Mis. Questions - Defiition of Brahman

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all

 

I recall unfoldement of “Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma” by my Swamiji and may I

state:

 

This vakya does not define Brahaman. There is no definition for Brahman as

Brahman is free from all Attributes.

 

“Satyam” is not an Attribute, and it is Swaroopa (inherent nature) of Brahman.

It means “Isness” that we recognize/experience in every seen and unseen objects.

It is on this “Isness” qualities/attributes get superimposed and thus the

“Isness” appears to have names and forms.

 

Gnanam is Awareness or Consciousness, again not an Attribute of Brahman, but

Swaroopa (intrinsic nature) of Brahman. “Gnanam” is also mentioned as “Chit”. It

means Awareness or Consciousness. Awareness again is not an attribute, and it is

because this Awareness “is” there, one is able to see /perceive the attributes

appearing on “Isness”. It is like, Heat and Light are inherent nature of Sun,

and therefore Sun itself means heat and light.

 

“Anantham” means limitless, or infinite, i.e. something which has no beginning

and no end. “Satyam Gnanam Anantham” means “Anantham Satyam and Anantham Gnanam”

i.e. infinite, limitless, total, complete Satyam and infinite, limitless, total,

complete Gnanam. Attributes appearing on “Satyam” or “Satta” have a beginning

and they change and they have an end. For example, the Chain appearing on gold

(or chainness) can change when the chain is melted (I wonder whether we are

melting the chain or just removing the chainy form superimposed on gold), but

the gold continues to be same. Same way, “Isness” continues whether the

attributes appear, or not. One cannot “take away” “Isness” from seen and unseen

and “awareness” from all sentients. This “Isness” and “awareness/consciousness”

go together and give the base/substratum for appearances.

 

It is this “Isness” and “Consiouness/Awareness/Gnanam” which is the substratum

for all appearances. “Isness” is not separate from “Awareness/Consciousness/

Gnanam/Chit” as “both” are one and the same.

 

 

 

All Definitions are possible because of THAT, and that THAT itself, being one

without a second, cannot be defined as there is none other than THAT to define

THAT.

 

 

 

Is there such a thing? Yes, it is the “I” in everyone i.e. the “I” that knows

itself as “I know I Exist”. This knowledge is absolute knowledge, as it exists

itself. Or the “I” is Self Effulgent and that I is nothing but Pure Existence

and Pure Awareness, same as the Brahman.

 

As far as I know, there is no definite definition of Brahman as such in any of

the Upanishads (I may be wrong), but the Upanishads do indicate the Ultimate

Reality, i.e. Brahman, which is the substratum of all seen and unseen, and the

Shastra is only for gnapakartham, i.e. to remind one of the swaroopa of his

Self.

 

With Pranamas to all

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, there is no definite definition of Brahman as such in any

of the Upanishads (I may be wrong), but the Upanishads do indicate the

Ultimate Reality, i.e. Brahman, which is the substratum of all seen and

unseen, and the Shastra is only for gnapakartham, i.e. to remind one of the

swaroopa of his Self.

 

 

praNAms Mani prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Very well said prabhuji!!...shankara himself says shAstra-s role is to

remind our svarUpa & they donot do anything new to already existing self

evident thing...(jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM - gIta bhAshya)..The only

available description of brahman in shruti-s is *nEti nEti* & shruti

subsequently confirms it by saying *this is the highest teaching about

brahman*. Shankara in the samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya says The shAstra does

not teach brahman as such and such thing..but it teaches brahman as no

object at all.....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namate Mani-ji & Bhaskar-Ji:

 

While trying to understand and conceptualize brahman and brahma is

in my opinion the galactic leap of imagination but it does make

sense.

 

As I understand it, vedic literature before upaniShadika period the

words "brahma" is pulingii, where as in uupaniShada it desiginates

the ultimate truth and thus is "napu.nsakali.ngii".

 

In one of my old notes I came across a definition of "tattva" from

aaacharyaa shanakaraa commentary (unfortunately I did not note the

specific reference) but it may help us understand define brahman.

 

taditi sarvanaama, sarva.n ca brahma tasya naama |

tad{}baavastattva.m brahmaNo yathaatmyam ||

 

Meaning - tata is a sarva naama; sarvanaa is applicable to

everything; brahma being "vyapka" is applicable to haning

encompessed evrything. Therefore "tat" is that name. With

conjunction of the pratyaya "tva" to it word "tattva" is formed.

Thus it is the brahma's svaruupa.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

PS: If someone knows the specific reference for tattva definition I

would highly appreciate it. Thank you.

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> As far as I know, there is no definite definition of Brahman as

such in any

> of the Upanishads (I may be wrong), but the Upanishads do indicate

the

> Ultimate Reality, i.e. Brahman, which is the substratum of all

seen and

> unseen, and the Shastra is only for gnapakartham, i.e. to remind

one of the

> swaroopa of his Self.

>

>

> praNAms Mani prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> Very well said prabhuji!!...shankara himself says shAstra-s role

is to

> remind our svarUpa & they donot do anything new to already

existing self

> evident thing...(jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM - gIta

bhAshya)..The only

> available description of brahman in shruti-s is *nEti nEti* &

shruti

> subsequently confirms it by saying *this is the highest teaching

about

> brahman*. Shankara in the samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya says The

shAstra does

> not teach brahman as such and such thing..but it teaches brahman

as no

> object at all.....

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar