Back to Infinity

[Belinda]

Belinda,

I did the experiment that you recommended. I contemplated two sunflower seeds then i ate them. I found that the immediate sensations of eating seemed to be free of conceptualisations.

Great that you gave it a go!
OK, they are free of conceptualisations - agree. What did you find that is there? Something has to be there, even if it is not a thing, right?

(Belinda)I found an event not a thing.

I imagine that a cup may be more of a concept than food which one is chewing and swallowing but that it's possible to separate cup sensations from cup -related conceptualisations.

Yes, sure is. Its essentially the same as with the food, remove all concepts - see what's left. If there is no cup, no object, not even color - just what we call the seen, then you can go a step further and look for how the seen, the heard, the tasted etc relate to each other... Ultimately you end up at *this*, the direct, undivided experience.

I can well understand Serendipper's image of a void blob.

When you did the taste experiment, did you drop into a void-blob? Or was the direct experience of taste actually much more alive and real than thinking about it?

(Belinda)"More alive and real" is a fair comparison, from what i can remember.

I conclude that thought is sufficient for understanding that differentiation does not have to be abandoned.

Agree, dualistic thought doesn't have to be abandoned, it only has to be seen for what it is - a conceptual overlay to direct experience that is not ultimate truth.

(Belinda)The physical,dualistic, relative world is dear to me and without it I could not live. I need the concepts of food and not-food, safe and unsafe, beautiful and ugly, good and bad, and so on. Learning is an experience and an event like chewing and swallowing are experiences and events.

In my view the material or physical world is real from the point of view of an individual whether that individual be a man or a cat.(Insect individuals are colonies).And the joined-up necessity of all possible world views also is reality. Those are both real and are mutually consistent views although we have to think the views in an alternating manner like we perceive the duck-rabbit in an alternating manner.

You are right, this is the view of the individual - and it wouldn't be a problem if this view were in tune with truth/reality. Unfortunately it is not... As long as we see ourselves as special, better (or worse) than others, we immediately step from heaven into hell. A hell that is individual to your personal preferences and beliefs, but still a hell never the less...
Its not a problem to see the material or physical world as real as long as you know that they are just appearances on the undivided screen of the whole - one doesn't exclude the other.
Its like being in a dream and suddenly you are aware that you are dreaming - lucidity doesn't end the dream, but it adds the knowledge that this is a dream and that you are actually the dreamer (and as such the whole dream), and not only the limited character within the dream.

(Belinda)I like your concept of hell which has connotations of buried, cold, wintry, detached, unseen. Doesn't ordinary human sympathy for other than oneself relieve one from hell? There is not only my own world of appearances; there are others' worlds of appearances . For instance one of the justifications for and fascinations of history as an academic discipline is the pursuit of empathy with the people who lived and died i.e. the majority. If there were a God who transcended both duality and eternity this God would not necessarily consider that eternity was better than duality. Well, as it happens I don't believe that there is such a Spirit, but I do believe in reality which overarches both eternity and duality, so I don't favour eternity more than duality. I do believe that the special humility is good of being able to see beyond the worlds of appearances, but I'd not therefore relegate the world of appearances to dreaming.

by the way, is there any practical good in this dualistic world that results from allotting a higher status to non-duality?

[AlexW]

is there any practical good in this dualistic world that results from allotting a higher status to non-duality?

Yes, for sure. Once it is clearly seen / known that there is only the undivided whole and that all appearances (duality) are like waves on the ocean - they appear to be separate but are really nothing but the ocean itself - then, even when living the life of an apparently individual wave, one always remains grounded in the unshakeable knowing that "I am the ocean". This knowledge automatically lifts everything else, all other beings, humans, animals, trees, stones, galaxies... to a level equal to myself. This obviously results in a substantial change in how we interact with others, how we treat the planet and what we see as a reasonable goal in life.

[Belinda]

is there any practical good in this dualistic world that results from allotting a higher status to non-duality?

Yes, for sure. Once it is clearly seen / known that there is only the undivided whole and that all appearances (duality) are like waves on the ocean - they appear to be separate but are really nothing but the ocean itself - then, even when living the life of an apparently individual wave, one always remains grounded in the unshakeable knowing that "I am the ocean". This knowledge automatically lifts everything else, all other beings, humans, animals, trees, stones, galaxies... to a level equal to myself. This obviously results in a substantial change in how we interact with others, how we treat the planet and what we see as a reasonable goal in life.

Yes, it's clearly psychologically beneficial, just, and life sustaining to understand, know, or envisage non-duality. However why a higher status? Why not the same honorary status as duality? When we allot higher status we have hierarchy, and so to religions. True, an individual who cannot understand or know non-duality is disadvantaged. It's important not to deprive that individual of human rights or dignity on the basis of his disability. When individuals are granted higher social status for reasons of intellectual or gnostic superiority they become part of the priestly elite and we know how that particular elite becomes worldly, untruthful, and conniving.

[AlexW]

However why a higher status? Why not the same honorary status as duality?

I wouldn't award it a higher status. It simply is a different level/dimension of knowledge.
The non-dual is primary, it is truth, reality, whereas duality is always only a mental interpretation.
The non-dual includes duality - duality is built on non-dual foundations and can as such be a beautiful reflection of non-dual truth. Duality only turns into a problem when we forget that it rests on a non-dual foundation, that duality is not able to define absolutes (truth, infinity, eternity...) and that living by its laws without using non-dual knowledge as its truthful foundation, will result in misunderstanding, strife and war.

True, an individual who cannot understand or know non-duality is disadvantaged

I know what you mean, and I agree, but just to be perfectly clear:
The individual person cannot know the non-dual. The non-dual is pure knowing without any idea of individuality.
Sure, there are thoughts of individuality, of being a person acting in the world, but as soon as we accept this to be true we have already left non-dual knowing.

It's important not to deprive that individual of human rights or dignity on the basis of his disability.

Non-dual knowing looks past that. It is perfectly clear that an individual cannot know anything real - simply because the individual itself is made up (by thought). If there is non-dual realisation then no one is seen as deprived (and no one will be treated in any way different than one would treat himself), simply because there is no other.

When individuals are granted higher social status for reasons of intellectual or gnostic superiority they become part of the priestly elite and we know how that particular elite becomes worldly, untruthful, and conniving.

Agree!

[Belinda]

AlexW wrote:

The individual person cannot know the non-dual. The non-dual is pure knowing without any idea of individuality.
Sure, there are thoughts of individuality, of being a person acting in the world, but as soon as we accept this to be true we have already left non-dual knowing.

This is why I compared the two aspects of reality to the duck-rabbit effect. Apart from what mystical sages are capable of, at best, ordinary people oscillate .

[Ramu]

There is much talk on philosophy forums about oneness and separation, always using intellectual means to discredit the "separating" intellect.

Where is this oneness? Sure, there seems to be connection between all parts, but one can also see that connection in galaxies and ecosystems. There are smaller things in larger things like Russian dolls, and presumably these are all within one largest thing consisting of fractal layers. Yet who is to say that this larger "oneness" is integrated? It might still be chaotic and in the process of connecting itself. Maybe the godlike thing we perceive is our galaxy? Or solar system? Or Earth? Or life or humanity en masse?

All would be plenty enough to bring us a profound sense of oneness.

The universe is energy. Everything that exists is energy of differing densities and intensities. There is energy in the quantum foam that is posited to precede the universe - what we consider to be "nothingness" is apparently replete with energy. Everything else is made from energy too, just more condensed. We are very condensed, very concentrated energy. The Earth is even more so, neutron stars much more so again, and black holes seemingly the most dense zones of energy in our reality as far as we know. Maybe energy has always been, but just keeps changing form?

.
The Oneness isn't anywhere. It just IS. YOU are that One/Source/Void experiencing life as a human being. But the source exists but it doesn't have a location, for it transcends time and the physical plane. The materialist must always look for a mechanism to explain the mechanism. There is NO mechanism!

[Dontaskme]

The Oneness isn't anywhere. It just IS. YOU are that One/Source/Void experiencing life as a human being. But the source exists but it doesn't have a location, for it transcends time and the physical plane. The materialist must always look for a mechanism to explain the mechanism. There is NO mechanism!

Very good.

It's like the phrase: use an I to extract the I ..then throw both away.

The mind cannot be located, mind looking for mind using mind is like trying to find your beloved lost pet in the meat-market.

.

[Ramu]

I Am that I Am. Namaste.

[Belinda]

I Am that I Am. Namaste.

I Am that I Am can contain the dual and also the nondual.

[Ramu]

I Am that I Am. Namaste.

I Am that I Am can contain the dual and also the nondual.

The dual is non dual. Duality is illusion. It is non duality existentially.

[Belinda]

Ramu wrote:

The dual is non dual. Duality is illusion. It is non duality existentially.

Both the dual and the non dual are illusions if either one of them is taken to be the I Am That I Am.

[Greta]

There is much talk on philosophy forums about oneness and separation, always using intellectual means to discredit the "separating" intellect.

Where is this oneness? Sure, there seems to be connection between all parts, but one can also see that connection in galaxies and ecosystems. There are smaller things in larger things like Russian dolls, and presumably these are all within one largest thing consisting of fractal layers. Yet who is to say that this larger "oneness" is integrated? It might still be chaotic and in the process of connecting itself. Maybe the godlike thing we perceive is our galaxy? Or solar system? Or Earth? Or life or humanity en masse?

All would be plenty enough to bring us a profound sense of oneness.

The universe is energy. Everything that exists is energy of differing densities and intensities. There is energy in the quantum foam that is posited to precede the universe - what we consider to be "nothingness" is apparently replete with energy. Everything else is made from energy too, just more condensed. We are very condensed, very concentrated energy. The Earth is even more so, neutron stars much more so again, and black holes seemingly the most dense zones of energy in our reality as far as we know. Maybe energy has always been, but just keeps changing form?

.
The Oneness isn't anywhere. It just IS. YOU are that One/Source/Void experiencing life as a human being. But the source exists but it doesn't have a location, for it transcends time and the physical plane. The materialist must always look for a mechanism to explain the mechanism. There is NO mechanism!

Yes yes, we are the universe learning about and experiencing itself. Or at least a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very tiny part of it experiencing itself.

Calling me a "materialist" is such a weak straw assumption. Do you think people form neat teams?

[Ramu]

Actually you're the whole enchilada

[Impenitent]

I Am that I Am. Namaste.

I yam what I yam. Popeye the sailor man.

-Imp

[Ramu]

Very witty, Wilde, very witty