PDA

View Full Version : Is Brahman material?



mithya
02 April 2009, 01:47 AM
Hi!

I am not challenging anyone, I am genuinely curious about this. Is there any evidence in the scriptures to suggest otherwise? Words like 'divya,' 'avyaya,' are used to describe Brahman, but that isn't proof that Brahman isn't a material object. For instance, let's consider the body and mind. The body is matter, gross matter that can be seen, touched etc. Mind, on the other hand, is more subtle, and it cannot be touched, smelled, tasted etc. So in a way, it's superior to the body, one might even call it 'Transcendent' with respect to the body, relative to gross matter. But that doesn't change the fact that Hinduism considers mind to be a material object.

Likewise, would it be reasonable to assume that Brahman is also a material object, though superior to body, mind, and all the rest? What I am saying is: Brahman may be the finest and highest form of matter, but it's matter nevertheless. So why do we have to posit a spiritual reality at all? Would it not be more logical to accept that everything is material, with Brahman being the highest, the very substratum, and get it over with? Why the word 'spiritual' to describe any of this? Besides, there's no such word in the scripture either.

atanu
02 April 2009, 02:46 AM
Hi!

I am not challenging anyone, I am genuinely curious about this. Is there any evidence in the scriptures to suggest otherwise? Words like 'divya,' 'avyaya,' are used to describe Brahman, but that isn't proof that Brahman isn't a material object. For instance, let's consider the body and mind. The body is matter, gross matter that can be seen, touched etc. Mind, on the other hand, is more subtle, and it cannot be touched, smelled, tasted etc. So in a way, it's superior to the body, one might even call it 'Transcendent' with respect to the body, relative to gross matter. But that doesn't change the fact that Hinduism considers mind to be a material object.

Likewise, would it be reasonable to assume that Brahman is also a material object, though superior to body, mind, and all the rest? What I am saying is: Brahman may be the finest and highest form of matter, but it's matter nevertheless. So why do we have to posit a spiritual reality at all? Would it not be more logical to accept that everything is material, with Brahman being the highest, the very substratum, and get it over with? Why the word 'spiritual' to describe any of this? Besides, there's no such word in the scripture either.


Dear Mithya,

Your question is valid. The difference between material and subtle is entirely in the domain of senses. For example, if there was no tongue, one would not know any difference in taste. Similarly, if there was no sense of touch associated with skin, then we would be infinite.

As we know that the Mind and the Senses are products of Atman/Brahman, the differences are also in the realm of the product and not fundamental.

Brahman thus can be described as the only matter that IS.

Om

yajvan
02 April 2009, 11:16 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~


Dear Mithya,

Your question is valid. The difference between material and subtle is entirely in the domain of senses. Brahman thus can be described as the only matter that IS. Om

Namasté atanu, mithya (et.al)
If I may join the conversation and extend the idea, another quality of Brahman is bhūma. This is completely in concert with atanu's words he offers. The sum total of all is Brahman, seen and unseen, time and timeless, past , present or future. This bhūma represents or is the name of this grand-total fullness, both the relative field and absolute field of existence.

If we go to the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (chapter 7) and the great student Nārada asks his teacher/guru: What is this bhūma? What is this Fullness?

"Do you want to know what Completeness is? And do you want to know what finitude is? Here is the definition," says Sanatkumāra [ the ṛṣi of the vidyā] . "Where one sees nothing except one's own Self, where one hears nothing except one's own Self, where one understands nothing except one's own Self, that is bhūma ; and where one sees something outside of oneself, where one hears something outside oneself, where one understands or thinks something outside oneself, that is the finite ( or alpa - small , minute , trifling , little)."

… and where can it be found?

"O my dear Nārada, your question itself is unfounded and unwarranted. Why do you ask where It is, as if It is in space? But if you want me to tell you where It is, I say It is in space, It is in every nook and corner, in every pinpoint of space. There is no space where It is not; there is no space which It does not occupy."

praṇām

saidevo
02 April 2009, 12:21 PM
'bhUma' is a unique epithet for Brahman, like 'pUrNa' is. 'bhUma' as fullness is different from 'bhUta', a discrete element. Agnideva has two nice quotes on 'bhUma' in HDF here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=969&page=4 (posts 31 and 32).

'bhUma' is fullness, but is this fullness material? Or energetic? Or spiritual? I think the sense of fullness is one of complete 'fill-in' implying a feeling of spiritual lightness rather than material heaviness.

Can we say that 'bhUma' as 'sat' is more materialistic than as 'chit' which is itself more materialistic than 'Ananda'? When the Jiva becomes 'enlightened' of its unity with AtmA, is the undifferentiated light perceived in that stage materialistic? Energetic? Spiritual?

Perhaps perceptions of Brahman being 'bhUma' that is material, energetic or spiritual depends on the level one's awareness in the states of waking, deep sleep and turIya states.

yajvan
02 April 2009, 05:12 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Mithya writes,


Is there any evidence in the scriptures to suggest otherwise? Words like 'divya,' 'avyaya,' are used to describe Brahman, but that isn't proof that Brahman isn't a material object.

I think how I would ask, is there evidence that suggests that Brahman isn't everything in total… this does not infer your question is less valid
it is just my frame of reference. To separate material from spiritual is fine, yet for me, the greatness of Brahman is expressed in this
fullness , bhūma (sākalya¹) from my previous post, and the insights Saidevo offers.


So, there are many places to look for this kind of wisdom, but let me offer two. I look to the sage yājñavalkya, in the Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Maitreyī Brāhmaṇa, 7th śloka, he says (to Maitreyī):

This brāhmaṇa ( source of knowledge) this kṣatriya (source of power) all these worlds (lokaḥ or levels of creation) these gods (devaḥ), these veda-s, these beings, all this is ātma ( Brahman, paramātman).

He is talking to Maitreyī and informs her all that is seen ( the worlds or material creation) and that which we do not see (devaḥ), knowledge, power, etc. all this is none other then ātman (Brahman).
Hence both material and non-material are offered in this śloka. This is not the only place this is reviewed in the Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad, but will leave that to one's reading.

Now we have the conundrum of all these devatā that yājñavalkya alludes to. We can go to the Sākalya¹ Brāhmaṇa where the sage yājñavalkya is asked, 'how many gods are there? '. He expains there are three and three hundred and three and three thousand (or 3306).

Without belaboring the point - he is asked again and again of these devatā and with each answer he explains the count, the devatā, etc. ( they go to 33 devatā, then to 3 , then to 1 1/2, and finally ...) until he is asked by Sākalya, 'Which is the one God?' Yājñavalkya-ji responds 'That is Brahman'.

So, all the expressions of manifestation are brought about by all the forces, impulses of energy and spirit found in this universe. We know many of the devatā are involved in this expansion and expression of creation.

Yet some may think ( this is why I offered this part) , which one is Brahman? To that we get additional support from the ṛg veda I.164.46, and ṛṣi dīrghatamas.

He informs us:
indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān |
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ ||
The key words here are ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā

ekaṃ = eka = one, single
sad = sat सत् = that which really is , entity or existence , essence , the true being or really existent; in vedānta this is the self-existent or Supreme, Brahman
viprā = vipra विप्र- a ṛṣi, sage, a brahmin ( the knowers of Truth)
bahudhā बहुधा-variously; in many ways or parts or forms or directions , manifoldly
divyaḥ = divya दिव्य divine , heavenly , celestial , the divine beings; deva-sHence this says, Truth (sad - existence , essence, Brahman) is One ( ekaṃ ), the sages (vipra - ṛṣi-s) call it variously (bahudhā).

He mentions the 'divyaḥ' as indra, mitra, varuṇa, agni, etc. that these are some of the names the ṛṣi may use to describle the Supreme i.e. He is known by various (bahudhā) names and forms.


praṇām


words
sākalya साकल्य - totality , completeness , entireness

saidevo
02 April 2009, 10:54 PM
Here is a tip from RamaNa Maharshi on the nature of Brahman:

Talk 613.
A young man asked: “Are thoughts mere matter?”

M.: What do you mean? Do you mean ‘matter’ like the things you see around you?
D.: Yes - gross.

M.: Who asks this question? Who is the thinker?
D.: The thinker is spirit.

M.: Do you then mean that spirit generates matter?
D.: I want to know.

M.: How do you distinguish between matter and spirit?
D.: Spirit is consciousness and the other not.

M.: Can consciousness generate non-consciousness, or light darkness?

mithya
03 April 2009, 03:02 AM
Thanks for your efforts, but no one has bothered reading the OP, or there wouldn't be so much digression. Let me simplify what I am saying. I agree that everything is Brahman, and Brahman is everything. That's not the issue at all. My question is simply this: what's this everything we're talking about here?

To me, it's all matter, nothing but. I see no evidence, either empirically or in scriptures, to suggest otherwise. So I am wondering whether matter is all there is, and therefore Brahman = Matter, upon which we can do away with the very concept of spirit.

devotee
03 April 2009, 08:45 AM
Namaste Mithya,

IMO, the answer is already given. However, to understand this issue, we must be clear about what we understand by the term, "material".

What is your definition of "material" ?

OM

saidevo
03 April 2009, 09:19 AM
Namaste Mithya.

I should like to know where in the Vedas or Upanishads, it is posited that Brahman is of material nature.

On the other hand, the 'mahAvAkyas' proclaim explictly about Brahman:

• 'prajnAnam brahma'--Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda:
"Brahman is consciousness."--is consciousness materiality?

• 'ayam AtmA brahma'--Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda
"This Self (Atma) is Brahman."--is Atman materiality?

• 'tat tvam asi'--Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda
"That thou art."--Although 'tat' is commonly translated as 'That', in Sanskrit it means the same as 'tan': "spread, extended, covered over." Can matter in discrete particles (gross or subtle) cover over the entire universe of creation without leaving 'space' in between?

• 'aham brahmAsmi'--Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda
"I am Brahman"--is the 'I' materiality?

• 'sarvam khalv idam brahma'--Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1
"All this that we see in the world is Brahman."--If everything we see in the world is materiality, what about consciousness which drives the matter into action? Can matter drive another matter into action without a force to act on them?

Let us approach the subject on the lines of your OP:

• Matter is digital, discrete, atomic. Two atomic particles of matter cannot exist on another underlying layer of matter for this very reason, because that would leave intervening space! So they need space to exist on. Physical science today admits that space is not empty but infinite energy field on which matter sits. In other words, the wave-particle theory states that matter is only a temporary crystalization of energy.

• If gross matter exists in outer space (AkAsha), subtle matter exists in the inner space (chitAkAsha). Subtle matter, again, is digital, discrete, atomic, temporarily shaped by subtle forms of energy--our thoughts and emotions for example.

• If Brahman is the subtlest form of matter and the world of animate and inanimate beings with their gross and subtle grades of matter are accumulations over Brahman formed by Brahman's 'desire to multiply' as the Vedas say--in other words Brahman's mind--, this would mean that Brahman's mind would be of matter that is even more subtler than Brahman itself, and this contradicts the statement that Brahman is the subtlest form of matter.

• If a man is just a conglomeration of gross and subtle matter, what happens when he dies? When he sleeps? When he dreams? What is it in him that knows 'I am awake', 'I am dreaming', 'I am dying'? How can one form of matter be 'aware' of another unless they are connected by interactive force lines of energy?

Every which way one tries to postulate that Brahman is materiality, all of it becomes porous, indicating that Brahman as Consciousness cannot be material. It is this Consciousness that we call AtmA, Atman, Brahman, Soul, Spirit, even Jiva.

yajvan
03 April 2009, 10:04 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


IMHO the answer has been given multiple times... Yet many of the posters took the time to look at it from multiple angles.

Why so? there are multiple types of people that read these posts and one size does not fit all.
This is why the Upaniṣads and other āgama-s are of such value. They allow multiple views of the One.

you mention

I agree that everything is Brahman, and Brahman is everything. That's not the issue at all. My question is simply this: what's this everything we're talking about here?

To me, it's all matter, nothing but. I see no evidence, either empirically or in scriptures, to suggest otherwise

What you 'see' is matter - of this there is no doubt. But what 'tool' are you cognizing, comprehending with? Consciousness ? Awareness perhaps? This is the 'other part' of Brahman - you see , smell, touch the universe , that is Brahman, yet with what facility? Consciousness or consciousness applied = awareness.
This Pure awareness that is at the base of all cognition , this too is Brahman. He is the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear as the Upaniṣads point out.

So, you may taste, touch , smell, but have you turned your awareness inward to experience pure Being? This is NOT material in nature, it cannot be weighed, sniffed, touched with the senses, yet it pervades everything in creation.

that is why Sanatkumāra offered the following:

… and where can it be found?

"O my dear Nārada, your question itself is unfounded and unwarranted. Why do you ask where It is, as if It is in space? But if you want me to tell you where It is, I say It is in space, It is in every nook and corner, in every pinpoint of space. There is no space where It is not; there is no space which It does not occupy."

Many times the wise use pure space (akaṣa), not air (vayu) or wind, but pure space as an example of Brahman - it is everywhere, it provides the space for things to exist in, yet it is without taste, smell, you cannot manipulate it, etc. It meets the 'non-material' definition. Yet without it there is no room for anything material to exist.
Even if you look into matter, it too is filled with space. Scientists say at the atomic levels its about 90% space.

Like that, Brahman provides existence to occur, It is no different from it (sat). Is this Brahman only 'sat'? Nope, but we will leave it here for now.


So, Mithya, many heard your question, perhaps we answered it too well?

praṇām

mithya
04 April 2009, 02:14 AM
I can't answer everyone individually, so I'll simply state the important points.

Brain is the center of consciousness, and because brain is matter, consciousness must be a material process (1). Someone said Brahman is described as consciousness in the scriptures (2). From (1) and (2), you conclude that Brahman is matter.

Unless scriptures have mentioned somewhere that there's something beyond chit - have they? - we have to accept that Brahman is matter (because what we call chit or consciousness is matter, since it emanates from the brain).

saidevo
04 April 2009, 03:23 AM
I think ego must also be materiality in view of its persistent refusal to think rationally, if not scripturally or spiritually.

"Brain is the center of consciousness, and because brain is matter, consciousness must be a material process "

This is the naivest statement I have come across even in a science forum. Since Brahman is consciousness, if the brain dies on the death of the physical body, Brahman too dies with it, fine!

yajvan
04 April 2009, 06:49 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


I think ego must also be materiality in view of its persistent refusal to think rationally, if not scripturally or spiritually.

"Brain is the center of consciousness, and because brain is matter, consciousness must be a material process "

This is the naivest statement I have come across even in a science forum. Since Brahman is consciousness, if the brain dies on the death of the physical body, Brahman too dies with it, fine!

It is such a simple thing, a delicate thing, and IT is missed. This is why throughout the ages this fullness of Being is missed again and again.

To think Brahman is dependent on anything is mohaš. Brahman is svatantra स्वतन्त्र - completely independent, self-willed.

To think that a brain is needed for consciousness to exist, is suggesting that if there were no humans, then there is no ability for Brahman to exist. We in human form on this earth have not been here since day 1, yet the cosmos has done just fine without us.


As I see it the conversation about Brahman that is academic is fine, but if one does not touch the expression of Brahman within ones own being, the conversation is fruitless. Its as if the baker wishes to inform others on how to bake bread yet has never actually eaten a slice himself.

praṇām

words
moha or this delusion is not so much what you don't know, but of what you do know that is wrong or incomplete.

mithya
04 April 2009, 11:08 AM
This is the naivest statement I have come across even in a science forum. Since Brahman is consciousness, if the brain dies on the death of the physical body, Brahman too dies with it, fine!

Which means there's no such thing as Brahman as a permanent, spiritual entity. This is perhaps why Buddhists reject the notion of the self, stating that what we call self is simply a unit of consciousness that 'comes and goes' with the brain, lacking any sense of permanence whatsoever.

devotee
05 April 2009, 04:13 AM
Which means there's no such thing as Brahman as a permanent, spiritual entity. This is perhaps why Buddhists reject the notion of the self, stating that what we call self is simply a unit of consciousness that 'comes and goes' with the brain, lacking any sense of permanence whatsoever.

Namaste Mithya,

I cannot say why you didn't give your definition of "Material". However, unless you resolve in your mind, what you understand by "material" & "not-material", it would be difficult to understand the answer correctly.

Material or not-material are concepts within your mental realms. The Brahman is neither material nor non-material. However, it "appears" both as material & also non-material within mental realm. It is beyond any concept that you can have because all your concepts will be within mental realm.

There exists nothing except the Brahman.

So, the Stone, the River, the air, the earth, all animals, plants etc. are nothing but Brahman seen as stone, river & the air.

Similarly, sound, light, heat, electricity etc. are also nothing but Brahman apparently seen differently within mental realm

The thoughts, the emotions, dreams, space are also Brahman apparently seen differently within mental realm.

---------------------------

You appear to assume that what is not-material, doesn't exist. Do thoughts, emotions, dreams, space exist ? If yes, are they material or not-material ?

Buddhist theory of no-self is most misunderstood. If you are interested, we can deal with this issue later on.

OM

rkpande
30 July 2009, 07:57 AM
dear fellow hdfins,

i have been following this thread very curiously, being new to this forum, i was apprehensive to join in with all you learned commentators. i find the arguments very athoritative and full of wisdom.
the point raised is very valid and fundamental, so far it been seen in terms of sprituality.can we see some scientific views also.
people have quoted chandogya up, 'there is no space which Bhuma does not occupy.
physicist found that the density of all material visible or invisible in the universe accounts for only about 30%, the rest 70% have been accounted for by dark material and dark energy, and they are all gropping themself in dark about this dark matter.
THIS DARK MATTER ALSO PREVADES THE WHOLE UNIVERSE< is this Bhuma.
The special theory says all matter is energy{ E=m*csquared }. so even if God is matter; IT is also energy.
Swami Vivekananda says that at the time of pralaya every thing is converted in to akasha and prana which keeps lying dormant till next cycle when akasha converts to all range of material and prana in all forms of energy.
conseousness may also be either energy or material. we now know that all material is nothing but energy.
so IT may be either energy or material, either way its the same.

HARI OHM