Hello, I feel that a more appropriate guest would be a Swami or Swamini, an ordained monk who's life is dedicated to realizing the state of advaita. I am a practicing Hindu & for me, we all call ourselves "I". That "I" is the same in each and every being. A simple example is the ocean is made up of countless drops of water, yet the ocean is one body of water. We are all drops of the Ocean of Brahman. Right now, due to Maya & our identification with the body, we don't realize that we are not a mere drop & each drop is separate, but we are in fact one and the same as the infinite ocean of Brahman and therefore all one.

哲学一直在与这些问题作斗争，几乎和第一个提出这些问题的人一样。哲学家和圣人在一些答案上是一致的，而在另一些答案上是不一致的。这两个学派的大部分观点都建立在逻辑、伦理、信仰、信仰等方面。戴维森称这些以及其他一些观点为“命题态度”。人们是否同意他的评估本身就是一种命题性的态度。无论一个人是否相信一个至高无上的创造者，都差不多。也许这不过是想多了的事情。但是，不要把它呈现给一个虔诚的信徒。
Certainly, there are larger problems to solve. Most of those truly importanr ones are insoluable as well. Seems to me.

Very gratified to find this item on nonduality here at Philosophy Talk. Just joined Philosophy Talk as a result. After making two recent posts about pure being and philosophy of spirituality and not receiving much response, I thought there was not enough interest here in ideas such as nonduality.
去年，我出版了一本书，名为《一种存在:阿迪商卡拉的精神之路》。接着我又写了一本书，叫《自我与世界:印度哲学的主要方面》。两本书都涉及非对偶性，尤其是前者。阿谛尚卡拉是吠檀多哲学历史上非二元性的最重要的支持者。他的哲学被称为Advaita Vedanta。更准确地说，在英语世界中被称为非二元论的是商羯罗的观点，它被恰当地称为Kevaladvaita或唯一非二元论，因为还有另外两种非二元论哲学:毗希什塔(Ramanuja)的限定非二元论和首陀罗(Shuddha Advaita)的纯非二元论。
The comparison, or rather contrast, with the Cartesian mind-body duality is what may come to the mind in the context of Western philosophy in relation to the Advaita concept of nonduality. But a good way to get into it is through Brentano-inspired notion of Husserl called intentionality. The latter holds that consciousness by its nature intends an object. This is the duality that Shankara's nonduality denies. According to it, the core of consciousness is without the subject-object duality.
One argument of Shankara may make this clear.
Any subject having consciousness normally is at a time conscious of something, either inside the mind or outside. Shankara says in his book called Drig-drishya-viveka, that what is experienced can be analyzed as existence plus something else. If I am conscious of a red tomato on my dining table, what I am facing is existence plus the tomato's actual appearance. If I close my eyes and think of this, I have existence plus the idea of tomato's appearance. Now, Shankara says that we can never get out of experiencing existence plus something else in any case any time anywhere. So, in all the cases all the time everywhere there is existence and something else. That something else is merely name and form in ceaseless flux and by itself devoid of existence. But existence in its pure form is the only thing that there ever is or can be. This is nondual existence and the core of Advaita which is the philosophy of oneness. I do not want to take up more time here. My book "One Being" explores Shankara's philosophy in greater detail, while the book "Self and World" would introduce the reader to all major philosophies in India's history. Click for details:www.amazon.com/author/rameshpatel. Of course, I will be happy to respond to any thoughts or comments to what I said about nonduality above.

Modern teachers who have actually experienced radical nondualism (Advaita Vedanta) can be found on You Tube, explaining without Sanskrit terms. Check out Lisa Cairns and Eckhart Tolle.

YouTube has a lot of popularizing and simplifying stuff for people wanting instant gratification handouts. There are simplifiers of philosophy too. As there are of science and other subjects that need time and energy to get one's teeth into. True, some of this may even have merit. If you dig around a lot, you may find such. But discrimination is good part of wisdom. Fake gurus are aplenty. Caveat emptor!
Advaita Vedanta itself is a Sanskrit term. When nondualism is conflated with monism, as in this thread, you see the result of half-baked and hasty attempts at surmising something which is backed by thousands of years of intense thinking and disciplined practice.
Advaita也是一个复杂的哲学体系，而不仅仅是一个让人感觉良好的神秘配方。它已经在梵文中耕耘了数千年。它有丰富多样的思想家，他们对细微的区别进行了深入的辩论。但他们都拒绝实体的概念和简单的一元论。这就是为什么它被称为a- dvaiita或非对偶，而不是一或一。它的“一”是一个没有第二个或ekam eva advitiyam。把它等同于“所有都是一”的简单性是一种分类错误。
Sanskrit has crystal clear diction too and is not always amenable to precise translation without loss of clarity. That is why all serious students of Indian philosophy, of which nondualism is a part, get acquainted with Sanskrit. Both my books, "One Being" and "Self and World" that I referred to above have a glossary of Sanskrit terms at the end, to facilitate readers not conversant with Sanskrit, to clarify without losing rigor. I take care to not use a Sanskrit term without introducing an English equivalent. When asked, I am glad to explain any Sanskrit or philosophical terms I use. Thank you!

Been reading a lot lately on the resurgent notions about panpsychism, including Goff and Strawson. Have discussed these things with my brother, who is also mentor in many ways. We still are puzzling over the framework which asserts and concludes that everything in the Universe is made of the 'same stuff'. While we agree that material things have atomic structure, we also recognize that,for example, gold atoms are far different from cephalopod atoms. Any of the many subparticles are inhabitants of the quantum world and, for most of us, ineffable. Now, some recent thinkers, such as Godfrey-Smith, have posited that there is Consciousness similar in some ways to our own.. I have no violent quarrel with that notion. In an evolutionary sense, it makes same. What we cannot quite get to is the proposition that consciousness everywhere, in everything. That, if true, would be miraculous. And, miracles are, uh, rare. So, if the nonduality thing is true, we have to situate it with panpsychism as alternately embraced and rejected, thoughout the ages, eastern mysticism, notwithstanding. Seems to me.

There are different types of idealistic monism besides, of course the recently proliferated versions of materialistic monism. Materialism has been facing a hard time coming up with a clear and cogent concept of matter. Equating mind with brain can take you so far in following a presumptive scientism. The problem of consciousness resists solution by scientific or philosophic methods. Some think time for idealistic monism is past, even as they have bypassed and shelved its reasoning rather than tackled and resolved it. Re-reading Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic and Analytic in his first critique can easily disabuse one's thinking to the contrary, at least on idealism, if not on monism.

东西方哲学史上的大多数逻辑问题，都曾被人用各种巧妙的回避来诬陷，但它们远未得到解决，甚至可能根本无法解决。这种情况要求对逻辑和理性的本质进行深入的攻击，以发现为什么会这样。现实是否以某种方式构建了一些不合逻辑的东西，或者我们需要一种彻底转变的逻辑来处理描述型形而上学家和修正型形而上学家之间由来已久的争论?量子力学也已经完成了它的工作，提出了有关逻辑和现实的严肃问题，更不用说布劳威尔的严格直觉主义和它对排除中间原则等原则的要求。

On the other hand, nonduality is not a straightforward form of monism, of the kind of substance, stuff or process variety. It is primarily conceived as absence of difference between the individual self and cosmic self in their ultimate nature. Vedanta, Sufism, Mahayana Buddhism espouse it in different shades and conceptual frameworks. One thing is clear: the time for conflating nonduality with Western hippiedom's All-is-one type of non-thinking utterances is past. Serious thinking needs to focus on the sophisticated epistemology of Vedanta and Mahayana rather than barking up the wrong tree of hippie-style bastardizations.

非二元性也不符合泛心论的概念和后者关于心灵或意识的模糊概念。在宗教形式的泛心论中，我们谈论的是一种什么样的意识，有别于吠檀多的非二元论，吠檀多的非二元论不依赖于饱受诟病的物质概念，甚至不依赖于同样有问题的过程概念?吠檀多的非二元论假定了一个自成一体的概念，即无意识的意识与存在的蒸馏版本合并在一起。这与宗教或心理学的泛心论观点都不一致。

In sum, much new ground needs to be explored in philosophy, in both East and West. What reasons do we have to be optimistic?

I have read some material from the University of Mainz where the psychologists researching consciousness have postulated that around 60% of human thought is not consciously generated. (So, for example, we experience the same sometimes welcome sometimes unwelcome thoughts over and over again without consciously conjuring them.) This leads me to think about how consciousness is not the sole entity which determines what humans think is real, though many would asserted our "reality" is illusion. Perhaps we are not entirely in control of thought, and so does that not suggest there are other physiological factors which contribute to our perceptions of reality?

That way speaking, what we think to be real is also an instance of thinking, regardless of whether it comes from brain physiology or whatever. And it is just one of the overt thoughts out of the stream of both conscious and non-conscious thinking. Then, thinking that physiology gives us reality is also a thought in the same way, just one from many other possible and rival thoughts. Ryle showed in his book "Dilemmas" that logical problems occur in believing science itself: we use commonsense perceptions to do science and then the resulting science wants to revise or even deny commonsense itself. To then persist on science dogmatically will lead only to scientism which is a religion of science and is itself not scientific. Revisionary metaphysics is forced by a line of logic. Descriptive metaphysics is forced by yet another line of logic. How far is logic a good solution when it itself leads to a problem like this? What are the alternatives? Of course philosophy is a congeries of such logical problems. We need to examine the nature of logic itself very deeply and thoroughly to see why this happens. We need to do logical meta-philosophy rather than uncritically presuppose science, non-duality, commonsense or whatever.

Thanks Laura,
The search to find my true self lead me to study Eastern and Western philosophy, and then onto physics. From the Eastern Masters who taught the truth cannot be spoke, to Socrates dialogs without answers, to Einstein and his unsolved problem of grand unification. Religion has faith, is that all there is?
It was Michelangelo who taught me to study nature when searching for truth. So down to the river I went and low and behold, the answer to the unspeakable, to Socrates questions, to the equation that unites all things was right there, and the beauty of the truth is it is also right here, just me.
笛卡尔在乌尔姆寻找的时候发现了它，又把它弄丢了。爱因斯坦也很接近，只是光速挡住了他的路。至于东方的神秘主义者，真理是可以说出来的，但对许多人或大多数人来说，它是听不到的。
"Man is the measure of all things" Protagoras said.
这就是我们所有人的缺点。
Be One,
=