Brahman defined in Taittiriya Upanishad

[Polymath257]

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.

I really don't see that as such a tall order. But then, I'm accustomed to viewing cosmology from the viewpoint of spacetime: all of space and all of time. When you say there is no place or time where it is not, that simply means it is limited to where there is space and time: our spacetime manifold. Now, whether spacetime (the cosmos) can reasonably be said to be conscious is my only dispute.

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.

Very familiar with the imagery. I've even experienced it myself. I just don't think it is valid. It is just one more illusion. At least, as far as I can see.

/E: I'm also very accustomed to dealing with infinite quantities. I just don't find them that amazing any longer.

 

[atanu]

I really don't see that as such a tall order. But then, I'm accustomed to viewing cosmology from the viewpoint of spacetime: all of space and all of time. When you say there is no place or time where it is not, that simply means it is limited to where there is space and time: our spacetime manifold. Now, whether spacetime (the cosmos) can reasonably be said to be conscious is my only dispute.

Brahman, is infinite, not constrained by space, time, or objects. Space-time evolves and dissolves in Brahman. Whatever you know directly or through report is illuminated by consciousness.

Very familiar with the imagery. I've even experienced it myself. I just don't think it is valid. It is just one more illusion. At least, as far as I can see.

/E: I'm also very accustomed to dealing with infinite quantities. I just don't find them that amazing any longer.

You have dealt with concepts of infinity. You have not dealt with the enormity of 'you' as the Infinity.

 

[blü 2]

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.

I read that and instantly wondered, What exactly are they experiencing? Which parts of their brains are active at those times, associated with what sensations / emotions / apparent phenomena? What can we infer from that? Where is the attempt to get to grips with what's actually going on?

Because if well-founded research exists, I'd be fascinated to read it.

 

[George-ananda]

I read that and instantly wondered, What exactly are they experiencing? Which parts of their brains are active at those times, associated with what sensations / emotions / apparent phenomena? What can we infer from that? Where is the attempt to get to grips with what's actually going on?

Because if well-founded research exists, I'd be fascinated to read it.

Well, when you say parts of the brain and activity I think you are looking in the wrong direction. It’s actually quieting of the brain that heads things in the direction of deeper insight. In Near Death Experiences for example the lesser or even absence of higher brain activity produces the deepest experiences. This is another opposite evidence to materialistic philosophy.

 

[atanu]

I read that and instantly wondered, What exactly are they experiencing? Which parts of their brains are active at those times, associated with what sensations / emotions / apparent phenomena? What can we infer from that? Where is the attempt to get to grips with what's actually going on?

Because if well-founded research exists, I'd be fascinated to read it.

Sir. When I began this thread, I requested readers (especially you) to put away the materialistic paradigm for some time. I do not know whether that happened or nor, but I believe that it did not.

When we examine the brain state of a dreaming man, we are not examining the subject and its actual state. When I examine brain state of a dreaming person, I am actually examining objects of my waking state. This is a fundamental point in respect to understanding of Brahman.

Definition of Brahman-Self indicates that it is true at all time periods. But, when you use the objects of a particular state to analyse another state, it is already violating that definition. Objects of waking state vanish in dream and objects of dream vanish in sleep. One may say that objects of waking come back when one wakes up. But the objects of waking die with one's death.

No such vanishing is defined for Brahman.

Let me use two metaphors to illustrate this. Water exists in 3 forms. How can we say that water is only the liquid? Still better example is that of gold being fashioned into many shapes that are known by different names, yet essentially those shapes are not different from gold. Destruction of one form does nothing to gold.

A child who has never seen a cinema screen, while watching a movie, cannot imagine what the screen is like. In the intermission, when the movie stops, he knows "Oh, this is the screen". Almost same with us. While the mind is playing with objects, we cannot see the consciousness that supports discernment of the objects. We enter into that limitless-partition-less consciousness in deep sleep. But alas, our mind is conditioned to think that the objects that we see is the consciousness. It is called mAyA in Vedanta. mAyA is the beginning less power of Brahman to appear multifold. Mind gets fooled. Brahman is only the Seer of the dream wherein the multiform world comes and goes.

So, it is said that Brahman is to be known as one's inner self, as the essence of discernment in all states of existence.

...

I am not saying that objective science has not progressed. It has progressed immensely. Yet, the fact remains that without the knowledge of the subject, man remains joy-less and life-less (it is true). A well rounded research on the subject is to be conducted by the self on the self. There cannot be any other way.

Even this thread is a waking state object that is a mere pointer.

 

[blü 2]

Well, when you say parts of the brain and activity I think you are looking in the wrong direction. It’s actually quieting of the brain that heads things in the direction of deeper insight. In Near Death Experiences for example the lesser or even absence of higher brain activity produces the deepest experiences. This is another opposite evidence to materialistic philosophy.

But these experiences can't be shown to relate to reality ─ in your NDE you may meet Grandpa at the shining gates but he never tells you where his lost will may be found, or which horse is going to win on the weekend, or how to lead the country to peace and equality. So where does the value lie?

 

[Polymath257]

Brahman, is infinite, not constrained by space, time, or objects. Space-time evolves and dissolves in Brahman. Whatever you know directly or through report is illuminated by consciousness.

Yes. I listened to the video. But not being constrained by space, time or object means that Brahman is everywhere, everywhen, and everything. That identifies Brahman with the universe throughout space and time.

Yes, whatever *I* know is 'illuminated' by consciousness, but that doens't mean everything in the universe is conscious, let alone that the universe itself (Brahman) is conscious.

You have dealt with concepts of infinity. You have not dealt with the enormity of 'you' as the Infinity.

How do you know I haven't dealt with it by experiencing it and rejecting it?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, when you say parts of the brain and activity I think you are looking in the wrong direction. It’s actually quieting of the brain that heads things in the direction of deeper insight. In Near Death Experiences for example the lesser or even absence of higher brain activity produces the deepest experiences. This is another opposite evidence to materialistic philosophy.

Do you have evidence from actual brain scans to show it is a quieting of the brain? Or is that only the interpretation of the experience? In NDE's, we expect the worst conditions to produce the more dramatic reconstructions by the revived brain. And we *know* that the brain commonly 'fills in' missing information, often incorrectly.

 

[atanu]

Yes. I listened to the video. But not being constrained by space, time or object means that Brahman is everywhere, everywhen, and everything. That identifies Brahman with the universe throughout space and time.

Yes, whatever *I* know is 'illuminated' by consciousness, but that doens't mean everything in the universe is conscious, let alone that the universe itself (Brahman) is conscious.

I never said that the universe was conscious. As per Advaita Vedanta, which I am following in this thread, universe as such is neither real nor unreal. It is mAyA. It is like images of sun on many water bodies. Sun is real.

How do you know I haven't dealt with it by experiencing it and rejecting it?

Since Brahman is one without a second, one could possibly not reject it.

YMMV.

 

[Polymath257]

I never said that the universe was conscious. As per Advaita Vedanta, which I am following in this thread, universe as such is neither real nor unreal. It is mAyA. It is like images of sun on many water bodies. Sun is real.

OK, I was primarily going from the video. And, from what I saw, the first part came very close to identifying Brahman with all of space and all of time and all of objects. Brahman is everywhere and everywhen and everything. How is that NOT identifying Brahman wit the universe? The universe is, after all, one, it is not 'limited' by space, time, or object since it *is* all of space, all of time, and all objects.

It's just that the universe is not conscious.

Since Brahman is one without a second, one could possibly not reject it.

YMMV.

OK, I guess I would say that I don't find it to be a useful way of looking at things. Again, it seems much closer to pantheism to me than anything else.

 

[`mud]

My YMMV stopped at `God` but my `spirit` does go on,
I hope !

 

[`mud]

I doubt that the Cosmos' conscious give's a crap about consciousness,
if it does have a conscious.

 

[`mud]

I always get confused by the comparison of Brahma and Brahman.
Or...is Brahman a way to observe Brahma's observations.
Does Brahma control Brahman beliefs ?
Or...is Brahman beliefs a form of worship of Brahma ?
Or...all of the above ?
Just curious,
It seems to be a good place to visit,
but...I wouldn't want to live there.

 

[George-ananda]

But these experiences can't be shown to relate to reality ─ in your NDE you may meet Grandpa at the shining gates but he never tells you where his lost will may be found, or which horse is going to win on the weekend, or how to lead the country to peace and equality. So where does the value lie?

The value added comes from a class of NDEs called 'Veridical NDEs'. In these cases, people have knowledge of our here and now physical world that they could not reasonably have learned through normal channels.

And then the bigger question. Why in those states are there richer than life experiences in the first place,

But, never the twain shall meet on the NDE either.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you have evidence from actual brain scans to show it is a quieting of the brain?

There have been brain scans done on meditating monks/yogis, yes. That area is not my area of expertise but very interesting things were found.

In NDE's, we expect the worst conditions to produce the more dramatic reconstructions by the revived brain. And we *know* that the brain commonly 'fills in' missing information, often incorrectly.

In fact that very similar issue was addressed by me five minutes ago to blu 2 (another materialist proponent). Here was my response:

The value added comes from a class of NDEs called 'Veridical NDEs'. In these cases, people have knowledge of our here and now physical world that they could not reasonably have learned through normal channels.

And then the bigger question. Why in those states are there richer than life experiences in the first place,

But, never the twain shall meet on the NDE either.

 

[atanu]

OK, I was primarily going from the video. And, from what I saw, the first part came very close to identifying Brahman with all of space and all of time and all of objects. Brahman is everywhere and everywhen and everything. How is that NOT identifying Brahman wit the universe? The universe is, after all, one, it is not 'limited' by space, time, or object since it *is* all of space, all of time, and all objects.

If you consider all aspects of the verse cited in OP and the video, you will see that brahman cannot be separate from anything and yet it cannot be any object. It has to be unborn, uncreated, and homogeneous ... and distinct from the phenomena. Intrinsically, there cannot be any subject-object division, though.

It's just that the universe is not conscious.

Yes.

OK, I guess I would say that I don't find it to be a useful way of looking at things. Again, it seems much closer to pantheism to me than anything else.

I do not know why you get the 'pantheism'.

Advaita Vedanta is very different from 'pantheism'. It is called called 'non dualism' (and not monism). The equivalent philosophical-psychological-scientific term that describes the system best is 'Dual Aspect Monism'.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/408b/55a0421223fbe8217a34d7621fd5ebbc349f.pdf
Double-aspect theory - Wikipedia

 

[George-ananda]

I do not know why you get the 'pantheism'.

Advaita Vedanta is very different from 'pantheism'. It is called called 'non dualism' (and not monism). The equivalent philosophical-psychological-scientific term that describes the system best is 'Dual Aspect Monism'.

Maybe I need to change my religion in my title box on this forum, oh wise one
It now says: Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
Maybe it should say: Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist

However, I deal mostly on here with westerners who think in terms of Theist, Atheist or Agnostic.

Theist means dualistic Theism which is not quite right

Atheism is usually interpreted as materialist which is definitely not right

Agnostic means you don't which of the above two you are. And that is not quite right either because I am decidedly neither of those.

Then if I say I am a 'non-dualist' maybe one in two-hundred people will really understand what that means. So I say pantheist as the best fit. But now in your above quote you put a bullet through the term 'pantheism' although I think the term is still the best imperfect fit.

 

[atanu]

Maybe I need to change my religion in my title box on this forum, oh wise one
It now says: Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
Maybe it should say: Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist

However, I deal mostly on here with westerners who think in terms of Theist, Atheist or Agnostic.

Theist means dualistic Theism which is not quite right

Atheism is usually interpreted as materialist which is definitely not right

Agnostic means you don't which of the above two you are. And that is not quite right either because I am decidedly neither of those.

Then if I say I am a 'non-dualist' maybe one in two-hundred people will really understand what that means. So I say pantheist as the best fit. But now in your above quote you put a bullet through the term 'pantheism' although I think the term is still the best imperfect fit.

Haha. Actually what is there in these terms and concepts? Advaita is advaita - non dual. A second term should not be used to name it.

The waking body, NDE experiences, and the non dual Brahman cannot be assimilated in pantheism. In Pantheism, there is no existence of unchanging Brahman. In Pantheism, God is one with the world. But in advaita the world is a myth. Do we then want to say that Brahman is a myth? No.

Note for @George-ananda : The blue highlighted part has been added for more clarity.

@Polymath257 says that he finds this discussion/conception of Brahman not a useful way of looking at things.

I want to underscore that the main utility is in the realisation of the beginning-less truth “That Thou Art”. And there is no utility greater than that.

 

[`mud]

OK... I guess I am a Pantheist that doesn't believe in any `gods`.
I am Earth's Stuff from where I came, and to where I will go.
~
Now Atanu...Explain the difference between Brahma and Brahman, please.
As to #53

 

[atanu]

OK... I guess I am a Pantheist that doesn't believe in any `gods`.
I am Earth's Stuff from where I came, and to where I will go.
~
Now Atanu...Explain the difference between Brahma and Brahman, please.
As to #53

Brahman has already been defined in the OP as Satyam, Jnanam, and Anantam. Brahmasutra says the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction proceed from the Brahman.

BrahmA on the other hand, is the creator male deity of the Hindus. Deities of maintenance and destruction are said to be Vishnu and Shiva respectively.