Advaita for the Novice : Weekly Definition - Brahman

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Advaita for the Novice: Weekly Definitions.

BRAHMAN

(Matter in parentheses is optional)

 

(The word 'Brahman' is a noun in Sanskrit, in the neuter gender, not to be

confused with the masculine noun 'BrahmA' which is the name of the first of

the triad of personal Gods: BrahmA, ViShNu and Shiva. 'Brahman' originates

from the root verb 'bRh' to grow or enlarge.)

 

Nothing that exists is without a name and a form. But all that exists has a

common factor that subsists as a substratum in all. Just as all gold

ornaments have gold as their commonality of content, just as all clay toys,

though distinguishable by their name and form, are not distinguishable as

clay, just as the movie screen is the base for all the drama that is

superimposed on it while the screen itself is unsullied by any of the

turmoil that 'takes place' 'on' it - so also a substratum, subtler than

space, permeates everything in the universe and everything 'takes place'

'in' it, without itself being affected. That, being the common content of

all that have name and form, has no name or form for itself. The Vedas speak

of it as 'That' or also as 'Brahman'. This is the supreme ultimate Reality,

the reality that never changes. (To emphasize the supremeness, it is also

called 'para-brahman', 'para' meaning 'supreme').

 

All our knowledge of Brahman comes from the scriptures and so is indirect

(Sanskrit: 'parokSha'). It is however known, as direct (Sanskrit:

'aparokSha') knowledge by realisation and insight, once everything that is

transient is transcended. It is not known otherwise; it is that which makes

known what is known. By itself it is not an object of knowledge to be known.

It is the very Consciousness (Sanskrit: 'cit', also 'caitanyaM') that

cognises knowledge. There is no higher Reality outside that. Knowledge of

absence of Consciousness implies the existence of Consciousness.While

everything is presented to Consciousness, the nature of Consciousness is to

be its own light. A lighted lamp needs no other light to illumine it.

 

Brahman is only one of its kind. Also, It is 'one only' and so is bereft of

parts. There is 'no second' to Brahman; it is non-dual. Any presence or

awareness of duality makes the awareness finite. It does not possess any

quality. For, to differentiate between Brahman as a bearer of a quality and

the quality which is attributed to it, is to introduce a difference in the

absoluteness of non-duality. Hence it is impersonal (Sanskrit: nir-guNa). It

cannot be classified by category or species, action or function, quality or

relation. It cannot be indicated as this or that. When the epithets

'Supreme Person' (Sanskrit: PuruShottama) or 'Supreme Self' (Sanskrit:

ParamAtmA) are used for Brahman, the supremeness only indicates that

everything is transcended, like time, space, causation and personification.

It cannot be conceived of even by the intellect which functions only in the

duality of subject and object and so it cannot be described as either. If

human intellect has however to contend with one such, it can only do so with

what then should be renamed, 'Brahman with attributes' (Sanskrit: Sa-guNa

Brahman). One then descends from Absolute Consciousness to consciousness of

the Absolute. For meditation, the silence that follows the three syllables

in the pronunciation of the word 'Aum' has been uniquely recommended as

representing Brahman with or without attributes.

 

The only thing that can be predicated about Brahman is that It exists. The

Vedas choose only to declare this existence and call it, Existing Entity

(Sanskrit: 'sat'). It is therefore the being of every being. The conclusion

of advaita is that the universe of plurality is not a manifestation of

Brahman, but only its appearance. Plurality is a matter of words only; it

has no existence independent of Brahman. If plurality were absolutely real,

then the enlightened, whose experience of unity is deliverance from the

'cycle of births and deaths' (Sanskrit: samsAra), would have had a

beginning of that deliverance which then must inevitably have also an end!

 

Nothing that the human mind can think of can be affirmed of Brahman. It

transcends all that can be described in finite terms and words. Its

essential incomprehensibility forces us to either use all superlatives as in

'Most revered Light of lights'; 'Truth of truths'; 'It is smaller than the

smallest, bigger than the biggest'; 'It is that which is supreme, than which

there is nothing higher, nothing more minute, nothing more comprehensive';

or to use all negations, like 'Neither gross, nor minute, neither short,

nor long, in short, neither this, nor that'. All such statements of Brahman

have to be combined and still the description would not be complete.

 

The statement that Brahman rises above thought and word does not mean that

it is empty and/or non-existent. The negation of predicates affects only

the 'whatness' of the judgement and leaves the 'thatness' untouched. It only

means that finite expressions can do no justice to the infinite that is

Brahman. And since it is infinite, it is Bliss (Sanskrit: 'Ananda') itself;

because absence of bliss would imply imperfection and incompleteness. It is

actionless, because action is intended to fulfill a desire; but Brahman is a

homogeneous whole and so has no deficiency.

 

And, the most important fact, according to advaita, is that this

transcendental reality, Brahman, and the reality immanent as the innermost

core of all the living, the Atman, are both the same ! In other words,

Atman is the Self as the immanent principle and Brahman is the same Self as

the transcendent. That is why the existence of Brahman the Self, from which

everything emanates, can never be questioned, though that of a

super-Designer can be. The Consciousness 'I am' cannot be denied. This

essential identity is the apex message of advaita.

 

[Abstract of Definition:

.. Immanence

.. Consciousness

.. Impersonal Absolute

.. Existence

.. Transcendence

.. Bliss

.. Apex message ]

 

*****************************

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Special thanks to Sri ProfVK for a most comprehensive definition of brahman,

complete with extensive notes of sources and glossary - quite amazing! I

would wish to point out to all other potential definers of terms, however,

that we were not expecting such a depth of detail and I would not want them

to think that they had to spend so much time and effort, too. If they

thought this, we might not get any volunteers!

 

 

 

The original guidelines were for just 3 or 4 paragraphs. So I would like

those members who are clearly able to undertake such a definition to put

forward their names (directly to me please and not the group). Some which

are required for the near future and do not yet have anyone assigned are:

Ananda, chit, sat, antaHkaraNa, guNa, nirguNa-saguNa, prakRRiti, saMsAra and

turIya. Out of 1500+ members, I will be extremely disappointed not to have 9

volunteers!

 

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

The Ribhu gita says :

 

" I am of the nature of Existence. I, indeed, am of the nature of

beatitude. I am beyond meaning or absence of meaning. I am Brahman

alone. (48)

 

I am of the nature that is immeasurable. I am of the nature that

cannot be discussed. I am of the nature that cannot be comprehended.

I am Brahman alone (49)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- In advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> Advaita for the Novice: Weekly Definitions.

> BRAHMAN

> (Matter in parentheses is optional)

>

> (The word 'Brahman' is a noun in Sanskrit, in the neuter gender,

not to be

> confused with the masculine noun 'BrahmA' which is the name of the

first of

> the triad of personal Gods: BrahmA, ViShNu and Shiva. 'Brahman'

originates

> from the root verb 'bRh' to grow or enlarge.)

>

> Nothing that exists is without a name and a form. But all that

exists has a

> common factor that subsists as a substratum in all. Just as all

gold

> ornaments have gold as their commonality of content, just as all

clay toys,

> though distinguishable by their name and form, are not

distinguishable as

> clay, just as the movie screen is the base for all the drama that

is

> superimposed on it while the screen itself is unsullied by any of

the

> turmoil that 'takes place' 'on' it - so also a substratum, subtler

than

> space, permeates everything in the universe and everything 'takes

place'

> 'in' it, without itself being affected. That, being the common

content of

> all that have name and form, has no name or form for itself. The

Vedas speak

> of it as 'That' or also as 'Brahman'. This is the supreme

ultimate Reality,

> the reality that never changes. (To emphasize the supremeness, it

is also

> called 'para-brahman', 'para' meaning 'supreme').

>

> All our knowledge of Brahman comes from the scriptures and so is

indirect

> (Sanskrit: 'parokSha'). It is however known, as direct (Sanskrit:

> 'aparokSha') knowledge by realisation and insight, once everything

that is

> transient is transcended. It is not known otherwise; it is that

which makes

> known what is known. By itself it is not an object of knowledge to

be known.

> It is the very Consciousness (Sanskrit: 'cit', also 'caitanyaM')

that

> cognises knowledge. There is no higher Reality outside that.

Knowledge of

> absence of Consciousness implies the existence of

Consciousness.While

> everything is presented to Consciousness, the nature of

Consciousness is to

> be its own light. A lighted lamp needs no other light to illumine

it.

>

> Brahman is only one of its kind. Also, It is 'one only' and so is

bereft of

> parts. There is 'no second' to Brahman; it is non-dual. Any

presence or

> awareness of duality makes the awareness finite. It does not

possess any

> quality. For, to differentiate between Brahman as a bearer of a

quality and

> the quality which is attributed to it, is to introduce a

difference in the

> absoluteness of non-duality. Hence it is impersonal (Sanskrit: nir-

guNa). It

> cannot be classified by category or species, action or function,

quality or

> relation. It cannot be indicated as this or that. When the

epithets

> 'Supreme Person' (Sanskrit: PuruShottama) or 'Supreme Self'

(Sanskrit:

> ParamAtmA) are used for Brahman, the supremeness only indicates

that

> everything is transcended, like time, space, causation and

personification.

> It cannot be conceived of even by the intellect which functions

only in the

> duality of subject and object and so it cannot be described as

either. If

> human intellect has however to contend with one such, it can only

do so with

> what then should be renamed, 'Brahman with attributes' (Sanskrit:

Sa-guNa

> Brahman). One then descends from Absolute Consciousness to

consciousness of

> the Absolute. For meditation, the silence that follows the three

syllables

> in the pronunciation of the word 'Aum' has been uniquely

recommended as

> representing Brahman with or without attributes.

>

> The only thing that can be predicated about Brahman is that It

exists. The

> Vedas choose only to declare this existence and call it, Existing

Entity

> (Sanskrit: 'sat'). It is therefore the being of every being. The

conclusion

> of advaita is that the universe of plurality is not a

manifestation of

> Brahman, but only its appearance. Plurality is a matter of words

only; it

> has no existence independent of Brahman. If plurality were

absolutely real,

> then the enlightened, whose experience of unity is deliverance

from the

> 'cycle of births and deaths' (Sanskrit: samsAra), would have had a

> beginning of that deliverance which then must inevitably have also

an end!

>

> Nothing that the human mind can think of can be affirmed of

Brahman. It

> transcends all that can be described in finite terms and words.

Its

> essential incomprehensibility forces us to either use all

superlatives as in

> 'Most revered Light of lights'; 'Truth of truths'; 'It is smaller

than the

> smallest, bigger than the biggest'; 'It is that which is supreme,

than which

> there is nothing higher, nothing more minute, nothing more

comprehensive';

> or to use all negations, like 'Neither gross, nor minute,

neither short,

> nor long, in short, neither this, nor that'. All such statements

of Brahman

> have to be combined and still the description would not be

complete.

>

> The statement that Brahman rises above thought and word does not

mean that

> it is empty and/or non-existent. The negation of predicates

affects only

> the 'whatness' of the judgement and leaves the 'thatness'

untouched. It only

> means that finite expressions can do no justice to the infinite

that is

> Brahman. And since it is infinite, it is Bliss

(Sanskrit: 'Ananda') itself;

> because absence of bliss would imply imperfection and

incompleteness. It is

> actionless, because action is intended to fulfill a desire; but

Brahman is a

> homogeneous whole and so has no deficiency.

>

> And, the most important fact, according to advaita, is that this

> transcendental reality, Brahman, and the reality immanent as the

innermost

> core of all the living, the Atman, are both the same ! In other

words,

> Atman is the Self as the immanent principle and Brahman is the

same Self as

> the transcendent. That is why the existence of Brahman the Self,

from which

> everything emanates, can never be questioned, though that of a

> super-Designer can be. The Consciousness 'I am' cannot be denied.

This

> essential identity is the apex message of advaita.

>

> [Abstract of Definition:

> . Immanence

> . Consciousness

> . Impersonal Absolute

> . Existence

> . Transcendence

> . Bliss

> . Apex message ]

>

> *****************************

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

[Guest guest]

the Ribhu gita says :

 

I am of the nature of Existence. I, indeed, am of the nature of

beatitude. I am beyond meaning or absence of meaning. I am Brahman

alone.

 

I am of the nature that is immeasurable. I am of the nature that

cannot be discussed. I am of the nature that cannot be comprehended.

I am Brahman alone

 

Viewedagainst this background

 

What a great accomplishment on the part of our beloved Professorji !

Defining the 'infinite' brahman in finite language that too within a

matter of a few paragraphs ? Professorji ! What a miraculous

task ... only a mathematics professor can do this !

 

i am also delighted to note that he cleared up the misconception

about usng Brahma (one of the hindu gods of the trinity) and BRAHMAN

( the Ultimate Reality) ... many westerners use all these three

terms interchangebly Brahmin, brahman and brahma ... The great

transcedental poet Ralph Waldo Emerson himself ERRONEOUSLY tit;led

his poem 'Brahma' when he meant the Trancedental

consciousness 'brahman' ...

 

recall the following lines from that poem ?

 

If the red slayer think he slays,

Or if the slain think he is slain,

They know not well the subtle ways

I keep, and pass, and turn again.

 

============

 

Professorji , i specially resonated with these words in your post

 

".........>to Consciousness, the nature of Consciousness is to

> be its own light. A lighted lamp needs no other light to illumine

it. "

 

Yes! indeed ! ATMA-JYOTI IS PARAM JYOTI IS SWAYAM JYOTI! THAT IS

BRAHMA

 

tHE UPANISHADS DECLARE

 

Om Poornamadah Poornamidam

Poornaat Poornamudachyate

Poornasya Poornamaadaya

Poornameva Vashishyate

 

That is INFINITE this is INFINITE What comes from such INFI9NIE

truly is INFINITE What remains after INFINITE from INFINITE is yet

INFINITE!

 

there be peace, peace and perfect peace

 

When you are in satsangha with 'Truth' that is the best

Satsangha ...

 

Many thanks

 

Aum Tat Sat!

 

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>