Brahman/Maya & The Two Truths

[Jaskaran Singh]

​

This is practically the reason why most of your
posts are heavily contested by other members,
and for all the right and understandable reasons.
It seems you are not well familiar with Sanskrit --
and have dangerously misread what Jaskaran is
trying to say:​

ब्रह्मन् (brahman) inflected as a neuter noun is ब्रह्म (brahma).
ब्रह्म (brahma) refers to the Supreme Reality in its Vedantic
usage, grammar-wise.​

When ब्रह्म (brahma) is inflected as a masculine noun, it becomes
ब्रह्मा (brahmā), which refers to a Deity from the Trimurti.
The correct word is ब्रह्म (brahma), not ब्रह्मन् (brahman) nor ब्रह्मा (brahmā).​

You're mostly correct, although brahmA is the masculine inflected form of brahman (ब्रह्मन&#2381 and not brahma (ब्रह्&#2350. Nonetheless, I agree that Contemplative Cat completely missed my point and instead stated that brahma (ब्रह्&#2350 is the same as brahmA (ब्रह्म&#2366 whereas brahman (ब्रह्मन&#2381 is the sachchidAnanda vigraham . To the contrary, I explained clearly in my post that brahman (ब्रह्मन&#2381 could refer to either brahmA (ब्रह्म&#2366 or brahma (ब्रह्&#2350 depending on the vyakti, but that brahma and brahmA are different.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

that makes perfect sense.
Brahma would be a man
Brahman has no gender.

Practice sadhana and thus the four yogas, attain samhadi and see for yourself.
then everymoment will reveal God to the mind.
How many languages do you need to attain dissolution into the grace of God.

In God there is no elaboration, no ideas can capture that greatness, which is brighter than a thousand suns.

On a worldly note
in the next hundred years or so
Hinduism will probably faction apart
as separate religions. The Yoga people who seek enlightenment, and the Dvaita people who want to do pujas. Simply because there are people on both sides saying that the other isn't right and that Hindus should practice their way or the high way.

When did India's diversity go out the window isn't that a distinguished feature of Indian religion and culture for that matter.

Deities are helpful, but they don't bring absolute fulfillment.
Because the 'bhakti high' from Puja and worship wears off.
Then you must do it time and time again.
Moksa is found within, and all Hindus are expected to (eventually) attempt to attain moksa normally in old age, but not always.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

How many languages do you need to attain dissolution into the grace of God.

None.

On a worldly note
in the next hundred years or so
Hinduism will probably faction apart
as separate religions.

Hinduism is technically an artificial construct anyway (for example, what would a mAdhva vaiShNava share with a shaiva siddhAntI?), so it kind of already is a grouping of several different religions. "Religions" with several commonalities sure, but distinct enough to be considered separate.

The Yoga people who seek enlightenment, and the Dvaita people who want to do pujas. Simply because there are people on both sides saying that the other isn't right and that Hindus should practice their way or the high way.

And dvaitI-s don't seek mokSham? Are you joking? mAdhva-s see the performance of the nityakarmANi with a pure heart and without desire as a manner of attaining vimukti, that's why AnandatIrtha says "akAmakarmaNAmantaskaraNashuddhayA j~nAnAnmokSho bhavati tachchoktam karmabhiH shuddhasattvasya vairAgyaM jAyate hR^idi." The praise is not done with the desire of mokSham, but that's the eventual goal of the practice.

When did India's diversity go out the window isn't that a distinguished feature of Indian religion and culture for that matter.

What does this have to do with anything?

Deities are helpful, but they don't bring absolute fulfillment.
Because the 'bhakti high' from Puja and worship wears off. Then you must do it time and time again.

yasya smaraNamAtreNa janmasaMsArabandhanAt|
vimuchyate namastasmai viShNave prabhaviShNave||6||
You expect me to believe that shrIviShNu can't grant mokSham, despite the fact that such a view completely ignores shabdapramANa (in the above mantram from the viShNu sahasranAmam, vedavyAsa says that viShNu frees one from saMsAra)? LOL... If shrIman nArAyaNa, the sarvAshraya (the refuge of all) can't, then do tell me who can?

Moksa is found within, and all Hindus are expected to (eventually) attempt to attain moksa normally in old age, but not always.

The shAstra-s do not support the view that mokSha is self-given; true realization comes through the kR^ipA (mercy) of bhagavAn.

Edit: Also, the fact you consider archana to be little more than a "high" kind of shows how "highly" you think of Hinduism. You should be the LAST person to speak of bhagavAn.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet there, in the midst of all the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality"
Suzuki

Perfect? What is perfect and what is imperfect? Reality is reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"For samsara and nirvana to be distinct from one another, they would have to be inherently existent things. But they are empty, and within this emptiness, they are without distinction."

Well, that is what one set of people may have said (my homage to Buddha and his disciples ), but other people may differ (my homage to the Upanishad writers and Sankara ). The other people say that understanding what exists is 'nirvana'.

 

[psychoslice]

To me Brahman is beyond the mind body, it cannot be known by a mere mind, I myself like to call it, Consciousness, or Source. Maya is like the shadow of Brahman, it who we think we are, one who see beyond this illusion is said to be Enlightened, or Awake. I like to keep things simple because it just cannot be conceptualized and its a wast of time to try.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, that is what one set of people may have said (my homage to Buddha and his disciples ), but other people may differ (my homage to the Upanishad writers and Sankara ). The other people say that understanding what exists is 'nirvana'.

However, 'what exists' can only be understood in terms of 'what not-exists', and now we are in the sphere of duality, and if we are in the sphere of duality, then it cannot be Nirvana. That is why it is said that Nirvana and Samsara are one. In reality, nothing either exists nor not-exists. The question is not about existence/non-existence, ala Descartes, but about being, to which there is no opposite. So I would say that seeing things as they are is Nirvana. Seeing them as they are not is Samsara. The question then becomes: why do we not see things as they are. For this I turn to the Tao te Ching:

Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.
This “same mould” we can but call the Mystery,
Or rather the “Darker than any Mystery”,
The Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences.

Tao te Ching, Chapter 1

 

[godnotgod]

Yes Buddha man. Soon their will be a new thread about the enlightenment tradition of America.
Americans are starting to make a new western Way, you can tell by the many sages here on the forums
How can some one talk about silence without it degenerating into utter nonsense.

Poppycock! There is no 'east' or 'west'.
There is only the way things are.

 

[godnotgod]

Perfect? What is perfect and what is imperfect? Reality is reality.

There is relative perfection, and there is relative imperfection. Then there is Absolute Perfection, to which there is no 'other', 'the which than which there is no whicher'

There is what we call 'perceptual reality', reality as seen via the conditioned mind. Then there is Ultimate Reality, which is unconditioned, ungrown, unborn, and therefore, deathless.

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]JlfVjKzyN5Y[/youtube]
Alan Watts - Fascinated by Maya - YouTube

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I call it 'Brahman' just to distinguish it from 'Brahma' and hope that everybody knows what I am talking about (without having to use the term in context to distinguish it), however, if the terms become too confusing, I can always go back to calling it 'Achintya'.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I call it 'Brahman' just to distinguish it from 'Brahma' and hope that everybody knows what I am talking about (without having to use the term in context to distinguish it), however, if the terms become too confusing, I can always go back to calling it 'Achintya'.

I think you're missing the point that I'm trying to make. brahma and brahmA are different, but brahman is just a uninflected word which could refer to either (making it more confusing). Why not just use brahm or brahma to distinguish with brahmA? The only case where that would be confusing would be in cases where brahma or brahmA is sandhi-ed with a shabda with an अ akShara at the beginning, like in brahmANDa (egg of brahmA, i.e. the universe) or ahaM brahmAsmi (I am brahma).

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Nirvana and Samsara are one.

Brahman and Maya are one.

'The universe is the Absolute [itself] as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.'
Vivikenanda

So there is neither duality nor non-duality.

If Brahman is the Absolute, there exists nothing relative to it to which it can be compared. It is Everything, and Everything must, by definition, include Maya.

Poppycock! There is no 'east' or 'west'.
There is only the way things are.

Indeed: )

 

[Contemplative Cat]

All four yogas are equal,
but for moksa to be attained we
must surely master them all.

Not by weeping and singing alone, nor dry philosophy alone, etc

An intuitive knowing and love that comes by sadhana and thus from an pure perception of God untainted by a limited range of sense organs. Seeing God as God, and nothing else.
Not an idea Of God, the God who is found in silence ,
but genuine divinity (described as Sat-Chit-Ananda.) Which when witnessed by the mind appears so vast and so great.. so much power and light that never expires.
It has no name because nothing came before to name it, it is the eternal and everlasting predecessor of all the gods. It is nameless yet is called Brahman by the seers of the Upanishads.

God is so great, its worship is an eternal religion. It never came into being, and it will never cease. Because people will never stop having spiritual journey(s)

What were your saints seeing, anyways? What are they up, what do theyfeel
What is the spiritual sky? It happens to also be the spiritual ground.
Only by surrender can it happen for anyone, Moksa. Liberation through God

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

All four yogas are equal,
but for moksa to be attained we
must surely master them all.

Not by weeping and singing alone, nor dry philosophy alone, etc

Yes, it can come through weeping alone, having you ever heard of the gajendramokShaNa from the bhAgavatam:
[youtube]eAt2v2qpDt0[/youtube]
Gajendra Moksha by Umangi Shah/ Ninad Mehta - YouTube
Besides, who are you to tell how one can acheive mokSha, are you bhagavAn? rAvaNa possessed kAma, krodha, lobha, moha, you name it, yet even he still attained mokSha, no?

It has no name because nothing came before to name it, it is the eternal and everlasting predecessor of all the gods. It is nameless yet is called Brahman by the seers of the Upanishads.

Correction, brahma, not brahman. Show me one instance in which "brahman" is used as a nominative noun in the upaniShads and I'll give you whatever you want. Oh, and he's also called as nArAyaNa (viShNu) by the "seers" of the upaniShads:

eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nApo nAgnIShomau neme dyAvApR^ithivI na nakShatrANi na sUryo na chandramAH

"Surely there was nArAyaNa (viShNu) alone, no brahmA, no IshAna (shiva/rudra), no Apa (water), no agni (fire) and soma, nor these dyAvA (the sky) and pR^ithvI (the earth), no nakShatrANi (stars), no sUrya (sun), no chandramA (moon)." - mahopaniShad

God is so great, its worship is an eternal religion. It never came into being, and it will never cease. Because people will never stop having spiritual journey(s)

And I always have yogI "corpse on a crucifix" (Jesus) to help me attain brahmavidyA. Who needs pramANa from the veda-s and purANa-s when I always have a meat-eating, mleccha god-man on a stick to guide me, right? New Age logic makes so much sense, oM namo prabhu yeshvAya...

Only by surrender can it happen for anyone, Moksa. Liberation through God

Didn't you just say, verbatim, that "deities are helpful, but they don't bring absolute fulfillment.?" Don't you realize that your statements contradict each other?

If Brahman is the Absolute, there exists nothing relative to it to which it can be compared. It is Everything, and Everything must, by definition, include Maya.

That goes against what Adi sha~NkarAchArya said in his shArIrakabhAShyam. Regardless, if that's really what you believe, then why even use the term brahma at all? Why not just call it sarvashUnyatAvAda like the bauddha-s do? After all, there's no point in pretending that neo-advaita is vedic if it's actually just veiled nihilism, right?

 

[godnotgod]

That goes against what Adi sha~NkarAchArya said in his shArIrakabhAShyam. Regardless, if that's really what you believe, then why even use the term brahma at all? Why not just call it sarvashUnyatAvAda like the bauddha-s do? After all, there's no point in pretending that neo-advaita is vedic if it's actually just veiled nihilism, right?

Are you confusing my post with someone else's?

As for mine, I'm just trying to apply simple logic to the question.

Q. In your view, is Brahman essentially Everything?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Q. In your view, is Brahman essentially Everything?

No, that's like saying that water is wetness. Wetness can be considered a "lakShaNa" of the water, but not everything that has wetness is water. Similarly, the existence of everything is dependent upon brahma/bhagavAn, but it doesn't follow that bhagavAn is just the universe; he both permeates and transcends the universe.

Are you confusing my post with someone else's?

No, I just didn't feel the need to make a separate post.

 

[Poeticus]

Q. In your view, is Brahman essentially Everything?

But, that's the problem, godnotgod...​

"ब्रह्म (brahma[1]) essentially is everything" is not
a Vedantic notion. I have yet been able to track
how this belief came to be, or how it was able to
grow. It's a very popular misconception here on RF.
Unbeknownst to those that hold this misconception,
the Shri Gods transcend even the Supreme or the
universe[2].​

_________________
[1] As explained earlier, the correct usage is ब्रह्म (brahma) --
which is the Supreme Reality -- ब्रह्म (brahma) is the neuter
inflected form of ब्रह्मन् (brahman); every time one writes
ब्रह्मन् (brahman), the person is literally saying "O' Ye Brahma!".
Remember how you originally had three neti-s, neti neti neti?
And, how I clarified that it wasn't grammatically correct?

[2] Had to provide balance to the One-God notion expressed
in the above post. ​

 

[godnotgod]

But, that's the problem, godnotgod...​

"ब्रह्म (brahma[1]) essentially is everything" is not
a Vedantic notion. I have yet been able to track
how this belief came to be, or how it was able to
grow. It's a very popular misconception here on RF.
Unbeknownst to those that hold this misconception,
the Shri Gods transcend even the Supreme or the
universe[2].​

_________________
[1]As explained earlier, the correct usage is ब्रह्म (brahma) --
which is the Supreme Reality -- ब्रह्म (brahma) is the neuter
inflected form of ब्रह्मन् (brahman); every time one writes
ब्रह्मन् (brahman), the person is literally saying "O' Ye Brahma!".
Remember how you originally had three neti-s, neti neti neti?
And, how I clarified that it wasn't grammatically correct?

[2]Had to provide balance to the One-God notion expressed
in the above post. ​

Hmmmm...well, let's see....Vivikenanda was a Vedantist, and he said:

"The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

The Absolute is what it is because there is nothing relative to it. That is to say, it is Everything, and there is no 'other'.

Brahman is the Absolute itself, is it not? In that sense, then, Brahman is Everything, and being Everything, must, logically speaking, include maya. So Vivikenanda is telling us that the universe (maya) is none other than the Absolute itself (Brahman); that what was mistaken as a 'snake' is none other than the rope. However, because there never was a snake right from the start, there is only Brahman, and there was never anything else but Brahman. Or, as the Sixth Zen Patriarch says: 'Fundamentally, not one thing exists'.

re: 'Brahma vs Brahman': I had understood Brahma to be the anthropomorphic creator-god, while Brahman was the absolute 'ground of all being' as pure energy.

 

[Poeticus]

...Vivikenanda...

...And, therein lies the problem.​

...Yes. You see?​

EDIT: I think it's very comical when I read your post:​

"Brahman is the Absolute itself, is it not? In that sense,
then, Brahman is Everything..."​

It literally is saying:

"'O' Ye Brahma!' is the Absolute itself, is it not?
In that sense, then, "'O' Ye Brahma!' is Everything..." ​