Dear Devotee,
IMHO
Originally Posted by
devotee
Namaste,
The Brahman is unchanging and indivisible. Mandukya Upanishad talks of Brahman being "Chatushpaad" ... that which has four parts. Now, that said, how can Brahman remain unchanging and indivisible ? Kathopanishad says that "The Self came from nothing and nothing comes from It. It is unborn, eternal and most ancient. It is not killed when the body is killed." (Kath. 2.18). Now, if nothing ever came from It (i.e the Brahman, the Self) then Brahman can't be the material cause of this universe. Moreover, as before and after creation Brahman remains unchanged, then also, Brahman being indivisible and unchanging can't be material cause of this universe.
OM
‘having created that entered into that’ - tat srishtva tadevanu pravisat (Taiterya 2:6)
‘then the self has entered into the body(up to the tip of the nail)- sa esha iha pravishtah (Brihadaranyaka 1:4:7)
‘having made an opening in the sutur of the skull itself, he entered through this door- sa ethameva seemanam vidaryiathaya dwara prapadyatha (Aitareya1:3:12)
... as expounds Shruti.
What should be the material cause for these noble creations
?
Originally Posted by
devotee
Namaste,
If we read MAndukya Upanishad carefully, it talks of all the four parts of Brahman/Self. However, when it talks of Turiya i.e. the fourth state, it says, "This is Self and this has to be known". If that is so, what happens to the three parts described earlier in the Upanishad ? Do they exist or they don't ? If they exist, why does MAndukya Upanishad says that Turiya is Self ignoring the first three states ?
OM
We treat Mandukya Upanishad more methodologically, sectioning it into three distinct refer-ences.
Mantra 1 to 2 is equated with, ‘Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma’ (all indeed is Brahman).
Rest of the Upanishad depicts how this ‘Sarvam’ or everything is to be assimilated and how it is to be equated with the syllable Aum. That is from 3- 7 we analyze what does the syllable aum denotes and connotes or the abhidheya side of it and then, 8-12 we analyze aum as a word or name or abhidhana.
Finally the seeker transcends both abhdhana-abhidheya duality and realizing the inseperable oneness of the two as Brahman itself by dialectical reasoning, which is in full agreement with that of the ‘a priori’ , Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma’.
It’s too early for me to answer it in detail as I am still learning the structural methodology of this Upanishad.
Originally Posted by
devotee
Namaste,
Here we go into the shelter of Vivarta vaad i.e. this universe actually is like illusory images and it has no real existence. But if that is truly so, then how does it act with so much consistency and intelligently ? How can an illusory image act with individuality and with intelligence of its own ?
OM
Even if all these are illusory appearances like water seen in a mirage as Vedanta sees it, there should be reality, a substratum, that makes these appearances possible, like the requirement of a 'mother-of-pearl' for the silver to appear.
Because it is Vivarta in Vedanta( the theory that the effect is merely an apparent transformation of its cause, like illusion), so there should be a cause underlying the appearance .
The cause here is nothing other than Brahman itself, so much consistent and intelligent as you put it.
MHO
Love
Bookmarks