Cause of Creation

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- MSR <miinalochanii at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> Does dvaita say that jiivaa is "pure unqualified anaanda"? It is
> iishvara/brahman whose nature is aananda. Gradatations comes because of
> the difference in the ability of jiiva-s to imbibe/perceive the aananda
> of Lord.
>
> If duality persists at mukti -- then what is the problem in seeing
> gradation in the degree of bliss attained by each jiiva? Why do you say
> suffering in samsaara is related to gradation? It is due to wrong
> knowledge  which leads to wrong actions and consequences.

Your question is right - when there is dvaita, then why not accept the
gradations in ananda too.  Yes when there is dwaita - there is already a
problem since limitations become intrinsic - udaramantaram kurute
athatasya bhayam bhavati - even a spec of difference due to duality can
cause fear - thus samsaara. In principle, no one likes limitations and
moksha is free from limitations. Even if I accept myself as limited (jiiva
parichinnam), I donot want to settle for finite happiness.  In
vishishhTaadvaita this is solved by saying that jiiva although finite,
enjoys infinte happiness along with the Lord.  In fact he enjoys
everything with the Lord except of course the creative ability.

> --
> To claim Lord is antaryaami of prakRti reduces v.advaita to advaita.
> Then I will take the tiniest of particles and say God is in there? And
> in which part of it is God -- probably if I keep questioning then we
> will see God pervades all! There is nothing that is non-God. Only way
> out is to say prakRti and purushha are different. That is dvaita.

No, antaryaami - is like space pervading eveything in space, yet space is
different from the objects in space. - Vishnu is vyaapakatvaat - one who
pervades - there is antaryaami BrahmaNa discussion in Bri. Up. Dvaita is
an exclusion. In sadeva smouma prakaraNa - existence alone was there in
the beginning - but in VishishhTaadvaita - they invoke, not sajaai,
vijaati bheda-s but swagata bheda-s or internal difference within the
existence.

> And by everything arises from brahman and goes back to brahman it is
> meant that "the state of tangible manifestation of this universe
> inhabited by jiiva-s comes out of brahman and when brahman choose to
> withdraw its power of mAyA then this manifestation goes back to him"
> This does mean the prakRti goes back to him. All jiiva-s and prakRti
> are reduced to their primal subtle arrested state. Some thing like
> hibernate mode of laptop (this is just an example -- should not be
> stretched).

No Problem Ravi, if you are happy about the explanation.  There is a desha
kaala vastu parichinnam already formed when something is there other than
oneself or Brahman.  Brahman is no more Brahman - the infiniteness since
it excludes something when Maya as you said is withdrawn.

>
>
> Also infiniteness need not imply non-duality. It does not even imply
> completeness. Set of rational numbers is infinite -- it is neither
> non-dual and nor it is complete. By infinite, it is meant bhagavAn
> incomprehensible and immeasurable.  And by complete it is meant that he
> is innately content and does not need anything external to sustain him
> or his state of pure joy.

Ravi - non-duality is actually free from duality as well as free from
absence of duality. Infinite is absolute infiniteness since there is
nothing else other than Brahman.  Infinite should include all finite -
otherwise it is not infinite. Presence or absence of finite are within
finite only cannot be away from infinite - This is beautifully said in
panchadasi - nirvikalpa means free from vikalpa as well as vikalpa abhaava
or  absence of vikalpa. Infinity in rational number or any other infinites
are not absolute infinite since they are finite with respect to irrational
numbers or complex numbers etc. Brahman is the infinite from desha, kaala
and vastu ateeta- beyond time-wise, space-wise and object-wise
limitations.  Rational numbers are one kind of objects only. knowing
infinite - it cannot be known as separate since the very separateness
makes infinite no more infinite. Hence knowing infinite is becoming
infinite only - there is no other knowledge possible - hence brahma vit
braha eva bhavati -says scripture -which is absolutely logical considering
the nature of Brahman. The other alternative of knowledge of infinite is
not possible.  That is the wrong knowledge that you mentioned in  your
first paragraph.

> Please do correct me. I understand that you have studies all three
> systems to a great depth and I have not even scratched their surface.
> My contention is dvaita has a better footing than v.advaita.

No Ravi - my understanding of dvaita is limited.  Anytime I open a book to
study, I get turned off because I find it extremely illogical and cannot
proceed more than a page or two. I find v.adviata is more logial even if I
donot appreciate their logic. Probably I am also biased since I grew up as
v.advaitin.

Pranaams
sadananda


> =====
> ambaaL daasan

- What is the difference between daasan vs adiyen that Bhakti group uses?


>
> Ravi
>
> sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI
>
> http://www.ambaa.org/  http://www.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


=====
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