Justin

Both you and God are experiencing, although your experience may be different from God’s experience.

Kind regards, Bart

Can you please elaborate a bit more on this, Justin? If your consciousness is (part of) God’s consciousness, then Srikanth’s conjecture does make sense, doesn’t it?

Kind regards, Bart

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

In Mukti/Moksha experiencer does not exist. Only Experience (enormous creative power) exists. No question of 'To Whom?' coz its devoid of the experiencer.

"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.

Mukti is not an experience. It is a state devoid of experiencer. You are God and a subject to Creation/Sustainer/Destruction which will be your nature. There is no YOU or IT or HIM there. There IS.

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.

No enlightened person stakes a claim. Neither Jesus,Muhammed,Zarathustra or any of them. I think you are too poor in History before thinking so. Infact you know nothing even about Ramana. Think, Refer and speak before coming to a conclusion. Use your own brains. Do not try to be a mouthpiece of any organisation or belief.

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.

What else have you heard of?

That you need to have a refresher course in Advaita.

Unless the oil is devoid of impurities it sits seperate. Remove all impurities, it is water again.

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.

If you believe Quantum Theories can prove a philosophy, it means that the philosophy is True in all its respects.

Quantum theories have never proved non-dualism.

If you feel that story books are more convincing to you and the strength of your philosophy is dependent on stories, Cheers.

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.

Why should there be a separate experiencer? In fact for a nondualist, Mukti is precisly the absence of such separate experiencer.

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.

Obviously there is a flaw in this argument. To say that we don’t exist to witness that we are dead – that we don’t exist as a dead being (buying that as a true claim for argument sake) is not equal to say that death itself is not a real fact but a myth. Isn’t it?

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.

Similarly to say Mukti is a myth - simply because in mukti there is no individual self or ego - is a fallacious argument.

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.

Analogically, after an individual rain drop of water merges with the sea there is no separate drop of water distinguishable in the sea. Thereby to argue that the merger cannot take place, and the merging of the drops of rain with the sea is a myth., is not correct. There is a problem in this kind of argument.

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.

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

Why did I show the above definition?

 

]

Beats me Sire! my small brain does not understand what calculus has to do with consciousness!

Is Mukti a Myth?

Yes it is a myth for a non-dualist. There is no one to experience mukti if that were to happen!

The oneness as well as the formlessness or the inconceivable form - if you like that wording- are clear in many many places in vedas and upanishads in no uncertain terms.

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.

Becides it is also the direct experience of mystics all over the world of different religious cultural and temporal settings. This can be experienced and there by validated by anyone, in principle, if one takes the trouble of following the descipline of yoga, which is one of the six essential parts of veda.

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.

After all direct experience is the ultimate source of conviction.

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.

But I do disagree with that 'formists' who argue that god has only one specific form. All forms in existence is his forms and all conceivable and possible forms that may or maynot exist in other alternate universes are god's forms.

Certainly agree with you. I am glad we have something in common

Dear Justin,

Is this some kind of fashion to refer "Dear" every post. Are you writing a formal letter each time

It seems obvious to me that you do not have a single argument against mukti and its monistic implications (except perhaps something that goes like: “I just don’t buy it!”, and some arguments against wrong statements),

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.

So unless you can disprove monism in principle, you’ve lost this debate in my opinion.

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.

That is, your position is clear, but it is not any threat to the monistic position. I suggest you take a deep breath and admit defeat. You’ll get over it.

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.

I think you should take Srikant's invitation seriously and go to Kumbamela. If you are lucky you will meet some interesting adepts there. That will change your life perspective forever, in an interesting way. However the choice is yours. If you choose to live a 'normal' life it is your choice. For me normality is boring and is worse than madness, as normality is a form of madness -very uninteresting kind.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

---------

 

An anecdote on madness: "There are two kinds of mad people : those who live inside the asylum and those who live outside, the former are curable the latter uncurable''.

 

( The uncurable variety is called 'Normals')

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?

The Kumbhamela is not something like a group of mad people coming together. To experience Kumbhamela you have to be there. But if you believe in Nimhans more than a Kumbhamela you can stay there.

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.

The merge can happen only with like materials,

'merge' is quite misleading. It would be apt to say We are God but in ignorance!

like the various ornaments of Gold. The base is Gold only whether it is that or this. The properties or both are one and the same. The piece of Cotton appears different but the properties of the cotton in the piece and in the barn is one and the same.

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!!!

Yes. Advaita says, the properties of the Atman and the Paramatman are one and the same. There is no difference as a soul and a supersoul. I think Radhika has explained how the soul is formed from the very super conciousness that pervade the universe.

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.

Yes. Even you can experience it in Dhyana. The oneness is experienced in Samadhi State. That is why most of the people do not want to come out of it for years coz they are experiencing the ultimate and about enlightenment, No. There have been many like Shirdi Sai, many Avadhoots. If you want a practical experience, we shall meet at Kumbha Mela next year at Haridwar. Then probably, after seeing, you will believe. Its a promise.

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.

To Justin,

When I say that "Everything begins with duality and ends with nonduality" here is what I mean. Everything is always in the Infinite. When a part of the Infinite consciousness identifies itself as a body or a soul, that is the beginning or birth of a soul. From then on the ego within it makes it look as if it is separate from the Infinite. But this concept of dualism is only for the soul and never can a soul or a body or anything for that matter can be considered as separate from the Infinite. Hence this ego is the cause of the belief of dualism and when it's gone, everything is one. As long as we do not lose ego completely, all that we can comprehend appears dual.

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?

What makes you assume it has a form? Have you seen God? How did you believe? What logic did you apply?

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.

Where was it said, the Soul is different in the beginning. Read again. It said that it is a part of Infinite Conciousness. A piece of Cotton taken out from the Barn of Cotton. The piece and Barn are now appearing different. When you throw it back to the Barn, there is no difference. This is what it meant.

Since you havent tried to understand the first sentence itself, your conclusions also go for a toss, out of the door etc etc.

Does Infinite have a form? If so, kindly expadite.

Truth is not anybodys Theory. It is attained by understanding and experience. Matter is infact in a Jeevanmukta State. The various manifestations of Matter itself proves it is pervaded by conciousness. It just lacks ego.

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!

If this limitation does not take place, if a thing is infinately extended in space in all directions, it is indeed formless.

 

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.

1.The answer to your first question is "Everything begins with duality and ends with non-duality". Therefore, when a soul is formed as a part of Infinite consciousness, it is dual i.e. the part is not the same as the whole. But when it attains mukti, it ceases to identify itself as a soul and is perfectly tuned to the Supreme will and consciousness and is therefore the infinite.

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?

2.If you can see, I have written that the Infinite does not have any particular form. This means that everything and anything is a part of the Infinite, even if it is formless or has a form. Be it anything: everybody, materials, plants, planets, cosmos, you, me, anybody and space between anything, all are a part of the Infinite.

All the things you mentioned above have a form. So how can you conclude the Infinite does not have a form?

3. As for matter, though it does not have a consciousness of its own(i.e it does not possess ego), the Supreme Consciousness pervades it.

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!

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.

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.

The Infinite does not have any particular form.

How do you know that the Infinite does not have any form?

It is nothing but the consciousness that prevails in the entire universe. That is what we call God or Supreme Soul.

Does matter have any consciousness?

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.

So the Supreme consciousness creates other conscious entities and matter and then merges it back to itself? From where does it create?

It is a part of its nature and therefore it can again create many encasements within itself which mark the birth of new souls.

So the Supreme Consciousness divides itself into different souls who are ignorant?

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.

Mr. Justin,

I am a male. My name means Golden Womb and refers to the Creator Brahma.

I didn't want to assume you are a mister. Anyways in sanskrit the womb is referred to as Garba and not garpa.

No need to get paranoid. I am not threatening you of any dangerous consequence from out side source. I am referring to the logical implication of your line of reasoning. If you are not athirst then you are confused.

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.

You remained me of a old mythical story of Kalidasa the poet. He was a utter fool before he became brainy, by the grace of goddess kali.

The story continues but I will stop.

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.

Your way of arguing using science to make the Near Death Experience, a case of madness has the same implication for your own religiosity.

Again you keep saying there is an implication without mentioning what that is.

If you are not an atheist, then you should not be doing what you are doing. Obviously you must be so confused about logic that you don’t see the implication of your own argument. I was referring to this logical implication, not uttering any personal threat.

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.

Now coming to your links, I took the pain of going through them with the hope of finding the ‘established proof beyond doubt’, but all I could get there were opinion, not proof. Everything is doubtable. I could not find any proof beyond doubt.

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 my brain is not good enough like yours to see and understand such proof present over there.

Since you have grasped it can you please do a favor? Please succinctly and clearly state the proof. Don’t give me the links. Hope that is not too much of a trouble for you. I am eagerly waiting for the proof beyond doubt that you have.

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

Note: Monism or unification is not about pig and dog and worms and human being same. Obviously at the phenominal level there are differences. Monism is about the underlying ontic truth, that behind phynominal plurality there is an ontic unity. There is no denial that there are different things and forces in the universe at the surface level. What the monistic schema in physics argues is that behind these varities of phenominon there is one single underlying force, that account for all the variety. Pig and worm and human being are made of same atomic particles: Proton eletron and neutron. There is nothing else other than atoms and everything is composed of atoms That is the implication of monistic thinking . No one is saying Pig is Human But what one is saying is pigs and humen are atoms really. (Of course atomic structure is now outdated ontology the most resent verson would be that everything are made up of strings)

 

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.

Mr Justin

Those supposed to be Established proofs beyond doubt with near death experiences are not at all established but opinion of materialist scientist who do not believe in soul. I have read accounts of near death experience and judgments on them. There are counter views.

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

Are you an atheist pretending to be religious in this forum with a purpose of demolishing religious belief or are you simply inconsistent, not knowing what really the implication of what you are talking about?

I am not an atheist or inconsistent. What implications are you threatening me with?

Once we succeed in this attempt then we will have one single force under the entie multidyde of manifestations, and one single theory explaining everything in the universe. Science is Monistic - ( material monistic - I must qualify).

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.

Your style of debating is really interesting, but it will not provide real answers in my opinion. My advice is: Don’t continuously revert other people's arguments, that’s very uninteresting. Answer questions as they are stated, and pose questions when you genuinely do not understand something. Maybe then you will learn something..

 

Kind regards, Bart

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.

No one's upset, my friend. Calm down.

OK, as long as you do not say Science supports Dvaita, I have no argument. You were saying something like that until recently though. But like I said, if you are not going to say it anymore....

You were the one who said it, dude and we have proof by looking at your previous posts. Refresh your memory. No Advaitin said a pig/skunk/human are the same and as I said earlier, you have no evidence to substantiate your claim (you would have presented it by now if you had any) which means your case just fell off the sidewalk.

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