Difficulties in Understanding Brahman.--> Stephanie

[Guest guest]

Dear Stephanie:

 

I am just going through all the mails.

 

In your questions regarding manifest and unmanifest, let me unfold

some more of the Bhagwad Gita, Chapter 8.

 

>From the unmanifest are manifested all the beings at the beginning

of the day and are dissolved again into the unmanifest upon the

arrival of the night.

 

"All the living entities O Partha, after taking birth again and

again, are automatically dissolved as the night arrives and are

manifested again upon the arrival of the day.

 

"But beyond the state of unmanifest there is yet another state of

unmanifest which is eternal and which can never be annihilated even

when all entities are annihilated

 

"It is declared as the unmanifest and undiminishing, which is also

known as the ultimate goal by attaining which one) never returns.

That is My Supreme Abode.

 

 

 

In the Isa Upanishad we come across one such instance. The seeker

first prays to Brahman, " The face of truth is hidden behind your

golden lid, O Sun. May you remove the lid so that I may see the

golden Truth !" And when the request is granted and the splendor

manifests Itself in him he, submerged in pure bliss, lets out these

words, "In truth I am Him."

 

Knowledge and Ignorance , manifest and unmanifest. Ignorance leads

to darkness, Knowledge alone leads to further blinding darkness,

Ignorance and knowledge lead ultimately to HIM.

 

Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti.

 

P.S: Please see my earlier post on Hinduism -- Main Beliefs.

 

Warm Regards.

 

--Sanjay Aggarwal

 

, Stephanie Marie

<chotoprajapati> wrote:

> Dear Sanjay:

>

> I'm am new to the group and I've also only recently converted to

Hinduism. So forgive my rather naive questions regarding your post.

Might you be willing to expound a bit further on your statements

about Brahman and the "incorrect" way of worship: choosing either

manifest or unmanifest? How is this statement related to, then, the

daily, monthly, and special pujas done by Hindus toward the

manifestations of Brahman? I am presuming that's what you mean by

manifest and unmanifest?

>

> If it is the case that the Gods themselves donot understand

Brahman, is that to suggest that there is some kind of duality that

separates the Gods from Brahman?

>

> I'm working on a phd in rhetoric and philosophy so I'm willing to

take up your reading suggestions. While I am unable to read

sanskrit at this particular time, I'm sure there are some English

texts that I can sink my teeth into. I have a translation of the

Upanishads but it's been some time since I've visited them (this

type of reading seems to fare much better when one can have a

conversation about them).

>

> I appreciate any insight you can give. All the best, Stephanie

> sanjaytechnology <sanjaytechnology> wrote:

> All:

>

> The knowledge of Brahman and the desire to fell Brahman is the

> beginning of understanding of the "SELF". However, the statements

> below are very powerful especiall the one "The Isa Upanishad warns

> the students of Brahman not to take sides while approaching

Brahman.

> Those who worship the unmanifest (asambhutim) enter blinding

> darkness and those who worship the manifest only (sambhutim) enter

> into greater darkness. The right approach is to worship both and

> realize one through the other." This is a very very powerful

> statement.

>

> Read the statement below, and then the article below.

>

> A man knocked on the God's door. "Who's is there?" asked God from

> within. "It's me," said the man. "Go away then. There is no room

for

> two," said God. The man departed and wandered in the arid desert

> until he realized his error. Returning to the door, he knocked

once

> again. "Who's is there?" asked God as before. "You," answered the

> man. "Then come in," God replied.

>

>

> Aum Shanti Shanti Shanti.

>

> --Sanjay Aggarwal

>

> Difficulties in Understanding Brahman

> Any attempt to explain Brahman to the satisfaction of a mind that

is

> driven by reason and familiar with the concretization thought is

> fraught with enormous difficulties, because that which is

> inexplicable cannot be explained by any amount of reasoning and

> logic. Brahman is beyond the senses, beyond the mind, beyond our

> intelligence and dreams. Then how can It be explained to the

> satisfaction of an intellectual and curious mind? The Rigvedic

seers

> themselves had this problem in their mind when they called Him

> vaguely as "IT" or "This" or "That"

>

> The difficulty in understanding and knowing Brahman is well

> explained in the Kena Upanishad. Even gods are not free from their

> ignorance of Brahman (II.2.1). All that we can understand about

> Brahman is that we cannot understand It. Even after prolonged

> spiritual practice and meditation, one cannot even conclude

whether

> one knows it or not. If a person thinks that he knows It, he does

> not know that he does not know. To whomsoever It is not known, It

is

> known to him. But to whomsoever it is known, is not known to him.

It

> is not understood by those who understand it and understood by

those

> who do not understand it. It can be known only when one

experiences

> directly at all levels of consciousness. (II. 2. 2-4).

>

> Trying to worship Brahman incorrectly and ignorantly without

knowing

> the right approach can also result in great difficulties for a

> person who is on the path to salvation. The Isa Upanishad warns

the

> students of Brahman not to take sides while approaching Brahman.

> Those who worship the unmanifest (asambhutim) enter blinding

> darkness and those who worship the manifest only (sambhutim) enter

> into greater darkness. The right approach is to worship both and

> realize one through the other.

>

> Even an enlightened seer like Yagnavalkya had difficulties in

> explaining the nature of Brahman and his creation. While speaking

to

> Sakalya in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, he declares, " That Self is

not

> this, not this. It is incomprehensible for it is not

comprehended."

> When Gargi Vacaknavi asks him too many questions, in the same

> Upanishad he expresses his irritation saying, " Gargi, do not

> question too much. Otherwise your head may fall off. You are

asking

> so many questions about a divinity about whom we are not expected

to

> ask many questions."

>

> Else where in the same Upanishad he resorts to negative

terminology

> to explain the inexplicable using such words as aksaram

> (imperishable), asthulam (not gross), ananu (not subtle), ahrasvam

> (nor short), adirgham (not long), achchayam (not shadow), atamah

> (not tamasic) and so on (Brihadaranyaka III.8.8).

>

> What is the original state of Brahman? Even the seers do not seem

to

> have an answer. Uddalaka Aruni tells Svetaketu in Chandogya

> Upanishad, that in the beginning the Being was alone, one only,

one

> without a second and in the next moment changes his statement

> stating that according to some in the beginning the non-Being was

> alone, without a second and that from that non-Being being was

> produced. (VI.2.1)

>

>

>

>

>

> ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.