It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

1 - If I create something then it's not me.

This is from your personal individual I/me perception/point of view, which you seem to dismiss to begin with.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

2 - If Brahman is all there ever was, all there is and all there will ever be what is there to create?

I will ask again, since you did not answer the simple question...Whom or what created all the creation processes of nature, like birth, if it was not brahman? Do you think all the process of nature came into being out of thin air, like magic?

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

3 - If Brahman creates something which then becomes part of Brahman then Brahman is not eternal and unchanging because the act of creation changed Brahman

. This makes no sense at all. How can this be true when brahman is everything and everything is brahman? It can't be true and is separating brahman from brahman

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

4 - Similarly Brahman cannot be limitless because the act of creation just added something to Brahman so It had to have had some limitation in order for something to be created and added to It.

This is another excuse that makes no sense. Again, How can any of this be true, when brahman is everything and everything is brahman? It can't be true and is separating brahman from brahman. It is silly and makes no sense to separate brahman in the name of oneness. It appears/seems like you are stuck on the mental concept of duality vs non-duality. The duality vs non-duality mindset is duality (not oneness) and is false (mithya) because duality and non-duality are the one and the same brahman.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Appearance is precisely the right word and from the Advaita non-dual perspective it's the technically correct way to describe Maya/objective reality.

Rope-Snake Analogy Using Logic: How Falsehood Becomes Truth

https://www.yesvedanta.com/rope-snak...danta-analogy/

A teaser...

OBSERVATION 1:

The rope is there: First of all, there is a rope there. If there is no rope there to begin with, the snake would not even appear. The existence of the rope is absolutely necessary for the appearance of the snake.

You misunderstand both maya and the rope/snake analogy so they fit your personal individual beliefs. A rope and a snake are 2 comepletly different physical things, it is your imaginative mind that thinks a rope and a snake are one and the same. Mistake a venomous snake to be a rope and grab the venomous snake, the poisonous snake will bite you. I do not need to point out the consequence of grabbing a poisonous snake that you mistakingly percieve as a rope, do I?

The rope/snake analogy has nothing to do with appearance, and has to do with perception and relates to the mental and emotionally conditioned mind.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Applying analysis to Advaita Vedanta:

Brahman IS.

That is why the world gets to appear. It's why any experience is possible.

Without the paper, can there be a world of words? No.

Similarly, the world being mithyā (dependent-reality), it depends on the substratum (Brahman) for it's appearance. While Brahman is independent of the world.

You are either confused or you talk out of your a.s.s because you think/believe that the physical world is maya, and you think maya means an illusion/not real, do you not? The world does not appear out of thin air, like magic, there are processes of nature involved, which brahman created.

Do you think mother nature is separate from brahman or is mother nature and brahman one and the same? Did you ever think about it? Another way to think about it is that the physical universe/world/(objective) reality is mother nature, and mother nature is one and the same as brahman/ultimate reality, it is your mind that thinks/believes that mother nature thus brahman is maya/an illusion, which to me is just plain silly ignorance, and is not oneness.

Edit: saying Brahman is independent of the world, like you did above, is separating oneness/brahman away from the world and separating oneness, in any way, shape or form is not oneness. This separation of oneness is false (mithya) and is maya (ignorance), This maya (ignorance) causes all suffering. You keep using the meaning of the words mithya and maya out of context, and you separating oneness in the name of oneness/non-duality is proof of that!

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Yes, What makes it even worse is people who deny or ignore that it is their personal point of view or self awareness. Like it's consciousness's point of view.

This is a common problem as I see it when peeps renounce their self identity or refer to it as illusory or not real but then swap it for consciousness which is what? More real and what is consciousness exactly? It's certainly something that isn't realised as that and whom would realise consciousness, consciousness itself?

It's just mindful riddles upon riddles that are simply poetic that have no foundation and the goal posts often move time and time again .

They continue to move because there isn't a foundation to support what is suggested.


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

This is from your personal individual I/me perception/point of view, which you seem to dismiss to begin with.

I will ask again, since you did not answer the simple question...Whom or what created all the creation processes of nature, like birth, if it was not brahman? Do you think all the process of nature came into being out of thin air, like magic?

Spiritual notions regarding creation of worlds and appearances are rife and again without any foundation.

What you hear often is that appearances arise out of consciousness and again that reflects an illusory or dreamy world based upon that notion .

I have asked the question also to multiple peeps about how does the the appearance of your wife, or husband or children simply arise out of consciousness.

They can't and don't answer because their foundation is somewhat poetic and seriously lacks honesty.

For the science buffs they maybe able to explain the creation of planets, so it's not as if planet earth just arose in an instant and then the dinosaurs started to simply appear out from thin air

Peeps can discuss time being illusory all day long (excuse the pun) but Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty wasn't around when the dinosaurs roamed the earth lol ..



x daz x

Originally Posted by MikeS80

This is from your personal individual I/me perception/point of view, which you seem to dismiss to begin with.

I will ask again, since you did not answer the simple question...Whom or what created all the creation processes of nature, like birth, if it was not brahman? Do you think all the process of nature came into being out of thin air, like magic?

. This makes no sense at all. How can this be true when brahman is everything and everything is brahman? It can't be true and is separating brahman from brahman

This is another excuse that makes no sense. Again, How can any of this be true, when brahman is everything and everything is brahman? It can't be true and is separating brahman from brahman. It is silly and makes no sense to separate brahman in the name of oneness. It appears/seems like you are stuck on the mental concept of duality vs non-duality. The duality vs non-duality mindset is duality (not oneness) and is false (mithya) because duality and non-duality are the one and the same brahman.

Let's try this one more time.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

1 - If I create something then it's not me.

2 - If Brahman is all there ever was, all there is and all there will ever be what is there to create?

3 - If Brahman creates something which then becomes part of Brahman then Brahman is not eternal and unchanging because the act of creation changed Brahman.

4 - Similarly Brahman cannot be limitless because the act of creation just added something to Brahman so It had to have had some limitation in order for something to be created and added to It.

If Brahman is One without a second, Unchanging and Limitless then creation negates all of that. Why?

If the creation is separate there's no longer One.

If the creation is merged back into Brahman then Brahman is changed.

If the creation was from a substance other than Brahman then Brahman wasn't limitless.

If the creation was a piece of Brahman then the act of creation changed Brahman as that piece is no longer Creator but created. Even if it's then merged back into Brahman for at least a time Brahman changed (Brahman minus creation) and then changed again (Brahman plus creation).

Creation and destruction, birth and death, any change is only apparent (mithyA), not absolute, and only due to ignorance (Maya). It's seeing the rope as a snake. It's all an appearance of Brahman but in truth nothing different than or separate from Brahman.

Apparent reality is dependent on Absolute reality but Absolute reality is not dependent on apparent reality. Absolute reality has intrinsic existence whereas apparent reality only has extrinsic existence.

Ignorance is due to superimposition of the apparent upon the Absolute. So long as one identifies as mind-body one is stuck in a state of superimposition.

I'm not saying you have to subscribe to this. What I am saying is this is classic and unqualified non-dualism. Bringing a Creator and creation into the picture is more in line with Monotheism. It's certainly not non-dualism.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Spiritual notions regarding creation of worlds and appearances are rife and again without any foundation.

What you hear often is that appearances arise out of consciousness and again that reflects an illusory or dreamy world based upon that notion .

I have asked the question also to multiple peeps about how does the the appearance of your wife, or husband or children simply arise out of consciousness.

They can't and don't answer because their foundation is somewhat poetic and seriously lacks honesty.

For the science buffs they maybe able to explain the creation of planets, so it's not as if planet earth just arose in an instant and then the dinosaurs started to simply appear out from thin air

Peeps can discuss time being illusory all day long (excuse the pun) but Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty wasn't around when the dinosaurs roamed the earth lol ..



x daz x

By creation in my posts, I simply mean physical existence/reality. Physical existence/reality does not just appear out of thin air.

On one hand, time is real to all living things, because time causes all living things to age, and aging is a natural process like birth and death are natural processes. On the other hand, time is an illusion, in the context/sense of the spiritual, which is beyond time.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Let's try this one more time.



If Brahman is One without a second, Unchanging and Limitless then creation negates all of that. Why?

If the creation is separate there's no longer One.

If the creation is merged back into Brahman then Brahman is changed.

If the creation was from a substance other than Brahman then Brahman wasn't limitless.

If the creation was a piece of Brahman then the act of creation changed Brahman as that piece is no longer Creator but created. Even if it's then merged back into Brahman for at least a time Brahman changed (Brahman minus creation) and then changed again (Brahman plus creation).

Creation and destruction, birth and death, any change is only apparent (mithyA), not absolute, and only due to ignorance (Maya). It's seeing the rope as a snake. It's all an appearance of Brahman but in truth nothing different than or separate from Brahman.

Apparent reality is dependent on Absolute reality but Absolute reality is not dependent on apparent reality. Absolute reality has intrinsic existence whereas apparent reality only has extrinsic existence.

Ignorance is due to superimposition of the apparent upon the Absolute. So long as one identifies as mind-body one is stuck in a state of superimposition.

I'm not saying you have to subscribe to this. What I am saying is this is classic and unqualified non-dualism. Bringing a Creator and creation into the picture is more in line with Monotheism. It's certainly not non-dualism.

You still dodged the question I asked you. Since you dodged the question, I will assume that you believe all the processes of nature ie birth, was not created by brahman, and just appeared out of thin air.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superimpose
superimpose: to place or lay over or above something
How exactly is laying the physical universe on top of brahman a bad or negative thing, in the context of oneness/wholeness? It is not a bad or negative thing at all! There is your pessimistic/negative mindset again.

Superimpose does not mean some one thinks the physical universe is above/better than brahman/ultimate reality. I have even said quite clearly that the physical universe and ultimate reality/brahman are equal, relative, and are one and the same (not separate from each other). You keep insisting that I said the contrary.

Monotheism is the belief that there is only one god, brahman is only one god, is it not?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

You still dodged the question I asked you. Since you dodged the question, I will assume that you believe all the processes of nature ie birth, was not created by brahman, and just appeared out of thin air.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superimpose
superimpose: to place or lay over or above something
How exactly is laying the physical universe on top of brahman a bad or negative thing, in the context of oneness/wholeness? It is not a bad or negative thing at all! There is your pessimistic/negative mindset again.

Superimpose does not mean some one thinks the physical universe is above/better than brahman/ultimate reality. I have even said quite clearly that the physical universe and ultimate reality/brahman are equal, relative, and are one and the same (not separate from each other). You keep insisting that I said the contrary.

Monotheism is the belief that there is only one god, brahman is only one god, is it not?

Non-dualism is not monotheism. It's monism and in monism there is no God, creation, destruction, birth or death, ultimately speaking. There is however superimposition of the relative and Absolute and the entire purpose of the teachings and practices is desuperimposition of the superimposition. Superimposition is ignorance, otherwise known as Maya and desuperimposition is knowledge of the type that pierces the veil of Maya, otherwise known as Self-realization.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Non-dualism is not monotheism. It's monism and in monism there is no God, creation, destruction, birth or death, ultimately speaking. There is however superimposition of the relative and Absolute and the entire purpose of the teachings and practices is desuperimposition of the superimposition. Superimposition is ignorance, otherwise known as Maya and desuperimposition is knowledge of the type that pierces the veil of Maya, otherwise known as Self-realization.

That is not what monism is.

You have a habit of giving words the opposite definition of what they mean:

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_monism.html
"Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and that a unified set of laws underlie all of nature. The universe, at the deepest level of analysis, is then one thing or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff. It sets itself in contrast to Dualism". The "unified set of laws underlie all of nature" in the above quote is and includes brahman.

Again, you made up your own definition/meaning for the word superimposition, thus your talk about superimposition, and maya is irrelevant, negated, null and voided.

Edit: brahman is considered to be god in advaita vedanta:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/l...god/774029001/
"In Vedanta (one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy), God is referred to as “Brahman,” and the word “Brahman” means vast or unlimited.

So, Brahman is not limited by time, which means it is eternal. It is not limited by space, which means it is everywhere. And it is not limited by name or form, which means anything and everything is Brahman."

Advaita vedanta is both monotheism and monism.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

That is not what monism is.

You have a habit of giving words the opposite definition of what they mean:

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_monism.html
"Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and that a unified set of laws underlie all of nature. The universe, at the deepest level of analysis, is then one thing or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff. It sets itself in contrast to Dualism". The "unified set of laws underlie all of nature" in the above quote is and includes brahman.

Again, you made up your own definition/meaning for the word superimposition, thus your talk about superimposition, and maya is irrelevant, negated, null and voided.

Edit: brahman is considered to be god in advaita vedanta:

https://www.courierpress.com/story/l...god/774029001/
"In Vedanta (one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy), God is referred to as “Brahman,” and the word “Brahman” means vast or unlimited.

So, Brahman is not limited by time, which means it is eternal. It is not limited by space, which means it is everywhere. And it is not limited by name or form, which means anything and everything is Brahman."

Advaita vedanta is both monotheism and monism.

I was never born and I will never die. There was never a time when I wasn't and there'll never be a time when I won't be. I was never created and will never be destroyed. There is only Me, always has been and always will be and without a second. I am Atman which means I am Brahman also referred to as SatChitAnanda or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

Of course I'm not referring to "I" as in JASG, but "I" as the Ineffable, and I "know" It as That which is ever-present, ever unchanging, Self-evident and ever-revealing at the deepest core of being and That is Consciousness Itself. That's how I "know" my true nature. That Thou Art.

In essence that's non-dual Vedanta, so ultimately there's no creator God, no creation, no destruction, no birth, no death.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I was never born and I will never die. There was never a time when I wasn't and there'll never be a time when I won't be. I was never created and will never be destroyed. There is only Me, always has been and always will be and without a second. I am Atman which means I am Brahman also referred to as SatChitAnanda or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

Of course I'm not referring to "I" as in JASG, but "I" as the Ineffable, and I "know" It as That which is ever-present, ever unchanging, Self-evident and ever-revealing at the deepest core of being and That is Consciousness Itself. That's how I "know" my true nature. That Thou Art.

In essence that's non-dual Vedanta, so ultimately there's no creator God, no creation, no destruction, no birth, no death.

I do not buy it. I is I, no matter how you try to spin your I. You are just trying to be poetic. It is your JASG I that make up/spin definitions/meanings for words so that said words falsely benefit you.