|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 15:22:48 GMT -5
Yea.....but all that is just words. You can't function in life without making judgments, without making distinctions. If all things are equal, I'll just come over and take your car and drive it........... I didn't say any of that. Your problem is that you see non-duality as some kind of metaphysics. Non-duality is not metaphysics. The real is not a context. You won't be able to cram it into a neat theory/philosophy. That's why non-duality can ever only be collection of pointers - nothing more, nothing less. Yes, I'm starting to see how he has been viewing nonduality as a kind of philosophy of life, like the Amish.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 15:51:10 GMT -5
So...given that...you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality - passionately so - to sell something that can't be proven, when you could just go home, enjoy life, and very easily forget about all this and live happily ever after. Well said Silver. It's one thing to simply say "non-duality can ever only be a collection of pointers - nothing more,nothing less". But the thing is, the moment that collection gets argued for, it becomes something more than 'just pointers.' He can't have it both ways...arguing for a pointer by arguing that 'it's only a pointer' is a bit like thawing water and then trying to pass it off as still being an ice-cube. First of all, I'm not sure how a pointer becomes something other than a pointer no matter how much it is argued. Secondly, I don't know what the rules are that officially make a pointer argued for. Thoidly, how is saying a pointer is only a pointer, anything like melting water and trying to pass it off as an ice cube?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 17:40:49 GMT -5
Yea.....but all that is just words. You can't function in life without making judgments, without making distinctions. If all things are equal, I'll just come over and take your car and drive it........... Are you under the impression that nonduality means to offer a way to function in the world? No, that's my point. Non-duality doesn't seem to explain how we function in the world. Edit: Let me put it this way. I don't understand what the difference is in a mind previous to a non-dual realization and after non-dual realization.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 14, 2014 19:22:20 GMT -5
Well said Silver. It's one thing to simply say "non-duality can ever only be a collection of pointers - nothing more,nothing less". But the thing is, the moment that collection gets argued for, it becomes something more than 'just pointers.' He can't have it both ways...arguing for a pointer by arguing that 'it's only a pointer' is a bit like thawing water and then trying to pass it off as still being an ice-cube. First of all, I'm not sure how a pointer becomes something other than a pointer no matter how much it is argued. Secondly, I don't know what the rules are that officially make a pointer argued for. Thoidly, how is saying a pointer is only a pointer, anything like melting water and trying to pass it off as an ice cube? There is a difference between simply 'saying' or 'stating' and 'arguing for'. The kind of rigid, unwavering arguing I'm referencing here, is in my estimation, a clear indicator that pointers have been turned into tightly held to concepts about existence. The moment the arguing in that direction starts, what was originally just a pointer has become something else entirely. Arguing for 'the truth about the nature of existence' demonstrates that the one arguing is still very much entrenched in the conceptual.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 19:30:28 GMT -5
Are you under the impression that nonduality means to offer a way to function in the world? No, that's my point. Non-duality doesn't seem to explain how we function in the world. Edit: Let me put it this way. I don't understand what the difference is in a mind previous to a non-dual realization and after non-dual realization. Right, nonduality is not a prescription for functioning in the world. The reason is that nonduality points to who you are, which is not the person who has to function in the world. For a philosophy on how to function in the world you would need to look elsewhere. However, things will function much betterer without your belief that it's your job.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 19:35:47 GMT -5
First of all, I'm not sure how a pointer becomes something other than a pointer no matter how much it is argued. Secondly, I don't know what the rules are that officially make a pointer argued for. Thoidly, how is saying a pointer is only a pointer, anything like melting water and trying to pass it off as an ice cube? There is a difference between simply 'saying' or 'stating' and 'arguing for'. The kind of rigid, unwavering arguing I'm referencing here, is in my estimation, a clear indicator that pointers have been turned into tightly held to concepts about existence. The moment the arguing in that direction starts, what was originally just a pointer has become something else entirely. Arguing for 'the truth about the nature of existence' demonstrates that the one arguing is still very much entrenched in the conceptual. Yes, I remember that story. I have yet to understand how you conclude any of that. As mentioned, the other thing that sticks out is your implication that pointers should change around from time to time and point elsewhere. I don't get that either.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 14, 2014 20:10:34 GMT -5
There is a difference between simply 'saying' or 'stating' and 'arguing for'. The kind of rigid, unwavering arguing I'm referencing here, is in my estimation, a clear indicator that pointers have been turned into tightly held to concepts about existence. The moment the arguing in that direction starts, what was originally just a pointer has become something else entirely. Arguing for 'the truth about the nature of existence' demonstrates that the one arguing is still very much entrenched in the conceptual. Yes, I remember that story. I have yet to understand how you conclude any of that. As mentioned, the other thing that sticks out is your implication that pointers should change around from time to time and point elsewhere. I don't get that either. Not a conclusion per se. It can be clearly seen when there is no longer any need to adhere to a particular story about the nature of existence. (as per the way you define 'realization'...you could even say it's one of 'dem. ) Now, the 2nd bolded bit, that is YOU coming ever so close to making a 'conclusion'...(& a faulty one at that).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2014 20:56:14 GMT -5
First of all this thread concerns how to differentiate what's less real from what's more real. enigma has defined illusion as something other than what it seems to be. This is narrowly defined from the standpoint of non-duality, separation is an illusion. Therefore, any assumption of separation is in error and is an illusion. Furthermore, there is no middle ground, nothing relatively real, from this standpoint. But from a standpoint of utility, this makes no sense, so I would like to try to demonstrate and differentiate what's less real from what's more real. I propose that the 'more' real consists of those things that existed before man existed. This moves us away from any abstractions. Less real are exactly, abstractions. I speculate that language developed out of needs for unity. Life is pretty time consuming and complicated if you have to point to everything you wish to reference. Language might have begun by drawing pictures in the sand, a few grunts and motions could mean, "Let's go hunt a deer for food". Eventually a specific grunt meant deer, and drawing a picture became less necessary. So an abstraction is at least once removed from reality. And eventually with enough abstractions, added up and multiplied, we end up with an abstraction that represents a particular body-mind-person-individual, and we call this abstraction my-self. Today we would call this ego. So there is a body-mind which I would call essence, it's what we are born-as when we are born as a baby, which acts as a whole, no sense of "I". So there a "real" body-mind-baby on the one hand. Eventually, baby learns language and learns how to abstract, and simultaneously forms a cultural self, ego, OTOH. I would maintain that body-mind is more real than ego which operates from self-referential abstractions. In the same manner, the menu is less real than the food which it represents, for the purposes of convenience (easier than every customer being taken back to the kitchen and pointing out what they want for lunch). A map is not the territory. But we mis-take abstract-illusory-ego for real-body-mind and compound the problems of life defending something that isn't real. When we operate through ego, we are eating the menu instead of the food. (I hope last edit). Well, first, suspending the notion of utility, I'd opine that your metric for reality has merit. It reminds me of how ZD has described Zen in the past: "One size fits all, sit down, and be quiet". The less abstraction operative in our mind state, the closer the mind state is to reality. Really, any argument against this position is rather self-defeating. We've been back and forth on the notion of ego before -- I prefer a much simpler definition: a sense of ownership, which isn't static, and can only arise in a movement of thought and emotion. As far as utility goes, the fact is that without abstraction, we would not be sharing this communication. The internet involves layers upon layers of abstraction. In general, the build of any complex system will fail if the higher level orders of design are not robust. Attempting to apply utility to the absence of separation is applying logic and reason to an idea that's offered to point away from logic and reason. It's generating abstraction about an idea that points away from abstraction.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 21:04:37 GMT -5
No, that's my point. Non-duality doesn't seem to explain how we function in the world. Edit: Let me put it this way. I don't understand what the difference is in a mind previous to a non-dual realization and after non-dual realization. Right, nonduality is not a prescription for functioning in the world. The reason is that nonduality points to who you are, which is not the person who has to function in the world. For a philosophy on how to function in the world you would need to look elsewhere. However, things will function much betterer without your belief that it's your job. Right or wrong as analogy? Non-duality is a river. There are rapids, rock formations, falls, fish, whirlpools, floating sticks, logs, a human being in a raft, no paddle. In reality, all one whole, any separation is merely an illusion. No volition. Raft hits rock, is diverted. Raft hits log. Raft gets stuck in whirlpool. ....................... Tzu, OTOH, thinks the man in the raft has a paddle.....and can paddle around rocks and logs and whirlpools. ............... One or the other is the case, not both. edit: or maybe all we have to do is see that it doesn't matter if we have a paddle or not. Paddle and will to move it are also inseparable from the whole.....yea.....no.....not getting it.....
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2014 21:33:32 GMT -5
I think maybe awakening is not waking up in the dream, but awakening out-of the dream.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 14, 2014 22:08:15 GMT -5
Are you under the impression that nonduality means to offer a way to function in the world? No, that's my point. Non-duality doesn't seem to explain how we function in the world. Edit: Let me put it this way. I don't understand what the difference is in a mind previous to a non-dual realization and after non-dual realization. There is no difference, unless the experiencer is annoyed that there is no difference and creates illusions to compensate for their annoyance.. This explains the situation: "we are traveling to where we have always been, from ignorance to enlightenment.. awareness is the vehicle"..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 23:05:48 GMT -5
Yes, I remember that story. I have yet to understand how you conclude any of that. As mentioned, the other thing that sticks out is your implication that pointers should change around from time to time and point elsewhere. I don't get that either. Not a conclusion per se. It can be clearly seen when there is no longer any need to adhere to a particular story about the nature of existence. (as per the way you define 'realization'...you could even say it's one of 'dem. ) Now, the 2nd bolded bit, that is YOU coming ever so close to making a 'conclusion'...(& a faulty one at that). No, really, it's a conclusion per se, similar to Tzu's conclusion about separation. They don't seem like conclusions to you because you're so convinced the perceptions are true. This is what I was trying to say to Tzu. No matter how much you examine your experience of illusion, you'll continue to adhere to the same conclusions. As for my alleged conclusion, when you talk about how pointers should not be adhered to, what else could it mean but that they should not be adhered to?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 23:13:50 GMT -5
Right, nonduality is not a prescription for functioning in the world. The reason is that nonduality points to who you are, which is not the person who has to function in the world. For a philosophy on how to function in the world you would need to look elsewhere. However, things will function much betterer without your belief that it's your job. Right or wrong as analogy? Non-duality is a river. There are rapids, rock formations, falls, fish, whirlpools, floating sticks, logs, a human being in a raft, no paddle. In reality, all one whole, any separation is merely an illusion. No volition. Raft hits rock, is diverted. Raft hits log. Raft gets stuck in whirlpool. ....................... Tzu, OTOH, thinks the man in the raft has a paddle.....and can paddle around rocks and logs and whirlpools. ............... One or the other is the case, not both. edit: or maybe all we have to do is see that it doesn't matter if we have a paddle or not. Paddle and will to move it are also inseparable from the whole.....yea.....no.....not getting it..... Yeah, one or the other is the case, not both.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2014 23:17:06 GMT -5
I think maybe awakening is not waking up in the dream, but awakening out-of the dream. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 15, 2014 7:23:13 GMT -5
As layers of self dissolve one feels at the time that this is really who I am . Then another layer dissolves and one feels, no this is really who I am . This can go on and on for sometime until the realization happens .
Only in mind can one distinguish the so called before and after effects of the realization and there is for sure a distinct taste ascertained that anything in mind is likened to an artificial sweetner compared to the taste of natural cane .
So we have the mind and beyond, we have the artificial sweetner and the natural cane but the cane and the sweetner are only existing so one can tell the difference between their taste ..
Some perhaps entertain what is real and what is illusionary within the same environment (being the mind) and some may perhaps just relate to the mind as being the dream platform so nothing of the mind is real and yet if one relates to what we are as being real then what we are that is of the mind is also real .
Maybe one can only go by what one has been aware of in relation to self and take it from there, I can entertain that dreams can be real but it does depend on one's actual point of self reference in relation to the dream and in relation to a so called awakened self .
|
|