I must apologise for being away from the board for so long, especially after having asked a question that some were kind enough to answer and comment on. Very rude!
Some great thoughts and answers posted. Thank-you.
In response to the comments re: God.
In my understanding, there is a distinction in Vedanta between Brahma and Brahman. Brahman is the all-encompassing nature of, well, everything. There is nothing else. Since Brahman is everything, there can be no other, including 'creation' as in order to have something that is not everything means that everything is no longer everything. Brahma, on the other hand is the qualities of Brahman in a deistic form. Very real, but not the whole. Rather the highest expression of...
In Buddhism, Brahma is seen, if anything, as an illusion of man's creation.
To expand on my own, current position, the assumption that I was referring to Vedanta in my intial enquiry is correct. I would go further, indeed to say Advaita Vedanta, which I understand as being a non-dualistic approach. This, of course chimes with the Buddhist perspective but I am increasingly departing from the Buddhist schools in that I do feel that Atman and Brahma (and other individualised aspects) have a place in the cosmology.
I will be paying more attention to activity here going forward, so any further discussion much appreciated.
Brahma is the disputed agent for creation, he is infused with the the mode of passion. Brahman is the underlying reality ( consciousness )
In sanakaras Vedanta the material world is seen as an illusion but in other schools it is seen as something real.