You can download the text I'm referring to here.
Do you exist? Undoubtedly, most people’s answer on this question is yes. After carefully reading Hindu Philosopher Adi Shankaras text “Brahman Is All” and, even though impossible, trying to imagine the underlying truth of the concept of Brahman, one might at least become aware of another possible answer. No.
The universe is considered to be the all existing, all containing, infinite, thing. In it space and time, matter and energy can be found. It is everything known and real, if a possible god isn’t counted in. One perceives diversity almost everywhere. There seem to be different materials, colors and shapes and ultimately a universe which contains galaxy’s and our planet. Shankaras statements, that “Brahman is the reality, the one existence” and that diversity is perceived only through the human ignorance, denies the actual existence of all these things including the universe itself. He found a great analogy in the making of a jar of clay, which will, even if it is now having the function and appearance of a jar, still be clay in its essence and can never be anything else. Everything therefore is Brahman.
Now at first, I fell into a trap of thinking at this point. I asked myself if everything we know is the universe and everything in it, without taking a god who made it, so to say from the “outside”, into consideration, then why is there still the need to find something explaining in which the universe exists. Then I realized that I was just as delusional as the man talking in his sleep mentioned by Shankara, who answers the question before making this reference. The universe appears as this all-encompassing thing. Something with an independent existence indeed. The concept of Brahman doesn’t explain in any way in “what” the universe exists, but “how” it exists.
Brahman is a monistic concept. In breaches and from big to small plus the other way around is the common view of how all is build nowadays. This is true at least for believers in science. The universe itself down to the elementary particles is a logic way to go here. One cannot exceed these starting points. This however is making the “world” somewhat limited. The size of the universe is still unknow and scientist are not sure if it’s true, but it seems to be infinite. Either way, Brahman does not contain this infinity, but is the infinite. Priority, -existence, - and substance-monism can all be derived from the text.
Funnily enough this opens the possibility of parallel-universes for me. Brahman is infinite. Speaking mathematical, everything is made of points. The point counts as a special circle with a radius of zero to the conic sections. Circles represent infinity, but circles are made from an infinite amount of points. It is like infinity inside infinity. Visualized, one imagines the dot as an object without any extension underneath. So, if I resemble the universe as a point, no matter if infinite or not, but the universe is brahman which is resembling both, a point and a circle because everything is him, there can be an infinite number of universes. These universes are Brahman still. The ultimate infinity.
Brahman is supreme and the highest of causal things. As mentioned, the universe is an effect of him. He is timeless and that means he is without succession of events in certain measurable sections. This can help to understand why he is perfect tranquility. Brahman is not just tranquil, but he doesn’t move at all. It matches the theory of some philosophers saying there is no movement because if someone is trying to get from point A to point B, there is a point C in the middle of the way. In fact, there are an infinite amount of middle points on the way, thus making him never reach point A.
From Shankaras point of view the variety and measurability of our everyday world can create a thought of dualism, whereas the scriptures repudiate any such. In the Vedenta School of Hinduism “Maya” stands for Illusion in the sense of appearance. Enlightened people know that they are blinded and realize an interesting thing: “he is pure consciousness” and “knower, knowledge and known have become the same thing”. To understand this, I imagined a brain. It knows things, has knowledge about them and things are known to it. Anyways all this is happening inside the brain. Then I imagined to just see the brain. Nothing else, just as the notion of the jar made of clay. The brain is nothing else but the brain. But this comparison will never match the truth about Brahman because it is sheer impossible to imagine something as supreme and all involving, something great as him.
Brahman is pure consciousness and humans seem to have consciousness too. But human’s consciousness exists inside the consciousness of brahman. Therefore, it is a false idea that the atman is the body, when it would be the body it would mean it is restricted and contained but that cannot be because it is existing in brahman and not just connected to it, but, again, it is Brahman. Therefore, the Atman is unlimited and free. Not to be grasped. This makes sense in a way because in a healthy state and with an open mind one can tap infinite new worlds within his own mind and find new connections and ideas. The sole is nothing individual. In opposite to the traditional western philosophic standpoint. The neuro-philosopher Stephan Schleim considers the following in his definition of consciousness: “conscious experiences are only accessible to the person or creature that has them." Everybody feels and perceives things different and even if one is in the same room with another person and both see the exact same thing, it is a different experience. The fact that the two are not standing at the same point makes the angle in which they see it different. But this is only from the illusion, the Maya. Humans have no consciousness therefore, which is really a statement hard to follow.
“I am Brahman” is the truth. To understand this first one must understand the concept of Atman. In Hinduism Atman refers to the “soul”, the “self”. In many scriptures the saying “That art Thou” is repeated and this is playing a significant role in understanding the true identity of Brahman. This is you. Brahman is “this”, the supreme and the one and only thing in existence. Now the soul as a part oneself is considered a part of “you”. But at this point the human language is creating a differentiation. As Shankara says we superimpose a meaning on the two words, making them contain distinct meaning. One must disregard these in order to understand the real meaning of the sentence.
If I take away the meaning of a word it becomes nothing but letters in a sequence. The sequence itself doesn’t even matter no more because it has no meaning anyway. All words would be the same but have a different appearance. Just like it is with Maya and Brahman. And also for the Atman. That art Thou. The soul is a part of Atman. Matter fact not a part, but it is Brahman itself since everything is Brahman.
This is why the author says that knowledge of Atman would not put an end to our delusions, if the universe as we perceive it were real, and the scriptures are true (which is not to be considered desirable or beneficial. Because we would still see ourselves disconnected from the supreme being. According to the Avaita Vedenta Brahman is the soul unchanging reality. Advaita itself refers to the idea that Atman is the same as the highest metaphysical reality. All of existence, including all souls and everywhere in space and time is one and the same. There is no duality to be found in Shankaras concept of Brahman. It is a pure non-dualistic point of view.
One thing came to my mind reading the text. On one hand it seems that Interreligious harmony should be no problem for Hindus seeing the world like that, because it means that even gods are just Brahman. They could exist, and it wouldn’t change their absolute truth of oneness. On the other hand, it might attract conflicts though, since it not only refuses the existence of them but basically sets humans equal to them.
In summary I have to say the text does appeal to me. The concept is hard to grasp at first but once understood does make sense. It explains many philosophical and also other scientific problems in a comprehensible manner. However, it opens quite some questions too, especially in terms of practical experience and applicability. Like in other religions one must intensively practice and work to be enlightened. Here this might even put the enlightened out of the society. Though that shouldn’t be a problem for he experiences pure supremacy and unlimited joy for reward. Also in a way it reminds me of the matrix, parallel universes and theories of life being a simulation. I can imagine this worldview as true, but also not. Yet I must be in a phase of dreaming. Nevertheless, Shankaras text made me think hard and gain new knowledge. The only questions left are: is this knowledge me? And is it even real?
Questions and feedback are welcome!
If you want to read more articles like this one, leave me an update or follow.