Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Justin

  1. And this is not non-dualism that you are trying so hard to argue for This is not the God that is talked about in Vedas.
  2. I agree with Srikanth's conjecture that for a non-dualist Mukti is not an experience. It is a state devoid of experiencer. So any non-dualist trying hard to attain mukti ultimately does not get to experience it. It is a myth for a non-dualist
  3. "only experience exists"!! Do you understand what you are talking about? Experience cannot exist without an experiencer. Experience is not a material object like your computer to exist even after you leave it and go to the restroom for a bowel ablution. The rest of your analysis of death is meaningless where you say that God (knower, experiencer of all 4 states) experienced death. If the only thing that exists in mukti is God as you said above, it is flawed. There is no liberation for God. Such a God who is devoid of any good qualities isn't worth pursuing. You are out of your kidney! All I said is that Sankara and Ramana were not liberated individuals. According to their own philosophy they were still in ignorance before they died. That you need to have a refresher course in Advaita. The oil would still be sitting separately from water even if it is rid of its impurities. Oil is oil and water is water. The properties of oil are different than water. You may need to sit in a 2nd grade class for this is the basics they teach in primary school. Quantum theories have never proved non-dualism. Now who first brought up the story of drop of water in a sea? Stories are usually given by non-dualists to bring some sense to their philosophy. Otherwise no reasonable thinking person would believe the world is an illusion. Like I said we can put forth any number of stories, analogies and quantum theories to prove that someone saw a flying teapot. But that does not make the flying teapot a fact.
  4. Exactly my point. There is no experiencer. The person who strives for mukti does not exist per non-dualism. So God is the only one experiencing mukti. If you say the person still exists or sees others existing separate from himself then that is not non-dualism. There sure is a flaw in the argument allright. Death of the body is a fact. Who experienced death? The person who died. What happens after death? The soul of the person still exists. Vedic texts say the soul still experiences after death. Garuda purana goes at lengths to describe the various states that soul passes through before it reaches Vaikunta. But in the monist conception of mukti there is no monist (as you yourself agreed). In fact the example you provided fits in with the monist conception of mukti where it says there is no experiencer. Just like the flawed example of death not a fact because there is no one to experience it. You are arguing against yourself by using this example. It is a myth to anyone who is striving to attain mukti. Because they are not the ones attaining it. It is supposed to be God who experiences it in the final analysis. And everyone knows that God does not need mukti. So it implies there is no mukti to be experienced by either the person or God. It is a myth. According to their own philosophy Sankara or Ramana never existed in history if they claimed they were enlightened. If in fact they were God as they declared they are, they wouldn't have preached to an audience. Or went from town to town preaching their philosophy. I think they were deluded and had hallucinations that they were God. The drop that fell into the sea has displaced the sea. You may not see it with your eyes but the displacement is a fact. You may have heard that an ocean is an ocean because of each drop of water that is in it. If you are that much into analogies see this one. Put a drop of oil in a tumbler filled with water and you can see the oil drop sitting separately from the huge mass of water. We can use a number of sensible analogies to describe anything that does not make sense. Such analogies including borrowing desperately from Quantum theories, where no parallels exist, is a sign of weakness of a philosophy.
  5. After reading the several emotional poetry about quantum theories, non-dualism and mathematics in this thread, I too am inspired to borrow a few legendary poems. Here goes: Roses are red Violets are blue Most poems rhyme But this one doesn't. ----- The man in the flan Quite liked his gran She was rather triangular, too The man in the flan In a frying pan Was absolutely nothing like you. (Unless however, you are him and you are reading this) ----- A great quote: "To understand something means to derive it from quantum theories, which nobody understands." - Anonymous
  6. Beats me Sire! my small brain does not understand what calculus has to do with consciousness!
  7. Yes it is a myth for a non-dualist. There is no one to experience mukti if that were to happen!
  8. Ravindran, but all those verses which non-dualists claim as supporting non-dualism has been refuted by some great Vaishnava saints. The scriptures can never be the authority for the non-dualists since: A. They have rejected about 90% of them as attatvavedaka and taken only those that they "feel" convey oneness. But even those 10% has been refuted in no uncertain terms by Acharyas like Ramanuja and Madhva. Prabhupada uses the 'R' word against the deluded non-dualists. B. The scriptures exist only when they are in ignorance or in ego. It disappears when they 'become/merge/are' God. Whatever they understand from the scriptures is also understood from their ego since is their ego that interprets those scriptures. Even today there are some mystics who claim they experienced oneness and God. How can anyone trust them. If they had experienced oneness, they should not have seen others. The moment they start preaching to the public that they are God and ONE with the universe they loose their credibility. After all, who are they preaching to. There is no one else existing other than the person who became God. True. But anyone can claim they had this experience. We cannot trust them until they start proving their power. But the moment they start proving their power to the people they loose their credibiltiy of oneness because they are preaching to someone different from themselves. Certainly agree with you. I am glad we have something in common
  9. Is this some kind of fashion to refer "Dear" every post. Are you writing a formal letter each time There has not been a single knowledgeable premise FOR either non-dualistic mukti or for claiming that science supports it. If the premise is itself flawed the conclusions of non-dualism are also baseless. Just blind belief and self-consolation that Quantum theory supports it. I have raised enough questions that you struggled to even think of a constructive answer. Instead all you could do is write some mumbo jumbo on quantum wierdness and hand wave the question. It has been disproved so many times by various great saints in history. I am only asking questions from a different perspective. You have to remove your blinders to see that truth. For some people the belief is so ingrained that it is not possible to differentiate the forest for the trees. I have to admit that I have been thus far blinded by quantum entanglement and word jugglery that I thought was non-dualism. I was ashamed to think that I was one with the world. So tried to rationalize my blind faith by resorting to quantum physics and putting a brave facade to my superstitious beliefs of non-dualism. Thanks for waking me up from my dreams. It pains me when someone points out the faults in my thinking. And instead of accepting the truth I try to think ill of that person On a serious note Dear Bart, you seem to be frustrated by my post each time. Since you cannot stand the heat, I suggest you ignore my posts and quit giving motherly banter each time. Maybe you will learn something Kind regards, Justin.
  10. Dear Ravindran If you enjoy mad people better than normal people its your choice. People who talk about such things are just trying to give a false sense of broadmindedness. In reality they would never live their life in a mental hospital. Are you currently living in a asylum or you are just saying for effect?
  11. Ouch! what happened to your Godliness bud? The halo around your head has turned into some dark matter is it? I am surprised that a self-declared God like you have to suggest that I am mad! If you read my posts, I did not say Kumbh mela is a bunch of mad people. You are just trying to twist my words. Nice try. Kumbh mela is a religious event. There are sane people who come there because they sincerely believe in God. Such folks have great devotion to the Lord making Kumbh mela the grand event it tends to be. And then there are those who have hallucinations that they are God. Such people should not have a reason to attend Kumbh Mela because it doesn't exist for them.
  12. 'merge' is quite misleading. It would be apt to say We are God but in ignorance! Now you are saying that God and you are one and the same. Possibly enveloped in ignorance or ego as you call it. This does not seem right. First it implies that there is a 'you' which is ego and then there is a God. Second it has another contradiction in that you and God are one. Which means God is in ignorance and has an ego!!! If it is ignorance to say soul is different from the supersoul then there isn't a soul after all. Can't we just say that we all are the same ignorant God? The problem is many do not know traditional Advaita but instead they study this modern feminine quantum spirituality which has no relation to real quantum science. There is no merging in traditional teaching. For the cotton piece isn't taken off from the cotton ball as you seem to indicate in this wierd parable. The term 'merge' itself denotes there are 2 entities. What do you mean even I can experience. When you claim you have experienced ONENESS in dhyana you shouldn't be seeing me as different from you. How do you know for sure that sai babas, swami prefix+ananda's, avadhoots are God? They all have contradicted each other as to what enlightenment is. Please do not believe anyone who tells you he is God and brings up a Gold rolex watch or a gold chain out of thin air and giving it to the influential folks. If they are seeing everything as ONE they should not be pulling gold chains out of thin air or claiming to be lighting candles in water. They should not be seeing anyone else. As no one else other than God (which is themselves) would exist according to non-dualism. A few of them may had some additional powers that normal people do not. This is found in people from other religions too. So it is not a unique feature of non-dualism. Also some of these self-professed gods may be having mental disorders or a trauma masked as enlightenment. Some even get deranged overnight and the next morning experience bliss without any reason whatsoever. This can happen to a Canadian or a Ukranian or a pakistani who has not ever listened to any of the babas or ammas. Whatever they are they certainly are not God. At best they are people who have some special abilities above average folks like us. No need to go to Haridwar. You may find a lot of these dudes in Nimhans.
  13. Lets take our case. So we are infinite we are God, but only that now we are under Ego and see everything as dual. Do you agree that you are under Ego right now? Is this your ego writing stuff or the Infinite writing stuff in this forum? Am I the Ego writing back at you? Is this like 2 Ego's (me and you) talking about us being Infinite?
  14. Because the Vedas say so. Now I know you are God since you experienced oneness with God and writing in this forum based on your personal feelings of that experience. I have not experienced God yet. So you may be right.
  15. You may want to re-read posts where it was said the soul is trying to merge with the Consciousness. The keyword is 'merge'. If that soul was indeed the Consciousness, there is no need to merge. Like you stated, the piece of cotton is different from the barn when taken out. What you are talking about is not advaita though. Advaita does not say anywhere that a soul merges with the supersoul. Since you say you are writing out of your own experience which is verified, I have to ask you whether you experienced ONENESS with God anytime? If so you will be the first enlightened person in the world and first liberated member in this forum that I know of. Congrats!
  16. Lets take a finite entity like the European union. Have you seen Europe? How much can you recall seeing it? Just a little bit of what you have seen, right. There is still a LOT you haven't seen. We can only describe Europe to a small extent but not everything. Similarly we can comprehend the Infinite in its Infinite forms to a small extent only. We cannot assume it does not have a form after knowing it is in so many different forms. There is no logic in saying that since it is Infinite, it is formless. Another obvious unscientific mistake you are making is using the keyword 'space'. The Infinite is not extended in space but it is in all forms and pervades everything and being in the universe and still retains its perfectness despite the imperfect nature of the world. The Vedas themselves say this Infinite has millions of forms.
  17. Let me understand what you are writing. "The soul is different in the begining. But as it attains mukti, it merges with God and becomes ONE." So anyone can 'become' God is your opinion. They are not God in the first place until they attain mukti. There goes 'Aham Brahmasmi' for a toss. 'tat tvam asi' is also out of the door by now along with the other 3 mahavakyas. The only problem with the above is that no vedantic school of thought supports your theory. Is this your personal opinion? If not do you have any references? All the things you mentioned above have a form. So how can you conclude the Infinite does not have a form? But then your theory says that matter and supreme consciousness are ONE. Now you are saying matter does not have consciousness of its own. Does matter also has a chance to attain mukti by which it then merges with the supreme consciousness? Whatver happened to the theory of Oneness when it comes to matter!
  18. Do you become the Infinite? or are you the Infinite itself? Realize there is a huge difference between the 2 questions. You 'becoming' an Infinite is dual, but you being the Infinite is non-dual. For example, if the rope has to become a serpent, it is 'becoming', but if the rope is already a serpent but in ignorance it does not 'become' the serpent. There is a difference in the way it is written or said. How do you know that the Infinite does not have any form? Does matter have any consciousness? So the Supreme consciousness creates other conscious entities and matter and then merges it back to itself? From where does it create? So the Supreme Consciousness divides itself into different souls who are ignorant?
  19. Dear Ravindran, First you made a blunder by saying all atoms are the same. Now you retract that by saying all protons are the same. At one point in time you say 2 separate things exist - material monism and spiritual monism. Your statement itself falls on its weight in that there are 2 separate things existing in the world besides other factors of various things which you refuse to take into account because your love for monism restrains you from accepting reality. When you segregate things into different categories you are already in a dualistic world even if you proclaim everything is ONE. Monism takes consciousness to be the root of everything, not strings. In a physical theory like string theory, consciousness is a by-product of sufficiently complex combinations of matter, like our brains and central nervous system. This in no way applies either to Advaita or Dvaita. For we know there are definitions of consciousness by these schools that says consciousness is definitely not matter. One another contradiction is that Monism itself says there is no definition for consciousness. Cannot be explained. There is no point in people still insisting it is new-age science. That is quackery. Monism cannot be a theory of science nor mathematical. I am not drawing parallels of dualistic teachings with Science. But you are comparing teachings of monism with this science. I am just saying that your analysis fails completely because the very fundamental basis on which you compare is dualistic. I am not comparing the teachings of Ramanuja, Madhva or Harekrsna as equal to new-age crap. So I cannot be labelled as a quack as I am not claiming anything except proving your understanding of both monism and Science is warped. The new Science has been misused by many other than monists too. For example Buddhism claims that it offers the most constructive comparisons with the new physics. The premise that the cosmos as a whole is that Supreme Consciousness is a speculative idea that has no supporting evidence. The Supreme God has been explained in the Vedas as entirely made of a different set of attributes and form which cannot be seen by an average naked eye. You cannot say our central nervous system is similar to the toilet commode and is similar to the God who everyone believes in to be Perfect. Science seeks to explain the universe by seeing what things are made of. Religion and philosophy works the other way around. Unlike Science, there are tenets that remain untested, or cannot be tested at all. Empirical observation only takes a person so far, and at some point the only tool left is one's mind, and this is why philosophy and religion exists.
  20. I didn't want to assume you are a mister. Anyways in sanskrit the womb is referred to as Garba and not garpa. I am not paranoid thank you. You still have not expressed the implications of my reasoning in your post except to say there are implications. Glad that I remind you of the poet Kalidasa. I by no means can be compared to the great poet, but thanks for the compliment. Again you keep saying there is an implication without mentioning what that is. I am not sure you have the eligibility to suggest what a religious person should or should not be doing. As such your behavior in this post that of calling me paranoid and a fool does not seem to convey any sense of righteousness for a spiritual being like you. If you google there are thousands of links about NDE. I have spoon fed you enough. What I said is that the fact is established beyond doubt that people who do not know Advaita have experienced NDE just like Ramana Maharishi. These people are in Africa, Indonesia, Uzhbekistan, etc., who have not read about brahma satya jagat mithya. If you cannot understand this simple thing, what can I do? I can bring a horse to the water but cannot make it drink. May be. I have provided enough information that members like Bija grasped the content. I do not take responsibility if others do not understand the content in the links inspite of consistent information. The other thing I am scared of is that my good friend Bart Happel will admonish me for wasting my time blowing the violin in front of a bull
  21. Dear Ravindran, There are many errors in your posts. I am going to take only some salient ones. For example, you say the pig, skunk, worm, desk, looney bins, commodes, humans are made of the same atomic particles. NO SCIENTIST WILL AGREE THAT AN ATOM IS THE SAME AS ANOTHER ATOM next to it. What makes an atom different from another atom? Every atom has a unique number of protons, and proton number equals electron number. EVERY ATOM RETAINS ITS INDIVIDUALITY INCLUDING DISTINCT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS. Also, the atomic mass for one atom may be different from another atom of the same element. What you are referring to and explaining is not Science but quackery. If you still didn't get the basics of science, I do not want to pursue clarifying quackery any further. There are fundamental flaws in your hypothesis. A 3rd grade science text book might help define an atom and its composition. Even if we consider Science to support metaphysics, Science is strongly dualistic. It involves the interaction of five or six kinds: matter, energy, forces, space, time, and laws. Each of these are radically different from another. The laws of nature regulate the behavior of all physical systems at every level. The laws cannot be God. They are controlled by Him. That itself is dualistic. Now the so-called quacks (or whom you call new-age scientists) who observe nature fail to understand that they are not viewing this underlying Reality. Monism itself states that the underlying reality (which it calls GOD) cannot be observed nor comprehended nor even explained by words. Ever heard of anirvachIniya? If you talk to an actual 21st century scientist, he will call new-age science a bluff. If you talk to a classical Advaitin or a Dvaitin, he will not agree with you because you haven't understood monism in the first place to correlate it to quantum science. As a blogger wrote: It’s somewhat incorrect to say physics is dualistic; it’s quadraplistic, pentuplistic, sextuplistic, or at least quintuplistic. If you throw in the geometric math of string theory with its eleven dimensions, it might even be hyperplistic.
  22. Mr. or Miss Hiranyagarpa, every field has a counter view. We have to weigh the pros and cons and evaluate it if it appeals to our reason. The fact that people all over the world experienced this state without reading one word of Advaita like Ramana Maharishi has is proof enough that you need not read Monism to experience NDE. The links below contain an exhaustive list of resources and FAQs on NDE http://www.nderf.org/ Books on NDE and people who wrongly claim to be self-realized because of NDE http://www.nderf.org/Books_and_Reviews.htm http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html http://www.crystalinks.com/neardeath.html In each case, according to Jansen's more recent pronouncements, all we can say is that the subject gets catapulted out of ordinary 'egoic' consciousness into an altered state - we cannot comfortably rule out the possibility that the 'worlds' disclosed in these 'trips' have ontological status. Latterly, therefore, Jansens position appears closer to thinkers like Daniel Pinchbeck (2002), who has written a book on hallucinogenic shamanism, and other names like Carl Jung, Ken Wilber and Stanislav Grof, than to thinkers like Susan Blackmore or Nicholas Humphrey (two particularly high-profile materialist skeptics). http://leda.lycaeum.org/index.pl?ID=9264 I am not an atheist or inconsistent. What implications are you threatening me with?
  23. I see that you still want to console yourself that your spiritual ideology is science. Science works on observation and evidence. Various religions, like for example, Buddhism also says it is quantum science. You say it is monistic. Likewise, I can claim that the flying teapot is also quantum science. There are a lot of deceivers who have piggy backed on quackery explaining it to the world that their belief is quantum science. These real scientists below would laugh at the assertion that Science is Monism i.e. like Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Marie Curie, Niels Bohr, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, Copernicus, Max Planck, Robert Koch, Stephen Hawking, Gregor Mendel, de Broglie, Oppenheimer, Archimedes Ravindran, after going through your posts, it is apparent you have no idea of what Science and technology are. Quantum science is only a SMALL branch of science and nowhere does it prove monism. In fact, just the opposite. For Science to be valid, it has to be dualistic. So your imaginations of it being monistic does not cut it. Monism by its very definition refutes science. No scientist can claim that all is ONE. Science cannot claim that a pig/skunk/desk/commode are all ONE. For if that was the case, science would be bankrupt by now.
  24. Hmm...Looks like you have a genuine interest in my well being. Otherwise you would not have picked on me consistently instead of advicing the other posters. Thanks much. I will take your advice and hope you take this advice from me - please do not try to post something you do not understand. Because if you do, members like me will want to clarify or correct some misunderstandings.
  25. From your previous posts it seemed you were very depressed. Good to know you are keeping your cool For the last time I said science supports a philosophy based on reality than a philosophy based on illusion. Whether you think that reality doctrine is Dvaita is your prerogative. Looks like you are here merely to pick up a fight under your kaisersose id. You remind me of a split personality who takes on multiple ids in different forums. But of course as you said, I have no evidence to substantiate my claim. Its just a suspicion
  • Create New...