• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

why no doership for Brahman?

DanielR

Active Member
why exactly don't we ascribe doership to brahman? I was reading a little bit in my Swami Lakshmanjoo scripts (Kashmir Shaivism) and they say that their Shiva is Jnana + kriya whereas Brahman is only Jnana?

Plus I've read from KS of course that their path is hm how do I put this superior to Advaita and that Advaita is wrong in that Brahman has no kriya?

is there any special reason why Brahman doesn't have doership?

One possible reason to me is that if he had we couldn't be sure that it will manifest another time after this, there would be no Moksha? Is this correct?

Thanks :)
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Is there any special reason why Brahman doesn't have doership?
Because in that case, 'He' is God and dual. There is better proof for non-duality than for duality. No necessity for invoking magic and no problem of evil.

"The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
 
Last edited:

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Forgive me for posting here; since this is also a question about Kashmir Shaivism and comparing the two.

why exactly don't we ascribe doership to brahman? I was reading a little bit in my Swami Lakshmanjoo scripts (Kashmir Shaivism) and they say that their Shiva is Jnana + kriya whereas Brahman is only Jnana?

Plus I've read from KS of course that their path is hm how do I put this superior to Advaita and that Advaita is wrong in that Brahman has no kriya?

is there any special reason why Brahman doesn't have doership?

One possible reason to me is that if he had we couldn't be sure that it will manifest another time after this, there would be no Moksha? Is this correct?

Thanks :)

Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism is nondual! Shiva and Shakti are one.

Why is Brahman's Maya not his Shakti?

Woah I could of sworn I actually touched on this earlier this morning in the Moksha topic lol.

I think, essentially Kriya is not attributed to Brahman in Vendanta and Samkya because they think doing so would give Brahman a personality, or something.

Actually I'm not totally sure why that's more of my best guess. That it would somehow in their minds create a contradiction in the theology.

However, Kashmir Shaivism in a lot of ways seems to be a reconciliation of this and many other things and still be nondual to the point of not even subscribing to the monism-duality duality :D

A better answer though might be here (contrasting Vendanta and Kashmir Shaivism):

Jaidev Singh Commentaries on the Siva Sutras said:
The ultimate aim of both Samkhya-yoga and Vedanta is mukti (liberation). By mukti, both of them understand Kaivalya, perfect isolation or Soleness, the only difference being that Samkhya-yoga aims at isolation from Prakrti while Vedanta aims at isolation from Maya. There is, however, one difference between the two in the concept of Self. According to SamkhyaYoga, Self or Purusa is saccit (existence-consciousness) and there is nothing higher than Purusa. According to Vedanta, Self or Atma is Saccidananda (existence-consciousness-bliss) and is identical with Brahman.

The ultimate aim of Saivagama is not simply mukti or Self-realization but Sivatva-yojana acquiring the status of Siva. In the words of Saivagama, the ultimate ideal is not merely Atmavyapti but Siva-vyapti. In Atma-vyapti, there is Self-realization, but the concept of Self-realization in Saivagama is different from that of Vedanta. In Vedanta, Self is merely jnana devoid of any activity whatsoever. In Saivagama, Self is characterized by both jnana and kriya. But Atma-vyapti in Saivagama is a lower ideal. The highest ideal is Siva-vyapti. In Siva-vyapti, there is Siva-Sakti-samarasya, fusion and union of Siva-sakti. In Atma-vyapti, there is limited jnana-kriya (knowledge and activity); in Siva-vyapti, there is universal, all-pervasive jnanakriyd. This Siva-vyapti is the status of Parama Siva who is simultaneously transcendent to and immanent in the universe. This comes about only when unmana sakti is developed.

In Vedantic liberation, Maya disappears and along with it goes the wretched universe which was only a fiction conjured up by her. In Siva-vyapti, the universe appears as a magnificent expression of Siva's - one's own - Sakti.

The liberated Self in Samkhya-yoga is only Saccit (existenceconsciousness). The Self or Purusa is freed of all pain and suffering, but he has no positive bliss. In Vedanta, the characteristic of Self is saccidananda (existence-consciousness-bliss). There is positive bliss in liberation. But it is only atmananda, the delight of Self. In Siva-vyapti, the entire universe gleams as the wondrous delight of I-consciousness.

Both in Samkhya-Yoga and Vedanta, the citta or mind reverts to its causal matrix, the Prakrti at the time of liberation. Patanjala yoga has a special word for this reversion, viz; pratiprasava which means reabsorption, remergence (into Prakrti). The defiling buddhi or citta has to withdraw into its primal cause. It is only then that Purusa can shine in his pristine, inherent glory. The citta can never be allowed to enter the sacred precincts of Purusa. It is an alien and has to be repatriated to its original home.

Saivagama which is undiluted advaita (non-dualism) has, however, a word of cheer even for the poor citta. According to it, the citta of the self-realized person becomes regenerated, transformed, transfigured into Cit (the Universal Divine Consciousness). Sutra 13 of Pratyabhijnahrdayam announces the reassuring tidings of its higher destiny in unmistakable terms:

(couldn't copy over Sanskrit)

On the realization of the five-fold act of the Self citta (the individual consciousness), by inward movement becomes citi (universal consciousness) by rising to the status of cetana (the knowing subject).

The following lucid commentary of Ksemaraja on this sutra deserves to be carefully pondered over:

(couldn't copy Sanskrit)

"The citta giving up the limiting tendency of extroversion, becoming introverted, rises to the status of cetana i.e. to the status of the knowing subject, when by the dissolution of the aspect of limitation and attaining its real nature, it becomes citi. That is to say, it now enters its highest stage of cit."

Citta is not an alien in this system. Sutra 5 of Pratyabhijnahrdayam says clearly:

(couldn't copy over Sanskrit)

"Citi (universal consciousness) itself, descending from the stage of Cetana (knower) becomes citta (individual consciousness), inasmuch as it becomes contracted in conformity with the objects of consciousness." In involution (avaroha, nimesa) citi becomes citta; in the highest stage of evolution (adhyaroha, unmesa) citta attains its real nature and becomes citi again.

Basically from that, I would take it that maybe Vendanta has no doership for Brahman as that would imply it has citta which would mean it can have an ego *Shrugs*. I just know that this isn't an issue in Kashmir Shaivism because it's philosophical foundation is a little different (it considers the Universe to be real and your mind is regenerated into universal consciousness as one of the infinite personalities of Shiva, if I understand correctly). I wouldn't say that personality is the same as ego though in this context...

As for your second post, in Vendanta Maya isn't real and is just an illusion. Where as in Kashmir Shaivism it is real. As to why, well that goes back to the whole idealism versus realism philosophy debate.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Thanks Mandi!! I need to digest your answer haha :D
Dan, I was thinking of posting in this thread. I read what Sri Jaidev Singh had to say on the subject. I like it but do not think it is much different from 'advaita' Vedanta. More in the sense of a different explanation. Whether 'maya' is real or unreal, and whether it is 'Shivatva' or 'maya' which makes the world go, perhaps results in the same thing.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
....
is there any special reason why Brahman doesn't have doership?

One possible reason to me is that if he had we couldn't be sure that it will manifest another time after this, there would be no Moksha? Is this correct?

Thanks :)

That is excellent, DanielR.

Karma/doership is in the domain of kAla (time), desa (space), and mana (mind). These three proceed from Brahman, that is however transcendental beyond these, taintless, homogeneous (without division) and unchangeable (as per shruti).
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
why exactly don't we ascribe doership to brahman? I was reading a little bit in my Swami Lakshmanjoo scripts (Kashmir Shaivism) and they say that their Shiva is Jnana + kriya whereas Brahman is only Jnana?

Plus I've read from KS of course that their path is hm how do I put this superior to Advaita and that Advaita is wrong in that Brahman has no kriya?

is there any special reason why Brahman doesn't have doership?

One possible reason to me is that if he had we couldn't be sure that it will manifest another time after this, there would be no Moksha? Is this correct?
Thanks :)
I don't know about Kashmiri Shavism, but Brahman is generally thought of as beyond attributes. It doesn't do anything. It's like a timeless, infinite Bulk (physics) or Brane underlying Reality, a sort of source of potential or proto 'stuff' that can be perceived as the illusion of the Universe.
Unfortunately, without attributes, we can't really talk about or even conceive of Brahman. There's just nothing there to wrap your head around. But we Hindu-types persist. We stick on a little attribute here and a little power there (just to clarify things, you know), and soon we've woven whole, convoluted, theological tapestry of devas and actions and powers that every little sect has a different take on.

Forgive me for posting here; since this is also a question about Kashmir Shaivism and comparing the two.
I think, essentially Kriya is not attributed to Brahman in Vendanta and Samkya because they think doing so would give Brahman a personality, or something.

Actually I'm not totally sure why that's more of my best guess. That it would somehow in their minds create a contradiction in the theology.

However, Kashmir Shaivism in a lot of ways seems to be a reconciliation of this and many other things and still be nondual to the point of not even subscribing to the monism-duality duality :D
In Advaita, Brahman (nirguna, anyway) is attributeless and incomprehensible; but we can't argue, admonish, jump up and down or get all excited about it if we can't talk about it. So we start with the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the Tat tvam asi and the Aham Brahmasmi, then quickly dodge back with a Neti neti.
It all strikes me as confusingly complicated; but, of course, that's what makes Hinduism such a colorful, mad, theological Rube Goldberg.

If we lost our obsession with intricate, descriptive explanations we'd be, well...Buddhists.:eek:
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I don't know about Kashmiri Shavism, but Brahman is generally thought of as beyond attributes. It doesn't do anything. It's like a timeless, infinite Bulk (physics) or Brane underlying Reality, a sort of source of potential or proto 'stuff' that can be perceived as the illusion of the Universe.
Unfortunately, without attributes, we can't really talk about or even conceive of Brahman. There's just nothing there to wrap your head around. But we Hindu-types persist. We stick on a little attribute here and a little power there (just to clarify things, you know), and soon we've woven whole, convoluted, theological tapestry of devas and actions and powers that every little sect has a different take on.

In Advaita, Brahman (nirguna, anyway) is attributeless and incomprehensible; but we can't argue, admonish, jump up and down or get all excited about it if we can't talk about it. So we start with the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the Tat tvam asi and the Aham Brahmasmi, then quickly dodge back with a Neti neti.
It all strikes me as confusingly complicated; but, of course, that's what makes Hinduism such a colorful, mad, theological Rube Goldberg.

If we lost our obsession with intricate, descriptive explanations we'd be, well...Buddhists.:eek:

I would think even those are attributes (timeless, infinite, incomprehensible and even "beyond attributes" are attributes in my view). Also I would say that even the Buddhists do the same thing to some degree, greatest in Vajrayana :D

Just so I understand the Vedanta view better, do you agree that those things I listed are attributes (timeless, infinite, incomprehensible and "beyond attributes"), even if just for convenience's sake?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yeah, Mandi. We are just making our guesses, which is permissible in Hinduism (Athāto Brahma jignāsā) and not permissible in Buddhism. The fact is that we do not know. :D
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
is there any special reason why Brahman doesn't have doership?


Doership implies a personality, defined by likes and dislikes and other psychological content.

But the truth is impersonal and reality as it is. It is the personality that gives a personal touch to things and events through its emotions of likes and dislikes, due to its conditioning based on beliefs.

The enlightened one, who has realized his or her oneness with Brahman, who has purified his consciousness of all transient psychological content through meditation, will view everything impersonally as a consequence. The sense of doership is totally absent in him or her.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Doership implies a personality, defined by likes and dislikes and other psychological content.

But the truth is impersonal and reality as it is. It is the personality that gives a personal touch to things and events through its emotions of likes and dislikes, due to its conditioning based on beliefs.

The enlightened one, who has realized his or her oneness with Brahman, who has purified his consciousness of all transient psychological content through meditation, will view everything impersonally as a consequence. The sense of doership is totally absent in him or her.
Nice words ajay0 to describe this strand of Vedanta. The other strand of Vedanta regards truth to emanate from a Personal God. It requires not meditation but surrender through yoga to truth. When this surrender is intense and irreversible, one experiences simultaneous oneness and separateness with God as the Doer.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Nice words ajay0 to describe this strand of Vedanta. The other strand of Vedanta regards truth to emanate from a Personal God. It requires not meditation but surrender through yoga to truth. When this surrender is intense and irreversible, one experiences simultaneous oneness and separateness with God as the Doer.
I don't understand how this bhakti can be described as Vedanta.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
I don't understand how this bhakti can be described as Vedanta.
Bhakti means a mixture of a things like devotion, faith, fondness for, worship, etc for a personal god. Where truth is concerned these sentiments are a barrier to ascertaining reality. Vedanta means knowing the ultimate truth on Reality.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Bhakti means a mixture of a things like devotion, faith, fondness for, worship, etc for a personal god. Where truth is concerned these sentiments are a barrier to ascertaining reality. Vedanta means knowing the ultimate truth on Reality.
I need to correct what I have written that where truth is concerned bhakti is a barrier to ascertaining reality. It is not and what this process describes is still vedanta: bhaktivedanta.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
An insightful saying by enlightened master Gilbert Schultz, of the lineage of Nisargadatta Maharaj and Sailor Bob Adamson...

'Awareness is non dual. Mind is dualistic. Mind ‘creates’ a thinker, believer, a doer where there is only awareness. '


In non-dual awareness, there is no 'I', 'me' , 'mine' and 'you' as everything is cognised by the naked awareness without labelling oneself as 'I', and the other as 'you' or 'it''.

The labelling process belongs to the mind, which is absent in non-conceptual awareness which sees reality as it is, without labels.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
An insightful saying by enlightened master Gilbert Schultz, of the lineage of Nisargadatta Maharaj and Sailor Bob Adamson...

'Awareness is non dual. Mind is dualistic. Mind ‘creates’ a thinker, believer, a doer where there is only awareness. '


In non-dual awareness, there is no 'I', 'me' , 'mine' and 'you' as everything is cognised by the naked awareness without labelling oneself as 'I', and the other as 'you' or 'it''.

The labelling process belongs to the mind, which is absent in non-conceptual awareness which sees reality as it is, without labels.

Yes, beautifully put ajay0. But you only get to that stage once you have gone through the process of learning about Ishwar/God. Of course you are bypassing that stage to save time. That was clever of Buddha but it is not total knowledge.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Yes, beautifully put ajay0. But you only get to that stage once you have gone through the process of learning about Ishwar/God. Of course you are bypassing that stage to save time. That was clever of Buddha. but it is not total knowledge.

Love for personal God as in Shiva, Jehovah, Allah can help one to go across duality to nonduality as shown by the likes of Basaveshwara who rejected casteism and the sufi Shirdi Sai Baba and Kabir who rejected all religious barriers which divided humanity.

And at the same time, religious belief in the personal God can also be used as an instrument to drive dualistic barriers between humanity resulting in confict , intensifying duality in the process and making religion counter-productive.

A positive attitude and precise theoretical understanding of what religion is meant for, can allow believers in personal God to make wise choices, instead of going down the road of conflict and spiritual degeneration creating hell on earth.

That was clever of Buddha. but it is not total knowledge.

But Buddha attained Moksha faster than the so-called believers in God at that point of time who were busy trying to please God with all kinds of rituals like slaughtering animals and so on.
 
Top