praGYaanaM brahma

[atanu]

aitareyopanishhat

3.3

eshha brahmaishha indra eshha prajaapatirete sarve devaa imaani cha paJNchamahaabhuutaani pR^ithivii vaayuraakaasha aapo
jyotii.nshhiityetaaniimaani cha kshudramishraaNiiva .
biijaaniitaraaNi chetaraaNi chaaNDajaani cha jaarujaani cha svedajaani chodbhijjaani chaashvaa gaavaH purushhaa hastino yatkiJNchedaM praaNi jaN^gama.n cha patatri cha yachcha sthaavara.n sarva.n tatpraGYaanetraM praGYaane pratishhThitaM praGYaanetro lokaH praGYaa pratishhThaa praGYaanaM brahma .. 3..

What does 'praGYaanaM brahma' (Aitereya Up. 3.3) really mean in the light of Mandukya verse 7 that says that the atma is 'neither prajnanam nor not-prajnanam'?

mandukyopanishhat

7
naantaHpraGYaM na bahishhpraGYaM nobhayataHpraGYaM na praGYAnaghanaM
na praGYaM naapraGYam.h | adR^ishhTamavyavahaaryamagraahyamalakshaNaM
achintyamavyapadeshyamekaatmapratyayasaaraM prapaJNchopashamaM
shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH

.......

 

[atanu]

No response?

 

[atanu]

Aitreya Upanishad 3.3
He is Brahman, He is Indra, He is Prajapati; He is all these gods; He is the five great elements – earth, air, akasa, water, light; He is all these small creatures and the others which are mixed; He is the origin – those born of an egg, of a womb, of sweat and of a sprout; He is horses, cows, human beings, elephants – whatever breathes here, whether moving on legs or flying in the air or unmoving. All this is guided by Consciousness, is supported by Consciousness. The basis is Consciousness. Consciousness is Brahman.

Mandukya 7
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, un-inferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

As suggested I have pasted the translations of the two verses in question. The relevant parts are highlighted.

 

[DanielR]

I (probably others too) didn't understand what you were posting before ^^

I fully agree with this, love the upanishads, somehow I always get back to Advaita even though I've been looking into other philosophies

 

[Ekanta]

Gambhirananda (with shankara comment) renders it "nor conscious (aware of all objects simultaneously), nor unconscious (insentience)"
However, what would "aware of all objects simultaneously" mean?

 

[ratikala]

Gambhirananda (with shankara comment) renders it "nor conscious (aware of all objects simultaneously), nor unconscious (insentience)"
However, what would "aware of all objects simultaneously" mean?

omnicient , sarvavid , sarvavidya ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mandukya 7
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, un-inferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

Mandukya is an improvement on Aitareya. Think of something like 'physical energy'. Is it by itself consciousness? - no. Is it unconscious? - no. If it were unconscious, one photon in the Young's double-slit experiment would not have known that the other photon was being observed. When one photon is observed, the second photon fails to arrive. It does not want to give its secrets so easily. Therefore, what exists, the Brahman, is something like 'physical energy'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

[atanu]

-- Therefore, what exists, the Brahman, is something like 'physical energy'.

But I think that is not what the Mandukya states. And further, Mandukya does not invalidate Aitereya.

 

[Poeticus]

And further, Mandukya does not invalidate Aitereya.

Agreed. Unless
it is a personal
opinion, to call it
an "improvement"
is unfounded.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, you may say that is a personal opinion that Mandukya was a later metaphysical research than Aitareya, like Einstein was to Newton.

"Ancient prose Upanishads: Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Kau****aki, Kena
Poetic Upanishads: Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, Mundaka
Later prose: Prasna, Maitri, Mandukya"
Upanishads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I notice that Kena is repeated under two headings. Why, if anybody could help me? I thought they were all poetic)

 

[atanu]

I have mediated on these two. I think that some comprehension of the relationship between the two verses has emerged.

The following verse is about meditation on the manifested universe with all its components as Brahman. All is Brahman. Then, the Brahman is said to be the consciousness. Which means that "All is Brahman. All is only the consciousness". Now consciousness is empty and has no parts.

Aitreya Upanishad 3.3
He is Brahman, He is Indra, He is Prajapati; He is all these gods; He is the five great elements – earth, air, akasa, water, light; He is all these small creatures and the others which are mixed; He is the origin – those born of an egg, of a womb, of sweat and of a sprout; He is horses, cows, human beings, elephants – whatever breathes here, whether moving on legs or flying in the air or unmoving. All this is guided by Consciousness, is supported by Consciousness. The basis is Consciousness. Consciousness is Brahman.

Now who is the Seer of the consciousness. Surely not a man/woman of two arms and two legs. The whole is Consciousness. The Seer too is that. The Seer, the Seeing, the Seen is now non-dual called as shivo atman. The non-dual has no exterior, no interior, it is neither consciousness, it is not unconsciousness. There is no one to be conscious of anything yet it cannot be said that it is unconscious.

Mandukya 7
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, un-inferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

I also see a parallel with the Heart sutra here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All is Brahman. Then, the Brahman is said to be the consciousness. Which means that "All is Brahman. All is only the consciousness". Now consciousness is empty and has no parts.

Without something, there would not even be the consciousness. Therefore, 'all is consciousness' is probably not correct. Emptiness cannot have parts (0 cannot have factors). 'Something' does not necessarily need to have parts. That may be our illusion, the fault of our consciousness. Only the first part of the sentence - 'All is 'something', 'All is Brahman' is probably correct.

 

[atanu]

Without something, --.

Things are not real. Without something, the non dual brahma is and its nature prajnana (mula prakriti-sarvesvara-prajnana ghana) is.

Consciousness does not depend on things. The experience of consciousness, however, depend on creation of duality of subject-object, in what is non dual, and hence not amenable to experience. But the non dual is amenable to knowing by being the non dual.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Consciousness does not depend on things.

This is where we differ. Human consciousness requires a working brain. We are getting to know about Brahman's consciousness or the consciousness of energy but have a long way to go.

Recent reports say in the beginning all the four forces (Fundamental Interaction - Wikipedia - Strong, Week, Electromagnetic, and Gravity) in Physics were equal.

 

[Makaranda]

This is where we differ. Human consciousness requires a working brain. We are getting to know about Brahman's consciousness or the consciousness of energy but have a long way to go.

Recent reports say in the beginning all the four forces (Fundamental Interaction - Wikipedia - Strong, Week, Electromagnetic, and Gravity) in Physics were equal.

The Upanishads teach that which is the conscious entity seemingly inhabiting the body/mind and implied by the word 'you' (tvam) is really identical with the consciousness/existence implied by the word tat ('that') or Brahman. In other words there isn't a human consciousness and a Brahman consciousness, but rather a non-dual consciousness expressing itself variously in an infinite number of body/minds just as the same sun shines variously in a multitude of water pots. The point is to realize that you are that, the Brahman. Please do have a look at the sadvidyA of the sixth chapter of chAndogya Upanishad. You're not an emergent property of a bunch of complexly arranged inert (non-conscious) matter constituting the brain, distinct from a greater consciousness inherent in the wider universe. Vedanta just doesn't teach that, or allow for that idea to pass as wisdom or self-knowledge, in my view.
I don't know how you can manage to fit the square peg of scientific(?) materialism into the round (w)hole of (Advaita) Vedanta without ignoring many and major discrepancies between the two or dropping teachings/ideas/verses which don't jive with your empirical/materialistic presuppositions. So I still wonder why you don't just drop the Vedantic garb and terminology for what are demonstrably un-Advaitic ideas and worldview and save yourself the time,effort, and stress of having to constantly clarify your position to people who see your posts as little more than run of the mill materialism with a bit of monism attached to it. It might even be liberating (teehee) for you! Though of course that's just my advice and you're welcome to whatever conglomeration of concepts takes your fancy, so you can ignore me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe that the scientific peg can easily fit into the spiritual space, at the end of the day Hindus as well as other people will accept its truth. Can you have the consciousness of an electrons, or even further, that of a quark, lepton, gauge Boson, or Higgs Boson? Brahman is something even beyond these. Therefore, we can never have the consciousness of Brahman. What we have is the consciousness to the limits of our brain, human consciousness. We will have to do with that. The difference between the two is too enormous to be bridged. Kindly give me one reason why should I drop Vedanta or Advaita when I believe in one eternal constituting all things in the universe?

 

[atanu]

I believe that the scientific peg can easily fit into the spiritual space, at the end of the day Hindus as well as other people will accept its truth. Can you have the consciousness of an electrons, or even further, that of a quark, lepton, gauge Boson, or Higgs Boson? Brahman is something even beyond these. Therefore, we can never have the consciousness of Brahman. What we have is the consciousness to the limits of our brain, human consciousness. We will have to do with that. The difference between the two is too enormous to be bridged. Kindly give me one reason why should I drop Vedanta or Advaita when I believe in one eternal constituting all things in the universe?

You are just trolling. Kindly see the title of the thread. Brahman-Atman is the consciousness within. One has no separate consciousness that can be used to be conscious of Brahman. You usually have no idea of what you say.

It is the directive of the scripture to know the Self-Brahman.


shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH

It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

...............

I, and several others, are repeatedly requesting you to desist posing as an advaitin.

 

[Makaranda]

I believe that the scientific peg can easily fit into the spiritual space, at the end of the day Hindus as well as other people will accept its truth. Can you have the consciousness of an electrons, or even further, that of a quark, lepton, gauge Boson, or Higgs Boson? Brahman is something even beyond these. Therefore, we can never have the consciousness of Brahman. What we have is the consciousness to the limits of our brain, human consciousness. We will have to do with that. The difference between the two is too enormous to be bridged. Kindly give me one reason why should I drop Vedanta or Advaita when I believe in one eternal constituting all things in the universe?

Well, unlike atanu (and with respect to his and other advaitin's pleas,) I'm not necessarily requesting you to stop identifying as an advaitin if it's your prerogative not to, but rather to take into consideration that the way you are using popular advaita related terms (such as 'Brahman') is not in accordance with the way other people are using those terms, and so there is always going to be a confusion about the meaning of terms whenever you and any other advaitin are going to be posting in the same thread on the same topic. The risk here is that we are going to utterly confuse anybody sincerely asking questions about advaita since there's going to be very divergent answers using the same terms. To illustrate my point, look at what you said here:

Therefore, we can never have the consciousness of Brahman. What we have is the consciousness to the limits of our brain, human consciousness. We will have to do with that. The difference between the two is too enormous to be bridged.

The implication here is that there is a thing called human consciousness, which is (an emergent, transient property of the human brain?) subjective, limited and different (read: irreconcilable) from another thing called Brahman consciousness, which, if I speak rightly, you identify as an objective and eternal physical reality, which is either the sum total of all physical objects and energy, or an energetic substance underlying all of the other objects and energy (I'm not sure which you subscribe to). Either way, the point is that you are saying human consciousness is different from Brahman, and the latter is not to be understood, in a final analysis, as identical with the former. The problem here is that this demonstrably is not taught in either modern or traditional interpretations of Advaita. To put it in another way, and do forgive/correct me if I put the wrong words in your mouth;

Aupmanyav
Atheistic
Empirical science (measurement of objects) is the way to gain knowledge of reality.
The self of the individual is an emergent property of a brain, is a limited human consciousness and cannot (as current empirical science stands) know Brahman, and Brahman is an objective reality 'out there' in the same category as things like gravity, atoms, string field, etc

Other advaitin
Theistic
Accepts the limitations of sensory perception and inference as pramAnas, and accepts Vedic texts as an independent pramAna. Further, Brahman (Reality) is not viewed as an object that can be detected or measured by any empirical measurement or instrument.
The Self of the individual, though seemingly limited by a body and mind, is on closer inspection seen to be not a transient (or even transmigrating) limited individuality but none other than the ultimate reality itself.
Brahman is not some physical force 'out there' that is just below or outside the range of scientific detection, but is rather the very consciousness within all, which illuminates all minds, animates all bodies, and is the existence on which all the names and forms of the universe depend. It is not outside of yourself, nor is it unattainable as a recognition that it is your very nature, or that it can be known. Brahman can be known, though not as an object- not under a microscope, but as the content and nature of the subject, 'I'.

This is a very quick and rushed summary of just a few differences between (my understanding of) your views and the views of other advaitins. You say you acknowledge the idea that there is an eternal reality that constitutes all things in the universe. Now that's fine, but that's (maybe) about the only similarity your views share with Advaita Vedanta commonly understood. It's a very loose connection, and there are seemingly many more differences than commonalities. It seems to be Advaita in name only. Therefore, surely for your own benefit and to save many topics from confusion it'd be easier to identify yourself as a monist, which, in short, can apply to anybody who subscribes to the notion that there is ultimately only one reality- be it a physical or spiritual reality. A monist can be an atheist, a materialist, and a reductionist. But can an atheist, a materialist, and a reductionist be a vedantin, even though he says there is only one reality? I'm not convinced. Not without ignoring vast swathes of texts, teachings, and teachers, traditional or modern, which reject your views, or assert the opposite. I don't think other members of this forum who self-identify as advaitin/vedantin are convinced, either. You have to selectively read the source materials and the source teachings. Did you read the sixth chapter of the chAndogya that I mentioned in my last post? In there it says that you, ie the seemingly limited human consciousness, are really that reality behind everything which exists, and upon which everything depends for its existence. In other words, you are Brahman. Therefore, how can you say that the difference between you and Brahman is a difference ''too enormous to be bridged''? This knowledge is possible, it is attainable- the very aim of the Upanishads is to teach this knowledge and to say, look! look what you really are! You have to either willfully ignore or be merely ignorant of such teachings to say otherwise, in my opinion. What do you think? What is the content of the statement tat tvam asi in your view, if the individual and the objective Reality be unbridgeable? Is it a meaningless statement? Is it twaddle? Superstitious thinking? The mistakes of well meaning sages in light of scientific advancement? Which ideas of Advaita Vedanta do you subscribe to, other than the aforementioned monism?

Apologies if this post is a bit garbled and difficult to read- I'm feeling rather sleepy.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, unlike atanu (and with respect to his and other advaitin's pleas,) I'm not necessarily requesting you to stop identifying as an advaitin if it's your prerogative not to, but rather to take into consideration that the way you are using popular advaita related terms (such as 'Brahman') is not in accordance with the way other people are using those terms, and so there is always going to be a confusion about the meaning of terms whenever you and any other advaitin are going to be posting in the same thread on the same topic. The risk here is that we are going to utterly confuse anybody sincerely asking questions about advaita since there's going to be very divergent answers using the same terms. To illustrate my point, look at what you said here:



The implication here is that there is a thing called human consciousness, which is (an emergent, transient property of the human brain?) subjective, limited and different (read: irreconcilable) from another thing called Brahman consciousness, which, if I speak rightly, you identify as an objective and eternal physical reality, which is either the sum total of all physical objects and energy, or an energetic substance underlying all of the other objects and energy (I'm not sure which you subscribe to). Either way, the point is that you are saying human consciousness is different from Brahman, and the latter is not to be understood, in a final analysis, as identical with the former. The problem here is that this demonstrably is not taught in either modern or traditional interpretations of Advaita. To put it in another way, and do forgive/correct me if I put the wrong words in your mouth;

Aupmanyav
Atheistic
Empirical science (measurement of objects) is the way to gain knowledge of reality.
The self of the individual is an emergent property of a brain, is a limited human consciousness and cannot (as current empirical science stands) know Brahman, and Brahman is an objective reality 'out there' in the same category as things like gravity, atoms, string field, etc

Other advaitin
Theistic
Accepts the limitations of sensory perception and inference as pramAnas, and accepts Vedic texts as an independent pramAna. Further, Brahman (Reality) is not viewed as an object that can be detected or measured by any empirical measurement or instrument.
The Self of the individual, though seemingly limited by a body and mind, is on closer inspection seen to be not a transient (or even transmigrating) limited individuality but none other than the ultimate reality itself.
Brahman is not some physical force 'out there' that is just below or outside the range of scientific detection, but is rather the very consciousness within all, which illuminates all minds, animates all bodies, and is the existence on which all the names and forms of the universe depend. It is not outside of yourself, nor is it unattainable as a recognition that it is your very nature, or that it can be known. Brahman can be known, though not as an object- not under a microscope, but as the content and nature of the subject, 'I'.

This is a very quick and rushed summary of just a few differences between (my understanding of) your views and the views of other advaitins. You say you acknowledge the idea that there is an eternal reality that constitutes all things in the universe. Now that's fine, but that's (maybe) about the only similarity your views share with Advaita Vedanta commonly understood. It's a very loose connection, and there are seemingly many more differences than commonalities. It seems to be Advaita in name only. Therefore, surely for your own benefit and to save many topics from confusion it'd be easier to identify yourself as a monist, which, in short, can apply to anybody who subscribes to the notion that there is ultimately only one reality- be it a physical or spiritual reality. A monist can be an atheist, a materialist, and a reductionist. But can an atheist, a materialist, and a reductionist be a vedantin, even though he says there is only one reality? I'm not convinced. Not without ignoring vast swathes of texts, teachings, and teachers, traditional or modern, which reject your views, or assert the opposite. I don't think other members of this forum who self-identify as advaitin/vedantin are convinced, either. You have to selectively read the source materials and the source teachings. Did you read the sixth chapter of the chAndogya that I mentioned in my last post? In there it says that you, ie the seemingly limited human consciousness, are really that reality behind everything which exists, and upon which everything depends for its existence. In other words, you are Brahman. Therefore, how can you say that the difference between you and Brahman is a difference ''too enormous to be bridged''? This knowledge is possible, it is attainable- the very aim of the Upanishads is to teach this knowledge and to say, look! look what you really are! You have to either willfully ignore or be merely ignorant of such teachings to say otherwise, in my opinion. What do you think? What is the content of the statement tat tvam asi in your view, if the individual and the objective Reality be unbridgeable? Is it a meaningless statement? Is it twaddle? Superstitious thinking? The mistakes of well meaning sages in light of scientific advancement? Which ideas of Advaita Vedanta do you subscribe to, other than the aforementioned monism?

Apologies if this post is a bit garbled and difficult to read- I'm feeling rather sleepy.

I agree with Makaranda's post here. This atheistic Advaitan is in essence no different at all from western atheistic-materialism. In an English speaking forum of people of all backgrounds they assume you believe in something different. Even the Bahgavad Gita makes no sense from your perspective.

 

[Makaranda]

I'd even venture to add that I have no objection to scientific enquiry per say. I think it is totally valid within its own sphere of activity. I'm not irrational, nor do I reject the findings of modern science, I just don't see how it has anything at all to do with Vedanta. I don't think Vedanta is unscientific, either. They're just two separate fields of enquiry, with little overlap. Science is the investigation and measurement of the objective world. It deals with objects. Things. Vedanta is more concerned about an investigation into the nature of the self, the subject. If you want to know about the world, do science. If you want to know about the self, look to Vedanta. Can one do both? Sure, maybe there are scientists who are also Vedantins. But can a scientist bring his microscope to a Vedanta class? No, because you cannot put the Self under a microscope, no matter how high-tech that microscope is.

When I read Aupmanyav's posts I see the word Brahman in the same sentence as quarks, photons, leptons, bosons, gravity, and double-slits, and I'm pretty bewildered by it all. Your posts confuse me, Aupmanyav! Because I don't see how they have anything to do with Advaita, and I don't know what photons and leptons have to do with Advaita. Let photons be photons and leptons be leptons- that's fine, we'll not dispute the findings of science, but how are they relevant to a discussion on Advaita, exactly? From my perspective, most of your posts seem chronically off-topic.

As for the atheism, the materialism and the reductionism, that's a different matter. Those are refuted in Vedanta. Hence why I marvel that you can (try to) hold two opposing viewpoints at once. You don't need to be an atheist, materialist etc., in order to accept modern science, Aupmanyav, but you cannot be an atheist, materialist etc., in order to grasp Vedanta accurately, in my opinion.

Edit- To illustrate, here are some things you have said recently in other threads:

I have problems with Krishnamurthy, but Sankara, Ramana, and Nissargadutta Maharaj are OK for me.

Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj were not atheists, materialists, or reductionists. They each taught that the self is consciousness and that consciousness is God/Reality. They each accepted from a relative standpoint the existence of Ishwara/devas/karma/samsara/etc. Therefore, you actually do have a problem with Shankaracharya, Ramana and Nissargadatta, since what you say is not what they said. Why do you give lip service to these teachers but totally ignore or reject what they say? Why not just cease to affiliate with them, instead?

You say:

But as Sankara said there are two realities, 'absolute' (Parmarthika') and pragmatic, practical ('Vyavaharika'). Though everything is the same in 'absolute' reality, it is not in the 'pragmatic' reality. And we cannot ignore any of the two.

But if we cannot ignore pragmatic reality, why do you reject the existence of supra-sensuous entities like God etc? Those teachings and teachers which talk of Brahman also talk of Brahman as God, from a pragmatic standpoint. They also talk of devas, karma, moksha, and samsara. If you accept the existence of Brahman, then why not the rest? What is the harm? Do you think it is unscientific, or something, to believe in the pragmatic reality of unseen laws and intelligence(s) operating in the universe? If you assert that these things cannot exist because they cannot be observed empirically, then, my friend, you ought to throw the baby out with the bath water, and declare that Brahman itself is non-existent, because Brahman cannot be empirically observed. Brahman cannot be the object of empirical inquiry, because Brahman is not an object perceivable to the senses.

Then you say:

My views are from Sankara, only that I do not subscribe to 'pragmatic reality' (Vyavaharika) where there are deities. I accept only the 'absolute reality' (Paramarthika) where there is none other than Brahman

Which contradicts when you have earlier said that one should not ignore the pragmatic reality.

Do you accept the Vedic texts as an independent pramAna, or not? If yes (and I assume you do, since you like to quote 'all this is Brahman' which comes from the Upanishads) then you should not be an atheist/materialist/reductionist, and your views should not differ so egregiously from other advaitins. If no, then why call yourself an advaitin, why quote from the Vedic texts, and why use Vedic terminology to express your views? You seem to select a few little bits that you like, and throw out a whole lot that you don't like. I just wonder: why? Clearly, you are selecting and rejecting based upon a preconceived worldview and personal parameters. Why not call a spade a spade and just say your views are your views and are not what is commonly called Advaita Vedanta. It would be sensible, and honest, in my opinion. Nobody will attack you or criticize you just for having different views. But they will criticize when you name these views under the same name as the views of those from whom you differ.

And note, I say, 'why not?'; it's a question, and a friendly suggestion, not an imperative.