Dharmics Only: Is Brahman really all-knowing?

[Martin]

So are we speculating about Brahman in an abstract sense "out there", or are we talking about the experience of being Brahman, ie satcitananda?

If we're talking about satcitananda, then what aspect of that experience implies omniscience? Is it sat, cit, or ananda?

 

[Martin]

Brahman is omniscient, but you, I, and all other unenlightened beings are not. That seems to me to be the obvious answer..

The OP question is whether we becomes all-knowing when we "realise" Brahman.

 

[Martin]

Mere mortals may think what the want about Brahman, Brahman is omnipresent.

You're a mere mortal yourself, so how do you know Brahman is omnipresent?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So are we speculating about Brahman in an abstract sense "out there", or are we talking about the experience of being Brahman, ie satcitananda?

If we're talking about satcitananda, then what aspect of that experience implies omniscience? Is it sat, cit, or ananda?

I am not speculating about Brahman, nor am I speculating about satchitananda. I am speaking of the teaching wrt Brahman. Brahman is all there is, nothing exists that is not Brahman, therefore logically all knowledge belongs to Brahman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The OP question is whether we becomes all-knowing when we "realise" Brahman.

Now we are into the speculation, but for what it is worth, human spiritual "realization" of being an expression of Brahman is not the same thing as being Brahman, there is a whole celestial hierarchy of spiritual evolution ahead for an enlightened human. Even a Galactic being is not Brahman, only all that is is Brahman.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Mere mortals may think what the want about Brahman, Brahman is omnipresent.

Omnipresent in what? Itself?

 

[Martin]

I am not speculating about Brahman, nor am I speculating about satchitananda. I am speaking of the teaching wrt Brahman. Brahman is all there is, nothing exists that is not Brahman, therefore logically all knowledge belongs to Brahman.

Look back at what you you said in post #9. Clearly you don't "know", you're a "mere mortal" like the rest of us.
And speculating is fine, it's what these discussions are for.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're a mere mortal yourself, so how do you know Brahman is omnipresent?

Because that is what the definition of Brahman is, I am at least being consistent with the conventional understanding of what Brahman represents as a concept, but any mere mortal can create their own opinion as to what they think Brahman represents, hell they can even believe that there is no Brahman.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Now we are into the speculation, but for what it is worth, human spiritual "realization" of being an expression of Brahman is not the same thing as being Brahman, there is a whole celestial hierarchy of spiritual evolution ahead for an enlightened human. Even a Galactic being is not Brahman, only all that is is Brahman.

Are you speaking from experience, or what you read in a book?

I'm not sure you have a full understanding of what enlightenment (Moksha) is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Omnipresent in what? Itself?

Omnipresent means infinite, all pervading. There is nothing else in existence except Brahman,

 

[SalixIncendium]

Omnipresent means infinite, all pervading. There is nothing else in existence except Brahman,

I know what omnipresent means.

If there is nothing that exists but Brahman, then what is Brahman omnipresent in?

 

[Martin]

Because that is what the definition of Brahman is, I am at least being consistent with the conventional understanding of what Brahman represents as a concept, but any mere mortal can create their own opinion as to what they think Brahman represents, hell they can even believe that there is no Brahman.

Have a look at the OP again. I think you're missing the point of the thread.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Look back at what you you said in post #9. Clearly you don't "know", you're a "mere mortal" like the rest of us.
And speculating is fine, it's what these discussions are for.

I was referring to the suggestion that there was lack of scripture in support for Brahman being omniscient. As it turns out I found heaps that did say or imply Brahman was omniscient, some links thereof I posted. As I keep saying, I am going by the conventional teaching and understanding as to what the concept of Brahman represents, ie. all pervading omnipotent omniscience.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I was referring to the suggestion that there was lack of scripture in support for Brahman being omniscient. As it turns out I found heaps that did say or imply Brahman was omniscient, some links thereof I posted. As I keep saying, I am going by the conventional teaching and understanding as to what the concept of Brahman represents, ie. all pervading omnipotent omniscience.

Which "conventional teaching" are you referring to?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I know what omnipresent means.

If there is nothing that exists but Brahman, then what is Brahman omnipresent in?

Brahman is omnipresent, that is one of the attributes applied, Brahman is not omnipresent in anything, Brahman is just omnipresent. Similarly Brahman is omniscient, Brahman is not omniscient about something. Understand?

 

[Martin]

I was referring to the suggestion that there was lack of scripture in support for Brahman being omniscient. As it turns out I found heaps that did say or imply Brahman was omniscient, some links thereof I posted. As I keep saying, I am going by the conventional teaching and understanding as to what the concept of Brahman represents, ie. all pervading omnipotent omniscience.

Though you were quite dismissive of what the scriptures say in post #9.

Anyway, could we get back to the OP question?
IMO the question is really about the experience of being Brahman, ie satcitananda, and whether that implies omniscience.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Brahman is omnipresent, that is one of the attributes applied, Brahman is not omnipresent in anything, Brahman is just omnipresent. Similarly Brahman is omniscient, Brahman is not omniscient about something. Understand?

No.

To me, this is like saying water is omnipresent in water. It's a meaningless statement.

We aren't talking about omniscience, but again, what you are saying is the same to me as ben d is omniscient of ben d.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have a look at the OP again. I think you're missing the point of the thread.

See my post #33 to the OP, if the OP is not enlightened, then how can he seriously wonder why he can't know what is happening on the other side? Wrt to an enlightened human, during moksha, there is no other side of the universe, all is one, omnipresence prevails.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Which "conventional teaching" are you referring to?

Conventional Hindu teaching that Brahman is omnipresent, omniscient, etc..

 

[Martin]

See my post #33 to the OP, if the OP is not enlightened, then how can he seriously wonder why he can't know what is happening on the other side? Wrt to an enlightened human, during moksha, there is no other side of the universe, all is one, omnipresence prevails.

The OP is about omniscience. Please look at it again.