Is there a point to belief in a non-conceptual Brahman?

[Rainbow Mage]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi- wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite possibly. But matter of belief, despite often being treated as if they were a collective decision, are actually very individual in nature.

If we are talking about religious practice proper, it is a given that some people will indeed believe in a literal Brahman. That should be expected, respected and dealt with constructively.

Regardless of the insistence of some, it is ultimately not at all important whether Brahman exists as such. Far more meaningful is what kind of response the practice and belief causes.

 

[Valjean]

Intentional belief or disbelief has little to do with Samadhi. Samadhi is a neurological phenomenon; a sort of persistent, psychotomimetic seizure.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

Samadhi is meditative absorption. It's not dependent on what one believes, though the experience might well be interpreted in different ways according to one's beliefs and assumptions.

 

[George-ananda]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi- wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

I don't think I understand the question (but I want to understand it). First: What do you mean by 'non-conceptual Brahman'?

 

[George-ananda]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi- wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

Belief in Brahman means our core is eternal consciousness. Disbelief in Brahman would lead to a materialist worldview. Very different beliefs.

 

[atanu]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi- wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

Actually, what is important is Śraddhā.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śraddhā

 

[atanu]

Wide opened is the door of the Deathless to all who have ears to hear; let them send forth faith [saddhā] to meet it.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Actually, what is important is Śraddhā.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śraddhā

Thanks for the link

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi - wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

The goal is understanding life and working of the universe, the search for 'the truth'. For some people, the search ends in Brahman (understood in various ways, there is no single ideology). Some take it as Vishnu, others as Krishna, some as Shiva, Mother Goddess too (Adi Shakti, Durga). Some take it as the Supreme Soul from which all souls emanate and return. A few (like me) take it to be physical energy constituting all things in the universe. For me, the latest in science is important because it helps me to refine my views - Higgs Boson, Gravity Waves, etc.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi- wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

Incidentally, the belief in Brahmin and the experience of Brahmin, if you must call it that, are worlds apart. Until you renounce both, that is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman - no? ..
Incidentally, the belief in Brahmin and the experience of Brahmin, if you must call it that, are worlds apart. Until you renounce both, that is.

Brahman (in strict advaita/non-duality), otherwise also has no image. All things in the universe are 'IT' (not just images - it is not like man in Christianity being created in the image of God). Brahman exists uninterrupted whether we discuss it on not. The discussions are about trying to know the truth, understanding the nature of Brahman, the constituting substrate of all things in the universe. Like the beginning statement in Baudhayana's 'Brahmasutra' - 'Athāto Brahma jijnāsā' (Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman). http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-01.html

How can one renounce Brahman when one himself is 'it'?

 

[crossfire]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi- wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

By non-conceptual Brahman, do you mean like "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders​

 

[Rainbow Mage]

By non-conceptual Brahman, do you mean like "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." of the Tao Te Ching chapter 1?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders​

That would seem to be a similar idea.

 

[Bhairava]

Thats a lot of words. Its non conceptual cause its an energetic experience and has nothing to do with conceptuality besides being the source of it; everything is made of energy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would like your help with this please, dharmic seekers. It occurs to me, that if non-conceptual Brahman is the goal in striving for samadhi - wouldn't disbelief in Brahman and Brahman without conception be virtually the same?

In disbelieving in Brahman there would be no images, ideas, or obstructing feelings tacked onto Brahman- no? Wouldn't the kind of unobstruction that disbelief brings actually be like just living Brahman/letting Brahman flow?

What is 'non-conceptual Brahman as a goal in striving for samadhi'?

If we do not understand the scheme of the universe, then we go through the various steps Yama (abstentions), Niyama (observances), Asana (posture), Pranayama (breath control), Pratyahara (abstraction, sensual withdrawal), Dharana (concentration), Dhyana (contemplation) and finally Samadhi (merging consciousness with the object of meditation, the question), try to get the answer. The answer to the question is the goal - who, why, how, when, where, etc. As for Brahman, it constitutes us and every thing else in the universe without any exception. Why does one need to search for it?

You are most welcome not to believe in this (advaitic, non-dual scheme). There are other schemes with personal and non-personal God/Gods (as in polytheism)/Goddesses (as in Hinduism and many other pagan religions). Whatever floats your boat.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Is there a point to belief in a non-conceptual Brahman?

No.