|
|
Post by nevermore on Apr 25, 2014 20:43:33 GMT -5
Hi,
I've been oscillating between dual and non-dual perception of reality for about a year, with the non-dual perspective slowly becoming more frequent. I have never had a spiritual teacher. I have a naturalistic, evidence-demanding view of the universe and great respect for the scientific method (which doesn't mean I agree with things on the mere basis that a scientist says them...) but it would make no difference to me if a teacher or spiritual buddy did not, as long as they did not try to push non-naturalistic beliefs on to me or persistently discourage the use of my (literally life-saving in my case) ADHD medication.
My influences are mixed, but the biggest contributor to these experiences has been Alan Watts. Meditation probably helped open the door of understanding initially, but I haven't formally meditated for a while. I don't know if I'm past that helping to make the non-dual perception more frequent. I suspect all the meditation-induced insights and experiences that could help with that have already happened. However, I know it would be good for my mental health for reasons other than non-duality, and advice with mindfulness meditation techniques might be helpful.
I suffer at times severely with OCD and because of the non-temporal nature of the fears involved (they aren't about the future or past but the nature of reality itself), non-dual perception itself has not eliminated the suffering from that OCD as it tends to with other sources of anxiety. A teacher with basic knowledge about or experience of such mental disorders (and who does not believe they can simply be cured in all cases with lifestyle changes or would necessarily disappear completely if I meditated the right way, was fully awakened, or whatever) is almost a necessity, because it's a major issue, in fact my main motive for pursuing non-dual perception so doggedly.
Thanks for reading,
nevermore
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 25, 2014 21:27:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nevermore on Apr 26, 2014 16:57:07 GMT -5
Thanks.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 26, 2014 19:23:15 GMT -5
Thanks. There's plenty of insightful folks with a great depth of knowledge and understanding relating to nonduality here but most of them are likely to hang back from engaging until they've gotten more familiar with you. Perception is inherently dual, in that it involves perceiver and what is perceived, and the result of perception is always information, which is inherently reliant on the subject-object split ... while what nonduality points toward, is not expressible in terms of that split. |
|
|
|
Post by lilsun13 on Nov 5, 2014 23:14:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 6, 2014 9:29:29 GMT -5
Thanks. There's plenty of insightful folks with a great depth of knowledge and understanding relating to nonduality here but most of them are likely to hang back from engaging until they've gotten more familiar with you. Perception is inherently dual, in that it involves perceiver and what is perceived, and the result of perception is always information, which is inherently reliant on the subject-object split ... while what nonduality points toward, is not expressible in terms of that split. Laughter: just curious to know if your outlook on this issue has changed since this post? I see thought-free perception as non-dual in that it does not involve a perceiver or what is perceived. Imagination generates the idea of a perceiver and what is perceived, and only through imagination does duality arise. There is no subject/object split until such a split is cognized. If there is no imagining, then there is only "what is"--a unified field of being. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 6, 2014 9:51:46 GMT -5
There's plenty of insightful folks with a great depth of knowledge and understanding relating to nonduality here but most of them are likely to hang back from engaging until they've gotten more familiar with you. Perception is inherently dual, in that it involves perceiver and what is perceived, and the result of perception is always information, which is inherently reliant on the subject-object split ... while what nonduality points toward, is not expressible in terms of that split. Laughter: just curious to know if your outlook on this issue has changed since this post? I see thought-free perception as non-dual in that it does not involve a perceiver or what is perceived. Imagination generates the idea of a perceiver and what is perceived, and only through imagination does duality arise. There is no subject/object split until such a split is cognized. If there is no imagining, then there is only "what is"--a unified field of being. I just happened to read this (again) yesterday: "I have been asked, 'Isn't observing a dualistic practice? Because when we are observing, something is observing something else'. But in fact it's not dualistic. The observer is empty. Instead of a separate observer, we should say there is just observing. There is no one who hears, there is just hearing. There is no one who sees, there is just seeing. But we don't quite grasp that. If we practice hard enough, however, we learn that not only is the observer empty, but that which is observed is also empty". page 126 Everyday Zen, Charlotte Joko Beck sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2014 10:04:45 GMT -5
There's plenty of insightful folks with a great depth of knowledge and understanding relating to nonduality here but most of them are likely to hang back from engaging until they've gotten more familiar with you. Perception is inherently dual, in that it involves perceiver and what is perceived, and the result of perception is always information, which is inherently reliant on the subject-object split ... while what nonduality points toward, is not expressible in terms of that split. Laughter: just curious to know if your outlook on this issue has changed since this post? I see thought-free perception as non-dual in that it does not involve a perceiver or what is perceived. Imagination generates the idea of a perceiver and what is perceived, and only through imagination does duality arise. There is no subject/object split until such a split is cognized. If there is no imagining, then there is only "what is"--a unified field of being. In perception, the perceiver and the perceived are not two. Yes. What's been happening over time here since writing that is a deepening into the understanding of the futility of trying to express the idea of the limitation of the first thought, the initial divide, the subject/object split, with an idea similar to the one written back in April. The unified field of being describes actuality, but in writing "actuality", there is only an indirect reference to the intended meaning. In attending that, there is no subject object split. In attendance of the actual, information, is not information, it is, what is. What cognizes? .. and, what perceives without cognition? Both of these questions have answers. To answer to the 2nd question, "what perceives without cognition?", cognition is perceived to cease. Only in that cessation is/was the answer available. The answer to the first question can be expressed with a model of a body, a brain, but ultimately, the model will have to reference, either directly, or indirectly, the answer to the 2nd question, and there is no uncertainty here as to whether any concept or conceptual structure will ever completely capture this reference. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 6, 2014 13:10:50 GMT -5
Laughter: just curious to know if your outlook on this issue has changed since this post? I see thought-free perception as non-dual in that it does not involve a perceiver or what is perceived. Imagination generates the idea of a perceiver and what is perceived, and only through imagination does duality arise. There is no subject/object split until such a split is cognized. If there is no imagining, then there is only "what is"--a unified field of being. I just happened to read this (again) yesterday: "I have been asked, 'Isn't observing a dualistic practice? Because when we are observing, something is observing something else'. But in fact it's not dualistic. The observer is empty. Instead of a separate observer, we should say there is just observing. There is no one who hears, there is just hearing. There is no one who sees, there is just seeing. But we don't quite grasp that. If we practice hard enough, however, we learn that not only is the observer empty, but that which is observed is also empty". page 126 Everyday Zen, Charlotte Joko Beck sdp Yes, that's what I was pointing to. The appearance and idea of an observer arises as a cognitive function of mind, but this is totally unnecessary. If the mind is quiescent, there is seeing, but no one who sees. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Nov 6, 2014 15:31:41 GMT -5
I just happened to read this (again) yesterday: "I have been asked, 'Isn't observing a dualistic practice? Because when we are observing, something is observing something else'. But in fact it's not dualistic. The observer is empty. Instead of a separate observer, we should say there is just observing. There is no one who hears, there is just hearing. There is no one who sees, there is just seeing. But we don't quite grasp that. If we practice hard enough, however, we learn that not only is the observer empty, but that which is observed is also empty". page 126 Everyday Zen, Charlotte Joko Beck sdp Yes, that's what I was pointing to. The appearance and idea of an observer arises as a cognitive function of mind, but this is totally unnecessary. If the mind is quiescent, there is seeing, but no one who sees. True. And no thing that is seen. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 6, 2014 16:07:56 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I was pointing to. The appearance and idea of an observer arises as a cognitive function of mind, but this is totally unnecessary. If the mind is quiescent, there is seeing, but no one who sees. True. And no thing that is seen. Yes, and that which sees understands the difference between the conceptual seeing of "thingness" and the non-conceptual seeing of isness. |
|
|
|
Post by lilsun13 on Nov 6, 2014 23:23:42 GMT -5
Perhaps this quote fits into this conversation.
“… there are two kinds of wisdom.? The first is worldly wisdom, which is a conceptual understanding of your experiences.? Because it follows after the events themselves, it necessarily inhibits your direct understanding of truth.? The second kind, integral wisdom, involves a direct participation in every moment: the observer and the observed are dissolved in the light of pure awareness, and no mental concepts or attitudes are present to dim that light.? The blessings and wisdom that accrue to those who practice the Integral Way and lead others to it are a billion times greater than all worldly blessings and wisdom combined.”
~Hua Hu Ching, Chapter 26. Translated by Brian Walker
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2014 2:37:06 GMT -5
Perhaps this quote fits into this conversation. “… there are two kinds of wisdom.? The first is worldly wisdom, which is a conceptual understanding of your experiences.? Because it follows after the events themselves, it necessarily inhibits your direct understanding of truth.? The second kind, integral wisdom, involves a direct participation in every moment: the observer and the observed are dissolved in the light of pure awareness, and no mental concepts or attitudes are present to dim that light.? The blessings and wisdom that accrue to those who practice the Integral Way and lead others to it are a billion times greater than all worldly blessings and wisdom combined.” ~Hua Hu Ching, Chapter 26. Translated by Brian Walker Yes, that fits in quite well, thank you. |
|
