PDA

View Full Version : Origins



Penumbra
26 July 2009, 08:21 PM
I received very nice responses to my last thread, so it seems like a good idea to ask another pressing question I have.

My question is- what is the reason for why people are not already united with Brahman, or self-realized? What brought about the current state of illusion?

In Sanatana Dharma, it seems to be claimed that due to ignorance or some other weakness, beings in the universe are under an illusion of a false self- that they are somehow separate from God. Were they once united in the past, once self-realized, or no?

I've heard it said that God purposely split itself up so that it could come to understand and experience itself from another viewpoint, both from Eastern religious people and from Western New-Thought authors on religion and spirituality. If this is the case, can it occur again once people have achieved moksha/self-realization, therefore rendering this self-realization impermanent, or no?

Thanks,
-Lyn

devotee
26 July 2009, 09:27 PM
Namaste Penumbra,



My question is- what is the reason for why people are not already united with Brahman, or self-realized? What brought about the current state of illusion?


"United with Brahman" ----- Brahman is nothing separate from us, there is no time when we were/are not already united with Brahman.

"Why are we not already Self-realised" ? ---- You may get different answers for this question. It is said it is due to Kama or the desire (to know itself. as for knowing there must be at least two). The One desired to be many. It is also said that it is the "Leela" (play) of God ... it is a game wherein the transient being (the Jeevatma - ego self) has to realise its true nature & until it is successful in that it goes from birth to birth.

IMO, the best explanation lies in Mandukya Upanishad. Mandukya Upanishad says that Self is always composed of four quarters. The first two quarters are the "Waking State" & the "Dreaming State" of the Self. Within these two states there is delusion ---- the reality is falsely perceived. The third state is the Prajna state ( the all knower, the nourisher, the God) which is the source & end of the first two states. This state is not dreaming state i.e. there is no false perception but it is again the sleeping state i.e. the reality is not revealed. The fourth state is the Turiya (means fourth). This state is the Reality ... may be compared with the white screen where all the three previous states come into being & dissolve back into it & this state cannot be described by any concept/comparison (that is why it is "described" in terms of what it is not) .

So, if we go by Mandukya Upanishad, all the four states are always part of the Self i.e. it is nature of the Brahman. There was no time when "it happened" (the so called separation or illusion taking over). It is like Sea & the waves. The waves are apparently different from the sea ... they take birth & die ... the waves may have the illusion of individuality & they may feel that they take birth & die .... but if we see the whole picture .... it was nothing but Sea to begin with, it is still Sea & there will always be Sea only. So, that is the eternal game .... the waves have to simply realise that there just the Sea & they are That.

OM

Eastern Mind
26 July 2009, 09:28 PM
Whoa. lol Deep stuff. My response would be that it is the nature of God. He emanated it all ... young souls ... maya (illusion) ... it is His breathing. At the deepest level, we are already the Self that is spoken of.

I have never heard of God splitting himself. In fact that seems to go against all monistic advaitic thought.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
27 July 2009, 09:10 AM
Namaste Lyn.



My question is- what is the reason for why people are not already united with Brahman, or self-realized?


This qestion can be answered philosophically in many ways, typically with probing counter questions:

• Who is asking these questions? Does Brahman, the Self which is the substratum of all individual selves feel it is not united with them or is it the other way?

Obviously, Brahman, who is always united with its selves, does not ask this question. Why is this so, specially when Brahman knows about its many selves that are at variance with one another? And how can the individual selves who are not themselves real 'feel' their disunity with Brahman, the underlying Self?

MuNDaka Upanishad gives the answer to these questions in the form of a story:

Two birds were perched on the branch of a pippala tree. One bird was busy eating the fruits of the tree, going gaga or chichi about it. The other bird was simply watching this busy bird, doing nothing, except being a witness to the activities of the second bird.

The bird that stays watching, is the Atman/AtmA/Self which is nothing but Brahman, the ParamAtman. The busy bird is the JIvAtman. The pippala tree is this human body. The pippala fruits are the sensual pleasures.

Incidentally, this Upanishadic story is considered to be the source of the Bible story of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eaden. The word 'apple' is derived from the Sanskrit 'pippala'. The word 'pippin' meaning 'a variety of apples, specially those valued as dessert', today remains as a not-so-distant cousin of its Sanskrit source.

Apply this story to the explanation of MANDukya Upanishad that Devotee has given, and you have the answer:

The watchfulness and remaining as witness, is the real state existence of the Self--the state of Turiya--of the Atman Bird. The indulgence and restlessness of the JIvAtman Bird are due to its coming into existence in the states of waking and dreaming. Although it is always busy, the JIvAtman Bird has still its times of deep sleep when it dissolves its apparent individual existence and stands united with its Atman.

Why are there or why should there be two birds? It is because of the tree, this human body where they both live. Using the Infotech terminology, the JIvAtman is the actually the Proxy but due to its temporary, individual consciousness, it thinks it is the real Server, while the real Server itself simply waits on, that is accommodates the idiosyncrasy of its proxy.

In essence, the real existence of the Self is only the state of Turiya that pervades and includes all other states. In the states of waking and dreaming, however, the Self of its own volition gives rise to its individual selves, simply watching its own dreamy existence as individual selves in these states, and waiting for them to come to an end.



What brought about the current state of illusion?


This question again can be answered with counter questions for the sake of understanding the situation better:

• What made the novelist to create his/her works of fiction? What made the Director to produce his great movie script and enact it with a specific set of film artists, sets and locations into a make-believe world? Since the characters in a novel and film are only creations of the novelist and director, can't it be said that they are mere extensions of his own 'personality' or individual self? Or is it a case that the novelist/director 'split himself/herself up' into many characters?

A possible answer is that the novelist/director wished to know more about the individual's capability and so set about the 'lIlA' or game of creation. And the novelist/director stands only as witness to all that he/she creates and enacts.

yajvan
27 July 2009, 03:25 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté

saidevo writes


"United with Brahman" ----- Brahman is nothing separate from us, there is no time when we were/are not already united with Brahman.



This is the truth - yet our experience of svayam¹ is different, no? - such begins the journey.

When many asked our teacher the same question


what is the reason for why people are not already united with Brahman, or self-realized? He talked much about time. And how after eon's this natural state (became) becomes somewhat overshadowed by the material side of life.
This does not infer the material side is 'bad'. It just suggests there is more layers or 'thickness' to get through to experince Being, on its own. (Thus begings the conversations of yuga-s)
Once this Brahman ( some call pūrṇatā¹) is experienced/realized , then the 'ahaa ha!' insight is even this material side is Brahman too.

praṇām

words

svayam स्वयम् - is self , one's self (applicable to all persons e.g. myself , thyself , himself ) , of or by one's self spontaneously , voluntarily , of one's own accord (also used with other pronouns i.e. I myself did that)
pūrṇatā पूर्णता- fullness; based on pūrṇa पूर्ण abundant, fulfilled , finished , accomplished

Penumbra
27 July 2009, 06:58 PM
Namaste Penumbra,



"United with Brahman" ----- Brahman is nothing separate from us, there is no time when we were/are not already united with Brahman.

"Why are we not already Self-realised" ? ---- You may get different answers for this question. It is said it is due to Kama or the desire (to know itself. as for knowing there must be at least two). The One desired to be many. It is also said that it is the "Leela" (play) of God ... it is a game wherein the transient being (the Jeevatma - ego self) has to realise its true nature & until it is successful in that it goes from birth to birth.

IMO, the best explanation lies in Mandukya Upanishad. Mandukya Upanishad says that Self is always composed of four quarters. The first two quarters are the "Waking State" & the "Dreaming State" of the Self. Within these two states there is delusion ---- the reality is falsely perceived. The third state is the Prajna state ( the all knower, the nourisher, the God) which is the source & end of the first two states. This state is not dreaming state i.e. there is no false perception but it is again the sleeping state i.e. the reality is not revealed. The fourth state is the Turiya (means fourth). This state is the Reality ... may be compared with the white screen where all the three previous states come into being & dissolve back into it & this state cannot be described by any concept/comparison (that is why it is "described" in terms of what it is not) .

So, if we go by Mandukya Upanishad, all the four states are always part of the Self i.e. it is nature of the Brahman. There was no time when "it happened" (the so called separation or illusion taking over). It is like Sea & the waves. The waves are apparently different from the sea ... they take birth & die ... the waves may have the illusion of individuality & they may feel that they take birth & die .... but if we see the whole picture .... it was nothing but Sea to begin with, it is still Sea & there will always be Sea only. So, that is the eternal game .... the waves have to simply realise that there just the Sea & they are That.

OM
Thank you for your response.

Maybe you can clarify one of your points for me. You say that there was no time when the separation or illusions happened. But as I understand it, people believe in reincarnation, meaning that our atman continues in several bodies in series until we reach Moksha.

If these two things are true, does that mean we have each had an infinite number of bodies/lives? Is there no beginning, and yet a finite end to the series of lives (upon reaching self-realization)?

-Lyn

Penumbra
27 July 2009, 07:04 PM
Whoa. lol Deep stuff. My response would be that it is the nature of God. He emanated it all ... young souls ... maya (illusion) ... it is His breathing. At the deepest level, we are already the Self that is spoken of.
When you say young souls, do you believe that "new" atman are made, or that all atman were formed at the same time?

I guess this is the same question I asked the last person- did each atman have an infinite or finite number of past lives?


I have never heard of God splitting himself. In fact that seems to go against all monistic advaitic thought.

Aum NamasivayaThat seems to be what some others in this thread have suggested, though maybe I misunderstand.

-devotee said that the one desired to be many so that it can know itself.
-saidevo uses the analogy of someone making a story with characters so that he can see their individuality

Maybe "splitting up" wasn't the most precise term, but that's sort of how I understand what these people are saying. It seems to be splitting up into "parts", while still maintaining some sort of "whole" at the same time.

-Lyn

devotee
27 July 2009, 09:35 PM
Namaste Penumbra,


Maybe you can clarify one of your points for me. You say that there was no time when the separation or illusions happened. But as I understand it, people believe in reincarnation, meaning that our atman continues in several bodies in series until we reach Moksha.

If these two things are true, does that mean we have each had an infinite number of bodies/lives? Is there no beginning, and yet a finite end to the series of lives (upon reaching self-realization)?


There is slight misunderstanding here. Please read my post again. This Self has four quarters. What you see as "you"/"body"/"life" belong to first two quarters. Within these two states there is birth, death, delusion (that I am separate from Self, i.e. sense of individuality) etc. So, there can be beginning of a "life" or a deluded individuality when you talk about a particular "being" and there will be end of that particular "being" after its Self-realisation.

However, this "process" never "started" .... it is the nature of the Self in the first two quarters & it has no beginning and no end. So, when I say it is beginningless and endless, it is about the process.

Now regarding "separation" .... even the individual beings which are born & die are never separate from the Self .... they have no self-sustained existence.

You can understand this well by the Sea & the Wave analogy. There is never a time when the waves are separated from the Sea. Actually, the whole existence of waves is due the nature of the sea. You can't have waves in absence of the Sea. In fact, the question on beginning & ending also can be very well understood by the same example. The process of birth & death of waves is beginningless and endless but the cycle of deaths & births of an individual wave does have a beginning and an end (when it merges with the Sea).

OM

Eastern Mind
27 July 2009, 10:22 PM
Penumbra: Firstly, I have to admit I'm in over my head. Scholarly matters aren't my forte. I am primarily a Siva bhaktar. So all this philosophy just makes me confused. As I said before, you will get a variety of responses. Mine comes from my gut, my intuition, certainly not from the study of books. Thye only books I've read are those of my Guru. Others may come from years of research.

I do believe in young and old souls. It explains a lot to me... like why some people just don't get it, while others do. I also believe there is a difference between the core of the soul (the Self God) , and the soul body. The core is identical to Siva and merges with Him as water to water. The soul body is what is evolving.

Having said all this, I say it is basically irrelevant and has little or no bearing in day to day life. One needs to learn how to control anger, practise ahimsa, charity, truthfulness, and the like. Its also a barrier, in my opinion, to engage in endless cycles of debate on the matter.

Aum Namasivaya