Brahma Sutras

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Sangom,

The immediate question that arises is "How were the jivatmas created?"

I don't agree that the above is the immediate question that arises. Anyway, what is your view of the question, please?

 

[sangom]

Honestly, the answer can be only "we do not know". There can be something, or nothing, or many things - all are possible. The idea of one entity itself does not lend itself to logic.

Since you have not answered in the negative (i.e., "No, nothing can be there which is not bound by space and time."), it can be safely deduced that such a thing can exist.

Then we have to agree upon what is meant by "real" before debating this point.

According to me, even the (human) notion about what is "real" is not absolute but relative. In the very ordinary sense something is real if it is 'pratyaksham' before our sense organs or can be sensed or experienced with the aid of familiar equipments, like the air which wafts to our skin when we use a palm-leaf fan or viSiRi.

I am sorry, but the first part does not necessarily follow from the second part of the above.

You are correct but I added the latter part to show one of the reasons for this jagat being considered by humans as real. You may as well exclude the latter part, if that suits you.

This raises more complications, I should think - what is a jivatma? are the jivatmas different from one another? how did they originate? how did they create the jagat? Does it mean that each jivatma is capable of creating/abandoning/destroying its own world? Why is a jivatma bound by what it is created? etc.

If it will make things easier for you, kindly replace the word jīvātmā with 'human being'.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Auh,

You were making some statements about time which I was trying to understand. Anyway to me passage of time is the moving of one unit span of your consciousness to the next. So even though not considered as an entity time in a sense can be considered to travel the above way. But the really interesting question is what happens when there is nothing? That is when the time doesn't move in the above way. Only when time doesn't move it is the equivalent of saying it doesn't start or travel. If it hasn't traveled at all it simply means nothing existed ever.

I think now you would be able to better relate to my logic of finite time.

"Time" is an indicator (and at times a measure) of change. Without any change, there is no "time", or, rather, time stands still in ordinary parlance. Time by itself may be a non-entity, after all.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,



Bhagavad Geeta 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.


This is the concept of NB I am trying to convey.


Just to add..here Lord Krishna says :

It is quite evident He was talking about Nirguna Brahman.

Smt. Renuka,

BG may not be a valid supporting evidence because it is a jumble of many things which can land you in a quandary.!

Kindly read BG 9-5 which says, immediately "Nor do these beings abide in Me. Behold My Divine Yoga...etc."

Thus it will follow that the Brahman has absolutely nothing to do with this Jagat and straight away we go to dvaita or even Abrahamic religions!

 

[sravna]

So, please answer these questions, (a) why must there be a cause for jagat?
(b) what is outside time and space, (c) why an entity like NB that exists outside time and space need not have a cause? (d) why must cause for jagat be causeless?

Dear Shri Nara,

(a) There must be a cause for jagat because time is finite and has a beginning and jagat began when space and time began.
(b) Space and time are themselves caused, so there needs to be some other reality which is not bound by space and time. See (a) and my discussion with Shri.auh for why time and space are themselves caused.
(c) Something that exists outside time need not have a cause because the notion of time does not exist outside time, and thus the entity could have always existed and continue to exist forever
(d) The first cause must be causeless because there is no other way than (c) to answer the question of what caused it.

 

[sravna]

I don't agree that the above is the immediate question that arises. Anyway, what is your view of the question, please?

Dear Shri Sangom,

I will not be able to answer it unless I make a good sense of what you are trying to convey. What is your answer to it?

 

[sravna]

"Time" is an indicator (and at times a measure) of change. Without any change, there is no "time", or, rather, time stands still in ordinary parlance. Time by itself may be a non-entity, after all.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I agree with you. That is the reason in the case of spiritual reality which is unchanging, there is no time or spiritual reality is a timeless reality.

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

BG may not be a valid supporting evidence because it is a jumble of many things which can land you in a quandary.!

Dear Sangom ji,

Hey this is not fair yaar....if I give example from Geeta..you say BG may not be a valid supporting evidence.

Then kindly tell me where I can find evidence from?

Oh Sangom ji,

Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.!LOL

 

[sravna]

Dear Sangom ji,

Hey this is not fair yaar....if I give example from Geeta..you say BG may not be a valid supporting evidence.

Then kindly tell me where I can find evidence from?

Oh Sangom ji,

Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.!LOL

Dear Renuka,

If you want to argue logically they would only want evidence of scriptures because they want a valid basis. If you give the evidence from scriptures they would want only logic because the former is blind faith. What do you think happens when you offer both? Not difficult to guess. Scriptures are blind faith and therefore the logic has no valid basis.

 

[Nara]

sravna, this is not a serious response, all you have done is give your opinion, this cannot and does not amount to logical proof.

(a) There must be a cause for jagat because time is finite and has a beginning and jagat began when space and time began.

Even this one answer is filled with so much logical fallacy that it throws open many more questions than it answers. What is the evidence that time finite? What does that (i.e. time is finite or not) got anything to do with whether jagat must have a cause? What is the evidence to claim jagat began when space and time began? What is the evidence that there was a moment that can be called the beginning before which there was nothing?

(b) Space and time are themselves caused, so there needs to be some other reality which is not bound by space and time. See (a) and my discussion with Shri.auh for why time and space are themselves caused.

What is the evidence that space and time are caused? No there is no need to have some other reality not bound by time and space, that is just one of your baseless assertions.

(c) Something that exists outside time need not have a cause because the notion of time does not exist outside time, and thus the entity could have always existed and continue to exist forever

More assertions. Do you have any evidence to show there is something called outside time and space? If you do, which is immensely doubtful, you then need to show evidence that there is something there in that beyond time and space and that that something does not need a cause to exist. All these are evidence free assertions at this point and I seriously doubt you have any convincing to prove them.

(d) The first cause must be causeless because there is no other way than (c) to answer the question of what caused it.

So, your justification is that you can't think of any other way, that is it? This is not logic, this is called convenience.

You have already conceded in effect, but unable to fess up to it, that you can't quote the Vedas to support of your views. Now, with your evidence free assertions you have made it clear that you have nothing by way of logic either. You can't cite anything from the Vedas to justify your views. You cannot provide fallacy free logical explanations for your views. So, what is left is you personal theories. Of course you are entitled to them, but you are not entitled to claim they are logical.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

You are repeating the same questions after I have answered them by just adding the words "what is the evidence for that ?" So before it gets tiring, I will try this.

Tell me what logical answer can be there other than a timeless reality to avert the question "what caused the universe or who created God?". If you think universe need not be caused tell me how it is possible? again if your answer is that the universe has existed forever , give me your reason how we arrived at the present.

My premise is universe could not have existed forever since it started with time and time is finite. Kindly go through my posts with Shri.Auh to know my logical reasons. So universe being finite in time had a beginning. Since it had a beginning it was caused, since something need to cause it and that itself should not have been caused there should be a timeless entity.

 

[auh]

...You have already conceded in effect, but unable to fess up to it, that you can't quote the Vedas to support of your views. Now, with your evidence free assertions you have made it clear that you have nothing by way of logic either. You can't cite anything from the Vedas to justify your views. You cannot provide fallacy free logical explanations for your views. So, what is left is you personal theories. Of course you are entitled to them, but you are not entitled to claim they are logical.

Imo, this might be the only logical conclusion we have arrived from the discussion of the Brahma Sutras in this thread.

 

[sravna]

Imo, this might be the only logical conclusion we have arrived from the discussion of the Brahma Sutras in this thread.

But as Shri.Nara says he is entitled to them but cannot claim them to be logical.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

(a) There must be a cause for jagat because time is finite and has a beginning and jagat began when space and time began.
(b) Space and time are themselves caused, so there needs to be some other reality which is not bound by space and time. See (a) and my discussion with Shri.auh for why time and space are themselves caused.
(c) Something that exists outside time need not have a cause because the notion of time does not exist outside time, and thus the entity could have always existed and continue to exist forever
(d) The first cause must be causeless because there is no other way than (c) to answer the question of what caused it.

Dear Shri Sravna,

If "the first cause must be causeless" then why cannot be space and time also be "causeless"? Why is it that the causelessness and causeness are handled like சொப்புக்குட்டி (wooden toys) with which children usually play? Even in a web discussion like this, it will be necessary to prove logically that time and space must have a creator and that "the first cause must be causeless". This latter, viz.,"the first cause must be causeless" may be explained by saying that if we were to do so, then we will end up in an infinite regression of "creators". But that, again, is only partly logical, in my view and will only show the fallacy of the proposition.

Time is only a concept or feeling entertained by living beings because things around them are constantly changing and the living beings themselves are changing from one moment to the next. Hence, it could quite possibly have been that the concept of time arose in the minds of living beings and that there is no separate creator needed for time.

In regard to the concept of space also, it may be possible that it is also within the mind of living beings and not something absolute, created by a creator.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

If "the first cause must be causeless" then why cannot be space and time also be "causeless"? Why is it that the causelessness and causeness are handled like சொப்புக்குட்டி (wooden toys) with which children usually play? Even in a web discussion like this, it will be necessary to prove logically that time and space must have a creator and that "the first cause must be causeless". This latter, viz.,"the first cause must be causeless" may be explained by saying that if we were to do so, then we will end up in an infinite regression of "creators". But that, again, is only partly logical, in my view and will only show the fallacy of the proposition.

Time is only a concept or feeling entertained by living beings because things around them are constantly changing and the living beings themselves are changing from one moment to the next. Hence, it could quite possibly have been that the concept of time arose in the minds of living beings and that there is no separate creator needed for time.

In regard to the concept of space also, it may be possible that it is also within the mind of living beings and not something absolute, created by a creator.

Dear Shri Sangom,

If something is causeless it might mean:

1) It spontaneously came in to existence. Space and time coming into existence from nothing is not logical.
2) Space and time has been existing forever which I have showed is not possible.

But there is a timeless reality which is causeless because a timeless reality is causeless. It is necessary to explain what we see.

Regarding your concept of space and time as notions of mind, I partly agree. But I think space and time are also a reality just like jivatmas. In my view the world exists even without the minds existing when there are just physical energies just as it existed at the beginning. But it vanishes finally and in that sense is not absolute and only relative.

 

[Raghy]

1. Can an illiterate person understand about Brahman? If the answer is 'yes', how? if the answer is 'no', why not, please?
2. Can a person know 'Brahman' without reading Brahma Sutra?
3. Can a person who does not believe in Brahman , for example a person like me, know Brahman? If 'yes', how? if 'no', why not, please?
Kindly address all the three questions individually, please.

I am venturing to answer not because I am a learned person but because I have myself been an illiterate as far as Brahman is concerned some time in the past and had struggled to find answer to the same questions. And someone has spoken here about lemmas and that took me to my college days. So one question at a time in a lemma I am trying to answer.

1. Being literate is certainly an advantage. When I was trying to understand the bewildering order of things around me and the chaotic incidents that were happening without any apparent reason, literacy helped me. I was literate and I had the ability to read and understand what others far away (both in time and space) thought about this. They helped me in quickly ticking off the queries that rose in my mind. In the process I could a) avoid inventing the wheel again and b) also understand that the knowledge that I had acquired because of my being literate had also added a hell of a lot of unnecessary burden on me. So my being a literate person certainly helped me in crossing hurdles quickly in the process of understanding Brahman when I wanted to understand that concept and in jettisoning a lot of intellectual load which I had accumulated. After going through that painful process of “knowing” I have finally come to the conclusion that being just literate (without being very literate) is enough for one to seek Brahman. I am reminded of Andal’s “கறவைகள் பின் சென்று கானம் சேர்ந்துண்போம், அறிவொன்றுமில்லாத ஆய்க்குலத்து உன் தன்னை பிறவி பெருந்தனைப் புண்ணியம் யாம் உடையோம்” -திருப்பாவை-28. The highlighted words means “simple cowherds”. This is further explained as “வலங்கை இடங்கை அறியாத ஆயர்கள்” by Acharyas. (Meaning-When a cowherd goes to the market place to sell his cattle he usually identifies his cattle only two at a time, that which he holds by his சோத்துக்கை and the one that he holds by his மத்தக்கை. If he has to sell more than two heads of cattle at a time he gets confused. He finishes two of them first and again takes two more one by his சோத்துக்கை and the other by his மத்தக்கை and negotiates afresh. This is the level of illiteracy) People who were so illiterate and simple and innocent were able to enjoy Brahman. A mind which is not corrupted by too much of worldly knowledge is the best ground for the cultivation of bhakti, which is the fruit of knowledge about Brahman. While the intellectual in me was lost in the beauty of Alwar's வாடினேன் வாடி pasuram during the recent utsav in the temple the old Maami standing by my side was exclaiming "கிருஷ்ணா உன்னை இந்த ஸ்ரீபாதம் தாங்கிகள் இப்படிப்போட்டு ஆட்டு ஆட்டுன்னு ஆட்டராளே எனக்கு கஷ்ட்டமா இருக்கே". That made me think about this question of Raghy and I thought there is an answer there.

Now taking Raghy’s first question and the lemma above, we get this:

Being literate may help you in your search for knowledge about Brahman because you get the benefit what others in a similar search have found and the methods they followed. You may accept it or reject it depending on your own preferences. If you are illiterate and yet want to know Brahman you can still get him because your ignorance or clean slate of a mind is itself a positive factor in your search. But search you must. Without effort there is no result. The brahmasutra bhashyakara as well as the அறிவொன்றுமில்லாத ஆய்க்குலத்துப்பிறந்த cowherd have found Brahman each in their own way. So being literate is not a prerequisite for knowing Brahman. QED.

The next question will be in the next lemma.

Dear Sri. Vaagmi,

That is a lovely message. Thank you for the message.

Only I wish to point out, you may liked to say "innocence or clean slate of a mind" instead of what was mentioned. I read that as "innocent" anyway.

Often times illiterate persons may not be innocent at all. Actually I have seen so many dirty minded persons hide under the cover of 'illiteracy' when exposed of their dirty mind-set.

Sri. TKS and Sri. Sravna suggested association with the right Guru which may guide an illiterate person towards Brahma njanam; rightfully so. I notice, you have not mentioned that which is practical. Most Gurus may not like to have an illiterate student to impart their knowledge. so, in this case a Guru may not seek this student, but it would very well for the student to seek Gurus. I mention in plural. Any one guru may not fulfill one's thirst for knowledge. The student may absorb knowledge from many persons he/she comes across in his/her life. ( Once for a certain aspect, a middle aged female sex worker from chindhathiripet, Mount Road, chennai was my guru; but she did not know that). But such 'picked up knowledge' may or may not lead one to 'Brahman'. Also, how does one know one has 'learned about Brahman'?

Questions and more questions....

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Folks,

I think enough discussion has happened so that if even there have not been clear cut answers, we know at least the questions that need to be addressed to have a deep understanding of reality. I think we should move on now and focus on the topic of the thread. Hopefully insights would be gained as we move along and as more discussions take place.

 

[sravna]

Dear Folks,

I will not be able to visit the forum frequently for the next 3-4 months because of a new undertaking. But I will try to contribute to the thread whenever possible.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I will not be able to answer it unless I make a good sense of what you are trying to convey. What is your answer to it?

Dear Shri Sravna,

You know (perhaps) that I do not contribute completely to any of these Uttara Mimamsa philosophies. And I think I have outlined my views (beliefs) in some of my old posts. I do not want to repeat those because my beliefs are just mine and I am not very keen about publicising those.

We are still considering creation, maayaa and also whether an NB is necessary at all. Only after this stage we need to consider about jivatmas.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

Hey this is not fair yaar....if I give example from Geeta..you say BG may not be a valid supporting evidence.

Then kindly tell me where I can find evidence from?

Oh Sangom ji,

Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.!LOL

Smt. Renuka,

The sarcasm in the post is too obvious, but the point is that BG is good only for the modern gurujis, etc., to lecture on and fool the people who will readily fall for it (like what Swami Chinmayananda did, the great example). BG cannot show any support for advaita simply because it was most probably written after the advent of the Bhakti movement, elevation of the original yadava krishna to the status of the Supreme godhead, etc., and is a precursor of the sahajiya cult.

The most famous summary of advaita is contained in the śloka "brahmasatyaṃ jaganmithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ". You will see that jīvo brahmaiva (the jīva is brahma only) is the meaning. How the NB gets covered by adhyāsa, a cover or layer, and becomes the ordinary jīva has not been very clearly explained even by Shankara. Subsequent advaitin scholars named this adhyāsa asmāyā and we started hearing so many accounts of this māyā.

According to advaita of Shankara, therefore, the jīva is nothing but the NB, but covered by a layer with the result that it can no longer identify its true nature of NB. Brahmajnāna enables the jīva to know its true nature and obtain release from the cycle of births and deaths.

 

[sangom]

Dear Renuka,

If you want to argue logically they would only want evidence of scriptures because they want a valid basis. If you give the evidence from scriptures they would want only logic because the former is blind faith. What do you think happens when you offer both? Not difficult to guess. Scriptures are blind faith and therefore the logic has no valid basis.

Dear Shri Sravna,

This is unfair criticism and does not behove a person who has ventured to talk about brahma sutras, advaita, etc. At least kindly read what is written and see whether there is any sense or reason for my objection. I am sad to state that this post of yours has devalued you in my reckoning.

At least kindly try to avoid such reactions in future.

 

[Nara]

....If you want to argue logically they would only want evidence of scriptures because they want a valid basis. If you give the evidence from scriptures they would want only logic because the former is blind faith. What do you think happens when you offer both? Not difficult to guess. Scriptures are blind faith and therefore the logic has no valid basis.

I agree with Shri sangom, this is completely the reverse of what is happening. sravna, you are the one who started the thread, and look at the title of this thread, yet you refuse to cite anything from the Vedas to support your views.

You wanted to argue on the basis of only logic. I agreed and have pointed out the post-hoc fallacy and begging the question fallacy in your arguments, not to mention the excellent challenges from both sangom and auh. You are simply ignoring all these and refusing to say anything but restate and restate your old assertions.

Now, you have the temerity to accuse us of changing the yard stick, that is rich......

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

This is unfair criticism and does not behove a person who has ventured to talk about brahma sutras, advaita, etc. At least kindly read what is written and see whether there is any sense or reason for my objection. I am sad to state that this post of yours has devalued you in my reckoning.

At least kindly try to avoid such reactions in future.

Dear Shri Sangom,

I am sorry that the post seems to be directed at you. Definitely not. I respect the way you debate and the seriousness with which you debate. Sorry again. My apologies in fact to anyone who could take umbrage at that. They were flippant remarks.

 

[Nara]

You are repeating the same questions after I have answered them by just adding the words "what is the evidence for that ?" So before it gets tiring, I will try this.

sravna, this is because you are simply ignoring my objections and repeating the same old assertions as your "logical" response again and again.

Tell me what logical answer can be there other than a timeless reality to avert the question "what caused the universe or who created God?"

Once again sravna, this is what is begging the question is. You start out with the conclusion that there must be a cause for everything as though that is an irrefutable fact. Then, you face the problem of explaining who created God. To avoid the obvious circular logic, you simply conjured up a timeless entity, presto, as you say, you have "averted" the logical conundrum. That is very convenient, except, you have introduced the logical fallacy of begging the question.

My premise is universe could not have existed forever since it started with time and time is finite ......since something need to cause it and that itself should not have been caused there should be a timeless entity.

You are making several convenient assumptions that will support your predetermined conclusions, putting the cart before the horse.

[1] Why can't time and space just manifest. Stephen Hawking says, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” Even if you want to reject Hawking for whatever reason, it is not self evident that there must be a creator beyond space and time. Spontaneous creation of jagat is not illogical as Hawking has shown through mathematics, the most logical tool available to humans.

[2] Having made the very convenient assumption of beyond time and space without any sound logic, you proceed to make more assumptions, such as there is an entity there and that entity does not need a creator. Having conjured up beyond time and space, you are now conjuring up the laws that govern it, such as the entities that inhabit it do not need a creator. Taking the same approach, one can assert that this beyond time and space is governed by more dimensions than merely these two and and that there is something beyond beyond-time-and-space and the entity in beyond time and space needs a creator and that creator inhibits beyond beyond-space-and-time, and off you on an infinite regress.

You are taking a hiatus now, that is a good move I think.

 

[sravna]

sravna, this is because you are simply ignoring my objections and repeating the same old assertions as your "logical" response again and again.

Once again sravna, this is what is begging the question is. You start out with the conclusion that there must be a cause for everything as though that is an irrefutable fact. Then, you face the problem of explaining who created God. To avoid the obvious circular logic, you simply conjured up a timeless entity, presto, as you say, you have "averted" the logical conundrum. That is very convenient, except, you have introduced the logical fallacy of begging the question.

It is begging the question only if had said the following:

The universe needs a cause but since first cause has to be causeless there is a causeless first cause.

But understand carefully that is not what I said. What I said is a logical conclusion and not begging the question. I am talking of a situation when there need not be infinite regress.

You are making several convenient assumptions that will support your predetermined conclusions, putting the cart before the horse.

[1] Why can't time and space just manifest. Stephen Hawking says, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” Even if you want to reject Hawking for whatever reason, it is not self evident that there must be a creator beyond space and time. Spontaneous creation of jagat is not illogical as Hawking has shown through mathematics, the most logical tool available to humans.

As you say Mathematics is the most logical tool available but mathematics only models our intuition. If the intuition is not sound so will be the math. Hawkings theory has not been tested and I think the logic is not sound as self creation is a contradiction.

[2] Having made the very convenient assumption of beyond time and space without any sound logic, you proceed to make more assumptions, such as there is an entity there and that entity does not need a creator. Having conjured up beyond time and space, you are now conjuring up the laws that govern it, such as the entities that inhabit it do not need a creator. Taking the same approach, one can assert that this beyond time and space is governed by more dimensions than merely these two and and that there is something beyond beyond-time-and-space and the entity in beyond time and space needs a creator and that creator inhibits beyond beyond-space-and-time, and off you on an infinite regress.

You can assume or imagine anything. But as long our theory is not contradicted and others are , our theory is the most reasonable one. So in situations where we cannot be sure, the best test is whether there is any contradiction or lack of consistency. As long that criterion is satisfied and that is not satisfied in others theory, we are ok.