How/Why did Brahman do this

[Guest guest]

Abhimanyu knew how to un-entangle the PadmaVyooham in

one direction only. He did not know how to come back.

It is another story how other Pandavas (other than

Arjuna) tried to piggy-back on him in forward

direction in the hope of finding a return path thru

might, but were unsuccessful.

We have theoretically(thru study of Scriptures) come

to an understanding of going beyond duality, then

going beyond the immanent names& forms, and ended up

with the nirguna Brahman.

Now, the question is how to trace the return path. How

did many came at all ? Why did desire come about in

Existence in the beginning ?

I have the following information that I read before:

1) Understand the questioner. Eventually there is no

question.

2) No one knows how this came about.

 

Comments and clarifications are greatly appreciated.

 

With Love,

Raghava

 

 

 

 

Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

http://auctions./

[Guest guest]

>

>Now, the question is how to trace the return path. How

>did many came at all ? Why did desire come about in

>Existence in the beginning ?

>I have the following information that I read before:

>1) Understand the questioner. Eventually there is no

>question.

>2) No one knows how this came about.

>

>Comments and clarifications are greatly appreciated.

>

>With Love,

>Raghava

>

 

Both 1 and 2 are answers. How and why for things that are not really

there can only be an unanswered questions only. For the one who is

caught up in ignorance this answer cannot appeal. Hence different

aacharya-s came up with different answers - One is its Lord play - or

Leela Vibhuuti - why Lord should play - why not? He has the capacity

to play and he is the Lord anyway and if he has to be accountable he

cannot be the Lord. That is one answer.

 

It is inexplainable - anirvachaniiyam -This is because why and why

not are cause-effect relations and are time bound. The answer lies

beyond the cause-effect relations - It is beyond the time which is in

the realm of cause-effect. Hence any explanation is only a cock &

bull story and one can have his own answer which is equally incorrect

or correct. It is said there are 80 or so theories of creation in

Hinduism - one can have his own theory. This only points out that

none is a valid one and if there is really valid one Veda-s would

have pointout to us.

 

Ignorance cannot have the beginning - it is technically called

puurvaabhaaga apratiyoginii avidya. It only means it is

beginningless. If ignorance has the beginning then before that one is

knowledgeable and one who is knowledgeable cannot become ignorant

later. When I did start not knowing Chemistry or when did my

ignorance of chemistry started - It has to be beginningless. But the

ignorance can end when I learn chemistry. This is true with all

ignorance including self-ignorance.

 

This beginningless ignorance is accepted even in vishhTaadvaita and

dwaita. There the ignorance is not knowing the nature of the Lord

and ones or jiiva's dependance on Him. He thinks he is swatantra and

starts operating on that premise and get caught up in this cycle of

karma and janma until one surrenders to the Lord.

 

your comment 2, no one knows - that applies to the intellectual

knowledge and that is a fact. Intellect cannot comprehend that which

is beyond the intellect. When one goes beyond the intellect one goes

to your answer 1.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sadananda garu,

 

I agree with your last statement : Intellectual attempts at "Understanding"

can only take you to Answer # 2. Beyond that it is only Answer # 1.

 

It was your comment "Ignorance has no beginning..." that got me thinking...I

am writing my understanding of this discussion... But I am not sure if I am

on the right track. Would appreciate if you could explain this to me...

Thanks.

 

If this manifested world started from an unmanifested whole that included

not only creatures, plants and planets but also space and time then wouldn't

that starting point be the sole unity which may be called "I" or "Supreme

Knowledge". For some reason (see Answer # 2 "No one knows how this came

about") this "I" willed into creation a manifested world. When Time itself

got created, isn't this the time that ignorance also got created ? Because

before Time, everything was this sole unity called "I" or "Supreme

Knowledge".

 

Maybe neither science nor man's mind can really grasp the beginning of time

(or of ignorance), but does that make ignorance beginingless ?

 

Ram

 

 

>

> K. Sadananda [sMTP:sada]

> Monday, March 12, 2001 1:36 PM

> advaitin

> Re: How/Why did Brahman do this

>

> >

> >Now, the question is how to trace the return path. How

> >did many came at all ? Why did desire come about in

> >Existence in the beginning ?

> >I have the following information that I read before:

> >1) Understand the questioner. Eventually there is no

> >question.

> >2) No one knows how this came about.

> >

> >Comments and clarifications are greatly appreciated.

> >

> >With Love,

> >Raghava

> >

>

> Both 1 and 2 are answers. How and why for things that are not really

> there can only be an unanswered questions only. For the one who is

> caught up in ignorance this answer cannot appeal. Hence different

> aacharya-s came up with different answers - One is its Lord play - or

> Leela Vibhuuti - why Lord should play - why not? He has the capacity

> to play and he is the Lord anyway and if he has to be accountable he

> cannot be the Lord. That is one answer.

>

> It is inexplainable - anirvachaniiyam -This is because why and why

> not are cause-effect relations and are time bound. The answer lies

> beyond the cause-effect relations - It is beyond the time which is in

> the realm of cause-effect. Hence any explanation is only a cock &

> bull story and one can have his own answer which is equally incorrect

> or correct. It is said there are 80 or so theories of creation in

> Hinduism - one can have his own theory. This only points out that

> none is a valid one and if there is really valid one Veda-s would

> have pointout to us.

>

> Ignorance cannot have the beginning - it is technically called

> puurvaabhaaga apratiyoginii avidya. It only means it is

> beginningless. If ignorance has the beginning then before that one is

> knowledgeable and one who is knowledgeable cannot become ignorant

> later. When I did start not knowing Chemistry or when did my

> ignorance of chemistry started - It has to be beginningless. But the

> ignorance can end when I learn chemistry. This is true with all

> ignorance including self-ignorance.

>

> This beginningless ignorance is accepted even in vishhTaadvaita and

> dwaita. There the ignorance is not knowing the nature of the Lord

> and ones or jiiva's dependance on Him. He thinks he is swatantra and

> starts operating on that premise and get caught up in this cycle of

> karma and janma until one surrenders to the Lord.

>

> your comment 2, no one knows - that applies to the intellectual

> knowledge and that is a fact. Intellect cannot comprehend that which

> is beyond the intellect. When one goes beyond the intellect one goes

> to your answer 1.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> --

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Shree Ram - Shree Ram there is (an unwritten) law against asking very

intelligent questions about ignorance!

 

>Sadananda garu,

>

>I agree with your last statement : Intellectual attempts at "Understanding"

>can only take you to Answer # 2. Beyond that it is only Answer # 1.

>

>It was your comment "Ignorance has no beginning..." that got me thinking...I

>am writing my understanding of this discussion... But I am not sure if I am

>on the right track. Would appreciate if you could explain this to me...

>Thanks.

>

>If this manifested world started from an unmanifested whole that included

>not only creatures, plants and planets but also space and time then wouldn't

>that starting point be the sole unity which may be called "I" or "Supreme

>Knowledge". For some reason (see Answer # 2 "No one knows how this came

>about") this "I" willed into creation a manifested world. When Time itself

>got created, isn't this the time that ignorance also got created ? Because

>before Time, everything was this sole unity called "I" or "Supreme

>Knowledge".

 

What you say is right - that supreme knowledge is not the knowledge

of (something) - since there is nothing other that supreme - ekam eva

advitiiyam - says shruti - one without a second. It is self conscious

entity - if we want to say something about that - sat chit ananda

swaruupa. -

 

When we talk about creation - we have come down already a one step

down -The creator in advaita is Iswara since there is a creation and

created and therefore a creator. The question when and how did all

this started is asked by a jiiva - who thinks there is a creation and

it started and wanted to know how and why it started? Scripture

tells to the intelligent questioner (who is asking since he has the

intellect to ask) all the Vedanta which I mentioned as different

achaarya-s have explained differently.

 

Now about ignorance - it has to be anaadi - the concept of aadi or

beginning is time bound. The concept of time itself has to be

understood - To define a time you need to sequential events

(according to Einstein) or two sequential experiences according to

vedanta. This ultimately reduces to two sequential thoughts - first

thought and then the next thought - the gap between the two is the

time - in the creation of events, the time concept arises as the

third event after the two sequential events. Ignorance is anaadi in

the sense it is already there before the concept of time arose. I am

is the first thought (aham vR^itti) and I am this (idam vR^itti) is

the second thought - in the second thought itself is the ignorance is

involved. Time is the third in the sequence. Hence ignorance is

annadi or before the concept of time. Another way of looking at it -

time itself is intellectual concept - when the intellect folds - as

in deep sleep there is no time concept in deep sleep - but ignorance

is still there - If one asks what you do in deep sleep or where were

you in deep sleep - all the answers one gets is 'I do not know" - Yet

everyone will say - I slept very well - see I was there to sleep very

well - concept of time and space gone - I am there and ignorance is

also there.

 

>Maybe neither science nor man's mind can really grasp the beginning of time

>(or of ignorance), but does that make ignorance beginingless ?

>

Ram

 

Ram I do not know if I have convinced or not - but look at my

previous answer again. If Ignorance has a beginning then I as a jiiva

must be knowledgeable before. How can I (a jiiva) who already knows

can become ignorant. Remember this is the question by jiiva and not

by Brahman. From Brahman point there is no one other than Brahman.

Hence no question nor questioner.

 

I hope it is clear now

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Raghavarao Kaluri wrote:

> Abhimanyu knew how to un-entangle the PadmaVyooham in

> one direction only. He did not know how to come back.

> It is another story how other Pandavas (other than

> Arjuna) tried to piggy-back on him in forward

> direction in the hope of finding a return path thru

> might, but were unsuccessful.

> We have theoretically(thru study of Scriptures) come

> to an understanding of going beyond duality, then

> going beyond the immanent names& forms, and ended up

> with the nirguna Brahman.

> Now, the question is how to trace the return path. How

> did many came at all ? Why did desire come about in

> Existence in the beginning ?

> I have the following information that I read before:

> 1) Understand the questioner. Eventually there is no

> question.

> 2) No one knows how this came about.

>

> Comments and clarifications are greatly appreciated.

>

> With Love,

> Raghava

>

 

 

namaste shri Raghava garu,

 

I trust you had a good India trip.

 

You have asked how and why did brahman do *this*?

Shri Sadananda garu, in his inimitable style, gave answers

to that question. I like to re-phrase your question and respond

to it.

 

 

What has brahman done? Answer: nothing

 

Who is this brahman? It is this jIvA; you and I devoid of

delusion. We, in our delusion, think there is this creation

created by brahman, who we think is something outside us.

But, is there, really?

 

This whole creation (I assume you mean 'creation' by your

usage of the word 'this') is all inside us; being created

by us, sustained by us, and getting dissolved into us everyday.

As we get into wake-up state, the things around us slowly

get evolved; we sustain what we see and infer throughout our

wake-up state and as we go to sleep, what has evolved gets

dissolved into us slowly. So, please see 'this' as something

evolving out of us, sustained by us and getting dissolved back

into us every day.

 

So, for a jIvA, deep sleep state (which is really a state of

ignorance) is from which the sruShTi, sthiti, laya is taking

place. We cannot blame brahman for doing all this. We simply

need to blame our delusion for this.

 

Now, if we are out of this delusion, and we see that we ARE

the brahman, then the deep sleep state (the state of ignorance)

is no longer there and what you call 'this' is not there anymore

either.

 

Please do not take my answer to be flippant, but I think that

is what the Truth is.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

Sadananda garu,

 

I had read about this topic in one of Sri Aurobindo's books but I had failed

to understand it. I thought I understood the concept of Time being a linear

"scale" that separates two activities and/or two experiences and that

"scale" having a zero somewhere on it.

 

But extending that definition of Time to the two most primitive thoughts -

and listing those out - brought it in focus for me.

 

Thanks for explaining it so well.

 

I do not know if you were jesting when you said there is an unwritten law

against asking questions about ignorance. Because I think questioning -as

long as it is in the right spirit and with the right amount of humility - is

conducive to better understanding for the student - especially a beginer

like me.

 

Of course one should not question with the intention of questioning the

teacher and I wouldn't dream of doing that. And in that I think this list is

blessed by genuine seekers and genuine guiding posts (teachers). I am really

glad I am a member of this list. On behalf of all the beginers on this list,

I would like to thank all the developed souls here for the extremely

generous giving of knowledge that they have been helping us with.

 

Here is a thought for the day : If you want to drink water at a tap, you

will have to bend your body. Even so, a lower mind will have to bend (to be

humble) before a developed mind if it longs to imbibe its virtues. (From Sw.

Sivananda's "Mind - It's Mysteries and Control")

 

Sorry about the rambling mail... Without intending to draw you away from the

Advaita discussions, I felt I just had to express my gratitude to everybody

on this list.

 

Ram

>

> K. Sadananda [sMTP:sada]

> Monday, March 12, 2001 2:49 PM

> advaitin

> RE: How/Why did Brahman do this

>

> Shree Ram - Shree Ram there is (an unwritten) law against asking very

> intelligent questions about ignorance!

>

>

> >Sadananda garu,

> >

> >I agree with your last statement : Intellectual attempts at

> "Understanding"

> >can only take you to Answer # 2. Beyond that it is only Answer # 1.

> >

> >It was your comment "Ignorance has no beginning..." that got me

> thinking...I

> >am writing my understanding of this discussion... But I am not sure if I

> am

> >on the right track. Would appreciate if you could explain this to me...

> >Thanks.

> >

> >If this manifested world started from an unmanifested whole that included

> >not only creatures, plants and planets but also space and time then

> wouldn't

> >that starting point be the sole unity which may be called "I" or

> "Supreme

> >Knowledge". For some reason (see Answer # 2 "No one knows how this came

> >about") this "I" willed into creation a manifested world. When Time

> itself

> >got created, isn't this the time that ignorance also got created ?

> Because

> >before Time, everything was this sole unity called "I" or "Supreme

> >Knowledge".

>

> What you say is right - that supreme knowledge is not the knowledge

> of (something) - since there is nothing other that supreme - ekam eva

> advitiiyam - says shruti - one without a second. It is self conscious

> entity - if we want to say something about that - sat chit ananda

> swaruupa. -

>

> When we talk about creation - we have come down already a one step

> down -The creator in advaita is Iswara since there is a creation and

> created and therefore a creator. The question when and how did all

> this started is asked by a jiiva - who thinks there is a creation and

> it started and wanted to know how and why it started? Scripture

> tells to the intelligent questioner (who is asking since he has the

> intellect to ask) all the Vedanta which I mentioned as different

> achaarya-s have explained differently.

>

> Now about ignorance - it has to be anaadi - the concept of aadi or

> beginning is time bound. The concept of time itself has to be

> understood - To define a time you need to sequential events

> (according to Einstein) or two sequential experiences according to

> vedanta. This ultimately reduces to two sequential thoughts - first

> thought and then the next thought - the gap between the two is the

> time - in the creation of events, the time concept arises as the

> third event after the two sequential events. Ignorance is anaadi in

> the sense it is already there before the concept of time arose. I am

> is the first thought (aham vR^itti) and I am this (idam vR^itti) is

> the second thought - in the second thought itself is the ignorance is

> involved. Time is the third in the sequence. Hence ignorance is

> annadi or before the concept of time. Another way of looking at it -

> time itself is intellectual concept - when the intellect folds - as

> in deep sleep there is no time concept in deep sleep - but ignorance

> is still there - If one asks what you do in deep sleep or where were

> you in deep sleep - all the answers one gets is 'I do not know" - Yet

> everyone will say - I slept very well - see I was there to sleep very

> well - concept of time and space gone - I am there and ignorance is

> also there.

>

>

> >Maybe neither science nor man's mind can really grasp the beginning of

> time

> >(or of ignorance), but does that make ignorance beginingless ?

> >

> Ram

>

> Ram I do not know if I have convinced or not - but look at my

> previous answer again. If Ignorance has a beginning then I as a jiiva

> must be knowledgeable before. How can I (a jiiva) who already knows

> can become ignorant. Remember this is the question by jiiva and not

> by Brahman. From Brahman point there is no one other than Brahman.

> Hence no question nor questioner.

>

> I hope it is clear now

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

> --

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

>Sadananda garu,

>

>I had read about this topic in one of Sri Aurobindo's books but I had failed

>to understand it. I thought I understood the concept of Time being a linear

>"scale" that separates two activities and/or two experiences and that

>"scale" having a zero somewhere on it.

>

>But extending that definition of Time to the two most primitive thoughts -

>and listing those out - brought it in focus for me.

>

>Thanks for explaining it so well.

>

>I do not know if you were jesting when you said there is an unwritten law

>against asking questions about ignorance. Because I think questioning -as

>long as it is in the right spirit and with the right amount of humility - is

>conducive to better understanding for the student - especially a beginer

>like me.

 

Shree Ram - I was just kidding. But if one wants to think about

deeply, ignorance by nature is ignorance. Hence inquiry into the

nature of the ignorance Shankara says is going after inquiring into

the qualities of the snake in terms of its characteristics, its

phylum, class, attributes etc - as in a serious biology class when

there was never ignorance to begin with. In fact Shree Ramanuja

gives an exhaustive criticism of avidya concept of advaita in Shree

Bhaashya- as seven fundamental faults of avidya. We will take up

that when we discuss Shree Bhaashya. Shankara says we are interested

in knowledge and not in ignorance since anything we say about

ignorance is itself a reflection of ignorance. That is the reason

why he leaves it as anirvachaniiyam - or inexplicable.

>

>Of course one should not question with the intention of questioning the

>teacher and I wouldn't dream of doing that. And in that I think this list is

>blessed by genuine seekers and genuine guiding posts (teachers). I am really

>glad I am a member of this list. On behalf of all the beginers on this list,

>I would like to thank all the developed souls here for the extremely

>generous giving of knowledge that they have been helping us with.

 

Please do question that is the only way we learn together. My

teacher used to say there is no stupid question but only a stupid

answer. A stupid question is the one that is not asked.It is only a

questioning mind that learns. I am thankful to you for giving me an

opportunity to clarify myself.

 

Hari Om!

Sadanadna

>.

>

>Ram

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Mundaka Upanishad !:i:12 -

 

pariikhya lokaan karmachitaan braahmaNah nirvedam aayaan naasti

akR^itaH kR^itena .

tat vij~naanaartham sa gurum eva abhigachchhet samit-paaNiH shrotriyaM

brahmanishhTham.h ..

 

'Having scrutinised the worlds won by works, let a Brahmana arrive at

non-attachment. The [world] that is not made is not [won] by what is

done.

For the sake of this knowledge, let him only approach, with

sacrificial fuael in hand, a teacher who is learned in the scriptures

and established in Brahman.'

 

 

Gita IV:34 -

 

tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa .

upadekshyanti te j~naana.n j~naaninaH tattva-darshinaH ..

 

tat = that [Truth]; viddhi = know; praNipaatena = by reverential

prostration [surrender]; pariprashnena = by questions; sevayaa = by

service;

 

upadekshyanti = [they] will instruct]; te = to you; j~naanam =

knowledge; j~naaninaH = the wise; tattva-darshinaH = those who have

realised the Truth.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote:

> >Sadananda garu,

>

> Please do question that is the only way we learn together. My

> teacher used to say there is no stupid question but only a stupid

> answer. A stupid question is the one that is not asked.It is only a

> questioning mind that learns. I am thankful to you for giving me an

> opportunity to clarify myself.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadanadna

>

> >.

> >

> >Ram

> --

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

13032001

Namaste Raghavaji

>Abhimanyu knew how to un-entangle the PadmaVyooham in

>one direction only. He did not know how to come back.

>It is another story how other Pandavas (other than

>Arjuna) tried to piggy-back on him in forward

>direction in the hope of finding a return path thru

>might, but were unsuccessful.

 

I could not understand the Abhimanyu story in relation with the creations!!!

Speaking truth may provide some additional input to our thoughts. As far as

our understanding goes this story is a complete and clair inteligence of Ved

Vyas to show the YogChakras and its Bhedan for a YogSadhak. If we go by the

story of Abhimanyu birth and its assassination in the middle of battle field

we understand that it is a clear truth for YogSadhak to conquer the

YogChakars.

 

>We have theoretically(thru study of Scriptures) come

>to an understanding of going beyond duality, then

>going beyond the immanent names& forms, and ended up

>with the nirguna Brahman.

 

I suppose what you wanted to say by 'theoretically(thru study of

Scriptures)' is by applying the intellect and reason/logic.If anything in

theory is understood then it must be because of intellect or logic. That is

the real problem. Intellect or Logic makes you to understand things that you

have not experinced.

 

Basically one is in trouble in applying the Intellect or logic in

understanding Brahma. Brahma is a state of existence. It is to be

experienced. Do not apply Intellect or Logic to understand the Brahma,

experience it. You must elevate your self to experience the state of Brahma.

There are many things which we can experience and we can not understand

them. Say for example what our Panch-Indriyas do is all matter of

experience.

Can we 'Understand' Gandha(Smell)?,

Can we 'Understand' Sparsha(Touch)?

Can we 'Understand' Shabda(Sound)?

Can we 'Understand' Ras(Teaste)?

Can we 'Understand' Rupa(Scene)?

 

We answer as 'No' to all these questions. When we try to say 'Yes' the

element of Intellect comes in and that creates all the problem. Be very

clear about Understanding and Experiencing. Understanding is always discrete

and Experience should be embeding. When you experience Gandha, with what you

get embeded? asking this itself is making you to Understand and detract from

act of experiencing. So no questions and hence no answer and hence full

embedded experience and full embedded state with that.

This is the way 'Experience' should be. Brahma is also a state in which

whole body goes and expireneces a complete embeddedness.There is no separate

sensual organ since it can be sensed by any of the existing organ. You dont

reqire to have a seperate oragan for that. It can be said that Brahma is not

completly Nirguna. Because it is an superlative experience of Gunas.

>Now, the question is how to trace the return path. How

>did many came at all ? Why did desire come about in

>Existence in the beginning ?

 

Once it is clear that Brahma is a State to Experience and not an Object, we

have to be very careful about describing that experience. Since describing

Brahma means applying Intellect and hence it is considered as Void or

Nothing. In Void or Nothingness there can only be Spontaneity(Spruran).

Spontaneity is Vibrating or Pulsating. This pulsation or Vibration is a

casuse of activity. From that Vibrating Spontaneity, which leads to Motion

and hence Activity, entire world evolved. There is no question of having a

desire in the Brahma.There is hence no begining as well. What ever it has,

it is basically Vibrations that creates Sound and Motion. Motion creates

Light.The Sound and Light are not Human made hence they are APaurushya. (For

that matter Gahndha and Rupa, Rasa are as well not Man made.) From this

only World evolved in the form of Amebeo to HumanBeing.

 

This happend where electronic arragement took a form (Physical Frame)along

with that Spontaneity(Which many times also called as Atman and ParaAtman)

and then process of evolution started to reach to this stage where we all

are in.

 

The state of Spontaneity is all pervading(Aakash) before this process of

evolution as well. There is, hence no question of creation , begining and

end here. Creation is associated with Time. Hence there is no Time for all

pervading Spontaneity or ParaAtman. As there is no Time there can be no

Space as well since Time and Space always go together. They are mutually

inclusive not exclusive. Since element of Time and Space is missing from

this it is said as Void or Nothingness.

 

Hence the Spontaneity that gives the physical frame a faculty of self

realization hence called as Atman. But it comes from the all pervading

Spontaneity. Naturally we forget that and hence we called it as ParaAtman.

Basically Atman and ParaAtman is one and the same thing.The union of

physical frame and Spontaneity leads to get element of Spontaneity in the

physical frame and that makes us to have a feeling of separateness. With

that only every physical frame comes into existence and that is what is

reffered as Prithvi. A Human being who enjoyes this state happens to be in

Prithvi state only.

 

Usually to elevate from this Prithvi state,modern sciences demand

application of Intellect along with Shabda(Sound),Prakash(Light). Modern

science has done all advancements in Sound and Light to have all combination

of each other. Sound can be mapped to Light and vice-versa along with the

motion to get the Moving audio-Video pictures. All this is done by applying

Buddhi(Intellect). What modern science has yet to acheive is the

combinations of Shabda,Prakash,Ghandha,Sparsha,Rasa. We have no picture to

have a Sparsha and Ghandha embedded in it. The Yogi can acheive this with

instument as body only. Basically elevation means not of Buddhi only but

other sensual organs as well. We dont do that. We elevate only Buddhi and

try to 'Understand' everything. That itself is wrong. An Yogi will try to

elevate all the organs. While doing that he experiences a state of Brahma.

Since it is difficult to describe that experience,it is first said that no

one knows it,but every Yogi knows it and has some how or the other described

it. Vedas have their own way of describing it. Mahabharat and hence Gita has

its own style. Maharishi Valmiki in YouVasishta had done it in most

complicated but detailed fashion. Our own list has many ways of describing

it.

 

So gist of the matter is to Experience the Brahma and not Understand it.

This can be done with the YogShashtras that elevate every sensual organ and

not merely Buddhi. Buddhi alone, without proper assitence of other sensul

organs,is not capable of Experienceing Brahma. So enhanced the power of your

other sensual organs and be a Yogi.

 

 

Thanks for your Time and Space.

 

Prabodh

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

>