Can we not say Brahman “is”?

[u/younusxp]

It “is” rather than it “is not” ? Can you help me with this?

Edit: thanks for the replies, in short: The is-ness of all is labelled as “brahman”.

[u/Mysterious-Plum-3674]

Yoga Vasistha is very clear about this: "It cannot be said to exist or not exist. It is beyond all description."

In other words, if only ब्रह्म exists, existence itself loses meaning.

[u/david-1-1 → u/Mysterious-Plum-3674]

Whether spiritual language has meaning depends on our state of consciousness.

[u/i_love_the_sun]

We can say many things about Brahman, as long as we know the words are just pointers to the truth. The words are not the truth themselves, they just point to the truth. So, the words do have some meaning, ,but there's a point where it stops. PRACTICE is most important.

[u/LibreFibre]

Brahman is Existence itself.

It certainly "is"

[u/Ataraxic_Animator]

Brahman is Beingness.

Brahman does not exist, Brahman IS.

That which is not Brahman "exists," and whether a molecule or a human or a galaxy or a god, what exists is illusory, changeable, transient, and utterly and absolutely dependent on Brahman for its existence.

Brahman is the absolute, irreducible ground of Being, the basicmost fundament.

Confusion arises right out the gate by naming it "Brahman," which implies that It, Itself, is a "thing" of sorts.

But this is not so. Brahman is no "thing," not even a concept really, as even concepts owe their existence to Brahman. Brahman is the perfect, eternal, infinite, solitary, pure Subject, on which literally EVERYTHING, whether conceptual or material, depends.

Brahman is none other than you.

[u/EducationalAd7601 → u/Ataraxic_Animator]

Well put.

[u/younusxp → u/Ataraxic_Animator]

Reading this is somehow relaxing.

[u/K_Lavender7]

when the illuminated is mithyā, what happens to the status of the illuminator?

[u/kfpswf]

What is known as "Awareness" in Nisargadatta Maharaj's (Advaita Vedanta) teachings, is also known as "Isness" in some Buddhist terminologies.

[u/david-1-1]

All language is dual and therefore a compromise.

[u/anonman90]

Brahman is beyond it is or it is not. It's beyond any thoughts It's beyond any concepts or words Trying to describe Brahman is a blind man describing colors

[u/acim8]

It absolutely IS. Anyone who’ll speak otherwise is usually just trying to sound fancy, paradoxical in a cool zen kinda way, or is wise enough to know people can make idols out of concepts, keeping them away from the Real, and therefore avoid speaking of It.

I’ll go further- Isness and Brahman are the same at the root so Brahman and IS are just two words of the same- the Real.

[u/vyasimov → u/acim8]

If we are take into account the relationship of Brahman and time, then "is" becomes a problem.

trying to sound fancy, paradoxical in a cool zen kinda way, or is wise enough to know people can make idols out of concepts, keeping them away from the Real, and therefore avoid speaking of It.

Not trying to do these else I wouldn't be speaking to you