"Non-dual" misnomer

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

Stop being stuck on terminology. 

 

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. 

 

Its useless to reason or give demonstration Dwai , you are not the first to fall into this .  The 'drink the glass'   'deliberate misinterpretation' is typical .

 

 

 

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. 

 

Thing is it isnt just on duality, its a range of subjects Daniel has done just this within , very similar dynamics . You can see at least one daobum other than me commented on it here and I think one other experienced it here . It will go on an on until you told you are on ignore, then he will go off to find another subject and person ... anything that is not exactly his own belief system and will attempt to prove by jiggledly juggedry that anything else is wrong dangerous or dishonest .

 

Sealioning is way of trolling people to assert yourself and beliefs that walks close to the line of moderation  and usually tries very carefully not to cross it .

 

I see here he did get a warning and asked to apologize, and did , but then went on to do exactly the same to anyone else (unnamed  )  .. and as you said " How is that an apology" ?   More justification and then he has gotten away with it ,

 

I doubt he can let it lie , in his thread here .... be interesting to see  what happens .

 

[Nungali]

Here is one single example of the many all through his discourse ;

 

 

 

5 hours ago, dwai said:

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

 

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

 

Note the original context was 'equally real '  -   both things are real  .

Daniel changes it to  'both things are 'exactly equal '  .... in all aspects including eating , drinking , 'foodstuffs' and 'non-foodstuffs'

 

One the one hand it sorta seems to make sense to the unobservant  (or you might miss the details due to the torrent to of these things he puts in a post ) but on analysis its ridiculous .

 

point it out, he  chucks a tantie, looses it and puts you on ignore .

 

basically he has said ;   " A  glass is not as real as water because you cannot drink it . "   Which is silly, and a lame cop out in any rational and reasonable debate .

 

[Mark Foote]

On 8/18/2024 at 5:54 AM, S:C said:

Why is the white knight talking backwards? Is it a koan? 

Is he even white? A knight? Does he even exist?

 

What is behind words?

 

 

`No room! No room!' they cried out when they saw S:C coming...

 

[Cobie]

40 minutes ago, Nungali said:

… Which is silly …

Indeed. I think this thread has managed to tick all items on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies 

 

 

[Mark Foote]

`Have some wine,' the March Hare said in an encouraging tone.

 

Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. `I don't see any wine,' she remarked.

 

`There isn't any,' said the March Hare.

 

 

@Daniel--in my life, nondual is action without volition or habit.  Action of speech, action of body, and maybe action of mind!

I can say how I arrive at action of body without volition or habit, so nondual action of body:
 

In his “Genjo Koan”, Dogen wrote:

 

When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.

 

(“Genjo Koan [Actualizing the Fundamental Point]”, tr. Robert Aitken and Kazuaki Tanahashi, from “Moon in a Dewdrop: Writings of Zen Master Dogen”, p 69, © San Francisco Zen Center)

 

 

Given a presence of mind that can “hold consciousness by itself”, activity in the body begins to coordinate by virtue of the sense of place associated with consciousness.  A relationship between the free location of consciousness and activity in the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward, “practice occurs”.  Through such practice, the placement of consciousness is manifested in the activity of the body.

 

Dogen continued:

 

When you find your way at this moment, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point…

 

(ibid)

 

 

“When you find your way at this moment”, activity takes place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. A relationship between the freedom of consciousness and the automatic activity of the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward, practice occurs. Through such practice, the placement of consciousness is manifested as the activity of the body.

 

I sit down first thing in the morning and last thing at night, and I look to experience the activity of the body solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. As a matter of daily life, just to touch on such experience as occasion demands—for me, that’s enough.

 

(https://zenmudra.com/take-the-backward-step-anm/)

 

 

Nondual action of mind is the cessation of volition and habit in feeling and perceiving--can't say I have experienced that, consciously.  

Looking to define "nondual" in words ignores the fact that it's really a kind of action.

 

 

Edited August 20 by Mark Foote

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

"Water in a vessel are separate ' 

 

The mind and a dream are separate in the same way that water and a glass are separate.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

HA! 

 

You clearly are not following the conversation.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

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

 

Note the original context was 'equally real '  -   both things are real  .

 

No.  The original context is non-dual reality. 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

@Daniel--in my life, nondual is action without volition or habit.  Action of speech, action of body, and maybe action of mind!

 

Smart.  I like it.

[Daniel]

31 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Indeed. I think this thread has managed to tick all items on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies 

 

Your contribution cannot be excluded.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

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

Oh it does, does it? I merely countered your childish rejoinder with something that actually makes sense. It’s telling that you failed to understand it.

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Dwai, that is the opposite of non-dual.

 

 

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

that’s not a personal attack - it is an assessment of your comprehension of nonduality as evidenced by your writing. It is also reflective of your subpar logic. 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

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.

You are wrong. 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

 

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.  

 

you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how logically flawed they might be. 

[Daniel]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how logically flawed they might be. 

 

Likewise.  Although in our conversation, your posts are the ones which are illogical.  Not mine.  How many times have you described reality in terms of a dichotomy yet incorrectly claim is it non-dual?  5?  6?

 

How many times did you raise completely irrelevant diversions?  An event doesn't exist because it's insignificant?  That's completely illogical.

 

Did you make a personal statement about me to cover up for it?  Yes, you did.

[stirling]

20 minutes ago, dwai said:

Oh it does, does it? I merely countered your childish rejoinder with something that actually makes sense. It’s telling that you failed to understand it.

that’s not a personal attack - it is an assessment of your comprehension of nonduality as evidenced by your writing. It is also reflective of your subpar logic. 

You are wrong. 

you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how logically flawed they might be. 

 

Is everybody have fun over here?

[dwai]

21 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Likewise.  Although in our conversation, your posts are the ones which are illogical.  Not mine.  How many times have you described reality in terms of a dichotomy yet incorrectly claim is it non-dual?  5?  6?

 

How many times did you raise completely irrelevant diversions?  An event doesn't exist because it's insignificant?  That's completely illogical.

 

Did you make a personal statement about me to cover up for it?  Yes, you did.

Do you have a regular meditation/qigong/neigong practice? 

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Here is one single example of the many all through his discourse ;

 

 

 

 

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

 

Note the original context was 'equally real '  -   both things are real  .

Daniel changes it to  'both things are 'exactly equal '  .... in all aspects including eating , drinking , 'foodstuffs' and 'non-foodstuffs'

 

One the one hand it sorta seems to make sense to the unobservant  (or you might miss the details due to the torrent to of these things he puts in a post ) but on analysis its ridiculous .

 

point it out, he  chucks a tantie, looses it and puts you on ignore .

 

basically he has said ;   " A  glass is not as real as water because you cannot drink it . "   Which is silly, and a lame cop out in any rational and reasonable debate .

 

 

In my opinion, I  find the rationality ship sailed some time ago  

 

When you get to a point of "thats not what those words mean (though in plain English)

 

THIS is what they mean (insert  unusual soliloquy here)

 

It, at that stage has passed the horizion, and is clearly out of sight   

[doc benway]

I have one foot in the world of science and one in the world of spirituality, particularly dzogchen. It’s been gratifying to see researchers in many different disciplines discover, accept, and support the non-dual nature of being through their work in many disciplines - physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc… Non-duality is anything but a misnomer, however talking and thinking about it are fraught with pitfalls and contradictions, much as quantum mechanics is. And yet quantum mechanics is, by far, the most precise and effective description of reality in the history of physics.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

I sit down first thing in the morning and last thing at night, and I look to experience the activity of the body solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. As a matter of daily life, just to touch on such experience as occasion demands—for me, that’s enough.

 

 

Ok.  ~nods~. I'll try it.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

Nondual action of mind is the cessation of volition and habit in feeling and perceiving--can't say I have experienced that, consciously.  

 

The conscious is free?  Do you expect to experience it consciously?  ( Were you making a pun? )

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

Looking to define "nondual" in words ignores the fact that it's really a kind of action.

 

Makes good sense.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

the automatic activity of the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward

 

Is there a name for this?  The impulse?  If that's a proper word for it?

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, steve said:

It’s been gratifying to see researchers in many different disciplines discover, accept, and support the non-dual nature of being through their work in many disciplines - physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc

 

I'd like to read more about this.  Recommendations?

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, steve said:

Non-duality is anything but a misnomer,

 

I agree. At the time I started this thread, I was misinformed.

 

That said, the term "non-dual" is not immune from being misused.  It's stating the obvious, but, I think it's important based on some of the replies.

[Jenn]

If one has never had cheese, one cannot possibly explain the taste of pizza to another.  Simultaneously, even a pizza connoisseur cannot adequately explain the flavor to someone who has likewise never tasted cheese before.  I feel like it would be more fun to just have a slice.  

 

It would definitely be tastier 🥰.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Do you have a regular meditation/qigong/neigong practice? 

 

Before changing the subject, let's agree on something:

 

I have brought multiple examples of particular events which occur beyond consciousness?  Yes or no?

[Daniel]

30 minutes ago, Jenn said:

If one has never had cheese, one cannot possibly explain the taste of pizza to another.  Simultaneously, even a pizza connoisseur cannot adequately explain the flavor to someone who has likewise never tasted cheese before.  I feel like it would be more fun to just have a slice.  

 

It would definitely be tastier 🥰.

 

I agree, but the analogy is a bit flawed if you're referring to my conversation with some of the others.  I'm not asking for an explanation in that way.  

[dwai]

40 minutes ago, Daniel said:

29 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Before changing the subject, let's agree on something:

 

I have brought multiple examples of particular events which occur beyond consciousness?  Yes or no?

No. None of those apply—in that, you are wrong. I explained why you were mistaken.

As soon as you say, "X happened beyond consciousness," you are using consciousness to declare something as unknown. 

 

How do you know that the said event occurred? To claim something as "unknown to consciousness" too, an indirect inference is used. In that case, it is also within consciousness (the act of inference acts within consciousness). If you say "I know an unknown event occurs" then you are essentially making a logical fallacy.  you either know or you don't know. You can't have the proverbial cake and eat it too. 

 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

None of those apply

 

None of them apply to what?

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I explained why you were mistaken

 

I showed that your explanations were flawed.  You didn't reply nor refute any of what I wrote.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

in that, you are wrong

 

I doubt you are able to articulate my position accurately.  If you don't know what I'm saying, then, it's impossible to assess right or wrong.

 

If you know that I'm wrong, please do me the courtesy of confirming that you have accurately represented my assertion in your mind?

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

As soon as you say, "X happened beyond consciousness," you are using consciousness to declare something as unknown. 

 

Not true.  I'm using natural deduction to evaluate the likelihood that it is unknown.  Then I supplement this with your inability to answer simple questions.

 

Example:  you go to the market and pick up an apple.  Where is the particular branch which produced that apple?  When did it blossom?  When was it picked?  

 

In the above example there are several events which occured beyond consciousness.  The blossoming and the harvest.

 

Another example:  this one is more difficult.  Right now, what is the trajectory and rate of speed of the water droplets melting off of the Hubbard glacier?  How many are there?

 

In this example the number of events beyond consciousness are very large.  Yes it's possible to imagine these events in general, but, that is not the actual event.  

 

So far, you have not been able to address these questions in any other way besides:  "I don't care about that, let's talk about dreaming."