Change and diversity within Brahman and related matters

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

In light of recent discussions about the nature of avidya, etc... I

see one particular critique against the position held by

Chittaranjanji and myself. I thought a post would be in order to try

to explain how this works from my perspective. I am sure

Chittaranjanji has his own points to make on this.

 

This is also a sticky subject so I will give several argument to try

to be fully convincing. I have given my base arguments before, but

will elaborate further.

 

I will try to give the Opponent's (O) arguments and then my counter-

arguments (CO) in short exchange.

 

O: The world is constantly changing and if it is included in Brahman,

then Brahman is also changing. Furthermore, the world is full of

diversity and if it is included in Brahman, then Brahman is also full

of diversity. Both these arguments undeniably show that the world

cannot be included in Brahman and if it is, it has to be nonexistent

ultimately.

 

CO: No, you are quite mistaken I'm afraid. When we say something is

changing it means that there exist at least two points in time such

that the object is not identical in these two points in time. From

this it is clear that the world is ever-changing. However, time itself

is included in Brahman and so Brahman is beyond time. For this reason,

we cannot say that two such points in time exist with respect to

Brahman, since the latter is entirely beyond time.

 

Regarding the argument on diversity, we again have to take a look at

what it means for something to be diverse. An object is diverse if all

parts of it are not identical. Brahman has no parts and therefore we

cannot say it is diverse.

 

O: Your first argument cannot be accepted because Brahman is not

merely beyond time, but it is absolutely changeless in every possible

way. This means Brahman remains in unchanging permanency in every way

and not merely timelessness.

 

Your argument on diversity is not valid because you cannot say that

the world is in Brahman on the one hand, and say that Brahman does not

have parts on the other hand.

 

If something is in something else, it is either a part of it or it is

the whole of it. Surely you cannot say that Brahman is merely the

world and nothing apart from it. Therefore, you are forced to admit a

Brahman with parts even if you verbally claim this is not the case.

 

CO: Your position doesn't stand because Brahman is limitless and

infinite and more considerations have to be taken into account than

for ordinary objects.

 

Suppose provisionally that the world which arrises and changes is in

some part of Brahman. Since this part of Brahman is changing, Brahman

as a whole is also changing apparently.

 

Lets us take a model where this is illustrated. Suppose there is a

flat object of 10 meters squared area. Now, 1 meters squared of it is

ever-changing but the rest is changeless. This 1 meters squared is

inside the 10 meters squared and is a part of it. It is in fact 1/10th

of it.

 

Now let us gradually expand this object. When the object is 100 meters

squared, the little square inside it is 1/100th of it. When the object

is 1000 meters squared the little square is 1/1000th of it. This means

in this case 1/1000th of it has changed and therefore we can still say

the whole object has changed.

 

But Brahman is infinite. How much of Brahman does the little square

now take up? 1/infinite, ie: zero, nothing. When the big square was 10

meters squared, 1/10th of it was ever-changing, therefore the total

square was ever-changing. When the square was 100 meters squared, 1/

100th of it was ever-changing and therefore the total square was ever-

changing. Now using the exact same language: When the square is

infinite, 0 of it is-everchanging and therefore the total square is

changeless.

 

This exact same argument applies even better for diversity.

 

The 10 meters squared is undiverse except for a 1 meters squared part

of it. This means 1/10th of it contains diversity and therefore the

whole thing contains diversity. The 100 meters squared is undiverse

except for 1 meters squared part. This means 1/100th of it contains

diversity and therefore the whole thing contains diversity. When the

object is infinite then 0 of it contains diversity and therefore the

whole thing contains no diversity.

 

This goes wonderfully well with the Shanti of the Shukla Yajur Veda

too. When something is taken out of the purnam, the purnam remains

unchanged. (Keep in mind that the world is also purnam and not 1

meters squared but the same principle still applies since Brahman is

truly purnam and is not changed simply because it contains everything)

 

I would like to end by quoting the Yoga Vasistha:

 

"Therefore, O Rama, realize this universe as the infinite

conciousness. It is filled with the jugglery of the power of that

conciousness; yet, nothing has happened, for the full cannot be filled

with more".

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rishi ji

>>“How much of Brahman does the little square now take up?”

Brahman and its relationship with world is not a relationship

between ‘whole’ and ‘parts’. The part 'little square' you mention is

time-bound and the whole 'Brahman' is time-less. Any attempts to

connect these disparate entities is futile as they are of different order

completely.

However the relationship can be explained through ‘satkaryavada',

according to which the effect already exists in the cause. Brahman is the

material and physical cause of the world. The effect is only an apparent

manifestation of the cause.

>>since Brahman is truly purnam and is not changed simply because it

contains everything

I agree with the above statement presuming that the containment you

meant above is not a transformation of Brahman into something else that is

contained with in it. It is Brahman that manifest’s itself as the ‘world’. A

change in form is not to be construed as a change in the ‘reality’. Despite the

change in form the substance is to be realized as ‘One’ with Brahman. That

which is ‘One’ cannot become ‘many’ but only appear as ‘many’.

 

Sincerely,

 

RR

 

 

 

 

 

Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover

Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajeshji,

 

You have confused my position for the position I was countering.

 

"Brahman and its relationship with world is not a relationship

between `whole' and `parts'. The part 'little square' you mention is

time-bound and the whole 'Brahman' is time-less. Any attempts to

connect these disparate entities is futile as they are of different

order

completely."

 

That was along the lines of the first argument I gave. However, this

would not convince everyone as I showed with the counter-argument to

my original point. I will try to put this very simply:

 

Either the world is in Brahman or it is outside Brahman. If it is

outside Brahman, then Advaita collapses into duality and furthermore

Brahman becomes limited. Therefore the world must be in Brahman.

 

Now if the world is in Brahman, then it is either a part of Brahman or

the whole of Brahman. No Vedantin will say the world is the whole of

Brahman and therefore the world must be a part of Brahman.

 

What you are suggesting is that it is possible for the world to be in

Brahman and yet not be a part of it. The reason you give is that the

time-bound cannot be a part of the time-less because a relationship

between the two is not possible. Without a lot of elaboration, there

is no reason for this to be accepted at face-value.

 

"I agree with the above statement presuming that the containment you

meant above is not a transformation of Brahman into something else

that is

contained with in it. It is Brahman that manifest's itself as the

`world'. A

change in form is not to be construed as a change in the `reality'.

Despite the

change in form the substance is to be realized as `One' with Brahman.

That

which is `One' cannot become `many' but only appear as `many'."

 

Of course, but you have not understood my post at all - I am precisely

trying to show how Brahman can include everything, be changeless, and

at the same time the many can appear,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Rishiji:

 

Your position is confusing to all those who have 'faith and

conviction' in Shankara's advaita vedanta. With the presence

of 'avidhya' every explanation describing Brahman and World is just a

speculation. Consequently your position also qualifies as a

speculation and that is the reason for the confusion.

 

The answer to the question - which speculation is believable? rests

on the credibility of the speculator. To me, Shankara's position

supported by his own commentaries of the Upanishads, Brahma Suutra

and Bhagavad Gita is very credible. For a person who has no 'faith'

on the credibility and the sincerity of Shankara, Shankara's position

will be just another speculation. But for me and for others who have

strong faith and conviction on Shankara's position, Shankara's

advaita vedanta represents the 'Truth' that one can't see!

 

There are great number of followers (believers) of the positions

taken by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava. I do believe that they have

strong conviction on what they believe. Consequently, the believers

of a specific acharya will likely reject the positions taken by the

other acharyas. In addition to the above believers, the category of

nonbelievers do exist. They believe in their intellectual capacity to

resolve the questions related to metaphysical assertions.

 

But in spite of apparant differences, there is still

fundamental 'unity' in these diversity of positions held by the

various religious beliefs. All that we need to agree is to respect

both the believers and move on with our life as seekers of the Truth.

Ideally our focus should be on understanding the human dharma of

life. Why not leave the complicated and unresolved philosophical

issues to the most learned and focus our attention on conducting

Karma with Dharma. We have lot more to learn from the enormous

volumes materials available in the Upanishads and Gita to help divert

us from materialism to spiritualism.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: I respect your scholarship and the style of your presentation.

I would very much like to know more about your background. As one of

the list moderator, I would very much appreciate if you can share

your 'world identity' by describing your real name, your family

background, etc.

 

 

advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane@g...>

wrote: (message number = 29990)

>

> Dear Rajeshji,

>

> You have confused my position for the position I was countering.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rishi Ji:

 

You state "You have confused my position for the position I was

countering".

 

I have to admit that your counter argument is more confusing to an

aspirant like me.

You state "Either the world is in Brahman or it is outside Brahman.

If it is outside Brahman, then Advaita collapses into duality and furthermore

Brahman becomes limited. Therefore the world must be in Brahman."

Here you go again Rishi Ji. Sorry, I would argue that your statement

above leads to a quandary. I will tell you why. If world as you say is inside

Brahman then Brahman is ‘not’ non-dual. Why must we always approach it with a

space and time perspective of being inside or outside? Brahman cannot contain

something called ‘world’ which is not Brahman. Brahman is always ‘One’. The

phenomenal world that we perceive is another manifestation of Brahman. It is

just a ‘manifestation’ not a ‘transformation’. If you note the difference

carefully then it becomes obvious that Brahman is unaffected by its very act of

manifestation. In the very act of manifestation the un-caused cause ‘Brahman’

does not change. If ‘Brahman’ is reality then the world cannot be real and has

only a provisional status which is mysterious. The world that appears to us as

‘real’ in maya and disappears when we attain ‘Brahman’. The world can be

intelligible by seeing it as ‘Adhyasa’

(superimposition) to understand our misperception. Why are we striving to show

that world is inside Brahman? What does one gain from that perspective?

Adi Shankara in Mandukya Upanishad states that “This world, when

ascertained from the standpoint of its essential nature, does not exist as

different, Nor does it exist in its own right. Nor do phenomenal things exist

as different or non-different (from one another or from the Self). That is what

the knowers of ‘Truth’ know.”

You state "Now if the world is in Brahman, then it is either a part of

Brahman or the whole of Brahman. No Vedantin will say the world is the whole of

Brahman and therefore the world must be a part of Brahman". I beg to

differ here. No Vedantin will also say that ‘world must be a ‘part’ of

Brahman’. That would make the part-less ‘Brahman’ to part and thereby

contradicting Advaita Vedanta. The world does not exist as reality when we talk

of ‘Brahman’. There can be no casual relation that can be established between

the world and Brahman. The world must be only seen as an appearance of Brahman

and not something produced by it with substantial reality. If you agree here

then there is no ‘World’ in ‘Brahman’.

You state "What you are suggesting is that it is possible for the

world to be in Brahman and yet not be a part of it. The reason you give is that

the time-bound cannot be a part of the time-less because a relationship between

the two is not possible. Without a lot of elaboration, there is no reason for

this to be accepted at face-value".

 

 

Certainly, you have a right to not accept my argument if you think they

are not correct. All these are fruitful discussions as long as we are directing

it at a philosophical problem and not indulging in verbal non-sense. We have to

affirm according to Advaita Vedanta that ‘Brahman’ is the sole reality. If we

acknowledge that then the problems of relating ‘Brahman’ and the world will not

lead us to confusion. You don’t see the world in Brahman. So let us not try to

make ‘Brahman’ the container of what it is not. In Advaita Vedanta the world is

only an apparent truth. The world is reality only in ‘Vyavaharika’ seen through

‘Avidya’ while engaged in ‘Adhyasa’. The world is only a ‘apparent change’ not

a modification of ‘Brahman’.

You state "Of course, but you have not understood my post at all

- I am precisely trying to show how Brahman can include everything, be

changeless, and at the same time the many can appear,"

Here when you state that “Brahman can include everything”. I beg

to differ here and state that “Brahman does not include anything”. Now here is

the paradox, “Everything is only Brahman”. We cannot establish relations

between Brahman and world through containment or any other theories. However we

can trace the generation of world from ‘Brahman’ and account for its apparent

difference.

 

Ramachandran ji mentioned in his posting “Why not leave the complicated

and unresolved philosophical issues to the most learned and focus our attention

on conducting Karma with Dharma..”

I see these as valuable words coming out of wisdom. What might

sometime appear as a loss to our intellectual reasoning is more than

compensated by a gain to something called wisdom.

Sincerely,

RR

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover

Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!