Brahman [Hindu Only]

[atanu]

Brahman, the non dual reality, is defined in Upanishads as ‘satyam, jnanam, anantam’ (Existence, knowledge, infinity).

Teachers of all Vedanta Hindu schools (broadly advaita, vishistaadvaita, and dvaita) agree that brahman is truth-existence, knowledge, infinity. All three intrinsic qualities together define brahman. Brahman is not amenable to be delineated; it is not non existence; it is not unconscious.

So. Is there any Vedantist who disagrees? Why?

 

[George-ananda]

Since I voted first I am ahead 100% to 0%.

I voted 'Knowledge is not intrinsic to brahman '

I am thinking Brahman to be sat-cit-Ananda (being-awareness-bliss). There is nothing to have knowledge of until maya/creation comes into the picture. And Brahman is the playwright of all that, so maybe I got the answer wrong?

 

[osgart]

Without the knowing aspect the reality is pretty useless. I suppose when i die existing in a state of total unawareness is almost the same as ceasing to exist altogether. Knowing our experience is being aware of our experience, and the joy of living.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman, the non dual reality, is defined in Upanishads as ‘satyam, jnanam, anantam’ (Existence, knowledge, infinity).

What will Brahman do with knowledge? It is uninvolved, going its own way. What you say in the sentence is just one of the many interpretations.

Nice explanation, George, but do you see any reason why Brahman will write a play. Actually, it does none of that. That is our illusion, 'maya'.

Yeah, Osgart. Knowledge is important for us. Not for Brahman. Probably there is no difference between existence and non-existence. That is what Quantum Mechanics tell us. And so said the RigVeda 3,000 years ago:

Sato bandhumasati niravindan hridi prtishyakavayo manisha ll
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[atanu]

Since I voted first I am ahead 100% to 0%.

I voted 'Knowledge is not intrinsic to brahman '

I am thinking Brahman to be sat-cit-Ananda (being-awareness-bliss). There is nothing to have knowledge of until maya/creation comes into the picture. And Brahman is the playwright of all that, so maybe I got the answer wrong?

But ‘cit’ (of sat chit ananda) and jnanam, from Taittiriya Upanishad, both signify awareness/consciousness.

You are correct that there is nothing to be aware of until mAyA creation kicks in. But intrinsically brahman being jnanam means it is the foundation of knowing — of absence or presence of things and beings.

In light of this information will you wish to review your vote?

 

[Kirran]

Dude, how you gonna prove anything through rationality and semantics about Brahman? Meditate on the 'I am' bro.

 

[George-ananda]

But ‘cit’ (of sat chit ananda) and jnanam, from Taittiriya Upanishad, both signify awareness/consciousness.

You are correct that there is nothing to be aware of until mAyA creation kicks in. But intrinsically brahman being jnanam means it is the foundation of knowing — of absence or presence of things and beings.

In light of this information will you wish to review your vote?

I changed my vote.

Don't have a challenge to the Taittiriya Upanishad in me,

 

[atanu]

Dude, how you gonna prove anything through rationality and semantics about Brahman? Meditate on the 'I am' bro.

I agree. “Mind and word return from it”. But, was your post directed at me? Am I the dude?

If yes, then I will like to clarify that the OP was created primarily to gauge the range of notions that Hindus (and others) hold regarding brahman and whether those notions are aligned or antagonistic to scripture. Secondarily, the OP may facilitate a positive discussion.

 

[Kirran]

I agree. “Mind and word return from it”. But, was your post directed at me? Am I the dude?

If yes, then I will like to clarify that the OP was created primarily to gauge the range of notions that Hindus (and others) hold regarding brahman and whether those notions are aligned or antagonistic to scripture. Secondarily, the OP may facilitate a positive discussion.

What's up my dude! But is scripture's intent (aside from the bits which came out of power mongering and cultural ideas and whatever) really about cultivating and developing notions?

 

[atanu]

What's up my dude! But is scripture's intent (aside from the bits which came out of power mongering and cultural ideas and whatever) really about cultivating and developing notions?

I don’t understand your reservations to a poll.

As per advaita teachers, the intention and practice in respect of scripture should include shravana, manana, and niddhidhyasana (hearing, contemplation, and meditation). I think that discussion on the Vedantic definition of brahman can promote all three steps.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**

This is Same Faith Debates. Posts by members that do not identify as Hindu are subject to moderation under Rule 10.​

 

[Jainarayan]

I originally voted no but now I'm questioning that. If Brahman is all there is, sarvam khalvidam brahma, then knowledge must be Brahman itself, Saguna Brahman.

Well, Shankaracharya's position is secure, I'm no threat to him.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Brahman, the non dual reality, is defined in Upanishads as ‘satyam, jnanam, anantam’ (Existence, knowledge, infinity).

Teachers of all Vedanta Hindu schools (broadly advaita, vishistaadvaita, and dvaita) agree that brahman is truth-existence, knowledge, infinity. All three intrinsic qualities together define brahman. Brahman is not amenable to be delineated; it is not non existence; it is not unconscious.

So. Is there any Vedantist who disagrees? Why?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the term 'jnanam' or 'knowledge' when describing Brahman. For me, Brahman is 'existence (truth), consciousness, bliss' or 'satcitananda.'

While I'm open to other ideas, for me, knowledge is a product of intellect, which is resides in the brain. If there is no brain, there is no intellect, no knowledge. What is it that knows when the jiva expires?

 

[atanu]

Without the knowing aspect the reality is pretty useless. ...

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the term 'jnanam' or 'knowledge' when describing Brahman. For me, Brahman is 'existence (truth), consciousness, bliss' or 'satcitananda.'

While I'm open to other ideas, for me, knowledge is a product of intellect, which is resides in the brain. If there is no brain, there is no intellect, no knowledge. What is it that knows when the jiva expires?

I explained to Jai earlier that jnana and cit are equivalent words, both signifying consciousness. Let me explain.

Jnana, is knowledge, in general. Jnana can be vijnana (as in dream or in waking when subject-object division has occurred) or prajnana (as in deep sleep, which is devoid of any kind of diversity whatsoever). Brahman is slumberless and is the cause of knowing the objects in waking and in dream (vijnana) or their absence in deep sleep (prajnana).

In short, whether consciousness is of the type of vijnana or consciousness of the type of prajnana, it is brahman that is the sole cause of knowing and (as per Advaita) also the known. That is the meaning of brahman being pure jnanam.
...

 

[ajay0]

Brahman, the non dual reality, is defined in Upanishads as ‘satyam, jnanam, anantam’ (Existence, knowledge, infinity).

Teachers of all Vedanta Hindu schools (broadly advaita, vishistaadvaita, and dvaita) agree that brahman is truth-existence, knowledge, infinity. All three intrinsic qualities together define brahman. Brahman is not amenable to be delineated; it is not non existence; it is not unconscious.

So. Is there any Vedantist who disagrees? Why?

Yes, this is true and I agree with this.

The following sayings of the masters will substantiate this further...


The Self, our Being, is awareness. - Sri Muruganar

Chit ( awareness ) means pure knowledge. - Swami Prajnanpad

Knowledge and 'I' ( Self) are both one. - Sree Narayan Guru

The mind is ignorance. - Shankaracharya ( Vivekachudamani )

Your true nature is awareness and not what your mind is producing. - Burt Harding

Buddha means awareness, the awareness of body and mind that prevents evil from arising in either. - Bodhidharma



The Self or self-knowledge is considered as true knowledge in Vedanta, as there is a dramatic change in perception of the one anchored in such knowledge. The likes of the Rishis or enlightened beings such as Ashtavakra, Janaka, Buddha, Mahavira, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Ramakrishna possessed such self-knowledge. Same goes for Christ and Sufi enlightened sages like Rumi and Mansur Al-Hallaj.


Who we are varies according to our state of consciousness. When you are more aware, you are someone else than when you are less aware or unconscious.

I have stated this in detail in this thread of mine...

On Awareness-Proactivity and Unconsciousness-Ego-Reactivity...