Is it possible to remain in the Non-dual state and function in the world?

[allinone]

i choose goodness.

[Marblehead]

Is it the moment, i admit defeat and ingest the soar pill?

 

Its impossible to imagine perfection. I regret using the word non-dual, i hate myself..

Belly laughs.

[forestofclarity]

I don't think I did. In fact, I was careful not to. Mixing up ontology with epistemology happens when people say "we cannot know what is outside of consciousness, therefore nothing exists apart from consciousness." My point here is that there may be unknowns outside of consciousness. But the body, as we perceive it, does not generate consciousness. It is a perception OF consciousness. Naive realists believe the world exists as we see it, forgetting that how the world appears depends on the one looking at it. 

 

Indeed, what is perceived by the body is only a small sliver of a greater whole. For example, looking at the body, we see a limited range of light. The perception of the body changes with conditions, such as whether it is day or night, whether it is seen by someone with color blindness, whether the seer is sick and so on. In addition, even pointing to a body separates it from its context: time, space, the earth, the universe, etc. 

 

You can remove the perception of your body --- sight, sounds, touch etc. But consciousness remains. However, if you remove consciousness, there is no perception of the body. Accordingly, the perception of the body depends on consciousness. 

 

A lot of people mistake this point for idealism, but it isn't--- in fact, this is how many people categorize Yogacara. The position is that everything we see is consciousness, so saying that what we see creates, generates, or is necessary for consciousness is an error. 

 

 

I don't think the body creates consciousness either, but purely to be argumentative - IMHO here you are mixing up ontology and epistemology. It is theoretically possible for A to cause B (ontology), and for A to be unknowable until B exists (epistemology). How something comes to exist and how something comes to be knowable are two different issues.

[3bob]

Is it the moment, i admit defeat and ingest the soar pill?

 

Its impossible to imagine perfection. I regret using the word non-dual, i hate myself..

 

I don't know about a soar "pill" but there is the red or blue one, just ask Neo.

[3bob]

:-) I couldn't help seeing the similarity-not that I am religious in any way except for cleaning my teeth, which I do twice a day.

 

      three times a day could lead to ten thousand,  but then you'd have to see a surgeon instead of a dentist. 

[ChiForce]

I don't think I did. In fact, I was careful not to. Mixing up ontology with epistemology happens when people say "we cannot know what is outside of consciousness, therefore nothing exists apart from consciousness." My point here is that there may be unknowns outside of consciousness. But the body, as we perceive it, does not generate consciousness. It is a perception OF consciousness. Naive realists believe the world exists as we see it, forgetting that how the world appears depends on the one looking at it. 

 

Indeed, what is perceived by the body is only a small sliver of a greater whole. For example, looking at the body, we see a limited range of light. The perception of the body changes with conditions, such as whether it is day or night, whether it is seen by someone with color blindness, whether the seer is sick and so on. In addition, even pointing to a body separates it from its context: time, space, the earth, the universe, etc. 

 

You can remove the perception of your body --- sight, sounds, touch etc. But consciousness remains. However, if you remove consciousness, there is no perception of the body. Accordingly, the perception of the body depends on consciousness. 

 

A lot of people mistake this point for idealism, but it isn't--- in fact, this is how many people categorize Yogacara. The position is that everything we see is consciousness, so saying that what we see creates, generates, or is necessary for consciousness is an error. 

Yeah, is called dependent origination or dependent arising.    The naive mind or the inverted mind grasps the 6 consciousness from the 5 skandhas and this, he claims, is his non-duality....the real mind.  Hahahahahahahahaha......the poor fellow is actually living in hell and didn't even know it.  

[Marblehead]

Well, we did live in the non-dual when we were in the womb.  (I don't remember that part of my life though.)

[ChiForce]

Well, we did live in the non-dual when we were in the womb.  (I don't remember that part of my life though.)

From the Taoist perspective, maybe.  From the Buddhist cosmology standpoint, you are only still relatively in a non-dual state because your birth is the result of your rebirth.    Rebirth from some karma in the past. 

[Marblehead]

I hope you aren't expecting a response from me to that.