Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:42 am
I didn't specify what thoughts are made of, but that they are containers.
Since no such containers were ever found, you are making them up. Containers and the meaning they contain are two distinct elements you speak of.
Obviously my quote must have contained meaning or you could not have discerned the meaning and then replied to it. You're being argumentative and dogmatic.
In other words people who don't agree with you are argumentative, dogmatic and wrong. And you seem to be the most argumentative poster on this forum. I saw words but no thought-container. And I probably constructed a different meaning from those words. I'm trying to guess what you mean.
Maybe you don't know that meaning isn't really transmitted; the same words can be interpreted differently by different people. Most people learn this in childhood.
What evidence? You're telling me duality and logic are human-made, flawed, unable to "transcend", etc and therefore you couldn't possibly have evidence.
Subject-object, container-meaning etc. you seem to see literal pairs everywhere. Most of these don't exist at all, as confirmed by scientific evidence. There are naturally ocurring pairs, mostly in particle physics, but we can't generalize that to everything; those mostly apply to the subatomic level and have almost nothing to do with human thinking.
Abstract means "not attached or a part of anything". Dual is attached to the duality while nondual is off by itself in abstractness.
Abstract usually means a representation of something; it's a thought, idea.
Nondual is not off by itself; if anything, it's the lack of representations.
Please explain the perversion of logic you have in mind then.
Logic is something like: how our concepts relate to each other. Dualistic logic is one form of logic (and dualistic dual logic usually means binary logic; yes or no, 1 or 0; that's not quite the same as your dualistic relative pair logic).
There are also other forms of logic; that doesn't automatically make them perversions as you claim.
I guess nondual logic would be that a lack of fundamental divisions, separations is logical; fundamental divisions, separations are illogical. (And of course I also use dualistic binary and fuzzy logics when I think they are appropriate, depending on context. The nondual understanding incorporates the dualistic understanding.)
Serendipper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:24 am
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:59 am
Just admit it, you actually believe that existence is one big conscious something, that "strives" to become more and more complex.
Yes something like that.
Serendipper wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:07 am
The way I see it, the whole universe is the actor and Serendipper is the character being played.
Who's being more dogmatic here. We've seen in the other threads, that you first assume that your scientifically unsupported idea that the universe is some kind of big conscious something with an intention, is correct, and then you argue from there.
Sure, the Hindu idea that we are all the Brahman in disguise, and the Brahman plays hide and seek with itself forever, is an excellent metaphor or pointer for nondual awakening, nondual realization; but you seem to have missed what it's pointing to, while also taking some elements of it too seriously. There doesn't need to be an actual universal being that's playing; there's just
this.
Anyway, I don't think this is going anywhere so let's agree to disagree.