Introduction

Parmenides was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who was born in the 6th century B.C. in the city of Elea. Only one of his works is known, in which he describes two visions of reality, on the one hand, The Way of Truth, in which reality is described from its essence, and on the other hand, The Way of Opinion, in which reality is described from its appearance, according to the "opinion of mortals".

In the present study, The Way of Truth will be discussed, from the perspective of non-dual philosophy and its relationship with Advaita Vedanta. In the opinion of the author of the present study, this work by Parmenides is possibly the best ancient work on non-duality in the West, mainly for presenting a logical and rational proof that reality is non-dual, being both brief and rigorous in its exposure. This speaks of the fact that the knowledge of the truth can be reached through the thorough examination of the Self and that non-duality is the understanding that is most consistent with logic and reason.

Disclaimer: This is not an academic or technical study, but rather a free, but serious and consistent interpretation of this important text.

Text and commentary

…and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right hand in hers, and spake to me these words: Welcome, O youth, that comest to my abode on the car that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers! It is no ill chance, but right and justice that has sent thee forth to travel on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten track of men! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things, as well the unshaken heart of well-rounded truth, as the opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all. Yet none the less shalt thou learn these things also,—how passing right through all things one should judge the things that seem to be.

The goddess, of whom no name is given, contrasts Truth (reality) with Opinion (appearance, illusion). That is to say, the exposition that the goddess will make will have the purpose of discriminating what is real from what is simply apparent. However, it is also observed that the apparent is nothing apart from the real, since the real “[pass] through all things”. The meaning of the latter will be clarified later.

Come now, I will tell thee—and do thou hearken to my saying and carry it away—the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The first, namely, that WHAT-IS is, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the way of belief, for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that WHAT-IS is not, and that it must needs not be,—that, I tell thee, is a path that none can learn of at all. For thou canst not know what is not —that is impossible—nor utter it;

This is surely the most important stanza of the entire work. Two paths of investigation are proposed, as if the entire essence of Truth were summed up in them: 1) "what is", is and it is impossible for it not to be and 2) "what is" is not and it is necessary for it not to be. Here “what is” (Being, Self, Reality, Existence) is contrasted with “what is not” (Non-Being, Nothingness, Non-Existence). The second path of investigation must be discarded as being in itself contradictory, since Being and Non-Being cannot coexist. It is necessary to admit, to understand the whole work, that only Being is and there is no such thing as Non-Being.

Non-Being or Nothingness should not be understood as a void or an unmanifested existence, but as the absolute Nothingness: non-existence. One should understand Non-Being, or Nothingness, as absolute and total non-existence, then it is easy to understand that such a thing does not exist. Moreover, Non-Being can only be named, and recognized as non-existent, from Being, since from Non-Being nothing can be named nor recognized.

Finally, the Being should not be understood as an entity, which exists alongside other entities, but as existence itself. It should be noted that Being (Existence) does not have a contrary. Everything that is known has a contrary or opposite, for example, light has a contrary, which is darkness, but Being is the only thing that does not have something to be contrasted with, because such a thing as Non-Being ( Nothing or Non-Existence) does not really exist and cannot be taken into account. In this way, What-is/Being/Reality/Existence is non-dual.

…for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be.

This is a problematic fragment, since Being is identified with Thinking. However, it is necessary to admit that Thinking is not fundamental since one can be or exist without thinking. Now, what is the foundation or origin of thought? The foundation of thinking is Consciousness, since one cannot think without Consciousness. Furthermore, Consciousness exists independently of thought, since thought is only the “movement” of Consciousness and Consciousness can be at “rest” without thoughts. Understanding this, the following alternative translation can be suggested: "for Consciousness and Being are the same". That is, Being is Consciousness and Consciousness is Being, one and the same. This will be confirmed below. 

In the famous formula of Advaita Vedanta in which Reality is posed as Sat-Chit-Ananda, Sat corresponds to Being and Chit corresponds to Consciousness. Thus, Advaita and Parmenides seem to agree on this point.

It needs must be that what can be spoken and thought is; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is nothing to be. This is what I bid thee ponder. I hold thee back from this first way of inquiry, and from this other also, upon which mortals knowing naught wander two-faced; for helplessness guides the wandering thought in their breasts, so that they are borne along stupefied like men deaf and blind. Undiscerning crowds, who hold that what-is and what-is-not are the same and not the same, and all things travel in opposite directions!

Everything that is known or experienced, whether in the form of thought, perception, feeling, etc., must be, since they cannot be anything apart from Being. This speaks of the unity of all things in Being. Everything known or experienced is Being and there is nothing that Being is not, for nothing Is without Being. Even the apparent differences between things ARE and therefore are one in Being. This means that all things that appear to be something other than Being are not real, since all things are, in essence and in reality, only Being, since there is nothing apart from Being. Having recognized Being as Consciousness, which can also be understood as Knowledge (or Observation), it can be said that The Known (the observed) is nothing apart from Knowledge (Observation) itself: they are identical.

It once again insists on moving away from the path of investigation according to which Non-Being is. On the other hand, a criticism is made of the common opinion of “mortals knowing naught” who "hold that what-is and what-is-not are the same and not the same". Believing that Being and Non-Being coexist is the fundamental error of ignorance. That is, believing that duality really exists is ignorance.

So far the goddess presents, so to speak, three "levels" of existence or reality:

1. The Being, which is pure reality and existence itself.
2. The illusion ("through which [ignorant men] wander two-faced"), which does not exist by itself but only exists as Being.
3. Non-Being, which is total non-existence and therefore should be discarded.

Therefore, the clear vision of the truth (in contrast to ignorance) is to know that only the Self exists and that everything known is the Self, without there being anything apart from the Self.

For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not are. But do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry, nor let habit by its much experience force thee to cast upon this way a wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue; but judge by argument the much disputed proof uttered by me.

The statement “for this shall never be proved: that the things that are not are”, could be translated also as: "things that are not will never be proven to be" or "things that do not exist will never be proven to exist."

Everything said so far can be summed up as follows: only what-is is and what-is-not is not. This is obvious. However, this implies that all the apparent multiplicity of things is nothing other than Being (what-is) and therefore there is no multiplicity but a single non-dual reality. This is not what usual experience suggests. That is why it is said that "nor let habit by its much experience force thee to cast upon this way a wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue". That is, only by habit, born of superficial observation, is duality admitted to be real. However, when observing the question of Being rationally, everything suggested by the senses and the mind (which bear witness only to what is apparent: duality) is discovered as false.

It should be noted that there are two forms of knowledge. On the one hand, the knowledge suggested by force of habit, the result of the perceptions of the senses and mental appreciations, which is not recognized as reliable knowledge, since it is based on appearances and opinions; and, on the other hand, the knowledge suggested by reason (logos), which recognizes Being as the non-dual reality. This last way of knowledge is the reliable one because it is faithful to the Truth; it is, so to speak, the purest reason and the most fundamental logic.

It can be said that the essence of the practice suggested in this work is to remain in reason (logos), keeping in mind only the non-duality of Being, ignoring the suggestions of the senses and the mind. This is reminiscent of the quality of discrimination (Viveka) between the real and the unreal, mentioned in Advaita Vedanta, especially by Adi Shankara.

One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, what-is is. In this path are very many tokens that what-is is uncreated and indestructible; for it is complete, immovable, and without end.

Having discarded "what is not" (Non-Being) as non-existent, only what-is or Being remains, without any contrary or opposite, or something to contrast it with.

Following are some descriptions that speak of the Being, which are obtained from logical derivations starting from the premise that only the Being exists. It is uncreated and indestructible because there is nothing apart from the Being from which to be created or to which to be destroyed. It is total and complete because it cannot lack anything, since there is nothing apart from itself. It is immovable and immutable because there is nothing apart from itself to which it can go or to which it can transform.

Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for now it is, all at once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin for it wilt thou look for? In what way and from what source could it have drawn its increase? ... I shall not let thee say nor think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be thought nor uttered that anything is not. And, if it came from nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner? 

This suggests that Being is not conditioned by time, since it is always now, immutable. Being did not come to be, since it could not have arisen from Non-Being (or Nothingness), since "nothing arises from Nothingness". Thus, Being is the only thing that exists now and what has always existed, without being able to stop existing.

Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at all. Nor will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides itself from that which is not. Wherefore, justice doth not loose her fetters and let anything come into being or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgment thereon depends on this: “Is it or is it not?” Surely it is adjudged, as it needs must be, that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path is real and true.

Being cannot be partially: either it is everything at once, or it is nothing. Here the same dilemma as at the beginning of the work. But it is necessary to admit that there is only Being, and Nothingness is not.

How, then, can what is be going to be in the future? Or how could it come into being? If it came into being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of.

In this way, it should be evident that birth and death are not real but only illusory. That is, what has a beginning is not real; moreover, what has an ending is not real either. Being is not born or dies, it is always now, immutable.

Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is. Wherefore it is wholly continuous; for what is, is in contact with what is.

Being is indivisible, a continuous and homogeneous whole. What exists apart from Being that can divide or interrupt it? Therefore, multiplicity and separation are but illusions.

Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, without beginning and without end; since coming into being and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has cast them away. It is the same, and it rests in the self-same place, abiding in itself. And thus it remaineth constant in its place; for hard necessity keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side. Wherefore it is not permitted to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of nothing; while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything.

As has already been said, being is immutable, immobile, always being itself. The need forces it to be, without being able to stop being. However, this point seems to suggest that the Self is limited or conditioned to something else. But this cannot be so. Although in this poem it is not mentioned, Being must necessarily be unlimited and unconditioned, since there is nothing apart from itself that limits or conditions it. 

When it is said that Being should not be infinite, it should be taken into account that, for the Greeks, infinitude was a synonym for incompleteness or imperfection, but this is not the meaning we give here to the word “unlimited”, for Being should be complete (without lack) and perfect (without fault). Being is necessarily perfect and complete because if Being is missing in Being, everything would be missing and then it would not be, which is impossible.

The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of which the thought exists is the same; for you cannot find thought without something that is, as to which it is uttered. And there is not, and never shall be, anything besides what-is, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable. 

This confirms what we have said before: that "Being is Consciousness", since what is "that by which thought exists" if not Consciousness? Furthermore, with this fragment, not only is Being identified with Consciousness, but "what can be thought" (all things of which we are aware: everything observed and known) is also identified with Consciousness itself, since nothing exists outside of Being-Consciousness. That is, Consciousness is that by which thought exists and thoughts (the manifestations of Consciousness) are nothing apart from Consciousness. Another way of saying the same thing is that Consciousness is Consciousness whether it manifests in thoughts or remains unmanifested (without thoughts).

Wherefore all these things are but names which mortals have given, believing them to be true—coming into being and passing away, being and not being, change of place and alteration of bright colour.

The normal human being considers real everything that is perceived by the senses and the mind, which only perceive appearances. In appearance everything is born, everything perishes, everything moves, everything changes. The reality underlying the appearances, and the very origin of these appearances, is not perceived by the common people, so that the convention is to believe in the opinion that there is nothing apart from the apparent: duality or multiplicity. However, reality, the Self, is non-dual, without birth, without death, without change, without limits.

In terms of Advaita Vedanta, mortals only perceive the non-essential aspect of the Being: Nama-Rupa, name and form, believing that this is all, without realizing, by exercising discrimination (viveka), the fundamental reality as Sat-Chit: Being-Consciousness.

Since, then, it has a furthest limit, it is complete on every side, like the mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from the centre in every direction; for it cannot be greater or smaller in one place than in another. For there is no nothing that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor can aught that is be more here and less there than what is, since it is all inviolable. For the point from which it is equal in every direction tends equally to the limits.

As a metaphor, Being is compared to a sphere, a notion possibly coming from the Pythagorean conception of perfection as that geometric figure. This implies that Being is a complete, homogeneous, uniform, indivisible and a continuous whole.

Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought about the truth.

Beyond Parmenides

Parmenides' most important contribution is, probably, having reduced the investigation of Truth or Reality to the question of Being, that is, to the question of whether Being is or is not. Thus, if the Being is, then everything is Being and there is nothing apart from the Being, since the Being “totally pervades all things”. On the other hand, if Being is not, then nothing is, nothing can exist. The latter is clearly not the case, since existence cannot be denied; furthermore, to say that Being is not (does not exist) is in itself a contradiction.

In other words, Parmenides reduces all the investigation of Truth to two options: 1) Being is or 2) Being is not. As the latter is impossible to be true, only the first option remains, that Being is. Therefore, Being (Existence) is the Truth in itself: the reality.

Recognizing that everything is Being and there is nothing apart from Being, it follows that Being is unbegotten and imperishable, immutable and unlimited; a complete, continuous, homogeneous and indivisible whole. Everything that changes, that comes and goes, that has a beginning and an end, that is composed of parts, in short: the set of all our sensory and mental experiences, are not real but illusory. However, even illusion cannot be something other than Being, reality, since illusion does not exist by itself outside of existence. Therefore, the illusion is not another thing that Reality (Being); the illusion is the set of names and forms that the Being takes when manifesting itself. That is to say, the absolute (the One) appears as relative (the multiplicity) when manifesting itself. In this way, it is not an object (for example, a tree) that exists as such, but it is the Being that takes the name and the form of such an object (the tree), without ceasing to be only Being.

As we have said, illusion (as manifestation) is not something different from reality (as Being). However, the manifestations do not exist independently of Being, but Being exists independently of the manifestations. Therefore, the fundamental essence of reality is non-manifested Being. This corresponds to the Vedanta Advaita terminology in which the manifested Being is known as Saguna Brahman (Brahman with qualities) and the unmanifested Being as Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without qualities), Brahman being the ultimate reality. So, Nirguna is the "primordial state", if such a thing could be said, of Brahman, the Reality, which exists independently of the manifestation of it as Sagura.

Now, how can illusion be reality at the same time? This seems counterintuitive, however, it makes sense when reality (or Being) is understood as Consciousness. Consciousness has the capacity to manifest itself in multiple names and forms (Saguna) that seem to exist by themselves, as in the case of a dream in which multiple objects exist but are known to be generated by a single Consciousness. But Consciousness also exists in complete rest (Nirguna), without the need for manifestations (as in the case of deep sleep without dreams). You could say that the illusion is like a metaphor for reality: neither entirely real nor entirely non-real; interpreting the metaphor literally is like believing that the illusion exists as such, or that the names and forms exist as such, but the names and forms do not exist as such but only as Being. That is, one cannot take the illusion literally as reality, but as the name and form of reality.

In summary, as we have seen, Parmenides has demonstrated, with elegant and rigorous logic, the following points:

  1) There is only one reality (Being) and there is nothing apart from it.

  2) All the diversity of things and beings is nothing but illusion. Illusion is everything that changes, that has a beginning and an end, that is limited, that is conditioned, that depends on something else, that exists along with other things.

  3) The fundamental reality (Being) is Consciousness and Consciousness is Being.

  4) The illusion is reduced to Being-Consciousness, that is, the illusion is not something apart from reality.

These points correspond to the first 4 principles of the "7 Principles of Reality", which is an attempt to summarize the teaching of non-duality, according to the understanding of its author (see Bibliography below). The following 3 points have not been explicitly mentioned by Parmenides, but they are consistent with the previous points:

5) The true "I" is Being-Consciousness.

6) The inherent nature of reality is happiness.

7) Therefore: You are Reality, Consciousness and Happiness itself.

The fifth principle suggests that the Self is actually the pure and absolute Being-Consciousness. This can be demonstrated taking into account the following premises:

1. The only thing that really exists is Being, existence itself.
2. Being is Consciousness and Consciousness is Being.
3. There is no doubt that "I am", because one cannot deny one's own existence.

The logical conclusion is that "I am Being-Consciousness". I am not a person or something or someone limited and particular, different from the rest. I have no beginning and no end, neither birth nor death. Nothing can affect me, because I am immutable. Nothing exists apart from me. I am the Being in everything and nothing is apart from the Being that I Am. To believe that the Self is something individual, limited and personal is to believe that what is apparent is real as such.

The sixth principle suggests that the nature of the Being is happiness, which can also be understood as peace and freedom, or simply as non-suffering. This is so because suffering is nothing more than restlessness or mental disturbance, in the form of fear, desire and resistance. Fear is only born from the belief that Being can change and be affected. Desire is only born from the belief that the Being is limited and incomplete, thus feeling the need for something else apart from itself. And finally, resistance or aversion is only born from the belief that Being exists alongside something other than itself that works against it. All this is nothing more than erroneous opinions, judgments and assessments, arising from literally taking illusion as reality. Understanding that everything that causes restlessness is nothing more than the same all-encompassing Being, the true Self, the inherent peace and freedom of Being is discovered: true happiness. Unmanifest Consciousness is always present as unfathomable peace, stillness and silence, regardless of whether or not there are manifestations.

Finally, as a corollary, there is the seventh principle, which summarizes all the others, stating that: You are Reality itself, which is Existence-Consciousness-Happiness (Sat-Chit-Ananda).

Bibliography

BURNET, John. Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd ed. (London: A & C Black, 1920).

VERA, Giordano. Seven principles of Reality. Link: https://giordanovera.com/blog/english/7-principles-of-reality

VERA, Giordano. What is really Reality? Link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BM6V17Z8