• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Why Physical World?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sravna

Well-known member
Many of us including myself have wondered the need for a physical world given that there is an absolute reality called brahman. Why should there be different levels of realities? Why wouldn't just one reality suffice? To me Adi Sankara is the last word on everything. I looked up for his explanation on this. Sankara says that it is the lila of God and is out of God's nature.

I would like to state my views on this. When Sankara says that it is because of God's nature that creation naturally happens, I understand it as meaning that it is in the nature of the spiritual to have different levels of reality.

As the ultimate reality brahman, it is the experience of bliss that happens. I would think in the physical reality there is a different kind
of enjoyment that happens. Thus even though it is just the result of the nature of God, it gives an enjoyment also.

I would think to experience the joy in this reality, the atman or brahman must be experiencing dual consciousness, the one being those of the innumerable jivatmas and the other being itself just witnessing the experiencing. This probably creates a positive experience such as enjoyment. As some would think it is not a perverse enjoyment. On the contrary, it is like the amusement that a wise gets when someone acts in perverse ways

But a question would be, why there be a reality that represents a nature contrary to spritual nature and brahman try to have enjoyment.But the sport and enjoyment aspect is only a concomitant of the nature of spiritual reality which is the existence of different level of realities. It happens without any effort or motive.

The events in the physical world are also designed to be a learning experience because ultimately reality is eternal and so the transient physical and mental realities have to develop in a way that they attain features fit to merge with that spiritual state. So we see evolution of mind happening by imbibing timeless values.

So we have two main level of realities , one being brahman where there is only the experience of bliss and the other the physical reality being faithful to the spiritual reality also produces enjoyment though in a different way, the existence of the nature of different level of realities being something that is natural.

Since reality is finally one according to advaita, all physical realities are transient and from a timeless perspective is an illusion. So when I say that different levels of reality naturally are present, I mean one is absolute being brahman and the other is illusory being the physical reality.

Sankara calls this illusion as maya.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sravna,

Why do we need the Physical World??

My answer to you is "This is the only world I know"
 
Dear Sravna Sir and Renu,

There was a guy in my extended family, who left his job, sat at home listening to M S S's bhajans and declared that he was 'enlightened'!
icon3.png


The result: He was hated by his wife and later on, she went for a divorce! The family had great difficulty to console her and

bring this guy back to this physical world! :)
 
Dear Sravna,

To a certain extent the human mind is NOT capable of comprehending Direct Truth.

Direct Truth even if it stands right in front of our eyes will be viewed with suspicion and disbelief.

We usually only feel comfortable with what we already know and what we had actually NOT seen.

I seem to contradict myself isnt it? By saying that we only feel comfortable with what we already know but not actually seen.

I was reading a Sanskrit epic today where the author beautifully describes how he feels about a Divine Personality..describing the Divine Personality and comparing with his Istha Dev and also with Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha and so on.

The reason I can feel is that not many people can believe what is in front of their eyes..they would want to co relate from what they have been taught and what they believe they know and that which is all hear say but not witnessed personally hence comparison with Rama,Krishna,Buddha etc.

If we had lived in the era of Lord Krishna not many of us would have NOT believed that He was an Avatar ..same goes with Lord Rama.

In fact Lord Rama and Lord Krishna were only actively worshiped after their departure from the mortal world.

The reason could be very much the same..when reality is staring at your face..no one might believe its true.

That is the reason we need the Physical World..so that we can accustom ourselves to let go of what we think we know and not seen and to experience reality eventually.

Reality on its own will be "rejected" if its actually knocking on your door.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sravna,

To a certain extent the human mind is NOT capable of comprehending Direct Truth.

Direct Truth even if it stands right in front of our eyes will be viewed with suspicion and disbelief.

We usually only feel comfortable with what we already know and what we had actually NOT seen.

I seem to contradict myself isnt it? By saying that we only feel comfortable with what we already know but not actually seen.

I was reading a Sanskrit epic today where the author beautifully describes how he feels about a Divine Personality..describing the Divine Personality and comparing with his Istha Dev and also with Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha and so on.

The reason I can feel is that not many people can believe what is in front of their eyes..they would want to co relate from what they have been taught and what they believe they know and that which is all hear say but not witnessed personally hence comparison with Rama,Krishna,Buddha etc.

If we had lived in the era of Lord Krishna not many of us would have NOT believed that He was an Avatar ..same goes with Lord Rama.

In fact Lord Rama and Lord Krishna were only actively worshiped after their departure from the mortal world.

The reason could be very much the same..when reality is staring at your face..no one might believe its true.

That is the reason we need the Physical World..so that we can accustom ourselves to let go of what we think we know and not seen and to experience reality eventually.

Reality on its own will be "rejected" if its actually knocking on your door.

The only reality is the here and now. Those who claim otherwise must be high on substances, suffering from multiple personality disorder, or have totally lost the plot. Even Moses was supposedly high on substances when he had those 'god' experiences- Moses Was Hallucinating on Mt. Sinai: Study .
 
have no idea..cos never taken any substance to get high..if you have let me know how it feels.

You are the doctor with access to substances, you know better. Even alcohol is a mind altering substance, I've seen alcoholics blabbing after a few drinks. Pinch yourself real hard and you'll realize reality is here and now.
 
You are the doctor with access to substances, you know better. Even alcohol is a mind altering substance, I've seen alcoholics blabbing after a few drinks. Pinch yourself real hard and you'll realize reality is here and now.

It is somehow more fun to watch others get high and blabber..that is why I was hoping to get some info from you.
 
I don't understand your thought process....krishna and rama were revered in their time itself..that's why we had valmiki, hanuman and krishna was not admired by ved vyasa, vidura, bhisma, pandavas and many others.

i'm not able to understand what is absolute reality and maya (Illusion?)

r.vaithehi
 
what is physical world?

This you can say as the way you perceive the world rather than the reality.everything has end...every end has a beginning...all things come in circle...no static thing..only dynamic changes ...each day is different...that is more of a constant change rather than same...this we can call it as illusion

But Illusion is also not understanding in the proper concept....As Ramakrishna told everything is brahman means we have to think like the bhagan (or elephant rider) who told the person to get away from elephant...without fooling himself elephant is brhaman and he is also brahman...here elephant rider (Bhagan) is also brahman...therefore understand in the right perspective...listen to sane advice

r.vaithehi
 
Dear Renuka,

You mean to say that it takes time for people to recognize reality? So we need the physical world as a preparatory stage?

I also say that physical world is a preparatory stage but I was trying to put that in context so that it is consistent with the overall philosophy of reality.
 
Sravnaji,
To an extent I am with you.
I do have problem with your theory of various Truths. This sounds like 50 shades of Gray.
To me the reality is one and that is brahman, everything else is illusion.
As Sri Shankaracharya says in Vivekchudamani:
Brahma SatyamJagan Mithya
Jivo Brahmaiva Na Parah

This means that there is only one supreme reality, a reality called Brahman, the supreme being. Brahman is infinite and omnipresent (present absolutely everywhere), therefore nothing can be added to it and furthermore, there cannot be a place where he is not. Therefore, Brahman being non-dual in nature, there is no place for the world or man or any creature outside Brahman.

Snake & Rope Analogy
A man, walks at night on a dark path. All of a sudden, a snake bites him on the leg. The snake is lying on the ground just a few feet from him. Lying on the floor, he weeps because of the pain and knowing that his life is most likely over. He can feel the poison traveling in his bloodstream and he cries for help. The nearby farmer hearing him, comes with a flashlight and pointing it to the snake, lo and behold, the snake turns out to be nothing more than a rope.
Superimposition
This analogy illustrates the concept of superimposition. Man, due to his fear of snakes, superimposed a snake upon the rope. He had just been touched by a branch, and the sight of the rope was enough to create the imaginary presence of the snake and pain of the venom.


Now the question is: during the incident, was the snake real or unreal? The answer is that, subjectively, the snake was very real to Bob. However, objectively, the presence of the snake was all illusory and created by man's mind. Similarly, this world has its own subjective reality, but upon dawning of the knowledge of Brahman, this relative reality subsides and only the absolute reality of Brahman remains.

In the story, the snake existed only at the time of the incident (the present), while the rope existed in the past (before the incident), the present, as well as the future (after the incident).

Maya & Avidya
Brahman is both consciousness and power (shakti). This sakti operates in many ways, including the power or creation. One such power is the veiling power which veils the spiritual truth of the oneness of consciousness.


Maya sakti creates the ignorance of perception of separateness and diversity of objects in this world. She makes us believe that we are different from the world and all other beings. She makes us identify with our Upadhis, bodies, which are imperfect and bring pain to our life.

Likewise, the world exists in the present moment only - although it is a pretty long moment - while Brahman existed before the creation of the world, exists in the present, and will still exist for ever after the universe's dissolution.

Advaita vedanta - the philosophy of Oneness
 
All that we perceive with our senses do not have to be real always. At times, they may be mere appearances, i.e., illusions.

Brahma satyam ("Brahman is the Reality"): In Vedanta, the word "Satyam" (Reality) is very clearly defined and it has a specific significance. It means, "that which exists in all the three periods of time (past, present and future) without undergoing any change; and also in all the three states of consciousness (waking state, dream state and deep-sleep state)." This is therefore the absolute Reality — birthless, deathless and changeless — referred to in the Upanishads as "Brahman."

No one has any hesitation, obviously, in taking the dream world as an illusion; for, when they wake up to this familiar world, the dream world disappears. But all of us find it hard to believe that this familiar world, which we all actually perceive and experience, is an illusion. If I jump down from an upper floor, I will certainly be fatally injured. This difficulty is because we are all part of this world and are attached to it in some way.

http://archives.amritapuri.org/matruvani/vol-02/sep02/02mv09reality.php
 
Last edited:
Sravnaji,
To an extent I am with you.
I do have problem with your theory of various Truths. This sounds like 50 shades of Gray.
To me the reality is one and that is brahman, everything else is illusion.
As Sri Shankaracharya says in Vivekchudamani:
Brahma SatyamJagan Mithya
Jivo Brahmaiva Na Parah

This means that there is only one supreme reality, a reality called Brahman, the supreme being. Brahman is infinite and omnipresent (present absolutely everywhere), therefore nothing can be added to it and furthermore, there cannot be a place where he is not. Therefore, Brahman being non-dual in nature, there is no place for the world or man or any creature outside Brahman.

Dear Prasad,

Yes I do agree all except brahman are illusions. I say exactly that in the conclusion.
 
Last edited:
The "truth" as I have come to recognize more and more as my age advances, is that the only thing real is the agency/power/energy/force (whatever one may like to call it) which manifests as "life" in all the living entities. This agency should be, I believe, very similar to the gravitational field (universal gravitation is accepted in science) and it manifests as life wherever possible just as gravitational field/force is omnipresent and always active.

The physical body, "seems" or appears to be formed as a result of the mating of two opposite sexes, etc., but, in truth, all these are only make-believe but which the living entities (physical bodies activated or powered by the life-giving force) invariably perceive as "Real", just because their sensory and actionary organs (jnanendriyas & karmendriyas) give such a feedback to the mind and intelligence. Hence this is not true reality but something which we are unable to realize as unreal. It is this inability which Adi Shankara must have called "adhyaasa" - a cover over the advaitic Parabrahma which results in the jeevaatma.

Hence, there are no levels of realities, etc., and there is only one reality and it is the one which gives us life. With that life, but beguiled by the sensory feedbacks we imagine that we are all living in a "real universe" and so on & so forth and act out our predestined kaarmic roles. When the appointed time comes, the life-giving principle just dissociates itself from the physical body and that is the end to the drama. There is no separate jeevaatma (different from the Parabrahman or the life-bestowing power), no moksha or liberation, no brahmaananda but only brahmajnaana. This physical world is therefore, only a by-product of our being alive and it is necessary for the Kaarmic drama to be enacted, as a stage. (Shakespeare was possibly a 'brahmajnaani'!)

Religions, priesthood, and the stage of development of human intellect have colluded to form such grandiose philosophies and terms and humanity finds pleasure in being misled by all these.

If one goes on the basis of the above reasoning, one will find that much of what is said in BG or elsewhere - including the upanishads - were attempts to explain the above within the limitations of language and knowledge at different points of history.
 
Last edited:
Dear Renuka,

You mean to say that it takes time for people to recognize reality? So we need the physical world as a preparatory stage?

Dear Sravna,

How else can we express ourselves if there is no physical world?

For me I look at the physical world as a culture medium in the petri dish where various organisms grow living on it.

The physical world sustains...that itself is part and parcel of Reality.

I try not to think that Reality is a totally different state that suddenly pops up after other states cease to exist.There are no various distinct states but just milestones in the progress of our mind and thoughts.


I am not going searching for Reality either cos the more you search the further away we go from it.
 
Dear Sravna,

How else can we express ourselves if there is no physical world?

For me I look at the physical world as a culture medium in the petri dish where various organisms grow living on it.

The physical world sustains...that itself is part and parcel of Reality.

I try not to think that Reality is a totally different state that suddenly pops up after other states cease to exist.There are no various distinct states but just milestones in the progress of our mind and thoughts.


I am not going searching for Reality either cos the more you search the further away we go from it.

Dear Renuka,

But don't you think the physical world by itself cannot be the only reality? This is because nothing endures in it and reality would seem sort of empty if in the final analysis there is really no significance or purpose to anything. Don't you think so?
 
Dear Renuka,

But don't you think the physical world by itself cannot be the only reality? This is because nothing endures in it and reality would seem sort of empty if in the final analysis there is really no significance or purpose to anything. Don't you think so?


Dear Sravna,

Reality encompasses everything..that is how I look at it.

So how can there be "not the only reality" that is like saying there is more than one isnt it?

Reality is like a picture of a group of people including ourselves...when we see a photo of a group of people..we first see how we look like and only then see others.

Same way with Reality..it is a whole picture but we choose to focus on what we want to see.

Well at the end of the day if you ask me I would say that Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything.
 
Well at the end of the day if you ask me I would say that Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything.

Dear Renuka,

The above philosophy can be problematic. You think everything is nothing and so you consider nothing as everything. This can define your attitude towards life and how you act and interact with people. The fact that you consider that life is devoid of significance is likely to take the depth out of your thinking and actually affect the quality of your life. Don't you think a
thinking that can afford a quality and meaningful life is more befitting of a product of reality?

So my philosophy would be nothing is everything and so everything is not nothing.
 
Last edited:
Dear Renuka,

The above philosophy can be problematic. You think everything is nothing and so you consider nothing as everything. This can define your attitude towards life and how you act and interact with people. The fact that you consider that life is devoid of significance is likely to take the depth out of your thinking and actually affect the quality of your life. Don't you think a
thinking that can afford a quality and meaningful life is more befitting of a product of reality?

So my philosophy would be nothing is everything and so everything is not nothing.

Dear Sravna,

All I said is Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything.

Now where I mentioned that its not significant.

Sravna..you see when I said that Everything is Nothing..I meant that Everything changes..it never remains the same..so its looks as if finally "Nothing" will remain the same.

At the same time in this apparent "Nothingness"....Everything is existing in it.

So I hope my explanation is clear.

Well coming to how I interact with people...I do my duty..feel happy when I need to feel happy and feel sad when I need to feel sad.Emotions are part of being human but my mind always reminds me "never hold on too tight to anyone and never let them know that you think that way"
 
Last edited:
The "truth" as I have come to recognize more and more as my age advances, is that the only thing real is the agency/power/energy/force (whatever one may like to call it) which manifests as "life" in all the living entities. This agency should be, I believe, very similar to the gravitational field (universal gravitation is accepted in science) and it manifests as life wherever possible just as gravitational field/force is omnipresent and always active.

The physical body, "seems" or appears to be formed as a result of the mating of two opposite sexes, etc., but, in truth, all these are only make-believe but which the living entities (physical bodies activated or powered by the life-giving force) invariably perceive as "Real", just because their sensory and actionary organs (jnanendriyas & karmendriyas) give such a feedback to the mind and intelligence. Hence this is not true reality but something which we are unable to realize as unreal. It is this inability which Adi Shankara must have called "adhyaasa" - a cover over the advaitic Parabrahma which results in the jeevaatma.

Hence, there are no levels of realities, etc., and there is only one reality and it is the one which gives us life. With that life, but beguiled by the sensory feedbacks we imagine that we are all living in a "real universe" and so on & so forth and act out our predestined kaarmic roles. When the appointed time comes, the life-giving principle just dissociates itself from the physical body and that is the end to the drama. There is no separate jeevaatma (different from the Parabrahman or the life-bestowing power), no moksha or liberation, no brahmaananda but only brahmajnaana. This physical world is therefore, only a by-product of our being alive and it is necessary for the Kaarmic drama to be enacted, as a stage. (Shakespeare was possibly a 'brahmajnaani'!)

Religions, priesthood, and the stage of development of human intellect have colluded to form such grandiose philosophies and terms and humanity finds pleasure in being misled by all these.

If one goes on the basis of the above reasoning, one will find that much of what is said in BG or elsewhere - including the upanishads - were attempts to explain the above within the limitations of language and knowledge at different points of history.

Loosely stated teaching of BG etc: Analogy to Gravitational field or space that pervades in a limitless manner is fine for describing this 'life giving' entity. But this 'entity' is cause of *both* life and so called non-living 'bodies' including space and gravitational field.

Anyone talking about reality - one or many - must first describe precisely the meaning of the word...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top