K.Venugopal's picture

Average: 4.8 (5 votes)

According to my understanding of Advaita, Advaita is the state of oneness of existence and there is no scope in its philosophy for anything like non-existence. I request the members of this forum to share their thoughts on this subject and tell me if I am right or wrong.

lilian's picture

Not a state

It's not a state, it's an approach, a theory, that argues that all is one beyond the mere appearances of form.

This oneness, according to this doctrine, includes of course also the self and God. Therefore its proposed way to God is not as an external object but as being it.

But here lies the delicate pitfall that unfortunately so many fall into and find it hard to understand, a pitfall which ignores perspectives and thus confuses absolute and relative realities. If the perspective in action of the talker is relative (he is not enlightened, haven't experienced advaita firsthand, for him Advaita is a theory) then his starting point and reality are relative and therefore analysis should be relative in order for him not to get stuck in theory which is always useless. Saying from this standpoint that there is no doer, there is nothing to do and that no effort is possible and other truths from the absolute standpoint are fallacies.

This ignorant interpretation of Advaita is called Neo/Pseudo Advaita.

lilian | Fri, 06/26/2009 - 07:20
Phroggy's picture


I suspect anytime anyone claims to see something you do not, and is not a recognized guru, you consider that person an ignorant neo/pseudo advaitist, which has become the spiritualized version of 'nigger'. This is a convenient excuse for not looking to see if there is, in fact, a doer. If there is the willingness to see, it will be seen, and so the dismissals don't serve anyone.

Phroggy | Fri, 06/26/2009 - 19:21
K.Venugopal's picture

Is anything untrue?

Can we say if a certain thing is true, its opposite is also true?

K.Venugopal | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 04:49
banana's picture

Reality is paradoxial

It may be - paradoxes are not allowed by mind's logic but are allowed by reality.

banana | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 08:56
Phroggy's picture


Paradoxes can only form in a mind by encountering it's own conceptual boundaries. "Reality" knows nothing about mind's confusion and doesn't allow or disallow anything. There are no paradoxes.

Phroggy | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 18:31
banana's picture

Let me explain again

It is a question of perspective.

Paradox is only defined by mind as it is simply defined based on mind's logic. It means something that the mind perceives and that does not adhere to one of mind's logic basic rules: that a something cannot be X and not(X) in the same time and circumstances. And from this perspective of the mind, there are paradoxes - alarms, signaling of exceptions.

Reality, ontology, does not adhere of course to mind's logic nor subordinates itself to it. Reality is reality regardless of the perceiver (although Quantum Physics introduces a somewhat different approach - but let's leave that to another discussion) - therefore from the perspective of absolute reality there are no paradoxes defined. Reality does not need to signal exceptions defined based on artificial view of perceiving mind ( = logic).

The question was asked by a mind as any other question and therefore this was the perspective I was addressing - from this perspective there are paradoxes as defined above. From the perspective of reality, no paradoxes are needed to be defined nor signaled.

banana | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 19:26
Phroggy's picture


No, everything is not true. In a given context, things are true or false. (You either do or don't own a car, either are or aren't married) Ultimately,nothing we can think is True.

Phroggy | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 18:28
banana's picture

nothing is true and everything is true


Nothing is true nor false. True and false are labels which are products of mind's logic viewing relity.

banana | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 19:33
Phroggy's picture


So it's neither true nor false that you own a car? What does your insurance company think about that idea? How does mind come up with a true or false label for whether or not you're maried based on "viewing reality"?

There's nothing to see in 'reality' and so mind isn't viewing anything. It's making it all up as part of the illusion and so in the largest context of 'reality' none of it is true. In the context in which an event can be talked about, it's either true or not regardless of mind's logic.

The idea that everything is true and nothing is true is just mind creating paradoxes for itself again, and this is not necessary.

Phroggy | Sat, 06/27/2009 - 20:03
K.Venugopal's picture

Existence per se

It is possible a person at one time owned a car and later did not. What is ruled out is a person simultaneously owning a car and not owning a car. Simultaneously, at the same time and at the same place, it cannot be both day and night.

Is there a truth that is valid at all places and times - its opposite never existing? Is the proposition that there is only existence such a truth, with its opposite not ever existing? (Existence per se, that is – not the existence or not of a particular thing.)

K.Venugopal | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 08:03
Phroggy's picture


But this is just playing with scenarios and words. There are also scenarios that are not as black and white as owning or not owning a car (now), but the point is that relative truth is definable in it's own context.

Sure, this is how Truth is spoken about, though the speaking of it forces it into the realm of duality by it's conceptualization. Oneness is never false anywhere, anytime. Existence cannot not-exist. These are absolute Truths.

Phroggy | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 23:37
K.Venugopal's picture

Is death a myth?

Is existence life? Is there anything in existence that is not life or alive? Is death only a change of form and therefore a myth?

K.Venugopal | Mon, 06/29/2009 - 02:44
divine intervention's picture

Die and see for yourself

How can death be a myth when you don't have any conclusive and decisive supporting evidences beyond any doubt to counter its yet possible validity?

All you can have are theories and speculations and rather correlative testimonies of those who claim they got enlightened from which you are free to choose and trust the opinion about death which seems most appealing to you until you transcend yourself.

The important issue is that it is not important at all. More important than analyzing and talking about dying is to die. Die while you are alive and see for yourself if it is a myth or not.

divine intervention | Mon, 06/29/2009 - 07:54
K.Venugopal's picture

Dying - ceasing existence?

If dying means ceasing existence, can existence ever cease?

K.Venugopal | Mon, 06/29/2009 - 08:57
Omkaradatta's picture

Dying is not the problem

Dying is not the problem... death is an issue only to the living.

Therefore, life is the problem. One must investigate life, the answer to "death" can be found only there.

Omkaradatta | Wed, 07/01/2009 - 06:29
Phroggy's picture


I was talking about Truth, which doesn't change or come and go. That's all that truly exists.

Phroggy | Mon, 06/29/2009 - 21:02
Omkaradatta's picture

Well said

Well-said, Phroggy. In a sense, truth is the "changingness" itself of everything, which is always now.

Omkaradatta | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 04:41
K.Venugopal's picture


Change cannot be without the changeless. Sound cannot be without silence. Light cannot be without darkness. Movement cannot be without stillness. Time cannot be without the timeless. Forms cannot be without the formless. Existence is changeless, silent, dark, still, timeless and formless. Existence gives birth to change, sound, light, movement, time and forms. Existence always is. Well symbolized in Yin-Yang.

K.Venugopal | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 15:47
david's picture

mind and beyond

Mind cannot perceive formlessness, timelessness and infinity.

Maybe because the essence of mind's approach is form, time and finiteness.

Then the question rises: if the mind cannot perceive formlessness, timelessness and infinity how then we know about form, time and finiteness.

The answer is: we do not! These are mere abstract concepts. We cannot truly imagine what they feel like because whatever we perceive is not.

Even when we go beyond mind we cannot perceive formlessness, timelessness and infinity because there the pairs form-formlessness, time-timelessness and finite-infinity do not exist at all. Not even as concepts. Because there are also no concepts there.

david | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 17:39
Phroggy's picture


Yes, perception refers to the act of forming an object of perception, and mind is a concept used to talk about how this happens. That which IS, prior to the formation of perception, obviously cannot be perceived.

The reason we know of form and time is that the perception of form and time arises from the formless and timeless. It's not possible for mind to have knowledge of this since knowledge is form, but what You are is aware of itSelf as formless/timeless. Not as a thought or an 'object' of perception. The perception of form and time could not arise without this awareness.

Phroggy | Thu, 07/02/2009 - 19:46
Omkaradatta's picture

More 'changingness'

> Change cannot be without
> the changeless.

"Change" *is* changeless.

Time does not pause or stop. Therefore, time is timeless.

There is not-two of anything. To come back to the thread topic, this is advaita.

Omkaradatta | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:45