Creation and Advaita !

[atanu]

I doubt if you ever understand the significance. In Avaita the Atman is partless and all 'parts' are mere illusions that exist due to the mAyA( only when mind exists). For a jnanin freed from mAyA, there can be no parts and no perception of these.

What you have said, that is, the world percieved as a part of the Atman is exactly a tenet of VA. If a jnAnin percieves the world it must be eternal. As I have mentioned, all neo advaitin versions of Advaita are nothing but pseudo VA. Shankara's is a more rigorous one.

Sudarshan,

I assume this post is for me.

I-12. Prajna knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that Turiya is ever the all seer.

I-13. The non-cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. Prajna is possessed of sleep of the nature of cause, whereas that sleep does not exist in Turiya.


I have posted these (Karika) in another post.


I may not comprehend anything, but you have extreme wrong conception of Maya of Advaita.

In Avaita the Atman is partless and all 'parts' are mere illusions that exist due to the mAyA( only when mind exists)

This is not what advaita says. Maya as a separate entity is non-existent in advaita. The ignorance is that "these objects are apart from me." and it is the nature of thoughts, which come out of Pragnya. The truth is that the objects are also of the nature of consciousness existing in consciousness, since nothing can exist outside it and be known. That is the definition of Pragnya.

Once the flow of thoughts is stopped then only this can be realised. And for a realised one (who is stabilised), there is no rule that he cannot come take a path of Taijassa/Vaisvanaro to avert a mistake or do some good (to his own consciousness). Agni Deva is that only, he keeps the highest station clean.


Anyway, all this will sound very theoretical to one who has not have a glimpse of Self, and especially also to one who by faith is not attuned (at least at present time).


I-12. Prajna knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that Turiya is ever the all seer.



Om

[Sudarshan]

This is not what advaita says. Maya as a separate entity is non-existent in advaita. Om

This is not Shankara's Advaita. Please read Shankara's or say Madhusudhana's works. The world has been categorically denied any existance from the paramArtika. ( infact is non existant, and how can any jnAni deal with it?). For one who is in paramArtika , Brahman and Maya are identical, so how can the universe which itself exists due to the notions of difference between Brahman and Maya be percieved in any way? You must still be under the influence of Maya to be able to interact with the world. Do you know why Krishna has been referred to as SB in his Gita Bhashya, and not as NB?

Infact, your glorious perception of the Self and parts is true only for Ishvara ( not NB) which is vyavahAra perspective. If the world is percieved as undifferentiated consciousness ( which is NB) then no plurality persists.

Realizing Maya as Brahman is only a stage of a sage in Shankara's Advaita, which you are assuming to be the final one. Beyond that, in paramArtika, it is entirely non existant.

Do you know Advaita's notions of realities? In a reply to a question in his Advaita Siddhi, Madhusudhana Sarswathy clarifies that the universe has no existance whatsoever.( snake on a rope) One must be still under some illusion( seeing the snake) to be able to interact with it. I guess your views are based on some works of modern advaitins who do not stick to the classical one. Perhaps your own views are similar to the Paradvaita presented by Arjuna, but it is certainly somewhat different from vedantins. That by itself is not a problem but Shankara would not held it as the highest doctrine. Infact Paradvaita goes on to criticize some of the doctrines of Advaita ( esp those regarding Maya), and you can find the posts by Arjuna somewhere on this forum.

Even amongst the followers of Shankara, two distinct systems exist who view Maya differently. One schools views Maya as Brahman's intrinsic potency, while the other views it as an independent entity.

[satay]

namaste bhiya,

Is everyone enjoying the dance?

I knew you will get me on this point! I am not surprised at your question but at the same time I am...the great irony of this existence!

First, I am not surprised because you and I both know each personally and so at least the both of us know that at the very least we both are not enjoying the dance!

Second, the reason why I am surprised is because your question is not valid! By asking this question you are implying that you have no understanding of the karmic cycle(s). I know that you are just trying to prove a point by asking this question but please do not simplify things so much. We must understand the karmic cycles at play in this dance. Isn't it?

Ask everyone in the world - I would say that I am displeased with his dance that creates innumerable hardships to people, which he still dances unconcerned.

Yes, I know! But you know the reasons why at least, I on the other hand...

To say that this is mere sport or entertainment( sport alone) is oversimplification. Brihadaranyaka and Isavasya( and others) say that this samsAra is dreadful( and it is, that is why sages virtually plead towards others to turn to God) and akin to walking on a razor.( a mis-step is very costly).

Mystery it certainly is, but more than entertainment.

I will ponder on these statements more...but for now, I do not believe this mrityuloka is dreadful. I believe this is the place where we can actually turn to 'HIM'! Your and my case in point...

[nirotu]

Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your well described thoughts. Your answers are quite revealing of your sincerity in attempting to recognize the role of Advaita in creation.

Advaita addresses creation as Maya. Since Brahman is both prakruti and purusha, Maya is the inherent force of Purusha with which he impregnates Prakruti and starts the process of creation as an emanation from himself. Maya is not an eternal unreality (adyanta asat) but a conditional reality. Thus creation as Maya is only a conditional reality, whereas Brahman who is behind it is the eternal reality.

As I see, there is no basis for any conception of the unreality of the world (as Maya) in the hymns of RgVeda. If you consider world as an evolution of God then it cannot be a purposeless phantasm regardless whether it is conditional or not. Absolute reality which is at the back of the whole world cannot be characterized by us as either existent or non-existent. It is only that because, the phrase, “ko veda?” (“who knows?”) brings out the mystery of creation, which has led later thinkers to call it “Maya”.

Here is a quote from S.Radhakrishnan:

“Wherever the word Maya occurs, it is used only to signify the might or the power: Indra takes many shapes quickly by his maya” Yet many times Maya and its derivatives, mayin, mayavant are employed to signify the will of the demons, and we also find the word used in the sense of illusion or show. The main tendency of Rg Veda is a naïve realism”………Indian Philosophy Vol 1, 9th Ed, Page 104

Yes, creation does overshadow Advaita, not in the sense that it is more important and powerful than Advaita, but in the literal meaning that it casts a shadow, darkens, obscures Advaita.

I am of the opinion that through creation the Advaita has disappeared or sidelined so to speak. It is like a tree that sprung up a seed. The tree can only wish for seed to become like one of its own and seed can only aspire to become like tree as its ultimate goal. However, the process of growth has nothing to do with the tree but seed itself. Thus, Dvaita (seed) in its being through creation shows the need to become like Advaita (Tree). Therefore, Advaita can be viewed as a goal and not the journey. Our life is a journey. Just as the seed faces up to the elements, we do have to go through trials as well. While, the end always points to Advaita, one must not undermine the role of Dvaita in one’s entire journey!

Coming back to Advaita, I do agree with the need of Dvaita to become Advaita once the creation takes place. Therefore, in the creation where Advaita turns itself into Dvaita, there is no denying the wantonness of Dvaita to become Advaita. If Dvaita is a reality of creation that defines our journey through it, then, it seems to me, advaitins address that in a very insignificant way when in fact; Dvaita doesn’t just overshadow but dominate!

Coming back to OP: Precisely, what is the impetus behind God’s divine blueprint for creation, if any? Furthermore, if God was happy being in a state of “Advaita”, what prompted God to play out this divine scheme of creation, which brought out “Dvaita” in to being! What is the force behind “Spanda”? Just like the God of the Bible said, “Let there be light and there it was”. What was the intent behind the utterance of these words?

The hymn (Nasadiya Hymn) tells us the how of creation, not the whence. It is only an explanation of the fact of creation. Therefore, our speculations are based on incomplete knowledge and will remain only as mere theory. Yet, curious as we are, we may want to know the hidden mystery!

This is my personal opinion and I am not trying to be arrogant in any way. Upon looking carefully, this is what I find:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” (Colossians 1:16, KJV)

The above verse says that it was created for Him and His pleasure. Therefore, when one looks at this, I find in God there is a yearning desire to have that pleasure.

It looks like desire is the seed of existence. Therefore, Prajapati “desires” and therefore, creates. What is that desire (pleasure)? I believe it is the desire to have someone in His image, stand in awe of His sovereignty, desire to know and worship Him for His glory, which might have prompted God to say, “ Let us create man in our likeness”. Therefore, I venture to speculate that the intent and the yearning desire for creation, which is to have oneness with Him in all respects!

On the other hand, “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?” (Romans 11:34,KJV) tells me that the mind of God is incomprehensible. Therefore, I like to hang my hat on “mystery” that is beyond, at least, my comprehension.

That is why I was trying to be specific on topic. As the topic gets subtler in nature, we have to be in complete agreement of exact nature of question for any meaningful exchange to occur.

Blessings,

[nirotu]

If you consider yourself a created being then how will you know?

Dear Atanu:
If God said in scriptures, “ I am the creator and sustainer”, that’s enough for me know that I am created being. God does reveal His nature through scriptures for me.

I still maintain it with certainty If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God, based on Hindu scripture (and also the Bible). If you asked the reasons, I would clarify.

We have been through this before and yet your stubborness is astounding. Your statement places more saints and sages in a category of those who did not know God. I gave an example of Ramakrishna Paramahansa and you were silent on that. To support my point, Sudarshan argued his point across and you seem to passionately disagree. Perhaps, you can show me scripture in the Bible to support your claim.

Turiya itself is said to be Advaita. And it is also enjoined upon us to know it.

Atanu, knowing about Turiya is one thing and undertaking the journey to attain it is entirely a different thing. Remember, even in Turiya state the experiences of lots sages and saints have not been Advaita.

Paramahansa Yogananda says, “I am only a wave in the vast ocean.”

Mother Teresa says, “ I am only the pen, an instrument in His hand”

Even Jesus Christ says, “ I am the son of my father”

All the saints whom you revere have said, “ I am the part of that and I am not that”. The duality is maintained through and through.

The Turiya state serves to know the quality of the nature of self but you also realize that you are part of that. The atman-brahman relationship is sustained and experienced in Turiya state also, therefore, it is bordered on “dvaita”. It is only in “Turiyatta” that is far-far-far beyond Turiya, one may experience that dissolution into one where material and spiritual plane at once become one. For now it is not all energy but matter also. The relationship is maintained throughout and in Turiya.

So, do you wish me out of this discussion? Why are you not direct and forthcoming? (Though even if you were direct, I would reserve my right, if mods do not ban me).

I thought you wished it to be open? You wish it open, but you dislike piercing questions? Nirotu ji, please realise that the questions are not personal. They are about your and my views.

You are doing exactly the same by accusing me and taking it personally. I am the one who had stressed a long time ago that our exchange be a vehicle for our spiritual growth. You want to stress the same and serve the same purpose, which I know but such a remark defeats that purpose.


Blessings,

[Znanna]

All the saints whom you revere have said, “ I am the part of that and I am not that”. The duality is maintained through and through.

Well, they wouldn't be saying that were it not true

It is a quantum thing, in that being and knowing of being sometimes don't happen at the same time. Saying implies yet another level of nonparticipation or meta-analysis or whatever, hehe.

The way of neutralizing the contra-diction is only found in meditation, IMO, not in analytical discourse.



Namaste,
ZN

[Sudarshan]

Paramahansa Yogananda says, “I am only a wave in the vast ocean.”

Mother Teresa says, “ I am only the pen, an instrument in His hand”

Even Jesus Christ says, “ I am the son of my father”

Even Shankaracharya says something like this:

O Lord! Even though there is no difference between us (I am a part of You), I belong to You and not vice-versa. Just like the ocean is made of waves but the waves are not made up of ocean. { vishnu shatpadi.3)

There is a great similarity and equality between man and God ~ but they are not equal in all respects. Their 'material' (image) is the same (chidAnandamaya). The equality is qualitative, but not quantitative. It is entirely possible for a man to say "I am God" when he gets enlightened because even man is an immense reservoir with Self knowledge. But he should progress to know that even this is still only part of something far superior. That alone is full knowledge of God. Full knowledge of God is in a way attaining complete equality with God - because God is a 'servant' of his devotees. One who knows this has all his wishes fulfilled, when the Lord is ever there to fulfill them.

[Sudarshan]

“[/FONT]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” (Colossians 1:16, KJV)

The above verse says that it was created for Him and His pleasure. Therefore, when one looks at this, I find in God there is a yearning desire to have that pleasure.

It looks like desire is the seed of existence. Therefore, Prajapati “desires” and therefore, creates. What is that desire (pleasure)? I believe it is the desire to have someone in His image, stand in awe of His sovereignty, desire to know and worship Him for His glory, which might have prompted God to say, “ Let us create man in our likeness”. Therefore, I venture to speculate that the intent and the yearning desire for creation, which is to have oneness with Him in all respects!

On the other hand, “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?” (Romans 11:34,KJV) tells me that the mind of God is incomprehensible. Therefore, I like to hang my hat on “mystery” that is beyond, at least, my comprehension.

That is why I was trying to be specific on topic. As the topic gets subtler in nature, we have to be in complete agreement of exact nature of question for any meaningful exchange to occur.

Blessings,

FYI, nirotu, vedanta does not admit that man(soul) was created by God. The material universe may be taken to be a form of God which happened by some desire. However, soul created in God's image is not accepted.

The soul is considered as beginningless. The point to consider is:- what is the soul's relationship with God? What is its true nature? Why is it ignorant while God is not? Why does it need the help of God to overcome this ignorance? What happens to the soul upon the removal of ignorance?

[Sudarshan]

Well, they wouldn't be saying that were it not true

It is a quantum thing, in that being and knowing of being sometimes don't happen at the same time. Saying implies yet another level of nonparticipation or meta-analysis or whatever, hehe.

The way of neutralizing the contra-diction is only found in meditation, IMO, not in analytical discourse.



Namaste,
ZN

Maybe, but Krishna does not feel he is a part anywhere in his message to Arjuna. Infact, he declares all the vedas talk only about him (15.15) { vedaiSca sarvairahameva vedyo). That is the hall mark of God - he does not need to be in meditation or trance to know this.

Which is that person in the world who has the guts to claim that he is the primary objective of the vedas, and also prove it? He is God.

[atanu]

------
---Do you know Advaita's notions of realities? In a reply to a question in his Advaita Siddhi, Madhusudhana Sarswathy clarifies that the universe has no existance whatsoever.( snake on a rope) -----

Shankara is very clear and I think I follow Shankara without any doubt.

Brahman Jagat.
Brahman Jagat

Upanishad after upanishad proclaims "The Divine Purusha is World".

Sudarshan, I harbour no doubt.

Regards.