What is Brahman Doing?

[Aupmanyav]

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..

How did you arrive at 'you don't like me'? Of course, our views may be different, perhaps my views do not rhyme with views of any other Hindu, but so what? Should I have problems with all of them, even with my theist family.

As for existence and non-existence, perhaps these are phases of Brahman. A line of Nasadiya Sukta always remain in my mind. It says:

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ll (poor rendering in Devanagari)
sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Science is researching this point with various theories of Quantum Mechanics. A the moment they do not have anything definite to say about that. Can there be a complete void even without force fields, and can this void can come back into existence? I have always maintained that this question may be answered only in future and not in my life-time. I am content with that. I do not go into hyperbole and make false scenarios. I go with the current position, i.e., existence. If the future generations come across non-existence phase, they will need to incorporate it in their belief.

 

[Viswa]

How did you arrive at 'you don't like me'? Of course, our views may be different, perhaps my views do not rhyme with views of any other Hindu, but so what? Should I have problems with all of them, even with my theist family.

As for existence and non-existence, perhaps these are phases of Brahman. A line of Nasadiya Sukta always remain in my mind. It says:

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ll (poor rendering in Devanagari)
sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Science is researching this point with various theories of Quantum Mechanics. A the moment they do not have anything definite to say about that. Can there be a complete void even without force fields, and can this void can come back into existence? I have always maintained that this question may be answered only in future and not in my life-time. I am content with that. I do not go into hyperbole and make false scenarios. I go with the current position, i.e., existence. If the future generations come across non-existence phase, they will need to incorporate it in their belief.

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

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I am Brahman (but not a God), you too are Brahman, and even the black dog in our street is none other than Brahman, even the sand of River Yamuna is Brahman. What is not Brahman?
As I said the truth about existence or existence will be answered in future. At the moment we have proof for existence. When the proof of non-existence comes, then some Hindus will revise their views, perhaps my grand children. Except for this problem, we do know Brahman.
As for the mystical, I do not believe woo. I am a total materialist. For me, vibrations arise only because of working of machinery and things like that.

 

[Viswa]

No, I am Brahman (but not a God), you too are Brahman, and even the black dog in our street is none other than Brahman, even the sand of River Yamuna is Brahman. What is not Brahman?
As I said the truth about existence or existence will be answered in future. At the moment we have proof for existence. When the proof of non-existence comes, then some Hindus will revise their views, perhaps my grand children. Except for this problem, we do know Brahman.
As for the mystical, I do not believe woo. I am a total materialist. For me, vibrations arise only because of working of machinery and things like that.

Regarding vibrations, it doesn't matter. You quoted Nasadiya sukta, about "Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.", and so I showed the right meaning of those texts, like Ramana said about "I-I" thought and follow that and attain kinship. There is nothing more than that said from that quote, to decode..

If you don't seek those, it's not matter, fine.

And regarding "We have proof for Existence now" is a false proof, a misunderstanding. There is no proof yet for 'existence' too...

Shankara claimed "Sat-chit-Ananda" as Brahman, and said "That's how Brahman is proved as Existence from the words of scriptures".. No, he misunderstood.

There is no right proof till now to say, Brahman is Existence.. Not only now, even for millions/billions years from now, It cannot be proved as "Existence".. Also It is not "Non-existence" too because it's existence cannot be proved..

It is beyond anything one can ever imagine/think/grasp/experience/found/know..

Please read also the final sentences of Nasadiya Sukta, were said "Maybe only God in Highest heaven might know what it is, or he don't know too?"..

If you too can see that "Yeah.. it is neither existence nor non-existence.. It is unknown to even Sages before".. you're seeking will end, and when all material/mystical/any desires in you ends too, you feel a tremendous Peace, and in that "Shantam", it is always known..

But when you get back from that "Peace", then it again becomes unknown.. It's always a mystical thing, it cannot be proved/found by scriptures/thoughts/words/experiences/actions/Science/technologies/any thing invented in future, even after billion years from now - It cannot be found but only can be "Mistakenly thought as found" (like happened to Shankara,etc..), I'm damn sure about that.

Peace..

 

[Aupmanyav]

Take the case of an alternating current. In whichever direction it flows, it cannot be said to be non-existent. Perhaps it is like that for Brahman's two phases also, existent to perception of humans and non-existent. Why should Brahman be bound to human perception? In 'Vyavaharika', there will always be duality. That does not negate the non-duality in 'Paramarthika'. I respect Ramana, but Ramana was not God.

Same goes for Sankara too. He too was human. Moreover, he was a religious teacher. He had responsibilities towards the society. So, what he said was colored by that. That is why he said that Ishwara exists only in 'Vyavaharika'. I am a free bird. I can say what appears as true to me. Nasadiya's last words are 'or he don't know too?' Prajapati Parameshthi, the writer of 'Nasadiya Sukta', whoever he was, was a great visionary.
'Yeah.. it is neither existence nor non-existence'. That is not true. It is both. Existent as well as non-existent. Seems strange to you? Yeah.. I understand that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lo! Now what AmeyaAtma posted in his thread:

First, Bhagavad Geeta
ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्रुते l
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते ll BG 13.13

"gyeyam yat tat pravakshyami yaj gyatva amrutam shrute;
anadi mat param Brahma na sattan na asad ucyate."

I shall now reveal to you that which ought to be known, knowing which, it is heard that it leads to immortality.
The beginningless (anAdi) Brahman, in my best view, can neither be called Sat nor aSat*.
* Existing or non-existing.

Read it here: The Secret behind Neither Sat nor aSat

 

[ameyAtmA]

Nasadiya's last words are 'or he don't know too?' Prajapati Parameshthi, the writer of 'Nasadiya Sukta', whoever he was, was a great visionary.
'Yeah.. it is neither existence nor non-existence'. That is not true. It is both. Existent as well as non-existent..

Sat = avyakta mULa pre-pre-prakRuti (akshar)
aSat = mortal transient ever-changing aparA prakruti (kshar)
Brahman = Purushottam = neither sat (avyakta muLa) nor asat (kshar, perishables), but transcending both.

The Secret behind Neither Sat nor aSat

 

[Aupmanyav]

Agree to that without making Brahman into a God.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Agree to that without making Brahman into a God.

Yes, it does not have to be, because it is Brahman of the 13th chapter.
[ "jyotishAm api jyoti" and avibhaktam - your favorite, and it transcends sat & asat.
It does mention roles - bhutabhartru, grasishNu, prabhavishNu -- but you can take them as adjectives if not Deva. Others see these as 3 roles of the one Brahman.]

 

[Aupmanyav]

You make me read Chapter 13 again.

 

[ameyAtmA]

You make me read Chapter 13 again.

I am glad if I did

 

[Viswa]

Take the case of an alternating current. In whatever direction it flows, it cannot be said to be non-existent. Perhaps it is like that for Brahman's two phases also, existent to perception of humans and non-existent. Why should Brahman be bound to human perception? In 'Vyavaharika', there will always be duality. That does not negate the non-duality in 'Paramarthika'. I respect Ramana, but Ramana was not God.

Same goes for Sankara too. He too was human. Moreover, he was a religious teacher. He had responsibilities towards the society. So, what he said was colored by that. That is why he said that Ishwara exists only in 'Vyavaharika'. I am a free bird. I can say what appears as true to me. Nasadiya's last words are 'or he don't know too?' Prajapati Parameshthi, the writer of 'Nasadiya Sukta', whoever he was, was a great visionary.
'Yeah.. it is neither existence nor non-existence'. That is not true. It is both. Existent as well as non-existent. Seems strange to you? Yeah.. I understand that.

Brahman - "na iti na iti na iti na iti .......", Whatever the 'iti' might be, whatever... All words given to Brahman, is not actually it, whatever combination of words in a probability it is given..

The mystery of defining the "beyond" or "Brahman", will always remain a mystery however powerful/insightful/scientifically well versed one is.. If mystery is solved about the "Brahman" or say "Singularity" in Science, it will put an end to every growth, and the whole life force will be doomed. There will come end for science and many desires, if answer is arrived. So this life is perfectly structured in a way that, there will be no end for limitations, and it will be keep on changing infinitely, and the mystery will always remain mystery, and nothing by thought/words/action/research/experience/knowledge can it be reached, and just makes strive the living to go on endlessly, but also it is beautiful to hear when people define it as in their own way as "Sat-chit-Ananda" or "Witness Consciousness" or "existence as well as non-existence" or "Paramatma" or "Ishvar" or "Purushottam".

One is free to perceive in whatever way one wants to perceive it, and that's the beauty in feeling for It.

Cheers..

 

[Aupmanyav]

One is free to perceive in whatever way one wants to perceive it, and that's the beauty in feeling for It.
Cheers..

That is true. That is why I stick to my view.
Cheers..

 

[Viswa]

That is true. That is why I stick to my view.
Cheers..

 

[ajay0]

Even you cannot say "Brahman is Pure consciousness".

It is not Ameyatma who is saying this but the vedas...


Prajnanam Brahma. (Aitareya Upanishad 3.1.3) --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.

Please put it in context and what do you get...


It is not that which is conscious of the internal subjective world, nor that which is conscious of the external world, nor that which is conscious of both,nor that which is a mass of consciousness, nor that which is simple consciousness, nor is it unconsciousness. Mandukya Upanishad Verse 7


Consciousness which is trapped by an inward or outward idea or object due to intense desire or raag-dvesh (craving-aversion) is obviously impure consciousness with vasanas or psychological impressions.

So you can see that in context, Shankara is saying that the grosser, impure desire-filled consciousness
is not essentially Brahman or Turiya .

In this regard, Shankaracharya had also stated the following...

'Evil arises from the senses pursuing sense-objects.Wherefore that individual's knowledge (awareness) is steady whose senses have been restrained from sense-objects in all forms, subjective and objective.' ~ Adi Shankaracharya





It is unseen by any sense-organ, beyond empirical dealings, incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable,
unthinkable, indescribable, essentially by of the Self alone, negation of all phenomena, the peaceful,
the auspicious and the nondual. This is what is considered as the Fourth (Turiya). This is the Atman
and this is to be realised.[ remaining part o Mandukya Upanishad Verse 7 ]


The upanishadic verse says that Turiya is Atman, and Turiya is but pure consciousness.

Turiya - Wikipedia

In Hindu philosophy, turiya (Sanskrit: तुरीय, meaning "the fourth") or chaturiya, chaturtha, is pure consciousness.

This is a huge contradiction to your earlier statement...

Even you cannot say "Brahman is Pure consciousness".

I am not being critical but pointing facts. Your knowledge is good for a 23 year old, probably due to
past life positive impressions or sanskars, but you need to fine-tune and sharpen your understanding, and the likes of Atanu, Ameyatma, Tattvaprahav, Sayak, Salix, Martin here in this forum can help you achieve the same.

Sweet regards and well-wishes.

 

[Viswa]

It is not Ameyatma who is saying this but the vedas...


Prajnanam Brahma. (Aitareya Upanishad 3.1.3) --Brahman is pure consciousness.






Please put it in context and what do you get...


It is not that which is conscious of the internal subjective world, nor that which is conscious of the external world, nor that which is conscious of both,nor that which is a mass of consciousness, nor that which is simple consciousness, nor is it unconsciousness. Mandukya Upanishad Verse 7


Consciousness which is trapped by an inward or outward idea or object due to intense desire or raag-dvesh (craving-aversion) is obviously impure consciousness with vasanas or psychological impressions.

So you can see that in context, Shankara is saying that the grosser, impure desire-filled consciousness
is not essentially Brahman or Turiya .

In this regard, Shankaracharya had also stated the following...

'Evil arises from the senses pursuing sense-objects.Wherefore that individual's knowledge (awareness) is steady whose senses have been restrained from sense-objects in all forms, subjective and objective.' ~ Adi Shankaracharya





It is unseen by any sense-organ, beyond empirical dealings, incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable,
unthinkable, indescribable, essentially by of the Self alone, negation of all phenomena, the peaceful,
the auspicious and the nondual. This is what is considered as the Fourth (Turiya). This is the Atman
and this is to be realised.[ remaining part o Mandukya Upanishad Verse 7 ]


The upanishadic verse says that Turiya is Atman, and Turiya is but pure consciousness.

Turiya - Wikipedia



This is a huge contradiction to your earlier statement...




I am not being critical but pointing facts. Your knowledge is good for a 23 year old, probably due to
past life positive impressions or sanskars, but you need to fine-tune and sharpen your understanding, and the likes of Atanu, Ameyatma, Tattvaprahav, Sayak, Salix, Martin here in this forum can help you achieve the same.

Sweet regards and well-wishes.

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?

 

[ajay0]

Shankara claimed "Sat-chit-Ananda" as Brahman, and said "That's how Brahman is proved as Existence from the words of scriptures".. No, he misunderstood.

Shankaracharya had also stated that Brahman is pure consciousness, and this has been reiterated by other enlightened masters, including Ramana Maharshi whom you have quoted in this thread a number of times.

Here are sayings of Ramana Maharshi in this regard...

“If you hold this feeling of ‘I’ long enough and strongly enough, the false ‘I’ will vanish leaving only the unbroken awareness of the real, immanent ‘I’, consciousness itself” . ~ Ramana Maharshi

“The pure mind is itself Brahman; it therefore follows that Brahman is not other than the mind of the sage.”
― Ramana Maharshi


The Self is Pure Consciousness. Yet a man identifies himself with the body, which is insentient and does not itself say, “I am the body.” Someone else says so. The unlimited Self does not. Who does? A spurious “I” arises between Pure Consciousness and the insentient body and imagines itself to be like a phantom. The phantom is the ego or mind or individuality. All the sastras are based on the rise of this phantom, whose elimination is their purpose.― Ramana Maharshi

The Self, which is consciousness, is alone real. Nothing else is.You cannot deny your own existence. That existence is consciousness, the Self.― Ramana Maharshi

The Real is ever-present, like the screen on which the cinematographic pictures move. While the picture appears on it, the screen remains invisible. Stop the picture, and the screen will become clear. All thoughts and events are merely pictures moving on the screen of Pure Consciousness, which alone is real. ~ Ramana
Maharshi


“Pure Consciousness, which is the Heart, includes all, and nothing is outside or apart from it. That is the ultimate Truth.” — Ramana Maharshi

So you can see from here that your interpretation of both Shankara's and Ramana's teachings may be erroneous and in need of more critical study and thought.

 

[Viswa]

Shankaracharya had also stated that Brahman is pure consciousness, and this has been reiterated by other enlightened masters, including Ramana Maharshi whom you have quoted in this thread a number of times.

Here are sayings of Ramana Maharshi in this regard...



So you can see from here that your interpretation of both Shankara's and Ramana's teachings may be erroneous and in need of more critical study and thought.

It's not my interpretation is not good enough, but Shankara's and Ramana's, because in Bhagavat Gita and Mandukya, nowhere said Brahman as "Sat-chit-Ananda", but only 'na sat na asat' 'na prajna na aprajna'. even in Nasadiya sukta.

It's only in few other Upanishads, it is said as "Sat-chit-Ananda". I inquired many and many times why Upanishads differ from one to other, then I found that, in Upanishads wherever they said Barhman as "Sat-Chit-Ananda, they describe it as Bliss", and all manthras, delivered by Guru to disciple based on the disciple's need, to keep on repeat the Manthra, so that they may reach "Blissful state". Bliss, for sure, provides liberation to one. But it is also a Sheath, an appearance of Brahman, but not Brahman itself.

I go with Upanishads and Bhagavat Gita, to stick to real meaning sages said (Sages in the sense whomever wrote the Upanishad) but not Shankara's or Ramana's or anyone's interpretations. I take their interpretation, not only their's but also Ramanauja and Madhva's, and go deep..

Their interpretation had almost been a base for me, if it was not there - I wouldn't have come to this deep. I always salute and respect them.

No one I'm degrading, but I just go deep, it's my way. Sorry for that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

See my post 86 for the correct translation of BG 13.13. Prabhupada has it wrong.
I do not think 'mat-param' means 'subordinate to me'.

 

[Viswa]

See my post 86 for the correct translation of BG 13.13. Prabhupada has it wrong.
I do not think 'mat-param' means 'subordinate to me'.

It was not Prabhupada's but the play of Ramanuja's. he tried to set Brahman below Narayana/Bhagwan.