just one question...

[Guest guest]

Why did it all start, why did the eternal one start to "appear" as

many ....why ? .....how can we say that maya and brahman are one when

one is cause less effectless and other has effects which can be

seen?...in short what is maya ......pls answer

 

kaivalya

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "nitish sharma"

<kaivalya_nitish> wrote:

> Why did it all start, why did the eternal one start to "appear" as

> many ....why ? .....how can we say that maya and brahman are one

when

> one is cause less effectless and other has effects which can be

> seen?...in short what is maya ......pls answer

 

Namaste, Kaivalya sharma-ji

 

First I want to greet you for your unique name. Having been in the

teaching profession in India all my life, I have come across

thousands of Indian names. This is the first time I am

meeting 'kaivalya' as the first name. Congratulations & Blessings on

a uniquely spiritual name.

 

Well, 'Why did it all start?' has no answer. Puranas say it is God's

Leela. More than that we have only to guess.

 

But about mAyA and all its ramifications I may direct you to the

following article on mAyA:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/maya_profvk.htm

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Profvk wrote :

> Well, 'Why did it all start?' has no answer. Puranas say it is

> God's Leela. More than that we have only to guess.

 

 

Namaste, In Brahmsutra bhashya, Acharya Shankar provides an example of

insentient matter like nails and hair growing on the body of a live human being.

Is he implying that the universe has sprung up by itself on the substratum

called Brahman ? In that very verse he is trying to refute the objection to the

view that Brahman is the efficient and material cause of the universe. I don't

know Sanskrit but my guess is that material and efficient do not truly express

the meaning of the terms nimitta kaaraNam and upaadaana kaaraNam. In chapter 15

of Gita, Bhagwan says that this world needs to be cut asunder with the

weapons/tools of Dhyana, Vairagya etc to reach Brahman. If Brahman is the 2-fold

cause of the creation, then why does a Vedantin insist on the mithya nature of

Jagat ? Anything caused by Brahman could not be mithya. What does it mean to say

that the effect is not different from the cause ?

 

regards,

 

Shailendra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shri Kaivalya-jee,

 

1) Why did it all start ?

 

"It" never started. It is a human concept of "time" that he thinks

the things have beginning and end.If you think that "it" started sometime, then

the next question will be when it started.Further the question will be what was

there before it started and how all

the things were created.

 

2) why did the eternal one start to "appear" as many ....why ?

 

The story of "Bahusyam Prajayeya" is called VivartaWad. Shruti had

to accept this on "Gounatva" (secondary - or a step towards Ajatwad) for the

sake of "Mand Buddhi" sadhakas, who can not understand the "Ajatwad". When you

say "it appers", you are perhaps thinking that seer is a human being. Shruti

says Drasta is only one and he is looking through billions of eyes.

 

3) how can we say that maya and brahman are one when

one is cause less effectless and other has effects which can be

seen?

 

Both are one. It is like Dara Singh, and his power. Power does

not exist without Dara Singh independently. So, is Maya.

 

4) in short what is maya ......pls answer

 

Maya is said to be Anirvachaniya. It is true in its rain, (adhnyan) but

disappers after Dhnyan. Shastra says it can not be described.

 

 

I would recommend you two books and all your doubts in this

respect will be clear.

 

1. Vichar Sagar Rahasya by Pundit Nischal Daas

2. Yogwashishta

 

Yours

Anil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "nitish sharma"

<kaivalya_nitish> wrote:

> Why did it all start, why did the eternal one start to "appear" as

> many ....why ? .....how can we say that maya and brahman are one

when

> one is cause less effectless and other has effects which can be

> seen?...in short what is maya ......pls answer

>

> kaivalya

 

Namaste,K,

 

Your question has no answer for there is no beginning to this

illusion. It can end, although really it never happened at all. Ask

yourself where it all goes in deep sleep or Moksha........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Shri Shailendraji,

I try to submit explanation :

 

Namaste, In Brahmsutra bhashya, Acharya Shankar provides an example of

insentient matter like nails and hair growing on the body of a live human being.

Is he implying that the universe has sprung up by itself on the substratum

called Brahman ?

 

An example of the nails and hair is cited to explain

Tiryak Yoni with Gounatva. Universe was never created

according to Adwaita Vedanta.

 

In that very verse he is trying to refute the objection to the view that Brahman

is the efficient and material cause of the universe. I don't know Sanskrit but

my guess is that material and efficient do not truly express the meaning of the

terms nimitta kaaraNam and upaadaana kaaraNam.

 

Sleep is the material cause of dream, but it does not mean that

what you see in drean is material. Let us take an example

of a earthern pot (ghat), pot maker (kulal) and soil (mruttika)

Here, soil is the Upadaan Karan because it is converted

in to ghat. (Vikar). Kulal, the earthan pot maker is the

Nimitta Karan, becuase in his absence there would have been

no creation (manufacturing) of ghat.

 

Shruti in describing Vivartawad,(for Mand Buddhi) say that

Brahman is the Upadan as well as Nimitta karan of the

universe. In other religions like Islam and Christain

there is no anwer to the question that from where the God/

Allah brought material to create world ?

 

In chapter 15 of Gita, Bhagwan says that this world needs to be cut asunder with

the weapons/tools of Dhyana, Vairagya etc to reach Brahman. If Brahman is the

2-fold cause of the creation, then why does a Vedantin insist on the mithya

nature of Jagat ? Anything caused by Brahman could not be mithya. What does it

mean to say that the effect is not different from the cause ?

 

Effect is never different from the cause. Car driving is the

effect and car is the cause. This driving though seems

something different from a standing car, the shstra say both

the things are same. (Becasue driving is a VIKAR of the car)

Vikar is of many kinds like Milk to Curd, Iron to nail, Seed

to tree etc. and in every case the condition and relation

of the cause and effect differs.

 

You will have to study deep to understand Mithya nature of

Jagat told by Vedanta.

 

When Lord Krishna say this world needs to be cut, the Dnhyanees

understand its meaning as "Samshay" has to be cleared.

Dhnyan and Vairagy are the Sadhan told to clear "Samshay".

 

Yours

 

 

Anil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

In my earlier post on this thread I gave an article for mAyA for

your reading, Kaivalya-ji. There have been many threads on this

list which have discussed the problem of mAyA. Leaving aside the

more technical ones I suggest below some general ones which may be

of interest to you.

 

The thread on `An Interview with mAyA' beginning with Sridhar's

posting:

 

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m20396.html

 

The thread on `mAyA as a political weapon' beginning with Benjamin's

post:

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m20342.html

 

The thread on `saguNa brahman = mAyA' beginning with jody's post :

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m16190.html

 

There are a few more which can be identified if we make our search

more intense.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kaivalya,

 

-- In advaitin, "nitish sharma" <kaivalya_nitish>

wrote:

> Why did it all start, why did the eternal one start to "appear" as

> many ....why ? .....how can we say that maya and brahman are one when

> one is cause less effectless and other has effects which can be

> seen?...in short what is maya ......pls answer

>

> kaivalya

 

Namaste Kaivalya,

 

i believe that there have ever been unity of All....Oneness...

the true nature of us is this Oneness....and not only a part of It

 

this Oneness can be seen as (absolut) Consciousness......without change

and move....a truth which is eternel........

 

maybe this truth can't be found in any of theories....which only can be

applicable...for a more or less limited period of time....because of

a "construction" of a time and space limited mind

 

such a time and space limited mind ....can be in a "dream" (Maya) when

it take the "appearence" of limited forms for real...

means, when it makes identification with this BMI

 

with some Awareness....such "dream" is "seen" as a dream....and

so.....it let one be detached from it

 

whatever one see or "dream" can only be perceived because of the

absolut Consciousness....

with the true nature ....

but this true nature is attached to nothing but the truth......nothing

but the Self......and not to the appearence of any world

 

this are few words and thoughts....

i'm thankfull for any corrections

 

sorry to answer late....had few days off for some work at home

 

thank you for your message

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

All,

 

I have jointed this group some weeks back and was going through the

topics that were getting discussed. Quite interesting and educating. I

have been particularly following this thread with lot of interest. In

fact I was going to post a question similar to this. It's good to know

that others are also thinking on similar lines. Let me confess though

that my knowledge of /Advaita /is miniscule as compared to most of the

members of this group. My exposure to /Advaita/ has been through the

writing of Swami Vivekananda. I do not think that I have even scratched

the surface in terms of understanding let alone implementation. However,

I do find /Advaita /intuitively and logically the right approach.

However, I am confounded by the concept of Maya. If initially there was

the One existence, the Brahma, where did Maya come from? This directly

contradicts the /Advaita /principle of the only one existence. If Maya

is part of Brahma, then how can it have effect which is apart from

Brahma? The why part of Creation has been given interesting

interpretations by many. I am particularly referring to the one which

states that Brahma wanted to experience creation. This argument does not

appeal as by very definition, Brahma is supposed to be /Nirguana,

Nirvikar /and /Nirakar. /If He is /Nirvikar /why should He at all think

about creation? And if Maya is the one who caused this /Vikar /in Brahma

then does that not give more power to Maya, in the sense that Maya could

create this thought or /Vikar /in Brahma?

 

Again, I am no expert on /Advaita /and hence these thoughts may sound

primitive to many. Please do not go by my mail id. I am nowhere near to

being an/ Advaitist/, at least yet, though the march is on ;-) That

brings me to another mundane point. Why do we use words like /Sanyasin,

Advaitin, Vedantin /etc, when in Sanskrit the pronunciation is clearly

/Sanyasi, Advaiti /or /Vedanti/?. Or am I missing something?

 

Any of the members from Pune? Would love to meet up to have more intense

discussions.

 

mj

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Milind Joshi <advaitist@g...> wrote:

> All,

>

> I have jointed this group some weeks back and was going through the

> topics that were getting discussed. Quite interesting and

educating. I

> have been particularly following this thread with lot of interest.

In

> fact I was going to post a question similar to this. It's good to

know

> that others are also thinking on similar lines. Let me confess

though

> that my knowledge of /Advaita /is miniscule as compared to most of

the

> members of this group. My exposure to /Advaita/ has been through

the

> writing of Swami Vivekananda. I do not think that I have even

scratched

> the surface in terms of understanding let alone implementation.

However,

> I do find /Advaita /intuitively and logically the right approach.

> However, I am confounded by the concept of Maya. If initially there

was

> the One existence, the Brahma, where did Maya come from? This

directly

> contradicts the /Advaita /principle of the only one existence. If

Maya

> is part of Brahma, then how can it have effect which is apart from

> Brahma? The why part of Creation has been given interesting

> interpretations by many. I am particularly referring to the one

which

> states that Brahma wanted to experience creation. This argument

does not

> appeal as by very definition, Brahma is supposed to be /Nirguana,

> Nirvikar /and /Nirakar. /If He is /Nirvikar /why should He at all

think

> about creation? And if Maya is the one who caused this /Vikar /in

Brahma

> then does that not give more power to Maya, in the sense that Maya

could

> create this thought or /Vikar /in Brahma?

>

> Again, I am no expert on /Advaita /and hence these thoughts may

sound

> primitive to many. Please do not go by my mail id. I am nowhere

near to

> being an/ Advaitist/, at least yet, though the march is on ;-) That

> brings me to another mundane point. Why do we use words

like /Sanyasin,

> Advaitin, Vedantin /etc, when in Sanskrit the pronunciation is

clearly

> /Sanyasi, Advaiti /or /Vedanti/?. Or am I missing something?

>

> Any of the members from Pune? Would love to meet up to have more

intense

> discussions.

>

> mj

 

Namaste,

 

you have an interesting question...i'm sure that you will get some

answer by more "experienced" people from the group....

i have only few thoughts...

 

you write : "If initially there was

> the One existence, the Brahma, where did Maya come from? This

directly

> contradicts the /Advaita /principle of the only one existence. If

Maya

> is part of Brahma, then how can it have effect which is apart from

> Brahma? The why part of Creation has been given interesting ......"

 

how is Maya related to Brahman...?

 

someone is having some dreams during sleep....

after this someone wake up from sleep.....how is the relation of the

dream to the person?...

whatever could be the dream.....positiv or negativ.....this change

nothing to the fact....that this dream has been only a dream

 

same with the dream of life.....whatever one person is

living....perceiving.....acting.....non-acting......

this has absolutely no effect on existance itself....on infinite

Brahman

 

the kind of the movement of some waves on the ocean cause any change

on the ocean Itself?....

 

....few words on the path...

.....i'm thankfull for the correction of mistakes

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Milind Joshi <advaitist@g...> wrote:

However,

> I do find /Advaita /intuitively and logically the right approach.

> However, I am confounded by the concept of Maya. If initially

there was

> the One existence, the Brahma, where did Maya come from? This

directly

> contradicts the /Advaita /principle of the only one existence. If

Maya

> is part of Brahma, then how can it have effect which is apart from

> Brahma? The why part of Creation has been given interesting

> interpretations by many. I am particularly referring to the one

which

> states that Brahma wanted to experience creation. This argument

does not

> appeal as by very definition, Brahma is supposed to be /Nirguana,

> Nirvikar /and /Nirakar. /If He is /Nirvikar /why should He at all

think

> about creation? And if Maya is the one who caused this /Vikar /in

Brahma

> then does that not give more power to Maya, in the sense that Maya

could

> create this thought or /Vikar /in Brahma?

>>

> mj

 

 

Namaste, Milind-ji and all.

 

Wonderful. You have asked the same questions (almost literally the

same! I congratulate you for that!) which were asked around 3100

B.C. by Vidura (Dhritarashtra's wise young brother) to Maitreya

Maharishi (who was a jnAni and knew the past, present and future).

That conversation between Vidura and Maitreya is reported almost

verbatim in Shrimad Bhagavatam Canto III, Chapter 7. I summarise

below a part of it for the benefit of this list. The complete

original, with English translations can be seen in

http://vedabase.net/sb/3/7/en

 

---

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

 

So we now have a long conversation between Vidura and Maitreya. The

subjects dealt with cover a wide range – like, Brahma's original

creation called `sarga' consisting of the elementary creation of

sixteen items of matter, and further elaborate details of

various subcreations, which together constitute what is

called `visarga'.

 

Before Creation the Lord, the Soul of all souls (*AtmA AtmanAM

vibhuH * - III – 5 – 23) was the Only One.. When there was no Seer

nor Seen, it appeared as if there was a void. During Creation, by

His icchA shakti He appears to be multifold. The Lord created this

universe of multiplicity out of His own Cause. The Cause and Effect

were the same. This phenomenon is called mAyA. (III – 5 – 25):

 

sA vA etasya sandrashhTuH shaktis-sad-asadAtmikA /

mAyA nAmA mahAbhAga yayedaM nirmame vapuH //

 

The latent Power in Him as Eternal Time caused the manifestation of

the mahat-tatva, the supreme sum-total of matter, from which all

the manifested universe of matter arose. Maitreya gives a fantastic

amount of details about creation. And Vidura asks very pertinent

questions.

 

"How is it, the Absolute which is immutable and which is beyond all

guNas, resorts to action resulting in creation of the universe?

Even as a Leela, is it not incompatible with the nirguNa nature of

the Transcendental Absolute?" (III – 7 – 2).

 

"You said, Oh Maitreya, that it is through avidyA (Cosmic

Ignorance) that the Lord creates, sustains and dissolves the

universe. But He the Almighty is beyond time and space. How did He

associate Himself with avidyA? In all bodies the experiencer that

is the jIva is also nothing but a spark of the Absolute. How can he

then lose the Bliss that he came from and how can he suffer because

of actions?" (III – 7 – 4 to 6).

 

Maitreya replies (III – 7 – 9):

 

seyaM bhagavato mAyA yanna yena virudhyate /

Ishvarasya vimuktasya kArpaNyam-uta bandhanaM //

 

In fact, it appears to be a contradiction that to the Lord who is

devoid of all avidyA, there happens due to avidyA a bondage and a

fall of Knowledge. This appearance is nothing but mAyA. Just like,

in a dream, a person dreams that his head has been cut off. Just

like, the reflected moon in water assumes all the vibratory

movements of the water. So the non-real BMI produces the appearance

to the dreamer-jIva and not to the Lord. The same guNas of the BMI

reach their end by the practice of renunciation and by Bhakti in

the Lord. When the senses are taken away from their objects, all

sorrows and experiences merge in the fullness of the Absolute, as

they do in sleep. (III – 7 - 10 to 12).

 

At this point, let me refer to a beautiful analogy by Shri

Jnaneshvar for illustrating the "Actionlessness" of the Lord. In a

forest, a monkey and a human being , scared of a lion which is

chasing them, climb a tree and station themselves on the branches of

the tree, safely away from the clutches of the lion. The lion keeps

banging on the shadow of the monkey. Every time the lion hits the

monkey's shadow, the monkey on the tree gives out a shriek, jumps

from branch to branch and thus gets more and more excited. In its

excitement, in due time, after its shadow has received a few

beatings from the lion's paw, the monkey falls from the tree and

duly becomes an easy prey for the lion. Now the lion starts beating

the shadow of the man, but the man uses his discretion and is

unperturbed by the lion's beating of his shadow. Finally, the lion

gets tired, goes its way and the man is saved. Now Jnaneshvar says,

when experiences, good or bad happen to you, think that they are

happening to your shadow; then you will not be affected either by

happiness or by misery. The Lord behaves like that in every one of

His actions and so He is not touched by them!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Professor Krishnamurthy,

 

Thank you very much for the kind words of appreciation. I have not been

reading any of the scriptures. Whatever doubts I had posted were the

nagging questions that have been gnawing at the root of my consciousness

so to say. This group gave me the opportunity to express these doubts

without being ridiculed. I do not claim that I have understood the

essence of the dialog between Vidura and Maitreya yet, but at least it

has given me a way to go forward and has given a direction to the

further thought process. Hopefully, sooner than later the enlightenment

will dawn upon me.

 

I also read the explanation on the English usage of Sanskrit words.

Quite interesting.

 

I am certain that this group will provide me the right forum on the path

of Advaita. Though I admit that I will be learning more from the group

than the other way round! I look forward to interacting with all of you

more and more.

 

mj

 

V. Krishnamurthy wrote:

>

>Namaste, Milind-ji and all.

>

>Wonderful. You have asked the same questions (almost literally the

>same! I congratulate you for that!) which were asked around 3100

>B.C. by Vidura (Dhritarashtra's wise young brother) to Maitreya

>Maharishi (who was a jnAni and knew the past, present and future).

>That conversation between Vidura and Maitreya is reported almost

>verbatim in Shrimad Bhagavatam Canto III, Chapter 7. I summarise

>below a part of it for the benefit of this list. The complete

>original, with English translations can be seen in

>http://vedabase.net/sb/3/7/en

>

>---snip---

>