Karma in Advaita

[The Crimson Universe]

From an Advaitic perspective, who set in motion the law of karma?

Is it Saguna Brahman
or
Nirguna Brahman?

Did the upanishadic sages like Uddalaka, Yajnavalkya or later scholars like Gaudapada, Shankara etc. comment on the origin of "law of karma"?

Many of you will probably say, that since this vyavaharika/jagat/waking-state, is merely an illusion/dream when seen from the absolute point of view, there comes no question of rebirth, death, karma, etc.
Yes, its true that when seen from an absolute POV, its like a dream. Unless we wake up to the ultimate reality it will continue as a dream.

... But here i would like to add something, based on what i've read in some modern day Advaita web articles.

The vyavaharika satya or jagat along with its karma, rebirth etc. is not completely mithya. Its not completely true either.

As long we live in this world and keep on believing this dream to be true... the jagat, rebirth, law of karma will keep on operating for us. This means they're not completely mithya.

When advaitins say it is mithya, they simply mean its not what it seems ... (i.e. this jagat along with its varieties is only an apparent reality superimposed on the formless, birthless, karma-less brahman).

In advaita, the jagat is neither completely mithya nor completely true. Its just an apparent, transactional and impermanent reality, and not the ultimate reality.

My point is, if jagat is not totally mithya, then law of karma (which operates in this jagat) is also not totally mithya.
So my question is, who set in motion the law of karma?

 

[Orbit]

Does there need to be a "who" to set it in motion? Perhaps it is just a natural process.

 

[George-ananda]

In my view, Karma like everything else is in the everchanging universe is a component of the plot in the play/drama of Brahman.

Karma is another component in the play of Brahman in which He separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. Karma eventually promotes the return to Himself. Karma is a learning tool for self-correction.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

In my view, Karma like everything else is in the everchanging universe is a component of the plot in the play/drama of Brahman.

Karma is another component in the play of Brahman in which He separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. Karma eventually promotes the return to Himself. Karma is a learning tool for self-correction.

Where does the personal God Ishwara fits in here? I mean, does he manifest with the rest of the jivas and jagat, when the Impersonal Brahman separates during act 1?

 

[George-ananda]

Where does the personal God Ishwara fits in here? I mean, does he manifest with the rest of the jivas and jagat, when the Impersonal Brahman separates during act 1?

I’m thinking Ishwara is really in Shiva traditions and isn’t really used in pure non-dual Advaita philosophy. Ishwara is like God in Abrahamic traditions and allows for thinking in a somewhat dualistic sense which works best for many people.

 

[ajay0]

From an Advaitic perspective, who set in motion the law of karma?

Is it Saguna Brahman
or
Nirguna Brahman?

My point is, if jagat is not totally mithya, then law of karma (which operates in this jagat) is also not totally mithya.
So my question is, who set in motion the law of karma?

Where does the personal God Ishwara fits in here? I mean, does he manifest with the rest of the jivas and jagat, when the Impersonal Brahman separates during act 1?

Lingam means “Leeyate Gamyate iti Linga”, (from whom the whole Creation 'comes out' and in whom that entire creation 'merges' at the end). Just as “Om” is the primordial vibration from which all other sounds emanate, so do all other forms and shapes emerge from the Shivalingam at the time of creation and return back to it at the time of cosmic dissolution. This is what the yogic philosophy states.


In most scriptures you can see the likes of the avatars Rama, Krishna, Parashurama, Vishnu worshipping the Shivalingam.

Jyotirlingam is an another name for the Shivalingam with 'Jyoti' meaning light in sanskrit.

It is possible that the law of karma comes into operation when the multiverse emerges from the Shivalingam at the time of creation, and this operation of karma ceases when the multiverse with its forms and shapes return back to the Shivalingam at the time of dissolution.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

From an Advaitic perspective, who set in motion the law of karma?

No one. This is common for all three mainstream Vedanta doctrines -

The Atma is eternal. There isn't a point in time when it suddenly came into being or a point in time when it will vanish.

The implication of the above is it was not created. Therefore, logically there is no point in time when the Atma began to accrue Karma. It follows, Karma is beginningless (Anadi) too. And if it is beginningless, there is no entity (Ishwara) that set it into motion. To provide a similar example, the Veda is considered to be beginningless. Again, the implication is, there can be no author (Apaurusheya) - not even Ishwara.

Some more context on the above. In ancient India (~5th Century BCE), there were some bold Darsanas that had no reliance on Ishwara as an agent. The system of Karma was beginningless and it just existed without agency - a system where cause led to effect. An eternal, *unmanned* system that was accepted by all beliefs of that time (including Buddhism). The Nyaya Darsana for example simply held that the cause produces the effect. But by medieval times (a thousand years later), Nyaya changed to become theistic. In ongoing differences with Buddhism, Nyaya modified its stance to introduce agency. In this new system, the cause still produced the effect, but the system is powered by Ishwara's potency.

Bhakti schools generally adopt the same belief. They believe Karma is beginningless and has its own rules, but Ishwara powers the system and can intervene and alter outcomes (for example, granting Moksha).

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Do Advaitins on RF agree, that Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are not different but the same?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do Advaitins on RF agree, that Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are not different but the same?

Saguna Brahman is an appearance. Nirguna Brahman with attributes, qualities, and form.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Saguna Brahman is an appearance. Nirguna Brahman with attributes, qualities, and form.

And does this appearance of Saguna Brahman manifest and unmanifest on the infinite background before and after the vyavahairika creation? ... like how both jivas & jagat, manifest and unmanifest in the vyavaharika reality? ... or does Saguna Brahman always remain manifested, even when the jivas and jagat becomes unmanifested in each kalpa?

 

[SalixIncendium]

And does this appearance of Saguna Brahman manifest and unmanifest on the infinite background before and after the vyavahairika creation? ... like how both jivas & jagat, manifest and unmanifest in the vyavaharika reality? ... or does Saguna Brahman always remain manifested, even when the jivas and jagat becomes unmanifested in each kalpa?

Saguna Brahman appears only in vyavaharika.

In Paramartika, there is only Nirguna Brahman.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Saguna Brahman appears only in vyavaharika.

In Paramartika, there is only Nirguna Brahman.

Ok.

I'm trying to understand the gradual step by step process of manifestation in Advaita, like which shape/form comes first.

If in Advaita the ultimate reality is infinite, formless, substratum on which all forms appear, then is it right to assume that it is Nirguna Brahman (with its power maya) who first manifests the personal gods Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Devi etc. .... and then it is these personal gods who later manifests the temporary universe with all its jivas?
Is this how all things appear one after another?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok.

I'm trying to understand the gradual step by step process of manifestation in Advaita, like which shape/form comes first.

If in Advaita the ultimate reality is infinite, formless, substratum on which all forms appear, then is it right to assume that it is Nirguna Brahman (with its power maya) who first manifests the personal gods Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Devi etc. .... and then it is these personal gods who later manifests the temporary universe with all its jivas?
Is this how all things appear one after another?

What appears in vyavaharika does so as a result of Maya.

There is no progression of manifestation. The appearance of progression is also a result of Maya.

“Power” and “manifestation” are misleading terms, and, IMO, only reinforce avidya.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@SalixIncendium So Ishwara that appears in Vyavaharika, which is a result of maya, is simply like a mirage (an incorrect knowledge of the ultimate formless reality) and that such a deity holds no special powers of creation, sustenance, destruction or granting boons?

 

[SalixIncendium]

@SalixIncendium So Ishwara that appears in Vyavaharika, which is a result of maya, is simply like a mirage (an incorrect knowledge of the ultimate formless reality) and that such a deity holds no special powers of creation, sustenance, destruction or granting boons?

That is my understanding, yes.

And that is for me. I understand that will not be everyone’s view. If it was, the mere existence of these deities would be rather pointless, no?

 

[Aupmanyav]

My point is, if jagat is not totally mithya, then law of karma (which operates in this jagat) is also not totally mithya.
So my question is, who set in motion the law of karma?

Jagat (the way we perceive reality) is totally mithya, maya. But the reality is hidden behind the illusion.
Dharma, karma and its results exist in Vyavaharika. There is no dharma, karma or its results in Paramarthika.

Do Advaitins on RF agree, that Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are not different but the same?

We are the 'saguna brahman', as also what all we perceive.

And does this appearance of Saguna Brahman manifest and unmanifest on the infinite background before and after the vyavahairika creation? ... like how both jivas & jagat, manifest and unmanifest in the vyavaharika reality? ... or does Saguna Brahman always remain manifested, even when the jivas and jagat becomes unmanifested in each kalpa?

When I die, the molecules of my body will join other living and non-living thins (the 'bhutas' - what comes into existence). Nama-roopa will change. But there is no guarantee that 'Saguna Brahman' will always remain manifest - there may be a non-existence phase about which we do not know, Maha Pralaya.

If in Advaita the ultimate reality is infinite, formless, substratum on which all forms appear, then is it right to assume that it is Nirguna Brahman (with its power maya) who first manifests the personal gods Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Devi etc. .... and then it is these personal gods who later manifests the temporary universe with all its jivas?
Is this how all things appear one after another?

You know that I am an atheist and a maverick. So, what I say does not hold for a massive majority of Hindus. But do we have any evidence of existence of Vishnu, Shiva or Devi?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Do Advaitins on RF agree, that Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are not different but the same?

What is the argument in support of difference?

Shankara did not write much about comparing the two. You should read his commentary on Sutra 3.2.14 where he describes the principles by which one should interpret Shruti on differentiated and undifferentiated Brahman.

Ok.

I'm trying to understand the gradual step by step process of manifestation in Advaita, like which shape/form comes first.

If in Advaita the ultimate reality is infinite, formless, substratum on which all forms appear, then is it right to assume that it is Nirguna Brahman (with its power maya) who first manifests the personal gods Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Devi etc. .... and then it is these personal gods who later manifests the temporary universe with all its jivas?
Is this how all things appear one after another?

What is the Sanskrit word you are translating as manifest?

Check Shankara's commentary on Sutra 1.1.10. In countering the Sankhya school, he says the Universe is created by consciousness (Chetana) and this is the message of all the Upanishads (Taittiriya 2.1, Chandogya 7.26.1 and Prashna 3.3).

In Vedanta, there is discussion of the intelligent cause (Nimitta karana) and material cause (Upadana Karana). For example, in the case of a pot, the potter is the intelligent cause and clay is the material cause. The view of Shankara is Brahman is both the intelligent cause (as consciousness) and the material cause of the Universe.

Again, in my opinion, you should understand -

1) The role of time in Advaita
2) The role of consciousness and how it powers everything (including the concept of itself).
3) Consciousness creates time.

If you connect these dots, many of your questions will be answered. Your current view is more in line with other schools of Vedanta (and also Christianity, Islam).

 

[SalixIncendium]

But do we have any evidence of existence of Vishnu, Shiva or Devi?

Well, there are the countless images of them, so they have clearly appeared real to many.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, that is true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. he says the Universe is created by consciousness (Chetana) ..

What kind of 'Chetana'? There is a human, animal or even a vegetation 'Chetana'. That is basically a chemical / electric 'Chetana', though that too depends on the 'Chetana' of Brahman. The 'Chetana' of Brahman is different*. Much work needs to be done on that.

* Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, Unification (physics) - Wikipedia, Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, Fifth force - Wikipedia