THE OBSERVER AND ‘WHAT IS’
Dialogue 7P: The problem of duality and its ending cannot be understood unless we go into
the nature of the thinker and the thought. Can we discuss this?
K: How do the Hindu thinkers, the Advaita philosophers deal with this problem?
P: Patañjali’s Yoga-sūtras postulate a state of liberation which has anchors, and a
state of liberation which is without anchors. In one, the thinker is the prop; it is a
state where the thinker has not ceased. In the other, there is a state where
everything, including the thinker, has ceased.
The Buddhists talk of kṣaṇa-vāda, of time as instant, total and complete in
itself, a state where the thinker has no continuity. The Advaitic philosophers talk
of the cessation of duality and the attainment of non-duality. They go through a
dualistic process to attain this non-dual state. Śaṅkara approaches this state of
non-duality through negation (neti, neti). For the Buddhist philosopher
Nāgārjuna, negation is absolute: If you say that there is God, he negates it; if you
say that there is no God, he negates that also. Every statement is negated.
B: The Buddha says that what exists is ‘the solitude of reality’; you are the result
of your thoughts.
P: The Buddha, Śaṅkara, Nāgārjuna have all talked about non-duality, but non-
duality has become a concept; it has not affected the structure of the mind itself.
In India, for centuries, the negative approach has been discussed, but it has not
affected the human mind; the brain cells have remained dualistic; they operate in
time and are caught in time. Though negation and the non-dual have been
posited, there is no clue to apprehending these states. Why has non-duality not
affected the mind of man? Can we go into it to see whether we can discover that
which will trigger the non-dual state?
B: Scientific and technological developments have affected the minds of people.
Man has discovered the non-dualistic state, but it has not affected his mind nor
his life.
S: If every experience leaves a mark on the brain cells, what is the impact of the
state of non-duality, of oneness? Why is a mutation not taking place in the
relationship between the thinker and the thought?
P: Is the mechanism which records the technological the same mechanism which
sees or perceives?