Science for the awakened

[Nikolai1]

Hi all,

 

Normal science is based on the assumption of correspondence.  There is a reality out there, with its laws and its facts.  We must gain some kind of representation of this world that corresponds to the way that it really is.  The more our theories correspond, the better our knowledge will work and the more predictable the world will be.

 

All this changes with awakening.  No longer do we assume a world 'out there' separate from ourselves.  We see that the world out there is indistinguishable from the world 'in here'.  The mental and physical have blended into a whole, without seams.  Our thoughts are a part of the total reality, and they condition material reality, and are conditioned, in a perpetual to and fro.  No longer must we shape our theories on an external world; now our theories are understood to, themselves, shape the outer world.

 

But our awakening, though a radical change in worldview, does not bring us omniscience.  We still have thoughts, expectations and hopes about reality that seem to be erroneous.  We get things wrong, misread situations, make bad decisions.

 

In the past we had no problem with error.  Error was simply the discovery that our representations did not correspond to reality, and the signal for us to adjust them accordingly.  But what happens when we can no longer subscribe to this view of inner to outer discrepancy? How does our new science proceed?

 

We now understand that our errors are based on a discrepancy that exists inside of us.  We get things wrong because we entertain conflicting hopes, desires and expectations.  These three types of mental events are all conditioning material reality.  Our error comes when we expect a certain outcome that has already been precluded by the existence of a contradictory mental predictor.  

 

Therefore our science must begin all over again.  We are in the position of Cro-Magnon man staring bewildered at a lawful world whose laws are obscure.  But for us, all the data must be taken from the inside.  We are the sole investigators, with exclusive access to the data.  For ourselves we must analyse why our expectations did not come to pass, and what we did to prevent the truth from revealing itself to us in that moment.

 

This process will purify us.  We will learn to see which of our expectations are blocking other expections.  And presented with this, we must make a choice which we keep and which we discard.  We will stop squandering mental resources on outcomes that we now see we don't actually wish to happen.  Like scientists we must apply Ockham's Razor.  Our will shall become increasingly powerful and focussed.  What we want will happen; and what happens is our will.

 

This is omniscience.  Not knowing everything all at once.  But never finding yourself in a situation where you are confused by expectations that can not happen.

 

Omniscience is possible - not through outer science, but from the self-knowledge that is now the urgent task for the recently awakened.

[Nikolai1]

Here's a concrete example:

 

Imagine a young man has recently met a woman at his work.  They have spoken a few times and yet each time he has felt the most amazing rush of energy.  Although he can't explain it, he really feels like he's in love.  It seems that he has known her for ages; there seems to be something in the way they look at each other.  Of course, his worry is that it is all an illusion. He can't deny that he would love to find a mate and he knows that he can fall prey to wishful thinking.  His question - the thing he is almost frantic to know - is: does this girl feel the same way?

 

The assumption of normal science

 

This is the assumption that somewhere on the other side of town there is a girl who already knows the answer to this question.  The truth is out there, waiting to be discovered.  She is aware of something he needs to know.  All he has to do is ask her the question and then he will get the answer.  There is a truth to the situation, but he does not yet know it and is therefore in ignorance.

 

The assumptions of post-awakening science

 

The truth is not 'out there' waiting to be discovered by asking the question.  Whether the girl loves him is a fact still waiting to be determined.  This does not mean she has not made up her mind.  It means that he has not made up his.  Whether she loves him or not will be directly dictated by him and the inner validity of his mental processes.

 

What are these?

 

There are two conflicting thoughts in his mind: 1) That his love for this female individual is real.  2) That the love is nothing more than a desire for any female, not necessarily this one.

 

One of these thoughts will predominate, and will in fact determine the answer she gives when he asks her next time he sees her.  His task is simply to determine, through what I call inner science, which of these two conflicting thoughts is of the higher truth.

 

His scientific investigation therefore occurs not 'out there in the world' but inside his own inner world.  If he comes up with the right answer as to the nature of HIS love for the girl, her love for him (or her disregard) will naturally manifest in reality.

 

Such a scientist has no need for outer empiricism.  He has no need to ask her whether she loves him. He hs completely stopped projecting his own self-ignorance onto the world, and then trying to regain it through empirical verification.  Rather, the world naturally affirms what he already knows inside hinself and willls.

 

Needless to say, an awakening to the nature of reality completely reverses our behaviour.  No longer do we search outside for answers; we search inside for truth in the knowledge that the outside will necessarily mirror it.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Marblehead]

And this cannot be done without doubting and questioning.

[Nikolai1]

Readers of these two different types of enquiry might ask: But does it matter?  In both types of science there is a search from unknowing to knowing.  Whether we perform the verification on the outside or the inside, what difference does it make?

 

It is true that the outcome is the same in both cases, but our situation while the verification is occurring is much different.

 

The outer scientist

 

• Is fretting day and night over the truth.
• With great nerves and intrepidation, plucks up the courage to ask her
• Places her in a very difficult and awkward situation.  He is way off the mark.
• Suffers great disappointment and a lack of confidence in his own judgement.  This painful experience will make him even more blind to reality next time he likes a girl.  Next time he won't trust himself, and settling down with a girl will be a doubtful and protracted process.

 

The Inner Scientist

 

• All the turmoil is contained within the crucible of himself.  Aloof he observes the to and fro until certainty reveals itself.
• There is no outer awkwardness.  His relations with the girl are cool and confident throughout, whatever the final outcome. 
• He has taken on all possibility for outer unpleasantness and kept it on the inside while he patiently reveals the truth. His hidden work looks on the outside like nothing is happening at all.
• When thr truth has been determined, his action is swift, effective and totally natural.

 

Truth will out, in either scenario.  The Tao will have its way.  But to the awakened this truth will manifest calmly, confidently and without hitch.  Before awakening we have to go through all manner of stressful byroads.

[Marblehead]

Oh!, so you have been rejected by a woman.  I assure you, you are not the first man to ever have that experience  I can't tell you how many times I have been rejected.  But then, I can't tell you how many times I have been accepted either.  Both are many.

 

But if we don't ask we will never know what the answer might have been.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Marblehead

[Nikolai1]

.

 

But if we don't ask we will never know what the answer might have been.

I'm saying that to the wise, the question is an empty formality.  And he only needs to ask it if he knows the question is going to be 'yes'.

 

As you can see, its a total reversal of science.  We ask because we already know.  Our asking IS the knowing.

[Marblehead]

I'm saying that to the wise, the question is an empty formality.  And he only needs to ask it if he knows the question is going to be 'yes'.

 

As you can see, its a total reversal of science.  We ask because we already know.  Our asking IS the knowing.

Why even ask rhetorical questions?  I don't ask my chair if it is going to support me each time I plan to sit on it.  The answer is already a given.

 

Yes, what you said here goes back to your first post which I felt very uncomfortable with and this is why I did not respond to it.

 

It is just like a person who was taught to believe in the existence of a god.  They need ask the question only once.  After that the answer is a given unless the person is caused to have doubts and then they would ask the question again.

[Nikolai1]

Why even ask rhetorical questions? 

Yes there is a question we ask when we already know the answer.  It is an empty formality, but still we must ask it! That question is a creative act.  It is the means by which the tacit becomes real and manifest.

 

It is rather like the position a couple find themselves in when they keep meeting up, even when the rest of the gang aren't there, chatting on whatsapp each night - but on the surface are still friends.  It still comes as a relief to both when one of them 'makes it official', even though neither of them were in any real doubt about what was happening.

 

The difference with the question of the wise person is that only he knows the answer beforehand.  To the other, it might come completely out the blue...but she does not say 'no' to him!  The awakened person is much more attuned to their feelings.  They see what to others is still unseen.

 

Yes, what you said here goes back to your first post which I felt very uncomfortable with and this is why I did not respond to it.

Tell me why you felt uncomfortable?

[Marblehead]

Yes there is a question we ask when we already know the answer.  It is an empty formality, but still we must ask it! That question is a creative act.  It is the means by which the tacit becomes real and manifest.

 

It is rather like the position a couple find themselves in when they keep meeting up, even when the rest of the gang aren't there, chatting on whatsapp each night - but on the surface are still friends.  It still comes as a relief to both when one of them 'makes it official', even though neither of them were in any real doubt about what was happening.

 

The difference with the question of the wise person is that only he knows the answer beforehand.  To the other, it might come completely out the blue...but she does not say 'no' to him!  The awakened person is much more attuned to their feelings.  They see what to others is still unseen.

But I view that as only formalizing the answer.  Both already knew the answer.  The question didn't even need be asked.  Some things in life are obvious if we take the time to properly observe (without ego).

 

Tell me why you felt uncomfortable?

Too much importance placed on the self.  We do not create reality.  We only observe it and respond to it.

 

And when we observe we must do so with an unprejudiced mind.  And then understand, if possible, what we have observed without adding unseen causes.  There is nothing wrong with not understanding something.  What is wrong is when we add to or subtract from what we have observed.

 

Reality and cause and effect exist without our presence.  And reality doesn't need us to define it.

[Nikolai1]

Reality and cause and effect exist without our presence.  And reality doesn't need us to define it.

This is the worldview I call materialism.  There is a world, independent of us, and it is as it is.  We can either understand it, or not, but it makes no difference to reality - which will continue as before.

 

Awakening is realising that this is not the case.  Materialism is what we awaken from.  Obviously from the standpoint of materialism this thread is going to make zero sense.  It is a post-materialistic science I'm talking about.

[Marblehead]

This is the worldview I call materialism.  There is a world, independent of us, and it is as it is.  We can either understand it, or not, but it makes no difference to reality - which will continue as before.

 

Awakening is realising that this is not the case.  Materialism is what we awaken from.  Obviously from the standpoint of materialism this thread is going to make zero sense.  It is a post-materialistic science I'm talking about.

Well, I am, after all, a Materialist.  One can't expect too much from me.

 

So I guess I will just watch the thread and keep my mouth shut.

[Nikolai1]

The inner science I speak of is not simple introspection, because both sciences involve this.

 

Normal scientific introspection is internally mulling over all the different explanations and deciding upon one that best fits the facts.

 

Post-awakening introspection is of a very different nature.  There is no truth out there to fit our thoughts to.  What the truth will be is open.  It is therefore up to us to create truth according to our will.  

 

But how do we know what our will is? As I said in the OP we may will many different things: for example, we might simultaneously wish something, and not wish the shame that will fall on us if we get it.

 

The determinant of truth for the awakened scientist is what is felt in the heart as love. We must learn to hear what our heart is telling us to do.  This isn't actually hard.  For the person who has very clearly seen the non separation of thought and matter, their intellect no longer works for them anyway.  There is no truth to discover with the mind.  The heart is what comes to the rescue.  Love is the only remaining determinant of action and is the thing that creates truth.  What we love in our hearts, we bring into our reality.

 

Of course this is what we do anyway, even before awakening.  If we fall in love we are powerless as if under some kind of spell.  But if we don't trust that feeling of love and cleave to it, then what we love will be lost to us.  If we allow ourselves to think that what we love is 'untrue' then we will lose the permanent manifestation of love.  We must lose our manifested love and wait for it to return again in a different guise.  

 

If we are faithful to the feeling in our hearts there will be no need for the object of our love to change, we will love constantly in whatever guise it has taken.

 

Before awakening our will is taken over by what we think we desire.  What we think we desire is shaped by the society we are in.  To awaken is to become an autonomous self.  We are no longer able to find pleasure in something just because it makes sense to everyone else around us.  We become painfully independent and must find our own truth.

 

This is where the heart steps in to guide us.  And what it shows is intelligent and enduring.  It will show us howw to replace all the things that have fallen by the wayside since we lost the taste for the pleasures of the herd.  We will learn to fill our loves with objects of love that stay with us, and do not need to be constantly replaced when we have lost belief in their truth.

 

Finally we meet the woman we love, and in her we see all the women that we have loved before.  We love her because we see it is not 'her' we love, but the loveof following the imperatives of the heart inside us...because there is nothing else to follow.

[Michael Sternbach]

Hi Nikolai,

 

An excellent topic - and a difficult one indeed.

 

I agree with your premise that external reality reflects internal reality. But what does this mean, exactly?

 

I have gathered some thoughts on this over decades, bits and pieces only. I will proable present them gradually, spread over several posts. No coherence claimed! Also, plenty of open questions. Maybe if we join our efforts, we can gain some further insights?

 

I also agree with you that other people will tend to reflect your own attitudes towards yourself. For example, if you are inclined to reproach yourself for things that go wrong, others will be guaranteed to reproach you as well. If you change this attitude towards yourself, others WILL reflect that change. I have seen it happen!

 

But - if a particular girl loves me or not, is that to be decided entirely by myself? What about her own characteristics and  circumstances that would seem to have an influence here? Well, if the the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics holds true, if it is at all possible that the girl in question would fall in love with me, it will actually happen in (at least) one of those reality strands. But is it the one that I (THIS "I"!) am going to experience? What decides that?

 

 

A poor understanding of the relationship between internal and external reality actually holds great psychological dangers. It is the reason for there being perfectly guiltless individuals feeling personally responsible for a war having broken out somewhere. Others believe that a newsreporter's twitch on TV is some kind of a message to them personally! This kind of mental disturbance is among the worst and potentially render somebody completely dysfunctional.

 

Yet, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a strand of reality in which no war started. So there should be a "me" that experiences THAT reality. What decides which probability "I" end up in?

 

You mentioned nature's laws. That may be the biggest biggie. Is their validity dependent on individual - or even collective - consciousness? I, for one, say: No. They exist in an objective manner. Some of them may actually be circumvented by consciousness under certain circumstances, but they are never truly broken. They go hand in hand with nature's constants. It is regarded by many physicists as a big mystery why the fundamental constants of nature seem fine-tuned for life. One of these fundamental constants is the fine-structure constant, or alpha, which is the coupling constant for the electromagnetic force and equal to about 1/137.0359. If alpha were just 4% bigger or smaller than it is, stars wouldn't be able to make carbon and oxygen, which would have made it impossible for life as we know it to exist. In other words, external reality's coherence depends on an intricate network of laws and constants that cannot be messed around with based on individual whims.

 

I consent that there is an inner world whose laws and structures, and relationship to the outer world, we are just beginning to understand.

[Karl]

To try a conflate the scientific method with consciousness is to throw the scientific method under a bus and replace it with Kantian scepticism. Wether you believe scepticism is valid or not, it should be understood, that by It's acceptance, you have effectively said that we cannot know anything for certain. It begs the question of the purpose of discussing the subject of science, if you regard the scientific method itself is simply the product of consciousness ? it seems to me that you wish to use a method which establishes the primacy of existence to prove the opposite-the primacy of consciousness. Why would that be necessary except to attempt to bolster a philosophy which, by its nature, does not and cannot use it.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Hi Michael

 

But - if a particular girl loves me or not, is that to be decided entirely by myself? What about her own characteristics and  circumstances that would seem to have an influence here? 

I think that the mindset we enter into upon awakening is a non-dual one.  From this place all characteristics - whether hers or mine - are overcome. We enter a place where any differences are overcome.  Whatever my feelings are for her, they will be the same as her feelings for me.  The question is: how do we come to know what they are?

 

Normal science would be to assume that my feelings of love for her are genuine.  All I have to do is ask her if she has the same feelings.

 

Awakened science proceeds by asking deep questions of ourselves first:  'I may think I love her, but do I really?' Once we have found the truth in ourselves, we have no need to ask her about her own feelings.  We already know.

 

So in summary, I'm talking about going to a place inside ourselves where there is no possibility of difference between her feelings and mine.  It is my heart that shall tell us alll we need to know about us. And my heart is her heart is OUR heart.

 

Well, if the the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics holds true, if it is at all possible that the girl in question would fall in love with me,it will actually happen in (at least) one of those reality strands. But is it the one that I (THIS "I"!) am going to experience? What decides that?

The heart decides.  The heart is there steering us through life, creating a distinct path through possibility.  

 

Of course we can defy the heart.  Often we defy the heart when we take the path that makes most sense according to how everyone else seems to live their life.  In other words, we defy the heart when we choose to copy other people who are following their hearts rather than their own.

 

By the way, I'm not talking about the heart as some abstract thing.  The more we learn to live our awakened life, the louder and more obvious the heart speaks.  It's obvious because its really the only one talking in clear terms.  The intellectual voice has become two voices and they have withdrawn to a corner arguing in circles about something, with neither one being convincing.  Yes, we reach a point where the heart not only speaks the most sense, it is saying what, deep down, we actually want to hear.

 

A poor understanding of the relationship between internal and external reality actually holds great psychological dangers. It is the reason for there being perfectly guiltless individuals feeling personally responsible for a war having broken out somewhere. Others believe that a newsreporter's twitch on TV is some kind of a message to them personally! 

In our society the healthy person is usually the one who prioritises the truth of shared reality - their inner specualtions of reality match up with those of others.  There is a person who reverses this and says many things about the outer world that are nothing other than inner specualtions - this is psychosis in extreme forms.  

 

Psychosis is the naive projection of inner dynamics onto the world, and being completely unconscious that they do this. The psychotic does not believe that the world is created by themselves; rather, it is the non-psychotic person who accuses them of trying to do this.

 

 

 

Neither of these people have awakened to the non-dual truth, which is that inner and outer are part of the same reality.  What we call a thought and matter intersperse each other.  The notion of another person thinking, is itself our thinking.  When we come to know their thoughts, it is another of our own thoughts as well.  All instances of another person's subjectivity, are themselves more of our subjectivity.  Self and other therefore breaks down.  So too, does the distinction between an inner world and outer world.  There is nothing 'out there' to discover by science, therefore our science must occur at the non-dyal place where the intellect can't reach.  This is where the heart takes over.

 

You mentioned nature's laws. That may be the biggest biggie. Is their validity dependent on individual - or even collective - consciousness? I, for one, say: No. They exist in an objective manner. 

Nature's laws are only objective once they have been manifested.  So if I discover, in myself, that the girl is indeed in love with me as I am her we will end up sharing our life in manifest reality.  My life as a single person is now over.  I must come to terms with the fact of this in nature - I can't be both IN a manifest relationship AND manifestly single.  

 

Inner science comes first.  The laws of nature reflect the dictates of the heart that we discover inside us. The constants of the cosmos reflect the constancy of our heart's love.  You could say that the outer world, and the way it works our just external projections of an inner reality.  Though we all do it, it is simply more of the same psychosis and differs only from clinical psychosis because it is conventional - the mechanism is the same.

 

When we imagine ourselves bound by nature, we are actually bound by our own hearts.  If we find ourselves entertaining impossible fantasies, we are defying ourselves and what our heart has created for us.  As we settle in to our the peace of our non-dual life, we will find ourselves increasingly accepting of the iron constraints of the cosmos - as well as our nationality, our ugly body, our feeble intellect. Deep aspects of our lives we may not wish to change because not wishing to change and not having the power to change are the same thing.

 

But this doesn't mean that our creative lives are over!    There is lots in our lives that is not of our heart's choosing, but has been manifest because of our former habit of following other people's hearts.  All this kind of stuff can change as we see fit in our hearts.  Awakening is both losing our belief in ourselves AND discovering that you are the place where a heart wants to see things done in an entirely new and creative way.

 

I also had lots more to say on this but I look foward to more of your comments Michael!

Edited December 7, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Nikolai1]

To try a conflate the scientific method with consciousness is to throw the scientific method under a bus and replace it with Kantian scepticism. Wether you believe scepticism is valid or not, it should be understood, that by It's acceptance, you have effectively said that we cannot know anything for certain. It begs the question of the purpose of discussing the subject of science, if you regard the scientific method itself is simply the product of consciousness ? it seems to me that you wish to use a method which establishes the primacy of existence to prove the opposite-the primacy of consciousness. Why would that be necessary except to attempt to bolster a philosophy which, by its nature, does not and cannot use it.

Hi Karl - welcome back

 

The non-dual vision that all this is based on is not fully captured by the Kantian philosophy.  It can be a good preparation for loosening our attachment to our thought-based theories, but only through direct experience can we know the, in Kant's terms, the noumenon.  Any philosophy occurs within the normal view of time and space, subject and object.  It is this we awaken from.

[ilumairen]

Hi Karl - welcome back

 

The non-dual vision that all this is based on is not fully captured by the Kantian philosophy.  It can be a good preparation for loosening our attachment to our thought-based theories, but only through direct experience can we know the, in Kant's terms, the noumenon.  Any philosophy occurs within the normal view of time and space, subject and object.  It is this we awaken from.

 

Nikolai, there are a lot of words and constructs here. To me, it looks like you've created a new philosophy for yourself. If this works for you then that's ok. I did the same thing. It didn't work for me.

[Kubba]

not every awakening leads to real fruits. Some lead to extensive theorising about what awakening is.

[Michael Sternbach]

Nikolai, there are a lot of words and constructs here. To me, it looks like you've created a new philosophy for yourself. If this works for you then that's ok. I did the same thing. It didn't work for me.

 

People like Nikolai and I hardly have a choice in this. Different strokes for different folks.

[Jetsun]

I think you are going to an extreme in non-duality, you and a woman are one thing in non separation but also simultaneously she is also an individual in the sense that the intelligence fields including her thoughts and emotions are localised. Just because a non-dual awakening has occurred it doesn't mean all separate characteristics have been overcome in any practical sense.

 

I remember the awakened Jesuit Priest Anthony De Mello telling a story how when he used to do counselling and psychotherapy with people he would be in the place of oneness/non-duality with his patients where there was mutual love between the two, which is a natural force of nature, of one heart. But also he was completely aware that on the personality level he didn't particularly like some of his patients. He loved them all but didn't like all of them. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Jetsun

[Jeff]

I think you are going to an extreme in non-duality, you and a woman are one thing in non separation but also simultaneously she is also an individual in the sense that the intelligence fields including her thoughts and emotions are localised. Just because a non-dual awakening has occurred it doesn't mean all separate characteristics have been overcome in any practical sense.

 

I remember the awakened Jesuit Priest Anthony De Mello telling a story how when he used to do counselling and psychotherapy with people he would be in the place of oneness/non-duality with his patients where there was mutual love between the two, which is a natural force of nature, of one heart. But also he was completely aware that on the personality level he didn't particularly like some of his patients. He loved them all but didn't like all of them. 

 

If you "don't like someone", that is definitely not oneness/non-duality. That is not just separate sense of self, but also dualistic judgement.

[Jetsun]

If you "don't like someone", that is definitely not oneness/non-duality. That is not just separate sense of self, but also dualistic judgement.

 

You can recognise that you and Hitler are the same and still not like him. The mind continues on judging and making evaluations non stop no mater how deep your awakening into non-duality goes. 

 

If you awaken out of the mind then the mind can make as many dualistic judgements as it likes and not touch the non-dual awakening as long as you don't go back to identifying with those judgements in any fundamental way

Edited December 7, 2015 by Jetsun

[Jeff]

You can recognise that you and Hitler are the same and still not like him. The mind continues on judging and making evaluations non stop no mater how deep your awakening into non-duality goes. 

 

If you awaken out of the mind then the mind can make as many dualistic judgements as it likes and not touch the non-dual awakening as long as you don't go back to identifying with those judgements in any fundamental way

 

I think we just have very different understandings of the terms oneness and nonduality. The mind is clear and there are no such judgmental arisings of like or don't like, hate or don't hate. Such is the definition of individual sense of self/ego. A simple example of my meaning from the Dhammapada...

 

He moves with love among the unloving,

With peace and detachment

Among the hungry and querulous.

Like a mustard seed from the point of a needle

Hatred has fallen from him,

And lust, hypocrisy and pride.

He offends no one. Yet he speaks the truth.

His words are clear But never harsh.

Whatever is not his

He refuses, Good or bad, great or small.

He wants nothing from this world

And nothing from the next.

He is free.

Desiring nothing, doubting nothing,

Beyond judgement and sorrow

And the pleasures of the senses,

He had moved beyond time.

He is pure and free.

How clear he is.

He is the moon.

He is serene.

He shines.

[Jetsun]

I think we just have very different understandings of the terms oneness and nonduality. The mind is clear and there are no such judgmental arisings of like or don't like, hate or don't hate. Such is the definition of individual sense of self/ego.

 

You are describing a peak state like some kind of Samadhi not the state of someone who has awakened into oneness in some kind of permanent way. Except in short moments or peak states the mind will continue on making dualistic judgements, which is its nature and function, but if you don't identify with those judgements then non-duality can still be present, as the mind content is just another aspect of experience like everything else that arises within awareness.

 

If the mind has no judgement or like or dislike how do you know whether to eat that lovely burger or that dog shit on the ground? How do you know whether you should kiss or slap your wife when you meet her?

[Jeff]

You are describing a peak state like some kind of Samadhi not the state of someone who has awakened into oneness in some kind of permanent way. Except in short moments or peak states the mind will continue on making dualistic judgements, which is its nature and function, but if you don't identify with those judgements then non-duality can still be present, as the mind content is just another aspect of experience like everything else that arises within awareness.

 

If the mind has no judgement or like or dislike how do you know whether to eat that lovely burger or that dog shit on the ground? How do you know whether you should kiss or slap your wife when you meet her?

 

I am talking about something beyond simple intellectual understanding. Perhaps you would prefer the definition of a sage from the TTC...

 

CHAPTER 7

 

Heaven and Earth are still.

Why are Heaven and Earth still?

Because they are detached.

 

The Sage is detached, so he is like

Heaven and Earth; thus he is at one with all.

Being at one, he performs selfless actions and so he is fulfilled.

 

CHAPTER 22

 

Yield and overcome.

Bend but follow the flow.

Empty yourself of everything, then you can full.

Have little but gain a lot.

Have much and be confused.

 

Therefore the sage embraces the one.

He sets an example to the world.

By not putting on a display, he shines forth.

 

Having no preferences he is open to all.

By never boasting or bragging he can never falter.

 

By knowing this and refusing that,

He knows of the ways of man.

Thus he can avoid a quarrel.

 

The ancient masters were always empty.

This emptiness was always whole.

Yield and overcome and be forever full,

and so all things will come to you.