Duality & Non-Duality

Metaphysics or Spirituality

Are human beings truly free?

If you believe you are an autonomous individual existing in a vast cosmos among other independent individuals, then you could be (psychologically) free. But, paradoxically, that is a narrow, limited view, for you can see yourself as being the whole universe and all life thriving in it. Then what?

What is the nature of something that is unactualised/unbuilt?

A thing—whatever it is, also the world—unactualised is somehow held in potency, unmanifested. If I remember well, the efficient cause in Plato’s philosophy, an example of which is the mental image a craftsman has before the execution of his work (different in Aristotle). In medieval philosophy, natura naturans, also unmanifested, as against natura naturata, which is created, manifested (for Baruch Spinoza, the same idea it is the self-causing activity of nature, which is a different account).

In Hindu philosophy, prakriti is the power of nature to create, that is, before manifestation. After mahapralaya (annihilation of the world or universe), the latter stays in abeyance, potentiality, before it manifests again—cycle after cycle (a series of big bangs?)

Also, a bindu (‘dot’, ‘point’) is ‘the compact mass of spiritual power or energy (shakti) gathered into an undifferentiated point ready to manifest as the universe…the material cause and substance of creation’. John Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy.

Can time exist without consciousness?

From the viewpoint of Advaita Vedanta (and I also believe Zen and Dzogchen), time is not just something elusive but ultimately unreal—only an idea or concept. The same with the concept ‘now’, which cannot be elucidated or otherwise measured. ‘Now’ can only be a symbol of eternity, immeasurable but always present. ‘Eternity’ is itself a symbol or slanted conception of reality or existence/being, which is timeless. For the absolute time does not exist. Consciousness alone is real and, thus, timeless. Stated differently, ‘what is never ceases to be; what is not never comes into being’ (Shankara). Parmenides, Gaudapada and Shankara are strong in that position.

The only thing that can be verified 100% to exist is your own consciousness (‘I think, therefore I am’); does this affect/change your own beliefs in any way, and how so?

Descartes probably thought of himself as an individual (human) being, to begin with, and he wanted to demonstrate to himself—starting from 0—that he was an existent thinking being—he thought that thinking, as an immediate reality, was closest to him. However, he could have said, ‘I feel, sense, therefore I am’, or, better still, ‘thoughts and sensations are occurring’—to whom or what…who or what is behind all this? If Descartes presupposed that ‘he’ was an individual, a ‘someone’ while doing his investigation, there was no warranty for it. Thus, either his premise or his conclusion was in error even before he started.

In other words, who/what is the ‘I’? Is there an ‘I’? Because, if there is a subject (‘I’), it is not necessarily a human one: I (supposedly an individual thinker/feeler) could be a thought in the mind of someone, some entity, greater than myself.

Thus, I would modify the question at the beginning to read: ‘Consciousness/Being is the prime reality; what follows from that?’ Can Consciousness be called ‘a subject—I?’ If it can be called ‘beingness/Being, could it also be called ’Intelligence-Being’, or ‘Intelligence-energy’ (instead of ‘subject’; thus, ‘It’ instead of ‘I’)?

Is everything metaphysical?

‘Is everything metaphysical?’ My answer is a resounding yes! despite the prevailing physicalist theory that holds that everything is reducible to matter/energy. This position is being insistently questioned ever since the rise of the new physics (the role of the observer, the uncertainty principle, etc.). No one knows what matter is intrinsically and why an atom is an atom—its nature is a mystery; scientifically, we can only talk about mechanism, ‘behaviour’ or function, concerning physical processes. Thus, everything is metaphysical—including tables and chairs or, rather, the material they are made of, wood (hilos)—which means non-reducible to the physical. Psychology, mind, selfhood—the terms themselves and their referents—are equally non-reducible to the physical, nor are they purely mental or purely conceptual; thus, they are metaphysical, much as psychologists may protest. ‘Man’, ‘personhood’, are metaphysical or philosophical notions.

Metaphysical doctrines are couched in LANGUAGE (concepts, plus logic and reasoning—tarka), which de facto is dualistic but also a springboard and a conditio sine qua non for realisation or uniting with the TRUTH or REALITY—the latter being indivisible, non-relational, and inexpressible by the mind (anubhava).

Is metaphysics meaningful?

The dictionary definition of ‘meaningful’ is, primarily, ‘significant’, ‘purposeful’. The answer to the question is ‘yes’ (otherwise, there would not be such a thing or word). But metaphysics is not an empirical science, so it does not work with hypotheses or with experimentation (measurement, etc.). Once called ‘the queen of the sciences’, it is at the root of all thinking, scientific as well as philosophical, in particular the basic ideas about what real/reality is. Thus, the métier of metaphysics is philosophical, including the presuppositions underlying empirical science: beingness or existence, space, time, and causality. Also, matter/energy, subjectivity/objectivity. Traditionally, metaphysics is considered to be a branch of philosophy.

What is the subjective experience in psychology?

That question is sometimes formulated as or under qualia, on which controversy is currently going on between physicalists and bona fide metaphysicians. I repeat below what I wrote previously in Quora on this topic:

‘Qualia is the way a human subject experiences the world in general and individual phenomena in particular, given the psycho-physiological constitution of the organism that he/she is. That experience is non-transferable, but one can justifiably infer to be the same in other subjects’.

On physicalism, I would recommend reading Tom McFarlane, who understands the topic very well while being himself a metaphysician: ‘There are several problems with physical realism: The most basic problem is that it is, by definition, impossible to directly verify that physical things have a reality independent of observation. Positing such reality is an unverifiable metaphysical claim. It may be consistent with classical physics. It may be practical. But we can never know if it is true. It is fundamentally and irreducibly speculative.’

Do the Vedas contain any advanced knowledge as so many people claim they do?

I would say the Vedas contain the most fundamental and ‘advanced’ knowledge there is, though usually portrayed in the form of paradox, analogy, metaphor, story, etc., so that one has to crack the code to find the wealth hidden in them. That knowledge is not like empirical science, which is cumulative and provisional, and that could be said to be somehow contained in the former, even if in embryonic or potential form.

The knowledge inherent in the Vedas is metaphysical rather than mystical. According to it, there is one and only reality: consciousness (Brahman or the Absolute), which pervades the whole universe; it is immanent in it as well as transcendent…‘the smallest of the small, the largest of the large’. It cannot be measured or understood by the mind, for which it is ineffable, but it is that by which the mind comprehends…it cannot be expressed in words but by which the tongue speaks…it is eye of the eye, ear of the ear, mind of the mind, as expressed in the Upanishads.

Modern physics is having a hard time trying to explain (away) what consciousness is in terms of physical phenomena (neuronal activity in the brain). But consciousness is not an irreducible phenomenon or datum; it is reality itself or a name or symbol for reality. The symbol is unfathomable—everything being comprehended in it (theories, doubts, projections, emotions, things, thoughts, intelligence, observer and observed, you and I). For the Vedas, reality is one, and present physics is trying to find out in which way it is so (‘theory of everything’, ‘unificatory theory…’). Not all physicists are reductionistic, some of them seemingly having mutated into philosophers with an understanding of the core of Vedic teachings.

What is the use of asserting that things exist ‘independent of human observation’?

There was a young man who said, "God,

To you, it must seem very odd

That a tree as a tree Simply ceases to be

When there is no one about in the quad."

And God replied,

"Young man, your astonishment is odd.

I’m always about in the quad

And that is why the tree

Never ceases to be

As observed by yours faithfully, God."

If we substitute consciousness, or cosmic intelligence, for ‘God’, this should be more acceptable to intelligent people, including physicists, neuro-physiologists, etc.

What is meant by the statement, ‘The Universe is Conscious’?

The simple answer is that the universe is sustained by a spiritual force or supreme intelligence, everything around being its manifestation or expression. The consciousness of all sentient beings is not other than that unique consciousness, thus expressed.

What does mysticism highlight and focus on?

At-oneness (or atonement). To realise that Life is an unending and unlimited oneness or wholeness: one being or existence, one beauty, one truth or reality ‘…and That, dear one, That art Thou.’

We are also part of the universe, so why do we say that it is separate from us?

‘We’ are not part of the universe—We/I am the universe and beyond (‘behold My mystery…’—Bhagavad Gita). In as much as we can objectify the universe (the whole of it, including our bodies and individual minds), we are not it. ‘The entire universe is pervaded by Me… All beings are in Me though I am not in them’ (Gita, 9, 4–5)—this is the standpoint of transcendence. A final understanding, though, is that the universe is also Me (Atman-Brahman). There is nothing separate or independent of Me.

Why is existential monism (the belief that there is only one thing/being in existence) so taboo and controversial? Why are people so intent on believing in ‘something else’?

People, in general, seem to only believe in ‘you and me’, ‘this and that’ (a plurality of forms, etc.), etc. But I would not say that ‘existential monism’ is either taboo or controversial—only that it is unreachable by most. Who can ‘see life steadily and see it whole’? One has to be a metaphysician, a philosopher, a poet, or a mystic to understand that—that is, the unity of being, the inclusivity and universality of Love, the oneness of reality, oneself included in it. Ignorance (avidya in Advaita Vedanta) is congenital and thus, ‘natural’—like the original sin in Christianity.

Whose lab rats are we if we have no say to whom we are born, so no say if we may develop a personality disorder?

As individuals, we are the product of our genes, upbringing and environment. This condition is determined, and so there is no choice. It is called destiny, ananké (‘necessity’ in Ancient Greek). But life is also a mystery (full of surprises) and, as such, no one knows the ‘final’ answer, the final destiny of each one of us. There are also the laws of compensation and All-possibility that can be enunciated, as: for each event, situation, or action, there is a (possible) reaction, counter-action or counter-event—for in life nothing is cast in iron. For every affirmation, there is a negation, and for every negation or denial, there is an affirmation (be it only in attitude!)

We human beings are not just phenomena or transient beings that are interlinked in a causal chain. There is a spirit in us which is FREE—and spiritus ubi vult spirat.

Is there such a thing as absolute nothingness?

What an absurd, self-defeating, self-negating question! As soon as there is a single thought, there you have something existing—and from there to the existence of the universe, there is but one step.

Do you feel you and your body are one and the same, or are they separate?

The body is material and prone to decay and death. There is much evidence from different disciplines (definitely not just religion) that there is another level of existence, call it metaphysical or spiritual, which pertains to a subtle dimension of reality beyond matter or organism as this is understood. My answer, I am not this body or this mind; I am at oneness with the universal and eternal.

To find out who this ‘I’ is requires a serious dedication and immersion in one of the traditions of non-duality, like Yogacara Buddhism, Taoism or Advaita Vedanta, preferably with some guidance. One cannot just dabble with this, nor will answers be found (by and large) within Western philosophy, psychology or empirical science.

Is the physical body not required to exist in the afterlife?

The body is perfectly made for life on earth, and it is not possible to refute the evolutionary account of how things, animals and men, in this case, developed step by step over millions of years. It makes no sense to think that this same type of physical body we all have will be reborn in any future life or sphere of existence.

If one thinks of ‘spiritual body’, which must be a subtle entity in some sense of the expression, then things are different. No one can deny the possibility of either permanence of individuality (or beyond individuality, as in Advaita Vedanta) or rebirth in another realm of being. If you are interested, you might look at the evidence in that regard: NDE (Near Death Experience), karma, etc.

How is your relationship with yourself?

If you contemplate this question from the viewpoint of the ego, I would say that you are lost (in non-understanding). From the viewpoint of the higher Self, there is not, cannot be, a relationship, for reality is one, and ‘you’ are not separate from that reality. But you have to ‘see’ that, which may take a whole lifetime.

I just read an observation in Quora that speaks to this very point or seeming conundrum: ‘Ultimate and relative are mutually inclusive as a non-dual unification principle. This is a high realisation’.

Is it really true that ALL things are possible with God?

True. If we consider God not only as omniscient (which has to be explained) but as reality itself, knowledge/knowing itself—or even as the ground of being—then we have to admit that all possibilities are with Him/It.

What does living consciously mean to you? What could one do to increase the level of consciousness one brings to everyday situations?

Living consciously is living wisely. That word—consciousness—is bandied about quite a lot, a sign of how little it is understood despite being the most universal and direct entity or reality. This, and the second part of the question, cannot properly be addressed without realising that it is a metaphysical notion and that to go to it, one has to practice some form of genuine spirituality.

Why do humans think they can determine ‘good and bad’?

There is an insight in every human mind and heart that there is a principle and power—principle of goodness—which is intimately related to the principles of being (sat in Sanskrit) and beauty (sundaram). In ordinary life, however, these principles are manifested in impure, limited form due to ignorance, which mixes everything: the good with the bad (or deficient), the real with the unreal, and so forth.

Consequently, what normally is experienced by all humans is that mixture—relative goodness, relative beauty, and relative reality, which are all ‘half-truths’. But don’t forget that the principle is there, somewhat submerged as it may be and that it can be fulfilled to a higher and higher degree. Hence the yearning for the positive and real in every human heart. Untruth, unloved, etc., can only survive because of the modicum of truth or reality that persists in all manifestation as experienced by man. Individual soul or mind is a microcosm, and everything—good and evil or mediocre—is there, at least potentially.

Why does consciousness exist? Why do I have a sense of self?

Most questions ‘Why’—being metaphysical—don’t have a possible answer, like why there is a world, or existence, or why I am the being that I am, or why there is something rather than nothing. The only answer would be: ‘being is, non-being is not’ (ask Parmenides or Shankara about this). My sense of self is a consequence of my existing as a being endowed with a set of faculties and potentialities—sort of antennae to the world so that the latter can be experienced.

The inner sense you refer to has been freely given to us by a supramundane Intelligence—a Platonic Demiurge or an Indian Ishvara. The rest is mystery, and all speculations, though natural to a human being. If these questions have an answer, it is only through a mystical disposition or deep introspection.

Why is time one of humanity’s greatest inventions?

Time is not an invention or a revelation or something learned. It is an aspect of the common life of humanity (animals probably have no sense of something like time passing on, or of changing phenomena). So, it is something ingrained or integrated into one’s experience as self-reflexive beings.

No time=no life—in this ‘sub-lunar world’. Metaphysically (or spiritually), it can be understood/intuited that time is something unreal or illusory, and that is because, in essence, we are spiritual beings as if thrown into existence. We have the intuition of our identity with that which is eternal or timeless without the need to give it a name.

What is the difference between living and existing?

I’ll answer with a poem:

Are our lives like the life of a flower—a promise, a hope, a passing beauty?

And what is that promise,

that hope?

How do they find fulfilment—

Their time being ever so short?

And as to beauty, does ours fade away

Like the beauty of the flower?

Fear not, for time is not involved:

The Beauty and Essence of the flower

and of our Soul

Are timeless, infinite.

Is motion possible without time?

Not in this ‘sub-lunar world’—same with change. Only if there is such thing as frozen time, but that is another dimension or reality, where movement and change are in a potential, unmanifest state.

What is the most precise definition of time?

Time is a phenomenon in our world—both subjective and objective—that resolves into change, either growth/evolution or decay/involution: actually, both following each other in indeterminate succession. A related phenomenon is ‘cyclical time’—creation and destruction, manifestation and reabsorption.

How is it that all of nature obeys causality, but humans have free will?

Without trying to skirt the issue of free will (actually, doing so), my answer rests on the idea that there is no causation. The British philosopher David Hume debilitated this notion by redefining it as ‘constant conjunction’, and Kant resolved it into the part the subject has in construing or ‘constructing’ reality.

Ours is an interconnected world, not one made of independent substances (men, animals, etc., and immaterial objects). Both Buddhism and the Indian Upanishads are in harmony with the modern notion of non-local causality and the new science of quantum physics. In particular, the Buddhist teaching of Dependent Origination (of phenomena) eliminates the idea of a one-to-one relationship between cause and effect. As per Advaita Vedanta, the effect is not other than (or is inherent in) the cause—reality is a homogeneous Whole; differences and relationships are apparent, relative (mithya).

What is the meaning of existence?

Existence—esse—is an abstract term referring to a primal reality or metaphysical principle—the principle of being (a synonym of existence). As such, it cannot be defined since it has no parts or relationships—it only has to be admitted as a ‘given’, an undeniable fact of experience. The more you think about it—existence in and by itself—the less you will be able to find a definition. To add or adjectivise ‘meaning’ to the word ‘existence’ implies purpose, which is an anthropomorphic, value-laden term, such that empirical scientists will object to. However, as thinking and reflective beings, we have the capacity to question everything under the sun and also intuition—direct apprehension of the reality or essence of things behind their appearances.

Formerly, this apprehension was called ‘truth, or truths, of the Heart’. Whether that truth or meaning is Love, Compassion or Unity, it is up to you to consider and reflect upon—no one can do it for you.

Why is our freedom limited?

The answer is Ignorance of what or who we are and ignorance of what the world or universe—nay, of existence/being—is. This two-fold ignorance cannot be terminated by the findings and explications