The sum total of everything is nothing

[Guest guest]

NAsadIya sukta is the final one transcending the purusa suktam.

 

****This is one proof that the ‘Him’ of Upanishads is saguna.*****

 

Not really if one realizes that any word used to explain him/her/indescribable will make that unlimited being limited. Mind and Vac has sphurana from the indescribable nirguna Brahman.

 

 

It is known that Sanaka and others were taught in absolute silence.

 

[Guest guest]

"Then by the time (?) the It reached a stage that “It willed, may I become many”, "

 

 

Time also was not existent and existent. Actually it did not not reach a stage.

 

I ness (which is a thought) eternally exists in the being which is described as neti neti. But the being beneath the 'i ness' also exists as neti neti eternally.

 

 

[maadhav]

i browsed your posts quickly, and i am please you re here. be here. your knowlede of tarka, and shastra is useful.

however, the absolute truth, krishna, cannot be comprehended by onl logic, though logic does help weed out things that move one away from many relative truths. shraddhaa is needed to know krishna or get his mercy. no matter how sharp we are in our logic, buddhi, and gyana, we are not complete. hence we need shraddhaa to take His word and live by it.

 

again welcome. please tell about you whatever you can.

 

 

[aqua3]

yes, if mind and vak can answer / describe It, then It is saguna. Yatho vaacho nivarthanthE.. Only when It can't be described, It is Nirguna - a state perceived by rishis like Sanaka in silence..

[aqua3]

Nothing, not time, nor even sat ot asat were there. That is why I put a question mark in that post next to time. That state can not be perceived is what that hymn makes out.

 

I visualise that state like this. After Maha pralaya, that is after Brahma deva completes 100 years of his existence, everything moves towards nothingness. (words do no justice to our thoughts in this). The regression continues so deep and intense, that what can be considered as Void also loses its characteristic. A kind of lull(?!) when all that existed with specific characteristics disslove into ... what?? Here not only the physical property but also every kind of property / attribute that the once existed things / non-things had is unrecognisable now (once again a limitation of vaak) It is this state that perfectly describes the four fold meaning of Nirguna. This is prior to creation. And then the I-ness starts showing up.

 

About I-ness, this also-known as Consciousness is supposed to be expanding and contracting. There are proofs cited by Acharyas to this effect. They have also spoken about the absence of consciousness under specific circumstances at the finite world. This pre-supposes the absence of the same at cosmic level or in other words, or in words generally described, "the consciousness prior to creation is at un-conditioned state".

 

Another note:- I wish not to indulge in saguna- nirguna argument any longer, since the two great pillars of Thought, fed by Great Acharyas have delved indepth in to them. My attempt is an independant query, without allegiance to any particular Thought and to understand it in the light of my limited knowledge, perception and observation of the outer world and more IMPORTANTLY, the sruti (Vedas, upanishads and Brahma sutras for testimony and Gita for cross reference and proof if needed)

 

Finally I dont say that I have expoused or proved anything in these posts. But what I want to say is if there is a choice between a proposition that is ligically impossible and a proposition whose meaning is not fully understandable by one, then I stick to the second alternative:-)

[aqua3]

From now on I want to add another (4th) limitation / problem to the already mentioned 3, namely the ( la Goedalian) Theory of incompleteness in the study of Vedanta. Goedel says that a theory can not be proved by the variables contained in it. Goedel's paradox uses the inseparable variables of the theory to highlight the paradox that 'of no formal system can we affirm with certainty that all contentual considerations are representable in it.”(A statement P states 'there is no proof of P'. If P is true, there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true which is a contradiction. Goedel defined P as necessarily a part of the system).

 

This is incidentally agreeable to the seeker, in that any cosmological argument using finite objects can only 'infer', not 'prove' the Truth (of the Infinite) as expounded by Vedanta and any 'inference' is not proof. In other words the finite axioms can never prove the Infinite and we at the finite level can never explain the Infinite with the help of cognition at the finite level.

 

With this awareness, let us continue from my previous post.

 

That Brahman is ‘satyam, gyanam and anatham’ is repeated in many Upanishads. In this ‘anantham’ attribute, comes a whole lot of contradictory attributes.

He is aNuh, atomic; bRihat, macrocosmic; kRSaH, lean; sthUlaH, fat; guNabrt, full of attributes; nirguNaH, attributeless; mahAn, great; adhRtaH, supportless. These names occur in continuous succession in Vishnu sahasranAma. But these attributes are not seen as un-sustainable opposites, that parASara, one of the great commentators on the vishnu sahasra-nAma, excels here by interpreting these eight names as describing the eight powers of yoga: namely, aNimA, mahimA, laghumA, garimA, Isitva, vaSitva, prAkAmya and prApti – meaning, the powers to become atomic, transcendent, light, heavy, the power to will anything beyond any natural phenomenon, effortless attainment of anything and omniscience coupled with omnipotence!

 

If we see these opposites, we find that a cohabitation or combination of the two in a pair does not and need not cancel each other, as how we think a positive and a negative cancel each other. If attributes are classified into positive and negative (like good and bad, devas and asuras) and if it be assumed that they equal each other, will they then be cancelled and become zero? There is another question also. If Brahman is all auspiciousness (nowhere texts say that He has negative attributes. He is Amal and Nirmal), from where the inauspicious qualities come? Since everything has sprung from Brahman, does it mean that this inauspicious / bad nature also has sprung from Him?

 

(be back)

 

[aqua3]

To find answers to the queries in my previous post, let me take up the equation discussed in this thread earlier.

1+1 = 0, the 1 in the left denoting, positive and negative.

1+1=0 if

+1 = -1

 

That is one and its reciprocal cancels each other (1+(-1) =0)leading to annihilation or nothingness, is the argument. But we have already proved that a positive variable of one system can not cancel or give rise to its reciprocal in another system. In that sense 1+1=0 can not be true.

 

Again if the entire creation has to become zero, by the cancellation of these two opposites, it will take eons, since it will require the entire vast universe to reach a condition where all its positives equal their respective negatives, simultaneously.

 

Instead if we assume that these opposites occur in the same system, then we find that these two opposites tend to attain equilibrium and not total annihilation, when their balance is disturbed.

 

Thus 1+1 is not shunyam, it is Poornam, perfection.

If it be said that the 0 in the equation is shunyam only, it is replied, that since shunyam means Nothingness, it is then equal to its contrary, Everything!!

 

In other words,

Substituting these terms in the equation, we get,

Everything = Nothing

Since

+1 +(-1) = Nothing,

Everything = +1 + (-1)

In other words,

Everything = positive + negative.

Since from non-existance (of Nothing state), everything has evolved, the +ve an d-ve must have evolved together at the very beginning.

 

But the hitch here is how come the Everything that evolved, which is nothing but Brahman which is auspicious, can have –ve within it?

 

To show mathematically, let us assume that 0 existed in the beginning and the apparent attribute spoken by the texts is that it has all that is +ve. Creation further proceeded and there is systematic simplification and separation of these attributes, so that It can become many in the finite world. Therefore there happens a situation when the positive is subtracted from the 0, from anu to brihat level. What will we get is positive is subtracted from zero, a negative!! ( 0 – (+1) = -1)

 

I think that this solves the riddle of opposites - they co-exist, though we perceive them not so. At any one time we perceive one of them and the other as absence of this one.

This can be understood like this.

 

Let us imagine our globe with day and night (light and darkness) in co-existence. When we are standing at any one place on the earth, at the finite level, either we will be in the day zone or in the night zone. We wont experience the other – like (as earlier stated) how a person can be good in respect of a thing at one time and not be both good and bad at that time with reference to that thing.)

 

But if we move a little high above our earth, at some height we will see both day and night, light and darkness next to each other, but seeming to chase each other perpetually. The darkness chasing away the light and light chasing away the darkness (tamasomaa Jythir gamaya). At some heightened level of consciousness, perhaps we attain the purport of this vachan.

 

Much higher still, perhaps at the height of moon, the opposites cease to exist! (Please recall the famous photo of earth taken from the moon in one of the Apollo missions.) Away from finite living on the globe, what we now see is just half of the globe, perhaps with a slight bulge at the twilight zone, shining with light. This reminds me of how Brahman can always be perceived as light, sat and auspiciousness only. (but note that this perception occurs only at some height –of transcendence). What is this darkness at the other half? It automatically co-exists but as ‘non-manifest’ in Brahman. It gets manifest only down the line of creation. If we by our vasanas, karma etc happen to get associated with this ‘other’ of auspiciousness, who is to be blamed?

 

We also note that the opposites do not cancel each other. They just balance each other. (Another corollary is in the creation of 7 lokas above in light, which automatically ensures creation of 7 lokas below (patala etc) in darkness). Balance is the nature of creation. Shall we then say this is how Shunyam is equated to Poornam?

 

(be back)

 

[aqua3]

I wrote like this in my previous post.

 

It automatically co-exists but as ‘non-manifest’ in Brahman. It gets manifest only down the line of creation.

---------

 

This inference is made, since manifestation is a process and does not happen and then stop soon after Creation began. It must be going on and on and the 'other' of it also might be happening as and where applicable / sustainable.

 

This perhaps explains why dharma deteriorates as time goes on and how cyclical it is with adharma. This is what the first mail in response to which I started writing actually meant - that manifestation goes forth and back with non-manifestation at different levels of creation, while the overall picture continues to be manifestation and creation -since we are still in the afternoon of Brhama deva's day time (swetha varaha kalpa). The complete reverse begins at Brahma's night. The same happens localised at short cycles of mini creation & dissolution about which I will write at an appropriate context.

 

(be back)

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Nothing = Eternal

[maadhav]

<< Since everything has sprung from Brahman, does it mean that this inauspicious / bad nature also has sprung from Him? >>

 

brahma = god = krishna is eternal, never born, never dies.

so is a soul. god is one, but the souls are almost infinite, and infinitesimal in power compared to god.

 

these souls who are born with their own desires as jivas have been given freedom by krishna. freedom to do as they please. this freedom, when misused by forgetting god ahd one's eternal loving relationp with god, causes jivas to behave in ways that causes bad things for others as well as for themselves.

 

so, bad things/acts are caused by some of these jivas

simply because god has given them the freedom.

can god stop them, yes;

and that is why he incarnates again and again.

 

yadAyadA hi dharmasy glAnir bhavati bhArat

abhutthAm adharmasya tadAtmAnam sR^ijAmya

paritrANAya sAdhUnAm vinAshAya duskkritAm

dharma samsthApanAya sambhavAmi yuge yuge.

 

says Krishna in Gita.

 

as soon as one does bad things, god knows it; but he chooses to not to stop him immediately. why?

because:

 

- he wants to see if the jiva will find out for himself and correct himself, repenting.

 

- he also wants to see if the good guys - suras- will act to punish the asursa or adharmis, which they must. it is suras' dharma to stop adharma in a society.

 

if none does anything and the the good guys suffer due to bad guys, god cannot tolerate for long. then either he comes himself, or sends some one to do the work for himself, or empowers some sura to do it.

 

hope this helps.

 

[aqua3]

<< Since everything has sprung from Brahman, does it mean that this inauspicious / bad nature also has sprung from Him? >>

--

I am afraid your mail does not address the above question.

 

The Vedantic notion that Brahman is both the primary and secondary cause of everything in creation suggests that even Evil or Inauspiciousness must have been contained in It from the Beginning. But this is not supported by any Pramaana sruti. That is why this creates a question such as the one mentioned above.

 

But by the logic of the one question that sage Yajnavalkhya asks Vidagdha after Gargi exhausts her questions,(brihadharanyaka) the reply in my post was attempted. The last and the fundamental question that Vidagdha and Gargi left out, but yajnavalkhya raised was this :-

" What is that fundamental principle from which all experience is projected, and into which all perception and meaning are assimilated?"

 

By the reply that Yajnavakhya himself had given for this, it is inferred (not proved -something I cautioned earlier by quoting Goedel's theorm of Imcompleteness)that the perception or experience of Evil or Inauspiciousness too must have sprung up and got assimilated back into This Thing!!!

 

My post is an attempt at how this can not, (though sprung and assimilated back into It) and is not known to be of It or an attribute of It. If this is answered at least at the level of logic, we may not be wondering why God created asuras, bad people and even the bad experiences we undergo (though it is true that we 'catch' them due to our karma, guna-mix in us etc, but unless such are in 'existence' we can not 'catch' them is the underlying idea.)

 

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

You contention that --

 

"so, bad things/acts are caused by some of these jivas

simply because god has given them the freedom."

 

is factually not true because jivas can not and do not cause bad things....thats why i use the term 'catch'.

Or for that matter nothing is caused by the jiva.. (it is herein I bring in more complex issues such as illusion which I will discuss later)Even after Liberation, the act of creation alone is denied to the liberated Jiva, details of which can be found in Brahma sutra..

 

[aqua3]

In mathematics, equations are solved by mathematicians, but they are just memorised by students. Who we are is the question, mathematicians or students? If we consider ourselves as mathematicians, then the burden of solving falls on us :-)

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Nothing to say.

[Guest guest]

Good, bad, evil, etc are perception.

 

Bramhan is indepedent of time and is the same thus all time and everywhere. The story of bramhan is thus the same in a million years or in a micro-second. It's just the perception that's different.

 

For an animal which could sense the tsunami coming and keeping away from the coatline in anticipation, tsunami has no significance to its perception. For we humans it's a different perception all together calling & hyping it as a killer wave, nature's wrath etc. This is how perceptions are formed be it good or evil or whatver.

 

Perceptions may be necessary, and should be kept a little distance away from ones own faculties of learning and understanding. Else the learning could causing heating problems be it at the individual level or social level. Bramhan comes upon as a realization when learning & experiencing at zero heat. True satsanga is a similar effort at a community level to learn at zero heat.

[aqua3]

Good, bad, evil, etc are perception.

 

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

yes perceptions, but since they have been perceived (as experiences), they are real - This aspect of arguement in shunya vada (against nihilism) demolishes the import of the first 2 paragraphs of the mail to which this is sent as a reply.

 

But if this kind of reply, done impersonally, dis-passionately and purely to explore the Truth is taken as to cause heat problems in a satsung at community level,then it means the Search can not take us beyond the ego level. If it be so, then we can never know what it means to be a jigyasu and from which how to become dearer to Him, with a realisation that 'Vasudaivam sarvam iti'.

 

Because no amount of gyana and bhakthi can make us perceive Him and See Him and attain Him unless He decides in our favour. 'Whom He chooses, by him He is perceived', (Kathopanishad.) Then where does the possibility lie for us to say I said this and I know this or you said this you countered mine like this.

 

But if it be felt that I am responsible for causing heat in the satsang, I have no qualms to leave. For, I am clear about my aim, that is to see Him, know Him, perceive Him as He IS, in vaak, mind and even in dream in such a way that every experience / perception / argument that I come across is merited purely with respect to attaining this aim.

[aqua3]

Don't give up. There is something to say.

 

When I replied to your mail, I was just not sure how this equation can be solved. But thinking about it, one plauasible explanation is this:-

 

Sage Aruni's discourse with his son in Chandhogya upanaishad gives us a clue. He asks the boy to break the fruit of the banyan tree step by step, till finally he breaks the seed into two to see that there is Nothing inside it, only to realise that a massive banyan tree has emerged from it.

 

That Nothingness in this context can also mean ghatAkAsha when the seed is not broken and MahAkAsha when it is broken. The mahAkAsha, or ether ourside is ETERNAL. What Aruni's son saw was

 

Nothingness=Eternal.

 

This solution occurs in specific contexts it seems, or else Nothingness, if it were to fulfil this function, has to BE forever - which is a fallacy.

[Guest guest]

 

Let the guru in you show the way of attaining him with zero heat.

 

Look at the heat in your statement for example..

"if it be felt that I am responsible for causing heat in the satsang, I have no qualms to leave."

 

[aqua3]

I would rather appreciate a debate or discussion on substantive issues, the way how vaada and tarka are taken up. I am sorry I am not for this game.

 

( I once again realise that the problem no (2) and (3) in the study of Vedanta, as mentioned in an earlier post, are too real to be ignored.)

[Guest guest]

****I wish not to indulge in saguna- nirguna argument any longer******

 

Very good.

 

*******About I-ness, this also-known as Consciousness is supposed to be expanding and contracting. There are proofs cited by Acharyas to this effect. They have also spoken about the absence of consciousness under specific circumstances at the finite world. ******************

 

This interests me. You say that under specific circumstance, concsiousness is absent. What is that?

 

Conditioning is absent or the pure consciousness (the existence itself) is absent?

 

Do you doubt the possibility of attaining the unconditioned state? For a second?, for a minute? or for hours? Or for ever?

 

*******

if there is a choice between a proposition that is ligically impossible and a proposition whose meaning is not fully understandable by one, then I stick to the second alternative:

*********

 

I agree fully. But to you what is logically impossible and what is half understood by logic? What are these two?

[Pankaja_Dasa]

That Nothingness in this context can also mean ghatAkAsha when the seed is not broken and MahAkAsha when it is broken. The mahAkAsha, or ether ourside is ETERNAL.

 

 

There in lies your problem. Where did that tree come from? Something can not come from nothing. If you say seed, then what is that seed? Then we have to go all the way back to the beggining, which is what our goal is=

 

Eternity [excuse me while i /images/graemlins/grin.gif]

 

Your point about outside being eternal and the rest not? Doesn't make sence. The seed wherefrom the seed came from must be eternal [because it forever produces trees].

[aqua3]

The two mails together—

 

Sri Om Namah sivayya :- Please note the 4 schools of thought in explaining Consciousness and Ramanujacharya’s philosophy of in the light of various contexts such as ‘Functional dependance’- the one important to our discussion being ‘avasthAvad dravyam, in its capacity for modification (expansion and contraction), and in its being absent (once again this involves a series of logical deduction) at sleep and so on. You get an exposition of this in the book Ramanuja’s Theory of Knowledge, authored by Dr K.C. Varadachary, published by TTD. You will also see the discussion on various aspects of consciousness in the book “Transformation of the concept of Consciousness in Modern Epistemology and its bearing on Logic” authored by Professor Nicola Lossky, which ultimately and incidentally settles to the conclusions which illustrate Ramanuja’s concept of it as a functional dependant, a variable.

 

Sri Govindaram :- The Ghatakhasa- mahakasha (spatial ether) as used in my mail are popular examples used in discourses from times of yore, from the perceivable time when Brahma sutras were analysed. The seed from seed as used by Sri Govindaram is once again a popular analogy to explain how karmic theory works (see Ramanuja’s Sri Bhashya for Brahma sutra IV –4) Again I am forced to remind the rules of logic, the subject to which the proposition must be related and the context. I also realize that any further exposition of logic by me in this equation, to show the non-sustainability of the argument given, will heat up tempers..due to which I decide to keep off.

 

On a different note, I wish to thank SM744, for introducing a new concept, Zero heat in attaining Him, which once again set my inquisitiveness in motion and I am grateful to him for the new insights that have cropped up.. But I am sorry to tell you, SM744, that God is not Zero Heat. Nor can He be attained at Zero heat. He is Heat (just a look at a couple of Upanishads would do, say, Shvethasvatara and Gharbo) and the seeker in meditative or sublime level is hot within. If you are keen on knowing how, here are the clues. Look for the meaning and derivation of the term Sharira (yes, our body) and look for why a sanyasi is supposed to give up agni and the core concept in athithi bhojanam and what Gitacharyan says when He identifies Himself as Vaisvanara…

 

DhanyavAd

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

The seed from seed as used by Sri Govindaram is once again a popular analogy to explain how karmic theory works (see Ramanuja’s Sri Bhashya for Brahma sutra IV –4)

 

 

 

Where does Karma end, or when does it start? You leave many unsnwered questions my friend.

[maadhav]

<< Nothingness=Eternal. >>

 

actually, every basic element is eternal.

what is not eternal is the combinations/re-arrangements of elements. some combinations last longer than others.

 

the energy also is eternal. it can only be transformed,

cannot be destroyed or produced. God, however is the source or possessor of all the energy.

 

any one's body is made of the elements from this earth,

a spiritual element soul, and the supersoul commonin all bodies. the supersoul is also every where, but cannot be proven "scientifically." similarly the existance of the soul within a body cannot be proven scientifically.

so, that is a matter of faith and indirect deducton/conclusion based on observation.

 

[aqua3]

Not leaving unanswered.

 

For scriptural basis, read a Tamil work called AchArya Hridhayam (the translation must be available in the net) (which is a complilation of AchArya Ramanuja's notions)wherein the much respected commentator Sri P.B. Annagaracharya swami (P.B. is the abbreviation of the title he received for his debating skills) explains how, even though Karma is said to be anAdhi, it nevertheless must have had a beginning. The logic is that anything that has an end, must have had a beginning and therefore not anAdhi. If karmic journey can find an end when the jiva attains Liberation or Moksha, it pre-supposes that it must have had a beginning. However it is called anAdhi, due to the reason that its beginnings are difficult to ascertain.

 

Anger? Please know that anger is also (like consciousness) a modifiable quality depending on its relation and function with the subject. In my case, you better understand the motive behind what you call anger in me, by knowing why I took the decision to quit.

 

Well, I asked the Guru in me (SM744 pl listen)and he advised me to follow his 20th Guru! And so I did. The same is what the first verse of the Taiitriya upanishad (I-11.3)guided me to do. To understand what I say, here is the clue. His 24 Gurus are chronicled in Srimad Bhagavatham!!

 

Be back if someone needs clarification for what i stated so far in my mails.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Karma is eternal. Hare Krisha, Hare Krishna.. [sings kirtan]...