Is Brahman unchanging?

[ajay0]

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

Obviously saguna Brahman brings the notion of duality of the worshipper and worshipped.

Ramakrishna and H.W.Poonja were devotees of Kali and Krishna, but they transcended their worship of Kali and Krishna in the company of enlightened masters like Totapuri and Ramana Maharshi, to attain nondual perception and enlightenment.

When Poonja described his visions of Krishna to Ramana Maharshi, the Maharshi replied thus, “God cannot be an object that appears and disappears, so find out who the seer is.”

 

[ajay0]

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

In general or broadly speaking, Brahman is considered to encompass all.(sarvam khalvidam brahma )

For different philosophical perspectives and contexts, Brahman (saguna and nirguna), Shakti, Prakriti are considered distinct.

Brahman at its fundamental state is pure consciousness of a static nature. Matter, energy, space, time and causation are the dynamic manifestations of Brahman.

Brahman encompassing these dynamic manifestations is termed or considered as Shakti to distinguish it from Nirguna Brahman as in pure consciousness alone. ( of an impersonal, attributeless nature)

So energy, vibration and movement comes under the domain of Shakti.

 

[George-ananda]

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

In standard Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is Consciousness best described as pure undifferentiated unlimited sat-cit-ananda. That is the school of thought that I am discussing.

Shakti is not held to be pure Consciousness so is not Brahman in standard Advaita Vedanta teaching.

You may create your own school of thought but it is not one that I am interested in.

 

[George-ananda]

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

I agree 100%. I was replying to @Aupmanyav who does not recognize the primary and fundamental nature of Consciousness (sat-cit-ananda). We have debated multiple times before. I call his school of thought Aupveda, I really don't see a difference between Aupveda and atheistic-materialism.

 

[George-ananda]

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.



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.

That is informative, thanks.

Then how is Shakti held in Advaita Vedanta philosophy? Is it Maya? How does Advaita Vedanta account for the existence of Maya? Does Brahman have some fundamental creative aspect? Maybe Brahman can be expanded to sat-cit-ananda-creativity?

 

[ameyAtmA]

How does Advaita Vedanta account for the existence of Maya? Does Brahman have some fundamental creative aspect?

I can think of the Shaiva philosophy as the closest to answer your question - as it is a different kind of advaita, but advaita nevertheless.

It explains the 5 powers of Shiva that correspond to His 5 faces. Here, everything is Shiva (more than the Person on Kailash),

Shiva means that which is very pure and auspicious. (ब्रह्म)

What we otherwise call ParamAtmA, antaryAmi, inner Being, inner controller, higher Self. is all referred to as Shiva in the Shaiva traditions.

In the VaishNav tradition , this original inner Being , is paramAtmA -- NArAyaNa, the omnipresent VAsudeva.

In short this is Bramh' (ब्रह्म) of Vedanta.

The 5 powers of Shiva:
1. Creation (by inner Self of BramhA)
2. Maintenance (by inner Self of VishNu)
3. Destruction (by inner Self of Shankar or Mahesh, Mahadev)
4. Concealment (cover up, mAyA)
5. Revelation by Grace (Anugraha - leading to enlightenment)

Read it all on this page:
Five Powers of Siva

In Saiva Siddhanta philosophy, Lord Siva, God, is All and in all, and is understood in three modes: formless (nishkala), formed-formless (sakala-nishkala), and formed (sakala). In the formless mode, Siva is Absolute Reality, Parasiva; in the formed-formless mode, Siva is Pure Consciousness, Parashakti; in the formed mode, Siva is Personal Lord, Parameshvara.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You may create your own school of thought but it is not one that I am interested in.

I appreciate and accept your position. No problem there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then how is Shakti held in Advaita Vedanta philosophy? Is it Maya? How does Advaita Vedanta account for the existence of Maya? Does Brahman have some fundamental creative aspect? Maybe Brahman can be expanded to sat-cit-ananda-creativity?

Advaita does not use the word Shakti. Brahman suffices for it. However, with Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha and Chaitanya, they take Vishnu or Krishna to be the Supreme Brahman. So, maya is created by Vishnu or Krishna.
I think, I am closer to Kashmir Shaivism. Shiva does not create it. But we in our own ignorance take an illusion to be the truth. I have not studied it deeply because I got my answers from science. The link that Ameyatma gave is for South India Shaivism, the Nandinath Sect, which Vinayaka follows. There is another sect known as Nath Sect, centered in Gorakhpur, which the former Kings of Nepal followed. The head of the Sect, Yogi Adityanath, is presently the Chief Minister of Indias largest state, Uttar Pradesh.

 

[ameyAtmA]

I think, I am closer to Kashmir Shaivism. Shiva does not create it. But we in our own ignorance take an illusion to be the truth. I have not studied it deeply because I got my answers from science. The link that Ameyatma gave is for South India Shaivism, the Nandinath Sect, which Vinayaka follows.

As far as I understand, the exact same 5 powers of Shiva are explained by Kashmiri Shaiva siddhAnta by Abhinav Gupta / Swami Lakshman joo

Shiva hides where the event triggered by the 'spanda' (first vibration) gives rise to the ripple effect of stone thrown in a still lake. All Shaiva will explain that mAyA is limitation owing to measurement, whereas Shiva in unbound, but they do mention that the world that arises is an effect from shiva but is Shiva after all.

Why this world is not an illusion (maya) in Kashmir Shaivism

Why this world is not an illusion (maya) in Kashmir Shaivism
आश्यानं चिद्रसस्यौघं साकारत्वमुपागतम् ।

जगद्रूपतया वन्दे प्रत्यक्षं भैरवं वपुः ।।८।।

aśyānaṁ cidrasasyaughaṁ sākāratvamupāgataṁ

jagadrūpata yā vande pratyakṣaṁ bhairavam vapuḥ // 9 (8)

Cidrasasyaughaṁ aśyānaṁ; cidrasa the coagulation of cit rasa is the universe, it is the universe, it is not anything else [other] than God consciousness. It is just God consciousness but [it’s] coagulated consciousness. Coagulated means that it is just like, it becomes hard to experience.

SWAMIJI: It is not illusion.

Jagadrūpata yā vande, I bow to this universe, which is pratyakṣaṁ bhairavam vapuḥ, this Bhairava has come with formation. [This] Bhairava can be photographed and that Bhairava cannot be photographed which is . . .

JOHN: Transcendental.

DENISE: Transcendental.

SWAMIJI: That is transcendental.

So this is also Bhairava. You must not be afraid of this God consciousness, which is coagulated in the formation of saṁsāra. So you should not get afraid from saṁsāra. There is no question, there is no room, for fearing this universe. Because the universe, as long as it is concerned, it is the actual formation of God consciousness in a coagulated form. That is the only difference.

There is another sect known as Nath Sect, centered in Gorakhpur, which the former Kings of Nepal followed. The head of the Sect, Yogi Adityanath, is presently the Chief Minister of Indias largest state, Uttar Pradesh.

Yes, I am glad you brough up the Nath sampraday/

For those who are not familiar with this sampradaya,
The NavaNath , nAth sampradAya is a very austere tradition of dhyAna, jnAna and bhakti.
It was a planned project of Shri Gurudev DattAtreya (VishNu avatAr of treta yuga) and Shiva.. Datta and Shiva's project plan to uplift mankind and make it kinder, bore fruit when their prayer to the 9 NArAyan forms was heard to manifest as the 9 nAtha (Lords, Gurus, authorities, caretakers)
The nAtha except for Meena nAtha are said to be svayambhu - and they lived a very austere forest life of yoga dhyana sanyAsa sAdhanA.
With their tapas and yoga siddhi they touched a large population in all areas they wandered, through towns and villages of thiose times.

The nAths, who were amshas and combinations of NArAyan(VishNu) and Shiva, were VishNu-Shiva bhakta , jnAni and yogis.

The first nAth of the Datta(VishNu) - Shiva team project was MachhindranAtha. DattAtreya took him to Badrinath at a young age, gave Guru diksha and raised him as a austere yogi.
His disciple GorakshanAtha knew the world through his beloved teacher Machhindranath (A NArAyaN form), who was the world to him, father, mother, friend, Guru and all.
GorakshanAth was said to be a 'pratipUra' of Shiva/ Mahadev / Shankar / Bholenath
Gahininath , a form of antariksha nArAyaNa appeared (manifested) as a baby/child when 12 year old Goraksha's sanjeevani vidya gained perfection.
Machhindra left Gahini with a couple in the nearby village and took Goraksha to Girnar, to DattAtreya per orders of Guru DattAtreya.
He left him there and went on a mission assigned to him. Goraksha cried, but eventually was trained first at Girnar by DattAtreya Himself (where Datta, the 3 sandhyA Gayatris being Himself, took the Gayatri forms and gave darshan to the 12 year old Goraksha ) , and later sent to Kailash under the strict observation of Shiva Mahadev Himself,
When Gorakshanath was a grown adult of 24 his sadhanA was complete, and he went searching for his Guru , Machhindranath.
Meanwhile, as planned and instructed by Machhindranath, when Gahini was old enough , Goraksha nath gave him Guru deeksha (became his guru as per plan)

Jalindar nath appeared out of a yadnya agni kunda and was a form of Agnidev. He went into involunrary samAdhi dhyAna in the forests. The king and queen could not retain this adopted child nor could other foster parents. He left for the woods.
Jalindar nath's disciple was KAneefnAth, also vibrant and brilliant.

The nAthas major assignments by their param Gurus Datta and Shiva, were to eradicate blind faith and bad or malpractices like black magic by some rare tantrics in remote pockets of the area. and also spread peace, community , brotherhood and love, help the poor and drive away hardships of whole communities.

Later, as predicted by Machhindranath and Gurudev Datta, Gahininath went on to establish a relatively easier path of bhakti and became the Guru of Nivruttinath, oldest brother of Sant DnyAneshwar (author of the first Marathi version and commentary, poetry on Bhagavad Geeta). It was said that by blessings of Gahininath the entire VArkari sampradAya of Vitthal bhakti came into being. The 2 dinDi , one from Tukaram's Dehu and DnyAneshwar's ALandi go to Pandharpur on Ashadhi and Kartiki ekadashi on foot each year till date. A tradition that goes back hundreds of years, centuries, of making the'wAri' (trip on foot) to Pandharpur.

The story of the 9 nAtha (nava nArAyan -- nava nAth) is found in "NavanAth Bhaktisaar"
Most of the places the 9 naths' feet touched were in Maharashtra, Gujrath (Girnar), Himalayas (Kailash, foothills), Badrinath...

Throughout their avatAr kArya, they were assisted time and again by Adi Shakti in the form of Parvati, Durga, Lakshmi, Gayatri, Saraswati.

There is a Marathi TV serial , currently on air, in India -- "Gatha NavanAthAnchi" It is quite informative, and just watching it makes you peaceful.


|| Om namo nArAyaNArya ||
|| Om namo Bhagavate VAsudevAya ||
|| Om namah: ShivAya ||
|| sarva mangala mAngalye shive sarvArtha sAdhike sharaNye trayambike devi nArAyaNi namostute ||

 

[Valjean]

Yes.

 

[Notthedarkweb]

I think, despite your request for an Advaita view, it's fruitful to look a bit outside the Sankara tradition at other philosophical constructions of what the brahman is supposed to look like, if only to understand what exactly the Advaitins were arguing against.

So I'm picking a position that seems radically alien to the Advaita tradition in that it is 1.) nondualist (though I don't know if we can call it monist) like Advaita while being 2.) predicated on the notion of change. This tradition is the Kashmiri Shaiva tradition, especially as seen in the work of Utpaladeva and Abhinavgupta.

The Kashmir Saivas accept the Buddhist critique of the existence of the self as an unchanging substrate of experience, pointing explicitly to Dignaga's fifth century CE attack that if the self is unchanging, it cannot know anything. Think of it in the traditional Nyaya syllogistic form

Thesis: The unchanging self doesn't exist
Reason: In order to know, the self must be affected by cognitions
Example: Veridical cognition of a piece of rope as a piece of rope allows the agent as self to will action towards it, bringing about a change in their volitional attitudes towards the object .
Application: The self
Conclusion: The self cannot be unchanging substance.

But against the Buddhists, the Kashmir Saiva continue to argue that they cannot make sense of how memory occurs if they believe that the self is nothing but a conventional concept that is internally empty and contains nothing but cognitive moments in perpetual flux. The Buddhist response was this: memory is nothing but dispositional habits (samskaras) that carried over as self-reflexive cognitive moments (i.e no second-order cognition (reflection) is required for memory, since memory presents itself immediately as cognition cognition us) This doesn't satisfy Utpaladeva, and he responds: the Buddhist misses that we remember particular memories as having been the person to will the cognitive act in the memory in the past. If these memories are just moments, then this propositional attitude where the self forms a subject of the proposition would simply not make sense. Conclusion for Utpaladeva: the self must be an absolutely dynamic entity that is ever changing.

Getting more radical, Utpaladeva agrees with the Buddhist Vijñānavādin school that all cognitions are nothing but phenomenal manifestations of the activity of the consciousness, as opposed to the (Sautantrika) claim that they are representations of external objects. This makes their position absolute idealism. But unlike the Buddhists, who believe that perceptions are produced by latent traces that pre-exist them in an endless series of cognitions and in turn produce traces that produce further perceptions, Utpaladeva extends his analysis of the reality of the self to argue that these phenomenal manifestation are actually the creative activity of the self manifesting itself in the world in its intentionality towards objects. I.e in intentional states towards particular cognitive objects, the self realizes its own freedom through the creative act of cognition in the propositional form "I see this", "I do this", "I am imagining this" etc. Note the verb connector of the subject with rhe predicate in all these examples. In other words, Utpaladeva (as put by Abhinavgupta) argues that in our intentional states, the consciousness breaks away from itself by perceiving objects posited by it by its own activity and experiences freedom in its creativity (I.e. its ability to be other than itself.)

This absolute self-freedom, where every object in the phenomenal world is an object of dynamic self-consciousness, including other self-consciousnesses, has the obvious correlate: all is not-other-than-one. But if everything is dynamic, how can inert, stable objects exist? Here, the Kashmir Saivas use the concept of Maya, but in a way that's deeply different from how the Advaitins use it.

For the Kashmir Saivas, Maya is self-concealment of Siva in consciousness, a hiding away of his creative activity. But this doesn't mean that it is illusion or self-delusion. In fact, this self-concealment as an othering from the non-static, dynamic nature of the self's activity is a proof of its absolute freedom to legislate the world. In self-concealing, Siva reveals the most significant extent of his power, extending to even negation of himself.

Once again, this leads to an obvious corollary that's completely antithetical to Advaitin nondualism: moksha doesn't require sublation of ordinary cognitions into one super-cognition that's reflecting upon itself as the Brahman, but the freeing up of an abyssal, absolute freedom that rejects even dharma as static object. But this can only happen through the grace of Siva i.e if unitary self-consciousness decides to liberate itself in a particular individual manifestation through a creative act.


(Now that I see, another member above talks about Kashmir Saivism, and afaik most of what they say is correct. But I think, my explanation, provides necessary historical context and traces out the explanatory moves that develop the Kashmiri nondualist tradition in a way that's easier to understand.)