Ishvara and mAyA

[Aupmanyav]

This is para-para-vidya.

 

[Ravi500]

You say Brahman is not perceivable by mind, then how come you describe Brahman in these many words? 'Neti, neti'. You would say that you do not know, God said this in the Vedas.

This is no different from the christian or islamic "Goddidit". Stock answer for all which is unknown in the world - "Goddidit". You won't make even the slightest effort to know it because you know, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN. This is not working for them, it would not work for Hinduism too. I do not know if it is possible to make even the slightest advance with this kind of belief. Do you have a grudge with Hinduism and Hindus? You want to push us back in the dark ages?

You won't make even the slightest effort to know it because you know, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN.

He who knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence all words together with the mind turn away, unable to reach it—he never fears. (2.4.1) --Taittiriya Upanishad

Him Whom the knowers of Brahman realise by meditation as the Supreme Lord within themselves known as Brahman, as the second-less, infinite, unborn, subtle, inscrutable Resplendence residing in the heart and attainable only by devotees,—that Hari, the destroyer of the darkness of samsâra, I praise. -- Shankaracharya




The Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9) says brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati -- The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.


The Mundaka Upanishad says: "The knower of Brahman becomes the Self of Brahman." Is it not ludicrous? To know Him and become Him? They are mere words. The sage is Brahman - that is all. Mental functioning is necessary to communicate his experience. He is said to be contemplating the unbroken expanse. -- Ramana Maharshi


I would like to state here that meditation is necessary as well to experience the experential state of Brahman.

 

[Stormcry]

To state that God or Brahman is unknowable is highly laughable

I think, this is not completely laughable. Adi Shankara has clarified this. The brahman is not the thing which can be attained. Atma is bramhan both in conditioned & liberated state. He is ultimately aloof from bandage ( Avidya ) & liberation (Vidya). And, we should note that both bandage & liberation are products of Maya, which we call it a non-existent thing. Atma never was separated from Brahman though it appears separate from Brahman. This thing we should perceive properly.

The person who has not become Brahman can say I know Brahman or I don't know Brahman. But the person who has become brahman himself ( become *literally) can not say I know Brahman nor he can say I don't know Brahman.

If the supreme truth is devoid of knower and knowing, then where's the point of calling brahman as knowable.?

Hare Krishna

 

[Ravi500]

I think, this is not completely laughable. Adi Shankara has clarified this. The brahman is not the thing which can be attained. Atma is bramhan both in conditioned & liberated state. He is ultimately aloof from bandage ( Avidya ) & liberation (Vidya). And, we should note that both bandage & liberation are products of Maya, which we call it a non-existent thing. Atma never was separated from Brahman though it appears separate from Brahman. This thing we should perceive properly.

Brahman indeed is not something to be attained, as it is within our own selves as Awareness or Consciousness.

Brahman can indeed be experienced through deep meditation resulting in a thoughtless state of awareness. This is what I meant by knowing Brahman.

Yes, it is our essential state, but we remain ignorant or indifferent to it because of attachment to external sensory objects prompted by Maya and hence remain stuck in the mind or thoughts which cover the Self. The one who is not so, can be stated here to be a knower of Brahman i.e enlightened one, as distinguished from those who are not enlightened. This is the point I am making here. It is mainly for purpose of understanding the concept .

Another way of implying the meaning that ' one knows Brahman' , perhaps, can be made by stating that one has transcended the limitations of Prakriti or Maya which creates bondage.

The person who has not become Brahman can say I know Brahman or I don't know Brahman. But the person who has become brahman himself ( become *literally) can not say I know Brahman nor he can say I don't Brahman.

I would not agree with that. The enlightened one ,of course, does not have to say that he knows Brahman or not, as it makes no difference to him personally.

But for the purposes of instruction, he can make such a point. I had been in the company of enlightened ones who had made such a point , not exactly in the same words though.

 

[atanu]

Brahman can indeed be experienced through deep meditation resulting in a thoughtless state of awareness. This is what I meant by knowing Brahman.

Yes. Gita teaches that the 'Neither Existent nor Non Existent Brahman' is knowable and must be known.

 

[Makaranda]

You say Brahman is not perceivable by mind, then how come you describe Brahman in these many words? 'Neti, neti'.

Kindly note this list again:

Brahman is described variously in Shruti as: asthUlam anaNvam ahrasvam adIrgham, ashabdam asparsham arUpam avyayam tathArasam nityam agandhavacca, apUrvam anaparam anantaram abAhyam.

You will be aware that most of these words describe Brahman indirectly through negating various qualities and properties. In other words, these words describe what Brahman is not. Brahman is: not gross, not subtle, not long or short, without form, sound, touch, neither inside nor outside etc. Brahman can't be comprehended merely through uttering a word. None of these words contradict the other words in shruti which say neti neti.

Brahman isn't perceivable by the mind because the mind is an instrument for knowing objects, and Brahman is not an object. Brahman is that by which the mind itself is illumined, and manifests in the waking and dream states as the witness of the activities of the mind. In short, any object presented to you in your mind is not you, because you are the one perceiving the object. Hence, all mental objects should be negated as not Brahman, neti neti.

You would say that you do not know, God said this in the Vedas.

You have totally ignored my latest post where I clarified that Brahman can be known:

Brahman can be known. Brahman can be known through Vedanta. That's the point of Vedanta. Prolonged shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana on the Vedanta scriptures (in conjunction with a mind highly purified through karma, meditation etc) removes the ignorance which veils one's true nature as Brahman.

This is no different from the christian or islamic "Goddidit". Stock answer for all which is unknown in the world - "Goddidit". You won't make even the slightest effort to know it because you know, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't my position.

Do you have a grudge with Hinduism and Hindus? You want to push us back in the dark ages?

You seem to have a grudge against correctly parsing sentences and reflecting on what a person says before running your mouth with unwarranted accusations.

Tip for the future: Slowly read the WHOLE post(s) and reply to the WHOLE post(s) in future, otherwise you are just misrepresenting my position by selectively quoting from it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He who knows the Bliss of Brahman, whence all words together with the mind turn away, unable to reach it - he never fears. (2.4.1) - Taittiriya Upanishad

The Mundaka Upanishad (3.2.9) says brahmaveda brahmaiva bhavati -- he knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

I accept both these statments (I hope you do not mind a small spelling correction I have done in Brahmaveda - knower of Brahman). That is why I say 'Aham Brahmasmi'. Knowing Brahman and therefore being without questions is real peace. I have experienced that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Again, I see you persisting in your illiterate views regarding advaita, even though you had been criticized in this regard umpteen times by the better educated forum members. To state that God or Brahman is unknowable is highly laughable, ..

I think, this is not completely laughable.

Yes. Gita teaches that the 'Neither Existent nor Non Existent Brahman' is knowable and must be known.

Kindly decide the issue between you all and let me know. Perhaps then I will rid myself of my illiterate views. Atanu, there must be a verse in Gita saying that (since you mention it) but I can't remember it. Can you kindly give me the chapter number? That would be a reiteration of Nasadiya Sukta.

Brahman is that by which the mind itself is illumined, and manifests in the waking and dream states as the witness of the activities of the mind. In short, any object presented to you in your mind is not you, because you are the one perceiving the object. Hence, all mental objects should be negated as not Brahman, neti neti.

Is mind a electric bulb that it is illuminated? Is Brahman an electric current that it makes the mind light up? What you right here and immediately before this, unfortunately, is just a 'shabda-jāla', a maze of words, a favorite of mysticism; especially when you say "manifests in the waking and dream states as the witness of the activities of the mind". It does not really mean anything. And I do not indulge in mysticism.

Prolonged shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana on the Vedanta scriptures (in conjunction with a mind highly purified through karma, meditation etc) removes the ignorance which veils one's true nature as Brahman.

Yes, I have done that and I have arrived at my position only after that.

 

[Makaranda]

Oh boy

Is mind a electric bulb that it is illuminated? Is Brahman an electric current that it makes the mind light up?

In Vedanta it is commonly understood that the mind by itself is inert. Mind and consciousness are understood as two different things. It is in the presence of the consciousness that the mind remains active and functions as a medium for knowing the objects available to sense perception. In other words, the mind temporarily borrows the capacity to know objects due to its proximity to the consciousness by which the mind itself is known (and illuminated). In the drik-drishya viveka, the author puts it roughly like this:

Form (for example, a table) is seen, the eye is the seer,
the eye is seen (known), the mind is the seer (knower),
the mind is seen, the Self (Atma, consciousness) is the seer,
there is no other seer for the Self, and the Self is not an object of knowledge.

In short, it is the consciousness which is the true seer or knower, and through its presence the mind, senses, and sense objects are all illuminated/known to each other in the order given above.

Brahman is by definition consciousness (chit). Its presence is indicated in every single being as the sAkshi or witnessing consciousness which inheres as the seer or knower of the mind and its functions.

What you right here and immediately before this, unfortunately, is just a 'shabda-jāla', a maze of words, a favorite of mysticism; especially when you say "manifests in the waking and dream states as the witness of the activities of the mind". It does not really mean anything.

What I have written here, and previously, is simply para-phrasing the words of our Advaita acharyas. Just because you cannot understand what I am saying (since it's clear you haven't really studied Vedanta with any kind of depth), does not make it meaningless. Shri vidyAranya in his Panchadashi writes:

I-3: The objects of knowledge, viz., sound, touch etc, which are perceived in the waking state, are different from each other because of their peculiarities; but the consciousness of these, which is different from them, does not differ because of its homogeneity.

I-4: Similar is the case in the dream state. Here the perceived objects are transient and in the waking state they seem permanent. So there is a difference between the two states. But the perceiving consciousness in both the states does not differ. It is homogeneous.

I-5: A person awaking from deep sleep consciously remembers his lack of perception during that state. Remembrance consists of objects experienced earlier. It is therefore clear that even in deep sleep, 'lack of perception' is itself perceived.

I-6: This consciousness (in the deep sleep state) is indeed distinct from the object (lack of perception), but not from itself, as is the consciousness in the dream state. Thus, in all the three states (waking, dream, deep sleep), the consciousness is the same.

I-7: Through the many months, years, ages, and word cycles, past and future, consciousness is the same; it neither rises nor sets; it is self-revealing.

What I have said is no different from what vidyAranya has said. Now, is vidyAranya speaking meaningless mystical mumbo-jumbo? Brahman inheres in the body/mind/sense complex as the witnessing consciousness. It is that in you which is aware of the presence or absence of all three states of experiences (waking, dream, dreamless sleep). It is not difficult to understand, nor is it a mere maze of words. You may object and say 'my views differ', and that is fine, but your views differ from those of the Advaita acharyas, and so nobody is obliged to take you seriously when you say your views are Advaita.

Prolonged shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana on the Vedanta scriptures (in conjunction with a mind highly purified through karma, meditation etc) removes the ignorance which veils one's true nature as Brahman.

Yes, I have done that and I have arrived at my position only after that.

Ripping a couple mAhAvAkyas out of their proper context and repeating them heedless of their true import whilst rejecting vast swathes of shruti and the words of acharyas is not a proper study of Vedanta. You've arrived at your position by rejecting Vedanta and adopting pseudo science and materialism. Well done. :clap

 

[Ravi500]

Kindly decide the issue between you all and let me know. Perhaps then I will rid myself of my illiterate views.

The issue, you can see, was already settled. HLK even fruballed me later for my post which he initially disagreed with.

You won't make even the slightest effort to know it because you know, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN.

I accept both these statments (I hope you do not mind a small spelling correction I have done in Brahmaveda - knower of Brahman). That is why I say 'Aham Brahmasmi'. Knowing Brahman and therefore being without questions is real peace. I have experienced that.

You stated earlier that Brahman is unknowable, and now you are contradicting your own statement , and stating that you know Brahman.

Do make up your mind.

 

[Stormcry]

Pranam Ravi500...

Brahman can indeed be experienced through deep meditation resulting in a thoughtless state of awareness. This is what I meant by knowing Brahman.

In the final state of Brahman, in oneness nothing other than self, how will be there experiencing or knowing ? When one experiences Brahman, it's called as touching with Brahman's bliss. But for sure that's not the ultimate nature of Atma, however a second last step from Brahman. Seeker thinks in this that he is Brahman, witnesser of world, lord of Maya. He sees Maya imagined in his self. But there's still Maya or world, there's I who is experiencing Bliss. He thinks that he has become free but in reality he is not as I is there. This state is just like dream of person wherein he sees himself awakened. This is the step where there's a danger of fall down again in Material World. Maya can catch him up again.
The theory states that Brahman can be slightly explained only in Negative words. Brahman must be beyond knowing(experiencing) and unknowing(inexperiencing).

I would not agree with that. The enlightened one ,of course, does not have to say that he knows Brahman or not, as it makes no difference to him personally.

I think you didn't understand what I said. As I said "But the person who has become brahman himself can not say I know Brahman nor he can say I don't Brahman." , it means , in brahman *there's no feeling of I am brahman or I am not barhman or I am experiencing bliss or I am not experiencing bliss or I am something like that .....What I mean to say is that only this state* should be true and in existent at all times, even in the appearance of bondage of Jiva. Thus when jiva becomes Brahman, he doesnt feel that he was not Brahman before nor he says Now I'm experiencing bliss. At that state, he is what he is.

So saying one is experiencing Brahman, is not ultimately valid as far as one sees through an angle of supreme truth.

Hare Krishna...

 

[Stormcry]

Yes. Gita teaches that the 'Neither Existent nor Non Existent Brahman' is knowable and must be known.

Pranam !

What's non existent Brahman ? Existence and non existence are not essential natures of Brahman. If Brahman is ekamevadvitiy and all what is there, then who actually is knower of Brahman? Jiva or Brahman? If jiva knows brahman, then it'll imply Maya knows Brahman as Jiva/individually is because of Maya. But I'll never say maya knows something after realisation or it has an existence.

And If I say Brahman knows brahman after realisation, then I think this isn't possible as the same thing couldn't know itself. My firm belief is that knowing is a factor of Change. And change doesn't reside in Brahman. Know that brahman supreme wherein there's no change or birth of anything.

 

[Makaranda]

Hello Hinduism♥Krishna,

I am enjoying your recent posts, so thanks for contributing. Would just like to clarify or add to a couple of things you said from my own viewpoint if that's okay.

Adi Shankara has clarified this. The brahman is not the thing which can be attained

Yes, that which is ever the case (and one's very nature) need not be attained. However, as you have also said, we feel separate from Brahman. Therefore it's not improper to speak of attainment as an as though attainment, nor is it improper to speak of Brahman as though knowable. Krishna calls Brahman jneyam many times in the gItA.

But the person who has become brahman himself ( become *literally) can not say I know Brahman nor he can say I don't know Brahman.

The becoming is figurative, not literal, since one cannot become what one always is. But yes, one can neither say 'I know Brahman', since it implies that I am the subject and Brahman is an object, but nor can one say 'I don't know Brahman' since Brahman is one's very nature and knowledge itself.

If the supreme truth is devoid of knower and knowing, then where's the point of calling brahman as knowable.?

To encourage the ajnanis to become jnanis. Brahma-vidya must be sought.

And If I say Brahman knows brahman after realisation, then I think this isn't possible as the same thing couldn't know itself. My firm belief is that knowing is a factor of Change. And change doesn't reside in Brahman.

Brahman is self-revealing consciousness, and as such doesn't need such distinctions within itself as pramAtR- pramANa -pramEya. 'Knowing' as a result of some means of knowledge is temporary, but knowledge itself is innate in Brahman. Brahman is knowledge, and so its knowing never ceases.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The becoming is figurative, not literal, since one cannot become what one always is. But yes, one can neither say 'I know Brahman', since it implies that I am the subject and Brahman is an object, but nor can one say 'I don't know Brahman' since Brahman is one's very nature and knowledge itself.

Can one say 'I am Brahman and I know myself'?, literally.

 

[Makaranda]

Can one say 'I am Brahman and I know myself'?, literally.

I think so.

 

[Stormcry]

Pranam... Makaranda

Hello
However, as you have also said, we feel separate from Brahman. Therefore it's not improper to speak of attainment as an as though attainment, nor is it improper to speak of Brahman as though knowable. Krishna calls Brahman jneyam many times in the gItA.

But we don't accept the seperate feeling from Brahman as true. It's an illusion. I believe jiva is Bramhan himself. King seeing a dream in which he becomes beggar but in reality he was already a king while dreaming also . Dream has no any effect on his actual self which is lying on bed.. The actual self is always aloof from three conditions of consciousness.. We actually observe this properly in a deep sleep state .. Even if one feels complete negation of self in deep state but when we wake up we say I didn't have existence in sleep.. But who's I here? It's I that remains aloof from three consciousness, which actually has not individual consciousness though in conditioned state it appears different from Brahman . It's the I that is origination of the universe.

Brahman is vidnyanam. Because it is indifferent from Brahman. But actually these knowledge & ignorance are the creations of maya. Maya herself creates knowledge about Brahman & ignorance about brahman, which is unending and Sanatana & so jivas are Sanatana. In the end maya along with knowledge & ignorance merges in Brahman. (Note- only the thing which has no existence can merge in Brahman). Apparently jiva's moksha is not possible ever as this samsara is without beginning. The logical theorem states that which has not beginning it can not have an end also. But the supreme truth is that jiva has no any sansara. Sansara itself has no existence. Jiva was brahman jiva is Bramhan & jiva will be brahman.. There's nothing like separateness nor closeness /knowing brahman. The knowing of Brahman is as illusory as separateness of Atma from Brahman. So jiva was never separate from Brahman, so atma knows brahman is just figurative.

The becoming is figurative, not literal, since one cannot become what one always is. But yes, one can neither say 'I know Brahman', since it implies that I am the subject and Brahman is an object, but nor can one say 'I don't know Brahman' since Brahman is one's very nature and knowledge itself.

I did it mistakenly. I was expected to write *not literally.

What I meant to say - In Brahman there's no feeling of I am brahman or I'm not Brahman. Even Brahman is not sat-chit-ananda. How brahman can be addressed as sat, who's beyond sat & asat.. How brahman can be addressed as chit, who's beyond chit & achit & how brahman can be addressed as Ananda,because it's not confirmed how that ananada is! No one knows that Ananda and who experiences it can not express it. For sure that Ananda is beyond Ananda and grief. So this ananada word doesn't properly describe Brahman. In fact Upanishads are unable to describe anything about Brahman. The moment they describe about Brahman the brahman goes far away from them as he is always. Whatever Mind thinks about brahman is not that Brahman. After describing brahman & negating everything veda merges itself along with ignorance in that eternal brahman and stays quite and becomes happy. Though veda(Knowledge) & ignorance are ultimately born from maya, veda showering mercy on jiva takes away his ignorance and merges in Brahman along with counterpart ignorance. Due to union of Purusha & prakriti, jiva is formed and after realising himself brahman he merges in Brahman as if nothing happened...

In fact what veda is teaching is maya in the form of Knowledge which is contradictory to ignorance. Actually veda does nothing. Veda tactically removes that ignorance which was not even present in jiva. It is like " Removing thorn by another thorn" glory to the veda who uses maya itself to remove Maya. This is the secret & mystery of veda. My Hail to this Veda to which only Brahman knows...

 

[bhootarajaru]

Pranam... Makaranda In the end maya along with knowledge & ignorance merges in Brahman

This can never be possible,maya cannot merge with brahman,when given that maya is unreal and avachya.It is unreal and it cannot have any affect on brahman,and similarly it merging with brahman ,must be unreal.If you accept the process of merging then,maya must be held as a real entity.

Unreal rain cannot bring floods to the real world!!!!!!

If you accept the merging of maya with brahman,then you are bound to accept maya as a real entity.YOu cannot just discard maya as unreal.

 

[atanu]

This can never be possible,maya cannot merge with brahman,when given that maya is unreal and avachya.It is unreal and it cannot have any affect on brahman,and similarly it merging with brahman ,must be unreal.If you accept the process of merging then,maya must be held as a real entity.

Unreal rain cannot bring floods to the real world!!!!!!

If you accept the merging of maya with brahman,then you are bound to accept maya as a real entity.YOu cannot just discard maya as unreal.

I agree. mAyA is no positive entity. It is a name given to effect of ignorance (for the ignorant jiva-s) or magical power of manifestation (for Ishwara).

 

[Vinayaka]

Maya is the teacher, and a great one at that.

 

[bhootarajaru]

I agree. mAyA is no positive entity. It is a name given to effect of ignorance (for the ignorant jiva-s) or magical power of manifestation (for Ishwara).

Maya cannot be the effect of ignorance.Because,the effect of ignorance cannot be present without the actual ignorance in the ignorant.If you conclude maya as the effect of ignorance,then where is this ignorance present??

What is the reason for this ignorance???Is it previous ignorance ???

If we have it in your way then there would be infinite cycles of ignorances!!!!!

You conclude that maya is the effect of ignorance.My question is how do you account for the origin of this ignorance by which maya exists???

Is it other ignorance????

Other possible question would be. In whom does this ignorance exist???
Brahaman!!!!!!This must be the answer,since there are no two beings in advaita..

If you accept that brahman has ignorance then all the efforts of vedas upanishads and everything would be futile since,everthing is declaring the glorious characters of the supreme!!!!