Cause of Creation

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- Vaidya Sundaram <Vaidya_Sundaram at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

> On a tangential note, does advaita say the individual upon full
> "illumination" become Ishwara Himself? Or does it even matter? That is
> to
> say, does this question even arise in advaita?

Equation of jiiva with Iswara  is not at upaadhi level - jiiva's upaadhi
is different from that of Iswara. When it is said that, this is that
devadatta - the contradictory qualifications of this devadatta and that
devadatta are rejected and what is equated is only entity that is common
to both - that and this individual devadatta.  In tat and tvam the
contradictions are in upaadhi-s, since these are adhyaaropa or just
superficial, the equation of the substantives in tat and tvam - I am sat
chit and ananda and he is also sat chit ananda- there are no divisions in
sat chit ananda - hence absolute identity.  When one realises what one
realises is not that one is Iswara but one is sat chit ananda, which is
Brahman. Hence no more jiiva notion left to answer what happens to jiiva.
There is no question of joining or dissolving into something infinite.
One is infinite, period.  Now the upaadhi-s that hitherto have been
utilized by one, was with jiiva notion. Now they will be utilized with
correct understanding that one is Brahman and not jiiva. He can only uses
it for the benefit of the totality since individuality is not there
anymore.

The way I see it
> explained in
> advaita, when the individual is freed from the clutches of ignorance,
and
> the
> body of such a one is dissolved as well, then it is only us, or the
> people
> who continue to remain in the vyavahaaric sense, who see the loss right?
> The
> sum total Brahman remaining the same, the individual we see having
> enlightened himself just goes back to the larger pool, sort of like a
> water
> droplet being assimilated back into the ocean ... so, it is immaterial
> whether the enlightened one actually also has the power of creation as
> well
> right?
> Is this thinking correct?

Even when one is not realized, one is still Brahman and when one is
realized he knows now that his old notions that he is an individual
different from the rest are wrong.  He knows he was Brahman before,
Brahman now and Brahman all the time.  There is no going to larger pool
because there is only one pool that is Brahman.  Realization is
understanding as a fact what one already has been and is and will be.


> I am still not clear. If statement like "yadA hyEvaiSha
> yEtasminnudaramantaram kurutE adha tasya bhayam bhavati ( Tai - A - 7 )"
> applies to all, then it must apply to visishtadvaita (as much as dvaita)
> as
> well right? If there are intrinsice differences, does it still not
> engender
> a sense of fear ...? How then is the visishtadvaitic position tenable?

It is like this - is left hand afraid of right hand? Left hand and right
hand are parts of the total individual.  Obviously they work hand in hand!


When arjuna sees vishwaruupa and says I am afraid, he does not associate
vishvaruupa that he is part of that ruupa. he is seeing as if it is
separate from him.  The fear is intrinsic in that separateness.

>
> Again, I would like some clarifications in the following context: I have
> heard some discourses give the analogy of a spider spinning a web out
> of
> its own self and then withdrawing the same into itself. Yet, in the case
> of
> the Creator (Ishawara?), there is no grwoing smaller or growing bigger
> as a
> result of this "willful act of creation" - does this analogy apply more
> to
> visishtadvaita than to advaita per se? Or does it apply equally the same
> to
> both?

The example is from Upanishad and this example has limited application too
  It is to pin point that upaadana kaarana is from the nimittakaarana.
The example cannot be applied - to the next level - spider does not
sustain the web.  when the web is destroyed it does not go back into
spider like waves going back into ocean.

>
> Is this the same thing as Poornamadah Poornamidam Poornaad
> Poornamudachyate;
> Poornasya Poornamaadaaya Poornamevaavashisyate ?? The infinite remains
> the
> same whether we take infinity away from it or put infinity into it?
> Given
> this statement, the statement brahmavit brahma eva bhavati is simply a
> logical conclusion right?

More than that - knowledge of Brahman is not like knowledge of chemistry -
when I know chemistry, I do not become chemistry.  This is because Brahman
is not an object but the very subject, the knower.  Hence knowing Brahman
is knowing oneself - if Brahman means infiniteness, then knowing oneself
which is knowing Brahman only means I am Brahman - that is only knowledge
rather than - this is Brahman as in - this is chemistry.  Hence brahma vit
brahma eva bhavati. Second, infiniteness cannot be known or one cannot
become infinite - one becomes infinite only when one is already infinite.
If one is already infinite then what is there to know? unless one does not
know that one is infinite.  Hence knowledge is just removal of the notions
that one is finite.  Brahma vit brahma eva bhavati is also not right but
used to convey the message that knowing is just as realizing what one is
that already. Finite cannot become infinite nor finite can know infinite.


Hari OM!
Sadananda

=====
What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com