Non-duality

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Posted 24 October 2016 - 08:52 PM

Sionnach, on 24 Oct 2016 - 7:16 PM, said:

Purple is Marblehead's response
 

What is the origin of non-dual thinking?

 

That is a difficult question for me to respond to.  I think that there really is no "origin" but rather it is an evolution of thought.  In fact, I might even say that it is an evolution to "no thought".  Observe, acknowledge, let it go. 

 

does it mean there is no right and wrong?

 

From the "no thought" perspective that would be correct:  there is no right and wrong.  But I doubt we can hold that perspective in our every day life.  We will always return to dualistic thinking, that is, acceptable and unacceptable, useful and useless.  But we should at least acknowledge the "what is".  Anything else would be illusion and delusion.  After acknowledging the "what is" we can then place our subjective valuations upon or observations.

 

What is wrong with judgement?

 

Nothing really.  I have a number of times stated that I judge.  Chuang Tzu even gave us a story about judging a man's worth.  But our judgments should always be based on reality and not our learned prejudices.

 

and do you see the inconsistency in that?

 

There's no inconsistency, really.  In the situation above we can judge it to be strange.  If we go any further than that we would be placing our learned prejudices and values on others.  I think that would be something we should not do as long as there is no harm being done to others.

 

I consider myself somewhat of a Taoist observing Nature to find what is true and what isn't.

 

Yes.  The truth.  For us, the individual.  The truth will allow for the possibility of peace and contentment to enter our inner-most essence.

 

There is Nature then there are things which fall out of harmony with it.

Yep.  Taoism speaks to that repetitiously.  This is actually a very deep concept but I won't speak further to it at this time.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Nondualism, also called non-duality, means "not two" or "one undivided without a second". It is a term and concept used to define various strands of religious and spiritual thought. It is found in a variety of Asian religious traditions and modern western spirituality, but with a variety of meanings and uses.

 

"Mahasiddha Virupa, the Lord of all yogis, was born in a royal family in east India during the 7th-8th century CE. He later renounced the life of a prince to become a monastic.

 

...

 

In Southern India there was a place with a statue made of red wood where, each day, hundreds of buffalo were killed and used as offerings to worldly gods. Virupa kicked the statue and asked the deity to go away. Immediately, the statue stood up and Virupa pulled him away. All the followers of the deity became frightened and begged Virupa to stop. Virupa said that if they stopped killing animals as sacrifices he would stop, but if they continued to kill innocent beings he would take this deity away. In this way, Virupa and his two followers, Dombi and Krishnapa, continued their journey together. They subdued many other worldly gods and brought an end to the killing of animals in many places." http://drogmi.org/the-sakya-tradition/lam-dre/the-history-of-mahasiddha-virupa

 

Virupa is recognized as the "Lord of Yogis", of profound spiritual understanding/ attainment, by his action he was opposed animal sacrifice, religious and mundane, teaching vegetarian offerings and meals. I do not believe non-duality = "no-thought" = no right or wrong. It would be greater judgement really, clarity of perception/ understanding. Does a fool have the same understanding as a Buddha? No. Buddha even warns against fools. 

 

Verse 61. Do Not Associate With The Ignorant

 

If a wayfarer fails to find

one better or equal,

steadfast he should fare alone

for a fools no fellowship.

 

Explanation: People need companions. But if one does not find a person who is better than, or at least equal to oneself, it is better to be alone rather than keep company with foolish people. There is no profitable companionship with fools.

 

Verse 65. Profit From The Wise

 

Though briefly one intelligent

might wait upon the wise,

quickly Dhamma he can sense

as tongue the taste of soup.

 

Explanation: If a wise person were to associate with a wise person, even for a moment, he will quickly understand the Teaching. This is very much like the tongue being able to discern the subtle flavours of soup. This stanza could be further appreciated when you contrast it with the previous one. In the previous one the image used is the soup. Though it serves tasty food endlessly, it just cannot appreciate how food tastes, very much like a foolish individual being unable to appreciate the teaching even when he keeps company with the wise. An intelligent man, even though he is associated with a wise man only for a moment, quickly understands the Dhamma, just as the tongue knows the taste of soup. http://www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/d_fools.htm

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Sionnach

[Karl]

I was going to comment on this originally. There are many assumptions in the replies.

 

Sometimes things that seem as if they are obvious are really not at all clear when we begin to think about them. For instance, judgement is here treated as an inherent capacity without asking whether it can be. Therefore we need to consider how we came to this pure kind of judgement devoid of prejudices. Prejudice, means to pre-judge something. Judge prior to judging.

 

Nature here is considered in the pure abstract and no specific. It then gets twisted to say some things 'align' with this abstraction and others don't. This is really just another version of Platos perfect forms. Instead 'things' have a nature, they are what they are and the react and interact according to their nature, from this interaction we can observe something about that nature. In this way there is no disharmony, things cannot be anything other than what they. X is X a thing is a thing.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Karl

[Golden Dragon Shining]

I thought better to make this it's own thread.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Sionnach

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Non-duality might also be related to the ability to see or understand things beyond normal understanding.

For example, much of how we understand things are based upon what we understand words to mean.

Thus could it be said that the limited concepts in words are a limit?

If a person is not aware of a concept, are all concepts universal?

If not, why is that? (Thought process for bridging these ideas)

Could it be said that education helps or hinders this process? (More along the same, bridging the ideas)

Is it about how closely we confine ideas to their containers? (Same as before)

Does seeing things in abstract patterns complete the transformation? (The final eureka, difficult to obtain but an encompassing realization)

What part of it do we do-create, or do we co-create as we perceive? (The final applied result, from viewing only to application)

 

Is it pain or discomfort that causes us to narrow our view? (The process that destroys our non-dual view as we age.  If we recognize it we can escape it)

Further along that line, do the stimuli that cause pain cause many other people or all people to suffer as well? (Qualifier for real judgement)

 

 

Naturally, natural human inclination is toward self-preservation unless taught otherwise.

These have been difficult lessons for me.

Edited October 26, 2016 by TheWhiteRabbit

[Karl]

Yes words represent the concept, therefore at root they are actually the concepts.

 

A concept is an abstraction, it is consciously integrated perceptual data.

 

A concept can be a floating abstraction, not tied to reality.

 

If you talk about education as, in effect, tipping ideas into an empty mind, by wrote, or without the application of reason/logic, then education is a hinderance. True education is to help people learn how to educate themselves.

 

Objectivism holds that perception is an automatic mechanism, but conception is a active, conscious process that we must choose to do. Perception is the result of direct sensing of reality.

 

We have to choose to live. Then we hold our life as the standard of value.

[Marblehead]

Sometimes things that seem as if they are obvious are really not at all clear when we begin to think about them. For instance, judgement is here treated as an inherent capacity without asking whether it can be. Therefore we need to consider how we came to this pure kind of judgement devoid of prejudices. Prejudice, means to pre-judge something. Judge prior to judging.

 

Oh, yes, Karl.  You know me well enough to know that I speak my opinions and understandings and rarely suggest that I am stating a truth or a fact.

 

Isn't judgement the root of duality?  A pretty tree vs an ugly tree.  Just see the tree - don't place value judgements on it unless it is very necessary to do so.

 

All of our pre-judgements are learned; mostly from others who we consider more knowledgeable than we are.

 

Nature here is considered in the pure abstract and no specific. It then gets twisted to say some things 'align' with this abstraction and others don't. This is really just another version of Platos perfect forms. Instead 'things' have a nature, they are what they are and the react and interact according to their nature, from this interaction we can observe something about that nature. In this way there is no disharmony, things cannot be anything other than what they. X is X a thing is a thing.

 

Not much I can add here.  Nature, including the nature of the human animal, is what it is.  Things are what they are.  How we interact with things is based in our nature, whether it be pure or illusion/delusion.

 

[Marblehead]

Non-duality might also be ...

 

Excellent questions!  I will allow others to speak to them if they so desire. 

[Karl]

 

Sometimes things that seem as if they are obvious are really not at all clear when we begin to think about them. For instance, judgement is here treated as an inherent capacity without asking whether it can be. Therefore we need to consider how we came to this pure kind of judgement devoid of prejudices. Prejudice, means to pre-judge something. Judge prior to judging.

 

Oh, yes, Karl.  You know me well enough to know that I speak my opinions and understandings and rarely suggest that I am stating a truth or a fact.

 

Isn't judgement the root of duality?  A pretty tree vs an ugly tree.  Just see the tree - don't place value judgements on it unless it is very necessary to do so.

 

All of our pre-judgements are learned; mostly from others who we consider more knowledgeable than we are.

Nature here is considered in the pure abstract and no specific. It then gets twisted to say some things 'align' with this abstraction and others don't. This is really just another version of Platos perfect forms. Instead 'things' have a nature, they are what they are and the react and interact according to their nature, from this interaction we can observe something about that nature. In this way there is no disharmony, things cannot be anything other than what they. X is X a thing is a thing.

 

Not much I can add here.  Nature, including the nature of the human animal, is what it is.  Things are what they are.  How we interact with things is based in our nature, whether it be pure or illusion/delusion.

 

There are several kinds of judgement. You are talking about aesthetic judgements of form. Haven't we learned through our own experience what we regard as beautiful and ugly. It isn't always a matter of the form, but also of its meaning to us. We make little mention of a grey, leaden sky-it is neither striking, nor ugly. We value dramatic sky's more highly-even stormy skies. A blue sky devoid of clouds, but an overhead sun is also bland-one of the reasons photographers choose the afternoon to create contrast. We value sunsets and sunrises. Certain colours mixed with dramatic contrast of light are particularly satisfying-but no one told us to like one over another.

 

We also value symmetry, natural balance and anything related to the golden mean in the geometrical or sense of form. We spot dis figuration and asymmetry both in vision and aurally. Our experience tells us that the deformed maybe unhealthy, that it lacks harmony of form. We weren't taught it.

[ralis]

One can discuss this ad infinitum and never understand. Non duality is direct experience and beyond any verbal description.

[Karl]

There wasn't any duality in the first place- it's just the old body/soul dichotomy. As there is no dichotomy we can safely comit duality/non-duality to the bin marked 'irrational mysticism and bad philosophy'.

 

We can experience non-duality and can describe it very well, it's called being existent and being conscious of existence.

[ralis]

There wasn't any duality in the first place- it's just the old body/soul dichotomy. As there is no dichotomy we can safely comit duality/non-duality to the bin marked 'irrational mysticism and bad philosophy'.

 

We can experience non-duality and can describe it very well, it's called being existent and being conscious of existence.

 

What is in bold is a classic example of duality or an observer being conscious of existence. That is light years off.

[Karl]

What is in bold is a classic example of duality or an observer being conscious of existence. That is light years off.

As opposed to what, to being unconscious of existence ?

 

Bit of a problem there, because you are saying that something is 'experienced' and experience requires conscious awareness of any experience. By saying you were unconscious of the experience means that you didn't actually experienced anything. If you did experience something then you were conscious of it.

[Brian]

As opposed to what, to being unconscious of existence ?

 

Bit of a problem there, because you are saying that something is 'experienced' and experience requires conscious awareness of any experience. By saying you were unconscious of the experience means that you didn't actually experienced anything. If you did experience something then you were conscious of it.

Heavens no. We experience a myriad of experiences every second of which we are not consciously aware, some of which others might be aware, some of which we might become aware, some of which we will never be consciously aware.

[Karl]

Heavens no. We experience a myriad of experiences every second of which we are not consciously aware, some of which others might be aware, some of which we might become aware, some of which we will never be consciously aware.

If you were unaware of them you cannot say you experienced them Brian. Ralis specifically said he had 'experienced' non-duality and that it was 'beyond words'. An interesting choice of words to describe something as 'beyond words'.

[Marblehead]

One can discuss this ad infinitum and never understand. Non duality is direct experience and beyond any verbal description.

 

Yes, I know, but I still like trying to talk logically about it.  Not all that easy, really.

[blackstar212]

If you were unaware of them you cannot say you experienced them Brian. Ralis specifically said he had 'experienced' non-duality and that it was 'beyond words'. An interesting choice of words to describe something as 'beyond words'.

Sure you can. You are in a room with a flea. You have now experienced being in a room with a flea. you are however not aware of its presence in the room. You have experienced it with being conscious of it.

[Brian]

If you were unaware of them you cannot say you experienced them Brian. Ralis specifically said he had 'experienced' non-duality and that it was 'beyond words'. An interesting choice of words to describe something as 'beyond words'.

Nonsense. You are once again merely attempting to define terms in a stilted fashion so as to rationalize your irrational beliefs. You are, of course, free and welcome to embrace any irrational beliefs you wish but don't be surprised when people laugh at your personal belief system.

[Karl]

Sure you can. You are in a room with a flea. You have now experienced being in a room with a flea. you are however not aware of its presence in the room. You have experienced it with being conscious of it.

good try, primarily because this will lead into the discussion later on ;-)

 

However, you didn't experience the flea itself.

[blackstar212]

good try, primarily because this will lead into the discussion later on ;-)

 

However, you didn't experience the flea itself.

I never said you did. You experienced being in a room with a flea and was not conscious of it. That is fact.

 

By the way that is called moving the goalposts.

Edited October 26, 2016 by blackstar212

[Karl]

Nonsense. You are once again merely attempting to define terms in a stilted fashion so as to rationalize your irrational beliefs. You are, of course, free and welcome to embrace any irrational beliefs you wish but don't be surprised when people laugh at your personal belief system.

experience/ɪkˈspɪərɪəns,ɛk-/

noun

practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

verb

encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence).

 

 

That's clear enough Brian, unless you have another definition of experience ?

 

A ad hominem attack isn't an argument.

 

I know you too well :-) your mistake was trying to support Ralis argument, you wouldn't normally have done that.

[Karl]

I never said you did. You experienced being in a room with a flea and was not conscious of it. That is fact.

 

By the way that is called moving the goalposts.

You experienced being in the room. If you were unaware of the flea then you didn't experience it. Had the flea bitten you, then you would have experienced that. If you take your argument to its extremes then you also experience the entire universe - which you don't, only the bits you can sense directly.

[blackstar212]

You experienced being in the room. If you were unaware of the flea then you didn't experience it. Had the flea bitten you, then you would have experienced that. If you take your argument to its extremes then you also experience the entire universe - which you don't, only the bits you can sense directly.

If you are in a room with a flea and are not aware of the flea you have just had the experience of being in a room with a flea. Your idea of reality is strange.

 

Umm by the way you and the entire universe are one, but we need to work on the experience of being in a room with a flea first.

[Brian]

experience/ɪkˈspɪərɪəns,ɛk-/

noun

practical contact with and observation of facts or events.

an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

verb

encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence).

 

 

That's clear enough Brian, unless you have another definition of experience ?

 

A ad hominem attack isn't an argument.

 

I know you too well :-) your mistake was trying to support Ralis argument, you wouldn't normally have done that.

And where in that definition to you imagine to have found a requisite "conscious awareness?" You didn't; you simply fabricated it because it is convenient for your current belief system.

 

You, as a simple example, are currently experiencing electromagnetic radiation penetrating your body which leaves an impression at a cellular level but of which you are consciously unaware.

[Karl]

If you are in a room with a flea and are not aware of the flea you have just had the experience of being in a room with a flea. Your idea of reality is strange.

 

Umm by the way you and the entire universe are one, but we need to work on the experience of being in a room with a flea first.

 

Here you say 'a room with a flea' this is you saying the room has a flea in it. How did you know it was there ? Oh yeah, look, you imagined it would be. Exactly the same is happening when you are making up the other stuff, you are confirming your own fallacy, it's a form of question begging.

 

LOL so, if I say, in my little dream world there is no flea, then one could not have been experienced, then this is the same question begging. However I wouldn't argue that way.

 

All we can say is that we experience a flea, or we didn't, in any particular place.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Karl