Brahman/Maya & The Two Truths

[Poeticus]

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.

...that is brahmā...​

I am talking about brahma, the 'Supreme Reality'.​

From post #40:​

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

When ब्रह्मन् (brahman) 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).

Phonetics is very painful...sometimes. ​

 

[godnotgod]

...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..." ​

Wikipedia makes the distinction between Brahma and Brahman as follows:


"Brahmā (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा; IAST: Brahm&#257 is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimūrti, the others being Vishnu and Shiva. According to the Brahmā Purāņa, he is the father of Manu, and from Manu all human beings are descended. In the Rāmāyaņa and the Mahābhārata, he is often referred to as the progenitor or great grandsire of all human beings. He is not to be confused with the Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hindu Vedānta philosophy known as Brahman, which is genderless."

So is that incorrect?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Wikipedia makes the distinction between Brahma and Brahman as follows:


"Brahmā (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा; IAST: Brahm&#257 is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimūrti, the others being Vishnu and Shiva. According to the Brahmā Purāņa, he is the father of Manu, and from Manu all human beings are descended. In the Rāmāyaņa and the Mahābhārata, he is often referred to as the progenitor or great grandsire of all human beings. He is not to be confused with the Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hindu Vedānta philosophy known as Brahman, which is genderless."

So is that incorrect?

It's mostly correct. because they specified that brahmA had an "आ" at the end with the macron over the ending "a" as well as that when it is considered genderless, brahman refers to the concept in vedAnta. Technically, they're still partially incorrect, since neuter-gender is still considered a type of gender, but that's just semantics.

 

[Poeticus]

Wikipedia makes the distinction between Brahma and Brahman as follows:


"Brahmā (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा; IAST: Brahmā) is the Hindu god (deva) of creation and one of the Trimūrti, the others being Vishnu and Shiva. According to the Brahmā Purāņa, he is the father of Manu, and from Manu all human beings are descended. In the Rāmāyaņa and the Mahābhārata, he is often referred to as the progenitor or great grandsire of all human beings. He is not to be confused with the Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hindu Vedānta philosophy known as Brahman, which is genderless."

So is that incorrect?

I believe I am being misunderstood...
Please be kind as to re-read my post:​

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

When ब्रह्मन् (brahman) is inflected as a masculine noun, it becomes
ब्रह्मा (brahm&#257, which refers to a Deity from the Trimurti.
The correct word is ब्रह्म (brahma), not ब्रह्मन् (brahman) nor ब्रह्मा (brahm&#257.​

What is written in the wiki is surely this:
Brahmā...do you notice the diatric? The...ā?​

But, no worries: Wikipedia and Vivekananda are surely
the Keepers of True-Knowledge of Hinduism(s),
definitely not one who is a ṣākalya ṣākhin of the
śrī ṛgveda, nor one who is of the nitya-karma of
the śrī sāmaveda. :sad:​

 

[godnotgod]

I believe I am being misunderstood...
Please be kind as to re-read my post:​

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

When ब्रह्मन् (brahman) is inflected as a masculine noun, it becomes
ब्रह्मा (brahm&#257, which refers to a Deity from the Trimurti.
The correct word is ब्रह्म (brahma), not ब्रह्मन् (brahman) nor ब्रह्मा (brahm&#257.​

What is written in the wiki is surely this:
Brahmā...do you notice the diatric? The...ā?​

But, no worries: Wikipedia and Vivekananda are surely
the Keepers of True-Knowledge of Hinduism(s).​

So how shall we make the distinction between the anthropomorphic deity of creation, and the ground of all being?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Perhaps this would help:

Declension table of brahman m. (chaturmukhI brahmA, the creator deity in the trimUrti)

Masculine Singular Dual Plural
Nominative brahmA brahmANau brahmANaH
Vocative brahman brahmANau brahmANaH
Accusative brahmANam brahmANau brahmaNaH
InstrumentalbrahmaNA brahmabhyAm brahmabhiH
Dative brahmaNe brahmabhyAm brahmabhyaH
Ablative brahmaNaH brahmabhyAm brahmabhyaH
Genitive brahmaNaH brahmaNoH brahmaNAm
Locative brahmaNi brahmaNoH brahmasu

Declension table of brahman n. (the vedAntic concept)
Neuter Singular Dual Plural
Nominative brahma brahmaNI brahmANI
Vocative brahma brahmaNI brahmANI
Accusative brahma brahmaNI brahmANI
InstrumentalbrahmaNA brahmabhyAm brahmabhiH
Dative brahmaNe brahmabhyAm brahmabhyaH
Ablative brahmaNaH brahmabhyAm brahmabhyaH
Genitive brahmaNaH brahmaNoH brahmaNAm
Locative brahmaNi brahmaNoH brahmasu

If you notice, although the uninflected form is the same in both (brahman), the nominative singular form for them are different, for the creator deity it is brahmA, whereas for the vedAntic concept, it's brahma. That's one way to distinguish between them. In some Indian languages such as Hindi, the "a" at the end is not pronounced, hence it becomes brahm, like in the phrase "parabrahm parameshvar."

 

[Poeticus]

So how shall we make the distinction between the anthropomorphic deity of creation, and the ground of all being?

Very simple...​

"Anthropomorphic deity of creation" is brahmā (pronounced bruh-maah[1], so to speak),

and "the ground of all being" is brahma (pronounced bruh-muh[2], so to speak).​

Yattaaa![3]​

_______________
[1] As in "my Maa and Paa"; Mama and Papa.

[2] As in duh!...

[3] ...Hiro Nākāmurā! ​

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Semantics aside though, one still understands what is meant by 'Brahman' when the term 'Brahman' is used...

Yes, I realise I am totally missing the point, but I cannot even see the 'point'.

All I know, is that this is like those people who take me to task over using any form of personal pronoun.

How else am "I" supposed to refer to 'my' ego-self?

One feels like saying 'listen, if you want me to just shut the hell up, kindly say that instead and I'll understand that more".

 

[atanu]

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.

Usage of brahmA (to mean creator ब्रह्म&#2366 and brahman (to mean the immutable ब्रह्&#2350 has been a convention for a very long time. Many authors have used this convention. The books use transliteration guides that ensure correct pronunciation but such guide will not accomapany a web page discussion. I agree that it may cause confusion. However, as this is just a convention of transliteration, IMO, there is actually no fundamental mistake.

From this POV, I understand exactly which NYK or CC referring to when they use either brahmA or brahman, irrespective of verity of their statements regarding these two.

 

[atanu]

I thought I'd start a thread where we can explore whether there is any basis of comparison between the two concepts? Whether we find any basis for comparison between them or not, this thread can serve as a place where we can learn about each concept's different ideas without violating any DIR rules.

(Other comparable concepts can also be brought in, such as the Ancient Egyptian's Hall of Two Truths, if someone wants to present them.)

I'm really interested in this idea, but I usually reserve my contemplation of Nagarjuna for when I have PMS.

I'll be mostly in my "beginner's mind" state here, as I know almost nothing about Brahman/Maya, and would like to learn.

Here's an article about The Two Truths Doctrine from About.com to get us started.

The Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism

Thank you.

Are you sure that the About.Com article gives a correct picture of the Two Truths doctrine of Mahayana?.

I will rather go by "By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

The Buddha's saying is easily understandable.

 

[Poeticus]

Semantics aside though, one still understands what is meant by 'Brahman' when the term 'Brahman' is used...

Yes, I realise I am totally missing the point, but I cannot even see the 'point'.

All I know, is that this is like those people who take me to task over using any form of personal pronoun.

How else am "I" supposed to refer to 'my' ego-self?

One feels like saying 'listen, if you want me to just shut the hell up, kindly say that instead and I'll understand that more".

Usage of brahmA (to mean creator ब्रह्म&#2366 and brahman (to mean the immutable ब्रह्&#2350 has been a convention for a very long time. Many authors have used this convention. The books use transliteration guides that ensure correct pronunciation but such guide will not accomapany a web page discussion. I agree that it may cause confusion. However, as this is just a convention of transliteration, IMO, there is actually no fundamental mistake.

From this POV, I understand exactly which NYK or CC referring to when they use either brahmA or brahman, irrespective of verity of their statements regarding these two.

Well...​

In terms of great importance, it is
irrelevant. In my opinion, however,
the semantical discussion was a
valuable digression.​

Instead of the usual, and highly over-
talked, what is brahman? conversation,
I, personally, found this to be a great
adventure - even contributive.​

Perhaps, this conversation can be steered either
back to the OP, or to what is implied by "everything"
in the phrase, "everything is essentially brahman"?​

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Well...​

In terms of great importance, it is
irrelevant. In my opinion, however,
the semantical discussion was a
valuable digression.​

Instead of the usual, and highly over-
talked, what is brahman? conversation,
I, personally, found this to be a great
adventure - even contributive.​

Perhaps, this conversation can be steered either
back to the OP, or to what is implied by "everything"
in the phrase, "everything is essentially brahman"?​

Okay then, I shall oblige your digression....for now.

From my very limited knowledge of Sanskrit (and I am too lazy to use IAST or Devanagri, so please forgive me)...

Brahman, Brahma and Brahmin all come from the Sanskrit Bija "Bri" meaning 'to expand'...'to grow'...to 'effulge' something like that (I haven't found the exact, correct English translation for this).

If Brahman (in this usage, for now), is 'all pervading', 'all encompassing', 'ever-existent' and in and of itself...'full' (purna), then what is there remaining to 'grow'? what is there left to expand? (this is why the word 'effulgent' comes the closest).

So, if we believe Brahman (in this usage, for now), is the 'primordial, creative force', the 'substratum of all existence' and that from which all existence and all creation springs forth (thus causing this 'expansion' and this 'effulgence' to occur, whilst still remaining full - as scripture says) - that 'creative force' can thus become 'personified' into an adi-deity (yes, Brahma). So, in this instance, Brahma and Brahman are one in the same.

I'll go into the 'Brahmin' part a bit later though....tired now after all that. lol

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Perhaps, this conversation can be steered either
back to the OP, or to what is implied by "everything"
in the phrase, "everything is essentially brahman"?

That has already been self-answered by the use of the word 'implied'.
Besides that, I am even more intrigued by the use of the word 'essentially' in there.

 

[godnotgod]

That has already been self-answered by the use of the word 'implied'.
Besides that, I am even more intrigued by the use of the word 'essentially' in there.

Because of no-thing-ness, there is everything.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't want to get into arguments about terminology and what not, but why do western vedAntI-s often use the word brahman rather than brahma? If "brahman" (ब्रह्मन&#2381 is inflected as a neutral noun it becomes brahma (ब्रह्&#2350 which does refer to the supreme reality, but if inflected as a masculine noun, it becomes brahmA (ब्रह्म&#2366 which refers to the creator god in the trimUrti. Why use brahman rather than brahma when all it does is increase confusion?

Because not everyone is at the same high level of knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and inflections, and transliterations as others.

 

[Makaranda]

It seems to me that Brahman/Brahma is less confusing a distinction than brahma/brahmA for most people. After all, pretty much all english translations that I'm aware of use Brahman rather than brahma when referring to the Reality. It's convenient and rather standardised, so why bother changing it and confusing people further?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

It seems to me that Brahman/Brahma is less confusing a distinction than brahma/brahmA for most people. After all, pretty much all english translations that I'm aware of use Brahman rather than brahma when referring to the Reality. It's convenient and rather standardised, so why bother changing it and confusing people further?

So it pretty much has to do with Orientalist/Indologist convention (I've noticed that the prAtipadika of words are also used is other cases, like nirvANa rather than nirvANam, sUtra rather than sUtram, mahAbhArata rather than mahAbhAratam)? However, if that is the case, then why use the nominative in the case of brahmA, isn't that being inconsistent? In addition, in Hindi, people have no trouble distinguishing between parabrahm and brahmA, so why is it any different in English? Saying brahman is different from brahmA is like saying yogin is different from yogI, it doesn't make sense from a grammatical standpoint.

 

[atanu]

I thought I'd start a thread where we can explore whether there is any basis of comparison between the two concepts? Whether we find any basis for comparison between them or not, this thread can serve as a place where we can learn about each concept's different ideas without violating any DIR rules.

----Here's an article about The Two Truths Doctrine from About.com to get us started.

The Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism

Thank you.

---

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

The Buddha's saying is easily understandable.

Hello Crossfire

In advaita Vedanta, it is not exactly called 'Two Truths', since one is not looking at two different things but one is looking at one thing from two perspectives.

Thus in advaita vedanta it is more generally called "Two levels of understanding" "Two levels of Views". You may wish to read more.

The Advaita Vedânta Home Page - The Philosophy of Advaita

vyavahAra and paramArtha -

This exegesis of scripture leads to the well-known advaitic doctrine of two levels of understanding: vyAvahArika satya (phenomenal or relative reality or just "reality", where duality is seen) and pAramArthika satya (transcendental reality, or "Reality", non-duality). One important upanishadic source for advaita vedAnta's theory of two levels of truth is the analysis of the Atman as "neti, neti" - not this, not this. This is from the bRhadAraNyaka upanishad. This upanishad also describes the highest state of the Atman in purely non-dualistic terms - "yatra tvasya sarvam AtmaivAbhUt, tatra kena kam paSyet? ..... vijnAtAram. are kena vijAnIyAt?" - Where the Atman alone has become all this, how is one to see another? ..... How is the Knower to be Known? Most advaitins point to the quotation from the bRhadAraNyaka that immediately precedes this: "yatra tu dvaitamiva bhavati, ..." - where there is duality, as it were, ... - as the scriptural basis for saying that perception of duality is an appearance only, "as it were" and not the supreme Reality.

This rejection of all characterization as partial at best, and ultimately untrue, means that the Atman is beyond all duality, and all attempts to describe It fail, because language itself presupposes duality. This via negativa approach is very much favored in advaita vedAnta. This emphasis on identifying the Atman with brahman by means of sublating the commonly understood characteristics of each term, to affirm the real nature of the Atman, is central to advaita vedAnta.

 

[atanu]

I do not know whether Crossfire is tuned? Since, the Title of the thread is Brahman/Maya & The Two Truths, I wished to leave a record that Brahman and Maya are not two truths.

As per Upanishads/brahma sutras, Brahman is the truth.

Brihadaraynaka up. explains it. The Life Force, which runs the tangible world is satya which (as per the upanishad) is an admixture of true and untrue. But the Truth of the Truth (satyasa satya) is the uninsurable, ungraspable brahman that is known by Neti Neti.

 

[godnotgod]

Brahman, Brahma and Brahmin all come from the Sanskrit Bija "Bri" meaning 'to expand'...'to grow'...to 'effulge' something like that (I haven't found the exact, correct English translation for this).

If Brahman (in this usage, for now), is 'all pervading', 'all encompassing', 'ever-existent' and in and of itself...'full' (purna), then what is there remaining to 'grow'? what is there left to expand? (this is why the word 'effulgent' comes the closest).

So, if we believe Brahman (in this usage, for now), is the 'primordial, creative force', the 'substratum of all existence' and that from which all existence and all creation springs forth (thus causing this 'expansion' and this 'effulgence' to occur, whilst still remaining full - as scripture says) - that 'creative force' can thus become 'personified' into an adi-deity (yes, Brahma). So, in this instance, Brahma and Brahman are one in the same.

I'll go into the 'Brahmin' part a bit later though....tired now after all that. lol

The Vedantist Vivekananda said:

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

Brahman is that Absolute, so therefore, Brahman is the universe, and the universe, which is maya, is (seemingly) expanding. Since Brahman is the Absolute, it is also the Changeless. It IS the 'all pervading', 'all encompassing', 'ever-existent', while at the same time, is playing/pretending to be, all the parts of the manifested, but illusory universe, in the cosmic game of Hide and Seek.


"Swami Vivekananda said in one of his lectures[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE] that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation (kala, desha, nimitta). He said that time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see.

Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms.

....But what I have referred to as apparitional causation is a very different thing. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the rope is not transformed into a snake. It's just a mistake, and it's something you're doing now. So the question is not: "How did the Absolute become the Universe?" That can't be answered. The Absolute has not become the Universe. The question is, " Why do we see it that way?"

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

Hope this helps...