Are We The Very Conscious Of The Brahman?

[Silverbackman]

I read that one of the main reasons why we can never know the Brahman is because we are the very conscious of the Brahman. Is this generally accepted and can someone elaborate more on it?

Also if this is true does that mean the universe's life conscious is in fact the mind of the Brahman (or "God")? Also is there another conscious in the universe not linked to life outside of mythological devas? Such as perhaps an "Ishvara" ("God") Overconscious (similar to the transcendental concept of an oversoul) that is the source of all consciousness? Although conscious maybe tied to the same conscious of our own I assume it is still a greater conscious that created other consciousness. Sort of like taking a big leaf and tearing parts of it out. Although these tore leaves are individual leave segments they are still linked to the big leaf they came from and although separate, they are still one in a way.

 

[_Z_]

Great topic!



If we go beyond the descriptive universe and thence beyond notions of the self, then we are simply the undescribed self. The way I see it is like Brahma is the same as the infinite, so we are like the 1 of 1 – the nature of oneness in singularity rather than like Brahma is the nature of one in its opposite context. So I would take away all the descriptions and see both we and Brahma as we are in simplicity. The thing is that we can sense self – when we meet each other for instance, yet if Brahma was self in the same context then we would not have to question his existence as he would be ever-present to us! Thus the infinite or universal self that is represented by Brahma is not the same. Perhaps we are condensed consciousness and Brahma uncondensed, that is – we are centralised where as Brahma is decentralised and expansive, thus we don’t generally feel him as we feel another self/consciousness because he belongs to the emptiness of the void. Hmm beyond consciousness there is the ‘nature’ of the void i.e. the form of nirvana – if I may, so perhaps Brahma is this and Brahman is the universal consciousness!



Be interesting to get some ideas from the eastern perspective!

 

[Agnideva]

Namaste All,

Very interesting discussion so far.

I read that one of the main reasons why we can never know the Brahman is because we are the very conscious of the Brahman. Is this generally accepted and can someone elaborate more on it?

If you believe that you are indeed the very consciousness that you seek, then one may say that in fact there is really nothing to be known!

A quote from the Kena Upanishad (II.1-5) of the Samaveda:

Teacher: “If you think, ‘I know Brahman rightly’, you have known but little of Brahman’s (true) nature. What you know of His form and what form you know among the Devas (too is but little). Therefore, Brahman is still to be inquired into by you.”


Student: “I think Brahman is known to me. I think not I know Brahman rightly, nor do I think It is unknown. I know (and I do not know also). He among us who knows that knows It (Brahman); not that It is not known nor that It is known.”

“It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known does not know It. It is unknown to those who know, and known to those who know not.”

“When Brahman is known in every state of consciousness, It is known in reality, because one thus attains immortality. Through one’s own Self is attained strength and through knowledge is attained immortality.”

“Here if one has realised, then there is accomplishment. Here if one has not realised, then there is utter ruin. Having realised Brahman in all beings, and having withdrawn from this world, the wise become immortal.”

Also if this is true does that mean the universe's life conscious is in fact the mind of the Brahman (or "God")?

It has been thus described in some philosophies of Sanatana Dharma, particularly those of the Shaivite Hinduism. Shaivism views all existence as ParaShakti, the Divine Potency, the very inseparable Consciousness (Chitkalâ) of ParaShiva (a.k.a. Brahman or Parabrahman).

Also is there another conscious in the universe not linked to life outside of mythological devas? Such as perhaps an "Ishvara" ("God") Overconscious (similar to the transcendental concept of an oversoul) that is the source of all consciousness?

One may choose to think of Ishvara as the focal point of the Universal Consciousness. If Ishvara is the focal point of Universal Consciousness, and all existence is a manifestation of that Consciousness, then really there is no difference between Ishvara and all of existence, including the Devas, correct?

Although conscious maybe tied to the same conscious of our own I assume it is still a greater conscious that created other consciousness. Sort of like taking a big leaf and tearing parts of it out. Although these tore leaves are individual leave segments they are still linked to the big leaf they came from and although separate, they are still one in a way.

This, in fact, is what we in Sanatana Dharma refer to non-dualism (advaita). Could it be that the leaf was never torn into segments, as we see and imagine it? Could it be that the whole is not made up of parts at all?

we would not have to question his existence as he would be ever-present to us! Thus the infinite or universal self that is represented by Brahma is not the same. Perhaps we are condensed consciousness and Brahma uncondensed, that is – we are centralised where as Brahma is decentralised and expansive

This, in fact, is what we in Sanatana Dharma refer to non-dualism (advaita) . The terms Brahmâ and Brahman both come from, I am told, the root word, brh, which means to expand or to pervade. For what you term “Brahmâ” here, Hindu philosophers use the term Ishvara or Parameshvara (Supreme Ishvara) .

he belongs to the emptiness of the void. Hmm beyond consciousness there is the ‘nature’ of the void

In Sanatana Dharma, rather than emptiness, we choose to describe this as fullness known as Purnam in Sanskrit or Plenum in Latin.

Be interesting to get some ideas from the eastern perspective!

You have already, IMO, provided an eastern perspective !

OM Shanti,
A.

 

[_Z_]

Hi Agnideva,

You have already, IMO, provided an eastern perspective

Thank you! It is an interesting dilemma – as I agree concerning the fullness of the err void, yet I can also see the emptiness! When placed together there is a clarity; as ‘without the glass there is nothing to see through’ [a ‘Z’ saying]! How was that one – ok! It’s a paradox of having opposites in a place without boundaries. Yet ‘when all are brought together, only one has arrived’ in other words it is a place beyond the descriptive or describable universe, where the multiplicity has yet to be pronounced.

namaste
Z

 

[Agnideva]

Hi Z,

It is an interesting dilemma – as I agree concerning the fullness of the err void, yet I can also see the emptiness!

That which is beyond description, is … well beyond description . We may conceive of it in any way that we find comprehensible.

When placed together there is a clarity; as

‘without the glass there is nothing to see through’ [a ‘Z’ saying]! How was that one – ok!

Ooh, I like that one! I may just have to steal that one for future use! .

A.

 

[Silverbackman]

Agnideva can you explain what "ParaShakti, the Divine Potency, the very inseparable Consciousness (Chitkalâ) of ParaShiva (a.k.a. Brahman or Parabrahman)" is?

Thanks!

 

[_Z_]

Agnideva, hi

That which is beyond description, is … well beyond description



Yeah exactly! – I seam to have arrived at that point where we Brahmins inevitably get to – where everything is like a ‘melting pot’ beyond the descriptive world y’know. I cant explain things in my mind anymore – I have to understand things as they ‘feel’ or as winds and vortexes in the great ocean – like the self is ‘simply so’ as it is ‘naked’ i.e. the thing as opposed to the description or idea of the thing.

Glad you like my little sayings and quotes. There is a place where philosophy, poetry and ‘magic’ all converge – Brahman likes metaphor!


respect

Z

 

[Agnideva]

Namaste All,

I cant explain things in my mind anymore – I have to understand things as they ‘feel’ or as winds and vortexes in the great ocean

Isn’t it funny how first we begin by saying that these things cannot be understood by “feeling” but must be learned through the intellect, and later we come to the conclusion that beyond intellectualism is that “feeling”!

Agnideva can you explain what "ParaShakti, the Divine Potency, the very inseparable Consciousness (Chitkalâ) of ParaShiva (a.k.a. Brahman or Parabrahman)" is?

There are technical terms that actually come from Agamic philosophy. More specifically, they are terms used in the Shaivite Agamas. Shakta Agamas, also, I believe use same or similar terms.

Philosophies of Shaivite Hinduism use three important terms: Parameshvara, ParaShakti and ParaShiva. Parameshvara, as you know, means Supreme Ishvara, the Lord. Parameshvara may be imagined as the concentration or focal point of the all-pervasive Universal Consciousness. In Shaivite Agamic terms, the all-pervasive Divine Consciousness is called ParaShakti, who is considered the substratum of all form. Another term for ParaShakti is Sacchidananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). In earlier Shaivite literature, ParaShakti is also called Chitkalâ (form/art of consciousness) since ParaShakti is the Universal Consciousness that gave rise to all form. Beyond Parameshvara and ParaShakti, but always in oneness with them, is ParaShiva (or ParamaShiva), the Ultimate Reality beyond all form, name, and description. If we wanted to find similarity with Vedantic terms, we can say ParaShiva is Parabrahman or Nirguna Brahman, while ParaShakti and Parameshvara are together called Saguna Brahman.

Shaivite philosophies teach that there is an eternal oneness between ParaShiva, and ParaShakti. This concept is brought out in popular understanding that God Shiva and Goddess Shakti are one. The term Shakti, in fact, means potency or power, and is a feminine noun. So, She is called the Divine Potency or Divine Mother. She is said to be the Potency of the Potent, the Ability of the Able. The relationship between ParaShiva and ParaShakti, to use the oft-used analogies, is the same as the relationship between the Sun and sunlight, or word and meaning. While ParaShiva is the Supreme Absolute, the potential, ParaShakti is the manifest reality, the kinetic.

I hope that helps.

OM Shanti,
A.

 

[lucius]

In answer to your question 'Are we the conscious(ness) of the Brahman' -

I would recommend you read chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita 'The Field and its Knower'. Here, Krishna who is considered a form of Brahman (to simplify explanation), says He is the knower in all bodies, in all beings.

 

[_Z_]

Agnideva, hi

Isn’t it funny how first we begin by saying that these things cannot be understood by “feeling” but must be learned through the intellect, and later we come to the conclusion that beyond intellectualism is that “feeling”!

Yes, perhaps feeling may be seen as the outer form of inner ‘sense’, it is very hard to describe it as anything – I often think of it as gnosis yet this implies ‘knowledge’ even if sacred knowledge, it is not the same. It is perhaps simply the form of yoga between things! I feel the very inner most essence of all things are the very same thing as this ‘form of yoga’– ‘the universal ‘it’ from whence quantum energies have there base that stretches to infinity like an intangible elastic element of mindfulness’.



Lucius hi!



Yet we can be as like this too! Thus I would say that perhaps Krishna is a state of being one may rise to and become?! [that doesnt mean that he isn’t a being unto himself]

 

[lucius]

Lucius hi!



Yet we can be as like this too! Thus I would say that perhaps Krishna is a state of being one may rise to and become?! [that doesnt mean that he isn’t a being unto himself]

Dear _Z_,

I think we can rise to a higher consciousness - we can know the Divine Consciousness. The Atman in us is said to be one with Brahman - it is Brahman. We have to uncover this knowledge of who it that is within us, or realize That within ourselves.

Hinduism and Yoga accepts that we can view God as Nirguna - having no attributes or form, beyond all conception, or as Saguna, having attributes and form. Often, it is said that the latter is easier for the ordinary person.
Krishna is one such form. He exists both within and without. He is Satchitananda -being , bliss, consciousness. The One Self behind all manifested existences.

 

[_Z_]

Interesting, Lucius.



It is the most difficult thing – to get past the apparent contradiction and duality of form and formlessness, personifying and anthropomorphising it, is a good way to come to an understanding of these natures. I feel there is a universal explanation that goes beyond deity and our human view – and Hindu philosophy shows us this if we read between the lines.

I do feel that the mind does not ‘exist in a box’ [the brain] and that we can ‘touch’ the deeper nature - as it is part of us! The same applies to the forming a oneness between our subtle mind and the inner-essence of a given thing, that we may know that thing in its true ‘form’.



Anyone know this -

Is there a Hindu term for the ‘gnosis nature’, subtle nature or inner nature of any given thing? And for that which is the universal inner ‘it’ that links all things?

 

[lucius]

Interesting, Lucius.



It is the most difficult thing – to get past the apparent contradiction and duality of form and formlessness, personifying and anthropomorphising it, is a good way to come to an understanding of these natures. I feel there is a universal explanation that goes beyond deity and our human view – and Hindu philosophy shows us this if we read between the lines.

I do feel that the mind does not ‘exist in a box’ [the brain] and that we can ‘touch’ the deeper nature - as it is part of us! The same applies to the forming a oneness between our subtle mind and the inner-essence of a given thing, that we may know that thing in its true ‘form’.

Thanks -

ThePhilosophy I mentioned before of the Bhagavad Gita says that mind is, like the body, only a vehicle for the Self, which is the spark of consciousness within.

Anyone know this -

Is there a Hindu term for the ‘gnosis nature’, subtle nature or inner nature of any given thing? And for that which is the universal inner ‘it’ that links all things?

There are different terms for all these things.
Gnosis would be the same thing as Jnana.
Vijnana - the 'truth plane' or 'ideal mind'.
Another word for inner knowledge is Vidya.
The inner form of a thing is it's Svarupa - the true form.
As for a universal 'it' that links things - here there are many options - Brahman, Paramatman, Shakti, - terms for the Supreme which is in all things, and thus links them - all are parts of one whole. There is also the universal life-force or vital-force known as Prana. Generally in Hindu philosophy, everything is seen as a manifestation of One underlying Reality - so everything is part of the continuum of Prakriti, or nature.

 

[Agnideva]

Excellent discussion all.

Yet we can be as like this too! Thus I would say that perhaps Krishna is a state of being one may rise to and become?! [that doesnt mean that he isn’t a being unto himself]

Very interesting point Z. This is essentially the idea of avatar in the Advaita Vedanta philosophy, someone all beings should strive to become. In contrast to this is the Vaishnava conception of avatar: one who is a direct descent of God.

OM Shanti,
A.

 

[_Z_]

Then I am an Advaita Vedantist philosopher!