PDA

View Full Version : why sat chit anand are not attributes to brahman



jopmala
01 September 2014, 10:05 PM
Namaste


When we say that Brahman is sadchidanand , does this not carry the attributes to Brahman ? brahman is sat means he exists but where does he exist . we are in the universe but from his side there is no universe . we say he is all pervading but what is that ‘all’ that he is to pervade . as far as he is concerned there exists nothing other than him. Next he is chit means he is knowledge. what is this knowledge meant for , who requires this knowledge who delivers this knowledge to whom. If he is knowledge then who is ignorance. If ignorance is maya which is brahman’s power that means he is ( since power can not be separated from powerful) ignorance also. Next he is anand that is bliss. What is the need of being blissful for a nirgun nirvishesh Brahman. Can he enjoy anand or Is there any link between the anand or bliss we enjoy and that of Brahman ? . why sat chit and anand are not attributes of Brahman ? He is there, he is knowledge and he is anand still we have to say he is nirgun or nirakar nirvishesh. Is it justifiable?

devotee
01 September 2014, 11:42 PM
Namaste,



When we say that Brahman is sadchidanand , does this not carry the attributes to Brahman ?

Yes. Brahman is both with attributes and without attributes. It is Brahman which is this world. It is Brahman which acts as Ishvara and it is Brahman which is beyond all attributes in Turiya.


brahman is sat means he exists but where does he exist . we are in the universe but from his side there is no universe . we say he is all pervading but what is that ‘all’ that he is to pervade .

This question is invalid as it is coming from condition mental state where for existing there must be something in which anything can exist. Existence by definition doesn't say that existence of a "home" is necessary before anything can exist. "Pervades all" is a term useful to our understanding as for us there are things which we see as "all". In absolute, there is Brahman alone, there is no seer and no seen, there is no cognizer and no object of cognition.


Next he is chit means he is knowledge. what is this knowledge meant for , who requires this knowledge who delivers this knowledge to whom.

This statement too comes due to conditioned mind. "Chit" means Consciousness which has all the knowledge of past, present and future. Again, the analogy is very difficult to understand keeping ourselves in the state we are. "Chit" doesn't mean knowledge.


If he is knowledge then who is ignorance. If ignorance is maya which is brahman’s power that means he is ( since power can not be separated from powerful) ignorance also.

When we start talking of "knowledge", "ignorance" comes into picture because we have moved from "fourth" state to the "first state" of Brahman. Nirguna Brahman is the real substance .... it is the substratum of all that is. When this Nirugna Brahman is "associated with" MAyA (as there is no better term available otherwise using "associated with" too is not correct. Also, use of "when" brings in the concept of Time which is again fallacious), Ishvara comes (again this is fallacious as MAyA, Ishvara are beiginingless ... but in absence of any better option to explain the reality) into being which has attributes and there comes to the concept of "Knowledge" and "Ignorance". Ishvara, MAYA, Ignorance and the World are non-different from Brahman.


Next he is anand that is bliss. What is the need of being blissful for a nirgun nirvishesh Brahman.

Actually, there is no "he" ... so there is no "need" of "anyone". In the above sentence, Nirguna Nirvishesha Brahman has been used as some separate entity. This is the real state of "us".


Can he enjoy anand or Is there any link between the anand or bliss we enjoy and that of Brahman ? . why sat chit and anand are not attributes of Brahman ? He is there, he is knowledge and he is anand still we have to say he is nirgun or nirakar nirvishesh. Is it justifiable?

All such questions are being asked from "First state" about "Fourth state" keeping the axioms applicable in First state valid in Fourth state and that is why no question raised above is valid. Again the Fourth state's definition has been badly mixed with the third state.

I would advise you to read MAndukya Upanishad carefully and its KArikA of Gaudapad.

OM

kallol
02 September 2014, 04:58 AM
Om

Namaste

Devoteeji has aptly replied the query.

Unfortunately there is no way to describe the base state of every thing we know and do not know. It encompasses the matter, thoughts, emotions, etc, etc.

Say "anand" - the base state of mind is bliss - a state of fulfillment beyond imagination. As emotions grow the mind moves from that state to even anger, irritation, egoism, etc. The base state is "anand".

"sat" - Truth - all other states are temporary and has "not truth" embedded. This "sat" is the base state.

"chit" - consciousness - This is the only part which cannot be changed and remains as such though all the manifestations. How to define it ?

When we are talking about attributes - they relate to gross and subtle world. Brahman is beyond that - where all attributes end and become unified one without attributes - consciousness which is pure truth, pure anand.

jopmala
06 September 2014, 01:55 PM
Namaste

Most humbly I would like to mention that when you say ( advaitin pov) Brahman is both with attributes and without attributes it becomes fallacious because you treat both Brahman differently. Your interpretation of Brahman is not both sides of a coin. According to advaita philosophy Brahman with attributes is not absolute whereas Brahman without attributes is absolute. Brahman with attributes comes into being out of the association of Brahman without attributes and maya but such a situation does not arise in case of Brahman without attributes. Further, there is only one Brahman without attributes but there are so many Brahmans with attributes ( Krishna, Vishnu, Ram, shiva, ganesha and surya etc). Of course I do not know whether each of them or any one of them is the controller of maya which is the mother of all Brahmans. Maya is their mother because due to association of maya with Brahman without attributes these Brahmans with attributes come into being. If maya is considered as power of Brahman that means Brahman is no longer without attributes. with maya as power ,Brahman becomes powerful to act. Brahman with attributes is also beginning less but does not appear in action before the so called association of Brahman without attributes and maya. Again although both maya and Brahman with attributes beginning less but they come to an end before turiya state. You have mentioned how as a result of association of maya with nirgun Brahman , ishara or sagun Brahman comes into being. I think you should also mention how jiva and maya comes into being out of nirgun Brahman. Can you just convince with authority how sagun Brahman which itself comes into being owing to association of maya with nirgun Brahman becomes controller of maya. Does it not seem that creation is controlling its creator ? it is possible . the point is if maya does not associate with nirgun Brahman , sagun Brahman can not come into being then how the same sagun Brahman can become controller of maya . if you say nirgun Brahman is the controller of maya that is acceptable but that’s your problem you can not say so instead of that you are making people fool by forcing to accept that Brahman created by maya is its controller. The problem is maya can not enter in turiya state and Brahman without attributes stays in turiya state. Now how do they associate to form another Brahman which has attributes, all pervading , almighty etc etc even controller of maya but can not enter into turiya state. Therefore sagun Brahman is nothing but a fallacious philosophy for which you are short of words or phrase to explain and have to use fallacious words in support of a fallacious tattva.

You mean Brahman exists but in nowhere. What is Sarvam khalvidam brahma . what you are saying is not all. There is another side of the coin which says that he has expressed himself in the form of universe that we see. only because of his existence everything exists, because of his power everything is full of power, because of his illumination (jyoti) everything is illuminated. This tattva has been stated over and over again in Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita ( 7/7-12,15/12-14) .so validity of question may differ.

You yourself are saying that chit means knowledge of past present and future but my question is whose past whose present whose future are refereed to by you . Are you referring past present future to the nirgun brahman or world or jiva or maya ?

The question is why only Mandukya Upanishad has mentioned the states of consciousness and also why there is no mention of these states of consciousness in Srimad Bhagavad Gita. These states of consciousness are of Brahman or jiva because except jiva who else can walk, dream or sleep . No religious process can take place when we are in dream or sleep. Therefore religious upliftment is impossible in any state other than walking. Therefore judging everything from the point of view of states is not appropriate. It seems these states of consciousness are conveniently referred to to escape from reality . basing on these states of consciousness you are very easily saying my questions are all invalid but before that you should prove the validity of the states of consciousness which are nothing but imaginary. I wonder how this states of consciousness make sri Krishna dependent on maya whereas in Gita sri Krishna says ‘mama maya’ Here you have to explain how Sri Krishna comes into being due to association of nirgun brahaman with maya but at the same time you have to accept Sri Krishna as the controller of maya. This is totally unacceptable to a Krishna bhakta..

devotee
07 September 2014, 01:15 AM
Namaste Japmala,


Most humbly I would like to mention that when you say ( advaitin pov) Brahman is both with attributes and without attributes it becomes fallacious because you treat both Brahman differently.

Please elaborate how it is fallacious. It is not clear. Have you read MAndukya Upanishad ? What I said is as MAndukya Upanishad says. In fact, if you read Bhagwad Gita chapter-13, it also says that BhoktA, BhartA and Maheshwara are the same Brahman. They are all Brahman and yet they are treated differently. So, why is it fallacious.


Your interpretation of Brahman is not both sides of a coin.

What you want to say is not clear.


According to advaita philosophy Brahman with attributes is not absolute whereas Brahman without attributes is absolute.

Right.


Brahman with attributes comes into being out of the association of Brahman without attributes and maya but such a situation does not arise in case of Brahman without attributes.

Brahman without attributes is the substratum of all prapancha and there is substratum of Brahman without attributes where all prapancha stop.


Further, there is only one Brahman without attributes but there are so many Brahmans with attributes ( Krishna, Vishnu, Ram, shiva, ganesha and surya etc).

You got it all wrong. The Brahman without attributes and many Brahman with attributes are all not different but there is Only One Sat. Please read Bhagwad Gita Chapter 2.17 which specifically says that indestructible that alone which pervades everything through and through and all bodies/forms of that Indestructible is are destructible. That indestructible is AtmA, the Self and that is the substratum of everything.

The differences in forms are perceived due to our creative thoughts. Please read Mudgala Upanishad which gives the reason for these many forms of God, "He became what He was worshipped as". He became Shiva because He was worshiped as Shiva. He became Vishnu because He was worshiped as Vishnu.


Of course I do not know whether each of them or any one of them is the controller of maya which is the mother of all Brahmans. Maya is their mother because due to association of maya with Brahman without attributes these Brahmans with attributes come into being.

You have not read VedAnta and that is why such questions arise. Saguna Brahman i.e. God is one alone and He is the controller of MAyA and the worlds. You may worship Him in any form. Whatever form you worship as the Supreme would be the controller of MAyA.

I don't think we can call MAyA as mother of God because Nirguna Brahman acts as Saguna Brahman when MAyA is in action. Now, you may decide if you want to call MAyA as mother of God. I would not call it because MAyA doesn't shape the form and name of God. God is non-dual i.e. resides in all beings and everything including space.


If maya is considered as power of Brahman that means Brahman is no longer without attributes.

The problem with you is that you are trying to be your own pramANa whereas you cannot act as pramAna in Shaastrartha. We must stick to Sabda PramANa and I won't accept anything unless it is supported by the Vedas (including VedAnta) and Bhagwad Gita. So, your logic is faulty as it is not conforming to Sabda PramAna.

MAyA is beyond understanding of human mind. In fact, the Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman and the whole world cannot be understood by human mind's logic.


with maya as power ,Brahman becomes powerful to act.

"Brahman becomes" ===> this shows your lack of study of VedAnta. You must read VedAnta very very carefully.


Brahman with attributes is also beginning less but does not appear in action before the so called association of Brahman without attributes and maya.

This is another example of gross misunderstanding and no knowledge of what the VedAnta says. Brahman without attributes and Brahman with attributes and even you and me and the whole creation are not different entities. Does this make any sense to you. If not, you need serious study of VedAnta first.


Again although both maya and Brahman with attributes beginning less but they come to an end before turiya state.

What does this mean ? It is meaningless understanding.


You have mentioned how as a result of association of maya with nirgun Brahman , ishara or sagun Brahman comes into being. I think you should also mention how jiva and maya comes into being out of nirgun Brahman. Can you just convince with authority how sagun Brahman which itself comes into being owing to association of maya with nirgun Brahman becomes controller of maya. Does it not seem that creation is controlling its creator ?

I have said what the VedAnta says. If you can't understand what is said in my post then you should not study JnAna Yoga or Advaita VedAnta. The problem is that without having basic knowledge of VedAnta you have started taking out your opinion with your mental logic which is greatly handicapped. With your human mind you cannot explain even Scientific phenomena at atomic level. If you have any doubts, please tell me so that I would ask questions from you on scientific facts which are not understandable by mind. It is has been accepted as the fact because there are scientific proofs.

So, either one should study VedAnta and accept what VedAnta says or go for Realisation of Truth. My dear sir, these VedAntic facts are proven by thousands of Self-realised souls. Your worldly mental logic has no value here. The Truth is the Truth and cannot be denied by simply because you are unable to understand the same.

I have stopped replying further to your post because you logic is meaningless and not in conformity with what Shruti says.

Pranam.:bowdown:

OM

jopmala
07 September 2014, 10:47 PM
Namaste
Is it necessary that everyone should understand shashra in your line of thinking ? I may have little understanding but the basic teaching of sanatan hindu dharma is that maya can not come on the way of brahman. When Brahman is knowledge , maya is ignorance just opposite of each other but you are teaching here the association of maya with Brahman resulting formation of another Brahman . Is the state of nirgun Brahman and maya same ? . if maya is a power where is it attached before sagun Brahman come into being since it can not attach itself with nirgun Brahman ?

I say Your view is fallacious because you call Brahman ( sagun) but that Brahman is not absolute. The entity which is not absolute is derived from maya or prakriti i.e. sattva raja and tama gunas so subject to destruction . if this is the state of your sagun Brahman then it is misleading idea. Our scriptures teach that Brahman ( nirgun or sagun) is above maya and so absolute.

If you remember, chapter 2 and chapter 13 of Gita pertains to samkhya philosophy which describes purush and prakriti tattva. If you do not approve purush prakriti tattva you can not make any comment on these two chapters but tragedy is that being a advaita philosopher you are against samkhya philosophy which is dvaita. In 2.17 bhagavan says to arjun “all these bodies in which dwell the imperishable ,indefinable and the eternal atma are by themselves perishable. Therefore fight”. It is clear here that bhagavan means the body of bhishma ,guru drone or karna etc who ever participated in that battle. The body of jiva is formed from trigun that is sattva raja and tama so subject to destruction but atma is above triguna and indestructible .Do you mean that since these bodies are destructible so also the body of sagun Brahman i.e. sri Krishna ? do you mean that the body of sri Krishna is made from trigun sattva raja tama like jiva ? that is the greatest mistake you always do and mislead other. How do you describe the avatara of sri Krishna in this world . do you mean to say that body of sri Krishna derived from prakriti which is subject to sattva raja tama guna or do you mean that the atma and body of sri Krishna are different means his body is destructible etc etc ? Please read Gita 7.24 ( avyaktim vyaktam apannam) and 9.10( maya’dhyaksena prakriti ), 9.11 ( avajananti mam mudha) and read gita 14.4 ( sarvayonishu Kaunteya) which says sri Krishna is not from triguna prakriti. Although you can not accept maya being the mother of sagun Brahman at the same time you can not accept that sagun brahman is absolute therefore you have to accept 14.4 of gita which says prakriti is the mother of all (deva or jiva) . Equating the body of sri Krishna whom you call sagun Brahman with that of jiva is adharma so far sanatan hindhu dharma is concerned. In chapter 13 there is field and knower of that field . sri Krishna says that in all cases I am the knower of the field. Definitely by field he means the organisms senses etc of jiva tattva not para tattva which is knower of the field. Therefore equating my body which is derived from three gunas with the body of sri Krishna which is above three gunas is the biggest sin. This knowledge of the field and knower of the field is the only true knowledge but to you there is no difference between field and knower of the field as you say “Brahman without attributes and Brahman with attributes and even you and me and the whole creation are not different entities”.We can not impose 2.17 of gita on sri Krishna whom you call sagun Brahman.

Brahman is both sagun and nirgun and absolute. If we say sagun Brahman is not absolute then he is not Brahman at all. Nirgun and sagun is just aspect that does not mean sagun Brahman is not absolute. Aspects do not make entity to become destructible or indestructible. In one hand you say sagun Brahman is not absolute only nirgun Brahman is absolute then why not you accept two different independent entity of Brahman.

These are not my mental logic rather basic sanatan hindu philosophy. You can not bring maya within the ambit of Brahman to associate. Maya can not be power of nirgun Brahman. Body of Brahman( whom you call sagun) and body of jiva are different. Body of Brahman is not from triguna maya that is sattva raja and tama so not subject to destruction but yes body of jiva is from triguna and subject to destruction. When you say“ nirgun Brahman acts as sagun Brahman when maya is in action” you should remember that the word ‘act’ can not be associated with nirgun Brahman nor maya is independent to be in action.

If Brahman with out attributes and Brahman with attributes are not different entities according you, then why do you not accept Brahman with attributes as supreme absolute tattva ?

devotee
07 September 2014, 11:27 PM
Namaste Japmala,

If that is your understanding of Bhagwad Gita and Upanishadic texts, why are you discussing this subject on JnAna forum ?

Be happy in your bhajans and kirtans. :)

Sometimes, I have doubts if you are purposefully planted by some vested interest group for raising such issues and trying to convert people to your way of understanding Hindu scriptures. This may not be true but I have serious doubts by watching your activities for a long time. You come with some innocent looking post of discussing something related to JnAna/Advaita and then try to make ridicule of that philosophy without any support from any of the six pramANas. You don't read whatever is offered and just keep repeating same thing again and again. If you or anyone want, I can list all your such threads and posts which produce nothing except bitterness between the two sects.

Why are you not happy in your Vaishnava sect without jumping into forums of JnAna and Advaita and creating bitterness and nothing else ? Why so much restlessness ?

OM

jopmala
08 September 2014, 02:02 PM
Namaste devotee

This amounts to personal attack and disheartening . see, I did not hide my identity as a vaishnab and I am extremely happy with my bhajan and kirtan. Advaita philosophy is not your personal property that I can not question it. I am Krishna bhakta . when I see advaitavada has brought down sri krishna to such a level equal to us , I feel unhappy and like to ask you about your philosophy . I know very well that you feel embarrassed when some one questions you on maya and sagun Brahman. Instead of getting angry you should be cool . you alleges me of trying to convert other people with vested interest and creating bitterness among sects etc etc. very cheap remarks from your standard. You could have stopped me by giving a sound reply from your philosophy but I know you are even short of words to explain your understanding of sagun Brahman and maya and so you take other way to stop me from further questioning . I think raising question is my right.

devotee
09 September 2014, 12:07 AM
Namaste Japmala,


This amounts to personal attack and disheartening .

I am sorry, if i sounded like that. See, I raised this issue because I find a definite pattern in your coming to this forum at almost fixed intervals after gaps and raising same thing again and again. If you want I can show you the threads you have created or have posted on Advaita.

You think your understanding of Scriptures is the best one and according to you, in Hindu Dharma all other sects are deluded except that of yours. If you ask me, I will say that all those who don't understand the Advaita philosophy and all those who keep bashing up Advaita on this forum in one way or the other don't understand scriptures even a bit. So, we don't meet at any point. So, if we discuss where will we reach ?? The Advaitins are Advaitins because they have strong logic/reasons for believing in what this path says. They don't keep bashing up Vaishnava philosophy unless a debate is started by a Vaishnava as you keep doing it again and again. If you find any Advaitin doing that on this forum, please let me know.

I am perplexed to think what forces you to do this ! Do you want to act as a saviour/Christ for the Advaitins like Christians do ? You can see previous threads where you have "discussed" on Advaita and you have refused to accept Sabda PramANa (where you tend to draw your own meaning), AnumAna (logical arguments based on VedAnta) or Pratyaksha PramANa (thousands of Advaitins have been Self-realised souls in the past and there are quite a few even today) .... you deny everything. You keep parroting your own understanding again and again. This makes at least one thing clear that you have no interest in understanding Advaita VedAnta. So, what could be another goal ? Trying to force your idea of VedAnta philosophy to all Advaitins on the forum or ridiculing their understanding in the garb of an innocent looking thread ? What is this and why ?

I have seen that you even deny the fact JnAna/Samkhya mentioend in Bhagwad Gita or indicates towards Advaita. You say that it is Kapila's Samkhya even after mentioning to you that Samkhya is a atheistic philosophy whereas Advaita is theistic. Advaita VedAnta or JnAna Yoga borrows a lot from SAmkhya but doesn't stop there. It goes ahead and explains Brahman as It is. In Bhagwad Gita, the reference to Samkhya-yogis is not atheistic but you don't see that. You want to discredit Advaita by such a stand.

So, when you are out to discredit Advaita thinking that you know much more than any of the VedAntic Gurus of the Six schools of VedAnta, (has any Guru said that the reference to SAmkhya and JnAna is actually to Kapila's atheistic Samkhya ? I don't know) what can be said about your motives ?? It can't be so innocent, no ?


see, I did not hide my identity as a vaishnab and I am extremely happy with my bhajan and kirtan.

So, what drives you here again and again ? You don't want to understand our point of view, so what is the point to discuss it all ?


Advaita philosophy is not your personal property that I can not question it. I am Krishna bhakta . when I see advaitavada has brought down sri krishna to such a level equal to us , I feel unhappy and like to ask you about your philosophy.

Yes, that is perfectly right that Advaita philosophy is not my personal property but when you are out to belittle Advaita and indulge in Advaita bashing then you can't expect people to remain silent and that would start an acrimonious debate leading us to nowhere. This has happened so many times here on this forums. We can have mercy on peace-loving people visiting this place.

Advaitavad has not brought Lord Krishna to human level .... that is the worst understanding of Advaita philosophy. Who has said so ? I myself am a devotee of Lord Krishna. Adi Guru Shankaracharya pays his deepest respect to Lord Krishna before he starts his writing on Advaita. This all is done because He is considered a human being ???

You have got it all wrong. Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita makes it clear that He pervades everything through and through and He/Brahman alone is that exists in all forms :

"Know that alone to be imperishable which pervades this universe; for no one has power to destroy this indestructible substance" BG 2.17

"In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is God. Such a great soul is very rare indeed." BG 7.19

"There is nothing else besides Me, Arjuna." BG 8.7

"Arjuna, that eternal unmanifest supreme PuruSa in whom all beings reside and by whom all this is pervaded, is attainable only through exclusive
Devotion." 8. 22

"The whole of this universe is permeated by Me as unmanifest Divinity, and all beings dwell on the idea within Me. But really speaking, I am not present in them." BG 9.4

Now, that is what we say, "Everything is Brahman". What is wrong in it ? Don't have that egoistic feeling that you are a better bhakta of Lord Krishna and you are entitled to ridicule others who worship Him in a different way than what you have chosen. Lord Krishna /Brahman is always in my heart and I see Him everywhere and in every being. My spiritual journey started with Bhagwad Gita. You want to see Lord Krishna as human being, like a all powerful King ... we worship same God as present in all beings through and through. You say that we are all foolish because we can't see such a small thing which is so obvious to you. But there is where we differ and we must respect this difference.


I know very well that you feel embarrassed when some one questions you on maya and sagun Brahman.

That is another misunderstanding of yours. Please see, how many posts I have written quoting a number of scriptures on this very forum ! The problem arises when you don't read what is offered and don't accept what is written in scriptures. So, what I say is that "if that is the status, why discuss this at all ?"


Instead of getting angry you should be cool.

I don't get angry. I state what I feel and I always try to keep myself free from any biases even against my opponents. It is your misunderstanding that statement of facts is perceived by you as my anger. I said that I can show you so many threads and your posts where you keep repeating same things again and again. This only creates bitterness without adding even a bit to our knowledge.


you alleges me of trying to convert other people with vested interest and creating bitterness among sects etc etc. very cheap remarks from your standard.

Please read your posts and see what you are upto. You come with an innocent request to discuss Advaita and don't accept what is offered to you. Do you want to teach Advaita to Advaitins ? If that is your motive, please let me know.


You could have stopped me by giving a sound reply from your philosophy but I know you are even short of words to explain your understanding of sagun Brahman and maya and so you take other way to stop me from further questioning .

You have misunderstood many things and I am sure, you have not come for understanding things. So, I am not affected by what you say. Be happy in your understanding that you know and understand Advaita more than all Advaitins on this earth. What will it change in this world ?


I think raising question is my right.

Raising questions with ulterior motives cannot be a sign of a good devotee of Lord Krishna. He doesn't advise you to act like this.

Jai Sri Krishna ! :)

OM

Kalicharan Tuvij
09 September 2014, 07:06 AM
Pranam,



"Know that alone to be imperishable which pervades this universe; for no one has power to destroy this indestructible substance" BG 2.17
"Pervades" is not the same as "includes all". For example, "a smell pervades a room" doesn't mean "the room is contained within the smell".


"In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is God. Such a great soul is very rare indeed." BG 7.19
The exact word used there, I suppose, is "Vasudeva" that is: "who pervades", and not "all this is God". Please correct me if I am wrong here.

"There is nothing else besides Me, Arjuna." BG 8.7
I think this is a misquote; perhaps you mean B.G 7.7 which says "there is nothing beyond/ superior than Me." And not "there is nothing besides me" as suggested here.

"Arjuna, that eternal unmanifest supreme PuruSa in whom all beings reside and by whom all this is pervaded, is attainable only through exclusive
Devotion." 8. 22
"yasya antaḥ-sthāni bhūtāni" means "inside whom jiva-s reside". But this can mean "the room that has a cat inside it (but the cat still not a part of the room)". So this means Purusha is of infinite, all-encompassing nature, but still not "everything" necessarily.


"The whole of this universe is permeated by Me as unmanifest Divinity, and all beings dwell on the idea within Me. But really speaking, I am not present in them." BG 9.4
Again, "permeates" means "pervades", not "contains".


Now, that is what we say, "Everything is Brahman". What is wrong in it ?
So, the "wrong" is:
Brahman (Brahm) pervades everything -- is well evidenced. But "Brahman contains everything" has a weak support, if at all, and something open to discussion.

The "right" what we know firmly from our texts is:
"Brahman is Nothing"
as also,
"This Nothingness pervades Everything"
and,
"This is attained by neti-neti (this is not That, that also is not That)"

wundermonk
09 September 2014, 02:30 PM
Hello folks,

Before we debate whether Brahman has attributes or does not have attributes, perhaps we should define a substance (dravya) and an attribute (guna) as was discussed in Indian philosophy?

Any dualistic philosophy that differentiates between a substance on the one hand and an attribute that is different on the other hand immediately opens itself up to the problem of infinite regress.

That is, if an attribute is related to a substance by a relation (this relationship was posited to be one of samavaya [or inherence] by the Naiyayikas), how is the substance related to this relation?

Advaitins have used this basic argument to keep at bay Naiyayikas. Naiyayikas have devised workarounds and modified the rest of their philosophy to be consistent with this workaround.

This argument has also been called the Bradley problem in Western philosophical traditions.

My point is that before arguing about substances and attributes, should we not be clear what these are?

devotee
10 September 2014, 12:37 AM
Namaste Kali,



"Pervades" is not the same as "includes all". For example, "a smell pervades a room" doesn't mean "the room is contained within the smell".

That is the issue when we resort to English translation. What I have stated is right. I will give you word-by-word meaning of the verses I have quoted :

Verse 2.17

The Sanskrit is :

"AvinAshi tu tadviddhi yena sarvam idam tatam"

We must focus on "Yena Sarvam idam tatam" ===>

Yena = By which
Sarvam idam == All this (universe) (please check, it includes all)
Tatam === ??? what does this word mean ? It has been translated in English as "pervade", "Expanded" , "spread throughout" etc. in a bid to give an exact translation of the word. However, the exact meaning is "pervading in a way as water pervades an ice-brick".

So, it can be translated best as, "pervading through and through".


The exact word used there, I suppose, is "Vasudeva" that is: "who pervades", and not "all this is God". Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Yes, the verse is, "VAsudevah sarvam iti" ===> VAsudeva has been used for Lord Krishna here. Vasudeva doesn't mean "Who pervades". It comes from the word, "VAs" means "home" or abode" and "deva" means God. Therefore, VAsudeva means "God who is the abode of all". "VAs" also means "reside" and therefore it is also translated as "God who resides" or "Indweller God" or "God that dwells Within".

However, in this verse, Lord Krishna, because of being son of Vasudeva, is called VAsudeva. We need not go so deep in meaning of this word because it has been used as noun and is being equated to all that is and it is being said for Lord Krishna.

So, it says :

Vasudevah === Lord Krishna/God
Sarvam === All, everything
Iti === In this manner


I think this is a misquote; perhaps you mean B.G 7.7 which says "there is nothing beyond/ superior than Me." And not "there is nothing besides me" as suggested here.

Thanks for the corrected verse number which was a typo. However, the meaning given by me is correct. The verse is :

BG 7.7
"Mattah partaram na anyat kinchit asti Dhananjaya"

(I have written the verse after Sandhi viccheda for separating the words )

Mattah === Me/My
Partaram = Except

(this translation of "Partaram" is done by GIta Press, Gorakhpur. I have relied on this translation.). Its Hindi translation is "SivAya".

NAnyat Kinchit Asti == Na (No) + Anyat (other) + Kinchit (anything else) + Asti (exists) ===> no other (thing) exists
Dhananjaya == Arjuna


"yasya antaḥ-sthāni bhūtāni" means "inside whom jiva-s reside". But this can mean "the room that has a cat inside it (but the cat still not a part of the room)". So this means Purusha is of infinite, all-encompassing nature, but still not "everything" necessarily.

Verse 8.22 again has the term, "Yena Sarvam Idam tatam" which was earlier used in Verse 2.17 and that clearly states the meaning I have given. Gita Press, Gorakhpur has translated this verse exactly as I have quoted.

Verse 9.4 has again used the term, :"tatam" === "MayA tatam Idam sarvam Jagat" ===> By me this whole world is pervaded through and through (like water pervades Ice)


So, the "wrong" is:
Brahman (Brahm) pervades everything -- is well evidenced. But "Brahman contains everything" has a weak support, if at all, and something open to discussion.

No. "Brahman contains everything" is correct and also "Brahman alone is everything". If you have doubts over the meaning that has been used in my post, we can take the help of what Shruti says:

"sarvaṁ hy etad brahma, ayam ātmā brahma" (MAndukya Upanishad, Verse 1)

===> This all is verily Brahamn. This AtmA/Self is Brahman.

In fact, I can give many such references from Upanishads where this is clearly written. Bhagwad Gita is Smriti and therefore it cannot be translated in a way that it violates Shruti.

*******************

In fact, if we read the verse BG 2.17 carefully, it makes very clear that there is nothing except Brahman/Self which alone is imperishable. 2.17 uses singular number for describing what is imperishable and what pervades this universe through and through. It says, "AvinAshi to tat viddhi, yena sarvam idam tatam" ===> Please mark it. It uses the term, "Tat" which is singular for "That". If the imperishable were many, it could not have used the word, "Tat" but "TAni". So, this verse declares without any doubt that there is One alone which is imperishable and that alone pervades everything in this universe through and through. "Sarvam Idam" doesn't exclude anything. This meaning is completely in line with, "Sarvam hi etad Brahman" =-== "All this is verily Brahman" declared by Shruti and therefore is the correct meaning of the verse.

**************

In spite of whatever I said above, I have no issues, if some Vaishnava schools or anyone translate the verses in different ways and stick to that. However, saying that the above given translation is wrong is not right.

OM

Kalicharan Tuvij
10 September 2014, 07:43 AM
Pranam Devotee-ji,



In spite of whatever I said above, I have no issues, if some Vaishnava schools or anyone translate the verses in different ways and stick to that. However, saying that the above given translation is wrong is not right.

This clarification is a very welcome one. So the issue here is hardly the BG, since as seen from your own reply,

Tatam === ??? what does this word mean ? It has been translated in English as "pervade", "Expanded" , "spread throughout" etc. in a bid to give an exact translation of the word. ~~~~

So, it can be translated best as, "pervading through and through".
which is still near to the meaning "pervading" than to "including".

"VAs" also means "reside" and therefore it is also translated as "God who resides" or "Indweller God" or "God that dwells Within".
Again the meaning ("indwelling") perilously close to "pervading".

Partaram = Except

(this translation of "Partaram" is done by GIta Press, Gorakhpur. I have relied on this translation.)
parataram = para (beyond) + taram (moving) = exceeding.
So Krishna tells nothing exceeds Him. Krishna is the upper limit; the best of all qualities. But not "all qualities"; at least that is not implied here.

So, at this point we can leave BG (because strictly from within this text there is at best indirect evidence for "Brahm is everything").


"Brahman contains everything" is correct and also "Brahman alone is everything". If you have doubts over the meaning that has been used in my post, we can take the help of what Shruti says:

"sarvaṁ hy etad brahma, ayam ātmā brahma" (MAndukya Upanishad, Verse 1)

===> This all is verily Brahamn. This AtmA/Self is Brahman.
This is the full context:

1 This syllable AUM is verily all this
This is the explanation about AUM:
The past, the present and the future are AUM,
And That beyond these three is also AUM.

aum ity etad akṣaram idam sarvam, tasyopavyākhyānam
bhūtam bhavad bhaviṣyad iti sarvam auṁkāra eva
yac cānyat trikālātītaṁ tad apy auṁkāra eva.

2 Brahman is indeed all this.
This self (AtmA) in us is also Brahman.
And this self (AtmA) has four planes.

sarvaṁ hy etad brahma, ayam ātmā brahma
so’yam ātmā catuṣ-pāt.

~~~
~~~
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, nor unknowing; 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.

nāntaḥ-prajñam, na bahiṣ prajñam, nobhayataḥ-prajñam
na prajnañā-ghanam, na prajñam, nāprajñam;
adṛṣtam, avyavahārayam, agrāhyam, alakṣaṇam,
acintyam, avyapadeśyam, ekātma-pratyaya-sāram,
prapañcopaśamam, śāntam, śivam, advaitam,
caturtham manyante, sa ātmā, sa vijñeyaḥ.



The verse (1) talks about AUM as "The past, the present and the future are AUM", and also "And That beyond these three is also AUM".

But, there are things that are besides (if not beyond) trikAla. Example, "this place", "love", "ego", "truth", "matter", "life" (even though the expanded idea trikAla pervades them all).

So in (2) "this all" means "trikAla" in its basic and ramified implications. And this is being equated with AUM/ Atman/ Brahm (Brahman).

"AtmA is Brahman" is also said, but the very next verses go on explaing the "four layers" of this AtmA, and it is clear from the MU overall (see verse 7 above) that:
"The fourth (turiya) is Atman"
That is, "the fourth is Brahman"
because we know Atman = Brahman, in Upanishads.
And this is further explained to be (in verse 7),
"invisible, ineffable, intangible, devoid of characteristics, inconceivable, indefinable"
In a single word, "Nothing".

Infact, verbosity is the greatest learning block in brahmvidya. In RgVeda therefore this "nothingness" is not talked about at all.


In fact, I can give many such references from Upanishads where this is clearly written. Bhagwad Gita is Smriti and therefore it cannot be translated in a way that it violates Shruti.
That will be good because the status of AtharvaVeda as a Veda is suspect, and the MU is a follower Upnishadic text on that. Even then, as shown in this post the MU can be seen to equate Brahman to Nothingness (also called the Fourth).

devotee
10 September 2014, 11:27 PM
Namaste Kali,

By reading your post, I think you are here with a fixed idea and anything offered to you is going waste. So, I won't go any further.

You are free to have your own meaning of the scriptures.

OM

Kalicharan Tuvij
11 September 2014, 07:02 AM
Pranam,

Namaste Kali,

By reading your post, I think you are here with a fixed idea and anything offered to you is going waste. So, I won't go any further.

You are free to have your own meaning of the scriptures.

OM
Thank you for reading my post. (This is all I wanted in this thread). We don't need to take it further either, for there is nothing more to say.

I am not particularly interested in any philosophy. "Brahm" is true is enough ; I don't care- don't fear- if "Brahm" is true but "the philosophy" turns out to be untrue.


Hello folks,

Before we debate whether Brahman has attributes or does not have attributes, perhaps we should define a substance (dravya) and an attribute (guna) as was discussed in Indian philosophy?

Any dualistic philosophy that differentiates between a substance on the one hand and an attribute that is different on the other hand immediately opens itself up to the problem of infinite regress.

That is, if an attribute is related to a substance by a relation (this relationship was posited to be one of samavaya [or inherence] by the Naiyayikas), how is the substance related to this relation?

Advaitins have used this basic argument to keep at bay Naiyayikas. Naiyayikas have devised workarounds and modified the rest of their philosophy to be consistent with this workaround.

This argument has also been called the Bradley problem in Western philosophical traditions.

My point is that before arguing about substances and attributes, should we not be clear what these are?

Pranam WM,

Let us say, we are measuring the temperature field (in a town) with a thermometer.

Thermometer is finite whereas the temperature field is infinite. So the measurement (the "temperature reading") of the thermometer is nothing but the result of the interaction between the infinite (the field) and the finite (thermometer).

So, as we see, without a thermometer (the finite observer) there is no meaning (as we understand the normal "meaning" to be) to the concept of "temperature".

Surya is the presiding Devata of this interface between the two and those who worship Him directly or indirectly keep receiving everything (Soma) they need along their evolutionary journey.

If I understood the "problem" correctly, the example just mentioned shows there is no problem as such. That said I think the the focus in this thread was individualistic, and I just wanted to further clarify on a point or two- for my own understanding, given such discussions already have had conclusion achieved long since- in the eyes of a neutral observer at least (non-Vaishnav non-Vedanti). On my own part, I dont even consider terms such as "Krishna", "Brahm", "Aum", "Atman" to be equal- it is simply not in the nature of Sanskrit to waste more than one term for naming one thing.


KT

Lokavidu
19 January 2020, 11:55 PM
Namaste


When we say that Brahman is sadchidanand , does this not carry the attributes to Brahman ? brahman is sat means he exists but where does he exist . we are in the universe but from his side there is no universe . we say he is all pervading but what is that ‘all’ that he is to pervade . as far as he is concerned there exists nothing other than him. Next he is chit means he is knowledge. what is this knowledge meant for , who requires this knowledge who delivers this knowledge to whom. If he is knowledge then who is ignorance. If ignorance is maya which is brahman’s power that means he is ( since power can not be separated from powerful) ignorance also. Next he is anand that is bliss. What is the need of being blissful for a nirgun nirvishesh Brahman. Can he enjoy anand or Is there any link between the anand or bliss we enjoy and that of Brahman ? . why sat chit and anand are not attributes of Brahman ? He is there, he is knowledge and he is anand still we have to say he is nirgun or nirakar nirvishesh. Is it justifiable?

Namaste jopmala

sacchidananda is not and cannot be the atrribute of brahman.. It is the svarupam or substance Of brahman..

The reason: substance must be different from its attribute, if they are the same then there is useless to call it attribute/substance.
.sat is existence.. The only thing that can be different from existence is non-existence..
So if satyam is the attribute of brahman then the substance of brahman must be non-existence. It is not proper to say the non existent have existence as its attribute.. Therefore satyam cannot be the atttribute of brahman but it is the very essence or substance of brahman..

Yes brahman is all pervading.. Then existence is all pervading..brahman is existence..anything that exist has existence as its essence therefore anything is brahman only..
Yes according to brahman point of view there is no universe, it is like according to gold, there is no golden ring or golden necklace... Only gold exist . Any differences are just form and name only, it is only mithyaa because of maya shakti..

Yes existence cannot reveal itself, only consciousness/knowledge can reveal existence.. It is like only conscious person can prove the existence of a vase.. The vase itself cannot reveal itself. Therefore existence and knowledge is the same..
Yes brahman is the substratum of knowledge and ignorance.. Ignorance is just a form of knowledge only..

Ananda is better to be interpreted as ananta or endless or limitless.. There is no limit of existence or knowledge...only the limitless can bring happiness or bliss therefore brahman is also called ananda.

So yes it justifiable that nirguma brahman is satcitananda, doesnt have any attribute...
The gunas of brahman in saguna brahman term are just mithyaa only.. Not exist

markandeya 108 dasa
20 January 2020, 01:18 AM
Namaste

Brahman is know when one is Self realized, not before, and its nothing that anyone can imagine, it will destroy all mental concepts which is what the majority of this thread is, even learned advaitins are not agreeing with each other on certain points.

We can look at two ends of the scale

Firstly this one


TEXT 9
etam drstim avastabhya
nastatmano 'lpa-buddhayah
prabhavanty ugra-karmanah
ksayaya jagato 'hitah

SYNONYMS
etam—thus; drstim—vision; avastabhya—accepting; nasta—lost; atmanah—self; alpa-buddhayah—less intelligent; prabhavanti—flourish; ugra-karmanah—in painful activities; ksayaya—for destruction; jagatah—of the world; ahitah—unbeneficial.

TRANSLATION
Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.

This means they are engaged in destroying communities and instigating war and hatred. They even object to anyone going against them, and this can often cost people their lives.


On the other end of the scale


TEXT 54
brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kanksati
samah sarvesu bhutesu
mad-bhaktim labhate param

SYNONYMS
brahma-bhutah—being one with the Absolute; prasanna-atma—fully joyful; na—never; socati—laments; na—never; kanksati—desires; samah—equally disposed; sarvesu—all; bhutesu—living entity; mat-bhaktim—My devotional service; labhate—gains; param—transcendental.


TRANSLATION
One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed to every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.

Now does this mean that Knowers of Brahman sit quietly and watch as the forces that cause division and suffering are silent, inactive and peacefully watch undisturbed.

Jnana marg is not absent of responsibility to the interdependent network of all beings, if they are realized then they also see how creation is being manifest and what makes up existence.

Does it mean the Brahm Jnani has no attributes? they are nothing that can be cognized by ones who still have avidya in their mind, they are beyond reproach, Self dependant and fearless.

If we are to talk translations Bhagavan Paramahamsa Nityananda says sat is Bhakti.

kallol
20 January 2020, 10:26 AM
Namaste
Om

The beauty of Sanatana Dharma is that it is not a religion. It's a research on life and creation.
The path to the ultimate Truth is uniquely tread by people who are all unique by nature. Though the paths can be broadly defined into some defined gharanas.
Ultimately they all merge as we coverge towards the mountain Top which is a singular point.
The people at lower down fight for whose path is correct. At the Top it's all same.

As all the three attributes tend to zero they move from gross layer to subtle layer. Zero is not possible as then it leads to a unmanifesting system.
But again zero state is there as a substratum leading to the existence of all.

As for life example as the frequency of mind comes down the three attributes converge towards the base state of permanent bliss, permanent Truth and permanent state of consciousness.
At zero all of these merge and lose the identity of attributes as that is a point of no return.

That's why our knowledge and perceptions are limited to the mind's span. Beyond that there is no tool to experience or understand.

However we need to distinguish between Iswar and Brahman. Brahman is the substratum which is permanent state. Though we can deliberate on Brahman, being nirguna we cannot expect anything out of Brahman.
Mostly our needs and deeds are out of Iswara the manifested form of Brahman. Whether we call them the Trinity or Krishna or Shiva or Brahma - they are ruling the kala chakra.
All the distinction between the different entities start from these. Even Maya.
All churning or cycles are limited to these.

Namaste



.