Wrong understanding of the term Advaita
Tags:
Many here and elsewhere use the term nonduality for various sweeping interpretations while swiftly concluding the negation of everything as an illusion.
Careful!
Advaita which translates to "Nonduality" is not the negation of the duality of subject and object but was originally introduced by Adi Shankara as a concept suggesting that Brahman (God, the absolute) and the Atman (soul) are the same. and not two different things.
From this, the other non-dual conclusions are not straightforward and not trivial as they might seem to some.
Bookmark this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
Thanks...
Too many folks are jumping on the bandwagon of a quick/easy spirituality, in particular a Westernized version of the traditional teachings known as Neo-Advaita, which involves negating everything in a shallow sort of way.
True advaita is the deepest spiritual teaching, and apprehension of the nondual reality requires transcendence of the mind, both in its verbal and nonverbal (imaging) aspects. At minimum, this can take a great deal of sincerity, devotion and willingness to surrender (i.e. "putting God first"), or even decades of spiritual practices. Hearing a teacher say "there is no me" and typing it on a Yahoo forum has no effect on one's spiritual state at all ;-).
http://www.omkaradatta.info
i agree but
i agree with you but...
I know people who once the teacher mentioned that they were not the body, instantly realized this completely. For most of us, full of conditionings, it doesn't happen so.
"decades of spiritual practices" - though usually true, we should be careful with such statements as the mind likes it to be a never-ending process, to have the change tomorrow not now, in other words, never to have it.
True, advaita/nonduality is
True, advaita/nonduality is misunderstood – but sometimes negation helps a great deal to see through the illusion (if a process is needed). But once the void is reached, the void is voided and there is a voidless void.
“not the negation of the duality of subject and object” – this is debatable…if “you” are the subject and Brahman is the object, it very much is the negation of duality of subject and object…for they are not two (and subject and object implies two).
Namaste,
~ Eric Putkonen
http://www.awaken2life.org
great to have you back
hey eric, great to have you back, haven't seen you here for some time.
See, here's the thing.
Well, see, what I was wondering was....I mean.....you know.....what eggzakly does this mean? :)
But once the void is reached, the void is voided and there is a voidless void.
Nonduality...no
Nonduality...no otherness.
Namaste,
~ Eric Putkonen
http://www.awaken2life.org
Voidless void...
... is what I mean too by 'absence of absence'. This is 'something' the mind can't grasp, that has to be directly experienced.
It means also that "the void" (absence of the 'me') has no empty or void-y qualities, does not feel like a lack, like a 'missing tooth'.
http://www.omkaradatta.info