Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AnrBjotk


    Dear Anr,


    Advidines are hard core subjectivist. Before explaining this claim let me define the terms though you left them undefined. It is important because different understanding of the term could lead to unnecessary disagreement in an argument. So terms must be clearly defined before giving an argument.


    Advida means that there is no duality. That is there is only one stuff. The ultimate stuff of existence is one. (Monism)


    Objective monist hold that this one stuff is matter - everything in the universe is ultimate analysis is material. An example of this is the scientific view that Everything in the universe is made up of atoms and their interactions, including mind , thought and consciousness - they are nothing but the material processes in the material brain. Hence no mind in the real sense.


    Subjectivist monist hold this one stuff of the existence is mental stuff - consciousness . There are no objects in the world in the real sense. Everything is mental stuff - made of ideas or consciousness.


    Advida vedbnta holds the subjective monist position that the world is nothing but an illusory appearance in one mind Called Brahman - apart from this illusory or hallucinatory or dreamy appearance there is no real material objective existence to the world.

    To quote: " Brahma satyam Jagat mitya, Brahmo Jivai na para"

    Transalation: Brahman is Real world is an illusory appearance , there is no difference between Brahman and the living spirit.


    If your use of the term 'Subjectivist ' is understood as mental, or spiritual, as against material, (and not as 'arbitrary' or something that is 'relative') than Advidines are clearly Subjectivist.


    Ra Zious


    Thank you. It's awhile since I wrote this post, so I have to think back to what I meant.

    I think what I meant is: Is Vidya, True Knowledge, i.e the oppiste of ignorance (avidya), the true reality (non-maya") an objective reality. I.e. in this true reality - only seen by true practicioners, by enlightened people, an objective, non-disoutable firm reality?

    OR, is this non-maya moksha a blurry, non-different and subjective experience?

    I.e. In the same way the material world can be experienced as different things, positive or negative, can this moksha-realm be experienced differently, OR do all enlightened beings experience moksha the same? (Basically, is it perceived as similar for all enlightened beings?)

  2. Greetings.


    This is the fifth time I read Shankara's sublime commentary on the Gita. But a few verses have confused me for some time and I was hoping someone here would help me. The question is regarding chapter 9 and I will post the full text:


    9.4. This whole world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest form. All beings exist in Me, but I am not contained in them!


    Shankara's commentary: All beings from Brahma to a clump of grass, exist in me, are established in Me in that unmanifest form. For, no created thing that is bereft of the Self (i.e. of Reality) can be conceived of as an object of practical use. Therefore, being possessed of their reality through Me who am their Self, they exist in Me. Hence they are said to be established in Me.

    I Myself am the Self of those created things.

    Consequently, it appears to people of little understanding that I dwell in them. Hence I say: Na ca aham, but I am not; avasthitah, contained; tesu, in them, in the created things. Since unlike gross objects I am not in contact with anything, therefore I am certainly the inmost core even of space. For, a thing that has no contact with anything cannot exist like something contained in a receptacle.


    My question is this: Does not the majority of Hindu philosophies - and especially the Samkhya and Vedanta schools - teach that all beings have an Atman - a soul - which is Brahman? Does not these schools teach that we all have, inside of us, the light of Brahman?

    The Advaita concept of pratibimba-vada is surely that the jiva is a reflection of Atman, and thus connected to Brahman. Is it not?



    Anr Bjotk

  3. Namaste fellow Advaitins and Hindus.


    I will keep this brief, as I am unsure if these posts are even posted on this forum, and as the question is intentionally open and meant to provoke discussion.


    Is Advaita Vedanta, in essence, subjectivist or objectivist?


    I'll refrain from defining these terms, taking them as known, and using the terms in abstract terms, giving some leeway.





    Namaste Sastri-ji, Bhaskar-ji, Murthy-ji,


    Shankara could use both of these analogies because being such they could

    not be in conflict with each other. Within a certain area of discussion

    one analogy is more effective than the other. When viewed from the point

    of view of self-consciousness the 'reflection' analogy is more telling

    but when we want to give the idea of a jiva that is bounded the

    'limitation' analogy has a better fit.


    Best Wishes,





    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

    Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2654 - Release 01/28/10



    Dear Guest:


    I've always found the pratibimba theory to be more pragmatic and more easily integrated into ones spiritual paths.

    Do you happen to know why Shankara, and later apologists, dismissed pratibimba in favour of avaccheda? And, could you explain avaccheda in detail as I am not sure I have fully comprehended it.




  5. I became a ISKCON devotee a month ago and truly feel I've found the truth.

    However, it often seems like other devotees are worshipping Prabhupada more than Krishna, talking about him like he was a God, every word he said must be true, he had no faults, etc. And so many western Hare Krishnas almost only eat Indian food. This doesnt make any sense either since the religion speak about the creation of the universe, the earth, meaning all plants and beings, not just indian food. True, the religion comes from India, but one becomes a follower of Krishna of Vishnu of Brahman, not of India...surely?


    Sorry of this appears rude, I'm naturally an iconoclast, disliking all authority (except Brahman), it doesnt mean I am not serious about the religion, I AM very much, but I also have a mind and body of my own, and that mind has questions...


    And, HI! I'm new here :D

  • Create New...