Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 14:28:54 GMT -5
I think I see the issue here. That's like saying the impersonal negates the personal. It doesn't. That would be creating a false/bogus category (or pair of opposites). In the same way that the personal is not the opposite of the impersonal, duality is not the opposite of non-duality (or oneness). Yes. The personal is included in the impersonal, and we emphasize one or the other only to stop the mind from getting attached to one or the other. If someone is attached to dualistic ideas, we emphasize oneness, and if someone is attached to the idea of oneness, we emphasize duality. The goal is non-abidance, non-conceptual awareness, and freedom from any limiting ideas or beliefs. I feel compelled to give it another go here. Am hoping enough time has passed for things to be different. My hope is that my challenges won't be taken as personal attack nor as a means to disrupt the forum....anyhoo...here goes nothin... 
Yes, the personal is included in the impersonal because the impersonal "transcends" the personal.
Put another way; The abiding presence that gives rise to that which is transient and comes and goes, of course 'includes' that which comes and goes (the two are not separate), but the very fact of 'transcending' surely indicates an importance or 'empahsis' upon that which abides and gives rise to, over that which is an ephemeral, transient arising within/to that...?
And yes, the goal is non-abidance, non-conceptual awareness and freedom from limiting ideas or beliefs, but I don't get how emphasizing duality/non-duality when one is attached to the idea of either is going to help with that goal.
In seeing/saying that the impersonal 'transcends' the personal, we are essentially saying that there is greater 'emphasis' upon the impersonal.
And, If one is attached to a conceptual idea of Oneness, I don't understand how 'emphasizing' duality is going to help loosen his mind from that attachment. Can you perhaps provide an example of where that has worked for you...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 15:07:06 GMT -5
So ND doesn't refer to the Whole? (A quite serious question). There's a lot of stuff people read into non-duality that doesn't belong there (similar to LOA or karma). Non-duality just says 'not two' which means no separation. That's it. And this refers to the largest context. The higher dimensions stuff (levels of consciousness) is a smaller context. And those smaller contexts have their own rules and limitations based on how you define them. So in answer to your question, non-duality always refers to the WHOLE, and only the WHOLE. Inherent in seeing "no separation," is the seeing that abiding Awareness gives rise to the appearance of duality...(that which is transient, that which does not abide, that which comes and goes).
Thus, an actual realization of 'not two' does relate to the smaller context (levels of consciousness) as well, in that it renders those levels of consciousness, whether they are just an idea or an actual experience, as 'an appearance' to/within awareness. That which abides = that which has substance, that which is foundational, that which comes and goes, is absent independent substance....dependent upon that which is foundational to it.
Once no separation has actually been realized, if that realization abides, there is no 'forgetting' that the smaller context stuff is a transient, ephemeral, impermanent arising. That 'larger contextual seeing' then, itself, continually abides, even when we engage with the transient. What this means is that the transient only captures so much of our attention...how deeply engaged can you get with something that you know is ultimately, 'dream-stuff'?
But yes, agreed, non-duality always refers to the WHOLE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 15:37:02 GMT -5
Maybe. We just understand ZD differently. It seems that what you heard him say is that the higher dimensions stuff is nonsense, that there is no such thing, that it's all in the mind. That's not my take on what he said. The way I understood it, his issue is not with the higher dimension but with the labeling and categorizing. Maybe he can clarify. Correct, but more than just the labeling and categorizing, ideas like "higher dimensions" tends to keep one focused toward the future rather than toward what's already here and now. The ideas of "progress" and "evolution" can have the same effect. I'm totally on board with Jesus' statement, "In my Father's house are many mansions," because reality is quite mysterious, and one never knows what kinds of strange things one might encounter. Reality is clearly non-dual, and all of us are one-with "what is," but we're more likely to find the truth by staying focused on THIS in whatever way it's manifesting in this moment. The mind loves to speculate about things like multiple levels, dimensions, making progress, etc, but the truth can't be apprehended with mind, so for seekers it's far more to important to ignore that kind of thinking. The goal is non-abidance, seeing through the illusion of "me," and becoming psychologically unified, free, and at peace. Exactly.
And yes, the goal is non-abidance in mind...which can also be stated as 'not knowing.'
Non-abidance in mind/not knowing hings upon a realization that sees that which does abide, that which has substance/permanence, as transcendent to, as foundational to, all ideas, all beliefs, all arising form/thingness/experience, all that which comes and goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 10, 2019 16:10:30 GMT -5
Yes. The personal is included in the impersonal, and we emphasize one or the other only to stop the mind from getting attached to one or the other. If someone is attached to dualistic ideas, we emphasize oneness, and if someone is attached to the idea of oneness, we emphasize duality. The goal is non-abidance, non-conceptual awareness, and freedom from any limiting ideas or beliefs. I feel compelled to give it another go here. Am hoping enough time has passed for things to be different. My hope is that my challenges won't be taken as personal attack nor as a means to disrupt the forum....anyhoo...here goes nothin... Yes, the personal is included in the impersonal because the impersonal "transcends" the personal.
Put another way; The abiding presence that gives rise to that which is transient and comes and goes, of course 'includes' that which comes and goes (the two are not separate), but the very fact of 'transcending' surely indicates an importance or 'empahsis' upon that which abides and gives rise to, over that which is an ephemeral, transient arising within/to that...?
And yes, the goal is non-abidance, non-conceptual awareness and freedom from limiting ideas or beliefs, but I don't get how emphasizing duality/non-duality when one is attached to the idea of either is going to help with that goal.
In seeing/saying that the impersonal 'transcends' the personal, we are essentially saying that there is greater 'emphasis' upon the impersonal.
And, If one is attached to a conceptual idea of Oneness, I don't understand how 'emphasizing' duality is going to help loosen his mind from that attachment. Can you perhaps provide an example of where that has worked for you...?
Like most people, at one time or another I've been attached to a lot of erroneous existential ideas, but that didn't happen to be one of them, so I have no personal stories about that. As you know, most people are attached to the conventional paradigm of separateness, so most of a sage's time is spent pointing to non-duality rather than duality. Whether people will become curious and engage is a complete mystery. In my extended family there's a retired Methodist Bishop who currently teaches at a big-name divinity school. Another family member is a serious seeker, and he has doubts about what's written in the New Testament. His reading is focused upon liberal theologians like Borg, Crossan, etc, but he's not yet able to leave those writers behind and leap into the unknown. When they get together, the seeker always has lots of questions for the Bishop who parrots a relatively conservative view. I generally interrupt with a question that points beyond the mind, and the result always seems rather humorous to me. Because they're talking about interpretations of the NT, I ask, "Well, if someone were isolated on a desert island, and there were no books at all, and no teachers, preachers, gurus, or sages, how could someone find the truth?" So far, the result has always been the same. My question (or other questions similar to this) simply stops the conversation, and both men become totally silent. The Bishop knows that my question is a huge challenge to the importance of the NT, so he refuses to engage. The seeker's mind simply stops because he has no idea how someone could find the truth in the absence of either books or teachers. Sometimes I poke them again, but usually I just sit there and wait to see what will happen. So far, neither of them have even responded with a question about my question, but......you never know what might happen at some point in the future, and sooner or later the seeker might get curious. I intend to use this story to begin a talk at a Unity church next month. With a group of 50 people or more the odds for curiosity and engagement may improve. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 16:30:07 GMT -5
Like most people, at one time or another I've been attached to a lot of erroneous existential ideas, but that didn't happen to be one of them, so I have no personal stories about that. Sorry ZD, but I'm having trouble relating your response to my post. Precisely what 'erroneous existential idea' are you referencing here? Yes, agreed, pointing to non-duality as a means to counter attachment to the conventional paradigm does happen...and all bets are off as to whether or not that will actual bear fruit or not. It sounded to me though as if you were suggesting that 'emphasis' upon duality or non-duality is only applied as an 'idea' to counter another idea. And that that counter emphasis is applied even when one is attached to the idea of Oneness. I wasn't aware you were necessarily indicating 'pointing' per se. And really, if you are countering the idea of Oneness with an emphasis upon duality, then you actually would be indicating an 'idea' in that case, vs. 'pointing,' wouldn't you? Regardless, it was that 'emphasis' upon duality to counter attachment to the idea of Oneness that I was asking about. How would that play out in terms of wording? A cool story.  Does it have some relevance though to my post? I'm fully on board with the idea that the Truth defies capture by idea, thought, word. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 17:17:23 GMT -5
I don;t have any problem with the idea of panentheism, but I don't see why that idea in any way contradicts ND. If there is no twoness, then there's no room for distinctions of any kind, except in the most superficial sense. That which is infinite has no inside, outside, above, below, or any other attributable distinction. Anyone who apprehends THAT will understand why language can never capture any aspect of THAT via distinctions. I agree with all you say there, but am having trouble reconciling that with your insistence that all things arising in experience, are 'alive.'
At best, when it comes to the inherent nature of THIS, all we can do it point. Firm arrival at a specific word, term, denoting property, quality, necessarily then means, we've stumbled.
|
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 10, 2019 23:14:06 GMT -5
I agree with all you say there, but am having trouble reconciling that with your insistence that all things arising in experience, are 'alive.'
At best, when it comes to the inherent nature of THIS, all we can do it point. Firm arrival at a specific word, term, denoting property, quality, necessarily then means, we've stumbled.
The idea of aliveness is taken from dualistic experience; animated matter or 'the feeling of aliveness' as opposed to 'dead matter' or feeling disconnected from life. I'm going to put my head in the noose and suggest that THIS is neither alive nor dead until it touches the mind with a dream of life and death. If there is an experiencer then there is aliveness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 23:56:44 GMT -5
I agree with all you say there, but am having trouble reconciling that with your insistence that all things arising in experience, are 'alive.'
At best, when it comes to the inherent nature of THIS, all we can do it point. Firm arrival at a specific word, term, denoting property, quality, necessarily then means, we've stumbled.
The idea of aliveness is taken from dualistic experience; animated matter or 'the feeling of aliveness' as opposed to 'dead matter' or feeling disconnected from life. I'm going to put my head in the noose and suggest that THIS is neither alive nor dead until it touches the mind with a dream of life and death. Perfectly said. No doubt about it, insisting it's all alive necessarily means mind is involved.
Make a little space in that noose, for two...? (My neck is pretty skinny). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 0:12:44 GMT -5
The idea of aliveness is taken from dualistic experience; animated matter or 'the feeling of aliveness' as opposed to 'dead matter' or feeling disconnected from life. I'm going to put my head in the noose and suggest that THIS is neither alive nor dead until it touches the mind with a dream of life and death. Perfectly said. No doubt about it, insisting it's all alive necessarily means mind is involved.
Make a little space in that noose, for two...? (My neck is pretty skinny). Kissing a frog's ass won't turn him into a prince. Go ahead ban me. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2019 0:28:56 GMT -5
The idea of aliveness is taken from dualistic experience; animated matter or 'the feeling of aliveness' as opposed to 'dead matter' or feeling disconnected from life. I'm going to put my head in the noose and suggest that THIS is neither alive nor dead until it touches the mind with a dream of life and death. If there is an experiencer then there is aliveness. There is the experience of aliveness. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 11, 2019 0:30:39 GMT -5
If there is an experiencer then there is aliveness. There is the experience of aliveness. So who knows the experience of aliveness? I think both statements are valid. It just shows the limitation of language. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 4:16:05 GMT -5
I agree with all you say there, but am having trouble reconciling that with your insistence that all things arising in experience, are 'alive.'
At best, when it comes to the inherent nature of THIS, all we can do it point. Firm arrival at a specific word, term, denoting property, quality, necessarily then means, we've stumbled. The idea of aliveness is taken from dualistic experience; animated matter or 'the feeling of aliveness' as opposed to 'dead matter' or feeling disconnected from life. I'm going to put my head in the noose and suggest that THIS is neither alive nor dead until it touches the mind with a dream of life and death. Yeah, the death of the universe is only ever a poignant experience 'in' mind. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2019 9:43:34 GMT -5
The idea of aliveness is taken from dualistic experience; animated matter or 'the feeling of aliveness' as opposed to 'dead matter' or feeling disconnected from life. I'm going to put my head in the noose and suggest that THIS is neither alive nor dead until it touches the mind with a dream of life and death. Yeah, the death of the universe is only ever a poignant experience 'in' mind. A memorable one fer sure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 12:16:10 GMT -5
Perfectly said. No doubt about it, insisting it's all alive necessarily means mind is involved.
Make a little space in that noose, for two...? (My neck is pretty skinny). Kissing a frog's ass won't turn him into a prince. Go ahead ban me. Seems you've got an issue with Enigma....? 
Interesting 'cause I've been reading along here for a while now and I don't actually see where he's been even remotely hard on you...is there something specific he's said?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 12:19:16 GMT -5
If there is an experiencer then there is aliveness. There is the experience of aliveness. Yes.
And....The 'experience-er' is also 'experienced.' When that's seen through, there is just experience happening, absent a thing/who/what that experiences.
|
|
