Self - open discussion

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Curiosity about triality got the better of me, and since the group had exceeded their download limit the next place was Google. What I found here - http://www.ithou.org/node/1901 was interesting.

It's been said that once upon a time there was single consciousness, all alone in the night. Then that consciousness asked the question. "Who Am I?" To find the answer it split itself into two. At that moment Duality was born. Call it the Truth, call it metaphor or call it whatever you like, the theme remains the same. Internal and external. I Am, I am Not. It Is, It Is Not. I've always thought there was something missing from the process - the observer. Triality would explain that. If right and wrong are Duality, Triality would be the place where there is neither. Or something :-)

Thats interesting. I see where you are going with that I think. I would say there is I Am and I Am Not (the form and formless) and then we have the Individual Consciousness or Individuated Experiencer (or perhaps the higher Self), which maybe you are labelling 'the observer'.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


Hi Andrew: I understand the 'feeling' you are trying to convey, and i have had the same feeling.. "pure happiness", when it 'seems' as if that is all there is.. yet, the whole universe awaits the return of our awareness from whence it embraced itself in its 'happiness'.. and, we each return, thankful for the experience and the 'feeling'.. what next? pursuit of more happiness? the sorting and labeling of experiences according to the last best version of "pure happiness"?.. i ask, not as "mud slinging", but genuinely curious.. in my years, i have discovered many versions of "pure happiness", each better than the other (avoid linear concepts with that last phrase).. what i have come to realize is, that it's not the 'pure happiness' that that has value, it is the 'experiences' that reveal it.. it is not the horrid suffering that has value, it is the 'experiences' that reveal it..

Duality, for me, is the understanding that physical existence requires that fundamental principle for its existence.. and, that the spiritual/intangible existence manifests the physical experience as the self-awareness of its own self-discovery.. i sense 'non-duality' as a conceptual label that may be misleading, implying a condition that is beyond the capacity of existence to manifest.. as a 'label' it is benign, as a belief it can inspire Nihlism.. i like to avoid ambiguity and Nihlism..

Be well..

With regard to the second paragraph, I agree with the highlighted bit, though I think I probably see more value in the concept of 'non-duality' than you. I would like to try and explain what I like about the concept. What I see as a source of human suffering is what might be called black and white thinking. To give a simple example, lets pretend that someone is insisting that the way they mow their lawn is better than the way that I mow my lawn. And its obviously a very subjective thing because I am perfectly happy with the way I mow my lawn. But this other person says....'No. This is the right way and the best way and your way is wrong.' This person is very aligned to a position, he is very aligned to a right and wrong way of doing things, a best and worse way of doing things. I would say his thinking is very dualistic and objective. Black and white thinking. I would say that thinking that is more non-dualistic is more subjective and open to different ways. It is a shades of grey kind of thinking that sees value in the uniqueness of all different ways of doing and being.

In the end Im not going to say that I dont judge right/wrong, better/worse because clearly I do and I demonstrate that on the forum. Even in writing this I am saying that dualistic thinking is 'worse' than non-dualistic thinking. But I strive to be more accepting of different people's ways. I work at accepting that people's preferences are perfect for them. I work at releasing my alignment to particular positions. To put it simply, I try and maintain an open mind! I think there are certain limits though for humans currently, even the highly respected teachers of peace set a preference for peace rather than non-peace in their teachings. So I think its a work in progress for us all.

I just want to add to that, that although I spoke of working towards a more non-dualistic way of thinking, in the end, thought is dualistic in itself. I cant speak without aligning to a position at least a little bit. So part of the work for me has been releasing my need to hold onto those positions that I take up when I speak i.e. to release them quickly. In this work I feel I am releasing my need to blame and sulk, to make people into 'bad guys', and to make myself into a 'victim'. And its a work in progress for me. So I see 'non-duality' as just another way of talking about moving beyond blaming, victims, heroes, sulking. Moving beyond that kind of drama basically. Valuing each and every experience.

Which brings me onto the first paragraph, could you explain to me what you mean when you say that you value the experiences that reveal the happiness and the suffering? I think I get it but I would like to hear it in your words.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

so as newtonian apprehension of the universe is simple . verifiable and experiential.
no need to deal with those QM madness.

.

Jeez mate, experience comprises of much more than billiard balls.

It's to be more deeply aware, enhance the senses, perceive more deeply, empty the mind, become water and win at the pool table.

What is verified outside experience?

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

Jeez mate, experience comprises of much more than billiard balls.

It's to be more deeply aware, enhance the senses, perceive more deeply, empty the mind, become water and win at the pool table.

What is verified outside experience?

are you kiddin me? .

if all the people in the world fell dead at once, you mean the universe cease to exist?

.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

are you kiddin me? .

if all the people in the world fell dead at once, you mean the universe cease to exist?

.

I guess it would just keep on keeping on.

What difference does that make?

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

I guess it would just keep on keeping on.

What difference does that make?

experience is not all.
sublime as it is.
it comes and it goes

[sound]

Originally Posted by hybrid

experience is not all.
sublime as it is.
it come and it goes

You dont think hybrid that when focus/awareness shifts that the nature of experience simply changes ?

Greetings..

Originally Posted by andrew g

Which brings me onto the first paragraph, could you explain to me what you mean when you say that you value the experiences that reveal the happiness and the suffering? I think I get it but I would like to hear it in your words.

'Happiness and suffering' are conceptual descriptions, judgments and ambiguous.. yes, we need to communicate, and these represent a very broad consensus of meaning, but.. there are extreme interpretations of the 'meanings' of those terms, sometimes referred to as 'socially deviant behavior', where the experiences experiences 'pure happiness' in ways that are wholly unacceptable to most people.. it is inappropriate to define anyone's 'personal' understanding of 'pure happiness/suffering' as the standard against which others are judged.. so, it is the experiences that reveal these feelings/judgments that are the sources of understanding.. do i experience 'pure happiness' in the moving stillness of a perfect wave.. or, in the brutal acts of war? each 'can' be defined so by different experiencers, so.. rather than the term 'pure happiness/suffering', i am interested in the 'experiences' that inspire those labels and judgments.. it will not be sufficient to invoke 'self-evident' as defining these labels, that is dependent on the 'self'..

Be well..

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by sound

You dont think hybrid that when focus/awareness shifts that the nature of experience simply changes ?

no. the death of the person is the end of his experience. the persons experience does not shift endless from one experience to another.

and in this kind of belief that we must be free. imho

.

[sound]

Originally Posted by hybrid

no. the death of the person is the end of his experience. the persons experience does not shift endless from one experience to another.

and in this kind of belief that we must be free. imho

.

Do you mean hybrid we must be free from the belief that experience (of one 'kind' or another) continues? Like it is reasonably obvious that it wont continue as the human kind after the body gives up the ghost ...