Vedantists, Please Explain Brahman to me ...

[Poeticus]

Not necessarily.

Vedantins may worship the various Devas, but that need not mean that one is inherently worshipping Brahman itself.

As far as my personal practice is concerned, I use the Devas as a point of reference in which to meditate and contemplate upon. To help me (hopefully) see the divinity that is within me and within all people.

If that means that I am inadvertently worshipping Brahman itself, then so be it. Doesn't ultimately matter in the end.

Thank you for you detailed answer.​

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Until then ... want to finish these Dhokla-s with me ?​

Ok,

A completely self realized Atman in "that" state is said to be Brahman. Atman and Brahman are separate (not the same) until complete self realization, when the Atman is Brahman then there are no other separate existence of Atman and only then it is said that "All is One", right now (for me) Brahman is the other "one", on the other side of the Tree.

IMO

 

[Willamena]

...right now (for me) Brahman is the other "one", on the other side of the Tree.

To what does this refer, please?

 

[Stormcry]

A completely self realized Atman in "that" state is said to be Brahman. Atman and Brahman are separate (not the same) until complete self realization,

I see this one is the greatest illusion. Atma is Brahman at all times. Because the bondage and moksha of jiva are illusory as knowledge and ignorance are born out of maya and as there's moksha only when there's ignorance and the thing which is dependent on other can't be a reality. Though one Atma appears to be divided in many jivas, he is one and always aloof from Maya. Moksha is Nitya. Jiva is already Brahman though the person under Mayic effect see him getting his real nature, Brahma. There's one great saying of Realized sages - "Only fools impose the impurity of Dust present in the sky to the Pure Sky " Dull witted see impure Sky while Dnyani says the sky is always pure.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

To what does this refer, please?

From the Veda

Ṛig Veda 1.164.20.

 

[George-ananda]

Vedantists,

Please be kind as to explain Brahman to me,​

Brahman is all that exists. It is pure sat-chit-ananda (being, awareness, bliss).

and if you can also be kind as to substantiate
the existence of Brahman, I'd be obliged.

How do you substantiate the everything? It is the experience of many masters that there is only One. Until I experience the One myself, I take this as the great theory springing from the masters I have come to revere.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry I didn't post earlier, Poetic One, but I was busy explaining thermodynamics to my cat and 'red' to my blind neighbor.

Seriously, though, our brains aren't really capable of grokking Brahman, at least not from 3rd-state consciousness. But that hasn't stopped we Hindus -- being a silly people -- from devoting ourselves intensely to the task for a couple of millenia, at least.
The Buddhists, on the other hand -- being a sensible people -- simply advise followers not to worry about it and stick to your dharma.

The concept of Brahman, I think, is best described by quantum mechanics. Of course physics can't help you conceptualize Brahman, but if you're good at maths you can get some idea of a sort of undifferentiated brane from which reality emerges.

 

[Maya3]

The concept of Brahman, I think, is best described by quantum mechanics. Of course physics can't help you conceptualize Brahman, but if you're good at maths you can get some idea of a sort of undifferentiated brane from which reality emerges.

Math as in mathematics???:run:

Maya

 

[Makaranda]

Ok,

A completely self realized Atman in "that" state is said to be Brahman. Atman and Brahman are separate (not the same) until complete self realization, when the Atman is Brahman then there are no other separate existence of Atman and only then it is said that "All is One", right now (for me) Brahman is the other "one", on the other side of the Tree.

IMO

I think you may be confusing the word Atman with the word Jiva. Atma is used pretty much interchangeably with Brahman in the Upanishads. The Jiva realizes its identity with Brahman through knowing its own Self (Atma) as Brahman. Atman doesn't become Brahman; Atman is Brahman, but the Jiva feels (through ignorance, not in reality) separate from Brahman when it doesn't know its own true nature (Atman).

 

[Amrut]

Namaste,

I have observed that there are two types of statements in shruti

1. Said from natural state (Self Realized)
2. Said from standpoint of sAdhaka - (not non-dual standpoint)

Again, There are three types of shruti-s

1. bheda - verses show clear distinction between jiva and brahman --> mAdhva's philosophy
2. ghaTaka - verses showing ISvara as antaryAmI e.g. sUtrAtmA --> rAmAnuja philosophy
3. abheda - verses show unity of AtmA and brahman --> Adi Sankara's philosophy

It is said that we are obviously in dvaita, hence our journey i from bheda to ghaTaka to abheda. All three are important systems. As an Advaitin, I will say that advaita is the final destination, the laxyArtha of vedAnta.

shruti asks us to rise above dvaita. This means that even advaita accepts dvaita, but only at empirical. dvaita is true for seeker. Guru asks him to rise above dvaita to advaita sthiti.

All attempts to describe brahman is only relative, as mind needs some info how brahman looks. Brahman cannot be described, because there is no other one to experience it separately. description of brahman and thoughts related to brahman helps one to keep away worldly thoughts.

Maun is the only expression that is capable to expressing brahman / atmasthiti.

But each statement has it's purpose and is not applicable to all. It depends upon the evaluation of disciple, how deep s/he dives deep within.

If mind is too upset, there are too many thoughts running when you meditate, instructions will be different. For the one who can easily enter into meditation, calm his mind and be still, thoughts do not disturb him/her much, instructions will be different.

OM

 

[Aupmanyav]

A nice post, Amrut.