Dharmics Only: Is Brahman really all-knowing?

[George-ananda]

A question has been floating in my mind for quite some time now. And there's no better place to ask than on RF :=)

If we are nothing but Brahman, the saakshi (witness) and most importantly, an omniscient (all-knowing) being, then why can't we know what's taking place on the other side of the universe?

Being an all-knowing entity i should be able to know what's going on in my neighbour's house (without evesdropping ofcourse lol) or the events that are taking place in other cities, countries and various planets. And yet we are completely submerged in an ocean of ignorance and totally rely on TVs, newspapers and the internet for our daily dose of information. Is this the play of maya? Does Brahman upon ITs own will chooses to become ignorant once IT manifests as these subtle and physical worlds?

This question was actually asked 3 or 4 years ago, by one of the guys who attended Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures in USA. A very good question if you ask me. But what dissapointed me most, was that the swami didn't give a direct answer. He sidestepped the question by saying "You will get to know everything later on".

Does this mean that upon attaining Brahma-Gyana (knowledge of Brahman) all the mysteries and secrets of the cosmos will be revealed to a self realized person?

Here is my best understanding.

Brahman is infinite Consciousness and the only thing real and permanent. We are Brahman.

And Brahman has a creative aspect that thinks/creates a universe. In this play Brahman separates itself from itself in Act I and returns itself to itself in Act II. Why? To experience the joy of going from finiteness to infiniteness. (that's us in process)

So Brahman sends rays of Himself through self-limiting bodies that are at first only capable of the limited experiences that their external senses can reach. Greg will not know what George enjoyed for lunch (an Impossible Whopper with Cheese btw) because Greg is limited by the reach of his body's senses.

Eventually Greg and George will through their self-effort brought through their intelligence expand their understanding and eventually enjoy on higher planes with less limiting bodies and mental abilities. Eventually they will realize no separation from Brahman and the illusion of being George and Greg will have been long left behind.

 

[sayak83]

Is the rishis didn't know, then there's not much hope for us, is there?
Anyway, perhaps somebody else can answer my question. I would like to know where this idea of Brahman being omniscient actually comes from.

I will put this in my to do list.

 

[sayak83]

What you and Salix are saying makes sense. But isn't it possible for the infinite ocean of Brahman to know or witness its own waves, which are its manifestations or matter (i.e. the physical and subtle things)?



This reminds me of an article i read a few years back. Don't remember the exact words but there Ramakrishna said something like this ... once we are united with Brahman (during a trance while still living in the body), all sorts of duality (like knower and the known) vanishes. Then again when we come out of trance and into the world of duality, we can no longer explain what we experienced while we were in trance.

I guess this means there's no way of knowing everything, not only in the realm of duality (vyavaharika satya) but also in the paramarthika state. Am i right?

Brahman knows itself in a kind of a nonexplicit nonprepositional reflexive way. That is how All is sensed in the meditative state.
In my opinion and experience I. E.

 

[stvdv]

And when the drop becomes one with ocean, there remains nothing more to seek or know, since there's nothing left other than Brahman. Am i right?

True, when we reach that state, we accomplished the highest goal of life possible on earth for us; the experts say ... I am still working on that

So, by doing sadhana or deep meditation one cannot attain attributes like omnipotence, omniscience etc.?
Then could you please tell me how did your guru attain them in the first place. Thanks.

My Master is what they call a Poorna Avatar, and they are born with these qualities, my Master explained. 'Normal' people are born with ca. 4-7 of the 16 qualities. Krishna was also a Poorna Avatar (by birth) with all 16 qualities, and Sita (wife of Rama) too

And imagine if any human being could gain these 3 qualities by doing their Sadhana. Especially Omnipotence, the ability to destroy the whole world. There should not be a trace of ego left, otherwise there would be major trouble in the Universe

 

[stvdv]

A drop of water could "know" the nature of the ocean, but not it's extent.

Yes, that is nicely put this way

 

[stvdv]

Is the rishis didn't know, then there's not much hope for us, is there?
Anyway, perhaps somebody else can answer my question. I would like to know where this idea of Brahman being omniscient actually comes from.

Poorna Avatars know, so to "really know" you need to be of that level, so Krishna (ca. 5000 years ago) knew, but this idea "of Brahman being omniscient" is older than that I think. According to my Master, even Sita (from Rama ca. 20.000 years ago, according to my Master) had all 16 Divine attributes, so even she would have known. Before that I do not remember my Master telling about it.

 

[stvdv]

I don't think satcitananda implies omniscience.

Atma Bodha, verse 65:
"That all-pervading, eternal blissful consciousness is seen within when one observes it through the eye of knowledge.
From the ignorant eye it is not seen, just as a blind person does not see the shining sun."

Beautiful verse, thank you for sharing it. Reading this kind of verses always make me smile/happy

 

[SalixIncendium]

Poorna Avatars know, so to "really know" you need to be of that level, so Krishna (ca. 5000 years ago) knew, but this idea "of Brahman being omniscient" is older than that I think. According to my Master, even Sita (from Rama ca. 20.000 years ago, according to my Master) had all 16 Divine attributes, so even she would have known. Before that I do not remember my Master telling about it.

My first glance at this took it as read, "to 'really know,' you need to be level 5000."

I'm only at level 3108.

 

[stvdv]

My first glance at this took it as read, "to 'really know,' you need to be level 5000."

I'm only at level 3108.

To be able to "stomach" this Omniscience I need to be "Omnidetached" too
IF I would feel all the pain in the world/universe and be attached that would cause a major mental trouble

So, in that way "knowing everything does not make one happy" makes sense

So, I have accepted my fate to "never really know" this type of things (like Omniscience)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is the rishis didn't know, then there's not much hope for us, is there?
Anyway, perhaps somebody else can answer my question. I would like to know where this idea of Brahman being omniscient actually comes from.

I understand that Brahman is omniscient, so does apparently Krishna et al.

Chapter 8, Verse 9-10 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

Bhagavad Gita 8.9 – 8.10
God is Omniscient, the most ancient one, the Controller, subtler than the subtlest, the Support of all, and the possessor of an inconceivable divine form; He is brighter than the sun, and beyond all darkness of ignorance. One who at the time of death, with unmoving mind attained by the practice of Yog, fixes the prāṇ (life airs) between the eyebrows, and steadily remembers the Divine Lord with great devotion, certainly attains Him.

Many other links to reflect the omniscience of Brahman.

Brahman is omniscient at DuckDuckGo

 

[Vinayaka]

I think all pervasive is different from all knowing. Sivam (Saiva version of Brahman) permeates all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think all pervasive is different from all knowing. Sivam (Saiva version of Brahman) permeates all.

How can Brahman not be omniscient, to believe otherwise is to imagine Brahman is all pervasive yet not knowing Himself. Besides, check out the links above, there are many references to the omniscience of Brahman. My question is, where did the idea that Brahman was not omniscient come from?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A question has been floating in my mind for quite some time now. And there's no better place to ask than on RF :=)

If we are nothing but Brahman, the saakshi (witness) and most importantly, an omniscient (all-knowing) being, then why can't we know what's taking place on the other side of the universe?

Brahman is omniscient, but you, I, and all other unenlightened beings are not. That seems to me to be the obvious answer..

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is the rishis didn't know, then there's not much hope for us, is there?

Rishis too were the product of their times and knew only what they knew, not Quantum Mechanics. They were from the theist stock and writing for mostly theist people. What is written does not indicate their actual belief - read 'Public good'. That is why Sankara said "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah" but also agreed to Saguna in Vyavaharika. They were not free birds like us, they had social responsibilities. Some, however, declared it more openly. Parmeshthi Prjapati saying in RigVeda that Gods are later than the creation of the universe, or the writer of Mandukya saying 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' or other people saying 'Aham Brahmasmi', 'Ayamatma Brahman'., 'Tat twam asi', etc.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And when the drop becomes one with ocean, there remains nothing more to seek or know, since there's nothing left other than Brahman. Am i right?

So, by doing sadhana or deep meditation one cannot attain attributes like omnipotence, omniscience etc.?
Then could you please tell me how did your guru attain them in the first place. Thanks.

You are right, Greg. Nothing remains to be done except performing one's dharma as long as Vyavaharika, the mirage lasts.
Not talking about stvdv's guru, purna avatara; sadhana and meditation cannot make any one omni-potent or omni-scient in Vyavaharika, and these things do not exist in Paramarthika.

"On 17 June 2011, officials from the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust opened his private residence in the presence of government, bank and tax department officials. In the private residence, which had been sealed since his death, they inventoried 98 kg of gold ornaments, approximate value Rs 21 crores (US$4.7m), 307 kg of silver ornaments, approximate value Rs 16 million (US$0.36m), and Rs 116 million (US$2.6m) in cash. The cash was deposited into the Sai Trust's account at the State Bank of India with payment of government taxes (thus transferring them from religious gifts to Trust assets.) The gold and other items were inventoried, assessed, and placed in secure storage. In July, district authorities inventoried an additional Rs 7.7 million (US$0.17m) in valuables in another 4 rooms. The total value of these items is believed to exceed 7.8 million US dollars. Also inventoried at Yajurmandir were thousands of pure silk sarees, dhotis, shirts, 500 pairs of shoes, dozens of bottles of perfume and hairspray, watches, a large number of silver and gold "mangala sutrams", and precious stones such as diamonds. There were also 750 saffron and white robes of the type Sai Baba wore. In July 2011, a similar opening of his Bangalore-area ashram tallied 6 kg of gold coins and jewellery, 245 kg of silver articles and Rs 8 million in cash. These items and goods are believed to have been donated over the years by Sai Baba's devotees from all over the world as religious gifts."
Sathya Sai Baba - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

How can Brahman not be omniscient, to believe otherwise is to imagine Brahman is all pervasive yet not knowing Himself.
Besides, check out the links above, there are many references to the omniscience of Brahman. My question is, where did the idea that Brahman was not omniscient come from?

Do atoms know or need to know what they are? Does energy knows or need to know what it is?
By realizing the futility of giving attributes to 'what exists', it is what it is. Why would Brahman need to be all-knowing, all-powerful? The perceived is but a mirage.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is Maya that makes water think it's a lake .. and ego that makes it think it's better than all the other lakes.

Another Kabir quote - "Maya maha thagini hum jani' (Maya is a great deceiver, I know).

Ma.ya. maha. thagini hum ja.ni.
Tirgun pha.ns liye kar dole, bole madhura. ba.ni.
keshav ke Kamala. vai baithi., Shiva ke bhavan Bhava.ni.
Panda. ke mu.rat vai baithi., thirath mein bhai pa.ni.
yogi. ke yogin vai baithi., ra.ja. ke ghar ra.ni.
ka.hu ke hi.ra. vai baithi., ka.hu ke kauri. ka.ni.
bhagatan ke bhagatin vai baithi., Brahma. ke Brahma.ni.
Kahe Kabi.r suno bhai sa.dho, yah sab akath kaha.ni.

(I have employed a new way to indicate Hindi long sound, a Full stop, '.'. Many people use capitals like in 'kamalA', 'baithI' etc. which requires use of 'shift'. Tell me which is better in your opinion.)

Maya is a great deceiver, I know
She carried three gunas in her hand and speaks sweetly
With Vishnu she is Kamala (Lakshmi), in Shiva's house she is Bhavani (Parvati)
With the priest she is the idol, at places of pilgrimage she is water
With yogis she is the yogini, in king's castle she is the queen
for some she is a diamond, for others she is a broken cowrie shell
for devotees she is the female devotee, for Brahma she is Brahmani
O monk, listen what Kabir says, this is an untold story.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do atoms know or need to know what they are? Does energy knows or need to know what it is?
By realizing the futility of giving attributes to 'what exists', it is what it is. Why would Brahman need to be all-knowing, all-powerful? The perceived is but a mirage.

Mere mortals may think what the want about Brahman, Brahman is omnipresent.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree with you. It is possible (something that may come up in future) that at any time it folds up totally (the problem of existence and non-existence).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As an atheist, if it doesn't happen in your life time (folding up), then it won't affect you.