1

We clearly know we are not the body but something else. Something spiritual.

The non-dualist hindus believe the functions of mind/ego are witnessed by the Higher Self (Brahman) in a dream state ... and the inactive or idle condition of the mind/ego are also witnessed by the Higher Self (Brahman) in a deep-sleep state.

Because the active and inactive states of mind/ego are witnessed by something other than the mind/ego, the non-dualists therefore come to a conclusion that it is Brahman the universal consciousness who does all the witnessing.

So, when we say Brahman is universal consciousness, we're also kind of saying that IT is conscious or aware of everything. By everything i mean all illusory names and forms (the waves of the ocean). 

Moving on. And from here my actual question starts. 

Since we believe Brahman is conscious of everything, wouldn't it be right to say Brahman has a intellect/mind/ego of ITS own, when Brahman remains in ITS absolute, disembodied state (i.e. the portion of Brahman that lies outside the 5 sheaths)? 

I asked this a few days ago to one of the followers of advaita and his reply was something like - 

Yes ... Brahman the Absolute does have a mind/ego/intellect in a sheathless state and IT can do all the thinking, willing, witnessing in that sheathless state. That was his opinion. Do the rest of you advaitins here also agree with him and hold the same belief?

... If you do, then answer me this question and i really want to know this. 

Even if we (as embodied jivas), go on and negate or transcend our individual minds/egos and starts dwelling in our Original Higher state Brahman, during turiya or moksha, are we completely rejecting the mind/ego?

... I mean after rejecting one type of mind/ego (the individual one) aren't we situating ourselves in another type of mind/ego (the universal one)?

Its like, transcending from bad ego to good ego.

IMO, the very thought, "I AM Supreme, eternal, infinite, universal consciousness" is also a kind of ego (although an universal one).

What are your thoughts?

5
  • That is super ego which was tried by hrinyakashipu and whole lot of Asuras
    – Prasanna R
    Oct 10 '21 at 8:17
  • Brahman never sees anything nor it hears anything in absolute level Oct 10 '21 at 8:22
  • @ParabrahmanJyoti Then please explain, how does IT become multiple entities (jivas) from a single / non-dual consciousness. I mean IT ought to have some sort of will/desire to become this world of multiplicity. And will/desire can only arise in a mind (here universal mind). And if there's a mind then there's got to be awareness of the things that are around (or i should say WITHIN) Brahman. Lets discuss about this, shall we? Oct 10 '21 at 8:33
  • Do not get what is called 'consciousness' confused with Super-Consciousness or Ultra-Consciousness simply because they both use the word 'consciousness'. All the words that are used to describe Brahman are only meant signs to point the way to us with limited consciousness, The only description of It that can be said of Brahman is that It 'IS'; and that it is 'not this, not this'. Oct 11 '21 at 6:02
  • @TheCrimsonUniverse Brahman never became multiple jivas. Brahman appears as Jiva not becomes jiva Oct 11 '21 at 13:53
1

I asked this a few days ago to one of the followers of advaita and his reply was something like - Yes ... Brahman the Absolute does have a mind/ego/intellect in a sheathless state and IT can do all the thinking, willing, witnessing in that sheathless state. That was his opinion. Do the rest of you advaitins here also agree with him and hold the same belief?

No, the follower is wrong. The correct answer is that since Nirguna Brahman is beyond word and thought it is impossible to ascribe any mental state to it. Sakti is inactive in that state.

... If you do, then answer me this question and i really want to know this. Even if we (as embodied jivas), go on and negate or transcend our individual minds/egos and starts dwelling in our Original Higher state Brahman, during turiya or moksha, are we completely rejecting the mind/ego?

Yes, there cannot be an ego in the Turiya state.

... I mean after rejecting one type of mind/ego (the individual one) aren't we situating ourselves in another type of mind/ego (the universal one)? Its like, transcending from bad ego to good ego. IMO, the very thought, "I AM Supreme, eternal, infinite, universal consciousness" is also a kind of ego (although an universal one).

A purified ego only exists at the level of Saguna experience where Shakti is active. At the Turiya level Sakti is inactive and hence there is no ego.

Sri Ramakrishna says that the 'salt doll' i.e. the ego dissolves in that state.

Sri Ramakrishna's conversation now turned to the Knowledge of Brahman.

MASTER: "Brahman is beyond vidya and avidya, knowledge and ignorance. It is beyond maya, the illusion of duality.

"The world consists of the illusory duality of knowledge and ignorance. It contains knowledge and devotion, and also attachment to 'woman and gold; righteousness and unrighteousness; good and evil. But Brahman is unattached to these. Good and evil apply to the jiva, the individual soul, as do righteousness and unrighteousness; but Brahman is not at all affected by them.

"One man may read the Bhagavata by the light of a lamp, and another may commit a forgery by that very light; but the lamp is unaffected. The sun sheds its light on the wicked as well as on the virtuous.

"You may ask, 'How, then, can one explain misery and sin and unhappiness?' The answer is that these apply only to the jiva. Brahman is unaffected by them. There is poison in a snake; but though others may die if bitten by it, the snake itself is not affected by the poison.

"What Brahman is cannot be described. All things in the world — the Vedas, the Puranas, the Tantras, the six systems of philosophy — have been defiled, like food that has been touched by the tongue, for they have been read or uttered by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled in this way, and that is Brahman. No one has ever been able to say what Brahman is."

VIDYASAGAR (to his friends): "Oh! That is a remarkable statement. I have learnt something new today."

MASTER: "A man had two sons. The father sent them to a preceptor to learn the Knowledge of Brahman. After a few years they returned from their preceptor's house and bowed low before their father. Wanting to measure the depth of their knowledge of Brahman, he first questioned the older of the two boys. 'My child,' he said, 'you have studied all the scriptures. Now tell me, what is the nature of Brahman?' The boy began to explain Brahman by reciting various texts from the Vedas. The father did not say anything. Then he asked the younger son the same question. But the boy remained silent and stood with eyes cast down. No word escaped his lips. The father was pleased and said to him: 'My child, you have understood a little of Brahman. What It is cannot be expressed in words.'

"Men often think they have understood Brahman fully. Once an ant went to a hill of sugar. One grain filled its stomach. Taking another grain in its mouth it started homeward. On its way it thought, 'Next time I shall carry home the whole hill.' That is the way shallow minds think. They don't know that Brahman is beyond one's words and thought. However great a man may be, how much can he know of Brahman? Sukadeva and sages like him may have been big ants; but even they could carry at the utmost eight or ten grains of sugar!

"As for what has been said in the Vedas and the Puranas, do you know what it is like? Suppose a man has seen the ocean, and somebody asks him, 'Well, what is the ocean like?' The first man opens his mouth as wide as he can and says: 'What a sight! What tremendous waves and sounds!' The description of Brahman in the sacred books is like that. It is said in the Vedas that Brahman is of the nature of Bliss — It is Satchidananda.

"Suka and other sages stood on the shore of this Ocean of Brahman and saw and touched the water. According to one school of thought they never plunged into it. Those who do, cannot come back to the world again.

"In samadhi one attains the Knowledge of Brahman — one realizes Brahman In that state reasoning stops altogether, and man becomes mute. He has no power to describe the nature of Brahman.

"Once a salt doll went to measure the depth of the ocean. (All laugh) It wanted to tell others how deep the water was. But this it could never do, for no sooner did it get into the water than it melted. Now who was there to report the ocean's depth?"

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Chapter 3, Visit to Vidyasagar

3
  • You said, shakti is inactive in nirguna brahman. Ok, then during creation/manifestation of the cosmos, does shakti get activated? If so what makes it active? Is it Nirguna Brahman's iccha/will/desire that makes it active? ... I read somewhere that since nirguna brahman is poorna/complete, It can have no will/desire. Then what activates shakti to start the creation process? Oct 11 '21 at 6:28
  • 1
    Think of a vertical model with 2 states. The upper level is Nirguna Brahman with an inactive Sakti. In the upper level there is no duality and hence no universe. In the lower level Sakti is active and hence there is duality and universe. We Jivas normally live in duality and experience the universe. Only a Jnani who has experienced the upper level where Sakti is inactive has experienced Nirguna Brahman. It is not a matter of who activates Sakti. It just happens that we live in an active Sakti region while a Jnani is able to experience nonduality in an inactive Sakti region. Oct 11 '21 at 11:45
  • 1
    You have also asked why nirguna Brahman which is purna want to start the creation process? Basically you are asking why is there a region where Sakti is active or why does a universe exist? I have given an answer here: hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/43472/… Oct 11 '21 at 11:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .