Brahman and the Advaita Vision

[Shantanu]

Further, why are you bastardising the Dwaitic sacred word of Brahma into Brahman in the sentence you just quoted: "ayam atma brahma" - my consciousness is brahman?

 

[Surya Deva]

Brahman refers to the philosophical concept of Brahman as the infinite, one without a second absolute reality discussed in the Upanishads, whereas Brahma refers to a deity in the Puranic tradition. I am not sure myself why an 'an' is added to it, maybe a Sanskrit expert could answer this. Suffice it to say the Brahman of the Upanishads should not be confused with the Puranic deity Brahma.

 

[Shantanu]

Brahman refers to the philosophical concept of Brahman as the infinite, one without a second absolute reality discussed in the Upanishads, whereas Brahma refers to a deity in the Puranic tradition. I am not sure myself why an 'an' is added to it, maybe a Sanskrit expert could answer this. Suffice it to say the Brahman of the Upanishads should not be confused with the Puranic deity Brahma.

If you are not sure, why are you taking part in this discussion? Where is the first recorded 'Brahman' in the Upanishads or anywhere else in Sanskrit?

 

[Surya Deva]

Then why did you write this:
Quote:
The Atman experiences the entire universe through its jivas. It is present everywhere through the jivas.
?

How do you know Jivas are not present on Saturn? Jivas are disembodied minds. The mental dimension includes the physical dimension because it is higher than it.

Atman is generally used to mean the core of all living beings, but it can actually be used to mean the microcosm of anything, living or not living. Atman refers to microcosm and Brahman refers to macrocosm and they are both the same. The idea is illustrated by the famous analogy of a container in the Upanishads apparently having an inner space seemingly different from the outer space, but when the container breaks, there is no longer any distinction between outer space and inner space. In like manner there seems to be a distinction between the inner space we call consciousness and the outer space we call matter or world, but when the upadhis or limiting adjuncts like the container are negated, we will find there is no difference between consciousness and the world, it is all consciousness.

 

[Surya Deva]

If you are not sure, why are you taking part in this discussion? Where is the first recorded 'Brahman' in the Upanishads or anywhere else in Sanskrit?

I beg your pardon? I am participating in this discussion because you are asking for an answer on Brahman and the Advaita vision. I cannot answer technical linguistic questions like why Brahma becomes Brahman , but I can answer what the philosophy of Advaita says on Brahman. Perhaps one possibility the addition of "an" was simply used to differentiate the Advaita concept of Brahman from the Hindu god Brahma. If they both used 'Brahma' it would have become very confusing.

 

[Shantanu]

I beg your pardon? I am participating in this discussion because you are asking for an answer on Brahman and the Advaita vision. I cannot answer technical linguistic questions like why Brahma becomes Brahman , but I can answer what the philosophy of Advaita says on Brahman. Perhaps one possibility the addition of "an" was simply used to differentiate the Advaita concept of Brahman from the Hindu god Brahma. If they both used 'Brahma' it would have become very confusing.

Right, we are getting some where. So which came first the deity Brahma or His impersonal reality Brahman?

 

[Shantanu]

How do you know Jivas are not present on Saturn? Jivas are disembodied minds. The mental dimension includes the physical dimension because it is higher than it.

Atman is generally used to mean the core of all living beings, but it can actually be used to mean the microcosm of anything, living or not living. Atman refers to microcosm and Brahman refers to macrocosm and they are both the same. The idea is illustrated by the famous analogy of a container in the Upanishads apparently having an inner space seemingly different from the outer space, but when the container breaks, there is no longer any distinction between outer space and inner space. In like manner there seems to be a distinction between the inner space we call consciousness and the outer space we call matter or world, but when the upadhis or limiting adjuncts like the container are negated, we will find there is no difference between consciousness and the world, it is all consciousness.

So Advaita teaches that when a person dies, firstly his/her jivatman travels in the atmosphere and enters the body of another animal or human being that is just right for its karmic status; and secondly, that same person's mind (consciousness) travels to places like Saturn and to the edges of the universe, right?

 

[Surya Deva]

Right, we are getting some where. So which came first the deity Brahma or His impersonal reality Brahman?

Historically, Brahma first appears as the philosophical abstract idea to designate the one supreme being or reality in the later Vedas, similar to the "ONE" "Ekam Sat" and "Purusha". Thus Brahma never appears fist as a deity. The appearance of Brahma as a deity appears in the Puranas, so the philosophical concept of Brahma precedes the deity concept of Brahma in the Puranas.

I have found a good scholarly resource to explain the history of Brahma and Brahman:

The gods were originally mortal; but when they were pervaded by Brahma, they became immortal." In the "Taittiriya Brāhmana" it is said:

p. 94

[paragraph continues] "Brahma generated the gods, Brahma (generated) this entire world. Within him are all these worlds. Within him is this entire universe. It is Brahma who is the greatest of beings. Who can vie with him? In Brahma, the thirty-three gods; in Brahma, Indra and Prajāpati; in Brahma all things are contained as in a ship."

Prof. Monier Williams * says:—"Only a few hymns of the Vedas appear to contain the simple conception of one divine self, existent, omnipresent being; and even in these, the idea of one god present in all nature is somewhat nebulous and undefined." Further on he says: "In the Purusha Sūkta of the Rig-Veda, the one spirit is called Purusha. The more common name in the later system is Brāhman, neuter (nom. Brahma), derived from the root brih, 'to expand,' and denoting the universally expanding essence, or universally diffused substance of the universe . . . Brāhman, in the neuter, being 'simple, infinite being'—the only real eternal essence—which, when it passes into actual manifested existence is called Brahmā; when it develops itself in the world, is called Vishnu; and when it again dissolves itself into simple being, is called Siva; all the other innumerable gods and demi-gods being also mere manifestations of the neuter Brāhman, who is eternal."

Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic: Part II. The Purānic Deities: Chapter II. Brahma

I am not in complete agreement with everything Prof Monier Williams say(such as his belief in AIT) but here we find a good linguistic explanation for why Brahma becomes Brahman; Brahman is the neuter word and Brahma is the masculine word. When the masculine Brahma generates the world, neuter Brahman becomes masculine Brahma, the generative power.

Now we can understood why in the Puranic tradition Brahma was not worshiped, because the Sruti says that Brahma comes before Vishnu and Shiva in the cosmological creation and Brahma was associated with the impersonal substratum of the Advaitins, so they tried to explain Brahma away by creating stories about how Brahma came out of the navel of Brahma or Brahma became arrogant or Brahma was cursed.

 

[Surya Deva]

So Advaita teaches that when a person dies, firstly his/her jivatman travels in the atmosphere and enters the body of another animal or human being that is just right for its karmic status; and secondly, that same person's mind (consciousness) travels to places like Saturn and to the edges of the universe, right?

No Jiva does not travel in the atmosphere, jiva travels in the subtle world which corresponds to the dream state. It remains there temporarily, just as we remain temporarily in a dream, before it returns to the physical body. If there is no physical body to return to, karma will create a physical body for it to return to.

I will correct my statement that the Atman enjoys the world through the jivas. The Atman does not have to enjoy anything, the Atman is already of the nature of pure bliss. There is no duality in the atman. Rather, it is ishvara that enjoys the world through the jivas, the jivas are atomized part of not Atman, but ishvara. Ishvara is the cosmic consciousness, which is the first product of Maya, who then creates this entire world, preserves it and destroys it(the creator) but ishvara is far from perfect, ishvara is a living organism like you and me, that is created, lives for a certain period of time and then dissolved in the end. Its illusion of sentience is due to reflected consciousness from the Atman, just like your illusion of sentience is due to reflected consciousness. Ishvara and Jiva are both material products with reflected consciousness. This is what Krishna really means when he says "Those who worship my impersonal nature" The greatest impersonalists are bhaktas because they worship ishvara the universe with reflected consciousness, and not Atman the pure source of consciousness. This is why Krishna says "Worship me"

 

[Shantanu]

No Jiva does not travel in the atmosphere, jiva travels in the subtle world which corresponds to the dream state. It remains there temporarily, just as we remain temporarily in a dream, before it returns to the physical body. If there is no physical body to return to, karma will create a physical body for it to return to.

I will correct my statement that the Atman enjoys the world through the jivas. The Atman does not have to enjoy anything, the Atman is already of the nature of pure bliss. There is no duality in the atman. Rather, it is ishvara that enjoys the world through the jivas, the jivas are atomized part of not Atman, but ishvara. Ishvara is the cosmic consciousness, which is the first product of Maya, who then creates this entire world, preserves it and destroys it(the creator) but ishvara is far from perfect, ishvara is a living organism like you and me, that is created, lives for a certain period of time and then dissolved in the end. Its illusion of sentience is due to reflected consciousness from the Atman, just like your illusion of sentience is due to reflected consciousness. Ishvara and Jiva are both material products with reflected consciousness. This is what Krishna really means when he says "Those who worship my impersonal nature" The greatest impersonalists are bhaktas because they worship ishvara the universe with reflected consciousness, and not Atman the pure source of consciousness. This is why Krishna says "Worship me"

Are all advaitists talking the same thing?

 

[Haridas]

If Sunyavada is not what I explain, then tell me what it is. I am not going to get a chance to know otherwise unless you tell me.

Sunyavada was a once mighty school on Buddhism and in modern day not followed any more because when Sankara came and drove away Buddhism from India most followers of the Sunyavada school became advaitins or left India and slowly their school became extinct. You seem to think that Sunyavada and Sunyata are same thing. But NO Sunyata is not a school but a concept in Buddhism and different schools of Buddhism have a different take on Sunyata. Sunyavada as different take on Sunyata. From Sunyavada sutras it's clear that Sunyavada is almost same as advaita except advaita used Brahman and Sunyavada uses the word sunya(void) or nothingness.

He may well be, but I don't base my understanding of Advaita on what some single scholar says. I base it on my reading of the primary texts and hundreds of scholarly books. In any case Dr Rajmani Triunait is not saying something I disagree with, there are similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism. I never said otherwise.

He has lot more knowledge on advaita than you or I do. How much of Sankaracarya's commentaries have you read? He's read them all.

Acknowledging somebody does not mean you accept entirely what they teach. I also acknowledge Buddha, Mahavira and some of the teaching of Jesus, but I do not accept them entirely, I just like certain aspects of it

While Sankara did not even acknowledge Buddha or His religion. He defeated Buddhists in debates. And this shows quite a difference between Gaudapada and Sankara.

It is very clear on reading the Upanishads they teach Advaita, for they teach about self and self-realization.

You are saying what you thought after reading Upanishads. There are many others who think differently about Upanishads.

However, if it is anything like your "I am Brahman" being tuned into "I am Brahman, the servant of the Parabrahma" then please don't bother, you will just insult your own intelligence.

At least I don`t believe in some childish theory which states Brahman put itself into Maya and then again Brahman is trying hard to realize itself and remove Maya. If you are the Supreme Brahman itself and the controller of Maya then why don`t you just remove Maya to take away illusion from you. Why take the long path of reading Upanishads and getting jnana and self-realization.

Mahavakya is not a concept it is a name given to a collection of great statements given in the Upanishads. Of course The Upanishads do not use the word "Mahavakya", because the one considering them "great" are later scholars who recognize how significant and radical these statements are.

For the 3rd time, Sankara is the one to declared this or that is mahavakya. I don`t subscribe to advaita so I consider all Upanishadic verses of equal importance and don`t insert this vakya or that vakya.

So translation to English would be "I am Brahman" There are no other words in this short statement, so the entirely new string of words added to it "servant of parabrahman" are not there in the original, it is hence a forgery added by the translator.

However if instead it is an interpretation then the interpretation has to be shown separately as commentary or purport by the translator and clearly be marked as their individual interpretation. However, interpretations also have to be based closely on the text. You cannot just invent something from thin air that is not in a text. If a text says "In the beginning" it cannot be interpreted to mean, "In the beginning of the end"

Advaita interprets "I am Brahman" as being “I am God” that is another individual interpretation. I interpret Brahman in "I am Brahman" as being the servant of the Supreme Brahman(ParaBrhaman) and it's in context with Bhagavad Gita. You interpret Brahman in "I am Brahman" as being God. So you are doing the same thing and yet you complain.
This is common knowledge among scholars. The Puranas are clearly edited because you will find references in them to much later events, concepts and people, like queen Victoria is mentioned in theBhavishya Purana, clearly showing this Purana was edited up until the 19th century. You will find many Puranas mention great holy shrines and temples, that were not built until very late in the middle ages, thus showing us clearly the Puranas were edited constantly throughout the centuries.*

Puranas and their dates

I asked you to provide evidence not what some scholar's speculated date. I also showed you that historians, agree that pre-Sankara Vedanta was not advaita but you say they are simply opinions of historians. So now I have to say the same to you in this case.

I am sorry your evidence is just too poor. Opinion is not proof. What some anonymous Chinese person thought about what Vedanta taught cannot be taken as proof of what Vedanta really taught. To know what Vedanta really teaches one needs to look at the primary texts. Again, you are invited to provide me clear scriptural statements in the scripture debate thread to show me that the Upanishads teach worship of the separate and almighty god Vishnu.

You are just repeating what you said before. Buddhists did not study Vedanta but what they witnessed they wrote down. And it's not just “one anonymous Chinese person” but rather 5,6 different sutras of different authors of different Buddhist schools say the same. So it simply can't be poor proof but a strong evidence.

 

[Haridas]

No, sorry I am not interested in astrology, or Voodoo or the tooth fairy. I am not about to read into Vedic astrology to find proof that the sun goes around the Earth etc, as the ISKON literally believe.

No ISKCON does not say that. Nor do they say the universe rests on elephants and tortoises. Showing hatred and envy towards others won't make you God-realized nor will it get you any good. Anyways, this is what Vedic astronomy says about motion of earth:
Rig Veda 10.22.14:
“This earth is devoid of hands and legs, yet it moves ahead. All the objects over the earth also move with it. It moves around the sun.
Rig Veda 10.149.1
“The sun has tied Earth and other planets through attraction and moves them around itself as if a trainer moves newly trained horses around itself holding their reins.”
So without proper knowledge of things don't make a comment. Also if you were more open minded towards Vedic scriptures you would have been able to see that many of the theories and formulas of modern science were already stated in the Vedas.

 

[Shantanu]

Historically, Brahma first appears as the philosophical abstract idea to designate the one supreme being or reality in the later Vedas, similar to the "ONE" "Ekam Sat" and "Purusha". Thus Brahma never appears fist as a deity. The appearance of Brahma as a deity appears in the Puranas, so the philosophical concept of Brahma precedes the deity concept of Brahma in the Puranas.

I have found a good scholarly resource to explain the history of Brahma and Brahman:

The gods were originally mortal; but when they were pervaded by Brahma, they became immortal." In the "Taittiriya Brāhmana" it is said:

p. 94

[paragraph continues] "Brahma generated the gods, Brahma (generated) this entire world. Within him are all these worlds. Within him is this entire universe. It is Brahma who is the greatest of beings. Who can vie with him? In Brahma, the thirty-three gods; in Brahma, Indra and Prajāpati; in Brahma all things are contained as in a ship."

Prof. Monier Williams * says:—"Only a few hymns of the Vedas appear to contain the simple conception of one divine self, existent, omnipresent being; and even in these, the idea of one god present in all nature is somewhat nebulous and undefined." Further on he says: "In the Purusha Sūkta of the Rig-Veda, the one spirit is called Purusha. The more common name in the later system is Brāhman, neuter (nom. Brahma), derived from the root brih, 'to expand,' and denoting the universally expanding essence, or universally diffused substance of the universe . . . Brāhman, in the neuter, being 'simple, infinite being'—the only real eternal essence—which, when it passes into actual manifested existence is called Brahmā; when it develops itself in the world, is called Vishnu; and when it again dissolves itself into simple being, is called Siva; all the other innumerable gods and demi-gods being also mere manifestations of the neuter Brāhman, who is eternal."

Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic: Part II. The Purānic Deities: Chapter II. Brahma

I am not in complete agreement with everything Prof Monier Williams say(such as his belief in AIT) but here we find a good linguistic explanation for why Brahma becomes Brahman; Brahman is the neuter word and Brahma is the masculine word. When the masculine Brahma generates the world, neuter Brahman becomes masculine Brahma, the generative power.

Now we can understood why in the Puranic tradition Brahma was not worshiped, because the Sruti says that Brahma comes before Vishnu and Shiva in the cosmological creation and Brahma was associated with the impersonal substratum of the Advaitins, so they tried to explain Brahma away by creating stories about how Brahma came out of the navel of Brahma or Brahma became arrogant or Brahma was cursed.

And where does the religious idea of Brahma as Creator, Vishnu as Preserver and Saviour and Shiva as destroyer in the Trimurti concept of the supreme originate?

 

[Shantanu]

Surya Deva, what is the Sanskrit word for witnessing Consciousness and the earliest record of the concept in the scriptures? You still have not told us when the word advaita first appears in the philosophical and religious vocabulary. Was it before or after Buddha?

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread closed for review***​