What is Prakriti and its 3 gunas?

[The Crimson Universe]

What is your understanding of Prakriti and its 3 gunas (from an Advatic perspective)? What are they actually? Are they something separate from Brahman?

I've read in Gita verse 27, that Brahman/Atman does no karma and only prakriti does.

Then Advaita says,
aham brahmasmi
and
sarvam khalvidam brahman.

... Now, if i go by the advaitic teachings, then even prakriti is brahman and not separate from it (sarvam khalvidam brahman). That means, all actions taking place in this jagat are performed by none other than Brahman. Even Swami Sarvapriyananda says in one of his videos, that it is none other than Brahman/Atman (the real you) who's doing all the karma.

So why do you think in Gita the Lord made a distinction between brahman and prakriti, saying one remains actionless and the other doesn't, when both of them are ONE and not separate?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That means, all actions taking place in this jagat are performed by none other than Brahman. Even Swami Sarvapriyananda says in one of his videos, that it is none other than Brahman/Atman (the real you) who's doing all the karma.

So why do you think in Gita the Lord made a distinction between brahman and prakriti, saying one remains actionless and the other doesn't, when both of them are ONE and not separate?

That is where people (and Swamis) falter. Brahman does not do anything. What you perceive as action is only an illusion. The Gunas exist only the the 'Vyavaharika' (Jagat - what is perceived with senses) and is created by Maya, i.e., effect of existence of Brahman. There is none of that in 'Paramarthika' (The Reality).

Gita, sometimes professes Advaita, at other times Dvaita. People give different explanations to its verses according to their own beliefs, but overall, the result is beneficial.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

That is where people (and Swamis) falter. Brahman does not do anything. What you perceive as action is only an illusion. The Gunas exist only the the 'Vyavaharika' (Jagat - what is perceived with senses) and is created by Maya, i.e., effect of existence of Brahman. There is none of that in 'Paramarthika' (The Reality).

Gita, sometimes professes Advaita, at other times Dvaita. People give different explanations to its verses according to their own beliefs, but overall, the result is beneficial.

Ok, so the percieved actions, worlds, gunas are all illusions and are product of Maya. But isn't this Maya also Brahman? After all there exists nothing other than Brahman. Then doesn't that make Brahman the doer?

Also could you or anyone else explain Paramarthika with an example. :=)

 

[Martin]

Ok, so the percieved actions, worlds, gunas are all illusions and are product of Maya. But isn't this Maya also Brahman? After all there exists nothing other than Brahman. Then doesn't that make Brahman the doer?

Also could you or anyone else explain Paramarthika with an example. :=)

I think of Maya as the manifestation of Brahman, and equivalent to Saguna Brahman. The world of appearances.
But you can't perceive a gold ring without gold, and you can't perceive a snake without a rope.
So perhaps it's "nothing exists without Brahman", rather than "nothing exists other than Brahman". Or, taking Brahman as consciousness, then "everything appears within (to?) Brahman".

Also, you can't have the sheaths (koshas) without Atman. But it is the koshas that perform actions, and not Atman.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I think of Maya as the manifestation of Brahman, and equivalent to Saguna Brahman. The world of appearances.
But you can't perceive a gold ring without gold, and you can't perceive a snake without a rope.
So perhaps it's "nothing exists without Brahman", rather than "nothing exists other than Brahman". Or, taking Brahman as consciousness, then "everything appears within (to?) Brahman".

Also, you can't have the sheaths (koshas) without Atman. But it is the koshas that perform actions, and not Atman.

Thanks for the beautiful explanation. :=)

 

[SalixIncendium]

Prakriti is a concept in the dualistic astika Samkhya school of philosophy, where it (prakriti) contrasts with Purusha. Advaita is nondualistic school of philosophy, and posits that prakriti is an illusory appearance in Brahman.

While closely related to Samkhya,[88] the Advaita Vedānta tradition rejects the dualism of Samkhya purusha (primal consciousness) and prakriti (nature), instead stating that Brahman is the sole Reality,[75][89] "that from which the origination, subsistence, and dissolution of this universe proceed."[90] Samkhya argues that Purusha is the efficient cause of all existence while Prakriti is its material cause.[90] Advaita, like all Vedanta schools, states that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause. What created all existence is also present in and reflected in all beings and inert matter, the creative principle was and is everywhere, always.[91]

Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia​

 

[Valjean]

Ok, so the percieved actions, worlds, gunas are all illusions and are product of Maya. But isn't this Maya also Brahman? After all there exists nothing other than Brahman. Then doesn't that make Brahman the doer?

Also could you or anyone else explain Paramarthika with an example. :=)

Maya is not an existing thing, or stuff or energy form. It's an abstract concept, an idea.

Brahman is not a doer. At that level of Reality, nothing is done, nothing "happens," There are no things or actions, no time, distance or movement.

Actions, gunas and things done are part of a different, less unified reality/perception. If one feels the need for a Doer-in Chief, there's the concept of Ishwara to play with, and, if one enjoys this, the world may be further subdivided into subcategories like the trimurti, and -- this being Hinduism -- into endless colorful permutations.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ok, so the percieved actions, worlds, gunas are all illusions and are product of Maya. But isn't this Maya also Brahman? After all there exists nothing other than Brahman. Then doesn't that make Brahman the doer?

Also could you or anyone else explain Paramarthika with an example. :=)

Like light is an effect of a glowing bulb, maya is the effect of existence of Brahman. Bulb glows even if its glass is coated with dust and the effect is altered. The dust on the bulb may cause shadows.
Physical energy, electricity is a good example, IMHO.

 

[ameyAtmA]

What is your understanding of Prakriti and its 3 gunas (from an Advatic perspective)? What are they actually? Are they something separate from Brahman?

I've read in Gita verse 27, that Brahman/Atman does no karma and only prakriti does.

Then Advaita says,
aham brahmasmi
and

From a utility perspective,

Absence of mAyA = prakruti handled perfectly, with right buddhi, right action

Brahman is that which supplies sentience to prakruti
When prakruti controls the one in the prakruti, there mAyA is present.
When the one in prakruti simply witnesses prakruti, but does not fight it , then also mAyA cannot conquer them as they are standing apart.

As long as the one in prakruti is allowing prakruti to take over, there mAyA dances.

Say you had a very busy week and ate some cake with frosting because it was there and you were hungry but did not want to think about eating right. Kept doing this all week and gained weight.
=> this is mAyA

However, if the one to whom prakruti is given, is alert, aware and does not let mAyA control them. they are closer in Brahman.

Pure = alipta , like a Lotus Leaf, untouched by the surrounding prakruti
=> either is in charge and does not let mAyA win
OR
stays dettached
OR
simply witnesses and does not get disturbed by ups and downs of prakruti.

The One 100% free of mAyA, that does not let mAyA control , rather is the caaretaker and controller of mAyA, is mAyA-patI = Ishwar.

sarvam khalvidam brahman.

... Now, if i go by the advaitic teachings, then even prakriti is brahman and not separate from it (sarvam khalvidam brahman). That means, all actions taking place in this jagat are performed by none other than Brahman. Even Swami Sarvapriyananda says in one of his videos, that it is none other than Brahman/Atman (the real you) who's doing all the karma.

So why do you think in Gita the Lord made a distinction between brahman and prakriti, saying one remains actionless and the other doesn't, when both of them are ONE and not separate?

Yes, sarvaM khalvidaM Brahman from the angle of source and substratum, but sorting Brahman and Prakruti is for purity. Like going from subtlest and lightest to densest.
The 3 guNa also are a range and spectrum that lies at the last 1/4th of the bigger spectrum, tamoguNa being at the far end.

This sorting is for those that have the potential to transcend and make the journey from dense to subtle to beyond.
Walls, chairs, trees do not have the potential to transcend, Brahman in humans does have that potential.

Bhagavad Geeta is for humans. It is for application, not idealistic knowledge.

श्रीभगवानुवाच |
BG 14.22 प्रकाशं च प्रवृत्तिं च मोहमेव च पाण्डव |
न द्वेष्टि सम्प्रवृत्तानि न निवृत्तानि काङ् क्षति || 22||
BG 14.23 उदासीनवदासीनो गुणैर्यो न विचाल्यते |
गुणा वर्तन्त इत्येवं योऽवतिष्ठति नेङ्गते || 23||
BG 14.24 समदु:खसुख: स्वस्थ: समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चन: |
तुल्यप्रियाप्रियो धीरस्तुल्यनिन्दात्मसंस्तुति: || 24||
BG 14.25 मानापमानयोस्तुल्यस्तुल्यो मित्रारिपक्षयो: |
सर्वारम्भपरित्यागी गुणातीत: स उच्यते || 25||

Shri BhagavAn KRshNa said, "When either of Light/illumination (wisdom), passion and temptation increase over the others,
one who does not hate/get dissappointed nor keeps expectations for these qualities to either arise or disappear, is dispassionate (udAseen) and indifferent, undisturbed [on their appearance or disappearance]",
and understands that this is the play, interaction of 3 guNas alone...

One who is undisturbed and equanamous
-- towards favourable/unfavourable situations,
-- towards stone, mud and gold
-- towards likes and dislikes
-- towards honour and dishonour
-- towards friend and foe
and who has given up all planned resolves ,
is said to have transcended the 3 modes of nature."


-----------------
ParamArtha = param artha = highest purpose , state or truth , and it is to stay dettached, alipta, beyond, untouched by this triguNAtmak prakRuti, so as to not be bound by it.
PAramArthika satya = highest truth or truth that transcends mundane to throw light on the ultimate purpose of being.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then why coin an additional word, 'Prakruti'. Just Brahman is enough.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Then why coin an additional word, 'Prakruti'. Just Brahman is enough.

To show the variation, gradation - there is prakruti within Brahman
BG7 pearls of thread strung on thread
pearls/beads = prakruti manifest,
thread running thru' the pearls = actual pure Brahman.

PLEASE NOTE: pearls OF THREAD strung on THREAD.
So there is only THREAD

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman has nothing else in it, which is other than it. Brahman is not a composite.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Brahman has nothing else in it, which is other than it. Brahman is not a composite.

BG7 pearls of thread strung on thread
pearls/beads = prakruti manifest,
thread running thru' the pearls = original pure Brahman.

PLEASE NOTE: pearls OF thread strung on thread.
So there is only thread

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then talk of the thread, not of pearls. What you consider pearls are but illusions.
'mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat ..'

 

[ameyAtmA]

From a utility perspective,
Absence of mAyA = prakruti handled perfectly, with right buddhi, right action
...
This sorting is for those that have the potential to transcend and make the journey from dense to subtle to beyond.
Walls, chairs, trees do not have the potential to transcend, Brahman in humans does have that potential.

Bhagavad Geeta is for humans. It is for application, not idealistic knowledge.

but, one thing is for certain - RF is an illusion

 

[Valjean]

Then why coin an additional word, 'Prakruti'. Just Brahman is enough.

Why coin an additional word?! This is Hindu doctrine we're talking about!
Everything must be divided, subdivided, then subdivided again. Everything must be dissected and classified.
EG: How many gods did Yajnavalkya say there were in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You tell me. I do not know. Was not Yajnavalkya an advaitist? Otherwise, how could he say 'Aham Brahmasmi'?

 

[Valjean]

You tell me. I do not know. Was not Yajnavalkya an advaitist? How could he say 'Aham Brahmasmi'?

It was just an example of Hinduism's tendency to over-analyze, dissect and categorize.

 

[Viswa]

What is your understanding of Prakriti and its 3 gunas (from an Advatic perspective)? What are they actually? Are they something separate from Brahman?

I've read in Gita verse 27, that Brahman/Atman does no karma and only prakriti does.

Then Advaita says,
aham brahmasmi
and
sarvam khalvidam brahman.

... Now, if i go by the advaitic teachings, then even prakriti is brahman and not separate from it (sarvam khalvidam brahman). That means, all actions taking place in this jagat are performed by none other than Brahman. Even Swami Sarvapriyananda says in one of his videos, that it is none other than Brahman/Atman (the real you) who's doing all the karma.

So why do you think in Gita the Lord made a distinction between brahman and prakriti, saying one remains actionless and the other doesn't, when both of them are ONE and not separate?

Hi Greg. You have raised very deep questions, which I admire.

Yes. As you said, Prakriti is not different from Brahman. It is ONE. All forms and Names are appearances of Brahman. It's like Sakthi, a form of Shiva.

Now, as you asked, I will give a detailed view of my profile picture, although I'm not good enough in this.

There, outside the Bubble, is Brahman (Nirguna- without gunas/forms/appearances, beyond space, beyond time). Inside the Bubble, is reclining Vishnu, is Saguna Brahman (with Gunas - with Prakriti, space-time).

When the concept of time and space is introduced, only then Brahman can be said as 'doer' and anything. (i.e. Sat-chit-Ananda is cause/doer, Prakriti is the doing not Purusha, Play of three Gunas).

But, beyond time, Brahman cannot be said "existence" also cannot be said as "Non-existence". If Brahman cannot be said as "Existence", how can IT be called as "Doer"??

 

[Viswa]

Bhagavad Geeta is for humans. It is for application, not idealistic knowledge.

श्रीभगवानुवाच |
BG 14.22 प्रकाशं च प्रवृत्तिं च मोहमेव च पाण्डव |
न द्वेष्टि सम्प्रवृत्तानि न निवृत्तानि काङ् क्षति || 22||
BG 14.23 उदासीनवदासीनो गुणैर्यो न विचाल्यते |
गुणा वर्तन्त इत्येवं योऽवतिष्ठति नेङ्गते || 23||
BG 14.24 समदु:खसुख: स्वस्थ: समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चन: |
तुल्यप्रियाप्रियो धीरस्तुल्यनिन्दात्मसंस्तुति: || 24||
BG 14.25 मानापमानयोस्तुल्यस्तुल्यो मित्रारिपक्षयो: |
सर्वारम्भपरित्यागी गुणातीत: स उच्यते || 25||

Shri BhagavAn KRshNa said, "When either of Light/illumination (wisdom), passion and temptation increase over the others,
one who does not hate/get dissappointed nor keeps expectations for these qualities to either arise or disappear, is dispassionate (udAseen) and indifferent, undisturbed [on their appearance or disappearance]",
and understands that this is the play, interaction of 3 guNas alone...

One who is undisturbed and equanamous
-- towards favourable/unfavourable situations,
-- towards stone, mud and gold
-- towards likes and dislikes
-- towards honour and dishonour
-- towards friend and foe
and who has given up all planned resolves ,
is said to have transcended the 3 modes of nature."


-----------------
ParamArtha = param artha = highest purpose , state or truth , and it is to stay dettached, alipta, beyond, untouched by this triguNAtmak prakRuti, so as to not be bound by it.
PAramArthika satya = highest truth or truth that transcends mundane to throw light on the ultimate purpose of being.

Thank you for bringing up this verse (play of three gunas) ameyatma.

Shri BhagavAn KRshNa said, "When either of Light/illumination (wisdom), passion and temptation increase over the others,
one who does not hate/get dissappointed nor keeps expectations for these qualities to either arise or disappear, is dispassionate (udAseen) and indifferent, undisturbed [on their appearance or disappearance]",
and understands that this is the play, interaction of 3 guNas alone...

This has very very very very deep meaning.

Both actions of "praying and feeling God always", and "Kama,Krodha Moham" - is all three gunas too. Every actions is play of three gunas. You know about Sattvic (Knowledge,Devotion to God), Rajas and Tamas Right?

Now, say Ameyatma/Viswa had forgotten Narayana/Krishna and go towards "Kama, Krodha, Moham". Will Ameyatma/Viswa - regret/be disturbed of such kama/krodha/moham?. Ameyatma might claim he don't think/seek anything other than Narayan 24/7. But, to Viswa or to a normal human being, it's not that way. Gunas dominate one another in impressions/thoughts/sensual perceptions.

But, the question here is, if Tamas Dominates Sattva or Rajas Dominate Sattva, do one remains indifferent? Even in temple and in Red light area and in War and in other religious places (like Mosque/Church/Buddhist ashram) and in seeing other one's beliefs and in seeing other cults and in seeing other threads even in seeing Viswa's posts, one remains indifferent to whatever action (no Raga-Dvesha)? If one (who claims himself as "Dvaitin") sees a post of another one (who claims himself "advaitin"), is he remains indifferent and undisturbed- when advaitin mocks dvaitin or vice versa?? Why one has to claim himself as "Dvaitin" or "advaitin",Raga to one and Dvesha to another? Why to proclaim one sage/teacher under "Dvaitin" or "advaitin" or "Vedantists" or etc., eveything are play of three gunas, so why to categorize a 'person/soul'??

As, everything is play of three Gunas, even devotion/etc., any action in this world or other, is bound to three gunas, so one remains undisturbed and dispassionate to any action (No Raga to devotion, No dvesha to Kama/Krodha/Moham or Vice Versa)? Does one remains indifferent - Like in my profile pic the Narayan remains undisturbed outside the Bubble, for the play happening inside the Bubble (the reclining Vishnu inside the bubble has duty to bring back dharma in world, like demi-gods, but I speak about Maha Vishnu outside the Bubble/Space-time - undisturbed of any act - even while reading this post)?