"Non-dual" misnomer

[Apech]

3 hours ago, S:C said:

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.) 

 

As far as I understand it ethical codes or conduct is a third of any spiritual path.  So there is bound to be guidance if practicing any system.  The guidance is there to help you form yourself and protect yourself from harm and/or disintegratory acts.  If in giving guidance or interacting with others if this becomes manipulatory then this would be your fault entirely.

 

What do you mean by the conditioning being dissoluted?  I don't understand this.

[dwai]

18 hours ago, Daniel said:

It's Christian.  These 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.  I can't remember the words that Stirling uses for his "indwelling of holy spirit".  I think there were "attainments bestowed on him".  And he wrote about being recognized with innate superior talent.  The whole thing is distasteful.  Stirling could, in theory, recognize the error and make the necessary adjustments, except, he's had a permanent change to his brain which prohibits any further advancement.

Non-dual realization is neither an experience nor an attainment. It is a realization. The "permanent" change does not happen to the brain; it happens in the mind/intellect.

It is very straightforward to follow/understand - maybe that is what makes it so difficult to accept.

 

"Every experience happens in consciousness. No one can ever experience anything that is not in consciousness."

If you can understand and validate this from your day-to-day experience, you've covered 33% of  "non-dual" understanding. The next 33% is as follows -

"Since "no thing"  can ever be experienced outside of consciousness, the only reality that one can be certain of is consciousness" 

Any that leaves the remaining 33% -

"If all one experiences is only in consciousness, and the existence of anything external to consciousness cannot be verified definitively, what is the nature of this consciousness?" 

Most people spend their time in the remaining 33%—and usually, they do so to identify consciousness as it is, on its own, without the activities of the sensory apparatuses and the mind. 

That leaves the 1% - That is the permanent shift of perspective that happens with the first 99% clicks. 

 

P.S. BTW, Your posts remind me of that line from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" 

 

I’ve written about this here, in case anyone is interested - https://www.medhajournal.com/close-encounters-of-the-fourth-kind/

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, dwai said:

P.S. BTW, Your posts remind me of that line from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" 

 

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

Non-dual realization is neither an experience nor an attainment. It is a realization. The "permanent" change does not happen to the brain; it happens in the mind/intellect.

 

Agreed.  Thank you for the correction.  

 

Do you agree that any permanent change which has negative consequences ( for example the inability to recognize the harm coming from cancer ) should be approached with caution?  If a partitioner is engaging in risky behavior, advising others to follow in their footsteps should be accompanied with open and honest disclosure of those risks?

 

In this specific case, the permanent change has, in theory, erased the individual's capability for assessing harm.  The permanent change has erased their ability for evaluating differences and distinctions of any kind.  They cannot even write two sentences in a row without contradicting themself.  Whatever they're doing, whatever realization, they've had, if it's permanent, they have harmed themself.

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

"Every experience happens in consciousness. No one can ever experience anything that is not in consciousness."

 

The experience occurs in consciousness.  The event occurs beyond consciousness.  The experience depends on the event.  The event does not depend on experience.  We've discussed this before.  The example i brought was a seed which is germinating in the ground.  The seed is sprouting underground regardless of whether or not is happening in consciousness.

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

If you can understand and validate this from your day-to-day experience, you've covered 33% of  "non-dual" understanding.

 

33 percent?  Sure!  That part is easy, and, it's obviously incomplete.

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

"Since "no thing"  can ever be experienced outside of consciousness, the only reality that one can be certain of is consciousness" 

 

Certainty is the end of learning and advancement.  I see no value or usefulness in setting certainty as the limit to one's aspirations.

 

There is a great deal more to reality than what I, myself, am experiencing.  How can I be certain?  I can't be 100% certain, but, I can analyze a trend which strongly suggests that it is true. 

 

 

Source:  https://iep.utm.edu/natural-deduction/

University of Tennessee ( Martin Campus )

 

6 hours ago, dwai said:

 

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[old3bob]

 

this reminds me about a misunderstanding concerning inductive reactance that "I tried to discuss with him gently and professionally...." but instead he went down a rabbit hole.

[Daniel]

16 minutes ago, old3bob said:

inductive reactance

 

There is no direct contact between the two opposing polarities in inductive reactance.  When there is direct contact, it is a "short-circuit", a fault condition, where the components typically are damaged.

 

If I recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you were asserting strongly, religiously, that there is direct contact between the two opposing polarities.  This is false.  You would not admit it, nor acknowledge it, for reasons which you would not disclose, but, seemed obvious to me.

 

Unless you have changed your position, or, I misunderstood, you're still wrong, and I'm still right about this.  If I misunderstood, or you misspoke, we're both right, and that's the end of the conflict.  If not, you'll need another analogy for direct contact with "God, The-Most-High".

 

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[Daniel]

13 minutes ago, old3bob said:

"I tried to discuss with him gently and professionally...."

 

Indeed I did.  You were offended by how thoroughly I showed you the error in what you had written.

[Daniel]

14 minutes ago, old3bob said:

he went down a rabbit hole.

 

No.   I brought you pictures and diagrams.  The pictures demonstrated I was correct all along.  This inflamed you.

[Forestgreen]

42 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Do you agree that any permanent change which has negative consequences ( for example the inability to recognize the harm/...  .../

In this specific case, the permanent change has, in theory, erased the individual's capability for assessing harm. 

I'm sure you are bored to tears with old quotes from non-active members, and thankfully for both of us I cannot recall the thread, but one of the recently more quoted non-active members actually made a post about this. No longer assessing harm to the point of being a danger to oneself seems to be one possible result of an insane amount of intense meditative practice. 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, Forestgreen said:

I'm sure you are bored to tears with old quotes from non-active members, and thankfully for both of us I cannot recall the thread, but one of the recently more quoted non-active members actually made a post about this. No longer assessing harm to the point of being a danger to oneself seems to be one possible result of an insane amount of intense meditative practice. 

 

Yes.  This is one of the reasons for all the rules in my culture.  The aspirant is required to be part of a community, take breaks, and live a well-rounded life.

[stirling]

49 minutes ago, Daniel said:

The situation between Stirling and myself is very simple.  He said I could not understand non-duality without experiencing it his way on his terms.  He projected his own limitations on me, while simultaneously misquoting and cherry picking from ancient texts in a dishonest manner.  He is a preacher who tosses around his credentials and expects others to bow to his authority.  But, in truth, a special exception was made for him to be ordained as a Zen-Buddhist priest.  His teacher passed away during his training.  And, quite honestly, the community which granted him a certificate seems to be from a broken lineage as are most western schools.

 

I tried to discuss the matter with him gently and professionally.  This didn't work.  He continued to proclaim my ignorance, and delusion, while lifting himself up as higher and better in spite of supposedly being beyond those distinctions.  In short, it's fraud.  False advertising.  Putting one's fingers on the scale.   I'm protesting against a snake-oil sales person.  A friendly con-artist?  sure.  Likeable?  Yes, definitely.  Aren't they all?  

 

There IS no situation between us. I have asked you nicely not to reply to my posts, and for a short time you honored my offer, but your anger and fascination with me (a complete stranger) makes it impossible for you to leave me alone. Here, again, you are defaming me, misquoting me and projecting on to me whatever fear or bias you have concocted. I could easily have ignored you, but your fascination with me led me to wonder whether I might be of some service. At this point it looks like you have decided to burn another bridge here. 

[old3bob]

12 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

There is no direct contact between the two opposing polarities in inductive reactance.  When there is direct contact, it is a "short-circuit", a fault condition, where the components typically are damaged.

 

If I recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you were asserting strongly, religiously, that there is direct contact between the two opposing polarities.  This is false.  You would not admit it, nor acknowledge it, for reasons which you would not disclose, but, seemed obvious to me.

 

Unless you have changed your position, or, I misunderstood, you're still wrong, and I'm still right about this.  If I misunderstood, or you misspoke, we're both right, and that's the end of the conflict.  If not, you'll need another analogy for direct contact with "God, The-Most-High".

 

 

it is not my job to correct another but some discussion may be possible if they like,  but no so when they refuse facts.  

[Shadow_self]

7 minutes ago, Forestgreen said:

I'm sure you are bored to tears

 

Nonsense - this is data collection 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

The experience occurs in consciousness.  The event occurs beyond consciousness.  The experience depends on the event.  The event does not depend on experience.  We've discussed this before.  The example i brought was a seed which is germinating in the ground.  The seed is sprouting underground regardless of whether or not is happening in consciousness.

 

And how do you know this?  

[Forestgreen]

21 hours ago, Cobie said:

your labeling of various things as “Christian” is a slur
 

Now I fixed that for you.

[Emaciated Ascetic]

Personally I think total nonexistence is a more comfortable outlook. It's hard for me to find the real side of things appealing, like someone stealing a portion of cake. Or someone being able to.

A Lonely, and personal sky is what nonexistence is, everything is important and personal. There is benefit in being alive, if only for your own pursuits. Immortality is also easily possible.

I'm sure there's a Non Dual outlook that is complete non existence, but it must be hard to think about.

Edited August 19 by Emaciated Ascetic

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

The situation between Stirling and myself is very simple.  He said I could not understand non-duality without experiencing it his way on his terms.  He projected his own limitations on me, while simultaneously misquoting and cherry picking from ancient texts in a dishonest manner.  He is a preacher who tosses around his credentials and expects others to bow to his authority.  But, in truth, a special exception was made for him to be ordained as a Zen-Buddhist priest.  His teacher passed away during his training.  And, quite honestly, the community which granted him a certificate seems to be from a broken lineage as are most western schools.

 

I tried to discuss the matter with him gently and professionally.  This didn't work.  He continued to proclaim my ignorance, and delusion, while lifting himself up as higher and better in spite of supposedly being beyond those distinctions.  In short, it's fraud.  False advertising.  Putting one's fingers on the scale.   I'm protesting against a snake-oil sales person.  A friendly con-artist?  sure.  Likeable?  Yes, definitely.  Aren't they all?  

I missed this earlier. @Daniel - I will give you time to reconsider your position and the option of apologizing on this thread to @stirling. We might have philosophical differences, but that doesn't justify this kind of slander and wild accusations. 

[Cobie]

redundant

Edited August 20 by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

19 hours ago, stirling said:

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

Indeed, as you say, ‘thoughts in the mind’ [internal] are not ‘experience in the world’ [external].

 

On 18/08/2024 at 9:40 PM, stirling said:

For there to be an inside or outside "world" there would have to be a "duality" …

Yes. The 2 quotes together, to me imply you too have a “duality”. No?

 

 

Edited August 19 by Cobie

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

 

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

Now I fixed that for you. ( your labeling of various things as “Christian” is a slur )

 

It's not.  Christianity is a belief system which asserts that that it is the only way.  It is not a slur, it's true.  Denying it is a lie.  Christian preachers often exaggerate their position by cherry picking and misquoting.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

it is not my job to correct another but some discussion may be possible if they like,  but no so when they refuse facts.  

 

Correcting misconceptions is important.  Whether or not the other individual is refusing facts is irrelevant to me.  Whether or not the other individual wants to listen is also irrelevant to me.  Something to keep in mind?  One reason I can point to, which confirms 100% that I am not "selling" anything is that I am not concerned with my image or being likeable.  If someone puts me on ignore?  It doesn't bother me one bit.

[Shadow_self]

Impressive...

 

 

Edited August 19 by Shadow_self

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

slander and wild accusations

 

See here below.

 

On 11/13/2020 at 10:19 PM, stirling said:

Hello friends,

 

I spent 25 years in Dzogchen, starting the ngondro in the early 2000's, and in the process my teacher passed on. A few years later, after a bottomless insight into non duality, I sought out the nearest dharma teacher, which was the start of my time in the Soto Zen tradition (which, as it turns out, is quite compatible with my previous experience in Dzogchen). 5 years since that insight, my everyday life happens without the handicap of a "self".

 

Today I run a university meditation program, and have a small sangha. I am unaccountably sewing my robes for ordination. 

 

I really enjoy discussion on the topic of things as they truly are in a completely non-disciplinary sense, and treasure teenage experiences with Syd Barrett and Stephen Mitchell. Taoism looms as a early precursor to future experiences, inasmuch any of these things truly exists.  

 

I am interesting in finding pointers for deeper reading in Taoism, information on it's siddhi/magick aspects, and like-minded/experienced people here, and in the Western Washington area. 

 

You can also see Stirling's replies to me in this thread which involve the cherry picking:  LINK

 

If you would like me to extract the specific post, please let me know.

 

3 hours ago, dwai said:

reconsider your position and the option of apologizing

 

See below:

 

3 hours ago, stirling said:

There IS no situation between us.

 

It doesn't seem that Stirling needs an apology.

 

 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

And how do you know this?  

 

See below:

 

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

How can I be certain?  I can't be 100% certain, but, I can analyze a trend which strongly suggests that it is true. 

 

 

3 hours ago, dwai said:

The seed is sprouting underground regardless of whether or not is happening in consciousness.

 

@dwai,

 

Without observing the seed germinating, what is your explanation of the phenomena above?

[dwai]

14 minutes ago, Daniel said:

It doesn't seem that Stirling needs an apology.

 

I think he's being a gentleman. It would be in this forum's best interests if you extended an apology and retracted your (slanderous) statements - I insist that you do.