Advaita Vedantins: What Does Brahman Do?

[SalixIncendium]

It was suggested in another thread that Brahman "creates," "thinks," "writes a play," "animates," etc.

Yes, all is Brahman, so technically, that is true. But in the context it was written, it appeared to indicate some sort of transcendent quality in which Brahman does this independently of the players in the "play." In other words, Brahman does this from Parmartika.

In my view, any thinking, creating, animating, or play writing that Brahman does is not from Paramartika, but in pratibhasika, and is apparent only in vyavaharika. From Paramartika, Brahman does not "do" anything. Brahman just is. Brahman experiences.

What are your thoughts?

 

[George-ananda]

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts is that Brahman is the name for the only thing permanent and real and is the base for all this ever-changing play. Brahman is One infinite consciousness.

What does infinite consciousness 'do'? It needs to do nothing but it chooses to experience artistic expression as the mysterious consciousness has a mysteries creative aspect. The crude analogy is the cultured rich man that has no needs and spends his time experiencing great art/music/plays.

Brahman imagines (actually Maya=Illusion) this art (this unfathomable multi-dimensional universe) and experiences by incarnating specks inside this universe with a spark of his consciousness. By incarnating finite specks the infinite can temporarily experience as the finite. The play is a grand victory. The incarnated spark of Brahman in each finite speck eventually awakens to find the glory of being the One/Brahman.

Why all this? The crude human analogy would be asking why do humans create art/music/plays for no 'practical' reason? The answer is 'to experience'.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My thoughts is that Brahman is the name for the only thing permanent and real and is the base for all this ever-changing play. Brahman is One infinite consciousness.

What does infinite consciousness 'do'? It needs to do nothing but it chooses to experience artistic expression as the mysterious consciousness has a mysteries creative aspect. The crude analogy is the cultured rich man that has no needs and spends his time experiencing great art/music/plays.

Brahman imagines (actually Maya=Illusion) this art (this unfathomable multi-dimensional universe) and experiences by incarnating specks inside this universe with a spark of his consciousness. By incarnating finite specks the infinite can temporarily experience as the finite. The play is a grand victory. The incarnated spark of Brahman in each finite speck eventually awakens to find the glory of being the One/Brahman.

Why all this? The crude human analogy would be asking why do humans create art/music/plays for no 'practical' reason? The answer is 'to experience'.

You say that Brahman needs to do nothing. But then you go on to say that Brahman chooses and imagines.

With what apparatus or structure does Brahman choose? With apparatus or structure what does Brahman imagine?


You also use masculine pronouns when referring to Brahman.

Does Brahman have gender?


In what way from the perspective of Advaita is it useful to anthropomorphize Brahman?

 

[George-ananda]

You say that Brahman needs to do nothing. But then you go on to say that Brahman chooses and imagines. Consciousness itself is a mystery we can not get behind.

With what apparatus or structure does Brahman choose? With apparatus or structure what does Brahman imagine?

Brahman has a creative aspect. Why anything with Brahman as Brahman itself is a mystery we can not get behind.

You also use masculine pronouns when referring to Brahman.

Does Brahman have gender?

I switched to 'itself' above.

In what way from the perspective of Advaita is it useful to anthropomorphize Brahman?

Just to help us crudely think in ways we can relate to.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Brahman has a creative aspect. Why anything with Brahman as Brahman itself is a mystery we can not get behind.

If Brahman is a mystery you (not we) can't get behind, how do you know it has a creative aspect?

Just to help us crudely think in ways we can relate to.

There's that 'we' word again.

So what you're saying is you relate more to Saguna Brahman than you do with Nirguna Brahman. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It helps me to better understand what you're communicating.

Is it possible, since you are speaking of creating, you are meaning Brahma rather than Brahman (which would be Saguna Brahman)?

 

[George-ananda]

If Brahman is a mystery you (not we) can't get behind, how do you know it has a creative aspect?

The Brahman concept comes not from my rational contemplation but from the direct insight of the ridhis/sages Self-Realized/Brahman-Realized swamis/gurus.

There's that 'we' word again.

I use the word 'we' when people like George and Salix are communicating in our relative everyday reality. Ultimately, George and Salix are One and Brahman.

So what you're saying is you relate more to Saguna Brahman than you do with Nirguna Brahman. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It helps me to better understand what you're communicating.

Both Brahmans are one Brahman.

Is it possible, since you are speaking of creating, you are meaning Brahma rather than Brahman (which would be Saguna Brahman)?

Definitely not. Brahma is in the realm of demigods with a lower-case 'g'.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The Brahman concept comes not from my rational contemplation but from the direct insight of the ridhis/sages Self-Realized/Brahman-Realized swamis/gurus.

The concept of Brahman, in my experience, doesn’t (and perhaps cannot) come from rational contemplation.

It comes from direct experiential insight of others that has been passed on, or it comes personal direct experiential insight.

I use the word 'we' when people like George and Salix are communicating in our relative everyday reality. Ultimately, George and Salix are One and Brahman.Both Brahmans are one Brahman.

Yes, in our true nature we are one, but in the context of personal understanding, using terms like “we” and “us” assume that we have had the same experiences that led to this personal understanding.

Are you saying that we’ve shared the same experiences? That we share the same understanding?

Based on what you’ve posted, it appears we have not.

Definitely not. Brahma is in the realm of demigods with a lower-case 'g'.

Are saying that Brahma is not Saguna Brahman?

How do you define Saguna Brahman? Or for that matter, Nirguna Brahman?

 

[Vinayaka]

@SalixIncendium ... for what it's worth, here's my sampradaya's take: It may or may not be helpful. Feel free to ignore it.

Brahman: ब्रह्मन् “Supreme Being; Expansive Spirit.” From the root bṛih, “to grow, increase, expand.” Name of God or Supreme Deity in the Vedas, where He is described as 1) the Transcendent Absolute, 2) the all-pervading energy and 3) the Supreme Lord or Primal Soul. These three correspond to Śiva in His three perfections. Thus, Śaivites know Brahman and Śiva to be one and the same God, as: 1) Nirguṇa Brahman:God “without qualities (guṇa),” i.e., formless, Absolute Reality, Parabrahman, or Paraśiva, totally transcending guṇa(quality), manifest existence and even Parāśakti, all of which exhibit perceivable qualities; and 2) Saguṇa Brahman: God “with qualities;” Śiva in His perfections of Parāśakti and Parameśvara, God as superconscious, omnipresent, all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful. The term Brahman should not be confused with 1) Brahmā, the Creator God; 2) Brāhmaṇa, Vedic texts, or 3) brāhmaṇa, Hindu priest caste (popularly, brāhmin). See: Parameśvara, Parāśakti, Paraśiva.§

For me personally, theology isn't my area of interest, and if I were to have any understanding at all, it would be a poor one at the intellectual level, not anything from any deeper realisation. In that sense, it's all way beyond my understanding. I trust that that may one day change.