Daniel

Agreed. My objection is not insignificant. See below: Density is a material quality. Knowledge it not. That's a significant category error. It is significant because if knowledge is not a material quality, then, it is not limited by time and space. Therefore, it can co-exist with dense material objects in the same time and at the same place. If it is true for physical earth, how much more so for a 4-d entity? What you're describing as 4-d and 5-d entities, I would expect, based on what you've written, would both exist concurrently, equally, through time-and-space-and-beyond. An analogy: the 4-d and 5-d entities are like "salts" which are "dissolved" in the "medium" of reality ( time-and-space-and-beyond ). Or perhaps a better analogy: the 4-d and 5-d entities are like different "wave-lengths" of "light" which co-exist in time-and-space. Together, both 4-d and 5-d entities, among the other "wave-lengths", combine to produce the "white-light" of reality ( space-and-time-and--beyond ). Why should I, or anyone, take what you're preaching seriously? You're here for those who are already saved, and, don't need your counsel? What are these individuals who are going to heaven supposed to do with the ideas you've posted? Nod their heads and say: "Yup"? They're already going to heaven? If so, they don't need you. I'm telling you this, because, what you've written in large part doesn't make sense. This is yet another example.

It's an evolved trait with significant advantages. Successful persistence hunting was the necessary precursor to the first religion / spiritual practice: shamanism.

Certainly? I don't believe you.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ( NIV ) 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God a may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. God-breathed = "divine inspired" It's a mystery.

In another thread, @Apech wrote regarding the two truth's doctrine: Why again is this considered "non-dual"? Does the term "non-dual" make any sense at all in this context? It's two-truths? That's dual. The cup is simultaneously real and not-real. That's dual.

Thank you. That's useful and wise.

Everyone knows I'm not stupid, Matt. The other problem with this, is that the the non-dual advocates I'm arguing with discourage learning, discourage intellect, and in that way encourage stupidity. I am arguing with them, and it's not dragging me anywhere. I've stated my case, but, my debate partners cannot and/or will not discuss it fairly. That's all.

No. That is rationalizing ( making excuses ) for the errors in what you wrote. I asked if you could articulate my reasoning. You either can't or won't. I think it's a combination of both. If you articulate my basic reasoning it clearly exposes errors in what you wrote. Naturally you will avoid this and deny the errors exist. You assert that you are enlightened, no? Admitting that your consciousness is finite and incomplete is anathema to the self-bestowed title of enlightenment? So you're never going to do it, because, doing so admits you are not enlightened now, and perhaps never will be in the way you desire. And, you cannot understand what I've written because it is detailed, distinct, and describes differences between "things" which you deny. It really has become a sort of self-imposed brain-washing. And this is why I've described the cognitive effects of these non-dual realizations as a permanent change to the brain. It's a functional regression. There are things the brain can no longer do after it has "realized" non-duality according to your practice. The brain and the mind seem to be compromised. It literally cannot function properly. It's like part of it has died, or been amputated. Perhaps this is the price one pays for that specific version of bliss? I don't know. But one thing is certain. There's no way to rationally claim I'm wrong, if you don't understand what I've written.

Sure. I feel the same way. This is the nature of paradox. Just as your comment ( "hard to follow" ) is not insulting, my comment ( "contradiction" ) is not an insult though many take offense at it. With all due respect, this is blaming "intellect". Demonizing and avoiding. First, a very simple question: Is it, ( whatever "it" is ) truly, absolutely, limitless? Or is it limitless is some ways but not others? If it's the first, "it" is simultaneously inclusive and exclusive which is a paradox, but not contradictory. If it's the second, "it" is disjunctive which is neither a paradox nor contradictory. In both cases: "limitless" is not ineffable. It can be decribed accurately without contradiction. The benefit to using language rigorously in this way is that it permits collaboration. Team-work. Two individuals from different cultural backgrounds can share their collected wisdom. There is a great deal to be gained from this. Two or more distinct, simultaneous, vantage points are an opportunity to observe with clarity what is not possible to be observed with a solo observer. It's no different than depth perception which requires two physical eye-balls. However, naturally, there is going to be extreme reluctance for the self-declared "enlightened" to accept that they need anyone or anything for clear perception which does not already exist in their own mind, which already exists in their own physical skull. Often, the self-declared "enlightened" denies that anything exists outside of the grey-matter in between their physical ears. I object to this for several good reasons in spite of the fact that this will not be considered friendly or welcoming of the individual who is coming to an internet forum in anonymity to try on the title of "enlightened" and try to gain social acceptance for their acheivement. How much more so for those who have already established themselves in a community which has validated their acheivement and labeled it "enlightement". The reason that what I've written is difficult to follow is because what I wrote is describing a simultaneous immaterial phenomenon. There is no "following" it. It cannot be "followed" without splitting one's attention, splitting one's awareness, breaking the phenomenon into pieces then re-assembling it and considering it in total, simultaneously. These split pieces of the phenomenon, which are at first considered in isolation, are not occuring in sequence on a time-line. The finite human mind is not accustomed to operating this way. However, the human heart ( metaphorically ) does this 24/7. This segues nicely into the next point. What you're describing as an inherent limitation of intellect is an inherent limitation on "knowing" not on "understanding". Most people are, forgive me, clueless of the mechanations of their own heart-and-mind. In Judaism we are, perhaps, the best in the business in this regard. Buddhists are the best, the gold standard, in regard to suffering. Hindu are the best, the gold standard, in regard to bliss. Jews? We're great with details. It's what we do, and we do it well. It's what we practice everyday. These details which we study and admire and appreciate in the natural world and in ourselves is not limited to intellectual matters. We also embrace the differences and distinctions, the beauty, the rich texture of diversity which exists in the realm of emotion, the metaphorical human "heart". If I were to draw a diagram of the human psyche, it would be divided into two major sections: mind and heart. At the border between the functions of the mind and the functions of the heart exists a very peculiar and misunderstood aspect of the human psyche which is best known in english as "understanding". ( Yes, understanding is misunderstood. ) Its placement on the diagram on the border is significant because in addition to understanding with the mind, there is also an emotive / spiritual understanding which is not at all intellectual. This is: understanding with the "heart". It's absolutely true and consistent, the heart understands long before the mind, but, few realize what is happening when it is happening. Further, the heart is easily, and in relative comfort, accustomed to understanding many things simultaneously. This is one of the properties of "understanding". It connects to all the others simultaneously. It includes all the others, and itself, simultaneously. Right. And when that is happening, there is an opportunity for connecting with these concepts in an all-inclusive manner? Not limited? All-inclusive? Connecting to all? Connecting to all AND including all? That's non-duality? Exploring that which is beyond the limited intellect but also includes the limited intellect? If so, then I think it's very fair to confidently state: you and I are desccribing the same phenomenon but approching it from two very different directions. If so, hopefully the other readers will appreciate that the non-dual is no longer ineffable. We can truly discuss it. It's no longer off-limits. If the language is specific, and words are carefully chosen. For the Hindu and the Buddhist who have slaved and sacrificed to jetison any and all differences, dictinctions, and preferences from their concsious mind, this regimented behavior will probably feel like a spiritual regression, and, it is. But the benefits are profound. This feeling of regression, which is simultaneously progress, is something I tried to address in the previous post which was difficult to follow. Hopefully I will do a better job explaining what I mean this second time. There is a very important dichotomy which is studied by almost everyone approaching the age of Bar-Mitzvah in my community. This dichotomy is: emanation as contrasted with manifestation. Essence is emanated not manifested. Forms are manifested not emanated. Particular forms are manifesting below and are rising to the heavens, so to speak. Their generalized, softer, subtle, essence is emanating from the heavens and descending into the forms, so to speak. Both are happening simultaneously. This is important for this discussion because the Hindu and the Buddhist which demomizes differences, distinctions, preferences, and is denying diversity is truly "going" to heaven. They're not wrong about the "acension" and the spiritual acheivement. They're absolutely right. ( "Going" and "acension" are in quotes because they're not actually going anywhere. ) The problem is, the method which is employed ( forgettting, demonizing, denying, crippling the intellect ) is erasing the path which they took to acheive their liberation. It's fine for an individual to choose to compromise, or even to obliterate, their intellect for the purpose of acheiving their own enlightenment. There's nothing wrong with that, except, lacking those intellectual faculties, they will never-never be able to teach others effectively or communicate what happened to them along the way. It seems that this is accepted among the dharmic practioners as unavoidable, but, it's not. Not at all. The misunderstanding is coming from neglecting the divinty of the "downward" emanation of spiritual essence which is equally significant to the particular form ( the human concsiousness ) which is ascending, reassimilating, back into its essential source. Once this is understood, that emanating is the opposite of manifesting, yet they are sympathetic, non-dual, partners operating in harmony, which is necessary, then, the intellect is no longer demonized. The cognitive functions which permit accurate teaching and sharred expression is no longer abandoned. Many more can be liberated. The world is a better, happier, and more peaceful place for everyone. It's a non-dual "win-win" so to speak. And that's why, I made the point of distinguishing between an emanation and a manifestation. It's very very important. An essence doesn't manifest. Manifestation requires differences, distinctions, preferences, etc. These things are demonized and neglected in error to almost everyone's detriment in a social setting. The solo practioner who lives as a hermit and never desires to teach or share is excluded. Hopefully that explains much much better what I meant in my previous reply.

"... can never point at anything that is not it." contradicts with "without bias or obviation" and "pointing the wrong way when ideas are imputed to it." Truly limitless is expressed as a "non-exclusive or". In English it's most simply stated in the form of "... or not." No limitations: embraces all differences and distinctions without or without bias or obviation. experience unboundedness or not experience ungrasping attention or not Imputing ideas or not Imputing descriptions or not I agree this ^^ is limitless. No ideas, no descriptions, no grasping, no bias, no differences, no distinctions This ^^ is the opposite of limitless. All ideas All descriptions All grasping All bias All differences All distinctions This ^^ is truly limitless. This is because the negating assertions are special cases included in the above. "No ideas" is an idea "No descriptions" is a description "No grasping" is a form of counter-intuitive grasping "No bias" is a bias "No differences" is a difference "No distinctions" is a distinction Yes. Makes perfect sense. "The nature of mind is the essence we are manifesting" Essence? Manifesting? I was taught differently. What do you think of this idea? Essence emanates. Forms manifest. Not vice versa. The physical body is a manifestation of the essence which is emanating. This explains rainbow light phenomena ( teaching ) when the physical body is liberated. The underlying mechanism is the dual emergency "above" and "below". "Above" and "below" are in quotes because it's not literally "above" nor is it literally "below". The emanation is happening, simultaneously, always and forever, concurrently, and omnipresent with the manifestation. The difference is valence. The emanation is abstract becoming particular. The manifestation is particular becoming abstract. Both are happening simultaneously and concurrently such that it is almost impossible to distinguish any significant difference between them.

Good. Do you understand the my reasons for my basic position? If so, please articulate them?

In the apple/orchard example, there is a condition which produces an absolute lack of knowledge of the event. An apple falls from a branch lacking an observer. The apple is gathered and brought to market. The particular event which produced that particular apple will never be known. The event is always and forever beyond consciousness ( as described ). It could be that the meaning of the words used( "consciousness" and "knowledge" ) do not fully capture the event in this case. If so, acknowledging that would be good. "The essence is not about things..." OK. Then why choose those specific words if they are known to be false. If the essence is not about things, then, the relationship below is incoherent. It's a category error. The words chosen are completely out of context. That is a huge linguistic problem. This is not petty semantics. It's a matter of saying one thing, but the actual meaning is the opposite. If the essence is not about things, then, this statement is nonsense. If you don't believe me, please explain the following: "Everything and everyone is essentially your own Self, and, the essence is not about things." Try this one: "Everything and everyone is essentially your own Self, but, the essence is not about things." Or this: "Everything and everyone is essentially your own Self, but sometimes, the essence is not about things." This is not focusing on terminology. This is flip-flopping. It makes no sense. It goes far beyond lacking the language to describe the subtle differences between different batches of aged parmesan. This is like putting pizza on the menu, but, when pizza is order, the kitchen prepares a duck. Pizza is not a duck. If essence is not about things, then, every thing cannot be described using the word essence.

Hurray! The boy can listen! The boy can learn! ~chuckles~ Not always. You may not believe me, but, I understand that very well. Do you understand me? This essence excludes many things. Because of that, the non-dual concept which you are describing is incomplete. This would not be a problem if the intention is not to describe "Everyone and Everything". Is it correct to write it this way? The essence of everyone and everything is non-dual?

? This is a limitation? This specific form of knowing cannot tolerate differences or distinctions? The magnitude of the experience obliviates them?

The distinctions exist but are not included in "Self"?

The inference arises in mind, which is a form of consciousness. ( I'm not ready to propose that there is only one undifferentiated consciousness ). "this inferred explanation" Yes and no. Yes, the explanation includes a form of knowledge. But it includes more than knowledge. It includes knowledge of a lack of knowledge. That's why it's a good counter-example. Yes, but exclusive devotion to knowledge is always and forever incomplete. That's the crux of this.

Thank you. "... everything and everyone is essentially your own Self." What do you mean by "essentially"?

I agree 100%. It's a huge and wonderful topic to explore. I've started doing some writing about it very recently. Have you heard of the Yeshivah of Shem? ( Like Shema )?

Restated: Everything and Everyone is Self Self is nondual awareness consciousness Question: Does consciousness possess knowledge? Facts? Ideas? Associations?

Thank you.

All that's needed are better word choices. It's clear to me that what you're describing is virtuous. Calling it non-duality such that nothing is excluded from it is simply not true. While I can appreciate the benefit that comes from cross-promotion in multiple schools of thought, there's diminishing returns if what is spoken makes zero sense in the English language. And this ignores the repeated contradictions. I certainly am not going to want to engage in a practice which turns the mind into mush. Non-duality is popular, and has name recognition. Other than that, it's poor choice of words which creates confusion. There's better word choices which makes a lot more sense. But you seem much more concerned with discrediting me personally rather than fairly address what I've written.

This is the fourth time I've answered this question. Knowing is always and forever incomplete. There are other methods of cognition besides "knowing" which fill in those rather large gaps. I don't need to know because it's extremely likely to be the case and there is no other viable explanation. Apples do not magically poof into existence. There is a series of events which are producing them. These events occur beyond the surface. Knowing in the manner which you are describing is superficial and does not probe below the surface. You can imagine those events, but, those imaginations will always be either inaccurate or incomplete in some way.

Not true. I'm using natural deduction to evaluate the likelihood that it is unknown. Then I supplement this with your inability to answer simple questions. Example: you go to the market and pick up an apple. Where is the particular branch which produced that apple? When did it blossom? When was it picked? In the above example there are several events which occured beyond consciousness. The blossoming and the harvest. Another example: this one is more difficult. Right now, what is the trajectory and rate of speed of the water droplets melting off of the Hubbard glacier? How many are there? In this example the number of events beyond consciousness are very large. Yes it's possible to imagine these events in general, but, that is not the actual event. So far, you have not been able to address these questions in any other way besides: "I don't care about that, let's talk about dreaming."

None of them apply to what? I showed that your explanations were flawed. You didn't reply nor refute any of what I wrote. I doubt you are able to articulate my position accurately. If you don't know what I'm saying, then, it's impossible to assess right or wrong. If you know that I'm wrong, please do me the courtesy of confirming that you have accurately represented my assertion in your mind?

I agree, but the analogy is a bit flawed if you're referring to my conversation with some of the others. I'm not asking for an explanation in that way.