"Non-dual" misnomer

[dwai]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

The particular apple in your hand was produced by a particular tree which is beyond consciousness

Not at all. It is known in consciousness by intuition. It is not necessary to know which tree the apple came from - only that if there is an apple, it must have come from a tree somewhere. That is the 3rd type of knowledge I explained earlier. 
 

[dwai]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

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.

No it is not an individual who says so. The traditional view is that we don’t recognize our nondual nature because of ignorance (avidya).

 

The individual is just conveying this. 

 

My experience is that emotionally immature people tend to take this personally and get all worked up. In the process they end up shooting the messenger. 
 

 

[Shadow_self]

16 minutes ago, dwai said:

My experience is that emotionally immature people tend to take this personally and get all worked up. In the process they end up shooting the messenger. 

 

The point about shooting the messenger is very clear  

 

This is sometimes related to the sunken cost fallacy.

 

Its understandable though, I think we've all found ourselves there at one time or another

 

if someone were driving a long distance and after travelling for quite some time stopped and asked for directions from people with practical experience of the journey, only to find out they've been headed in the wrong direction, well thats not a nice thing to hear

 

An individual still unable to see past the veil of ignorance at this point, continues on the same trajectory in spite of this revelation

 

 

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Emaciated Ascetic said:

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?

 

The most beneficial?  I'm not sure how to evaluate "most"  objectively.  That depends on an individual's aspirations.  I think there is a great deal of benefit that comes from a proper non-dual perspective  which is simultaneously rigid and flexible.  It's the same as belief in the self.  It's the same for almost anything.  A proper non-dual perspective is complete.  Those who hold to an improper, inaccurate version of non-duality, are holding to an incomplete perspective.  They're not wrong, or ignorant, or deluded.  What they are observing is true, but, lacking.  I hope we can agree that complete is more beneficial than incomplete, with at least one exception:  ignorance is bliss.

 

Honestly, I think that's the root problem.  The desire for so many is an experience of "bliss".  The bliss which is attained by the aspirant is child-like.  It is produced by forgetting and returning to the womb, for lack of better terms.  Returning to the womb is very much like shoving the head in the sand and refusing to come out.  In the womb there are no others.  In the womb, there is only Self.  In the womb there is only consciousness.  If an individual can recreate that experience in their mind, yes, they will experience bliss.  They will feel an overwhelming sense of being loved and cherished.  There's nothing wrong with wanting this experience, chasing it, and wanting to share the experience with anyone who will listen. 

 

Perhaps it's a version of enlightenment?  Perhaps it's a stepping stone towards further attainments?  I think so.  I think that's probably true.  But it also seems to be precarious.  In the meditative-womb, where everything is forgotten and neglected, the aspirant is alone.  They are the center of the universe.  When they depart from their meditative state, if they want to retain the blissful feeling, they can get a similar feeling by imagining themself as superior, a "first-born-son", like Jesus.  If they can convince themselves of this, and gain followers, this reinforces their blissful experience in day-to-day mundane activities where they are not in a meditative-womb.

 

Part of their "practice" is self-affirmations.  You can find this very clearly in Hindu practices where the aspirant spends a great deal of time affirming to themselves they are "God", more or less.   The online non-dual preachers do the same thing even though they are not technically practicing Hinduism.  Instead, they assert that they are still in the meditative-womb.  That they have realized it.  There is nothing else.  There is no other perspective.  They are permanently in a womb.  They don't use these terms, but, pretty much, they're line of discourse ( the preaching ) can all be collected into that general category:  "I am the center of the universe.  Nothing occurs which is beyond me."  They're talking about the experience of being an only child in a womb where nothing else exists.  They will even deny their own mother who is metaphorically "feeding" them through the metaphorical "umbilical cord".

 

7 hours ago, Emaciated Ascetic said:

Then can someone explain what it [ non-dual ] means for the experiencer?

 

Everyone is different, so, it's going to mean different things to each individual to an extent.  The mistake that I think many ( almost everyone ) makes is using the analogy of a "path" towards non-dual realization.  It's not like a path.  It's like climbing a mountain, then crossing a tight-rope and balancing there.  It's not a blissful experience.  It's awesome and terrifying.  As one gets closer and closer to the destination, it becomes more and more treacherous.  One false move, the aspirant tumbles all the way down into a ravine.  They'll need to climb out of the ravine in order to start the ascent again.  After the misstep, they're further from their destination than when they started, and getting out of the ravine isn't easy either.  They might be stuck down there.  And, if they're stuck, maybe they'll make the best of it in the ravine.  Maybe they'll decide, "Hey!  It's nice down here.  Maybe this is what I was seeking all along.  Falling off the cliff ( or tight-rope ) is the best thing to have happened.  I have achieved;  I have attained." 

 

But in truth, they've shifted the goal posts or forgotten what they set out to achieve in the first place.  Perhaps they  were never told what they're actually seeking?  Perhaps they are just imitating others whom they consider role-models?  Perhaps their "practice" is almost exclusively "meditative-forgetting" which would naturally produce this sort of obliviating of purpose such that being stuck in a ravine after climbing a mountain feels like success. 

 

Realizing non-duality is not that big of an achievement.  I think that's the probably the biggest most important misconception that should be cleared.  Realizing non-duality is nothing more than realizing "everything is connected".  That's all.  No one with a finite human mind will ever be able to conceptualize all the connections all at once all at the same time.  The connections are nearly infinite.  Because of this, anytime a person realizes a sort of counter-intuitive connection between dissimilar concepts, they are realizing non-duality in a small way.  Selling non-duality is what many do for a career.  It's a big-business. Naturally there will be push-back from "professional-mediators" against any who point out how simple it is and how accessible it is lacking any instruction or practice at all.  People realize non-duality naturally all the time, all day long, without any effort at all.  Anytime someone laughs at a joke, they are realizing non-duality to a degree.

 

Edited August 20 by Daniel

[dwai]

7 hours ago, Emaciated Ascetic said:

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?

What does one get after nondual realization? A cessation of fear. A dropping of the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. It tempers our tendency to chase after pleasure and shirk away from pain - in other words, it stops suffering (in that the compulsive pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding behaviors minimize and eventually go away). 
 

Will nondual realization give you super powers? No. All it does is makes you realize that everything and everyone is essentially your own Self. It chooses love over hatred, equanimity over suffering, stillness over chaos, silence over noise, and so on.  

[Daniel]

47 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not at all. It is known in consciousness by intuition.

 

Not true.  It is not known in consciousness by intuition.  If you don't believe me, please go to the market, pick up an apple.  Then please tell me how tall is the particular tree which produced the particular apple in your hand.  If the particular tree is known in consciousness by intuition then your consciousness should be able to tell me how tall it is.  Are you able to tell me anything about that particular tree which produces the particular fruit?  If not, then it is not known in consciousness by intuition.

 

47 minutes ago, dwai said:

It is not necessary to know which tree the apple came from - only that if there is an apple, it must have come from a tree somewhere. That is the 3rd type of knowledge I explained earlier. 

 

Necessity is irrelevant.  The event which produced the apple exists beyond consciousness.  If the apple fell from the tree and was gathered, instead of being picked from a branch, the event is unknown by all consciousness.

 

49 minutes ago, dwai said:

No it is not an individual who says so. The traditional view is that we don’t recognize our nondual nature because of ignorance (avidya).

 

Vidya/avidya is a dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.  These are the definitions of the words in language.  In order to avoid the contradiction new words need to be chosen or the speaker needs to abstain from speaking.    

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

All it does is makes you realize that everything and everyone is essentially your own Self

 

I am your own Self?  OK. 

1. What is my mother's maiden name?
2. What is the name of my childhood pet?
3. What is the balance in one of my bank accounts?
4. What is the name of my best friend?
5. What did I have for dinner last night?

The assertion is incredibly foolish without a great deal of qualification which undermines the grandiose quality and brings it back down to earth as a much more common endeavor.

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I am your own Self?  OK. 

1. What is my mother's maiden name?
2. What is the name of my childhood pet?
3. What is the balance in one of my bank accounts?
4. What is the name of my best friend?
5. What did I have for dinner last night?

The assertion is incredibly foolish without a great deal of qualification which undermines the grandiose quality and brings it back down to earth as a much more common endeavor.

This is just polemics.  
 

The Self is not identified with your superficial personality traits (such as mother, father, SSN and so on). It means the ground of your being, and my being is the same nondual awareness/consciousness. How does one know? Practice nondual inquiry. 
 

Just like your mind appears as a world and many characters in your dream, similarly the nondual consciousness appears as this world with Daniel, Dwai and the countless things in it. While in the “story” there seems to be clear and distinct separation, as consciousness there is none whatsoever. 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

 

 

Why are you avoiding the very simple truth?

 

There are nearly infinite events which are occurring right now beyond consciousness.  Most of them are underground.  The best example is an aquafer.  Water drops are being filtered through many many layers of dirt and sediment producing water which is sweet, healthy, significant, and necessary for many.

 

Agreed?

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

The Self is not

 

Self-or-Not <--- Dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

 

3 hours ago, dwai said:

polemics

 

Polemic-or-Not <--- Dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

 

3 hours ago, dwai said:

superficial

 

Superficial-or-Not <--- Dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

 

3 hours ago, dwai said:

the nondual consciousness appears as this world with Daniel, Dwai and the countless things in it. While in the “story” there seems to be clear and distinct separation, as consciousness there is none whatsoever. 

 

The words you've chosen describe a dualistic reality.  If the non-dual consciousness appears, seems to be, something it isn't, then it is incorrect to call it "non-dual".  You're describing a dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

[Apech]

19 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.

We of the armed wing of Non Dual Militant Front salute you!   Our guns point in both directions and the bullets of peace never rest!

 

 

[Daniel]

5 minutes ago, Apech said:

We of the armed wing of Non Dual Militant Front salute you!   Our guns point in both directions and the bullets of peace never rest!

 

Peace cannot be achieved from negligence.  At best that is a temporarily reprieve, with one exception:  Death.

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, Daniel said:

The words you've chosen describe a dualistic reality.  If the non-dual consciousness appears, seems to be, something it isn't, then it is incorrect to call it "non-dual".  You're describing a dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

Is it really? Are the dream world in your mind and your mind "dual" - as in two separate things?

In other words, can the dream world exist independent of your mind? Most certainly not.

The dream world appears in your mind and disappears when you wake up or the dream ends. In that context, the mind is the reality, and the dream world is an appearance. The dream world depends on the mind to exist; the mind doesn't depend on the dream world to exist. In that case, the mind is the subject, the dream world, an object that arises in and is witnessed by the mind.

[Daniel]

Just now, dwai said:

Are the dream world in your mind and your mind "dual" - as in two separate things?

 

They are separate in the same way that water in a vessel are separate.

 

 

The non-dual entity above is:

 

"Water << containment >> Glass"

 

It's as simple as that.

[dwai]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

They are separate in the same way that water in a vessel are separate.

 

 

The non-dual entity above is:

 

"Water << containment >> Glass"

 

It's as simple as that.

That is a logical fallacy. The glass and the water both have relatively identical "existence". Water can exist without the glass, the glass can exist without the water. Show me the dream without the mind.

[Daniel]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

the mind is the subject, the dream world, an object that arises

 

Mind/Dream <---- Dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

Subject/Object <---- Dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

 

You're describing a dichotomy.  A dichotomy is always dual.  In order to avoid this different words need to be chosen.

 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

The glass and the water both have relatively identical "existence"

 

Nonsense.  I challenge you to drink glass.  ~shakes-my-head~

[dwai]

26 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Mind/Dream <---- Dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

Subject/Object <---- Dichotomy.  Dichotomy is dual.

 

You're describing a dichotomy.  A dichotomy is always dual.  In order to avoid this different words need to be chosen.

 

Stop being stuck on terminology. 

 

25 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Nonsense.  I challenge you to drink glass.  ~shakes-my-head~

Nonsense, I challenge you to dream without a mind.

 

BTW, saying that the glass and water are equally real doesn't imply one can eat water or drink glass. All it means is that the glass can exist without the water, and the water can exist without the glass. I think you jumped the gun in your response. 

 

I also observe a pattern here—you are obviously triggered by nonduality. Maybe you should simply stop discussing it if you can't do it without becoming unhinged. It is clear to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of nonduality that your foundational knowledge is flawed. Now, if you want to learn it properly, I can recommend many good resources you can study. 

[Apech]

51 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Peace cannot be achieved from negligence.  At best that is a temporarily reprieve, with one exception:  Death.

The Non Dual Militant Front Suicide Squad salute you!

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

The Non Dual Militant Front Suicide Squad salute you!

 

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, Cobie said:

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

 

Maybe your bald head after the haircut will. 
 

 

 

  Its normally short , this is a woolly deflection from my normal course .

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

Stop being stuck on terminology

 

Stop describing a dichotomy and calling it non-dual.

1. Avoiding contradiction requires choosing different words.  
2. There's nearly infinite events occuring beyond consciousness right now
3. Knowing and consciousness is always and forever incomplete

4 hours ago, dwai said:

Nonsense, I challenge you to dream without a mind

 

Changing the subject concedes the point.  The water and the glass container are not relatively identical.  

 

4 hours ago, dwai said:

saying that the glass and water are equally real doesn't imply one can eat water or drink glass.

 

It does.  That's the meaning of the word "equally"

 

This conversation is going nowhere.  Anyone reading it can  see for themselves.  The devotion to the words 'non-dual' have completely annihilated logic, reason, and common sense.  All three.

 

4 hours ago, dwai said:

All it means is that the glass can exist without the water, and the water can exist without the glass.

 

Dwai, that is the opposite of non-dual.

 

4 hours ago, dwai said:

you are obviously triggered by nonduality.

 

Lol. No.  You cannot defend anything you've written, so now you're lowering yourself to a personal attack.

 

I've solved this.  What you're describing isn't non-dual.  It's something else.  That "something else" is fine.  Non-duality is also fine.  Non-duality is easy.  There's nothing difficult about it in spite of all the hype.

 

When you're ready to admit you're wrong about the glass of water, let me know.  Until then, I have no reason to take what you're saying seriously.  

 

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I am your own Self?  OK. 

1. What is my mother's maiden name?
2. What is the name of my childhood pet?
3. What is the balance in one of my bank accounts?
4. What is the name of my best friend?
5. What did I have for dinner last night?

The assertion is incredibly foolish without a great deal of qualification which undermines the grandiose quality and brings it back down to earth as a much more common endeavor.

 

HA! 

 

There are parts about Daniel that even Daniel doesnt seem to know about  himself  !

 

I am sure he denies that .... but pretty obvious to the outside observer .

 

Eg;  Dwai ;  " I have an apple I know it comes from an apple tree . "

 

Daniel ;  (jeeze, he got me there  < thinks >  wait ! ....)   " But you dont know which particular tree ! "

 

Dwai ; " Sure i do, I can tell by observing the apple, it is a 'granny smith ' .

 

Daniel :   " Ah ... but you don't know which particular  singular tree in the granny smith apple orchid of 300 trees which one it came from .Therefore my original assertion is correct ! "

 

 

 

[Cobie]

25 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

  Its normally short , this is a woolly deflection from my normal course .

 

The beany is “woolly”!

 

 

Edited August 20 by Cobie

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

They are separate in the same way that water in a vessel are separate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay ....

 

"Water in a vessel are separate ' 

 

That has to be the most dualistic state of mind projected onto matter I have ever read     

 

To do that would be an act of magic

 

 

 

 

 

.... but Daniel dismisses magic