IamNotHeeHee

I am not sure if you understand either Science or Monism. Science is the best way to understand the world around us. Science can never be monistic by its very nature. What is monism? Monism is saying there is only one reality, the nature of which is sat chit ananda. Science never claims itself to have those attributes (worse monists claim that this reality is attributeless). Those physicists who are researching a unified field have to understand there are 2 things in the picture 1) A Scientist 2) The field they are trying to research The above can only be dualistic by the very nature of it. If a scientist says reality of the world is a fiction of your mind, then his very assertion (that reality of matter is a fiction of your mind) is itself a fiction of his mind. So there is no credibility of him using science to explain reality (which monism says cannot be explained, again a huge self-contradiction). In effect, science also becomes a mind made reality which is unreal. Such a person is not a scientist but is misusing science to align with his agenda. Albert Einstein has been oft misquoted. But in vain. He never ever concurred with a Monistic theory. Those who quote him do not realize what he contributed to the world. A quote lifted from a speech can easily be conveyed incorrectly if viewed without the context. Hence context is important. Many of the people who cite Einstein on religion will not be able to tell what Einstein wrote in a telegram to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein and what Einstein's statements were on God. Many idiots quote the following statement of Einstein "God does not play dice with Universe", but will not be able to explain the context in which it was made or when it was made and where and Neils Bohr's retort to it. Here's a quote from Einstein: "Those who are purposely insular in order to convince like-minded individuals to believe in the supernatural are frustrating but not overtly sinister. It is the defamation of scientific iconoclasts which is unacceptable." So it is a lame way for the monist to use science. He or she is just misusing science to explain in a rational way because of the lack of rationality in the monistic philosophy.

I think not. Ravindran mentions very clearly that those who think of differences are spiritually ignorant. In fact monists and many others associate duality with difference. Thats it. Their opinion is only based on what other monists have told them so. If people like Ravindran would read and understand a little bit of Sri Madhva's teachings, his sheer brilliance and handling of the entire spectrum of vedanta is mindblowing. I personally could find inference, perception and scriptures dealt like no other. If people like Ravindran would know what Sri Ramanuja taught, they will know the emotional depth of Bhakti and surrender. If these folks feel the spirit of the Harekrishna's chanting and dancing, they will know what spirituality really is. Monism no doubt may be stimulating particularly when stirred with quantum wierdness, but to say there is no substance in dualistic philosophies is HUGE ignorance of the teachings of those philosophies and is a cop-out to prove the superiority of monism.

How valid is this statement "world is an illusion but our perception of the world is real"? Think about it. Let me explain. I have a perception that you have only a cursory or wrong knowledge of religions. Is my perception real or unreal? Do you deny that perception? Your assertion that reality much exist is also not true as Buddhists believe in nothingness.

Buddhism believes in the non-existence of matter. So your understanding of it is also incorrect!

And this statement is said by the Visishtadvaitins, Dvaitins and Harekrishna's in the reverse order - Those who see oneness are spiritually ignorant and those who see differences are spiritually wise.

Buddhism ceased to exist in some places mostly because of Kumaarila Bhatta of the mimaansaka school. HeeHee