Brahman and the Advaita Vision

[ratikala]

good evening prabhu ji

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".

yes , I will second that

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.

in as much as one may atain brahman, one may simmilarly atain buddhahood ,
personaly I would be happier to say that we are buddha nature , and that buddha nature is that spark or seed that holds the potential to acheive buddha hood but that we are not buddha untill that potential actualises .

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.

jai jai

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

personaly I would be happier to say that we are buddha nature , and that buddha nature is that spark or seed that holds the potential to acheive buddha hood but that we are not buddha untill that potential actualises .

Yes, this is the meaning of the Buddhist term tathagatagarbha. Most Buddhists would hold to this view as well, including me, although Dogen and the Soto Zen school believe that we are already buddhas, we just don't realize it yet. But I agree with your statement here. However, in my statement, I was referring to the objective view of reality, that this self does not really exist, and all that can be truly said to be here is not me, but the dharmakaya, tathagatagarbha, buddha-nature/seed/matrix, in other words, just buddha.

 

[ratikala]

good morning prabhu ji ,

Yes, this is the meaning of the Buddhist term tathagatagarbha. Most Buddhists would hold to this view as well, including me, although Dogen and the Soto Zen school believe that we are already buddhas, we just don't realize it yet.

ultimately , yes

my training was tibetan , so I am not 100% conversant with zen thinking .

But I agree with your statement here. However, in my statement, I was referring to the objective view of reality, that this self does not really exist, and all that can be truly said to be here is not me, but the dharmakaya, tathagatagarbha, buddha-nature/seed/matrix, in other words, just buddha.

but my humility simply has to say ....dharmakaya yes ,buddha yes , but waiting to be realised :bow:
my mind needs to veiw everything in terms of conventional and ultimate realities.

 

[Shantanu]

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.

Why have you switched from using the word atma/jivatma to 'soul'? Are these two words interchangeable in the consideration of the realisation of Brahman?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Why have you switched from using the word atma/jivatma to 'soul'? Are these two words interchangeable in the consideration of the realisation of Brahman?

Ātma/Jīvātmā is the same as soul. These words can be used interchangeably. Please also note the context of use, with reference to the question asked.

 

[Shantanu]

Ātma/Jīvātmā is the same as soul. These words can be used interchangeably. Please also note the context of use, with reference to the question asked.

I am now in a position to summarise my understanding of your conception of Brahman and Advaita as follows (Please correct this as necessary noting that I have drawn inferences from where you have not queried what I stated):
(i) Lord Krishna is a SuperGod who manifested Himself into a Brahman Reality as satchitananda, because Brahman must have a cause, that is to say, it must have arisen from something logically.
(ii) Lord Krishna is also Paramatma not Brahmatma and is satchitananda as His impersonal aspect of Brahman.
(iii) Each jiva has a piece of soul/atma that is a spirit which is totally extrinsic to the body and mind, and is potentially satchitananda.The atma is a piece of Brahmatma but can be corrupted through the influence of the human bodily activities including the processes of the mind.
(iv) Paramatma is a distinct entity from atma as being the Supersoul that enters the atma and directs the human body into doing things, and can override the functioning of the human body.
(v) Atma can therefore sense all that happens to the body in terms of the experiences of pleasures and pains and daily events and incidents and the dharma that is being fulfulled by the jiva.
(vi) There is Truth-consciousness based law of Nature that governs the natural transactional world through a form of karma in which dharma is determined by truth. Knowing its existence from experience is part of the process of the realisation of satchitananda.
(viii) In avidya, the atma does not know Braman as pure knowledge, pure existence and bliss, so performs adharma leading to sufferring.
(ix) When atma realises Brahmatma completely, one is liberated through knowledge as pure advaitic existence is attained through knowledge and the practice of knowledge.
(x) Knowledge is not Consciousness. There is no such thng as Consciousness.

 

[Ekanta]

If you are looking for the advaita view, you got most wrong.
You might wanna look at the mahavakyas (great sayings from the upanishads)

 

[ratikala]

a simple question why does one have to look at it from any particular veiw ?
should one not examine all veiws ?

 

[Shantanu]

If you are looking for the advaita view, you got most wrong.
You might wanna look at the mahavakyas (great sayings from the upanishads)

The Mahavakyas are:

1. prajñānam brahma - "Consciousness is Brahman" (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
2. ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)
3. tat tvam asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)
4. aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman" (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)

Perhaps you can explain how have I got it all wrong as an advaitic conception, in terms of the practicality of what we really experience in this transactional world?

 

[Shantanu]

a simple question why does one have to look at it from any particular veiw ?
should one not examine all veiws ?

One should examine what is true and what is false and state what are true and false. Mahavakya No 1 states: Consciousness is Brahman: instead, I am saying that knowledge is Brahman. What is the difference bewteen the two?

 

[Vinayaka]

a simple question why does one have to look at it from any particular veiw ?
should one not examine all veiws ?

Examine all views, perhaps, but certainly you couldn't see it from all views as the views are sometimes contradictory. But fortunately you can have one view and still respect other views.

 

[Ekanta]

In short, according to advaita, I would comment on ur summary as follows:

(i) Lord Krishna is a SuperGod who manifested Himself into a Brahman Reality as satchitananda, because Brahman must have a cause, that is to say, it must have arisen from something logically.
Krishna is a temporary avatar, no need to even speak about him. Brahman controls maya in the form of Ishvara, the Lord (or God as we say). There is nothing beyond brahman... but the dualists who want to keep their ego, reduce brahman to maya and dream up a la la land beyond brahman, where they will live with Krishna forever and thus be able to keep their ego.

(ii) Lord Krishna is also Paramatma not Brahmatma and is satchitananda as His impersonal aspect of Brahman.
This is the dualistic view (according to advaita its pure nonsense).

(iii) Each jiva has a piece of soul/atma that is a spirit which is totally extrinsic to the body and mind, and is potentially satchitananda.The atma is a piece of Brahmatma but can be corrupted through the influence of the human bodily activities including the processes of the mind.
atman = brahman. Its stated in the upanishads that brahman/Ishvara entered the body as a living soul (jivatma).

(iv) Paramatma is a distinct entity from atma as being the Supersoul that enters the atma and directs the human body into doing things, and can override the functioning of the human body.
paramatman cant enter atman... paramatman entered the body and appears as atman... atman = brahman. paramatma is another word for brahman.

(v) Atma can therefore sense all that happens to the body in terms of the experiences of pleasures and pains and daily events and incidents and the dharma that is being fulfulled by the jiva.
atman experience pleasure and pain etc or liberation, due its contact with mind/body. Creation has this two fold purpose.

(vi) There is Truth-consciousness based law of Nature that governs the natural transactional world through a form of karma in which dharma is determined by truth. Knowing its existence from experience is part of the process of the realisation of satchitananda.
or we can just say that truth/love in action is dharma. That which promotes sattva and recudes tamas/rajas is dharma. When we attain a more sattvic state we have a pure mind and can concentrate better and knowledge can increase.

(viii) In avidya, the atma does not know Braman as pure knowledge, pure existence and bliss, so performs adharma leading to sufferring.
yes... but we might as well say atman does not know itself.

(ix) When atma realises Brahmatma completely, one is liberated through knowledge as pure advaitic existence is attained through knowledge and the practice of knowledge.
yes, attainment of knowledge and steadfastness in knowledge (brahmatma is not a word used by advaita)

(x) Knowledge is not Consciousness. There is no such thing as Consciousness.
Knowledge is a content of mind. Consciousness is atman, as stated in the great saying. Atman connected with mind can know things... & atman can also see its own reflection in the pure mind and attain enlightenment.

 

[Ekanta]

Also I would like to ad this:
I recognize dvaita (dualism) as a necessary step, all are not fit for advaita (non dualism) knowledge.

Personally I dont worship idols but at the same time, Im not fit for ultimate knowledge. I worship God in myself and others, this is my current right path.

If we deprive people of the ability to worship in dualistic ways etc, they will never reach the non-dualistic. And if we teach advaita to folks who are not ready for it... not only will they not reach advaita, but they will also lose faith in the dualistic approach. So... glory to all the paths... they all end in knowledge, as stated in the Gita.

 

[Shantanu]

Also I would like to ad this:
I recognize dvaita (dualism) as a necessary step, all are not fit for advaita (non dualism) knowledge.

Personally I dont worship idols but at the same time, Im not fit for ultimate knowledge. I worship God in myself and others, this is my current right path.

If we deprive people of the ability to worship in dualistic ways etc, they will never reach the non-dualistic. And if we teach advaita to folks who are not ready for it... not only will they not reach advaita, but they will also lose faith in the dualistic approach. So... glory to all the paths... they all end in knowledge, as stated in the Gita.

I am sorry, but what is Ishwara? Where does it come from? If it comes from Brahman as satchitananda, what is the process for its emergence?

 

[Ekanta]

Ishvara (lord) is same as paramatma (supreme self). God is called by different names. When brahman appears within creation or maya, brahman takes on qualities. Ishvara is the ruler over maya (creation or illusion). After this is all the rest of creation, including gods etc.

And sat-chit-ananda does not come from anything or go anywhere. Brahman is described as sat-chit-ananda. Since atman = brahman, we are sat-chit-ananda.

But I wont post more now, since you have to read on this yourself.
And as you can see and have to remember, dualistic, semi-dualistic or non-dualistic explanations are different. You either have to understand all or stick to one. Else there will be endless confusion of terms. For example, the above explanation is non-dualistic, a dualist or a semi-dualist would explain it differently.

 

[Shantanu]

Ishvara (lord) is same as paramatma (supreme self). God is called by different names. When brahman appears within creation or maya, brahman takes on qualities. Ishvara is the ruler over maya (creation or illusion). After this is all the rest of creation, including gods etc.

And sat-chit-ananda does not come from anything or go anywhere. Brahman is described as sat-chit-ananda. Since atman = brahman, we are sat-chit-ananda.

But I wont post more now, since you have to read on this yourself.
And as you can see and have to remember, dualistic, semi-dualistic or non-dualistic explanations are different. You either have to understand all or stick to one. Else there will be endless confusion of terms. For example, the above explanation is non-dualistic, a dualist or a semi-dualist would explain it differently.

So firstly, you are suggesting that Brahman changes from being formless (just satchitananda) into a form as creation/maya(illusion) with Iswhara being the Ruler of Nature. Ishwara is therefore not a Personal God in non-dualism because Gods do not exist in non-dualism?
Secondly, nondualists cannot tell me how from being just satchitananda did Brahman get the capacity (the energy and will and ability) to change into the form of creation/maya(illusion) that we live in and experience, right?

 

[Ekanta]

Im saying that if your interested, go and read yourself, explanations are easily available. If you dont, I draw the appropriate conclusion of your behaviour.

 

[Shantanu]

Im saying that if your interested, go and read yourself, explanations are easily available. If you dont, I draw the appropriate conclusion of your behaviour.

Thank you for your help.

 

[Shantanu]

A REVIEW:
The reason Ekanta and others have stopped posting may be because these nondual conceptions do not make perfect sense and is not evidenced from reality. Maya or illusion transformation from Brahman to creation is unscientific and inconsistent with the idea that all Brahman is is satchitananda. The source of Brahman is Sri Krishna who is more than satchitananda. Sri Krishna is physical energy, will, intelligence, and has the powers for regeneration of the universe as in creation and dissolution. Brahman is not a personal God but the Nature of Reality for 99 per cent of human beings. Brahman union is the purpose of our existence as advaita. The way that has been opened for us to do so is through the atma. We do have a jivatma spirit that is a piece of Brahmatma/Paramatma and the way to approach union and realise it is through the truth-search and action mechanism of dharma. Life in the transactional world is conducted through dharma in which Ishwara is the Ruler of Nature as Vishnu. Vishnu is not a personal God but the Preserver of Nature. If truth-based dharma is performed in this knowledge (which is different to faith) Brahman too is realised as satchitananda. And as Vrindavan Das has elaborated, Paramatma is Sri Krishna and can get the atma and jiva to do certain things if it wants to. Very few people truly realise this aspect or Sri Krishna. In normal circumstances the source of Brahman as Sri Krishna is not realised. This gives rise to non-dual advaita. But that is not the highest level of realisation as Ekanta thinks. The highest level are attained by very few exceptional truth-seekers who give up everything in their quest for ultimate knowledge. Vrindavan Das's references earlier in this thread from the Bhagavad Gita are spot on.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

(i) Lord Krishna is a SuperGod who manifested Himself into a Brahman Reality as satchitananda, because Brahman must have a cause, that is to say, it must have arisen from something logically.

Yes.

Lord Kṛṣṇa 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]

Lord Brahmā, the creator of the universe prays:

panthās tu koti-śata-vatsara-sampragamyo
vāyor athāpi manaso muni-puńgavānām
so 'py asti yat-prapada-sīmny avicintya-tattve
govindam ādi-purusham tam aham bhajāmi​

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, only the tip of the toe of whose lotus feet is approached by the yogīs who aspire after the transcendental and betake themselves to prānāyāma by drilling the respiration; or by the jñānīs who try to find out the nondifferentiated Brahman by the process of elimination of the mundane, extending over thousands of millions of years.[B.S. 5.34]

(ii) Lord Krishna is also Paramatma not Brahmatma and is satchitananda as His impersonal aspect of Brahman.

Yes. The Absolute Truth is Kṛṣṇa. He is Parmātmā and Brahman also.

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]

I am not sure what you mean by 'brahmātmā'.

If you mean - soul, like you and me; then you are right. Kṛṣṇa is not brahmātmā. Individual souls are like the particles of sunshine or sparks of fire. Although they are same as the sun and fire respectively, still they are not the sun and fire. Similarly, we souls are also same as Kṛṣṇa in nature - both are sat-chīt-ānanda. Still, quantitatively we are not same. Kṛṣṇa is infinite and we (souls) are infinitesimal.

yasmin sarvani bhutany
atmaivabhud vijanatah
tatra ko mohah kah soka
ekatvam anupasyatah​

One who always sees all living entities as spiritual sparks, in quality one with the Lord, becomes a true knower of things. What, then, can be illusion or anxiety for him? [Sri Isopanisad 7]

(iii) Each jiva has a piece of soul/atma that is a spirit which is totally extrinsic to the body and mind, and is potentially satchitananda.The atma is a piece of Brahmatma but can be corrupted through the influence of the human bodily activities including the processes of the mind.

Yes. The dimension of soul is described as:

bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate​

"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9]

Because the soul is infinitesimal, it becomes covered by māyā. In other words, the consciousness becomes contaminated through association of matter and false identification with this gross body made up of 5 senses, mind, intelligence and ego.

(iv) Paramatma is a distinct entity from atma as being the Supersoul that enters the atma and directs the human body into doing things, and can override the functioning of the human body.

Yes.

(v) Atma can therefore sense all that happens to the body in terms of the experiences of pleasures and pains and daily events and incidents and the dharma that is being fulfulled by the jiva.

Yes. Consciousness is the symptom of soul, which is by nature sat-chīt-ānanda. It is through this consciousness we become aware or conscious of our pains and pleasures and daily events and incidents etc.

(vi) There is Truth-consciousness based law of Nature that governs the natural transactional world through a form of karma in which dharma is determined by truth. Knowing its existence from experience is part of the process of the realisation of satchitananda.

Yes. The truth-consciousness has it's foundation in the Absolute Truth & Infinite Consciousness - Supreme Lord. And actions through our karma and consciousness, for Lord's satisfaction is dharma. So, it is through dharma we will realize the sat-chīt-ānanda Lord.

(viii) In avidya, the atma does not know Braman as pure knowledge, pure existence and bliss, so performs adharma leading to sufferring.

Yes.

(ix) When atma realises Brahmatma completely, one is liberated through knowledge as pure advaitic existence is attained through knowledge and the practice of knowledge.

Yes.

However, we must know what the Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa says in this regard:

kleśo ’dhika-taras teṣām
avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
dehavadbhir avāpyate​

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied. [B.G. 12.5]

(x) Knowledge is not Consciousness. There is no such thng as Consciousness.

Consciousness is the symptom of soul. The nature of Soul is sat-chīt-ānanda. Chīt means it is full of knowledge. Soul spreads throughout the body by this consciousness principle and becomes conscious of pains, pleasures etc. through this consciousness.