|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 9:54:13 GMT -5
If what actually 'is', is how one perceives it, then everybody is right, self deception and illusion are impossible. There's nothing subjective about that. That's what actually 'is' regardless of what you see. What is right is how you see it as being right . Do you see  . For everybody to be right is what you have ascertained through self evaluation / contemplation . I see it that the mind can allow one to perceive the same thing differently it only becomes a matter of being a right way or a wrong way of perceiving the same thing when one concludes as such . If I understand, what you're calling perception does not include thought? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 10:03:50 GMT -5
It takes more effort than I can muster sometimes, and I don't blame folks for not wanting to follow the conversations. hear da'aat phroggy  .. can't blame folks for buyin' a paintin' or two now and then either .. the dark colors of the stuck killjoy can really accent a wall well ya' know ... That latest painting of the blood drenched flowers pretty much tells the story.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 10:12:38 GMT -5
Separation is a conclusion. If you don't conclude that,then you don't have to confirm or refute that conclusion. Sounds like you are now saying that to speak of the illusionary or apparent nature of 'separation' is deluded. Which is just sillyness. It doesn't sound like I'm saying that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 10:25:05 GMT -5
I just got through telling you I'm not playing the 'non' game.  Okay, lets stick with this. So you are done with the 'non' word, which would included 'non' duality. But based on what you said, you can get on board with 'appearances are not actually separate but are also not the same' Can you get on board with 'experiences are not actually separate but are also not the same'? Also, 'appearances/experiences are not actually dualistic but are also not absolute'? To me, dualistic refers to appearances and the movement of experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 10:31:01 GMT -5
That's why the whole yin-yanginationating discussion happened. The other end of the stick even shows up here in the discussion, but she's trained herself not to see it. The Happiness and Peace that Spira spoke of, the Bliss of Self that Ramana spoke of, the Peace, Joy and Love that Tolle speaks of, the causeless happiness and serene joy that Adya speaks of, the well-being that Abe speaks of, the Joy and loving contentment that Mooji spoke of.....these do not ying yang. In fact, if someone gets a promotion and is happy, and then is demoted and is sad, its the judgement and attachment causing the swing, its not the feeling itself. The only way happiness could cause sadness is if feelings exist as oppositional pairs on a see saw, in which case each pair would have to objectively exist separately from every other pair.
Happiness doesn't cause sadness. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 10:50:32 GMT -5
Okay, lets stick with this. So you are done with the 'non' word, which would included 'non' duality. But based on what you said, you can get on board with 'appearances are not actually separate but are also not the same' Can you get on board with 'experiences are not actually separate but are also not the same'? Also, 'appearances/experiences are not actually dualistic but are also not absolute'? To me, dualistic refers to appearances and the movement of experience. Okay, would you agree that 'dualistic' is 'twoness'? You see, I could theoretically get on board with the fact that your use of word 'duality' and my use of the word 'non-duality' could mean the same thing, but if we both agree that duality is 'twoness', then it is difficult. Can you get on board with the idea that appearances/experiences are not 'actually two' but are also not the same'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 10:51:39 GMT -5
The Happiness and Peace that Spira spoke of, the Bliss of Self that Ramana spoke of, the Peace, Joy and Love that Tolle speaks of, the causeless happiness and serene joy that Adya speaks of, the well-being that Abe speaks of, the Joy and loving contentment that Mooji spoke of.....these do not ying yang. In fact, if someone gets a promotion and is happy, and then is demoted and is sad, its the judgement and attachment causing the swing, its not the feeling itself. The only way happiness could cause sadness is if feelings exist as oppositional pairs on a see saw, in which case each pair would have to objectively exist separately from every other pair.
Happiness doesn't cause sadness. okay, good. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 12:12:25 GMT -5
To me, dualistic refers to appearances and the movement of experience. Okay, would you agree that 'dualistic' is 'twoness'? I would say duality refers to the illusion of multiplicity. It just makes no sense that my duality and your non-duality could mean the same thing. If that's so, then there has been a massive failure to make use of the English language to communicate. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 13:02:33 GMT -5
Okay, would you agree that 'dualistic' is 'twoness'? I would say duality refers to the illusion of multiplicity. It just makes no sense that my duality and your non-duality could mean the same thing. If that's so, then there has been a massive failure to make use of the English language to communicate. Yes. okay, good. The confusion in our dialogue that I am seeing is this. I might say in one conversation that experiences/expressions/appearances are illusion, but then I would also say that it is an illusion that each appearance/experience is actually separate from another. To me they are slightly different illusions and contexts. Now, I would say that experiences/expressions/appearances CAN be experienced without the illusion that each expression/experience/appearances is 'actually' separate from another. That's why I say that the illusion of duality is the illusion that each experience is 'actually' separate. If I was then going to say that experiences/expressions/appearances are an illusion, then I would say that what is prior is Real. *** I'm not sure in your perspective if the 'actual separation' between expressions/experiences/appearances is the illusion, or if the experience/appearance/expression itself is the illusion. You probably meld the two together and that's okay I guess. To you its all one context. The problem I see with that though, is that it doesn't leave the potential of experiencing expressions without the illusion that each one is 'actually' separate from another, because for you, the expression and the 'actual separation' are the same illusion. Does that make sense? I tried quite hard with this message. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:22:48 GMT -5
I would say duality refers to the illusion of multiplicity. It just makes no sense that my duality and your non-duality could mean the same thing. If that's so, then there has been a massive failure to make use of the English language to communicate. Yes. okay, good. The confusion in our dialogue that I am seeing is this. I might say in one conversation that experiences/expressions/appearances are illusion, but then I would also say that it is an illusion that each appearance/experience is actually separate from another. To me they are slightly different illusions and contexts. Now, I would say that experiences/expressions/appearances CAN be experienced without the illusion that each expression/experience/appearances is 'actually' separate from another. That's why I say that the illusion of duality is the illusion that each experience is 'actually' separate. If I was then going to say that experiences/expressions/appearances are an illusion, then I would say that what is prior is Real. *** I'm not sure in your perspective if the 'actual separation' between expressions/experiences/appearances is the illusion, or if the experience/appearance/expression itself is the illusion. You probably meld the two together and that's okay I guess. To you its all one context. The problem I see with that though, is that it doesn't leave the potential of experiencing expressions without the illusion that each one is 'actually' separate from another, because for you, the expression and the 'actual separation' are the same illusion. Does that make sense? I tried quite hard with this message. Just dropping in for my bimonthly andrew-enigma perhaps-off-topic and perhaps-irritating comment. Ignore if you want. Andrew, what do you think of the different context caution? Last time we had an interchange it was in this very similar scenario, where you are ruminating on the meaning of appearance or experience and whether it is dual or nondual. My feeling is as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, having a beginning and an end, and therefore limited, bounded and not nondual. Nondual, as I understand it is a different category or context. Anything about appearances or experiences has to be not in the nondual category because there's a bit of slicing and dicing necessary, a bit of conceptualizing that has to happen. In other words, if there are concepts at play, descriptions about what is happening, we're communicating within the category of duality. Nonduality of course would encompass, or be prior to, all of that, but that's another context. So I hear you arguing that appearances are nondual because everything is nondual. But the thing is, the concept of an appearance is within the conceptual category of duality because limits are required for there to be an appearance. Even if you talk about appearance being like the quale red, there needs to be a generous amount of dual-slicing-dicing happening. Basically I feel like I understand you to be saying that nonduality is the case, and since appearances and experiences happen, they also must be nondual. The problem as I see it, however, is that the process of conceptualizing/articulating appearance/experience requires the adoption of rules dictated by duality. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 13:37:59 GMT -5
okay, good. The confusion in our dialogue that I am seeing is this. I might say in one conversation that experiences/expressions/appearances are illusion, but then I would also say that it is an illusion that each appearance/experience is actually separate from another. To me they are slightly different illusions and contexts. Now, I would say that experiences/expressions/appearances CAN be experienced without the illusion that each expression/experience/appearances is 'actually' separate from another. That's why I say that the illusion of duality is the illusion that each experience is 'actually' separate. If I was then going to say that experiences/expressions/appearances are an illusion, then I would say that what is prior is Real. *** I'm not sure in your perspective if the 'actual separation' between expressions/experiences/appearances is the illusion, or if the experience/appearance/expression itself is the illusion. You probably meld the two together and that's okay I guess. To you its all one context. The problem I see with that though, is that it doesn't leave the potential of experiencing expressions without the illusion that each one is 'actually' separate from another, because for you, the expression and the 'actual separation' are the same illusion. Does that make sense? I tried quite hard with this message. Just dropping in for my bimonthly andrew-enigma perhaps-off-topic and perhaps-irritating comment. Ignore if you want. Andrew, what do you think of the different context caution? Last time we had an interchange it was in this very similar scenario, where you are ruminating on the meaning of appearance or experience and whether it is dual or nondual. My feeling is as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, having a beginning and an end, and therefore limited, bounded and not nondual. Nondual, as I understand it is a different category or context. Anything about appearances or experiences has to be not in the nondual category because there's a bit of slicing and dicing necessary, a bit of conceptualizing that has to happen. In other words, if there are concepts at play, descriptions about what is happening, we're communicating within the category of duality. Nonduality of course would encompass, or be prior to, all of that, but that's another context. So I hear you arguing that appearances are nondual because everything is nondual. But the thing is, the concept of an appearance is within the conceptual category of duality because limits are required for there to be an appearance. Even if you talk about appearance being like the quale red, there needs to be a generous amount of dual-slicing-dicing happening. Basically I feel like I understand you to be saying that nonduality is the case, and since appearances and experiences happen, they also must be nondual. The problem as I see it, however, is that the process of conceptualizing/articulating appearance/experience requires the adoption of rules dictated by duality. I do agree that as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, limited, finite and bound. But.....I would say that it is not JUST those thing. When I say that appearances/experiences are non-dual, it includes the dualistic aspect. It says...yes they are temporal, finite and bound but they are not just that. To me, saying that they are dual does give slightly the wrong impression, however, I can get over that, its not a big deal. To me, the core issue at stake is the one I tried to address above i.e. IF experiences can be experienced without a sense of them being 'actually' separate (and I believe they can be), then I would say there are two illusions here worth talking about. The first is the illusion of 'actual' separation. The second is the illusion of experiences themselves. So I don't really care about the labels 'duality or 'non-duality'...they are just labels. What would bother me is if it is being said that experiences cannot be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation. And if they CAN be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation, what is the illusion? Is the illusion what is experienced? Or is the illusion the sense of 'actual' separation? So to me, they are two slightly different contexts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:53:16 GMT -5
Just dropping in for my bimonthly andrew-enigma perhaps-off-topic and perhaps-irritating comment. Ignore if you want. Andrew, what do you think of the different context caution? Last time we had an interchange it was in this very similar scenario, where you are ruminating on the meaning of appearance or experience and whether it is dual or nondual. My feeling is as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, having a beginning and an end, and therefore limited, bounded and not nondual. Nondual, as I understand it is a different category or context. Anything about appearances or experiences has to be not in the nondual category because there's a bit of slicing and dicing necessary, a bit of conceptualizing that has to happen. In other words, if there are concepts at play, descriptions about what is happening, we're communicating within the category of duality. Nonduality of course would encompass, or be prior to, all of that, but that's another context. So I hear you arguing that appearances are nondual because everything is nondual. But the thing is, the concept of an appearance is within the conceptual category of duality because limits are required for there to be an appearance. Even if you talk about appearance being like the quale red, there needs to be a generous amount of dual-slicing-dicing happening. Basically I feel like I understand you to be saying that nonduality is the case, and since appearances and experiences happen, they also must be nondual. The problem as I see it, however, is that the process of conceptualizing/articulating appearance/experience requires the adoption of rules dictated by duality. I do agree that as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, limited, finite and bound. But.....I would say that it is not JUST those thing. When I say that appearances/experiences are non-dual, it includes the dualistic aspect. It says...yes they are temporal, finite and bound but they are not just that. To me, saying that they are dual does give slightly the wrong impression, however, I can get over that, its not a big deal. To me, the core issue at stake is the one I tried to address above i.e. IF experiences can be experienced without a sense of them being 'actually' separate (and I believe they can be), then I would say there are two illusions here worth talking about. The first is the illusion of 'actual' separation. The second is the illusion of experiences themselves. So I don't really care about the labels 'duality or 'non-duality'...they are just labels. What would bother me is if it is being said that experiences cannot be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation. And if they CAN be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation, what is the illusion? Is the illusion what is experienced? Or is the illusion the sense of 'actual' separation? So to me, they are two slightly different contexts. Your description. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:55:33 GMT -5
Just dropping in for my bimonthly andrew-enigma perhaps-off-topic and perhaps-irritating comment. Ignore if you want. Andrew, what do you think of the different context caution? Last time we had an interchange it was in this very similar scenario, where you are ruminating on the meaning of appearance or experience and whether it is dual or nondual. My feeling is as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, having a beginning and an end, and therefore limited, bounded and not nondual. Nondual, as I understand it is a different category or context. Anything about appearances or experiences has to be not in the nondual category because there's a bit of slicing and dicing necessary, a bit of conceptualizing that has to happen. In other words, if there are concepts at play, descriptions about what is happening, we're communicating within the category of duality. Nonduality of course would encompass, or be prior to, all of that, but that's another context. So I hear you arguing that appearances are nondual because everything is nondual. But the thing is, the concept of an appearance is within the conceptual category of duality because limits are required for there to be an appearance. Even if you talk about appearance being like the quale red, there needs to be a generous amount of dual-slicing-dicing happening. Basically I feel like I understand you to be saying that nonduality is the case, and since appearances and experiences happen, they also must be nondual. The problem as I see it, however, is that the process of conceptualizing/articulating appearance/experience requires the adoption of rules dictated by duality. I do agree that as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, limited, finite and bound. But.....I would say that it is not JUST those thing. When I say that appearances/experiences are non-dual, it includes the dualistic aspect. It says...yes they are temporal, finite and bound but they are not just that. To me, saying that they are dual does give slightly the wrong impression, however, I can get over that, its not a big deal. To me, the core issue at stake is the one I tried to address above i.e. IF experiences can be experienced without a sense of them being 'actually' separate (and I believe they can be), then I would say there are two illusions here worth talking about. The first is the illusion of 'actual' separation. The second is the illusion of experiences themselves. So I don't really care about the labels 'duality or 'non-duality'...they are just labels. What would bother me is if it is being said that experiences cannot be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation. And if they CAN be experienced without the sense of 'actual' separation, what is the illusion? Is the illusion what is experienced? Or is the illusion the sense of 'actual' separation? So to me, they are two slightly different contexts. Does the parabrahman abiding in nondual awareness giggle at a joke? Yawn? Cry? I'd think the answer is yes. Experiences and feelings appear and pass away. It's just that there's no struggle around them, no secondary reactions like I must be really witty, these peeps are boring, no one has ever loved me. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 14:35:58 GMT -5
I would say duality refers to the illusion of multiplicity. It just makes no sense that my duality and your non-duality could mean the same thing. If that's so, then there has been a massive failure to make use of the English language to communicate. Yes. okay, good. The confusion in our dialogue that I am seeing is this. I might say in one conversation that experiences/expressions/appearances are illusion, but then I would also say that it is an illusion that each appearance/experience is actually separate from another. To me they are slightly different illusions and contexts. Now, I would say that experiences/expressions/appearances CAN be experienced without the illusion that each expression/experience/appearances is 'actually' separate from another. That's why I say that the illusion of duality is the illusion that each experience is 'actually' separate. If I was then going to say that experiences/expressions/appearances are an illusion, then I would say that what is prior is Real. *** I'm not sure in your perspective if the 'actual separation' between expressions/experiences/appearances is the illusion, or if the experience/appearance/expression itself is the illusion. You probably meld the two together and that's okay I guess. To you its all one context. The problem I see with that though, is that it doesn't leave the potential of experiencing expressions without the illusion that each one is 'actually' separate from another, because for you, the expression and the 'actual separation' are the same illusion. Does that make sense? I tried quite hard with this message. I appreciate the effort. I don't really have a problem with any of that, and I agree that the disagreement surrounds the notion of what happens to experience when the illusion is seen through. (If you're willing to accept that phrasing) I'd say the only way the experience itself is an illusion is if the nature of appearances isn't seen. If it is, that nature is experienced for what it is. This is why I thought it made sense to focus on what the nature of appearances actually is, as that may be where we diverge. If the nature of appearances is fundamentally imagination, then seeing them for what they are leaves them in the category of imagination and never puts them in the category of fundamentally Real. I rarely use the term 'Real' to refer to that which transcends duality because there's no-thing there. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2014 14:40:22 GMT -5
okay, good. The confusion in our dialogue that I am seeing is this. I might say in one conversation that experiences/expressions/appearances are illusion, but then I would also say that it is an illusion that each appearance/experience is actually separate from another. To me they are slightly different illusions and contexts. Now, I would say that experiences/expressions/appearances CAN be experienced without the illusion that each expression/experience/appearances is 'actually' separate from another. That's why I say that the illusion of duality is the illusion that each experience is 'actually' separate. If I was then going to say that experiences/expressions/appearances are an illusion, then I would say that what is prior is Real. *** I'm not sure in your perspective if the 'actual separation' between expressions/experiences/appearances is the illusion, or if the experience/appearance/expression itself is the illusion. You probably meld the two together and that's okay I guess. To you its all one context. The problem I see with that though, is that it doesn't leave the potential of experiencing expressions without the illusion that each one is 'actually' separate from another, because for you, the expression and the 'actual separation' are the same illusion. Does that make sense? I tried quite hard with this message. Just dropping in for my bimonthly andrew-enigma perhaps-off-topic and perhaps-irritating comment. Ignore if you want. Andrew, what do you think of the different context caution? Last time we had an interchange it was in this very similar scenario, where you are ruminating on the meaning of appearance or experience and whether it is dual or nondual. My feeling is as soon as an appearance is sense-perceived, or an experience experienced, it is by definition temporal, having a beginning and an end, and therefore limited, bounded and not nondual. Nondual, as I understand it is a different category or context. Anything about appearances or experiences has to be not in the nondual category because there's a bit of slicing and dicing necessary, a bit of conceptualizing that has to happen. In other words, if there are concepts at play, descriptions about what is happening, we're communicating within the category of duality. Nonduality of course would encompass, or be prior to, all of that, but that's another context. So I hear you arguing that appearances are nondual because everything is nondual. But the thing is, the concept of an appearance is within the conceptual category of duality because limits are required for there to be an appearance. Even if you talk about appearance being like the quale red, there needs to be a generous amount of dual-slicing-dicing happening. Basically I feel like I understand you to be saying that nonduality is the case, and since appearances and experiences happen, they also must be nondual. The problem as I see it, however, is that the process of conceptualizing/articulating appearance/experience requires the adoption of rules dictated by duality. Well articulated. That's egg-zackly how I see it as well. |
|
. For everybody to be right is what you have ascertained through self evaluation / contemplation . I see it that the mind can allow one to perceive the same thing differently it only becomes a matter of being a right way or a wrong way of perceiving the same thing when one concludes as such . 
.. can't blame folks for buyin' a paintin' or two now and then either .. the dark colors of the stuck killjoy can really accent a wall well ya' know ... 
