Still Confusion regarding Shankara’s co

Cameron Reilly cjreilly at OZEMAIL.COM.AU
Mon Jan 27 19:58:34 CST 1997

At 17:12 27/01/97 -0800, Vidyasankar wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Cameron Reilly wrote:
>> I disagree. In advaita, the pot neither IS devoid of objective reality, nor
>> is it NOT devoid of objective reality. Both are merely matters of
>> perspective. Seen from the perspective of the Absolute, the pot does not
>> exist as an object. It is one with Brahman. Seen from the perspective of
>> the subjective split-mind, the pot certainly does exist, as does the head
>> which you hit it against. Both perspectives are absolutely correct, if
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> understood as flip sides to the coin of the Infinite.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Absolutely correct? And as flip sides to the Infinite? That is more like
>bheda-abheda or dvaita-advaita than like advaita. There have been
>philosophers who take such a position, namely Bhaskara and Nimbarka. What
>differentiates advaita from this position is that the second view is held
>to be inferior to the first, and not as equivalently valid.

Inferior? Are you saying that advaita recognises one 'mental concept' to be
of a higher order than another 'mental concept'?

Certainly the word 'advaita' itself means 'non-duality', does it not? Not

This inability to see beyond the pairs of opposites is due to a fixation
with dualism. The 'one-ness' of things must first be apperceived before the
words of the Masters will become clear.


Cameron Reilly
The Robert Adamson Centre for Advaita/Non-Duality
Direct Lineage of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
cjreilly at

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list