Identity, individuality

[Thomas]

There's an interesting commentary at Advaita Vision

"The creation the Nasadiya Sukta discusses is often believed to be the origin of the universe. However, 10.129.4 does not refer to any ordinary creation but, rather, the illusion of duality. This is attributed to desire in the mind – the first ‘seed’ of ignorance which gives the impression that we are separate. Before this disturbance, there was nothing to realise and no one to know because there was no appearance which was taken to be real as separate from the Self or Brahman."

"Gaudapada similarly declares in their Mandukya Karika:
2.32. There’s really no one who’s bound, no one seeking liberation, and no one who becomes liberated. This is the highest truth.

"Being bound, seeking or becoming liberated implies that there is someone (subject) that these things (object) happen to. It is by taking duality to be real that there is bondage, a seeker and liberation. When the illusion of separation is seen through, there is only the highest, undifferentiated truth of Brahman.

"The ‘beginning’ that the Nasadiya Sukta and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad refer to is before the appearance of duality is taken to be real. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.4.10) later repeats this idea in its mahavakya, ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ – “I am Brahman” –
"In the beginning, Brahman was this. It knew only itself: ‘I am Brahman.’ Through that it became all.

"When desire or hunger is present, there is the illusion of Brahman knowing something other than itself.

"Finally, “the wisdom of the connection between existence and non-existence” which the Nasadiya Sukta mentions refers to the Real and Unreal. The Real is the eternal, non-dual Self, whilst the Unreal are the separate selves, world and forms. For one who has realised the wisdom of this connection, duality is a falsehood. For one who confuses the Real and Unreal, the desire in the mind is perceived to be real and belonging to a self which is desiring.

"In this way, the existence and non-existence that is spoken about is the disturbance of desire. The wise who have realised the connection know the cause of the disturbance and the solution for it. The knowledge of Advaita is knowing there never was a disturbance, whereas, caught up in illusion, we confuse the activity of the mind (Unreal) with the unchanging (Real) Self. Our ability to perceive the desire as real depends on whether we think duality is. If there is no separation, there is no one desiring and it cannot be said there ever was any desire. It is believing that there was which is the disturbance."

 

[Thomas]

You are the stuff, there is none other. But since you are yawning, let us leave it at that. Have a good rest.

I am consciousness, there is no other.

The yawn is because you know those kind of responses are silly. They are the arguments of the ignorant, and you are better than that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I see the result of their influence, humans have been constantly fighting and killing each other in all history..

That's all you want to see .. pointing to evil and blaming religion is only a cop-out.

 

[we6jbo]

That is the beauty of this poem. It was one of the later verses of RigVeda composed after Aryans had come to know of the indigenous philosophy and before RigVeda was canonized (therefore sometimes around 1,000 BCE). They had no scientific information, used their brains for analysis. I consider the writer of the poem, Prajpati Parameshthi, as one of the greatest philosophers of Hinduism, and perhaps the first atheist of the world, who boldly declared that "Gods are later than the creation of the universe". Accepting existence of any God creates the question as to how the God came to exist. Prajapati Parameshthi was the first philosopher to claim "Ex-nihilo" creation.

"at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less, by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit."

How true, even after 3,000 years. Do not we think that the ball of 'quark-gluon plasma' had great temperature and pressure at the time of Big Bang?

That is really interesting. I’m currently watching

in order to understand how this connects to Christianity. My understanding of creation stories is that there are connections, much like with the flood story.

Regarding how the creation story would fit with our current knowledge of the events leading up to what we see today, a lot of them fall into what I call “horoscopes.” A horoscope is something that is vague enough that one person reading it could apply it to their life, and then another person could read that exact same horoscope and apply it to their life too. It is simply vague text, so it works that way. I would have to read more about when people started to learn how things like planets and stars were actually created, but trust me when I say this: no creation story from any religion knew how any of this was created. They also would not have known that the atmosphere was once different from what it is now, including during the time of the dinosaurs and much later.

The video that I am watching right now touches on these gods and how they were created. What’s interesting is that the Greeks also talked about multiple gods. So that may or may not be a common theme, considering Hinduism is one of the oldest known religions, along with Judaism, or at least that is my interpretation based on the graphic. Either way, it is quite interesting.

I also saw that within Hinduism, there are people who are atheists. I’m still trying to understand atheism because when I was researching it last night, I started to form the conclusion that atheists can also be religious in a world-form sense. At the same time, it sounds like I may have been misunderstanding my own conclusion. So I’ll have to look further into this.

Nonetheless, I am wondering: could it be that some Hindus have continued to practice their beliefs, but instead of believing in all of those beliefs, they have chosen to eliminate some of the faith-based ones and substitute them with more modern scientific beliefs? I feel that Christians do the same thing. There are some Christians who are also scientists. They do not warp scientific theory around the creation story. They simply practice the religion, then set it aside when they apply current and modern scientific methods to discovering new possible ideas about how the events that created the solar system formed.

 

[Bloodshot]

In my belief, neither there is evidence of God interfering in the affairs of the world in history nor I have seen any in my 83 years. Therefore, there is no reason that I should accept the existence of any God or Goddess.

I don't see a god-shaped hole when I look at the universe either, but I embrace the knowledge that my sight is limited.

 

[Thomas]

There are some Christians who are also scientists. They do not warp scientific theory around the creation story. They simply practice the religion, then set it aside when they apply current and modern scientific methods to discovering new possible ideas about how the events that created the solar system formed.

I would rather offer that there's no need to 'set aside' one's faith, simply that Genesis is not a scientific treatise, any more than a cosmological theory is a religious one.

St Maximus the Confessor's interpretation of creation and fall, written some 1400 years ago, is still relevant and in no way contradicts, or is contradicted by, contemporary cosmological theories.

 

[iBrian]

He has not stopped either the Ukraine-Russia war or the Israel-Iran-Gaza-West Bank-Lebanon-US war.

Last time I looked these were started by men, are fought by men, and will be ended by men. Blaming it on God seems very artificial.

Yet it is also a strange truth that war has progressed society in many positive ways. WW2 is known for its horrific death tolls, yet the advances in science and technology resulting from that have arguably saved and empowered many more lives - everything from antibiotics to all the fruits of technological industrialization that were driven by it.

Also, I really don't understand the need to try and convince Aup that God is real because he has no argument against that, but he's very entitled to have a difference of opinion. I'd enjoy it more if he shared more of his beliefs and experiences from Hindu philosophy - the Sanatama Dama - because that knowledge is truly interesting - even, dare I say it, enlightening.

EDIT: I am only stating an opinion.

 

[we6jbo]

I would rather offer that there's no need to 'set aside' one's faith, simply that Genesis is not a scientific treatise, any more than a cosmological theory is a religious one.

St Maximus the Confessor's interpretation of creation and fall, written some 1400 years ago, is still relevant and in no way contradicts, or is contradicted by, contemporary cosmological theories.

That's good to know, and I respect that. I had a thought that just came up. I've briefly looked into Judaism, and I'm bound to fumble through some of the language and understanding of what I'm about to say, but I'm wondering if ancient Judaism could share some similarities with the creation story found in the Rig Veda, translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith.

What I mean is that, from a Christian understanding, what the Rig Veda presents might feel a bit foreign to how Christians usually understand creation, God, or gods. If we simply rely on how the word "God" or "gods" is interpreted, we might miss some of the historical or religious meaning behind the text.

I do know that religion and belief have changed a lot throughout time. So the concept of God, at least in the way many people understand it today, may not have been the first idea. It may have developed over thousands of years, depending on the culture, language, and religious tradition being discussed.

This is an interesting thread. It does move into the science realm quite often, which makes it a bit challenging for me to follow along because I like to separate the ideas when talking about religion itself versus talking about how religion or belief developed over time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Gaudapada similarly declares in their Mandukya Karika:

"When desire or hunger is present, there is the illusion of Brahman knowing something other than itself.

"In the beginning, Brahman was this. It knew only itself: ‘I am Brahman.’ Through that it became all.

"Finally, “the wisdom of the connection between existence and non-existence”

Gaudapada accepted existence of God.

No. Hindu food prayer:
"Brahmārpaṇam brahma haviḥ brahmāgnau brahmaṇ āhutam."
(Brahman is the offering, Brahman is the oblation poured out by Brahman into the fire of Brahman*.)
* Hunger, Jatharagni.
One of the most crucial aspects of this internal ecosystem in Ayurveda is Jatharagni, or digestive fire, the core metabolic force located in the stomach and duodenum (Grahani*) responsible for digesting food, absorbing nutrients, and converting them into energy.
* Organ that accepts food.

Jatharagni: Guide To Digestive Fire & How To Boost Gut Health

Meaning “fire”, Jatharagni is digestive fire in Ayurveda. Find what it is, symptoms of imbalance, & techniques to restore gut health in our guide.

www.arhantayoga.org

I agree with "Aham Brahmasmi", but not in the way presented by Brihadaranyaka Upanishad but in the way Chandogya Upanishad presented it, "Tat twam asi" (You are that), or like what Mandukya Upanishad said, "Sarvam khalvidam Braahma" (All this is Brahman).

Nasadiya Sukta does not mention real or unreal, it also does not say that real is eternal or the unreal is transitory. It says existence and non-existence are related, perhaps one changing into the other.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nonetheless, I am wondering: could it be that some Hindus have continued to practice their beliefs, but instead of believing in all of those beliefs, they have chosen to eliminate some of the faith-based ones and substitute them with more modern scientific beliefs? I feel that Christians do the same thing. There are some Christians who are also scientists. They do not warp scientific theory around the creation story. They simply practice the religion, then set it aside when they apply current and modern scientific methods to discovering new possible ideas about how the events that created the solar system formed.

That is correct. I follow "dharma" (my duties). That is enough to make me a Hindu. It does not require me to accept existence of any God or Goddess, or heaven or hell, or punishment or deliverance, or of re-birth or eternal life.
The only difference is that this process started in Hinduism about 3,000 years ago.

Also, I really don't understand the need to try and convince Aup that God is real because he has no argument against that, but he's very entitled to have a difference of opinion. I'd enjoy it more if he shared more of his beliefs and experiences from Hindu philosophy - the Sanatama Dama - because that knowledge is truly interesting - even, dare I say it, enlightening.

It is very simple, iBrian. I am an atheist and my family is theist. They know my views. If they ask me to bow to the deities, I do it. I am bowing to my culture which is overwhelmingly theist. Theism and atheism, both are parts of it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's all you want to see .. pointing to evil and blaming religion is only a cop-out.

No. Vedic religion, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism* did not have this kind of wars.
* Sikh separatism was instigated by Pakistan and that is history. Go to a gurudwara or a temple, see how Hindus and Sikhs pray together.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Vedic religion, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism* did not have this kind of wars.

Is it religions who have wars or people/nations?

 

[Thomas]

... but I'm wondering if ancient Judaism could share some similarities with the creation story found in the Rig Veda, translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith.

I think, despite what I've said above, the similarities would be more a case of reading onto the text, than any actual correspondence.

One significant feature is that Genesis is primarily about the creation of the world, and particularly humanity, as with the mythologies of the Ancient Near East, their focus is primarily anthropomorphic.

The Rig Veda says nothing about the creation of humanity, the origins of humanity. Nor is there a concept of the Fall. From the briefest of searches, the idea of 'sin' is not as the Abrahamics view it, a moral transgression – rather there is an offense against the cosmic order leading to ritual and ethical error?

What I mean is that, from a Christian understanding, what the Rig Veda presents might feel a bit foreign to how Christians usually understand creation, God, or gods. If we simply rely on how the word "God" or "gods" is interpreted, we might miss some of the historical or religious meaning behind the text.

I'm not sure the eastern and western view of 'god' or 'gods' are so alien to each other? having said that, the understanding of the nature of God changes significantly across the Bible.

I do know that religion and belief have changed a lot throughout time. So the concept of God, at least in the way many people understand it today, may not have been the first idea. It may have developed over thousands of years, depending on the culture, language, and religious tradition being discussed.

Yep, for sure.

This is an interesting thread. It does move into the science realm quite often ...

It would be good to get it back on track regarding the question of the 'Individual and Individuality'

'Who we are?' is a big question. In non-dual Hinduism, Advaita philosophy, we are what all things in the universe are made of, no different.
Hindus gave it a name - Brahman, that which constitutes the Brahma (universe). That is our permanent identity. All other identities are temporary and will disintegrate in time. Nothing is excluded in it.

Christianity says much the same thing, in essence.

Without resurrecting a constant back-and-forth between @Aupmanyav and myself, I regard the nature of "Brahman" as Satcitananda: sat 'being' / 'existence'; cit 'consciousness' / 'awareness' / 'presence'; ananda 'bliss', although I would personally qualify that with 'peace' / 'rest' / 'stillness' in the sense of as suffering no need, want or dependency. So 'consciousness' is a prior and fundamental quality of the cosmos.

The goal then is to align the individual self with Selfhood-as such; the union of a being with ultimate beingness, in which even the distinction of being/non-being ceases.

 

[Thomas]

Ah, so you are worried about identity, individuality.
In East, it is considered a mirage. Oneness requires abandonment of identity, individuality.

In Christianity, the same.

How that Oneness is conceived is another matter ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it religions who have wars or people/nations?

Religions also are at war and they make people engage in wars.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Rig Veda says nothing about the creation of humanity, the origins of humanity. Nor is there a concept of the Fall. From the briefest of searches, the idea of 'sin' is not as the Abrahamics view it, a moral transgression – rather there is an offense against the cosmic order leading to ritual and ethical error?

Without resurrecting a constant back-and-forth between @Aupmanyav and myself, I regard the nature of "Brahman" as Satcitananda: sat 'being' / 'existence'; cit 'consciousness' / 'awareness' / 'presence'; ananda 'bliss', although I would personally qualify that with 'peace' / 'rest' / 'stillness' in the sense of as suffering no need, want or dependency. So 'consciousness' is a prior and fundamental quality of the cosmos.

The goal then is to align the individual self with Selfhood-as such; the union of a being with ultimate beingness, in which even the distinction of being/non-being ceases.

RigVeda does say about origin and creation of humanity. It is about the same as in other theist religions. See the hymn Purusha in Book 10.
Book 10 contains verses from later Vedic period.

"11 When they divided Puruṣa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
12 The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced."

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN XC. Puruṣa. | Internet Sacred Text Archive

Hinduism: 1. A THOUSAND heads hath Puruṣa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.

sacred-texts.com

You are welcome. Most Hindus would agree with you.
I totally agree with your last sentence.

 

[Thomas]

RigVeda does say about origin and creation of humanity. It is about the same as in other theist religions. See the hymn Purusha in Book 10.

Yes, I had looked at that, but there's a lot to parse there – it's a deep dive!

My browser offered this:
"Overview and Core Philosophy
The Purusha Sukta (Rigveda 10.90) is a profound Vedic hymn that describes the spiritual unity of the universe. It presents the nature of Purusha, or the "Cosmic Being," as a reality that is both immanent in the manifested world and transcendent beyond it. The hymn asserts that the original creative will (identified with Vishvakarma, Hiranyagarbha, or Prajapati) proceeds from this Being, causing the projection of the universe in space and time.

It posits that all manifestations—past, present, and future—are nothing but the Purusha alone, establishing a panentheistic viewpoint where the divine permeates creation while remaining greater than it."

Does that seem a reasonable?

It seems anthropomorphic and panentheistic – which I would assume you'd have issue with – I read somewhere that it's late in the scheme of the Vedas, and influenced by Buddhism?

 

[Bloodshot]

"11 When they divided Puruṣa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
12 The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced."

I was under the impression this is widely considered a late addition to the Rigveda, perhaps intended to justify and cement the existing social order?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I had looked at that, but there's a lot to parse there – it's a deep dive!

As you said, the hymn "Purusa" is a deep dive. Since it does not go with my beliefs, I do not care much about it.
What is the significance of this? "Seven fencing-sticks had he, thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared,"
I believe that even the later hymns of Rigveda belong to pre-Buddha era.
There is no impress of Buddhism in RigVeda. OTOH, Buddha eight have been influenced by RigVedic hymns.
After all, he had two Hindu gurus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I was under the impression this is widely considered a late addition to the Rigveda, perhaps intended to justify and cement the existing social order?

I believe that RigVeda was canonized in its present form before Buddha's time. Even the later hymns preceed the Buddhist era.
As for the four-fold social divisions, Indo-Iranian Aryans (Vedics and Zoroastrians) already had that in Central Asia.
But India had thousands of divisions based on tribes, languages, regions, professions, religious beliefs, traditions, food, etc.
What happened in the assimilation of Aryans and the indegenous is that they divided and put the thousands of caste-divisions of India in their four pre-existing four boxes appropriately.