Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[Apech]

On 09/05/2022 at 7:07 PM, stirling said:

 

In this case what I mean is that the reference points are like the grid of a map. Latitude and longitude don't ultimately represent any real place or thing, they are conceptual constructs without any reality of their own beyond what we ascribe to them. 

 

 

to me illusory just means that it is not what it appears to be.

[Michael Sternbach]

21 hours ago, dwai said:

Nondual “contentment” isn’t a choice. It is not an optional thing where you go, “now that I’ve got nondual contentment, let me go get discontented again, so I can identify with emotions or thoughts or the body”.

 

Nondual completeness is more apropos a term. And when something is complete, there is no room for desire. People desire something because there is a lack (perceived) of something (which they try to fulfill with things). 

 

But what if you were stranded in the middle of a desert, without food or water?

 

Don't you think you could be nondually complete all you want, your desire would get the better of you?

 

Actually, I think you wouldn't even need to go anywhere for making this instructive experience. Better try it out at home first, with a full fridge in reach (just in case)... For starters.

 

21 hours ago, dwai said:

Yes that’s what happens. Whatever comes, comes, and whatever goes, goes. There is no “attachment” or “aversion”.

 

That is a valid position imho. Those who can’t go beyond that, will come back again (and again) until they do. 

 

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

 

In the Buddhist context a "God" is still stuck in samsara, is not on the level of a Buddha, and doesn't see reality as it is. Still, not a bad place to get stuck.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃsāra_(Buddhism)#Realms_of_rebirth

 

what did I predict about rationalizations....  it's telling that a god had to get after the Buddha for his recorded doubts

[dwai]

Spoiler

Q: If `I' am always, here and now, why do I not feel so?

Sri Ramana Maharshi :

That is it.
Who says it is not felt ?
Does the real `I' say it or the false `I'?
Examine it.
You will find it is the wrong `I'.
The wrong `I' is the obstruction.
It has to be removed in order that the true `I' may not be hidden. The feeling that I have not realized is the obstruction to realization.

In fact it is already realized and
there is nothing more to be realized.
Otherwise, the realization will be new.
If it has not existed so far, it must take place hereafter.
What is born will also die.
If realization is not eternal it is not worth having.

Therefore what we seek is not that which must happen afresh.
It is only that which is eternal but not now known due to obstructions. It is that which we seek.
All that we need do is remove the obstruction.
That which is eternal is not known to be so because of ignorance. Ignorance is the obstruction.
Get over the ignorance and all will be well.

The ignorance is identical with the `I'-thought.
Find its source and it will vanish.
The `I'-thought is like a spirit which,
although not palpable, rises up simultaneously with the body, flourishes and disappears with it.

The body-consciousness is the wrong `I'.
Give up this body-consciousness.
It is done by seeking the source of the `I'.
The body does not say `I am'.
It is you who say, `I am the body '.
Find out who this `I' is.
Seeking its source it will vanish.

~ From Be as you are book

 

[Michael Sternbach]

8 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

 I haven't spent a lot of time in the presence of immortals and other awakened beings. 

 

What???!!!  You're saying this after all this time you spent on this forum?!

 

8 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

In my mind their activity/inactivity is without odor, though it would not be surprising to detect a faint fragrance of cherry blossom or aloeswood in their vicinity.  Burning rubber?  Maybe, who knows. 

 

Sulfur fumes if you were to visit my alchemical lab. 

 

8 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

If I had to name two things well outside my wheelhouse, I'd say nondualism and race car driving. 

 

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

But what if you were stranded in the middle of a desert, without food or water?

 

Don't you think you could be nondually complete all you want, your desire would get the better of you?

if you’re stranded in the middle of the desert without food or water, what can you possibly do? 
 

Find an oasis, or wait for it to rain. What is meant to happen, will happen. 
 

Reminds me of a question a skeptic asked a nondualist teacher , “all this nonduality you keep spouting off about, what will you do if a mad elephant comes running down the street you’re standing in?”

 

The teacher replied, “why? Move out of the way.” 
 

The skeptic gleefully crowed, “see…all your nonduality is of no use. You are scared of death the same as everyone else.”

 

The teacher replied, “ I’m a nondualist, not an idiot.” 
 

On a serious note, the two-levels of reality are meant for that. The transactional level is meant for transactional things. The absolute is for spiritual things. That doesn’t mean that one cannot have the absolute truth inform their actions  on the transactional level. 

Quote

 

Actually, I think you wouldn't even need to go anywhere for making this instructive experience. Better try it out at home first, with a full fridge in reach (just in case)... For starters.

 

 

You know, there’s an old Sanskrit saying - “langhanam param aushadham” (fasting is the most powerful medicine). 

Edited May 11, 2022 by dwai

[doc benway]

I appreciate the quotes from Foster.

I read his first book around when it was released. It helped validate some things for me but was lacking something. I can see now it was lacking the respect and appreciation for the challenges and expressions of dual experience which is the central part of life for all, regardless of special insights. It was lacking tools for working with things that special insight doesn’t dissolve. It’s nice to feel his authenticity and vulnerability in these recent quotes. The things he criticized in non-dualists were very much evidenced in his own early writing. 

 

.

 

 

[Bindi]

"In the interior of the heart, Brahman alone shines in the form of the Atman with direct immediacy as I. To abide in the Atman, I enter the heart with an inquisitive mind or by diving deep within or by controlling the breath." Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi

(Quote from Here.)
 

Ramana says this is the Atman, a light deep in the subtle heart. Two things I notice, 1. Ramana identifies this as ‘I’. I too have come upon this light at the deepest point in my subtle heart, but I didn’t identify it as me, in fact I did the opposite, I identified it as other, and I gratefully used this light to be able to see how to initiate my next step, and then I moved on. 
 

2. Ramana makes a deliberate choice and effort to abide in what he considers to be the Atman. A nondualist would say this is impossible.
 

Nonetheless Ramana stuck to his nondual guns throughout most of his life including when he was dying, I think the only time that he faltered was when thieves came into his ashram, and he accepted whatever would happen to him, but he couldn’t accept that his dog might be hurt so he asked someone to take her to safety whilst nondually resigning himself to his fate. The ultimate nondual action would be to allow his dog to be hurt because that would just be how it is. An absolute nondualist cannot pick and choose what they are going to be nondual about, and the fact that even a committed nondualist who spent years in meditation to shore up his nonduality still had a preference when it came to something he loved tells me that nonduality is not IT. 
 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

3 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

How do you know what the inner self is suggesting? Also how do you know what level that suggestion is coming from? 

 

There's the catch. Nothing comes with neat labels in the psyche.  It's a question of personal experience, I am afraid.

 

That being said, meditation helps. Which is learning to temporarily silence the chatter in our mind.

 

Another clue: Practise paying attention to your very first thought regarding something. Before the analyzing mind takes control.

 

3 hours ago, Bindi said:

I’m not so sure we do have free will when it comes to ‘commands’ from the higher self, I have experienced it as a force as I posted above, which I literally cannot go against no matter how much I want to, and I have tried because it hasn’t aligned with my conscious choice. I do have free will to follow along with subconscious knowledge and wisdom or choose not to do so, but I am not equating higher self with the subconscious. 

 

Neither do I. However, from the conscious self's perspective, all that lives outside its realm is simply in the dark...

 

Therefore, surfacing subconscious and superconscious information can be difficult to distinguish between sometimes. Again, it's a learning process.

 

Compulsive states are more characteristic of subconscious than of superconscious influences, though.

 

3 hours ago, Bindi said:

I suspect I cannot be my higher self, my completion lies in how perfectly I can enact my higher self’s will. 

 

That sounds like you are modelling your higher self as something existing outside of yourself. I prefer to call it my inner self.

[Michael Sternbach]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

Yes

 

you can understand the consciousness of a star by consulting your inner wisdom.  Especially if you view the cosmos as comprised of essences and not dead matter.

 

 

 

You may get an inkling that way.

 

But can an ant understand the mind of a human? For that matter, can a cat do this? 

 

In order to fully comprehend the consciousness of a star, you would have to be one yourself, IMO.

[Michael Sternbach]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

if you’re stranded in the middle of the desert without food or water, what can you possibly do? 
 

Find an oasis, or wait for it to rain. What is meant to happen, will happen. 

 

Alright, but do you think your mind would still be filled with joy and love? (Serious question.)

 

Quote

Reminds me of a question a skeptic asked a nondualist teacher , “all this nonduality you keep spouting off about, what will you do if a mad elephant comes running down the street you’re standing in?”

 

The teacher replied, “why? Move out of the way.” 
 

The skeptic gleefully crowed, “see…all your nonduality is of no use. You are scared of death the same as everyone else.”

 

The teacher replied, “ I’m a nondualist, not an idiot.” 
 

On a serious note, the two-levels of reality are meant for that. The transactional level is meant for transactional things. The absolute is for spiritual things.

 

Oh, that's a remarkable answer! So, in your view, there are two levels of reality after all! With the absolute view only being applicable to a limited range of experience, strictly speaking.

 

So how does this relate to what you said earlier:

 

Quote

Nondual “contentment” isn’t a choice. It is not an optional thing where you go, “now that I’ve got nondual contentment, let me go get discontented again, so I can identify with emotions or thoughts or the body”.

 

Nondual completeness is more apropos a term. And when something is complete, there is no room for desire. People desire something because there is a lack (perceived) of something (which they try to fulfill with things).

 

 

Quote

That doesn’t mean that one cannot have the absolute truth inform their actions  on the transactional level. 

 

Okay, that resonates with me. 

 

Quote

You know, there’s an old Sanskrit saying - “langhanam param aushadham” (fasting is the most powerful medicine). 

 

Hah! I was afraid you were going to say something like that.

 

Sorry, Dwai, we're back to the desert... 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Michael Sternbach

[dwai]

11 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Alright, but do you think your mind would still be filled with joy and love? (Serious question.)

At one level, yes. Will the body feel pain and trauma? Of course.
 

The biggest source of suffering is the mind.

 

I think it was the Buddha who said (heard it from

swami Sarvapriyananda) — suffering in the world is like being struck by two arrows, consecutively.
 

Imagine you were struck by an arrow in your chest, and right after you were struck by another. The first arrow is likened to what the circumstances/world hits you with. The second arrow is your reaction to the first one, which is far worse, and amplifies the pain caused the first arrow manifold. 
 

As long as the body exists, the effects of wear and tear, illness etc will affect it. But why must that turn into suffering? 
 

Buddha also taught the concept of tathagata - that which has passed. We must let it go (ie give up resistance to change). 

11 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

Oh, that's a remarkable answer! So, in your view, there are two levels of reality after all! With the absolute view only being applicable to a limited range of experience, strictly speaking.

 

So how does this relate to what you said earlier:

why does there need to be a conflation of desire/wants with need?  It’s important to see the difference between the two. One needs food, water, shelter, clothing (as a human being ie). One doesn’t desire it — that’s a minimum viable thing for survival.  So, completeness doesn’t mean the body won’t need sustenance, etc. To deny it that, is a deviation from the way of nature. Completeness does away with desire/wants. 

11 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

 

Okay, that resonates with me. 

 

 

Hah! I was afraid you were going to say something like that.

 

Sorry, Dwai, we're back to the desert... 

did you mean “dessert”? 🤔

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

At one level, yes. Will the body feel pain and trauma? Of course.
 

The biggest source of suffering is the mind.

 

I think it was the Buddha who said (heard it from

swami Sarvapriyananda) — suffering in the world is like being struck by two arrows, consecutively.
 

Imagine you were struck by an arrow in your chest, and right after you were struck by another. The first arrow is likened to what the circumstances/world hits you with. The second arrow is your reaction to the first one, which is far worse, and amplifies the pain caused the first arrow manifold. 
 

As long as the body exists, the effects of wear and tear, illness etc will affect it. But why must that turn into suffering? 
 

Buddha also taught the concept of tathagata - that which has passed. We must let it go (ie give up resistance to change). 

why does there need to be a conflation of desire/wants with need?  It’s important to see the difference between the two. One needs food, water, shelter, clothing (as a human being ie). One doesn’t desire it — that’s a minimum viable thing for survival.
 

 

So a Qualified or Conditional nondualism that necessarily excludes the needs of the body, as without this all nondualists would be dead within weeks. When Ramana and others like him spent extended time in nirvikalpa samadhi, they didn’t care for their bodies, if their body was cared for it was by others who would keep ants off them, spoon feed them etc. Were they experiencing a temporary absolute nondual state that includes bodily nondualism? Is the fact that we do have a body the hard problem of nonduality?
 

To what extent is a nondualist identified with his/her body? For instance does a nondualist need to make choices about Clothing? Why, when clothing isn’t actually necessary a lot of the time? Some Yogi’s walk around naked, and we don’t need clothing to survive in some seasons and in some countries clothing is never needed. Is it just unexamined social convention that keeps the nondualists dressed? 

 

Quote

 

 So, completeness doesn’t mean the body won’t need sustenance, etc. To deny it that, is a deviation from the way of nature. Completeness does away with desire/wants. 

did you mean “dessert”? 🤔

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Bindi

[Bindi]

10 hours ago, dawn90 said:

 

Why can't you?

I don’t think I can be my higher self, but that’s just an educated guess until I get to the end of the road myself.

FWIW Atman as I understand it is beyond “Ahamkara (ego, non-spiritual psychological I-ness Me-ness), mind (citta, manas), and all the defiling kleshas (habits, prejudices, desires, impulses, delusions, fads, behaviors, pleasures, sufferings and fears).” All of them. How can a person live without their mind? How can a person have no behaviour, never suffer, never fear, I don’t think that’s possible, and I don’t think it’s necessary, we are human, it’s ok to be human. What I don’t think is ok is for someone to claim they are Atman consciousness whilst smoking beedies like Nisargadatta or being ruled by their personalities - “Embodied personality and Ahamkara shift, evolve or change with time, while Atman doesn't. It is "pure, undifferentiated, self-shining consciousness."” I doubt I’ll ever be that pure or undifferentiated whilst I’m alive, and again I don’t think I need to be. Enough to be in contact with the part of me that is. 

 

 

[old3bob]

the mind and our mind is a lot like a computer,  and the programs that run on it are not the user or essence!  How could Plato's cave dwellers live without their caves?  (well those who dare to journey (via proven yoga's, etc.)  into an unknown  world outside their cave do find that they can live without it.  The price is very high and the sun is clear and bright for Grace has shown me them yet I have pending debts to pay for my part)

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I don’t think I can be my higher self, but that’s just an educated guess until I get to the end of the road myself.

FWIW Atman as I understand it is beyond “Ahamkara (ego, non-spiritual psychological I-ness Me-ness), mind (citta, manas), and all the defiling kleshas (habits, prejudices, desires, impulses, delusions, fads, behaviors, pleasures, sufferings and fears).” All of them. How can a person live without their mind? How can a person have no behaviour, never suffer, never fear, I don’t think that’s possible, and I don’t think it’s necessary, we are human, it’s ok to be human. What I don’t think is ok is for someone to claim they are Atman consciousness whilst smoking beedies like Nisargadatta or being ruled by their personalities - “Embodied personality and Ahamkara shift, evolve or change with time, while Atman doesn't. It is "pure, undifferentiated, self-shining consciousness."” I doubt I’ll ever be that pure or undifferentiated whilst I’m alive, and again I don’t think I need to be. Enough to be in contact with the part of me that is. 

 

 

 

I wonder if some of this is the problem of talking about Atman at all (which the Buddha didn't do) in the sense that one get's the idea of a kind of non-human level of existence.  The artist formerly known as @Bindi now known as 'luminous blob'.  You can imagine after we are all enlightened the conversation 'hi blob have you met my friend luminous blob and look over there isn't that luminous blob?'

 

i think this is the issue of the idea of being absorbed into the IT.

 

I prefer the idea of reciprocity, like looking in a mirror we see ourselves in IT and IT sees itself in us.  This is the meaning of the Egyptian poem I posted above somewhere.  We might see ourselves more clearly when this happens but we don't stop being ourselves - we don't become luminous blobs.

 

Thoughts as ever.

[forestofclarity]

7 minutes ago, Apech said:

'hi blob have you met my friend luminous blob and look over there isn't that luminous blob?'

 

This is hilarious but not entirely false in my opinion. It is a weird thing once one begins to stop identifying so strictly with objects, like the body and mind. And it can't really be forced, but there does seem to me to be a natural reorienting. "Luminous blob" is a good a name as any, I suppose. 

 

The luminous blob that is me acknowledges the luminous blob that is you. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by forestofemptiness

[Apech]

1 minute ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

This is hilarious but not entirely false in my opinion. It is a weird thing once one begins to stop identifying so strictly with objects, like the body and mind. And it can't really be forced, but there does seem to me to be a natural reorienting. "Luminous blob" is a good a name as any, I suppose. 

 

The luminous blob that is me acknowledges the luminous blob that is you. 

 

Hi blob.

[forestofclarity]

10 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Hi blob.

 

An inside joke in my family: during a movie or TV show, whenever some one says "I need to find out who I am!" or "Now I know what I am!" or words to that effect I usually whisper "formless awareness?" Now I can whisper "luminous blob?" 

[doc benway]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

Nonetheless Ramana stuck to his nondual guns throughout most of his life including when he was dying, I think the only time that he faltered was when thieves came into his ashram, and he accepted whatever would happen to him, but he couldn’t accept that his dog might be hurt so he asked someone to take her to safety whilst nondually resigning himself to his fate. The ultimate nondual action would be to allow his dog to be hurt because that would just be how it is. An absolute nondualist cannot pick and choose what they are going to be nondual about, and the fact that even a committed nondualist who spent years in meditation to shore up his nonduality still had a preference when it came to something he loved tells me that nonduality is not IT. 
 

 

 

This clears up a mystery!

Why are there so few Daoist masters and so many stray dogs in China?

Practicing wu wei, the Daoist masters starve to death and their dogs become homeless…

🥴

 

[dwai]

7 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

So a Qualified or Conditional nondualism that necessarily excludes the needs of the body, as without this all nondualists would be dead within weeks. When Ramana and others like him spent extended time in nirvikalpa samadhi, they didn’t care for their bodies, if their body was cared for it was by others who would keep ants off them, spoon feed them etc. Were they experiencing a temporary absolute nondual state that includes bodily nondualism? Is the fact that we do have a body the hard problem of nonduality?

So you think that “fully nondual” people don’t eat, drink water, poop or pee?  

Qualified Nondualism is a completely different thing - it proposes that we are parts of Brahman rather than Brahman itself. No, what I’m saying is not qualified nondualism, it is complete nondualism. You seem to want to paint a binary equation of “dualism” vs “nondualism”, set up in exclusivity to each other. But duality is an appearance within the nondual. Like a movie on the TV screen. The screen is fine with or without the pictures. But if the picture is running, it follows it own story, the characters have their own arcs, and so on. There is no movie apart from the TV screen. Duality is the movie, the non-dual reality is the TV screen. 

 

7 hours ago, Bindi said:

To what extent is a nondualist identified with his/her body? For instance does a nondualist need to make choices about Clothing? Why, when clothing isn’t actually necessary a lot of the time? Some Yogi’s walk around naked, and we don’t need clothing to survive in some seasons and in some countries clothing is never needed. Is it just unexamined social convention that keeps the nondualists dressed? 

 

 

It’s out of compassion -  to spare the “dualists” embarrassment of watching jiggly lumps of flesh walking around unfiltered  

 

But on a serious note, it is a convention thing — even Ramana Maharishi wore a loin cloth, because in thiruvanamalai, the temperature seldom drops below 70 degrees Fahrenheit. I’m sure he would have worn a woolen parka if he lived in a cold part of the world. 

[old3bob]

 

“blob picked a peck of pickled bloopers; a peck of pickled bloopers blob picked. If blob picked a peck of pickled bloopers, where’s the peck of pickled bloopers blob picked?”

[blue eyed snake]

what a nice thread this is, also, it's become very clear to me why Sifu told me not to analyze anything that happened.

 

concerning illness and desert, sometime ago I found this: sorry to say I do no have a link for it but think much of it is to be found here.

https://fiveinvitations.com/portals-not-problem-solvers/

 

Quote

 

Yesterday I heard a renowned Buddhist teacher speak about being in the hospital for serious heart surgery. During his 2 week stay, many dear friends––all Buddhist teachers––visited him. He described how well-meaning, but ultimately useless, their spiritual advice was to him.
"Everyone was trying to guide me into 'you'll feel better tomorrow...." Tomorrow, tomorrow. If I relax into my body... If I notice my breathing... Etc. Etc.
But his body was barely feel-able to him. He was hooked to a ventilator, so noticing his own breath was impossible.
This 65 y/o renowned teacher "slipped his headphones on like a teenager in the backseat of his parents' Buick." He tuned them all out. What was he listening to? Blind Boys of Alabama, "they were a straight pipeline to God...so I borrowed their faith."
Anytime a nurse came in his room, it was a cheery "How ya feelin?" to which, of course, he responded, "Not great." & the theatrics of cleaning up another person's emotional pain ensued––Oh, but tomorrow! Tomorrow!
Nobody wanted to let him feel pain. To be with him in it.

He had to lock himself in the bathroom to weep, to just be with his pain. Nurses, pressed against the door, "Are you okay? Just let me in there." Understandably concerned. But, he was feeling. He was weeping. Finally. His pain was being allowed its space.

"Don't let your tools or skills get in the way," he suggested to us. If you're a doctor. Or a meditator. Or so-called "spiritual." Whatever your profession or religion or practice, don't let it get in the way.
"You're going to be scared," he said. "Of course you are."

Can we be with our own pain, fully, without "Tomorrow-ing" it? Can we be with others' pain, as best we can, without shoving promises/expectations onto it? Can we stop gift-wrapping the Mystery, the fear, our present––covering it up somehow, as if that will make it better?
What strikes me vividly is that all this was coming from a deeply learned Buddhist teacher with a lifetime of hospice work. & he was saying, Be a human about it. All our fancy tricks, cushion-time, that's great, keep it in your tool box––but how are you in a room with Pain?

How are you in a room with pain?
The room of your own body? Do u shush it?
The room where others are crumbling, helpless, afraid? Do u cover it up?
The room of our world––in so much need of affection, presence, trustworthiness––do u bolt?
How are u in a room with pain?

I've often felt, "Others must know. Doctors must know. Gurus. Teachers. How to deal with this pain. I must learn to know.
Then this lifelong teacher of pain, who'd been flattened by a heart attack, surgery, 2 strokes––with tears in his eyes, saying:
"I was afraid.… & you will be afraid."

Dont take away your own, or others, fear. Dont smooth it over with platitudes. Fear belongs. Its not everything we are. There's space around it, if we can allow it to be held. As @racheleliza_g says, "clarity & mystery arrive together."
I cant explain how freeing it is to know that there's no Superman cape I can put on to stop myself from feeling my heart break. It will break. His did, literally. He needed to weep for it.

The Q is not: "How do I stop pain from happening?"
It's "How can I be with it?"

 

whatever the relation between the reincarnated angel and the ape, the body is there and its needs will scream louder when the situation becomes dire. When the needs cannot be met, as is the case for Jeff Foster your (smug) feeling of having ' accomplished something' will either become much smaller or vanish.  Partly because a sick body spouts all kinds of unwanted chemicals that induce fear.

 

maybe, the road, the insights, the realization is easy as long as the body is comparatively healthy.

 

 

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

I don't think people become more blob-like as their sense of self widens.  Just the opposite.  You know how salt has the magical quality of making a tomato taste even more tomato-esque?  Enlightenment is like salt.  It makes people taste like themselves.

[dwai]

20 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I don't think people become more blob-like as their sense of self widens.  Just the opposite.  You know how salt has the magical quality of making a tomato taste even more tomato-esque?  Enlightenment is like salt.  It makes people taste like themselves.

One Super Blob?