Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[CylindricalParadox]

Some people refer to Advaita as "not two" when you define Advaita this way it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Non-Duality would be the English translation of Advaita Vendanta and when you look up Non-Duality it's define as "one undivided without a second" One must really have to think about it's definition to try to understand the knowledge of Advaita.

The real meaning of Non-Duality or Advaita refers to that which cannot be known. The very act of trying to define something that cannot be known is giving it shape and form to something which has no shape or form. Others who fully understand Advaita explain a very radical form of it by simply saying that the person or individual is an illusion.

When a person is on the quest for enlightenment and hears this message, its hard for the mind to even comprehend how the person is an illusion. Most assume it means the person is not real however, the word illusion can also be defined as something that is viewed incorrectly. Unfortunately no one can truly learn Non-Duality (Advaita) unless they have the recognition an "Awakening" Enlightenment, Nirvana, Oneness.

[MAYA EL]

Why are you bringing that eastern concept into a philosophy forum?

[CylindricalParadox]

Why are you bringing that eastern concept into a philosophy forum?

I didn't know this was a western view of philosophy only forum.

[Calico]

I think it might fall neatly into a category labelled "Eastern Philosophy."

[Marvin_Edwards]

Some people refer to Advaita as "not two" when you define Advaita this way it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Non-Duality would be the English translation of Advaita Vendanta and when you look up Non-Duality it's define as "one undivided without a second" One must really have to think about it's definition to try to understand the knowledge of Advaita.

The real meaning of Non-Duality or Advaita refers to that which cannot be known. The very act of trying to define something that cannot be known is giving it shape and form to something which has no shape or form. Others who fully understand Advaita explain a very radical form of it by simply saying that the person or individual is an illusion.

When a person is on the quest for enlightenment and hears this message, its hard for the mind to even comprehend how the person is an illusion. Most assume it means the person is not real however, the word illusion can also be defined as something that is viewed incorrectly. Unfortunately no one can truly learn Non-Duality (Advaita) unless they have the recognition an "Awakening" Enlightenment, Nirvana, Oneness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Is_a_Mountain

[Angel Trismegistus]

Some people refer to Advaita as "not two" when you define Advaita this way it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Non-Duality would be the English translation of Advaita Vendanta and when you look up Non-Duality it's define as "one undivided without a second" One must really have to think about it's definition to try to understand the knowledge of Advaita.

The real meaning of Non-Duality or Advaita refers to that which cannot be known. The very act of trying to define something that cannot be known is giving it shape and form to something which has no shape or form. Others who fully understand Advaita explain a very radical form of it by simply saying that the person or individual is an illusion.

When a person is on the quest for enlightenment and hears this message, its hard for the mind to even comprehend how the person is an illusion. Most assume it means the person is not real however, the word illusion can also be defined as something that is viewed incorrectly. Unfortunately no one can truly learn Non-Duality (Advaita) unless they have the recognition an "Awakening" Enlightenment, Nirvana, Oneness.

I find this view of Reality intuitively vary compelling. Brahman, Atman, Maya -- there is an irresistible allure to non-duality.

[CylindricalParadox]

Some people refer to Advaita as "not two" when you define Advaita this way it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Non-Duality would be the English translation of Advaita Vendanta and when you look up Non-Duality it's define as "one undivided without a second" One must really have to think about it's definition to try to understand the knowledge of Advaita.

The real meaning of Non-Duality or Advaita refers to that which cannot be known. The very act of trying to define something that cannot be known is giving it shape and form to something which has no shape or form. Others who fully understand Advaita explain a very radical form of it by simply saying that the person or individual is an illusion.

When a person is on the quest for enlightenment and hears this message, its hard for the mind to even comprehend how the person is an illusion. Most assume it means the person is not real however, the word illusion can also be defined as something that is viewed incorrectly. Unfortunately no one can truly learn Non-Duality (Advaita) unless they have the recognition an "Awakening" Enlightenment, Nirvana, Oneness.

I find this view of Reality intuitively vary compelling. Brahman, Atman, Maya -- there is an irresistible allure to non-duality.

I think many people get caught up in those words, Non-duality is really about describing it in a way for others to make sense out of it. The word Maya is interesting, means illusion but also a forgetting. From my understanding, consciousness seems to be stuck in an infinite experience of death and rebirth through't eternity. So everyone one of us can be different re-incarnations of that one manifested consciousness, the i will always be me. Non duality is the knowledge that the individual may be mortal but consciousness is eternal.

[MAYA EL]

Why are you bringing that eastern concept into a philosophy forum?

I didn't know this was a western view of philosophy only forum.

I personally find it to be more along the lines of a religion than a philosophy although to call Advaita a religion is somehow incorrect? Despite the religious characteristics of said fallacious viewpoint on life.

[Angel Trismegistus]

I personally find it to be more along the lines of a religion than a philosophy although to call Advaita a religion is somehow incorrect? Despite the religious characteristics of said fallacious viewpoint on life.

Wherein lies the fallacy in your humble opinion?

[Pattern-chaser]

Why are you bringing that eastern concept into a philosophy forum?

Because oriental philosophy is fascinating? Because this forum supports the discussion of a wide range of topics, and is definitely not limited to "Western Philosophy"?

[Pattern-chaser]

As I understand it, advaita vedanta is just the observation that the universe is one thing, not a collection of things. There is no obvious reason to sub-divide it, except that human minds have difficulty swallowing the universe in one gulp, so we divide it up in a reductionist ("divide and conquer") way, to help us to understand. Have I got this hopelessly wrong?

[detail]

Some people refer to Advaita as "not two" when you define Advaita this way it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Non-Duality would be the English translation of Advaita Vendanta and when you look up Non-Duality it's define as "one undivided without a second" One must really have to think about it's definition to try to understand the knowledge of Advaita.

The real meaning of Non-Duality or Advaita refers to that which cannot be known. The very act of trying to define something that cannot be known is giving it shape and form to something which has no shape or form. Others who fully understand Advaita explain a very radical form of it by simply saying that the person or individual is an illusion.

When a person is on the quest for enlightenment and hears this message, its hard for the mind to even comprehend how the person is an illusion. Most assume it means the person is not real however, the word illusion can also be defined as something that is viewed incorrectly. Unfortunately no one can truly learn Non-Duality (Advaita) unless they have the recognition an "Awakening" Enlightenment, Nirvana, Oneness.

The problem with this , that you abolish a whole aspect of formal logics, doxastic logic and epistemic logic in order to formulate , ontological made conclusions , based on double meant answers . Raimond Smullyan would fear this discipline, the knights, demons and robbers would be out of job.

[CylindricalParadox]

I didn't know this was a western view of philosophy only forum.

I personally find it to be more along the lines of a religion than a philosophy although to call Advaita a religion is somehow incorrect? Despite the religious characteristics of said fallacious viewpoint on life.

Non-duality is not a teaching or a religion but you can definitely get religion and teachings out of it even philosophy out of it. Descartes taught the complete opposite of it in the western side. It's a recognition that some people have that there is an apparent existence. What appears is nothing appearing as everything. Reality is real and unreal real because there isn't a second reality to compare it to and unreal because no thing can be known outside of reality.

Some people use dream analogy to describe it. Le'ts say you're having a dream that you are a different person named John living in Chicago, you brush your teeth then you get ready to go outside. All of a sudden you wake up in your bed with the sudden realization that you were not john living in Chicago. Well that's what enlightenment feels like the sudden recognition, the non-dual awakening.

[h_k_s]

Some people refer to Advaita as "not two" when you define Advaita this way it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Non-Duality would be the English translation of Advaita Vendanta and when you look up Non-Duality it's define as "one undivided without a second" One must really have to think about it's definition to try to understand the knowledge of Advaita.

The real meaning of Non-Duality or Advaita refers to that which cannot be known. The very act of trying to define something that cannot be known is giving it shape and form to something which has no shape or form. Others who fully understand Advaita explain a very radical form of it by simply saying that the person or individual is an illusion.

When a person is on the quest for enlightenment and hears this message, its hard for the mind to even comprehend how the person is an illusion. Most assume it means the person is not real however, the word illusion can also be defined as something that is viewed incorrectly. Unfortunately no one can truly learn Non-Duality (Advaita) unless they have the recognition an "Awakening" Enlightenment, Nirvana, Oneness.

And ???

Is there a point in all this ???

Or a question ???

[CylindricalParadox]

Some people refer to Advaita as "not two" when you define Advaita this way it doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Non-Duality would be the English translation of Advaita Vendanta and when you look up Non-Duality it's define as "one undivided without a second" One must really have to think about it's definition to try to understand the knowledge of Advaita.

The real meaning of Non-Duality or Advaita refers to that which cannot be known. The very act of trying to define something that cannot be known is giving it shape and form to something which has no shape or form. Others who fully understand Advaita explain a very radical form of it by simply saying that the person or individual is an illusion.

When a person is on the quest for enlightenment and hears this message, its hard for the mind to even comprehend how the person is an illusion. Most assume it means the person is not real however, the word illusion can also be defined as something that is viewed incorrectly. Unfortunately no one can truly learn Non-Duality (Advaita) unless they have the recognition an "Awakening" Enlightenment, Nirvana, Oneness.

The problem with this , that you abolish a whole aspect of formal logics, doxastic logic and epistemic logic in order to formulate , ontological made conclusions , based on double meant answers . Raimond Smullyan would fear this discipline, the knights, demons and robbers would be out of job.

It's logical for the mind to reject what it can't accept. A simple explanation is that there is no separation, you are not separate from the the objective reality you are experiencing. Your subjective reality and the objective reality are one thing its not two, non dual. The argument is, thats wrong because i am separate from everything else, there is separation. The message is frightening because it denies the sense of separate self. "Are you a human experiencing the universe or are you the universe having a human experience?"