"Non-dual" misnomer

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

How do you know that the said event occurred?

 

This is the fourth time I've answered this question.  Knowing is always and forever incomplete.  There are other methods of cognition besides "knowing" which fill in those rather large gaps.

 

I don't need to know because it's extremely likely to be the case and there is no other viable explanation.  Apples do not magically poof into existence.  There is a series of events which are producing them.  These events occur beyond the surface.  Knowing in the manner which you are describing is superficial and does not probe below the surface.  You can imagine those events, but, those imaginations will always be either inaccurate or incomplete in some way.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

You can't have the proverbial cake and eat it too. 

 

All that's needed are better word choices.  It's clear to me that what you're describing is virtuous.  Calling it non-duality such that nothing is excluded from it is simply not true.  While I can appreciate the benefit that comes from cross-promotion in multiple schools of thought, there's diminishing returns if what is spoken makes zero sense in the English language.  And this ignores the repeated contradictions.  I certainly am not going to want to engage in a practice which turns the mind into mush.

 

Non-duality is popular, and has name recognition.  Other than that, it's poor choice of words which creates confusion.  There's better word choices which makes a lot more sense.  But you seem much more concerned with discrediting me personally rather than fairly address what I've written.

 

Edited August 21 by Daniel

[dwai]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

I don't need to know because it's extremely likely to be the case and there is no other viable explanation.  Apples do not magically poof into existence.  There is a series of events which are producing them.  These events occur beyond the surface.  Knowing in the manner which you are describing is superficial and does not probe below the surface.  You can imagine those events, but, those imaginations will always be either inaccurate or incomplete in some way

And this inference of yours arises where? And is this inferred/accepted most likely explanation not a form of knowledge?  
 

I already told you there are 3 types of knowledge. Any kind of knowing is covered in those three categories. 

[doc benway]

10 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

Look into the organism- environment theory in any of the biological sciences. Here is one review article with lots of references that touches on biology, neuroscience, and philosophy:

https://www.organism.earth/library/document/theory-of-organism-environment-system

 

Check out the relational theory of quantum mechanics. Below is a technical description but if you’re not a physicist, I’d suggest reading some of the more accessible writings of Carlo Rovelli (Helgoland is quite good) or David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order is fascinating but a bit more challenging).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/#ObseMeas

 

Another area of investigation is in the social sciences - the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. One excellent introduction to his work is Luhmann Explained by Hans Georg Moeller but there are lots of briefer descriptions of his ideas online (many thanks to @Geof Nanto for introducing me to Luhmann). Here is a nice overview of the theory with particular attention to politics: https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-7

 

Stepping away from science for a second, it’s my contention that the shema (the core prayer in the Jewish liturgy for anyone unfamiliar) is an expression of nonduality, where echad implies unity or connectedness as opposed to, or in addition to, singularity. At least, this is what it means in my life based on my very personal interpretation and insight.

[doc benway]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

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.  

 

I don’t want to get too embroiled in this exchange, and haven’t read much of this thread attentively, but I would like to mention that it seems you may be using the word consciousness when what you are referring to is knowledge of specific events which are among the contents of consciousness. When dwai uses the word consciousness it seems he is referring to the capacity for, or foundation of, awareness rather than any specific information contained within it. For me this is an important distinction.

[Daniel]

41 minutes ago, steve said:

I don’t want to get too embroiled in this exchange, and haven’t read much of this thread attentively, but I would like to mention that it seems you may be using the word consciousness when what you are referring to is knowledge of specific events which are among the contents of consciousness. When dwai uses the word consciousness it seems he is referring to the capacity for, or foundation of, awareness rather than any specific information contained within it. For me this is an important distinction.

 

Thank you.  

 

 

[doc benway]

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

Knowing

 

In the Tibetan paradigm, this English word knowing or knowledge is used to translate rigpa. This is in contrast to marigpa which means ignorance. In this context it refers to a very specific knowledge - that of the true nature of one’s being, which refers specifically to direct and experiential realization of nonduality. Hence knowing in this context is considered beyond all limitations.

 

One obstacle I see in this conversation is to have the sense that we are referring to some-thing when speaking of things like nonduality, the Self, or even God. My Bön teacher once said something that over time has opened up deeper and deeper layers of understanding for me. ‘When people have an experience of nondual realization, the experience itself is never some particular state or condition. What they experience is the release of a particular way in which they were previously blocked from a more expansive and pervasive sense of themselves. As a result there are many different descriptions of the experience and yet there are common threads. I feel so open, so powerful, so expansive, timeless, unborn and undying, and so on. This is because they were previously feeling the opposite.’

 

There is never an experience of “the nondual” of “the Self” of “the Self experiencing itself” or of “God.” Our human experience is that of the releasing of obstacles and ever greater opening into what is and “what is” is beyond any limitations of rationality or definition and is therefore very difficult as a focus of discsussion. 

 

@Jenn’s point therefore becomes key because to discuss this sense of releasing of obstacles and experiencing or understanding what is being referred to is very challenging without some degree of shared experience. Just like if I refer to the smell of durian or the taste of green mango, for some this will have little meaning where others may shudder or salivate.

[Daniel]

23 hours ago, dwai said:

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

 

23 hours ago, dwai said:

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.

 

Restated:

1. Everything and Everyone is Self
2. Self is nondual awareness consciousness

Question:  Does consciousness possess knowledge?  Facts?  Ideas?  Associations?

[dwai]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

 

Restated:

1. Everything and Everyone is Self
2. Self is nondual awareness consciousness

Question:  Does consciousness possess knowledge?  Facts?  Ideas?  Associations?

Those happen in the mind. Consciousness is like the sun that illuminates and makes knowing possible. The mind is where this light is reflected, and through it knowledge is acquired. So to answer your question, does consciousness possess knowledge? Yes (as  reflected in the individual mind), and no (as the power of illumination). 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, steve said:

Stepping away from science for a second, it’s my contention that the shema (the core prayer in the Jewish liturgy for anyone unfamiliar) is an expression of nonduality, where echad implies unity or connectedness as opposed to, or in addition to, singularity. At least, this is what it means in my life based on my very personal interpretation and insight.

 

I agree 100%.  It's a huge and wonderful topic to explore.  I've started doing some writing about it very recently.  Have you heard of the Yeshivah of Shem?  ( Like Shema )?

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

Those happen in the mind. Consciousness is like the sun that illuminates and makes knowing possible. The mind is where this light is reflected, and through it knowledge is acquired. So to answer your question, does consciousness possess knowledge? Yes (as  reflected in the individual mind), and no (as the power of illumination). 

 

Thank you.

 

"... everything and everyone is essentially your own Self."

 

What do you mean by "essentially"?

 

[old3bob]

 

ah, but the Self knows the Self by the Self, otherwise we would be SOL...

 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

Thank you.

 

"... everything and everyone is essentially your own Self."

 

What do you mean by "essentially"?

 

Your Self is that which gives you the ability to be -  is consciousness (which is existence/being). At that level, there is nothing that distinguishes you from me or anyone else. That undifferentiated consciousness is our essence and is therefore nondual. 
 

When we consider the world from the perspective of the individual mind, there is separation.
 

From the perspective of pure consciousness there is no separation,  Much like how in a dream your own mind appears as a world, with other beings, and an individual character who is experiencing that world. Similarly in the waking state, consciousness appears as you and me, the world and seems to experience this world.
 

Just as a lucid dreamer realizes/recognizes that a dream is nothing but an appearance in their own mind, with proper inquiry and meditation the practitioner realizes that the waking world is also an appearance in their own Self - aka consciousness. 

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

And this inference of yours arises where?

 

The inference arises in mind, which is a form of consciousness.  ( I'm not ready to propose that there is only one undifferentiated consciousness ).

 

2 hours ago, dwai said:

And is this inferred/accepted most likely explanation not a form of knowledge?

 

"this inferred explanation" 

 

Yes and no.  Yes, the explanation includes a form of knowledge.  But it includes more than knowledge.  It includes knowledge of a lack of knowledge.  That's why it's a good counter-example.

 

2 hours ago, dwai said:

I already told you there are 3 types of knowledge. Any kind of knowing is covered in those three categories. 

 

Yes, but exclusive devotion to knowledge is always and forever incomplete.  That's the crux of this.  

[Daniel]

9 minutes ago, dwai said:

Your Self is that which gives you the ability to be -  is consciousness (which is existence/being). At that level, there is nothing that distinguishes you from me or anyone else. That undifferentiated consciousness is our essence and is therefore nondual. 

 

The distinctions exist but are not included in "Self"?

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

The inference arises in mind, which is a form of consciousness.  ( I'm not ready to propose that there is only one undifferentiated consciousness ).

ok this is progress  

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

"this inferred explanation" 

 

Yes and no.  Yes, the explanation includes a form of knowledge.  But it includes more than knowledge.  It includes knowledge of a lack of knowledge.  That's why it's a good counter-example.

When we acknowledge a lack of knowledge it also makes that very thing we “don’t know” potentially knowable.

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Yes, but exclusive devotion to knowledge is always and forever incomplete.  That's the crux of this.  

Non-dual traditions aren’t really about knowledge/devotion to it, etc., but rather about recognizing our essence as that undifferentiated consciousness. Knowledge is always in the domain of duality - subject and object. But since we operate in a dualistic world (called transactional reality in the non-dual parlance), we need to use knowledge to transcend (the need for) knowledge, kind of like how one can take a thorn to extricate a thorn buried in our flesh. 

[Daniel]

35 minutes ago, steve said:

knowing in this context is considered beyond all limitations.

 

?

 

36 minutes ago, steve said:

the experience itself is never some particular state or condition

 

This is a limitation?  This specific form of knowing cannot tolerate differences or distinctions?  The magnitude of the experience obliviates them?

[dwai]

9 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

The distinctions exist but are not included in "Self"?

The dream world rises and falls in the mind. Is it included in the mind? Or is it just a temporary appearance in it? 

At one level it is, at another it is not. 
For example, take a mirage. It appears to exist, one can see that there seems to be water on the highway, but there is none when one closely inspects it. Is the water of the mirage included in the highway? 

[Daniel]

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

ok this is progress  

 

Hurray!  The boy can listen!  The boy can learn!  ~chuckles~

 

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

When we acknowledge a lack of knowledge it also makes that very thing we “don’t know” potentially knowable.

 

Not always.

 

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

Non-dual traditions aren’t really about knowledge/devotion to it, etc., but rather about recognizing our essence as that undifferentiated consciousness. Knowledge is always in the domain of duality - subject and object. But since we operate in a dualistic world (called transactional reality in the non-dual parlance), we need to use knowledge to transcend (the need for) knowledge, kind of like how one can take a thorn to extricate a thorn buried in our flesh. 

 

You may not believe me, but, I understand that very well.  Do you understand me?  This essence excludes many things.  Because of that, the non-dual concept which you are describing is incomplete.  This would not be a problem if the intention is not to describe "Everyone and Everything".

 

On 8/20/2024 at 5:49 AM, dwai said:

you realize that everything and everyone is essentially your own Self.

 

Is it correct to write it this way?

 

The essence of everyone and everything is non-dual?

 

[dwai]

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Hurray!  The boy can listen!  The boy can learn!  ~chuckles~

great success! 

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Not always.

it depends on the tools of knowledge acquisition available - if there is knowledge about what is not known, for instance, your apple/orchard example — it is quite possible to find that out provided the supply chain is known. It becomes an issue exercise of identifying the unknowns and making them known. All of science operates on this very premise  

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

You may not believe me, but, I understand that very well.  Do you understand me?  This essence excludes many things.  Because of that, the non-dual concept which you are describing is incomplete.  This would not be a problem if the intention is not to describe "Everyone and Everything".

I do understand you quite well. Your position is a very basic one wrt non-duality. 

The essence is not about things. You see, things are in the domain of subject-object duality. Non-duality considers that irrelevant beyond a point. The objective of nonduality is to resolve compulsive subject-object duality, and the problems it causes (suffering). 

 

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Is it correct to write it this way?

 

The essence of everyone and everything is non-dual?

 

Yes indeed it is. But don’t take my word for it - inquire and find out. 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

?

 

 

This is a limitation?  This specific form of knowing cannot tolerate differences or distinctions?  The magnitude of the experience obliviates them?

 

No limitation. It points to what embraces all differences and distinctions without bias or obviation. When we talk about it we are reading and writing the menu. When we have experiences of it, experiences like unboundedness and the stability of open, ungrasping attention, it is more like tasting the food. When we try to impute our ideas and descriptions onto it, we are already disconnected and pointing the wrong way. And yet, we are never a hair’s breadth away from it and can never point at anything that is not it.

 

What some refer to as “consciousness” or “the Self” or “the nature of mind” is perhaps closest to what you might refer to as God. They are certainly not equivalent because they are all imperfect and culturally biased labels and concepts, but they are analogous in many ways. But as human beings, we will always experience limitations. That is why dwai doesn’t know the height of his apple’s tree or my great grandmother’s maiden name.

 

In dzogchen parlance, we are reminded to always remember that we are practitioners, not the nature of mind, even though, at the same time, we can never be anything but that. The nature of mind is the essence we are manifesting but our experience is that of finite beings, no matter how close we are to complete liberation. If we are ever able to completely free ourselves from all limitations and restrictions of any type - physical, mental, etc… that is what I consider a reasonable description of enlightenment. This is why in the dzogchen teachings even the physical body is said to liberate into rainbow light, the essence of the five elements which are, in the Tibetan paradigm, the foundation of our physical, mental, and energetic embodiment.

[Daniel]

29 minutes ago, dwai said:

it depends on the tools of knowledge acquisition available - if there is knowledge about what is not known, for instance, your apple/orchard example — it is quite possible to find that out provided the supply chain is known. It becomes an issue exercise of identifying the unknowns and making them known. All of science operates on this very premise  

 

In the apple/orchard example, there is a condition which produces an absolute lack of knowledge of the event.  An apple falls from a branch lacking an observer.  The apple is gathered and brought to market.  The particular event which produced that particular apple will never be known.  The event is always and forever beyond consciousness ( as described ).  It could be that the meaning of the words used(  "consciousness" and "knowledge" ) do not fully capture the event in this case.  If so, acknowledging that would be good.

 

29 minutes ago, dwai said:

The essence is not about things. You see, things are in the domain of subject-object duality. Non-duality considers that irrelevant beyond a point. The objective of nonduality is to resolve compulsive subject-object duality, and the problems it causes (suffering). 

 

  "The essence is not about things..."

 

OK.  Then why choose those specific words if they are known to be false.  If the essence is not about things, then, the relationship below is incoherent.  It's a category error.  The words chosen are completely out of context.  That is a huge linguistic problem.  This is not petty semantics.  It's a matter of saying one thing, but the actual meaning is the opposite.

 

On 8/20/2024 at 5:49 AM, dwai said:

everything and everyone is essentially your own Self

 

If the essence is not about things, then, this statement is nonsense.  If you don't believe me, please explain the following:

 

"Everything and everyone is essentially your own Self, and, the essence is not about things."

 

Try this one:

 

"Everything and everyone is essentially your own Self, but, the essence is not about things."

 

Or this:

 

"Everything and everyone is essentially your own Self, but sometimes, the essence is not about things."

 

 

This is not focusing on terminology.  This is flip-flopping.  It makes no sense.  It goes far beyond lacking the language to describe the subtle differences between different batches of aged parmesan.  This is like putting pizza on the menu, but, when pizza is order, the kitchen prepares a duck.

 

Pizza is not a duck.

 

If essence is not about things, then, every thing cannot be described using the word essence.

[Daniel]

50 minutes ago, dwai said:

I do understand you quite well. Your position is a very basic one wrt non-duality. 

 

Good.  Do you understand the my reasons for my basic position?  If so, please articulate them?

 

Edited August 21 by Daniel

[liminal_luke]

I thought this was a beautiful expression of non-duality, as I hope one day to "experience" it.

 

The True Meaning of Self-Love: How to Love Yourself and the World Around You (substack.com)

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

In the apple/orchard example, there is a condition which produces an absolute lack of knowledge of the event.  An apple falls from a branch lacking an observer.  The apple is gathered and brought to market.  The particular event which produced that particular apple will never be known.  The event is always and forever beyond consciousness ( as described ).  It could be that the meaning of the words used(  "consciousness" and "knowledge" ) do not fully capture the event in this case.  If so, acknowledging that would be good.

The specific event that made the apple fall from the tree is the processing of ripening. It is inferred - hence very much in consciousness. As soon as we say, “it happened” — it is in consciousness. The fact that someone picked it up from the ground is in consciousness. Maybe not in your or my particular mind, but it is in consciousness.
 

You seem to be extrapolating omniscience to consciousness. Again, I point you to the 3 modes of knowing - direct; indirect; inferential. Direct knowing - Y saw the apple fall from the tree.

 

Indirect knowing - X saw it fall from the tree, and brought it to you.

 

Inferential knowing - it has been observed that apples tend to fall from trees, so it is safe to assume that if an apple is found on the ground, it fell from the tree. Specific condition might be that it fell because it was ripened, or a bird knocked it down, or it fell during a storm, and so on. 

Which of these is outside consciousness?