What is Brahman Doing?

[SalixIncendium]

Brahman has no organ to experience bliss or sorrow. It does not matter to Brahman. Human perspective again. Does electricity or light feel bliss or sorrow?

Yes. My bedroom light bulb burned out the other night. I don't currently have a bulb to replace it. Because of this, the electricity in my home is sad.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Open the shades an let the moon light come through. You are sad, not electricity. It is still running so many other gadgets at your place.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Open the shades an let the moon light come through. You are sad, not electricity. It is still running so many other gadgets at your place.

Nope. I'm unaffected. It's the electricity. It doesn't like the old cord going to the plug in lamp.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm unaffected.

You are unaffected, because you are Brahman. Krishna said:

TEXT 56:
One who is not disturbed in mind even amidst the threefold miseries or elated when there is happiness, and who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady mind.
TEXT 57:
In the material world, one who is unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain, neither praising it nor despising it, is firmly fixed in perfect knowledge.
Chapter 2 ('Tasya prajna pratishthita', ' sthita-dhīr munir ucyate' - the person is of steady mind.)

 

[ameyAtmA]

In the Upanisads, Brahman has both an essence of everything aspect (i.e. essence of Reality, Truth, Consciousness etc.) and a Dynamic Flowing aspect (essence of all movements, actions, happenings). In this context Maya is often called (even in Gita) as the creative power of Brahman. In later theology these two get separated out in a Purusha-Prakriti dichotomy or a Brahman-Maya dichotomy. I have wondered if that is right?

My understanding is that Brahman and Shakti are inseparable. It is Brahman's Shakti. Shakti OF Brahman. The split is for understanding and analysis only. To sift and reach the quiet existence of Brahman without the activation of the Shakti or mAyA. The split enables aloofness from the dancing active Prakruti, to differentiate it from the stillness and shAnta aspect of Brahman. In short to be in the dhArNA => dhyAna => samAdhi stage.

In my view (after much reflection) Brahman, the true Unity, will have both the perfect essence aspect and the creative dynamic ever-growing ever-flowing aspect.

Of Course.

It is an already and ever-growing Infinity whose growth is happening by transforming the unReal Sunya into the Real Sat through this creative process we call the Samsara.

This does not make sense. Where did this unreal shunya come from? No shunya transfers into Sat. Sat is eternal and unchanging and always there by definition.

At every cycle, all of us start as almost infinitesimally small awareness seeds of the eternal Self around which maya accrues like a whirlpool. The interaction between the unreal Maya and the seed Self expands the self-awareness of the seed Self, and it grows in higher and higher Beings till each of these Selves have realized and become one with the Infinite Self that was already there in hidden form within the seed. So at the end, in one view we merge into Brahman, or in another view Brahman expands outwards through us.

Does this make sense..or too speculative?

Yes, except for the shunya that you tossed in - out of place.

 

[Viswa]

It is all clearly mentioned in our books. This is also what 21st Century science says. I do not know why people get into doubts?

Hi.
I accept all you said. No doubt it's all Brahman, and nothing other than it.

But, What is this "Brahman" and "Self realization" people speak about?.
Now, say I know what all you/Shankara/Upanishads/Gitas say. Shall I express now "I realized who I am", or still one has to wait for an experience/Mukti/time? What does this realization means? Brahman realizes itself in every experiences of 'being' and 'not-being', as a 'non-change' you said, whether one realizes/accepts or not. Whether it 'is' or 'is not', Whether 'I am or Am not', it just keeps on expressing itself all moment, in duality. Then what is there one have to 'realize' as a 'non-dual' experience/mukti?

Why or What is there to put down one as "Not yet..." though one has understood all the knowledge imparted??

Shall we speak about this here or in a new thread?

 

[Martin]

Who is to say science and mysticism are mutually exclusive? I have found both equally useful in answering any questions I've had.

I've found both useful too, though I do experience a tension between them. It's like two different modes of looking.
I can see why people with a strong scientific orientation would reject mysticism, and religion generally.

 

[Martin]

One way to tackle this objection is to use the analysis done by the Madhyamaka philosophers (like Nagarjuna) to show that the cognized world of forms, shapes and actions are ultimately devoid of essence (Dhammas) and hence is not an objectifiable substrate entity even though our language limitations make it so that we objectify it during our descriptions. Since it is an insubstantial non-existence, it cannot be said to be something that exists and having properties opposite to that of Brahman. The objectification that is happening when we describe it is the limitation of how our minds and our languages work.
Note: The Madhyamakas said that everything that is, is of this sunya nature, which we disagree with. We would say that the Self that is there hidden behind all of this and that is the foundation of awareness illumination is the substantial Brahman while the rest is the non-substantial illusory flux.

Yes. It's like Buddhism takes shunyata to its logical conclusion (everything is empty), while Advaita stops short at Atman/Brahman (they have independent existence).

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I was watching a lecture video of Sarvapriyananda on youtube today where he says- you the witness (saakshi), is witnessing the thoughts, feelings, the body and the external universe with the help of the tool called mind.
Does this mean I the Brahman can witness only in the vyavaharika state and only through the instruments like mind and senses?

Salix commented earlier in this thread that in paramarthika there is no mind or sheaths (i.e. no subject-object distinction or multiplicity). Does that mean Brahman alone in this paramarthika state remains and do not witness anything, as in paramarthika there is no other to witness to? Am i correct here?

I am also not the "Eternal Witness", because when Universe disappears 'what' is there to be witnessed by "ME"?

When you say the universe disappears, are you speaking of the dissapearance of all appearances from the point of view of the jiva who attains moksha ... or by dissapearance do you mean pralaya (cosmic dissolution) where all the 3 gunas stays in equilibrium and the whole creation is sucked into mula-prakriti and stays there in a dormant state until the next creation starts?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hi.
I accept all you said. No doubt it's all Brahman, and nothing other than it.

But, What is this "Brahman" and "Self realization" people speak about?.
Now, say I know what all you/Shankara/Upanishads/Gitas say. Shall I express now "I realized who I am", or still one has to wait for an experience/Mukti/time? What does this realization means? Brahman realizes itself in every experiences of 'being' and 'not-being', as a 'non-change' you said, whether one realizes/accepts or not. Whether it 'is' or 'is not', Whether 'I am or Am not', it just keeps on expressing itself all moment, in duality. Then what is there one have to 'realize' as a 'non-dual' experience/mukti?
Why or What is there to put down one as "Not yet..." though one has understood all the knowledge imparted??
Shall we speak about this here or in a new thread?

Like bricks are used to make a house, it is Brahman that constitutes all things in the universe, without any exception (since nothing other than it exists).
I can say what Sankara, Upanishads and Gita said. But I will not do it. I will describe it in my own way.
When one understands what Brahman is, it is then, a realization. Then you also understand what you are. When you realize, you become free from all bondage (mukta or jeevan mukta). Then you will not have any fear of life and death.
But any prejudice will not let to get realiazation. It needs a spotless clean slate. No waiting is required. If your preparation is good (general knowledge of 29 subjects, from Astronomy to Zoology), then it takes just minutes.
Brahman has no need for realization. They said 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (When you know Brahman, you yourself become Brahman). After that there is no 'not yet'.
I think, we are on the subject and it does not need a new thread. But, if you want a new thread, then also, it is no problem.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Brahman realizes itself in every experiences of 'being' and 'not-being', as a 'non-change' you said, whether one realizes/accepts or not.

If Brahman realizes itself, what is this that Brahman realizes?

It is Brahman that realizes, or is the jiva?

Whether it 'is' or 'is not', Whether 'I am or Am not', it just keeps on expressing itself all moment, in duality. Then what is there one have to 'realize' as a 'non-dual' experience/mukti?

Who is expressing?

Why or What is there to put down one as "Not yet..." though one has understood all the knowledge imparted??

The jiva realizing its true nature as Brahman.

Now, say I know what all you/Shankara/Upanishads/Gitas say. Shall I express now "I realized who I am", or still one has to wait for an experience/Mukti/time?

One can read from any expert car driver and understand the mechanics of driving a car. Does that mean without having the experience of driving that one is a master behind the wheel?

It is the experience through practicing the yogas (or in rare cases, spontaneous mystical experience), not the intellectual knowledge through reading, that manifests as realization and subsequently, Moksha.

 

[Viswa]

If Brahman realizes itself, what is this that Brahman realizes?
It is Brahman that realizes, or is the jiva?

Everything is ONE.

Who is expressing?

ONE expresses to experience itself and remains as if not expressing...

The jiva realizing its true nature as Brahman.

Both are ONE.

One can read from any expert car driver and understand the mechanics of driving a car. Does that mean without having the experience of driving that one is a master behind the wheel?

It is the experience through practicing the yogas (or in rare cases, spontaneous mystical experience), not the intellectual knowledge through reading, that manifests as realization and subsequently, Moksha.

So, Is the Advaita vedanta teaches how to drive the "Car" (How to experience and how to attain Jivan Mukti)? Or in really finding out the "Car"(Knowledge)? Whomever can find out "the Car" irrespective of whether he knows to drive the Car or Not, Right?? I don't know, please let me Know.

Yoga means "Union" Right?? Means "I am Uniting with ME"?? I feel it points only to Unite with "Unlimited Bliss (Ananda)" (the highest experience of ME or GOD). Can 'I' unite with 'Me'? or I 'illuminize' "ME" in a form, and unite with 'that form' and hang on till I cut the bondage with Universe (which I previously Illuminized for pleasures), and this "I" call 'Liberation/Moksha/Mukti'?

Why does many point "I am neither bondage nor Liberated"?? If "I" never bonded before, then what is there I have to master to liberate?? False Bondage and False Liberation??

Many Many questions when topic goes into 'experience and liberation'. I'm blank about this but with many questions/perceptions, so please let me know. Thank you.

 

[Viswa]

When you say the universe disappears, are you speaking of the dissapearance of all appearances from the point of view of the jiva who attains moksha ... or by dissapearance do you mean pralaya (cosmic dissolution) where all the 3 gunas stays in equilibrium and the whole creation is sucked into mula-prakriti and stays there in a dormant state until the next creation starts?

2nd..

I was watching a lecture video of Sarvapriyananda on youtube today where he says- you the witness (saakshi), is witnessing the thoughts, feelings, the body and the external universe with the help of the tool called mind.
Does this mean I the Brahman can witness only in the vyavaharika state and only through the instruments like mind and senses?
Salix commented earlier in this thread that in paramarthika there is no mind or sheaths (i.e. no subject-object distinction or multiplicity). Does that mean Brahman alone in this paramarthika state remains and do not witness anything, as in paramarthika there is no other to witness to? Am i correct here?

I don't know. My Profile Picture indicates this. We cannot find a clear answer to this. That's why it's called "Power of MAYA". That's why Buddha didn't gone backwards "How"...

Whomever comes with an answer, it's all his strong perceptions, and there is also space for another person to experience a different strong perception in this case. It is never ending in case of "How".

Everyone, even Krishna, accepts that - experiences/witnesses goes on and cannot be ignored. But the thing is, the identification/think/question about "Is there mind now? Is there world Now? Is there Maya Now? Is there only me witnessing me? Is there Brahman? I am All? I am ME?" - all these vanishes but not the experiences/witnesses, even in paramarthika level.

But, in case of giving a name of "Eternal witness", is the thing I doubt about, because as I asked above, if Maha pralaya happens and everything goes subtle, then there is nothing to witness in gross form, then how can "Brahman/ME" be called "Eternal Witness or Eternal Sat-chit-Ananda"?

Thank you.

 

[Viswa]

Like bricks are used to make a house, it is Brahman that constitutes all things in the universe, without any exception (since nothing other than it exists).
I can say what Sankara, Upanishads and Gita said. But I will not do it. I will describe it in my own way.

Superb Sir. So, just to experience itself IT constitutes all things?? or there is no Purpose/Why??

When one understands what Brahman is, it is then, a realization. Then you also understand what you are.

Say I understood "What/Who I am". How I/others can find out whether I rightly Understood or Not? By comparing one's behavior with normal people - if different 'accept' - if same 'reject'? or By comparing the words of "One who understood" with "Upanishads/Scriptures/Dhamma/etc.." and if he rightly says/behaves - 'accept', not matching - 'reject'? or a new experience not at all experienced before and assume that as 'non-dual experience' and only he is allowed/eligible to call himself as 'understood' or "I am Brahman"?

When you realize, you become free from all bondage (mukta or jeevan mukta). Then you will not have any fear of life and death. But any prejudice will not let to get realiazation. It needs a spotless clean slate. No waiting is required. If your preparation is good (general knowledge of 29 subjects, from Astronomy to Zoology), then it takes just minutes.
Brahman has no need for realization. They said 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (When you know Brahman, you yourself become Brahman). After that there is no 'not yet'.

So, is these all the 'prejudice' you talk about which not let one to realize sir??

I think, we are on the subject and it does not need a new thread. But, if you want a new thread, then also, it is no problem.

Thank you sir. We shall continue here.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Everything is ONE.

I agree. That doesn't change the fact that avidya appears to exist in vyavaharika.

ONE expresses to experience itself and remains as if not expressing...

What is it ONE experiences?

Both are ONE.

And one is is an illusory appearance.

So, Is the Advaita vedanta teaches how to drive the "Car" (How to experience and how to attain Jivan Mukti)? Or in really finding out the "Car"(Knowledge)? Whomever can find out "the Car" irrespective of whether he knows to drive the Car or Not, Right?? I don't know, please let me Know.

In the analogy, the driving manuals bring knowledge, just as scripture brings knowledge, but it is the practice of driving the car itself, just as practicing they yogas, that brings experience, and eventually, driving mastery, or Moksha.

Yoga means "Union" Right?? Means "I am Uniting with ME"?? I feel it points only to Unite with "Unlimited Bliss (Ananda)" (the highest experience of ME or GOD). Can 'I' unite with 'Me'? or I 'illuminize' "ME" in a form, and unite with 'that form' and hang on till I cut the bondage with Universe (which I previously Illuminized for pleasures), and this "I" call 'Liberation/Moksha/Mukti'?

There is nothing to unite with. Tat tvam asi.

It is avidya, attachment to and desire for worldly things, that bring need to break the bondage of samsara.

Why does many point "I am neither bondage nor Liberated"?? If "I" never bonded before, then what is there I have to master to liberate?? False Bondage and False Liberation??

I'm not clear on what you're asking me. Are you claiming that you were born liberated?

 

[Viswa]

I agree. That doesn't change the fact that avidya appears to exist in vyavaharika.

What is Avidya? If you know"You are Brahman and everything is You", then how avidya remains? How then 'two'as "Paramarthika" and "Vyavaharika" remains, as both are nothing but "Brahman"?

What is it ONE experiences?

I experience My own Appearances.

There is nothing to unite with. Tat tvam asi.In the analogy, the driving manuals bring knowledge, just as scripture brings knowledge, but it is the practice of driving the car itself, just as practicing they yogas, that brings experience, and eventually, driving mastery, or Moksha.

Yes. If nothing is there to Unite with, then why 'practices', to attain/unite "ME" with what? Why Moksha?

It is avidya, attachment to and desire for worldly things, that bring need to break the bondage of samsara.

Yes. See, I know "Brahman is all as me and everything". So whether attachment or desires remains or not, what matters? Everything is Me. Right??

Say,"I realized Me" and I claim "All my attachments ceased, even desire for liberation ceased". Does this ceasing means, in my view, "I am liberated or Jivan Mukta" and others are not "liberated or Jivan Mukta"?

I'm not clear on what you're asking me. Are you claiming that you were born liberated?

Me?? Not only Me, but "I",i.e. everyone. All are born non-bondage, so nothing there is bound and needs to be liberated. It's only this is called 'realizing' "who am I". Right?

"I am" always free. If everything is "ME", then what is there as a 'second' I am bound to? Nothing there one needs to do to free oneself, but their ignorance of 'I am bondaged and must be liberated' should be removed.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What is Avidya? If you know"You are Brahman and everything is You", then how avidya remains? How then 'two'as "Paramarthika" and "Vyavaharika" remains, as both are nothing but "Brahman"?


I experience My own Appearances.






Yes. If nothing is there to Unite with, then why 'practices', to attain/unite "ME" with what? Why Moksha?



Yes. See, I know "Brahman is all as me and everything". So whether attachment or desires remains or not, what matters? Everything is Me. Right??

Say,"I realized Me" and I claim "All my attachments ceased, even desire for liberation ceased". Does this ceasing means, in my view, "I am liberated or Jivan Mukta" and others are not "liberated or Jivan Mukta"?



Me?? Not only Me, but "I",i.e. everyone. All are born non-bondage, so nothing there is bound and needs to be liberated. It's only this is called 'realizing' "who am I". Right?

"I am" always free. If everything is "ME", then what is there as a 'second' I am bound to? Nothing there one needs to do to free oneself, but their ignorance of 'I am bondaged and must be liberated' should be removed.

I think I've already addressed much of what you're asking above. I'm not sure how else I can answer your questions.

I think I understand your views. Thank you for your responses.

 

[Viswa]

I think I've already addressed much of what you're asking above. I'm not sure how else I can answer your questions.

I think I understand your views. Thank you for your responses.

Sorry sir. Yes, you did answered much of my questions, but I think I should put my questions in a better way.

All my question is rounding on 'experiences'. People say, "though one understood this, they are not enlightened/liberated, unless one gets powers/ changed behavior/ yogic practices/ recommendation from a Monk or Ashrama/ etc..".

If only 'experienced' one can be accepted as 'liberated' one, then why knowledge? Why Jnana? Let all knowledge thrown to dustbin and just one seek 'experiences', share those experiences, and only if it matches to 'standards', let one be called as 'liberated'?

Then why, two different paths of "Jnana" and "Patanjali", and let all knowledge be destroyed and one just seek "Patanjali sutras" of step by step to Samadhi experience by Yama, Niyama upto Concentration. Right?

This is why doubt remains. Ashtavakra has not asked to seek 'experiences' or 'right behavior'. He imparted knowledge to Janaka, Janaka understood and in Chapter 19-20, he expresses what he understood. Not a matter of experiences shared or behavior changed.

"I AM BRAHMAN and Always free, as there is nothing as second I am bound to. I am neither bondaged nor liberated. I am Peaceful." Then whatever happens in one's life, clearly seen as "Everything is One, nothing there to weep/suffer", so let one do whatever he wishes. Does behavior or experience or standards matters?? Does one has to 'prove' others by changing their behavior??

If you are willing to clarify this doubt, please..

Thank you sir.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry sir. Yes, you did answered much of my questions, but I think I should put my questions in a better way.

All my question is rounding on 'experiences'. People say, "though one understood this, they are not enlightened/liberated, unless one gets powers/ changed behavior/ yogic practices/ recommendation from a Monk or Ashrama/ etc..".

If only 'experienced' one can be accepted as 'liberated' one, then why knowledge? Why Jnana? Let all knowledge thrown to dustbin and just one seek 'experiences', share those experiences, and only if it matches to 'standards', let one be called as 'liberated'?

Then why, two different paths of "Jnana" and "Patanjali", and let all knowledge be destroyed and one just seek "Patanjali sutras" of step by step to Samadhi experience by Yama, Niyama upto Concentration. Right?

This is why doubt remains. Ashtavakra has not asked to seek 'experiences' or 'right behavior'. He imparted knowledge to Janaka, Janaka understood and in Chapter 19-20, he expresses what he understood. Not a matter of experiences shared or behavior changed.

"I AM BRAHMAN and Always free, as there is nothing as second I am bound to. I am neither bondaged nor liberated. I am Peaceful." Then whatever happens in one's life, clearly seen as "Everything is One, nothing there to weep/suffer", so let one do whatever he wishes. Does behavior or experience or standards matters?? Does one has to 'prove' others by changing their behavior??

If you are willing to clarify this doubt, please..

Thank you sir.

Please allow me to attempt this approach...

Can you explain to me what the mechanics of skydiving are?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Superb Sir. So, just to experience itself IT constitutes all things?? or there is no Purpose/Why??

Say I understood "What/Who I am". How I/others can find out whether I rightly Understood or Not? By comparing one's behavior with normal people - if different 'accept' - if same 'reject'? or By comparing the words of "One who understood" with "Upanishads/Scriptures/Dhamma/etc.." and if he rightly says/behaves - 'accept', not matching - 'reject'? or a new experience not at all experienced before and assume that as 'non-dual experience' and only he is allowed/eligible to call himself as 'understood' or "I am Brahman"?

So, is these all the 'prejudice' you talk about which not let one to realize sir??

First thing, do not 'sir' me. It is a colonial residue. Just call me Aup. We do not know why some thing exists or does not exist, like things that happen in Quantum Mechanics. Existence is a human perception. Is the universe or Brahman bound by human perception? Some in science propose multi-verse solution, some suggest many-universes theory. Is 'what exist' due to space/energy/time. The answers are not available at present. One may guess, but keep it tentative. It is a question to be answered in future.

There is no way others can find out if one are enlightened or not. And it does not concern others. Generally, if what one says does not suit us, we blandly term the person as a heretic, maverik, or terms like that. People have to make their own journey. But the goal is achieved only if we erase prejudices which have been embedded in our mind by family and society. You are welcome.