Mistranslations of Central Upanishadic Terms

[dwai]

http://medhajournal....adic-terms.html

 

We are told again and again that Brahman is formless, nameless, indescribable, uncreated, unborn, undying, eternal, immortal, imperceivable, and inconceivable (cannot be grasped by senses and mind), and Brahman is not to be mistaken for the God(s) worshipped by people. “Brahman” is not a name, since Brahman is formless (only that with a form has a name); “Brahman” is merely a linguistic symbol to facilitate communication, and hence one can use any linguistic symbol.We are further told that Brahman is not the creator of the world; rather, Brahman is the world and more; and nothing positive can be affirmed of Brahman; Brahman is neither a he nor a she but the That (Tat).One can only say what Brahman is not (neti, neti).What all this means is that it is a very serious mistake to translate “Brahman” as God, as understood in theistic traditions, Abrahamic as well as non-Abrahamic.One may now ask, “What, then, is God?Hindus have many Gods; so, what is the difference between Brahman and God?”Here are the answers.

 

 

“Atman,” as per the Upanishads, is pure, objectless consciousness.Atman is formless and hence nameless.“Atman,” like “Brahman,” is not a name, but merely a linguistic symbol to facilitate communication.You can use any other word for “Atman” and it makes absolutely no difference to the meaning of “Atman.”As has been pointed out earlier, only objects can have names since they have forms; and since Atman is not an object (phenomenon), it cannot have a name (“Phenomenon” is anything that is or can in principle be an object of consciousness).You can call anyone who has no name by any name you wish.Atman is non-dual; this means that “Atman” cannot be used in plural (Atmans).In the Abrahamic traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, “soul” is used in plural (there are souls).For this reason, “Atman” should not be translated as soul.

 

 

“Self” in its original meaning is individual presence; this means that “self” inevitably and ineluctably refers to an individual entity. As pointed out earlier, some scholars translate “Atman” as Self, in order to distinguish it from self, an individual entity. But the Upanishads resoundingly teach that Atman is always non-dual; that is, there cannot be Atmans. John does not have his own Atman as numerically different from that of James. John and James are simply two different manifestations of one and the same non-dual Atman. Let me further emphasize this point by pointing out that the Atman of John’s cat is non-different from John’s Atman. Rigorously speaking, there is no John possessing his own Atman, either; John is the Atman (Chit aham, I am consciousness; sentences such as “I am conscious” and “I have consciousness” are incorrect and misleading, according to the Upanishads). The passages in the Upanishads in which “Atman” is referred to as self (Self) are not to be understood as referring to an individual entity, but to pure, objectless consciousness. In view of all these considerations, I suggest that “Atman” be not translated as self or Self, but simply as pure, objectless consciousness, the non-dual reality, non-different from Brahman.

Edited September 3, 2012 by implicate_order

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[dwai]

Thanks boy

 

I am not new here...I was having trouble logging in so I ended creating a new id...

Edited September 6, 2012 by implicate_order

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[forestofclarity]

This is a very interesting article. I see the author draws not just from traditional vedanta, but also from Madhyamaka.

 

The question arises: why is there a separate term for atman as for Brahman?

 

And why aren't realized masters omniscient?

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[dwai]

This is a very interesting article. I see the author draws not just from traditional vedanta, but also from Madhyamaka.

 

The question arises: why is there a separate term for atman as for Brahman?

 

And why aren't realized masters omniscient?

 

When we start, we aren't aware of either atman or brahman. We then become aware of the individual ego...and after living through the ordeal of the individual ego, some of us, maybe, figure out there's more to things that meets the eye. So, we start searching. And then we come face to face (sometimes) with silence. That silence shows us atman/brahman. And why both atman as well as brahman? Because we start with our "self" and then come to atman (which is actually brahman).

 

The problem is that we have to reconcile the opposites to come to the one. Like a tai chi master pointed out in his blog recently -- The two poles of yin and yang are united by consciousness. That is the state of unity.

 

So, when we learn to become so clever and internalize the syntax, we have to resort to atman and brahman. If we were just ever present, we would not need it.

 

Let me ask you this -- does the ocean need to be aware of the waves? The waves are just it's nature.

 

Does a realized master need to be omniscient when he/she rests in non-duality?

Edited September 11, 2012 by implicate_order

[forestofclarity]

I don't think the 1st question was answered. Boy suggests that Brahman appears as Atman, but this doesn't make sense as Brahman is formless, indescribable, etc.

 

One thing I've never been able to understand about Vedanta is the relation between Brahman and the universe. If Brahman is permanent, how then the changing world? The answer I've gotten in the past is that the world only appears to change, but it actually does not change.

 

As for the wave in the ocean, if the wave is pure consciousness, and the ocean is made of waves, then I would in fact expect the ocean to know all the waves. Vedantins in the past have said that there are limits. Yet how could anything obscure or limit pure consciousness? And if a master is realized, and has ended ignorance, why are they still bound?

 

Let me ask you this -- does the ocean need to be aware of the waves? The waves are just it's nature.

 

Does a realized master need to be omniscient when he/she rests in non-duality?

[dwai]

I don't think the 1st question was answered. Boy suggests that Brahman appears as Atman, but this doesn't make sense as Brahman is formless, indescribable, etc.

 

One thing I've never been able to understand about Vedanta is the relation between Brahman and the universe. If Brahman is permanent, how then the changing world? The answer I've gotten in the past is that the world only appears to change, but it actually does not change.

 

brahman doesnt appear as atman. Brahman and atman are non-different. There is a difference, imho. The changing world is in the realm of duality. So change is necessary. Brahman is nondual, so no change is necessary...

 

We keep trying to extrapolate the "source" of phenomena (like you are doing), but it is not necessary. Just like the waves of the ocean rise from and collapse into the ocean, similarly all phenomena rise out of and fall back into brahman. Why? Who knows...

 

World does change, but the world is in the realm of relative reality.

 

As for the wave in the ocean, if the wave is pure consciousness, and the ocean is made of waves, then I would in fact expect the ocean to know all the waves. Vedantins in the past have said that there are limits. Yet how could anything obscure or limit pure consciousness? And if a master is realized, and has ended ignorance, why are they still bound?

 

Do you know all your thoughts? Or are only aware of some of your thoughts? You too are conscious, aren't you?

Masters have to deal with the limiting adjunct of their physical existence...so they are bound by the same rules...ending ignorance doesnt mean knowledge in the mundane sense. It means ending the ignrance about one's true nature.

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[dwai]

So it seems.

 

 

 

Think again! And please take note that this is not what I suggest, but what Shankara believes, unless I have been grossly misinformed. Nobody's denying that Brahman is all the things you say. Now you need to find out how he perceives atman.

 

Remember that Shankara believed himself to be a man of flesh and blood, or at least born as such, and according to his beliefs and understanding and likely liberation that posed no problem whatsoever.

 

The answer you got from the vedantins seems very clear to me. It doesn't seem to be like that, and that is exactly what they're all saying!

 

It's very difficult, and probably not advisable, to try to explain the truth almost correctly, using words that makes people understand the truth, but only almost correctly, rather than explaining the truth correctly, but using words that people understand only almost correctly!

 

And I still don't see why you bring "realized masters" into this. They have nothing to do with anything. I advice you to stop looking for flaws in other people's beliefs. You don't follow vedanta, so why bother with its shortcomings?

 

Also there are no limits. Period.

 

 

 

That doesn't make sense to me, and Shankara holds a different view, for what it's worth.

 

;-)

 

Actually Shankara very clearly says that Brahman and Atman are non-different. So Brahman doesn't appear as Atman, instead when one realizes Atman, he/she also realizes Brahman.

[3bob]

There is a subtle connection and or interface...

Om is connected in sound and in roaring silence...

 

The word Brahma (without an n) means God-creator, while Atman is not always used the same but depends on context and or the way a particular school uses it.

Edited September 12, 2012 by 3bob

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[forestofclarity]

I believe that I am aware of all my thoughts. I've been looking at this over the past few days in the course of this discussion. I don't believe that thoughts can exist independent of awareness. What would an unaware thought be? Much like an unseen color or an unheard object, I suppose.

 

Taken one step further, I don't think objects can exist outside of awareness, either, at least not in any way we can understand.

 

 

 

Do you know all your thoughts? Or are only aware of some of your thoughts? You too are conscious, aren't you?

Masters have to deal with the limiting adjunct of their physical existence...so they are bound by the same rules...ending ignorance doesnt mean knowledge in the mundane sense. It means ending the ignrance about one's true nature.

[forestofclarity]

It is easy to experience ignorance as an obscuration. For instance, we may see one object that looks like another, like a chair with a shirt draped over it that, in the shadows, appears to be a human being. Once we realize the truth, the raw experience doesn't change, but the realization does. That's why I bring realized masters into this.

 

As for my path, I would hope that you leave that to me. I don't personally believe that Advaita is "flawed", only our understanding of it.

 

 

And I still don't see why you bring "realized masters" into this. They have nothing to do with anything. I advice you to stop looking for flaws in other people's beliefs. You don't follow vedanta, so why bother with its shortcomings?

[dwai]

I believe that I am aware of all my thoughts. I've been looking at this over the past few days in the course of this discussion. I don't believe that thoughts can exist independent of awareness. What would an unaware thought be? Much like an unseen color or an unheard object, I suppose.

 

Taken one step further, I don't think objects can exist outside of awareness, either, at least not in any way we can understand.

 

pure objectless consciousness is one without any objects...if there is no object, where does the question of omniscience come from?

[dwai]

I would recommend reading the nasadiya sukta for more insight..

[3bob]

Khandogya Upanishad, VII Prapathaka, 24th Khanda.

 

24.

1. Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands

nothing else, that is the Infinite. Where one sees something else,

hears something else, understands something else, that is the finite.

The Infinite is immortal, the finite is mortal.

 

Sir, in what does the Infinite rest? In its own greatness - or not even in greatness.

 

2. In the world they call cows and horses, elephants and gold,

slaves, wives, fields and houses greatness. I do not mean this,

thus he spoke; for in that case one being (the possessor) rests in

something else, (but the Infinite cannot rest in something different

from itself)

 

25.

1. The Infinite indeed is below, above, behind, before, right and

left--it is indeed all this. Now follows the explanation of the

Infinite as the I: I am below, I am above, I am behind, before,

right and left--I am all this.

 

2. Next follows the explanation of the Infinite as the Self: Self

is below, above, behind, before, right and left - Self is all this.

He who sees, perceives, and understands this, loves the Self,

delights in the Self, revels in the Self, rejoices in the Self--he

becomes a Svarag, (an autocrat or self-ruler) he is lord and master

in all the worlds. But those who think differently from this, live in

perishable worlds, and have other beings for their rulers.

 

26.

1. To him who sees, perceives, and understands this, the spirit

(prana) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory

springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and

disappearance, food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration,

will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this

springs from the Self.

 

2. There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor

illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains

everything everywhere.

 

"He is one (before creation), he becomes three (fire, water, earth),

he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is

called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty."

When the intellectual aliment has been purified, the whole nature

becomes purified. When the whole nature has been purified, the memory

becomes firm. And when the memory (of the Highest Self) remains firm,

then all the ties (which bind us to a belief in anything but the Self)

are loosened.

 

...

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy

[forestofclarity]

If I may ask, what is the difference between pure, objectless consciousness and nothing at all?

 

pure objectless consciousness is one without any objects...if there is no object, where does the question of omniscience come from?

[dwai]

If I may ask, what is the difference between pure, objectless consciousness and nothing at all?

Pure objectless consciousness is alive. Nothing, as in nihilistic emptiness is not. But there are those who say "emptiness" and pure objectless consciousness are non-different

[3bob]

Apporaching this subject from the teachings of or related to Lord Nataraja could give people a better concept or handle compared to where some might just chuck it as mumbo jumbo or to far out to deal with...

 

A short quote:

 

"The Origin of the Nataraj Form:

An extraordinary iconographic representation of the rich and diverse cultural heritage of India, it was developed in southern India by 9th and 10th century artists during the Chola period (880-1279 CE) in a series of beautiful bronze sculptures. By the 12th century AD, it achieved canonical stature and soon the Chola Nataraja became the supreme statement of Hindu art.

 

The Vital Form & Symbolism:

In a marvelously unified and dynamic composition expressing the rhythm and harmony of life, Nataraj is shown with four hands represent the cardinal directions. He is dancing, with his left foot elegantly raised and the right foot on a prostrate figure — 'Apasmara Purusha', the personification of illusion and ignorance over whom Shiva triumphs. The upper left hand holds a flame, the lower left hand points down to the dwarf, who is shown holding a cobra. The upper right hand holds an hourglass drum or 'dumroo' that stands for the male-female vital principle, the lower shows the gesture of assertion: "Be without fear."

Snakes that stand for egotism, are seen uncoiling from his arms, legs, and hair, which is braided and bejeweled. His matted locks are whirling as he dances within an arch of flames representing the endless cycle of birth and death. On his head is a skull, which symbolizes his conquest over death. Goddess Ganga, the epitome of the holy river Ganges, also sits on his hairdo. His third eye is symbolic of his omniscience, insight, and enlightenment. The whole idol rests on a lotus pedestal, the symbol of the creative forces of the universe.

 

The Significance of Shiva's Dance:

This cosmic dance of Shiva is called 'Anandatandava,' meaning the Dance of Bliss, and symbolizes the cosmic cycles of creation and destruction, as well as the daily rhythm of birth and death. The dance is a pictorial allegory of the five principle manifestations of eternal energy — creation, destruction, preservation, salvation, and illusion. According to Coomerswamy, the dance of Shiva also represents his five activities: 'Shrishti' (creation, evolution); 'Sthiti' (preservation, support); 'Samhara' (destruction, evolution); 'Tirobhava' (illusion); and 'Anugraha' (release, emancipation, grace). The overall temper of the image is paradoxical, uniting the inner tranquility, and outside activity of Shiva"

Edited September 15, 2012 by 3bob

[dwai]

3Bob,

 

The Shaiva way is slightly different from Advaita Vedanta (or Kevala Advaita) and it resonates with me more (in that the universe is a result of the ecstacy of Shiva -- who is Satchidananda)...spanda?

[3bob]

Agreed, most of the various and well recognized "Hindu" sects have silghtly or more than slightly different ways... yet none should not get hung about such being that they are part of the very broad and wonderful world of Hinduism.

[stefos]

http://medhajournal....adic-terms.html

 

[/size][/font][/color]

[/size]

 

Hello,

 

When I read the New Testament...I find a "person" being structured in this way:

BTW, my first language is Greek not English...

 

Body (Greek word is Soma)

Soul (Greek word is Pseehee)

Spirit (Greek word is Pnevma)

Mind (Greek word is Nous)....a tool for the spirit and not a "fourth" member....like a groupie!

 

The body is the physical body

The soul is composed of feelings and mind

The spirit is the indestructible me, as it were...which I label with a name or title.

 

Atman = Brahman also has its' counterpart in the New Testament as such:

 

People are spirits = God is spirit...NOT a spirit? Why the differentiation? Everthing exists "in" God

The New Testament also states that "our spirit becomes one with his spirit, making us the children of God"

 

There is too much of an unwillingness by people to read and actually do comparative religious study on these matters folks. I've seen it from the academics, EXCEPT for Thomas Mcevilley's book "The Shape of Thought," down to the non-academics also.

 

Research this & tell me it isn't so.

Thank you,

stefos

Edited December 16, 2012 by stefos