Brahman defined in Taittiriya Upanishad

[Polymath257]

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.

And doesn't that very well describe existence itself? The universe throughout space and time asn an entity?

Yes.



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

Pantheism as 'the universe is God'.

Monism, dualism, etc are words that don't seem significant to me. Is pressure of a different nature than matter? The question itself seems silly. The same for mind/matter.

 

[Polymath257]

Haha. You are correct. Actually what is there in these terms and concepts? But see, the waking body, NDE experiences, and the non dual Brahman are understood better from dual aspect monism viewpoint.

In Pantheism, there is no existence of unchanging Brahman.

@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.

Meh. Sorry, it just seems Alan Watt-ish and not really all that deep.

 

[atanu]

And doesn't that very well describe existence itself? The universe throughout space and time asn an entity?

No actually. Space-time is not conscious, as far as I know.

I will try to explain it from another perspective. In an Upanishad (and also in the Taittirya that is the subject of the OP) it is said: The person in the eye is same as the person in the sun.

Implication of the above to me is that the space-time and objects therein are in the same person of the nature of 'Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam' (Reality-Consciousness-Infinite).

{Note: I am not trying prove what I am saying of advaita vedanta is correct. I am sharing it as information.}

Pantheism as 'the universe is God'.

But Universe is a myth, as per Shankaracharya. It cannot be God.

 

[atanu]

Meh. Sorry, it just seems Alan Watt-ish and not really all that deep.

Well. I am not making any such judgement. If the knowledge "That Thou Art" helps anyone, it is good. Else just forget it.

 

[`mud]

hey Atanu
The more it is explained, the more I am confused !
Now...add in Nirvana please.
And then I will eat some grass, or bark or anything !
Going back to my Stuff, thank you.

 

[Polymath257]

No actually. Space-time is not conscious, as far as I know.

I will try to explain it from another perspective. In an Upanishad (and also in the Taittirya that is the subject of the OP) it is said: The person in the eye is same as the person in the sun.

Implication of the above to me is that the space-time and objects therein are in the same person of the nature of 'Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam' (Reality-Consciousness-Infinite).

And again, how is that any different than identifying the universe as conscious and having it all be the Godhead?

{Note: I am not trying prove what I am saying of advaita vedanta is correct. I am sharing it as information.}

But Universe is a myth, as per Shankaracharya. It cannot be God.

Well, the universe at a particular time is a myth. The idea of anything other than the universe (existence) is a myth. I just don't see the universe as a whole as being conscious. Of course, there is a sense in which *we* are the eyes of the universe, right? *We* are the universe becoming conscious. But this is also not quite right because it still focuses too much on time.

 

[atanu]

hey Atanu
The more it is explained, the more I am confused !
....
Going back to my Stuff, thank you.

That is very sorry state. If I am responsible then I beg for pardon. You are welcome to go back to stuff. I am not stopping you.

 

[atanu]

And again, how is that any different than identifying the universe as conscious and having it all be the Godhead?

Brahman has been defined as real. Universe is neither real nor unreal. It is myth. That is the difference. So, folks who cling to objects of world eventually suffer. OTOH, Brahman is our very nature. Knowledge of it liberates from all sufferings.

At another level, the difference between Brahman and the universe is the difference between seer and the seen.

Senses perceive the universe. Mind perceives the senses and their objects. The Brahman is the seer of the movement of mind (elation, depression, anger etc. etc.). The seer is not seen. Vedanta asks us to realise "That Thou Art".

Well, the universe at a particular time is a myth. The idea of anything other than the universe (existence) is a myth. I just don't see the universe as a whole as being conscious. Of course, there is a sense in which *we* are the eyes of the universe, right? *We* are the universe becoming conscious. But this is also not quite right because it still focuses too much on time.

There is a seer/knower of the universe. That is not a myth. Do you want to say that you are a myth?
...

I do not think that I can contribute anything more.
...

 

[George-ananda]

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

Allow me to jump and try to help. I think your confusion is because the two words look so similar. There is no particular connection between those two different words.

You say you are a pantheist but from your discussions you sound more like a materialist (one who just believes this physical stuff is real).

 

[`mud]

Ahhh George and Atanu,
Materialism and physicality, if one can breath it and taste it and feel it, it is realistic. Earths Stuff is also realistic. But...spiritualistic stuff like worshipped creators without consciousness remain non-realistic, transparent visions in ones mind. The visions in ones mind is just a wishful ending to this path of one's life.
Brahman is the attitude of being that is non-materialistic in anyone's future, but a wish for that possibility. Brahma in this case, to me, can't cause that to happen. Good luck with your goals in your futures, and I'll join you wherever you settle.

 

[atanu]

Ahhh George and Atanu,
Materialism and physicality, if one can breath it and taste it and feel it, it is realistic. Earths Stuff is also realistic. But...spiritualistic stuff like worshipped creators without consciousness remain non-realistic, transparent visions in ones mind. The visions in ones mind is just a wishful ending to this path of one's life.
Brahman is the attitude of being that is non-materialistic in anyone's future, but a wish for that possibility. Brahma in this case, to me, can't cause that to happen. Good luck with your goals in your futures, and I'll join you wherever you settle.

We are pointing to your own self and nothing of vision. Our senses see the world. Suppose eyes see a flower. Eye is the seer and flower is the seen. The seer and seen are two different things. But modifications of eyes and the visions of the eyes are seen by the mind. In this case, mind is the seer of the eyes, the seen. But again, there is that ineffable seer that sees/knows the modifications of mind: joys, sadnesses, anger, concepts, intuitions......

What is that seer? You know it is real. Yet you cannot see it even as the eyes cannot see themselves. You can be it.

The Vedanta is simple and practical. It reminds you of your own self.

 

[`mud]

Visions in one's mind is just a wishful ending to this path of one's own life.

 

[atanu]

The seer is not a vision. It is the visionary. Ha. Ha.

 

[`mud]

But it is an ending !
So, what's for dinner ?

 

[syo]

It is the uncaused cause. Unborn and eternal, that Truth reveals Itself as infinite and conscious.

you said it all.