Neti neti

[SalixIncendium]

[OK, this is where I'm coming from. (Bear with me, I'm mostly explaining this to the non-Hindus here)]

Of course -- and Hindu literature has pretty much been a discussion of the incomprehensible forever. I believe there are things that can't be put into words.

Our language is a tool to describe and communicate in a waking-state (3rd-state) reality.
Hindu 'theology' -- at least Vedantic philosophy -- is about alternate realities; different worlds perceived from expanded levels of consciousness. Even within 3rd state, language is inadequate to describe colour to a blind man, how much more inadequate would it be to describe a qualitatively different reality?

These 'higher' levels aren't describable from a waking-state perspective, they're not even comprehensible. They must be experienced to be grokked.

OK, but you can see the problem here; "qualities" of Brahman? This could only apply to Saguna Brahman; Brahman-with-qualities. Brahman with qualities must needs be a being,; an entity; perhaps a god.

Generally, Brahman is not conceived of as an entity. It's generally described as Nir-guna -- without qualities. Attributes are ascribed to it only to make it discussable -- which Hinduism, for some reason, has always tried to do, even while asserting that, in actual fact, it's incomprehensible.

Just because a thing cannot be put into words doesn't necessarily render it incomprehensible. One can experience, comprehend that experience, and still not be able to describe said experience with words.

An experience of being (Atman) while indescribable, is not necessarily incomprehensible.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Opinion and (respectfully) valid difference.
Advaitists would say: "All this is that" (Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma), "That is the Whole, This is the Whole .." (Purnamadah, Purnamidam ..).

I don't really see a difference. While Atman cannot be pointed to as this, but can be aware of 'this' or 'that,' it is also 'aware' that Atman is the same as 'this' or 'that,' or more accurately, 'this' and 'that' are illusory.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What would Brahman do by being 'aware'? It is uninvolved. Awareness means a purpose. Brahman has no purpose. It just exists.

 

[atanu]

"this" or "that" as seen from Brahma-Atman, though, is maya, illusion, not real, ever changing (so, not existing as a truth [which does not change])
It is the "human under the veil of delusion" who sees "this" or "that" as being real, because he can't see the underlying unity (Brahman)

I think I understand.

Neti Neti is a process that begins in childhood, in the pre ego state. Then there will be an ego state wherein the body-mind is taken as the “me”.

Then there is post ego state , when self enquiry and Neti Neti process will lead to dissolution of ego idea.

I like the following talk of Rupert Spira. This can also answer the main question of @Whippet.

...

 

[SalixIncendium]

What would Brahman do by being 'aware'? It is uninvolved. Awareness means a purpose. Brahman has no purpose. It just exists.

Why would you associate being (awareness) with doing?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why would you associate being (awareness) with doing?

Salix, if you mean interaction of forces, that is perhaps correct, though how many forces exist to give rise to physical energy' as we experience it, is not yet fully known. Four forces and gravity or something else. 'What exists' has no organs of senses or brain / mind to analyze any input. I mean, how will 'Brahman will become aware? And even if it becomes aware, what will it be supposed to do? I see no evidence of human-type of awareness of 'what exists'.

 

[wizanda]

Brahman has no purpose.

A CPU has a purpose, it calculates everything.

In my opinion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Salix, 'what exists'

Only Nirguna Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A CPU has a purpose, it calculates everything.

CPU is operated by a person who has a purpose. A CPU will not calculate anything by itself.

Only Nirguna Brahman.

If it exists, then that too is a property. I would say 'Nirguna' has no acquired properties. It does have inherent properties like being eternal, form-independent, changeless, uninvolved.

 

[atanu]

It does have inherent properties like being eternal, form-independent, changeless, uninvolved.

And why do you always ignore Prajnana brahman?

Does Brahman require a second thing to be aware -- to be the seer, to be the knower? And if, IF, it required a second equipment to become aware, then would brahman be known as the non dual truth?

 

[crossfire]

Well, sort of. There is no creation itself, no roof, no stairs. All that too is 'maya'. This is higher 'advaita'. It takes time to reach that stage. Once you accept creation, all the hell is let loose, the Pandora's box is opened.
Like you said 'ineffable' (cannot be known). Perhaps we have a difference of opinion, which is OK in Hinduism. IIMHO, with time, we will be better able to describe Brahman or 'what exists', once the problem of eternal / Ex - nihilo is solved.

How does space fit in with the concept of Brahman? Obviously, most of the physical universe is composed of space. (Space is also associated with consciousness in Buddhism.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

And why do you always ignore Prajnana brahman?
Does Brahman require a second thing to be aware -- to be the seer, to be the knower? And if, IF, it required a second equipment to become aware, then would brahman be known as the non dual truth?

Simple, Atanu. My views are different. As you perhaps know I accept the other three 'Mahavakyas'. This one is mysticism, which I do not accept.
Me and my eyes or my mind or any other part of my body cannot be considered different. To be aware, one needs equipment and a reason.

 

[atanu]

Simple, Atanu. My views are different. As you perhaps know I accept the other three 'Mahavakyas'. This one is mysticism, which I do not accept.
Me and my eyes or my mind or any other part of my body cannot be considered different. To be aware, one needs equipment and a reason.

yeah simple.

I know your view is chaarvaaka view. Which advaitin has ever rejected ‘prajnanam brahman’ (brahman is consciousness)?

If intrinsic nature of non dual brahman is ‘unconscious’, then the non dual can never be experienced as the non dual.

If you require an equipment to know brahman, then the non dual is violated.

...

 

[atanu]

How does space fit in with the concept of Brahman? Obviously, most of the physical universe is composed of space. (Space is also associated with consciousness in Buddhism.)

The Vedantic view is that ‘desh-kala-bastu’ (space-time-objects) are appearances in consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How does space fit in with the concept of Brahman?

My homage to Lord Buddha, but he said do not contemplate on such things. Since I am a Hindu, that does not apply to me.

It fits with the concept of Brahman perfectly. Brahman (physical energy) pervades the whole universe. Space and time are 'paṭiccasamuppāda', dependently co-originated with energy. The perturbations in energy create a seeming universe, all things in it and us. We do not understand that and think that there is a universe, all things in it and us engaged in our various activities. Basically, there is nothing else but Brahman in the universe, and just its existence is enough to create the 'Indra-jaala' or 'maya'. Not that it does anything, it has no need to do anything at all. I agree with Lord Buddha on 'anatta' and 'anicca'.

Yeah, 'Advaita' is close to (Theravada ?) Buddhism. You would know better.

 

[Aupmanyav]

yeah simple.
Which advaitin has ever rejected ‘prajnanam brahman’ (brahman is consciousness)?
If intrinsic nature of non dual brahman is ‘unconscious’, then the non dual can never be experienced as the non dual.

Hah, you have one here.
I am conscious, but my consciousness is only an illusion. 'I' do not even exist, only Brahman exists.

The Vedantic view is that ‘desh-kala-vastu’ (space-time-objects) are appearances in consciousness.

But as I said, consciousness itself is only an illusion. It belongs to us in 'Vyavaharika'. It does not exist in 'Paramarthika', it has no reason to exist there.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Hah, you have one here.
I am conscious, but my consciousness is only an illusion. 'I' do not even exist, only Brahman exists.

Depends on what “I” you are speaking of. The “I” in vyavaharika or the “I” in Paramartika.

In Vyavaharika, I am Salix. In Paramartika I am Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, that is absolutely correct. And Good Night. I do not want to anger my wife. When she is angry, she is terrible.

 

[crossfire]

My homage to Lord Buddha, but he said do not contemplate on such things. Since I am a Hindu, that does not apply to me.

It fits with the concept of Brahman perfectly. Brahman (physical energy) pervades the whole universe. Space and time are 'paṭiccasamuppāda', dependently co-originated with energy. The perturbations in energy create a seeming universe, all things in it and us. We do not understand that and think that there is a universe, all things in it and us engaged in our various activities. Basically, there is nothing else but Brahman in the universe, and just its existence is enough to create the 'Indra-jaala' or 'maya'. Not that it does anything, it has no need to do anything at all. I agree with Lord Buddha on 'anatta' and 'anicca'.

Yeah, 'Advaita' is close to (Theravada ?) Buddhism. You would know better.

So Advaita is looking for the Unified Field Theory to call Brahman? If we do discover a Unified Field, then what? Do you apply Neti-Neti to it as well, saying this is not my Self? Or do you stop Neti-Neti at this point, and rest on your laurels assuming "I am that?" Wouldn't saying "I am That" be the same as binding yourself to Samsara instead of liberating oneself from it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So Advaita is looking for the Unified Field Theory to call Brahman?

No.