Brahman or God

[sealchan]

"Son, as by knowing one clod of clay, all things made of clay are known, different names in speech are but distortions in naming, clay is alone the truth"

I am reminded of what Joseph Campbell said about myth in general...basically that myth points to the reality of a form beyond forms, myth is a costume that clothes the real knowledge. I'm also thinking about systems theory where there is no purely objective vantage point but the knower must of necessity participate, and thereby alter, what is known.

 

[sealchan]

Interesting - like recognising something? It seems quite subjective though, difficult to know what the something really is.

Or a partial recognition...full recognition would promote an unconscious response of uneventful, "trivial" identification, but anything else that, perhaps, captures one's conscious attention may be reflective of a change in that knower's understanding of that something.

In the human brain, everything remembered is stored in a medium in which everything stored potentially alters every other stored item. Even things stored and forgotten are subject to this constant process of alteration. From this point of view, then, my idea is trivial. But it is also not quite common sense and it may also relate to such things we might find difficult to comprehend like how a species changes over time into another species in the context of evolution.

 

[atanu]

how can you know brahman or god, if you can't experience it first person?

by someone telling you? if so, then how can they know brahman, or god, if they didn't experience it first person?

The true first person (Atman), according to Upanishads, is the fourth ( called Turīya). The fourth is the consciousness that links the three diverse awarenesses of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Since it lies transcendent, as seer, of the three states of mind, it is called the fourth.

The fourth can only be experienced as self and non dual. It is said to be the Prabhu — the Lord.

Upanishads further say ‘ayam atma brahma’ ( this Self is brahman). The Turīya is brahman, the Truth, Intelligence, Infinite.

So, brahman can only be experienced as the self and as non dual — devoid of a second. The individual is an illusion.
...

 

[Unguru]

Brahman is the stuff (or whatever) which constitutes all things in the universe.

Not true, Brahman is just human imagination, it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as Brahman, any more than there is the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Martin]

The true first person (Atman), according to Upanishads, is the fourth ( called Turīya). The fourth is the consciousness that links the three diverse awarenesses of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Since it lies transcendent, as seer, of the three states of mind, it is called the fourth.

The fourth can only be experienced as self and non dual. It is said to be the Prabhu — the Lord.

Upanishads further say ‘ayam atma brahma’ ( this Self is brahman). The Turīya is brahman, the Truth, Intelligence, Infinite.

So, brahman can only be experienced as the self and as non dual — devoid of a second. The individual is an illusion.
...

So if Turiya is Brahman, then presumably Brahman is the seer of the other three states of consciousness (waking, dreaming and sleeping)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm also thinking about systems theory where there is no purely objective vantage point but the knower must of necessity participate, and thereby alter, what is known.

The 'knower' does not alter 'what exists'. The 'knower' only gets a particular perspective, like two observers moving past something with different speeds.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not true, Brahman is just human imagination, it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as Brahman, any more than there is the flying spaghetti monster.

Fine. Different views. So, does something really exists or nothing really exists? I am comfortable with both the views a-la Quantum Mechanics.

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.

So if Turiya is Brahman, then presumably Brahman is the seer of the other three states of consciousness (waking, dreaming and sleeping)?

What has Brahman to do with seeing or hearing? will it approve or disprove? Will it reward or punish? It does none of that. It is 'nirguna'. It is ignorance which sees or hears.

 

[atanu]

So if Turiya is Brahman, then presumably Brahman is the seer of the other three states of consciousness?

Thank you for this excellent observation and the excellent question. I will cite three verses from an Upanishad to explain this point.

(6) He who sees this, does not see death, nor disease, nor misery, for seeing he sees all (objectively, not as affecting him subjectively); he becomes all everywhere (he becomes Brahman).

(7) There is the person in the eye, there is he who walks as in sleep, he who is sound asleep, and he who is above the sleeper: these are the four conditions (of the Self), and the fourth is greater than all.

(8) Brahman with one foot moves in the three, and Brahman with three feet is in the last.

It is that both the true (in the fourth condition) and the untrue (in the three conditions) may have their desert, that the Great Self (seems to) become two, yes, that he (seems to) become two.​

...

If the point is not clear, I can try to explain further.

 

[Unguru]

Fine. Different views.

As long as you realize that there is no such thing as Brahman and that it's just human imagination, then we're good.

So, does something really exists or nothing really exists?

Your question is nonsense, things exist, how could they not?

 

[Aupmanyav]

As long as you realize that there is no such thing as Brahman and that it's just human imagination, then we're good.

Whether we are good or bad does not matter. I was talking of different views that people have.

Your question is nonsense, things exist, how could they not?

Does your head exist? It is just a collection of molecules, atoms, which are whirring points of physical energy. You perceive it as your head, which in reality does not exist.

 

[dybmh]

Whether we are good or bad does not matter

 

[sealchan]

The 'knower' does not alter 'what exists'. The 'knower' only gets a particular perspective, like two observers moving past something with different speeds.

Precisely, the knower only gets a particular perspective...there is no perfect perspective from which one can be truly objective and beyond the particularity of any knower. All knowledge exists in a system consisting of the perspectives of knowers whose ability to know has been co-created through evolution with the nature of the known. What exists for the knower is never what exists without the presence of the knower. There is no perfect "what exists without the knower" for us to say the knower does not alter what exists.

Without an inertial frame of reference, there is no sense in the word 'speed'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Observation does not decide, it gives us the facts. It is analysis (Viveka) which takes us to truth. That is meditation (Dhyana), contemplation. Knowing 'what exists' is not difficult. What did we start with at the time of Big bang? Physical Energy. That is what exists. That constitutes all things in the universe. It is about the properties of energy that we do not exactly know. What gives rise to this energy? What is its relation with space and time? Etc.

 

[syo]

how can you know brahman or god, if you can't experience it first person?

by someone telling you? if so, then how can they know brahman, or god, if they didn't experience it first person?

you exist because of something. this something is god/brahman.

 

[sealchan]

Observation does not decide, it gives us the facts. It is analysis (Viveka) which takes us to truth. That is meditation (Dhyana), contemplation. Knowing 'what exists' is not difficult. What did we start with at the time of Big bang? Physical Energy. That is what exists. It is about the properties of energy that we do not exactly know. What gives rise to this energy? What is its relation with space and time? Etc.

What is analysis that it can be said with confidence that it is more like reality than that which we experience directly with our senses? True, we can suffer under an illusion, but what illusion is ever dispelled that is not aided by further sensory awareness?

Simultaneously, what sensory awareness can we not deconstruct and reveal its arbitrariness? What are colors? Are they properties of reality or something the brain has co-created with the reality that appears to reflect colors? What are thoughts but the brain activities that were co-created with the reality that appears to conform, or not, to those thoughts? Is red really what a certain range of electromagnetic radiation is? Are the equations used to describe the radiation showing us the nature of red?

Every perception is true and false. Every thought based on perception is also true and false. Intuitions which seek to find the patterns in these things are also true and false.

Perhaps Brahman is the intuition that this pattern is complete across all cognitive experience and that we can, in a cautionary moment of additional cognition come to the idea that Brahman transcends our cognition of reality.

This can neither be proven nor disproven. Like color we co-create Brahman with the reality we perceive to "embody" Brahman. In this sense it makes as much sense to say we are Brahman.

In the realm of common sense based on sensory experience this sort of thinking dissolves rationality making distinctions useless and soon becomes tiresome. In the realm of spiritual awareness which is based on intuition this sort of thinking integrates rationality transcending distinctions and brings a sense of peaceful wholeness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I said earlier, we do not know all the properties of 'what exists' (Hindus term it as Brahman). We generally think non-existence is BS. But it could be the other phase of existence. We do not have all the facts now. Only the future generations will know whether it is true or false. Even in RigVeda, i.e., more than 3,000 years ago, sages (Rishis, as per our nomenclature, wise men) pointed that. Only this can erase the problem of 'from where the Earth arose? Science too is grappling with this problem. Multiple-universes.

 

[sealchan]

As I said earlier, we do not know all the properties of 'what exists' (Hindus term it as Brahman). We generally think non-existence is BS. But it could be the other phase of existence. We do not have all the facts now. Only the future generations will know whether it is true or false. Even in RigVeda, i.e., more than 3,000 years ago, sages (Rishis, as per our nomenclature, wise men) pointed that. Only this can erase the problem of 'from where the Earth arose? Science too is grappling with this problem. Multiple-universes.

Why should we be concerned with non-existence? Shouldn't we focus only on that which exists even if we do not know it exists?

 

[paarsurrey]

how can you know brahman or god, if you can't experience it first person?

by someone telling you? if so, then how can they know brahman, or god, if they didn't experience it first person?

How can you know Brahman or God?

One can know Brahman or God from His attributes as expressed in Quran- the pristine and pure Word of G-d, revealed on Muhammad.

Regards

 

[Uncommon Sense]

how can you know brahman or god, if you can't experience it first person?

by someone telling you? if so, then how can they know brahman, or god, if they didn't experience it first person?

As my partner would say ~ anyone who has can write their own good news according to themselves in their own words, and testify to witnessing the internal transformations.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why should we be concerned with non-existence? Shouldn't we focus only on that which exists even if we do not know it exists?

These are not two different questions. One affects the other. What is existence and what is non-existence? RigVeda hinted at a relation. Buddha denied it (Anatta). Quantum Mechanics says particles can arise out of nothing, can be temporary or even be permanent. Whether we are discussing existence or non-existence, it is the same question. There is no basic difference. We do not understand it clearly (Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia). Recently, I read that some scientist has been able to cross the following barrier. We are making progress in that direction:

"There have been many objections to the Copenhagen interpretation over the years. These include: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation, the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the "laboratory" in which the results are measured."

Quantum Physics May Be Even Spookier Than You Think:
"So although the traditional “two places at once” view of superposition might seem odd enough, “it’s possible a superposition is a collection of states that are even crazier,” Elitzur says. “Quantum mechanics just tells you about their average.” Post-selection then allows one to isolate and inspect just some of those states at greater resolution, he suggests. Such an interpretation of quantum behavior would be, he says, “revolutionary”—because it would entail a hitherto unguessed menagerie of real (but very odd) states underlying counterintuitive quantum phenomena."

Quantum world is trickier than we ever thought: Quantum Physics News