So-called 'Brahman' that has no gunas, is that even possible?

[George-ananda]

If there is a relative reality, then one can understand. it's like understanding a Snake, which is not there. Also is there an Absolute Reality?

Just Brahman. Neither Relative nor Absolute Reality.

So why is the rope there?

 

[Viswa]

So why is the rope there?

Rope, there, not as a thing. If it is a thing, it can surely be knowable and can be found why it is there. Also, not an unknowable thing.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@ameyAtmA
It was interesting to go through your posts where you said that (just like I'm not my headache) Brahman too is NOT its nature/swabhava and that ITS nature/swabhava has a mind of its own which acts upon the universe out of its own accord (without the consent of Brahman) ... just like our hair grows without our consent.

Doesn't this make Me (Atman/Brahman) an inferior cosmic entity who has no control over the acts of its own nature/swabhava?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Neither Relative nor Absolute Reality.

Wonder, what is it which is neither relative nor absolute?

So why is the rope there?

For me, Brahman, the substrate of all that exists. It is neither snake nor rope. And that is the 'absolute truth'. Rope too is an illusion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Doesn't this make Me (Atman/Brahman) an inferior cosmic entity who has no control over the acts of its own nature/swabhava?

No, it does not, IMHO. If it is your 'swabhava', you could not have done anything different. That will be an impurity (Vikara), doing something which is not your nature. You are Brahman. What you seem to do is only an illusion. Basically you, as Brahman, or what constitute you, does not do anything, it does not need to do anything. It has no desires.

 

[Viswa]

Wonder, what is it which is neither relative nor absolute?

Brahman.....

Prakriti & Gunas - Relative Reality - depends upon Atman - desiring which karmic bondage happens.
Atman - Absolute Reality - Independently exists - seeking which Kaivalya Moksha happens to the bondage Mind.

But, Brahman, neither Relative/Dependent Reality nor Absolute/Independent Reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Desiring karmic bondage, moksha,
Viswa, my language is different from yours. I will reply to your earlier posts.

Sankara resonates with me:
"na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokṣaḥ,"
Speaking as Brahman (In Vyavaharika, I am a Hindu householder):
No dharma (righteousness), artha (wealth), kama (desire) and moksha (liberation) for me.
Nirvana Shatakam in Sanskrit, English with Meaning

 

[Viswa]

Desiring karmic bondage, moksha,
Viswa, my language is different from yours. I will reply to your earlier posts.

Sankara resonates with me:
"na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokṣaḥ,"
Speaking as Brahman (In Vyavaharika, I am a Hindu householder):
No dharma (righteousness), artha (wealth), kama (desire) and moksha (liberation) for me.
Nirvana Shatakam in Sanskrit, English with Meaning

Yup. I don't deny. Even for me, no Moksha no desires. But, Mind desires, Mind bonds, Mind liberates.

Birth-desire-actions-bondage-death-liberation not there for me, but it is there for Mind-Body, and I witness.

Not I am Body-Prana-Mind-Intellect-Bliss, not I am acting/playing/not-acting, but all these (those are not me - Nature,Prakriti,Gunas) are playing - I am the witness of these.

Mind bonds with Body thinking as 'me', mind have fun, mind have pleasure, mind then suffers, mind feels frustratingly "enough of these limitations", mind then become very serious and tries to find "truth", mind then understand that it is not the true "I/Atman" which it thought all life long, mind then sincerely feels "anything is okay - no attachment no aversion - no desires, ready to face whatever happens in world/body or within mind", in this way mind finds Bliss in Heart and surrender and hold to it (to not fall to bodily pleasures as they very attractive and made strong impressions in mind in all life - so to hold to Bliss), and experiences the play it created for the fullest, and finally mind liberates and merges in Bliss, and the Bliss too vanish in the end of experience,
And ME, witness all these play from the start to the end without doing anything.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

It has no desires

If IT has no desire then why does IT need to "experience" this finite illusory reality, in the name of leela?

 

[Viswa]

Hi...

If IT has no desire then why does IT need to "experience" this finite illusory reality, in the name of leela?

IT need to experience??

Take thoughts. Does one need thoughts to experience and so thought arise??
Nope. Thoughts arise without any reason. Waves arise without any need of water. And so everything, arise out of IT - Atma. Out of Atma, all arise and play and go back/merge in atma, Atman never desires it.

In spiritual terms, Hiranyagarbha - Atman with subtle body - desires, but how come the golden egg formed if no desire before - is all a mystery - can be said "no reason at all". Ishwara never desires - but only all-knower fully blissful, whereas Hiranyagarbha desires and it never known how come Hiranyagarbha came out of Ishwara.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If IT has no desire then why does IT need to "experience" this finite illusory reality, in the name of leela?

'Leela" does not exist in strict non-duality (Advaita). There is no one else, whom will Brahman show its 'leela'? Further more, Brahman does not do anything other than existing (or perhaps not-existing).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even for me, no Moksha no desires. But, Mind desires, Mind bonds, Mind liberates.
but it is there for Mind-Body, and I witness.
not I am acting/playing/not-acting, but all these (those are not me - Nature,Prakriti,Gunas) are playing - I am the witness of these.
And ME, witness all these play from the start to the end without doing anything.

You, me, your mind, my mind, your body, my body, exist in 'Vyavaharika' and not in 'Paramarthika'.
Any duality (or even a shade of it) is not Advaita - nature, prakriti. All play is duality. Brahman does not act. Brahman does not desire anything. Why will Brahman be interested in being witness? Will it interfere somewhere? Brahman is uninvolved.

 

[Viswa]

You, me, your mind, my mind, your body, my body, exist in 'Vyavaharika' and not in 'Paramarthika'.
Any duality (or even a shade of it) is not Advaita - nature, prakriti. All play is duality. Brahman does not act. Brahman does not desire anything. Why will Brahman be interested in being witness? Will it interfere somewhere? Brahman is uninvolved.

I never said "Brahman is witness", here I implied "I am Witness as Atman". Though Atman is Brahman, Brahman cannot be said just/truly as Atman - a slight difference I feel here. You may say, if you see difference - it is duality, but it's not that way. There is not even Atman, just Brahman, that's the difference. Atman appears as 5 sheaths, but speaking like this is only Ignorance, Just Brahman Everywhere.

Anyways, that's not the matter.

Mandukya Upanishads says Atman has 4 quarters. In first 3, it is the witness of whole experience. It doesn't desire/interested to be witness, it just witness. There is duality in 3 states, which can never be denied. And the duality is - Atman (which witness) and Nature/Prakriti/objects (that which is witnessed). But, this witness, is only in 3 states, not in 4th - the Absolute reality of Atman. There is nothing to witness in 4th, so it's not witness, and remains in it's absolute nature all time. This absolute reality of Atman is Non-Duality. For Every experience, there is need of Duality - Atman and Form/Appearance if Atman, so only 3 quarters can be experienced, but not the 4th Absolute Nature of Atman. Experience ends there, and so it is called Shunyam/Nothingness in Buddhism. It's like in Deep sleep, where you don't have awareness of experience, but after waking you might felt of Bliss. But when one reaches the fourth, not at all any experience, also when returns the three states - no trace like the trace of Bliss in Deep sleep.

All these 4 quarters of Atman is nothing but Brahman. Even what are all seen,experienced, all is Brahman. Even the "desire,pleasure,pain,sufferings,love,hate,body,mind,duality,non-duality,etc." - all is Brahman.
But, Truly, Brahman is not all these (not duality and not even non-dual absolute).

 

[Aupmanyav]

I never said "Brahman is witness", here I implied "I am Witness as Atman".
* .. not in 4th - the Absolute reality of Atman. There is nothing to witness in 4th, so it's not witness, and remains in it's absolute nature all time. This absolute reality of Atman is Non-Duality.
Experience ends there, and so it is called Shunyam/Nothingness in Buddhism. It's like in Deep sleep, .. no trace like the trace of Bliss in Deep sleep.
But, Truly, Brahman is not all these (not duality and not even non-dual absolute).

You exist in 'Vyavaharika'. See whatever you want to see, feel whatever you want to feel. But you do not exist in 'Paramarthika'' (Absolute truth).
Mandukya or any other Upanishad, or even Vedas, are not the last word in Hinduism. They are the views of the sages who wrote them.
* That is 'Advaita'. If that is the absolute reality, why do you ask me to accept the apparent reality? And stick to one word Atman or Brahman. Otherwise the sentence becomes ambiguous. That Atman is not any human soul, because soul (Atman or atman) is imagination. There is no evidence for it.
Where experience ends is not deep sleep, it is realization of 'Absolute truth'. Then there is neither bliss nor sorrow. All these things belong to 'maya' and to 'Vyavaharika'.
That is why I don't go with the word 'Chidanadarupah' (I am in the form of eternal bliss) in Sankara's 'Atma Shatakam'. Other than that it is OK.
For me, Brahman is the non-dual absolute. It is 'physical energy', because that is what we started with at the time of Big Bang and all things in the universe are none other than it.

 

[Viswa]

You exist in 'Vyavaharika'. See whatever you want to see, feel whatever you want to feel. But you do not exist in 'Paramarthika'' (Absolute truth).
Mandukya or any other Upanishad, or even Vedas, are not the last word in Hinduism. They are the views of the sages who wrote them.
* That is 'Advaita'. If that is the absolute reality, why do you ask me to accept the apparent reality? And stick to one word Atman or Brahman. Otherwise the sentence becomes ambiguous. That Atman is not any human soul, because soul (Atman or atman) is imagination. There is no evidence for it.
Where experience ends is not deep sleep, it is realization of 'Absolute truth'. Then there is neither bliss nor sorrow. All these things belong to 'maya' and to 'Vyavaharika'.
That is why I don't go with the word 'Chidanadarupah' (I am in the form of eternal bliss) in Sankara's 'Atma Shatakam'. Other than that it is OK.
For me, Brahman is the non-dual absolute. It is 'physical energy', because that is what we started with at the time of Big Bang and all things in the universe are none other than it.

The word "Non-dual", the realization of "Absolute Truth" - is all said by sages too. Why not negate those as 'not the last word'?? As there happened never an experience resonates to you about "Realisation,etc.,", then why do you want to believe those? Why Brahman, Maya,etc., - those are not the last words. Right?

Either you may take them as Shankara,Ramanuja,Vyasa,etc., did by citing that "only scriptures have true knowledge" and practice like the scriptures said for Enlightenment (not you practice - but Mind practice as it aware of it's limitations), or You may reject them totally as Jiddu Krishnamurti, and be aware of present moment and negate all the past words of Sages/Authority. Right?

I know the play of Mind. It experiences something. To hold on to it, and never to lose them, it plays many tricks. And one of those tricks is "take those which suits my experience and can make me dwell in what I wanted, and leave those which questions the attachments/desires/knowledge/thoughts/ideas". But, I never knew before "Et tu Brute?"

It's useless then to speak about words of Sages (even my own views), even though those resonate with one's experience, as the mind will take only "what it wants" but not ready to question itself. I'm not just pointing you, but everyone including me (My views may also deluded, but will not question/accept other one's views if it not resonates with it's experiences and sustain "what it feels/wants"). Right?

So, Shall we end our conversation here (as I feel not to hurt any more with my repeated foolish authority based ignorant views)?

Happy talking with you and also had a important point of the work of mind.

Take care.

AUM Shanti Shanti Shanti..
(Shall I use the word 'AUM Shanti Shanti Shanti' of scriptures?? Will it also be considered as one of the 'not the last words in Hinduism' by the Mind and negate those? - Just kidding )

Thank you. See you soon.

BYE.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

You, me, your mind, my mind, your body, my body, exist in 'Vyavaharika' and not in 'Paramarthika'.
Any duality (or even a shade of it) is not Advaita - nature, prakriti. All play is duality. Brahman does not act. Brahman does not desire anything. Why will Brahman be interested in being witness? Will it interfere somewhere? Brahman is uninvolved.

So, Brahman is not the doer and yet its nature/swabhava IS?

Its like saying the sun is not giving us light or heat ... and only its rays are.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The word "Non-dual", the realization of "Absolute Truth" - is all said by sages too. Why not negate those as 'not the last word'?
.. or You may reject them totally as Jiddu Krishnamurti, and be aware of present moment and negate all the past words of Sages/Authority. Right?
I know the play of Mind.
It's useless then to speak about words of Sages (even my own views), ..
So, Shall we end our conversation here (as I feel not to hurt any more with my repeated foolish authority based ignorant views)?
(Shall I use the word 'AUM Shanti Shanti Shanti' of scriptures?? Will it also be considered as one of the 'not the last words in Hinduism' by the Mind and negate those? - Just kidding )

Because it is a fact of science (according to current Knowledge. We started with 'Physical energy' and nothing other than that existed).
No, for me scriptures alone do not have true knowledge (like the Vaisheshika scholars said). True knowledge expands with time. Of course, they are beginner's Bible. Hindus start with them.
God forbid, I may differ with them, but never slight sages of the old. Touba. They were the path-breakers.
Other than play of mind, what complicates issues is prejudices. (How can it be that humans have no soul? Etc.) Even when we have no evidence for them.
No, I do not consider them useless. Old knowledge is what we weigh new knowledge with.
I think what you have posted lately is very thought-provoking. And that is the reason I have not been able to reply to them immediately.
I do not use the word 'Om'. You don't find it in RigVeda. As for 'Shanti', my grandpa used to talk of an elder person who would get angry if someone said, 'Is everything OK at home?' He would say "Why will everything be OK at my home? I have a large family, someone will be ill, some other will break his leg. May 'shanti' be at your place."

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, Brahman is not the doer and yet its nature/swabhava IS?
Its like saying the sun is not giving us light or heat ... and only its rays are.

Energy is transferred according to its laws, this is the nature of Brahman. That happens constantly all over the universe in each of its atoms. In case of sun, fusion of hydrogen atoms at its core produces heat. It is like thousands of neutron bombs exploding all the time.

"Every second, the Sun's core fuses about 600 million tons of hydrogen into helium, and in the process converts 4 million tons of matter into energy." - Sun
That is a large scale enterprise by our standards, though compared to other happenings in the universe, it is trifling.
Our sun cannot even be a supernova, because that requires 10 times the mass of sun.

 

[George-ananda]

Because it is a fact of science (according to current Knowledge. We started with 'Physical energy' and nothing other than that existed).

A 'fact'? I think 'theory' is the better word.

In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, Consciousness/Brahman is primary and 'physical energy' is a derivative of Consciousness/Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As for 'Shanti', ..

What actually the elder one used to say was that 'Shanti' is only at the cremation ground (marghat).