Is non-duality a philosophy?

onemoment, i disagree. if we stick with time for an example, the way time is MEASURED maybe different but the concept is still there. We bury it in minutes and seconds because we are worried about the instentanious, they bury it in night and day, the seasons and generations but the passage of time still exists for them.

your right that we make up things and act like they exist though, death, dark ect are not real but rather tha absance of something else and only exist in comparision

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It says something, but it may not be what you want to hear. Non duality doesn't mean all is one. Not all is one doesn't mean duality.

Non duality is just half the coin. As I mentioned before it is much like describing photons. You can show that they act like particles in some circumstances. You can show that they acts like a wave in some circumstances. But photons not particles. They are not waves.

You can show in some ways all is one. You can show in some ways all is separate. But those are just our views. It is not one. It is not separate.

Preferring on view over another is like saying my left eye is correct but my right eye is wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most people experience non dualistic thought in the midst of competitive sports.

When you have complete focus and you move and act without conscious deliberation as a part of the game.

Basically if you are thinking about, then you are in dualistic thought because there is an object.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.... and that my friend is the problem -> if you look at it and say "I am part of that oneness in an ineffable manner, etc etc" then you have problems explaining your current situation (namely illusion)

the frustration of this dialogue is that you insist on bypassing philosophy while decrying philosophical premises (as indicated in bold above) and driving home philosophical conclusions (as indicated in bold below)

that's fine, but when you suggest that this absoluteness is without separate designations (like say, the identity of god and the identity of the living entity) you are clearly brandishing your philosophical colours for all to see

hence there is the suggestion that variety exists even on the spiritual platform

sure, but when you suggest that this conscious self is a homogenized element that is the same for all living entities, you boldly declare your philosophical colours (and also are unable to explain how the hell we ended up in the medium of illusion btw)

well, that's what you think

the distinction is dependent on consciousness that maintains all things. My suggestion to you, is that we (the living entities) are not that consciousness. In plain english, we are not god. Anyone who has experienced a toothache can understand this.

Katha Upanisad 2.2.13 The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

given that the aboriginals were very aware of seasons, since their nomadic foraging depended on it, I would suggest that they had a more than adequate understanding of time, although they probably had no need for wrist watches and the like.

reality is not dependent on our vocabulary - rather, our vocabulary tends to reflect how reality (both eternal and temporary realities) influences us.

so you don't feel that a woman will get pregnant if she has sex and doesn't agree to the word "child"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Non-duality is not a philosophy" is a (philosophical) assumption - deeming philosophy somehow beneath you doesn't grant you an open license to throw in what ever premise you want. It does not make your statements any more authoritative. On the contrary, it weakens your stance

 

lightgigantic, so long as you insist on seeing things with words, you will continue to argue the premise that non-duality is a philosophy. don't you see that words are just constructs - and just because we name something, it does not mean we understand it. We have agreed to call this or that a certain name and so our whole understanding is based on words and divisions that we have made. These divisions are abitrary and specific to the theory expounded. Look at the vocab of physics. Who would have thought such divisions could have existed before we created them with our words.

If you cannot see the logic of what I am saying, then you are right, it does all sound like philosophy.

In direct teachings of non-duality (urbangurucafe.com) there is no levels or time or practices. Perhaps you would get more clearly what I am saying if you listened to Randall Friend's podcast - Challenging assumptions. He makes the point more clearly.

You seem to see however that consciousness or awareness must be there before even the words can appear.

Consider this; you do not have to name something for awareness of it to exist just like you do not have to think 'I am thinking' to know that you are thinking. What is knowing all that prior to the words or ownership of the experience?

Philosophy is not 'beneath' me as you put it - I am philosophizing now - I am just saying that if you see clearly what is being pointed to in non-duality you will see that it is this wordless ever presence that is being pointed to. The longer you keep trying to understand it the further away you move from what is being pointed to - that's all I'm saying - it is not about understanding.

 

And where did that conditioning come from?

 

Well greenberg, it depends.

In the appearance, in the changing manifestation, that conditioning comes from our parents, educators, peers, life experience etc. And this answer I have given is addressing an individual who is still buying into the beliefs of being a separate entity.

But ultimately, there is no conditioning, there is just the play in the appearance of someone believing they are separate when no separation actually exist because what conditioning is there if you are not thinking? Conditioning from the point of oneness is nothing more than belief in the stories the mind is telling and there is not a seeing that what I am is the whole, this unbroken, ever present awareness upon which this play is appearing.

 

And where did parents, educators, peers, life experience etc. come from?

So within all that oneness, there is differentiation - that arose out of this oneness?

The conditioning of zoning out. It is fairly common for meditators to experience zoning out. It is quite a nice feeling, but when one is in such a state, one cannot do anything - not count one's breaths, not cook or clean up the house, not even walk (one stumbles).

But there is another state, in some ways similar to zoning out but not to be confused with zoning out - it is actually a state of deep concentration where a person is fully functional (as opposed to when zoned out). Such states of concentration are common for example in sports or music when a person is expert enough at an exercise or task.

You can't say "I am" when you talk about "oneness". "I" already implies separation. The words you use continually betray the ideas you are trying to get across.
I know your point is to point (sic!), but the words you use keep acting against that point.

 

The whacky thing about all is one is there can't be any experience of it or talk about it. Experience is inherantly experience of seperation. Talk is inherantly talk about seperation. The concept of oneness is void in its absolute oneness.

 

I'm aware of the fact that we dont have to utilize language and internal dialog to symbolically process what we experience. There is a space or perspective or state of consciousness where we can experience cog natively without words. Ive experienced this myself. I dont know what to call this state of mind, but for me my consciousness seemed to become free of my body. What I was seeing and hearing and feeling were more like a flow of awareness. I didnt feel seperate from my what I was experiencing, but only after a few minutes did I start to analyze what I was experiencing with internal dialog, from a dualist perspective again. Even still I got the distinct impression that there is clearly a way to experience the world around us without using words, labels and concepts. This is more direct and connected way to experience things. Also, looking back at that experience, even though there was a short time where I seemed to be the same as what I was experiencing while I experienced them, I never had the feeling of not being a consciousness experiencing. I just didnt think about it in words.

I feel like there is a lot of potential for re-examining the world from that perspective. Whatever the case, I'm not aware of any type of conscious perspective or condition that transcends the mind. The mind is ground for consciousness to exist in whatever state it might exist in. Ive never read or heard anything about anyone attaining to some perspective outside of mind.

 

VossistArts, what you describe is beyond the mind/outside the mind - the mind was obviously appearing on this consciousness that you are - the mind was not taking ownership of the experiencing. This is the reality, but we are so accustomed or conditioned to take ownership of the arising thoughts.

The 'me' is all thought based but when you see that you are not the thoughts and that the thoughts are arising in and of themselves then you get a taste of your true essence. You can do that by just stopping thoughts for a second - the seeing, hearing, touching, feeling is all happening before you think 'I am seeing, hearing, touching, feeling this'. Isn't that obvious? And then when thoughts arise, you don't have to think 'I am thinking' to know that thoughts are arising. That knowingness of that, that is what you are. That's happening even now.

When we use words to describe reality our words can always be torn down because words can never describe reality for that reality is there with or without the words. We just need to see this. And of course, you would know from that experience that all thoughts and experiences arose all on their own in that and there was no one who could do anything.

That sounds paradoxical to the mind - and until this knowingness, experiencing, awareness etc, whatever you like to call it, is re-cognized as our true essence, there will be questions and disputes, for the mind can never grasp the reality that always and ever is there. And of course, even when there is an appearance of a seeker for and a disputer of what is in fact real, this reality is still there, for none of this could happen if that living essence - the knowing, experiencing, awareness etc - was not present.

The experiencing is happening and we turn it into an experience for someone by taking ownership of it - we create a subject and object when in fact there are none - just pure experiencing (what people have referred to in the forum already when they mention sports people or professional musicians when they are in the moment).

Have you checked out urbangurucafe.com - the free podcasts on this site make the point above very clearly.

 

Now just suppose this point of view was thousands of years old and imagine that maybe some one had encountered and done this already.

Now suppose they found this notion that "all thoughts and experiences arose all on their own in that and there was no one who could do anything" was in it essence just the next wrong view?

What if you asked them what the right view was and they just smiled and handed you a flower?

 

Onemoment

you are making an absolute statement to the effect that there exists no absolute categories, and hence no absolute vocabulary. If you want to pass this off as logical, you require some premises, other than your hearsay

I am already well versed in the philosophy of monism (it's original propounder is Sankaracharya

Look at it this way - if god exists, and if god is eternal, and if god has contingent potencies, then you have eternal categories (in short, if there is an eternal distinction between god and the living entity, just like there is an eternal distinction between the sun and the sunlight, then there exists eternal vocabulary)

the issue is however whether this state of awareness is unlimited or whether it exists within the constraints of a greater awareness - for instance, I might be totally aware of my body and you might be totally aware of yours - you are not aware of the pains and pleasures of my body (because your awareness only extends to your body) - god however is aware of the pains and pleasures of everyone since he has a greater scope for awareness.

awareness is characterized as possessing three qualities - sat (eternity) cit (knowledge) and ananda (happiness) - if one simply focuses on the sat capacity as you suggest, they are in ignorance of the the greater categories that exist (namely in relation to god) and hence have a diminished capacity for happiness or satisfaction

 

Of course you are talking about Buddha saying nothing and handing the lotus flower to those seeking to know. Maybe he did this because no word can ever capture that which we are?

I don't care anymore what anyone tells me reality is. I am not interested in another's truth. I can only see reality for myself. Only those who say we must find the truth for ourselves are telling the truth.

Now don't go picking me up on my use of 'myself'. As I have said over and over, words by their very nature are divisive and words need to be used here to communicate.

 

To me it is obvious and logical that all categories are abitrary. What argument can you use to refute the logic of my argument? Give me an example of a word that is not created to describe what already is. The description can never be the actual - it is merely a word we have agreed to use to label X - so what real understanding of reality is there in this?

How can you separate sunlight from the sun - can they exist independently of one another? No. Once again, it is only our vocabulary that can seemingly divide it. So what 'eternal' vocabulary exists? Can you site an example?

But, is the nature of that awareness there (for you) any different from what it is for me. Sure, what appears in that awareness will always be different - just as what appears from moment to moment for you changes. That awareness, though, is always and ever the same.

Those three characteristics are not separate parts of awareness, they are aspects of the one awareness. The knowledge (your translation) being pointed to is the knowing - are you ever not knowing? When the identification, for want of a better word, is with the awareness, there is a 'natural loving to be' (happiness is your translation of 'ananda').

Further, the monism position is that only 'one substance' exists, so how can you be separate from god?

 

onemoment
“

what you are arguing however is something slightly different, namely that there exist no absolute categories and hence language on the subject becomes obsolete ..... my argument is that there are absolute categories and language on it is not obsolete ..... an easy example is how ignorance of the word "child" does not prevent a woman from becoming pregnant if she engages in sexual intercourse

it is separated through effect (and that effect is indicated through vocabulary) - for instance if we say that the sun is coming through our window, in the common sense we mean that it is actually the sunlight coming through and not that we are on a collision course with the sun which will fry all life on the planet as we know it. Just because the sunlight is contingent on the sun by no means suggests that all issues of separation are obsolete.

If I have a nail through my foot and you are eating an ice cream, there is a world of diference

awareness, or consciousness, has an original pure state. When we come in contact with material nature however, it is filtered through various levels of conditioning .... kind of like looking through coloured glasses .... to a person with yellow glasses on, everything looks yellow - for a person with practically opaque lenses, they can hardly see a thing - and for a person with unhindered vision everything is seen as it is .... similarly we see that there are various forms of life that are conditioned to varying levels, from humans, to giraffes to bacteria, and beyond all such issues of conditioning, those that are spiritually enlightened

they are three aspects that manifest in the pure stage of consciousness - it is due to putting on the coloured glasses of conditioned life that we do not experience eternity, knowledge and bliss, as they are rightfully experienced in a pure state

just in the same way that sunlight is separate from the sun or smoke is separate from fire and so on - just because something is contingent in no way means that it is not separate - if you don't believe me, try boiling water using smoke

 

lightgigantic, obviously our idea of what is logical is very different from mine and what you present here to me has in no way addressed the questions I have put to you and is illogical. My last question was not addressed at all. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

I think it is simpler than that. Oneness, separateness, duality, non duality, seeing this way, seeing that way, seeing the right way, seeing the wrong way, it is all just distractions from actually seeing the flower.

See? A flower! Is that not reason to smile even if someone or no one is smiling? Why worry about someone or no one and miss such a wonderful thing?

It is obvious you do care and care passionately. Sharing beliefs and understandings doesn’t rob you of seeing for yourself. You can have interests in the views of others without having to abandon your own view. We get farther with cooperation.

Is that just another’s view?

 

your last question is precisely addressed - just as smoke is separate from fire we are separate from god - any suggestion otherwise means one thinks it is perfectly logical that there is no difference between boiling water with smoke or boiling water with fire

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All depends on what you mean by "difference."

How exactly would you know that you are separate from god, or not separate from god?