Symbiosis and nonduality

[Iamit]

Seekers often find it difficult to accept the idea that if, in the non duality story, Oneness is the only reality, then suffering is also Oneness arising as both abuser and abused, each the other, and the One Love in action dreaming difference where there is none.

This description also includes the idea that it is never why does this or that arise but what appears to happen is always how it must be for balance to be maintained on the infinite scale, and that that balance may not always be apparent 'locally', nor the time scales involved known.

In support of this idea the symbiosis we see around us is often referred to as an example of symbiosis locally, simply put :-

More rabbits, less foxes,
less foxes, more rabbits,
more rabbits, more foxes,
more foxes, less rabbits,
less rabbits, less foxes,
less foxes, more rabbits :)

This is not infallible as if the swing is too severe an extinction event may occur.

The implication for personal liberation is profound for it would never be us making choices and acting on them even though it may look and feel as though we are. We are not used to this idea which is very challenging to our systems which emphasise personal responsibility. A justice system based on this principle is conceivable. Crime would still be arrested and contained but there would be no blame culture whatsoever:)

[Ground]

First one has to accept that analytically 'non-duality' is a paradox because the negation of anything is itself a manifestation of duality and so is the negation of duality.

Actually an infinite regress would be required:
non(...(non(non(non(non-duality))))).

The infiniteness of this regress shows that what can be expressed with the term 'non-duality' never can be a concrete determinate reality but necessarily is an indeterminate psycho-mental experience.

All the misunderstandings in the context of the term 'non-duality' originate from confusing indeterminate experiential language with analytical ontological language.

Since there is no 'beyond infiniteness' in the context of this infinite regress one may apply the term 'oneness' which however may again be misleading because in the sphere of infiniteness there are neither periphery nor outer limits but boundless openness. This again implies an indeterminate psycho-mental experience but no determinate reality in the context of applying the term 'oneness'.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

First one has to accept that analytically 'non-duality' is a paradox because the negation of anything is itself a manifestation of duality and so is the negation of duality.

Actually an infinite regress would be required:
non(...(non(non(non(non-duality))))).

The infiniteness of this regress shows that what can be expressed with the term 'non-duality' never can be a concrete determinate reality but necessarily is an indeterminate psycho-mental experience.

All the misunderstandings in the context of the term 'non-duality' originate from confusing indeterminate experiential language with analytical ontological language.

Since there is no 'beyond infiniteness' in the context of this infinite regress one may apply the term 'oneness' which however may again be misleading because in the sphere of infiniteness there are neither periphery nor outer limits but boundless openness. This again implies an indeterminate psycho-mental experience but no determinate reality in the context of applying the term 'oneness'.

The term Oneness is not used to mean some entity, but rather that despite the very solid looking appearance of difference, all is one.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

The term Oneness is not used to mean some entity, but rather that despite the very solid looking appearance of difference, all is one.

but hey ... 'all is one' isn't this kind of a naive expression? in what way do you consider all to be 'one'?

A car and a tree are one? If so take the tree to the highway and drive. you can't? Why can't you if all is one? you say because a car and a tree are not the same entity. Well yes but then why do you call them one nevertheless?

Different phenomena aren't inherently different, i.e. the difference does not exist from its own side but exists dependent on imputation but that does not render them inherently one either.

So neither inherently one, nor inherently different. Why? Because everything exists dependent on imputation only. Dependent difference as well as dependent onenness. Relative. Depends on what perpective you take when making the judgement. E.g. different phenomena are one in that both are objects of mind.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

but hey ... 'all is one' isn't this kind of a naive expression? in what way do you consider all to be 'one'?

A car and a tree are one? If so take the tree to the highway and drive. you can't? Why can't you if all is one? you say because a car and a tree are not the same entity. Well yes but then why do you call them one nevertheless?

Different phenomena aren't inherently different, i.e. the difference does not exist from its own side but exists dependent on imputation but that does not render them inherently one either.

So neither inherently one, nor inherently different. Why? Because everything exists dependent on imputation only. Dependent difference as well as dependent onenness. Relative. Depends on what perpective you take when making the judgement. E.g. different phenomena are one in that both are objects of mind.

In my view the idea was made up by mind to end the discomfort of feeling that something was lost/missing in terms of connection to source or whatever label is given to that, resulting in the spiritual search. This is not meant to denigrate the idea, far from it, many people resonate with it and for them has ended the discomfort.

So the idea would have it that the very convincing, solid looking difference you refer to is only a very convincing appearance of separation where there is no difference whatsoever. One can see why this would end the search for the idea is that Oneness is the only reality so disconnection is impossible despite how things appear. It works for minds that cant do a spiritual path or practice but not for those who can and believe in such things. Hence the huge disagreement between Traditional and Neo Advaita. But really they could accept and agree that they each suit different mind sets.

Why should Oneness bother to appear as the many? Its an interesting subject for some but not relevant if the idea of knowing truth has been transcended (supported by Kierkegaard's story) and resonance accepted.

So resonance does not have to based on evidence because in then becomes an attempt to know the truth which is very insecure as so easily challenged.
Interestingly science itself does not talk about truth, only the current state of what they think they know.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

So resonance does not have to based on evidence because in then becomes an attempt to know the truth which is very insecure as so easily challenged.

Except for resonance as such being taken as evidence. So the issue is just the sentiment of an inherently existing objective evidence independent of oneself that has to be overcome.

[Iamit]

Is that how resonance feels when it happens for you? Sounds more like a feeling that you have discovery truth. There may always be evidence that is hidden from you that may come along sometime and contradict it. Very insecure, which is why it has to be defended.

For me resonance has nothing to do with evidence. There is no need to prove that it is correct so no need to defend it.

However I am interested in what it does have to do with. At the moment it feels like the mind saying it has found a good solution to whatever the problem might be.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Is that how resonance feels when it happens for you?

How can you speculate 'how resonance feels when it happens for you' on the basis of words that are concatenations of visible signs only? Where does this 'how' and what is stands for originate?
See, my words are empty of meaning and empty of feeling.
However you may synthesize meaning and feeling upon seeing forms aka words, right?

Originally Posted by Iamit

Sounds more like a feeling that you have discovery truth.

Who or what is generating this 'sound'? My words are empty of sound too.

Maybe you try again? Isn't there an alternative option for you to synthesize meaning, feeling and sound upon seeing 'Except for resonance as such being taken as evidence. So the issue is just the sentiment of an inherently existing objective evidence independent of oneself that has to be overcome.'?

Maybe you are conditioned to project on the word 'evidence' some kind of inherent existence, existing from its own objective side? However exactly the denial of such existence was what I have tried to express when typing these words.

Obviously my words do not resonate with you.

[Iamit]

Yes so why don't you describe what the words mean for you in response to what was asked rather than all that bluster.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes so why don't you describe what the words mean for you in response to what was asked rather than all that bluster.

But I have. It is just that my words do not resonate with you.