Three questions

[Guest guest]

Question 1: How does one understand the form and formless attributes of Brahman?

 

First, before I err on the ground of intellectualism, I should say that this question too is an experential thing.To put it in a few words "The way to understand Brahman is at the Feet of one's Gurunatha, for He is the sole Brahman, The sole reality"

This time since I have not drunk any Cranberry juice nor am I sane, let me answer this question...

The statement which I made about Gurunatha is the sole truth and the answer for all spiritual questions, it is the basic template, rest of what I say below is just an embelishment to that supreme thought. To be honest with you I know nothing sir as I have not realized anything nor am I in at-one-ness with anything. However, I will ramble on...

The sutrakara of Brahma sutra says at Ubhayalingaadhikaranam thus:

Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329) Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere scripture teaches It to be without any difference.

Though scripture should never be the sole basis of understanding Brahman, it can be viewed later after a meditative experience.Brahmasutras are "pithy threaded statements"(sutras) penned by experential seers. If you realize, you too can write such a "sutra".In the scriptures we find two kinds of description about Brahman.

Some texts describe it as qualified, i.e., with attributes(form as you put it) and some as unqualified (without attributes). "From whom all activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed" (Chh. Up. III.14.2). This text speaks of form and attributes innuendo.

Then Again we have, "It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither redness nor moisture" etc. (Bri. Up. III.8.8). This text speaks of Brahman without attributes.

So now we are thrown into confusion here, are we to assume that both are true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with limiting adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as true and the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?

This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman cannot by itself possess two characteristics. In the case of Brahman you cannot say that it has two aspects, viz., with form and attributes, and without form and attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and without Upadhis, because It is described everywhere as being Nirguna (without attributes). Both cannot be predicated of one and the same Brahman because it is against experience. One and the same thing cannot have two contradictory natures at the same time.This is against even a basic Tarkawada positation.

In essence, Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be formless. The yellowness of a lamp reflected in a crystal does not change the nature of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere connection of a thing with another does not change its nature. It is an altogether erroneous notion to impute yellowness to the crystal. In other words the yellowness of the crystal is unreal. A thing cannot change its real nature.

(Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333) And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with things possessing form, so does Brahman take form in connection with Upadhis or limiting adjuncts), because (texts which ascribe form to Brahman) are not meaningless. )

Changes of its real nature means annihilation. Similarly in the case of Brahman, its connection with the limiting adjuncts like earth, etc., is due to ignorance. An Upadhi cannot affect the nature of Brahman, such Upadhi being merely due to Avidya or nescience. The essential character of a thing must always remain the same whatever may be the conditions imposed on it. If however it appears to be altered it is surely due to ignorance.

Therefore we may conjecture cautiously that Brahman is without attributes, because all Sruti texts whose aim is to represent the nature of Brahman such as "It is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay" (Katha Up. I.3.15) teach that It is free from all attributes.However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience, insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas.

(Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330) If it be said that it is not so on account of difference (being taught in the scriptures), we reply that it is not so, because with reference to each (such form), the Sruti declares the opposite of that. )

In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) " Brahman is both form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and to define it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of sun in an earthern cup"

Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature.

Now, let us see the arguments of Poorvapakshins,The Purvapakshin says, "The various Vidyas teach different forms of Brahman. It is said to have four feet (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to consist of sixteen parts or Kalas (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha Up. V.3); to have the three worlds for its body (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be named Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), etc. Hence we must admit that Brahman is also qualified."

 

(source:spiritsong.org)

However,If Brahman be understood to have a form then the scriptural passages which describe it as formless would become meaningless. The scriptures have a purport all throughout. On the contrary, the other passages which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of Brahman but rather at enjoying the worship of Brahman.

The Brahma sutra thus divests each element which makes a specificity toward the ascribing nature of Brahman and lays it bare. Reading a Brahma sutra is not a mere intellectual exercise. In the past golden days of Dheesara, Gurus used to give the sutras to their disciples and ask them to meditate on ecah sutra for days to gain answers deepn in their souls...

Let us do something like that too, with our limitations of Ghorakaliyuga...

 

----

Question 2: 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal skin or sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles)?

 

Ofcourse, spirituality and religion are filled symbology as that is the language of the subconscious mind. The substratum of the subconscious mind of a devotee does not understand words. But it does understand symbols,powerful symbols at that.

Shiva wears an elephant skin, to show that ego in the form an elephant has been subdued if viewed from one angle and in another angle that ego is a small sheath which covers one from our naked reality.

Imagine Durgadevi sitting on a Rabbit, what feelings does it evoke? WIll it have the same puissance as She is sitting on a Lion/tiger?W hat nuerological and subconsious images does it evoke?

 

I will give an example here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is Brahma shown as above seated on a Paramahamsa?(The great Swan)...The great swan is a bird which frequents Manasarovar on the earthly plane(now in China) and drinks just milk from a mixture of say milk and water.

In other words, the Brahman question you asked....

what was the milk?---Guru statement which I gave in the beginning.

What is the water?---The experential sutra-statements of someone else (nevertheless in Brahmasutra) I gave as a bolster.

The Paramahamsa flies, and yet is light....Brahman(realization)---will unburden you of your past baggages and make you ascend.

If you have seen swans fly, you will observe that its ascent is very smooth, very graceful, very effortless. One's ascent into spirituality is also like that ultimately, the vedas,vedantas.brahmasutras burden one's soul after a certain stage.Why does the Lord sit atop it with folded hands, it shows that one must be humble even though one has become a Paramahamsa, because everything ultimately dissolves in the Mahapralaya(the great cosmic dissolution).

The color of paramhamsa is white. What does white denote? White is a color which denotes purity in spirituality across many regions and communities because it is a commingling of all colors(sadly this has been taken by some ignorant people to skin level, which is the farthest from the truth).This does not mean white is a superior color over black. Black is found in Kali symbology and almost all deities in a yogic form.

Superiority is a terminology of the mind.It simply does not exist in the eyes of God. White is the abscence of darkness, the darkness of maya. Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain meaning too at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking gnaana to meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to meditation.White paint (or a white coloured surface) is simply one that reflects all or most of the light hitting it and does so uniformly (does not favour any particular wavelengths). It may actually look red, green or black depending on what coloured light is hitting it, or no light at all. It is because the colour white reflects everything that white (or light coloured) fabrics are cooler in summer. White is taken as an aid for innocence which characterizes a true gnaani.

Thus a meditator is taken to a higher plane of Gnana when using such visual aids.

Animals evoke stronger feelings than human beings when trying to portray a raw image.A raw feeling is portrayed by an innocent animal better than a pretending human being.

---------------------------

3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation?

Going by the texts, No.

But this question cannot be answered, unless one experiences a relaization, and then a merging occurs and the memories will be lost.Thus there is no answer to this question. This too is an experential question.

 

 

(source:spiritsong.org)

In sandhyadhikaranam-Brahmasutras-one sutra says thus-

Dehayogadva so'pi III.2.6 (324) And that (viz., the concealment of the soul's rulership) also (results) from its connection with the body.

Such hiding of power is due to embodiment of the soul. The state of concealment of the soul's knowledge and Lordship is due to its being joined to a body, i.e., to a body, sense-organs, mind, intellect, sense-objects, sensations, etc., on account of ignorance. Just as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of the soul are hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. Hence the soul does not itself create. If it can, it will never create unpleasant dreams. No one ever wishes for something unpleasant to himself. The soul's knowledge and Lordship remain hidden as long as he erroneously thinks himself as the body, etc., as long as he is under the wrong notion of not being distinct from those limiting adjuncts.

When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she enters like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into the Ganga. When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken out of the river with the same water in it. Similarly the individual soul enveloped by his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time being puts off all sense-activities and goes to the resting place namely, the Supreme Brahman and again comes out of it in order to get further experiences. He does not become identical with Brahman like the person who has obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the same soul which had gone to sleep awakes again into the same body.

Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the body frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha moksha(liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed later....

For now, let me rest my speeding fingers...

Yours yogically,

Shreeram Balijepalli

 

-----------

In reply to

Dear Sir,I have three queries,1. How does one understand the form and formless attributes of Bhraman2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal skin or sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles).3. Does soul remember its identity after realisationRegards,Raghu Venkata