Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > nondual. > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism between " what > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's just > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > >>>> In other words dualism is a way of thinking, but is not actually experienced. That's a good point. Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " is a misnomer. In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism everything is water through a sieve. Nothing can be caught. Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. But is that actually *experience*? Well, it's just water through the sieve all over again. It's like trying to nail down air. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Divine Message of His Holiness Shri Datta Swami When God forgets Himself, Maya arises, which is the creation. When the individual soul forgets itself, Avidya arises as a dream. Both the creation and the dream are made of the three qualities and arise due to self-ignorance. But there is a vast quantitative difference between the Creation and the Dream. You can pass through your imaginary wall of your daydream. But you cannot pass through the real wall in the world. If you cross Avidya you can attain yourself. But if you cross Maya you can attain God. But you can never cross Maya as told in Gita (Mama Maya Duratyaya). Ofcourse the liberated soul, which is fully blessed by God, can cross Maya (Maya metam tarantite). But by crossing Maya the liberated soul cannot become God because God is creator, ruler and destroyer of Maya. By crossing a river or sea, you cannot create or control or destroy the river or sea. Therefore, even the liberated soul, which has crossed the Maya could not become God. Can this ordinary soul which can cross just Avidya become God? Therefore, even Hanuman who jumped over the sea did not claim Himself as God. Can this Advaita Scholar who can jump over a tiny drainage canal become God? Ofcourse the soul, which is beyond Avidya can be called as Brahman. The word Brahman is very loosely used in its original sense. Brahman means the greatest. Soul is the greatest among all the items of creation and can be called as Brahman. If you argue that the word Brahman is to be used strictly only for God, how the Scripture Veda is called as Brahman. Veda is an item of creation because it was generated by God and therefore, Veda is not the Creator (Asya Mahato….). Therefore, the word Brahman cannot be strictly limited only to God. Veda is called as Brahman in Gita (Brahma Akshara Samudbhavam). In this verse Gita says that Veda is produced by God. Therefore, when you have used the word Brahman in one item of the creation, why not it be used in another item of creation? Veda is called as Brahman because it is greatest in the category of Scriptures because it is the only scripture, which is protected from the pollution as it was passed on through recitation only from several generations. Similarly, in the category of the items of creation the pure awareness (Soul), which is the finest form of nervous energy, can be called as Brahman. Therefore, the soul can be Brahman but not the God (Eeswara). You cannot have even the qualitative similarity between the soul and God, because God is completely unimaginable and the soul is imaginable by shrewd analysis. Veda says that soul is an imaginable item for the sharp intellectual (Drusyate Tvagraya). This pure awareness (soul) is clearly seen through advanced instruments by a scientist. Therefore, by such careful analysis you can cross this final hurdle and conclude that God is beyond the soul or pure awareness also. In the human incarnation the gross body appears as a limited human body but actually that limited body itself is the world simultaneously. This truth can be known only by the insight. Lord Krishna showed His limited body itself as the infinite cosmos to the inner eye of Arjuna. The Subtle body in the human incarnation is the Maya which is the three qualities that pervade all over the universe. This means the Avidya in the human incarnation is simultaneously Maya. The soul present in the human incarnation is the Mula Maya simultaneously. This is the most complicated aspect of the human incarnation, which can be never understood even by sages. It becomes the unimaginable concept because this little human body of the Lord standing on a small place of the earth itself is the entire infinite cosmos. The Lord showed the entire creation in His mouth standing on a small place in a village. But the entire earth is in the mouth of the Lord and this scene is also present on the earth present in His mouth. By this itself you can understand that the God is unimaginable. Thus in the case of the human incarnation only Avidya is Maya simultaneously, the limited human body is the world simultaneously and the soul is Mula Maya simultaneously. But in the case of ordinary human being such wonderful concept does not exist. In the case of the human being the soul is a tiny particle of Mula Maya, Avidya is a small part of Maya and the gross body is a small part of the world. The ordinary human being is just a composite of the outermost coat (Gross body), inner shirt (Subtle body) and the inner most banian (Casual body). There is no fourth person inside this composite. This composite of the three is dancing by the power of God, which is called as Mula Maya or the pure awareness, which appeared in the beginning of Creation. Therefore, the soul or human being is controlled by Maya (Maya Vasikrutah). This Mula Maya along with its will (Maya) and its modification (Creation) is under the control of the God (Vasikruta Mayah). This is the difference between the human being (Jeeva) and God (Eeshwara). In the human incarnation the fourth item, God exists who is wearing the banian, shirt and coat. The human being is a composite of three items whereas the human incarnation is the composite of four items. Veda says God as the fourth item (Turiya) and the three covering bodies as Viswa (Gross body), Taijasa (Subtle body) and Prajna (Causal body). Therefore, the identification of real human incarnation called as Brahma Jnana or Brahma Vidya is the most subtle and complicated subject, which you can understand only by careful analysis and lot of patience. Gita says that one can identify this son of Vasudeva as the Lord only after continuous efforts through several births (Bahunaam Janmanamante). Identification of God as a statue is very very easy. Identification of God as formless is also easy to understand if you give a simile like space or air, which is formless and all pervading. The energetic form of God like Vishnu, Siva, etc., is also easy to digest because no human being develops repulsion towards such energetic form since no egoism and no jealousy arise in that case. The problem of egoism and jealousy along with all the above hurdles arise only for human beings to recognize the human incarnation. If the human being does not identify the human form of God here, such a human being also cannot identify the energetic form in the upper world because of the same repulsion of likes. As the human body repels the human form here, the soul covered by energetic body in the upper world rejects the energetic form of God also for the same reason. Therefore, such a human being is lost forever as said in Veda (Ihachet Avedeet…). posted by: His servant at the lotus feet of shri datta swami www.universal-spirituality.org billrishel <illusyn wrote: > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > nondual.> > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism between " what > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's just > no evidence to support such a distinction.> Do you see an edge to the visual field? > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > nondual. > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > between " what > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > just > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > >>>> > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > but is not actually experienced. > > That's a good point. > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > is a misnomer. > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > everything is water through a sieve. > > Nothing can be caught. > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > But is that actually *experience*? > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > over again. > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > Bill > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference between blue and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary between them. In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes straight through the sieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > nondual. > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > between " what > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > just > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > >>>> > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > but is not actually experienced. > > That's a good point. > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > is a misnomer. > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > everything is water through a sieve. > > Nothing can be caught. > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > But is that actually *experience*? > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > over again. > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > Bill > Would you say there is no distinction between blue and saline, because you cannot see the boundary? Or that the nouns themselves are meaningless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Meth, Bill wasn't talking about the boundaries of some colours, he was talking about dualism and non-dualism. And why does dualism exists at all ? Because it is needed for communication and that communication or language allows only coarse shades to commune with words to others. But if you leave language and communication and be back in non- dualism you can conceive all those numerous shades as before but you cannot tell them to other people because the language won't allow it. To simplify it: There exists only non-dualism, dualism starts when there is a need for communication. Werner Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > nondual. > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think > of > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > between " what > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > just > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > >>>> > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > That's a good point. > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > is a misnomer. > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > over again. > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference between blue > and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary between them. > > In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes straight > through the sieve. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 In a message dated 2/17/2006 12:10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illusyn dualism is not actually experienced > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > nondual. > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism between " what > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's just > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > >>>> In other words dualism is a way of thinking, but is not actually experienced. That's a good point. Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " is a misnomer. In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism everything is water through a sieve. Nothing can be caught. Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. But is that actually *experience*? Well, it's just water through the sieve all over again. It's like trying to nail down air. Bill In the dualistic tradition, I'll offer the opposite perspective so that you can have the full dualistic experience. It sounds like what's being said here is that dualism is an illusion, which we know, but when it's said to not exist in the context of experience, this is a contextual error. It's like saying the image on your TV is an illusion and therefore is not experienced, leading to the conclusion that there's no point in turning it on since there will be no experience. Dualistically is the only way that thinking can occur. How does one have a nondualistic thought? Perception arises from thought. Throw in the illusion of temporality and you have experience. Dualism is the very nature of experience and arises by virtue of it. What is required in order for experience to occur? There must be an experiencer and an experience. Already there is dualism. There must be the perception of something that must be defined by dualistic characteristics. A waterfall is defined as not-dry, not-hot, not-quiet, not-still, not-opaque. These definitions are recalled from memories of not-now. Nonduality is not experienced, since experience and experiencer dissolve into one, along with all dualistic perceptions. This is what we are. There is no experience of being, there is only being. If being is experienced, there must also be non-being. There is no non-being. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Phil, 1) The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because there is no experiencer. 2) There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and hot or have day and night at the time. 3) There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. 4) Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you rememeber warmth. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/17/2006 12:10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > dualism is not actually experienced > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > nondual. > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > between " what > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > just > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > >>>> > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > but is not actually experienced. > > That's a good point. > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > is a misnomer. > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > everything is water through a sieve. > > Nothing can be caught. > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > But is that actually *experience*? > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > over again. > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > Bill > > > > > In the dualistic tradition, I'll offer the opposite perspective so that you > can have the full dualistic experience. It sounds like what's being said here > is that dualism is an illusion, which we know, but when it's said to not > exist in the context of experience, this is a contextual error. It's like saying > the image on your TV is an illusion and therefore is not experienced, leading > to the conclusion that there's no point in turning it on since there will be > no experience. > > Dualistically is the only way that thinking can occur. How does one have a > nondualistic thought? Perception arises from thought. Throw in the illusion of > temporality and you have experience. Dualism is the very nature of experience > and arises by virtue of it. > > What is required in order for experience to occur? There must be an > experiencer and an experience. Already there is dualism. There must be the perception > of something that must be defined by dualistic characteristics. A waterfall > is defined as not-dry, not-hot, not-quiet, not-still, not-opaque. These > definitions are recalled from memories of not-now. > > Nonduality is not experienced, since experience and experiencer dissolve > into one, along with all dualistic perceptions. This is what we are. There is no > experience of being, there is only being. If being is experienced, there must > also be non-being. There is no non-being. > > > Phil > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Hi Werner, you brought it well to the point. Would you agree if I add to point 1) " there is just experiencing " . regards Stefan Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Phil, > > 1) > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > there is no experiencer. > > 2) > There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and hot > or have day and night at the time. > > 3) > There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of > consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. > > 4) > Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you rememeber > warmth. > > Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Thanks, Stefan, Thats even better. Yes, there is just experiencing. btw, I enjoyed all your recent posts. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge wrote: > > Hi Werner, > > you brought it well to the point. Would you agree if I add to point 1) > " there is just experiencing " . > > regards > Stefan > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Phil, > > > > 1) > > The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because > > there is no experiencer. > > > > 2) > > There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and hot > > or have day and night at the time. > > > > 3) > > There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of > > consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. > > > > 4) > > Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you rememeber > > warmth. > > > > Werner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > nondual. > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think > of > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > between " what > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > just > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > >>>> > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > That's a good point. > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > is a misnomer. > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > over again. > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Would you say there is no distinction between blue and saline, > because you cannot see the boundary? Or that the nouns themselves are > meaningless? > is there a distinction between blue and saline... hmmm... well actually they aren't comparables. Is there a difference between the number 10 and sex? It is a meaningless question. I *would* say there is a difference between 10 and 7, or between having sex and taking a walk. Those are comparables. As for nouns *themselves*?... What on earth is a noun *itself*? Do you mean a noun totally out of context? If that is what you mean, then for example to say " wood " totally out of context is yes, meaningless. I find your questions rather odd. Are they related to my post? [it was not me that spoke of boundaries, BTW] Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 > > > X: > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > nondual. > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think > of > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > between " what > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > just > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > >>>> > > Bill: > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > That's a good point. > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > is a misnomer. > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > over again. > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > Bill > > > > M: > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference between blue > and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary between them. > > In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes straight > through the sieve. >>>> Anything can be talked about. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/17/2006 12:10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > dualism is not actually experienced > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > nondual. > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > between " what > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > just > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > >>>> > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > but is not actually experienced. > > That's a good point. > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > is a misnomer. > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > everything is water through a sieve. > > Nothing can be caught. > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > But is that actually *experience*? > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > over again. > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > Bill > > Phil: > In the dualistic tradition, I'll offer the opposite perspective so that you > can have the full dualistic experience. It sounds like what's being said here > is that dualism is an illusion, which we know, but when it's said to not > exist in the context of experience, this is a contextual error. It's like saying > the image on your TV is an illusion and therefore is not experienced, leading > to the conclusion that there's no point in turning it on since there will be > no experience. > > Dualistically is the only way that thinking can occur. I don't agree. The water flowing through the sieve can include thinking. It is just that nothing can be " nailed down " . > How does one have a nondualistic thought? I don't know a definition for " nondualistic thought " . So I can't begin to contemplate having one. How can there be a nondualistic X (i.e. anything)? Nondualism is like the empty set. There can't be anything *in* it > Perception arises from thought. I don't agree. Amoebas perceive, but certainly they don't have thought. Therefore, perception precedes thought. > Throw in the illusion of > temporality and you have experience. Dualism is the very nature of experience > and arises by virtue of it. We won't be able to sort this out without clarifying the term " experience " . > What is required in order for experience to occur? There must be an > experiencer and an experience. Already there is dualism. There must be the perception > of something that must be defined by dualistic characteristics. A waterfall > is defined as not-dry, not-hot, not-quiet, not-still, not-opaque. These > definitions are recalled from memories of not-now. > > Nonduality is not experienced, since experience and experiencer dissolve > into one, along with all dualistic perceptions. This is what we are. There is no > experience of being, there is only being. If being is experienced, there must > also be non-being. There is no non-being. What is not dualism is ineffable. Fundamentally we may not disagree a lot. It is hard to tell. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/17/2006 12:10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > dualism is not actually experienced > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > nondual. > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > between " what > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > just > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > >>>> > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > That's a good point. > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > is a misnomer. > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > over again. > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > Bill > > > > Phil: > > In the dualistic tradition, I'll offer the opposite perspective so > that you > > can have the full dualistic experience. It sounds like what's being > said here > > is that dualism is an illusion, which we know, but when it's said > to not > > exist in the context of experience, this is a contextual error. > It's like saying > > the image on your TV is an illusion and therefore is not > experienced, leading > > to the conclusion that there's no point in turning it on since > there will be > > no experience. > > > > Dualistically is the only way that thinking can occur. > > I don't agree. The water flowing through the sieve > can include thinking. It is just that nothing can > be " nailed down " . > > > How does one have a nondualistic thought? > I don't know a definition for " nondualistic thought " . > So I can't begin to contemplate having one. > How can there be a nondualistic X (i.e. anything)? > Nondualism is like the empty set. There can't be anything > *in* it > > > Perception arises from thought. > I don't agree. Amoebas perceive, but certainly they don't > have thought. Therefore, perception precedes thought. > > > Throw in the illusion of > > temporality and you have experience. Dualism is the very nature of > experience > > and arises by virtue of it. > > We won't be able to sort this out without clarifying the > term " experience " . > > > What is required in order for experience to occur? There must be an > > experiencer and an experience. Already there is dualism. There must > be the perception > > of something that must be defined by dualistic characteristics. A > waterfall > > is defined as not-dry, not-hot, not-quiet, not-still, not-opaque. > These > > definitions are recalled from memories of not-now. > > > > Nonduality is not experienced, since experience and experiencer > dissolve > > into one, along with all dualistic perceptions. This is what we are. > There is no > > experience of being, there is only being. If being is experienced, > there must > > also be non-being. There is no non-being. > > What is not dualism is ineffable. > > > Fundamentally we may not disagree a lot. It is hard to tell. > > > Bill > Fundamentally........... you are disagreement itself. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think > > of > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > between " what > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > > just > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > over again. > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Would you say there is no distinction between blue and saline, > > because you cannot see the boundary? Or that the nouns themselves are > > meaningless? > > > > is there a distinction between blue and > saline... hmmm... well actually they aren't comparables. > Is there a difference between the number 10 and sex? > It is a meaningless question. > I *would* say there is a difference between 10 and 7, > or between having sex and taking a walk. Those are > comparables. > > As for nouns *themselves*?... What on earth is a noun > *itself*? Do you mean a noun totally out of context? > If that is what you mean, then for example to say > " wood " totally out of context is yes, meaningless. > > I find your questions rather odd. Are they related > to my post? [it was not me that spoke of boundaries, > BTW] > > > > Bill > That's interesting. When you say blue and saline are not comparable, do you mean that you cannot examine them and note similarities or differences? It would seem that we can distinguish between the two. Yet they are delivered with different senses. Blueness is seen through the eyes, and saline is a sensation of taste. Perhaps this is where the difficulty arrives. Should we say that because they arrive by different means one cannot compare them -- or that because 10 is an abstraction of mathematical thought and sex is an activity that we cannot call these different? When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Thanks for the explanation, but did you mean " existed " ? Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Meth, > > Bill wasn't talking about the boundaries of some colours, he was > talking about dualism and non-dualism. And why does dualism exists at > all ? Because it is needed for communication and that communication > or language allows only coarse shades to commune with words to others. > > But if you leave language and communication and be back in non- > dualism you can conceive all those numerous shades as before but you > cannot tell them to other people because the language won't allow it. > > To simplify it: There exists only non-dualism, dualism starts when > there is a need for communication. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to > think > > of > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > between " what > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > > just > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > over again. > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference between > blue > > and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary between > them. > > > > In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes > straight > > through the sieve. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 1) There is a context in which a discussion can take place where it can be agreed that there are no individual experiencers, but of course the concept of experience cannot be discussed in that context. Since I was discussing the concept of experiencing, it was necessary to talk about this in the context in which there are lots of little experiencers running around. 2) As you mentioned in #4, memory allows for a dualistic experience. Since you are presently having a dualistic experience, it seems rather silly to say that there is no such thing. Experience is independent of Absolute Truth or any concepts you might come up with. Experience is illusory by nature, but it does not stop by declaring it illusory. Phil In a message dated 2/18/2006 10:43:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Re: dualism is not actually experienced Phil, 1) The experience and the experiencer don't dissolve in one, because there is no experiencer. 2) There is no dualistic epxerience because you cannot feel cold and hot or have day and night at the time. 3) There is only the flow of appearances or the flow of contents of consciousness and that flow is non-dualistic. 4) Dualism exists only throught memory. You feel cold and you rememeber warmth. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/17/2006 12:10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illusyn > dualism is not actually experienced > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > nondual. > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > between " what > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > just > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > >>>> > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > but is not actually experienced. > > That's a good point. > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > is a misnomer. > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > everything is water through a sieve. > > Nothing can be caught. > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > But is that actually *experience*? > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > over again. > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > Bill > > > > > In the dualistic tradition, I'll offer the opposite perspective so that you > can have the full dualistic experience. It sounds like what's being said here > is that dualism is an illusion, which we know, but when it's said to not > exist in the context of experience, this is a contextual error. It's like saying > the image on your TV is an illusion and therefore is not experienced, leading > to the conclusion that there's no point in turning it on since there will be > no experience. > > Dualistically is the only way that thinking can occur. How does one have a > nondualistic thought? Perception arises from thought. Throw in the illusion of > temporality and you have experience. Dualism is the very nature of experience > and arises by virtue of it. > > What is required in order for experience to occur? There must be an > experiencer and an experience. Already there is dualism. There must be the perception > of something that must be defined by dualistic characteristics. A waterfall > is defined as not-dry, not-hot, not-quiet, not-still, not-opaque. These > definitions are recalled from memories of not-now. > > Nonduality is not experienced, since experience and experiencer dissolve > into one, along with all dualistic perceptions. This is what we are. There is no > experience of being, there is only being. If being is experienced, there must > also be non-being. There is no non-being. > > > Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 In a message dated 2/18/2006 2:15:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illusyn Re: dualism is not actually experienced > Dualistically is the only way that thinking can occur. B: I don't agree. The water flowing through the sieve can include thinking. It is just that nothing can be " nailed down " . > How does one have a nondualistic thought? B: I don't know a definition for " nondualistic thought " . So I can't begin to contemplate having one. How can there be a nondualistic X (i.e. anything)? Nondualism is like the empty set. There can't be anything *in* it P: I agree. So why do you disagree with the statement that thinking must be dualistic? > Perception arises from thought. B: I don't agree. Amoebas perceive, but certainly they don't have thought. Therefore, perception precedes thought. P: My recollection of amoebas is that they are single celled organisms without sensory perception, brain or nervous system. Cells do not perceive anything. A human who has all sensory functions operating but does not think, does not perceive. Perhaps we have different definitions of perception. > Throw in the illusion of > temporality and you have experience. Dualism is the very nature of experience > and arises by virtue of it. B: We won't be able to sort this out without clarifying the term " experience " . > What is required in order for experience to occur? There must be an > experiencer and an experience. Already there is dualism. There must be the perception > of something that must be defined by dualistic characteristics. A waterfall > is defined as not-dry, not-hot, not-quiet, not-still, not-opaque. These > definitions are recalled from memories of not-now. > > Nonduality is not experienced, since experience and experiencer dissolve > into one, along with all dualistic perceptions. This is what we are. There is no > experience of being, there is only being. If being is experienced, there must > also be non-being. There is no non-being. B: What is not dualism is ineffable. B: Fundamentally we may not disagree a lot. It is hard to tell. P: I don't think that we do, really. Maybe nondualism isn't ineffable. Lets see. If you suddenly knew yourself to be peace, not the experience of feeling peaceful, but a knowing that you are that quality itself, would it be possible to release the identification with the dualistic perception of peace/non-peace and simply rest in the knowing of what you are, which has nothing to do with either perception or the dualistic concept of peace? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Phil: ....Memory allows for a dualistic experience. Since you are presently having a dualistic experience, it seems rather silly to say that there is no such thing. Experience is independent of Absolute Truth or any concepts you might come up with. Experience is illusory by nature, but it does not stop by declaring it illusory. ~~~~ Re: << Since you are presently having a dualistic experience, it seems rather silly to say that there is no such thing. >> So what is being said here? If there is an " interpretation " of experience as being dual, then it is natural to say that " one is having a dual experience " . That it is dual is how it *seems*, or how it *appears*. If experience " appears to be dual " , then so be it. But to claim that experience is *actually* dual is to claim too much, in my opinion. << Experience is independent of Absolute Truth or any concepts you might come up with. >> A more solid term than " experience " here would be " appearance " . Hence: Appearance is independent of Absolute Truth or any concepts you might come up with. seems a reasonable statement. Does the writer consider experience as distinct from mere appearance? If so, how so? << Experience is illusory by nature, but it does not stop by declaring it illusory. >> Again, replacing " experience " with " appearance " we get: Appearance is illusory by nature, but it does not stop by declaring it illusory. Again, the statement is more solid when the term experience is replaced with the term appearance. And notice that all the punch goes out of the statement with that replacement. " Appearance does not stop by declaring it illusory, " is now not much of a statement, as there is no need to declare appearance as illusory in the first place. Appearance is mere appearance. It is already clear there is no substance to it. So the question raised above bears repeating: Does the writer consider experience as distinct from mere appearance? If so, how so? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/17/2006 12:10:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > dualism is not actually experienced > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think of > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > between " what > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > > just > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > over again. > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Phil: > > > In the dualistic tradition, I'll offer the opposite perspective so > > that you > > > can have the full dualistic experience. It sounds like what's being > > said here > > > is that dualism is an illusion, which we know, but when it's said > > to not > > > exist in the context of experience, this is a contextual error. > > It's like saying > > > the image on your TV is an illusion and therefore is not > > experienced, leading > > > to the conclusion that there's no point in turning it on since > > there will be > > > no experience. > > > > > > Dualistically is the only way that thinking can occur. > > > > I don't agree. The water flowing through the sieve > > can include thinking. It is just that nothing can > > be " nailed down " . > > > > > How does one have a nondualistic thought? > > I don't know a definition for " nondualistic thought " . > > So I can't begin to contemplate having one. > > How can there be a nondualistic X (i.e. anything)? > > Nondualism is like the empty set. There can't be anything > > *in* it > > > > > Perception arises from thought. > > I don't agree. Amoebas perceive, but certainly they don't > > have thought. Therefore, perception precedes thought. > > > > > Throw in the illusion of > > > temporality and you have experience. Dualism is the very nature of > > experience > > > and arises by virtue of it. > > > > We won't be able to sort this out without clarifying the > > term " experience " . > > > > > What is required in order for experience to occur? There must be an > > > experiencer and an experience. Already there is dualism. There must > > be the perception > > > of something that must be defined by dualistic characteristics. A > > waterfall > > > is defined as not-dry, not-hot, not-quiet, not-still, not- opaque. > > These > > > definitions are recalled from memories of not-now. > > > > > > Nonduality is not experienced, since experience and experiencer > > dissolve > > > into one, along with all dualistic perceptions. This is what we are. > > There is no > > > experience of being, there is only being. If being is experienced, > > there must > > > also be non-being. There is no non-being. > > > > What is not dualism is ineffable. > > > > > > Fundamentally we may not disagree a lot. It is hard to tell. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Fundamentally........... you are disagreement itself. > > > > toombaru What an odd remark! At any rate, " you " know not whereof " you " speak. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Hi old Meth, I don't understand your question. Can you please explain it ? Werner Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation, but did you mean " existed " ? > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > Meth, > > > > Bill wasn't talking about the boundaries of some colours, he was > > talking about dualism and non-dualism. And why does dualism exists > at > > all ? Because it is needed for communication and that > communication > > or language allows only coarse shades to commune with words to > others. > > > > But if you leave language and communication and be back in non- > > dualism you can conceive all those numerous shades as before but > you > > cannot tell them to other people because the language won't allow > it. > > > > To simplify it: There exists only non-dualism, dualism starts when > > there is a need for communication. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch > of > > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is > *always* > > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to > > think > > > of > > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > > between " what > > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. > There's > > > > just > > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > > over again. > > > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore it is not possible to conceive the difference between > > blue > > > and saline -- as one cannot see them both nor a boundary between > > them. > > > > > > In fact it is not possible to talk of blue as it too passes > > straight > > > through the sieve. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 In a message dated 2/19/2006 2:53:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illusyn Re: dualism is not actually experienced Phil: ....Memory allows for a dualistic experience. Since you are presently having a dualistic experience, it seems rather silly to say that there is no such thing. Experience is independent of Absolute Truth or any concepts you might come up with. Experience is illusory by nature, but it does not stop by declaring it illusory. ~~~~ Re: << Since you are presently having a dualistic experience, it seems rather silly to say that there is no such thing. >> So what is being said here? If there is an " interpretation " of experience as being dual, then it is natural to say that " one is having a dual experience " . That it is dual is how it *seems*, or how it *appears*. If experience " appears to be dual " , then so be it. But to claim that experience is *actually* dual is to claim too much, in my opinion. << Experience is independent of Absolute Truth or any concepts you might come up with. >> A more solid term than " experience " here would be " appearance " . Hence: Appearance is independent of Absolute Truth or any concepts you might come up with. seems a reasonable statement. Does the writer consider experience as distinct from mere appearance? If so, how so? << Experience is illusory by nature, but it does not stop by declaring it illusory. >> Again, replacing " experience " with " appearance " we get: Appearance is illusory by nature, but it does not stop by declaring it illusory. Again, the statement is more solid when the term experience is replaced with the term appearance. And notice that all the punch goes out of the statement with that replacement. " Appearance does not stop by declaring it illusory, " is now not much of a statement, as there is no need to declare appearance as illusory in the first place. Appearance is mere appearance. It is already clear there is no substance to it. So the question raised above bears repeating: Does the writer consider experience as distinct from mere appearance? If so, how so? Bill Naw, it doesn't matter. I try not to make 'I' contact with most words cause even though they may be cute, they're still wild creatures and they will turn on ya if they feel threatened. ~ Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 In a message dated 2/19/2006 11:42:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " methusalum " <methusalum Re: dualism is not actually experienced Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch of > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is *always* > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to think > > of > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > between " what > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. There's > > > just > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > over again. > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > Would you say there is no distinction between blue and saline, > > because you cannot see the boundary? Or that the nouns themselves are > > meaningless? > > > > is there a distinction between blue and > saline... hmmm... well actually they aren't comparables. > Is there a difference between the number 10 and sex? > It is a meaningless question. > I *would* say there is a difference between 10 and 7, > or between having sex and taking a walk. Those are > comparables. > > As for nouns *themselves*?... What on earth is a noun > *itself*? Do you mean a noun totally out of context? > If that is what you mean, then for example to say > " wood " totally out of context is yes, meaningless. > > I find your questions rather odd. Are they related > to my post? [it was not me that spoke of boundaries, > BTW] > > > > Bill > That's interesting. When you say blue and saline are not comparable, do you mean that you cannot examine them and note similarities or differences? It would seem that we can distinguish between the two. Yet they are delivered with different senses. Blueness is seen through the eyes, and saline is a sensation of taste. Perhaps this is where the difficulty arrives. Should we say that because they arrive by different means one cannot compare them -- or that because 10 is an abstraction of mathematical thought and sex is an activity that we cannot call these different? When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or mind? This discussion seems unnecessarily confusing to me. Bill's (or whoever's) comment was that since both polarities of a duality cannot be experienced at the same time, duality is not an experience. It doesn't really have anything to do with borders and similarities and saline and nouns, only dualistic opposites. To me, the experience of duality is made possible with memory. The experience of cold is recalled from memory in contrast to the present experience of hot, and this is a dualistic experience. Possibly, that's what you were getting at with your comments about comparing dissimilar things? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 In a message dated 2/19/2006 9:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, methusalum writes: > > >To simplify it: There exists only non-dualism, dualism starts when > >there is a need for communication. > > > >Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch > of > > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is > *always* > > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to > think > > > of > > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > > between " what > > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. > There's > > > > just > > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > > over again. > > > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you say there is no distinction between blue and saline, > > > because you cannot see the boundary? Or that the nouns > themselves are > > > meaningless? > > > > > > > is there a distinction between blue and > > saline... hmmm... well actually they aren't comparables. > > Is there a difference between the number 10 and sex? > > It is a meaningless question. > > I *would* say there is a difference between 10 and 7, > > or between having sex and taking a walk. Those are > > comparables. > > > > As for nouns *themselves*?... What on earth is a noun > > *itself*? Do you mean a noun totally out of context? > > If that is what you mean, then for example to say > > " wood " totally out of context is yes, meaningless. > > > > I find your questions rather odd. Are they related > > to my post? [it was not me that spoke of boundaries, > > BTW] > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > That's interesting. When you say blue and saline are not comparable, > do you mean that you cannot examine them and note similarities or > differences? It would seem that we can distinguish between the two. > Yet they are delivered with different senses. Blueness is seen > through the eyes, and saline is a sensation of taste. Perhaps this > is where the difficulty arrives. Should we say that because they > arrive by different means one cannot compare them -- or that because > 10 is an abstraction of mathematical thought and sex is an activity > that we cannot call these different? > > > When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the > nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas > *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? > > Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or > mind? > >>>> Comparable -- as I used the term -- means " comparison is meaningful " . So, for example, blue and brown are comparable in that one can say, " Blue is cooler than brown " . But the number 10 and sex are not comparables because they cannot be meaningfully compared. > When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the > nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas > *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? > > Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or > mind? >>>> There is no basis for assuming there is some fundamental relationship between language and reality. In particular, a common confusion is to suppose that the meanings of words are something that exists independently of the words themselves. As for naming something that doesn't exist, that one is very easy. Consider the following poem by Lewis Carroll. Bill JABBERWOCKY `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. " Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch! " He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -- So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. " And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > One way to think about the nondual philosophy is as a bunch > > of > > > > > > pointers to the fact, the discovery that experience is > > *always* > > > > > > nondual. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many ways to test this. For example, we like to > > think > > > > of > > > > > > the visual field as representing a small subset of what is > > > > > > really " out there. " Hence the widely believed dualism > > > > > between " what > > > > > > we see " and " what we don't see. " > > > > > > > > > > > > But your visual experience is not dualistic like this. > > There's > > > > > just > > > > > > no evidence to support such a distinction. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see an edge to the visual field? > > > > > > Do you see any border between the seen and the unseen? > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > In other words dualism is a way of thinking, > > > > > but is not actually experienced. > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. > > > > > > > > > > Dualism is a way of interpreting experience. > > > > > Non-dualism is a non-interpreting. > > > > > > > > > > Which is to say that a " non-dual perspective " > > > > > is a misnomer. > > > > > > > > > > In the non-interpreting " way " of non-dualism > > > > > everything is water through a sieve. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing can be caught. > > > > > > > > > > Seeing it splash around can seem to happen. > > > > > > > > > > But is that actually *experience*? > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's just water through the sieve all > > > > > over again. > > > > > > > > > > It's like trying to nail down air. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you say there is no distinction between blue and saline, > > > > because you cannot see the boundary? Or that the nouns > > themselves are > > > > meaningless? > > > > > > > > > > is there a distinction between blue and > > > saline... hmmm... well actually they aren't comparables. > > > Is there a difference between the number 10 and sex? > > > It is a meaningless question. > > > I *would* say there is a difference between 10 and 7, > > > or between having sex and taking a walk. Those are > > > comparables. > > > > > > As for nouns *themselves*?... What on earth is a noun > > > *itself*? Do you mean a noun totally out of context? > > > If that is what you mean, then for example to say > > > " wood " totally out of context is yes, meaningless. > > > > > > I find your questions rather odd. Are they related > > > to my post? [it was not me that spoke of boundaries, > > > BTW] > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > That's interesting. When you say blue and saline are not > comparable, > > do you mean that you cannot examine them and note similarities or > > differences? It would seem that we can distinguish between the two. > > Yet they are delivered with different senses. Blueness is seen > > through the eyes, and saline is a sensation of taste. Perhaps this > > is where the difficulty arrives. Should we say that because they > > arrive by different means one cannot compare them -- or that > because > > 10 is an abstraction of mathematical thought and sex is an activity > > that we cannot call these different? > > > > > > When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the > > nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas > > *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? > > > > Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or > > mind? > > > >>>> > > Comparable -- as I used the term -- means > " comparison is meaningful " . So, for example, > blue and brown are comparable in that one > can say, " Blue is cooler than brown " . But > the number 10 and sex are not comparables > because they cannot be meaningfully compared. > Hi Bill I fear I might have to do the despicable and ask you to define what you mean by meaningful comparison? I cannot quite comprehend what an un-meaningful comparison could be. Surely any comparison would result in some meaning. Even if this is just to answer the question " Are they the same? " But do not let this distract us from the main point. You seem to be suggesting that we can only meaningfully compare things that we are aware of through the same faculty. Is that what you are saying? In which case is it meaningful to compare blue to a temperature? -- If this is to be allowed, then why not a meaningfully comparison of an action with a concept? Methusalum > > When I used the phrase " nouns themselves " ; I was referring to the > > nature of nouns to be names for things, actions or ideas > > *experienced*. If the experience did not happen, then why the name? > > > > Is it possible to name something that doesn't exist in the world or > > mind? > >>>> > > There is no basis for assuming there is some fundamental > relationship between language and reality. In particular, > a common confusion is to suppose that the meanings of words > are something that exists independently of the words themselves. > > As for naming something that doesn't exist, that one is > very easy. Consider the following poem by Lewis Carroll. > > Bill > > JABBERWOCKY > > `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves > Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: > All mimsy were the borogoves, > And the mome raths outgrabe. > > " Beware the Jabberwock, my son! > The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! > Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun > The frumious Bandersnatch! " > > He took his vorpal sword in hand: > Long time the manxome foe he sought -- > So rested he by the Tumtum tree, > And stood awhile in thought. > > And, as in uffish thought he stood, > The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, > Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, > And burbled as it came! > > One, two! One, two! And through and through > The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! > He left it dead, and with its head > He went galumphing back. > > " And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? > Come to my arms, my beamish boy! > O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' > He chortled in his joy. > > `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves > Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; > All mimsy were the borogoves, > And the mome raths outgrabe > 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.