"Non-dual" misnomer

[Daniel]

27 minutes ago, dwai said:

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. 

 

Ok.

 

@stirling,  I apologize for the offensive comments I made.  Whatever misunderstandings I have about you or your practice are my own, and I will keep them to myself in the future.  I will no longer reply to your posts.  I'm putting you on ignore to facilitate this.  I will also go back and retract my offensive statements.

 

Sincerely,

 

Edit:  I can't put Stirling on ignore, because, he's on staff.  But I'll do my very best not to reply.

Edited August 19 by Daniel

[liminal_luke]

Like many others, I´m not enlightened and have no (or little anyway) experience with non-dualism.  Unlike some, I´m not bothered by non-dualists.  Are their views correct?  I dunno.  At some point in the future I may come to a firmer conclusion one way or the other; until then I suppose I´ll muddle along.  It seems to me that a few Bums are intensely opposed to non-dual philosophy and I don´t understand the intensity.  Why get worked up?  I get people getting upset about Christian nationalists.  They tend to want to impose their rules on others and they have guns.  With few exceptions, this is not true of non-dualists.

[Daniel]

7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

It seems to me that a few Bums are intensely opposed to non-dual philosophy and I don´t understand the intensity.  Why get worked up? 

 

1. It's not non-dual, that's a misnomer.
2. The objection is to the accusation: "ignorant" and "delusional" which is often declared by these individuals.  I've mentioned it before; you've said it doesn't bother you, and, it's not intended the way it sounds.  I disagree.  People who preach non-duality do believe they are superior having reached this version of enlightenment.
3. This is the important one:  the cognitive malfunction that produces the almost automatic repeated contradictions is profound.  There's something really wrong when a person speaks with authority but cannot prevent nor realize they are flip-flopping like a fish out of water.  I can't say for certain that their practice is causing the cognitive faults, but, I've observed it regularly of a certain sort of online preacher.  I don't think it's good for people like this to be preaching if their practice encourages these sort of intellectual problems.

[Sherman Krebbs]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

cognitive malfunction

 

Its not necessary to prove all Buddhist wrong in order to affirm whatever it is you believe.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Sherman Krebbs said:

 

Its not necessary to prove all Buddhist wrong in order to affirm whatever it is you believe.

 

I agree 100%.  I don't think that the online advocates represent all of Buddhism.  Although my own experiences with the Buddhists coming from western American schools and communities have been underwhelming to say the least.

[dwai]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

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

There are 3 forms of knowledge (acquisition). 

1. direct experience (you see the seed germinating)
2. testimony of reliable witnesses (it’s written in a book on botany that seeds when planted will germinate)
3. intuition (you see a sapling emerge from the ground and intuition tells you that a seed was planted)

all three require consciousness 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

There are 3 forms of knowledge (acquisition). 

1. direct experience (you see the seed germinating)
2. testimony of reliable witnesses (it’s written in a book on botany that seeds when planted will germinate)
3. intuition (you see a sapling emerge from the ground and intuition tells you that a seed was planted)

all three require consciousness 

 

Right.  The event ( germination ) does not require consciousness.  Knowing that it happened is irrelevant to the event's occurrence.  If you don't believe me, go to go to a market, pick up an apple.  You will never know which particular tree produced that particular apple. The event which produced that particular apple does not require consciousness.    

[dwai]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

1. It's not non-dual, that's a misnomer.
2. The objection is to the accusation: "ignorant" and "delusional" which is often declared by these individuals.  I've mentioned it before; you've said it doesn't bother you, and, it's not intended the way it sounds.  I disagree.  People who preach non-duality do believe they are superior having reached this version of enlightenment.
3. This is the important one:  the cognitive malfunction that produces the almost automatic repeated contradictions is profound.  There's something really wrong when a person speaks with authority but cannot prevent nor realize they are flip-flopping like a fish out of water.  I can't say for certain that their practice is causing the cognitive faults, but, I've observed it regularly of a certain sort of online preacher.  I don't think it's good for people like this to be preaching if their practice encourages these sort of intellectual problems.

I see you’ve omitted the name but continue on the same track. How is that an apology? Instead of making personal jabs at someone, it will be better to address the root of your confusion. 

When it comes to the topic, the only thing that is amiss is your understanding of nonduality. It is neither a misnomer nor is stirling wrong. You are certainly well within your rights to disagree with, and question (vigorously even) the logic of nonduality. I remember having started a thread to explain this in great detail a few months back - 

 

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Right.  The event ( germination ) does not require consciousness.  Knowing that it happened is irrelevant to the event's occurrence.  If you don't believe me, go to go to a market, pick up an apple.  You will never know which particular tree produced that particular apple. The event which produced that particular apple does not require consciousness.    

1. What good is something (to you) that you have no knowledge about? it’s as good as not being there. Imagine a scenario where there is no sentience but all sorts of objects. What purpose would that serve? Anything is only meaningful if there is a subject to experience it. This is basic subject-object metaphysics. 
 

2. How do you know that an event will or won’t produce an apple? You know because of consciousness. Whether it occurs or not is irrelevant until you, the subject experience the object. And here, “you” can mean any subject (one of the billions of mind-bodies walking the earth). 
 

[Daniel]

47 minutes ago, dwai said:

How is that an apology?

 

Because I was wrong to single out an individual and make an example of them.  I've observed the same exact faults multiple times in different circumstances from different individuals.  There's no need for me to be hostile.  I flip too easily into an aggressive attitude.  I need to be more careful.  I was wrong.  I apologized. 

 

As it is now, I cannot officially use the ignore feature, but, I'm going to behave as if anything posted by that individual is in a foreign language that I cannot understand.

[Daniel]

55 minutes ago, dwai said:

I remember having started a thread to explain this in great detail a few months back - 

 

Yes.  I remember as well.  My recollection is that the last batch of messages between the two of us had settled in agreement that the English terminology was not suitable.  It was too ambiguous.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

What good is something (to you) that you have no knowledge about?

 

The particular event is useful because it produces a particular apple.  Whether or not I have particular knowledge of it is irrelevant.  The event occurred beyond consciousness.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

it’s as good as not being there.

 

If the event didn't occur, then there would not be any fruit in the market.  

 

The event occurred beyond consciousness.  Knowledge of the event is irrelevant.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

What purpose would that serve?

 

Apples blossoming from a tree are not produced with a purpose.  Trees do not have willful intentions.

 

Purpose is irrelevant.  The event occurs lacking purpose.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Anything is only meaningful if there is a subject to experience it.

 

Significance is irrelevant.  The event occurs lacking significance.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

How do you know that an event will or won’t produce an apple?

 

This has been addressed twice.  See below.  However, I'm open to alternative explanations.  When you go to the market and pick up an apple, what has produced this apple if it wasn't produced naturally by a particular tree which is unknown to you?  Is there any valid alternative explanation?  The particular apple in your hand was produced by a particular tree which is beyond consciousness.

 

Below is the third repeat of the answer to your question about working around the inherent limitations of knowledge.

 

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

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

 

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

You know because of consciousness

 

I don't know.  I understand that it is highly unlikely for the apple to magically poof into existence.  Yes, this understanding exists in consciousness, but the apple tree does not.  I don't know how tall it is.  I don't know the precise color and texture of its bark.  I don't know how much water it received.  I don't know if the tree is diseased, or a home to vermin.  The particular tree is completely absent from consciousness, but, it exists.  If it didn't, then you should be able to explain the mechanism which produces that particular apple lacking a particular apple tree.

 

It could be the particular tree exists beyond any consciousness.  The apple falls.  A farmer gathers it.  It goes to the market.  You pick it up.  That particular apple is produced by a particular tree which is beyond all consciousness.  No one knows which particular tree produces it.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Whether it occurs or not is irrelevant until you, the subject experience the object.

 

Dwai, if the events don't occur all the fruit stands are empty.  That is highly relevant.  The events need to occur prior to your knowledge else you'll never eat food unless you have  harvested it yourself.

 

Edited August 20 by Daniel

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It is neither a misnomer

 

It is a misnomer when an individual asserts that any other perspective is wrong, ignorant, or deluded.  Right/wrong is dual.  Ignorant/knowledgeable is dual.  Deluded/Disillusioned is dual.

 

However there is a way to make sense of this avoiding all logical and linguistic pitfalls.  But, it cannot happen if an individual asserts that any who disagree are ignorant, wrong, or deluded.  As soon as they do that, they've abandoned non-duality if they had ever realized it at all.

 

Edited August 20 by Daniel

[Forestgreen]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 these sort of intellectual problems.

These practices are supposed to allow the practitioner to awaken to reality (WuZhen). By that, the implication is that before that awakening/realization the practitioner cannot fathom reality and is therefore dominated by ignorance and delusion.

 

Some of them do that by affecting the sense of Self,  and by bypassing the five sense organs.

 

Some, if not all, state that the goal, when reached, is an experience that normal vocabulary cannot fully describe. 

 

Maybe your attempt to use intellectual methods to analyse the descriptions of long time experiental practitioners is faulty? 

 

It gives you an outsider perspective, like a western explorer trying to understand a non-western culture and by default finding it lackning. 

 

A cultural anthropologist have to immers himself/herself in the culture studied. The same advice is usually given here on TDB: Practice more. 

 

 

[Ascetic]

One thing that bothers me about non duality or belief in the self is that even if it is the truth, is it the most beneficial?

 

Just like how something is alive or present everywhere, or an idea fills every space (beyond space) even: there is still the potential for radical ideas which are not true or accurate, but are healthier/more beneficial. I guess this goes onto the Jhana's and loss of desires in some sense, but after experiencing shrouds and the psionic ocean along with the supposed pleasure of elder gods it feels preferable to try entertaining pleasure over dispassion.

 

Meanwhile, it is fair that something is alive and all/expressed in all natures, and that certain things are beyond just being accurate. Enquiry does point towards this truth, and the self is the most everlasting state of being. My own desire probably clouds this puddle, but I still look forward to the fruit of my asceticism so it is a reasonable distraction. Wise men do not neglect the fruits of their own labor.

 

I also know that Enquiry away from the standard of the self is unhealthy, things that deny the truth: that being nonduality are not good for ones immortality even. I know this from how deadly psychic corruption can be. The nectar of the self is the cure to every affliction.

 

Maybe I'm getting off topic, but If I consider that non duality is the sincere truth that cannot be refuted anywhere. Going so far to say that my considerations and angle do not dent the nature of this truth.

 

Then can someone explain what it means for the experiencer? I'm not seeking another answer that blatantly pulls everything towards a spiral. Spirals are clean but if I wanted a spiral I'd practice eating and become a glutton.

 

Even if the idea that what I have experienced is delusion and false, this is still an acceptable explanation to me.

 

 

[Ascetic]

..

Edited August 20 by Emaciated Ascetic
Duplicate message

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

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.

 

Jeeze... I forgot about that  ....

 

 

9 !

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

 

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Cobie said:

 When posting “the 7th”, I was counting on my fingers ‘the 1st’. 

Anyway, good to know I wasn’t the only ‘1’. 

 

 

 

  Maybe you  ^    need new glasses    ?     Oh come on now Cobie ... you didnt notice  ?

 

Daniel has been going from thread to thread , subject to subject  'dancin on people's heads '  .  I am listing myself as 1st , there might have been others previous to that .    I could say what started it , and share my observations about what he did  in the other subjects and how he operates  , but this thread is already way 'meta'  and I see the other times he did it are now being bought into this thread .

 

 

 

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Like many others, I´m not enlightened and have no (or little anyway) experience with non-dualism.  Unlike some, I´m not bothered by non-dualists.  Are their views correct?  I dunno.  At some point in the future I may come to a firmer conclusion one way or the other; until then I suppose I´ll muddle along.  It seems to me that a few Bums are intensely opposed to non-dual philosophy and I don´t understand the intensity.  Why get worked up?  I get people getting upset about Christian nationalists.  They tend to want to impose their rules on others and they have guns.  With few exceptions, this is not true of non-dualists.

 

Ah but Luke, in this case it ISN"T specifically about non-dual ..... its an interactive  process  . 

 

We all have our totemic animals    

 

 

[Cobie]

11 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

  Maybe you  ^    need new glasses    ?     Oh come on now Cobie ... you didnt notice  ?

 

Daniel has been going from thread to thread , subject to subject  'dancin on people's heads '  .  I am listing myself as 1st , there might have been others previous to that .    I could say what started it , and share my observations about what he did  in the other subjects and how he operates  , but this thread is already way 'meta'  and I see the other times he did it are now being bought into this thread .

 

 

 

Hi Nungali My post was not meant that way. I was expressing my feeling towards the sea lion at the time of posting. I see now how it can be read differently. I’ve removed it. Have a nice evening. 

[Nungali]

I know  !        I was ribbing you .   

 

Nungali shocked or offended  ?     Never  !

[Cobie]

5 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I know  !        I was ribbing you .   

Ah … I usually don’t detect things like that. sarcasm neither, it all passes me by.

 

5 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Nungali shocked or offended  ?     Never  !

Maybe your bald head after the haircut will. 
 

 

[Shadow_self]

 

5 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

These practices are supposed to allow the practitioner to awaken to reality (WuZhen). By that, the implication is that before that awakening/realization the practitioner cannot fathom reality and is therefore dominated by ignorance and delusion.

 

Some of them do that by affecting the sense of Self,  and by bypassing the five sense organs.

 

Some, if not all, state that the goal, when reached, is an experience that normal vocabulary cannot fully describe. 

 

Maybe your attempt to use intellectual methods to analyse the descriptions of long time experiental practitioners is faulty? 

 

It gives you an outsider perspective, like a western explorer trying to understand a non-western culture and by default finding it lackning. 

 

A cultural anthropologist have to immers himself/herself in the culture studied. The same advice is usually given here on TDB: Practice more. 

 

Agreed. The signs of it are normally quite clear

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

These practices are supposed to allow the practitioner to awaken to reality (WuZhen). By that, the implication is that before that awakening/realization the practitioner cannot fathom reality and is therefore dominated by ignorance and delusion.

 

Some of them do that by affecting the sense of Self,  and by bypassing the five sense organs.

 

Some, if not all, state that the goal, when reached, is an experience that normal vocabulary cannot fully describe. 

 

I agree.   If "normal vocabulary cannot fully describe" it, then, it makes sense that non-dual is a misnomer.  

 

7 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

Maybe your attempt to use intellectual methods to analyse the descriptions of long time experiental practitioners is faulty? 

 

It's not the descriptions which are being analysed.  It's their behavior.  Their arguments.  Their mud-slinging.  Their denial.  Their hypocrisy.

 

7 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

It gives you an outsider perspective, like a western explorer trying to understand a non-western culture and by default finding it lackning.

 

I don't find it lacking by default.   I think it has merit.  I think the internet is an opportunity for individuals to role-play as an enlightened-sage.  It's a place where one can self-affirm, and gain social acceptance and support of the their self-bestowed attainments while simultaneously claiming "I have no self".

 

7 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

A cultural anthropologist have to immers himself/herself in the culture studied. The same advice is usually given here on TDB: Practice more. 

 

Ah.  Important clarification:  Immerse in the culture =/= practice more here on TDB.  Here, the individuals who assert their non-dual enlightenment most often discourage learning or immersion in the culture.  "Practice more", here on TDB, is the opposite of immersion in the culture.  Here, "Practice More" means do it my way, it's the only way.  , You cannot immerse yourself, you cannot learn it, or understand it, because I did not learn it or understand it that way.  I am enlightened.  You are not."  This is often in close proximity to some other assertions about non-duality which sharply contradicts with the sharp contrasting duality of what they just wrote. 

 

That's why I very often seek original source material ( written texts ) from those who have mastered the practice in their original language.  The imposters will discourage this. "You can't understand anything from learning."  ~eye-rolls~