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?
Brahman is the ultimate "eternally, constant" reality, while the observed universe is a different kind of reality but one which is "temporary, changing"
Maya in various orthodox Hindu schools. Maya pre-exists and co-exists with
Brahman—the Ultimate Reality, The Highest Universal, the Cosmic Principles.
Atman: the ultimate reality In addition to the concept of
Brahman, Hindu metaphysics includes the concept of
Atman—or Self, which is also considered ultimately real. Those that consider
Brahman and
Atman as same are monist or pantheistic, and
Advaita Vedanta, later
Samkhya and
Yoga schools illustrate this metaphysical premise. In schools that equate
Brahman with
Atman,
Brahman is the sole, ultimate reality.
Maya: the perceived reality 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. 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. Brahman as an ontological concept Brahman, along with Self (
Atman) are part of the ontological premises of Indian philosophy. 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
Ajivikas hold that there exists "a Self".
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. 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. 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. The
Carvaka school denied
Brahman and
Atman, and held a materialist ontology.
Brahman as an axiological concept Brahman and
Atman are key concepts to Hindu theories of
axiology: ethics and aesthetics.
Ananda (bliss), state Michael Myers and other scholars, has axiological importance to the concept of
Brahman, as the universal inner harmony. Some scholars equate
Brahman with the highest value, in an axiological sense. The axiological concepts of
Brahman and
Atman is central to Hindu theory of values. 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. 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. The axiological theory of values emerges implicitly from the concepts of
Brahman and
Atman, states Bauer. Ignorance is to assume it evil, liberation is to know its eternal, expansive, pristine, happy and good nature. 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.
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: किं कारणं ब्रह्म कुतः स्म जाता जीवाम केन क्व च संप्रतिष्ठाः। अधिष्ठिताः केन सुखेतरेषु वर्तामहे ब्रह्मविदो व्यवस्थाम्॥ ||१||{{Blockquote| "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? 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. कस्मिन् नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति ॥३॥ तस्मै स होवाच - - द्वे विद्ये वेदितव्ये इति ह स्म यद् ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति परा चैवापरा च ॥ ४॥ {{Blockquote| "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)." 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| 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. 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 &
avidya (ignorance) and the relationship between the two, leading to variant schools like
Kashmiri Shaivism & others.
Brahman as a soteriological concept: 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), 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. 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. ==Hindu schools of thought==