Because there is a considerable interest in Vedanta I post daily on Reditt. I encourage you to follow the offerings. This satsang happened here my Reditt feed. https://www.reddit.com/user/JamesSwartzVedanta/
Seeker: Knowing what you are and understanding what you are, are separate concepts. Understanding is a product of duality. In non dual state there is no understanding. Only direct knowledge of One’s true being. Knowledge is, however there is nothing about Truth to be understood.
James: Knowing and understanding are separate words but not necessarily separate concepts. How you see them is up to you. I think you aren’t well-informed on the topics of duality and non-duality but I have no intention of getting in an argument with someone who seems very certain about his or her opinions. You will need a bit of common sense to convince me.
Consider this: If understanding is a product of duality, why can’t it be a product of non-duality? In fact duality and non-duality don’t produce anything. They are just words that define knowledge and experience, which are non-different if reality is non-dual. Insentient concepts can’t produce anything. Only sentient entities…human beings…produce results. Assuming that non-duality is a state…which it can’t be because the word “state” implies duality. If you mean that your use of the word non-dual negates the idea of state, which I doubt, you are correct. But there is no understanding “in” in any state because states are not capable of understanding anything because they are not intelligent as you and I are. You and I are intelligent because we are conscious. And we are not “in” any “state” except perhaps a state of knowledge and/or ignorance.
Anyway, back to your last sentence. I think it needs an edit. Although the words, “knowledge is” are obvious and true, perhaps you would like to explain how they relate to the idea that there is nothing about truth to be understood. I think you are trying to say that you have knowledge of truth and that you know that there is nothing to be understood, although you present the idea that that there is nothing to be understood about truth to (presumably) be true knowledge. There is something to be understood about truth…you can be the guru for that…for someone who doesn’t know what truth is. If not, then why are you informing me? You must be assuming that I don’t know what truth is and that I want to know what it is.
I’m sure you are well defended, so I probably shouldn’t suggest that it seems to me that you are just regurgitating a bunch of ideas you have picked up on the internet and in books and videos here and there. If not, and you wish to converse with me further, please refute the common-sense logic presented in this post.
