Brahma Sutras

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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!!

Dear Shri Sangom,

It is not grand fiction in the name of high philosophy because I have solved real problems using spiritual energy and still in the process of understanding its potential. In my view Sankara's advaita brilliantly captures the essence of reality as a non dual spiritual reality along with his equally brilliant notion of maya which he says is responsible for the physical reality.

 

[renuka]

If saguna brahman and maya are projections, then what is the base for them?

Dear Auh ji,

Lets take the human visual apparatus as an example:

Light goes through the cornea..lenses..falls on Retina(where the image is inverted)....inputs goes to optic nerve etc then interpreted by the Visual cortex and we see the image as how it should be and not inverted anymore.

So where is the base here?

The base is the Visual Cortex that makes the correct interpretation of the image.

So in case of any projection it needs a substratum to create its image.

Maya has :

1)Avarana Shakti(The power of concealing)

2)Vikshepa Shakti(The power of Projection)



So as your question...what is the base for projections?

The answer is the Mind.

Becos of the effect of the Avarana Shakthi the Mind can not make "correct" interpretations what we call 'under the influence of Maya.

Once the Mind is in equilibrium as in Samadhi(equal mindedness)..Maya has no substratum to fall on..in other words Maya does not have a silver screen anymore to play Her movie...so no more delusions.

After all even when everything is in equilibrium in the Macrocsomic level....nothing happens.

This equilibrium needs to be 'disturbed' to jump start the engine of creation.

 

[Garuda]

^^renuka madam

although i liked ur description of maya which cant be described. what is that mind you are referring about. Is the mind mind as in physical brain or you are referring to Manas cuz both are totally different

 

[sangom]

< snipped >
Once the Mind is in equilibrium as in Samadhi(equal mindedness)...
< snipped >

Adi Shankara has not used the word "samaadhi" or any other word/s to describe such a state. The notion of "samaadhi" is an adulteration of pure advaita by the later (spurious) spiritual "gurujis" who had some half-knowledge about the saamkhya-yoga system. "samaadhi" is a condition prescribed only by the yoga system. Shankara repeatedly declares that one cannot obtain brahmajnaana by either saamkhya or yoga.

This is just one example of how much "adulterated" stuff we are imbibing in the name of advaita.

 

[renuka]

Adi Shankara has not used the word "samaadhi" or any other word/s to describe such a state. The notion of "samaadhi" is an adulteration of pure advaita by the later (spurious) spiritual "gurujis" who had some half-knowledge about the saamkhya-yoga system. "samaadhi" is a condition prescribed only by the yoga system. Shankara repeatedly declares that one cannot obtain brahmajnaana by either saamkhya or yoga.

This is just one example of how much "adulterated" stuff we are imbibing in the name of advaita.

Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

It is not grand fiction in the name of high philosophy because I have solved real problems using spiritual energy and still in the process of understanding its potential. In my view Sankara's advaita brilliantly captures the essence of reality as a non dual spiritual reality along with his equally brilliant notion of maya which he says is responsible for the physical reality.

Dear Shri Sravna,

How do you relate your problem-solving ability, your belief in the existence of "spiritual energy", etc., to your ability to determine and declare what will be real or unreal or non-existent, etc., from the point of view of the NPB? According to me only the actual NPB will be the adhikaari for doing so and none of us, including, Adi Shankara will be an acceptable authority, or even a reliable witness for this purpose.

Fortunately AdiShankara has not said anything about what will be the realities or non-realities in the NPB's view; at least that is the impression I have gained so far from reading various sources on advaita.

Nobody doubts Sankara's brilliancy but what I am interested is how he relates his notion of maayaa to the one and only reality which is the NPB. (My own view is that Sankara did not use the word "maayaa" at all in his Brahmasutra Bhaashya.)

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

How do you relate your problem-solving ability, your belief in the existence of "spiritual energy", etc., to your ability to determine and declare what will be real or unreal or non-existent, etc., from the point of view of the NPB? According to me only the actual NPB will be the adhikaari for doing so and none of us, including, Adi Shankara will be an acceptable authority, or even a reliable witness for this purpose.

Fortunately AdiShankara has not said anything about what will be the realities or non-realities in the NPB's view; at least that is the impression I have gained so far from reading various sources on advaita.

Nobody doubts Sankara's brilliancy but what I am interested is how he relates his notion of maayaa to the one and only reality which is the NPB. (My own view is that Sankara did not use the word "maayaa" at all in his Brahmasutra Bhaashya.)

Dear Shri Sangom,

It is simple. It is by inference. If nirguna brahman is timeless all the entities constrained by time has to be illusory because from the point of view of anything timeless, these are illusory because time does not exist for NB. So this fact even if not explicitly spelt out by Sankara is implied by his philosophy.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

It is simple. It is by inference. If nirguna brahman is timeless all the entities constrained by time has to be illusory because from the point of view of anything timeless, these are illusory because time does not exist for NB. So this fact even if not explicitly spelt out by Sankara is implied by his philosophy.

Can we correctly experience or at least correctly make mathematical conclusions and then go on to make interpretations by using our (time-bound) imagination? I am not familiar if science has been able to achieve this, but if it has, what is/are our general descriptions about that timelessness?

If, as you claim, the NPB will feel all the time-bound entities as illusory, then does not that mean that the NPB has the mental and/or intellectual attributes to consider certain things as illusory, and, consequently, to look at other things as real - in other words a kind of nityānitya vivekam? Will this not detract from the nirguna aspect of the NPB?

If Sankara has not spelt out even impliedly, how far is it appropriate for us to import such notions in order to prove Sankara's hypothesis? Should we not stck to Sankara's own methodology to prove his theory of advaita?

 

[sravna]

Can we correctly experience or at least correctly make mathematical conclusions and then go on to make interpretations by using our (time-bound) imagination? I am not familiar if science has been able to achieve this, but if it has, what is/are our general descriptions about that timelessness?

It is a lot easier to argue logically. Mathematics also captures your logic. So I do not see any purpose to describe it mathematically and anyway to my knowledge at least the math we know does not deal with concepts such as timelessness.

Let me explain in a different way. Can something which does not see space , see entities within it? Certainly not. Similarly to NB being beyond both time and space, we don't exist and that is the ultimate reality.

If, as you claim, the NPB will feel all the time-bound entities as illusory, then does not that mean that the NPB has the mental and/or intellectual attributes to consider certain things as illusory, and, consequently, to look at other things as real - in other words a kind of nityānitya vivekam? Will this not detract from the nirguna aspect of the NPB?

"Illusory" strictly speaking is not the right word. The physical world is "non-existent" from the point of view of NB and existent from our point of view. So we use the term "illusory". But to NB it is non-existent.

If Sankara has not spelt out even impliedly, how far is it appropriate for us to import such notions in order to prove Sankara's hypothesis? Should we not stck to Sankara's own methodology to prove his theory of advaita?

I think if we stick to the ideas of Sankara and be faithful to his theory, the methodology of proving the theory does not matter.

 

[renuka]

^^renuka madam

although i liked ur description of maya which cant be described. what is that mind you are referring about. Is the mind mind as in physical brain or you are referring to Manas cuz both are totally different

Dear Garuda,

I meant the Antahkarana which comprises of the Manas,Buddhi,Chitta and Ahamkara which is loosely called the "Mind".

Actually even in medical science the mind is really not mapped out as belonging to any specific part of the brain.

 

[Garuda]

Dear Garuda,

I meant the Antahkarana which comprises of the Manas,Buddhi,Chitta and Ahamkara which is loosely called the "Mind".

Actually even in medical science the mind is really not mapped out as belonging to any specific part of the brain.

Good thanks ...

As for the topic , as for the timeless state, i think he is above time so he present in all present, past and future and beyond as the mandukya upanishad discusses when talking about 'Ommmmm', The Nirguna brahman as they say should do sankalpa(will) and he should act and he acted and brought this world out of him through the instrumentality of Maya through shakti. Though acting means we say 'It acted at certain point of time' thereby destructing the notion that he is above time. In Bhagawadgita, did not Lord Krishna stopped the time ? So that means it is a non-existent time for the entire world but that existed. So it(Brahman) also can create the world at a certain point without destructing the notion that he is above time and space. Just like when people say he is formless, that means he is above forms and cannot be limited by forms and is in every form...

 

[auh]

So as your question...what is the base for projections?

The answer is the Mind.

Whose mind? Ours or that of the brahman?

Becos of the effect of the Avarana Shakthi the Mind can not make "correct" interpretations what we call 'under the influence of Maya.

Once the Mind is in equilibrium as in Samadhi(equal mindedness)..Maya has no substratum to fall on..in other words Maya does not have a silver screen anymore to play Her movie...so no more delusions.

After all even when everything is in equilibrium in the Macrocsomic level....nothing happens.

This equilibrium needs to be 'disturbed' to jump start the engine of creation.

If thie "equilibrium" did exist at some point of time, why and how was it "disturbed'? Does this Maya have the power to disturb the mind of the brahman?

 

[auh]

"Illusory" strictly speaking is not the right word. The physical world is "non-existent" from the point of view of NB and existent from our point of view. So we use the term "illusory". But to NB it is non-existent.

So now, it has gone from "more real" to "illusory" to "non-existent". I find this ludicrous; you seem to be fitting terms to suit your kind of logic, as the discussions go by.

So, now are we living in a non-existent world from the POV of NB. So if the NB thinks we and all this world are non-existent, why should we care about the NB?

 

[sravna]

So now, it has gone from "more real" to "illusory" to "non-existent". I find this ludicrous; you seem to be fitting terms to suit your kind of logic, as the discussions go by.

So, now are we living in a non-existent world from the POV of NB. So if the NB thinks we and all this world are non-existent, why should we care about the NB?

Dear Shri Auh,

Have an open mind and try to be patient. I have clarified that the three terms are used based on context and so the term used depends on whose reference it is mentioned.

Though from the pov of NB we are non-existent, this life is real for us. According to advaita you have to care about the knowledge of NB because finally you are NB and the knowledge of NB leads you to that state.

 

[renuka]

My answers in blue.

Whose mind? Ours or that of the brahman?

Our mind.

If thie "equilibrium" did exist at some point of time, why and how was it "disturbed'?

This is what I read that at one point the equilibrium of Gunas got disturbed and creation started.

Why and how I dont know..God knows??

 

[sravna]

Disturbance of equilibrium is another way of saying that maya was used to create the physical world. So asking why was the equilibrium disturbed is like asking why was the physical world created using maya?

 

[auh]

My answers in blue.

I really cannot relate to these answers, as these can only be mere conjectures and do not have any logical reasoning.

 

[auh]

Dear Sravna,

Have an open mind and try to be patient. I have clarified that the three terms are used based on context and so the term used depends on whose reference it is mentioned.

Though from the pov of NB we are non-existent, this life is real for us. According to advaita you have to care about the knowledge of NB because finally you are NB and the knowledge of NB leads you to that state.

All I am doing is to question the basis of your hypothesis since they do not seem to have been proved and seem inconsistent post after post. Well, if all you can infer is that I have a closed mind and impatient, I would seriously doubt your deductions about brahman...

 

[auh]

Without answering the crucial questions of "why" and "how", I believe, anybody can come up with multiple theories of God, and it would not stand the test of logical reasoning.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,All I am doing is to question the basis of your hypothesis since they do not seem to have been proved and seem inconsistent post after post. Well, if all you can infer is that I have a closed mind and impatient, I would seriously doubt your deductions about brahman...

Dear Shri Auh,

I have stated the reason for using different terms when describing the nature of physical reality. Let me give an example. A person can be both father and son. Whether he is father or son depends on with whom the relation is referred to. Can we say one is not consistent in referring to him as both father and son? Here the term "illusory" is used because physical world seems non-existent or existent depending on the point of view. So when used in a general sense that term can be used. However we cannot use the term "illusory" when it is seen from the perspective of NB because nothing else other than itself exists for NB.

 

[Nara]

.... Let me give an example. A person can be both father and son. .....

Well, sravna, the problem is, what you are saying is more like a person is both his own father and his own son, sorta like Jesus, except the father in the case of Jesus is anything but nirguna.

 

[Nara]

I wonder what the point of NB is, really, does it really matter whether such an entity exists or not?

 

[sravna]

I wonder what the point of NB is, really, does it really matter whether such an entity exists or not?

Dear Shri Nara,

I would think of NB as something which is consummate and so which doesn't need to act or think but purely experiences with the experience said to be a blissful one. So it is the final destination of every jiva. Think logically. Why do we act or think? To achieve goals and so be happy. So to reach a state where one can be eternally blissful is the ultimate goal.

 

[sravna]

Well, sravna, the problem is, what you are saying is more like a person is both his own father and his own son, sorta like Jesus, except the father in the case of Jesus is anything but nirguna.

Dear Shri Nara,

No I am not saying that. In the case of the physical reality the references are different. One is with NB, One is with the jivas. In the case of NB the physical reality is nonexistent. In the case of jivas it is existent. So to describe that reality in an absolute sense we use the term illusory giving credence to the perspective of NB.

 

[Nara]

.....No I am not saying that.

I have no doubt sravna that in your own mind you are convinced you are not saying that, but, nevertheless, what you are saying does amount to something akin to a person is both his own father and his own son, SB is reflection, jagat is projection, and all that jazz is not even supported by the supposedly inerrant Vedas.

So, sravna, let us cut to the chase, forget about everything else, please cite a reference from the Vedas that SB is a reflection of NB or whatever that you are arguing. In other words, even the authority to which you appeal, namely the Vedas, does not support your views. Do me a favor and prove me wrong by citing Vedic verses, and you will shut me up for ever.

Your plea that I need to think logically is really ironic, all your claims have no basis even in the scriptures, let alone logic. Please think, what is the purpose of attributeless NB? Forget we jIvas, we are supposed to be just worthless nonentities from the perspective of NB, so what is the raison d'etre of NB?

It makes a lot more sense, in a perverse way, to have an almighty God who cares for jIvas, like the God SVs and Christians share, but to have an almighty God as NB to whom none of us even exists, is the ultimate of delusion, not that an almighty God who cares for our puny lives is any less delusional.