Kabalah and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Harih Om,

 

A very interesting article. Just one point, Alext Siegel wrote:

>Another parallel worthy of notice is the double triangle viewed by the

Jewish

>Kabalists as Solomon's Seal and the Sri-Yantra of the archaic Aryan Temple.

 

Shri-Yantra is not the double triangle, but has 9 triangles, 5 pointing

downward and four pointing upward. I cannot sent the illustration to the

forum, I believe, but I am putting it up at

www.omkarananda-ashram.org/sriyantra.gif for those who are interested to

view it. Sriyantra has not 6, but 43 subtriangles resulting from the

junctions of the nine.

 

Greetings and Om,

Vishvarupananda

[Guest guest]

Gregory Goode wrote:

>>Can we assign the attribute *consciousness* to the nirguna Parabrahman? And

>>can we take any standpoint without embodied condition?

>What about the Rig Veda's saying that God extends 10 fingers beyond the

>universe? (Sorry, this is my perhaps muddled, remembered paraphrase). This

>"beyond-ness" is one aspect that distinguishes advaita vedanta from

>pantheism. This God is not Ishwara, but Parabrahman.

 

 

Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Ishvara is the effect

of Avidya and Maya, thus Parabrahm plus Maya becomes Ishvara the creative

principle -- a power commonly called God which disappears and dies with the

rest when Pralaya comes.

 

The allegory in the Rig Veda you referred to, seems to mean that the Absolute

is neither concern nor has any relationship whatsoever with the finites.

Only after the emanation of the first unmanifested Logos, nirguna Brahman,

then Mulaprakriti and then the manifested Logos, Brahman the Creator, that the

creation of the Universe began.

>You mention the Ain-Soph and the Kabalists. Let me digress, change the

>subject a bit. Are Kabalists explicitly non-dualists in their teaching?

>Is man's soul, the spark of God model? I used to study the Kabala in a

>basic way years ago, but it seemed like a gradualist, progressive dualist

>(or maybe "qualified non-dual") path.

 

Yes, it will be refreshing to digress a little bit.

 

In my view Kabalists are explicitly non-dualists. Let me compare their

teachings with advaita vetanta.

 

The word "Kabalah" comes from the root "to receive", and has a meaning

identical with the Sanskrit "Smriti" (received by tradition)- a system of oral

teaching, passing from one generation of priests to another before they were

embodied in manuscript. Zohar and Sepher Yetzirah are the two primary

manuscripts that are the storehouse of all the subsequent Kabalistic works.

 

Some excerpts from Zohar:

 

"The evolved Universe is the garment of that which has no name, the garment

woven from the Deity’s own substance."

 

"Before It gave any shape to this world, before Its produced any form, It was

alone, without form or similitude to anything else. Who, then, can comprehend

It, how It was before the creation, since It was formless? Hence it is

forbidden to represent It by any form, similitude, or even by Its sacred name,

by a single letter or a single point."

 

"For although, to reveal itself to us, the Concealed of all the Concealed sent

forth the ten Emanations (Sephiroth) called the Form of God, Form of the

Heavenly Man, yet since even this luminous form was too dazzling for our

vision, it had to assume another form, or had to put on another garment, which

consists of the Universe."

 

So the emanation and evolution are such; First Ain-Soph, then Shekinah, the

Garment or Veil of Infinite Light, then Sephirah or the Kadmon, and thus

making the fourth, the spiritual Substance sent forth from the Infinite Light.

This Sephirah is called the Crown, Kether, and has besides, six other name- in

all seven. This Septenary Sephirah is said to contain in itself the nine

Sephiroth.

 

If we take the almost untranslatable Sanskrit word Sat, which mean the

quintessence of absolute Being or Be-ness, we shall find no equivalent for it

in any language; but it may be regarded as most closely resembling "Ain-Soph",

Boundless Being. So the Parabrahman and Mulaprakriti are the prototypes of

the Ain-Soph and Shekinah of the Kabalists. Brahman in its aspect of Ishvara

is the original of Sephira, and the Prajapatis are the Sephiroth.

 

Another parallel worthy of notice is the double triangle viewed by the Jewish

Kabalists as Solomon's Seal and the Sri-Yantra of the archaic Aryan Temple.

The two interlaced triangles are the Buddhangums of Creation. The

double-triangle -- the Satkiri Chakram of Vishnu -- or the six-pointed star,

is the perfect seven. In all the old Sanskrit works -- Vedic and Tantrik -- we

find the number 6 mentioned more often than the 7 -- this last figure, the

central point being implied, for it is the germ of the six and their matrix.

The central point and the circle stand respectively for the macrocosm and the

microcosm. The interlaced triangles -- the upper pointing one -- is Wisdom

concealed, and the downward pointing one – Wisdom revealed (in the

phenomenal world). The circle indicates the bounding, circumscribing quality

of the All, the Universal Principle which, from any given point expands so as

to embrace all things, while embodying the potentiality of every action in the

Cosmos. As the point then is the centre round which the circle is traced --

they are identical and one, and though from the standpoint of Maya and Avidya

-- one is separated from the other by the manifested triangle, the 3 sides of

which represent the three gunas -- finite attributes. In symbology the central

point is Jivatman , the manifested "Voice" (or Logos), the germ point of

manifested activity; -- hence -- in the phraseology of the Christian Kabalists

"the Son of the Father and Mother". Parabrahman while acting through that germ

point outwardly as an active force, reacts from the circumference inwardly as

the Supreme but latent Potency. The double triangles symbolize the Great

Passive and the Great Active; the male and female; Purusha and Prakriti. Each

triangle is a Trinity because presenting a triple aspect. The one represents

in its straight lines: Gnanam -- (Knowledge); Gnata -- (the Knower); and

Gnayam --(that which is known). The other--form, colour, and substance, also

the creative, preservative, and destructive forces and are mutually

correlating.

 

Regards,

Alex

[Guest guest]

>mpw6678

> .......................

> now, i remember reading with interest allan's post which briefly >

compared ishvara to brahman by claiming that their respective >

"worship," which is via bhakti or reason respectively, amounts to > the

same problem of a "thorn which must be discarded."

> but wonder myself about the problem of ishvara and bhakti. if it's >

acceptable to understand reason as a process which leads to but > isn't

a part of the absolute, then my opinion tells me that it's >

unprofitable to develop a hierarchy of processes in which one thorn > is

better than another...........

>maxwell.

 

Greetings Maxwell:

 

The points that you have raised are quite important for clearer

understanding of Sankara's Advaita Philosophy. First, I agree that one

thorne is no better than another and we do need to remove all thorns!

But if to remove any thorne, we need a needle or another thorne.

Sankara's message also stresse that we should discard the thorne that

was used to remove other thorns!

 

Reasoning (logic) is useful for discarding reasonings that are

unreasonable! The only purpose of such reasoning is to discard the

reasoning. The reasoning that was used to discard reasonings is also

discarded when Jeeva reaches the stage of noreasoning!

 

Notions such as Jnanam, Bhakti, Karma, Ishwara and Maya are useful

reasoning to help us to take us beyond reasoing! When we reach the

Brahmanic state of noreasoning, the notions disappear without asking!

 

Let me give an example for clarification: Suppse a person fell into a

deep well and wanted to get out of the well. (Jeeva is exactly in a

similar state and fell into the world of misery! The objective here is

how get rather than the unessential question when and why did the Jeeva

come into the world) The person looks for a rope, ladder, tree branch or

other tools to get out of the well. (The seeker looks for a process to

get out of the cycle of birth and death). But when the person is able to

get of the well, the rope, ladder, etc are no more needed! There is no

apparant contradiction or inconsistency in Advaita on the role of Maya

and reasoning! The messages are too subtle, abstract and consequently

confusing!

 

Allan Curry has raised some profound thoughts regarding the role of

religion and TRUTH. Let me share with you an Email that I sent to Allan

on his last posting:

 

" I really enjoyed your PURE philosohical thoughts without conditioning

the mind. Your approach is very similar to J. Krishnamurthy who stated

"Truth is a pathless land." All his writings were against mind

conditioning (advaita, hinduism, christianity etc.). Honestly, the

Upanishads also contain similar statements. Religion is always based on

faith and Truth is beyond faith! You are absolutely right and I have no

quarrel with your point of view.

 

But for proceeding one's own life, people like me need something to hang

on. Others like you may be afraid to take and make assumptions and

reasonings. The world is a beautiful place to live where we both can

live in unity with diversified thoughts, ideas and traditions. I have

no (will never have the) capaility to prove that you are wrong! Neither

you can prove that I am wrong!

In summary, I want to state that I thoroughly enjoyed the thought

process in the purest form and it did help me to clean up my polluted

mind!"

 

Finally, let me stop here and allow others to participate in this debate

which can further clarify questions regarding Advaita.

 

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

[Guest guest]

my best greetings. please forgive the deficiency of this language whose author

is new and has unavailable the tools for engaging in these advaitin discussions.

my difficulty follows.

 

there's parabrahm, which is absolute and immutable, and ishvara, which is seeing

the impersonal absolute through maya. now, i remember reading with interest

allan's post which briefly compared ishvara to brahman by claiming that their

respective "worship," which is via bhakti or reason respectively, amounts to the

same problem of a "thorn which must be discarded."

 

i tend to agree with this idea and recently have read another rather basic book

on shankara. the book was called << samkara and enlightenment >> and written by

i forgot, and it expresses an ambiguity on shankara's placing of bhakti. this

ambiguity appears because bhakti is here seen as less than reasoning and there

seen as an equal complement to reasoning. i remember no probing analysis of

this matter but wonder myself about the problem of ishvara and bhakti. if it's

acceptable to understand reason as a process which leads to but isn't a part of

the absolute, then my opinion tells me that it's unprofitable to develop a

hierarchy of processes in which one thorn is better than another. while jiva

persists, obviously under the influence of maya, reason and the concepts which

it calls into being must be products of maya, circling the changeless absolute

but never achieving. i take allan's point with utmost gravity. how is it that

the application of a process, whether the process is reason or bhakti, can be

judged in relation to another process whose aim is the same? to reach a point

of consciousness at which no ego persists, who's there, literally, saying how?

as long as there's reason, there's maya. as long as there's bhakti, there's

maya. under this influence, it's unprofitable to create a hierarchy. the view

of processes which complement each other seems ok to me.

 

thank you for your brief attention to this novice post.

 

maxwell.

[Guest guest]

Alex wrote:

>Thanks for your comments. It is the two major triangles whose vertices rest

on

>the circumference of the circle that I have in mind in the comparison. All

the

>other smaller triangles are their ramifications.

 

I'm afraid for Shriyantra that is not true. The journey goes from the inner

to the outer in steps that have to do with the layers of the 34 small

triangles, not with the 9 or 2 bigger triangles. I'm uploading another

graphic at http://www.omkarananda-ashram.org/Sri_colour.gif, to show this.

The upper part of the illustration shows the levels, as they emerge from the

bindu, in diffenret colours, the lower part of the illustration shows

shriyantra in mehru form, where these levels have become steps.

BTW, the two triangles you had in mind are not of equal size and not

centered around the bindu, as they are in the other mandala and in the

david's star. Since the number of triangles facing upward is 4 and the

number of those facing downward is 5 the symetry is not maintained.

Sorry for the disgression from your subject. It wasn't my intention to

distrub your thread. Just wanted to say that shriyantra is different.

 

Greetings and Om,

Swami Vishvarupananda

[Guest guest]

Swami Vishvarupananda wrote:

>Shri-Yantra is not the double triangle, but has 9 triangles, 5 pointing

>downward and four pointing upward. I cannot sent the illustration to the

>forum, I believe, but I am putting it up at

>www.omkarananda-ashram.org/sriyantra.gif for those who are interested to

>view it. Sriyantra has not 6, but 43 subtriangles resulting from the

>junctions of the nine.

 

Thanks for your comments. It is the two major triangles whose vertices rest on

the circumference of the circle that I have in mind in the comparison. All the

other smaller triangles are their ramifications.

 

Regards,

Alex

[Guest guest]

At 05:23 AM 9/17/98 PDT, Ram Chandran wrote:

 

(about what he'd sent to Allan):

>" I really enjoyed your PURE philosohical thoughts without conditioning

>the mind. Your approach is very similar to J. Krishnamurthy who stated

>"Truth is a pathless land." All his writings were against mind

>conditioning (advaita, hinduism, christianity etc.). Honestly, the

>Upanishads also contain similar statements. Religion is always based on

>faith and Truth is beyond faith! You are absolutely right and I have no

>quarrel with your point of view.

 

....

 

I hope Allan reconsiders, and keeps posting!!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Swami Vishvarupananda wrote:

>BTW, the two triangles you had in mind are not of equal size and not

>centered around the bindu, as they are in the other mandala and in the

>david's star. Since the number of triangles facing upward is 4 and the

>number of those facing downward is 5 the symetry is not maintained.

>Sorry for the disgression from your subject. It wasn't my intention to

>distrub your thread. Just wanted to say that shriyantra is different.

 

 

Thanks again for your elucidation. I only touch upon its aspect as symbol of

creation that is similar to Seal of Solomon and from advaita standpoint. There

are many other aspects specific to Sri-Yantra.

 

For those interested, there is a site that covers its historical background,

other interpretations and also methods of its construction at:

http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~mikel/sriyantra/sriyantra.html

 

Regards,

Alex