Can Brahman ever be experienced?

[mithya]

Namaste:)

Brahman can never be experienced, because it's the experiencer. So through what instrument can the experiencer be experienced? If there's another instrument, then that instrument would be greater than Brahman (which is impossible, as there's nothing greater Brahman). Therefore, Brahman can never be an object of experience. The eye can see everything except itself. Same goes for Brahman.

That's why sages say every experience, no matter how sublime, must be negated as an illusion. That which can never be experienced (and yet exists) is Brahman.

Share your thoughts on this.

Mithya

[atanu]

Namaste Mithya

Deception is always self-deception only. And it leads the untruthful to infinite regression of deception here and hereafter. Do not be too smart.

Shankara worshipped and taught us to worship Saguna Brahman. Since, truly God is beyond senses, it is essential to worship all His effects. Can you love your beloved, if you did not know who it was, how she looked?

As per Islam, no other than Allah should be worshipped. At the same time Allah cannot be experienced, since Allah is the experiencer. How do Muslims then worship Allah? And why do they revere Muhammad, a mere form? Can you spit on a picture of a sage? How Muslims have a picture of crescent Moon? Prophet Muhammad used to touch and kiss the kAba stone. Nowadays, to show difference and egoistic superiority, muslims deny that.

We worship water, the source of life as body of Brahman. We worship Agni, sustainer of life as body of Brahman. Similarly, we worship every being as His manifestation alone, never forgetting that Brahman-God is transendental to senses, mind and words. We worship the Universe as His body, as divine Purusha, knowing well that it is the ungraspable and indescribable Spirit that is the root and the truth. But being imperceptible to mind and senses the Spirit cannot be directly worshipped. Can you love your beloved, if you did not know who it was, how she looked?

I think such people revere and worship their own mental apparitions only, since truly God is beyond senses.

How Muslims worship Allah, I do not know. But it is foolish not to worship the effect of God that is evident everywhere and in all beings in the form of life, intelligence, and love.

Some apply half baked knowledge to insist that Advaita and Islam are same as both believe in formless God. Far from truth. The so-called advaita of common muslims is just Dvaita with added hatred and violence. The understanding of Brahman as formless and the Man and Universe as different, is Dvaita and not Advaita. Additionally, eating bad food causes Dvaita faith of such believers to degenerate into hatred of other human beings, leading to nothing but terrorism.

Om Namah Shivaya

I do not expect your bigotry to change. This is only for record.

[atanu]

Namaste:)

That's why sages say every experience, no matter how sublime, must be negated as an illusion. Mithya

So, Koran is illusion. Bible is illusion. Your very above words are illusion. You, a mere form, is an illusion.

Om

[raghu_001]

Namaste:)

Brahman can never be experienced, because it's the experiencer. So through what instrument can the experiencer be experienced? If there's another instrument, then that instrument would be greater than Brahman (which is impossible, as there's nothing greater Brahman). Therefore, Brahman can never be an object of experience. The eye can see everything except itself. Same goes for Brahman.

That's why sages say every experience, no matter how sublime, must be negated as an illusion. That which can never be experienced (and yet exists) is Brahman.

Share your thoughts on this.

Mithya

If Brahman could never be experienced, then what would be the point of any religious sadhana? The only logical conclusion of this idea is that it is better to simply enjoy the senses rather than endeavor after trying to know Brahman.

It is more correct to say that one cannot fully understand and know Brahman. But one can know Brahman to the extent of one's understanding. Hence, the reason we have shastras. Otherwise there is no points of shastras.

[atanu]

If Brahman could never be experienced, then what would be the point of any religious sadhana? The only logical conclusion of this idea is that it is better to simply enjoy the senses rather than endeavor after trying to know Brahman.

It is more correct to say that one cannot fully understand and know Brahman. But one can know Brahman to the extent of one's understanding. Hence, the reason we have shastras. Otherwise there is no points of shastras.


Namaste raghu,

I agree. Brahman is said to be the object of knowledge and the knowledge.

Om

[saidevo]

Namaste.

For practical purposes, Mithya's statements need to be modified as follows:

• "Brahman can never be experienced, because it's the experiencer."

But Brahman experiences itself through its projected creation which is the world and the jIvas, much like an author of a novel experiences the characters and the world created in the novel. The difference between the jIvas and fictional characters is that the fictional characters never know or care about their author, whereas most jIvas try and care to know about their Creator. As with the novel, there are eccentrics among the jIvas though.

• "So through what instrument can the experiencer be experienced? If there's another instrument, then that instrument would be greater than Brahman (which is impossible, as there's nothing greater Brahman)."

Upanishads say that Brahman created the world because of its sattvic desire to know more about itself and so it multiplied. In that process Brahman created the universal instruments 'mahat' (intelligence) and 'manas' (mind) and entrusted the jIvas projected out of itself with them. Thus the instruments Brahman created are not bigger than it, just as our biggest thought can never be bigger than us.

• "Therefore, Brahman can never be an object of experience. The eye can see everything except itself. Same goes for Brahman."

As Atanu and Raghu have explained, Brahman is the object of knowledge and the knowledge for the jIvas who know him only partially. The 'eye' of Brahman does not have anything external that is other than itself to 'see'. So it is always focussed inwards, and there it 'sees' different layers of worlds projected over the substratum with jIvas in varying degrees of spiritual advancement.

[mithya]

If Brahman could never be experienced, then what would be the point of any religious sadhana? The only logical conclusion of this idea is that it is better to simply enjoy the senses rather than endeavor after trying to know Brahman.

It is more correct to say that one cannot fully understand and know Brahman. But one can know Brahman to the extent of one's understanding. Hence, the reason we have shastras. Otherwise there is no points of shastras.

That means Brahman and jiva are distinct. Would that be a correct conclusion?

[simex]

I would argue that Brahman is the only thing which can ever be experienced. The universe is a misapprehension of Brahman. But even a misapprehension is an apprehension of sorts.

If you went to a horse race, but you thought you had gone to a bull fight, you still experienced the horse race. No?

[raghu_001]

That means Brahman and jiva are distinct. Would that be a correct conclusion?


If Brahman and the jiva were the same, then who/what is the subject of right knowledge and who/what experiences/perceives that subject?

[atanu]

If Brahman and the jiva were the same, then who/what is the subject of right knowledge and who/what experiences/perceives that subject?

Namaste Raghu,

Can you first tell us as to who is asking above questions?

Om

[raghu_001]

Namaste Raghu,

Can you first tell us as to who is asking above questions?

Om

The fact that it is the jivatman who enquires about Brahman is consistent with the idea that they are distinct entities - one the object of knowledge and the other the seeker after such knowledge.

If jivatman and Brahman are the same, then how does jivatman/Brahman get into ignorance about itself? This makes avidya superior to Brahman. Furthermore, who enquires and what is that which is to be enquired about? Brahman would be both - which is not logical.

[mithya]

The fact that it is the jivatman who enquires about Brahman is consistent with the idea that they are distinct entities - one the object of knowledge and the other the seeker after such knowledge.

If jivatman and Brahman are the same, then how does jivatman/Brahman get into ignorance about itself? This makes avidya superior to Brahman. Furthermore, who enquires and what is that which is to be enquired about? Brahman would be both - which is not logical.

Brahman is jiva, but jiva is not Brahman. That way, one can ascribe ignorance to jiva without ascribing it to Brahman.

[raghu_001]

Brahman is jiva, but jiva is not Brahman. That way, one can ascribe ignorance to jiva without ascribing it to Brahman.


Mithya,

The symmetric property of equality states that if a = b, then b = a.

Surely you can appreciate how the supposition you have made above makes no sense.

regards,

Raghu

[atanu]

The fact that it is the jivatman who enquires about Brahman is consistent with the idea that they are distinct entities - one the object of knowledge and the other the seeker after such knowledge.

If jivatman and Brahman are the same, then how does jivatman/Brahman get into ignorance about itself? This makes avidya superior to Brahman. Furthermore, who enquires and what is that which is to be enquired about? Brahman would be both - which is not logical.


Namaste Raghu,

I asked you "Who is asking all these questions?" And you have not answered that. If you answer then only we can proceed.

Om

[atanu]

Namaste:)

Brahman can never be experienced, because it's the experiencer.

Namaste,

Brahman is not the object of knowledge for the senses, words, or the mind, since it is the subject which has the mind/sense/words. But still scripture says that Brahman is the object of knowledge and also the knowledge (light of all lights). Thus there must be something in us that enables the object of knowledge to be known though we are surely not aware of that.

Shri Krishna teaches that the truth is known in samadhi alone and sages who have abided in samadhi teach that experiencing/knowing Brahman is being (Brahman).

Om

[Eastern Mind]

Once I heard it described such: the only 'experience that isn't an experience at all." So yes and no it can and cannot be experienced.

Aum Namasivaya

[raghu_001]

Namaste Raghu,

I asked you "Who is asking all these questions?" And you have not answered that. If you answer then only we can proceed.

Om

I already answered - jiva asks questions to enquire about Brahman. Or were you asking about me personally?

Raghu

[atanu]

I already answered - jiva asks questions to enquire about Brahman. Or were you asking about me personally?

Raghu

Yes, I am asking you personally. You say that jiva asks this question. Who is this jiva?. Do you know this jiva?

Neither we know the jiva nor Brahman. I pray to you respectfully that the Jiva may first be known.

Om

[raghu_001]

Yes, I am asking you personally. You say that jiva asks this question. Who is this jiva?. Do you know this jiva?

Neither we know the jiva nor Brahman. I pray to you respectfully that the Jiva may first be known.

Om

Atanu, jiva is the living entity that takes bodies based on its past karmas. The jIvAtman is the seat of consciousness. Unlike Christians who speak of "losing your soul" when you neglect God, we Hindus say that we *are* souls (or in other words, jIva-s) who have bodies.

I'm not sure why you are confused about this point.

regards,

Raghu

[atanu]

Atanu, jiva is the living entity that takes bodies based on its past karmas. The jIvAtman is the seat of consciousness. Unlike Christians who speak of "losing your soul" when you neglect God, we Hindus say that we *are* souls (or in other words, jIva-s) who have bodies.

I'm not sure why you are confused about this point.

regards,

Raghu

OK. If you are jiva who has the body and if it is Jiva who is asking these questions. Then I ask you "Do you know the Jiva?"

As a spiritual person, please be truthful.


Om

[raghu_001]

OK. If you are jiva who has the body and if it is Jiva who is asking these questions. Then I ask you "Do you know the Jiva?"

Yes I know the jiva. The descriptions in shastra about the nature of the jiva are very clear.



As a spiritual person, please be truthful.


Now can I ask you a question? Are you by any chance a Sai Baba follower? As a spiritual person, please be truthful.

[atanu]

Yes I know the jiva. The descriptions in shastra about the nature of the jiva are very clear. [quote]

Namaste raghu,

Jiva is atomic yet infinite. Have you experienced that? Reading from shashtra is not knowing. If you know Jiva then, you would know where you were before you took up the present body.

[quote]
Now can I ask you a question? Are you by any chance a Sai Baba follower? As a spiritual person, please be truthful.

No and yes.

Om

[raghu_001]

Namaste raghu,

Jiva is atomic yet infinite.

Uh-huh. And the sun is both hot and cold. Night is dark and also bright. Everything is itself and its opposite.


Have you experienced that?

I thought you were asking me if I knew what the jiva was. So now you are changing your tack?



Reading from shashtra is not knowing.

Right, those inconvenient shastras. You can't know anything by reading those.

[atanu]

Namaste Raghu,

Good answers. All who have been pin-pointedly asked about their reality shy away. That is why Hindu Shashtra calls it Bhanda Asura (Fake Asura).

Why cannot you simply say that you have not experienced the infinite jiva?


Regards

[raghu_001]

Why cannot you simply say the you have not experienced the infinite jiva?


Because I've been cutting back on experiencing non-existent things ever since I grew out of childhood.

regards,

Raghu

[atanu]

Because I've been cutting back on experiencing non-existent things ever since I grew out of childhood.

regards,

Raghu

Excellent. Then how do you say that Jiva is questioning? Or have you experienced the particulate atomic jiva?

Om

[raghu_001]

Excellent. Then how do you say that Jiva is questioning? Or have you experienced the particulate atomic jiva?

Om

I have said and not said that the Jiva is questioning and not questioning. I have both experienced and not experienced the atomic jiva.

I did have a friend who experienced the infinite jiva once. However, I think he was smoking ganja at the time, so I'm not sure if that counts.

[atanu]

I have said and not said that the Jiva is questioning and not questioning. I have both experienced and not experienced the atomic jiva.

I did have a friend who experienced the infinite jiva once. However, I think he was smoking ganja at the time, so I'm not sure if that counts.

Namaste Raghu,

Jiva occupies an ant, or a human, or an elephant. Scripture also says that it is infinite. If you have doubt, it is good.

Your earlier statement about "who is questioning?" was :



by raghu

I already answered - jiva asks questions to enquire about Brahman.


When asked whether you have experienced jiva (or jivatman) you had replied:



by raghu

Because I've been cutting back on experiencing non-existent things ever since I grew out of childhood.

Now, you say:



By Raghu
I have said and not said that the Jiva is questioning and not questioning. I have both experienced and not experienced the atomic jiva.


It is clear (or not clear) that you do not know (or you know) the Jiva that questions (or does not). You are reluctant to be straight. Or do do you still persist that you have experienced Jiva (which you are)?


Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Brahman is jiva, but jiva is not Brahman. That way, one can ascribe ignorance to jiva without ascribing it to Brahman.

Namaste mithya,

This is correct, except the part that locus of avidya need not be set since it is unknowable. Some criticise Shakara for leaving the locus of avidya as unknowable but forget that Ramanuja did the same with Karma, which he said was beginningless but did not very clearly ascribe the locus. On same grounds as some bring out their daggers when Shankara's name is taken on the ground that Shankara was making Brahman subservient to Avidya, Ramanuja can be criticised for hinting that Brahman was subservient to Karma.

Those who have read Shankara's explanation of 'You are that', will know that only when stripped of all attributes from both sides, 'you' becomes equal to 'that'. It is also clear from the original explanation of the Upanishad, wherein all coverings were first removed before proclaiming "Svetaketu, you are that". The statement "You are that" actually means "Vishnu, you are that".

A=B is not correct without removing the attributes of both 'A' and 'B'.

From scriptures, one can see that Brahman became All. There is again shruti to indicate that the three states of existence, wherein all reside are three dream states of Him. So, Brahman actually did not divide to become many.

Thus, A= B; A=C; A=D -------etc. infinitely.

But B is not equal to A.

To understand this, i use the common analogy of waves and the ocean. The ocean is all the waves. No single wave is the ocean. But the ocean and the waves have the greatest commonality called water. The greatest commonality running through everything and every state is Brahman.

Moreover, the relation of Brahman and the objects of the Universe is also explained as a screen (Brahman) on which pictures play, fires burn, flood comes, people die, others cry --- but all that does not touch or change the screen (Brahman).

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

Without reading Shankara's explanation of "You art that", this issue is much debated without end. I hope that you will read the post with sweet mind.

Om

[raghu_001]

Namaste Raghu,

Jiva occupies an ant, or a human, or an elephant. Scripture also says that it is infinite. If you have doubt, it is good.

Which scripture says that? Please provide specific references.

[raghu_001]

Those who have read Shankara's explanation of 'You are that', will know that only when stripped of all attributes from both sides, 'you' becomes equal to 'that'. It is also clear from the original explanation of the Upanishad, wherein all coverings were first removed before proclaiming "Svetaketu, you are that". The statement "You are that" actually means "Vishnu, you are that".

A=B is not correct without removing the attributes of both 'A' and 'B'.

From scriptures, one can see that Brahman became All. There is again shruti to indicate that the three states of existence, wherein all reside are three dream states of Him. So, Brahman actually did not divide to become many.

Thus, A= B; A=C; A=D -------etc. infinitely.

But B is not equal to A.

To understand this, i use the common analogy of waves and the ocean. The ocean is all the waves. No single wave is the ocean. But the ocean and the waves have the greatest commonality called water. The greatest commonality running through everything and every state is Brahman.

Moreover, the relation of Brahman and the objects of the Universe is also explained as a screen (Brahman) on which pictures play, fires burn, flood comes, people die, others cry --- but all that does not touch or change the screen (Brahman).

Atanu,

You previously said that truth can only be known in samadhi. Yet here you are again, trying to explain the truth. Why the double standard?

- Raghu

[atanu]

When I ask you a straight question, you give me crooked and inconsistent answers like this. Now when you ask a question and I respond in kind, you don't seem to like it much. I think I have made my point. Or maybe I have not....

Namaste Raghu,

Whatever you think. The post is open for any one to read.

Om

[satay]

Admin Note

Namaskar,



That's great to know. For a moment I was afraid someone might be editing or removing my postings. I'm glad to know that sort of thing does not go on around here.

I am editing and deleting posts that are against the rules of the forum.

Thanks,

[atanu]

Atanu,

You previously said that truth can only be known in samadhi. Yet here you are again, trying to explain the truth. Why the double standard?

- Raghu

Namaste Raghu,

To reach a destination, you require an address. But having the address may not be the same as reaching the destination.

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

If we stopped presuming double standard and asked each other sincerely, would it not be better? I have been informed by the Moderator that my presumption about you being a certain Raghu was gravely wrong that initiated the bad vibes. I have realised the grave folly of my presumption and I apologise for that. I pray that all see their own transgressions and moderate themselves, since Hinduism is mainly about Self Realisation.

Regards

Om

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



I already answered - jiva asks questions to enquire about Brahman. Or were you asking about me personally?
Raghu
I read there is jīva, and 'me' and Brahman¹. Are there 3 ?
Who is 'me' ?

praṇām

jīva जीव - the principle of life , vital breath , the living or personal soul
brahman ब्रह्मन् - as a noun 'growth' , 'expansion' , 'evolution' ; brahman from bṛh बृह् - to grow, expand, increase; to shine
as brahma the one self-existent Supreme i.e. the one universal Soul some call SELF; or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return; the Self-existent , the Absolute , the Eternal
as brahmā or the one impersonal universal Spirit manifested as a personal Creator and as the first of the triad - Brahmā, Viṣṇu , Śivā; hence:
When Brahmā ब्रह्मा is written with long ā it is considered saguṇa or with attributes - He is the Creator; When Brahma ब्रह्म is written with the short a, then He is nirguṇa , the Formless, without attributes, the Absolute.

[rkpande]

dear commentators,

could any body tell me that when lord Krishana in Gita showed his actual self to Arjuna, who was what. was arjuna the jiva watching the Bhahm the lord krishna?

[Sudarshan]

dear commentators,

could any body tell me that when lord Krishana in Gita showed his actual self to Arjuna, who was what. was arjuna the jiva watching the Bhahm the lord krishna?

As far as I understand, there are three stages in Self Realization. These three stages are the three sandhya-s we worship everyday - prAtaH sandhya ( sunrise), mAdhyAhnika sandhya ( noon sun) and sAyam sandhya ( sunset). The sun obviously here is antaryAmi Brahman. Prior to prAtaH sandhya we have what is called usha, the dawn.

usha is characterised by many spiritual experiences which typically fall in the realm of jAgrat. PS is taijasa. MS is prAjna and SS is turIya. These are deeper and deeper states of samAdhi.

The vision that Arjuna sees is basically the PS, the prAtaH sandhya on the spiritual kuruksetra in which jIva-brahma bheda is not destroyed. This means the vision of the Lord still has a cover of mAyA on it - note that Arjuna actually gets frightened by this vision which is not the case in turIya darshanaM which is shivamadvaitaM.

MS is when the prAkRitik ahaMkAra known as rAvaNa dies resulting in the coronation of Rama , beautifully described in rAmAyaNa. This is jIvanmukti.

SS is when the ego of the jnAni ( the jIvanmukta) also dies and permanent jIva-brahma aikya is obtained. That is why the sun also sets meaning there is no such thing as antaryAmi in the final realization. Brahman is all there is.

[rkpande]

Mithya's asserstion has been endored in totto in Mundaka Up 3-2-9.
'He, verily, who knows the Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman himself...'

He no more remains a jiva.

[brahman]

Namaste:)

Brahman can never be experienced, because it's the experiencer. So through what instrument can the experiencer be experienced? If there's another instrument, then that instrument would be greater than Brahman (which is impossible, as there's nothing greater Brahman). Therefore, Brahman can never be an object of experience. The eye can see everything except itself. Same goes for Brahman.

That's why sages say every experience, no matter how sublime, must be negated as an illusion. That which can never be experienced (and yet exists) is Brahman.

Share your thoughts on this.

Mithya

These are anti- advaita thinking which takes one to far from what is usual or conventional, deviating to the greatest degree from the center of opinion-the Brahman.

The intelligent fails to make these minds understand the reality.(eg: Atanu's replies)

These kind of questions arise of Mithya

mithya is born of Avidya
Avidya from ahamkar
Ahmankar from chitta
Chitta from Atman
Atman of Paramatman

But the experience of advaita takes place when the chitta realizes the oneness of Atman and paramatman.

An experience is to be experienced, not to be watched with a device.

It is certain that a person wearing spectacle sees the world outside than his glasses. One sees only his glasses (device) can be called a blind.

Brahman

[rajinder42000]

Om Namah Shivaye

As a person imparted any degree when he completes the releated education in the same way we can say a brahmin only when he knows about the vedays/ upnishids or general concepts of Braham Gyan.

Rajinder

[bhaktajan]

Orthodox hindu Vedas state:

As stated in the Taittiriya Upanisad (2.9): ". . . brahma puccham pratisöha . . ."

1] There is God’s energy known as anna-maya, dependence upon food for existence.
This is a materialistic realization of the Supreme.

2] Then, in prana-maya {after realizing the Supreme Absolute Truth in food, one can realize the Absolute Truth in the living symptoms or life forms.]

3] Then, there is jnana-maya [realization extended beyond the living symptoms to the point of thinking, feeling and willing]

4] Then there is vijnana-maya (Brahman realization) [in which the living entity’s mind and life symptoms are distinguished from the living entity himself.]

5] the next and supreme stage is ananda-maya [realization of the all-blissful nature]

Thus there are five stages of Brahman realization, which are called brahma puccham.

The first three—anna-maya, prana-maya and jnana-maya—involve the fields of activities of the living entities.

Transcendental to all these fields of activities is the Supreme Lord, who is called ananda-maya.

The Vedanta-sutra also describes the Supreme by saying, ananda-mayo ’bhyasat: the Supreme Personality of Godhead is by nature full of joy.

To enjoy His transcendental bliss, He expands into vijnana-maya, prana-maya, jnana-maya and anna-maya.

In the field of activities the living entity is considered to be the enjoyer, and different from him is the ananda-maya.

That means that if the living entity decides to enjoy in dovetailing himself with the ananda-maya, then he becomes perfect.

This is the real picture of the Supreme Lord as the supreme knower of the field, the living entity as the subordinate knower, and the nature of the field of activities.

One has to search for this truth in the Vedanta-sutra, or Brahma-sutra.

It is mentioned here that the codes of the Brahma-sutra are very nicely arranged according to cause and effect, ie:

A] na viyad ashruteh (2.3.2) — the field of activities,
B] natma shruteh (2.3.18) — the living entity, and
C] parat tu tac-chruteh (2.3.40) — the Supreme Lord, the summum bonum of all various entities.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
When, by simply quite sitting mantra-meditation one stops paying attention to thoughts and thus withdraws the senses inward toward its center point of origin ---No further stimulai distracts the mind's attention ---that is when the meditator preceives bliss. This Bliss is there from the beginning ---yet the meditator is fully conditioned to be distracted by life's stimulai.

It would seem that intimate moments in bed are comprised with activities that ask the performers to focus there attention to only a single minded goal ---it is an Irony that of all daily activities are not appreciated with the same level of 'delighting in the mercy' of all the facilities because the senses are so dulled by material living.