Concept of Brahman in Hinduism

[Jainarayan]

I know.....he has his "minions" that do all the dirty work for him
just like the Demiurge

Who has minions, and what is "dirty work"?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Who has minions, and what is "dirty work"?

The "minions" are the subordinate deities under his control, and the "dirty work" is physical creation.
You know, this "maya" (illusion) ?

 

[Jainarayan]

The "minions" are the subordinate deities under his control

Are you making this up as you go along?

and the "dirty work" is physical creation.
You know, this "maya" (illusion) ?

You're throwing around terms and ideas without knowing what they are, methinks. New Age appropriation. Especially from a non-Hindu. I'll echo a prominent Hindu, a netizen of this very site, who finds himself amused when non-Hindus attempt to tell Hindus their own philosophy, theology and religion.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

This is not what Hinduism teaches, and this is contrary to everything it has to say. Early Gnosticism is radically dualistic. The Upanishads speak in nondualistic terms of the Supreme Reality. You cannot compare the two. Other than to say, that radical duality is a misperception of Ultimate Reality, or Brahman. Brahman is not a deity form, like the demiurge is.

Are you making this up as you go along?



You're throwing around terms and ideas without knowing what they are, methinks. New Age appropriation. Especially from a non-Hindu. I'll echo a prominent Hindu, a netizen of this very site, who finds himself amused when non-Hindus attempt to tell Hindus their own philosophy, theology and religion.

What's amusing is people who define their humanity with religious afiliation...."Hindu", "non-Hindus", "new age", etc.

 

[Windwalker]

What's amusing is people who define their humanity with religious afiliation...."Hindu", "non-Hindus", "new age", etc.

I don't define myself as anything. I believe you are however, as a "Christian Gnostic". Do you amuse yourself doing that?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I don't define myself as anything. I believe you are however, as a "Christian Gnostic". Do you amuse yourself doing that?

no, but it is "funny" how even though we all have to be somebody in this world
we all are not who we claim (appear) to be.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Wish to start a debate/discussion regarding the concept of the ultimate reality (Brahman) that is the core of Hindu philosophy. Many ppl (mostly my Indian friends) consider it too difficult to understand to think about... and practice simple theism mostly.

So I want to get your opinion about Brahman. Is it hard to understand, fake mumbo jumbo, profound realization or just "meh"?

I will start with a verse in the Upanisads that I find quite striking. What do you make of it?

Upanisadic Verses

By whom impelled, by whom compelled, does the mind soar forth?

By whom enjoined does the breath, march on as the first?

By whom is this speech impelled, with which people speak?

And who is the god that joins the sight and hearing?


That which is the hearing behind hearing,
the thinking behind thinking,
the speech behind speech,
the sight behind sight—
It is also the breathing behind breathing


Which one cannot grasp with one's mind,
by which, they say,
the mind itself is grasped
Learn that that alone is brahman,
and not what they here venerate.

(Kena Upanisad)

My answer to your question would need an explanation of what you hope to gain or learn from this Brahman religion?

And also if this is one of those Buddhist spin offs that only limits one to only reaching nirvana, consciousness, or promotes that one can "never know"?

 

[Ancient Soul]

no, but it is "funny" how even though we all have to be somebody in this world
we all are not who we claim (appear) to be.

Great!

I'm stuck here outside on the 34th floor of a skyscraper in freezing weather, and NOW you're telling me I'm not Spiderman?????!!!!!

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Great!

I'm stuck here outside on the 34th flood of a skyscraper in freezing weather, and NOW you're telling me I'm not Spiderman?????!!!!!

yeah.....I think so, I thought 34 "floods" would be enough, I mean how many do you want?????!!!!!

 

[Jainarayan]

What's amusing is people who define their humanity with religious afiliation...."Hindu", "non-Hindus", "new age", etc.

Because those affiliations have sets of values or ways of life meaningful to a person. Unless and until someone becomes part of that group they’re just posers. And yes, those affiliations very often define the person. Not unlike how people of a particular ethnicity define themselves by that ethnicity. And not unlike a non-Italian telling Italians about Italian customs.

 

[Ancient Soul]

yeah.....I think so, I thought 34 "floods" would be enough, I mean how many do you want?????!!!!!

That's what I get for rushing, didn't check for typos. FLOOR

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Because those affiliations have sets of values or ways of life meaningful to a person. Unless and until someone becomes part of that group they’re just posers. And yes, those affiliations very often define the person. Not unlike how people of a particular ethnicity define themselves by that ethnicity. And not unlike a non-Italian telling Italians about Italian customs.

And very much like an Italian can learn absolutely nothing about Italian customs from a non-Italian ?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

That's what I get for rushing, didn't check for typos. FLOOR

I'm kidding with you Soul.....that was a pretty cool response too

 

[Ancient Soul]

I'm kidding with you Soul.....that was a pretty cool response too

I'm glad you mentioned it so I could go back and edit/correct it. I HATE making mistakes.

 

[Windwalker]

no, but it is "funny" how even though we all have to be somebody in this world
we all are not who we claim (appear) to be.

Not all. Only those who are insincere. We can all be that, but it need not be what defines us. For some, there is nothing else yet realized. No authentic self yet.

 

[Aupmanyav]

no, but it is "funny" how even though we all have to be somebody in this world
we all are not who we claim (appear) to be.

"In this world", that is what we perceive with our limited senses and evolution-influenced mind. What exactly your are is cloud of energy and if a pin is inserted into your body, it never touches anything. That is how substantial we are. Sure, funny. But that is what it is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The "minions" are the subordinate deities under his control, and the "dirty work" is physical creation. You know, this "maya" (illusion) ?

In a way you are right. Vaishnavas, who consider Vishnu as the Supreme God, believe that Brahma himself appeared because of Vishnu's desire and as he looked in various directions to find his coordinates, the universe too appeared. That is why he had five heads. He did not need to tinker with the universe. So, the universe still is an illusion created by the desire of Vishnu.

But that is the mythological side of the story of the mass consumption. On the philosophical side, there are many theories. I will restrict myself to my own - which is that it is all a play of energy / space and the accompanying four fundamental forces and gravity (I have yet not gone through what other members have opined). It is an ocean in which waves rise and dissipate. After we are dead, our consciousness also dissipates and our molecules disperse to combine with the molecules of millions of living and non-living things. That is all there is to it. That is the extent to which we are substantial.

 

[sayak83]

"Brahman" in the Hindu belief is the same entity as the "Demiurge" in Gnostic thought..
an intermediate deity or "demi-god" that fashions and gives form to primal matter ( the cosmos, aka "worlds"

The same entity that Orthodox Christians worship as the "ultimate reality"......unaware

What makes you think that these two are same?

 

[sayak83]

No clarification needed, I understood this probably when you were still hangin on mommy's coat tail.
Hindu belief has MANY TRUTHS that the western world could learn much from...like the truth of REINCARNATION for example...
But, just like Orthodox "Christianity" , it also distorts the truth in many ways for the sake of keeping people enslaved to this "world"

What makes you believe this?

 

[sayak83]

Is reality the thing seen, or the eye seeing? Are we passive participants in the world, or creators of the world? This is a shift from dualistic thought to nondual realization.

I've been thinking about this lately, which is touched upon in the last verse above, "Learn that that alone is Brahman, and not what they here venerate". With any practice, one begins at the rudimentary concepts and works with those, following the rules of the form as it were. I'll relate this to my own practice of taijiquan. Someone first learning is paying attention to all the movements, where to move the feet, how to move the arms, etc. This is all still external to them. There is division between the thoughts and the movements. They have not yet developed the practice to where it is a unified whole, not even guided by thought at all.

In other words, developmentally, all people begin with an externalized form, and later, it becomes internalized. This is as true for Tai Chi, as it is for swimming, playing music, etc. Once it moves from a very literal external form of rules and practices (this is right and that is wrong), to an internalized form, it shifts into a space of liberation or freedom of movement and expression. To put a term to this, it's a relationship between structure and freedom. In Tai Chi, it becomes the relationship between the fundamentals of movement, and movement itself.

The same is true spiritually speaking. One begins looking "up" to see God. And in that practice of reaching and imagining, it actually activates the truth of it within oneself, even if it is still imagined as something outside ourselves. Eventually, it is realized that the reality of it, has always been within us. We didn't actually learn a new skill, but rather learned a way to expose something that was innately there the whole time. We inhabit that reality subjectively. We become that reality, as it is the reality in us. It just needed a framework to find expression through. But the form, is not the freedom.

Until someone has moved from form to freedom, they are still doing the equivalent of staring at your feet while dancing. That's not dancing. If someone is still seeing God as outside themselves, they have not yet experienced their true nature. It's not the world that is seen, but the Seer seeing. It's not where the feet go in a dance, but dancing itself.

I felt that the verses were pointing to the inherent unified self-luminosity of conscious awareness (involving sight, hearing, speech and thought) as a marker of Brahman.