Ajativada and Vivartavada (earlier 'Problem of Evil')

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji and Bhaskar-ji,

 

My reasons for choosing the word 'vivartavada' in preference to the

word 'ajativada' to describe the doctrine of non-creation in

Advaita....

 

Jati (genera) is the samanya inherent in forms. It is the universal

that makes the particular be recognised as 'this'. The sameness that

we see in a thing is its dharma (nature) whereby it remains same (in

respect of the character of which sameness is seen) where-so-ever or

when-so-ever we may see it. It is what gives meaning to the things

that we see as being those things that we say it is. It is the

thing's nature because without it the thing can't be the thing it is

said to be. It is what persists through the variance of space and

time and grounds the recognition of sameness – that a thing is the

same thing that we saw at another place and at another time.

 

To say that a thing lacks jati - or nature - is to say that it has no

sameness. It is to deny the very fact of recognition of the thing as

being same with itself elsewhere and at another time. In order that

such a doctrine of 'ajativada' may maintain consistency and yet avoid

contradiction with the brute fact of recognition that takes place in

our everyday experience, it postulates the doctrine of momentariness

wherein the recognition of things is said to be mere 'suchness', and

the remembrance of things seen in the past is merely the'suchness' of

the moment. Such is the doctrine of Buddhist momentariness.

 

Advaita negates the doctrine of momentariness as an illogical

hypothesis. Firstly, there is a complete lack of coherence in the

assertion that 'a thing is momentary' because the meaning of the

term 'moment' is grounded in the conception of time - for a moment is

nothing but a particular instance of time. To say that a thing is

momentary is to say that it is an instantiation in time, which is to

premise time itself in the proposition. Thus, the past, present and

future are presumed in the doctrine of momentariness. Therefore the

proposition that 'all things are momentary' leads to the incoherence

of denying the memory of the past while at the same time basing the

proposition on a premise that affirms the past. The argument

therefore lacks coherency. Secondly, objects are said to be illusory

because the phenomenon of 'becoming' is said to be illusory. But

the 'illusoriness of becoming' is based on the fact that there is a

perception of becoming. Now, that very perception of becoming

logically leads to the existence of the thing being prior to its

becoming for it is not possible for a thing to originate (even if it

be of an illusory form) unless the thing (form) is existent at the

moment of origination. For the 'it' that is said to have originated

would necessarily be the same 'it' that was there at the moment of

its originating (coming into being) if the statement is to have any

meaning at all. Therefore, the effect becomes prior to the production

of the effect i.e., the effect persists from the past through the

present to the future. This is one of the arguments provided by the

Acharya against the doctrine of momentariness.

 

Shankara (Br.Up.I.ii): "If on seeing a potter, for instance, at work

on the production of a jar one is certain in view of the evidence

that the jar will come into existence, then it would be a

contradiction in terms to say that the jar is non-existent at the

very time with which it is said it will come into relation. For to

say that the jar that will be is non-existent, is the same thing as

to say that it will not be. It would be like saying, 'This jar does

not exist.'"

 

As for those that go by the shruti, the Brahma Sutra.II.1.v.16

states: "And (cause and effect are non-different) because the

posterior one has (earlier) existence (in the cause)."

 

And Shankara comments: "From this additional reason the effect is non-

different from the cause: The subsequently originating effect is

heard of (in the Upanishad) as existing in the cause in identity with

it before its own origin; for in the texts, 'O amiable one, this

world was but Existence Itself before creation.' (Ch.VI.ii.1),

and 'In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone'

(Ai.I.i.1), the effect, referred to by the word 'this', occurs in

apposition (having the same case-ending) with the cause (showing that

they are identical). And a thing which does not exist in, and in

identity with, something does not originate from that, as for

instance oil from sand. Hence from the fact of non-difference before

origin, it is understood that the effect must be non-different from

the cause even after its birth. Just as Brahman, the cause is never

without existence in all the three periods of time, so also the

universe, which is the effect, never parts with Existence in all the

three periods."

 

 

Advaita is based on the principle of the pre-existence of the effect

in the cause. This being the case, the term 'vivartavada' more

appropriately describes the Advaita position of 'non-creation' than

does the term 'ajativada'. Why?

 

The term 'vivarta' indicates an 'unfolding'. What is it that unfolds

in creation? It is not possible for the non-existent to come into

existence. What comes into existence must necessarily be already

existing. When a thing that is not manifested is said to be non-

existing, it is only covered over, as it were. Therefore, its coming

into being is the showing forth of the already existent – a

phenomenon that the word 'unfolding' describes better than a word

having the connotation of voidness. The instrument of unfolding is

speech (indicating that an insight into the nature of speech is

important for the understanding of Advaita Vedanta). The unfolding

does not truly create anything new, but only shows forth names and

forms that are eternally one with Brahman. To echo the Acharya's

words: "Just as Brahman, the cause is never without existence in all

the three periods of time, so also the universe, which is the effect,

never parts with Existence in all the three periods." Therefore there

is no creation in the absolute sense; there is only the magic

of 'Leela' (sport) played out in the realm of names and forms resting

on the substratum of Brahman with which they are One. (To see the

mystery of Oneness requires ratio - reason - to return to the cave of

the heart from which it originated.)

 

The word 'vivarta' implies a substratum out of which the world

unfolds, whereas the word 'ajati' implies a voidness of things.

Still, the term 'ajativada' may be employed in a certain sense for

explaining the Advaita position. The world seen by the ajnyani

(ignorant) is false because it is seen divested of the Self that is

its substratum. The world seen in this manner - divested of its Self -

is like the illusion of a firebrand. This, I believe, is the

contextual meaning of the term 'ajativada' as used by Gaudapadacharya

in the Karika. But going by the richness of Shankara's bhashya,

which, according to me, brings out the purnatva (plenitude) of

Brahman, I would prefer the use of the term 'vivartavada' to describe

Advaita's doctrine of non-creation.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Namaste Dennis-ji and Bhaskar-ji,

>

Namaste,

 

It seems to me that much is ascribed to Sankara that perhaps he

didn't write. However the Brahma Sutra and commentaries are more

than likely his. Sankara at the time was refuting Buddhism as most

people couldn't understand it and thought it was atheism, or

somthing similar. So IMO Sankara, like all sages taught at several

levels. Which means at each level it is appropriate and true to the

audience, like Ramana for example.

 

Therefore it is my opinion that Sankara taught Ajatavada as well as

Vivartavada. Hoever the ultimate Truth must be Ajatavada, for

nothing is unfolding. There is no question of non existence becoming

existence for it never happened at all. There is no existence or pre

existence and at the same time it is only a void in the fact that it

is not pre existent, unfolding or manifest.

 

There is no substratum, otherwise it would still exist on the death

of the body/mind in a Mukta and it is said by Sages not to exist.

 

It is not possible to understand Nirguna so we only have to drop the

veil. This is very difficult for people on the Bhakti path or even

on the Jnani Path of Saguna Brahman. Sometimes we just have to

accept the fact that we cannot understand everything with a finite

mind. Eventually we have to let go of the fear and the comfort of

Saguna. Buddha didn't teach complete void anyway. He said there was

an unmanifest an unbecoming.

 

It seems to me that taking into account of what is said by

Jivanmuktas there is nothing happening at all, for it is all only

associated with the body and mind. So I would plump for Sankara's

teaching being ultimately Ajatavada for that is the state of the

Jivanmukta, at death.............ONS..Tony.

 

 

CN wrote:-

Advaita is based on the principle of the pre-existence of the

effect

> in the cause. This being the case, the term 'vivartavada' more

> appropriately describes the Advaita position of 'non-creation'

than

> does the term 'ajativada'. Why?

>

> The term 'vivarta' indicates an 'unfolding'. What is it that

unfolds

> in creation? It is not possible for the non-existent to come into

> existence. What comes into existence must necessarily be already

> existing. When a thing that is not manifested is said to be non-

> existing, it is only covered over, as it were. Therefore, its

coming

> into being is the showing forth of the already existent – a

> phenomenon that the word 'unfolding' describes better than a word

> having the connotation of voidness. The instrument of unfolding is

> speech (indicating that an insight into the nature of speech is

> important for the understanding of Advaita Vedanta). The unfolding

> does not truly create anything new, but only shows forth names and

> forms that are eternally one with Brahman. To echo the Acharya's

> words: "Just as Brahman, the cause is never without existence in

all

> the three periods of time, so also the universe, which is the

effect,

> never parts with Existence in all the three periods." Therefore

there

> is no creation in the absolute sense; there is only the magic

> of 'Leela' (sport) played out in the realm of names and forms

resting

> on the substratum of Brahman with which they are One. (To see the

> mystery of Oneness requires ratio - reason - to return to the cave

of

> the heart from which it originated.)

>

> The word 'vivarta' implies a substratum out of which the world

> unfolds, whereas the word 'ajati' implies a voidness of things.

> Still, the term 'ajativada' may be employed in a certain sense for

> explaining the Advaita position. The world seen by the ajnyani

> (ignorant) is false because it is seen divested of the Self that

is ......<<

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Tony-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

> It seems to me that much is ascribed to Sankara that perhaps he

> didn't write. Sankara at the time was refuting Buddhism as most

> people couldn't understand it and thought it was atheism, or

> something similar.

 

Buddhism was already refuted before Shankara arrived on the

philosophical scene of India. The demise of Buddhism as a philosophy

came about through the refutation of its doctrines by the Nyaya and

Mimamsa philosophers. One of the main figures responsible for the

defeat of the Buddhists was Kumarilla Bhatta, a Mimamsa philosopher

and the guru of Mandana Mishra, the famed disciple of Sri

Shankaracharya.

 

> Therefore it is my opinion that Sankara taught Ajatavada as

> well as Vivartavada.

 

He did, but the one was from the point of world as adhyasa and the

other from the point of the world as non-different from Brahman. It

is the One truth through two facets - one discarding the false and

the other affirming the true.

 

> However the ultimate Truth must be Ajatavada, for

> nothing is unfolding.

 

The statement that 'nothing is unfolding' is interesting. According

to Advaita:

 

1. Nothing is a thing to which non-existence is predicated. It is the

avyakta of deep sleep.

 

2. But a 'thing' is the predication of Existence. Existence is the

essence of a thing.

 

3. The 'nothing' is therefore the predication of Existence whereby

non-existence is predicated of it. i.e., non-existence is a mode of

Existence.

 

4. Happening is not the thing to which it happens because the thing

to which it happens is persisting throughout the happening for the

happening to be happening to it. The thing is not the happening but

the substratum of the happening thereby allowing us to predicate the

happening to the thing.

 

5. Happening as the predicate is the transformation that is

attributable to time and not to the thing persisting in time.

 

6. The substratum is the ground of happening. Nothing happens to the

substratum, and therefore no thing is happening except the magic of

time playing on eternity.

 

> There is no question of non existence becoming existence

> for it never happened at all.

 

There is a meaning of 'it' and a meaning of 'happening' that is being

denied here. If meanings are denied, then it makes no sense to assert

anything at all including the proposition that 'it never happened at

all'. If meanings are not denied, then it is necessary to reconcile

the meanings of 'it' and 'happened' so that our experience is

subsumed in the overarching meaning that derives from the

reconciliation.

 

> There is no existence or pre-existence and at the same time

> it is only a void in the fact that it is not pre existent,

> unfolding or manifest.

 

This is pure Buddhism.

 

> There is no substratum, otherwise it would still exist on

> the death of the body/mind in a Mukta and it is said by

> Sages not to exist.

 

The Mukta, by definition, is the unembodied Self that has no birth

and death and there is no specific body/mind for the Infinite Self.

The Self is the substratum, and it is verily Existence itself.

Therefore it is not correct to say that there is no substratum.

 

> It is not possible to understand Nirguna so we only have to

> drop the veil.

 

Veil indicates duality. We have to drop the duality, and then the

veil takes care of itself.

 

> This is very difficult for people on the Bhakti path or even

> on the Jnani Path of Saguna Brahman. Sometimes we just have to

> accept the fact that we cannot understand everything with a finite

> mind.

 

The mind does not understand! Understanding 'stands under' the mind

that is not different than its Substratum. We already understand It

beneath the misunderstandings we cast on it. It is the nativity of

the Self that reveal Itself in jnyana, or the Self curving back on

Itself through the leela of bhakti.

 

> Eventually we have to let go of the fear and the comfort of

> Saguna.

 

Yes, the fear is of the seeming abyss without support, and therefore

the need arises for the comfort and support of saguna.

 

> It seems to me that taking into account of what is said by

> Jivanmuktas there is nothing happening at all, for it is all

> only associated with the body and mind.

 

The statement that 'it is all only associated with the body and mind'

shows that it is happening though not to the Self. Yet, it is not

happening because that which happened was already there in the Self.

It is happening and it is not happening like Krishna acting and not

acting. It is the mystery of Vak also known as Maya.

 

> So I would plump for Sankara's teaching being ultimately

> Ajatavada for that is the state of the Jivanmukta, at

> death.............

 

Jivanmukta is not a state. It is Eternity revealing Itself when we

die a deeper death than mortal death.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Reference the ongoing discussion on ajAta and vivarta.

 

My two cents from a common-sense angle:

 

I was born into a world of duality which I perceive. The question is

if the world was there before my birth. Those who are older than me

vouch that the world was there and I was born into it. Can I accept

their testimony? In the normal sense, I should because that is the

way it looks. However, there is a hitch here. Those who testify to

the existence of the world before my birth are parts of the world

into which I was born. Their affirmation that the world was there

before my birth is also part of that world. As the only subject in

the equation, I cannot accept their word.

 

What is the scenario then? When I am born, the world with its

diverse forms including the testifiers and their testimony is also

born. So, what is born at the time of my birth is not me, the

perceiver, alone. The world is also born with my erroneous notion

that I was born into it. Until and unless I really realize this, I

will keep taking births into apparent worlds that seem ever existing

there to receive me.

 

What is me? Advaita says that I am *essentially* the ONE AND ONLY

ONE. If I am the ONE AND ONLY ONE, I should assume that I have not

taken birth. Neither is the world born. That is ajatavAda. That

satisfies an advaitin well when he understands the teachings of Bh.

Ramana Maharshi.

 

But, there is a clamour around me. Those around me are bothered

about the world. They see an obvious division between the perceiver

and the perceived world. I tell them that the perceiver is also a

perceived from the point of view of the Witness (sAkShi) that I am.

They are not satisfied and demand of me an explanation as to how a

division has come about between the sAkShi and the seen, which

includes the perceiver.

 

By giving an example, I try to tell them that the perceiver and the

perceived are not there when I sleep. They are there only when I

awake or dream. My contention is that when I sleep, the world

encompassing the perceiver and the perceived is folded back into me,

when the sAkShi only remains without any objectification. The

sleeper is not then aware of Himself (sorry for the masculine!)as the

sAkShi due to ignorance. Sleep is, therefore, the samAdhi of the

ignorant. SamAdhi is the *sleep* of the Enlightened where He is

aware of Himself as the eternal sAkShi.

 

If this contention is accepted, then the Enlightened who knows that

he is the ONE AND ONLY ONE has no *worldly* wakefulness, dream state

or sleep. He is always awake to Himself. In other words, he is

always samAdhi (not in samAdhi). Such an Enlightened One will tell

his disciples that the whole perceived world is Himself. In fact, He

is not telling anyone anything. It is the seeker answering himself

in the words of a projected Enlightened. To help them understand the

essence of His teaching, he would employ mundane analogies. He would

say it is *as though* the creation of a world (effect) has taken

place from a cause (Himself) like ice which is essentially water

melting into another form – water - or a tree sprouting from a seed.

This, in my opinion, is vivarta. Needless to say Sankara has

employed such analogies.

 

Vivarta, as per Monnier Williams Dictionary, means:

 

(in Veda7nta) error , illusion , an apparent or illusory form ,

unreality (caused by A-vidya1 "' , ignorance "' , and removed by

Vidya1 , `" true knowledge ) Veda7ntas.

 

Other meanings for the word, as per the same source, are:

 

changing from one state to another , modification , alteration ,

transformation , altered form or condition Ka1v. Katha1s

 

{-vAda} m. a method of asserting the Vedanta doctrine (maintaining

the development of the Universe from Brahma as the sole real entity ,

the phenomenal world being held to be a mere illusion or Ma1ya1 ; cf.

%{pariNAma-vAdA}) Madhus

 

Combining this understanding, vivarta connotes an *apparent* change

from one state to another without there being any real change. The

universe which encompasses the perceiving me is, therefore, an

*apparence* originating in me and subsiding me.

 

Thus, the word vivarta is relevant to satisfy the indefatigable

questioner. Vivarta is ajAta when it concerns the Enlightened who

abides in Silence. It is we who make Him speak the words and it is

we who are unable to capture the essence of his uttering eternally

looking for exact words in an exact language. In the process, we

forget that words and languages have manifested from that same

Eternal source as are we and all the forms around us.

 

All changes (from cause to effect) that we know of take place in

time. But, in vivarta, the so-called Cause is beyond time.

Something beyond time cannot change. However, time is within the

effect plaguing it eternally. This is a contradiction. And, it is

the beauty of vivarta too and the sole reason why mundane analogies

should not be applied verbatim except for the sake of elucidating the

essential point. Creation is, therefore, *as though* and that

explains the inherent nature of mithya for which someone here

recently asked for a clarification.

 

Well, Sankara might not have used the word vivartavAda. But, if I

remember right, somewhere perhaps in the GItA BhAShya he is on record

as having said that those established in Tradition

aver "niShprapancham prapanchyate" – meaning the Real manifests or

develops as the universe. Sunderji, kindly help locate the source.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

that those established in Tradition

aver "niShprapancham prapanchyate" ? meaning the Real manifests or

develops as the universe.

 

praNAm MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly check Gita 13-13...context here is adhyArOpa apavAda...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

> There is no existence or pre-existence and at the same time

> it is only a void in the fact that it is not pre existent,

> unfolding or manifest.

 

This is pure Buddhism.

 

 

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

No, this is not buddhism this is the assertion of bruhadAraNyaka shruti &

Sri GaudapAdAchArya's mAndUkya kArika... shruti & gaudapAda saying the

above as against theory of seed form of world (jagadbIja or kAraNAvidyA) in

sushupti & propagation of nirviShEsha brahma yEkatva. Kindly check

kArika's advaita prakaraNa & bruhadAraNyaka's 4th adhyAya.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> > There is no existence or pre-existence and at the same time

> > it is only a void in the fact that it is not pre existent,

> > unfolding or manifest.

>

> This is pure Buddhism.

>

> No, this is not buddhism this is the assertion of

> bruhadAraNyaka shruti & Sri GaudapAdAchArya's mAndUkya

> kArika... shruti & gaudapAda saying the above as against

> theory of seed form of world (jagadbIja or kAraNAvidyA)

> in sushupti & propagation of nirviShEsha brahma yEkatva.

> Kindly check kArika's advaita prakaraNa & bruhadAraNyaka's

> 4th adhyAya.

 

 

Prabhuji! Are you saying there is no existence? Are you saying it is

all void? If so, not a thousand references will convince me that you

are reading Brahadaranyaka and Karika properly!

 

But it is not my intention to argue, I think you mean to say that

Nirguna Brahman alone is true, isn't it?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Checked. It is not in 13.13. It is in 13.14. Right?

Thanks for the help & praNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

......"niShprapancham prapanchyate" .......>

> Kindly check Gita 13-13...context here is adhyArOpa apavAda...

[Guest guest]

Checked. It is not in 13.13. It is in 13.14. Right?

Thanks for the help & praNAms.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

May be you are right as I dont have the text here in office. The gIta

verse is : sarvEndriya guNAbhAsaM, sarvEndriya vivarjitaM....nirguNAm guNa

bhOktru cha!!..

 

shankara talks the traditional method of teaching while commenting on this

verse.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

I think you mean to say that

Nirguna Brahman alone is true, isn't it?

 

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, the ultimate reality of shankara & shruti is nirguNa, niravayava

parabrahman which is devoid of all upAdhi-s & attributes...you might have

noticed I specifically said *it is the refutation of jagad bIja in

suShupti...& its NOT on nitya chaitanya, nirvikAri parabrahman.

 

Question is how can it be realized that our true svarUpa is absolute

nirguNa / nirAkAra, apramEya & exclusive of avidyA kalpita upAdhi

paricchinna?? I think you are aware of shankara's answer for this question

in sUtra bhAshya.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> ...you might have noticed I specifically said *it is the

> refutation of jagad bIja in suShupti...& its NOT on nitya

> chaitanya, nirvikAri parabrahman.

 

Okay, so it only the same old difference in our perspectives on

Adviata.

 

I was a bit surprised when you reacted to my denial of the void, but

that is now clarified. Thank you.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhakar prabhu-ji / nair-ji !

 

How about Gita text 13.17

 

which says

that Brahman is the supporter, devourer, and generator of beings.

 

Commenting on this text, Shankara observes:

 

The knowable (i.e. Brahman) supports beings during sthiti, the period

of sustenance of the universe; and it devours them at pralaya, i.e.

at the time of dissolution. It generates them at the time of utpatti,

the origin of the universe, *just as a rope gives rise to an illusory

snake.*

 

what kind of an argument is this ?

 

is this not vivarta or pranama vada ? just wondering !!!!

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- In advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Bhaskarji.

>

> Checked. It is not in 13.13. It is in 13.14. Right?

> Thanks for the help & praNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> ....."niShprapancham prapanchyate" .......>

> > Kindly check Gita 13-13...context here is adhyArOpa apavAda...

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> I think you mean to say that

> Nirguna Brahman alone is true, isn't it?

>

> praNAm CN prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> Yes, the ultimate reality of shankara & shruti is nirguNa,

niravayava

> parabrahman which is devoid of all upAdhi-s & attributes...you

might have

> noticed I specifically said *it is the refutation of jagad bIja in

> suShupti...& its NOT on nitya chaitanya, nirvikAri parabrahman.

>

> Question is how can it be realized that our true svarUpa is

absolute

> nirguNa / nirAkAra, apramEya & exclusive of avidyA kalpita upAdhi

> paricchinna?? I think you are aware of shankara's answer for this

question

> in sUtra bhAshya.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

Namaste,

 

What was his answer in the sutra bhashya please/////////ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Sri Chittaranjan and Sri Madathil for clarifying this distinction:

 

"the one was from the point of world as adhyasa and the other from the point

of the world as non-different from Brahman. It is the One truth through two

facets - one discarding the false and the other affirming the true."

 

"Vivarta is ajAta when it concerns the Enlightened who abides in Silence."

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Thanks to Sri Chittaranjan and Sri Madathil for clarifying this

distinction:

>

> "the one was from the point of world as adhyasa and the other from

the point

> of the world as non-different from Brahman. It is the One truth

through two

> facets - one discarding the false and the other affirming the

true."

>

> "Vivarta is ajAta when it concerns the Enlightened who abides in

Silence."

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste All,

 

This is an interesting description of the philosophical

interpretation of the words. However it seems that any description

of vivarta is dualistic. Even the potential of vivarta in Brahman is

dualistic potentially and therefore impossible ultimately.

It is hard to imagine but only Ajata efficiently is Brahman. The

illusion of the Jiva, Samasara and Creation never ever even happened

IMO.

 

This is difficult for many people to get their heads around, but it

is the only logical answer. Either Brahman is Ajata or Brahman is

potentially dualistic. For anything other than purely Brahman in any

form or appearance is dualistic and there not only unreal but never

happened...........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

 

I think we probably discussed all of this during Chittaranjan's 'Realistic

View of Advaita' but here is an extract from 'Methods of Knowledge according

to Advaita Vedanta' by Swami Satprakashananda:

 

"It is true that, according to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and

the world is unreal. But the unreality of the world does not mean, as is

often misunderstood, that the world is a mere shadow without substance, a

pure illusion, or a void. The world as it appears to us is unreal because it

has no absolute existence; but in its essential nature, as Brahman, the

world is absolutely real, for it is Brahman that appears in this form,

without undergoing any change whatsoever. So says Sankara, 'Brahman, the

Cause, does not lack existence at any of the three periods of time, neither

does the world, its effect. Since there is only one Existence pure and

simple, the effect is non-different from the cause.' All effects with

different names and forms are real only as Pure Existence but unreal in

themselves. Just as a clay pot has no existence apart from clay so the

manifold has no existence apart from Brahman, its cause. In itself it is a

conglomeration of names and forms. It should not be regarded as a

Self-subsistent entity. As identical in essence with Brahman it is real."

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

> Question is how can it be realized that our true svarUpa is

absolute

> nirguNa / nirAkAra, apramEya & exclusive of avidyA kalpita upAdhi

> paricchinna?? I think you are aware of shankara's answer for this

question

> in sUtra bhAshya.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

Namaste,

 

What was his answer in the sutra bhashya please/////////ONS..Tony.

 

praNAm Sri Tony prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Sorry for the delay in reply.

 

It is through negation of the anAtma vastu (the apparent existence of names

& forms ), tattva (ultimate reality) has been taught in shruti-s & shankara

siddhAnta (tattva pratipAdanArTe niShEdha vAkyaM) & not by objectifying our

true svarUpa as such & such thing. Ofcourse, as we know, bruhadAraNyaka

shruti says the highest teaching of parabrahman is nEti, nEti only.

Shankara deals with this in sUtra bhAshya shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa ( the 3rd

sUtra of brahma sUtra-s) & tells us that *to realise* our svarUpa only

thing we have to do is to get rid of our ignorance about IT. As our own

svarUpa is not an adventitious thing, there is no special effort required

to establish already self-evident thing. That is why kEna shruti says that

which speech cannot express, but which itself expresses speech, that which

the mind cannot think of, but which itself thinks of the mind etc. So,

paramArtha jnAna is not an objective knowledge, it is intuitive realisation

of the ever existent chaitanya.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly allow me to share my thoughts.

 

DW prabhuji:

 

"It is true that, according to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and

the world is unreal. But the unreality of the world does not mean, as is

often misunderstood, that the world is a mere shadow without substance, a

pure illusion, or a void. The world as it appears to us is unreal because

it

has no absolute existence; but in its essential nature, as Brahman, the

world is absolutely real, for it is Brahman that appears in this form,

without undergoing any change whatsoever.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes prabhuji, only nihilist can say everything *Shunya* & deny the reality

of external objects. & vijnAnavAdins say the objects which we perceive

outside of us is identical with the idea, since both idea & object

experienced together. Unlike these two schools (ShUnyavAdi & vijnAnavAdi)

shankara accepts the empirical reality of the universe outside of us & his

paramaguru Sri gaudapAdAchArya too accepted the *mAyAsatkAryavAda* keeping

vyAvahArika drushti in view. It is in this spirit shankara does not deny

the shAstra pramANya ( validity of the scriptures) even he does affirm that

the role of scriptures can never survive after the knowledge of the

secondless brahman.

 

DW prabhuji:

 

So says Sankara, 'Brahman, the Cause, does not lack existence at any of the

three periods of time, neither does the world, its effect.

 

bhaskar :

 

I need some clarificatin here prabhuji. trikAla abhAdhita satyatva of

brahman or our svarUpa is quite evident in avasthA traya (3 states of

existence) but the socalled effect the world does not come in this category

as it has only relative existence in a particular state & conspicuous by

its absence in deep sleep state. Under these circumstances, I failed to

understand how the brahman ( the cause) & the world ( the effect) have

equal ultimate reality.

 

DW prabhuji:

 

Since there is only one Existence pure and simple, the effect is

non-different from the cause.' All effects with different names and forms

are real only as Pure Existence but unreal in themselves.

 

bhaskar :

 

but shankara clearly states that these names & forms are kEvala (mere)

avidyAkruta & reality is beyond the apprent existence of these upAdhi-s

(limited adjuncts). Names & forms are subject to vikAra & uunder the

influence of time & space whereas brahma tattva is sarva kAla & dEshAtIta &

there is absolutely no duality of names & forms in That...nEha nAnasti

kiNchana is the shruti.

 

DW prabhuji:

 

Just as a clay pot has no existence apart from clay so the

manifold has no existence apart from Brahman, its cause. In itself it is a

conglomeration of names and forms. It should not be regarded as a

Self-subsistent entity. As identical in essence with Brahman it is real."

 

bhaskar :

 

but prabhuji, shruti saying here mruttikemEva satyaM (Only clay is real) &

names & forms or vikAra-s of It is only for the names sake (vAchArambhaNaM

vikAro nAma dhEyaM, mruttikEmEva satyaM). The kArya (effect) & kAraNa (the

cause) are mere device to teach us the nirguNa, nirviShesha brahman (

absolute featureless brahman)..the thought behind teaching identification

between cause & effect is just to drive home the point that the effect or

the world does not have *separate* existence & hence is in itself unreal,

and has no existence *indendent of brahman i.e. the cause....But it does

not anyway mean the effect has the equal & eternal reality in brahman.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis ' All effects with

> different names and forms are real only as Pure Existence but

unreal in

> themselves. Just as a clay pot has no existence apart from clay so

the

> manifold has no existence apart from Brahman, its cause. In itself

it is a

> conglomeration of names and forms. It should not be regarded as a

> Self-subsistent entity. As identical in essence with Brahman it is

real."

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

Namaste,Continuing,

 

If there were a real appearance of creation then it would not

disappear in deep sleep. It would not disappear on the dropping of

the body of a Mukta.

 

There is no rope in the first place, there is only Nirguna. This is

not nihilist for Nirguna Brahman is accepted.

 

We can accept the so called appearance to make progress, but many

cannot face the idea that the appearance isn't even there and never

happened. This is a fear, and is not really true non dualism. It is

a clinging to Saguna as the reality not admitting Nirguna, it is not

Ajata. It is a clinging to culture, religion, beliefs and ideas,

that make up the 'individual person'. It is a taking of the

teachings of the Sages and finding a level that one is comfortable

with and can fit them together, preserving one's individuality.

 

There is no time ultimately, even science admits to this relative

phenonema. It has been even scientifically proven, that time can be

different to different people in different circumstances. So if

there is no time, what can unfold? So it can only be an illusion

that rises with our perception whilst we are in it. However as it

disappears in deep sleep and Moksha/Dropping of the body and

connection with Sakti, then it obviously never ever happened.

 

For either we are 'God' or we are not. As there is only One, then

there cannot even be illusion or delusion. There never was a rope or

clay to have illusions about.....there is only

Nirguna..........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bhaskar (prabhuji),

 

I am not entering into any discussion on this topic. If it comes down to a

bandying of quotations from scriptures, there is no contest since your

knowledge in this sphere is vastly greater than mine. Also, I must point out

on behalf of the (I believe) many on this forum who have scant knowledge of

Sanskrit, it is very difficult to understand your posts when there are so

many untranslated words.

 

The point I was making follows simply from the quoted passage below and I

believe the logic is unassailable.

 

"The world as it appears to us is unreal because it has no absolute

existence; but in its essential nature, as Brahman, the

world is absolutely real, for it is Brahman that appears in this form,

without undergoing any change whatsoever. So says Sankara, 'Brahman, the

Cause, does not lack existence at any of the three periods of time, neither

does the world, its effect."

 

World = Brahman. Brahman is changeless. Therefore world is 'absolutely' real

and, in essence, exists in all three periods of time. Whether it is blown

into smithereens by collision with a meteor or engulfed by the sun going

supernova makes no difference. It will simply change its name and form and

remain what it always was - Brahman.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin (AT) (DOT) >

> "The world as it appears to us is unreal because it has no absolute

> existence; but in its essential nature, as Brahman, the

> world is absolutely real, for it is Brahman that appears in this

form,

> without undergoing any change whatsoever. So says

Sankara, 'Brahman, the

> Cause, does not lack existence at any of the three periods of

time, neither

> does the world, its effect."

>

> World = Brahman. Brahman is changeless. Therefore world

is 'absolutely' real

> and, in essence, exists in all three periods of time. Whether it

is blown

> into smithereens by collision with a meteor or engulfed by the sun

going

> supernova makes no difference. It will simply change its name and

form and

> remain what it always was - Brahman.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste D IMO,

 

You are taking one level of Sankara and saying that is his teaching.

 

The level you are taking is the level of Saguna which is illusion

never mind unreal. If you check my last post you will see that I

mention there is no time, even scientifically never mind mystically.

There is no world when we are in sushupti or deep sleep or in a

state of bodiless moksha. So from the point of view of Saguna

Brahman what you say is valid but from a point of view of Nirguna,

where the world never happened it isn't...For Saguna never happened

either....ONS.Tony.

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri Dennis prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

DW prabhuji:

 

Also, I must point out on behalf of the (I believe) many on this forum who

have scant knowledge of Sanskrit, it is very difficult to understand your

posts when there are so

many untranslated words.

 

bhaskar:

 

Yes I agree with you...It is because, firstly, I am bit hesitant to give

synonyms in english to the some confusing sanskrit words. Words like,

vidyA, mAya, adhyAsa, tattva, avidyA, Atma, avasthA etc. which have been

substituted by english words will give entirely different picture of the

original context. We know, according to shankara we should not use words

like avidyA, mAya interchangeably...but the substitute for these words in

English have been conveniently used as if they are carrying the same

meaning!! Secondly, some common Sanskrit words like above are frequently

being used in advaita works even in English translations. Therefore, I

think, to maintain the beauty of the original text, it should be kept as it

is. Thirdly & finally, my ShAstra pATha & bhAshya ShAnti (lessons on

shankara's commentary) & most of my studies (adhyayana) are either in local

language or Sanskrit, so naturally my thoughts trigger in my mind are in

that language only...sometimes, I find it very difficult to replace these

terms with suitable English words due to my language limitation.

 

Since you donot want to continue this discussion, I shall stop here without

commenting anything on " brahma=world ".

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

Thanks Dennisji for your post.

 

Permit me to elaborate on the point you were endeavouring to drive

home.

 

The universe as a manifestation is a coalescence in me. If I

advaitically assert that I am never born and therefore do not perish,

that applies to the universe too, which is verily in me or just me.

The hunt for a nirguna Brahman outside this scenario is a meaningless

pursuit. We have to begin from and work with the given and not throw

the given in the dustbin.

 

I am a whole, homogeneous solution called Brahman in which the

avastAtrayAs coalesce. Or, if I may use another simile which I used

here in the past, I am a self-iridescent screen which self-projects

the movie of the perceiver and perceived. Coalescence/self-projection

or otherwise, I am the whole solution/screen always – birthless and

imperishable. The lack of homogeneity when the coalescence or self-

projection takes place is only apparent from the absolute point of

view of the solution/screen as each and every bit of the

coalescence/projection is the solution/screen itself. The

solution/screen sustains the coalescence/projection. Well, I admit

that these are very inadequate analogies. Then, are we not condemned

to work with inadequacies when it comes to expressing the Absolute?

 

Everything, including our concepts of Ishwara, gods, demigods, why

even the ideas of saguna and nirguna Brahman are parts of the

coalescence/projection. They arise and subside in me. I am always

there unaffected, changeless and imperishable despite the apparent

play taking place in me – like the tranquil depths of the ocean

remaining unmoved despite the tumult and roar of the waves on the

surface. These perturbations do not take away the wholeness of the

ocean.

 

If a whole lot of galaxies crash into smithereens and if the 5'7"

body of an entity called Madathil Nair on the screen disappears in

the process, what does it matter to the eternal screen that is me –

the carrier of the universe! I will remain ever there a Faulkner

writing and enjoying `As I Lay Dying'. Call me Madathil Nair,

Faulkner, saguna or nirguna Brahman – it doesn't matter any more. I

will ever remain with the knowledge of my `birthless imperishability'

(the guarantee is there in BG!). Life then becomes a picnic despite

famines, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions. This I am firmly

convinced is Advaita.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

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

> The point I was making follows simply from the quoted passage below

and I

> believe the logic is unassailable.

>

> "The world as it appears to us is unreal because it has no absolute

> existence; but in its essential nature, as Brahman, the

> world is absolutely real, for it is Brahman that appears in this

form,

> without undergoing any change whatsoever. So says

Sankara, 'Brahman, the

> Cause, does not lack existence at any of the three periods of time,

neither

> does the world, its effect."

>

> World = Brahman. Brahman is changeless. Therefore world

is 'absolutely' real

> and, in essence, exists in all three periods of time. Whether it is

blown

> into smithereens by collision with a meteor or engulfed by the sun

going

> supernova makes no difference. It will simply change its name and

form and

> remain what it always was - Brahman.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

If there is no time, no world, and the state of bodiless moksha, then

we shouldn't writing or discussing. Since we are not at that level,

we need to understood Shankara's teaching with respect to the level

where we see time, world, etc. Honestly we both are under illusions -

you with the illusion that you have already reached the state of

bodiless moksha and I with the illusion to look for the path to find

the state of bodiless moksha!

 

The discussants do understand your contention which is valid for the

realized souls. What the discussants want to know is why we are in

the present status and whether the teachings of Sankara can help us

to go beyond time, world and body-mind-intellect based perceptions.

The question is rather complex and your simplified approach and

answer can never take us anywhere! We have to remove all notions

including Saguna and Nirguna before we can get to the state of

bodiless moksha! At the state of bodiless moksha, there will be

neither Saguna nor nirguna!!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

>

> Namaste D IMO,

>

> You are taking one level of Sankara and saying that is his teaching.

>

> The level you are taking is the level of Saguna which is illusion

> never mind unreal. If you check my last post you will see that I

> mention there is no time, even scientifically never mind

mystically.

> There is no world when we are in sushupti or deep sleep or in a

> state of bodiless moksha. So from the point of view of Saguna

> Brahman what you say is valid but from a point of view of Nirguna,

> where the world never happened it isn't...For Saguna never happened

> either....ONS.Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Nair-ji,

 

As usual, an eloquent explanation. I recall that the example of the

movie screen was often used by Shri Ramana Maharshi to illustrate the

nature of Reality.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Dennisji.

>

> The universe as a manifestation is a coalescence in me. If I

> advaitically assert that I am never born and therefore do not

> perish, that applies to the universe too, which is verily in me

> or just me.

> I am a whole, homogeneous solution called Brahman in which the

> avastAtrayAs coalesce. Or, if I may use another simile which I

> used here in the past, I am a self-iridescent screen which

> self-projects the movie of the perceiver and perceived.

> Coalescence/self-projection or otherwise, I am the whole

> solution/screen always – birthless and imperishable.