Chronology of the universe

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

Thanks for your kind words.

 

Yes, as we say in Spain, "all roads lead to Rome". All

pointers, even contradictory ones, can lead to the same

goal. But I'd say there are two kinds of pointers:

practical and theoretical. Practical pointers, i.e.

those dealing with what to do, may very well differ, as

what is good for a person may not be good for another

one. But theoretical pointers try to show us what

reality is like. And here some correspondance is to be

expected for the pointer to be considered true. I admit

that speaking about Brahman, the Ultimate Reality,

whatever you say is false, because IT is not a object

with qualities that could be described. That's why

mystics and sages of all religions often speak about

God with paradoxes. But I'm not interested in a

description of God but in the descriptions that advaita

teachers make about phenomenality, about physical

reality.

 

I also admit that a description of physical reality

will never be the same as reality itself. But I'm not

asking for a theory of the totality, but for

elucidation of some very particular aspects, those

regarding free will, determinism, causation, the

beginning of the world, etc. Here, if statement A is

true, its opposite can't also be. You can't at the same

time and for all observers declare "we have free will

to choose" and "we don't have free will to choose".

Either of the two is false.

 

Regarding free will, you distinguish between freedom to

choose and our "feeling" of free will. Of course we all

have the feeling, the question is do we also have real

freedom to choose?

 

You mention an experiment showing that we make

decisions before we even become aware of them. There is

a really interesting web site at:

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

 

In it, Stanley Sobottka, Emeritus Professor of Physics

at the University of Virginia, presents "A Course in

Consciousness". Here are some conclusions that Stanley

Sobottka (who is a non-dualist) draws :

 

"Experiential awareness [i.e. consciousnes of an

experience] always *follows* stimuli *and decisions*."

(chapter 5, section 9).

 

"Free will as the possibility of alternative action is

impossible. There can't be any free decision: either it

is determined or it is random." (chapter 5, section 10)

 

"Free will implies a duality agent/outside world, and

even a split within the agent: inner I/outer I. No such

duality is supported by science." (chapter 5, section

11)

 

"In fact we cannot even control our thoughts freely."

(chapter 5, section 12)

 

"True freedom is freedom from an imagined free will."

(chapter 5, section 13)

 

 

All these observations are quite in concordance with

what Nisargadatta and Ramesh Balsekar say: the

existence of a separate, independent, autonomous

individual is an illusion, there is no real "me", and

it is the functioning of Totality which determines

whatever happens, including our supposedly free

choices. Freedom then consists not in choosing

between alternatives, but in becoming free of the

identification, of the idea that I am "me", and getting

to realize that it is only the one Consciousness which

exists and experiences the world in each of us.

 

 

Regarding the point I was particularly interested in,

the chronology of the universe, there have been no

answers to my question. Yet I find it intriguing.

According to some (eg Ramesh Balsekar), the world of

phenomenality begins when it is projected by the mind.

So before the appearance of body-minds there was no

universe.

 

For example, here's a dialogue taken from

"Consciousness Speaks":

 

Ramesh: This manifestation is merely an appearance in

Consciousness and in no way different from our personal

dream.

 

Question: If I think about the present concepts of the

history of the universe, sentient being did not arise

for several billion years after the universe arrived.

Was the appearance of the I Am at the beginning of the

universe, or at the beginning of the appearance of the

first sentient being?

 

Ramesh: In your personal dream, you find rivers and

mountains thousands of years old. You find a baby being

born, and you find old men, all of different phenomenal

age. But they are all born at the instant that your

dream begins. In your personal dream, all these objects

of different ages appear at the moment when the dream

starts. Yet, in that dream, each has its own age.

 

Question: What about the chronology of the universe?

When did the dream start?

 

Ramesh: It is the same as the chronology in your

personal dream.

 

Nisargadatta Majaraj also said something similar:

"The world comes into being when you are born in a

body. No body - no world." (I Am That, p.207)

 

And I say, Is this possible? If the universe starts

when the first body-mind projects it, what about

Darwin's evolution of the species, what about the big

bang?

 

And also: If the universe is projected by a body-mind,

where was that body-mind before it began to project the

world? How could a body-mind appear if there was no

world before?

 

All answers are welcome.

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

>

> Question: What about the chronology of the universe?

> When did the dream start?

>

> Ramesh: It is the same as the chronology in your

> personal dream.

>

> Nisargadatta Majaraj also said something similar:

> "The world comes into being when you are born in a

> body. No body - no world." (I Am That, p.207)

>

> And I say, Is this possible? If the universe starts

> when the first body-mind projects it, what about

> Darwin's evolution of the species, what about the big

> bang?

>

> And also: If the universe is projected by a body-mind,

> where was that body-mind before it began to project the

> world? How could a body-mind appear if there was no

> world before?

 

 

namaste miguel-

 

the list has been very active, so you

might not have had the chance to read

my post "ready to hear..." although

addressing many, it was focused more

on attempting to specifically address

your and patrick's concerns, as well

as dennis to a lesser extent.

 

please let me know what your thoughts

are in response to it..

 

but first i'd like to mention the

following:

 

in terms of teaching capacity, not

many understand the fact that very

few jnanis reach to the level of the

jagatgurus (world teachers) like ramana,

sankara, vedavyasa, vasishtha, jesus,

buddha, etc. this is due to a number

of factors; first and foremost their

unique role [scripted by the Ordainer

isvara, if one wants to consider such];

secondly their mental equipment and prior

exposure [and therefore experiences gathered

as the result] to wide ranges of personality

types; and other factors.

 

in light of this, ramesh, nisargadatta,

poonjaji, gangaji, and other so-called

neo-vedantins (even though may be jnanis),

are not effective gurus for wide ranging

personality types on one hand, as well as

fail to reach into the nature of mayashakti

(the mechanism itself responsible for

spawning all these awesome and captivatingly

intriguing psychophysical Life-dynamics,

being the inescapable product of Relativity)

on the other. instead they discuss along

the periphery! saying albeit interesting

things about it, but failing to reach to

its core, being SIMPLY the explanation via

the so-called ajatavada doctrine (the very

Heart-essence of advaita vedanta)--as ramana

and buddha clearly honed in on; while the

other world teachers [due to somewhat

involved reasons] alluded to especially

indirectly. ajatavada, if you're not

familiar, boils everything down to the

causal essence of thought itself, resolving

in cidakasa (likened to 'the ether of pure

Heart-awareness').

 

not to discourage anyone, but it could be

compared to the *overall presentation* in

the bhagavad gita vs astavakra gita. where

the former, although applicable to all on

the path, doesn't major in zeroing in on

[in terms of specializing and therefore

exposing the element associated with] the

works of the inexplicable machine Itself

(mayashakti) that's responsible for all the

incredible dynamics in the relative Mind and

its Life projection. on the path, countless

passages in bg are vital and indispensible,

and numerous allusions to ajatavada are surely

found therein...however, other considerations

it addresses tend to camouflage the core essence

revealed in ajatavada. and, at the threshold

of the final breakthrough, the top gun ajatavada

is really the *only means* for smashing the

aeons-forged hypnotic walls of ego-Mind barrier!

 

OM svaha!

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Here are a few verses from the Gita, which gave me some

answers:

 

XVIII:11 -

na hi dehabhR^itaa shakya.n tyaktu.n karmmaNyashashhataH . ........

 

Actions cannot be entirely relinquished by an embodied being.

 

III:8 -

niyata.n kuru karma tva.n karma jyaayo hyakarmaNaH .

shariirayaatraapi cha te na prsiddhyedakarmaNaH ..

 

Do thou perform obligatory action;for action is superior to inaction;

and even the bare maintenance of the body would not be possible if

thou art inactive.

 

XII:5 -

klesho.adhikatarasteshhamavyaktaasaktachetasaam.h .

avyaktaa hi gatirduHkha.n dehavadbhiravaapyate ..

 

Greater is their trouble whose minds are set on the Unmanifested; for

the goal of the Unmanifested is very hard for the embodied to reach.

 

The way I understand these verses, is that I have free will as long

as I identify myself with the body-mind-intellect, and can choose to

approximate the omnipotent Divine Will; when the two merge the

question will vanish.

 

The following URL has an excellent article which the readers may find

as useful as it was for me:

 

http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m5843.html

 

Regards,

 

sunder

 

 

advaitin , "Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12@t...>

that advaita

> teachers make about phenomenality, about physical

> reality.

>

> I also admit that a description of physical reality

> will never be the same as reality itself. But I'm not

> asking for a theory of the totality, but for

> elucidation of some very particular aspects, those

> regarding free will, determinism, causation, the

> beginning of the world, etc. Here, if statement A is

> true, its opposite can't also be. You can't at the same

> time and for all observers declare "we have free will

> to choose" and "we don't have free will to choose".

> Either of the two is false.

>

> Regarding free will, you distinguish between freedom to

> choose and our "feeling" of free will. Of course we all

> have the feeling, the question is do we also have real

> freedom to choose?

>

> All answers are welcome.

>

> Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

Dear Miguel,

 

You have touched on a couple of questions that confuse and trouble a lot of

people when confronted with teachings like Ramesh's. I don't pretend to know

any answers, but I'll at least give you my reactions to your questions.

>If the universe starts when the first body-mind projects it, what about

Darwin's evolution of the species, what about the big bang?

 

The body-mind you refer to is itself a projection (I prefer the term

"appearance"). The body-mind and the entire universe that seems to form its

environment appear simultaneously. This instantaneous appearance also

includes the entire "past" and "future". In other words, Darwin's evolution

and the Big Bang happened.... NOW.

 

Certain interpretations of quantum theory also point in this direction -

that when a thing-event appears, its entire past/future appears

simultaneously.

>And also: If the universe is projected by a body-mind,

>where was that body-mind before it began to project the

>world? How could a body-mind appear if there was no

>world before?

 

See above comments.

[Guest guest]

I thank Sri Miguel-Angel for his contribution and particularly for the

reference to Prof: Sobottka's work. It is heart-warming to note that all

sincere students of Truth, wherever they may be, begin to reach the same

conclusions.

 

It is particluarly interesting to note the conclusion that "we make

decisions before becoming aware of them". In Nov 1999, I published an

article in our area Chinmaya Mission newsletter where, based on what little I

know of Gita and Mandukya Upanishad, I suggested that our decisions are NOT

made by our intellect, but by Ishwara, the Lord, residing in our "karana

sarira" (causal body) . This is the deepest layer of our personality which

is not normally accessible to our mind and intellect. Decisions are first

made at this causal body level and then transmitted to our mind and

intellect, at which time the ego claims it as "my decision"! Thus ego is the

cause of the illusion of independent will, as noted by many writers already

in these postings.

 

It is clear that scientists have no idea how decisions are made by human

beings, as noted in a Dec 1999 artilce in Scientific American by Sir John

Maddox, a British scientist.

 

In this respect, it should be noted that decison making by humans has

necessarily an element of unpredicatbility. This is not dissimilar to the

other prominent uncertain feature of this universe, namely the uncertaintly

familiar to quantum mechanics scientists. In fact, I believe there is a

certain similarity between decision making by humans and the concept of "

collapse of wave function". I have a detailed discussion of this topic in an

article which is expected to be published in the Dec 2000 issue of Chinmaya

Management Review. I will be happy to e-mail the article to any one

requesting it. At the same time I am very eager to learn what others may

have to say about this very fascinating and fundamental question.

 

Hari Om!

 

- Raju Chidambaram.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir:

 

Hari Om!

 

Thank you very much for mentioning about the articles you have written. I

would request you, on behalf of the members of this list, to post these

articles in this list. I am sure it would benefit many. You may also

upload these files, in to the Advaitin Files area, so that seekers could

download and read them. Thank you.

 

I remain yours,

Madhava

 

 

rajuateam [rajuateam]

Sunday, August 27, 2000 4:18 PM

advaitin

Re: Chronology of the universe

 

It is particluarly interesting to note the conclusion that "we make

decisions before becoming aware of them". In Nov 1999, I published an

article in our area Chinmaya Mission newsletter where, based on what little

I

know of Gita and Mandukya Upanishad, I suggested that our decisions are NOT

made by our intellect, but by Ishwara, the Lord, residing in our "karana

sarira" (causal body) .

 

In fact, I believe there is a

certain similarity between decision making by humans and the concept of "

collapse of wave function". I have a detailed discussion of this topic in

an

article which is expected to be published in the Dec 2000 issue of Chinmaya

Management Review. I will be happy to e-mail the article to any one

requesting it. At the same time I am very eager to learn what others may

have to say about this very fascinating and fundamental question.

 

Hari Om!

 

- Raju Chidambaram.

[Guest guest]

 

Miguel Angel Carrasco [macf12]

 

And I say, Is this possible? If the universe starts

when the first body-mind projects it, what about

Darwin's evolution of the species, what about the big

bang?

 

[Madhava Replies:]

 

Dear Miguel, namastE!

 

What does it mean by body-mind? Are we talking about the body-mind of

humans? Is the body-mind of the animals included in it? Actually the

body-mind which we talk here is nothing but the recycled product of the

earth. And the earth is a part of this universe.

 

I mean, I eat certain food which is grown on this earth... I drink water

which is available on this earth. I breath air which is available on this

earth. Now, before consuming these natural life-sustaining-sources through

this body, they are there... They are there sustaining some other body.

They get recycled and return back.

 

Going beyond all concepts we will arrive at only two visible forces, which

are Consciousness and Matter. This universe is nothing but matter and

anti-matter. But unless my consciousness touches it, there is nothing to

recognize it. My body is sustained by my apparent *little* consciousness,

how ever limited it may be. Also, the whole universe is sustained by the

*big* consciousness. Consciousness is there, but not in the form which you

and me could recognize. I feel that homogeneous mass of consciousness is

identified as "hiraNyagarbha", by our Seers.

 

We can see life and death to this body. It appears like something entered

in to this body. We call that something as soul. The moment it leaves, the

body is said to be dead. And this dead body gets recycled... If only body

gets recycled, then what about the consciousness! The movement of the

live-body ceases to appear ---- *to the* consciousness which is perceiving!

So there is one consciousness to recognize the consciousness which is not

appearing. With out the help of consciousness, there is nothing to

recognize.

 

Imagine a father who has just died. And his body is lying in his coffin.

His son is watching him sadly. The father during his happier times, with

the help of his wife, gave birth to this son. What does it mean by giving

birth? Isn't it just like lighting a candle with the help of another

burning candle? The consciousness in the father, with the help of the

consciousness in the mother, kindles the consciousness in the body of the

children. Let me remind you on what our TaittireeyOpanishad says:

 

"mAtA poorva roopaM, pitOttara roopam, prajA saMdhiH, prajananagaM

saMdhAnaM".... - taittireeya upanishad.

 

I feel, just like a burning candle kindles the light of another candle and

passes on its light. Consciousness gets transformed in to another being

through the saMdhi of children (praja).

 

Looking back retrospectively, there should be a first being which was

existing. And this sustains Darwin's theory. Yet! We are not particularly

interested in this theory because it talks about Matter transformed in to

another matter. But what about the consciousness? The consciousness which

lived in Darwin! (because we perceive it that way!)

 

Let me put it this way:

 

In the beginning, there is this great consciousness, for which the whole

universe is the body. Please refer the nArAyaNa sukta, it says "nArAyaNaM

mahAgnEyaM vishWAtmAnaM parAyaNaM". He knows everything, for he is

all-pervading. He pervaded the entire universe, yet he is *beyond* the

perceived universe (parAyaNaM). The body of the Supreme purusha, before and

after the big-bang, is called as "Prakriti" (nature) by our Seers, and the

Purusha is nothing but the Consciousness.

 

And he decided to become many, then happened the big bang, the Shakti became

many (exploded). He became many globes, many nebulas, many beautiful stars,

pulsars. Everything is bustling with movement (apparent consciousness). I

believe movement is nothing but visual representation of consciousness.

There is movement to this entire universe. The entire universe is born out

of single matter, and a single anti-matter. There should be a will for

anything to take place. And for the big-bang to take place there was this

will of the hiraNyagarbha, for whom the entire condensed universe is the

body! I heard that the universe should be of a very minute size before the

big-bang. And our vedas say "aNOraNeeyAn mahatO maheeyAn" his body looked

like an atom before the big bang (aNOraNeeyAn), but now his body is spread

in to such a great length, we can't imagine! (mahatO maheeyAn).

 

[Miuguel:]

And also: If the universe is projected by a body-mind,

where was that body-mind before it began to project the

world? How could a body-mind appear if there was no

world before?

 

[Madhava Replies:]

The body-mind of the hiraNyagarbha projected the universe, neither the

body-mind of me nor the body-mind of anybody is responsible for it. Just

like the flame in one candle is not different from the flame of another

candle, the consciousness in one being is not different from the

consciousness in the other being. Consciousness is there all-pervading, and

we have to identify ourselves with the supreme being, with the universe,

then only our questions get answered. You may question, how could we

identify with the universe. Actually, through valid knowledge it is

possible.

 

Let me give a day-to-day example: We learn driving a car. After some days,

we become proficient in driving it. We can drive even in the busy roads with

out committing any accident, we can cruise! How is this possible? They say

that we have certain element called *judgment* in us. Which knows where the

car's edges are! Put it in the other way, our mind out-grows our own body

and engulfs the body of the car! Just like we can walk safely with out

bumping in to anybody, during the normal walking process --- we can safely

drive through our judgment with out hitting any other car! If we can

outgrow and engulf ourselves with the body of a car, which is n'th times

bigger than us, just because of the identification which we develop towards

the car, then why can't we identify ourselves with the universe, during the

times of the meditation and realize what it is.....

 

[Miguel:]

All answers are welcome.

 

Miguel-Angel

[Madhava Replies:]

 

Thank you. I was thinking out loud. Please feel free to comment/correct.

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Searchable List Archives are available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to

<advaitin-nomail >

To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to

<advaitin-normal >

To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to

<advaitin-digest >

To to advaitin list, send a blank email to

<advaitin->

[Guest guest]

Dear Miguel,

 

All put so very well! After exhausting the 'What is the Point' thread and

being reasonably satisfied, you are almost making me worry about it all over

again. I say almost, because I am not altogether sure you are on very steady

ground for your concerns. (Mind you, I am reluctant to argue lest Patrick

accuse me of being obsequious or something! :-) )

>

> You mention an experiment showing that we make

> decisions before we even become aware of them. There is

> a really interesting web site at:

> http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

>

 

Yes, I've had a look and it does seem very interesting. Have you by any

chance downloaded the whole book such that you could email it to me? (It

looks as though it would take some significant on-line time to download it a

bit at a time and I still have to pay for this.)

> Freedom then consists not in choosing

> between alternatives, but in becoming free of the

> identification, of the idea that I am "me", and getting

> to realize that it is only the one Consciousness which

> exists and experiences the world in each of us.

>

 

Sounds very clear and reasonable to me.

>

> And I say, Is this possible? If the universe starts

> when the first body-mind projects it, what about

> Darwin's evolution of the species, what about the big

> bang?

>

> And also: If the universe is projected by a body-mind,

> where was that body-mind before it began to project the

> world? How could a body-mind appear if there was no

> world before?

>

 

I'm unclear why you do not find Ramesh's explanation acceptable here.

Surely, if 'reality' is to this 'waking consciousness' as our normal waking

state is to 'dreaming', then there is no real case to argue? In a dream, a

whole lifetime (or several) might be compressed into a half-hour period of

our sleep. It all seems perfectly normal at the time of dreaming and we do

not question it. When we wake up, however, we recognise that it was 'only a

dream' and think no more about it. We do not start asking questions about

how it could have been possible to age so quickly etc. or try to understand

the objective details of the dream. Similarly, if this waking manifestation

is just a different level of illusion, anything could happen. Though an

explanation for this 'anything' might seem totally illogical from within the

context of the illusion, once we have stepped outside, all is clear and

there is no need for any explanation.

 

In reality, there is no separate universe, no separate body-minds. There is

only Consciousness. No before and after; only now. No problem.

 

Dennis

 

P.S. I will not be able to post any more messages until Friday at the

earliest.