What is Brahman Doing?

[Aupmanyav]

Supernatural powers: Yeah, not for me. If others believe, let them. What can I do about that?
Existence/ Belief: What came first? Egg or chicken? Existence or Belief?

 

[Viswa]

Supernatural powers: Yeah, not for me. If others believe, let them. What can I do about that?
Existence/ Belief: What came first? Existence or Beleif?

You Believe "There is no such supernatural powers", so you experience "no such powers" in reality. But, anything in this world orthe other, canot be said for sure, exists or not exists. All is bound to one's belief.

Came first?? Hmm.. Could not be found, and so it is called "Maya"...

Say, when Jesus came, few believed in him. That belief brought pure experience to them. This is the case in all devotees in all religion. But, there is someone imparting this belief, named Son/Jesus. To Jesus, which came first??Belief or Existence??

Belief creates Existence, and that belief is came from a being existed, and that being came into existence from a strong 'thirst/need' in form of belief, and that belief came into existence from someone exchange their thoughts/experiences, and there is no starting and ending point for the Loop.

Existence don't create belief but 'existence' boosts/inspires people to increase the 'belief' which is already there within a few, and make it a large in a new 'form/theory/religion', and that large/strong belief makes the 'content' into existence, which was not felt exist before because of not-strong belief, and in time - another belief brings another existence and previous existence of previous belief goes non-exists from experience, and so this will go never ending.

"Belief creates existence in a new form (Say Religions Before), and in time people forgets this due to another belief which came into existence (Say the belief in Science now), and in time people will forget this too due to some other belief which came into existence (Say the belief of Aliens or Multi-verse becomes so strong within Humans and they come into existence and People start to abide to the words imparted by the aliens or others), and in time maybe few religious sects unitedly believe strong for a God-avatar and that belief can also come into existence".

Existence in memory (like Buddha/monks/Scientists/etc..) inspires people to increase their believe (like scriptures/theories/etc..), but it is the strong belief in thoughts that creates existence of a 'new form'.

People strongly believed in Jesus that "He will surely give them food", and that strong belief brought the food into existence - in 'form' of supernatural powers, and it is the same in case of Blind gets an eye - etc.., a strong belief that 'they will get for sure if asked to Jesus/Allah/Krishna/etc..' - and that belief brings everything into existence in the 'form' they seek 'through/by means of a natural or super natural form'.

If one very strongly believe in something, that something will come into existence for their experience for sure, and it can be experienced by others too if others too have the same belief. It's what Krishna said too, that people don't recognize me as they don't believe. If they believe, I will surely come before them, and this is what said by all dualistic religions.

But, their existence is all a "belief comes into experience" and that's what the non-dualist/nihilist schools teach, which is the truth.

In life, there is no such thing as 'being' and 'not-being' or 'good' and 'bad' or any right perceptions or etc.., and only bound to 'what one truly seek/believe'.

One has to decide what "One" wants, and take up one path if it suits to their need, and that belief surely makes them what they want to become. If one wants to become a Scientist and find out the truth behind this universe by experiments, it will happen for sure - but you know that is not "truth", and just a need and a belief on right perception comes into existence, as there is no such thing as "Absolute Reality".

Yeah. There is no absolute reality. Every experience whatever one seeks is all relative. Then what is Absolute?? Me...It is only a knowing thing, and no absolute reality experience exists ever, as "I am Absolute", and I cannot experience the Infinite Me and only the Finite Me. Experience is bound to Finite. No experience can be made without a finite seeking/belief/presence.

Only Finite can be experienced by one's seeking, but not the Infinite. "I" have no form, so how can "I experience Me"?? But "I" take form in whatever form one seeks, and one can attain liberation in that form if one seeks in that way by a strong belief and practice.

 

[Viswa]

Pleease , I am not a 'sir' , I am AtmA. ameyAtmA. Tat tvam asi.

Well - matter of semantics. You were the one who brought in my Baala Mukunda on the vaTasya patra, not me.

What is Pure Consciousness? (Chaitanya - the only One that remains => is Sat, is Chit, is Ananda! -- is Baby Mukunda! )

It is Awareness. Of what? of BEING.

TurIya is not deep sleep. TuriyAteeta is certainly not deep sleep.

What is Yoga-nidrA of MahA-VishNu? He is not paying attention to the mAyic worldly happenings unless disturbed and woken up, but He is aware, and knows what's going on.
Why is it called Yoga-nidra and not just nidra (sleep) ?
Same happens @ pralay - Chaitanya remains, is aware. (Baby Mukunda on the banyan leaf is full of joy - Ananda. He is hardly sleeping!).

-----
*The question discussed : "Why does 'something' exist?" Because it IS! prem, Ananda, Sat, Chit.
There is no Why for Sat, because Sat is eternal unchanging existence.
Why does existence exist? Ananda, Joy is an inherent attribute, not a Why.

Ameyatma. It's very Simple. One cannot give a name or character to "That". It's only one's own belief of "He is Ananda eternally", makes one experience the Ananda eternally.

But, He is always free from everything. Even you cannot say "Brahman is Pure consciousness". As in my previous replies in this thread, in Mandukya Upanishad verse 7, it has been said "Na Prajna". Consciousness/witness/action is also a character/action/movement (i.e. being aware/witness/conscious of something - even if it is him - it is an action), but HE/THAT is devoid of actions.

No action/deed/guna/character can be named or given to him. "He is" some say, "He is not" few say, but he is devoid of these two actions of 'being' and 'not being' too.

He is always free from gunas/actions, so Chaitanya is just a name for time being for "moksha" - but truly "He is You, and so, you are devoid of actions/gunas too". Nothing can affect him/you/me/any. Giving a name to him as having an action in dictionary, like Consciousness/Witness/awareness, he is all free from it. But, it is not wrong to assume it to Him. One is free to give whatever name, in form of action, he wants to give - and that 'belief' will create the same 'form' in existence, by Nidhidhyasana.

"He is You", "You are Me", "I am Him", and nothing more than that to describe him exactly, and he appears however one names/wishes.

If you see in Brahma Sutras, it is said "Bliss is Brahman, Prana is Brahman, Food is Brahman, etc.." So, why just Chaitanya/Ananda is Brahman?? Let us assume "Mind is brahman, Prana is Brahman, Senses is Brahman, everything is ..", but it doesn't leads one to liberation. To lead one to liberation by meditative practice, one has to strongly hold to "Bliss", and that's why it is said as to keep on meditate "I am Brahman - Sat-chit-Ananda".

But, if one seeks no liberation, there is no need of any meditation. One is free at the moment, if he really understands "I AM FREE always, and not bound to anything, even to any name/action/things/gunas".

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, anything in this world or the other, cannot be said for sure, exists or not exists. All is bound to one's belief.

I don't believe 'I, Aup.' exists. It is Brahman that exists. The rest is 'maya' (Brahma satyam jagan-mithya ..).
Brahman does exist, because without Brahman there would not have been any 'maya'.

 

[Viswa]

I don't believe 'I, Aup.' exists. It is Brahman that exists. The rest is 'maya' (Brahma satyam jagan-mithya ..).
Brahman does exist, because without Brahman there would not have been any 'maya'.

Hey Aup. I didn't said anywhere that "Brahman doesn't exist".

But, that doesn't mean "Brahman does exist". Did anyone experienced Brahman in it's whole form?? Nope. Only "Maya" (it's appearances) can be experienced.

Though it's appearances are experienced, it can't be taken for grant that "It exists formlessly". It also doesn't mean, "It does not exists", because if it doesn't - there cannot be Maya/appearances/experiences.

Can you understand? It/Me/You/Brahman, cannot be expressed in terms of an action/thought/word. Existence is an action. Non-existence is also action. Stillness is an action. But, Brahman is devoid of all actions/attributes.

Brahman is Brahman. That is you...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Existence of Brahman is a fact. Without Brahman, no 'maya', no brain, no mind, therefore, nothing. The mere fact that we are experiencing is the evidence of something does exists. We are trying to express Brahman in words. As I said the final answer may come only in future.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Okay Salix. sorry.


So, what if 'your experience' brings a strong belief of 'only experience of oneness is liberation' and so other one's belief as 'experience doesn't matter if one understood' is so strong to him??

All requirements, is based on one's belief. If Buddha belief's this is his way, and one wants to go that way, one chooses it. But one, see a different way, like Ramana/etc.., they adhere to his teachings. But, what if all are their own experiences, which became a strong belief of "This is the right way as a I experienced" and set out their own way of requirements, but there is no such thing as requirements as "Everyone is Brahman",. Simple??

The understanding is, "I AM not at all bondaged any moment, so no need of seeking liberation, I AM ALWAYS FREE". So, I understand this , so no need to seek liberation for any Experience/Moksha. Let the world be or not, I am not affected by it, so why to put an end for "life" by a practice/method??

In our discourse here, it appears to me that you are steadfast in your beliefs and are less interested in learning about another's views and more interested in projecting and validating yours.

You are certainly entitled to your perspective and beliefs. Thank you for sharing them here.

 

[Viswa]

In our discourse here, it appears to me that you are steadfast in your beliefs and are less interested in learning about another's views and more interested in projecting and validating yours.

You are certainly entitled to your perspective and beliefs. Thank you for sharing them here.

I am very much interested to learn any perspective Salix. Hinduism/Buddhism/anything, I am willing to learn anything.

But you too??

I have some knowledge of "Shankara view" on Brahman as "Existence always" to retake nation from Buddha's "Anatta". But, Upanishads and BG is far beyond Shankara's view too. Brahman, cannot be given any attribute, even existence and non-existence. Many words said in Upanishads, as "I am Sat-chit-Ananda", etc.. is a Manthra given by guru to disciple, to attain liberation by keep on doing Nidhidhyasana of the Manthra given and stay and go to "Bliss sheath".

The perception I shared is not my own but all words from Upanishads and Bhagavat Gita

Mandukya Upanishad says in verse 7 'na pragna na apragna adrishyam ...'

Bhagavat Gita and in many Upanishads said 'na sat na asat'.

So, they contradict themselves??

 

[Viswa]

Existence of Brahman is a fact. Without Brahman, no 'maya', no brain, no mind, therefore, nothing. The mere fact that we are experiencing is the evidence of something does exists. We are trying to express Brahman in words. As I said the final answer may come only in future.

Why not now??

It is already said in Mandukya verse 7.

Brahman cannot be expressed in words, cannot be thought, cannot be experienced.
Avyavaharyam Achintyam Adrishyam Alakshanam Agrahyam..

So, you think they were wrong??

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am very much interested to learn any perspective Salix. Hinduism/Buddhism/anything, I am willing to learn anything.

But you too??

I have some knowledge of "Shankara view" on Brahman as "Existence always" to retake nation from Buddha's "Anatta". But, Upanishads and BG is far beyond Shankara's view too. Brahman, cannot be given any attribute, even existence and non-existence. Many words said in Upanishads, as "I am Sat-chit-Ananda", etc.. is a Manthra given by guru to disciple, to attain liberation by keep on doing Nidhidhyasana of the Manthra given and stay and go to "Bliss sheath".

The perception I shared is not my own but all words from Upanishads and Bhagavat Gita

Mandukya Upanishad says in verse 7 'na pragna na apragna adrishyam ...'

Bhagavat Gita and in many Upanishads said 'na sat na asat'.

So, they contradict themselves??

I use scripture to verify my experiences, not to form my worldview. If scripture stands in conflict with my experiences, my experiences take precedence.

While I find a great deal of truth in nearly all of the Upanishads, there have been verses that didn't quite align with my own experience. That doesn't invalidate them. It just means that my own experiences have led me to a slightly varied understanding.

 

[Viswa]

I use scripture to verify my experiences, not to form my worldview. If scripture stands in conflict with my experiences, my experiences take precedence.

While I find a great deal of truth in nearly all of the Upanishads, there have been verses that didn't quite align with my own experience. That doesn't invalidate them. It just means that my own experiences have led me to a slightly varied understanding.

Way to go Salix.

 

[Viswa]

This premise that BELIEF => SHAPES ideas and goals is not always true.

EXPERIENCE => SHAPES purpose and meaning TO existence is also true for some of us. By that I mean totally unexpected Divine experience, mystical experiences – whether ongoing or in spurts.
Who is any human to call that ignorance?

It is like this --

Before enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water

After enlightenment? Chop wood, carry water, but there is a parallel stream of Divine Leela alongside that goes on because you were unexpectedly involuntarily mystically GIVEN the experience to SHOW who THEY are, who you are, which keeps growing. Chopping wood and carrying water remains, but it is just something you do on the side.

Who defines liberation and what sets whom free?

You have no idea who I am. Neither did I up until a few years ago but I continue to discover more.

Many advaita-vedanta followers tell me the Gods are all fictitious and in my mind. Mostly they mean this local ordinary mind, in which case they are wrong!

They are completely unaware of my mystical experiences as actual happenings that they ignorantly call imaginations of the ordinary mind. Realer than the mundane real, clearer than the mundane clear.

Many people equate mystical experience to Oneness. Yes, ultimately it is One, but mysticism is also Brahman as Dev and Adi Shakti forms working, blessing and walking up to other forms, pulling you out of the quicksand to freedom and showing you things that were totally unexpected and unknown to the local mind. It does not stop there – they want to shower you with much more than just freedom imparted by a statement in an Upanishad.

Jnana that you talk about is actually the first step, not the last.

How are you sure people meditate to get liberated? Does this apply to Shankar in Kailash or Krishna in Dwarka waking up at Bramha muhurta? There is joy in it!

Can you stop a liberated person from worshiping their IshTa? No.

Even ParaBrahman does not insist that you just accept that “You are XYZ take My word for it”. They will make it so you SEE for yourself .

I never asked for Oneness or anything. Nobody can force “tat tvam asi” on me, not even VAsudev (KRshNa, my GuruDev). He was never interested in doing that. But They always SHOW, GIVE experience, give EVIDENCE so no room is left as you have no choice but to see for yourself. That is Their method. Very clever! Durga’s game to make the devotee realize they are Her?

So this gratitude for the beautiful One in one or more forms who pulled a “me” out of a quick-sand of a life surrounded by bullies into the real freedom, is possible with experience of the Divine, not an Upanishadic statement (which is good to confirm afterwards)

You explained wonderfully many things. It is true. I accept all you said.

You know, I too speak with Krishna atleast once in a day, not as a devotee but as a friend, because I am not good at doing Pooja/etc..

But, the thing is, I don't seek experiences of Him. I just follow his words after I understood those in Bhagavat Gita Chapter 14 verse 22-23,

श्रीभगवानुवाच |
प्रकाशं च प्रवृत्तिं च मोहमेव च पाण्डव |
न द्वेष्टि सम्प्रवृत्तानि न निवृत्तानि काङ् क्षति || 22||
उदासीनवदासीनो गुणैर्यो न विचाल्यते |
गुणा वर्तन्त इत्येवं योऽवतिष्ठति नेङ्गते || 23||

śhrī-bhagavān uvācha
prakāśhaṁ cha pravṛittiṁ cha moham eva cha pāṇḍava
na dveṣhṭi sampravṛittāni na nivṛittāni kāṅkṣhati
udāsīna-vad āsīno guṇair yo na vichālyate
guṇā vartanta ity evaṁ yo ’vatiṣhṭhati neṅgate

Translation
BG 14.22-23: The Supreme Divine Personality said: O Arjun, The persons who are transcendental to the three guṇas neither hate illumination (which is born of sattva), nor activity (which is born of rajas), nor even delusion (which is born of tamas), when these are abundantly present, nor do they long for them when they are absent. They remain neutral to the modes of nature and are not disturbed by them. Knowing it is only the guṇas that act, they stay established in the self, without wavering.

Now, I clearly see everything is a play of Guna.

Yes, As you said, God is there, if not Karma, Quantum Things and Time won't work accurately.

Krishna, I speak with him as a friend, but I don't seek any experiences, so please keep the mystical experiences with yourself, I am not interested in it. I see Mystical experiences is a Pure bliss, the top most experience one can ever have in life, the Pure Sattvic Guna, but you know I am not interested in any. Let it be in the way it is.

For all life's, I-you-many keep on seeking these experiences, I seen it's enough for me. I don't seek anything now and just witness the play of three gunas.

I never deny existence of God and mystical experiences, but the thing is, I just speak with God, near to me as a friend, but not seek Vaikuntha or any God's abode or any mystical experiences.

I couldn't find a purpose of my life, so sometimes I pray to Krishna to show me what to do. I didn't know what to do till now but I don't feel worried about it but just witness the play. If I/others feel angry/sad, I witness the Rajasic. If I/others feel Blissful/happiness, I witness Sattvic domination, and in the same way Tamasic in the time of laziness. But I don't condemn or praise any. Not even seek any. But just witness. If any Mystical experiences comes unexpectedly, I won't run away but just witness. If any death/pralaya happens infront of me, and see Rudra dancing fiercely, I just witness.

You are seeking God in Blissful Place, But I'm remaining peaceful with him even outside, and whatever experiences happen, just witness, but not praise or condemn any. Like in my profile pic, you are seeking ONE inside the Bubble and seek many mystical experiences, but me stay with him outside the Bubble, Maha Vishnu..

See, why I don't praise any is, if one is praised means, other experiences are meant as not worthy to praise. Say, you are praising Mystical experiences, it means world and death and sufferings are not worthy to praise. When one is given importance, other is neglected. I don't seek Heaven or Brahma-loka or anything, it means I like only those but not World or Hell.. I'm not like that. Whatever happens infront of me, I experience - I witness it. Though Vishnu is GOD, praising only Vishnu, is like praising only Bliss, but not praising happiness/sadness/angry/etc.. I see people praise God, only for a motive/experience satisfies them. I see Bliss and Mystical experiences as equal as Sadness and worldly experiences, so nothing to praise and condemn for me, as everything is ONE, what to seek by leaving what?? If there is an option to praise everything, including Demons, including Sorrow, including Pain, including Covid-19, then fine I praise everything in this world and the other and every places and every beings in every experiences, from Brahma to Grass, not just grass but to atoms, I praise them. I praise everything, whether it is good or evil. Long live.

Hope, Krishna will show me what to do in this life, if any. If not any, no problem..

Have an Unending Blissful Mystical Experiences in the presence of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, you think they were wrong??

Homage to the sage who wrote Mandukya Upanishad. That is one of the Upanishads that I love and quote. That is the Upanishad on which Sankara's 'paramaguru', Sri Gaudapada, wrote his karika. But do you think Manduka Upanishad is the word of God?

 

[Viswa]

Homage to the sage who wrote Mandukya Upanishad. That is one of the Upanishads that I love and quote. That is the Upanishad on which Sankara's 'paramaguru', Sri Gaudapada, wrote his karika. But do you think Manduka Upanishad is the word of God?

Why not??
Why not every religious scriptures are words from God??
Why not every experiences are Godly experiences, from pain to Bliss??
Why not every things in the world, from dirt to lovely, are forms of God??

Why not that God is me?? Why to differentiate It/Him/Her/That/Brahman/Father from Me??

I am Brahman, and so you. And so all religions are mine, and yours too. All experiences are mine and also yours. All scientific theories are mine, and so yours too. All words are mine and yours too, varied time to time based on one's seeking.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Vishwa

When did I say I am SEEKING mystical experiences?

You hardly know me. Or Sayak, Salixendium, Aupmanyav for that matter. You just got here.

Ever since you came here you have been frantically posting without reading what people write, putting words in their mouth and presuming whatever your mind is filled with , about them and claim that is the info or status quo about them. Do you even read what you write ? Your own posts?
Manah: shAnti (peace) is not rocket science.
Stop classifying people into buckets
Stop claiming or concluding statements about others.

I only brought up unexpected mystical experiences to show that experience is not a result of pre-made belief.

 

[Viswa]

Vishwa

When did I say I am SEEKING mystical experiences? You hardly know me. Or Sayak, Salixendium, Aupmanyav for that matter. You just got here.

Shri KRshNa is my GuruDev. I also have been trying to follow His words, for years, especially in the Bhagavad Geeta and other geetas. Yes, i love the guNateet description from chapter 14 you have quoted. A few yrs ago I ridiculed one specific shloka on His face and told Him I cannot do this and I am not even going to try. He said you don't have to.

ll Om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ll

Yes....You don't have to.

It's not "Viswa's" life you are living, but "Ameyatma's".. You are free to do and not do, whatever you see/feel. And so everyone here and there, may seek mystical or not, God doesn't want any to must seek meditate or liberate.

If everything and everywhere and every form is his, why should he compel one to liberate?? Let people seek liberation or not, meditate on him or not, Just He feels love to everyone and give whatever one seeks.

Why God must be only in Mystical?? Why not in normal experiences?? Why not a friend next door if all is his forms??

Why God must be always Perfection, if Imperfection is also his forms??

Why God must always be Blissful, if pleasure-pain is also his forms??

Why God must always be Sattvic, if Rajas and Tamas is also his forms??

I speak with Krishna too, but not like Shankara or Ramana or many devotees did, but like Arjuna, in a friendly form I seeked him and speaking with him, he didn't said me to seek any mystical experiences or didn't ordered me to must have to experience many unknown things, but said "If you seek Peaceful, remain like ME by seek nothing, not even liberation, as you are not bound to any thing/experiences like ME".

Everyone is Free and God as Him, and can remain Peaceful like Him without seeking any experiences, or if one seeks God only in 'this' and not in 'other' form, He appears in 'this' form only, as One is free to seek whatever one needs and God appears in such need/form.

All experiences are equal, whether known or unknown (nothing is higher or lower, nothing is more important or less) to God and also to Me..

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why not?? .. blah blah .. blah blah .. one's seeking.

Talking so much about God! Give me just one proof of existence of God. Brahman for me, is not God. I am no God, neither I think you are.

 

[Viswa]

Talking so much about God! Give me just one proof of existence of God. Brahman for me, is not God. I am no God, neither I think you are.

If you see "God only as Protector", then I stand with you - No God.

But you see "God as everything" - good, bad, creation and destruction, perfume, dirt, organs in the body, from atoms to a Massive black hole, then, those everything is the Proof of God..

Every form is God...Even Formless form is also God.

If you don't like the word God, no problem, replace with ME.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Replace all with Brahman who is not involved (Udasina), eternal, changeless, formless. All other words have false associations, God, me, you, consciousness, etc.

 

[Viswa]

Replace all with Brahman who is not involved (Udasina), eternal, changeless, formless. All other words have false associations, God, me, you, consciousness, etc.

Yeah.. Fine.. But replace that "Eternal, changeless, formless" as Brahman too..

Everything (all 5 sheats - forms and formless) is it's forms, if not whose?? There is no second, even "Maya" is it's own power.

But it stand aside from it's forms/5 sheaths.. Beyond this 5 sheaths, It stands neither form nor formless. It cannot be said changeless too, as we couldn't see what it is..

Even cannot be said 'It is' or 'It is not'..As there is Maya, we presume 'It is'. But without May, It cannot be said anything. Whatever said to it as "is or is not", it's devoid of all those.

And that's me... Sorry, you don't like Me/you right?? So, it is Brahman. It cannot be said exists or not, so cannot be said Eternal or Temporary, cannot be said Changing or Changeless, as cannot be said exists or not - so cannot be said exists in form or formless..

Whenever something is said as Brahman, defining Brahman, as Eternal/changeless/formless/exists/opposite of all those/middle/anything, it is not those. Avyavaharyam..

Brahman is Brahman..

So, end of explaining/grasping/thinking/describing Brahman in "thoughts/words/deeds" - PEACE.

When one stops describing/thinking/speaking/finding/searching brahman in "any words/thoughts/action", Peace - and Brahman is Known...