Non-duality and Ethics & Morality

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Mind is of brain. Brain thinks.

Some would disagree. Thought arises in the mind and registers in the brain, but the mind and the brain are separate, though connected. So we can think without a brain (unless you believe that those who have died have lost the ability to think) and conversely (if we can still the mind) we can have a brain with no thoughts.

Peace

[Starman]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

You misunderstood what I said I said the concept of non-duality that the new age movement has is ridiculous
I didn't say THE concept of non-duality was a new age concept.

Thank you for the clarification; I did misunderstand what you posted.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Starman

...
"I think therefore I am" is a faulty statement, because yogis and others throughout history have transcendent thought, and they still am.

Actually, without thought nothing is. As you are sure you are right, so I'm sure I'm right. Thought is the seed for all creation. No thought equals no creation.

Decartes said those words in a different context than presented here, but that statement is also accurate in the way I explained above.

The phrase first appeared (in French) in Descartes's 1637 Discourse on the Method in the first paragraph of its fourth part:

(French:) Ainsi, à cause que nos sens nous trompent quelquefois, je voulus supposer qu'il n'y avait aucune chose qui fût telle qu'ils nous la font imaginer; Et parce qu'il y a des hommes qui se méprennent en raisonnant, même touchant les plus simples matières de Géométrie, et y font des Paralogismes, jugeant que j'étais sujet à faillir autant qu'aucun autre, je rejetai comme fausses toutes les raisons que j'avais prises auparavant pour Démonstrations; Et enfin, considérant que toutes les mêmes pensées que nous avons étant éveillés nous peuvent aussi venir quand nous dormons, sans qu'il y en ait aucune raison pour lors qui soit vraie, je me résolus de feindre que toutes les choses qui m'étaient jamais entrées en l'esprit n'étaient non plus vraies que les illusions de mes songes. Mais aussitôt après je pris garde que, pendant que je voulais ainsi penser que tout était faux, il fallait nécessairement que moi qui le pensais fusse quelque chose; Et remarquant que cette vérité, je pense, donc je suis,[e] était si ferme et si assurée, que toutes les plus extravagantes suppositions des Sceptiques n'étaient pas capables de l'ébranler, je jugeai que je pouvais la recevoir sans scrupule pour le premier principe de la Philosophie que je cherchais.[f][g]

(English:) Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[e] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Here's how I understand it.

Mind is of brain. Brain thinks. Brain is matter. Matter is limited by time, space and causation. Dual by its very nature.

Awareness experiences. Awareness is Atman. Atman is not limited by time, space or causality. Atman is Brahman. Non-dual by its very nature.

Meditation is a technique to get mind out of the way so Atman can be realized. Once realized and especially to the degree of full enlightenment mind and body are no longer of any great concern.

Not to be intentionally rude, but I feel that these are the thoughts of a person standing outside the door, imagining they are right inside by the fireplace where the coziness is.

But if it satisfies you, go ahead.

Jl

Originally Posted by inavalan

Actually, without thought nothing is. As you are sure you are right, so I'm sure I'm right. Thought is the seed for all creation. No thought equals no creation.

All this may arise from the original thought, but said yogis have transcended thought. I don’t believe that these points are contradictory.

Jl

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by janielee

All this may arise from the original thought, but said yogis have transcended thought. I don’t believe that these points are contradictory.

Jl

What does it mean to "transcend thought"? It seems that those who promote this idea, path, consider the thought as originating in their brains. That's an incorrect assertion. (as Chopra does here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kca9BIvv3w)

[Starman]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Actually, without thought nothing is. As you are sure you are right, so I'm sure I'm right. Thought is the seed for all creation. No thought equals no creation.

Context provided on both accounts, i.e. you are correct in the larger sense, and I am correct in that when
one meditates on silence they transcend thought and they still exist.

I embrace that the entire creation is a thought form, but I also embrace that if I transcend my thoughts,
and venture into a silent non-dulistic state while meditating, my physical body will still exist. In that respect
I think therefore I am is a faulty statement. Of course there is also the purest interpretation of what Descartes
actually meant.

Another quote comes to mind, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Anglican Bishop and philosopher George Berkeley theorized that perception creates reality; he felt that everything
that exists depends on the person who is perceiving it.

Now what is the difference between thought and perception? One might say that a thought is generated in the
mind and perception is a product of the five senses. Not that the mind and five senses are that dissimilar.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by inavalan

What does it mean to "transcend thought"? It seems that those who promote this idea, path, consider the thought as originating in their brains. That's an incorrect assertion. (as Chopra does here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kca9BIvv3w)

To transcend thought, to me, means to go beyond thought; to have no thoughts at all, like a new born baby.
In my transcendent experiences, while in quiet meditation, there is no thought; this is what I experience,
this is what I mean by transcending thought, and in the experience of transcending thought one might
also transcend emotion.

I embrace that we are multi-dimensional beings and exist on a physical level, mental level, emotional, level, and
spiritual level, simultaneously, although every so-called level is actually a realm, all of the same substance with
varying frequencies. We can transcend the physical, mental, and emotional. This is not my belief rather it is my
experience, or it may be what I believe about my experience. We all have our beliefs.

[God-Like]

One cannot prise apart awareness of I AM with a thought of I AM while of the mind .

To transcend thought would be to transcend mind and there would be no I AM to be made aware of .

Peeps think that not thinking equates to no mind as in Zen philosophy but to simply be not thinking hasn't transcended thought .. for there is awareness of I AM present in reflection of the mindful world .



x daz x

Originally Posted by janielee

Not to be intentionally rude, but I feel that these are the thoughts of a person standing outside the door, imagining they are right inside by the fireplace where the coziness is.

But if it satisfies you, go ahead.

Jl

Perhaps Sadghuru can explain it better.

https://youtu.be/LNyJgNjCDuU

At one point early in my meditation practice I thought I had silenced the mind. LOL! Now I find there are many far more subtle thoughts always bubbling up, but the difference is they are wisps of isolated and fragmentary thoughts, ghosts of thoughts and they mostly don't have the power to take off on their own into much more substantial thought trains leading to body-mind reactivity.

This is why I say meditative practices are only techniques, means to an end. Methods to realize the tyranny of mind and then set us free. To realize and experience awareness is not of mind and in fact "I" is not of mind but of awareness.

EDIT: The other point to consider is Raja Yoga is but one path to realization and enlightenment. The other paths do not require quieting of mind and that implies a quiet mind in and of itself is not realization or enlightenment.