Who created God?

[Aupmanyav]

Deleted.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yeah, it is very strong that everything that exists in the universe arose from the ionic plasma which existed at the time of Big Bang. So humans, animals, vegetation and non-living substances, all arise from the same, without any exception.
That is non-dual Hinduism, 'Advaita'. No need for a God or soul. We ourselves and the society is the judge. No life beyond death, just change in form for what constitutes us. It is a simple doctrine devoid of complexicities.

I have to interject here, because you are once again taking your own materialistic views and calling them "non-dual Hinduism, 'Advaita.'"

Advaita simply the realization that the individual Self (Atman) is identical to the supreme reality...the highest principle...pure consciousness (Brahman).

Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Applying materialistic views to the philosophy is your prerogative, but please don't misrepresent it by suggesting that your views are the sum of the philosophy to those who may not be familiar with it. I'm confident Adi Sankara would take exception to your doing so.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My motive is to tarpedo false beliefs of theists with which they fool people.

There are no "false beliefs." All rivers lead to the ocean. No need to assume that everyone is afloat on the same river you navigate.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The Christian Apophatic Tradition says broadly the same thing. Eckhart says the same thing.

Consciousness is associated with Brahman, although this order transcends the human categories of understanding.

Maya conceals, but Maya also reveals.

Brahman does not have a brain. Brhman is not conscious. Brahman is quite machinistic. Action and reaction.
Maya conceals, knowledge reveals.

Per Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is pure consciousness...satcitananda. This is not the Western concept of waking consciousness that's associated with the brain, but the substrate that underlies that waking consciousness (jagrat), dream consciousness (svapna), and deep sleep (susupti).

Maya is time/space/causation. "Action and reaction" is causation, and therefore inherent to maya. Action and reaction are part of the veil obscuring Brahman from the world.

 

[SalixIncendium]

..well, you do!

Does that mean that "Brahman" is separate from human beings?

Human beings are an appearance in/of Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Applying materialistic views to the philosophy is your prerogative, but please don't misrepresent it by suggesting that your views are the sum of the philosophy to those who may not be familiar with it. I'm confident Adi Sankara would take exception to your doing so.

Agree, it is my personal so-called 'materialistic view'. But perhaps Sankara would not have disagreed, he said 'Ishwar' belongs to 'Vyavaharika Satya'. I forgot to check this with him.

There are no "false beliefs." All rivers lead to the ocean.

Don't think so. Some rivers empty in land-locked lakes or marshes.

Per Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is pure consciousness...satcitananda.
Maya is time/space/causation.

There is no pure consciousness. Where does it exist? In what brain? There is no consciousness without a brain.
Existence of Brahman itself creates 'maya'. The fundamental forces giving rise to waves/particles to all that happens in the universe.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Agree, it is my personal so-called 'materialistic view'. But perhaps Sankara would not have disagreed, he said 'Ishwar' belongs to 'Vyavaharika Satya'. I forgot to check this with him.

Somehow, I don't think Sankara had "ionic plasma" in mind when speaking of Ishwara.

Don't think so. Some rivers empty in land-locked lakes or marshes.

It's meant to be a metaphor. But if you want to be so literal, let's not forget the water cycle.

There is no pure consciousness. Where does it exist? In what brain?

'Where' is a location word. That is maya. Pure consciousness simply exists.

There is no consciousness without a brain.

I just made the distinction between the Western concept of consciousness and the Eastern concept of it. You chose to ignore it and make the bold, empty claim that it's dependent on a brain. There is no evidence of this.

Existence of Brahman itself creates 'maya'. The fundamental forces giving rise to waves/particles to all that happens in the universe.

Brahman does not create. It simply is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Somehow, I don't think Sankara had "ionic plasma" in mind when speaking of Ishwara.
It's meant to be a metaphor. But if you want to be so literal, let's not forget the water cycle.
'Where' is a location word. That is maya. Pure consciousness simply exists.
I just made the distinction between the Western concept of consciousness and the Eastern concept of it. You chose to ignore it and make the bold, empty claim that it's dependent on a brain. There is no evidence of this.
Brahman does not create. It simply is.

Sankara did not know about 'ionic plasma', but he sure knew that Ishwara does not exist in 'Paramarthika Satya' (Absolute Truth).
Point taken.
What is the definition of 'Pure Consciousness'? The four fundamental forces? 'Spooky action at a distance'?
There is no evidence contrary to it.
That is what I said. Maya happens because there is Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In quantum field theory, a force carrier is a type of particle that gives rise to forces between other particles. They serve as the quanta of a particular kind of physical field.
Photons are the fastest force carriers. In case of gravity, gravitons are postulated.
Force carrier - Wikipedia, Action at a distance - Wikipedia

 

[SalixIncendium]

What is the definition of 'Pure Consciousness'? The four fundamental forces? 'Spooky action at a distance'?

The state of awareness without qualities or attributes...devoid of content such as thoughts, feelings, and senses. No forces...no action. Simply the purest state of being.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not see a being in the sky. Brahman, for me is not a being. It is space/energy, appearing and (perhaps) disappearing. A football expanding with the speed of light, which we currently measure some 93 billion light-years, till it makes an about-turn.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I do not see a being in the sky. Brahman, for me is not a being. It is space/energy, appearing and (perhaps) disappearing. A football expanding with the speed of light, which we currently measure some 93 billion light-years, till it makes an about-turn.

I did not say 'a' being. I said 'being,' present participle of the verb 'be.'

Space and energy are things. That is maya. Brahman is no thing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I did not say 'a' being. I said 'being,' present participle of the verb 'be.'
Space and energy are things. That is maya. Brahman is no thing.

Of course, Brahman is there; space, energy, time, mass is there; and nothing else, till the other phase (non-existence) begins.
My guess. Perhaps by the time my younger grandson is 80, things will be clearer. He is a 14-year old at the moment.
Things may be understood by the time his grandson is 80.
You see, Salix, things take time. Our desire to know the secrets does not hurry things.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Of course, Brahman is there; space, energy, time, mass is there; and nothing else, till the other phase (non-existence) begins.

This is not Advaita Vedanta.

Per Advaita, space, time, mass...all illusory...all a result of maya. All of these are temporary and subject to change. Brahman is unchanging and eternal...not subject to time, space, or causation.

My guess. Perhaps by the time my younger grandson is 80, things will be clearer. He is a 14-year old at the moment.
Things may be understood by the time his grandson is 80.
You see, Salix, things take time. Our desire to know the secrets does not hurry things.

It is experience that brings knowledge and realization, not chronological age. I know at least one brahmajnani (knower of Brahman, for those readers unfamiliar with the term) that has yet to reach 40 years of age, and those over 80 who remain in the bondage of samsara.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Per Advaita, space, time, mass...all illusory...all a result of maya. All of these are temporary and subject to change. Brahman is unchanging and eternal...not subject to time, space, or causation.


It is experience that brings knowledge and realization, not chronological age. I know at least one brahmajnani (knower of Brahman, for those readers unfamiliar with the term) that has yet to reach 40 years of age, and those over 80 who remain in the bondage of samsara.

Is there as aq part of 'Vyavaharika Satya'. Of course, nothing like that in 'Parmarthika Satya'.
Sankara was a Brahmajnani at the age of 8. I achieved that quite late in my life.

"Before being accepted as a pupil, Sankara prostrated before his (parama) guru, Sri Govind Bhagavadpada, and stated, "I am not the body. Nor am I the mind. I am not the intellect nor am I the senses; I am the Self." This profound answer pleased his guru and led to his initiation into the order of Sanyasa." DuckAssist

 

[SalixIncendium]

"Before being accepted as a pupil, Sankara prostrated before his (parama) guru, Sri Govind Bhagavadpada, and stated, "I am not the body. Nor am I the mind. I am not the intellect nor am I the senses; I am the Self." This profound answer pleased his guru and led to his initiation into the order of Sanyasa." DuckAssist

Actually what Sankara said to Bhagavatpada (who was, incidentally, a disciple of Gaudapada) was much longer, and later became known as the Atma (Nirvana) Shatakam:

I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (citta).​

I am not the five senses, nor am I the five elements.​

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.​

​

Neither can I be termed as energy (prāṇa),​

nor five types of breath (vāyus - Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna),​

nor the seven material essences,​

nor the five sheaths (pañca-kośa).​

Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion.​

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.​

​

I have no hatred or dislike,​

nor affiliation or liking,​

nor greed,​

nor delusion,​

nor pride or haughtiness,​

nor feelings of envy or jealousy.​

I have no duty (dharma),​

nor any purpose (artha),​

nor any desire (kāma),​

nor even liberation (mokṣa).​

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.​

​

I have neither merit (virtue),​

nor demerit (vice).​

I do not commit sins or good deeds,​

nor have happiness or sorrow,​

pain or pleasure.​

I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yajñas).​

I am none of the triad of the observer or one who experiences, the process of observing or experiencing, or any object being observed or experienced.​

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.​

​

I do not have fear of death, as I do not have death.​

I have no separation from my true self, no doubt about my existence,​

nor have I discrimination on the basis of caste or creed.​

I have no father or mother,​

nor did I have a birth.​

I am not the relative,​

nor the friend,​

nor the guru,​

nor the disciple.​

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.​

​

I am all pervasive.​

I am without any attributes, and without any form.​

I have neither attachment to the world,​

nor to liberation (mukti).​

I have no wishes for anything​

because I am everything,​

everywhere,​

every time,​

always in equilibrium.​

I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), pure consciousness.​

​

Nirvanashatkam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You'll also note here that Sankara himself used the term "pure consciousness" (or "consciousness/bliss" depending on the translation) when referring to his true nature.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You'll also note here that Sankara himself used the term "pure consciousness" (or "consciousness/bliss" depending on the translation) when referring to his true nature.

Yeah, but there, I differ from him. Chit, Ananda; IMHO, Brahman does not have these attributes. No evidence.

 

[Northstar]

I just wondered what people's opinions on this were .. including polytheists and atheists.

God always was, he is the absolute that always existed and the meaning of his secret name means "I am who I am and who I always was",

 

[RabbiO]

Secret name?

What name would that be?

 

[Craz]

Secret name?

What name would that be?

If @Northstar told you the name, it wouldn't be secret any more.