Is Brahman 'nothing'?

[moksa 0]

That which is and is not?

only 'nothing' can be the answer.

The nature of 'nothing' is that which is and that which is not. If there is no Nothing, then there must be something. If something exists, where did it come from?

Hence something can not create something because where did the first something come from?

However, if there is nothing, then nothing must exist as nothing. If it did not exist then there would be something. Hence the nature of nothing is that which exists and does not exist simultaneously.

 

Secondly, Shankara says we are all Brahman, Ramanuja says we are all part of Brahman but we are none of us are actually Brahman in the whole, Madhva says that Brahman is outside of ourselves and is separate.

In another mailing I suggested that all three answers are correct. If Brahman is 'nothing' then nothing exists both within and without us. There is more void in an atom than there is matter, yet our eyes are unable to see this, just like the salt in a glass of water. However, nothing is also without everything. The largest matter in the universe, the universe itself must be surrounded by nothing. Nothing is simultaneously the largest/greatest thing in the universe and the smallest. It is that which cannot be surrounded except by itself, and it is that which has no form.

 

Finally, If nothing exists then nothing gives rise to thought. I think therefore I am = I am therefore I think. If that which thinks exists, then that which exists thinks.

If we look at Brahman in the beginning, it neither existed nor not existed. It realised itself and became atman. ie self realisation of existence. From thought and realisation came desire (Agni) to create and hence not be lonely. The subject area appears to be something that is trying to discover its meaning.

 

From the above, my question is, 'Is Brahman nothing?'

If Brahman is nothing, and Krsna identifies with Brahman, then is not the nature of Krsna also Nothing?

 

moksa

[Guest guest]

nothing is simply an imaginary concept... brahman is for his nature omnipervasive , so brahman exists and pervades

you cannot use a subject (brahman) and a verb (does not exist) to explain the absence of subjects, objects and relations.

So if you can't use the void to explain the void, it is not right that we accept concepts based on fantasy and blind faith.... or.. more you try to explain the Nirguna(no qualities) more qualities you add, revealing god as the Guna Grahi... or .. full of infinite qualities

 

So the logic says (and bhagavad gita) that the ultimate reality is a personal Everything... param brahman who necessarily gives the existence to me also, that i am not supreme because i am not at all the origin and the sustainer of my existence.

 

So we remain two separated subjects.. the soul and the supreme soul

 

brahman is nothing... not possible... because "nothing" and "is" are two words that cannot go together

 

brahman is the all pervasive effulgence of the param brahman bhagavan sri krsna... the supreme "everything" (he has every opulence, every perfection and exercitates every kind of attraction)

[Guest guest]

What cannot be seen, what cannot be grasped, without colour, without sight or hearing, without hands or feet;

What is eternal and all-pervading, extremely minute, present everywhere-

That is the immutable,

which the wise fully perceive.

 

Mundaka Upanisad 1.1.6

 

Sounds like nothing to me

[Guest guest]

you have listed 13 qualities...

 

how "nothing" can have qualities?

 

from a material point of view brahman is non existent, because it is not subjected to material laws.. but matter is not the only reality

[Guest guest]

"If we look at Brahman in the beginning, it neither existed nor not existed."

 

Nothing has a beginning? If so, it is no longer nothing.

 

"It realised itself and became atman. ie self realisation of existence."

 

How does this nothing "realise itself"? How does something--anything--come from nothingness?

[moksa 0]

Hsiang-kuo once said of Tao, "Some people say that the penumbra is produced by the shadow, the shadow by the bodily form, and the bodily form by the Creator. I would like to ask whether the Creator is or is not. If He is not, how can He create things? But if He is, He is simply one of these things, and how can one thing produce another?... Therefore there is no Creator, and everything produces itself..."

Nagarjuna formulated a very similar argument.

 

You are asking how nothing can create something. However, is nothing not also something?

what Nagarjuna and Hsiang-kuo were saying is that if nothing is something then what created nothing?

However, Nothing is that which is and is not simultaneously.

By nature the void is free of something, but the void is there is it not?

if the void is there, then is also must exist.

If it also exists then it is no longer a void.

The ultimate paradox.

 

The problem with describing Brahman or Tao is giving names to a quality that very few people can grasp. Hence the reason why rsi in the past were reluctant to give it such names and qualities.

 

What one must think is that if there is no nothing, then the alternative must be something, even if that something is undescribable because it is beyond the concept of our language or mind. This is what some of the later buddhists in zen were trying to say, if you have the one, that is the void, then the void too must exist, take away the one, and what do you have? that is nirvana.

 

However, what I am saying is that even if you take away the void, then something must be there, and what then created that something?

the void by its very nature can only be made by the absence of something. Before something is created then there must have been nothing.

There are only two realities, nothing, or something. If there is nothing, then nothing also must be something, it is that which neither exists nor not-exist.

It's very nature is the absence of something, but its very existence makes it something. If it is removed, then there is something that exists, and where did it come from?

 

For example, only 1 and 0 exist in mathematics, everything else is merely an abstract term to describe the relationship of these two realities. If I had 1p and you gave me 1p we would say I had 2p, but what I had would not be a 2p coin, it would in reality be 1p and 1p, 2p therefore is just an abstract term to describe the relationship between 1p and 1p. The concept 1 can be viewed as matter or something, and the concept 0 that of nothing or void. If it is not 1 then it must be 0.

 

Where Nagarjuna diverts from Hsiang-kuo is that he recognises that a thing cannot create itself, nor something create it.

 

But Nothing in its very nature is capable of creating it. It does not exist, but at the same time it exists.

 

The later Buddhist may say that the world is like an empty pot, but the pot is actually full, only they are unable to see. Without the space, there would be no pot.

They might say that the world is like an empty room, but without the space, there would be no room. It is the emptiness that creates the pot and the room.

Probably a poor example.

 

An atom contains more space than matter, yet our eyes are unable to see the interconnecting web of vacuum, nor does it see the little islands of matter in this space. Instead we perceive the world as being solid matter. The void is everywhere, both within and without, only we don't see it.

 

moksa

[vanamali 1]

Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam, Govindam Bhaja, mudhamaate!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SubashRao 0]

<font color="red">PAMHO</font color>

 

<font color="blue">But Nothing in its very nature is capable of creating it. It does not exist, but at the same time it exists.</font color>

 

 

If "nothing" is capable of creating something, then it has the ability to think,judge and needs reasons to create something.If so, then nothing is not nothing but something and that something is Krishna.

 

[Avinash 0]

How do we perceive things in this world? With our senses, isn't it?

 

If we say that Brahman is something, then one may think that we can perceive Brahman with our senses. But, in reality, it is not so. Therefore, it is misleading to say that Brahman is something. The opposite of 'something' is 'nothing'. If we deny that Brahman is something, then one may jump to the conclusion that it is nothing. But if we say it is nothing, then one may think that it just does not exist. But, even that is wrong. Therefore, it is said that Brahman is not something; it is also not nothing. Brahman exists, but we cannot understand it accurately just with our sense perceptions.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Who's there?

 

Brahman,

 

Brahman who?

 

Krishna Param Brahman,!

[merkaba 0]

even nothing is a energy of krishna

 

there is no such thing as a void.

[Raghavan 0]

The discussion on something and nothing about the existence and non existence of Brahman can go on and on and on and on for ever as long as one keep speculating in trying to find out something out of our knowledge we have.

 

The reason why three successive acharyaas came was primarily to re-establish the vedic culture that was lost after the onset of Kali yuga especially buddism. Sankara's philosophy was difficult to understand and largely misunderstood, So Ramanuja came and said Brahman and jeevathma are different, which still was better, but again created separation. Finally Madwa came shortly and said we are only servants of Lord, because when we try to keep ourseleves as humble servants rather than speculating we can better reach Lord. None of the three were wrong, but Madwa's philosophy was the first step in understanding the Lord to realise Sankara's philosophy since we common souls are not sankara or ramanuja or madwa to understand the Brahman as those three Great Saints by themselves are Jeeva Thathva of Lord. Thats why He came three times one after other and finally felt, the last one would be better for the jeevathmaa's to follow.

 

As long as we keep speculating about this, these arguments will only grow, but take us far away from devotion. IN my strong opinion, I leave all these theories, but just accept what Krishna says in Gita and accept as How He has said and just try for perfection. This works really better than anything about something and nothing.

 

He cannot be seen or touched, but must be felt. To feel Him, we need to have total belief like the faith Draupathi had on Govinda, then we really see Him. While none of Her husbands thought of Krishna during the gambling, she was the one who called Him without speculating her mind and at once He also came and helped Her.

 

A poor village mom told her little son who has to cross a bushy forest to go to his school, to keep saying Govinda, Govinda and said that He is walking with Him in invisible form and protect him, and when ever he faces any trouble or fear on the way, if he calls Govinda, He will immediately answer. That little kid just beleived what his mom said and one day it was getting darker as it was going to rain and there were gushy winds. The child got afraid and he suddenly called Govinda Govinda in louder voice and asked "are you there walking with me"..the child immediately heard "Yes I am protecting you, dont fear". The child suddenly felt happier and he did not fear and when he came home he told his mom that Govinda answered him when he was afraid and called Him. The mom althought she was the one who told him, could not beleive it on one side, as she was speculating for a moment how that was possible, but then beleived when she saw the happiness on her child's little face.

We should note two things here. The child had total faith in his mom's words and with the faith he could feel Lord Govinda, but as adult although the mom beleived strongly in Lord Govinda, yet for a moment her mind speculated and she changed her mind and beleived by looking at the child. We move away from Lord as we grow up. While we are given six senses to realise good and bad and to realise Lord as the ultimate goal of life, we dont do it since we tend to think on God Himself questioning His nature. When we give up this, we truely see Him irrespective of our age.

 

BY the way, the above story was my personal experience but with a little change. Instead of gushy winds and rain, I was chased by a scary looking child kidnapper old guy (probably a beggar) and who grabbed my arms for whatever reason he might have had. I had to walk one kilometer to my school and one day when I had to come back home alone as my sister left earlier, this

happend in my third grade and I cried running away from that fellow Govinda, Govinda. From nowhere a person came in a cycle and asked me why I was crying and running. I showed him that beggar and that man gave me lift and left me at the gate of my house. When I told my mom that I saw God, she never beleived me, but felt it could be possible.