Miguel's question

[Guest guest]

Absolutely wonderful, Frank! Insightful, lucid, and straight from the heart.

Great to have you back. (I personally really appreciate your presence on the

list because then I don't have to work very hard - you say everything I

would say, and better!)

 

I don't know if you're aware of this, but your outlook seems to me closer to

that of Kashmir Shaivism than classical Advaita. There's no real difference

in substance between the two schools as far as I can tell, but a large

difference in attitude and approach.

>the popular misconception re the nature of

>manifestation prevails among even astute

>and learned advaitins. the consensus being

>that the world is intrinsically unreal and

>something to be urgently(!) transcended.

>

>this is a grave mistake. why? because we

>--as brahman--*desired* it; having projected

>it thus into being! rig veda reveals this

>to be incontrovertibly so. so why this

>repulsive attitude toward the world?

>

>the fact is, if the world is referred to as

>brahman's leela, should resonate within each

>of us that [it] is integral to the existential

>nature of brahman.

>

>the problem only arises under the very special

>condition if/when the individual succumbs to

>it [or any aspect within it] as being *apart*

>from its source in brahman. otherwise, it is

>very real. even its fleeting nature [of names

>and forms], subject to birth and death...have

>within it the real dynamic of the *process*

>of change unfolding. the *process* is real.

>the names and forms are only unreal in their

>*static* sense. *not in their dynamic process*.

>

>the fact is, we're confronted with what comes

>down to being the game of Life. and our charge,

>even *after* Self-realization, is to continuously

>adapt our understanding to it. and this is what

>makes it so beautiful and fulfilling! of course

>we have to stay alert and not allow it to snare

>us in terms of inordinant attachments to any of

>its Particulars. however, it's something we

>metaphysically willed into being! if not, why

>is it here at all? is God or brahman thus some

>sadistic practical joker? causing 'the fall of

>souls' for no other reason than to suffer through

>aeons of time until they can be emancipated?

>is God watching the universe of entified sentient

>beings wrything in pain and horror because He

>has nothing better to do? yet this is the only

>possible conclusion that can be inferentially

>drawn from the theory that we have no recourse

>but to be eventually and through hellish suffering

>be finally liberated from the wheel of samsara.

>

>no. we have to learn how to play the game of Life.

>as sankara tells us, maya is beginningless and

>endless. and although cyclical, it's nevertheless

>a **permanent/eternal existential dynamic**.

>

>moreover, if/when an individual realizes his source

>in brahman, who or what gets liberated?? brahman

>is still projecting Its mayashakthi in the form of

>countless souls in Its incomprehensibly vast leela.

>therefore, again, our leela is an eternal archetype,

>built into the core nature of brahman.

>

>OM ramanarpanamasthu!

>

>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]

Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

>

> [...]

>

> So the subject of adyaasa must be Brahman: "I (Brahman)

> am a jiiva". This is confirmed by the fact that the

> correct statement is "I am Brahman", where I=Brahman,

> and also by the fact that there is nothing but Brahman.

> But the statement "I (Brahman) am a jiiva" is

> equivalent to "I, who am Brahman, do not know that I am

> Brahman, and think that I am a jiiva". Is this the

> case? If so, how is it possible that Brahman doesn't

> know Itself and falls prey to adyaasa? Isn't Brahman

> unchangeable? An error indicates a change: before and

> after the mistake. How can this happen to Brahman?

>

 

hariH OM!

 

sri miguel has touched a very sensitive

philosophical nerve with this question.

and, by omission, it really hasn't been

apprehended pragmatically in any sastra

or bhashya. conclusions can be drawn from

these sources, but because of the lack of

any clear explanation therein, the

consequence is confusion and misunderstanding.

 

i've addressed this issue on a number of

occasions, as sri patrick has recently

mentioned, but i think the elucidation of

it [below] is much clearer. it's actually

a message recently written in response to

someone's inquiry re my website. it doesn't

directly respond to miguel's question, but

it can be readily adapted.

 

___________

 

the popular misconception re the nature of

manifestation prevails among even astute

and learned advaitins. the consensus being

that the world is intrinsically unreal and

something to be urgently(!) transcended.

 

this is a grave mistake. why? because we

--as brahman--*desired* it; having projected

it thus into being! rig veda reveals this

to be incontrovertibly so. so why this

repulsive attitude toward the world?

 

the fact is, if the world is referred to as

brahman's leela, should resonate within each

of us that [it] is integral to the existential

nature of brahman.

 

the problem only arises under the very special

condition if/when the individual succumbs to

it [or any aspect within it] as being *apart*

from its source in brahman. otherwise, it is

very real. even its fleeting nature [of names

and forms], subject to birth and death...have

within it the real dynamic of the *process*

of change unfolding. the *process* is real.

the names and forms are only unreal in their

*static* sense. *not in their dynamic process*.

 

the fact is, we're confronted with what comes

down to being the game of Life. and our charge,

even *after* Self-realization, is to continuously

adapt our understanding to it. and this is what

makes it so beautiful and fulfilling! of course

we have to stay alert and not allow it to snare

us in terms of inordinant attachments to any of

its Particulars. however, it's something we

metaphysically willed into being! if not, why

is it here at all? is God or brahman thus some

sadistic practical joker? causing 'the fall of

souls' for no other reason than to suffer through

aeons of time until they can be emancipated?

is God watching the universe of entified sentient

beings wrything in pain and horror because He

has nothing better to do? yet this is the only

possible conclusion that can be inferentially

drawn from the theory that we have no recourse

but to be eventually and through hellish suffering

be finally liberated from the wheel of samsara.

 

no. we have to learn how to play the game of Life.

as sankara tells us, maya is beginningless and

endless. and although cyclical, it's nevertheless

a **permanent/eternal existential dynamic**.

 

moreover, if/when an individual realizes his source

in brahman, who or what gets liberated?? brahman

is still projecting Its mayashakthi in the form of

countless souls in Its incomprehensibly vast leela.

therefore, again, our leela is an eternal archetype,

built into the core nature of brahman.

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

[Guest guest]

Warren E. Donley wrote:

>

> I don't know if you're aware of this, but your outlook seems to me closer to

> that of Kashmir Shaivism than classical Advaita. There's no real difference

> in substance between the two schools as far as I can tell, but a large

> difference in attitude and approach.

>

 

hi warren-

 

perhaps so. however, i contend that

the esoteric teachings of the world

religions are aligned in immaculate

simplicity. once the key is had the

semantics in words *and* ideas all

resolve into the universal archetype:

the insrutable Self-nature of the

ONE Being animating all beings.

 

namaste,

frank