Are WORDS basically dualistic?
 

To me, describing nonduality with words is like unintentionally cloaking it with duality on some level (if not all levels).

Is discussion regarding nonduality akin to discussion on the complexities of a wardrobe?

Speaking of cloaks, one wears a cloak, one is not a cloak. Or as Philippe said in the movie The Man in the Iron Mask, "I wear the mask, it does not wear me."

So as a writer I recognize the irony of posting this but for some reason I find value in it.

It goes without saying that I welcome all other takes on this.

Btw, that is a nice shirt you're wearing!

Side Bar: It is as if words convey that nonduality is nonexistent/ unreal and yet it is all that exists.

It seems that we use words to express thoughts and feelings. With good will it goes back and forth in the attempt to understand each other.

It happens here in duality but that is not a reason to regard the attempt as invalid......is it?

Of course it is ironic, but as this is a forum, words are mostly what we have to use in this medium :smile:

As a writer on the subject I have to say no, it is not invalid. But is there a position where it is?


I am reminded of that many times, blossomingtree, as I put mind to thought, pen to paper.

If nonduality were two, its language would be heart-to-heart and beyond all logic.

:love9:

Indeed, swampgrl. In a little stroke of synchronicity, this exact theme crossed my mind today as well - the irony of words in the non-duality forum, so thanks for posting.

If the intention is simply to invalidate the other point of view then the attempt to understand each other is not the objective so in that sense can be said to be invalid.

No matter how elegant the words, duality can only hint at ________.

It cannot say or be.

All named things (i.e. ‘nonduality’) take on the appearance of things which is the realm of duality.
Just pointing out the trickery of mind/ words. Obviously ‘nonduality’ is a placeholder.

If the mask has been removed I wonder how you would see all this?

Good question.

Perhaps see it as it really isn't.

If nonduality had a humor,........ what mask?

Seeing things as they are not is a positive way to not get entangled in yourself and open to a new way of relating. The issue with language as I have learned is that language does change through the awareness of yourself (more complete) in a non dual state, but if the whole self hasn't integrated this more holistically as you, then you will notice language will still fall prey to a dual response..

The subtle and not so subtle energy that flows through words often depicts the nature of integration. Its all about the "feel" aspect that many over ride believing the mind is a solo player to ending duality, when its the whole self inclusive as a total expression of itself.

IF non duality had a humour what mask would it wear- Hmm let me ponder for a bit.

Wouldn't be the mask of ponderability?

whether you call it invalid based on that criterion depends on your point of view, e.g. on what you value. I'm given to understand that some people quite like a good fight and might find this very validating...

Your post, FallingLeaves, 'spired the following post. Related?

A player is not a player until cards are dealt. Being a player certainly validates that one is in the game and everything that entails.

In the beginning was the word (cards dealt).

perhaps... but I see that there is quite a bit of disagreement on what it 'entails'.... so can't validate that the idea of disagreement is itself invalid. Because if it were as invalid as we might wish to suppose, it wouldn't have been one of the cards played?

Yes that seems to be so. By invalid I simply mean in terms of not being interested in mutual undertanding which I value.

How would you describe your purpose when engaging in discussion?

Depends on the game. In some games the joker is used.

I think it relates to duality as agreement/disagreement, and the very meaning of agreeing is opposed to the meaning in disagreeing. In a more fundamental way, this pertains to the known, as we agree on what we think is true (the opposite being obvious). This is the dialectic structure of knowledgeable discourse. To support what we 'know is true' we compile evidence to support it, and in a more or less 'argument format', set about convincing ourselves and others. Another person doen't wan't to to be convinced, so they point out all the flaws in the evidence as they disagree.

This then becomes focused on the identity and it becomes I'm right/you're wrong, which is a power dynamic created by the relative subject positions. It is also obvious how authority enters here, and the 'one who is right' will draw on authority figures such as a great spiritual teacher in order to ampify the power of their voice, and defeat the other. As we can see the dual element litters this whole passage so far.

Discourse itself, however, is not necessarily dualistic, because the dialectic structure of a friendly conversation just ebbs and flows, changing subjects, and no one knows where it is going to go - there is no agenda pushing it in any particular direction, and no one trying to convince anyone else of 'what is true'. The conversation can go one for hours, personal stories intermixed with topical subjects, without agreement or disagreement, and even where agreement/disagreement arises, no importance is given to it, and all party's world view is affected.

So basically, words in use are not necessarily dualistic. Indeed, the meaning of a word is very broad and nuanced within the larger context. If we were to say words are dualistic, we would have to assume all communications are dualistic, body language, facial expression, expressive sounds like 'mmmm'. How can it be dualistic when 'mmmmm' may communicate contemplating, something delicious, physical attraction and a number of other meanings?

Wouldn't be? Or would be did you mean?

Your words confused me somewhat..

Either way.....

Maybe dualistic isn't necessarily the right word, maybe words of multiplicity could be used for better understanding however I see multiplicity as an extension of duplicity so there is that.

The trunk of the tree is not separate from the branches. If words are not necessarily dualistic, doesn't that make them dualistic by default?

Ok.

Well.

This comes to mind to your original question.

If non duality had a humour...what mask?

What mask?

Non dual humour wouldnt create splits at the seams if you laughed to hard..
Non dual humour to a Gemini would actually seal the rift between the twins that tore them apart and separated them (probably at the seams from laughing to hard at someones non dual humour mask)

I like it! I like it!

Even the tragedy mask hints of this at times with things like "why so serious?"

Except, at the time, it can be serious when it happens directly. After the fact the words "why so serious?" are understood from a wider context.

The mask has been known to have an amnesic effect in so as the story goes.

Word.

I like your approval ratings..:wink:


Uhuh. Made me think of a song. Funny lately to actually remind me to not fall back into tragedy masks I have songs playing in my head that actually show me how to turn it around. It's quite the tool kit to have..haha


This is true. Through process we get to experience more and an expanded view, which supports wellbeing and change of heart..


Which mask?

I'm expressive what can I say? :hug3:

I think I want a copy of your toolkit while adding my personal touch to the copy. Actually I've probably been building mine all along but never thought of it in that way. How often do you have trouble finding the right tool in your toolkit?

Which mask?

I'm glad you asked. My mask I suspect. At times, it all but falls off and it is those times when there is awakening while I am awake.

Don't know exactly what that will look like when it wears completely off but in the mean time, here I am!

It basically depends on the kind structure a discourse takes, because words apart from having definitions in themselves as basic symbols of meaning, also have nuances which shift in context when in actual use, so the use of words is the way we communicate meaning, and definitions of words depend on such contexts, and then we have the nuance of tone of voice, inflection, creating sarcasm, irony and subtler 'between the lines' meanings which aren't even said, or even mean the exact opposite of what is said, but are no less understood in communication.

When the dialectic is knowledge based the premise is dualistic, right/wrong, agree/disagree, true/false, and there is always a power dynamic involved in this, where 'authority' means both the expert (as the site of knowledge) on the matter and a person in powerful position, but language is usually used just to convey meanings, and not knowledge.

So, we can forget the knowledge based discourse because obviously its very premise is dualistic, and there's really no question in that regard. In the other case where only meaning is concerned, well, imagine we read a poem or a novel - then agree/disagree, right/wrong doesn't make sense, and is therefore meaningless. Hence the straight cut black vs. white between duals becomes blurred and we enter a very grey area... which is no less understandable.

Words are symbols/labels represented within a duality based perception. The whole show is based on observer and observed and every facet, level and expression between those points gives way to what we know as experience. The experience is not possible without an experiencer in place and so experience itself is anchored by separation. Of course the words are dual as they quite fittingly confirm the foundation it comes from...your identity.

I have a good one for all you wonderful people.

Word, word, does it starve off oblivion or sustain it?

Isn't that from an assumption that the world is dualistic? What if it is actually singular, would that not make all words singular?

I have been in satsangs where there were spontaneous prolonged moments (think the better part of a half hour) of silence where everyone was experiencing some non-dualistic moment of bliss.
But like every experience it passes, mind begin to stir and questions arise. Some of these get asked which are then attempted to be answered even though everyone was sitting in blissful unified silence just minutes before..

Does that diminish any one of both experiences?
No.. It just shows that some states are perceived as more pleasurable than others.
Based on your temperament I guess to some the silence was more pleasurable to others the Q and A that followed..

Where in that satsang was there ever a duality other than in the way it was perceived?

With Love

But temperament can change like the flickering TV and so too can what is perceived as pleasurable change.

Pain/ pleasure, one fiat coin.

Pain is a pain, pleasure is a pleasure.

The witness is always the same?

The body can hurt in ways the witness can't ignore. Nothing will make that feel right when it's broken, but there could be some higher level coping mechanisms.

The ego, psychosocial anxiety, well that's complicated.

The chemical bath of the brain, the way it's wired, so many challenges for the spirit?

And lets not forget the joy we can suck out off our minds and bodies. But what is true joy and liberation?


Duality is this matter we are. It's physical, there is such a thing as pure consciousness it seems to m/e.

The awareness between the words... I am.

That's what the biblical God? was referring too... I am, but let go of the words.

A nondual God? in a dual world... that branches out into this complexity of creation?

Thats where we come in....

Honesty is direct but it comes indirect via duality.

They do. So they are not a measure.. neither are words. What they convey or stirr up.
Usefull pointers though. Depending on perception

With Love
Eelco

It depends. On the one hand, if you are looking for truth, you may never be consistantly sustained for there may always be something hidden that contradicts the truth you think you have discovered. See S Kierkegaarde "The parable of the Highwayman".

If, on the other hand, such parables resonate to the extent that the idea that one can know the truth is trancended, then resonance with an idea may be enough to sustain. and may even end one's spiritual seach. In the context of non duality, the idea resonated with may be All is One.

The state one may need to be in to match frequencies may well be the state you are in. Nisargadatta described it as a most beneficial state for such a resonance to occur. There seems to be something going on for your interest in the subject.

Let's take those three words, All is One.

For one person those three words can be deceiving through the lens of their perception thus sustaining oblivion while for another it hints of that which is beyond mere words and its extensions starving off oblivion.

Is that a restatement of what you mean by "depends" or am I off base?

Non Duality is like reading between the lines where nothing is perceived but is.

Those 3 words have meanings which I suggest are clear. Lets deal with that first. Do you accept that the meanings are clear for those 3 words?? If not which meanings do you prefer? This is simply to define what we are talking about. Its no problem if our understanding of those words is different cause we can proceed on the definitions, an understanding, you prefer.

So would you are say that audible perception is in the beholders ear, But only if there isn't a beholder??

:tongue:

I get it, anything can have holes poked in it with the right poker.

I'm a clay pigeon operating a trap thrower.

Shoot!