Why did we become separated?

[Vrindavana Das]

|| Sree Sree Guru Gaurangau jayatah||
​

If there is a greater/superior Brahman who controls (Siva) and an illusioned/lesser Brahman who is controlled (Jiva), that still makes two...!


Advaita accepts Brahman as formless and without energy. One with no energy cannot separate anything from itself. Is it not? Will anyone go to a person with no energy? How can the energy-less, impotent Brahman be Supreme?


:namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

Vrindavana Das ji, just the existence of Brahman is enough. The rest what seems to happen is because of 'maya', the effect of existence of Brahman. Does Radha Rani exist separate from Sri Bhagawan? Why object to various bhakti bhavas of other people?

Hare Krishna.

 

[En'me]

|| Sree Sree Guru Gaurangau jayatah||
​

If there is a greater/superior Brahman who controls (Siva) and an illusioned/lesser Brahman who is controlled (Jiva), that still makes two...!


Advaita accepts Brahman as formless and without energy. One with no energy cannot separate anything from itself. Is it not? Will anyone go to a person with no energy? How can the energy-less, impotent Brahman be Supreme?


:namaste

PraNAms,

There are not two "brahman's". The microcsmed brahman is the conditioned Atman and the non-conditioned macrocosm is (para-)brahman, as it may be. They are in truth one and the same. There are no two parts of brahman, the only differing point between the microcosm and macrocosm is the bindu (point) which seperates the quality of satcitānada (brahman) to cit (consciousness/Atman), yet the quantity of limitlessness and the quality which is satcitānada is never disturbed, it only appears to be because of ahaMkaara (I am-ness) which associates itself with saMskAras (deep impressions) and kliSTa vRttis (colored thought paterns) located in citta (unconscious storage).

When these are attentuated, uncolored and finally burned there is nothing distracting ahaMkaara from associating itself with cit (consciousness). It is then that the bindu (point) is peirced, almost in reverse, that reveals Atman to of had been brahman all along.


As Shântoham previously explained, Jiva is different from Jivatman, which is different from Atman.


Formless, yes, without energy? Define energy please. For the purpose of simple understanding, brahman is best described as conciousness alone (chit), that is pure being/simply existing in and out of itself (sat) and being bliss (ānanda). I was not under the impression brahman seperated anything from itself (if by saying "'one' with no energy.." you meant brahman, of course). When you say how can brahman be supreme, I am not clear by what you mean exactly. Supreme in what meaning? 'Delivering' bliss? Sure. Supreme as in God-like supremity? Unlikely.


Aum

 

[Aupmanyav]

These all are people's personal views, Sir. Jiva cannot be different from Brahman because the source of Jiva is Brahman. No second exists. That is why the books say 'Sarve Khalvidam Brahma'. What we know is human consciousness. Therefore, it would be wrong to make Brahman into an undefined consciousness. Such a categorization will require proof. Bliss is a human emotion. Again we cannot load Brahman with human emotions. These are all 'matas' (opinions). One person has one view, the other person has a different view. Some say Vishnu is Supreme, some say Shiva is Supreme, some make Shakti into the Supreme. These are all our faults. We try to define what is basically, as yet, undefinable. Don't divide the house.

 

[Willamena]

These all are people's personal views, Sir. Jiva cannot be different from Brahman because the source of Jiva is Brahman. No second exists. That is why the books say 'Sarve Khalvidam Brahma'. What we know is human consciousness. Therefore, it would be wrong to make Brahman into an undefined consciousness. Such a categorization will require proof.

I think it's enough to say that such a categorization is imaginary divide.

Don't divide the house.

 

[Maya3]

Supreme as in God-like supremity? Unlikely.

It depends on how you view God. If you think that God is a separate form that sits and watches us, then yes it is unlikely.
If you think of God as a conscious all pervading energy, then maybe there is an intelligence. Or maybe the consciousnes is only from what we all think and do, maybe God has to manifest for there to be a driving force. But that is one amazing force for sure.

These all are people's personal views, Sir. Jiva cannot be different from Brahman because the source of Jiva is Brahman. No second exists. That is why the books say 'Sarve Khalvidam Brahma'. What we know is human consciousness. Therefore, it would be wrong to make Brahman into an undefined consciousness. Such a categorization will require proof. Bliss is a human emotion. Again we cannot load Brahman with human emotions. These are all 'matas' (opinions). One person has one view, the other person has a different view. Some say Vishnu is Supreme, some say Shiva is Supreme, some make Shakti into the Supreme. These are all our faults. We try to define what is basically, as yet, undefinable. Don't divide the house.

Exactly we have no clue, and fighting about it is silly.
If we do get a glimpse we would not be able to define it.


Maya

 

[En'me]

It depends on how you view God. If you think that God is a separate form that sits and watches us, then yes it is unlikely.
If you think of God as a conscious all pervading energy, then maybe there is an intelligence. Or maybe the consciousnes is only from what we all think and do, maybe God has to manifest for there to be a driving force. But that is one amazing force for sure.


Maya

Ofcourse. I was too intense in expressing my view. I agree with you.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Vrindavana Das ji, just the existence of Brahman is enough. The rest what seems to happen is because of 'maya', the effect of existence of Brahman. Does Radha Rani exist separate from Sri Bhagawan? Why object to various bhakti bhavas of other people?

Hare Krishna.

Aupmanyav ji,

I am not objecting to anyone's bhakti-bhava, and just sharing my understanding of the topic.

Brahman is but the bodily effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. To substantiate the same, I quote one scriptural verse:

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca​

[Bhagavad Gita 14.27]​

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

The energetic is Kṛṣṇa and His energy is Rādhā. Just like sunshine is the energy of Sun. Although without sunshine there is no meaning to Sun, can one call sunshine to be the Sun?


:namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, it is Shiva and his Shakti, Parvati Ma. Where would be Vishnu without Shiva, without his Chakra which he got only by the grace of Lord Maheshwara? And will any God, whosoever, have any power without Shakti - Durga? Ma Durga is the source of all power. She is equal to the sum of powers of all three, Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh.