PDA

View Full Version : Your definition of Brahma



hinduism♥krishna
22 November 2014, 06:14 AM
Namaste all of you..

Brahman! The truth of reality itself, which is beyond reality and unreality..

I've always two questions. Why something exists and why there's not absolute nothing and thing/consciousness/knowledge which has the answers of these two questions, is Brahman to me.

Share you definition of Brahman or how'd you like to describe it..

This thread may also help to newcomers or who want to know about advaita's brahman. I know most of us will have common understanding of Brahman. :)

Thank You

Ekam
22 November 2014, 08:50 AM
Namaste.

I define it as the indefinable.

Eastern Mind
22 November 2014, 10:11 AM
Vannakkam: I define it as the Creator god, or aspect of God who emanates, or 'creates, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma


Aum Namasivaya

hinduism♥krishna
23 November 2014, 02:44 AM
Vannakkam: I define it as the Creator god, or aspect of God who emanates, or 'creates, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma


Aum Namasivaya

Not that god brahma. I said brahma, the highest reality, eternal, omnipresent consciousness, beyond three States ...

Eastern Mind
23 November 2014, 07:41 AM
Vannakkam: Yes, HK, I knew what you meant. It's just that usually its Brahman, rather Brahma. In the past I've seen a lot of people get confused.

For me, Brahman is the energy that flows through all form, keeping it as what it is ... the underlying substratum.

Parabrahman, OTOH, is the causal, beyond all time form space, yet still causal.

But that's just my understanding, which is extremely limited.

Aum Namasivaya

devotee
23 November 2014, 11:53 PM
My mind cannot define Brahman. :(

OM

hinduism♥krishna
24 November 2014, 12:05 AM
My mind cannot define Brahman. :(

OM

:) Yeah, yet there's something to say :)

Ram11
24 November 2014, 06:39 AM
:) Yeah, yet there's something to say :)

Namaste Ji,

My Brahman is like a father,like a mother,lives in a specific place but yet is everywhere,likes to be worshipped by certain holy leaves but would take even a drop of water or a fruit or a flower if offered with devotion,even if nothing is available to offer,would be satisfied by mere remembrance.My Brahman is the cause of everything,protects everything and does everything.My Brahman is Saguna and is very beautiful._/\_

Jaskaran Singh
29 November 2014, 05:17 PM
सर्वंखल्विदंब्रह्म...
सहिनारायणज्ञेयः सर्वात्मापुरुषोहिसः।

Not very creative (plagiarism on my part, actually), but still. :D

Viraja
29 November 2014, 08:02 PM
Dear HLK,

I am not learned enough to know the brahmam by myself. Nor am I having the intellectual curiosity to pursue knowing THAT by reading many scriptures. My simple belief in what is 'brahmam' comes from what my 'manasika guru' Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami defines: Saguna brahmam and Nirguna Brahmam are like 2 sides of the same coin and one attribute is indispensable of the other, really.

So going by the above definition, I understand the generic term 'brahmam/brahman' then means an entity that is all-knowing, full of bliss, benevolent, humble, virtuous, joyous and meritorious that controls one and all, stands as a witness to everything and onto which everything dissolves and arises out of. I come to this conclusion about brahmam from the quoted lines because if nirguna brahmam is really the other side of saguna brahmam, then they share these attributes together!

I would love any corrections on this one.

Ram11
29 November 2014, 08:30 PM
Dear HLK,

I am not learned enough to know the brahmam by myself. Nor am I having the intellectual curiosity to pursue knowing THAT by reading many scriptures. My simple belief in what is 'brahmam' comes from what my 'manasika guru' Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami defines: Saguna brahmam and Nirguna Brahmam are like 2 sides of the same coin and one attribute is indispensable of the other, really.

So going by the above definition, I understand the generic term 'brahmam/brahman' then means an entity that is all-knowing, full of bliss, benevolent, humble, virtuous, joyous and meritorious that controls one and all, stands as a witness to everything and onto which everything dissolves and arises out of. I come to this conclusion about brahmam from the quoted lines because if nirguna brahmam is really the other side of saguna brahmam, then they share these attributes together!

I would love any corrections on this one.

Namaste Viraja Ji,

I agree.You have put it so well.

devotee
29 March 2015, 05:38 AM
Namaste HLK,

Yes, there is still something to be said about Brahman (Nirguna). Let's see what various scriptures say :

Bhagwad Gita (Chapter 13)

a)

That which is to be known (it is described as 'gyeyam" == which is worth knowing) and by knowing which man attains the immortality is AnAdi i.e. beginning-less (which was never born/created), Prabrahman is said to be neither sat i.e. existing nor asat i.e. non-existing.

So, it is described here as Gyeyam, AnAdi, neither sat nor asat in the above verse.

b) He has his hands and feet, eyes, ears, head and mouth everywhere. He pervades all in this universe.

What does it mean ? He is capable of doing anything anywhere or can feel the touch of anything (as he has hands everywhere), He reaches anywhere (as he feet everywhere, He sees all and everything because He has eyes everywhere, He observes everything and remembers everything as He has head everywhere, He tastes everything and he can devour everything as he has mouth everywhere.

He pervades the universe through and through.

c) He knows all the subjects of sense organs even though He has no sense organs. He is non-attached but supports and nourishes everyone in this world. He is Nirguna and is still the enjoyer of all gunas of nature.

d) He is outside and also inside through and through in all beings. He alone is the Movable (char == which can move) and also Non-movable (achar == which cannot move or jada). He is not knowable due to being extremely subtle. He is the farthest and He also is the nearest.

e) He is undivided (One alone without any division whatsoever) and yet appears as divided (into many) in all beings. That Brahman who is worth knowing is the Origin (BrahmA), Nourisher (Vishnu) and the Destroyer (as Rudra).

So, the above verse makes it clear that Brahman is One without any division and yet appears as divided in all beings. He i.e. That One alone is BrahmA, Vishnu and Rudra.

f) He is the light of all lights and is beyond MAyA. He is the Knowledge, worth knowing and Knowable by Realisation (of Knowledge). He lives in the heart of all beings.

==> light of all lights ===> Light helps us to see. He is the essence of all lights i.e. essence of all perceptions.
===> Beyond MAyA ===> Not deluded by MAyA, not bound by MAyA.

g) He is the Observer/Witness, He is the guide, He is the nourisher/provider/Bhartaa, He is the enjoyer as (jeeva) and He alone is the great lord. Within this body that Purusha alone is the Supreme God.

===> He is the Purusha inside the body. He alone is Jeeva and He is the Supreme God.

h) He who sees the same supreme God in all beings without any differences and sees the Indestructible among all destructibles sees the Reality.

===> Everything in this universe gets destroyed and yet there is One Reality (which exists in everything which gets destroyed) which cannot be destroyed.

i) He who sees only the Prakriti as doer of all actions and sees AtmAn (Brahman in the heart of all beings) as non-doer sees the Reality.

===> Brahman doesn't do anything. Every action is performed by Prakriti.

j) He is beginning-less, He is Nirguna, He is non-destructible ParmAtma, He stays in the body but doesn't do anything and is also not tainted by any actions performed (by the body).

k) As one Sun lights the whole world, in the same way One Kshetri i.e. Brahman lights all the Kshetras.

==? As all places in the world are lighted by One Sun alone, One Brahman lights all the beings i.e. reflects His light in the hearts of all beings.

OM

devotee
29 March 2015, 06:26 AM
Namaste,

We have seen how Bhagwad Gita describes Brahman. Let's see how Upanishads describe Brahman :

SvetAshvatar Upanishad

III.9

Nothing exists as better or worse than This. Nothing exists smaller or bigger than This. It is motionless as a tree, stading alone in glory of its own being, He is the Purusha by which all in this universe is filled.

III.10

That is the cause of Hiranyagrabha, He is without form, beyond sufferings.

III.11 He is the face of all, He is the neck of all, He is the intelligence of all beings, He is all pervasive, He is God, he is the Self of all and He is Shiva/blissful/benign.

III.12

This Great being is all-pervasive, He is all powerful, He inspires the mind to attain the state of purity (Self-knowledge). He is the Supreme Lord, Self-luminous and always unchanging.

III.13

He is as small as the thumb ( as felt in meditation) and yet fills the whole universe. He is the source of knowldeg and he expresses as the various fluctuations of the mind.

III.15

That which is the past, that which is to be in future and that grows by food is the same Purusha.

iv. 2

Brahman is Fire, the Sun, The Air, the moon, the constellation of stars, Hiranyagarbha, water and VirAt.

Iv 3

Brahman is woman, Brahman is Man, He is boy, He is girl. He is the old man walking with the support of stick. You (Brahman) is born in all possible forms.

iv. 4

All the worlds of the universe emerge from Him.

iv.10

Know Prakriti to be MAyA. Also know Maheshwara to be the Lord of MAyA. The whole universe is the body of Maheshwara.

iv 11

The Lord is one without a second. He presides over the source of everything. He sustains the world when it comes into being and again when it perishes it goes back into Him. He controls everything.

iv 18

No one has seen Him above or on the side or in between. He is far beyond and above. There is no way to describe Him. He is what he is.

v 5

He is the first cause. It is ignorance that leads us to be born again and again and He is the cause of that ignorance. He is beyond the past, the present and the future. He is not parts joined together but He is a single whole. He is both the cause and the effect and He is the true object of worship. Meditate on the Lord as your indwelling Self.

There are many verses dedicated to describing Brahman in this Upanishad but there is repetition of what has already been stated in above verses.

OM

Aanandinii
01 April 2015, 03:56 PM
Namaskar Ji,

Devotee-Ji, EM-JI and others have explained so perfectly through scripture and classical reasoning. This is my understanding too, and while I have nothing to add in that context, I would like to add a few, less graceful, thoughts based in modern physics.

Parabrahman, to me in this context, is the foundation upon which time, energy, and matter unfurl. Space, before the vibration of energy. Infinite, indescribable, pristine Being.

Brahman, the creative force, is that first expansion of energy, AUM, and all the vibrations that have come of it.

~Pranam

devotee
01 April 2015, 11:06 PM
Namaste Anandiniiji,



Parabrahman, to me in this context, is the foundation upon which time, energy, and matter unfurl. Space, before the vibration of energy. Infinite, indescribable, pristine Being.
Brahman, the creative force, is that first expansion of energy, AUM, and all the vibrations that have come of it.


That is good "scientific" attempt to describe Brahman. I would like to add two words in your first description : Substratum (foundation) on which Time, Energy, Matter and reflected Consciousness in various beings appear (unfurl). If we use only Time, Energy and matter ... we are not going beyond elements of Prakriti. Purusha provides the reflected consciousness to beings in this world and Purusha is beyond Prakriti.

OM

Aanandinii
02 April 2015, 06:57 AM
Pranam Devotee Ji,

Namaste Anandiniiji,



That is good "scientific" attempt to describe Brahman. I would like to add two words in your first description : Substratum (foundation) on which Time, Energy, Matter and reflected Consciousness in various beings appear (unfurl). If we use only Time, Energy and matter ... we are not going beyond elements of Prakriti. Purusha provides the reflected consciousness to beings in this world and Purusha is beyond Prakriti.

OM
Yes, as you say. I didn't specify because I feel what provides the reflection of consciousness is just another form of energy. However, so is matter, so I should have included Purusha. My thanks for the correction. :)

~Pranam

Sriram257
28 April 2015, 10:04 PM
Namaste Fellow Advaitins

The issue is that we try to say that oh there should be a definition of Brahman, definition is like making it definite. The issue here is that we can only give a Lakshana or a pointer to Brahman, even Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam are only pointers to Brahman. Coming to Saguna and Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman is Mithya and Nirguna Brahman is Satyam. Mithya means something viz dependent upon Satyam. For eg:- We have a clay pot, the Pot is Mithya, it is not an illusion, not is it non existent, it is existent but cannot be called Satyam. Satyam viz the clay remains even though the pot is destroyed. It was there even before the pot came into being. So the pot is Mithya and the clay is Satyam. Similarly the world is Brahman. I will proceed logically to eliminate all objections here,

We understand that the world is substantially Brahman, but what is the cause of this Mithya ? Over here we posit the existence of Ishwara. Maya is the cause of Mithya.

We know that cause is not different from the effect. So if the cause of Mithya is Maya, Maya is also Mithya. Just as clay plus pot is still clay. Satyam plus Mithya is still Satyam.

Brahman plus Maya is Ishwara here. As Maya is Mithya , Maya plus Brahman is still Brahman. Hence Advaita does not get compromised here.

I hope people understood the presentation given above, it is a very logical and rational presentation of Advaita that I have given based on the traditional methodology used by Advaita Acharyas.


Since Brahman is the sum and substance of everything that exists, even the definition given to Brahman , the Brahman will be the sum and substance of that definition. For this reason Brahman cannot be defined. We can only have pointers to Brahman. The Lakshanas or pointers over here cannot be called attributes they are merely pointers. Even word "Nirguna" is only a pointer. Finally even the word "Satyam" is a mere pointer to Brahman. That is why the Upanishad says "Yato vacho nivartante aprapya manasa saha" where words fall back and the mind cannot grasp that is Brahman.

Avyaydya
29 April 2015, 09:01 AM
Namaste all,

I think Advaita or any other philosophy is rather a perspective on Reality than absolute Truth, It only becomes truth to the ones that accept this perspective. Then all the rest becomes logical. People tend to forget that these perspectives have unproven assumptions on which they build. Change the assumptions and the perspective changes. The same goes for science, all sciences (even mathematics ) have a base of unproven assumptions they build on. And again the same goes for logic. There can be made many other systems of mathematics and logic and using them would change our perception of reality and make us find relations that are now hidden from us. we may want to understand the limits of Human thinking.

Understand that if you talk about Brahman you already accepted Brahman to begin with and a certain definition of Brahman. But one can easily live in a perspective without Brahman or a different kind of Brahman and still build a perfect logical structure on that that convinces people it is rational.

Brahman for me rather is an Experience. People who have experienced Brahman know it is the most all encompassing experience they have ever met. It is indeed pure bliss, without any distinction. From there people have started reasoning, taking this experience as a base and calling it Brahman. And others have turned this experience into the goal of existence, hoping they can forever live in this experience of pure happiness. And thus they have started to look down on ordinary experiences calling them feeble and illusionary because they are not a constant bliss.

They even started to call our world "illusionary". But that I see as a misappropriation of Maya, which can better be translated as the world of objects, or the world of changing experiences. They have defined that the experience of Brahman is superior because it is an unchanging experience. They define Absolute = Unchanging. Such definitions are hidden assumptions. One could easily counter that unchanging is like death, and change is like life and life is superior over death.

Also the idea that we left Brahman to be here suggest that we want to be here. And what we strive for is generally a higher state not a lower one. I am not trying to disprove anything, but simply show that there are many other perceptions possible based on different considerations, and indeed present in Hinduism. I do not agree with those that want to create the impression that: Hinduism = believing this world is illusionary. That certainly is the prominent idea in many Hindu traditions but not all. In Tantra this world is considered very real and of prime importance.

Personally I hold to Dharm and do not want to lock my mind in one perspective. I see value in all perspectives. I think personally keeping your mind free of embracing a sole perspective is actually the highest state for the mind. Or as Aristotle put it:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

But others may rightfully say that you lose out a lot of the deeper experience of a perspective if you do not do that. So it is a personal choice and we should respect that rather then trying to disprove each others ideas. All people try to choose what they think makes them the most happy. I think it is like choosing the world (mind landscape you want to live in.

Sriram257
29 April 2015, 10:56 AM
Namaste Avyaydya,

I am not here to argue with you but personally I feel you have a misconception. Advaita does not start with any assumption what so ever. It does not make any assumption, it gives a conclusion viz another matter but it does not start with any assumptions. Also since this thread is posted in an Advaita forum the answer is given from an Advaitic perspective.

You also said some where that only post accepting the perspective it becomes the truth for the person. Not quite, it is only after you have verified it for yourself is when you accept it. If you have not verified Advaita for yourself then you can obviously not accept it.

Also if you are against having perspectives you will not say the following

"They even started to call our world "illusionary". But that I see as a misappropriation of Maya, which can better be translated as the world of objects, or the world of changing experiences. They have defined that the experience of Brahman is superior because it is an unchanging experience. They define Absolute = Unchanging. Such definitions are hidden assumptions. One could easily counter that unchanging is like death, and change is like life and life is superior over death. "

This is your perspective which I totally respect and allow you to have, it is essentially based on certain assumptions or convictions.

1)If you are really interested in finding out truth then you will doubt so absolutely that you will finally come to a place where there is no doubt.

2)If you have absolute faith then you have no room for doubt nor do you have any quarrel with a person who does not agree with you. Since if you have complete faith you have completely surrendered and when any one disagrees with you will not bother as such a faith generally makes you innocent and childlike.

The above 2 statements is generally the observation I have made but not a mere conviction or assumption by me, it is a general observation through which I got a sensible conclusion. If you have some thing which disproves my observation and conclusion I am ready to hear it, since I am open to all sorts of new thoughts and observations. I am not stuck up with my own convictions.

However it seems that you do have quite strong convictions and assumptions from the post. Also no one is asking you to adopt any philosophy, Advaitins generally do not go and attack other beliefs or thought systems. They generally more at home with themselves, they however will only if they are unnecessarily attacked.

Avyaydya
29 April 2015, 01:29 PM
Namaste Avyaydya,

I am not here to argue with you but personally I feel you have a misconception. Advaita does not start with any assumption what so ever. It does not make any assumption, it gives a conclusion viz another matter but it does not start with any assumptions. Also since this thread is posted in an Advaita forum the answer is given from an Advaitic perspective.
Namaste Sriram257,

That is your view and I respect that. Personally I think it suggest that one is not aware of the hidden assumptions of ones perspective. All perspectives begin with assumptions than people start to logically extend them. As logic guarantees the assumptions never contradict with what is derived from it, one easily starts to think the assumptions are proven as well. What one has then created is a self-sustaining rational fabric of thought. One can keep going round in that never finding a contradiction and people mistakenly believe absence of contradiction is proof of absolute Truth. But it is simply a well-knit fabric, one of many. But as they only swim in one, they can not see that. This will happen even more as most people do not develop these fabrics of thought themselves, but swim in those of others. For them there is no beginning or end, because they did not started it, someone else did that.


You also said some where that only post accepting the perspective it becomes the truth for the person. Not quite, it is only after you have verified it for yourself is when you accept it. If you have not verified Advaita for yourself then you can obviously not accept it.
As I see it, the mistake here is to believe that absence of contradictions is proof, and not realizing that many of such rational systems can be made. It is like people who can only envision one Universe, the one they live in, as they never reach the end, though Reality allows for infinite universes even on a totally different basis. And every Universe will be internally consistent.


]Also if you are against having perspectives you will not say the following

"They even started to call our world "illusionary". But that I see as a misappropriation of Maya, which can better be translated as the world of objects, or the world of changing experiences. They have defined that the experience of Brahman is superior because it is an unchanging experience. They define Absolute = Unchanging. Such definitions are hidden assumptions. One could easily counter that unchanging is like death, and change is like life and life is superior over death. "

This is your perspective which I totally respect and allow you to have, it is essentially based on certain assumptions or convictions.
I do not describe advaita here but what I witness people saying adhering to it. It has to be understood that every system also leads to its own misconceptions by people who do not fully understand it as people are bound to not fully understand it. That is a practical consequence that intellectuals refuse to take responsibility for. They will always say the system is perfect but people misunderstand, abuse it. That is the difference between theoretical and practical thinking. Theoretical thinking is very limited and does move outside of self-imposed limitations.


1)If you are really interested in finding out truth then you will doubt so absolutely that you will finally come to a place where there is no doubt.

2)If you have absolute faith then you have no room for doubt nor do you have any quarrel with a person who does not agree with you. Since if you have complete faith you have completely surrendered and when any one disagrees with you will not bother as such a faith generally makes you innocent and childlike.

The above 2 statements is generally the observation I have made but not a mere conviction or assumption by me, it is a general observation through which I got a sensible conclusion. If you have some thing which disproves my observation and conclusion I am ready to hear it, since I am open to all sorts of new thoughts and observations. I am not stuck up with my own convictions.

However it seems that you do have quite strong convictions and assumptions from the post. Also no one is asking you to adopt any philosophy, Advaitins generally do not go and attack other beliefs or thought systems. They generally more at home with themselves, they however will only if they are unnecessarily attacked.
Thank you but I am not interested in finding "truth" as I do not believe such truth exists. The only truth that is absolute for me is the experience itself. Experiencing Brahman is absolute truth, all else is simply conjecture by intellectuals. The idea that Reality, Brahman can be captured in any model of thinking I see as a mistake. The Gita 2:46 says: To a Self-realized person the Vedas are as useful as a small reservoir of water when the water of a huge lake becomes available. (2.46)

My personal opinion: The Jana path can for some be a path to enlightenment. But it is not so that all, or even most, or even many that follow it become enlightened. The enlightenment follows when through a process of neti neti one starts to understand the absolute hopelessness of understanding Brahman, in the same way that Buddha did not become enlightened by his thinking but the utter failure of his thinking, leaving him disillusioned under a tree. In his utter hopelessness his enlightenment was born. To free man from his illusion total desperation is necessary which can only come from failure, not the illusion of truth. The jnana path is a steep path with many casualties along the way. It also creates many people who think they have reached higher consciousness by dressing themselves up with ideas they regard as absolute truth. A slower, less steep and easier path is Bhakti but that requires a different mind set.

I am a practical person deeply connected to Nature, that is why I follow a Dharmic religion, intellectual pursuit I find trivial, that does not however mean l do not have a clear mind. I do not have strong convictions, I have no convictions. Nothing I write should be taken seriously. It is only how I look at it now, my present personal outlook. I constantly try to see things differently, expand the perspectives. As I see it that is the best way to get ahead. Because I question thinking that gets stuck, it is fairly well thought out, people mistake that with convictions. For me it is simply a stepping stone to the next level. That is why I do not have to defend it. I share it so maybe some of it is of value to others, that is all. I absolutely understand it if people find it of no value at all. That is rather to be expected I think.

For me, it is not a matter of me or you being right or wrong, not even of a different perspective, but how we both relate to reality. It is our way of thinking, our mentality that differs. You can not overcome that by reasoning. Reasoning is only of use within an established and agreed on system of thought, like Advaita. But if you take such a perspective as absolute truth than of course everyone who thinks different becomes wrong.

devotee
29 April 2015, 09:01 PM
Namaste Avyadya and all,

May I please make a request that unless you understand a philosophy properly, please don't start giving your verdict with a tone of finality. No one is asking anyone to accept what is offered by Advaita or any other school of Hindu Dharma if one has trouble in accepting its philosophy for any reason whatsoever.

I find your post highly judgmental. If you are interested to share this view, it would have been proper to post your views on some other forums appropriate for such posting. I find that it has become a fashion to come to Advaita forum and starting bashing up Advaita philosophy without having a grip on even basics on Advaita philosophy. It creates even more trouble in controlling passions going wild when you draw a wrong conclusion with a tone of finality ... that is ... your word is the final word and the only word of wisdom. In that process you actually denigrate our Great Teachers of Advaita whom we hold in very high esteem and that hurts us. Can I ask you how much VedAnta you have studied before posting such judgmental views ? You are not even aware that Aparoskha Anubhuti i.e. Direct Perception is one of the essential requirements and the final goal in Advaita. It is only the Advaita path which greatly emphasizes on Direct Perception of the Reality. There may be difficulty in expressing the Reality but ... in Advaita no one says that you should blindly accept whatever is offered as the Ultimate Truth. Our teachers encourage us to go for Direct perception of the Reality which would leave us without any doubt.

Please be considerate to feelings of all who are followers of this path on this forum and accordingly please tone down the language used in your posts so that it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

OM

surrenderindailylife
29 April 2015, 09:10 PM
Namaste All

Hari Om



Namaste all of you..
Share you definition of Brahman or how'd you like to describe it..


To me, HE is the invisible, infinite, all powerful energy whose various manifestations can be experienced by our (limited) senses but who is beyond our (intellectual) understanding.

Om Namah Shivay

Sriram257
29 April 2015, 10:05 PM
Namaste Avyaydya,

If you are not interested in truth no one is asking you to go after it. Even to say that I do not believe that there is such a truth is a perspective is it not. Also all I see are assumptions here for eg you say "Oh non contradiction is not proof" so you have merely assumed that in Advaita only after we see that there is non contradiction we say it is proof ? who told you that ? Is this not your own assumption ?


You were talking about Buddha being exhausted by too much thinking, to be fair none of us were there to know what Buddha went through, but whatever teaching he has given has been interpreted by different schools of thought. Now you have your own strong opinions which I see as assumptions.

You already have very strong conclusions, and you are using those conclusions to bash up another Siddhanta.

Are you not at home with yourself? If you are at home with yourself why do you even need to come and post in this forum viz an Advaita forum.

"My personal opinion: The Jana path can for some be a path to enlightenment. But it is not so that all, or even most, or even many that follow it become enlightened. The enlightenment follows when through a process of neti neti one starts to understand the absolute hopelessness of understanding Brahman, in the same way that Buddha did not become enlightened by his thinking but the utter failure of his thinking, leaving him disillusioned under a tree. In his utter hopelessness his enlightenment was born. To free man from his illusion total desperation is necessary which can only come from failure, not the illusion of truth. The jnana path is a steep path with many casualties along the way. It also creates many people who think they have reached higher consciousness by dressing themselves up with ideas they regard as absolute truth. A slower, less steep and easier path is Bhakti but that requires a different mind set. "
Fine but is this opinion not an assumption ? Is this not a perspective ? You again say "I am a practical person" even saying that is an opinion and an assumption, since practicality is different for different people. For some people only making money is to be practical, for some people just living like a vagabond is practical and so on. So even the term practical is a very relative term which does not seem to have any standard definition.

You can have your opinions, but at this point I would suggest please express them some where else if you believe in some basic courtesy. This is an Advaita forum for Advaitins to comment.

If you want you can even form your own forum to express your opinions but this is not the forum to express your opinions and assumptions.

Good day.

Avyaydya
29 April 2015, 10:10 PM
Namaste Avyadya and all,

May I please make a request that unless you understand a philosophy properly, please don't start giving your verdict with a tone of finality. No one is asking anyone to accept what is offered by Advaita or any other school of Hindu Dharma if one has trouble in accepting its philosophy for any reason whatsoever.
Namaste devotee,

I do not see where I gave a verdict on Advaita (a value assessment), but I accept that it is interpreted that way by you. As my words cause misunderstanding and upset people, it is no longer proper to remain here.

Sriram257
I am interested in truth as experience not conjecture. An opinion is only strong if one believes in it, wants to hold on to it, and holds it up to others as more than a personal truth, I do nothing of the sort, on the contrary. I explained my thinking is only illustrative and must not be seen as reasons to believe in it. Like water thinking takes a flow too.

I simply give a momentary view. At every moment I have a view, but as it is changing, why should I want to defend that as truth? It is my experience that people who believe in absolute truth easily assume that others do the same.

Of course I have assumptions when I express a view, did I not argue that under every view lies an assumption? The difference between me and many others is that I am very aware of the assumptions and that is the very reason I do not see any view as absolute truth, just a personal view.

My mistake was to think that the topic title: YOUR definition of Brahman was an invitation to give a personal view, not realizing an alternate view is is not appreciated in Advaita and easily interpreted as an attack on Advaita. I did not know of this vulnerability, I thought this was an invitation to discuss different views.

My apologies.

Sriram257
29 April 2015, 10:20 PM
Namaste Avyadya,

We are not against alternative view nor are we saying we are right and another person is wrong, that is not the way an Advaitin approaches alternative views.

You seem to have taken only one part of devotee's post, he makes a very big stress on "direct perception". If your path is a matter of direct perception for you then it is good for you. Although you may claim that you never gave a verdict on Advaita, your opinion about Advaita shows that you have a strong conclusion about it.

May be you realise it and are not willing to accept that you have strong opinions and conclusions about the Advaita path or may be in the name of not having perspectives and conclusions you do not realise that you have definite conclusions about the Advaita path.

I can say this since you have not said "I don't know" in any of your posts.

Avyaydya
29 April 2015, 10:48 PM
Namaste Avyadya,

We are not against alternative view nor are we saying we are right and another person is wrong, that is not the way an Advaitin approaches alternative views.

You seem to have taken only one part of devotee's post, he makes a very big stress on "direct perception". If your path is a matter of direct perception for you then it is good for you. Although you may claim that you never gave a verdict on Advaita, your opinion about Advaita shows that you have a strong conclusion about it.

May be you realise it and are not willing to accept that you have strong opinions and conclusions about the Advaita path or may be in the name of not having perspectives and conclusions you do not realise that you have definite conclusions about the Advaita path.

I can say this since you have not said "I don't know" in any of your posts.
Namaste Sriram257,

If one accuses someone and is sincere, one also mentions exactly how and when the other did what he is accused off, allowing the other to defend/explain himself. Leaving that out, thus creating vague accusations, is not fair. On can not defend against a general accusation like: You gave a (negative) verdict on Advaita. However I accept you feel offended and I take responsibility for that.

But to explain myself and take some of the hurt away, to my knowledge I did not express an value assessment on Advaita but rather explained how I see perceptions in general. That is not in anyway a verdict on Advaita in particular, but explaining my line of thinking. A verdict would mean a value assessment, like Advaita is good or no good. I also gave examples how one can counter the reasoning as well, hoping this would underline the relativity of my thought process and stressing that it is a personal view. Sadly, it did not achieve its purposed effect, so I failed.

I now understand it is hurting for you if one person says he does not see Advaita as absolute truth. I will not post in Advaita forum ever again. Personally I am not upset by other people not sharing my views, on the contrary, I like people to share their different views and explaining them. That is because my thinking is inclusive not exclusive. In the same way I can appreciate Advaita in its own right, without having to commit to the idea of its absolute truth..

It is not a new experience that people committed to absolute truth, can nor want to think beyond that truth. I should have realized that. I will leave it at that.

Again my sincere apologies.

devotee
29 April 2015, 10:50 PM
Namaste Avyayda,



I do not see where I gave a verdict on Advaita (a value assessment), but I accept that it is interpreted that way by you. As my words cause misunderstanding and upset people, it is no longer proper to remain here.

You say that you don't give a verdict but by saying this, "not realizing an alternate view is is not appreciated in Advaita and easily interpreted as an attack on Advaita." is a statement with finality and thus it is natural to be interpreted as your verdict. I don't know with how many Advaitins you have discussed but here discussions in various forums would suggest that we are far more accommodating other's views than others.

I had difficulty with your this post :


They even started to call our world "illusionary". But that I see as a misappropriation of Maya, which can better be translated as the world of objects, or the world of changing experiences. They have defined that the experience of Brahman is superior because it is an unchanging experience. They define Absolute = Unchanging. Such definitions are hidden assumptions. One could easily counter that unchanging is like death, and change is like life and life is superior over death.


Also the idea that we left Brahman to be here suggest that we want to be here. And what we strive for is generally a higher state not a lower one. I am not trying to disprove anything, but simply show that there are many other perceptions possible based on different considerations, and indeed present in Hinduism. I do not agree with those that want to create the impression that: Hinduism = believing this world is illusionary. That certainly is the prominent idea in many Hindu traditions but not all. In Tantra this world is considered very real and of prime importance.

We didn't start calling this world as "Illusory" ... this is what the VedAnta says. I can quote from Upanishads and Srimad Bhagwatam if you are interested. Moreover, the Truth that this world is Illusory was not only understood with VedAnta (which was indirect perception) but also experienced directly by the seers. It is not just a matter of assumptions and "beliefs" alone. ... and instead of questioning why we do believe in a thing, you said, "... they even started to call ..." etc. etc.. Certainly these words could have been toned by you.

Anyway, please don't take my post otherwise. I would love to read your posts. However, this forum has seen many acrimonious debates in the past and my effort was to avoid that ... and I have nothing against you in particular.

Sorry, if you felt bad by my post !

OM

Sriram257
29 April 2015, 10:56 PM
Namaste Again,

Question is not about hurting Advaita Siddhanta, it seems devotee was hurt , not me but for me since you are interested in eliminating the absoluteness of all views and assumptions which I actually appreciate, but I see you are caught up with a lot of assumptions and opinions.

If you want to be free from the absoluteness of views you have to leave all assumptions and opinions, it is only after leaving all assumptions is when you come to the space of I don't know. When in this space you do not have any conflict with any one. As long as you have your own opinions and assumptions, you cannot come to the space of I don't know.

You will fall into the trap of the absoluteness of your own views and assumptions.

devotee
29 April 2015, 11:04 PM
No, Sriram, I was not hurt. I was just doing my job as moderator where keeping the discussions within friendly environment is one of my duty.

OM

Avyaydya
29 April 2015, 11:17 PM
Namaste Avyayda,
You say that you don't give a verdict but by saying this, "not realizing an alternate view is is not appreciated in Advaita and easily interpreted as an attack on Advaita." is a statement with finality and thus it is natural to be interpreted as your verdict. I don't know with how many Advaitins you have discussed but here discussions in various forums would suggest that we are far more accommodating other's views than others.
Namaste devotee,

It seems that you will only believe my words are purely meant as limited personal view unless I repeat that after every single sentence, even after I stressed it repeatedly. If you do not want to take that seriously, what is the point of us discussing? I am getting a bit tired of this. I made my apologies, but I can not take away bias.


I had difficulty with your this post :

We didn't start calling this world as "Illusory" ... this is what the VedAnta says. I can quote from Upanishads and Srimad Bhagwatam if you are interested. Moreover, the Truth that this world is Illusory was not only understood with VedAnta (which was indirect perception) but also experienced directly by the seers. It is not just a matter of assumptions and "beliefs" alone. ... and instead of questioning why we do believe in a thing, you said, "... they even started to call ..." etc. etc.. Certainly these words could have been toned by you.
I already explained that and will not do that again. If people do not want to understand, one is powerless.


Anyway, please don't take my post otherwise. I would love to read your posts. However, this forum has seen many acrimonious debates in the past and my effort was to avoid that ... and I have nothing against you in particular.

Sorry, if you felt bad by my post !

OM
No this is definitely my last post in this forum. It is better to avoid future misunderstandings.

Sriram257
29 April 2015, 11:19 PM
Ok got you.

Sriram257
29 April 2015, 11:33 PM
Namaste All,

Avyaydy (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?4669-Avyaydya)a gave a very interesting statement that he or she ( don't know the gender) does not believe in the absoluteness of any view or philosophy. This is very much appreciated, however the posts show statements that Advaita is perspective that is based on certain assumptions. This is definitely a verdict that has been passed on Advaita Siddhanta. Hence I have asked this person to go to the space of I don't know.

As an Advaitin I find nothing wrong in raising objections against Advaita, now saying that Advaita is a mere perspective with certain assumptions is a definite statement made on it and can be taken as a position. However even after questioning as to why this person arrives at this verdict no answer is given.

Again another accusation is made by this person that Advaitins are stuck in the absoluteness of the Advaita philosophical view, which again I see as a verdict on Advaita.

Interestingly even post telling this person that Advaita is not based on any assumption but that it is only known post verification, this person is adamant and makes another statement about non contradiction being taken as a proof in Advaita.

This itself shows that it is very difficult to be without any definite opinion or view, even the Jains and the Buddhists were trying to be free from the absoluteness of views but they again ended up with their own views.

Hence the best way to be free from these views is to just be aware of our ignorance and come to the space of I don't know.

hinduism♥krishna
30 April 2015, 12:09 AM
Hello Avyaydya




Brahman for me rather is an Experience. People who have experienced Brahman know it is the most all encompassing experience they have ever met. It is indeed pure bliss, without any distinction. From there people have started reasoning, taking this experience as a base and calling it Brahman. And others have turned this experience into the goal of existence, hoping they can forever live in this experience of pure happiness. And thus they have started to look down on ordinary experiences calling them feeble and illusionary because they are not a constant bliss.

Brahman is reality. Do you know what's reality? Do you know why there is something or do you know why there is nothing? Do you think all these things (world of matter) are baseless? The world must be illusory is a logic for which no proofs are required. Start with your own body itself. Do you think you are body itself or any part of Body? Are you eyes? Are you Hands? Are you cells? Are you brain? Are you just a composition of chemicals? Tell me who are you? Who am I? This is know as 'Brahma-jidnyasa' and this is a primary thought which is responsible for Moksha. Ordinary experiences are related to body. The happyness we get from them is not only impermanent but also illusory. Why illusory? Because they are relative. Common logic - Relative things must be illusory. Eg. Pigs enjoy sitting in mud, eating ****. But humans won't enjoy sitting in mud, eating ****. So how do you conclude is there happiness in mud or not? it is questionable and can't be answered. The same happiness is like nectar for one and for other like a poison. Sharp-minded people know this truth/logic and so abandon everything except the very existence of oneself.


They even started to call our world "illusionary". But that I see as a misappropriation of Maya, which can better be translated as the world of objects, or the world of changing experiences. They have defined that the experience of Brahman is superior because it is an unchanging experience. They define Absolute = Unchanging. Such definitions are hidden assumptions. One could easily counter that unchanging is like death, and change is like life and life is superior over death.

It is your assumption that absolute is not unchanging. Do you have any basis for your claim that unchanging is not absolute?

It is very simple to understand the thing. Before the creation of world, the state was changeless. The cause must be supreme than effect. So the effect which is world is inferior than the cause (We call it brahman). The cause which is unchanging is supreme than the effect. So it wouldn't be wrong to say unchanging cause is absolute.


Also the idea that we left Brahman to be here suggest that we want to be here. And what we strive for is generally a higher state not a lower one. I am not trying to disprove anything, but simply show that there are many other perceptions possible based on different considerations, and indeed present in Hinduism. I do not agree with those that want to create the impression that: Hinduism = believing this world is illusionary. That certainly is the prominent idea in many Hindu traditions but not all. In Tantra this world is considered very real and of prime importance.

Experiences of Sages, saints must be embraced. Tantra is not Vedanta.


Personally I hold to Dharm and do not want to lock my mind in one perspective. I see value in all perspectives. I think personally keeping your mind free of embracing a sole perspective is actually the highest state for the mind.
Such mind is incapable of knowing truth. Because such mind can not be fixed at one goal and so the goal is always out of reach with lots of confusions.

Avyaydya
30 April 2015, 07:28 AM
Namaste All,

Avyaydya gave a very interesting statement that he or she ( don't know the gender) does not believe in the absoluteness of any view or philosophy. This is very much appreciated, however the posts show statements that Advaita is perspective that is based on certain assumptions. This is definitely a verdict that has been passed on Advaita Siddhanta. Hence I have asked this person to go to the space of I don't know.
Namaste Sriram257,

I am able to entertain your view, but the opposite seems hard for you, because as I see it your understanding is locked in your own (Advaita) view. Otherwise you would by now have understood Advaita is a perspective based on assumptions TO ME. Not to you, not to what Advaita claims about itself, but to ME. No matter how many times I repeat that, it never seems to fully register that my words are not truths that go beyond a personal view. You insist on interpreting it as a verdict. In my view that is a logical consequence of embracing an absolute truth, it does not allow for relativity of the view and thus one also finds it hard to see other views as anything but wrong or ignorance. I do not see other views as wrong or ignorance, but simply other views based on different tenets. But when one believes one's own view does not have tenets, one can no longer equally respect other views, as one takes one's own view as the elevated view. Elevated above others one automatically sees other views not agreeing on ones elevated position as an attack. As there are more views that take this elevated position, this then easily becomes a source of disrespect.

The discussion here is titled "YOUR view on Brahman" and that is exactly what I did, I gave my view understanding it as an invitation to give my view, as I did not consider it as an invitation to discus the many views on Brahman in Advaita as I am not aware they have more than one. But now that I understand that actually giving another personal view, creates so much defensive reactions. I understand Advaita does not leave room to examine the deeper tenets of thinking as they are considered non-existent and one expects to comply with Advaita thinking first and only then discuss. I personally think that is at odds with any discussion about Brahman, because I see Brahman as more fundamental than a philosophy about Brahman. It gives me the impression that In Advaita Brahman rather grows out Advaita, than the other way round.


As an Advaitin I find nothing wrong in raising objections against Advaita, now saying that Advaita is a mere perspective with certain assumptions is a definite statement made on it and can be taken as a position. However even after questioning as to why this person arrives at this verdict no answer is given.
I respect your opinion, I would myself frame it differently. The answer that I gave did not make sense to you. As we have no unlimited understanding, we should not use our lack of understanding as definite proof. You could have asked for further explanation, but you rather explain it as a shortcoming of me. In my personal world view that is a fallacy that comes from the idea one holds a superior understanding of reality. And as I understand it now (thanks to you), this belongs to the tenets Advaita. To me this comes across like: We advaitins believe we hold a superior view and thus our view is superior. This indeed has no beginning and no end. You might be interested to know the bible uses the same circular reasoning, declaring itself absolute truth. That is taken as a starting point of every discussion. I find that problematic.


Again another accusation is made by this person that Advaitins are stuck in the absoluteness of the Advaita philosophical view, which again I see as a verdict on Advaita.
With "this person" you mean me? I am no longer worthy of being mentioned by name? Does your awareness encompass how most people experience that? I see several possibilities. 1: You do and want to hurt me by belittling me. 2: You do not have this awareness. 3: your words are an ill-controlled emotional outburst. 4: one that may ore may not be explained by you. Luckily I am fairly impervious to disrespect of any kind. Whatever people want to say about me, I accept it as their prerogative, I am sorry to have provoked this reaction with you.

By the way I already made the distinction between what I hear/understand Advaitins say and what Advaita is.


Interestingly even post telling this person that Advaita is not based on any assumption but that it is only known post verification, this person is adamant and makes another statement about non contradiction being taken as a proof in Advaita.
Still the same "this person"? It is like talking about someone in a room but pretending he is not there. He is a thing. Does this kind of detachment come with Advaita? I am treated as an illusion, not really being there? How interesting! Let me assure you you are very real to me and I fully experience your presence.


This itself shows that it is very difficult to be without any definite opinion or view, even the Jains and the Buddhists were trying to be free from the absoluteness of views but they again ended up with their own views.
I would counter that it is difficult to be without opinion, I do not see you have proven the opinion has to be definite. I welcome you to change my mind.


Hence the best way to be free from these views is to just be aware of our ignorance and come to the space of I don't know.
Here we meet a contradiction in terminis. If we are fully aware of ignorance we are no longer ignorant, but then we are aware of something that no longer exists. In my world view believing in a definite view is the actual ignorance. That does not mean however this an easy state to achieve as our mind has a natural tendency to embrace ideas and turn them in convictions. It needs constant questioning of ones own ideas. I personally believe there is more value in questioning fixed ideas than embracing them. Questioning is however not the same as refuting or denying, I only question their absoluteness not their intrinsic vakue. I accept that all views have an intrinsic value and can be internally consistent, and should be respected as such. However to be able to hold high more than one view, one tries to stay free from accepting one as more than a stepping stone to others. One acts as mother that loves all her children and does not engage in favoritism.

Thus this person says from present personal view.

By the way, if you feel personally addressed, that is by objective, I always recognize the presence of people I am with. I think that is courtesy. If you understood me leaving this forum as no longer reading your posts, and thus being not present, I find that hard to believe from an intelligent person. A civil reaction in my view would have been to go on with discussion and leave it at that. But as you seem to want to give a reaction "over my head" to others in which you declare the shortcomings of my ideas, I am happy to explain it once more, so at least hopefully others may understand.

Sriram257. I guess we will never agree, but I hope we understand each other better now. It was surely illuminating to read your views.

Sriram257
30 April 2015, 08:18 AM
Namaste Avyaydya,

It appears that I have upset you a little bit, but I was under the impression that you would not comment on this thread.

Following is what you said

"I am able to entertain your view, but the opposite seems hard for you, because as I see it your understanding is locked in your own (Advaita) view. Otherwise you would by now have understood Advaita is a perspective based on assumptions TO ME"

Fine so according to you since I am supposedly locked in my own Advaita view, I cannot see assumptions that have been made and are unproven.

Now if you personally feel that there are assumptions in Advaita , enlighten me what those views are.

As stated before Advaita is not based on any assumptions what so ever, it is something that has to be verified. Once you know something post verification it is by definition knowledge not a fixed perspective or view.

If you do not want to be in fixed views that is fine, but saying that "I" am "locked" in "my own Advaita view" shows the height of arrogance which means you believe your assumption that I am locked in an Advaita view as a fact. You have not even entertained even a bit of doubt that you may be wrong. Instead you firmly believe that what you say is true. This is definitely a fixed view so you are stuck in your own fixed view which you are unwilling to accept.

Also the below statement made by you I find it absolutely ridiculous

"Here we meet a contradiction in terminis. If we are fully aware of ignorance we are no longer ignorant, but then we are aware of something that no longer exists. In my world view believing in a definite view is the actual ignorance. That does not mean however this an easy state to achieve as our mind has a natural tendency to embrace ideas and turn them in convictions. It needs constant questioning of ones own ideas. I personally believe there is more value in questioning fixed ideas than embracing them. Questioning is however not the same as refuting or denying, I only question their absoluteness not their intrinsic vakue. I accept that all views have an intrinsic value and can be internally consistent, and should be respected as such. However to be able to hold high more than one view, one tries to stay free from accepting one as more than a stepping stone to others. One acts as mother that loves all her children and does not engage in favoritism."

When you are ignorant you say you do not know, knowing your ignorance does not take it away, when you say my view it is by definition your assumption. Ignorance is ignorance there is no opinion on it. I am ignorant of something that is all, I have an opinion on my own ignorance is pure nonsense nothing more.

_Ash
02 May 2015, 05:26 AM
Namaste :)

I would define Brahman as "Innocence", for it is the purest state of Being.