Is consciousness nondual?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Extrinsic and intrinsic has to do with the true nature/essence of a thing/form. Extrinsic and intrinsic has nothing to do with the existence of a thing/form.

You don't think existence itself is the ultimate true (essential) nature? This is in fact the language used in non-duality to describe what is actually real (intrinsic) and what only appears to be real (extrinsic).

In other words if one subtracts existence then nothing remains and that's the meaning behind all the above analogies (cloud/castle, water/wave, rope/snake, clay/pot, gold/ornament - intrinsic/extrinsic existence). The extrinsic exists only by virtue of the intrinsic whereas the intrinsic simply exists with or without the extrinsic.

[hazada guess]

Everything exists to each and every soul, it's just a case of vibrations.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Take the castle in the cloud. The form of the castle exists but only by virtue of there being a cloud, so the castle's existence is extrinsic and the cloud's existence is intrinsic. Same with the rope and snake. The snake's existence is extrinsic and the rope's is intrinsic.

Sir, good analogy.

But, only if you give 'existence' to 'snake/castle/forms/pot/bracelet/etc.', then calling it as 'extrinsic' will be valid.

The forms/snake/etc., is only an illusory appearance, so calling it as 'extrinsic existence' is contrary - a dualistic perspective.

Take the Mirage example. Can you say Water exists extrinsic? Nope. Because, there is no existence of water there, only just illusory appearance. So, there is no extrinsic existence even in power-Maya.

Maya, calling it as Existence is also a false notion. Shankara mostly never defines Maya as Existence, and says "Neither Existence - nor non-existence" - power which cannot be said as extrinsic to intrinsic Atman.

If pot is really exists, then calling 'pot' as 'extrinsic' to 'clay' would be right. But it is not so. Only Clay/Water, appearance has no existence, appearance is not extrinsic to Atman.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Mind is an entitiy and me, mind is atman/brahman. I do not have a perspective that atman/brahman are just spiritual in nature.

So, seems you want to create a new form of Non-dual teaching.

Hope, you open a Advaita school with a new perspective, saying Mind is Atman.

For me, Mind itself is not an existence (how much experience we might get). Even calling Atman as spirit/etc., is also not in-line with me.

"Just because we experience something, doesn't mean it truly exists in the same way" - this is my knowledge which made me inquire everything for all these 2 years, never I trust 'things' I experience is in 'same' manner.

But, if you trust whatever you experience is the true form, then we part ways here. Hope we meet at the End.

All the Best.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Imposing a castle in the clouds, requires you to force yourself, with authority of seeing a castle in the clouds that is really not there in the clouds. Superimposing a castle in the clouds will be you laying a real castle on top of the clouds, and both, the castle and the clouds will be evident and present to you, as being real.

I couldn't understand what you point here.

I'm sorry.

I feel, You want to fix to the concept (which is not really Advaitic) that, "Castle has reality which layed by us, even in clouds."
So, you want to feel that whatever we lay is real. Then, if we lay duality is real, then it is real to ground based on your view. Right? I don't know what you mean by 'real castle' too. I'm questioning the reality itself, whereas you make an assumption of 'real castle,etc.,' and start from there (trusting whatever forms we sense/experience are real, and from that trust you are engaging in dialogues, and not ready to question the trust like Me/Shankara/Ramana/etc.,. Have Fun with the trust, that's the only best wish I can make I feel).

All the best again, and lay everything and make others accept that whatever you/we lay is real.

It's an Imagination/Ignorance itself, and I don't know whether you are aware of such Imagination (Imagination/Ignorance is - to believe that whatever mind lays/forms is real existence as one with the ground/base). As I said before, whatever forms I see/sense/imagine, I cannot trust it as real, but you do, and we differ here and may end our conversation here. I don't know which side Shankaracharya will choose.

Take care.

Originally Posted by O K Viswanath

Maya, calling it as Existence is also a false notion. Shankara mostly never defines Maya as Existence, and says "Neither Existence - nor non-existence"

It is said Maya cannot be said to be unreal because it appears and yet cannot be said to be real because it's destroyed by knowledge. It's indeterminate. It's an appearance (name, form and usage) of That. The underlying and prevailing reality exists, just not name, form and usage (action).

Duality says Prakriti/nature exists intrinsically and independently of Purusha. Advaita says Maya/nature only exists extrinsically due to error/ignorance. Even an Enlightened being still perceives the error with sense organs but has the knowledge that obviates that error. Would you say that the world of objects (including empty space) is unreal in the sense of non-existence, or would you say only the appearance is unreal? Better yet, would you say there's even an "out there" or would you say none of "out there" is apart from Consciousness and Tat Tvam Asi? By the way, this last bit answers the question posed in the OP.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

It is said Maya cannot be said to be unreal because it appears and yet cannot be said to be real because it's destroyed by knowledge. It's indeterminate. It's an appearance (name, form and usage) of That. The underlying and prevailing reality exists, just not name, form and usage (action).

You are right that duality says Prakriti 'exists'. See, Extrinsix existence is also means we are making it as 'existence'. Can you say "Water" exists entrinsic in Mirage? Man.... There is no real water in Mirage, so how can one say "Water exists entrinsicaly" in Mirage?

Likewise, Pot/Snake really not exists, but just an imaginated experience. So, calling it as Extrinsic Existence is just a Duality concept like "Prakriti exists upon Purusha".

The Enlightened Beings, only perceive the "appearance" as "appearance" but not as "Extrinsic and Intrinsic". They only perceive "appearance of Snake", but not name that appearance as "Extrinsic Existence of Clay/etc.,".

When you give a word "Existence", it can be said only to Clay/Water/etc., but not to the appearances.
There is no Extrinsic/Intrinsic to Clay/Water, only Clay/Water everywhere. No Intrinsic nor Extrinsic. Appearance has no existence. You are differentiating Inner from Outer, where there is none such.

Maya, never can be said as "Exist" even extrinsically.

Can you say "the objects in the dream is extrinsically exists in the dream"? Dude, it's only dream. Why making those 'objects/forms' as "exists",etc.,? Why giving importance/existence to those forms when it is only imagination? Why giving importance/existence to Imagination itself?

I don't know really what do you mean by "exist". Because of our experience, so trusting them and calling them as "Exists" like Duality says?

Appearance does not mean, it 'exists'. That's where Non-duality is very complex. Trusting of experience of forms as 'existence' is the real problem.

A good example is, calling "Iron" exists extrinsically and "Atoms" exists intrinsically can be fair? No. Because only Atoms Exists. Appearance doesn't mean there is an "Iron" exists (even extrinsically). A Lion in the dream cannot be differentiated as Extrinsic existence to the dream itself. It's just dream everywhere at that time, why to differentiate what is perceived from the dream from the dream itself?

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

It is said Maya cannot be said to be unreal because it appears and yet cannot be said to be real
because it's destroyed by knowledge.

I know, right? Simple, it's real and it's unreal.

I thought the title of Gary Renard's book, "The Disappearance of the Universe", was goofy...as in, "Huh?"
Then, I got it -
OH! -He means when you wake up out of the Dream (note, diff than waking up that it is actually a Dream),
that is when the Universe disappears (for you!)---you are out of the Dream. Out.

A bit Matrixy - hahahahalol.

Viswa - referring to an American movie 'The Matrix'.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You don't think existence itself is the ultimate true (essential) nature? This is in fact the language used in non-duality to describe what is actually real (intrinsic) and what only appears to be real (extrinsic).

Yes I do, that is not the point though. Ultimate truth is that existence is both the form and formless.

You using intrinsic and extrinsic in an existence context and meaning, gives existence form, because intrinsic and extrinsic deals with forms/things, while existence is not a physical form/thing, as the formless is also existence.

Sure, brahman does not depend on anything to exist, and forms do depend on brahman to exist, and the true nature or essence of all forms is brahman/the formless. this is a whole different subject matter on it's own.

In order for you to learn, know, and to understand a certain some thing (this includes spirituality, philosophy and etc) You need to take that certain some thing, in a certain context/meaning, not outside of the certain context/meaning and into another different context/meaning. Knowing, learning, and understanding the some thing out of context/meaning to create a short cut does not work. Intrinsic means that a thing belongs naturally or essentially to something else, and extrinsic means something does not belong naturally or essentially to something else. To put intrinsic and extrinsic into correct spiritual context: intrinsic means the true nature or essence of all things is brahman/atman, and extrinsic means that brahman/atman is not the true nature or essence of all things.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Ultimate truth is that existence is both the form and formless.

Bingo!

Nisargadatta; " Love says I am everything, Wisdom says I am nothing. Between the two my life flows."