Hinduism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for followers of the Hindu religion and those interested in learning more about Hinduism. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
How would a dualist respond to the following argument made by a nondualist?
Brahman cannot be the knower of anything. To know and to understand involve time. There is a before and an after. The former case involves ignorance because something is not known while the latter case involves knowledge. Brahman is beyond blemishes and so it cannot be in a state of ignorance. Since there is no knower and no thing to be known, the Brahman of the Upanishads must be non-dual.
not ONE dualist understands Advaita. Advaita is not a set of words about the nature of humans,Gods, Moksha etc. - it is a directly experienced wordless state.
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa expressed it best
https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/parables/1_files/1-56.html
EGOISM: VANITY SANKARACHARYA AND HIS FOOLISH DISCIPLE THE great Sankaracharya had a foolish disciple who used to imitate his Master in all matters. Sankara uttered 'Sivoham' (I am Siva); the disciple also repeated 'Sivoham'. To correct his disciple's folly, Sankara one day, while passing by a smithy, took a potful of molten iron and swallowed it; and he asked that disciple also to do the same. Of course, the disciple could not imitate this act of his Master, and thence forward he left saying 'Sivoham'. (52)
There are numerous word-level counters to Advaita from Theistic schools that mean nothing. Mandanaamisra is said to have refuted Buddhism by joining a Buddhist monastery and learning all their teachings before refuting them.- I haven't heard of ONE dualist who actually experienced Advaitic truth and claimed it was false AFTER that.
Ramana Maharishi explains the stages of achieving the highest Advaitic truth:
https://www.messagefrommasters.com/Enlightenment/Ramana_Samadhi.htm
