Is non-duality actually a fundamental truth, or just another philosophy?

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

the beginning of a implicit Nei Dan

may be you gentlemen first should define what exactly "neidan" is , for clarity?

[Apech]

Just now, Taoist Texts said:

may be you gentlemen first should define what exactly "neidan" is , for clarity?

 

 

Inner Alchemy - working with subtle body energies, rather than either deities or material substances. 

[Marblehead]

5 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

Yes Marblehead you are the only one on this planet who has problems.

Listen to you.  You can't even understand that I have no problems.  I have found my peace and contentment.  I think you should give your brain a bath.  Then air dry it and leave it open just a little so that you can comprehend what others are saying when they speak with you.

 

 

[Cheshire Cat]

45 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

I am a meditator first and Christian second, but I find no fault in his beautiful words. 

 

It's funny how the little scriptural basis of Christianity is mostly derived from taking quotes out of contextual history and circumstances. 

 

Jesus' group was financed by rich women who payed the bills (there are explicit scriptural evidences). 

Jesus was simply saying "join our group to seek the kingdom of God and we'll provide food and clothing ". 

 

Take Jesus' words literally and out of contexts as they were referred to you now, and you'll have some bad experiences. 

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

Returning to this thread's subject: "Is non-duality actually a fundamental truth, or just another philosophy?"

Yeah, you guys go ahead on.  Rideforever and I still aren't talking with each other - we are just talking at each other.

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

It's funny how the little scriptural basis of Christianity is mostly derived from taking quotes out of contextual history and circumstances. 

 

Jesus' group was financed by rich women who payed the bills (there are explicit scriptural evidences). 

Jesus was simply saying "join our group to seek the kingdom of God and we'll provide food and clothing ". 

 

Take Jesus' words literally and out of contexts as they were referred to you now, and you'll have some bad experiences. 

 

MILF religion!

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

So, yes, non-duality is fundamental truth and it is also just another philosophy. It makes no sense to say this, but that is just because my programming says so. Unity - and multiplicity - I am sure, is not bound by such small thinking.

Caused me to think.  Booo!

 

Non-duality isn't really Oneness or "all things are one" or any of that other stuff.

 

Non-duality is seeing the entire picture instead of just the rose.  Seeing how things are interconnected even when things are directly opposed to each other.

 

This thought isn't well developed - it's something brand new.  Maybe I'll be able to talk more about it one day.  (Or maybe someone can inspire some additional thought?)

 

 

 

[rideforever]

13 hours ago, Marblehead said:

So if you are in for the game, come on over to my house and arrange to break one of your legs and I will promise you I will call an ambulance as soon as you have finished you meditation.

 

And you equate this kind of statement with having no problems ?
You seem quite ungrounded.
But hey none of my business !

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@ LiT

 

I will not join in this discussion again, but I have two things to say:

 

1. Modern philosophical logic is a huge discipline where all sorts of reasoning are investigated including paradoxical ones. See for instance the work of Graham Priest. So I wouldn't say something is beyond logical thought simply because it is beyond old school Aristotelian logic.

 

2. The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths is a very rational doctrine that simultaneously accommodates your two perspectives.

No need to stop posting in this thread.  So there is a misunderstanding.  Big deal.  People always try to misunderstand me.

 

Regarding logic - I generally try to identify that is "my logical brain" that cannot handle a concept.  What is logical to me may be totally illogical for another.  Our brain believes only what it wants to believe.  We each have our own brain.

 

Rideforever and I are having that problem right now.  We may never agree but at least perhaps one day we will begin understanding each other.

 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

I am a meditator first and Christian second, but I find no fault in his beautiful words. 

My observation:  You are a Christian first and a meditator second.  And I put no fault in that.

 

Your discussions with others would be more interesting if you would use your own words in conversation rather than constantly quoting some doctrine.

 

 

[Marblehead]

7 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

And you equate this kind of statement with having no problems ?
You seem quite ungrounded.
But hey none of my business !

See?  You can't even read my words.  All you see are your thoughts.

 

It is true.  I have no problems.  We were talking about your ability to withstand pain.  You suggested that all "you" had to do was meditate and the pain would go away.  I offered you a test to see if it really works.

 

Words mean little unless they can be applied to action.

 

So I will repeat the challenge:

 

Do something stupid that results in your leg getting broken.  Check to see if there is any pain.  If there is, do nothing else other than meditate.  Does the pain go away?  I promise that the pain will still be there as soon as you end your meditation and try to move your leg.  And if you do not get it cared for by those who have the knowledge and ability to deal with broken bones the pain will continue no matter how long or how many times you meditate.

 

 

True, you don't need to worry about how well I am grounded and true, it is none of your business.

 

So do you understand now?  I was talking about your potential pain.  I have none so we can't talk about something that doesn't exist.

 

(Actually, I do have the common "old age pains" but that doesn't apply to this discussion.)

 

 

 

[wandelaar]

15 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

No need to stop posting in this thread.  So there is a misunderstanding.  Big deal.  People always try to misunderstand me.

 

Regarding logic - I generally try to identify that is "my logical brain" that cannot handle a concept.  What is logical to me may be totally illogical for another.  Our brain believes only what it wants to believe.  We each have our own brain.

 

Rideforever and I are having that problem right now.  We may never agree but at least perhaps one day we will begin understanding each other.

 

I agree with you because I disagree. Let me explain. Philosophical logic is an academic discipline somewhat like mathematics. So it doesn't matter very much what happens in our individual brains when it comes to deciding what can or cannot be done with the tools of modern philosophical logic. The possibilities of modern philosophical logic are way beyond what the founders of philosophical Taoism or you and I can imagine by simply noticing what our personal logical brains can or cannot handle. We have to see what has been done by those active in the field of philosophical logic to get an impression of what it can or cannot do.

 

Further I think it's useless or even counterproductive (because of the backfire-effect) to have a discussion with somebody who doesn't wish to consider the possibility that he is wrong. I also try (it isn't easy ) to keep open the possibility that I am wrong on some points.

[Marblehead]

5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Further I think it's useless or even counterproductive (because of the backfire-effect) to have a discussion with somebody who doesn't wish to consider the possibility that he is wrong. I also try (it isn't easy ) to keep open the possibility that I am wrong on some points.

Yeah, that's why I added that reservation to my signature box a long time ago.  I need to be convinced that I am wrong.  Most people give up on me before they have convinced me.  But for those who made a better argument than I did:  I reserve the right to be wrong.

 

And true, if we all were Spocks a perfectly logical discussion could be had.  I've still got my ego and emotions and they are in good health.  I can't always stay perfectly logical.

 

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

Inner Alchemy - working with subtle body energies, rather than either deities or material substances. 

Good job. If so, then it starts from the get-go at 500-100BC

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

Good job. If so, then it starts from the get-go at 500-100BC

 

 

is that the get-go for you? and what is your evidence for this?  do you know of texts or other evidence from 500 BC which talk of internal alchemy?

[Taoist Texts]

Asked to explain his strengths, Mencius answers that he is good at "nourishing his 'flood-like qi (vital energy).' Mencius admits that this "qi" is very hard to describe:

"This qi is extremely big and extremely powerful. Nourish it with righteousness and protect it from harm, and it will fill Heaven and earth. It grows through the accumulation of righteousness and cannot be obtained by contrived actions. If one's actions are not satisfying to one's mind then it shrivels up."

The earliest mention of qi as a philosophical concept can be found in the Book of Changes, one of the oldest books in existence. It is a key concept in Chinese medicine as well as in Mencius' idea of fulfillment and happiness. Mencius makes it clear that this vital force is nourished through the steady accumulation of righteous acts. 

http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/mencius/

Mencius (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 - Mencius (fourth century BCE) was a Confucian philosopher

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Taoist Texts said:

Asked to explain his strengths, Mencius answers that he is good at "nourishing his 'flood-like qi (vital energy).' Mencius admits that this "qi" is very hard to describe:

"This qi is extremely big and extremely powerful. Nourish it with righteousness and protect it from harm, and it will fill Heaven and earth. It grows through the accumulation of righteousness and cannot be obtained by contrived actions. If one's actions are not satisfying to one's mind then it shrivels up."

The earliest mention of qi as a philosophical concept can be found in the Book of Changes, one of the oldest books in existence. It is a key concept in Chinese medicine as well as in Mencius' idea of fulfillment and happiness. Mencius makes it clear that this vital force is nourished through the steady accumulation of righteous acts. 

http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/mencius/

Mencius (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 - Mencius (fourth century BCE) was a Confucian philosopher

 

 

Any mention of DanTiens, channels, jing/qi/shen and so on?  

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

7 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Any mention of DanTiens, channels, jing/qi/shen and so on?  

 

 

Probably there is a shen somewhere in Meng-zi.) My point is, yr definition was too wide, perhaps it needs more constraints. 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Taoist Texts said:

Probably there is a shen somewhere in Meng-zi.) My point is, yr definition was too wide, perhaps it needs more constraints. 

 

 

Oh ok.  Actually I think my definition is fine.  There are just two questions. 1 ) how long before the written texts of Nei Dan did the practices exist and 2 ) can you count in the older 'shamanist' traditions and so on.

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

11 minutes ago, Apech said:

1 ) how long before the written texts of Nei Dan did the practices exist

there is no way to tell

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

2 ) can you count in the older 'shamanist' traditions

not according to your def

[Wu Ming Jen]

The original human nature is kindness.  Chinese spirituality talks of a physical being rather than an intellectual one.  It literally refers to the Spirit in you and cultivating the physical health to the optimum level to nourish the invisible spiritual being.

 

How do you sense and communicate with your own spirit?  We can’t because our material life has blocked out our power to do so.  Alchemy opens the door for communication and lets it fly out.  It improves out compassion, forgiveness and mercy. 

There is an invisible super being inside us.  Alchemy supplies nutrition to our spirits.  Initially there are no visual signs but if we keep it up and the changes will show up.  Never stop practicing.

 

Check yourself regularly during the day.  Organize your thoughts and emotions so that you don’t go to sleep holding on to guilt or pain.  Clean out the garbage as you go.  You must face the garbage to clean it up.  It’s all about changing your attitude to the garbage – that is the breakthrough!

[voidisyinyang]

LostinTRanslation says logic does not explain nonduality.

Taoist Texts says older shamanic traditions can not be included based on the definition being discussed in this thread.

 

The problem here again is defining Nondualism through a Western logic mindset. Western logic is symmetric - and this includes Buddhism of "neti, neti" logic which is a reform of Brahmin Vedic symmetric logic.

 

The answer is noncommutative phase logic from nonwestern music theory. Daoism clearly states that Yang is 3/2 and Yin is 4/3 - as music theory logic. This is actually relativistic quantum logic of noncommutative geometry. Hardly any Westerners know this logic "yet" but as qigong master Yan Xin states, it's a "virtual information field" and the "highest technology of all technologies."

 

Quote

[Wuji er Taiji] Calling it [Taiji] "non-polar" correctly clarifies its non-spatial form. It exists prior to things, and yet at no time is it not established after the existence of things.

 

Zhu Xi

 

Thank you Professor Emeritus Joseph Adler!

I forgot to tell you - my background is music theory. I noticed that the logic was wrong to explain music theory - the mathematical logic. So then Alain Connes, the Fields Medal math professor corroborated my insight by explaining how music theory logic is actually noncommutative phase. This is "nonwestern" music theory. Meaning all nonwestern cultures use complementary opposites for the Octave, Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth. Only Alain Connes states this explains the highest level of physics as a unified field theory - noncommutative geometry as relativistic quantum physics. This is found in quantum biology as well. So it's not the "symmetric" math logic that people learn from the irrational magnitude, calculus, etc. I did a blog on this - my older blog focuses on it more - but the links are found through http://elixirfield.blogspot.com thanks again, drew hempel

Edited August 23, 2018 by voidisyinyang

[Apech]

19 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

there is no way to tell

not according to your def

 

 

Historians of this kind of thing usually assume 100 - 200 years before things are written down - but of course that depends on the period.  For instance nothing expect the Ashokan pillar epigraphs was written down in Buddhism until the 1st century BC, while the Buddha lived in the fourth century (because it was a pre-literate society).

 

My definition did not say 'exclusively' - and so any kind of practice in which subtle energy body work was included could fit the definition even if there was not a separate tradition, sect or school which was devoted exclusively to this practice.  So I don't agree that you can necessarily leave out shamanism from my definition.

 

 

[Apech]

17 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

LostinTRanslation says logic does not explain nonduality.

Taoist Texts says older shamanic traditions can not be included based on the definition being discussed in this thread.

 

The problem here again is defining Nondualism through a Western logic mindset. Western logic is symmetric - and this includes Buddhism of "neti, neti" logic which is a reform of Brahmin Vedic symmetric logic.

 

The answer is noncommutative phase logic from nonwestern music theory. Daoism clearly states that Yang is 3/2 and Yin is 4/3 - as music theory logic. This is actually relativistic quantum logic of noncommutative geometry. Hardly any Westerners know this logic "yet" but as qigong master Yan Xin states, it's a "virtual information field" and the "highest technology of all technologies."

 

 

Neti, neti is not Buddhist.  Buddhism is a sramanic tradition (like Jainism) and is not reform Brahamism (as they co-existed9).

[dawei]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

My copy of the Seal of the Unity of Three suggests the earliest date for the Cantong qi of Han dynasty - this text is said to be the beginning of a implicit Nei Dan tradition - but of course there are no explicit nei dan texts until around 700 AD as you say.  But you said you don't trust anything before  500 AD so I was trying to work out which texts or schools you mean.  That was the reason for my post.

 

I agree that there was Buddhist influence in later texts.  But then I quoted earlier a book which hints at least that the Buddhist yoga/tantra practices were influenced by Daoist Internal Alchemy.

 

in calling this 'just a modern mix' what exactly are you relying on as authentic?  That's what I'm getting at and don't understand.

 

I don't want to go too far astray on the topic but maybe my personal point would be no other influences like Buddhism.  Just a Daoist practice.  And I often get in trouble in commenting on these issues as when I mention that I'm thinking  of the inner gods and spirit practices which folks will usually quickly point out that was not neidan.  That seems a convenient argument to simply solidify the later mix. 

 

500 AD was just a date I pulled out of a hat as a rough comment.  Curious that this text in question dates to 700.