So what is the difference between Monism and Advaita?

[Guest guest]

I have explored the subject of Monism in a variety of philosophical

contexts and when Advaita is mentioned, as it often is, there seems

to be little or no distinction made, at least in Western

philosophical circles.

 

The best I can get is that Monism as a label has been criticized for

not dealing with the relative realm of being adequately. The other

criticism is that the Monist reference can indicate a materialist

view as the basis, or a mentalist (Mind Only) view as the basis for

the Oneness of it all. Thus the ONE only position has a idealist vs

materialist conflict.

 

Apparently there is a similar problem with Advaita, since there are

several levels of it discussed in Eastern philosophical and spiritual

work, including "Modified Advaita".

 

The Zen Buddhists get around this kind of discussion with "Not One,

not two!"

 

So how is this addressed "correctly"?

 

John L.

[Guest guest]

It's a Western issue!

 

Monism claims that there is only one substance or element, but various monist

philosophers differ about what that substance it is. Advaitins don't differ

with each other as to what everything is made out of: consciousness.

 

One technical difference between monism and Advaita is that monists claim there

is one stuff. That means one, of a possible numerical multiplicity of things.

And their stuff is an actual numerically-countable thing, which there happens to

be just one of. Advaitins' consciousness, on the other hand, is not the kind of

thing that is numerically countable. It's not even a thing! There cannot be

two or more consciousnesses for Advaitins. And in the higher level discussions,

it is not maintained that there is one, either. Provisional discussions in

Advaita might say there is One. But it is not a literal teaching. Rather, it

is an expedient teaching to sublate or collapse the student's belief that there

is a multiplicity. The time will come when the belief in One will also drop

away.

 

Remember the western notion of a plenum? It was never a numerically countable

thing, of which there could have been 2, or 3. The fact that it filled up all

of existence (so the theory went), entailed this.

 

Where there is 1, there has to be the possibility of 2 and so on.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 01:06 AM 9/28/2002 +0000, John Logan wrote:

>I have explored the subject of Monism in a variety of philosophical

>contexts and when Advaita is mentioned, as it often is, there seems

>to be little or no distinction made, at least in Western

>philosophical circles.

>

>The best I can get is that Monism as a label has been criticized for

>not dealing with the relative realm of being adequately. The other

>criticism is that the Monist reference can indicate a materialist

>view as the basis, or a mentalist (Mind Only) view as the basis for

>the Oneness of it all. Thus the ONE only position has a idealist vs

>materialist conflict.

>

>Apparently there is a similar problem with Advaita, since there are

>several levels of it discussed in Eastern philosophical and spiritual

>work, including "Modified Advaita".

>

>The Zen Buddhists get around this kind of discussion with "Not One,

>not two!"

>

>So how is this addressed "correctly"?

>

>John L.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

A brilliant exposition indeed, Gregji. It will serve the advaitins

well to always remember what you so brilliantly concluded.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

 

Advaitins' consciousness, on the other hand, is not the kind of thing

that is numerically countable. It's not even a thing! There cannot

be two or more consciousnesses for Advaitins. And in the higher

level discussions, it is not maintained that there is one, either.

Provisional discussions in Advaita might say there is One. But it is

not a literal teaching. Rather, it is an expedient teaching to

sublate or collapse the student's belief that there is a

multiplicity. The time will come when the belief in One will also

drop away.

>

>

> Where there is 1, there has to be the possibility of 2 and so on.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thank you Madathil.

 

OM,

 

Greg

 

At 04:20 AM 9/28/2002 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>Namaste.

>

>A brilliant exposition indeed, Gregji. It will serve the advaitins

>well to always remember what you so brilliantly concluded.

>

>Pranams.

>

>Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Greetings Gregory,

I would like to add my thanks as well. It was a very clear answer. I

especially related to the sentence -- Where there is one there is the

possiblity of 2, 3, etc.

 

Now I understand the "Not Two" more deeply.

 

John L.

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Thank you Madathil.

>

> OM,

>

> Greg

>

> At 04:20 AM 9/28/2002 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> >Namaste.

> >

> >A brilliant exposition indeed, Gregji. It will serve the

advaitins

> >well to always remember what you so brilliantly concluded.

> >

> >Pranams.

> >

> >Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste John-Ji.

 

You might like to read my post # 13462 where I have excerpted a very

interesting explanation of advaita.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

 

advaitin, "John Logan" <johnrloganis> wrote:

 

Where there is one there is the possiblity of 2, 3, etc.... Now I

understand the "Not Two" more deeply.

[Guest guest]

--- John Logan <johnrloganis wrote:

> Greetings Gregory,

> I would like to add my thanks as well. It was a very clear answer.

> I

> especially related to the sentence -- Where there is one there is

> the

> possiblity of 2, 3, etc.

>

> Now I understand the "Not Two" more deeply.

>

> John L.

>

>

 

If I can add to what Greg worte, advaita takes into consideration the

experience of duality of the seeker and denies that experince is not

real and hence it non-duality. It is teaching to all the seekers who

have in the very seeking resolved that sought is different from the

seeker. Second point as Shree prof. T.M. Mahadevan pointed out that

non-dualism - the non- referes to not only to duality but to -ism as

well since it is not an ism as in monoism.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste;

 

The reference of the term, "monism" seems to imply there is 'one god'

in addition to all living and non-living beings. Our scriptures and

specifically Shankara's Advaita Philosophy emphasizes that there is

"ONLY GOD."

 

This is the most fundamental difference between 'monism'

and 'advaita.' It should be pointed out again that 'advaita' implies

monism but monism may not necessarily imply advaita! Those who think

that monism = advaita commit the 'fallacy of consequence' the well

known logical fallacy described in almost all text books.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram chandran

[Guest guest]

Continuing in the thoughts on monism and advaita,from the advaitin's view

point:

"The Atman" (i.e.) Brahman itself which is conceived of as existing within the

body,where it imagines something other than itself- say a pot, this body or

something like that- is known as" the mind ".Actually there is no such thing as

mind which is self existent. In the same way the Atman is not known in its

entirety as Pure existance and Pure knowledge when it imagines.It is known in

its entirety only in its "Amanabhava"(i.e.)when it does not work as mind and

thus does not cognise any particularity.

"Satyam,Gyanam anantham" is kevala gyaanam and the Atman is nondifferent from

this pure knowledge. This kevala gyanam(i.e.) the Atman in its entirtrety is

beyond imagination. (i.e. not even monism )Therefore when Atman works as

Mind,'as mind' it does not know its own truth. The knowledge obtained through

the mind is known as 'Bhrantha gyaanam' or delusive knowledge. It is because

such knowledge is not parmanent. It is knowledge for the time bering only since

it was not there before it was obtained nor does it continue to exist after it

was obtained.It gets replaced by other particular knowledge,

Hari Om!

Swaminarayan

Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:Namaste.

 

A brilliant exposition indeed, Gregji. It will serve the advaitins

well to always remember what you so brilliantly concluded.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

 

Advaitins' consciousness, on the other hand, is not the kind of thing

that is numerically countable. It's not even a thing! There cannot

be two or more consciousnesses for Advaitins. And in the higher

level discussions, it is not maintained that there is one, either.

Provisional discussions in Advaita might say there is One. But it is

not a literal teaching. Rather, it is an expedient teaching to

sublate or collapse the student's belief that there is a

multiplicity. The time will come when the belief in One will also

drop away.

 

 

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &