Is non-duality a philosophy?

[lightgigantic]

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?

It is not at all uncommon to encounter (radical) monists who disregard the notion of the absolute housing variety due to their own (conditioned) experience of variety. The very issue of calling upon conditioned existence (ie "fear of identity") to act as a yard stick for unconditioned existence is problematic from the very beginning.

I only mention it because you indicate that variety is absolutely a bad cause (based on your own conditioned experience of it).

 

[swarm]

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

Meaningless question. It is not possible for any one to do everything humanly possible.

He did what he did.

means also discarding any possibility for happiness.

Epicurus found the mere absence of tribulation was a source of lasting happiness.

 

[swarm]

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

The gasses in the fire are more energetic, but where exactly did you think the smoke was coming from?

you can get your finger chopped off and still exist

So? Some parts can be lost, others can't. What's your point?

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

I don't see that as being under "superior potency 24/7." So your god is a bowel movement?

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

Actually an in depth investigation. The main purpose of god seems to be in keeping the ignorant from having to admit to their ignorance. Instead they just say "god did it."

What purpose does god really serve in your life?

 

[greenberg]

Dearest fellow sheep herder

Goat. Not sheep. You weren't paying attention.

even though what I have said does challenge notions of 'the world as we know it';

It doesn't challenge mine, but you seem to think it does anyway ...

[*]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?

Good questions. I suggest you keep exploring.

Could I not just as likely be this awareness that is always and ever there, unchanging and untouched by stories that the mind tells?

Perhaps. I suggest you reread Lightgigantic's posts in this thread.

[*]Could this be all there is?

Find out.

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.

You have always liked intellectual pursuits that challenge societal paradigms ... because ...?

 

[greenberg]

Meaningless question. It is not possible for any one to do everything humanly possible.

He did what he did.

He did what he did? And that's enough? There is nothing more to life than what one has done so far?

If I put a pot of beans on the stowe, but cook them for only five minutes and then turn off the stowe and put the beans on the table - I did what I did. But this doesn't mean that the beans are cooked and edible. Or does it?

Epicurus found the mere absence of tribulation was a source of lasting happiness.

So? Is Epicurus God? Is Epicurus someone who speaks the Absolute Truth? Is Epicurus someone whom I am obligated to believe, and am going to go hell for all eternity if I don't?

 

[swarm]

greenberg
He did what he did?

Yes.

And that's enough?

I'm not in a position to make that judgment. That is for him to decide.

If you have advice or guidance you could even offer it if you think it is worthwhile. But asking pointless questions isn't terribly helpful.

Personally I find all this theoretical stuff, while fun to chat about, is not terribly useful in terms of actual impact on the happiness of one's life. What Epicurus and the Buddha laid out works pretty good for me. YMMV.

Or does it?

Is poorly cooked still cooked? Does it matter since beans are edible raw? Can you not find your way back to the stove?

Epicurus found the mere absence of tribulation was a source of lasting happiness.

So?

So you implied that discarding notions of self altogether to cut off suffering means also discarding any possibility for happiness.

Epicurus, who is held by some a knowledgeable expert on matters of happiness, holds that you are not discarding any possibility for happiness because the absence of suffering is in and of itself a source of happiness. Also such relief is effortless to maintain and does not result in satiation making it a preferred source of happiness for the long run.

This is also the position held by the Buddha and various other eastern philosophers.

Obligated to believe? I could not care less what you believe. My personal experience is they were on to something and many of the techniques which have been handed down work really well at producing lasting happiness. In particular I enjoy using Epicurus as a check against the insane monastic influence which has infiltrated the Buddha's teachings.

Try it out or not as you might care to.

There is nothing more to life than what one has done so far?

What did you expect? On the bright side as long as you draw breath there is still more that can be done.

 

[greenberg]

On the bright side as long as you draw breath there is still more that can be done.

Exactly.

Hence my question to Onemoment earlier: Can you really say that you have done everything humanly possible to find true happiness?

 

[greenberg]

Try it out or not as you might care to.

And you are sure I haven't tried it out, eh?

 

[swarm]

greenberg
Hence my question

Your question is not useful. Its just making light of his efforts.

And you are sure I haven't tried it out, eh?

Your caginess suggests that if you have, you have not succeeded.

 

[greenberg]

Your question is not useful. Its just making light of his efforts.

No, I am not.
You are projecting lowly intentions onto me.

Your caginess suggests that if you have, you have not succeeded.

Because if I succeeded ... then I would be like you, right?
And surely, it is impossible that there would be something better than what Epicurus espoused!

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

you wouldn't attribute the difference of boiling time to a difference of substance between smoke and fire
”
The gasses in the fire are more energetic, but where exactly did you think the smoke was coming from?

yes that's right, there is a difference of substance, just like the difference in substance explains why we wear a woolen jumper and not a sheep, even thought the woolen jumper came from a sheep

“
you can get your finger chopped off and still exist
”
So? Some parts can be lost, others can't. What's your point?

some parts are essential and some parts are contingent

“
You only ever visit the toilet out of your own causeless mercy?
”
I don't see that as being under "superior potency 24/7."

like this we can easily extrapolate for a full daily itinerary of dates and pursuits as we go about busily acting in ways we cannot control (finally culminating in death)

So your god is a bowel movement?

close
time is one of god's contingent potencies

BG 11.32 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

“
probably due to an overly casual investigation of the subject ....
”
Actually an in depth investigation. The main purpose of god seems to be in keeping the ignorant from having to admit to their ignorance. Instead they just say "god did it."

What purpose does god really serve in your life?

actually its more the case of less-than-casual investigation of us serving god .... a connection through service .... kind of like you would empty your bank balance to have your finger connected to your hand if it (god forbid) got chopped off ... but if you couldn't reconnect it for what ever reason, you wouldn't even bother to keep it in a jar

 

[swarm]

greenberg
No, I am not.

Then your question fails to accurately reflect your intent.

Because if I succeeded ... then I would be like you, right?

Alas that is not necessarily the case.
Still I see no evidence that you have succeeded.
Please do so me I am mistaken if I am.

And surely, it is impossible that there would be something better than what Epicurus espoused!

Something better than leading a good life?

I’m open to suggestions. What do you have?

 

[swarm]

lightgigantic
yes that's right, there is a difference of substance, just like the difference in substance explains why we wear a woolen jumper and not a sheep, even thought the woolen jumper came from a sheep

You are confusing form with substance. Just like ice, water and steam are different forms of H2O, wool on the sheep and wool in a sweater are different forms of the same substance.

some parts are essential and some parts are contingent

And yet they are still no less part of the whole.

we go about busily acting in ways we cannot control (finally culminating in death)

So god causes bowel movements? Sure we are influenced by our surroundings, we also influence our surroundings. That doesn't mean we are under "superior potency 24/7."

time is one of god's contingent potencies

No it isn't.

BG 11.32

You do realize myths aren't literal truth? You can get similar stories in the fantasy section of any library.

actually its more the case of less-than-casual investigation of us serving god

No. Not really.

you wouldn't even bother to keep it in a jar

I would so keep it! I'd probable have it preserved by being infused with plastic like that cadaver collection. That would be so cool its almost worth the loss of a finger.

Put some fake blood on the stump and "pull" it off and hand it to people.

My great uncle got a lot of kicks from his missing thumb and he didn't still have the missing member.

You shouldn't assume I have your hang-ups.

What does that have to do with god any way?

 

[onemoment]

Lightgigangtic: It is not at all uncommon to encounter (radical) monists who disregard the notion of the absolute housing variety due to their own (conditioned) experience of variety. The very issue of calling upon conditioned existence (ie "fear of identity") to act as a yard stick for unconditioned existence is problematic from the very beginning.

I only mention it because you indicate that variety is absolutely a bad cause (based on your own conditioned experience of it).

Where exactly does conditioning, or even the idea of conditioning arise, except in the mind? And is that all the Self is? Conditioned thought? And what I point to is not ‘conditioned’ and is experienced without the mind (the experiencing of the senses),

In relying on the senses – sight, touch, smell etc - for a change, what is reality? That is the reality to which I refer, not the reality we describe by conditioned mind. Quite apart from whether that’s genuinely my experience or not - for you cannot tell and it does not matter - you can’t deny such a reality exists prior to the mind’s interpretation.

It seems like with all our explanations on what this Self can be, we have not looked to see if that thought, perhaps, cannot find an answer for thought is always conditioned/from a perspective. Maybe Self is beyond conditioned perspective which is all that mind is. Maybe the answer is beyond logic. Could logic be the only answer when logic, too, is mind?

greenberg: But this is not all there is?

‘Why must what I am pointing to be the reality then?’ you may ask and even if I were to answer, there would no doubt be some other question – but once again I say, ‘How can any definition describe reality except but to say we may know the object but never really ever know the ultimate answer or cause with the mind – isn’t even ‘There is no answer’ an answer of/in the mind? So what is there without conditioned mind/answers. And is conditioned mind what Self really is, for this seems to be, by definition (Hehe) when we use mind to find answers.

Isn’t this what all scriptures are pointing to – not that the pointing story has anything to do with what’s being pointed at.

And then, if what we find is indescribable – just this knowingness of everything – does that mean it is not what we are because we cannot describe it? We have looked so long for an explanation in the mind and have arrived at no definitive answers – maybe if we looked beyond the mind, the answer is clearly there – why not devote some time to exploration of that for a change and see what lies there and if any questions arise there of ‘What is Self?’. Those who see clearly/are ‘enlightened’ tell us that is where the ‘answer’ lies. Perphaps it does. No conditioning in that!

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

lightgigantic
yes that's right, there is a difference of substance, just like the difference in substance explains why we wear a woolen jumper and not a sheep, even thought the woolen jumper came from a sheep
”
You are confusing form with substance. Just like ice, water and steam are different forms of H2O, wool on the sheep and wool in a sweater are different forms of the same substance.

o...k...

“
some parts are essential and some parts are contingent
”
And yet they are still no less part of the whole.

persons who write up compensation plans for insurance policies governing the loss of body parts in the workplace disagree ....

“
we go about busily acting in ways we cannot control (finally culminating in death)
”
So god causes bowel movements?

given that bowel movements are certainly something insurmountable for us, you have a problem with that?

Sure we are influenced by our surroundings, we also influence our surroundings.
That doesn't mean we are under "superior potency 24/7."

you can influence yourself so that you don't experience a bowel movement?

“
time is one of god's contingent potencies
”
No it isn't.

I am just trying to help you understand your bowel movements .... god is a somewhat more complex topic, so maybe we can put it on hold for the time being

“
BG 11.32
”
You do realize myths aren't literal truth? You can get similar stories in the fantasy section of any library.

well just as well we are at sciforums, eh?

“
actually its more the case of less-than-casual investigation of us serving god
”
No. Not really.

unconvincing

“
you wouldn't even bother to keep it in a jar
”
I would so keep it! I'd probable have it preserved by being infused with plastic like that cadaver collection. That would be so cool its almost worth the loss of a finger.

Put some fake blood on the stump and "pull" it off and hand it to people.

My great uncle got a lot of kicks from his missing thumb and he didn't still have the missing member.

You shouldn't assume I have your hang-ups.

I over estimated you

What does that have to do with god any way?

remember that next time you have to rush off to the lavatory to perform some "important business"

 

[lightgigantic]

Where exactly does conditioning, or even the idea of conditioning arise, except in the mind?

without the "idea" of conditioning, its not clear how one could even approach the notion of "oneness" (as advocated by radical monists) as doable

And is that all the Self is? Conditioned thought?

according to radical monists, yes

And what I point to is not ‘conditioned’ and is experienced without the mind (the experiencing of the senses),

In relying on the senses – sight, touch, smell etc - for a change, what is reality? That is the reality to which I refer, not the reality we describe by conditioned mind. Quite apart from whether that’s genuinely my experience or not - for you cannot tell and it does not matter - you can’t deny such a reality exists prior to the mind’s interpretation.

I don't have a problem with this.
What I do have a problem with is the suggestion that this "reality" is uniform, that there is no distinction of individuality etc etc

It seems like with all our explanations on what this Self can be, we have not looked to see if that thought, perhaps, cannot find an answer for thought is always conditioned/from a perspective. Maybe Self is beyond conditioned perspective which is all that mind is. Maybe the answer is beyond logic. Could logic be the only answer when logic, too, is mind?

ditto above

‘Why must what I am pointing to be the reality then?’ you may ask and even if I were to answer, there would no doubt be some other question – but once again I say, ‘How can any definition describe reality except but to say we may know the object but never really ever know the ultimate answer or cause with the mind – isn’t even

basically the mind is something like a glove that covers the hand - we may say that it is the glove that is moving but actually we know that it is the hand that animates the glove - similarly it is the soul/self/atma which animates the mind and gives it the impression of self-hood. One can understand this by transcending the mind, which is part of any bonafide spiritual discipline

‘There is no answer’ an answer of/in the mind? So what is there without conditioned mind/answers. And is conditioned mind what Self really is, for this seems to be, by definition (Hehe) when we use mind to find answers.

I'm afraid this is still on the mental platform

Isn’t this what all scriptures are pointing to – not that the pointing story has anything to do with what’s being pointed at.

scripture points to god and the point of understanding one's relationship in connection to him - dwelling on the problems of selfhood in the material (conditioned) world is simply a means to downgrade our fascination for exploiting god's potencies

And then, if what we find is indescribable – just this knowingness of everything – does that mean it is not what we are because we cannot describe it? We have looked so long for an explanation in the mind and have arrived at no definitive answers – maybe if we looked beyond the mind, the answer is clearly there – why not devote some time to exploration of that for a change and see what lies there and if any questions arise there of ‘What is Self?’. Those who see clearly/are ‘enlightened’ tell us that is where the ‘answer’ lies. Perphaps it does. No conditioning in that!

for as long as one cannot distinguish between one's own consciousness and the consciousness of god, and even the consciousness of other living entities , one will remain more or less in a state of illusion

 

[onemoment]

onemoment: And is that all the Self is? Conditioned thought? ”
lightgigantic:according to radical monists, yes

Well maybe they are incorrect in telling it that way. I can see kind of what they are saying - to remove the mind from the picture for a moment, we need to see that the mind is just an instrument and that there may be something that is there before the mind. We can use logic to come to see this or we can just look because we have never looked before.

lightgiganticI don't have a problem with this.
What I do have a problem with is the suggestion that this "reality" is uniform, that there is no distinction of individuality etc etc

Look at it from a physics perspective - it you are seeing this world with some amazing instrument that allowed the manifestation to be seen on this level, where does one atom end and another begin - my body and the space around the body could not be differentiated.

Without the instrument, with eyes closed (because it is easier this way it seems) what boundary exists except that which is construed by the mind?

lightgigantic: One can understand this by transcending the mind, which is part of any bonafide spiritual discipline

A discipline implies the existence and use of mind. It keeps us fixated with something we have defined as 'mind' and perhaps it doesn't really exist at all. Maybe we are looking to transcend somehting that need not be transcended.

lightgigantic: I'm afraid this is still on the mental platform

All words can appear this way but what it points to is the prescence, or whatever else you like to call it, on which mind and everything appears.

From a quantum physics perspective, there is only space, virtually, as particles become waves of ????? - nothingness? energy?

 

[greenberg]

Then your question fails to accurately reflect your intent.

Do you know what the principle of charitable interpretation is? So far, you haven't shown much understanding of it in your communications with the people you disagree with.

Alas that is not necessarily the case.
Still I see no evidence that you have succeeded.

Of course you don't.

Please do so me I am mistaken if I am.

What does that mean?

Something better than leading a good life?

I’m open to suggestions. What do you have?

If you think that living in line with Epicurus' principles makes for a "good life", then we might as well be of different species, living on different planets. No point continuing this discussion.

 

[greenberg]

Where exactly does conditioning, or even the idea of conditioning arise, except in the mind? And is that all the Self is? Conditioned thought? And what I point to is not ‘conditioned’ and is experienced without the mind (the experiencing of the senses),

In relying on the senses – sight, touch, smell etc - for a change, what is reality? That is the reality to which I refer, not the reality we describe by conditioned mind. Quite apart from whether that’s genuinely my experience or not - for you cannot tell and it does not matter - you can’t deny such a reality exists prior to the mind’s interpretation.

Sure.

Stop and smell the roses.
Watch the grass grow.
Enjoy the raisins and slowly sip the tea.
See that bird? Oh, lovely.
Feel how good that feels.
The biggest problem with the world is that people think in dualities. If they would only stop and smell the roses ...


And yet those roses don't smell good enough, so people who believe the things like you do come to forums like these and ask questions such as "Is non-duality a philosophy?". Good.

 

[onemoment]

greenberg: ...so people who believe the things like you do come to forums like these and ask questions such as "Is non-duality a philosophy?". Good.

Roses are smelling better and that judgement I make is just for the purposes of discussion for whilst the experiencing is happening, that is all it is - experiencing happening - free of the 'truths of the mind'. It is because I make no judgement that it is better, that I do not accept or reject whether it smells good or bad or better when the smelling is happening. Just as now 'the writer who writes' is just a story told about the experiencing of writing.

I care not for what others say must be so and care little for what thoughts arise here for me as to what is so, just the same - all this talk and chatter in the mind is one time happy, other time sad - with the mind there is no enduring or sustaining contentment (it does not sense) and for some reason there is only drive and belief that this cannot be how life should be - and it is so and I am 'coming' to sustain something as it is so (though no real 'coming' is there for it has always and is ever there), and more and more lovingly by neither accepting or rejecting, just always 'observing' as 'no observer' and mind plays just as a tree sways and someone smells a rose.

And how do they smell for you?