• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Brahman defined in Taittiriya Upanishad

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I was asked about definition of God by @blü 2.

In this thread, my intention is information sharing and not debate. I am a scientist and I follow methodical naturalism in my profession. But I understand that methodical naturalism is limited to human intellect-senses and I believe that the study of the 'subject' that sees-knows the objects has to employ different method.

This thread is a small attempt to show to hard core ontological naturalists that approach of Vedanta towards knowledge of Brahman is systematic and relies on intellect to the greatest extent and more.
...

To a Hindu, Brahman is the supreme truth.

Brahman is silence and is known in silence. Yet for indication purpose, Brahman has been defined in Vedanta. I am citing here the most commonly used understanding of Brahman from Taittriya Upanishad, made up of three terms ‘Satyam (real), Jñānam (knowledge), Anantam (infinite)’. I reproduce some relevant explanatory notes from Swami Chinmayananda’s translation.

I have also linked a 45 minute video that I consider a very patient exposition and unzipping of a single verse of Taittriya Upanishad by Swami Sarvapriyananda. Interested readers may see it.

Taittiriya Upanishad
Chinmayananda, Swami. Taittriya Upanishad (Kindle Locations 2056-2059). Central Chinmaya Mission Trust. Kindle Edition.

Part II
om brahmavidāpnoti param, tadeṣā’bhyuktā,
satyaṁ jñānamanantaṁ brahma,
yo veda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ parame vyoman,
so‘śnute sarvān kamān saha brahmaṇā vipaściteti.


Om, the knower of Brahman attains the Supreme. With reference to that, is the following hymn recited: Brahman is the Truth, Knowledge and Infinity. He who knows It as existing in the cave of the heart in the transcendent ākāśa, realises all his desires along with omniscient Brahman.

In the Taittirīya-upaniṣad the goal is pointed out as the core of the individual seeker himself. The chapter opens with the declaration of the goal: ‘The knower of Brahman reaches the Supreme’.

The word ‘knowing’ in the verse above is not meant in the sense in which we generally ‘know’ things of the world, wherein the ‘knower’ is always different from the ‘known’ and the ‘knowledge’. Here the word ‘know’ is used in the sense of discover or realise. The goal is Brahman and one who realises it reaches the Supreme.

The infinite Truth can, on no account, be fully defined in words. And yet, we have here three words which, in their indicative meaning, give us pointer to what the Truth is.

Satyam – It is generally translated as Truth-Reality. In itself this translation does not express any idea. The words gather their momentum only in intellects that are familiar with the import of the words. In the tradition of Vedānta, ‘Satyam’ is that which is the changeless substratum for all changes and modification.

Without the steady, spotless screen behind the ever changing play of lights and shades, there cannot be the illusion of a thrilling film in the theatre;

Jñānam – This is generally translated as Knowledge. But, in order to warm ourselves up to the inspired meaning of the ṛṣis.

Knowledge is of two kinds (a) unconditioned knowledge, and (b) conditioned knowledge. We generally experience in the world only ‘knowledge of’ things. Herein knowledge is conditioned by the things known. These conditioned knowledge bits change from place to place and from time to time, since the objects that pure Knowledge happens to illumine are different from one another.

When water is poured into different types of bottles, the shapes of water conditioned by the different bottles should necessarily be different since the bottles are of different shapes. But this does not mean that water itself has any definite shape. Similarly, though the knowledge bits conditioned by different objects are seemingly different because of the plurality of the objects themselves, the Knowledge Absolute in its pure nature is unconditioned by any of the objects that it illuminates.

The term ‘Jñānam’ indicates this Knowledge Absolute which illuminates for us the objects of experiences in the outer and inner worlds.

Anantam – It is translated as Infinity. Brahman is not limited by space, time or objects. Which means it is not any delineated object and yet it is not separate from any object.

It is the uncaused cause. Unborn and eternal, that Truth reveals Itself as infinite and conscious.

Thus, in this definition made up by three terms ‘Satyam, Jñānam, Anantam’, the Vedas, indicate the Absolute Reality which is at once immanent and transcendent. To seek this Truth within is the goal.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I urge @blü 2 and others to Kindly indulge me and patiently view this video. It may come as boring to some. It may come as eye opener to some others.

 
Last edited:

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
I keep getting a relationship between Brahman supremacy and Nirvana, Brahma being the supreme creator of mankind, his place as controller of the interim transcription after death of obtaining an entity to occupy. A sort of pseudo in between spirit subsitute to life. Maybe sort of born again into another form or object or person.
So...Nirvana isn't a final position in eternity, it's just an inward look into the self that is known as gnosis.
In theist terms that would be the `soul` or `spirit` of one's inner being.
Sooo...Brahma controls all Brahman idiolatries and allows Nirvana to guide one to another life on Earth.
I wonder where the conscienous goes, and the cognizance also. That's confusing also.
I'm sure that's not right but I think I'm getting there, 'splain it to me again ?
OH well.....NuffStuff
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
To me...it's kinda difficult to compare any explanation of `God` or any `gods` to Brahma or any other Hindu idols or supremacies.
I guess I have to stay with the Earth and it's Stuff.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I keep getting a relationship between Brahman supremacy and Nirvana, Brahma being the supreme creator of mankind, his place as controller of the interim transcription after death of obtaining an entity to occupy. A sort of pseudo in between spirit subsitute to life. Maybe sort of born again into another form or object or person.
So...Nirvana isn't a final position in eternity, it's just an inward look into the self that is known as gnosis.
In theist terms that would be the `soul` or `spirit` of one's inner being.
Sooo...Brahma controls all Brahman idiolatries and allows Nirvana to guide one to another life on Earth.
I wonder where the conscienous goes, and the cognizance also. That's confusing also.
I'm sure that's not right but I think I'm getting there, 'splain it to me again ?
OH well.....NuffStuff


consciousness is eternal. your form is finite. your consciousness is the infinite. your consciousness is like a partition within brahman. in my father's house there are many mansions. if it were not so, i would have told you.


we are simply destined to become something much greater than our mortal/earthly self. eternity isn't a destination, its a never ending journey.


Two birds, beautiful of wings, close companions, cling to one common tree: of the two one eats the sweet fruit of that tree; the other eats not but watches his companion. The self is the bird that sits immersed on the common tree; but because he is not lord he is bewildered and has sorrow. But when he sees that other who is the Lord and the beloved, he knows that all is His greatness and his sorrow passes away from him. When, a seer, he sees the Golden-hued, the maker, the Lord, the Spirit who is the source of Brahman, then he becomes the knower and shakes from his wings sin and virtue; pure of all stains he reaches the supreme identity.








the reveal starts at 57:00

 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I keep getting a relationship between Brahman supremacy and Nirvana, Brahma being the supreme creator of mankind, his place as controller of the interim transcription after death of obtaining an entity to occupy.
I think that is not Brahman but an understanding clear as 'mud' (pun intended, no offense):D. It sounds like you are talking more about the Abrahamic God concept.

To start, All (and 'mud') are Brahman. Mud and George just need to realize they are the One and Brahman. Right now those two fellows are in the ignorance that makes them feel separate.

Brahman understanding takes some time to grasp as it is non-dual (meaning God/Brahman and us/creation are not-two). This thinking starts as foreign to those raised in the Abrahamic world. The Abrahamic mindset that seems to appear in your comment is dualistic (God and us are two; George and mud are separate things).
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I think that is not Brahman but an understanding clear as 'mud' (pun intended, no offense):D. It sounds like you are talking more about the Abrahamic God concept.

To start, All (and 'mud') are Brahman. Mud and George just need to realize they are the One and Brahman. Right now those two fellows are in the ignorance that makes them feel separate.

Brahman understanding takes some time to grasp as it is non-dual (meaning God/Brahman and us/creation are not-two). This thinking starts as foreign to those raised in the Abrahamic world. The Abrahamic mindset that seems to appear in your comment is dualistic (God and us are two; George and mud are separate things).

Jesus stated it eloquently, I AM in the Father and the Father is in me, which is the name of ehyeh asher ehyeh. jesus told his followers to immerse themselves in the name. or become absorbed involved in the name
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Jesus stated it eloquently, I AM in the Father and the Father is in me, which is the name of ehyeh asher ehyeh. jesus told his followers to immerse themselves in the name. or become absorbed involved in the name
Yes, I feel Christianity took the more dualistic path 2,000 years ago. The concepts were perhaps more easily grasped by people of less education and exposure to different thoughts.

However, 2,000 years later, the old dualistic view becomes problematic and unsatisfying. We enter a New Age. And many have turned to atheism. I think non-dualism is the way of the future with the exponential growth of education and exposure to a world of concepts.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I urge @blü 2 and others to Kindly indulge me and patiently view this video. It may come as boring to some. It may come as eye opener to some others.
Thanks for that. He's a likeable and articulate presenter.

As he went through the concepts of 'infinite in time, space, form' I kept thinking that everything fitted with my mass-energy hypothesis in its simple (ie monist) expression.

Only at one point, the tale of the demon in the pillar, did he attribute personality or purpose to Brahman, and that was a jocular side-reference.

But when we got to the proposition that consciousness, analogously with the unboundedness of external reality, is also unlimited in time, place and form, I thought that was a demonstrably inaccurate statement. The biochemical and bioelectrical phenomena of the brain that give us our consciousness are unique to the individual and account for the individual's humanity and sense of self; and the energy (as such) constituting those phenomena is not lost when we die. However, the complex pattern that produces consciousness is lost irretrievably. Whatever was capable of consciousness no longer exists for that individual ─ that pattern has not gone somewhere else, it's simply gone.

However, my understanding of the Vedanta position has taken a giant step forward, which is pleasing, so thank you again for providing the video.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
...
But when we got to the proposition that consciousness, analogously with the unboundedness of external reality, is also unlimited in time, place and form, I thought that was a demonstrably inaccurate statement. ..

So, you are not even talking of Brahman, which by definition is Real, Consciousness, and Infinite and which is to be realised in one's self. Brahman is not the objects.

I wish to give you some more trouble if you have patience and goodwill.:) You may wish to spend (waste) sometime on the following thread and the linked video therein. The video is by the same swamiji.

Consciousness and Mind according to Vedanta

For a short cut to the videos:
Consciousness and Mind according to Vedanta

However, my understanding of the Vedanta position has taken a giant step forward, which is pleasing, so thank you again for providing the video.

You are welcome.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Ahhh...the never ending story...into Nirvana, the world of Brahma, the conscienous of self.
I see it as a stepstone to another being in another form of beginning, a new entity of existing.
Ahhh...could that be true, I guess that would be wonderful, and Brahma would be pleased.
I wish everyone well with those thoughts, for me, I'll join you in the afterlife of reality of Stuff.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The biochemical and bioelectrical phenomena of the brain that give us our consciousness
That statement right there shows why the twain (blu 2 and atanu) shall not meet in this discussion.

blu 2: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter

atanu: Consciousness (Brahman) is primary and matter is a derivative of Consciousness/Brahman
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That statement right there shows why the twain (blu 2 and atanu) shall not meet in this discussion.

blu 2: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter

atanu: Consciousness (Brahman) is primary and matter is a derivative of Consciousness/Brahman
Yes, I'm sure you're right. (And it may be we differ on what 'infinity' could mean when applied to reality.) My view is that matter without consciousness is found, but never consciousness without matter.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Yes, I'm sure you're right. (And it may be we differ on what 'infinity' could mean when applied to reality.) My view is that matter without consciousness is found, but never consciousness without matter.
Well these questions may take us down the rabbit hole of 'what is consciousness' and 'what is matter'.

At a level closer to a reality I can observe, I point to certain types of so-called paranormal phenomena that suggest consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well these questions may take us down the rabbit hole of 'what is consciousness' and 'what is matter'.

At a level closer to a reality I can observe, I point to certain types of so-called paranormal phenomena that suggest consciousness can exist without a physical brain.
But (as I think I said last time) the reality of these claims has not been established by satisfactory demonstration ─ no repeatable experiment, no falsifiable hypothesis as to how it might work, no claimant for Randi's million bucks ─ and it would be unkind to refer to how many fakes and stage professionals are out there, since they'd be irrelevant if only something substantial could be shown.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
But (as I think I said last time) the reality of these claims has not been established by satisfactory demonstration ─ no repeatable experiment, no falsifiable hypothesis as to how it might work, no claimant for Randi's million bucks ─ and it would be unkind to refer to how many fakes and stage professionals are out there, since they'd be irrelevant if only something substantial could be shown.
But (as I think I said last time too), I find the cumulative weight of the anecdotal, experimental and investigative evidence to be overwhelmingly in support of genuine phenomena suggesting consciousness without a physical brain despite the claims of those that have an entrenched dislike of such things.

And never the twain shall meet.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Consciousness, the awareness of the cognizance of the possession of one's own mind.
Any other description is absolutely ludicrous !
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I urge @blü 2 and others to Kindly indulge me and patiently view this video. It may come as boring to some. It may come as eye opener to some others.


How is this different than pantheism? Can we identify Brahman with existence itself--the universe throughout space and time?
 
Top