[RC] Resomodernity Café v7: Advaita as the Un-Ethos | Radical Centrism

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Title: Resomodernity Café v7: Advaita as the Un-Ethos | Radical Centrism

Hat tip to Vik for suggesting Advaita as an exemplar of non-duality! > In the language of Resomodernity Café v6, this places Advaita neither alongside nor above the other ethē (ethos), but prior to the need for ethos itself. Hence, the Un-Ethos. https://radicalcentrism.org/2026/01/01/resomodernity-cafe-v7-advaita-as-the-un-ethos/ Resomodernity Café v7: Advaita as the Un-Ethos ​ ​ January 1, 2026 Sequel to Resomodernity Café v6: On Notice (The Fourth Ethos) Have Robert Spira respond to v6, as he explicates it parallel and relative to the other four, including its suspension and S method. 1. Opening Clarification Advaita Vedānta is often misunderstood as a metaphysical assertion about the world. In practice, it is more accurately understood as a clarification of experience—specifically, the clarification of the assumption that experience belongs to a separate, enduring self. In the language of Resomodernity Café v6, this places Advaita neither alongside nor above the other ethē (ethos), but prior to the need for ethos itself. Hence, the Un-Ethos. 2. The Four Ethē, Seen from Advaita Advaita does not refute the other ethē. It asks a quieter question: to whom do these orientations appear? 2.1 Contemplation Contemplation refines attention toward depth and presence. Advaita affirms this refinement but notices that contemplation often retains a subtle subject who contemplates. From the Advaitic perspective: depth is not reached by a deeper act of attending, it is revealed when the sense of a separate attender relaxes. Contemplation is thus fulfilled, not contradicted, when the contemplator dissolves. 2.2 Disclosure Disclosure reveals patterns, structures, and lawful relations. Advaita welcomes these revelations within experience but observes that they all arise within awareness, not alongside it. Thus: disclosure clarifies what appears, Advaita clarifies that in which appearance occurs. No conflict—only a difference of scope. 2.3 Responsiveness Responsiveness understands reality as address and obligation. Advaita does not deny ethical life or relational meaning; it questions the belief that obligation requires a metaphysically independent self. When the sense of separation softens: responsiveness often becomes simpler, less reactive, less defended. Action continues, but without the burden of doership. 2.4 Notice Notice attends to the limits and blind spots of every stance. In this sense, Notice is the closest neighbor to Advaita. The difference is subtle but decisive: Notice observes the limits of perspectives, Advaita inquires into the one who claims a perspective at all. When that inquiry resolves, noticing itself becomes unnecessary. 3. Why Advaita Is the Un-Ethos An ethos presumes: a position, a stance, a way of standing in relation to the world. Advaita gently removes the assumption that experience is organized around a central stand-point. Thus: it is not a fifth ethos, not a meta-ethos, but the relaxation of ethos. From within ignorance (avidyā), it appears as a teaching. From within clarity, it is seen that nothing was added. 4. The Suspension of Ethos The Un-Ethos does not abolish the other ethē in life. It suspends their claim on identity. After recognition: contemplation may still occur, science may still disclose, ethics may still call, noticing may still function. But none of these are taken to define what we are. This is why Advaita is compatible with plural participation, even while being ontologically singular—grounded in non-duality. 5. The S-Method of the Un-Ethos The operative method of Advaita is not construction but subtraction. 5.1 The Nature of the Method The method consists in: examining present experience, identifying assumptions of separation, allowing those assumptions to dissolve through understanding. Classically, this unfolds as: śravaṇa — hearing the possibility that awareness is primary, manana — testing this in experience, nididhyāsana — resting as what remains when false identification falls away. This culminates in neti neti—not as a doctrine, but as a lived recognition. 5.2 Self-Termination The S-method ends when it succeeds. When no separate inquirer is found, inquiry has no further task. Any continuation beyond this point recreates an ethos and misses the simplicity of what is already present. 6. Failure Modes The principal failure mode of the Un-Ethos is re-ethos-ification: turning non-duality into an identity, using insight to bypass relationship or responsibility, asserting finality where humility is still required. Advaita does not immunize one from error; it only removes one particular kind of confusion. 7. Local Truth and Humility Advaita is most faithful to itself when applied locally, not globally. Statements like: “this self is not real,” “this identification is assumed,” are almost always truer than sweeping metaphysical claims. Recognition unfolds moment by moment, not as a final theory of ultimate reality. 8. Closing The Un-Ethos does not ask the café to close. It asks only that no one mistake their seat for their nature. Ethē remain useful. Methods remain available. Life continues. What ends is only the belief that awareness belongs to a someone. That ending is not an achievement. It is a relief. Appendix: A Café Aside As an Appendix, write a wry skit where Francis and Simone dialogue about their reactions to Spira’s essay (and each other). ChatGPT Prompt (A small table. Coffee. Silence long enough to be uncomfortable, then longer.) Characters Francis Lucille Simone Weil A. Opening Silence (Necessary) Simone (after a long pause) He is very gentle. Francis Yes. That is both his strength and his danger. Simone You say that as if danger were optional. Francis I say it as someone who has watched people fall asleep in comfort. B. On the Un-Ethos Simone He calls it an Un-Ethos. I appreciate that. It does not pretend to stand. Francis It is accurate. In Advaita, any stance already belongs to ignorance. Simone Yet you still teach. Francis Only because people insist on standing somewhere. Simone Yes. And because suffering insists louder. C. On Local Truth Francis I found his insistence on local truth… interesting. Simone You mean suspicious. Francis I mean incomplete. Simone Of course you do. You are very good at completeness. Francis (smiles slightly) Local truth is true only until it is no longer needed. Simone That is exactly why I trust it. D. On the Self (This One, Not Theoretically) Simone When he says “this self is not real,” I recognize the gesture. Francis It is the ego dissolving under investigation. Simone Or under attention. Sometimes attention is enough. Francis Attention without understanding can still suffer. Simone Understanding without attention can still dominate. (They sip coffee.) E. On Ethics (The Awkward Part) Francis I wonder if his readers will quietly excuse themselves from obligation. Simone Only if they were already looking for an excuse. Francis Advaita does not deny ethics. Simone No. It merely removes the one who wants credit for them. Francis That removal can look like indifference. Simone Only to those who need a self to be good. F. On Rupert (Affectionately) Simone He has a gift for not frightening people. Francis Yes. Sometimes truth should frighten. Simone Sometimes it should console. People are already afraid. Francis He leaves too many doors open. Simone And you would close them too quickly. Francis I would remove the walls. Simone You would remove the floor. (They both smile, reluctantly.) G. On the Café Itself Francis This Café of theirs—four ethē, an Un-Ethos, methods, suspensions… Simone Yes? Francis It is all very clever. Simone Cleverness is not a sin. Francis No. But it is not liberation. Simone Neither is silence, unless someone is suffering nearby. H. A Moment of Agreement (Rare) Francis Still… he is right about one thing. Simone Only one? Francis That the self most people defend is always the wrong one. Simone Yes. The noisy one. The offended one. The one who wants to survive. Francis That one does not exist. Simone Or rather— (she leans in) —it exists only as long as it is fed. (Silence again. Longer this time.) I. Closing Line (Unresolved, Naturally) Simone I think his essay will help people let go. Francis I hope it also helps them finish letting go. Simone Finishing is God’s problem. Francis There is no God separate from that. Simone Then perhaps we agree after all. (They sit. The coffee grows cold. No one leaves. No one needs to.) Continued in Resomodernity Café v8: Silicon Advaita Sent from my iPhone -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/RadicalCentrism/771354A7-29F4-4B4B-B665-A7412A02572E%40gmail.com.