Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Non Duality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 13-01-2018, 06:22 AM
naturesflow naturesflow is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: In my cocoon.
Posts: 6,750
  naturesflow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampgrl
Good question.

Perhaps see it as it really isn't.

If nonduality had a humor,........ what mask?


Seeing things as they are not is a positive way to not get entangled in yourself and open to a new way of relating. The issue with language as I have learned is that language does change through the awareness of yourself (more complete) in a non dual state, but if the whole self hasn't integrated this more holistically as you, then you will notice language will still fall prey to a dual response..

The subtle and not so subtle energy that flows through words often depicts the nature of integration. Its all about the "feel" aspect that many over ride believing the mind is a solo player to ending duality, when its the whole self inclusive as a total expression of itself.

IF non duality had a humour what mask would it wear- Hmm let me ponder for a bit.
__________________
“God’s one and only voice are Silence.” ~ Herman Melville

Man has learned how to challenge both Nature and art to become the incitements to vice! His very cups he has delighted to engrave with libidinous subjects, and he takes pleasure in drinking from vessels of obscene form! Pliny the Elder
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 13-01-2018, 10:23 PM
swampgrl swampgrl is offline
Knower
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 142
  swampgrl's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturesflow

IF non duality had a humour what mask would it wear- Hmm let me ponder for a bit.

Wouldn't be the mask of ponderability?
__________________
Identity, the first and last misnomer.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13-01-2018, 11:49 PM
FallingLeaves FallingLeaves is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,178
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
If the intention is simply to invalidate the other point of view then the attempt to understand each other is not the objective so in that sense can be said to be invalid.

whether you call it invalid based on that criterion depends on your point of view, e.g. on what you value. I'm given to understand that some people quite like a good fight and might find this very validating...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14-01-2018, 12:26 AM
swampgrl swampgrl is offline
Knower
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 142
  swampgrl's Avatar
Your post, FallingLeaves, 'spired the following post. Related?

A player is not a player until cards are dealt. Being a player certainly validates that one is in the game and everything that entails.

In the beginning was the word (cards dealt).
__________________
Identity, the first and last misnomer.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14-01-2018, 12:44 AM
FallingLeaves FallingLeaves is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,178
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampgrl
Your post, FallingLeaves, 'spired the following post. Related?

A player is not a player until cards are dealt. Being a player certainly validates that one is in the game and everything that entails.

In the beginning was the word (cards dealt).

perhaps... but I see that there is quite a bit of disagreement on what it 'entails'.... so can't validate that the idea of disagreement is itself invalid. Because if it were as invalid as we might wish to suppose, it wouldn't have been one of the cards played?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14-01-2018, 12:46 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Guide
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 673
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallingLeaves
whether you call it invalid based on that criterion depends on your point of view, e.g. on what you value. I'm given to understand that some people quite like a good fight and might find this very validating...

Yes that seems to be so. By invalid I simply mean in terms of not being interested in mutual undertanding which I value.

How would you describe your purpose when engaging in discussion?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 14-01-2018, 01:37 AM
swampgrl swampgrl is offline
Knower
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 142
  swampgrl's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallingLeaves
perhaps... but I see that there is quite a bit of disagreement on what it 'entails'.... so can't validate that the idea of disagreement is itself invalid. Because if it were as invalid as we might wish to suppose, it wouldn't have been one of the cards played?

Depends on the game. In some games the joker is used.
__________________
Identity, the first and last misnomer.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 14-01-2018, 01:56 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,816
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallingLeaves
perhaps... but I see that there is quite a bit of disagreement on what it 'entails'.... so can't validate that the idea of disagreement is itself invalid. Because if it were as invalid as we might wish to suppose, it wouldn't have been one of the cards played?

I think it relates to duality as agreement/disagreement, and the very meaning of agreeing is opposed to the meaning in disagreeing. In a more fundamental way, this pertains to the known, as we agree on what we think is true (the opposite being obvious). This is the dialectic structure of knowledgeable discourse. To support what we 'know is true' we compile evidence to support it, and in a more or less 'argument format', set about convincing ourselves and others. Another person doen't wan't to to be convinced, so they point out all the flaws in the evidence as they disagree.

This then becomes focused on the identity and it becomes I'm right/you're wrong, which is a power dynamic created by the relative subject positions. It is also obvious how authority enters here, and the 'one who is right' will draw on authority figures such as a great spiritual teacher in order to ampify the power of their voice, and defeat the other. As we can see the dual element litters this whole passage so far.

Discourse itself, however, is not necessarily dualistic, because the dialectic structure of a friendly conversation just ebbs and flows, changing subjects, and no one knows where it is going to go - there is no agenda pushing it in any particular direction, and no one trying to convince anyone else of 'what is true'. The conversation can go one for hours, personal stories intermixed with topical subjects, without agreement or disagreement, and even where agreement/disagreement arises, no importance is given to it, and all party's world view is affected.

So basically, words in use are not necessarily dualistic. Indeed, the meaning of a word is very broad and nuanced within the larger context. If we were to say words are dualistic, we would have to assume all communications are dualistic, body language, facial expression, expressive sounds like 'mmmm'. How can it be dualistic when 'mmmmm' may communicate contemplating, something delicious, physical attraction and a number of other meanings?
__________________
.
Check out my signature.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 14-01-2018, 02:03 AM
naturesflow naturesflow is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: In my cocoon.
Posts: 6,750
  naturesflow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampgrl
Wouldn't be the mask of ponderability?

Wouldn't be? Or would be did you mean?

Your words confused me somewhat..
__________________
“God’s one and only voice are Silence.” ~ Herman Melville

Man has learned how to challenge both Nature and art to become the incitements to vice! His very cups he has delighted to engrave with libidinous subjects, and he takes pleasure in drinking from vessels of obscene form! Pliny the Elder
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 14-01-2018, 02:06 AM
swampgrl swampgrl is offline
Knower
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 142
  swampgrl's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturesflow
Wouldn't be? Or would be did you mean?

Your words confused me somewhat..

Either way.....
__________________
Identity, the first and last misnomer.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums