|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 24 2010 : 4:35:58 PM
|
quote:
Nirvanashatkam [Six Stanzas on Nirvana]
By Adi Sankara
Translated by Swami Vivekananda
Mano Budhya Ahankara Chithaa Ninaham,
Na Cha Srothra Jihwe Na Cha Graana Nethrer,
Na Cha Vyoma Bhoomir Na Thejo Na Vayu,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham 1
I am neither the mind, nor the intellect, nor the ego, nor the mind-stuff;
I am neither the body, nor the changes of the body;
I am neither the senses of hearing, taste, smell, or sight,
Nor am I the ether, the earth, the fire, the air;
I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute, Bliss Absolute -
I am He, I am He. (Shivoham, Shivoham).
Na Cha Praana Samgno Na Vai Pancha Vaayur,
Na Vaa-Saptha Dhathur Na Va Pancha Kosa-ha,
Na Vak-Pani Padam Na Chopa-Stha Payu,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham 2
I am neither the Prana, nor the five vital airs;
I am neither the materials of the body, nor the five sheaths;
Neither am I the organs of action, nor object of the senses;
I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute, Bliss Absolute -
I am He, I am He. (Shivoham, Shivoham).
Na Me Dwesha Ragov Na Me Lobha Mohou,
Madho Naiva Me Naiva Matsarya Bhava,
Na Dharmo Na Cha-artha Na Kamo Na Moksha,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham 3
I have neither aversion nor attachment, neither greed nor delusion;
Neither egotism nor envy, neither Dharma nor Moksha;
I am neither desire nor objects of desire;
I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute, Bliss Absolute -
I am He, I am He. (Shivoham, Shivoham).
Na Punyam Na Paapam Na Soukhyam Na Dukham,
Na Manthro Na Theertham Na Veda-Na Yagna,
Aham Bhojanam Naiva Bhojyam Na Bhoktha,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham 4
I am neither sin nor virtue, neither pleasure nor pain;
Nor temple nor worship, nor pilgrimage nor scriptures,
Neither the act of enjoying, the enjoyable nor the enjoyer;
I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute, Bliss Absolute -
I am He, I am He. (Shivoham, Shivoham).
Na Mruthyur Na Sankha Na Me Jathi Bhed-ha,
Pitha Naiva Me-Naiva Matha-Na Janma,
Na Bhandhur Na Mithram Gurur-Naiva Sishya,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham 5
I have neither death nor fear of death, nor caste;
Nor was I ever born, nor had I parents, friends, and relations;
I have neither Guru, nor disciple;
I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute, Bliss Absolute -
I am He, I am He. (Shivoham, Shivoham).
Aham Nirvi Kalpo Nirakara Roopo,
Vibhuth-wascha Sarva-thra Sarvendri-yanaam,
Na Cha Sangatham Naiva Mukthir Na Meya
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham 6
I am untouched by the senses, I am neither Mukti nor knowable;
I am without form, without limit, beyond space, beyond time;
I am in everything; I am the basis of the universe; everywhere am I.
I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute, Bliss Absolute -
I am He, I am He. (Shivoham, Shivoham).
When I first read Nirvanashatakam it blew my mind. Especially when I read the powerful sanskrit words in their rhythm. It still blows my mind when I read it.
But quite interestingly what Adi Shankara denies vehemently as not his nature in stanza 1 of Nirvanashatakam was accepted as his nature by Krishna on Gita, chapter 7.
Let's look at Krishna's words.
quote:
Gita 7-4
bhumir apo ‘nalo vayuh, kham mano buddhir eva ca,
ahankara itiyam me, bhinna prakrtir astadha
"Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies."
Krishna accepts that earth, water, fire, ether, wind, mind, intellect and ego are also part of his nature. He calls them his material energies. He claims to be many other things also that Shankara rejected as not himself. Krishna later amends these statements by saying these are his lower nature and goes on to talk about his higher nature. His higher nature sounds similar to Advaitic oneness. Nevertheless Krishna accepted these 5 elements, mind, intellect and ego as also part of his nature, while Shankara out-rightly rejected them as not himself. There is no room for any compromise when Shankara pours out the powerful words while established in the highest advaitic state of oneness.
I tend to favor the Krishna's flavor of higher and lower nature. Krishna makes some concessions (for a reason??). I feel that th concessions make very good sense for those who are not yet fully reveling in the state of Satchitananda. While I appreciate the Nirvanashatakam, I feel that Krishna's statement gives a more balanced perspective since we perceive this world as solid and real through our sense organs. (vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch).
I would love to hear others perspective on this contradiction.
Regards,
Ram.
|
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 29 2010 12:01:31 AM |
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Sep 24 2010 : 7:28:35 PM
|
Is Krishna in the BG, when he speaks those words about his lower nature, operating from Oneness, or as a God? Its all so mysterious, depending on who you talk to, Krishna is either a manifested God, or others would say he was even higher then Brahma (at least thats what someone in the Krishna Consciousness movement told me).
Then again, Krishna could have just been expressing the Samkhya philosophy that sees a duality of Parusha and Prakriti, and since he is personified creation, he expresses both.
Ah, Religion, what a tangled web. I hope science makes some progress, but even today many things are still vague, like Time.
|
 |
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2010 : 02:16:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
I would love to hear others perspective on this contradiction.
There is no contradiction.
Sankra is saying it while being still.
Krishna is saying it while dancing.
 |
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2010 : 09:15:06 AM
|
Manigma has put it nicely. 
I am not an expert in scriptures, however, I will try to explain this from what I have experienced and from what I have read.
The first is a path of a jnanayogi (Shivoham), the second is a path of a bhaktiyogi (Dasoham).
Depending on what one is drawn to, one follows either one of those paths. Both will lead to the same truth.
The two approached... "I am Shiva (god/creator)" - Shivoham and "I am servant (God is the ultimate)" - Dasoham are just two sides of the same coin.
In Shivoham... I am Shiva... I am God... nothing is outside of me... it is all me (Shiva). Hence I am not the ether, the earth, the fire, the air; I am Shiva.
Dasoham, where I am the servant and God is my master and everything is God. "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies" (speaking from Krishna's POV... so all of that is him.. God... Arjuna is the Dasi and Krishna is the God. Krishna is asking Arjuna to surrender to him and in the Geeta, Krishna shows Arjuna how a devotee (dasi) can go from being dasoham to soham by following his teachings)..
When we finally come to experience awareness.. there is no "I" and "God"...
The person who believes the first is a (atman) jnanayogi and the other is a bhakti yogi. The key is to surrender to something. A bhakti yogi surrenders to his/her ishta and believe nothing is possible by us.. everything is in our Ishta's hands.. (dasoham).. such a Yogi will finally realize s/he is looking for god with his eyes... there is no ishta outside of him/her (soham). One who believes s/he is god (Shivoham) will see the universe emanates from and dissolves into them... there is no outside and inside of them.
Both will see the same thing but the way they reach this point is by surrendering inward or outward. |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2010 : 1:22:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
I would love to hear others perspective on this contradiction.
There is no contradiction.
Sankra is saying it while being still.
Krishna is saying it while dancing.
Very nice! Indeed the dance, Leela. But there is still a subtle contradiction. In one, there is acceptance of duality and in the other there is no room for that. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 25 2010 2:18:24 PM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2010 : 1:34:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shanti
The two approached... "I am Shiva (god/creator)" - Shivoham and "I am servant (God is the ultimate)" - Dasoham are just two sides of the same coin.
In Shivoham... I am Shiva... I am God... nothing is outside of me... it is all me (Shiva). Hence I am not the ether, the earth, the fire, the air; I am Shiva.
Dasoham, where I am the servant and God is my master and everything is God. "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies" (speaking from Krishna's POV... so all of that is him.. God.
Dear Shanti,
While I appreciate your input and the differentiation between Sivoham and Dasoham, I don't think Krishna spoke anywhere in the Gita from the stand point of "I am servant (God is the ultimate) - Dasoham". In all of Gita, Krishna talked from the supreme state as the creator of the universe. Shankara denied the existence of the world itself by claiming he is not all of those things. But Krisha acknowledged the existence of the world/elements as also part of his lower nature.
Regards,
Ram. |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Sep 28 2010 : 09:17:40 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
I would love to hear others perspective on this contradiction.
There is no contradiction.
Sankra is saying it while being still.
Krishna is saying it while dancing.
Very nice! Indeed the dance, Leela. But there is still a subtle contradiction. In one, there is acceptance of duality and in the other there is no room for that.
So what do you prefer? To remain still or to dance?
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 28 2010 : 09:37:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
So what do you prefer? To remain still or to dance?
I know this was directed to Ram but I felt compelled to share the perspective from here.....
Being still and dancing are different sides of the same coin.... Being still leads to dancing....dancing leads to stillness. They are inseperable.
Love!
 |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 28 2010 : 10:57:32 AM
|
Hi Rkishan and all,
quote:
Nevertheless Krisha accepted these 5 elements, mind, intellect and ego as also part of his nature, while Shankara out-rightly rejected them as not himself.
You are right, it is a contradiction. Simply put, Sri Adi Shankara was still existing in dualism (dvaita). He was identified with one aspect of existence, the unmanifest (also sometimes referred to as primordial awareness or Purusha), which he referred to as "I... ", and he rejected the other aspect of existence, the created, the manifest (Prakriti). So he was still clearly living in duality (dvaita).
Krishna had gone one step further on, and knew himself to be both the unmanifest and the manifest, the uncreated and the created, both Purusha and Prakriti. Krishna had gone beyond the state of dvaita into the state of advaita, or unity.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Sep 28 2010 1:09:51 PM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 28 2010 : 11:53:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Rkishan and all,
quote:
Nevertheless Krisha accepted these 5 elements, mind, intellect and ego as also part of his nature, while Shankara out-rightly rejected them as not himself.
You are right, it is a contradiction. Simply put, Sri Adi Shankara was still existing in dualism (dvaita). He was identified with one aspect of existence, the unmanifest (also sometimes referred to as primordial awareness or Purusha), which he referred to as "I... ", and he rejected the other aspect of existence, the created, the manifest (Prakriti). So he was still clearly living in duality (dvaita).
Krishna had gone one step further on, and knew himself to be both the unmanifest and the manifest, the uncreated and the created, both Purusha and Prakriti. Krishna had gone beyond the state of dvaita into the state of advaita, or unity.
Christi
Christi,
I am confused by your post and was wondering if you got it backwards. I thought Shankara was talking from the stand point of Advaita. In Advaita as in the Vedanta of the Upanishads, the existence of this manifested world (Prakriti) itself is denied. The manifested world (Prakriti) that we perceive as real, is many times compared to the dreams that appear and disappear in the state of sleep. The Prakriti or manifested world is completely denied as non-existent in advaita and vedanta, if I understand it right. It is said that the manifested world is projected by our senses, similar to how our mind can project the dream worlds while we sleep. We easily understand that the dream world did not exist -- after we wake up -- and was just a projection of our mind. But to understand that the manifested world (Prakriti) is also a dream experienced or projected through the senses and to wake up from that dream is explained as enlightenment in the upanishads. So, Shankara claims he is none of the aspects of the Prakriti or the manifested world (since Prakriti or the manifested world that we see as real did/does not exist in the first place!) So, there remains only ONE who is the Purusha. Therefore it is called advaita, since it accepts the reality of the only one truth, the Brahman.
But Krishna was acknowledging the Prakriti (the manifested world), claiming that it was part was his lower nature, and the Purusha to be his higher nature. Krishna came down from the stand point of the highest Upanishads and Vedanta, where the manifested world is out-rightly rejected as non-existent, and claimed as just a projection of the senses. He accepts the validity of the manifested world (Prakriti), but claims it is of his lower nature (The moment he brought lower and higher, we are not in the realm of advaita). So, he is talking from the stand point of dvaita, right? He accepts both Purusha and Prakriti. So, there is more than ONE, hence dvaita or duality or the plurality of the manifested world.
PS: In another part of Gita, Krishna himself makes statements that is contradictory to his own acceptance of the reality of Prakriti.
Regards,
Ram |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 29 2010 12:48:08 AM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 28 2010 : 11:55:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
I would love to hear others perspective on this contradiction.
There is no contradiction.
Sankra is saying it while being still.
Krishna is saying it while dancing.
Very nice! Indeed the dance, Leela. But there is still a subtle contradiction. In one, there is acceptance of duality and in the other there is no room for that.
So what do you prefer? To remain still or to dance?
I would like to be still. But, I feel that one has to go through the cosmic dance to get to the stillness.
Regards,
Ram. |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Sep 29 2010 : 02:36:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
I would like to be still. But, I feel that one has to go through the cosmic dance to get to the stillness.
The moon dancing on the water is seen in the water, but it is caused by the moon in the sky and not by the water.
- Nisargadatta
Be still, dance!
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 29 2010 : 09:19:23 AM
|
quote:
Christi,
I am confused by your post and was wondering if you got it backwards. I thought Shankara was talking from the stand point of Advaita. In Advaita as in the Vedanta of the Upanishads, the existence of this manifested world (Prakriti) itself is denied. The manifested world (Prakriti) that we perceive as real, is many times compared to the dreams that appear and disappear in the state of sleep. The Prakriti or manifested world is completely denied as non-existent in advaita and vedanta, if I understand it right. It is said that the manifested world is projected by our senses, similar to how our mind can project the dream worlds while we sleep. We easily understand that the dream world did not exist -- after we wake up -- and was just a projection of our mind. But to understand that the manifested world (Prakriti) is also a dream experienced or projected through the senses and to wake up from that dream is explained as enlightenment in the upanishads. So, Shankara claims he is none of the aspects of the Prakriti or the manifested world (since Prakriti or the manifested world that we see as real did/does not exist in the first place!) So, there remains only ONE who is the Purusha. Therefore it is called advaita, since it accepts the reality of the only one truth, the Brahman.
But Krishna was acknowledging the Prakriti (the manifested world), claiming that it was part was his lower nature, and the Purusha to be his higher nature. Krishna came down from the stand point of the highest Upanishads and Vedanta, where the manifested world is out-rightly rejected as non-existent, and claimed as just a projection of the senses. He accepts the validity of the manifested world (Prakriti), but claims it is of his lower nature (The moment he brought lower and higher, we are not in the realm of advaita). So, he is talking from the stand point of dvaita, right? He accepts both Purusha and Prakriti. So, there is more than ONE, hence dvaita or duality or the plurality of the manifested world.
Regards,
Ram
Hi Ram,
Yes, it sounded like it was the wrong way round didn’t it. I’ll try and explain more clearly.
As you know, Adi Shankara taugh what is called Advaita Vedanta. For Adi Shankara, the world was an illusion (as you say), but not non-existent, just illusory. For him the only true reality was Brahman, and the atman (soul of the individual) is, in it's highest reality (it's enlightened state), one with Brahman. For Adi Shankara, as the creation is illusory, Brahman, being absolutely real, is attributeless. In other words, for him, Brahman alone is truly existent, the world is illusory (but existent on some level), and the realized soul is merged with Brahman. This is what he called advaita, the unification of the atman with the attributeless Brahman, with all that is ultimately real. That is why he made the satement that you quoted at the top of the page: "I am neither the mind, nor the intellect etc..."
But what is usually referred to as advaita is not really advaita, because actually there is still separation. "I am this, I am not that...", "I am pure being, I am not this body...etc.". It is still in the realm of dvaita, two things, one thing identified with, the other denied.
The next level (higher level) of realization takes us to the place where everything is included and known to be a part of the Self. Creation is seen to be flowing continuously from the unborn, and is not separate from it in any way. In truth, Prakriti and Purusha are one. So the dualities are accepted, and united. This is the true meaning of advaita, non-duality, unity, oneness.
Adi Shankara represents the first stage of the journey, the going out with the denial of the world as illusion (neti, neti). Sri Krishna, represents the second stage, the coming back with the acceptance of all things as the Self. The first is a journey of bliss, the second is a journey of love. The state that Sri Krishna taught from is sometimes referred to as the realization of Brahman with attributes. In other words the soul (atman) is merged with Brahman who is all (both form and formless).
This knowing, that Brahman is not only the principle and creator of all there is, but is also the sum totality of the universe and its phenomena, is the highest teaching of the Upanishads, and it is this that Krishna taught.
You can see the way in which apparent duality is merged into non-duality in this verse of the Mudaka Upanishad:
“Om- That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. Then through knowledge, realizing the infinitude of the infinite, it remains as infinite alone.”
"That supreme Brahman" is the attributeless transcendental Brahman (Purusha), "this conditioned Brahman" is the phenomenal universe (Prakriti).
quote:
PS: In another part of Gita, Krishna himself makes statements that is contradictory to his own acceptance of the reality of Prakriti.
Remember that the Bagavad Gita is a training manual, not an essay on the nature of reality. Krishna is speaking to Arjuna who is still lost in the dream of body identification. So he is taking him from there on a long journey to enlightenment. On the way he sometimes stresses some aspects of realization, and at other times, other aspects. At first he says to Arjuna (paraphrasing): “You are not this…, you are not that…”, leading him towards realization of the attributeless Brahman. In the end he says (again paraphrasing): “I am all”.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Sep 29 2010 09:23:37 AM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 29 2010 : 3:26:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
[quote]
Christi,
The next level (higher level) of realization takes us to the place where everything is included and known to be a part of the Self. Creation is seen to be flowing continuously from the unborn, and is not separate from it in any way. In truth, Prakriti and Purusha are one. So the dualities are accepted, and united. This is the true meaning of advaita, non-duality, unity, oneness.
Christi
Christi,
I still think that there is a confusion here between our understanding. You have mentioned "Creation" in the above post. According to Mandukya Upanishad, there was no "Creation" and there was no creator, (No "Easwara" also). Nothing was ever "Created". Again, compare this to analogy of the dream. In the dream there was a whole world. Was this dream world ever created? It was never created and it never existed. Similarly Prakriti or the manifested world was never created and never existed.
This complete denial of the existence of Prakriti or the manifested world is considered as the highest and only truth. This concept may be very difficult or even impossible to comprehend due to the limitations of the mind and intellect, because we perceive the manifested world through our senses. What happens to Prakriti or the manifested world during the state of "deep sleep"? It is non-existent during the state of 'deep sleep', right? How can it be real if it is not existent in 'deep sleep'? (Note: This is not my logic. This is what is presented in Mandukya. My intellect seems to agree (sometimes?) with this logic)
Mandukya was regarded as highest amongst the upanishads by many. I was told by a Vedantic teacher from Chinmaya mission, that this highest truth --that there was no creation or creator-- was revealed only in 4 places in all of the scriptures of Sanatana Dharma. Interestingly Bhagavat Gita is not one of them.
1. Mandukya Upanishad, 2. Ashtavakra Gita (Conversation between the great sage Ashtavakra and King Janaka), 3. Yoga Vasishta (Rama's conversation with Vasishta) and the 4. Atma Bodha, Tattva Bodha or Viveka Choodamani by Adi Shankara (Not sure which one of the three?)
I think when Shankara wrote the Nirnanashatakam, he is talking from this Highest Vedantic/Advaitic oneness. Just Brahman, there was never any creation or creator. So, how can I be this and that, when they don't even exist in the first place?
Krishna by acknowledging Prakiriti is talking from the standpoint of duality. The moment we acknowledge the reality of the manifested world (Prakriti), we are in the dual or multiple mode. I am not saying one of these philosophies is right and the other is wrong. Though my intellect appreciates the Shankara and Mandukya's, "no creation, no creator, no world" theory, in my current state of existence, I actually favor Krishna's duality until the "no creation" theory becomes my own practical experience instead of the mere intellectual knowledge as it is right now.
Regards,
Ram. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 29 2010 4:22:53 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 29 2010 : 6:43:14 PM
|
Hi Ram,
quote:
I still think that there is a confusion here between our understanding. You have mentioned "Creation" in the above post. According to Mandukya Upanishad, there was no "Creation" and there was no creator, (No "Easwara" also). Nothing was ever "Created". Again, compare this to analogy of the dream. In the dream there was a whole world. Was this dream world ever created? It was never created and it never existed. Similarly Prakriti or the manifested world was never created and never existed.
This complete denial of the existence of Prakriti or the manifested world is considered as the highest and only truth. This concept may be very difficult or even impossible to comprehend due to the limitations of the mind and intellect, because we perceive the manifested world through our senses. What happens to Prakriti or the manifested world during the state of "deep sleep"? It is non-existent during the state of 'deep sleep', right? How can it be real if it is not existent in 'deep sleep'? (Note: This is not my logic. This is what is presented in Mandukya. My intellect seems to agree (sometimes?) with this logic)
I can't see any mention in the Mandukya Upanishad of there being no Creator and no Creation, or no Easwara for that matter. In the first stanza it mentions the Gods. Brahman is mentioned as having four quarters, and in the first and second quarters, external objects and internal objects are known (2nd and 3rd stanzas). The fourth quarter is described as Turya in which everything is resolved, which is essentially Purusha. I don't see any denial of the existence of Prakriti, after all, what would be the external and internal objects which are known by the first two quarters of Brahman?
The essential teaching of the Upanishads with regards to Creation was that there is a Creator (Brahma) and a Creation. This is summed up in the first verse of the Mundaka Upanishad:
"Out of the infinite ocean of existence arose Brahma, first-born and foremost among the gods. From him sprang the universe, and he became its protector. The knowledge of Brahman, the foundation of all knowledge, he revealed to his first-born son, Atharva."
But here comes the essential (and often confusing point): the Creator and the Created are not two seperate things. They are Brahman.
quote:
Mandukya was regarded as highest amongst the upanishads by many. I was told by a Vedantic teacher from Chinmaya mission, that this highest truth --that there was no creation or creator-- was revealed only in 4 places in all of the scriptures of Sanatana Dharma. Interestingly Bhagavat Gita is not one of them.
1. Mandukya Upanishad, 2. Ashtavakra Gita (Conversation between the great sage Ashtavakra and King Janaka), 3. Yoga Vasishta (Rama's conversation with Vasishta) and the 4. Atma Bodha, Tattva Bodha or Viveka Choodamani by Adi Shankara (Not sure which one of the three?)
The Ashtavakra refers directly to Ishwara, the Creator. It is here in verse 11-2:
"Iishwaraha sarvanirmaataa na ih anya iti nishchayii
antargalit sarvaashaha shaantaha kva api na sajjate
There is nothing other than Ishwara, the Creator of all things. Having understood/ascertained this, all desires within have dropped off, one is peaceful, not attached to anything."
Creation is also mentioned in the Yoga Vasistha:
"Creation is what one sees and is aware of, and this is within oneself."
In Vedanta (including the Upanishads) the world is not described as being non-existent, but as illusory. It is the apparent independent existence of the phenomenal universe (and of the individual jivatma) which is illusory. This is much like the way a wave does not have any independent existence with regards to the ocean. It is the ocean before, during and after it has been a wave. Advaita (non duality) is not something which happens when the universe suddenly dissapears. It is something which is known, when we know the universe exists within us, and we are not other than That.
As it says in the Upanishads:
"All this, is Brahman"
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Sep 29 2010 6:44:22 PM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 29 2010 : 9:06:58 PM
|
Christi,
You mentioned that the Creator and the Created are essentially the same. I agree with this and there are many statements in Gita and other places that will support this argument.
You seem well versed in Vedanta. But, I still stick to the point that the "manifested world" that we perceive in the jagrad awasta "waking state" is denied out-right and described as non-existent in Vedanta and in those 4 scriptures. When I mentioned Easwara, I think I might have confused what I was saying with samkhya philosophy. In Samkhya as you might know there is no Easwara, but only Purusha and Prakriti. We may also be using the work Prakriti in different meanings.
My statements about the denial of "Creation" (the world that we perceive in jagrad awasta "waking state) in Mandukya were based on Adi Shankara's commentary on Mandukya Upanishad with the Gaudapada's Karika which was translated to English by Swami Nikhilananda of the Ramakrishna Ashram. I should have mentioned Gaudapadas' Karika and Shankara's commentary earlier. Because my statements were based on that. Mandukya by itself may not have the statements that I mentioned. I know that it is very short and profound. If I understand right, Gaudapada's Karika is widely accepted as the key that unlocks the subtle meanings of Mandukya Upanishad. Many scholars and even Swami's further rely on Shankara's commentary on top of the karikas to fully understand and comprehend the Upanishads. So, when I said Mandukya, I automatically assumed the Gaudapada's karika and Shankara's commentary as also part of it. That was a mistake on my part. You may be talking about the direct words as described on Mandukya, and as per your direct comprehension of the upanishadic words.
I lack the competency to directly comprehend and understand the vedanta, even though I might understand the meaning of some or many of the of the Sanskrit words. So, Normally I rely upon Shankara or other qualified teacher's commentary, which is normally further translated or commented by other great teachers. So, when I said, "Mandukya Upanishad", I assumed the Gaudapada's karika and Adi Shankara's commentary as also part of it. To me, they are all one. I believe that Upanishads are cryptic and very few have the qualifications/key to unlock the complete meaning of the words that look simple at the first sight.
"There never was, there never is, and there never will be any Creation", is clearly explained on "The Mandukya Upanishad with Gaudapada's Karika and Shankara's commentary - Translated by Swami Nikhilananda". In my opinion Swami Nikhilananda has done a great translation in this work.
I can find the statements about "No creation" from other scriptures that I mentioned also. I need some time to respond to your post if I have to quote the exact sources.
This might take some time, but I can respond bit by bit as I find the sources and the statements. There might be a possibility that we both are in same page, but debating over some semantics. When I said Prakriti, I strictly meant the world that we perceive on the jagrad awasta or "waking state". My intellect believes that this world that we perceive in jagrad awasta or "waking state" is similar to the dream world. Like how the Svapna awastha or "dream world" disappears when we awaken into the state of "jagrad awasta", the "jagrad awasta" is also a dream from which we need to wake up into "Turiya". If the world of the "jagrad awasta" truly exists, then where is it when we are in Susushpi or the state of "deep sleep"?
Thanks for the participation and the kind responses to my statements and questions.
Regards,
Ram. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 29 2010 9:39:20 PM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2010 : 09:01:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
If the world of the "jagrad awasta" truly exists, then where is it when we are in Susushpi or the state of "deep sleep"?
You should be more concerned about where were you before birth and where you will be after death.
Did you know about Shankara and Krishna in your past life?
And will you remember them in your next birth?
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2010 : 12:55:00 PM
|
Hi Ram,
quote:
But, I still stick to the point that the "manifested world" that we perceive in the jagrad awasta "waking state" is denied out-right and described as non-existent in Vedanta and in those 4 scriptures.
I have no doubt that if you want to find evidence to support the idea that the created universe is non-existent, you could find it in the Vedanta scriptures (and in quite a lot of other scriptures also). But likewise, if you wanted to find evidence to support the idea that the created universe is existent, you could also find it in the Vedanta scriptures and other scriptures. But is it a useful exercise? That would be my question. It doesn't affect the nature of the created universe, one way or the other.
What is important to realize is that these scriptures are guidebooks. They often sound a lot like revelation, but actually they are guidebooks. They were not composed for the enlightened, after all the enlightened don't need to hear them; they were composed for spiritual seekers to help them on the path. The four texts that you are referring to are high-level guidebooks. They are concerned with very esoteric aspects of the path, and especially with the attainment of full nirvikalpa samadhi. In full nirvikalpa samadhi, the created universe does not exist. What is more it is seen to have never existed. It is a state of samadhi beyond space and time, so it is beyond the waking, dream and deep sleep states. In the Mandukya Upanishad which you mentioned it is referred to as Turya.
This form of Samadhi is often referred to as the highest attainment in Yoga, and as enlightenment itself. But is it? It is certainly an important stage on the journey, which is why those texts give it so much value. But such an exalted state doesn't last forever. At some point, we come back to this world, and to this life. Then we can see that this creation is an aspect of existence, but it is seen in a new light. As a wave dancing on an infinite ocean of joy, as much an aspect of the divine as the absolute, uncreated Brahman.
Here is a definition of enlightenment given in the main lessons by Yogani:
"The ultimate destination is enlightenment. What is enlightenment? A state of balanced union between our two natures: pure bliss consciousness, and our sensory involvement on this physical earth. That is the definition of yoga, and the destination of all religion."
http://www.aypsite.org/35.html
But the question is, how can you find out the truth of all this for yourself? That's the important thing. It can't be found by reading the scriptures, because they can only be understood on the level of the mind, and the mind is not a sufficient instrument to comprehend reality. The mind is a fabrication of dreams and can only weave more dreams. It is only through spiritual practice that we can go beyond the mind and know the truth for ourselves. Then we can write our own scriptures, and we can choose if we want to write about the world existing, or not existing, or something else entirely. It will depend more on what is useful for others.
All the best,
Christi
|
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2010 : 2:02:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
If the world of the "jagrad awasta" truly exists, then where is it when we are in Susushpi or the state of "deep sleep"?
You should be more concerned about where were you before birth and where you will be after death.
Did you know about Shankara and Krishna in your past life?
And will you remember them in your next birth?
Going from jagrad (awake) into swapna (dream) and Sushupthi, (deep sleep) and coming back to jagrad is itself birth and death in many ways.
We are being born and die every day when our consciousness moves from one state into the other. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 30 2010 2:07:41 PM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 30 2010 : 2:04:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I have no doubt that if you want to find evidence to support the idea that the created universe is non-existent, you could find it in the Vedanta scriptures (and in quite a lot of other scriptures also). But likewise, if you wanted to find evidence to support the idea that the created universe is existent, you could also find it in the Vedanta scriptures and other scriptures. But is it a useful exercise? That would be my question. It doesn't affect the nature of the created universe, one way or the other.
I agree. It may not be an useful exercise. For that matter, I some times wonder about the usefulness of the jnana marga itself, before one is completely ready for that.
Intellectually, the logic that there was "No creation" and it is similar to the dream, appeals to my mind. As you pointed out, it is still just at the mind level. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 30 2010 2:09:35 PM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2010 : 05:46:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
Going from jagrad (awake) into swapna (dream) and Sushupthi, (deep sleep) and coming back to jagrad is itself birth and death in many ways.
Yes, but on death you will forget everything permanently.
Your contradictions, your knowledge, your worries... everything.
Even Ram.
The old pond;
A frog jumps in -
Plop!
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Frog_Poem
This is Turiya.
But its not the end!
The baby has yet to open its eyes.
|
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2010 : 08:33:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
Yes, but on death you will forget everything permanently.
Says who? How do you know that I will forget everything permanently on death? I disagree!!
PS: Death is another change in the state of consciousness. We retain our impressions. |
Edited by - rkishan on Oct 01 2010 08:40:46 AM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2010 : 08:55:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
PS: Death is another change in the state of consciousness. We retain our impressions.
So what impressions did you retain?
|
|
|
|
sagebrush
USA
292 Posts |
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Oct 01 2010 : 1:46:01 PM
|
There is no death and no life. Both are illusions. This is impossible to understand intellectually but you can get a sense of it from the position of dreamless sleep.
During dreamless sleep/death it is impossible to intellectually understand there is any other state than none existence but if you could concieve of that state you would need to become existent.
This is schrodingers cat experiment turned inside out.Understanding the same experiment from the Cat's perspective is far harder to do.
You cannot conceive of nothing, it is beyond imagination when you already appear to be something, as difficult to conceive being something when you are nothing.
There is a mathematical theory that goes -infinity + infinity = 0
that seems simple enough in out world of existence, but throw the idea a bit of a curve and consider that zero may infact be the total of all numbers. All numbers would then be small compared to zero and zero would represent totality.
You can see how this compares to both creator and created, both ends of the same circle. |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Oct 02 2010 : 10:51:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
PS: Death is another change in the state of consciousness. We retain our impressions.
So what impressions did you retain?
The one's that I am living now. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Adi Shankara's Nirvanashatkam & Gita contradiction
