Problem with monism.

[SageTree]

Haha, I was just remembering that one of my first threads had almost the same title, except this time my problem with monism was completely different

Funny how things come around in cycles.
Like when I read an old book and see 'new' ideas!!!
Left thinking 'How in the heck did I miss this?' or 'I would have understood so much more if I'd investigated a little further on this idea/philosophy!!!'

But then again.... I can basically here the same Dharma-talk over and over and get something new each time.

So yea... I like these moments as much I'm surprised by them.

 

[atanu]

True. Even in dreaming, there is a good example. When dreaming, everything we experience is projected by our mind, including the other people we interact with, so the lines of self and other are clearly seen to be a simple faulty perception and they are in fact, our mind.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/109924-mandukya-upanishad-text.html

I will like to point out that scriptures call it advaita -- which is not equal to monotheism. The term advaita itself means 'without a second'.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but monism is the premise that there is only God. There is no not-God.

That's only possible if, until, and because God and not-God are one.

 

[DreadFish]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/109924-mandukya-upanishad-text.html

I will like to point out that scriptures call it advaita -- which is not equal to monotheism. The term advaita itself means 'without a second'.

True, and I think thats the best approach to it in the various Hindu schools. Mainly the monistic schools are Saivite, especially the Aghoris, in which all is Shiva.


Also, I dont know if you meant to say "monotheism" or "monism."

 

[atanu]

True, and I think thats the best approach to it in the various Hindu schools. Mainly the monistic schools are Saivite, especially the Aghoris, in which all is Shiva.


Also, I dont know if you meant to say "monotheism" or "monism."

I meant monotheism.

 

[K.Venugopal]

That's only possible if, until, and because God and not-God are one.

Does the "is" and "is not" dichotomy really constitute two separate entities? Isn't there only one entity exhibiting the range of its "isness"? Let's take as example "sound". Is "silence" a separate entity or is it the same entity exhibiting the extremes of its range of existence? That is, is the "many" but the "one" exhibiting its possibilities - kinetic energy and potential energy?