Is Brahman unchanging?

[Martin]

From an Advaita point of view, is Brahman unchanging?

 

[Orbit]

From an Advaita point of view, is Brahman unchanging?

Does it matter?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Explaining from various philosophies will require a book, however, here are the Google links. For such questions, there is no better book that History of Indian philosophy by Surendra nath Das Gupta available from Internet Archives as pdf without any cost.
brahman is changeless - Google Search

I chanced upon this from Sankara and I liked it, though I differ in details from Sankara.

Transcription
Nityoham nirvadyoham, nirakaroham acyutah, paramaanand rupoham ahmevaaham avyayam.

ham is really Aham within Sandhi, it means I am .. this.

 

[mangalavara]

From an Advaita point of view, is Brahman unchanging?

According to Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswamigal, the 35th Jagadguru of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, Brahman is unchanging. He goes on to say that if Brahman were not unchanging, Brahman would be not Satyam. I found this in an article that apppears in the May 2022 issue of Tattvāloka.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now, as I said, my views are different. So, how is Brahman changeless for me. I have given this explanation earlier also. It is based on science and Quantum mechanics.

Change is when something changes its speed, direction or momentum. Otherwise it cannot be called a change. Brahman changes every plancks moment, has been doing this for at least 13.78 billion years, creating virtual particles from nothing, I am writing particles for ease of understanding, it can also be considered a wave or just vibration of a point of energy at any place. The virtual particles can change to real particles or vice versa. Similarly just as they arise from nothing, they can also disappear into nothing. This is how the universe works and our perceived events happen. The point of energy remains the same. That is what I mean by Changeless. Changing but still not changing.

 

[George-ananda]

From an Advaita point of view, is Brahman unchanging?

Yes, Brahman is held to be unchanging in Advaita.

The mystery to me is how Maya emanates from something unchanging. It's as though the unchanging has a creative aspect too.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

From an Advaita point of view, is Brahman unchanging?

The short answer is yes. The long answer is more involved.

I would ask you to read up on Parinamavada and Vivartavada. The latter is specific to Advaita, but it is generally seen as a later (13th Century CE) theory that is incorrectly attributed to Shankara.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Brahman is held to be unchanging in Advaita.
The mystery to me is how Maya emanates from something unchanging. It's as though the unchanging has a creative aspect too.

Changing but not really changing creates the illusion, you can term it Brahmans lay, Maya. The arrangement of points of energy and their vibrations creates maya.

 

[Martin]

Yes, Brahman is held to be unchanging in Advaita.

The mystery to me is how Maya emanates from something unchanging. It's as though the unchanging has a creative aspect too.

That's something I have pondered too. How does movement come from stillness?

 

[Martin]

The short answer is yes. The long answer is more involved.

I would ask you to read up on Parinamavada and Vivartavada. The latter is specific to Advaita, but it is generally seen as a later (13th Century CE) theory that is incorrectly attributed to Shankara.

I read about vivartavada, it's quite involved, as you say!

 

[ajay0]

Yes, Brahman is held to be unchanging in Advaita.

The mystery to me is how Maya emanates from something unchanging. It's as though the unchanging has a creative aspect too.

Brahman as in pure consciousness which is the substratum of the known existence is static.

Shakti which is the creative aspect of Brahman is dynamic and in a state of constant change. This is what is generally known in Hindu philosophy.

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

Specifically in Advaita Vedanta, Nirguna Brahman which is the primary focus, is considered to be static.

 

[George-ananda]

Changing but not really changing creates the illusion, you can term it Brahmans lay, Maya. The arrangement of points of energy and their vibrations creates maya.

What arranged the points of energy?

 

[George-ananda]

Brahman as in pure consciousness which is the substratum of the known existence is static.

Shakti which is the creative aspect of Brahman is dynamic and in a state of constant change. This is what is generally known in Hindu philosophy.



Specifically in Advaita Vedanta, Nirguna Brahman which is the primary focus, is considered to be static.

Then why is Brahman alone considered real and the rest Maya/illusion? Why is Shakti not considered fundamental and real? Is Shakti somehow dependent on Brahman?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What arranged the points of energy?

points of energy also is a matter of saying, and understanding. There are no real points and no arrangement. Remember Heidelberg's principle of Uncertainty. You cant catch them. It is a flux in space, that is what we are and that is what everything in the universe is.

Brahman exists while it exists but it also has the capability of not to exist. It is something beyond our understanding. We are familiar with existence only. That is why nonexistence seems so improbable to us. But Brahman is under no such constraint. That is why Ex nihilo and the Great Dissolution, Mahapralaya.
Existence of Universe can only be explained in this way, there is no other way.

nāsadāsīn no sadāsīt tadānīṃ nāsīd rajo no vyomāparo yat l
kimāvarīvaḥ kuha kasya śarmannambhaḥ kimāsīd ghahanaṃ ghabhīram ll
na mṛtyurāsīdamṛtaṃ na tarhi na rātryā ahna āsītpraketaḥ l
ānīdavātaṃ svadhayā tadekaṃ tasmāddhānyan na paraḥ kiṃ canāsa ll
tama āsīt tamasā ghūḷamaghre.apraketaṃ salilaṃ sarvamāidam i
tuchyenābhvapihitaṃ yadāsīt tapasastanmahinājāyataikam ll

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation, Sometime around 1000 BCE

 

[Martin]

Brahman as in pure consciousness which is the substratum of the known existence is static.

Shakti which is the creative aspect of Brahman is dynamic and in a state of constant change. This is what is generally known in Hindu philosophy.



Specifically in Advaita Vedanta, Nirguna Brahman which is the primary focus, is considered to be static.

Is Saguna Brahman the same as Maya from an Advaita perspective?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then why is Brahman alone considered real and the rest Maya/illusion? Why is Shakti not considered fundamental and real? Is Shakti somehow dependent on Brahman?

What is the difference between Brahman and Shakti. For some Hindus Shakti is the Supreme. Brahman too is Shakti, energy.

 

[Martin]

What arranged the points of energy?

Thinking of Brahman as "energy" sounds problematic to me, because "energy" implies vibration and movement.
"Energy" sounds more like Maya actually.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is Saguna Brahman the same as Maya from an Advaita perspective?

Yeah, Saguna Brahman, Ishwara, God, belongs to vyavaharika. There is none in paramarthika other than Brahman, Shakti.

Thinking of Brahman as "energy" sounds problematic to me, because "energy" implies vibration and movement.

Vibration does not necessarily men movement. The thing is that you require a God figure by your samskaras, I do not.

 

[ajay0]

Then why is Brahman alone considered real and the rest Maya/illusion?

It depends on the context.

In Advaita, the focus is on Nirguna Brahman as in Self or pure consciousness through Jnana yogic methodologies and Self-inquiry.

Changing prakriti or external/internal nature is distinguished from changeless Self.

Why is Shakti not considered fundamental and real? Is Shakti somehow dependent on Brahman?

In certain philosophies like Tantra, Shakti is considered real and endued with divinity. Worship of Shakti as Mother Goddess in Bhakti is considered to remove the obstacle of Maya.

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 Ramakrishna


In Advaita Vedanta it is not, as the philosophical focus is solely on the changeless Brahman or pure consciousness or Self within.