What is Brahman?

[JRMcC]

I believe they call this "sat-cit-ananda" (being-consciousness-bliss). That doesn't sound that difficult to grasp. It's being in a state of conscious bliss.

I suppose the basic concept isn't that hard to grasp. Interesting point. But it's the details concerning Brahman like why, how, how big ect. that we can't understand. Some might say Brahman is infinite in various ways, and that surely is something we cannot comprehend, infinity.

 

[Gambit]

Brahman is pure consciousness; best described as sat-chit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss) and is the basis of all.

How exactly does this differ from the traditional concept of God?

 

[George-ananda]

How exactly does this differ from the traditional concept of God?

The traditional concept of God is dualistic; meaning God is separate from His creation. Brahman is non-dualistic meaning that creation is Him too; so all is Brahman.

 

[Gambit]

The traditional concept of God is dualistic; meaning God is separate from His creation. Brahman is non-dualistic meaning that creation is Him too; so all is Brahman.

Excellent. Now I actually have something here to work with.

Several points:

- Although Advaita (non-dualistic) is the most prominent school of Vedanta, it is not the only one. There are several others, most notedly - Vishishtadvaita (qualified monism), Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference) and Dvaita (dualistic).

- Wikipedia describes all of these schools of Vedanta as panentheistic ("all-in-God-ism"). (That doesn't necessarily make them all panentheistic. But it is a debatable point.)

Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[3]

(source: Wikipedia: Panentheism)

- I believe a fairly strong case can be made that the traditional concept of God is panentheistic.

 

[JRMcC]

- I believe a fairly strong case can be made that the traditional concept of God is panentheistic.

True. Growing up Catholic, I do remember being told that god is literally everywhere. However it seems that in practice this is forgotten. I dunno like... Bless this house. Why would it need to be blessed, it's already god. The fact that people treat their lives as something god watches and sometimes intervenes in is evidence that believers in "god" are thinking dualistically. When I die and go to heaven I'll be with god, that other guy.
See what I mean?

 

[Gambit]

True. Growing up Catholic, I do remember being told that god is literally everywhere. However it seems that in practice this is forgotten. I dunno like... Bless this house. Why would it need to be blessed, it's already god. The fact that people treat their lives as something god watches and sometimes intervenes in is evidence that believers in "god" are thinking dualistically. When I die and go to heaven I'll be with god, that other guy.
See what I mean?

I said panentheistic, not pantheistic.

 

[JRMcC]

That seems like a semantic issue to me. For example if Shiva (the absolute supreme soul/god/whatever) manifests himself as Shakti (power/matter), Shakti is separate from Shiva. But ultimately Shakti really is identical with Shiva because she is just a manifestation of him.

There's an awesome story, it's either in Rig Veda or one of the Upanishads. It's mentioned in the story that after creating many different things the creator realizes that all these things are him, because he is the first being, the prime cause and he made them.

So I feel like panentheism and pantheism are kind of the same thing. :/

 

[apophenia]

Excellent. Now I actually have something here to work with.

Several points:

- Although Advaita (non-dualistic) is the most prominent school of Vedanta, it is not the only one. There are several others, most notedly - Vishishtadvaita (qualified monism), Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference) and Dvaita (dualistic).

- Wikipedia describes all of these schools of Vedanta as panentheistic ("all-in-God-ism"). (That doesn't necessarily make them all panentheistic. But it is a debatable point.)



- I believe a fairly strong case can be made that the traditional concept of God is panentheistic.

I think a hindu member here, Aupmanyav, wrote and/or edited a lot of that stuff on wikipedia.

Contact him to verify that.

He is an atheist hindu.

 

[Gambit]

That seems like a semantic issue to me. For example if Shiva (the absolute supreme soul/god/whatever) manifests himself as Shakti (power/matter), Shakti is separate from Shiva. But ultimately Shakti really is identical with Shiva because she is just a manifestation of him.

There's an awesome story, it's either in Rig Veda or one of the Upanishads. It's mentioned in the story that after creating many different things the creator realizes that all these things are him, because he is the first being, the prime cause and he made them.

It sounds like you're influenced by Kashmir Shaivism.

So I feel like panentheism and pantheism are kind of the same thing. :/

It seems to me that panentheism is basically compatible with theism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Brahman is non-dualistic meaning that creation is Him too; so all is Brahman.

So is this sort of pantheistic?

 

[wizanda]

So is this sort of pantheistic?

If Brahman is the CPU, the avatars are not pantheistic, as they are not secondary deities, though people have perceived them as such; they are more like the RAM, surrounding the CPU.

If the was no CPU, there would be no avatars, heaven or Maya, there would only be a blank computer.

As for saying Sat Chit Ananda is an answer to what Brahman is, is a stupid answer; we can say babies are in that state breast feeding, it doesn't make them Brahman. We can understand that Brahman (CPU) having the ability to absorb all knowledge, and transduce this into wisdom, creates vast amounts of positive energy (Sat Chit Ananda).
We can also understand that since the CPU is the source of all life, there is amazing amounts of energy coming from it; that doesn't mean though a description of it, is the things coming from it.

 

[Gambit]

As for saying Sat Chit Ananda is an answer to what Brahman is, is a stupid answer; we can say babies are in that state breast feeding, it doesn't make them Brahman.

So Brahman is not "being, consciousness, and bliss?"

 

[apophenia]

If Brahman is the CPU, the avatars are not pantheistic, as they are not secondary deities, though people have perceived them as such; they are more like the RAM, surrounding the CPU.

We can understand that Brahman (CPU) having the ability to absorb all knowledge, and transduce this into wisdom, creates vast amounts of positive energy (Sat Chit Ananda).

So Brahman is not "being, consciousness, and bliss?"

Have either of you asked a hindu what these terms mean ?

They are hindu terms, with a long history.

An analogy to this dialog would be deciding, poetically and according to your own imagination, what 'collapsing the state vector' meant, without ever consulting a physicist. Some terms have established meanings, and if new meanings are ascribed without reference to that, then the nexus of words and meaning breaks down.

 

[wizanda]

So Brahman is not "being, consciousness, and bliss?"

If you read the lines after you've just quoted from... You will see what I'm saying is that the output energy of Brahman is Sat Chit Ananda, as it is the energy manifesting the reality; yet you questioned 'what is Brahman', which i find easier to describe as a CPU.
If we take it back to the beginning of reality, it is created by a poem or the word, which is similar to a computer processing code.

Have either of you asked a hindu what these terms mean ?

Understand they are Hindu terms, about a concept I've seen first hand.... So where as many are talking from second hand evidence (books); I'm trying to quantify what I've seen in a manner understandable by all.

 

[Gambit]

Have either of you asked a hindu what these terms mean?

I am asking the question on this particular forum. Any Hindu here is welcome to comment.

 

[Gambit]

If you read the lines after you've just quoted from... You will see what I'm saying is that the output energy of Brahman is Sat Chit Ananda, as it is the energy manifesting the reality; yet you questioned 'what is Brahman', which i find easier to describe as a CPU.
If we take it back to the beginning of reality, it is created by a poem or the word, which is similar to a computer processing code.

Previously, you stated that describing Brahman as "sat-chit-ananda" (being-consciousness-bliss) was stupid. Yet, this is actually one of the descriptions of Brahman.

In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world",[1] which "cannot be exactly defined".[2] It has been described in Sanskrit as Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[3] and as the highest reality.[4][note 1][note 2]

(source: Wikipedia: Brahman)

Your description sounds like something derived from watching "The Matrix."

 

[wizanda]

Previously, you stated that describing Brahman as "sat-chit-ananda" (being-consciousness-bliss) was stupid. Yet, this is actually one of the descriptions of Brahman.

It is stupid, Sat Chit Ananda is a state of being.... It isn't a description of what Brahman is, just how it feels.

It is like saying 'what is a banana'?
It is warm; that doesn't describe in the slightest what it is, just its current state of temperature.

So can Brahman be in a different state, other than Sat Chit Ananda?
Such as what about the beginning of creation, where it was in a state of Om or at the end of it, where it might be likened to Shiva, being destroyer or transformer...

Every avatar within Hinduism, is a different aspect of defining the many qualities of Brahman.

Your description sounds like something derived from watching "The Matrix."

Thank you aware of the Matrix film; which has a lot of good aspects to what it puts forth; though do find it slightly limiting, in comparison to the reality.
There is a lot of scientific questioning into if we are within a holographic universe.
Plus taking that in Hinduism this reality is known as Maya (delusion), which also happens to be a 3D graphics program; it makes a lot of sense that we might be inside a giant computer system.

 

[George-ananda]

So is this sort of pantheistic?

I will sheepishly answer 'Yes'. Sheepishly because from being on RF there seems to be different schools within pantheism and all the -isms we use.

 

[apophenia]

There is a lot of scientific questioning into if we are within a holographic universe.
Plus taking that in Hinduism this reality is known as Maya (delusion), which also happens to be a 3D graphics program; it makes a lot of sense that we might be inside a giant computer system.

That is called an n-1 regression.

What would the 'giant computer system' be inside ?

 

[apophenia]

There is a lot of scientific questioning into if we are within a holographic universe.
Plus taking that in Hinduism this reality is known as Maya (delusion), which also happens to be a 3D graphics program; it makes a lot of sense that we might be inside a giant computer system.

That is called an n-1 regression.

What would the 'giant computer system' be inside ?