Neoplatonism speaks to my transcendental universalist sensibility because offers a vision of reality where all beings are expressions of a single ineffable source, and where the soul’s journey is one of recollection, inner ascent, and ultimate return. It bridges philosophy, spirituality, and mystical experience without the dogmatic boundaries of institutional religion.
I notice that I am on a different path to Evelyn and am sorry for her struggle.
Singularity by Marie Howe (after Stephen Hawking):
Do you sometimes want to wake up to the singularity
we once were?
so compact nobody
needed a bed, or food or money—
nobody hiding in the school bathroom
or home alone
pulling open the drawer
where the pills are kept.
For every atom belonging to me as good
Belongs to you. Remember?
There was no Nature.
No them. No tests
to determine if the elephant
grieves her calf or if
the coral reef feels pain. Trashed
oceans don’t speak English or Farsi or French;
~ would that we could wake up to what we were
—when we were ocean and before that
to when sky was earth, and animal was energy, and rock was
liquid and stars were space and space was not
at all—nothing
before we came to believe humans were so important
before this awful loneliness.
Can molecules recall it?
what once was? before anything happened?
No I, no We, no one. No was
No verb no noun
only a tiny tiny dot brimming with
is is is is is
All everything home
It seems that across time, geography and tradition, human beings share a fundamental impulse: the need to reflect on the meaning of life, to grapple with uncertainty, and to seek connection with a reality that transcends the self. This impulse takes many forms - prayer, meditation, journaling, reading sacred texts, communing with nature, or creating art. Though the outward expressions vary, shaped by culture, religion and individual temperament, the underlying desire remains remarkably consistent: a longing for direction, depth and transcendence.
At their core, these diverse practices are attempts to answer a series of perennial questions: Who am I? Why am I here? What is worth living for? Whether the addressed presence is called ‘God’, ‘the universe’, ‘truth’ or simply ‘the inner self’, the act itself reveals an engagement with something larger - a dimension that provides coherence, meaning and moral direction.
From the perspective of a transcendental universalist, this widespread and deeply human pattern provides powerful support. The fact that people across cultures and epochs independently cultivate practices oriented towards ideals such as truth, unity, beauty, and goodness - often accompanied by a spirit of compassion - points to a common spiritual and ethical ground beneath our surface differences.
These values, even when interpreted through very different lenses, seem to reflect something essential in the human condition. Whether one turns to Christian mysticism, Buddhist mindfulness, Sufi ecstasy, indigenous wisdom, or secular humanism, the impulse is the same: to respond to an inner call to the transcendent - to a reality that transcends narrow self-interest and touches the infinite.
This common movement towards compassion, coherence and higher meaning gives depth and legitimacy to the universalist view. It does not flatten the distinctiveness of traditions but recognises that they may be different articulations of the same inner truth - paths winding towards a common summit. In their striving, these traditions reveal a kind of universal spiritual grammar: a language of the soul that speaks in many tongues but resonates with the same longing.
As a transcendental universalist I try to align with many aspects of Advaita Vedanta, especially in its metaphysical and ethical dimensions — but I am aware there are also some important distinctions.
I think we agree on the Unity of All That Is. In my understanding, Advaita Vedanta asserts that Atman (the individual self) is identical to Brahman (the ultimate, impersonal reality). My emphasis on a shared human impulse toward truth, unity, and transcendence hopefully resonates strongly with this non-dual (Advaita) view — that behind apparent diversity lies one undivided reality.
In the way I see different traditions as culturally shaped expressions of the same deep longing, My understanding is that Advaita teaches that religious forms and rituals can help point toward truth, but the ultimate reality lies beyond all dualities and concepts.
A worry of mine has been that Advaita focuses primarily on metaphysical realization, but I am encouraged to read that traditional commentaries emphasize that the realization of oneness leads naturally to compassion, because harming another is ultimately harming oneself. My focus on truth, unity, beauty, goodness, and compassion reflects a similar moral logic.
When I write about “something greater than the self” and a shared spiritual grammar, this hopefully aligns with the Vedantic idea that the ego and separateness are ultimately illusory (maya), and that spiritual practice leads to the dissolution of that illusion.
As someone who is coming from a Christian background, I struggle a little with the fact that Advaita Vedanta tends to lean toward an impersonal understanding of the divine (Nirguna Brahman — without attributes), whereas I tend to leave room for a personal or relational divine presence (e.g., “God,” “inner self,” etc.). You may see this as a divergence, unless personal conceptions of the divine could be seen as provisional steps toward a deeper impersonal unity.
I can identify with Advaita’s ultimate goal of moksha — liberation from the cycle of birth and death through realization of non-duality. However, my approach is more inclusive and dynamic by nature, valuing ongoing ethical, aesthetic, and relational engagement with life, not just transcendence of it. I don’t think it’s incompatible with Advaita, but there is a difference.
What I’m not familiar with is the Cosmology and Ontology of Advaita Vedanta. I read that Advaita has a highly specific metaphysical system (with ideas like maya, avidya, sat-chit-ananda) that gives structure to its claims. My transcendental universalism may be more phenomenological by nature, focusing on shared experience and values rather than a fixed ontology.
So, does my position broadly resonate with Advaita Vedanta, at least in its emphasis on unity, transcendence, and the illusory nature of divisions? Or am I too pluralistic and ethically grounded in this-world experience, instead of being more metaphysically rigorous and ultimately aiming at liberation from the world?
The poem Singularity spoke to me with Advaita in mind, which is why I posted it. What do you think?
As a fellow seeker of moksha, I think it does.
That depends on your aim. What do you want from the world? The path to spiritual liberation through action comes through selfless work. This involves performing actions without attachment to the results. This means dedicating oneself to one’s duty and offering one’s actions as service to others without expecting any personal gain or reward. In Vedantic terms its karma yoga. In taoism it’s wu wei. In Christian terms, it’s the fruit of the spirit.
I think it does, beautifully. The line “For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. Remember?” alludes to Transcendentalist poet Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself”:
1 I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
2 And what I assume you shall assume,
3 For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.