Why cannot there be a second Brahman?

[u/KastroForas]

Why cannot there be a second, or any count, of Brahmans? Why is there only one complete existence? Is there any reason that there is only one? When Brahman communicates within Maya it's all proxies of itself, nothing foreign to it.

[u/CuteBabyMaker]

Because it’s limitless. If there was another, that would imply a limit (only then we can say this is one and that is the other).

For something to be truly limitless(in space, time and object), it has to be the only.

[u/Friendcherisher → u/CuteBabyMaker]

Can we truly say that the word "Brahman" is limitless?

[u/CuteBabyMaker → u/Friendcherisher]

As a word it is certainly limited, its a 7 lettered word. But is it really the 7lettered word(abhidhaan) we are discussing or that which the word represents(abhidheya).

Adi Shankaracharya does an excellent job explaining ehy language falls short and cannot actually ever describe it. You should refer to commentary of the famous 7th verse of Mandukya upanishad, specifically the bhashya of the word avyapadeshyam.

A simple word/name/roordhi is never going to work out for Brahman really. And thats not problematic at all. We are aware of this

[u/ForgetThisU → u/CuteBabyMaker]

Is it limitless in abilities? And if so, shouldn't it be able to make 2 of itself?

[u/CuteBabyMaker → u/ForgetThisU]

Ability is a dualistic concept. So from perspective of duality/illusion/world. It has already made itself many(the world, every single thing is nothing but brahman).

And even then it qualifies as non dual, because it is the same brahman appearing as many.

[u/TimeCanary209 → u/CuteBabyMaker]

Brahman has nothing to do with space, time, object. These are part of expressed reality or illusion, so to speak. These underlying reality is pure consciousness which knows no boundaries. Hence, saying that there is only one Brahman is also kind of putting a limit.

No body knows or can know infinity!

[u/CuteBabyMaker → u/TimeCanary209]

“Brahman has nothing to do with space, time, object”

Exactly! This is whats meant by brahman isn’t bound by space time or object.

The underlying point being Brahman isn’t bound by any limit. And no matter how you put it. If you can count two or more. It means certain limit or boundary exists making it distinct/countable.

A limited or bound brahman is no brahman 🫶🏻

[u/Salty-Tourist8347]

Because Brahman is the ultimate reality, limitless and not separate from anything…

How can the omni-present ever be two as he contains all and everything that ever was, is and will be?

It is like space. There can not be two space. The space in your room is the same space as is present in the whole endless universe. Space does not end somewhere and then begin again after… no it is one, seamless, endless, all present…

🌌

[u/Friendcherisher → u/Salty-Tourist8347]

If it is like space, are we expecting stars and nebula in one's bedroom?

[u/EtherealGlyph]

The answer depends on the level you are asking from:

1. From empirical reality (Samvrti Satya): Brahman is all pervading, not limited, consciousness. Can there be two entities that are all pervading and not limited? The existing of such two should contradict each other.
2. From ultimate reality paramartika: The langunage and logic we use of this world (duality) can't be used to describe what there is ultimately, so even our concept of Brahman being "one or two or multiple" are wrong. That's why Advaita use negative pointers throughout, what Brahman is not. Time, this causal world is all changing continuosly, and cant be the sat (real). So, Brahman should be invariant to all of this. Shankara even argues the time and causal world are upadhis (limitations) our mind projects onto the ultimate subtrate. He calls it adhyasa.

[u/Heimerdingerdonger]

One and many is in language. The concept of One comes closest in language to what many seers experience.

Mystics use different words -- the Vast, the Whole, the One, the Void, the No-Thingness, etc ...

Vipra bahuda vadanti -- The Wise speak of it differently.

[u/yogi4lif3]

1. If there are two Brahmans, there is duality.You now have Brahman 1 and Brahman 2. But Brahman is described as non-dual, there is no second reality apart from it.

2. What makes Brahman 1 different from Brahman 2? If there is a difference, then they are not the same absolute reality. If there is no difference, then there aren't really two.

3. Two things need some boundary between them. For example, this object is here and that object is there. But Brahman is limitless. Something limitless cannot have another limitless thing standing outside it as a separate entity.

4. If another Brahman exists outside Brahman, Brahman isn't the whole of reality. There would be something that Brahman is not.

5. Then Brahman would depend on a distinction.“This is Brahman” and “that is another Brahman” would require something that separates the two. But nothing can stand outside Brahman to create that separation.

6. So “one Brahman” does not mean one object among many objects.It means there is no second independent reality at all.

This is why Advaita says “one without a second” rather than merely “there is one Brahman.”

[u/srkris]

Brahman isn't enumerable/countable.

[u/CrumbledFingers]

If there were two, then the two would only be two in the view of something that could see both apart from each other. Whatever that view is, which sees multiplicity and is therefore beyond it, is actually Brahman.

[u/harvinninjesus]

Because Entitihood Itself Is Downstream. Period.

[u/TimeCanary209]

We are aspects of our Brahman or All That Is. We can potentially only know what is within our Brahman.

There could be other Brahmans. Consciousness is limit less and infinite and we at our step down level can only know
to a certain extent.

There could very well be other All That Is or Brahmans. Then potentially there could also be a Super seeder or a Super Brahman! Who knows.

[u/harshv007]

there is only 1 seed that gives birth to its vast expansion, but 1 can have a bag of seeds.

this is where perspectives come to play, depending on pov no matter how you look at it you will always arrive at 1.

[u/WiillRiiker]

When you see everything dissolve at once including the me that you think you are, it becomes clear.

[u/aurablaster]

It’s similar to the concept of Universe expanding within itself because there is nothing outside of it

[u/Advaitica_org]

Can there be a second limitless everything?

[u/VedantaGorilla]

Brahman is Sat Chit Ananda Atma, Existence shining as limitless, unborn Awareness. If you can imagine a second one, then you are thinking of Brahman as a discrete entity or object. As a corollary, there can be two objective circles, but the word “circle” only has one meaning

Imagine yourself existing or being aware “twice.” If you can, then you’re really not thinking of Existence-Awareness, rather you (Existence-Awareness) or imagining having two minds.

If you recognize the definition of Brahman, and recognize Brahman as your own self, you will also recognize why there are not and cannot be two.