PDA

View Full Version : How do you view Jeeva-Brahman relationship ?



devotee
12 May 2014, 11:32 PM
Namaste,

It is has been stated in Upanishads that relationship of Jeeva and Brahman is achintyaswaroop i.e. which cannot be conceptualised in mind ... it can only be known by negation of all possible mental concepts. And still there is tendency among all of us to think of one model or the other which can closely match this relationship. I would like you all of you to guess a model which would very closely be likened to the reality. The hazard is well-known here that every model is going to fail but let's see how close we can go.

The model must pass the following tests :

a) "Brahman is One without a second" ... this must not be violated. So, there is nothing outside Brahman and there can be nothing separate from Brahman at any point of time.
b) Jeeva thinks, acts and suffers individually without affecting other Jeevas and without affecting Brahman. So, while sanctity of a) is maintained, this property of Jeeva should not become impossible in the model.
c) On Self-realisation Jeeva realises one-ness with Brahman (like mixing of water with water) and yet Bhagwad Gita and in some Upanishad Jeeva (Akshara) has been stated to be indestructible. The model should be able to explain this.

***************************

I would give a model here to start with and let see how we improve upon it or how we discard it and give a better model.

Brahman can be conceptualised as an infinite sphere (now no shape is possible without a boundary and assuming it something like matter, but this shape is safely assumed keeping it infinite) of consciousness. There are infinite points of consciousness within the whole ball of Consciousness which are non-separate from the mother ball and yet have peculiar property to think and act as individual finite conscious beings. When not having imaginative thought-waves, these point-consciousnesses don't realise any difference from Mother-Consciousness. However, when they are possessed with thought-waves, they acquire relative existence within imagined world which again is a creation of Mother Consciousness special nature of casting such a delusion with her imaginative powers.

The special nature of Mother-consciousness creating such a delusional world is the root-caused of creation of point-consciousnesses which apparently acquire relative existence seemingly separate from Mother-consciousness.

OM

hinduism♥krishna
13 May 2014, 12:50 AM
Namaste, Devotee. Nice Post!

I think the relation between Jiva and Brahma is Achintya because no one can know it. Only realized ones are able to know.

This relation itself is non existent. People who see any difference between them haven't understood the true meaning of "Ekamevadvitiya Brahma ". This Jiva itself becomes Purusha and Prakriti and by mixing them the universe appears as if it is really created. Though this universe is Asat it appears Sat. This Jiva himself is the reflection of Brahma in the Maya and Jivas essential nature is Brahman only. So Who say Jiva is suffering that person also says the reflection is suffering. No one can prove the suffering of Jiva. The Atma is always aloof from Maya . He doesn't even touch it. Only fools impose impurity of dust to the pure Sky. So this Jiva is not deluded in real sense and his unity with Brahma is always there. The false thing can not delude the real thing. People see difference between Jiva and Brahma only because of Attributes imposed on them. But this is the game of Maya only. So my view is that there'll be a difference between them only if the Maya is real and if this Maya is not Brahma.

My final View : The difference between the Jiva and Brahma is as much as the difference between mouth of well and the Sky. So Jiva is Brahma. is represents unity not a relation.




a) "Brahman is One without a second" ... this must not be violated. So, there is nothing outside Brahman and there can be nothing separate from Brahman at any point of time.
Yeh, it's alone. So this disproves seperatness of Jiva from Brahma.



b) Jeeva thinks, acts and suffers individually without affecting other Jeevas and without affecting Brahman. So, while sanctity of a) is maintained, this property of Jeeva should not become impossible in the model.

There are many pots filled with water below the sun. The reflection of sun is,appearing in every pot and the water is different for different pots but the image of sun is same in all the pots. So it is not impossible of suffering of Jiva individually. It can happen through Maya. The same example answers why all Jivas dont attain realisation when one Jiva attains it. When water disappears from one pot, there are still other pots having water.



c) On Self-realisation Jeeva realises one-ness with Brahman (like mixing of water with water) and yet Bhagwad Gita and in some Upanishad Jeeva (Akshara) has been stated to be indestructible.

The Jiva is not indestructible. Atma is indestructible. Jiva is said to be eternal because this Maya is eternal and unending. So Jiva is eternal as long as there's not realization for him. There exists an eternal inverted tree and because of it this world and Jiva are eternal. But when Jiva realised himself beyond Maya, the Maya which has caused this world merges in him. Jiva's eternality is based on Maya's beginning less samsara. But this beginning less samsara is just an imagination not the reality. If it was really biginning less, then the Jiva couldn't have attained the Moksha. Because it's well known logic that the thing which has no beginning can't have any end.

Kalicharan Tuvij
13 May 2014, 05:57 AM
Namaste,
Pranam.

I would like you all of you to guess a model which would very closely be likened to the reality.
Yaaay!

There are infinite points of consciousness within the whole ball of Consciousness which are non-separate from the mother ball and yet have peculiar property to think and act as individual finite conscious beings.
Point = Bindu = Indu.

When not having imaginative thought-waves, these point-consciousnesses don't realise any difference from Mother-Consciousness. However, when they are possessed with thought-waves, they acquire relative existence within imagined world which again is a creation of Mother Consciousness special nature of casting such a delusion with her imaginative powers.
Bindu is just a connection to the big sphere. Bindu-s connect many infinitesimally small spheres to the big sphere. These worlds are as real as the bigger one, and are known as dyāvāprithvi-s.

The special nature of Mother-consciousness creating such a delusional world is the root-caused of creation of point-consciousnesses which apparently acquire relative existence seemingly separate from Mother-consciousness.
"Mother" word is just the right word here. Specifically, it is Kali whose body is many times "modelled" as the dark (moon-less) night-time sky (space, i.e. "Big Sphere"), and dyāvāprithvi-s are seen as illimitable numbers of bright stars studded in Her.

So far, no Brahm (Brahman) in sight. But welcome to the realm of Kali.



P.S.: I think this is my first writing "in" Vedanta. So, I could be just plain wrong. Hehe.

Aanandinii
13 May 2014, 09:42 AM
Namaste Devotee ji,

A good thought exercise, this thread, thank you. I look forward to where this goes. :)


Brahman can be conceptualised as an infinite sphere (now no shape is possible without a boundary and assuming it something like matter, but this shape is safely assumed keeping it infinite) of consciousness.
Respectfully, this is an immediate problem for me. I understand what you intend, but I don't think it's necessary to give attributes and bounds to the attributeless and boundless, not even at the beginning of a thought experiment. I feel that in doing so now it creates pitfalls later. It implies many things, including only 4 dimensions. For instance, with a shape and a boundary there now must be an outside of Brahman, and so something can indeed exist outside of Brahman.

Mind can be suggestible, a simple assumption early on becomes an acceptance and a foundation for later assumptions and definitions. It causes wrinkles that are then more difficult to go back and iron out without having to redefine everything - if you can. I don't see the need to define the indefinable. If the mind balks at boundless and shapeless then don't think in that direction, just accept and let it be. Indeed, it's impossible to define what has no attributes and thus has no description at all.

My own philosophy is that of a small child, not advanced enough to add much to the conversation. But I do find that quantum theory and string theory both seem to agree closely with Advaita, as far as I understand it. Brahman being the boundless energy that is the foundation for all, including Jiva which is another manifestation of the same, a spark risen from the fire so to speak. Everything is energy and energy, as we know, cannot be destroyed. Only its state changes.

~Pranam

devotee
13 May 2014, 11:15 PM
Namaste HLK,


The difference between the Jiva and Brahma is as much as the difference between mouth of well and the Sky. So Jiva is Brahma. is represents unity not a relation.

There are many pots filled with water below the sun. The reflection of sun is,appearing in every pot and the water is different for different pots but the image of sun is same in all the pots. So it is not impossible of suffering of Jiva individually. It can happen through Maya. The same example answers why all Jivas dont attain realisation when one Jiva attains it. When water disappears from one pot, there are still other pots having water.

You have put forward a classical model which has been used by the great seers of the past. It is a very good model but I was thinking to improve upon it due to these reasons :

a) In the above model, sky within a pot is Jeeva which is non-different from the infinite sky but due to presence of pot-shape, it appears to have a different existence. Now, here, what is pot made up of ? As there is nothing but Brahman, then the Pot must also be Brahman i.e. sky. Then how can it create illusion of separateness as a pot does for the sky ? To remove this defect, I again assumed that the pot is made up of ice and the reality is water in pots floating on infinite ocean (of water). In this model, everything is nothing but water and separateness is only because some part of water has acquired a different state. However, even in this model, it accepts Parinaamvaad which has not been accepted by Advaita VedAnta. Parinaamvaad, as you may know, assumes that though it is all Brahman, part of it has changed into this world like milk changing into curd. Advaita VedAnta says that Brahman is unchangeable ... Self remains as it ever was. There is no time and there is no space and there is no change whatsoever in the Reality.

Moreover, this model considers only matter and it becomes difficult to see them pure consciousness (for Brahman) and reflected consciousness (for Jeeva).


The Jiva is not indestructible. Atma is indestructible. Jiva is said to be eternal because this Maya is eternal and unending. So Jiva is eternal as long as there's not realization for him. There exists an eternal inverted tree and because of it this world and Jiva are eternal. But when Jiva realised himself beyond Maya, the Maya which has caused this world merges in him.

What you say is true but in exceptional cases some Self-realised Gurus are reported to reincarnate. If that is true then without violating whatever you say, this may be the explanation. Ishvara is omniscient i.e. the knower of past, present and the future. This means that Ishvara (PrgyAnghana) must store memories off happenings in the phenomenal world, including seeds of all Jeevas ever born. So, this stored memory (seeds) of a Self-realised one can cause reincarnation of that Self-realised one.

OM

devotee
13 May 2014, 11:29 PM
Namaste Aanandinii,



I understand what you intend, but I don't think it's necessary to give attributes and bounds to the attributeless and boundless, not even at the beginning of a thought experiment. I feel that in doing so now it creates pitfalls later. It implies many things, including only 4 dimensions. For instance, with a shape and a boundary there now must be an outside of Brahman, and so something can indeed exist outside of Brahman.

Exactly ! What you say is absolutely right. So, one way is that we need not waste our time on such concepts. Still, people like me are not satisfied with unquestioned acceptance of a reality which cannot be understood, if not 100% but may be 90 % or so. So, this exercise.


Mind can be suggestible, a simple assumption early on becomes an acceptance and a foundation for later assumptions and definitions. It causes wrinkles that are then more difficult to go back and iron out without having to redefine everything - if you can. I don't see the need to define the indefinable. If the mind balks at boundless and shapeless then don't think in that direction, just accept and let it be. Indeed, it's impossible to define what has no attributes and thus has no description at all.

True ! However, for any understanding by mind, the boundless needs to be bound, the limitless must become limited.


I do find that quantum theory and string theory both seem to agree closely with Advaita, as far as I understand it. Brahman being the boundless energy that is the foundation for all, including Jiva which is another manifestation of the same, a spark risen from the fire so to speak. Everything is energy and energy, as we know, cannot be destroyed. Only its state changes.

Yes. I also find a good similarity but these theories are still far from the reality as it really is. One reason is that Reality has no parallel and another reason is that any knowledge is always foreign ... it is difficult to know oneself by oneself ... but here, reality is trying to know itself. For any knowing there must be a knower and knowable thing which is not the knower but here both are the same. That is why Self-realisation is considered self-annihilating knowledge.

OM

Aanandinii
14 May 2014, 01:39 AM
Namaskar Devotee ji,


True ! However, for any understanding by mind, the boundless needs to be bound, the limitless must become limited.
I hope this doesn't come off sounding trite, but why? Your proposal fails your own first test.

It is my understanding that Brahman, the final Supreme, cannot be known or understood intellectually, it must be experienced. The mind is exactly what we need to overcome in order to experience this, it is material and limited. This is also why it is so hard to describe, resulting in many schools and teachings. Modern biology backs this up, these material bodies are part of a very limited ecology, our minds are not evolved to cope with distance on the scales of our own solar system, never mind the universe and its underpinnings. It's all imaginary numbers, the mind just can't do it. It's not the mind that will realize, it's You who will experience the truth.


Yes. I also find a good similarity but these theories are still far from the reality as it really is. One reason is that Reality has no parallel and another reason is that any knowledge is always foreign ... it is difficult to know oneself by oneself ... but here, reality is trying to know itself. For any knowing there must be a knower and knowable thing which is not the knower but here both are the same. That is why Self-realisation is considered self-annihilating knowledge.
Agreed there is no Human understanding that is really close, it is fun that the pursuit of knowledge is just bringing things right back around the the truths Sanatanis have kept for eons. I don't think it will ever be able to come as close though. This is just my current frame of reference, I hope to learn to be able to express in better terms with time. =)

Anthropogenic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), yeah I ascribe to that too. =) There's also an interesting extension I can't remember the name of off the top of my head... I'll look but perhaps someone else knows.
Regarding quantum uncertainty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle), there is some implication that every particle is only a probability until it observed. This leads one to a possible conclusion of there needing an Observer for the Universe to exist at all. My model:
What is that Observer? Brahman?
How does it Observe? possibly through Jiva, or Life? Strong Anthropogenic Principle. This is a guess and probably not a good one, I don't think Brahman needs us to perceive.
The closest thing I can come to describing Brahman would be a boundless sea of energy. Jiva are like drops of foam from that sea, or sparks from flames, jewels of consciousness. As we dance through creation we perceive separateness in ignorance. When we finally realize and remove that veil, however we do it, that spark simply returns to the greater whole, the droplet to the sea.

~Pranam

devotee
15 May 2014, 12:23 AM
Namaste Aanandinii,



I hope this doesn't come off sounding trite, but why? Your proposal fails your own first test.

Yes, you are right. The proposal fails but that is what Swami Vivekananda said : As soon as we try to describe Brahman, we actually describe which is not Brahman as Brahman is beyond all mental concepts. I have already agreed to this limitation. Still this exercise starts with this limitation which is unavoidable.

We may just abandon this exercise as it would ultimately give a defective model or we may try so that it gives defective and yet can explain reality to the maximum possible. If you see teachings on Advaita Gurus, they all have tried to explain this relationship in different ways. The one model very widely used has already been proposed by HLK in his post above, the phenomenon of sky within a pot and the unlimited sky within and outside the boundary of the pot. The second widely used model is Infinite Ocean with waves in it.


It is my understanding that Brahman, the final Supreme, cannot be known or understood intellectually, it must be experienced.

Right !

Uncertainty Principle brings in a very important point that presence of observer tends to affect the status of the observed. VedAnta also says that the things appear as they are not because they really are like that but it is also because of the mind present in the observation. This also becomes testified when we remember that any object as observed by mind is not actually so but is really a complex electromagnetic vibrating space and when we come to know that space is actually cannot be considered "empty" in real sense due to presence of dark matter and dark energies. The shape, color and material state of any object is basically due to design of mind and reality is entirely different from what is observed.


The closest thing I can come to describing Brahman would be a boundless sea of energy. Jiva are like drops of foam from that sea, or sparks from flames, jewels of consciousness. As we dance through creation we perceive separateness in ignorance. When we finally realize and remove that veil, however we do it, that spark simply returns to the greater whole, the droplet to the sea.

Yes. This model is akin to Ocean-waves model proposed by our seers. However, in this model, the waves are real deformation of surface of Ocean-water but in reality, Brahman remains unaffected by creation and anything happening in the world and yet being fully within and outside this world. This VedAntic verse (ShAnti Path of Isavasya Upanishad) says a lot about this :

"OM POORNAMADAH POORNAMIDAM,
POORNAAT POORNAMUDACHYATE |
POORNASYA POORNAMAADAAYA,
POORNAMEVAAVASHISHYATE |
OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIH" ||

THAT (BRAHMAN) IS WHOLE. THIS (CREATION) IS ALSO WHOLE. FROM THAT WHOLE (I.E. BRAHMAN), THIS WHOLE HAS COME OUT (CREATION). BUT EVEN THOUGH THIS WHOLE HAS COME OUT OF THAT WHOLE YET THAT WHOLE REMAINS WHOLE ONLY.

OM

yajvan
15 May 2014, 04:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


I would give a model here to start with and let see how we improve upon it or how we discard it and give a better model.

Brahman can be conceptualised as an infinite sphere (now no shape is possible without a boundary and assuming it something like matter, but this shape is safely assumed keeping it infinite) of consciousness. There are infinite points of consciousness within the whole ball of Consciousness which are non-separate from the mother ball and yet have peculiar property to think and act as individual finite conscious beings. When not having imaginative thought-waves, these point-consciousnesses don't realise any difference from Mother-Consciousness. However, when they are possessed with thought-waves, they acquire relative existence within imagined world which again is a creation of Mother Consciousness special nature of casting such a delusion with her imaginative powers.

I would like to offer a few ideas... these are not corrections to any one's view just my point of view that has been shaped by my studies and practice over the years.
The model of an infinite sphere of consciousness ( which I like) and the jīva¹ as points of consciousness within this sphere has on minor rub. There is no difference between the two; that is, the infinite sphere permeates everything and there is nothing other then this, so there is no individuality to have a 'point' of consciousness i.e. it by definition cannot be separate as there is no place for separation to exist. Without going off course on this matter this is the core definition of ignorance - that we think there is more then one . I also am no longer fond of the term 'one' by the way. A more proper term is wholeness ( proper from the notion I am trying to communicate).
It is the classical view of the wave thinking it is different from the ocean. How can this be ? It is not even a point. It is just an expression of the ocean rising up and that's about it.

iti śivaṁ


1. jīva - has grown to mean many things; most look at it as individual sprirt housed in a body; We can infer such from its common definition of ' living , existing , alive' ; it is the spirit that brings life to the field of matter, the body.
This comes from the masculine definition of jīva being 'the principle of life , vital breath , the living or personal soul'

savithru
16 May 2014, 01:59 PM
Jeeva is Brahman. Brahman subjected to prakrithi is Jeeva.

This fullness has been projected from that fullness. When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness.

devotee
25 May 2014, 02:20 AM
Namaste Yajvan ji,



I would like to offer a few ideas... these are not corrections to any one's view just my point of view that has been shaped by my studies and practice over the years.The model of an infinite sphere of consciousness ( which I like) and the jīva¹ as points of consciousness within this sphere has on minor rub. There is no difference between the two; that is, the infinite sphere permeates everything and there is nothing other then this, so there is no individuality to have a 'point' of consciousness i.e. it by definition cannot be separate as there is no place for separation to exist.

That is a very valuable point. Actually, the concept of distance i.e. dimension of Sphere Vs dimension of a point can arise only in duality i.e. only when there are two. The Infinite Sphere and the dimensionless point are non-different from each other. Why is the Sphere infinite ... because there is nothing beyond it ... everything whatever we can think of are all "within" this sphere. Now, use of the term "within" is fallacious due to argument as given by Yajvan ji but as we have no words to help here, that will do for argument sake.

The Infinite Sphere permeates everything. That is what Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita, Chapter 2 and that is what the first verse of Isavasya Upanishad tell us. How can Infinite permeate inside and outside everything. This is because there is nothing like "everything" or "anything" in the first place. The duality has been imagined just as a dreamer imagines the whole world in the dream and one undivided consciousness of the dreamer appears as many objects within the dream, it is dreamer's consciousness which appears as the space created in the dream and it is dreamer's consciousness alone which behaves as different beings in the dream.

So, the model is impossible to imagine. :(

***************************
It is the Self. It is Consciousness, Upanishads tell us. It is Infinite and there is no dispute. This Infinite Consciousness is in all directions and dimensions and there is no dispute. Now, this Infinite Consciousness has power of MAyA which is beginningless. Due to this MAyA our physical world, Taijasa (Subtle world) and also Ishvara are created apparently. Now, this "apparently" is different from "apparently" as we are accustomed to use. This "apparently" is used with respect to the "underlying" Infinite Consciousness which alone is the Truth. Now, even the use of word "underlying" can be objected to because that would mean that there is something underneath and there is something above it. The reality is that there is and was always the Infinite Consciousness. "Apparently" doesn't mean that these objects have no existence in essence too. The essence of anything and everything is always
the Self, the Infinite Consciousness.

This apparently created world(s) has(ve) some very peculiar properties.

a) It acts logically within its relative framework. Imagined things in mind need not act logically.
b) It projects solid, liquid and gaseous substances which can be weighed, measured and these projected objects always behave in a manner they should do.
c) There is time, space, separateness and individuality.
d) Individual beings in this apparent world have their own thinking ... they can influence their surroundings with their acts and thoughts.

So, is the created world all real or is it unreal ? Shankaracharya says that it is neither real nor unreal.

*************************

I leave it here. If anyone has any better idea, he is welcome. :)

OM