PDA

View Full Version : Brahman?



Storm
15 June 2010, 10:42 AM
Do all Hindus believe in Brahman?

I ask because I thought that Brahman was universally regarded as the ultimate Reality of God, with Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as its primary manifestations, and lesser deities springing from them.

However, someone in my other thread just said that Shiva was the "Primal Soul."

Now I'm confused. I do understand that "Hinduism" is a varied collection of traditions, and that some revere one of the "big three" over the others. But I thought Brahman was something they had in common.

Madhuri
15 June 2010, 12:00 PM
Do all Hindus believe in Brahman?

I ask because I thought that Brahman was universally regarded as the ultimate Reality of God, with Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as its primary manifestations, and lesser deities springing from them.

However, someone in my other thread just said that Shiva was the "Primal Soul."

Now I'm confused. I do understand that "Hinduism" is a varied collection of traditions, and that some revere one of the "big three" over the others. But I thought Brahman was something they had in common.

It depends on the school of thought. Some regard Brahman (impersonal feature of God) as the ultimate reality. Others see Vishnu or Shiva as the ultimate reality. In the Gita, Krishna explains that Brahman (all-pervasive consciousness), Paramatma (the Supersoul/Self within every individual) and Bhagavan(the personal feature/form) are equal aspects of God. They are also described as qualitatively non-different.

Madhuri
15 June 2010, 12:07 PM
I should also add that when a person sees Vishnu or Shiva as the ultimate reality, his means that Vishnu or Shiva include Brahman. For some who consider Brahman the ultimate reality, Brahman will include the personal features. But generally speaking, one is considered to come from the other, but I think that they exist simultaneously and none are born of the other.

I hope I am explaining this properly. It's after 3am and I'm sooo tired.

Storm
15 June 2010, 12:10 PM
It depends on the school of thought. Some regard Brahman (impersonal feature of God) as the ultimate reality. Others see Vishnu or Shiva as the ultimate reality.
OK, thank you.


In the Gita, Krishna explains that Brahman (all-pervasive consciousness), Paramatma (the Supersoul/Self within every individual) and Bhagavan(the personal feature/form) are equal aspects of God. They are also described as qualitatively non-different.
Brahman is familiar to me, and similar to my own beliefs.

Paramata, though.... Would it be fair to describe this as the divine seed of consciousness?

And Bhagavan, does this indicate the personality, or the body? If the personality, is it mortal?

Storm
15 June 2010, 12:14 PM
I should also add that when a person sees Vishnu or Shiva as the ultimate reality, his means that Vishnu or Shiva include Brahman.
That makes sense.


For some who consider Brahman the ultimate reality, Brahman will include the personal features. But generally speaking, one is considered to come from the other,
Yes, this is my previous understanding. From Brahman, come Brahm, Vishnu, and Shiva. From them come the various deities.

So, is this the most common/ popular tradition? Or perhaps the one with the oldest history?


but I think that they exist simultaneously and none are born of the other.
Like a Trinity?


I hope I am explaining this properly. It's after 3am and I'm sooo tired.
Aww... lol. You should get to bed. But you are being very helpful. :)

Madhuri
15 June 2010, 12:23 PM
Brahman is familiar to me, and similar to my own beliefs.

Paramata, though.... Would it be fair to describe this as the divine seed of consciousness?

And Bhagavan, does this indicate the personality, or the body? If the personality, is it mortal?

Bhagavan is personality. And definitely immortal! lol. It includes spiritual form, if one believes in actual form. So Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti etc. are representations of Bhagavan.

Paramatma...I am not sure that 'the divine seed of consciousness' is an accurate description. My own understanding is also limited. I only know Paramatma as the Self within the self. He is the very life and soul within our own self(soul). It is the indwelling witness and guide (as description I just read online).

Madhuri
15 June 2010, 12:26 PM
Yes, this is my previous understanding. From Brahman, come Brahm, Vishnu, and Shiva. From them come the various deities.

So, is this the most common/ popular tradition? Or perhaps the one with the oldest history?


Like a Trinity?


Oh boy, I think that each sect is likely to argue that their tradition is older. There isn't much evidence to indicate which came first, if any came first. I am not sure which is most popular to be honest. Perhaps someone else would do better at answering this.

Ok, I am off to bed now. I'll be back soon!

Eastern Mind
15 June 2010, 12:32 PM
Oh boy, I think that each sect is likely to argue that their tradition is older. There isn't much evidence to indicate which came first, if any came first. I am not sure which is most popular to be honest. Perhaps someone else would do better at answering this.


Vannakkam: I totally agree. Of what value is being the oldest anyway. Oldest is not necessarily equated with best. I certainly don't want to eat the oldest rice and curry around.

Aum namasivaya

Storm
15 June 2010, 12:37 PM
Bhagavan is personality. And definitely immortal! lol. It includes spiritual form, if one believes in actual form. So Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti etc. are representations of Bhagavan.

Paramatma...I am not sure that 'the divine seed of consciousness' is an accurate description. My own understanding is also limited. I only know Paramatma as the Self within the self. He is the very life and soul within our own self(soul). It is the indwelling witness and guide (as description I just read online).
I'm not sure I understand this. Could you (or anyone else) elaborate?


Oh boy, I think that each sect is likely to argue that their tradition is older. There isn't much evidence to indicate which came first, if any came first. I am not sure which is most popular to be honest. Perhaps someone else would do better at answering this.

Ok, I am off to bed now. I'll be back soon!
Sweet dreams. :)


Vannakkam: I totally agree. Of what value is being the oldest anyway. Oldest is not necessarily equated with best. I certainly don't want to eat the oldest rice and curry around.

Aum namasivaya
Yeah, I didn't really think about the can of worms that particular question might open. Sorry about that.

Anyway, there's no real value in being oldest, it's true. I asked only because knowing which came from which might further my understanding of the various traditions and how they relate to one another.

isavasya
15 June 2010, 02:05 PM
Namaste Storm ji,
Let me try to answer few of your questions.



Do all Hindus believe in Brahman?


Most of them do.



I ask because I thought that Brahman was universally regarded as the ultimate Reality of God, with Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as its primary manifestations, and lesser deities springing from them.

Yes according to upanishads and vedanta, brahman is generally referred as one without a second, the only reality. Brahma is not a manifestation of brahman. Shiva and vishnu are.



However, someone in my other thread just said that Shiva was the "Primal Soul."


Yes for shavities, Shiva is definitely the primal soul, just as vishnu is for vaishnavas and shakti is for shakta. let me try to tell you what is exact difference between brahman and shiva,vishnu,shakti. Brahman only refers to impersonal god, one who doesn't perceives anything except his own self. On the other hand Shiva, vishnu can be impersonal as well as personal at differnt level. As personal or sagun God (with form) shiva can give you moksha or his blessings. But brahman doesn't do that, because in world of brahman only he exits.

On the same from advaitas point of view shiva shoudn't be seen as differnt from brahman, because shiva is same formless brahman as perceived by you under influence of maya. when viel of maya is lifted only shiva/brahman remains, nothing else. take following verse from svetsvatara upanishad.

When the light has risen , there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence.Siva (the blessed) alone is there. (svet up 4.18) Here we see when veil of maya is lifted jiva(soul) becomes the siva.



Now I'm confused. I do understand that "Hinduism" is a varied collection of traditions, and that some revere one of the "big three" over the others. But I thought Brahman was something they had in common.


Well if you will learn a little bit, there wont be any confusion, yes brahman exists in almost very tradition , though names may change. For a shavite, Brahman is called sadashiva, for a vaishnava he is called mahavishnu. But the meaning is near about the same. Hope you will have a great time here.:)

Storm
15 June 2010, 02:12 PM
isavasya, that was very helpful. Thank you.

I'm enjoying myself immensely.

yajvan
15 June 2010, 03:04 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

brahman - means growth , expansion . It is rooted in bṛh or some write or bṛṃh to to make big or fat or strong , increase , expand.
Now a brahmán is one who is a knower of Ved i.e. one versed in sacred knowledge. There are 4 principal priests i.e. ṛtvij-s, hotṛ , adhvaryu and udgātṛ . The brahman ( in a yajña commencement) is the most learned and required to know the vedic rites (intimately) then to supervise the sacrifice and to set right any mistake in word or action e.g. correcting the meter, missed word, wrong direction on a hymn, etc. It is interesting to keep in mind 'brahman' is also considered the sacred word of the veda , a sacred text.

Brahmā or the one impersonal (nirguṇa - attribute-less, w/o form, unmanifest) Supreme when manifests as the personal (saguna - with qualities, manifest) Creator becomes brahma.
Now that said, we still know brahman as the Supreme Being/Spirit.

Storm asks the following:

Do all Hindus believe in Brahman?
I think another insightful question we may also pose is , do all Hindu's achieve brahman, come to the realization of the Supreme? This brings me to my undivided attention on this matter.

praṇām

yajvan
15 June 2010, 05:37 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I wrote,
do all Hindu's achieve brahman, come to the realization of the Supreme?
How does one answer this question? Who is qualified to offer a view on this?

IMHO we must look to the Bhāgavad gītā for guidance. If we look to chapter 2 (adhyāya 2) called sāṁkhya yoga , the 40th śloka, kṛṣṇa ( some prefer kṛṣṇ) says the following:

In this undertaking (of yoga) no effort is ever lost and no obstacle exists. Even a little of this dharma delivers (one) from great fear.

The word kṛṣṇa uses is abhikrama or undertaking, beginning, step. He is referring to what He just said to arjun in the 39th śloka . He says I have talked to you about this knowledge in terms
of sāṁkhya, now hear it in terms of yoga. Your intellect established through it O' pṛthā (arjun) you will cast away the binding influence of action ( karma-bandham).

So the point here is yoga - union. The union that is being discussed is with brahman. If one begins this undertaking, no effort is ever lost. Over time one will achieve this union with the Supreme.

Now for me chapter two is quite profound and we can address the points in another post, but the point i wish to offer is the following: Kṛṣṇa ends the chapter by saying , this is the state of brahman - having attained it a man is not deluded. Established in That, even in the last moment (anta-kāle or end-of-life is implied) he attains eternal freedom in brahma-nirvāṇam ( divine consciousness, some would say God consciousness).

So my question posed is elegantly answered by keśava¹ Himself. It is based upon one's abhikrama or undertaking, beginning, step. It applies to all that start.

praṇām


1. keśava - is kṛṣṇa and means one with beautiful hair or long handsome hair.

bp789
15 June 2010, 08:12 PM
Then can someone please explain the concept of Parabrahman?

yajvan
15 June 2010, 08:36 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté bp,


Then can someone please explain the concept of Parabrahman?

You may wish to consider it this way para+brahman.
We talk of the Supreme, but often drop the para in the conversation. That is parabrahman = brahman.

para = farther than , beyond , on the other or farther side of , extreme ; any chief matter or paramount object. It is also used at times to reflect the number 10,000,000,000 . This number can be talked about later but suggest ultimate fullness ( para-bhūman ).

praṇām

shian
15 June 2010, 09:16 PM
I like this posting from ISAVASYA :

When the light has risen , there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence.Siva (the blessed) alone is there. (svet up 4.18)

Om Mahamahesvaraye Svaha

Madhuri
15 June 2010, 09:40 PM
I'm not sure I understand this. Could you (or anyone else) elaborate?


The individual is a soul. You are not this body, you are the soul within, which is eteranl. Within you (soul) is this aspect of God (Supersoul).


"Lord in His Paramatma feature is situated within both the heart of the dog and that of a brahmana. The perfect yogi knows that the Lord is eternally transcendental and is not materially affected by His presence in either a dog or a brahmana. That is the supreme neutrality of the Lord. The individual soul is also situated in the individual heart, but he is not present in all hearts. That is the distinction between the individual soul and the Supersoul. One who is not factually in the practice of yoga cannot see so clearly. A Krsna conscious person can see Krsna in the heart of both the believer and the nonbeliever." Bhagavad-gita 6:29 Purport

Darji
15 June 2010, 09:48 PM
Which Gita are you quoting from because I check the three versions I have and none of them say what you quoted

yajvan
15 June 2010, 10:22 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté darji,


Which Gita are you quoting from because I check the three versions I have and none of them say what you quoted
This is svāmī prabhupāda's explanation (or purport) of chapter 6 (adhyāya 6), the 29th śloka, Bhāgavad gītā.


praṇām

Eastern Mind
15 June 2010, 10:37 PM
The individual is a soul. You are not this body, you are the soul within, which is eteranl.



Vannakkam Storm et al:

From my perspective, soul merges with God as water with water, so individual identity of soul is not eternal, but essence is. Just a slight difference, (I think).

Aum Namasivaya

Madhuri
16 June 2010, 12:21 AM
Vannakkam Storm et al:

From my perspective, soul merges with God as water with water, so individual identity of soul is not eternal, but essence is. Just a slight difference, (I think).

Aum Namasivaya

Yes, this is the monistic view am I correct?

It is important, Storm, that you know these differences in perspective. I come from the perspective that the individual (soul), though eternally a part of God, is also eternally individual. So we are all part of the Whole, but we are distinct. The monistic view sees this sense of distinction as illusory (maya) and temporary.

kallol
16 June 2010, 04:20 AM
Dear Storm,

This is another explaination to confuse you further (though I believe - understanding this will help you understand the different articulation about the same thing). This knowledge is bit complex (that is why it is not for all), however I will try to make it as simple as possible.

1. Whatever we know and also beyond is made out of two entities :

a. Physical entity - which in unmanifested form is energy and in manifested form is the creation (including our bodies). This part is inert, attributeful, changing, time, space dependent, subject to life (manifestation) and death (unmanifestation). By itself it does not have any life, or meaning or existence. This is also called aparaprakriti or prakriti.

b. Consciousness entity - This entity is the life provider for the physical entity and can be compared to electricity for electrical gadgets or light for any visible entity. Without electricity gadgets are inert, useless and remain undiscovered. This though electricity is not seen or a party to the nature of the gadget functions.
Similarly light - by itself it is unseen. But without it nothing can be seen and will remain hidden and undiscovered.
Through the gadgets and visible objects the electrcity and light are to be understood and perceived, though they are not part of the gadget or the visible objects.
Likewise consciousness remains unmanifested. It is attributless, permanent, not time dependent, unchangeable and directly cannot be felt and percieved. This is also called paraprakriti and purusha.

So we can say that paraprakriti is the permanent feature because of which the aparaprakriti has existence. This paraprakriti is also known as the higher nature of God or Brahman. The aparaprakriti part is the lower nature of God. It is just like us. We have consciousness, which is the higher nature and the body, which is the lower nature. Body dies, decays and is born in the ocean of consciousness which is permanent.

2. This lower nature of God can take any form (it is energy to matter principal), which can be Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Jesus, Buddha, etc. The distiction between you, me and these great people is the conditioning of the mind. Mothers give birth to bodies but it is the mind which comes from the death of another body. The mind moves from body to body till it conditions itself to be pure and get moksha. We have impure mind whereas the great spiritual people have pure minds. The cleaning or muddying depends on the karma (our mental and physical activities) we do with the emotions of the mind attached.


3. All people are unique in terms of spriritual index. Some are in the advanced stage some are at the beginning and some are in between. The spiritual journey is on but one accelerates when he starts having faith, belief and devotion i.e. bhakti. Thereafter the movement is through sakama (bhakti & karma), niskama (bhakti & karma) to knowledge (gyan). This path also has dvaita, vishista advaita and advaita. The path is one but the people are at different points of space, time and experience. 99.99% of the people will not be able to percieve abstractness of the Bramhan, so there are physical forms of Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Bramha, etc to perceive. Those who can - for them it does not matter, as God is the superset of all paraprakriti and apararakriti.

If someone is calling bramhan by a name (krishna, shiva, etc), it does not matter -possibly it helps them to remain focussed. The main idea is to move towards the knowledge of God. From finite to infinite, from temporary to permanent, from time to timeless, etc.
All are within this.

Love and best wishes

Eastern Mind
16 June 2010, 07:23 AM
Yes, this is the monistic view am I correct?

It is important, Storm, that you know these differences in perspective. I come from the perspective that the individual (soul), though eternally a part of God, is also eternally individual. So we are all part of the Whole, but we are distinct. The monistic view sees this sense of distinction as illusory (maya) and temporary.


Vannakkam Madhuri: Yes this is monism. In dualism, I believe soul merging is like salt into water. Not really sure though. It might be lesser. I agree that it is a subtle yet important distinction as it seems to me that as long as there is the tiniest bit of separation, there is still ego.

Of course, this realisation is a long way off for me, and I only rely on gut, and teachings of Guru. I am a regurgitator as well.

Aum Namasivaya

Madhuri
16 June 2010, 07:34 AM
Of course, this realisation is a long way off for me, and I only rely on gut, and teachings of Guru. I am a regurgitator as well.

Aum Namasivaya

That puts you and I on the same level :)

Onkara
16 June 2010, 07:36 AM
My personal opinion is not to feel too much concern for the soul, as that concern will express itself as desire. Desire is a Guna (Rajas) and that is what leads the mind into believing it is responsible for it's pleasure or unhappiness i.e. fulfillment or obstacles to satisfying desire.

I used the word feel in italics because I am not suggesting we don't consider the soul, rather the aim is to come to know the soul (atman) as per the teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita or through the Upanishads.

I see only one obstacle in considering the soul as eternally seperate, which is how the soul came into being. Because in Sankhya philosophy, elaborated upon by Lord Krsihna, anything which has a beginning must have an end. This implies that the soul could not have been created, because if the soul was created it will have to come to an end. Thus the compromise is to recognise that the Atman is Brahman, as Brahman is without beginning and so without end.


Do all Hindus believe in Brahman?

I ask because I thought that Brahman was universally regarded as the ultimate Reality of God, with Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as its primary manifestations, and lesser deities springing from them.

However, someone in my other thread just said that Shiva was the "Primal Soul."

Now I'm confused. I do understand that "Hinduism" is a varied collection of traditions, and that some revere one of the "big three" over the others. But I thought Brahman was something they had in common.

I see Brahman as the only reality. Reality is the changeless within the change-full. So Brahman is the foundation. From Brahman comes all life and life is known through the soul (atman). So then I am happy to agree that Shiva is the primal soul. Shiva is the primal soul from which all other souls (atman) are strung, like pearls on a necklace. Shiva (or Kirshna) is Brahman to me at the ultimate level of my understanding.

atanu
16 June 2010, 08:37 AM
I see only one obstacle in considering the soul as eternally seperate, which is how the soul came into being. Because in Sankhya philosophy, elaborated upon by Lord Krsihna, anything which has a beginning must have an end. This implies that the soul could not have been created, because if the soul was created it will have to come to an end. Thus the compromise is to recognise that the Atman is Brahman, as Brahman is without beginning and so without end.


Namaste Snip,

You have summarised nicely. I wish to add a small clarification. Even in Dvaita souls are eternal and uncreated. But some souls are supposed to be eternally under control of Brahman/God/Bhagawan/Ishwara and thus without begining and end separate.

Further however, Dvaita proposes the connection between Lord and Jivas with a witness consciousness -- this knowledge if taken further leads only to advaita, since the witness consciousness is one. However, Dvaita unlike advaita, does not aim to the knowledge of witness concsiousness but aims only to Bhagawan.


Regards

Onkara
16 June 2010, 09:22 AM
Namasté Atanu
I am glad you pick up on this as the quote below is something I am presently exploring, I hope I can take a moment to illustrate some thoughts based on these parts:


Dvaita unlike advaita, does not aim to the knowledge of witness concsiousness but aims only to Bhagawan.

In the Bhagavad Gita we are taught to keep our mind or consciousness focused on Krishna. This is the direction of aspirants of both Advaitin and Dvaitin alike, when both follow the teaching of Lord Krishna, for example: B.G 7.1:

With your mind intent upon Me,
Taking refuge in Me, now hear
How through the practice of yoga
You shall fully come to know Me. (1)

So where is the difference between the striving of the Advitin and the Dvaitin?

One could answer this as the difference is that the Dvaitin wishes to serve the lord, s/he does not wish to unite with the Lord in a monistic union nor do they wish for moksha of their atman (should they agree that is possible before death). The dvaitin may wish to serve the lord without any concern for his own desire.

For the Advitin even the puprose of servining the lord is a desire and not the ultimate state of knowing the Self. For a servant still holds desire even if the desire is that of their master.

As Lord Krishna teaches B.G 3.17:

He who is content in the Self,
Who is satisfied in the Self,
Who is pleased only in the Self:
For him there is no need to act. (17)

Picking up on your earlier clarification, which I appreciate:

But some souls are supposed to be eternally under control of Brahman/God/Bhagawan/Ishwara and thus without begining and end separate.

If the soul is under control of the Lord, then at what point is our action due to the Lord? In other words when a man strikes another man with his fist, is that due to the control of the Lord?

Most people would say of course not, this is tamas or rajas gunas or simply the predisposition of that man (karma). Why is it not the Lord? Because if the Lord provokes the action to strike another man then how can the Lord be pure goodness, how is the Lord pure sattwic if the Lord is reponsible for a painful punch on the nose and the retaliation?

It cannot be so, as the Lord Himself is sattwic and it is gunas and karma which make a man act. Krishna teaches us. B.G 3.27:

All actions, in all instances,
Are done by Prakriti’s gunas;
Those with ego-deluded mind
Imagine: “I am the doer.” (27) Source Link (http://www.atmajyoti.org/gi_bhagavad_gita_ch3.asp)

Of course from the Lord came the Gunas and Karma, but yet these are in the Lord, and so they are not the limitation or will itself of the Lord. So if a man acts on Gunas or Karma then it is still not the Lord acting through man, rather man is subjected to the Lords creation until at such point that Man comes to know the Self. On knowing the Self we become liberated from our actions and the play of the Gunas.

Ramakrishna
16 June 2010, 11:12 PM
Vannakkam Storm et al:

From my perspective, soul merges with God as water with water, so individual identity of soul is not eternal, but essence is. Just a slight difference, (I think).

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste,

Yes, that is a common analogy that I have heard. But with the soul merging with God like a drop of water to the ocean, does the soul retain any individuality? Or are all souls homogeneous once they return to Brahman? How exactly does this view of moksha compare to the Christian concept of salvation? We all see on television and movies and such that heaven is a perfect place where we get whatever we want and everybody is happy. I would imagine that once we attain liberation we would have no desires, so would moksha be described as a perfect state of being, once the soul has merged with Brahman?

Jai Sri Krishna

atanu
16 June 2010, 11:28 PM
Namasté Atanu
I am glad you pick up on this as the quote below is something I am presently exploring, I hope I can take a moment to illustrate some thoughts based on these parts:

In the Bhagavad Gita we are taught to keep our mind or consciousness focused on Krishna. This is the direction of aspirants of both Advaitin and Dvaitin alike, when both follow the teaching of Lord Krishna, for example: B.G 7.1:

With your mind intent upon Me,
Taking refuge in Me, now hear
How through the practice of yoga
You shall fully come to know Me. (1)

So where is the difference between the striving of the Advitin and the Dvaitin?

One could answer this as the difference is that the Dvaitin wishes to serve the lord, s/he does not wish to unite with the Lord in a monistic union nor do they wish for moksha of their atman (should they agree that is possible before death). The dvaitin may wish to serve the lord without any concern for his own desire.

For the Advitin even the puprose of servining the lord is a desire and not the ultimate state of knowing the Self. For a servant still holds desire even if the desire is that of their master.

As Lord Krishna teaches B.G 3.17:

He who is content in the Self,
Who is satisfied in the Self,
Who is pleased only in the Self:
For him there is no need to act. (17)

Picking up on your earlier clarification, which I appreciate:

If the soul is under control of the Lord, then at what point is our action due to the Lord? In other words when a man strikes another man with his fist, is that due to the control of the Lord?

Most people would say of course not, this is tamas or rajas gunas or simply the predisposition of that man (karma). Why is it not the Lord? Because if the Lord provokes the action to strike another man then how can the Lord be pure goodness, how is the Lord pure sattwic if the Lord is reponsible for a painful punch on the nose and the retaliation?

It cannot be so, as the Lord Himself is sattwic and it is gunas and karma which make a man act. Krishna teaches us. B.G 3.27:

All actions, in all instances,
Are done by Prakriti’s gunas;
Those with ego-deluded mind
Imagine: “I am the doer.” (27) Source Link (http://www.atmajyoti.org/gi_bhagavad_gita_ch3.asp)

Of course from the Lord came the Gunas and Karma, but yet these are in the Lord, and so they are not the limitation or will itself of the Lord. So if a man acts on Gunas or Karma then it is still not the Lord acting through man, rather man is subjected to the Lords creation until at such point that Man comes to know the Self. On knowing the Self we become liberated from our actions and the play of the Gunas.

Namaste Snip

Thank you for the post. Yes, the knowledge of doer/non-doer, actor/non-actor, seer/thinker etc. are layered. Advaita aims for the intent less while Dvaita aims for the good intentioned Lord. In this regard, I repeat the oft repeated saying of Yoga Vasista: What is true in consciousness is true since consciousness is true.

Rather I will add: Consciousness is the True of the True.

In my original post, it was my intention to point out that souls are held to be uncreated by all schools of Vedanta.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
16 June 2010, 11:55 PM
Namaste,

Yes, that is a common analogy that I have heard. But with the soul merging with God like a drop of water to the ocean, does the soul retain any individuality? Or are all souls homogeneous once they return to Brahman? How exactly does this view of moksha compare to the Christian concept of salvation? We all see on television and movies and such that heaven is a perfect place where we get whatever we want and everybody is happy. I would imagine that once we attain liberation we would have no desires, so would moksha be described as a perfect state of being, once the soul has merged with Brahman?

Jai Sri Krishna

Salvation as in christianity/islam or attainment of some loka are similar, IMO. Vedanta teaches that one will fall to this phenomenal death-birth world as individual, once the fruits of good deeds that takes one to heaven are finished. (I think the fruits of good deeds are consumed here itself in blissful periods and then the turmoils begin again). Vedanta scripture unequivocally urges sadhaks to know and unite with Brahman/Atman/Purusha for liberation (but of course three Vedanta schools have differences regading this union).

The following is the advaitic understanding.

Its not a very big thing to merge in Brahman, like a water drop merging in ocean. One just loses the knot with the name and form. We are bodiless consciousness (as in deep sleep) and realising that through experience and remaining as that pure consciousness is the most normal thing. We attain this natural pure state every day in deep sleep when the mind is quiescent and desireless. One just loses all ideas related to individual and takes such associations, if any, as temporary/untrue/role/mithya. I have used if any since the primeval entitities/roles may continue as per the primeval designs. Desirelessness means acceptance of the will of the primeval atman/purusha and forgetting beyond doubt individualistic thoughts - just as we are in deep sleep.

As of now this may not appeal to most. And that simply will indicate that one is not at all ready to give up the benefits of a fleshy body/frictional sensuality called sex etc.

But paradoxically, being a water drop in ocean, indistinguishable, additionally means that concsiouness is free -- to assume any role. :) That would be purusha/brahman/atman assuming the role and not any individual.

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
17 June 2010, 06:55 AM
Namaste,

Yes, that is a common analogy that I have heard. But with the soul merging with God like a drop of water to the ocean, does the soul retain any individuality? Or are all souls homogeneous once they return to Brahman? How exactly does this view of moksha compare to the Christian concept of salvation? We all see on television and movies and such that heaven is a perfect place where we get whatever we want and everybody is happy. I would imagine that once we attain liberation we would have no desires, so would moksha be described as a perfect state of being, once the soul has merged with Brahman?

Jai Sri Krishna

Vannakkm Ramakrishna: I'm sorry, but I know nothing at all about Christianity, and don't care to find out. From the little I do know, it seems entirely different.

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
17 June 2010, 07:01 AM
My personal opinion is not to feel too much concern for the soul, as that concern will express itself as desire.

Vannakkam Snip: This is interesting. Who is it that is feeling the concern? What are you saying here?

I am not the body.
I am not the mind.

Are we a soul within a human body? or Are we a body/mind that owns a soul? Or is it neither.

In my personal opinion it is neither, but the way we think or identify ourselves in daily activities helps mold what we do. So I would much prefer to feel like I am a soul in progession rather than a more outward view. In reality that you speak of, we are the essence of the soul, or the Self, but we don't know it in a complete way.

Aum Namasivaya

Onkara
17 June 2010, 08:56 AM
Vannakkam Snip: This is interesting. Who is it that is feeling the concern? What are you saying here?

I am not the body.
I am not the mind.

Are we a soul within a human body? or Are we a body/mind that owns a soul? Or is it neither.

In my personal opinion it is neither, but the way we think or identify ourselves in daily activities helps mold what we do. So I would much prefer to feel like I am a soul in progession rather than a more outward view. In reality that you speak of, we are the essence of the soul, or the Self, but we don't know it in a complete way.

Aum Namasivaya
Vannakkam Eastern Mind :)

I agree, we don’t feel like a soul in side a body do we. Nor do I feel that my body or mind is so stable, changeless and reliable that it could be a mind with a soul.

The question needs to be turned a round, in my opinion. We don’t need to find the soul, as our existence (sat) is already undeniable we can begin with that. We waste time debating the soul (atman) or God's existance. What we need to know is how we become confused, or in my example, 'concerned' as it is these doubts and sensations which really fill my day.

Krishna tells us it is the gunas, which operate on the senses and the senses lead the mind. So our mind becomes changeful as a consequence of the gunas. It is as simple as that. It is the gunas which cause concern, fear, happiness etc.

Strictly speaking we don’t even need to doubt the existence of the gunas, because we can see how our mind (thoughts, moods and emotions) change with the external world.

For example, if we remember a beautiful face or an expensive car we can see how it catches our attention and fills us with desire to have it or be close to it. It is quite natural, the senses i.e. sight, make contact with the object and the mind is filled with desire. Likewise, waking at 3am and seeing a face in your bedroom window may fill your mind with fear (tamas). So the mind is the receptor of fear (tamas), desire (rajas), happiness(satva) and concern (tamas). The gunas really represent all our emotions and thoughts, gunas don’t have to be doubted just explored. Even doubt is tamas. Instead we can come to see how everything is gunas and progress with our spiritual insight.

So what we need to know is how our mind operates, how we become distracted and by what. That which distracts us is the Lord’s creation: gunas and prakriti i.e. a pretty face. That which is distracted is the Lord’s creation i.e. our mind, but that which knows both is already the atman. Knowing (chit) is our true nature and for knowing to exist there is a silent witness; the atman.

The only step after that is to understand and satisfy any spiritual questions. Once the questions are answered we have no where else to rush to and we come to rest in the atman. The atman always looks outwards, it cannot be known like the mind knows fear or happiness or an object. The atman is the place where thoughts bounce back because it is the witness of thoughts and doesn’t need thoughts to know itself. Like the sun which just shines outwards.

What we need to come to know is that it is because the atman exists that we know the mind, and the movement of the mind is gunas. Once we know this we can be liberated from the play of the gunas. It doesn’t mean the mind stops or the gunas vanish, but rather we become the spectator enjoying the show, we can step aside and let fear, anger and desire dissipate like clouds passing in the sky. Instead we rest with our true nature, we know ourselves to be the atman and with it we know our nature as bliss (ananda). Atman is Brahman, like beads on a necklace and so it is eternal. You are eternal, the mind and body will change. :)

Storm
17 June 2010, 09:51 AM
Thank you all for your replies! There's a great deal of information here to take in, so it may be a while before I get back to the new posts in detail.

kallol
17 June 2010, 10:31 AM
To,

Snip and Atanu. Qudos for your great understanding of the subject.

As I understand :

Both Consciousness (purusha) and physical entity (unmanifested & manifested - prakriti) permeates the space. Consciousness is like space and our body is like a house. Now we can say that there is space within the house or the house is with the space. Correct thing will be the house in space.

Mind is the entity which moves from body to body on birth and death. This mind in the ocean of consciousness provides us the continuity of "I" through sleep, unconscious state and death (death is nothing but a long sleep to the next body). This mind in conjunction with the consciousness is the soul but it belongs to prakriti not as gross matter but as subtle matter. In a bulb (body) not all parts glow because of electricity (consciousness), but only the filament (mind). If filament goes, then though electricity is there, the bulb is dead.

The minds - till they are with gunas of desire, lust, anger, envy, ego, etc is like negative charges of n (5 ?) dimensions. Depending on the intensity level it gets attracted to a body (positive charge). Only beyond a certain intensity level, the body is that of human. When these intensities become zero then the mind becomes neutral and is not attracted so attains moksha. Rather lesser the intensity, the more is the time between birth and more is the stay in free state or heavenly state. Mind is the entity which enshrines the consciousness in the body.

Humans are the most evolved in terms of creation as they have more matured "Learn", "Sense", "Plan" and "React". The plan (the mental part) entity is not so developed in other living beings. Next level may be the "know" part.

It is the superset of purusha (consciousness) and prakriti (inert & dead) that is God. The sum total is zero. Like level of water in ocean. In still condition, it is same plane. But during waves some parts go up and some down. These are the conditions of minds. If there is a genral dip in the level, then the average is maintained by Tsunami like wave (avatars).

So at the macro level of time and space there is no change in the average level. At that level the process and rules are set. We go by that - karma.

Love and best wishes

Onkara
17 June 2010, 02:24 PM
Hello Kallol
Thank you.
I enjoyed your analogies, particularly that of the mind being like a filament of the light bulb. Could we go on to say that when the mind is cleaned of all contamination it shines brightest and clearest? A bright clean filament (mind) will allow the owner to see his environment as it really is: as reality without contamination.

If we take this approach to our mind we can see there is direction in our spiritual pursuit and that direction depends on us (karma). We should take some time every day to sit and 'clean' our mind of the hustle and bustle of daily life. We are gifted with a mind and should our karma be favorable we will come to find that it is through focusing and cleaning the mind that we are destined to know liberation through Truth. This path is laid out by the teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita; we are to learn to stable and control the mind through devotion, mediation and karma yoga.

When the mind becomes clean and is no longer contaminated by thoughts of desire, frustration, lacking, needing, irritation etc of the gunas, then we come to know that it is not you and me that is stirring these aspects of our life into action, it isn't my desire or yours, it is simply that (gunas) with which the mind identifies itself.

:)

kallol
17 June 2010, 11:07 PM
Hello Kallol
Thank you.
I enjoyed your analogies, particularly that of the mind being like a filament of the light bulb. Could we go on to say that when the mind is cleaned of all contamination it shines brightest and clearest? A bright clean filament (mind) will allow the owner to see his environment as it really is: as reality without contamination.

If we take this approach to our mind we can see there is direction in our spiritual pursuit and that direction depends on us (karma). We should take some time every day to sit and 'clean' our mind of the hustle and bustle of daily life. We are gifted with a mind and should our karma be favorable we will come to find that it is through focusing and cleaning the mind that we are destined to know liberation through Truth. This path is laid out by the teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita; we are to learn to stable and control the mind through devotion, mediation and karma yoga.

When the mind becomes clean and is no longer contaminated by thoughts of desire, frustration, lacking, needing, irritation etc of the gunas, then we come to know that it is not you and me that is stirring these aspects of our life into action, it isn't my desire or yours, it is simply that (gunas) with which the mind identifies itself.

:)


Definitely Snip. However to explain this phenomenon, I would also prefer to use the analogy of a dirty mirror.

The consciousness gets reflected through the dirty mirror (mind). The intellect and the mind get attached to that distorted reflection. It seems that the reflection which the image of "I" or the consciousness depicts a "I" which is not pure. That is the confusion most of us have.

The mind is one entity through which all activities are routed through. Whether senses to intellect or intellect to action points. The condition of the mind (a special filter) says how the intellect percieves a sense information. Depending on the same it the intellect works. However the mind also trains the intellect to behave in a certain way. Like creating a habit. Once the habit is created the intellect cannot resist the mind.

This is a fine balance which we need to be conscious of and train the intellect to monitor wrong kinds of habit growth. Main idea is to let intellect work independent (in good sense) of mind. Though difficult but worth trying. Also side by side we need to train the intellect with positive and spiritual knowledge.

Once this is achieved to some extent, the mind starts conforming to the intellect. Like say mind is forcing me to get angry or envious. I generally will do the opposite or stay neutral. I will start questioning my mind and try to go to roots to find the reasons and clear them with spiritual knowledge. Sowly mind will conform.

This way, more the mind is trained and cleaned, the reflection of light gets better and better. That is the knowledge transmission gets better and better. One will be able to appreciate the knowledge without any ego, bias, etc. That knwledge in turn trains the intellect better. The pace in the spiritual journey is accelerated.

Introspection and being constantly based (mind) in the spirituality (through complete faith and devotion) will keep the mind and intellect above the sansar.

Love and best wishes