Space/Place

[ale84]

Hello, I'm relatively new in advaita philosophy and not versed in the scriptures and commentaries (I've only read the Gita).
My only source is internet, because in the region I live I still didn't find a library wher I can get some books on Samkhya, or editions of the Upanishads, Brahma sutras, etc.
I've recently been having some insights based on the idea that everithing depends on consciousness:

From the Absolute point of view, there are no such things as space and place. It's all consciousness "vibrating" at different stages/levels.
The idea that we are walking on earth, moving through space, watching and touching objects is all a trick by maya. What we percieve with our senses are nothing but thought waves.
Even to say that Brahman is infinite in size would be erroneous because "size" is something that does not apply to Brahman, neither location. What to speak of this "reality".

Are these ideas in harmony with Advaita philosophy?

[devotee]

Namaste ale,



From the Absolute point of view, there are no such things as space and place. It's all consciousness "vibrating" at different [B]stages/levels.

Yes, from Advaita point of view, time and space is illusion. Time and space don't exist.


The idea that we are walking on earth, moving through space, watching and touching objects is all a trick by maya. What we percieve with our senses are nothing but thought waves.

Yes. These are thought-waves within Infinite Consciousness.


Even to say that Brahman is infinite in size would be erroneous because "size" is something that does not apply to Brahman, neither location. What to speak of this "reality". Are these ideas in harmony with Advaita philosophy?

Yes.
OM

[anucarh]

Namaste,


"Infinite in size" would indeed be incorrect, because it suggests that infinity is a specific quantity and that Brahman has a specific size in that amount, whereas Brahman is without any size, as you say, or limit of any kind. However, Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya agrees with the Taittirīya Upaniṣad that Brahman is ananta, that is without any limit, boundless, infinite.


Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 tells us "The knower of Brahman attains the highest: Here is a verse uttering that very fact: 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite...' [satyaṁ jñānam anantam]." In his commentary on this verse, Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya writes, "The sentence satyaṁ jñānam anantam brahma--Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite--is meant as a definition of Brahman. For the three words beginning with satya are meant to distinguish Brahman...Thus indeed does a thing become known when it is differentiated from others..." By others, he means all others: "a definition marks it out from everything else," he says.


These three words distinguish Brahman from the things of māyā, which is a power that inheres in Brahman (parameśa śakti) and a beginningless realm of appearance, wherein time, causality, change, multiplicity, perceivers and perceived objects are experienced, the level of vyāvahārika-satya or relative truth. The words distinguish Brahman following the method of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6: neti, neti, "not-this, not-this." The meaning of satyaṁ jñānam anantam for Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya is that nirguṇa ("without qualities") Brahman does not change ("a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own...a mutable thing is unreal..."), is a consciousness with neither an agent (because a knowing agent or perceiver entails change and is limited by what is knowable and what is known) nor an object perceived, and is "not separated from anything" nor is it "delimited" by anything. The Infinite, he says, is that in which there is awareness of nothing else, quoting Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.24.1. At the level of pāramārthika-satya, absolute or ultimate truth, where there are no levels to be distinguished, even thought is not present.


I hope this is helpful.


praṇām

[ale84]

Hello, anucarh


Namaste,


"Infinite in size" would indeed be incorrect, because it suggests that infinity is a specific quantity and that Brahman has a specific size in that amount, whereas Brahman is without any size, as you say, or limit of any kind. However, Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya agrees with the Taittirīya Upaniṣad that Brahman is ananta, that is without any limit, boundless, infinite.


Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.1.1 tells us "The knower of Brahman attains the highest: Here is a verse uttering that very fact: 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite...' [satyaṁ j�ānam anantam]." In his commentary on this verse, Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya writes, "The sentence satyaṁ j�ānam anantam brahma--Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite--is meant as a definition of Brahman. For the three words beginning with satya are meant to distinguish Brahman...Thus indeed does a thing become known when it is differentiated from others..." By others, he means all others: "a definition marks it out from everything else," he says.


These three words distinguish Brahman from the things of māyā, which is a power that inheres in Brahman (parameśa śakti) and a beginningless realm of appearance, wherein time, causality, change, multiplicity, perceivers and perceived objects are experienced, the level of vyāvahārika-satya or relative truth. The words distinguish Brahman following the method of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6: neti, neti, "not-this, not-this." The meaning of satyaṁ j�ānam anantam for Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya is that nirguṇa ("without qualities") Brahman does not change ("a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own...a mutable thing is unreal..."), is a consciousness with neither an agent (because a knowing agent or perceiver entails change and is limited by what is knowable and what is known) nor an object perceived, and is "not separated from anything" nor is it "delimited" by anything. The Infinite, he says, is that in which there is awareness of nothing else, quoting Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.24.1. At the level of pāramārthika-satya, absolute or ultimate truth, where there are no levels to be distinguished, even thought is not present.


I hope this is helpful.


praṇām

Thanks for your explanation.
Sorry, "infinite in size" was my wrong expression.
I didn't say that Brahman is not infinite, but in my opinion, to say that Brahman is infinite "expansion", implies the assumption that "space" is something as real as Brahman. But it is right as a provisory explanation (If we think in terms of "space" with the conditioned mind, then Brahman is omnipresent, all pervasive, boundless and if we think from the Absolute perspective, again, Brahman is all there "is" or/and "appears to be").
But again, as I said above, It's just my personal insight and I'm not at all versed in the Upanishads and commentaries.