Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[S:C]

12 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

Perceptions usually appear via the senses (eyes, ears, nose, skin etc.). But this is beyond senses or perceptions. What is it in us that 'experiences' without sensory organs? Qualia - on a science level?

Qualia seem to be individual subjective instances of conscious experience. But they seem forever embedded in sensory perception. (If not familiar with the concept of Qualia, but interested, see hidden content or elsewhere.)

As if consciousness being some kind of a projection surface (you still know the old slide projectors, where light went through the photo to be displayed on the canvas / screen?) ... what is it if there's nothing projected on it? Empty? Full of unmanifested possibilities? So consciousness 'translates' matters of matter/substance? But is not of substance / matter itself?

 

Edit: I will agree, that it also works in nighttime dreams, daytime aspirations and thoughts that seem to have no basis in matter or the past, at least no obvious connection. But even there, in the dream perception, you perceive via 'unreal/dreamt' sense organs, same with thoughts and aspirations.

 

Edit II: If we say: usual experiences come in via sense organs get translated (via neurons, mostly pyramidal neurons, neural cells, processed by the prefrontal cortex etc. pp) into perceptions and thoughts/concepts/aspirations via 'consciousness', might that be a close call? But then again, what is it that perceives without that in 'gnosis'? What is witnessed if there is 'nothing to witness' ? Who is witnessing it, if in 'gnosis' you are not in a 'place' where matter exists ? 'Consciousness' (witness?) alone witnesses itself? But how does it get to the intrinsic ability to have perception of its own, if in the moments of volition it was just the 'translator' / 'interpreter' of what came in 'from the outside'? Please correct me, if you guess it's otherwise..!

 

21 hours ago, Apech said:

Experiences are dualistic therefore.

 

11 hours ago, dwai said:

What makes experience possible? Consciousness. Consciousness IS NOT an emergent property of matter.

Spoiler

Opinions on Qualia existence:

Quote

Gerald Edelman in his book Bright Air, Brilliant Fire argues:^[53]

One alternative that definitely does not seem feasible is to ignore completely the reality of qualia, formulating a theory of consciousness that aims by its descriptions alone to convey to a hypothetical “qualia-free” observer what it is to feel warmth, see green, and so on. In other words, this is an attempt to propose a theory based on a kind of God's-eye view of consciousness. But no scientific theory of whatever kind can be presented without already assuming that observers have sensation as well as perception. To assume otherwise is to indulge the errors of theories that attempt syntactical formulations mapped onto objectivist interpretations—theories that ignore embodiment as a source of meaning (see the Postscript). There is no qualia-free scientific observer.

— Gerald Edelman, 1992, p. 115
 

Antonio Damasio in his book The Feeling Of What Happens states:^[54]

Qualia are the simple sensory qualities to be found in the blueness of the sky or the tone of sound produced by a cello, and the fundamental components of the images in the movie metaphor are thus made of qualia. (...) The mind and its consciousness are first and foremost private phenomena, much as they offer many public signs of their existence to the interested observer. The conscious mind and its constituent properties are real entities, not illusions, and they must be investigated as the personal, private, subjective experiences that they are. The idea that subjective experiences are not scientifically accessible is nonsense.

— Antonio Damasio, 1999

Neurologist Rodolfo Llinás states in his book I of the Vortex that from a strictly neurological perspective, qualia exist and are very important to the organism's survival. He argues that qualia were important for the evolution of the nervous system of organisms, including simple organism such as insects:^[56]

There are today two similar beliefs concerning the nature of qualia. The first is that qualia represent an epiphenomenon that is not necessary for the acquisition of consciousness. Second and somewhat related is the belief that while being the basis for consciousness, qualia appeared only in the highest life forms, suggesting that qualia represent a recently evolved central function that is present in only the more advanced brains. This view relegates the more lowly animals, for example ants, to a realm characterized by the absence of subjective experiences of any kind. It implies that these animals are wired with sets of automatic, reºexively organized circuits that provide for survival by maintaining a successful, albeit purely reactive interaction with the ongoing external world. Although primitive creatures such as ants and cockroaches may be wildly successful, for all practical purposes they are biological automatons.

— Rodolfo Llinás, 2002, pp. 201-221

 

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and William Hirstein^[58] proposed three laws of qualia (with a fourth later added), which are "functional criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for certain neural events to be associated with qualia" by philosophers of the mind:

1. Qualia are irrevocable and indubitable. You don't say 'maybe it is red but I can visualize it as green if I want to'. An explicit neural representation of red is created that invariably and automatically 'reports' this to higher brain centres.
2. Once the representation is created, what can be done with it is open-ended. You have the luxury of choice, e.g., if you have the percept of an apple you can use it to tempt Adam, to keep the doctor away, bake a pie, or just to eat. Even though the representation at the input level is immutable and automatic, the output is potentially infinite. This isn't true for, say, a spinal reflex arc where the output is also inevitable and automatic. Indeed, a paraplegic can even (...).
3. Short-term memory. The input invariably creates a representation that persists in short-term memory – long enough to allow time for choice of output. Without this component, again, you get just a reflex arc.
4. Attention. Qualia and attention are closely linked. You need attention to fulfill criterion number two; to choose. A study of circuits involved in attention, therefore, will shed much light on the riddle of qualia.^[59]

What these authors propose is to approach qualia from an empirical perspective and not as a logical or philosophical problem. On page 433, the authors wonder how qualia evolved. Then, they mention that it is possible to adopt a skeptical point of view and argue that, since the objective scientific description of the world is complete without qualia, it is nonsense to ask the question of why they evolved or what qualia are for.

 

Roger Orpwood: Sensory input is necessary to gain information from the environment, and perception of that input is necessary for navigating and modifying interactions with the environment. This suggests that frontal regions containing more complex pyramidal networks are associated with an increased perceptive capacity. As perception is necessary for conscious thought to occur, and since the experience of qualia is derived from consciously recognizing some perception, qualia may indeed be specific to the functional capacity of pyramidal networks. This derives Orpwood's notion that the mechanisms of re-entrant feedback may not only create qualia, but also be the foundation to consciousness. Orpwood does not deny the existence of qualia, nor does he intend to debate its physical or non-physical existence. Rather, he suggests that qualia are created through the neurobiological mechanism of re-entrant feedback in cortical systems.

(from the english wikipedia entry on qualia.)

Qualia seem indeterminate: unobservable in others and unquantifiable in us. We cannot possibly be sure, when discussing individual qualia, that we are even discussing the same phenomena. Whether or not qualia or consciousness can play any causal role in the physical world remains an open question.

 

Sorry for my laymen science rambling (c&p from wiki), - sometimes I need this to translate it and see by your reactions (hopefully) if I got any close to what you were saying.

 

10 hours ago, Apech said:

realisation is not mental but involves the whole being

 

So 'gnosis' is not spiritual and not mental, and comes with cessation of volition e.g. stillness? Alright.

But if (individual? nonindividual?) consciousness is not on the (lack of better words) dimension of substance, how on earth can it work itself out energetically (electric spin magnetism ?) or via non individual volition, - so to speak - cross the border from the immaterial to the material lands? There would have to be an interaction point... a (divine ?) 'spark' so to speak (but then again, we'd be back to the word gnosis .... seems like forever moving in a circle with words and concepts.)

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by schroedingerscat
C. working in dreams etc., add on further qualia info

[Michael Sternbach]

13 hours ago, stirling said:

 

... I would say that both would available to focus on at any time. Sort of like looking at a separate tree but being aware in your widened gaze that the entire forest is also present at the same time. Not an either or, but seeing that duality is always and persistently non-dual. 

 

Yes, that resonates with me. Keeping the bigger picture in view, while nonetheless highlighting a particular aspect of it.

 

Everything exists or happens for a reason and is 'redeemed', ultimately, yet dealing with the challenges of a dualistic world requires adopting more of a 'partial' view sometimes. 

[Michael Sternbach]

14 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I think it is this re-orientation that is important and key to non-dual paths. Typically, the assumption is that we have to gain, or arrange, or somehow add on. Whereas in non-dual traditions, the orientation is not about gaining, but about removing hindrances and ignorance. I think the key points are well summarized in the DKR checklist @dwai posted earlier. 

 

Which is why these paths typically spend a great deal of time going over the defects of gaining, adding, seeking elsewhere, etc. No matter how much subtle body or energy work one does, anything added or gained will eventually be lost. 

 

Removing hindrances is inevitably linked to subtle body and energy work, though, whether or not this is being acknowledged or focussed on in a particular system.

 

On the other hand, there are various traditions that aim at building an astral vehicle or diamond body etc., so an interesting (apparent) dichotomy exists between those different approaches.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Michael Sternbach

[Apech]

50 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Removing hindrances is inevitably linked to subtle body and energy work, though, whether or not this is being acknowledged or focussed on in a particular system.

 

On the other hand, there are various traditions that aim at building an astral vehicle or diamond body etc., so an interesting (apparent) dichotomy exists between those different approaches.

 

My view is different to this.  I view removing obstacles and so on to be one step (purification) in an alchemical (or others may say tantric) process.  This process involves spirit/substance and leads to a state of being which is both illuminated and infinitely adaptive to any circumstance or environment.  In other words the ability to assimilate experience and to respond appropriately is maximised.  Most of this work occurs at the level of subtle body which is why it is key.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

15 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

Great discussion! Two questions, if I may...

 

 

 

1) What role does 'will' or 'volition' play here? So first 'gnosis' happens without volition, but later on it would be possible via (individual ?) volition to focus on / switch between the nondual reality or the dual one?

 

I think that's a fair asessment.

Just like in Kuòān Shīyuǎn's series of poems/images known as Ten Bulls, after having attained the state of enlightenment, the sage returns to the 'relative world' and attends to its needs and concerns.

 

Quote

2) How would you say must the word 'experience' under these circumstances be then defined? Perceptions usually appear via the senses (eyes, ears, nose, skin etc.). But this is beyond senses or perceptions. What is it in us that 'experiences' without sensory organs? Qualia - on a science level? (You might call it Atman or the Source of possibilities?)

 

I would call it 'inner senses'.

 

Quote

Edit: one more question... - what does development of 'subtle channels' etc. have to do with any of this? Why then, if realization of this and integration into life is (so to speak) the goal of non-dualists ... why is every other

system oriented toward 'energetics'?

 

It's just that different systems employ different models and methods. But as they all work with the same conglomerate of physical/psychological/spiritual elements known as 'human being', there are countless overlaps between them. Often, a particular system can be looked at in terms of another and sometimes even be combined with it. It goes without saying that many traditionalists detest that kind of approach, though; in general, cultivation systems are advertised on the basis of exclusivity, not commonalities!

 

However, practical experience transgresses such conceptual boundaries sometimes. For example, when I started practising zazen, I experienced various energetic phenomena not usually accounted for by Zen teachers/texts (with a few exceptions). It was not until later that I discovered that working with energy flows is central to certain other systems.

 

Quote

and one more: where does spirit come into the equation?

 

Spirit is the carrier of consciousness. Where there is consciousness, there is spirit as well.

 

Quote

P.S: Sorry if I seem lost, I probably am.

I do like a lot of all of your posts, but forgot to hit the like button. Much appreciated.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

13 hours ago, Apech said:

Spirit is a term in Western systems and does not really come up in dharmic systems unless you count prana of course.

 

Besides prana or chi, and pertaining to a different level, shen (as relevant to Chan/Zen and some other Eastern traditions) can be translated as spirit.

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

My view is different to this.  I view removing obstacles and so on to be one step (purification) in an alchemical (or others may say tantric) process.  This process involves spirit/substance and leads to a state of being which is both illuminated and infinitely adaptive to any circumstance or environment.  In other words the ability to assimilate experience and to respond appropriately is maximised.  Most of this work occurs at the level of subtle body which is why it is key.

 

 

 

In what way is your view different to what part of what I presented?

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Most of this work occurs at the level of subtle body which is why it is key.

 

I'm curious as to whether you think such an approach is suited to lay people, or if it is the domain of full time practitioners. 

[dwai]

5 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

Qualia seem to be individual subjective instances of conscious experience. But they seem forever embedded in sensory perception. (If not familiar with the concept of Qualia, but interested, see hidden content or elsewhere.)

As if consciousness being some kind of a projection surface (you still know the old slide projectors, where light went through the photo to be displayed on the canvas / screen?) ... what is it if there's nothing projected on it? Empty? Full of unmanifested possibilities? So consciousness 'translates' matters of matter/substance? But is not of substance / matter itself?

 

Edit: I will agree, that it also works in nighttime dreams, daytime aspirations and thoughts that seem to have no basis in matter or the past, at least no obvious connection. But even there, in the dream perception, you perceive via 'unreal/dreamt' sense organs, same with thoughts and aspirations.

 

Edit II: If we say: usual experiences come in via sense organs get translated (via neurons, mostly pyramidal neurons, neural cells, processed by the prefrontal cortex etc. pp) into perceptions and thoughts/concepts/aspirations via 'consciousness', might that be a close call? But then again, what is it that perceives without that in 'gnosis'? What is witnessed if there is 'nothing to witness' ? Who is witnessing it, if in 'gnosis' you are not in a 'place' where matter exists ? 'Consciousness' (witness?) alone witnesses itself? But how does it get to the intrinsic ability to have perception of its own, if in the moments of volition it was just the 'translator' / 'interpreter' of what came in 'from the outside'? Please correct me, if you guess it's otherwise..!

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Opinions on Qualia existence:

 

Sorry for my laymen science rambling (c&p from wiki), - sometimes I need this to translate it and see by your reactions (hopefully) if I got any close to what you were saying.

 

 

So 'gnosis' is not spiritual and not mental, and comes with cessation of volition e.g. stillness? Alright.

But if (individual? nonindividual?) consciousness is not on the (lack of better words) dimension of substance, how on earth can it work itself out energetically (electric spin magnetism ?) or via non individual volition, - so to speak - cross the border from the immaterial to the material lands? There would have to be an interaction point... a (divine ?) 'spark' so to speak (but then again, we'd be back to the word gnosis .... seems like forever moving in a circle with words and concepts.)

 

The mechanism of the mind and consciousness was very well worked out in ancient Hindu systems. Mind is a composite of four functions, lit up by consciousness. In a sense “the mind” is like a mirror, on which consciousness shines, and it in turn reveals “objects”. 
 

The “hard problem of consciousness” is hinged on a basic assumption that matter is the fundamental component of reality. But even our mundane experience says otherwise. There is really no way to substantially prove that there’s a reality “out there” — all knowing/phenomenal knowledge is happening in consciousness, with the mind itself.

 

In the Shiva sutras, Lord Shiva says, “I can pack all the matter in your universe into a space smaller than available in a single mustard seed”. 

 

I find the entire proposition of matter-based reality a bit infantile, much to the chagrin of my scientist friends.
 

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

In what way is your view different to what part of what I presented?

 

You seemed to be saying there was an alternative.  Anyway not important.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I'm curious as to whether you think such an approach is suited to lay people, or if it is the domain of full time practitioners. 

 

Inevitably anyone I would say.

[forestofclarity]

32 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Inevitably anyone I would say.

 

In my experience, high level subtle body practitioners tend to make it a full time endeavor (or at least the equivalent of a full time job), often requiring long term retreat. 

[dwai]

4 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Removing hindrances is inevitably linked to subtle body and energy work, though, whether or not this is being acknowledged or focussed on in a particular system.

 

On the other hand, there are various traditions that aim at building an astral vehicle or diamond body etc., so an interesting (apparent) dichotomy exists between those different approaches.

When the Buddha was on the way to Nirvana, Mara is said to have visited him and tried to incentivize him to quit by offering things or by trying to scare him. 
 

A similar process can be seen in the conversation between Nachiketa and Lord Yama in the katha Upanishad, where Yama offers wealth, a very long life, all the pleasures of this realm and higher realms (deva realm), and so on. But young nachiketa’s resolve to find the secret of “immortality” was unshaken, as all those other things would either cease to be, or cease to give pleasure/joy/happiness after a while. 
 

This diamond body/rainbow body thing is very interesting for sure, when I meet someone with this capability, I would love to ask them questions about their motivations  

Edited May 8, 2022 by dwai

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

In my experience, high level subtle body practitioners tend to make it a full time endeavor (or at least the equivalent of a full time job), often requiring long term retreat. 

 

Sure, I guess that's why naldjor live in caves.  On the other hand Lord Marpa was a farmer - so maybe it depends.  For myself I cannot claim to be a 'high level' practitioner but a lowly plodder ... but I prefer for what it is worth, to meditate in a crowded or busy place and not an isolated gompa.  Somehow I suspect that the things gained on the high mountain are usually lost when you come down into the world.  So I prefer to try to develop in the midst of conditions.

 

 

[Apech]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

When the Buddha was on the way to Nirvana, Mara is said to have visited him and tried to incentivize him to quit by offering things or by trying to scare him. 
 

A similar process can be seen in the conversation between Nachiketa and Lord Yama in the katha Upanishad, where Yama offers wealth, a very long life, all the pleasures of this realm and higher realms (deva realm), and so on. But young nachiketa’s resolve to find the secret of “immortality” was unshaken, as all those other things would either cease to be, or cease to give pleasure/joy/happiness after a while. 
 

This diamond body/rainbow body thing is very interesting for sure, when I meet someone with this capability, I would love to ask them questions about their motivations  

 

What do you mean about their motivations?

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

What do you mean about their motivations?

What they wanted to achieve by building this “rainbow body”, and “are you satisfied with the results”? 
 

Think of it as a customer satisfaction survey  
 

[forestofclarity]

20 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Sure, I guess that's why naldjor live in caves.  On the other hand Lord Marpa was a farmer - so maybe it depends.  For myself I cannot claim to be a 'high level' practitioner but a lowly plodder ... but I prefer for what it is worth, to meditate in a crowded or busy place and not an isolated gompa.  Somehow I suspect that the things gained on the high mountain are usually lost when you come down into the world.  So I prefer to try to develop in the midst of conditions.

 

 

 

I've always been taught subtle body practices in the Kagyu lineage are preparatory or supportive of Mahamudra, which is considered the higher practice (and incidentally, appropriate for lay people). But other may have it differently. I'm not really a traditionalist.   

[doc benway]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

What they wanted to achieve by building this “rainbow body”, and “are you satisfied with the results”? 
 

Think of it as a customer satisfaction survey  
 

 

The rainbow body is not something that is built. It represents the dissolution of all karmic traces including the physical body which resolves into the 5 elemental lights. It is one expression of complete enlightenment, seen in the dzogchen teachings of Bön and Buddhism. It is said to predate Buddhism in Tibet.

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

I've always been taught subtle body practices in the Kagyu lineage are preparatory or supportive of Mahamudra, which is considered the higher practice (and incidentally, appropriate for lay people). But other may have it differently. I'm not really a traditionalist.   

 

My understanding is that they (the subtle body practices) are completion stage yogas ... there are different mahamudra traditions - some such as so called sutra mahamudra do not rely on tantras (controversially) while others do.  

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, steve said:

 

The rainbow body is not something that is built. It represents the dissolution of all karmic traces including the physical body which resolves into the 5 elemental lights. It is one expression of complete enlightenment, seen in the dzogchen teachings of Bön and Buddhism. It is said to predate Buddhism in Tibet.

 

The steve has spoken (correctly).

[stirling]

19 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

1) What role does 'will' or 'volition' play here? So first 'gnosis' happens without volition, but later on it would be possible via (individual ?) volition to focus on / switch between the nondual reality or the dual one?

 

Ultimately "volition" is a thought (no more special than any other thought) that usually arises as personal dialogue AFTER action - a story about what we "intend" to do. This can be readily observed by watching thoughts arise and pass in meditation - especially when in meditation while walking or doing other tasks. This narration of our life is what we have always identified as our "self".

 

Quote

2) How would you say must the word 'experience' under these circumstances be then defined? Perceptions usually appear via the senses (eyes, ears, nose, skin etc.). But this is beyond senses or perceptions. What is it in us that 'experiences' without sensory organs? Qualia - on a science level? (You might call it Atman or the Source of possibilities?)

Even the sense doors (eyes, ears, etc.) are illusory constructs. There is ultimately just "sensation" as a whole arising and passing in this moment, happening wherever phenomena arise. There is no-one who is the "experiencer". This, bizarrely, looks just like everything appears to you now, it is just finally understood how it actually is AND it's "emptiness" is always completely obvious. 

 

Quote

Edit: one more question... - what does development of 'subtle channels' etc. have to do with any of this? Why then, if realization of this and integration into life is (so to speak) the goal of non-dualists ... why is every other

system oriented toward 'energetics'?

 

"Subtle channels" are like all appearances and have no intrinsic reality of their own. Ultimately they have nothing to do with enlightenment, buy might serve as some kind of bridge to understanding for someone who gravitates toward it. Lao Tzu, the Buddha, Nirsagadatta Maharaj, for example. never mention energetics to the best of my knowledge.

 

"Spirit" is like "subtle channels" - a story that might serve as a bridge. There is ultimately no essence of a person that is separate from the whole.

[stirling]

7 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

Qualia seem to be individual subjective instances of conscious experience. But they seem forever embedded in sensory perception. (If not familiar with the concept of Qualia, but interested, see hidden content or elsewhere.)

 

This can be seen through when the quality of non-duality/emptiness is perceptible.

 

Quote

As if consciousness being some kind of a projection surface (you still know the old slide projectors, where light went through the photo to be displayed on the canvas / screen?) ... what is it if there's nothing projected on it? Empty? Full of unmanifested possibilities? So consciousness 'translates' matters of matter/substance? But is not of substance / matter itself?

 

The projection screen metaphor is a strong one. Once exercise I learned while working in the Nyingma tradition was to imagine what is seen as being on a screen located at the bridge of the nose and to focus as though that is where the image of reality was seen. This is intended to allow a possible breakthrough in seeing beyond the duality of "space" as it appears. There is always something projected as far as we know, but when those projections are imagined (or understood) to be flat and all one "object" it can be possible to break the illusion. 

 

Quote

Edit II: If we say: usual experiences come in via sense organs get translated (via neurons, mostly pyramidal neurons, neural cells, processed by the prefrontal cortex etc. pp) into perceptions and thoughts/concepts/aspirations via 'consciousness', might that be a close call? But then again, what is it that perceives without that in 'gnosis'? What is witnessed if there is 'nothing to witness' ? Who is witnessing it, if in 'gnosis' you are not in a 'place' where matter exists ? 'Consciousness' (witness?) alone witnesses itself? But how does it get to the intrinsic ability to have perception of its own, if in the moments of volition it was just the 'translator' / 'interpreter' of what came in 'from the outside'? Please correct me, if you guess it's otherwise..!

 

 

Looking for a cosmology, system, mechanism or causation of any kind is precisely how we get lost. There are no sense organs, neurons, or any other intermediaries between you and experiencing this moment just how it is. The story about how it works, or how to escape it is a trap. You are far better off letting go of the idea that it will make any sense to you and just resting in the stillness of how it is happening NOW. 

 

Everything perceives everything. Or, better, nothing perceives nothing. Everything appears just as it is, but the unseen quality of its emptiness is crystal clear and permeates all appearances. Both appear together, but the emptiness is obviously the pervasive quality since it alone does NOT arise and pass. You can enjoy sitting in a gathering of friends, yet there is no-one and nothing to perceive at the same time. It WILL NOT make sense to you until you see it. It would be far better to surrender the effort of trying to intellectually understand it. Having the vague idea, and then letting go of it is enough. Notice when you are caught in your story of how things are, or how "self" is and stop, then rest in the stillness as often as possible. That's about as concise a path as I could describe.

[doc benway]

7 hours ago, schroedingerscat said:

Good question... was asking because from what you wrote I gathered, that (mental ?) non dual realization has yet nothing to do with spiritually, which made me curious on how you made that distinction (experience?) ?

 

 

Spirit, if I had to try to get to it's meaning... well the book of the apostles comes to mind (Pentecost/ Whitsuntide). From the wording, spiritus, it seems to refer to a distilled essence. spiritus ( Latin) Origin & history From spīrō ("I breathe, I respire; I live"). Noun spīritus ( genitive spīritūs) (masc.) breath, breathing but also aspiration or lack thereof as well as some animating force. 

It seems to be related to the translation of  'Atman'... (original pali: breath of life, pneuma).

So some'thing' pervading life, felt and perceived only if individual 'volition' is left behind? (Reminds me more of the empty space in atoms, but that again is some'thing' of matter, not empty as in that which perceives without senses or mind. (consciousness?)

 

So non-dual gnosis is non spiritual per se, but not a mental concept either, but works also physically via 'energetics'? 

 

All good questions and I appreciate your discussion of "spirit."

My comment was simply a response to liminal luke's question about whether non-dual realization is the culmination of spiritual development. Based on personal experience, the experiences of others, and teachings from non-dual traditions, there does not seem to be a direct correlation between any particular spiritual path or level of personal development with non-dual realization.

On the other hand, the theme of non-duality in various forms seems to be at the heart of many spiritual traditions, East and West, regardless of how they are categorized. 

 

[stirling]

7 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Everything exists or happens for a reason and is 'redeemed', ultimately, yet dealing with the challenges of a dualistic world requires adopting more of a 'partial' view sometimes. 

 

There are no moving parts. There are no mistakes to make. In every moment there is the opportunity to be lost in the duality of your personal story, or to keep the mind open and relaxed, participating as a piece in the richness of "wu wei". Dropping down into the "partial" view is fine until it is seen that here is no-one to drop down into anything.

 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Just like in Kuòān Shīyuǎn's series of poems/images known as Ten Bulls, after having attained the state of enlightenment, the sage returns to the 'relative world' and attends to its needs and concerns.

 

A fantastic point. This is what the "10 years" Bindi was inquiring about IS. It takes a while until the "no self" realization completely happens and everything utterly stabilizes. This is also the point where it is realized that "duality" isn't going anywhere, exactly. While it become malleable in some VERY interesting ways, the illusion is persistent. There is love and a wish to be present for the suffering of the world as it presents moment to moment, and the application of prajna or alignment with things as they arise.