|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2014 9:21:12 GMT -5
ya know, those questions are difficult to answer/talk about. even more difficult to understand with crystal clear clarity (which seems why the 'success rate' is so ridiculously low) there is a typer here typing, and a reader over there reading. so seemingly there are "two", but that's not the truth, is it? Well, truths are always contextual, so while its true in one context that there is no two, in the context of there being experiencing, there are two and more experiences. I don't imagine that you only stick to one context, when your wife says 'hey Dan, can you pass me the ketchup', you don't say 'there is no Dan and there is no ketchup', you respond to the context being offered to you by your wife. If, by 'the truth' you are talking about 'Truth', that's still a context (a non-dual one) its just that there's not much to be said about it. Could perhaps say that 'Truth is what you are', or 'Truth is prior to mind/ideas' or 'Truth is what is left when falsity has been seen through'. What is sometimes not apprehended by those that explore non-duality is that although 'Truth', by definition, it defined to be outside of ideas, it is still created and defined within ideas. In that sense its just something else to talk about, to explore. Its no big deal. Sounds like anti-advaita trap. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 9:23:27 GMT -5
Well, truths are always contextual, so while its true in one context that there is no two, in the context of there being experiencing, there are two and more experiences. I don't imagine that you only stick to one context, when your wife says 'hey Dan, can you pass me the ketchup', you don't say 'there is no Dan and there is no ketchup', you respond to the context being offered to you by your wife. If, by 'the truth' you are talking about 'Truth', that's still a context (a non-dual one) its just that there's not much to be said about it. Could perhaps say that 'Truth is what you are', or 'Truth is prior to mind/ideas' or 'Truth is what is left when falsity has been seen through'. What is sometimes not apprehended by those that explore non-duality is that although 'Truth', by definition, it defined to be outside of ideas, it is still created and defined within ideas. In that sense its just something else to talk about, to explore. Its no big deal. Sounds like anti-advaita trap. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership. Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2014 9:27:37 GMT -5
That's bouncy house stuff, i.e. improving personal experiences. Has nothing to do with non-duality pointers. Not even theoretically. Non-duality pointers are about what is already the case, which can be seen clearly as soon as the bouncy housey music stops. That's why non-duality pointers can never be Tools TM and why those who see it as a tool have not yet left the bouncy house. So, you took me off the ignore list...I have time to talk today so you're in luck You are correct that non-duality pointers are about what is already the case, and that is a context. Self-improvement is a different context, but it is still pointing to what non-dualists would say 'is already the case' i.e. True Self (same as No-Self/Self), unconditional love and authenticity. The coding is different but the result is the same. So, someone that has been to counselling or done a load of EFT and has released a truck load of limiting conditioned beliefs will end up in the same 'place' as the individual that took a non-dual 'direct route'. Of course, the success rate of the 'direct route' is questionable. By the way, 'bouncy house' is a musical genre not a term that applies to either non-duality or self-improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2014 9:28:35 GMT -5
Sounds like anti-advaita trap. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership. Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 10:09:07 GMT -5
ya know, those questions are difficult to answer/talk about. even more difficult to understand with crystal clear clarity (which seems why the 'success rate' is so ridiculously low) there is a typer here typing, and a reader over there reading. so seemingly there are "two", but that's not the truth, is it? Well, truths are always contextual, so while its true in one context that there is no two, in the context of there being experiencing, there are two and more experiences. I don't imagine that you only stick to one context, when your wife says 'hey Dan, can you pass me the ketchup', you don't say 'there is no Dan and there is no ketchup', you respond to the context being offered to you by your wife. If, by 'the truth' you are talking about 'Truth', that's still a context (a non-dual one) its just that there's not much to be said about it. Could perhaps say that 'Truth is what you are', or 'Truth is prior to mind/ideas' or 'Truth is what is left when falsity has been seen through'. What is sometimes not apprehended by those that explore non-duality is that although 'Truth', by definition, it defined to be outside of ideas, it is still created and defined within ideas. In that sense its just something else to talk about, to explore. Its no big deal. haha .. no, I would never say such a thing to her, she already has more than enough mental dramas playing out in that little noggin of hers, than for me to add any more. In American football, that's called piling on, and is a 15 yard personal foul penalty. ketchup is passed, but there is no passer ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 10:11:53 GMT -5
No. Theoretically non-duality is a brilliant short cut. Its the most direct route, so direct that its not a 'route' and even the word 'direct' is misapplied. Practically though, it doesn't seem to work like that. A lot seem to end up reading book after book, watching video after video, going to seminar after seminar, and usually end up doing some kind of self-improvement exercises of some sort, even if its meditation or forgiveness or non-judgement. Some of the eastern teachings (and western too) have recommended clearing/releasing conditioning, which is basically self-improvement, and I resonate with that. The other problem with the short cut is that its easy to take it, and then think we are 'home', when really its more of an imitation home. So although it is potentially brilliant, it has its problems. Of course, self-improvement has its problems too. What!? No 'figless likes this' above this post? shhh .. I think she's having dream astral sex with "Chin" Raylan
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 23, 2014 10:13:04 GMT -5
Sounds like anti-advaita trap. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership. Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically. Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 10:14:42 GMT -5
I dunno .. but I don't think the two 'sides' can ever be reconciled, cuz I don't think the 'personal aspect' even exists .. except as a fabrication of mind. yeah I can see what you're saying. I see what could be described as self improvement as just learning a skill. Similar to learning to drive a car, play a sport etc. Maybe depends on the what and the whys... Do you think there are any times when it would be useful? I dunno .. but I don't think so. That kinda sounds like "having your cake and eating it too" ie. I want to be enlightened, but I want to be a rich, well liked, useful person too.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 10:25:24 GMT -5
Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically. Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. If the I-thought doesn't arise (and I would agree that it doesn't have to), there would still be some kind of subtle awareness or individual sense of 'I' starting the car - in contrast to my wife, or the car starting itself, or the car magically starting etc. Its the same with going to the bathroom, there is an individuated experience, an awareness that it is 'I' going to the bathroom (and not 'you'). When you wrote that message to me there would have been a sense of directing the message towards an individual that is 'not you'. It was intended for 'me' to read. I'm not saying that we have to take credit for these things, there doesn't have to be any judgment about it, its just the nature of the human experience right now to experience a sense of personal doership.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 10:30:49 GMT -5
Well, truths are always contextual, so while its true in one context that there is no two, in the context of there being experiencing, there are two and more experiences. I don't imagine that you only stick to one context, when your wife says 'hey Dan, can you pass me the ketchup', you don't say 'there is no Dan and there is no ketchup', you respond to the context being offered to you by your wife. If, by 'the truth' you are talking about 'Truth', that's still a context (a non-dual one) its just that there's not much to be said about it. Could perhaps say that 'Truth is what you are', or 'Truth is prior to mind/ideas' or 'Truth is what is left when falsity has been seen through'. What is sometimes not apprehended by those that explore non-duality is that although 'Truth', by definition, it defined to be outside of ideas, it is still created and defined within ideas. In that sense its just something else to talk about, to explore. Its no big deal. haha .. no, I would never say such a thing to her, she already has more than enough mental dramas playing out in that little noggin of hers, than for me to add any more. In American football, that's called piling on, and is a 15 yard personal foul penalty. ketchup is passed, but there is no passer ;-) Understood, but there is an understanding/awareness that she is asking you to pass the ketchup (and not the cat), and that it is you passing the ketchup to her (and not the dog passing it to her). equally its not experienced as God passing it to her, or Consciousness passing it to her. It is something I could say to my wife but normally if I want to get out of doing something lol. She doesn't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 10:33:20 GMT -5
yeah I can see what you're saying. I see what could be described as self improvement as just learning a skill. Similar to learning to drive a car, play a sport etc. Maybe depends on the what and the whys... Do you think there are any times when it would be useful? I dunno .. but I don't think so. That kinda sounds like "having your cake and eating it too" ie. I want to be enlightened, but I want to be a rich, well liked, useful person too. What do you see as the difference between learning to use a tractor (you are a farmer, right?) and learning to use a tool that might bring more wealth for example?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 10:50:16 GMT -5
Self improvement is never about unconditional love(the self IS a condition) or realizing True Self (as there isn't one). Nonduality points away from everything that self improvement points toward. Then I would say you havent researched much self-improvement stuff. Whether its EFT, chakra work, Tony Robbins, NLP, Marianne Williamson, NLP, Ho'oponopono, Sedona Method, inner child work....I could go on....its all about unconditional love and realizing True Self (which is another way of talking about Self/No-Self) The only difference is that self-improvement provides a path, whereas non-duality in its purer forms points away from paths. Different approaches, same theoretical result. An example of how nonduality points away from whatever self improvement points toward. Two more examples are 'self' and 'improvement'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 10:53:45 GMT -5
I dunno .. but I don't think the two 'sides' can ever be reconciled, cuz I don't think the 'personal aspect' even exists .. except as a fabrication of mind. That's a pure non-dual model that you are speaking of there, and that's fine. But is there are context in which you would say that human beings do exist, or that there are individual experiences happening? Or do you only stick to the non-dual context and say that human beings don't exist and there are no individual experiences? Nonduality doesn't deny appearances or experiences.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Feb 23, 2014 11:00:18 GMT -5
Self improvement is often about releasing conditioned limiting beliefs, authenticity, unconditional love, and realizing True Self. Non duality is about releasing conditioned limiting beliefs, unconditional love, and realizing Self/No-Self. Self improvement is never about unconditional love( the self IS a condition) /i]or realizing True Self (as there isn't one). Nonduality points away from everything that self improvement points toward.
Telling a self that they're a mere 'condition' sure get's them riled up, they start taking all that self improvement stuff ..............
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 11:03:05 GMT -5
That's a pure non-dual model that you are speaking of there, and that's fine. But is there are context in which you would say that human beings do exist, or that there are individual experiences happening? Or do you only stick to the non-dual context and say that human beings don't exist and there are no individual experiences? ya know, those questions are difficult to answer/talk about. even more difficult to understand with crystal clear clarity (which seems why the 'success rate' is so ridiculously low) there is a typer here typing, and a reader over there reading. so seemingly there are "two", but that's not the truth, is it? Andrew used to deny that context had any meaning, then he found a way to use it in his Andology, and now he treats contexts like alternate realities that have to be dealt with.
|
|