Brahman is conscious?

[apophenia]

I started a thread for you. Have at it.

There is already a link to this discussion, which I posted in post #39 on this thread precisely to avoid making it the subject of this thread.

Unfortunately, it is in the Theravadin DIR.

You didn't provide a link to your thread, Vinayaka.

 

[apophenia]

Buddhists and Brahman | ReligiousForums.com

You seem to think that all Hindus are Vedantins.

No I don't.

Is that really a suitable deviation for a thread about Brahman ?

Hindu is a cultural reference. Vedanta is the philosophy re Brahman.

Brahman is the topic.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Qualia? Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Well, for me the theory presents the limitation of perception, not necessarily of consciousness, but that of physiological capabilities of various senses. For instance, dogs have the capability of sensing subtle changes in smell, most of which is clearly imperceptible to humans, so the brain is actually more of a limiting factor than being the locus of consciousness in its entirety.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see you all talking about Brahma, is that or he God? Compared to atma, how do you describe Brahma?

Brahman (not Brahma, who is the Creator God) for most among Hindus is the Supreme Spirit, different from an anthropomorphized God, part of which appears as the individual soul. For me, it is 'what exists' in the universe, namely 'physical energy'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think I understand. The physical energy that makes up the universe and that is (rather than creates life?) life (I would define it as) is the Supreme Spirit (rather than God--as a being). Brahman is part of us--since we are made up of energy rather than outside of ourselves, type of thing?

Brahman (not Brahma, who is the Creator God) for most among Hindus is the Supreme Spirit, different from an anthropomorphized God, part of which appears as the individual soul. For me, it is 'what exists' in the universe, namely 'physical energy'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman is part of us--since we are made up of energy rather than outside of ourselves, type of thing?

Brahman is everything (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma) and it is not dual (Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti), that is 'physical energy', IMHO.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

(Asking calmly) Is that different than pantheism or similar?

Brahman is everything (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma) and it is not dual (Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti), that is 'physical energy', IMHO.

 

[JRMcC]

Included for relevance to vedanta.

Most hindus and buddhists seem to be misinformed about this.

The nikayas indicate that buddhism is vedanta, and so the distinction between the two is somewhat arbitrary.

The videos linked discuss how the nikayas indicate clearly that Gautama never denied atman, or the unity of atman and Brahman.

It is absolutely relevant to a discussion of brahman. Gautama described his teaching as Brahmayana - the path to Brahman.

The idea that buddhism is not vedanta is an idea developed by sects much later than the time of Gautamas teaching.

If you look into this, it will enrich your appreciation of the universe of Vedanta.

I certainly have not included this to challenge vedanta. Precisely the opposite.

Note - Gautama did not call his teaching 'buddhism', but Brahmayana. The notion that he was not teaching vedanta was certainly not his.

But having said that, I will leave it at that. Information supplied. I have no interest in starting a contentious debate, only in informing members that the division between vedanta and buddhism is sectarian after the fact.

This is a very interesting subject. I think about the similarities and differences between "Buddhism" and "Hinduism" a lot. But I suppose it is somewhat off topic. At some point I'm going to start a thread on a similar topic.

 

[apophenia]

This is a very interesting subject. I think about the similarities and differences between "Buddhism" and "Hinduism" a lot. But I suppose it is somewhat off topic. At some point I'm going to start a thread on a similar topic.

Yes, not wanting to be too clever by half or undermine anyone's dharma - but Hinduism is not a religion. It is a culture which embraces many forms of religion and philosophy. Including vedanta, vaishnavism and buddhism.

Therefore it is entirely valid to mention buddhism within a discussion of hinduism - particularly when the aim is to note the common root of the various branches, and to cast light on the meaning of Brahman, which is the thread topic. And even more particularly when clarifying the fact that Gautama was a Hindu teacher who called his teaching Brahmayana.

“My teachings are (to be called) Brahmayana [Path to Brahman/Absolute/The-One]” - -Gautama

 

[JRMcC]

Now silently remove the name 'mango' What remains is just a shape, with no name. Now remove the shape i.e, form of tree. What remains is the knowledge of 'mango tree' other than this it's all blank. In the whole process of negation, you, who did the experiment did not cease to exist.

In the same way, when there is nothing left to be negated, only 'I' as pure consciousness exists. One cannot negate one's own 'Self' This state, where nothing exists is called as 'Brahman'. Hence Brahman is called as pure consciousness.

This is a profoundly important point you brought up here. A lot of materialist/nihilist atheists essentially do negate their own self because they believe that we are material stuff and THAT'S IT. Sam Harris is a notable exception; I admire him actually. On the other hand there are those like Christians who believe that they will basically survive death because their soul will go to heaven for all eternity.

There's a very narrow space between these two viewpoints, and I think most people aren't aware of it. But my viewpoint is in this space. I don't believe in a soul (though I certainly could be wrong!), but your quote here is more or less why I don't take the atheist materialist view. There's something divine about this inner self (pure consciousness as you put it), whatever it really is. It might be Brahman, or it might be something that goes on in the brain (perhaps the whole of all brain functions is greater than the sum of its parts, or maybe there's a part of the brain that witnesses all other brain activity). I actually don't think it makes a difference; it's value would be the same either way.

 

[JRMcC]

so the brain is actually more of a limiting factor than being the locus of consciousness in its entirety.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Interesting point! I never thought about it exactly that way before. I came across a different argument recently (it was a book on Kashmir/monistic Shaivism, at least 50 years old) that was ultimately making the same point that you are.

The argument was something like: If everything in the world only meaningfully existed within individual consciousness' subjective experience, than the world wouldn't make much sense. There would be no truth or objectivity. A universal mind is necessary to account for objectivity.

This makes a lot of sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. And I'm not saying that to try to disprove anything, I'm just having a hard time accepting something that there isn't any proof for much beyond that. Just an idea: It might be more in line with science to say that objectivity is something that only exists in the subjective individual mind (let me know if you want me to expand on this).

Sorry if this wasn't well organized here! So individual consciousness is aware of everything subjectively. And the idea is that there's another kind of consciousness (Brahman/universal consciousness?) that is aware of everything objectively. Is that right?

 

[apophenia]

This is a very interesting subject. I think about the similarities and differences between "Buddhism" and "Hinduism" a lot. But I suppose it is somewhat off topic. At some point I'm going to start a thread on a similar topic.

It is a very good topic.

I have started a thread here - How can Buddhism NOT be part of Hinduism ? | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Amrut]

This is a profoundly important point you brought up here. A lot of materialist/nihilist atheists essentially do negate their own self because they believe that we are material stuff and THAT'S IT. Sam Harris is a notable exception; I admire him actually. On the other hand there are those like Christians who believe that they will basically survive death because their soul will go to heaven for all eternity.

There's a very narrow space between these two viewpoints, and I think most people aren't aware of it. But my viewpoint is in this space. I don't believe in a soul (though I certainly could be wrong!), but your quote here is more or less why I don't take the atheist materialist view. There's something divine about this inner self (pure consciousness as you put it), whatever it really is. It might be Brahman, or it might be something that goes on in the brain (perhaps the whole of all brain functions is greater than the sum of its parts, or maybe there's a part of the brain that witnesses all other brain activity). I actually don't think it makes a difference; it's value would be the same either way.

Namaste,

So even athiests believe in something that is unverifiable

Honestly, in our day-2-day life there are very few things which can be said in an authentic manner. If we look at our life, the it is faith that drives us. Faith in our boss that he will give us salary, faith in wife that she will not add poison in food, faith in our customers, in our vendors, etc, etc. Most things are uncertain. We dont know if there will be enough rainfall this year. Everything is just a prediction. You dont know that you are going to live to see tomorrow, you dont know if your wife will remain faithful and that your children will take care of you and your wife in old age or they consider you and old furniture that should be thrown in trash can (old age house). Everything rests on faith and hope and on what you 'believe'

Even those who say, 'we oppose dogma' and are actively engaged in spreading their believe of 'opposing dogmas' are no different from those 'orthodox dogmas', those priests, and saints. Atheists are spreading their own dogma that too very strongly

Even science contradicts what it used to say authentically some 10-15 years ago. Even the great scientists are ignored like Rutherford's structure of an atom and Mendaleev's periodic table in which he had left empty spaces in periodic table. They believe in evolution, but it is restricted only to the physical world. Spirituality takes you to a journey of higher worlds

Spirituality is not just mere polemics, it is an inner journey to find out the truth. An advaitin is bold to dive in uncertainty and surrender to the supreme. After a certain years of practice and becoming inwardly pure, philosophies are not much important. What is more important is longing for God, and unconditional surrender. We believe the Brahman exists and with this faith we surrender, and not with the believe that 'Brahman does not exist'. How can you surrender to that which does not exits? Gradually, truth will unfold itself at appropriate time.

this truth will let you know where we are Jiva, or Siva or ISvara is a person, we are qualitatively same and qualitatively different, or we are completely different, or that ISvara is formless but not attributeless or whether Jiva is eternal or there is complete non-duality. Let God make you experience the truth, let Truth, the knowledge reveal itself. The mantra is to surrender UNCONDITIONALLY with FULL faith. Let the surrender be to sAkAra or nirAkAra, it does not make much difference. All errors will be corrected if we keep our mind open and pray to God what Arjuna prayed, 'Give me what is best for me'.

Interestingly it is observed by Army men that it is the faith that helps them sustain and carry out operation in harsh environments and there are instances when faith and hope keep men alive for weeks in condition under which a person is generally expected to die in a few days.

So, the invisible thing, the 'X; factor plays major and important role in our day-2-day life.

OM

 

[Aupmanyav]

(Asking calmly) Is that different than pantheism or similar?

(Replying calmly ) "Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God." - @Wikipedia
Did I talk about a God? Is 'physical energy' (heat, light, gravity, etc.) God?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but Hinduism is not a religion. It is a culture which embraces many forms of religion and philosophy. Including vedanta, vaishnavism and buddhism.

Hinduism is very much a religion, intentionally loosely structured ('vipra bahudha vadanti') to allow freedom of thought (we could not bring our heart to root out our well-meaning philosophers in the manner of Giordano Bruno or Sarmad Kashani who was beheaded by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb) and respect the various beliefs of our people (so that we do not need to break idols or kill people for differences in religious thought). It is not that only monotheistic religions can be designated as religions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So even athiests believe in something that is unverifiable

I will not believe in anything unverifiable. At the moment 'physical energy' is the only thing that can be proven to exist in the universe, mass only being a form of it. That is why I say Brahman is 'physical energy'. Let science or any other discipline prove it wrong, I will be happy to change my views. Therefore, I will not agree that (even) atheists believe in anything that is unverifiable.

 

[apophenia]

I will not believe in anything unverifiable. At the moment 'physical energy' is the only thing that can be proven to exist in the universe, mass only being a form of it. That is why I say Brahman is 'physical energy'. Let science or any other discipline prove it wrong, I will be happy to change my views. Therefore, I will not agree that (even) atheists believe in anything that is unverifiable.

Physical energy has been proven to exist ?

How ?

By using instruments which we design, which produce results which we interpret according to a paradigm ... ?

I am not trying to dissolve knowledge into goat's head soup here, however all we really have is theories which isomorphically map to observations.

Which is amazingly useful. It is 'science'.

But the isomorphic mapping does not and can not determine whether what is being observed is mind or matter. Or spirit. Or whatever. And actually, that makes absolutely no difference anyway.

We can only make theories based on behaviours and relationships, observed and mapped to the theory. If the theory is 'correct', if the isomorphic mapping is accurate enough, then we have useful science.

So, it makes no difference whether we call it mind or matter.

As Gödel demonstrated, all of our systems are self-referencing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since the universe is made up of heat, light, and energy I related to how you described Brahman to pantheism as I assume Brahman is also seen as divine in Hinduism. Let me know if I am wrong?

(Replying calmly ) "Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God." - @Wikipedia
Did I talk about a God? Is 'physical energy' (heat, light, gravity, etc.) God?

 

[Amrut]

I will not believe in anything unverifiable. At the moment 'physical energy' is the only thing that can be proven to exist in the universe, mass only being a form of it. That is why I say Brahman is 'physical energy'. Let science or any other discipline prove it wrong, I will be happy to change my views. Therefore, I will not agree that (even) atheists believe in anything that is unverifiable.

Science is study of external objects, while spirituality is Self-experimentation. You are object of experience, you are the reaction and you yourself are the change, the knower of change. Everything happen within you. Spirituality is an experience. Science keep mind active and keeps it extrovert, while spirituality, meditation, makes mind introvert and one begins to explore the inner universe, the mind. It is a subtle science.

Where science and logic stops, spirituality begins - don't mind.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Brahman does not know illusion. It is for us.

Aup ji,
So according to Advaita, Brahman, whom the vedas call as sarvajna and sarva shaktiman does not even know about the existence of this world he created?