Indian Philosophy in a nutshell?

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

Classical Brahmanism (if eastern religion means such) requires the right birth, right cast, at first place. If one isn't a "child of God", si.ilar with Jewish Brahmans, one is far of of the "auspicious clan". So pretty nonsensical to grasp it from outwardly as it comes. Aside that it's wrong grasped.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Hinduism, Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्; IAST: Brahman) connotes the highest universal principle, the Ultimate Reality of the universe.
...
In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the non-physical, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.
Brahman - Wikipedia

..so I think that it is you who needs to "remove the specs".

Brahman sure is the ultimate reality, it is the efficient, eternal, infinite and final cause of all that exists. It always changes and that attribute is changeless. I do not dispute that.
But what exactly is that? It is the stuff of the universe. Of that alone, all things in the universe are made up of, whether galaxies, balck-holes, stars, planets, air, water, stones, sand, vegetation, animals or humans.
Physical, non-physical, bliss, consciousness - all that is debatable.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Numbered Discourses 10.78 Aṅguttara Nikāya 10.78 8. If You Want 8. Ākaṅkhavagga Jains Niganthasutta

I am absolutely sure that Gautama never said that. My Buddha was never petty. It must be an interpolation of later times by Bhikkhus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Classical Brahmanism (if eastern religion means such) requires the right birth, right cast, at first place. If one isn't a "child of God", si.ilar with Jewish Brahmans, one is far of of the "auspicious clan". So pretty nonsensical to grasp it from outwardly as it comes. Aside that it's wrong grasped.

Yaksha - Yudhishthira Questions and answers:

"Nahusha: Who is a brahman?

Yudhisthira: One who posses the qualities of truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, mercy, and who observes the duties of the brahmans should be considered to be a brahman.

Nahusha: These qualities could be conceivably found in a sudra also.

Yudhisthira: If these qualities are found in a sudra, then he should be considered to be a brahman. It is the actual possession of these qualities that make a person a brahman and the lack of them makes the person a sudra."

https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/bad96g/caste_explained_by_yudhisthira_in_mahabharatas

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why you know I respect your personal views, Aup, this really isn't helpful for someone who wants to understand the basics of Hindu philosophy.

Hindu philosophy is many-faceted. This must be understood. What I write is my view of 'Advaita'. It does not invalidate views of others.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In vyavaharika (transactional reality), yes. But this isn't what the FB reel is discussing here, as vyavaharika is an appearance in consciousness.

True. FB reel? I did not get it. What is that?

Oh, I get it now - Facebook. I do not use these. FB, blogs, or even those claim to explain Hinduism may say whatever they want.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They're not, but calling "God consciousness" a temporary phenomenon create an appearance that they might be.

I know you tend not to watch videos due hearing difficulties, but might be helpful to at least attempt do so here, because that is essentially the foundation of the topic here.

I neither accept the existence of God nor of any 'God-consciousness'. I have simple views and I am a strong atheist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Hindu philosophy is many-faceted. This must be understood.

Of course. There are a great many philosophies/darsanas within Hinduism.

I neither accept the existence of God nor of any 'God-consciousness'. I have simple views and I am a strong atheist.

Understood. However, in a thread that offers a link to a general overview of Indian philosophy, I don't find it helpful for those who seek to learn more about the Indian view of consciousness as God/Brahman to refute it by propagating the views of your own specific darsana. I think you can agree that not all or even the majority of Indians or Hindus are atheists.

What I write is my view of 'Advaita'. It does not invalidate views of others.

Specifically Nasadiya Advaita, which I believe you called it somewhere here or there, which is a different flavor of Advaita than what is conventionally taught (Advaita Vedanta).

Again, the OP is Indian philosophy in a nutshell. As you know, I identify with the Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy, but have quite purposefully not mentioned it here until now; my statements in this thread about Indian philosophy have been quite general in nature.

True. FB reel? I did not get it. What is that?

Oh, I get it now - Facebook. I do not use these. FB, blogs, or even those claim to explain Hinduism may say whatever they want.

It is the link in the OP, which is the foundation of the discussion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Brahman sure is the ultimate reality, it is the efficient, eternal, infinite and final cause of all that exists. It always changes and that attribute is changeless. I do not dispute that.
But what exactly is that? It is the stuff of the universe. Of that alone, all things in the universe are made up of, whether galaxies, balck-holes, stars, planets, air, water, stones, sand, vegetation, animals or humans.
Physical, non-physical, bliss, consciousness - all that is debatable.

Yes .. the "stuff" of the universe..
Our disagreement is about the properties of that "stuff".
You assume it is entirely physical, which conflicts with major schools of Hindu philosophy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You assume it is entirely physical, which conflicts with major schools of Hindu philosophy.

I said physical and non-physical are debatable. What is energy as in a particle or a wave? Physical or non-physical? I do not accept this distinction. Things can be physical and at the same time, non-physical.