|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2015 10:54:38 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). Re: the bolded; It's one thing to 'realize' that the entire cosmos is a unified whole, but a step further (and most importantly, a step into conceptualization), to say; " It is seen that all separation is imaginary." seems to me, "All separation is imaginary" is an explanation about an appearance that is still, to some degree, appearing/being experienced. It would be one thing to say that separation simply no longer appears, or separation is no longer experienced. And if that is in fact the case, then there would be no need to tell a story about the appearance, or to label separation as being 'just imaginary', as it would plain & simply, just no longer be appearing. If it's no longer the case, it just goes 'poof' and no need to say it's real, true, illusive, false, or imaginary. This is precisely where I see non-dualists claim regarding 'realization being absent conceptualization' as falling apart; In the assignation of 'just imaginary,' a story is being told about something that is still appearing. (Or else, there would be no need to address the appearance with a story about what the appearance 'actually' is.)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 28, 2015 12:05:16 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). Re: the bolded; It's one thing to 'realize' that the entire cosmos is a unified whole, but a step further (and most importantly, a step into conceptualization), to say; " It is seen that all separation is imaginary." seems to me, "All separation is imaginary" is an explanation about an appearance that is still, to some degree, appearing/being experienced. It would be one thing to say that separation simply no longer appears, or separation is no longer experienced. And if that is in fact the case, then there would be no need to tell a story about the appearance, or to label separation as being 'just imaginary', as it would plain & simply, just no longer be appearing. If it's no longer the case, it just goes 'poof' and no need to say it's real, true, illusive, false, or imaginary. This is precisely where I see non-dualists claim regarding 'realization being absent conceptualization' as falling apart; In the assignation of 'just imaginary,' a story is being told about something that is still appearing. (Or else, there would be no need to address the appearance with a story about what the appearance 'actually' is.) Figgles, I trust that any and all claims made by non-dualists will utterly and totally fall apart under your scrutiny, and that's a wonderful thing. Most non-dualists I know have nothing to give anyone, so they aren't worth much. With best wishes, have a great day!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 12:37:11 GMT -5
___________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jan 28, 2015 13:23:47 GMT -5
Hi Enigma, Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to those who are trying to start a movement. When it becomes famous you will be handsomely rewarded for that input. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jan 28, 2015 13:49:06 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 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 ;-) Hi Steve, Yes informing participants about the description I'm considering may indeed do that. I feel I have to give an opportunity to correct before actually writing the account. The words used are the words they have agreed and are directly quoted. Even so of course there are no guarantees for the reasons you mention. It is particularly difficult to know whether the account is reasonably accurate with such a subject matter and would preface the whole thing with that comment. Folks can make up their own minds. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jan 28, 2015 15:51:53 GMT -5
Hi Zendancer,
That's helpful, clear, and appreciated.
Thank you.
amit
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2015 18:04:33 GMT -5
Figgles, I trust that any and all claims made by non-dualists will utterly and totally fall apart under your scrutiny, and that's a wonderful thing. Most non-dualists I know have nothing to give anyone, so they aren't worth much. With best wishes, have a great day!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 19:34:17 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). Re: the bolded; It's one thing to 'realize' that the entire cosmos is a unified whole, but a step further (and most importantly, a step into conceptualization), to say; " It is seen that all separation is imaginary." seems to me, "All separation is imaginary" is an explanation about an appearance that is still, to some degree, appearing/being experienced. It would be one thing to say that separation simply no longer appears, or separation is no longer experienced. And if that is in fact the case, then there would be no need to tell a story about the appearance, or to label separation as being 'just imaginary', as it would plain & simply, just no longer be appearing. If it's no longer the case, it just goes 'poof' and no need to say it's real, true, illusive, false, or imaginary. This is precisely where I see non-dualists claim regarding 'realization being absent conceptualization' as falling apart; In the assignation of 'just imaginary,' a story is being told about something that is still appearing. (Or else, there would be no need to address the appearance with a story about what the appearance 'actually' is.) I'm having trouble understanding your argument. First of all, I would never say a realization is never conceptualized, only that the realization itself is non-conceptual. Obviously, it is conceptualized if someone is talking about it. To say " the entire cosmos is a unified whole", is also to conceptualize. There's no "need" to say anything about separation, but what is your issue with talking about it in a discussion forum? I don't understand the significance of separation still appearing in the experience. Are you saying the whole idea and experience should just go away?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 19:36:41 GMT -5
Hi Enigma, Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to those who are trying to start a movement. When it becomes famous you will be handsomely rewarded for that input. amit What did I say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 21:38:17 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 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* hi, What is the meaning of non-conceptually observed universe in the above paragraph?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 28, 2015 22:29:35 GMT -5
Figgles, I trust that any and all claims made by non-dualists will utterly and totally fall apart under your scrutiny, and that's a wonderful thing. Most non-dualists I know have nothing to give anyone, so they aren't worth much. With best wishes, have a great day! figgles, there is the principle in Zen called transmission outside the scriptures. Nothing is defensible by words. Nothing vital can be said by words. ZD is probably saying, your post is superfluous.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 28, 2015 23:51:26 GMT -5
Re: the bolded; It's one thing to 'realize' that the entire cosmos is a unified whole, but a step further (and most importantly, a step into conceptualization), to say; " It is seen that all separation is imaginary." seems to me, "All separation is imaginary" is an explanation about an appearance that is still, to some degree, appearing/being experienced. It would be one thing to say that separation simply no longer appears, or separation is no longer experienced. And if that is in fact the case, then there would be no need to tell a story about the appearance, or to label separation as being 'just imaginary', as it would plain & simply, just no longer be appearing. If it's no longer the case, it just goes 'poof' and no need to say it's real, true, illusive, false, or imaginary. This is precisely where I see non-dualists claim regarding 'realization being absent conceptualization' as falling apart; In the assignation of 'just imaginary,' a story is being told about something that is still appearing. (Or else, there would be no need to address the appearance with a story about what the appearance 'actually' is.) I'm having trouble understanding your argument. First of all, I would never say a realization is never conceptualized, only that the realization itself is non-conceptual. Obviously, it is conceptualized if someone is talking about it. To say " the entire cosmos is a unified whole", is also to conceptualize. There's no "need" to say anything about separation, but what is your issue with talking about it in a discussion forum? I don't understand the significance of separation still appearing in the experience. Are you saying the whole idea and experience should just go away? ZD referred both "the entire cosmos is a unified whole' and 'all separation is imaginary' as being part and parcel of the same realization. Unity and wholeness of the entire cosmos can be a direct experience, "all separation is imaginary," though, is not, but rather it's a conclusion/explanation. My issue is not with talking about separation on a discussion forum, but rather it's with ZD's alluding to 'separation is imaginary' as a realization. It's often been said here that realization involves the falling away of info/knowledge/belief, not the adding of it. I can see how 'the entire cosmos is a unified whole' could indeed be directly experienced as part and parcel of the absence of separation. But 'separation is imaginary' is not a direct experience, but rather a conclusion/explanation 'about' separation. And no, I'm not saying that "the whole idea and experience should go away." AS I said, separation is either experienced or it's not. If it is still experienced, labeling it as 'just imaginary' does not speak to what is being directly experienced, but rather what is believed to be true about the experience. And if it is no longer experienced, then it's simply absent . "just imaginary" is a story/explanation about that absence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 29, 2015 0:19:08 GMT -5
I'm having trouble understanding your argument. First of all, I would never say a realization is never conceptualized, only that the realization itself is non-conceptual. Obviously, it is conceptualized if someone is talking about it. To say " the entire cosmos is a unified whole", is also to conceptualize. There's no "need" to say anything about separation, but what is your issue with talking about it in a discussion forum? I don't understand the significance of separation still appearing in the experience. Are you saying the whole idea and experience should just go away? ZD referred both "the entire cosmos is a unified whole' and 'all separation is imaginary' as being part and parcel of the same realization. Unity and wholeness of the entire cosmos can be a direct experience, "all separation is imaginary," though, is not, but rather it's a conclusion/explanation. My issue is not with talking about separation on a discussion forum, but rather it's with ZD's alluding to 'separation is imaginary' as a realization. It's often been said here that realization involves the falling away of info/knowledge/belief, not the adding of it. I can see how 'the entire cosmos is a unified whole' could indeed be directly experienced as part and parcel of the absence of separation. But 'separation is imaginary' is not a direct experience, but rather a conclusion/explanation 'about' separation. And no, I'm not saying that "the whole idea and experience should go away." AS I said, separation is either experienced or it's not. If it is still experienced, labeling it as 'just imaginary' does not speak to what is being directly experienced, but rather what is believed to be true about the experience. And if it is no longer experienced, then it's simply absent . "just imaginary" is a story/explanation about that absence. 'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 29, 2015 5:48:22 GMT -5
ZD referred both "the entire cosmos is a unified whole' and 'all separation is imaginary' as being part and parcel of the same realization. Unity and wholeness of the entire cosmos can be a direct experience, "all separation is imaginary," though, is not, but rather it's a conclusion/explanation. My issue is not with talking about separation on a discussion forum, but rather it's with ZD's alluding to 'separation is imaginary' as a realization. It's often been said here that realization involves the falling away of info/knowledge/belief, not the adding of it. I can see how 'the entire cosmos is a unified whole' could indeed be directly experienced as part and parcel of the absence of separation. But 'separation is imaginary' is not a direct experience, but rather a conclusion/explanation 'about' separation. And no, I'm not saying that "the whole idea and experience should go away." AS I said, separation is either experienced or it's not. If it is still experienced, labeling it as 'just imaginary' does not speak to what is being directly experienced, but rather what is believed to be true about the experience. And if it is no longer experienced, then it's simply absent . "just imaginary" is a story/explanation about that absence. 'Separation is imaginary' IS a realization. That realization is the falling away of the knowledge that separation is true. I don't see the problem. I would say the knowledge doesn't fall away exactly (even if 'mind' is experienced as falling away), though our conditioning/understandings are changed. Practically, if someone asks you to separate an egg white from a yolk, you still have the knowledge of what that means. If someone says that the new born baby is now separate from it's mother, you still have the knowledge of what that means. So then the question (as I see it) is...in what way is the conditioning/understandings changed.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2015 7:38:14 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 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* hi, What is the meaning of non-conceptually observed universe in the above paragraph? If ten people conceptually look at an object, they may imagine what they see in ten different ways. If they are looking at a tree, for example, they may think "tree," "200 board feet of lumber," "a beautiful thing," "an ugly thing," "a form of matter," "a life form," "an oak," etc., but if ten people are looking non-conceptually at what a tree IS, they will see the isness without engaging the intellect, and there is a way to communicate agreement upon what they see WITHOUT words. Physics professors teach that the observer determines what is observed, so at one time I used to wonder how the same isness is non-conceptually observable to different observers if the claim of physicists is true. Later, I realized that what the physicists are saying is NOT accurate in the way that they think it is, but at that earlier moment in time, my interest concerned the "stability" of the isness despite multiple viewpoints. Everyone looks up in the sky at night and sees "the moon," so what the moon IS, apart from any conception of it, is not being created independently by multiple observers.
|
|