Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva

 In Sanatana Dharma, which we mostly know by the name of Hinduism, there are three figures, rather concepts; Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

So what is this business about these three concepts?

They actually represent the three aspects or attributes or characteristics or properties of the absolute/supreme/ultimate.

The Ultimate/Absolute reality in Hinduism is called Brahmm, with the humming trailing sound at the end.

Brahmm is everything and nothing as well. Brahmm is the foundation/basis of everything, and nothing.

Now, Brahma is/represents the creative aspect of the Brahmm. Let’s not get confused between Brahmm and Brahma, they’re different.

Vishnu is/represents the sustenance or maintenance and existence aspect of Brahmm.

Shiva is/represents the destructive or annihilatory aspect of Brahmm.

Now, we can picture this whole idea in this way:

Consider any state of existence/being. So, any state or any existence has, call it, associations or elements or components that, either it exists , i.e. there is the existence of state, and there is no existence of that state.

So for any state you can consider its existence and that which is not its existence.

So let’s picture multiple states: For example state, A, state B, state C and so on.. For convenience one can picture these states as the events in one’s life, or in the life of anything, for example, the life of Universe, or anything else.

So, state A is event A, and state B is event B and so on.

Now, it’s obvious that the two events that constitute one’s life, any two events among many events, do not exist at the same time. So they’re not temporally at same point. They’re separate from each other, and they’re different from each other. And the existence of one is the non-existence of the other.

Now, again for the reasons of convenience, let’s place these states/events in some order – let’s say in an alphabetical order. So, first event is event A and then comes B and so on. One can consider this as events of birth and some events after that and event after that and so on.

Now, these events are placed, say, along the timeline.

Because they are temporally separated and are the immediate neighbors along the timeline, one can picture a transition from A to B, B to C, and so on, just like in a usual timeline, for example; our lives.

Because each event/state is an event in time, each of them can be considered as a point that constitutes this timeline.

It’d be convenient and it’d make sense if, instead of considering a dimensionless entity, i.e. point, we consider a dimensional entity that is not a point.

Because points are, call it “zero-entities”, i.e. non-existing entities, and how can non-existence make-up existence? how can it make up timeline?       

 But again, if we consider some finite dimensional entity, that’d mean that the states do not represent an instant or event.

So, what’s the solution?

But anyway we can use the concept of calculus, the concept of limit, i.e. the concept of infinitesimal, and consider these events/states as infinitesimal entities, that are neither zero dimensional entities, i.e. points, and nor some finite dimensional entity. They are like something in between, if we can call it that. But I’d not like to call or present that as something in between.

But anyway, we can consider these events/states to be an infinitesimal entities, that involve or incorporate the point states and also the transition between them.

So, these infinitesimal states incorporate both the point states/events, and also the transition between them, just like in case of Zeno’s paradox, solved by the application of this idea of limit.

So now we have alphabetically ordered, infinitesimal states/events, along the timeline, or that constitute the timeline.

Now the border between these infinitesimal events/states represent/is a continuous transition from infinitesimal state to the other.

In case of zero-point events/states, this might present/represent some discontinuity.     

So anyway we have this structure of timeline, or timeline-structure, that is constituted by infinitesimal events, the border between which is continuous, and expresses continuous transition from one to the other.

Now as we move from the beginning towards the state that follow, along the timeline, i.e. from left to right on the screen along the timeline.

And as we approach the continuous border between two infinitesimal states/events from the Left-hand-side, towards the Left-hand-side lies the, so called “end”, or termination, of the continuous infinitesimal state, i.e. the previous state.

On the Right-hand-side of the border, lies the so called “beginning”/inception, of the next neighboring infinitesimal state/event.

So the inception or the beginning of one follows from the end of the previous one. And so the transition happens, from previous to the following state, as we move from the left to the right, along the timeline.

Now the termination of any state or existence is represented by Shiva, or Shiva-tatwa.

The inception/beginning is represented by Brahma, or Brahma-tatwa.

Now we can divide this into any smaller scale or level and do the whole thing. But, and that is one of the reason why we’ve introduced this whole structure in the infinitesimal scales, or in terms of infinitesimals. And that further scaling down to smaller scales, is expressed and represented by the introduction of infinitesimals.

This scaling down to any arbitrarily small scale, is expressed or represented by the introduction of infinitesimals.

So the beginning and the end, or the lefts and rights, with respect to the border, are what Brahma-tatwa and Shiva-tatwa are, respectively.

So, Shiva, has to do/deal with the end or termination of the previous state, and the beginning of the next state. And Brahma, has to do with, or is about, the beginning of the next state, and the end of  the previous state.

So, they’re basically the same thing but reduced to separate components. In fact all the three, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, are basically the same thing but reduced to the components.

Now, what signifies or represents, or expresses, the existence or sustenance, of any state or being or existence, is the Vishnu-tatwa, or Vishnu.

So, we can reduce this structure to two components: One being about the state, and the existence or nature of being, and the other to the border, or transition, or the nature of transition, or transformation, or call it motion or dynamics, or mechanics, or evolution, or change, or difference, and such and so on.

Now we can consider this playing out at any level, or any scale.

So we can consider states and their transformations at the most fundamental level, i.e. at infinitesimal level, and then consider a set of states and transformation in the set of states, and then consider even larger set of states, or sets of states, and their transformations.

So, think it like this; States and transformation, a period in the Universe, and the transition from those periods, from one to another, and then from one Universe to another universe, and then from one Multi-verse to another Multi-verse and so on, to infinity.

So every state of being comes into existence, and goes out of existence, and transforms, to another existence. And here we see that existence is impermanent – a particular existence, is impermanent.     

Any examples can be taken but I think it’d be easier and convenient to see this and picture this in terms of a 1- Dimensional infinite line. This line can be considered to be constituted by infinite number of points.

These points represents states. Now, incorporating the transformations and change, and the concepts as such, we can zoom in into this line to its most fundamental level of infinitesimal states and the continuous borders between them.

We can zoom out to any level, and continue zooming out. So the smallest section of this infinite line that we choose or consider are the infinitesimal states, with the continuous borders between them.

Also, as we zoom out, we can consider this line to be constituted by any finite sections, i.e. sections of finite lengths, no matter how large.

Now this whole idea will work in any picture of totality, or in any picture of whole of everything, and this is just an example.

So, for example we can consider, a finite line, and there to be Nothing beyond it. With the line, the finite line, only existing.

Or we can consider, the whole with, the finite or infinite line, plus something else, or with something else. And so the line, finite or infinite, along with something else, forms the totality of everything, or forms the whole of everything.

Similarly we can consider, a 2- Dimensional structure, or 3D structure, or 4D or 5D, or any kind of structure, and any idea or concept of whole of everything, or whole of everything and Nothing, and whole of something and Nothing, and, well, something else. Or also, the whole of everything with something and nothing, and something else, and then again something else, and so on, and so on…. To infinity.

So we see that, we can never get away with, this idea of, infinity, and this idea of wholeness and totality of everything and nothing and so on…to infinity.

So, the totality, cannot be considered without infinity or, without involving, infinity.

Even if we consider, for example say, a finite line, and the finite line, as the only existence, or as the only one or the thing that exists, or the only one that exists with, nothing or non-existence, even in that case or context, because the line is the only thing that exists, the line is eternal, and is a loop, which plays over and over again.

But to say that it plays over and over again, would again be incorrect because, to define it playing over and over again, one would require an external observer. Or in other words, another dimension, external or orthogonal, to that line that exists.

But because the line is the only one that exists, that is not possible. So the ‘looping’ ‘thing’, is not correct. And because that line is the thing that, defines the existence, as it is the only one that exists, one cannot define things like eternal or anything as such, or the line being eternal. Because beyond that line, one cannot define anything, because beyond that line, there is Nothing.

So everything that is ‘defined’ is in terms of that line, and only that line, and within that line.

For example if you consider this line to be a, temporal line, (and this is true for any other considerations), not just for the line defining temporal line or, time. This is even true for, space dimensions and any other dimensions, or anything.

So if you consider this line to be a temporal line, then because this line defines the time itself, and because there exists Nothing, beyond this temporal line, one cannot, take an external frame of reference, to define anything about this line.

   So one cannot take an external frame of reference or external dimension, to define the “eternity”, or ‘eternalness’ of this, timeline. Or to define something, such as, this line being eternal. Because “eternal”, or ‘eternity’ is a temporal concept, and defined by, time, or say temporal dimension.

But, here, the line is what defines, the temporal dimension, or is what defines the time. And there is nothing, temporal external to it. In fact there is nothing external to it.

So one cannot, define things like, the timeline being eternal or no-eternal, and one cannot define, from this external perspective, or external reference frame, anything temporal, about or with respect to this, timeline. And because there is nothing external to it, one cannot define, anything, about or w.r.to, this timeline, or in general, the line, taking the external perspective, or the external frame of reference.

And this is because there is, Nothing, beyond this line, or timeline here, or line in general.

So simply for the reason that there is nothing beyond this line, one cannot take up a frame that is external to the line, because ‘frame’ is not nothing it is something. And because there is nothing beyond this line, and because the line is the only one that exists, or the line is the only existence, the frame, being something, cannot exist beyond it.

So there is only this, series of events, that one can speak of, by taking up a frame of reference, within the line, and cannot speak of the totality or whole of everything.

Here, the whole of, or totality of, the line, because to speak of, or to consider the whole or totality of this line would require an external reference frame, through which one could, observe, the totality or whole of this, line, or everything, defined, here, by the line.

And because everything is within this space – the line, and not external to it, the only frames that exist is within the line and not external to it.

So the picture of whole or totality of this, line, even though it is finite, is not finite, for the frame of reference that exist within the line, or to say the subjects of line.

And because there is no frame external to the line, the only frames that exist is within the line. And the only picture of the whole or totality of this line, is the totality or whole, or the wholeness, of everything, that is the line, that is infinite, infinite in size.

So for the subjects, within the line, or for the frames within the line, the line, or its totality or wholeness, is only defined in terms of, infinite, or infinity, and not finity. This is true for any space, be it temporal, spatial, state-space, statement-space, or space of anything or any being or any existence or any experience.

The infinity is a form of indefiniteness. It is rather, an absolute, indefiniteness. And because there are only frames, that can define, things, and because all the frames exist within the line, and no frames exist, external to the line, or call it the Universe or the representation of Universe here, the totality of the line, or the wholeness of the line, cannot be defined, and therefore is indefinite, and therefore is absolutely indefinite here.

So the totality of line is absolutely indefinite, or the wholeness of the line is absolutely indefinite. And that is what is represented by ‘infinity’, or absolute infinity, and that is what infinity is.

So the elements or subjects or frames of reference, existing within the line, can always consider the segment of line, or in general, the totality, in any size, as the totality, or whole, is always infinite, for the subjects or elements, or frame of reference, or observers, of this, totality.

So, we can consider any segment, any part of the line with any size, and that has the component of existence, and the component of transformation or change.

Now existence, as spoken about earlier, is represented by, Vishnu. And this transformation component or part, by Brahma and Shiva.

This transformation part, can be considered as, existence-nonexistence part.

So, the state, or sections, comes into being, exists or becomes, and goes out of existence.

But this whole sabang, this whole of totality, of everything, at the very end, or at the very limit, or to the very limit, to infinity, exists. This structure in totality, exists. This totality of everything and whole of everything, exists. So the totality and the whole exists.

And this totality or whole, has no part, or no component, of non-existence, or this ‘existence-nonexistence’, i.e. the transformation/change, represented, by Brahma and Shiva.

So in the context of totality or whole, there is no component of non-existence or this, ‘existence-nonexistence’, dualness, or this ‘existence-nonexistence’ duality, or this “existence-nonexistence” thing, i.e. nothing i.e. existence-nonexistence superposition.

So this, existence-nonexistence, or ‘thing-nothing’, thing, in context of, totality or whole, isn’t there, it does not exist.

But even if we consider that they exist, i.e. even if we consider, that this ‘existence’, along with this ‘existence-nonexistence’, or transformation, or ‘state1-state2’ thing, (state1-state2 superposition), exists, then with this totality of, existence, and, existence-nonexistence or transformation, has only the component of existence. This structure exists. There is no component of non-existence.

So anyway, the totality or whole, can only be attributed the ‘existence’.

So at the end, and at the limit, and at the level of, totality or the whole, the only thing that exists, or the only thing that ‘is’, is existence, represented by Vishnu.

So the totality, in other words, the whole or wholeness, is existence, is … Vishnu.

Now what is this totality, or wholeness of everything? or simply, the totality or whole?, what is it?

This totality, or whole, is what is called, Brahmm. Not Brahma, but, Brahmm. And this, Brahmm, or the totality or whole, has only… Vishnu, or … say, Vishnu-tatwa, or say, existence, the quality and quantity of existence, the component of existence.

So this, Brahmm, is Vishnu, and can be identified, with, Vishnu.