The play of creation

[ken111]

The source rests in emptiness

 

OM

 

“I AM” awakens

 

The thought investigates the self

 

The self divides itself:

1

2

4

8

etc.

Creation is happening

 

While the source rests in it’s own nature

Still doing nothing

 

This is the source that all that exists comes from.

 

This is God.

 

The divided self enquires:

Who am I?

The “I” comes from the source

 

All the divided selves starts identifying itself as source.

 

Here we are, now. Awakened. Enlightened.

 

 

 

 

ThankYou Ramana Maharshi, Papaji, Mooji and Eckhart Tolle.

Please feel free to write your take on creation.

Would love to hear what scriptures say, too.

[ranjeetmore]

Sa icchan cakre.

 

The Supreme Primeval Lord had a desire.

 

He smiled.

 

By His mere will,He set Maya into transformation and created millions and millions of brahmandas.

 

Infinite Jeevatmas emanated from His divine self,as though,sparks from a huge fire.

 

The Supreme Godhead,being present in one place,simultaneously took up infinite forms as He entered each and every atom of this mayic creation.

 

..This is the version of the vedas.

[ranjeetmore]

The vedic version makes one thing very clear..The Supreme Truth,The primeval cause,the source of everything that be,HAS INTELLIGENCE and thus He is Supremely able to WILL,to DESIRE.

 

Further,since the Supreme Brahm has superexcellent energies,He brings about the creation,maintenanc and destruction of the universe by His mere will,although remaining in one place.This apparent impossibility that 'the intense task of creating the universe without any toil' is further explained by the vedas.

 

The vedas counts 8 qualities of the Supreme Brahm.Two of those qualities are: Satyakaama and satyasankalpa.

 

With Satyasankalpa,The supreme Lord performs all extraordinary tasks without any difficulty.

[primate]

 

Yajur Veda 40-15 to 17 mentions that the face of truth is covered with a golden disc of matter. Maya creates this golden disc and hides the God who is resplendent Protector and His name is O.M. "OM Khamma Brahma" In Rig-Veda it is described as "OM Tat Sat"- that supreme reality is OM. In the Vedas OM is the cosmic Word and described as Shabad Brahma. This was the First Word spoken by God and It created tremendous cosmic energy, which resulted into the formation of subtle primordial matter of purity, activity and passivity and these combined and thus the subtle Prakrti was formed. The primordial matter in the form of sattavic, rajasic and tamasic gunas when joined in certain proportion, created gross matter and the universe with five mahatbhuta - main elements i.e. air, water, fire, earth and ether was formed. This world with primordial subtle atoms of three gunas of purity, activity and passivity thus originated from the cosmic Word. Shabad Brahma OM. IT not only created enormous cosmic energy but also created veil of Maya during the formation of the gross universe.

 

The Vedas refer to this mystical power (Shakti) of the divine Nature as Maya, which forces us to do all these unusual and divergent activities. It is due to the effect of Maya that many of us when we start seeking God, obstacles come from our senses and also from the material phenomenal world around us. Maya is a supernatural power, mysterious will and wondrous skill. Vedas refer to it as Shakti Energy (extremely powerful cosmic energy of God). Rig Veda 6-47-18 and 6-45-16 refer to it as creative Art of God (Maya- Bhi). While in holy Koran the world is described as real, yet it is not absolutely real as it says in chapter 57-20 that life in this world is but an illusion of comfort. Holy Koran also refers to this empirical world as ocean of matter having alluring and deceiving appearance. Thus the world as mithya (appearance), or Maya (illusion) or relative or absolute reality is the oldest metaphysical riddle whose roots lie in our sense perception.

 

http://www.sabhlokcity.com/metaphysics/chapter6.html

 

 

So, it seems you forgot to mention Maya (the supernatural delusory cosmic energy of God, or the creative Art of God), which is the basis of all gross material creation and all perceived duality and all perceived change..

[Sephiroth]

 

So, it seems you forgot to mention Maya (the supernatural delusory cosmic energy of God, or the creative Art of God), which is the basis of all gross material creation and all perceived duality and all perceived change..

 

Actually, there is nothing "supernatural" in Creation.

 

Read about Zero Point Energy - and you will find the Cosmic Energy which makes up everything in the Universe. From the massive stars to the thinnest grains of sand.

[gHari]

No .... simply:

 

I AM.

[Sephiroth]

 

No .... simply:

 

I AM.

 

You are what? Who are you referring to?

[gHari]

 

You are what? Who are you referring to?

See first post in thread.

 

also

 

Exodus 3:14

God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

[primate]

 

Actually, there is nothing "supernatural" in Creation.

 

Read about Zero Point Energy - and you will find the Cosmic Energy which makes up everything in the Universe. From the massive stars to the thinnest grains of sand.

Of course, enough cosmic energy must exist to explain everything we observe in our material dynamic universe. And the concept of zero-point energy (just like the theory of the existence of dark matter) may explain the large scale gravitational behavior of galaxies, thus accounting for the positive cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equations of general relativity. The amount of missing energy (or mass) that is necessary to keep our universe together is huge. However, the zero-point energy of the vacuum is conveniently infinite.

 

In terms of a physical model, I personally think that all this energy is present in the momentum (speed times mass) of one infinitesimal quantum point or atom or cosmic singularity or God, which contains total consciousness as well as all energy in the form of infinite speed. The eternal 'chaotic oscillation' of this conscious point, is what we call 'absolute reality'. Our partial individual consciousness or our material reality, may then be a function of a particular higher harmonic frequency, present in this conscious oscillation. Consequently, we may be conscious only every now and then. Hence, we consciously perceive just a small discontinuous fraction of continuous absolute reality. From mathematical chaos theory, we know that such discontinuous phase-projections expose the infinite fractal order or structure or form, present within any formal (non-conscious) singular continuous chaotic system. In a 'conscious chaos' model of reality, all duality and change that we perceive in our world, would then be a discontinuous (quantum) projection of continuous absolute reality.

 

Now, this would neatly explain the missing energy in our universe. From scientific observations, we can deduce that an (invisible) large scale attracting force (gravity) must exist. But we are only consciously aware of a fraction of the total energy (the total chaotic attractor) of absolute reality which underlies all observable phenomena.

 

Moreover, such a model would also be compatible with the concept of Maya. In the model, Maya is the higher harmonic frequency or sound (OM), which is present in the conscious cosmic oscillation and of which our individual projection of reality is a function. Thus, Maya is the basis of all gross material creation and all perceived duality and all perceived change and time in this world.

 

Finally, note that in such a model Maya creates our entire material world, by 'hiding' all but a mere fraction of total absolute reality from our perception or consciousness. That seems to be a perfect explanation of the religious notion of ignorance!

 

I believe that quantum mechanical experiments can provide the evidence necessary to validate such a scenario. Then the only remaining question would be: Where does conscious chaos (or God) come from? In reality, God’s origin is necessarily meta-physical or unknowable or 'supernatural'. Nevertheless, we might be able to clearly understand (in terms of mathematical chaos theory) the (unpredictable) mechanics of His creative energy or Maya. And consequently, we might be able to understand what we are ourselves..

[Sephiroth]

If you ask me, I think we should just be happy on knowing how the Universe works (with Zero point (or Maya) energy). Indulging deeper into the realm of God in (foolishly) attempt to understand God is not required.

 

When Theory of Relativity came out back in 1915, Albert Einstein theorized that in order for his Theory to work, an underlining "force" beneath the fabric of the Universe must exist for it to hold everything together. That "force" was Zero Point Energy (which was accepted only recently).

 

Yet, in the West, this energy have already been spoke of as "Ether" - but of course, like all theories, it was laughed at too.

 

Only religion truly believed that there was a force which hold everything together as (Maya) Energy was Hinduism which was laughed at too, till recently.

[primate]

Personally, I would be quite content just to know how the universe approximately works, and to understand who or what we are ourselves in relation to God. No need to understand God and/or His origin.

 

It’s even questionable whether any sentient being (including Vishnu/Krishna) can understand God as the origin of everything (or Brahman). Logically, no conscious entity can have complete knowledge of its own origin, because any knowledge is a part of the entity itself and therefore it is different from its origin.

 

This may also relate to 'Gödel's first incompleteness theorem', which basically states: There can never exist a complete system of formal logic that allows all true logical statements to be derived from itself. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems)

[Narasingh]

na tv evaham jatu nasam

na tvam neme janadhipah

na caiva na bhavisyamah

sarve vayam atah param

Bhagavad Gita 2.12

[theist]

 

Personally, I would be quite content just to know how the universe approximately works, and to understand who or what we are ourselves in relation to God. No need to understand God and/or His origin.

Yes this is good. To know the relationships between God the universe and ourselves is the platform of real knowledge.

 

Concerning origins, it's not a question of understanding as much as it is one of acceptance. God is His own origin and never was there a time when He did not exist.

 

There is no need for the intellect to wrap it's tiny little arms around this truth before the self can be be brought into knowledge of this reality because the intelligence is not the self.

 

 

It’s even questionable whether any sentient being (including Vishnu/Krishna) can understand God as the origin of everything (or Brahman).

Here the mistake is made of concluding that God must be without sense perception. So you are conceiving of God as deaf dumb blind and the totality of UN-awareness, the supreme unconscious. This is a definition of death.

But I ask you how you can be sure of this. Not how can you prove it to me but how can you prove it to yourself.

 

You can not.

 

The other choice is that God means the Supremely aware one. The Omniscient Being not the senseless being. The one whose sense perception knows no limitation. The Supremely alive one.

 

These are the choices and need to be considered deeply. Is spiritual enlightenment one of entering into life or death?

 

 

 

 

 

Logically, no conscious entity can have complete knowledge of its own origin, because any knowledge is a part of the entity itself and therefore it is different from its origin.

Well, this presupposes that there is a difference between the conscious entity and the origin of his own self. In one sense this is true of ourselves but it is not true of God.

[primate]

Agreed.

 

As I suggested earlier, I think God (impersonal Brahman) is total consciousness as well as total energy, all present in a singular cosmic oscillation. Our individual (material) consciousness is a discontinuous fraction of this total consciousness, and a function of its creative energy or Maya. In such a model we are simultaneously one with God and different from God, and God is the origin or basis of our (partial) consciousness.

 

According to this, our consciousness is incomplete, and since our knowledge is obviously part of our consciousness, our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore, we can never fully know God, or the origin of our consciousness.

 

If Krishna/Vishnu, or the supreme personality of Godhead, has total consciousness (including our own consciousness), then Krishna has complete knowledge of Brahman, and there is in fact no difference between Krishna and Brahman or God.

 

Perhaps my (implicit) question was, whether consciousness or knowledge and (mindful) understanding are equivalent. In other words, can total consciousness (or God) fully understand itself? I suspect, however, that 'understanding' is just a characteristic of our material brain and subtle mind. Beyond that, only absolute knowledge might exist..

[theist]

 

Agreed.

Not exactly.

 

 

As I suggested earlier, I think God (impersonal Brahman) is total consciousness as well as total energy, all present in a singular cosmic oscillation. Our individual (material) consciousness is a discontinuous fraction of this total consciousness, and a function of its creative energy or Maya. In such a model we are simultaneously one with God and different from God, and God is the origin or basis of our (partial) consciousness.

Well yes this is the impersonalist idea. But we should not confuse this with Lord Caitanya's teaching on oneness and difference.

 

 

 

According to this, our consciousness is incomplete, and since our knowledge is obviously part of our consciousness, our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore, we can never fully know God, or the origin of our consciousness.

 

The jiva's consciousness is complete when it is fully Krishna conscious, that is, fully conscious of Krishna. Krishna never directly experiences incomplete consciousness. Understanding the distinction between ourselves and Krishna is essential.

 

Here is how Krishna's completeness is described in relation to the universe.

 

 

 

Sri Isopanishad invocation TranslationThe Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

 

 

 

If Krishna/Vishnu, or the supreme personality of Godhead, has total consciousness (including our own consciousness), then Krishna has complete knowledge of Brahman, and there is in fact no difference between Krishna and Brahman or God.

 

Brahman is a feature of Krishna, Krishna is not a feature of Brahman. Do you see what I mean? The Brahman is Krishna's emanation, His aura. A person emanates an aura, an aura does not emanate a person. There is a critical difference primate.

 

 

Perhaps my (implicit) question was, whether consciousness or knowledge and (mindful) understanding are equivalent. In other words, can total consciousness (or God) fully understand itself? I suspect, however, that 'understanding' is just a characteristic of our material brain and subtle mind. Beyond that, only absolute knowledge might exist..

[primate]

 

Brahman is a feature of Krishna, Krishna is not a feature of Brahman. Do you see what I mean? The Brahman is Krishna's emanation, His aura. A person emanates an aura, an aura does not emanate a person. There is a critical difference primate.

 

Well, I said: "there is in fact no difference between Krishna and Brahman or God". Krishna is the person (or knower) and Brahman is the mechanical system (or mechanism, if you like). In reality, I don’t think one is 'the basis' of the other. To be the basis of something, the basis must come first. This implies sequential order, which implies time, which implies Maya. And God isn’t subject to Maya or time; God is Maya..

[Sephiroth]

We often think that we don't know the (true nature of the Universe and God) and attend to follow Holy figures in figuring this out.

 

What if we DO KNOW everything? What if we have merely forgotten who we are?

 

Like an Armesia (wrong spelling here) victim. Someone who have lost his memory and trying to figure out who we are in relationship to the World around us?

 

I got this idea from watching X-Men Origin, by the way.

[gHari]

Amnesia ........

 

There was once a Prince who developed amnesia.

 

He wandered about not knowing who he was. Eventually he sat in the gutter in tears.

 

A kind lady came by and gave him some food. Then a man came by and gave him some wine.

 

But later a priest came by and recognizing the boy, said "My dear son, I know your father. He has a great Kingdom, which is yours. Let me take you there".

 

We can see who best took care of the lost boy's welfare.

[theist]

 

Well, I said: "there is in fact no difference between Krishna and Brahman or God". Krishna is the person (or knower) and Brahman is the mechanical system (or mechanism, if you like). In reality, I don’t think one is 'the basis' of the other. To be the basis of something, the basis must come first. This implies sequential order, which implies time, which implies Maya. And God isn’t subject to Maya or time; God is Maya..

 

 

Krsna says in the Gita:

 

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.

 

Sequential thinking is of time. You are correct. But it is you who are attempting to impose that conception onto the absolute.

 

Krishna is called the Cause of all causes. Krishna caused the Brahman effulgence.This has to be accepted even though both Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His effulgent the Brahman.

 

You call this sequential thinking but it is not. It appears contradictory to our minds because we are conditioned by sequential thinking as in past and future. Krishna perfectly houses all such apparent contradictions.

 

The material (therefore not perfect but in this case nearly) example is the sun and the sunshine. Even though they both exist simultaneously still no one would argue the fact that the sun is the cause of the sunshine.

[Sephiroth]

 

Amnesia ........

 

There was once a Prince who developed amnesia.

He wandered about not knowing who he was. Eventually he sat in the gutter in tears.

A kind lady came by and gave him some food. Then a man came by and gave him some wine.

But later a priest came by and recognizing the boy, said "My dear son, I know your father. He has a great Kingdom, which is yours. Let me take you there".

 

We can see who best took care of the lost boy's welfare.

 

Yet you do not see what actually saved the boy.

 

What truly saved that boy could be his father's merits (punya) and his own. Not the kingdom or the Priest.

 

If that prince was an evil man, or his father was a cruel king, do you believe that anyone could be bothered about the boy who was crying in the gutter? N0 ... because they will remember his and his father's cruelty and shy away from him.

 

And like most people who does not remember who they are, the prince will sit in the gutter and wonder why no one is helping him. Because of his amnesia he will not remember the evil things he did (in another lifetime) which have shone away his could-be-rescuers.

 

Merits and Sins determines what sort of World you are living in. Sometimes, your merits will save you when you are least expected.

[primate]

 

Krsna says in the Gita:

 

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.

 

The literal Sanskrit verse states: "I am the 'rest' of Brahman". I think that Prabhupada’s translation "Krishna is the 'basis' of Brahman", actually means that Krishna is the 'essence' of Brahman. So, Krishna and Brahman are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. In fact, this is confirmed by Prabhupada himself in his purport of BG 4.24, in which he explains the method and the result of Krishna Consciousness:

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 4.24

 

brahmarpanam brahma havir

brahmagnau brahmana hutam

brahmaiva tena gantavyam

brahma-karma-samadhina

 

SYNONYMS

 

brahma -- spiritual in nature; arpanam -- contribution; brahma -- the Supreme; havih -- butter; brahma -- spiritual; agnau -- in the fire of consummation; brahmana -- by the spirit soul; hutam -- offered; brahma -- spiritual kingdom; eva -- certainly; tena -- by him; gantavyam -- to be reached; brahma -- spiritual; karma -- in activities; samadhina -- by complete absorption.

 

TRANSLATION

 

A person who is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature.

 

PURPORT

 

How activities in Krishna consciousness can lead one ultimately to the spiritual goal is described here. There are various activities in Krishna consciousness, and all of them will be described in the following verses. But, for the present, just the principle of Krishna consciousness is described. A conditioned soul, entangled in material contamination, is sure to act in the material atmosphere, and yet he has to get out of such an environment. The process by which the conditioned soul can get out of the material atmosphere is Krishna consciousness. For example, a patient who is suffering from a disorder of the bowels due to overindulgence in milk products is cured by another milk product, namely curds. The materially absorbed conditioned soul can be cured by Krishna consciousness as set forth here in the Gita. This process is generally known as yajna, or activities (sacrifices) simply meant for the satisfaction of Vishnu, or Krishna. The more the activities of the material world are performed in Krishna consciousness, or for Vishnu only, the more the atmosphere becomes spiritualized by complete absorption. The word brahma (Brahman) means "spiritual." The Lord is spiritual, and the rays of His transcendental body are called brahmajyoti, His spiritual effulgence. Everything that exists is situated in that brahmajyoti, but when the jyoti is covered by illusion (maya) or sense gratification, it is called material. This material veil can be removed at once by Krishna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake of Krishna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the result are -- all combined together -- Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual quality. Krishna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate gain -- everything -- becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of Krishna consciousness.

 

So, if according to Prabhupada, everything ultimately becomes one in the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Brahman, then how can Vishnu/Krishna be the basis of Brahman, other than being Brahman?

 

Also, Isopanishad clearly speaks of a perfectly complete unit Om, from which everything originates:

 

Sri Isopanishad Invocation

 

om purnam adah purnam idam

purnat purnam udacyate

purnasya purnam adaya

purnam evavasishyate

 

SYNONYMS

 

om -- the Complete Whole; purnam -- perfectly complete; adah -- that; purnam -- perfectly complete; idam -- this phenomenal world; purnat -- from the all-perfect; purnam -- complete unit; udacyate -- is produced; purnasya -- of the Complete Whole; purnam -- completely, all; adaya -- having been taken away; purnam -- the complete balance; eva -- even; avasishyate -- is remaining.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

 

The above translation of Prabhupada mystifies me. The original verse simply states: Even if all is taken away from the perfectly complete unit Om, from which the perfectly complete phenomenal world is produced, the complete unit [Om] is remaining..

[primate]

 

Sequential thinking is of time. You are correct. But it is you who are attempting to impose that conception onto the absolute.

 

I don’t think so! I’m attempting to remove the concept of time from the definition of the Absolute. Consequently, statements like "Krishna is the basis of Brahman" become problematic.

 

 

Krishna is called the Cause of all causes. Krishna caused the Brahman effulgence. This has to be accepted even though both Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His effulgent the Brahman.

 

Now you are imposing the concept of time onto the Absolute. Causality implies time. If time isn’t of the Absolute, Krishna cannot be the cause of the Brahman effulgence.

 

 

You call this sequential thinking but it is not. It appears contradictory to our minds because we are conditioned by sequential thinking as in past and future. Krishna perfectly houses all such apparent contradictions.

 

Agreed. Cause and effect only have meaning in our temporal material world.

 

 

The material (therefore not perfect but in this case nearly) example is the sun and the sunshine. Even though they both exist simultaneously still no one would argue the fact that the sun is the cause of the sunshine.

 

Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

[theist]

primate, I see now you think you know better what Prabhupada meant more than Prabhupada himself. Due to this no more can be gained by this conversation at this point.

 

Good luck

Hare Krishna

[primate]

 

primate, I see now you think you know better what Prabhupada meant more than Prabhupada himself. Due to this no more can be gained by this conversation at this point.

 

Good luck

Hare Krishna

No Theist, actually I completely agree with Prabhupada! But I think you didn't quote his translation of BG 14.27 in the correct context. That's what I try to say. And I think his purport of BG 4.24 proves this.

 

Apart from this, I just don't understand why Prabhupada didn't stick to the literal Sanskrit verse in his translation of Sri Isopanishad Invocation, which would have illustrated my point much better..

[sant]

 

Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

 

So it means that sun causes sunshine since nuclear reactions are of the sun and not the sunshine.And how can yoy say that the sunshine is not there when the sun is there.