Originally posted by no1marauder
Again, Brahman is not a "Being Supreme" nor is the "the universe created by a Supreme Being" in my view. Brahman is everything, we are part of everything and we perceive the universe in a certain way because of our apparent nature.

I hadn't heard of Stetham before today so I cannot comment on his views without further study. They seem "interesting' but the Buddhist idea that ultimately nothing exists isn't very appealing to me.

And why should we accept that "Brahman is everything" instead of asserting that Universe is everything?

By the way, the nihilistic idea that "nothing exists" is not Buddhist😵

Originally posted by black beetle
And why should we accept that "Brahman is everything" instead of asserting that Universe is everything?

By the way, the nihilistic idea that "nothing exists" is not Buddhist😵

Because the universe isn't real.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of the "void" in Buddhism. Another thing to research.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because the universe isn't real.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of the "void" in Buddhism. Another thing to research.

You should study Smullyan instead.

There is something instead of nothing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because the universe isn't real.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of the "void" in Buddhism. Another thing to research.

The Buddhist approach is that the universe is real/ existent but lacks of inherent existence -the universe is empty of inherent existence, that is. The universe is an illusion (Maya, The Phenomenal World, The Floating World) that must be taken seriously😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because the universe isn't real.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of the "void" in Buddhism. Another thing to research.

If Brahman's manifestation isn't real, it follows that Brahman is an illusion too😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
By logical deduction and as a best hypothesis that fits the facts.

I'm still organizing my thoughts as far as posting a follow up supporting argument going from QM to AV though the basic gist should be rather apparent. To start with, QM and the research emanating from it have shown that the universe isn't real in the classical sense; it does not consi ...[text shortened]... forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

More later.

OK, I understand your way over here is Advaita Vedanta, so probably you study Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy;
I can easily support your thesis on the necessity of consciousness in the universe and how the differ scientific finds and evidence support for a holistic nondualist perspective, so over here we agree since to me too this is the case. However methinks the Brahman thingy is not tenable, so kindly please help me to understand your specific evaluation of the mind as regards this matter; whenever you 'll be a bit time richer than now, kindly please proceed with your philosophy and explain your logical deduction over your hypothesis that Brahman is existent;

Namaste
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If Brahman's manifestation isn't real, it follows that Brahman is an illusion too😵

No it doesn't. Brahman is consciousness and we know that consciousness is real even if the physical nature of the universe is not.

We are left with the problem of how the universe came into [apparent] being in the first place. This cannot be resolved by a resort to human consciousness; our evidence indicates that the universe existed before there was human consciousness. So a pre-existing consciousness is logically required.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No it doesn't. Brahman is consciousness and we know that consciousness is real even if the physical nature of the universe is not.

We are left with the problem of how the universe came into [apparent] being in the first place. This cannot be resolved by a resort to human consciousness; our evidence indicates that the universe existed before there was human consciousness. So a pre-existing consciousness is logically required.

How did you get to know that Brahmin is existent, that Brahmin is consciousness and that the physical nature of the universe is unreal?

How the universe came into apparent being? I have handy a theory or two, but Brahman's consiousness is as much involved in them as is the consiousness of the Christian God or of Zeus or Thor;

Our evidence indicates that the universe existed before there was human consciousness, yes. However a pre-existing non-manifested consciousness whose manifestation is our multileveled Kosmos is not logically required, as it is not logically required a pre-existing supernatural being that created Kosmos
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
How did you get to know that Brahmin is existent, that Brahmin is consciousness and that the physical nature of the universe is unreal?

How the universe came into apparent being? I have handy a theory or two, but Brahman's consiousness is as much involved in them as is the consiousness of the Christian God or of Zeus or Thor;

Our evidence indicate ...[text shortened]... uired, as it is not logically required a pre-existing supernatural being that created Kosmos
😵

Are you going to persist in labelling Brahman as a God and comparing him to other claimed Gods?

If so, then you are making a definitional error. There is no such thing as Brahman's consciousness nor is Brahman a pre-existing supernatural being.

EDIT: Brahman is not conscious; Brahman is consciousness. Brahman does not exist; Brahman is existence.

Christopher Isherwood, Introduction to Vedanta for the Modern Man

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you going to persist in labelling Brahman as a God and comparing him to other claimed Gods?

If so, then you are making a definitional error. There is no such thing as Brahman's consciousness nor is Brahman a pre-existing supernatural being.

EDIT: Brahman is not conscious; Brahman is consciousness. Brahman does not exist; Brahman is existence.

Christopher Isherwood, Introduction to Vedanta for the Modern Man

Following blindly his religious dogma, Isherwood argues there is a single, “one without a second” that is, reality called the Brahman or the Atman; he does not explain how and by what means he ends up knowing such a thing.

He argues that nothing else is real but Brahman or the Atman; he does not explain how and by what means he ends up knowing such a thing.

He argues that Brahman is the name given to the reality in its universal aspect; he does not explain why he feels forced to replace the holistic existence of the universe with the concept of Brahman, whilst unable he remains to prove the existence of Brahman. Any theist is free to believe that “existence, a single, one without a second, reality is the Tetragrammaton, Thor, Zeus, Ein Sof Aur” and whatever, but I am not supposed to take this belief seriously.

He considers Atman as the “innermost Self of any particular creature or object” and argues that Atman and Brahman are one and the same Reality; he gives neither the slightest proof that the so called “innermost Self of any particular creature or object” is existent, nor he explains how did he end up with the conclusion that Atman and Brahman are one and the same reality.

In order to proceed, methinks you need at first to back up in full your ontological philosophy, then to show that your ontological conclusions hold, and finally to back up your philosophy with accurate specific scientific finds and evidence
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Following blindly his religious dogma, Isherwood argues there is a single, “one without a second” that is, reality called the Brahman or the Atman; he does not explain how and by what means he ends up knowing such a thing.

He argues that nothing else is real but Brahman or the Atman; he does not explain how and by what means he ends up knowing such a ...[text shortened]... and finally to back up your philosophy with accurate specific scientific finds and evidence
😵

BB: Any theist ......................................................

🙄

You persist in this error for some unfathomable reason. Isherwood is not a theist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BB: Any theist ......................................................

🙄

You persist in this error for some unfathomable reason. Isherwood is not a theist.

Funny; in fact, as a branch of Smartism, Shankara’s system is well known amongst else for the establishment of the worship of various deities, since all are different manifestations of the one Brahman and therefore one could worship either Vishnu, or Siva, or Durga, or Surya or Ganesa as one's istadevata;

Anyway, I asked you those specific questions simply arguing that, amongst else, any theist can claim perfectly well too the same qualities as Brahman's over her deity of choice; I 'll wait for you to answer them whenever you could
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Funny; in fact, as a branch of Smartism, Shankara’s system is well known amongst else for the establishment of the worship of various deities, since all are different manifestations of the one Brahman and therefore one could worship either Vishnu, or Siva, or Durga, or Surya or Ganesa as one's istadevata;

Anyway, I asked you those specific questions ...[text shortened]... as Brahman's over her deity of choice; I 'll wait for you to answer them whenever you could
😵

Anyway, I asked you those specific questions simply arguing that, amongst else, any theist can claim perfectly well too the same qualities as Brahman's over her deity of choice;

I think that that would be quite hard for a Christian. They'll claim that God is everywhere and in everything, but they wouldn't claim that God is everything. For one thing they have an explanation of evil in terms of the rebellion of Lucifer, so that an extreme monist position such as the one #1 seems to be advocating isn't available to them as it would entail the Devil as an aspect of God.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Anyway, I asked you those specific questions simply arguing that, amongst else, any theist can claim perfectly well too the same qualities as Brahman's over her deity of choice;

I think that that would be quite hard for a Christian. They'll claim that God is everywhere and in everything, but they wouldn't claim that God is ...[text shortened]... seems to be advocating isn't available to them as it would entail the Devil as an aspect of God.

I have the feeling that a Christian does not face such a problem, for Christianity is pure dualism (the Creator is by some specific means enveloped within the essence of each single one of His creatures, whilst each creation is created solely thanks to the will and the power of the Creator).
Also, to a Christian, Lucifer is simply a creation of the Creator; and it is considered that Lucifer ended up "evil" solely because this is where his free will drove him😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
EDIT: Brahman is not conscious; Brahman is consciousness. Brahman does not exist; Brahman is existence.

That doesn't add up. For there to be consciousness, there must be someone to be conscious.