Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
None of my considerations in this thread are relevant if the manifestation is not infinite. But if it is (and why wouldn't it be if it requires nothing to manifest) then there is a problem with the popular non dual reference that all that manifests is an illusion of difference where there is none.
|
you are confusing linguistic categories. That is the issue here.
In the OP you have written:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
From a non dual perspective, the dream of difference/separation is all there is.
|
That linguistc expression
refers to (but is not) an
individual experience and its not to be confused with rational analytical language because 'dream' is a simile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Try to describe what is not the dream and whatever you describe will still be the dream.
|
That is the expression of a rational analytical conclusion from the individual experiential linguistic expression above. It is
not an expression from a non dual perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
What is not the dream does not exist so is beyond description. Only the dream has existance.
|
That linguistc expression again
refers to (but is not) an
individual experience and its not to be confused with rational analytical language because other may e.g. say "Well you have merely posited that 'the dream is all there is' without being able to prove it. It may be that you are dreaming but others are not. So how can you claim that your dream determines what exists or does not exist
generally? you can only say what exists
for you in
your dream."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
From a nondual perspective the nature of that existance is very peculier/strange indeed.
|
Here you are confusing nondual perspective which refers to individual experience with rational analytical perspective. Why? Because from a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience there isn't any inquiry into the nature of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
It is the appearance of existance where there is no existance whatsoever. We are that. Astonishing!
|
That is an expression of your rational analytical conclusion which is
not from a nondual perspective. From a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience there existence does not occur to one, so what would be an appropriate expression from a non-dual perspective referring to (but not being) the experience: 'neither existence nor non-existence' or 'beyond existence and non-existence' or - even more appropriate - the extended Nagarjunian version: Neither existence, nor non-existence, nor both, nor neither.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
There is a complication to the above however. If the manifestation is infinite then there must be existence that is not the dream otherwise the manifestation would not be infinite.
|
This complication arises in your mind only because you are confusing expression from a nondual perspective which refers to individual experience with expressions of rational analytical language.
From a nondual perspective there is neither infinite nor finite, so there is no issue at all: Neither infinite, nor finite, nor both, nor neither.
Individual experience is not accessible to rational analysis although both may be expressed by means of linguistic expressions and although individual experience may result from rational analysis. But the linguistic expressions of both are incompatible because rational analysis of expressions of individual experiences takes as its basis words and meanings arising from those words which however
are not the experiences but only expressions of them. Also the kind of linguistic expressions of individual experiences and rational analysis are often very different because rational analysis is not expressed by means of words representing
indeterminate similes, metaphors and the like but is expressed by means of words representing
determinate objects.
If however someone is subject to innate truth habits then he/she may confuse his/her individual experiences with truths or another person's expression of his/her individual experience with claims of truth which then may entail confusing expressions
refering to individual experience with expressions of rational analytical language.