Staged Evolution of Brhaman

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Mr KRN stated in post 16 in the Bhajagovindam thread (Philosophy section) that

"
Saguna Brahman as a staged evolution to Nirguna Brahman is well dealt with, in the Brahma Sutra Bhashyam."

From Wikipedia (I know that is not always accurate) it says

"In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. "

So this translation of Brhaman going to through a staged evolution is not logical because evolution staged or not mean change.

Mr KRN, Could you please shed some light on what you meant here? You say Sankara wrote this. Where is that writen? Is that a correct translation (Staged evoluion) or it is your own way to express your understanding.

How can something that cannot change , evole?

Thank you

 

[a-TB]

Also your statement is that Saguna Brahman whatever that is evolved to Nirguna Brahman. I thought you meant the other way around. In any case both have logical inconsistencies

 

[KRN]

Mr KRN stated in post 16 in the Bhajagovindam thread (Philosophy section) that

"
Saguna Brahman as a staged evolution to Nirguna Brahman is well dealt with, in the Brahma Sutra Bhashyam.".

As this thread is opened in continuation to another thread, where I have briefly explained "staged evolution of a soul", I will first share what I have written there.

Through unremitting Bhakti and remembrance of (Saguna Brahman - like Vishnu, Siva etc) at the time of death, a soul will reach the abode of the Devata where he will remain until Pralaya, when he will attain Nirguna Brahman along with the Devata (him/it) self. This is staged evolution to moksha, where a soul leaves the earth (not to come back again) but has not yet attained moksha until the final merger with the Nirguna Brahman.

From Wikipedia (I know that is not always accurate) it says

"In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. "

So this translation of Brhaman going to through a staged evolution is not logical because staged or not mean change.

It is evolution of the soul to moksha that is meant here, where Saguna Brahman offers an intermediate stage.

Mr KRN, Could you please shed some light on what you meant here? You say Sankara wrote this. Where is that writen? Is that a correct translation (Staged evoluion) or it is your own way to express your understanding.

Actually it is very much part of the Brahma Sutram. Sankara merely interpreted it in accordance to his Advaitic tenets.

How can something that cannot change , evole?

At one level, we are all Brahman.
At another level, we are souls evolving into moksha.
The whole of Vedanta philosophy lies in reconciling between these two statements.

When you resolve this "apparent" logical fallacy, everything else fits into place


Thank you
[/QUOTE]

 

[a-TB]

As this thread is opened in continuation to another thread, where I have briefly explained "staged evolution of a soul", I will first share what I have written there.

A. Through unremitting Bhakti and remembrance of (Saguna Brahman - like Vishnu, Siva etc) at the time of death, a soul will reach the abode of the Devata where he will remain until Pralaya, when he will attain Nirguna Brahman along with the Devata (him/it) self. This is staged evolution to moksha, where a soul leaves the earth (not to come back again) but has not yet attained moksha until the final merger with the Nirguna Brahman.




B. It is evolution of the soul to moksha that is meant here, where Saguna Brahman offers an intermediate stage.



C. Actually it is very much part of the Brahma Sutram. Sankara merely interpreted it in accordance to his Advaitic tenets.



D. At one level, we are all Brahman.
At another level, we are souls evolving into moksha.
The whole of Vedanta philosophy lies in reconciling between these two statements.

When you resolve this "apparent" logical fallacy, everything else fits into place


Thank you

[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your response and spending time on this, Mr KRN. I have great respect for taking the time to engage and also since you have spent time learning many things. But when it comes to what you have stated, please allow me to be blunt in showing you what does not make sense to me in what you have written.

Rather than quote sections of your response I have labelled them A, B, C, D for reference above.

A. This is entirely a duelist message. It is as if Saguna Brhaman like Siva, Vishnu etc are hanging around as a reality, and we being all real are going to that and then merge into yet another Brhaman called Nirguna Brhaman (along with Saguna Brahman at Pralaya?). I have no idea why I should merge with Saguna and Nirguna. This also does not make sense with assertion I am already Brahman.

Am I already Saguna or Nirguna Brhman or neither. Why is my goal to merge with these two entities?

This all is just made up and does not stand to any kind of reason. Within a belief anything is possible.

Please note I am not questioning the scriptures. I am only questioning *your* interpretation of the scriptures. I know you believe that you are speaking the scriptures as is. But my critique can only be directed at what you write here.

There is no Advita (not two) in any of what you have written) and hence there are logical issue here. If you say this is your belief and it is a duelist message then it is fine.

B. In your original quote you did not mention the word Soul evolution. So there can be confusion on any reader of that thread. Then again what is a soul for you?

C. I tried to search for what you quoted in Bhaja govindam thread and I ended up only with your own Blog LOL. Did you copy the lines in that thread from a book or an online source? I found Brhmasutra pdf available online. I could not find the lines you referred to with the numbers you provided. I do not know enough to even look at the right line.

Additionally, I just wanted to see if the phrase staged evolution was anywhere. It seems to be your own characterization?

D. This is the most confusing set of statements. What is one level and another level mean. Either I am Brhaman or I am not. I cannot be Brhaman and also be evolving. My question is for you to help resolve the logical fallacy since these are your choice of words. Otherwise the fallacy stands and it cannot be a reasonable understanding of the scriptures.

Thanks

 

[a-TB]

Also how can Lord can be giver of Pride to All while another is called a leader of the robbers?

These are the key content questions and most interest not addressed in the other thread.

Thanks

 

[KRN]

Your queries are incomprehensible to me. I tried reading them again and again, and just gave up.

And another thing. You said you want to question *my interpretation* of the scriptures. And then you say you don't know how to even look up the Brahma Sutram. Why? What are you trying to prove? That my interpretation of the Scriptures is wrong? Then I will save both of us time by saying that I might quite possibly be wrong !!!

If you want to make some real contribution to the topic, then take some effort into going thru Brahma Sutras and come up with your own interpretation of how Saguna Brahman is dealt with there , and write here why my interpretation is wrong. Then we will have a debate and enrich each other.

 

[KRN]

But when it comes to what you have stated, please allow me to be blunt in showing you what does not make sense to me in what you have written.

Well, in your message, only the above part made any sense to me. So "in a sense" we are quits

 

[KRN]

If you want to make some real contribution to the topic , then take some effort into going thru Brahma Sutras and come up with your own interpretation of how Saguna Brahman is dealt with there , and write here why my interpretation is wrong. Then we will have a debate and enrich each other.

Pls note a Correction to the above message, as below

If you want to debate with me on the topic, then take some effort into going thru Brahma Sutras and come up with your own interpretation of how Saguna Brahman is dealt with there , and write here why my interpretation is wrong. Then we will have a debate and enrich each other

 

[a-TB]

Your queries are incomprehensible to me. I tried reading them again and again, and just gave up.

And another thing. You said you want to question *my interpretation* of the scriptures. And then you say you don't know how to even look up the Brahma Sutram. Why? What are you trying to prove? That my interpretation of the Scriptures is wrong? Then I will save both of us time by saying that I might quite possibly be wrong !!!

If you want to make some real contribution to the topic, then take some effort into going thru Brahma Sutras and come up with your own interpretation of how Saguna Brahman is dealt with there , and write here why my interpretation is wrong. Then we will have a debate and enrich each other.

Dear Mr KRN,

I have no desire to prove anyone wrong, much less you.

My interest is to know at a high level what you have stated. My questions were directed only in that context.

In the end it is all only interpretation. That is what I meant,

I am not here to debate because I must come here with a point of view.

Even if I were to debate I must understand what you have stated to debate. I heard somewhere that Sankara's debates were like that, first understand the views.

So I am trying to make sense of the statements you have made and see if they logically fit together.

My apologies if I came across as trying to prove you wrong. But I do want to know how you reconcile logically fallacies and want discussion on content.

If your whole thesis is - this is how it is written and hence I believe it. But logical fallacies if pointed out should be addressed.

You have said once about a view of Sankara. Even if the Vedas say fire is cold you have to question or reject it. Not an exact quote but you get the point.

Are you willing to stand behind your statements about staged evolution of soul and the model at high level and then answer teh fallacies I have raised. If those are not understandable I will be happy to explain the issues further.

Let me share an experience a decade ago in a conversation with fellow passanger in a plane. He was a creationist Christian who said Universe is created some 6000 years ago. I told him there are other issues with that. He said Bible writes so. I asked how Bible will resolve other evidence. He said if you want to know more come to the Church and be a practicing member for some years and you will know.

I hope our scriptures are not treated with that kind of arguement.

As you see I have been trying for a while for a content oriented discussion. If you do not want to engage in explaining what you said taking a fresh look then I understand. For someone given to study such areas I want to be honest as to what my intent is and I have stated it.

Focus on content oriented explanations to resolve the logical issues with the model as presented. Ready?

 

[a-TB]

Here is one more issues with staged evolution. Evolution means in time. There can be no other meaning. If soul has to migrate with Saguna in time and then merge with Nirguna in time later we have a problem. Because Brahman being the creator of time also cannot be controlled by evolution in time.

 

[KRN]

Are you willing to stand behind your statements about staged evolution of soul and the model at high level and then answer teh fallacies I have raised. If those are not understandable I will be happy to explain the issues further.

Dear Sri a-TB,
None of your earlier queries, nor a lot of statements in the above write-up, is comprehensible to me. I learnt Brahma Sutras at the feet of a Guru (along with a few other students). Any queries that we raised in our class our Gurunatha was happily able to reply. As far as I can recollect, nobody mentioned "logical fallacies" or "content based discussion" or "model at high level" etc. Our Gurunatha always insisted that the concepts underlying the Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads are to be experienced, and not merely read or listened to. Due to His Grace, even as we were going through the classes, some of us had experiences too, which strengthened our belief on the matters taught. Our Gurunatha also informed us that, as we get along with life, further experiences await us.

The concept of "staged evolution" is part of the Brahma Sutras. Based on what I learnt at his feet, and within my limitations of English language, I defined the concept as well as I can, in its simplest form. This is the definition reviewed and approved by our Guru too, in another context. If you find fallacies in the statement, well and good, but as long as I find your queries incomprehensible, I won't have anything further to say. We are happy with what we learnt from Him, and we trust in His guidance in the future too. I cannot share experiences, but can share this much, here. So take it, or leave it

 

[a-TB]

Dear Sri a-TB,
None of your earlier queries, nor a lot of statements in the above write-up, is comprehensible to me. I learnt Brahma Sutras at the feet of a Guru (along with a few other students). Any queries that we raised in our class our Gurunatha was happily able to reply. As far as I can recollect, nobody mentioned "logical fallacies" or "content based discussion" or "model at high level" etc. Our Gurunatha always insisted that the concepts underlying the Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads are to be experienced, and not merely read or listened to. Due to His Grace, even as we were going through the classes, some of us had experiences too, which strengthened our belief on the matters taught. Our Gurunatha also informed us that, as we get along with life, further experiences await us.

The concept of "staged evolution" is part of the Brahma Sutras. Based on what I learnt at his feet, and within my limitations of English language, I defined the concept as well as I can, in its simplest form. This is the definition reviewed and approved by our Guru too, in another context. If you find fallacies in the statement, well and good, but as long as I find your queries incomprehensible, I won't have anything further to say. We are happy with what we learnt from Him, and we trust in His guidance in the future too. I cannot share experiences, but can share this much, here. So take it, or leave it

Dear Mr KRN,

Thanks for sharing your background. I understand when you say 'concepts are to be experienced' and how your Guru 'strengthened your beliefs on what was taught' That explains much of your prior response.

To you teaching is instilling beliefs and give you the right experience. I could not disagree more with that statement. Basically that approach means two people not trained like that can never debate.

It is much like a religion. Buy into basic beliefs and then debate in some logic within that. All I can do is respect your beliefs and experiences though I disagree that it has nothing to do with teaching or studying. I will get my answers elsewhere.

I spent sometime researching online. All Bhashyas seems to be not just explanations but taking all kinds of view points and schools of thought and refuting them. I dont think Sankara said it is incomprehensible but I can be shown otherwise. It is all about logical debating points all the way to show the correct thing.

Here you said "
When you resolve this "apparent" logical fallacy, everything else fits into place "

I said - please help resolve this apparent logical fallacy. And you say "Incomprehensible".

So I am trying to find another way to describe your response other than disingenuous. May be you are talking about Maya. Or some experience needed to resolve that. God knows

Anyway we will agree to disagree here. I dont think anyone can debate with beliefs and experiences.

But we can discuss other items in the future not related to such topics since I now know where you stand on this topic of Vedanta

Regards

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr KRN,
Thanks for sharing your background. I understand when you say 'concepts are to be experienced' and how your Guru 'strengthened your beliefs on what was taught' That explains much of your prior response.
To you teaching is instilling beliefs and give you the right experience. I could not disagree more with that statement. Basically that approach means two people not trained like that can never debate.
It is much like a religion. Buy into basic beliefs and then debate in some logic within that. All I can do is respect your beliefs and experiences though I disagree that it has nothing to do with teaching or studying. I will get my answers elsewhere.

Dear Sri a-TB,
Based on what you have written above, let me, for a moment, throw the spotlight on your queries in post #4. You have remarked there, "This is a duelistic message", "There is no Advita in it" etc etc.... You are admittedly yet to go through the source books of Advaita, Dvaita etc since you said you will study them after retirement, but you had already bought into beliefs on them as instilled in you by the websites thrown up by your Google searches. And basing yourself firmly upon such "beliefs", you have readied yourself to critique and question the
Interpretations of others. Then I don't see any difference between you and the religious person you were referring to. Your Guru is these websites, your Nitya karma is google search, your Tirtha Yatra is visiting forums like this, your penance is, in using your "beliefs" to identify logical fallacies In others' posts. In fact your religious zeal is such that you may even be upgraded to the "fanatic" level

Your religious zeal is so much, that while your queries are riddled with typographical (Brhaman, Advita, duelist etc) and other fallacies, and repeated reminders over days doesn't rouse you to correct and rephrase the whole thing to make the queries more comprehensible and less difficult to read by others, that doesn't deter you from pursuing what you see as logical fallacies in other's posts.

 

[KRN]

I hope you will take the above in a sporting way. I wrote the above, not to attack you or to push you into a corner, but just to show that this kind of nitpicking and threadbare analysis can be done on each other's posts, identify logical or other fallacies, waste previous time each passing day, while all the time slipping away from life. I don't know what you feel about it, but this is my view. I would much rather prefer to humbly accept myself in error

 

[KRN]

But we can discuss other items in the future not related to such topics since I now know where you stand on this topic of Vedanta

Sure, thanks for the positive response. I am planning to take a vacation off from all social media. But once I am back in action, we can take up other discussion topics

 

[a-TB]

Dear Sri a-TB,
Based on what you have written above, let me, for a moment, throw the spotlight on your queries in post #4. You have remarked there, "This is a duelistic message", "There is no Advita in it" etc etc.... You are admittedly yet to go through the source books of Advaita, Dvaita etc since you said you will study them after retirement, but you had already bought into beliefs on them as instilled in you by the websites thrown up by your Google searches. And basing yourself firmly upon such "beliefs", you have readied yourself to critique and question the
Interpretations of others. Then I don't see any difference between you and the religious person you were referring to. Your Guru is these websites, your Nitya karma is google search, your Tirtha Yatra is visiting forums like this, your penance is, in using your "beliefs" to identify logical fallacies In others' posts. In fact your religious zeal is such that you may even be upgraded to the "fanatic" level

Your religious zeal is so much, that while your queries are riddled with typographical (Brhaman, Advita, duelist etc) and other fallacies, and repeated reminders over days doesn't rouse you to correct and rephrase the whole thing to make the queries more comprehensible and less difficult to read by others, that doesn't deter you from pursuing what you see as logical fallacies in other's posts.

Dear Mr KRN,

If it relives some tension for you by calling me fanatic I am happy for you.

This thread was about asking you questions about your own words. For some reason what was incomprehensible became comprehensible now? That is progress.

I have no beliefs on this and I am an agnostic searching for the truth. You said you have studied and I thought you may be able to explain.

I showed you reasons why your own words are message of not just duality but multiplicity. You have soul going to Saguna and waiting around in time to go and merge. You have two part mergers and all these are real to you. Every soul is real to you. If they are all real and true then what is Advita to you ? Wait, no need to answer. It is all incomprehensible LOL

If issues are pointed out in your own writing then the onus in on you to prove my questions have no basis or explain how you resolve the contradictions raised. That will be the mature way to debate.

A person that takes the teaching to instill beliefs tend to behave like a religious person who will rarely respond to the content & logic and instead call those raising logical issues just names.

Let me reiterate that I have no opinion on the teachings of Sankara or Brahmasutra etc because I am yet to study them. My only objections are against your words and I think they do not reflect the teaching because of the gaping holes in what you are stating.

But having said that I truly respect your beliefs like I would of any other beliefs.

Out of friendliness let me say this and I mean no disrespect. I think like a silk worm you have built a cocoon around some ideas that you need to come out of to be truly liberated so that you can start to learn again with a fresh start. I know you dont agree.

We will discuss only topics outside of this area where logic will prevail

I have responded to you in the same jest - no hard feelings. Certainly not for my side

All the best to you

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr KRN,

If it relives some tension for you by calling me fanatic I am happy for you.

This thread was about asking you questions about your own words. For some reason what was incomprehensible became comprehensible now? That is progress.

Dear Sri a-TB,

I am sorry to see that you have not understood the point of my earlier message.

You stated "
To you teaching is instilling beliefs and give you the right experience. I could not disagree more with that statement. Basically that approach means two people not trained like that can never debate.

It is much like a religion. Buy into basic beliefs and then debate in some logic within that. All I can do is respect your beliefs....." - Let me call this paragraph (A).

All I did was to turn the spotlight on your queries to show you how everything you mentioned in (A) is applicable to you as well. You call "religion" as the "buying into basic beliefs and debating in some logic within that" so I was showing you how "religious" you yourself are, the way you went about your queries after buying into "basic beliefs" on Advaita, dualism etc. The reference to "fanatic" is in a very light hearted way, to make you understand this perspective, not to be taken literally as calling names etc.

I have no beliefs on this and I am an agnostic searching for the truth.

A person without beliefs would not say "This is dualism". "This is not Advaita" etc. To make such comments, you must have some beliefs on what they are. Here you have "bought into your beliefs" and are so trust-worthy of your website Gurus, that you are ready to go the extent of even using them to as a base to question others! Which is what a religious fanatic would do

I showed you reasons why your own words are message of not just duality but multiplicity. You have soul going to Saguna and waiting around in time to go and merge. You have two part mergers and all these are real to you. Every soul is real to you. If they are all real and true then what is Advita to you ?

If you want to know what Advaita is to me, you should first set aside your present religious beliefs on what Advaita is, as taught by your website Gurus that makes you see logical fallacies anywhere and everywhere (a sure sign of a religious fundamentalist - who sees wrong in every other religion, and sees his own way alone as true). How ready are you, for unlearning your google-instilled-beliefs?

Wait, no need to answer. It is all incomprehensible LOL

OK, saves time for me too

If issues are pointed out in your own writing then the onus in on you to prove my questions have no basis or explain how you resolve the contradictions raised. That will be the mature way to debate.

Your questions depend on your beliefs on what Advaita is. You see contradictions because your Website Gurus have not done their teaching job properly. The onus is on you to first verify whether you got the right idea about Advaita and dualism, before starting to argue with others that their statements do not fit into your views of Advaita.

A person that takes the teaching to instill beliefs tend to behave like a religious person who will rarely respond to the content & logic and instead call those raising logical issues just names.

As I showed earlier, you are as religious as any other religious person is.

Let me reiterate that I have no opinion on the teachings of Sankara or Brahmasutra etc because I am yet to study them. My only objections are against your words and I think they do not reflect the teaching because of the gaping holes in what you are stating.

Thatis exactly my point too. Without studying Sankara or Brahma Sutras, you have already formulated your own beliefs on what Advaita is and isn't, what dualism is and isn't. You are so set into your beliefs that, when someone, who has studied Sankara and Brahma Sutras at the feet of a Guru appears with a statement, you see that they don't reflect what your own imagination has construed as Advaita for you , you see gaping holes, and are ready to question the other -at least now do you see where this is leading to?

 

[KRN]

But having said that I truly respect your beliefs like I would of any other beliefs.

Out of friendliness let me say this and I mean no disrespect. I think like a silk worm you have built a cocoon around some ideas that you need to come out of to be truly liberated so that you can start to learn again with a fresh start. I know you dont agree.

We will discuss only topics outside of this area where logic will prevail

I have responded to you in the same jest - no hard feelings. Certainly not for my side.

Dear Sri a-TB,

The above is just my criticism of your agnostic side - perhaps I have taken a bit too much liberty in doing so. As a person I have found you most wonderful - I have always appreciated your cool, non emotional reactions even under intense provocation from others. I can only marvel at your level headedness. And on all those occasions where you used that logical side of yours in a positive manner Once again, thanks for all the support. I wish you the very best.

I will not be active in this forum for an indefinite period in future. I thank all forum members for all the good things that I learnt from them and for their suffering my posts

 

[renuka]

Wow! I didnt miss much..its the same old fighting!LOL
Anyway it is great to be back after almost 1 month break!

 

[a-TB]

Dear Sri a-TB,

I am sorry to see that you have not understood the point of my earlier message.

You stated "
To you teaching is instilling beliefs and give you the right experience. I could not disagree more with that statement. Basically that approach means two people not trained like that can never debate.

It is much like a religion. Buy into basic beliefs and then debate in some logic within that. All I can do is respect your beliefs....." - Let me call this paragraph (A).

All I did was to turn the spotlight on your queries to show you how everything you mentioned in (A) is applicable to you as well. You call "religion" as the "buying into basic beliefs and debating in some logic within that" so I was showing you how "religious" you yourself are, the way you went about your queries after buying into "basic beliefs" on Advaita, dualism etc. The reference to "fanatic" is in a very light hearted way, to make you understand this perspective, not to be taken literally as calling names etc.



A person without beliefs would not say "This is dualism". "This is not Advaita" etc. To make such comments, you must have some beliefs on what they are. Here you have "bought into your beliefs" and are so trust-worthy of your website Gurus, that you are ready to go the extent of even using them to as a base to question others! Which is what a religious fanatic would do



If you want to know what Advaita is to me, you should first set aside your present religious beliefs on what Advaita is, as taught by your website Gurus that makes you see logical fallacies anywhere and everywhere (a sure sign of a religious fundamentalist - who sees wrong in every other religion, and sees his own way alone as true). How ready are you, for unlearning your google-instilled-beliefs?



OK, saves time for me too


Your questions depend on your beliefs on what Advaita is. You see contradictions because your Website Gurus have not done their teaching job properly. The onus is on you to first verify whether you got the right idea about Advaita and dualism, before starting to argue with others that their statements do not fit into your views of Advaita.



As I showed earlier, you are as religious as any other religious person is.



Thatis exactly my point too. Without studying Sankara or Brahma Sutras, you have already formulated your own beliefs on what Advaita is and isn't, what dualism is and isn't. You are so set into your beliefs that, when someone, who has studied Sankara and Brahma Sutras at the feet of a Guru appears with a statement, you see that they don't reflect what your own imagination has construed as Advaita for you , you see gaping holes, and are ready to question the other -at least now do you see where this is leading to?

Dear Mr KRN,

When I say what you described is dualism, I am giving you my reasons and not stating a belief. You are welcome to refute my reasons but you did not get to the heart of any of the issues raised. If it was beliefs I would not have given you reasons and would have stated some mysterious experience. I know my questions shake the foundations of your beliefs

I have no beliefs in this topic area because I do not know much to form a belief. You have to listen to what I have said and not imagine what is not said.

If I question you like this, do you really think I will believe something written in a website?? My experience thus far is that there is mostly wrong information in the web. Most people who call themselves teachers in Youtube videos are not really all that knowledgeable.

Even in this forum except for very few, most just BS their way instead of admitting they do not know when it comes to this topic area. With some people I do not even bother to challenge their logic. It is only out of respect for your extensive background I was interested in learning and yes challenging your understanding.

What I look for is internal consistency, and statements that do not contradict what is known. If there is contradiction I can be open if the person has a reasonable explanation. When the depth is lacking they avoid debates and use diversionary tactics just to appear to win.

You have spent lot of time in this area from your own statements. I believe that . But I am not sure if you have been able to question your own understanding. By raising questions I hope it is helpful to you though you dont have to admit here.

About this dualism and advita I asked Mr tks also. In Post 40 of Bhaja Govindam thread he has provided his response. For a direct question I expect a direct answer and not about all the training one has gone into. That is religion-speak in my world.

I wish you all the best. I will get my answers some day and will share with you when you are ready for truth

 

[a-TB]

Dear Sri a-TB,

The above is just my criticism of your agnostic side - perhaps I have taken a bit too much liberty in doing so. As a person I have found you most wonderful - I have always appreciated your cool, non emotional reactions even under intense provocation from others. I can only marvel at your level headedness. And on all those occasions where you used that logical side of yours in a positive manner Once again, thanks for all the support. I wish you the very best.

I will not be active in this forum for an indefinite period in future. I thank all forum members for all the good things that I learnt from them and for their suffering my posts

I truly appreciate your critique and I take them as well intentioned. I consider you an online friend. Please do come back to the forum after taking a break. You are a great value to the forum community and have a lot to share. All the best.

You and I have shown people how respectful debates can be even while adding some masala here and there that makes the debate interesting. This cannot be understood by those involved in mainly food fights in the General section.

Wish you all the best in your quest.

 

[KRN]

When I say what you described is dualism, I am giving you my reasons and not stating a belief. You are welcome to refute my reasons but you did not get to the heart of any of the issues raised. If it was beliefs I would not have given you reasons and would have stated some mysterious experience.

Dear Sir,
You cannot formulate reasons without facts or beliefs - in this case, a belief on what "dualism" means, and what "advaita" means. Since you have stated your ignorance of the original texts covering these philosophies, I have been repeatedly asking you to reexamine your beliefs on these terminologies first, by referring to their original texts, like the works of Sankara in the case of Advaita, because your queries lead me to the conclusion that you were the victim of duplicity by the owners of certain websites, which parade advaita as dualism and vice versa. Instead of doing that, what you have been doing here, is to blindly refute, without any reason whatsoever, even a very straightforward translation of a Sanskrit term "Krama mukti" into English, made by very respected scholars of the tradition like the Ramakrishna Math.

In any case, how you are going to resolve your misconceptions, is your own headache, not mine.

As I have explained many times already, this concept of Staged Evolution is very much part of Sankara Philosophy. I have also provided direct quotations and other references in the below thread, to illustrate this.

Staged Evolution

There was a reference to me and my posts in an earlier discussion thread (at the fag end) in this forum, which however has been closed since then. As I was not frequenting this forum at that time, I happened to notice the reference to me only now. Here will respond to some of the points...

www.tamilbrahmins.com

I could go further on this, but that would require sharing more information. The scriptures prohibit the sharing of such information with people exhibiting certain types of behaviour. Hence I am not going to share any more information on this topic with you.