Brahma Sutras

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I have come across three categorisations viz., pāramāthika satya, vyāvahārika satya and prātibhāsika satya. prātibhāsika satya is exemplified by the (evanescent) reality of dreams, snake-in-the rope feeling etc. vyāvahārika satya means that there is some underlying reality but we are seeing its image or reflection or projection—an image in a mirror is the example. pāramāthika satya is the unchanging reality or our NPB.

Thank you, so sravna's categorization indeed deviates from orthodox advaitam, that is what I was trying to convey ....

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom and Shri Nara,

Consider space. Different points in space should possess different energies since if all the points in space were of the same energy, space wouldn't exist. Consider something beyond space and time like NPB. To it space doesn't exist. Why? Because I postulate, its energy is able make the space as something with equal energy throughout. So for NPB, space wouldn't exist. The same reasoning can be applied to time. So also with the case of jivas with respect to NPB. NPB thus from its point of view is the only reality.

Then how does space get projected? There has to be something which obstructs the connection from the space and time to the NPB though NPB sees no space and time. So the connection from NPB to space and time exists though not the other way round. In other words some force separates or projects space and time from NPB. So we need to postulate something like maya.

Since maya and something like saguna brahman are required to project the space , time and the jivas as NPB cannot act at "a particular instant" to create the world being timeless, I postulate that maya and saguna brahman are projected in the space and time. But the space and time are themselves totally connected for the SB and so even though the SB exists in space and time, space and time do not affect it. The SB projects the disconnected space and time we know.

The SB causes the projection through maya. However the projection cannot be as real as NPB because, NPB is a formless and timeless reality and there can be only one such reality. So the ultimate reality has to be non-dual. So any other reality such as space, time and jivas has to be ultimately timeless too as the ultimate reality is timeless and hence are the same as the NPB.

 

[Nara]

.... The vedic chanting, which is chanting of words and sentences with underlying meaning is not the same as the frenzied shouting of a few meaningless guttural plosives.

[snip]

I am put off by the confusion that prevails here in the presentation. I will rather wait.

The above summarizes your position quite well, (a) your scriptures are exceptional, unlike the animism practised in Africa which is mumbo jumbo and (b) you don't want to state your view because this thread is all confusion. In this situation there is no scope for any meaningful discussion with you.

A few years ago I had a long exchange on advaitam with a group of dedicated and some very angry advaitees arrayed against me .... if you wish you may read it here:

Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - How do we counter this argument?

 

[Nara]

Dear sravna, you asked me "Can you based on what I have stated as my views in this thread show how it is not consistent with with advaita? I will be happy to respond to that." When I cited a post your response is to gift me with a whale of a post smashing Shankara's advaitam to pieces. SB causes projection through maya -- do you really think this is consistent with Shankara? Can you please cite any references from Shankara Bhashya for it and so many other things that you postulate?

... Because I postulate, its energy is able make the space as something with equal energy throughout.

[...]

So we need to postulate something like maya.

[...]

..., I postulate that maya and saguna brahman are projected in the space and time.


The SB causes the projection through maya. However the projection cannot be as real as NPB because, NPB is a formless and timeless reality and there can be only one such reality. So the ultimate reality has to be non-dual. So any other reality such as space, time and jivas has to be ultimately timeless too as the ultimate reality is timeless and hence are the same as the NPB.

With all these postulates you are simply tailoring an argument to suit your own a priori position conclusion. Please remember, in matters like this, Vedantins would never accept these postulates as proof, the only source of validation is Shruti.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

Here is the reference from http://www.hindunet.org/Moksha/a1v2i003.html:

"Sankara postulates two ways to view the world, which leads to the doctrine of the two truths. From the conventional perspective, the world appears pluralistic facilitating the formation of a subject/object relationship between man and the Ultimate Being. Ultimate reality states Brahman to be the only true, existent Being. The non-dual Brahman alone Is; there is nothing real beside It. Brahman can be described as either saguna (with attributes) or nirguna (without attributes). Saguna Brahman is the Being with qualities or Isvara (the personal God), with the limiting adjuncts (the world) superimposed upon him. Nevertheless, He is omniscient and omnipotent when viewed from the conventional point of view. Nirguna Brahman is the Absolute Being divested of all qualities, attributes, limiting adjuncts etc. and the realization of whom leads to moksha (liberation).

The presence of Isvara does not assign duality to the nature of Brahman. Isvara, Brahman with attributes, exists as the highest possible reality for those lacking the realization of the Ultimate Being, the ones subjected to the powers of nescience. Isvara becomes the subject of all upasana (worship), while man is the object, when viewed from conventional reality. Sankara often uses "Lord" and "Brahman" interchangeably, for example, he states, "it is reasonable to ascribe agentship to It (Brahman) by saying, "It saw"" (Brahmasutrabhasya, p.49). Brahman here is the Lord, the agent, "the omniscient and omnipotent source from which occur the birth, continuance and dissolution of this universe" (Brahmasutrabhasya, p.14). Brahman is the maker and the cause of this world. Thus, it can be stated that Isvara, viewed as the "mediating principle" between this world and the Ultimate Brahman, is not separate from but exists as, conventionally speaking, another side of Brahman.

The individual jiva (soul) is different from Isvara and does not possess powers to create the universe. The Lord is, from the standpoint of nescience, different from and greater than the individual soul, as He is that being "free from grief and hunger, whose will is always realized, which has to be sought by the individual soul" (Chandogya Upanisad, trans. Olivelle, p.171). Until realization is attained about the identity of the Atman with Brahman, it is an error to reject the Lord as a power greater than the individual soul. These ideas are stated explicitly by Sankara as, "We speak of that entity as the creator of the universe which is something greater than, that is to say, different from the embodied being [jiva]" (Brahmasutrabhasya, p.348). This exists as such, from the standpoint of nescience, despite the presence of ultimate reality that upholds Atman as non-different from Brahman. Thus, from the conventional perspective, Isvara transcends individual souls.

The omniscient and omnipotent Isvara is the material and efficient cause of the universe (Brahmasutrabhasya, p.292). "


Thus Sankara does say that Isvara or Saguna brahman is the cause of the world.

 

[Nara]

...Thus Sankara does say that Isvara or Saguna brahman is the cause of the world.

sravna, two things:
[1] Please cite Shankara's words, not a cut and paste from a web site
[2] Even in this cut and pasted web site material I don't see anything like what you said -- "The SB causes the projection through maya. "

 

[sravna]

sravna, two things:
[1] Please cite Shankara's words, not a cut and paste from a web site
[2] Even in this cut and pasted web site material I don't see anything like what you said -- "The SB causes the projection through maya. "

Dear Shri Nara,

I do not understand the problem in accepting the above as Sankara's words because Sankara's concept of nirguna brahman doesn't allow for its active involvement in creation. So saguna brahman is responsible for the creation of the world. The creation happens using the power of maya. I think these are the very basics of advaita and I do not see why you have a problem in accepting them.

 

[tbs]

Dear Shri Nara,

I do not understand the problem in accepting the above as Sankara's words because Sankara's concept of nirguna brahman doesn't allow for its active involvement in creation. So saguna brahman is responsible for the creation of the world. The creation happens using the power of maya. I think these are the very basics of advaita and I do not see why you have a problem in accepting them.

hi sravana,

not all are nirguna upasakas...there are some saguna upasakas....some are saying ..sriman narayana is the adivitiyam brahma....

na tu nirguna brahma....so they wont accept...dont expect from them... I think these are the very basics of advaita and I do not

see why you have a problem in accepting them.
.

 

[Nara]

I do not understand the problem in accepting the above as Sankara's words because Sankara's concept of nirguna brahman doesn't allow for its active involvement in creation. So saguna brahman is responsible for the creation of the world. The creation happens using the power of maya. I think these are the very basics of advaita and I do not see why you have a problem in accepting them.

Dear sravna, same here, I do not understand what you are saying

The terminologies are getting all mixed up. Let us regroup and make sure we both are in the same page.

My point is about your claim that the projection emanates from SB, not that the illusory jagat is created by SB. I would like to see Shankara's text to support this view that "projection" emanates from SB. What do you mean by "projection" and does it comport with Shankara?

I also would like to see some citations that supports your view that the three forms of realities according to advaita are:
1. Ultimate reality - nirguna brahman

2. The next level of reality - Saguna brahman and maya

3. The lowest level of reality - Physical world, Jivas.

This is what I am talking about. The cut-and-paste text from the web site has nothing in support any of these. Nevertheless, please cite Shankara's text for these two issues, (a) SB projects whatever it is it projects and (b) the three levels of reality as described by you with jagat and jiva occupying the lowest level of reality.

Thank you .....

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

By projection I mean the reality of the physical world comes out of the SB though it is an act of will by the SB and is a lower reality of SB just as a shadow is of a person.

I am not saying that the 3 levels of reality I described are what are exactly said by Sankara but only I am trying to show how SB and maya are of a different status from that of the jivas and the jagat, though all of them are relatively real.

 

[Vaagmi]

The above summarizes your position quite well, (a) your scriptures are exceptional, unlike the animism practised in Africa which is mumbo jumbo and (b) you don't want to state your view because this thread is all confusion. In this situation there is no scope for any meaningful discussion with you.

A few years ago I had a long exchange on advaitam with a group of dedicated and some very angry advaitees arrayed against me .... if you wish you may read it here:

Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - How do we counter this argument?

That is okay and suits me well too. I will wait. Thanks.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

I do not understand the problem in accepting the above as Sankara's words because Sankara's concept of nirguna brahman doesn't allow for its active involvement in creation. So saguna brahman is responsible for the creation of the world. The creation happens using the power of maya. I think these are the very basics of advaita and I do not see why you have a problem in accepting them.

Dear Shri Sravna,

Advaita is one topic about which there are many interpretations by as many people considering themselves as authorities on the subject. But what I looked forward to under this thread was how Adi Sankara himself discussed his advaita philosophy in simple, everyday English. Adding your own interpretations, propositions or giving modern science's view points about space and time etc., will make it your justification of advaita, not giving Sankara's interpretation only.

Similarly what I am interested is in coming to know Sankara's own words only, not some C&P from some some web forum without much of reliability; for example, the following from what you have given may be seen:—

Brahman can be described as either saguna (with attributes) or nirguna (without attributes). Saguna Brahman is the Being with qualities or Isvara (the personal God), with the limiting adjuncts (the world) superimposed upon him.

This makes the Brahman an ambiguous entity and further, if the same entity can become saguna and nirguna according to our requirements, then the NPB becomes a non-NPB with the attribute of having the ability to become SB in a trice, so to speak. To the best of my knowledge, Sankara did not put forward such a "double-faced" NPB.

Kindly, therefore, study Sankara's treatment of advaita sufficiently deep and try to furnish Sankara's views as faithfully as possible. Of course, you may start a new thread titled "My interpretation of Sankara's advaita" and furnish all your thoughts in that.

 

[sravna]

Kindly, therefore, study Sankara's treatment of advaita sufficiently deep and try to furnish Sankara's views as faithfully as possible. Of course, you may start a new thread titled "My interpretation of Sankara's advaita" and furnish all your thoughts in that.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Without our interpretations don't you think there would be no room for debate? My view is one can give one's interpretation to clarify, after giving Sankara's own views. Anyone can of course contest that interpretation if there are logical flaws. What do you think?

 

[Nara]

....By projection I mean the reality of the physical world comes out of the SB though it is an act of will by the SB and is a lower reality of SB just as a shadow is of a person.

sravna, would you please furnish some references from Shankara Bhashya for this? I have been asking for this repeatedly and every time you just ignore me.

I am not saying that the 3 levels of reality I described are what are exactly said by Sankara but only I am trying to show how SB and maya are of a different status from that of the jivas and the jagat, though all of them are relatively real.

So you do accept your view is not that of Adi Shankara's advaitam but your own interpretation? This is what I was trying to tell you and you never acknowledged until now, thank you.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Without our interpretations don't you think there would be no room for debate? My view is one can give one's interpretation to clarify, after giving Sankara's own views. Anyone can of course contest that interpretation if there are logical flaws. What do you think?

Dear Sravna,

I feel that discussions can be there even with Sankara's own bhAshya. In fact I have a Malayalam book titled "bhAShA pradeepam" which gives a Malayalam translation of Sankara's Bhashya. On reading it I find either Sankara himself or the learned translator often goes at a tangent, interpreting each of the sutras in a particular way which enables some very relevant questions being omitted. (For example, sutra-5 has been considered as a fit reply to the sAmkhya vAdins who hold that the inanimate pradhAna is the building block of the universe. So a vehement attack is mounted against sAmkhyA and the PB is described as (quasi-) intellligent entity and so on. That this throws the pure NPB concept out of the window is not noticed.)

I tried to translate from Malayalam to English but it is beyond my limited ability, I find. This is one of the reasons why I would like to have Sankara's bhashya being discussed here.

 

[Garuda]

Dear Shri Auh,

There is this concept of nirguma brahman in advaita. It is beyond space and time and beyond action and thoughts. Since it is beyond actions, for the world to be existing there needs to be an intermediary, something that initiates actions such as creation. There comes the concept of maya as something that automatically emanates from nirguna brahman. It is illusory in the sense it does not exist from the perspective of nirguna brahman or the ultimate reality. They are two different levels of reality. Maya we have to assume has the powers to project brahman as many

The physical world is said to be relatively real when compared with nirguna brahman which is the ultimate real thing.

Hi,

been reading your replies and they are very good. I have 1 doubt in the above post....If the brahman is nirguna and is beyond actions, then how does it do a sankalpa (determine) ? For example the one with Jnana and sankalpa and sakthi can only create something. So if Maya came out of Brahman or projected from Brahman, does that not mean Brahman did the sankalpa( Determine to create something) with his Jnana? So this means Jnana is one attribute of Brahman who is said to be attributeless ?

 

[sravna]

Hi,

been reading your replies and they are very good. I have 1 doubt in the above post....If the brahman is nirguna and is beyond actions, then how does it do a sankalpa (determine) ? For example the one with Jnana and sankalpa and sakthi can only create something. So if Maya came out of Brahman or projected from Brahman, does that not mean Brahman did the sankalpa( Determine to create something) with his Jnana? So this means Jnana is one attribute of Brahman who is said to be attributeless ?

Dear Shri Garuda,

Nirguna brahman does not determine to create maya because that would mean it is acting at a particular point of time contradicting its timeless nature. So we can only conclude that maya exists without nirguna brahman actually determining it to exist.

The reality of saguna brahman and maya and space and time however is non existent to nirguna brahman. That is, all these can exist as a reality but that reality being not existent for nirguna brahman. We have to again conclude that is how the reality is built to coherently understand it.

Also note everything is finally nirguna brahman and merges with it. Only when seen within the constraints of space and time they seem to appear different and so they are rightly illusory.

 

[sangom]

< snipped >

The reality of saguna brahman and maya and space and time however is non existent to nirguna brahman. That is, all these can exist as a reality but that reality being not existent for nirguna brahman. We have to again conclude that is how the reality is built to coherently understand it.

Dear Shri Sravna,

The above gives an impression as if the NB is like a very old and nearly vegetative grandfather/grandmother in the family. Such people will not be usually aware of whatever is going on within the house and, for practical purposes, many goings-on in the house/family will be non-existent for them. In what way then is this NB (which is supposed to be pure knowledge, consciousness, etc.) different from such too old people, when you say that the NB is not aware of the "reality of saguna brahman and maya and space and time however is non existent to nirguna brahman"?

Also note everything is finally nirguna brahman and merges with it. Only when seen within the constraints of space and time they seem to appear different and so they are rightly illusory.

Now, you say that " the reality of saguna brahman and maya and space and time however is non existent to nirguna brahman". So, when finally this SB, maayaa, space and time, everything merges with that NB, how will it accept these? Will it not be shocked to see all these unknown & unbelievable guests suddenly coming into its home? Secondly, does not all this kind of imagination make NB, SB, maayaa, space & time etc., etc., different realities of independent origin existing alongside one another? Which means so many realities instead of not-even-two (advaita) realities?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

The above gives an impression as if the NB is like a very old and nearly vegetative grandfather/grandmother in the family. Such people will not be usually aware of whatever is going on within the house and, for practical purposes, many goings-on in the house/family will be non-existent for them. In what way then is this NB (which is supposed to be pure knowledge, consciousness, etc.) different from such too old people, when you say that the NB is not aware of the "reality of saguna brahman and maya and space and time however is non existent to nirguna brahman"?



Now, you say that " the reality of saguna brahman and maya and space and time however is non existent to nirguna brahman". So, when finally this SB, maayaa, space and time, everything merges with that NB, how will it accept these? Will it not be shocked to see all these unknown & unbelievable guests suddenly coming into its home? Secondly, does not all this kind of imagination make NB, SB, maayaa, space & time etc., etc., different realities of independent origin existing alongside one another? Which means so many realities instead of not-even-two (advaita) realities?

Dear Shri Sangom,

Please note a higher reality is called that way because it is more real than the lower reality and in the final analysis the lower reality is only an illusion. In advaita nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality and all that seem to exist do not exist from the point of view of nirguna brahman. These are not of independent origin but owe their illusory existence to nirguna brahman.

 

[auh]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Please note a higher reality is called that way because it is more real than the lower reality and in the final analysis the lower reality is only an illusion. In advaita nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality and all that seem to exist do not exist from the point of view of nirguna brahman. These are not of independent origin but owe their illusory existence to nirguna brahman.

Hi Sravna, some doubts:

1) What is meant by "more real"? Do you mean to say that the time span of existence determines whether something is "more" real or not? For eg., a chair is more real than a tomato since the chair outlives the tomato !
2) If from the viewpoint of somebody, something does not exist, then it cannot be said that nothing exists or whatever that exists is an illusion. That too when brahman cannot control maya -So we can only conclude that maya exists without nirguna brahman actually determining it to exist.-
3) Consider a projector that projects data on to a whiteboard - Among other things, it requires a base, for itself, as well as the image to be sustained. If saguna brahman and maya are projections, then what is the base for them?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Auh,

Hi Sravna, some doubts:

1) What is meant by "more real"?

By "more real" I mean it in the relative sense. Thus in the parlance of advaita , physical reality is a relative reality.

2) If from the viewpoint of somebody, something does not exist, then it cannot be said that nothing exists or whatever that exists is an illusion. That too when brahman cannot control maya -So we can only conclude that maya exists without nirguna brahman actually determining it to exist.-

Saying it as an illusion is more correct than saying it as real, because that is the view of the ultimate reality or something that sees reality better than anything else. It is nirguna brahman's perspective that should better reflect truth when contradiction arises.

3) Consider a projector that projects data on to a whiteboard - Among other things, it requires a base, for itself, as well as the image to be sustained. If saguna brahman and maya are projections, then what is the base for them?

We have to consider that saguna brahman exists within space and time because thinking and actions are attributed to it. So the reality of space and time itself has to exist first and I think that is something that exists without any direct action of nirguna brahman. We cannot say that the lower reality is not under the control of nirguna brahman because the lower reality doesn't have any substance of its own but is a mere projection.

Also saguna brahman though exists in space and time is not constrained by it because from its perspective everything is interconnected with no influence of maya on it.

 

[auh]

Dear Sravna,

By "more real" I mean it in the relative sense. Thus in the parlance of advaita , physical reality is a relative reality.

Then what is "relative" reality? Again, would the chair-tomato analogy would hold good.

Saying it as an illusion is more correct than saying it as real, because that is the view of the ultimate reality or something that sees reality better than anything else. It is nirguna brahman's perspective that should better reflect truth when contradiction arises.

Then if all this is not the truth from brahman's perspective, why did it project all this seemingly illusory untruth?

We have to consider that saguna brahman exists within space and time because thinking and actions are attributed to it. So the reality of space and time itself has to exist first and I think that is something that exists without any direct action of nirguna brahman

Do you mean to say that time existed when nothing existed - how can that be? Then, is space independent of nb? If so, nb is obviously not omnipresent. and it follows that it would not be omniscient and omnipotent. Then I would say that it is not brahman at all.

We cannot say that the lower reality is not under the control of nirguna brahman because the lower reality doesn't have any substance of its own but is a mere projection.

Do you mean to say that the nb, completely unaware of its actions (or devoid of any actions), somehow managed to project maya and saguna brahman in a independent entity called space and time?

Also saguna brahman though exists in space and time is not constrained by it because from its perspective everything is interconnected with no influence of maya on it.

If sb = nb, what is the need for sb?

Regards,

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Then what is "relative" reality? Again, would the chair-tomato analogy would hold good.

There is an answer to this in my previous post. It is something illusory from the point of view of the higher reality.

Then if all this is not the truth from brahman's perspective, why did it project all this seemingly illusory untruth?

We cannot really ask "why?" because we are only trying to give a coherent picture of reality. If you really insist on the reason for the existence of the lower reality, I would say the lower reality shows the rationale for the experience of nirguna brahman and so it might make sense to have that lower reality as well.

Do you mean to say that time existed when nothing existed - how can that be? Then, is space independent of nb? If so, nb is obviously not omnipresent. and it follows that it would not be omniscient and omnipotent. Then I would say that it is not brahman at all.
Do you mean to say that the nb, completely unaware of its actions (or devoid of any actions), somehow managed to project maya and saguna brahman in a independent entity called space and time?

If sb = nb, what is the need for sb?

Regards,

Time as we know could not have existed initially. Consider that all the moments of time are interconnected . Then it would be an equivalent of timelessness. Space and time as we know were projected by saguna brahman using maya and the phsyical reality became a disconnected one which we all experience now.

I have in one of my posts given the reason for SB being to create, sustain and destroy the world. The world needs divine intervention now and then and it is the job for which something like SB is needed.

 

[Garuda]

Dear Shri Garuda,

Nirguna brahman does not determine to create maya because that would mean it is acting at a particular point of time contradicting its timeless nature. So we can only conclude that maya exists without nirguna brahman actually determining it to exist.

The reality of saguna brahman and maya and space and time however is non existent to nirguna brahman. That is, all these can exist as a reality but that reality being not existent for nirguna brahman. We have to again conclude that is how the reality is built to coherently understand it.

Also note everything is finally nirguna brahman and merges with it. Only when seen within the constraints of space and time they seem to appear different and so they are rightly illusory.

Sravna,

I agree timeless means he should not be bound by the time, so if one performs an action at specific time, then he is bound by time. Also the other interpretation could be that he is above time which might indeed mean he is present in present, past , future and beyond... But the lower reality should be merged into the nirguna brahman , so that means it should come from it also. It is very difficult to understand advaita as it is pure metaphysics, only seers like Adi Shankara and tamil shaiva siddhanta saints or seers could comprehend it...So point i am trying to make is even for the lower reality to exist, he should do some sankalpa(will) and he is also above time, so he cannot do that it appears to be but did not Krishna even freeze the time while instructing bhagawadgita to Krishna, would that not mean he is above time as noone can say when the action is performed at which time because it is non-existent. The same can apply for formless (Niraakara roopa) meaning every form is his but he is above all forms and cannot be limited by them.?

 

[sangom]

< snipped >
Then if all this is not the truth from brahman's perspective,

I have been wondering whether this concept/idea of "brahman's perspective" has really been used in any part of his bhaashya by Adishankara! When we humans are unable even to understand one another's perspective unless one person speaks out, how is it possible for any one - including Shankara - to confidently talk about brahman's perspective, whether it refers to SB or NB?

So, all this talk boils down to just figments of imagination, with Shri Sravna or Adishankara (if he has used this 'perspective' argument) imagining the characters as well as the perspectives of those characters and laying out a grand fiction in the name of high philosophy!!