Advaitic thoughts

[Kumar_Das]

Let's call Brahman as the Disposer of affairs, and Jagat(the universe) here undergoing its dynamic change as affairs.

All affairs take place according to the Disposer.

The affairs cannot be denied (at the moment of not seeing the Disposer alone), because they are happening.

The affairs obscure the Disposer. We engage in these affairs, we find them highly convincing while at it.

The affairs appears as real, when seen with the Disposer as well. Hence Disposer of affairs.

However when the Disposer is seen alone, the affairs are illusory. Because the Disposer is the basis of these affairs, and affairs can be anything whereas the Disposer never.

The order of the affairs and every single detail can be done in whichever way. No matter what, the Disposer is always Unchanging. That is why it is the basis / substratum and it is ineffable.

Whatever attempts to try and concieve it using whatever we have within these affairs would be an attempt to project qualities that the Disposer is devoid of. This would be due to ignorance.

How do these affairs arise? We can say it is the nature of the Disposer to dispose these affairs.

The Disposer appears as the "Creator" when attached to the creation. And seen as so. But that is only that.

creation in all its multiplicity and whether added upon further or removed and then repeated is essentially "creation" that proceeds only from this Creator, whatever its nature may be that we see as different, the underlying nature of it comes directly and exclusively from the Creator therefore it must be some sort of a reflection. the nature of the "creation" cannot be attributed to anyone apart from its "Creator", so the "creation" essentially is an extension of the "Creator", but prior to or afterwards this Creator always remains the same. So this is illusory and merely a superimposition.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kumar_das,


... so the "creation" essentially is an extension of the "Creator", but prior to or afterwards this Creator always remains the same. So this is illusory and merely a superimposition.
I think your premise has merit, yet even in the agitation (kṣobha¹) of creation, the Supreme stays unblemished, un-used-up, totally Supreme. This is how great this Being is. Its said that only 1/4th of this Being brings forth (visarga) creation.
The idea that is most approprite ( for me) is this Being's continunity is uninterrupted¹. It never takes a day off, a holiday, and there is nothing that is out side of It , how could anything be?

praṇām

words

kṣobha - shaking , agitation , disturbance , tossing
visarga - sending forth , letting go , liberation , emission , discharge
sātatya - consistency, uninterruptedness

[saidevo]

namaste Kumar Das and others.

I have some slightly different thoughts on the premises you have laid out, although I agree with most of them as a useful way to think about Brahman.

• The name 'Disposer' implies action. Brahman is usually thought of as a 'witness' rather than 'one who has action'.

• Does the movie screen partake the action played out over it? Would it be more accurate to say that the screen is simply a witness--and a passive support--to the action, which is why it stays as the unchanging/unaffected substratum at all times?

• Of course, the movie screen analogy is limited because the action seems to come from an outside source. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy might be the computer screen, which is the 'creation part' of the entire computer system.

• The 'affairs' of the samsAra--world process, that takes place over the 'screen' of Brahman was originally 'willed', but once it started, Brahman just stays a witness.

• Yet, the affairs can't be run without a Universal Consciousness presiding over it as the Disposer. That UC is Ishvara, referred to by whatever other name: Shiva, ViShNu, KRShNa, Shakti or another. Ishvara as the UC is the Deputy of Brahman, and has his own hierarchy of delegates, just as our jIva--individual soul, is a deputy of the Atman--Self behind it, and has its own hierarchy of roles in life.

• It is not surprising that the jIvas being characters in the affairs of the world, have their own points of view about the world and its beings, which precludes the knowledge about the persons (deputies) behind the action.

• The character--jIva, is just a role played by an actor--Atman/Self, who knows the character by becoming it, and knows better about himself through the role-playing, but is not affected by it.

• A character in a movie can never know about the actor behind it, whereas in real life, a jIva can--and eventually does--know about the Self behind it.

• In a movie, the characters and actors even when being in the movie, readily know each other and their roles; the actors also also know the Director--Ishvara, behind the show, and the Producer--Brahman, behind the Director,--the Producer just staying as a witness after having willed the movie.

In the affairs of the real world, the character--jIva, must progressively cease its action and role-playing, to know the actor--Self, within it, and then through the Self, know the Director--Ishvara, and finally the Producer--Brahman. Once they have this knowledge in experience, they would go about playing their roles without any attachment to them, and dedicating the results to Ishvara who is the phala-dAta--dispenser of karmic fruits.

• The actor--Self, behind the character--jIva, knows about the limitations of the role played, vis-a-vis his own personality, but can't do anything about it. From the actor's POV, the character is real only as long as the movie is, and he would have other roles in future, so he is not undly worried about a single movie.

• In the movie of life, an ordinary jIva, to start with, has no knowledge that he/she is the extension of the people behind it, but eventually gets to know them, first intellectually and then experientially, depending on his efforts at sAdhana--spiritual search. This knowledge changes and expands the jIva's POV about the reality of the world into the eventual realization that the Absolute Reality has layers of relative reality within it.

The veil of reality of a physically three-dimensional and spiritually multi-dimensional world is far more ubiquitous and enticing to a jIva, than the absolute reality of substratum behind it. A jIva that knows about and wants to pierce the veil should have intense sAdhana, that entails the eventual anughraha--grace, from Ishvara.

[kallol]

Ditto Saidevo.

Bramhan cannot be Karta. Otherwishes he will be the greatest sansari and we blemishless.

Love and best wishes

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté saidevo (et.al)




I have some slightly different thoughts on the premises you have laid out, although I agree with most of them as a useful way to think about Brahman.

• The name 'Disposer' implies action. Brahman is usually thought of as a 'witness' rather than 'one who has action'.
Before I begin it is noteworthy to inform the reader that this is not in opposition to vedānta, nor finding issue with anyone's views thus offered,
but is a different perspective on the matter. I offer the following in the spirit of inquiry and insight.

What you mention is a common and an accepted axiom of brahman as the witness and perfectly still, some call this śāntabrahmavāda.
Śaṃkara-ji¹ would perhaps say this brahman is niṣkriya ( without activity).

Another POV
As we study and good deeper into the knowledge there is, from a advaita (non-dual) śaiva view (vs. pure vedāntic orientation) this notion of vimarśa.
It is part of the truth that the Supreme (parama¹) is prakāśa-vimarśamaya . Now we will leave this whole idea for another post and
only address vimarśa as the key idea. Vimarśa ( not vimarṣa¹) is defined as knowledge, intelligence. This is fine , yet there is a deeper
meaning as one would think. We can look at vimarśa as vi + mṛś;

mṛś is to reflect, to touch mentally and;
vi means 'in two parts', ' to and fro', and 'deliberation'.
So what this vi + mṛś offers us about vimarśa is the reflection or deliberation within Being, brahman , its own Self-awareness.My teacher called this Self-referral , this curving back onto itSELF, brahman, aware / perceptible to Itself. This 'aware of itSelf' takes on the
name of svātantrya in various āgama's; that is, this Being's absolute freedom. And this also means absolute will (iccā); What does this Being do with this will?
The wise tell us it is the will to manifest, to bring forth Creation. Not in the notion of a potter making a clay pot but of the notion of emergence of the
universe (viśva) from ItSelf, and many call this sṛṣṭi¹. This occurrence then would move us to talk of śakti, His power to do this.

My point of offering
brahman from this point of view is both transcendent (viśvottīrṅa) and creative ( some like the word immanent) and this is viśvamaya.
The wise say it is the nature (svabhāva) of Being, brahman, paramaśiva to manifest. What would be my reference point for this view?
It would be the very first sūtra of the pratyavbhijñāhṛdayaṁ¹ :
The absolute citi of its own free will (svātantra) is the cause of siddhi of the universe. (siddhi here = bring forth, accomplishment, establishment.)
　
Hence , for me and my comprehension, there is no doubt that brahman is the witness; yet with His Self-referral ( some call spanda, throb) this
Being is aware of Itself and rejoices by bringing forth all of creation. Its nature (svarūpa) is to create vs. remain idle. This truth we also find in the bhāgavad gītā.

praṇām

words

Śaṃkara-ji = Ādi Śaṅkara, we know as Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda; He was the first Śaṅkarācārya , as he set up the maţha-s (some write as mutt's, math's) across India.
paramá - superior , highest point , extreme limit , or anuttara
vimarṣa - irratation, impatience , displeasure
sṛṣṭi - emmission; letting go , letting loose; ā sṛṣṭeḥ , " from the beginning of the world " ; sṛṣṭiṃ kuru , " produce offspring
Pratyavbhijñāhṛdayaṁ is authored by kṣemarāja-ji śiṣya of abhinavagupta. This word Pratyabhijñāhṛdayaṁ means the re-recognition of ones Self - in this word hṛdya is used as ~heart~ or the inner most , most dear, and hence the Self.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Another POV
As we study and good deeper into the knowledge there is, from a advaita (non-dual) śaiva view (vs. pure vedāntic orientation) this notion of vimarśa.
It is part of the truth that the Supreme (parama¹) is prakāśa-vimarśamaya . Now we will leave this whole idea for another post

One must ask what is this prakāśa-vimarśamaya ? This is my view and comprehension:

prakāśa = shining, clear, splendour , lustre , light and is also a name for brahman
vimarśa = vi + mṛś; mṛś is to reflect, to touch mentally and vi means 'in two parts', ' to and fro', and 'deliberation'.
This vi + mṛś offers us about vimarśa is the reflection or deliberation within Being, brahman , its own Self-awareness.Prakāśa is used here as it infers directly lumination , what makes everything visible not to mention perfect purity. But light on its own is not enough;
It is via this vimarśa this reflection within Itself that makes it lively Being, being aware of its own Self.

maya must be looked at as ma +ya and not 'māyā' and the notion of ~ illusion~. This is not the case here;
ma from a pañcamī¹ point of view (the ablative case¹, meaning from which action begins) brings us to 'mad' meaning bliss, also to boil.
It infers within this Being which is purity of light and Self-awareness is the natural condition of blissful activity.
ya is 'joining' and brings all the qualities together.
prakāśa-vimarśamaya then is the perfection of pure light of Being, brahman that is blissfully awake in its own awareness ; Its nature of paramaśiva
is to manifest, or svabhāva, to bubble up (mad).

But can we see this perhaps some place else? Look no further then the chāndogya upaniṣad ( 3.19.1 , 6.2.2-3) we find that (tad)
alone existed and said, let me be many. The taittitīya upaniṣad (brahmānanda vallī) informs us of the same: Let me become many.

If He (sat) alone existed, the only one He can be referring to is His own Self… curving back onto itSelf this Being creates again and again…
this is the beauty found in this prakāśa-vimarśamaya
　
praṇām

words
pañcamī the 5th or ablative case (or its terminations) , a word in the ablative ; saṃskṛtā is an inflected language and hence this
ablative case has among its function the place in which, manner, means, instrument, or agent an action begins. The 'ablative'
is a Latin term and gives many a reader (including me) some difficulty in comprehension

[Harjas Kaur]

"Bramhan cannot be Karta. Otherwishes he will be the greatest sansari and we blemishless."

Shabda Brahmha is the sargun swaroop of the Absolute Lord which only becomes perceivable as Sound and vibrates/spanda as Pranava which is Omkara through which the creation manifests.

We are not possibly blemishless since the creation manifests as the pakriti of the thrai gunas and the Lord's potency of Mayayog. Since the conditioned souls are born in pakriti of the gunas and in bondage to Maya we are the sansaris and filled with obscurations of consciousness and defilements of materiality and haumai. But the Lord manifesting His potencies from the nirgun to the sargun does not become so defiled as the creation itself is His veil of Mayayog and the Lord remains anterajami, all pervading within the heart of all beings. The atman itself can never be blemished. Only the jiva which thinks it is the acting principle independent of the God is filled with blemishes and avidya.



sa karma-bījaḿ rajasoparaktaḥ
prajāḥ sisṛkṣann iyad eva dṛṣṭvā
astaud visargābhimukhas tam īḍyam
avyakta-vartmany abhiveśitātmā
Lord Brahmā, thus being surcharged with the mode of passion, became inclined to create, and after seeing the five causes of creation indicated by the Personality of Godhead, he began to offer his respectful prayers on the path of the creative mentality.
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.8.33
-------------------------


"The form of meditation that came to manifest as the foremost of all, for the regeneration of all seekers, was the First Word, indicative of Brahman [God]: the Syllable Om. Meditation on Om should be resorted to by seekers after liberation. This Syllable is the Supreme Brahman."
~ Atharvashikha Upanishad 1:1,2
-------------------------


"Om is Brahman, the Primeval Being. This is the Veda which the knowers of Brahman know; through it one knows what is to be known."
~ Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 5.1.1
-------------------------


"Within all the Vedas, I am the symbol Om."

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu established the pranava as the maha-vakya of the Vedas, for within it exist all Vedic hymns (and shabda). The world itself is a manifestation of this syllable. It is the sound representation of the Absolute Truth.

The vak is not a manifestation of the material nature, for the Vedanta sutra 2.4.4 states as follows:

tat-purvakatvad vacah

This indicates that the vak existed before the pradhana. Pradhana is the root of the material manifestation - the three qualities non-differentiated in absolute equilibrium. Yet prior to this is the vak. Thus the vak is non-material.

For this reason we find in the Vedanta Sutras the following statement:

anavriti shabdat

"Liberation by sound."

Since sound is the non-material source of the material manifestation, it is the key by which we can become free from bondage. It is the thread-like link between the material and spiritual realms." Vedic Conception of Sound in Four Features by Jahnava Nitai Das (http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/vedicsound.htm)

The Absolute Lord taking the form of Shabda Brahmha becomes perceivable as an experiential reality to the conditioned souls who otherwise can't perceive nirguna which is described in scriptures as agochar/beyond the senses. He is the Omkara as well as Guru Vakya and Mantras and such is the mode of liberation for all beings. These are forms of the Divine presence in the Sound current and therefore can never become sansari.

[Kumar_Das]

Thank you to Saidevo-ji and yajvan-ji for your outstanding posts. I will respond in due time.

[TatTvamAsi]

• A character in a movie can never know about the actor behind it, whereas in real life, a jIva can--and eventually does--know about the Self behind it.


Namaste Saidevo,

Simply stupendous analogy you have given there. What a simple but elegant way to describe the nature of the ego-mind that ultimately dissolves and Self is realized!

Namaskar.