Iyengars are weird

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:21 pm

That is all.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:22 pm

Troll alert!

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:That is all.

i asked her about why she doesn't respect Lord Shiva as much as Lord Krishna/Vishnu and she said Shiva comes across as some kind of stranger to her. Vishnu is a confidante to whom she can confide in. She 'knows' Vishnu because she grew up hearing stories about her.

I then asked her about Lord Hanuman. Does she relate to him? The answer is No. What the hell? He is a Vaisnava deity, he was an associate of Lord Rama. Yes, she says, but he is not a God.

So its Lord Krishna/Vishnu/Rama et all all the way and all the other deities are ...

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is all.

i asked her about why she doesn't respect Lord Shiva as much as Lord Krishna/Vishnu and she said Shiva comes across as some kind of stranger to her. Vishnu is a confidante to whom she can confide in. She 'knows' Vishnu because she grew up hearing stories about her.

I then asked her about Lord Hanuman. Does she relate to him? The answer is No. What the hell? He is a Vaisnava deity, he was an associate of Lord Rama. Yes, she says, but he is not a God.

So its Lord Krishna/Vishnu/Rama et all all the way and all the other deities are ...

There is no one right way to reach god. Whatever works for you is the right way and you follow that. If she takes Lord Vishnu as a confidante, let her do so and find solace in that. Why bother that she doesn't believe in others?

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:41 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is all.

i asked her about why she doesn't respect Lord Shiva as much as Lord Krishna/Vishnu and she said Shiva comes across as some kind of stranger to her. Vishnu is a confidante to whom she can confide in. She 'knows' Vishnu because she grew up hearing stories about her.

I then asked her about Lord Hanuman. Does she relate to him? The answer is No. What the hell? He is a Vaisnava deity, he was an associate of Lord Rama. Yes, she says, but he is not a God.

So its Lord Krishna/Vishnu/Rama et all all the way and all the other deities are ...
There is no one right way to reach god. Whatever works for you is the right way and you follow that. If she takes Lord Vishnu as a confidante, let her do so and find solace in that. Why bother that she doesn't believe in others?

what she is doing seems to go against the hinduism i was taught. according to the hinduism i imbibed Lord Shiva respects Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu respects Lord Shiva. For instance when he was about to go to Lanka Lord Rama had prayed to Lord Shiva (at Rameshwaram). What is this nonsense about Shiva being a 'stranger'? And why doesn't she respect Lord Hanuman?

She can have a special relationship with Lord Krishna/Vishnu, but treating other hindu gods as 'strangers' is disrespecting them in my opinion.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is all.

i asked her about why she doesn't respect Lord Shiva as much as Lord Krishna/Vishnu and she said Shiva comes across as some kind of stranger to her. Vishnu is a confidante to whom she can confide in. She 'knows' Vishnu because she grew up hearing stories about her.

I then asked her about Lord Hanuman. Does she relate to him? The answer is No. What the hell? He is a Vaisnava deity, he was an associate of Lord Rama. Yes, she says, but he is not a God.

So its Lord Krishna/Vishnu/Rama et all all the way and all the other deities are ...
There is no one right way to reach god. Whatever works for you is the right way and you follow that. If she takes Lord Vishnu as a confidante, let her do so and find solace in that. Why bother that she doesn't believe in others?

what she is doing seems to go against the hinduism i was taught. according to the hinduism i imbibed Lord Shiva respects Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu respects Lord Shiva. For instance when he was about to go to Lanka Lord Rama had prayed to Lord Shiva (at Rameshwaram). What is this nonsense about Shiva being a 'stranger'? And why doesn't she respect Lord Hanuman?

She can have a special relationship with Lord Krishna/Vishnu, but treating other hindu gods as 'strangers' is disrespecting them in my opinion.

The Ramayana of Tulsidas is a Vaisnava work but in this work Tulsidas makes special effort to respect Lord Shiva by depicting Lord Rama as someone who respects Lord Shiva. I wonder whether Kamban did the same thing in Kamabaramayanam. All the Shaiva/Vaisnava violence that took place in India occurred in South India.

by truthbetold Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:53 pm

Rash
Have you heard of vaishnavaites and shivaites ? some vaishnavaites do not accept shiva has the same stature as Vishnu.
China jeeyaar the spiritual head of jeeyar mutt at tirupati is very adamant about Vishnu superior concept. There were many discussions on that.
try internet to find more.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:57 pm

truthbetold wrote:Rash
Have you heard of vaishnavaites and shivaites ? some vaishnavaites do not accept shove has the same stature as Vishnu.
China jeeyaar the spiritual head of jeeyar mutt at tirupati is very adamant about Vishnu superior concept. There were many discussions on that.
try internet to find more.

yes i know. i read a book by a Dvaita Vedantist Vadiraja who tries to explain--using logic!--why Vishnu is superior to Shiva. But it defies the imagination as to why anyone today would continue to think along these kind of sectarian lines.

by southindian Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:09 pm

Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rash
Have you heard of vaishnavaites and shivaites ? some vaishnavaites do not accept shove has the same stature as Vishnu.
China jeeyaar the spiritual head of jeeyar mutt at tirupati is very adamant about Vishnu superior concept. There were many discussions on that.
try internet to find more.

yes i know. i read a book by a Dvaita Vedantist Vadiraja who tries to explain--using logic!--why Vishnu is superior to Shiva. But it defies the imagination as to why anyone today would continue to think along these kind of sectarian lines.

Rashmun, what's your prediction on today being December 25th. You are a 40% man, so take your best shot.

by truthbetold Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:16 pm

Rash
most people do not practice that kind of logic. China jeeyar is an exceptional speaker on many topics but has a blindspot on this topic.

by FluteHolder Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:22 pm

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
what she is doing seems to go against the hinduism i was taught. according to the hinduism i imbibed Lord Shiva respects Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu respects Lord Shiva. For instance when he was about to go to Lanka Lord Rama had prayed to Lord Shiva (at Rameshwaram). What is this nonsense about Shiva being a 'stranger'? And why doesn't she respect Lord Hanuman?

She can have a special relationship with Lord Krishna/Vishnu, but treating other hindu gods as 'strangers' is disrespecting them in my opinion.

The Ramayana of Tulsidas is a Vaisnava work but in this work Tulsidas makes special effort to respect Lord Shiva by depicting Lord Rama as someone who respects Lord Shiva. I wonder whether Kamban did the same thing in Kamabaramayanam. All the Shaiva/Vaisnava violence that took place in India occurred in South India.

Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:42 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
what she is doing seems to go against the hinduism i was taught. according to the hinduism i imbibed Lord Shiva respects Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu respects Lord Shiva. For instance when he was about to go to Lanka Lord Rama had prayed to Lord Shiva (at Rameshwaram). What is this nonsense about Shiva being a 'stranger'? And why doesn't she respect Lord Hanuman?

She can have a special relationship with Lord Krishna/Vishnu, but treating other hindu gods as 'strangers' is disrespecting them in my opinion.

The Ramayana of Tulsidas is a Vaisnava work but in this work Tulsidas makes special effort to respect Lord Shiva by depicting Lord Rama as someone who respects Lord Shiva. I wonder whether Kamban did the same thing in Kamabaramayanam. All the Shaiva/Vaisnava violence that took place in India occurred in South India.
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

dvaita is just one of the schools of Vaisnava philosophy. There are other Vaisnava schools like Visistadvaita (of Ramanuja).

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:44 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

i don't know much about vedanta, but i know enough to know that the above bolded statement is plain wrong.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
what she is doing seems to go against the hinduism i was taught. according to the hinduism i imbibed Lord Shiva respects Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu respects Lord Shiva. For instance when he was about to go to Lanka Lord Rama had prayed to Lord Shiva (at Rameshwaram). What is this nonsense about Shiva being a 'stranger'? And why doesn't she respect Lord Hanuman?

She can have a special relationship with Lord Krishna/Vishnu, but treating other hindu gods as 'strangers' is disrespecting them in my opinion.

The Ramayana of Tulsidas is a Vaisnava work but in this work Tulsidas makes special effort to respect Lord Shiva by depicting Lord Rama as someone who respects Lord Shiva. I wonder whether Kamban did the same thing in Kamabaramayanam. All the Shaiva/Vaisnava violence that took place in India occurred in South India.
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

dvaita is just one of the schools of Vaisnava philosophy. There are other Vaisnava schools like Visistadvaita (of Ramanuja).

Ya, sure. Let ppl follow whatever is right for them.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:46 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

i don't know much about vedanta, but i know enough to know that the above bolded statement is plain wrong.

I was talking about the ones who i talked to. Not the whole population.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:49 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

i don't know much about vedanta, but i know enough to know that the above bolded statement is plain wrong.
I was talking about the ones who i talked to. Not the whole population.

the entire iyengar belief system is founded AFAIK (individuals may depart from that, but i am talking about the foundation of the faith itself) follow visishtadvaita which i believe is to be read as visishta - advaita, that is advaita with some qualifying differentiators.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:51 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
what she is doing seems to go against the hinduism i was taught. according to the hinduism i imbibed Lord Shiva respects Lord Vishnu and Lord Vishnu respects Lord Shiva. For instance when he was about to go to Lanka Lord Rama had prayed to Lord Shiva (at Rameshwaram). What is this nonsense about Shiva being a 'stranger'? And why doesn't she respect Lord Hanuman?

She can have a special relationship with Lord Krishna/Vishnu, but treating other hindu gods as 'strangers' is disrespecting them in my opinion.

The Ramayana of Tulsidas is a Vaisnava work but in this work Tulsidas makes special effort to respect Lord Shiva by depicting Lord Rama as someone who respects Lord Shiva. I wonder whether Kamban did the same thing in Kamabaramayanam. All the Shaiva/Vaisnava violence that took place in India occurred in South India.
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

dvaita is just one of the schools of Vaisnava philosophy. There are other Vaisnava schools like Visistadvaita (of Ramanuja).
Ya, sure. Let ppl follow whatever is right for them.

a problem arises if a north indian brahmin marries an iyengar and he does not want his children to think of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman as strangers.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:52 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

i don't know much about vedanta, but i know enough to know that the above bolded statement is plain wrong.
I was talking about the ones who i talked to. Not the whole population.

the entire iyengar belief system is founded AFAIK (individuals may depart from that, but i am talking about the foundation of the faith itself) follow visishtadvaita which i believe is to be read as visishta - advaita, that is advaita with some qualifying differentiators.

Do you know what advaita philosophy is?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:52 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Yeah, I've had Iyengars tell me that they don't go to Shiva temples and that Vishnu is their only Supreme Lord. It's dvaita philosophy that they follow. They believe what they believe. All we can do is smile and nod. Let everyone be.

i don't know much about vedanta, but i know enough to know that the above bolded statement is plain wrong.
I was talking about the ones who i talked to. Not the whole population.

the entire iyengar belief system is founded AFAIK (individuals may depart from that, but i am talking about the foundation of the faith itself) follow visishtadvaita which i believe is to be read as visishta - advaita, that is advaita with some qualifying differentiators.
Do you know what advaita philosophy is?

yes.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:56 pm

there was a time when i had more of an interest in such things. here is a discussion from a long time ago from a group primarily populated by people of the iyengar variety discussing aspects of their faith.

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/may98/0061.html

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute,
omnipresent Self exists. However, our concept of God
refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within
itself; the entire universe, including all living beings, are
fundamentally real and internally distinguishable from one another.
However, there is only one total reality, as God includes all
existence within Its very being. The individual selfs and the
universe exist as God's attributes, since God pervades absolutely
everything and gifts these substances with their reality.
In other words, God is the indwelling
Self of all, and this ``all'' is real as they are included in
His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means
non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by
innumerable glorious attributes, including individual selves
and matter.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:57 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

i don't know much about vedanta, but i know enough to know that the above bolded statement is plain wrong.
I was talking about the ones who i talked to. Not the whole population.

the entire iyengar belief system is founded AFAIK (individuals may depart from that, but i am talking about the foundation of the faith itself) follow visishtadvaita which i believe is to be read as visishta - advaita, that is advaita with some qualifying differentiators.
Do you know what advaita philosophy is?

yes.

Pls explain what the difference is between visishtadvaita and dvaita for me.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:01 pm

Kinnera wrote:Troll alert!

May be. But then....it could be due to Malaini effect.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:02 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
I was talking about the ones who i talked to. Not the whole population.

the entire iyengar belief system is founded AFAIK (individuals may depart from that, but i am talking about the foundation of the faith itself) follow visishtadvaita which i believe is to be read as visishta - advaita, that is advaita with some qualifying differentiators.
Do you know what advaita philosophy is?

yes.
Pls explain what the difference is between visishtadvaita and dvaita for me.

visishtadvaita is a non-dualist faith. dvaita is explicitly dualist. quoting from mani vardarajan's post which i linked earlier--

dvaita:

The Dvaita school, inaugurated by Madhvacharya (Ananda Tirtha),
argues that there is an inherent and absolute five-fold difference
in Reality -- between one soul and another, between the soul
and God, between God and matter, between the soul and matter,
and between matter and matter. These differences are not only
individuations, but also inherent qualitative differences, i.e.,
in its essentially pure state, one individual self is _not_
equal to another in status, but only in genus. Therefore, there
are inherently female jIvas, inherently male jIvas, brahmin
jIvas, non-brahmin jIvas, and this differentiation exists
even in liberation.

visishtadvaita:

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute,
omnipresent Self exists. However, our concept of God
refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within
itself; the entire universe, including all living beings, are
fundamentally real and internally distinguishable from one another.
However, there is only one total reality, as God includes all
existence within Its very being. The individual selfs and the
universe exist as God's attributes, since God pervades absolutely
everything and gifts these substances with their reality.
In other words, God is the indwelling
Self of all, and this ``all'' is real as they are included in
His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means
non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by
innumerable glorious attributes, including individual selves
and matter.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:04 pm

i have also come to know through personal conversations from relatives through marriage that the essence of visishtadvaita is actually non-dualism. a long long time ago, so long ago, nobody knows how long ago, i too used to labor under the misapprehension that iyengars follow dvaita.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have also come to know through personal conversations from relatives through marriage that the essence of visishtadvaita is actually non-dualism. a long long time ago, so long ago, nobody knows how long ago, i too used to labor under the misapprehension that iyengars follow dvaita.

Visistadvaita is a confused kind of philosophy in that it preaches that the individual is part of the absolute in some ways and not part of the absolute in other ways. Such a philosophy can never be considered a great philosophy as S.Radhakrishnan has rightly pointed out. In Dvaita there is complete separation/demarcation between the individual and the absolute.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have also come to know through personal conversations from relatives through marriage that the essence of visishtadvaita is actually non-dualism. a long long time ago, so long ago, nobody knows how long ago, i too used to labor under the misapprehension that iyengars follow dvaita.

Visistadvaita is a confused kind of philosophy in that it preaches that the individual is part of the absolute in some ways and not part of the absolute in other ways. Such a philosophy can never be considered a great philosophy as S.Radhakrishnan has rightly pointed out. In Dvaita there is complete separation/demarcation between the individual and the absolute.

this is where my participation stops. it is meaningless for me to make judgments such as these.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:visishtadvaita:

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute,
omnipresent Self exists. However, our concept of God
refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within
itself; the entire universe, including all living beings, are
fundamentally real and internally distinguishable from one another.
However, there is only one total reality, as God includes all
existence within Its very being. The individual selfs and the
universe exist as God's attributes, since God pervades absolutely
everything and gifts these substances with their reality.
In other words, God is the indwelling
Self of all, and this ``all'' is real as they are included in
His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means
non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by
innumerable glorious attributes, including individual selves
and matter.

Let's put the Dvaita philosophy aside for a while. So according to my understanding, Visishtadvaita as followed by iyengars believes that Lord Vishnu is that Supreme Entity and everyone/thing is an attribute of Him and included in His body. So Shiva, Hanuman and all are attributes of Vishnu, but are not the Supreme Entity. Hence they worship only Lord Vishnu and no one else.

The above philosophy seems similar to the one followed by Veera Shaivaites who are strict Shiva worshipers. The only difference here is that Lord Vishnu is replaced by Lord Shiva. To them, Shiva is the only Supreme Lord and Entity.

Advaita on the other hand, when gone deeper goes beyond Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman, Rama, etc. There's no Shiva, vishnu, you or me. All is one. No differentiation. In Adyatma Ramayanam, the explanation goes to that level where the differentiation between Rama and Hanuman cease to exist. All is one.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:25 pm

Brahmin and non-Brahmin jivas and Male/female Jivas?

What about transgender and Eunuch jivas?

Do muslims and Christians also fall under the non-Brahmin Jivas - including Syrian catholics?

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:31 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have also come to know through personal conversations from relatives through marriage that the essence of visishtadvaita is actually non-dualism. a long long time ago, so long ago, nobody knows how long ago, i too used to labor under the misapprehension that iyengars follow dvaita.

Visistadvaita is a confused kind of philosophy in that it preaches that the individual is part of the absolute in some ways and not part of the absolute in other ways. Such a philosophy can never be considered a great philosophy as S.Radhakrishnan has rightly pointed out. In Dvaita there is complete separation/demarcation between the individual and the absolute.

There is no right or wrong philosophy. Whatever makes sense to you and whatever gives you peace is the right one for you. The one that is right for you may not be right one for the other. Let each one follow whatever is right for them.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:36 pm

Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:visishtadvaita:

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute,
omnipresent Self exists. However, our concept of God
refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within
itself; the entire universe, including all living beings, are
fundamentally real and internally distinguishable from one another.
However, there is only one total reality, as God includes all
existence within Its very being. The individual selfs and the
universe exist as God's attributes, since God pervades absolutely
everything and gifts these substances with their reality.
In other words, God is the indwelling
Self of all, and this ``all'' is real as they are included in
His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means
non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by
innumerable glorious attributes, including individual selves
and matter.
Let's put the Dvaita philosophy aside for a while. So according to my understanding, Visishtadvaita as followed by iyengars believes that Lord Vishnu is that Supreme Entity and everyone/thing is an attribute of Him and included in His body. So Shiva, Hanuman and all are attributes of Vishnu, but are not the Supreme Entity. Hence they worship only Lord Vishnu and no one else.

The above philosophy seems similar to the one followed by Veera Shaivaites who are strict Shiva worshipers. The only difference here is that Lord Vishnu is replaced by Lord Shiva. To them, Shiva is the only Supreme Lord and Entity.

Advaita on the other hand, when gone deeper goes beyond Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman, Rama, etc. There's no Shiva, vishnu, you or me. All is one. No differentiation. In Adyatma Ramayanam, the explanation goes to that level where the differentiation between Rama and Hanuman cease to exist. All is one.

The Advaitin concept of this world being illusory has been ridiculed by the Vaisnava philosophers and rightly so. The world is real according to all Indian philosophers with the exception of Advaitins and the Mahayana Budhists. It has been suggested that the widespread promulgation of Advaita (through the mathas in four corners of the country set up by Adi Sankara) contributed to a weakening of the Indian psyche since they propagated the idea of the world being unreal and the individual being unkillable--hence making the country ripe for external conquest. It has also been suggested that Advaita is positively hostile to science since it is opposed to reason and logic, and denies all causality by denying the reality of the effect. All transformations and mutations are actually illusory according to Advaita.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:38 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have also come to know through personal conversations from relatives through marriage that the essence of visishtadvaita is actually non-dualism. a long long time ago, so long ago, nobody knows how long ago, i too used to labor under the misapprehension that iyengars follow dvaita.

Visistadvaita is a confused kind of philosophy in that it preaches that the individual is part of the absolute in some ways and not part of the absolute in other ways. Such a philosophy can never be considered a great philosophy as S.Radhakrishnan has rightly pointed out. In Dvaita there is complete separation/demarcation between the individual and the absolute.
There is no right or wrong philosophy. Whatever makes sense to you and whatever gives you peace is the right one for you. The one that is right for you may not be right one for the other. Let each one follow whatever is right for them.

The Dvaita Vedantist Vadiraja disagrees with you:

On Vyahvarika satya :
[Comments Vadiraja:]Moreover, why don't you openly acknowledge that this nebulous term ("vyahvarika") renders Scripture untrue and unrevelatory?...Why don't you ever come out and say within an assembly, "All these words about the Lord and about religious duty are untrue and unrevelatory! If you are afraid to say that it is obvious that Scripture is unauthoritative, then the fault would be compounded because the censure of scripture is veiled; in that way, you fool, there is additional deception of good people...

And when the same vyahvarika doctrine opposing both (identity and difference) texts alike, sets aside their validy, then how can you abandon the many difference texts in favour of a few identity texts? Your texts would deserve to be invalidated because not conforming to the rule imposed by your own vyahvarika doctrine, which nullified all texts. If not, why is a Budhist, valuing the few scriptural statements favourable to him, ignoring all the rest of Scripture opposed to him--why is he not right while you, sir, are? Hence, this filthy demoness of a sophistry (the vyhavarika doctrine) is not to be brought into an assembly of the wise.

And again:
[Comments Vadiraja:]One who is afflicted with a mania producing conviction in an inextinguishable "Great Illusion", who moreover declares, while posturing as one grounded on the Scriptures, a belief in the world's depravity based on the depraved condition of the all asssisting Scriptures kills his own mother! I believe he gets amusement by bringing harm to everyone.

Comment on above [by Stafford Betty]: He says that a Non-dualist is like a man who kills his own mother: while he claims an enormous debt to the scriptures, as a man to his mother, he at the same time nullifies their worth by saying they are vyahvarika--a classic instance of "biting the hand that feeds you." He also says that the Non-dualist is sadistically crazed. He is like one who gets pleasure from showing all that they are but phantoms acting out their parts on an unreal stage. He undermines their confidence that what they do has any real signficance. In short, he is the enemy of the people. For these reasons, and and for all the others listed above, the vyahvarika doctrine is fallacious, and the doctrine of difference carries the argument.

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-vadiraja-attacks-advaita_325380_blog

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:visishtadvaita:

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute,
omnipresent Self exists. However, our concept of God
refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within
itself; the entire universe, including all living beings, are
fundamentally real and internally distinguishable from one another.
However, there is only one total reality, as God includes all
existence within Its very being. The individual selfs and the
universe exist as God's attributes, since God pervades absolutely
everything and gifts these substances with their reality.
In other words, God is the indwelling
Self of all, and this ``all'' is real as they are included in
His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means
non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by
innumerable glorious attributes, including individual selves
and matter.
Let's put the Dvaita philosophy aside for a while. So according to my understanding, Visishtadvaita as followed by iyengars believes that Lord Vishnu is that Supreme Entity and everyone/thing is an attribute of Him and included in His body. So Shiva, Hanuman and all are attributes of Vishnu, but are not the Supreme Entity. Hence they worship only Lord Vishnu and no one else.

The above philosophy seems similar to the one followed by Veera Shaivaites who are strict Shiva worshipers. The only difference here is that Lord Vishnu is replaced by Lord Shiva. To them, Shiva is the only Supreme Lord and Entity.

Advaita on the other hand, when gone deeper goes beyond Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman, Rama, etc. There's no Shiva, vishnu, you or me. All is one. No differentiation. In Adyatma Ramayanam, the explanation goes to that level where the differentiation between Rama and Hanuman cease to exist. All is one.

The Advaitin concept of this world being illusory has been ridiculed by the Vaisnava philosophers and rightly so. The world is real according to all Indian philosophers with the exception of Advaitins and the Mahayana Budhists. It has been suggested that the widespread promulgation of Advaita (through the mathas in four corners of the country set up by Adi Sankara) contributed to a weakening of the Indian psyche since they propagated the idea of the world being unreal and the individual being unkillable--hence making the country ripe for external conquest. It has also been suggested that Advaita is positively hostile to science since it is opposed to reason and logic, and denies all causality by denying the reality of the effect. All transformations and mutations are actually illusory according to Advaita.

llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean. I don't understand how it is against science.

Anyway, i am outta this thread. I am not here to prove that one philosophy is better than the other.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:49 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:visishtadvaita:

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute,
omnipresent Self exists. However, our concept of God
refers to that Supreme Entity which contains all within
itself; the entire universe, including all living beings, are
fundamentally real and internally distinguishable from one another.
However, there is only one total reality, as God includes all
existence within Its very being. The individual selfs and the
universe exist as God's attributes, since God pervades absolutely
everything and gifts these substances with their reality.
In other words, God is the indwelling
Self of all, and this ``all'' is real as they are included in
His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means
non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by
innumerable glorious attributes, including individual selves
and matter.
Let's put the Dvaita philosophy aside for a while. So according to my understanding, Visishtadvaita as followed by iyengars believes that Lord Vishnu is that Supreme Entity and everyone/thing is an attribute of Him and included in His body. So Shiva, Hanuman and all are attributes of Vishnu, but are not the Supreme Entity. Hence they worship only Lord Vishnu and no one else.

The above philosophy seems similar to the one followed by Veera Shaivaites who are strict Shiva worshipers. The only difference here is that Lord Vishnu is replaced by Lord Shiva. To them, Shiva is the only Supreme Lord and Entity.

Advaita on the other hand, when gone deeper goes beyond Shiva, Vishnu, Hanuman, Rama, etc. There's no Shiva, vishnu, you or me. All is one. No differentiation. In Adyatma Ramayanam, the explanation goes to that level where the differentiation between Rama and Hanuman cease to exist. All is one.

The Advaitin concept of this world being illusory has been ridiculed by the Vaisnava philosophers and rightly so. The world is real according to all Indian philosophers with the exception of Advaitins and the Mahayana Budhists. It has been suggested that the widespread promulgation of Advaita (through the mathas in four corners of the country set up by Adi Sankara) contributed to a weakening of the Indian psyche since they propagated the idea of the world being unreal and the individual being unkillable--hence making the country ripe for external conquest. It has also been suggested that Advaita is positively hostile to science since it is opposed to reason and logic, and denies all causality by denying the reality of the effect. All transformations and mutations are actually illusory according to Advaita.

llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean. I don't understand how it is against science.

Anyway, i am outta this thread. I am not here to prove that one philosophy is better than the other.

To understand the nature of Maya, as explained in the Dvaita and in the Advaita, i quote from T.P. Ramachandran's "Dvaita Vedanta" (pg 81):

A word must be said about the concept of "maya" in Dvaita. "Maya" is real ("sat") in this system. It is the mysterious power of God. By its aid Brahman creates, sustains, and dissolves the world. Again, by its aid Brahman causes deception, or ignorance, in the souls. This conception of "maya" is diametrically opposed to the conception of "maya" which we find in the Advaita. In Advaita, "maya" is neither real nor unreal, and therefore indescribable. It does not belong to Brahman, but stands between reality as it is and reality as it appears. It is responsible for "nirguna" Brahman appearing as Iswara, the souls, and the world.

Madhva's main objections against the Advaita conception of "maya" relate to (1)its status and (2) its connection with Brahman. To describe anything as neither real nor unreal is a violation of the Law of Excluded Middle. There is no middle ground, according to Madhva, between the real and the unreal. As to the connection of "maya" with Brahman, the Advaitin's explaination is that because "maya" is not real, it is futile to enquire into its relation with Brahman. The Dvaitin considers this explaination evasive.

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-nature-of-maya_467200_blog

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:50 pm

Rashmun wrote: It has also been suggested that Advaita is positively hostile to science since it is opposed to reason and logic, and denies all causality by denying the reality of the effect. All transformations and mutations are actually illusory according to Advaita.

and dvaita is not? doesn't it posit a supreme being? any school of philosophy which requires you to believe in a higher power or which cannot be explained by observations, deduction, and inference is hostile to science. why single out advaita?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:53 pm

IMO it is futile to talk about science and vedanta in the same subject line or in the same discussion. there is science and there is the thing that lets you sleep better at night. the thing that lets you sleep better at night could be anything.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:01 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote: It has also been suggested that Advaita is positively hostile to science since it is opposed to reason and logic, and denies all causality by denying the reality of the effect. All transformations and mutations are actually illusory according to Advaita.

and dvaita is not? doesn't it posit a supreme being? any school of philosophy which requires you to believe in a higher power or which cannot be explained by observations, deduction, and inference is hostile to science. why single out advaita?

i don't think belief in God is anti-science. At the very least it is not as damaging to science as a philosophy which preaches that the world is unreal, that reason and logic are not to be trusted, that all transformations and mutations are illusory. The thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment in England (like Sir Francis Bacon) were not atheists but they were all enthusiastic about science.Furthermore, Adi Sankara--the most renowned exponent of Advaita--has been criticized for damaging Indian science by his attack on the genuine science oriented Indian philosophies.

---

According to the world renowned Indian Chemist P.C. Ray, Adi Sankar by vigorously attacking science oriented Indian philosophies, and for preaching that the world is illusory, stands condemned of bringing the physical sciences into disrepute in India (and consequently of having a negative impact on Indian Science). [For more on P.C. Ray, see here:
http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/greatscientists/drpcray/]

--> Though a Chemist by training and profession, P.C. Ray also found time to write an insightful book on the history of chemistry in ancient and medieval India. In this book, Ray distinguishes certain Indian philosophies that favoured science or the scientific spirit, from those that are basically hostile to the requirements of natural science. Though not specializing in Indian philosophy, Ray had evidently grasped of the Indian philosophical situation to differentiate between the two.

--> Thus, Ray could see that the philosophy of atomism , associated with Kanada as its founder, had significant science-potential in the ancient Indian context. He could also see that the world denying metaphysics (mayavada), represented by Adi Sankar and Advaita Vedanta could not but be inimical to science. In P.C. Ray's judgement, therefore, Adi Sankar stands accused for the decline of science in Indian history--a judgement rather courageous in the Indian context, and in those times, where Adi Sankar's name often carried the epithet of being an incarnation of God. But Ray had the courage and he observed (PC Ray, History of Hindu Chemistry, vol. 1, pg 195-6):
The Vedanta philosophy, as modified and expanded by Sankara, which teaches the unreality of the material world, is also to a large extent responsible for bringing the physical science into disrepute. Sankara is unsparing in his strictures on Kanada and his system. One or two extracts from Sankara's Commentary on the Vedanta Sutras, will make the point clear: [Observed Sankara:]

"It thus appears that the atomic doctrine is supported by very weak arguments only, is opposed to those scriptural passages which declare the Lord to be the general cause, and is not accepted by any of the authorities taking their stand on scripture, such as Manu and others. Hence, it is to be altogether disregarded by highminded men who have a regard for their own spiritual welfare."

And again [Observed Sankara]:
"The reasons on account of which the doctrine of the Vaisesikas cannot be accepted have been stated above. That doctrine may be called semi-destructive (or semi-nihilistic)."

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-versus-indian-science_325347_blog

by truthbetold Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:04 pm

Kinnera ,
"so Shiva, hanuman are attributes of lord Vishnu but not the supreme god himself. so they pray to lord Vishnu"

my understanding of Chinna jeeyar's teaching is that you can pray to Shiva if you wish. but lord Vishnu is the supreme being. Shiva is not of the same stature. TTD supports srisailam and other temples.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:15 pm

Rashmun, pls understand first what it means by the world being unreal or an illusion according to Advaita. Get your concepts straight before you talk about anything. Read above.
And pls stop your cut and paste business. Use your brain. Do some thinking and contemplation. The problem with you is that you don't do that. You don't read and understand what others are saying either. You blindly go on cutting and pasting shit unilaterally. It's a waste of time to get into a conversation with you.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:18 pm

Kinnera wrote:Rashmun, pls understand first what it means by the world being unreal or an illusion according to Advaita. Get your concepts straight before you talk about anything. Read above.
And pls stop your cut and paste business. Use your brain. Do some thinking and contemplation. The problem with you is that you don't do that. You don't read and understand what others are saying either. You blindly go on cutting and pasting shit unilaterally. It's a waste of time to get into a conversation with you.

To understand what Advaita means by the world being unreal or the world being illusory we have to first understand the meaning of the term 'Maya' in Advaita and then we can juxtapose this with the meaning of the same term in Dvaita. To understand the nature of Maya, as explained in the Dvaita and in the Advaita, i quote from T.P. Ramachandran's "Dvaita Vedanta" (pg 81):

A word must be said about the concept of "maya" in Dvaita. "Maya" is real ("sat") in this system. It is the mysterious power of God. By its aid Brahman creates, sustains, and dissolves the world. Again, by its aid Brahman causes deception, or ignorance, in the souls. This conception of "maya" is diametrically opposed to the conception of "maya" which we find in the Advaita. In Advaita, "maya" is neither real nor unreal, and therefore indescribable. It does not belong to Brahman, but stands between reality as it is and reality as it appears. It is responsible for "nirguna" Brahman appearing as Iswara, the souls, and the world.

Madhva's main objections against the Advaita conception of "maya" relate to (1)its status and (2) its connection with Brahman. To describe anything as neither real nor unreal is a violation of the Law of Excluded Middle. There is no middle ground, according to Madhva, between the real and the unreal. As to the connection of "maya" with Brahman, the Advaitin's explaination is that because "maya" is not real, it is futile to enquire into its relation with Brahman. The Dvaitin considers this explaination evasive.

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-nature-of-maya_467200_blog

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:20 pm

truthbetold wrote:Kinnera ,
"so Shiva, hanuman are attributes of lord Vishnu but not the supreme god himself. so they pray to lord Vishnu"

my understanding of Chinna jeeyar's teaching is that you can pray to Shiva if you wish. but lord Vishnu is the supreme being. Shiva is not of the same stature. TTD supports srisailam and other temples.

What Chinna Jeeyar swamy is teaching is not advaita for sure. He's an institutionalized swami, not a realized one like Ramana Maharshi. That's why I block myself out of the institutionalized gurus.

by truthbetold Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:21 pm

Rash
so you started with iyengars but arrived at what you always wanted i.e. criticism of Adi Sankara and his advaita philosophy.

The more we understand matter the more it is clear that all matter in essence is made of similar sub atomic particles. That is more like advaita. then the complexity of atomic behaviour is so complex it is maya to represent it is beyond the comprehension.

may be Adi Sankara is ahead of you and me.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:
i don't think belief in God is anti-science.

there is no question that science has been advanced by a number of people who professed some sort of belief system. however, it is now post the age of enlightenment. so it makes sense to ask the question again to contemporary scientists. the question has been asked and here are the results. make what you will of it:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

this is only tangential to this discussion, but i don't think it makes sense to single out any particular religious philosophy and call it hostile to science. as you yourself pointed out, it is only a matter of degree.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:26 pm

The Mimansa philosopher Kumarila Bhatta's argument against samvriti satya (term used by Mahayana Budhist) is equally applicable to vyahvarika satya (term used by Advaitins) since samvriti satya and vyahvarika satya mean the same thing. They mean truth from the purely provisional level of practical life, as distinguished by the higher transcendental truth (paramarthika or paramartha saya).

From the Sloka Vartika of Kumarila Bhatta, niralamabana vada, 6-10:

The idealist talks of some 'apparent truth' or 'provisional truth of practical life' i.e. in his terminology of samvriti-satya.

However, since his in his own view, there is really no truth in this 'apparent truth', what is the sense of asking us to look at it as some special brand of truth as it were?
If there is truth in it, why call it false at all? And, if it is really false, why call it a kind of truth?

Truth and falsehood, being mutually exclusive, there cannot be any factor called 'truth' as belonging in common to both--no more than there can by any common factor called 'treeness' belonging to both the tree and the lion, which are mutually exclusive.
On the idealist's own assumption, this 'apparent truth' is nothing but a synonym for the 'false'. Why, then, does he use this expression? Because it serves for him a very important purpose. It is the purpose of a verbal hoax. It means falsity, though with such a pedantic air about it as to suggest something apparently different, as it were. This is in fact a well known trick. Thus, to create a pedantic air, one can use the word vaktrasava [literally mouth-wine] instead of the simpler word lala , meaning saliva [vancanartha upanyaso lala-vaktrasavadivat].

But why is this pedantic air? Why, instead of simply talking of falsity, is the verbal hoax of an 'apparent truth' or samvriti? The purpose of conceiving this samvriti is only to conceal the absurdity of the theory of the nothingness of the objective world, so that it can somehow be explained why things are imagined as actually existing when they are not so.

Instead of playing such verbal tricks, therefore, one should speak honestly. This means: one should admit that what does not exist, exists not; and what does exist, exists in the full sense. The latter alone is true, and the former false. But the idealist just cannot afford to do this. He is obliged instead to talk of 'two truths', senseless though this be.

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-vadiraja-attacks-advaita_325380_blog

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Rashmun, pls understand first what it means by the world being unreal or an illusion according to Advaita. Get your concepts straight before you talk about anything. Read above.
And pls stop your cut and paste business. Use your brain. Do some thinking and contemplation. The problem with you is that you don't do that. You don't read and understand what others are saying either. You blindly go on cutting and pasting shit unilaterally. It's a waste of time to get into a conversation with you.

........

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-nature-of-maya_467200_blog

More cut and paste. Post your original thought on what you understand about the world being an illusion/unreal/maya according to Advaita. Let me cut and paste what i posted above to jump start your thinking process.

"llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Going after the impermanent ones is maya. Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean."

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:35 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
i don't think belief in God is anti-science.

there is no question that science has been advanced by a number of people who professed some sort of belief system. however, it is now post the age of enlightenment. so it makes sense to ask the question again to contemporary scientists. the question has been asked and here are the results. make what you will of it:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

this is only tangential to this discussion, but i don't think it makes sense to single out any particular religious philosophy and call it hostile to science. as you yourself pointed out, it is only a matter of degree.

I will take a look at it. Meanwhile, to help you understand the level of hostility of Advaita towards science i give below some quotes of its most famous exponent--Adi Sankaracharya--which help reveal his hostility towards science. (No other Indian philosophy goes out of its way to express hostility towards science in the way Advaita does.).

-----

1. In his famous commentary to the Vedanta sutra, the well known Advaitin Adi Sankar writes (from Adi Sankar's commentary to the Vedanta sutra ii.1.11). (In what follows, words in square brackets are mine-Rashmun):

As the thoughts of man are altogether unfettered, reasoning which disregards the holy texts and rests on individual opinion only has no proper foundation. We see how arguments, which some clever men had excogitated with great pains, are shown by people still more ingenious to be fallacious, and how the arguments of the latter again are refuted in their turn by other men; so that on account of the diversity of men's opinions, it is impossible to accept mere reasoning as having a sure foundation. Nor can we get over this difficulty by accepting as well-founded the reasoning of some person of recognized mental eminence, may he now be Kapila[founder of Sankhya philosophy] or anybody else; since we observe that even men of undoubtedly mental eminence,such as Kapila, Kanada[founder of Indian atomism] and othe founders of philosophical schools have contradicted one another.

In other words, reason as a source of knowledge should be considered inherently unreliable, because philosophers relying on reason alone are known to differ amongst themselves. What one proves on the strength of reason alone is after all disproved by another on the strength of reason again.So it is best to surrender reason in favor of faith in the holy texts. One may as well argue that since one swordsman proves himself better than another, swordsmanship as a technique of fighting is by nature useless: one fights best only when one surrenders the sword, or fights unarmed.Comments?

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy_adi-sankar-enemy-of-reason
(if you click on this indiapulse link you will find an old acquaintance agreeing with me on this point)
------------
2. http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-enemy-of-reason-part-2_325377_blog

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:38 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Rashmun, pls understand first what it means by the world being unreal or an illusion according to Advaita. Get your concepts straight before you talk about anything. Read above.
And pls stop your cut and paste business. Use your brain. Do some thinking and contemplation. The problem with you is that you don't do that. You don't read and understand what others are saying either. You blindly go on cutting and pasting shit unilaterally. It's a waste of time to get into a conversation with you.

........

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-nature-of-maya_467200_blog

More cut and paste. Post your original thought on what you understand about the world being an illusion/unreal/maya according to Advaita. Let me cut and paste what i posted above to jump start your thinking process.

"llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Going after the impermanent ones is maya. Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean."

i disagree. Maya, as understood by Advaita, is permanent and eternal.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Rashmun, pls understand first what it means by the world being unreal or an illusion according to Advaita. Get your concepts straight before you talk about anything. Read above.
And pls stop your cut and paste business. Use your brain. Do some thinking and contemplation. The problem with you is that you don't do that. You don't read and understand what others are saying either. You blindly go on cutting and pasting shit unilaterally. It's a waste of time to get into a conversation with you.

........

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-nature-of-maya_467200_blog

More cut and paste. Post your original thought on what you understand about the world being an illusion/unreal/maya according to Advaita. Let me cut and paste what i posted above to jump start your thinking process.

"llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Going after the impermanent ones is maya. Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean."

i disagree. Maya, as understood by Advaita, is permanent and eternal.

Explain what you understand by Maya and why you think that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:53 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Rashmun, pls understand first what it means by the world being unreal or an illusion according to Advaita. Get your concepts straight before you talk about anything. Read above.
And pls stop your cut and paste business. Use your brain. Do some thinking and contemplation. The problem with you is that you don't do that. You don't read and understand what others are saying either. You blindly go on cutting and pasting shit unilaterally. It's a waste of time to get into a conversation with you.

........

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-nature-of-maya_467200_blog

More cut and paste. Post your original thought on what you understand about the world being an illusion/unreal/maya according to Advaita. Let me cut and paste what i posted above to jump start your thinking process.

"llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Going after the impermanent ones is maya. Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean."

i disagree. Maya, as understood by Advaita, is permanent and eternal.
Explain what you understand by Maya and why you think that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

w.r.t. the definition of Maya in Advaita, i have nothing to add to TP Ramachandran's explanation which i have given in an earlier post in this thread. My understanding is that Maya, as per Advaita, co-exists with Brahman but does not belong to Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is, i believe, not clear to Advaitins themselves and for this reason they evade questions about the precise relationship of Brahman and Maya as TP Ramachandran explains.

by Guest Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
i don't think belief in God is anti-science.

there is no question that science has been advanced by a number of people who professed some sort of belief system. however, it is now post the age of enlightenment. so it makes sense to ask the question again to contemporary scientists. the question has been asked and here are the results. make what you will of it:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

this is only tangential to this discussion, but i don't think it makes sense to single out any particular religious philosophy and call it hostile to science. as you yourself pointed out, it is only a matter of degree.

that was an illuminating article. thanks.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com