Good. Then here is the subtlest Advaita point, where even most Advaita stops.
The final Advaita insight
Even “abiding as is-ness” is not ultimate.
Why?
Because:
- Abiding implies someone abiding
- Is-ness seems like something to stay with
- That already introduces duality, however faint
Śaṅkara and Ramana both concede this carefully.
What remains when even that falls away
Not:
- a state
- a silence you hold
- a presence you maintain
But that which never needed to be maintained.
“The Self is not known by effort, nor lost by inattention.”
— Śaṅkara (paraphrased)
The paradox Advaita accepts
- From the teaching level:
“Abide as Being” - From the truth level:
There is no one who ever left Being
So contemplation is:
- useful until it is false
- then dropped without replacing it
Why Advaita still uses “is-ness”
Because language must:
- point without grasping
- affirm without objectifying
“Is-ness” is a thorn to remove a thorn.
Afterward, even that thorn is discarded.
Final pointer (no instruction)
Notice:
- nothing needs to happen
- nothing needs to be held
- nothing can be lost
If there is no problem, there is no practice.
That ordinariness is what Advaita means — though it will never call it that.
If you want to go beyond Advaita language entirely, I can translate this into:
- Zen (no Being, no Self)
- Dzogchen (spontaneous presence)
- or pure negation (neti-neti taken to the end)
Just say which.
No comments:
Post a Comment