Tag Archives: creation

Upadesha SahAsri Chapter 19 Conversation between AtmA and the mind (Part 2)

Posted on by
1

Part 1

19.14 (part) All controversies should be resolved into something which is finally existent. Take the example of enquiry. Before enquiry there are views and counter views, and they are resolved into a verdict which is the truth or the substratum. Likewise debate about existence and non-existence is resolved in substratum, i.e., AtmA.

19.15 Shankaracharya discards the theory of emptiness. The debate whether the perceived duality is non-existent (empty) or not is possible only if it is accepted that there is something which makes the debate possible.

Continue reading →

Q. 556 Unmanifest

Posted on by
Reply

Q: I am trying to understand what is meant by ‘unmanifest’. Is it:

  1. an upādhi like deep sleep; i.e. a ‘state’ or a ‘subtle object’? Or, if it is not an upādhi, then presumably
  2. it is pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. i.e. it is not a state or subtle object.

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep can be equated with māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep-sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation.

I believe the Gīta says something like… When Brahma-ji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep. If this is the case, then what about before Brahma-ji? This would indicate that there is something other than or standalone from the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahma-ji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

Q.555 State Express

Posted on by
Reply

(A few people might appreciate the joke! Google will give you the answer.)

Q: I am trying to appreciate what is meant by the ‘unmanifest state’. Two ‘explanations’ present themselves:

1. The unmanifest is itself an upādhi like deep sleep. It’s a state or a subtle object

2. The unmanifest is not an upādhi. It’s pure Brahman, with a label ‘māyā’ for the purpose of discussing creation. It is not a state or subtle object

I think it’s #2, but I have heard that deep sleep is equated with the māyā upādhi (at the micro level) or the unmanifest. This seems a bit confusing to me as I view the deep sleep experience as an occurrence within manifestation. Can you please clarify?

2. I believe the Gīta says something like: When Brahmāji awakes it is manifestation and when he sleeps it is un-manifestation. This makes me think maybe it is like deep sleep! If this is the case, then what about before Brahmaji? This would indicate that there is something other than, or standalone from, the unmanifest or prior to the unmanifest (Brahmaji’s sleep state).

Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 5)

Posted on by
4

*** Read Part 4 ***

Tamas

‘Darkness’ is also used in the sense of the ‘primordial condition’ of the universe prior to creation. In this sense, it is not metaphorical but part of the ancient Hindu cosmology. It appears, for example, in Ṛg Veda 10.129: “In the beginning, there was darkness (tamas) hidden in darkness. All this was one undifferentiated water.” And the stage of pralaya, when the universe returns to unmanifest form, is sometimes described as darkness. A number of Puranic references could be quoted, e.g. the Vishnu Purana (Book 1 Chapter 1): “At the end of the previous kalpa, there was only one vast ocean, enveloped in darkness (tamas). The universe was in total dissolution, and nothing but the incomprehensible God, Vishnu, existed.” The darkness also symbolized the formlessness prior to creation.

This usage as an existent entity is not really the same as the metaphorical usage in which it symbolizes ignorance or ‘absence of knowledge’.

Darkness as Metaphor

In the context of discussions on ignorance, then, darkness is not intended to be considered as a real entity but as a metaphor for ignorance. We can see how this is both useful and potentially misleading. If we think of the common ‘concealing’ usage of the word – e.g. we could not see the stalactite in the cave because it was ‘covered by’ darkness – then we are in trouble. If we simply rephrase this to say that, because there was no light in the cave, we could not see the stalactite, there is no problem.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 4)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 3 ***

Observations triggered by Ghaṭa bhāṣya

If X is ‘bhāvarūpa’ – really existing, that ought to mean that it exists ‘in all three periods of time’. I would have said that, by that definition, like every other worldly perception or conception, darkness is not real. Every perception or conception is ‘mithyā’, neither ‘real’ (sat), nor ‘unreal’ (asat).

When Śaṅkara talks about ‘pot-absence’, it is obvious that he doesn’t mean that it is a really existing thing, in the way that a chair in the room ‘really exists’. What he means is that, in a discussion in a particular context such as this, we can treat something as ‘effectively existing’ when we both know what we are talking about and there is no confusion.

Suppose that you and I are having an argument about the pot that we believe to be on the table in room X of the museum. Suppose a third person comes in and tells us he has seen this pot on the table in room Y. This being the case, if I go into room X, I could say that I become aware of the absence of the pot. In that sense, it has a sort of meaning to say that the pot-absence exists in room X. But why anyone would want to talk in this way eludes me. I would just say that the pot isn’t in room X so I am prepared to accept the third person’s claim that it is in room Y.

Continue reading →

The Darkness of Ignorance (Part 3)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 ***

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.2.1

Absence

What is ‘absence’? It is simply a word we use to refer to the fact that something is not here. Suppose that the teacher realizes that little Johnny is not in the class again. He reports this to the head who says: “His absence has been noted”. What does this mean exactly?

Does it simply refer to whatever the headmaster has written in his little black book? Is it something belonging to Johnny that he ought to get rid of or leave at home when he comes into school? Presumably he cannot bring it with him to school because then he would no longer have it!

Obviously ‘absence’ in this context refers to Johnny himself. If Johnny’s absence is noted at the school, then clearly Johnny himself is not there. The two are mutually exclusive.

But all of this simply relates to the often baffling way in which language develops. All that we are talking about is whether or not Johnny is present at the school. When he isn’t there, we use this catch-all word to refer to the situation. The way in which we use it is as an adjective describing Johnny – ‘absent Johnny’ (again). We cannot use it as a non-qualified noun and say ‘there is absence’, because no one would know what we were talking about. It has to be connected to a noun and simply refers to the ‘non-presence’ of that noun.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 5

Posted on by

Part 4

Part 6

Chapter 3 Jiva Jagat Isvara

3-5 Katha Upanishad
 3-5-1 Katha 2.3.1

The world has arisen due to kArmic balance of the jivAs carried from the previous cycle of creation. The kArmic balance is in turn due to desire which propels action. Ignorance of Atma gives rise to action. The creation is compared to a tree and its root as Brahman. The branches represent the world consisting of dualities, e.g., heat, cold; pleasure, pain; birth, and death. Brahman is eternally pure, unchanging, and is therefore superior. The trunk is like subtle bodies of all creatures. It grows in strength due to desire represented by sprinkling of water. It has tender sprouts as sensory objects. Beautiful flowers represent good deeds like sacrifice, charity, and austerities. Various tastes are experiences of happiness and sorrow. The nests are the various lokAs beginning from satya loka (also called Brahma-loka) built by birds for living beings from Brahmaji downwards. The tree like world is unsteady and shaken by winds of desires. The leaves are karma kAnda of VedAs that perpetuates the world-tree. Brahman is the root and support of the universe. There is nothing beyond Him just like a pot does not transcend the clay.

Continue reading →

Q.544 – Evil in the world

Posted on by

Q:  I understand that ultimately, from a pāramārthika perspective, Brahman is all that there is, and that ‘that’ reality is what we are/ I am. However, on a vyavahāra level, there is so much suffering. Not my personal suffering – that’s just a small insignificant thing.

My question is: How can one look at war, hunger, poverty, of sentient beings, human and animal and not be affected by it? How can one put it into context?

Advaita seems to say that this universe / world / body-mind complex are all ‘mithyā’; just an ‘appearance’; dream-like, having no independent nature of its own. “Brahma satyam, jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ”. It seems cold and uncaring, and kind of an easy way out just to brush it off as ‘appearance’ only.

I find it hard to brush of as ‘just an appearance’ all the suffering that I see. How does Advaita rationalize this?

Continue reading →

Maya-stuff

Posted on by

According to Vedanta, Brahman is the Absolute Reality. The universe is a lower order of reality drawing existence from Brahman and is mithya. Maya is the power of Brahman with two aspects, namely, projecting power and veiling power. The former projects the universe and due to the latter a jiva forgets that his essential nature is Brahman. Indeed, maya is powerful. What is it made of?
There is a clue in verses 8.18 to 8.20 of Bhagavad Gita. A day and a night of Brahmaji constitute one calendar day of Brahmaji which is made of two thousand maha-yugas. During his daytime, when Brahmaji is awake, the universe is in manifest form and when he is asleep during the night it is in unmanifest(resolved) form resting in potential form in the unmanifest Brahman. It is again manifested at the dawn of Brahmaji’s day. The universe has two states: manifest and unmanifest and the cycles of creation continue.
It follows that maya is the unmanifest universe. It is also called Prakriti. A jiva takes rebirth because of the causal body which is the sanchit karma, i.e., the karmic balance at the time of death. At the time of dissolution, i.e., at the end of a cycle of creation, the aggregate causal body of all jivas is the unmanifest universe resting in Brahman. Maya is the cosmic causal body. Brahman owes maya power to jivas.

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 10.129.4

Posted on by

Alongside Purusha Sukta (10.90), the Nasadiya Sukta (10.129) is one of the most famous Suktas of the Vedas. Known as the Creation Hymn, its fourth mantra says,

In the beginning, there was the disturbance of desire, from which sprung the first seed, which was born of the mind. Sages, searching in their hearts, realised the wisdom of the connection between existence and non-existence.

The creation the Nasadiya Sukta discusses is often believed to be the origin of the universe. However, 10.129.4 does not refer to any ordinary creation but, rather, the illusion of duality. This is attributed to desire in the mind – the first ‘seed’ of ignorance which gives the impression that we are separate. Before this disturbance, there was nothing to realise and no one to know because there was no appearance which was taken to be real as separate from the Self or Brahman. Continue reading →