I was somewhat surprised by the sentence: "And what will be the result of knowing and possessing Brahman as the supreme Ananda? It is that towards the knower and possessor of the Brahman is directed the desire of all creatures. In other words, he becomes a centre of the divine Delight shedding it on all the world and attracting all to it as to a fountain of joy and love and self-fulfilment in the universe."
In my humble view Brahman being infinite cannot be neither known nor possessed. Brahman is not an energy. What is named by the word "Brahman" in the text is a projection or a manifestation of the Divine Light that shines through the screen of the human mind acting as a mediator who transmutes the Divine Light (pure information) to communicate divine information by creating a materialised tool.
How does energy come into the picture? How do you presume to know what is named by the word "Brahman"? And whence did you get the notion of the Divine Light as "pure information"?
Sri Aurobindo speaks of the culmination of the teaching of the Upanishad, which is a great transcendence, an attainment of immortality by the soul when it passes beyond the mortal status. There is here no question of “the screen of the human mind,” for the human mind has long since given place to a consciousness that works by identity. The soul knows Brahman directly (not through the mind) by being one with Brahman. The soul has become one with Brahman and Brahman knows itself as That Delight.
Thank you for your questions and remarks that underline the need to define more clearly what we are talking about. Very briefly:
The way I see and express things is based on a lifelong experience studying what is named "matter" by manifested light such as the octave of visible light, x-rays and neutrons at international research institutions and, on the other hand, by learning about Vedic tradition and practicing yoga with an Indian master, Sri Tathata. Plus, of course, on reading many books and publications in journals or on the internet (such as yours) using the site academia.edu that is very helpful.
In my view the soul is the subtle quintessence of the human being, part of and one with Brahman. It is eternally connected with the infinite source of divine in-formation (that has no form yet) and, therefore, is independent of time and never exhibits a mortal status.
Mind, of course, acts subject to time, because it corresponds to the substrate, an energy into which human consciousness condenses or wraps information to create the rain of knowledge to be used during the manifestations of life (or lives). Through consciousness the human being gets access to the information of the soul when making decisions. If not, ignorance leads to an - often painful - experience telling the human being to change something in life. In this approach there is no such "attainment of immortality by the soul".
Then the soul is immortal, but the eye through which we "see" or the ear by which we "listen to" the soul and perceive its message is usually affected or screened by the ego, for example interpreted by "wishful thinking". Consciousness is the place where the "inform" is put into form and action and where the essence of the subsequent experience is distilled back into information to be used for the next cycle of creation.
On a higher level, we are conscious of being conscious. We may say that we evolve by seeing through the eye and listening through the ear of the heart, (following the poet Antoine de St. Exupéry).
Though my first answer was “nope,” I believe that I owe you some clarification on points of divergence. “Matter” (the concepts) derives its meaning from two sources. One is philosophical/metaphysical, the other is based strictly on what physical science can affirm with assurance. In my posts I try to maintain a clear distinction between these inputs. My philosophical understanding is indebted to Sri Aurobindo, my scientific understanding is based on four decades of critical examination of the scientific evidence (partly condensed into a textbook of quantum mechanics, second edition 2018), and my understanding of the bridge between the two inputs owes a great deal to Kant and Bohr.
My general impression of your framework of thought is that it is too materialistic and too scientistic, and more specifically that it extends scientific concepts far beyond the narrow domain to which they have meaningful application and thereby dumbs down the deep spiritual wisdom of the East.
I was somewhat surprised by the sentence: "And what will be the result of knowing and possessing Brahman as the supreme Ananda? It is that towards the knower and possessor of the Brahman is directed the desire of all creatures. In other words, he becomes a centre of the divine Delight shedding it on all the world and attracting all to it as to a fountain of joy and love and self-fulfilment in the universe."
In my humble view Brahman being infinite cannot be neither known nor possessed. Brahman is not an energy. What is named by the word "Brahman" in the text is a projection or a manifestation of the Divine Light that shines through the screen of the human mind acting as a mediator who transmutes the Divine Light (pure information) to communicate divine information by creating a materialised tool.
How does energy come into the picture? How do you presume to know what is named by the word "Brahman"? And whence did you get the notion of the Divine Light as "pure information"?
Sri Aurobindo speaks of the culmination of the teaching of the Upanishad, which is a great transcendence, an attainment of immortality by the soul when it passes beyond the mortal status. There is here no question of “the screen of the human mind,” for the human mind has long since given place to a consciousness that works by identity. The soul knows Brahman directly (not through the mind) by being one with Brahman. The soul has become one with Brahman and Brahman knows itself as That Delight.
Thank you for your questions and remarks that underline the need to define more clearly what we are talking about. Very briefly:
The way I see and express things is based on a lifelong experience studying what is named "matter" by manifested light such as the octave of visible light, x-rays and neutrons at international research institutions and, on the other hand, by learning about Vedic tradition and practicing yoga with an Indian master, Sri Tathata. Plus, of course, on reading many books and publications in journals or on the internet (such as yours) using the site academia.edu that is very helpful.
In my view the soul is the subtle quintessence of the human being, part of and one with Brahman. It is eternally connected with the infinite source of divine in-formation (that has no form yet) and, therefore, is independent of time and never exhibits a mortal status.
Mind, of course, acts subject to time, because it corresponds to the substrate, an energy into which human consciousness condenses or wraps information to create the rain of knowledge to be used during the manifestations of life (or lives). Through consciousness the human being gets access to the information of the soul when making decisions. If not, ignorance leads to an - often painful - experience telling the human being to change something in life. In this approach there is no such "attainment of immortality by the soul".
Then the soul is immortal, but the eye through which we "see" or the ear by which we "listen to" the soul and perceive its message is usually affected or screened by the ego, for example interpreted by "wishful thinking". Consciousness is the place where the "inform" is put into form and action and where the essence of the subsequent experience is distilled back into information to be used for the next cycle of creation.
On a higher level, we are conscious of being conscious. We may say that we evolve by seeing through the eye and listening through the ear of the heart, (following the poet Antoine de St. Exupéry).
Hoo boy! But you do you.
Yeah! Any other comment ?
Though my first answer was “nope,” I believe that I owe you some clarification on points of divergence. “Matter” (the concepts) derives its meaning from two sources. One is philosophical/metaphysical, the other is based strictly on what physical science can affirm with assurance. In my posts I try to maintain a clear distinction between these inputs. My philosophical understanding is indebted to Sri Aurobindo, my scientific understanding is based on four decades of critical examination of the scientific evidence (partly condensed into a textbook of quantum mechanics, second edition 2018), and my understanding of the bridge between the two inputs owes a great deal to Kant and Bohr.
My general impression of your framework of thought is that it is too materialistic and too scientistic, and more specifically that it extends scientific concepts far beyond the narrow domain to which they have meaningful application and thereby dumbs down the deep spiritual wisdom of the East.
That’s all I will say here and hereon.