Conceiving the Inconceivable

[stardustpilgrim]

The Science Channel is my go-to channel, if there isn't anything I want to watch, I go there. How the Universe Works is a very good program. It's been on about 12 years I think it is. But I get frustrated watching, it's mostly from a bottom up perspective, a materialistic perspective. But physicists know enough today so that they know they don't know much. We can account for only 4% of the universe, thereabouts (It's between 4% and 5%). That means all light all energy, all matter which we can perceive, back 13.8 billion years, trillions of galaxies, billions of stars in each galaxy, all that is less than 5% of what physicists know exists. The other 96% they call dark matter and dark energy. So about a week ago, or less, I thought, I need a book on physics from the perspective of the Vedas. I knew these guys knew there was the outbreathing of Brahman, and the inbreathing, the creation and destruction of worlds. So they knew there isn't going to be a heat death end to the universe (as is the current theory in physics). So I did my Amazon thing and came up with what seemed a very good book, pricy, and ordered. It's not supposed to show up until May 23. But also this book Conceiving the Inconceivable (Part 1) showed up, by Ashish Dalela (copyright 2020), original text by Sage Vyasa. It's priced about $24.95, less than the other, and it was on sale for about $8.50. It came yesterday. I have no idea how long it will take me to get through, it's a hefty 622 pages, but I will try not to let the Law of 7 stop me. Of course it fits nicely with my view, so far. I will keep reading even if he diverges. I was prepared to type, but I'll check to see if there is an online version I can copy from.

I browsed a little, this guy is smart. So, I began at the beginning, yesterday. The physics of the universe is only one aspect of the Six Systems of Vedic Philosophy. So this guy has the whole picture. He says Shankaracharya basically screwed up, and has left us with a mess. I'm going to give a sort of long quote that should give the basis for his book-exploration. It fits in very nicely with the post by satch of some 6 hours ago, and the why of why ZD has gone wrong, and basically the why of why all of modern neo-non-duality (I just made that up) has gone wrong. I like having whys answered.

From the Series Preface pg xi, concerning the six systems of Vedic philosophy: "The schisms between the various systems are also exacerbated because the Vedanta school emphasizes the urgence of liberation from the material world, while other systems discuss the nature of the material world. If you think of the material world as a raging firestorm, then Vedanta says you must quickly get out of it. Sankhya explains how the fire started. Yoga explains how to get out of the firestorm. Nyaya explains how that fire is a logical outcome of the incompatibility between soul and matter. Vaisesika explains how the fire burns. And Mimamsa discusses the protections while trying to get out of the firestorm. Now, it is up to the reader to decide-Do you want to treat the methods of protecting yourself against the fire as a recommendation for permanently living in the fire, or a method to defend yourself while you are trying to escape? Do you want to consider the description of fire and how it burns just as an intellectual curiosity or urgent information that matches the urge to escape the fire?

The divergence in the Six Systems are exacerbated when their position in the larger scheme of things is not understood. Then, a method for protection against the burning fire is treated as a recommendation to stay in the fire. Or, information about the fire's burning is used just for intellectual curiosity. This recommendation then is seen as a contrast against the exhortation to escape the fire, and, lo and behold, a contradiction between the texts is produced.

To avoid such misrepresentations, one must study all the Six Systems, because that gives one the conviction that there is a fire (in case you don't believe it [note, for ZD], there is a reason why it started, (in case you are looking for a rational justification) [note, for sdp], there is a method to escape to escape it [note, for satch], and there are methods to avoid its harmful effects while you are trying to run out of the firestorm. Wearing a mask is not contradictory to running out; understanding that the fire will not die on its own is not contradictory to deciding that one must run out of the fire. In this way, the Six Systems of philosophy are consistent and coherent, despite their diverging emphases. By studying them, we obtain a view into the larger oral tradition, how this tradition was adapted for different purposes, and why all the systems of philosophy are important for different aspects of the problem. These books are the manuals for life-useful for different kinds of issues".

There is an online version, but it started with the Introduction, it excluded the Series Preface (which seemed a good place to start).

That's it for now. But, basically, Ashish Dalela speaks directly to the comment by satch on the other thread, that ZD is a bird trying to fly with one wing (my words).

[stardustpilgrim]

From the Introduction to Conceiving the Inconceivable Part 1

Seeing these difficulties, Sri Chaitanya articulated the Acintyabhedābheda doctrine which states that the singular truth must be inconceivable. This was in recognition of the fact that all doctrines had some or other issue. The issue is that we are required to make three incomprehensible statements at once: (1) the parts are in the whole, (2) the whole is in the parts, (3) the whole in the part makes some parts the whole, but other parts do not become the whole.

Each of these are hard problems. For example, to say that the parts are in the whole, we must have some idea about the whole, but we don’t. What is an ocean, if not the mere collection of the drops? Isn’t the ocean merely a word used to indicate the plurality of drops by a singular noun, as if it were a singular entity? In short, isn’t the ocean merely a linguistic construct when in fact there are many drops? The second claim complicates the issue further. You could say that the drops are in the ocean, but how do you say that the ocean is in the drops? That immanence of the ocean within each drop defies all intuition. Finally, how do say that some drops are the full ocean, while other drops are not the full ocean? Even if the immanence of the whole within the parts were accepted, why should it be applied selectively? Naturally, the problems magnify at each successive stage. The problem is not just that we are unable to make all these claims collectively, but that we can’t make them individually.

This commentary tries to solve each of the above problems individually and collectively. The cornerstone of the commentary is the change in the conception of reality from physical to semantic. For example, we should not think of the whole and part in terms of an ocean and the drops in it. We should rather think of reality in terms of concepts like cows and mammals. The mammal is the whole and the cow is its part. However, when you see a cow, you also say that it is a mammal, although you cannot reduce the mammal to the cow. Therefore, the mammal exists in the cow, and the cow exists in the mammal. However, the mammal is not equal to the cow. This is expressed by saying that— (1) the cow is a mammal, and (2) the mammal is not a cow. This is possible if reality is described as concepts—e.g. mammal and cow. It solves the problem of why some parts (i.e. matter and the soul) contain the whole but are not the whole. They are parts of the whole, just like the cow is a part of the mammal. Since the mammal exists in the cow, therefore, the whole is not merely the collection and hence not merely a word. It is rather present within each type of mammal.

The reverse problem of why the presence of the whole in each part (in the case of God) makes the parts equal to the whole, still needs to be addressed. To solve this problem, recall how each part is defined through a distinction to the other parts. This distinction, however, can exist in three space, time, and person. We can apply these modalities to our body and understand their implications. In the person modality, we would say that my hand has a ‘mind’ of its own. In the space modality, we would say that my hand is not my leg, but there is a leg elsewhere. In the time modality, we would say that my hand is not my leg right now, but it can become the leg. In our body, only the spatial modality is prominently found. Only occasionally, our hands are not in our control—so we say that they have their own mind. Extremely rarely can a person perform the work of one part with the other parts. But in God’s body, all these modalities are simultaneously manifest. Thus, each part of God’s body has a mind of its own. Each part can become the other parts. But, by distinction to the other parts, each part is also defined by what the other part is not.

The difference between the soul and God is that space, times, and personalities are ‘compressed’ in God—this compression is achieved through semantic abstraction—but these are ‘expanded’ in the world. Due to this expansion, the soul is always in a specific place and time, and this place and limits the things his body parts can do. Since the soul can move from one body to another, therefore, a distinction between soul and body is made in the case of the soul. However, since God is all the space and time, therefore, He doesn’t change His body. And yet, His body is all that is possible in all places, times, and personalities. Therefore, we can say that every part of God’s body is God, but we cannot make the same claim about the soul. All these constitute the properties of God.

Apart from these properties, God also exists as a purpose. This purpose is also immanent in each soul, but again, the purpose is partially present in each soul. Therefore, we can say that God exists in everything, but everything is not God. This is because God is partially present by His properties and purposes in different souls and material objects. Hence, the presence of God in His body parts makes all these body parts God, but the same isn’t true of the soul.

Since purpose can exist without the property, the parts must be related to the whole, and they cannot exist independently. On the other hand, when purpose and properties fully exist—i.e. in the singular truth—then the whole is independent of all the parts. The purpose, property, and relation are identified in the Vedas as three aspects of and Hence, after we say that the singular truth must be known semantically, we must distinguish between three types of semanticism—purpose, property, and relation.

Each of these modalities divides into three further parts. For example, we have discussed above how the property of being a cow entails that it is a mammal, it is not a tiger, and it is not other cows. Likewise, when we speak of our purpose, we can also talk about a higher purpose, what our purpose is not, and the same purpose in the other individuals. Finally, in the context of relations, we can talk about relations that are higher than us, those to whom we are not related, and others who have the same relation as us. These modes are in addition to what a thing is in three modes—a universal, and individual, and a relation to other individuals instantiating a universal. Through the successive divisions of modalities, infinite such modalities are produced. And these modalities then form a hierarchical tree-like structure in which there are higher, lower, and peer nodes. The higher purpose, the higher concept, and the higher relation are ‘above’, and constitute the wholes. The ‘peer’ concepts, purposes, and relations are different from a node. And the ‘lower’ concepts, purposes, and relations, are the parts of the ‘higher’ nodes. This tree-like structure is a simplified vision of reality, in which everything expands from a root through the three modalities. But the construction of this tree, how this tree violates classical logic, and yet, with modalities, how it leads to completeness, is very complicated.

This tree can expand—through new combinations. It can contract—by removing some combinations. And it can evolve—by changing the combinations. If the existence of the tree is very complex, then we can imagine that the expansion, contraction, and evolution of this tree is more incomprehensible. The creation of the material world is the expansion of this tree, and its annihilation is the contraction of the tree back into its root. While the tree exists, it also evolves, and that evolution constitutes the scientific study of the material world.

With these three kinds of all the issues in Vedānta are overcome. The singular truth now has a form and is not formless. This is because the singular truth is also a concept, a purpose, and a relation. The parts exist in the whole, and the whole exists in all the parts, and this mutual innateness is due to their semantic nature. Despite this mutual innateness, the soul can fall into the material world, but by that fall, God isn’t fallen; the soul’s suffering is not God’s suffering. Each part of God’s body is fully God, so, there is no distinction between soul and body in God. God is innately present in tables and chairs as their purpose, however, this innate presence of God in tables and chairs doesn’t make them God. On the other hand, certain things like deities, names of God, or books on God, embody all of God’s qualities so they are God; they just seem to be material parts, but by their qualities they are whole.

All these claims have been made at different points in the evolution of Vedānta, but there is no Vedānta Sūtra doctrine currently that supports them simultaneously. In fact, when a Vedānta Sūtra doctrine makes one of these true, it tends to make some other claim false. If they are simultaneously accepted to be true, then the Absolute Truth becomes inconceivable due to inner contradictions. The need for a new commentary on Vedānta Sūtra arises from this problem. This commentary shows how all these claims are true at once, that truth doesn’t come at the expense of other claims, and all these claims can be made collectively and individually without producing inner contradictions.

I might caution the reader that this book is not easy reading. But remember that this is not an easy problem. It has existed for thousands of years and remains unsolved. The solution is also beyond conventional models of reasoning, so don’t be surprised by the existence of contradictions in a classical sense. The problem is not the philosophy or its presentation. The problem is the nature of knowledge. If you can navigate the problem, then the journey is extremely rewarding. I have made attempts to simplify this for the newcomer. The introduction that follows, will give an overview of the problem, the varied attempted solutions, and their problems, before describing the proposal. I shall examine this proposal from numerous angles—scientific, philosophical, and religious. If you can be convinced of where this book is going to take us, then the subsequent arguments that validate this description can be undertaken.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dalela is addressing the problem of a seeming distinction between the Whole and a sdp and a ZD (and the 10,000 other things), how both can be true. Basically he's talking context, which he calls modalities.

[inavalan]

I haven't read your posts in their entirety, as they are too long to keep my interest, and because from their first lines they espouse viewpoints I don't care for. I don't intend to argue their merits.

From what I read, I suggest considering that the whole is a structure of gestalts, meaning that the gestalt properties aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and its elements don't derive their properties form those of the gestalt they're part of.

Also, I believe that the whole-truth is infinite, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The inconceivability threshold depends on the level of evolvement of the observer. What may seem inconceivable to me, is for sure conceivable to others. This doesn't help me, because I have no way to discern who they are.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 8, 2023 16:00:59 GMT -5 inavalan said:

I haven't read your posts in their entirety, as they are too long to keep my interest, and because from their first lines they espouse viewpoints I don't care for. I don't intend to argue their merits.

From what I read, I suggest considering that the whole is a structure of gestalts, meaning that the gestalt properties aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and its elements don't derive their properties form those of the gestalt they're part of.

Also, I believe that the whole-truth is infinite, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The inconceivability threshold depends on the level of evolvement of the observer. What may seem inconceivable to me, is for sure conceivable to others. This doesn't help me, because I have no way to discern who they are.

Oh, yea, no problem. Dalela is saying that Vedic philosophy has six aspects and each can be seen from a certain perspective, and it takes all six to understand the Vedas, to conceive the inconceivable. Would that be a gestalt?

I'm saying ZD has a limited perspective as he sees from only One.

~~~~~~~~~~~~the-following-not-for-inavalan~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Six Systems texts delve into the details of why materialism, voidism and impersonalism are false. They describe why God desires to see his reflection-namely, that it is a process of self-awareness and self-recognition. They describe how God is reflected in the mirror-the mirror is also a person, not an impersonal thing; the reflection in the is the mirror "knowing" God; the mirror is then identified as God's energy or Sakti, and the two realities-one masculine and the other feminine-are seen as the basis of the world. The immense variety in the reflection is attributed to the myriad aspects of God, which are integrated in God but separated in the Sakti. Thus, the created world is called duality whereas God is described as non-duality. The separation of the integrated reality is then understood as a mechanism by which God knows Himself-quite like a person looking into a mirror to see his varied features.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's from the Series Preface, pg viii

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IOW, it seems that "God" cannot know himself without the dual world (which ZD says doesn't exist).

[inavalan]

May 8, 2023 21:06:29 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 8, 2023 16:00:59 GMT -5 inavalan said:

I haven't read your posts in their entirety, as they are too long to keep my interest, and because from their first lines they espouse viewpoints I don't care for. I don't intend to argue their merits.

From what I read, I suggest considering that the whole is a structure of gestalts, meaning that the gestalt properties aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and its elements don't derive their properties form those of the gestalt they're part of.

Also, I believe that the whole-truth is infinite, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The inconceivability threshold depends on the level of evolvement of the observer. What may seem inconceivable to me, is for sure conceivable to others. This doesn't help me, because I have no way to discern who they are.

Oh, yea, no problem. Dalela is saying that Vedic philosophy has six aspects and each can be seen from a certain perspective, and it takes all six to understand the Vedas, to conceive the inconceivable. Would that be a gestalt?

I'm saying ZD has a limited perspective as he sees from only One.

...

gestalt = a structure, arrangement, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts

[zendancer]

May 8, 2023 21:06:29 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 8, 2023 16:00:59 GMT -5 inavalan said:

I haven't read your posts in their entirety, as they are too long to keep my interest, and because from their first lines they espouse viewpoints I don't care for. I don't intend to argue their merits.

From what I read, I suggest considering that the whole is a structure of gestalts, meaning that the gestalt properties aren't derived from the properties of its elements, and its elements don't derive their properties form those of the gestalt they're part of.

Also, I believe that the whole-truth is infinite, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The inconceivability threshold depends on the level of evolvement of the observer. What may seem inconceivable to me, is for sure conceivable to others. This doesn't help me, because I have no way to discern who they are.

Oh, yea, no problem. Dalela is saying that Vedic philosophy has six aspects and each can be seen from a certain perspective, and it takes all six to understand the Vedas, to conceive the inconceivable. Would that be a gestalt?

I'm saying ZD has a limited perspective as he sees from only One.

~~~~~~~~~~~~the-following-not-for-inavalan~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Six Systems texts delve into the details of why materialism, voidism and impersonalism are false. They describe why God desires to see his reflection-namely, that it is a process of self-awareness and self-recognition. They describe how God is reflected in the mirror-the mirror is also a person, not an impersonal thing; the reflection in the is the mirror "knowing" God; the mirror is then identified as God's energy or Sakti, and the two realities-one masculine and the other feminine-are seen as the basis of the world. The immense variety in the reflection is attributed to the myriad aspects of God, which are integrated in God but separated in the Sakti. Thus, the created world is called duality whereas God is described as non-duality. The separation of the integrated reality is then understood as a mechanism by which God knows Himself-quite like a person looking into a mirror to see his varied features.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's from the Series Preface, pg viii

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IOW, it seems that "God" cannot know himself without the dual world (which ZD says doesn't exist).

The dual world definitely exists, but only in imagination. If the mind becomes totally quiescent, where can separation be found?

I understand that non-separation is difficult to grok because people are so habituated to imagining reality divided into separate things that until the world can be looked at WITHOUT DISTINCTION the consensus paradigm will remain intact. Furthermore, a human cannot feel fully at one with "what is" until the illusion of a separate volitional "me" collapses.

It's true that the Infinite cannot know Itself directly because, as G. Spencer Brown pointed out in "Laws of Form," unless the Infinite (imaginatively) divides itself into at least two imaginary states (observer and observed). When It does that in the form of humans, it thereby makes Itself false to Itself by an act of artificial and abstract severance. As the Tao Te Ching so accurately states, "The Tao that can be known is not the (actual) Tao."

[justlikeyou]

May 9, 2023 6:35:20 GMT -5 zendancer said:

The dual world definitely exists, but only in imagination. If the mind becomes totally quiescent, where can separation be found?

Isn't it true that unless there is a "Union with Source" experience it will be nearly impossible for most to grasp what you are pointing to?

----------------------------------------

Question: What is non-dual Union with Source, and how does one's view of the world change after such an experience?

ChatGBT: "Non-dual Union with Source, also known as non-dual realization or enlightenment, refers to the direct experiential understanding that there is no fundamental separation between the individual self and the Source, or universal consciousness. It is the recognition that the true nature of reality is non-dual, meaning that there is no inherent division between the observer and the observed, the subject and the object.

After experiencing non-dual Union with Source, one's perception of the world undergoes a significant shift. Instead of perceiving the world through the lens of duality and separation, there is a deep recognition of the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all things. The dualistic perception that reinforces the illusion of a separate self begins to dissolve, and a sense of oneness and wholeness emerges.

In this state of non-dual awareness, there is a profound understanding that everything that arises in experience is an expression of the same underlying consciousness. There is no longer a sense of being separate from the world, but rather a sense of being intimately interconnected with it. This perception is often described as seeing the world as a manifestation of the divine or as the play of consciousness.

From this perspective, there is a profound acceptance and embracing of all aspects of existence, including both the joys and the challenges. There is an inherent understanding that all phenomena are transient and that the essence of reality is beyond the ever-changing appearances. Thus, there is a deep sense of peace and equanimity that arises, as one is no longer caught up in the dualistic struggles and attachments of the ego.

It's important to note that the experience and understanding of non-dual Union with Source can vary from individual to individual. While some may describe it in mystical or metaphysical terms, others may emphasize a direct and experiential knowing beyond conceptual descriptions. The depth and ongoing integration of this realization can also continue to deepen and unfold over time.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 9, 2023 0:24:25 GMT -5 inavalan said:

May 8, 2023 21:06:29 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Oh, yea, no problem. Dalela is saying that Vedic philosophy has six aspects and each can be seen from a certain perspective, and it takes all six to understand the Vedas, to conceive the inconceivable. Would that be a gestalt?

I'm saying ZD has a limited perspective as he sees from only One.

...

gestalt = a structure, arrangement, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts

Yea, that's what i thought. I'm more interested in what gestalts are made from.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 9, 2023 6:35:20 GMT -5 zendancer said:

May 8, 2023 21:06:29 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Oh, yea, no problem. Dalela is saying that Vedic philosophy has six aspects and each can be seen from a certain perspective, and it takes all six to understand the Vedas, to conceive the inconceivable. Would that be a gestalt?

I'm saying ZD has a limited perspective as he sees from only One.

~~~~~~~~~~~~the-following-not-for-inavalan~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Six Systems texts delve into the details of why materialism, voidism and impersonalism are false. They describe why God desires to see his reflection-namely, that it is a process of self-awareness and self-recognition. They describe how God is reflected in the mirror-the mirror is also a person, not an impersonal thing; the reflection in the is the mirror "knowing" God; the mirror is then identified as God's energy or Sakti, and the two realities-one masculine and the other feminine-are seen as the basis of the world. The immense variety in the reflection is attributed to the myriad aspects of God, which are integrated in God but separated in the Sakti. Thus, the created world is called duality whereas God is described as non-duality. The separation of the integrated reality is then understood as a mechanism by which God knows Himself-quite like a person looking into a mirror to see his varied features.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's from the Series Preface, pg viii

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IOW, it seems that "God" cannot know himself without the dual world (which ZD says doesn't exist).

The dual world definitely exists, but only in imagination. If the mind becomes totally quiescent, where can separation be found?

I understand that non-separation is difficult to grok because people are so habituated to imagining reality divided into separate things that until the world can be looked at WITHOUT DISTINCTION the consensus paradigm will remain intact. Furthermore, a human cannot feel fully at one with "what is" until the illusion of a separate volitional "me" collapses.

It's true that the Infinite cannot know Itself directly because, as G. Spencer Brown pointed out in "Laws of Form," unless the Infinite (imaginatively) divides itself into at least two imaginary states (observer and observed). When It does that in the form of humans, it thereby makes Itself false to Itself by an act of artificial and abstract severance. As the Tao Te Ching so accurately states, "The Tao that can be known is not the (actual) Tao."

I don't understand why dual means separation. In your book on Christianity, do you go into this? Were the Christian theologians of the first centuries struggling with this? 3, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, yet the 3 are 1. How can One be both One and Three?

Dalela hasn't mentioned that, being on the Vedas he probably won't, but that's what he means by the 3 modalities.

But he also goes into the meaning of Maya, that will be interesting.

[zendancer]

May 9, 2023 7:28:55 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

May 9, 2023 6:35:20 GMT -5 zendancer said:

The dual world definitely exists, but only in imagination. If the mind becomes totally quiescent, where can separation be found?

Isn't it true that unless there is a "Union with Source" experience it will be nearly impossible for most to grasp what you are pointing to?

----------------------------------------

Question: What is non-dual Union with Source, and how does one's view of the world change after such an experience?

ChatGBT: "Non-dual Union with Source, also known as non-dual realization or enlightenment, refers to the direct experiential understanding that there is no fundamental separation between the individual self and the Source, or universal consciousness. It is the recognition that the true nature of reality is non-dual, meaning that there is no inherent division between the observer and the observed, the subject and the object.

After experiencing non-dual Union with Source, one's perception of the world undergoes a significant shift. Instead of perceiving the world through the lens of duality and separation, there is a deep recognition of the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all things. The dualistic perception that reinforces the illusion of a separate self begins to dissolve, and a sense of oneness and wholeness emerges.

In this state of non-dual awareness, there is a profound understanding that everything that arises in experience is an expression of the same underlying consciousness. There is no longer a sense of being separate from the world, but rather a sense of being intimately interconnected with it. This perception is often described as seeing the world as a manifestation of the divine or as the play of consciousness.

From this perspective, there is a profound acceptance and embracing of all aspects of existence, including both the joys and the challenges. There is an inherent understanding that all phenomena are transient and that the essence of reality is beyond the ever-changing appearances. Thus, there is a deep sense of peace and equanimity that arises, as one is no longer caught up in the dualistic struggles and attachments of the ego.

It's important to note that the experience and understanding of non-dual Union with Source can vary from individual to individual. While some may describe it in mystical or metaphysical terms, others may emphasize a direct and experiential knowing beyond conceptual descriptions. The depth and ongoing integration of this realization can also continue to deepen and unfold over time.

That is beautifully stated even though it is stated via AI.

[zendancer]

May 9, 2023 9:16:45 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 9, 2023 6:35:20 GMT -5 zendancer said:

The dual world definitely exists, but only in imagination. If the mind becomes totally quiescent, where can separation be found?

I understand that non-separation is difficult to grok because people are so habituated to imagining reality divided into separate things that until the world can be looked at WITHOUT DISTINCTION the consensus paradigm will remain intact. Furthermore, a human cannot feel fully at one with "what is" until the illusion of a separate volitional "me" collapses.

It's true that the Infinite cannot know Itself directly because, as G. Spencer Brown pointed out in "Laws of Form," unless the Infinite (imaginatively) divides itself into at least two imaginary states (observer and observed). When It does that in the form of humans, it thereby makes Itself false to Itself by an act of artificial and abstract severance. As the Tao Te Ching so accurately states, "The Tao that can be known is not the (actual) Tao."

I don't understand why dual means separation. In your book on Christianity, do you go into this? Were the Christian theologians of the first centuries struggling with this? 3, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, yet the 3 are 1. How can One be both One and Three?

Dalela hasn't mentioned that, being on the Vedas he probably won't, but that's what he means by the 3 modalities.

But he also goes into the meaning of Maya, that will be interesting.

If there are "not-two," how can there be three?

The AI quote, by JLY, above, states the situation well.

The title of this thread is an oxymoron because the inconceivable, by definition, cannot be conceived.

Again, the consensus paradigm is deeply ingrained in the intellect, and it is constantly reinforced by thoughts involving the idea of separation. That's why Niz and many other sages have told seekers, "In order to find the truth one must go beyond the mind (intellect)." The intellect can never understand non-separation; a deeper function of intelligence is required. Regarding the Infinite, the only thing that the intellect can understand is the nature of its own inherent limitation. Someone once asked Socrates something like, "Do you understand the Absolute?" Socrates supposedly replied, "No, but I understand this not-understanding."

[stardustpilgrim]

There is no free lunch. When someone offers a free lunch, always look for the hook, inside. I would expect Maya to be the greatest adversary, offering the most, eternal bliss. What better disguise of Imagination than to say imagination is imaginary. Beware of purple KoolAid. How is what you offer different from: We're living in The Matrix, or we're going on a ride, there's a spaceship behind Hale Bopp we're going to catch, there are 77 virgins waiting for you in heaven. How do you know your realizations aren't just a ND-Bubble? The first bubble consisted of tulip bulbs, you could buy a house with one tulip bulb. Maybe Imagination is not the greatest adversary in the way you think it is.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 9, 2023 9:38:24 GMT -5 zendancer said:

May 9, 2023 9:16:45 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I don't understand why dual means separation. In your book on Christianity, do you go into this? Were the Christian theologians of the first centuries struggling with this? 3, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, yet the 3 are 1. How can One be both One and Three?

Dalela hasn't mentioned that, being on the Vedas he probably won't, but that's what he means by the 3 modalities.

But he also goes into the meaning of Maya, that will be interesting.

If there are "not-two," how can there be three?

The AI quote, by JLY, above, states the situation well.

The title of this thread is an oxymoron because the inconceivable, by definition, cannot be conceived.

Again, the consensus paradigm is deeply ingrained in the intellect, and it is constantly reinforced by thoughts involving the idea of separation. That's why Niz and many other sages have told seekers, "In order to find the truth one must go beyond the mind (intellect)." The intellect can never understand non-separation; a deeper function of intelligence is required. Regarding the Infinite, the only thing that the intellect can understand is the nature of its own inherent limitation. Someone once asked Socrates something like, "Do you understand the Absolute?" Socrates supposedly replied, "No, but I understand this not-understanding."

Socrates said, If I am wise, it's because I know I know nothing. I look at it as a movement into the unknown. I think I'm immune from seeing it otherwise. I would distrust any realization that stops the movement. Maya is very clever.

[zendancer]

May 9, 2023 9:48:57 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 9, 2023 9:38:24 GMT -5 zendancer said:

If there are "not-two," how can there be three?

The AI quote, by JLY, above, states the situation well.

The title of this thread is an oxymoron because the inconceivable, by definition, cannot be conceived.

Again, the consensus paradigm is deeply ingrained in the intellect, and it is constantly reinforced by thoughts involving the idea of separation. That's why Niz and many other sages have told seekers, "In order to find the truth one must go beyond the mind (intellect)." The intellect can never understand non-separation; a deeper function of intelligence is required. Regarding the Infinite, the only thing that the intellect can understand is the nature of its own inherent limitation. Someone once asked Socrates something like, "Do you understand the Absolute?" Socrates supposedly replied, "No, but I understand this not-understanding."

Socrates said, If I am wise, it's because I know I know nothing. I look at it as a movement into the unknown. I think I'm immune from seeing it otherwise. I would distrust any realization that stops the movement. Maya is very clever.

What is it that thinks it can "move into the unknown?" What is it that thinks it is immune from anything?

[inavalan]

May 9, 2023 9:02:20 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 9, 2023 0:24:25 GMT -5 inavalan said:

gestalt = a structure, arrangement, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts

Yea, that's what i thought. I'm more interested in what gestalts are made from.

Gestalts are formed of "elements" that are, most likely, gestalts themselves.

The beauty of the "gestalt" concept is that is a model for placebo / nocebo, mass-formations, ... that cannot be explained mechanistically.

The gestalt allows for free-will at all levels, while still allowing for value-fulfillment to be achievable at all levels. This is because the gestalt's properties don't result from the properties of its elements, and each element's properties don't result from the properties of the gestalt.

Studying the elements doesn't allow you to draw conclusions on the gestalt, and studying the gestalt doesn't allow you to draw conclusions on its elements.

One of the most often mentioned examples is the human body and its cells.