Brahman

==Discussion==
The concept ''Brahman'' has a lot of undertones of meaning and is difficult to understand. It has relevance in [[metaphysics]], [[ontology]], [[axiology]] ([[ethics]] & [[aesthetics]]), [[teleology]] and [[soteriology]].

===Brahman as a metaphysical concept===

''Brahman'' is the key metaphysical concept in various schools of Hindu philosophy. It is the theme in its diverse discussions to the two central questions of [[metaphysics]]: what is ultimately real, and are there principles applying to everything that is real?<ref>Edward Craig (1998), [https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/metaphysics/ Metaphysics], Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, {{ISBN|978-0415073103}}, Accessed (13 June 2015)</ref> ''Brahman'' is the ultimate "eternally, constant" reality, while the observed universe is a different kind of reality but one which is "temporary, changing" ''[[Maya (illusion)|Maya]]'' in various orthodox Hindu schools. Maya pre-exists and co-exists with ''Brahman''—the Ultimate Reality, The Highest Universal, the Cosmic Principles.<ref name=aegough>Archibald Edward Gough (2001), ''The Philosophy of the Upanishads and Ancient Indian Metaphysics'', Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0415245227}}, pages 47–48</ref>

==== Atman: the ultimate reality ====
{{anchor | Atman }}

In addition to the concept of ''Brahman'', Hindu metaphysics includes the concept of [[Atman (Hinduism)|Atman]]—or Self, which is also considered ultimately real.<ref name=aegough/> The various schools of Hinduism, particularly the [[dualism (Indian philosophy)|dual]] and non-dual schools, differ on the nature of Atman, whether it is distinct from ''Brahman'', or same as ''Brahman''. Those that consider ''Brahman'' and ''Atman'' as distinct are theistic, and [[Dvaita Vedanta]] and later [[Nyaya]] schools illustrate this premise.<ref>Roy W. Perrett (Editor, 2000), ''Indian Philosophy: Metaphysics'', Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, {{ISBN|978-0815336082}}, page xvii;<br>K. K. Chakrabarti (1999), ''Classical Indian Philosophy of Mind: The Nyaya Dualist Tradition'', State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791441718}} pages 279–292</ref> Those that consider ''Brahman'' and ''Atman'' as same are monist or pantheistic, and [[Advaita Vedanta]], later [[Samkhya]]<ref>John C. Plott et al (2000), ''Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age'', Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120801585}}, pages 60-62</ref> and [[Yoga (philosophy)|Yoga]] schools illustrate this metaphysical premise.<ref>[[Julius Lipner]] (2004), ''The Hindu World'' (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge, {{ISBN|0415215277}}, pages 22–23</ref><ref>Laurie Patton (2004), ''The Hindu World'' (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge, {{ISBN|0415215277}}, pages 45–50</ref><ref>J. D. Fowler (1996), ''Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices'', Sussex University Press, {{ISBN|978-1898723608}}, pages 135–137</ref> In schools that equate ''Brahman'' with ''Atman'', ''Brahman'' is the sole, ultimate reality.<ref name="acdas"/> The predominant teaching in the Upanishads is the spiritual identity of Self within each human being, with the Self of every other human being and living being, as well as with the supreme, ultimate reality ''Brahman''.<ref>William Indich (2000), ''Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta'', Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120812512}}, page 5</ref><ref>Paul Hacker (1978), Eigentumlichkeiten dr Lehre und Terminologie Sankara: Avidya, Namarupa, Maya, Isvara, in Kleine Schriften (Editor: L. Schmithausen), Franz Steiner Verlag, Weisbaden, pages 101–109 (in German), also pages 69–99;<br>[http://www.vedantaadvaita.org/AdvaitaVedanta_3.htm Advaita Vedanta - A Bird's Eye View], Topic III: ''Philosophy of Advaita Vedanta'', D. Krishna Ayyar (2011)</ref>

==== Maya: the perceived reality====
{{anchor | Maya }}

In the metaphysics of the major schools of Hinduism, ''Maya'' is perceived reality, one that does not reveal the hidden principles, the true reality—the ''Brahman''. ''Maya'' is unconscious, ''Brahman-Atman'' is conscious. Maya is the literal and the effect, ''Brahman'' is the figurative ''Upādāna''—the principle and the cause.<ref name=aegough/> Maya is born, changes, evolves, dies with time, from circumstances, due to invisible principles of nature. Atman-''Brahman'' is eternal, unchanging, invisible principle, unaffected absolute and resplendent consciousness. Maya concept, states Archibald Gough, is "the indifferent aggregate of all the possibilities of emanatory or derived existences, pre-existing with Brahman", just like the possibility of a future tree pre-exists in the seed of the tree.<ref name=aegough/>

==== Nirguna  and Saguna Brahman ====
{{anchor | Saguna | Nirguna | Saguna and nirguna | Saguna and Nirguna | Saguna and nirguna brahman | Saguna and Nirguna Brahman }}

Brahman, the ultimate reality, is both with and without attributes. In this context, [[Para Brahman]] is formless and [[omniscient]] [[Ishvara]] - the god or [[Paramatman]] and [[Om]], where as [[Saguna Brahman]] is manifestation or [[avatara]] of god in personified form.

While Hinduism sub-schools such as Advaita Vedanta emphasize the complete equivalence of ''Brahman'' and ''Atman'', they also expound on ''Brahman'' as ''[[saguna Brahman]]''—the ''Brahman'' with attributes, and ''[[nirguna Brahman]]''—the ''Brahman'' without attributes.<ref name="dx.doi.org">{{Cite journal | doi=10.7825/2164-6279.1250|title = Hierarchies in the Nature of God? Questioning the "Saguna-Nirguna" Distinction in Advaita Vedanta| journal=Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies| volume=14 |issue=7 |pages=1–6|year = 2001|last1 = Rambachan|first1 = Anantanand|doi-access=free}}</ref> The ''nirguna Brahman'' is the ''Brahman'' as it really is, however, the ''saguna Brahman'' is posited as a means to realizing ''nirguna Brahman'', but the Hinduism schools declare ''saguna Brahman'' to be a part of the ultimate ''nirguna Brahman''<ref name=williamw/> The concept of the ''saguna Brahman'', such as in the form of [[avatar]]s, is considered in these schools of Hinduism to be a useful symbolism, path and tool for those who are still on their spiritual journey, but the concept is finally cast aside by the fully enlightened.<ref name=williamw>William Wainwright (2012), [http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/concepts-god/ Concepts of God], ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', Stanford University, (Accessed on: 13 June 2015)</ref>

===Brahman as an ontological concept===
''Brahman'', along with Self (Atman) are part of the ontological<ref>that is things, beings or truths that are presumed to exist for its philosophical theory to be true, and what is the nature of that which so exists?; see: Edward Craig (1998), [https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ontology/ Ontology], ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', {{ISBN|978-0415073103}}</ref> premises of Indian philosophy.<ref>Edward Craig (1998), [https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ontology/ Ontology], ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', {{ISBN|978-0415073103}}, Accessed (13 June 2015)</ref><ref>Stephen H. Phillips (2001), [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1400164 Could There Be Mystical Evidence for a Nondual Brahman? A Causal Objection], Philosophy East and West, Vol. 51, No. 4, pages 492–506</ref> Different schools of Indian philosophy have held widely dissimilar ontologies. [[Buddhism]] and [[Carvaka]] school of Hinduism deny that there exists anything called "a Self" (individual ''Atman'' or ''Brahman'' in the cosmic sense), while the orthodox schools of Hinduism, [[Jainism]] and [[Ajivika]]s hold that there exists "a Self".<ref>K. N. Jayatilleke (2010), ''Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge'', {{ISBN|978-8120806191}}, pages 246–249, from note 385 onwards;<br />Steven Collins (1994), ''Religion and Practical Reason'' (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791422175}}, page 64; Quote: "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ''[[Ātman (Hinduism)|ātman]]'' is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no Self, no unchanging essence.";<br />Edward Roer (Translator), {{Google books|3uwDAAAAMAAJ|Shankara's Introduction|page=2}}, pages 2–4<br />Katie Javanaud (2013), [https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_The_Buddhist_No-Self_Doctrine_Compatible_With_Pursuing_Nirvana Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?], ''Philosophy Now''<br />John C. Plott et al (2000), ''Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age'', Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120801585}}, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism".</ref><ref>M. Prabhakar (2012), Review: An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, ''Philosophy in Review'', 32(3), pages 158–160</ref>

''Brahman'' as well the Atman in every human being (and living being) is considered equivalent and the sole reality, the eternal, self-born, unlimited, innately free, blissful Absolute in schools of Hinduism such as the [[Advaita Vedanta]] and [[Yoga (philosophy)|Yoga]].<ref name=barbarasca>Barbara Holdrege (2004), ''The Hindu World'' (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge, {{ISBN|0415215277}}, pages 241–242</ref><ref>Anantanand Rambachan (2014), ''A Hindu Theology of Liberation: Not-Two Is Not One'', State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-1438454559}}, pages 131–142</ref><ref>Ian Whicher (1999), ''The Integrity of the Yoga Darsana: A Reconsideration of Classical Yoga'', State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791438152}}, pages 298–300;<br>Mike McNamee and William J. Morgan (2015), ''Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Sport'', Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0415829809}}, pages 135–136, '''Quote''': "As a dualistic philosophy largely congruent with Samkhya's metaphysics, Yoga seeks liberation through the realization that Atman equals Brahman; it involves a cosmogonic dualism: purusha an absolute consciousness, and prakriti original and primeval matter."</ref> Knowing one's own self is knowing the God inside oneself, and this is held as the path to knowing the ontological nature of ''Brahman'' (universal Self) as it is identical to the Atman (individual Self). The nature of ''Atman-Brahman'' is held in these schools, states Barbara Holdrege, to be as a pure being (''sat''), consciousness (''cit'') and full of bliss (''ananda''), and it is formless, distinctionless, nonchanging and unbounded.<ref name=barbarasca/>

In theistic schools, in contrast, such as [[Dvaita Vedanta]], the nature of ''Brahman'' is held as eternal, unlimited, innately free, blissful Absolute, while each individual's Self is held as distinct and limited which can at best come close in eternal blissful love of the ''Brahman'' (therein viewed as the Godhead).<ref>Francis Clooney and Tony Stewart (2004), ''The Hindu World'' (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge, {{ISBN|0415215277}}, pages 166–167</ref>

Other schools of Hinduism have their own ontological premises relating to ''Brahman'', reality and nature of existence. [[Vaisheshika]] school of Hinduism, for example, holds a substantial, realist ontology.<ref>Randy Kloetzli and Alf Hiltebeitel (2004), ''The Hindu World'' (Editors: S. Mittal and G. Thursby), Routledge, {{ISBN|0415215277}}, page 554</ref> The [[Carvaka]] school denied ''Brahman'' and ''Atman'', and held a materialist ontology.<ref>Michael Myers (2000), ''Brahman: A Comparative Theology'', Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0700712571}}, pages 30–31</ref>

===Brahman as an axiological concept===
''Brahman'' and ''Atman'' are key concepts to Hindu theories of [[axiology]]: ethics and aesthetics.<ref>R. Prasad and P. D. Chattopadhyaya (2008), ''A Conceptual-analytic Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals, Concept'', {{ISBN|978-8180695445}}, pages 56–59</ref><ref>G. C. Pande (1990), ''Foundations of Indian Culture'', Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120807105}}, pages 49–50</ref> ''Ananda'' (bliss), state Michael Myers and other scholars, has axiological importance to the concept of ''Brahman'', as the universal inner harmony.<ref>Michael W. Myers (1998), [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1400017 Śaṅkarācārya and Ānanda], ''Philosophy East and West'', Vol. 48, No. 4, pages 553–567</ref><ref>Robert S. Hartman (2002), ''The Knowledge of Good: Critique of Axiological Reason'', Rodopi, {{ISBN|978-9042012202}}, page 225</ref> Some scholars equate ''Brahman'' with the highest value, in an axiological sense.<ref>T. M. P. Mahadevan (1954), [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397291 The Metaphysics of Śaṁkara], ''Philosophy East and Wes''t, Vol. 3, No. 4, pages 359–363</ref>

The axiological concepts of ''Brahman'' and ''Atman'' is central to Hindu theory of values.<ref>Arvind Sharma (1999), [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40018229 The Puruṣārthas: An Axiological Exploration of Hinduism], ''The Journal of Religious Ethics'', Vol. 27, No. 2, pages 223–256</ref> A statement such as 'I am Brahman', states Shaw, means 'I am related to everything', and this is the underlying premise for compassion for others in Hinduism, for each individual's welfare, peace, or happiness depends on others, including other beings and nature at large, and vice versa.<ref>J. L. Shaw (2011), [http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/comparativephilosophy/s1/Freedom-East-and-West-by-J-L-Shaw.pdf Freedom: East and West], ''SOPHIA'', Vol 50, Springer Science, pages 481–497</ref> Tietge states that even in non-dual schools of Hinduism where ''Brahman'' and ''Atman'' are treated ontologically equivalent, the theory of values emphasizes individual agent and ethics. In these schools of Hinduism, states Tietge, the theory of action are derived from and centered in compassion for the other, and not egotistical concern for the self.<ref>Katherine L Tietge (1997), ''Ontology and Genuine Moral Action: Jñaña (Intuitive Perception) Ethics and Karma-Yoga in Sankara's Advaita Vedanta and Schopenhauer's On the Basis of Morality'', Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University (US), [http://philpapers.org/rec/TIEOAG Archive Link]</ref>

The axiological theory of values emerges implicitly from the concepts of ''Brahman'' and '''Atman'', states Bauer.<ref name=nancybauer/> The aesthetics of human experience and ethics are one consequence of self-knowledge in Hinduism, one resulting from the perfect, timeless unification of one's Self with the ''Brahman'', the Self of everyone, everything and all eternity, wherein the pinnacle of human experience is not dependent on an afterlife, but pure consciousness in the present life itself.<ref name=nancybauer/> It does not assume that an individual is weak nor does it presume that he is inherently evil, but the opposite: human Self and its nature is held as fundamentally unqualified, faultless, beautiful, blissful, ethical, compassionate and good.<ref name=nancybauer/><ref>Arvind Sharma (2000), ''Classical Hindu Thought: An Introduction'', Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0195644418}}, pages 57–61</ref> Ignorance is to assume it evil, liberation is to know its eternal, expansive, pristine, happy and good nature.<ref name=nancybauer>Nancy Bauer (1987), [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1399082 Advaita Vedānta and Contemporary Western Ethics], ''Philosophy East and West'', Vol. 37, No. 1, pages 36–50</ref> The axiological premises in the Hindu thought and Indian philosophies in general, states Nikam, is to elevate the individual, exalting the innate potential of man, where the reality of his being is the objective reality of the universe.<ref name=nikam/> The Upanishads of Hinduism, summarizes Nikam, hold that the individual has the same essence and reality as the objective universe, and this essence is the finest essence; the individual Self is the universal Self, and Atman is the same reality and the same aesthetics as the ''Brahman''.<ref name=nikam>N. A. Nikam (1952), A Note on the Individual and His Status in Indian Thought, ''Philosophy East and West'', Vol. 2, No. 3, pages 254–258</ref>

===Brahman as a teleological concept===
''Brahman'' and ''Atman'' are very important teleological concepts. [[Teleology]] deals with the apparent purpose, principle, or goal of something. In the first chapter of the [[Shvetashvatara Upanishad]], these questions are addressed. It says:

{{Blockquote|
<poem>
"People who make inquiries about brahman say:
What is the cause of Brahman? Why were we born? By what do we live? On what are we established? Governed by whom, O you who know Brahman, do we live in pleasure and in pain, each in our respective situation?
</poem>
|[[Shvetashvatara Upanishad]]|Hymns 1.1<ref name="poliv">Patrick Olivelle. (1998).[https://archive.org/download/TheEarlyUpanisads/The%20Early%20Upani%E1%B9%A3ads.pdf The Early Upaniṣads] New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref>}}

According to the Upanishads, the main purpose/meaning of anything or everything can be explained or achieved/understood only through the realization of the Brahman. The apparent purpose of everything can be grasped by obtaining the ''Brahman'', as the ''Brahman'' is referred to that when known, all things become known. 
{{Blockquote|
<poem>
"What is that my lord, by which being known, all of this becomes known?" 
Angiras told him, "Two types of knowledge a man should learn, those who know Brahman tell us — the higher and the lower. The lower of the two consists of the Rgveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda (...), whereas, the higher is that by which one grasps the imperishable (Brahman)."
</poem>
|[[Mundaka Upanishad]]|Hymns 1.1<ref name="poliv" />}}

Elsewhere in the Upanishads, the relationship between Brahman & all knowledge is established, such that any questions of apparent purpose/teleology are resolved when the Brahman is ultimately known. This is found in the [[Aitareya Upanishad]] 3.3 and [[Brihadaranyaka Upanishad]] 4.4.17.

{{Blockquote|
<poem>
Knowledge is the eye of all that, and on knowledge it is founded. Knowledge is the eye of the world, and knowledge, the foundation. Brahman is knowing.
</poem>
|Aitereya Upanishad|Hymns 3.3<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.consciouslivingfoundation.org/ebooks/13/CLF-aitareya_upanishad.pdf|title=English translation of Aitareya Upanishad|website=Consciouslivingfoundation.org|access-date=26 January 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://esamskriti.com/essays/Aitareya-Upanishad.pdf|title=Aitareya Upanishad : Transliterated Sanskrit Text Free Translation & Brief Explanation|author=T.N. Sethumadhavan|website=Esamskriti.com|access-date=26 January 2019}}</ref>}}

One of the main reasons why Brahman should be realized is because it removes suffering from a person's life. Following on [[Advaita Vedanta]] tradition, this is because the person has the ability and knowledge to discriminate between the unchanging (Purusha; Atman-Brahman) and the ever-changing ([[Prakriti]]; maya) and so the person is not attached to the transient, fleeting & impermanent. Hence, the person is only content with their true self and not the body or anything else. Further elaborations of Brahman as the central teleological issue are found in Shankara's commentaries of the Brahma Sutras & his [[Vivekachudamani]].

In [[Brihadaranyaka Upanishad]] 3.9.26 it mentions that the atman 'neither trembles in fear nor suffers injury' and the [[Isha Upanishad]] 6-7 too talks about suffering as non-existent when one becomes the Brahman as they see the self in all beings and all beings in the self. The famous [[Advaita Vedanta]] commentator Shankara noted that [[Sabda Pramana]] (scriptural epistemology) & anubhava (personal experience) is the ultimate & only source of knowing/learning the Brahman, and that its purpose or existence cannot be verified independently because it is not an object of perception/inference (unless one is spiritually advanced, thereby it's truth becomes self-evident/intuitive) & is beyond conceptualizations. But he does note the Upanishads themselves are ultimately derived from use of the various pramanas to derive at ultimate truths (as seen in Yalnavalkya's philosophical inquires). All [[Vedanta]] schools agree on this. These teleological discussions inspired some refutations from competing philosophies about the origin/purpose of Brahman & [[Avidyā (Hinduism)|avidya]] (ignorance) and the relationship between the two, leading to variant schools like [[Kashmiri Shaivism]] & others.

===Brahman as a soteriological concept: Moksha===
{{Main|Moksha}}

The orthodox schools of Hinduism, particularly Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga schools, focus on the concept of Brahman and Atman in their discussion of [[moksha]]. The Advaita Vedanta holds there is no being/non-being distinction between Atman and Brahman. The knowledge of Atman (Self-knowledge) is synonymous to the knowledge of Brahman inside the person and outside the person. Furthermore, the knowledge of Brahman leads to a sense of oneness with all existence, self-realization, indescribable joy, and moksha (freedom, bliss),<ref>Anantanand Rambachan (1994), ''The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas'', University of Hawaii Press, pages 124–125</ref> because Brahman-Atman is the origin and end of all things, the universal principle behind and at source of everything that exists, consciousness that pervades everything and everyone.<ref>Karl Potter (2008), ''The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedānta Up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils'', Volume 3, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 210–215</ref>

The theistic sub-school such as Dvaita Vedanta of Hinduism, starts with the same premises, but adds the premise that individual Self and Brahman are distinct, and thereby reaches entirely different conclusions where Brahman is conceptualized in a manner similar to God in other major world religions.<ref name=mmyers/> The theistic schools assert that moksha is the loving, eternal union or nearness of one's Self with the distinct and separate Brahman ([[Vishnu]], [[Shiva]] or equivalent henotheism). Brahman, in these sub-schools of Hinduism is considered the highest perfection of existence, which every Self journeys towards in its own way for moksha.<ref>Betty Stafford (2010) "Dvaita, Advaita, And Viśiṣṭadvaita: Contrasting Views Of Mokṣa", ''Asian Philosophy'', pages 215–224</ref>