PDA

View Full Version : Ajativada



ale84
06 July 2014, 12:32 PM
Hi, I would like you to explain me the notion of non-creation in Advaita Vedanta. In what sense the universe exists? In what sense it doesn't? Can it be found some support for this theory in modern science and quantum physics?
Thanks.

yajvan
06 July 2014, 02:36 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


ajāta = unborn
vada = speaking sensibly
Hence ajātavada is speaking sensibly about the notion that the universe has neither a beginning or end.

It seems to me that it would be wise for you to offer your point of view. If you do not have one that is fine. May I recommend a book that will assist ?
It is The Systems of Indian Philosophy, by Subodh Kapoor.
This knowledge will be 1 of the 6 systems that is reviewed. Yet this is not the final word on advitīya (without a second, or wholeness) as kaśmir śaivism looks at this wholeness of Being and therefore the universe a bit differently ( not opposed but no doubt a different view)




iti śivaṁ

ameyAtmA
06 July 2014, 06:19 PM
Namaste ale,

In simplest terms the non-existence of the Universe is really a mis-translation of a-sat. The Universe is not 'sat' i.e. it is not the Absolute Truth.
This is because it is a transformation of something else. Therefore it is a secondary derivative form of something else. Moreover, it is always changing. Never steady. This state of change, temporariness, transience, fluctuation, is considered in adhyAmtma (spiritual science) as not being the real substance.

Therefore, what we "see" or perceive as the world, is an appearance.
What IS is something else.

Hope that helps a little.

ale84
08 July 2014, 01:06 PM
Hi Yajvan,

It seems to me that it would be wise for you to offer your point of view.

When I first came to eastern philosophy I was mainly interested in Vaishnavism. Then the idea of a personal creator god as the ultimate truth made no sense to me and i think it's at odds with the idea of samsara.
Later I became interested in Buddhism (where there's no notion of a creator god), and when I started to learn it's basic doctrines like "not-self" and the "five aggregates" it all seemed to point towards non-duality, and that's why I'm also interested in Advaita Vedanta now.
In Buddhism it's said that the beggining is undiscoverable. I think at least some of them don't deny the possibility of a beggining but they don't want to speculate about that, and they conventionally say there's no beggining, because the Buddha reagardless he was able to go back many aeons of world contractions and expansions, he didn't see it.
Personally I still don't have a point of view, but I reject the idea that a higher being is responsible for my existence in this world of suffering.
I like to think that this universe is not a creation but an emanation of our own ignorance. Whether this ignorance has a beggining or not, I don't know.

ale84
08 July 2014, 01:13 PM
Hello ameyatma


Namaste ale,

In simplest terms the non-existence of the Universe is really a mis-translation of a-sat. The Universe is not 'sat' i.e. it is not the Absolute Truth.
This is because it is a transformation of something else. Therefore it is a secondary derivative form of something else. Moreover, it is always changing. Never steady. This state of change, temporariness, transience, fluctuation, is considered in adhyAmtma (spiritual science) as not being the real substance.

Therefore, what we "see" or perceive as the world, is an appearance.
What IS is something else.

Hope that helps a little.

Thanks for the clarification.

silence_speaks
02 August 2014, 12:16 PM
Dear ameyAtmA,
:) Gaudapadacharya , in alatasanti prakaranam speaks pure Ajatavada. The world is non-existent.

Love!
Silence

devotee
02 August 2014, 11:23 PM
Namaste ale,

"Silence speaks", "Amey" and Yajvan have given good inputs. I would add mine here :

I can prove logically that World was never created. How?

a) If there was a creation, then that means that there was a time when Only God existed. So, we can have no material, no energy, no space in the "beginning". If anything was existing in the beginning say, space then we would have to accept there was some other creator too who created space and that Space and God came into existence simultaneously. That would lead to infinite regression and therefore, if there was a creator, we must have a point where nothing was there except God.

b) Logically, no thing can be created out of nothing. You must supply some input for getting an output. So, if there was nothing but God in the beginning, the space, matter, energy and consciousness must come from God alone. So, there is no possibility of creation "outside" God, because if that was so, the equation would not match as explained below :

God ----> God + space (to have something called "outside")

That would mean that space has come out of nothing and that would violate our simple logic that no thing can be created out of nothing.

So, Creation must happen within (inside) God.

Now, where from Matter, Energy and Consciousness would come ? There is nothing except God so, a part of God must be used as input for creating Matter/Energy/Consciousness. So, we would have an equation :

God = (God-some part of God) + Space (where matter/energy would find place) + Matter + Energy + Consciousness

In the above equation, some part of God has been ued to create space, matter, energy and consciousness. We can write it as :

God = God1 + space + matter + energy + consciousness

So, in the result, God gets changed to God1 which is not the earlier God. So, God becomes a changing entity and that goes against concept of God which is unchanging. And if creation goes on taking place, there won't be any God left at all as God1 will tend to zero !

Which is an absurdity ! Therefore, our first assumption that there was a creation must be invalid.

OM

satay
03 August 2014, 09:35 PM
Namaste,
Interesting equation! I am just wondering isn't One quality of God infinity? So wouldn't God and God1 be infinite? Space, matter, energy, consciousness might just be part of expansion of infinity. So even if he/she 'created' something that would remain within infinity ie the creation might be within him or his expanse and not outside. He just expands into something that looks like this creation.


Namaste

In the above equation, some part of God has been ued to create space, matter, energy and consciousness. We can write it as :

God = God1 + space + matter + energy + consciousness

So, in the result, God gets changed to God1 which is not the earlier God. So, God becomes a changing entity and that goes against concept of God which is unchanging. And if creation goes on taking place, there won't be any God left at all as God1 will tend to zero !

Which is an absurdity ! Therefore, our first assumption that there was a creation must be invalid.

OM

devotee
03 August 2014, 11:24 PM
Namaste,



Interesting equation! I am just wondering isn't One quality of God infinity? So wouldn't God and God1 be infinite? Space, matter, energy, consciousness might just be part of expansion of infinity. So even if he/she 'created' something that would remain within infinity ie the creation might be within him or his expanse and not outside. He just expands into something that looks like this creation.

Exactly ! God's one property is that He is Infinite. Now, we must re-visit the concept of Infinity afresh so that is no confusion in using this concept of Infinity. We can have different types of Infinity. Like :

a) One long thread going in one direction endlessly --- This is single dimensional Infinity
b) An area expanding endlessly in two dimensions --- This is 2-dimensional Infinity
c) A Solid object expanding endlessly in three dimensions --- This is 3-dimensional Infinity
d) A Solid Object changing with time expanding and changing infinitely --- This is 4-dimensional Infinity.

etc.

Now, we have deduced from our logic that there cannot be anything "outside" God. Therefore God must be Infinite in all dimensions ... otherwise there would exist something outside God and that would mean creation even before a "beginning" (i.e. someone but not God must create that something before God can start Creation)). Therefore, in the beginning, There can be Only God who must be Infinite in all dimensions.

Now, such an Infinite "entity" can be Only one i.e. there cannot be another Infinity or any other object coming into picture as the Infinite God would occupy all space (and time) available.

Infinity doesn't mean that something must be Infinitely large. It only means that there can be nothing outside that thing. God is called Infinity because there is nothing outside Him.

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

I think, we all agree with the above. Now, for Creation, there can be two possibilities :

a) A part of God converts into creation
b) God Himself appears as creation due to some "magical trick" or MAyA. So, God remains God and Creation appears Creation apart from God.

The first theory is called PariNAmvAd i.e. conversion of a part of God into Creation. 2nd theory is called AjAtivaad i.e. no conversion took place ever ... God Himself was perceived as its Creation like a Dream phenomenon within a man's mind.

The problem which I see in a) is that even if the property of God as being Infinite is accepted, God won't remain the same God if real change in God takes place after Creation. Moreover, if Creation goes on expanding ... the whole (i.e. God+Creation) may remain Infinite but God in the beginning would become a changing entity (because God would keep getting converted into its Creation and getting reduced as Creation keeps expanding) which is violation of God's attribute that He is changeless.

There is another problem too. If after Creation, God and Creation are separated :

a) God cannot pervade the Creation which violates Shruti's statement : "Isavasyam Idam sarvam".
b) God cannot be aware what is happening in the creation as the communication link will break. Therefore, He won't remain "Omniscient". Even if He keeps some agents (In Abrahimic religions, it is assumed that angels keep informing God about the happenings in the world), there would be time-lag between the happening and the info reaching God. So, God won't be able to know the happening exactly at the time it happens and therefore, God's property of Omniscience would be violated.
c) A boundary between God and the Creation will be drawn which will separate God from Creation. So, there will be some line where God will stop being Infinite because after that dividing line area of Creation will start and that would limit God and God will not remain Infinite.

OM

Amrut
04 August 2014, 01:01 AM
Namaste,

Ajativada is concerned about nirvikalp samadhi, in which one does not experience anything 'else' including this world. This vada has to be applied by an advanced meditator who has climbed 107 step and needs just one last step to abide in Self without sitting in samadhi. Since brahman is our true nature, hence it is not necessary to meditate or reach it, it is our natural state. But if you apply this logic in the beginning, then it will give you license to go crazy and insane ;)

Brahman here means that consciousness which is beyond guNa-s.

P.S. it cannot be found via science, as there is no second :) Sri Ramakrishna says, a salt doll once went to measure the depth of ocean. After stepping in, she melted, now who is going to describe this state. Advaita is not an easy philosophy to understand.

OM

ale84
04 August 2014, 12:29 PM
Hello all. Here some conclusions I have about ajativada, correct me if I'm wrong.

*Nothing exists outside of Brahman. Brahman is immutable.
*Prakriti has not independent existence, because it would imply creation ex-nihilo.
*Prakriti is not a transformation of Brahman, because it would inply change in brahman.
*Prakriti is like a dream or thought projection of hiranyagarbha/cosmic mind.

Just like when we sleep, we dream and we percieve space, objects, people, but it all dissolves when we wake up so it didn't have an independent existence out of our mind.
We percieve our waking state as a "solid reality" because we are part of hiranyagarbha's dream.

devotee
04 August 2014, 10:46 PM
Namaste ale,



*Nothing exists outside of Brahman. Brahman is immutable.
*Prakriti has not independent existence, because it would imply creation ex-nihilo.
*Prakriti is not a transformation of Brahman, because it would inply change in brahman.
*Prakriti is like a dream or thought projection of hiranyagarbha/cosmic mind.

Just like when we sleep, we dream and we percieve space, objects, people, but it all dissolves when we wake up so it didn't have an independent existence out of our mind.
We percieve our waking state as a "solid reality" because we are part of hiranyagarbha's dream.

Exactly ! Except a little correction, imho :


*Prakriti is like a dream or thought projection of hiranyagarbha/cosmic mind.

In my opinion, Prakriti/Nature/MAyA cannot be equated with dream or thought projection of Cosmic Mind. Prakriti or MAyA is the dream-weaver (having Brahman as substratum of the dream), if I am allowed to give an analogy. It is never separate from Brahman and it is power of Brahman. It is that power which creates HiraNyagarbha/Cosmic Mind, Ishvara. It is that power which also projects this worlds and veils the Brahman.

OM

ameyAtmA
09 August 2014, 09:36 PM
Dear ameyAtmA,
:) Gaudapadacharya , in alatasanti prakaranam speaks pure Ajatavada. The world is non-existent.

Love!
Silence


Dear Silence, he is right. The world is too illogical, topsy-turvy, ridiculously funny, unreasonable, contradictory and many other things to be real, which truly makes the world qualify as nothing but a bad dream... or a dream in any case.

A dream is that REM sleep when the neuro signals do not connect snap, and amlaa(the fruit) grows on rose trees, planes skid and jump, dolphins talk.

But isn't that how the world is? Do A and they will say "Why didn't you do B?" and when you do B they will again jump at it with "But you did not do A" and if you did both they will say "You did not do C"

On another note the world keeps asking "Why are you the way you are?" "Why do you not fit exactly into my protocol?" "Why do you not say what I want to hear?" . In short they are asking "Why do you exist?"

Well ... do I ? [really exist] in the form you are thinking I do? Whatever it is that appears to exists, does so because the poor thing has no power to choose non-existence over existence or visa-versa. VAsudev(Bramhan') alone exists and has power.

ShyA S S ma sundara manamohana S S
jaya govinda S S rAdhA-ramaNa
jaya jaya KRshNa hare ~ ~ S S
jaya gopAla hare ~ S S ~

silence_speaks
09 August 2014, 10:43 PM
Dear Ameyatma ji,
:) True indeed.

Love!
Silence