Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Hi James, , "james traverse" <nisarga@c...> wrote: > Basically I agree with Tony on this one - a nondualist > is 'one' who practices 'nondualism'. Could you define 'nondualism' in this context? > (I am not accusing you of this because it is VERY clear in your > posts that you have many problem with the word It just sounds 'weird' :-). In fact, i would go so far as to say there is no duality or nonduality... these are just 'isms' or philosophies... Reality 'knows' nothing of any of this :-). > It also appears (to me) that 'you' have been able to see beyond > the non-dual words because of the 'non-dual' words. i don't know. It could be entirely acausal and accidental, or even a matter of 'destiny'. i have given up the search for answers to these and other questions... it can be fun to speculate occasionally, that's all. > And, I say the above so that I can say that I feel that there is > something " " that is greater than the sum of the parts, which > are non-duality and unity. Yes, i like the way you put that, 'greater than the sum of the parts'. The parts are mental - the mind creates the divisions. The "sum of the parts" is still just a bunch of parts. > " " includes and is beyond both. Nicely put... yet knowing of " " definitely precludes all attachment and clinging. > You, Dan and I (and I am sure others)have expressed discontent > with all labels for good reason - they are not the thing - yet they > can point beyond themselves i'm not sure about the term "nondualist" though. "Nondualism" or "nonduality" is one thing... "nondualist" is just a strange one, in fact in light of 'nonduality' (no "ists" anywhere) is in fact nonsensical. Namaste, Omkara / Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.