Is non-duality a philosophy?

[onemoment]

Swarm: 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?

How right you are!

Swarm: 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.

What I meant of course is that I care only for what rings true to me, not what rings true to others. We must see for ourselves what reality is. We cannot rely on others to tell us our own reality, unless they tell us to look for ourselves firstly. Many look outside of themselves for the truth when every modality tells us to trust our instincts, look in and not out for answers. Buddha's dying words were 'Take yourself to no outside refuge'.

But of course the truth has no inside or outside.

And I agree with what you say about the importance of cooperation - cooperation is of utmost importance in my patterning. I have only spoken what was true and had integrity. I speak out for those who may misunderstand for anyone's misery is also mine.

The truth is there is no truth, truth is just a story we tell about what is there wordlessly - we all know our wordlessness deep down.

So yes, you are right when you say;

Is that just another’s view?

 

[onemoment]

lightgigantic: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

The logic of; 'god is one substance and the individual is separate from it' being analogous to 'fire is one substance and the smoke is separate from it', eludes me. If that is what you are trying to say in using the analogy.

If god is one substance - and only one substance exists according to monism (I totally agree that this is so) then how can there be a substance 'god' and a substance 'individual'? In physics there is no separation, it is all vibrating particles or, further, waves and no particles at all - nothingness. It is all one substance. If thoughts make you believe that you are separate, could they be the truth?

 

[lightgigantic]

All depends on what you mean by "difference."

an easy way would be to rig up two fires - place one pot of water so that it touches the flames and the other pot of water about 2 metres above it so it only gets the smoke - observes any differences in boiling time

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

if we are non-different from god (as the arguments posed by onemoment suggest) we would expect to be able to display all of god's potencies (namely the potency of having displaying full independence and nothing being equal to or greater than god). Given that our entire experience is literally one of being under the influence of superior potencies 24/7, it appears that we have to corrupt the standard definition of god to make this suggestion feasible.

 

[lightgigantic]

The logic of; 'god is one substance and the individual is separate from it' being analogous to 'fire is one substance and the smoke is separate from it', eludes me. If that is what you are trying to say in using the analogy.

If god is one substance - and only one substance exists according to monism (I totally agree that this is so) then how can there be a substance 'god' and a substance 'individual'? In physics there is no separation, it is all vibrating particles or, further, waves and no particles at all - nothingness. It is all one substance. If thoughts make you believe that you are separate, could they be the truth?

in physics yous see that all energy has a source - so there is the source of energy (the energetic) and the energy that is contingent upon it.

So here are a few examples


ENERGETIC...............................ENERGY
----------------------------------------
Fire ...............................smoke, heat, light
Sun...............................heat, light

and furthermore

God ...............................living entities, conditioned and unconditioned worlds

In all cases, the energetic remains distinct from the energy, just like there is a distinction between being touched by the sunlight and being touched by the sun.

Does this make sense?

 

[onemoment]

Lightgigantic: In all cases, the energetic remains distinct from the energy, just like there is a distinction between being touched by the sunlight and being touched by the sun.[/QUOTE

This could make sense if you did not believe that 'only one subtance exists' but if you did, then what substance is the 'energetic' made from and what substance the 'energy'?

If you close your eyes for a moment and think no thoughts, is there any boundary to that experience? Are you are man or a woman, do you start here or there? That is the oneness that is being referred to, all the appearance of smoke and fire seemingly appear on that as do the sensations of the body. That totality is what you are - that is one - no separation, every seeming separate thing is playing on that totality that you are.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic: In all cases, the energetic remains distinct from the energy, just like there is a distinction between being touched by the sunlight and being touched by the sun.

This could make sense if you did not believe that 'only one subtance exists' but if you did, then what substance is the 'energetic' made from and what substance the 'energy'?

the energy is contingent on the energetic (no scope for smoke without fire, etc)

If you close your eyes for a moment and think no thoughts, is there any boundary to that experience? Are you are man or a woman, do you start here or there? That is the oneness that is being referred to, all the appearance of smoke and fire seemingly appear on that as do the sensations of the body. That totality is what you are - that is one - no separation, every seeming separate thing is playing on that totality that you are.

this however, does not mean that I am everything

The suggestion is simultaneous oneness and difference (or acintya bedabeda tattva) - smoke is a separated part and parcel of fire, etc etc

 

[onemoment]

Lightgigantic, it sounds then like you agree that the Absolute is one only, and see as logical that individual variety can exist within that oneness.

Cool, each to his own. Some people can see some logic in this - I can't see the logic. Also, what I see myself as is that oneness, boundaryless as you experience with that short experiment I detailed for you.

If your belief brings you peace, then what more can you ask for? I suspect, however, that you are not contented with what is. I don't base this on anything you have said but on my own experience when I did identify with a separate 'me' - there was never peace or the peace was momentary - I was always seeking something other than what was.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic, it sounds then like you agree that the Absolute is one only, and see as logical that individual variety can exist within that oneness.

Cool, each to his own. Some people can see some logic in this - I can't see the logic. Also, what I see myself as is that oneness, boundaryless as you experience with that short experiment I detailed for you.

If your belief brings you peace, then what more can you ask for? I suspect, however, that you are not contented with what is. I don't base this on anything you have said but on my own experience when I did identify with a separate 'me' - there was never peace or the peace was momentary - I was always seeking something other than what was.

a problem radical monists have with this idea is they attempt to assert the nature of spiritual variety based on their experiences of material variety.


As described above, it is very difficult for a person who is too materially affected to understand the personal nature of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Generally, people who are attached to the bodily conception of life are so absorbed in materialism that it is almost impossible for them to understand how the Supreme can be a person. Such materialists cannot even imagine that there is a transcendental body which is imperishable, full of knowledge and eternally blissful. In the materialistic concept, the body is perishable, full of ignorance and completely miserable. Therefore, people in general keep this same bodily idea in mind when they are informed of the personal form of the Lord. For such materialistic men, the form of the gigantic material manifestation is supreme. Consequently they consider the Supreme to be impersonal. And because they are too materially absorbed, the conception of retaining the personality after liberation from matter frightens them.

 

[onemoment]

Lightgigantic: a problem radical monists have with this idea is they attempt to assert the nature of spiritual variety based on their experiences of material variety.

What idea is it that you are talking about that radical monists have a problem with? I did read the info on the link.

And what is your stance - where are you with all this?

Are you saying I have such a problem or that you do?

What point are you trying to make, exactly, with respect to you or to me?

 

[greenberg]

when I did identify with a separate 'me' - there was never peace or the peace was momentary - I was always seeking something other than what was.

Sure. In fact, I think this is a fairly common experience.

However: The philosophy of non-duality is not the only way to explain your dissatisfaction and how you now - a non-dualist - feel more satisfied.


Two points:

One:
You said: when I did identify with a separate 'me' - there was never peace or the peace was momentary

How do you know that the absence or momentariness of peace was precisely due yourself identifying as a separate "me"?

Are you sure that there can be no other explanation for that absence or momentariness of peace?

Because in order to claim that non-duality is "the way things really are", you have to be sure that is there absolutely no other viable explanation for the absence or momentariness of peace.



Two:

- I was always seeking something other than what was

Many people are like that anyway - they are dissatisfied with the way their current life is.

However: What one person is aware of at any given time or passage of time, is not necessarily all there is.

While it certainly may be all there is for that person within any given time or passage of time, how do we know that this necessarily means it is also all there is?

 

[greenberg]

Lightgigantic
/.../
If your belief brings you peace, then what more can you ask for? I suspect, however, that you are not contented with what is.

Onemoment -

I am sure you know what fatalism is.

Do you believe you have free will?

 

[onemoment]

Greenberg: I am sure you know what fatalism is.
Do you believe you have free will?

There is the appearance of freewill - there are the sensations appearing of the making of decisions, the thinking through of a way to express this post etc, but ultimately there is not freewill.

The word 'fatalism' has connotations of acceptance of fate. 'Acceptance' implies there is someone there to accept or resign him/herself to fate - and once again, there is no one who can accept or reject fate. The appearance of resignation to what is, though, may appear in the awareness as sensations and thoughts etc. Though here, for me, it is not about resignation or rejection of what is.

So whether you have peace or not is not up to you - if that is what you are driving at with your question. I suffered from depression for the bulk of my life and people would say to me 'just think positively' and no matter how hard I tried and what affirmations I used, my state of mind never changed. I tried therapy as well.

Then I met Bob Adamson and he told me I had no choice - that there was no choice maker. That made sense to me because I could see how helpless I was in trying to take control of my thoughts and although I did not understand everything he was saying,there was a resonation of truth there for me in what he said and I tried it on for size, so to speak.

He also says 'if you had choice to think whatever you pleased, why would you chose to have a negative thought'.

I share here with you stuff he includes in his talk when people are inclined to believe the stories of the mind. Other things he says point very directly to your true essence - and he says right from the start 'You are already that.' He was the first person I met in my whole life that I trusted. All that he said resonated immediately and was free of complications. The only complications in understanding what was said were the complications that I brought to his message with my conditioned mind. The clearer I became with what was being pointed, the more I realized how simple what he told me was.

 

[onemoment]

greenberg: How do you know that the absence or momentariness of peace was precisely due yourself identifying as a separate "me"?

Many people are like that anyway - they are dissatisfied with the way their current life is.

Most people are like this. If it is not a car they are seeking, it's enlightenment or a new girl or boy friend, a new house, better weather, a greater personality, greater body, more money, self love, a peaceful mind etc, etc. There can never be peace of mind because the nature of the mind is to divide. The mind and the 'me' are one and the same, neither is what we are.

how you now - a non-dualist - feel more satisfied.

I am not a non-dualist - talk of something being this way or that way, that's not what this is about. That's the problem with engaging in the mind as though it had some actual substance in and of itself. There is presence - that is undeniable and there is no division to this presence or awareness or life energy. One patterning in this awareness is the body/mind - there are still sensations here of this body/mind and dialogue of a separate me but is it recognized that this body/mind is not appearing on anything different to everything else in the manifestation. When things are happening and we are not identifying with the 'I' they are just happening and there is liberation and peace in that, no matter what the sensations.

 

[greenberg]

There can never be peace of mind because the nature of the mind is to divide.

You seem to think that all division or differentiation is such that it makes it impossible for a person to be at peace.

Are you really sure you know all cases of division or differentiation?

Are you really sure that there cannot exist such a division or differentiation where peace would be possible anyway?

 

[onemoment]

greenberg: You seem to think that all division or differentiation is such that it makes it impossible for a person to be at peace.

Are you really sure you know all cases of division or differentiation?

Are you really sure that there cannot exist such a division or differentiation where peace would be possible anyway?

You can examine what it is that makes you suffer and you will see that it is only if you refer an experience to a 'me' that suffering happens. Thoughts arise of what happened in the past or what will happen in the future to this 'me' we belief ourselves to be - that is suffering.

Thoughts arise about the possibility that there is some idea that will free us from this suffering when we are already free, for divisions are actually illusionary from my direct experience. They are illusionary in your direct experience too but you do not re-cognize this.

Forget about others and what peace they may or may not have with a particular set of divisions or differentiations of mind - think for a moment, have you found peace yourself looking to your mind for answers?

I did a lot of thinking and I never found any answer there that gave me lasting peace. Beyond the mind there is peace, for the thoughts that play in the mind are not what I am. That is my direct experience and I no longer seek for a set of divisions/differentiations for peace.

Non-duality is just a name. Even talk about non-duality is not true. The truth is free even of non-duality. It is experiential - you are aware before anything can appear. There is no boundary to this awareness. You know it is there. It has to be, even for ideas of non-duality to appear.

 

[swarm]

onemoment
What I meant of course is that I care only for what rings true to me, not what rings true to others.

I care for what rings true for others as well, even if I disagree. I do not yet know all ends and I am surprised from time to time.

We must see for ourselves what reality is.

I may not always understand but what else do I ever see?

We cannot rely on others to tell us our own reality

I have not found it to be exclusively mine.

Buddha's dying words were 'Take yourself to no outside refuge'.

I like the more poetic version - be a light unto yourself. And when he said these words, was he alone? No. He said them to his friends.

 

[swarm]

lightgigantic
an easy way would be to rig up two fires - place one pot of water so that it touches the flames and the other pot of water about 2 metres above it so it only gets the smoke - observes any differences in boiling time

So in terms of boiling there is a difference, yet in terms of substance they are still the same.

if we are non-different from god (as the arguments posed by onemoment suggest) we would expect to be able to display all of god's potencies

My finger is "non-different" from me and yet it doesn't display all of my "potency."

Given that our entire experience is literally one of being under the influence of superior potencies 24/7,

I do not have any experience of being under "superior potency 24/7." Perhaps I am one with god and you are damned?

it appears that we have to corrupt the standard definition of god to make this suggestion feasible.

I have never met a workable definition of god besides "deified ignorance."

 

[greenberg]

You can examine what it is that makes you suffer and you will see that it is only if you refer an experience to a 'me' that suffering happens.

The thing is that happiness can also only happen to a "me", not to a non-entity.

Discarding notions of self altogether (because they lead to suffering, and suffering is something we do not wish), means also discarding any possibility for happiness.
I agree, discarding notions of self (and differentiation, dualism ...) does indeed do away with (much of the) suffering, but it doesn't really make us happy, it makes us equanimous at best. Equanimity is not the same as happiness.

Thoughts arise about the possibility that there is some idea that will free us from this suffering when we are already free, for divisions are actually illusionary from my direct experience.

Then why did you start this thread? Why do you post here?

They are illusionary in your direct experience too but you do not re-cognize this.

Really? You know me? When did we herd goats together?

Forget about others and what peace they may or may not have with a particular set of divisions or differentiations of mind - think for a moment, have you found peace yourself looking to your mind for answers?

Sure, sometimes.

I did a lot of thinking and I never found any answer there that gave me lasting peace.

Can you really say that you have done everything humanly possible to find true happiness?

Non-duality is just a name. Even talk about non-duality is not true. The truth is free even of non-duality. It is experiential - you are aware before anything can appear. There is no boundary to this awareness. You know it is there. It has to be, even for ideas of non-duality to appear.

Sure. But this is not all there is. Do you believe me that?

 

[onemoment]

greenberg: The thing is that happiness can also only happen to a "me", not to a non-entity........................

Boundary-less awareness - But this is not all there is.

Dearest fellow sheep herder - here are my last questions to you - and thanks for persisting with my line of argument thus far, even though what I have said does challenge notions of 'the world as we know it';

• If the mind/brain perceives things X seconds after the fact, at what point does this 'me' ever make a choice, ever do anything?
  
  
• If I am the body and the body is ever changing - what stays constant of this body for me to call it 'me' and also on the point of the body, if I am the body then who is this 'mine' referred to when we say 'This body is mine'?
  
  
• If the true Self is the 'me' - a mind that perceives after the fact, a body that is ever changing - why is it that I feel so certain of something constant in who or what I am? And how true is this commonly held notion that the body/mind is what or who I am? Could I not just as likely be this awareness that is always and ever there, unchanging and untouched by stories that the mind tells?
  
  
• Could this be all there is?

PS Why do I post on this forum? Well who is choosing to do or not do and it seems I have always like intellectual pursuits that challenge societal paradigms. Sheep herding wasn't doing it for my any more.

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

lightgigantic
an easy way would be to rig up two fires - place one pot of water so that it touches the flames and the other pot of water about 2 metres above it so it only gets the smoke - observes any differences in boiling time
”
So in terms of boiling there is a difference, yet in terms of substance they are still the same.

you wouldn't attribute the difference of boiling time to a difference of substance between smoke and fire ????

“
if we are non-different from god (as the arguments posed by onemoment suggest) we would expect to be able to display all of god's potencies
”
My finger is "non-different" from me and yet it doesn't display all of my "potency."

incorrect
you can get your finger chopped off and still exist

“
Given that our entire experience is literally one of being under the influence of superior potencies 24/7,
”
I do not have any experience of being under "superior potency 24/7." Perhaps I am one with god and you are damned?

oh really?
You only ever visit the toilet out of your own causeless mercy?

“
it appears that we have to corrupt the standard definition of god to make this suggestion feasible.
”
I have never met a workable definition of god besides "deified ignorance."

probably due to an overly casual investigation of the subject ....