Non-duality and Ethics & Morality

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

We wear a form which exists in the duality of objective reality and that binds us to the chain of karma (and ethics, morality, happiness, sadness, guilt, pride, anger, hatred, jealousy, etc...).

It seems to me prior to becoming enlightened and since we wear a form and are bound to the chain and duality we must work within that framework in order to escape it.

In my view, karma - consequences stemming from one's mental-emotional-action patterns are not a 'chain' has to be 'broken' in order for a soul to be 'free'. Rather, it provides one with a stairway by way of which one may (if and as one chooses to do so) 'ascend' to a 'higher' (for want of a better word) way (level?) of Being whereat greater/more positive possibilities become actualize-able (able to be experienced and expressed).

For example, as clearly (for anyone with eyes that see what's what in this regard) expressed in Ch.2 of The Bhaghavad Gita: "Thou must look at thy duty. Nothing can be more welcome (this is not a 'chain'!) to a soldier than a righteous war. ... Blessed are the soldiers who find their opportunity. This opportunity has opened for thee the gates of heaven."

Regarding the in-many-a-case-snobbish 'put down' of the value of 'form', consider this: without 'form' (which doesn't have to be physical, BTW! - a soul is a non-physical mental-and-emotional 'constellation', for instance) one's Beingness would amount to nothing more than a vaporously ephemeral 'gas'!

IMO, there are a lot of 'built in' distortions of truth in most peeps 'talk' of and 'attitude' towards karma.

Originally Posted by davidsun

In my view, karma - consequences stemming from one's mental-emotional-action patterns are not a 'chain' has to be 'broken' in order for a soul to be 'free'. Rather, it provides one with a stairway by way of which one may (if and as one chooses to do so) 'ascend' to a 'higher' (for want of a better word) way (level?) of Being whereat greater/more positive possibilities become actualize-able (able to be experienced and expressed).

For example, as clearly (for anyone with eyes that see what's what in this regard) expressed in Ch.2 of The Bhaghavad Gita: "Thou must look at thy duty. Nothing can be more welcome (this is not a 'chain'!) to a soldier than a righteous war. ... Blessed are the soldiers who find their opportunity. This opportunity has opened for thee the gates of heaven."

Regarding the in-many-a-case-snobbish 'put down' of the value of 'form', consider this: without 'form' (which doesn't have to be physical, BTW! - a soul is a non-physical mental-and-emotional 'constellation', for instance) one's Beingness would amount to nothing more than a vaporously ephemeral 'gas'!

IMO, there are a lot of 'built in' distortions of truth in most peeps 'talk' of and 'attitude' towards karma.

I'm just repeating what non-dualists teach but in my own words. Wearing a form is a condition prior to enlightenment where one identifies with an object and not existence, consciousness, bliss. It's identifying with separation and not unity.

It seems to me if one is going to attempt to follow a path of non-dualism one should try to understand it from the perspective of the actual teachings of non-dualists.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm just repeating what non-dualists teach but in my own words. Wearing a form is a condition prior to enlightenment where one identifies with an object and not existence, consciousness, bliss. It's identifying with separation and not unity.

It seems to me if one is going to attempt to follow a path of non-dualism one should try to understand it from the perspective of the actual teachings of non-dualists.

And I am just saying that I think that being 'formless' is a 'crazy' (in the sense of dysfunctional) aspiration, because (in my view) 'dualism' is a functional fact which characterizes the Oneness of (All) Being - so I recommend that peeps reject the kind of non-dualistic 'teachings' which you (aim to?) propagate here/now by way of 'repeating' them. I think your characterizing of 'i'dentification with form as (automatically?) 'i'dentifying with 'separation' is a false (pejorative? pretentious self-without-form serving?) attribution/teaching because what I 'see' is that 'form' is an integral part of Being any sort of Being. I have the same issue with people who self-identify as 'Christians' co-opting 'the flag' of 'Christianity' by 'waving' it in
agreement' among themselves.

Each to his own philosophical 'taste', aye what? I just don't want your kind of taste-buds to be the only one's representing themselves as Being 'enlightened' ones here.

Originally Posted by davidsun

And I am just saying that I think that being 'formless' is a 'crazy' (in the sense of dysfunctional) aspiration, because dualism is a functional fact which characterizes the Oneness of (All) Being - so I recommend that peeps reject the kind of non-dualistic 'teachings' which you (aim to?) propagate here/now as being a good idea. I think your characterizing of 'i'dentification with form as automatically 'i'dentifying with 'separation' is a false (pejorative? pretentious self-without-form serving?) attribution/teaching because what I 'see' is that 'form' is an integral part of Being any sort of Being.

Each to his own philosophical 'taste', aye what? I just don't want your kind of taste-buds to be the only one's representing themselves as Being 'enlightened' ones here.

Forms are transient. All of them. Even universes.

Enlightened? Me? Nah, though I did have a taste of something approaching unity and oneness that lasted for the better part of two months and it was fantastic. Blissful and at times ecstatic. It's still reverberating but much less intense. If non-duality, formlessness is that times infinity I'm all in. LOL!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Forms are transient. All of them. Even universes.

Forms are transient, yes, but souls are not although they may shape-shift and 'evolve' to the point where they look quite different - the 'souls' of
universes' included.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Enlightened? Me? Nah, though I did have a taste of something approaching unity and oneness that lasted for the better part of two months and it was fantastic. Blissful and at times ecstatic. It's still reverberating but much less intense.

Yah - what are called 'peak' (ego-transcending) experience are like that.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If non-duality, formlessness is that times infinity I'm all in. LOL!

That's a BIG 'if', aye what? I am suggesting that one can have an ever-lasting kind of experience of and continue to live in 'unity' and 'oneness' if one relates to 'form' (one's own and that of others as said 'forms' continue to 'evolve') in the ways which I am suggesting are more 'functional' than imagining oneself as or 'aspiring' to be 'formless'.

Originally Posted by davidsun

That's a BIG 'if', aye what? I am suggesting that's one can have an ever- lasting kind of experience of 'unity' and 'oneness' if one relates to 'form' (one's own and others as your and they 'evolve') in the ways that I am suggesting are more 'functional'.

Well, this is the Non Dual forum. LOL!

Have you ever read what Vivekananda said about the various religions? I think it's spot-on.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Well, this is the Non Dual forum. LOL!

Have you ever read what Vivekananda said about the various religions? I think it's spot-on.

What is more non-dual than a 'Oneness' in which duality (i.e. opposites) is/are 'seen' to be dynamically integral to the 'Life' of Its 'Being', i.e. to Its Creative functioning?

Is there any 'room' for honest disagreement and exploration of thoughtful propositions pertaining to a possible 'higher' view of the limitations of '"non" and "neti" based thinking, or is 'non-duality' as defined by the likes of Vivekanada a monolitic, absolutist philosophy that is 'loyally' asserted to be beyond challenging/questioning/considering?

IMO, the idea of a 'forum' in which ideas are restricted to a particular axiom-set is anathema (IMO) to what the word 'forum' really means.

Frim https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum :

Definition of forum

1a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion The club provides a forum for people interested in local history.
c : a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

2 : a judicial body or assembly : court

3a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion i i.e. The town has scheduled a public forum to discuss the proposal.
b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by davidsun

What is more non-dual than a 'Oneness' in which duality (i.e. opposites) is/are 'seen' to be dynamically integral to the 'Life' of Its 'Being', i.e. to Its Creative functioning?

Is there any 'room' for honest disagreement and exploration of thoughtful propositions pertaining to a possible 'higher' view of the limitations of '"non" and "neti" based thinking, or is 'non-duality' as defined by the likes of Vivekanada a monolitic, absolutist philosophy that is 'loyally' asserted to be beyond challenging/questioning/considering?

IMO, the idea of a 'forum' in which ideas are restricted to a particular axiom-set is anathema (IMO) to what the word 'forum' really means.

Frim https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum :

Definition of forum

1a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion The club provides a forum for people interested in local history.
c : a medium (such as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

2 : a judicial body or assembly : court

3a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion i i.e. The town has scheduled a public forum to discuss the proposal.
b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities

You made another excellent point and asked Justasimpleguy a very good question, which I would like for him to answer. But he probably won't answer, so I will answer for him, Swami Vivekananda was a follower of Vedanta and followers of Vedata do not define non-duality as you put it '"as a monolitic, absolutist philosophy that is 'loyally' asserted to be beyond challenging/questioning/considering", It is Justasimpleguy who defines non-duality in that manner. I do not know where justasimpleguy got this idea or concept of biased non-duality but he did not get that from Vedanta teachings.

Justasimpleguy created this thread because of me.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

You made another excellent point and asked Justasimpleguy a very good question, which I would like for him to answer. But he probably won't answer, so I will answer for him, Swami Vivekananda was a follower of Vedanta and followers of Vedata do not define non-duality as you put it '"as a monolitic, absolutist philosophy that is 'loyally' asserted to be beyond challenging/questioning/considering", It is Justasimpleguy who defines non-duality in that manner. I do not know where justasimpleguy got this idea or concept of biased non-duality but he did not get that from Vedanta teachings.

Justasimpleguy created this thread because of me.

The Sri Ramakrishna order of Vedanta acknowledges all recognized spiritual paths as valid as do I. That being said the major tenants of a non-dual spiritual path aren't open to interpretation, nor are the major tenants of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc...

Now there are some disagreements within different schools of non-dualism, and the one I'm becoming familiar with is the origin of Maya. I'm currently reading "The Seven Great Untenables" but I admit it's an extremely deep topic and some of it is beyond my grasp.

I'm also reading "Vivekanada: The Yogas and Other Stories" and after finishing will reread "The Ten Principle Upanishads" & "The Bhagavad Gita" and then reread "The Seven Great Untenables" for a better understanding.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

It is Justasimpleguy who defines non-duality in that manner. I do not know where justasimpleguy got this idea or concept of biased non-duality but he did not get that from Vedanta teachings.

I have not read Vivekananda myself - having grown up in India and seen/experienced what I consider to be abdications of relational response-ability which stem from the (false IMO) 'idealization' of 'detachment', I have gravitated towards philosophies which are more positively engaged with others and worldly aspects of Life (such as one's 'personality') - so I just took Guy's assertions at face value.