Is Brahman Self-aware in and of Itself? Or does It experience awareness through the Atman? Or is a combination of both? Or neither?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Brahman and Awareness
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
If there is nothing but Brahman, then Brahman is awareness itself, and the Atman itself. If a goal of moksha is to become aware of being Brahman, then I think it follows that Brahman is aware, being awareness itself. Aaaaand we're back to my first statement. 
Brahman is self-awareness itself, as well as self-essence.
Just to be clear, are you stating that once one realizes Brahman, It cannot be understood intellectually?
No. I'm saying it can't be understood intellectually period. It's the old (to me anyway) conundrum of book knowledge versus mystic realised knowledge. Jnana yoga isn't actually a yoga, but jnana is a state of awareness beyond intellect. Intellectuals and scholars have misunderstood what was meant by knowledge, and flipped experiential and meditative knowledge into book knowledge. So we have people claiming to understand Brahman ... yes, you can get a sense of it, and an intellectual knowledge of it. But you can't actually taste it.
Thank you for the clarification. In my view, mystic understanding beyond intellect is very difficult to describe with words, but to some extent, it can be understood and known at the intellectual level, depending on the individual's level of mystic understanding of what is being conveyed.
And yes, I know that may read like circular reasoning, but it makes sense to me (and hopefully a few of you).
Experience is probably a better word. Maybe like trying to describe a color or a sound to a person who has been blind or deaf since birth. These are things that have to be experienced to be known.
No?... Yes?... Maybe?
No?... Yes?... Maybe?
Experience is probably a better word. Maybe like trying to describe a color or a sound to a person who has been blind or deaf since birth. These are things that have to be experienced to be known.
No?... Yes?... Maybe?
As I see it, experience leads to understanding and realization.
But you make an excellent point.
Yes. Agreed. Even taste of mango cannot be intellectually realised. But at least 10 people may agree that although beyond description mango tastes stupendous. And these people can urge others to taste it.
And agree that it's quite different from tasting lemons (thinking of LSD trips
)
depending on the individual's level of mystic understanding of what is being conveyed.
Yes, some of it can filter back into the reasoning intellectual process, just as any memory of any experience would. At least this is what I've read, I've most certainly not experienced it.
From my Advaita understanding:
Brahman is pure sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss).
Atman is a spark of Brahman animating finite forms.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Brahman is pure consciousness. So it is consciousness conscious of itself.
As per advaita, Brahman and Atman are one and the same. In the jiva, the Atman is obscured by the vaccilating mind due to desires, cravings and aversions by the influence of external phenomena.
There is an insightful saying by B.K.S.Iyengar....
There is a universal reality in ourselves that aligns us with a universal reality that is everywhere.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
Brahman is only energy but it is part of Sri Krishna so Brahman by it self is not self aware in or of itself, only Sri Krishna is. When we surrender to Sri Krishna through our atman we experience great awareness so much so that we take steps to protect ourselves from the evil that our enemies bring without much trouble in this life. So we survive in dignity with that tremendous awareness from the Grace of Sri Krishna.
Interesting perspective. I've read that from a theistic view, that Krishna is the same a Brahman, but I've never seen Brahman being referred to as a part of Krishna.
If Brahman is only energy and is not aware, and only Krishna is, wouldn't this imply a dualistic perspective contrary to advaitistic views, or are you perceiving this more as qualified nondualism?
I perceive awareness to be an aspect of consciousness, not the mind, and I perceive consciousness to be Brahman. Wouldn't existence without awareness be nihilistic?
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
On Hindu cosmogony, I have developed my own understanding, summarised here: Brahman in Hindu cosmogony and religion.
The relationship between the jiva (human) and God is best described as qualified dualism in that there is simultaneous oneness and separateness between the two when in surrender: achintya bheda abheda tatwa.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
What you believe is your choice (like many/most Hindus in the forum) - universal consciousness, God, Brahman, the creator and controller of everything in the universe. But, existence without awareness is still existence, like that of a rock. The rock affects the behavior of water or air flowing around it. Brahman is such a rock. Just the existence of Brahman creates 'maya', and therefore the universe. Brahman does not need to do a thing.