The Madness of Nonduality.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Agree with zorkchop. The mind cannot understand that which is greater than the mind. Which is frustrating for the mind because the mind likes to put things into neat little mental boxes and then it believes that it has understood.

This is nothing to do with traditions or assumptions. This comes from penetrating to those realms of consciousness where mind does not exist.

Iamit may quote from Nisargadatta to support his opinions, but let us consider other things which Nisargadatta says:

Distrust your mind and go beyond. [Then you will find] the direct experience of being, knowing and loving.

To go beyond the mind, you must be silent and quiet. Peace and silence, silence and peace - this is the way beyond. Stop asking questions.

Just look away from all that happens in your mind and bring it to the feeling "I am". The "I am" is not a direction. It is the negation of all direction.

And regarding the need for practice:

Try to be, only to be. The all-important word is "try". Allot enough time daily for sitting quietly and trying, just trying, to go beyond the personality with its addictions and obsessions. Don't ask how, it cannot be explained. You just keep on trying until you succeed. If you persevere, there can be no failure. What matters supremely is sincerity, earnestness; you must really have had surfeit of being the person you are; now see the urgent need of being free of this unnecessary self-identification with a bundle of memories and habits. This steady resistance against the unnecessary is the secret of success.

Meditation is a deliberate attempt to pierce into the higher states of consciousness and finally go beyond it. The art of meditation is the art of shifting the focus of attention to ever subtler levels, without losing one's grip on the levels left behind. ... But you must be energetic when you take to meditation. It is definitely not a part-time occupation. Limit your interests and activities to what is needed for you and your dependents' barest needs. Save all your energies and time for breaking the wall your mind had built around you. Believe me, you will not regret.

Peace

Yes Niz said different things to different seekers so there is room for both approaches depending on the character of seekers. if only tradition could appreciate that and drop the reactionary response that tradition has frequently exhibited when new approaches come on the scene. There are numerous examples in history (Religion/Evolution for one) which can inform seekers not to be intimidated by the establishment traditional opinion.

[LadyVictoria]

Originally Posted by Iamit

For the nonduality concept to have an impact (resonance), the madness of rejecting the evidence of our own eyes, that the many separate things are in reality merely a manifestation of difference where there is no difference whatsoever, can surprisingly result in the end of the search without any further understanding or experience.

"The madness of rejecting the evidence of your own eyes"

The eyes are merely one vehicle of perception. How is the mere act of perceiving something the evidence of anything? There's an awful lot of things that are evident that we cannot see. For instance can you see the trillions of cells that are currently moving around and harmoniously functioning beneath your skin in order for you to have a healthily breathing body? Do you know where and when those cells are born where they go when they die?

Take some time to really think about that.

You can't see the cells make up your eyes. You can't feel the cells that make up your nerves. You can't taste the cells that make up your tongue. Would you yet deny the evidence of those cells because they are not seen of your own eyes or perceived by other senses?

Yet without these trillions of individual living entities we call "cells" being born, performing a function, and then dying and being replaced by newborn cells you wouldn't be here to see these words and read my sentences and have a brain struggling there to make sense of it all, would you?

Are you not anything more than a collection of a trillion more other things? And those trillions of other things that make-up your body are in a constant state of birth, life death and birth again?

Now try to imagine you are just one of your trillions of cells. Try to image yourself as red blood cell. Envision your life cycle from mother marrow, to oxygen and nutrient carrier and then dead and flushed down with your other waste. Could you imagine that?

And you might think to yourself why even bother with such an exercise? What's the point? Should you care about any of the trillions of cells that make up your body?

Take some time to put some serious thought into that.

Why should you care? Should you care? Do you care? How could you care?

What is caring? What is that feeling of caring? And how does my conscious mental relationship between my mind and the trillions of cells that exist within my body relate to my individual identity's relationship with the rest of the cosmos?

Maybe you should care about the cells in your body or at least try to care. Why not?

I think the madness is thinking our perceptions are actually telling us anything. There's so much more to us than we perceive. To do such an exercise would require a huge stretch of imagination. There is no other way to connect with your individual cells except through your imagination and how you choose to feel about them if anything.

Our consciousness is split into two modes of perception. One mode is limited by the laws of physics and the other is unlimited and not bound by physics. One realm is that of the physical world and the other is the realm of your imagination.

You exist in both realms and you are very much aware of the fact that you exist in both realms.

The realms are connected. One realm cannot exist without the other. The realms reflect one another. Once you learn to consciously connect the two realms you'll be able to more vividly see and experience the connection.

I'm offering a key one of many keys but this is a special key because it's my key and maybe it can help you unlock the secret too.

The key is this: Be the guide of your imagination. Do not allow your imagination to guide you. Be the guide of your imagination.

Once you gain control of your imagination your start to gain control over your thoughts and opinions, you start to unravel the secrets to the power and energy of your emotions and feelings. Now you are in a place where your beliefs begin to morph and reshape and as your beliefs alter so does your perception of life.

I think that's all I care to add to this conversation. Enjoy!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

... and then to singularity when we vaporise in the bliss of Samadhi.

Happy soul-suiciding. My understanding of the 'problem' with this is the inevitiability of 'resurrection' (i.e. of one's soul re-cohering) into relationality with others Being. Permanence (of anything!) is an 'illusion' in my view. My philosophy jibes with wahst's said in the Gita, I think: "There was never a time when I*was not, nor thou, nor these princes were not; there will never be a time when we shall cease to be. ... That which is not, shall never be; that which is, shall never cease to be. To the wise, these truths are self-evident."

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by LadyVictoria

"The madness of rejecting the evidence of your own eyes"

The eyes are merely one vehicle of perception. How is the mere act of perceiving something the evidence of anything? There's an awful lot of things that are evident that we cannot see. For instance can you see the trillions of cells that are currently moving around and harmoniously functioning beneath your skin in order for you to have a healthily breathing body? Do you know where and when those cells are born where they go when they die?

Take some time to really think about that.

You can't see the cells make up your eyes. You can't feel the cells that make up your nerves. You can't taste the cells that make up your tongue. Would you yet deny the evidence of those cells because they are not seen of your own eyes or perceived by other senses?

Yet without these trillions of individual living entities we call "cells" being born, performing a function, and then dying and being replaced by newborn cells you wouldn't be here to see these words and read my sentences and have a brain struggling there to make sense of it all, would you?

Are you not anything more than a collection of a trillion more other things? And those trillions of other things that make-up your body are in a constant state of birth, life death and birth again?

Now try to imagine you are just one of your trillions of cells. Try to image yourself as red blood cell. Envision your life cycle from mother marrow, to oxygen and nutrient carrier and then dead and flushed down with your other waste. Could you imagine that?

And you might think to yourself why even bother with such an exercise? What's the point? Should you care about any of the trillions of cells that make up your body?

Take some time to put some serious thought into that.

Why should you care? Should you care? Do you care? How could you care?

What is caring? What is that feeling of caring? And how does my conscious mental relationship between my mind and the trillions of cells that exist within my body relate to my individual identity's relationship with the rest of the cosmos?

Maybe you should care about the cells in your body or at least try to care. Why not?

I think the madness is thinking our perceptions are actually telling us anything. There's so much more to us than we perceive. To do such an exercise would require a huge stretch of imagination. There is no other way to connect with your individual cells except through your imagination and how you choose to feel about them if anything.

Our consciousness is split into two modes of perception. One mode is limited by the laws of physics and the other is unlimited and not bound by physics. One realm is that of the physical world and the other is the realm of your imagination.

You exist in both realms and you are very much aware of the fact that you exist in both realms.

The realms are connected. One realm cannot exist without the other. The realms reflect one another. Once you learn to consciously connect the two realms you'll be able to more vividly see and experience the connection.

I'm offering a key one of many keys but this is a special key because it's my key and maybe it can help you unlock the secret too.

The key is this: Be the guide of your imagination. Do not allow your imagination to guide you. Be the guide of your imagination.

Once you gain control of your imagination your start to gain control over your thoughts and opinions, you start to unravel the secrets to the power and energy of your emotions and feelings. Now you are in a place where your beliefs begin to morph and reshape and as your beliefs alter so does your perception of life.

I think that's all I care to add to this conversation. Enjoy!

That may be the key for you, but for some your key has no meaning at all because they see lots of separate things in the world around them and yet it is asserted by nonduality that they are all One. Madness:)

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Iamit

That may be the key for you, but for some your key has no meaning at all because they see lots of separate things in the world around them and yet it is asserted by nonduality that they are all One. Madness:)

Hi-Ho Iamit -

what follows is my attempt to explain what (I think) Jesus actually meant when he said “I and my Father are one” which explanation may have a bearing on the 'ships passing in the night' conversational 'happening' here:

Many would rather simply believe that by saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Jesus unequivocally asserted that the gestalts of his and his/our Father’s spirits were absolutely identical, that they were literally one and the same aspect of Life in action; case closed. Such statement may certainly be 'read' that way and, taken by itself, used to support God-concept co-opting narratives such as the one presented in the Nicene Creed which proclaims that the personage of Jesus was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;” etc. But it may also be taken to mean that Jesus thought and felt that his and said Father-God’s spirits were dynamically integrated and functionally co-operational, and so united as ‘one’, metaphorically speaking, in terms of purpose and consequence – analogous to the way in which partners who aren’t identical may accomplish something they both desire when and as they work together in a complementary manner, which they couldn’t and so wouldn’t be able to creatively accomplish if each worked alone. (This is what holism really means, by the way: “Holism is based upon idea that: the whole is more than the sum of its constitutive parts, so reduction of the whole to its constitutive elements eliminates some factors which are present only when a being is seen as a whole. For example, synergy is generated through the interaction of parts but it does not exist if we take parts alone.”)

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Hi-Ho Iamit -

what follows is my attempt to explain what (I think) Jesus actually meant when he said “I and my Father are one” which explanation may have a bearing on the 'ships passing in the night' conversational 'happening' here:

Many would rather simply believe that by saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Jesus unequivocally asserted that the gestalts of his and his/our Father’s spirits were absolutely identical, that they were literally one and the same aspect of Life in action; case closed. Such statement may certainly be 'read' that way and, taken by itself, used to support God-concept co-opting narratives such as the one presented in the Nicene Creed which proclaims that the personage of Jesus was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;” etc. But it may also be taken to mean that Jesus thought and felt that his and said Father-God’s spirits were dynamically integrated and functionally co-operational, and so united as ‘one’, metaphorically speaking, in terms of purpose and consequence – analogous to the way in which partners who aren’t identical may accomplish something they both desire when and as they work together in a complementary manner, which they couldn’t and so wouldn’t be able to creatively accomplish if each worked alone. (This is what holism really means, by the way: “Holism is based upon idea that: the whole is more than the sum of its constitutive parts, so reduction of the whole to its constitutive elements eliminates some factors which are present only when a being is seen as a whole. For example, synergy is generated through the interaction of parts but it does not exist if we take parlone.”)

Yes, like your examples, there are various descriptions in nonduality about the relationship between Oneness and the appearance of the many separate looking things. Most regard the latter as a very convincing, solid looking, manifestation of difference where there is no difference whatsoever.

The nonduality story asserts this in order to end the search because it follows that there is only Oneness, always has been, and always will be, only Oneness, so not possible to become what alread is, and noone to become it.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes Niz said different things to different seekers so there is room for both approaches depending on the character of seekers. if only tradition could appreciate that and drop the reactionary response that tradition has frequently exhibited when new approaches come on the scene. There are numerous examples in history (Religion/Evolution for one) which can inform seekers not to be intimidated by the establishment traditional opinion.

Just wondering why you are referring to Sri Nisagardatta Maharaj as Niz ? Convenience ? Or is there something deeper behind it, like breaking with tradition or something ?

********************************************

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Just wondering why you are referring to Sri Nisagardatta Maharaj as Niz ? Convenience ? Or is there something deeper behind it, like breaking with tradition or something ?

********************************************

Its a shorthand.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Its a shorthand.

Ok thanks for your reply. Kind of has a ring about it perhaps it will catch on ! ok thanks once again.

[utopiandreamchild]

"Nonduality be "positive" not negative. Amen