PDA

View Full Version : What if all jivas attained moksha.



wundermonk
14 August 2011, 01:04 PM
Hello All:

Per my understanding, during Pralaya [dissolution] Prakriti is in equilibrium. What stirs this Prakriti to initiate another cycle of Srshti [manifestation] is past Karma of souls that have not yet attained moksha. [the Samkhyan view]

Now, what if during some stage of Sthithi [preservation], ALL jivas attained moksha?

Isnt that the end of it all?

sunyata07
14 August 2011, 02:16 PM
Namaste Wundermonk,

I've often wondered about this "what if" question, myself. Does anybody know if anything about collective liberation is ever written about in the scriptures, and if so, where can we find more about it?

I had thought before that the present universe and all previous existences were and are all dream-stuffs in the mind of the Supreme Being (Maha Vishnu, Shiva, etc.). If what you are suggesting is true Wundermonk, does that mean all of existence reaches an unchanging state of equilibrium when all jivas finally merge back into Brahman and total unitive Consciousness? What would that mean?

I'd love to hear what the other members say about this.

Om namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
14 August 2011, 02:22 PM
Namaste Wundermonk,

I've often wondered about this "what if" question, myself. Does anybody know if anything about collective liberation is ever written about in the scriptures, and if so, where can we find more about it?

I had thought before that the present universe and all previous existences were and are all dream-stuffs in the mind of the Supreme Being (Maha Vishnu, Shiva, etc.). If what you are suggesting is true Wundermonk, does that mean all of existence reaches an unchanging state of equilibrium when all jivas finally merge back into Brahman and total unitive Consciousness? What would that mean?

I'd love to hear what the other members say about this.

Om namah Shivaya

Vannakkam: From the analogy that one Yugic cycle is one breath for Siva, I just assume he would pause a bit, and start breathing again. But somehow I don't think I'll find out any time soon.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
14 August 2011, 03:42 PM
I think that since creation and destruction of universes is a neverending affair, I'd say that there will never be a time when all of it comes to an end in mass moksha.

But I try not to think too hard on such things. Sometimes it's not wise to "break a thing to see what it is made of" (Gandalf to Saruman in "The Lord of the Rings"). Because then I wind up with, for example, Krishna tells Arjuna that never was there a time when He did not exist nor Arjuna. And we are all part of Brahman and Brahman is part of us, so why am I here, and how did I get here?

It seems to imply that souls come into existence, or small parts of Brahman break off to incarnate. That, incidentally is one theory of how universes form... they bubble out of each other, which is that universe's singularity and Big Bang.

If, as Adi Shankara posits, creation is the play and recreation of God (he explains why that can be the only logical reason creation exists, and it makes sense to me), does God indeed create material beings and infuse Himself into them just to start a cycle of samsara for the being, as His recreation? I find that thought kind of distasteful.

There probably are theological answers to this, but I'll leave that to the theologians and pandits, and to people who know more about it than I do. I'll just concentrate on bhakti to my Lord Sri Krishna, and let Him sort it out, lest I wind up with a bangeroo of a headache. ;)

smaranam
14 August 2011, 04:46 PM
Now, what if during some stage of Sthithi [preservation], ALL jivas attained moksha?

Isnt that the end of it all?

Not really. Moksha only means cessation of OR indifference to material desires. The jivas that got absorbed back into the body of MahAVishNu (conditioned) , at pralay
OR
those that got moksha and remained neutral, i.e. neither devotional nor with material desires, may after a long long time of neutrality, develop material desires and get embodied, but they have lost who's who so they do not know/remember.
We have to remember that jiva is taTastha (on the taTa - river-bank), JivAtmA is a spark of the Supreme Fire with two tendencies - material and spiritual.

This page will answer all such questions.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/manifestation_of_souls.htm


Which way the independent jiva souls turn is never forced. It is up to their own free will. This free will, however, is a precious gift. It is one of the eternal qualities of the spirit. It is what allows them to choose whatever way they wish to exist. This is further described in a very enlightening way by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur in his book, Brahmana and Vaishnava (Second Chapter, p. 86):

Before acquiring material designations, the living entity is supremely pure. Even though he is not engaged in serving the Supreme Lord, he remains situated in the neutral position of santa-rasa due to his marginal nature. Though the living entity, born from the marginal potency, does not at that time exhibit a taste for serving the Lord due to a lack of knowledge of self-realization, his direct propensity of serving the Supreme Lord nevertheless remains within him in a dormant state. Though the indirect propensity of material enjoyment, which is contrary to the service of the Lord, is not found in him at that time, indifference to the service of Hari and the seed of material enjoyment, which follows that state of indifference, are nevertheless present within him.
The living entity, who belongs to the marginal potency, cannot remain indifferent forever by subduing both devotional and nondevotional propensities. He therefore contemplates unconstitutional activities from his marginal position. As a sleeping person dreams that he is active in the physical world without actually being involved in activities, when the dormant, indifferent living entity of the marginal potency exhibits even a little apathy to the service of the Supreme Lord and situates himself in a neutral, unchanging condition for even a little time, he is infected by impersonalism. That is why the conditioned soul desires to merge in the impersonal Brahman, thus exhibiting his mind’s fickle nature. But due to neglecting the eternal service of the Lord and thereby developing the quality of aversion to the Lord, he cannot remain fixed in that position. In this way, aversion to the Lord breaks his concentration of mind and establishes him as the master of this world of enjoyment.
Maya, the external energy of the Supreme Lord, then induces the marginal living entity to enjoy this world through her covering and throwing potencies, and, thus, shows the living entity the reality of being averse to the Lord’s service.

So this description explains that due to the living being remaining in a neutral position, he does not exhibit the natural spiritual taste for serving Krishna, which is in a dormant state. He also exhibits indifference to the material world and its enjoyment at first. However, since he cannot remain in a state of inactivity and indifference for long, he contemplates material activities and the enjoyment they might offer. Then maya induces the living entity to try to enjoy the world...

Jai Shri KrushNa
praNAm

smaranam
14 August 2011, 04:58 PM
Conclusion: It is the neutral or shanta ras jivas that may develop material desires.
In rare cases, fall from the eternal spiritual world (VaikuNtha) of devotional service is possible - very very very rare.
1. Fall from pure devotional service while in this world e.g. Kala KrishnaDas ,
Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami mentions in his purport in the Caitanya-caritamrita (Madhya-lila, 10.65): “This is factual evidence showing that it is possible at any time to fall down from the Lord’s association. One need only misuse his little independence. Once fallen and separated from the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s association, one becomes a candidate for suffering in the material world.”

Another very very rare example is Jay and Vijay - gatekeepers of Vaikuntha. They did not let the four (SanakAdi) Kumars in, and the kumars cursed them, but the Lord felt sorry and made it a little easier.

The jeeva can attain only 78% perfection of the Lord. The Lord never comes under influence of Maya, whereas jivas have that dormant tendency.
This is the difference between jivas and the Supreme Lord.

Hare KrushNa

smaranam
14 August 2011, 05:23 PM
In the eternal spiritual world (state), where devotional service is nitya - eternal, there is no sense of duality. The jivas are acting only for Bhagvan, and satisfying His desires (no duality of me and mine). It is practically impossible to leave that state given the supreme joy and bliss, but in exremely rare-to-the-point-of-nil cases, if the jiva shows some independance, and selfish desire of their own, the Lord cannot force them to stay. They are given the environment suitable for their new [illusiory] independence, as it disrupts the harmony of the spiritual realm. Love can never be forced.

Kismet
14 August 2011, 07:16 PM
Hello All:

Per my understanding, during Pralaya [dissolution] Prakriti is in equilibrium. What stirs this Prakriti to initiate another cycle of Srshti [manifestation] is past Karma of souls that have not yet attained moksha. [the Samkhyan view]

Now, what if during some stage of Sthithi [preservation], ALL jivas attained moksha?

Isnt that the end of it all?

I take the view that we are all liberated as we speak. But, also in bondage. Logic breaks down at this point. There has to remain the two sides of the same coin. There must be both absolute liberation and absolute play. Desire and fulfillment. Yin and yang. Time and timelessness.

kallol
14 August 2011, 11:38 PM
How do we define moksha ?

As far as I know, it is the knowledge and the practice of aligning oneself with the permanence called brahman.

However this does not reflect on the state of the mind - the karmaphal. We can go on purifying the mind but as it is a part of the matter and ahamkara the karmaphal cannot become zero. Even the highest loka - Brahmaloka where Brahma rules is within the cycle of birth and rebirth. The cycle can be slowed down but not eliminated.

But once we align "I" with the permanence, I stays through sleep, unconsciousness, coma and death to the next awakening. The "I" does not die or take birth. This is the moksha state. Many have the knowledge but it takes time to live this knowledge.

Love and best wishes

wundermonk
15 August 2011, 01:40 AM
Hello All:

Thank you for your replies. Let me provide a background for this question.

I was engaging a Muslim on a Muslim forum about the Hindu concept of Brahman. The discussion touched upon many things:

What material cause did Allah use to make up the world? The possibilities I offered him were: (1)creatio ex-nihilo which is illogical/unscientific, (2)Allah made the world from "parts" out of himself, (3)there ought to have been some other entity besides Allah using which he made the world.

I said Hinduism proceeds via possibility (3) where the entity in question is Prakriti. [Islam and Xity believe in (1) where Allah/God simply wills everything into existence.]

He asked "Where did Prakriti come from?". I said Prakriti doesnt have any beginning. Brahman, souls and Prakriti have been eternally existing and will continue to exist forever into the future.

It was at this stage that he asked "what if the universe reaches a state in which the temperature approaches a uniform value, no further work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29) will be possible, resulting in a final heat death of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe). What then?"

I said in the stage that he outlines, Prakriti would eventually reach equilibrium [the sun/stars, etc. would burn out], the entropy would reach maximum and all useful energy would have been lost. What would stir this Prakriti back into another cycle of creation would be the collective Karma of the souls that still remain in bondage.

Now, thinking through the response I provided, what if ALL SOULS had attained moksha and there was no soul in bondage that can stir Prakriti from its state of equilibrium.

The only entities still existing would be Brahman and Prakriti.

So, I guess I wanted to know if a jiva's moksha is "final". Smaranamji answers this in the negative. A soul, even after moksha, still has free will to choose to get identified with Prakriti and that would stir Prakriti further for the next round of creation.

But what if NO soul after release ever gets identified with bondage again?

I am aware that there are some schools of thought within Hinduism, notably Arya Samaj, that believe that no soul's release is final. They, for instance, posit that after a finite period of time, EVERY soul would "fall from grace". In such a scenario, the onward eternal cycles of srishti-sthithi-pralaya will continue without any problem.

kallol
15 August 2011, 02:15 AM
Islam and Christianity is based on duality or Dvaita theory. It will always be difficult for them to grasp Advaita theory.

However most of us are having mixed up knowledge which consists of dvaita to advaita theories.

This might lead to questions in our mind only.

Love and best wishes

wundermonk
15 August 2011, 02:31 AM
Islam and Christianity is based on duality or Dvaita theory. It will always be difficult for them to grasp Advaita theory.

However most of us are having mixed up knowledge which consists of dvaita to advaita theories.

I see what you are saying, but it is nigh impossible to get anywhere with Xians and Muslims by introducing them to Advaita. Per Advaita, creation never happened. When they are told this, they end up saying - "oh so, everything for you Hindus is maya. Get real guys!"

I think when engaging with Muslims/Christians [if the need arises for whatever reason], a better introduction to Hinduism could be via Dvaita. Dvaita posits the reality of our universal experience and that is something the Abrahamic mindset can grasp.

PS: I am not claiming Dvaita or Advaita is more correct than the other.

Adhvagat
15 August 2011, 03:42 AM
How can the beginningless end? How can we count the uncountable?

I think we should abandon material world-bound concepts of time and space when dealing with the absolute. If space and time doesn't apply all that well to the mental realm, imagine higher realms.

In this case the Nasadiya Sukta from the Rig Veda can tell us a lot:


At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable deep?
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.

Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate, Then
that which was hidden by Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.
In the beginning Love arose,
which was primal germ cell of mind.
The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.

A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?
Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above.
Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?
Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?

That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows - or maybe He does not!

Taken from this discussion: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3579

There's no beginning, nor no end, we weren't nor we will be, we just are. Just like the whole of creation just IS.

SanathanaDharma
15 August 2011, 03:48 AM
Dear Friend,

To understand the answer to your first post, we need to get a better understanding of the foundation on
which we can arrive at a logical answer...

so, what is a Jeeva...
every Jeeva is an amsha[instance] of Parabramha....
so what is Parabramha...one who is "Akshara"...Akshara means inexhaustible...
One who never has an end..One who is infinite...One who never ever ceases...
Parabramha is that inexhaustible energy from whom all the sub forms of energies called
Jeevas become an instance....

so...when Parabramha is an inexhaustible source, there is no
question of "this is the last Jeeva which has come into prakruthi"...this statement becomes meaningless as the term "last" indicates exhaustion...hence, the Jeevas
becoming instances of Parabramha is an infinite inexhaustible process....its
eternal...there is no end to this process....

so the terms "all" and "infinite" cannot be put in a single logical statement as
the term "all" has a boundary and "Infinite" cannot be confined in a boundary...
"all" exists only inside prakruthi as prakruthi itself is bound, and not beyond....

A very friendly note: The wise say..never sow a seed which gives food[like rice] in a desert...as no matter
how hard you plough the desert, water it and take care of it, its impossible to grow food in a desert...
one not only wastes the time and energy, but also wastes the precious seeds in an attempt which is extremely futile
similarly, the words of wisdom are like those precious food giving seeds...please do not try hard to
sow them in a desert[stubborn minds which are hell bent upon following their own baseless religions]...

also please remember, only a person who is really thirsty actually knows the value of water and will automatically start searching for it...for others, who are not thirsty, even if they are sitting in front of a lake,
they will never understand its importance nor do they care about it...

saidevo
15 August 2011, 07:04 AM
namaste Wundermonk.

A nice what-if in your OP. The answer probably lies in the words of the nAsadIya sUkta that PI has presented in post no.13.

Every jIva has the individual I-counsciousness. What makes it take the path of mokSha? The Love of the Self. So, when all the individual I-consciousnesses merge into the one big consciousness of nirguNa brahman, the primal state described in the nAsadIya sUkta would be restored.

But then, The One would eventually be conscious of itself and become the Great I. This would stir the Love for the Self and spawn the great creation with a fresh set of individual primal states for the jIvas, that the Great I would float from himself.

This is my extempore impression to a question that has never been asked here or elsewhere so far I have read.


Hello All:

Per my understanding, during Pralaya [dissolution] Prakriti is in equilibrium. What stirs this Prakriti to initiate another cycle of Srshti [manifestation] is past Karma of souls that have not yet attained moksha. [the Samkhyan view]

Now, what if during some stage of Sthithi [preservation], ALL jivas attained moksha?

Isnt that the end of it all?

Jainarayan
15 August 2011, 09:04 AM
Hello All:
What material cause did Allah use to make up the world? The possibilities I offered him were: (1)creatio ex-nihilo which is illogical/unscientific, (2)Allah made the world from "parts" out of himself, (3)there ought to have been some other entity besides Allah using which he made the world.


Actually, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief is that God did create out of nothing. He has the power to do that. What's taught in Christian "Sunday School" is that God "is, was, and always will be". There is the famous phrase God uses when Moses asks what he should tell the people is the name of God. God replies "I am who am", meaning "I am existence, and I exist of myself".

Why did God create? The teaching is that He created to show His glory and power. That is in contradiction of Adi Shankara's conclusion that God created because creation is the recreation and play of God:



Now the question arises as to why the Ishvara created the world. If one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for any incentive, this slanders the wholeness and perfection of Ishvara. For example, if one assumes that Ishvara creates the world for gaining something, it would be against His perfection. If we assume that He creates for compassion, it would be illogical, because the emotion of compassion cannot arise in a blank and void world in the beginning (when only Ishvara existed). So Adi Shankara assumes that Creation is recreation or play of Ishvara. It is His nature, just as it is man's nature to breathe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita#.C4.AAshvara

I have never heard, when I was Christian, that God created simply because it is His nature to create. It was always to show His glory and power, and we were created to honor that glory. And there's where the trouble starts in Abrahamic religions, in Christianity and Islam, anyway; the Jews have always kept to themselves and worshipped God in their own way without pushing it on anyone else.

smaranam
15 August 2011, 10:31 AM
Namaste Wundermonk


So, I guess I wanted to know if a jiva's moksha is "final". Smaranamji answers this in the negative. A soul, even after moksha, still has free will to choose to get identified with Prakriti and that would stir Prakriti further for the next round of creation.

That's right, so what is the moral of the story for us ? Out of the jivas that have moksha, which ones become candidate for material desires ?

The ones that remain neutral or in shAnta ras, without any particular bhakti-bhAv towards the Supreme Lord (Parameshwar, BhagvAn). They may get moksha by understanding Aham BrahmAsmi, but they are neutral. For how long ?

So, the message is : Stay at the Lotus Feet of the Supreme Lord, engaged in loving exchanges of devotional service with Him and His associates.
Developing our Love for the Lord will diminish the tendency to fall down. The chances of falldown are much higher for neutral jivas who have lost their identity (who's who).
Just think. The sweetness and proximity of the Lord, His seva, pArshads, devotees, glories - keeps them eternally engaged. When they are occasionally sent down on missions to the mortal world (including Tulasi and ShankhachuDa like cases), even then they are in the spiritual state and never fallen. The Lord Himself agrees to become ShaligrAm Shila, and Lakshmi becomes Vrundadevi Tulasi - the plant. What to speak of pArshads.



But what if NO soul after release ever gets identified with bondage again?
That would be against nature (against prakruti). Many nice answers to that already on the thread. In addition, there are nitya-baddha jivas (just as there are nitya siddhas) to whom it never occurs to get liberated.

praNAm

smaranam
15 August 2011, 10:35 AM
Namaste

Achintya bheda-abheda , simultaneous inconceivable oneness and difference, and also dvaita philosophy for that matter, is acknowledgement of the spiritual variegatedness minus the material ahaMkAr, within the advaita.

We must not mistakenly think that the jivas in devotional service in VaikunTha are in material duality. There is no duality in the spiritual world, everything is for BhagvAn, everything and everyone is marching and singing in synchronization with His Will.

Shankaracharya had to build the bridge back from Buddhism. We cannot jump from point A to B, but now that we have the bridge, the idea is to cross it, not stay on the bridge.

It is not that bhakti is only for those who are too young to understand advaita. If that was so, Prakashanand Saraswati and Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya would never fall at Gauranga's Lotus Feet and take up Harinam saNkirtan.

OK , under the surface its all advaita. (Underlying oneness of spirit as opposed to duality of matter)
Aham BrahmAsmi. OK, so ?
Shivoham Shivoham. I am all-auspicious, I am pure I am pure spirit (not matter).

So what next ?
I engage in devotional activities towards the Supreme BhagavAn. For that i have to acknowledge that i am a pure jiva (spark of the Supreme Fire, ray of the Sun) with no material desires of my own. My only desire is - bhaktir ahaituki Tvayi.

praNAm

kallol
17 August 2011, 03:54 AM
I see what you are saying, but it is nigh impossible to get anywhere with Xians and Muslims by introducing them to Advaita. Per Advaita, creation never happened. When they are told this, they end up saying - "oh so, everything for you Hindus is maya. Get real guys!"

I think when engaging with Muslims/Christians [if the need arises for whatever reason], a better introduction to Hinduism could be via Dvaita. Dvaita posits the reality of our universal experience and that is something the Abrahamic mindset can grasp.

PS: I am not claiming Dvaita or Advaita is more correct than the other.

Sorry for posting it late.

Creation means a new entity which was not there earlier. In Advaita the whole of this universe is not a creation but mere change of form. Just like water in form of lake is a Lake, in river is a River, in a pond is a Pond or in ocean is Ocean. It can be water vapour or ice also. These are no creations but only a change of form and the names connected to the forms. This is called namarupa.

These forms and name (effects) are temporary where as the the karana (the cause) is permanent.

This Brahman is the permanent cause for the effects (this universe) which we term as creations.

That we get attached to the forms & names (which is temporary), and miss out the permanent cause part behind the effects is the illusion.

It is not that it is not real. They are real but the problem starts when we get attached to the temporary entities - like relationships, belongings, mental state, etc. These attachment gives rise to the pains and pleasures due to their impermanence. That is why the scripture urges us to know the permanence behind this impermanence. Knowing and sticking to that will help us remain in bliss.

Does that mean, I should not have relationships, belongings, etc. Yes we should have but knowing fully well that they have been given to me for a while for my use. They will be gone after sometime - either they or I will separate out.

For the dvaita philosophy, there are great people in this forum who can suggest better.

Love and best wishes

wundermonk
17 August 2011, 04:34 AM
Thanks for the post Kallol.

The issue I have with the Advaitic view [imHo] is WHY "CREATE" AT ALL? If Brahman is pure bliss [one without any need whatsoever] why doesnt it just be?

I personally have found no satisfactory answer to this. Maybe it is part of the mystery as stated in the Nasadiya Sukta.

When talking with Christians/Muslims, I have found that one of the strongest arguments to be made for the Hindu POV is the eternality of Brahman, jivas and prakriti as separate ontological entities. [Hence my question in the OP about jivas' moksha.]

Brahman is the efficient cause and prakriti is the material cause. Prakriti depends on Brahman, so indirectly, Brahman IS the material cause also [as per Shankara as well as Ramanuja, I think.]

Xity and Islam posit that God created everything [the world, souls, etc.] by his will ex-nihilo. No Hindu Darshana allows for this.

Secondly, because God himself creates the world and the souls in Xity and Islam, he is open to the attack of being malevolent because of evil in the world. I find the best theistic solution to the Problem of Evil is posited by Hinduism [based on eternity of Brahman/souls/prakriti/Karma/Reincarnation] and well explained by the Brahma Sutras here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-12.html).

devotee
17 August 2011, 05:43 AM
Namaste WM,


The issue I have with the Advaitic view [imHo] is WHY "CREATE" AT ALL? If Brahman is pure bliss [one without any need whatsoever] why doesnt it just be?

Again we are starting with an axiomatic position that everything must have a cause i.e. an answer to "why" ? Can there be nothing just like that ? I think it is perfectly logical.

You have mentioned "Prakriti" to be the cause of the creation. Lord Krishna says that "Prakriti" is the mother and He is the father of all creation. But what is "Prakriti" ... is it a separate agency from Brahman ? No. Prakriti is the Nature of Brahman in the first two states of Brahman. Actually, "Prakriti" means Nature. Now, what is "nature" ? "Nature" is how a being, a thing behaves/acts/does in different circumstances. So, multitude that we see as this Universe is projected effortlessly by Brahman ... it is in the nature of the Brahman to create this multitude in the first two states.

How & why ? Why does water freeze at 0 degree celcius and not at 100 degree celcius ? There is no reason. It is because water's nature is like that. Why octet formation is the most stable electronic configuration ? Again, there is no reason ... it is the nature of matter. Why only water quenches our thirst and not acid ? Again, there is no reason. Why can't a human being be born on a tree ? ... Nature. Why does salt taste salty ... nature. Why can't we eat sand and survive ... nature. Why does the Sun always rise in the east ... nature ? .... If we ask these questions, we shall be called mad. We cleverly never ask these questions.

So, why it necessary that for a creation to be, there must be a reason ?

Again, what will happen if all people get enlightenment ? I used to wonder over this puzzle in my childhood : What will happen if all possible combination of words are exhausted ? As the words are finite, the combinations will also be finite. So, there would come a time when there won't be a new poem/lyrics/essay/story !

Seriously speaking ... the Jnanis talk about evolution and devolution of beings. So, my understanding is that when the evolution will reach its peak ... Brahma's night will start & all beings will merge in him (i.e. into the Hiranyagrabha ... the golden egg) and after some time, there will again be day-break for Brahman and creation would start all over again ... and the cycle will go on.

OM

kallol
17 August 2011, 11:11 AM
Thanks for the post Kallol.

The issue I have with the Advaitic view [imHo] is WHY "CREATE" AT ALL? If Brahman is pure bliss [one without any need whatsoever] why doesnt it just be?

I personally have found no satisfactory answer to this. Maybe it is part of the mystery as stated in the Nasadiya Sukta.

When talking with Christians/Muslims, I have found that one of the strongest arguments to be made for the Hindu POV is the eternality of Brahman, jivas and prakriti as separate ontological entities. [Hence my question in the OP about jivas' moksha.]

Brahman is the efficient cause and prakriti is the material cause. Prakriti depends on Brahman, so indirectly, Brahman IS the material cause also [as per Shankara as well as Ramanuja, I think.]

Xity and Islam posit that God created everything [the world, souls, etc.] by his will ex-nihilo. No Hindu Darshana allows for this.

Secondly, because God himself creates the world and the souls in Xity and Islam, he is open to the attack of being malevolent because of evil in the world. I find the best theistic solution to the Problem of Evil is posited by Hinduism [based on eternity of Brahman/souls/prakriti/Karma/Reincarnation] and well explained by the Brahma Sutras here (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-12.html).

No problem WM. It is good there there are questions in your mind. This ensures that the state of the mind will change to the next equilibrium.

The science that Hinduism depicts through Advaita is devoid of super humans and magics and miracles. It is natural. If we term that knowledge as God - it is God otherwise it is nature.

Love and best wishes

kallol
17 August 2011, 11:19 AM
Just to add to Devotee, there are quite a few posts I had put on creations. These are not my theory but from scriptures - as I understood.

The recent one being

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=70229#post70229

Love and best wishes

Ananda
17 August 2011, 12:26 PM
Hello wundermonk,



The issue I have with the Advaitic view is WHY "CREATE" AT ALL? If Brahman is pure bliss [one without any need whatsoever] why doesnt it just be?



Actually, in the Advaita view, there is no creation at all, so your issue becomes redundant. In Advaita the idea of a multiplicity of selves and that of God creating the universe either from nothing, from himself, or from some other agency, is ruled out. The Reality is one without a second, so there is no question of Brahman creating the universe. Whatever is, is Brahman; creation is seeing Brahman in a fanciful way, nothing else.

Gaudapada's Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad puts it very nicely;


Vaitathya- Prakarana

12. The self-effulgent Self imagines Itself through Itself by the power of its own Maya. The Self Itself cognizes the objects. Such is the definite conclusion of Vedanta.

13. The Lord manifests diversely the mundane things existing in the mind. Turning the mind outward, He creates the well-defined things (as well as the undefined things). Thus does the Lord[I] imagine.

14. Things that exist internally as long as the thought lasts and those things that are externally related to two points of time, are all imaginations. Their distinction is not caused by anything else.

15. Those objects that appear indistinct inside the mind, and those that appear vivid outside, are all merely created by imagination. Their distinction is to be traced to the difference in the organs of perception.

16. First He imagines the individual Self (jiva) and then He imagines the different objects, external and mental. The individual gets his memory in accordance with the kind of thought-impressions he has.

17. As a rope whose nature has not been well ascertained is imagined in the dark to be various things like a snake, a line of water etc., so alone is the Self imagined variously.

18. This Self is imagined to be the infinite objects like Prana etc. This is the Maya of that self-effulgent One, by which He Himself is deluded.

And further, after listing the various ways in which people see Brahman through delusion;


28. People conversant with creation call creation to be the reality. The knowers of dissolution call it dissolution. The knowers of subsistence call it subsistence. All these ideas are for ever imagined on the Self.

...30. Through these things that are really non different from the Self, this One is presented as though really different. He who truly knows this grasps the meaning of the Vedas without any hesitation.

31. Just as dream and magic are seen to be unreal as is a city in the sky, so also is this whole Universe known to be unreal from the Upanishads by the wise.

32. There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for salvation, and none liberated. This is the highest truth.


As we can see, the only viewpoint truly admitted by the Advaitin is that Brahman alone exists. All notions pertaining to creation, the jiva, karma, bondage and moksha are imagined in Brahman, and are admitted for purposes of teaching only. When this ignorance regarding one's own Self is removed through Self-enquiry, then this Maya which seems to create the Universe is seen to be nothing other than Brahman, and Brahman alone exists.

PS: In Advaita, Brahman is both the efficient and material cause of the Universe, although both views are only relevant for as long as a cause is sought.

:)

Jainarayan
17 August 2011, 12:45 PM
Namaste Ananda.


As we can see, the only viewpoint truly admitted by the Advaitin is that Brahman alone exists. All notions pertaining to creation, the jiva, karma, bondage and moksha are imagined in Brahman, and are admitted for purposes of teaching only. When this ignorance regarding one's own Self is removed through Self-enquiry, then this Maya which seems to create the Universe is seen to be nothing other than Brahman, and Brahman alone exists.

PS: In Advaita, Brahman is both the efficient and material cause of the Universe, although both views are only relevant for as long as a cause is sought.

:)

I'll admit I'm way out of my league here but that's why I'm asking. ;)

If we are all Brahman, and Brahman is all that exists, why are we here? That is, why do we incarnate? To be taught what? Brahman is All and doesn't need to learn anything.

Now, the only thing I can think of is Adi Shankar's position that "creation" is the recreation and nature of Brahman. I can accept that Brahman, Existence Itself, is "playful". But how does that explain the need for learning, (which I can understand karma is now part of)?

Maybe I'm so lost I'm in Sacramento when I should be in Atlanta. :eek:

Ananda
17 August 2011, 01:09 PM
Hello TouchedbytheLord,



If we are all Brahman, and Brahman is all that exists, why are we here? That is, why do we incarnate? To be taught what? Brahman is All and doesn't need to learn anything.


You are quite right in what you say here. However, in order for your questions to make sense, we first have to take it for granted that the Self has incarnated as a multiplicity of jivas, and that we are all really in bondage. We have to grant reality to this view in order for your 'Why?' question be made intelligible. Therefore, if we do admit that 'yes, we are all incarnated and in bondage' then the Advaita viewpoint, its highest truth, that 'you are Brahman, and Brahman is all' becomes contradicted.

The highest viewpoint of Advaita conflicts with everything we take for granted about ourselves, and that's why, I think, you have raised this 'Why?' question.

To come at it from another angle, perhaps, instead of accepting that we are jivas in bondage, let's start to question it. Are you a jiva? Are you incarnated? Are you an agent of action? If, in truth, you are not a jiva, you are not incarnated, and you are not an agent of action, then your 'Why?' question becomes unnecessary.

Really, I suppose what I'm saying is that your questions can only stand up from the point of view of being an individual. If you aren't an individual, as Advaita asserts, then the questions lose their force. The conundrum you've raised is very valid until you start to question your identity and realize that what you are is what Brahman is, until then it seems very sensible to wonder why there are jivas who need to learn when Brahman is spoken of as omniscient and all.

We could throw out some answers to your questions, such as 'you are incarnated through numerous lives to learn until you attain self-knowledge' or, 'Brahman appears as the universe in order to experience itself' - but really all of these answers still fall under the domain of self-ignorance, and ultimately none of them apply to you, nor to the highest teachings of Advaita.


You are Brahman, not a jiva, this is what should be realized through shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana, culminating in knowledge. Until that knowledge dawns in you, then all of your questions are valid, but I don't think you will find any truly satisfactory answers.



:)

Jainarayan
17 August 2011, 01:47 PM
Whew! :D Thanks for taking the time. :)



Until that knowledge dawns in you, then all of your questions are valid, but I don't think you will find any truly satisfactory answers.


I think I get it... at least a glimmer of it: we're saying I'm questioning this because I don't know; I haven't attained knowledge (and boy howdy! is that the truth! :D). That's the goal we strive for, but I may not achieve it for another 10 million lifetimes.

So until then, within the confines and constraints of this world and existence, and maya, the questions are valid but unanswerable. And when they have become answerable, they no longer exist and they become irrelevant and unreal (and nothing unreal exists).

Ananda
17 August 2011, 02:26 PM
Hello TouchedbytheLord,



we're saying I'm questioning this because I don't know; I haven't attained knowledge (and boy howdy! is that the truth!

Basically. If I consider myself to be a jiva, then I also consider myself to be one of many jivas, limited in terms of space and time, therefore the Universe exists. Therefore, since the Universe is taken to exist, it has to have a creator, therefore we shall posit God. And, since God exists as the creator, it is reasonable to infer a relationship between God and myself, the jiva. It also, therefore, reasonable to suggest that this God is all knowing, whereas I am full of ignorance. This is how the tale of self-ignorance is spun, and from this web all of the questions you've asked come from, and gain their validity.

If I am not a jiva then it all comes crashing down, that web gets burned up in the fire of self-knowledge;


The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works and their effects perish when He has been behold who is high and low (cause and effect).- Mundaka Upanishad, I.II. VII.



That's the goal we strive for, but I may not achieve it for another 10 million lifetimes.

Such a goal can be achieved even here and now, if you are devoted to Self-enquiry. There is no need to have hope you will achieve it in the future. No amount of action will bring self-knowledge about, even a billion actions won't remove this ignorance, since the very notion of being an agent of action is itself a product of self-ignorance! You are beyond space and time, your nature is always available for recognition through the right means of knowledge- take up the Upanishads as your teacher and don't wait for a future salvation.



So until then, within the confines and constraints of this world and existence, and maya, the questions are valid but unanswerable.


I think there are many answers; everyone has an answer, but I don't think any of the answers will quench your thirst for knowledge. All of the answers to these questions are also dependent upon self-ignorance, so they are essentially as valid (or invalid) as the questions themselves. We can speculate on the nature of creation, and bondage, and jivas and maya and whatever we like for ever and ever, but without self-knowledge can we ever say we really have the answers, can we ever really say we have knowledge?



...What is that through which, if it is known, everything else becomes known?- Mundaka Upanishad I.I. III



:)

Jainarayan
17 August 2011, 02:33 PM
Thank you again. :)

I read some of the Upanishads over 30 years ago, in college. I have a new copy and plan to start reading them.

proudhindu
17 August 2011, 04:24 PM
Basically. If I consider myself to be a jiva, then I also consider myself to be one of many jivas, limited in terms of space and time, therefore the Universe exists. Therefore, since the Universe is taken to exist, it has to have a creator, therefore we shall posit God. And, since God exists as the creator, it is reasonable to infer a relationship between God and myself, the jiva. It also, therefore, reasonable to suggest that this God is all knowing, whereas I am full of ignorance. This is how the tale of self-ignorance is spun, and from this web all of the questions you've asked come from, and gain their validity.

If I am not a jiva then it all comes crashing down, that web gets burned up in the fire of self-knowledge;


So, You are saying there is no creator as per Advaita. And then you quoted some select Mundaka Upanishad slokas.



- Mundaka Upanishad, I.II. VII.

Such a goal can be achieved even here and now, if you are devoted to Self-enquiry. There is no need to have hope you will achieve it in the future. No amount of action will bring self-knowledge about, even a billion actions won't remove this ignorance, since the very notion of being an agent of action is itself a product of self-ignorance! You are beyond space and time, your nature is always available for recognition through the right means of knowledge- take up the Upanishads as your teacher and don't wait for a future salvation.

- Mundaka Upanishad I.I. III



BUT the Mundaka starts With a Sloka that says Brahma is the creator who taught knowledge of Brahman.

Doesn't look like the self awareness(In your words) that teaches Everything is Unreal(Mithya) and that there is no creator.

charitra
17 August 2011, 06:56 PM
Now, the only thing I can think of is Adi Shankar's position that "creation" is the recreation and nature of Brahman. I can accept that Brahman, Existence Itself, is "playful". But how does that explain the need for learning, (which I can understand karma is now part of)? :eek:

Namaste all,
Am no expert in shastras, but I shall chime in here with my take on ‘why the PLAY is going on and why learn’ issue you raised TBTL. We are part of the manifest creation just like a moon and a glalaxy are. But then we have emotions and pain etc to deal and live with. The latter impacting our motives we are also enjoying a flexibility in our motions. Poor earth and Andromeda have to follow the precise trajectories prescribed and lead an insipid monotonous existence. Additionally we are very different with an atma becoming an inseparable component of us. Thus in this ongoing destruction and creation cycle of shristi (cosmos) our atmas transcend. And nothing of that sort happens to planets or galaxies. The living are thus clearly different from the other manifest creation (lets not get confused with abrahamic word of creation here).
If we study the spreadsheet we will find out, on balance life is a pain and hence every ‘self realized hindu’ yearns moksha to avoid yet another round of largely meaningless janma. When atma accrues good karma and resolves all past karmas then its curtains down time allowing its merger with brahman. But brahman keeps creating a galaxy and a human (here on earth or somewhere else) alike regardless of my/your atmas merger event. ’Cause only then the Brahman is complete, with mere monotonous fiery galaxies alone revolving out there brahman isn’t done. Only a life with atma gives paripurnata or perfection to brahman’s manifest form. If we see thru the advaita’s lens that’s the likely definition of ‘the one’ or brahman or prakriti and purusha in unison.

So it is my/your prerogative to wriggle out of this annamayaKosha/body and say adieu to it once for all. Shastras assure that it is not necessary to have many janmas, some accomplish moksha in one janma itself. Unfortunately uncommon though. Many others already gave us useful opinions here. Shanti.

Jainarayan
17 August 2011, 09:03 PM
Namaste charitra. Thanks.


But brahman keeps creating a galaxy and a human (here on earth or somewhere else) alike regardless of my/your atmas merger event. ’Cause only then the Brahman is complete, with mere monotonous fiery galaxies alone revolving out there brahman isn’t done. Only a life with atma gives paripurnata or perfection to brahman’s manifest form. If we see thru the advaita’s lens that’s the likely definition of ‘the one’ or brahman or prakriti and purusha in unison.


OK yes, that makes it clearer. It leaves no doubt in my mind, then, that the nature of Brahman is to create as Adi Shankara posited. It may not necessarily be "recreation" or "play", because those are human concepts, but it is Brahman's nature (not need, but nature) to create.

Ananda
17 August 2011, 10:21 PM
Hello proudhindu,



So, You are saying there is no creator as per Advaita.

Well, we could say that there is a creator if you believe that things have been created. It depends on how you see yourself, and how you see the world, as I said in the previous post. A creator, if there is one, falls under the domain of vyavahAra, or empirical reality, and not absolute reality (paramarthika).

We can very well say that Brahman is the creator, or that Brahma is, but such views fall short, since the role of being a creator is an upadhi we superimpose on Brahman when we see the world as something different from it. Brahman is a creator in the same way that the Sun is an illuminator- the Sun can only be said to be an illuminator when there are objects present for it to illuminate via proximity. In a similar way, Brahman is only the creator for as long as there is a belief in the duality of reality, of there being something other than Brahman for it to create!



BUT the Mundaka starts With a Sloka that says Brahma is the creator who taught knowledge of Brahman.

The intention of the Mundaka is ultimately to teach the higher knowledge which leads to recognition of Brahman as-it-is. It begins, as you say with Brahma the creator passing down the knowledge of Brahman. It does this through examining first the lower knowledge- the knowledge which is a product of ignorance and which gives rise to notions of individuality and agentship, prescribing the Vedas, rituals, astrology etc as means of attaining to different worlds. It then proceeds to refute this knowledge as one that leads to sorrow, and imparts the higher knowledge, the nature of Brahman.

It describes Brahman as the originating cause of the universe in multiple ways, by use of analogies such as the spider web etc. and also describes Brahman as the Self within each body (as the seer, knower etc). The idea here is to teach that the creation, the world, has no independent existence from the Brahman; that its material substance is Brahman, and that Brahman is imminent in this phenomenal appearance because it is one's very Self.

Brahman is described here as changeless and eternal, all pervading, one without a second, featureless, bodiless etc. The Mundaka Upanishad then declares that Brahman alone exists.


All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.- II. ii. 11

In order to teach about the nature of Brahman, the Vedanta follows the method of false attribution followed by subsequent retraction. First the world is taught as being created by God, consisting of a multiplicity of distinct objects and selves. Then the world is taught of as being non-different from God in the same way that a spider web proceeds from the spider, or like the sparks which flow from the fire, or like hairs growing on skin. Then everything is identified as God alone, and its true nature as all-pervading, secondless, bodiless and actionless, is unfolded.

The lower knowledge of Brahman is this creation, this world and everything within it, that was created by Brahma. The higher knowledge of Brahman is that the imperishable, secondless Self alone exists; everything that appears in the lower knowledge is really nothing but Brahman. The lower knowledge is a product of ignorance, of misperceiving Brahman, and it is for this reason that the Mundaka Upanishad teaches the higher knowledge, which removes this ignorance and reveals what this reality really is, Brahman the Highest.



Doesn't look like the self awareness(In your words) that teaches Everything is Unreal(Mithya) and that there is no creator.

Creation is mithya because it has no independent existence from the eternal, uncreated Brahman. When Brahman is seen through the lens of ignorance, or from the viewpoint of empirical reality (ie creator- created, subject- object etc.), then it is fair to call everything unreal, because all of it depends on Brahman for its existence, but from the higher standpoint then Brahman alone is there, and Brahman is satyam, not mithya. Everything is Brahman. :)

proudhindu
18 August 2011, 12:43 AM
Hello proudhindu,
Creation is mithya because it has no independent existence from the eternal, uncreated Brahman. When Brahman is seen through the lens of ignorance, or from the viewpoint of empirical reality (ie creator- created, subject- object etc.), then it is fair to call everything unreal, because all of it depends on Brahman for its existence, but from the higher standpoint then Brahman alone is there, and Brahman is satyam, not mithya. Everything is Brahman. :)

That Creation being dependent on the creator doesn't make it Mithya(Unreal) but only something that is not permanent.If something that is NOT permanent is taken as Mithya this whole conversation is Mithya(Unreal).So, why are we engaging in (unreal) Mithya conversations?.



Well, we could say that there is a creator if you believe that things have been created. It depends on how you see yourself, and how you see the world, as I said in the previous post. A creator, if there is one, falls under the domain of vyavahAra, or empirical reality, and not absolute reality (paramarthika).

Anybody can say anything, and see anything.I have no problem with that.But, when you declare that Upanishads teach that there is no Creator and the thought that creation being dependent on creator is Mithya(Unreal), i have a problem.


We can very well say that Brahman is the creator, or that Brahma is, but such views fall short, since the role of being a creator is an upadhi we superimpose on Brahman when we see the world as something different from it.It may appeal to Advaitans/neo-Advaitans that it is Lowly on the part of the creator to take the Upadhi(Job) of creation.The statement that we imposed the Job of creation on the creator is Bizarre to say the least;

The Upanishads are all about understanding the Magnificence of Brahman.Belittling His creation is not how they go about in achieving that objective.


Brahman is a creator in the same way that the Sun is an illuminator- the Sun can only be said to be an illuminator when there are objects present for it to illuminate via proximity. In a similar way, Brahman is only the creator for as long as there is a belief in the duality of reality, of there being something other than Brahman for it to create!I don't know if there is already somebody who brought up that analogy.There is no analogy between Creation and illumination since they are entirely different activities.
Some believe that mediocre and lazy people find comfort in advaitan argument of mithya and the attendant beauty of NOT having to be responsible for their own actions and INactions.I do see evidence for that opinion time and again.


The intention of the Mundaka is ultimately to teach the higher knowledge which leads to recognition of Brahman as-it-is. It begins, as you say with Brahma the creator passing down the knowledge of Brahman.That is quite a straight forward understanding.


It does this through examining first the lower knowledge- the knowledge which is a product of ignorance and which gives rise to notions of individuality and agentship, prescribing the Vedas, rituals, astrology etc as means of attaining to different worlds.It doesn't say notions of individuality and ownership are false.It simply says the results obtained by mere ritual activities are temporary and the higher aim should be to reach Brahman.


It then proceeds to refute this knowledge as one that leads to sorrow, and imparts the higher knowledge, the nature of Brahman. It doesn't refute "Lower knowledge": it merely emphasizes that ultimate achievement should be reaching brahman and not getting bogged down by temporary results.


It describes Brahman as the originating cause of the universe in multiple ways, by use of analogies such as the spider web etc. and also describes Brahman as the Self within each body (as the seer, knower etc). The idea here is to teach that the creation, the world, has no independent existence from the Brahman; that its material substance is Brahman, and that Brahman is imminent in this phenomenal appearance because it is one's very Self.The Upanishad writer said Web came from the spider and not the other way round.
The WEB coming out from the spider is NO longer part of the spider. It would be plain idiotic to say Spider is an extension of the WEB.
Now the advaitan/ Neoadvaitan treatise bolded in the last line is the same as saying there is no difference b/n web and the spider.
Somebody is claiming Ownership of Brahman :D.


Brahman is described here as changeless and eternal, all pervading, one without a second, featureless, bodiless etc.That is fine.


The Mundaka Upanishad then declares that Brahman alone exists.

- II. ii. 11Please give the actual Mundaka Upanishad quote.

smaranam
18 August 2011, 02:49 PM
Seriously speaking ... the Jnanis talk about evolution and devolution of beings. So, my understanding is that when the evolution will reach its peak ... Brahma's night will start & all beings will merge in him (i.e. into the Hiranyagrabha ... the golden egg) and after some time, there will again be day-break for Brahman and creation would start all over again ... and the cycle will go on.

OM

Namaste,

Merging into BrahmA each night is the privilege of the conditioned souls (baddha jivas). Then there would be no difference between conditioned and liberated, baddha and siddha. Next day BrahmA sends the conditioned souls back to resume where they had left in their kArmic time-lines.

If it was the way you are suggesting then why bother with liberation ?

The most robust solution is the jivas who are in devotional service of the Supreme. They bypass all creation thereafter - not only Lord BrahmA's daily creations (visarga - secondary creation), but MahAvishNu's sarga cycle (primary creations - creation of multiple BrahmAs ). Practically eternal liberation.

Life of a BrahmA = 100 BrahmA years.
One day of BrahmA = 1 chaturyuga (sat treta dwapar kali), with an equally long night.

Sarga and visarga are beautifully explained in Shrimad BhAgvatam. Although there will always be conditioned souls to be sent out, those who merge into BrahmaJyoti may become the extra withdrawal source for the new sarga if they develop material desires again.

VaikuNTha is beyond this, outside of the creation and time cycles. Then again there can be VaikuNTha on earth.

praNAm

Ananda
18 August 2011, 05:05 PM
Hello proudhindu,


Your post clearly shows prejudice against Advaita Vedanta, so I wonder how useful my reply could possibly be, but I'll make an effort anyway.




That Creation being dependent on the creator doesn't make it Mithya(Unreal) but only something that is not permanent. If something that is NOT permanent is taken as Mithya this whole conversation is Mithya(Unreal).So, why are we engaging in (unreal) Mithya conversations?.

Mithya means having dependent existence. It doesn't mean false, or non-existent. The creation depends upon the creator, without Brahman, nothing is, so the creation is mithya. If we take away the clay from a clay pot, then there is no pot. The form of the pot is mithya, the clay is satyam; the form has no independent existence from its material subtrate, the clay. The apparent transformation of clay into a pot also happens within the clay itself. What this means is that only the clay is real. In the same way, the names and forms of creation exist within Brahman as apparent transformation; the transformations aren't real as Brahman is changeless and non-dual. Hence there is the verse 'This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest', (Mu. Up II.ii 11).

Your last question there 'why are we engaging in unreal conversations?' is an absurdity, since even unreal cups and pots serve a utility in the world, despite only being clay, glass etc. The world serves a purpose even though it is mithya, being essentially Brahman; there is absolutely no scope for nihilism in this.




when you declare that Upanishads teach that there is no Creator and the thought that creation being dependent on creator is Mithya(Unreal), i have a problem

The Upanishads teach ,as per Advaita, that Brahman is one without a second, that is, non-dual. There is no second object over against Brahman that exists, since this would serve as a limitation to Brahman. A creator exists for the samsarin, because he sees the world, other jivas and God all separately from himself. The jnani, on the other hand, sees only himself as 'I am Brahman', and hence, for him there is no God separate from his own Self, nor is there a world of jivas, and therefore neither creation nor dissolution, since everything for him has become the secondless Brahman alone. On this there is the verse;


Having attained this, the seers become contented with their knowledge, established in the Self, freed from attachment, and composed. Having realized the all-pervasive One everywhere, these discriminating people, ever merged in contemplation, enter into the All.- (Mu Up. III. ii. 5).



It may appeal to Advaitans/neo-Advaitans that it is Lowly on the part of the creator to take the Upadhi(Job) of creation.

Where did I say it was lowly? I said such a description of Brahman as 'the creator' falls short of the nature of Brahman, since 'creator' implies a relationship between two things, and Brahman is non-dual, without a second thing. If you want to know the nature of a thing, then you have to negate the incidental attributes first. If you want to know the nature of a pot, you need to negate the name and form of it, until you get to the clay; the nature of a pot is clay. Being a creator is an incidental attribute superimposed on Brahman by the jiva who sees the universe as an object with a beginning (or cause), and thus ascribes God as being the causal agent.


The Upanishads are all about understanding the Magnificence of Brahman.Belittling His creation is not how they go about in achieving that objective.

Why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? Where did I belittle the creation? Do you think that saying creation is mithya is belittling it?



There is no analogy between Creation and illumination since they are entirely different activities.

You misunderstood the analogy. Creation and illumination are both activities; that was the point. An activity is an incidental attribute that comes into play when there is an object to act upon; without the object there is no action as such. The Sun's nature is illumination and heat, it is not by nature an 'illuminator'. The Sun becomes an illuminator when there is something else ie an object in close proximity, by which it becomes illuminated by the mere presence of the Sun and not because the Sun is really an agent of action. We call the Sun an 'illuminator' not because it really is one, but because by its nature as illumination other things are illuminated within proximity to it. In the same way, Brahman is not really a creator, but assumes such a role when the world is taken to be real as an object that is different from Brahman, since a causal agent for the creation of the world is sought.



Some believe that mediocre and lazy people find comfort in advaitan argument of mithya and the attendant beauty of NOT having to be responsible for their own actions and INactions.I do see evidence for that opinion time and again.

I don't think you understand the concept of Mithya, and nor do most of its detractors, and nor do those who use it as an excuse to be lazy and irresponsible. 'Unreal' in the sense of Mithya does not mean non-existent or false. It means neither non-existent nor absolutely existing; having a dependent existence on a further substrate or existence.

A clay pot is not non-existent nor false, because it is made of clay, which is real. The pot depends upon the clay, and has no existence independent of the clay, so it cannot be said to be absolutely existing in the same way as the clay, but neither is it non-existent, since it serves a function and appears in the clay (which exists), therefore it is mithya.



It doesn't say notions of individuality and ownership are false.It simply says the results obtained by mere ritual activities are temporary and the higher aim should be to reach Brahman. It doesn't refute "Lower knowledge": it merely emphasizes that ultimate achievement should be reaching brahman and not getting bogged down by temporary results.

The Mundaka Upanishad clearly condemns the path of lower knowledge as one being a product of ignorance with limited, perishable results, and that those who traverse it are fools.

First, the question is asked;


3. ...'O adorable sir, which is that thing which having been known, all this becomes known?' (Mu Up. I. i. 3)

Then the two different kinds of knowledge are set out. The lower knowledge concerns the world, or the creation, as well as empirical dealings within it such as the Vedas and rituals and various sciences etc. This lower knowledge is like the form and name of the pot. You cannot truly know what the pot is just by knowing its name or the form it has been shaped into; you must know it's essential nature. The higher knowledge concerns the source, or substance out of which all of the lower knowledge arises, which is non-dual, and is like the 'clay'; it's what's really there. By knowing the clay then you know all of the clay pots. By knowing Brahman, then you know what everything truly is. Until that knowledge arises then you are only dealing with mithya; name and form, which is perishable, subject to sorrow, and a product of ignorance.


4. To him he said, '"There are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired- the higher and the lower"; this is what, as tradition runs, the knowers of the import of the Vedas say.'

5. Of these, the lower comprises the Rg- Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharva-Veda, the science of pronounciation etc. the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, metre, and astrology. Then there is the higher by which is attained that Imperishable.

6. (By the higher knowledge) the wise realize everywhere that which cannot be perceived and grasped, which is without source, features, eyes, and ears, which has neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, multiformed, all-pervasive, extremely subtle, and undiminishing, and which is the source of all.- (Mu Up. I. i. 4-6)

What are the results of only having lower knowledge? It is like only having partial knowledge, it is being ignorant of the full picture, the full nature of the thing. It is like knowing name and form but not knowing the material out of which both name and form take their existence. After describing the results attained by actions pertaining to the lower knowledge, the Upanishad declares that all of these actions fall under the domain of ignorance, since they are perishable;


7. Since these eighteen constituents of a sacrifice, on whom the inferior karma has been said to rest, are perishable because of their fragility, therefore those ignorant people who get elated with the idea 'This is the cause of bliss', undergo old age and death over again.

8. Remaining within the fold of ignorance and thinking, 'We are ourselves wise and learned', the fools, while being buffeted very much, ramble about like the blind led by the blind alone.

9. Continuing diversely in the midst of ignorance, the unenlightened take airs by thinking, 'We have attained the goal.' Since the men, engaged in karma, do not understand the truth under the influence of attachment, thereby they become afflicted with sorrow and are deprives of heaven on the exhaustion of the results of karma.

10. The deluded fools, believing the rites inculcated by the Vedas and the Smritis to be the highest, do not understand the other thing that leads to liberation. They, having enjoyed the fruits of actions in the abode of pleasure on the heights of heaven, enter this world or an inferior one.

It is stating that all actions are impermanent, thus so are their results. Whatever can be attained by action, be it material wealth or spiritual realms such as heaven, are subject to being lost when the merit runs out, therefore they comprise the lower knowledge of Brahman. The Upanishad says that after examining the worlds and seeing that they are all impermanent and sources of sorrow, one should approach the Guru to receive the higher knowledge, the knowledge of the nature of Brahman.

The higher knowledge of Brahman rules out the distinction of empirical experience such as knower, means of knowledge, and object of knowledge, since all get merged in (or become negated) in the secondless, all-pervading Brahman; this includes ideas of individuality and ownership. On this there is a verse;


For when there is duality, as it were, then one sees another, one smells another, one tastes another, one speaks to another, one hears another, one thinks of another, one touches another, one knows another. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should he see and through what, what should he smell and through what, what should he taste and through what, what should he speak and through what, what should he hear and through what, what should he think and through what, what should he touch and through what, what should he know and through what? Through what should one know That Owing to which all this is known? - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.


The Upanishad writer said Web came from the spider and not the other way round.

I didn't say otherwise, did I? I made a small reference to the verse which uses various analogies, including the spider web, trees and plants on earth, and hairs on the body. The purpose of those analogies is to show that the web, the trees and the plants, all of which refer to the creation, do not have independent existence from the spider, the earth and the body, all of which refer to Brahman. It is a demonstration of mithya. Without the spider there is no web, and the web originates from the spider. Without the earth there are no plants or trees, and the plants and trees originate from the earth. Without the body there is no hair, and the hair originates from the body. In the same way, everything that we call 'creation' originates from and does not exist independently from Brahman; the substance is Brahman alone.



Now the advaitan/ Neoadvaitan treatise bolded in the last line is the same as saying there is no difference b/n web and the spider.

I think you are being a little obtuse here; there are many, many verses in the Mundaka alone that point out Brahman as being imminent within creation, since it resides in the body. I could give verses, if you insist, though I think it will be of little help. The spider etc. analogies were used to show how the world is mithya, not how to show that Brahman is imminent as the Self, there are other verses for that- I was giving a summary of methods used.




Somebody is claiming Ownership of Brahman

I don't even know what that means.



Please give the actual Mundaka Upanishad quote

I did?



All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.
- II. ii. 11


Since you clearly don't subscribe to my view, it probably won't have been at all helpful for me to elucidate on these points, because no matter how well I explain it you still won't be agreeing with it. It might have been helpful to others, however, who read the Shankara commentaries on the Upanishads, since my explanations largely follow the same road set out there.



:)

devotee
18 August 2011, 09:01 PM
Namaste Smaranam,



Merging into BrahmA each night is the privilege of the conditioned souls (baddha jivas). Then there would be no difference between conditioned and liberated, baddha and siddha. Next day BrahmA sends the conditioned souls back to resume where they had left in their kArmic time-lines.

If it was the way you are suggesting then why bother with liberation ?

Can you give me support from Shruti or BG (not from Puranas please) that the Jivas start from the same point where they merged into Brahma during Brahma's night ? I really don't know.

What is the status of the liberated beings on attaining One-ness with Brahman ? It is stored like memory within the Prajnan-ghana & this memory can again give birth to a being with the characteristics according to the memory. So, there is no Jiva ... it is simply a memory which has the potential of creating a Jiva with characteristics as per the ingrained memory within the Prajnan-ghana.

I didn't say that the same beings would be born again on day-break for Brahma. This has to be understood.

... and what a robust proposition is and what is not, depends upon your own relative evaluation from the point where you stand on the stage of spirituality. It keeps changing as you evolve spiritually. Please don't suggest that Vaishnavas are more spiritually advanced than the Advaitins otherwise that would negate what Lord Krishna says in Uttar Gita.

OM

proudhindu
19 August 2011, 02:25 AM
Quote:
Somebody is claiming Ownership of Brahman
Ananda says:I don't even know what that means.

You meant it that way:
From previous post of Ananda:
Brahman is imminent in this phenomenal appearance because it is one's very Self.
Brahman is one’s own self.
That is the same as saying there is no difference b/n YOU and Brahmin.

proudhindu
19 August 2011, 02:31 AM
Now coming to the actual discussion:


I wrote:Please give the actual Mundaka Upanishad quote
Ananada wrote:I did?


You didn’t, and that is why i am asking to quote it,since you claimed :
The Mundaka Upanishad then declares that Brahman alone exists.- II. ii. 11



All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.

Good that you actually quoted it, now read the entire section of II. Ii from the beginning:


Mundaka: II-ii-4: Om is the bow; the soul is the arrow; and Brahman is called its target. It is to be hit by an unerring man. One should become one with It just like an arrow.


My comments:There is Soul and there is Brahman.The soul has a destination which is Brahman.Soul should become just like arrow in hitting the target which is Brahman.


It doesn’t take a genius to see the simple words of wisdom in this upanishad.

The Arrow(Soul) after reaching the Target destination still remains an arrow.The arrow(Soul) even after reaching the Target(Brahman)doesn’t become the target(Brahman).

Continuing with next slokas that describes the Target(Brahman) (soul should reach.)


Mundaka II-ii-7: That Self which is omniscient in general and all-knowing in detail and which has such glory in this world – that Self, which is of this kind – is seated in the space within the luminous city of Brahman.




Luminous city of Brahman:How does this luminous city of Brahman looks like?.The next verse explains.



Mundaka II-ii-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there. How can this fire do so ? Everything shines according as He does so; by His light all this shines diversely.

There goes out of the window this idiotic and oxymoronic advaita concept called Jivan mukhtha.

And now comes your verse:


Mundaka II-ii-11: All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.

This verse is describing the Luminous city of Brahman..

I would not blame somebody if he/she claims advaitans are lazy and downright stupid.

I will respond to rest of Ananda's post later.

kallol
19 August 2011, 02:46 AM
Dear Proudindian,

You have made your points. Ananda has also. I believe it should be left at that. We should not impose our interpretation, until someone asks for it.

Being from unique backgrounds, we all will be having different interpretations and comfort levels in the journey of spirituality. The main purpose of this journey is to elevate one's mind with more and more knowledge - to more niskama way of life.

The higher classes (class 9 or 10) cannot say that class KG is wrong. It is only a journey.

It is not to prove to others, that I know more than someone. Then the purpose is defeated - ego come into picture.

Scriptures are good to know. But to live the scriptures is the actual part.

Love and best wishes

devotee
19 August 2011, 07:24 AM
I would not blame somebody if he/she claims advaitans are lazy and downright stupid.


Dear Proudhindu,

Your words are too harsh and arrogant. Please keep the conversation on in civilsed language.

I think at least this much we can expect from a senior person like you ? Please also keep in mind that you are giving your own interpretation to the Mundaka Upanishad's verses & when it is an interpretation, it is an interpretation & is subjective.

If you have difficulty in accepting Advaita philosophy, just be happy in school to which you belong. No one is forcing you to become an Advaitin. However, have you read Uttar Gita ? How do you interpret the Advaitic teachings contained therein ?

Use of words like "lazy" and Stupid" for someone is highly objectionable. Please read the forum rules and keep the discussions within the set guidelines by the moderator. ... and please, there is no need to shout with very large fonts, we can hear you better without that.

OM

sm78
19 August 2011, 08:10 AM
Mundaka: II-ii-4: Om is the bow; the soul is the arrow; and Brahman is called its target. It is to be hit by an unerring man. One should become one with It just like an arrow.


My comments:There is Soul and there is Brahman.The soul has a destination which is Brahman.Soul should become just like arrow in hitting the target which is Brahman.


It doesn’t take a genius to see the simple words of wisdom in this upanishad.

The Arrow(Soul) after reaching the Target destination still remains an arrow.The arrow(Soul) even after reaching the Target(Brahman)doesn’t become the target(Brahman).

Continuing with next slokas that describes the Target(Brahman) (soul should reach.)



sigh! and i was believing that this sloka does code the secret of ajapa in someway and the special ability of pranava to carry the breath and the soul accross - after a certain stage. stupid me. thanks.

proudhindu
19 August 2011, 08:12 AM
Hello proudhindu,
Your post clearly shows prejudice against Advaita Vedanta, so I wonder how useful my reply could possibly be, but I'll make an effort anyway.

Prejudiced would be a milder term.


Mithya means having dependent existence. It doesn't mean false, or non-existent.

Mithya the sanskrit word has primary meanings of Illusion, unreal or False.

You cannot invent new meanings with new philosophy.



The creation depends upon the creator, without Brahman, nothing is, so the creation is mithya. If we take away the clay from a clay pot, then there is no pot. The form of the pot is mithya, the clay is satyam; the form has no independent existence from its material subtrate, the clay. The apparent transformation of clay into a pot also happens within the clay itself. What this means is that only the clay is real.Satyam=real asatyam=false... Mithya=Illusion..

You had no problem in attributing correct meanings to sanskrit words in this explanation.

The Form of pot is REAL.The usages for POT are real.The usage a POT put to are based on it's specific form/shape.

The Processes of POT manufacture are real and sometimes precise.
There is no Mithya(Illusion) in seeing the Form of POT because it is verifiable.Destroy the POT and it's form becomes unusable.

Btw, there is real transformation(Not apparent as you said above) of Clay in the POT making process.The raw material clay transforms in the hydration and subsequent burning process of POT manufacture.One cannot extract clay in it's original raw material form from POT because it(The Clay) gets transformed.





In the same way, the names and forms of creation exist within Brahman as apparent transformation; the transformations aren't real as Brahman is changeless and non-dual.

SO, the transformations are False or Illusion.

Now you captured the real :D meaning of Mithya.

Get over this confusion which is NOT apparent BUT real and then we will see if there is something worthwhile to discuss.




Hence there is the verse 'This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest', (Mu. Up II.ii 11).Already refuted this.

proudhindu
19 August 2011, 08:16 AM
sigh! and i was believing that this sloka does code the secret of ajapa in someway and the special ability of pranava to carry the breath and the soul accross - after a certain stage. stupid me. thanks.

The slokas teach specific ways of Japa.

Is there something wrong in the translation ?. I apologize if that is the case.

devotee
19 August 2011, 11:57 AM
Namaste PH,

The flaws in PH's proposition :


The Arrow(Soul) after reaching the Target destination still remains an arrow.The arrow(Soul) even after reaching the Target(Brahman)doesn’t become the target(Brahman).

This has been added by PH himself & is not written anywhere in this or any other Upanishad. In fact, it says just the opposite :

"Apramattena vedhavyam sharvattanmayo bhavet"

What does it say : "Sharvattanmayo bhavet" :

Sharvat : Like an arrow
Tanmaya = tat + maya = becoming one with That

So, this cannot be translated as like an arrow becoming one with arrow ! Try doing it and you will find that it is not at all fitting !! The correct translation is : The soul is the arrow & therefore, as the arrow becomes one with the target, the soul should become one with the target. Here the Upanishad doesn't go into shape of arrow being different from the target etc. ... it assumes that the arrow becomes one with the target after hitting it. How ? It doesn't go into any analysis on this issue. It simply assumes it like that. So, it must be taken as the Upanishad says.


Mundaka II-ii-7: That Self which is omniscient in general and all-knowing in detail and which has such glory in this world – that Self, which is of this kind – is seated in the space within the luminous city of Brahman.

PH's proposition :


Luminous city of Brahman:How does this luminous city of Brahman looks like?.The next verse explains.



PH assumes that Brahman is some entity which lives in a particular city which is like a luminous city in space ! That is very simplistic understanding. Brahman is not that lives in a city ! This verse cannot be taken literally otherwise it would negate what is written elsewhere in Upanishads about Brahman ==> "Sarvamhyetad Brahman" says Mandukya Upanishad. If it lives in some city in space then what is space and what is this city ? Then how the above quoted verse of Mandukya Upanishad be correct ? So, it is ridiculous to even think that Brahman is some entity which lives in a city and that city is described in these verse.

This luminous city is nothing but our own heart (spiritual heart) where it shines like tip of flame. If we read the other verses then it becomes more clear :

II.ii.7 That Self which is omniscient in general and all-knowing in detail & which has such a glory in this world - that Self, which is of this kind - is seated in the space in the luminous city of Brahman.

===> Now let's remember, this Self is the Brahman ( Ayamatma Brahman). So, it is not that Self is some other entity which is residing in the palace of some other entity ! It is residing in its own abode i.e. the spiritual heart of the seeker.

It is conditioned by the mind, It is the carrier of PraNa and the body. It is seated in the food by depositing the heart. Through their knowledge the discriminating people realise that Self as existing in its fullness everywhere - the Self that shines surpassing as blissful and immortality.


If in the first sentence it is talking about some city in space above our head how come these sentences fit in ? How is it conditioned by mind how it becomes the carrier of the PraNa and the body ?

PH again leaves one verse conveniently and quotes this :

Mundaka II-ii-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there. How can this fire do so ? Everything shines according as He does so; by His light all this shines diversely.


Before this verse this verse is there :

Bhidyate hridagranthischhidyante sarvasanshayah |
Kshieeyate chaasya karmaaNi tasmin drishte paravare || II.ii.8

==> When that knot of the heart is pierced (the knot of the heart is "desires clinging to one's heart), all doubts are dissolved. His Karmas get dissipated when that Low and the High (i.e. the Self) is seen (realised).


There goes out of the window this idiotic and oxymoronic advaita concept called Jivan mukhtha.

How ? By big-mouthing ??

PH again proposes :


And now comes your verse:

Mundaka II-ii-11: All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.

This verse is describing the Luminous city of Brahman..

Oh ! So, there is a city in the space where the Brahman resides and there is Brahman in the front, the Brahman at the back ... blah,blah,blah !

I think we left the city long back behind !! It is still there ? And how can there be a city where the dweller is in the front, back, above, below, right and left ... then where is the city ??

That is really dragging the poor city too far !! This verse is the concluding remarks of the chapter and in that form alone it makes any sense & not otherwise !


I would not blame somebody if he/she claims advaitans are lazy and downright stupid.

Where is it written in the Mundak Upanishad ??



I will respond to rest of Ananda's post later.

But better first learn some Sanskrit yourself and then read the Mundak Upanishad again. ... and most important point is that you must read other Upanishads too. Why don't you read SarvaSaaropanishad and find out where you stand in understanding the Vedanta ?

OM

smaranam
19 August 2011, 11:59 AM
Please don't suggest that Vaishnavas are more spiritually advanced than the Advaitins

I am sorry if i gave that impression. The intention was not to compartmentalize or make any mutually exclusive sets. Only this verse comes to mind.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.10
sūta uvāca
ātmārāmāś ca munayo
nirgranthā apy urukrame
kurvanty ahaitukīḿ bhaktim
ittham-bhūta-guṇo hariḥ
All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls.

Purport - Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's elaboration of the atmaram verse (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/7/10/en)

So anyone attracted to Shri Hari's supreme qualities (ittham-bhuta guNa) in ahaituki bhakti is a VaishNav. That also includes the bramhavAdis like the four kumars or other nirguN Brahman upAsaks, if they get attracted to Him despite losing themselves in the pool of ParaBrahman. The advaita vidya is only saying - free yourself from material bondage. However, the story does not have to end there.

--------

What is the status of the liberated beings on attaining One-ness with Brahman ? It is stored like memory within the Prajnan-ghana & this memory can again give birth to a being with the characteristics according to the memory. So, there is no Jiva ... it is simply a memory which has the potential of creating a Jiva with characteristics as per the ingrained memory within the Prajnan-ghana.

If not jivas, fine. Call it memory in prajna ghana, point in spiritual-Brahman-coordinate-space, whatever. I am already a point in Brahman. So ? That should not stop attraction to Bhagvan. Also, i would rather not contribute to *that* memory in prajna ghana that gets whisked, beaten and mixed up to recreate embodied beings who forget Bhagvan - unless that is where KrushNa wants me to go/be but He promises to remind about our existence together.


otherwise that would negate what Lord Krishna says in Uttar Gita.
What He says in Uttara, Anu or any other Gita is already there in Bhagvad Gita, He caters to all kinds. To compliment what you are saying there are verses from Gita chap 7-12 and 18 as well as in the Bhagvatam, spoken by KrushNa Himself that shows how He feels about His devotees, and how they bind Him. Just because BhAgvat is a purAN and not shruti, would you discard the Lord's own words ?
Would you also discard VishNuSahasranAm ?

When i said robust i was only saying that devotion to Shri KrushNa Hari Govind Mukund MurAri is strong, everlasting, that is all. KrushNa takes care of you, you are not by yourself. Real reason is the devotee cannot live without KrushNa. The devotee does not see or care for anything else.

That also applies to already liberated atmarams, muni, and nirgranthas -
kurvanty ahaitukīḿ bhaktim
ittham-bhūta-guṇo hariḥ

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya
praNAm

proudhindu
19 August 2011, 02:20 PM
Namaste Devotee,


Namaste PH,


The flaws in PH's proposition :

This has been added by PH himself & is not written anywhere in this or any other Upanishad. In fact, it says just the opposite :

Before writing that i clearly made the mention that these are "My comments:" Have some patience.


"Apramattena vedhavyam sharvattanmayo bhavet"


What does it say : "Sharvattanmayo bhavet" :


Sharvat : Like an arrow
Tanmaya = tat + maya = becoming one with That

So, this cannot be translated as like an arrow becoming one with arrow ! Try doing it and you will find that it is not at all fitting !! The correct translation is : The soul is the arrow & therefore, as the arrow becomes one with the target, the soul should become one with the target. Here the Upanishad doesn't go into shape of arrow being different from the target etc. ... it assumes that the arrow becomes one with the target after hitting it. How ? It doesn't go into any analysis on this issue. It simply assumes it like that. So, it must be taken as the Upanishad says.

The Aim of the Arrow should be to merge with the Target(The Brahman).
Not hit and fall.



PH's proposition :


PH assumes that Brahman is some entity which lives in a particular city which is like a luminous city in space ! That is very simplistic understanding. Brahman is not that lives in a city ! This verse cannot be taken literally otherwise it would negate what is written elsewhere in Upanishads about Brahman ==> "Sarvamhyetad Brahman" says Mandukya Upanishad. If it lives in some city in space then what is space and what is this city ? Then how the above quoted verse of Mandukya Upanishad be correct ? So, it is ridiculous to even think that Brahman is some entity which lives in a city and that city is described in these verse.

This luminous city is nothing but our own heart (spiritual heart) where it shines like tip of flame. If we read the other verses then it becomes more clear :

I would not use anything words like ridiculous while referring to Upanishads.

The Upanishad does say it is some place from which His(Brahman) Light illuminates the whole universe.

Here is the translation:

Mundaka II-ii-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there .




II.ii.7 That Self which is omniscient in general and all-knowing in detail & which has such a glory in this world- that Self, which is of this kind - is seated in the space in the luminous city of Brahman.


===> Now let's remember, this Self is the Brahman (
Ayamatma Brahman). So, it is not that Self is some other entity which is residing in the palace of some other entity ! It is residing in its own abode i.e. the spiritual heart of the seeker.

It is conditioned by the mind, It is the carrier of PraNa and the body. It is seated in the food by depositing the heart. Through their knowledge the discriminating people realise that Self as existing in its fullness everywhere - the Self that shines surpassing as blissful and immortality.


If in the first sentence it is talking about some city in space above our head how come these sentences fit in ? How is it conditioned by mind how it becomes the carrier of the PraNa and the body ?


None of us are "all knowing".Realization comes only by understanding Brahman is everywhere.And then what happens?.That is the point.

Now,Where do the Unrealized souls stay?.They get reborn.

The earth is the Place where the unrealized souls take rebirth...The Place where SUN shines..The Fires light.. unlike the "Supreme abode" which doesn't need anything.




PH again
leaves one verse conveniently and quotes this :

Mundaka II-ii-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there. How can this fire do so ? Everything shines according as He does so; by His light all this shines diversely.


Before this verse this verse is there :

Bhidyate hridagranthischhidyante sarvasanshayah |
Kshieeyate chaasya karmaaNi tasmin drishte paravare || II.ii.8

==> When that knot of the heart is pierced (the knot of the heart is "desires clinging to one's heart), all doubts are dissolved. His Karmas get dissipated when that Low and the High (i.e. the Self) is seen (realised).

How ? By big-mouthing ??I didn't leave that sloka.I was responding to that sloka already quoted by Ananda.You should really have some patience.

Let us see the Underlined part in 2:2:8.

His Karmas get dissipated..

By realising as per II.ii.8

Whose karma is getting dissipated?. No need to big mouth.Right?



PH again proposes :

Oh ! So, there is a city in the space where the Brahman resides and there is Brahman in the front, the Brahman at the back ... blah,blah,blah !

I think we left the city long back behind !! It is still there ? And how can there be a city where the dweller is in the front, back, above, below, right and left ... then where is the city ??
That is really dragging the poor city too far !! This verse is the concluding remarks of the chapter and in that form alone it makes any sense & not otherwise !

I didn't propose anything i posted the translation of Upanishad.

Don't use "Poor city", dragging etc..that is not only undermining the Upanishads but also the Vedas .Please stop doing that.The seers(Of Upanishads) say that certain concepts of Brahman cannot be fathomed fully.Please try to understand that.

"supreme abode" is used at many places not only in Upanishads.Please don't undermine it.I have no intention to engage you unless you apologize for undermining the Upanishad words.



Repeating what i wrote above:

The earth is the Place where the unrealized souls take rebirth...The Place where SUN shines..The Fires light.. unlike the "Supreme abode" described in Mundaka II-ii-10

Mundaka II-ii-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there .

devotee
19 August 2011, 08:53 PM
Namaste Smarnam,

I have no intention of entering into a debate on Dvaita Vs Advaita. This has been done a number of times before on this forum & those who are interested can go through those threads.

What I most humbly am suggesting that these arguments are not going to end & will not lead us to anywhere. I don't think I am greater than Adi Shankaracharyjua or Gaurang Prabhu or Madhavacharya and therefore, I have no right to say that any one school is greater or inferior than the other.

Imho, all the Schools of Vedanta are valid in their own way. We must learn to respect the views of our brothers/sisters belonging to the schools other than ours. I was surprised to see you posting which appeared to speak the language that some organisations like ISKCON use. That is why I intervened. Why did I refer to Uttar Gita ? Bhagwad Gita does have Advaitic teachings but it is more explicit in Uttar Gita where Lord says :

2.2. As water in water, milk in milk and (clarified) butter in butter, so the Jîvãtman and Paramãtman become one in union without any distinction and difference.
2.37 Those that constantly chant the four Vedas and read other religious works and yet fail to realize "I am that Brahman", they are like the spoons that are used for every cooking operation, but yet remain without a single taste of the foods they prepare.

Let's keep our eyes on our path whatever we choose and not waste in time in trying to show our supremacy over the other. :)

OM

devotee
19 August 2011, 09:06 PM
Namaste PH,

1. Please don't shout. It unnecessarily creates unwanted noise which hampers smooth communication process.

2. Shouting shows your weakness and desperation -- I am sure you want to show something else. So, it is not beneficial to your cause.

3. Please read the whole Upanishad. The chapter is all about the process of meditation on Brahman as sm78 has rightly pointed out.

... and this verse is not about any specific place in space as you have assumed :

Mundaka II-ii-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there .

This is the state of Brahman/Self where one reaches by meditating on OM. The Brahman shines Itself on Itself --- what does it mean ? Is it talking about some place being illuminated by some sort of light or whatever ? No, that understanding is ridiculous. The light is the means through which we see something ... understand anything. For understanding anything you need some reference that you already know (as light helps in knowing the shape of a thing) ... all knowledge about anything in this world is relative to some previous knowledge. Brahman doesn't need any such reference .... it doesn't need any such relative understanding ... it doesn't need any light from some other source to shine ... it shines on its own i.e. It is known Itself by Itself without any reference ... that is the meaning of this verse. When you reach that state you don't need any other source of light to see the Truth.

I don't say that you must agree with my understanding which is Advaitic. You are free to understand the meaning of the verses as you like ... because the Vedanta has 6 different schools and all are valid in their own way because they all reach the same destination as Lord Krishna says in BG. Bhakti and Jnana are not opposed to each other ... only together they make the complete picture of the Truth.

My objection is only to your way of talking to Ananda and use of abusive words against seekers belonging to other schools of Vedanta.

OM

smaranam
20 August 2011, 07:07 AM
Namaste Devoteeji

I do not interfere and object to anything, usually.
The conversation started only because you said the humans evolve (sort of get moksha) into HiraNyagarbha (BramhA) and that too each BramhA-night, and then that collective memory of pradnyA-ghaNa gives rise to embodied beings (who have forgotten Bhagvan) all over again. I objected to that as BramhA's night/day is too short a time.
Our scriptures tell us otherwise. Sleeping in HiraNyagarbha (a temp state) is different from merging into Brahman. HiraNyagarbha Himself is not eternal, and there is one per universe.

It was then that i mentioned - if this was the case why get liberated. It was then that i mentioned that the pure devotees of Shri Hari do not come back although the journey can be long.

Also, i thought you will *like* the AtmArAm verse ! Because you are Devotee, and have Radha-KrushNa in your profile.
Many advaita sanyAsi joined Mahaprabhu. Adi Shankaracharya also liked Govinda, composed so many bhajans and sang "Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam, .... at the end of life only He can save you"

Why is 'Suta uvAch' ISKCON language ? Suta Goswami, the narrator of his father's (VyAsdev's) BhAgvat was fully Brahman-realized. Yet he indulged in Bhagvad lila.

The verse talks about AtmArAms, munis / yogis and nirgranthi (which has four different meanings, one being liberated from nescience). They are attracted to Hari in ahaituki bhajan. It is all-inclusive.

So, it is not at all about "my" school or "your" school, it is about Shri Hari ! It is the messages being sent through shAstra. That too because the topic came up. And perhaps because JanmAshtami is approaching who knows :)

I shall not trouble you again, sorry.

praNAm

devotee
20 August 2011, 07:50 AM
Namaste Smaranam,



I do not interfere and object to anything, usually.
The conversation started only because you said the humans evolve (sort of get moksha) into HiraNyagarbha (BramhA) and that too each BramhA-night, and then that collective memory of pradnyA-ghaNa gives rise to embodied beings (who have forgotten Bhagvan) all over again. I objected to that as BramhA's night/day is too short a time.
Our scriptures tell us otherwise. Sleeping in HiraNyagarbha (a temp state) is different from merging into Brahman. HiraNyagarbha Himself is not eternal, and there is one per universe.

It was then that i mentioned - if this was the case why get liberated. It was then that i mentioned that the pure devotees of Shri Hari do not come back although the journey can be long.

Also, i thought you will *like* the AtmArAm verse ! Because you are Devotee, and have Radha-KrushNa in your profile.
Many advaita sanyAsi joined Mahaprabhu. Adi Shankaracharya also liked Govinda, composed so many bhajans and sang "Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam, .... at the end of life only He can save you"

Why is 'Suta uvAch' ISKCON language ? Suta Goswami, the narrator of his father's (VyAsdev's) BhAgvat was fully Brahman-realized. Yet he indulged in Bhagvad lila.

The verse talks about AtmArAms, munis / yogis and nirgranthi (which has four different meanings, one being liberated from nescience). They are attracted to Hari in ahaituki bhajan. It is all-inclusive.

So, it is not at all about "my" school or "your" school, it is about Shri Hari ! It is the messages being sent through shAstra. That too because the topic came up. And perhaps because JanmAshtami is approaching who knows :)

I have no differences with you, Smaranam and it is a matter of joy to read your enlightening posts. May be my understanding on this issue is cloudy ... I can't say. Sriyukteswar Giri in his book describes various yugas and how the evolution of people take place in different yugas. This has been echoed by many other saints too. The HiraNyagarbha is the centre about which this cycle goes on. At the peak of Sat-yuga all the beings get enlightened. The part of night of Brahma was added by me ... but it is not in that anallogy. The yuga changes and then comes the Treta-yuga and devolution starts. Slowly we come to Kaliyuga where the delusion of the being is the maximum. After the Kaliyuga again Dwapar-yuga starts and evolution phase starts.

As far as memory of Prajnan-ghana is concerned, it is for all beings ... that is why Lord Krishna says that He knows all beings of the past and also of the future.

... Regarding Lord Krishna ... He is always in my heart and I am always at His feet. Whatever knowledge comes to me, including Advaitic teachings ... I believe that it is His will. If Lord Krishna thinks that I am one of his humble devotees, it is a matter of greatest pride for me.


I shall not trouble you again, sorry.

Oh, Come on ! Don't be unnecessarily serious. If I have created any misunderstanding by any of my posts, please forgive me ... .... it was never intended ... please believe me .... I always consider you my friend. :)

OM

smaranam
20 August 2011, 08:50 PM
Who am i to forgive you and for what ? It was nice of you to not get mad at me.

Have a wonderful Janmashtami, Gokulashtami/Kalashtami/Nandotsav.

Ananda
21 August 2011, 07:20 AM
Hello proudhindu,



Somebody is claiming Ownership of Brahman.
Brahman is one’s own self. That is the same as saying there is no difference b/n YOU and Brahmin.

Yes, this is the position of Advaita. How does that in any way equate to 'owning' Brahman? To own something there must be two things, the possessor and the possessed; identity is not equivalent to ownership. If Atman is Brahman, then how is that 'owning' Brahman? That would be like saying 'Brahman owns Brahman', which is an absurdity.


It doesn’t take a genius to see the simple words of wisdom in this upanishad.

The Arrow(Soul) after reaching the Target destination still remains an arrow.The arrow(Soul) even after reaching the Target(Brahman)doesn’t become the target(Brahman).

Here, your claim is that the Self, upon reaching Brahman, retains its identity as being distinguishable from Brahman (ie separate) and does not become Brahman. This idea is of yours is contradicted even in the Mundaka;


As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable on reaching the sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the illumined soul, having become freed from name and form, reaches the self-effulgent Purusha that is higher than the higher.

Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman. He overcomes grief, and rises above aberrations; and becoming free from the knots of the heart, he attains immortality.- Mu Up. III. II .8-9

These verses clearly show, through the analogy of the rivers entering the sea and losing their individual identities, that the Self, when realizing Brahman, is Brahman. A river which loses its name and form, entering the sea, is no longer a river, but is inseparable from the sea- having the exact same nature as it. Furthermore, it is seen everywhere in the Upanishads that the 'name and form' attributed to the Self are done so through ignorance alone, and not that they actually belong to it. Your attempts at twisting the verses on the arrow and target into an argument for duality is amusing, since the whole force of the passage is 'One should become one with It' ie the Self should become one with Brahman through self-knowledge.

There are countless verses in the Upanishads and elsewhere which affirm the identity of the Self and Brahman. I cannot even fathom the amount of intellectual knots and loops one has to spin in order to escape this fact. A few, for example;


That great, birthless Self which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, lies in the space that is within the heart. It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not grow better through good work nor worse through bad work. It is the lord of all, It is the ruler of all beings, It is the protector of all beings.- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV.Iv.22


Usata, the son of Chakra, said, ‘You have indicated it as one may say that a cow is such and such, or a horse is such and such. Explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct – the self that is within all’. ‘This is your self that is within all’. ‘Which is within all, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘You cannot see that which is the witness of vision; you cannot hear that which is the hearer of hearing; you cannot think that which is the thinker of thought; you cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge. This is your self that is within all; everything else but this is perishable.’ Thereupon Usata, the son of Chakra, kept silent.- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, III.iv.2


Just as a goldsmith takes apart a little quantity of gold and fashions another- a new and better- form, so does the Self throw this body away, or make it senseless, and make another- a newer and better- form suited to the manes or the celestial minstrels, or the gods, or Viraj, or Hiranyagarbha, or other beings.

That Self is indeed Brahman, as also identified with the intellect, the mind, and the vital force, with the eyes and ears, with earth, water, air and space, with fire and what is other than fire, with desire and the absence of desire, with anger and the absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with everything- identified...

...Regarding this there is the following pithy verse: 'Being attached he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting the results of whatever work he did in this life, he returns from that world to this for fresh work'. Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. But the man who does not desire never transmigrates. Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self- the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.

Regarding this there is this pithy verse: 'When all the desires that dwell in his heart are gone, then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, and attains Brahman in this very body.' Just as the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off and lies in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the Self becomes disembodied and immortal, becomes the Prana, Brahman, the Light.- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV.iv 4-7.


This Self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only itself as, 'I am Brahman.' Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realizing this Self as That knew, 'I was Manu, and the Sun.' And to this day, whoever in like manner knows it as 'I am Brahman', becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their Self. While he who worships another god thinking, 'He is one and I am another,' does not know. He is like an animal to the gods, As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, I.iv.9


'This Self of mine within the heart, is smaller than paddy or barley or mustard or Syamaka seed or the kernel of a Syamaka seed. This Self of mine within the heart, is greater than the earth, greater than the intermediate space, greater than heaven, greater than these worlds

This Self of mine within the heart, is the performer of all actions, is possessed of all good desires, is possessed of all good smells, is possessed of all good essences, pervades all this, is devoid of speech and is without hankering. This is Brahman. After departing from this body, I shall become identified with This. He who has this belief truly, and has no doubt, he will attain Brahmanhood. ' This is what Sandilya said in days of yore. Sandilya said this.- Chandogya Upanishad, III. 14. 3-4.


I could sit for days providing quote after quote from the sruti. I'll save us both the bother, however, since I have no doubt you'll just brush it off.




That Self which is omniscient in general and all-knowing in detail and which has such glory in this world – that Self, which is of this kind – is seated in the space within the luminous city of Brahman.

This verse is describing the Luminous city of Brahman..

The luminous city of Brahman is the lotus of the heart or the purified intellect.

You forgot to post the rest of the verse.



That Self which is omniscient in general and all-knowing in detail and which has such glory in this world – that Self, which is of this kind – is seated in the space within the luminous city of Brahman. It is conditioned by the mind, It is the carrier of the vital forces and the body, It is seated in food (body) by placing the intellect in the cavity of the heart. Through their knowledge, the discriminating people realize that Self as existing in its fullness everywhere- the Self that shines surpassingly as blissfulness and immortality.- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, II.ii.7

On this, there are also verses from the Chandogya;


Should they ask him, 'Now that within this city of Brahman there is this small lotus-like dwelling, and within it is a small space, what is it that exists there which is to be known, and which is indeed to be sought for realization?' He should reply, 'This space within the heart is as vast as this space outside. Within it are indeed included both heaven and earth, as also both fire and air, both sun and moon, lightning and stars. Whatever this one has here and whatever he has not, all this is included in that.'- Chandogya Upanishad, VIII. I. 1

More on the Self in the heart;


This Self which is such surely exists in the heart. Of that this is verily the derivation: It is in the heart; therefore it is called the heart. A man of such knowledge daily reaches the heavenly world (ie Brahman in the heart, during deep sleep).

Then, this one who is fully serene, rising up from this body and reaching the highest light, remains established in his true nature. This is the Self. This is Immortal. This is beyond all fear. This is Brahman. Truth is the name of this Brahman who is such...- Chandogya Upanishad, VIII. 3.3.



Mundaka II-ii-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there. How can this fire do so ? Everything shines according as He does so; by His light all this shines diversely.

This verse is a reference to Brahman as the Self within the purified sheath of the heart, which is the city of Brahman. The Sun, moon, stars, lightning and fire do not illuminate Brahman, because Brahman is the 'highest light', everything else exists because of Brahman, and is dependent upon It, and, indeed;


In the supreme, bright sheath, is Brahman, free from taints and without parts. It is pure, and is the Light of lights. It is that which the knowers of the Self realize.- Mundaka Upanishad, II.ii.9.



There goes out of the window this idiotic and oxymoronic advaita concept called Jivan mukhtha.

I'm afraid not.


When that Self, which is both high and low, is realized, the knot of the heart gets untied, all doubts become solved, and all one's actions become dissipated. - Mundaka Upanishad, II.ii.8


The bright and pure Self within the body, that the monks with habitual effort and attenuated blemishes see, is attainable verily through truth, concentration, complete knowledge, and continence, practiced constantly...

...It is great and self-effulgent; and Its form is unthinkable. It is subtler than the subtle. It shines diversely. It is farther away than the far-off, and It is near at hand in this body. Among sentient beings It is perceived as seated in this very body, in the cavity of the heart.

It is not comprehended through the eye, nor through speech, nor through the other senses; nor is It attained through austerity or karma. Since one becomes purified in mind through the favourableness of the intellect, therefore can one see that indivisible Self through meditation.

Within the heart in the body, where the vital force has entered in five forms, is this subtle Self to be realized through that intelligence by which is pervaded the entire mind as well as the motor and sensory organs of all creatures. And it is to be known in the mind, which having become purified, this Self reveals itself distinctly.- Mundaka Upanishad, III.i 6-9.


As can be seen, the Upanishads say that the 'luminous city of Brahman' is none other than one's own Self that is revealed in the midst of the mind, or in the cavity of the heart, through a purified intellect. What is the result of one who realizes his own Self? It is being restated;


Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman. He overcomes grief, and rises above aberrations; and becoming freed from the knots of the heart, he attains immortality.- Mundaka Upanishad, III.ii.9.


Here is a verse with regard to that:
'The man of realization does not meet with death, nor disease, nor even sorrow. The man of realization sees everything, attains everything in every way. He becomes one, three-fold, as also five-fold, seven-fold and also nine-fold. And he is called eleven, one hundred and ten, and one thousand and twenty. From purity of food follows the purity of the internal organ. From the purification of the internal organ comes unfailing memory. After the achievement of memory comes falling asunder of all of the knots of the heart...'- Chandogya Upanishad, VII.26.2.




Mundaka II-ii-11: All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.

This verse is describing the Luminous city of Brahman..


No, this verse is identifying Brahman, or the Self, as everything. Chandogya Upanishad, VIII. I. 1 has already established that the 'space within the heart' ie the city of Brahman is as vast as the space outside- containing the whole universe. That city of Brahman is the all-pervading nature of the Self; it is everywhere and everything, because only Brahman exists.You have forgotten the other Upanishads which prove that the Self is a)Brahman, b)the true nature of the jiva and c)the reality of the whole universe, as these verses show as clear as day;


'The Infinite is that where one does not see anything else, does not hear anything else, and does not understand anything else. Hence, the finite is that where one sees something else, hears something else, and understands something else. That which indeed is the Infinite is immortal. On the other hand, that which is finite, is mortal...'- Chandogya Upanishad, VII. 23. 1.


What indeed is here, is there; what is there, is here likewise. He who sees as though there is difference here, goes from death to death.

This is to be attained through the mind indeed. There is no diversity here whatsoever. He who sees there is difference here, goes from death to death.- Katha Upanishad, II.1.10-11.

These verses declare that the vision of non-duality is alone the Infinite, the immortal. Any sense of difference between oneself and God, God and the world, or the world and oneself, is a limitation caused by ignorance, and results in death through attachment to objects. Why is non-duality alone the Infinite? Because the Self is Brahman, and only Brahman exists everywhere;


All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.-Mundaka Upanishad.II.ii.11.

It is stated again;


'He indeed is below, He is above, He is behind, He is in front, He is in the South, He is in the North. He is indeed all this. Hence, after that follows the instruction with the help of the ego; "I am indeed below, I am above, I am behind; I am in front, I am in the North, I indeed am all this."'- Chandogya Upanishad, VII.25.1

Brahman is everywhere, it is everything, and it is the true nature of the jiva, the Self. This is the vision of non-duality that is the Infinite, the immortal; that the Self is Brahman;


Hence, hereafter follows the instruction with the help of the Self. The Self indeed is below, the Self is above, the Self is behind, the Self is in front, the Self is in the South, the Self is in the North, the Self is indeed all this. Anyone who sees thus, reflects thus, understands thus, revels in the Self, disports in the Self, has union in the Self. He has freedom of movement in all the worlds. On the other hand, those who understand otherwise than this, come under a different ruler, and belong to the worlds that are subject to decay. They have no freedom of movement in all the worlds.- Chandogya Upanishad, VII.25.2

And for the Jivan mukti, what does he see? He sees himself as Brahman, the source and substance of everything.


'Of that man indeed who sees thus, who reflects thus, who realizes thus, the vital force springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory springs from the Self, space springs from the Self, fire springs from the Self, water springs from the Self, appearance and disappearance spring from the Self, food springs from the Self, strength springs from the Self, understanding springs from the Self, meditation springs from the Self, intelligence springs from the Self, will springs from the Self, mind springs from the Self, speech springs from the Self, name springs from the Self, text springs from the Self, rites spring from the Self. All these indeed spring from the Self.'- Chandogya Upanishad, VII. 26.2.

And why? Because Brahman is the Self of everything.


'That which is this subtle essence, all this has got That as the Self. That is Truth. That is the Self. Thou art That, O svetaketu.'-Chandogya Upanishad, VI.8.6




Mithya the sanskrit word has primary meanings of Illusion, unreal or False.

In the context of Advaita, it means precisely what I already explained. In Advaita mithya doesn't mean unreal in the sense of non-existent (asat), it means it cannot be categorised as either existent or non-existent. The world is 'mithya' because it is Brahman but experienced as something other than Brahman through ignorance. If the world were non-existent then it wouldn't be experienced! That which 'exists' is Brahman, and Brahman is experienced as the diverse world of objects under the influence of Maya, that is why the world cannot be said to exist in and of itself (independently), but neither is it non-existent, since knowledge reveals it is none other than Brahman.



Btw, there is real transformation(Not apparent as you said above) of Clay in the POT making process.The raw material clay transforms in the hydration and subsequent burning process of POT manufacture.One cannot extract clay in it's original raw material form from POT because it(The Clay) gets transformed.

You stretched the analogy too far. The point I was making is that the clay retains its nature as clay throughout the process of being formed into a pot, and when the form of the pot ceases to exist (such as when the pot breaks), there are clay remains. You take clay from the ground, shape it, burn it, and paint it, and then you break it, but it is the same object that is being 'transformed', it is not one object changing into another object; the substance remains whilst the names and forms change.




In the same way, the names and forms of creation exist within Brahman as apparent transformation; the transformations aren't real as Brahman is changeless and non-dual.

SO, the transformations are False or Illusion.

They are illusory, because the transformation (ie the world) is apparent (or experienced), but the substantive (Brahman) is unchanging and non-dual.






Hence there is the verse 'This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest', (Mu. Up II.ii 11).
Already refuted this.


You haven't refuted anything, and your scriptural knowledge and/or understanding is apparently very poor.



I would not blame somebody if he/she claims advaitans are lazy and downright stupid.


I and a few others here have found your manner to be very rude and arrogant. Because of that I won't be responding to your posts anymore, but I am happy to have been able to reply to your objections, even though I don't think you will appreciate it.






Hello devotee,



Thanks very much for bringing up those very relevant points and texts!





:)

proudhindu
21 August 2011, 01:36 PM
. Please read the whole Upanishad. The chapter is all about the process of meditation on Brahman as sm78 has rightly pointed out. ... and this verse is not about any specific place in space as you have assumed :


Yes, i read the whole upanishad and not just one chapter.

mundaka 3.2.1 describes brahmalok (The supreme abode) again.

3.2.1 He, the Knower of the Self, knows that Supreme Abode of Brahman, which shines brightly and in which the universe rests. Those wise men who, free from desires, worship such a person transcend the seed of birth.



Another translation:


1. He (the knower of the Self) knows that highest home of Brahman 2 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15021.htm#fn_186), in which all is contained and shines brightly. The wise who, without desiring happiness, worship that Person 3 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15021.htm#fn_187), transcend this seed, (they are not born again.)



sm78 has rightly pointed


sm78 has expressed displeasure regarding not Appreciating subtle instructions in that particular verse(Soul(Arrow) reaching Brahman(Target).





1. Please don't shout. It unnecessarily creates unwanted noise which hampers smooth communication process.

2. Shouting shows your weakness and desperation -- I am sure you want to show something else. So, it is not beneficial to your cause.


I Now realize 'shouting' is not going to help when you cannot make the difference between my comments and the upanishad quote which you ridiculed and continue to ridicule.


From post 45:




Oh ! So, there is a city in the space where the Brahman resides and there is Brahman in the front, the Brahman at the back ... blah,blah,blah !


You are ridiculing two slokas here: Mundaka 2-2-10 and 11 not even knowing that there is another sloka I mentioned :mundaka 3.2.1


Mundaka 2-2-10: There the sun does not shine, nor the moon or the stars; nor do these flashes of lightning shine there. How can this fire do so ? Everything shines according as He does so; by His light all this shines diversely.


(Another translation: 10 The sun does not thine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and much less this fire. When he shines, everything shines after him; by his light all this is lighted .


And another one:
10 The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, not to speak of this fire. When He shines, everything shines after Him; by His light everything is lighted. )


And the Next sloka:(which you described as blah blah)


11 That immortal Brahman alone is before, that Brahman is behind, that Brahman is to the right and left. Brahman alone pervades everything above and below; this universe is that Supreme Brahman alone.





I think i have earned enough Bad karma conversing with a person who ridicules "Supreme abode" (Brahma Lok).

proudhindu
21 August 2011, 02:39 PM
Hello Ananda:

Mithya, the sanskrit word had existence before advaita.As i said before one cannot add new meanings to existing words.
Unless you have a clear understanding of this there is no point in engaging any further.

And something about Mundane knowledge.


You stretched the analogy too far. The point I was making is that the clay retains its nature as clay throughout the process of being formed into a pot, and when the form of the pot ceases to exist (such as when the pot breaks), there are clay remains.

The clay changes it properties in the clay making process and the clay retrieved from the Brocken POT is not the same as fresh clay.


As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable on reaching the sea by giving up their names and forms

That is about End times of this universe mentioned one sloka before.


Yes, this is the position of Advaita. How does that in any way equate to 'owning' Brahman? To own something there must be two things, the possessor and the possessed; identity is not equivalent to ownership. If Atman is Brahman, then how is that 'owning' Brahman? That would be like saying 'Brahman owns Brahman', which is an absurdity.

Yes,There are two things.The Atman(Self) and the Brahman as per Mundaka 2;2;4 the quote of which is already given.

If Atman is Brahman there is no need for Sadhana to achieve anything.

The sadhana is all about identifying with Brahman.


Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed.

That is once again about end times(refer to previous sloka 6), not while on this earth.

devotee
21 August 2011, 08:12 PM
Namaste PH,

I am not ridiculing any verse. You are distorting each and everything. I am ridiculing your interpretation of the verses.

If you think that Brahman is Brahma-loka and that is what this Upanishad is pointing out then I have nothing more to say. However, just a gentle reminder that Brahma-loka is related to Brahma and not to Brahman ... I hope you understand the difference.


If Atman is Brahman there is no need for Sadhana to achieve anything.

.... that inference is due to your own faulty assumptions and fallacious logical analysis. The Atman is Brahman is echoed not only in one Upanishad but many Upanishads. There is nothing higher than Shruti, so I think you should agree to that. I will quote here some examples :

"Ayam atma Brahman" ==> This Self is Brahman. (Mandukya Upanishad)


He who sees the consciousness and the matter like this, is the Achyuta (who has no end) and mass of knowledge. Only he is Shiva, Hari, luminary of luminaries,that alone is Parameshwara. That alone is Parabrahman – undoubtedly I am that Brahman.
6-7. Jiva is Shiva and Shiva is Jiva; when bound by husk it is paddy, unbound of is rice. Thus the bound one is Jiva, released from karma becomes SadaShiva. Bound by ropes, he is Jiva, unbound, he is SadaShiva

===> Skanda Upanishad

2. Self itself is Ishwara and JIva (but) in the body-name that which is not Self, it gets the Ahamkaar (a sense of having existence) and that Ahamkaar is the bondage of the soul. Getting rid of that (Aham-bhaav) is the Moksha (liberation).


===> Sarvasaar Upanishad

Difference between Brahman and the Ishvara and Jiva :

Niralamba Upanishad tells us the differences between the Brahman, the Ishvara and the Jiva like this :

3. (1) Brahman is the ineffable Spirit. It appears as the Mahat (the Sankhyan Great), the ego, (the elements) earth, water, fire, air and ether – the macrocosm and as actions, knowledge and ends. It is non-dual and free from all adjuncts. It is big with all powers and is without beginning and end. It may be spoken of as pure, good, quiescent, unqualified.
4. (2) God is the veritable Brahman that, depending on Its power called Prakriti creates the worlds and enters (into them) as the inner Controller of Brahma, etc., (He) is Ishvara, as He controls the intellect and the sense-organs.
5. (3) The living being (Jiva) is he who, through false superimposition, affirms ‘I am gross’ due to ‘the name and form’ of Brahma, Vishnu, Isana, Indra, etc. (Jiva thinks): Though I am one, due to the differences of the causes that originate the body, the Jivas are many.


However, if you insist on your own interpretation, you are free to have the same but please do not hurl abuses against the Advaitins.

OM