I happen to go thru certain finer blog on Vedic scriptures and found that some comments of the people who made them, were real thinking, but required counter comments and accordingly made those comments as “KR”. My knowledge is poor yet they may be the productive sense. Welcome.
Therefore the saying "The knower of Brahman is (becomes) Brahman" -- Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati! The understanding of Brahman (i.e the absolute) must also be absolute, the person who understands must also be absolute, and the means of understanding must similarly be absolute. Since this is not possible, we can infer that Brahman cannot be understood in the relative sense.
The following verse (attributed to Krishna in Bhagavad Gita) describes the same thing within the metaphor of a Vedic yajna: "The sacrifice is to Brahman, the sacrificial act itself is Brahman, the performer is Brahman, the offering made in the sacrifice is also Brahman, and the object of doing the sacrifice is similarly Brahman".
brahmārpaṇaṃ brahma havir brahmāgnau brahmaṇā hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyaṃ brahma karma samādhinā (Bhagavad Gita 4.24)
The above verse is based on the allegorical meaning contained in the Puruṣa sūkta (Rigveda 10.90), it will take a long time to explain that.
However please also note that no one can understand Brahman because one can only understand things by discriminating/differentiating the subject from other object. Brahman does not fit into the subject or object mould and cannot be differentiated from or compared with anything else, since non-duality does not allow comparison or contrast; there is nothing else to compare with because brahman is nirvisesha (undifferentiated).
*** Yājñavalkya: Just as you cannot see the seer of the seeing, hear the hearer of the hearing, or understand the understander of the understanding, or experience the experiencer of the experience, one cannot "know" the Atman, since it is the substratum of all that is knowable. It is not an object like a cow or a horse; hence it cannot be defined or understood. It is the absolute reality, apart from which everything else is just stupidity and uselessness. It cannot be reduced to "an understanding"
It may take a few days, or several years (30 years is the average, I found). But then, at the end of it, you realize that you are chasing your own tail. That there is no person associated with the “I thought”. That the identification with a name and a person is itself the Ego. That this ego or Jeevatma is a non-existent phantom that one has closely identified with by a gross mistake.
And now that you know that you don’t exist as a separate person, the ego falls away. And you wonder who was doing the self-enquiry. You dance in joy having found the ultimate truth, and want to propagate the good news to the ignoramuses of the world who are suffering unnecessarily. And then it hits you (that the ego is trying to assert itself in this process), and you laugh at the situation.
My comment:KR Is not revealing the experience is an unattached action without any expectation or fruition?
There is NO THING and it appears are EVERYTHING, including one's own body, mind, ideas, self-identification, other things in the so-called world, etc. YOU ARE THAT NOTHING-EVERYTHING.
My comment KR : nothing everything is a wrong nomenclature; If brahmam is truth and others are maya , then there exists a truth and cant sya everything is nothing; on the contrary after an ordeal of realizing that virtually there is nothing and therefore nothing in everything, then you have nothing to disclose; then its falsity cheating the ignorant.
This is what Srikrishna says in the very first part of Gita Chapter 2. We all suffer because we identify with a personality and a consequent doer ship/enjoyment ship where none exists. We want to improve ourselves, solve problems from the ego point of status. And that is the root of all problems.
My comment KR: This is what Buddha thought as right and started a religion different from sanathana dharma; it’s erroneous to say that there is “no doer”; “Doer is “Paramatma”; “doing” is “action”; “executor- doer)” is “Jeevatma”. When the executor doer does not expect the fruition, and acts on behalf of the doer, action do not bring misery or sufferings. Personality, ego, Id sub-ego all do exists, along with the Athma, Mind, manas, yet refraining away from the action. “NA MAMA” is the key word to stay away from the actions of Karma as well as on site sufferings.
So relax, and start doing the Drik-Drishya vivechanam : i.e., classify/ identify everything that you encounter as the Subject (Self) or the Object. You will find that you are ever the subject, and cannot be objectified. And this subject has no identity, no properties, no shape, and no limits. It is the Brahman that is talked about.
MY COMMENT KR : ( ?)
At the end of it all, don’t expect to have attained any special powers (siddhis), or have a special halo around your head. Enlightenment is really very mundane, and cannot ever be attained by any person (individual entity). It is the erasure or effacement of the personality that is called enlightenment.
MY COMMENT KR: (THEN BUDDAH AND MAHAVEER ARE NOT ENLIGHTENED?)
One more word: enlightenment happens for no reason, not because of any efforts. Because there is no person doing anything. Conceptually it is said that Athma Sakshatkara (Enlightenment) is obtained by Guru's grace. But that again is untrue, since once you know that you are no person, the guru also is seen to be no person, and a non-doer.
(My comment KR: Again wrong. Gita as well as Upanishads, say guru takes your hand nearer to upasana.)
An enlightened person cannot carry on with his life as before, because he "the person" does not exist anymore, so unless he has perfected the art of fooling himself, he can never continue as before just with the conviction that he is not a person, for a person keeps himself convinced that he is not a person. Then he is not enlightened in the first place.
MY COMMENT: kr MISUNDERSTANDING. 2ND 4TH 18TH CHAPTERS GITA, “EVEN ONE WHO REACHED STATUS BRAHMAM HAS TO ACT CONTINUOSLY AND TO ACT PERSONIFICATION IS REQUIRED VIZ YOU PLAY WITH THE CHILD, IN CHILDISH MANNER, KNOWING FULLY WELL YOU ARE NO CHILD.
All is one? You have now entered the realm of mathematics by your use of numbers by claiming all is one. So it should make mathematical sense. Is All = one mathematically? I don’t think so. Even if it is, what is the big deal? What you think of as "one" is thought of by others as "all", and if the all is one, and one is all, enlightenment is a waste. One doesn’t need to get realized to claim all is one. Enlightenment is not an assertion of facts. It is unknowable and cannot be reduced to such equations as all = 1.
MY COMMENT KR ENLIGHTMENT MAKES YOU SEE “ATHMA IN EVERY SPECIES AND ITS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE.”
if Brahman is really the one and all of us is non-persons, and then it's Brahman who needs to get enlightened, for Brahman didn’t get non-dual realization. It therefore follows that Brahman is not the one, Brahman is not singular, and Brahman is not even countable, and all cannot be one. This is one of the cardinal delusions that self-proclaimed advaitins get into, by claiming that All = Brahman = One, so all = Brahman, Brahman = one, and one = all. Advaita is not about the unity of all things, nor is it about identifying everything or anything with Brahman.
MY COMMENT KR: I FIND DELUSION HERE. ADVAITHAM IS TWO, OR TWO IN ONE OR ONE AND THE SAME,TILL THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS OF THE REALIZATION. HAVE YOU SEEN THE PAINTING OF LEONOR DE VINCE, TWO HANDS SO CLOSE YET TOO FAR? PARAMATHMA AND JEEVATHMA ARE INSIDE US, IN ALL SPECIES, AND THE VEIL HAS O BE PIERCED TO BECOME ONE. ADVAITHA INCLUDES IN ITSELF ,VISIHTADVAITHAM AS WELLAS DVAITHAM. AHAM BRAMASMI WILL BY CONTINUOUS ACTION WILL ENTAIL YOU TO ADVAITHAM WHICH IS ULTIMAE.TIRUMOOLAR SAID THAT “MARATHIL MARAINDADU MAMADA YANAI, MARATHAI MARAITHATHU MAMADA YANAI, ‘”. YOU LOOK AT IT ANY WAY AND WHEN ONE KNOWS BOTH MARAM AND YANAI ARE ONE AND THE SAME, ADVAITHAM EXPOSES THE REALISATION.
Brahman (and the real I) is beyond concepts, and cannot be grasped by the mind. Enlightenment consists is doing all the enquiries (yes, average 30 years for all spiritual seekers who were following Nisargadatta), the mind losing its battle, understanding its own limitation, and just slumping and surrendering. The sense of ego just drops at that point, saranagathi happens, and nothing is the same ever after. All this is difficult to put in concepts that the mind can understand, and unless one goes through the process of enquiry, the mind will always try to understand, compare, conceptualize, grasp, etc. that something in which the mind itself is an appearance.
MY COMMENT KR :( GOING TOWARDS MADWA AND RAMANUJA, NOT ADI SANKARA)
MOM EKAM SARANAM VRAJA, IS REALISATION OF ONE AND ONLY TRUTH; THAT BRIGHT LIGHT, PARA BRAHMAM, BEYOND THE BRAHMAM; INACTIVE BRAHMAM HAS TO BE RE BORN; (CHANDOKYA UPANISHAD—TWO PATHS ARE CHOSEN, ONE COMIN BACK AND THE OTHER, “NO ONE HAD RETURNED BACK”) IMMATURED COMMENTATORS SAY KRISHNA IS SUPREME AND ONE HAS TO SURRENDER, LIKE THE SAYINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN PRECHERS. IT’S SPOKEN OUT OF POSSESSIVE ATTITUDE, ITS GOOD BUT NOT THE BEST.
No you, no world, no God, nothing. Know you, know world, and know God
MY COMMEN KR : HENCE PERHAPS FOR FEAR OF WRONG CONCEPTION OF SPREAD OF ATHIESM, KANDAVAR VINDILAR
Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what have you, are all trips in the wrong direction: they are all within the field of time.
( VIDE MY COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT MOM EKAM )
The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained, much less given expression to, by any man.
( MY COMMENT KR: QUANTUM THEORY OR THEORY OF RELATIVITY )
Once one advances by doing drik/drishya analysis and neti-neti, of negating oneself as not the body, not the mind, and not the person, there still remains the act of seeing, hearing, and so on. Now, this perception is done by the NOTHING, the beingness, or Brahman.
This could be termed Atmasakshatkara.
MY COMMENT KR: SO NOTHING IS ANY THINK-END OF THINKING SAT CIT ANANDA
But this is not the end of it. It is relatively easy to accept one's own absence, but very difficult to see that everything else is similarly the NOTHING that he himself is. This is the ultimate realization if there is one. And then one understands the statement Vaasudeva idam sarvam.This is true advaitic understanding.
MY COMMENT KR: AGAIN WRONG MENTIONING VASUDEVAM;IT IS INDECRIBABLE POORNAM. POORNAMIDAM SARVAM
Atma cannot be communicated, nor known directly, because, again, it remains the subject that cognizes thing, and never the other way
1. Deep misunderstanding. All subjects are ipso-facto objects. If there is one subject, then there is ipso-facto at least one object (like if there is night, there definitely is day; if there is joy, there is definitely sorrow; and so forth), which is called duality or relativity (dvaita). So you are advocating dvaita in the guise of Advaita, and not surprisingly, it has logical fallacies.
2. Cognition needs a cognizer (i.e a mind). Since atman is not a mind, it cannot cognize anything.
3. All cognizers can cognize themselves, because of the law of general relativity. Atman cannot cognize itself since it does not have the means of cognition. Further, the subject cannot be multiple; it should be one, only then is cognition of an object possible. Therefore atman can neither be a subject nor an object.
MY COMMENT KR : IT IS SUBJECTIVE OBJECT OR THE OBJECTIVE SUBJECT;THE PERCIEVER IS THE PERCIEVED; DRIK-DRISHYA VEDANTHAM