Brahman defined in Taittiriya Upanishad

[Polymath257]

Thanks for that. He's a likeable and articulate presenter.

As he went through the concepts of 'infinite in time, space, form' I kept thinking that everything fitted with my mass-energy hypothesis in its simple (ie monist) expression.

Only at one point, the tale of the demon in the pillar, did he attribute personality or purpose to Brahman, and that was a jocular side-reference.

But when we got to the proposition that consciousness, analogously with the unboundedness of external reality, is also unlimited in time, place and form, I thought that was a demonstrably inaccurate statement. The biochemical and bioelectrical phenomena of the brain that give us our consciousness are unique to the individual and account for the individual's humanity and sense of self; and the energy (as such) constituting those phenomena is not lost when we die. However, the complex pattern that produces consciousness is lost irretrievably. Whatever was capable of consciousness no longer exists for that individual ─ that pattern has not gone somewhere else, it's simply gone.

However, my understanding of the Vedanta position has taken a giant step forward, which is pleasing, so thank you again for providing the video.

Exactly. This seems to be rather close to pantheism at first. But identifying Brahman as being conscious, there seems to be a conceptual leap that is unjustified (as far as I can see).

 

[blü 2]

But (as I think I said last time too), I find the cumulative weight of the anecdotal, experimental and investigative evidence to be overwhelmingly in support of genuine phenomena suggesting consciousness without a physical brain despite the claims of those that have an entrenched dislike of such things.

And never the twain shall meet.

Interesting, ain't it.

But I don't have an entrenched dislike of such things, any more than I have an entrenched dislike of gods. I love the idea of teleporting a beer from the fridge without having to get up, or knowing which numbers are going to win tomorrow, or being able to attend the game clairvoyantly instead of shelling out for tickets. And I think the idea of a god who is kind and just and effectively benevolent is a most attractive thought.

It's just that I see no way for them to be real, not even a decent hint, on the available evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting, ain't it.

But I don't have an entrenched dislike of such things, any more than I have an entrenched dislike of gods. I love the idea of teleporting a beer from the fridge without having to get up, or knowing which numbers are going to win tomorrow, or being able to attend the game clairvoyantly instead of shelling out for tickets. And I think the idea of a god who is kind and just and effectively benevolent is a most attractive thought.

It's just that I see no way for them to be real, not even a decent hint, on the available evidence.

Well, I'll separate God/gods (which is more abstract) from the down-to-earth paranormal experiences of man that suggest we only generally see the surface of a mindboggling deeper reality. The experimental, investigative and a million and one strong anecdotal experiences (including my own) has me believing it is more reasonable than not to believe in the paranormal. And I fully consider the arguments of the non-believers before concluding that.

 

[George-ananda]

But identifying Brahman as being conscious, there seems to be a conceptual leap that is unjustified (as far as I can see).

I don't think you can ever get to Brahman understanding by conceptual thought alone as you may be trying to do. Brahman understanding comes from experiential experiences and then crudely described in the world of words and concepts for the logical mind.

A guru that I respect said to not take his word for Brahman but to experience it yourself and then you will know. Well, for most of us this is not going to occur in our first lengthy meditation effort, so we take what these gurus/rishis say as a hypothesis. And for me, ruminating with my logical mind and all things considered, I find the hypothesis well more reasonable than any materialistic or dualist-theistic hypothesis I have encountered.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think you can ever get to Brahman understanding by conceptual thought alone as you may be trying to do. Brahman understanding comes from experiential experiences and then crudely described in the world of words and concepts for the logical mind.

A guru that I respect said to not take his word for Brahman but to experience it yourself and then you will know. Well, for most of us this is not going to occur in our first lengthy meditation effort, so we take what these gurus/rishis say as a hypothesis. And for me, ruminating with my logical mind and all things considered, I find the theory well more reasonable than any materialist or dualistic-theistic hypothesis I have encountered.

But again, experience can be misleading, especially on these types of things. How is it *tested*? What *other* verifications are there of the basic experience? if I have an experience while meditating, how does that validate anything other than certain experiences can be had while meditating?

 

[George-ananda]

But again, experience can be misleading, especially on these types of things. How is it *tested*? What *other* verifications are there of the basic experience? if I have an experience while meditating, how does that validate anything other than certain experiences can be had while meditating?

Validation of subjective experiences to others is not possible. That is why the guru said don't take his word for it. It is a hypothesis to us. The guru says, when we EXPERIENCE Brahman, we will KNOW. It is to me. all things considered, the most reasonable hypothesis I have heard.

 

[Polymath257]

Validation of subjective experiences to others is not possible. That is why the guru said don't take his word for it. It is a hypothesis to us. The guru says, when we EXPERIENCE Brahman, we will KNOW. It is to me. all things considered, the most reasonable hypothesis I have heard.

The problem is that is not what *can* produce knowledge, except that we can have certain experiences. But the experiences alone cannot give us knowledge outside of those experiences, right?

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that is not what *can* produce knowledge, except that we can have certain experiences. But the experiences alone cannot give us knowledge outside of those experiences, right?

There is a position in eastern thought that the ultimate can only be experienced but not grasped by the thinking conceptual mind. As soon as you come down to the level of the thinking mind, the experience of ultimate reality is lost and can only be crudely discussed. All things considered, I believe this is likely to be the case.

 

[Polymath257]

There is a position in eastern thought that the ultimate can only be experienced but not grasped by the thinking conceptual mind. As soon as you come down to the level of the thinking mind, the experience of ultimate reality is lost and can only be crudely discussed. All things considered, I believe this is likely to be the case.

Fair enough. At that point, though, I lose interest.

 

[atanu]

How is this different than pantheism? Can we identify Brahman with existence itself--the universe throughout space and time?

It is different from pantheism. It is like air pervades all forms yet is untouched by the forms.

 

[George-ananda]

Fair enough. At that point, though, I lose interest.

Fair enough. And to me, we’re then finally getting to the only issues that really matter to me.

 

[`mud]

hey Atanu,
I get lost easily....describe the `forms` that don't touch anything ?
Are these `forms` a matter of existence or just an expression.
Like I said....lost in the forms !

 

[Polymath257]

It is different from pantheism. It is like air pervades all forms yet is untouched by the forms.

How is that different than identifying Brahman with 'existence itself', which is a form of pantheism?

 

[sealchan]

I urge @blü 2 and others to Kindly indulge me and patiently view this video. It may come as boring to some. It may come as eye opener to some others.

FYI...added to my YouTube watchlist.

 

[George-ananda]

How is that different than identifying Brahman with 'existence itself', which is a form of pantheism?

I think that is a good question and comes down to that mysterious thing called 'consciousness'. Brahman is described as pure consciousness (sat-cit-Ananda = being-awareness-bliss). The universe is consciousness at play. Consciousness gets into that mystery of how a collection of parts subjectively experiences as a collective single unit.

With some schools of pantheism I don't really see how they significantly differ from physicalist-atheism.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that is a good question and comes down to that mysterious thing called 'consciousness'. Brahman is described as pure consciousness (sat-cit-Ananda = being-awareness-bliss). The universe is consciousness at play. Consciousness gets into that mystery of how a collection of parts subjectively experiences as a collective single unit.

With some schools of pantheism I don't really see how they significantly differ from physicalist-atheism.

I've played with a variant where interactions within the universe are thought of as information transfer and thereby a form of consciousness, which seems to get closer to your idea of Brahman.

The main issue I have with pantheism is that it seems like a use of the term 'God' that doesn't quite fit unless we can consider the universe throughout space and time to be conscious (which I don't think it can).

 

[George-ananda]

I've played with a variant where interactions within the universe are thought of as information transfer and thereby a form of consciousness, which seems to get closer to your idea of Brahman.

The main issue I have with pantheism is that it seems like a use of the term 'God' that doesn't quite fit unless we can consider the universe throughout space and time to be conscious (which I don't think it can).

Here's my understanding of the Advaita view in a nutshell:

Brahman (pure consciousness) is the only thing that exists (not matter). As a creative play/drama; Brahman imagines separating itself from itself by identifying sparks of itself with matter (maya=illusion) and playing the game of individualizing (separate experiencing) and then returning back to its source. Matter is then just props in the play and is really just thoughts of Brahman in its creative dream. All the universe is conscious (much in ways different from human-type consciousness)

Why? Why do humans do creative endeavors with no practical function?

 

[blü 2]

Well, I'll separate God/gods (which is more abstract) from the down-to-earth paranormal experiences of man that suggest we only generally see the surface of a mindboggling deeper reality. The experimental, investigative and a million and one strong anecdotal experiences (including my own) has me believing it is more reasonable than not to believe in the paranormal. And I fully consider the arguments of the non-believers before concluding that.

I think we appreciate each other's standpoints. I put more weight on evidence and demonstration, you on the authenticity of your experiences. But it's good to compare notes, even vigorously, and to see what happens to ideas when they're tested in the arena. The important thing is to keep looking and thinking.

 

[George-ananda]

I think we appreciate each other's standpoints. I put more weight on evidence and demonstration, you on the authenticity of your experiences. But it's good to compare notes, even vigorously, and to see what happens to ideas when they're tested in the arena. The important thing is to keep looking and thinking.

That's fine, but one clarification. I do not put that much weight on my personal experiences (they have been I believe real but not dramatic) but much more so on the countless experiences of others and particularly those that I believe are more gifted than me in experiencing beyond the physical realm.

 

[atanu]

How is that different than identifying Brahman with 'existence itself', which is a form of pantheism?

I will remind that Brahman is not only the existence, it is infinite and conscious too.

There is no place or or no time it is not and and there is no break in its consciousness. All three conditions have to be met. And it is to be realised in self. That is a tall order.

We the ego-selves become waking body, dreaming body, and sleeping ‘no body’. Self-Brahman is that which does not slumber and does not change but is the essence of knowing of these three states. As per Upanishads that is to be known.

A common metaphor used is that of a cinema screen and pictures playing on it. Brahman, the true You, is that screen that is truth-consciousness-infinite. In Brahman there is no world. Brahman never becomes anything. The ego I, OTOH, is conscious as a mere reflection. It becomes waking body, dream body, or 'no body''.