As I see it, this is just another formulation of Yajnavalkya-s premise of Brahman as the knower. Indeed the passage clearly shows the various cognitive capacities and consciousness as being aspects knowledge, just like all the material elements and living things with knowledge or knowing as the primary essence that is Brahman. I do not see how this can support your premise. It supports my premise that Brahman transcends consciousness just like it transcends matter and both consciousness and matter are emanations or aspects of Brahman in the plural world of diversity.
I had to laugh here you just agreed Brahman is the knower, then you are indirectly agreeing Brahman is a sentient entity because only a sentient entity knows. I don't think you realise that your arguments ends up proving my position rather than yours.
Anyway, no, actually it does not say that material things and consciousness are reducible to Brahman. It actually argues for dualism between matter and consciousness. I find it curious how you don't get this as it is clearly written in the text. It says in both translations(including yours, which seems suspect) Firstly, it declares this:
Translation 1: But these are various names of knowledge.
Translation 2: all these are indeed the names of wisdom
Secondly it declares this:
Translation 1: Knowledge is the eye of all of that, and on knowing it is founded. Knowledge is the eye of the world, and knowledge, the foundation.
Translation 2: all this is guided by wisdom and is supported by wisdom ; the universe has wisdom for its guide ; wisdom is the basis ;
Thirdly and finally it declares this:
Translation 1: Brahman is knowledge(corrected)
Translation 2: Wisdom is Brahman.
So two things can be comprehended here from both translations 1) It is still saying that consciousness, perception, sentience, mind, understanding, discriminating, reasoning, memory, desiring, wisdom etc etc are all synonyms. Hence proving my argument above that these are common and universal synonyms for consciousness. They all presuppose a sentient entity 2) It is NOT saying that created things like the material elements, gods, Brahma, Indra, creatures etc are also names of knowledge/wisdom which is Brahman, it says they are
guided and supported by them. In other words there is a dualism here between sentient things and insentient and the sentient guides the insentient(exactly what you were opposing in my thread "Hindu proof of God") Therefore, it becomes clear you are misinterpreting when you say that consciousness etc are all also reducible to material things, it is actually saying the exact opposite, all material things are guided by consciousness/intelligence etc
Anybody who can understand English can see I am interpreting correctly.
It is blatantly obvious that at least in this Upanishad Brahman is a sentient entity. In the very same Upanishad, even right at the beginning it says this:
Verily, in the beginning all this was Atman, one only, there was nothing else blinking whatsoever.
He thought: 'Shall I send forth worlds' He sent forth these worlds, Ambha, Marichi, Mara and Ap.
That Amba(floods) is above the heaven, and it is heaven, the support. The Marichis(lights) are the sky.
The Mara(mortals) is the Earth, and waters under the Earth are the Ap world.
He thought: "There are these worlds; shall I send forth guardians of worlds"
He then formed Purusha(the person) taking him forth from the water.
He brooded on him, and when that person had thus been brooded in a mouth burst forth like an egg.
From the mouth proceeded speech, from speech Agni(fire)
Nostrils burst forth. From the nostrils proceeded scent(Prana) and from scent Vayu(air).
Eyes burst forth. From the eyes proceeded sight, from sight Aditya(sun).
Ears burst forth. From the ears proceeded hearing, from hearing Dish, quarters of the world.
Skin burst forth. From the skin proceeded hairs, sense of touch, from the hairs shrubs and trees.
The heart burst forth. From heart proceeded mind, from mind Chadrmas(moon).
The navel burst forth. From the navel proceeded Apana, the down breathing, from Apana death.
The generative organ burst forth. From the organ proceeded seed, from seed water.
Compare:
[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
[1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
[1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
[1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.
[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.
[1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
[1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
[1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
[1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
[1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
[1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
[1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.
[1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
It is blatantly clear then the Upanishad is telling a creation myth of how God created this universe and life in it. Only a total ignoramus, not even most the militant atheist, would deny that God in Genesis is a sentient entity. Similarly, you would be a total ignoramus to deny that Atman/Brahman is a sentient entity. An entity that thinks,knows, understands, discriminates, desires, sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels. An entity that is conscious, intelligent etc etc.
I think you have already lost this debate and should concede to me now. I can't see how you can deny that the Upanishads speaks of Brahman as a sentient entity, and only way you could try doing it, which is how you seem to be doing so far is 1) Simply ignore the contradictory evidence(i.e., avoid the issue) or 2) play word games(sophistry)
I am still waiting for you to point out where I used the word ur-field for Brahman. You disparaged me multiple times for saying it. So, show me where.
You have not clearly said what you think Brahman is. All I seen you do so far is spurn pseudoscience around Brahman, suggesting Brahman is some kind of reconciliation of all laws of science, of biology, of chemistry, of physics, of psychology and thus not a sentient/conscious principle. I am not the only one who has levelled this charge against you, several people did in your thread. There should come a point where you have the humility to consider another's criticism, otherwise you will never learn from the mistakes you are making. You are making a massive mistake here is by interpreting Brahman to not be sentient, if that is indeed what you think. I am not sure if you are saying Brahman is insentient, because you describe Brahman as "knower" If you don't think Brahman is insentient, then were on the same page and have no cause for debate. If you think Brahman is insentient, then we have cause for debate. So make your position as clear as day in simple and clear language(not word salads please)
has thereby lost Brahman, some explanation is required from his side as to how the English word consciousness (cognate with Sanskrit word chetna or sangya) is what is being equated with Brahman?
