Fw: [SriArunachala] purpose of creation

[Guest guest]

Dr. Syed Philosophy professor in Alahabad University put a question.

"Bhagavan" he asked , " what is the purpose of creation ?"Usually

Bhagavan gave His replies in Tamil, Telugu or Malayalam and got

theminterpreted. This time Sri Bhagavan spoke directly in English .

He put acounter question" Can the eye see itself ?"Dr. Syed replied "

Of course not. It can see everything else, but notitself."Then Sri

Bhagavan asked " But if it wants to see itself ?"Dr. Syed paused and

said " It can see itself reflected in a mirror"Sri Bhagavan seized

the answer and commented " That is it. Creation is themirror for the

eye to see itself."now I (Prof Subbaramayya) asked whether Sri

Bhagavan meant 'e-y-e' or ' I '.Sri Bhagavan said that we could take

it figuratively as 'e-y-e' andliterally as ' I '.From Sri Ramana

reminiscences-- By Prof. Subbaramayya

[just4jolly 0]

Well it's a pretty nice argument that creation is the mirror for eye to itself . Then the obvious question is Ain't one mirror enough ? Why do one create so many things .

From whatever i understood from Gita it clearly says that the ultimate purpose of life is to reach god and get rid of the birth- death cycle . But isn't it similar to saying i just throw a boomerang so that it would return back to me . Such an answer might make sense if a common man says it but definitely not the kind of answer you expect from God .

PS : I am a theist and can't accept the fact that there is no god as it would just make life more complicated but the lack of reasoning to trivial questions makes many skeptical. It would be great if you could help

[virginia 0]

*Then the obvious question is Ain't one mirror enough ? Why do one create so many things*

 

My thoughts are..is one flower in the garden enough? It's many flowers that fill the garden with fragrance and beauty.....

[JAW 0]

The mirror Ramana was referring to is the mind. Mind is not individual. Mind is universal and individual minds are terminals of the one universal mind. Explore, go deeply down, down, down into your own mind and you will eventually experience the feeling of having gone outside of yourself. As you pass from inside of yourself to outside of yourself you realize that you are passing from individual mind into universal mind. Therefore the contributor who asked: "Ain't one mirror enough? Why do one create so many things?" may not realize that there is only one universal mind of which his own mind is merely a small terminal part. The appearance of "many things" is ultimately illusory. It is necessary to free yourself from the illusion that your mind is your own. Nothing is your own. Your mind is not your own, it is part of one universal mind.

 

But what is mind? Mind is inner space, akasha. Shakti, coeval with Brahman, through her power of Maya, creates a succession of five subtle elements and she herself enters into them at every level. These five, part of a greater successionary octave, are: Akasha (space), Vayu (air), Tejas (fire), Jala (water), and Prithivi (earth). The key to understanding the play of the subtle elements is to realize that akasha (space) is mind. There is little difficulty in realizing that the universe (creation) is located in space, but it is more difficult to realize that the universe exists in the space of mind and probably nowhere else. Your own individual mind is inner space, and has a direct connection with outer space, universal mind. The universe (creation) exists in universal mind, ie. in akasha, which is to say that the universe exists only in Shakti-Maya created subtle space. Because Maya is involved it is all an illusion. Because space (akasha) is created by the Maya of Shakti space is the ultimate illusion. Because mind is inner space, mind is also illusory. The universe (creation) is an illusory appearance in mind, illusory in both universal mind and in individual mind.

 

The question is: how does the universe appear in mind? It is achieved through light. Light is a form of subtle fire (tejas). Light is created in stars, the most important of which for us is the Sun. Light for us is consciousness. Light enters our organism in several ways, one is rare: coming directly from the Sun; another is more common: as reflections from the objects of the world entering the eye; and another is objectively bizarre with intimations of tragedy: the absorption of light by plants which we and animals eat and the light energy, hardly transformed, reaches the brain in the form of sugar in the blood. Air (vayu) is also involved, and breathed in, reaching the brain, conveyed in the circulation of blood, oxidizing the sugar, releasing the light energy in the brain cellular structure. The brain is the chief centre of support for the individual mind. These two forms of light energy, in impressions and in food, dance in the neuronal structure of the brain creating ordinary consciousness. Thus in our individual mind the universe miraculously appears, yet it is all nothing but light reflecting upon the surface of the mind.

 

 

Light is consciousness and the universe is nothing more than light presented to and reflected upon the screen of the mind. We not that consciousness, which can come and go; we are not that light which is a creation of a star, the Sun; we are not that consciousness which is merely a projection, a presentation of cinematic light upon the reflective surface of the mind. Some Advaitins say that the light of consciousness is the creation of Ishvara, other Advaitins say that light of consciousness is ultimately the subtle element tejas, which has been produced by Shakti through her power of Maya and animated by Prana (vayu) a subtle air and the whole located in Akasha (subtle space). Yet other Advaitins say that Ishvara is also illusory, being only a form of Saguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman is Brahman with the three gunas, and since the manifestations of three gunas constitute Prakriti in their unmanifested state, which is eternally differentiated from Purusha (the higher Witness), the universe is nothing more than an arena in which the three gunas act and interact to produce the illusory phenomenon of the universe for the benefit of an observer, the Purusha. The alleged benefit is the release of the Atman (pure consciousness) from identification with the jiva, an illusory nature that it is not. Some jnanis state that consciousness is not individual, consciousness is not your personal property, and is part of universal consciousness. Shortly before death individual consciousness leaves and returns to universal consciousness from whence it originally came.

 

 

We are not consciousness. We are the awareness which stands behind consciousness and which observes consciousness. As such awareness has location, and the Absolute is without location, which implies separation, it become additionally necessary to state that we are that unknowable unobservable transcendental awareness which is aware of the awareness that stands behind consciousness. If such a definition of our absolute self is true it is at once obvious that nothing can be known, nor seen, about about such a Self. It has no form and cannot be reflected in any mirror, including the mirror of the mind. It is not an object and therefore cannot be an object of knowledge. It has no being, being transcendentally beyond both the opposites of being and non-being. Therefore if you were to look into a mirror you would see nothing there. Is the Absolute an "I"? Is the Self an "I"? Probably not. “I” implies separation: The separation of "I" from something which is "not-I". As the Absolute is One Alone it isn't necessary to distinguish "I" from everything else. If it isn't necessary to distinguish “I” from everything else, it isn't necessary to see it.

 

 

Ramana Maharshi, in his playful response to his questioner, the professor of philosophy Dr Syed, was referring to the advaitic thesis that the purpose of Creation is for the Absolute to see itself. Several schools of Advaita teach a similar thesis. Problematically, such a thesis implies that the Absolute is subject to desire... the desire to see itself, or to know itself. It is very doubtful that desire is present in the Absolute. As the Absolute is the One Alone, what is there to desire? Desire implies lack, need, impulse, change, all of which are contradictory to the still perfect changeless Absolute. Desire may be present in the Shakti but is probably absent in the Parabrahman. Even if the universe is created for the purpose of entertainment, it is doubtful whether entertainment is a suitable interest and pursuit for an Absolute?

 

 

 

What then is the purpose of the universe (Creation)? If you are capable of a certain amount of courage you may explore the possibility that the universe is without purpose. Ultimately it may be meaningless. Advaita states that the universe is beginningless and endless. If so, it cannot have any purpose or meaning because purpose implies something before Creation bringing it into existence as the result of an aim, a scheme, desiring a result. Those Advaitins, influenced by Samkhya, who state the purpose of Creation to be the release of Atman from identification with what it is not, ie identification with the illusory jiva, perhaps fail to realize that the Self is in the universe as the Witness (the Purusha) and outside of the universe as the Absolute (the Parabrahman). Purusha has no form and never identifies with any form. Purusha, contrary to some advaitic doctrines never becomes entangled in Prakriti. Purusha sees Prakriti as the endless action and interaction of the three gunas, completely mechanical and unconscious, and Purusha as pure witnessing awareness couldn't possibly identify with anything in Creation. The Atman however, believing that it is everything and everything is itself, does identify with any form, especially and fatally with the form of the jiva which is presented to it by the manifested Buddhi, animated by Ahamkara, behind which in the causal dimension lurks the concealed Maya. That is great ignorance, and ignorance is in the Atman. Atman is pure awesome consciousness that lacks knowledge. Only knowledge can release the Atman from identifying with what it is not. Atman needs to realize that it is not everything, especially that it is not an illusory form. Purusha observes the Atman, but the Atman does not see the Purusha, because Purusha has no form. Purusha already has all knowledge that is necessary in the moment and does not identify with what it is not, therefore the Atman and Purusha are not the same. Therefore the Atman is not the Absolute Self. There may well be a drama, a play, being enacted out in the Theatre of the Universe, in which the Atman separates from Brahman, falls under the illusory influence of Shakti-Maya, identifies with a jiva, become the jivatman, appears to become subject to birth and death, experiencing suffering, and gaining eventual liberation... but that is not the Self, not the Absolute, not oneself. Some jnanis state that the world is like a dream. Brahman is dreaming the universe. When Brahman sleeps Shakti awakes, when Brahman awakes, Shakti sleeps. But as an ultimate explanation this thesis is probably doubtful because the Self, the Parabrahman, never sleeps.

 

 

Finally there is the thesis of ajati-vada, first introduced by Shankara's lineage-teacher Gaudapada in his Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad, which states that there never has been a Universe, neither a real universe, nor the appearance of one. There is no birth and no death. You were never born. You cannot die, even if you want to. Nothing was ever brought into existence and therefore there is nothing to go out of existence. As there is no universe, no mind, no power, no form, no desire, no material substance... how can there be an "I" contriving to see itself? What would it see.... nothing?

 

 

As you can see, all the major theories concerning the meaning and purpose of the universe appear to contain quite serious flaws. Therefore in this enquiry into the causal explanation of the universe 'not knowing' may be the finer position to assume than 'knowing'?

[stserif 0]

this analogy supports a dualism and so I find in inaccurate. there is no mirror that is separate from the eye which it reflects.