The neti-neti fallacy
(actually non-multiple) ancient Indian, meaning Upanishad pantheism states
that ‘all is brahman’, to wit, ‘tattvamasi’. Seeming multiplicity happens as apparent
niche application by (
Consequently, the Yajnavalkhya formula applied to all appearances and right up to this day by most contemporary Hindu salvation merchants, such as Satya Sai Baba, Krishnamurti, Aurobindo et al, namely, ‘neti, neti’ (na’iti, na’iti), is wrong. Yajnavalkhya states, at least 4 times that ‘He however, the atman, is not so, not so’, thereby suggesting the unknowability of (‘the essential’ (?), so Deussen) brahman, unknowability flatly denied by tattvamasi and ‘All is Brahman!’ That the bookworm Shankara did not balk at Yajnavalkhya’s error suggests that he was not motivated by the urge to uncover the truth but by the desire re-establish Brahmin dharma/rule. ….. more
All forms happen as ‘eti,eti’ (or ‘iti, iti’). That puts the a-political cat right amongst the political pigeons.
Since all forms are brahman/atman (or God), albeit in situ (i.e. locally relativized), all forms are true … until proven untrue by the (Darwinian) survival drive towards new and upgraded forms capable of generating alternate experiences of sat-cit-ananda (or dukkha).
Brahman is the universal dharma/law (algorithm if you must) and which appears and is cognisable as its local applications/elaborations (so also Meister Eckhart). To wit: ‘as ‘below, so above.’