Non-duality doesn't exist.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Moondance

Yes, the words form a pair of opposites.

But that which the word 'nonduality' attempts to convey knows no opposite.

If an opposite were to be imagined - it would be that too.

This is B period S period in my opinion. C'mon to a higher perpective, Moondance! : LOGIC 101: Like NON-Being, NON-Duality is clearly (2+2=4!!!!!) an oppositional 'position' to BEGIN with!

Watch out for your own personal 'preferences'!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

The only thing I can understand about all of this comes from an interview with Stephen Wolinsky at a SAND conference a few years ago...lemme see if I can find it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bkIKXgiKvCM

Right on, SD!!

Everyone please watch/listen to this so we can go beyond 'simplistic' interpretations, such as Jyotir's.

[Lord_Viskey]

I find it interesting that throughout 20 posts everyone is trying to identify an object called "non-duality". I'm here to tell you, that an argument will always be made for and against it if we insist on objectifying anything - including reality.

There is always the choice of "something" being - or "something" we refuse to accept as being through analytical approaches, so long as the observer imagines them self as separate from the topic of discussion.

Reality is the product of dualisms and non dualism alike - and contrary to popular belief, it is not the other way around. An Infinite Consciousness is the source from which all things can emerge - dualisms & etc. While it is this "undefinable & indistinguishable" "consciousness" that places the variations of reality out there for all to make judgments upon, it is the "Infinite Source," from which they all originate. When you make observations of any kind you are only approaching reality from one half of the coin (so-to-speak).

You view yourself as an object within it, attempting to define any other object (of which : "you are not"), while refusing to accept (what) you are as something that has emerged from the infinite potential -

- that same source from which there is no escape.

You choose to separate yourself; isolate yourself from it, because your analytical self knows that an observer can only observe by separating them self from that which is being observed.

(think: "can't see the forest for the trees in its way").

Voila ! you have created an object of yourself observing & an object of what [you assume] you are observing, and then, promptly make an assessment of either one and end up making posts like the preceding twenty.


Consider this: You also feel. Feeling is also another part of reality. Even if you believe "feelings" are only generated within brain tissue, they are still as real as anything else - they're just not the tangible components. In fact it is the entire other half of the coin you keep alluding to. Together, your 3-sided coin is this : the subjective; the objective; & the source/origin (again "from whence there is NO escape") that holds the other two aspects together.

When you are feeling an experience, you are not objectifying it at all. When you feel - however "so good" or however "so bad" - you have become a subjective entity - you are at one, with no dualisms, because the consideration of dualisms is not a feeling as you might first expect it to be - its something you are currently making as an objective "topic" of discussion.

This can't be much different from the adage : "those who know won't say & those that say won't know".

When you are in the subjective state of "not saying" there is only immersion - and dualism is impossible to exist. You have obtained "non-dualism" by experiencing an absorption within the moment.

The whole rest of your story, after that point is trying to communicate what you "have felt" - with the emphasis on "have" (as in past tense).

In past tense, you are no longer "at one" or experiencing "non-dualism" because "knowledge" & "communication" are forever dualisms - diametrically opposed - in this infinite arena from whence all things can emerge.

You have to be the "knowledge" - not the "communicator" because both cannot exist in the same point of reality as a "comparable" commodity - unless you consider that point as an infinite one where "zero" miraculously appears as "infinity".

Beyond physical mathematics "zero" must ultimately become "all" due to the relationship between "all that is" and "nothing"... (in the realm of infinite possibilities).

Think about it like this ; you are counting all the things of an infinite possibility. Let's say you have the time to count them and the numerological ability to do so .... What is the symbol (all mathematics is symbolical representation) for "just before "infinite" ?

You'll find there is no direct line of association between one and the rest; you have to exist in the "third face" of the coin - for it is the one that joins the other two together... You are witnessing a three dimensional reality. Try seeing it as only one dimensional - the only plane of existence is the plane on which your "singular" perspective currently functions.

Now, imagine your "three sided coin" as infinitely large - while your perception persists at the size you are currently and comfortable with working from. Work with me here; the topics of "dualism" and non-dualism" are infinitely large - how can you justify observing either one from an empyrean angle of view (and promptly making a judgment of it) if you your self are not that large?

Just a few thought excercises for the readers. Hope you enjoy.

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

I find it interesting that throughout 20 posts everyone is trying to identify an object called "non-duality". I'm here to tell you, that an argument will always be made for and against it if we insist on objectifying anything - including reality.

Exactly But it is so much fun to bang ones head to the music anyway.


PS, I have no idea who Lord Viskey is, but I love the handle.

[Lord_Viskey]

LV is this author's spirit, currently hanging out in the earth plane trying to find interesting conversations such as those that all of you present from time to time.

Recently been exploring my own objectified relationship to the "Infinite At large" these days.

[davidsun]

I genuinely enjoyed 'dancing' to/with your thought 'exercise' muse-ic, Lord Pooh-Bah, BUT, and this is a very BIG 'BUTT, statements like this (of which there are many in your post, IMO) ...

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

This can't be much different from the adage : "those who know won't say & those that say won't know".

... strike me as being nothing more than a 'sophist' 'looking down' at what's going on here one-upmanship.

If you wish to join 'us' as an 'equal' member in good faith ('faith' that communication can be positively creative), please do so. I sincerely invite you 'into' our forum-cafe.

Otherwise I suggest you content yourself with sucking your own you know what.

[Miss Hepburn]

When I have been immersed in a wild, transcendental exp ---NOT
brought on by myself or drugs...my mouth
has dropped when you see, (I mean, I saw, was shown)..."OMG! It's all ONE!
The Agony and ecstasy - sanity and insanity ...same coin! Flip sides..."
"OH! This is the Paradox!!"
Shazam!

-Input from inside the pet store.

[Lord_Viskey]

Geez... Davidsun. nothing I posted was supposed to incite such vehemently expressed sentiment.

I wasn't the original author of "...those who speak & those who know..." I was using it as an example of where one mind has to be, to be in balance.

For most of us, balance is like trying to remain on top of a gigantic, slippery, un-popable soap bubble - who cares about how well I can dance on top of one.

By your rationalization, there is no way for me

to join 'us' as an 'equal' member in good faith ('faith' that communication can be positively creative),

Its certainly everybody's prerogative to view what I said "as a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments" but perception is a many faceted thing. I can't be "equal" unless I am in the specific location that your perception is in, and I don't really know you to judge things that way. I didn't know I was talking to a bunch of elitists, and I'm sorry for my confusion.

I'd rather have a social conversation than an argument, so i guess that until I can trust what I say is not going to be inciteful, I'd have to bow out of this conversation.

Sorry I wasted everyone's time.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

When I have been immersed in a wild, transcendental exp ---NOT
brought on by myself or drugs...my mouth
has dropped when you see, (I mean, I saw, was shown)..."OMG! It's all ONE!
The Agony and ecstasy - sanity and insanity ...same coin! Flip sides..."
"OH! This is the Paradox!!"
Shazam!

-Input from inside the pet store.

No paradox, just business as usual, to me. No OMG in my case. Color me 'weird' if you wish, but I don't recall ever thinking or feeling that it wasn't 'One'.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

When I have been immersed in a wild, transcendental exp ---NOT
brought on by myself or drugs...my mouth
has dropped when you see, (I mean, I saw, was shown)..."OMG! It's all ONE!
The Agony and ecstasy - sanity and insanity ...same coin! Flip sides..."
"OH! This is the Paradox!!"
Shazam!

-Input from inside the pet store.

Each the other and the One Love in action dreaming differencce where there is none.