Mandukya Upanishad

[karthikm]

Namaste,

Mandukya Up. is only stating where you will find Aum very beautifully. But we can never describe what Aum is apart from the fact that it is soundless sound/ inner sound.

I even dont know why they call aum as atma??

"brahman present with the soul" --but mandukya up says atma is brahman. Aum is atma. So aum is brahman. So attaining atma is equal to attaining brahman. So brahmvidya is equal to atmavidya.
Here i think the rishis first found aum and than they described it rather than the other way out. But aum is real. and since they found aum to be at the centre of their self, they called aum as atma. Than why did they have to go on with the concept of brahman is also a puzzling thing???

Mandukya upanisad takes a very logical route. Let me try to explain about my understanding.
There are many names & forms in this world. Each object has a name and a particular form. We could say that there is a world of names and a world of objects. When a child is born it is an object and we associate a name to it.

Mandukya Upanisad first takes the world of objects and associates it with the three states (waking, dream & deep sleep). There are forms in all the 3 states. Even in deep sleep the objects are there but in dormant state; only we don't recognize it, just like the objects in a dark room. It goes to the fourth level where there is no form.

Next it takes the world of names. All the sounds are associated with the three matras of AUM. Then the fourth is the AMatra. Soundless or nameless.

So Brahman which is the fourth (base) has no name and no form. All the name and forms come and go.

[devotee]

Namaste Vishnu,

If what karthik describes is ever true than i will be the first person to change my religion. It is the MOST BORING and STUPID concept i have ever heard in my life.

It that is the condition for changing your religion ... please do it today ! Or just tell us when you are undergoing this change .. just for our information.

Whatever I have gathered from your posts, your understanding of AUM and Atman is very much flawed & unfortunately you have very strong opinions based on your faulty understanding. Mandukya Upanishad is a master piece scripture & if you are able to understand it properly, you don't need any other scripture to understand what the Reality is.

If you are interested to understand what AUM is etc. you may like to read series of threads with names begining with "Aham Brahmasmi". You may also like to read thread "A few Questions on Advaita and their answers" in the same forum.

OM

[karthikm]

Namaste,

If what karthik describes is ever true than i will be the first person to change my religion. It is the MOST BORING and STUPID concept i have ever heard in my life.

Unfortunately Vishnu, Brahman is formless, nameless & attribute less. It can be as BORING as possible. If you are looking for a Brahman with full of fun & activities, good luck on your search.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Unfortunately Vishnu, Brahman is formless, nameless & attribute less. It can be as BORING as possible. If you are looking for a Brahman with full of fun & activities, good luck on your search.

If one agrees that all this is indeed brahman, then brahman is both named and nameless, form and formless, beginning-less and beginning.
Yet these are mere words. We are told it is na agrāhya - not graspable.
That is, the totality of brahman is not an object of knowledge.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Namaste, What is the description of brahman as per vedic scriptures than? Hari Om

The avadhūta� ( realized being) says it anirukta - unspeakable. Some say anirvacanīya (a+nirvacanīya) - unutterable , indescribable. Yet we're in human form (vyakti �) and wish a description. For this, an in-depth reivew of this brahman, I suggest reading/studying the chāndogya upaniṣad as one of the 10 most valuable for this offering of brahman.
Here is a list if you have interest: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617


praṇām


words

• avadhūta - one who has shaken-off from himself worldly feeling and obligation; What is shaken off? Duality. Such a person is held to be pure 'consciousness' (caitanya) in human form. The avadhūt's roam freely , as Being itself.
• vyakti -~observer~ due to the definition meaning individual; visible appearance or manifestation , becoming evident or known or public
• vyakta - perceptible by the senses (as opposed to a-vyakta , transcendental) (in sāṃkhya) 'the developed or evolved'

[karthikm]

Namaste,

What is the description of brahman as per vedic scriptures than?

Hari Om

Well Mandukya Upanisad itself describes about Brahman in the 7th sloka.

Sloka:-
Nantah-prajnam na bahih-prajnam, nobhayatah-prajnam na prajnana-ghanam na prajnam naprajnam. Adrishtam-avyavaharayam-agrahyam- alakshanam-acintyam-avyapadesyam-ekatma-pratyayasaram, prapancopasarnam santam sivam-advaitam caturtham manyante sa tm sa vijneyah

Meaning:-
The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

[devotee]

Unfortunately Vishnu, Brahman is formless, nameless & attribute less. It can be as BORING as possible. If you are looking for a Brahman with full of fun & activities, good luck on your search.

Is it really BORING ? How do you know that ? That from which all enjoyment comes ... can be boring ?

This is what happens when we try to see something beyond mental realm with our limited understanding with the given senses and mind. You know Karthikm, Muslims believe that there can be no enjoyment beyond sensual pleasures. So, in their heaven, extra facilities are provided just to enjoy sexual pleasure because from their point of view, there can be no enjoyment greater than sexual enjoyment ! That is some bankrupcy of logical thinking !

The Brahman is blissful in the third and the fourth states. Can a blissful state be boring ? What is the meaning of "bliss" ? We, unfortunately, like the Muslims, believe that there can be no fun beyond sensual pleasure !

OM

[sunyata07]

That is why Om has more importance than Brahman.

Namaste,

Maybe you have misinterpreted Shankaryacharya's words. How are Om and Brahman any different from each other? I don't understand what you mean by saying that Om has more importance than Brahman, especially when it has been made clear that Om allows one to attain the supreme Brahman. This cosmic syllable Om from which all else emanates, then, is surely the medium through which Brahman can be understood most closely by people on this worldly plane (shabda brahman). Om is Brahman. Brahman is Om. It would be erroneous to claim one has greater import than the other. Unless I am misunderstanding your quote.

Om namah Shivaya

[vishnu]

Namaste,

Looking at devotee 's remarks, I have even further doubts. since ancient times, it was believed that the sun is revolving around the earth. But now we know that it is the other way around.


Similarly, we know that the vedas, this world, sanskrit language have come from Om. I also know that Om is a soundless sound/inner sound which has a definite existence. It can thus readily be assumed that the rishis MAY be wrong in there assumption of the significance of Om. But the amazing fact is that when u listen to Om, u feel like it is "God" only. So, i think the vedas direct us to Om only. We have to be careful about its interpretation ( it is interpretation only rather than fact )too.

That is the reason i said i believe in om rather in Brahman.

Even now i think that devotee has never heard Om. That is why he has no right to comment here.

Hari Om.

[sunyata07]

Namaste Vishnu,

I'm not going to argue against your experiences of Om from reading the Mandukya Upanishad, even if I disagree with some of the points you were making. If that is your belief, so be it. Although most of what your saying has not made much sense, especially when you are claiming that you are a neophyte. I assume this means you have only recently begun to study the scriptures, so where does your air of superiority regarding this knoewledge come from? To claim that the rishis have been deluded in some of their thinking, to say that Sharkaryacharya and Madhva "did not find Om", and yet you did in your sleep? How do you expect any of the rest of us to react, especially when you make these statements without backing them up (an important part of posting that was made clear in the rules for joining HDF).

I have neither time to study nor energy to argue with people on something in which i have no interest.

This is a strange statement. If an issue does not interest you, you would rather abandon it. How, then, can you make such radical claims as saying that Om is greater than Brahman? I can see the points you were making earlier, and what merit might come out of them from a practical stance, but even so, that is taking it a bit too far in my opinion.

Also, let me say that is unfair to call Devotee, one of our most knowledgeable and esteemed members here on the forum, out as being "undeveotee" like and not being able to understand. You couldn't be any more wrong about that, and I think it's quite rude that you are talking to him via 3rd person. Kindly address him directly in future with the same courtesy as you have paid me and the others.

Om namah Shivaya