In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the sole, unchanging, and absolute reality—the non-dual, infinite, and formless consciousness underlying all existence. It is defined as Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) and is fundamentally identical to the true self (Atman), with individual souls appearing separate only due to Maya (ignorance).
Text
Là dove c’è unità
Il Brahman è la realtà suprema, invisibile e inconcepibile, priva di forma e distinzione. È infinito, eterno e presente in ogni cosa, dentro e fuori l’essere, come l’aria che riempie e circonda un vaso. Tutto ciò che appare è illusione: solo l’Immanifesto è reale. Quando si realizza l’unità assoluta, l’uno senza il due, si raggiunge la vera gioia e lo scopo ultimo della vita.
Continue reading Là…
Text
Happy Holi!
Today it’s time to celebrate Holi.
Holi is not a festival. It is a rupture in the apparent solidity of social order, a chromatic insurrection staged annually across the subcontinent and its diasporas, in which ontology itself seems briefly destabilised by pigment. To approach it merely as “the festival of colours” is to perform the sort of reductionism that modernity excels at, flattening…
Text
Is There Only One Divine Particle?
I recently came across an idea that blends metaphysics and physics in a bold way. It spoke of a Divine Absolute and a Divine Particle, drawing parallels to Purusha and Prakriti in Advaita philosophy. The suggestion was radical: there is only one Absolute reality, and what we experience as multiplicity is an illusion created by a single, fundamental “particle” beyond human perception.
In Advaita,…
Text
From how we know into what exists.
Describing the machinery of perception does not grant access to the ultimate structure of reality.
Many philosophical and scientific discussions slide from how we know into what exists, as if the second automatically follows from the first. That slide is exactly the boundary that Immanuel Kant tried to police very strictly.
If we stay disciplined, the statement should read that humans perceive and organize experience as objects because of how their cognitive system works. From that observation alone, nothing follows about what reality ultimately is. The moment someone adds “therefore reality is Brahman,” they have switched from epistemology (I think it is so) to ontology (It is so)without providing a bridge. This is the most common and gravest error of human reasoning.
In many interpretations of Advaita Vedanta associated with Adi Shankara, that bridge is not empirical or publicly testable. It relies on philosophical reasoning plus claims about realization or insight. From within that tradition, the argument is that once ignorance dissolves, the underlying unity becomes evident. But if we examine it with stricter methodological standards, that is not a verification procedure. It is a framework that interprets certain experiences in a particular way. Saying “people assume reality is Brahman” is a description of a belief system; saying “reality is Brahman” is a metaphysical assertion that requires evidence.
If we apply the same standards used in science or rigorous philosophy, a method would need at least two things, it must produce results that are stable across different observers, and it must allow some way to distinguish true from false conclusions. Claims about realizing Brahman typically fail that test because the confirmation is internal to the same interpretive system that proposes the claim. Different traditions report different ultimate realities, which suggests the method does not uniquely identify one structure of reality.
This is why the confusion happens so often, even in science communication. Scientists study how perception models the world. But when people summarize their work, they often jump to statements about what the world “really is,” as if studying the model automatically reveals the underlying ontology. That is an error. Describing the machinery of perception does not grant access to the ultimate structure of reality. The uncomfortable implication is simply that most grand metaphysical conclusions are built on a step that has not actually speculative.
Clarity often looks modest from the outside and the more carefully we separate knowledge from speculation, the less dramatic our conclusions become.
Text
About Brahman
In the Vedanta traditions of Indian philosophy, the word Brahman refers to what is claimed to be the fundamental reality that exists regardless of how humans perceive or divide the world. It is described as the underlying basis of everything that exists. According to these traditions, all particular things, objects, people, events are not ultimately separate entities. They are expressions or appearances of that underlying reality. In other words, multiplicity is treated as a secondary level, while Brahman is supposed to be the primary level.
Notice the structure of the claim. Vedanta philosophers argue that ordinary perception divides the world into many separate objects because of how the mind operates. This division is called Maya. Maya does not necessarily mean that the world is nonexistent, like a hallucination. Instead, it means that the way we interpret what we perceive is considered mistaken or incomplete. The error is the belief that separate things exist independently and permanently. From the Vedanta viewpoint, that belief is wrong because everything is ultimately one reality called Brahman appearing in many forms.
In that framework, suffering is explained as a consequence of identifying with a limited individual self that believes it is separate from the rest of reality. If someone believes they are a distinct entity struggling inside a world of other distinct entities, they experience fear, attachment, and loss. Liberation, often called moksha, is defined as the realization that the individual self and Brahman are not actually separate. The supposed goal is to remove the mistaken identification with the individual perspective.
But here is the critical point that is often skipped in popular explanations, the claim that Brahman is the deeper truth is not something that can be verified the way scientific claims can be verified. It is a metaphysical assertion supported by philosophical reasoning and tradition, not by independent observation that could confirm it from outside the system. In that sense, it is very different from what Immanuel Kant was doing. Kant argued that we cannot access reality outside the conditions of our cognition at all. Vedanta claims the opposite, that it is possible to realize the underlying reality directly. Those two positions are structurally incompatible.
Also, when Vedanta says the world is “illusion,” people often misunderstand it. The claim is not that physical events do not occur. The claim is that the interpretation of those events as separate, independent entities is mistaken relative to the supposed unity of Brahman. So the “illusion” is about how things are categorized and understood, not necessarily about whether experiences occur.
However, there is an unresolved problem in this philosophy that critics often point out. If Brahman is the only true reality, and Maya is a distortion, then one must explain how that distortion arises within a reality that is supposed to be complete and unified. Different Vedanta schools give different answers, but none of them remove the logical tension entirely. This is why many philosophers treat Maya not as a proven insight about reality but as a metaphysical framework that organizes certain experiences and interpretations.
So if you strip away the mystical language, Vedanta claims there is one underlying reality, that humans misinterpret it as many separate things, and that correcting this interpretation removes psychological conflict. Whether that is an actual discovery about reality or a conceptual system built to reinterpret experience is still debated. Declaring the world an illusion often says more about the theory someone adopts than about the structure of the world itself.
Text
that’s my oc in TR~ her name is kaoru and she is the twin of Senju kawaragi and her mbit is:enfp⭐️-just like me!!-
Text
Brahman
Brahman Energy & Consciousness
Source: Brahman Energy & Consciousness © Munindra Misra
Brahman Energy & Consciousness * FREE * LINKS * HINDUISM * OTHER WORKS
The Brahman
Brahman and Ishvara
Brahman
Before the stars, before the breath of time,Exists the One, silent and sublime;No name can hold it, no thought can trace,The boundless Brahman, filling every space. [50]Yet from this void, a…
Text
Brahman Energy & Consciousness - The Brahman - Brahman and Ishvara - One Truth Many Names
Text
☀ SRILA ADVAITA ACHARYA ☀
“Because He is nondifferent from Hari, the Supreme Lord, He is called Advaita, and because He propagates the cult of devotion, He is called Ācārya. He is the Lord and the incarnation of the Lord’s devotee. Therefore I take shelter of Him.”~Śrī Chaitanya-caritāmṛta Adi 1.13
Text
Complete self-surrender means that you have no further thought of ‘I’. Then all your predispositions (samskaras) are washed off and you are free. You should not continue as a separate entity at the end.
— Ramana Maharshi
Text
“Om è l'arco, la saetta è l'anima, bersaglio della saetta Brahma, da colpire con immobile certezza”. (Siddharta, H. Hesse)
Ognuno di noi è un ricercatore dello Spirito quando cerca la sua personale strada per ricongiungere il proprio Io all'Assoluto Trascendente.
“Ognuno col suo viaggio
Ognuno diverso
E ognuno in fondo perso
Dentro i fatti suoi.” (V. Rossi)
Answer
Notice you’re aware = Be aware of being aware = Know you’re aware = Just Notice = Just Be.
It’s all the same, just a pointer pointing to your direct experience as awareness :)
For example: Are you aware of reading this? Yes. Now, do you know you’re aware of reading this? Yes.
That’s it!
Text
My other blog with paragraphs of text is sort of already just utilized as only having one post per day, so here is a new one I made for further shenanigans.
Some feelings of contempt upon slowly waking up this morning. Yet I feel that level of punishment from higher above already. The contempt itself was also about a sense and history of being punished. This is especially so as somebody with schizophrenia (or schizoaffective disorder.) I’m so shut up I can’t solve my own imagination as well as real life dilemmas on a regular basis.
However as I was jailed for a long time this year, it looks like it has been “determined” that I am no longer disabled according to the social security administration. So my Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) which was originally granted to me as a form of support that I would have access to for the rest of my life, but was halved by a picky case manager/probation officer because he knew about PayPal payments from my mother at age 26, is over. Now I’m just back to pesky PayPal payments, unable to buy a large cost of anything like a computer and what not (I spend small increments repeatedly at a time.) When my SSDI was halved, that was one reason I never was able to keep up rent for wherever I stayed that was almost always sort of a last line sort of residency left available for “society’s sickest schizos”
That level of punishment is also drug related, but ironically so with legal recreational cough syrup, which eventually got me lumped with the meanest illegal meth addicts.
Before I typed this I typed a status “there are crosshairs in my imagination, and people’s faces are inside” because of how much I was really thinking about psychiatry ruining my life. Last night I was thinking about how much cops have also so antagonistically stepped into my life to “kill my vibe” or put an end to things, sometimes things as simple as sleep.
If the Brahman would wake up from millions or billions of years of sleep as a yuga in Hinduism, and have open eyes as the creator of the universe, or the underlying factor of all and everything, well there would be a lot of disappointing factors and conflict negating that glorious moment as I am beaten down for what’s good.
Life is sucked out of me, I go to sleep with sadness and wake up with hate.
Answer
The difference between relative and subjective is imagined, it’s irrelevant. There’s no one/no thing to take references from, and there is no subject (just appearance of one). Same with objects, there are none.
Direct experience simply IS a recognition of what’s absolute and constant in every experience (and appears as the experience), it never changes. One BEING.
And there’s no “everyone”. Again. One BEING. Singular.
Text
“Just realise you are dreaming a dream you call the world and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of your dream and not another. Love all or none of it and stop complaining.”
- Nisargadatta Maharaj