What is Brahman Doing?

[sayak83]

In the Upanisads, Brahman has both an essence of everything aspect (i.e. essence of Reality, Truth, Consciousness etc.) and a Dynamic Flowing aspect (essence of all movements, actions, happenings). In this context Maya is often called (even in Gita) as the creative power of Brahman. In later theology these two get separated out in a Purusha-Prakriti dichotomy or a Brahman-Maya dichotomy. I have wondered if that is right?

In my view (after much reflection) Brahman, the true Unity, will have both the perfect essence aspect and the creative dynamic ever-growing ever-flowing aspect. It is an already and ever-growing Infinity whose growth is happening by transforming the unReal Sunya into the Real Sat through this creative process we call the Samsara. At every cycle, all of us start as almost infinitesimally small awareness seeds of the eternal Self around which maya accrues like a whirlpool. The interaction between the unreal Maya and the seed Self expands the self-awareness of the seed Self, and it grows in higher and higher Beings till each of these Selves have realized and become one with the Infinite Self that was already there in hidden form within the seed. So at the end, in one view we merge into Brahman, or in another view Brahman expands outwards through us.

Does this make sense..or too speculative?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Nice post. I find the analogies fascinating. And yes, it makes sense and isn't too speculative. My understanding has similarities, but varies slightly.

I've never viewed Maya and Brahman (or Prakriti and Purusha) as dichotomous. For me, it only stands to reason that if all is Brahman, Maya and Brahman can't be two things that are mutually exclusive.

However, the "creative power of Brahman" never really made sense to me. Yes, I can see Maya being Brahman's creative, dynamic aspect, but I understand this to be powered by ignorance, not by Brahman itself. In my understanding, Brahman doesn't "do" anything. It simply is. Existence/consciousness/bliss. The "doing" is an illusory product of ignorance resulting in what we call Maya.

 

[Martin]

Nice post. I find the analogies fascinating. And yes, it makes sense and isn't too speculative. My understanding has similarities, but varies slightly.

I've never viewed Maya and Brahman (or Prakriti and Purusha) as dichotomous. For me, it only stands to reason that if all is Brahman, Maya and Brahman can't be two things that are mutually exclusive.

However, the "creative power of Brahman" never really made sense to me. Yes, I can see Maya being Brahman's creative, dynamic aspect, but I understand this to be powered by ignorance, not by Brahman itself. In my understanding, Brahman doesn't "do" anything. It simply is. Existence/consciousness/bliss. The "doing" is an illusory product of ignorance resulting in what we call Maya.

Does the snake and rope analogy apply here?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Yes, I can see Maya being Brahman's creative, dynamic aspect, but I understand this to be powered by ignorance, not by Brahman itself.

And isn't this ignorance also Brahman? (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman). If Brahman and it's ignorance are inseparable then the creative, dynamic aspect (which is to be considered illusory) will always remain at play. Isn't it so?

 

[sayak83]

Nice post. I find the analogies fascinating. And yes, it makes sense and isn't too speculative. My understanding has similarities, but varies slightly.

I've never viewed Maya and Brahman (or Prakriti and Purusha) as dichotomous. For me, it only stands to reason that if all is Brahman, Maya and Brahman can't be two things that are mutually exclusive.

However, the "creative power of Brahman" never really made sense to me. Yes, I can see Maya being Brahman's creative, dynamic aspect, but I understand this to be powered by ignorance, not by Brahman itself. In my understanding, Brahman doesn't "do" anything. It simply is. Existence/consciousness/bliss. The "doing" is an illusory product of ignorance resulting in what we call Maya.

Here is a bit more of my tentative idea of what is going on.
The phenomenon we call Maya or the created world exists at some sort of an interface between Brahman (Sat) and Sunya or Void (a-Sat). At the interface, the closeness of Brahman to the Void generates a form of pseudo-essence within the this Sunya in the form of temporality and this evanescent property (gunas) and form flux (nama-rupa) that looks like it has an essence but is ultimately devoid of essence or substantiality. It is still Void, Sunya...but takes this pseudo substantiality. That is the part of Maya (one-part) that resides in the aSat.

Further, at this interface, the closeness of the Void to Brahman makes the Brahman near this interface take on some of the insubstantial aspects of the Void like the illusion of being bound and the illusion of ignorance about the true Self-Nature....for ignorance and illusion is also a form of absence and emptiness. That is the second part of the Maya that covers the Sat.

These two effects together jointly create this interesting phenomena we call the world.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Here is a bit more of my tentative idea of what is going on.
The phenomenon we call Maya or the created world exists at some sort of an interface between Brahman (Sat) and Sunya or Void (a-Sat). At the interface, the closeness of Brahman to the Void generates a form of pseudo-essence within the this Sunya in the form of temporality and this evanescent property (gunas) and form flux (nama-rupa) that looks like it has an essence but is ultimately devoid of essence or substantiality. It is still Void, Sunya...but takes this pseudo substantiality. That is the part of Maya (one-part) that resides in the aSat.

Further, at this interface, the closeness of the Void to Brahman makes the Brahman near this interface take on some of the insubstantial aspects of the Void like the illusion of being bound and the illusion of ignorance about the true Self-Nature....for ignorance and illusion is also a form of absence and emptiness. That is the second part of the Maya that covers the Sat.

These two effects together jointly create this interesting phenomena we call the world.

It's an interesting philosophical view, to say the least. But it brings more questions...

Doesn't this view draw a dichotomy between Brahman and Sunya? Brahman and not-Brahman? If so, wouldn't this be a perspective only from vyavaharika? From Paramartika, would this dichotomy between Brahman and Sunya exist?

 

[sayak83]

It's an interesting philosophical view, to say the least. But it brings more questions...

Doesn't this view draw a dichotomy between Brahman and Sunya? Brahman and not-Brahman? If so, wouldn't this be a perspective only from vyavaharika? From Paramartika, would this dichotomy between Brahman and Sunya exist?

You are correct. I understand your objections. Its speculative work in progress.

 

[Viswa]

Does this make sense..or too speculative?

Brahman, though looks like doing, does nothing.

All the things said in Upanishads, is just to cut the bondage towards all appearances and stop seeking those, and remain peaceful in "ME". There is no living beings or things here. Only 3 gunas, one dominates other two in every situation/experience. balance them and remain Peace.

"Who am I?" "what are all those appearances?" is to be understood, and stay peaceful by seek nothing, as there is nothing here to seek, as all are just appearance of "ME".

Knowledge (Advaita,dvaita,etc.),Experience, Ignorance, thoughts, universe, Heaven, Hell, good, bad, 3 gunas, 5 sheaths - are all appearances of "Brahman or ME".

No appearances affects "ME". Peaceful I am. Even there is no thought/conscious of "ME" or "I AM" "PEACE" and only 'peace' (end of thoughts/knowledge)....

Then, "Who am I?". I am neither sat nor asat. Neither consciousness nor unconscious. I am beyond all thought and perceptions and knowledge. Even, "Sat-chit-Ananda" is my appearance and not "ME", but it is the Highest experience one can attain. I cannot be experienced/found by Me. Subject ("ME") can witness the object ("MY appearances"). Subject/witness cannot witness the subject/witnessor (the one who witness) itself. I am also not the "Eternal Witness", because when Universe disappears 'what' is there to be witnessed by "ME"? so how can the name 'witness' also suits me if it is temporary?

Just negate what not "ME" as "my appearances" and dwell peacefully in "ME". Witness the 'play of three gunas' totally detached from it. If there is "My appearances or play of three gunas", then witness. If it is there not, don't seek those and remain Peaceful.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the Upanisads, Brahman has .. I have wondered if that is right?
In my view (after much reflection) Brahman, the true Unity, .. or in another view Brahman expands outwards through us.
Does this make sense..or too speculative?

Sayak, as you know that is not my view. In my view, Brahman does not do anything, it has no desire or need to do anything. It does not ever change. Yes, it is intrinsically dynamic, but its dynamics is like that of light and energy. Brahman does not grow, it does not ever diminish. Brahman transcends sat and asat (being and not being). Yes, realization will make us see the truth. Personally, I think that you have gone on a tangent.

 

[Viswa]

Sayak, as you know that is not my view. In my view, Brahman does not do anything, it has no desire or need to do anything. It does ever change. Yes, it is intrinsically dynamic, but its dynamics is like that of light and energy. Brahman does not grow, it does not ever diminish. Brahman transcends sat and asat (being and not being). Yes, realization will make us see the truth. Personally, I think that you have gone on a tangent.

Hello Aupmanyav. Very true.

But, I have a question here. If it transcends being and not being, how can we say it is ever changing?? Only if it is 'being', it can be said as "ever changing" "by comparing it's first being and second being". Also, we can't say it is static too, as it transcends 'being'. Also we cannot say "it is void/null" as it transcends "not-being".

It cannot be expressed with any attribute/form/action/word. Then what is "It" or "brahman", how can it be understood? "ME"....Follow the "I" thought, and there is no other word to rightly understand that 'santam shivam'.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Hello Aupmanyav. Very true.

But, I have a question here. If it transcends being and not being, how can we say it is ever changing?? Only if it is 'being', it can be said as "ever changing" "by comparing it's first being and second being". Also, we can't say it is static too, as it transcends 'being'. Also we cannot say "it is void/null" as it transcends "not-being".

It cannot be expressed with any attribute/form/action/word. Then what is "It" or "brahman", how can it be understood? "ME"....Follow the "I" thought, and there is no other word to rightly understand that 'santam shivam'.

If IT cannot be experienced then what is that bliss which is experienced by the liberated ones? Do you think its the anandamaya kosha (bliss sheath) which is being realized during moksha?

 

[Martin]

If IT cannot be experienced then what is that bliss which is experienced by the liberated ones? Do you think its the anandamaya kosha (bliss sheath) which is being realized during moksha?

Possibly, though maybe it reflects the feeling of actually being Brahman?
When "Aham Brahman Asmi" is directly experienced?

 

[Viswa]

If IT cannot be experienced then what is that bliss which is experienced by the liberated ones? Do you think its the anandamaya kosha (bliss sheath) which is being realized during moksha?

Yes. Moksha is only for ONE who seeks liberation from the materiality bondage, in the form they "want/like". and that form, is experienced in "Anandamaya Kosha".

But, One who realizes 'ME', they see neither bondage nor liberation. So, how this realization happens?
Cannot it be experienced then?
adrishhtam (अदृष्टम्)
avyavahaaryam (अव्यवहार्यम्)
agraahyam (अग्राह्यम्)
alakshanam (अलक्षणम्)
achintyam (अचिन्त्यम्)
avyapadeshyam (अव्यपदेश्यम्)

Cessation of phenomena...."Prapanjopasamam"

Peace Eternal... "Santam Sivam"

No second/dual to realize then as "I want to experience ME"...(duality means "Two persons" but Non-dual then).. "Advaitam"

"Chaturtham manyante saatma vijneya". That is to be Known (not experienced)..

"I am ME" - what is there to realize more than that? I cannot experience Me, but only appearances - only 5 koshas. And so Upanishads becomes silent and don't go beyond Bliss, as if one go beyonds Bliss, only silence/cessation of thoughts/knowledge/experience - why I say cessation of experience is, you cannot really know what object you experienced, because no object one realizes. You are Sun, and you can experience only your reflections/thoughts/appearances and not You. Only Knowledge of, there is You and nothing else other than 'your appearances' (ekatma pratyaya saram - essence in belief of One), not even the thought of "whether I am exists or not, whether I am conscious or not, whether I am witness or not, whether I am Sat-chit-Ananda or not (Even 'Sat-chit-Ananda' is Saguna Brahman experienced in Anandamaya Kosha in a formless way one seeks - Buddha too says about Aroopa loka in Brahma Loka)", to go behind the thought of "I - I" and one gets understood "I am Me, there is nothing more to seek" - so seeking ends...

 

[Aupmanyav]

@sayak83 , I feel you have gone into mysticism. I believe mysticism is a quagmire and once you are in it, you cannot get out. I prefer to remain with science and its unanswered questions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hello Aupmanyav. Very true.

But, I have a question here. If it transcends being and not being, how can we say it is ever changing?? Only if it is 'being', it can be said as "ever changing" "by comparing it's first being and second being". Also, we can't say it is static too, as it transcends 'being'. Also we cannot say "it is void/null" as it transcends "not-being".

It cannot be expressed with any attribute/form/action/word. Then what is "It" or "brahman", how can it be understood? "ME"....Follow the "I" thought, and there is no other word to rightly understand that 'santam shivam'.

Viswa, think in terms of relativity and quantum mechanics. Even Newton says that unless an external force is applied, there will be no change in direction or speed of a moving object. That is the type of 'no-change' that Brahman (or what exists) has. It changes every moment according to its own way and is not, never affected by anything else - because nothing other than it exists. Our books said "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second).

And like for 'virtual particles', existence and non-existence has no meaning for 'what exists' (Brahman). That is only a human perspective. 'Being' and 'Non-being' again is a human perspective. Brahman is what it is. I quote this line from Nasadiya Sukta frequently:

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ll (Sorry it is wrongly written in Devanagari in the original, can't help it. English transliteration is correct)
sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Yeah, you are Brahman (Tat twam asi), if you realize your own self. 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman). Even a street dog is Brahman. Because nothing other than Brahman exists.

It is all clearly mentioned in our books. This is also what 21st Century science says. I do not know why people get into doubts?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If IT cannot be experienced then what is that bliss which is experienced by the liberated ones? Do you think its the anandamaya kosha (bliss sheath) which is being realized during moksha?

Brahman has no organ to experience bliss or sorrow. It does not matter to Brahman. Human perspective again. Does electricity or light feel bliss or sorrow?

 

[ajay0]

In the Upanisads, Brahman has both an essence of everything aspect (i.e. essence of Reality, Truth, Consciousness etc.) and a Dynamic Flowing aspect (essence of all movements, actions, happenings).

Generally speaking, Brahman is considered to be pure consciousness of a static nature.

Shakti on the other hand encompasses the dynamic flowing aspect that you had stated.

When we think of it as inactive, that is to say, not engaged in the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, then we call It Brahman. But when It engages in these activities, then we call It Kàli or Shakti. The Reality is one and the same; the difference is in name and form. ~ Swami Tathagatananda

In this context Maya is often called (even in Gita) as the creative power of Brahman. In later theology these two get separated out in a Purusha-Prakriti dichotomy or a Brahman-Maya dichotomy. I have wondered if that is right?

From the bhakti aspect, the same Prakriti_maya is interpreted or seen as Shakti or the Divine Mother. Just as cultivating the right attitude can transform adversity into prosperity, similarly cultivating the right attitude of devotion can transform the inauspicious Maya into the auspicious Shakti or the Goddess.


The cat catches her kitten with her teeth and they are not hurt; but when a mouse is so caught, it dies. Thus Maya never kills the devotee, though it destroys others. ~ Sri Ramkrishna

Woman and gold have drowned the whole world in sin. Woman is disarmed when you view her as the manifestation of the Divine Mother. ~ Sri Ramkrishna

"A man forgets God if he is entangled in the world of maya through a woman. It is the Mother of the Universe who has assumed the form of maya, the form of woman. One who knows this rightly does not feel like leading the life of maya in the world. But he who truly realizes that all women are manifestations of the Divine Mother may lead a spiritual life in the world. ~ Sri Ramkrishna

 

[sayak83]

It's an interesting philosophical view, to say the least. But it brings more questions...

Doesn't this view draw a dichotomy between Brahman and Sunya? Brahman and not-Brahman? If so, wouldn't this be a perspective only from vyavaharika? From Paramartika, would this dichotomy between Brahman and Sunya exist?

One way to tackle this objection is to use the analysis done by the Madhyamaka philosophers (like Nagarjuna) to show that the cognized world of forms, shapes and actions are ultimately devoid of essence (Dhammas) and hence is not an objectifiable substrate entity even though our language limitations make it so that we objectify it during our descriptions. Since it is an insubstantial non-existence, it cannot be said to be something that exists and having properties opposite to that of Brahman. The objectification that is happening when we describe it is the limitation of how our minds and our languages work.
Note: The Madhyamakas said that everything that is, is of this sunya nature, which we disagree with. We would say that the Self that is there hidden behind all of this and that is the foundation of awareness illumination is the substantial Brahman while the rest is the non-substantial illusory flux.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If IT cannot be experienced then what is that bliss which is experienced by the liberated ones? Do you think its the anandamaya kosha (bliss sheath) which is being realized during moksha?

"Bliss" is a word. The closest English translation of "ananda" that I know of (which is also a word). It's an attempt to describe the sense of being...the sense of oneness...in Paramartika from the perspective of vyavaharika that really can't be described to others with words. In Paramartika, there are no words...no sheaths...no questions.

If you are one of the few to have tasted a unique fruit that tastes like no other...not sweet...not bitter...that has a taste like you have never experienced, and someone asks you how what it tastes like, how do you describe it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

@sayak83 , I feel you have gone into mysticism. I believe mysticism is a quagmire and once you are in it, you cannot get out. I prefer to remain with science and its unanswered questions.

Who is to say science and mysticism are mutually exclusive? I have found both equally useful in answering any questions I've had.