What is Brahman Doing?

[Martin]

Sorry. There happened a misunderstanding. You don't like the 'word "ME"' for Brahman, so I expressed it in such way. Sorry for not representing "Me" within quotes. Please re-read with "Me" within quotes, you can understand what I said..

And regarding Nasadiya Sukta, do you know what is the first sentence said??

"There was neither existence nor non-existence"..

If someone say, "Brahman is non-existence", I will prove them wrong.
If someone say, "Brahman is existence", I will prove them wrong.
If someone say, "Brahman is this/that/anything/anyverb", I will prove them wrong.
If someone say, "Brahman cannot be explained in words, It cannot be known and also It is not unknown, It is always known yet it is unknown", I will surely stand with them.

Whomever said "I know Brahman", I'm sure whatever he expresses is not Brahman, because Brahman cannot be known, but in silence/Peace, it is always Known.

It is Me.. But Who am I? I am Brahman, but who is Brahman? Brahman is Me.. More than that, it is always unknown...

It cannot be expressed in any words, any...

This is not just my words, but words in Upanishads as also in Nasadiya Sukta, etc..

In case of "hearts" and "wisdom" pointed in Nasadiya sukta, it's very very simple.

As Ramana Maharshi says, follow the "I-I" though and it will reach to the heart in right side. I felt it 2 months before and feel everytime when I follow that thought. In the right chest, you can feel the vibration, a very blissful presence of something there... Science cannot prove it. Science can examine only nerves and some pranic energies but not the right heart. You can feel it now, just now itself, if u leave back all desires you seek and follow the "I-I" thought..

Peace

I can relate to that experience of a blissful presence in the heart area, though I try not to overanalyse it and end up back "in my head", so to speak.
For now it's enough to reflect on "So'ham" as the answer to "koham?"

 

[Viswa]

I can relate to that experience of a blissful presence in the heart area, though I try not to overanalyse it and end up back "in my head", so to speak.
For now it's enough to reflect on "So'ham" as the answer to "koham?"

Thank you Martin. Good to hear that you too feel the bliss in the heart.

But, I'm not an expert to suggest anything. In my opinion, it's more than enough to reflect "Soham" for "Koham", but what I think as "That" is very much important.

"I am Witness-Consciousness" or "I am Sat-chit-Ananda" or "I am Blissful" or "I am Love", there is something higher in us rooted within and to keep a strong hold to "That" is necessary, and that's the boat to cross this Samsara.

Make a strong hold to "That" as I am, but don't end up "That" as Food/Prana/mystical, but more higher one could go.

These are just my opinion, it's upto you to decide your life by critical inquiry of what suits you.

You may also be in company with Monks/serious seekers, that's also a better, not the better but 'the best' One, and keep on reflecting those will open up things one day to you, where even no one previously ever in billion years known.

 

[sayak83]

Greetings Ajay. Those English translation is not right. Sorry, if that is to be taken as base, I'm out of this discussion.

But, if you really want right translation, let us translate those verse word by word from Sanskrit to English. Are you ready for that??

Nantaprajnam - NOT Conscious of Internal World (psych or Thoughts or Dreams),
na bahiḥprajñaṃ - NOT Conscious of External World (Physical or Wakeful),
nabhayataḥprajñaṃ - NOT Conscious of BOTH (internal and External, Psych or Physical),
na prajñānaghanaṃ - NOT Indifferentiated Mass of Consciousness (like Sleeping Blissful/Satchitananda/sense of "I AM" where no division),
na Prajnam - Neither Consciousness
na Aprajnam - Nor Unconsciousness
adṛśyam - Invisible,
avyavahāryam - cannot be transacted with or cannot be dealt/business with,
agrāhyam - Non-perceivable (there is no Sanskrit word said here for senses),
alakṣaṇam - No behavior or No symptoms or No character,
acintyam - Unthinkable (cannot be grasped by thought)
avyapadeśyam - Indescribable
ekātmapratyayasāraṃ - Essence of the Belief in 'One Atma'
prapañcopaśamaṃ - Cessation of the Universe (negation of all)
śāntaṃ - Peace
śivam - Auspicious/Eternal/Unlimited
advaitaṃ - Non-dual
caturthaṃ manyante - known as 4th
sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ - THIS is to be KNOWN as SELF.

Just a word "Prajna", implies "Pure Consciousness" in "Prajnanam Brahman", and the same word "Prajna" implies only "simple consciousness but not pure" in Mandukya, is all a play with words Shankara did.

But, if you want to really decode that verse, you may also neglect my translation, and you yourself try it translating.

Not only here, even in Brahma sutras, Shankara played a lot.

But, he did it as duty to bring back "non-self" thing in the nation to "self". Fine. But it is not right translation. Every words simply means things, and nothing complex situations/perceptions is said. Simple. Isn't it?

You mistranslated ekātmapratyayasāraṃ. That appx. means "as one whose essence is the perception of itself alone"
You also slightly mistranslated the last word: sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ. This means "This is Self that should be realized/perceived"

See? The meaning is different now once one understands the translation properly. Here is one good translation

7. They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what
is outside, nor even both together; not as a mass of perception, neither as perceiving
nor as not perceiving; as unseen; as beyond the reach of ordinary transaction; as
ungraspable; as without distinguishing marks; as unthinkable; as indescribable; as
one whose essence is the perception of itself alone; as the cessation of the visible
world; as tranquil; as auspicious; as without a second. That is the self (atman), and
it is that which should be perceived.

 

[Martin]

Thank you Martin. Good to hear that you too feel the bliss in the heart.

But, I'm not an expert to suggest anything. In my opinion, it's more than enough to reflect "Soham" for "Koham", but what I think as "That" is very much important.

"I am Witness-Consciousness" or "I am Sat-chit-Ananda" or "I am Blissful" or "I am Love", there is something higher in us rooted within and to keep a strong hold to "That" is necessary, and that's the boat to cross this Samsara.

Make a strong hold to "That" as I am, but don't end up "That" as Food/Prana/mystical, but more higher one could go.

These are just my opinion, it's upto you to decide your life by critical inquiry of what suits you.

You may also be in company with Monks/serious seekers, that's also a better, not the better but 'the best' One, and keep on reflecting those will open up things one day to you, where even no one previously ever in billion years known.

I've found that naming or categorising "that" can be counterproductive, because it begins to conceptualise the experience. I find using descriptive words like "stillness" to be a more effective way of maintaining the connection.

 

[Martin]

You mistranslated ekātmapratyayasāraṃ. That appx. means "as one whose essence is the perception of itself alone"
You also slightly mistranslated the last word: sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ. This means "This is Self that should be realized/perceived"

See? The meaning is different now once one understands the translation properly. Here is one good translation

7. They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what
is outside, nor even both together; not as a mass of perception, neither as perceiving
nor as not perceiving; as unseen; as beyond the reach of ordinary transaction; as
ungraspable; as without distinguishing marks; as unthinkable; as indescribable; as
one whose essence is the perception of itself alone; as the cessation of the visible
world; as tranquil; as auspicious; as without a second. That is the self (atman), and
it is that which should be perceived.

Looking at the last line, how can one perceive that which is earlier described as unseen, ungraspable, indescribable, etc?
Or does it mean that Atman is perceived (realised?) with the removal of ignorance?

 

[sayak83]

Looking at the last line, how can one perceive that which is earlier described as unseen, ungraspable, indescribable, etc?
Or does it mean that Atman is perceived (realised?) with the removal of ignorance?

Your last interpretation is correct. Also note that a positive description has also been provided
It is the " one whose essence is the perception of itself alone " . Sankara says in his commentary that this 4th ultimate essence can be realized by observing that which remains constant (i.e. non-changing) through the first three other layers/modes of consciousness.

 

[Martin]

Your last interpretation is correct. Also note that a positive description has also been provided
It is the " one whose essence is the perception of itself alone " . Sankara says in his commentary that this 4th ultimate essence can be realized by observing that which remains constant (i.e. non-changing) through the first three other layers/modes of consciousness.

View attachment 59405

Sounds reasonable. Personally I like the description of the Atman as "beneath" the koshas, as per the Taittiriya Upanishad.

 

[Viswa]

You mistranslated ekātmapratyayasāraṃ. That appx. means "as one whose essence is the perception of itself alone"
You also slightly mistranslated the last word: sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ. This means "This is Self that should be realized/perceived"

See? The meaning is different now once one understands the translation properly. Here is one good translation

7. They consider the fourth quarter as perceiving neither what is inside nor what
is outside, nor even both together; not as a mass of perception, neither as perceiving
nor as not perceiving; as unseen; as beyond the reach of ordinary transaction; as
ungraspable; as without distinguishing marks; as unthinkable; as indescribable; as
one whose essence is the perception of itself alone; as the cessation of the visible
world; as tranquil; as auspicious; as without a second. That is the self (atman), and
it is that which should be perceived.

Yeah. Good one. Too much 'perceive'. But, I see "ekatma pratyayasaram" of yours a slight differentiation.

Ek - 1
Atma - you know
Pratyaya - Belief/Trust/Conviction
Saram - Essence.

"Essence of belief/trust in One Atma" - When one keep on believing/strong conviction in One Atma, Turiya is the essence derived. There is no Sanskrit word implying "Itself and Alone".

The word "perception" is given meaning to many Sanskrit words here to "Prajna" and to "Vijneyah" and to "Pratyaya". I think the author got impressed with the word "perception" here.

I've found that naming or categorising "that" can be counterproductive, because it begins to conceptualise the experience. I find using descriptive words like "stillness" to be a more effective way of maintaining the connection.

Yeah. Beautiful.

 

[Viswa]

Looking at the last line, how can one perceive that which is earlier described as unseen, ungraspable, indescribable, etc?
Or does it mean that Atman is perceived (realised?) with the removal of ignorance?

Nope. It is unknown.

But, it is always known to us, when all the seeking ends.

That "Peace", That "Auspicious" Shivam, is always known but I don't know that I already known it and keep on trying to know it, so it remains unknown.

In that ending of all seeking/thoughts/desires/etc.., "prapanjoupasamam" - the ignorance of "I don't know" ends so that it is known that it is always known and never forgotten.

"What it is?" Again a thought/word/action, so ignorance of "I don't know" comes and I again seek it and so it is unknown in that seeking.

 

[sayak83]

Yeah. Good one. Too much 'perceive'. But, I see "ekatma pratyayasaram" of yours a slight differentiation.

Ek - 1
Atma - you know
Pratyaya - Belief/Trust/Conviction
Saram - Essence.

"Essence of belief/trust in One Atma" - When one keep on believing/strong conviction in One Atma, Turiya is the essence derived. There is no Sanskrit word implying "Itself and Alone".

The word "perception" is given meaning to many Sanskrit words here to "Prajna" and to "Vijneyah" and to "Pratyaya". I think the author got impressed with the word "perception" here.


Yeah. Beautiful.

Look, I know a little bit of Sanskrit and my native tongue is a Sanskrit derived language where such word complexes are routinely used. You are going by a word by word meaning from a dictionary while I am going by how it means when the words are cojoined together in the manner that it has been done in the verse. There is nothing confusing about what this word-complex means if one understands a bit of Sanskrit, and I am telling you from my familiarity with the language that the translation I put there is closer rendering than that which you gave. You can believe it or not, upto you. It is wiser to follow translations of experts of the language than your own.
My translation comes from
Upaniṣads
Most other good translations will use something very similar.

 

[Viswa]

Look, I know a little bit of Sanskrit and my native tongue is a Sanskrit derived language where such word complexes are routinely used. You are going by a word by word meaning from a dictionary while I am going by how it means when the words are cojoined together in the manner that it has been done in the verse. There is nothing confusing about what this word-complex means if one understands a bit of Sanskrit, and I am telling you from my familiarity with the language that the translation I put there is closer rendering than that which you gave. You can believe it or not, upto you. It is wiser to follow translations of experts of the language than your own.
My translation comes from
Upaniṣads
Most other good translations will use something very similar.

But, you know experts paint their own beliefs in translations, bring their own experiences in action,etc..

So, Fine. Let it be whatever. I may be wrong. I quite learnd a different meaning.

Thank you for bringing it up.

Peace.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Additional correction:
"I shall now reveal to you that which ought to be known, knowing which, it is heard that it leads to immortality.
the beginningless (anādi) Brahman, in my best view, can neither be called sat nor asat*."
(Shrute) This is what I do not like in translations - skipping words.

I agree with you completely, Krishna!
If it is already heard, then what new that are you revealing?
But what is important is context. Krishna may have heard sages, perhaps his guru Sandeepani, saying that. So, in a way it is correct. Krishna is revealing it to Arjuna who may not have been aware of it (Guru Drona might not have taught Arjuna this). .

 

[ameyAtmA]

Additional correction:
"I shall now reveal to you that which ought to be known, knowing which, it is heard that it leads to immortality.
the beginningless (anādi) Brahman, in my best view, can neither be called sat nor asat*."
(Shrute) This is what I do not like in translations - skipping words.

Standard translations do not have the heard part, and I may have missed the shrute,but many times - you may/may not have noticed, I add my translations with the sanskrit word in brackets - in case it is not made explicit.

I agree with you completely, Krishna!
Then, if it is already heard, then what new that are you revealing?
But what is important is context. Krishna may have heard sages, perhaps his guru Sandeepani, saying that. So, in a way it is correct. Krishna is revealing it to Arjuna who may not have been aware of it (Guru Drona might not have taught Arjuna this). .

1. KRshNa is humble. Very humble and very friendlym despite being trilokinAth (Lord of the 3 worlds mortal, astral, and transcending). He was speaking to Arjun like His best friend, although Arjun had already declared himself as the disciple first and shaking with awe, declared KRshNa as the Supreme Being later in Chapter 11.

KRshNa giving reference to past or contemporary rushi munis was a common occurrence in Geeta shlokas e.g. Some approach AtmA as A others as B , others as C (Chapter 2)
Chapter 7? tattva: Some rushis say there are 24 tattva, some count 36, and others 26...
"yadnya tapa and daan must be performed" Of karma sannyas versus karma yog -- some are of the opinion A , others of B and some of C (Chapters 5, 18, 17..).

He also wants to make sure the sages are one in spirit, honors their words, and He is the dogdhA gopAla nandana, who milks the Upanishad-cows and Arjun is the calf (pArtho vatsa sudhir bhoktA) who drinks that milk fresh.
sarvopanishado gAvo dogdhA gopAla nandana |
pArtho vatsa sudhir bhoktA dugdham geetAmrutam mahat || - Geeta Mahatmya

2. KRshNa had long collaborative talks with Rushis , sages of that time/era. He also helped Veda vyAs compile a few things according to some.

3. KRshNa and BalarAm stayed as child prodigies in the Sandipani Ashram for 64 days, where Guru Sandipani Muni was always feeling blessed to have these exceptional students who knew it all.

They completed the "official" ritual of "learning the 64 kalAs " from the Guru.
GurudakshiNA was to bring Sandipani Muni's dead son back alive to them. Guru Mata was so elated.

KRshNa had a big dAitva (responsibility) to the society of then and thousands of years after, like now, to set an example -- go to the Guru and serve the guru humbly, and learn from them.

4. KRshNa's cousin, NeminAth was most likely the Ghora Angiras in Chhandogya Upanishad (that refers to KRshNa Devaki-putra).

KRshNa and NeminAth were contemporaries, cousins, and had adhyAtmic discussions as well as friendly kshatriya yuddha practice sessions - sword practice etc. Hence the ref. in ChhAndogya.

[NeminAth was considered a tirthankar by the Jains, and his place of meditation is half-way on the Girnar mountain, top-most peak of Girnar is where Dattatreya lived and stayed in DhyAna (meditated) , and a few steps down is Gorakshanath's modern place of sAdhanA.

Mid-way after Neminath temple is Mataji Mandir. About 3000+ steps that is. Dattatreya mandir peak is very high on top. Closest - 2500 steps from foothills is a very nice Ram Mandir.

Recently they installed cable-cars to go up Girnar. Otherwise , climbing the steps, Jains would go up to Neminath and back, and Hindus would go up to Ambaji. The very blessed ones went all the way up to Dattatreya.]