-
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 the Advaita Vision
- Thread starter Shantanu
- Start date
- Status
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
Why would Wikipedia know about the Hindu experience of Reality?
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Wikipedia is actually a very good resource, especially if treated as a starting point.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
It is not without uses.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Scripturally speaking, Brahman is sat-chīt-ānanda.
Sat = Eternal
Chīt = Full of knowledge
Ānanda = Blissful
If it were not bliss, why would anyone want to endeavor for it?
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Nirguna is the essence of nothingness.
Scripturally speaking, Brahman is sat-chīt-ānanda.
Sat = Eternal
Chīt = Full of knowledge
Ānanda = Blissful
If it were not bliss, why would anyone want to endeavor for it?
I know it was probably a dumb question to begin with ^^ sorry
oh and I've read the wiki entry, but I was more talking about the experience of Brahman
Just check the references, citations and bibliography carefully.
One can find errors, though. I had a running "dialogue" with the author of the Sanskrit Grammar article, who insists on using rāmas (which is Vedic Sanskrit) as the masc. nom. sing. of a-stem nouns instead of rāmaḥ, because it's in Whitney's 1891 Sanskrit grammar. And Lakshmiḥ is Lakshmis (yeah, in V.S.).
So, be discriminating and discerning with Wikipeedya.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
Reality is what it is; the brain does not suddenly start releasing endorphins (feel good factors) just because on has understood Reality and practising advaita in knowledge of that understanding.Scripturally speaking, Brahman is sat-chīt-ānanda.
Sat = Eternal
Chīt = Full of knowledge
Ānanda = Blissful
If it were not bliss, why would anyone want to endeavor for it?
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
The only way Brahman can be considered as nirguna is if it arose out of nothing, which is total magic.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
I agree! Just knowing does not help. Brahman has to be realized. Still the fact remains that Brahman is sat, chīt ānanda.
However, the ānanda or bliss in Brahman is transcendental. It is experienced by the soul, not brain. It is beyond the platform of material senses, mind, intelligence and ego.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Nirguna means 'not having any material gunas or modes or contamination'.
Simply put, it means Brahman is transcendental and not material.
Source of transcendental Brahman is in transcendental Lord. Logically, something cannot come from nothing.
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
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]
Therein lies the problem. Hinduism is first and foremost an experiential religion, so one cannot know Brahman unless one experiences Brahman.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
When does one know that one has realised Brahman?
Secondly, if ananda or bliss is transcendental and attributed to Brahman as (Sat=eternal/existence, Chit=knowledge, and Ananda=Bliss), are you not attributing 'gunas' to it and how can you know that these 'gunas' are actually what Brahman is constituted of? - from transcendental meditation perhaps?
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
How do you suppose I will know that my atma, which is a spirit as you have confirmed, is experiencing ananda?
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Below are the qualities of a person who has realized Brahman, as delineated by the Supreme authority - Lord Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad Gītā.
buddhya visuddhaya yukto
dhrityatmanam niyamya ca
sabdadin vishayams tyaktva
raga-dveshau vyudasya ca
vivikta-sevi laghv-asi
yata-vak-kaya-manasah
dhyana-yoga-paro nityam
vairagyam samupasritah
ahankaram balam darpam
kamam krodham parigraham
vimucya nirmamah santo
brahma-bhuyaya kalpate
dhrityatmanam niyamya ca
sabdadin vishayams tyaktva
raga-dveshau vyudasya ca
vivikta-sevi laghv-asi
yata-vak-kaya-manasah
dhyana-yoga-paro nityam
vairagyam samupasritah
ahankaram balam darpam
kamam krodham parigraham
vimucya nirmamah santo
brahma-bhuyaya kalpate
Being purified by his intelligence and controlling the mind with determination, giving up the objects of sense gratification, being freed from attachment and hatred, one who lives in a secluded place, who eats little, who controls his body, mind and power of speech, who is always in trance and who is detached, free from false ego, false strength, false pride, lust, anger, and acceptance of material things, free from false proprietorship, and peaceful -- such a person is certainly elevated to the position of self-realization. [B.G. 18.51-53]
brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kankshati
samah sarveshu bhuteshu
mad-bhaktim labhate param
na socati na kankshati
samah sarveshu bhuteshu
mad-bhaktim labhate param
One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me. [B.G. 18.54]
So, don't worry, you will know when you get there.
Sat chīt ānanda are transcendental/spiritual. When we say gunas, it refers to material qualities of sāttvīk (goodness), rājsīk (passion) and tāmasīk (ignorance). Brahman is beyond these material gunas/qualities.
As for knowing about this through transcendental meditation; if you read some scriptures, neither will there be a need to make such assumptions, nor to ask such questions.
Soul is sat, chīt and ānanda. By nature it is blissful. It has ānanda. It does not need the brain to tell you when soul experiences bliss. Transcendental meditation will certainly help.
Shantanu
Well-Known Member
So you say that the soul or atma is more than just sat-chit-ananda. It also 'experiences' joy or bliss?
In my opinion this does not make coherent sense to me. I think the mind, being associated with atma-spirit which as you say is sat-chit-ananda, is what actually experiences the bliss/serenity, when aham Brahmasmi is realised. Please note that this is different feeling to the ecstacy that people reach when practising bhakti-based devotional practices on chanting, singing and performing rituals which makes the brain release endorphins to create the feel-good factor. On the other hand, advaitic Brahman realisation is mental requiring only true knowledge for a different feeling of contentment/serenity.
Last edited:
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Even in the body, which is temporary, full of ignorance and miseries, the soul experiences pain and pleasure through material senses, mind intelligence etc.
When these are transcended, the soul can experience unlimited bliss.
It sounds perfectly logical to me.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Since the Buddhist teachings of anatta was mentioned, I'll try to add my knowledge to the mix, and hopefully not confuse things. Many Buddhists tend to interpret anatta as "no-self", which is false. Thanissaro Bhikhu, a Theravada master in the Thai Forest Tradition, wrote an excellent essay on how "no-self" is a false view, while the interpretation should be "not-self". On the surface, these both seem like they are saying the same thing, but upon further investigation, one realizes that there is a huge difference. To try and put it simply, what we think we are, is not what we are. We tend to have this view of self that is based in karmic conditioning, the three poisons, attachment to the skandhas, etc. We view ourselves as separate entities, not reliant on anyone or anything else. However, as Shuddhasattva pointed out, there is a real self, but this self is what is generally called the Buddha-nature, which all sentient beings possess. We are not the combination of the five skandhas, our transitory thoughts and mindsets, we are buddha. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does a great deal to point this out. The Buddha spent most of his time teaching not-self, because people are inherently attached to their notions of self, which are false. Toward the end of his life, when he preached this sutra, he taught what the true self was, and this can also be found in a few other sutras, including the Lotus Sutra. Even the Prajnaparamita sutras touch on this, if you know where to look.
Many Buddhists tend to interpret anatta as "no-self", which is false. Thanissaro Bhikhu, a Theravada master in the Thai Forest Tradition, wrote an excellent essay on how "no-self" is a false view, while the interpretation should be "not-self". On the surface, these both seem like they are saying the same thing, but upon further investigation, one realizes that there is a huge difference. To try and put it simply, what we think we are, is not what we are. We tend to have this view of self that is based in karmic conditioning, the three poisons, attachment to the skandhas, etc. We view ourselves as separate entities, not reliant on anyone or anything else. However, as Shuddhasattva pointed out, there is a real self, but this self is what is generally called the Buddha-nature, which all sentient beings possess. We are not the combination of the five skandhas, our transitory thoughts and mindsets, we are buddha. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does a great deal to point this out. The Buddha spent most of his time teaching not-self, because people are inherently attached to their notions of self, which are false. Toward the end of his life, when he preached this sutra, he taught what the true self was, and this can also be found in a few other sutras, including the Lotus Sutra. Even the Prajnaparamita sutras touch on this, if you know where to look.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskars shantanu,
and prabhu ji's thankyou , I have very much enjoyed reading this post so far .
when there is no seperate one , when there is only brahman ?
excuse my interruption but for the last while the discussion seems to be asking about the experience of bliss ? if brahman is eternaly blissfull and full of knowledge , then there is no experience , brahman is bliss !
and when there is no self only brahman then also there is only bliss, ...to be full of knowledge is brahman , to be full of knowledge is blissfull .
and prabhu ji's thankyou , I have very much enjoyed reading this post so far .
when there is no seperate one , when there is only brahman ?
excuse my interruption but for the last while the discussion seems to be asking about the experience of bliss ? if brahman is eternaly blissfull and full of knowledge , then there is no experience , brahman is bliss !
and when there is no self only brahman then also there is only bliss, ...to be full of knowledge is brahman , to be full of knowledge is blissfull .
- Status