Advaita begins from an entirely different starting point. According to the Upanisads (c. 600 BCE), the deepest truth is that the self (atman) and ultimate reality (Brahman) are not two but one. Sankara’s commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita (8th c. CE) develop this insight into a rigorous philosophical system. A great and newer introduction to non-dualism can be found in I’m that by Nisargadatta Maharaj.
This seems quite misleading to me.
You seem to be using “non-dual” here to mean simply “not dualism”, as Advaita argues for monism, not non-dualism, as we commonly understand it in Buddhist philosophy, where “non-dualism” means “neither monism nor dualism but both and neither” (the tetralemma).
You’re right that Advaita is usually described as monism, but teachers like Nisargadatta often use language that slips into the Buddhist sense of non-duality. He frequently points beyond even “Brahman” or “consciousness”, which makes his expression closer to the tetralemma than to monism. I’ve read “I am That” many times, and I’m confident about this.
Also, since I was banned the last time I brought up Buddhism, I’m using different keywords now :), but still referring to the same.
This seems quite misleading to me.
You seem to be using “non-dual” here to mean simply “not dualism”, as Advaita argues for monism, not non-dualism, as we commonly understand it in Buddhist philosophy, where “non-dualism” means “neither monism nor dualism but both and neither” (the tetralemma).
You’re right that Advaita is usually described as monism, but teachers like Nisargadatta often use language that slips into the Buddhist sense of non-duality. He frequently points beyond even “Brahman” or “consciousness”, which makes his expression closer to the tetralemma than to monism. I’ve read “I am That” many times, and I’m confident about this.
Also, since I was banned the last time I brought up Buddhism, I’m using different keywords now :), but still referring to the same.