Para Brahman

Sw. Vandana Jyothi said:

We'd have to ask Aupji, but that could be what he meant by using the article "a" in front of the word God, i.e., to denote a sense of individuation. If he did, I agree with him: Brahman is not a god, Brahman is God, like that.

Click to expand...

Sassymaa, for me Brahman is not God, it is also not God. I junk the whole God idea. Brahman is energy/substance, take it anyway you like it - particle/wave. Brahman is existence/non-existence. Brahman is all and there is no second. The rest is only an illusion - "Brahma satyam, jaganmithya", "Eko Brahmah, dwiteeyo nasti, neh na nasti kinchana".
(I suspect a mistake in the language. Zakir Nayak uses this. But I will check and correct if wrong. Using incorrect Sanskrit is a-dharma. One can't play with God's own language )

Aupmanyav said:

Sassymaa, for me Brahman is not God, it is also not God. I junk the whole God idea. Brahman is energy/substance, take it anyway you like it - particle/wave. Brahman is existence/non-existence. Brahman is all and there is no second. The rest is only an illusion - "Brahma satyam, jaganmithya".

Click to expand...

OK, Aupji. Just curious, do you have an English word for Brahman and in your lexicon, is there a Sanskrit word for world? We certainly agree on this: ekam evam advideeyam Brahma. Had to look up jagan mithya, though, and found this below. Is the "rough" translation correct in your view? I think I would get silently (or not so silently) chastised if I solicited much more of your views on this, though. I'm sure I could find elsewhere in the DIR. And, as any discerning person can see, my ego seems to be in ascendance these days so I come to the discussion hobbled, as it were. Guruji once said that a candle burns brighter just before it goes out. God willing, may it be so. Something in me is quite weary of getting buffeted about. Chariot wheels are out of round, horses are old but vigorously disobedient, it feels like the Boss is displeased.... I'm starting to think and feel I'm a little too WYSIWYG in the forums. Maybe a 40-day vrita of mouna is in order.

Oh, sure. Brahma. ब्रह्म / ब्रह्मन् . (Note the 'a' at the end is not 'dīrgha'). Brahma for the universe, and Brahman for what constitutes all in it.

You have translated Brahman as God, but that is OK. We are Hindus and not perturbed by differences of opinion.

Yes, sometimes the screws in the chariot become unaligned. But don't worry, leave that to the mechanic. He will inform us when the chariot is to be dumped.

Aupmanyav said:

Oh, sure. Brahma. (Note the 'a' at the end is not 'dīrgha'). Brahma for the universe, and Brahman for what constitutes all in it.

You have translated Brahman as God, but that is OK. We are Hindus and not perturbed by differences of opinion.

Yes, sometimes the screws in the chariot become unaligned. But don't worry, leave that to the mechanic. He will inform us when the chariot is to be dumped.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh. Knowing your penchant (and mine, too) for editing a post, I should wait a bit before replying! Yes, I was taught Brahman is the inconceivable, unthinkable "All" and Brahma, you might say, is that which is created by and contained within It. So we know each other's views and are not perturbed.

A few loose screws you say? (You know the American slang for "a little bit crazy"?) I confess it is so. Mother Maya is having Her way with me. Sharanam, Maata! Sharanam!

"There is another type of Bhaktas, called Vaira Bhaktas. These Bhaktas are negative Bhaktas. They do not have positive devotion for God. They hate God and thus remember Him always. Hatred also requires a constant remembrance of the enemy. So these also are a kind of Bhaktas only. They attain salvation through Vaira-Bhakti. Kamsa, Sisupala and others thought of the Lord constantly on account of their deep hatred for Him. Thus they attained Salvation."

I'm fascinated by this teaching and can relate to it at different times of my life. Is this a practice that most Hindus would be aware of?

Treasure Hunter said:

"There is another type of Bhaktas, called Vaira Bhaktas. These Bhaktas are negative Bhaktas. They do not have positive devotion for God. They hate God and thus remember Him always. Hatred also requires a constant remembrance of the enemy. So these also are a kind of Bhaktas only. They attain salvation through Vaira-Bhakti. Kamsa, Sisupala and others thought of the Lord constantly on account of their deep hatred for Him. Thus they attained Salvation."

I'm fascinated by this teaching and can relate to it at different times of my life. Is this a practice that most Hindus would be aware of?

Click to expand...

First time I've heard of it, but then I don't get around much.

Sounds pretty fishy to me.

Another question: I know there are four goals of Hinduism. Is it fair to assume that for the average Hindu, they probably focus on Moksha the least?

For those that do pursue Moksha, which paths are most popular - knowledge, meditation, devotion, or good works? I would guess knowledge and good works are more common and that meditation and devotion are less common. Is that true?

These are the last questions, appreciate the feedback.

Treasure Hunter said:

Another question: I know there are four goals of Hinduism. Is it fair to assume that for the average Hindu, they probably focus on Moksha the least?

For those that do pursue Moksha, which paths are most popular - knowledge, meditation, devotion, or good works? I would guess knowledge and good works are more common and that meditation and devotion are less common. Is that true?

These are the last questions, appreciate the feedback.

Click to expand...

Not even all of us believe in these four as distinct paths. That idea was made popular bu Vivekenanda and later writers. Most of these 4 are quite overlapping. Yes, some people do see them as 4 distinct paths. Jnana is the most misunderstood, as intellectuals interpret it as book knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But I want to know what you want to know. The second last question was just copy and paste directly from information from the Divine Life Society page. So I'm beginning to suspect a hidden agenda here. Are you a Hindu?

I don't view life as a problem. If someone else does, that's fine. And if they think that Hinduism might help them with their 'problem' whatever that is, that's fine too.

As for the DIR and all that, you can always post the same questions in general discussion, or debate as well. If you haven't yet noticed, there have been several lengthy ongoing discussions about Hinduism, and in particular the Vedas over in the 'debate' forum.

Treasure Hunter said:

"There is another type of Bhaktas, called Vaira Bhaktas. These Bhaktas are negative Bhaktas. They do not have positive devotion for God. They hate God and thus remember Him always. Hatred also requires a constant remembrance of the enemy. So these also are a kind of Bhaktas only. They attain salvation through Vaira-Bhakti. Kamsa, Sisupala and others thought of the Lord constantly on account of their deep hatred for Him. Thus they attained Salvation." .. Is this a practice that most Hindus would be aware of?

Click to expand...

Yes, Shishupala's (and that of Dantavakra) story is very popular. They were the counterparts of Ravana and Kumbhakarna in Krishna's time.

Treasure Hunter said:

Another question: I know there are four goals of Hinduism. Is it fair to assume that for the average Hindu, they probably focus on Moksha the least?

For those that do pursue Moksha, which paths are most popular - knowledge, meditation, devotion, or good works? I would guess knowledge and good works are more common and that meditation and devotion are less common. Is that true?

Click to expand...

There are other duties to fulfill before one thinks of Moksha. Study and preparation for life takes 25 years. Care of family and elders takes another 25 year. Then a person has some rest, can think of Moksha, but he has to advise young ones. So that takes another 25 years. After that, one is free and can devote wholly to Moksha. That is the standard scheme in Hinduism. The four 'ashramas', stages of life - Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sannyasa.

All paths are equally valid. It depends more on the inclination of the person. Some prefer knowledge, some prefer devotion, some prefer works or meditation. One can have a little of one and a little of other, no problem. This is left to the person as is the choice of personal deity.

Treasure Hunter said:

I do have an agenda: .. help point them to what is true. .. But I'm still interested in diagnosing the problem.

Click to expand...

We don't like peoples' agendas. Members in Hinduism forum do not have agendas. They state their views and respect other views even if they do not match. The concept of truth varies with each person in Hinduism. One has to find one's own truth. Our truth ranges from polytheism to atheism, from science to mysticism. Look for problems elsewhere, we have none.

Namaskaram Treasure hunter ji

Treasure Hunter said:

Question: Is there any branch of Hinduism that encourages the worship and devotion of Para Brahman specifically? Have any of you here devoted yourselves to Para Brahman? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

as Gaudiya Vaisnava we regard Krsna to be Para Brahman thus by worshiping Krsna we worship the personal form of Para Brahman , .....

Treasure Hunter said:

How does Hinduism teach its followers to know Para-Brahman? How do Bhaktas know Him in order to worship and devote themselves to Him?

Click to expand...

I am ammased that so far no one has mentioned the Bhagavad Gita ??? .....chapter 10 explains this perfectly , here Krsna describes his position and having heard Krsnas explanation Arjuna decalres , ....

Namaskaram Aupmanyav ji

Aupmanyav said:

Brahman is not a God.

Click to expand...

according to you No , ..... and most certainly not 'a' god , .....

..... I take the word of Arjuna on this point , ......

Brahman is the formless aspect of the Supreme Lord Bhagavan Sri Krsna , ......Jai Jai , .....Hari Hari Bol

"Yathā soumya! ekena mritpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛinmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syāt,
vāchāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛittiketyeva satyaṃ." Chhandogya Upanishad 6.1.4

(Just as, dear son, by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known; in the same way, all modification of names are but distortions, the truth, verily, is that all is clay)

Treasure Hunter said:

Another question: I know there are four goals of Hinduism. Is it fair to assume that for the average Hindu, they probably focus on Moksha the least?

Click to expand...

That should be the end goal of all Hindus.

Treasure Hunter said:

For those that do pursue Moksha, which paths are most popular - knowledge, meditation, devotion, or good works? I would guess knowledge and good works are more common and that meditation and devotion are less common. Is that true?

Click to expand...

I think the most common and popular is Bhakti (devotional) Yoga. It is also held to be the easiest path to Moksha for devotees of this era (Kali Yuga).

In the back of a Hindu's mind is moksha. Nearly everyone has heard about it, and it's there. Rarely is it in the forefront, because it's rare that a soul is ready for that final ascent. We have karma to deal with, and the process of reincarnation gives us all the patience we need to deal with it ... over and over and over, if you will.

Not being an intellectual concept but a mystical one, the path to moksha is a long arduous path that we are all on. Where we are depends on karma. In Saiva Siddhanta (and other schools) it isn't 4 separate paths, but progressive stages, culminating in the state of jnana. Book wisdom is there as a guide, not as an intellectual gridwork to keep the ego running with how much it can espouse. The progressive and overlapping stages are charya, bhakti (Kriya) yoga (meitation) and finally jnana, which is the state the soul arrives at having mastered the first three. We could also say there is another 'stage' that of adharma, or ignorance altogether, which is before the onset of charya, when the mind is unaware of such a thing as dharma, and muddles about in the consciousness of mud, following blindly and magnetic odic pull it may encounter. In other words the instinctive-intellectual gridwork of the dross world, where the lack of self-control is abundant.

So ParaBrahman, from this POV is the fulfillment and ulitmate merger of the soul with the source, from many lifetimes if evolving via the lessons of life.

The first step, attributed to Patanjali, in his famous Yoga Sutras, is the Yamas, followed by the Niyamas. That is the first step, or stage. Not much beyond that can be accomplished until these are mastered. Charity well done, service well taken care of, and then the mind might just feel calm enough to sit down and unravel the great mystery, and begin to conceive of moksha in some very real sense, not in some far off 'maybe later' conceptualisation.

Treasure Hunter said:

Question: Is there any branch of Hinduism that encourages the worship and devotion of Para Brahman specifically? Have any of you here devoted yourselves to Para Brahman? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

Hi, and thank you for your questions about Hinduism. Usually for introductory questions about Hinduism, the words spoken by Krishna in Gita suffices. Gita stands out as a succint and poetic attempt to integrate several strands of Hindu thought into a connected whole. So I will use it to attempt a first stab.

Many major strands of Hinduism believes in an ultimate Reality. This Reality can be approached either as an impersonal trans-Being (Brahman or Para-Brahman) or a personal Supreme God (Isvara).

Krishna says:- (Gita 9)
Those who, eternally steadfast, worship Me,
Fixing their minds on Me, endowed with supreme faith;
I consider them to be most devoted to Me.

But those who honor the UnChanging,
The undefinable UnManifest,
The all-pervading InConceivable,
The Immovable ever-Constant Supremum,
Controlling all their senses, even-minded in all dimensions,
Rejoicing in the well-fare of all creatures,
They also attain Me.
Though harder is their path, exertion filled-
For the goal of the unmanifest is attained with difficulty,
For embodied Beings.

.................................

Keep your mind on Me alone,
Your intellect focused on Me.
Thus you shall dwell in Me hereafter,
There is no doubt on this.

Or if you are unable
To focus on Me with a steady mind,
Then seek to attain me
By the constant practice of Yoga O Arjuna.

If you are incapable of Yogic practice even,
Be intent on My work.
Perform actions for My sake,
And thus you shall attain the Supreme.

But, if you are unable even to do this,
Take shelter then in My own Power,
And relinquish the fruits of all Actions
To Me.
And act with Self-Restraint.
--------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, the Supreme Reality can be attained through various Means and conceived of in various modes. If the Unmanifest Brahman is to be the focus, the path is through intense training of the mind-heart and to see this Brahman in all beings and rejoice in that realization. The manifest God can also be attained through various means, but there is greater flexibility of means, making it more popular for the non-ascetics.

Hope this helps.There are complications of course, but don't think anybody here will seriously disagree with what I said.

ratikala said:

Namaskaram Treasure hunter ji



as Gaudiya Vaisnava we regard Krsna to be Para Brahman thus by worshiping Krsna we worship the personal form of Para Brahman , .....

​

I am ammased that so far no one has mentioned the Bhagavad Gita ??? .....chapter 10 explains this perfectly , here Krsna describes his position and having heard Krsnas explanation Arjuna decalres , ....

arjuna uvaca
param brahma param dhama
pavitram paramam bhavan
purusam sasvatam divyam
adi-devam ajam vibhum
ahus tvam rsayah sarve
devarsir naradas tatha
asito devalo vyasah
svayam caiva bravisi me


arjunaḥ uvāca—Arjuna said; param—supreme; brahma—truth; param—supreme; dhāma—sustenance; pavitram—purest; paramam—supreme; bhavān—Yourself; puruṣam—personality; śāśvatam—original; divyam—transcendental; ādi-devam—original Lord; ajam—unborn; vibhum—greatest; āhuḥ—say; tvām—unto You; ṛṣayaḥ—sages; sarve—all; devarṣiḥ—the sage among the demigods; nāradaḥ—Nārada; tathā—also; asitaḥ—Asita; devalaḥ—Devala; vyāsaḥ—Vyāsa; svayam—personally; ca—also; eva—certainly; bravīṣi—explaining; me—unto me.


Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal divine person. You are the primal God, transcendental and original, and You are the unborn and all-pervading beauty. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala, and Vyāsa proclaim this of You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me. Ch ..10 V ..12-13



the remainder of the Gita also gives instruction as to how to understand the Supreme Lord and how to worship him , ....​

Click to expand...

Jai jai, thank you for giving me an image of Lord Krsna's transcendental form in my mind

Treasure Hunter said:

Dealing with Karma in Hinduism is equal to repentance in Christianity. Has anybody considered that idea or heard it brought up before?

Click to expand...

There are certain parallelisms. How to deal with binding and deluding Karma and how to deal with Sin are quite different questions though.

Treasure Hunter said:

Dealing with Karma in Hinduism is equal to repentance in Christianity. Has anybody considered that idea or heard it brought up before?

Click to expand...

Karma is a law, a spiritual law, much like gravity, or other science laws. It isn't a substance, or mental thing, or a problem. This is like saying a person has to deal with gravity. We don't deal with gravity. Yes in a sense we do, but it doesn't have much to with action other than maybe if we're carrying a few extra pounds our physical needs get sore.

I'm not very familiar with Christianity, but the idea of repentance indicates there's something wrong in the first place. Very few Christian concepts are equal to Hinduism concepts, from the little I know, or have read by interfaith scholars. Of course universalist leaning people on all sides find all sorts of similarities, generally by falsely projecting one onto the other. We come from two incredibly different paradigms.

Since debating in DIRs isn't allowed, I'd suggest starting a new thread in a more suitable subsection of these forums.

Aupmanyav said:

Absolutely new to Hinduism? "Krishna attained salvation". That is a stunner. So when did your God or Yahweh achieve salvation? Who helped him to do that? And then, who are you to say that this part of Hinduism is true and that part is not true. Even we Hindus do not dare to say that. All parts of Hinduism are true in relation to their practitioners. The truth really is that the 'one way monotheists' have been so white-washed in their brain that they do not recognize the many excellent ways available.

Click to expand...

Actually I'd agree with the questioner that salvation can be used to refer to moksha, that it's the same thing going on. So in the same way as I think Jesus attained moksha, I think Krishna attained salvation. Or perhaps was born already a jivanmukta, I don't know. Not such a travesty to say something like that.

God/Yahweh you refer to would, in my understanding, just be Brahman. This isn't polytheism we're doing here! And while your point is well made r.e. different Hindus having different beliefs, it certainly isn't the case the 'we Hindus do not dare to say that'! Condemnations and corrections are commonly found between Hindus holding different ideas.