[Advaita-l] Why was the illusory universe generated at the first place?

[Ravi Kiran]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Aurobind Padiyath via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Is it not happening every day? Even without effort? You don't have to dwell
> on the subject. It's a natural process called swabhava.
> This world as it is perceived now will vanish but there will be and there
> is only That by whatever terms you describe from this state. Can beauty of
> a rainbow explained to the blind becomes his knowledge? Only when he gains
> vision he will know about the rainbow, even how he himself looks and how
> the world appears. No word nor his mind can reach that knowledge before
> that vision.
> Ignorance is said to be beginning-less, but can be ended up on knowing.
> Same way once known it can never be unknown. Since time itself is a product
> of this ignorance, it's not possible to explain or give a reason for the
> cause of it. It will be trying to climb your own shoulders. That's why the
> answer to your question of getting caught up in its own ignorance cannot be
> explained or understood.
>



> For a moment go into deep sleep where time is absent. Do you have any issue
> of ignorance? But you as the pure existence knowledge and bliss was only
> there merged into its totality of One Being.


Nice thought, no trace of vidya or avidya there.. Thanks




> When you establish firmly you
> are That even in all the three states where in one you dream and the other
> you experience this world and goes back to that One Being, you are the the
> One and Only One. Does the ocean undergo any change from it's wateryness
> when it changes to waves, bubble, cloud, iceberg, rain, pond, lake, Brook,
> stream, river and back into ocean?
> That Being, in essence which is everything, is also is like that.
> Words cannot take you there as it's beyond. The whole of ShAstras and Guru
> can only point us to That. The journey has to be ours.
> HariOm!
> Aurobind
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:44 Shashwata Shastri, <shashwata.unimas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The world will only vanish when I will only dwell on the subject. If I
> can
> > direct all of my senses towards that Inner being there is no world.
> > Where did this ignorance of mine come from? Did  I create it? It means
> > Brahman itself is caught up on it's own ignorance?
> >
> > Shashwata Chowdhury
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Aurobind Padiyath <
> > aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Your own ignorance about your true nature is what makes your feel
> >> limited. Similar to dream where you feel you as various entities inside
> >> your dream, all your own creation, but identifies with the dreamer,
> >> similarly in waking state. You are neither.
> >> Only when you are given the knowledge of your real nature, these
> >> misunderstanding will get eradicated and once you gain that then you
> won't
> >> feel miserable. Just as you are no more worried about your dreams. But
> you
> >> continue to see it. Same way knowing the real swaroopa of you will
> remove
> >> your identification with the concept of the individual self. But this
> world
> >> will not vanish, only it will be seen in the new light of knowledge.
> Seeing
> >> the water of mirage will entice you only till the truth is unknown.
> >>  This is the Moksha what Advaita guarantee.
> >> (I'm purposely not using jargon as I find many get stuck up on them and
> >> miss the purports of the teachings)
> >>
> >> Aurobind
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:06 Shashwata Shastri, <
> shashwata.unimas at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why do I posses such limitation? Why should I make that mistake? I the
> >>> subject, the consciousness, why have I merged my inner conscious being
> with
> >>> the objects? Why do I mistakenly take myself as an object? From where
> do
> >>> this limitation and ignorance rise from? If I am that conscious
> existence
> >>> why am I trapped in my own objective experiences?
> >>>
> >>> Shashwata Chowdhury
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Aurobind Padiyath <
> >>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There is no absence of light in reality. Only the limitation of your
> >>>> eyes to see is called the absence. Mistaking the light of Sun under
> >>>> conditions is in reality the wateryness. Same way when you see things
> as
> >>>> names and forms not as Sat Chit Ananda that includes you too, that is
> >>>> called Avidya or Maya. Not perceived in it's reality creates the
> names and
> >>>> forms.
> >>>> Can you experience any thing if it is not existing (Sat), Awareness
> >>>> (Chit) and niratishaya anubhuti (Ananda)? Everything is only
> experienced as
> >>>> knowledge and only if it is existing. That experiencing if it is
> confused
> >>>> with the names and forms it is called Jagat otherwise in it's reality
> it is
> >>>> only Brahman.
> >>>> Aurobind
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:36 Shashwata Shastri, <
> >>>> shashwata.unimas at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My question still remains- why the absence of light? And why the
> >>>>> mirage in first place? As desert and sun is the source of the mirage
> same
> >>>>> way Brahman is the source of the illusion. I think I should ask this
> - Why
> >>>>> should I experience the absence of light in the first place?!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shashwata Chowdhury
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Aurobind Padiyath <
> >>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Your statement
> >>>>>> "It (darkness) can be experienced hence it is sat and at the same
> >>>>>> time these particular experiences can be nullified (in the presence
> of
> >>>>>> light), therefore, it is asat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Brahman is cit (consciousness) Maya is Avidya or (Avastu).
> >>>>>> Object(appearance) is very different from the subject but there is
> no
> >>>>>> object without the subject (This assumption is wrong as in a
> mirage). But
> >>>>>> where did this object (the water in a mirage or darkness in the
> absence of
> >>>>>> light) came from? "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Aurobind
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:03 Shashwata Shastri, <
> >>>>>> shashwata.unimas at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where did this Vastu came from? If it is Vastu what is it doing
> >>>>>>> inside of Brahman? Surely it is not an independent entity?!
> Questions
> >>>>>>> related to Maya always puzzles me. I know without Brahman it is non
> >>>>>>> existent. Maya is mithya and mithya is by default sat and asat. It
> can be
> >>>>>>> experienced hence it is sat and at the same time these particular
> >>>>>>> experiences can be nullified, therefore, it is asat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Brahman is cit (consciousness) Maya is Avidya or vastu. Object is
> >>>>>>> very different from the subject but there is no object without the
> subject.
> >>>>>>> But where did this object came from?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shashwata Chowdhury
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Aurobind Padiyath <
> >>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Pranams
> >>>>>>>> The first error that needs correction is that Maya is a vastu. The
> >>>>>>>> rest of the questions will be nonexistent if you understand this.
> >>>>>>>> It is compared to darkness to light as an example.
> >>>>>>>> Now look at your questions in this scenario. You will get all
> >>>>>>>> answers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Aurobind
> >>>>>>>> On 23 Mar 2016 03:48, "Shashwata Shastri via Advaita-l" <
> >>>>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What is this Maya? Where does it come from? Why was Avidya there
> >>>>>>>>> at the
> >>>>>>>>> first place? Brahman is the one and absolute. My question is, why
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> spark of imperfection in the perfect? Without Brahman there can
> be
> >>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>> existence of Maya itself. But what is the relation between Maya
> and
> >>>>>>>>> Brahman? It is not like the Brahman, it is not even same as
> >>>>>>>>> Brahman, it
> >>>>>>>>> can not exist without Brahman, it is not something which can be
> >>>>>>>>> identified
> >>>>>>>>> as the opposite of Brahman either. But we need to admit that it
> did
> >>>>>>>>> generate from Brahman. If it is from Brahman then why it was
> there
> >>>>>>>>> on the
> >>>>>>>>> first place (Again same question)? Why depended existence of
> >>>>>>>>> ignorance in
> >>>>>>>>> absolute and pure Brahman?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>>>>>>>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For assistance, contact:
> >>>>>>>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Aurobind Padiyath
> >>>>>> +91-9689755499
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Aurobind Padiyath
> >>>> +91-9689755499
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >> Aurobind Padiyath
> >> +91-9689755499
> >>
> >
> > --
>
> Aurobind Padiyath
> +91-9689755499
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>