There is no you

[Gem]

'There is no you' is the basic tenet of non-duality. I think it means to say that there isn't a personal/individual awareness, only an individualised experience - no one is here to experience it.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Gem

'There is no you' is the basic tenet of non-duality. I think it means to say that there isn't a personal/individual awareness, only an individualised experience - no one is here to experience it.

The main teaching is that Oneness is the only reality, so all that we see around us, including ourselves, is the appearance of difference where there is no difference whatsoever.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Gem

'There is no you' is the basic tenet of non-duality. I think it means to say that there isn't a personal/individual awareness, only an individualised experience - no one is here to experience it.

There are variations of view within what has been labelled "Neo Advaita". Some beleive "There is no you" is the main teaching. Others do not.

Both are based on the assertion that Oneness is the only reality so all that we see, including ourselves, is an appearance of difference where there is no difference whatsoever. So if follows that in reality there is no such thing as a separate person.

For some, Oneness as the only reality, means the main teaching is that there is no-one who can become enlightened.

For others, Oneness as the only reality, means the main teaching is that there is no possibility of being disconnected from Oneness regardless of what state you are in, because it is already Oneness arising as that state, so no need for for a path or practise to get where you are already at! The cry then goes out that that must be realized, completely overlooking that it is already Oneness not realizing. So realization will not in any way increase your conection to Oneness!

Basically these two teachings amount to the same thing. Disconnection is impossible.

[Shivani Devi]

It is difficult to say.

In all of the teachings of advaita vedanta, it says; "you are that" or "that thou art"...if there is no 'you', then there is only 'that'...which is also true as it stands.

When we are operating from the 'higher mind', who 'we' are in regards to our undifferentated Self, IS Brahman, and yet, Brahman alone exists.

We can have the direct experience of being in the awareness where even 'Self' does not exist i.e. when there is no 'experience' or a 'Me/You' who experiences it because all IS the experience itself....but the moment any rationalisation of the awareness happens (without the Self who is 'Self-aware') then, the 'Me/You' comes back into the equation and it becomes 'You/Me is Brahman' in regards to that which we don't associate as being a "You" or a 'Me' anyway.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

It is difficult to say.

In all of the teachings of advaita vedanta, it says; "you are that" or "that thou art"...if there is no 'you', then there is only 'that'...which is also true as it stands.

When we are operating from the 'higher mind', who 'we' are in regards to our undifferentated Self, IS Brahman, and yet, Brahman alone exists.

We can have the direct experience of being in the awareness where even 'Self' does not exist i.e. when there is no 'experience' or a 'Me/You' who experiences it because all IS the experience itself....but the moment any rationalisation of the awareness happens (without the Self who is 'Self-aware') then, the 'Me/You' comes back into the equation and it becomes 'You/Me is Brahman' in regards to that which we don't associate as being a "You" or a 'Me' anyway.

We also have ' I am...that...I am..... it's all good fun

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

It is difficult to say.

In all of the teachings of advaita vedanta, it says; "you are that" or "that thou art"...if there is no 'you', then there is only 'that'...which is also true as it stands.

When we are operating from the 'higher mind', who 'we' are in regards to our undifferentated Self, IS Brahman, and yet, Brahman alone exists.

We can have the direct experience of being in the awareness where even 'Self' does not exist i.e. when there is no 'experience' or a 'Me/You' who experiences it because all IS the experience itself....but the moment any rationalisation of the awareness happens (without the Self who is 'Self-aware') then, the 'Me/You' comes back into the equation and it becomes 'You/Me is Brahman' in regards to that which we don't associate as being a "You" or a 'Me' anyway.

Whether the me/you is present or not makes no difference in terms of connection. Oneness manifests as the me/you present and also as the me/you not present.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Whether the me/you is present or not makes no difference in terms of connection. Oneness manifests as the me/you present and also as the me/you not present.

Is it a good thing that I did not understand a word you just typed?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Is it a good thing that I did not understand a word you just typed?

Ha ha, Sorry Shivani. It would be easier if we were talking face to face which I am sure we would enjoy. However lets try again with the limitations of this method.

We would agree I'm sure that Oneness/Brahman is the only reality so disconnection from Oneness/Brahman is impossible as Oneness/Brahman arises as all states.There is simply nothing else available that is real to arise as ourselves and all we see around us.

So whatever state one may be in, whether it is the state you describe as me/you or the state you describe as you/me. makes no difference in terms of connection to Oneness/Brahman, because Oneness/Brahman is both states.

However connection may not be your (only) concern, so please say more about what difference you think being in one of those states means. as opposed to being in the other?

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Ha ha, Sorry Shivani. It would be easier if we were talking face to face which I am sure we would enjoy. However lets try again with the limitations of this method.

We would agree I'm sure that Oneness/Brahman is the only reality so disconnection from Oneness/Brahman is impossible as Oneness/Brahman arises as all states.There is simply nothing else available that is real to arise as ourselves and all we see around us.

So whatever state one may be in, whether it is the state you describe as me/you or the state you describe as you/me. makes no difference in terms of connection to Oneness/Brahman, because Oneness/Brahman is both states.

However connection may not be your (only) concern, so please say more about what difference you think being in one of those states means. as opposed to being in the other?

Thank you, I see what has happened now, I didn't mean to transpose personal pronouns in my second paragraph and you picked up on that. Yes, it would be nice to talk about this personally because such nuances cannot be inferred over the internet.

This is all according to my teachings - and I know nothing about Neo Advaita, because I understood the whole essence of Vedanta (the end of knowledge) after reading the Mandukya and Chhandogya Upanishads...nothing more was needed...nothing more was required in regards to anything that was 'non-dual' forever and ever amen.

We could say that nothing is Brahman or everything is Brahman and both would be correct and we can also understand the Saguna (attributed) non-duality which is also Vishishtadvaita or qualified monism or the Nirguna (non-attributed) non-duality aspect which is Achintya...which exists as satchitananda...existence (truth), consciousness and bliss...and both would be correct.

To understand this, the light of conscious awareness of Brahman (prakasha) would only be known due to its corresponding reflective awareness (vimarsha)...like how heat is a manifestation of the sun, but to say the sun is 'hot' doesn't describe the sun...even though the sun is hot.

I shall continue this a bit later, because my whole train of thought just derailed.

[django]

Non-duality is a philosophy masquerading as The Truth IMO, especially the ridiculous neo-advaitan conclusions. Too intellectual, too shallow, and not enough in the body and heart. Just my opinion of course.