praGYaanaM brahma

[Aupmanyav]

Aup, You say you revere the Gita but really you don't acccept the obviously intended meaning of who Krishna really is. The author clearly did not intend the interpretation you are taking from the Gita.

You might want to reflect awhile on all this and maybe fairly consider a more traditional reading of the Gita and interpretation of Brahman. I personally believe the traditional teachings of the great minds of our tradition are both objectively and subjectively more satisfying than scientific atheism which only sees the surface.

I have no desire to pick on you, we're just trying to have our beliefs not misrepresented to others.

We are all making our best guesses about the intention of the Author who is not around to cast the deciding vote. I have no problem with your guess. I respect that. Clearly it suits you the best. The other angle suits me the best. So, where is the problem? I give more credit to scientific atheism that you do. Let others get to their own take on things.

.. And take another break from RF and recollect on what has been said and offered, instead of carelessly arguing on and on in this DIR.

I do not think I have been careless in my arguments.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I assume you have not read the upadesha sAhasrI verses I requested you read- verses written by your guru, Shankara.

Can't one differ from his gurus? Sankara is not here to give the verdict. What I said about Vidyaranya holds true here also. You are not one to decide what Sankara would have told me. As for Buddha, I am sure, he would have welcomed inquiry. IMHO, the same holds true for Sankara also.

This does not make them Advaitins. The word 'Advaitin' with reference to Hinduism has a specific meaning ..

Advaita has only one meaning - acceptance of one entity to constitute the universe. Rest all is addendum. One can differ on that. That is why our Acharyas differed. You have Sankara's advaita, you have Sri Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita, you have Nimbarka's Dvaitadvaita, you have Vallabhas Shuddhadvaita, and you have Chaitanya's Achintya Bhedabhedadvaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are people who say that the universe is composed of one material substance only.

Makaranda, that requires a full separate topic and even then we would not be able to get an answer. This question belongs to future. What is material and what is not material? How come the material U235 changed into non-material energy in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The definitions have changed completely in the last 500 years.

When you selectively mine verses from Vedic texts and reject others, then you are appealing to a different authority (your own, evidently) for your understanding and not seeking to understand those verses in their proper and whole context.

What can I do if Vedas indicate different things in different hymns. Am I the only one choosing selectively? You are choosing 'Ka', I am choosing 'Nasadiya' which you are disregarding. Actually Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas were not closed books as people seem to understand. They welcomed inquiry. That is, IMHO, the hall-mark of Hinduism.

You've missed the point I think. Vedanta deals with eternal truths, regardless of time and space.

Makaranda, at one time Aristotle was considered to have explained the eternal truth, then came Newton, then came Einstein, and then came Planck. We still do not seem to have got at the eternal truth, though we may be closer. Perhaps Eternal truth would require eternal inquiry. We must not close the chapter.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Apologies if the tone of my posts are combative, and no offense is intended towards Aupmanyav.

Of course, not, Makaranda. It is a delightful inquiry, I think just like in Vedic times.

"saha navavatu. saha nau bhunaktu. saha viryam karavavahai. tejaswi navadhitamastu. ma vidvishavahai."

The ignorant think it is about winning or loosing.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupmanyav ji :namaste

likewise I have no wish to offend ,

No Ratikala, it is very simple. It is a difference of view, 'matantara', which is not a crime in Hinduism. There are people who are ready to accept Jesus in Hinduism, I suppose acceptance of Mohammad would not be far behind. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/158827-does-hinduism-acknowledge-jesus-avatar.html

yes , yes ,it is very simple , you are entitled to your veiw , but just because you hold a veiw that does not mean that it becomes a part of the creed of Hinduism , similarly just because some accept the faith of others but that does not mean we must include it in our own ..

aupmanyav ji , .....I am not wishing to atack you personaly , I am simply wishing to maintain the boundaries of hinduism , we canot begin to include the acceptance of Jesus nor of Mohammad not as hinduism , this does not mean that we reject either path as valid for another , or that we disrepect them in any way it is simply that neither originated from the hindu nation therefore it is not hinduism .
similarly Sikhism eventhough born in the hindu nation is not conscidered to be hinduism despite us sharing the same language and principles , like buddhism it is equaly a 'Dharmic religion' but it would be wrong to call either Hinduism .

never mind , ...you are giving us plenty to discuss and you are prepaired to take any criticism , therefore I offer you my obeisances :namaste

but should we not return to the OP and discuss.....

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'?

 

[Makaranda]

Ratikala,

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'?

A cursory reading of the two verses makes me think that the praGYAnam of the Mandukya verse (translated as 'simple consciousness') is referring to the states of waking and dream (which the verse describes as the outer and inner worlds), and the 'naapraGYam' refers to the deep sleep state, which is described as a 'mass of consciousness', which elsewhere is called Prajna. Consciousness manifests as Visva and Taijasa in the 'simple consciousness', or waking and dream states, and manifests as Prajna in deep sleep state. But truly it is not really Visva, Taijasa or Prajna, but that in which the three states have their existence, hence it is called Turiya, the fourth. In other words, the pragyAnam spoken of in Aitareya is the Turiya spoken of in the Mandukya.

 

[Amrut]

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

.......

Namaste Atanu ji,

This is explained well in panchadaSI chapter 10

10.15. As the light reveals all the objects remaining in its own place, so the witness-consciousness, itself ever motionless, illumines the objects within and without (including the operations of the mind).

10.16. The distinction between external and internal objects refers to the body and not to the witness-consciousness. Sense-objects are outside the body whereas the ego is within the body.

source

EDIT:

Further vidyAraNya svAmI explains

10.17. The mind seated within goes out again with the sense organs. In vain, people seek to impose the fickleness of the mind illumined by the witness-consciousness on the latter.

10.18. The streak of sunlight coming into the room through an opening is motionless; but, if one dances one’s hand in the rays, the light appears to be dancing.

10.19. Similarly, the witness-consciousness, though really fixed in its own place and neither going out nor returning within, yet appears to move owing to the restless nature of the mind.

10.20. The witness-consciousness can neither be called external nor internal. Both these terms have reference to the mind. When the mind becomes fully tranquil, the witness exists where it shines.

10.22. Whatever space, internal or external, the intellect imagines, is pervaded by the witness-consciousness. Similarly will the witness-consciousness be related to all other objects.

10.23. Whatever form the intellect imagines, the supreme Self illumines it as its witness, remaining Itself beyond the grasp of speech and mind.

10.24. If you object ‘How such a Self could be grasped by me?’, our answer is: Let it not be grasped. When the duality of the knower and the known comes to an end, what remains is the Self.

10.25. Since Atman is self-luminous in its nature, its existence needs no proof. If you need to be convinced that the existence of Atman needs no proof, hear the instruction of the Shruti from a spiritual teacher.

10.26. If you find the renunciation of all perceptible duality impossible, reflect on the intellect and realise the witness-consciousness as the one witness of all internal and external creations of the intellect.

kUTastha's relfection chidAbhAsa is called jIva, which illumines buddhi. It is buddhi which is creates objects both internal and external w.r.t to body.

e.g. antar draSya means images within mind

We can say gross and subtle draSya.

Since AtmA is most subtlest, so nothing is inside it.
Since AtmA is non-dual, there is no one 'else' to see or describe
Since AtmA is beyond praGYA is has no connection with what buddhi does

OTOH,

Since AtmA is known by buddhi, in parOxa sense i.e. via vicAra marga and with firm decision about what is AtmA, hence it is called as this praGYA is AtmA

parOxa GYAna leads one to aparOxa GYAna

Knowledge and ignorance are pair of opposites, which is within realms of buddhi. But real knowledge of Self (aparOxa GYAna) is not opposite, hence Self does not destroy the non-self.

parOxa GYAna negates ignorance (all within realm of buddhi or mind or mAyA or vyavahAra). They both cannot co-exist at same place same time.

After the ignorance is negated, the knowledge, also dissolves (there is nothing that is left to negate) and dissolves into oneness.

Inside, outside, up-down are all relative terms and are to be understood from vyavahAraika plane. With vicAra mArga, one can destroy ignorance as said by shruti pramANa.

This can happen via OM step by step rising above 3 states into turiyA which is peaceful-auspiciousness-non-dual (SAntam-Sivam-advaitam)

Hari OM

 

[zenzero]

Friend 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

Thanks for sharing.
However is there any question thereafter?

Kindly clarify
Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

Sorry brother for missing to read the question as mentioned:

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'?

your translation of Mandukya:

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.

Guess to my limited understanding it simply means 'nor this nor that' as by stating it to be 'consciousness' one is implying 'this' or 'that'. Just to understand that even at that level of consciousness one's mind does not hold on THAT to be 'CONSCIOUSNESS".

Remember how Ramakrishna held on to "kali' and then Totapuri came to help him get rid of Ramakrishna's attachment with the diety??

something like that.

Love & rgds

 

[George-ananda]

We are all making our best guesses about the intention of the Author who is not around to cast the deciding vote.

Can you read the Gita and not even see something so clear as the transcendental nature of Krishna??

You can reject the Gita as delusional fiction but you can't call it compatible with your physical-only worldview without being flat-out wrong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, sure. Krishna is transcendental in nature. He is Brahman. (Go figure)

 

[atanu]

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?

Hi Ekanta

Would it mean sahasraaksha, the infinite eyes? The ephitet for Shri Rudra in the Vedas?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Gambhirananda (with shankara comment) renders it "nor conscious (aware of all objects simultaneously), nor unconscious (insentience)"

I think what Swami Gambhirananda might have meant is sort of panoramic consciousness not focussing on petty things as we humans tend to do. Therefore, not consciousness and not unconscious also.

 

[Ekanta]

Hi Ekanta

Would it mean sahasraaksha, the infinite eyes? The ephitet for Shri Rudra in the Vedas?

Here is how Swami Krishnananda renders the vers with his commentary (IMO, in modern times, I think this guy might be the best interpreter and explainer):

Mandukya vers
7. That is known as the fourth quarter: neither inward-turned nor outward-turned consciousness, nor the two together; not an indifferentiated mass of consciousness; neither knowing (na prajñam), nor unknowing (nāprajñam); invisible, ineffable, intangible, devoid of characteristics, inconceivable, indefinable, its sole essence being the consciousness of its own Self; the coming to rest of all relative existence; utterly quiet; peaceful; blissful: without a second: this is the Ātman, the Self; this is to be realised.

Krishnananda's Comment
It is not featureless Consciousness without any awareness, na prajñām. You may think that it is awareness without an object before it. It is not even that, because the object is contained in that Consciousness. It is not Consciousness bereft of objects. It is Consciousness into which the objects have been absorbed. So, it cannot be regarded as a featureless transparency of an ethereal consciousness.

It is not also absence of consciousness, - na-aprajñām. It is not a state of inert perfection which the schools of thought like the nyāya and the vaiśeshika describe.

EDITED:

My thoughts (feel free to correct me):
sahasrākṣaḥ (infinite eyes/thousand-eyed) can be viewed as "the Cosmic Person, the Universal Consciousness animating all manifestation."... i.e. the one Consciousness in all beings (thousand/infinite)... i.e. a mix of brahman/maya... an upasana of brahman with the help of gunas (it becomes an object of worship).

The verse in mandukya "neither knowing" (na prajñam) is not exactly an upasana, but rather a jnana "It is not Consciousness bereft of objects. It is Consciousness into which the objects have been absorbed."

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ekanta,

well defined!

Love & rgds

 

[Ekanta]

Actually I Went through the Mandukya upanishad again with commentary (Shankara/Krishnananda) and this would be the complete list of what turiya is not in verse 7.


7. They consider [manyante] the Fourth [caturtham] (turīya) to be that which is
• not conscious of the internal world [na antaḥ prajñam] (not dream state),
• not conscious of the external world [na bahiḥ prajñam] (not waking state),
• nor conscious of both the worlds [na ubhayataḥ prajñam] (not simultaneously waking & dreaming),
• nor a mass of consciousness [na prajñāna ghanam] (not deep sleep state),
• nor conscious [na prajñam] (not consciousness without objects),
• nor unconscious [na aprajñam] (not unconsciousness);
• which is unseen [adṛṣṭam] (not grasped by the organs of knowledge),
• beyond empirical dealings [avyavahāryam] (cannot have relationship with it),
• beyond the grasp [agrāhyam] (not grasped by the organs of action),
• uninferable [alakṣaṇam] (cannot define it),
• unthinkable [acintyam] (cannot imagine it),
• indescribable [avyapadeśyam] (cannot talk about it);
whose valid proof [sāram] consists in the single belief in the Self [eka-ātma pratyaya]; in which all phenomena cease [prapañca upa-śamam]; and which is unchanging [śāntam], auspicious [śivam], and non-dual [advaitam]. That is the Self [saḥ ātmā], and That is to be known [saḥ vijñeyaḥ].

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it is 'achintyam', 'avyahāryam, 'alakshanam', then it would also be totally 'avijneyah'. It is like saying God is 'unknowable' but 'I know God'. Many scriptures fall at this. I like the Brahma Sutra approach better, step by step - 'atha Brahmajijnasa'. Let us discuss what we can find out.

 

[Makaranda]

If it is 'achintyam', 'avyahāryam, 'alakshanam', then it would also be totally 'avijneyah'. It is like saying God is 'unknowable' but 'I know God'.

My understanding is that there is no such defect, since the aim of the words achintya etc is to indicate that Brahman is unknowable to sense perception and inference etc as Brahman is the innermost subject and never an object. Hence they (sense perception, reasoning, and inference) are the wrong pramAnas for knowing Brahman, though Brahman is not totally unknowable as you suggest, for it is revealed through the Upanishads as our own self. The Brahma Sutra also says this.

 

[atanu]

My understanding is that there is no such defect, since the aim of the words achintya etc is to indicate that Brahman is unknowable to sense perception and inference etc as Brahman is the innermost subject and never an object. Hence they (sense perception, reasoning, and inference) are the wrong pramAnas for knowing Brahman, though Brahman is not totally unknowable as you suggest, for it is revealed through the Upanishads as our own self. The Brahma Sutra also says this.

Yes. And Brahman is also directly indicated as "To be known" and as "Knowable".

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. for it is revealed through the Upanishads as our own self. The Brahma Sutra also says this.

And how did the writers of Upanishads and Brahma Sutras know?
IMHO, knowing anything is possible only by experimenting, analyzing, thinking, comparing notes, discussing, etc.