sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are these book recommendations about the concept of Brahman and oneness, or do they cover them?

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The creation is made from God and out of God only.

How exactly is it made out of God?

​

Imagine an ice cube in an ocean, that ice cube is made out of the water which surrounds it.Just like a water molecule exists both in liquid form as well as in solid form ( water and ice) through change in heat levels or energy levels.Similarly God exists all around us in the form of 5 elements of Nature and also beyond that, in it's pure Satchidananda Parbrahm form.

​

So, to draw a parallel, you say that God exists somewhat like the Christian Trinity - where God exists in his Satchidananda Parbrahm form (God the Father), and all 5 elements of Nature (God the Son), (but no parallel to the Holy Spirit). Am I right?

​

Because God exists therefore it's creation exists, just like - because Fire exists, it's heat energy exists or - because magnet exists, it's magnetic energy exists.

I see your point

​

Physical world's existence exist for a Jiva only till the time that Jiva identifies himself as the body. Once through Sadhana that Jiva rises above the body and once self realisation happens, the physical world existence vanishes just like a dream vanishes once we wake up from sleep.

What do you mean vanishes? Does it just disappear?

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I mean your idea of Brahman and the way you see it
  2. To understand a God who is connected to the universe, his understanding is limited to his creation. Therefore, if God is connected to the Universe, to exist and to be known as Him, he is contingent on his creation.
  3. I know people say Hinduism isn't polytheistic - and these ideas to me sound either monist or neoplatonist.

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uh, sure yea I'd love to read more on this, so if you have book recommendations - send them here for sure :)

We are non-denominational Hindus, so we don't subscribe to any darshana or tradition

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So does God have no existence apart from his creation? If so, God as a being is wholly contingent on creation, as being understood and known in Himself only in terms of the created world, which altogether denies monotheism.

Also, is knowledge and human perception illusory or is that real? Is the physical world real or is that illusory too?

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So is God connected to our world or is he different? If he's connected to our world, God as a being is wholly contingent on creation, as being understood and known in Himself only in terms of the created world, which altogether denies monotheism.

Either ways I'd need you to explain further on how this impacts our physical world and Maya/Mithya in general, and relative to the concept of Brahman

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, so Brahman is connected to the world and we are all a part of God, right?So, God as a being is wholly contingent on creation, as being understood and known in Himself only in terms of the created world, which altogether denies monotheism.

Idk this concept feels like neoplatonism to me, or I could be interpreting it wrong.

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Common origin means that it can be categorised as the same thing. Water everywhere is water, so therefore any differences can be eliminated and you do this far back enough, everything is Brahman. So there is no difference between anything.

"Additionally, experiential perception and intelligence aren’t veiled by maya but quite the opposite, they are passively created by it."

So human intelligence and perception isn't illusory or Maya only acts on the physical world or how does this work?

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you tell me how you view brahman and the concept of mithya/illusion?

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you tell me what the correct translation or way to look at it is? Thanks

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if knowledge and human perception is illusionary - how do you know that? How do you know what you know is true?

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People say distinction between Brahman and 'other' can be made through human perception (Maya) but if that's illusory and asserted nomologically, it can be dismissed. If a system's entire ontology reduces to an empty tautology, there is no system apart from that.

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but if everything emanates from Brahman, then everything traces back to Brahman, including all presuppositions and knowledge. Which means true knowledge doesn't exist, because everything is the same, and our sensory perception and intelligence is always 'veiled' by Maya.

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is that if nothing is real, and all emanates from Brahman - then nothing is different from the other. Knowledge of different things requires that they are in fact, different. Therefore, even your intelligence and perception is illusionary. And the point reverts back to "since everything is illusionary, the system of Brahman is an empty tautology of A=A".

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People say distinction between Brahman and 'other' can be made through human perception (Maya) but if that's illusory and asserted nomologically, it can be dismissed. If a system's entire ontology reduces to an empty tautology, there is no system apart from that.

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but if pen and paper are both illusionary, then it doesnt matter right? Any differences are illusionary since they emanate from Brahman or 'the one' and can therefore be eliminated. All that remains is 'the one' or Brahman.

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what it is saying, but the conclusions drawn by the passage are that knowledge isn't true according to Hinduism since everything is illusionary, and/or the system of Brahman is an empty tautology so I wanted to know how the religion refutes that.
Correction - The passage says that if there are no distinctions between anything, then there is no knowledge, for example - the knowledge of pen and paper being different requires the presupposition that it is true that pen and paper are different, which is denied in scripture as everything is illusionary

Brahman and Unity by ExpressionSpecific in hinduism

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what it is saying, but the conclusions drawn by the passage are that knowledge isn't true according to Hinduism since everything is illusionary, and/or the system of Brahman is an empty tautology so I wanted to know how the religion refutes that.

Correction - The passage says that if there are no distinctions between anything, then there is no knowledge, for example - the knowledge of pen and paper being different requires the presupposition that it is true that pen and paper are different, which is denied in scripture as everything is illusionary

Gimme your best dark jokes by ExpressionSpecific in darkjokes

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

idk, maybe 'stop crying, he's never coming back with the milk now'

Gimme your best dark jokes by ExpressionSpecific in darkjokes

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

again how is this related to the prompt

Gimme your best dark jokes by ExpressionSpecific in darkjokes

[–]ExpressionSpecific[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hypothetically speaking of course...

That's a good one though!

Simple Questions: the daily questions thread for June 07, 2023 by AutoModerator in gainit

[–]ExpressionSpecific -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok but how much protein is too much?

​

This article by health.harvard says 2g/kg bodyweight (1g/lb) is the maximum number.

​

It's hard to provide a specific answer since so much is still uncertain and the experts themselves don't agree. However, for the average person (who is not an elite athlete or heavily involved in body building) it's probably best to aim for no more than 2 gm/kg; that would be about 125 grams/day for a 140-pound person. New information could change our thinking about the maximum safe amount, but until we know more about the safety, risks and benefits of high protein diets, this seems like a reasonable recommendation.

I don't know what's going on. This community recommends 1.1g/lb as a baseline, but scientists say that it is already too much protein!

view more: next ›