All this is Brahman

[mithya]

It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman. Because you define the thing you see in front as a cup based on color, shape, size, form etc. And that itself is based on sensory input, eyes in this case. In other words, without eyes, there's no color, shape, form. Without ears, no sound. Without the nose, no smell, and so on and so forth.

Therefore, the cup is not really a cup, it's a cup as far as the eyes are concerned. Else, what is it? It's got to be the formless, attributeless entity, Brahman. The same goes for objects pertaining to other sense organs as well.

It's in this context we say "All this is Brahman." It doesn't mean every individual object is Brahman. That's ridiculous. These objects exist due to our sensory perceptions. Without them, they don't exist the way we think they exist. Their real nature is devoid of forms and qualities. Hence, what we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and think are unreal. They don't exist at all. It's only the formless Brahman that exists, but thanks to senses, we think IT exists as forms, qualities etc. The latter is an illusion, while the former alone is real. Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

Unfortunately, most neo-Hindus and even self-proclaimed vedantins don't ever say the world is false, that everything we perceive is false, and that the Formless alone is real. They speak a dubious language to convince their audience, thereby diluting the greatness of advaita.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Let me test my understanding:

you mention

Therefore, the cup is not really a cup, it's a cup as far as the eyes are concerned. Else, what is it? It's got to be the formless, attributeless entity, Brahman. The same goes for objects pertaining to other sense organs as well.

A view of saguṇa Brahman (form) does not apply, only nirguṇa ( formless) Brahman is, well Brahman? Is this what you mean to say? only formless is Brahman.

If so what then is the cup's material? Is it other then Brahman? If so, then assist me with the truth ekaṁ sva advitīyam¹. All is One, except for cups?

praṇām

words

• ekaṁ or eka एक- one and the same , solitary , single + sva स्व- one's own + advitiya अद्वितीय- without a second

[devotee]

A view of saguṇa Brahman (form) does not apply, only nirguṇa ( formless) Brahman is, well Brahman? Is this what you mean to say? only formless is Brahman.

If so what then is the cup's material? Is it other then Brahman? If so, then assist me with the truth ekaṁ sva advitīyam�. All is One, except for cups?

Namaste Yajvanji,

Somehow similar feelings came to my mind on reading this post !

Regards,

OM

[saidevo]

Namaste everyone.

I think Mithya has expressed the nature of Brahman very well: for one who was debating that Brahman and Consciousness are material, he has come a long way, so we need to encourage this new member and not snub his points of view.

Brahman by his very nature is only NirguNa Brahman. SaguNa Brahman is only a projection on the Absolute Reality of Brahman. The Absolute Reality of Brahman is essentially Consciousness which is expressed in terms of Sat-Chit-Ananda. SaguNa Brahman multiplies himself into the world of forms and entities using his IchChA-JnAna-KriyA shaktis and the three guNas Sattva-Rajas-Tamas inherent in him.

Here is what I think of Mithya's pov:

It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman. Because you define the thing you see in front as a cup based on color, shape, size, form etc. And that itself is based on sensory input, eyes in this case. In other words, without eyes, there's no color, shape, form. Without ears, no sound. Without the nose, no smell, and so on and so forth.

The object that we know as a cup is only due to our sensory-mental perception in the waking state of our existence. However, the observation "Without ears, no sound." etc. is only partially right because we can and do perceive sounds and shapes and color in our mind, so the perception is also mental.

Therefore, the cup is not really a cup, it's a cup as far as the eyes are concerned. Else, what is it? It's got to be the formless, attributeless entity, Brahman. The same goes for objects pertaining to other sense organs as well.

I think Mithya only speaks of the NirguNa Brahman here, not SaguNa. The 'material' of the 'cup' (in the question Yajvan has posed) is found in Mithya's expression "formless, attributeless entity, Brahman." This is in otherwords not the Prakriti that exists for us in the cup but the Consciousness of Brahman. And this also agrees with the statement "ekaM sva advitIyam" because there is only one thing here which is the Reality. Yajvan's question "All is One, except for cups?" has the answer "Yes, all is One and the cups are only its forms."

The latter is an illusion, while the former alone is real. Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

Unfortunately, most neo-Hindus and even self-proclaimed vedantins don't ever say the world is false, that everything we perceive is false, and that the Formless alone is real. They speak a dubious language to convince their audience, thereby diluting the greatness of advaita.

This is where Mithya misses the point. Sankara said "brahma satyaM, jagat mithya" but by the term 'mithya' he meant only the conditional reality of the world ('vyavahArika satyam'), which is the nature of SaguNa Brahman. So the Hindus who perceive the world this way instead of as an illusion are not at all at fault.

[atanu]

Friends,

There is another aspect in addition to all valuable aspects already noted. The 'ekaM sva advitIyam' though is the brahmasatyam, is only known to 'ekaM sva advitIyam'. So, a cup which knows itself as a cup cannot say "I am Brahman". Only Vishnu can procalim "I am Brahman" without taint. Though All this is truly Brahman.

Yet, is Mithya without an agenda? His points relate to Bheda-Abheda faith, though he may or may not know it. IMO, he knows it well. There is no harm or wrong in adhering to faith but some inconsistencies rankle. Why Mithya takes up the case of a cup as not being Brahman? What comes next?

Om

[atanu]

It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman.

Dear Mithya,

You should read the verse in Gita, wherein Lord says:

24. Brahman is the oblation; Brahman is the melted butter (ghee); by Brahman is the oblation poured into the fire of Brahman; Brahman verily shall be reached by him who always sees Brahman in action.

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

The point I am making is that a Cup does not have to decide whether it is Brahman. The decision is made by you.

Om

[atanu]

It doesn't mean the cup you see in front is Brahman.

It's in this context we say "All this is Brahman." It doesn't mean every individual object is Brahman. That's ridiculous.

Unfortunately, most neo-Hindus and even self-proclaimed vedantins don't ever say the world is false, that everything we perceive is false, and that the Formless alone is real. They speak a dubious language to convince their audience, thereby diluting the greatness of advaita.

Namaste,

This is an example of superposition and also of circular logic. As per Mithya, a person, who is not a neo-Hindu and not a self proclaimed Vedantist (but is a real vedantist) will not speak dubiously and will say that everything we perceive is false. This is apparently fine as far as it goes.

But then how such a person determines that the cup is a separate reality, which is not Brahman? I hope that the falacy is clear?

Om

[mithya]

Except for Sai, no one has even bothered to understand what I was trying to say. So let me explain this a bit more.

Let's call reality X. This X is interpreted as thought by the mind, as sound by the ear, as form by the eye, and so forth. Which means thought is NOT X, sound is NOT X etc. etc. Thought, sound, sight happen to be the interpretation of X, rather than X itself.

Going by this, what's the nature of the cup in this context? Well, what we call cup is NOT X, it's X interpreted in a certain way by the eye. It's NOT X itself. In other words, perception of reality is NOT reality itself. Hence, forms must be negated in this manner, so that we can reach a point where X=Formless, Attributeless Brahman, Nirguna Brahman. Saguna is simply a conventional reality, as real (or perhaps as unreal) as the tiger in the dream that wakes us to REALITY.

In conclusion, Brahman is Formless, and forms are illusions which occur due to the 'translation' (which is essentially a distortion) done by the mind and senses. This 'distortion' or 'form' cannot be equated with Brahman. On the contrary, this distortion MUST be negated for Brahman to be. This is the meaning of "All this is Brahman." It's quite diabolical to say forms are Brahman, since forms are illusory. So how can illusion=Brahman?

In fact, such a view is in line with Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha, a vaishnava school. Sankara's advaita isn't so silly, it negates forms to affirm the Formless which is the Sole Reality behind these illusions.

[mithya]

But then how such a person determines that the cup is a separate reality, which is not Brahman? I hope that the falacy is clear?

The cup has form. Brahman is formless. So the cup cannot be Brahman. Then what is it? It's NOT Brahman itself, but a false interpretation of Brahman by our limited senses. Which means, without senses, this flawed interpretation (and therefore the cup or any form, for that matter) wouldn't even exist. Therefore, forms are false, and Formless Brahman alone is true.

[satay]

namaksar,

one word: Ajativada