Hi eputkonen,


If I understand you correctly...
What you are stating seems obvious to many, myself included.

Consistent with that, Sri Aurobindo provides accordingly, some cogent criticism regarding the deficiencies of Advaita philoshophy. These critiques are scattered throughout his writings, however a good place to start and perhaps the most condensed statement of this premise is found in the following excerpt (with my emphasis on the key point) from his seminal work on Integral Yoga, "The Synthesis of Yoga" (which I highly recommend reading).

(see my thread here at SF about this book)

Here, he clearly makes the distinction between the 'traditional' bias of Advaita (and other implicitly similar), vs. what a truly integral approach to Oneness would entail without this bias or conventional prejudice.

Quote:

The soul thus possesses itself in the unity of Sachchidananda upon all the manifest planes of its own being. This is the characteristic of the integral knowledge that it unifies all in Sachchidananda because not only is Being one in itself, but it is one everywhere, in all its poises and in every aspect, in its utmost appearance of mutiplicity as in its utmost appearance of oneness. The traditional knowledge while it admits this truth in theory, yet reasons practically as if the oneness were not equal everywhere or could not be equally realised in all. It finds it in the unmanifest Absolute, but not so much in the manifestation, finds it purer in the Impersonal than in the Personal, complete in the Nirguna, not so complete in the Saguna, satisfyingly present in the silent and inactive Brahman, not so satisfyingly present in the active. Therefore it places all these other terms of the Absolute below their opposites in the scale of ascent and urges their final rejection as if it were indispensable to the utter realisation. The integral knowledge makes no such division; it arrives at a different kind of absoluteness in its vision of the unity. It finds the same oneness in the Unmanifest and the Manifest, in the Impersonal and the Personal, in Nirguna and Saguna, in the infinite depths of the universal silence and the infinite largeness of the universal action. It finds the same absolute oneness in the Purusha and the prakriti, in the divine Presence and the works of the divine Power and Knowledge, in the eternal manifestness of the one Purusha and the constant manifestation of the many Purushas; in the inalienable unity of Sachchidananda keeping constantly real to itself its own manifold oneness and in the apparent divisions of mind, life and body in which oneness is constantly, if secretly real and constantly seeks to be realised. All unity is to it an intense, pure and infinite realisation, all difference an abundant, rich and boundless realisation of the same divine and eternal Being. - Sri Aurobindo, The Synthesis of Yoga, Part 2, Chapter 16, “Oneness”, paragraph 2 direct link to entire chapter on Oneness

btw,

'saguna' refers to with form/qualities;
'nirguna' = without form/without qualities.

Hope this is helpful for the purpose of this discussion,

~ J