Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Pasting this here..it touches lightly on the subject we are discussing in this thread:
and Dear Krishnamurthy Ji, you were asking for good explantions..this article covers well.

DESIRES CREATE OUR WORLD

H (HISLOP): Would Swami please explain His statement that the world is a mirror?

SAI: The world is a mirror, and life is the reflection of God. If the mirror is pure, only God is seen. The opposites, good and bad, are no longer seen at all. There is only God. If the world is not seen, then there is neither mirror nor any reflection. We have the idea of the world only because of the mirror effect. The mirror (world) exists only as long as our desires exist. 'World' means the inside sense world. We apprehend the world through the senses. These senses are seen outside. It is only because of the illusion of the senses that there appears to be a body. A corpse is burned when the wood is set afire. The inner senses correspond to the wood. When they are burned through inquiry and sadhana (spiritual practice), the body automatically disappears. Both inquiry and practice are necessary.

H: But, Swami, our experience is that objects exist independent of our consciousness of them.

SAI: For us the world exists only if we are there to see it. If we are blind, we do not see it. If we are in a faint, it does not exist for us. For us, the world is as we see it. It takes shape for us according to our viewpoint. If your viewpoint is that all is God, then everything we see is God. Suppose we take a picture with a camera. Do the trees enter the lens and impress themselves on the film, or does the camera reach out and grasp the trees?

H: The trees impress themselves on the camera.

HOW THE HEART IS LIKE A CAMERA

SAI: Wrong! I take a picture of a person who does not want his picture taken. Will the refusal prevent the picture? Or, put it in another way. The person wants his picture taken. Will that result in the picture? The heart is like a film that can capture the image of Swami. If the film is latent and clean, it can capture Swami even if He does not want it. But if the camera is without such a film, if the heart is impure and clouded, then Swami's image cannot be there even if He wants it. The body is the camera, the mind is the lens, the intelligence is the switch, and love is the film.

H: But Swami's image in the heart is His form. Krishna says, ‘The devotee need picture the Paramatma as un-picturable, that is enough'. What does that mean, and how does it apply to the image of Swami in the heart?

SAI: The image need not be that of Swami. It may be love, which is Swami. First, God is realized in form. He is seen everywhere in that form. Then God may be realized without form, since all forms are impermanent. A learning child, sees an elephant statue. On the statue, 'elephant' is written in words. The child cannot read the words, but learns about 'elephant' from its name as he hears it. Once he has learned to read, then just the word remains and from that he understands 'elephant'. The statue, the form, is impermanent, but the words remain as long as the language endures. The word 'elephant' represents elephant in its formless state. Likewise, once the devotee learns the language of divinity, then God need not be pictured; the word is enough. But one learns about God through form and the name.

H: We see here the form of God as Swami. How are we to understand the form? Does God appear only as that one form? If the question is improper, may Swami please disregard it.

SAI: The question is all right. Wires in the room are everywhere, but only one bulb is connected into the wires. Only the one light is seen in full power. The same current is in all the wires. The Avathar is one only, and this one body is taken by the Avathar. Of course, a brilliant light spreads outward as rays, but the rays are not different from the light.

THE SECRET OF FORM AND THE FORMLESS

H: Swami, please go a little deeper into 'form' and 'formless'.

SAI: The body is not the truth we attribute to it. An example: a man worships the mother who gave him birth for 30 years. He massages her feet, prostrates before her, gazes into her eyes with love, listens to her voice, is warmed and made happy by her affectionate and loving regard. At age 60, the mother dies. At once the son cries out, 'Mother, Mother, why have you left me?’ Why did the man cry out? The body he worshipped was there, the feet he massaged daily were there, but he cried out that his mother was not there, that she had left him. We have to conclude that even though the man had for the past 30 years regarded the body and mother as one and the same, yet when the mother died he instantly knew that 'mother' was not body and that 'mother' had departed even though body remained.

So, of what value was the body, which was never the mother, even though for a time it had been regarded as mother? Contemplating this mystery, it is apparent that had it not been for the body, the mother could not have been known. It was only through the medium of body that the man had been able to experience and thus know the tender, loving, sublime quality of the mother which resulted in love rising up in his heart. The formless, timeless quality of 'mother' could be known and attained only through the impermanent form.

H: Swami! This is wonderful! This explains the real significance of form.

SAI: The same is true of the formless transcendent divine. Without form, it is non-existent for us. We become cognizant of the divine through the medium of form.

H: Sai has revealed the secret of form and formless! How is the transition made from worship of God in form to worship of the formless divine?

SAI:The transition is made by full adoration of God in form, then seeing that beloved form in everyone and in every place. Then loving others comes naturally and easily.

H: When Swami is present, His form is easily seen and may be worshipped, but when Swami's physical person is absent, should one form a mental image of Him so that one may continue to see His form?

POUR THE MIND INTO THE MENTAL IMAGE

SAI: Yes. One should have a mental image of a form of God, fully developed, with one’s mind poured into that form. When the image of God is seen outside, it is qualified dualism. When seen in the mind it is qualified monism. When the form is absorbed into the Atma, that is Advaita, non-dualism.

The two preliminary steps are not separate stages; they are contained in Advaita, as buttermilk and butter are contained in milk. The image of God seen outside should be taken into the mind and then into the soul.

H: What is the best way to form the mental image of God?

SAI: If you wish, the form you see can be taken as an image. Or a photo can be taken.

H: If a photo of Swami, or the directly perceived image of Swami is taken as the mental image, no doubt the concentration should not waver from the chosen image?

SAI: The mind should be steady on the one chosen image of God. When an image is made of silver, the eyes, hair, mouth, and skin are all silver.

H: Please say that again.

SAI: The mind is poured into the mould of the image so that the mind is the image of God .

H: I see. That is most enlightening! But Swami we feel happier when in Swami's physical presence and not so happy when Swami is away.

SAI: You are identified with your physical form and so you look to the form of another. When you are less attached to the physical form, your happiness will be more even

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

I am not saying that anyone's philosophy is above criticism. It is just that I find Sankara's philosophy so neat and compelling and something which is free of contradictions. I am more attracted towards the philosopher Sankara than any of his other persona. In this thread I have not found any arguments that attacked the consistency in the philosophy per se but found more of unsubstantiated attacks both on advaita and on Sankara. I would be happy if the debate directly focuses on any perceived lacunae in advaita rather than just putting it down.

I have already pointed out the flaws in your argument. When I questioned you on the nature of avidya the best answer you could come up is the concept of relative truth. How would you know which end of the spectrum is true? You replied that unified experience will give a better answer.My request from you was how would you be providing evidence that unified experience of consciousness exists in the first place? There was no evidence from you except suggesting the importance of experience and intuition. You are on an absolutely weak ground. There is no such evidence and anybody who proclaims this as the truth needs to provide evidence which is not forthcoming to this date.

I stated facts as it were and I said that the questions raised by Madhva, Ramanuja and others have not been answered either here in this forum or elsewhere. I stated that it may have been possible that the questions could be answered but the debate had stopped.

The effort taken by Shankara to show that his arguments are in line with Vedanta indicate that was the only way his arguments could be substantiated. Madhva had raised important questions on why Shankara's arguments are a blasphemy to Vedas.

As I said facts are facts and Gaudapada did endorse some Buddhist texts. There is no reason to believe that Shankara's advaita is not a modified buddhism . This has been re-confirmed by experts like Madhvacharya

I am not participating in this thread unless the Advaitins here decide to stop hiding behind the wall called experience and intuition. They should come face to face dispersing the logical questions raised by opponents of Advaita. Talking of experience and intuition is just a verbal gymnastic to confuse the gullible, especially when the people who speak of them cannot lay any claim to such experiences.

 

[sravna]

Shri Subbudu,

We are not debating the validity of a scientific theory testing a certain physical phenomenon, to ask for proofs in the way you want. We are talking about the very nature of reality and existence. The first test of my hypothesis is its development in a way that is free of contradictions and able to satisfactorily explain fundamental questions. The next test is its verification. This is the point of contention. My take is the verification has to be necessarily mental because physical world cannot bear out such truths. Your mental expereinvce may be personal. But what if the expereince is personal? Does it make it invalid? All along you keep trusting what your mind says. Otherwise you wouldn't even be arguing with me. But I do not say all intuition is valid. But only that intuition is the only way to verify or realize the correctness of spiritual truths.

Leave aside this requirement of the proof. You need not have a proof with you to argue about the soundness of a hypothesis. Why don't you point out any flaw in the philosophy per se other than saying that I am not showing any proof? Why can't you show that I am contradicting myself? or any such logical flaw in the theory?

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

We are not debating the validity of a scientific theory testing a certain physical phenomenon, to ask for proofs in the way you want. We are talking about the very nature of reality and existence. The first test of my hypothesis is its development in a way that is free of contradictions and able to satisfactorily explain fundamental questions. The next test is its verification. This is the point of contention. My take is the verification has to be necessarily mental because physical world cannot bear out such truths. Your mental expereinvce may be personal. But what if the expereince is personal? Does it make it invalid? All along you keep trusting what your mind says. Otherwise you wouldn't even be arguing with me. But I do not say all intuition is valid. But only that intuition is the only way to verify or realize the correctness of spiritual truths.

Leave aside this requirement of the proof. You need not have a proof with you to argue about the soundness of a hypothesis. Why don't you point out any flaw in the philosophy per se other than saying that I am not showing any proof? Why can't you show that I am contradicting myself? or any such logical flaw in the theory?

Suppose I write a story about a Galaxy never heard of or never seen before. I stick to the rules of logic. Does that mean that my story is true or should be given credibility. You can believe me, but not necessarily, if I have some special instrument or a special visitor who told me so. Then again you will ask me proof for the visit of this person. This is what I am doing.

 

[subbudu1]

My take is the verification has to be necessarily mental because physical world cannot bear out such truths. Your mental expereinvce may be personal.

Have you seen this mental world which is devoid of effect of physical world. If so , you can gladly continue the tale if not, take recourse to some other means to prove your argument. You have found a nice escape route to prove anything. This way science can be turned upside down. Thank You

 

[sravna]

When Sankara said that there is only one absolute reality which is purely spiritual in nature there has to be logic to it. Here's my explanation:

Cause and effect are separate in space and time. We need a source whose cause need not be explained. That can happen only in a reality where cause and effect are not separated. Such a reality is free of time and space. In other words it is spiritual. If this doesn't make sense I will try a more detailed explanation soon for this and the rest. I will try to develop logic in the way you want.

 

[subbudu1]

When Sankara said that there is only one absolute reality which is purely spiritual in nature there has to be logic to it. .

Wonderful if Sankara says something it should be logical. This is exactly satisfying my view of the Advaitins here.
Let me separate your statements
Statement 1- Cause and effect are separate in space and time.

Statement 2 -We need a source whose cause need not be explained.

Statement 3- That can happen only in a reality where cause and effect are not separated.
Compared to this statement Einstein's twin paradox seems easy to understand. Why should statement 3 happen because of statement 2? I dont need a source whose cause need not be explained. We need to prove the necessity for the first cause. Why should we predispose our mind against cause infinitum.

Statement 4 - Such a reality is free of time and space.
Statement 4 can logically follow from statement 3. But statement 3 is absurd. If there is a reality that is free from time and space it needs to be proven that there is indeed such a reality or the possibility for such a reality. Take the case of thought can it be free from space and time both?

Statement 5 - In other words it is spiritual.
This is a tough one . I really dont know what is spiritual. Each person has his definition. I let it pass.

Basically I can understand the direction of your thought. None of these statements prove advaita. Your proposal of a situation where cause and effect are not separated is not proven to be possible. Even if it is possible that reality may be a non real non thinking inanimate matter or energy. It does not have to be spiritual( by which I suppose you mean super-conscious or something )

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Total self control of the mind in fact should mean that the mind derecognizes or ignores itself. Lot of people do experience involuntary inaction, wearing a blank look, oblivious to their circumstance - not hearing anything, not seeing anything for a few seconds. (Concentration itself is an art and old Chinese have been successful to concentrate as long as ten seconds.) It could be a medical problem, or not. And if it is not, then practicing people could exercise and augment their efforts to reach higher regions of Atma or Brahman. Of course the exercise is not that easy to practice by ordinary people. "..... thasya aham nigraham manye vayoriva sudushkaram" Mind is the seat of all egos. I am sorry I am no expert exponent of the philosophy and hence, not joining the debate of the learned. I could not help putting in this piece off my mind.

 

[zebra16]

Msg of Sri Subbudu1 no. 327 of date:

QUOTE
"I stated facts as it were and I said that the questions raised by Madhva, Ramanuja and others have not been answered either here in this forum or elsewhere."
UNQUOTE

The response of the advaitins to the objections of Sri Ramanujacharya (usually called the seven untenables of advaita) is available in this forum at msg. 222, 224, 225, 231, 234, 235, 236 and 237 of the thread "Advaita and its fallacies".

If you have time and inclination, please go through the said messages and state what objections you have against the explanation of advaitins, vis-a-viz. Vishishtadvaita. Once the VA objections are settled, matter can move to others.

Regards,

narayan

 

[renuka]

Just pasting this here to share info and not to debate..sometimes debates lead no where..No wonder Adishankaraarcharya said Nahi Nahi Rakshati Dukren Karane.




As the Upanishads, commentaries on the Vedas, sang:

'fetch me a fruit of the banyan tree'
'here is one, sir'.
'break it'.
'i have broken it, sir'
'what do you see'?
'very tiny seeds, sir'
'break one'
'i have broken it, sir'
'what do you see now'?
'nothing, sir''my son' the father said ,
'what do you not perceive is the essence, and in that essence the mighty banyan tree exists'.
'believe me,my son in that essence is the self of all that is. That’s the true, that is the self............ And you are that Self, Svetaketu!”

quote from chhandogya upanishand...

 

[subbudu1]

Msg of Sri Subbudu1 no. 327 of date:

QUOTE
"I stated facts as it were and I said that the questions raised by Madhva, Ramanuja and others have not been answered either here in this forum or elsewhere."
UNQUOTE

The response of the advaitins to the objections of Sri Ramanujacharya (usually called the seven untenables of advaita) is available in this forum at msg. 222, 224, 225, 231, 234, 235, 236 and 237 of the thread "Advaita and its fallacies".

If you have time and inclination, please go through the said messages and state what objections you have against the explanation of advaitins, vis-a-viz. Vishishtadvaita. Once the VA objections are settled, matter can move to others.

Regards,

narayan

I am not sure about the numbering of your posts. But when I started looking at these posts you mentioned the first few atleast seem to be related to the arguments with KRS,suraju etc. Please be specific. I can say that nothing much has been said in this forum except self defined theories and talk of intuition and experience. I am willing to look at specific arguments if there are any .
Thanks.

 

[zebra16]

I am not sure about the numbering of your posts. But when I started looking at these posts you mentioned the first few atleast seem to be related to the arguments with KRS,suraju etc. Please be specific. I can say that nothing much has been said in this forum except self defined theories and talk of intuition and experience. I am willing to look at specific arguments if there are any .
Thanks.

There are currently two threads on advaita. One titled "flaws in advaita - real or perceived (the one in which you are engaged with Sri Sravana), the other titled "Advaita and its fallacies" (started by Sri Sangom). My references pertained to the second thread. That may be the cause of confusion.

The link for the references I stated is:http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/4970-advaita-its-fallacies-23.html

Regards,

narayan

 

[subbudu1]

There are currently two threads on advaita. One titled "flaws in advaita - real or perceived (the one in which you are engaged with Sri Sravana), the other titled "Advaita and its fallacies" (started by Sri Sangom). My references pertained to the second thread. That may be the cause of confusion.

The link for the references I stated is:http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/4970-advaita-its-fallacies-23.html

Regards,

narayan

Thank you for this info Suba42 has presented very good information.
I will be responding shortly.

 

[subbudu1]

naasato vidyate bhaavo na bhaavo vidyate sataH – that which exists can never cease to exist and that which is non-existent can never come to existence. This statement is valid for gross as well as subtle matter. Thus anything that changes cannot be real. But it cannot be unreal either since it appears to exist in the present. Unreal is that which never existed in the past and has no locus in the present. Like vandyaa putraH – son of a barren woman. The world, Jagat, does not fulfil either of the definitions of the real and unreal. Since it undergoes continuos change it cannot be real but it cannot be unreal since it exists right now in the waking state. Hence a third term is needed to define the world – which is neither real and unreal. It is mithya that appears to be real but upon analysis it is not there. But upon analysis every mithya has to resolve to its substratum, which is real. Scientifically if something is continuously changing, then there is some thing fundamental that forms a basis for the continuously changing things. Hence Ramanuja’s claim that we are driven to self-contradiction is untenable from ones own experience. – Just like sun raise and sun set – is it real or unreal – It appears to be real since one experiences it everyday and it is not real since shaastra (science) says that sun neither raises nor sets. Hence it is mithya. As long as I have
AJNaana or Avidya – I take the sun raise and sun set as real – but that can be negated once I have a correct knowledge. Thus Ramanuja is clearly wrong in his criticism that there is a contradiction in saying the statement‘avidya is neither real and unreal causes self contradiction and infinite regressio

Here the scholar is representing the advaitin's position. What is not answered here is does avidya belong to the brahman or not. Avidya by its very nature cannot be the state of brahman. Ramanuja's own statements stand to be quoted again here below.

1. Ashrayanupapatti: What is the locus or support of Maya? Where does Avidya reside? If there is any such thing as Maya or Avidya, we are justified in asking for its seat or abode. Verily it cannot exist in Brahman, for then the nondualism of Brahman would break down. Moreover, Brahman is said to be pure self luminous consciousness or knowledge and Avidya means ignorance. Then how can ignorance exist in knowledge?
Again, Avidya cannot reside in the individual self, for the individuality of the self is said to be the creation of Avidya. How can the cause depend on its effect? Hence Avidya cannot exist either in Brahman or in Jiva. It is an illusory concept, a figment of the Advaitin's imagination. If it resides anywhere, it resides only in the mind of the Advaitin who has imagined this wonderful pseufo-concept, this logical myth

Now coming to avidya itself – it is not a positive quantity to be or not to be. Its presence is inferred by the absence of knowledge.

The scholar here explains that nobody needs proof for avidya because it is self evident. I fully agree . But I would also like to point out that there is no way a complete brahman can have any avidya as per advaita. Therefore this ignorance is something that comes from outside the nature of brahman. Duality is therefore predicted by this quote. Ramanuja's objection stands.

I see these two quotes from the scholar as contradictions of each other. I would like a response.

When did the ignorance began? – this question itself is invalid question and hence it is said that it is anivervachaniiyam – inexplainable . It is anaadi –beginningless. If it has beginning then before that I was knowledgeable.
Ignorance can be replaced by knowledge but not vice versa. Hence it is anaadi yet can have an end when the knowledge dawns on me. For that reason only it is peculiar type does not belong to the nature of Brahman.

From absolute point only Brahman alone is real. Everything else is relatively real.

I would like the forum members to sort this out before we discuss on other arguments.

Merely using bombastic languages does not mean that the riddle has been solved!.

 

[sravna]

Folks,

Sorry for getting back late. Been busy with some work. Continuing where I left my discussion with Shri .Subbudu, here's the start of my defence of Sankara's intuition and an elaboration of what I briefly presented:

Any change in energy is what produces the impact anything creates. We feel this as force. What when energy doesn't change? This can be with respect to space or time. When something has the same energy in it throughout it does not occupy space. At the creation of the universe , according to common understanding energy first emerged and the wavelength of such energy is believed to to be so small to have occupied the minimum possible distance in space or what is called the planck length. It is like a point in space. Thus the initial physical energy being totally pure energy were confined to points in space. In such energy its frequency being the maximum possible, it is the essence of change and is the essence of what is physical.

There is the second case when the energy becomes constant with respect to time. In this case the energy does not occupy space in that time and is therefore everywhere in space. I suspect mental energy or thoughts fall under this category. It is a frequency but unlike physical energy there is some invariance with respect to time. More on this later.

Now the third case after physical and mental , when the energy remains constant with time it is everywhere in time too. This is what I call spiritual energy which is in line with Sankara's thought the definition being one that transcends space and time. Its essence is the totally unchanging nature in sharp contrast to the physical energy.

Effect is seen as separate from cause only when there is the concept of change. For something that is unchanging there is no separate effect and the concept of space and time. As I argued we need such a reality to explain the first cause. There is no way you can dodge the problem.

It needs to be super conscious because from the above physical universe is a result of it. When we, who are discrete entities of it have the unified expereince called consciousness, such an unified entity needs to be super conscious and its reality is just experience devoid of space and time.

Note: One possible interpretation of the types of energy is that pure physical energy being constantly changing with respect to time and restricted to a point in space is the exact opposite of pure spiritual energy which is everywhere in space and time. If the experience of the unchanging spiritual energy is the reality, then physical energies or entities represent something which are out of sync with reality. Mental energies just as physical energies represent levels of reality depending on how much they are in sync with pure spiritual energy.

 

[zebra16]

Sri Subbudu,

This refers to your msg no. 339 dated 01.06.2011

At least three things need to be defined; viz. (i) "sat" (or "Real" - nearest english equivalent in this context); (ii) "vyavaharika" (transactional) and (iii) "parmarthika" (absolute) to get the matter going forward. The definitions of both the samprayadas, viz. advaita and vishistadvaita need to be known to confirm that the terminology used by them mean the same thing.

So if you have the definition/s available readily, please post the same.

Regards,

narayan

 

[zebra16]

I would like to modify this statement of KRS.
.............................Advaitha Philosophy is as invalid as any of the other two major philosophies of our tradition

That being the case, what would be the utility of the present exercise of discussing/debating the criticism and refutations of the three philosophies?

Regards,

narayan

 

[subbudu1]

That being the case, what would be the utility of the present exercise of discussing/debating the criticism and refutations of the three philosophies?

Regards,

narayan

I have already specified my reasons for not accepting the non-advaitic philosophies in vogue.
This does not mean that the refutation of advaita by the other philosophers can be discarded. Since the discussion only pertains to Advaita my criticism is only directed at the flaws of advaita. For instance advaita claims it is not dualistic but uses dualistic arguments called avidya. Hope that clears!

 

[sravna]

Here are some more facts and my views on space and time and its relation to maya:

The shortest distance in space doesn't reduce to a point but has some length. This is the shortest distance possible in space. This is also supposedly the wavelength of the energy at the creation of the universe. It makes sense because when the shortest distance is not a point it would behave as a point in a sense with energy being constant throught out it. All of space is made of such discrete units. Since they are discrete they are disconnected.

One would say that they are a projection of pure spiritual energy in discrete form. This might be the basis of the perception of space because of the disconnectedness of the discrete units. Just as human brain produces thoughts, the extremely small discrete realities may have their own consciousness. But due to their extremely limited nature, the consciousness would have emanated as physical energy. This would have been the first separation of effect from the cause. The very high frequency nature of the energy well corresponds to the fact that the energy keeps rapidly changing and never in sync with reality.

The above is some description in physical terms though the scriptures have their spiritual description of the creation of the universe. I strongly feel it should be possible to correlate the two.

The above projection of space and time and cause and effect could well be a reality like the reality of a dream though more real and with a purpose. Therefore one need not consider that the implications of such a reality contradict non-dualism. As for as absolute truth goes such a reality is an illusion.

 

[Raghy]

Shri Raghy,

More than just the act of control, how that control happens is what that counts. For example you can control emotions by suppressing them or really not experiencing them, the latter being true self control. If someone has achieved such self control in an irreversible way , he has indeed truly achieved full mental development or in other words capable of spiritual experiences. In religious terminology, mind becomes one with soul and self realization has occurred or brahman is experienced. Thus higher reality or brahman is just that experience.

Tell me what exactly I have to respond to, in your earlier post?

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Sir, my questions in post #314 are very clear. I don't see the reason for your question. Anyway, I leave it to you. If post #314 is completely addressed, then we may discuss further. Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Sir, my questions in post #314 are very clear. I don't see the reason for your question. Anyway, I leave it to you. If post #314 is completely addressed, then we may discuss further. Thank you.

Cheers!

These are the questions you pose:
1. How do I sense Brahman so that my mind could grasp it, please?Can you kindly provide an example for this, please? Thank you
2. How do you know the concept of Brahman is not a false perception of reality, please

I have already given my response to the first question. The expereince the mind has when it is fully developed i.e., when you are in total control of yourself is the expereince of brahman. That is when mind grasps brahman.

Something you expereince with an evolving mind could only be a truer and truer perception of reality and therefore expereince of brahman cannot be false perception of reality.

 

[Raghy]

These are the questions you pose:
1. How do I sense Brahman so that my mind could grasp it, please?Can you kindly provide an example for this, please? Thank you
2. How do you know the concept of Brahman is not a false perception of reality, please

I have already given my response to the first question. The expereince the mind has when it is fully developed i.e., when you are in total control of yourself is the expereince of brahman. That is when mind grasps brahman.

Something you expereince with an evolving mind could only be a truer and truer perception of reality and therefore expereince of brahman cannot be false perception of reality.

Sri.Sravna sir, Greetings.

Sorry sir, I was only willing to have a discussion. But, I am beginning to doubt, you are only interested in playing games. I am not interested in playing games. I am not going to ask you to answer my questions anymore. In one single sentence, you seem to say that my experiences are Maya and your experiences are Brahman! Sir, i don't think that is a nice way of conducting discussions.

Thank you very much for your time. I conclude my discussions with this, please. I don't think I am going to learn anything from our discussions.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Sri.Sravna sir, Greetings.

Sorry sir, I was only willing to have a discussion. But, I am beginning to doubt, you are only interested in playing games. I am not interested in playing games. I am not going to ask you to answer my questions anymore. In one single sentence, you seem to say that my experiences are Maya and your experiences are Brahman! Sir, i don't think that is a nice way of conducting discussions.

Thank you very much for your time. I conclude my discussions with this, please. I don't think I am going to learn anything from our discussions.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

What makes you feel I am not sincere in answering the questions?

"In one single sentence, you seem to say that my experiences are Maya and your experiences are Brahman!"

I don't understand why should you make the above interpretation ?

 

[sarma-61]

I tried to understand what is happening in this thread but failed miserably! May be my intelligence is very poor.

Will all this "advaitam", "dvaitam" etc., help one starving fellow get his next square meals? No. So, this is all frivlous argumentation just to show off each one's so-called philosophical knowledge No one has seen "parabrahmam" (including Adisankarar, perhaps) and no one will see in the future also. But some kaashaaya-clad Swamijis will lead a comfortable life speaking of all such "kavaikku utavaata kaariyangkaL"; who here belongs to this group?

 

[tks]

I tried to understand what is happening in this thread but failed miserably! May be my intelligence is very poor.

Will all this "advaitam", "dvaitam" etc., help one starving fellow get his next square meals? No. So, this is all frivlous argumentation just to show off each one's so-called philosophical knowledge No one has seen "parabrahmam" (including Adisankarar, perhaps) and no one will see in the future also. But some kaashaaya-clad Swamijis will lead a comfortable life speaking of all such "kavaikku utavaata kaariyangkaL"; who here belongs to this group?

Sri Sarma -

I was not following this thread until I saw a "new person" post a comment. I realize you are a member lot longer than I am and I find your comment hilarious

After seeing your post, I am reminded of a few quotes! This is just poking light hearted fun at how Tamil Brahmins love to debate, discuss and argue! A disclaimer: None of these quotes are directed at anyone!

" Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance." by Robert Quillen


"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
- William James


"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
- unknown



"A little learning is a dangerous thing."
- Alexander Pope


"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
- Albert Einstein


"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
- Bertrand Russell


Regards