Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 Namaste Vinarre Pls see my comments below: > > Vinaire [sMTP:vinaire] > Thursday, March 09, 2000 2:02 AM > Ramakrishna > [ramakrishna] ATMAN AND CREATION > > " Vinaire " <vinaire > > Definition > > ATMAN: Brahman manifested as an individual spirit > > Note: Brahman assumes the beingness as a creator in order to create. > That beingness as a creator is Atman. Again, what we perceive is the > creation and not the creator. > Kathi: What happens if the both creation and the creator are not two but One. > We never perceive the Atman because > Atman is not something created. > Kathi: True. Atman is not an object of perception. It is behind the senses. > Atman may be understood only in terms > of what it is creating. > Kathi: Yes Atman can be understood by its effects. > Thus, there are as many Atmans as there are > independent creations at any moment. > Kathi: You mean the Jivatmans? > Whenever there is creation that > is contributing to the progress of Mankind, we have a manifestation > of Brahman as Atman. A creation that is simply persisting without > change is a " mechanical creation. " There is no Atman there. Atman is > Brahman manifested at the moment of a dynamic creation. > Kathi: Vinairre, do you have any scriptural references for such notions. This is something new to me. Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 My dear Kathi, Each moment is new, my friend, if you can only appreciate it. This universe constitutes the ultimate scripture if you can only read and understand it. Technically, the existence is that which is made up of matter, energy, space and time. Brahman and Atman are, therefore, beyond existence. Atman manifests itself as its creation having the characteristics of matter, energy, space and time. Dynamic creation is the proof of Atman. Static creation that is persisting is Atman " solidified " through its creation. That may be regarded as the ego. As far as my view on Jivatman please see my earlier post " The Hindu Pantheon. " Respectfully, Vinaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 Seen in one of the postings:- > Technically, the existence is that which is made up of matter, > energy, space and time. Brahman and Atman are, therefore, beyond > existence. Existence is made of matter, energy space and time? Where does this come from? It is certainly not from Science and it is not from the Shruti (Hindu scriptures of authority). Existence is perhaps the substratum on which all these are projected onto but it is not produced by all of these! Existence defies further classification - the only thing that can perhaps influence existence is non-existence. A very Important question arises: But non-existence means not existing so how can something that does not exist influence existence? The blunt answer is - We do not know - hence we meet up with the term -- Maya. This is the definition of Maya - The world as it is - mixture of existence and non-existence. Any further prying is impossible as we are now dealing with how non-existence gets mixed up with existence? jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 Dear Jay, Forgive me for any presumptions on my part, but any such substratum that you may consider must be beyond matter, energy, space and time. And that would be Brahman that cannot be described. The closest analogy that I can think of is that of a lake reflecting the blue sky and the clouds. You may consider the surface of the lake analogous to that substratum. Thus, existence may be reflected off this substartum in the form of impressions such as memory. But that memory would also consist of some form of matter, energy, space and time, however fine you may consider it to be. The universe exists. Its impression as memory exists. But the Brahman, or that substratum does not exist as matter, energy, space and time. You simply cannot describe it. Can you say that Brahman exists? If you do then you are saying that Brahman can also not exist. We are then in the realm of duality. But Vedanta considers Brahman to be beyond any duality. How do you explain that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.