6 Answers

  1. In my down-to-earth view, any philosophy cannot be the truth, it is only an interpretation of it. As” and these, “140 characters, can not” contain the whole essence, the movement of truth.

  2. There is no one who can answer this question )) Ask yourself ” Who is interested in the question :is Advaita Vedanta true or not?” When you can find someone who is interested, then you will know)))And so…modern scientific knowledge does not contradict Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta becomes true only when you have this experience, and while it is not there, it is just a collection of different words

  3. To understand the very meaning of Advaita Vedanta one should read authoritative texts such asYoga Vasistha also needs to be understood that without bhakti (devotion or love), Advaita does not work. Because Bhakti is the Mother of Advaita. Only through devotion to the instructions of a bona fide teacher can one understand the meaning of non-duality.

  4. Advaita shows one half of reality: the qualitative identity of the soul and God.�
    But if we leave only the vision of identity, without pointing out the quantitative differences (differences in the” weight categories ” of the jiva and God), then it turns out that there is no difference between the jiva and God, that everything is Brahman, etc. This is already called the Mayavada philosophy, which is essentially a life-denying philosophy of spiritual suicide. Unfortunately, this philosophy of Advaita in the presentation of Shankaracharya is considered by Westerners to be the main doctrine of Hinduism, although this is absolutely not the case. Past acaryas such as Madhva and Ramanuja shattered the Shankara philosophy and showed, on the basis of the Vedas, that the jiva is qualitatively one with God, but quantitatively different from Him. Thus, the goal of life is not the impersonal merging of the soul with God, but their love union.

    Understanding God in His impersonal aspect is only the first step in understanding God. This can be compared to the fact that you see the possessions of some rich and important person, feel his influence, but you are not familiar with him as a person. The owner exists independently of his farm, although his farm and property are manifestations of his energy. In the same way, God exists separately, as a Person, despite the fact that everything that exists is His manifestation. If God were devoid of personality, it would mean that the source is inferior to its manifestations. But this is not possible. The cause is by definition superior to the effect, and in no way inferior to it. We are individuals only because the Lord is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

  5. The truth is that karma-cola is a good tool for brainwashing bored Europeans. I will express my point of view: you have every right not to share it and, moreover, to join the ranks of marginals, who are usually defined as NSD. As for many adequate Europeans, for me personally (a person and a person; Hinduism denies personality), Hinduism in any of its manifestations is a lie. It is enough just to pay attention to the theses of this teaching in order to understand its absurdity, well, at least this “Brahman is real, the world is unreal”. The existence of the deity is recognized (which cannot be proved empirically), and its creative activity( creation), that is, the material world, is denied, which, which is actually amenable to study and is palpable by our senses, that is, our world is objectively real. I would recommend that before studying religious philosophy (if it is really interesting and exciting for you to study it), you should generally master a university course in logic and scientific analysis. Even if you think in purely religious paradigms, it is obvious that someone has a problem with the sense of reality. Well, OK, you can put everything down to translation problems (a typical argument of an enlightened stoner who smoked something completely wrong) from Sanskrit to European languages and other tryomudiya. What makes you think that you will understand the teaching better than me, come on, I, a small insignificant figure, the same guru of the local spill from the kubla of neo-Hinduism? Yes, trouble! The Vedanta teaching is very big in principle. I do not deny that some particular elements of this teaching may be true, interesting, useful, etc., but all these elements can obviously be found in European thought / philosophy/worldview. European culture, and therefore thought, is self-sufficient, which is why the world has become Eurocentric. Today's European “secular humanism” faith without religion, which I also criticize, is immeasurably closer to the Truth than Indian stories for the zazhravshih pseudo-intellectuals of Europe. Today's European faith without religion (when a person who believes with grief in half is probably a Christian, but even if he is not a Christian, calls himself an atheist) gives much more guarantees of an objective scientific knowledge of reality, of himself, of a decent human life and, in the end, of the search for the meaning of life. I have all. Yes, my answer is not tolerant, but it is correct in the context of today's realities in our country in particular and in Europe as a whole. And what did you expect, let's turn on the BG, sit all together in the lotus and meditate? And here it is not!

    1. I do not know what truth is. And no one seems to know. Either because of the vagueness of this concept, or because of the real impossibility for the human mind to know something as objectively as possible, without distortion. Perhaps we are like fish in an aquarium. The territory of the aquarium is a knowable part of being, everything else outside the “aquarium” is something with which we can almost not interact and therefore we know only with distortions, indirectly. The word “truth” is generally an abstraction like numbers. Here there are two apples, they exist materially, but what exactly is the number 2 — no one will provide you with a material example, because this is just an idea. It's the same here.

    2. Advaita Vedanta philosophy has its place among hundreds of similar and dissimilar ones. That is, it is some kind of narrow view of the world, highlighting one thing as super-valuable and removing from attention everything else that was considered secondary.

    These two facts do not bring us or this philosophy any closer to the truth. It seems to me that it is worth giving up its search and just learn. We need to accept the complexity of our reality and the fact that it does not want to adapt to our primitive categories and conclusions.

Leave a Reply