A question...

[ale84]

I've been reading for a while the ISKCON philosophy about the jivas originally existing in the spiritual world and the creation of the material universe in order to please the selfish desire of some insubordinate jivas. This theory makes sense to me, that's why I identify myself more with Vishishtadvaita.
Now when it comes to Advaita ¿what's the explanation for the origin of samsara?
Is it just God encapsulating Himself in multiple physical bodies in order to experience ignorance and suffering? It doesn't really makes much sense to me... or maybe i'm not having the right point of view about this aspect in Advaita.

[Arav]

I've been reading for a while the ISKCON philosophy about the jivas originally existing in the spiritual world and the creation of the material universe in order to please the selfish desire of some insubordinate jivas. This theory makes sense to me, that's why I identify myself more with Vishishtadvaita.
Now when it comes to Advaita ¿what's the explanation for the origin of samsara?
Is it just God encapsulating Himself in multiple physical bodies in order to experience ignorance and suffering? It doesn't really makes much sense to me... or maybe i'm not having the right point of view about this aspect in Advaita.

The explanation in Advaita is Maya. Through the illusory energy of Brahman/Iśvara, this world arose and samsara was put into motion. But, many followers of Advaita come to the end conclusions of Ajati-Vada, which is, non creation. It never happened. The physical universe is real, but in a pragmatic or empirical way. When one reaches the absolute, it is seen that this never really happened. That is my understanding of Ajati Vada though, perhaps someone else can explain it better.

[ale84]

The explanation in Advaita is Maya. Through the illusory energy of Brahman/Iśvara, this world arose and samsara was put into motion. But, many followers of Advaita come to the end conclusions of Ajati-Vada, which is, non creation. It never happened. The physical universe is real, but in a pragmatic or empirical way. When one reaches the absolute, it is seen that this never really happened. That is my understanding of Ajati Vada though, perhaps someone else can explain it better.

Thanks, and what happens when you attain moksha after you die? is your individuality lost in the Brahman?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
Dear Arav & ale84,


We are considered a sadācārin¹ when a post begins with a welcome, a hello, some preamble to his/her post that is well received by our HDF members. Please consider starting off your post with a hello, or a namasté , or some salutation.

It is our custom here to do this...we ask you to join in on this custom.


iti śivaṁ

words

sadācāra - virtuous conduct , good manners , well conducted, well mannered
sad = sat - good or honest or wise or respectable people
ācāra = conduct , manner of action , behavior , good behavior , good conduct
Hence the sadācārin is one having "having pure, bright, good conduct "

[Lokavidu]

I've been reading for a while the ISKCON philosophy about the jivas originally existing in the spiritual world and the creation of the material universe in order to please the selfish desire of some insubordinate jivas. This theory makes sense to me, that's why I identify myself more with Vishishtadvaita.
Now when it comes to Advaita ¿what's the explanation for the origin of samsara?
Is it just God encapsulating Himself in multiple physical bodies in order to experience ignorance and suffering? It doesn't really makes much sense to me... or maybe i'm not having the right point of view about this aspect in Advaita.

Namaste all

this is my understanding

universe, body, mind, intellect and of course ahamkara are mithya, mithya means neither real nor unreal.

not real because they are need substance to exist, they can not exist independently, they are only names and forms ex: golden ring can not exist without gold.

not unreal because we can experience it.

so the one that is real is only the substance of all of the mithya thing above which is Brahman or (Existence-Consciousness), and that Brahman is identical with Atma (the True Self).


identification of the Atma with the ahamkara/ego and this will lead to identification to the body,mind and intellect. This identification is due to error superimposition, ex: someone wrongly conclude that the color of the crystal in front of the red cloth is red. but the truth is crystal doesn't have color quality.

this identification of Atma with the ahamkara will make someone experiencing birth and death cycle (samsara)
concluding that the universe, body, mind and intellect are real, is also caused by ignorance. in fact they are mithya only

so what is the cause of this error of superimposition?
the answer is ignorance.

when when did this ignorance begin?
the answer is: ignorance is beginningless. why is it beginningless?
do you know when is your ignorance of japanese language begin?
ignorance can not have beginning, but it can be ended by knowledge.
so ignorance is also mithya, knowledge is also mithya and of course samsara is mithya only.
maya (ignorance) is beginningless, they are not real and not unreal. so never seek where is maya,

now about the ajati vada using adhyaropa-apavada:

there are 4 step to learn about ajati vada:

first: the golden ring is the effect of the gold

second: the gold is the cause of the golden ring.

third: the weight of the golden ring, is the weight of the gold, so the ring is only name and form, mithya, only the substance is exist. I can not see the golden ring without see the gold. so there is only gold. the effect and the cause is the same. the difference is caused by ignorance.

fourth: if the effect is same with the cause, then we don't need anymore to say the gold is the cause of the golden ring. only gold exist. so gold is transcending the cause-effect relationship concept. Gold can not become gold, gold is always gold/


now apply this to universe and Brahman:

first: we learn that universe is caused by Brahman

second: we learn the nature of Brahman as existence-consciousness

third: if we look the universe, the variety of objects only differ in name and forms but they have the same nature, they are exist. Existence is the substance of earth, water, space, fire, air. their differences are mithya. and ignorance make we conclude that the differences are real. in fact, only apparently real.

fourth: if we can conclude that universe is only existence and consciousness then it mean Brahman never undergo change, from the begininngless, only existence and consciousness exist, no cause and effect relationship, they are only mithya, so there is no creation at all, how can we change the existence into something? we can not. existence will always be existence.

so no creation at all...

(note: golden ring and gold analogy has a limitation, we can objectify the gold but we can not objectify the Brahman, we can not say, "this is Brahman, here is Brahman, etc, but we can say this is gold,etc)

[smaranam]

Namaste ale

If Bramhan is the infinite ocean, the coming and going of the universe is the waves. KshaNabhangur - Momentary. The universe literally comes and goes. Its existence is not shAshvat - eternal. From the point of view of the infinite eternal timeless Absolute Truth, this wavy universe is so so transient - chanchal, shaky - asthir, hopelessly restless, that the Absolute wonders - what was that? did that even happen? excuse me? what was that again?? am I dreaming? :)

A good exercise would be to go to the beach and watch the waves at high tide.

It is like the shooting/falling star/comet/meteor - dhUmaketU. "Wait... what ... was ... that?"

om namo bhagavte vAsudevAya ~

[smaranam]

Asking the Absolute, Bramhan, why it manifests the waves is like asking you "Why do you bat your eyelids?"
"Because it is my nature - svabhAv." :dunno:
"There may be some synchonization to that in the form of guNa-karma, like your rhythmic breathing or patterned periodic batting of eyelids. Do I question you for that? Then why do you hold Me responsible for the wavy universe?" :o

[ale84]

Namaste ale

If Bramhan is the infinite ocean, the coming and going of the universe is the waves. KshaNabhangur - Momentary. The universe literally comes and goes. Its existence is not shAshvat - eternal. From the point of view of the infinite eternal timeless Absolute Truth, this wavy universe is so so transient - chanchal, shaky - asthir, hopelessly restless, that the Absolute wonders - what was that? did that even happen? excuse me? what was that again?? am I dreaming? :)

A good exercise would be to go to the beach and watch the waves at high tide.

It is like the shooting/falling star/comet/meteor - dhUmaketU. "Wait... what ... was ... that?"

om namo bhagavte vAsudevAya ~

Hello, thanks for the illustration of ocean/wave.
So, everytime a universe starts, also starts samsara... ¿why does it happen? ¿why do we suffer? ¿do we deserve this? ¿did we do something wrong in first place? ¿what is the purpose of samsara? ¿to purify ourselves?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


¿why do we suffer?
The dali lama makes it simple for me to comprehend; Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

a bit more:

Q: The universe does not seem a happy place to live in. Why is there so much suffering?

A: Śrī nisargadatta mahraj:
Pain is physical, suffering is mental. Beyond the mind there is no suffering. Pain is merely a signal that the body is in danger and requires attention.
Similarly, suffering warns us that the structure of memories and habit, which we call the person (vyakti¹) is threatened by loss or change.
Pain is essential for the survival of the body, but none compels you to suffer. Suffering is due entirely to clinging and resisting.
It is a sign of our unwillingness to move on, to flow with life. As a sane life is free of pain, so is a saintly life free from suffering.
- - - -

As I see it, when one is stainless ( nirmālya some like to say vimala meaning spotless, stainless) then there is no place for any foreign influences that cause disruption.

　
iti śivaṁ
　
1. vyakti - an individual; specific appearance , distinctness; visible appearance or manifestation , becoming evident or known or public

[smaranam]

Namaste


¿did we do something wrong in first place?
Acc. to advaita, the "we" s are "our" own creation. "We" don't really exist.

What we did wrong was, we developed vAsanA - desires and vRtti - temparaments, attitudes. Bhagvan did not do this to us :)

The vAsanA arose owing to ignorance. When unknown, it is always greener on the other side of the river. You are given the chance to go across.
However, Once bitten twice shy. You come back "home" and never say you want to go to the other side.

I like to put it like this:
You are green and green and nothing changes. Then you hear about the orange. "I want to be orange. Wouldn't it be nice to be orange?"

"Just wait till autumn My dear"

Autumn came by and the silly green one turned orange and fell off the tree.

"I wish I could fly"
Sure.
Next time, they become a bird. Didn't you just say you wanted to fly?
Then they notice the hardships of survival as a bird, and regret.


¿what is the purpose of samsara? ¿to purify ourselves?
To fulfill the desires. It is the law of karma.
Why does the apple fall? Its the law of gravity.
Once bitten, twice shy. Therefore, once here, it is to purify ourselves eventually and also realize the transcendental beauty of the Divine.

Hare KRshNa

[Necromancer]

Thanks, and what happens when you attain moksha after you die? is your individuality lost in the Brahman?Namaste.

There's an old adage that goes 'larger than life'. Some people just have a certain charisma about them that defines who/what they are.

It matters not if Moksha is attained before/after death because it is exactly the same thing.

If by 'individuality' you mean 'ego' or 'I-ness' then yes, that goes back into the Source of All Creation from whence the Jiva sprang forth (I prefer that term over 'merging into Brahman').

If by 'individuality' you mean 'personality', - we get to keep that (before death obv) but the personality undergoes modifications. You don't stop being 'who you are' you just become 'what everything else is' too.

A lot of people often say to me 'merging into nothing sounds boring'. For some ungodly reason, people like to equate the state of Samadhi with 'becoming nothing' and 'losing yourself into nothing.

Sure, nothing is there...at first, but the whole tree is within the tiny seed, or even if the seed is not present, that 'life force' needed to make that tree still is.

I tell those people there isn't a difference between 'nothing' and 'everything' when one finally arrives there...both are the same, so there's no 'both' only what IS. All we know, all we have is what's happening right now - in this split second moment.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[harih]

Namaste Smaranamji
Very good writeup. Delightful and thought provoking. Namaste Namaste to you.

[smaranam]

:) Namaste to you too
_/\_
praNAm
Hari Hari