|
|
Post by shadowplay on Dec 28, 2019 8:25:22 GMT -5
It seems that most here have the sense/belief that Self/Oneness/THIS… is 'one without a second' - and that delusion is seeing multiplicity where there is none. Yet it seems as if there are two prominent variations of this central insight which are somewhat at odds with each other. The first version has quite an extreme take on what constitutes illusion. In this, everything known - all that manifests - including thoughts, ideas, perceptions, emotions etc. are illusory. There are no other minds, points of view or other of anything for that matter - all there is is Self/Source. Any concession to otherness is delusion. In this there is a kind of split between the knowing aspect and the illusion aspect. (A softer version of this asserts that there may be other minds/pov but we cannot know for sure.) The second version doesn’t necessarily doubt that there are multiple points of view, that dinosaurs happened, that organisms have nervous systems etc. They are not posited as illusions as such - but taking them to be separate, fixed, inherently existing and permanent IS delusory. Seeing the emptiness of manifestations/appearances including the apparent self-entity corresponds with the realisation of Oneness/THIS and its utter perfection and sovereignty - in this, manifestations are not abandoned they are realised to be THIS/Oneness manifest and can even be understood to be sacred in that respect (lift a stone and there I am.) (A variation of this suggests that even concepts such as the witness and even awareness itself can understood to be an expression of Oneness manifest.) In reading through some older posts here this broad difference seems to be at the root of a certain amount of tension which seem irreconcilable due to the structure of each outlook. For instance, I notice that the first camp accuse the second camp of having an incomplete realisation since they acknowledge an experiential component to realisation. Now this is perfectly consistent with the first camp’s outlook/belief - but is misconceived when applied to the second camp. For the first camp realisations are never the result of any happenings experientially. For the second camp this is a non-issue since all there is is Oneness/THIS and its play is a continual invitation to remember itself. Just some thoughts - I may be way off the mark - I’m sure you’ll let me know.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 28, 2019 9:54:08 GMT -5
It seems that most here have the sense/belief that Self/Oneness/THIS… is 'one without a second' - and that delusion is seeing multiplicity where there is none. Yet it seems as if there are two prominent variations of this central insight which are somewhat at odds with each other. The first version has quite an extreme take on what constitutes illusion. In this, everything known - all that manifests - including thoughts, ideas, perceptions, emotions etc. are illusory. There are no other minds, points of view or other of anything for that matter - all there is is Self/Source. Any concession to otherness is delusion. In this there is a kind of split between the knowing aspect and the illusion aspect. (A softer version of this asserts that there may be other minds/pov but we cannot know for sure.) The second version doesn’t necessarily doubt that there are multiple points of view, that dinosaurs happened, that organisms have nervous systems etc. They are not posited as illusions as such - but taking them to be separate, fixed, inherently existing and permanent IS delusory. Seeing the emptiness of manifestations/appearances including the apparent self-entity corresponds with the realisation of Oneness/THIS and its utter perfection and sovereignty - in this, manifestations are not abandoned they are realised to be THIS/Oneness manifest and can even be understood to be sacred in that respect (lift a stone and there I am.) (A variation of this suggests that even concepts such as the witness and even awareness itself can understood to be an expression of Oneness manifest.) In reading through some older posts here this broad difference seems to be at the root of a certain amount of tension which seem irreconcilable due to the structure of each outlook. For instance, I notice that the first camp accuse the second camp of having an incomplete realisation since they acknowledge an experiential component to realisation. Now this is perfectly consistent with the first camp’s outlook/belief - but is misconceived when applied to the second camp. For the first camp realisations are never the result of any happenings experientially. For the second camp this is a non-issue since all there is is Oneness/THIS and its play is a continual invitation to remember itself. Just some thoughts - I may be way off the mark - I’m sure you’ll let me know. That sounds about right. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 28, 2019 10:12:11 GMT -5
As a subject for discussion, non-duality is toxic for the mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2019 12:49:22 GMT -5
It seems that most here have the sense/belief that Self/Oneness/THIS… is 'one without a second' - and that delusion is seeing multiplicity where there is none. Yet it seems as if there are two prominent variations of this central insight which are somewhat at odds with each other. The first version has quite an extreme take on what constitutes illusion. In this, everything known - all that manifests - including thoughts, ideas, perceptions, emotions etc. are illusory. There are no other minds, points of view or other of anything for that matter - all there is is Self/Source. Any concession to otherness is delusion. In this there is a kind of split between the knowing aspect and the illusion aspect. (A softer version of this asserts that there may be other minds/pov but we cannot know for sure.) The second version doesn’t necessarily doubt that there are multiple points of view, that dinosaurs happened, that organisms have nervous systems etc. They are not posited as illusions as such - but taking them to be separate, fixed, inherently existing and permanent IS delusory. Seeing the emptiness of manifestations/appearances including the apparent self-entity corresponds with the realisation of Oneness/THIS and its utter perfection and sovereignty - in this, manifestations are not abandoned they are realised to be THIS/Oneness manifest and can even be understood to be sacred in that respect (lift a stone and there I am.) (A variation of this suggests that even concepts such as the witness and even awareness itself can understood to be an expression of Oneness manifest.) In reading through some older posts here this broad difference seems to be at the root of a certain amount of tension which seem irreconcilable due to the structure of each outlook. For instance, I notice that the first camp accuse the second camp of having an incomplete realisation since they acknowledge an experiential component to realisation. Now this is perfectly consistent with the first camp’s outlook/belief - but is misconceived when applied to the second camp. For the first camp realisations are never the result of any happenings experientially. For the second camp this is a non-issue since all there is is Oneness/THIS and its play is a continual invitation to remember itself. Just some thoughts - I may be way off the mark - I’m sure you’ll let me know. Or not!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2019 12:56:51 GMT -5
As a subject for discussion, non-duality is toxic for the mind. Depends on the mind ingesting it and the source and delivery of the pointing. In the right circumstances, it can be the medicine that cures all ills, once and for all. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Dec 29, 2019 6:22:06 GMT -5
It seems that most here have the sense/belief that Self/Oneness/THIS… is 'one without a second' - and that delusion is seeing multiplicity where there is none. Yet it seems as if there are two prominent variations of this central insight which are somewhat at odds with each other. The first version has quite an extreme take on what constitutes illusion. In this, everything known - all that manifests - including thoughts, ideas, perceptions, emotions etc. are illusory. There are no other minds, points of view or other of anything for that matter - all there is is Self/Source. Any concession to otherness is delusion. In this there is a kind of split between the knowing aspect and the illusion aspect. (A softer version of this asserts that there may be other minds/pov but we cannot know for sure.) The second version doesn’t necessarily doubt that there are multiple points of view, that dinosaurs happened, that organisms have nervous systems etc. They are not posited as illusions as such - but taking them to be separate, fixed, inherently existing and permanent IS delusory. Seeing the emptiness of manifestations/appearances including the apparent self-entity corresponds with the realisation of Oneness/THIS and its utter perfection and sovereignty - in this, manifestations are not abandoned they are realised to be THIS/Oneness manifest and can even be understood to be sacred in that respect (lift a stone and there I am.) (A variation of this suggests that even concepts such as the witness and even awareness itself can understood to be an expression of Oneness manifest.) In reading through some older posts here this broad difference seems to be at the root of a certain amount of tension which seem irreconcilable due to the structure of each outlook. For instance, I notice that the first camp accuse the second camp of having an incomplete realisation since they acknowledge an experiential component to realisation. Now this is perfectly consistent with the first camp’s outlook/belief - but is misconceived when applied to the second camp. For the first camp realisations are never the result of any happenings experientially. For the second camp this is a non-issue since all there is is Oneness/THIS and its play is a continual invitation to remember itself. Just some thoughts - I may be way off the mark - I’m sure you’ll let me know. Or not! And yet… |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Dec 29, 2019 6:24:45 GMT -5
As a subject for discussion, non-duality is toxic for the mind. Trust me, I don’t particularly want to start one. But I was interested in the repetitive nature of discussions here which seem to go round and round without resolving. On one hand we have those who insist that the mechanics of realisation is beyond the relative - period. And on the other hand we have those who agree that THAT which is realised is not within the relative - but that the relative is the playground from which realisation takes place - since the relative IS not other than the ABSOLUTE AT PLAY. There are not two realms. Again, I might have missed something. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 29, 2019 7:29:48 GMT -5
As a subject for discussion, non-duality is toxic for the mind. Trust me, I don’t particularly want to start one. But I was interested in the repetitive nature of discussions here which seem to go round and round without resolving. On one hand we have those who insist that the mechanics of realisation is beyond the relative - period. And on the other hand we have those who agree that THAT which is realised is not within the relative - but that the relative is the playground from which realisation takes place - since the relative IS not other than the ABSOLUTE AT PLAY. There are not two realms. Again, I might have missed something. You don't need to know anything about nonduality to realize the Self. I've come to the conclusion that it's more of a hindrance than a help. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 29, 2019 10:34:20 GMT -5
As a subject for discussion, non-duality is toxic for the mind. Trust me, I don’t particularly want to start one. But I was interested in the repetitive nature of discussions here which seem to go round and round without resolving. On one hand we have those who insist that the mechanics of realisation is beyond the relative - period. And on the other hand we have those who agree that THAT which is realised is not within the relative - but that the relative is the playground from which realisation takes place - since the relative IS not other than the ABSOLUTE AT PLAY. There are not two realms. Again, I might have missed something. I think that's about right. Someone once said that this website should be renamed "Squabbling Sages," and there's a lot of truth to that idea. ATST, many people who post here provide interesting pointers that seekers might find helpful. At one time the ST website was rated one of the top four non-duality websites in the world by some spiritual magazine, although I doubt that it would make the top ten these days. Reefs has eliminated most of the food fighting that used to occur, and that seems to have helped a lot. Probably 95% of the postings deal with insignificant differences of opinion about ND matters, but occasionally some good stuff shows up. FWIW, the ST forum is blessed with some excellent writers and a lot of extremely smart people, so it can be a fun place to visit for people interested in ND-related topics. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Dec 29, 2019 13:06:46 GMT -5
Trust me, I don’t particularly want to start one. But I was interested in the repetitive nature of discussions here which seem to go round and round without resolving. On one hand we have those who insist that the mechanics of realisation is beyond the relative - period. And on the other hand we have those who agree that THAT which is realised is not within the relative - but that the relative is the playground from which realisation takes place - since the relative IS not other than the ABSOLUTE AT PLAY. There are not two realms. Again, I might have missed something. I think that's about right. Someone once said that this website should be renamed "Squabbling Sages," and there's a lot of truth to that idea. ATST, many people who post here provide interesting pointers that seekers might find helpful. At one time the ST website was rated one of the top four non-duality websites in the world by some spiritual magazine, although I doubt that it would make the top ten these days. Reefs has eliminated most of the food fighting that used to occur, and that seems to have helped a lot. Probably 95% of the postings deal with insignificant differences of opinion about ND matters, but occasionally some good stuff shows up. FWIW, the ST forum is blessed with some excellent writers and a lot of extremely smart people, so it can be a fun place to visit for people interested in ND-related topics. Yes, I did come across this place about three or four years ago and was put off by the incessant and pointless squabbling - and incredibly, the topics were exactly the same - even down to Tenka talking about putting his pants on. But yes, I definitely get the sense that there are some very smart and insightful contributors here. |
|
