Brahman is not the natural universe nor an object of worship nor a holy soul nor some moral virtue.
Brahman is unborn and eternal, appearing as many but remaining the immutable one without a second.
Brahman is all-pervasive, depthlessly subtle, ever-constant, and the causeless first cause.
The qualified one who realizes that absolutely knows all is brahman and brahman is oneself.
tat - that; yat - which; adresyam - is not the object of sense perception; agrāhyam – not an object of organs of action; agotram – unborn; avarṇam - without any attributes; acakṣuśśro- tram - not eyes or ears (not a sense organ); tad that; apāṇipādam - which has no hands or legs (not an organ of action); nityam – eternal; vibhum - which becomes many; sarvagatam – all-pervasive; susūkṣmam - the most subtle; tat - that; avyayam - free from decline and dis- appearance; yat – which; bhūtayonim - cause - of all beings; dhīrāḥ - those who are qualified; paripaśyanti – see very clearly
Adreśyam : it is not an object of senses. Brahman, the subject matter of parā-vidyā, is not an object of your perception... Brahman is not an object of the sense organs because it is the subject. Here we are negating the whole world as non-brahman.
Agrāhyam: it is not an object of organs of action like hands and legs. Feet cannot reach it; it is not located in a place. It is not available for hands to grasp, that is, it is not an object. It is not a place or an object that you can handle. You cannot shake hands with Brahman.
Agotram : it does not have a gotra, lineage. Brahman is neither a gotra nor has a gotra. One should not search for the gotra of Brahman. Somewhere you stop, you draw the line. Brahman is not born, it has no gotra. It is agotra, unborn.
Avarṇam :it is free from varṇa. Varṇa is that by which objects are described... That which does not have attributes of a substantive is avarṇa. If Brahman has attributes, it will be one more object in the world.
Perhaps Brahman is a sense organ or an organ of action. The teacher negates it by saying, acakṣuḥ-śrotram, not eyes or ears... Brahman is not a means of knowing... Further it is apāṇi-pādam, that which has no hands and legs or that which is neither hand nor leg.
Nityam : it is eternal. It is not bound by time. The word ‘agotram’ negates a beginning for Brahman. Here the word ‘nityam’ negates the end. Brahman is free from beginning and end.
Vibhum : it becomes many. All the descriptions given so far may give rise to a doubt that Brahman may be śūnya, non-existence... It becomes ‘as though’ many. It is in the form of the entire cosmos without undergoing any change... nitya and at the same time vibhu.
Sarva-gatam : it is all-pervasive... Everything is located in space. Space is ‘located’ in consciousness, but consciousness is not located in space. Being the cause of everything, Brahman pervades everything, as the reality or cause of everything, and therefore it is sarva-gatam.
Susūkṣmam : the most subtle... The only way to understand Brahman is to recognise it as the invariable in the knower, known and knowledge... If I try to see all-pervasive Brahman, it shows the inappropriateness of my search. The seer is Brahman and Brahman pervades him.
Tad avyayam: it is free from decline and disappearance. Brahman neither exhausts itself and disappears, nor declines and disappears. It remains the same. Only then can we understand Brahman as it is. It is not that once upon a time there was Brahman, and then it became the world.
Bhūta-yonim : it is the cause of all the bhūtas, elements and elementals. Yoni means cause... Brahman is the cause for everything, including all the gross and the subtle worlds. Bhūtas are the five elements, space, air, fire, water, and earth.
Dhīrāḥ paripaśyanti : those people who are qualified and who have this knowledge recognise Brahman as themselves alone... For gaining this knowledge a two-fold preparation is required. One is cognitive skill, and the other is maturity... Such a person is compassionate.
~translation and commentary on Mundaka 1.1.6 by Dayananda
What Is Brahman and Who Am I to Say (transcreating Mundaka 1.1.6)
Brahman is not the natural universe nor an object of worship nor a holy soul nor some moral virtue.
Brahman is unborn and eternal, appearing as many but remaining the immutable one without a second.
Brahman is all-pervasive, depthlessly subtle, ever-constant, and the causeless first cause.
The qualified one who realizes that absolutely knows all is brahman and brahman is oneself.
~tx-SR
Some Mundaka footnotes
Among the gods, Brahmaji came into being first; he is the creator of the entire universe and also its protector. He taught the knowledge of Brahman which is the most exalted among all forms of knowledge, to Atharva, his first son.
~Mundaka 1.1.1 (tr-Dayananda)
Among the two, the aparā-vidyā is Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, Atharvaveda, phonetics, know-how of rituals, grammar, etymology of Vedic words, science of metres, astronomy and astrology. And parā-vidyā is the one by which that imperishable Brahman is known.
~Mundaka 1.1.5 (tr-D)
On the other hand, parā-vidyā refers to the cognitive vṛtti by which the akṣaraṁ brahma is understood. The knowledge, identity of the self with Brahman—that takes place in the buddhi, on hearing the words of the upaniṣad, is called parā-vidyā. Brahman, the subject matter of the upaniṣads, is to be known. Here, the knowledge of Brahman alone is desired to be called parā-vidyā.[40] Even though one can have all the words of the upaniṣads in one’s head, still one will not gain the knowledge of Brahman. Mere words of the upaniṣads are not parā-vidyā. One has to make an effort in going to a teacher and asking for this vidyā. Unless one chooses to know Brahman, this knowledge does not take place.[41] With vairāgya, objectivity, gained by understanding the limitations of all one’s other pursuits, when one exposes oneself to this teaching and understands, “Ah! I am Brahman,” it is called parā-vidyā.
The self is always self-revealing. It happens to be Brahman. We do not know that fact. Therefore, the removal of ignorance of the self being identical to Brahman alone is para-prāpti, gain of Brahman. It is the gain of what is already gained.
~Mundaka 1.1.5 commentary by Dayananda
Off the coast of Cape Hatteras is the famous Gulf Stream
originating from the Gulf of Mexico flowing through the Straits of Florida
ultimately zapping its electric sentience to these Outer Banks
before lighting out for India.
footnotes
consciousness knows not death, john donne (paraverse 23102102)
it’s not as much as focus as unfocus as conditioning is coming into focus
with your locally conditioned consciousness so relax—
one is using one’s conditioning for one’s deconditioning naturally
as the world turns, rain falls and snow melts
my sea ditty (p23102103)
i says i am not an x
but i am i am
as eye is parabrahman
says i
Māyā’s creation is illusory: Māyā has three qualities – sattva (knowledge), rajas (activity) and tamas (inertia). Consciousness reflected in pure sattva of māyā is called God/Īśvara and reflected in rajas and tamas-dominated māyā is called the individual.
~T
The Self is the changeless substratum and of the nature of pure Consciousness. The intellect (in the body) is ever changing and inert. When the Self is reflected in the intellect (in the body), there arises an individual we call ‘I’, the pūruṣa or jīva. Therefore the reflection of Consciousness/Self in the intellect (in the body) gives rise to the individuality.
~T
Algebraically put, the individual (pūruṣa) = Consciousness/Self + intellect (in body) + reflection of Consciousness (cidābhāsa).
~T
The individual – a mix: In the individual we find a mutual superimposition of characteristics of the Self and the conditionings of the body-mind-intellect. Let us understand this through an example of a red hot iron ball (taptāya piṇḍavat). An iron ball is heavy, cold to touch, round in shape and black in colour. Fire is weightless, hot, shapeless and red. When heated, there is a mutual superimposition of qualities which gives rise to a red hot iron ball. The redness and heat belong to the fire and the weight and shape to the iron.
Similarly, in an individual who says, “I am a sane man”, the sanity and manliness are the characteristics of the mind and body, the ‘I’ ness is of the Self/Consciousness and the life is of the reflection of Consciousness. All put together makes the man say ‘I am xyz’.
~T
In the individual who says ‘I am xyz’, xyz are characteristics of the body-mind, I is the Self (pure consciousness/awareness), and am is the reflection of awareness (Self).
~transcreating T
Both bondage and Liberation are for the individual – neither for the pure Self nor the conditionings. The Self is infinite and ever free. The conditionings of the body-mind-intellect are by themselves lifeless and inert, incapable of feeling bound or liberated. It is only the individual reflected in the conditionings and supported by the Self that gets bound or liberated.
~T
To sum up, the pure Self has no thought or experience as ‘I am the pure Self’. Neither the reflection of Consciousness nor the intellect by themselves know or experience anything.
The reflection of Consciousness in the intellect associated totally with the body-mind-intellect is the ‘I’ of the ignorant man. When associated with the assumed individuality, it is the ‘I’ of the wise man whilst transacting in the world and when associated only with the Self, it is the ‘I’ of the wise man in meditation or whilst discussing the nature of the Self.
~T.
Question: The individuality is illusory. It is this individual who gains the knowledge, ‘I am the changeless Self! Then will not the knowledge gained by an illusory entity also be illusory? What then is the use of such illusory knowledge?
Answer: It is true that knowledge gained by the individual is unreal. But that does not make it useless. In fact it serves a very useful purpose of removing the sorrow of saṁsāra which is also unreal.
~T.
*********
to clarify,
the 'I' is atman is brahman, pure consciousness, awareness, reality,
the 'I am' is the reflection of pure consciousness in the subtle body, the reflection of awareness, individual consciousness, the jiva,
and the 'I am x' is the outer person, body-mind, samsari.
If you think that Buddha, Christ or Krishnamurti speak to the person, you are mistaken. They know well that the vyakti, the outer self, is but a shadow of the vyakta, the inner self, and they address and admonish the vyakta only.
~Nisargadatta
*****
om pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṁ
pūrṇātpūrṇamudacyate,
pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya
pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate.
om śāntiḥ! śāntiḥ!! śāntiḥ!!!
That is Whole, this is Whole; from the Whole, the Whole becomes manifest. From the Whole, when the Whole is negated, what remains is again the Whole.
~Isa Upanishad Invocation (tr-Chinmayananda)
"The supreme Reality is a homogeneous, one, entire ‘Whole’ and since the apparent appearances of multiple plurality are nothing but superimpositions upon the Truth, they also constitute nothing but the ‘Whole’. Certainly, ‘this Whole’ rises from ‘that Whole’.
...in the emergence of the finite, the Infinite has come to suffer no change. Therefore, when the appearance of the finite world of plurality has, at the realisation of the Infinite, rolled away, the Infinite that remains is the Whole."
~C
*******
anejadekaṁ manaso javīyo
The Self is the motionless one, swifter than the mind.
~from Isa Upanishad 4 (tr-Chinmayananda)
Anejat, unmoving. The root ejr, implies shaking. Shaking is motion, deviation from one's own condition. It is devoid of this, i.e. It is ever of the same form. And It is ekam, one, in all beings. It is javiyah, faster; manasah, than the mind...
~Shankara (tr-Gambhirananda)
Reality in the form of ‘existence’ is already there, before the mind could reach the spot of its contemplation.
//
Since the Consciousness is all-pervading, It cannot move, and nothing that moves in the universe can ever move except in the medium of Consciousness.
~Chinmayananda
******
tadejati tannaijati
taddūre tadvantike,
tadantarasya sarvasya
tadu sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ.
That moves, That does not move;
That is far off, That is very near;
That is inside all this,
and That is also outside all this.
~Isa Upanisad 5 (tr-Gambhirananda)
*****
pratibodhaviditaṁ matam amṛtatvaṁ hi vindate, ātmanā vindate vīryaṁ vidyayā vindate’mṛtam. (2.4)
pratibodha-viditam – known through every cognition; matam – known; amṛtatvam – immortality; hi – indeed; vindate – gains; ātmanā – by oneself; vindate – gains; vīryam – capacity; vidyayā – by knowledge; vindate – gains; amṛtam – immortality
~Kena 2.4 (tr-Dayananda
Brahman is known through every cognition. One, indeed, gains immortality (from that cognition). One gains the capacity (to know) by oneself. (Thereafter) one gains immortality by knowledge.
~Kena 2.4 (tr-Dayananda)
Indeed, he convincingly attains immortality, who intuits It in and through every modification of the mind. Through the Ᾱtman he obtains real strength, and through knowledge, immortality.
~Kena 2.4 (tr-Chinmayananda)
Pratibodha-viditam, known with reference to each state of intelligence. By the word bodha are meant the cognitions acquired through the intellect. The Self, that encompasses all ideas as Its objects, is known in relation to all these ideas. Being the witness of all cognitions, and by nature nothing but the power of Consciousness, the Self is indicated by the cognitions themselves, in the midst of cognitions, as pervading (all of) them. There is no other door to Its awareness. Therefore when Brahman is known as the innermost Self (i.e. witness) of cognitions, then is It matam, known, that is to say, then there is Its complete realization. Only by accepting Brahman as the witness of all cognitions can it be established that It is by nature a witness that is not subject to growth and decay, and is eternal, pure in essence, the Self, unconditioned, and one in all beings...
~Shankara's commentary on Kena 2.4 (tr-Gambhirananda)
How, again, is immortality attained through the aforesaid knowledge of the Self? This is being answered. Atmanā, through one's own Self; vindate, (one) attains; vīryam, strength, capacity. The strength got from wealth, friend, incantation, medicine, asuterity, or Yoga cannot conquer death, for it is produced by impermanent things. But the strength, consequent on the knowledge of the Self, is acquired through the Self alone and not through anything else. Thus, since the strength resulting from the knowledge of the Self is independent of any means of acquisition, that strength alone is able to conquer death. Since the strength produced by the knowledge of the Self is thus attained through the Self, therefore, vidyayā, through knowledge about the Self; (one) vindate, attains; amṛtam, immortality.
~Shankara's commentary on Kena 2.4 continued (tr-Gambhirananda)
*******
In other words, the witness (pure consciousness) is intuited within ordinary cognition, and it is that witness (aka atman) which alone provides the strength for knowledge (brahmavidya) and thus self-realization (immortality).
The reflection of consciousness in the subtle body
of functional compounds and organic chemicals
is nothing but pure consciousness—as white water is
nothing but water disturbed by a bed of beliefs
(a belief is like a glacial boulder of thought).
I am brahman.
Aham brahmasmi.
Christ, Krishna, Consciousness.
Materialism is another name for duality. Duality is the ground for all religion. Some kind of god is always on the other side of the great divide.
Some pray to the god of everything.
Some pray to the god of nothing.
Sometimes I get a great notion to pray to myself.
The power, the sakti, of maya is binary. One power projects, creates. This is called viksepa sakti.
And the zero counterpart is veiling. This is called avarana sakti. Dayananda calls this duality the maya code.
But in maya, there's a third power: jnanam sakti. Jnanam is opposed to the veiling power of avarana.
Believing one is a person (I am a samsari) is the veiling of knowledge and projection of ignorance.
The ‘I am’ may be there, but ‘I am brahman’ is the mahavakya of jnanam, the true power of knowledge.
The mind dreams at night. And consciousness, as the reflection of awareness benighted by conceptual avidya, is dreaming during the day.
But the dreams of consciousness feel real because of the real substrate (satcitananda) upon which they are projected.
Maya feels real and always will feel real. Seeing through avidya is another thing. It’s like waking after a bad dream. You’re still in a dream but no longer of a dream.
