Brahman and the Advaita Vision

[Shantanu]

I am keen to find out without recourse to the shastras whether Advaita can be explained in simple English language in words that can be understood by anyone. Could someone start me off with a definition of Brahman?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Brahman is that which the universe grows forth from. (Provisionally: the higher teachings of advaita do not accept creation as an 'actual,' discrete event)

Although you have asked for the advaita perspective - which I subscribe to, it should also be noted that different philosophical schools define brahman differently.

In advaita, there is nothing but Brahman. Perception of multiplicity independent of Brahman is unreal; Brahman is the underlying unity. Perception of [provisional] multiplicity within Brahman, however, is 'real.' Brahman is the inner, the outer, and even the construct which pretends at separation between the two.

Brahman is absolutely full as well as completely empty; and from This fullness, only fullness [appears] to proceed from. That is to say, any seemingly individual construct - whether a supposedly insentient object, or a sentient being, is That fullness - not just a part. Spatial ideas such as parts do not really apply to that which, though including space, is utterly beyond.

It should also be emphasized that Brahman, as a philosophical concept, is a corpse of the truth. Brahman can never actually be described, or in any way circumscribed by words. We can only approximate. If we speak of Brahman, it should be as a means leading up to actual experience of Brahman - otherwise we have only dead philosophical toys to play with.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Here is a Personalist point of view, for whatever it is worth:

The constitution of Brahman is immortality, imperishability, eternity, and happiness. Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramātmā, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. Therefore, both Paramātmā and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate​

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān." [S.B. 1.2.11]

Lord Kṛṣṇa also says in the Bhagavad Gītā says:

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca​

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [B.G. 14.27]

 

[Shantanu]

Brahman is that which the universe grows forth from. (Provisionally: the higher teachings of advaita do not accept creation as an 'actual,' discrete event)

Although you have asked for the advaita perspective - which I subscribe to, it should also be noted that different philosophical schools define brahman differently.

In advaita, there is nothing but Brahman. Perception of multiplicity independent of Brahman is unreal; Brahman is the underlying unity. Perception of [provisional] multiplicity within Brahman, however, is 'real.' Brahman is the inner, the outer, and even the construct which pretends at separation between the two.

Brahman is absolutely full as well as completely empty; and from This fullness, only fullness [appears] to proceed from. That is to say, any seemingly individual construct - whether a supposedly insentient object, or a sentient being, is That fullness - not just a part. Spatial ideas such as parts do not really apply to that which, though including space, is utterly beyond.

It should also be emphasized that Brahman, as a philosophical concept, is a corpse of the truth. Brahman can never actually be described, or in any way circumscribed by words. We can only approximate. If we speak of Brahman, it should be as a means leading up to actual experience of Brahman - otherwise we have only dead philosophical toys to play with.

The core of the pure advaita vision (of Shankaracharya) centres on the statement atma=Brahman, with atma being the an unchanging part of the jiva. If you agree, is not pure advaita a metaphysical (magical) concept rather than religion?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The core of the pure advaita vision (of Shankaracharya) centres on the statement atma=Brahman, with atma being the an unchanging part of the jiva. If you agree, is not pure advaita a metaphysical (magical) concept rather than religion?

I do not think that metaphysical = magical, as magical generally refers to supernatural phenomena of the physical.

What exactly do you mean by religion? A congregation of believers in some particular doctrine? The practice of a spiritual philosophy?

As I had said, advaita as a philosophical concept is useless without its practice.

 

[Shantanu]

Here is a Personalist point of view, for whatever it is worth:

The constitution of Brahman is immortality, imperishability, eternity, and happiness. Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramātmā, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. Therefore, both Paramātmā and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate​

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān." [S.B. 1.2.11]

Lord Kṛṣṇa also says in the Bhagavad Gītā says:

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca​

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [B.G. 14.27]

What you say is worth a lot.
I can appreciate Brahman as being the absolute (core, essential, and constituent) form and nature of Reality from which all all other realities materialise and on which they are dependent, and I know about Ishwara as the natural truth mechanism of our pragmatic existence. I have for a long time realised that there is a part of me which has a connection with Ishwara (the natural 'order' of our pragmatic world, or Vishnu the Preserver) through what I call the truth consciousness mechanism of Nature. In a post to the website Advaita Vision recently I called this connection a 'spirit' because scientists have not found a biological tissue or organ that can be called the atma. Is this spirit what you are call Paramatma? How did you realise the existence of Paramatama, please?

 

[Shantanu]

I do not think that metaphysical = magical, as magical generally refers to supernatural phenomena of the physical.

What exactly do you mean by religion? A congregation of believers in some particular doctrine? The practice of a spiritual philosophy?

As I had said, advaita as a philosophical concept is useless without its practice.

I have heard that the practice of pure advaita in terms of atma=Brahman leads to gyana/jnanum, one becomes enlightened from that realisation and jivanmukti or moksha results. That is not religion is it?

 

[Surya Deva]

Excellent answer given by Shuddasattva.

Brahman means the infinite, all encompassing, absolute reality. There is nothing outside of infinite, infinite is all pervading. Although Brahman has no attributes, the nature of Brahman is that it is existence/beingness/truth(Sat) consciousness/awareness(Chit) and unending/eternal/blissful(Ananda).

Advaita is to correctly discriminate the nature of Brahman, Satchitananda, from the empirical reality that we experience, ultimately realizing that all of empirical reality can be negated into nothingness, however what remains is the Self, Atman. Hence necessarily concluding that Atman = Brahman.

To add: Just as Brahman cannot be negated. The self can also not be negated. Hence the Self remains as an absolute undeniable and incontrovertible truth.

Note: Buddhists disagree that the Self is an absolute truth, but the denial is self-defeating, for who is the one that denies the self The self does not require proof, because it is self-evident in all experience. There cannot be experience without an experiencer; knowledge without a knower; denial without a denier.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Just want to note:

Yogacara and Madhyamaka [Buddhist] dialectic goes far in explaining how there can be experience without a substantial experiencer, but the upper echelons of Buddhist thought recognize the Self - it is called variously as dharmakaya, vajrakaya, tathagatagarbha, dharmadhatu, prabhassara-chitta, satya-atman(!), etc. It's actually an extension of the Prajnaparamita doctrine of the Absolute Void as the negation of negation by the Self-Existent.

This is mostly because Buddha and subsequent Buddhist masters wanted to separate the idea of the personal self from the absolute reality of Self Awareness.

I find that in advaita thought, the idea of the Self is often taken as a personalized object, which is doubly incorrect. It is not a defect of advaita itself, but insufficient understanding. Buddhist dialectic was to cut through this, but of course, it comes with its own brand of misunderstandings such that now most Buddhists dogmatically cling to the idea of no-self.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes, even I suspect that Buddhists have misunderstood the teachings of Anata. What the Buddhists deny is the egoic self, which is an aggregate of the skandas, which truly is a momentary and transient entity. However, Advaita also denies the egoic self, calling it ahamkara, the constructed self. It asserts the Atman, as the universal self the substratum of all experience and knowledge. The ultimate knower, enjoyer and experiencer.

True Advaita understands the self to be a homogeneous mass of consciousness, rather than a particular consciousness(like jiva) The illusion of particularity disappears when all adjucts(upadhis) that form the empirical self are negated.

 

[Shantanu]

Excellent answer given by Shuddasattva.

Brahman means the infinite, all encompassing, absolute reality. There is nothing outside of infinite, infinite is all pervading. Although Brahman has no attributes, the nature of Brahman is that it is existence/beingness/truth(Sat) consciousness/awareness(Chit) and unending/eternal/blissful(Ananda).

Advaita is to correctly discriminate the nature of Brahman, Satchitananda, from the empirical reality that we experience, ultimately realizing that all of empirical reality can be negated into nothingness, however what remains is the Self, Atman. Hence necessarily concluding that Atman = Brahman.

To add: Just as Brahman cannot be negated. The self can also not be negated. Hence the Self remains as an absolute undeniable and incontrovertible truth.

Note: Buddhists disagree that the Self is an absolute truth, but the denial is self-defeating, for who is the one that denies the self The self does not require proof, because it is self-evident in all experience. There cannot be experience without an experiencer; knowledge without a knower; denial without a denier.

Surya Deva, first I agree with you that Shuddhasattva gave an excellent post.

Secondly, the emperical reality that we experience cannot however be negated into nothingness for we are infact composed of various kinds of atoms only to be recycled in Nature until the Solar System collapses etc. All future predictions of the course of the universe seem to show that we will exist in atomic or subatomic or an energy form for billions of years until Brahman re-manifests itself (if it has the capacity) in some way by another Big Bang universe.

Thirdly, once we are dead, there is no experiencer left (our atoms will become microorganisms and plants), only atma or Paramatma. The atma is not the Self so it must actually be the Paramatma spirit that had permeated the human body to do the experiencing while the jiva was alive.

Fourthly, from what I know at least some Buddhists say that there is a form of consciousness that is transferred between rebirths, do they not? That is also non-Self.

What do you say to these comments which comes from my version of advaita?

 

[jg22]

Shantanu,

I have heard that the practice of pure advaita in terms of atma=Brahman leads to gyana/jnanum, one becomes enlightened from that realisation and jivanmukti or moksha results. That is not religion is it?

Advaita is the siddhanta revealed by the Upanishads and supported by Smriti and Yukti. When one does not know the siddhanta then one sees differences in Brahman, and becomes subject to fear, and therefore raga/dvesha and suffering come. The purpose of Advaita (teaching) is to remove the ignorance that causes the suffering by revealing the vision of the Vedic texts.


Surya Deva,

Brahman means the infinite, all encompassing, absolute reality. There is nothing outside of infinite, infinite is all pervading. Although Brahman has no attributes, the nature of Brahman is that it is existence/beingness/truth(Sat) consciousness/awareness(Chit) and unending/eternal/blissful(Ananda).

Advaita is to correctly discriminate the nature of Brahman, Satchitananda, from the empirical reality that we experience, ultimately realizing that all of empirical reality can be negated into nothingness, however what remains is the Self, Atman. Hence necessarily concluding that Atman = Brahman.

Please note that to posit an all pervading, absolute and eternal reality (Sat) and also the negation of the empirical world into 'nothingness' is a contradiction, since an all-pervading existence cannot admit of either difference or non-existence within itself. The world of names and forms is resolved into Sat, not asat, hence the revelation 'I was Manu, and the Sun' and 'All this is Brahman', and thousands of others.

 

[Shantanu]

Just want to note:

Yogacara and Madhyamaka [Buddhist] dialectic goes far in explaining how there can be experience without a substantial experiencer, but the upper echelons of Buddhist thought recognize the Self - it is called variously as dharmakaya, vajrakaya, tathagatagarbha, dharmadhatu, prabhassara-chitta, satya-atman(!), etc. It's actually an extension of the Prajnaparamita doctrine of the Absolute Void as the negation of negation by the Self-Existent.

This is mostly because Buddha and subsequent Buddhist masters wanted to separate the idea of the personal self from the absolute reality of Self Awareness.

I find that in advaita thought, the idea of the Self is often taken as a personalized object, which is doubly incorrect. It is not a defect of advaita itself, but insufficient understanding. Buddhist dialectic was to cut through this, but of course, it comes with its own brand of misunderstandings such that now most Buddhists dogmatically cling to the idea of no-self.

Sudhhasattva, do you see that some people can experience truth much better than others and are also able to do so in a self-protective manner that floats their truth-seeking boat?

 

[Surya Deva]

Secondly, the emperical reality that we experience cannot however be negated into nothingness for we are infact composed of various kinds of atoms only to be recycled in Nature until the Solar System collapses etc. All future predictions of the course of the universe seem to show that we will exist in atomic or subatomic or an energy form for billions of years until Brahman re-manifests itself (if it has the capacity) in some way by another Big Bang universe.

If you examine physics yourself you will see there is not actually consensus whether atoms really exist or are the basic building blocks of reality. In the late 19th century it was believed that atoms were the basic building blocks of reality and that nothing smaller than atoms existed, until Rutherford split the atom to reveal sub-atomic particles like protons, electrons and neutrons. It was then believed that protons, electrons and neutrons were the smallest units, but now we have shown with particle accelerators that even smaller units exist called quarks, and even smaller units could still exist.

There is yet another major discovery that was made in the early 20th century, which often many overlook because of the philosophical implications of this discovery which poses strong challenges to materialism. The discovery of the quantum(similar to the Hindu Akasha). At the quantum level of reality matter does not exist in an atomic form, but as undifferentiated wave of probability known as a wavefunction. The manifest world of atoms only comes into being when the wavefunction collapses. There is hot debate in the physics community what causes the wavefunction to collapse, the most favored hypothesis is the collapse of the wavefunction by a conscious observer.

Thus you can see our empirical reality is negatable. It is never certain or absolute. As our empirical reality is a sensory reality and our senses are known to be unreliable, the empirical reality cannot be taken to be absolute. A better argument is put forward by Samkhya, "Only effects are observable, not causes" Whatever you are observing in empirical reality is mediated and represented by your senses and your mind, thus your phenomenological reality is an effect, and you are NOT privvy to the cause. The Vedanta also express the same argument: the one that thinks, but cannot be thought of; that one that sees, but cannot be seen.

In short anything that is an object of your perception is negatable. Atoms can be negated, even the quantum can be negated. All objects that we perceive, according to Vedanta(Advaita are merely name and form, linguistic reality. We classify reality using our language, creating objects which have no ontological reality, but only a linguistic reality: like chairs and tables. Chair and table are not substances in themselves, but are modifications of a common substance. In like manner, all of empirical reality you witness happens in awareness/consciousness, hence the very substratum of all empirical reality is consciousness itself.

thirdly, once we are dead, there is no experiencer left (our atoms will become microorganisms and plants), only atma or Paramatma. The atma is not the Self so it must actually be the Paramatma spirit that had permeated the human body to do the experiencing while the jiva was alive.

The answer to this is that the subtle body remains. According to Vedanta the physical body is a complex multidimensional entity which exists across several dimensions or planes of reality: physical, emotional/energetic, mental, intellectual/process and conscious, which are divided into three categories: gross, subtle and causal. You not only have a physical body, but you also have an intricate system of energy networks in your body through which life flows; you also have a mental existence upon the screen of which you have thoughts, visualizations, imagination; you also have a nature which is full of desires and finally you have a sense of ego/personhood.

The materialist dogma is that these other aspects of you have somehow developed within coarse gross matter by some kind of accident, a mere epiphenomenon. However, Vedanta explains that in fact it is the other way around: the mental aspect is the first to coming into being, then the physical body follows. As gross things never come into being first, they are always preceded by more subtle things e.g. solids are preceded by liquids, liquids are preceded by gasses. Molecules are preceded by atoms, atoms are preceded by quarks. In like manner one must conclude that physical matter is preceded by mental matter.

I mentioned the Samkhya argument "Only effects are observable, not causes" The physical body is the end of a very long causal chain, and we are not privvy to the preceding links in our conscious awareness. However, through Yogic meditation it is possible to become aware of the preceding links and directly witness how mental matter transforms and solidifies into physical matter. In fact you are doing it all the time, without realizing it, how a thought to move your hand, transforms into electrical energy, and then into chemical-motor energy. It is possible, as per Yoga, to be able to witness the very start of this process which is otherwise unconscious to you.

In quantum physics, the collapse of the wavefunction is widely argued to be due to the presence of a conscious observer, thus implicating that consciousness precedes the physical reality that we witness. There are more studies now in physics to show direct effects of consciousness on matter, how for example in experiments on random number generators at Princeton has shown that consciousness can bring coherence and order to the random number generator through mere intentionality. In the medical sciences it is also now understood the interactive relationship between mind and body, how literally thoughts can actually physically manifest in the body.

The great pronouncement of the last century was E = MC2, to understand how energy and matter convert into one another. The great pronouncement of this century is going to be how energy and mind convert into one another.

 

[Shantanu]

Advaita is the siddhanta revealed by the Upanishads and supported by Smriti and Yukti. When one does not know the siddhanta then one sees differences in Brahman, and becomes subject to fear, and therefore raga/dvesha and suffering come. The purpose of Advaita (teaching) is to remove the ignorance that causes the suffering by revealing the vision of the Vedic texts.

JG, I do not believe in studying the Vedic texts as a source of understanding Reality nor do I any longer listen to teachers (Swamijis, Acharyas and '..Anandajis no matter how renowned they are/were) of the same or of any other revelations: I have seen enough of life and put my faith in many teachers to only find out that they did not satisfy myt thirst and now only believe in what I am experiencing myself. I try and have my own questions answered in today's language that I can understand because the truth is that Sanskrit is more or less dead as a language of communication. Thus, I treat all scriptural literature as historical records and adjuncts to experiential knowledge rather than being sources of complete divinely-imparted knowledge or knowledge from self-realisation that should be treated as Holy books with nothing further to be exposed.

 

[Shantanu]

The great pronouncement of the last century was E = MC2, to understand how energy and matter convert into one another. The great pronouncement of this century is going to be how energy and mind convert into one another.

Will science be able to discern between the conversion of energy into the mind of a criminal and that of a saint?

 

[Surya Deva]

Surya Deva,




Please note that to posit an all pervading, absolute and eternal reality (Sat) and also the negation of the empirical world into 'nothingness' is a contradiction, since an all-pervading existence cannot admit of either difference or non-existence within itself. The world of names and forms is resolved into Sat, not asat, hence the revelation 'I was Manu, and the Sun' and 'All this is Brahman', and thousands of others.

Absolutely, it is a contradiction, this is why it is maya, illusory. The mirage cannot be resolved into something real, because there is no actual substratum for the mirage.

The Samkhyans argue parinamvada that the unmanifest primordial matter transforms itself into the manifest existence, and then evolves into many evolutes. The argument they adduce to support this is the argument that the effect is pre-existent in the cause, in the same manner the apple tree is pre-existent in the apple seed. Hence we can resolve all effects to their causes, in this case the cause being the unmanifest primordial matter.

The Vedanta, however, argue that the effect is merely an appearance of the cause, and it is not really existent. Like an optical illusion on 2D paper which appears to look 3D, the 3D is non-existent, but the 2D paper its cause is existent(the stock example used in Vedanta is the snake seen in the rope beig non-existent) Similarly, in the example of the apple seed and the apple tree, the apple seed and the apple tree are not completely identical to one another, so the effect is apparently different to the cause.

In the very famous Upanishad mantra it says: This is full, that is full, from fullness comes fullness, if fullness is taken from fullness, fullness alone remains, a very important clue is given to the nature of reality. It is impossible that infinite Brahman could have ever really transformed itself and become immanent as this finite reality. It is impossible for the infinite to become finite; infinite can only ever remain infinite. Thus the answer is given that our perception of finite reality stems from ignorance, avidya. There is in fact no finite reality. It is a delusion of our mind, bound by time, space and causality, unable to witness the transcendental reality of Brahman.

 

[Surya Deva]

Will science be able to discern between the conversion of energy into the mind of a criminal and that of a saint?

Nope, because 'criminal' and 'saint' are just subjective labels. What one calls a criminal, another may call a saint.

What science can do however is innovate new scientific methods via which mind and matter transformations can be directly seen. That would be as momentous a discovery as the discovery of the atom bomb. Currently, scientific instruments are not subtle enough to be able to detect such subtle phenomenon. However, this does not mean it will not be possible. At one point science had no idea about infrared radiation or UV radiation, but instruments exist today that can detect them. To be able to detect the very subtle machinations of nature will require incredibly fine instruments.

The knowledge that the sages had was either through rational philosophical investigations(such as Samkhya) or through direct meditation. Today, we have come upon some of the same knowledge using the modern scientific method. I am very optimistic about the future of science, and how science will revolutionize religion.

 

[Shantanu]

Absolutely, it is a contradiction, this is why it is maya, illusory. The mirage cannot be resolved into something real, because there is no actual substratum for the mirage.

The Samkhyans argue parinamvada that the unmanifest primordial matter transforms itself into the manifest existence, and then evolves into many evolutes. The argument they adduce to support this is the argument that the effect is pre-existent in the cause, in the same manner the apple tree is pre-existent in the apple seed. Hence we can resolve all effects to their causes, in this case the cause being the unmanifest primordial matter.

The Vedanta, however, argue that the effect is merely an appearance of the cause, and it is not really existent. Like an optical illusion on 2D paper which appears to look 3D, the 3D is non-existent, but the 2D paper its cause is existent(the stock example used in Vedanta is the snake seen in the rope beig non-existent) Similarly, in the example of the apple seed and the apple tree, the apple seed and the apple tree are not completely identical to one another, so the effect is apparently different to the cause.

In the very famous Upanishad mantra it says: This is full, that is full, from fullness comes fullness, if fullness is taken from fullness, fullness alone remains, a very important clue is given to the nature of reality. It is impossible that infinite Brahman could have ever really transformed itself and become immanent as this finite reality. It is impossible for the infinite to become finite; infinite can only ever remain infinite. Thus the answer is given that our perception of finite reality stems from ignorance, avidya. There is in fact no finite reality. It is a delusion of our mind, bound by time, space and causality, unable to witness the transcendental reality of Brahman.

There is nothing illusory about about the pragmatic/empirical world. It is the truth we experience so the most real thing that there is. What is at fault is the conception of nothingness.

 

[Shantanu]

Nope, because 'criminal' and 'saint' are just subjective labels. What one calls a criminal, another may call a saint.

What science can do however is innovate new scientific methods via which mind and matter transformations can be directly seen. That would be as momentous a discovery as the discovery of the atom bomb. Currently, scientific instruments are not subtle enough to be able to detect such subtle phenomenon. However, this does not mean it will not be possible. At one point science had no idea about infrared radiation or UV radiation, but instruments exist today that can detect them. To be able to detect the very subtle machinations of nature will require incredibly fine instruments.

The knowledge that the sages had was either through rational philosophical investigations(such as Samkhya) or through direct meditation. Today, we have come upon some of the same knowledge using the modern scientific method. I am very optimistic about the future of science, and how science will revolutionize religion.

Who cares if a fool calls a murderer a saint?