s1va

The Brahman per Vishistadvaita is not underlying 'One'. If that is the case, then there won't be any room for duality. It is just stated as something unique. What you mentioned by non-dual and dual and other thoughts were very similar to this. I was simply pointing out the similarity. Anyway, Thanks for your clarification. It's fine, if you think they are not similar.

Yes, there is no room for such dualistic views when it comes to Advaita. The subject object dualism is held as maya or mithya (false illusion) in Advaita. I think the above is entirely consistent with Advaita Vedanta. This is why I pointed out that Steve's view seems to be consistent with the views of Vishishtadvaita.

You have brought up some valid points about the truth that needs to be seen in duality. I think what you have described corresponds nicely with the system of VishistAdvaita (qualified non-dual) expounded by Ramunuja. Advaita is not the only explanation for the Vedanta and there are other traditions that explain the entire Vedanta with different logic. Advaita is more popular these days outside India. Vishishstadvaita and Dwaita are two other popular traditions that explain the entire Vedanta with different logic (there are more that are not as popular). In the Vishsitadvaita system, the Brahman is accepted as 'One without second', in the sense it is unique and there is no second to it. But other dualistic world of subject-object experience that we see is not rejected entirely as false and having no value at all. They are held to be equally real, true and valuable. This tradition also emphasizes on devotion, commitment & surrender, until the jiva-atma (individual self) understands and merges with the param-atma (Atman). Until this becomes a constant experience.

Excellent point. I totally agree with both statements, understanding has nothing to do with the experience & such understanding becoming an obstacle. This is why the path of intellectual analysis and inquiry alone does not take one far, imho. Very wise words. Your post resonates deeply with my understanding. I am in agreement with the 'effective practices rather than questions and answers', surrender, trust, gratitude, etc. A truly insightful post in it's entirety. Thank you.

It all goes back to what each term mean personally to us. What does nondual mean to you? Do you think mind and nondual are the same?

I just wanted to check if your views on the "I am" that you state is the same as One. I think you have answered that above. Agree, religion is not a (must) requirement for such realizations. Also, advaita is not a religion, it just a state of realization. I just noticed similarities in your post and advaita.

Interesting, I was just involved in a lengthy discussion about non-dual and 'the one'. So, are you stating, the 'I am' that you state in your initial post is essentially the same as 'the one' that is in everything else? If so, I think that would be consistent with the views of Advaita.

In my view, yes, there are many. The fundamental premise, I would agree is the same. It is agreed that everyone is essentially in that nature or 'absolute reality' state already. The only point under discussion was, whether it is apparent and clear to everyone. For instance, here is a great saying from Chandogya Upanishad - "Tat tvam asi" That is what you are (already!) (That absolute reality is the essence of what you really are) . Here is another one that is popular and well known (from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) - "Aham Brahmasmi" I am Brahman (Who I really am, is that absolute reality.) So, if we were to compare Buddha nature to what is mentioned as absolute reality or essential nature in Advaita Vedanta (just on this post for the purposes to see if the starting place is where we arrive), then, answer is 'yes'. It has been described that we are in that state already. It is not just the starting point, this was always our state. The conscious awareness of such truth by everyone is a different thing. The result is essentially the same also after arrival, there is nothing new.

I think the above 2 points explain the difference between self and emptiness in a simple and effective way. Thanks, it was helpful to me.

Yes, this is consistent with my understanding of Atman. Further such Atman is also explained as one and the same as Brahman (not separate from Brahman). This is explained in many places including the Mahavakya, 'Ayam atma brahma' (Atman and Brahman are the same) from Mandukya Upanishad among others.

I was not talking about devotion/bhakti in this instance. But, yes I have to admit that I feel that mere intellectual analysis, without a sense of surrender (which to me is synonymous to 'letting go' or the state of acceptance or, not acting out of the sense of ego) to divine, can not lead one very far. This is also my opinion based on my personal experience. However, I am not stating that Advaita is mere intellectual analysis. There can be such letting go or surrender with any practice, then such method of inquiry would become meaningful for me. There are several yogas in Gita, I see such 'letting go' or acceptance as the base for all of them.

This is the site where I was reading: https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad. It seems to be down for some reason right now. It is also available as paperback. Not a clue really (unless what I wrote was misunderstood in a large part to be arguments against advaita in general). Luckily, unlike some other things, when it comes to advaita, I I feel no attachments to argue for or against it as a system. I just loved to be part of the discussion.

Once again, I am not arguing for or against something, like Advaita. I just quoted the verse because if felt relevant to the post I was replying. I am sorry, if you felt it was cherry-picked to argue for or against a certain point. Thanks for the recommendation to read Gita in entirety, which is something I always enjoy doing Recently, I have come across the Abhinavagupta's commentary of Gita on a site, which I find enjoyable to reread.

I don't think any one of us are arguing against Advaita Vedanta. At least, I am not The only points I discussed were, what exactly Non-dual means per Advaita, 'ONE without a second' or something else like the Nothing/Emptiness state. Some of my personal experiences were different. However, I wouldn't argue that one is right and the other is not, for everyone while there is still ways to go for myself. But, on your first two sentences, I think the Non-dual state that you mention is some state that we arrive at as a result. Not sure if any practice or means can be called as Advaita, including jnana-yoga.

While we live and function in the world, all things happen in duality or multiple mode only. Even after non-dual or any realization for that matter, one functions in the world outside in duality. This, I call the 'practical'. But, the real answer to your question is in the Abhivanagupta's quote above. I think those words of Abhinvagupta comes from such wisdom that transcends realization. If everyone is realized, already in non-dual state, there is also no need for compassion as I stated before. If we hold the manifest world or maya to be equal to a dream, then this would be valid. I personally feel some people like Abhinavagupta and Buddha went far beyond this state of realization in their wisdom, to be able to reintegrate the world and help others with compassion.

Everything that is described, talked about, discussed are all from the standpoint of ego only. That which states it does not matter to the non-dual is also ego! From the absolute standpoint of the non-dual that you mention, there is nothing to say. To say mention or describe the non-dual would not be non-dual Also, with such a view that everyone is already there, it takes out any room for compassion.

IMO, understanding that we are in that state already, does not help penetrate the veil of maya. It may have some value, that is why I said 'little practical value' instead of 'no value'. In Gita, Krishna talks about how difficult it is to truly penetrate this veil of his divine energy which is called maya, even though we are in that state already. Even though it may seem so close to, that practically we are it, it is still impenetrable. "My divine energy Maya, consisting of the three modes of nature, is very difficult to overcome. But those who surrender unto me cross over it easily." - (daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama maya duratyaya mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te). The same verse also advocates a solution, surrender to the divine and by divine grace, it is stated one can cross over such maya easily. If such an understanding makes a person 'let go' and surrender to the divine,

Abhinavagupta describes it beautifully, my statements were partly inspired by this same quote which you made in another place. I could not find the quote or recall entirely, so I described the issue as I understand it.

While it may be true that all of us are in that state already, I think such truth has little practical value, if such realization is not apparent or shining all the time.

If the identification with things comes and goes -- this seems to be the reason for all issues -- even if such identification comes rarely, I would think this is not non-dual realization that you describe. Would this be accurate?

I think you are not actually talking about the act of smoking. But, the mental obsession for smoking or that next cigarette, would this be accurate? If that obsession is not there, the act by itself should not be an issue. Edit: I want to add smoking rarely ever seems to be non-obsessive

If the identification is dropped (not by effort, naturally), and then later it comes back, does this mean it is "going beyond" or the non-dual state? This is a crucial question for me based on my own past experiences. The Realization once arrived should be a constant and permanent experience -- continuous bliss at some levels. If it goes away even momentarily, would it still be considered non-dual? Edit: The calm mind that is discussed or even the Samadhi states seem to come and go.

Perhaps @dwai can provide some insight on how higher samadhi states relate to the Non-dual. If one can achieve a state wherein, a person can be in Sahaja Samadhi for most of the time or 24x7, would that be considered as being in the Non-dual state? (With the same assumption that this is the higher Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi)

Yes, I have thought about this before. I could only think of 2 reasons. (1) Perhaps, the history was not recorded properly, there was no written record at the time of historical Buddha. But, I think the 2) might more be the case. (2) Perhaps even the greatest masters evolve and move into even greater levels of expansion and their opinion on certain topics change over time. Like everything is ever evolving and expanding there is not one 'end' line anywhere.

It is interesting that you brought up the samadhi into this discussion -- Nirvikalpa samadhi. I wonder how exactly the "I am" or Non-dual state that we discuss, relates to the state of Samadhi in general. If one is in Sahaja Samadhi, performing actions (I am talking about the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi while being conscious, not sure if this is called as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or the highest Samadhi) , would that be considered as equal to the Non-dual state? If this the case, is Sahaja Samadhi the goal? I would think there is more to it, in general.