Changeless...

[Rajesh Venkataraman]

>
>I have a question based on the following premises of Advaita -
>
>1. Only Brahman is true. Time is a vyaharika entity, which in the 'final'
>analysis is unreal.
>2. Brahman is changeless.
>
>To say that something is changeless, the normal procedure that I know is to
>record the initial and final state and the lack of difference therein;
>between not just the two end states, but all the infinite intermediate
>states. but this procedure, like other vyaharika entities, presupposes Time
>- which is not real.
>So, on what basis does one say that the only paramarthika entity, Brahman
>is
>changeless?
>

Time is what we perceive. For example in a dream you may see a lot of things
happening over a period of number of years while in reality only a few
seconds/minutes would have passed. But as long as you are in the dream it is
a reality and importantly *only* so long as you remain in it!! And btw,
according to vedanta even our experiences in the waking state are a dream!
So, time is never an independent entity.

One of the fundamental requisites of Vedanta is to accept "ignorance". Only
then Vedanta makes sense... Refer the Mundaka Upanishad verse

ParIkshya lOkAn karmacitAn braHmaNo nirvedamAyAt....

Now that we have accepted ignorance, we need to see what has to be done to
overcome it. We cannot keep saying that there is 'no time' when we fully
perceive it and act according to it. Now we adopt the "neti neti" approach
and reject all nAma rUpA(which exist only in time) in lieu of the absolute
sAkshI which pervades the nAma rUpA and without which name and form will
cease to exist. All this happens ONLY in time. And even time exists in
brahman and is not independent of that.

So, to answer your question vedanta never presupposes time but tries to take
you beyond space, time and causation given that we are already caught in it
and are struggling!! When you get bitten by a snake you don't waste your
time in catching the snake. You first look for a cure!

Hope this helps. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Rajesh

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Sun Oct 31 21:02:34 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.31.OCT.1999.210234.0500.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:02:34 -0500
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Discussions on Advaita-L was (Re: New Member Introduction: An
        and Hari Ghalsasi)
In-Reply-To: <755FA95DB839D211856B0008C7287D9304DE8A56 at KECMSG02>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, anandharig wrote:

> I'm sorry Mr Jaldhar !
> It all initiated by me.
>
> I was very new and had very bad experience of one such list.
> So I wrote about "Futile Debates" in my introduction.
>

I've also had bad experiences with people who thought futile debates meant
any debates.  Hence my response.

> But One thing I strongly feel is, the course Of "Niti" and "Kartavyas"
> always change with time.

While some details may change over the years, I feel the Human Condition
hasn't changed much since the days of the cavemen.  One hundred thousand
years ago people loved, and fought, and hoped, and were sad just like
us.  As long as that remains true, our niti and kartavya can be the
same.  Take this business about Shikhas for instance.  It's a tuft of
hair.  How can a tuft of hair be objectively judged "relevant" or "not
relevant"?

> We are supposed to understand the essence of them and go ahead with
> implementing it in our own way.

But that's the hard part!  How do we understand it?  What is the
essence?  These are tough questions.  People have been asking these
questions for 100s of years.  Isn't it foolish to not take advantage of
all the work they've done?  If a child said "I don't want to go to
school.  I just want to play all day instead." his parents would ignore
his wishes and send him to school anyway.  Because they have more
experience than the child.  They know what is better in the long run.  In
the same way, yes in the end we must implement what we've learned our own
way but we must be informed by the practices of all the sages of the
past.  Their experiences are a surer guide than our own limited knowlege.


> So it does not matter if You Do "Agnihotra" before lunch or not but
> The concept of purity of food is important.
>
> I think when my friend Devendra says Not to discuss Karma he must have meant
> it this way.
>

When you say some thing "does not matter" or "is important" you are not
expressing a self-evident fact but an opinion.  And because opinions can
be right or wrong is precisely why they *should* be discussed.  Discussed
thoroughly IMO.



--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.