three schools of vedanta-brahman and people

[tonightsthenight]

I hate to get into too much theory, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the relation between Brahman and us. The three schools of Vedanta seem to each say different things. Either we are the same, we are not the same, or we are a part of Brahman and not the whole. Please correct me if wrong.

Are we exactly the same? Not sure. We are that consciousness, but are we brahman-in-progress or the whole thing or both or neither? Maybe we just don't know but I'd imagine some sage or another could say.

Its making me crazy just thinking about it.
Thoughts?

[kami]

Hi TTN,

Not sure which three schools you are referring to.. But the Upanishads definitively declare, "Tat twam asi" and "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am That, I am Brahman). In Advaita, Brahman is called "one without a second"..

In this, there is simply no relation "between" Brahman and me. So, what is the "me" anyway? Also called the ego or the separate self, the "me" is simply the assumption that I as a body/mind exist on my own, and separately from the rest of creation (aka, "not me"). This sense of ego or me is strengthened by repeated assertive beliefs such as "I exist", "I have free will", "I am the maker of my destiny" and others that give the perception of volition. Paradoxically, even the effort of spiritual practices increase the sense of separation for a very long time, because there is a "me" meditating, doing karma yoga, etc.. Bit of this is here: http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=14195

There comes a point in everyone's journey where this illusion of me is seen through - while actions happen, the labeling that "I did it" happens "ad hoc". When closely examined, the sense of volition is merely a thought/belief/concept. Actions have always happened in response to something - a cascade that is untraceable beyond a certain time point, vasanas, etc. In Buddhism, this may be akin to what is called "dependent origination". Nothing happens independently; thus, the assertive beliefs of free will and "I exist" are seen through. At this point we relax from "I am so-and-so" to "I am That", That being nameless, formless awareness, i.e., Brahman.

But the journey does not seem to end here, because there is still a duality of "I am Brahman, not so-and-so". When we learn to rest as That, we can see that all arisings (actions, thoughts, feelings, etc) arise out of this nameless, formless awareness and recede back into it. As what? As awareness itself. The sense of "me" arises from Brahman AS Brahman and recedes into it. What complicates this pure process? See, the "me" is a thought in response to another spontaneously arising thought. Say a thought arises - how does it become "my" thought? By the next thought that names the first one so. Suppose the second didn't arise.. the first would just be "a" thought that arises from awareness as awareness and recedes back into it.. Thus, as this is seen with increasing clarity, there is just what is happening, there is no doer.

Even the sense/thought of "I am That" is added "ad hoc" if closely seen. Brahman is beyond consciousness, beyond perception, beyond description..

Hope this makes some sense..

Love.

[tonightsthenight]

Hmmm well not sure I was clear. Your post was amazing tho and a good resource for many.

The question is not between Brahman/absolute/ultimate and false identity of transient self. The question is are we Brahman itself? Or Brahm-lets (pieces of Brahman)? Or possibly one with Brahman and yet like children?

I've experienced all three. There is no conclusion on this in Indian philosophy as far as I know.

We are that, yes we know that in the sense that we are the same stuff as the absolute. So there is no dualism of spirit and material. But we don't know if we are gods babies or god itself or some combo.

We see this in absorption, where sometimes it seems devotional. But then in deeper samadhi, there is no longer any relationship one to another.

[kami]

The short answer per Vedanta is Aham Brahmasmi. I am Brahman, not part of, not pieces of, but Brahman. The concept of children does not apply in Advaita Vedanta. That seems more of a Christian belief of God and God-like, or God and His children.

Advaita cannot be clearer on this.

In Hindu dharma, there is the concept of Ishwara (God), who is Brahman with the attribute of Maya. In Tantric terms, that could be the half-Shiva and half-Shakti form of Ardhanarishwara, where Shiva represents Brahman, Shakti represents Maya and together they represent creation.

Thus, one might ask a question like, "If I am Brahman, how come I don't know what is going on in say, Bali, right now?" Vedanta's answer to this is that each of us creates our own reality by our projections, not an unseen God creating it out of nowhere. The conglomeration of all of these creates the "world". As one identified with the separate identity, it is not possible to know what is going on somewhere else (other than with the use of siddhis; but having siddhis not = knowing oneself to be Brahman, as you know). In the Gita, Krishna clearly states that he (referring to himself as Brahman) "does" nothing. Events (and creation itself) unfold according to one's own vasanas interacting with others'. And vasanas are created by identification as so-and-so.

Thus far, I have never come across confusion or ambiguity in terms of what Advaita Vedanta declares about our true nature.

Hope this helps a bit more.

[tonightsthenight]

Thanks Kami. Yes in advaita it is clear. But Vedanta as a whole is undecided.

Well I love asking questions because the curiosity alone is a form of bhakti. And guess what happens, just now having an incredible experience of unity. Everything is Brahman. Every molecule every bit and byte of information, the totality of creation. And somehow it seems to exist within a point. There is really no size to the universe. Just Brahman interacting w Brahman like drops of water mingling in a stream.

And yes, vasanas. Patterns upon patterns interacting, like waves in the sea. How wonderful it is to experience these patterns.

And curiously, there is choice. We can change the patterns. This alone indicates that we hold the ultimate power of creation because creation is the awareness of the patterns.

[BillinL.A.]

Tonightsthenight

...cool beans Bro!