Brahman - asleep or awake

[theCosmicGame]

Most interpretations of the hindu story of creation and destruction and the world as divine play go something like this: in the beginning there is the ultimate reality or Brahman who then creates multiplicity from oneness and the world as an illusion where he plays hide and seek with himself until the world disappears back into Brahman, and into pure undisturbed blissful consciousness.

The issue that bothers me with this is that it is viewed from the mind's prism of time where, surely, no time applies. Sure it exists in the world of lila but is also a creation of the mind.

Brahman is, rather, awake and asleep (lost in Leila) at the same time. Since there are constantly awakenings happening, we cannot say that all of Brahman is "asleep" or lost in the cosmic game. You may say this depends on the viewpoint. And that's true. I believe that from the viewpoint of "awakened" Brahman, the state of bliss or sat-chit-ananda is the totality of all experience of duality and their natural end into enlightenment.

The bliss of God, satchitananda, is the totality of these myriads of awakenings in countless universes to the true nature of reality and the return of the previously "lost" parts of Brahman back home.

Would be interesting to know if anyone else relates? I am aware that reality cannot be described.

 

[Vinayaka]

Most interpretations of the hindu story of creation and destruction and the world as divine play go something like this: in the beginning there is the ultimate reality or Brahman who then creates multiplicity from oneness and the world as an illusion where he plays hide and seek with himself until the world disappears back into Brahman, and into pure undisturbed blissful consciousness.

The issue that bothers me with this is that it is viewed from the mind's prism of time where, surely, no time applies. Sure it exists in the world of lila but is also a creation of the mind.

Brahman is, rather, awake and asleep (lost in Leila) at the same time. Since there are constantly awakenings happening, we cannot say that all of Brahman is "asleep" or lost in the cosmic game. You may say this depends on the viewpoint. And that's true. I believe that from the viewpoint of "awakened" Brahman, the state of bliss or sat-chit-ananda is the totality of all experience of duality and their natural end into enlightenment.

The bliss of God, satchitananda, is the totality of these myriads of awakenings in countless universes to the true nature of reality and the return of the previously "lost" parts of Brahman back home.

Would be interesting to know if anyone else relates? I am aware that reality cannot be described.

Because its an intellectual question about something that is outside of the intellect, I'll hold comments until this embodied jiva 'knows' from the non-intellectual realisations that accompany many lifetimes of arduous sadhana. So in other words, there is nothing to say about it that will make any real sense at all. I personally have no problem with that.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The issue that bothers me with this is that it is viewed from the mind's prism of time where, surely, no time applies. Sure it exists in the world of lila but is also a creation of the mind.

The problem is, we have no idea what timelessness is like, because our mind is forced to think in terms of time.
I have a huge problem with the end-point views of liberation, because this presumes that there was a point when we started our journey and there will be a point where we terminate. But what next after that point of termination? Do we continue to exist as eternal beings but if we were always eternal in the first place, then at what point in eternity did we start our journey(contradiction in terms) If we just merge into Brahman, then at what point did we issue forth from Brahman if Brahman was always eternal(again contradiction in terms)

Using my mind that is use to thinking in terms of space, time and objects. I can resolve in either of the following ways:

Brahman is just the substance that unites Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat together, meaning Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat are all eternally existent and the Jiva just circulates around for eternity through the various lokas
Brahman is the field of infinite possibilities and manifests every possibility simultaneously and we jivas live through all those possibilities at different times. Hence, a new cycle will happen in a totally different way. As there is infinite novelty the experiences of the jiva can never end.
Brahman is God who plays with himself, manifesting various worlds and entering into each world as jiva for the joy of rediscovering himself

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most interpretations of the Hindu story of creation and destruction and the world as divine play go something like this: in the beginning there is the ultimate reality or Brahman who then creates multiplicity from oneness and the world as an illusion where he plays hide and seek with himself until the world disappears back into Brahman, and into pure undisturbed blissful consciousness.

There are many creation schemes in Hinduism - Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Samkhya, Advita, etc. I will touch on the Avaita (non-duality) theory as I understand it. Let me state clearly that it is not the main-line interpretation of Advaita, which too, comes in many flavors.

story of creation: is there any real creation or it is simply our perception - to put it another way - the illusion of an illusion.
destruction: Destruction is applicable only when there has been a creation.
divine: What is your definition of divine? If Brahman alone exists and nothing else, then divine looses much of its force.
who then creates: Does he/she? Is Brahman a being? What need Brahman has to create the universe?
multiplicity: By definition, there can be no duality or multiplicity in Advaita.
pure: If only one entity exists then where is the question of being pure or impure?
undisturbed: If only one entity exists then where is the question of being disturbed? Who is there to disturb it?
blissful: Being blissful or sorrowful is a human condition. What proof do you have to encumber Brahman with a human emotion?
consciousness: Consciousness is a product of brain. Does Brahman have a brain? Does it need to think? What will it think?

You see, all these problems (misconceptions) arise from a single fact that you are conflating Brahman with a God of theists. Not just the people from Abrahamic religions but also monotheists and polytheists among Hindus suffer from this problem. The idea is like an Everest high mountain pass which one has to negotiate to continue the journey on the other side.

So what is Brahman? It is energy, it is space - Shakti/Akasha - when observed it changes into mass/matter/living and non-living things. The observer too is that, only a seemingly different form of it. None of what is perceived (and the perceiver) is other than Shakti/Akasha. Just the existence of energy/space causes all the illusions of this world. Brahman does not participate in this except for its existence. It does not desire anything, it does not do anything. There is no creation, no destruction, no birth, no death. All that is an illusion. I don't know if I have been able to put across the idea coherently. (secretly smiling - Oh, you had the temerity of entering the field of Hindu philosophy! )

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I just wanted to interject, and keep it brief as this is DIR forum, so debate is not allowed here. However, Aupmanyav's interpretation that Brahman is energy and space is not Advaita. Although, I respect the fact that he told you this is not the main line view of Advaita, but it is not the view of any single Advaita school. Advaita is very clear Brahman is chit(Pranjana Brahman) that is Brahman is described in the Upanishads as a mass of pure consciousness and not energy(pradhana)

So what is Brahman? It is energy, it is space - Shakti/Akasha - when observed it changes into mass/matter/living and non-living things. The observer too is that, only a seemingly different form of it.

Do you see the contradiction in what you just said. If there is just energy and space, then how can there be anybody to observe the energy and space. If the observer is just the energy and space, then you saying the energy and space observes itself, but this would mean that energy and space is conscious so that it can observe or know itself.

Anyhow I shall not belabour the point any further.

 

[Aupmanyav]

sarvabhooteshu yenai kam bhaavam avyayam eekshate avibhaktam vibhakteshu taj jnaanam viddhi saattwikam. BG 18.20
that by which one sees the one indestructible reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings, know you that knowledge to be sattwic.

prithaktwena tu yaj jnaanam naanaabhaavaan prithagvidhaan vetti sarveshu bhooteshu taj jnaanam viddhi raajasam. BG 18.21
but that knowledge which sees in all beings various entities of distinct kinds as different from one another, know you that knowledge to be rajasic.

yat tu kritsnavad ekasmin kaarye saktam ahaitukam atattwaarthavad alpam cha tat taamasam udaahritam. BG 18.22
that which clings to one single effect as if it were the whole, without reason, without foundation in truth, and trivial, that is declared to be tamasic.

Without going into detail, Sattwic = Best, Rajasic = Ordinary, Tamsic = Limited.
The Bhagavad Gita | Daily Readings | Swami Venkatesananda

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman is described in the Upanishads as a mass of pure consciousness and not energy (pradhana).

Do you see the contradiction in what you just said. If there is just energy and space, then how can there be anybody to observe the energy and space. If the observer is just the energy and space, then you saying the energy and space observes itself, but this would mean that energy and space is conscious so that it can observe or know itself.

Well, these are views. One book may have one, the other book may have another. If you want to go by one book, that is OK with me. Everyone is entitled to his/her own views (within limits).

I do not see any contradiction. In the referenced post I said (with a small correction in the second quote):
"story of creation: is there any real creation or it is simply our perception - to put it another way - the illusion of an illusion."
"when observed it is seen as mass/matter/living and non-living things. The observer too is that, only a seemingly different form of it. None of what is perceived (and the perceiver) is other than Shakti/Akasha."

Yeah, the observer and the observed, both are the same, Shakti/Akasha, when we talk of "absolute reality". In perception, it is all things of the universe - air/water/stones, trees, animals humans - "perceived reality". "Parmarthika Satya" (absolute reality) and "Vyavaharika Satya" (pragmatic/practical/perceived reality)

What are we other than atoms? And what are atoms other than Energy/Space? Shakti/Akasha. "Yatha, saumya, ekena mrit-pindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnatam syat vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam, mrittiketyeva satyam". Mrittiketyeva satyam.

 

[theCosmicGame]

There are many creation schemes in Hinduism - Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Samkhya, Advita, etc. I will touch on the Avaita (non-duality) theory as I understand it. Let me state clearly that it s not the main-line interpretation of Advaita, which too, comes in many flavors.

story of creation: is there any real creation or it is simply our perception - to put it another way - the illusion of an illusion.
destruction: Destruction is applicable only when there has been a creation.
divine: What is your definition of divine. If Brahman alone exists and nothing else, then divine looses much of its force.
who then creates: Does he/she? Is Brahman a being? What need Brahman has to create the universe?
multiplicity: By definition, there can be no duality or multiplicity in Advaita.
pure: If only one entity exists then where is the question of being pure or impure?
undisturbed: If only one entity exists then where is the question of being disturbed? Who is there to disturb it?
blissful: Being blissful or sorrowful is a human condition. What proof do you have to encumber Brahman with a human emotion?
consciousness: Consciousness is a product of brain. Does Brahman have a brain? Does it need to think? What will it think?

You see, all these problems (misconceptions) arise from a single fact that you are conflating Brahman with a God of theists. Not just the people from Abrahamic religions but also monotheists and polytheists among Hindus suffer from this problem. The idea is like an Everest high mountain pass which one has to negotiate to continue the journey on the other side.

So what is Brahman? It is energy, it is space - Shakti/Akasha - when observed it changes into mass/matter/living and non-living things. The observer too is that, only a seemingly different form of it. None of what is perceived (and the perceiver) is other than Shakti/Akasha. Just the existence of energy/space causes all the illusions of this world. Brahman does not participate in this except for its existence. It does not desire anything, it does not do anything. There is no creation, no destruction, no birth, no death. All that is an illusion. I don't know if I have been able to put across the idea coherently. (secretly smiling - Oh, you had the temerity of entering the field of Hindu philosophy! )

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that all of these are concepts and cannot describe something which is, by definition, indescribable. There is however a story of creation in Hinduism but that's all it is, a story. It's nothing more than an introduction to the philosophy, and as a story made by concepts it is not perfect by any means. My point was that there is no right or wrong way to try to describe it. Or rather, any attempt at description would be, at most, imperfect. My own spiritual experiences gave me the idea of what I wrote above but they too has been tainted by the prism of my mind.

 

[theCosmicGame]

The problem is, we have no idea what timelessness is like, because our mind is forced to think in terms of time.
I have a huge problem with the end-point views of liberation, because this presumes that there was a point when we started our journey and there will be a point where we terminate. But what next after that point of termination? Do we continue to exist as eternal beings but if we were always eternal in the first place, then at what point in eternity did we start our journey(contradiction in terms) If we just merge into Brahman, then at what point did we issue forth from Brahman if Brahman was always eternal(again contradiction in terms)

Using my mind that is use to thinking in terms of space, time and objects. I can resolve in either of the following ways:

Brahman is just the substance that unites Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat together, meaning Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat are all eternally existent and the Jiva just circulates around for eternity through the various lokas
Brahman is the field of infinite possibilities and manifests every possibility simultaneously and we jivas live through all those possibilities at different times. Hence, a new cycle will happen in a totally different way. As there is infinite novelty the experiences of the jiva can never end.
Brahman is God who plays with himself, manifesting various worlds and entering into each world as jiva for the joy of rediscovering himself

This was exactly my question and your way of conceptualizing it fits with my personal understanding

 

[Aupmanyav]

Entirely your choice. Good.

 

[DanielR]

The problem is, we have no idea what timelessness is like, because our mind is forced to think in terms of time.
I have a huge problem with the end-point views of liberation, because this presumes that there was a point when we started our journey and there will be a point where we terminate. But what next after that point of termination? Do we continue to exist as eternal beings but if we were always eternal in the first place, then at what point in eternity did we start our journey(contradiction in terms) If we just merge into Brahman, then at what point did we issue forth from Brahman if Brahman was always eternal(again contradiction in terms)

Using my mind that is use to thinking in terms of space, time and objects. I can resolve in either of the following ways:

Brahman is just the substance that unites Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat together, meaning Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat are all eternally existent and the Jiva just circulates around for eternity through the various lokas
Brahman is the field of infinite possibilities and manifests every possibility simultaneously and we jivas live through all those possibilities at different times. Hence, a new cycle will happen in a totally different way. As there is infinite novelty the experiences of the jiva can never end.
Brahman is God who plays with himself, manifesting various worlds and entering into each world as jiva for the joy of rediscovering himself

sorry I had to reply to this.

this is what I came to believe too in the end. Me and Shivo (is he still posting here?) were bringing this up a few times. If there's an end to reincarnation, if there is a point when I am liberated, it by necessity had to have happened already, that's the consequence of a fluid passing time. Since we are not liberated yet obviously it means that it will continue for ever and ever.

Even Nietzsche was arguing this fact.

But is there a school in Hinduism that holds such a view??

 

[theCosmicGame]

sorry I had to reply to this.

this is what I came to believe too in the end. Me and Shivo (is he still posting here?) were bringing this up a few times. If there's an end to reincarnation, if there is a point when I am liberated, it by necessity had to have happened already, that's the consequence of a fluid passing time. Since we are not liberated yet obviously it means that it will continue for ever and ever.

Even Nietzsche was arguing this fact.

But is there a school in Hinduism that holds such a view??

Thank you so much for posting this. It is exactly my idea based on personal (albeit subjective) mystical experiences. We are both asleep and awake simultaneously but because we perceive everything through the prism of time, we experience this as successive moments of awakening and going back into the illusion. I am asleep until I recognise myself in you and everything else. It's all for this one moment. This one eternal moment is so incredible, so blissful, that I have to do it over and over and over again. This is eternal recurrence

 

[DanielR]

Thank you so much for posting this. It is exactly my idea based on personal (albeit subjective) mystical experiences. We are both asleep and awake simultaneously but because we perceive everything through the prism of time, we experience this as successive moments of awakening and going back into the illusion. I am asleep until I recognise myself in you and everything else. It's all for this one moment. This one eternal moment is so incredible, so blissful, that I have to do it over and over and over again. This is eternal recurrence

exactly! This very moment is Brahman!

Sorry I hope it's okay that I posted in here

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dan, you are always welcome here.

 

[DanielR]

Dan, you are always welcome here.

Thank you Aup nice to see you again

 

[Papoon]

sorry I had to reply to this.

this is what I came to believe too in the end. Me and Shivo (is he still posting here?) were bringing this up a few times. If there's an end to reincarnation, if there is a point when I am liberated, it by necessity had to have happened already, that's the consequence of a fluid passing time. Since we are not liberated yet obviously it means that it will continue for ever and ever.

Even Nietzsche was arguing this fact.

But is there a school in Hinduism that holds such a view??

Liberation is transcendent. Clouds form and dissolve. The empty sky is unaffected.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Liberation! As if we have hackles on our hands or feet. There are none. It is only a matter of understanding.

 

[Papoon]

Liberation! As if we have hackles on our hands or feet. There are none. It is only a matter of understanding.

It IS as if we have shackles. You haven't noticed ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

We think that there are shackles. Really there are none. We live in our own virtual prisons.