beginningless - evolution of consciousness

Radhe!

yesterday evening i had a discussion with a friend.

he asked me several questions about bhakti-philosophy.
he was most interested in the "jiva-issue".
he understands that we come from the tatastha-sakti. so he asked me the "not-to-be-asked" question:

on the one side you say that our being in this realm is beginningless, meaning that our bahirmukha-state is without a start and cause, but on the other side, we have the evolution of the consciousness through the 8.4000.000 species of life.
if there is no beginning , how can the jivas evolve?"
then he did it:
"what was the first lifeform of the jiva-soul when entering the material world? (as what kind of entity he comes out of Mahavishnu?) from where does the journey of the bahirmukha-soul start? " (yeah, i know beginningless, no start, but.....)

he is aware of the ISKCON-philosophy that all jivas start off as Brahma.

so, how to reply in a correct and understandable way?

Tarunski

People somehow can not give up their conditioned thinking of beginnings. There is no beginning. The Bhagavat and other shastras are unanimous in that. Anybody knows any quotation to prove that the jiva 'begins' his conditioned 'career' as Brahma? It would undermine the anadi-vada, so it seems to me another of the endless hearsays....

Which form is the first one?

Which moment is the first moment in time?

The form the living entity occupies at the first moment of beginningless time is his first form. That should do for an answer.

Radhe!

thanks Madhavaji.


i just reread Kundali das and Satyanarayana das book on the issue.

Tarunji

Because we are in a state of being bound by the dimension of time, we are incapable of fathoming any other states of existence. We can only conceive of things with a beginning, a middle, and an ending. Our own existence in this world is marked by those stages as birth, death, and everything we experience in between.

So, that means we have to take someone else's word for it in such matters.

Hare Krishna

I heard somebody say, that the mind can't understand what 'eternal' is.
Maybe this one of the reasons for forgetting we are souls.

Yet we are quite capable of discussing matters that are beyond our comprehension. We can only perceive colors in the visible spectrum in the range of red to blue. Still we give a name to invisible light at frequencies outside that range: ultraviolet and infrared. There is evidence that some birds can see into the ultraviolet range, but even if they could speak they would have no way of describing those colors so that we could really understand what they are seeing.

We have been presented with the postulate that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and it is verifiable by taking measurements. But all that really proves is that we ourselves are unable to create or destroy energy. We can only harness it temporarily. If I will my hand to pick up an apple, the energy to perform that task is at my disposal. Volition is independent of observable cause and effect. We can trace the action of grasping an apple back to neurons firing in the brain, but those neurons are not just willy nilly acting of their own accord. The actor that wields the power of volition is therefore beyond the boundaries of space, but not of time. We can very easily grasp the concepts of length, width, and depth. We can even picture a straight line going on infinitely in both directions. On the other hand, we are entirely unable to so easily comprehend what time is, let alone conceive of eternity. We use the same demarcations as we do with spatial dimensions: past, present, future; divisions of time such as millenia, centuries, years, days, hours, minutes, seconds, fractions of seconds. That is because we need some parallel construct to even have terminology to use. Even calling time just another dimension is like some Jedi mind trick that we are playing on ourselves.

One problem that Tarun's friend is getting at, though, is a simple bit of Mathematics. Which is that as soon as you say something is 'infinite' you are in fact declaring it to have measurable qualities: infinity. Mathematicians deal with infinites all the time, in fact it's one of their most common tools, extending something to infinity to see what it does, eg Euclidean geometry, how do you define 'parallel'? Answer: two lines which never intersect, though extended to infinity.

There is a semantic issue also. To say that something is 'beginningless' and then talk about its beginning (or early phase, or less 'evolved' state) is just contradiction. We do need to eventually clarify these ideas.

Beginninglessness is closer to Buddhism than Theism. It also directly implies eternal separateness, dvaita.

Another good example of something which needs to be clarified therefore, is 'achintya bhedabhed', which some Tattvavadis like to lampoon. Certainly to say you have a philosophy but it is 'inconceivable' is, on the face of it, rather strange: the whole point of philosophy being to explain.

Eventually I see Gaudiyas embracing something like a Zen philosophy, 'The Thoughtless Thought'... This is what Ram das seems to be getting at.

Also, we should be clear that Gaudiyaism is more about ultimate emotion than ultimate rational truth.

Isn't there a concept of eternal time and a concept of relative time? Eternal time being the eternal cycle of manifesting and unmanifesting the material cosmos and relative time being the duration of a particular material manifestion as in the lifetime of Lord Brahma before the whole material energy becomes unmanifest?

There would have to be some relative time factor when a living entity took his first material form in this material manifestation of the mahat-tattva. In that way, there is a beginning to our material existence. The real question is what condition does the living entity exist during the period of nonmanifestation of the material energy.
Does he exist as a pure spiritual spark in the brahman? If there is no manifested material energy, then how could he possess any form of material covering? If he does not exist as an unconditioned spiritual spark in the brahmajyoti then where does he exist? Does he exist? Is he totally and completely unmanifested as if in some viraja river of voidness? When the material cosmos is unmanifested does the viraja still exist. If so, how? in what form? how can the formless have a form?
Is the viraja some inexplicable, undefinable, unknowable void that defies all description and conception? Is that the state of existence that the conditioned living entities exist in when there is no material cosmic manifestation?

When the material cosmos is withdrawn back into the body of Maha-Vishnu, what happens to the living entitites? where are they at then? what state of existence do they exist in?

They eternally go through this cycle of manifestation and non-manifestation till they attain eternal liberation. So, they are eternally conditioned till they become eternally liberated. Don't these two concepts sort of cancel out the meaning of the other as an "eternal" state of existence? If a conditioned soul attains liberation, was he really an eternally conditioned soul, or just a temporarily conditioned soul that finally attained liberation? Sometimes an eternity is described as the lifetime of Lord Brahma or the duration of a cosmic manifestion. When there is no material world, how can there be a concept of relative time?
Inquiring minds want to know?

Thanks, Rasesh.

Cycles within cycles is a good explanation of how a 'beginningless' system can contain beginnings.

But then the term 'beginningless' is inaccurate. More accurate would be 'without ultimate beginning'.

So guess we are all ultimately just sparky photons, except when we aren't -- non-sparky anti-photons?

All this is a little difficult to grasp at this time, but sometime in the future I will fully be able to comprehend the infinite, inconceivable, absolute within the confines of my morbid little mind.
Surely, the infinite can be undertood in terms of something my finite mind can comprehend. After all, God can't be all that complicated and unlimited..........................can he? I mean........surely I can fit the infinite within the scope of my mental capacity? If mother Yasoda can tie up the infinite with a rope, surely I can confine him within the parameters of my mind?

The living entity exists within the being of Maha-Vishnu in a state of sushupti, a state of deep unconscious existence.



Viraja, or the karanajala, is the abode in which the universes float. It is not affected by the presence or absence of the universes, just like the presence of the ocean is not affected by the presence or absence of boats on its surface.



Anadi-baddha means refers to bondage without beginning. That is not the same as eternal.

Something which is literally eternal has to be both anadi and ananta, without a beginning and without an end. It is very hard to say with certainty that any particular appearance, with the exception of Sri Ananta, is ananta, or endless, since for all we know, that which has beginninglessly existed may nevertheless come to an end; such as the bondage of the jiva.

Hello.

The meaning of time is that which has duration. So "eternal time" is quite an oxymoron. Eternity does not mean infinite time. Any introspective person can fathom that "existence" is not bound by time-- but rather time itself is a feature of existence, The 4th dimensional fabric. "In" black holes, time does not exist.

To some degree, time itself does not exist. It is part of our mind. Past, present future. Time can only be "assigned" to past and future. But present is something different. We perceive it, certainly, but it actually has no duration. Thus, the present moment actually transcends time since it never exists within our perception of time-- it is means by which we perceive time yet it itself is without the time feature. Kind of like I read that Paramatma is the proprieter of all senses yet he himself is beyond senses?

From my experience the human brain is incapable of experiencing or perceiving
a time-less state, but, the subtle mind can, and does while we are asleep and dreaming.

You have had deja-vu? I think, with some evidence to support it, that deja vu expercieces are "raw" dream memories that are trying to surface in the intellect. If you think of it in terms of computers. "Raw" dream memories, residing in the aether, sublte mind, are in a "5th dimensional format," but somehow your subconscious converts these memories into a "4th dimensional format" so that the physical mind can "think" them, and you thus remember your dreams when you wake up.

Sometimes it fails to convert though, and you do not remember your dreams. Or sometimes it is "backed up" and when you woke up, you didn't remember the dream, but a few minutes later or hours later or even days and weeks later, the memories just flash in you for the very first time and you say "this was a dream I had last week." Deja-vu is the phenomenon that occours when the physical mind grabs onto one of these "raw" memories and attempts to "think it." Always in deja-vu there is a very eerie feeling of distorted time.

"Untime" might even seem not natural; time is just one of the facets on the jewel of our conditioning. But, while it is impossible for our brain to experience/perceive "untime," I assure you it is completely within our capacity to
comprehend. Just as we are able to understand, visualize and comtemplate color while our eyes are closed, so too may we understand untime while we are asleep to it.

Rashesh, I think I can offer some ideas to your questions. I, however, have no back up.
While the multiverse is unmanifest, individual souls are kept in "dormancy." Of course "What does that mean?" Dormancy or limbo, that's all I can say really.

We cannot easily comprehend the life-force in a small seed. But that seed may grow to become a huge tree. We know that there is a soul in the seed, but its life-force is dormant. It may be dormant for several decades and the seed may still produce a huge tree. Similarly, when the cosmos is unmanifest, we are simply dormant.

So, is that something like the "nirvana" condition that the Buddhists are aspiring for? Doesn't the Buddhist philosophy advocate some form of "void" existence that would be similar to this state of suspended animation where the living entity is formless and unconscious of his individual existence. I've heard that Buddhist philosophy is a nihilistic, voidist (shunyavadi) conception. Is this "shunya" the karana ocean? What form does the karana ocean have in the spiritual sky?
Isn't there some description of it as being like a cloud in the spiritual sky?
Is it this "cloud" of karanajala that the living entities exist in after the annihilation of of the material universes?

This "void" condition of existence sounds really scary to me. It almost sounds like spiritual death. It sounds like a "zombie-like" condition of the living entity where some poison from a blowfish makes the persons heart beat so slow that he appears to be dead. It is almost like a comatose condition of the living entity.
I guess the buddhists think this state of existence is bliss?

Modern Buddhists deviate from Original Buddha teachings, which do not aim at any cultivation of knowledge in cosmology or diving nature, which are considered by Buddha to be objects of curiosisity which merely divide us into differet philosophical camps. Yet modern Buddhism has taken to these differnt camps. For example, a Buddhist I spoke to does not believe that plants are conscious or have a soul (even though I think Original Buddha indicated otherwise through one of his stories of him being a tree in a past life). Modern Buddhists do not believe in a soul-- yet they believe in reincarnation and karma. The karma just accumilates itself I suppose, and the individual reincarnating is merely a pattern of karma.

Indeed, there are obvious flaws in Buddhist doctrine but we should not condemn it. It is designed to be a reform on blind religious fanaticism and eventually lead its followers onto a bonafide spiritual path. This is my opinion. So, technically, I don't think Buddhists are supposed to have any ideas about the metaphysical nature of liberation-- I do not know any karana ocean?

The nihilism of impersonalism is that nothing formless can contain even a fraction of the beauty found in a single drop of rain. Happiness and love have form and our existence longs after these things. Impersonalists (I used to be one), sense this longing as an absence within their being but instead of seeking to fill the hole, not believing this possible without creating another hole, they seek to anihilate the globe on which the hole resides. This is obviously more difficut. Similarly, athiests long for death as the end of their existence. Such an impersonalist tries to snuff out the senses like a candle in a dark room, and they seek to destroy their emotions in order to rid themselves of their suffering.

According to Sri Sridhar Maharaja the Buddhist head for Viroja, the river-border between material and spiritual reality, while the brahmavadis go just a little beyond it. As you know he desribed it as suicide into stone-consciousness. Personally I do think that Buddhism is just the very peak of materialistic positivism in terms of its practice to look at each and every dhamma (moment appearing as consciousness) as precisely as possible without judging it, and by doing that seeing its voidness.

What amuses me is how the modern teachers of Buddhist practice have to assume a God in order to deny him/her. The anata-dogma, the denial of existence of an atman, is similiarly "hanging in the air" as a working premise. It does work, I am sure, because giving up identification with each moment does give one relief from the pressure of Maya. I do feel this form of meditation is a convincing practice, and its theory seems justified on the basis of the immediate experience. Only its spiritual interpolation is to be discarded. But the practice itself does bring equanimity in no time, and a non-judging attitude toward stone-gold-dog-brahmana as a Gita verse discribes it. I think it does not hurt a kali-yuga-person to get some of that practice, if bhakti remains the center of attention, and those results are almost immediate.

As to the cosmology, I have seen translations of Tibetan Buddhist texts that also contain descriptions of the Universe in 5th canto style.

Isn't the karana ocean the source of the Ganga? At any rate water sems to be the first sort of preliminary state of objectivity, even beyond viroja.

I wonder why Buddhists were so strongly condemned by Krsna das in CC... They must have had some abominable practice at that time.

Leo, adiyen had an interesting remark in another thread saying that what is seen as Buddhism today is a new development after Colonel Olcott of the Theosophical Society, who inspired a modernization for Western needs. (I think it is in the modernization thread.)

As I understand the practice, a Buddhist could attain to nirvana by seeing the beauty of a rain drop without judging it and thereby realize the void nature of things. What remains questionable to me is whether being in that state of consciousness actually carries one into that plane of non-existence. Is the aprarabdha karma destroyable that easily?

In this regard I'd like to bring up the question of Krsna's jnana-teaching to Uddhava in the 11th Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam. There Sri Krsna teaches pretty much that kind of practice. What do you think about it? Or is this only in my various editions of the Bhagavatam? Cannot be. Also the Bhagavatam is permeated by teachings in this line of equanimity which is to be had by the practice of meditation... the positive state of jnana receives a lot of attention there. I wonder if this is the reason why bhakta-teachers slam so much against jnanis. The one single time I heard Sri Ananta-das babaji speak, he spoke that bhukti-mukti-bhakti verse a dozen times to his large audience. I personally do not know if many of those babajis really know by experience what the state of mukti (or of jnana) really feels like. But then why is it bashed so much? Perhaps it is dangerous for Indian sadhakas, as Satyanaryan das (new name?) comments, because Indians are floating in an ocean of misery due to family attachment and other things which we do not have that strongly. One single step, and they are free...

I think it is the beauty of the nature of consciousness to present such large varieties of possibilities, voidness being the beginning of nirguna dynamics.
Jai the beauty of bhakti consciousness.

Jai Nitai.

Leoji, actually the Buddhists do not destroy anything, they just do not judge. As long as they destroy they give quality to dhammas, and emotion is just another dhamma, an atom of experience. By quitting to judge it, to asses it, they stop attachment, and thereby realize the void nature of dhammas, and that even suffering does not exist. I think this practice is pretty much in the line of Srimad Bhagavatam and Gita, it is just not what we seek as bhaktas. Jai Nitai.

I am unqualified to speak on this topic. But I have a freind who is a Zen master and this is what he says:

Upon achievement of the desired state of Buddhist (Zen) enlightenment, the 'mind' (that which thinks, that which holds the 'me' and 'I'), ceases to reign as sole governor which limits all thoughts and perceptions according to its own thoughts of what thoughts and perceptions 'must be', and when it steps back, allowing perceptions to become known for their true perception, then the mind that is the 'me' and 'I' metaphorically dies, and for the first time the mental consciousness is free to observe Reality without preconceived limitations of 'what must be'. Without self-limitations, the mind can then perceive and comprehend there is no such thing as death.

Combined with the above, equally flowing within the same cycle, is that when the mind shuts its big mouth, it is then able to hear the original Self, that which exists without the mind, that which does not participate in the life-death cycle.

Also flowing with the above cycles is that quite literally, when the 'me' mind physically dies, then it no longer knows what death is, and death as a concept also dies with it, that is, death exists only in the mind's concept of death. Thus, death is a mental illusion only.

Only those individuals who remain within their own illusions suffer death.

When I asked him if he was describing Satori (the Zen equivalent of nirvana?), he says:

Yes, Satori is one of the several terms implying the similar state of awareness, yet none can be comprehended by the mind until the mind is Satori. But of course too, once the state has been achieved, no word and all words can be used; "dog!", or "cloud", etc., none can define the state, yet all are the state.

Christian teachings possess yet another possible state which is similar ("pray without ceasing" which is similar to the Zen breathing discipline, yet yields different results: "...out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters"). Combining Zen with Christianity produces a higher and wider result (no term has yet been given the state, nor is one desired). Yet even these are but the first steps of many, and none can be learned, only experienced.

Absolutely nothing is more difficult for the mind than for the mind to accept the logic that experience is real, and mental imaginations are not.

In an email he told me though that he was much more spiritual before he achieved Satori. He is, I would say, distracted by the siddhis he has. He is very much opposed to the "destruction" of emotions. Surely, this is not possible, but some athiests/ Buddhist attept to become so indiffernt to emotions that eventually they fall of like withered leaves-- just as leaves wither when not watered. He is opposed to this too. He reached his Satori by meditating, "focusing on a outflowing stream of love." He is also the one who told me that nothing in the [spiritual world] can contain a fraction of the beauty found in a rain-drop. But this is because he concept of the spiritual plane is that it is void and impersonal without senses.

I don't understand off of your sanskrit terms but no, I do not think that "that stare of consiousness" carries one to a state of non-existence. I am confused about what "Void" actually refers to. Does it refer to the reservoir of potential? I think that only people who are aspiring towards satori are the ones who believe in this "voidness." Remember that Buddha was an Avatar. His philosophy is meant to appeal to the athiests. But after one actually attains Satori, "voidness" is found to be an illusion.. just as death, a concept of the mind. There is the ego self and there is the true self. I think the secret of Buddha teachings is that it is easyest to shed the ego self by denying the true self as well-- because no atheist has enough spiritual understanding to discriminate between the two. I think this is the true meaning of anatma, which I call unself.

PS. I believe that that I have just returned from being merged with Bramanjyoti. I think in former lives I have taken to Buddhist methods and I've just come back into the material world. I used to wonder about what I would be experiencing if I had not been born, I could not accept that I simply wouldn't exist, yet I was confused about why I had been born as "me" instead of some of the other individuals around or why we weren't all the same "me." I directly remember at age 3, when my mind was quickly becoming crystallized into not being able to consider such topics anymore, but at that time I remembered and I remembered remembering that at earlier times in my life that I was engaged in these thoughts with even more intensity that I am now capable of at age 21.

Fascinating discussion. Just want to point out that there is original Buddhism represented by Pali texts, then there is philosophical Buddhism represented above all by Nagarjuna, who lived in the 1st millenium Common Era ('AD'). (Then there was Tantric Buddhism, and of course there had already been Mahayana - devotional Buddhism).

In original Buddhism, Sri Buddha's fundamental insight was interdependent causation as the source of all suffering. Everything causes everything else. This is extremely profound if you reflect on it. We all, individually, can take responsibility not only for our own suffering, but for all suffering. Therefore to save one's self is to save the world. So Buddha discovered an extraordinary nexus between selfishness and selflessness (admittedly a very abstract one), which led logically to universal compassion and a desire to save the world (again very abstract, therefore not the same as Xtian Charity - individual acts of kindness). But in this interdependent world, governed by unchangeable rules (ie the 'Law of Karma': the inevitability of suffering), as described by Buddha, there is no intervention from outside the system (which would break the Law), thus it appears that there is no God to intervene. Though Buddha was not explicit about this, his concern with inevitable suffering logically implies that nothing is permanent - including the Self or Soul.

Nagarjuna wrote in Sanskrit and systematised what was implied in Buddha's teaching. He argued systematically and forcefully against the existence of Gods, specifically naming Krishna if I recall. He also systematically established the Buddhist principle of anAtma, 'soullessness'.

You can, if you like, argue that Nagarjuna got Buddha's teaching wrong. Buddha did talk about the Gods, and his teaching does assume that there is a Self.

Your knowledge, in vastness and detail, is always very astounding, adiyenji. I have read something to that extent (Buddha's not denying atma and God) too, but then, when in particular traditions, I heard it the other way. The Thai Buddhists which are very popular here and in GB (the lines of Ajhan Chan i believe, and Ajhan Buddhadas) say that they represent the original purely straight Buddha teaching based on the Pali canon. I must say I am very impressed by their practice.

Am currently unemployed, though.

All offers considered.


Read the Dhammapada, where one section is called 'The Self' and devas are often mentioned. It is a beautiful text, and capable of inspiring Bhakti-sadhakas too, as far as I can see - correct me if you find anything harsh:

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/dhammapada.htm

Interdependent Causation is also called Dependent Arising, and here is a source for the teaching:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel277.html

I doubt whether there is a single, clear-cut definition of time out there. It is indeed a valid question whether time as such exists at all. Certainly it does not exist "out there" as a tangible reality. What I think of as "the eternal time" is the beginningless and endless being of existence itself, and the eternal cycle of ongoing motion and suspension. In the ultimate, there is no state in which activity would absolutely cease, since the foundation of reality, the Advaya-paratattva (undivided supreme reality) appearing as Brahman, Paramatman and Bhagavan is ever-aware of all spheres of existence. Thus there is time beyond our perception. Call that absolute time, in contrast to the concept of time we attribute to the unfolding of events within our range of experience.

The quantum theory is still a bit of a work-in-progress, but I believe the matter of what's inside a black hole is not conclusively settled as of yet. Others theorize of white holes, which in cooperation with the black ones would form what we call worm-holes, portals connecting realms of space far-apart. At any rate, whatever is inside a black hole, or wherever it leads, the Parabrahman is aware of it, and it consists of nothing but an aspect of His being. Hence absolute time does exist. Even when the cosmos dissolves and the aggregate of matter returns to an undifferentiated state within the being of the Great Vishu laying in the Ocean of Causes, although the interaction of elements has ceased and the subjective experience of time come to an end, the absolute time -- the absolute awareness of the Absolute -- prevails and sustains the creation.

Among the four items of Vishnu, the conch, the disc, the lotus and the club, time is often equated with the chakra, the disc. We often speak of kala-chakra, the wheel of time. The chakra is also called Sudarshan, which we may freely translate as "the great perception". Hence time, and the unfolding of events, is sustained by the awareness of Vishnu. That is the ultimate essence of time.



This is all vividly narrated in the second and third skandhas of the Bhagavata. You may want to look into it if you get a chance.

Black holes are such an interesting topic. It has been "proven" they they do "evaporate" although it would take several eons for one to do so. It has also been demontrated, mathematically, that a black hole can exist without the event horizon. The habitat of a black hole does transcend the time concept - as well as the 3D space concept. So I guess truthfully, there is no 'inside' nor is there not.

The way I view it is that as blankets are layered, dimensional fabrics are also layered. My Zen friend says that what we call the 1, 2, 3 dimensions are actually after the higher dimensions. These more crude dimensions are covering up the more sophisticated ones. So I view a black hole as a tear in the space-time dimensional fabric. A black hole is just that- a hole, not an object. Once a physicist told me that higher dimensions can only exist at ground zero of an explosion big enough to destroy several star systems. I would view this as another type of "tearing though the outermost dimensional fabric," but the higher dimensions are not created, only revealed. They must always be underlying the outermost.

It is interesting that time seems to not be able to exist without this "Untime," it is like the sulight and the sun. Time seems quite literally the external energies of this- like the sunlight is to the sun. Anyways, so I have encoutered views that resembled the concepts of Visnu in occult circles-- even though the people did not know.

according to http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm

"The destination of sunyavadis (buddhists) is pradhana, the primordial matter, which has a sunya (void) nature"

Krishna is the time factor.


Chapter 11. The Universal Form
TEXT 32

sri-bhagavan uvaca
kalo 'smi loka-ksaya-krt pravrddho
lokan samahartum iha pravrttah
rte 'pi tvam na bhavisyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitah pratyanikesu yodhah

SYNONYMS

sri-bhagavan uvaca--the Personality of Godhead said; kalah--time; asmi--I am; loka--the worlds; ksaya-krt--destroyer; pravrddhah--to engage; lokan--all people; samahartum--to destroy; iha--in this world; pravrttah--to engage; rte api--without even; tvam--you; na--never; bhavisyanti--will be; sarve--all; ye--who; avasthitah--situated; prati-anikesu--on the opposite side; yodhah--the soldiers.
TRANSLATION

The Blessed Lord said: Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

where is tatastha loka (is that what its called?) located in relation to pradhana, viraja, brahmalok, mahes dham, hari dham and all those places

Tatastha is not a region as such. It refers to the ontological position of the jivas.

Just like if I said that people are "in confusion", you couldn't ask whether that confusion-loka is situated south or east of Mt. Kailasa.

so the jivas in the ontological position of tatastha, are they located somewhere, ive heard they are the brahmajyoti