|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 27, 2015 17:20:03 GMT -5
Hi Amit,
For me non-duality is a word that points to the realization that the entire cosmos is a unified whole and that all separation is imaginary. The non-dual nature of the cosmos can be experienced directly, through cosmic consciousness experiences (in which the cosmos is somehow directly apprehended from the "inside" wherein the perceiver IS the cosmos), or seen through a sudden realization that the observer is the observed.
What I consider the "path" of non-duality leads away from dominance of the intellect and attachment to ideas (living in one's head) to direct perception, direct action, and direct understanding through the body (living in the world free of imagination). It leads from a kind of conditioned concensus trance in which the cosmos is seen as something located in space and time populated by things and events to a way of seeing the cosmos as an unfolding isness--a verb rather than a noun.
The most significant aspect of non-duality, for this body/mind, is the free-flowing nature of it (when thoughts and beliefs no longer hold sway).
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2015 20:14:55 GMT -5
Hi Amit, For me non-duality is a word that points to the realization that the entire cosmos is a unified whole and that all separation is imaginary. The non-dual nature of the cosmos can be experienced directly, through cosmic consciousness experiences (in which the cosmos is somehow directly apprehended from the "inside" wherein the perceiver IS the cosmos), or seen through a sudden realization that the observer is the observed. What I consider the "path" of non-duality leads away from dominance of the intellect and attachment to ideas (living in one's head) to direct perception, direct action, and direct understanding through the body (living in the world free of imagination). It leads from a kind of conditioned concensus trance in which the cosmos is seen as something located in space and time populated by things and events to a way of seeing the cosmos as an unfolding isness--a verb rather than a noun. The most significant aspect of non-duality, for this body/mind, is the free-flowing nature of it (when thoughts and beliefs no longer hold sway). Maybe another way of approaching this is to say experience is a movement only. Not a movement of 'something' but rather just a movement. The 'something' is assumed from experiencing the movement. So as you say, the universe is actually a movement; a verb. If this can be seen, then it may also be seen that this movement is happening 'in here', in/as consciousness itself, and one may stop looking for an objective actuality. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 27, 2015 21:14:19 GMT -5
Hi Amit, For me non-duality is a word that points to the realization that the entire cosmos is a unified whole and that all separation is imaginary. The non-dual nature of the cosmos can be experienced directly, through cosmic consciousness experiences (in which the cosmos is somehow directly apprehended from the "inside" wherein the perceiver IS the cosmos), or seen through a sudden realization that the observer is the observed. What I consider the "path" of non-duality leads away from dominance of the intellect and attachment to ideas (living in one's head) to direct perception, direct action, and direct understanding through the body (living in the world free of imagination). It leads from a kind of conditioned concensus trance in which the cosmos is seen as something located in space and time populated by things and events to a way of seeing the cosmos as an unfolding isness--a verb rather than a noun. The most significant aspect of non-duality, for this body/mind, is the free-flowing nature of it (when thoughts and beliefs no longer hold sway). Maybe another way of approaching this is to say experience is a movement only. Not a movement of 'something' but rather just a movement. The 'something' is assumed from experiencing the movement. So as you say, the universe is actually a movement; a verb. If this can be seen, then it may also be seen that this movement is happening 'in here', in/as consciousness itself, and one may stop looking for an objective actuality. I'm totally in synch with the first paragraph, and after some reflection, the second paragraph probably states the case better than anything else I can think of. I've never totally resonated with the statement, "Consciousness is all there is," but during a CC experience it became obvious to this body/mind that if the perceivable universe disappeared, awareness would remain. It was seen that what we call "the universe" appears within awareness rather than the other way round. Awareness was perceived as infinite, whereas the observable universe was not. At the same time, it seemed as if awareness and intelligence was a property of what we call "matter," and I had the distinct impression that Source is alive AS everything, as well as being BEYOND everything. From my POV there is certainly no objective reality in the sense that anything exists outside of it capable of objectifying it other than through an act of imagination, and perhaps this is what your statement meant. I used to wonder what sustained the stability of the non-conceptually observed universe, but perhaps that, too, is simply a play of consciousness? At the time when that was a subject of wonder, a CC experience occurred, and afterwards I concluded that it didn't really matter one way or the other; I was content to leave the matter in the hands of THAT. *smile* |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 0:15:16 GMT -5
Maybe another way of approaching this is to say experience is a movement only. Not a movement of 'something' but rather just a movement. The 'something' is assumed from experiencing the movement. So as you say, the universe is actually a movement; a verb. If this can be seen, then it may also be seen that this movement is happening 'in here', in/as consciousness itself, and one may stop looking for an objective actuality. I'm totally in synch with the first paragraph, and after some reflection, the second paragraph probably states the case better than anything else I can think of. I've never totally resonated with the statement, "Consciousness is all there is," but during a CC experience it became obvious to this body/mind that if the perceivable universe disappeared, awareness would remain. It was seen that what we call "the universe" appears within awareness rather than the other way round. Awareness was perceived as infinite, whereas the observable universe was not. At the same time, it seemed as if awareness and intelligence was a property of what we call "matter," and I had the distinct impression that Source is alive AS everything, as well as being BEYOND everything. From my POV there is certainly no objective reality in the sense that anything exists outside of it capable of objectifying it other than through an act of imagination, and perhaps this is what your statement meant. I don't either. I've gotten sloppy over the years, making some accommodations to the way lots of folks talk about it, but I used to say awareness is all there is, and consciousness is a movement of awareness. Basically, that means you are awareness, and the universe is the movement of awareness, (God waving his arms) and can indeed come and go, while awareness remains. Obviously, the movement of awareness (consciousness)is not other than awareness itself, and so nowhere is there found any separation, even between awareness and consciousness, or intelligence and the universe, or formlessness and form. However we want to talk about doesn't really matter because the terms are just concessions to the need to identify the apparent pieces of an imaginary puzzle. My answer to the stability issue is the radical singularity of this movement. IOW, parts of your nightly dreams never go off willy nilly because there is no 'space' between the formation of your dream and the perception of it. As I say, perception and creation are the same, so what is left to chance? Where could instability originate? Every hair is counted. Nothing is random. Stability is the nature of uncompromising unification. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jan 28, 2015 1:52:13 GMT -5
I'm totally in synch with the first paragraph, and after some reflection, the second paragraph probably states the case better than anything else I can think of. I've never totally resonated with the statement, "Consciousness is all there is," but during a CC experience it became obvious to this body/mind that if the perceivable universe disappeared, awareness would remain. It was seen that what we call "the universe" appears within awareness rather than the other way round. Awareness was perceived as infinite, whereas the observable universe was not. At the same time, it seemed as if awareness and intelligence was a property of what we call "matter," and I had the distinct impression that Source is alive AS everything, as well as being BEYOND everything. From my POV there is certainly no objective reality in the sense that anything exists outside of it capable of objectifying it other than through an act of imagination, and perhaps this is what your statement meant. I don't either. I've gotten sloppy over the years, making some accommodations to the way lots of folks talk about it, but I used to say awareness is all there is, and consciousness is a movement of awareness. Basically, that means you are awareness, and the universe is the movement of awareness, (God waving his arms) and can indeed come and go, while awareness remains. Obviously, the movement of awareness (consciousness)is not other than awareness itself, and so nowhere is there found any separation, even between awareness and consciousness, or intelligence and the universe, or formlessness and form. However we want to talk about doesn't really matter because the terms are just concessions to the need to identify the apparent pieces of an imaginary puzzle. My answer to the stability issue is the radical singularity of this movement. IOW, parts of your nightly dreams never go off willy nilly because there is no 'space' between the formation of your dream and the perception of it. As I say, perception and creation are the same, so what is left to chance? Where could instability originate? Every hair is counted. Nothing is random. Stability is the nature of uncompromising unification. Exactly....it's all 'stable' so to speak, because you are creating what you observe by the act of observing. Its interesting to me, that the more non-conceptually I observe the world, the less stable it actually appears....for example, when I look from a state a stillness so deep that there is not even a sense of subtle familiarity, all seems obviously to be mere thought, ephemeral stuff like sleeping dreams. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jan 28, 2015 6:29:18 GMT -5
Hi Amit, For me non-duality is a word that points to the realization that the entire cosmos is a unified whole and that all separation is imaginary. The non-dual nature of the cosmos can be experienced directly, through cosmic consciousness experiences (in which the cosmos is somehow directly apprehended from the "inside" wherein the perceiver IS the cosmos), or seen through a sudden realization that the observer is the observed. What I consider the "path" of non-duality leads away from dominance of the intellect and attachment to ideas (living in one's head) to direct perception, direct action, and direct understanding through the body (living in the world free of imagination). It leads from a kind of conditioned concensus trance in which the cosmos is seen as something located in space and time populated by things and events to a way of seeing the cosmos as an unfolding isness--a verb rather than a noun. The most significant aspect of non-duality, for this body/mind, is the free-flowing nature of it (when thoughts and beliefs no longer hold sway). Hi Zendancer, Thank you for that response. I am getting that the specific concern/interest that led to the search was to do with thoughts regarded as undesirable/troublesome. If so is it possible to describe the main one? Please modify if that's totally wrong. I get the most important aspect of the description held. Thanks. amit |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 6:32:00 GMT -5
Hi Laughter, That's really helpful and clear. Thank you. amit Best of luck with the project guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 6:43:28 GMT -5
I used to wonder what sustained the stability of the non-conceptually observed universe, but perhaps that, too, is simply a play of consciousness? At the time when that was a subject of wonder, a CC experience occurred, and afterwards I concluded that it didn't really matter one way or the other; I was content to leave the matter in the hands of THAT. *smile*
|
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jan 28, 2015 6:59:19 GMT -5
Hi Laughter,
The results will be published FWIW:) when it feels like there are enough accounts, maybe 50 or so. It looks like the majority will be those motivated by a feeling of separation from Oneness/Source (many different names were given for this) and resonated with the idea that separation from Oneness is impossible, that even the feeling of separateness is not separate. For some there was a requirement for this to be realized, but for others there were no requirements whatsoever, including the requirement to realize anything at all.
As far as I know there is no version with a name or title that reflects the latter. Those that object to it may find it easy to find one that will not be very flattering:)
amit
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 7:17:28 GMT -5
Hi Laughter, The results will be published FWIW:) when it feels like there are enough accounts, maybe 50 or so. It looks like the majority will be those motivated by a feeling of separation from Oneness/Source (many different names were given for this) and resonated with the idea that separation from Oneness is impossible, that even the feeling of separateness is not separate. For some there was a requirement for this to be realized, but for others there were no requirements whatsoever, including the requirement to realize anything at all. As far as I know there is no version with a name or title that reflects the latter. Those that object to it may find it easy to find one that will not be very flattering  amit  ... well please post a link to the publication when it happens. Put that way that does match my experience, it's just that the motivation based on a feeling of separation all happened before I'd read the term "nonduality". Instead what I had up to that time were various forms of monism. Not-two served (and serves) as an invaluable point of reference, after the fact, for quiecing the mind away from searching for what is obviously always right here and now. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 28, 2015 9:58:55 GMT -5
Hi Amit, For me non-duality is a word that points to the realization that the entire cosmos is a unified whole and that all separation is imaginary. The non-dual nature of the cosmos can be experienced directly, through cosmic consciousness experiences (in which the cosmos is somehow directly apprehended from the "inside" wherein the perceiver IS the cosmos), or seen through a sudden realization that the observer is the observed. What I consider the "path" of non-duality leads away from dominance of the intellect and attachment to ideas (living in one's head) to direct perception, direct action, and direct understanding through the body (living in the world free of imagination). It leads from a kind of conditioned concensus trance in which the cosmos is seen as something located in space and time populated by things and events to a way of seeing the cosmos as an unfolding isness--a verb rather than a noun. The most significant aspect of non-duality, for this body/mind, is the free-flowing nature of it (when thoughts and beliefs no longer hold sway). Hi Zendancer, Thank you for that response. I am getting that the specific concern/interest that led to the search was to do with thoughts regarded as undesirable/troublesome. If so is it possible to describe the main one? Please modify if that's totally wrong. I get the most important aspect of the description held. Thanks. amit Correct. The mind was like a machine that had begun running out of control--worrying, thinking, reflecting, calculating, talking, imagining, etc. non-stop--and I just wanted some internal peace (what Tolle calls "freedom from the compulsion of incessant thought"). "I" couldn't shut off the mind and simply focus on one thing at a time. I still had dozens, if not hundreds, of unanswered existential questions at that time, but if I had to point to one factor that started me meditating, it was an internal dialogue that had run amok. There was no one thought that was more troubling than others; it was simply the incessant nature of them. Thoughts about financial debt, business strategies, technical construction problems, keeping customers satisfied, keeping employees satisfied, ways to attract new customers, home design issues, etc. seemed endless. It was what Zen people call "monkey mind," but magnified in scope and scale. Only after several months of serious meditation did existential insights and realizations start to occur, but it was a long time before any silence between thoughts became recognizable. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 10:25:28 GMT -5
I don't either. I've gotten sloppy over the years, making some accommodations to the way lots of folks talk about it, but I used to say awareness is all there is, and consciousness is a movement of awareness. Basically, that means you are awareness, and the universe is the movement of awareness, (God waving his arms) and can indeed come and go, while awareness remains. Obviously, the movement of awareness (consciousness)is not other than awareness itself, and so nowhere is there found any separation, even between awareness and consciousness, or intelligence and the universe, or formlessness and form. However we want to talk about doesn't really matter because the terms are just concessions to the need to identify the apparent pieces of an imaginary puzzle. My answer to the stability issue is the radical singularity of this movement. IOW, parts of your nightly dreams never go off willy nilly because there is no 'space' between the formation of your dream and the perception of it. As I say, perception and creation are the same, so what is left to chance? Where could instability originate? Every hair is counted. Nothing is random. Stability is the nature of uncompromising unification. Exactly....it's all 'stable' so to speak, because you are creating what you observe by the act of observing. Its interesting to me, that the more non-conceptually I observe the world, the less stable it actually appears....for example, when I look from a state a stillness so deep that there is not even a sense of subtle familiarity, all seems obviously to be mere thought, ephemeral stuff like sleeping dreams. Yes, I've said that the universe is precariously balanced on the head of a pin, which would seem to imply instability, but really it's about infinite potential in every moment. The notion of stability/instability is based on the idea of randomness and chance and the resulting need for control. Since the universe is whole, none of that is more than appearance and it doesn't drive the functioning of the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jan 28, 2015 10:26:42 GMT -5
Hi Amit, For me non-duality is a word that points to the realization that the entire cosmos is a unified whole and that all separation is imaginary. The non-dual nature of the cosmos can be experienced directly, through cosmic consciousness experiences (in which the cosmos is somehow directly apprehended from the "inside" wherein the perceiver IS the cosmos), or seen through a sudden realization that the observer is the observed. What I consider the "path" of non-duality leads away from dominance of the intellect and attachment to ideas (living in one's head) to direct perception, direct action, and direct understanding through the body (living in the world free of imagination). It leads from a kind of conditioned concensus trance in which the cosmos is seen as something located in space and time populated by things and events to a way of seeing the cosmos as an unfolding isness--a verb rather than a noun. The most significant aspect of non-duality, for this body/mind, is the free-flowing nature of it (when thoughts and beliefs no longer hold sway). Hi Zendancer, Thank you for that response. I am getting that the specific concern/interest that led to the search was to do with thoughts regarded as undesirable/troublesome. If so is it possible to describe the main one? Please modify if that's totally wrong. I get the most important aspect of the description held. Thanks. amit Hi Amit, it's exactly this kind of post that corrupts and shapes study input....when you write this kind of thing it's bad science, and creates the appearence that you are trying to shape data to an already formed theory, versus just looking openly and scientifically to see what's there ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 28, 2015 10:29:29 GMT -5
Hi Zendancer, Thank you for that response. I am getting that the specific concern/interest that led to the search was to do with thoughts regarded as undesirable/troublesome. If so is it possible to describe the main one? Please modify if that's totally wrong. I get the most important aspect of the description held. Thanks. amit Correct. The mind was like a machine that had begun running out of control--worrying, thinking, reflecting, calculating, talking, imagining, etc. non-stop--and I just wanted some internal peace (what Tolle calls "freedom from the compulsion of incessant thought"). "I" couldn't shut off the mind and simply focus on one thing at a time. I still had dozens, if not hundreds, of unanswered existential questions at that time, but if I had to point to one factor that started me meditating, it was an internal dialogue that had run amok. There was no one thought that was more troubling than others; it was simply the incessant nature of them. Thoughts about financial debt, business strategies, technical construction problems, keeping customers satisfied, keeping employees satisfied, ways to attract new customers, home design issues, etc. seemed endless. It was what Zen people call "monkey mind," but magnified in scope and scale. Only after several months of serious meditation did existential insights and realizations start to occur, but it was a long time before any silence between thoughts became recognizable. The incessant mind issue is common to probably everyone, as is the desire to escape it. What's uncommon is that rather than turn to sex, drugs and rock-n-roll as a way to cope, slow down or anesthetize, you turned within to face the issue head on. Was that a purely instinctual movement? What gave you the clue to look within for the answer/s? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 10:30:20 GMT -5
Hi Laughter, The results will be published FWIW:) when it feels like there are enough accounts, maybe 50 or so. It looks like the majority will be those motivated by a feeling of separation from Oneness/Source (many different names were given for this) and resonated with the idea that separation from Oneness is impossible, that even the feeling of separateness is not separate. For some there was a requirement for this to be realized, but for others there were no requirements whatsoever, including the requirement to realize anything at all. As far as I know there is no version with a name or title that reflects the latter. Those that object to it may find it easy to find one that will not be very flattering:) amit Like self delusion? |
|
... well please post a link to the publication when it happens.