Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Justin

  1. The example you provided was totally offbase. You did not understand what is being discussed but just get upset if Advaitic proponents get questioned on their position. If someone says the concept of a flying teapot and quantum science is similar, you are saying I cannot question their position. If you have a problem of people bringing in science, go and pick on the person who brought it in the first place. You cannot attack the person asking for clarifications. I really don't care what others have said in the past. It is not I who is saying pig/skunk/humans are one. It is the advaitins. So go and pick on them. You were not an advaitin at all because you do not understand it in the first place. You had a wrong notion that you were one These arguments are coming from members in this forum. Sankara, vachaspati and others are not members of this forum. If you have a problem with the present members, you can go talk to them. The other part you are contradicting yourself is that you say I am wrong. You are no Sankara or vachaspati yourself to say I am wrong
  2. I am a new member with a new name. That shouldn't be your concern though. Did I claim the point of you or I being not the body? What are you contesting against? Or are you sore that I pointed Advaita is not compatible with science so you started pointing fingers at me? The guy in the looney bin did not make any associations with science in this thread. Whereas the other guy in the looney bin who thinks he and the looney bin are ONE and the same, started relating the looney bin and himself to science I do not know and do not care who has made similar statements in the past. Calling a distortion a distortion may hurt your's and other sensitive people. The best thing to do is clarify why it is not a distortion rather than assume things about others beliefs which have not been expressed in this thread. That is true for most. I have hardly seen Advaitis who are knowledgeable in other doctrine's apart from the things told to them by other monists. They do not even know science well enough to be careful not to associate solipsism or monism with. It baffles me how people just claim their version to be the truth without analyzing other philosophies. Please read the posts by Ravindran. If not ask any advaitin if he thinks of a pig, skunk, desk or a commode to be different or one. I agree. We haven't come to that stage yet where you already started assuming things about my religious beliefs which I have not expressed. Agree again. Although after reading your previous posts, I must assume you have little idea of visishtAdvaita, tattvavAda, and achintyabhedabheda yourself
  3. Dear Ravindran, I am okay with classical science which have conclusive evidence. Not okay with scientific quackery. How much do you know about me to assume "you and I are in the same condition"? Science is not against God. It does not say there is a God, nor does it say there is no God. It does not accept nor deny Atma. It surely does not accept that a pig, skunk and a human are ONE. No scientist in the right frame of mind will accept such a absurd conclusion without evidence. It has established beyond doubt that people who experienced this sense of oneness were neurotic. FYI..these people were not even Advaitin's. They just went through a Near Death Syndrome which they thought they experienced bliss. Such people are mentally challenged. Science is valid when it has definite evidence of occurance. It relates well with dualism. It does not in any way align itself with monism. Sorry to say you did not understand my position. I do not consider twisting scientific theories to suit religious ideologies as "Science". I have respect for Science as well as religion.
  4. 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. It has been proved beyond doubt by veda apaurusheya. Only that monism hasn't been proved. 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. That is solipsism. Monism is solipsism 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.
  5. Neither inference nor perception was apparent in that thread You still have not answered my questions about how you reconcile quantum science with One reality. I suggest you re-read my posts.
  6. What for? Did you prove anything in that thread?
  7. Please see his post below which HeeHee refers. There are numerous instances where monists say those who perceive differences are at a lower level. Originally Posted by Ravindran Kesavan We - all sentient beings - are all one. And seeing this oneness is a spiritual wisdom. Seeing difference is spiritual ignorance. That is not always the case. There are great works by the Acharyas after Sankara who taught dualism and refuted monism. Also as I gave an example in my previous post: it is like saying a flying teapot is not perceived by default and therefore no additional intelligence/effort is necessary in this case. However, in the case of a flying teapot, it is not directly obvious and therefore additional intelligence/effort would be required to understand the concept. I have to disagree with you. Mimaansa, nyaya, tattvavAda, VA (to an extent) and a host of other hindu schools are not monistic. But thats another discussion. There are many cases of people around the world who have no inkling of Advaita and experienced oneness. These have been scientifically recorded as hallucinations or false notion of blissful state.
  8. 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. If I say I claim I saw a flying teapot and you disagree, it will be arrogant of me to assume you are not a wise person because you used sense perception to figure out that there is no such thing as a flying teapot 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. In addition, it is also condescending if I were to call a person ignorant because he did not see the flying teapot I saw? Its because I have used neither inference or perception to have seen a teapot. However, it is not condescending for the other person to call me ignorant because he clearly has a reason to do so. 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.
  9. Didn't mean to follow you, but couldn't resist It is nihilism. Buddhism does not recognize the self.
  10. Bart, you could have sent your issues about me (that I spoilt the topic) in a PM yourself instead of submiting your post in public I do not have any issues with member Trivedi. I was responding to an email that he personally directed at me.
  11. Dear Pramod Well, if putting out the truth out there is mean, so be it. You seem to be very sensitive. That is your opinion. Even Lord Krishna was accused of being rude and mean. Not at all. You provided a good example that helped convey a message. Good for you. I have no problems with you appreciating science, geography, astronomy, archeology, etc., or any other field. But I have a right to comment on your technical understanding as much as you have the right(!) to comment that I am arrogant, mean and rude. Although I must say I did not get personal as you have in your post. I have no problem. There are millions who go astray without understanding either science or religion. I have no problems with those. You are becoming emotional now. Sorry if I triggered it. I will refrain from picking on you as an example. With this statement, you are exhibiting the very bitterness, meanness and arrogance you accuse me of. What happened to your spiritual pleasantness? Your opinion has nothing to do with my qualities as you wrongly perceive. Many times truth is bitter and if you cannot take it (or you take it personally) when pointed out to you, it does not become anyone else's problem. Thanks for the advise. I see this as arrogantly advising others without knowing the true purport of the conversation. It comes out of a high-handed superior feeling that you know better than me.
  12. Thanks for being honest Bart. We can use anything as an analogy, isn't it. Fact is that some of the analogies make sense (like the Mandelbrot) besides sounding fantastic! But the derivations of the analogies wrt to non-dualism do not. It gets worse when some folks who do not even know how to spell it, let alone understand, claim that it fits with Visnu as parcel of Krsna.
  13. The attempt to link the quantum world to mysteries of the consciousness is not new. Most people cannot make head or tail about it. Some even spell it as 'mental-brot' instead of Mandelbrot but pretend to understand it as clarification to religion. There is no compelling evidence that quantum mechanics plays a central role in consciousness of the creatures in this world. There are no parallels that it complies with the spiritual connections across the universe. It is still materialistic and reductionistic and relies on observations made in the quantum world. In my experience I have found many who 'like' to draw parallels without understanding neither religion (and that too monism of all the religions!!!) nor science. It has become a fad.
  14. You are right about this one. I do not understand when people attribute classical or non-classical physics to spirituality. Maybe you do not belong to any of the categories below, but there are many others who belong to one of the below; 1. People like to consider their blind faith to be rational so try to explain their spiritual theories scientifically. Like some people are ashamed to announce they had an arranged marriage, so tell people they fell in love first before marriage. This is similar in which people cover their religious beliefs with science to justify their claims. 2. People like to console themselves that their theory is right by trying to justify it with quantum theories. 3. They know that non-classical science is a sure fire way of attracting a modern mind although no one has really understood or proved them yet. Lets go back to the drawing board now. My question was 'If soul is part of God, why is a part of God ignorant?'. You answered 'God can be ignorant'. My reply 'such a defective God is not worth praying to'. My comment 'if God is ignorant or his part is ignorant, such a God's freewill is questionable. You still have to explain where God is getting this ignorance from?' Your view is qualified monism and not pure monism. This opinion goes against the vedic scriptures which go to length to suggest that God is perfect and has no negative qualities. I think you agree with all this.
  15. Bart, frankly I read your post many times but did not understand your chaotic model. To keep it simple, if you believe there is a universe, there is a you, and there are others in the picture, the model is not purely monistic even if contained within God. In the monistic model, only one thing exists and that is the soul. The composition of which is entirely different than matter. You may call this model as pluralistic within a monistic whole but cannot claim it as a totally monistic one. The above assertion 'that nothing is created' is not mine but Sankara's. Since some folks like to follow a few non-classical physics books instead of the traditional monistic philosophies, it becomes their individual opinion on Hinduism.
  16. Bart, I agree with you and Sarva gattah that we do not have freewill. With exception of post # 7, yet to see a good enough explanation without contradictions. You are unknowingly espousing a pluralistic model instead of a monistic one where you have A) a soul and B) material reality or pluralistic in the sense that there are millions of multiple beings and the universe as part of him (with each different from another). In order for the model to be monistic, you have to explain away the material reality and this includes our material bodies. So there is no question of a material body having a feewill. Even otherwise, if the material reality does not have freewill it implies that even soul aka God does not have any freewill. Why? because it has not created anything in the first place. Zilch creation. Whatever we see is ignorance or ego. So even the soul does not act and in a sense does not have freewill. I don't know which ancient monistic model you follow, but according to Sankara, there is nothing created in the first place.
  17. Dear sir, you really take the cake for this beats all biological and quantum analogies delivered so far!!! Sorry Bart and Ravindran, I guess I was barking up the wrong tree. The post above lays at rest all our speculations. All glories to Prabhupada who told only FACTS with proper scientific evidence to back up. No further debate required. Visnu is part of Krsna is a fact. If anyone need more facts, evidence, and fossils of the parts, please visit the harekrsna museum.
  18. Right. And you, I and others emerged out of the womb of our mothers. That does not make you, I, others and our moms one and the same.
  19. Your statement also denotes that God has ignorance. Such an ignorant bieng cannot be revered as God. Its better to be an atheist than pray to a God who has fallible qualities.
  20. Dear Bart, Thanks for the explanation. Your model is still not a monistic one. In a monistic model, only ONE (not-TWO) thing exists i.e. God or the soul. Everything else including your body, my body, others, pig, skunk, your explanation of freewill!!!, is maya or a delusion. The model crumbles as soon as you say "we" or "I" or "you" or "it". No amount of "trying" to relate with biology or quantum mechanics to provide a rational explanation will help. So who is ignorant when you and I do not exist? If you still say we really exist, the monistic model/s that people have been trying to explain (in vain) throughout the ages falls like a pack of cards.
  21. Dear Ravindran, The monist ceases to exist in this merger. So there is no way the monist is getting the mukti according to your own definition of mukti. Because there is no "they" in mukti according to their own definition of mukti. I will take it as your personal opinion again unsupported and without meaningful reason. According to the monist, he doesn't even exist in the stage of mukti. There is only God. The monist is not experiencing anything. If he or she did exist then it is a state of dualism. What you said above is a state of dualism "a monist experiencing mukti". There is a monist AND there is a mukti to be experienced by the monist :-) Your post #49 on cell being part of God is not a monist position. Maybe a new-age so-called vedantic position. The monist considers the cells to be matter and an illusion.
  22. srikanthdk71ji, I understood Ravindransji's posting. Your position is different than Ravindransji. He mentions that all of us are part of God (like an individual cell is part of your body). You have a monistic point of view where you think your soul is God and is the same (not part of) as that of the soul of a pig or a skunk. If your stand is that soul is God, we have to go back to the drawing board again with my original question. And that is if soul is not ignorant and has free will, who has ignorance and is in bondage? According to your philosophy, it will be the body. If you associate free will (or not) to the body, this falls into several contradictions that has not been cleared through ages. Fat chance it will be clarified in this forum or in future. With the above, all Lord Krishna said in the Gita is not only reduntant but you are also saying he never physically existed in dwapara yuga. Anyway, as I indicated in my previous message his body is transcendental. He has taken physical forms many a time as evident by his many incarnations. Even his physical forms were transcendental. You misunderstood my post, nowhere did I say God is physical. In fact, just the opposite. Sorry to say, none of the people who taught non-dualism has ever experienced moksha or mukti, because by their own philosophy they get trapped. According to them in moksha or mukti there is only God. There is no person.
  23. True for Gods body remains the same, whether it is the head or toe. Not true for organisms though as each cell is different than the next as I explain further below. The analogy does not fit what the vedic scriptures fortell. Anyway lets take a similar but simple analogy - a small amount of bacteria is enough to replicate to millions when milk is kept for fermentation. This does not mean that the millions of living organisms are now part of the original small fraction of the bacteria. According to scriptures, God created various kinds of living things from plants to creatures. Each kind contains its own unique genetic program code allowing the parent organism to replicate either sexually or asexually. The genetic code formed in the womb of our creation – is different from all other genetic codes. These genetic codes contain markers which are distinct from the genetic code found in another. Like for example, a recent study showed that by studying this code, you can find out the ethnic group you belong to whether in Africa or Mesopatamia or any place on earth. Another example is a Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids. You are suggesting 'sameness' instead of 'similarity' between different cells (or organisms) by saying there is a common genetic code present in all of us. Using a similar analogy, I cannot say since I have 5 fingers in my hand and you have 5 fingers in your hand, I am a part of you or vice versa. Common physical features such as five fingers are on apes too, but that does not mean you and I are part of an ape (since we descended from them). Likewise, common structures (even in a cell) cannot be a justification that we are part of God. Gods body has been described in in the Vedas as not anywhere similar (let alone same) to our bodies. He has a transcendental body that you can never even comprehend in the first place let alone suggest sameness. I think you are just writing your personal opinions when you say there is not much difference between Gods and an organisms body. If indeed there isn't any difference between ours, God's, and a pigs or a skunk's body, there is no point in calling God, a God, for he is just like any of us i.e. highly defective.
  24. Dear Ravindran, I lost you at the "When we say they are same or equal...". Lets take the analogy you provided "The cell is part of the body just like how jeevatma is part of the paramatma. The cell does not have a brain. Its limited." This analogy fails on many counts. For example, you cannot say the cell is equal to the body in any shape or form when you have already stated that it is limited. The biological property is different between each cell, so you cannot say the cell has the same biological property as the other million cells that constitute the body. The cell has possibly 0.0001% of the quality of the entire body (or the neighbouring cell), so it cannot be deemed equal in any way. The most important part is that as the vedas say paramatma's body is said to be of a different type than a jeevatma, and paramtma's body is the same from head to toe, with head and toe being infinity. The head and the toe cannot be said to be different (like body and cell) as they have the same properties all over. You cannot say God's brain is better than his toe. The jeevatma's body (or qualities) is not even equal to this infinite God even by taking each property and doing a comparison. Even if you take the parts to be of the whole, the parts have to be same like the whole (which they aren't), for God cannot be differentiated as in "He is only the brain, but his cells are all ignorant". If the cells are like the brain, they should have had the complete characteristics in the first place, even if they are covered by a membrane called ignorance.
  • Create New...