PDA

View Full Version : The Material Cause...



yajvan
08 February 2008, 08:33 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Have you pondered the notion of this Universe and its creation? That is, He (śiva) has created all that there is yet without any material means. And/or the notion the He is the material cause for all this to happen - would He not then be used up? Just as the disappearance of of lump of clay that is used-up to create a urn or pot?

This is taken up in the Spandakarikas¹ and brings out the beautiful knowledge that the subject or pramātā ( from pramā - to form , create , make ready , arrange) + the object or prameya (an object of certain knowledge , the thing to be proved or the topic to be discussed ) and the means of knowing (pramana or means of acquiring) exists in and of śiva. That is to say, there is nothing for śiva to be used up for.

As we have mentioned the clay becomes the pot , yet its essence has not changed, it is still the clay, just as gold remains gold in a ring or a golden chalice.

Many say that the world rests in śiva. While this is a reasonable view for a passing conversation, it is not as if the world is contained in Him like an apple residing in a brown bag, where the apple has its own independent existence. So when one says the world ( the material universe both subtle and gross) comes out from him the world and śiva are not separate. Śiva without effort remains both the transcendent and the material creation - both viśvottīrna and viśvamaya.

He is not concealed as the world owes its existence to Him. He is not limited by space or time ( concealment , constraint or boundary). Yet it takes one with enlightened vision to see this or unmilana samādhi; unmīlana or the act of opening the eyes. That act of remaining in that even-ness , samādhi, (union , a whole , aggregate) while the eyes are open, the world is viewed as Universal Consciousness, śiva.

This IMHO Is worthy of ones focus and attention in this world... your thoughts and discussion on this matter is warmly welcomed.

ॐनमःिशवाय


pranams


1.Spandakarika - Chapt 1, starting with karika (kArikA) 2.
2. Posted during śiva yoga ( a dina or nitra yoga)

suresh
09 February 2008, 12:32 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Have you pondered the notion of this Universe and its creation? That is, He (śiva) has created all that there is yet without any material means. And/or the notion the He is the material cause for all this to happen - would He not then be used up? Just as the disappearance of of lump of clay that is used-up to create a urn or pot?

This is taken up in the Spandakarikas¹ and brings out the beautiful knowledge that the subject or pramātā ( from pramā - the to form , create , make ready , arrange) + the object or prameya (an object of certain knowledge , the thing to be proved or the topic to be discussed ) and the means of knowing (pramana or means of acquiring) exists in and of śiva. That is to say, there is nothing for śiva to be used up for.

As we have mentioned the clay becomes the pot , yet its essence has not changed, it is still the clay, just as gold remains gold in a ring or a golden chalice.

Many say that the world rests in śiva. While this is a reasonable view for a passing conversation, it is not as if the world is contained in Him like an apple residing in a brown bag, where the apple has its own independent existence. So when one says the world ( the material universe both subtle and gross) comes out from him the world and śiva are not separate. Śiva without effort remains both the transcendent and the material creation - both viśvottīrna and viśvamaya.

He is not concealed as the world owes its existence to Him. He is not limited by space or time ( concealment , constraint or boundary). Yet it takes one with enlightened vision to see this or unmilana samādhi; unmīlana or the act of opening the eyes. That act of remaining in that even-ness , samādhi, (union , a whole , aggregate) while the eyes are open, the world is viewed as Universal Consciousness, śiva.



This IMHO Is worthy of ones focus and attention in this world... your toughts and discussion on this matter is warmly welcomed.


Namaste Yajvan,

The q will arise as to whether clay and clay pot are one. If so, God and world will be one, meaning all the flaws of this world will be attributed to God. If not, we must treat god and world as distinct, so the q remains as to how he created the world, the material cause.

OTOH, if we say there is both oneness and distinction, there may not be any praamana that the material cause could be one with, and distinct from, the effect. Normally, the material cause is considered one with the effect, if not, we're questioning the very substratum, the basis and the foundation of the object.

So all three options are going to be a problem. Better to consider prakriti as wholly different from Brahman. That way, no problem could arise. And because Vedanta considers both to be anadi, the q as to which came first, or whether one created the other will not arise.

Suresh

atanu
09 February 2008, 03:00 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

--Better to consider prakriti as wholly different from Brahman. That way, no problem could arise. And because Vedanta considers both to be anadi, the q as to which came first, or whether one created the other will not arise.

Suresh

Namaste Suresh,

What is prakriti?

Om

Znanna
09 February 2008, 02:42 PM
Namaste,

and (a belated) welcome to HDF, suresh, I'm looking forward to reading more of your thoughts :)

And, dear atanu beat me to the punch, with his question, "What is prakriti?"



ZN

Nuno Matos
09 February 2008, 04:25 PM
Namaste Suresh and all,

" The q will arise as to whether clay and clay pot are one. If so, God and world will be one, meaning all the flaws of this world will be attributed to God."

The evil one?!!:D

Flaws are politics! And there are no good policies.:Roll:
Even all the corpus of advaita must dissolve in the end. As any good intellectual knows to stay firm in your method and general propositions is always the best way.

I would like to share this poem from David Tibet with you all!
I hope it will be enjoyable by all.

"
They returned to their earth

When serpents come
They cover the Christ thorn
Two heads
And cock heads
Serpents feet of emotion
Lidded eyes and smudged reality
Everything has two faces
One is earthly without true form
The other blackened and blackening

And mother is in the fields
Father is in the fields

You know well its tortured form
It's locked within a particular place
It's locked within a particular form
It's jailed by a falling light
With angles shapes and size
It's held by true what
It's held in through place
It's an aim that has no name

And mother is in the fields
Father is in the fields

It's a form creating formless
Formless creating form
Oh four towers reaping backwards
Do not spell the sound
Do not move to the lies
Speak the words and they create the universe
And they destroy all universe

And mother sleeps in the fields
Father he reaps in the fields

Heavy-lidded eyes do not mask his pain
They shade us from the burning light
Listen one face one form one truth
I see it through the shading glass
I see it fractured in the world
This is not true
It's appearance only

And mother is in the fields
Father is in the fields

An eagle flies his bloody face
Behind bloody claws behind bloody claws
His pain is blackened rain
His rain is Roman
Sire the pain it is not finished
I happens now
Matchstick man in a matchstick world
Nake the prime slice the sickle
Nake the sickle slice the core
Time stops when he was thirty-three

And mother is in the fields
Father is in the fields

Time stops when i am thirty
Time stops then and time stops there
Then is now
Oh why do we not say it
Time stops time breaks time folds
Time ceases
And pestle grindes the mortar
The mortar turns to dust
The metal turns to rust
Words they fail they fall apart
The corn it dies and is reborn

And mother stays in the fields
Father is in the fields

Blond hair moves in the blond corn
Boyd wears black he talks of death
But all his faces spell out light's on the roof
He's kissing a rose
A blood drop comes from the heart of her life
Something hangs above there in the skies
Something hovers above his brown hair
Life without us in the background of light
And the birds don't sing
When the curtain snaps
Anita's in Ireland
She's falling over rocks
Stars of the sky stars of the pain
And all stars meet in a falling star
And some make money from weapons' blood
And some make money from fear's blood
And some make money from hunger's blood
And some make money from politics' blood
And some make money from religion's blood
The world falls apart
The world starts to cease

And mother is in the fields
And father has died in the fields":)



Om namah shivaya!

sarabhanga
09 February 2008, 07:47 PM
Even all the corpus of advaita must dissolve in the end.

Namaste Nuno,

The advaita corpus of nara is imperishable!

The advaita corpus of nara is brahma, the unbounded and unborn sadAshivaliÑga, which is sat.

And without the sat of advaitam there is only shUnyam (as “nonentity or absolute non-existence”).

advaitam may be described as being shUnyam (as “empty, barren, desolate, deserted, vacant, having no certain object or aim, possessing nothing, wholly destitute, wholly alone or solitary, having no friends or companions, free from sensation, insensible, bare, naked, guileless, innocent, or indifferent”), but not as “non-existent, absent, unreal, or nonsensical”.

And nara (brahma) may be referred to as shUnyA (as “a barren woman”), or shUnyam (as “a cypher, space or heaven”), but not as shUnyam in the strict sense of “nonentity or absolute non-existence”.

The unmarked eternal corpus of brahma is the elysian field, the shUnyarAjya (“kingless kingdom”), itself without parentage or age, and without which there is no existence (eternal or otherwise).

Nuno Matos
09 February 2008, 08:21 PM
Namaste Sri Sarabhanga Giri,

" The advaita corpus of nara is imperishable!"

Dear friend I agree with you totally in what concerns the above said. I was talking about the theoretic corpus not the metaphysical one.

Om namah shivaya!

Bob G
09 February 2008, 10:15 PM
Hello Sarabhanga,

Excuse me, what exactly is meant by "Advaita corpus"...do you mean written texts and spoken teachings?

sarabhanga
10 February 2008, 03:06 AM
Namaste Bob,

I was using corpus in the sense of body, as the infinite corpse of nara, the immaculate self of brahma ~ the aliÑgaliÑgam of sadAshiva, the shUnyarAjya, the brahmayoni, nirvANam, etc.

yajvan
11 February 2008, 11:00 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

The q will arise as to whether clay and clay pot are one. If so, God and world will be one, meaning all the flaws of this world will be attributed to God. If not, we must treat god and world as distinct, so the q remains as to how he created the world, the material cause.

OTOH, if we say there is both oneness and distinction, there may not be any praamana that the material cause could be one with, and distinct from, the effect. Normally, the material cause is considered one with the effect, if not, we're questioning the very substratum, the basis and the foundation of the object.

So all three options are going to be a problem. Better to consider prakriti as wholly different from Brahman. That way, no problem could arise. And because Vedanta considers both to be anadi, the q as to which came first, or whether one created the other will not arise.

Suresh

Namaste suresh,
And thank you for your post. I am in hopes you wish to poke around at this thought:

Better to consider prakriti as wholly different from Brahman What are your thoughts on this matter? How do you see prakriti and its differences to Brahman?

pranams

suresh
13 February 2008, 02:41 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste suresh,
And thank you for your post. I am in hopes you wish to poke around at this thought:
What are your thoughts on this matter? How do you see prakriti and its differences to Brahman?

pranams

Namaste Yajvan,

In Sankhya, prakriti refers to the 24 elements such as pancha bhutas, karmendriyas, mahat, tanmatras etc. These are inanimate matter, and therefore different from Brahman, which is a Sentient Being. Hence, a distinction is inevitable.

But if one considers the prakriti to be a reflection and nothing more, we can conclude that the world is asat at all times, with Brahman alone being the sole reality. We can do away with neo-Vedanta type of obfuscation that revolves around inventing new ideas such as 'neither sat nor asat' etc. The world is always false, according to classical advaitins.

Also, there will be no need to posit a material cause, because since Brahman is anadi, so is its reflection, prakriti. There cannot be a cause for an entity that has no beginning.

Suresh

yajvan
13 February 2008, 06:36 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~



In Sankhya, prakriti refers to the 24 elements such as pancha bhutas, karmendriyas, mahat, tanmatras etc. These are inanimate matter, and therefore different from Brahman, which is a Sentient Being. Hence, a distinction is inevitable.


Namaste suresh,
thank you for your post...I can see your point of view from the sāṅkhya ( some write sāṁkhya) school of thinking. As one looks to other schools ( ~ darśana ) this notion of sentient and insentient take on a new meaning.


If this is of interest, we ( and others) can persue a conversation. Yet the conversation will bear little fruit if we talk from different schools (saḍ-darśana) as one has different reference points or 'optics' of viewing Reality.

My teacher has has said over and over that the 6 systems of Indian Philiosphy are different views of the truth. Yet each one is so compelling, many take one school as paramont over the other, and then the polemics (jalpa, vitanda, and jati) begin. I choose not to do this as it bears little upliftment to all. The 6 schools are there to compliment ones knowledge - compare, contrast perhaps and move one closer to Reality.


For me and my teaching, Brahman is samasta ( compounded, or pervading the whole). We perhaps see/experience sentient and insentient , yet the whole is Brahman, consciousness itself. That is why the question ( for me) came up on prakriti.

More on this if you wish, and I am sure others will be happy to offer various POV's on this matter.

pranams,

Bob G
13 February 2008, 06:49 PM
Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Some quotes:

"God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth". by Siva Yogaswami

"Simple words for a simple truth, but very, very difficult to practice". by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami reflecting on a teaching of his Guru above.

yajvan
13 February 2008, 06:58 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Namaste BobG,

In your opinion, or teaching, what allows the native or sadhu to see the world correctly? What brings 20-20 vision on this matter?

pranams

sarabhanga
13 February 2008, 07:40 PM
Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.

Namaste Bob,

What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ???

atanu
14 February 2008, 12:26 AM
Namaste Yajvan,
-
But if one considers the prakriti to be a reflection and nothing more, we can conclude that the world is asat at all times, with Brahman alone being the sole reality. We can do away with neo-Vedanta type of obfuscation that revolves around inventing new ideas such as 'neither sat nor asat' etc. The world is always false, according to classical advaitins.

Suresh

Namaste Suresh,

Sorry to be intruding. My POV reflects, more or less, what Shri Yajvan has said.

I had felt that you were pointing to a good knowledge, yet, with Brahman alone being the sole reality, there would be no need for a Guru, no student, no learning etc. But the Guru-Shishya is pratayksha truth.

Prakriti cannot be disconnected from Brahman , since if it was so, then the Sentient Brahman would not know the Prakriti. There has to be a knowledge principle that connects these two. Prakriti is of the Sentient Beling alone. One cannot say that Prakriti of 'NOTHING' exists independently. Prakriti (nature or property or characteristics) by its very definition has to be of something.

Prakriti is of two stages: essential nature (Sat-Chit-Ananda), and guna nature (white, red, and black). Effect of the Prakriti of the second stage is the Universe, which if the infinite sentience (Sat-Chit-Ananda) were absent, would not exist and would not be known.

In truth (in my POV), Self-Brahman with its essential nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda is Anadimat.


And I do not think that your statement "The world is always false, according to classical advaitins", is correct understanding.

Regards

Om

suresh
14 February 2008, 01:42 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Namaste suresh,
thank you for your post...I can see your point of view from the sāṅkhya ( some write sāṁkhya) school of thinking. As one looks to other schools ( ~ darśana ) this notion of sentient and insentient take on a new meaning.


If this is of interest, we ( and others) can persue a conversation. Yet the conversation will bear little fruit if we talk from different schools (saḍ-darśana) as one has different reference points or 'optics' of viewing Reality.

My teacher has has said over and over that the 6 systems of Indian Philiosphy are different views of the truth. Yet each one is so compelling, many take one school as paramont over the other, and then the polemics (jalpa, vitanda, and jati) begin. I choose not to do this as it bears little upliftment to all. The 6 schools are there to compliment ones knowledge - compare, contrast perhaps and move one closer to Reality.


For me and my teaching, Brahman is samasta ( compounded, or pervading the whole). We perhaps see/experience sentient and insentient , yet the whole is Brahman, consciousness itself. That is why the question ( for me) came up on prakriti.

More on this if you wish, and I am sure others will be happy to offer various POV's on this matter.

pranams,


Namaste Yajvan,

The Sankhya system of classification is common to most schools, including dvaita, advaita etc. So I wasn't referring to the Sankhya philosophy, only to this particular classification that's accepted by most schools of thought within Hinduism. Besides, Sankhya accepts the world's reality, which I haven't done. Neither does classical advaita.

All I wanted to convey was that classical advaita holds prakriti to be false. It doesn't say prakriti and Brahman are one, as do most neo-vedantins. I am not accusing anyone, so please don't misunderstand me. Just putting forth my view that nowhere does the classical advaitin say that Brahman has become the world.

Let's consider this example. If clay becomes clay pot, one can say that clay is the material cause. But if clay is reflected in the mirror, do we refer to the clay as the material cause of its reflected image? Advaita or mayavada subscribes to the latter, whereas Brahmavada (Vallabha's school of Vaishnavism) believes in the former.

From the above, we can only conclude that the world isn't made out of Brahman, rather it's projected from Brahman. So Brahman isn't the material cause. Nor is the world real, because its so-called existence is similar to that of the snake superimposed on the rope. The snake is asat at all times, even though it's perceived. Likewise, even if the world is perceived, it's asat at all times.

So there's no question of suggesting a state which is neither sat nor asat, when there's no evidence for this. Either a thing is sat or asat, and according to advaita, world is asat and Brahman alone is sat. And it's my belief that neo-Vedantins have changed the meaning of the word 'mithya' to mean 'neither sat nor asat', when in reality, it's just another word for asat.

Hope to read your PoV on this.

Suresh

suresh
14 February 2008, 01:55 AM
Namaste Suresh,

I had felt that you were pointing to a good knowledge, yet, with Brahman alone being the sole reality, there would be no need for a Guru, no student, no learning etc. But the Guru-Shishya is pratayksha truth.

Namaste Atanu,

Didn't Madhusudhana Saraswati say that the gita is like a lion's roar, meaning even if the dream is false, the lion's roar does help one in waking up? Maybe, we should understand the utility of guru, books etc. in this context.


Prakriti cannot be disconnected from Brahman , since if it was so, then the Sentient Brahman would not know the Prakriti. There has to be a knowledge principle that connects these two. Prakriti is of the Sentient Beling alone. One cannot say that Prakriti of 'NOTHING' exists independently. Prakriti (nature or property or characteristics) by its very definition has to be of something.

If prakriti is treated as a reflection, then it's evident that prakriti exists as a dependent entity; it's got no independence. Nor is there a disconnect between Brahman and prakriti, as you seem to fear. So where's the problem in accepting that the prakriti has as much reality (or unreality) as the snake superimposed on the rope?


Prakriti is of two stages: essential nature (Sat-Chit-Ananda), and guna nature (white, red, and black). Effect of the Prakriti of the second stage is the Universe, which if the infinite sentience (Sat-Chit-Ananda) were absent, would not exist and would not be known.

In truth (in my POV), Self-Brahman with its essential nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda is Anadimat.

Brahman is nirguna, so I don't think this is true. These descriptions help us in communicating, and shouldn't be considered as qualities of Brahman.


And I do not think that your statement "The world is always false, according to classical advaitins", is correct understanding.

Madhusudhana Saraswati in his "Advaita Siddhi" is pretty emphatic about this. He gives different 'levels' of unreality to show why objects appear to exist, even though they're essentially non-existent. So it's my view that classical advaita differs from modern advaita, in that the former believes in the unreality of the world without making compromises.

sarabhanga
14 February 2008, 02:05 AM
Namaste Suresh and Atanu,

brahma is saccidAnandam ~ singular “existence-thought-joy”.
brahmA is saccidAnanda ~ “existence, thought, and joy” together.
brAhmI is saccidAnandA ~ “existence and thought and joy” severally.

brahmA is saccidAnandamaya (“consisting of saccidAnanda”) and saccidAnandamAya (“measuring or defining saccidAnanda”) and brAhmI is saccidAnandamAyA (“the art or illusion of saccidAnanda”).

atanu
14 February 2008, 02:24 AM
Namaste Atanu,
Didn't Madhusudhana Saraswati say that the gita is like a lion's roar, meaning even if the dream is false, the lion's roar does help one in waking up? Maybe, we should understand the utility of guru, books etc. in this context.
---
If prakriti is treated as a reflection, then it's evident that prakriti exists as a dependent entity; it's got no independence. Nor is there a disconnect between Brahman and prakriti, as you seem to fear. So where's the problem in accepting that the prakriti has as much reality (or unreality) as the snake superimposed on the rope?
---
Brahman is nirguna, so I don't think this is true. These descriptions help us in communicating, and shouldn't be considered as qualities of Brahman.
----
Madhusudhana Saraswati in his "Advaita Siddhi" is pretty emphatic about this. He gives different 'levels' of unreality to show why objects appear to exist, even though they're essentially non-existent. So it's my view that classical advaita differs from modern advaita, in that the former believes in the unreality of the world without making compromises.

Namaste Suresh,

I do not deny all that you say. I will go through them and offer my POV, if necessary.

Just one thing I wish to point out. The pratayaksha is for the Thinker/Seer, whose Guna compositions influence the observation. When the knower Ego is removed, the Seer's pratyaksha is of a different level. Further, when Seer, Seen, and the Seeing become "Not Two", the indescribable Self alone remains.

Till then Pratyaksha is not devoid of superimpositions. Thus I am basically, reflecting what Shri Yajvan says. And I am not denying what you have said.


So where's the problem in accepting that the prakriti has as much reality (or unreality) as the snake superimposed on the rope?

I had indicated that my nature does not exist independent of me. "me" here is not the body, but the atma. The anadimat nature is Sat-Chit-Ananda and the Guna (mind) nature are again three: Red, White, and Black.

Regards

Om

atanu
14 February 2008, 02:35 AM
Namaste Atanu,
-
Madhusudhana Saraswati in his "Advaita Siddhi" is pretty emphatic about this. He gives different 'levels' of unreality to show why objects appear to exist, even though they're essentially non-existent. So it's my view that classical advaita differs from modern advaita, in that the former believes in the unreality of the world without making compromises.

Namaste Suresh,

Yes. Ajativada is the highest and absolute and known only when the native knows Seer/Seen/Seeing as "Not Two". But for all other cases, pratyaksha will have components of Adhyasa -- superimpositions. Independepent of the native's seeing/knowing, the Sat-non-dual Turiya exists without cause and effect.

Gaudapada:

9
Some say that the manifestation is for the purpose of God’s enjoyment, while others attribute it to His division. But it is the very nature of the effulgent Being. What desire is possible for Him who is the fulfillment of all desires?

10
Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading.

11
Visva and Taijasa are conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Neither cause nor effect exists in Turiya.

-------------------
17
If the phenomenal universe were real, then certainly it would disappear. The universe of duality which is cognized is mere illusion (maya); Non—duality alone is the Supreme Reality.


If Maya was Sat then it would vanish, since Sat is unchanging. Now, if the Maya was pure Asat, then there would not arise any false cognition and need for Guru or Guru Vani, since an Asat entity is non-existent always and cannot have any effect. So, Maya is inexplicable but not pure Asat. And the Universe, cognised as made up of discrete objects is Mithya but not Asat. Manifestation is the very nature of Self -Turiya, wherein however there is no cause and no effect.

The causes and effects are in Visva and Taijjsa. The cause alone is there in Prajna.

To comprehend this (say approximately), I have always reminded myself of water. Water's very nature is to exist or be known in three forms -- liquid, vapour, and solid, but in reality the thing-in-itself that water is, is unknown. We can only say that which is water exists and is known in three different forms. Similarly, that which is Self knows itself in three states differently.

24
AUM should be known quarter by quarter. There is no doubt that the quarters are the same as the letters. Having understood AUM quarter by quarter, one should not think of anything else.

Regards.

Om

atanu
14 February 2008, 05:07 AM
Gaudapada on intrinsic Prakriti
IV-9. By the term nature is to be known that which comes into being through right attainments, which is intrinsic, inborn, and non-produced, and which does not give up its character.

Om

yajvan
14 February 2008, 12:07 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

The Sankhya system of classification is common to most schools, including dvaita, advaita etc. So I wasn't referring to the Sankhya philosophy, only to this particular classification that's accepted by most schools of thought within Hinduism. Besides, Sankhya accepts the world's reality, which I haven't done. Neither does classical advaita.

All I wanted to convey was that classical advaita holds prakriti to be false. It doesn't say prakriti and Brahman are one, as do most neo-vedantins. I am not accusing anyone, so please don't misunderstand me. Just putting forth my view that nowhere does the classical advaitin say that Brahman has become the world.

Let's consider this example. If clay becomes clay pot, one can say that clay is the material cause. But if clay is reflected in the mirror, do we refer to the clay as the material cause of its reflected image? Advaita or mayavada subscribes to the latter, whereas Brahmavada (Vallabha's school of Vaishnavism) believes in the former.

From the above, we can only conclude that the world isn't made out of Brahman, rather it's projected from Brahman. So Brahman isn't the material cause. Nor is the world real, because its so-called existence is similar to that of the snake superimposed on the rope. The snake is asat at all times, even though it's perceived. Likewise, even if the world is perceived, it's asat at all times.

So there's no question of suggesting a state which is neither sat nor asat, when there's no evidence for this. Either a thing is sat or asat, and according to advaita, world is asat and Brahman alone is sat. And it's my belief that neo-Vedantins have changed the meaning of the word 'mithya' to mean 'neither sat nor asat', when in reality, it's just another word for asat. Hope to read your PoV on this.


Namaste Suresh,
a well reasoned post... as atanu has pointed out several observations on Brahman, I will not go into depth.
As an FYI only Kasmir Saivism recognizes 36 elements, vs. the Sankhya system of 24 + 1... The 1 here is Purusha. So, as a side note and not to get other people all spun-up over this, its not a matter of the number of elements we are discussing, but the relevance of this material existence ( bhu loka) being false or not.
Another member , I think it was Singhi pointed to the notion of false equals transitory, changing, with multi-various permutations. I like this notion.

What would be key for me, is the clay + the pot + the mirror is all Brahman. And that nature of Brahman is consciousness. We can say that the pot that is created from the clay is transitory ( false) because today it's a pot, over time it withers, and goes to clay, and then another uses the clay to become the ingredient in a brick to build a home. Yet it does not loose its essential nature. Just as water becomes steam, or ice, it remains water. Like that Brahman when manifest has multi-various permutations, yet it remains Brahman.

Atanu has pointed out several slokas that suggest this. Yet the notion of false is still the key, yes? If the reflection in the mirror is the false part, what then is it reflecting? This is the pickle we can deal with here, if we wish to continue the conversation.

As heat is to fire, whiteness is to a conch shell, firmness is to a mountain, liquidity to water, sweetness to sugarcane, butter to milk, coolness to ice... the universe is to consciousness. On Creation III.14, Vasișțha's Yoga



Thank you again for a good conversation on this matter. I hope to hear more.

pranams

Bob G
14 February 2008, 12:07 PM
Gentlemen,

In your opinion, or teaching, what allows the native or sadhu to see the world correctly? What brings 20-20 vision on this matter? Yajvan

What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ??? Sarabhanga

My pov is that the saying below alludes to answers to your questions listed above. But that is my opinion only and of my interpretation only, thus I also see the saying below as standing on its own for others to interpret as they will or seek further information and or clairfication from the Hindu Lineage related to same.

"God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth". by Siva Yogaswami

Good day

yajvan
14 February 2008, 12:16 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Gentlemen,

"God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth". by Siva Yogaswami

Good day


Namaste BobG,
Thank you for the post...
To the saint with enlightened vision, s/he sees all 'this' as the extention of Him, as He is everywhere.

The thief only sees the pockets of the saint; the saint only sees the divine of the sinner.

pranam

sarabhanga
14 February 2008, 11:16 PM
Gentlemen,

In your opinion, or teaching, what allows the native or sadhu to see the world correctly? What brings 20-20 vision on this matter? Yajvan

What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ??? Sarabhanga

My pov is that the saying below alludes to answers to your questions listed above. But that is my opinion only and of my interpretation only, thus I also see the saying below as standing on its own for others to interpret as they will or seek further information and or clairfication from the Hindu Lineage related to same.

"God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth". by Siva Yogaswami

Good day

“The world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.”

explained only by,

“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.”

So I assume that “the world” is “everywhere and everything”, and that “truth” is “the realization of god”, and that “falsehood” is “ignorance of god”, and that “correct understanding” is “seeing god in manifestation”, and that “incorrect understanding” is “not seeing god in manifestation”.

And thus,

“Everywhere and everything, if not regarded as the manifestation of god, is ignorance of god; and everywhere and everything, if regarded as the manifestation of god, is the realization of god.”

Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood. (?)

sarabhanga
15 February 2008, 04:13 AM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (first chapter):

There must be some origin of all entities that exist – this is the well considered conclusion. prANa creates all, puruSa creates the rays of the mind (i.e. individual souls) separate from one another. [6]

Other creation-theorists, on the other hand, consider creation to be the manifestation of puruSa; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion. [7]

Creation is due to just the will of the lord – so think others who are quite convinced of there being a creation; the time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from time. [8]

Creation is for the sake of enjoyment of the lord – so say others; for the sake of sport – so say still others. This again is the very nature of god – so say others, arguing ‘what possible desire can there be in the case of the lord, whose cravings are already fulfilled?’ [9]

The all-pervading is traditionally known as turya – capable of controlling the cessation of all miseries, powerful, immutable, non-dual among all entities, refulgent. [10]

Those two well-known vishva and taijasa are taken to be conditioned by cause and effect; prAjña, on the other hand, is conditioned by cause alone; and those two (i.e. cause and effect) have no place in the case of turya. [11]

Neither the self, nor others again, for that matter; neither truth nor again untruth – nothing whatsoever does prAjña comprehend. That turya however is always all-seeing. [12]

The non-perception of duality is common to both prAjña and turya. prAjña is caught up with the causal sleep, while it does not exist in turya. [13]

The first two (i.e. vishva and taijasa) are caught up with dream and sleep, prAjña, on the other hand, with dreamless sleep. The ones convinced (about advaita) see in turya neither sleep, nor again dream for that matter. [14]

Dream is for one comprehending reality otherwise; sleep for one who does not know reality. When the wrong apprehension in those two becomes extinct, one attains to the turya. [15]

When the individual soul, asleep owing to the beginning-less mAyA, is awakened, he then realizes the unborn, sleepless, dreamless non-duality. [16]

If the projected creation really existed, it would continue to be, no doubt. But this duality is just mAyA; there is only non-duality in reality. [17]

If some illusion is imagined by someone, it could be rejected. This statement is on account of its usefulness for instruction; when the highest is known, duality does not exist. [18]

The syllable A leads on to vishva, and the syllable U as well to taijasa, and the syllable M again to prAjña. There is no course towards what has no portions. [23]

One should know the oMkAra, quarter by quarter; the quarters are the portions, no doubt. Having known the oMkAra, quarter by quarter, one should meditate upon nothing else whatsoever. [24]

One should fix the mind upon praNava; praNava is brahman void of fear; for him ever fixed upon praNava, there is no fear anywhere. [25]

praNava is indeed the lower brahman, praNava likewise is the higher (Atman). Beginningless, undifferentiated, without outside, unique and immutable is praNava. [26]

praNava indeed is itself the beginning, middle, and likewise the end of everything. Having indeed known praNava thus, one attains to it immediately. [27]

One should indeed know praNava as the lord well set in the heart of all. Having thought of the all-pervading oMkAra, the wise one does not grieve. [28]

sarabhanga
15 February 2008, 05:25 AM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (fourth chapter):

Some disputants indeed fancy the origination of the existent; other intelligent disputants, of the non-existent; thus they are seen disputing with one another. [3]

No existent whatever is originated; a non-existent is assuredly not originated; those disputants indeed disputing thus proclaim non-origination. [4]

We endorse the non-origination proclaimed by them; we dispute not with them. Know how the ajAtivAda is free from dispute. [5]

The disputants wish to prove the origination of the entity which is verily unoriginated. How indeed can an unborn immortal entity pass on to mortality? [6]

The immortal does not become mortal, nor likewise the mortal immortal. There would not be, under any circumstances, a change otherwise of one’s nature. [7]

He for whom an entity immortal in its own nature goes to mortality – how will the immortal of his, artificially made, remain changeless? [8]

That should be well known as nature which is fully established, natural, inborn and not made artificially, and which does not abandon its own nature. [9]


prakRti is “the original or natural form or condition of anything , the cause or original source, origin, extraction, nature, character, constitution, disposition, fundamental form, pattern, standard, model, or rule”. And prakRti (as mAyA) is distinct from puruSa (as brahma).

prakRti (“nature”) never gives up its own characteristics.

And prakRti is defined in four ways:

sAMsiddhikI (“fully established”) ~ “effected naturally, existing by its own nature or essence, effected by supernatural means” or “acquired, but become second nature”.

svAbhAvikI (“natural”) ~ “belonging to or arising from one’s own nature, spontaneous, original, peculiar, or inherent”.

sahajA (“inborn”) ~ “congenital, hereditary, original, by birth, or always the same as from the beginning”.

akRtA (“not made artificially’) ~ “undone, not made, or uncreated”.

suresh
15 February 2008, 09:39 AM
Namaste Yajvan,



Another member , I think it was Singhi pointed to the notion of false equals transitory, changing, with multi-various permutations. I like this notion.


This is the neo-Vedanta line, equating temporary with false, and permanent with real. But the q will arise as to whether this change is real. If real, there will be two entities that are real, which goes against the basic tenet of advaita that Brahman alone is real. If change is considered unreal, it will contradict our contention that things are transitory. Either way, it's going to be a problem for advaita. So temporary=unreal doesn't seem to be the solution here.

The Real cannot be determined in terms of time. If we do, one may as well conclude space is real, it's Brahman, because there's no evidence that it's ever created or destroyed or transformed in any manner. In effect, we'll be equating an element of prakriti with Brahman, if we try to ascertain the real in terms of time. And that could be disastrous. So it's better to conclude that the unreal has nothing to do with temporary or permanent existence, the unreal never exists at all.


If the reflection in the mirror is the false part, what then is it reflecting? This is the pickle we can deal with here, if we wish to continue the conversation.

Brahman is being reflected. I do not see a problem here, unless we assume that only the real can reflect the real. The source of dreams is 'real' in the waking state, yet we consider dreams to be unreal. Likewise, Brahman is real, even though the reflection isn't.

atanu
15 February 2008, 11:09 AM
Namaste Yajvan,
- So it's better to conclude that the unreal has nothing to do with temporary or permanent existence, the unreal never exists at all.


Namaste Suresh,

I am trying to follow your line of thought, which surely is making an impact. But I want to understand how this line of thought is different from Dvaita or Samkhya, which have two entitities -- purusha and prakriti. Whereas Vedanta has only Brahman (Atman).

It is true that unreal never had any existence and never will and such a thing cannot give rise to any effect, such as barren women's son does not come into effect.

But the universe is pratyaksha. Distinct minds are pratayksha -- this forum itself is a proof. Then how this variegated thing is explained in the light of intentless uniform-nirguna Brahman.

Surely, uniform-nirguna Brahman requires no instruction of Gita.


Likewise, Brahman is real, even though the reflection isn't.

But we surely see the reflection only and not Brahman. An unreal thing never was and never will be.

If only Nirguna Brahman was seen as it is, then there would be no teacher and no student. The fact is that Samaan Brahman is not seen as it is. Why?


Om

sarabhanga
16 February 2008, 12:53 AM
There's no evidence that space is ever created or destroyed or transformed in any manner.

Namaste Suresh,

See: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14591#post14591

suresh
16 February 2008, 03:18 AM
But the universe is pratyaksha. Distinct minds are pratayksha -- this forum itself is a proof. Then how this variegated thing is explained in the light of intentless uniform-nirguna Brahman.

Surely, uniform-nirguna Brahman requires no instruction of Gita.



But we surely see the reflection only and not Brahman. An unreal thing never was and never will be.

If only Nirguna Brahman was seen as it is, then there would be no teacher and no student. The fact is that Samaan Brahman is not seen as it is. Why?


Om

Namaste Atanu,

Your questions are based on the supposition that the unreal, being non-existent at all times, cannot be an object of pratyaksha. But this isn't true, the unreal can be perceived, as in the case of a snake superimposed on the rope. But just because the snake becomes an object of perception, does it make the snake real? On the contrary, the snake has been non-existent at all times, even though pratyaksha points to the exact opposite.

Even as an object of pratyaksha, the snake was unreal, non-existent. It's not as if the snake became unreal, only after the rope was perceived, and until then, it was real. No, it was unreal, even when it happened to be within the field of pratyaksha. Likewise, even as an object of pratyaksha, the world is unreal.

Bottom line, pratyaksha is no evidence of an object's existence, otherwise, there may be no distinction at all between truth and false. Since both are perceived, one can reason that truth and false are both true! And that, needless to say, is a logical contradiction.

atanu
16 February 2008, 06:21 AM
Namaste Atanu,

-- Likewise, even as an object of pratyaksha, the world is unreal.


Namaste Suresh,

Of course. It will depend on what you mean by unreal: Asat-non-existence or Mithya-illusion. If the world is Asat, then we should not have to shout and remind others that the world is unreal. Why the sense of unreality at all? That has not been answered till now. Even the strong teachers fail to remember that the world is unreal when faced with personal trouble. And if Brahman alone is Sat and all else Asat then whom you wish to wake up with lion's roar?

We are going round and round and it may be better to rest the matter here, if unreal world is Asat, as per you.

Om

Bob G
17 February 2008, 09:29 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

“The world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.” #1. My words only.

explained only by, #2...Not exactly or perhaps not at all depending one's own interpretation or pov which is why I said: "But that is my opinion only and of my interpretation only, thus I also see the saying below as standing on its own for others to interpret as they will or seek further information and or clairfication from the Hindu Lineage related to same".

“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.” Siva Yogaswami.

Below are your extrapolations:
#1. So I assume that “the world” is “everywhere and everything”, and that “truth” is “the realization of god”, and that “falsehood” is “ignorance of god”, and that “correct understanding” is “seeing god in manifestation”, and that “incorrect understanding” is “not seeing god in manifestation”.

Several of your quotes in the paragraph above have word changes from the originals and thus are not quotes but a paraphrasing done in your own words.

And thus,

#2. “Everywhere and everything, if not regarded as the manifestation of god, is ignorance of god; and everywhere and everything, if regarded as the manifestation of god, is the realization of god.”

More paraphrasing above which could more or less be ok but why the quotation marks as if putting words in my mouth or in modification of the Satguru's saying, which I originally and only quoted word for word? (along with my preface to same in brown text #2, listed earlier)

#3. Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood.

Not in pov, ... but apparently the extrapolation you suggest above in #3, is known to be contrary to that of a professed followers of Sankara; (correct?) and is also apparently something that would give you pleasure to refute...(?) thus it seems to me that you have found a way to create same out of my post to serve the purposes of such.


:cool1:

sarabhanga
17 February 2008, 06:34 PM
Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.




“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.”





What allows the native or sadhu to see the world correctly?




What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ???





My pov is that the saying below alludes to answers to your questions listed above.




“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.”





“The world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.”

explained only by,

“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.”





“The world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.” My words only.





Not exactly [explained] or perhaps not at all [explained] depending one’s own interpretation or pov.

So far, not explained at all!




So I assume that “the world” is “everywhere and everything”, and that “truth” is “the realization of god”, and that “falsehood” is “ignorance of god”, and that “correct understanding” is “seeing god in manifestation”, and that “incorrect understanding” is “not seeing god in manifestation”.

And thus,

“Everywhere and everything, if not regarded as the manifestation of god, is ignorance of god; and everywhere and everything, if regarded as the manifestation of god, is the realization of god.”

Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood. (?)





Several of your quotes in the paragraph above have word changes from the originals and thus are not quotes but a paraphrasing done in your own words.

Inverted commas are not only used for quotations, and any changes were made for purely grammatical reasons. And my extrapolation began with “I assume that” and finished with a bold question mark, so your complaint of “not quotes but a paraphrasing done in your own words” is pointless.

The original question (regarding your own interpretation of your own words) remains unanswered. :cool1:

What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ???




Apparently the extrapolation you suggest is known to be contrary to that of a professed followers of Sankara; (correct?) and is also apparently something that would give you pleasure to refute...(?) thus it seems to me that you have found a somewhat clever way to create same out of my post to serve your purposes for such.

Since you have refused to clarify your original words, I can only assume that your intention was to provoke ~ or perhaps you have no idea what you were talking about. :blah:

Bob G
17 February 2008, 07:53 PM
predictable.

atanu
18 February 2008, 04:16 AM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (first chapter):


-Other creation-theorists, on the other hand, consider creation to be the manifestation of puruSa; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion. [7]

Creation is due to just the will of the lord – so think others who are quite convinced of their being a creation; the time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from time. [8]

Creation is for the sake of enjoyment of the lord – so say others; for the sake of sport – so say still others. This again is the very nature of god – so say others, arguing ‘what possible desire can there be in the case of the lord, whose cravings are already fulfilled?’ [9]

-

Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji,

I am a bit surprised by this particular translation (the portion marked with red letters above), as if Gaudapda is denying the svabhAva. Will you be kind enough to let me know the source of this translation?

The standard Advaita translation of the verse is as below:




(Analysis of Creation Theories)
I-6. It is a settled fact that coming into being can be said only of positive entities that exist. Prana creates all; and Purusha creates the conscious beings separately.
I-7. Those who think of creation hold it as the manifestation of God's power; while others regard creation as same as dream and illusion.
I-8. Creation is the mere will of the Lord, say those who thought out well the (process of) creation, but those who rely upon time hold that the birth of beings is from time.
I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?


The above is also reflected in the discussion on the subject in Advaita site as quoted below:



From Advaita Vedanta site

Moreover, the very metaphor of the alAtacakra is a peculiarly buddhist one. The alAtacakra is a burning firebrand that is waved in a circle, creating an impression of a continuous circle of fire. It is interesting to note here that gauDapAda characteristically inverts the use of the buddhist metaphor. The buddhist uses the metaphor to insist that the impression of a continuous circle is an illusion, there being nothing more than the momentary spatial positions of the burning brand. Hence, from the buddhist prespective, it is plainly an error to see the burning circle as having any svabhAva - "own-nature". gauDapAda on the other hand points out that the burning brand is itself the substratum of its momentary spatial positions and the illusion of a burning circle caused by waving the brand. Hence, according to him, even if the burning circle is an illusion, its svabhAva is nothing other than that of the burning brand.



One may check the original in the Gaudapada page on Advaita.org.com.


http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html#ajati (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html#ajati)
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html)





From Sarabhanga
prakRti is “the original or natural form or condition of anything , the cause or original source, origin, extraction, nature, character, constitution, disposition, fundamental form, pattern, standard, model, or rule”. And prakRti (as mAyA) is distinct from puruSa (as brahma).


Do you hold that prakRti itself is mAyA?

Regards

Om

Bob G
18 February 2008, 07:23 AM
"And thus,

“Everywhere and everything, if not regarded as the manifestation of god, is ignorance of god; and everywhere and everything, if regarded as the manifestation of god, is the realization of god.”

Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood. (?)

an Upanisahd if you will?

1. 'To him who sees, perceives, and understands this, the spirit
(prana) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory
springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and
disappearance, food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration,
will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this
springs from the Self.

2. 'There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor
illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains
everything everywhere.
'"He is one (before creation), he becomes three (fire, water, earth),
he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is
called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty."

atanu
18 February 2008, 10:26 AM
"And thus,
-
Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood. (?)


an Upanisahd if you will?

1. 'To him who sees, perceives, and understands this, the spirit
(prana) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory
springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and
disappearance, food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration,
will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this
springs from the Self.

2. 'There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor
illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains
everything everywhere.
'"He is one (before creation), he becomes three (fire, water, earth),
he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is
called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty."


Namaste Bob,

Thank you for the nice quotes.

Yet what you quote, i.e. 'To him who sees, perceives, and understands this----' is realisation of Atman. This realisation is not devoid of the following experience (Mandukya):

prapancopaSamam - that Saman into which the world is resolved, and
ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram - the essence of cognition of the One Atman.

In the turIya state, there is no more external world perceived as separate from oneself. The "oneself" that was previously talked about doesn't exist anymore, and the world external to this "oneself" also does not exist anymore. Only the One Atman remains. It is ajAti. One Atman, the one and only Reality.

'Springs from Atman' does not mean some material springing out. The Atman is transcendental ever one, uncreated and not a creator, since it merely sees various non-volitional effects such as Prana etc., as objects of its own nature-consciousness.
--------------------------------

What I wished to indicate was that with differentiated world held as a truth (even as effect of God), the prapancopaSamam and ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram will never be realised. The same Upanishads, from which you have cited, also say that 'only the Atman should be meditated upon' and 'there is no difference in it'.

Regards,

Om

sarabhanga
18 February 2008, 08:06 PM
Namaste Atanu,

The conclusion of shrI gauDapAda is clearly stated:


“No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists. This [is] that highest truth where nothing whatsoever is born. [III.48, IV.71]

Verses 6-9, however, describe various views of creation according to the “creation-theorists”. And all such views presuppose that there must be a prabhava (“source, origin, cause of existence, creator”) for all that exists ~ “There must be some origin of all entities that exist. This is the well considered conclusion.”


prabhavaH sarvabhAvAnAM satAmiti vinishcayaH |
sarvaM janayati prANashcetoMshUnpuruSaH |6|

vibhUtiM prasavaM tvanye manyante sRSTicintakAH |
svapnamAyAsarUpeti sRSTiranyairvikalpitA |7|

icchAmAtraM prabhoH sRSTiriti sRSTau vinishcitAH |
kAlAtprasUtiM bhUtAnAM manyante kAlacintakAH |8|

bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo'yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|


[There must be some] origin of all entities that exist ~ this [is] the well considered conclusion. prANa creates all, puruSa [creates] the rays of the mind (i.e. individual souls) separate [from one another]. [6]

Other creation-theorists, on the other hand, consider creation [to be] the manifestation [of puruSa]; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion. [7]

Creation [is due to] just the will of the lord ~ so [think others who are] quite convinced of [there being a] creation; the time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from time. [8]

Creation [is] for the sake of enjoyment [of the lord] ~ so [say] others; for the sake of sport ~ so [say] still others. This again [is] the [very] nature of god ~ [so say others, arguing] ‘what possible desire [can there be in the case] of [the lord], whose cravings are [already] fulfilled?’ [9]

prANavAda, puruSavAda, vibhUtivAda, svapnamAyAvAda, icchAvAda, kAlavAda, bhogavAda, krIDAvAda, and svabhAvavAda, are all refuted as avidyA resulting from mAyA.

bhogavAda (asserting creation for divine enjoyment) and krIDAvAda (asserting creation for divine sport) are both refuted by svabhAvavAda (asserting creation as divine nature).

svabhAvavAda considers that it is the svabhAva (“own condition or state of being, natural state or constitution, innate or inherent disposition, nature, impulse”) of the lord to create.

svabhAvavAda argues that the lord, being AptakAma (“satisfied”) cannot have any desire or purpose in creation, which is only his lIlA (cf. brahmasUtra 2.1.33).


lokavat (“as seen in the world”) tu (“but”) lIlAkaivalyam (“mere pastime”).


“Even as kings without any motive behind are seen to engage in acts for mere pastime, or even as men breathe without purpose, for it is their very nature, or even as children play out of mere fun, so also brahman without any purpose engages itself in creating this world of diversity.”

prakRti is synonymous with prabhava (“cause”) and svabhAva (“nature”), and ajAtivAda regards all causes and conditions as mAyA.




Do you hold that prakRti itself is mAyA?



shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).



shrI means “to mix or mingle, to burn or diffuse light”.
shrI is “diffusing light or radiance”.
shrI is “power or distinction”.
And shrI is lakshmI.
shrI was produced at the churning of the ocean.
shrI is the consort of nArAyaNa viSNu.
shrI is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma.
shrI is shakti and prakRti.
viSNu mAya is “measuring or creating illusions”, and that mAyA is shrI lakshmI.
mAyA is “the shakti or power of viSNu”.
mAyA is “dvaitam or illusion”.
mAyA is “the source of manifestation”.
mAyA is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma and mRtyu.
And mAyA is the daughter of adharma and nirRti.

shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).



nara = sharva = sarva = prajñAna
nArAyaNa = bhava = sarveshvara = prAjñA



nara = ekapAda = sharva = sarva = paramAtman
nArAyaNa = sahasrapAda = bhava = sarvAÑga = sUtrAtman



nara = sharva = sarva = nirgarbha = brahmayoni = prajñAna = vijñAnaghana
nArAyaNa = bhava = sarveshvara = hiraNyagarbha = brahmabIja = prAjñA = prajñAghana



sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharva = anantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = dvaitAdvaitam = viSNumAya = bhava = nantva



sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharvAnantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = parAdvaita = sAdAshiva = bhavanantva



AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA
M = turya = brahma



AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA

M = turya = brahma


And the translation of Gaudapada Karikas has been given here mainly following R. D. Karmarkar (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute).


bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo’yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|

Directly translated, without interpolation:


“Creation for the sake of enjoyment so others, for the sake of sport so still others.
This again the nature of the shining one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?”

However, according to Swami Nikhilananda (Ramakrishna Mission):


“Others think that the manifestation is for the purpose of enjoyment (of god), while still others attribute it to mere diversion (on the part of god).
But it is the very nature of the effulgent being, (for) what other desire is possible for him whose desire is always in the state of fulfillment?”

The only difference is in translating “but it the nature” instead of “this again the nature”, and from the words alone both readings are correct; but, considering the full context of the kArikAs and shrI gauDapAda’s argument (and ultimate conclusion) of ajAtivAda, the latter translation (as explained above) seems more appropriate.

“The effulgent one” is the hiraNyagarbha (nArAyaNa), as the “creator” (prabhava or prabhU) who creates by his svabhAva ~ and all of this relates to prAjña and jAtivAda, not to the turya and ajAtivAda.


No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists.
This that highest truth, where nothing whatsoever is born.

sarabhanga
18 February 2008, 09:59 PM
“He who sees this, does not see death, nor illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains everything everywhere.”

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

“They are the most foolish of all men who purchase the pleasures of this life with the loss of everlasting bliss.”

Bob G
18 February 2008, 10:45 PM
Unless or until one knows with a knowing that is beyond any form of regular knowing or knowledge, then all of these texts are more or less speculation imo, ..although certain texts could be better described as pointers and helpers to the True, yet they also must be left behind just as any other form of vehicle must be left behind after serving its purpose, that is if one is going to go where a vehicle can not.

Bob G
18 February 2008, 10:54 PM
Hello Sarabhanga,

If I'm not mistaken one can not lose the soul in Hinduism, although it may suffer for a very, very long time.

Anyway I get the drift, although the alluding to via a Christian doctrine seems rather incongruent considering that we have some basic or at least a few points of agreement in Hindu doctrine?

P.S. and thanks for asking (in one way or another) for me to clairify my pov.

Bob G
18 February 2008, 11:31 PM
Hello Atanu,

Thanks for the additional viewpoints and sources of information. I'm sorry but I'm not completely sure of what you are trying to say with your considerate post in regards to the Upanishad I quoted? (I'll have to think about it some more)

Anyway, below is some information or commentary that I'm leaning towards: (with some blue text highlights added that are close to my pov)

Swami Adiswarananda, Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York


"Hinduism maintains that the universe is beginning less and endless. It subscribes to the theory of manifestation and non-manifestation of the universe, of evolution of cosmic energy into names and forms and its involution. The Vedas describe this process as the out-breathing and in-breathing of Brahman. The Upanishads say that just as the hair and nails grow on a living person, as the threads come out of a spider, as sparks fly from a blazing fire, as melodies issue from a flute, or as waves rise on the ocean, so also does the universe come forth from Brahman. Brahman is both the material and the efficient cause of the universe.
This manifestation of Brahman as the manifold universe is not real but apparent. Through its inscrutable power of maya, Brahman appears as the world of matter and souls, and as endowed with the activities of creation, preservation, and dissolution. Maya veils the ultimate reality and in its place projects various appearances. Maya is change and relativity. It is neither real nor unreal nor both. If the world of maya were real, then it could never be changed. On the other hand, it cannot be unreal because the sufferings of life are felt tangibly. As long as it is not known, maya is delusive; but when known, maya is nothing but Brahman.

Btw., I see the last sentence above in blue text as being very similar to my earlier statement and what I was trying to express with the words: "Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true"
Om

atanu
19 February 2008, 12:01 AM
Namaste Atanu,


The conclusion of shrI gauDapAda is clearly stated:



“No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists. This that highest truth where nothing whatsoever is born. III.48, IV.71]


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

With above there is no conflict with the translation of all Advaitins, as below (not by Swami Nikhilananda):

(Analysis of Creation Theories)
--I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?


And not only the translation of Swami Panoli, but several other Adavaita translators all translate it like this.It simply means that there is no intent on the part of Turya, but IT has pure nature (such as Fire is never devoid of Heat). Nirgunam Turya is also never devoid of Satchidananadam, through which it can manifest a world and be a Seer or it can withdraw all into itself.
-------------------------

No creature is ever born, it is by Turya's nature of Existing, Knowing, and Enjoying, IT transfigures ITS concsiousness to manifest or to withdraw. Gaudapada has definitely spoken of Fire Brand wheel that appears due to movement of firebrand. Gaudapada has also spoken of vibration of consciousness (leading to transfiguration).

There is no conflict whatsoever with:

"No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists.


This that highest truth, where nothing whatsoever is born."


When Turya alone remains as true Eko or He manifests or He withdraws, what is created and what is destroyed? The being that is the SEER of the three dream states that you (or me) dwell in is that same Turya.


So, it is not that the Maya called alAtacakra is same as the nature of Turya -- satchitananadam. The ignorance of EKO TURYA makes the real nature of Turya to appear as Maya. Similarly, when I refer to natural nature of Turya to be its only consort, I do not mean a female. Purusha and Prakriti are distinct in that Purusha is intelligent and Prakriti is not so, but Prakriti is never separate from Purusha.


But in truth the reality is [I]prapancopaSamam and ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram


Anyway, this is my comprehension and it surely differs from yours. I now understand the nature of discussion in few previous posts.


Regards

OM

atanu
19 February 2008, 01:13 AM
Hello Atanu,
-

Swami Adiswarananda, Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York

----The Upanishads say that just as the hair and nails grow on a living person, as the threads come out of a spider, as sparks fly from a blazing fire, as melodies issue from a flute, or as waves rise on the ocean, so also does the universe come forth from Brahman. -Om

Namaste Bob,

Thank you for your write up. There are several creation theories and all vary. It is Advaita point of view that since Brahman is Samaan and unchangeable, the description of 'sparks fly from a blazing fire' etc. depict relative states and not the unchangeable immutable. By definition nothing is external or internal to Brahman or Brahman never has some material leaving it.

From Advaita POV, very well supported by all Upanishads: prapancopaSamam and ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram belong to the immutable Brahman knowledge. There is no diverse world. Yet, when I see a world, there being no other seer but Turya, the world is Seen by Turya alone (as a state). The apparent division in it is Maya -- ignorance. It is one consciousness alone and it is a product of Brahman existing as Satchitananadam, which is always Samaaan and the only intelligent Seer/Knower/Enjoyer.

ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram

Regards

Om

atanu
19 February 2008, 01:45 AM
Namaste Atanu,
-And the translation of Gaudapada Karikas has been given here mainly following R. D. Karmarkar (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute).


bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo’yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|Directly translated, without interpolation:


“Creation for the sake of enjoyment so others, for the sake of sport so still others.
This again the nature of the shining one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?”

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

The translation of Shri Karmarkar and the original citation of yours (as below), are surely different. The letters in red are not there in the Karmarkar's translation.



From Sarabhanga Giri
This again the nature of the shining one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?” (R D Karmarkar)



From Sarabhanga Giri
Creation is for the sake of enjoyment of the lord – so say others; for the sake of sport – so say still others. This again is the very nature of god – so say others, arguing ‘what possible desire can there be in the case of the lord, whose cravings are already fulfilled?’ [9]

Regards,
Om

atanu
19 February 2008, 02:11 AM
Namaste Atanu,

--“The effulgent one” is the hiraNyagarbha (nArAyaNa), as the “creator” (prabhava or prabhU) who creates by his svabhAva ~ and all of this relates to prAjña and jAtivAda, not to the turya and ajAtivAda.


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

What doubt there is of it?

Yet, there is simply no second Atman called Hiranyagarbha. It is simply a state of appearance of unchangeable Turya's own consciousness.

There is no second conscious being.

Om

sarabhanga
19 February 2008, 03:16 AM
The translation of Shri Karmarkar and the original citation of yours (as below), are surely different. The letters in red are not there in the Karmarkar's translation.

Namaste Atanu,

NO! You have misinterpreted my posting. I have added no words to anyone’s translation !!


Following R. D. Karmarkar:

“Creation [is] for the sake of enjoyment [of the lord] ~ so [say] others; for the sake of sport ~ so [say] still others. This again [is] the [very] nature of the shining one ~ [so say others, arguing] ‘what possible desire [can there be in the case] of [the lord], whose cravings are [already] fulfilled?’”


Directly translated, without interpolation:

“Creation for the sake of enjoyment so others, for the sake of sport so still others.
This again the nature of the shining one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?”

sarabhanga
19 February 2008, 06:07 AM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (fourth chapter):

The immortal does not become mortal, nor likewise the mortal immortal. There would not be, under any circumstances, a change otherwise of one’s nature. [7]

He for whom an entity immortal in its own nature, goes to mortality ~ how will the immortal of his, subject to artificial effort, remain changeless? [8]

That should be well known as nature which is fully established, natural, inborn, and not made artificially, and which does not abandon its own nature. [9]

For whom indeed the cause is the effect, for him the cause is originated; if the cause is being originated, how can it be unborn, and how again can that, if modified, be eternal? [11]

If it is argued by you that there is non-difference of the effect from the cause, and therefore, if the effect is regarded as unoriginated, how can your cause indeed, which is non-different from the effect being originated, be spoken of by you as unchanging? [12]

For whom the effect is originated from the unoriginated cause, for him there is assuredly no illustration to corroborate his theory; and in the case of the effect being originated from the originated, there would be the undesirable contingency of regressus ad infinitum. [13]

For whom the effect is the beginning of the cause, and the cause is the beginning of the effect ~ how can be nonchalantly described by them, the beginningless of the cause as well as the effect? [14]

For whom the effect is the beginning of the cause, and the cause is the beginning of the effect, for them, there would be the birth in the same manner as the birth of the father from the son. [15]

In the case of origination of the cause and effect, if admitted, the order in which this takes place has got to be searched after by you, in as much as in the case of simultaneous origination of cause and effect, there would be the absence of mutual connection, like the left and right horns of a bull. [16]

Your cause, being brought into being from the effect, would not be substantiated; how will the unsubstantiated cause produce the effect? [17]

If there is the substantiation of the cause from the effect, and the substantiation of the effect from the cause, which one of the two is produced first, whose substantiation is dependent upon the other? [18]

Incapacity of the cause to prove the effect, the absence of full knowledge about what is prior and what is posterior, the violation again of the reasonable order ~ thus indeed, non-origination has been blazoned forth by the wise. [19]

Nothing whatever is originated, either from itself or from something else also; nothing whatever, whether existent, non-existent, or existent-nonexistent as well, is originated. [22]

By its own nature, the cause is not originated from the beginningless, and the effect too. For which there is no beginning, there is no cause indeed for it. [23]

atanu
19 February 2008, 06:53 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

We are perhaps saying the same thing, except on one point. The instrinsic nature, which is not destroyable is not Maya, which is destroyable.

The standard Advaitic understanding of Maya and Ajativada

Māyā According to Shankara

Māyā is that complex illusionary power of Brahman, which causes the Brahman to be seen as the distinct material world. It has two main functions — one is to "cover up" Brahman from the human minds, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Māyā is also indescribable. It is neither completely real nor completely unreal—hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but Brahman itself is untouched by the profanity of Māyā, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. Māyā is temporary and is destroyed with "true knowledge".
Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this illusionary power Māyā.

Due to ignorance (avidyā), the Brahman is visible as the material world and its discrete objects.

Standard Advaitic understanding of Ajativada

Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, is the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. From the absolute standpoint origination is an impossibility. The various theories of creation - that it is the expansion of God or it is the will of God or it is for God's enjoyment or it is an illusion like a dream or it proceeds from time - are all rejected by Gaudapaada. Manifestation of World is the very nature of God. It is his inherent nature which simply emanates and flows from him. But even this is only an appearance for in truth there's no creation at all. For those well versed in the Vedaanta the world is like a city of Gaandharvas - an illusion. Viewed from the absolute there's neither birth nor death, neither appearance nor disappearance, neither production nor destruction, neither bondage nor liberation. There's none who works for freedom nor is there any who is liberated - this is the highest truth. The wise know that there's neither unity nor plurality - the world is neither one nor many. Just as a piece of rope is mistaken for a snake, the Atman is mistaken as this diverse world. Duality is an appearance and the non-dual Atman is the real truth.

Causality taught in the Upanishads is only to enable us to understand the supreme truth of no-origination. The world is not different from the self and the self is not different from Atman and Atman is not different from Brahman. That the non-dual absolute appears as the diverse world is only an illusion. If it really became diverse then the immortal would become mortal. The dualists who seek to prove the origination of the unborn, by that very enterprise try to make the immortal, mortal. Ultimate nature can never change - the immortal can never become mortal and vice versa. Gaudapaada quotes from the Upanishads : "There's no plurality here"; "The Lord through his powers appears to be many"; "those who're attached to creation or production or origination go to utter darkness"; "the unborn is never reborn, for who can produce him?".

Om

atanu
19 February 2008, 08:33 AM
Advaita (or even Ajati Vada) surely does not say that the world is ‘Asat – non existent’, since, the “I Exist”, consciousness is the common knowledge, even in the world. The creation is impossible, as per Ajativada, but not the trans-figuration, which is Pratayaksha. Gaudapada has indeed mentioned vibration of consciousness.

IV-47. Just as the fire-brand set in motion appears as straight, crooked etc., similarly, the vibration of Consciousness appears as the perceiver and the perceived (GAUDAPADA KARIKA).

The transfiguration would not have happened in absence of one without a second Brahman and thus it is not unreasonable to say:

I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled? (GAUDAPADA KARIKA).

The red part is the most common translation and it is indeed logical, since it is qualified by a support that Brahman can only be desireless and thus there cannot be any other premise but its own essential nature for the world to exist.



Modified and abridged from Dr. Sadananda's writings

taTastha lakShaNa and svarUpa lakShaNa

Brahman is first introduced as the cause for the creation. The taittirIya upanishad defines Brahman as that because of which the whole universe arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back – know that to be Brahman. By declaring that Brahman is the cause for the Universe, it confirms provisionally the deep rooted concepts we have about God, who is the creator, controller and destroyer. Furthermore, this definition provides a clear description for the material cause by saying that the universe is sustained by Brahman and it goes back into Brahman when it dissolves – just as gold is the material cause for all the gold ornaments.

The definition of an object that helps temporarily to identify the object, but which is discarded later for a better definition is called incidental qualification or taTastha lakShaNa, an incidental qualification. Vedanta provides the next level of definition called ‘intrinsic qualification’ or svAbhAvika lakShaNa. This definition is one of the four aphorisms or great statements or mahAvAkya-s, for Brahman. There are four great statements, one from each Veda, and they provide us with the next level of operating definitions for Brahman.

There are two types of intrinsic qualifications: a necessary qualification, and a necessary and sufficient qualification. When we say sugar is sweet, the sweetness of the sugar is a necessary qualification. If it is sugar, it necessarily should be sweet. But that sweetness, although a necessary qualification, is not a sufficient qualification to define sugar. To prove the sufficiency requirement, a converse definition has to be valid. The converse statement for ‘sugar is sweet’ is ‘sweet is sugar’, that is, if something is sweet it has to be sugar. Vedanta defines Brahman in the aphoristic statement ‘consciousness is Brahman’, implying that ‘consciousness’ is both a necessary and sufficient qualification to define Brahman. It means if there is a conscious entity anywhere, it must be Brahman. A necessary and sufficient qualification defines what is known as ‘svarUpa lakShaNa’, which essentially defines the intrinsic structure or form for the object that one is defining.

Consciousness being the very structure of Brahman implies that consciousness is not really a qualification, since a qualification needs a locus for its existence. ‘prajnAnaM brahma’ is an identity relation where consciousness is identically equal to Brahman – this is also the meaning of svarUpa lakShaNa.

The Mahavakyas indicative of svarUpa lakShaNa of Brahman are:

Ayam Atma Brahma: This Self is Brahman (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda); Tat Tvam Asi: Thou art that (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya Upanishad); Aham Brahmasmi: I am Brahman (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad); Prajnanam Brahma: Consciousness is Brahman (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda).

Why Brahman is not really the cause of creation of World objects

Vedanta explains creation as a transformation-less transformation (transfiguration) – like gold becoming ornaments, like mud becoming pots and like iron becoming machine-tools, etc. Three examples are chosen to drive the point across in Chandogya Up. Ch. 6.

In the process of gold becoming ornaments, the material cause for all is Gold. In fact, from the point of view of the gold, there is no transformation but from the points of view of the ring, bangle and necklace, there is creation, existence as well as separateness from other objects in the world.

The Upanishad says ‘vAchArambhanam vikAro nAmadheyam’ – It is the creation of a name for a form. From the Gold point of view, there is no creation: it was gold, it is gold and it will be gold, even if one melts the gold ornaments to make something else. Yet from the point of view of names and forms, there is a creation of names and forms. If the ring had a mind of its own, it could say that I am only a ring, with a date of birth, different from the bangle and necklace. I am of course in many ways better than those other fellows ----.

There is no ringly material to sustain a ring – no substance called ring for the name and form to support. What is there is only that which it is made up of – the gold. Yet for transactional purposes (vyavahAra), a ring is different from a bangle and a necklace and their utilities are different.

There is really no world to call as worldly substance. It is Brahman only in a variety of names and forms. Existence (Is ness) is the essential ingredient in all objects when we say ‘there IS an object with these attributes’. That ‘IS-ness’ is the existence part. That is-ness is associated with the knowledge of its existence where ‘consciousness as though enters the name and form’.

Just as it is the glory of gold to be able to exist in varieties of forms with names, so it is the glory of Brahman to be able to exist in different names and forms and know them (yet not abide in them), remaining unchanging Brahman. The misconceptions of each form have nothing to do with Brahman.


Om

sarabhanga
19 February 2008, 05:58 PM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (fourth chapter):

In as much as the unoriginated is said to be originated, therefore non-origination is its nature. There would not be, under any circumstances, a change otherwise of one’s nature. [29]

What is not at the beginning, and at the end, is so also in the present; existing things, though similar to illusions, are noted as though real. [31]

By the wise has been preached the doctrine of ‘origination’ for those who contend that ‘things exist in reality’ because of the perception of those things and of the prevailing etiquette and who are ever frightened of the doctrine of non-origination. [42]

Who, on account of the perception of things as though they are real, go astray ~ in the case of those frightened of the doctrine of non-origination, evils due to belief in origination would not be forthcoming; there the evil, if at all, would be negligible. [43]

As an illusion-elephant is spoken of as real because of the perception and of the prevailing etiquette, similarly ‘things exist’ is spoken of as depicting a real state of things because of perception and of the prevailing etiquette. [44]

sarabhanga
19 February 2008, 07:04 PM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (fourth chapter):

As an illusion-elephant is spoken of as real because of the perception and of the prevailing etiquette, similarly ‘things exist’ is spoken of as depicting a real state of things because of perception and of the prevailing etiquette. [44]

Origination-appearance, moving appearance, and thing appearance, exactly in the same way, are nothing but vijñAna, unoriginated and unmoving, unsubstantiality, calm and without any dual. [45]

Thus is not originated the mind; thus are the entities traditionally known as unoriginated; those fully knowing the reality thus alone do not fall into error. [46]

As the shaking of a fire-brand is with the appearance of straight, crooked, etc., so the vibration of vijñAna is with the appearance of perception and perceiver. [47]

As the fire-brand not shaking, presenting no appearance is unoriginated, so is the vijñAna not shaking, presenting no appearance, unoriginated. [48]

When the fire-brand is verily shaking up, the appearances do not arise from anything else; as a result of non-shaking up, the appearances are not elsewhere other than there, nor do they enter into the fire-brand. [49]

They do not get out from the fire-brand, owing to their connection with the absence of the nature of a substance; they would be just like that in respect of the vijñAna also, on account of the non-difference in appearance. [50]

When the vijñAna is verily vibrating, the appearances do not arise from anything else; as a result of non-vibration, the appearances are not elsewhere other than there, nor do they enter the vijñAna. [51]

They do not get out from the vijñAna, owing to their connection with the absence of the nature of a substance; because of the absence of the relation of cause and effect, they are ever and anon incomprehensible. [52]

atanu
19 February 2008, 07:17 PM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (fourth chapter):

In as much as the unoriginated is said to be originated, therefore non-origination is its nature. There would not be, under any circumstances, a change otherwise of one’s nature. [29]

What is not at the beginning, and at the end, is so also in the present; existing things, though similar to illusions, are noted as though real. [31]

- [44]

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Yes.


IV-45. That which bears semblance of birth, appears as though moving, and, similarly seems to be a thing (of attributes), is Consciousness that is birthless, unmoving and non-material, serene and non-dual.


IV-46. Thus Consciousness is unborn; thus the souls are regarded to be unborn. Those who realise thus certainly do not fall into misfortune.


IV-47. Just as the fire-brand set in motion appears as straight, crooked etc., similarly, the vibration of Consciousness appears as the perceiver and the perceived.


IV-48. Just as the fire-brand devoid of motion is without appearances and birth, so also Consciousness devoid of vibration is without appearances and birth.
---------------
IV-58. The souls that are thus born are not born in reality. Their birth is like that of an object through Maya. And that Maya again is non-existent.


IV-55. As long as there is fascination for cause and effect, so long do cause and effect come into existence. When the fascination for cause and effect ceases, there is no further springing up of cause and effect.


Om


The most difficult thing for the mind is to give up the fascination for analysis of cause and effect. I adore that Jnani, who when asked of three Nachiketa fires, five planes of fire, and three states of existence, replied "I do not know anything of these. There is only one fire. There is only one Atman. There is only Turiya."


Om

sarabhanga
19 February 2008, 09:13 PM
As the shaking of a fire-brand is with the appearance of straight, crooked, etc., so the vibration of vijñAna is with the appearance of perception and perceiver. [47]

As the fire-brand not shaking, presenting no appearance is unoriginated, so is the vijñAna not shaking, presenting no appearance, unoriginated. [48]

When the fire-brand is verily shaking up, the appearances do not arise from anything else; as a result of non-shaking up, the appearances are not elsewhere other than there, nor do they enter into the fire-brand. [49]

They do not get out from the fire-brand, owing to their connection with the absence of the nature of a substance; they would be just like that in respect of the vijñAna also, on account of the non-difference in appearance. [50]

When the vijñAna is verily vibrating, the appearances do not arise from anything else; as a result of non-vibration, the appearances are not elsewhere other than there, nor do they enter the vijñAna. [51]

They do not get out from the vijñAna, owing to their connection with the absence of the nature of a substance; because of the absence of the relation of cause and effect, they are ever and anon incomprehensible. [52]

From shaÑkarAcArya’s commentary:

In order to explain the truth regarding the ultimate reality already stated, it is thus said: As the common experience it is noticed that a fire-brand, when moved, appears straight, crooked, etc., so does vijñAna appear as the perceiver, the perceived, and the like. What is that which appears as the perceiver, the perceived, etc.? It is vijñAna set in motion. There is no motion in vijñAna. It only appears to be moving. This appearance is due to avidyA. No motion is possible in vijñAna, which is ever immovable. It has already been stated that vijñAna is unborn and immovable.

As that very fire-brand, when not in motion, does not take any form, straight or crooked, etc., becomes free from all appearances and remains changeless, so also the vijñAna, which appears as moving through avidyA, when dissociated from the idea of motion on the disappearance of avidyA, becomes free from all appearances, as those of birth, etc., and remains unborn and motionless.

Moreover, when that very fire-brand is in motion, the appearances, straight or crooked, etc., do not come to it from anywhere else outside the fire-brand. Nor do the appearances go elsewhere from the fire-brand when it is motionless. Nor, again, do the appearances enter into the fire-brand when it is motionless.

Moreover, those appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand as something that comes out of a house. The reason is that appearances are not of the nature of a substance. The appearances have no reality. Entrance etc., can be said of a real thing, but not of anything unreal. The appearance of birth etc., in the case of vijñAna is exactly similar, for, appearances are of the same nature in both cases.

How are the two appearances similar? It is thus replied: The fire-brand and vijñAna are alike in all respects. The only special feature of vijñAna is that it always remains immutable. What is the cause of appearances, as birth etc., in vijñAna, which is ever immutable? In the absence of causality, it is not reasonable to establish the relationship of the producer and the produced. The appearances, being illusory, are ever unthinkable. The purport of the whole thing is this: As the fire-brand is associated with forms, straight, crooked etc., though, in reality, such crooked or straight forms are ever non-existent, so also, pure vijñAna is associated with the ideas of birth etc., though such ideas as birth etc. are ever non-existent. Hence these ideas of birth etc., associated with vijñAna, are illusory.

sarabhanga
19 February 2008, 11:45 PM
No creature is ever born, it is by Turya’s nature of Existing, Knowing, and Enjoying, IT transfigures ITS consciousness to manifest or to withdraw.

The advaita turya is sthira and dhruva, and cannot become “transfigured”, except in mAyA, which is the illusory source of all becoming.



Gaudapada has definitely spoken of Fire Brand wheel that appears due to movement of firebrand. Gaudapada has also spoken of vibration of consciousness (leading to transfiguration).

And neither that apparent vibration nor any apparent transfiguration can occur without the intervention of mAyA and avidyA.

nArAyaNa is the seer of the three dream states, but the seer’s consciousness, which itself never dreams, remaining eternally fixed, is nara.

saccidAnandam is unborn, and remains always eka.

sat-cit-Ananda is the conception of mAyA, which is born and multiplied and consumed.



Prakriti is never separate from Purusha.

This is dvaitAdvaitavAda and svabhAvavAda, but not pure advaitavAda or ajAtivAda.



The intrinsic nature, which is not destroyable is not Maya, which is destroyable.

The intrinsic nature (svabhAva) is indestructible.

Manifestation of World is the very nature of God. It is his inherent nature.

Therefore the manifestation of worlds (being the svabhAva of god) remains indestructible ~ which does not accord with pure advaitavAda.



The standard Advaita translation of the verse is as below:

“Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?”.

The translation by Swami Nikhilananda was published by the Ramakrishna Mission in 1936, and most subsequent translations have followed his reading (which does not refute svabhAvavAda):

“Others think that the manifestation is for the purpose of enjoyment (of god), while still others attribute it to mere diversion (on the part of god). But it is the very nature of the effulgent being, (for) what other desire is possible for him whose desire is always in the state of fulfillment?”

And from Swami Nikhilananda’s own preface:

“We are profoundly grateful to Mr V. Subrahmanya Iyer, the retired registrar of the Mysore University, for explaining to us the abstruse philosophy of the Karikas.”



Standard Advaitic understanding of Ajativada: The wise know that there is neither unity nor plurality.

And this is either shUnyavAda or vishiSTAdvaitam!



Gaudapada has indeed mentioned vibration of consciousness.

shrI gauDapAda has certainly mentioned the vibration of consciousness, but his overriding argument is that the consciousness, in truth, is without any vibration.

Bob G
19 February 2008, 11:49 PM
Hello Atanu,


"IV-46. Thus Consciousness is unborn; thus the souls are regarded to be unborn. Those who realise thus certainly do not fall into misfortune."

I see a major contradiction in the text above if it is coming from someone that is trying to point towards absolute non-duality; namely in using the word souls, as in multiple souls and the word those which repeats the multiple, and thus the quote does not imply to me the return to non-duality which was never really left...if it includes multiple souls which would be in a dwelling place for same such as in the highest heaven.

Also to me: there is the two as one who is on or at the final boderline of duality as the Witness, thus there are not multiple souls in the oneness of Parasakti or Bliss and even that one who is not two knows that it can not reach the none without total implosion.

Om

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 12:35 AM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (fourth chapter):

Substance may be the cause of substance; and a category other than substance of a category other than substance, assuredly. The nature of a substance, or the nature of some other category, is not reasonable in the case of entities. [53]

Thus, entities are not originated from the mind; the mind also, for that matter, is not originated from entities. Thus the wise enter into the doctrine of non-origination of cause and effect. [54]

As long as there is the obsession with cause and effect, so long is the uprising of cause and effect; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, there is no uprising of cause and effect. [55]

As long as there is the obsession with cause and effect, so long the worldly existence is prolonged; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, one does not attain to worldly existence. [56]

Everything is originated, on account of empirical evidence; therefore, indeed, what is so originated is not eternal. Everything characterized by the nature of existent is unoriginated, and therefore there is no annihilation. [57]

The entities which are spoken of as originated, they are not originated in reality. Their origination is comparable to illusion; that illusion too does not exist. [58]

As from a seed made up by illusion is originated a sprout of illusion, that sprout is not eternal, nor again liable to annihilation; so likewise, the scheme in respect of entities. [59]

The designation of eternal and non-eternal is not significant when all entities are unoriginated; where words do not function, discrimination is not spoken of there. [60]

atanu
20 February 2008, 01:38 AM
Therefore the manifestation of worlds (being the svabhAva of god) remains indestructible ~ which does not accord with pure advaitavAda.


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

When the world is not admitted how it is going to be definable as indestructible or destructible? It is consciousness alone.

IV-48. Just as the fire-brand devoid of motion is without appearances and birth, so also Consciousness devoid of vibration is without appearances and birth.

And it is futile to deny that the consciousness is devoid of vibration (albeit in mode of Maya) for you and me. Do you deny that you are typing something on a computer?


nArAyaNa is the seer of the three dream states, but the seer’s consciousness, which itself never dreams, remaining eternally fixed, is nara.
saccidAnandam is unborn, and remains always eka.You seem to never accept that there is none other than Ekatma Nara. And other than Eka Brahman there is no other intelligent Seer/knower. It is your ignorance that you see nara and nArAyaNa as different. These are different in names only as per your understanding of their nature and functions, as if.

Only Turya stays as it is and also roams (as if) in three dream states. There is no division in nara and narayana as there is no division between Brahman and Atman and Atman and jivatman.

There is only one Atma, which never sleeps.

Om

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 02:22 AM
Substance may be the cause of substance; and a category other than substance of a category other than substance, assuredly. The nature of a substance or the nature of some other category is not reasonable in the case of entities. [53]

In the case of vijñAna, which is aja, eka, etc., no causal relation is possible. The relation of cause and effect implies that there must be two entities. vijñAna is one, immutable, there is nothing else, so it cannot have any parts or distinctions. The natures are not entities, nor are they different from vijñAna.

It has already been established that the essence of self is one and unborn. Those who imagine a causal relation in Atman must admit that substance may be the cause of another substance, and that which is other than substance may be the cause of something else which is also other than substance. But a thing itself cannot be the cause of itself. Further, we do not find in common experience a non-substance which is independently the cause of something. The selves can be called neither substance nor other than substance. Hence the selves cannot be the cause or effect of anything. Therefore Atman, being neither substance nor other than substance, is neither the cause nor the effect of anything.

atanu
20 February 2008, 02:29 AM
shrI gauDapAda has certainly mentioned the vibration of consciousness, but his overriding argument is that the consciousness, in truth, is without any vibration.

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Namah Namah

True. Consciousness is ever formless. The forms are apparent, as grasped by mind. I have never denied it. But, I have already said that our understandings differ. Your understanding is dvaita. Nara and Narayana are not two beings. There is only one being.

You have not comprehended the essence at all. The fire brand remains fire brand. It does not become a circle or a crooked line, which are simply appearances.

It is not that the Gold does not take up different shapes (yet remaining Gold). Vibration on account of activity of mind (a Maya product) is not denied by Gaudapada or any Advaita philosopher. Else there would be no need for scripture or Gaudapada teaching that there is truly no origination. Maya is anadi, though destroyable, when true nature of this world as consciousness is known. In Paramarthika (eko state) alone, there is no ignorant, no one seeking liberation etc.

And no advaitin ever denies that paramarthika is the absolute TRUTH, wherein no division can ever take place.

Even if you are seeing a Maya PC terminal in front of you, you are seeing an effect of vibration of consciousness. And there is no seer other than Turya.

Whether one goes by Shristi-Dhristi or by Drishti-Shristi, Advaitin knows that Ajativada is the Paramarthika reality. But while typing on a PC keyboard, which has a special utility, an Advaitin knows it to be an effect of consciousness (which is ever formless) grasped by mind. And since there is only Ekatma, it alone is the seer of this dream view.

Shruti does say that Rudro Maharishi alone sees the birth of world soul Hiranyagarbha.



By Shankara

How are the two appearances similar? It is thus replied: The fire-brand and vijñAna are alike in all respects. The only special feature of vijñAna is that it always remains immutable. What is the cause of appearances, as birth etc., in vijñAna, which is ever immutable? In the absence of causality, it is not reasonable to establish the relationship of the producer and the produced. The appearances, being illusory, are ever unthinkable. The purport of the whole thing is this: As the fire-brand is associated with forms, straight, crooked etc., though, in reality, such crooked or straight forms are ever non-existent, so also, pure vijñAna is associated with the ideas of birth etc., though such ideas as birth etc. are ever non-existent. Hence these ideas of birth etc., associated with vijñAna, are illusory."Hence these ideas of birth etc., associated with vijñAna, are illusory. "

Who denies it? It has already been said that 'ringness' is just a concept and has no foundation. Yet the pratyaksha fact is that there is a word called 'illusion' and many are, as if, trying to overcome it.

Om

atanu
20 February 2008, 02:40 AM
Substance may be the cause of substance; and a category other than substance of a category other than substance, assuredly. The nature of a substance or the nature of some other category is not reasonable in the case of entities. [53]

In the case of vijñAna, which is aja, eka, etc., no causal relation is possible. -

Sarabhanga Ji,

With humility I submit that you seem to miss the point of Ekatma.

You are the vijñAna. You know that you exist. Only Brahman has the nature of knowing. Yet, somehow, you decided to use Prajnana to dwell in a Hiranyagarbha world, where atanu is as if another. vijñAna that you truly are, taking a conditioned form of sarabhanga, is grasping a name 'atanu' through prajnana.

Is anything more required to be said?

Regards.

Om.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 03:03 AM
Thus, entities are not originated from the mind; the mind also, for that matter, is not originated from entities. Thus the wise enter into the doctrine of non-origination of cause and effect. [54]

So, we must fall back on ajAtivAda as the only unassailable doctrine. vijñAnavAda seems to hold that entities are cittaja; but that is not possible. citta is AtmavijñAnasvarUpa, and entities are vijñAnasvarUpa AbhAsamAtra; there cannot be a causal relation between them.

Thus, for reasons already stated, the mind is verily of the nature of the essence of the self. External objects are not caused by the mind, nor is the mind the product of the external objects. That is because all entities are mere appearances in consciousness. Thus, neither the effect comes from the cause, nor the cause from the effect. In this way is reiterated the absolute non-evolution of causality. In other words, the knowers of brahman declare the absence of causality with regard to Atman.

atanu
20 February 2008, 03:15 AM
Hello Atanu,


"IV-46. Thus Consciousness is unborn; thus the souls are regarded to be unborn. Those who realise thus certainly do not fall into misfortune."

I see a major contradiction in the text above if it is coming from -
Om


Namaste Bob,

You are correct, if a single verse is considered in isolation. Yet, this verse is talking of imagined many souls that have never been created, as is clear from the following verses.



By Gaudapada
I-32. There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth.



II-33. This (Self) is imagined to be unreal objects and also to be non-dual. The objects are also imagined on the non-dual (Self). therefore non-duality is auspicious.



II-34. This (world) viewed on the basis of the Self, is not different. Neither does it ever exist independent by itself nor is anything different or non-different (from the Self). Thus know the knowers of Truth.



II-35. By the sages who are free from attachment, fear and anger and well-versed in the Vedas is realised this Self which is beyond all imaginations, in which the phenomenal world ceases to exist and which is non-dual.

Om

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 03:22 AM
As long as there is the obsession with cause and effect, so long is the uprising of cause and effect; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, there is no uprising of cause and effect. [55]

As long as there is the superimposition of entities upon the Atman or vijñAna, there exists a causal relationship based on dvaitam. But when the causality disappears, the dvaitam also disappears.

What happens with regard to those who cling to the belief in cause and effect? In reply, it is said: As long as there is faith in causality, as long as a man thinks, ‘I am the agent; these virtuous and vicious deeds belong to me; I shall enjoy the results of these actions, being born in course of time, as some being’, in other words, as long as a man falsely attributes causality to Atman and devotes his mind to it, cause and effect must operate for him: that is to say, the man must without intermission be subject to birth and death, which are the result of his attachment to the belief in causality. But when attachment to causality, due to ignorance, is destroyed by the knowledge of non-duality as described above ~ like the destruction of the possession of a ghost through the power of incantation, medicinal herb, etc. ~ then, on account of the wearing away of the illusion of causality, do cause and effect cease to exist.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 03:33 AM
As long as there is the obsession with cause and effect, so long the worldly existence is prolonged; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, one does not attain to worldly existence. [56]

With the disappearance of causality, and consequently of dvaitam, there can be no saMsAra.

What is the harm if the law of cause and effect continues to operate? In reply we say: As long as faith in causality is not destroyed by right knowledge, our transmigration will continue. But when that faith is destroyed, the world also ceases to exist, for want of any other cause for its existence.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 04:14 AM
Everything is originated on account of empirical evidence; therefore, indeed, what is so originated is not eternal. Everything characterized by the nature of existent is unoriginated, and therefore there is no annihilation. [57]

gauDapAda here answers the objector who, being told there is no saMsAra in the last kArikA, argues that the saMsAra is actually experienced, and that it is anAdi. gauDapAda’s answer is that the saMsAra is an illusion due to mAyA, and when the saMsAra really does not exist, any talk of its coming to an end is futile. Everything that exists is aja (and brahman alone exists), on account of the fact that it is sat.

Objection: Nothing else verily exists except the unborn Atman. Then how can you speak of the origin and destruction of the cause and the effect, as well as of the chain of birth and death constituting the world?

Reply: Listen. The word saMvRti in the text signifies the illusory experiences of the empirical world, which are caused by ignorance. All this is born of the power of ignorance, which brings into existence the illusory experiences of the world. For this reason, nothing is permanent in the realm of ignorance. Therefore, it is said that the world, having the characteristics of origination and destruction, is spread before us. But as one with the ultimate reality, all this is nothing but the unborn Atman. Therefore, in the absence of birth, there cannot be any destruction.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 04:45 AM
The entities which are spoken of as originated, they are not originated in reality. Their origination is comparable to illusion; that illusion too does not exist. [58]

Entities are popularly said to be born. gauDapAda says that really they are not born. They can be compared to mAyA, which is also really non-existent.

Those again, who imagine the birth of the jIva and other entities, do so only through saMvRti. The jIvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But, from the standpoint of the supreme reality, no such birth is possible. This supposed birth of the jIvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through mAyA.

Objection: Then there must be something real known as mAyA?

Reply: It is not so. That mAyA is never existent. mAyA is the name we give to something which does not exist.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 05:08 AM
As from a seed made up by illusion is originated a sprout of illusion, that sprout is not eternal, nor again liable to annihilation; so likewise, the scheme in respect of entities. [59]

An illusory sprout coming from an illusory seed cannot be called enduring or destroyed, because it really does not exist. Similar is the case with entities.

Now, is the birth of jIvas, that are seen to exist, illusory? To this question, our reply is as follows: From an illusory seed is born a sprout which is equally illusory. The sprout is neither permanent nor destructible, simply because it does not exist. In the like manner, ideas of birth and death are applied to the jIvas. The purport is that, from the standpoint of the ultimate reality, neither birth nor death is applicable to the jIva.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 05:59 AM
The designation of eternal and non-eternal is not significant when all entities are unoriginated; where words do not function, discrimination is not spoken of there. [60]

In the ajAtivAda, which holds that everything is aja, such nomenclature is meaningless. The highest can not be described in words, as it is not possessed of any lakshaNA. Discrimination consisting of ideas like ‘this is of this nature’ has no scope in the case of aja entities.

From the standpoint of the ultimate reality, no epithet such as permanence or impermanence, nor any sound corresponding to such names, can be applied to beings which are eternal, unborn, and which are always of the nature of homogeneous consciousness. That by which an object is designated is known as varNa. The words fail to denote the nature of Atman. It cannot be discriminated as this or that, permanent or impermanent.

“Whence words fall back with the mind without reaching, he who knows the bliss of brahma fears not at any time.”

Bob G
20 February 2008, 07:24 AM
Sarabhanga,

"...can be applied to beings which are eternal, unborn, and which are always of the nature of homogeneous consciousness"

What beings?

(ultimately there are no beings or questions and comments about things called beings) Thus we as apparent beings must give up that complication; but that is very hard to do although It Is simple beyond simple! So simple that the greatest mind can not even get close to It.

Om

atanu
20 February 2008, 09:39 AM
Sarabhanga,
"...can be applied to beings which are eternal, unborn, and which are always of the nature of homogeneous consciousness"

What beings?

(ultimately there are no beings or questions and comments about things called beings) Thus we as apparent beings must give up that complication; but that is very hard to do although It Is simple beyond simple! So simple that the greatest mind can not even get close to It.

Om

Namaste Bob G,

Indeed saying that there are eternal unborn beings-entities will surely break the back of Advaita.

When one compares with the earlier two verses (IV.58 and IV.59) then only one will see that the entities, which are product of magic called Maya, have the same nature of Maya, i.e. they are neither classifiable as Permanent (Sat) or as non-permanent. They are as undefinable as Maya.

And that has been my point always that in Advaita, Maya is understood as magical and inexplicable and not as Asat -- altogether false. An altogether false thing can never give any effect, not even an effect of illusion -- something appearing as something else.

The relevant verses are cited below:


IV-58. The souls that are thus born are not born in reality. Their birth is like that of an object through Maya. And that Maya again is non-existent.

IV-59. Just as from a magical seed comes out a sprout of that very nature which is neither permanent nor destroyable, so too, is the reasoning applicable in respect of objects.

IV-60. In the case of all birthless entities the terms permanent and non-permanent can have no application. Where words fail to describe, no entity can be spoken of in a discriminative manner.

IV-61. As in dream Consciousness vibrates through illusion, as though dual by nature, so in the waking state Consciousness vibrates through illusion as though possessed of dual appearances.

IV-62. There can be no doubt that the non-dual Consciousness alone appears in dream as though dual. Similarly, in waking state, too, the non-dual Consciousness appears as though dual, undoubtedly.

IV-63. The dreamer, as he wanders in the dream-land always sees the creatures born from eggs or from moisture as existing in all the ten directions.

IV-64. These (creatures), perceptible to the consciousness of the dreamer, have no existence apart from his consciousness. So also this consciousness of the dreamer is admitted to be the object of perception to that dreamer alone.

IV-65. The man in the waking state, as he wanders in the places of the waking state, always sees the creatures born from eggs or from moisture as existing in all the ten directions.

IV-66. These (creatures), perceptible to the consciousness of the man in the waking state, have no existence apart from his consciousness. So also, this consciousness of the man in the waking state is admitted to be the object of perception to that man of the waking state alone.

IV-67. Both these are perceptible to each other. "Does it exist?" (To such a question) "No" is said (by way of answer). Both these are devoid of valid proof, and each can be perceived only through the idea of the other.

IV-68. Just as a creature seen in dream takes birth and dies, so also do all these creatures come into being and disappear.

IV-69. Just as a creature conjured up by magic takes birth and dies, so also do all these creatures come into being and disappear.

IV-70. Just as an artificial creature (brought into being by incantation and medicine), takes birth and dies, so also do all these creatures come into being and disappear.

IV-71. No creature whichsoever is born, nor is there any source for it. This is that supreme truth where nothing is born whatsoever.

IV-72. This duality consisting in the subject-object relationship is nothing but the vibration of Consciousness. Again, Consciousness is without object and is, therefore, declared to be ever unattached.
--------------
The pure essence of consciousness of three states of existence is the turIya: adRshTam (unseeable), avyavahAryam (non-relational), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam (without any attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be indicated as an object), ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram (the essence of cognition of the One Atman), prapancopaSamam (that into which the entire universe is resolved), SAntam (peaceful), Sivam (auspicious), advaitam (non-dual).

ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram and prapancopaSamam.

Om

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 05:32 PM
I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled? (GAUDAPADA KARIKA).

This is the most common translation and it is indeed logical, since it is qualified by a support that Brahman can only be desireless and thus there cannot be any other premise but its own essential nature for the world to exist.

Verses 6-9 describe various views of creation according to the “creation-theorists”. And all such views presuppose that there must be a prabhava (“source, origin, cause of existence, creator”) for all that exists ~ “There must be some origin of all entities that exist. This is the well considered conclusion.”

prabhavaH sarvabhAvAnAM satAmiti vinishcayaH |
sarvaM janayati prANashcetoMshUnpuruSaH |6|

vibhUtiM prasavaM tvanye manyante sRSTicintakAH |
svapnamAyAsarUpeti sRSTiranyairvikalpitA |7|

icchAmAtraM prabhoH sRSTiriti sRSTau vinishcitAH |
kAlAtprasUtiM bhUtAnAM manyante kAlacintakAH |8|

bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo'yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|

[There must be some] origin of all entities that exist ~ this [is] the well considered conclusion. prANa creates all, puruSa [creates] the rays of the mind (i.e. individual souls) separate [from one another]. [6]

Other creation-theorists, on the other hand, consider creation [to be] the manifestation [of puruSa]; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion. [7]

Creation [is due to] just the will of the lord ~ so [think others who are] quite convinced of [there being a] creation; the time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from time. [8]

Creation [is] for the sake of enjoyment [of the lord] ~ so [say] others; for the sake of sport ~ so [say] still others. This again [is] the [very] nature of god ~ [so say others, arguing] ‘what possible desire [can there be in the case] of [the lord], whose cravings are [already] fulfilled?’ [9]

prANavAda, puruSavAda, vibhUtivAda, svapnamAyAvAda, icchAvAda, kAlavAda, bhogavAda, krIDAvAda, and svabhAvavAda, are all refuted as avidyA resulting from mAyA.

bhogavAda (asserting creation for divine enjoyment) and krIDAvAda (asserting creation for divine sport) are both refuted by svabhAvavAda (asserting creation as divine nature).

svabhAvavAda considers that it is the svabhAva (“own condition or state of being, natural state or constitution, innate or inherent disposition, nature, impulse”) of the lord to create.

svabhAvavAda argues that the lord, being AptakAma (“satisfied”) cannot have any desire or purpose in creation, which is only his lIlA (cf. brahmasUtra 2.1.33).

lokavat (“as seen in the world”) tu (“but”) lIlAkaivalyam (“mere pastime”).

“Even as kings without any motive behind are seen to engage in acts for mere pastime, or even as men breathe without purpose, for it is their very nature, or even as children play out of mere fun, so also brahman without any purpose engages itself in creating this world of diversity.”

prakRti is synonymous with prabhava (“cause”) and svabhAva (“nature”), and ajAtivAda regards all causes and conditions as mAyA.

prakRti is “the original or natural form or condition of anything , the cause or original source, origin, extraction, nature, character, constitution, disposition, fundamental form, pattern, standard, model, or rule”. And prakRti (as mAyA) is distinct from puruSa (as brahma).

prakRti (“nature”) never gives up its own characteristics. And prakRti is defined in four ways:

sAMsiddhikI (“fully established”) ~ “effected naturally, existing by its own nature or essence, effected by supernatural means” or “acquired, but become second nature”.

svAbhAvikI (“natural”) ~ “belonging to or arising from one’s own nature, spontaneous, original, peculiar, or inherent”.

sahajA (“inborn”) ~ “congenital, hereditary, original, by birth, or always the same as from the beginning”.

akRtA (“not made artificially’) ~ “undone, not made, or uncreated”.

shrI means “to mix or mingle, to burn or diffuse light”. shrI is “diffusing light or radiance”. shrI is “power or distinction”. And shrI is lakshmI. shrI was produced at the churning of the ocean. shrI is the consort of nArAyaNa viSNu. shrI is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma. shrI is shakti and prakRti.

viSNu mAya is “measuring or creating illusions”, and that mAyA is shrI lakshmI. mAyA is “the shakti or power of viSNu”. mAyA is “dvaitam or illusion”. mAyA is “the source of manifestation”. mAyA is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma and mRtyu. And mAyA is the daughter of adharma and nirRti.

shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).


nara = sharva = sarva = prajñAna = satyam
nArAyaNa = bhava = sarveshvara = prAjñA = mAyA

nara = ekapAda = sharva = sarva = paramAtman = satyam
nArAyaNa = sahasrapAda = bhava = sarvAÑga = sUtrAtman = mAyA

nara = sharva = sarva = nirgarbha = brahmayoni = prajñAna = vijñAnaghana = satyam
nArAyaNa = bhava = sarveshvara = hiraNyagarbha = brahmabIja = prAjñA = prajñAghana = mAyA

sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharva = anantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = dvaitAdvaitam = viSNumAya = bhava = nantva

sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharvAnantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = parAdvaita = sAdAshiva = bhavanantva


AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti = mAyA
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA = mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau = mAyA
MA = turIya = durgamA = mAyA

M = turya = brahma = satyam


Creation for the sake of enjoyment so others, for the sake of sport so still others.
This again the nature of the effulgent one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?

“The effulgent one” is the hiraNyagarbha (nArAyaNa), as the “creator” (prabhava or prabhU) who creates by his svabhAva ~ and all of this relates to prAjña (or turIya) and jAtivAda, not to the turya and ajAtivAda.

No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists.
This that highest truth, where nothing whatsoever is born.

The aja advaita turya is nitya and sthira and dhruva, and cannot become “transfigured”, except in mAyA, which is the illusory source of all becoming.

nArAyaNa is the seer of the three dream states, but the seer’s consciousness, which itself never dreams, remaining eternally fixed, is nara.

saccidAnandam is unborn, and remains always eka.

sat-cit-Ananda is the conception of mAyA, which is born and multiplied and consumed.


Substance may be the cause of substance; and a category other than substance of a category other than substance, assuredly. The nature of a substance or the nature of some other category is not reasonable in the case of entities. [53]

In the case of vijñAna, which is aja, eka, etc., no causal relation is possible. The relation of cause and effect implies that there must be two entities. vijñAna is one, immutable, there is nothing else, so it cannot have any parts or distinctions. The natures are not entities, nor are they different from vijñAna.

It has already been established that the essence of self is one and unborn. Those who imagine a causal relation in Atman must admit that substance may be the cause of another substance, and that which is other than substance may be the cause of something else which is also other than substance. But a thing itself cannot be the cause of itself. Further, we do not find in common experience a non-substance which is independently the cause of something. The selves can be called neither substance nor other than substance. Hence the selves cannot be the cause or effect of anything. Therefore Atman, being neither substance nor other than substance, is neither the cause nor the effect of anything.

Thus, entities are not originated from the mind; the mind also, for that matter, is not originated from entities. Thus the wise enter into the doctrine of non-origination of cause and effect. [54]

So, we must fall back on ajAtivAda as the only unassailable doctrine. vijñAnavAda seems to hold that entities are cittaja; but that is not possible. citta is AtmavijñAnasvarUpa, and entities are vijñAnasvarUpa AbhAsamAtra; there cannot be a causal relation between them.

Thus, for reasons already stated, the mind is verily of the nature of the essence of the self. External objects are not caused by the mind, nor is the mind the product of the external objects. That is because all entities are mere appearances in consciousness. Thus, neither the effect comes from the cause, nor the cause from the effect. In this way is reiterated the absolute non-evolution of causality. In other words, the knowers of brahman declare the absence of causality with regard to Atman.

As long as there is the obsession with cause and effect, so long is the uprising of cause and effect; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, there is no uprising of cause and effect. [55]

As long as there is the superimposition of entities upon the Atman or vijñAna, there exists a causal relationship based on dvaitam. But when the causality disappears, the dvaitam also disappears.

What happens with regard to those who cling to the belief in cause and effect? In reply, it is said: As long as there is faith in causality, as long as a man thinks, ‘I am the agent; these virtuous and vicious deeds belong to me; I shall enjoy the results of these actions, being born in course of time, as some being’, in other words, as long as a man falsely attributes causality to Atman and devotes his mind to it, cause and effect must operate for him: that is to say, the man must without intermission be subject to birth and death, which are the result of his attachment to the belief in causality. But when attachment to causality, due to ignorance, is destroyed by the knowledge of non-duality as described above ~ like the destruction of the possession of a ghost through the power of incantation, medicinal herb, etc. ~ then, on account of the wearing away of the illusion of causality, do cause and effect cease to exist.

As long as there is the obsession with cause and effect, so long the worldly existence is prolonged; when the obsession of cause and effect ceases to exist, one does not attain to worldly existence. [56]

With the disappearance of causality, and consequently of dvaitam, there can be no saMsAra.

What is the harm if the law of cause and effect continues to operate? In reply we say: As long as faith in causality is not destroyed by right knowledge, our transmigration will continue. But when that faith is destroyed, the world also ceases to exist, for want of any other cause for its existence.

Everything is originated on account of empirical evidence; therefore, indeed, what is so originated is not eternal. Everything characterized by the nature of existent is unoriginated, and therefore there is no annihilation. [57]

gauDapAda here answers the objector who, being told there is no saMsAra in the last kArikA, argues that the saMsAra is actually experienced, and that it is anAdi. gauDapAda’s answer is that the saMsAra is an illusion due to mAyA, and when the saMsAra really does not exist, any talk of its coming to an end is futile. Everything that exists is aja (and brahma alone exists), on account of the fact that it is sat.

[Objection:] Nothing else verily exists except the unborn Atman. Then how can you speak of the origin and destruction of the cause and the effect, as well as of the chain of birth and death constituting the world?

[Reply:] Listen. The word saMvRti in the text signifies the illusory experiences of the empirical world, which are caused by ignorance. All this is born of the power of ignorance, which brings into existence the illusory experiences of the world. For this reason, nothing is permanent in the realm of ignorance. Therefore, it is said that the world, having the characteristics of origination and destruction, is spread before us. But as one with the ultimate reality, all this is nothing but the unborn Atman. Therefore, in the absence of birth, there cannot be any destruction.

The entities which are spoken of as originated, they are not originated in reality. Their origination is comparable to illusion; that illusion too does not exist. [58]

Entities are popularly said to be born. gauDapAda says that really they are not born. They can be compared to mAyA, which is also really non-existent.

Those again, who imagine the birth of the jIva and other entities, do so only through saMvRti. The jIvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But, from the standpoint of the supreme reality, no such birth is possible. This supposed birth of the jIvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through mAyA.

[Objection:] Then there must be something real known as mAyA?

[Reply:] It is not so. That mAyA is never existent. mAyA is the name we give to something which does not exist.

As from a seed made up by illusion is originated a sprout of illusion, that sprout is not eternal, nor again liable to annihilation; so likewise, the scheme in respect of entities. [59]

An illusory sprout coming from an illusory seed cannot be called enduring or destroyed, because it really does not exist.

From an illusory seed is born a sprout which is equally illusory.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 06:42 PM
It is futile to deny that the consciousness is devoid of vibration (albeit in mode of Maya) for you and me. Do you deny that you are typing something on a computer?

Namaste Atanu,

I have been discussing ajAtivAda, not you and me.




You seem to never accept that there is none other than Ekatma Nara. And other than Eka Brahman there is no other intelligent Seer/knower. It is your ignorance that you see nara and nArAyaNa as different. These are different in names only as per your understanding of their nature and functions, as if.

On the contrary, I accept none other than ekAtma nara, and have repeatedly stated that, in the absolute end (which is only attained in the highest samAdhi), the nArAyaNau (as the last vestige of mAyA) must be surpassed.




Only Turya stays as it is and also roams

The turya (nara, hara, brahma, shiva, kAshI) remains always fixed, but the turIya (nArAyaNa, hari, brahmA, viSNu, bhairava), through his inherent mAyA, without moving, apparently radiates, permeates, and withdraws, the illusion of creation (as an illusory sprout from an illusory seed).

atanu
20 February 2008, 07:04 PM
Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,


--
-
bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo'yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|
-
Creation for the sake of enjoyment [of the lord] ~ so [say] others; for the sake of sport ~ so [say] still others. This again the [very] nature of god ~ [so say others, arguing] ‘what possible desire [can there be in the case] of [the lord], whose cravings are [already] fulfilled?’ [9]
--


Well, I differ, supported by majority of interpretations. That one Brahman appears as discrete unconnected universe has no reason but the existence of Eko himself. The Eko is Existence itself and thus it is Eko's true Prakriti.

I do not have any need for the interpolations and go by the translation of at least 5 Advaita teachers as below:

[I]I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?

The apparently changing universe is simply an appearance of existence of Adhistana unchangeable Atman. Adhistana Atman-Shiva, pure consciousness, is never deluded. The feeling of Maya is only an appearance. Ever changing world is a Pratayaksha in vibratory mode of consciousness, which does not change.

Fire Brand is ever Fire Brand, but its movement makes it appear as a circle of fire or a line of fire. The one who has seen the Fire Brand by stopping the vibration of mind, will not be deluded and will be Avimukta, who is free, inseparable from EKO Atman. Avimukta becomes All and thus can animate non-volitionally all or any entity (magically present without beginning) in its states of existence, without undergoing any change, since unchanging Atman is the TRUE NATURE.

Mukti is possible only by knowing Advaita Atman in identity and in no other way -- That is the Ultimate teaching of Shankara. A mukta does not have to remain without vibrating its consciousness. Else Guru Vidya is useless, since by your understanding Narayana is ONE and Nara is one.

No. Atman is NOT TWO.

If one goes by your idea (which is your Dvaitic understanding of Ajativada and not Ajativada), there is no need for Dakshinamurti, no need for Narayana Guru, no need for Shankaracharya.





AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti = mAyA
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA = mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau = mAyA
MA = turIya = durgamA = mAyA

M = turya = brahma = satyam


I differ. Until and unless you have some esoteric reason.

Turya is amatra.



No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists.
This that highest truth, where nothing whatsoever is born.


Agreed. Yet Gaudapada has written this to teach people, to whom this is not self evident. Everyone takes the 'Abhasa' as the real 'ME'.

VidyaAvidya stationed in Brahman (Svet. Upanishad), itself is Jnana or Ajnana-Avidya (Maya) in different conditions.



The aja advaita turya is nitya and sthira and dhruva, and cannot become “transfigured”, except in mAyA, which is the illusory source of all becoming.

nArAyaNa is the seer of the three dream states, but the seer’s consciousness, which itself never dreams, remaining eternally fixed, is nara.



Agreeable, yet, by definition and by your own admission Turya is Eka and transfiguration is Maya. Then you put another entity Narayana and how you start giving names and defining Turya, when there are apt words in Mandukya Upanishad itself?

The pure essence of consciousness of three states of existence is the turIya: adRshTam (unseeable), avyavahAryam (non-relational), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam (without any attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be indicated as an object), ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram (the essence of cognition of the One Atman), prapancopaSamam (that into which the entire universe is resolved), SAntam (peaceful), Sivam (auspicious), [I]advaitam (non-dual).

Atman is ONE.



Those again, who imagine the birth of the jIva and other entities, do so only through saMvRti. The jIvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But, from the standpoint of the supreme reality, no such birth is possible. This supposed birth of the jIvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through mAyA.

[Objection:] Then there must be something real known as mAyA?

[Reply:] It is not so. That mAyA is never existent. mAyA is the name we give to something which does not exist.

As from a seed made up by illusion is originated a sprout of illusion, that sprout is not eternal, nor again liable to annihilation; so likewise, the scheme in respect of entities. [59]

An illusory sprout coming from an illusory seed cannot be called enduring or destroyed, because it really does not exist.

From an illusory seed is born a sprout which is equally illusory.

You do not comprehend. It is said that Maya is Not Sat. But it is not said that it is Asat. The very fact that it is linked to Avidya, indicates that it is Magical -- as in the following verses.


IV-58. The souls that are thus born are not born in reality. Their birth is like that of an object through Maya. And that Maya again is non-existent (Not Sat).


IV-59. Just as from a magical seed comes out a sprout of that very nature which is neither permanent nor destroyable, so too, is the reasoning applicable in respect of objects.
I
V-60. In the case of all birthless entities the terms permanent and non-permanent can have no application. Where words fail to describe, no entity can be spoken of in a discriminative manner.


--------------------------


Maya is indeed Avidya and cannot be said to be Permanent (Sat) or non-permanent (Asat). An Asat thing cannot ever have any effect. A barren women's son does not exist and cannot create a castle. But an idea that a barren women exists whose son has created a castle does prevail in the consciousness from time to time. This Avidya is inexplicable and thus called Maya, a word which exists.


Else everyone will immediately know: There is no other. I am the Samraj-Vishnu -- my indefinable source is advaitashivoatman.


(My humble request. Please do not try to force that Advaita teachers do not know).


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
20 February 2008, 08:31 PM
Namaste Atanu,

I have been discussing ajAtivAda, not you and me.


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

That is the crux of the problem. Vada is a theory and is never independent of you and me. The very fact that we discuss and Gurus exist, indicate that some intermediate effect for the temporary existence of varying thoughts is Prtatayksha, which is a valid pramana as per all Hindu Vadas. Ajati on the other hand, can be a name of the unameable one.

So, you cannot say that the cause of Avidya is Asat. You can say that it is not Sat.

I hope you and others will get this point.

If you deny the Pratayksha of Gurus, entities, scripture etc as ever non-existent, it straight leads to rejection and rise of Dvaita.



The turya (nara, hara, brahma, shiva, kAshI) remains always fixed, but the turIya (nArAyaNa, hari, brahmA, viSNu, bhairava), through his inherent mAyA, without moving, apparently radiates, permeates, and withdraws, the illusion of creation (as an illusory sprout from an illusory seed).

Disagreed. Since in your Hindunet posts, you had mentioned hara shiva as Turiya alone and not as Turya. I simply do not understand your need to break/partition/name etc. and change terminology, when Sruti is there.

When Mandukya says:

The fourth is Self-Brahman. This can be viewed as in four states. The Fourth is the Self-Advaita Atma.

I do not need very many names over and above Mandukya Upanishad.
-----------

Turiya or Turya, whichever you prefer, is Shiva Advaita Atman (Vijnana-revealer of intelligence) and real. Vijnana being singular there cannot arise any need to pervade. All other names and entitities are its conditioned views in three states of existence. Vijnana itself is Prajnana (revealed intellect) -- Sarvesvara and all pervasive of all entitities (shapes and names).


NOT TWO radiant intelligence (revealer vijnana white Shiva) is Sat and also appears to pervade entities in states (black -Narayana revealed prajnana).

That is why (IMHO) Shri Krishna says one truly knows me who knows me as unborn mahesvara.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 08:34 PM
I have already said that our understandings differ. Your understanding is dvaita. Nara and Narayana are not two beings. There is only one being. You have not comprehended the essence at all.

It is clear that you (as a svabhAvavAdin) have not comprehended the ajAtivAda of shrI gauDapAda.




The fire brand remains fire brand. It does not become a circle or a crooked line, which are simply appearances.

The caturtha (turya) prakaraNam is known as the alAtashAnti ~ “quenching or extinguishing the fire-brand” (once and for all).

From shaÑkarAcArya’s commentary:

In order to explain the truth regarding the ultimate reality already stated, it is thus said: As the common experience it is noticed that a fire-brand, when moved, appears straight, crooked, etc., so does vijñAna appear as the perceiver, the perceived, and the like. What is that which appears as the perceiver, the perceived, etc.? It is vijñAna set in motion. There is no motion in vijñAna. It only appears to be moving. This appearance is due to avidyA. No motion is possible in vijñAna, which is ever immovable. It has already been stated that vijñAna is unborn and immovable.

As that very fire-brand, when not in motion, does not take any form, straight or crooked, etc., becomes free from all appearances and remains changeless, so also the vijñAna, which appears as moving through avidyA, when dissociated from the idea of motion on the disappearance of avidyA, becomes free from all appearances, as those of birth, etc., and remains unborn and motionless.

Moreover, when that very fire-brand is in motion, the appearances, straight or crooked, etc., do not come to it from anywhere else outside the fire-brand. Nor do the appearances go elsewhere from the fire-brand when it is motionless. Nor, again, do the appearances enter into the fire-brand when it is motionless.

Moreover, those appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand as something that comes out of a house. The reason is that appearances are not of the nature of a substance. The appearances have no reality. Entrance etc., can be said of a real thing, but not of anything unreal. The appearance of birth etc., in the case of vijñAna is exactly similar, for, appearances are of the same nature in both cases.

How are the two appearances similar? It is thus replied: The fire-brand and vijñAna are alike in all respects. The only special feature of vijñAna is that it always remains immutable. What is the cause of appearances, as birth etc., in vijñAna, which is ever immutable? In the absence of causality, it is not reasonable to establish the relationship of the producer and the produced. The appearances, being illusory, are ever unthinkable. The purport of the whole thing is this: As the fire-brand is associated with forms, straight, crooked etc., though, in reality, such crooked or straight forms are ever non-existent, so also, pure vijñAna is associated with the ideas of birth etc., though such ideas as birth etc. are ever non-existent. Hence these ideas of birth etc., associated with vijñAna, are illusory.

It has already been established that the essence of self is one and unborn. Those who imagine a causal relation in Atman must admit that substance may be the cause of another substance, and that which is other than substance may be the cause of something else which is also other than substance. But a thing itself cannot be the cause of itself. Further, we do not find in common experience a non-substance which is independently the cause of something. The selves can be called neither substance nor other than substance. Hence the selves cannot be the cause or effect of anything. Therefore Atman, being neither substance nor other than substance, is neither the cause nor the effect of anything.

Thus, for reasons already stated, the mind is verily of the nature of the essence of the self. External objects are not caused by the mind, nor is the mind the product of the external objects. That is because all entities are mere appearances in consciousness. Thus, neither the effect comes from the cause, nor the cause from the effect. In this way is reiterated the absolute non-evolution of causality. In other words, the knowers of brahman declare the absence of causality with regard to Atman.

What happens with regard to those who cling to the belief in cause and effect? In reply, it is said: As long as there is faith in causality, as long as a man thinks, ‘I am the agent; these virtuous and vicious deeds belong to me; I shall enjoy the results of these actions, being born in course of time, as some being’, in other words, as long as a man falsely attributes causality to Atman and devotes his mind to it, cause and effect must operate for him: that is to say, the man must without intermission be subject to birth and death, which are the result of his attachment to the belief in causality. But when attachment to causality, due to ignorance, is destroyed by the knowledge of non-duality as described above ~ like the destruction of the possession of a ghost through the power of incantation, medicinal herb, etc. ~ then, on account of the wearing away of the illusion of causality, do cause and effect cease to exist.

What is the harm if the law of cause and effect continues to operate? In reply we say: As long as faith in causality is not destroyed by right knowledge, our transmigration will continue. But when that faith is destroyed, the world also ceases to exist, for want of any other cause for its existence.

Nothing else verily exists except the unborn Atman. Then how can you speak of the origin and destruction of the cause and the effect, as well as of the chain of birth and death constituting the world? Listen. The word saMvRti in the text signifies the illusory experiences of the empirical world, which are caused by ignorance. All this is born of the power of ignorance, which brings into existence the illusory experiences of the world. For this reason, nothing is permanent in the realm of ignorance. Therefore, it is said that the world, having the characteristics of origination and destruction, is spread before us. But as one with the ultimate reality, all this is nothing but the unborn Atman. Therefore, in the absence of birth, there cannot be any destruction.

Those again, who imagine the birth of the jIva and other entities, do so only through saMvRti. The jIvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But, from the standpoint of the supreme reality, no such birth is possible. This supposed birth of the jIvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through mAyA.

Then there must be something real known as mAyA? It is not so. That mAyA is never existent. mAyA is the name we give to something which does not exist.

Now, is the birth of jIvas, that are seen to exist, illusory? To this question, our reply is as follows: From an illusory seed is born a sprout which is equally illusory. The sprout is neither permanent nor destructible, simply because it does not exist. In the like manner, ideas of birth and death are applied to the jIvas. The purport is that, from the standpoint of the ultimate reality, neither birth nor death is applicable to the jIva.

From the standpoint of the ultimate reality, no epithet such as permanence or impermanence, nor any sound corresponding to such names, can be applied to beings which are eternal, unborn, and which are always of the nature of homogeneous consciousness. That by which an object is designated is known as varNa. The words fail to denote the nature of Atman. It cannot be discriminated as this or that, permanent or impermanent.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 09:32 PM
In Advaita, Maya is understood as magical and inexplicable and not as Asat -- altogether false. An altogether false thing can never give any effect, not even an effect of illusion -- something appearing as something else.

The relevant verses are cited below:

IV-58. The souls that are thus born are not born in reality. Their birth is like that of an object through Maya. And that Maya again is non-existent.

V-59. Just as from a magical seed comes out a sprout of that very nature which is neither permanent nor destroyable, so too, is the reasoning applicable in respect of objects.

The entities which are spoken of as originated, they are not originated in reality. Their origination is comparable to illusion; that illusion too does not exist. [58]

Entities are popularly said to be born. gauDapAda says that really they are not born. They can be compared to mAyA, which is also really non-existent.

Those again, who imagine the birth of the jIva and other entities, do so only through saMvRti. The jIvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But, from the standpoint of the supreme reality, no such birth is possible. This supposed birth of the jIvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through mAyA.

Objection: Then there must be something real known as mAyA?

Reply: It is not so. That mAyA is never existent. mAyA is the name we give to something which does not exist.

As from a seed made up by illusion is originated a sprout of illusion, that sprout is not eternal, nor again liable to annihilation; so likewise, the scheme in respect of entities. [59]

An illusory sprout coming from an illusory seed cannot be called enduring or destroyed, because it really does not exist. Similar is the case with entities.

Now, is the birth of jIvas, that are seen to exist, illusory? To this question, our reply is as follows: From an illusory seed is born a sprout which is equally illusory. The sprout is neither permanent nor destructible, simply because it does not exist. In the like manner, ideas of birth and death are applied to the jIvas. The purport is that, from the standpoint of the ultimate reality, neither birth nor death is applicable to the jIva.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 10:22 PM
From the gauDapAda kArikA (fourth chapter):

The entities which are spoken of as originated, they are not originated in reality. Their origination is comparable to illusion; that illusion too does not exist. [58]

As from a seed made up by illusion is originated a sprout of illusion, that sprout is not eternal, nor again liable to annihilation; so likewise, the scheme in respect of entities. [59]

The designation of eternal and non-eternal is not significant when all entities are unoriginated; where words do not function, discrimination is not spoken of there. [60]

As in dream, the mind through mAyA, moves, presenting the appearance of the dual, so in the waking state, the mind moves through mAyA, presenting the appearance of the dual. [61]

In dream, the non-dual mind again has the appearance of the dual, no doubt about it; similarly in the waking –state, the non-dual mind again has the appearance of the dual, no doubt about it. [62]

The creatures ~ oviparous or born of water, as well ~ which the dream-beholder, moving about in dream, always beholds, as being located verily in the ten quarters ~ they are all capable of being seen only by the mind of the dream-beholder; they do not exist apart from the mind; so likewise, this capable of being seen only by the mind is fancied to be the mind of the dream-holder. [63-64]

The creatures ~ oviparous or born of water, as well ~ which the waking one, moving in the waking state, always beholds, as being located verily in the ten quarters ~ they are all capable of being beheld only by the mind of the waking one; they do not exist apart from the mind; so likewise, this capable of being seen only by the mind is fancied to be the mind of the waking one. [65-66]

They both are capable of being perceived by each other; then what is it that is real? Nothing is the answer. Both void of characteristics, they are perceived by their thought itself. [67]

As a dream-made creature is born and also dies, so likewise, all these creatures are and also are not. [68]

As a mAyA-made creature is born and also dies, so likewise, all those creatures are and also are not. [69]

As a creature created by supernatural power is born and also dies, so likewise, all those creatures are and also are not. [70]

No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists. This is that highest truth, where nothing whatever is born. [71]

This dual, involving the perceptible and the perceiver is the mind-vibration itself; the mind is unrelated to the object; therefore it is glorified as eternal and without attachment. [72]

What is on account of the imagined phenomenal experience, that exists not in reality. It may exist in accordance with the phenomenal experience accepted in other schools of philosophy, but it exists not in reality. [73]

What is even unoriginated on account of the imagined phenomenal experience is not unoriginated in reality. But that same is held to be originated by the phenomenal experience established in other schools of philosophy. [74]

Where is persistent adherence to the unoriginated, or (in the other schools of philosophy) there is persistent adherence to the non-existent, there the dual exists not; having just understood the absence of the dual, he is not born, being without a cause for being born. [75]

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 11:11 PM
Well, I differ, supported by majority.

Directly translated, without interpolation:

“Creation for the sake of enjoyment so others, for the sake of sport so still others.
This again the nature of the shining one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?”




The standard Advaita translation of the verse is as below:

“Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?”.

The translation by Swami Nikhilananda was published by the Ramakrishna Mission in 1936, and most subsequent translations have followed his reading (which does not refute svabhAvavAda):

“Others think that the manifestation is for the purpose of enjoyment (of god), while still others attribute it to mere diversion (on the part of god). But it is the very nature of the effulgent being, (for) what other desire is possible for him whose desire is always in the state of fulfillment?”

And from Swami Nikhilananda’s own preface:

“We are profoundly grateful to Mr V. Subrahmanya Iyer, the retired registrar of the Mysore University, for explaining to us the abstruse philosophy of the Karikas.”




Standard Advaitic understanding of Ajativada: The wise know that there is neither unity nor plurality.




And this is either shUnyavAda or vishiSTAdvaitam!


Verses 6-9 describe various views of creation according to the “creation-theorists”. And all such views presuppose that there must be a prabhava (“source, origin, cause of existence, creator”) for all that exists ~ “There must be some origin of all entities that exist. This is the well considered conclusion.”


prabhavaH sarvabhAvAnAM satAmiti vinishcayaH |
sarvaM janayati prANashcetoMshUnpuruSaH |6|

vibhUtiM prasavaM tvanye manyante sRSTicintakAH |
svapnamAyAsarUpeti sRSTiranyairvikalpitA |7|

icchAmAtraM prabhoH sRSTiriti sRSTau vinishcitAH |
kAlAtprasUtiM bhUtAnAM manyante kAlacintakAH |8|

bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo'yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|

Origin of all entities that exist, this the well considered conclusion. prANa creates all, puruSa the rays of the mind separate. [6]

Other creation-theorists, on the other hand, consider creation the manifestation; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion. [7]

Creation just the will of the lord, so quite convinced of creation; the time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from time. [8]

Creation for the sake of enjoyment, so others; for the sake of sport, so still others. This again the nature of god ~ ‘what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?’ [9]

prANavAda, puruSavAda, vibhUtivAda, svapnamAyAvAda, icchAvAda, kAlavAda, bhogavAda, krIDAvAda, and svabhAvavAda, are all refuted as avidyA resulting from mAyA.

bhogavAda (asserting creation for divine enjoyment) and krIDAvAda (asserting creation for divine sport) are both refuted by svabhAvavAda (asserting creation as divine nature).

svabhAvavAda considers that it is the svabhAva (“own condition or state of being, natural state or constitution, innate or inherent disposition, nature, impulse”) of the lord to create.

svabhAvavAda argues that the lord, being AptakAma (“satisfied”) cannot have any desire or purpose in creation, which is only his lIlA (cf. brahmasUtra 2.1.33).


lokavat (“as seen in the world”) tu (“but”) lIlAkaivalyam (“mere pastime”).


“Even as kings without any motive behind are seen to engage in acts for mere pastime, or even as men breathe without purpose, for it is their very nature, or even as children play out of mere fun, so also brahman without any purpose engages itself in creating this world of diversity.”

prakRti is synonymous with prabhava (“cause”) and svabhAva (“nature”), and ajAtivAda regards all causes and conditions as mAyA.

prakRti is “the original or natural form or condition of anything , the cause or original source, origin, extraction, nature, character, constitution, disposition, fundamental form, pattern, standard, model, or rule”. And prakRti (as mAyA) is distinct from puruSa (as brahma).

Creation for the sake of enjoyment so others, for the sake of sport so still others.
This again the nature of the effulgent one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?

“The effulgent one” is the hiraNyagarbha (nArAyaNa), as the “creator” (prabhava or prabhU) who creates by his svabhAva ~ and all of this relates to prAjña (or turIya) and jAtivAda, not to the turya and ajAtivAda.

No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists.
This that highest truth, where nothing whatsoever is born.

The aja advaita turya is nitya and sthira and dhruva, and cannot become “transfigured”, except in mAyA, which is the illusory source of all becoming.

nArAyaNa is the seer of the three dream states, but the seer’s consciousness, which itself never dreams, remaining eternally fixed, is nara.

saccidAnandam is unborn, and remains always eka.

sat-cit-Ananda is the very conception of mAyA, which is born and multiplied and consumed.

sarabhanga
20 February 2008, 11:58 PM
नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानघनं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् ।
अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणं अचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥ ७ ॥

nāntaḥprajñaṁ na bahiṣprajñaṁ nobhayataḥprajñaṁ na prajñānaghanaṁ na prajñaṁ nāprajñam |
adṛṣṭamavyavahāryamagrāhyamalakṣaṇaṁ acintyamavyapadeśyamekātmapratyayasāraṁ prapañcopaśamaṁ śāntaṁ śivamadvaitaṁ caturthaṁ manyante sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ || 7 ||

अमात्रश्चतुर्थोऽव्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः शिवोऽद्वैत एवमोङ्कार आत्मैव संविशत्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानं य एवं वेद ॥ १२ ॥

amātraścaturtho'vyavahāryaḥ prapañcopaśamaḥ śivo'dvaita evamoṅkāra ātmaiva saṁviśatyātmanā''tmānaṁ ya evaṁ veda || 12 ||


The mANDukyopaniSad does NOT mention either turya or turIya, using only the term caturtha. And the gauDapAda kArikAs do NOT mention turIya, rather using the term turya.

sarabhanga
21 February 2008, 01:09 AM
By definition and by your own admission Turya is Eka and transfiguration is Maya. Then you put another entity Narayana and how you start giving names and defining Turya, when there are apt words in Mandukya Upanishad itself?

The pure essence of consciousness of three states of existence is the turIya: adRshTam (unseeable), avyavahAryam (non-relational), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam (without any attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be indicated as an object), ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram (the essence of cognition of the One Atman), prapancopaSamam (that into which the entire universe is resolved), SAntam (peaceful), Sivam (auspicious), advaitam (non-dual).

Atman is ONE.

The mANDukyopaniSad does NOT mention either turya or turIya, only using the term caturtha. And the gauDapAda kArikAs do NOT mention turIya, rather using the term turya.

nara = satyam
nArAyaNa = mAyA

sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharva = anantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = dvaitAdvaitam = viSNumAya = bhava = nantva

sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharvAnantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = parAdvaita = sAdAshiva = bhavanantva

vaishvAnara = mAyA
taijasa mAyA
prAjña = mAyA
turIya = mAyA
turya = satyam

trimUrti = mAyA
shrI mAyA = mAyA
viSNumAyau = mAyA
durgamA = mAyA
brahma = satyam

AUM = mAyA
UMA = mAyA
MAU = mAyA
MA = mAyA
M = satyam





AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti = mAyA
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA = mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau = mAyA
MA = turIya = durgamA = mAyA

M = turya = brahma = satyam

I differ. Until and unless you have some esoteric reason. Turya is amatra.

Only through ignorance could it be suggested that the anusvAra is not amAtra!

And the caturtha (turya) prakaraNam is known as the alAtashAnti ~ “quenching or extinguishing the fire-brand” (once and for all).




Those again, who imagine the birth of the jIva and other entities, do so only through saMvRti. The jIvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But, from the standpoint of the supreme reality, no such birth is possible. This supposed birth of the jIvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through mAyA.

Then there must be something real known as mAyA?

It is not so. That mAyA is never existent. mAyA is the name we give to something which does not exist.

An illusory sprout coming from an illusory seed cannot be called enduring or destroyed, because it really does not exist.

From an illusory seed is born a sprout which is equally illusory.




You do not comprehend.

Please do not suggest that shrI shaÑkarAcArya is ignorant of advaitavAda.




It is said that Maya is Not Sat. But it is not said that it is Asat.

The only difference between “not sat” and “asat” is that one term is pure saMskRtam, while the other is an english-sanskrit mix. :rolleyes:

atanu
21 February 2008, 01:29 AM
Namaskar Sarabhnga Ji,


The caturtha (turya) prakaraNam is known as the alAtashAnti ~ “quenching or extinguishing the fire-brand” (once and for all).

No problem at all. As long as one understands turya as the Self.

Well, I had equated firebrand to consciousness and its illusory movement to circular, straight, or crooked appearances. If you wish to extinguish the consciousness itself, so be it.

Your citation below itself may be checked and seen that the fire-brand is ONE and its apparent crooked shape is ANOTHER. The false idea of the crooked shape being the Fire-Brand has to be removed and not that the firebrand itself has to killed.




From shaÑkarAcArya’s commentary:

In order to explain the truth regarding the ultimate reality already stated, it is thus said: As the common experience it is noticed that a fire-brand, when moved, appears straight, crooked, etc., so does vijñAna appear as the perceiver, the perceived, and the like. What is that which appears as the perceiver, the perceived, etc.? It is vijñAna set in motion. There is no motion in vijñAna. It only appears to be moving. This appearance is due to avidyA. No motion is possible in vijñAna, which is ever immovable. It has already been stated that vijñAna is unborn and immovable.

As that very fire-brand, when not in motion, does not take any form, straight or crooked, etc., becomes free from all appearances and remains changeless, so also the vijñAna, which appears as moving through avidyA, when dissociated from the idea of motion on the disappearance of avidyA, becomes free from all appearances, as those of birth, etc., and remains unborn and motionless.

Moreover, the appearances do not come from anywhere outside of fire-brand, as below. The motion is not a reality since it is not a being but it has its Vijnana as its substratum.


Moreover, when that very fire-brand is in motion, the appearances, straight or crooked, etc., do not come to it from anywhere else outside the fire-brand. Nor do the appearances go elsewhere from the fire-brand when it is motionless. Nor, again, do the appearances enter into the fire-brand when it is motionless.


Moreover, those appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand as something that comes out of a house. The reason is that appearances are not of the nature of a substance. The appearances have no reality. Entrance etc., can be said of a real thing, but not of anything unreal. The appearance of birth etc., in the case of vijñAna is exactly similar, for, appearances are of the same nature in both cases.



How are the two appearances similar? It is thus replied: The fire-brand and vijñAna are alike in all respects. The only special feature of vijñAna is that it always remains immutable. What is the cause of appearances, as birth etc., in vijñAna, which is ever immutable? In the absence of causality, it is not reasonable to establish the relationship of the producer and the produced. The appearances, being illusory, are ever unthinkable. The purport of the whole thing is this: As the fire-brand is associated with forms, straight, crooked etc., though, in reality, such crooked or straight forms are ever non-existent, so also, pure vijñAna is associated with the ideas of birth etc., though such ideas as birth etc. are ever non-existent. Hence these ideas of birth etc., associated with vijñAna, are illusory.


Yes. It is exactly as I have said again and again. The shapes and names are ever unreal but pure vijñAna is associated with the ideas of birth etc., though such ideas as birth etc. are ever non-existent (Not Sat).


-- The selves can be called neither substance nor other than substance. Hence the selves cannot be the cause or effect of anything. Therefore Atman, being neither substance nor other than substance, is neither the cause nor the effect of anything.

Yes, the illusory selves cannot be called neither substance nor other than substance. They are false conceptions called Avidya.



What happens with regard to those who cling to the belief in cause and effect? In reply, it is said: As long as there is faith in causality, as long as a man thinks, ‘I am the agent; ---- as long as a man falsely attributes causality to Atman and devotes his mind to it, cause and effect must operate for him: --

Yes. If you believe this then I do not comprehend how you intend to move Dharma chakra.




Then there must be something real known as mAyA? It is not so. That mAyA is never existent. mAyA is the name we give to something which does not exist.

Now, is the birth of jIvas, that are seen to exist, illusory? To this question, our reply is as follows: From an illusory seed is born a sprout which is equally illusory. The sprout is neither permanent nor destructible, simply because it does not exist. In the like manner, ideas of birth and death are applied to the jIvas. The purport is that, from the standpoint of the ultimate reality, neither birth nor death is applicable to the jIva.


Yes. As indicated before, though the sprout is unreal but it has been conceived as a sprout – as source of JIvas. This Avidya cannot be wished away as not operating. Narayana knows himself to be unborn mahesvara yet, there is misconception that Narayana is with four hands etc.

That is why it is illusory, which is not real and not unreal. It cannot be described so it is called Anirvachaniya.


Om

atanu
21 February 2008, 02:01 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,



nara = satyam
nArAyaNa = mAyA


No.

Mahanarayana Upanishad.

XIII-1-3: This universe is truly the Divine Person only. Therefore it subsists on Him – the self-effulgent Divine Being – who has many heads and many eyes, who is the producer of joy for the universe, who exists in the form of the universe, who is the master and the cause of humanity, whose forms are the various gods, who is imperishable, who is the all-surpassing ruler and saviour, who is superior to the world, who is endless and omniform, who is the goal of humanity, who is the destroyer of sin and ignorance, who is the protector of the universe and the ruler of individual souls, who is permanent, supremely auspicious and unchanging, who has embodied Himself in man as his support (being the indwelling Spirit), who is supremely worthy of being known by the creatures, who is embodied in the universe and who is the supreme goal.

XIII-4: Narayana is the Supreme Reality designated as Brahman. Narayana is the highest (Self). Narayana is the supreme Light (described in the Upanishads). Narayana is the infinite Self. [Narayana is the most excellent meditator and meditation.]

XIII-5: Whatsoever there is in this world known through perception (because of their proximity) or known through report (because of their distance), all that is pervaded by Narayana within and without.


I have many times indicated that the division of Nara and Narayana in your mind is pure Dvaita, similar as a dvaitin assgining Jiva status to Shiva and Lord status to Vishnu. When you say Maya is never Existent, how do you at the same breath say Naryana is Maya?

The line equation in Mandukya is only required. And the three lines are dreams. Only One line is Sat.



Please do not suggest that shrI shaÑkarAcArya is ignorant of advaitavAda.


I have not suggested that.


The only difference between “not sat” and “asat” is that one term is pure saMskRtam, while the other is an english-sanskrit mix. :rolleyes:

And we are understanding in english. 'SAT' and 'NOT SAT' are not opposites. 'ASAT' AND 'SAT' are OPPOSITES.

Shankara himself has designated the Universe as Mithya and not Asat. And Maya is known as Anirvachaniya by Advaitins.

Do you mean to say that commentators of Shankara are ignorant?

Thanks. And Regards.

Om

sarabhanga
21 February 2008, 03:56 AM
Namaste Atanu,

vAda indicates “speech, discourse, utterance, advice, counsel, argument, doctrine, agreement, sound, demonstrated conclusion, explanation, or exposition”, and ajAtivAda is the anAhatanAda arising from the aja anusvAra of the unspoken rudra.

dharma ya iti jAyante jAyante te na tattvataH |
janma mAyopamaM teSAM sA ca mAyA na vidyate || 58 ||

The entities which are spoken of as originated, they are not originated in reality.
Their origination is comparable to mAyA; that mAyA, too, does not exist.

Those entities are said to be born; but that birth is never possible from the standpoint of reality.
Their birth is like that of an illusory object; that illusion, again, is non-existent.

Then there must be something real known as mAyA?
It is not so. That mAyA is never existent.





The turya (nara, hara, brahma, shiva, kAshI) remains always fixed, but the turIya (nArAyaNa, hari, brahmA, viSNu, bhairava), through his inherent mAyA, without moving, apparently radiates, permeates, and withdraws, the illusion of creation (as an illusory sprout from an illusory seed).

Disagreed. Since in your Hindunet posts, you had mentioned hara shiva as Turiya alone and not as Turya. I simply do not understand your need to break/partition/name etc. and change terminology, when Sruti is there.

Are my posts on HinduNet to be regarded as shruti? :rolleyes: Every thread I posted there has long ago been locked, and my last post there is one of the few posts on that whole forum that can only be viewed by logged-in members. There is no possibility of changing anything I posted on HinduNet many years ago (going back to before my own avadhUta saMskAra) and no chance of adding clarifications. And perhaps at the time there was no need to elaborate this fine distinction ~ I have no idea what long buried discussion you might be referring to!

turya = nara = hara = brahma = shiva = kAshI = sat = kRSNa
turIya = nArAyaNa = hari = brahmA = viSNu = bhairava = satI = arjuna

atanu
21 February 2008, 03:59 AM
A very major discussion on something that is unreal. Ha.



In his works, SankarAcArya takes a direct approach to the problem of human liberation, and declares that moksha consists in realizing the identity of Atman with the One brahman. This brahman is in fact, all that really IS, and there is no change or multiplicity in It. As for the question, how does the perception of multiplicity arise in the first place, Sankara points to avidyA and mAyA. He does not attempt to explicate avidyA too much, and tells the student not to worry about the logical status of this avidyA, except to recognize that it is responsible for desires (kAma) and action (karma) which lead to bondage (bandha). Therefore, getting rid of the avidyA leads to moksha, which is really not different from the brahman itself.

After his time, avidyA and mAyA became a tough problem for his followers. Sankara described avidyA as anAdi - beginningless. His approach was informed by the well considered notion that searching for the roots of avidyA was itself a manifestation of the very avidyA one was seeking to remove. However, in order to work out the logical implications of various advaitic doctrines, his followers had to pay greater attention to this issue.

The major part of this discussion reflects this agony, to understand Brahman, the indescribable, through words and logic.

That there is falsity in seeing multiform Universe and not EKO Brahman is agreed uniformly.The Turya being Shivoadvaitaatman can only be known in identity and in no other way -- in samadhi.

“Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah"


Om

sarabhanga
21 February 2008, 05:19 AM
Only One line is Sat.

No problem.

turya : nara : hara : brahma : shiva : kAshI : sat : kRSNa : satyam : nivRtti : aja : advaitam : sadAshiva : sharva : anantyam : sharvAnantyam : saccidAnandam

And anything that I have ever mentioned on a second or subsequent line, in ultimate truth, is without any eternal existence. But ajAtivAda was intended to lead a sannyAsin to the station of avadhUta, and never intended for comprehension by non-sannyAsins.

So as not to cause any further confusion or offense, there is nothing more that I should say on any matter at all.


shiva shiva shiva shiva shiva

Nothing more can be said, and perhaps we should dispense with the forum altogether. Or perhaps just leaving a single blank page, with only a silent implication of the ulimate truth that cannot bear explanation. That should satisfy all doubts on every matter.

atanu
21 February 2008, 05:55 AM
No problem.

turya : nara : hara : brahma : shiva : kAshI : sat : kRSNa : satyam : nivRtti : aja : advaitam : sadAshiva : sharva : anantyam : sharvAnantyam : saccidAnandam

So as not to cause any further confusion or offense, there is nothing more that I should say on any matter at all.


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

No offense or confusion. It is just a debate. And to read your post or to debate with you is delight. In all matters, I accept your points. Only with respect to nature of Maya, there is difference and we know that such a difference is inherent in Shankara followers. What I understand, I stated. No offense.

Shankara has stated that the world is Mithya and is due to Avidya or Maya. Since nature can never change, I understand that the substatrum of a Mithya (Jagat) can be another Mithya only. That is my only point of difference with you. Further, as I understand, Mithya is not exactly opposite of Sat.

Entities (bodies etc) are vijñAnasvarUpa AbhAsamAtra. citta is AtmavijñAnasvarUpa, yet there seems to be a habit of imagining the mere AbhAsa as the Atman. Let us come to a common understanding that this imagination is wrong, whatever attribute one may append to maya.

The following perhaps should be our common understanding (as per my understanding).



By Gaudapada
No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists.
This that highest truth, where nothing whatsoever is born.

If you believe this truly, you should also believe the following:



By Gaudapada
I-32. There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth.
II-33. This (Self) is imagined to be unreal objects and to be non-dual. The objects are also imagined on the non-dual (Self), therefore non-duality is auspicious.


So, there may be some wrong imagination, whether by you or me or by Narayana or by no one. And we may agree that non-dual Shiva is auspicious and alakshana.


shiva shiva shiva shiva shiva

Regards. Thank You.

Om

Bob G
21 February 2008, 07:17 AM
There is no aspect of Om that Atman is not free in. Atman is freedom, freedom in and of Being.

sarabhanga
21 February 2008, 06:40 PM
ajAtivAda was intended to lead a sannyAsin to the station of avadhUta, and never intended for comprehension by non-sannyAsins.

ajAtivAda was intended to lead a sannyAsin to the station of avadhUta, and never intended for comprehension by non-sannyAsins.

There is so much more that could be said on this matter, but no explanation will ever be sufficient for those who have no personal experience of the pañca.

svabhAvavAdins will remain dedicated to their parAdvaita, and never grasp ajAtivAda, while they remain ignorant of the pañca.

The pañca cannot be known be reading, and would not be expected by reason alone ~ truly, it is something that must be seen to be believed.

When you have renounced the three-worlds and quenched the fire with your own perspiration in the ultimate havana, and risen again in ashes from the saMskAra with avadhUta dIkshA, and wandered over the veritable form of satI with the fifth head of brahma firmly grasped, returning to kAshI for the final dissolution; when you know the “kshatriya vAnaprastha” and have seen beyond the extremity of naranArAyaNa; when you truly know gurudatta, then you would understand.

But until that time, it is majority rules! I can waste many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts, and it will all be ignored or countered with arguments copied from another web-site merely reproducing the majority views.

Why does an avadhUta wear ashes? Why does bhairava self-immolate by tapasya in kAshi? Why does satI sacrifice herself into the fire of daksha, and why does prajApati then appear as a goat? Why was christ crucified, and why does the sage at the close of the Isha upaniSad apparently die? These questions (and many more) will all be answered simultaneously when you understand the significance of quenching the fire-brand.

But until then, the highest advaitam will only be disparaged as shUnya or even dvaitam, and the point will be missed yet again. All discussions will degenerate into my guru vs your guru, and no conclusion will ever be reached.

:(

sarabhanga
21 February 2008, 07:13 PM
Only when the ‘fire-brand’ (alAta) becomes the ‘branch’ (sthANu) will the ‘father’ (nara) be truly known.

By the wise has been preached the doctrine of ‘origination’ for those who contend that ‘things exist in reality’ because of the perception of those things and of the prevailing etiquette and who are ever frightened of the doctrine of non-origination. [42]

Bob G
21 February 2008, 10:24 PM
Hello Sarabhanga,
"I can waste many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts, and it will all be ignored or countered with arguments copied from another web-site merely reproducing the majority views".

Imo none of the above is really of your or our concern...only ego has such concerns. "Spirit (of truth) gives unto Spirit" for It has no "I" type designs or concerns of it own. Faith in supreme Mahadeva brings Grace of supreme Mahadeva through true Guru...Mahadeva is doing all the work, such as all the "many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts" which is just one of the forms among countless others... of what at best we may be a pure witness to, namely His work as it goes through us with the least resistance possible from us. (before full realization)

Om

atanu
22 February 2008, 12:16 AM
But until that time, it is majority rules! I can waste many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts, and it will all be ignored or countered with arguments copied from another web-site merely reproducing the majority views.
:)

:) I have replaced your blue moon face with a Sun. Hope you comprehend the love.

Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji,

Your post is well taken, since, even if it is not comprehended correctly owing to my poor communication skills, I had tried to say the same things that you have said: about suffering etc..

Yet, ultimately, as per your teaching, Advaita is the Supreme truth. And that is a firm belief here also.

Actually, 'Nothing Ever Happened', --- the auspicious non-dual Self has remained so, except in imagination. So, "I am toiling with Sanskrit" etc., may not be the correct expression, IMO. Then, what can be 'majority' for an Advaita Sadhu, if not an expression of Self-Shiva?

:)

Regards,

Om

sm78
22 February 2008, 12:37 AM
bhavavAda, bhaktivAda, spandavAda,shaktivAda,kalAvAda will all must also exist to maintain any chance of a jiva to progress to the ultimate truth of ajAtivAda.

jagat may be mithya, but it is more paramount to cut through the mithya of confining ourselves to the frame of the flesh-body ego and the mental & emotional bagages we weave in our relationships, before challenging the very existence of everything.

Fortunately ajAtivAda only denies any of the preceding indian systems as ultimate truth ~ not their essential place and need in the overall structure of sanatana dharma. And all the traditional followers of sankara i came accross seem to follow shaktivAda for chitta suddhi.

Nuno Matos
22 February 2008, 04:28 PM
Namaste Bob and Sarabhanga Giri,

Comon Guys! Do not let the grey wolf eat the cat.

Om namah shivaya!

sarabhanga
22 February 2008, 06:16 PM
Namaste Bob,

The karma yoga will continue. But it is foolish to ‘cast pearls before swine’.

Nuno Matos
22 February 2008, 06:40 PM
Namaste Sarabhanga,

" But it is foolish to ‘cast pearls before swine’. "

With that I agree totaly.;) Unless you are a soldier :Cool: .
Wich you already told us you are.
Keep on!
:)

Om namah shivaya!

Nuno Matos
22 February 2008, 06:53 PM
Namaste Sarabhanga, Bob and the others,

" Yet, ultimately, as per your teaching, Advaita is the Supreme truth. And that is a firm belief here also. "

Atanu Ji

BoM! BoM! Shiv Bole Hara Hara Mahadeva! :bowdown:

Om namah Shivaya!

sarabhanga
22 February 2008, 08:40 PM
Namaste Nuno,

You are absolutely correct.

I have only one problem. A nAgA (which I am not, by the way) has no interest beyond dharma, and while moving among the shUdrAs there should be no attempt to influence others, unless properly requested. Strictly speaking, I should not be speaking in such an open forum, and the only way that I justify this is to consider the forum as an extension of my own Ashram. It is fine that many schools of thought coexist, but none should absolutely conflict with any other. And, with a proper understanding of their context, all true dharmas can easily be accommodated and work together, with minimum friction and maximum thrust. Each one follows their own dharma, while all understand their equally important part in the whole (and hence my emphasis on explaining the relationships, levels, stages, etc.). There must be a common vocabulary, with particular contexts having their own particular connotations but all contexts sharing the same essential theme (and hence my emphasis on clarifying terminology). And from an apparently random assortment of sticks, sanAtana dharma arranges a perfect cakram. Any basically true piece will be useful, but some may require a little pruning, and others are just not fit for the unified purpose and must be discarded. I don’t mind a long discussion with anyone whose alAta is basically true, for I know that in the end we can come to an agreement. But I have no interest in arguing with an avowed non-hindu who seems more concerned with me and my attitude and my manner of communication than he is with anything that I am actually trying to say. I would not deliberately sit down to meditate in a place where there are biting insects, and I am happy to sit in another place where such irritations will not disturb the process.

satay
22 February 2008, 09:57 PM
Admin Note

Namaskar!
I am not sure what's going on in this thread...a simple discussion seems to have turned into a big argument or at least that's my impression from reading a few posts.

Please allow me some time to read the whole thread before any further action.

For now, I feel that it must be closed.

Thread under review.

Mahadev!

satay
25 February 2008, 12:59 PM
Namaskar,

Sarabhanga has edited some of his comments. The thread is open for discussion again.

Thank you.

atanu
25 February 2008, 11:22 PM
Namaste Bob,

The karma yoga will continue. But it is foolish to ‘cast pearls before swine’.

Namaste All,

Om Namah Shivaya

It is painful. It would have been painful, if it was used against me, or any other member, or against Sarabhanga himself. I would have objected.

It is not a Hindu usage. Even the Christian scripture teaches: "Do not cast" and does not teach to use the saying the way it is being used.

Though a foolishness is taken upon oneself but not before implying two graver things.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
26 February 2008, 01:56 AM
It is painful. It would have been painful, if it was used against me, or any other member, or against Sarabhanga himself. I would have objected.

It is not a Hindu usage. Even the Christian scripture teaches: "Do not cast" and does not teach to use the saying the way it is being used.


I don't know what prompted Sarabhanga ji to use this saying but it is highly unexpected from a person of his stature & could have been better avoided. In fact, this saying has been used in impersonal way in the Bible i.e. not directed against anyone in particular but here it was used directly against a person. ... and that would hurt anyone, as Atanu has correctly pointed out. It is not Hindu usage ... why learn bad things from others ?

I think it would better to delete that sentence from the record.

OM

sarabhanga
26 February 2008, 04:06 AM
More misunderstanding! But since you press the point …

The comment is saying that it is foolish to expect someone who has no possibility of properly appreciating something (which is sacred to those who understand it) to fully grasp its import. And the remark was directed to Bob in response to his own reply to my note about the frustration of having to repeat things dozens of times and going round and round in endless debate which I was beginning to realize was most likely futile.




I can waste many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts, and it will all be ignored or countered with arguments copied from another web-site merely reproducing the majority views.




Imo none of the above is really of your or our concern...only ego has such concerns.

Thanks Bob, that was a really helpful comment.

If I had been repeatedly misunderstanding something, after the other person had been explaining it again and again in many different ways, which all turn out to be futile, the frustrated explainer would perhaps be justified in thinking that he had been foolish in casting such “pearls” before a veritable “swine” (in the biblical sense), who could not really be expected to grasp them.




ajAtivAda was intended to lead a sannyAsin to the station of avadhUta, and never intended for comprehension by non-sannyAsins.

There is so much more that could be said on this matter, but no explanation will ever be sufficient for those who have no personal experience of the pañca.

svabhAvavAdins will remain dedicated to their parAdvaita, and never grasp ajAtivAda, while they remain ignorant of the pañca.

The pañca cannot be known be reading, and would not be expected by reason alone ~ truly, it is something that must be seen to be believed.

When you have renounced the three-worlds and quenched the fire with your own perspiration in the ultimate havana, and risen again in ashes from the saMskAra with avadhUta dIkshA, and wandered over the veritable form of satI with the fifth head of brahma firmly grasped, returning to kAshI for the final dissolution; when you know the “kshatriya vAnaprastha” and have seen beyond the extremity of naranArAyaNa; when you truly know gurudatta, then you would understand.

But until that time, it is majority rules! I can waste many hours confirming sanskrit translations and defining terms and contexts, and it will all be ignored or countered with arguments copied from another web-site merely reproducing the majority views.

Why does an avadhUta wear ashes? Why does bhairava self-immolate by tapasya in kAshi? Why does satI sacrifice herself into the fire of daksha, and why does prajApati then appear as a goat? Why was christ crucified, and why does the sage at the close of the Isha upaniSad apparently die? These questions (and many more) will all be answered simultaneously when you understand the significance of quenching the fire-brand.

But until then, the highest advaitam will only be disparaged as shUnya or even dvaitam, and the point will be missed yet again. All discussions will degenerate into my guru vs your guru, and no conclusion will ever be reached.




It is not a Hindu usage. Even the Christian scripture teaches: "Do not cast" and does not teach to use the saying the way it is being used.

The english language is not a Hindu usage! I think you still don’t understand the point I was making, nor how the saying was actually being used, nor how it was particularly relevant to this discussion, nor why I used it in a response to Bob ~ NOT directed at him personally, but as part of an answer to his unsympathetic statement that any concern about hours of wasted effort should only be counted as an expression of personal ego. I considered retiring, but then confirmed that the karma would continue.




Strictly speaking, I should not be speaking in such an open forum, and the only way that I justify this is to consider the forum as an extension of my own Ashram. It is fine that many schools of thought coexist, but none should absolutely conflict with any other. And, with a proper understanding of their context, all true dharmas can easily be accommodated and work together, with minimum friction and maximum thrust. Each one follows their own dharma, while all understand their equally important part in the whole (and hence my emphasis on explaining the relationships, levels, stages, etc.). There must be a common vocabulary, with particular contexts having their own particular connotations but all contexts sharing the same essential theme (and hence my emphasis on clarifying terminology). And from an apparently random assortment of sticks, sanAtana dharma arranges a perfect cakram. Any basically true piece will be useful, but some may require a little pruning, and others are just not fit for the unified purpose and must be discarded. I don’t mind a long discussion with anyone whose alAta is basically true, for I know that in the end we can come to an agreement. But I have no interest in arguing with an avowed non-hindu who seems more concerned with me and my attitude and my manner of communication than he is with anything that I am actually trying to say. I would not deliberately sit down to meditate in a place where there are biting insects, and I am happy to sit in another place where such irritations will not disturb the process.




It is amazing how much mischief can be caused by taking a line completely out of context.

‘Don’t cast pearls before swine.’ ‘Don’t play music to a cow.’ ‘Don’t throw gold coins to a cat.’ ‘Don’t expect a monkey to appreciate ginger.’ ‘Honey isn’t made for a donkey’s mouth.’ The meaning is exactly the same.

According to the gospel of matthew: ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.’

According to the muNDakopaniSad: ‘This is declared by the Rg verse: Let one teach this knowledge of brahma to those only who perform the karma enjoined, who are versed in the vedAs, and firmly established in brahmA, who, endowed with full faith, offer oblations themselves to the fire called ekarSi, and who perform the shirovrata according to the rule.’

And according to the shvetAshvataropaniSad: ‘This highest secret in the vedAnta, expounded in a former age, should not be given to one whose passions have not been subdued, nor to one who is not a worthy son, nor to an unworthy disciple.’

Can you please explain the essential difference between ‘this should not be given to one who is unworthy’ (which is the standard hindu tradition) and ‘that which is holy should not be thrown to the dogs’ or ‘cast not your pearls before swine’ (as advised by christian tradition)???


nAprashAntAya dAtavyaM na aputrAya ashiSyAya vA punaH

The highest secret of vedAnta is a veritable pearl, which should not be taught to “an untrue son” (thus, not to a “bastard child” or a “mongrel”, and hence not to a “dog”). And neither should it be taught to “a person or thing not deserving to be taught or not capable of being instructed” (thus, not to a “donkey” or a “monkey” or a “cat” or a “cow” or a “pig”).

Since only an idiot would even contemplate teaching vedAnta to any one of these animals, the words are surely metaphorical and referring to human communication, indicating simply anyone who is incapable or unprepared for properly appreciating or digesting the pearl of wisdom. The veda refers to wisdom that should only be given to a tyAgin (vAnaprastha), and the upaniSad is referring to wisdom that should only be given to a sannyAsin, and in each case the meaning is the same ~ don’t give the post-graduate instruction to the undergraduates, for they are (as yet) unfit to properly comprehend it, and in their hands the true significance will be lost. And it is fruitless to caste such pearls of wisdom to those who are not prepared (i.e. to the “unwashed”, who are without the appropriate saMskAra) for it.

Any difference between the biblical statement and the vedAntika statement is only in your mind.

And regarding my own use of the phrase ~ it is futile to give the ultimate wisdom of sannyAsa to those who are not prepared for sannyAsa ~ it is useless to suggest the common origin and aims of apparently diverse dharmas to those whose passionate support of one side over another makes them blind to the very possibility ~ and it is clearly unwise to cast appropriate metaphors before those who take everything literally!




Though a foolishness is taken upon oneself but not before implying two graver things.

And what are those grave implications? The intention was to say that when others are incapable of understanding it is best not to waste everyone’s time and cause more upset and confusion by continuing to press the point.

I could have used various expressions ~ ‘don’t cast pearls before swine’, ‘don’t give that which is holy to the dogs’, ‘don’t play music to a cow’, ‘don’t throw gold coins to a cat’, ‘don’t expect a monkey to appreciate ginger’, ‘honey isn’t made for a donkey’s mouth’, ‘don’t give the sacred inheritance to an unworthy son’, or ‘don’t give this gem of wisdom to an unworthy disciple”. And since the original comment was a reference to:

ajAtivAda was intended to lead a sannyAsin to the station of avadhUta, and never intended for comprehension by non-sannyAsins. There is so much more that could be said on this matter, but no explanation will ever be sufficient for those who have no personal experience of the pañca.

I thought the “unwashed” connotation was most appropriate, so I quoted the famous sermon on the mount (don’t cast pearls before swine) ~ although I could perhaps have quoted the upaniSad instead, by saying that it is foolish to ‘give this gem of wisdom to an unworthy disciple’. Or is there some particular problem with pigs? Would a reference to dogs, cows, cats, or donkeys, have been better received? Or is there some particular problem with quoting from the bible?

Perhaps I should have said “bandar kya jane adrak ka swad” (?)




In fact, this saying has been used in impersonal way in the Bible i.e. not directed against anyone in particular but here it was used directly against a person.

Please understand everything that I have said above, and note that the phrase has NOT been used directly against anyone in particular, and it was not being used against Bob, but rather in response to his previous comment about my previous comment about various long and circular discussions with no apparent possibility of conclusion.

This thread is a perfect example of the problem, which is still chasing its tail because the intentions and the context have been completely missed, despite repeated explanations.

atanu
26 February 2008, 11:48 PM
-
This thread is a perfect example of the problem, which is still chasing its tail because the intentions and the context have been completely missed, despite repeated explanations.

Namaskar All,

This thread is Shivam.

Mala, a word commonly used, is actually very dirty. It means excreta, which while hidden in body is not known as dirty. When it is expelled out by self, it becomes untouchable and none will even imagine of taking it back.

Mischief Mongering, Ego, and ignorance, three dirtiest malas have been expelled by Shivam and it is auspicious.

The auspicious will be revealed when Sarabhanga, Bob and me (most) will embrace each other and recognise the EKATMA. Let it happen naturally.

----------

I have thought how Gandhiji would have tackled. He would have said: "Hey Rama, he does not know that he and I are same". And Ramana? He would have smiled and kept silent and it would have been known to the aggressor that he was not the doer.

---------

I see some reflection of Da-Da-Da story here. Why Indians are taught of Self again and again? I think, because we are in need of self-respect most.

Om

PS: This thread is Shivam. Satay will invite Bob and Bob and Sarabhanga will forget the apparent insults, which no one heaped upon other.

Om Namah Shivaya