The Material Cause...

[sarabhanga]

There's no evidence that space is ever created or destroyed or transformed in any manner.

Namaste Suresh,

See: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...4591#post14591

[suresh]

But the universe is pratyaksha. Distinct minds are pratayksha -- this forum itself is a proof. Then how this variegated thing is explained in the light of intentless uniform-nirguna Brahman.

Surely, uniform-nirguna Brahman requires no instruction of Gita.



But we surely see the reflection only and not Brahman. An unreal thing never was and never will be.

If only Nirguna Brahman was seen as it is, then there would be no teacher and no student. The fact is that Samaan Brahman is not seen as it is. Why?


Om

Namaste Atanu,

Your questions are based on the supposition that the unreal, being non-existent at all times, cannot be an object of pratyaksha. But this isn't true, the unreal can be perceived, as in the case of a snake superimposed on the rope. But just because the snake becomes an object of perception, does it make the snake real? On the contrary, the snake has been non-existent at all times, even though pratyaksha points to the exact opposite.

Even as an object of pratyaksha, the snake was unreal, non-existent. It's not as if the snake became unreal, only after the rope was perceived, and until then, it was real. No, it was unreal, even when it happened to be within the field of pratyaksha. Likewise, even as an object of pratyaksha, the world is unreal.

Bottom line, pratyaksha is no evidence of an object's existence, otherwise, there may be no distinction at all between truth and false. Since both are perceived, one can reason that truth and false are both true! And that, needless to say, is a logical contradiction.

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

-- Likewise, even as an object of pratyaksha, the world is unreal.

Namaste Suresh,

Of course. It will depend on what you mean by unreal: Asat-non-existence or Mithya-illusion. If the world is Asat, then we should not have to shout and remind others that the world is unreal. Why the sense of unreality at all? That has not been answered till now. Even the strong teachers fail to remember that the world is unreal when faced with personal trouble. And if Brahman alone is Sat and all else Asat then whom you wish to wake up with lion's roar?

We are going round and round and it may be better to rest the matter here, if unreal world is Asat, as per you.

Om

[Bob G]

Hello Sarabhanga,

“The world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.” #1. My words only.

explained only by, #2...Not exactly or perhaps not at all depending one's own interpretation or pov which is why I said: "But that is my opinion only and of my interpretation only, thus I also see the saying below as standing on its own for others to interpret as they will or seek further information and or clairfication from the Hindu Lineage related to same".

“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.” Siva Yogaswami.

Below are your extrapolations:
#1. So I assume that “the world” is “everywhere and everything”, and that “truth” is “the realization of god”, and that “falsehood” is “ignorance of god”, and that “correct understanding” is “seeing god in manifestation”, and that “incorrect understanding” is “not seeing god in manifestation”.

Several of your quotes in the paragraph above have word changes from the originals and thus are not quotes but a paraphrasing done in your own words.

And thus,

#2. “Everywhere and everything, if not regarded as the manifestation of god, is ignorance of god; and everywhere and everything, if regarded as the manifestation of god, is the realization of god.”

More paraphrasing above which could more or less be ok but why the quotation marks as if putting words in my mouth or in modification of the Satguru's saying, which I originally and only quoted word for word? (along with my preface to same in brown text #2, listed earlier)

#3. Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood.

Not in pov, ... but apparently the extrapolation you suggest above in #3, is known to be contrary to that of a professed followers of Sankara; (correct?) and is also apparently something that would give you pleasure to refute...(?) thus it seems to me that you have found a way to create same out of my post to serve the purposes of such.

[sarabhanga]

Another pov: the world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.

“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.”

What allows the native or sadhu to see the world correctly?

What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ???

My pov is that the saying below alludes to answers to your questions listed above.

“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.”

“The world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.”

explained only by,

“God is in everyone. See Him there. God is overwhelmingly present everywhere. Regard everything as a manifestation of God, and you will realize the Truth.”

“The world, if understood incorrectly is false, the world, if understood correctly is true.” My words only.

Not exactly [explained] or perhaps not at all [explained] depending one’s own interpretation or pov.

So far, not explained at all!

So I assume that “the world” is “everywhere and everything”, and that “truth” is “the realization of god”, and that “falsehood” is “ignorance of god”, and that “correct understanding” is “seeing god in manifestation”, and that “incorrect understanding” is “not seeing god in manifestation”.

And thus,

“Everywhere and everything, if not regarded as the manifestation of god, is ignorance of god; and everywhere and everything, if regarded as the manifestation of god, is the realization of god.”

Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood. (?)

Several of your quotes in the paragraph above have word changes from the originals and thus are not quotes but a paraphrasing done in your own words.

Inverted commas are not only used for quotations, and any changes were made for purely grammatical reasons. And my extrapolation began with “I assume that” and finished with a bold question mark, so your complaint of “not quotes but a paraphrasing done in your own words” is pointless.

The original question (regarding your own interpretation of your own words) remains unanswered.

What do you mean by “the world”, and what do you mean by “false” and “true”, and what do you mean by “correct understanding” and “incorrect understanding” ???

Apparently the extrapolation you suggest is known to be contrary to that of a professed followers of Sankara; (correct?) and is also apparently something that would give you pleasure to refute...(?) thus it seems to me that you have found a somewhat clever way to create same out of my post to serve your purposes for such.

Since you have refused to clarify your original words, I can only assume that your intention was to provoke ~ or perhaps you have no idea what you were talking about.

[Bob G]

predictable.

[atanu]

From the gauDapAda kArikA (first chapter):

-Other creation-theorists, on the other hand, consider creation to be the manifestation of puruSa; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion. [7]

Creation is due to just the will of the lord – so think others who are quite convinced of their being a creation; the time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from time. [8]

Creation is for the sake of enjoyment of the lord – so say others; for the sake of sport – so say still others. This again is the very nature of god – so say others, arguing ‘what possible desire can there be in the case of the lord, whose cravings are already fulfilled?’ [9]

-

Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji,

I am a bit surprised by this particular translation (the portion marked with red letters above), as if Gaudapda is denying the svabhAva. Will you be kind enough to let me know the source of this translation?

The standard Advaita translation of the verse is as below:

(Analysis of Creation Theories)
I-6. It is a settled fact that coming into being can be said only of positive entities that exist. Prana creates all; and Purusha creates the conscious beings separately.
I-7. Those who think of creation hold it as the manifestation of God's power; while others regard creation as same as dream and illusion.
I-8. Creation is the mere will of the Lord, say those who thought out well the (process of) creation, but those who rely upon time hold that the birth of beings is from time.
I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?

The above is also reflected in the discussion on the subject in Advaita site as quoted below:

From Advaita Vedanta site

Moreover, the very metaphor of the alAtacakra is a peculiarly buddhist one. The alAtacakra is a burning firebrand that is waved in a circle, creating an impression of a continuous circle of fire. It is interesting to note here that gauDapAda characteristically inverts the use of the buddhist metaphor. The buddhist uses the metaphor to insist that the impression of a continuous circle is an illusion, there being nothing more than the momentary spatial positions of the burning brand. Hence, from the buddhist prespective, it is plainly an error to see the burning circle as having any svabhAva - "own-nature". gauDapAda on the other hand points out that the burning brand is itself the substratum of its momentary spatial positions and the illusion of a burning circle caused by waving the brand. Hence, according to him, even if the burning circle is an illusion, its svabhAva is nothing other than that of the burning brand.

One may check the original in the Gaudapada page on Advaita.org.com.


http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html#ajati
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html

From Sarabhanga
prakRti is “the original or natural form or condition of anything , the cause or original source, origin, extraction, nature, character, constitution, disposition, fundamental form, pattern, standard, model, or rule”. And prakRti (as mAyA) is distinct from puruSa (as brahma).

Do you hold that prakRti itself is mAyA?

Regards

Om

[Bob G]

"And thus,

“Everywhere and everything, if not regarded as the manifestation of god, is ignorance of god; and everywhere and everything, if regarded as the manifestation of god, is the realization of god.”

Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood. (?)

an Upanisahd if you will?

1. 'To him who sees, perceives, and understands this, the spirit
(prana) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory
springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and
disappearance, food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration,
will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this
springs from the Self.

2. 'There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor
illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains
everything everywhere.
'"He is one (before creation), he becomes three (fire, water, earth),
he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is
called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty."

[atanu]

"And thus,
-
Which seems to suggest that jAtivAda is the ultimate truth, and that ajAtivAda can only be ignorance of god and falsehood. (?)


an Upanisahd if you will?

1. 'To him who sees, perceives, and understands this, the spirit
(prana) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory
springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and
disappearance, food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration,
will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this
springs from the Self.

2. 'There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor
illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains
everything everywhere.
'"He is one (before creation), he becomes three (fire, water, earth),
he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is
called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty."

Namaste Bob,

Thank you for the nice quotes.

Yet what you quote, i.e. 'To him who sees, perceives, and understands this----' is realisation of Atman. This realisation is not devoid of the following experience (Mandukya):

prapancopaSamam - that Saman into which the world is resolved, and
ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram - the essence of cognition of the One Atman.

In the turIya state, there is no more external world perceived as separate from oneself. The "oneself" that was previously talked about doesn't exist anymore, and the world external to this "oneself" also does not exist anymore. Only the One Atman remains. It is ajAti. One Atman, the one and only Reality.

'Springs from Atman' does not mean some material springing out. The Atman is transcendental ever one, uncreated and not a creator, since it merely sees various non-volitional effects such as Prana etc., as objects of its own nature-consciousness.
--------------------------------

What I wished to indicate was that with differentiated world held as a truth (even as effect of God), the prapancopaSamam and ekAtma-pratyaya-sAram will never be realised. The same Upanishads, from which you have cited, also say that 'only the Atman should be meditated upon' and 'there is no difference in it'.

Regards,

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

The conclusion of shrI gauDapAda is clearly stated:

“No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists. This [is] that highest truth where nothing whatsoever is born. [III.48, IV.71]

Verses 6-9, however, describe various views of creation according to the “creation-theorists”. And all such views presuppose that there must be a prabhava (“source, origin, cause of existence, creator”) for all that exists ~ “There must be some origin of all entities that exist. This is the well considered conclusion.”

prabhavaH sarvabhAvAnAM satAmiti vinishcayaH |
sarvaM janayati prANashcetoMshUnpuruSaH |6|

vibhUtiM prasavaM tvanye manyante sRSTicintakAH |
svapnamAyAsarUpeti sRSTiranyairvikalpitA |7|

icchAmAtraM prabhoH sRSTiriti sRSTau vinishcitAH |
kAlAtprasUtiM bhUtAnAM manyante kAlacintakAH |8|

bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo'yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|

[There must be some] origin of all entities that exist ~ this [is] the well considered conclusion. prANa creates all, puruSa [creates] the rays of the mind (i.e. individual souls) separate [from one another]. [6]

Other creation-theorists, on the other hand, consider creation [to be] the manifestation [of puruSa]; creation is imagined by others as having the same nature as dream and illusion. [7]

Creation [is due to] just the will of the lord ~ so [think others who are] quite convinced of [there being a] creation; the time-theorists consider the creation of beings as from time. [8]

Creation [is] for the sake of enjoyment [of the lord] ~ so [say] others; for the sake of sport ~ so [say] still others. This again [is] the [very] nature of god ~ [so say others, arguing] ‘what possible desire [can there be in the case] of [the lord], whose cravings are [already] fulfilled?’ [9]

prANavAda, puruSavAda, vibhUtivAda, svapnamAyAvAda, icchAvAda, kAlavAda, bhogavAda, krIDAvAda, and svabhAvavAda, are all refuted as avidyA resulting from mAyA.

bhogavAda (asserting creation for divine enjoyment) and krIDAvAda (asserting creation for divine sport) are both refuted by svabhAvavAda (asserting creation as divine nature).

svabhAvavAda considers that it is the svabhAva (“own condition or state of being, natural state or constitution, innate or inherent disposition, nature, impulse”) of the lord to create.

svabhAvavAda argues that the lord, being AptakAma (“satisfied”) cannot have any desire or purpose in creation, which is only his lIlA (cf. brahmasUtra 2.1.33).

lokavat (“as seen in the world”) tu (“but”) lIlAkaivalyam (“mere pastime”).

“Even as kings without any motive behind are seen to engage in acts for mere pastime, or even as men breathe without purpose, for it is their very nature, or even as children play out of mere fun, so also brahman without any purpose engages itself in creating this world of diversity.”

prakRti is synonymous with prabhava (“cause”) and svabhAva (“nature”), and ajAtivAda regards all causes and conditions as mAyA.

Do you hold that prakRti itself is mAyA?

shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).

shrI means “to mix or mingle, to burn or diffuse light”.
shrI is “diffusing light or radiance”.
shrI is “power or distinction”.
And shrI is lakshmI.
shrI was produced at the churning of the ocean.
shrI is the consort of nArAyaNa viSNu.
shrI is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma.
shrI is shakti and prakRti.
viSNu mAya is “measuring or creating illusions”, and that mAyA is shrI lakshmI.
mAyA is “the shakti or power of viSNu”.
mAyA is “dvaitam or illusion”.
mAyA is “the source of manifestation”.
mAyA is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma and mRtyu.
And mAyA is the daughter of adharma and nirRti.

shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).

nara = sharva = sarva = prajñAna
nArAyaNa = bhava = sarveshvara = prAjñA

nara = ekapAda = sharva = sarva = paramAtman
nArAyaNa = sahasrapAda = bhava = sarvAÑga = sUtrAtman

nara = sharva = sarva = nirgarbha = brahmayoni = prajñAna = vijñAnaghana
nArAyaNa = bhava = sarveshvara = hiraNyagarbha = brahmabIja = prAjñA = prajñAghana

sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharva = anantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = dvaitAdvaitam = viSNumAya = bhava = nantva

sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharvAnantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = parAdvaita = sAdAshiva = bhavanantva

AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA
M = turya = brahma

AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA

M = turya = brahma

And the translation of Gaudapada Karikas has been given here mainly following R. D. Karmarkar (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute).

bhogArthaM sRSTirityanye krIDArthamiti cApare |
devasyaiSa svabhAvo’yamAptakAmasya kA spRhA |9|

Directly translated, without interpolation:

“Creation for the sake of enjoyment so others, for the sake of sport so still others.
This again the nature of the shining one, what possible desire of whose cravings are fulfilled?”

However, according to Swami Nikhilananda (Ramakrishna Mission):

“Others think that the manifestation is for the purpose of enjoyment (of god), while still others attribute it to mere diversion (on the part of god).
But it is the very nature of the effulgent being, (for) what other desire is possible for him whose desire is always in the state of fulfillment?”

The only difference is in translating “but it the nature” instead of “this again the nature”, and from the words alone both readings are correct; but, considering the full context of the kArikAs and shrI gauDapAda’s argument (and ultimate conclusion) of ajAtivAda, the latter translation (as explained above) seems more appropriate.

“The effulgent one” is the hiraNyagarbha (nArAyaNa), as the “creator” (prabhava or prabhU) who creates by his svabhAva ~ and all of this relates to prAjña and jAtivAda, not to the turya and ajAtivAda.

No creature whatever is born; no origination of it exists.
This that highest truth, where nothing whatsoever is born.