[Advaita-l] Need explanation

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Sat Dec 30 09:53:08 EST 2017

Namaste Kartikji,

Reply inline...

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Kartik Vashishta via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Does this mean that the realization of the absolute cannot be a process
> because a process is changing every moment? Evolution being a process is
> al;so hence unreal......
Your question is little on the boundary of the context of the process of
the opponent quoted by Swamiji. The opponent's process is to evolve and
become something one is not. That is just not possible. Coming to your
question, its tricky. One can't say it is not a process since there is
effort involved. However, it is prAptasya prAptiH, gaining of the already
gained, what you already are. Since there is no choice in knowing something
as is, one can't say that ​there is a process of choosing to become. Yet
knowledge takes effort in terms of removing misunderstandings. So
realisation is a process of removing the misconceptions of taking oneself
as something one is not, including the thinking that one will become
absolute while being limited. That is an impossibility.

Does this mean that the world is not a second absolute, since two absolutes
> would be a contradiction?
​Yes, it verily means that.​ This absolute is not like my saying that "O,
my friend is absolutely good", the absolute good there being relative/
subjective. This absolute is the real sense of the word absolute. There
cannot be anything outside of it.

Does the presence of infinite individuaualities not contradict that there
> can be only one absolute? How do we arrive at the conclusion that an
> infinite set of finites spread across space cannot be divided?
​No, appearances do not contradict the one. A rope can be seen as a snake,
a split in the [path, a stream of water and so on, but the rope always
remains one even when perceived as many.

> Putmān retas siñcati yoṣitāyām bahvīḥ prajāḥ puruṣāt samprasūtāḥ: In this
> manner, the heavenly Purusha is causing, by his own vibration of will, the
> creation of every little thing in this world. Even the little crawling
> insects are created by the Supreme Purusha. Creation takes place in a
> variety of ways, which is only one illustration of the manner of the
> relation of cause and effect, highlighting how we, in our crude form of
> understanding, imagine how something could have come from something else.
> Why should anything come from something else? If something is not there
> which is causeless, and if the ultimate cause also has a cause, there would
> be a logical regression and the argument will break. A meaningful argument
> should have an end. Endless arguments are no arguments. And so, the
> argument in respect of the effect coming from a cause should lead to a
> cause which itself has no further cause.

First of all the creation mentioned itself is just manifestation or
expression of one reality as many. It is not real creation or even
modification. That said, if the cause/ source of all causes were also to
have a cause, it would lead to infinite regress. That is a logical flaw, so
there has to be a cause that is Itself causeless. That is one and brahman
as per Shruti. Moreover, if there is a cause for brahman, that brahman will
not be absolute, as explained earlier.

--Praveen R. Bhat
 /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
​ ​
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */​

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list