Reality vs. Unreality

[3bob]

Ok, here is a quoted sentence that is not the final truth according to Vedic teachings, thus it is a claim that can only be made outside of Sanatana Dharma, "The bald truth, the final truth, is ‘No world has ever been created’."  So again this is not of Vedic teachings related to creation (preservation and destruction) or emanation...or that which springs from the Self as mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad.

[Marblehead]

8 minutes ago, 3bob said:

"The bald truth, the final truth, is ‘No world has ever been created’." 

If no worlds have ever been created where did they come from.  And please don't tell me "magic".

 

[3bob]

4 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

If no worlds have ever been created where did they come from.  And please don't tell me "magic".

 

 

I'd say that the quote quoted posits that your point is pre-empted... 

Edited August 26, 2018 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

5 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

I'd say that the quote quoted posits that your point is pre-empted... 

But I am here and you responded so you acknowledge that I am here.  Speech and one are two.  

 

And please don't tell me that my chair does not exist.

 

[3bob]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

But I am here and you responded so you acknowledge that I am here.  Speech and one are two.  

 

And please don't tell me that my chair does not exist.

 

 

you are also pretty fast moving around on the board or at the website, thus you "go far and also return" 

Edited August 26, 2018 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, 3bob said:

 

you are also pretty fast moving around on the board or at the website, thus you "go far and also return" 

Yep.  I do that.  I still move pretty good in my old age as long as I don't have to get up, out of my chair.

 

 

[3bob]

it's time for coffee isn't it?  (mine is from yesterday which doesn't really exit but it still good enough anyway)

[Marblehead]

Just now, 3bob said:

it's time for coffee isn't it?  (mine is from yesterday which doesn't really exit but it still good enough anyway)

You got ESP!!!

 

I just picked up my cup and it is empty.  But there's more on the warmer and mine is this morning's coffee.

 

 

[3bob]

Just now, Marblehead said:

You got ESP!!!

 

I just picked up my cup and it is empty.  But there's more on the warmer and mine is this morning's coffee.

 

 

ok we agree, break time, hurah...

[neti neti]

3 hours ago, 3bob said:

Ok, here is a quoted sentence that is not the final truth according to Vedic teachings, thus it is a claim that can only be made outside of Sanatana Dharma, "The bald truth, the final truth, is ‘No world has ever been created’."  So again this is not of Vedic teachings related to creation (preservation and destruction) or emanation...or that which springs from the Self as mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad.

 

Quote

Once these terms (‘world’ and ‘real’) are analysed and understood, some of the more perplexing conundrums that characterise advaitic creation theories can be seen in a new light. If a world is ‘seen’, it is created and sustained by the ignorance of the ‘seer’; it is not a creation of the Self. In these circumstances, it is still possible to say that in the Self creation has ‘never happened’. But what of the world that ‘appears’ to the jnani? This may seem to be semantic hair-splitting of an extreme kind, but ‘appearance’ does not mean ‘creation’. Ajata means ‘not caused’ or ‘not created’. It doesn’t necessarily mean ‘not existing at all’. The world of the jnani is an uncaused and uncreated appearance within the Self; the world of the ajnani, on the other hand, is a creation of the mind that sees it.

 

[neti neti]

3 hours ago, 3bob said:

Ok, here is a quoted sentence that is not the final truth according to Vedic teachings, thus it is a claim that can only be made outside of Sanatana Dharma, "The bald truth, the final truth, is ‘No world has ever been created’."  So again this is not of Vedic teachings related to creation (preservation and destruction) or emanation...or that which springs from the Self as mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad.

 

So, once having looked over the above dissection of what Ajata actually means, would you still conclude the same?

 

Aside from this, I'll ask that you actually explain the above bolded claim. And please do so without ignoring, 'the end of the Vedas', that great utterance of which I've affectionately appropriated as my username.

 

P.S. You have still not provided one quote for us to work with.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

6 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

So, once having looked over the above dissection of what Ajata actually means, would you still conclude the same?

 

Aside from this, I'll ask that you actually explain the above bolded claim. And please do so without ignoring, 'the end of the Vedas', that great utterance of which I've affectionately appropriated as my username.

 

P.S. You have still not provided one quote for us to work with.

 

 

umm, I did not bold the quote from your text submission, I quoted it with quotation marks so maybe we are not on the same page?

Btw. you are sounding kind of coy to me? 

 

Anyway, this is not rocket science  namely creation, preservation, destruction, veiling and unveiling grace -  (which happens... ) 

[neti neti]

12 hours ago, 3bob said:

 

umm, I did not bold the quote from your text submission, I quoted it with quotation marks so maybe we are not on the same page?

Btw. you are sounding kind of coy to me? 

 

Right. I bolded and underlined the first statement in your reply, just before what you quoted.

 

Quote

Anyway, this is not rocket science  namely creation, preservation, destruction, veiling and unveiling grace -  (which happens... ) 

 

Do you believe those theories can stand once having realized Self, itself, as being the negation of all?

 

Should the appearance, the spontaneous arising of creation, really be considered as something that is "created" in the conventional sense of the word? Or is there a deeper reality being hinted at?

Edited August 27, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

What do I know?  I guess Bhagavan, Papaji, etc including myself are all just filthy heretics. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Quote

Since the impartite, non-dual, truejnana alone abides and shines as the refuge for all dharma-observances, the jnani [alone] becomes the one who has observed all the dharmas. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 705. The following paragraph is Muruganar’s explanatory note to this verse)

Since non-dual jnana alone shines as the refuge for all the dharmas, the jnani who is established in that state [automatically] becomes the one who has observed all dharmas impeccably. There is no greater dharma than getting firmly established in the Self. All the actions of that jnani who possesses motionless consciousness are actions of God. 

Living as the Self is the essence of all dharmas. All other dharmas merge there. (Padamalai, p. 134, v. 44)

The supreme reality exists as the undivided space of true jnana. When we become different from it and rise as a false ‘I’ that frolics about and suffers, this constitutes the sin of destroying that non-duality by cleaving it into two, the ‘I’ [nan] and God [tan], thus bringing ruination upon the way of dharma. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 777)

The state of abiding as swarupa, which is the pure and vast true consciousness, is an obligation that should be firmly observed by all the beings in the world.

Swadharma [one’s own duty] is abidance in the pure Self only. All other [perceived] duties are worthless. (Padamalai, p. 299, vv. 13, 16)

By becoming the source of all desires, the ego is the doorway to the sorrow of samsara. The extremely heroic and discriminating person first attains through dispassion the total renunciation of desires that arise in the form of ‘I want’. Subsequently, through the Selfward enquiry ‘Who am I?’, he renounces that ego, leaving no trace of it, and attains the bliss of peace, free from anxieties. This is the supreme benefit of dharma. (Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse, 850)]

 

[Marblehead]

12 minutes ago, neti neti said:

What do I know?  I guess Bhagavan, Papaji, etc including myself are all just filthy heretics. 

Well, I'm an Atheist so I'm a heretic to all believers.

 

 

[3bob]

2 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

Right. I bolded and underlined the first statement in your reply, just before what you quoted.

 

 

Do you believe those theories can stand once having realized Self, itself, as being the negation of all?

 

Should the appearance, the spontaneous arising of creation, really be considered as something that is "created" in the conventional sense of the word? Or is they a deeper reality being hinted at?

 

the term "creation" was supplemented in my reply with "emanated" and "springs forth" which are better pointers imo, surely you noticed same. (?)  Anyway, my point is that there are all sorts of quasi-Hindu teachings, that granted I'm no expert on, yet if those teachings deny Vedic truths then they fall some where outside of Sanatana Dharma no matter how neat they may sound or who they may come from,  and if they turn your crank then good for you.  

 

(another example is a Hare Krishna group with a guru that openly denied the Vedas)

Edited August 26, 2018 by 3bob

[neti neti]

9 hours ago, 3bob said:

the term "creation" was supplemented in my reply with "emanated" and "springs forth" which are better pointers imo, surely you noticed same. (?) 

 

Sure, but are you denying that the pointers, no matter how precise, must fall back? When the scriptures themselves say not this, not this, is it not proof of our inability to confine Self to religion? Does Self need our help to maintain the sanctity of rote and ritual? Or is the ultimate truth that, as Self, I am Dharma proper?

 

Quote

Anyway, my point is that there are all sorts of quasi-Hindu teachings, that granted I'm no expert on, yet if those teachings deny Vedic truths then they fall some where outside of Sanatana Dharma no matter how neat they may sound or who they may come from,  and if they turn your crank then good for you.  

(another example is a Hare Krishna group with a guru that openly denied the Vedas)

 

I'll leave this alone, since, with multiple opportunities, you have yet to show how Ajata falls "outside" the eternal way of righteousness, or directly contradicts somehow.

 

I will say that Vedanta is universal and, being available to all irrespective of religiosity may very well seem to be "quasi-Hindu."

Edited August 27, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

again, "The bald truth, the final truth, is ‘No world has ever been created’" this is not in the Chandogya upanishad (or Vedas) but if you or your school somehow choose to interpret it that way then it is on your heads.  (with "created" in this context being more or less synonymous with emanated)  Btw. not many Hindus deny the aspects of Lord Siva as the Lord of Dance or creation (including preservation and destruction) if one will...

[neti neti]

30 minutes ago, 3bob said:

again, "The bald truth, the final truth, is ‘No world has ever been created’" this is not in the Chandogya upanishad (or Vedas) but if you or your school somehow choose to interpret it that way then it is on your heads.  (with "created" in this context being more or less synonymous with emanated)  Btw. not many Hindus deny the aspects of Lord Siva as the Lord of Dance or creation (including preservation and destruction) if one will...

 

Look man, if you're not gonna read then what are we doing here?

 

Ajata vada does not deny "creation" of the universe as such, but only affirms it as an un-caused appearance in Self. No one is denying the appearance of those aspects, what is contested is their actuality in light of the ultimate reality.

 

By your criterion, I take it Mandukyopanishad also directly flies in the face of established Sanatana Dharma???

 

Quote

Ajata means ‘not created’ or ‘not caused’. When the word is used as a prefix in vedantic creation theories, it indicates a philosophical or experiential position that the world was never ‘created’. The classic formulation of this position can be found in Gaudapada’s Mandukya Upanishad Karika, chapter two, verse thirty-two. This is Bhagavan’s Tamil rendering of the Sanskrit verse:

There is no creation, no destruction, no bondage, no longing to be freed from bondage, no striving to be free [from bondage], nor anyone who has attained [freedom from bondage]. Know that this is the ultimate truth.

This rendering appears as ‘Stray verse nine’ in Collected Works and as ‘Bhagavan 28’ in Guru Vachaka Kovai. Variations of this verse can also be found in the Amritabindu Upanishad (verse 10), Atma Upanishad (verse 30) and Vivekachudamani (verse 574).

 

The ajata doctrine takes the position that since the world was never created, there can be no jivas within it who are striving for or attaining liberation. Though it violates common sense and the experience of the senses, Bhagavan regarded it as ‘the ultimate truth’.

 

Muruganar has noted that, though Bhagavan taught a variety of theories of creation to devotees who asked him questions on this topic, the only explanation that tallied with his own experience was the ajata one:

 

Adi-Sankaracharya generally invoked maya to explain how an unreal world is created within the Self, whereas his Paramaguru, Gaudapada, taught that the world did not exist at all, even as maya. Swami Madhavatirtha, a vedantic scholar, once asked Bhagavan which side of this doctrinal divide he favoured.

Bhagavan:

Na nirodho na chotpattir
Nabaddho na cha sadhakaha
Na mumukshur na vai mukta
Ityesha paramarthata

 

This verse appears in the second chapter [v. 32, vaithathya prakarana] of Gaudapada’s Karika [a commentary on the Mandukyopanishad]. It means really that there is no creation and no dissolution. There is no bondage, no one doing spiritual practices, no one seeking spiritual liberation, and no one who is liberated. One who is established in the Self sees this by his knowledge of reality. (The Power of the Presence, part one, p. 240)

Though Bhagavan says here that ‘One who is established in the Self sees this [the truth of the ajata position] by his knowledge of reality’, it was not a teaching that he often gave out. Bhagavan himself explained why in this extract from Day by Day with Bhagavan:

The letter went on to say, ‘Ramana Maharshi is an exponent of ajata doctrine of advaita Vedanta. Of course, it is a bit difficult.’

 

Bhagavan remarked on this, ‘Somebody has told him so. I do not teach only the ajata doctrine. I approve of all schools. The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the capacity of the hearer. The ajata doctrine says, “Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection [of the world] or drawing in [of it], no sadhaka, no mumukshu [seeker of liberation], no mukta [liberated one], no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists ever.”

 

‘To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask. “How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?” the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, “All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.”

‘This is called the drishti-srishti vada, or the argument that one first creates out of his mind and then sees what his mind itself has created.

 

‘To such as cannot grasp even this and who further argue, “The dream experience is so short, while the world always exists. The dream experience was limited to me. But the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many, and we cannot call such a world non-existent,” the argument called srishti-drishti vada is addressed and they are told, “God first created such and such a thing, out of such and such an element and then something else, and so forth.” That alone will satisfy this class. Their mind is otherwise not satisfied and they ask themselves, “How can all geography, all maps, all sciences, stars, planets and the rules governing or relating to them and all knowledge be totally untrue?” To such it is best to say, “Yes. God created all this and so you see it.”’

 

Dr. M. said, ‘But all these cannot be true; only one doctrine can be true.’

Bhagavan said, ‘All these are only to suit the capacity of the learner. The absolute can only be one.’ (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 15th March, 1946, afternoon)

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by neti neti

[3bob]

I still take your school of thought as a kind of two stepping denial even if you take it as the ultimate truth and also seemingly trying to force same upon me or maybe anyone else that doesn't get it.. you might ask yourself why the hell that is happening since you are so smart?

 

Anyway,  we can have our schools and eat them too as long as we don't try to force anybody else to. 

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, 3bob said:

we can have our schools

I was always in the playground.

 

[silent thunder]

7 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I was always in the playground.

 

no wonder I get you mate... i carry my playground around with me.

wherever i go, there i play

[neti neti]

29 minutes ago, 3bob said:

I still take your school of thought as a kind of two stepping denial even if you take it as the ultimate truth and also seemingly trying to force same upon me or maybe anyone else that doesn't get it.. you might ask yourself why the hell that is happening since you are so smart?

 

Anyway,  we can have our schools and eat them too as long as we don't try to force anybody else to. 

 

Sorry if you feel like my questions are something more than just trying to get you to look at things from various angles(holistically). You can't agree it is valid or you believe that it contradicts? Very well. But trust that the last thing I need is to be coy about what's self-evident.

 

As I've made clear, all schools are valid. We can have all our schools and eat them too, but without making unsubstantiated claims before fully understanding them. 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

I'm just a fool with fingers and a keyboard. Who knows what this thing will say next?