Dream and reality.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

When I use the term "From a non dual perspective" to describe the manifestation what is meant is that there appears to be difference where there is no difference at all.

Now if your expression 'there is no difference at all' refers to your individual experience in a non dual state, i.e. in the corresponding mode of consciousness, then fine but if 'there is no difference at all' is meant to be the result of rational analysis then that is obviously wrong because from a perspective of rational analysis differences exist. However from a perspective of rational analysis differences do not exist inherently therefore and are not truths but differences do exist only depending on imputation.
And from a perspective of rational analysis when you say 'there appears to be difference' you can only refer to the mode of ordinary consciousness in which differences appear as if truely/inherently existing, i.e. appear to be true due to innate truth habits while they are actually empty of inherent existence and therefore empty of truth.

Originally Posted by Iamit

If you approach the question with that in mind when considering that proposition with the concept of infinity, there must be difference occurring that is not an illusion of difference otherwise the manifestation would not be infinite.

Well, from a perspective of rational analysis even talking about manifestations implies affirmation of differences. How could anything manifest if itself isn't different from its background? I can't see why infinite or finite in the context of manifestions being already affirmed should add or remove any degree of difference.

From my rational perspective your expression above (first quote above) should read:
"When I refer to my nondual experience and use the term "From a non dual perspective" to describe the manifestation what is meant is that there are neither manifestations nor differences in that nondual state while there appear to be manifestations and therefore differences outside of this state."

That means as soon as a sentiment of something manifesting arises that can't be called 'a nondual state' nor can an expression affirming manifestations be called 'From a non dual perspective'.

So from my perspective: Even if a non-rational experience like nonduality is expressed with words the words applied are to be choosen with rationality.

Originally Posted by Iamit

If we cannot agree on what words mean then discussion will be very difficult.

From my perspective it is an exchange of words as a means of comparing views rather then a discussion. It is mutual inspiration. I feel that the most significant difference concerning our views is that mine covers the view of emptiness of inherent existence and truth. your view does not differentiate between inherent existence and existence depending only on imputation which entails the impossibility to express your view in a way that is compatible with rational analysis if you do not explicitly make clear when you are referring to your individual experience and when you are expressing yourself from a rational perspective.
If we use the same words but synthesize different meanings in the context of those words then this becomes obvious sooner or later and isn't an issue but merely shows that words are empty of meaning from the outset.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

Now if your expression 'there is no difference at all' refers to your individual experience in a non dual state, i.e. in the corresponding mode of consciousness, then fine but if 'there is no difference at all' is meant to be the result of rational analysis then that is obviously wrong because from a perspective of rational analysis differences exist. However from a perspective of rational analysis differences do not exist inherently therefore and are not truths but differences do exist only depending on imputation.
And from a perspective of rational analysis when you say 'there appears to be difference' you can only refer to the mode of ordinary consciousness in which differences appear as if truely/inherently existing, i.e. appear to be true due to innate truth habits while they are actually empty of inherent existence and therefore empty of truth.

Well, from a perspective of rational analysis even talking about manifestations implies affirmation of differences. How could anything manifest if itself isn't different from its background? I can't see why infinite or finite in the context of manifestions being already affirmed should add or remove any degree of difference.

From my rational perspective your expression above (first quote above) should read:
"When I refer to my nondual experience and use the term "From a non dual perspective" to describe the manifestation what is meant is that there are neither manifestations nor differences in that nondual state while there appear to be manifestations and therefore differences outside of this state."

That means as soon as a sentiment of something manifesting arises that can't be called 'a nondual state' nor can an expression affirming manifestations be called 'From a non dual perspective'.

So from my perspective: Even if a non-rational experience like nonduality is expressed with words the words applied are to be choosen with rationality.


From my perspective it is an exchange of words as a means of comparing views rather then a discussion. It is mutual inspiration. I feel that the most significant difference concerning our views is that mine covers the view of emptiness of inherent existence and truth. your view does not differentiate between inherent existence and existence depending only on imputation which entails the impossibility to express your view in a way that is compatible with rational analysis if you do not explicitly make clear when you are referring to your individual experience and when you are expressing yourself from a rational perspective.
If we use the same words but synthesize different meanings in the context of those words then this becomes obvious sooner or later and isn't an issue but merely shows that words are empty of meaning from the outset.

The words I use are of course my understanding but they also have meaning in their own right. I am not interested in skirting around this endlessly and would prefer to define what the words mean to each of us. If you are saying that words have no meaning for you then an exchange between us that by necessity has to use words is futile.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

The words I use are of course my understanding but they also have meaning in their own right.

That is not appropriately expressed. Why?
1. Because the words you apply aren't your understanding but are your means of expressing your understanding. I.e. your words and your understanding are different although they condition each other.
2. Words do not have meaning in their own right. Why? Because words are mere concatenations of linguistic signs (visible forms or audible sounds) and there is no meaning contained in the forms or sounds. What you call 'meaning in their own right' actually is merely a convention, i.e. an agreement of interpretation on a very general level (see dictionaries) which deviates more or less from the intended meaning in given contexts of conversation where there may be additional connotations or some connotations replacing other connotations. That is why even dictionaries usually list more than one definition.

Originally Posted by Iamit

If you are saying that words have no meaning for you then an exchange between us that by necessity has to use words is futile.

E.g. consider 'A car has four wheels.' and 'This car has four wheels.' Here the meanings that can be imputed to the word 'car' are rather different because in the latter case 'car' refers to a specific car but not to a generality of a car as in the former case.
Or more significant: 'The left eye of a person.' and 'The eye of the storm.' Same word 'eye' but very different meanings.
So the fact that different meanings can be imputed to one and the same word is evidence that words as such are empty of meaning from the outset.
There is a difference between the expressions 'words having no meaning' and 'words being empty of meaning from the outset because meaning is individually imputed to them'.

Originally Posted by Iamit

I am not interested in skirting around this endlessly and would prefer to define what the words mean to each of us.

From my postings you may approximate the meanings I am imputing to words as from your postings I may approximate the meanings you are imputing to words. So there is no issue if one accepts that views are different. If meanings we impute are significantly different this will be conveyed by the different words and expressions we apply when replying to each other. This then may be made explicit if we both provide our definitions. If you need a definition for one of the words that I am applying then please let me know.

Why 'approximate'? Because approximation is the best case. Why? Because you cannot see the meaning synthesized in my brain/mind as I cannot see the meaning synthesized in your brain/mind.

From my perspective the issue however may be that you cannot differentiate between what is very important from my perspective: words/expressions refering to your individual experience and words/expressions that are expressions of your rational analysis and the reason may be that none of your words is authenticated by experience. If that is the case then you are merely expressing your beliefs and beliefs aren't possible outside of 'the truth trap'.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

That is not appropriately expressed. Why?
1. Because the words you apply aren't your understanding but are your means of expressing your understanding. I.e. your words and your understanding are different although they condition each other.
2. Words do not have meaning in their own right. Why? Because words are mere concatenations of linguistic signs (visible forms or audible sounds) and there is no meaning contained in the forms or sounds. What you call 'meaning in their own right' actually is merely a convention, i.e. an agreement of interpretation on a very general level (see dictionaries) which deviates more or less from the intended meaning in given contexts of conversation where there may be additional connotations or some connotations replacing other connotations. That is why even dictionaries usually list more than one definition.


E.g. consider 'A car has four wheels.' and 'This car has four wheels.' Here the meanings that can be imputed to the word 'car' are rather different because in the latter case 'car' refers to a specific car but not to a generality of a car as in the former case.
Or more significant: 'The left eye of a person.' and 'The eye of the storm.' Same word 'eye' but very different meanings.
So the fact that different meanings can be imputed to one and the same word is evidence that words as such are empty of meaning from the outset.
There is a difference between the expressions 'words having no meaning' and 'words being empty of meaning from the outset because meaning is individually imputed to them'.


From my postings you may approximate the meanings I am imputing to words as from your postings I may approximate the meanings you are imputing to words. So there is no issue if one accepts that views are different. If meanings we impute are significantly different this will be conveyed by the different words and expressions we apply when replying to each other. This then may be made explicit if we both provide our definitions. If you need a definition for one of the words that I am applying then please let me know.

Why 'approximate'? Because approximation is the best case. Why? Because you cannot see the meaning synthesized in my brain/mind as I cannot see the meaning synthesized in your brain/mind.

From my perspective the issue however may be that you cannot differentiate between what is very important from my perspective: words/expressions refering to your individual experience and words/expressions that are expressions of your rational analysis and the reason may be that none of your words is authenticated by experience. If that is the case then you are merely expressing your beliefs and beliefs aren't possible outside of 'the truth trap'.

Then discussion between us is indeed futile because it does not seem possible for you to define the meaning of the words you use. but prefer instead to say that they can have no agreed meaning. I have lost interest in that endeavour as a neverending preliminary to discussion.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Then discussion between us is indeed futile because it does not seem possible for you to define the meaning of the words you use. but prefer instead to say that they can have no agreed meaning. I have lost interest in that endeavour as a neverending preliminary to discussion.

See, I have written:

Originally Posted by Ground

If you need a definition for one of the words that I am applying then please let me know.

So is possible for me to define the meaning of the words I use and it's up to you to ask for definitions of specific words.

Words can have agreed meanings if we agree on one and the same definition. But if we don't agree then it is ok too because knowing our definitions mutually is the basis for mutual understanding. But mutual understanding does not require agreement.

From my perspective our conversation isn't futile at all because your words are a source of inspiration. How can words empty of meaning from the outset be a source of inspiration? In that meaning is synthesized in the brain/mind of a seer or hearer of words which then may effect further conceptual thinking.
If one individual expresses its thoughts using words these words can again be a source of inspiration for others. So one individual expressing a thought can theoretically have innumerable effects on innumerable other individuals.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

See, I have written:

So is possible for me to define the meaning of the words I use and it's up to you to ask for definitions of specific words.

Words can have agreed meanings if we agree on one and the same definition. But if we don't agree then it is ok too because knowing our definitions mutually is the basis for mutual understanding. But mutual understanding does not require agreement.

From my perspective our conversation isn't futile at all because your words are a source of inspiration. How can words empty of meaning from the outset be a source of inspiration? In that meaning is synthesized in the brain/mind of a seer or hearer of words which then may effect further conceptual thinking.
If one individual expresses its thoughts using words these words can again be a source of inspiration for others. So one individual expressing a thought can theoretically have innumerable effects on innumerable other individuals.

Good lets adopt that approach and start again with a response from you to the initial post with words you think have meaning and I can ask for clarification if required. Please ask for clarification of the words I used if necessary. All my other threads can be approached in the same way if you like.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Good lets adopt that approach and start again with a response from you to the initial post with words you think have meaning and I can ask for clarification if required. Please ask for clarification of the words I used if necessary. All my other threads can be approached in the same way if you like.

My responses have been authentic. So it is not possible for me to 'start again'. What has been said has been said. I always approach conversations in forums like this leaving open where inspiration may lead to. Conversations about topics characteristic for forums like this is a kind of spontaneous and interactive performance art considering art being individual expression.

[Iamit]

[quote=Ground]My responses have been authentic. So it is not possible for me to 'start again'. What has been said has been said. I always approach conversations in forums like this leaving open where inspiration may lead to. Conversations about topics characteristic for forums like this is a kind of spontaneous and interactive performance art considering art being individual expression.[/QUOTE}

We need to both feel that the communication is working.In my view it clearly has not been. But things may be improving so lets see.