PDA

View Full Version : Extremely confused (related to Brahman & Akasa)



PraveenT
10 October 2012, 04:20 AM
Namaste.

My mind has this habit of bringing up doubts every once in a while that forces me to go into deep contemplation to find answers.

This time, I haven't been so successful. I've been in contemplation for more than a day but I still don't have any answers.

Before I mention my doubts, I have to say that I have an extremely logical mind. My mind can only be satisfied with logic. I accept the superiority of Sruti, but I would really appreciate it if you guys could logically defeat my arguments instead of simply saying 'Sruti says so', because this will not satisfy me as I have to experience and understand something for myself before I accept it as truth.

By Akasa I mean space. Not sky. Just to make sure everyone

So here are my doubts:

Does Akasa exist as an element? Or is it just a concept of the mind? If it is a concept of the mind, that would imply non-existence, yes? If so, how is space travel possible? Travel cannot be possible through a medium that doesn't exist.

If Akasa is indeed an element, how do we know of it? By what means of knowledge? Is it inferential knowledge? If so, how can inferential knowledge be said to be a valid means of knowledge in this case, since if all objects are taken away (including the body) and only space remains, we would not know of space, yes? Wouldn't that mean that Brahman would not be able to know space, making space superior to Brahman?

How do we know that Akasa is not consciousness/Brahman? I mean Akasa is in everything including us, making it omnipresent. Akasa being in everything makes it omniscient and omnipotent as well. Since akasa is omnipresent that makes it eternal as well.

I KNOW Vedanta has the answers, but questions like these don't seem to have been addressed logically on the net. Anything even remotely similar to my queries I've found were answered with 'Sruti says so', which is not enough for me.

These doubts have pretty much made me bring my life to a halt to find answers. I truly appreciate the help.

Thanks. :)

wundermonk
10 October 2012, 11:36 AM
Does Akasa exist as an element? Or is it just a concept of the mind? If it is a concept of the mind, that would imply non-existence, yes? If so, how is space travel possible? Travel cannot be possible through a medium that doesn't exist.

The Advaitin answer is that to the extent that Akasha is cognized, it is not completely unreal - like a square circle or a married bachelor, etc. of which we can have no cognition.


If Akasa is indeed an element, how do we know of it? By what means of knowledge? Is it inferential knowledge? If so, how can inferential knowledge be said to be a valid means of knowledge in this case, since if all objects are taken away (including the body) and only space remains, we would not know of space, yes? Wouldn't that mean that Brahman would not be able to know space, making space superior to Brahman?

Space itself is an object of knowledge, inferentially [for space is the cause for our usage of the linguistic terms "near" and "far", etc. If space did not exist at all we would never have these terms in common usage.] Also, are we ourselves not objects of knowledge as well? I am assuming you mean we as in human bodies, yes?


How do we know that Akasa is not consciousness/Brahman? I mean Akasa is in everything including us, making it omnipresent. Akasa being in everything makes it omniscient and omnipotent as well. Since akasa is omnipresent that makes it eternal as well.

Brahman is NOT an object of consciousness. Anything that can be an object of consciousness is NOT Brahman. Brahman is pure subject/witness. So, to the extent that we can perceive Akasha, that Akasha is not Brahman.


These doubts have pretty much made me bring my life to a halt to find answers. I truly appreciate the help.

Well, here's hoping your life can start again.

wundermonk
10 October 2012, 12:05 PM
Actually, I did some digging around in the Brahmasutras (Shankara Bhashya) to find sutra 2:3:7. The argument is over whether Akasha is an effect of Brahman or not.

"The Sidhanthin view is that all created things are different from each other. A pot is different from a piece of cloth and so on. In other words, everything which has a separateness about it is created. We cannot conceive of a thing as separate from others and yet eternal. Now, Akasha is distinct from earth, etc. and hence it cannot be eternal. Hence it must be a created thing. The all-pervasiveness and eternity of Akasha are only relatively true; it is created and is an effect of Brahman"

So, the syllogism runs as follows.

(1)Akasha is distinct from earth.
(2)Entities distinct from some other entities cannot be eternal.
(3)Akasha cannot be eternal.

Therefore, Akasha =!= Brahman for Brahman is eternal.

dhyandev
10 October 2012, 01:16 PM
but questions like these don't seem to have been addressed logically on the net.
Where logic ends aadhyatam begins.Logic keeps changing,so donot rely on it too much.Here the logic is illogical.


From what I know the akash is used to explain brahm to beginners.
eg the akash(space) in the earthen pot(mathakash) is no different from the mahakash(greater scape).even if the pot is crushed nothing happens to the mathaaksh.Analogy if the body dies the nothing happens to the aatma just as the space in the pot is unaffected from the breaking of the pot.
hence so on & so forth

yajvan
10 October 2012, 01:21 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namasté

ākāśa is avakāśa i.e. to make room, space. It allows things to exists. It seems to me when I look out my window I see trees, yet I see the 'space' that allows the tree to exist. The whole universe of material existence resides in space. Now some like to call this space vacuum, others may call it void or śūnya शुन्य .

Lets take an example... pick up a ball. We know it has mass, length, width, radius, etc. It resides in space. Yet it does not displace the space it resides in. That space resides within and without the ball. The space is continuous - it is without break or pause.

Look at a tree and its branches and leaves... now look between them - there resides this wonder of space (ākāśa); Look into the depths of the universe and all the galaxies swirling. Between them is space. It provides the ~canvas~ for the galaxies to reside on, just like paint on canvas.


From a tattva (element) POV it is just subtle. It is subtler then earth, water ( fluids) , etc. yet too it provides the canvas for these tattva-s to exist. No space, then there is no things.

praṇām




http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0707/A2151LRGB_hallas_c800.jpg

ShivaFan
10 October 2012, 02:45 PM
Namaste
The examples of the space (akash) within the pot (mathakash), without and throughout the pot (Dhyandev) and the example of the galaxies existing within the space (Yajvan) are excellent and clarify akash very well. As someone who enjoys oil painting, the idea of akash as the canvas upon which the painting itself cannot exist without is wonderful and really connects with me.

In the material universe, the galaxies spinning and spiraling outward within the akash speak of an expanding universe, yet the objects or the mathakash within the akash and upon which the objects cannot exist without this space inside, through out and within, are relative to the perspective of the size of the observer (which some might call this perspective maya?).

For example, take a yellow sapphire reflecting light. It exists in space or akash. I observe the gem and the light inside the gem. I observe the space around the gem, or even see space within the gem. But now I start to shrink. Soon, my size becomes so small that the molecule globes that make up what I previously called the gem start to appear. The gem has totally disappeared from my previous perception. As I become smaller, the space or akash between each molecule or atom becomes wider, the empty realm if you will becomes larger, each atom farther apart, and even the light that the original gem object was reflecting is no longer a composite that reflects light at all. The light may be gone. But as I become even smaller as the observer, more objects so small but now growing may appear.

What was I before and after?
Why do I observe?

Aren't there many universes relative to your size, and the pot will be broken sooner or later? It certainly appears that even if I remain the exact size I am now, that maya, nevertheless all those objects in akash or the canvas of the universe or life or spirit or soul is expanding outward. It seems I am going to be carried along in that outward spiral like a bottle in the waves of a sea even if I do nothing. Yes? And this canvas is so big that the artist never finishes the painting ?

Om Namah Sivaya

PraveenT
10 October 2012, 09:54 PM
The Advaitin answer is that to the extent that Akasha is cognized, it is not completely unreal - like a square circle or a married bachelor, etc. of which we can have no cognition.
Would I be correct in assuming that you mean there cannot be knowledge about something that doesn't exist?



Space itself is an object of knowledge, inferentially [for space is the cause for our usage of the linguistic terms "near" and "far", etc. If space did not exist at all we would never have these terms in common usage.] Also, are we ourselves not objects of knowledge as well? I am assuming you mean we as in human bodies, yes?
No, I realise that our bodies and minds are objects of knowledge as well. What I meant was, lets say that no form exists in the universe (not even our bodies), only akasa, the mind (in a formless state) and awareness exists. This would mean that Brahman would not be able to know akasa, yes? Wouldn't that make Akasa superior to Brahman?



Brahman is NOT an object of consciousness. Anything that can be an object of consciousness is NOT Brahman. Brahman is pure subject/witness. So, to the extent that we can perceive Akasha, that Akasha is not Brahman.
I've contemplated the subject/object issue in the past and I came to realise that if Brahman could be perceived, it would make the subject an object. This would lead to sunyavada would it not (something coming from nothing)? My reasoning is that if the subject too is an object, what this means is that there is no 'separate' entity from whom everything came, since the subject too becomes part of the perceived universe and so when the universe ends, the subjects ends too. Basically the ultimate reality behind everything would then be non-existence. Is my reasoning correct?


Actually, I did some digging around in the Brahmasutras (Shankara Bhashya) to find sutra 2:3:7. The argument is over whether Akasha is an effect of Brahman or not.

"The Sidhanthin view is that all created things are different from each other. A pot is different from a piece of cloth and so on. In other words, everything which has a separateness about it is created. We cannot conceive of a thing as separate from others and yet eternal. Now, Akasha is distinct from earth, etc. and hence it cannot be eternal. Hence it must be a created thing. The all-pervasiveness and eternity of Akasha are only relatively true; it is created and is an effect of Brahman"

So, the syllogism runs as follows.

(1)Akasha is distinct from earth.
(2)Entities distinct from some other entities cannot be eternal.
(3)Akasha cannot be eternal.

Therefore, Akasha =!= Brahman for Brahman is eternal.
Do you mind going into more detail about entities distinct from others not being eternal? Why is an entity impermanent if it is distinct from another? I'm extremely interested.

Can Akasa really be said to be different from everything else though? I mean it is the substratum of everything, so how can it be different? Wouldn't saying that Akasa is different from other entities and therefore is impermanent be the same as saying that since Brahman is different from other entities (Brahman eternal, mithya impermanent), Brahman too is not eternal (since Brahman is the substratum of even akasa)?


Well, here's hoping your life can start again.

For some reason I feel I have a looooong way to go before my life can start again. :D

@dhyandev, I wish it were that simple, friend. My mind simply refuses to accept anything that is not arrived at through logic and reasoning.

@yajvan, I understand that space is the basis for all things. What I'm confused about is if akasa can be said to be Brahman (can Akasa be said to be the ultimate cause and not an effect).

@ShivaFan, I'm sorry mate, but I cannot understand what you're trying to say. I mean I understand what you said, but I cannot understand the relation it has to what I asked.

Oh and one other thing, can someone please clarify the difference between dik and akasa? I was trying to conclude that akasa must be impermanent since some texts say it is the subtratum of sound, which is impermanent, but I did some research and it seems that sound does not exist in space since it's a vacuum?

This is when I came across dik and akasa. Akasa is said to be different from dik. Dik fits the modern description of space, but I could not find any modern description for Akasa.

If akasa is said to be the substratum of sound and it is subtler than dik, then akasa should exist in dik (space) and therefore sound should be present, but sound is not present in space (in the areas without atoms like deep space), which would mean that akasa is not the substratum of sound.

So for akasa to be the substratum of sound, it has to be less subtle than dik (space) and should not exist in space (if it did, there would be sound in space).

If this is the case, wouldn't dik be the cause of akasa? That would mean there are six elements?

Sorry for all the questions, my mind is just like this.

Thanks again for all the help.

Amrut
11 October 2012, 10:35 AM
Namaste.

My mind has this habit of bringing up doubts every once in a while that forces me to go into deep contemplation to find answers.

This time, I haven't been so successful. I've been in contemplation for more than a day but I still don't have any answers.

Before I mention my doubts, I have to say that I have an extremely logical mind. My mind can only be satisfied with logic. I accept the superiority of Sruti, but I would really appreciate it if you guys could logically defeat my arguments instead of simply saying 'Sruti says so', because this will not satisfy me as I have to experience and understand something for myself before I accept it as truth.

By Akasa I mean space. Not sky. Just to make sure everyone

So here are my doubts:

Does Akasa exist as an element? Or is it just a concept of the mind? If it is a concept of the mind, that would imply non-existence, yes? If so, how is space travel possible? Travel cannot be possible through a medium that doesn't exist.

If Akasa is indeed an element, how do we know of it? By what means of knowledge? Is it inferential knowledge? If so, how can inferential knowledge be said to be a valid means of knowledge in this case, since if all objects are taken away (including the body) and only space remains, we would not know of space, yes? Wouldn't that mean that Brahman would not be able to know space, making space superior to Brahman?

How do we know that Akasa is not consciousness/Brahman? I mean Akasa is in everything including us, making it omnipresent. Akasa being in everything makes it omniscient and omnipotent as well. Since akasa is omnipresent that makes it eternal as well.

I KNOW Vedanta has the answers, but questions like these don't seem to have been addressed logically on the net. Anything even remotely similar to my queries I've found were answered with 'Sruti says so', which is not enough for me.

These doubts have pretty much made me bring my life to a halt to find answers. I truly appreciate the help.

Thanks. :)

Namaste,

Too much thinking will pollute your mind. Though you should not accept anything blindly, the habit of raising question in the name of freedom of thought is not good for spiritual progress. One question will trigger another, one answer will trigger another question.

Faith is, `To believe what you do not see', the reward of which is, `you see what you believed'. - Swami Chinmaya

Akasha can be experienced when Kundalini reaches Vishuddha Chakra, as it is connected with Akasha Tatva.

Here is another explanation form the Book - The Universe Within - by Paramhansa Prajnanananda of Kriya Yog


The Vast Inner Sky


When one goes into deep meditation and reaches beyond the Ajna chakra, one experiences the Sahasrara as a vast inner sky. There are stars and planets just as in the outer sky, but if one goes even higher up, beyond stars and planets, there is one vast sky where there is only light. In deep meditation, when one reaches great heights, one experiences the limitless, formless aspect where all lights merge into a single light.

More Explanation can be found here (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2012/09/sahasrara-chakra.html), here (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2012/09/vishuddha-chakra.html) and here (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2012/10/chakras-side-by-side-comparison.html)

When one is aware of Akasha Tatva, one is still observer. Duality remains. While one merges within brahman, the observer, object of observation and the process of observation become one and merge, only 'I' as pure Consciousness i.e. Sat-Chit-Ananda Atman remains.

Just like a drop of water merges in Ocean and becomes one with it by losing it's individual existence, Ego / Jiva / Mind / Sukshma Sarira merges in Brahman losing it's individuality. This does not happen when one experiences Akasha Tatva.

Sri Ramakrishna says:

A doll made of salt wanted to measure the depth of ocean. The moment it stepped into ocean, it melted. Now who is going to tell the depth of ocean?

Akasha Tatva is just like other 4 tatvas. Just like you can see water, feel air, so you can feel Akasha or the empty space. Just like when you see a rose flower, you do not become rose flower, you are different than rose flower, and so you can describe it, as an observer, so you can feel or experience Akasha Tatva. Only only thing is that it is so subtle that it cannot be perceived or felt by average people, but to only ones who are advance meditators.

Since there is no one left to observe Atma / Brahman, so it is indescribable. This is the difference.

I have strong faith in the Shrutis and in the words of realized soul, as shastras are not just dry philosophy, but it is the collection of experience of innumerable saints since time immemorial, tried and tested for thousands of years

Just because you cannot find a logical answer does not mean that the thing does not exists. Mind is still a great great great hypothesis and until nineteenth century, it was not at all accepted. Now a main stream science has psychology as the subject and one can be a psychiatrist - infact it's the most successful profession .. and safe too ;) mainly in America :)

If you do not trust the words of the people who have experienced it i.e. in shastras, then whom will you trust? It's like you go to doc, and till you know how to do a surgery, you wont believe in doc and in the process either.

I may be a bit hard, but what I want to say is why too many WHYs ???

Dont be tooo much logical, have faith, else you little mind will be muddled, says Sri Ramakrishna

Aum

charitra
11 October 2012, 12:35 PM
As above mentioned,Brahma sutra Bhasya of Sankaracharya talks about the issue in some detail. Hope the below excerpt will resolve your concern.

“ Akasha is Brahman, because of the declaration of being somethingdifferent and so on ( I.iii.40)

Doubt:In Upanishad we hear: That which is called akasha is the accomplisher of name and form. Theat in which they are contained are is Brahman; that is immortal and that is Self ( Ch VIII. Xiv. 1). Now the discussion arises, whether the word akasha denotes the supreme Brahman or the familiar material space.

Opponent:Under such a predicament, it is reasonable to accept the element called space (ether); for the word akasha conventionally means that, and the fact of the accomplishment of name and form can fit in with it in the sense of providing space (for them). Besides nothing that can be a clear indication of Brahman, as for instance, creatorship, is heard of here.

Vedantin:This aphorism is enunciated to meet that position. The supreme Brahman alone can be the meaning of the word akasha (space ) here.

Why?

“ Because of the declaration of Its being something different and so on.” For by saying, “That in which they are contained is Brahman” (Ch. VIII. Xiv. 1), it is declared that akasha is something different from name and form. Nothing but Brahman can be different from name and form, since the whole of creation consists of a manifestation of name and form, (ie., word and its meaning). And the manifestation of name and form in an absolute sense is not possible for anything but Brahman; for the Upanishad mentions that Brahman is the agent of their revelation: “ Let me manifest name and form by Myself entering as the individual soul ( Ch.VI. iii.2)

Opponent:Is it not a direct experience that the individual being also has the power of manifesting name and form?

Vedantin:True, he has. But the intention ( of the text, “ by Myself entering as the individual soul” ) is to declare the Identity of the individual and Brahman (and not the agentship of the individual). From this very declaration of the manifestation of name and form, creatorship etc., as the indicatory signs of Brahman become stated ipso facto. The sentences, “That is Brahman; that is immortal; that is the Self” (Ch.VIII. xiv.1) are also indications that Brahmanis spoken of. This is an elaboration of the aphorism, “Space is Brahman, for Brahman’s characteristic is in evidence” (I.i.22).

Namaste and welcome.

wundermonk
12 October 2012, 07:24 AM
Would I be correct in assuming that you mean there cannot be knowledge about something that doesn't exist?

One needs to be precise when talking about "something that doesn't exist". A pot may not exist at a particular location on the floor. But "There is no pot on the floor" is cognized and the floor as well the non-existent pot are known individually. But yes, in the context I had mentioned before, there is no way one can for instance go on to state stuff like "The hare's horn is sharp" or "The hare's horn is blunt", etc.


No, I realise that our bodies and minds are objects of knowledge as well. What I meant was, lets say that no form exists in the universe (not even our bodies), only akasa, the mind (in a formless state) and awareness exists. This would mean that Brahman would not be able to know akasa, yes? Wouldn't that make Akasa superior to Brahman?

I am not sure I get your argument here. Could you spell it out in greater detail? The advaitin argument typically is that to even say that only akasha or the mind exists is to presume the prior existence of "awareness" of them. From the POV of Brahman, only Brahman exists. There is nothing other than Brahman that is to be known.


I've contemplated the subject/object issue in the past and I came to realise that if Brahman could be perceived, it would make the subject an object.

The point is that Brahman can NOT be perceived in the usual sense of the term because perception (usually defined) is of an object external to perception. That means that nobody goes "Hey look, there is Brahman".


This would lead to sunyavada would it not (something coming from nothing)? My reasoning is that if the subject too is an object, what this means is that there is no 'separate' entity from whom everything came, since the subject too becomes part of the perceived universe and so when the universe ends, the subjects ends too. Basically the ultimate reality behind everything would then be non-existence. Is my reasoning correct?

Since this followed an earlier statement of yours which I found issues with, could you reframe this argument by responding to my preceding point?


Do you mind going into more detail about entities distinct from others not being eternal? Why is an entity impermanent if it is distinct from another? I'm extremely interested.

The Advaitin syllogism I provided is that a pot is distinct from a cloth. We know a pot is produced and that it is not eternal. We know a cloth is produced and that it is not eternal. The argument then attempts to generalize based on this observation. That is, it tries to claim that there is invariable concomittance between distinctness and being "non-eternal". This syllogism will work for the Advaitin because for Advaita the only eternal entity is Brahman. There is nothing else. There is no entity other than Brahman. So, all perceptions of difference and multiplicity are erroneous perceptions in this sense.


Can Akasa really be said to be different from everything else though?

Sure. See below.


I mean it is the substratum of everything, so how can it be different?

Space is different from sand. :dunno:


Wouldn't saying that Akasa is different from other entities and therefore is impermanent be the same as saying that since Brahman is different from other entities (Brahman eternal, mithya impermanent), Brahman too is not eternal (since Brahman is the substratum of even akasa)?

We need to differentiate and make sure whenever we try to discuss Advaita the two levels it recognizes - Vyavahara and Paramartha. In the latter, there are no "other entities" which are different from Brahman. Brahman does not admit a 2nd. There is no "other" as compared to Brahman. Also, soteriologically, this is the state the Advaitin strives to reach.

PraveenT
13 October 2012, 07:55 AM
I am not sure I get your argument here. Could you spell it out in greater detail? The advaitin argument typically is that to even say that only akasha or the mind exists is to presume the prior existence of "awareness" of them. From the POV of Brahman, only Brahman exists. There is nothing other than Brahman that is to be known.
Okay, we know know space by inference, yes? That is, when we see two objects that are apart from each other, we perceive the empty area between the two objects and say 'This is space'. But what if no objects existed. Only awareness, the mind (no body) and space existed. How will awareness know of space then? Since there are no objects?


The point is that Brahman can NOT be perceived in the usual sense of the term because perception (usually defined) is of an object external to perception. That means that nobody goes "Hey look, there is Brahman".
The thing is, when in contemplation, I came to this point... and then I realised that since reality is non-dual, with Brahman being everything (including objects), are we not perceiving Brahman when we perceive the world and its objects (I understand how Brahman doesn't become any of these things and the universe is due to maya, i.e Brahman appearing to take forms, but not actually doing so). I thought that if consciousness is indeed the space that is in all of existence, since space can be known by us, it would become an object, which means effects without a cause, so that isn't logical (and I also think that it is circular logic to say that the subject perceives itself), but Brahman does the same thing.


Since this followed an earlier statement of yours which I found issues with, could you reframe this argument by responding to my preceding point?
Done. :)



The Advaitin syllogism I provided is that a pot is distinct from a cloth. We know a pot is produced and that it is not eternal. We know a cloth is produced and that it is not eternal. The argument then attempts to generalize based on this observation. That is, it tries to claim that there is invariable concomittance between distinctness and being "non-eternal". This syllogism will work for the Advaitin because for Advaita the only eternal entity is Brahman. There is nothing else. There is no entity other than Brahman. So, all perceptions of difference and multiplicity are erroneous perceptions in this sense.
I can understand how this applies to all other elements, but space remains unchanged in everything that exists, that's where the doubt is.


Space is different from sand. :dunno:
What I mean is, since space exists in everything but does not change its nature (it exists as formless, attributeless, etc), how is this different from Brahman manifesting as the universe? How can we say that space is not the ultimate reality? When space becomes sand, if it changed its nature, I can understand, but it doesn't.



We need to differentiate and make sure whenever we try to discuss Advaita the two levels it recognizes - Vyavahara and Paramartha. In the latter, there are no "other entities" which are different from Brahman. Brahman does not admit a 2nd. There is no "other" as compared to Brahman. Also, soteriologically, this is the state the Advaitin strives to reach.
I understand this, but this goes back to my previous doubt. Isn't it circular logic to say that Brahman perceives itself? If it isn't, we can say space perceives itself as well?

Just in case I created any confusion, let me reiterate my doubt. How can we logically establish that space (Akasha) is not the ultimate reality (that Brahman/consciousness is not Akasha), when Akasha has attributes which are almost exactly like that of Brahman (all pervading without changing nature, infinite, etc).

If we cannot logically establish that space is not Brahman, we can't say that space is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent can we? Because everything that exists came from space and space is in everything without changing its nature.

@Indiaspirituality, I understand your POV, but please understand that my mind will not accept anything that cannot be verified by myself. I feel like I'm fooling myself.

@charithra, I've read the commentary by Shankaracharya on the Brahma Sutra, but I feel he used 'sruti says so' for most of his argument on space.

wundermonk
13 October 2012, 02:45 PM
Okay, we know know space by inference, yes? That is, when we see two objects that are apart from each other, we perceive the empty area between the two objects and say 'This is space'. But what if no objects existed. Only awareness, the mind (no body) and space existed. How will awareness know of space then? Since there are no objects?

Are you claiming that absent objects space does not exist?

By awareness, I presume you meant consciousness. Per Advaita, only pure consciousness is real. There is no universal Mind (manas) in Advaita while there is universal consciousness. So, this mind itself is an object. As also space. So, I think you need to rephrase your claim that "there are no objects". Even to state that "there are no objects" presumes the prior existence of consciousness for otherwise, how is it known that "there are no objects"?


The thing is, when in contemplation, I came to this point... and then I realised that since reality is non-dual, with Brahman being everything (including objects), are we not perceiving Brahman when we perceive the world and its objects

It depends on what you perceive. If you perceive duality/difference, then you are having a non-veridical perception. In such a case, you are not perceiving Brahman.


I thought that if consciousness is indeed the space that is in all of existence, since space can be known by us, it would become an object, which means effects without a cause, so that isn't logical (and I also think that it is circular logic to say that the subject perceives itself), but Brahman does the same thing.

Space is not consciousness/Brahman. One reason is provided below.


What I mean is, since space exists in everything but does not change its nature (it exists as formless, attributeless, etc), how is this different from Brahman manifesting as the universe? How can we say that space is not the ultimate reality? When space becomes sand, if it changed its nature, I can understand, but it doesn't.

Space is insentient. Brahman is not.


I understand this, but this goes back to my previous doubt. Isn't it circular logic to say that Brahman perceives itself? If it isn't, we can say space perceives itself as well?

Brahman is not "knowledge of" something but is knowledge itself. Brahman is not "perception of" something but is perception itself. Furthermore, you have to prove that space is capable of perception.


Just in case I created any confusion, let me reiterate my doubt. How can we logically establish that space (Akasha) is not the ultimate reality (that Brahman/consciousness is not Akasha), when Akasha has attributes which are almost exactly like that of Brahman (all pervading without changing nature, infinite, etc).

Space is not sentient. Neither is the mind. In fact, Advaita has more or less the same ontology as Samkhya. Space, time, mind, buddhi, ahamkara, et al. are evolutes of Prakriti (what Advaita calls Maya) to be exact.