Daniel

Before changing the subject, let's agree on something: I have brought multiple examples of particular events which occur beyond consciousness? Yes or no?

I agree. At the time I started this thread, I was misinformed. That said, the term "non-dual" is not immune from being misused. It's stating the obvious, but, I think it's important based on some of the replies.

I'd like to read more about this. Recommendations?

Ok. ~nods~. I'll try it. The conscious is free? Do you expect to experience it consciously? ( Were you making a pun? ) Makes good sense. Is there a name for this? The impulse? If that's a proper word for it?

Likewise. Although in our conversation, your posts are the ones which are illogical. Not mine. How many times have you described reality in terms of a dichotomy yet incorrectly claim is it non-dual? 5? 6? How many times did you raise completely irrelevant diversions? An event doesn't exist because it's insignificant? That's completely illogical. Did you make a personal statement about me to cover up for it? Yes, you did.

Your contribution cannot be excluded.

Smart. I like it.

No. The original context is non-dual reality.

You clearly are not following the conversation.

The mind and a dream are separate in the same way that water and a glass are separate.

Stop describing a dichotomy and calling it non-dual. Avoiding contradiction requires choosing different words. There's nearly infinite events occuring beyond consciousness right now Knowing and consciousness is always and forever incomplete Changing the subject concedes the point. The water and the glass container are not relatively identical. It does. That's the meaning of the word "equally" This conversation is going nowhere. Anyone reading it can see for themselves. The devotion to the words 'non-dual' have completely annihilated logic, reason, and common sense. All three. Dwai, that is the opposite of non-dual. Lol. No. You cannot defend anything you've written, so now you're lowering yourself to a personal attack. I've solved this. What you're describing isn't non-dual. It's something else. That "something else" is fine. Non-duality is also fine. Non-duality is easy. There's nothing difficult about it in spite of all the hype. When you're ready to admit you're wrong about the glass of water, let me know. Until then, I have no reason to take what you're saying seriously.

Do not go gentle into that good night.Rage, rage against the dying of the light. https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night

Nonsense. I challenge you to drink glass. ~shakes-my-head~

Mind/Dream <---- Dichotomy. Dichotomy is dual. Subject/Object <---- Dichotomy. Dichotomy is dual. You're describing a dichotomy. A dichotomy is always dual. In order to avoid this different words need to be chosen.

They are separate in the same way that water in a vessel are separate. The non-dual entity above is: "Water << containment >> Glass" It's as simple as that.

Peace cannot be achieved from negligence. At best that is a temporarily reprieve, with one exception: Death.

Self-or-Not <--- Dichotomy. Dichotomy is dual. Polemic-or-Not <--- Dichotomy. Dichotomy is dual. Superficial-or-Not <--- Dichotomy. Dichotomy is dual. The words you've chosen describe a dualistic reality. If the non-dual consciousness appears, seems to be, something it isn't, then it is incorrect to call it "non-dual". You're describing a dichotomy. Dichotomy is dual.

Why are you avoiding the very simple truth? There are nearly infinite events which are occurring right now beyond consciousness. Most of them are underground. The best example is an aquafer. Water drops are being filtered through many many layers of dirt and sediment producing water which is sweet, healthy, significant, and necessary for many. Agreed?

I am your own Self? OK. What is my mother's maiden name? What is the name of my childhood pet? What is the balance in one of my bank accounts? What is the name of my best friend? What did I have for dinner last night? The assertion is incredibly foolish without a great deal of qualification which undermines the grandiose quality and brings it back down to earth as a much more common endeavor.

Not true. It is not known in consciousness by intuition. If you don't believe me, please go to the market, pick up an apple. Then please tell me how tall is the particular tree which produced the particular apple in your hand. If the particular tree is known in consciousness by intuition then your consciousness should be able to tell me how tall it is. Are you able to tell me anything about that particular tree which produces the particular fruit? If not, then it is not known in consciousness by intuition. Necessity is irrelevant. The event which produced the apple exists beyond consciousness. If the apple fell from the tree and was gathered, instead of being picked from a branch, the event is unknown by all consciousness. Vidya/avidya is a dichotomy. Dichotomy is dual. These are the definitions of the words in language. In order to avoid the contradiction new words need to be chosen or the speaker needs to abstain from speaking.

The most beneficial? I'm not sure how to evaluate "most" objectively. That depends on an individual's aspirations. I think there is a great deal of benefit that comes from a proper non-dual perspective which is simultaneously rigid and flexible. It's the same as belief in the self. It's the same for almost anything. A proper non-dual perspective is complete. Those who hold to an improper, inaccurate version of non-duality, are holding to an incomplete perspective. They're not wrong, or ignorant, or deluded. What they are observing is true, but, lacking. I hope we can agree that complete is more beneficial than incomplete, with at least one exception: ignorance is bliss. Honestly, I think that's the root problem. The desire for so many is an experience of "bliss". The bliss which is attained by the aspirant is child-like. It is produced by forgetting and returning to the womb, for lack of better terms. Returning to the womb is very much like shoving the head in the sand and refusing to come out. In the womb there are no others. In the womb, there is only Self. In the womb there is only consciousness. If an individual can recreate that experience in their mind, yes, they will experience bliss. They will feel an overwhelming sense of being loved and cherished. There's nothing wrong with wanting this experience, chasing it, and wanting to share the experience with anyone who will listen. Perhaps it's a version of enlightenment? Perhaps it's a stepping stone towards further attainments? I think so. I think that's probably true. But it also seems to be precarious. In the meditative-womb, where everything is forgotten and neglected, the aspirant is alone. They are the center of the universe. When they depart from their meditative state, if they want to retain the blissful feeling, they can get a similar feeling by imagining themself as superior, a "first-born-son", like Jesus. If they can convince themselves of this, and gain followers, this reinforces their blissful experience in day-to-day mundane activities where they are not in a meditative-womb. Part of their "practice" is self-affirmations. You can find this very clearly in Hindu practices where the aspirant spends a great deal of time affirming to themselves they are "God", more or less. The online non-dual preachers do the same thing even though they are not technically practicing Hinduism. Instead, they assert that they are still in the meditative-womb. That they have realized it. There is nothing else. There is no other perspective. They are permanently in a womb. They don't use these terms, but, pretty much, they're line of discourse ( the preaching ) can all be collected into that general category: "I am the center of the universe. Nothing occurs which is beyond me." They're talking about the experience of being an only child in a womb where nothing else exists. They will even deny their own mother who is metaphorically "feeding" them through the metaphorical "umbilical cord". Everyone is different, so, it's going to mean different things to each individual to an extent. The mistake that I think many ( almost everyone ) makes is using the analogy of a "path" towards non-dual realization. It's not like a path. It's like climbing a mountain, then crossing a tight-rope and balancing there. It's not a blissful experience. It's awesome and terrifying. As one gets closer and closer to the destination, it becomes more and more treacherous. One false move, the aspirant tumbles all the way down into a ravine. They'll need to climb out of the ravine in order to start the ascent again. After the misstep, they're further from their destination than when they started, and getting out of the ravine isn't easy either. They might be stuck down there. And, if they're stuck, maybe they'll make the best of it in the ravine. Maybe they'll decide, "Hey! It's nice down here. Maybe this is what I was seeking all along. Falling off the cliff ( or tight-rope ) is the best thing to have happened. I have achieved; I have attained." But in truth, they've shifted the goal posts or forgotten what they set out to achieve in the first place. Perhaps they were never told what they're actually seeking? Perhaps they are just imitating others whom they consider role-models? Perhaps their "practice" is almost exclusively "meditative-forgetting" which would naturally produce this sort of obliviating of purpose such that being stuck in a ravine after climbing a mountain feels like success. Realizing non-duality is not that big of an achievement. I think that's the probably the biggest most important misconception that should be cleared. Realizing non-duality is nothing more than realizing "everything is connected". That's all. No one with a finite human mind will ever be able to conceptualize all the connections all at once all at the same time. The connections are nearly infinite. Because of this, anytime a person realizes a sort of counter-intuitive connection between dissimilar concepts, they are realizing non-duality in a small way. Selling non-duality is what many do for a career. It's a big-business. Naturally there will be push-back from "professional-mediators" against any who point out how simple it is and how accessible it is lacking any instruction or practice at all. People realize non-duality naturally all the time, all day long, without any effort at all. Anytime someone laughs at a joke, they are realizing non-duality to a degree.

I agree. If "normal vocabulary cannot fully describe" it, then, it makes sense that non-dual is a misnomer. It's not the descriptions which are being analysed. It's their behavior. Their arguments. Their mud-slinging. Their denial. Their hypocrisy. I don't find it lacking by default. I think it has merit. I think the internet is an opportunity for individuals to role-play as an enlightened-sage. It's a place where one can self-affirm, and gain social acceptance and support of the their self-bestowed attainments while simultaneously claiming "I have no self". Ah. Important clarification: Immerse in the culture =/= practice more here on TDB. Here, the individuals who assert their non-dual enlightenment most often discourage learning or immersion in the culture. "Practice more", here on TDB, is the opposite of immersion in the culture. Here, "Practice More" means do it my way, it's the only way. , You cannot immerse yourself, you cannot learn it, or understand it, because I did not learn it or understand it that way. I am enlightened. You are not." This is often in close proximity to some other assertions about non-duality which sharply contradicts with the sharp contrasting duality of what they just wrote. That's why I very often seek original source material ( written texts ) from those who have mastered the practice in their original language. The imposters will discourage this. "You can't understand anything from learning." ~eye-rolls~

It is a misnomer when an individual asserts that any other perspective is wrong, ignorant, or deluded. Right/wrong is dual. Ignorant/knowledgeable is dual. Deluded/Disillusioned is dual. However there is a way to make sense of this avoiding all logical and linguistic pitfalls. But, it cannot happen if an individual asserts that any who disagree are ignorant, wrong, or deluded. As soon as they do that, they've abandoned non-duality if they had ever realized it at all.

The particular event is useful because it produces a particular apple. Whether or not I have particular knowledge of it is irrelevant. The event occurred beyond consciousness. If the event didn't occur, then there would not be any fruit in the market. The event occurred beyond consciousness. Knowledge of the event is irrelevant. Apples blossoming from a tree are not produced with a purpose. Trees do not have willful intentions. Purpose is irrelevant. The event occurs lacking purpose. Significance is irrelevant. The event occurs lacking significance. This has been addressed twice. See below. However, I'm open to alternative explanations. When you go to the market and pick up an apple, what has produced this apple if it wasn't produced naturally by a particular tree which is unknown to you? Is there any valid alternative explanation? The particular apple in your hand was produced by a particular tree which is beyond consciousness. Below is the third repeat of the answer to your question about working around the inherent limitations of knowledge. I don't know. I understand that it is highly unlikely for the apple to magically poof into existence. Yes, this understanding exists in consciousness, but the apple tree does not. I don't know how tall it is. I don't know the precise color and texture of its bark. I don't know how much water it received. I don't know if the tree is diseased, or a home to vermin. The particular tree is completely absent from consciousness, but, it exists. If it didn't, then you should be able to explain the mechanism which produces that particular apple lacking a particular apple tree. It could be the particular tree exists beyond any consciousness. The apple falls. A farmer gathers it. It goes to the market. You pick it up. That particular apple is produced by a particular tree which is beyond all consciousness. No one knows which particular tree produces it. Dwai, if the events don't occur all the fruit stands are empty. That is highly relevant. The events need to occur prior to your knowledge else you'll never eat food unless you have harvested it yourself.

Yes. I remember as well. My recollection is that the last batch of messages between the two of us had settled in agreement that the English terminology was not suitable. It was too ambiguous.