Robert I always love your posts and totally resonate with them. I responded to the discussion on Adviata and Buddhism kind of like the question , did
matter produce consciousness or consciousness produce matter! Unanswerable. I have been influenced by both Adviata and Buddhism along with various other teachings etc. and the essence of what you say is the same as the essence of what I’ve gleaned from Buddhism and Adviata. The approach may be different but the insight is the same. The notion that we have any control and that there is a permanent self is preposterous if you really look into it. Einstein himself said very much the same thing. Both Adviata and Buddhism, depending on the sect believe in reincarnation, which I personally think is a crock. What happens at death is another totally unanswerable question. To end this post,
which, for some reason I felt compelled to write, I’ll quote Niargadatta. “The Absolute is like a black hole into which everything disappears.” And “what you are is the absence of the presence of the absence”. Thanks for listening. Sometimes I think you’re a little too hard on Adviata Lol. 🤪
Hi Robert, I'm a big fan of your work as you know. I loved this article. It wreaks havoc with the ubiquitous reification and deification of ideas prevalent in the so called spiritual world.  I agree with all aspects of it, even the criticisms of Vedanta *as taught and claimed* by far too many supposed teachers with half baked teachings. It is a lowdown dirty shame though that the word Vedanta is associated with much of this stuff, because the critiques you express about Vedanta have *almost nothing to do* with the real thing.
You mention many dualistic and fantastical notions that get bandied about under the "Advaita Vedanta" auspices, but are actually cherry picked pieces and parts that bely the meaning of the words when skillfully unfolded by a proper teacher. For example, if someone calls themselves a "stable genius" when they are not even close to either, this should not in any way demean actual stable people or geniuses. Vedanta is so simple and yet so subtle that its real meaning is almost always missed, and once that happens, the mind has no choice (being what it is) but to project its own meeting onto what it has heard. I know you know this well trying from to convey your point of view.
The essence of Vedanta (in my own words, for this particular purpose) can be summarized in plain English as:
There are not two principles, despite appearances, and there are no actual boundaries anywhere. "Eternality" is implied by that definition because "what is" can never be anything but whole and complete (non-dual). What there is has no opposite and no boundaries, so nothing could ever be outside (or inside for that matter) of it.
The *term* (that is all it is) that references that definition, is Self or Brahman. That's often where the shit hits the fan, once the word "self" gets involved, because usually this impersonal definition of self is missing. It is nothing other than "what is," and that defies all description and objectification.
I suggest that is exactly what you point to, Robert. That's what I hear you say when you say you find yourself awake, and that nothing more (or at least nothing "fixed" and definitive) can verily be said *about* that. Vedanta does not "add" anything to that either. "Self" and "Brahman" are just *terms that reference that undefinable whole*, in exactly the same way that the term "table" refers to something specific. However, though Vedanta does not reify what it points at, it does (as if) look objectively at what *can* be seen and known, and point out observable deductions that can reasonably be made which *have the potential* to benefit those "individuals" who hear and accurately understand them, in exactly the same way that individuals that hear and accurately understand your formulations *can* benefit from them. Whether they do or not, in either case, is not at issue here. 
If what I wrote above covers Vedanta's definition the nature of "what is" (which is expressed in scripture as Sat Chit Ananda or Existence Consciousness Unending Fullness), there is also the teaching for the individual, which is equally straightforward. What you desire is effortless well-being and ease. If you had that, and when you do experience that, you never think, "I wish this bliss would stop!" No one has *ever* said that. Therefore, that effortless well-being and ease can be said to be "what we all *really* want." It's perfectly valid not to accept this, but that's part of the point. Vedanta is for individuals that do, and as a means of self knowledge, it makes no religious or philosophical claim. I'm not a scholar but I will grant you that the Vedas presumably do, but Vedanta is not the Vedas although it is included within them.
The teaching that stems from this is that the ego, *the **idea** that I am a limited, separate doer of action which by definition is inadequate and incomplete*, has no actual existence of its own apart from "what is" (Self). That doesn't mean that it does not exist, it absolutely does as evidenced by the entire experience of our life! However, it does mean that since you are not this "individual person" (because you can't *be* something that doesn't exist), you must be non-different from "what is" because there is no other option. 
The teachings and teachers that reify and deify non-duality as if it is an achievable "thing," event, or experience, fail to mention or even acknowledge that it is perfectly acceptable and viable not to accept a single word of this. from the perspective of Vedanta, the Self's perspective, knowledge and ignorance share the same status. They are objects seemingly known to you, the Self, non-dual is-ness. Vedanta is not a religion or philosophy that tells you "how things are," it is a means of knowledge to liberate your mind (and in turn your heart and spirit) from the burden of inadequacy and incompleteness, through a discriminating and dispassionate viewpoint based on understanding your true nature as Self, *if and only if that's what you are interested in*.
The only reason I'm bothering to point this out is because Vedanta, *as traditionally taught for thousands of years and as unfolded by a proper teacher*, gradually transformed my own thinking merely by listening to it and inquiring into the veracity of my own beliefs and convictions in the light of what it said, come what may. I only kept listening because inwardly it worked exactly as promised, despite my ignorance.
Sending you my gratitude and best wishes Robert, for everything you do, and all the conversations we've had.
Thank you, Dave. I appreciate this comment. Yes, I think you and I agree that what we all are is what is, and that cannot be described or characterized. It just is what it is.
I enjoyed your post very much, though I have some reservations.
I have been studying Advaita Vedanta (and Buddhism and Christianity) for several years and completely agree with your main points. How can this be, given that, according to you, Advaita Vedanta is so different from what you write? It is not! It's like saying Christianity is wrong because there is no being with a long beard seated on a cloud looking down. No, there is no such being, but that does not make Christianity wrong; it just makes that idea inaccurate or not ultimately true.
Advaita Vedanta is a relatively small body of knowledge compared to the Vedas that teaches ‘Atman is Brahman’. Understanding what Atman and Brahman mean is crucial. From my perspective, what you express beautifully conveys some aspects of this immense ‘idea.’
I haven't read much of your work, so I'm not very familiar with it beyond this particular post. But it's clear from this post that you may not have a deep familiarity with Advaita Vedanta; or you may know as much as a Christian would if they believed in a bearded being seated on a cloud. Yes, there are expressions of Advaita Vedanta that resemble Eternalism, just as there are expressions of Christianity featuring a bearded man on a cloud. But so what?
Advaita Vedanta uses much of the Vedas as preparation for its ultimate conclusion, Atman is Brahman. This extensive preparation can indeed create a lot of confusion. However, I don’t believe it creates more confusion than the Buddha’s rejection of the Vedas or your own rejection of everything. The preparations of Advaita Vedanta, the rejection of the Vedas, or the rejection of everything can all be very useful when used rightly, but they can also lead to significant misunderstanding.
Spirituality is not for the faint-hearted. It is a truth that is obvious but cannot be expressed in words. Therefore, all words are inadequate, and since most teachings use words, words can both help and mislead. Even silence, the highest teaching, often creates significant confusion.
In my opinion, there is no clear way out. Rejecting other ideas without fully understanding them is not a solution. Even Gaudapada, in his Mandukya Karika (which I consider the most important method for teaching Advaita Vedanta), may have rejected other ideas without fully understanding them. So, as I said, I don’t see a clear way out. It is as it is.
Still, pointing out these potential misunderstandings may help…
Thanks for your comment. I am not an expert on Vedanta. I am not an expert on Christianity either, but I can say with confidence that Christianity means the belief that there is a god who caused his son to be sacrificed to atone for the sins of humans and that through faith in this story, the believer will gain eternal life in heaven. The problem is not the "old man with a white beard" but the entire metaphysics beginning with the idea that a god created the heavens and the earth and cares what people do or don't do. No one can possibly know such a thing, so I lose interest when it is asserted as fact.
I know less about Vedanta than I do about Christianity, but is it not true that for Vedantists, the manifestation of one's divinity is the goal of life and in that conception, the soul gradually attains union with the divine through successive births? If so, and if stated as fact, I lose interest.
If I am mistaken about Vedanta, please say how. I am always willing to learn.
I am not an expert on Vedanta or Christianity. I am just someone very interested in understanding the truth of existence, and I have found Advaita Vedanta to be a great tool in this search.
Christianity, like all spiritual traditions, has many beliefs and practices, most of which are metaphorical and symbolic rather than literal. I would never take the Bible literally. To understand its deeper meaning, I would turn to mystics like Meister Eckhart or the anonymous English monk, rather than traditional teachings.
Similarly, your example of Vedanta—that the goal is to manifest one's divinity and the soul's union with the divine through successive births—is a common view but doesn't capture at all the full depth of Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta teaches that Atman (the individual self) is Brahman (the universal self), transcending the usual ideas of individuality and divinity.
Advaita Vedanta uses ideas from the Vedas as preparation for its ultimate truth:
* If you believe in God, use that belief to find peace of mind to capture the ultimate truth.
* If you believe in karma, use that belief to find peace of mind to capture the ultimate truth.
* If you believe in deities, pray to them for help in understanding the ultimate truth.
However, Advaita Vedanta is not about cosmology or metaphysics but about guiding one towards a direct experience of the reality of what we are beyond thought and belief. It focuses on non-duality, where the difference between self and other disappears.
In the Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada, chapter 2, verse 32, it is written: "There is no destruction, no origination, none in bondage, none striving for perfection, none who has attained liberation, and none who is desirous of liberation…”
The essence of Vedanta lies in recognizing non-duality exploring personal experiences (the experience one is having right now), and has nothing to do with dogmas or rigid beliefs.
I really don’t think this fully captures the depth of Advaita Vedanta—there’s so much more to it—but I hope it gives you a glimpse of its aim.
Once I told Robert that he was a guru because the word means teacher. He refuted that; he rejects all such labels. All labels. For you, Jaroslaw, to call him a Buddhist just after he said he was NOT, seems insulting. It also seems, to me, that you either really didn't read this essay or understood it, and couldn't wait to show that you believe that you know the truth. Pure arrogance! Have a nice day now.
Perfectly clear, thank you! You say you are not a Buddhist, but anyone who sees the world like you do IS a Buddhist, whatever it means… “We” are/exist, as long as we are conscious of it, but finally the point is - consciously - not to be (this is what speaks to me so deeply, and is unique, so different from all those views perpetuating the “soul”). So may we all enter nirvana as soon as possible :-)
That’s the problem with words. You can’t “know” awareness, you are it, and don’t ask me to give you the definition of what “to be awareness” means, please, as this equivalences to the (unanswered) question raised some time ago by Thomas Nagel, ie: “what is it like to be a bat”? :-)
Well, the way I see it, it's not about words, but rather about sources of.information. In other words, you have no way of knowing that you are awareness, god, or what have you. You can only believe or imagine it. If you offered any definition, it would only go as far as your personal belief or imagination. Which is, I hope you agree, pretty useless - I mean it can be entertaining, uplifting, or reassuring, but that's where it ends.
As always, a welcome reminder, Robert. While rejecting "explanations and traditions" and finding my own mind - bringing as it does a momentary felt-sense of carefree uncertainty - I find as well that what you express often leads to an "aha!"....in common with many, I am grateful.
Beautifully said! I resonate completely.
Thanks, dear Joan. Hearing from you is a joy.
Perfect timing-I’ve been wrestling with this just as Sanjay was. Remarkable explanation, Robert. Thank you!
Robert I always love your posts and totally resonate with them. I responded to the discussion on Adviata and Buddhism kind of like the question , did
matter produce consciousness or consciousness produce matter! Unanswerable. I have been influenced by both Adviata and Buddhism along with various other teachings etc. and the essence of what you say is the same as the essence of what I’ve gleaned from Buddhism and Adviata. The approach may be different but the insight is the same. The notion that we have any control and that there is a permanent self is preposterous if you really look into it. Einstein himself said very much the same thing. Both Adviata and Buddhism, depending on the sect believe in reincarnation, which I personally think is a crock. What happens at death is another totally unanswerable question. To end this post,
which, for some reason I felt compelled to write, I’ll quote Niargadatta. “The Absolute is like a black hole into which everything disappears.” And “what you are is the absence of the presence of the absence”. Thanks for listening. Sometimes I think you’re a little too hard on Adviata Lol. 🤪
Ah, Robert!
You are a breath of fresh air in this petrified and fetid world of 'spirituality'
Thank you, John. I like hearing that.
Wow - the penny has dropped! I have struggled so much with the no self stuff
This piece is fantastic - thank you
Hi Robert, I'm a big fan of your work as you know. I loved this article. It wreaks havoc with the ubiquitous reification and deification of ideas prevalent in the so called spiritual world.  I agree with all aspects of it, even the criticisms of Vedanta *as taught and claimed* by far too many supposed teachers with half baked teachings. It is a lowdown dirty shame though that the word Vedanta is associated with much of this stuff, because the critiques you express about Vedanta have *almost nothing to do* with the real thing.
You mention many dualistic and fantastical notions that get bandied about under the "Advaita Vedanta" auspices, but are actually cherry picked pieces and parts that bely the meaning of the words when skillfully unfolded by a proper teacher. For example, if someone calls themselves a "stable genius" when they are not even close to either, this should not in any way demean actual stable people or geniuses. Vedanta is so simple and yet so subtle that its real meaning is almost always missed, and once that happens, the mind has no choice (being what it is) but to project its own meeting onto what it has heard. I know you know this well trying from to convey your point of view.
The essence of Vedanta (in my own words, for this particular purpose) can be summarized in plain English as:
There are not two principles, despite appearances, and there are no actual boundaries anywhere. "Eternality" is implied by that definition because "what is" can never be anything but whole and complete (non-dual). What there is has no opposite and no boundaries, so nothing could ever be outside (or inside for that matter) of it.
The *term* (that is all it is) that references that definition, is Self or Brahman. That's often where the shit hits the fan, once the word "self" gets involved, because usually this impersonal definition of self is missing. It is nothing other than "what is," and that defies all description and objectification.
I suggest that is exactly what you point to, Robert. That's what I hear you say when you say you find yourself awake, and that nothing more (or at least nothing "fixed" and definitive) can verily be said *about* that. Vedanta does not "add" anything to that either. "Self" and "Brahman" are just *terms that reference that undefinable whole*, in exactly the same way that the term "table" refers to something specific. However, though Vedanta does not reify what it points at, it does (as if) look objectively at what *can* be seen and known, and point out observable deductions that can reasonably be made which *have the potential* to benefit those "individuals" who hear and accurately understand them, in exactly the same way that individuals that hear and accurately understand your formulations *can* benefit from them. Whether they do or not, in either case, is not at issue here. 
If what I wrote above covers Vedanta's definition the nature of "what is" (which is expressed in scripture as Sat Chit Ananda or Existence Consciousness Unending Fullness), there is also the teaching for the individual, which is equally straightforward. What you desire is effortless well-being and ease. If you had that, and when you do experience that, you never think, "I wish this bliss would stop!" No one has *ever* said that. Therefore, that effortless well-being and ease can be said to be "what we all *really* want." It's perfectly valid not to accept this, but that's part of the point. Vedanta is for individuals that do, and as a means of self knowledge, it makes no religious or philosophical claim. I'm not a scholar but I will grant you that the Vedas presumably do, but Vedanta is not the Vedas although it is included within them.
The teaching that stems from this is that the ego, *the **idea** that I am a limited, separate doer of action which by definition is inadequate and incomplete*, has no actual existence of its own apart from "what is" (Self). That doesn't mean that it does not exist, it absolutely does as evidenced by the entire experience of our life! However, it does mean that since you are not this "individual person" (because you can't *be* something that doesn't exist), you must be non-different from "what is" because there is no other option. 
The teachings and teachers that reify and deify non-duality as if it is an achievable "thing," event, or experience, fail to mention or even acknowledge that it is perfectly acceptable and viable not to accept a single word of this. from the perspective of Vedanta, the Self's perspective, knowledge and ignorance share the same status. They are objects seemingly known to you, the Self, non-dual is-ness. Vedanta is not a religion or philosophy that tells you "how things are," it is a means of knowledge to liberate your mind (and in turn your heart and spirit) from the burden of inadequacy and incompleteness, through a discriminating and dispassionate viewpoint based on understanding your true nature as Self, *if and only if that's what you are interested in*.
The only reason I'm bothering to point this out is because Vedanta, *as traditionally taught for thousands of years and as unfolded by a proper teacher*, gradually transformed my own thinking merely by listening to it and inquiring into the veracity of my own beliefs and convictions in the light of what it said, come what may. I only kept listening because inwardly it worked exactly as promised, despite my ignorance.
Sending you my gratitude and best wishes Robert, for everything you do, and all the conversations we've had.
🙏🏻☀️🕉️ Dave
Thank you, Dave. I appreciate this comment. Yes, I think you and I agree that what we all are is what is, and that cannot be described or characterized. It just is what it is.
Thanks Robert. Yes, we agree on that.
Sorry about the crappy formatting of my post. It didn't show up when I pasted it in, only after publishing 🤪.
Even when I skim read (some parts barely at all) I feel calm. Many thanks.
I enjoyed your post very much, though I have some reservations.
I have been studying Advaita Vedanta (and Buddhism and Christianity) for several years and completely agree with your main points. How can this be, given that, according to you, Advaita Vedanta is so different from what you write? It is not! It's like saying Christianity is wrong because there is no being with a long beard seated on a cloud looking down. No, there is no such being, but that does not make Christianity wrong; it just makes that idea inaccurate or not ultimately true.
Advaita Vedanta is a relatively small body of knowledge compared to the Vedas that teaches ‘Atman is Brahman’. Understanding what Atman and Brahman mean is crucial. From my perspective, what you express beautifully conveys some aspects of this immense ‘idea.’
I haven't read much of your work, so I'm not very familiar with it beyond this particular post. But it's clear from this post that you may not have a deep familiarity with Advaita Vedanta; or you may know as much as a Christian would if they believed in a bearded being seated on a cloud. Yes, there are expressions of Advaita Vedanta that resemble Eternalism, just as there are expressions of Christianity featuring a bearded man on a cloud. But so what?
Advaita Vedanta uses much of the Vedas as preparation for its ultimate conclusion, Atman is Brahman. This extensive preparation can indeed create a lot of confusion. However, I don’t believe it creates more confusion than the Buddha’s rejection of the Vedas or your own rejection of everything. The preparations of Advaita Vedanta, the rejection of the Vedas, or the rejection of everything can all be very useful when used rightly, but they can also lead to significant misunderstanding.
Spirituality is not for the faint-hearted. It is a truth that is obvious but cannot be expressed in words. Therefore, all words are inadequate, and since most teachings use words, words can both help and mislead. Even silence, the highest teaching, often creates significant confusion.
In my opinion, there is no clear way out. Rejecting other ideas without fully understanding them is not a solution. Even Gaudapada, in his Mandukya Karika (which I consider the most important method for teaching Advaita Vedanta), may have rejected other ideas without fully understanding them. So, as I said, I don’t see a clear way out. It is as it is.
Still, pointing out these potential misunderstandings may help…
Thanks for your comment. I am not an expert on Vedanta. I am not an expert on Christianity either, but I can say with confidence that Christianity means the belief that there is a god who caused his son to be sacrificed to atone for the sins of humans and that through faith in this story, the believer will gain eternal life in heaven. The problem is not the "old man with a white beard" but the entire metaphysics beginning with the idea that a god created the heavens and the earth and cares what people do or don't do. No one can possibly know such a thing, so I lose interest when it is asserted as fact.
I know less about Vedanta than I do about Christianity, but is it not true that for Vedantists, the manifestation of one's divinity is the goal of life and in that conception, the soul gradually attains union with the divine through successive births? If so, and if stated as fact, I lose interest.
If I am mistaken about Vedanta, please say how. I am always willing to learn.
Thanks.
Thank you very much for your response.
I am not an expert on Vedanta or Christianity. I am just someone very interested in understanding the truth of existence, and I have found Advaita Vedanta to be a great tool in this search.
Christianity, like all spiritual traditions, has many beliefs and practices, most of which are metaphorical and symbolic rather than literal. I would never take the Bible literally. To understand its deeper meaning, I would turn to mystics like Meister Eckhart or the anonymous English monk, rather than traditional teachings.
Similarly, your example of Vedanta—that the goal is to manifest one's divinity and the soul's union with the divine through successive births—is a common view but doesn't capture at all the full depth of Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta teaches that Atman (the individual self) is Brahman (the universal self), transcending the usual ideas of individuality and divinity.
Advaita Vedanta uses ideas from the Vedas as preparation for its ultimate truth:
* If you believe in God, use that belief to find peace of mind to capture the ultimate truth.
* If you believe in karma, use that belief to find peace of mind to capture the ultimate truth.
* If you believe in deities, pray to them for help in understanding the ultimate truth.
However, Advaita Vedanta is not about cosmology or metaphysics but about guiding one towards a direct experience of the reality of what we are beyond thought and belief. It focuses on non-duality, where the difference between self and other disappears.
In the Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada, chapter 2, verse 32, it is written: "There is no destruction, no origination, none in bondage, none striving for perfection, none who has attained liberation, and none who is desirous of liberation…”
The essence of Vedanta lies in recognizing non-duality exploring personal experiences (the experience one is having right now), and has nothing to do with dogmas or rigid beliefs.
I really don’t think this fully captures the depth of Advaita Vedanta—there’s so much more to it—but I hope it gives you a glimpse of its aim.
Thank you. The words you quote from Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada are similar to the Heart Sutra in Buddhism and similar to what I have written above.
I am not at all sure about the idea of an "ultimate truth," and that is where I criticize not just Vedanta but all religions that make such claims.
Once I told Robert that he was a guru because the word means teacher. He refuted that; he rejects all such labels. All labels. For you, Jaroslaw, to call him a Buddhist just after he said he was NOT, seems insulting. It also seems, to me, that you either really didn't read this essay or understood it, and couldn't wait to show that you believe that you know the truth. Pure arrogance! Have a nice day now.
Hi, Amir. Good to hear from you.
Perfectly clear, thank you! You say you are not a Buddhist, but anyone who sees the world like you do IS a Buddhist, whatever it means… “We” are/exist, as long as we are conscious of it, but finally the point is - consciously - not to be (this is what speaks to me so deeply, and is unique, so different from all those views perpetuating the “soul”). So may we all enter nirvana as soon as possible :-)
A Buddhist is a follower of the Buddha, a guy we cannot even be sure ever lived, much less produced all the teachings which are attributed to him.
Stretching labels like "Buddhist" or any other to those who see things in a certain way is hardly complimentary, even though it may be so intended.
For what would the world be like without attempts at self-definition and definition of others? 😉
And, of course “When you meet the Buddha, kill him” (words, words, words… :)
Exactly! That’s why I say “whatever it means”. The world without definitions is Consciousness, and there is nothing else, whatever it means :-)
"The world without definitions is Consciousness, and there is nothing else"?
And how do you know that, please?
That’s the problem with words. You can’t “know” awareness, you are it, and don’t ask me to give you the definition of what “to be awareness” means, please, as this equivalences to the (unanswered) question raised some time ago by Thomas Nagel, ie: “what is it like to be a bat”? :-)
Well, the way I see it, it's not about words, but rather about sources of.information. In other words, you have no way of knowing that you are awareness, god, or what have you. You can only believe or imagine it. If you offered any definition, it would only go as far as your personal belief or imagination. Which is, I hope you agree, pretty useless - I mean it can be entertaining, uplifting, or reassuring, but that's where it ends.
:-)
As always, a welcome reminder, Robert. While rejecting "explanations and traditions" and finding my own mind - bringing as it does a momentary felt-sense of carefree uncertainty - I find as well that what you express often leads to an "aha!"....in common with many, I am grateful.
Thank you, Stephen.