Brahman and the Advaita Vision

[Surya Deva]

Shantanu, I am afraid there are some questions that simply cannot be answered. If I am asked to imagine a colour that that I have never seen, I could not possible give you an answer. Similarly, I cannot answer questions like what happened at the beginning of time, even modern scientists cannot answer that question. All that is sufficient for me is to know about my actual empirical reality, and how its existence is ultimately shown to be dubious and contradictory, indicating the transcendental reality. I will let you know what it is like when I get there

 

[Shantanu]

Shantanu, I am afraid there are some questions that simply cannot be answered. If I am asked to imagine a colour that that I have never seen, I could not possible give you an answer. Similarly, I cannot answer questions like what happened at the beginning of time, even modern scientists cannot answer that question. All that is sufficient for me is to know about my actual empirical reality, and how its existence is ultimately shown to be dubious and contradictory, indicating the transcendental reality. I will let you know what it is like when I get there

Oh yes, I know that place. I get banned from places like that because my questions have to be answered by someone claiming to know more than I know to be true.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Again, as I said with the analogy of the mirage, no analogy is ever literal. An analogy merely says "This is like this" it does not say "It is this " Analogies are merely devices to illustrate ideas.

The point here is that Maya is a reflection of Brahman, and why this reflection exists in Advaita is said to be inexplicable. Again these are impossible questions that the finite mind cannot answer. However, there are many different speculations one can produce:

Perhaps Maya is like a dream within Brahman.
Perhaps Brahman is simply a vast existence of infinite possibilities experiencing himself through infinite jivas

I don't know why to be honest. I can only speculate. There is one question a philosopher once asked, which actually almost made my head explode when I pondered it. The question he asked was "Why is there something rather than nothing" or why is there an existence at all? I pondered and pondered this question, speculating endlessly and I could not come up with an answer. Then one day my physics professor in school said to me, "There is one thing I have learned in life, and that is, not to ask why" I simply accept now the is-ness Brahman just is and Maya Brahman's reflection just is

The answers to all this is there in the scriptures and things that cannot be explained by advaita philosophy are easily explained by dvaita philosophy, without any speculation. Only condition is that you should be open and willing to learn.

 

[Surya Deva]

Then please provide the explanations given by Dvaita philosophy. I certainly hope it is better than "god did it"

 

[Vrindavana Das]

To put it simply, Supreme Lord has three potencies - internal, external and marginal.

Māyā is the external potency of Supreme Lord. Something like, your energy works under your direction, it is not independent. Similarly, māyā works under the direction of Supreme Lord.

Say, from your hand, you pick up a book. It is the energy of your hand that is doing the work. But behind it is the energetic - you. If you try and understand that energy, without accepting the energetic behind it, you will arrive at conclusions that energy or māyā is virtual. It is a dream, an illusion etc.

However, when you understand that there has to be a source. If sunshine is there, it's source - the Sun must be there. If māyā is there then māyāpati has to be there, it will become easy to understand, logical and right.

 

[Surya Deva]

So basically "god did it" then right?

I can immediately see the problem in the philosophy you just told me. It involves a leap of faith endowing Brahman with a personality and motive. None of this can be supported by any evidence. It is what in the principle of parsimony or occams razor we call an unnecessary multiplication of quantities.

Moreover, even by adding this baseless assumption you have another question left unanswered: Why would an infinite, supreme and absolute being want to create anything using his energy of maya? Let me guess? Lila? Sport/play or to produce a playground for his children, the jeeva to suffer, err I mean play in? Even more multiplication of quantities.

A personal creator is an absurd idea, for it means that the creator god is within time and space, for the creator god has to begin creation at some point in time. This makes a creator god subordinate to time, space and causality. Like all things in time, space and causality even a creator god is rendered perishable.

Advaita does not entertain such nonsense. Brahman is by definition infinite, eternal and uncaused. The finite mind's projection of its fantasies on Brahman cannot be logically justified, because Brahman cannot be bound by any finite ideas the mind can abstract. As soon as we say Brahman has a personality we are binding Brahman in finite human ideas. Such Brahman is called Saguna Brahman - the Brahman imagined with attributes. What you just told is a completely imagined Brahman. It will not pass.

 

[Pleroma]

So basically "god did it" then right?

I can immediately see the problem in the philosophy you just told me. It involves a leap of faith endowing Brahman with a personality and motive. None of this can be supported by any evidence. It is what in the principle of parsimony or occams razor we call an unnecessary multiplication of quantities.

Moreover, even by adding this baseless assumption you have another question left unanswered: Why would an infinite, supreme and absolute being want to create anything using his energy of maya? Let me guess? Lila? Sport/play or to produce a playground for his children, the jeeva to suffer, err I mean play in? Even more multiplication of quantities.

A personal creator is an absurd idea, for it means that the creator god is within time and space, for the creator god has to begin creation at some point in time. This makes a creator god subordinate to time, space and causality. Like all things in time, space and causality even a creator god is rendered perishable.

Advaita does not entertain such nonsense. Brahman is by definition infinite, eternal and uncaused. The finite mind's projection of its fantasies on Brahman cannot be logically justified, because Brahman cannot be bound by any finite ideas the mind can abstract. As soon as we say Brahman has a personality we are binding Brahman in finite human ideas. Such Brahman is called Saguna Brahman - the Brahman imagined with attributes. What you just told is a completely imagined Brahman. It will not pass.

LoL, so delusional!!

That's what happens when you don't have a guru. What you are revealing to us is your Ajnana, your foolishness. Don't think you're smart.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

So basically "god did it" then right?

If you want to understand Infinite Lord - the cause of all causes through science, which is still evolving, that is your wish.

If you trust your finite intelligence to understand the Infinite - that too is your wish.

If you think that through these senses - eyes which can see only in the presence of light, and that too a particular band-width; ears - which can hear only a particular frequency band, nose - which can smell only limited odors or, through the intelligence which in twilight tells you a snake on the road is a rope or refraction on desert is an oasis; and through the scientific instruments which are made up of inferior energy to support the senses; you can understand the infinite Supreme Lord - that too, my friend, is your wish. I am not so foolish to make such vain attempts.

I can immediately see the problem in the philosophy you just told me. It involves a leap of faith endowing Brahman with a personality and motive. None of this can be supported by any evidence. It is what in the principle of parsimony or occams razor we call an unnecessary multiplication of quantities.

The only way to understand the Infinite Lord is to follow the process shown by Him. The process is to surrender.

Even for understanding the impersonal feature of Lord, it is said:

tathāpi bhūman mahimāguṇasya te
viboddhum arhaty amalāntar-ātmabhiḥ
avikriyāt svānubhavād arūpato
hy ananya-bodhyātmatayā na cānyathā​

Nondevotees, however, cannot realize You in Your full personal feature. Nevertheless, it may be possible for them to realize Your expansion as the impersonal Supreme by cultivating direct perception of the Self within the heart. But they can do this only by purifying their mind and senses of all conceptions of material distinctions and all attachment to material sense objects. Only in this way will Your impersonal feature manifest itself to them. [S.B. 10.14.6]

...so, what to speak of knowing the Personal feature, without surrendering to Him.

As for evidence, it depends on what you accept as an evidence. I accept the scriptures as evidence and the scriptures are full of confirmations of the same. Below are a few:

Lord Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad Gītā says:

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca​

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [B.G. 14.27]

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate​

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān." [S.B. 1.2.11]

Moreover, even by adding this baseless assumption you have another question left unanswered: Why would an infinite, supreme and absolute being want to create anything using his energy of maya? Let me guess? Lila? Sport/play or to produce a playground for his children, the jeeva to suffer, err I mean play in? Even more multiplication of quantities.

The Infinite Lord created this Universe because we wanted to enjoy independent of Him - to become enjoyers and lord over the material nature. So, He gave us the facilities by creating this material universe. Along with it, He made some rules as to how we should live here happily and can finally achieve Him. So, yes, all is His Lila/sport/play.

A personal creator is an absurd idea, for it means that the creator god is within time and space, for the creator god has to begin creation at some point in time. This makes a creator god subordinate to time, space and causality. Like all things in time, space and causality even a creator god is rendered perishable.

In a layman language, science is 'discovering' laws like action-reaction, inertia, entropy etc. and not 'making' these laws. Any sane person will understand if the laws are there, governing our universe & existence, the law-maker also has to be there - Supreme Lord.

Advaita does not entertain such nonsense. Brahman is by definition infinite, eternal and uncaused. The finite mind's projection of its fantasies on Brahman cannot be logically justified, because Brahman cannot be bound by any finite ideas the mind can abstract. As soon as we say Brahman has a personality we are binding Brahman in finite human ideas. Such Brahman is called Saguna Brahman - the Brahman imagined with attributes. What you just told is a completely imagined Brahman. It will not pass.

The whole cosmic creation, with all it's heavenly bodies floating in empty nothingness, laws, various species of life, ecosystems etc is like a beautiful machinery, working perfectly. Only a fool will see an automobile standing on the road and will deny the engineer behind it - a person.

 

[Surya Deva]

If you think that through these senses - eyes which can see only in the presence of light, and that too a particular band-width; ears - which can hear only a particular frequency band, nose - which can smell only limited odors or, through the intelligence which in twilight tells you a snake on the road is a rope or refraction on desert is an oasis; and through the scientific instruments which are made up of inferior energy to support the senses; you can understand the infinite Supreme Lord - that too, my friend, is your wish. I am not so foolish to make such vain attempts.

So basically you cannot actually provide any reasons, so you fall back on faith? Yes, very convincing lol

You said it is foolish to make such vain attempts to understand the Supreme lord through our senses, reason or scientific instruments, but that is exactly what you are doing buster: You are making several statements about the "Supreme lord" which claim to understand him. For starters you seem to already know the Supreme lord is a personal creator being, you also know his motive for creating this world so that us souls can enjoy and you know he created rules and laws for us and ways for us to get back to him.

Now may I ask you how do you know all of this? Did you use your reason to know this? Did you speculate or imagine this? Or is this something you been told and have decided to blindly believe?

I don't do faith. Advaita is about only accepting that which can be logically demonstrated. Advaita does not speculate or imagine. If there is question we cannot answer, we admit it. We do not insult our intelligence by filling in the gaps with a fictional entity.

The whole cosmic creation, with all it's heavenly bodies floating in empty nothingness, laws, various species of life, ecosystems etc is like a beautiful machinery, working perfectly. Only a fool will see an automobile standing on the road and will deny the engineer behind it - a person.

This is an obsolete argument. We know this great cosmic creation with its heavily bodies, laws, species, ecosystems did not always exist like this, it has evolved over time. If you look at previous versions of the eyes, the eye was not as developed and complex as it is today. Over time everything evolves and becomes more refined.

Moreover, proof of intelligence in the universe or some kind of organizing force is not proof of a personal creator god, but proof that the universe works like a system, much like a computer does.

Basically you are using the old gaps in knowledge fallacy. Just because we don't know how the universe works exactly, you say "god did it"

 

[Vrindavana Das]

So basically you cannot actually provide any reasons, so you fall back on faith? Yes, very convincing lol

Lol! Very convincing reasoning. Let me question your logic here. Have you 'seen' a photon? How do you know that earth revolves around the sun and it is not the sun, that revolves around the earth? Please provide a reason. Maybe you have descended from a monkey...not me. Were you there to witness the evolution from monkey to man? Please provide 'facts' and not scientific 'theories'.

You said it is foolish to make such vain attempts to understand the Supreme lord through our senses, reason or scientific instruments, but that is exactly what you are doing buster: You are making several statements about the "Supreme lord" which claim to understand him. For starters you seem to already know the Supreme lord is a personal creator being, you also know his motive for creating this world so that us souls can enjoy and you know he created rules and laws for us and ways for us to get back to him.

Now may I ask you how do you know all of this? Did you use your reason to know this? Did you speculate or imagine this? Or is this something you been told and have decided to blindly believe?

Pramana means proof. They are of three different types: pratyaksha, anumana, and sabda. Pratyaksha means direct evidence by the senses. But since the senses are imperfect, pratyaksha often has to be corrected by higher knowledge. Anumana refers to deductive and inductive logic, which depends on the validity of its premises and reasons, and so cannot prove anything with final certainty. Sabda means receiving knowledge from authoritative sources. Vedic knowledge is sabda-pramana. This is particularly applicable to transcendental subject matter, which cannot be understood by the empirical and theorizing methods. Even in ordinary affairs, there are many things we have to accept on authority. We can learn the identity of our father from our mother, the only foolproof authority. Aside from the mother there is no way to know for sure who our father is. When the source of information is perfect, as in Vedic knowledge, then sabda-pramana, or sabda-brahma, becomes the ultimate proof.

That is how I know it.

I don't do faith. Advaita is about only accepting that which can be logically demonstrated. Advaita does not speculate or imagine. If there is question we cannot answer, we admit it. We do not insult our intelligence by filling in the gaps with a fictional entity.

All along you are only speculating and imagining and not accepting the obvious. That, I do not call intelligence or logic, it is called mental speculation.

This is an obsolete argument. We know this great cosmic creation with its heavily bodies, laws, species, ecosystems did not always exist like this, it has evolved over time. If you look at previous versions of the eyes, the eye was not as developed and complex as it is today. Over time everything evolves and becomes more refined.

'Know' is different and 'theory' is different. You are insulting the intelligence of the world's scientific community who call theirs 'theory' and not 'fact'. It must be for some reason, no? It is evolution 'theory' and not evolution 'fact' for one. That in itself means that it is not a proof. Unfortunately, you are accepting as a proof.

Moreover, proof of intelligence in the universe or some kind of organizing force is not proof of a personal creator god, but proof that the universe works like a system, much like a computer does.

And computer came into being ....let me guess...on it's own!!

Basically you are using the old gaps in knowledge fallacy. Just because we don't know how the universe works exactly, you say "god did it"

I am just showing you logically - what is what. Logically, consciousness can only come from consciousness. Life comes from life. We are conscious and alive. So, our ultimate 'source' also must be conscious and alive. It is so simple.

 

[Shantanu]

Even for understanding the impersonal feature of Lord, it is said:

tathāpi bhūman mahimāguṇasya te
viboddhum arhaty amalāntar-ātmabhiḥ
avikriyāt svānubhavād arūpato
hy ananya-bodhyātmatayā na cānyathā​

Nondevotees, however, cannot realize You in Your full personal feature. Nevertheless, it may be possible for them to realize Your expansion as the impersonal Supreme by cultivating direct perception of the Self within the heart. But they can do this only by purifying their mind and senses of all conceptions of material distinctions and all attachment to material sense objects. Only in this way will Your impersonal feature manifest itself to them. [S.B. 10.14.6]

It is fascinating that you came across this piece of scripture. What does 'S.B.' stand for Vrindavana Dasji?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

S.B. stands for Srīmad Bhāgavatam. Bhagavad Gītā is the preliminary Hindu scripture. Then comes Srīmad Bhāgavatam. It is said that one should understand Bhagavad Gītā in the light of Srīmad Bhāgavatam.

If you want to read/download, you can find both of them and many other scriptures here:
Books

 

[Shantanu]

Now may I ask you how do you know all of this? Did you use your reason to know this? Did you speculate or imagine this? Or is this something you been told and have decided to blindly believe?

I don't do faith. Advaita is about only accepting that which can be logically demonstrated. Advaita does not speculate or imagine. If there is question we cannot answer, we admit it. We do not insult our intelligence by filling in the gaps with a fictional entity.

Surya Deva, the Supreme Lord will not reveal His personal self as far as I have determined to someone who does not come to Him in intense faith/surrender. Why should He? I spent 15 years of daily struggle, the first three quarters of it at a level of 'acknowledgement' and 'worship' that made me a mental patient because my wife referred me to a psychiatrist and had me incarcerated in the hospital twice, the first time for 3 months in a Secure Ward, the next time for 1 month in an Open Ward. And they could not find anything wrong with me so let me go home. Why should you or anyone else realise His presence in the way that I did without going through the sufferring that was part of the search?

Here is my latest god-did-it idea: the Lord arranged it for me with perfect timing to come into contact with Vrindavana Dasji so as to let me complete my education with scriptural backing to show that I was not imagining things to the point that I needed psychiatric care. What do you have to say about that?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I don't do faith. Advaita is about only accepting that which can be logically demonstrated. Advaita does not speculate or imagine. If there is question we cannot answer, we admit it. We do not insult our intelligence by filling in the gaps with a fictional entity.

This is what Supreme Lord says about this approach:

avyaktaḿ vyaktim āpannaḿ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam​

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme. [B.G. 7.24]

 

[Shantanu]

The only way to understand the Infinite Lord is to follow the process shown by Him. The process is to surrender.

I agree. The word surrender is very meaningful. It is not just faith or even faith, but giving oneself to Him in apparent knowledge that it is not only futile to resist but that not doing so will result in suffering. In advaita, surrender also means acceptance of the Reality that is before one and being at one with the apparent, the emerging and the established reality. It is within the process of satya-advaita (a word that I coined a year or so ago of wishing to be at one with truth) that the Supreme is understood.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I agree. The word surrender is very meaningful. It is not just faith or even faith, but giving oneself to Him in apparent knowledge that it is not only futile to resist but that this will result in suffering.

I agree. :yes:

In fact, Lord says that one who surrenders to Him in knowledge is the best.

bahūnāḿ janmanām ante
jñānavān māḿ prapadyate
vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti
sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ​

After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare. [B.G. 7.19]

And of course, the final instruction of Supreme Lord in Bhagavad Gītā is:

sarva-dharmān parityajya
mām ekaḿ śaraṇaḿ vraja
ahaḿ tvāḿ sarva-pāpebhyo
mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ​

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear. [B.G. 18.66]

In advaita, surrender also means acceptance of the Reality that is before one and being at one with the apparent, the emerging and the established reality. It is within the process of satya-advaita (a word that I coined some years ago of wishing to be at one with truth) that the Supreme is understood.

Makes sense.

In devotional discipline, to be established in reality is to know that we are simultaneously one and different from the Supreme Lord.

We are one with the Lord qualitatively (advaita) - like spark and fire/sunshine and sun.
We are different from the Lord quantitatively (dvaita) - like spark is not fire/sunshine is not the sun.

It is called the doctrine of simultaneous oneness and difference - philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva.

 

[Ekanta]

The phrase "Supreme Personality of Godhead" is a total fraud translation in 99% of the cases.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Please clarify and validate your point with appropriate evidences from the scriptures.

 

[Surya Deva]

The phrase "Supreme Personality of Godhead" is a total fraud translation in 99% of the cases.

Haha, absolutely. It reflects the philosophical and ideological bias of the translator. This is why I do not read the Gita translations rendered by Dvati traditions like ISKON, like the "Bhagvad Gita As it is" because much of the translation is a forgery.

Dvaita in itself is a forgery. There is no justification for Dvaita in the Upanishads. The Upanishads do not tell us to worship god, it tells us to realize the Self, that is identical with Brahman.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Haha.

Maybe that is why one of the main propagator of Advaita - Ādī Guru Śankrachāryā said:

bhajagovindaà bhajagovindaà
govindaà bhajamüòhamate |
sampräpte sannihite käle
nahi nahi rakçati òukåïkaraëe ||​

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.

Hmmm....I wonder whom was he referring to as a 'fool' here!