Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[Apech]

https://iep.utm.edu/advaita-vedanta/

 

Advaita Vedānta is one version of Vedānta. Vedānta is nominally a school of Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any hermeneutics that attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaņa’s Brahma Sūtra. Advaita is often translated as “non-dualism” though it literally means “non-secondness.” Although Śaṅkara is regarded as the promoter of Advaita Vedānta as a distinct school of Indian philosophy, the origins of this school predate Śaṅkara. The existence of an Advaita tradition is acknowledged by Śaṅkara in his commentaries. The names of Upanṣadic teachers such as Yajñavalkya, Uddalaka, and Bādarāyaņa, the author of the Brahma Sūtra, could be considered as representing the thoughts of early Advaita. The essential philosophy of Advaita is an idealist monism, and is considered to be presented first in the Upaniṣads and consolidated in the Brahma Sūtra by this tradition. According to Advaita metaphysics, Brahman—the ultimate, transcendent and immanent God of the latter Vedas—appears as the world because of its creative energy (māyā). The world has no separate existence apart from Brahman. The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems different as space within a container seems different from space as such. These cardinal doctrines are represented in the anonymous verse “brahma satyam jagan mithya; jīvo brahmaiva na aparah” (Brahman is alone True, and this world of plurality is an error; the individual self is not different from Brahman). Plurality is experienced because of error in judgments (mithya) and ignorance (avidya). Knowledge of Brahman removes these errors and causes liberation from the cycle of transmigration and worldly bondage.

[ralis]

Like I said, this argument will go on ad infinitum. 

[old3bob]

"Advaita Vedānta is one version of Vedānta."    Can knowledge contain Brahman,  or mind  contain no thing?

[Apech]

10 minutes ago, old3bob said:

"Advaita Vedānta is one version of Vedānta."    Can knowledge contain Brahman,  or mind  contain no thing?

 

 

I quite often have a mind with nothing in it.

[dwai]

I’d recommend watching this conversation between a modern consciousness/brain scientist and swami Sarvapriyananda 

 

 

[doc benway]

29 minutes ago, ralis said:

Like I said, this argument will go on ad infinitum. 

 

Given that debates surrounding non-duality date back 2-3 millennia, I suspect you're correct.

Nothing wrong with that... I enjoy the topic far more than Trump talk and Current Events and feel resolution is equally likely here...

I love that we've argued a very polarizing topic (how ironic is that, non-duality is polarizing?) for 19 pages without insults, ad hominem, or reports.

 

 

 

[natural]

25 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I quite often have a mind with nothing in it.

Sounds like my budget.

[blue eyed snake]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

https://iep.utm.edu/advaita-vedanta/

 

thanks, this cuts through the fog, will reread.

[forestofclarity]

5 hours ago, ralis said:

Like I said, this argument will go on ad infinitum. 

 

Not sure it is even an argument--- the terms still have not been properly defined or agreed upon. 

[ralis]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

Not sure it is even an argument--- the terms still have not been properly defined or agreed upon. 

 

That will take another thousand posts or so, maybe more. 

[doc benway]

The only differences between dualism and nondualism that are interesting to me are the practice and applications. The conceptual stuff is way over my head, seriously. In practice there is a well-defined and clear distinction. 

 

Dualism acknowledges a subject and divides into subject and object, that object coincidentally also being the subject as well as anything external. I cultivate something or change myself in some fashion. Subject working on subject/object.

 

Nondualism acknowledges a subject and asks it to rest as completely and consistently as possible. Subject and object get closer, we open to and embrace all experience in the freshness of the moment. Subject releasing, not interfering. Need I say it?

Wu Wei

 

And for all the time we cannot fully manage with that simplicity alone (most of the time for me lately, it varies) we take advantage of physical, mental and energetic practices. That karmic connection to body, speech, and mind will likely never be extinguished but changes do occur with practice, in all levels of consciousness including Manas.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/53592-differences-between-dualism-and-non-dualism/?do=findComment&comment=980971

 

For me the holistic support found in the wisdom lineages, is a critical piece missing among the non-lineage nondualists like Foster and Harrison and more. The simple nondual insight, though powerful, isn’t always enough for everyone (anyone?) all the time, until Buddhahood… We need to work on the full program as dictated by circumstances (karma) at any given moment.

 

I’d love to see more talk about practice and less about theory but will defer to @Bindi. I could start a new thread but really dig the vibe here!

🔥

[awaken]

四禪是佛陀說的

該不會有人從來沒看過佛經，卻在這裡討論非二元吧？

 

想要知道什麼是四禪很簡單，來跟我學，否則你就站在門外繼續猜

想知道非二元是如何實際運用到二禪與三禪之間？

很簡單，來跟著我一起練

 

或許大部分的人只想說說話而已

 

那就不用真的來找我練了

 

 

The Four Dhyanas are taught by the Buddha

Could it be that someone who has never read Buddhist scriptures is discussing non-duality here?

It's easy to know what the Four Dhyanas are, come and learn from me, otherwise you'll just stand outside the door and keep guessing

Wondering how non-duality actually applies between the second and third jhana?

It's simple, come and practice with me

Maybe most people just want to talk

Then you don't have to come to me to practice.

[awaken]

空也不是一種感覺

空必須搭配五蘊

沒有五蘊的空是毫無意義的

 

如果硬要把空當成一種感覺

只有識神隱，元神顯的狀態是比較接近各位心中定義的空

 

特徵是所有身體的感官都停止運作

視覺，聽覺，嗅覺，味覺，觸覺，意識

 

在這種情況下，內在還有覺知，沒有昏掉

通常從三禪到四禪都是這種狀況

 

 

Empty is not a feeling

Empty must be matched with the five aggregates

Empty without the five aggregates is meaningless

If you insist on taking emptiness as a feeling

Only by knowing the hidden spirit, the state of the primordial spirit is relatively close to the emptiness defined in your heart.

Characterized by the inactivity of all the body's senses

sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, consciousness

In this case, there is still awareness within, not fainting

This is usually the case from the third to the fourth jhana

 

最明顯的特徵是聽覺，當你從三禪當中出來的時候

你會很明顯地感覺到外界的聲音，從沒有聲音，到出現聲音

而你的覺會從深度覺改變成表層意識狀態

 

The most obvious feature is hearing, when you come out of the three jhana

You will clearly feel the sound of the outside world, from no sound to sound

and your awareness will change from depth awareness to surface awareness

 

如果你能練到四禪的深度

從四禪出來的時候

不只是聲音的改變

還包含神秘的精細光的出現

例如你可能會看到一個大大的發光幾何圖形出現在你面前

 

If you can practice the depth of the four jhana

When coming out of the Four jhana

More than just a change in sound

Also contains the appearance of the mysterious fine light

For example, you might see a large glowing geometry appearing in front of you

 

這個圖是我在google能找到最接近的圖

但是和真實的情況還是有所不同

 

This image is the closest I can find on google

But it is different from the real situation

 

請忽略右上角的白色圖案

Please ignore the white pattern in the upper right corner

 

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by awaken

[S:C]

8 hours ago, steve said:

see more talk about practice and less about theory

Good call! 

 

Maybe it might be also be interesting to look at the 'effects' of (non-dual) gnosis in the pragmatical matter of fact aspect of life, not only the effects and phenomenons in meditation (like lights, colours and so on). 

 

 

I'd be interested, if there could be found some commonalities of those who entered (non-dual) gnosis. (Day by day seemingly nothing changes, but if you look back, everything is different? Or rather sudden changes or else...)

Did your body change, did you become averse to some, attracted to others? More sensitive, more balanced or the contrary? 

Did you perceive 'energetics' differently than before? Times of many synchronicities and phases where there were none? What patterns are at work there?

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by schroedingerscat
lack of good words

[Bindi]

8 hours ago, steve said:

The only differences between dualism and nondualism that are interesting to me are the practice and applications. The conceptual stuff is way over my head, seriously. In practice there is a well-defined and clear distinction. 

 

Dualism acknowledges a subject and divides into subject and object, that object coincidentally also being the subject as well as anything external. I cultivate something or change myself in some fashion. Subject working on subject/object.

 

Nondualism acknowledges a subject and asks it to rest as completely and consistently as possible. Subject and object get closer, we open to and embrace all experience in the freshness of the moment. Subject releasing, not interfering. Need I say it?

Wu Wei

 

And for all the time we cannot fully manage with that simplicity alone (most of the time for me lately, it varies) we take advantage of physical, mental and energetic practices. That karmic connection to body, speech, and mind will likely never be extinguished but changes do occur with practice, in all levels of consciousness including Manas.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/53592-differences-between-dualism-and-non-dualism/?do=findComment&comment=980971

 

For me the holistic support found in the wisdom lineages, is a critical piece missing among the non-lineage nondualists like Foster and Harrison and more. The simple nondual insight, though powerful, isn’t always enough for everyone (anyone?) all the time, until Buddhahood… We need to work on the full program as dictated by circumstances (karma) at any given moment.

 

I’d love to see more talk about practice and less about theory but will defer to @Bindi. I could start a new thread but really dig the vibe here!

🔥

mi thread es tu thread 🔱

[awaken]

如果在修煉當中都無法好好的運用非二元

又如何能在生活中利用非二元呢？

修煉當中的現象就是一個指標

證明你是否真的了悟非二元

而不是在思想上自以為是，自我滿足

 

If you can't make good use of non-duality in your cultivate

And how can you use non-binary in your lives?

The phenomenon in cultivation is an indicator

Prove if you really realize non-duality

Instead of being self-righteous in thought, self-satisfaction

 

在思想上認定自己了解非二元

跟在思想上認定自己是佛陀轉世有何不同呢？

在思想上可以天馬行空的為自己加上無數多個皇冠，不是嗎？

 

 

What is the difference between thinking that you understand non-duality and thinking that you are a reincarnation of the Buddha?

 

In thinking, you can add countless crowns to yourself, right?

 

如果你真正了解非二元的話，你必然能夠在修煉當中達到古人所說的境界

而不是在思想當中自我滿足

If you truly understand non-duality, you will definitely be able to reach the realm mentioned by the ancients in cultivation, rather than self-satisfaction in thinking

 

幾乎所有的文件都提到太陽月亮，如果你真的能做到非二元，你必然在你的修煉當中，見到太陽月亮

我是不想把太陽月亮拿出來講，因為連烏肝都沒有，就提到太陽月亮，對各位實在太進階了

Almost all documents mention the sun and the moon. If you can really achieve non-duality, you will definitely see the sun and the moon in your cultivation.

I don't want to talk about the sun and the moon, because most of you don't even have black liver, so I mention the sun and the moon, it's too advanced for you.

 

不只是在丹道當中提到日月，同樣在西藏密宗當中也有同樣的論述

請參考入中論第三章，同樣也提到日月

 

修煉當中的內景是非常明確的指標，而不在思想上自我滿足

思想是很容易產生自我欺騙的現象的

以各位的高知識水平，對於這一點應該是非常清楚的

 

The sun and moon are not only mentioned in Dan Tao, but also in Tibetan Tantra.

Please refer to the third chapter of the entry into the middle, also mentioning the sun and the moon

The inner scene in the practice is a very clear indicator, not self-satisfaction in the mind

Thoughts are prone to self-deception

With your high level of knowledge, this should be very clear

 

http://www.e-dalailama.com/sutra/madhyamakaavatara.pdf

很抱歉我只有中文和藏文版

沒有英文版的

各位應該可以自行找到英文版的

Sorry I only have Chinese and Tibetan versions

no english version

You should be able to find the English version by yourself

 

Madhyamakāvatāra śāstra

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

 

除了日月內景之外，睡眠蓋也是一個指標

如果你真的了解非二元，你必然能夠在修煉中達成無夢有覺狀態

也就是你每天的睡眠是處在一種身體睡著和同時內在覺知存續的狀態

如果你睡著了就昏過去了，甚至做夢，不要說你真的了解非二元

因為太多古人都提到睡眠無夢有覺的指標

In addition to the sun and moon interior, the sleep cover is also an indicator

If you really understand non-duality, you will surely be able to achieve the state of being dreamless and enlightened in your cultivation.

That is, you sleep every day in a state where your body is asleep and your inner awareness is alive at the same time.

Don't say you really understand non-dual if you pass out in sleep or even dream

Because too many ancients mentioned the indicators of sleep without dreams and awareness alive inside at the same time

Edited May 15, 2022 by awaken

[Apech]

9 hours ago, steve said:

The only differences between dualism and nondualism that are interesting to me are the practice and applications. The conceptual stuff is way over my head, seriously. In practice there is a well-defined and clear distinction. 

 

Yes I agree, I am much more interested in practice lineages than scholastic ones.  In Buddhism at least the development of the View is through a support to practice as it gives a formal framework for practice to happen - also for the ethical or self-cultivation aspect also.  It's funny that the more 'non conceptual' a practice becomes, like for instance Dzogchen, the more it develops a complex set of terms for referring to the 'non-conceptual'.  Somehow clear thinking at some level is needed.

 

Quote

Dualism acknowledges a subject and divides into subject and object, that object coincidentally also being the subject as well as anything external. I cultivate something or change myself in some fashion. Subject working on subject/object.

 

Subject = subject + object is quite a deep statement ... in Buddhism again the ultimate subject, like 'naked' primordial wisdom is represented literally by a naked blue seated Buddha e.g. Samantbhadra to show the ineffable nature of the subject.  However in my tradition it is represented by Dorje-Chang who has all the regalia of a medieval Indian king, hat, clothes, jewellery and so on ... to show that the subject is also in the objects.  Dorje - Chang means the constant vajra, vajra being the non-dual power - so that which carries the non-dual is the essence plus all elaborations of essence.  The mind blowing nature of this 'idea' is mind blowing

 

Quote

Nondualism acknowledges a subject and asks it to rest as completely and consistently as possible. Subject and object get closer, we open to and embrace all experience in the freshness of the moment. Subject releasing, not interfering. Need I say it?

Wu Wei

 

What does that mean, for subject and object to get closer?  I would say that the buddha-nature is the subject and that it is just the egoic self which is attachment to a collection of fear based karmic accumulations is 'lessoned' by realising it is a fiction as a self.

 

Quote

And for all the time we cannot fully manage with that simplicity alone (most of the time for me lately, it varies) we take advantage of physical, mental and energetic practices. That karmic connection to body, speech, and mind will likely never be extinguished but changes do occur with practice, in all levels of consciousness including Manas.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/53592-differences-between-dualism-and-non-dualism/?do=findComment&comment=980971

 

The linked pages are I think from Zen, which is a Yogacara school.  That is one based on Mind-Only interpretation in that there is nothing real apart from the immediate Mind and its activity.  The Manas, indeed the whole of the eightfold mind 'model' is not real.  They are not parts of a functioning mind like engine parts or brain parts.  They are simply the partial recognition of what is ultimately real which is Mind itself.  Manas simply is the 'self' arising capacity in Mind, the alaya is simply the Mind storing the imprints of events and so on.

 

Quote

For me the holistic support found in the wisdom lineages, is a critical piece missing among the non-lineage nondualists like Foster and Harrison and more. The simple nondual insight, though powerful, isn’t always enough for everyone (anyone?) all the time, until Buddhahood… We need to work on the full program as dictated by circumstances (karma) at any given moment.

 

I think the attraction and so the resultant popularity of Advaita Vedanta amongst Westerners who have experiences of 'oneness' or whatever is because it is an ideal monism - and so it fits neatly with the underlying duality of Judeo-Christian culture posing as a solution.  It seems like an answer and unfortunately leads down a rabbit hole where the person continually affirms their enlightened state.

 

Quote

I’d love to see more talk about practice and less about theory but will defer to @Bindi. I could start a new thread but really dig the vibe here!

🔥

 

Sorry for more 'theory'.

Edited May 15, 2022 by Apech

[blue eyed snake]

9 hours ago, steve said:

Nondualism acknowledges a subject and asks it to rest as completely and consistently as possible. Subject and object get closer, we open to and embrace all experience in the freshness of the moment.

 

well, that places the practice as I was taught clearly in the nondual tradition.

 

The realisation that there is a sort of all encompassing consciousness came earlier though. I remember clearly when I came out of that meditation totally shocked, like WTF...those newagey people with their talk about this were right after all...

 

I've never looked into theoretic ' explanations' and philosophies though, so this is all very interesting. On the other hand, it smacks of err... making a story out of things you've experienced.

 

and that experiencing is one of the things I stumble on.

 

years ago I was out for a weekend ( or week, do not remember) of training, after a morning filled with energy exercise we laid down in the dojo for a lying down meditation. I had looked forward to this as meditation tended to be much deeper done like this. Then the guy beside me started to snore, he always had this trouble falling asleep, so I rolled over a bit and gave him a wifely push and whispered. You will stay awake now. But alas, after a few minutes the sawing of wood restarted, being quite irked and the body telling me there was an urge to pee also I stole out of the dojo, took care of bodily needs and decided to pick up meditating upstairs.

 

Laid down, mentally connected with downstairs and then...bam

 

I was in the beautiful summer air, the deepest blue with nice fat white clouds, or was I?

I was that sky

 

but 'I' was not there. The I was folded up real small, so small as to be totally un-interfering.

at the same time there was an awareness of the body which was lying down in a stupor, someone was standing beside it. ( later I heard that someone had gone up to check on me)

 

so there was an awareness of being the sky, being into the sky, and something about the body

 

the one typing this remembers, but somehow was not involved

[dwai]

23 minutes ago, Apech said:

I think the attraction and so the resultant popularity of Advaita Vedanta amongst Westerners who have experiences of 'oneness' or whatever is because it is an ideal monism - and so it fits neatly with the underlying duality of Judeo-Christian culture posing as a solution.  It seems like an answer and unfortunately leads down a rabbit hole where the person continually affirms their enlightened state.

What is it with some westerners and their narcissistic tunnel vision wrt themselves?  
 

 

What about the ~ 1billion Indians Hindus?  What Judeo-Christian position does it fit for us?
 

It seems that you adjust your understanding to  fit your intellectual proclivity. You’ll not be the first to do that, and certainly the last. 

[Apech]

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

What is it with some westerners and their narcissistic tunnel vision wrt themselves?  
 

 

What about the ~ 1billion Indians Hindus?  What Judeo-Christian position does it fit for us?
 

It seems that you adjust your understanding to  fit your intellectual proclivity. You’ll not be the first to do that, and certainly the last. 

 

I think you missed my point.

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I think you missed my point.

I think you miss the whole “simplicity of wisdom” perspective.

 

It is not meant for self-aggrandizement, but rather for direct insight of one’s true nature as pure consciousness that shines forth with all phenomena. And it is certainly not difficult for moderately intelligent people to “get”, at the intellectual level. To turn that into realization is a relatively harder process, because one has to work against a lifetime of conditioning (at

least). That’s the allure of direct path systems for westerners,  as I see it  — the westerner society is intellectually oriented. It has less to do with the judeo-Christian worldview.
 

Also, if you infer from Advaita Vedanta the abrahamic idea of God, something has gone wrong in your understanding. 

 

I find more usurpation/transference of judeo-Christianity happening from within the hatha yoga circles. 

 

 

 

 

[S:C]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

abrahamic

Indeed not that easy to come toward nondualism from this direction. If one wishes to bypass science and the word consciousness and go by judeo-christian systematics, the older judaic concept of Adam Kadmon (splinters of light without vessels) and the older concept of the Holy Spirit (dove, light, different languages, e.g. distinct but inherent) might be of more help. 

 

[Both imply, that in corporeal form they have a distinct inherent quality that is not of their own but universal, even if somewhat hidden, imo.]

[ralis]

8 minutes ago, schroedingerscat said:

Indeed not that easy to come toward nondualism from this direction. If one wishes to bypass science and the word consciousness and go by judeo-christian systematics, the older judaic concept of Adam Kadmon (splinters of light without vessels) and the older concept of the Holy Spirit (dove, light, different languages, e.g. distinct but inherent) might be of more help. 

 

[Both imply, that in corporeal form they have a distinct inherent quality that is not of their own but universal, even if somewhat hidden, imo.]

 

From my study of the Axial Age I found the belief systems as you mentioned were formed during and somewhat before the Axial Age. What were belief systems before that? Most likely tribal deities/shamanism as written about in Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God." Interference by a priesthood that changed primal beliefs i.e, Judeo-Christian monotheism. 

 

Dzogchen teachings are universal and timelessness. 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

I think you miss the whole “simplicity of wisdom” perspective.

 

It is not meant for self-aggrandizement, but rather for direct insight of one’s true nature as pure consciousness that shines forth with all phenomena. And it is certainly not difficult for moderately intelligent people to “get”, at the intellectual level. To turn that into realization is a relatively harder process, because one has to work against a lifetime of conditioning (at

least). That’s the allure of direct path systems for westerners,  as I see it  — the westerner society is intellectually oriented. It has less to do with the judeo-Christian worldview.
 

Also, if you infer from Advaita Vedanta the abrahamic idea of God, something has gone wrong in your understanding. 

 

I find more usurpation/transference of judeo-Christianity happening from within the hatha yoga circles. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm absolutely certain you missed my point.

[doc benway]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Yes I agree, I am much more interested in practice lineages than scholastic ones.  In Buddhism at least the development of the View is through a support to practice as it gives a formal framework for practice to happen - also for the ethical or self-cultivation aspect also.  It's funny that the more 'non conceptual' a practice becomes, like for instance Dzogchen, the more it develops a complex set of terms for referring to the 'non-conceptual'.  Somehow clear thinking at some level is needed.

 

I think part of the reason is that the closer we get to non-conceptual practice the less confidence we have in the veracity of terms to define it. In the teachings with which I'm most familiar the simple terms give way to multiple terms attempting to point at it from different directions. Metaphors, similes and reference back to one's experience take the place of definitions. Rather than clear thinking being needed, I would offer that what is needed is the clarity that is independent of thinking. 

 

Quote

Subject = subject + object is quite a deep statement ... in Buddhism again the ultimate subject, like 'naked' primordial wisdom is represented literally by a naked blue seated Buddha e.g. Samantbhadra to show the ineffable nature of the subject.  However in my tradition it is represented by Dorje-Chang who has all the regalia of a medieval Indian king, hat, clothes, jewellery and so on ... to show that the subject is also in the objects.  Dorje - Chang means the constant vajra, vajra being the non-dual power - so that which carries the non-dual is the essence plus all elaborations of essence.  The mind blowing nature of this 'idea' is mind blowing

 

I appreciate you sharing that. It is a valuable and important teaching tool and support. 

 

Quote

 

 

What does that mean, for subject and object to get closer?  I would say that the buddha-nature is the subject and that it is just the egoic self which is attachment to a collection of fear based karmic accumulations is 'lessoned' by realising it is a fiction as a self.

 

When i used that expression, I was referring to my personal experience as a practitioner. 

As the sense of self that is very busy thinking, elaborating, coloring and commenting on my experience slowly releases and rests (getting smaller as blue eyed snake suggests), my experience of whatever is present in that moment, in the senses, in the body, and mind becomes more clear, more immediate, more naked and fresh. I'm trying not to define this so much in conceptual terms but rather staying with the experience of practice. 

 

Quote

 

The linked pages are I think from Zen, which is a Yogacara school.  That is one based on Mind-Only interpretation in that there is nothing real apart from the immediate Mind and its activity.  The Manas, indeed the whole of the eightfold mind 'model' is not real.  They are not parts of a functioning mind like engine parts or brain parts.  They are simply the partial recognition of what is ultimately real which is Mind itself.  Manas simply is the 'self' arising capacity in Mind, the alaya is simply the Mind storing the imprints of events and so on.

 

Thanks for that, I was using that as a reference since we used it earlier in the thread. No model we could possibly offer can be established as real. What is real is the direct experience of our practice. All else is conceptual labeling and elaboration. There is a "realness" to that also but I don't want to get bogged down in that. I do think the model is useful to make the point that what is affected by such practices include the activities of mind, the interpretation and experiences of sense consciousness, the content and influence of store consciousness, even the "manas" or habitual and karmic tendency to identify with a self. Real changes occur in experience and behavior (hopefully we'll get to some discussion of that if we don't get too derailed). 

 

Quote

I think the attraction and so the resultant popularity of Advaita Vedanta amongst Westerners who have experiences of 'oneness' or whatever is because it is an ideal monism - and so it fits neatly with the underlying duality of Judeo-Christian culture posing as a solution.  It seems like an answer and unfortunately leads down a rabbit hole where the person continually affirms their enlightened state.

 

I get the point you are making here. As Westerners steeped in millennia of Judeo-Christian ontology and epistemology and the power of the materialistic view, there is a powerful authenticity and appeal to a completely different and empowering perspective informed by a more collective and less materialistic cultural and historic background. I don't see your comment as belittling or as Judeo-Christian-splaining but I can understand others' sensitivity on the subject. 

 

Quote

Sorry for more 'theory'.

 

Hard to avoid completely in this format and what theory you offer is often quite well informed and beneficial for me. 

So thanks!