34: Please explain the concept of non-duality, advaita which leads to moksha , nirvana.

If referring to advaita, then the duality that you’re referring to would be between Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman). The concept is that when you are able to combine the two seemingly separate parts and experience them as one, you will attain a state of nirvana(moksha). I absolutely agree to that concept because nirvana is that awareness.

In my eyes, one way that religions can be categorized is between those that promote enlightenment/nirvana and those that don’t. Even within Buddhism, not all schools focus on an individual attaining enlightenment. For now let’s discuss the ones that do. If the masters of these schools have attained this state (I’m assuming they have) of enlightenment and experienced nirvana by different means from each other, then none of the means can be considered absolute. That means that none of the schools can argue the validity of another schools way of attainment. The same thing goes for me or any other individual who has had the experience without a master… I can’t say that any particular series of actions won’t lead to nirvana! Allot of the schools have requirements, and in the current example of the concepts of moksha, one requirement is that the student must have a firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery. When I had my experience, I was definitely feeling that the world was miserable and it was the pushing away from it that catapulted me into nirvana. However, the truth of the nature of the world is NOT misery. So, if I had a student that wanted to attain enlightenment the same why that I did, what would I tell them? Would I say that the world is miserable (not true, but led me and many others to enlightenment) or that it’s beautiful and perfect and to find another emotion for the catalyst (which would mean that I would be talking from theory rather than experience – if the student failed attainment would it be because of their practice or my explanation)? Well, my answer is to teach truth because I believe that my life after my experience would have been easier if the shift between concepts going in, and going out were more congruent. Others teach enlightenment, then from enlightenment, the student can see the truth for themselves. Again, the only way I could teach enlightenment would be by asking my student to do what I did but the truth is that the way is as unique as the individual. Even with a Zen Buddhist’s koans (riddles that our used to ‘force’ the mind into nirvana), who’s to say how a particular student’s mind interpreted it? Their explanations can’t be put into words. An additional factor is how your daily life is led. There is a big difference between attaining enlightenment in a monastery and attaining it during your lunch break, at work! My point is that I don’t know what would effect the world in a more positive way, spreading the truth, or the means to obtain it. I’m choosing to focus on truth because it holds up before and after nirvana.

Enlightenment/nirvana are not prerequisite of truth and the truth can be felt without them. Above I stated that I don’t know if spreading truth is the best way to help out our universe, or spreading the means to enlightenment. The fact of the matter is that I’m for anything that effects us in a positive way, and in this case, both do. My personal view is that acting according to the truth is ultimately more important then attaining enlightenment. The effect of individuals attaining enlightenment, in relationship to the spreading of the truth, is beyond my current level of awareness. I’m saying all of this because I want to make sure that readers understand the humility in my stance when I say whether or not something is true or false. Digressing to the earlier example of a student who wants to obtain moksha needing a firm conviction that the nature of the world is misery, again, I don’t believe that the nature of the world is misery. I think that world is far below it’s potential and that most of us are struggling, however, we have the ability to choose what to focus our thoughts on. The nature of humans is to not be satisfied. I believe that dissatisfaction is the root to suffering (other than physical suffering from lack of provisions). The reason why our nature is to be dissatisfied is so that we struggle as a group, towards something better, or evolve. The key is to be proactive about change, because in this way you can dissolve your need to have a nature of dissatisfaction. This is a nice way to set up your thought patterns. You then can be in a satisfied state while you still improve yourself. Very much like the quote, “life is about the journey not the destination”.