|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 14:10:33 GMT -5
I'd disagree with that. It might seem a subtle distinction but it really isn't. Not two is not One. Oneness is a good pointer but when it's taken as an idea to build conceptual structure off of it's no longer the same idea as nonduality. OK replace one or oneness with not two. If you think that fundamentally changes what I'm saying please say how. amit What nonduality points to is not subject to objectification. When you write this: It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought. ... you start from the basis of that objectification. This isn't to say that I would disagree with the sentiment of the idea expressed, but what I'd say is that nonduality and self-improvement are related, at best, only very tangentially.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 14:13:37 GMT -5
If by Andfigtzuism you mean the freedom to advocate for two contradictory ideas at the same time, a closet full of as many hats as need be to get through the day and the self-sourced authority to think with a still mind and state intricate and entangled idealized understandings that are not beliefs, then yea verily, I stand as atlas with the burden of this treasure on my shoulders and shall not shrug. But if by Andfigtzuism you instead mean to invoke reference to the trap of judgmental hyperminding that leads to endless dark portraiture of the malicious and stuck nondual fundamentalist then I say to you, off to the Unmoderated section! ESA (** muttley snicker **)I claim the poetic license of the comedic device of parody!
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 26, 2014 14:44:58 GMT -5
OK replace one or oneness with not two. If you think that fundamentally changes what I'm saying please say how. amit What nonduality points to is not subject to objectification. When you write this: It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought. ... you start from the basis of that objectification. This isn't to say that I would disagree with the sentiment of the idea expressed, but what I'd say is that nonduality and self-improvement are related, at best, only very tangentially. Remembering the description I am using, where non-duality points can be understood, for in this description it is no more than an idea, a conceptual construction if you like. Whether it resonates is beyond understanding that construction and is not dependent upon understanding it. Something may be said however about the nature of the character with whom it resonates. For example one who is disillusioned with practice and the distance suggested between seeker and sought as in this description there is already no such distance, including the requirement to realize that or anything else, because it must already be Oneness not realizing. If it is regarded as more than a mere idea then it can be said to point to some 'reality' beyond called not two or one which cannot be described, some state which can be experienced (enlightenment). Maybe so but what makes non-duality distinct is the impossibility of increasing connection to Oneness by such an experience or any other. amit
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 15:27:32 GMT -5
What nonduality points to is not subject to objectification. When you write this: ... you start from the basis of that objectification. This isn't to say that I would disagree with the sentiment of the idea expressed, but what I'd say is that nonduality and self-improvement are related, at best, only very tangentially. Remembering the description I am using, where non-duality points can be understood, for in this description it is no more than an idea, a conceptual construction if you like. Whether it resonates is beyond understanding that construction and is not dependent upon understanding it. Something may be said however about the nature of the character with whom it resonates. For example one who is disillusioned with practice and the distance suggested between seeker and sought as in this description there is already no such distance, including the requirement to realize that or anything else, because it must already be Oneness not realizing. If it is regarded as more than a mere idea then it can be said to point to some 'reality' beyond called not two or one which cannot be described, some state which can be experienced (enlightenment). Maybe so but what makes non-duality distinct is the impossibility of increasing connection to Oneness by such an experience or any other. amit I'd agree that there is no requirement and there is no increasing connection. Experience can serve as the same sort of informing of mind as to what the idea points toward as understanding.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 26, 2014 15:59:35 GMT -5
Remembering the description I am using, where non-duality points can be understood, for in this description it is no more than an idea, a conceptual construction if you like. Whether it resonates is beyond understanding that construction and is not dependent upon understanding it. Something may be said however about the nature of the character with whom it resonates. For example one who is disillusioned with practice and the distance suggested between seeker and sought as in this description there is already no such distance, including the requirement to realize that or anything else, because it must already be Oneness not realizing. If it is regarded as more than a mere idea then it can be said to point to some 'reality' beyond called not two or one which cannot be described, some state which can be experienced (enlightenment). Maybe so but what makes non-duality distinct is the impossibility of increasing connection to Oneness by such an experience or any other. amit I'd agree that there is no requirement and there is no increasing connection. Experience can serve as the same sort of informing of mind as to what the idea points toward as understanding. .......but we are agreed, will not increase connection. What was meant by "where non-duality points" was precisely that. That nothing can increase connection. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2014 17:58:59 GMT -5
That would be my view. Yes, positive thinking, that's what most folks think this LOA stuff is about, but that's a misconception. If the vibration is the same for both polarities, what is it that differentiates the two?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2014 18:00:01 GMT -5
'If-by-whiskey'? "This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise." Unless you do!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2014 18:19:35 GMT -5
I doubt if there are many different descriptions of what self improvement means. On the other hand there are many different descriptions which use the label Non-duality. So for clarity lets state the description I am using. It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought.
In that story, self improvement, or any other practice that suggests distance between seeker and sought, is irrelevant to Non-duality.amit I'd disagree with that. It might seem a subtle distinction but it really isn't. Not two is not One. Oneness is a good pointer but when it's taken as an idea to build conceptual structure off of it's no longer the same idea as nonduality. You have trouble with the idea that oneness is 'not two'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2014 18:20:51 GMT -5
OMG, that's 'if-by-whiskey-Andy'! If by Andfigtzuism you mean the freedom to advocate for two contradictory ideas at the same time, a closet full of as many hats as need be to get through the day and the self-sourced authority to think with a still mind and state intricate and entangled idealized understandings that are not beliefs, then yea verily, I stand as atlas with the burden of this treasure on my shoulders and shall not shrug. But if by Andfigtzuism you instead mean to invoke reference to the trap of judgmental hyperminding that leads to endless dark portraiture of the malicious and stuck nondual fundamentalist then I say to you, off to the Unmoderated section! Well, obviously I mean the one that keeps me out of trouble for now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 18:45:01 GMT -5
I'd agree that there is no requirement and there is no increasing connection. Experience can serve as the same sort of informing of mind as to what the idea points toward as understanding. .......but we are agreed, will not increase connection. What was meant by "where non-duality points" was precisely that. That nothing can increase connection. amit We're agreed on the point about the futility of increasing connection but not on the point of where nonduality points.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 18:46:07 GMT -5
"This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise." Unless you do! ... it was the unspoken refrain! I left that unsaid ... deliberately!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 18:46:49 GMT -5
I'd disagree with that. It might seem a subtle distinction but it really isn't. Not two is not One. Oneness is a good pointer but when it's taken as an idea to build conceptual structure off of it's no longer the same idea as nonduality. You have trouble with the idea that oneness is 'not two'? No.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 18:59:04 GMT -5
If by Andfigtzuism you mean the freedom to advocate for two contradictory ideas at the same time, a closet full of as many hats as need be to get through the day and the self-sourced authority to think with a still mind and state intricate and entangled idealized understandings that are not beliefs, then yea verily, I stand as atlas with the burden of this treasure on my shoulders and shall not shrug. But if by Andfigtzuism you instead mean to invoke reference to the trap of judgmental hyperminding that leads to endless dark portraiture of the malicious and stuck nondual fundamentalist then I say to you, off to the Unmoderated section! Well, obviously I mean the one that keeps me out of trouble for now. If-by-whiskey you mean the power of futility then it's too late! ... it's time to change brands!
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 26, 2014 20:42:55 GMT -5
.......but we are agreed, will not increase connection. What was meant by "where non-duality points" was precisely that. That nothing can increase connection. amit We're agreed on the point about the futility of increasing connection but not on the point of where nonduality points. Agreed. Could you say something about how the impossibility of increasing connection has affected any practice you do? amit
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 20:58:41 GMT -5
We're agreed on the point about the futility of increasing connection but not on the point of where nonduality points. Agreed. Could you say something about how the impossibility of increasing connection has affected any practice you do? amit Not really -- the story I can tell is that by the time I started meditating there were no connections to make. What I can say is that it appears that refining the understanding of practice led to the recognition that if it wasn't effortless, then it wasn't meditation, and that had a big impact on the practice.
|
|