RE: "Non-existent" "Jagat"

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Gummuluru Murthy.

 

I admire your knowledge and your interpretive skills,

and appreciate your taking time to express your valuable

opinion, but I have a little difficulty with the way

your conclusion sounds, at least in English.

> . . . on the vanishing or otherwise of the jagat on realization,

>I give below a verse from GauDapAdA's MANDUkya kArikA (MK)

>which touches on this aspect. This verse conclusively shows

>that the phenomenal world is not there to start of; and if

>it is there to start of, it would cease to exist.

>Here below is the MK verse and shrI shankara's commentary

>on this (translation from swami GambhIrAnanda).

>

>prapa~nco'yadi vidyeta nivarteta na saMshayaH

>mAyAmAtraM idaM dvaitam.h advaitaM paramArthataH

>

>It is beyond doubt that the phenomenal world would cease

>to be if it had any existence. All this duality that is

>nothing but mAyA, is in Absolute Truth but non-duality.

 

Before continuing with Shankara's commentary, I would note

that the meaning of the term "existence" is crucial here,

and why even talk about a 'phenomenal world' if there

isn't something there there, or here here? As has been

pointed out on this list, there is apparently a concept

of "neither existing nor not existing" which better shows

the nature of maya/world than "not existing."

 

Shankara:

>If one is to be awakened (to a higher state) by negating

>the phenomenal world, how can there be non-duality so long

>as the phenomenal world persists? The answer is: Such

>indeed would be the case yadi prapa~ncaH vidyeta, if

>the phenomenal world had existence. But being superimposed

>like a snake on a rope, it does not exist. Na saMshayaH,

>there is no doubt; that if it had existed, nivarteta,

>it would cease to be. Certainly, it is not that the snake,

>fancied on the rope through an error of observation, exists

>there in reality and is then removed by correct observation.

>Snake is never there. Verily, it is not that the magic

>conjured up by a magician exists in reality and is then

>removed on the removal of the optical illusion of its

>witness. Similarly, mAyAmAtraM idaM dvaitaM, this duality

>that is nothing but mAyA, and is called the phenomenal

>world; is, paramArthaH, in supreme truth; advaitam,

>non-dual, just like the rope and the magician.

>Therefore, the purport is that there is no such thing

>as the world which appears or disappears.

>Just like the snake is never there, the jagat is never

>there.

 

If one reads Shankara's commentary with the three-fold

exist/neither-exist-nor-not-exist/not-exist set of options,

I think it is not far-fetched to interpret Shankara as

meaning that jagat does not possess category 1 existence,

but doesn't necessarily mean that jagat doesn't exist in

the category 3 sense of not existing.

 

As was pointed out, I believe, in one of the explanations

of the "neither exiist nor not exist" idea, the very fact

that we talk about jagat implies that jagat (and us) "is"

in some significant sense. Pure illusionism cannot be

sustained without introducing self-contradictory elements to

account for the regularities of the laws of nature or the

fact that we're having these conversations. Explications

of Shankara or Advaita Vedanta which suggest that all this

phenomenal world is pure illusion in the harshest sense of

that English word are not, I suspect, correct interpretations

of Shankara's full wisdom. I know there are places where

Shankara sounds like that is his view, but I think there are

other places which support the threefold idea-complex and

the idea that the phenomenal world (transient formations of

Brahman within Brahman) "is" in some sense even though it

neither exists nor does not exist.

 

Of course I offer this response with humility, as I approach

Shankara from outside his tradition, through Aurobindo and the

commentaries and speculations of non-traditional philosophers.

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

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

DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com

FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Max Harris wrote:

> "Max Harris" <max_harris

>

> Namaste, Gummuluru Murthy.

>

> I admire your knowledge and your interpretive skills,

> and appreciate your taking time to express your valuable

> opinion, but I have a little difficulty with the way

> your conclusion sounds, at least in English.

>

 

namaste, shri Max,

 

Firstly, what I presented in that post which you are referring to,

is not my opinion, not my interpretation and is not my conclusion.

It is shri GauDapAdA's conclusion which obviously shri Shankara

agreed on from the commentary that was posted.

 

I only wish I had a similar understanding of the jagat, and I pray

that my understanding would evolve to that level.

> > . . . on the vanishing or otherwise of the jagat on realization,

> >I give below a verse from GauDapAdA's MANDUkya kArikA (MK)

> >which touches on this aspect. This verse conclusively shows

> >that the phenomenal world is not there to start of; and if

> >it is there to start of, it would cease to exist.

>

> >Here below is the MK verse and shrI shankara's commentary

> >on this (translation from swami GambhIrAnanda).

> >

> >prapa~nco'yadi vidyeta nivarteta na saMshayaH

> >mAyAmAtraM idaM dvaitam.h advaitaM paramArthataH

> >

> >It is beyond doubt that the phenomenal world would cease

> >to be if it had any existence. All this duality that is

> >nothing but mAyA, is in Absolute Truth but non-duality.

>

> Before continuing with Shankara's commentary, I would note

> that the meaning of the term "existence" is crucial here,

> and why even talk about a 'phenomenal world' if there

> isn't something there there, or here here? As has been

> pointed out on this list, there is apparently a concept

> of "neither existing nor not existing" which better shows

> the nature of maya/world than "not existing."

>

> Shankara:

> >If one is to be awakened (to a higher state) by negating

> >the phenomenal world, how can there be non-duality so long

> >as the phenomenal world persists? The answer is: Such

> >indeed would be the case yadi prapa~ncaH vidyeta, if

> >the phenomenal world had existence. But being superimposed

> >like a snake on a rope, it does not exist. Na saMshayaH,

> >there is no doubt; that if it had existed, nivarteta,

> >it would cease to be. Certainly, it is not that the snake,

> >fancied on the rope through an error of observation, exists

> >there in reality and is then removed by correct observation.

> >Snake is never there. Verily, it is not that the magic

> >conjured up by a magician exists in reality and is then

> >removed on the removal of the optical illusion of its

> >witness. Similarly, mAyAmAtraM idaM dvaitaM, this duality

> >that is nothing but mAyA, and is called the phenomenal

> >world; is, paramArthaH, in supreme truth; advaitam,

> >non-dual, just like the rope and the magician.

> >Therefore, the purport is that there is no such thing

> >as the world which appears or disappears.

> >Just like the snake is never there, the jagat is never

> >there.

>

> If one reads Shankara's commentary with the three-fold

> exist/neither-exist-nor-not-exist/not-exist set of options,

> I think it is not far-fetched to interpret Shankara as

> meaning that jagat does not possess category 1 existence,

> but doesn't necessarily mean that jagat doesn't exist in

> the category 3 sense of not existing.

>

 

That is correct. World is mithyA, neither existing nor

not-existing. That is what shri Shankara means by "Brahma

satyam jagan mithyA..."

 

I do not fully know if shri Shankara differs from shri GauDapAda

in His view of the reality, mithyA, or otherwise of the world,

but shri GauDapAda was certainly emphatic in denying the

existence of the world. And GauDapAda was the original

advaita AcArya, and shri Shankara's parama-guru. Further,

I am sure you would agree with the logic in that verse.

If the jagat is a superimposition (mis-apprehension of Brahman),

then just like a snake, does it really have existence at all?

We cannot deny the logic of the verse. As I said above, I only

wish I had that understanding of the jagat. But the logic

of the verse shows that clearly.

 

May be, what we should know is: what is the jagat shri

GauDapAda is referring to.

> As was pointed out, I believe, in one of the explanations

> of the "neither exiist nor not exist" idea, the very fact

> that we talk about jagat implies that jagat (and us) "is"

> in some significant sense. Pure illusionism cannot be

> sustained without introducing self-contradictory elements to

> account for the regularities of the laws of nature or the

> fact that we're having these conversations. Explications

> of Shankara or Advaita Vedanta which suggest that all this

> phenomenal world is pure illusion in the harshest sense of

> that English word are not, I suspect, correct interpretations

> of Shankara's full wisdom. I know there are places where

> Shankara sounds like that is his view, but I think there are

> other places which support the threefold idea-complex and

> the idea that the phenomenal world (transient formations of

> Brahman within Brahman) "is" in some sense even though it

> neither exists nor does not exist.

>

 

I agree with you that jagat is mithyA. My understanding of

two days ago was what I posted on a day earlier, in the same

thread about the subjective and the objective jagat. But shrI

GauDapAdA's logic and shri Shankara's commentary on it cannot

be denied. Do you think you can refute the logic of the verse?

> Of course I offer this response with humility, as I approach

> Shankara from outside his tradition, through Aurobindo and the

> commentaries and speculations of non-traditional philosophers.

>

 

I respect your humility and expression. But I do not agree with

the emphasis you seem to be placing on the tradition. Many times

recently, the tradition is somehow getting emphasized. I respect

tradition. However, advaita is a philosophy and not religion.

We are trying to understand what we are, a SELF-enquiry. Shri

Shanakara provided a good path for us to tread on. And that path

is open for any serious enquirer. While the path may be easier for

some who speak the same language as shri Shankara, still it is the

same path for all. I do not see any reason for inhibitions to be

expressed, as long as one is not taking a short-cut.

> Namaste,

> -- Max

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Gummuluru Murthy.

 

In response to my last post, you note:

>That is correct. World is mithyA, neither existing nor

>not-existing. That is what shri Shankara means by "Brahma

>satyam jagan mithyA..."

>

>I do not fully know if shri Shankara differs from shri GauDapAda

>in His view of the reality, mithyA, or otherwise of the world,

>but shri GauDapAda was certainly emphatic in denying the

>existence of the world. And GauDapAda was the original

>advaita AcArya, and shri Shankara's parama-guru. Further,

>I am sure you would agree with the logic in that verse.

>If the jagat is a superimposition (mis-apprehension of Brahman),

>then just like a snake, does it really have existence at all?

>We cannot deny the logic of the verse.

 

With all due respect to the apparent views of these two great

Advaitins, I don't find the argument compelling, but I think

its more because of a problem with premises than with logic.

Most pointedly: the idea of 'superimposition' as an adequate

idea for describing or explaining the occurrence of transient

formations within Brahman is something I question. If one

changes the conception of that key idea, the whole issue

changes. And remember: we're dealing with a metaphor.

 

I've done a little reviewing of resources, and I find that

your position on this issue is apparently widely accepted,

and yet there are others (like Radhakrishnan and Aurobindo)

who take the position I favor: that the phenomenal world really

'is' -- in a dependent and transient yet significant sense

-- even though it is all one with Brahman. I find this

"realistic" (don't know what else to call it) view fully

compatible with modern science and very rational, as well

as congruent with my experience. It rings true for me.

I guess that's why we choose to take the positions we take.

 

I find this interesting: Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan both

held "realistic" views about the 'status' of the world, yet

whereas Aurobindo thought Shankara held otherwise, and

therefore disagreed with him, Radhakrishnan apparently

argued that Shankara's real position was "realistic" as

opposed to "illusionist" (I apologize if the terms I'm using

here are clumsy). Maybe its time for me to review Radhakrishnan.

 

I'm here mainly to learn more about how Shankara is understood,

and the various strands of Advaita Vedanta. I don't care to

try to refute revered figures, I'd just like to know why some

people interpret Shankara one way and others interpret him

another way. My own philosophy (constantly under construction)

draws from Western sources as well as Eastern sources.

 

But I hold Advaita Vedanta in very high esteem, and think of

myself as sincerely 'Vedantic' in outlook.

 

Namaste,

-- max

 

P.S. - I use the word 'tradition' to refer to philosophical as

well as religous traditions, and I definitely do not mean to

imply any negative connotations. I have a positive view of

tradition because I agree with the hermeneutic philosopher

Hans-Georg Gadamer that traditions are necessary for understanding

to occur. We all have been shaped by formative traditions, and

our being invloved with traditions keeps them alive and gives them

a future.

 

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

DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com

FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

>"Max Harris" <max_harris

>

>I find this interesting: Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan both

>held "realistic" views about the 'status' of the world, yet

>whereas Aurobindo thought Shankara held otherwise, and

>therefore disagreed with him, Radhakrishnan apparently

>argued that Shankara's real position was "realistic" as

>opposed to "illusionist" (I apologize if the terms I'm using

>here are clumsy). Maybe its time for me to review Radhakrishnan.

 

Yes, Radhakrishnan stresses the difference between Gaudapada's and Sankara's

outlooks towards the "external" (or "waking") world. According to

Radhakrishnan, Gaudapada's view is virtually identical with the Vijnanavada

school of Buddhism (ie, the waking world is essentially the same as the

dream world), whereas Sankara's view is more "realistic" (ie, he emphasizes

differences between the waking and dream worlds, assigning a lesser reality

to the latter). Interestingly, many later Advaitins have tended to agree

more with Gaudapada (and hence, Vijnanavada Buddhism) than Sankara on this

important issue.

 

 

W

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Max Harris wrote:

> "Max Harris" <max_harris

>

> Namaste, Gummuluru Murthy.

>

> In response to my last post, you note:

>

> >That is correct. World is mithyA, neither existing nor

> >not-existing. That is what shri Shankara means by "Brahma

> >satyam jagan mithyA..."

> >

> >I do not fully know if shri Shankara differs from shri GauDapAda

> >in His view of the reality, mithyA, or otherwise of the world,

> >but shri GauDapAda was certainly emphatic in denying the

> >existence of the world. And GauDapAda was the original

> >advaita AcArya, and shri Shankara's parama-guru. Further,

> >I am sure you would agree with the logic in that verse.

> >If the jagat is a superimposition (mis-apprehension of Brahman),

> >then just like a snake, does it really have existence at all?

> >We cannot deny the logic of the verse.

>

> With all due respect to the apparent views of these two great

> Advaitins, I don't find the argument compelling, but I think

> its more because of a problem with premises than with logic.

> Most pointedly: the idea of 'superimposition' as an adequate

> idea for describing or explaining the occurrence of transient

> formations within Brahman is something I question. If one

> changes the conception of that key idea, the whole issue

> changes. And remember: we're dealing with a metaphor.

>

 

 

namaste, shri Max,

 

I think shri jaishankar explained the apparent differences

in our points quite clearly and there is not much for me

to add. If you accept superimposition as one of the

fundamental tenets of advaita, then you have to accept

GauDapAdA's logic. I have not read much of Aurobindo's

thinking. Radhakrihnan's view may be understood as an

attempt (may be a feeble attempt) to reconcile the Absolute

view of GauDapAdA with the more 'worldly' understanding

of advaita. Such an attempt is unnecessary really,

because it can be viewed that there is no contradiction

if we understand the perspective in which any particular

statement is made.

 

There is a pa~ncadashI verse by VidyAraNya about mAyA

which as well applies to jagat as well. I put the gist

of it here:

 

If one has a correct understanding, it (the world) does

not exist (asat); if we reason it, it is known to be

mithyA (does exist, does not exist); in the vyavahArika,

it is indeed real.

>

> Namaste,

> -- max

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

There is a discussion going on regarding what is Mithya and Satyam and

whether Gaudapada and Shankara agree or disagree. I would like to clarify

some points here as I have studied Shankara's Bhasyam on Mandukya Karika

and his other Bhasyams on Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras

(Chatusutri) traditionally.

 

At the outset I would like to state that there is no difference of opinion

or disagreement between Shankara and Gaudapada. Otherwise Shankara would'nt

have commented on Gaudapada's Karika.

 

Advaita accepts the reality of the world as 'uncategorisable' Maya. But this

does'nt mean that we accept the world as an attribute or quality of brahman.

why? Because we cannot even establish a real relationship between a quality

and a substantive in the first place. Let us take the example of a tree.

Those who talk about qualities and substantives will say that the

Substantive tree has the quality of 'Treeness'. Now we ask the question

'Whether treeness is in a Tree or non-tree?'.

 

If the answer is 'Treeness is in a Tree', then it leads to infinite

regression. How? Because to call something a Tree it should first have

'Treeness'. And if you say 'Treeness' is in a Tree, then what you are

calling as a 'Tree' must already have 'Treeness'. Then we will question

where that 'Treeness' is? If you again say in a Tree, then the questions

repeats and it becomes an infinite regress.

 

If you answer 'treeness is in a Non-tree' then it is a Contradiction. How

can a Non-tree have 'treeness'? So how to get over this contradiction?

Vedanta says Treeness is 'adhyastam' or 'Superimposed' on a Non-tree which

is nothing but Brahman. There cannot be a real relationship or contact

between a Non-tree and 'Treeness'. It is similar to the relationship between

a snake and a rope. There is no real relationship or contact. SO it is very

clear that there cannot be any real relationship between the world and

Brahman. The world is only a superimposition on Brahman.

 

So Gaudapada from the standpoint of Absolute reality or Brahman can say

there was never a world like we can say from the standpoint of the rope

there was never a snake. But still it appeared and we perceived it. So from

the standpoint of the 'Superimposed world' or the snake, we can say it is

neither real nor unreal because if it is totally unreal like a rabbit's horn

or Barren woman's son, there will not be any cognition of it. But since we

cognised the superimposition we cannot say it is real because if it was

real, it wont be negated by the cognition of rope or Brahman.

 

Further Someone quoted the upanishad statement 'verily this is all Brahman'.

This is a very interesting sentence. This is not a simple appositional

statement like 'Rose is red'. But this statement is like the statement 'The

snake is a rope'. Here although there is apposition between snake and rope,

the reality of snake is negated by the very apposition. This is what we call

in the tradition as 'bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaranyam' - 'negation by apposition'.

So whenever we see a sentence like 'the world is Brahman' in Vedanta we have

understand it like the sentence 'the snake is a rope'.

 

So there is no contradiction if we can understand the standpoint in which

a particular statement is made. This is where a traditional teacher is of

great help. Only a traditional teacher can untangle apparently contradictory

points.

 

I would personally advise those who are serious about Vedanta not to read

scholarly translations of Vedantic texts. They will create more doubts and

questions than they can answer. The best way is to go to a traditional

teacher and study under that person. Because only a traditional teacher has

the key to the methodology of teaching Vedanta. You can get inspiration by

reading books but for clear knowledge, a Guru who is a Shrotriya and

BrahmaNishta is a must.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

the following declaration is difficult to

misunderstand or misinterpret.

 

Sri Ramana has said, "The Vedantins do not say that the

world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did,

what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text, 'All this

is brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as

the world as such, but it is real as Self."

--p.233; DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN

by Devaraja Mudaliar (1977)

 

i will follow-up in a few days with why i think

it's important to have a grasp on the nature of

brahman's lila (a.k.a. the dance of siva).

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

>"f. maiello" <egodust

>

>hariH OM!

>

>the following declaration is difficult to

>misunderstand or misinterpret.

>

>Sri Ramana has said, "The Vedantins do not say that the

>world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did,

>what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text, 'All this

>is brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as

>the world as such, but it is real as Self."

> --p.233; DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN

> by Devaraja Mudaliar (1977)

 

Thank you for this gem. I understand that Aurobindo and

Ramana Maharshi were on good terms, and often sent students

to each other to learn from the other.

>i will follow-up in a few days with why i think

>it's important to have a grasp on the nature of

>brahman's lila (a.k.a. the dance of siva).

 

I very much look forward to that!

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

 

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

DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com

FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

> Sri Ramana has said, "The Vedantins do not say that the

> world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did,

> what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text, 'All this

> is brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as

> the world as such, but it is real as Self."

> --p.233; DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN

> by Devaraja Mudaliar (1977)

>

> i will follow-up in a few days with why i think

> it's important to have a grasp on the nature of

> brahman's lila (a.k.a. the dance of siva).

 

 

 

hariH OM!

 

it should be considered, first of all, that

what follows is based in vyavaharika (the

relative perspective). incidentally, in fact,

as soon as *any* concept is asserted in *any*

shape or form, it must be utterly based in the

vyavahara. how else can it be? at best it

can indicate or point toward paramarthika.

 

paramarthika, per se, cannot be conceptualized.

 

this is why the teaching can never be an end

in itself, but only a means to the end: which

is in Being.

 

having said that, below are some reasons why

i believe it is advantageous to come to terms

with what, in my view, is the component of the

real within the matrix of manifestation (maya).

 

_________

 

 

 

Sankara's advaitic formula, in sanskrit:

1. brahma satyam

2. jagat mithya

3. jeevo brahmaiva na aparah

 

translated:

1. brahman alone is real

2. the world is unreal

3. the jiva is identical with brahman

 

to interpret the third axiom, as atman = brahman,

is an *immeasurably greater* leap than to say that

jiva represents also jagat (world) and isvara (God),

especially since the latter is supported by the

drishti-srishti vada (creation follows perception

doctrine). yet the atman = brahman interpretation

is the one that is the most popular. however, in

this regard, that which is popular in of itself is

no criteria...in fact, in matters of spiritual

philosophy, the popular usually equates to the

superficial/exoteric.

 

here is my reasoning, as to why it's important to

rightly apprehend the nature of manifestation.

 

A. assuming first of all that Sankara has said that

the world is utterly unreal (viz. has no underlying

component of reality), the sadhaka (aspirant) will

wind up being continuously antagonistic toward

something he's constantly having to deal with: i.e.

Life itself. considering it an 'unreality,' he

will be always at odds with it, and in a constant

battle to deny and destroy or transcend it. among

other things, the consequences would be enormous

energy expended, an engagement of excessive thinking,

and the inevitable maintenance of a fundamental

duality.

 

B. in terms of cosmogonic theory:

 

if the pursuit of the destruction of the world

[insofar as the urge to transcend it] is, let's say,

theoretically achieved, the result may indeed be the

release from samsara (the karmic wheel of rebirth).

however, that would be for *this* cycle of the

manvantara (Day of Brahma or manifestation of the

relative world). however, the same dynamic would be

reconstructed, that existed in the mahapralaya (as

described in the rig veda: here is an excerpt from

the commentary to the rig veda's "Chapter One, Dawn

and Birth" by Prof. Pannikir [link posted by Ram

Chandran last week:

http://www.hinduismtoday.kauai.hi.us/books/vedic_experience/Part1/VEPartIChA.htm\

l

 

" SOLITUDE

 

"[...]

 

"In the absolute void the One breathed by its own propulsion without

breath.... The symbol here is utter solitude. The One enwrapped in the

void took birth. Nonbeing made himself atman, and cried: I will be!

Let me be! This was the Self in the form of a Person. But the Primal

Being is not yet fully born, he is not yet fully "out," for when he is

looking around he sees nothing. So he is forced to look upon himself

and take cognizance of himself. Only then is he born; only then does

he discover properly not only himself but also his total solitude, his

helplessness, one could say. When self-awareness comes to birth it

discovers that it is alone and is afraid, "for the one who is alone

is afraid," because aloneness is an unnatural state and thus even Being

needs to be surrounded and "protected" by Nonbeing. The ontologic

anxiety

of Being facing Nonbeing is born simultaneously with self-awareness.

It looks for an object, for "some-thing" which can be grappled with:

anxiety tends to be converted into fear. Now, fear is overcome by a

second act of reflection: the discovery that nothing exists to be

frightened of. But the cost of this rationalized defense is boredom;

there is no joy at all in brooding over oneself. Then arises the desire

for another. It is the beginning of the expansion, the breaking of the

Self--and thus starts the process of the primordial Sacrifice.

 

"2. SACRIFICE

 

"Prajapati desires a second but he has no primary matter out of which

to create the universe. This dilemma is important. A second identical

to him will not satisfy his craving, for it will merge with him; a

second inferior to him will obviously not do either, for it will be

his puppet, the projection of his own will. It will offer him no

resistance, nor will it be a real partner. The Vedic Revelation unveils

the mystery by means of the myth of the sacrifice of Prajapati, who

dismembers himself in order to let the world be, and be what it is.

Creation is the sacrifice, the gift of Prajapati in an act of

self-immolation. There is no other to whom to offer the sacrifice,

no other to accept it. Prajapati is at the same time the sacrificer,

the sacrifice (the victim), the one to whom the sacrifice is offered,

and even the result of the sacrifice."

 

______

 

 

C. on the other hand, if we come to terms with the

nature of manifestation (referred to as brahman's

lila [the Play or Sport of brahman]), and realize

in fact that the Play, in terms of being an outbreath

of brahman's primordial will and desire, is nothing

less than *our* will and desire, which is really

itself eternal. otherwise, do we really want to

dwell in empty void.

 

now, the point is, embracing the essential being in

nirguna brahman, allows one to apprehend what amounts

to--whether we like it this way or not--Its *eternal*

and *infinite* outbreath manifestation in Life. this

is coming to terms with the [the *inevitable* and

beginningless/endless manifestation of saguna brahman].

 

and this is the strategy of advaita. to fuse and unite

the essence and nature of all that IS.

 

D. to summarize, what is it that advaita is teaching

us about the nature of manifestation? the traditional

idea of atman = brahman is only a small part of the

total consideration involved. the wider message is

the at-ONE-ment of Everything and Nothing. where

'Everything' [the Plenum] is the infinite saguna

manifestation, and 'Nothing' [the Void] is its source

and origin in brahman.

 

this is the way to resolve the ancient battle in the

kurukshetra of the ego-Mind.

 

***all there is is One Love***

 

OM mani padme hum

[Guest guest]

>"f. maiello" <egodust

>

>..... the wider message is

>the at-ONE-ment of Everything and Nothing. where

>'Everything' [the Plenum] is the infinite saguna

>manifestation, and 'Nothing' [the Void] is its source

>and origin in brahman.

 

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj once said something like this (I'm paraphrasing from

memory): "When I see I am Nothing, that is wisdom; when I see I am

Everything, that is love; and between those two, my life moves."

 

W