Question about the causal state

[Greg Goode]

At 09:08 AM 10/16/97 -0400, sadananda wrote:
>The information is contained in the introductory book " The manual of Self
>Unfoldment" by Swami Chinmayaananda, published by Chinmaya Mission West.
>You can access CMW through the internet.  They have book department in
>Philadelphia or you can give a call to the one close to you in Houston and
>talk to one Mr. Gaurang Naanaviti who is the achaarya there.

Let me chime in with a recommendation for "Self-Unfoldment."  It is
a small book of well-written, well-organized, lucidly explained
Vedanta concepts.

>
>The following chart developed by Swami Chinyayanandaji and would help to
>understand the concepts

[...helpful chart snipped...]

Where is Swami Chinyayanandaji located?

>But we advaitins know that Shankar is very logical.  Ignorance has to be
>beginningless.  This is true to all types of ignorance.  When did my
>ignorance of chemistry started - It was there from the beginning from the
>moment you told me that is something called chemistry.  If ignorance starts
>in time, then before that one is knowledgeable and knowledgeable person
>cannot become ignorant.

There's another explanation I've seen for the beginningless of ignorance.
It's from Swami Vireswarananda.  In addition to being beginningless in
TIME, ignorance is logically beginningless.  Ignorance is due to
superimposition.  Any mentation is something superimposed.  But what
is it superimposed on?  What is the substratum?  Brahman.  But the
substratum is not nirguna Brahman.  When thought turns to what the
substratum is, we see that the substratum is an object.  Therefore
the substratum itself is also a superimposition, which means it is
superimposed on a previous substratum, which is the result of an even
previous superimposition, ad infinitum.  Thus, because the substratum
is never Brahman-without-uphadis, superimposition (therefore ignorance)
is beginningless.

> The fact of the matter is
>the other achaarya's although criticize advaita, donot have any better
>answers to the question - when and how this all started - their answer is
>it is all the leela of the Lord - His play - Christianity comes with
>similar vague answer as the original sin - but it is considered as
>blasphamy if one askes why I am borne when somebody else commited a sin -

Here comes some unorthodox argumentation.  This Christian answer you
pointed to above is no worse than the answer given by reincarnation.
The vasanas and sanchita karma we inherit at birth are not from our
own previous life.  They are from another person's life, one of our
predecessors.  Therefore, we are "paying for" or experiencing the
result of another person's sins.  Just like another person in the
future will pay for our sins.  Helps you see humanity as one.

Even if it WERE the same person's previous life, the person is so
unknown to us that it still comes to the same thing.  To be told that
it's your previous life, that your own actions in that life are what
now cause you to receive (e.g.) torture, abuse and suffering in this
life -- this adds insult to injury.

--Greg