Creation and Advaita !

[brahman]

Dear Brahman:

However, what you fail to notice is the mention of the essential and intrinsic nature of God that distinguishes Him from all other things, which is His creative power. God’s “creatorship” is as much real as God himself. The creator ship is one of the essential and intrinsic attributes and properties (svarupalakshana) of God. In a way, Shankara, akin to an atheist, has declared that God did not create this world and this world is just a superimposition on God Himself. In doing so, Advaita Vedanta deprives God of “creatorship”.

If the fundamental tenet of Veda is to affirm creatorship to God, then, are you not negating the very nature of God – His creative intelligence and, thus, the very God creating the universe?

Is this any different from teetering on the edge of atheism? Just curious to know your take on this.

Perhaps, we can explore this without assuming adversarial role against each other and before venturing further.

Blessings,

Dear Nirotu,

The divine knowledge, faith and devotion to God are observably active in you, perhaps in a scripture-oriented manner.

I should say I’m delighted in your accomplishment.

This knowledge and faith is the dawning to bliss of everything.

Now that this knowledge is observed,

Some experience God in sthula or understood as the manifestation.

Few others experience God in sookshma , equivalent to the inner energy form that pervades all living and non living beings.

There are others who experience God as the karana or cause of all living and non living beings.

However, some others experience their own identity with God.

This experience(4th) is termed as “advaita” is the highest concept in the realm of spiritual philosophy.

No definition can expound it.

Each of the above awareness represents different levels of consciousness of the Ultimate.

Each of the above is knowledge itself. There is no doubt about it.

In the ultimate analysis, the Upanishads proclaim the knowledge of the Atman's identity with Brahman as the ultimate knowledge or Ultimate truth or Ultimate bliss.


So, where should we start from?

At the pragmatic level, we should start from the awareness of the very nature of God (in any consciousness)


Believe in it, respect it, and not confront it, and thus be able to search for the ultimate truth.

Why consciousness differs


1) Look at these pots kept in a sunny ground





2) These are empty pots and we are going to fill it with water





3) Same sun is reflected in these pots; it reflects differently, gives an impression of many suns.





4) Now I am going to break these pots and get rid of the separateness, and we see only one sun reflects!



we observed unevenness in the reflection of sun in these pots due to the ripples (ripples due to the unsteadiness of these pots)

Also we realized its one sun that reflected in many pots differently.
but on breaking of pots, it reflected as one sun alone.

This is how the individual consciousness to ultimate consciousness is obtained.


Love and blessings to you Nirotu

.

[smaranam]

Very curious to know, what kind of Shruti support this ParamaArthic and Vyavaharthic states? Is it man made?

Namaste Gramesji

What can I say to learned ones like you ?
Only that , it is a matter of experiencing those states, and observation of the state of the Divine that can be useful in understanding them.

Shruti : Aham Brahmasmi
Tat tvam asi

Kena, Isha, Kath, ChAndogya , BrhadAranyaka Upanishads,
Bhagavad Gita - Chap 2 (Brahmabhuta, sthitapradnya) Chap 7 (Jnana Vijnyana Yog) , 10 (Vibhutiyog) , 11 (Vishwarupa) , 13 (Kshetrakshetradnya Yog verses 20, 22, 27, 28 why, the whole chapter) 14, 15, why, the whole Gita!

Mundaka Upanishad Simply put

jagran - waking
swapna - dream
shushupti - deep sleep
turya - Supreme blissful existence-consciousness


1. Whatever little internal experience Lord provides thru' these very instruments , BMI, and
2. all pramANa read - Upanishads , Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutra,
3. all that was learnt from "my" Gurus around "me"

tell me - these states of being you refer to are not man made.

At this point , I apologize, I do not have much time, and also just feel like quietly 'being' , and not say a word. However, I shall be glad to pick out verses from shruti as time permits, if you are interested, but would rather point you to others who know more and can explain better.

--------

I was led to experience that my Lord is my AtmA is me. It was automatically backed up by shruti and the Lord's own words in the Gita became much much clearer. Things started to unfold on their own. After reading scriptures from Vaishnnav and Dvaita point of view, there were loopholes. UpadrshtA, sAkshi, AtmA (as singular, never plural) , dehi, bhuta, Brahman, prakrti, Purusha, Vasudeva, Vishnu, "Sarva sharva Shiva sthanu avyaya .......... vishwam ..... pradhAna......"
I could see advaita in the lovely Shrimad Bhagvatam. VAsudeva alone is.
Some Bhagavat for you :
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...0&postcount=26


Mai bachi hi nahi, sirf Woh rehe gaya. Truly was surprised to find that bhajan yesterday , as if it were talking my language. When "i" tried to protest to "my" Lord, there was no one left to do the protesting ... Lord alone is , was and will be. The one who ran to Him suddenly was a babe wearing a peacock feather swadled in cloth.

I am that babe , and you and he and she and it and they. And the mountains, rivers, canyons, stars , space. Yet this mind doesn't always notice that I am all these, you see. I do exist as a representative of this BMI, the same old same old. And that is the VyavahAric realm. The test ? No one can tell anything different. Not even this mind sometimes. Its not there yet

** Please do not misunderstand - this is not the supreme experience of Turya. That's not what I am trying to say. Just that the taste is there, it is out there, it is real as perceived by this BMI.

------------------

The Supreme does not impose it on anyone to accept or reject advaita. You don't have to. Its for us to experience the advaita.

For those interested in more understanding , I shall point to Brahman's latest post on this very thread - with the pictures of the pots - #151.

Devoteeji's excellent threads on Aham Brahmasmi (not for you Gramesji

Yajvanji's many posts loaded with wisdom, some specifically explaining Turya and TuryAtita, and his advaita primer :
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5093

Saidevoji's excellent posts if one browses thru' this section.

Atanuji's excellent posts

And many more.


praNAm

[bhaktajan]

Snip wrote:

Advaita sets out to explain how variation and multiplicity can be experienced by us based on the presupposition that truth i.e. God, does not and cannot change. God cannot change because that which changes presumes that it is not eternal and the non-eternal cannot be true.


Advaita is the conclusion of a philosophical treaty.

Advaita is not "the means and the end" it is just the "end".


"God, does not and cannot change?" ---Did God say this?

"changes presumes that [which] is not eternal
and
the non-eternal cannot be true." ---All is eternal, both "change and stagnancy" are contained within the same field where they co-exist without seperation. That is the basics of Duality.

That which stradles both is above and beyond both ---one such thing that stradles both is the jivatma ---these all are stradled by Paramatma ---these all are stradled by transcendence where there is no duality of purpose, only unity of purpose.


The purpose of existence in that transcendant realm is God's pastimes eternale.

[Onkara]

Advaita is the conclusion of a philosophical treaty.

Advaita is not "the means and the end" it is just the "end".

Thank you Bhaktajan for your interest and useful post.
Yes. it is most certainly the end of a long search.

"God, does not and cannot change?" ---Did God say this?

Krishna said �But those who worship the imperishable, the indefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.3)
Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me.�(12.4) source

Because Brahman (or Self) is reached from knowing that:

�This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval, Impenetrable, Unentered, unassailed, unharmed, untouched, Immortal, all-arriving, stable, sure.�(2.24)

Brahman as the Self (Atman) in Advaita is all pervading, unchanging and immortal.

For those who are ready for more then you word it well:

All is eternal, both "change and stagnancy" are contained within the same field where they co-exist without separation. That is the basics of Duality.

Yes, this is the field and the field knower. Both of which are Brahman

"Whatever is born, animate or inanimate, know them to be (born) from the union of the field and the field knower, O Arjuna." (13.26)

[nirotu]

Dear Brahman:

Thank you for your response. With all due respect the subject we were discussing was related to �creation�. Somehow, I did not see your response to my query. I still do feel that Advaitic notion of �creation� account is not clear, at least to me. If I were to ask an advaitin if they believed in creation of the universe, the answer most likely is in the negative.

As I had said earlier in my post: it stems from a preconceived notion, �Every thing apart from Brahman is unreal�. If you look at Taittiriya Upanishad; �the source from which all things come, that by which they are sustained and that into which they enter� referring to three aspects of one God. Accordingly, Brahma creates universe and us with certain potentialities (The Gita (III,10)), Vishnu helps us to realize them through overcoming of opposition, and Siva signifies the victorious self-maintenance of the good. What is not clear to me is when Upanishad is so very clear on the �creation� and the events leading to �creation�, why would Shankara interpret differently shruti with his commentary?

Badarayana, in an attempt to resolve the conflicts within the scriptures, has authored the Brahmasutras. In the samanvaya chapter, he has attempted to harmonize conflicts within various Upanishads regarding creatorship of God. In that Badarayana is openly declaring the creative power as God�s intrinsic property and is declaring in clearest possible terms that God is the author of the world.

It is not clear to me why Shankara introduced saguna/nirguna aspects to God to define phenomenal and absolute planes, when, in fact, there is no plurality in God(s).

Please, pardon my asking. I am more inclined to think it is truth to me that dvaita is what runs this universe and its inhabitants towards the goal- advaita. There are many scholars here who may want to join in. But, please let us be respectful of each other�s views.

Blessings,

[devotee]

Namaste Nirotu,

You have asked very good questions. Let's try to see as I see it all :

When we describe a thing, we must be sure from what plane we are perceiving that thing. When we forget that, we land into quagmire of confusion. I will give you an example here :

a) When I see a flower with my open eyes in sunlight, I find that the flower is red. When I see the same flower in blue light, the same flower appears as black. If I was able to see the same flower with an eye which could use X-rays, the flower would have been seen colourless & vanished losing its separate identity altogether.

Now, which observation should I rely on ? Can we say that the flower seen by using Sun-light is the correct observation & other observations are wrong ? We can't say that. If you go slightly deeper, you will realise that we cannot say whether the flower is red or black or colourless. It is appropriate to say, "We don't know what the colour of the flower is but it appears red in Sun-light". Now, we all know that colour is a perception only in the brain... in our mind ... it has no physical existence of its own ... it is the only the change in wavelength of light.

So, when you ask a Scientist, he may answer you this : "The perception of colour of flower is only within mind ... beyond mind there is no existence of colour. The mind responds giving rise to different perceptions of colours depending on what sort of information carrying medium (light in this case) produces what kind of impulse in the optical nerves.".

b) Let's now see this creation from Shankara's point of view. When one sees this world from the state of Turiya i.e. the unconditioned state, there is no duality & there is no creation at all ... this perception is beyond mind ... it is called direct perception ... so there is no distortion in perception ... it is the Reality as it is. From that state, the Creation is Brahman alone ... however, when we see from waking & dreaming states (the states within this world), then we are seeing through this mind. This mind creates an illusion of things just like the colour of the flower even though there was no colour to begin with.

Does it mean that the things don't exist ? No. They exist but not in the manner this mind sees it. This is also called as the relative state of existence because the perception of everything is relative & not absolute.

c) But what of this creation ? When seen through this mind, God is the ultimate reality. The Self alone is perceived as God as the ultimate reality within mental realm. This is explained very well in Maandukya Upanishad. It says that the third state of Brahman is God-state. It is the origin & end of all beings in this phenomenal world.

So, to make it short :

a) When we talk of direct perception of Reality (from Turiya State), there is no creation. This is what the Nirgun Brahman is.
b) When we talk of the relative perception within mental realm, there is creation of the two states with the third state of the Brahman/Self i.e. God, acting as the Lord of all, the omniscient & the omnipotent. This is what the Sagun Brahman is.

I hope it helps.

OM

[grames]

Dear smaranam,

Sometimes it is very difficult to overcome our emotional attachment and then give in to false notions as truth. It is very much comparable to the scenario where love for son prevents the mother to see her own son's as thief.

I am not learnt and i honestly know the fact that i am very much ignorant and have to learn a lot but with sincerity. My question is simply about to know whether these two levels of Truths have Shruti support. Whatever you have written here does not lead me to believe there is one.

[nirotu]

Namaste Nirotu,

You have asked very good questions. Let's try to see as I see it all :

When we describe a thing, we must be sure from what plane we are perceiving that thing. When we forget that, we land into quagmire of confusion. I will give you an example here :

a) When I see a flower with my open eyes in sunlight, I find that the flower is red. When I see the same flower in blue light, the same flower appears as black. If I was able to see the same flower with an eye which could use X-rays, the flower would have been seen colourless & vanished losing its separate identity altogether.

Now, which observation should I rely on ? Can we say that the flower seen by using Sun-light is the correct observation & other observations are wrong ? We can't say that. If you go slightly deeper, you will realise that we cannot say whether the flower is red or black or colourless. It is appropriate to say, "We don't know what the colour of the flower is but it appears red in Sun-light". Now, we all know that colour is a perception only in the brain... in our mind ... it has no physical existence of its own ... it is the only the change in wavelength of light.

So, when you ask a Scientist, he may answer you this : "The perception of colour of flower is only within mind ... beyond mind there is no existence of colour. The mind responds giving rise to different perceptions of colours depending on what sort of information carrying medium (light in this case) produces what kind of impulse in the optical nerves.".

b) Let's now see this creation from Shankara's point of view. When one sees this world from the state of Turiya i.e. the unconditioned state, there is no duality & there is no creation at all ... this perception is beyond mind ... it is called direct perception ... so there is no distortion in perception ... it is the Reality as it is. From that state, the Creation is Brahman alone ... however, when we see from waking & dreaming states (the states within this world), then we are seeing through this mind. This mind creates an illusion of things just like the colour of the flower even though there was no colour to begin with.

Does it mean that the things don't exist ? No. They exist but not in the manner this mind sees it. This is also called as the relative state of existence because the perception of everything is relative & not absolute.

c) But what of this creation ? When seen through this mind, God is the ultimate reality. The Self alone is perceived as God as the ultimate reality within mental realm. This is explained very well in Maandukya Upanishad. It says that the third state of Brahman is God-state. It is the origin & end of all beings in this phenomenal world.

So, to make it short :

a) When we talk of direct perception of Reality (from Turiya State), there is no creation. This is what the Nirgun Brahman is.
b) When we talk of the relative perception within mental realm, there is creation of the two states with the third state of the Brahman/Self i.e. God, acting as the Lord of all, the omniscient & the omnipotent. This is what the Sagun Brahman is.

I hope it helps.

OM

Dear Devotee:

First of all, thank you so much for your well thought out response. I do appreciate that. As I was reading carefully, I could not help having some unresolved doubts.

You have described very well and mounted all blame on perception.

But, errors of perception (phenomena of illusions) can also be due to errors in knowledge or knowledge itself being misapplied.

For example:

We all perceive sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Although, we do see sun rising and setting, the knowledge on which our perception is based is faulty. By dabbling in astronomy and science, we have come to know that the sun never moves but it is the earth that rotates giving the illusion of sun moving. Thus, the error in knowledge has led to a perception that sun is rising.

The same knowledge with which our mind apprehends every other thing in the world must also be faulty (unreal) because of the mahavakya, �apart from Brahman everything is unreal�. Given this, how can you even attempt to know the reality at all? Let us look at �maya� for a moment.

If �maya� is real then Advaita falls flat on its face.

If �maya� is unreal, then how can it be efficacious in producing the appearance of the world, the Brahman, and more importantly the Self? Brahman could not have created unreal maya to point to the real.

Therefore, �maya� is either real or unreal and, which cannot be in between. Therefore, either the advaita metaphysics is destroyed or maya is not efficacious.

How do you explain �maya� given the supremacy to the mahavakya of advaita?

If ignorance is the cause of illusory appearance of the world, then source of ignorance is faulty (unreal) knowledge. If every knowledge is unreal, how can you have full reality of Brahman and the full reality of the world?

It is unfair to see from Turiya perspective because we are not there yet!

Blessings,

[saidevo]

namaste Nirotu and others.

A massive amount of discussion has taken place here in HDF, over the last few years under several threads in different slants on the subject of Creation and Advaita. It is difficult even to locate them, let alone read them all and say something that is not said by someone before elsewhere, to throw some new light.

The same knowledge with which our mind apprehends every other thing in the world must also be faulty (unreal) because of the mahavakya, “apart from Brahman everything is unreal”. Given this, how can you even attempt to know the reality at all?

I think you are referring to Shankara's famous statement

brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara,

Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.

which incidentally is not a mahAvAkya, although it is the only possible explanation of the purport of the mahAvAkyas.

If we look at the mahAvAkyas, we would find that except in two statements, they all speak from the POV of duality. Arranging the mahAvAkyas from the POV of non-duality to duality, we get:

ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.
-- Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1

prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.
-- Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda

sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman.
-- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda

ayam Atma brahma -- This Self is Brahman.
-- Mandukya upaniShad 1.2, of Atharva Veda

tat tvam asi -- Thou art that.
-- Chandogya upaniShad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya upaniShad

aham brahmAsmi -- I am Brahman.
-- Brhadaranyaka upaniShad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana upaniShad

Inasmuch as very term 'upaniShad' requires a disciple to sit by the side of his guru and then both contemplate together on the meaning of the Reality, all the above mahAvAkyas might be considered as teachings, rather than statements. It's beautiful, the way the guru leads his disciples to the Reality of the Truth through these teachings:

• To start with, the guru makes a statement to indicate the target:
"Brahman is one, without a second."

• Then he describes the nature of that Brahman:
"Consciousness is Brahman."

• Lest the disciple think that only human beings with their superior consciousness are Brahman, the guru expands on the idea:
"All of this is brahman."

• And then he gets personal, first by refering to the Self in everyone:
"This Self is Brahman."

• The disciple is anxious that if he and his guru can ever be equated because of the unity of Self, so the guru assures him:
"Thou art that."

This statement, which is the most famous, is perhaps the most significant one. Here Brahman is described as (a mere) tad--that, as if it is something distinct and located farther in space. tvam--thou, is more real to us than tad--that. The dhAtu--root, of both these terms simply indicate two entities: tad--that, tva--the other. The pronouns tad--that and tvam--you, have been derived from these roots.

The teaching of this mahAvAkya is "you are that": that is what is considered 'you' and what is considered as 'that'--which is actually inside you--are not two different things but only an identical Reality.

• Finally, the guru zeros in on the first person and teaches "I am Brahman", and urges the disciple to have this thought persistently in mind at all times so he may eventually realize it.

Significantly, the teaching is, 'ahaM brahmAsmi'--'I AM Brahman', not 'I was Brahman' or 'I will (one day) be Brahman'. I AM Brahman in my waking, dreaming and deep sleep states and the fourth state that I would be eventually be capable of existing--as Devotee would love to put it.

The shikaram--peak, of all these mahAvAkyas of the upaniShads, is the cryptic statement of the Rig Veda about the Reality: ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46.

**********

Where does the perception about Creation fit in these mahAvAkyas?

ekam sat--Reality is One. It is basically One Existence. This is from the POV of Brahman.

From our POV, however, we have these derivations and inferences from the statement of the Rig Veda:

• To be One Existence, IT should be infinite and eternal. As we are not comfortable with the reference IT, we give IT the name Brahman. Since its nature is consciousness, Brahman should be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

• IT implies inertness, but Brahman as Consciousness cannot be inert, but one with an undertone of spanda--resonance/vibration, which is responsible for the Creation as a multitudinous decorative manifestation on the Self.

Yajvan has approached the subject of Creation in a different angle in this thread:
Sleeping Absolute?
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2330

The mUrti behind all the paraphernalia of external decorations is just a naked form in stone. It is the mind that requires all the saguNa to give comfort and hope that it can transcend its limitations and experience the Reality.

[devotee]

Namaste Nirotu,

The subject we are discussing here is very much similar to Quantum Mechanics & we must be very attentive to every concept we use. I hope you are not carrying any bias towards Advaita ( as I have seen with some people here) in this discussion otherwise any progress will be impossible after some time.

You have described very well and mounted all blame on perception. But, errors of perception (phenomena of illusions) can also be due to errors in knowledge or knowledge itself being misapplied.

Now, here the argument given is fallacious. Why ? To understand this, let us revisit our understanding of the terms, "Knowledge" & "Perception". Is there any knowledge ( except the knowledge with direct perception) which comes before any perception ? No. All worldly knowledge we have are nothing but bundle of perceptions.

How is the knowledge gained ?

I think the process of acquiring knowledge can be stated in this manner :
i) Observation
ii) Comparing with known data
iii) Establishing a link between the new observation with the known data or simply accepting the observation as the knowledge gained

Now all the three steps are heavily dependent on perception. How do we observe ? Through our sense organs & our mind. Now is this perception reliable ? Can we rely on our sense organs for the correctness of the observed phenomenon ?

Let's see :

a) Seeing :

Like perception of colour as the example given in the above post, other perception of "seeing" is also within our mind. You see a solid wall in front of you. You can't see any hole therein & you can never imagine that anything can pass through that rock-solid wall. However, let's go back to Physics & verify this observation : The wall is made up of many molecules attached together. There is considerable space ( even more than size of the molecules themselves) between the molecules. The molecules themselves are composed of many atoms attached together. They all have some considerable space between them. Within the Atom, there is very-very tiny nucleus & the rest is space. The Protons, Neutrons & Electrons too are not the final particles but they are made of quarks & anti-quarks & they occupy very little volume & the rest is space.

Now we don’t know whether the quarks & anti-quarks have any space within them ot they are the final particles. However, even if we agree that the quarks & anti-quarks are fully solid, what is the ratio of the total space within the wall & the volume of all the quarks & anti-quarks taken together ? The space within the wall thus calculated would be more than 99.99 % ! However, we don’t see that space. Does it mean that there is no space in that wall ? There is space but we can’t see it because of limitations of our eyes. So, the eyes are not very reliable for a correct observation.

b) Touching :

Can we rely on our sense of touch ? We know that no two atoms can come closer than a certain distance. If that is the case, then how do we “touch” anything ? We touch without touching ?

c) Hearing :

We can hear sound only within a certain band-width frequency. We can’t hear the sound generated by the bats. Does it mean that there is no sound created by them ?

d) Smell & taste :

Humans smell something as bad but the a dog smells the same thing with great interest as pleasant one. So, is the smell good or bad ? Can we say that Dog’s smell is wrong & ours is correct ? No, the substance gives out the same odour but it is interpreted by our mind & dog’s mind differently. So, the smell is actually in mind. The same logic can be given for taste.

So, all our five sense organs are not reliable. Now let’s see the working of our mind. What does the mind do ? It stores information gathered by our sense organs & compares new observation (which is relative) with already stored data (which again is relative) & comes out with something we know as “knowledge”.

So, can we say that any “knowledge” be absolute without being tainted with our tainted perception ? No. So, all our “knowledge” thus obtained are only relative, tainted or conditioned & unreliable for the absolute truth.
You can consider any “knowledge” & anlayse deeply as above & you will agree that all our knowledge are perception based & relative within mental realm. So, it is not that our perception is wrong because our knowledge is wrong. It is the other way round. Yes, this wrong knowledge can further lead us to further wrong perceptions but it all does start with wrong perceptions.

It has become a long thread, so I will discuss your other points in my post below.

OM