PDA

View Full Version : Nothing becomes everything



yajvan
23 October 2011, 03:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I am watching the Discovery Channel © , How The Universe Works¹. It's an 8 part series, created in 2010.
This was the first time that I heard astrophysicists and cosmologists talk in a much broader manner ( to my liking ).

For the Big Bang they talked for some time of nothing becoming everything. This was to my delight. The notion that these people are starting to think in this manner. They also talked of their interest of what was before this big bang, and if there many of these things, and are there multiple ones continuing. ( This is the notion found in string theory as I comprehend it).

I think they're getting it right. This notion of nothing becomes everything is a principle we find in the upaniṣad-s. It is the notion of pure Being becoming, manifesting. Now when we say nothing , the upaniṣad-s mean no-thing, as Being is no+thing i.e. nothing the is finite, with a dimension that limits It. It is existence itself. From this existence all rises, and all things set.

They spoke of pure energy ( śakti) that converts into matter. They outlined what occurred during the first few Planck time moments¹. This soup of pure energy, becoming particles and the like.

So, I have 7 more episodes and hope this same mind set remains throughout.


praṇām

references

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/how-the-universe-works-nothing-becomes-everything.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/how-the-universe-works-nothing-becomes-everything.html)


plank time : 1 second = 1.855094832e+43 Planck units

Adhvagat
23 October 2011, 04:20 PM
http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/images/sand_logo_new.png (http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/)

Ananda
23 October 2011, 04:51 PM
Hello Yajvan,




This notion of nothing becomes everything is a principle we find in the upaniṣad-s. It is the notion of pure Being becoming, manifesting. Now when we say nothing , the upaniṣad-s mean no-thing, as Being is no+thing i.e. nothing the is finite, with a dimension that limits It. It is existence itself. From this existence all rises, and all things set.


I have to disagree with what you are saying here; I think you are stretching the cosmologist's assertions out of context. Lawrence Krauss, a pre-eminent theoretical physicist is one of the leading proponents of the idea that the Universe came from 'nothing' - and by nothing, he doesn't mean 'no-thing' in the sense of 'pure being' that you are suggesting, he means nothing, non-existence. You can watch one of his talks here;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


Furthermore, you say that the idea of the Universe coming from nothing is a principle championed by the Upanishads, and then even speak on behalf of them when you say 'when we say nothing, the Upanishads mean no-thing'' - but I don't think this idea is met with in the Upanishads. There is one verse which mentions the Universe being unmanifested and 'covered over by Death', before it came into being, but not the idea that it came from nothing. I think the problem here comes from modern attempts at reconciling the buddhist doctrine of emptiness with the Upanishadic doctrine of Brahman as the ultimate Subject (ie not an object or 'thing'). There is nowhere in the Upanishads themselves which say what you are suggesting (and, even if there were, I think it would be a stretch to try and relate it to the ideas being put forth by the cosmologists).

If you read Chandogya Upanishad, VI. 2. 1 and 2 you will find the idea that the universe arises from non-existence repudiated by the Upanishad.


1 O good looking one, in the beginning this was Existence alone, One only, without a second. With regard to that some say, "In the beginning this was non-existence alone, one only, without a second. From that non existence issued existence."

2 He said, 'O good looking one, by what logic can existence verily come out of non-existence? But surely, O good looking one, in the beginning all this was Existence, One only, without a second.

Shankara in his commentary makes pains to refute the idea that something can come out of nothing, and also goes at length to refute the buddhist doctrine of emptiness at the same time. I think it is too far of a stretch for us to assume that the Upanishad can also mean that since Brahman is not an object that the Universe came from 'nothing'. Brahman is always stated in terms of absolute existence; it is a positive entity- not a nothing (nor is it mentioned in the Upanishads as a no-thing, if my memory serves me right).

I think that if a cosmologist or a philosopher can say with a straight face that the Universe can come from nothing, then we should try to refute these views and not reinterpret them to save face.

Scientists in general don't like to approach the topic of eternity, so it may well be that they are unconsciously choosing to interpret their own findings to avoid that conclusion. For now, I think it is simply best if we leave them to it, without trying to shoehorn their theories into transcendental truths.


Just my opinion, though!






:)

yajvan
23 October 2011, 07:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



I have to disagree with what you are saying here; I think you are stretching the cosmologist's assertions out of context. Lawrence Krauss, a pre-eminent theoretical physicist is one of the leading proponents of the idea that the Universe came from 'nothing' - and by nothing, he doesn't mean 'no-thing' in the sense of 'pure being' that you are suggesting, he means nothing, non-existence. You can watch one of his talks here;
:)

Perhaps he means nothing and I respect your offer and his approach... yet my orientation is of the upaniṣad-s. My approach is to find similarities & the jury is out on this notion of non-existence. It is again addressed in the upaniṣad-s on several occasions.
The ~argument~ they offer is how can something come from nothing? The point to be made is this nothing is existence itself and it is in fact lively in and of its Self. Let me offer this POV. This is for appreciation purposes and not to defend or cajole: bhāgavad gītā , chapter 9 , 8th śloka:

prakṛtim svām avastabhya
visrjami punaḥ punaḥ |
bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt ||

This says curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām) I create (visṛjāmi) again and again (punaḥ punaḥ).
All this (kṛtsnam) which exists ( manifestation and variety bhūta-grāmam) , that comes into creation (prakṛti) is done by my authority or command (vaśāt).

It is the notion of this Self-referral ability of Being that creation comes forth.


That said, I can see how a scientist would not use the term Being - they're not there yet. I suspect they will be , but that is my opinion only.


praṇām

devotee
23 October 2011, 07:28 PM
Namaste Yajvan ji,

Science ultimately must attain Truth as its final goal and I am seeing it is getting closer and closer. Thanks for the post and the link. :)

OM

devotee
23 October 2011, 07:49 PM
Namaste Ananda,



Furthermore, you say that the idea of the Universe coming from nothing is a principle championed by the Upanishads, and then even speak on behalf of them when you say 'when we say nothing, the Upanishads mean no-thing'' - but I don't think this idea is met with in the Upanishads. There is one verse which mentions the Universe being unmanifested and 'covered over by Death', before it came into being, but not the idea that it came from nothing. I think the problem here comes from modern attempts at reconciling the buddhist doctrine of emptiness with the Upanishadic doctrine of Brahman as the ultimate Subject (ie not an object or 'thing'). There is nowhere in the Upanishads themselves which say what you are suggesting (and, even if there were, I think it would be a stretch to try and relate it to the ideas being put forth by the cosmologists).

If you read Chandogya Upanishad, VI. 2. 1 and 2 you will find the idea that the universe arises from non-existence repudiated by the Upanishad.


Your assertion that "Everything came out of nothing" is not in the Upanishads is not correct. Please see the following text from SubAlopanishad :

Naiveha kinchanAgra AsIdmoolamAdhArAmimAh prajAh jAyante |

This Upanishad asserts that there was no+"thing" in the beginning. Moreover, this no+thing must be clearly understood. Chhandogya Upanishad does say that from "existence" came everything as there can't be non-existence giving birth to "existence" ... and that is correct. However, the assertions in SuBalopanishad and Chhandogya Upanishad don't contracdict each other. Why ? The concept of a "thing" can come only after mind comes into being ... "thing" or "nothing" has no meaning except that they are mental constructs. They don't describe the reality. The Rig-Veda (Samhita part, NAsadiya Sukta) says :

"There was neither non-existence (asat) nor existence (sat) then. There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomlessly deep? There was neither death nor immortality then.There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day. That ONE breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond."

In the beginning i.e. before creation the Reality was in its bare "form" and that bare "form" is neither sat (being/existence) not asat (non-existence/non-being). Therefore, it can be said in both ways because of limitations of concepts available (it cannot be expressed and if tried to be expressed then it has to be with some error ... that is the situation ... this error is inescapable) and neither of the explanations is free from error. It can be said that "Everything came out of "something" which was eternal, indestructible and the essence of this existence". However, as "that" cannot be said to be "a thing" or even "existence" (because this word too has same limitations being a concept within mental framework) ... so certainly there can't be "any+thing" before creation and so, the assertion that it all came out of no+"thing" too is correct.

The Upanishads tell us that the Reality is neither Sat nor Asat, not both Sat as well as Asat & not even the absence of both Sat and Asat.

OM

devotee
23 October 2011, 07:57 PM
Namaste Ananda,

I forgot to mention Taitriya Upanishad which also asserts :

AsdvA idamagra AsIt. Tato vai sadjAyatah.

==> In the beginning it was Asat. From that alone Sat came into being.

OM

devotee
23 October 2011, 08:51 PM
Namaste Yajvan ji,

I found this link. It is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Fnopw_v0

and this too :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EyAKFi3_Xg&feature=related

OM

Sahasranama
24 October 2011, 03:35 AM
http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/images/sand_logo_new.png (http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/)
What is this?

Adhvagat
24 October 2011, 04:42 AM
What is this?

I don't know much about it, just saw on Facebook ads, some acquaintances of mine who are into Vedanta liked it.

yajvan
24 October 2011, 02:51 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

This nothing is a big deal... In science it just may infact mean nothing - the absence of everything. This we can call a perfect vacuum.

This perfect vacuum we can call out as one of the tattva-s, ākāśa. Yet there is something even finer then pure space & and is the support of space, that is Being. From here all things arise. For things to exist or have room to exist there must be ākāśa. Yet for ākāśa to exist there must be pure existence itself, and this is Being; finer then the finest, stainless, most subtle.

praṇām

Ananda
26 October 2011, 02:02 AM
Hello folks,



devotee,



Please see the following text from SubAlopanishad

You will have to forgive me for not making comment on the text you quote from this particular Upanishad, because I restrict my studies to the mukhya Upanishads, so i'm not educated enough with regards to the others to give you a response worthy of your comments on it.




I forgot to mention Taitriya Upanishad which also asserts :

AsdvA idamagra AsIt. Tato vai sadjAyatah.


With regards to this text, a secondary meaning has to be sought after. Since the Chandogya refutes the notion of existence arising from non-existence, and asserts Brahman, an existent (positive) entity- we have to interpret the text in the Taittiriya to have a secondary (or figurative) meaning. Shankara here interprets 'Asat' to mean unmanifested in the sense that prior to the creation of the world 'idam' this was unmanifested (without name and form) Brahman only. The next part of the verse, 'From that alone Sat came into being' - refers to the world (the manifested creation) arising from the unmanifest Brahman- and not that something can be created from non-existence (since this idea, as the Chandogya says, is illogical).

The text also says 'that Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore it is called self-created/ the self-creator'. And yet, again, creation from non-existence is not possible; especially something creating itself from non-existence; therefore the terms 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' have to be substituted to make the passages legible and conform to other texts such as the Chandogya ones.


Therefore, it can be said in both ways because of limitations of concepts available (it cannot be expressed and if tried to be expressed then it has to be with some error ... that is the situation ... this error is inescapable) and neither of the explanations is free from error.


The Upanishads certainly deny that Brahman exists in the same way as objects do, but the existence of Brahman itself is never denied (it is never equated with non-existence, either). Brahman is a positive entity. You provided the Taittiriya quote, but the verse previous to the one you gave actually says;


If anyone knows Brahman as non-existent, he himself becomes non-existent. If anyone knows that Brahman does exist, then they consider him as existing by virtue of that knowledge.

Because there are various methods employed in the Upanishads which speak of Brahman as being beyond empirical relationships (ie neti neti etc), the text anticipates the doubt that Brahman would then be considered asat, or non-existence. Shankara says;



"The intellect that is prone to think of existence with regard to only the empirical objects having speech alone as their substance, may assume non-existence with regard to anything that is opposed to this and is transcendental (ie Brahman)... If a man thinks 'Brahman is non-existence' (asat), then that man, because of his faithlessness, the entire righteous path consisting of scheme of castes, stages of life, etc., becomes non-existent inasmuch as that path is not calculated to lead to Brahman. Hence this atheist is called asat, non-existent in as much as he is unrighteous in the world... The purport of this sentence is: Because of this fact, Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing (sat)."


So, as we can see, whilst the Upanishads definitely deny that Brahman exists as an object with empirical relations, they do not equate Brahman with non-existence itself.

I'm confident that both Yajvan and devotee will agree that Brahman is not non-existent, however, this wasn't the primary reason for my posts in this thread.


This nothing is a big deal... In science it just may infact mean nothing - the absence of everything. This we can call a perfect vacuum.

This perfect vacuum we can call out as one of the tattva-s, ākāśa. Yet there is something even finer then pure space & and is the support of space, that is Being. From here all things arise. For things to exist or have room to exist there must be ākāśa. Yet for ākāśa to exist there must be pure existence itself, and this is Being; finer then the finest, stainless, most subtle.


The primary point of my posts in this thread relate to what Yajvan is saying here.

Scientists who are confident enough (many aren't) to assert that there was literally nothing prior to the big bang/creation of the universe rail against the conclusion of the Upanishads and Vedānta in general. Yajvan says 'Yet there is something even finer than pure space and is the support of space, that is Being', and '...there must be pure existence itself, and this is Being'- he also added earlier that with regards to scientists, 'they're not there yet'. These comments, that there must be some existence prior even to space prove what I was originally saying earlier, that 'nothing becomes everything' is false, because Brahman, which is a positive entity, is pure existence- not pure non-existence.

If there is pure existence, then it is not nothing in the sense that the scientists are speculating- it means there is something, a positive entity, though not an empirical object, which is pure existence. This is why I said that it is a stretch to try to connect the two ideas; the absolute nothing, void, of the cosmologists, and the Brahman of the Upanishads; because the former relates to complete non-existence, and the latter to pure existence. The two ideas cannot both be equated- this is what I'm getting at.

Furthermore, to elaborate, if the universe (ie space) requires pure existence in order to exist, then non-existence is impossible; since all things which are said to exist (sat) or not exist (asat) require the substratum of existence. In the ultimate sense, then, non-existence is simply a fancy; only existence 'is' ; and anything that is created or appears does so through existence alone- not non-existence. Therefore, 'nothing becomes everything' cannot be true, and those who assert a void, such as some of these cosmologists, and some buddhists, are barking up the wrong tree.

Science deals only with objects; the observable world readily available to the senses. It cannot go beyond- if it does it creeps into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics; and the vast majority of scientists try to avoid this. It may well be that Brahman will never be corroborated by science, but this won't be surprising, as even the sages of the Upanishads knew that Brahman is beyond empirical dealings; and science is the study of the empirical! Science is fascinating, but we simply don't need it to sure up our confidence with regards to the existence of Brahman or the truth of the Upanishads. Scripture, reasoning, and our own direct experience are more than enough to provide us with all the proof we need.

I hope I made myself a bit clearer now!




:)

devotee
26 October 2011, 05:01 AM
Namaste Ananda,



You will have to forgive me for not making comment on the text you quote from this particular Upanishad, because I restrict my studies to the mukhya Upanishads, so i'm not educated enough with regards to the others to give you a response worthy of your comments on it.

I remember some people on Internet have this notion. However, who has decided which are the Mukhya Upanishads and which are not ? Can you please quote some authority ? If Sankaracharya has not commented on some Upanishad doesn't lower its status, imho.


With regards to this text, a secondary meaning has to be sought after. Since the Chandogya refutes the notion of existence arising from non-existence, and asserts Brahman, an existent (positive) entity- we have to interpret the text in the Taittiriya to have a secondary (or figurative) meaning. Shankara here interprets 'Asat' to mean unmanifested in the sense that prior to the creation of the world 'idam' this was unmanifested (without name and form) Brahman only. The next part of the verse, 'From that alone Sat came into being' - refers to the world (the manifested creation) arising from the unmanifest Brahman- and not that something can be created from non-existence (since this idea, as the Chandogya says, is illogical).

Why are trying to take secondary meaning of Taitriya Upanishad based on what is stated in Chhandogya Upanishad ? Does Taitriya Upanishad enjoy a lower status as compared to the Chhandogya Upanishad ? Why not re-interpret Chhandogya with the help of Taitriya ?


The text also says 'that Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore it is called self-created/ the self-creator'. And yet, again, creation from non-existence is not possible; especially something creating itself from non-existence; therefore the terms 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' have to be substituted to make the passages legible and conform to other texts such as the Chandogya ones.

Can there be something which is beyond the concepts of Being and also non-Being ?


The Upanishads certainly deny that Brahman exists in the same way as objects do, but the existence of Brahman itself is never denied (it is never equated with non-existence, either). Brahman is a positive entity. You provided the Taittiriya quote, but the verse previous to the one you gave actually says;

If anyone knows Brahman as non-existent, he himself becomes non-existent. If anyone knows that Brahman does exist, then they consider him as existing by virtue of that knowledge.


No one proposed that Brahman was non-existent. Neither the Upanishad nor I. Did I say anywhere that Brahman is non-existent ? It simply said, "In the beginning (i.e. before creation), there was nothing ... from that alone came everything. So, the statement is about "thing" and not Brahman.

If you remember, Brahman is called neither Being nor non-Being.

Anyway, you are free to have your own interpretation/understanding of the Upanishads. I was only trying you to show that your statement that ""Nothing became everything" is not in the Upanishad" is not correct. I was not making any comment on the existence or non-existence of the Brahman which is altogether a different topic.

OM

Ananda
26 October 2011, 06:10 AM
Hello devotee,



However, who has decided which are the Mukhya Upanishads and which are not ?


I don't know who decided it, so I can't quote any specific person. Mukhya are generally thought to be the Upanishads which have a commentary by a great authority such as Shankaracharya.



If Sankaracharya has not commented on some Upanishad doesn't lower its status, imho.

No, I didn't say that, or mean to imply that idea. It's a personal choice of mine; the mukhya Upanishads are thought to be the oldest of the Upanishads (thus being free from any possible later sectarian influence), and since they have commentary on them, their import is easier to understand. I don't study the others because they don't have commentaries; their meanings will be cryptic to me, since I don't have a teacher, so I personally choose not to study them (though I do own a few). It would be rude of me to comment on texts from them if I have not studied them myself- my opinion would be of no relevance.




Why are trying to take secondary meaning of Taitriya Upanishad based on what is stated in Chhandogya Upanishad ?

If we take the view of the Chandogya Upanishad that existence cannot come from non-existence, then, logically speaking, we cannot accept a primary meaning for the Taittiriya Upanishad without getting into a contradiction. We can avoid contradictions by resorting to a secondary meaning- the two seemingly contradictory statements from both Upanishads can be reconciled with no damage done to either.



Does Taitriya Upanishad enjoy a lower status as compared to the Chhandogya Upanishad ?


No, although, I'm not really sure what you mean by 'lower status'? The Upanishads teach one consistent idea in many ways; interpreting a text to have a secondary meaning doesn't degrade the 'status' of the text- it simply allows one to read the texts as a coherent whole, which is desirable.



Why not re-interpret Chhandogya with the help of Taitriya ?

The problem with that is that the Chandogya text (VI.1-2) doesn't allow for any other interpretation than the reasoning it sets forth. There's no use of figurative language being used here, it simply presents a prima facie view that existence can arise from non-existence (as the Taittiriya texts appears to say if a primary meaning is accepted) and then goes on to refute it by asking 'by what logic can this be so?'; that is to say, it is not logical that existence can come from non-existence, and so the prima facie view is false. It is a logical argument with no wiggle room- it should be taken as the primary meaning of the text. Therefore, it follows that the Taittiriya text necessarily resorts to a secondary meaning, since the primary meaning has been ruled out on grounds of logic, and the Upanishads seek to convey one consistent idea (ie non-duality) with no internal inconsistencies or contradictions.

My interpretation of the Taittirya text as having a secondary meaning is the logical conclusion of reading both texts side by side, and is in line with Shankara's commentary.



Can there be something which is beyond the concepts of Being and also non-Being ?

Yes, there can be something which is beyond the concepts of Being and non-Being- but what is being asked here is- is that something itself existent or non-existent? If the former, then the statement 'everything comes from nothing' is false, and if the latter, it is true.


It simply said, "In the beginning (i.e. before creation), there was nothing ... from that alone came everything. So, the statement is about "thing" and not Brahman.

If Brahman is not non-existent, then the statement 'In the beginning, there was nothing, and from that (nothing) came everything' is false. I am equating 'nothing' with non-existence (ie a void, asat)- on that basis it is false to suggest that there was nothing and from that arose everything. I do not equate Brahman with 'nothing', since Brahman is a positive entity; it exists, as you and I both agree.

This is definitely an issue of semantics rather than any of us here disagreeing about the ideas themselves.



I was not making any comment on the existence or non-existence of the Brahman which is altogether a different topic.

It's not actually a different topic. When we are discussing the creation and its origin in terms of the nature of the cause as either a positive entity, such as Brahman, or a negative, such as 'nothing' - then Brahman certainly enters the topic.

The discussion I have brought up with regards to ontology and Brahman is pertinent because the OP is related to the origins of the Universe. The cosmologists, some of them, are saying that nothing was there. Nothing is not a positive entity; it is literally nothing at all- not Brahman. The existence of Brahman necessarily refutes the idea that everything comes from nothing, why? because Brahman exists!

Yajvan calls the absolute vacuum of the cosmologists pure space. But, he doesn't stop there- he recognizes that there is a positive existence underlying that void, ' Yet for ākāśa to exist there must be pure existence itself'. What is that positive existence? Brahman, of course. The cosmologists stop at pure space- they cannot go further, because that is the extent of the objective world, and the instruments of science. They stop at the absolute negation of all existence, like some of the buddhists do. Vedānta refutes that idea in such texts as the Chandogya which asks 'by what logic can existence come from non-existence?' and Shankara says 'Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing'. Does the everything come from nothing, then? No;


That is Brahman from which are derived the birth etc. of this Universe


It comes from Brahman, of course.




:)

devotee
26 October 2011, 09:52 AM
I don't know who decided it, so I can't quote any specific person. Mukhya are generally thought to be the Upanishads which have a commentary by a great authority such as Shankaracharya.

Shankaracharya nowhere said that he didn't comment upon other Upanishads because they were not PrAmANik. There are 108 Upanishads which have been considered to be "main" Upanishads (this also has come from one of the main Upanishads i.e. Muktika Upanishad). The Upanishad I quoted is one of them.

If being older is the test for being authentic then Mundak and Mandukya Upanishads will fail the test as they belong to Atharva Veda which is the newest of the Vedas.


If we take the view of the Chandogya Upanishad that existence cannot come from non-existence, then, logically speaking, we cannot accept a primary meaning for the Taittiriya Upanishad without getting into a contradiction. We can avoid contradictions by resorting to a secondary meaning- the two seemingly contradictory statements from both Upanishads can be reconciled with no damage done to either.

First of all, the Vedas including Samhita, Brahmana & Upanishads are apparently not consistent on these issues :

a) Whether there was a creation at all
b) Whether there was non-existence to begin with or existence to begin with
if there was a Creation

Why ? It is because of our mental concepts of "nothing" & "everything" .... we think that they are just opposite to each other in essence ... in reality they are not.

That which is Nothing is alone Everything. ... There is nothing like "nothing" or "everything" in reality. There is Only one Self which manifests to us as Nothing, something or everything.

You have to go deep into the making of mental concepts of Nothing, Something and Everything to understand what I am saying. If you see from that perspective ... there is no inconsistency in any of the Upanishads.

OM

Spiritualseeker
26 October 2011, 10:12 AM
Namaste,

Unfortunately I would have +rep you Devotee, but I have to spread it around first. Very good informative post on misconceptions about the Dharma.


Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
26 October 2011, 01:18 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


First of all, the Vedas including Samhita, Brahmana & Upanishads are apparently not consistent on these issues :

a) Whether there was a creation at all
b) Whether there was non-existence to begin with or existence to begin with
if there was a Creation


This is a good point to ponder... within kaśmir śaivism , the Supreme's 5 fold act (pańcakṛtyavidhiḥ) is outlined as follows. Creation is considered an emission. This does not suggest that the author of this emission is 'used up' in any manner , shape or form.

sṛṣṭi सृष्टि - letting go or emanation or emission - from this all of creation as we know it unfolds. Note it is an emission of all the tattva's that make up creation.
sthiti स्थिति - continued existence; continuance in being . We may see this as the maintenance of life or of all creation.
saṁhāra संहार - contraction; drawing in (like an elephant's trunk); fetching back. Note many like to use the word destruction (vilaya - dissolution , liquefaction , disappearance , death , destruction ) yet this is not what is being communicating here, it is tat of drawing back in.
tirodhāna तिरोधान - concealing; covering ( like a sheath , veil , cloak ) ; this covering people wish to call māyā, and we have many posts on this subject.
Yet here in this darśana (view , doctrine , philosophical system ) māyā is the śakti of the Supreme, in this case of śiva. It is His own self-imposed limitation on his own Self.
anugraha अनुग्रह - grace; showing favor, kindness; This we know as His blessings and the main act that brings one to kevalaąpraṇām

words
kevala - simple , pure , uncompounded , unmingled ; the doctrine of the absolute unity of spirit ; some call this mokṣa

Ananda
29 October 2011, 08:14 AM
Hello devotee,



Shankaracharya nowhere said that he didn't comment upon other Upanishads because they were not PrAmANik.

I nowhere claimed such a thing, this is a straw man argument.



There are 108 Upanishads which have been considered to be "main" Upanishads (this also has come from one of the main Upanishads i.e. Muktika Upanishad). The Upanishad I quoted is one of them.

I am well aware of this fact. I own copies of quite a few of them. I already gave my reason why I couldn't comment on the text you quoted from;



I don't study the others because they don't have commentaries; their meanings will be cryptic to me, since I don't have a teacher, so I personally choose not to study them (though I do own a few). It would be rude of me to comment on texts from them if I have not studied them myself- my opinion would be of no relevance.

Please do not try to infer or imply from my comments that I only consider mukyha Upanishads as authentic. I never said such a thing, and nor do I even know what 'authentic' means in this context. I don't study the other Upanishads because I don't have a teacher and those texts do not have commentaries- the Upanishads are difficult to understand without either, so I would not presume to speak on them.


Back on topic;




First of all, the Vedas including Samhita, Brahmana & Upanishads are apparently not consistent on these issues :

a) Whether there was a creation at all
b) Whether there was non-existence to begin with or existence to begin with
if there was a Creation


Yes, I'm well aware of this.



Why ?

I take the view that the Vedas give different answers depending on the level of one's intellect. Those who hold on to the idea of a creation understand the texts speaking of creation in a primary sense. Those who believe that something can come from nothing will likewise read the relevant texts in a primary sense, also. If we wish to extract one consistent idea from the Vedas (such as, for example, non-duality), then it is perfectly reasonable to interpret some texts in a primary sense, and others in a secondary sense; that way we avoid the inconsistencies that we find if we read the whole Veda on its face.

That is why I followed Shankara's interpretation of the Taittiriya verse to suggest that the text is not speaking of non-existence in the primary sense, but in a secondary sense; as non-manifested. This way, the text does not contradict the other texts which say that everything was Sat in the beginning, and which describe Brahman, a positive entity, as the cause of creation, or which argue logically against non-existence as a cause (such as the Chandogya verse).



You have to go deep into the making of mental concepts of Nothing, Something and Everything to understand what I am saying. If you see from that perspective ... there is no inconsistency in any of the Upanishads.

This is precisely what I am doing. A literal reading provides contradictions, a deeper interpretation avoids them.

My whole point in posting in this thread, again, is to point out that the non-existence posited by certain cosmologists cannot be squared with non-existence in the sense being given by the Upanishads; why? Because Brahman exists- therefore, it is not non-existence in the same sense spoken of by others. Just as Yajvan has said that even the vacuum has Brahman, pure existence, for its substratum, so to do the Upanishads say it, and therefore, this is not the same as what the scientists are saying. To further illustrate, I am quoting from the Brahma Sutra Bhashya;



26. Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.

Existence does not come out of non-existence. If something can come out of nothing, then it becomes useless to refer to special kinds of causes, since non-existence as such is indistinguishable everywhere...Moreover non-existence cannot be the source of anything, precisely because it is non-existent like the hare's horn etc. Were existence to arise out of non-existence, all the effects would be imbued with non-existence...Accordingly since nothing that actually exists is seen to result from nonentities like the horn of a hare etc. and since it is seen that from existing things like gold etc. originate existing things like necklace etc., the assertion of something coming out of nothing cannot be substantiated.-B.S.B- II.ii.26

Shankara here soundly refutes the idea that 'nothing becomes everything', and thus proves that a literal interpretation of Vedic texts such as the Taittiriya verse is unjustified, and a secondary meaning has to be sought. The Upanishads themselves (Chandogya) refute the idea that existence can come from non-existence, so the other texts must be interpreted in the way that Shankara reads them; from the unmanifested comes the manifested.

It is completely illogical, as the Brahma-Sutra explains, to suggest that existence arises from non-existence, since Brahman exists and is uncaused. As you have said, one must resort to a deeper understanding of 'non-existence'; it has to be qualified so that it is no longer taken in the literal sense in the way that the buddhists or cosmologists are suggesting. For that reason, we should not and need not rely on the speculation of their ideas.


To repeat;



The cosmologists stop at pure space- they cannot go further, because that is the extent of the objective world, and the instruments of science. They stop at the absolute negation of all existence, like some of the buddhists do. Vedānta refutes that idea in such texts as the Chandogya which asks 'by what logic can existence come from non-existence?' and Shankara says 'Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing'. Does everything come from nothing, then? No.

devotee
29 October 2011, 11:34 AM
You have very strong views, Ananda ! I bow out here. :)

OM

Ananda
29 October 2011, 11:59 AM
Hello devotee,


Thank you for the exchange.




:)

yajvan
29 October 2011, 12:41 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Once one experiences nothing, then there is a better appreciation for the conversation at hand.

But is that possible ? Yes. When one goes to bed and total forgetfulness ( deep sleep) perfect tamas is in play , one is within the field of nothingness. But the pickle is, can one experience it. If one said I experienced it, then it would not have been deep sleep, as this state is the absense of every-thing - even the world does not exist.
So the only way to experience this nothingness is while awake. Perfect deep silence can be experienced and is possible to be aware of. This is śūnyatā शून्यता ' adding nothing'.


If I may let me extend this idea just a bit for those that take interest in this idea ( and for those that may have had this experience).

This śūnyatā शून्यता is emptiness , loneliness , desolateness; it can also be used for absence of mind , vacancy; we know it as nothingness , non-existence.

Now śūnya शून्य also means empty , void. Why bring this up ? Because it (śūnya) gets us to śūnyī... śūnyī = śūnya. Why care? Due to the fact it brings us to its root (√) kṛ . This kṛ has a list of meanings - yet one is 'to cause to get rid of , free from' - getting rid of is obviously 'emptying' and we can see the fit.

Let's go a little further. śūna शून- (neuter gender) is 'emptiness' , yet also comes the meaning of a 'swollen state' . This śū ( sometimes written as śvā) is rooted in śvi which means to swell , grow , increase ' to swell much'.

If we look at the path of words we have just been on we see śū to śvi - to swell much ; we see the influence of śūnyī = śūnya rooted in kṛ 'to cause to get rid of to be free from' . We bring this together we can see this 'swelling' to the extent of 'getting rid of ' that brings us to emptiness or śūnyatā, the ultimate 'getting rid of' to the exent of swelling to pure emptiness.


praṇām

Tikkun Olam
04 November 2011, 09:12 AM
I think this has been a fascinating topic of conversation for people especially in the last 50 years (when the Big Bang was accepted).

Existence from nothing, no "thing", or something?

(It used to be accepted by science that everything always existed as it is now, but at least that much we know is false.)

I'd like to quote an unusual commentator on this subject. Unusual because he wasn't alive during these discoveries! I'm talking about Issac Newton who described the mathematics of calculus and the universe. He believed that his science would be the end of atheism (that's one thing he was wrong about). He argued, three hundred years before the Big Bang Theory, that his worked necessarily concluded that mathematics and the universe must have had an abstract creator behind them.

I will just quote his wiki page because I'm tired now, but you can find an endless analysis on this if you're interested;


For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.

...

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#cite_note-Tiner-5) This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#cite_note-Principia.2C_Book_III_1953-1)
...
Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#cite_note-11"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#cite_note-18)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

Isaac Newton knew this almost four hundred years ago. The rest of the scientific community, who have followed his scientific framework, have ironically, disregarded these explanations until now. Maybe it is the nature of science to come up with every other possible explanation, but it seems like they are running out of options!

devotee
04 November 2011, 11:20 PM
Namaste Yajvan,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Once one experiences nothing, then there is a better appreciation for the conversation at hand.

But is that possible ? Yes. When one goes to bed and total forgetfulness ( deep sleep) perfect tamas is in play , one is within the field of nothingness. But the pickle is, can one experience it. If one said I experienced it, then it would not have been deep sleep, as this state is the absense of every-thing - even the world does not exist.
So the only way to experience this nothingness is while awake. Perfect deep silence can be experienced and is possible to be aware of. This is śūnyatā शून्यता ' adding nothing'.


If I may let me extend this idea just a bit for those that take interest in this idea ( and for those that may have had this experience).

This śūnyatā शून्यता is emptiness , loneliness , desolateness; it can also be used for absence of mind , vacancy; we know it as nothingness , non-existence.

Now śūnya शून्य also means empty , void. Why bring this up ? Because it (śūnya) gets us to śūnyī... śūnyī = śūnya. Why care? Due to the fact it brings us to its root (√) kṛ . This kṛ has a list of meanings - yet one is 'to cause to get rid of , free from' - getting rid of is obviously 'emptying' and we can see the fit.

Let's go a little further. śūna शून- (neuter gender) is 'emptiness' , yet also comes the meaning of a 'swollen state' . This śū ( sometimes written as śvā) is rooted in śvi which means to swell , grow , increase ' to swell much'.

If we look at the path of words we have just been on we see śū to śvi - to swell much ; we see the influence of śūnyī = śūnya rooted in kṛ 'to cause to get rid of to be free from' . We bring this together we can see this 'swelling' to the extent of 'getting rid of ' that brings us to emptiness or śūnyatā, the ultimate 'getting rid of' to the exent of swelling to pure emptiness.


praṇām

The concept of Sunyata or emptiness is a relative status within a concept of space. Without having a mental framework of space ... we can never think of Nothingness. We all know that this universe is expanding beyond its limits. What is there beyond this universe into which this universe grows ? That must be space.

Now, can we say that emptiness beyond the boundaries of this universe is really empty ? No. This emptiness is full of space. Where is this space located ? Does it have any boundary ? .... if that has any boundary then it must be covered by another space ... so that leads to endless regression. Why do we get stuck here ? ... because of our mental limitations to conceive the concept of Infinite.

The Space which is emptiness is the mother of everything, that is Infinite and that is Self/Brahman.

OM

yajvan
05 November 2011, 11:23 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté devotee


Namaste Yajvan,
The Space which is emptiness is the mother of everything, that is Infinite and that is Self/Brahman. OM

There is no doubt that the infinite is an expression of brahman. Yet there is a fine line between space and brahman. Brahman gives rise to space, so say the upaniṣad-s. Hence brahman is subtler then space.

praṇām

wundermonk
05 November 2011, 03:11 PM
Very interesting exchange between Ananda and devotee. I seem to find myself in Ananda's corner on this one.

I dont know if this commentary from Shankara's Bhashya was quoted thus far, but Shankara does go into great pains reconciling the conflicting verses on existence vs. non-existence in BSB 1.4.15 (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-4-04.html). Quoting from there:


The Sankhyas raise another objection. They say: There is a conflict with reference to the first cause, because some texts declare that the Self created these worlds (Ait. Ar. II-4-1-2-3). Some Vedanta passages declare that creation originated from non-existence (Tait. II-7). Again in some passages existence is taught as the First Cause (Chh. Up. VI-1-2). Some Srutis speak of spontaneous creation. It cannot be said that the Srutis refer to Brahman uniformly as the First Cause owing to the conflicting statements of the Vedanta texts.

The Siddhantin gives the following reply. We read in the Tait. Up. II-7 "This was indeed non-existence in the beginning." Non-existence here does not mean absolute non-existence. It means undifferentiated existence. In the beginning existence was undifferentiated into name and form. Taittriya Upanishad says "He who knows Brahman as non-existing becomes himself non-existing. He who knows Brahman as existing, him we know himself as existing" Tait. Up. II-6. It is further elaborated by means of the series of sheaths viz., the sheath of food etc. represented as the inner self of everything. This same Brahman is again referred to in the clause. He wished 'May I be many'. This clearly intimates that Brahman created the whole universe.

The term 'Being' ordinarily denotes that which is differentiated by means and forms. The term 'Non-being' denotes the same substance previous to its differentiation. Brahman is called 'Non-being' previously to the origination of the world in a secondary sense.

We read in Chh. Up. VI-2-2 "How can that which is created from non-existence be?" This clearly denies such a possibility.

"Now this was then undeveloped" (Bri. Up. I-4-7) does not by any means assert that the evolution of the world took place without a ruler, because it is connected with another passage where it is said, "He has entered here to the very tips of the finger-nails" (Bri. Up. I-4-7). 'He' refers to the Ruler. Therefore we have to take that the Lord, the Ruler, developed what was undeveloped.

Another scriptural text also describes that the evolution of the world took place under the superintendence of a Ruler. "Let me now enter these beings with this loving Self, and let me then evolve names and forms" Chh. Up. VI-3-2.

Although there is a reaper it is said "The corn-field reaps itself." It is said also "The village is being approached." Here we have to supply "by Devadatta or somebody else."

Brahman is described in one place as existence. In another place it is described as the Self of all. Therefore it is a settled conclusion that all Vedanta texts uniformly point to Brahman as the First Cause. Certainly there is no conflict on this point.

Even in the passage that declares Asat i.e. non-being to be the cause there is a reference to Sat i.e. Being. Even the text that describes Asat as the Causal force ends by referring to Sat.

The doubt about the meaning of a word or passage can be removed by reference to its connection with a distant passage in the same text, for such connection is found to exist in the different passages of Sruti. The exact meaning of such words as 'Asat' which means non-entity, apparently, 'Avyakrita' which means apparently non-manifest Pradhana of Sankhya, is thus ascertained to be Brahman. Compare the Srutis: "He desired, I will be many I will manifest myself" Tait. Up. II-6-2. The meaning of the word Asat of the second passage is ascertained to be Brahman by reference to the first passage where the same question namely the state of the universe before creation is answered in a clearer way.

The meaning of the word Avyakrita in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I-4-7 in the passage (thus therefore, that was the undifferentiated) is ascertained to be the Brahman as still undeveloped by a reference to the passage (the same is pervading all through and through down to the tips of the nails of the fingers and the toes). Avyaka is recognised in the last passage more clearly by the words 'Sa esha' (the same-self one).

The Pradhana of the Sankhyas does not find a place anywhere in the passages which treat about the cause of the world. The words 'Asat' 'Avyakrita' also denote Brahman only.

The word 'Asat' refers to Brahman which is the subject under discussion in the previous verse. Before the creation, the distinction of names and forms did not exist. Brahman also then did not exist in the sense that He was not connected with names and forms. As he has then no name and form, he is said to be Asat or non-existent.

The word 'Asat' cannot mean matter or non-being, because in this very passage we find that the description given of it can apply only to Brahman.

Brahman is not 'Asat' in the literal meaning of that word. The seer of the Upanishad uses it in a sense totally distinct from its ordinary denotation.

Ananda
06 November 2011, 02:35 AM
Hello wundermonk,





Brahman is not 'Asat' in the literal meaning of that word. The seer of the Upanishad uses it in a sense totally distinct from its ordinary denotation.


Thank you for bringing this passage to our attention, I overlooked it; it seems to be saying the same thing that I have said in this thread, only much more succintly.




:)

devotee
06 November 2011, 08:24 AM
Namaste Yajvan,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté devotee



There is no doubt that the infinite is an expression of brahman. Yet there is a fine line between space and brahman. Brahman gives rise to space, so say the upaniṣad-s. Hence brahman is subtler then space.

praṇām





Brhaman gives rise to space ... exactly ! Now, if we go to the second step, the space has name when there are things within space. So, we say that where there is no-thing ... there is nothing ... i.e. we indirectly refer to the space. Space can be referred to with no name or form in absence of things.

So, the space or nothingness arises from Self/Brahman. This Avyakta or unmanifest is perceived as "nothingness" and that is what Taitriya Upanishad says when it says, "In the beginning there was Asat alone". This Asat is not absence of Brahman but absence of manifest ... i.e. absence of the things. Again the Upanishad says that from Asat Sat came into being. So, it simply says that from the Unmanifest arose this manifested universe.

Thus there is no error/fault in the Upanishad's assertion that "From Asat alone Sat came into being". There is a logical explanation to it too. If there was a creation ... then there must be "nothingness" to begin with otherwise there was no creation ever ! If there was ever a creation, every-thing must come from the unmanifest i.e. Nothingness or the Asat. Taitriya doesn't say that there was absence of Brahman to begin with. It simply says that in the begining it was Asat.

We cannot say that as there always was Brahman to begin with ... there was always Sat to start with. No. Then it would violate this, "That (Brahman) is called neither Sat nor Asat" (Bhagwad Gita).

Namaste Wundermonk,

What I am trying to say all along in this thread is again given above. I hope it helps.

OM

devotee
06 November 2011, 08:41 AM
Namaste Tikkun,


I think this has been a fascinating topic of conversation for people especially in the last 50 years (when the Big Bang was accepted).

Existence from nothing, no "thing", or something?

(It used to be accepted by science that everything always existed as it is now, but at least that much we know is false.)

I'd like to quote an unusual commentator on this subject. Unusual because he wasn't alive during these discoveries! I'm talking about Issac Newton who described the mathematics of calculus and the universe. He believed that his science would be the end of atheism (that's one thing he was wrong about). He argued, three hundred years before the Big Bang Theory, that his worked necessarily concluded that mathematics and the universe must have had an abstract creator behind them.

I will just quote his wiki page because I'm tired now, but you can find an endless analysis on this if you're interested;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views

Isaac Newton knew this almost four hundred years ago. The rest of the scientific community, who have followed his scientific framework, have ironically, disregarded these explanations until now. Maybe it is the nature of science to come up with every other possible explanation, but it seems like they are running out of options!

The presence of intelligence within this state of Universe doesn't prove existence of a God by default. It just proves that this whole seemingly dumb universe including the atoms, the planets, Stars & the space covering all this creation ... is running under some intelligence system or this everything is Intelligence itself.

If we consider that God is a separate being from this creation & God's intelligence is behind all this systematic design and running of the universe ... it becomes an easy route ... but it still leaves the basic question unanswered. Our assumption that for an intelligent system to be created there must be an intelligent mind ... there must be another intelligent mind to create that intelligent mind and that would lead us to an endless regression. So, why not stop at the self-sufficient intelligent system itself ? Can't there be a possibility that this whole Universe is the self-sustained intelligent system ... it creates itself ... it runs itself as per some definite rules and it destroys itself when there is time for destruction ?

By theory we cannot prove existence of God or even absence of it. God has to be realised ... many have realised God in the past and we too can do it ... this is what Hinduism says. There is no need of a prophet or anything to be the mediator between universe & the Creator ... once reality dawns upon you ... you don't need a third person to tell you what the Truth is.

That is the difference between Hindu's understanding of the Reality and that of the Abrahimic religions.

OM

Tikkun Olam
10 November 2011, 04:47 PM
Namaste Tikkun,



The presence of intelligence within this state of Universe doesn't prove existence of a God by default. It just proves that this whole seemingly dumb universe including the atoms, the planets, Stars & the space covering all this creation ... is running under some intelligence system or this everything is Intelligence itself.

If we consider that God is a separate being from this creation & God's intelligence is behind all this systematic design and running of the universe ... it becomes an easy route ... but it still leaves the basic question unanswered. Our assumption that for an intelligent system to be created there must be an intelligent mind ... there must be another intelligent mind to create that intelligent mind and that would lead us to an endless regression. So, why not stop at the self-sufficient intelligent system itself ? Can't there be a possibility that this whole Universe is the self-sustained intelligent system ... it creates itself ... it runs itself as per some definite rules and it destroys itself when there is time for destruction ?

By theory we cannot prove existence of God or even absence of it. God has to be realised ... many have realised God in the past and we too can do it ... this is what Hinduism says. There is no need of a prophet or anything to be the mediator between universe & the Creator ... once reality dawns upon you ... you don't need a third person to tell you what the Truth is.

That is the difference between Hindu's understanding of the Reality and that of the Abrahimic religions.

OM

Imagine that you're at your computer (well, I guess you are when you read this). You open up The Sims, and to those bits inside the program, YOU are God. You created them, you are more complex than them, yet they can't see you. But that doesn't mean they can deduce anything about you or where you came from. So it is with the God of our universe, of humanity.

We don't know everything about God, for sure. We do claim that He is in some sense, a universal divinity. While we often try to understand God in humanistic ways (as in me calling God a "Him" earlier, even though He's not literally a Him!), He has no personal qualities as such.

I can claim that God is this divinity, this underlying complex force that was here before the creation of the universe, but not the same thing as the universe. Indeed, the latter is impossible. We can mathematically disprove it- there is no such thing as a universal set, assuming so much only results in paradoxes. For an informal explanation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_set_theory#Universal_sets_and_absolute_complements

The only thing that I cannot claim is that the Creator of this universe is not actually a part of another universe. That's the only thing we don't know for sure. What's the step above us? But the point is that it doesn't matter. Even if there ARE other universes, all created by different gods, then ours was still created by one, and we have to live inside the bounds of our universe anyway, so speculating about others doesn't help.


And, to set the record straight, my religion makes a distinction between "believing" and "knowing". We are not supposed to just believe, we are not supposed to just have faith; we are commanded to know. That's our very first commandment, in fact. Why the emphasis on knowing, how is that a commandment? Because it is an action, a life long conscious act of perusing knowledge in order to understand our universe (and our Creator) better. That's why we have written so many books, the pursuit of knowledge.

brahman
11 November 2011, 05:36 AM
Dear Members,

Before appearing as pots, they simply existed as clay, with potential to assume the form of pots already hidden. Such potential existence of an effect in its cause is NOT nothingness; this ‘nothingness’ is an anterior non-existence (prag abhava).

As the anterior non existence of the pot was already there in the clay, so is the anterior non- existence of ‘everything’ already existing in Brahman.

Suppose the clay its own assumes the form of pot, the same way the One casual reality self- manifesting as ‘everything’ with its inner indomitable urge for self -unfoldment.

So, if an actual creation had taken place at all, it’s merely an actualization of the potentials hidden in Brahman, as if in a dream (A dream had no beginning, nor will it cease to be; and will continue forever).

Though compared here to the emerging of the of pot, the emerging of ‘everything’ from the One casual reality is NOT to be treated as if having happened at any particular time, it really being a process that goes on begginglessly and endlessly.

There is no actual existence of Brahman(in perception) without its assuming form of the phenomenal world, like the water having no existence separate from waves and ocean, or gold having no existence separate from Ornaments.
This core fundamental fact of existence is put in Sri. Mad Gita as

”No sat exists without bhava(becoming), and no bhava is there without sat existing” 2:16


IMHO: its not "nothing becomes everything" but 'nothing' is everything


Post ultimately concludes that the One reality is an unthinkable and ineffable mystery.

Love:)


---For pondering--

yajvan
13 November 2011, 07:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Post ultimately concludes that the One reality is an unthinkable and ineffable mystery.
If I may let me offer an idea that was inspired by śrī siddharameśvara maharāj; my intent is to expand on the idea offered in this whole string on 'nothing' and perhaps extend the conversation a bit more - it is not a challange or disagreement with any ideas offered, but to look at the subject from a different angle.


There is this wonderful tattva called ākāśa ( pure unblemished space). We note it has no shape, no form and the only quality we can say it has is emptiness, nothing-ness, some would say it is quality-less. Of all these things that it is not, it is still conceivable and we can say that it exists.

Lets extend this to ourselves... we sleep yet there is no direct experience of deep sleep. If there was we say we are not asleep.
So there is a time every evening we too enter into this nothing-ness, yet one still exists.

So when we come to this notion of brahman we are wisely told it is beyond our ability of comprehension - of this I have no doubt, yet we have clues, flavors or a ~scent~ of what this brahman may be. Hence many give the name Supreme Being - and rightly so. Yet there is a tendency for 'humans' to conclude that 'being' means some entity, some form, some devatā-like entity.
We just need to shift our awareness just a bit on this. The notion of Supreme means unsurpassable , we call anuttara. Now this 'being' means existence Itself , that is objectless existence - this is existence at its highest - without the slightest constraint, boundry or mathmatical definiton. Yet since I have been able to put it some framework of words , so it too is like the notion of space aforementioned, it is conceivable.


Yet what is the difference here ? Supreme Being is not and cannot become an object of the senses. It is outside of their realm. This Supreme Being is just like space... it is not, yet we know that It is. Well how do we know ?
It is offered to us within our śāstra-s. It is also a direct personal and profound experience of the greatest muni's that offer their wisdom to us. This Being is sublter then consciousness itself and has taken on the name of pure consciousness ( my teacher has said it is pure intelligence). When this Supreme Being vibrates ( another way of saying It is aware of Itself) then consciousness comes into existence and thus begins the manifesting unfoldment of the objective world. There is a ripple in this objectless pure Being and existence begins to unfold ; never once taking up ( using up or consuming) one iota of this Being in any way. This is why it is Supreme.

praṇām

brahman
15 November 2011, 04:57 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

There is a ripple in this objectless pure Being and existence begins to unfold ; never once taking up ( using up or consuming) one iota of this Being in any way. This is why it is Supreme.[/FONT][/SIZE]

praṇām








Dear Yajvan et al.


Exactly, This is why it is Supreme.

I would gladly share few more insights to this beautifully rendered thread.

ākāśa being empty, nothing, quality- less etc is a scientific knowledge; a scientist with required astronomical devices can clarify it; though the Shruthis proclaim this knowledge.

Brahman being unsurpassable, anuttara, existence itself, is objectless existence, existence at its highest, without the slightest constraint, boundary or mathematical definition, is not a scientific knowledge but a vision-दर्शन.

This vision has been orally bestowed on us through generations by seers as sabda pramana; which each individual has to realize inorder to attain Jnana.

If not, this conceivable (shruti-hearing) knowledge remains a Vidya.

As the paramanas(valid means of knowledge), being of the nature of conditioned perceptions, have validity only in the field of conditioned knowledge, All pramanas are valid until the final certitude of the self is attained, as explicitly stated by seers and gurus.

Transcendental knowledge is neither subjective nor objective, though in the instant of every cognition, subject and object are united and thus, realized as one; it is still an unthinkable and ineffable mystery.

Love:)

wundermonk
19 November 2011, 10:12 PM
Story here (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-19/science/30418928_1_vacuum-dce-photons).


Scientists claim to have produced particles of light out of vacuum, proving that space is not empty.

An international team says that its experiment in which tiny parcels of light, or photons, are produced out of empty space has confirmed that a vacuum contains quantum fluctuations of energy, the Nature journal reported.

Creatio ex nihilo [producing something out of nothing] seems empirically unprovable.

yajvan
10 December 2011, 06:36 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


More on space, from NOVA . This just aired on television last month.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-space

A 3 part series.



praṇām

yajvan
11 December 2011, 11:20 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~



More on space, from NOVA . This just aired on television last month.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-space
A 3 part series.
The first installment of this NOVA program called 'What is space' takes a great look at ākāśa ( space ); it is the 1st time I have seen this type of attention given to this most noble tattva.
Just excellent!

praṇām

Mana
11 December 2011, 12:10 PM
Namaste yajvan,

Thank you for highlighting this, I believe that I have read his book of the same name; it will be nice to watch this now.
Science today and The visions of the ancient science of the vedas and Upanishads, appear so self similar that it is breath taking; beautiful.

This fills me with hope for the future.

praNAma

mana