Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Brahman is all the above?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Brahman is all the above?

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo View Post
    Although Brahman is beyond comprehension by human abilities (except that it should be realized as the Self in us), Hindu sages have mentioned the nature of Brahman as sat-chit-Ananda.
    To just extend the conversation a bit further let me offer another view of the same matter. It is not offered to change one's opinion or to imbibe a brain-cramp, but an extention of how robust sanātana dharma is.

    In kaśmiri śaivism there is the notion of the '3rd brahma' or tṛtīyam brahman. What can this be ?

    It is a standard point of reference that brahman is considered as oṁ-tat-sat in vedānta. In trika ( or kaśmir śaivism ) it is called the 3rd brahma. That is , in oṁ-tat-sat it is the 3rd defining idea or sat that is considered.
    This brahman is considered vast ( bṛhat) , all pervading (vyāpaka) and is completely in union with śakti. In vedānta one may call out brahman as oṁ-tat-sat or as sat-cit-ānanda. In kaśmir śaivism this whole concept can be related with one word sauḥ ( sa +au + ḥ) and is considered amṛtbīja, the very heart (hṛdaya) of bhairava ( paramaśiva).


    So we find this brahman in kaśmiri śaivism yet more tightly coupled with śakti. It is called the 3rd brahman as there is more alignment with śiva (or bhairava).

    praṇām
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #22
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    834
    Rep Power
    491

    Re: Brahman is all the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by sdevante View Post
    Along the lines of the previous post -

    Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?
    Partly true but it is more than that. It is to also make them part of the family to create the bonding. To feel them as part of their own. It not only is in human form but in form of trees, animals and inert objects also. It is the ecology and creation of which we are subset, of which we have evolved, which is the part to of the continuity from unmanifested Brahman to manifested brahman.
    Last edited by yajvan; 12 May 2012 at 07:53 PM.
    Love and best wishes:hug:

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    121
    Rep Power
    103

    Re: Brahman is all the above?

    The distinction between brahman and the abrahamic god is that the abrahamic god is characterized as if it lives time linearly like us - that at the start, it decided to make a world, and has been playing with it since.
    Instead, Brahman makes no distinction between the creator and the created; there is no past and future for brahman, all things are brahman, and brahman just changes. The clock's ticking requires brahman to change such that it is ticking, has ticked, and will tick again, and that the hand moves accordingly.
    If you found out that you were god, dreaming a life for yourself, and that you were identical with the external world, you would ask yourself: "So, what would I have happen to me in my life? what would be my perfect drama?":cool1:


    You died, and death was complete freedom from suffering - bliss. But it very quickly got lonely and repetitive in bliss, so you decided to be born once more. You've been doing this forever.

  4. #24

    Re: Brahman is all the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by cuddledkitty View Post
    Ok as a true Hindu one will know that it is truly a monotheistic set of theological and philosophical set of teachings. The supreme deity or "Brahman" as one may say is in reality the only true god and all deva and devi are just representations of this.
    Hi Kitty! Can I call you Kitty? You can call me Phil. As in, Dr. Phil.

    In reference to your statements above, I don't think these are correct according to Vedaanta. As far as Vedaantic Hinduism is concerned, Brahman and the devas are in two different categories. The Kena Upanishad (http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/sama_veda/kena.html) makes this very clear:

    III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the gods. But in that victory which was Brahmans the gods revelled in joy.
    III-2. They thought, Ours alone is this victory, ours alone is this glory. Brahman knew this their pride and appeared before them, but they knew not who this Yaksha (worshipful Being) was.
    III-3. They said to Agni: O Jataveda, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is. (He said So be it.
    III-4. Agni approached It. It asked him, Who art thou? He replied, I am Agni or I am Jataveda.
    III-5. (It said What is the power in thee, such as thou art? (Agni said I can burn all this that is upon the earth.
    III-6. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: Burn this. (Agni) went near it in all haste, but he could not burn it. He returned from there (and said I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is.
    III-7. Then (the gods) said to Vayu: O Vayu, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is. (He said So be it.
    III-8. Vayu approached It. It said to him, Who art thou? He replied, I am Vayu or I am Matarsiva.
    III-9. (It said What is the power in thee, such as thou art? (Vayu said I can take hold of all this that is upon the earth.
    III-10. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: Take this up. (Vayu) went near it in all haste, but he could not take it up. He returned from there (and said I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is.
    III-11. Then (the gods) said to Indra: O Maghava, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is. (He said So be it. He approached It, but It disappeared from him.
    III-12. In that space itself (where the Yaksha had disappeared) Indra approached an exceedingly charming woman. To that Uma decked in gold (or to the daughter of the Himalayas), he said: Who is this Yaksha?

    IV-1. She said: It was Brahman. In the victory that was Brahmans you were revelling in joy. Then alone did Indra know for certain that It was Brahman.
    IV-2. Therefore, these gods viz. Agni, Vayu and Indra excelled other gods, for they touched Brahman who stood very close and indeed knew first that It was Brahman.
    IV-3. Therefore is Indra more excellent than the other gods, for he touched Brahman who stood very close and indeed knew first that It was Brahman.

    Note that these passages clearly speak of *difference* between the devas (like Indra, Agni, etc) and Brahman, and dependence of the former on the latter. Even Indra's higher position with respect to the other devas is only with respect to his proximity to Brahman.

    Therefore, Brahman is real, and is an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient entity. The devas are also real, but are subordinate entities.

    Now the question may be asked as to why Brahman is sometimes referred to by names like Indra, Agni, Vayu, etc as mentioned in Rig Veda 1.164.46. Is it not contradictory that Brahman is in one place referred as Indra or Agni and yet in another place Indra and Agni are see as powerless entities next to the might of Brahman? The answer is no.

    Remember, that the devas are named according to their specific qualities, powers, and functions. However, it is Brahman that gives them their names (Rig Veda 10.82.3):

    3 Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing,
    Even he alone, the Deities' name-giver,him other beings seek for information.

    If you accept the orthodox Vedaantic point of view that Brahman is the origin and support of all, then it follows that He is the origin of the devas also, and should have all qualities, powers, etc which the devas have in fuller measure. Thus, the names of the devas which indicate their respective qualities can also be taken as being names of Brahman.

    I have also seen this explained another way. Brahman is the indwelling Paramatman within every Jivatman. Just as we point to our bodies and say, "My name is Phil" or "My name is John" - yet we are really referring to the Jivatman within, similarly the Paramatma being the indwelling soul of all souls and matter, can also be taken as the referent of any term used to designate a subordinate entity such as souls or matter. This is known as the principle of co-ordinate predication. Thus, referring to Brahman as "Indra" or "Agni" can be understood as referring to the Paramatma who dwells within Indra and within Agni.

    Thus, you can refer to Brahman by anya-devata names, so long as you understand who is actually being referred to, the difference between the Brahman and the deva, and the relationship of indwelling controller to controlled entity.

    regards,

    Philosoraptor

  5. #25
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    834
    Rep Power
    491

    Re: Brahman is all the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by sdevante View Post
    Along the lines of the previous post -

    Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?

    And if most Hindus view the gods and goddesses as literally existing, then is there any common belief about how the gods and goddesses came to exist? I guess what I'm saying is, in the Christian tradition, God decides to create the heavens, earth, etc. etc. Would it be accurate to say that Brahman stirred into manifestation the gods and goddesses that literally created the worlds?

    Sorry if I am not explaining my questions well, I am still learning. Thanks!
    Thought there is another thread on this
    Love and best wishes:hug:

  6. #26

    Re: Brahman is all the above?

    Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?
    There are different opinions on this. Everyone thinks that they are different forms of Brahman, but some think that yes Brahman can take a physical form, kind of like water becoming ice sculptures and exist in a form on its own. Still it's water.

    I personally don't think this. I think they are metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman as you said.
    I think of it as this: We are all One, everything on earth is matter, gas, liquid of solid, but we are still all matter. It is extremely diverse, we have trees, birds, lions, people, seas, rain, clouds...
    This is what the many Gods represent to me, it represent the diversity of creation. This is why we can pick one Ishta Devata if we want, so that we have something to connect to that we like when in reality we are connecting to the formless.



    Quote Originally Posted by kallol View Post
    Partly true but it is more than that. It is to also make them part of the family to create the bonding. To feel them as part of their own. It not only is in human form but in form of trees, animals and inert objects also. It is the ecology and creation of which we are subset, of which we have evolved, which is the part to of the continuity from unmanifested Brahman to manifested brahman.
    That is very well said! Much better then how I said it.

    Maya

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Creation and Advaita !
    By nirotu in forum Advaita
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 28 April 2015, 10:34 PM
  2. Tattvas
    By grames in forum Advaita
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14 October 2009, 07:55 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06 November 2007, 12:32 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 June 2007, 09:40 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06 September 2006, 07:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •