Introduction to Vedanta-9

[Guest guest]

Trasformationless Transformation:

 

In science, we study two types of transformations, a

reversible transformation and an irreversible

transformation. Ice becoming water and then to steam

is an example of a reversible transformation. By

cooling, the process can be reversed. Milk becoming

curds or yogurt is an example of irreversible

transformation. In all these transformations, matter

is conserved i.e. the net amount of matter is

unchanged. Vedanta explains creation as

transformationless transformation – like gold becoming

ornaments, like mud becoming pots and like iron

becoming machine-tools, etc. Three examples are

chosen to drive the point across in Chandogya Up. Ch.

6.

 

In the process of gold becoming ornaments, from the

point of the ornaments, ring is different from bangle

which is different from necklace, etc. Hence ring is

not a bangle which is not a necklace. Each one is

different and has distinguishing characteristics or

attributes that differentiates that object from the

other ornaments. But they all have one common factor

– the material cause for all is Gold. In fact, from

the gold point, there is no transformation but from

the ring, bangle and necklace points there is

creation, existence as well as separateness from other

objects in the world. We cannot but admire the

precision with which our sages have provided the

description of the creation. This is the glory of

Vedanta. The transformation is

transformationless-transformation. Upanishad says

‘vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam’ – It is the

creation of a name for a form – a ring is a name for

the form in the shape of a ring but the material cause

is Gold only. From Gold point there is no creation –

it was gold – it is gold and it will be gold even if

one melts the gold ornaments to make something else.

Gold has not become a ring. Yet from the point of

names and forms – there is a creation of names and

forms. If ring has a mind of its own, it could say

that I am only a ring, with a date of birth, different

from bangle and necklace. I am of course in many ways

better than other fellows since I am required for

people getting engaged, married, etc. I feel,

however, very unhappy when the owner uses his hands

for washing the dirty dishes, etc without removing me

from his/her fingers. During those times I wish I was

a necklace instead, close to the heart of the owner.

Of course necklace has it own complaints. It may wish

to be different from what it is right now for it to be

happier. If each one of them realizes that I am

nothing but that one entity (tatvam asi – that thou

art) which pervades all the golden ornaments, from

which they all arose, are sustained and go back into –

the very core of their personality – which is beyond

all names and forms, that which remains as formless

yet pervading in all forms in an unmanifested form in

all ornaments – which has no birth, growth, disease,

decay and death – that which is the substantive of all

ornaments – that I am the gold and gold alone – then

all its samsaara associated with the identification

with the name and form get instantaneously dissolved.

It is not that ring is going to become gold. Ring is

gold yet ring is different from gold in the sense that

they are two different nouns each with different

meaning. Ring has a name (padam, in Sanskrit) for a

form, but there is no substantive of ring as ringly

substance (padaartham). That is, there is no ringly

material to sustain a ring – no substance called ring

for the name and form to support. What is there is

only that which it is made up of – the gold. Actually

there is no ring at all, if one wants to examine it

carefully. It is only gold in that form, we call it

as ring. All the attributes that belong to the ring

and that differ from those of the bangle or necklace

have nothing to do with gold. Yet for transactional

purposes (vyavahaara) ring is different from bangle

and necklace and their utilities are different.

Vedanta says creation is nothing but name and form,

and substantive of the world is nothing but Brahman.

There is really no world to call as worldly substance.

It is Brahman only in variety of names and forms.

Existence is the essential ingredients in all objects

when we say ‘there IS an object with these attributes’

– that IS-ness is the existence part. That is-ness is

associated with the knowledge of its existence where

‘consciousness as though enters – This is the

precisely the way Vedanta describes the creation.

 

The attributes of these worldly objects help to

distinguish one object from the other but do not help

to identify the substantive, Brahman. Vedanta keeps

screaming at the top of its voice – there is nothing

other than Brahman. All objects, nay the whole world,

arise from Brahman, exist in Brahman and go back into

Brahman just as the ornaments from gold. Yet gold has

nothing to do with ornaments. In Gita Krishna says

the same thing in a different form – ‘I pervade this

entire universe in unmanifested form, all being arise

from me, but I have nothing to do with anyone of them

– Look at my glory Arjuna’. Just as, it is the glory

of gold to be able to exist in varieties of forms with

names, so is the glory of Krishna to be able to exist

in different names and forms; but the misconceptions

of each form have nothing to do with me. People

suffer because of their misconceptions. Only solution

to the problem is to recognize their true nature.

 

Brahman being pure consciousness there cannot be any

true creation. Matter cannot be created or destroyed

and so is energy. Krishna states this in absolute law

of conservation: that which exists cannot cease to

exist and that which is non-existent cannot come into

existence (naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate

sataH). If there is any creation it is only a

transformation of one form to the other. But Brahman

which is infinite cannot transform either – this was

stated before as Brahman cannot create since creation

involves an action. This can be also be stated in

terms of cause-effect relationships which is possible

only in the realm of time. Even the time concept is

the product of creation. That which is beyond time,

that which is beyond any cause-effect relationships,

cannot be the cause of any universe that is jadam.

Hence Vedanta declares that creation is only apparent

and not real. Goudapaada puts this neatly and says

what we call as creation is the ‘swaabhaavikam’ –

natural state of Brahman just as existence in

varieties of name and forms for gold is its very

nature or to put it more technically gold is malleable

and corrosion-resistant enough to be in varieties of

ornamental forms. If you know the essence of one

ornament, you know the Gold. If you know gold, you

know the truth of all gold-ornaments. Similarly if

you know Brahman, you know the whole creation, the

world of names and forms. Hence when the student asks

his teacher, “Sir, please teach me knowing which I

know everything” – “kasmino bhaghavo vijnaate sarvam

idam vijnaatam bhavati”. Teacher says it is not an

objective science, but yet it is the science of every

object in the whole universe and that is Brahman,

knowing which you have essentially known everything. I

do not need to know this ring, that ring, this bangle,

and that bangle, etc – that is all superficial

knowledge (or knowledge of superimpositions on gold) –

there are unlimited number of ornaments. However,

once I know that all are nothing but gold and gold

alone which remains unchanged in all changes, then

essentially I know all those ornaments in the past,

all those in the present and all those that will be

there in the future. Knowing that which is changeless

in all changes is Brahman, the very material cause for

the universe of names and forms, I have known the

essence of all that was there in the past, all that is

there now and all that will be there in future. As

Einstein puts it “Once I have known the mind of the

God, the rest are all details”.

 

Thus, at the level of vyavahaara, the world appears to

be real but from the absolute point there is no

creation. Appearance of multitude of forms with names

is just the Glory of Iswara as Krishna declares ‘

pasyam me yogamaiswaram’. Creation is just the names

and forms without any substantive other than Brahman.

Just as ring, bangle, necklace, etc are just the name

and form without any substantive other than gold.

Therefore all that you see is nothing but Brahman in

varieties of names and forms (sarvam khalvidam brahma

– all this is Brahman) and there is nothing other than

Brahman (neha naanaasti kincana). From the point of

negation, what I am negating at the seat of meditation

as ‘I am not this, not this’ etc is only the

superficial names and forms that are superimposed on

Brahman. In the process of negation, I have to see

the substantive of all this, this and that is nothing

but Brahman. Since Brahman is not an object to see,

seeing here means an understanding as in the statement

‘Yes, I see your point.’ From the analysis of the

perceptual process also we have concluded that all

objects are perceived only as thoughts in our minds

and the mind is illumined by the consciousness that I

am. Thus thoughts and thus the objects out there are

like perturbations like waves on the surface of Deep

Ocean of consciousness that I am. The whole analysis

is self-consistent and logical too, yet points to the

truth that is beyond logic or perceptual knowledge.

 

Let us summarize now the nature of Brahman from

Vedantic perspective. It defines Brahman as the

material cause as well as the instrumental cause for

the universe. We mentioned that this is the

incidental qualification (taTAsta laxaNa) of Brahman.

We have shown that creation is infinite and hence

Brahman also has to be infinite. Next Vedanta

provides swaruupa laxaNa – Brahman is the

Consciousness. Consciousness also has to be infinite.

But being infinite, Brahman is free from any

modifications and therefore Brahman cannot be the

cause for creation. The apparent contradictions are

resolved by understanding the nature of the creation –

it is only a transformationless transformation like

gold becoming ornaments. Ornaments are at one degree

of order which we can call it as transactional reality

‘vyavahaara satya’ – like the existence of ring,

bangle, necklace, etc exist, while gold is at higher

degree of reality. Ornaments change but gold is

changeless. The truth of all ornaments is nothing but

name and form for gold only, which is the material

cause for the ornaments. Similarly Vedanta says

Brahman is the substantive for both seer and the seen,

the subject and the object. They merge into one in the

realization of oneness of the world and I, the

conscious entity. From Brahman point, there is no

world of plurality, just as from gold point there is

no world of ornaments. Yet, there appears to be the

inert world of plurality with varieties of objects

each with distinguishing features or attributes. All

this that constitute the entire world is only a lower

level of reality. From the absolute point or

paaramaarthika satyam there is only Braham,

existence-consciousness-limitless Brahman

(satyam-jnaanam-anantam brahma). Using converse type

of statements for definition, Vedanta declares

categorically that existence-consciousness-limitless

are its necessary and sufficient qualifications or

swaruupa laxaNas for Brahman. Nay, they are not even

qualifications of Brahman; they are only pointers

which cannot be pointed or known. Finger pointing to

the moon is not the moon; similarly Vedanta as

pramaaNa or means of knowledge points to the truth

that is beyond any pramaaNa (aprameyam).

 

The paradox of space and time:

 

Can we see the space or more accurately can we

perceive the space? Space is the distance between the

objects or distance between two points that are

separated. If there are no two points, will there be

space as an entity by itself. Infinity and eternity

are the beyond the concepts of space and time. In

discussing the big bang theory, we raised the

question; was the bang occurred in space or space was

created with the bang too as one became many by

fragmentation. One cannot be fragmented unless one

consists of fragments. Space cannot be fragmented,

although we try to divide even space as my space and

your space, etc. Senses cannot perceive space

directly and mind infers based on the object-object

relation. In fact due to the separation of the two

eyes nearly by 7 degrees, I get stereographic image of

the object and thus special dimension in depth. This

aspect is used in the 3-D movies where polarized light

is used to take two images each rotated by at least 7

degrees and projected on the screen simultaneously.

Polarized glasses are given, where left eye sees only

one image while the right eye sees the other. Both

are projected in the mind as one image giving a 3-D

vision. If you close one eye and watch the 3-D movie,

you will not see the 3-D. Space and third dimension

is visualized because of the way the eyes are located.

But just as objects still exist outside, the space

between the objects are also exists. Hence space can

be deduced by the movement in time. Even the blind

can feel the space by moving his hands and get the

sense of separation between the objects. According to

Vedanta, space is the subtlest one that is created

from aatma (aatmaanam aakaaShas sambhuutaH ..) .

There are essentially five primordial elements; space,

air, fire, water, earth. From the material state

points these cover the fundamental states of matter,

vapor, liquid and solid, plus energy, a subtler form

of matter and space. Krishna says they are my lower

nature (vyavahaara) and my higher nature is that which

supports all these (paaramaarthika). Space pervades

everything but unaffected by everything. But even

this space is in my consciousness which means the

consciousness that I am pervading the space too.

Hence during the deep-sleep state, when the mind gets

folded, along with it the objects as well as the space

that separates the objects too get folded. I will not

have the concept of space and time. But I am there to

sleep well. My existence is never dismissed. Along

with the space the concept of time is also dismissed.

I am not located in space, but space is located in me

since I can exist without space while space cannot

exist without me.

 

The paradox of time is even more revealing.

Einsteinian definition of Time is a gap between two

sequential events in space, observed by an observer

who does not change with time. Two simultaneous

events define space and two sequential events define

time. Vedanta defines time more subjectively, since

‘subject’ is included in the perception of time too.

Time is the sequence of two experiences by the same

experiencer that does not change with the experience.

Each event-observation is counted as one experience.

By bringing the experiencer and the mind associated

with it to observe and record the experience, time is

reduced to a concept in the mind. Hence perception of

the time depends on the mind too. When there is no

mind or to put it more accurately when there are no

thoughts, there is no time too. This is what we

experience in deep-sleep state where the sleep is

considered as only one experience and not two. Hence

there is no time or space in deep-sleep state. Then,

does time and space have any validity? There are

valid as long as mind is there as thoughts are there.

Paradox of time arises strangely with the notions in

the mind. There is objective time and subjective

time. The world continuously changes – starting from

sunrise to sunset – two sequential events. We

completely forget the time when we are fully involved

in one event, particularly when we are happy, since we

are with ourselves.

 

We can live only in the present. We cannot live in the

past, since past is always gone. The future has not

yet come. The present alone is given for us in a

silver plate to act and to enjoy. How big is the

present? The present is a thin line where the past

meets the future. The gap can be reduced to as small

possible - a second, a micro second, a nano second or

a pekoe second – ultimately the time concept itself is

dissolved to the very present where we can live or

accomplish and where the very life exists. There is no

time in the present. But that is where we spend all

our lives. In the present, what is there is only our

presence – the very life that we are – that because of

which we say we are ‘beings’ – the existent conscious

beings that we are – where the dynamic life exists not

as a concept in future and not as memory of the past,

but the very existence-conscious being that we are.

That is the living present where the action is – where

the acting itself reduces to being or where acting and

being merges into one. In the present we transcend the

time itself. There is an objective time for things to

be done and things that were completed and the

on-going things – but that is only transactional time

or objective time for transactional purposes just as

the reality that we assign to the objects for the

purpose of transaction.

 

Krishna in declaring the law of action and the results

essentially says we are only given a choice to act

(karmanyeva adhikaaraste) but not in framing the

results (maa phaleShu kadaachana). This is because we

can only act in the present and the results are always

future to the action. A karmayogi, therefore lives in

the present – present is not a means for the future,

which never comes. Present is the end in itself.

Unfortunately we do not live in the present – that is

the source for our bondage. We drag the past to the

present or we dream about the future in the present.

If we examine every action, every thought, either it

concerns about the past or about the future. Our ego

itself is based on these two entities and does have

very little existence in the present. The biodata

about every individual is about what he has

accomplished in the past and what he wants to do in

the future. There is nothing wrong about it. Only

problem is in the process we miss the very present

where the whole action is. For us the present is only

a means to accomplish or to gain something in future

but very rarely the end in itself. On the other hand,

when we are doing an inspired action, the very acting

becomes an end in itself – that is the living a

dynamic life or dynamic present where the time concept

itself is transcended. During an inspired action, one

is not conscious of the time. Time flies. That state

of being becomes a transcendental living or meditative

living – where one does not care what happens – the

future takes care of itself. In fact, future never

comes. What is there is only the present – dynamic

present where the Lord resides – where the life is –

where the conscious-existence exists. That is Brahman.

Surrenderance to the present becomes a key to the

self-realization. Many saadhakas get trapped in this

conceptualization of the future as well as

conceptualization of even self-realization. I want to

realize one day or I am going to realized soon –

wanting mind never ceases to want – always a future

expectation. Vedanta clearly declares that you can

only realize NOW (ehaiva – right now and right here) –

where there is no space and time since both are

concepts in the mind. Longing for something in

future itself becomes an obstacle for self-realization

since longing mind or wanting mind is the ego-based

mind which assumes I do not have what I want and I am

going to get what I want. For a longing mind, present

is only a means for an end and not an end in itself.

Life is in the living present and not in the dead past

or in unborn future. How to live in the present is

the essence of yoga shaastra, where the surrenderance

or witnessing presence is the key to freedom from the

past and future or freedom from ego.

 

As we analyzed earlier, ego bases its firm existence

in the memories of the past and expectations in the

future. It has little to do with anything in the

present other than as a means for an end in future.

Ego, therefore is centered on the wanting mind or

longing mind. Wanting mind never stops wanting with

whatever it has gained since it always sees itself as

incomplete with whatever it has. To reach fullness or

infiniteness is the very goal in life. To be fulfilled

or longing for self-realization becomes an obstacles

for self-realization. This is the final hurdle a

seeker has to go through during his spiritual journey.

This is expressed as I want to meditate or I want to

take up sanyaasa or renunciation or I want to withdraw

myself etc are also forms of expressions the ego

assumes in wanting to realize. As a general rule, no

ego will be able to achieve self-realization since the

very self-realization involves transcendence of the

ego, which lives in the past and future. Any attempt

to eliminate ego itself crystallizes ego in a

different form. Only way to eliminate ego is to

observe its action in the present. This in Vedanta is

called ‘saakshee bhaava’ –attitude of a witnessing

agent. Witnessing is a present action and in fact it

is an actionless action. In the process one lives in

the present where ego has no place. What is there is

only ‘I am’ or from the bhakti point, what is there is

the presence of the Lord.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadananda,

 

Thank you for your message #35135 (Feb 15) on "Trasformationless

Transformation". It brought to mind Shri Atmananda's insistence that

no transformation of the world -- nor even of personality in

world -- is essential to realization. A change of perspective alone

is truly needed. So your message inspired a piece of verse which is

appended below.

 

Ananda

 

 

A change of perspective

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

 

All acts performed involve belief

in mind-conceived imagining

of different objects in a world

perceived through passing states of time.

 

As mind conceives of passing time,

no different moments co-exist.

Each present moment must occur

with previous moments now passed by

and future moments yet to come.

 

As moments pass in changing mind,

each moment that occurs is found

experienced in the singular.

 

At every moment in the mind,

only one state occurring then

is actually experienced.

 

No different sates of changing time

are known together actually,

in any mind's experience.

 

How then can any mind relate

its different states: as each appears

thus isolated on its own,

with other states found absent then?

 

To overcome this isolation

of mind's momentary states,

a knowing presence must continue

through the course of passing time.

 

That knowing presence must remain.

It must stay present in the mind,

through mental states that come and go.

 

It is just that whose presence stays,

through all the comings and the goings

of these passing states of mind.

 

That presence is called 'consciousness'.

It's shared in common underneath

all different states of changing mind.

 

It is the background of each mind,

beneath all change and difference.

>From there, all changing acts are known.

 

That background is in truth what knows.

Its knowing is no changing act,

involving any mind's belief.

Its knowing is just what it is,

beneath all mind's conceived beliefs.

 

To know that knowing, mind must turn,

back from all world's transforming acts,

to that which knows these acts unchanged.

 

Returning there, it turns out that

no transformation is here needed

in our persons or the world.

 

What needs to change is only where

what's taken as the knower stands.

 

Where that true knowing has been found,

all personality and world

are found expressing perfectly

what is quite perfect in itself.

 

Attaining that perspective there,

all need for change is at an end.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Sadananda,

>

> Thank you for your message #35135 (Feb 15) on "Trasformationless

> Transformation". It brought to mind Shri Atmananda's insistence

that

> no transformation of the world -- nor even of personality in

> world -- is essential to realization. A change of perspective alone

> is truly needed. So your message inspired a piece of verse which is

> appended below.

>

> Ananda

 

Namaste Anandaji et al,

 

My own words for this are; 'THROUGH THE VICISSITUDES OF LIFE THERE IS

ONLY ONE GROUND, ONE CONSTANT AND THAT IS LOVE.

 

WHEN ONE HAS LEARNED THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO LEARN THEN ONE HAS

LEARNED EVERYTHING'.

When one has learned the Ajativada then one realises that working on

one's mind is infinite and it is better to rise above it, if one

can....ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Shree Ananda Wood - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your comments and the message. The

statements are from the Upanishad itself. The essence

of karmayoga involves merging of being and doing into

one where we act in the present, enjoy in the present

and essentially live in the present thus transcending

the very time concept. Yes it is transformationless

transformation where there is no trasformation but

change in the attitude of what it is by dropping all

the notions of what it is not.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- Ananda Wood <awood (AT) vsnl (DOT) com> wrote:

 

> Namaste Shri Sadananda,

>

> Thank you for your message #35135 (Feb 15) on

> "Trasformationless

> Transformation". It brought to mind Shri Atmananda's

> insistence that

> no transformation of the world -- nor even of

> personality in

> world -- is essential to realization. A change of

> perspective alone

> is truly needed. So your message inspired a piece of

> verse which is

> appended below.

>

> Ananda

>

>

> A change of perspective

> -----------------------

>

> All acts performed involve belief

> in mind-conceived imagining

> of different objects in a world

> perceived through passing states of time.

>

> As mind conceives of passing time,

> no different moments co-exist.

> Each present moment must occur

> with previous moments now passed by

> and future moments yet to come.

>

> As moments pass in changing mind,

> each moment that occurs is found

> experienced in the singular.

>

> At every moment in the mind,

> only one state occurring then

> is actually experienced.

>

> No different sates of changing time

> are known together actually,

> in any mind's experience.

>

> How then can any mind relate

> its different states: as each appears

> thus isolated on its own,

> with other states found absent then?

>

> To overcome this isolation

> of mind's momentary states,

> a knowing presence must continue

> through the course of passing time.

>

> That knowing presence must remain.

> It must stay present in the mind,

> through mental states that come and go.

>

> It is just that whose presence stays,

> through all the comings and the goings

> of these passing states of mind.

>

> That presence is called 'consciousness'.

> It's shared in common underneath

> all different states of changing mind.

>

> It is the background of each mind,

> beneath all change and difference.

> From there, all changing acts are known.

>

> That background is in truth what knows.

> Its knowing is no changing act,

> involving any mind's belief.

> Its knowing is just what it is,

> beneath all mind's conceived beliefs.

>

> To know that knowing, mind must turn,

> back from all world's transforming acts,

> to that which knows these acts unchanged.

>

> Returning there, it turns out that

> no transformation is here needed

> in our persons or the world.

>

> What needs to change is only where

> what's taken as the knower stands.

>

> Where that true knowing has been found,

> all personality and world

> are found expressing perfectly

> what is quite perfect in itself.

>

> Attaining that perspective there,

> all need for change is at an end.

>

>