Why the Ramana Maharshi model for humanity is flawed.

[Dontaskme]

Hi Dontaskme - Nicely put and I can agree with your analysis. The trouble is that it is very difficult to get from our everyday notion of subject and object to the view you describe. Hence my promotion of metaphysical analysis as away to bridge the gap and open the way for the intellect. Once one sees the need for a theory such as the one you describe then it becomes easier to take it seriously and examine it carefully.

Ramana Maharshi's teachings will most likely seem 'off the wall' until one sees that it is endorsed by logic and reason.

I agree Pete, and nicely put.

In my opinion only, the world is not ready to hear Nonduality. I don't actually believe this particular channel consciousness is currently tuned into appearing as this 3D matrix was meant to awaken from the dream of separation. Maybe it is, I don't really know, but this is just my opinion. Awakening is the end of knowledge for this particular metaphysical journey of consciousness. It's the realisation that knowledge informs the illusory nature of life on this plane, in that no one is living or dying. Those that do awaken have left the building anyway on rememberance that here there is just everything and nothing infinitely for eternity, there is no divide, so no thing was actually born or can die, and no amount of knowledge accumulated by the mind is ever going to lead to anything or get you anywhere because the natural flow of life has no agenda other than just to be exactly what it is in any given moment...aka this completely unknowing empty flow of formless energy changing from one form to another, from one appearance to another, appearing to evolve itself and raise itself up to great heights of acheivement only to then fall back to square one infinitely for eternity...so it seems that everything is changing, and yet ultimately nothing changes.

The mind still goes on asking question after question after question because there are only questions...never are there any answers, if there were answers, all questions would cease..but questions never cease...So what's actually happening is all those (apparent) thinking minds that come after the ones that leave ..are the crank used to start up the whole dynamic process of self-discovery all over again, and forever the wheel of life keeps turning, round and round going and getting nowhere. It cannot be any other way.

.

The problem (illusory problem) for the mind is that Nonduality gives nothing. And what can the mind do with nothing?> that's the whole point, so this metaphysic is not going to have many followers, no one want's to buy nothing which is actually everything. Oh the irony.

.

[PeteJ]

In my opinion only, the world is not ready to hear Nonduality.

Hmm. I disagree. But we're both guessing.

The mind still goes on asking question after question after question because there are only questions...never are there any answers,

Again I'd disagree, and quite strongly, but I suspect we'd agree if we went into the details.

The problem (illusory problem) for the mind is that Nonduality gives nothing. And what can the mind do with nothing?> that's the whole point, so this metaphysic is not going to have many followers, no one want's to buy nothing which is actually everything. Oh the irony.

I understand this comment but cannot agree with it. What you say seems true at the limit but the value of metaphysics is that it takes us to that limit. Once we've reached the limit then the mind is powerless but it has guided us to this limit, and non-duality had given me as much as my mind can think about for a couple of decades. Again, I suspect we'd end up agreeing if we thrashed out the details of what we're saying.

My proposal is that the mind and metaphysical analysis can prove that your view of reality and Mind is the only idea that works. What it cannot do is prove its truth. You seem to have lower view of metaphysics. At least we agree on the important stuff.

[seeds]

Seeds wrote:

Belinda wrote:
t's not the least bit sad and no need for anyone to be depressed about death.

Tell that to a mother who just lost her child.

I missed that until Pete copied it.

I wrote my bit clumsily I admit.

...Of course you are right Seeds, there is bereavement and terrible loss. It's silly to deny that we experience what we do experience in our natural lives. From the perspective of eternity there is no loss and no sadness but we don't live there.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with your assertion of there being “no loss” from the perspective of eternity.

Please take note of the rest of the post from which the quote was copied:

If there is no sort of life after death then there is oblivion which means no sadness, no tears, no dashed hopes, no bereavement,...

No joy, no discovery, no love, no amazement, no laughter, no music, no fragrant aromas, no tasty flavors, no pleasant sounds, no warm feelings, no beautiful visions, etc., etc., etc...

Shall we get out the scale and weigh the pros against the cons?

The point is that if oblivion is indeed our destiny then, yes, you are correct in proclaiming that we will feel no sadness, however, what we will lose in the forfeiture of life is immeasurable.
_______

[Belinda]

But Seeds, when I don't exist I will feel no loss.

[roydop]

So, again, what exactly was Ramana referring to in his alleged usage of the large “S” Self and the large “A” Awareness?

(Continued in next post)
_______

That which is looking through "your" eyes.

Realization of this is dreamless sleep and effortless thought free Awareness.

[Dontaskme]

But Seeds, when I don't exist I will feel no loss.

There is no such knowledge of ''I don't exist'' except in this conception, aka the illusory notion of ( I know ) aka the unborn born..aka The not-knowing knowing.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of a knower. This illusory artificial conception of a knower is inseparable from the known. And are ONE in the same instant. This ONE cannot be born nor die...except in the illusory dream of separation no thing / aka ONE is not/experiencing.

How can ONENESS be born, how can that which cannot know it exists - die?

There is no knowledge or experience of birth or death...birth and death are concepts in this conception, they are imagination ...no thing imagined ever died or was born.

Feelings of loss and sadness arise but no one is feeling those feelings...that's the ultimate freedom of ONENESS...it cannot lose, it cannot lie, for there is only the truth of oneness infinitely for eternity.

.

[seeds]

_______

The concept of nonduality has been around for thousands of years.

However, someone in this thread has implied that thousands of years is not a long enough period of time for a proper evaluation of its worth, and that the world is still not ready to hear about it.

Well, the fact of the matter is that not only were some of us ready for it, but after analyzing and apprehending its deepest meaning and implications, we have moved beyond it.

Furthermore, in the process of that apprehension, some of us have even realized that the idea of nonduality is implicit in quantum theory.

Indeed, it is suggested that the entire universe appears to exist in a state of oneness by means of a holographic-like superpositioning and entanglement of its informationally-based underpinning.

And that is something that can be visualized by what is implied in the broken pieces of a laser hologram, as is depicted in yet another of my shamelessly overused illustrations...



And the point is that just as the knowledge that the quantum underpinning of the universe exists in a state of oneness offers no real answers as to how and why the universe came into existence,...

...likewise, the same thing applies to the concept of oneness being bandied about by the nondualists in this thread.

In other words, even though “oneness” may indeed be the ultimate state of reality at its deepest level, it should nevertheless be viewed as being nothing more than a strange and quirky feature of reality that (in and of itself) offers absolutely nothing toward explaining the hows and whys of our existence.

As I stated in a prior post...

...offering-up phrases such as “the Unity of All,” or “non-duality” or “Oneness,” are nothing more than “Jedi mind tricks” that produce an illusion that a profound explanation of reality has just been uttered when, in fact, they explain nothing at all.

And what that means is that anyone who continues to promote the concepts of oneness and nonduality as being some kind of ultimate resolution to the mystery of reality, will simply be demonstrating (for all the world to see) that they themselves are under the influence of a “mind trick.”
_______

[Dontaskme]

The concept of nonduality has been around for thousands of years.

However, someone in this thread has implied that thousands of years is not a long enough period of time for a proper evaluation of its worth, and that the world is still not ready to hear about it.

Well, the fact of the matter is that not only were some of us ready for it, but after analyzing and apprehending its deepest meaning and implications, we have moved beyond it.

The concept of Nonduality is always known NOW by the only knowing there is which is mentation/knowledge.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality in that knowing knower and known are one in the same instant. Always NOW

Only the unborn can hear this message, those who are born will not hear they are unborn.

And yes, it's a tricky mind trick..it's the trickless trick.

And no, there is no moving beyond what can only be here now forever unmoved.

Ultimately, nothing ever moves or changes..all apparent movement and change are acausal effectual appearances of it's exact opposite.

.

[Belinda]

Is there some difference between non-duality and neutral monism or dual-aspect monism? If so what?

[PeteJ]

_______

The concept of nonduality has been around for thousands of years.

However, someone in this thread has implied that thousands of years is not a long enough period of time for a proper evaluation of its worth, and that the world is still not ready to hear about it.?

Lol. How many thousands of years do you think it will take?

In other words, even though “oneness” may indeed be the ultimate state of reality at its deepest level, it should nevertheless be viewed as being nothing more than a strange and quirky feature of reality that (in and of itself) offers absolutely nothing toward explaining the hows and whys of our existence.
As I stated in a prior post...

...offering-up phrases such as “the Unity of All,” or “non-duality” or “Oneness,” are nothing more than “Jedi mind tricks” that produce an illusion that a profound explanation of reality has just been uttered when, in fact, they explain nothing at all.

And what that means is that anyone who continues to promote the concepts of oneness and nonduality as being some kind of ultimate resolution to the mystery of reality, will simply be demonstrating (for all the world to see) that they themselves are under the influence of a “mind trick.”

Have you considered the possibility that you don't understand the topic? I seems obvious to me that you need to ask more questions and make less pronouncements. You don't have to like the Perennial philosophy, but to do it any damage you'd need to know quite a lot about it.

[PeteJ]

Is there some difference between non-duality and neutral monism? If so what?

Russell was neutral monist and despised mysticism, and this indicates the great difference between them.

In the case of Russell's 'neutralism' the difference would be that his idea is nonsensical. He posits an infinity of neutral objects, much like Kant's infinity of 'things-in-themselves'. Both ideas are logically incoherent as these hypothetical objects have no features to allow us to distinguish one from the other. But perhaps you mean something else by 'neutral monism'.

Monism indicates a numeral value. Non-dualism indicates the transcendence of numerical values. Hence 'advaita (not-two) rather than 'One'. I would say non-dualism encompasses neutral monism, such that it takes Russell's collection of mental-physical phenomena (or Leibnitz's monads, or Kant's neutral 'things-in-themselves) and reduces them to their origin.

Perhaps one key difference is that non-duality requires the voidness of phenomena, while neutral monism reifies their substance. Thus the former is a doctrine of Unity and the latter of duality and multiplicity. Neutral monism commonly speaks of a plethora of neutral objects, which clearly is not monism, but perhaps there is a form of it that does no do this. If so then it might be quite close to a doctrine of Unity.

Are there any neutral monists who endorse the Upanishads, say, or the Tao Te Ching? If not this would suggest a great difference between these two metaphysical doctrines.

[Belinda]

Petej asked:

Are there any neutral monists who endorse the Upanishads, say, or the Tao Te Ching? If not this would suggest a great difference between these two metaphysical doctrines.

Yes, although I'm a dual aspect monist like in Spinoza's Ethics. I also like Tao Te Ching. The Way - Yin and Yang- the myriad creatures chimes beautifully with brain-mind unity, and the contents of consciousness.

[PeteJ]

Petej asked:

Are there any neutral monists who endorse the Upanishads, say, or the Tao Te Ching? If not this would suggest a great difference between these two metaphysical doctrines.

Yes, although I'm a dual aspect monist like in Spinoza's Ethics. I also like Tao Te Ching. The Way - Yin and Yang- the myriad creatures chimes beautifully with brain-mind unity, and the contents of consciousness.

Well okay, But I meant an example of someone who studies and and endorses the non-dual philosophy. Liking the Tao Te Ching is not a qualification.

[Belinda]

Well okay, But I meant an example of someone who studies and and endorses the non-dual philosophy. Liking the Tao Te Ching is not a qualification.

You won't find anybody whose day job is studying and endorsing the Tao Te Ching.

[Dontaskme]

Well okay, But I meant an example of someone who studies and and endorses the non-dual philosophy. Liking the Tao Te Ching is not a qualification.

You won't find anybody whose day job is studying and endorsing the Tao Te Ching.

That's because no work in the world would ever get done else, that's the whole point, doing is done, no doer thereof.

As I'm sure you know that already in your study of what it is to do a job.

.