousness is an entity, and so is bliss! It sounds ridiculous, and it is ridiculous. Attributes are attributes, and they *belong* to an entity, they cannot "become" an entity. **********

 

SB 3.32.28

jnanam ekam paracinair

indriyair brahma nirgunam

avabhaty artha-rupena

bhrantya sabdadi-dharmina

 

 

Let it sound ridiculous and let it remain ridiculous.

 

 

[Guest guest]

What will be the basis of such debate?Vedas?Most of us today dont even know sanskrit.So how de we interpret vedas and debate on them?

 

If two scholars debate on that topic we can watch.Without knowing sanskrit and having no knowledge of vedas how do we debate on vedas?

[Guest guest]

Namaskar P-V ji,

 

Knowing this mahavakya of the Rgveda: "Prajnanam Brahma" is sufficient.

[Guest guest]

namaskhar om namashivajaji,

 

every word and sentence in veda has hidden meaning which can be interpreted only by jnani's and saints and not by us mortals.

[Guest guest]

**** every word and sentence in veda has hidden meaning which can be interpreted only by jnani's and saints and not by us mortals. *********

 

You say nice things. True but.

 

You know, Jnani and saints are external to pragnya and you hear and see and try to understand them through external senses which have their limits. They are indirect. They provide the sat-sanga -- the initial push to you, to look in the pragnya that is ever with you.

 

 

And abiding with that Pragnya is abiding in Krishna or Brahman or Siva. And that is the real sat sanga since that is the Sat.

 

 

And when Krishna says constantly remember me, what will you do? You will keep your thoughts on Krishna alone. That is abiding in Pragnya. The pure consciousness. Krishna is That.

 

All knowledge are of this pragnya which is the real you.

 

 

P-V ji, if you wish to reply to it, please do it after you read this a few times.

 

 

Knowing Self all is known (Br. Up.)

 

Know thyself (Bible)

 

 

Om Namah Sivayya

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

so why are you debating?

[Guest guest]

om namashivaya ji,

 

I agree with what you say.But this thread is about "why advaitha is wrong".

 

What you say, I perfectly agree.I have no disagreements with worshiping krishna and going in the path of Geetha and vedas.

 

Hindu religion teaches us "how to go to heaven"

 

Mr.Arjun who started this thread now tells us "how heaven works"

 

That is what I was objecting saying we dont have the knowledge to interpret vedas.

 

To worship krishna,to attain sat stage, there is no second opinion.After that what-let us debate it after we attain perfect knolwedge of vedas.Till that let us worship krishna,Ganesh,shiva and mother parvathi and laxmi.

[Guest guest]

I agree

 

Namaskar

[Guest guest]

we dont have the knowledge to interpret vedas."

 

THat's why Krishna descended from his transcendental plane...to interpret not only the Veda but also the Knowledge portion (Upanishads, Sankya, Yoga etc.). By accepting Bhagwat Gita, you will be accepting the veda, vedanta and so on. That's the sensible approach in the Kali Yug.

[Guest guest]

arjun,but there are different interpretations of bhagavad geetha itself.Adi shankara wrote an advaithic interpretation of geetha,Ramanuja wrote a visistathvaidic interpretation of geetha-which one do you follow?

 

its not so easy

[Guest guest]

follow as it is.

 

When Krishna says 'Never was there a time when I, you nor all these king did not exist, nor will they cease to be'

 

He means we all exist eternally as individuals.

[Guest guest]

 

 

I'm interested in your comment, "...are you suggesting that we should

simply believe, as the Christians and Muslims do, without debating or thinking

or inquiring??"

 

 

 

I'll confess firstly that I'm a Christian, and secondly that the idea of not

debating, thinking or enquiring is my basic complaint of Hinduism. So far, in my

experience trying to locate someone who is a genuine Hindu and get them to

entertain tough questions has been impossible. Maybe you wouldn't believe what

I've run into, but I do have the proof for it.

 

 

 

Anyway, could you tell me what you meant by your statement? I'm certainly

interested in the tough questions of life.

 

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

Dan</p>