rejecting aspects of non-duality?

[DalesRealMeditation]

hi non-dualists.

are there any aspects of the non-dual philosophy that you reject?

if so, why?

if not, why?

cheers!

[Fairyana]

Not at the moment. Everything seems to make sense so far. I personally love listening to the non-dualist teachings of Rupert Spira. Check him out if you like here: https://www.youtube.com/user/rupertspira

[iamthat]

This may not really answer the question posed, but here are some thoughts.

Some time ago I read a book This is It by Jan Kersschot which consisted of interviews with various neo-Advaitist teachers. From memory there were some ideas which I questioned (although my memory may well be faulty).

I recall reading the claim that since there is no separate personal self there is therefore nothing which reincarnates and therefore reincarnation does not occur. We have to differentiate between personal identity and individualised consciousness. The realisation that there is no personal identity does not remove the state of individualised consciousness, and it is this individualised consciousness which reincarnates, not the small separate personal self.

Some may deny individualised consciousness in Advaita, but the fact is that even for those resting in Oneness, awareness is centred around one physical body. Perhaps some neo-Advaitist teachers would disagree, but if you pay to go to one of their talks then they will insist that the money paid goes to them rather than some passing stranger.

From the book, I also recall the belief that the possibility of awakening to Oneness was available to any person at any time. Again, I question this. Not everyone is ready to let go of all separate personal identity. The fact that it has happened to various individuals who were not actively pursing any particular path or practice may simply indicate that in previous lives they had progressed to the point where they were ready to let go of separate personal identity.

I also recall in the book a certain smug dismissal of meditation. The argument was that people do various meditation practices to attain various goals in some future time, and thus they never succeed, because the realisation of Oneness comes from letting go of everything, including practices and future goals.

Such dismissal of meditation misses the point. Meditation is not about attaining future goals, meditation is about being fully present. Meditation is an opportunity to sit and be, without external distraction. They seem to have defined meditation in a very limited way just so that they can dismiss it. And meditation is as good a way of spending one's time as any other activity (or inactivity).

These are some of the things I picked up on while reading the above book - as I say my memory may well be faulty.

Speaking of books, why do the neo-Advaitists write so many books, all saying the same thing? I guess because there are people willing to buy them, always hoping for that final clue to tip oneself over the edge of realisation. But it is good to read and be reminded.

Peace.

[Iamit]

hi non-dualists.

are there any aspects of the non-dual philosophy that you reject?

if so, why?

if not, why?

cheers!

I'm pleased to say that the answer is NO, as non duality meant the end of a very uncomfortable feeling of disconnection.

But that did not occur until after a very difficult period of including ALL as Oneness manifest, particularly suffering, ones own and the suffering of others, as Oneness manifest. But eventually the inevitability that ALL must be Oneness manifest won through. That is an unavoidable conclusion if All is One. But without the initial resonance with that concept, there would have been no such ending. Resonance is defined as a vibration and if the frequency of where the person is at is the same as that of the concept then a strong connection happens, like tuning in very clearly to a radio frequency. Suffering may or may not end depending on circumstances, but there is no longer a feeling of disconnection when suffering.

Persons may vary enormously in the frequency of their vibration, we know this from our personal relationships, so one size does not fit all, and no one connection is any better than another. All connection depends on the particular vibration frequency of the individual matching the frequency vibration of the object, in this case the vibration frequency of the concept All is One.

Good luck.

[Moondance]

Such dismissal of meditation misses the point. Meditation is not about attaining future goals, meditation is about being fully present. Meditation is an opportunity to sit and be, without external distraction. They seem to have defined meditation in a very limited way just so that they can dismiss it. And meditation is as good a way of spending one's time as any other activity (or inactivity).

Yes, I see this going on quite a bit. Meditation is singled out as reinforcing the separate self whereas practically everything else - contributing to a forum, writing a book, making your favourite sandwich etc. - seems to be okay. It’s missing the point. Meditation - like everything else, is simply what is happening. And if that particular expression (meditation = being with what is, as it is) correlates with a diminishing of mental fog which keeps the mind in the dream of separation, then a lucid insight to the natural state can occur which might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

Of course the argument is that mental fog or no mental fog, Oneness/no separation is the case. Yes this is true. But if it’s not seen then such a statement is trite and solipsistic. The BEING of our true nature is always already the case. The SEEING of it is not.

[no1wakesup]

Non duality is not something to understand intellecually. The only perspective that believes it can agree or disagree is one ironically saturated in duality. The one still there is necessary in order to make such conclusions. Non duality is not the opposite of duality. To believe so just makes it another concept. When the devide which separates both extremes are no longer there, non duality is the ground of beingness without opposites. Non duality is not subject to approval or rejection. That only exists as a possibility within conditioning.

[iamthat]

Non duality is not something to understand intellectually. ... Non duality is not subject to approval or rejection. That only exists as a possibility within conditioning.

This is true, but the original question asked was:

are there any aspects of the non-dual philosophy that you reject?

The philosophy of non-duality is not the same as non-duality. And the philosophy of non-duality is not the same as the realisation of non-duality. It is possible to disagree with people's ideas about non-duality because they are just ideas which may or may not be valid. They have nothing to do with non-duality as a reality.

Perhaps the real problem with the philosophy of non-duality is that some people can intellectually understand the philosophy without having the realisation of non-duality. The philosophy and the realisation are very different, but some people (including on this forum) confuse the two.

Peace.

[Joe Mc]

hi non-dualists.

are there any aspects of the non-dual philosophy that you reject?

if so, why?

if not, why?

cheers!

Non dual 'philosophy' is always pointing so its kinda self rejecting in away and the nomenclature to describe non dual experience varies alot. I mean you want the word to describe the experience in as accurate a way as possible but we should always be aware that the word is a pointer and so is the philosophy.

[Moondance]

hi non-dualists.

are there any aspects of the non-dual philosophy that you reject?

if so, why?

if not, why?

cheers!

Hello DRM

There isn’t really a definitive non-dual philosophy.

It might be helpful (for a moment) to think of nondual realisation as having three facets.

Firstly there is the actual felt-sense realisation. This is a visceral non-conceptual gnosis. An energetic shift (or opening) in perception.

This is accompanied by (what I’ll call) nondual revelation. This is the mind’s immediate response to the shift.

Later there is a more explicable articulation/making sense of this realisation/revelation. This is the nondual philosophy part.

The revelation part of this goes something along the lines of (and this is putting it dryly): I thought I was a separate, inherently existing entity (x) but now I see that (x) is not other than the play of (z). (z) is all there is.

Nondual philosophy fleshes this out - but along the way introduces biases, supplementary material and speculation. This accounts for the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) differences in the expositions of Advaita Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Western philosophy and others.

[DalesRealMeditation]

to all:

thanks! your answers helped a bit.

all replies to all replies are below.

the reason i asked this question is because years ago, when i saw non-dualism rising in popularity, i wondered which direction it would take. as a useful philosophy and practice, i wondered..

anyhow, it seems to have taken the same path as several popular trends over the years, such as:
kundalini
enlightenment
positive thinking.
prana/energy work
astral projection
etc.

each being overwhelmingly useful and a component of any spiritual practice; yet somehow taken out of context, isolated from the rest of meditation for enlightenment and promoted as the end-all, be-all of meditative practice until people were burned out and the legitimate practice of each was marred by it's new, modern reputation; as something absurd and illegitimate.

for instance: many people who want to learn astral projection first learn about it from cartoons and video games, and they want to astral-fight their high school nemesis or something else. it's difficult to find legitimate content because there's so much weirdness posted by people who have never actually astrally-projected. so legitimate spiritual seekers might be turned off right from the beginning and never even consider it.

for instance (lastly): kundalini
now everything is kundalini: a tingling feeling, anxiety, a tickle, a rash.
using the internet: can a sincere aspirant actually learn about real kundalini?

you get the picture.

i just wanted to hear some of the good, the bad and the ugly (if any) since i don't have time to review the whole of the interwebs.

here are all my replies to all of your replies:

Not at the moment. Everything seems to make sense so far. I personally love listening to the non-dualist teachings of Rupert Spira. Check him out if you like here: https://www.youtube.com/user/rupertspira

thanks! i'm not looking to learn more about self inquiry, rather, to learn how self-inquiry has progressed during the years i've been away from the spiritual interwebs and (more importantly) what people have learned about it.

This may not really answer the question posed, but here are some thoughts.

actually, your post is very interesting.

Some time ago I read a book This is It by Jan Kersschot which consisted of interviews with various neo-Advaitist teachers. From memory there were some ideas which I questioned (although my memory may well be faulty).

I recall reading the claim that since there is no separate personal self there is therefore nothing which reincarnates and therefore reincarnation does not occur.

interesting that (like modern buddhism, sadly, unfortunately), self inquiry seems to have become pure intellectual deduction (like sherlock holmes or something) and ignores/denies/rejects all spiritual aspects (apparently) completely.

We have to differentiate between personal identity and individualised consciousness. The realisation that there is no personal identity does not remove the state of individualised consciousness, and it is this individualised consciousness which reincarnates, not the small separate personal self.

i think that these philosophical concepts are created by men and women who study and think but don't meditate or practice anything spiritual, which misleads them.

in other words, vedantic self inquiry is a subcategory of early meditation stages, non-dualism is helpful in leading followers to non-clinging during such meditative stages, and the philosophy should end there and lead to higher spiritual meditative states, leaving vedanta behind as the spiritual aspirant moves forward.

Some may deny individualised consciousness in Advaita, but the fact is that even for those resting in Oneness, awareness is centred around one physical body. Perhaps some neo-Advaitist teachers would disagree, but if you pay to go to one of their talks then they will insist that the money paid goes to them rather than some passing stranger.

i think the missing component is the concept of skandhas or clinging: for instance: we can give and receive money without worrying about it (and identifying with it) just as easily as we can worry (clinging, ego, contriving an identity based on the exchange of money).

debating whether or not i or you exist is an obtuse and silly argument and i wonder how silly men have come to dominate so-called "spiritual thought," at this time.

From the book, I also recall the belief that the possibility of awakening to Oneness was available to any person at any time. Again, I question this. Not everyone is ready to let go of all separate personal identity. The fact that it has happened to various individuals who were not actively pursing any particular path or practice may simply indicate that in previous lives they had progressed to the point where they were ready to let go of separate personal identity.

karma baby. again, seems to be completely ignored/dismissed/rejected in modern vedantic circles.

I also recall in the book a certain smug dismissal of meditation. The argument was that people do various meditation practices to attain various goals in some future time, and thus they never succeed, because the realisation of Oneness comes from letting go of everything, including practices and future goals.

the buddha also touched on this in a similar (but not the same) way. performing physical rituals and postures without the mental/emotional/spiritual components is just as silly as the reverse (or any other combination of spiritual/mental/ physical/emotional/etc.

my words, not the buddhas.

Such dismissal of meditation misses the point. Meditation is not about attaining future goals, meditation is about being fully present. Meditation is an opportunity to sit and be, without external distraction. They seem to have defined meditation in a very limited way just so that they can dismiss it. And meditation is as good a way of spending one's time as any other activity (or inactivity).

it's also the crux of attaining pranayama, kundalini rising (the real one, not the "everything is kundalini" version), samadhi and enlightenment.

awareness isn't enlightenment, it's awareness.

These are some of the things I picked up on while reading the above book - as I say my memory may well be faulty.

thanks! helped a bit!

Speaking of books, why do the neo-Advaitists write so many books, all saying the same thing? I guess because there are people willing to buy them, always hoping for that final clue to tip oneself over the edge of realisation. But it is good to read and be reminded.

Peace.

there's no end to the writing (and reading of books) on any topic.

thanks! peace!

QUOTE=Iamit]I'm pleased to say that the answer is NO, as non duality meant the end of a very uncomfortable feeling of disconnection.

But that did not occur until after a very difficult period of including ALL as Oneness manifest, particularly suffering, ones own and the suffering of others, as Oneness manifest. But eventually the inevitability that ALL must be Oneness manifest won through. That is an unavoidable conclusion if All is One. But without the initial resonance with that concept, there would have been no such ending. Resonance is defined as a vibration and if the frequency of where the person is at is the same as that of the concept then a strong connection happens, like tuning in very clearly to a radio frequency. Suffering may or may not end depending on circumstances, but there is no longer a feeling of disconnection when suffering.

Persons may vary enormously in the frequency of their vibration, we know this from our personal relationships, so one size does not fit all, and no one connection is any better than another. All connection depends on the particular vibration frequency of the individual matching the frequency vibration of the object, in this case the vibration frequency of the concept All is One.

Good luck.[/QUOTE]

how do you measure your vibration and frequency?

Yes, I see this going on quite a bit. Meditation is singled out as reinforcing the separate self whereas practically everything else - contributing to a forum, writing a book, making your favourite sandwich etc. - seems to be okay. It’s missing the point. Meditation - like everything else, is simply what is happening. And if that particular expression (meditation = being with what is, as it is) correlates with a diminishing of mental fog which keeps the mind in the dream of separation, then a lucid insight to the natural state can occur which might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

Of course the argument is that mental fog or no mental fog, Oneness/no separation is the case. Yes this is true. But if it’s not seen then such a statement is trite and solipsistic. The BEING of our true nature is always already the case. The SEEING of it is not.

i think the notion of oneness comes from psychedelic usage.

once you've lifted the fog...you're done?

thanks in advance!

Non duality is not something to understand intellecually. The only perspective that believes it can agree or disagree is one ironically saturated in duality. The one still there is necessary in order to make such conclusions. Non duality is not the opposite of duality. To believe so just makes it another concept. When the devide which separates both extremes are no longer there, non duality is the ground of beingness without opposites. Non duality is not subject to approval or rejection. That only exists as a possibility within conditioning.

once your beingness is non-dual...you're enlightened?

or enlightenment doesn't exist?

just trying to understand your perspective or experience on the non-intellectual non-saturated beingness of non-belief.

This is true, but the original question asked was:

are there any aspects of the non-dual philosophy that you reject?

The philosophy of non-duality is not the same as non-duality. And the philosophy of non-duality is not the same as the realisation of non-duality. It is possible to disagree with people's ideas about non-duality because they are just ideas which may or may not be valid. They have nothing to do with non-duality as a reality.

Perhaps the real problem with the philosophy of non-duality is that some people can intellectually understand the philosophy without having the realisation of non-duality. The philosophy and the realisation are very different, but some people (including on this forum) confuse the two.

Peace.

how would you ______ them realize it?

Non dual 'philosophy' is always pointing so its kinda self rejecting in away and the nomenclature to describe non dual experience varies alot. I mean you want the word to describe the experience in as accurate a way as possible but we should always be aware that the word is a pointer and so is the philosophy.

okay: describe the experience in your interconnected egoless is-ness way, please.

Hello DRM

There isn’t really a definitive non-dual philosophy.

so...the original non-dual thinkers had it wrong?

It might be helpful (for a moment) to think of nondual realisation as having three facets.

Firstly there is the actual felt-sense realisation. This is a visceral non-conceptual gnosis. An energetic shift (or opening) in perception.

This is accompanied by (what I’ll call) nondual revelation. This is the mind’s immediate response to the shift.

Later there is a more explicable articulation/making sense of this realisation/revelation. This is the nondual philosophy part.

The revelation part of this goes something along the lines of (and this is putting it dryly): I thought I was a separate, inherently existing entity (x) but now I see that (x) is not other than the play of (z). (z) is all there is.

i'm not sure at all how that helps.

Nondual philosophy fleshes this out - but along the way introduces biases, supplementary material and speculation. This accounts for the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) differences in the expositions of Advaita Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Western philosophy and others.

we agree to disagree. but thanks!

[Joe Mc]

okay: describe the experience in your interconnected egoless is-ness way, please

Non duality, means not two. in duality there are two types of persona. One persona is an illusion the other is real. One witness is false the other is authentic. When the real witness comes through the door the false witness is seen for what it is. The false witness finds a natural place and is no longer is charge. things which where stated as being real from the false witnesses point of view are seen for what they are, neither false nor real, but they are not what the false witness had claimed them to be. This is seen clearly. There is a knowing, a pure knowing which is beyond and even in control of the false witness. I'm using the words and ideas of persona and knowing to point as accurately as i can to what ive experienced so far. There isn't two anymore the real self has an aspect which some people call ego. But when the ego is in control or the false self there are two, there is duality, there is the ordinary self and the spiritual self from the ego's point of view. This is the first time i've ever used words to try and describe this so thanks for the opportunity.

[Moondance]

so...the original non-dual thinkers had it wrong?

Nondual realization/revelation is timeless and borderless. No one originated it, no tradition can claim ownership of it. It’s an energetic shift in perception - a non-conceptual gnosis. Any/all attempts to conceptualize, systemize and formulate it will be, to some degree, subject to human limitation, interpretation and bias. Hence the differences in the traditions.

[Jyotir]

Nondual realization/revelation is timeless and borderless. No one originated it, no tradition can claim ownership of it. It’s an energetic shift in perception - a non-conceptual gnosis. Any/all attempts to conceptualize, systemize and formulate it will be, to some degree, subject to human limitation, interpretation and bias. Hence the differences in the traditions.

Hi Moondance,

Well said, and adding (or repeating) that per thread topic: "rejecting aspects of non-duality?", any such rejection would necessarily be a result of those limitations of cognition including and especially mental/conceptual - as codified within various traditions or as experienced through various individuals.


~ J