[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Multiple Brahman?
Brian J Panks (bpanks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: It has been repeated ad infinitum that "there is no difference
: between the Atman and the Brahman". I was pondering samskara at one
: point and raised the question, "Is it possible to have simultaneous
: reincarnations."
Dear Sri Brian:
Thank you for the questions.
There are two issues that you are addressing together here.
Manifestation (vibhuti) and incarnation (avatAra). The universe and
everything/everybody in it is manifestation. But avatara is described
as the God in flesh (brahmano hi pratisThA ahaM; SBG 14.27). The two are
not the same. In vibhutis, God is present as unmanifest (SBG 9.4), but
in incarnations God is present in His Eternal nature (parama-bhAva; SBG
9.11). vibhutis are innumerable (SBG 10.19), and are simultaneouly
present but, as it has been so far, only in one body at a time as an
incarnation, nevetheless innumerable in number over the vast time that
creation has existed (avatAraM asaMkhyAyAM, Srimad Bhagavad). Jesus
Christ too said the same thing, "While I am in the world, I am the light"
(sorry I do not remember in which book of the New Testament). Incarnations
are one at a time, and the time is chosen by God as he said, "whenever there
is the rise of irreligion..." (SBG 4.7-8).
: There are scriptures describing yogis who have transferred their soul to
: other bodies in order to learn something, so there is evidence that such
: a thing is theoretically possible. People have always held to the belief
: that a reincarnation must be limited to something further along linear time
: than their death. However, if one accepts either a circular nature of time,
: or that the soul is not bound by such forces, then this past assumption may
: not be true.
You are talking about rebirth of individual soul here. Time is circular
only from the perspective of the individual soul, not in the ultimate
measure. Rebirth cycles of individual soul is temporarily terminated at
the 'end of time', that is, at the end of brahmA's (or Hiranyagarbha's
day) (SBG 8.18). However, when the corresponding night-time of brahmA
ends, the same souls are reborn again (SBG 8.19).
: Is it possible that the Brahman has merely made one huge game.
: We know this world to be 'reality', but only because that is one of the
: rules which the Brahman places upon itself before a birth in the game. It
: can then produce an infinite number of different limitations, each therefore
: having the appearance of a unique soul.
The world is a relative reality. The creation is real, but decayable.
Without God, the creation can not exist, since the creation exists in
a part of God (SBG 10.42). Therefore God is the ultimate reality. God is
God, whether He is worshipped as a He (purusha) or a She (para-prakR^iti,
Divine Mother) or as unmainfest akshara. dvaita vedanta proposes that
God is worshipped as He/She, while advaita vedanta proposes to worship
God as unmanifest, It. In the SBG, God said, there is no ultimate
difference between the two approaches, both ways God-realization is
obtained in the end (SBG 12.2-6).
I have no notion about how souls 'look', and whether or not the
individual souls 'look' different from each other, but in the SBG, God said
that people with GYAnachakshu (wisdom eye) can see the soul (SBG 15.10).
I suspect that they do not look different, since God said that the yogi sees
Atman and sarbhabhuta as equal in each other (SBG 6.29).
: Each Atman is therefore actually the Brahman, but with self imposed limits.
The soul the real person (dehi) in a body. The material of the body is
also originated from God. If I may say so, had the bodies the faculty of
realization, they would also realize themselves to be actually God,
however, that is not how the creation is set up. The limit you talk
about is mAyA (SBG 7.14), and part of it is acquision of likes and dislikes (ichhA and devshha; SBG 7.27)
and loss of knowlege (SBG 7.15). The mAyA is not imposed by the
individual soul, but by prakR^iti.
: This can be for entertainment, or because the universe is doing all
: things at once, but I prefer to think of it as the 1 breaking itself apart
: to know itself better as there is nothing else to know. Of course, I have
: nothing to base these thoughts upon aside from gut feelings, but something
: lead me to think them, and if you wish, led me to post them here.
I feel that 'entertainment' is a improper choice of word, if you are
referring to 'lilA'. You have included creation under Divine lilA,
normally, lilA is used to describe the work of God as avatAra. However,
I have no objection about including creation under lilA. The traditional
view on creation and lilA differs in one respect; there is no
explanation for creation (such as why did God do it?), while the purpose
of lilA appears to be more defined.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
