Where does advaita say that experience does not exist? Can you quote any advaitin on this?

@estimator You won't know the people. I grew up in Advaita where I learned from people I knew who said "Since Brahman cannot be active due to its immutability, Brahman cannot be cognitive. Experience involves mental activity and so experience cannot be Brahman. Since Brahman alone exists, experience cannot exist." The second case seems to be the more popular one. If you want to comment on it, please do.

Something can be considered as advaita viewpoint if traditional advaitins have said it and there is consensus from traditional advaitins on it. I would like to know which traditional advaitin said this and in which work.

@estimator I will look around...by the way the verse you cited does not actually address my question. If Vedas are not absolute pramanas then "Tat Tvam Asi" is not an absolute pramana. Vedas cannot say they have no absoluteness.

Tat tvam asi is not an absolute pramana. There is no need for this pramana in the state of liberation. When there is no duality, there are no pramanas.

@estimator "When there is no duality, there are no pramanas" -- Very true indeed! IF there is no duality, then there are no pramanas. Now, can you inarguably establish that non-duality exists? Based on the additional info you gave, you are implying if there exists duality, then there are pramanas. This means the condition to show non-duality exists is the following: there exists no pramanas (this is the contrapositive of if duality then pramanas). Can you provide a pramana that there are no pramanas?

I get message saying comments are not meant for extended discussions.

Pramanas imply duality. No duality imply no pramanas. This is Sruti logic.

Yes, I agree with you that "If there is no duality then there are no pramanas." I agree that this statement is true; however, this conditional statement cannot be used to prove non-duality. Now how do you prove to me that there is no duality? Sruti logic which you also presented is "if there is duality then there exists pramanas." This conditional statement is true. Therefore its contrapositive "If there exists no pramanas, then there is non-duality" is also true.

Therefore the true way to establish that non-duality exists is to prove to me there exists no pramanas, i.e. if there is a pramana that shows there are no pramanas, then non-duality is true. Can you provide a pramana that shows there are no pramanas? NO, because that would be a contradiction. Can you show me a place where Sruti says "there exists a pramana that establishes there are no pramanas?" NO you cannot, because that is illogical.

If there is duality then there exists prananas - this is not my claim

My claim is - If there are pramanas, then there is duality

Didn't you say in your answer "Further verses show that pramanas exist only in the state of duality." Pramanas exist only in the state of duality means "if there is duality then there exists pramanas." The word "only" means "if", i.e. "only" implies a condition.

A statement and its converse dont necessarily have same truth value

Yes, but didn't you say ""Further verses show that pramanas exist only in the state of duality.""

Pramanas exist only in the state of duality means no duality implies no pramanas

Ok thanks. But how can you prove that non-duality exists? What is the condition to prove that non-duality exists? That is what is the if that implies non-duality?

All proving also exists only in the state of duality. Sruti statements are proof of non-duality for those who are in duality.

Like Bhagavan Krishna says, for the realized person, the vedas are not of much use. (For such a person, non-duality is direct. No proof is required).

@estimator Thanks again. Even in the state of duality we can prove that Brahman (i.e. reality) exists. The existence of reality can be proved in duality without using Sruti, while the existence of non-duality cannot be proved in duality without using Sruti. How can reality be non-duality if they have contradicting natures in the state of duality?

Brahman cannot be proved without Sruti. Smriti like Gita is based on Sruti.

But we can ascertain the existence of Brahman without Sruti, no? We just cannot know what Brahman is like without Sruti. We can enquire about Brahman without Sruti (i.e. we can convince ourselves that Brahman exists without Sruti) but can answer our inquiries about Brahman with Sruti.

Reality is that which never gets contradicted. Like a dream can get contradicted upon waking up. But reality never gets contradicted. Only non-duality cannot be contradicted because there is nothing else to contradict it.

We cannot ascertain brahman without sruti.

How do you know duality gets contradicted? The loss of experience can still mean there exists the external world (we're just not aware of it)

@estimator "We cannot ascertain brahman without sruti." Yes we can a little bit. Brahman is the cause of the worlds as per the second verse of the Brahma Sutras. Even Sankaracharya admits that the Tataksha lakshana indirectly refers to Brahman.

Brahman is the cause of the worlds - only known from sruti

@estimator " how do you know duality is contradicted. Thats from sruti, of course." Well, that implies the Srutis say duality can get contradicted. We can construct duality from the swaroop lakshana and infinity (as you may remember.) If duality is associated with ananta and ananta is associated with truth, then duality is associated with truth? How can truth be contradicted? Isn't that a contradiction?

@estimator "I think your question is "how can reality be non-duality" No, I am pretty sure who reality can be non-duality: if there is only one thing in existence.

Who said duality can be constructed from swaroopa lakshana and infinity??

@estimator See this link (the post on August) hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/60178/…

I think most people who criticize advaita generally would not have read Sri Shankara. I hope that is not the case here.

@estimator You can see the other posts in that link where I showed how Shri Madhvacharya's quotes from the Brahma Sutras follow from the swaroop lakshana and the modern understanding if uncountable infinity.

@estimator "I think most people who criticize advaita generally would not have read Sri Shankara. I hope that is not the case here." I had been an Advaitin all my life (past 25 years) until July or so of 2024

Look, I am not here to debate on dvaita. I am here to hopefully clarify things from advaita pov

If you have any criticism of advaita, i suggest you first quote Sri Shankara first for the position you criticize.

Else, it will be assumption, not criticism

@estimator I did quote from his Brahma Sutra Bhashya and Gita Bhashya. I only looked at the logic he used to interpret the Vedas and arrive at the conclusion of non-duality.

@Debbie all i see are quotes from dvaita Acharyas

@estimator See the post on Aug 14, 2024 at 2:05

@estimator "all i see are quotes from dvaita Acharyas" That is the second one I posted in December 2024

Its too late in india now. I am off for today, but you can leave your questions. Having said that, I dont think this is a discussion forum.

Please use copy paste and quote things here.

@estimator Good night for today. I will see if I will have time, though (this is winter break for me before work starts)

@estimator Just a note which you might see tomorrow (not sure if I will be here tomorrow): In that link there are three posts (my single answer did not fit in one post) and they are out of order. Two posts are ~30,000 words and one is ~10,000 words. Depending on the order you see, you might have to scroll down a lot to see the August 14 post, which is the start of my long answer. I am not sure if you want me to copy and paste 30,000 words in this chat. You can just read it and follow the math