My rough idea on creation

[Jainarayan]

But in Gita chapter 2, verse 24, the Lord says that Atman (the small portion of the infinite spirit) is all-pervading, omnipresent and most importantly it is immovable.

If it is all-pervading & omnipresent then what is the need for it to travel from one location to another. Isn't it present everywhere.

Again, If it is immovable then how can it pass or travel from a dead body to a fresh physical body? IMO what really travels is the subtle/causal body, not the Atman.
Let me know what you think about it. :=)

Here's ch.2, verse 23 and 24

Weapons cannot pierce this (the eternal essence), fire cannot burn this, water cannot wet this, and wind cannot dry this. (v23)

This is uncleavable, incombustible, and cannot be wetted or dried. It is eternal, all-pervading, stable, immovable and everlasting. (v24)

That can all be true. However, He was allaying Arjuna's fears that by fighting, he (Arjuna) would be killing. Sri Krishna says no, Arjuna is only killing the body, which Arjuna is duty-bound by birth to do. Also consider the Bhagavad Gita virtually screams Advaita for some, Vishishtadvaita for others (my leaning in reading the Gita), or Achintyabhedabheda (not unlike Vishishtadvaita) for others. Vishishtadvaita says the "individual soul" is to Brahman what light and heat are to the sun; sparks, smoke, light, heat, ashes to a flame; waves to the ocean; etc. They are the same in quality but not quantity, inseparable from the source, unable to exist alone. If it is some form of Advaita, then Sri Krishna is talking about the ātman, a portion of Brahman that manifest, just as in the above examples. That's how I read it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But in Gita chapter 2, verse 24, the Lord says that Atman (the small portion of the infinite spirit) is all-pervading, omnipresent and most importantly it is immovable.
If it is all-pervading & omnipresent then what is the need for it to travel from one location to another. Isn't it present everywhere.
Again, If it is immovable then how can it pass or travel from a dead body to a fresh physical body? IMO what really travels is the subtle/causal body, not the Atman.
Let me know what you think about it. :=)
Here's ch.2, verse 23 and 24

Weapons cannot pierce this (the eternal essence), fire cannot burn this, water cannot wet this, and wind cannot dry this. (v23)
This is uncleavable, incombustible, and cannot be wetted or dried. It is eternal, all-pervading, stable, immovable and everlasting. (v24)

Understand this important point clearly, Greg.
That is what we Advaitists say about Brahman. All-pervading and omni-present because there is none else. If we accept that something else exists, then that will mean that Atman is not all-pervading. As you will perhaps agree, many a times the words Brahman and Atman are interchangeable. Atman does not mean 'atma' (soul). These things are not clearly understood unless one goes into non-duality, where everything is crystal clear.

Sarva-gatah
सर्वगत adj. sarvagata ubiquitous
सर्वगत adj. sarvagata prevalent in all respects
सर्वगत adj. sarvagata being everywhere
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Immovable because, even the dead body also is none other than Brahman. Is Atman not 'sarva-gatah'? How can we exclude the dead body?
If we do, then the question will arise that what is the dead body composed of? Duality causes us to think that a living body is different from a dead body.

Note: in BG 2.24, the verse says 'ayam'. Now, 'ayam' means 'this' and not 'this soul'. We need to understand what Krishna is pointing at. Addition of the word 'soul' has been done by Hare-Krishnas, because it suits them. They have done such things repeatedly in their translation of Gita.

To member @Jainarayan , there cannot be an individual soul, since Atman is uncleavable, 'acchedyoyam'.

 

[Jainarayan]

To member @Jainarayan , there cannot be an individual soul, since Atman is uncleavable, 'acchedyoyam'.

Right, which is what I believe Sri Krishna is pointing to when referring to the “soul”. It is Brahman, indivisible. So, it cannot be harmed, changed... affected in any way. Even in Vishishtadvaita and Achintyabhedabheda it is not independent, though some might still think it is. I think that’s what you saw me referring to. If it were separate, that would negate the Mahāvākyas, especially aham brahmāsmi and tat twam asi. The idea of an individual soul smacks of Abrahamic theology, which I do not hold with.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Note: in BG 2.24, the verse says 'ayam'. Now, 'ayam' means 'this' and not 'this soul'. We need to understand what Krishna is pointing at.

So by 'ayam' Krishna is speaking of Brahman/Atman (the infinite all-pervading spirit) and not the soul (subtle/causal body). Am i right?

 

[ajay0]

It is said Lord Shiva informed Ma Parvati about creation in the holy Kedar and that Parvati slep halfway through, and she did not get this sacred secret revealed to her thus. Whereas 2 doves listened to this tale attentively and that they live eternally in these caves of Kedar.

I have thought about creation, and of karmas. How does a newly created soul ever have karmas?

I have deduced to myself that there are varying degrees of ego attached to the soul, even at the time of creation. So based on the type and intensity of ego, the quality of the soul is determined and a suitable amount and type of Maya is assigned to the soul. Based on the maya assigned, the soul gets karmas from the outset.

If you have good ideas on creation, kindly share. If anybody finds this post offensive, I'll stop here.

This theorising has some similarities to the sankhyan philosophy.

But yes, the ego and karmas one has shows the aggregate influence of Maya on oneself.

Intense desires in the form of Raag-Dvesh or cravings-aversions, can bring one to the demonic or inauspicious state, as it greatly agitates the mind leading to negative energies.

Freedom from cravings for pleasure and aversion for pain, and focussing on need-based duties or work, is sattvic and auspicous and ensures the mind is equanimous and happy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, IMHO, yes. Others may differ. Hinduism has no problem with differences of opinion. We are used to it.
ayam: Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't Mahat a kind of vast cosmic storehouse of universal intelligence?

Spot on.

@Viraja
So is it fair to say that this cosmic storehouse of intelligence (Mahat) is the same thing as what advaitins call Brahman?
After all Brahman is also considered universal consciousness or intelligence.
What are your thoughts? :=)

 

[ajay0]

The subtle body is the vehicle of desires (vasanas) and vital forces such as prana. It constitutes the ego or false self and has a beginning and an end.

It is distinct from Brahman which is pure consciousness and static, and blissful and eternal by its own nature.

The elimination of vasanas by spiritual exercises leads to cessation of identification with the subtle body and identification with the Self or pure consciousness instead.

 

[Viraja]

@Viraja
So is it fair to say that this cosmic storehouse of intelligence (Mahat) is the same thing as what advaitins call Brahman?
After all Brahman is also considered universal consciousness or intelligence.
What are your thoughts? :=)

Greg,

In my understanding, this 'mahat buddhi' is not the same as Brahman. It is like a conglomeration of all souls in their dormant/uncreated form dwelling just as the inanimate things do with the Brahman. Then Maya acts on the Brahman creating perturbed state of existence for the brahman and upon which, he allows this pool of dormant jeevas to emanate.

This is just my understanding, not claiming this is what it is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Greg Levenski said:
"So is it fair to say that this cosmic storehouse of intelligence (Mahat) is the same thing as what advaitins call Brahman?
After all Brahman is also considered universal consciousness or intelligence."
Aup.:
Advaitins come in all shades. Not fair to me. There is no evidence of a cosmic storehouse of intelligence.
I do not consider Brahman to be universal consciousness or intelligence.

Perhaps Brahman is like a wire, 'Wire Theory', 'Æther Theory ('non-comoving inertial frame' in the words of Albert Einstein - Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia). Action at one one end (put the switch on) causes a reaction at the other end (the bulb glows).
And the speed of the passage of impulse is equal to the speed of light. Just a guess.
Did the 'wire' 'do' anything other than to allow the current to pass? And furthermore, can the wire stop the movement of the current? The answer is 'no'.
To allow the current to pass is the wire's inherent property, no intelligence required. Brahman explained.
I would request @Polymath257 (@Meow Mix too, since they are physicists) to comment on this.

 

[ajay0]

Here is an article on Mahat.

Mahat - Theosophy Wiki

It appears that Mahat is linked to the sankhyan philosophy which is essentially dualistic in character.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

@Viraja
So is it fair to say that this cosmic storehouse of intelligence (Mahat) is the same thing as what advaitins call Brahman?
After all Brahman is also considered universal consciousness or intelligence.
What are your thoughts? :=)

Mahat is mentioned in the Katha Upanishad 1.3.15

In this verse and also in Shankara's commentary, Brahman is above Mahat. Mahat simply means big or great.

 

[ajay0]

Brahman is pure consciousness also known as Self or Turiya or Awareness, and I have seen masters equating it with intelligence (distinct from intellect ) or cosmic intelligence as well.

This is because the quality of our perception is limited by the quality of our consciousness, pure or impure (due to numerous cravings and aversions.)

Pure consciousness or Awareness is capable of perceiving the situation as it is, without preconceived notions, or likes and dislikes instilled by social conditioning or past prejudices distorting the perception.

Every ego is a master of selective perception and distorted interpretation.~ Eckhart Tolle

Awareness means grasping life just the way it is, without contamination by mental projections. - Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Pure consciousness or Awareness is capable of perceiving the situation as it is

So do you think this pure universal consciousness Brahman, needs to manifest as a subtle body (which contains manas, buddhi, prana, ego etc.) in order to witness, think and percieve?
... Or can Brahman do all the witnessing, thinking, perceiving without the need of garments like subtle and physical bodies?

... In other words, does the "air outside the pot" has a mind/intelligence of ITS own, and can IT do all kind of mental activities without putting on the garments/sheaths?

 

[ajay0]

So do you think this pure universal consciousness Brahman, needs to manifest as a subtle body (which contains manas, buddhi, prana, ego etc.) in order to witness, think and percieve?
... Or can Brahman do all the witnessing, thinking, perceiving without the need of garments like subtle and physical bodies?

Imo, this is of the domain of Shakti in yoga philosophy, and prakriti as opposed to purusha in Sankhya philosophy.

This universal consciousness or intelligence is obviously conscious and static in its own right as Nirguna Brahman, and at the same time as dynamic Shakti would manifest as life in differentiated forms characterized by matter, energy, space, time and causation as part of a self-perpetuating mechanism similar to the changing but repetitive cycle of seasons .

... In other words, does the "air outside the pot" has a mind/intelligence of ITS own, and can IT do all kind of mental activities without putting on the garments/sheaths?

Obviously, consciousness is to a large part intelligence in itself.

The concept of the Avatar has been mentioned in the Gita. It can be seen as a diagnosis of an aberration in the system ( marked as Adharma) followed by Saguna Brahman in form to correct the flaw in question and restore the cosmic harmony or balance.

This would mean a universal intelligence in operation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As you know I do not subscribe to pure universal consciousness. Brahman is not that. Brahman is neither interested in being a witness, nor it thinks, IMHO. What will it do with witnessing, perceiving, thinking, when it is uninvolved?
Brahman is not a being that it can be labeled as intelligent or dumb. Intelligence, with variations, belongs to beings.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

The Gita says the non-dual Brahman/Atman is saakshi(witness).

 

[ajay0]

The Gita says the non-dual Brahman/Atman is saakshi(witness).

This is true. The Gita emphasizes the Sakshi or witness aspect of Brahman in this saying...

I am the Supreme Goal of all living beings, and I am also their Sustainer, Master, Witness, Abode, Shelter, and Friend. I am the Origin, End, and Resting Place of creation; I am the Storehouse and Eternal Seed. BG 9.18:



Similarly the Shvetashvatara Upanishad also emphasizes the witnessing aspect of Brahman....


"The Lord is hidden in the hearts of all.
The eternal witness, pure consciousness,
He watches our work from within, beyond
The reach of the gunas (attributes of mind)." (Shvetashvatara Upanishad Sl. VI.11, translated by Eknath Easwaran)





Sakshi (Witness) - Wikipedia