Definition of non-duality

Non-duality, or non-dualism, is a term derived from the Sanskrit word advaita which literally means 'not two', referring to the fact that the ultimate reality is non-dual and that duality or multiplicity is only apparent and illusory.

This means that all the differences that we perceive between one thing and another, or between one being and another being, are not real, but only apparent. That is, "this" (for example, a tree) is not really different from "that" (a chair). In fact, any word that we can express will necessarily be misleading since words discriminate between this and that, but reality cannot be divided or contained in a name.

The "I" and the world

However, nonduality is not limited to pointing out that all things that exist in the universe are not different from each other, nor are they separate, but it goes further and points out that things that only appear in the mind, such as thoughts, emotions, feelings, imaginations, perceptions, etc., are not different from each other and they are not different from things in the "physical" universe. That is, the mental and the physical are not different in reality.

Furthermore, the individual or "I" experiencing these things is not different from the mental or the physical. Nothing is different from this "I". Furthermore, this "I" is not different from divinity, or God, or that which is "beyond" the universe and the mind. Neither the universe, nor the mind, nor God, nor the "I" are different from each other. Therefore, the "I" that believes itself to be a different individual and separate from everything else is necessarily illusory.

Nothing is different from reality, since reality is the only thing that truly exists, that which exists by itself, and nothing exists apart from that which exists by itself. Therefore, neither the universe, nor the mind, nor God, nor the individual are different from reality, since there is nothing apart from reality.

Via negativa

Note that I am expressing these points negatively, saying that "there are no differences" or denying duality, which is the way in which non-dual philosophy approaches its discourse. In this sense, non-duality is characterized by preferring "the negative way" (via negativa) as a way of expressing the ineffable: reality is neither this nor that.

In fact, the same can be seen in the use of the word "non-duality" which is considered more appropriate to talk about these issues, in contrast to more positive expressions such as "unity", "oneness" or "one". This is because otherwise the mind will be tempted to look for that "oneness", in the same way that it looks for an object, but reality cannot be an object because that would imply that it is something concrete and limited, different from something else. In fact, this is precisely the main limitation of the mind: that it can only conceive something in dualistic terms, that is, in which one thing is different from another. The same can be said of words, since the only function of words is to distinguish one thing from another. Therefore, it can be said that non-duality suggests that everything that the mind can conceive is only illusory.

Non-duality could then be taken as the negation of everything suggested by the mind. But this too is mental and discursive, so it cannot be strictly real. This leads to a paradox: something mental suggests that everything mental is illusory. However, this paradox is only at the discursive or mental level, but reality exists independently of the discursive or mental, so that paradox does not really exist.

Reality vs Illusion

If reality is strictly non-dual, it means that reality is beyond any category like "duality" or "non-duality." Furthermore, it means that even the distinction between reality and illusion is not entirely correct. Illusion cannot exist apart from reality, nor can it be taken to exist on its own.

Although this is true, the proposal of non-duality consists first of all in discovering what is strictly real, through the negative path, and then, as it were, absorbing the illusion in that reality. That is, non-duality suggests discovering non-dual reality first and then recognize that duality is nothing different from it. In this way, the opposition between duality and non-duality, between reality and illusion, between the true and the false, is overcome.

Duality, illusion, this-and-that are just names that seem to exist because of ignorance.

Ignorance

It is only because of ignorance that illusion is taken as reality, so that there seem to be multiple things and beings. It is only because of ignorance that the apparent (duality or multiplicity) is taken as evident, and the real (non-duality) is considered impossible or meaningless.

Without ignorance, neither duality nor illusion would appear. Without ignorance neither the universe nor the individual, nor the names, nor the forms, nor the mind would appear. Without ignorance, only reality would be, without appearances, in its formless form. Only ignorance makes things seem distinct and separate from each other.

Now, is ignorance something apart from non-dual reality?

Being and non-Being

Clearly, ignorance cannot be anything apart from non-dual reality. To say that ignorance is something apart from non-dual reality would be contradictory. Here an apparent paradox appears, because although reality is non-dual, there is something that hides or veils this knowledge. To resolve this paradox we must examine the fundamental error or the basic contradiction.

The primary contradiction of the mind is to assume as true that both Being and non-Being exist together. For this to be better understood, let us use the word "Existence" instead of "Being", so that the contradiction remains as follows: both Existence and non-Existence exist together. Looking carefully, we see that there is something wrong with the very concept of non-existence, since non-existence does not really exist, it is total non-existence, absolute nothingness or impossibility itself. Thus, to say that non-existence exists is in itself a contradiction.

We well know, from the elementary principle of logic called "the principle of non-contradiction", that a contradiction cannot be true. Thus, the statement "non-Existence exists" cannot be true and should be discarted. In this way, only existence exists, or in other words: only "Being" is, with nothing apart from itself.

Furthermore, non-Being or non-Existence can never be evidenced or experienced, since in order to evidence or experience anything it is necessary to Be/exist. Even if you believe you have experienced non-Being, Being is needed to experience it. All evidence or experience reveals only Being, with no trace of non-Being. That is, non-Being is just a name for something that doesn't really exist.

The limits of words

How can it be that non-existence, even if it does not exist, can be named? It is here that we must examine the very limits of language.

To begin to examine this problem, it is necessary to admit that non-existence is only a name (or concept) and every name needs its opposite to be named. An object cannot be named if it is not contrasted with something else. For example, by naming a "tree" we are implicitly pointing out that the tree exists as something different from other things. That is, for words, "something" cannot exist without "the other". In this way, names have the power to divide (apparently) a "something", which is a continuous and homogeneous whole, into specific parts that are different from each other. In fact, that is the very function of names: to discriminate or distinguish one thing from another. Moreover, the same can be said of words, language, experiences, emotions, etc: they all require some form of division or discrimination.

We can observe that names/words need at least two principles (or realities) for them to work, since the very function of the word is to discriminate. Words do not work with a single principle, that is why a second non-existent principle needs to be invented for the word to be possible. Thus, the word is itself an abstraction of reality, but the abstraction is not reality itself.

In this way, words are exclusively linked to duality and cannot faithfully express non-duality, which is absolute reality. Words always refer to relative facts. All things that can be named or indicated are necessarily relative because they are named or indicated in relation to other things, differentiating “this” from “the other”.

The closest that words can be to the truth is pointing out that: there is only Being without a non-Being, or else, there is only Being and there is nothing else. This implies recognizing the impossibility of words to faithfully express the truth. That is, nothing that words can suggest is absolutely true. The truth or reality is beyond the domain of words, beyond discrimination, beyond duality. The truth/reality is that which exists independent of any word, name or concept. The truth/reality is that which exists as existence itself, without there being anything apart.

Recognizing this is freeing oneself from ignorance, because ignorance is nothing other than believing that words, names, forms, concepts, experiences, divisions are true in themselves, when they are nothing more than artificial, imaginary divisions: merely conventional, such as dividing continuous time into chunks like hours and days.

Consciousness

We have said that the main and only function of words is to discriminate. We have also indicated that the discrimination between "this" as essentially different from "the other" is ignorance, since it is part of an artificial division. Now, we can observe that discrimination is the very function of what we call “mind”. There is no mind without discrimination and no discrimination without mind. All mental processes involve some form of discrimination or another. Thoughts involve discrimination, as well as sense perception, feelings, and experiences.

We have also said that truth/reality is that which exists independently of discrimination. So, what is that which exists independently of mind? Whatever this is, it cannot be divided, even though it is the primary cause of all apparent division.

In discrimination, essentially two things are present: the set of "things" discriminated from each other, on the one hand, and "observation" on the other. By observation I mean the mere fact of observing. That is, discrimination consists not only in separating things from each other, but also in separating things from observation itself. For discrimination, observation and things observed are essentially different.

To discover what exists independently of discrimination, it is necessary to pay attention to the observation itself. When there is discrimination, observation is present, that is undeniable, since there can be no discrimination without observation. That is, in all discrimination, observation is present. Now, can there be observation without discrimination? If there is observation in the absence of discrimination, then it is the observation that exists independently of the mind and therefore is the truth/reality in its original "form".

Let's look at discrimination a little more closely. All discrimination is a form of mental activity. Discrimination is in itself an activity. However, all activity suggests that there is a background of rest, free of activity, just as all movement necessarily implies an immobile background. Now, observation is not an activity, for it is present even in the absence of activity: observation is what observes both activity and inactivity. You don't have to make an effort to observe because you can observe even without wanting to. Therefore, it is necessary to admit that there is observation even when nothing is observed, just as the eye continues to see even when it sees only darkness.

We can also see that observation is always present if we examine the case of deep sleep in which there is no mental activity. For this we will use the word "consciousness" instead of "observation", as its synonym. So, if there were not some form of consciousness during deep sleep it would not be possible to wake up. But it is clearly the case that if one is shaken while in deep sleep, he/she wakes up; that necessarily implies some form of consciousness. There is not such thing as "unconsciousness" because there should be conciousness to be councious of that "unconciousness", in the same way as there is no not-Being because that imply Being in order to experience or know it. So, "unconciousness" is imposible.

We can then conclude that observation/consciousness is always present, whether or not there is discrimination. Therefore, observation/awareness is what exists independently of discrimination or mind. Observation/awareness is inevitable.

We conclude that consciousness is reality itself. Consciousness is the same as Being. Consciousness (observation) is not an activity that the Self does, rather consciousness is what the Self (Being) IS.

Observation vs what is observed

We have seen that the mind discriminates the observation from the observed, creating a non-existent division, since all discriminations are false. Therefore, there can be no real separation between the observation (consciousness) and the observed. The observation and the observed are the same. If this is necessarily so, how are we to understand this equality between consciousness and what is observed?

To analyze this problem in more detail, let's pose it in another way: the division between subject and object or rather, between subject, object and observation. Let's start by analyzing the subject: is the subject the one who really knows the object? If we look closely, we see that the subject is nothing more than a set of ideas and thoughts that make up an identity, which is an identity that has been built. In this way, the subject, understanding the subject as an "I" or as a constructed identity, is not really what observes the objects, but is also part of what is observed. That is, the subject is part of what is observed. In this way, the division between subject-object-observation is reduced to object-observation. So, what is it that makes the observation? Only observation itself, which is consciousness. But is the object really something other than the observation?

Where does the observed come from if not from consciousness? Consciousness is the origin, the substance, the space and the dissolution of everything observed. Thus, all observed things are nothing other than consciousness; consciousness encompasses everything. Every thought, every experience, every feeling, every perception, every name, every form, everything is actually consciousness. Even discrimination is nothing apart from consciousness. Nor is the mind something apart. What's more, not even ignorance is anything other than consciousness. There is nothing that consciousness is not.

Let's look at the case of matter, which is understood to exist independently of consciousness. But is there really such a thing as something separate from consciousness? When we experience matter, do we experience matter itself or just a representation in consciousness? Everything we experience is always a representation or object of consciousness. The existence of something outside of consciousness could never be verified, since all experience and knowledge imply consciousness. Therefore, the notion of matter, as something independent of consciousness, must be discarded. The same analysis applies to notions of energy, time and space.

Consciousness is the undivided, homogeneous and continuous background on which all divisions appear, which are only nominal. However, every name actually refers to consciousness. All the names are different names of the only reality-consciousness. Although one name is different from another in appearance, they name the same reality. Even illusion is but a name for reality.

Original freedom

Recognizing non-dual reality is the beginning of a process of liberation from the yoke of ignorance. Why is ignorance a yoke? Because it makes believe that appearances are reality. This confusion divides reality into names and forms, different from each other, and that in their interaction create conflict. This conflict is the cause of suffering.

Suffering is only caused by conflict, and conflict is only caused by division. Now, what causes division? Only words cause division, for words by themselves divide: that is their function. Therefore, there would be no suffering without words, names, concepts and thoughts; that is, there would be no suffering without discrimination.

But since all words are not reality itself, then the resulting suffering is not real either. Words are illusory and so is suffering. Reality, which exists independently of words, also exists independently of suffering. That is, non-dual reality is free of suffering. The Being-Consciousness does not suffer, since there is no division or conflict in itself. Therefore, true freedom is the original condition of Being, in which there is no division: anything apart from itself that submits or conditions it.

The direct path to freedom

True freedom is freedom from the yoke of ignorance, which makes us believe that the divisions and discriminations imposed by names and judgments are true, which makes us believe that "this" is different from "that", that "I" am different from "the other". These differences are only nominal, without real existence.

The main path proposed by non-duality is "the direct path" or the path of recognition of essential reality, through the investigation of the Being, the Self, the mind and Consciousness.

It is a direct path because it is about recognizing what is always present, here and now, without change. The objective of the direct path is the elimination of ignorance, which is the only thing that prevents us from seeing the fullness of Being.

Discovering that all names, and therefore all divisions and differences, are non-existent, where is ignorance? Ignorance disappears when it is discovered that any attempt to divide non-dual reality results in illusion. It can then be said that ignorance disappears when it is investigated, in the same way that darkness disappears when it is illuminated for inspection.

Recognizing that reality is non-dual, indivisible and without anything existing apart from itself, is recognizing that this reality is the Being that I truly am and that the original condition of Being is freedom, without anything real that conditions it. All conditioning is illusory, as is all suffering and conflict.

Therefore, the Self that truly I Am is peace, fullness, happiness, and unconditional freedom. And this is here and now and it cannot be otherwise.

Know more

This exposition of non-duality is largely based on the assimilation between two ways of understanding. On the one hand, in the West, we have Parmenides, with his astonishing "speech of truth", so brief and at the same time so deep and logical. On the other hand, in the East, we have the Vedanta Advaita school. To know the latter, one can resort to the writings of various teachers such as Adi Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Atmananda Krishnamenon. You can also resort to classic advaita texts such as: Avadhuta Gita, Ashtavakra Gita, Bhagavad Gita, Ribhu Gita, Yoga Vasistha, among others.

However, non-duality or non-dualism is present in various other cultures and traditions, such as Taoism, Kashmiri Shaivism, certain schools of Buddhism, in Sufism (for example Ibn Arabi), in paganism (for example in Neoplatonism), even in the Christian tradition (for example Master Eckhart).