Thanks to you guys for helping me see that I am going around in circles with my attempt to fathom Brahman. I often enjoy circling, the repetition is soothing. But it slows down the forward momentum of my path.
So for now I’ll put my Brahman obsession on the back burner. If Brahman comes up in my studies, I’ll think of it in the way that has given me least trouble over the years:
Brahman is what-really-is.
Dennis suggested my next stop be Swami P’s commentary on the Vivekachudamani. Onward ho!
The scriptures tell us that everything is constantly changing … thus ultimately not-real.
EXCEPT for Brahman.
Why this EXCEPTion?
Why is it seen as impossible that everything, no exceptions, is constantly changing?
It would be great, for me, if we could discuss this drawing mainly upon common sense rather than doctrine. My issue with doctrine is that it is considered to be irrefutably correct and thus discourages, perhaps even prevents open investigation.
Hi everyone! I’m new to the blogger community here. To set some context: I’m a spiritual eclectic who draws from different traditions, mainly Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and Krishnamurti/Bohm. I’m also a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, a passionate via negativa guy: Neti neti all the way up and all the way down.
I realize that “In Search of Brahman” is an odd title for a blog on an Advaita website, because Brahman is not an object that can be lost or found. But the title is symptomatic of where I’m at in my personal journey, so I think it’s appropriate.
Ever since I first ran into the term Brahman (about a decade ago in one of Dennis’s books) it’s been a source of great wonder and equally great confusion for me. Continue reading