Meaning of the word Brahman Root of the word: The word brahman comes from the root brha

or brhi, which means knowledge, expansion, and all-pervasiveness. It is that existence which alone e xists, and in which there is the appearance of the entire universe. Not subject to change: Brahman means the absolute reality, that which is eternal , and not subject to death, decay, or decomposition. In English, we speak of omn ipresence or oneness. This is the principle of the word brahman. Not a proper name: Brahman is not a proper name, but a Sanskrit word that denote s that oneness, the non-dual reality, the substratum underneath all of the many names and forms of the universe. Brahman is somewhat like the difference between the word ocean, and the specific ocean called Pacific Ocean. The word brahman i s like ocean, not Pacific Ocean. Brahman is not a name of God. These contemplati ons neither promote nor oppose any particular religious concept of God. Immanance and transcendence: One may also choose to think of brahman in theologi cal terms, though that is not necessary. Within that perspective, the scholars s peak of two principles: immanence and transcendence. Immanence is described as t he divinity existing in, and extending into all parts of the created world. In t hat sense, the Mahavakyas can be read as suggesting there is no object that does not contain, or is not part of that creation. It's really indescribable, as it is beyond form: However one chooses to hold the word brahman, it is very useful to remember that brahman is often described as indescribable. For convenience sake, it is said that brahman is the nature of ex istence, consciousness, and bliss, though admitting that these words, too, are i nadequate. Seek direct experience: The real meaning comes only in direct experience Definition - Professor V. Krishnamurthy (The word 'Brahman' is a noun in Sanskrit, in the neuter gender, not to be confu sed with the masculine noun 'brahma' which is the name of the first of the triad of personal Gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Nor to be confused with bhrama, mea ning complexity, error or mistake. 'brahman' originates from the root verb 'BRRI H' to grow or enlarge.) Nothing that exists is without a name and a form. But all that exists has a comm on factor that subsists as a substratum in all. Just as all gold ornaments have gold as their commonality of content, just as all clay toys, though distinguisha ble by their name and form, are not distinguishable as clay, just as the movie s creen is the base for all the drama that is superimposed on it while the screen itself is unsullied by any of the turmoil that 'takes place' 'on' it - so also a substratum, subtler than space, permeates everything in the universe and everyt hing 'takes place' 'in' it, without itself being affected. That, being the commo n content of all that have name and form, has no name or form for itself. The Ve das speak of it as 'That' or also as 'brahman'. This is the supreme ultimate Rea lity, the reality that never changes. (To emphasize the supremeness, it is also called 'para-brahman', 'para' meaning 'supreme'). All our knowledge of Brahman comes from the scriptures and so is indirect (Sansk rit: 'parokSha'). It is however known, as direct (Sanskrit: 'aparoksha') knowled ge by realisation and insight, once everything that is transient is transcended. It is not known otherwise; it is that which makes known what is known. By itsel f it is not an object of knowledge to be known. It is the very Consciousness (Sa nskrit: 'cit', also 'caitanyaM') that cognises knowledge. There is no higher Rea lity outside that. Knowledge of absence of Consciousness implies the existence o f Consciousness. While everything is presented to Consciousness, the nature of C

onsciousness is to be its own light. A lighted lamp needs no other light to illu mine it. brahman is only one of its kind. Also, It is 'one only' and so is bereft of part s. There is 'no second' to brahman; it is non-dual. Any presence or awareness of duality makes the awareness finite. It does not possess any quality. For, to di fferentiate between brahman as a bearer of a quality and the quality which is at tributed to it, is to introduce a difference in the absoluteness of non-duality. Hence it is impersonal (Sanskrit: nirguNa). It cannot be classified by category or species, action or function, quality or relation. It cannot be indicated as this or that. When the epithets 'Supreme Person' (Sanskrit: puruShottama) or 'Su preme Self' (Sanskrit: paramAtmA) are used for brahman, the supremeness only ind icates that everything is transcended, like time, space, causation and personifi cation. It cannot be conceived of even by the intellect which functions only in the duality of subject and object and so it cannot be described as either. If hu man intellect has however to contend with one such, it can only do so with what then should be renamed, 'brahman with attributes' (Sanskrit: saguNa brahman). On e then descends from Absolute Consciousness to consciousness of the Absolute. Fo r meditation, the silence that follows the three syllables in the pronunciation of the word 'aum' ( OM) has been uniquely recommended as representing brahman wi th or without attributes. The only thing that can be predicated about brahman is that It exists. The Vedas choose only to declare this existence and call it, Existing Entity (Sanskrit: ' sat'). It is therefore the being of every being. The conclusion of advaita is th at the universe of plurality is not a manifestation of brahman, but only its app earance. Plurality is a matter of words only; it has no existence independent of brahman. If plurality were absolutely real, then the enlightened, whose experie nce of unity is deliverance from the 'cycle of births and deaths' (Sanskrit: saM sAra), would have had a beginning of that deliverance which then must inevitably have also an end! Nothing that the human mind can think of can be affirmed of brahman. It transcen ds all that can be described in finite terms and words. Its essential incomprehe nsibility forces us to either use all superlatives as in 'Most revered Light of lights'; 'Truth of truths'; 'It is smaller than the smallest, bigger than the bi ggest'; 'It is that which is supreme, than which there is nothing higher, nothin g more minute, nothing more comprehensive'; or to use all negations, like 'Neith er gross, nor minute, neither short, nor long, in short, neither this, nor that' . All such statements of brahman have to be combined and still the description w ould not be complete. The statement that brahman rises above thought and word does not mean that it is empty and/or non-existent. The negation of predicates affects only the 'whatnes s' of the judgement and leaves the 'thatness' untouched. It only means that fini te expressions can do no justice to the infinite that is brahman. And since it i s infinite, it is Bliss (Sanskrit: 'Ananda') itself; because absence of bliss wo uld imply imperfection and incompleteness. It is actionless, because action is i ntended to fulfil a desire; but brahman is a homogeneous whole and so has no def iciency. And, the most important fact, according to advaita, is that this transcendental reality, brahman, and the reality immanent as the innermost core of all the livi ng, the Atman, are both the same! In other words, Atman is the Self as the imman ent principle and brahman is the same Self as the transcendent. That is why the existence of brahman the Self, from which everything emanates, can never be ques tioned, though that of a super-Designer can be. The Consciousness 'I am' cannot be denied. This essential identity is the apex message of advaita.