For Hindu's

[Arahant]

Question, What do you all think reality is?for me its emptiness but i have heard in the hindu world, that reality is Brahman. but what is brahman? i have heard that it is consciousness, the entire universe, and more. but what is it really? its seems to be a hard concept, but im sure its supposed to be beyond conceptualization.

and what are your thoughts on the mind. i do agree that the mind creates an illusion, but why to you guys what to stop your thought. threw meditation, sure i can stop all thoughts and stop conceptualizing, but for what. Consciousness is empty and when you enter the Theravada form of Nibbana your free from Mind, sences, perception, and consciousness. To me i just understand that my thoughts arent me, but i dont let them cease. Also my mind doest have thoughts arise like the ususal person. most peoples minds are like
(thought thought thought) but mine is like (thought) (thought) (thought)

so my thoughts are more spread out and more peaceful. I can actually tell what a thoughts going to be before it completely arises and i have the power to let it enter my mind or not.

so ill ask again, why stop thoughts, and whats Brahman?!?

[krishnakanta]

Namaste and Welcome to RF Arahant

I saw your post on the Buddhist board, I hope there are some more Theravada folks around here for you.

The question of reality is going to get a lot of differing answers depending on the Hindu you ask. For me reality is pure, unending bliss in relationship with Krishna. This is both a state of consciousness and physical existence. God has two modes, Saguna and Nirguna. For the personalists like me, the ultimate reality is God in Saguna which means with form. For the impersonalist, the ultimate is God in Nirguna, or no form, this would be Brahman. For my camp God is ultimately personal but also contains Brahman. For the other side, God is ultimate Brahman but can manifest in personal forms. As to what is Brahman, the only way I know how to describe it is limitless consciousness where the ego is abandoned. It is actually very similar to some Buddhist concepts (especially the Mahayana version of things) The main difference between Brahman and emptiness though would be that Brahman is unchanging and eternal which, if I remember correctly, Buddha taught against.

As for stopping the thoughts, there may be some yogis trying this but it isn't mainstream doctrine. There is a problem though when trying to discuss this because we don't have the same idea as the 5 skandas. Of course material thoughts and fleating and we are not the thoughts, we don't try to stop them thought but to identify with what we truly are, atman, soul. We don't see ourselves as only being made up of aggregates. So while we are mired in illusion (which is not created by our mind but our mind feeds off of it and perpetuates it) we have an existance beyond that. When that reality is reached some parts of us fall away but the deep roots of the individual remain intact.

Of course this is only one perspective there will be differing views on this.

I hope this post makes some sort of sense lol. When I read your questions, I had a flood of things I wanted to say lol

Welcome again!

[Wannabe Yogi]

Originally Posted by Arahant

Question, What do you all think reality is?for me its emptiness but i have heard in the hindu world, that reality is Brahman. but what is brahman? i have heard that it is consciousness, the entire universe, and more. but what is it really? its seems to be a hard concept, but im sure its supposed to be beyond conceptualization.

From my limited understanding, Buddhists tend to use negative language to describe the nature of reality. The Lord Buddha told us what reality is not, "Nibbana" or the extinction of craving and ignorance that is the end of suffering.

For the most part we Hindu’s ( At least us who are from the Hindu school of thought Advaita Vedanta ) try to say what it is.

We say that reality is Brahman the ground of all being. Brahman is SAT CHIT ANANDA ( Existence , Consciousness and Bliss ) this cannot be described with words, it is the One Reality that is beyond the mind.

-Brahman is the One True Existence, it is the One and only substratum of all of creation. In other words, it is True Existence or SAT.

-Brahman is Consciousness it self or CHIT. This Consciousness is not the mind. Every being in creation is using the ONE Consciousness in its own way to think, but thinking is not Consciousness in Vedantic thought.

-Infinite Bliss or Ananda is also Brahman. Bliss is not the joy of the senses. It is beyond both enjoyment and suffering. It is transcendental Bliss.

To become Enlightened we do not want to stop all thought. ( This is called deep sleep or a coma ) We want to make our Minds pure and go beyond conceptions as to directly experience or become ONE with our true nature that Transcends all limited qualities. You call that your Buddha nature. We call it Brahman. I hope this is of a little help.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Originally Posted by krishnakanta

Namaste and Welcome to RF Arahant

I saw your post on the Buddhist board, I hope there are some more Theravada folks around here for you.

The question of reality is going to get a lot of differing answers depending on the Hindu you ask. For me reality is pure, unending bliss in relationship with Krishna. This is both a state of consciousness and physical existence. God has two modes, Saguna and Nirguna. For the personalists like me, the ultimate reality is God in Saguna which means with form. For the impersonalist, the ultimate is God in Nirguna, or no form, this would be Brahman. For my camp God is ultimately personal but also contains Brahman. For the other side, God is ultimate Brahman but can manifest in personal forms. As to what is Brahman, the only way I know how to describe it is limitless consciousness where the ego is abandoned. It is actually very similar to some Buddhist concepts (especially the Mahayana version of things) The main difference between Brahman and emptiness though would be that Brahman is unchanging and eternal which, if I remember correctly, Buddha taught against.

As for stopping the thoughts, there may be some yogis trying this but it isn't mainstream doctrine. There is a problem though when trying to discuss this because we don't have the same idea as the 5 skandas. Of course material thoughts and fleating and we are not the thoughts, we don't try to stop them thought but to identify with what we truly are, atman, soul. We don't see ourselves as only being made up of aggregates. So while we are mired in illusion (which is not created by our mind but our mind feeds off of it and perpetuates it) we have an existance beyond that. When that reality is reached some parts of us fall away but the deep roots of the individual remain intact.

Of course this is only one perspective there will be differing views on this.

I hope this post makes some sort of sense lol. When I read your questions, I had a flood of things I wanted to say lol

Welcome again!

When one who has not experientially arrived at, nor is grounded in the Paramatman- generated realization that "I am not this body", (my observations of impersonalist meditators suggest that )Aham brahmasmi or ham'sa mantras actually serve to magnify, rather than diminish false ego.....i have seen more in terms of genuine love and service orientation among the personalist devotees of ISKCON, than i ever saw (even among some twenty and thirty-year meditators) in an impersonalist group with which i was previously connected. God (Krishna) is Love, and He being Love, one only needs to know His devotees to know Him.

ys,
bmd.

[Wannabe Yogi]

Originally Posted by krishnakanta

As to what is Brahman, the only way I know how to describe it is limitless consciousness where the ego is abandoned.

Jai Radhe

Yes some who follow Advaita Vedanta drop their unripe ego through Jnana and others want a path is like Radha's, a love, so strong, all else but the beloved is abandoned.

This is what the Great teacher of Advaita Vedanta Swami Vivekananda has to say about the greatest love.

"He is the simple Krishna, ever the same Krishna who played with the Gopis. Ah, that most marvellous passage of his life, the most difficult to understand, and which none ought to attempt to understand until he has become perfectly chaste and pure, that most marvellous expansion of love, allegorised and expressed in that beautiful play at Vrindâban, which none can understand but he who has become mad with love, drunk deep of the cup of love! Who can understand the throes of the lore of the Gopis — the very ideal of love, love that wants nothing, love that even does not care for heaven, love that does not care for anything in this world or the world to come? And here, my friends, through this love of the Gopis has been found the only solution of the conflict between the Personal and the Impersonal God. We know how the Personal God is the highest point of human life; we know that it is philosophical to believe in an Impersonal God immanent in the universe, of whom everything is but a manifestation. At the same time our souls hanker after something concrete, something which we want to grasp, at whose feet we can pour out our soul, and so on. The Personal God is therefore the highest conception of human nature. Yet reason stands aghast at such an idea. It is the same old, old question which you find discussed in the Brahma-Sutras, which you find Draupadi discussing with Yudhishthira in the forest: If there is a Personal God, all-merciful, all-powerful, why is the hell of an earth here, why did He create this? — He must be a partial God. There was no solution, and the only solution that can be found is what you read about the love of the Gopis. They hated every adjective that was applied to Krishna; they did not care to know that he was the Lord of creation, they did not care to know that he was almighty, they did not care to know that he was omnipotent, and so forth. The only thing they understood was that he was infinite Love, that was all. The Gopis understood Krishna only as the Krishna of Vrindaban. He, the leader of the hosts, the King of kings, to them was the shepherd, and the shepherd for ever. "I do not want wealth, nor many people, nor do I want learning; no, not even do I want to go to heaven. Let one be born again and again, but Lord, grant me this, that I may have love for Thee, and that for love's sake." A great landmark in the history of religion is here, the ideal of love for love's sake, work for work's sake, duty for duty's sake, and it for the first time fell from the lips of the greatest of Incarnations, Krishna, and for the first time in the history of humanity, upon the soil of India. The religions of fear and of temptations were gone for ever, and in spite of the fear of hell and temptation of enjoyment in heaven, came the grandest of ideals, love for love's sake, duty for duty's sake, work for work's sake."

May all of us drop our egos just like Radha, no matter what path we follow.

[krishnakanta]

Originally Posted by Wannabe Yogi

Jai Radhe

Yes some who follow Advaita Vedanta drop their unripe ego through Jnana and others want a path is like Radha's, a love, so strong, all else but the beloved is abandoned.

This is what the Great teacher of Advaita Vedanta Swami Vivekananda has to say about the greatest love.

"He is the simple Krishna, ever the same Krishna who played with the Gopis. Ah, that most marvellous passage of his life, the most difficult to understand, and which none ought to attempt to understand until he has become perfectly chaste and pure, that most marvellous expansion of love, allegorised and expressed in that beautiful play at Vrindâban, which none can understand but he who has become mad with love, drunk deep of the cup of love! Who can understand the throes of the lore of the Gopis — the very ideal of love, love that wants nothing, love that even does not care for heaven, love that does not care for anything in this world or the world to come? And here, my friends, through this love of the Gopis has been found the only solution of the conflict between the Personal and the Impersonal God. We know how the Personal God is the highest point of human life; we know that it is philosophical to believe in an Impersonal God immanent in the universe, of whom everything is but a manifestation. At the same time our souls hanker after something concrete, something which we want to grasp, at whose feet we can pour out our soul, and so on. The Personal God is therefore the highest conception of human nature. Yet reason stands aghast at such an idea. It is the same old, old question which you find discussed in the Brahma-Sutras, which you find Draupadi discussing with Yudhishthira in the forest: If there is a Personal God, all-merciful, all-powerful, why is the hell of an earth here, why did He create this? — He must be a partial God. There was no solution, and the only solution that can be found is what you read about the love of the Gopis. They hated every adjective that was applied to Krishna; they did not care to know that he was the Lord of creation, they did not care to know that he was almighty, they did not care to know that he was omnipotent, and so forth. The only thing they understood was that he was infinite Love, that was all. The Gopis understood Krishna only as the Krishna of Vrindaban. He, the leader of the hosts, the King of kings, to them was the shepherd, and the shepherd for ever. "I do not want wealth, nor many people, nor do I want learning; no, not even do I want to go to heaven. Let one be born again and again, but Lord, grant me this, that I may have love for Thee, and that for love's sake." A great landmark in the history of religion is here, the ideal of love for love's sake, work for work's sake, duty for duty's sake, and it for the first time fell from the lips of the greatest of Incarnations, Krishna, and for the first time in the history of humanity, upon the soil of India. The religions of fear and of temptations were gone for ever, and in spite of the fear of hell and temptation of enjoyment in heaven, came the grandest of ideals, love for love's sake, duty for duty's sake, work for work's sake."

May all of us drop our egos just like Radha, no matter what path we follow.

Thank for this explanation and what a beautiful quote.

Hari Om!

[Seyorni]

Namaste and welcome, arahant.

Brahman is the essence one's left with when one distills out all qualities (gunas). It's Objective Reality. From a Therevada perspective, it's the undifferentiated ocean of consciousness one wakes to when all ego has been blown out.

Brahman is entirely inconcevable from a third-state consciousness. A flatworm could more easily grock quantum mechanics.

I believe the Reality "described" in both metaphysical Buddhism and Hinduism is identical, though we tend to describe different sides of the same coin. Buddhists, being sober and reasonable people, decline any attempt to describe something without qualities. We, on the other hand, obsessively weave elaborate descriptions of the indescribable, all the while assuring each other that Brahman is, in reality, quite indescribable.

Sometimes I suspect we are being rather silly...