Hindus Only: The nature of Brahman in Upanishads

[sayak83]

By the way I just had to respond to this




Upanishad:




It is clear this man revels in ignorance.

Colorblind people are unable to see distinction between colors apparently.
Who is this self (atman)?"- that is how we venerate.
Which of these is the self? Is it that by which one sees? Or hears? Or smells odors? Or utters speech? Or distinguishes between what is tasty and what is not? Is it the heart and the mind? Is it awareness? Perception? Discernment? Cognition? Wisdom? Insight? Steadfastness? Thought? Reflection? Drive? Memory? Intention? Purpose? Will? Love? Desire? But these are various names of knowledge.

It is brahman; it is Indra; it is Prajapati; it is all gods. It is these five immense beings-earth, wind, space, the waters, and the lights; It is these beings, as well as those that are small mixtures of those;
It is living beings of various sorts - those that are born from eggs, from wombs from sweat and from sprouts. It is horses, cattle, men, and elephants. It is everything that has life - those that move, those that fly, and those that are stationary.

Knowledge is the eye of all of that, and on knowing it is founded. Knowledge is the eye of the world, and wisdom, the foundation. Brahman is knowing .(Prajnanam Brahman)

It is with this self consisting of knowledge that he went up from this world and, having obtained all his desires in the heavenly world up there, became immortal.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Just for the record:-
Open invitation to get ten free likes for anybody who can tell me what Spirit Warrior has argued so far that is relevant in refuting my actual positions and argument about the nature of Brahman in the Upanisads concisely summarized in the post below:-

Hindus Only: The nature of Brahman in Upanishads

It seems like English might not be your first language

This debate is to settle what the nature of Brahman is in the Upanishads, is it a insentient principle or a sentient entity.

I am not sure how it cannot be clear that I arguing FOR the side that Brahman is a sentient entity, the Hindu concept of God, a conscious, thinking, feeling entity. I have repeated in several posts.

On the other hand, your position is not clear. I will ask you again, for the fifth time, what is your position on Brahman? Which side are you arguing for? Is it sentient or insentient? It cannot be both, it is an either/or question.

 

[sayak83]

It seems like English might not be your first language




I am not sure how it cannot be clear that I arguing FOR the side that Brahman is a sentient entity, the Hindu concept of God, a conscious, thinking, feeling entity. I have repeated in several posts.

On the other hand, your position is not clear. I will ask you again, for the fifth time, what is your position on Brahman? Which side are you arguing for? Is it sentient or insentient? It cannot be both, it is an either/or question.

Is it not clear yet? Brahman is observed as BOTH as it is more fundamental than either MIND or MATTER. That IS my position which I am defending via the upanisads. Start to adjust to that (though I am pessimistic).

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Is it not clear yet? Brahman is observed as BOTH as it is more fundamental than either MIND or MATTER. That IS my position which I am defending via the upanisads. Start to adjust to that (though I am pessimistic).

Brahman cannot simultaneously be sentient and insentient.

No, you have not defended it with the Upanishads, you have cited an Upanishad that says Brahman is sentient.

You are clearly not rational. A rational debate can only happen between rational actors. Good day.

 

[sayak83]

Brahman cannot simultaneously be sentient and insentient.

No, you have not defended it with the Upanishads, you have cited an Upanishad that says Brahman is sentient.

You are clearly not rational. Good day.

Clear case of projection. Good bye.

X cannot also be Y

Mathematics and real world cannot mix.
Magnets and Electricity cannot be the same
Energy and Mass cannot be the same
All the various devas cannot be one
Particles cannot be same as waves
Space and Time cannot be connected


And now an Advaitist! comes forth and tells :- Brahman cannot be both personal/sentient and impersonal/a-sentient depending on his/its manifestation?

Okay.... whatever.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Clear case of projection. Good bye.

You don't get it do you? You just admitted your position is absurd. You are saying Brahman is both sentient and insentient. It is like you saying you both alive and dead.

I knew you were not rational for a long time, but I never thought you would admit to it.

 

[sayak83]

You don't get it do you? You just admitted your position is absurd. You are saying Brahman is both sentient and insentient. It is like you saying you both alive and dead.

I knew you were not rational for a long time, but I never thought you would admit to it.

You have exposed how hopelessly tied to dualities and limited conceptions of rationality you are.
So very...fundamentalist black-white categorization at work here.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You have exposed how hopelessly tied to dualities and limited conceptions of rationality you are.
So very...fundamentalist black-white categorization at work here.

Nope, saying that a contradiction is not logically possible, is not the same thing as saying that you believe in duality. A lot of people know that I am in fact an Advaitist, a non-dualist. That does not mean non-dualists are illogical.

This is going nowhere, it is clear you are not rational.

 

[sayak83]

Nope, saying that a contradiction is not logically possible, is not the same thing as saying that as saying you believe in duality. A lot of people know that I am in fact an Advaitist, a non-dualist. That does not mean non-dualists are illogical.

This is going nowhere, it is clear you are not rational.

Its nothing more than clever word trick on your part. You have presupposed that Matter and Consciousness are antonymns so that Consciousness belongs to the class of non-matter; or rather matter belongs to the class of non-consciousness. This exactly like the presupposition where it is said that wave is non-particle, hence since particle cannot be non-particle, particle cannot be wave. What this analysis forgets is the "blind man and elephant paradigm" where there could be a more fundamental entity X whose manifestations can be two apparently disparate things. Thus Fire and Water can indeed be united in the more fundamental manifestation of atoms (H and O), and Agni Deva and Varuna Deva can be united in the more fundamental manifestation of Isvara.

You are clearly limited in your thinking and conceptual grasp of Hinduism.

 

[Seven headed beast]

As far as the Upanishads text, I cannot say for sure, but I am the first human since Moses to function as the Clarion for the Old Man. In the 75,000 years since Moses walked the earth, there has been a lot go sideways.

So, let's deal with one thing here and now. He spells His name, "Brahmin" and He would like you to do the same, if you please.

Another aspect that has gone way out of kilter is what His wishes are as far as spiritual dogma. You do not need a priest or anyone to tell you how to worship.

The notion of the advaita Vedanta is merely an acknowledgement of Him as the Great Creator, and after that we are free to make our Spiritual dogma to fit in to whatever works best for us.

He is the individual that hears people's prayers. No matter if they are Hindu, or Christian or Islamic. They all go to His in box.

He does want everyone to understand that the Yin and Yang is the cosmic law of laws. All things are bound to the Yin and Yang, from quantum mechanics to quantum physics.

What he does in the big picture is that it is his position to maintain the equalibrium of the cosmos. He makes sure that the black and white wheel continue to move in the dynamic motion it has always had. It is enough to keep Him busy ever since He commanded emeritus status, before the last flood in the third yuga.

As for what and where He is, He is everywhere that something is not. He is also the energy that is qi gong, and the energy that is Reiki. He is dark matter. He is dark energy. He is spread out across the universe in a way that I cannot only imaginee.

What I know is that you can communicate with him if you wish in a communication style that was demonized by the Christians but that is because they didn't want anyone to chat Him up. There is only one individual that will answer your call , and only if your akashic record is in good standing. Your karma must be in the light side. None of these protocols will work for you if your in the dark side of the yin and yang. These being qi gong, Reiki, and the talking board or ouija board.

They all will work if you have good karma. You can get an immediate response to your questions on the ouija. There are no other entities that can or will take your call.

As for who He is, He is the one individual that has no counterpart or consort in the pantheon. He is an introverted and shy bachelor who has handed to reins to Shiva and He spends time in His garden when He is not tending to Be cosmic tasks.

He is a race car owner and driver, but in nirvanaa/heaven, they are running electric vehicles because they do not have petroleum. I see the race track as the place where you need to watch out for Him.

He loves fords. And good and plenty, and Dr pepper. He loves barbecued ribs.

He is an all too calm individual who likes to play the banjo.

I am close enough connected to Him to know when He is blushing or if he is laughing.

IHe is a non-interventionist and will not entertain the notion of answering a call for help unless it's for the good of the whole.

While "praying" is all valid, you can speak to Him like you would a friend as He knows everything about you and doesn't eat you out or tell anyone, that's a good friend.

Treat Him as you would a friend. I can tell you, that He has a couple of girlfriends that get preferential treatment, but that is because they treat Him like He is there with them all the time. They take Him in the car, and they set a place at the table for Him.

I cannot rightfully testify they they get His best But I would be inclined to think that if anyone does, it's those two.

He loves us all unconditionally, I know that. I feel that.

If you ever want to speak to Him, you must first let Him know that. He gives us free will and lets us exercise it. So, unless you call to Him and tell Him your talking to Him, you will be given the space to say whatever you wish without Him eavesdropping.

If you do call to Him, He is right there and is listening to what you have to say.

You need only whisper His name. Brahmin, with an "I".

 

[Seven headed beast]

It is quite clear to everybody who talks to spirit warrior, that the only person he ever responds to are voices in his own head which has very little resemblance what anybody else is saying about the topic.

So the most efficient way to progress in this thread, or in any thread spirit warrior creates is to respond to the topic outlying and defending one's positions and talking about other possible positions in an intelligent and coherent manner rather than responding to the garbled, distorted and incoherent ideas in Spirit Warriors long and wandering posts and accusations.

A good example of what a waste of time some of the arguing here would be is talking about the ridiculous idea that because two words have the same word as synonym, they mean the same is conclusively established! Is this a new rule of grammar? It can't be since its clearly false:-

Lovely:- Synonyms contains splendid and beautiful as synonym
Splendid :- Synonyms contain beautiful as synonym.

Therefore it is established that lovely and splendid mean the same thing?


Now I am sure Spirit Warrior will post two gigantic posts "decisively refuting" this obvious problem with just one of his 100 contentless arguments he makes in his previous posts, which itself will contain another 100 ridiculous propositions (interspersed with 2-3 interesting ones). But will it be any use for the readers in this thread? No. After all there is no point in pointing out the grammatical mistakes of someone who writes:- "lkdjfbjhvwbgfkjbwkjv" if the response is also "jfebfewhfjvwfjvkj".

So I will make my own points regarding my conclusions regarding what the Upanisads say about Brahman and make some points that others (including Spirit Warrior..sometimes...rarely) make that requires some reflection and have interesting points. Spirit Warrior can write whatever he wants to in as long paragraphs of rambling nonsense he wants. After all, convincing spirit warrior of anything is not my intentions, as I have no clue as to how his mind works. Its just all over the place like a maelstrom.


However I will provide lots of likes to anyone here who can clearly and simply tell me what Spirit Warrior is getting at with a concise statement and what argument he is making. Because I, sure as hell can't.

Actually, it is Brahmin, Himself that begs to differ on the notion of "lovely" and "splendid" are not the same meaning and understanding of these two adverbs are dissimilar.

The connotation of splendid is closer to "majestic" and "wonderous" and evokes an intangible ideal.

While "lovely" is a descriptor of a tangible and concrete representation that is not and never has been garrish or obscene. Lovely evokes a notion of likability at a minimum and that which begs a visual image of attraction to and never any thought that it would or should be intimidating or threatening.

Please understand that these are the thoughts of the supreme being that would hear your prayers if you ever prayed to Him, which He shows me that you have not ever done so, Sayak.

If you have issue with what I am shown, and have related to you, you need to understand that I am merely the messenger, and the passing along of His words to you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Spooky action at a distance(i.e. quantum entanglement)
force fields
chemical and electrical reactions
Are not sentient.

If an action, a response i no sentient, then I do not know what is!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Its nothing more than clever word trick on your part. You have presupposed that Matter and Consciousness are antonymns so that Consciousness belongs to the class of non-matter; or rather matter belongs to the class of non-consciousness.

What is this man's problem? The Upanishad, and the Bhagvad Gita do indeed argue for dualism between consciousness and matter, it is a very well known philosophy called Samkhya. Some of the Upanishads such as Shvetavatara Upanishad and Maitriyani Upanishad are called Samkhya upanishads.

It was earlier demonstrated that the Aitreya Upanishad argues for dualism between matter and consciousness here:

Anyway, no, actually it does not say that material things and consciousness are reducible to Brahman. It actually argues for dualism between matter and consciousness. I find it curious how you don't get this as it is clearly written in the text. It says in both translations(including yours, which seems suspect) Firstly, it declares this:

Translation 1: But these are various names of knowledge.
Translation 2: all these are indeed the names of wisdom

Secondly it declares this:

Translation 1: Knowledge is the eye of all of that, and on knowing it is founded. Knowledge is the eye of the world, and knowledge, the foundation.
Translation 2: all this is guided by wisdom and is supported by wisdom ; the universe has wisdom for its guide ; wisdom is the basis ;

Thirdly and finally it declares this:

Translation 1: Brahman is knowledge(corrected)
Translation 2: Wisdom is Brahman.

So two things can be comprehended here from both translations 1) It is still saying that consciousness, perception, sentience, mind, understanding, discriminating, reasoning, memory, desiring, wisdom etc etc are all synonyms. Hence proving my argument above that these are common and universal synonyms for consciousness. They all presuppose a sentient entity 2) It is NOT saying that created things like the material elements, gods, Brahma, Indra, creatures etc are also names of knowledge/wisdom which is Brahman, it says they are guided and supported by them. In other words there is a dualism here between sentient things and insentient and the sentient guides the insentient

There is no doubt here that there is a dualism between consciousness which is described here a sentient principle which is responsible for all cognition, understanding, reasoning, memory, desiring, wisdom, perception and matter, which is described as an insentient principle which is supported and guided by the former.

What is wrong with this man, that he cannot even acknowledge this is clearly matter-consciousness dualism.

This exactly like the presupposition where it is said that wave is non-particle, hence since particle cannot be non-particle, particle cannot be wave. What this analysis forgets is the "blind man and elephant paradigm" where there could be a more fundamental entity X whose manifestations can be two apparently disparate things. Thus Fire and Water can indeed be united in the more fundamental manifestation of atoms (H and O), and Agni Deva and Varuna Deva can be united in the more fundamental manifestation of Isvara.

Here he starts with the pseudoscience again, and mixing it liberally with Buddhism and Jainism.

What's all this nonsense have to do with Brahman in the Upanishad, the debate topic? Particle/wave duality has got nothing to do with it. The blind and the elephant paradigm is Jain Philosophy, not Vedanta philosophy. Fire and Water, Hydrogen and oxygen, and Fire God and and Water God --- geez this man just speaks total nonsense, mixing things liberally, never saying anything clearly.

The topic is very clear. It is about the nature of Brahman in the Upanishad(not quantum physics, not Jain philosophy, not chemistry, not Buddhism) Sayak has been given an opportunity to justify his interpretation of Brahman by the Upanishads, in much the same way other Vedanta philosophers have done. He has done no such thing, he has just wasted our time with nonsense.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

My position: Although I would think that anybody who understands the English language, reading my posts will make it absolutely clear that my position is Brahman is God. I have, as a rational actor in a debate like this, backed up my interpretation directly from the Upanishads. I have shown the following:

1) Brahman is described as a sentient, conscious, thinking, seeing feeling entity.
2) Brahman is described positively as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinite, all blissful, fearless, immortal, One without a second, witness, knower, supreme being
3) Brahman is described with pronoun 'He' and 'Lord'
4) Brahman is described as the creator, sustainer and supporter of this universe. Brahman desired to create this universe.

​

How can any rational actor deny then that Brahman is God?

​

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

If an action, a response i no sentient, then I do not know what is!

Action/response is not sentience. As your usual your inventing definitions of words.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You have presupposed that Matter and Consciousness are antonymns so that Consciousness belongs to the class of non-matter; or rather matter belongs to the class of non-consciousness.

I can add a bit more now, because of lack of time last night, I omitted these points: Matter and consciousness dualism, known famously(basically to anybody who knows Indian philosophy) as Samkhya philosophy is the main philosophy that underpins Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. All of these religions consider matter and consciousness antonyms, except with some qualification in schools of Buddhism. We will stick to Hinduism for this debate:

In Hinduism the dualism between matter and consciousness is represented as Purush and Prakriti or Brahman/Ishvara and Maya; or Shiva and Shakti. Here the former is the masculine consciousness/ spirit and the later is the feminine matter, nature. This is just a well known concept to a massive number of Hindus, that to deny that this is not the case will make one sound like a total ignoramus. How this dualism is interpreted is what leads to plurality of schools in Hindu thought.

Advaita

Brahman appears as the manifold objects of experience because of its creative power, māyā. Māyā is that which appears to be real at the time of experience but which does not have ultimate existence. It is dependent on pure consciousness. Brahman appears as the manifold world without undergoing an intrinsic change or modification. At no point of time does Brahman change into the world. The world is but avivarta, a superimposition on Brahman. The world is neither totally real nor totally unreal. It is not totally unreal since it is experienced. It is not totally real since it is sublated by knowledge of Brahman.

Vedanta, Advaita | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

Viseshadvaita:

The ontology in Vishishtadvaita consists of explaining the relationship between Ishvara (Parabrahman), the sentient beings (chit-brahman) and the insentient Universe (achit-brahman).

Ishvara (denoted by Vishnu-Narayana) is the Supreme Cosmic Spirit who maintains complete control over the Universe and all the sentient beings, which together also form the pan-organistic body of Ishvara. The triad of Ishvara along with the universe and the sentient beings is Brahman, which signifies the completeness of existence. Ishvara is Parabrahman endowed with innumerable auspicious qualities (Kalyana Gunas). Ishvara is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, the creator of the universe, its active ruler and also its eventual destroyer.[5]

Vishishtadvaita - Wikipedia​

Dvaita:

Five fundamental, eternal and real differences are described in Dvaita school:[5][9][10]​

1. Between the individual souls (or jīvātman) and God (Brahmātmeśvara or Vishnu).
2. Between matter (inanimate, insentient) and God.
3. Between individual souls (jīvātman)
4. Between matter and jīvatman.
5. Between various types of matter.
   
   Dvaita Vedanta - Wikipedia

Shiva/Shakti: Shiva creates this universe through Shakti

The Divine Couple SHIVA – SHAKTI
In the Tantric cosmology, the whole universe is perceived as being created, penetrated and sustained by two fundamental forces, which are permanently in a perfect, indestructible union. These forces or universal aspects are called Shiva and Shakti.

The tradition has associated to these principles a form, respectively that of a masculine deity and that of a feminine one. Accordingly, Shiva represents the constitutive elements of the universe, while Shakti is the dynamic potency, which makes these elements come to life and act.

From a metaphysical point of view, the divine couple Shiva-Shakti corresponds to two essential aspects of the One: the masculine principle, which represents the abiding aspect of God, and the feminine principle, which represents Its Energy, the Force which acts in the manifested world, life itself considered at a cosmic level.

SivaSakti – Tantric Teachings​

Hence we can clearly see that every school of Hinduism accepts matter-consciousness dualism. Not a single school says that consciousness and matter are the same. Hence, Sayak arrogant remarks that those of who consider them antonyms do not understand Hinduism/Upanishads/Vedas deserve strong condemnation. It is Sayak who is forcing this new interpretation on Hinduism that consciousness/brain etc are the same, because he is spurning pseudoscience by combining modern neuroscience with Hinduism. He is forcing Hindu concepts to conform with modern material concepts, and then has the audacity to tell other Hindus they are wrong

 

[Chakra]

Sayak, moved your post from the other thread here so we could have a focused discussion without going back and forth on both threads. I hope @Spirit_Warrior , you, and everyone else interested in this topic will stick to this thread only.

I think the upanisad is quite clear as to who among the rishi-s has the most authoritative and victorious view of Brahman. I am going by the unambiguous pronouncement of Yajnavalkya on this matter. Every thing else is mere elaboration using metaphors, poetry etc. Various models to make it more easily understandable to students. Surely you understand the difference between a debate among Brahmajnani-s (BHU debate) and a simpler easy to digest version provided for the benefit of students (Chandayoga, Katha) or somewhat less enlightened Kshatriya (Arjuna in Gita).

In conclusion:- Spiritwarrior is like a person who, after seeing examples of flat world-maps made by cartographers for convenience of use, has mistakenly come to the conclusion that geologists think the world is indeed flat and is accusing everyone who says its a spherical world to be pseudo-scientist!

I'm a little confused on what you are indicating here. Are you implying that all the Upanishads have different philosophies of Brahman, and that *one* Upanishad is superior to the rest? If so, what is your basis of such a claim?

 

[sayak83]

Sayak, moved your post from the other thread here so we could have a focused discussion without going back and forth on both threads. I hope @Spirit_Warrior , you, and everyone else interested in this topic will stick to this thread only.


I'm a little confused on what you are indicating here. Are you implying that all the Upanishads have different philosophies of Brahman, and that *one* Upanishad is superior to the rest? If so, what is your basis of such a claim?

I think in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, Yajnavalkya is clearly identified as the seer with the best understanding of Brahman through the debate discourse. His discussion is also the most sustained one among the Upanisads. Brihadaranyaka is also considered the earliest among the major Upanisads. Thus, if there is any apparent contradiction between the discussion regarding the nature of Brahman, Atman etc. , other descriptions of Brahman should be interpreted in terms of the analysis done by Yajnavalkya. For example :-
I need to ask a Hindu a question about Kundalini.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

^^ Yanjnavalkya is considered an Advaita Rishi, as the Advaita interpretation is more visible in his teaching. However, I am not sure how Yajnavalkya supports your position(which by the way you still have not clarified) which is either Brahman is beyond consciousness or not conscious.

It makes sense why Yajnavalkya says that in the non-dual state there is no other, you see do not see another, hear another, think another, even though he says that one is still very much capable of seeing, hearing, thinking etc. It makes sense because non-duality by definition means only one, and no other. If there is no other, you cannot see, hear or think that there is another. The import is this that everything is just ONE, no separations, divisions. This is fully consistent with a pantheistic interpretation like Ramunjacharya where Brahman is ONE and made up of Ishvara, jiva and jagat.

I still think you need to clarify what your position is.

 

[Chakra]

I think in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, Yajnavalkya is clearly identified as the seer with the best understanding of Brahman through the debate discourse. His discussion is also the most sustained one among the Upanisads. Brihadaranyaka is also considered the earliest among the major Upanisads. Thus, if there is any apparent contradiction between the discussion regarding the nature of Brahman, Atman etc. , other descriptions of Brahman should be interpreted in terms of the analysis done by Yajnavalkya. For example :-
I need to ask a Hindu a question about Kundalini.

So is it accurate to say that you disagree with Vedantins who tried to create a consistent interpretation of the Upanishads (valuing each of them)?