dwai

yes “I am” is necessary and not compete. Completion will not happen from our volition. any action taken with doership is a step away from “it”. Quiet mind doesn’t mean “no doership” to me. Quiet mind is just with less and less frequent thoughts. Mind it a field of thoughts...so a quiet mind is just a sparse field. Nonduality doesn’t mean the mind goes away. It means the mind is not identified with anymore, anymore than the body is, or the separation of 10,000 things for that matter. Minor things like smoking or not-smoking have no bearing on whether one has non-dual realization or not, imho. If smoking has to happen, then it will. If non-smoking has to happen then it will. The “going beyond” absence or presence of mind is a result of dropping of the identification, imho.

“ I am”is not nondual. In Kevala nirvikalpa samadhi, there is nothing at all. No subject, no object. What is called Sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi happens on its own. It cannot be induced. As long as there is a doer, it is not sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. I am is the first principle that leads to all other experiences. “I AM” rises from the nondual but as long as it is “I AM” it is also is the condition that gives rise to all appearances. All we can do is abide in the “I AM” till it too disappears. Then there is nondual.

So per your definition in the non-dual, is there a subject and object?

If there is no sense of doership, and actions happen on their own, only witnessing happens with no desire to control them (goes with no sense of doership), then it is nondual. Otherwise it is not, imho.

It is beyond all definitions. and is also something that no amount of mental jugglery can reduce to a “one thing”.

Per my definition the water in my bathtub is the water in another’s ocean.

Added a section to my initial response — I’d only add that “I” and “am” are inseparable to me. Ie Being and awareness. The “I am-ness”. So even though the antahkarana has chitta, manas, ahamkara and buddhi; I am is not ahamkara. It is before the body identification happens. I am body and mind is ahamkara. I AM comes first. Then antahkarana appears. So while I am is not nonduality, the only thing that we can get as it’s attributes are “awarenss in the moment”. So it is the “one” from which/to which the phenomena appear.

you are a beautiful person dear brother. 🤗 Thanks for humoring my thanksgiving debate fever.

Yes I agree with this. I am is the root of all experience. Or in other words it is the point from which the mind rises and into which the mind falls back. the problem is most people go about their lives without knowing how the mind operates. I find that if we don’t know how to abide in the “I am”, it will lead to mistaken identification with phenomena. I’d only add that “I” and “am” are inseparable to me. Ie Being and awareness. The “I am-ness”. So even though the antahkarana has chitta, manas, ahamkara and buddhi; I am is not ahamkara. It is before the body identification happens. I am body and mind is ahamkara. I AM comes first. Then antahkarana appears. So while I am is not nonduality, the only thing that we can get as it’s attributes are “awarenss in the moment”. So it is the “one” from which/to which the phenomena appear.

Actually the Brahmanistha masters don’t say anything against any tradition. But if you want to believe something because that is the more popular point to view, that’s your prerogative. Doesn’t make it correct though

They are not different realizations. They are two sides of the same coin, as the proverb goes.

That is not a logic jump - it is fact local mind or non-local mind, mind is a flow of objects. You go beyond the body-mind limitations and expand to a larger scale. I don’t find that to be pure being. That is being this or that...(identifying with objects), hence in subject-object duality. Nothing I can experience is pure being. Only the presence in the here and now - empty awareness, is pure being. Don't get be wrong, I find great value to the expansion and non-local mind stuff. But that is not nonduality to me. That is just more subtle duality.

They are the same One cannot do anything without the “I am” first. Theories about “how and why” are just stories. They can be validated or invalidated based on which story you subscribe to. This doesn’t even need direct experience. Just logic is sufficient. I know we have direct experience. But even that is predicated on “i am”.

”I am” is evident. “I am all” is slightly different imho. You are right about the definition of “all”. What is “all”? What does “all” mean in the context of “I am”? Whether in a puddle or in the ocean, qualifying the “I am” as “all” or “nothing” or “this” or “that” is predicated on “I am”. There is no escaping that. The “I am” is the stillness, it is awareness, it is presence. Everything else is just an identification with things

Nondual is not about a philosophy. We either understand or we don’t. That’s the best we can do...It’s okay. Once the doership is gone, it will be clear.

It’s not just about words. It is about the meaning behind the words. There aren’t too many like Adi Shankara born every thousand years or so. We should have shraddha. There’s still a long way to go brother

Look up the term “Parabrahman”. You will find what many such as nisargadatta Maharaj and adi Shankara expound on this. Brahman is manifest. Parabrahman is unmanifest, beyond oneness or multiplicity.

Do you agree that syntax cannot describe the Non-dual? Do you agree that certain words do need to be employed to point the mind towards the source? That while they might point in the right direction, the “reality” is “avachaniya” or “unspeakable”. The One that is “I”, is where oneness or separateness is experienced. Both are experiences. Oneness is less differentiated than separateness. But it is still predicated on experience. We have to go from separateness to oneness. Then the oneness too disappears, and only nondual remains. It is pointless to pick on the directions to the destination to claim that the directions are claiming to be the destination. Do you think the topic of emptiness/void and form is somehow absolved of this “flaw”? No. Who can experience emptiness by reading the words? Words are in the the domain of duality. When upanishads refer to Self or Buddhism refer to Non-Self, they are taking a positive or negative approach syntactically. Neither can capture the “reality”. Only point to it. The truth is anirvachaniya. Also so let me ask this - is your fundamental experience, or sense of being/existence ever once in doubt irrespective of whether you are expanded to level 30 or are at level 0? Does your “I-ness” remain throughout all your experiences? I would love to be proven wrong, but never can I experience anything without being present. So it is a futile quest to expect that to happen.

Imho, it is an incomplete understanding of Advaita Vedanta that assumes “one thing” is it. Advaita Vedanta does not say there is only “one thing”. “Tad Ekam evadvitiyam “ doesn’t imply a “one thing”. People conflate “thing” to it. That which is nondual is not a thing. If nondual there is no possibility of either separate or non-separate. Is that one? Is that not one? It’s a matter of semantics. We should not read just the words, but understand what they imply. We merely have to apply logic to see that. Follow my logic in the OP. You will see that It is true. Also read this — https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_2a.html

Adding another powerful one (The english translation is spotty in places) --

I thought i'd add a story (oldie but I love re-reading it) --

This website has a nice introduction into Kashmir Shaivism. I don't practice this way, but found the material very interesting... http://www.universalshaivafellowship.org/kashmir-shaivism/teachings/practice/#.WZR_Cq2ZM0o Two main concepts that id' like to explore -- Chakrodaya and Ajapa-Gayatri. I'm not quoting from the first article due to copyright notices. This website has some info about these --

Is that tied to an inherent realization of the underlying "oneness" of all being...how can you not feel love and compassion towards your own Self? I find that when we look with the rational-mind and intellect, we see separation. When we look from the heart-mind, we don't find any separation. You and I are not separate or different. This feeling of non-separation is love to me. This is compassion, unconditioned.

There are lots of connotation associated with words. The words we use, cause reactions in the minds of the readers/listeners. They have the ability to inspire or make one perspire in irritation or fear One very misunderstood word is "absolute", when used in context of "absolute reality or truth". The fact is, the word used in Sanskrit is not simply "absolute". It is a compound word - it comprises of two words. Parama and Artha. Parama means ultimate or maximum. artha means value or meaning. Together they form the word "paramaartha". The term used to refer to what is translated as "absolute existence or reality or truth" in English is "parmaarthika satya". So paramaarthika satya is then literally "the existence of ultimate value". it is juxtaposed against the term "vyavaharika satya". Vyavahara means "practice/use". So vyavaharika satya means the existence/reality of practical value. To operate in the dualistic world one must follow the rules of practical importance. Why is paramarthika satya of ultimate value? Because it deals with that which we ultimately are. Which we always have been and will always remain the core of our being. That also includes the phenomenon who is doing the practical things in the dualistic world of names and forms.