You can't have one without the other?

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

you are seeking to justify your faltering beliefs

Thanks.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

a condition that is believed to exist without comparison

I never said that there is a condition without comparison. Once again, I think it a review of the thread may be in order here. I have only said that you do not need the comparison in order to experience the original condition.

Something cannot be experienced without experiencing a contrasting condition?

It may not be able to be qualified, classified, named, valued, judged, etc...but it can certainly be experienced. That is all that I am saying.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

The baby doesn't 'appreciate' anything

That was edited before you posted your response. I meant to say "experience"

The baby, like anyone else, can certainly experience one state/condition without having any exposure to a contrasting condition.

Greetings..

Originally Posted by LIFE

I am not saying that there is, or can be, a state of only desirable experiences. I am simply saying that the cliched doctrine of "you can't experience pleasure without suffering" is unfounded.

I am saying that in relying on the 'names' you are bound by the contrasting principle associated with the 'name', so.. you can't reference the word 'pleasure' without understanding its contrasting principle.. what relationship defines 'pleasure'? We can experience many amazing things, but.. if we wish to discuss them at all, we will conform to the relationships of comparison..

I do not wish to be harsh or uncooperative in the search for understanding, but.. i give what i get, as a theme, and not always in equal measure.. my goal is to return to neutral as quickly as possible, to continue a sincere search for understanding.. i am not interested in my understandings prevailing over others, only that i advance my understandings away from misunderstanding or illusion, and toward clarity.. the desire that an experience be understood as 'pleasure' will manifest the references necessary to make the communication valid..

So, as i often suggest, there is wisdom in stillness.. where the mind is quiet and still, where experiences flow as a continuum without the punctuation of judgement, opinion, or comparison.. it is only when we engage the mind's mechanics that the 'isness' of the experience is interrupted, in order to define it and make comparisons.. i am reminded of a hike i made with some friends many years ago, as the brisk fall day grew long and the sun had begun setting we were hurrying to make the next campsite, then.. we rounded a bend in the trail that revealed a spectacular sunset across the valley of stunning fall colors in which we were to make camp by the river.. for a time the six of us were so stunned by the awesome and simple beauty of the scene, that nothing was said and no movements were noticed.. then, we just started walking serenely down to the river to make camp.. nothing was said about the experience until after camp and dinner were made, and we were sitting around the campfire.. even then, the comments were simple and without embellishment, "nice".. "oh yeah".. "sweeet".. and we each held our own experience of the event without needing to compare.. over the years, when we are together, when one of us says, "nice", or "sweeet", or "oh yeah", we all just smile and sigh and nod appreciatively.. it drives our friends mad, but.. no words do justice for that 'moment in time'.. so what's the point? It is when we need to "make a point", that the clarity and purity of Life are diminished.. when we need to have people agree with our understanding, to the point of making a big deal about it, that it really seems to be anti-climatic.. it just doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things..

Be well..

Greetings..

Originally Posted by LIFE

That was edited before you posted your response. I meant to say "experience"

The baby, like anyone else, can certainly experience one state/condition without having any exposure to a contrasting condition.

How important is it that i agree with you, regarding this belief you have? Actually, i don't know what the baby's mind is understanding, but i can observe the dual nature of the baby's continuum of experiences.. sometimes the baby seems contented, sometimes the baby seems unhappy, but.. that is 'me' projecting my experiences and understandings on my beliefs about the baby's appearances.. we agree that there are no conditions that are experiencable without comparison:

Originally Posted by LIFE

I never said that there is a condition without comparison.

So, it logically follows that for the 'baby' to "experience one state/condition", the other "state/condition" is present and is, in fact, experienced by exclusion.. the baby experiences "one state/condition" only because another "state/condition" exists.. if the comparison didn't exist, the experience of "one" aspect of the comparison wouldn't exist either, regardless of our preferences for naming..

Be well..

[Gem]

The story about duality has no merit in geometry. In geometry duality doesn't offer any definition, because the comparison can't be differentiated

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Gem

The story about duality has no merit in geometry. In geometry duality doesn't offer any definition, because the comparison can't be differentiated

Can you explain your meaning, please? I am a Land Surveyor by profession and experience, and i do not understand the relationship of your statement to duality..

I am interested in anyone's speculation as to what constitutes a non-dual condition.. i have studied the phenomenon of the inclination to believe there is an existent condition that is non-dual, and.. i can find no unimpeachable condition that relates to a non-dual condition.. mostly, people want to define the parameters of a discussion so that their beliefs appear accurate, but.. in the face of honest and direct scrutiny, no claims of a non-dual condition hold up..

Be well..

Originally Posted by LIFE

Granted, this seems coherent at first, until you truly contemplate it and break it down and then it dissolves.

It depends on your definition of 'truly' and 'contemplate'. For me, it would all be a part of the Universe and, standing where we choose to place our feet we can see the Universe in either macrocosm or microcosm. It's all about perspective.

Duality is in the thinking. We think in absolutes, God is the absolute in good and the devil is the absolute in evil, and never the twain shall meet. Similarly with pain and pleasure, and all the other things we choose to hang the label of opposites and judgement on. There is the experience of pain, there is the experience of pleasure. Are they so opposite or do we choose to see them as opposite in order to aid our understanding? Or are they simply experiences of a different colour? We can understand pain because we can compare it to pleasure, but even the perspectives of what constitutes pain and pleasure are variable. Where one person sees pleasure another sees pain. Form a personal perspective, if you had known only pleasure your whole Life you might just have the knowledge that pain exists but would you truly understand it? Much of my career has been in adult training, and from my experience is that there is more understanding when someone experiences. Knowledge simply isn't enough most times.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

we agree that there are no conditions that are experiencable without comparison

No, we don't agree.

Once again, comparison has nothing to do with a condition being experienceable.

Comparison comes into play in the act of comparing the experience to some other, for the purpose of generating a "value" judgement for that condition. While valuable (lol), it has nothing to do with the capacity to experience the condition.

Comparing the experience of the state and experiencing the state are two different things.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

We can understand pain because we can compare it to pleasure

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "understand." I'm not sure why this is misunderstood as it is, but I am simply talking about experiencing a state.

Let me give you a hypothetical that may help with what I am saying.

Let's say in the future a fully grown person is created. This person has never experienced anything before, but has all of the sensory capacity, brain function, etc of an average healthy and functioning human being.

If I take this person (fresh out of the human-O-matic) and slowly hammer bits of wood all the way up underneath his fingernails* , will he experience that?

Or will he remain in a neutral state of numbness, unable to experience this because there is nothing with which to compare it? Keep in mind that his nerves, sensory organs, brain, etc are all functioning normally.

Would he not experience this?

*(actually happened to POWs during Vietnam)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


Can you explain your meaning, please? I am a Land Surveyor by profession and experience, and i do not understand the relationship of your statement to duality..

I am interested in anyone's speculation as to what constitutes a non-dual condition.. i have studied the phenomenon of the inclination to believe there is an existent condition that is non-dual, and.. i can find no unimpeachable condition that relates to a non-dual condition.. mostly, people want to define the parameters of a discussion so that their beliefs appear accurate, but.. in the face of honest and direct scrutiny, no claims of a non-dual condition hold up..

Be well..

There can only be a condition of simultaneity dependant on the limits of formal cognition. there are four 'shapes' which consist of equal measures... the simplexes.

In point theory we have the single, the dual, the equalateral triagle and the tetrahedron. All of these only contain equal relationships between points... and the points only exist by virtue of that relationship.

You realize a point can only be located in a quadrupal relationship, thus there is no single point until there are four.... and this collection of states exist not as static and seperate, but all at once in simutlaenity and synergy as a single value... a constant actually.