manifestation of the Absolute?

[Samkhya]

Hello,

 

First I wish to apologize for my poor English: it is not my mother language. I am from Quebec.

 

I have just read a book on the philosophy of Vedanta. I am not satisfied at all with the view that the finite beings are the "manifestations" of the Absolute. For, if this is so, the question inevitably dawns upon me: manifestation for whom? Whom are the finite beings manifested for? A manifestation, by its notion, implies a knower.

 

The finite beings are manifested EITHER for the Absolute itself, OR for a being outside of the Absolute.

 

If the former, how can we explain that the Absolute has to manifest itself for itself? Is it like a baby who discovers his body?

 

If the latter, it means that the Absolute is not the only Substance. There is a being which exists independently of it, and which «sees» the manifestation of the Absolute as a kind of show...

 

The Vedanta philosophers did not seem to have seen this problem.

[Guest guest]

No Vedantic philosophy can be summed up in a single book.

 

Maybe the answer isn't in the book you read, but possibly in another book. Thing is, you can't take ANY of it as merely words to live by. You have to choose a path, and stick to it, and see where it leads or you'll never know the truth.

 

As for the idea that manifestations implies a "knower", how so? I don't understand why the manifestations should be FOR anyone or anything. Are you wondering what is the MODEL for the manifestations? As in what the manifestations are patterned after, or created in the image of? That would be manifestations OF something, not FOR something.

 

To manifest something is to bring into existence. Since it is said that all beings are immortal, are they ever truly brought into existence? If they've always existed they can never have been brought into existence, therefore they never manifested. They simply have always been.

 

However, that may not be what the Vedic scribes really have in mind when discussing existence. Remember this stuff has been translated from Sanskrit to English and other languages, and as such, there are limitations in the transmission of ideas from the Vedic rishis to the people of today. These translations are not 100% and cannot be due to the limitations of language and the impossibility of a 1:1 correlation between languages. A word in English can possibly describe only one aspect of a single word in Sanskrit, while the word in Sanskrit can have multiple meanings. The essence of the idea can be lost through the translation of one single word.

 

I'm not saying that's the case here, though it is possible, in my opinion.

 

Besides, I'm not even sure what you mean regarding manifestations of the Absolute being for anything.

 

 

[Samkhya]

Hello,

 

My point is that "manifestation of something" necessarily implies someone whom the thing is manifested to, for the word "manifestation" involves the idea of becoming known. Is it clear? Such an idea is not involved in the word "mode".

 

 

[Guest guest]

but I still don't understand what you mean by "'manifestation of something' necessarily implies someone whom the thing is manifested to".

 

Are you asking what is the determination for the FORM of the manifestation? As in who or what decides the form of the manifestation that takes place?

 

Sorry but I find some of your ideas to be poorly expressed, possibly because English isn't your first language. Maybe you should sound it out in your head to see if it makes sense. Try making your thoughts clearer by using examples such as names or objects to help express your thoughts better.

 

Maybe somebody else understands what you're talking about, but no matter how much I mull over the sentence I just quoted, I can't make any sense out of it. No offense intended.

 

In any case, I'll attempt to answer your question: the Absolute is the possessor of all attributes, so it is able to manifest whatever random set of attributes it desires. Call the Absolute "Brahman", "Krsna", whatever you want.

 

The Absolute has a will of its own, it has a purpose in manifesting objects, people, places, animals, creatures of all kinds. Perhaps the only way to understand WHY the Absolute creates is to understand why the creation of the Absolute (creatures of all kinds including people) seek to create or reproduce.

[Samkhya]

Hello,

 

I am picking up my Webster's New World Dictionary.

 

Webster says that "manifestation" is "a manifesting or being manifested". So let's go to the definition of "manifest".

 

Manifest:

 

1) "apparent TO THE SENSES OR THE MIND, obvious".

 

Here is the knower I am talking about, he with "senses or mind".

 

2) "to make clear or evident, reveal"

 

Without an act of knowledge, a thing is "clear" or "evident" only in potency.

 

 

 

 

[Samkhya]

No, I am not talking about him who determines the form of the manifestation.

 

If, according to you, "manifesfation" can be defined simply as "coming into existence", so there cannot be any matter of disagreement. And if this is how the writer of my book understands "manifestation", my criticism is futile.

 

But it is not the way I understand "manifestation".

 

To my mind, manifestation is the process by which something previously hidden becomes apparent to a knower.

[Guest guest]

something to say is that all god's manifestations or emanations are eternal

 

god is eternal, manifestations are eternal, avataras are eternal, we are eternal

 

existence in the material world is cyclical.. avataras menifestates ciclycally their presence in the world(s) and actually, being their acivities transcendental, they are eternally performing them

 

[Samkhya]

««« something to say is that all god's manifestations or emanations are eternal »»»

 

How is it possible? My house did not exist 100 years ago. It is not eternal. And What about Evolution?

 

Do you imply that the history of the universe is cyclical and will occur again in some billions of years?

 

This view is incompatible with the statement that there is a way to free oneself from the bonds of the world. For, if the history of the universe is cyclical, my life, and therefore my bondage, must be also cyclical, since I am an element of the universe. This means that, even if I am freed for a while, I will eventually go back to the world...