"Non-dual" misnomer

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

Do slaves have choices  ?

 

Technically yes, but, it's false choice.

[Daniel]

On 8/18/2024 at 12:54 PM, snowymountains said:

He may not change his pov, that's his ...choice, it's not my concern anyhow

 

The problem is below:

 

On 8/18/2024 at 12:38 PM, stirling said:

It happens because of a permanent experiential insight.

 

Permanent.  Experiential.  Translation:  "Come.  I'll teach you.  Do what I do and your brain will be permanently changed...

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[stirling]

17 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Maybe though Santa is seeing non-duality as something objectively true.

It's fine to like/endorse a non dual philosophy, this doesn't make it any truer than others

 

Non-dual philosophy is an idea. Ideas can be adopted or dropped at any time. Actual non-dual understanding is not a conceptual idea, it is an experiential understanding. It is enlightenment. It doesn't have a perspective or come from one. Adopting it as a philosophy is pointless, because it is not an intellectual position and can't be understood from as an intellectual point of view. 

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

The problem is below:

 

 

Permanent.  Experiential.  Translation:  "Come.  I'll teach you.  Do what I do and your brain will be permanently changed like mine is.  Don't you want to be like me?"  And then if you ask questions, eventually, the answer will be:  "I can't explain it, you need to try it yourself.  I can't tell you what will happen other than it's a permanent change and you will no longer be ignorant and delusional like all the others, except for me, and people like me."

 

One can say the same for God or archetypes though, they cannot be objectively proven.

 

Imo it's not delusional to adopt a non-dual philosophy, experientially adopt it that is.

What is odd though is to expect others to adopt it as if there are no other options.

[Daniel]

On 8/18/2024 at 1:05 PM, stirling said:

It is enlightenment. It doesn't have a perspective or come from one.

 

"It is enlightenment"  <--- This is a perspective.  

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Non-dual philosophy is an idea. Ideas can be adopted or dropped at any time. Actual non-dual understanding is not a conceptual idea, it is an experiential understanding. It is enlightenment. It doesn't have a perspective or come from one. Adopting it as a philosophy is pointless, because it is not an intellectual position and can't be understood from as an intellectual point of view. 

 

Most of philosophy is experiential, non-dual ones didn't copyright that for sure. Non-dual philosophies are also experiential

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, stirling said:

It is enlightenment..

no it's not, saying so just says it is correct because it is correct, a self-referential piece of evidence

[Daniel]

On 8/18/2024 at 1:07 PM, snowymountains said:

One can say the same for God or archetypes though, they cannot be objectively proven.

 

True.  But.   There is no permanent experiential change to the individual's brain as a consequence of God-beliefs.  And there's very little about God-beliefs which cannot be explained.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 1:07 PM, snowymountains said:

Imo it's not delusional to adopt a non-dual philosophy, experientially adopt it that is.

 

Agreed, depending on the manner in which this non-duality is applied in the individual's life.  What many call non-duality is "oblivion".  Oblivion is delusional.

 

On 8/18/2024 at 1:07 PM, snowymountains said:

What is odd though is to expect others to adopt it as if there are no other options.

 

It's Christian.  Non-duality preachers want to be a guru-savior, enlightened-preacher, with an indwelling of spirit.  They use different words for it, but, it's the same religion, more or less.

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[Daniel]

7 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

self-referential...

 

...and that's why folks label it "non-dual".  But that's a misnomer.  It's absolutely self-centered.  If one cannot see beyond their own mind, if they close their eyes and imagine themself as God then yes, it is non-dual, because the individual is alone in their own little world.

 

Edited August 18 by Daniel

[Cobie]

37 minutes ago, Daniel said:

… It's Christian …

Imo you know next to nothing about Christianity and your labeling of various things as “Christian” is ridiculous. 
 

 

Edited August 18 by Cobie

[S:C]

21 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

...and that's why folks label it "non-dual".  But that's a misnomer.  It's absolutely self-centered.  If one cannot see beyond their own mind, if they close their eyes and imagine themself as God then yes, it is non-dual, because the individual is alone in their own little world.

 

 

NOW, that’s why!

 

Edited August 19 by S:C

[Daniel]

37 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Imo you know next to nothing about Christianity and your labeling of various things as “Christian” is ridiculous. 

 

Your opinion doesn't match what's written in scripture nor what's written in my posts.  I very clearly know a great deal more than "next to nothing" in regard to Christianity.

 

Edited August 18 by Daniel

[Cobie]

Huh?      Lol. 
 

 

Edited August 18 by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

Your opinion doesn't match what's written in scripture …

Lol I’m RC. You don’t even seem to know that RC (the largest branch of Christianity) is not based on scripture alone.

 

Whatever.    You’re on ignore. 

 

 

Edited August 18 by Cobie

[Daniel]

26 minutes ago, Cobie said:

@Daniel  I think you should settle down a bit

 

~shrugs~ 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 accept that no one can know everything.

 

This is what I wrote:  "I very clearly know a great deal more than "next to nothing"

 

26 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I have 70 years experience being RC,

 

So what?   Christianity very clearly is "My way or the highway."  "Follow me if you want eternal life."  

 

26 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I know what I’m talking about.

 

You don't know what you don't know, and you argue against learning.

 

26 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I have put you on ignore.

Your loss.

 

 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Cobie said:

Huh?      Lol. 
 

 

 

Now ... you are the 7th one 

 

I have started keeping score .    

 

 

[stirling]

5 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Maybe though Santa is seeing non-duality as something objectively true.

It's fine to like/endorse a non dual philosophy, this doesn't make it any truer than others

 

Enlightenment is seeing the reality of non-duality. I'm not endorsing it, I'm talking about the topic of this thread and from my personal experience with it.

 

Non-duality is a real thing that any experienced meditation student that has sincere curiosity can see for themselves, with the direction of a realized teacher.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing-out_instruction

 

Complete realization is somewhat rare, but far from impossible. All of my teachers and their teachers are realized, as well as a number of my friends and colleagues. 

[stirling]

5 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Imo it's not delusional to adopt a non-dual philosophy, experientially adopt it that is.

What is odd though is to expect others to adopt it as if there are no other options.

 

Is someone expecting others to adopt the idea of non-duality?

 

It IS delusional to adopt ANY philosophy, IMHO. Ideas are just ideas, regardless of the depth of your belief in them. The same goes for memories of experiences. They aren't reality. I only trust what can be seen in experience in this moment. I can see the non-dual nature as we speak.

[stirling]

5 hours ago, snowymountains said:

Most of philosophy is experiential, non-dual ones didn't copyright that for sure. Non-dual philosophies are also experiential

 

Thoughts are not experience, they happen in the mind, not in the world. 

[snowymountains]

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Enlightenment is seeing the reality of non-duality. I'm not endorsing it, I'm talking about the topic of this thread and from my personal experience with it.

 

Non-duality is a real thing that any experienced meditation student that has sincere curiosity can see for themselves, with the direction of a realized teacher.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing-out_instruction

 

Complete realization is somewhat rare, but far from impossible. All of my teachers and their teachers are realized, as well as a number of my friends and colleagues. 

 

According to you and your fully realised teachers that have been pointed out by other fully realised teachers, it is. 

According to other people it is not.

 

Of course you prefer to hear your teachers, which is fine.

 

However, one thing to realise how you or your teachers choose to call themselves is irrelevant as far as arguments in favour or against an experiential philosophy are concerned.

[snowymountains]

5 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Is someone expecting others to adopt the idea of non-duality?

 

It IS delusional to adopt ANY philosophy, IMHO. Ideas are just ideas, regardless of the depth of your belief in them. The same goes for memories of experiences. They aren't reality. I only trust what can be seen in experience in this moment. I can see the non-dual nature as we speak.

 

Many philosophies are experiential, I brought this up before.

For whatever reason you choose the view is that your non-dual philosophy is the only experiential one, it is simply untrue.

 

It does get a bit circular though when for whatever reason the arguments made are i) your philosophy is the only experiential one and ii)your teachers are fully realised therefore they know etc etc.

 

There's also little point in discussing in this way. You want to believe your teachers and their self proclaimed enlightenment.

You are of course free to do so, but but others are also free to find this argument lackluster.

[Sherman Krebbs]

42 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

Many philosophies are experiential, I brought this up before.

For whatever reason you choose the view is that your non-dual philosophy is the only experiential one, it is simply untrue.

 

It does get a bit circular though when for whatever reason the arguments made are i) your philosophy is the only experiential one and ii)your teachers are fully realised therefore they know etc etc.

 

Are you saying that a non-dual philosophy is categorically invalid, or are you just questioning sterling's reasoning for believing/endorsing it, i.e. based on his own experience and his interaction with his meditation instructors?  If the former, why and what philosophy do you believe has more merit?

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

 

Are you saying that a non-dual philosophy is categorically invalid

 

No, one is of course free to adopt it

 

3 minutes ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

 

questioning sterling's reasoning for believing/endorsing it, i.e. based on his own experience and his interaction with his meditation instructors?

 

Not even that, it's his subjective reality and of course he's free to interpret it however he wants

 

What I'm saying is that this is not an objective argument in favour and it's impossible to have a discussion based on arguments along the lines of ~this is so because my teacher is enlightened because another teacher says he is~.

 

He's entirely free to believe the lineage argument of course.

 

In any case there can be no definite argument in favour of non-duality, just as there can be none for dual philosophies, they're point of views.

[S:C]

When if ever is guiding of behavior of others ethical? ♘
Due to conditioning and separate interests doesn’t it resort to ‚manipulation‘ fairly quickly as long as you get in an argument with someone? Or try to act from a sphere of separate self?

How can healthy boundaries be defined and upholded? How can the conditioning be dissoluted?

(this probably should be made in a separate thread or will be deleted, note to self.) 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, S:C said:

When if ever is guiding of behavior of others ethical? ♘

 

1)  Parent-child relationships

2)  Teacher-student relationships

3)  Someone is asking for help ( implicitly or explicitly )

 

Quote

Due to conditioning and separate interests doesn’t it resort to ‚manipulation‘ fairly quickly as long as you get in an argument with someone? Or try to act from a sphere of separate self?

 

Right.   You make an excellent point. 

 

Sometimes an individual will make their intentions / aspirations abundantly clear.  In those cases if they are behaving contrary to those stated goals, it's helping not manipulating because the conditioning is an obstacle. 

 

Common example:  a married couple is on vacation in a foreign country with their family.  They become lost.  One of them suggests asking for directions.  One of them resists.  An argument ensues.  It's helpful for one of the individuals to coerce, manipulate, shame, the other individual to ask for directions.   This is particularly valid if the party is on foot or has limited resources like fuel in the gas-tank.  In this case, there are no perfect choices.  Someone will be manipulated, and someone is doing the manipulation.  These actions have consequences which will in turn need their own remedy.  In a functional relationship, the two parties will discuss the event after the crisis has been averted.

 

Classic example:  A victim is trapped in the tower of a castle controlled by an evil monarch.  They are calling out, "Help, help, help!"  Their voice is heard by a white knight.  The white knight responds, naturally, to the call of duty. After defeating the hungry dragon guarding the gate, the white knight rescues the victim, and returns them to their family.  What happens next?   The white knight rides off into the sunset never to be seen again.  Why do they ride away?  Answer:  because anytime one person helps another, they are manipulating the victim.  The victim will feel indebted to their savior, and this is a form of oppression.  The only way to insure that the white knight's motives are pure, and remain pure, in this story, is for the white knight to leave immediately after the crisis is averted and never to return again.  

 

The point is:  manipulation is unavoidable.  Even the victim calling for help is manipulating the white knight's actions.  Once the victim realizes that there is a metaphorical "lever" which can be applied to the white knight's psyche, ( "Help, help, help!" ) then the victim can use this technique to coerce the white knight into servitude.

 

Quote

How can healthy boundaries be defined and upholded?

 

Defining the boundaries:  Each party has needs and wants.  When there is a conflict, there is a process for reconciliation which unpacks these needs and wants including defining the boundaries.  It's not difficult to type it, it's a 5 step plan, but each of those steps takes time to explain and implement.  As a general rule, resolving a conflict means everyone gets what they need, and no one gets what they want.  At the end of a successful negotiation, neither of the parties will be happy... at first.  Eventually, if there is a strong bond between them, they will realize that the compromise is for the best.  The desires are compromised, but the boundaries are not.

 

Upholding the boundaries:  The other key to all of this, which is often ( almost always ) overlooked.  The relationship itself has needs and wants.  It's a non-dual triad. 

 

Victim << Duty/Debt >> Savior

Husband << Household >> Wife

Partner << Relationship >> Partner

 

The easiest way to uphold a boundary is through isolation, dissolving the relationship, the white knight riding off into the sunset, or the husband/wife get a divorce.  Often this is not a viable option.  In those cases, it's necessary for all parties to be simultaneously rigid and flexible.  The parties each have their own roles, their own domains, their own territories, their own responsibilities.  This is rigidly defined.  However, all parties are cross-trained such that they can cover for the other person when it is warranted.  The circumstances which warrant crossing over into the other party's domain or territory is loose and flexible.  Crossing boundaries in a relationship is natural.  That's what relationships are.  Both parties need to be flexible and understand that transgressions will occur in the heat of the moment for any number of reasons.  After the moment has passed, healthy relationships include some sort of debrief where both parties have an opportunity to review what went "right" and what went "wrong".  Some individuals and relationships, depending on the situation, need dedicated time to cuss and discuss post-mortem, for lack of better words.  However, it's not always needed.  Sometimes all it takes is a wink-and-a-nod which is greeted with a sigh-of-relief, a simple gesture, between the two parties to maintain the healthy relationship.

 

Quote

How can the conditioning be dissoluted?

 

There's many ways.  Gently over time.  Planting a seed then leaving it up to nature.  Wrecking ball knocking down the walls.  Ultimately, dissolving conditioning requires crossing or violating boundaries.  If the conditioning is being dissolved internally, an individual is doing basically the same thing that a 3rd party is doing externally.  Gently over time?  The solo individual is taking baby steps towards exploring new horizons in exactly the same way that a teacher would make a bread-crumb trail for their student to follow rewarding them with little cookies at each step along the way.  Planting a seed?  An individual can do that, solo, alone, without a teacher or a friend.  Wrecking ball?  That's the fool's journey.

 

Quote

(this probably should be made in a separate thread or will be deleted, note to self.) 

 

I appreciate the questions.  If reality is non-dual, then, everything is connected by boundaries.  Understanding how and when to cross those boundaries safely without causing harm to oneself and others is certainly on topic for this thread and useful for anyone wanting to live without causing harm to themself or others. 

 

Edited August 19 by Daniel