Dharmics Only: Is Brahman really all-knowing?

[SalixIncendium]

Conventional Hindu teaching that Brahman is omnipresent, omniscient, etc..

Please show me this "conventional Hindu teaching."

See my post #33 to the OP, if the OP is not enlightened, then how can he seriously wonder why he can't know what is happening on the other side? Wrt to an enlightened human, during moksha, there is no other side of the universe, all is one, omnipresence prevails.

Again, I not sure you have a complete understanding of what enlightenment is. What enlightened person told you this?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Though you were quite dismissive of what the scriptures say in post #9.

Anyway, could we get back to the OP question?
IMO the question is really about the experience of being Brahman, ie satcitananda, and whether that implies omniscience.

I beg your pardon, I am not dismissive of scripture. However when it comes to people's interpretation of scripture, I am discerning and keep some things under consideration.

Ok, I believe I have touched on this in recent posts. Enlightenment does imply, albeit temporary initially, periods of being one with Brahman, but such state is timeless and spaceless, there is not this part of the universal oneness and an over there part, there is oneness period!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The OP is about omniscience. Please look at it again.

So, omniscience is an attribute of Brahman, distinctions such as omnipresence and omniscience are human mind distinctions, not Brahman's. I am trying to explain that there are no distinctions in the state of moksha, only oneness.

 

[Martin]

I beg your pardon, I am not dismissive of scripture. However when it comes to people's interpretation of scripture, I am discerning and keep some things under consideration.

Ok, I believe I have touched on this in recent posts. Enlightenment does imply, albeit temporary initially, periods of being one with Brahman, but such state is timeless and spaceless, there is not this part of the universal oneness and an over there part, there is oneness period!

When you say "being one with Brahman", are you referring to satcitananda? Or what exactly?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please show me this "conventional Hindu teaching."

Again, I not sure you have a complete understanding of what enlightenment is. What enlightened person told you this?

Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata.

I guess I would have to give credit to Brahman, for providing me with a mind that understands logic, Brahman is not made of parts, Brahman is an indivisible one. Only humans with their naturally limited perception see duality where there is none in the enlightened state of being.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When you say "being one with Brahman", are you referring to satcitananda? Or what exactly?

Yes.

 

[Martin]

Yes.

So which aspect of satcitananda implies omniscience to you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

To me, this is like saying water is omnipresent in water. It's a meaningless statement.

We aren't talking about omniscience, but again, what you are saying is the same to me as ben d is omniscient of ben d.

So if I explain to you that omnipresence means infinity, are you going to ask me what the infinity is in?

Infinity is all there is, there is no where outside of it for infinity to be in. Understand?

I do not understand what you mean when you say ben d is omniscient of ben d.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So which aspect of satcitananda implies omniscience to you?

The subjective experience of Brahman.

 

[Martin]

The subjective experience of Brahman.

"The subjective experience of Brahman" is a definition of satcitananda.
I am asking which aspect of that satcitananda experience implies omniscience.

My own view is that satcitananda doesn't imply omniscience. It would be like saying that an ocean wave experiences every other wave in the oceans. IMO the wave would know the nature of the other waves, but not their number, location, shape, size, etc.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata.

I guess I would have to give credit to Brahman, for providing me with a mind that understands logic, Brahman is not made of parts, Brahman is an indivisible one. Only humans with their naturally limited perception see duality where there is none in the enlightened state of being.

Where did I imply parts or duality?

Since you are setting up straw men, and this isn't a debate forum, I'm going to respectfully bow out.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"The subjective experience of Brahman" is a definition of satcitananda.
I am asking which aspect of that satcitananda experience implies omniscience.

My own view is that satcitananda doesn't imply omniscience. It would be like saying that an ocean wave experiences every other wave in the oceans. IMO the wave would know the nature of the other waves, but not their number, location, shape, size, etc.

Naturally since Brahman is an indivisible one, conceptual aspects of Brahman such as omniscience are no longer in play when in an enlightened state, the concept of satchitananda itself is no longer in play, there is only THAT represented by the concept of satchitanda ie., the subjective experience of Brahman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where did I imply parts or duality?

Since you are setting up straw men, and this isn't a debate forum, I'm going to respectfully bow out.

Asking what is the omnipresence is in implies a duality, ie., that there there is omnipresence and there is that which the omnipresence must be in.

Thank you Salixlncendium for our exchange, I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful questioning. The transcending of the natural conditioned mind's instinct to see things dualistically will lead to enlightenment imho. Your probing of what the omnipresence is in was fine as it shines a light on the difficulty of the mind to actually realize a state of non-duality.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

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?

It depends on the definition of Brahman.

Advaita - Nothing other than Brahman. Jivas are false/unreal. If there is no real Jiva, then there is nothing to know.

Dvaita - Brahman is Ishwara (Vishnu), which is always different from the Jiva. And Vishnu is all-knowing. The Jiva is always different from Vishnu and never becomes omniscient.

Vishishtadvaita - Similar to Dvaita. The jiva is different from Brahman/Vishnu and that is true even after Moksha. The Jiva is inferior to Vishnu and does not ever become omniscient.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Naturally since Brahman is an indivisible one, conceptual aspects of Brahman such as omniscience are no longer in play when in an enlightened state, the concept of satchitananda itself is no longer in play, there is only THAT represented by the concept of satchitanda ie., the subjective experience of Brahman.

Yeah, I do not believe in 'satchidananda'. If there is 'bliss' (ananda), then there has to be 'sorrow' (duhkha) also. IMHO, Brahman has none, neither sorrow, nor bliss. It is without attachments (nirlipta), equanimous (Tatastha - sitting on the shore and not struggling with the waves).

 

[Martin]

But if Brahman is neither bliss nor sorrow, then why do yogis experience a state of bliss upon realizing brahman?

I think because satcitananda is the subjective experience of being Brahman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, I do not believe in 'satchidananda'. If there is 'bliss' (ananda), then there has to be 'sorrow' (duhkha) also. IMHO, Brahman has none, neither sorrow, nor bliss. It is without attachments (nirlipta), equanimous (Tatastha - sitting on the shore and not struggling with the waves).

While I understand there is a mind state realized by the aspirant represented by the concept of satchitananda, it is ultimately non-dual for the reason you give, free from both bliss and sorrow. But initially while still in the body, it very well may appear blissful relative to its dualist state with its inherent alternating cycles of blissful ups and sorrowful downs experienced prior to to an enduring enlightenment. Beyond the body however, who knows?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yogis and simpletons alike, both are illusions. Illusions may have various (sub-) illusions. Dreams in a dream. The ones who truly realize Brahman do not experience any bliss or sorrow. Off hand, I cannot quote from Hindu scriptures, but this is a well-known phenomenon. Perhaps BhagawadGita will help, will come back to you.

Yeah sure:

"mātrā-sparśāh tu Kaunteya, śītoṣṇa-sukha-duḥkha-dāḥ;
āgama apāyinah anityāh, tān titikṣasva Bhārata." BG 2.14

mātrā-sparśāḥ — sensory perception; tu — only; Kaunteya — O son of Kuntī; śīta — winter; uṣṇa — summer; sukha — happiness; duḥkha — and pain; dāḥ — giving; āgama — appearing; apāyinaḥ — disappearing; anityāḥ — nonpermanent; tān — all of them; titikṣasva — just try to tolerate; bhārata — O descendant of the Bharata dynasty.

Sensory perceptions , O Son of Kunti, which make us feel summer, winter, happiness and sorrow; all appear and disappear, and are non-permanent. O Descendant of Bharata dynasty, just try to tolerate all of them. - Correct literal translation by Aupmanyav.

 

[Martin]

While I understand there is a mind state realized by the aspirant represented by the concept of satchitananda, it is ultimately non-dual for the reason you give, free from both bliss and sorrow. But initially while still in the body, it very well may appear blissful relative to its dualist state with its inherent alternating cycles of blissful ups and sorrowful downs experienced prior to to an enduring enlightenment. Beyond the body however, who knows?

Satcitananda is an experience, not a concept. Have a look at the Atma Bodha verse I quoted in post #2.

The concept here is "Brahman".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Satcitananda is an experience, not a concept. Have a look at the Atma Bodha verse I quoted in post #2.

The concept here is "Brahman".

A mind state represented by the concept of satchitanada" means an experience.. The reality of the experience is what it is, 'satchitanada' is merely a word to represent the real. The real is always on the other side of words, words are like signposts pointing to the real, but are not real in themselves, except of course as concepts. The real represented by the concept of 'satchitananda' is the same as that represented by 'enlightenment'.