5

I would like to know whether the ultimate consciousness is finite or infinite.

Can anyone know the supreme being completely or even for the liberated souls, there would be something still they should learn about the supreme being?

Also, what does it mean to learn completely about him?

  1. Is it understanding how he pervades the universe?
  2. Is it understanding all of his deeds/powers?
LightAchala
  • 4,274
  • 12
  • 39
  • 65
user12458
  • 4,347
  • 9
  • 33
  • 61
  • 3
    what does it take to enjoy the sweetness of sugar? Is it necessary to analyze how many sugar canes can yield how much of sugar? Is it identifying the germination mechanism of a sugar cane and finding out the optimum time of growth for sugar cane? Is it visiting different sugar cane production mills? Which of the three give the satisfaction or complete experience about sugar? None. Just go ahead and taste the sugar. That is the ONLY thing that can give the taste of its sweetness. – Sai Dec 11 '14 at 19:04
  • 3
    Similarly the only way to enjoy the Glory of God is to EXPERIENCE Him. Understanding 'how' he pervades and all his glories is use only for the curious minded. The Jnana Yogis try to experience Him by BEING Him, while the Bhaktas try to experience Him by BEING His. That is it. Aspire to experience Him, and that is what knowing him really means. Just as how you 'know' sugar is sweet, by tasting it, rather than reading a hundred scriptures, or listening to hundred people. The former is much better and is a direct knowledge of sugar. Nothing can equal that dear friend. All the best – Sai Dec 11 '14 at 19:08

3 Answers3

5

Infinite and non-infinite are both qualities, upadhis. Qualities can only arise in maya. Describing the ultimate consciousness as infinite is like describing the ocean by the outline of the seashore. The Ultimate is neither infinite nor is it non-infinite.

The Mandukya Upanishad (VII.) says: "Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, no that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self [in the three states], It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss, and non-dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman, and this has to be realized."

'uninferable' - attributes such as existence, knowledge, infinity are not positive attributes of Turiya, They only indicate that Turiya is other than non-existence, non-consciousness, non-infinity. To make an inference requires a common feature, which presupposes an object more than one. Turiya is one without a second (ekamvadvitiyam); it is therefore uninferable. There is nothing in maya that can infer Turiya. All that can be said of It is neti, neti, not this, not this.

Swami Vishwananda
  • 24,140
  • 2
  • 34
  • 78
  • @@Swami - If so, how do you explain "Taittiriya Upanisad 2.2.2 which reads as "Satyam jnanam anantam Brahman" or Reality, Knowledge and Infinity is Brahman." –  Dec 12 '14 at 13:02
  • 1
    @Krishna Please check your reference. In the two versions of the Taittiriya that I have, both show only 1 verse in Part II, Chapter 2. Neither shows a 2nd verse. – Swami Vishwananda Dec 13 '14 at 04:39
  • @Krishna I found the verse you referenced. In one version it is II. 1. 3. in another it is II. 1. 1. The short answer to your question is this. First, infinity does not mean spatial infinity. Spatial distance only exists in maya. In the context of this verse, infinity means that which is not separated from anything. This in in agreement with the Chandogya U. (VII. xxiv. 1.) "That is the infinite in which one does not know anything else. And that in which one knows anything else is limited." – Swami Vishwananda Dec 13 '14 at 10:28
  • @@Swami- "That is the infinite in which one does not know anything else." What do you mean by this? –  Dec 13 '14 at 15:27
  • @Krishna - See my comment again. I think you mean to say what does the Chandogya U. mean. What it means is that the non-dual Brahman is only aware of the non-dual Brahman. It is not aware of anything else. There is nothing else for it to be aware of. It is only aware of Brahman. There is no separateness as there is only One. As there is no separateness, therefore it is infinite. – Swami Vishwananda Dec 14 '14 at 08:14
  • @@Swami Vishwananda -- you say that "..It is not aware of anything else. There is nothing else for it to be aware of. It is only aware of Brahman." But in the previous comment for Chandogya U (Vii.xxiv.1.) , "....And that in which one knows anything else is limited." So, once, you know, that there only brahman, how do say anything else is limited ? because, by saying so, you are accepting that there there is/was something else other than brahman also. "That anything" never existed, right, as per advaita? –  Jan 05 '15 at 12:54
  • Yes, 'that anything' being the world never existed. The world that we see is in reality only Brahman. It is like a mirage in the desert. If you do not know it is a mirage, you think it is real. Once you know it is a mirage, you know it never was and is not real. Concepts like 'creation' and other things only arise in maya, within the confines of time, space, and causation, within the mirage. They do not arise in Brahman. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 07 '15 at 05:19
  • @@Swami Vishwananda -- But, the statement "..And that in which one knows anything else is limited." still means you know, that some thing was existing right, whether it mirage or not is a different thing..So, you mean to say that even after becoming brahman as per advaitic you still can distinguish between existence and non-existence..This would lead to a paradox, isn;t it? that means there was something called non-existence.. –  Jan 07 '15 at 05:42
  • No. You said "whether it mirage or not is different thing" - you cannot say this. A mirage does not in reality exist, it is only a mirage. If you are at the surface of the sun, is there any shadow? All is light, in all directions. For most souls, when Brahman is realized, all knowledge of maya ceases forever and the body ceases. A a few great souls retain the body for the good of others and to teach others. For them, maya is a shadow, a mirage, at all times they see Ultimate Consciousness pervading everything. The world appears as a shadow. They are not fully merged in Brahman. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 08 '15 at 08:20
  • @@Swami Vishwananda - The reason i said "whether it mirage or not is different thing" to avoid the discussion teeing away in a different direction what mirage is etc...But, it still doesn't answer "..And that in which one knows anything else is limited." means that some thing was existing right, So, you mean to say that even after becoming brahman as per advaitic you still can distinguish between existence and non-existence. If, so it is no more advaita – Krishna 2 days ago –  Jan 09 '15 at 10:16
  • You misunderstand my answer. A person who has become Brahman has no knowledge of existence/non-existence. All is. The others in my last comment have not fully merged - to use an analogy - some hear the sound of the surf breaking on the shore, some smell the salt water, some see the ocean, but do not plunge into it. Anyone who fully plunges does not come back. Ramakrishna used the example of the salt doll. A salt doll went to measure the depth of the ocean. When it went into the water, it dissolved. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 11 '15 at 10:55
  • dear swami - You say the salt is dissolved in ocean, but the saltness is retained.It doesn't go away, sir. –  Jan 12 '15 at 06:46
  • analogies work only one way. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 13 '15 at 07:57
  • @@Swami Vishwananda - Wonderful. Expected it. I heard the same thing from a well known philosopher when some one was pestering him with questions. Jokes apart, it doesn't solve the dichotomy. –  Jan 13 '15 at 10:06
  • The apparent dichotomy is solved, but not in 600 word comments. Read Sankaracharya's Upadesa Sahasri or Gaudapada's Karika for a detailed refutation to your argument. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 13 '15 at 10:40
  • @Krishna 1/2 Picture this. There is brahman (pure and unlimited) and there is jeeva (limited). Between these two is a screen. As long as the screen(avidya) exists, jeeva and its intellect and perception is always limited. Now, let us go back to first principles. Before, the existence of time or space or creation, the original brahman existed and there was nothing else. Sankalpa to create was then born of brahman. This is his first sakti. –  Jan 15 '15 at 14:49
  • @Krishna 2/3 Now, jeeva is covered by avidya and brahman is covered by mAya. However, brahman is ever aware of its satichidananda nature. One understands the infinity only when the screen is lifted. For brahman, the screen does not have to be lifted. And jeeva becomes realises brahman when his avidya screen is lifted and he never loses connect with brahman. In order to lift the screen of maya also, one needs to go through maha pra-laya. –  Jan 15 '15 at 14:53
  • @Krishna 3/3 Not sure what your quarrel with advaita is. So attaining it may happen in stages but it stands that we are all born of brahman whether we are able to experience brahman or not. When you experience it, you can still be aware of maya but not be driven or controlled by it. Or, you can destroy all maya and attain asti-bhati-priyam state. –  Jan 15 '15 at 14:56
  • @Krishna regarding your comment on saltiness and ocean, you forget that the ocean is originally salty, so adding another spoonful will not make it saltier. Does adding 10 to infinity make infinity greater? This is a simple maths rule we learnt in primary school. What happens is the spoonful ceases to exists separately and its only identity is the salty sea. –  Jan 15 '15 at 14:58
  • @moonstar- What is your problem with non advaita philosophies?..You know, as per advaita their is only brahman that is real...If, that is the case what is maya and avidya? Is it different from brahman or same as brahman? ...Now, coming to ocean, water and salt metaphor, simple school chemistry says, Ocean water consists of Water, H2O and Salt, NaCl, which are two different constituents bybthemselves, unless you have discovered some thing path breaking which the entire scientifuc community is not aware of –  Jan 17 '15 at 15:56
  • @moon star- Moreover, i said saltness remains, it doesnt fade..There is no absolute loss of identitity or cessation of existence...there is still difference that is maintained even if salt is dissolved in ocean. whether you like it or not or follow it or not is a different issue.. –  Jan 17 '15 at 15:59
  • @Krishna Did I come across as having a problem with non advaita philosophies in the comments above? You are free to please yourself with your biases and tunnel-vision. It is futile to try and explain parOksha, aparOksha and ananya to someone that is combative about their beliefs. I am done with this discussion and my original attempt to add some more detail to help your understanding since you raised questions. –  Jan 17 '15 at 17:43
  • @moonstar2001 - Yes, it being a democratic country you are also free to profess your own thought and belief based on your own myopic views. I am not interested in explaining to you or to anybody, anything for that matter. I raised a few queries to Swami Vishwananda and he has provided his views. I have provided an answer referring to views of three principle acharyas and i have not been judgemental about it. Moreover, it was you who had first said "@Krishna 3/3 Not sure what your quarrel with advaita is". Please do follow your myopic visions. With this i cap this discussion with you. –  Jan 19 '15 at 06:20
2

For your question 'Can anyone know the supreme being completely', if talking about scriptures, we can find one such reference in Shiva Purana. There is a story in Rudra Samhita of Shiva Purana, where once Sage Narad does a very deep penance, and he gets equal to Parabramha. But then after being awake he became proud and started praising himself by using the words 'Aham Bramhasmi' meaning that 'I am Parabramha now'. Lords then played a trick on him, after which he realizes his mistake. So, moral of the story is that: 1. Even after knowing the supreme being, you can still be out of ultimate consciousness and therefore prone to mistakes. 2. Supreme being is still supreme being, you can try equal him, but when you actually realize you will know that he is still above all and you are just nothing in front of him.

Aby
  • 10,103
  • 22
  • 71
  • 143
1

Quoting from a book called ‘Principal Upanishads” - by Dr.Anantha Rangachary which based on the sanskrit commentary of Sri Rangaramanuja muni (16th century)

The author refers to Anandavalli section (Anandamaya Vidya) of Taittiriya upanishad and provides the following meaning for "Anantham", for the aphorism

"Satyam Jnanam anatham brahma"

The author says "the Anadavalli which expounds the nature of supreme reality, the goal and the way is introduced with the words

“the knower of the brahman attains the highest" (Brahmavidhapnoti param).

Bramhavid means one who meditates upon Brahman which is infinitely great by its nature and also on account of its qualities.

Meaning of Anantham:

The word “Anantham” signifies that it is not limited spacially, temporally or with reference to a substance.

This is here, not elsewhere is the form of “desaparicheda”

It is now, not at any other time is the form of “Kalaparicheda”

This is not this” is “Vastuparicheda”.

So, Brahman has “sarvavastu samanadhikaranyarhatva” and so is without any limitations related to the substance.

This non-limited nature in respect of substance also means infinite excellence of qualities on account of which it is without an equal or a superior.

The meaning of the word “Anantham” also means the infinite nature of its auspicious qualities.

So, the Vedas claim too-that he knows the Lord’s greatness to be unknowable. This is borne out by the Anandavalli vAkya

“YatO vAchO nivartantE, aprApya manasA saha”

Veda Vakyas, which set out to describe fully at least one attribute of the Parama Purusha , return vanquished, unable to fathom the full depth of each auspicious quality.

As per Ramanujacharya, Brahman is defined as anantham or infinite because it is omniscient, it exists at all time and it pervades all other objects in the universe. This charaterestic of Brahman distinguishes it from the nitya jivas or the eternally free souls because the later are monadic in character (Anu), whereas brahman is Vibhu or all pervasive.

For Madhvacharya, the term anantam or infinity means that which is not conditioned by space, time and gunas (desakalaguna aparichinnatvam).

So, as per the Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya, BRAHMAN is Qualified by Satyatva, Jnanatva and Anatatva.

As per Shankaracharya, the three terms convey the bramasvarupa, i.e. Brahman doesn't possess these characteristics, but it is itself reality, pure knowledge and infinite.

So, as per Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya, in a nutshell, the only way of comprehending the ParamAtmA’s grandeur is to realize that it is beyond comprehension, being infinite on characharacter.

For more details refer to Philosophy of Upanishads by Dr.S.M.Srinivasachari

Community
  • 1