Pantheism, agnosticism/atheism — and advaita

I have devised this classification for reference: Modes of pantheism

(Divine pantheism; Natural pantheism; Spiritual pantheism; scientific pantheism)

Brad Neil, proponent of nonduality

Modes of pantheism

Within the range of categories given, I find myself somewhat ambivalent:

  • I most closely align with natural I believe the physical universe is all that there is, and that there are eternal forces and energies at play. I do not believe in the supernatural.
  • Scientificpantheism is least applicable to me because I really don’t have a problem being labeled an atheist. In my opinion, atheism and pantheism are almost (but not quite) two sides of a coin.
  • But when I’m feeling in my best of moods, I think I fall under spiritual or divine When my mood is high, I sometimes experience an awe and a gratitude that gives me a deeper feeling of connection to existence.

More generally, self-labels that I do not find objectionable include pantheist, nondualist, agnostic, atheist, and skeptic. However, I have none of these words tattooed on my forehead, and I reserve the right to change my thinking at any time. Continue reading

Posted in Advaita, Agnosticism/atheism, Consciousness, duality, mind, non-duality, Sin categoría, spirituality | Leave a comment


How many of you agree with the theory that our consciousness ends when we die?

(There’s of course nothing called ‘Soul’ of a person that goes on to live forever in afterlife. I’m an atheist. I person believe that when we die, our brain and the entire body shuts down, and we meet an end. Those of us who experienced anesthesia knows how it feels when our brains are inactive.)


M. I for one do not agree. Bodies decay and die, not so consciousness. The whole is greater than the part, and that whole can be called ‘life’, ‘existence’, or ‘consciousness’ – none of it reducible to the physical or material. All bipolar concepts, such as life-death, good-bad, one-many, mind-body, ‘you and I’ (‘me and the other’) are false – just concepts. There is only totality (‘what is’), namely, existence or being – not many existences (existents), but one existence; not many loves, but one Love Consciousness and reality1535525_676806255693789_2147234899_n. And all of us are in essence, that is, in reality, existence and love – they are not ‘two’ (love being Plato’s higher ‘eros’ or desire) once plurality is ‘seen’ for what it is: a deception or narrow vision.

Posted in non-duality | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

Goose flies with avocets, photo — Dear Kitty. Some blog

This photo shows a barnacle goose flying with avocets. The photo is by duyfje from the Netherlands. Related articles Wadden Sea breeding birds, new research Bird breeding news from Texel island Avocets raise a cheer at Saltholme Bird-friendly farming in the Netherlands Avocet chicks delight visitors to RSPB Fairburn Ings Saying No to Beautiful Bahamas […]

a través de Goose flies with avocets, photo — Dear Kitty. Some blog

Posted in Sin categoría | Leave a comment


Yes, to the greatest extent. What greater admiration can there be than that of Beauty itself? Love, for Plato, is the attraction all creatures have for a variety of things, and in man it is the love or craving of the soul for the beautiful. The mind of man ascends from love of the physical to the intellectual love of absolute Beauty (Symp. 210 a – f). The higher eros is what does that, being irresistibly attracted by what is beautiful. Cf. ‘Therapeia’, by R.E. Cushman, a wonderful book.

Addendum: From the perspective of Advaita Vedanta (and, why not? from every philosophical and esthetic perspective – Aesthetics being a branch of philosophy) Being or Existence (satya) is the most lovable, and it is equivalent (another name for it) to the Spirit or Atman inherent in Nature, i.e., in all forms of life including man*. One can trace a parallel between the Platonic and the Shankarian or Advaitist traditions.

  • As a generic, inclusive, word ‘man’ is, of course, old, passé
Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Advaya lll

To the Eastern ways of liberation the most important discrimination possible is the one between ‘the two levels of reality’: between the level of the timeless, the discrimination less, the always-present (Reality with capital R), and the level of the manifesting, which continuously is changing, with birth, growth, decline and death. A multitude of definitions is possible for this second level, varying from ‘total illusion’ to ‘temporal reality’.

The order in which both levels are mentioned here is not arbitrary. Although of course terms like ‘first’ and ‘second’ level are ultimately not true, one can still say that it is essential for the realisation of one’s true nature to first dedicate oneself totally to what is always true, to what is ‘always already the case’: called ‘first level’ here. The fact is that if you continue to focus your attention to the particulars of the individual simultaneously, this will form a hindrance to the view of your nature that is always present. Continue reading

Posted in non-duality | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Why the name Advaya? ll (Philip Renard)


The term advaya (or its equivalent, pu-erh in Chinese, fu-ni  in Japanese and gnyis-med in Tibetan) is being used explicitly in a few traditions which, because this explicitness, could be together called ‘the one advaya tradition’, ‘the one direct way of liberation’. These traditions are:

In the first place, a few Buddhist ways of direct teaching, namely Zen (originally called Ch’an) from China and Japan, and Dzogchen and Mahamudra from Tibet. Next to these are two traditions from India: Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism. It needs to be mentioned that in many original texts of both Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir shaivism, the term advaya has been used more frequently than its synonym advaita.

These traditions distinguish themselves by strongly emphasising, more than other traditions do, the non-conceptual as the ultímate truth, and the necessity of the immediate experience of this truth. In this respect, the mentioned Buddhist traditions are in fact more related to the ‘induistic’ Advaita than to the more dualistic schools within Buddhism. Continue reading

Posted in non-duality | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Plato’s Cave

From Quora  Question: ‘Can we step out of Plato’s Cave?’


X  As I remember, Plato spoke of the few that escaped into the bright light of day, becoming (at least temporarily?) blinded. That, by itself, has to have some (metaphorical) meaning. But if the question is rhetorical, the answer is a conditional ‘Yes’ — by leading the life of a philosopher (‘lover of wisdom’), following the path of philosophy. That is a lifelong process or journey, in Plato’s terms.

Y  Plato mistakenly thought we could get a Truth by purely mental means and a priori principles.   Not so.  We have to look at, touch, feel, smell, taste and handle reality.

X  Sorry to disagree. First, we don’t know what were his oral doctrines to selected disciples (the 7th letter says something in that regard, while putting down the written word). Second, his ontology was non-dualist rather than a scalar one: all the lower steps or stages being incorporated stepwise in the higher ones, till getting at the Good as a first principle (supreme arché) – each step or degree of being a reflection of the one above. This would result in contemplation of a unity or oneness – one reality. When Socrates spoke of Diotima, his mentor, he did so reverently and reservedly, signifying or suggesting something secret – a spiritual transmission (one might Google: Plato’s secret doctrines, which I have not done).


Posted in mind, non-duality, philosophy, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment