Some remarks on nonduality

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

We'd better forget about Shunya. It's an infinite loop. What I

really care about is nonduality, a most fascinating notion in itself,

and there is plenty to talk about if we stay in the Advaitin school.

I only wanted to bring up what I felt was a similar pattern in

another tradition to show how the seemingly esoteric state of

consciousness called 'nonduality' is fundamental to human experience

(though only to a handful of humans). It is not something peculiar

to the Advaitin tradition, but if you wish to say that it reaches its

clearest and most precise expression in within that tradition, then

that is fine with me.

 

It really is quite remarkable that we should be talking so

enthusiastically about nonduality. Many of us have a technical

training, as do I. Should we even be speaking about this mumbo-jumbo

called 'nonduality'? Well, I am not afraid. That is because I can

see how science lives comfortably in one tiny corner of the unlimited

realm of consciousness.

 

Speaking of mumbo-jumbo, I like what Michaelji said:

 

" 'Muddle' is a favourite English term and even gentleman Brand

Blanshard writing of Tractatus Wittgenstein says: "There must have

been something hypnotic about Wittgenstein which made listeners

accept as oracles what in other mouths they would have dismissed as

absurdities. "

 

Same for Heidegger. So at least we are *selective* in our mumbo-jumbo.

 

Kalyanji, I do wish to say this to you. Treat words like 'substance'

with extreme caution. Ask yourself, 'To what entity in

consciousness, perceived by consciousness, or perceivable by

consciousness, real or illusory, does this word apply?' In a word,

'What is the MEANING of it?' If we use words with a vague meaning,

then we can expect endless confusion. Now the (apparent)

subject-object duality is the most common fact of life. No ambiguity

here! One who has never experienced its eradication may not believe

that to be possible, but at least he knows what it means for the

duality to seem to be there. Not so for this nebulous word

'substance'. So let us stick to the language of nonduality, which is

about as clear as the esoteric can get. In that light, shunya

becomes much more accessible, as I tried to explain.

 

Now I still haven't seen Nirmalaji return with Amritanubhava. I

think we raised too much commotion!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin-ji,

> Kalyanji, I do wish to say this to you. Treat words like 'substance'

> with extreme caution. Ask yourself, 'To what entity in

> consciousness, perceived by consciousness, or perceivable by

> consciousness, real or illusory, does this word apply?' In a word,

> 'What is the MEANING of it?' If we use words with a vague meaning,

> then we can expect endless confusion. Now the (apparent)

> subject-object duality is the most common fact of life. No ambiguity

> here! One who has never experienced its eradication may not believe

> that to be possible, but at least he knows what it means for the

> duality to seem to be there. Not so for this nebulous word

> 'substance'. So let us stick to the language of nonduality, which is

> about as clear as the esoteric can get. In that light, shunya

> becomes much more accessible, as I tried to explain.

 

Are you having subjecive idealism in mind? You cant make

consciousness as SUnya, if you are a subjective idealist. Can you? If

you treat consciousness as SUnya, you are infact accepting subject-

object duality as inevitable, for that which is SUnya is never

independant.