Are WORDS basically dualistic?

Originally Posted by Universal.Vibe

01001001 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00101100 00100000 01000010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100111 01110101 01100101 01110011 01110011 00100000 01001001 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101001 01100111 01101000 01110100 00100000 01110011 01100101 01101110 01110011 01100101 00100000 01101001 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110

Translating binary is a dodgy science, unless we know which conversion table to use.
Anyhow. In your heart you know SO does everyone.


With Love
Eelco

[Shivani Devi]

Unless one attaches a meaning or a concept to the words, then words themselves are not dualistic.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by swampgrl

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.

Thoughts and words have their practical value in life.

They become dualistic and a cause of suffering, only when we start making the impersonal personal and creating personal stories filled with fantasies and grievances, cravings and aversions.

Thought used for productive issues like work or planning or calculation is not dualistic. Thought becomes dualistic only when it becomes associated with past psychological memories of pleasure and pain, resulting consequently in likes and dislikes, cravings and aversions which create the false self or ego.

So use thought only for productive work purposes, and when it ends, switch off thought, and rest in the Self or Awareness which is one's true identity, and from which peace and joy are self-generated.

This is the proper use of the thought and mind. Otherwise, identification with personal stories leads one to compulsive thinking and emoting, which obscures the underlying Self or Awareness which is changeless and our true nature.

It is similar to sitting in a cinema theatre or a compelling drama , where we start identifying with the characters and feel fear or sadness or tension or anguish temporarily forgetting that it is just a film or drama.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Thoughts and words have their practical value in life.

U/I (or anyone 'else) can't engage with or be 'anything' if U/I or they are 'occupied' with being the only THANG. Boring!

Originally Posted by ajay00

They become dualistic and a cause of suffering, only when we start making the impersonal personal and creating personal stories filled with fantasies and grievances, cravings and aversions.

Note: its is also true that, by becoming 'dualistic', they also are the 'cause' of 'joy' and (interrelational) 'love' - which are also 'filled' with fantasies and grievances, cravings and aversions.

From the book I wrote:

"More than two and a half thousand years ago in what is now India, pondering the human predicament in light of what was then and there believed and known, the one most have since called Buddha,a because distress was so pervasive, saw suffering [what a 'Bogeyman' that is!) as a central feature of earthly Life, and, because people were generally so selfish in aspiration, identified desire itself as the root‑cause of such condition. Conse*quently, as a first order of business, he counseled a nirvanic state be sought wherein desire is renounced and, if not relinquished completely, at least held in abeyance.

But, [and, IMO, this is a BIG 'but' ] though extremely beneficial in many ways, such advice is partial and therefore deficient unless there’s com*plementary learning. Because it focuses on the problem of suffering and ways to bring about its cessation, those who ‘religiously’ attend to it frequently end up giving short shrift to what is equally, if not more important: the why and wherefore of creative proficiency and joyful expression. While it is true that much that is of negative consequence can be prevented or, at least, overcome by relinquishment of desire, we won’t bring about, and so won’t enjoy, greater goodness unless we comprehend and learn to constructively channel the dynamic of Creativity.

Since Life is Creativity and Creativity is causal purpose in action, desirelessness [IMO] is far from being an optimal goal (assuming such a state could actually be sustained,a it would be totally Life-denying!). It is therefore important that we recognize that focusing on extinguishing desire, more than as a temporary exercise which enables us to develop the equanimity necessary to stop ourselves from being swayed by instinct, since other creatively crucial tasks—namely, developing and extending our capacity for constructive rela*tionship and beneficent generativity—are then neglected, may not only be a waste of precious vitality, but result in atrophy and be crippling in effect in the long run.

For Life to flower and be more fruitful, desire must be discriminatingly refined and selectively accentuated. That is, what we desire and how we go about trying to attain it must be beneficially altered by greater awareness and under*standing of the unitary nature and psychospiritual dynamic of Being. To promote such occurrence, relevant truth has been repeatedly stated; and I do so again: Individually, each of us is a transient aspect of an interwoven, ongoing whole. No one, as such, continues forever, and, except in illusion, no one has, or can ever have, a separate existence of his or her own. We maximize or minimize our own essential validity and creative potency to the degree to which we do or don’t cooperate with and contribute to developments that go on around us. Of itself, selfishness [including 'self'ishly aiming to end 'suffering'] goes nowhere in the end."

'Up' is a meaning-FULL word/concept. Wake UP ↑ (LOL) . folks!

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Note: its is also true that, by becoming 'dualistic', they also are the 'cause' of 'joy' and (interrelational) 'love' - which are also 'filled' with fantasies and grievances, cravings and aversions.

By cessation of dualism, one does not cease to be the cause of joy and interrelational love. Instead without any psychological content or baggage obscuring the natural state of being, one would then enjoy peace and joy that arises from the natural state, and be a cause of joy and 'interrelational' love to others as well.

The dualistic mind, which operates by words and images, similarly sees the other as per its mental projections, and may not see reality as it is to relate with the other person correctly and effectively.

If the friend or lover does not correspond to the dualistic mind's image of 'what should be' , it can lead to conflict.

Whereas the nondual mind accepts people as they are without any preconceived assumptions or images due to its focus on 'what is' rather than 'what should be'.

Originally Posted by davidsun

From the book I wrote:
[indent]"More than two and a half thousand years ago in what is now India, pondering the human predicament in light of what was then and there believed and known, the one most have since called Buddha,a because distress was so pervasive, saw suffering [what a 'Bogeyman' that is!) as a central feature of earthly Life, and, because people were generally so selfish in aspiration, identified desire itself as the root‑cause of such condition. Conse*quently, as a first order of business, he counseled a nirvanic state be sought wherein desire is renounced and, if not relinquished completely, at least held in abeyance.

But, [and, IMO, this is a BIG 'but' ] though extremely beneficial in many ways, such advice is partial and therefore deficient unless there’s com*plementary learning. Because it focuses on the problem of suffering and ways to bring about its cessation, those who ‘religiously’ attend to it frequently end up giving short shrift to what is equally, if not more important: the why and wherefore of creative proficiency and joyful expression. While it is true that much that is of negative consequence can be prevented or, at least, overcome by relinquishment of desire, we won’t bring about, and so won’t enjoy, greater goodness unless we comprehend and learn to constructively channel the dynamic of Creativity.

Creativity or intuitive insights arises from the abeyance of the mind and thought. Desire in the form of cravings or aversions prevent this ability to be anchored in the blissful Self which is also the source of intuition.

The nondual mind is the master of desire, thought and emotion and uses them at will for its practical purposes, while the dualistic mind is enslaved by the same and acts as per the whims and fancies of its compulsive thinking and emoting processes, missing existential reality as it is, and suffering in the process.

The true artist operates from the Self and not the mind with its transient thoughts and emotions.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by ajay00

The true artist operates from the Self and not the mind with its transient thoughts and emotions.

Recognizing the apparent wisdom of your conceptualizations and theory-izations relating thereto, Ajay, I would like you to register the fact that I think your 'conclusion', as quoted above, is 'pure' NON-sense (and that is being polite , if you get my drift!).

This because I believe (and submit for consideration) that 'mind' is an innate/ubiquitous/inextricable faculty/attribute of All That Is and so every 'element' with it.

'U' (meaning your 'perceptions' in the above regard) are therefore "'I'-am-'above' all 'stupid' Life," ego-tistically deluded, IMO.

From the writing I am currently composing:

"As propositionally presented in the preceding chapter, The Entity of Life (which is The Flow of all Creation) of which you and I and everyone else in existence are a vital part is the outworking and feedback-infusing dynamism of the omnipresent, Love and Joy focused dynamic of The Essence of Life (which is Creativity Itself), said Essence and Entity both conjointly aiming to express and (thereby) experience Love and Joy in every possible way to the utmost possible degree. Here now, in order to explicate the meanings of Jesus’ above-quoted statements, I articulate and expound upon the corollary implications of said proposition, to wit: Every aspect of Life’s Presence (all 'artists' are non-exceptionally included, Ajay) is an emanation of and so, by virtue of the Power of said Essence, is ‘internally’ endowed with (1) the capacity to be conscious to some degree, which capacity for consciousness, or mind, is what enables ‘it’ to experience (i.e.to expeerience) whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’*is therefore constitutionally capable of experiencing (and so potentially respond to); and (2) the motive‧ation, or spirit, to express (i.e. to express) ‘itself’ to some degree by way of ‘causing’ (i.e. generating, transmitting, propagating, etc.) whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is thereby motive‧ated to ‘make’ in response thereto. In max-zoom perspective, every nodal and multi-nodal feature of Life may be seen as being a subsidiary soul, or gestalt of Life, which is facultatively imbued with mind[!] and spirit by, and consequently both experiences and expresses ‘itself’ in relationship to and with other nodes of Life in the matrixial framework of, the supra-nodal Soul (i.e. the Mind and Spirit constellation) of THAT which is All That Is (a/k/a God!)."

If U are going to continue 'suck' your 'thumb', Ajay, I suggest you don't do so in the vicinity of my Presence.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Recognizing the apparent wisdom of your conceptualizations and theory-izations relating thereto, Ajay, I would like you to register the fact that I think your 'conclusion', as quoted above, is 'pure' NON-sense (and that is being polite , if you get my drift!).

You are privileged to form your own opinions, but opinions are not facts.

The advaitan nondualist philosophy is an ancient time-tested philosophy.

Originally Posted by davidsun

This because I believe (and submit for consideration) that 'mind' is an innate/ubiquitous/inextricable faculty/attribute of All That Is and so every 'element' with it.

By the Self , I mean thoughtless awareness.

Originally Posted by davidsun

If U are going to continue 'suck' your 'thumb', Ajay, I suggest you don't do so in the vicinity of my Presence.

You mean 'my Ego' to be more precise.


Presence as used in Advaita/zen/ nonduality means one's own Self or Awareness, also referred to as no-mind.

In emptiness or absence of the ego or false self, the true Self is unobscured, and the cessation of the compulsive thinking and emoting process that accompanies the ego, leads to corresponding cessation of the blind identification with the personal story of likes and dislikes going on.

This enables one to see reality as it is without distortion by mental projections.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by ajay00

This enables one to see reality as it is without distortion by mental projections.

This is a totally presumptuous 'view', IMO, which results, in the case of there being different 'views' regarding any subject or topic, in one's thinking, feeling, believing and asserting, that what one 'sees' is 'the real truth' and what differing others 'see' is a distortion/falsehood/illusion, and in the case where people completely agree (as a result of conjoint 'hypnosis') with one another, that they are 'perfected'/chosen, etc. You are smart enough to know better that this, PSHAW, man!

The more believable (I would suggest) fact is that, as a result of his or her soul's particular development process may have been, no 'two' souls are ever 'the same' (let alone 'the same' as THE Self which they are offshoots of). Everyone experiences and so 'sees' 'reality in his or her own image-in-native way - in your case, apparently image-in-ing that he (or ones he has put on such 'pedestal' in this regard) has become and so is absolutely 'identical' with THE Self from which all being derives. Such 'game' image-in-ing can be quite self- and other- convincing.

But as we can see from the fact that, despite their overlapping in significant ways, the 'views' of our 'best' (historically most comprensive) 'viewers' (channelers?) such a Gautama, Jesus, the author of The Bhagavad Gita, Lao Tzu, etc., etc, etc. all have characteristic differences, which intelligent comparative historians recognize to be the result of their personal 'acculturations'.

As I said, thought you 'see' yourself as 'knowing' what the truth really is in this regard, I just 'see' the assertions you make as being clearly indicative of a person who is invested in self-comforting, I belong to 'tradition' of 'true' seers, 'thumb-sucking'.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by davidsun

This is a totally presumptuous 'view', IMO, which results, in the case of there being different 'views' regarding any subject or topic, in one's thinking, feeling, believing and asserting, that what one 'sees' is 'the real truth' and what differing others 'see' is a distortion/falsehood/illusion, and in the case where people completely agree (as a result of conjoint 'hypnosis') with one another, that they are 'perfected'/chosen, etc. You are smart enough to know better that this, PSHAW, man!

You have not understood what I said properly.

People can look at the same event or experience and take away different meanings from it, due to various conditioning influences.


In a football match between brazil and argentina, Argentinian fans would bemoan it if Brazil was winning the game and vice verse for brazilian fans if argentina was victorious. Expressions of despair, tears or pleasure and emotional peaks would follow. A pole or eskimo watching the game however would not have the same pleasure or pain and would be nonchalant and indifferent.

Ultimately it is just a football game between human beings conditioned to be Brazilians and Argentinians. The label of 'Brazilian' , 'Argentinian' , 'American', 'Russian', 'Muslim', 'Christian', 'Jew', 'Hindu', however is very important for some people, and they are ready to kill and die for such labels which are nothing but words, forgetting their mutual humanity.

Being stuck in words and labels, hence promotes a dualistic mindset and attitude which can consequently bring about conflict.

People identify with such labels due to lack of self-knowledge of who they really are. Due to lack of self-knowledge, they thus identify with external labels corresponding to caste, sect, race. religion, nationality, economic status, creed, ideology, groups and gangs, and cling to such false external identifications for such a sense of identity, and to get rid of their insecurity stemming from a sense of emptiness within.

These false artifical identities are the cause of emotivity, reactivity, conflict and disharmony whereever you see it.


Nonduality lies in proper understanding of self-knowledge, which enables one to give up such external identifications and be content with the Self or Being, which is one's true identity, and which brings about nondual or unitary perception.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by ajay00

You have not understood what I said properly.

People can look at the same event or experience and take away different meanings from it, due to various conditioning influences.


In a football match between brazil and argentina, Argentinian fans would bemoan it if Brazil was winning the game and vice verse for brazilian fans if argentina was victorious. Expressions of despair, tears or pleasure and emotional peaks would follow. A pole or eskimo watching the game however would not have the same pleasure or pain and would be nonchalant and indifferent.

Ultimately it is just a football game between human beings conditioned to be Brazilians and Argentinians. The label of 'Brazilian' , 'Argentinian' , 'American', 'Russian', 'Muslim', 'Christian', 'Jew', 'Hindu', however is very important for some people, and they are ready to kill and die for such labels which are nothing but words, forgetting their mutual humanity.

Being stuck in words and labels, hence promotes a dualistic mindset and attitude which can consequently bring about conflict.

People identify with such labels due to lack of self-knowledge of who they really are. Due to lack of self-knowledge, they thus identify with external labels corresponding to caste, sect, race. religion, nationality, economic status, creed, ideology, groups and gangs, and cling to such false external identifications for such a sense of identity, and to get rid of their insecurity stemming from a sense of emptiness within.

These false artificial identities are the cause of emotivity, reactivity, conflict and disharmony whereever you see it.

Nonduality lies in proper understanding of self-knowledge, which enables one to give up such external identifications and be content with the Self or Being, which is one's true identity, and which brings about nondual or unitary perception.

I resonate with that, ajay. It dovetails with how I understand the referenced phenomena - except, in my view there are no 'falsehoods' - these are just egotistical projection/characterization IMO, condescendingly ascribed to what they regard as 'untruths' by peeps who like to think of themselves and their philosophies and philosophical traditions as 'enlightened' and so really truth-perceiving - the fact in my view is that there are simply, each 'true' in its 'own' way for its 'own' purposes, different ways of perceiving and responding to the same 'reality'.

If your sense' of Self or Being were 'truly' wholistic/cosmic, IMO, you would see that is nothing that is 'false' or 'artificial' in REALITY and understand why what I say is 'true'.

I 'see' everything and everyone as genuinely (i.e. truly!) being what it is and how they are.

Your 'vibe' is genuinely being sectarian in its own way, IOW - or so I 'truly' think, feel and believe, which thinking, feelng and believing if offer for your and others' consideration and contemplation.

WOOHOO!