srikanthdk71

The one undivided Reality is eternally existing but souls with limited knowledge are mistakenly imagining the One has become divided into many things.

What is this One Undivided Reality? Is it not covering the Souls. If you presume so, from where did the Soul emerge, again if you presume that the Soul is Independent, how can it know the existance of that 'One Undivided Reality' which is different in Nature (as per you) from the Soul. Kindly expadite.

This comment does not satisfy my soul though...sorry Radhika:). Once we have the soul development from our encounter with the harmonious environment...is it all over red rover...or is there a positive progressive reality that is ever-new? Love must be such, not just expanding in this universal form.

I think Radhika is better qualified to answer this though. What she means is the Souls' very Nature is Creation, Sustainity and Destruction. So, the soul is always is in its own nature. The encounter from the harmonious environment is also a part of its own journey in its nature.

'if darkness was real?'

Darkness can be driven out with Light and Light cannot be driven out by Darkness. So, Darkness is False and Light is True.

Dear members,

I believe that the ego of being a soul is encased in three bodies, the physical, the astral and the causal. Once you are out of these, there is nothing that remains and you are one with the Infinite. The Infinite does not have any particular form. It is nothing but the consciousness that prevails in the entire universe. That is what we call God or Supreme Soul.

But once this is attained, there is no difference. The very nature of this Supreme Consciousness is that it has powers to create, maintain and destroy. It is a part of its nature and therefore it can again create many encasements within itself which mark the birth of new souls.

 

Radhika

It says all.

If This and That does not mix with the illusion, but has characteristics, what This and That doing here then?

Being deluded in lack of Knowledge owing to differences of 'This and That' where in reality there is 'No This or No That'. Everything is Purnam.

The Jaiva Dharma by Srila Bhaktivinoda, in accord with Gaudiya Tattva, says the jivatma is here in the conditioned state because of its propensity to enjoy seperately. So what does the Brahman do in your opinion if it becomes liberated, or even while in this world not mixing with the lower field?

When you say 'Brahman' it is the total cosmos or 'Brahmaand'. It includes everything. No different Jiva and Parama. So no question of mixing with lower field arises. It is all a mixture.

Some would say this world has no purpose but enjoyment if Brahman has no purpose? And if Brahman's purpose is just to manifest what we see in these universes it is quite ghastly?

This is termed as Leela or Maya where world appears in gross, you take a gross form. Why is all this happening without a purpose. Let me try. When we take some junk food and suffer indigestion, we take an antidote to cure the same. Here junk food is 'Lack of Knowledge', the indigestion is the effect of 'Lack of Knowlegde' and the Antidote is the 'Knowledge'. So, when the core of the creation is known, the rest has no mention. 'Where did the Darkness go when I switched on the Light? if Darkness was real.'...Aaditya varnam Tamasah Parastaat'

Hi Srikanthdk, could you explain a little further what you mean by this statement please?

 

 

It seems we both agree here. Maybe differences arise in the way we see this environment we are observing, in our God consciousness?

I think I have explained it before this statement when I quoted the essence of

Purnamadah, Puranamidam, Purnaatpurnamudatchyate

Purnasya Purnamaadaya, Purnameva Vasisyate.

Simple. 'This is That and That is this eventhough it is a part of purna, it is same as the Purnam itself.' If you know the charecterstics of this, there is no need to know the charecterstics of That. It is already known.

Hello again dear Srikanth,

Nice discussion and we are keeping it civil, as gentlemen. The verse has the "M" in Myself capitilized. Krishna is referring specifically to Himself, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If the verse were referring to jivas, it would have a small "m."

We too use "I" capitalized when we refer to ourself

Krishna pervades and supports the entire universe, I don't. I am certainly not all pervasive, and generally not even particularly supportive. I can't even control my own body, what to speak of something like the universe. Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, as has been posted here already, is "acintya bheda, bheda tattva," or "acintya bheda, abheda tattva," sorry I am writing this from memory, without looking up the exact Sanskrit, as I probably should, so I may not have the Sanskrit exactly correct. But it means, "simultaneous oneness and difference." This means that although the jiva is certainly one in quality with Krishna, fully spiritual, there is a vast difference in quantity. Krishna is great; we are small. Krishna can do things like support the entire universe. I, as a jiva, can do things like support my entire household.Regards, Jeffster/AMdas

Yes. agreed that we cannot even control our own body. Anything can be achieved with practice. I even agree to the quantative difference. But the quality is the same. ....Purnameva vasisyate. The quality of 'You' and 'That' is one and the same. Its like pulling a cotton piece out of a big cotton bunch. Both are cotton. But the vastness of the two is the difference. By learning to do with the mind is what we are taught from birth and not to listen to our heart. By learning to do with the heart, we can do wonders too.

Foolish question, created by foolish mind.

Ok, taken for granted I am foolish. It looks like you have come to a conclusion just by reading the first post (not properly also). Give us some light on your non-foolish thoughts so that we can deviate from foolishness.

Even if we are to debate here till hell freezes over, what difference could it make? No one here have achieved Mukti (at least not yet) so we could not know what we're talking about.

We are not here to achieve Mukti but here to clear our differences on the same. Kindly go through the postings. I think you have come to a conclusion about this thread just by reading the first post. You perhaps would have grasped the essence when I have told about by monoist stance and what I think and the same is being refuted and debated by our friends here.

It could be like three blind men trying to describe what an elephant looks like.

Dear Sephiroth, if you are in the light, lead us to it. I think you are a confused entity yourself when you say so.

Dear all,

Hari Bol,

Many people according to thier religion they tell us to do japa or chat his holy name some have said chant

"Hare krsna Hare krsna krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

Many have told to do japa of "Sri Ram Jai Ram Jaya Jaya Rama"

and some told me to do Gayathri Japa as every one knows about it.

Any suggestions......................................?Hari Govinda

What have you done and what is your experience??!! Are you confused?

Hello again Srikanth,

In answer to your question, what sustains the existence of all these lokas?, I had to look to Gita, and found it in Gita 10:41 and 42:

"Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor. But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge ? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe."

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hi Jeffster, you have exactly come to the point. So, now you believe all has emerged from that one single fragment which pervades and supports(sustains) the universe.

Above, I have highlighted the word 'Myself' to say that the same thing is the self of Jeffster, Bija or me when we say 'Myself'(the purest form of yourself).

hmmmm....... Advaita in the garb of Buddhism

 

definitely Buddha must be rolling in his samadhi

Dear ARJ, Advaita and Buddhism has 99% common features. The one percent is the Shunyavada. Anything cannot be born or anything born cannot die from Shunya. It just changes from one from to another. So, there must be a knower. Even if taken for granted everything is Shunya, still the Knower of that exist. So it was easy to prove that from one, many can form. Not from Shunya. That was Advaita. Moreover, the various Upanishads talk about Advaita and which is not Buddhism. If Buddha rolls or does a somersault doesnt matter anything to Advaita.

Do chant “OM SHAM SHANAISWARAYA NAMAHA”

Bhaskaranji, is it not 'OM SHAM SHANAISCHARAYA NAMAHA'? Cheers.

Sri

Dvaita is no myth.The Supreme lord Himself has said ,"Some fools deride Me whenever I appear in front of them in a human form.They do not know of My transcendental nature."

Exactly correct(always) what the Supreme lord himself has said. If you interpret in the Biblical way, what you say is correct but when you take the pointers to which he mean when he say "My Transcendental Nature" you need to give it a thought again as to what he is refering to.

This transcendental nature of the Supreme lord is clearly explained in the vedas.So also,the adi-lila of Caitanya charitamrita states,"Sri Govinda's Names,Form,Pastimes[leela],Associates,Abode and all His paraphernalia is He Himself.There is no difference AT ALL."

That is His transcendental nature.That is His absoluteness.

Even the devotee is indifferent from the lord

Fine till this point. But what you have infered below after reading the above is totally opposite. What do you mean when you say No Difference At All?

[note: The devotee doesn't become the lord,the creator maintainer and destroyer,just as Sri Vrinadavana is indifferent from the lord,so is His devotee.This is inconcievble simultaneos oneness and difference.]

Here lies the answer to your difficulty.The Lord's form is He Himself.We jeevatmas are not the body.We are the Atman.But the lord's body is He alone.There is no difference at all.This is accepted by Sri Shankaracharya and every single jagadguru.

Who is at difficulty here while trying to say 'Devotee is indifferent from Lord" and yet immediately saying "Devotee Doesnt become Lord". Are your statements not contradactary? If we are "ALONE" and lords body is "ALONE", what business do we have with him nor has he with us? Both are independent. So, to know one another, we must be connected and I believe we are.

Ok...this is a good opportunity to open up here. When I had the NDE, I asked the light, 'who are you?'. By some good fortune that was the first thought to enter my extermely degraded mind. A wonderful reply issued forth. "Original" was the one word response. It was outside and within...permeated with extreme bliss. One yet different. It was realized as the Other first, but in that instance it was within (then upon that realization bliss arose - and all fear was vanquished). Thank you Srikanth!

Me too had similar experience when I was in 9th Std. 22 years back. I was too young to know what happened. After being pushed back, I yelled, cried with fear and went and slept with my dad till I had the same experience just on the Guru Purnima day where I went to Sri Kasi Vishwanatha Temple with my Guru in the Astral form and was a witness to my Guru performing the puja for his Guru(Lord Shiva). Thanks to my Guru for granting this wonderful experience. We have all the people who are spiritual just with experiences which triggered off spirituality within them at some point in their life.

What captures my heart now...is how to apply constantly what we discover, without falling down or forgetting. That is the essential thing (constant rememberance - even at the time of death). Without flavor, we will eventually fall, that is the argument that the Gaudiya Acaryas put forth, the impersonal liberation will lack rasa - in due course leading the entity to re-enter the material realm for satisfaction. Prabhupada uses the example of mayavadi sannyasi's who end up performing humanitarian services. What do you think? (I hope this conversation is not to deep for you)

I am not better qualified. I leave this to Ravindranji. He is the best guide for such expositions. Over to Ravindran Kesavanji >>>>>>

This leads me to more self inquiry. What is transcendental and what is simply gratification (bhoga). From my observation the need to control the environment entangles one in so many problems...maybe the opposite of that is some degree of liberation (mukti) and real freedom (relinquishing the need to be controller). This is for me the potential for a fully wholesome organism...maybe it has always been wholesome...we just need to enter in awareness of it.

Transcendental is nothing but 'Original Form'. Ornaments may be many where as the Gold in those ornaments is the original form. Now, what is our original form arises the question. We just need to rightly enter into its awareness.

This is a brilliant question the more I look at it. The first question that comes to mind is...what experiences would arise living in this world in full Krsna consciousness (full fledged love of God as taught by Sri Caitanya), as compared to full fledged monistic liberated experience?

The first gives you the best available experience outside you temporarily(you get bored after a while). Nothing is under your control. The next gives you the best experience within you permanently which is nothing but the best you cannot experience outside. No scope for even a thought to enter. Everything is under your control.

yep! good one! so where does gradation come from?

 

For example Lord Caitanya taught to seek Vrindavan mood in bhajan. His followers taught Krsna is supreme becuase of the sweetness. Madhurya.

 

So this gradation ideas...what place does that have?

Experience makes Man Perfect. This is an old saying. As you go on experiencing any Mood of spiritual joy, the perfection will automatically lead you to the Truth. But it is upto us to either stand at a point and say 'Yes, so that I have attained Kailasa/Vaikunta, I am satisfied' or still move further if we believe in doing so. So, no Gradation here. What we aspire is what we get.

Oh, if you feel that since I have used the word 'Degree of Experience', I am grading it as low/high, yes, the happiness/love is so much within you that that you can expericnce it in times of various actions depending on your involvement to the subject of experience.

I do have one small question that comes to mind for you all (especially for srikanthdk).

 

If behind this manifestation we see now, is simply formless...why would we then desire liberation? Or is the formless always manifesting into form of which we will be a part of (lila) eternally? Has any advaitin attained full liberation?

Since it is specially designed for me, I wouldnt let it unnoticed. Desiring liberation is to be free from the bondage of Karmas, various births and deaths. To be simple, not to be 'Born Again' as a bounded(Karma) labour. Nobody can come and tell to know whether anybody has attained full liberation. But the liberated souls can still come to this earth from time to time to distribute their Knowledge and cleanse the World on their own will.

In the Gaudiya tradition desire for liberation begins to cease as we awaken as parts in service mood...a spiritual joy may be even found within the trials of this world in service (Krsna consciousness). In a previous post I quoted about super-subjective plain...that is something I would like to discover more of (in service mood).

Dear one, for a Yogi, spiritual joy is experienced in Kundalini awakening and in Samadhi, for a Bhakta, spiritual joy is experienced in Chanting the Holy Name and in Service of the lord. For a person like Mother Teresa, spiritual joy is service of the needy and the poor. For a layman spiritual joy is something he sees in the happiness of his beloved ones and in keeping his beloved ones happy. So, spiritual joy is one and the same. The degree of experience is different.

Hello Srikant,

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

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

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

Pranams, Jeffster/AMdas

Dear Jeffster, I am not at all debating about the existance of demigods, Indraloka, Vaikunta or Kailasa. All these are existing. Fine. But existance need perceverance. Anything perceived is subject to finite boundries. What about the rest? Is there not something beyond these Lokas which are sustaining the existance of all these lokas. So, there comes the common regulator for the whole cosmos. The "monoists" are trying(if they really are) to emphasise that Utimate Truth. What I can say at this point is, we are all trying. The Truth may be laughing at us.

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

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

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

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

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

Pranams to all,

jeffster/AMdas

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

That is solipsism. Monism is solipsism

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

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

 

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

 

No worries mate. Fair dinkum.

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

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

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

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

:)Not false...if I come to your place and tap you on the shoulder...you feel. Not false is it? We are both in agreeance on the discussion of atman. But the devotee also considers paramatman. We are not paramatman.

Coz, here both feel through our perception of Senses. It is true till the point you think 'I am the body'. Yes, we are not paramatman. But, the part-o-atman.

Now, we may experience many things, as you said in a previous post, even clauraudience and caurvouyancy (sorry for the spelling). But you will notice as we experience such things, we do not see everything. Therefore our conscious experience is limited to a certain field, normally the body.

It is that just we do not know how to use the senses. Fine tuning can do wonders. The clairvoiance and clairaudience is truth. Infact we use just 8 percent of our brain. We do not use one hemisphere of our brain at all!!!. Just imagine what all we can do. We are just satisfied with what we have.

But saying that we are definately connected to paramatma, which is one. This paramatma is aware of all fields, and surely paramatma can communicate to all atman. This is our connecting point Sri.

Yes, infact the vice-versa should also be true in this case. You can also connect to the Paramatman and know what he knows by downloading it from the connection you have established.Downloading?? It automatically flows.

We are not paramatma, and cannot see all. But saying that, as we become purified in consciousness...the light of god will teach us many many things. Is it not? So in that sense we gradually become aware of our unity with the source...of which we are the same quality. This is my direct experience...not book knowledge alone, as you have implied previously.

When a Bhakta sees the Lord, what is the Truth? The Bhakta has risen to the level that he can perceive even god at his own Will. In the same way, if he still raises higher and higher, he starts doing things that we normally ask for God to give. Still higher, he is just within himself. One with the Lord. All knowing. Dvaita here is a step to Reality(?).

Now, good sense tells me, if paramatma leads me to deeper love, that love will also lead to deeper union. The rasika bhakta wishes simply not to merge. God allows us to merge, if we desire. But we simply choose not to. Why? So that loving mellows can deepen...even enhanced in deep seperation.

 

Union is reality...but so is love.

 

I hope this answers your questions...without me condemning in any way your spiritual sight. I am not Krsna....but as his fragmental part I am of the same spiritual quality....sat cit ananda...even vigraha.

What can I say on this. Nothing can be said. You are full of Love Bija. We all love you.

Infact, such is the charm of that beauty...we may wish to merge with it. Isnt this so...we can even see that desire in the shadowy material world...and its love;).

You have lots of love in your heart to bestow. Bija, i am flattened by your words of immense love for all and for the one you believe.

You are a gem.

Fully agree, it is amazing tho how Hindus buy for this and walk credulously right into the trap. Wonder when McDonald's in India will open restaurants that look like a temple and people start to queue up?

This is a great article and a good eye opener for all of us. We need more and more responses to your concern. Thanks Suchandra.

Infact with eyes of the soul this plane can also be vaikuntha, or the holy dham. This is what Maharaja is pointing to. Infact for mukti we need simply correct vision...which is not these material eyes. The finer subtle point of Krsna consciousness is we do not negate the world, but instead practice to live in the 'kingdom of God'. Positive and progressive immortality - applying all things in God's service.

Infact a nice post dear one. Great, you are a true believer. Moksha/Mukti indeed needs correct Vision, the inner Vision which is in your words, the Vision of Krishna. When you tap the Vision of Krishna, you See what Krishna see. You experience what Krishna experience, you become Krishna. If Krishna just needs a Vaikunta to relax, I find it hard to digest, he is omnipotent and omnipresent. This conciousness is nothing but Krishna Conciousness. We are already living in the Kingdom of God but with incorrect Vision. Correct me if I am wrong.

So what the Advaitin calls 'false' we would say not false but 'temporary'. So in the realized state, like your spirituality, there is really no death. But for us the soul is a continuum...always in service....even in the stage of practice in this so called material world. In a higher sense there is no material - all is spiritual energy, as all energy is from God's potencies.

 

Thx for sharing your thoughts on this subject...it is always a pleasure.

A simple question. Is temporary true? The experience of the temporary is true. You have a body. True. You leave the body. Now, the body is untrue till you get another body. Any state of dilemma is untrue. For example, a thought. Is it true? A sensual(eyes/nose/touch/taste/ear) experience. Is it true? Then what is True? Is it not the experiencer who is experiencing all this at all time even when you are alive or dead, awake or in sleep. So, the experiencer has no death or Birth. He/She/It is always there. It can only be True. If it is True, there cannot be lesser truth and greater truth coz Truth is Truth (Purnamadah, Purnamidam...). Is it False?

I agree that to a monist it is untenable.

 

Because difference is real and not imaginary, it is not only natural but also the truth. If you feel this isn't the truth, you have to provide proof.

Justinji, lets be practical for a while as you ask for proofs. What proof is there that a Vaikunta or a Kailasa exists? What proof is there to prove the Kurma, Varaha, Matsya, Narasimha, Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma avatars. It is just the books(you may call it pramana,scriptures,mahagrantha whatever). None of the above can be proved and hence as you say, is just imaginary. What proof is there about Monoism. Is it all not speculation? As you exist, so are the other beings, living and non-living. The base of existance of all these can be known through realization of the Atman(proof again?). It can go on and on with no end with innumerous dualist/monoist perceptions. We may get lost in the plurality world. The oneness is just the base of what you sense through your sense organs and the experiencer of all these senses. Cant we be more scientific in our approach?

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

Ravindran, there is no inference or reason to assume all is one. All inference and reason denote that things are different. Even if you use inference and perception, it fails you in your analysis because it is your inference and perception. Don't you think the VAs, tattvavAdins, Iscon, Vallabha's and the later achAryas have clarified that difference is real by clearly refuting monism.

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

No offence taken and I do not blame you. It is a fashion of non-dualists to categorize people who think differently as lower level individuals.

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

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