1
   

Dualism vs non-dualism............Much Ado About Nothing

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2005 11:13 pm
EM, I agree that we are all mystics and artists when very young, but the shape of education stifles it. Krishnamurti, the mystic, founded a number of schools (in the USA, India, and, I think, Switzerland) for the purpose of saving children from such a loss.
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 01:49 am
coluber2001 and JLNobody -

Thank you for responding and encouraging! I rarely know if someone hears me, so I'm glad to know that maybe I'm not going insane. There's not too many people available these days, so mostly I write in my journals and go for walks in Nature. Maybe zen buddhism comes from a similar place?

JLNobody, does "zazen" seem like a scientists' way of gathering and appreciating intrinsic beauty... like being in an infinite art museum? That's what Nature seems like to me... trees and lakes and the freshness of moving air.

I can't divide gratitude into two pieces, so dualism seems to come into being when we become goal-oriented -- pushing for something and therefore creating "good/bad" in the way we interpret and desire each thing to be -- artificially.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 11:54 am
CodeBorg

"Does any of that make sense to your reading? Confused"


Yes it does CodeBorg.

Thanks.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 12:00 pm
JLNobody,

Apparently Tennyson's mysticism, mystical insights/experiences might have been related to epilepsy.

Here's a note:........from

***

"Tennyson's "waking trances" began in adolescence, and as a young man he was diagnosed with epilepsy, which ran in the Tennyson family. British doctors of that era were reluctant to report epilepsy in respected families because they thought seizures arose from the genitals and masturbation was the cause of epilepsy! In fact, up until the nineteenth century, one of the extreme approaches to epilepsy was castration for men or clitoridectomy for women, which were thought to work by ending masturbation. Tennyson's doctor recommended European spas where the poet's epilepsy 'treatment' consisted of drinking large amounts of water, walking long distances in bad weather, and being submersed, wrapped in sheets, into cold baths.

Tennyson's seizures involved a loss of the sense of self. Describing these mystic visions, he wrote:

"All at once, out of the intensity of the consciousness of individuality, the individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade away into boundless being; and this not a confused state, but the clearest of the clearest, the surest of the surest, the weirdest of the weirdest, utterly beyond words." In his poem The Ancient Sage, he describes it this way:

"..and thro' loss of Self

The gain of such large life as matched with ours

Were sun to spark- unshadowable in words,

Themselves but shadows of a shadow world."

***
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 12:06 pm
twyvel, I had no idea that Tennyson had that problem. What a shock! Thanks for the info.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 12:36 pm
Not caused by masturbation? Phew!
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 12:42 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 02:19 pm
JLNobody, Very HappyVery Happy



Neither did I Letty.

I don't know much of anything, just found it on the net.

I'm just a.
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 03:09 pm
Gentlemen (and ladies)thinkers, dualists and nondualists alike, herewith a little subjective commentary on some of the views expressed on this thread.
diowan & JLN:
(Re posts 1318748 & 1319028)
I realize that I am part of the whole cosmos by the very 'existential' recognition of my Being and my relationship to everything within my sphere of consciousness , by Necessity. The unity of all things as is obvious to me as is my existence. I do
not understand why you find it necessary to consider this awareness to be Intuitive.

JLN:
(Re your post 1319071)
Thst everyrhing is relative is an integral
characteristic of a Quantum outlook on reality, and
using the word 'emptiness' seems to be an extreme
misnomer in view of the fullnes of space and the relativity of everything in it.

JLN & twyvel:
(Your posts 1319389 & 1320603)
I note that both of you gentlemen certainly
agree that the nondualistic state is 'mystical'. John
refers to "nondualistic and/or mustical ideas",
while twyvel state that "a nondestructive state =
mysticism...". It puzzles me that twyvel refers to this mystic state as being" the clearest of the clearest...". I have never considered that an enlightenment or an awareness of a subject required some kind of mysticism for its understanding. This is the precise point where attempts to describethe Buddhist 'nirvana' experience by our so-called ordinary means of communication, language, fails badly. Why ?

(Continuing in Post below)
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 03:32 pm
codeborg:
( Your post 1319535)
I disagree with your assertions that" there are
no positive concepts", that "there is no wasting of time", that "there is no confounding or bothering",
that " there is no comprehensible or incomprehensible" I cannot understand how you can
"simply appreciate our perceptions(of the world) as
directly as possible, open, observing, in wonder"....
WITHOUT interprating what you are observing.
Taking the argument 'ad absurdum' , you are observing the killing of a 10 year old girl, and you tell me that you will not interprate what you see....only observe it, 'in wonder'?
Gentlemen, please consider the above comments offered only for debate, not in any way intended to be disdainful of your world view. It would be very hypocritical for me to do so because
I have very little 'faith' that our human brain matter ,(consciousness), can formulate any objective truths......only subjective ones.
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 03:32 pm
codeborg:
( Your post 1319535)
I disagree with your assertions that" there are
no positive concepts", that "there is no wasting of time", that "there is no confounding or bothering",
that " there is no comprehensible or incomprehensible" I cannot understand how you can
"simply appreciate our perceptions(of the world) as
directly as possible, open, observing, in wonder"....
WITHOUT interprating what you are observing.
Taking the argument 'ad absurdum' , you are observing the killing of a 10 year old girl, and you tell me that you will not interprate what you see....only observe it, 'in wonder'?
Gentlemen, please consider the above comments offered only for debate, not in any way intended to be disdainful of your world view. It would be very hypocritical for me to do so because
I have very little 'faith' that our human brain matter ,(consciousness), can formulate any objective truths......only subjective ones.
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 03:33 pm
codeborg:
( Your post 1319535)
I disagree with your assertions that" there are
no positive concepts", that "there is no wasting of time", that "there is no confounding or bothering",
that " there is no comprehensible or incomprehensible" I cannot understand how you can
"simply appreciate our perceptions(of the world) as
directly as possible, open, observing, in wonder"....
WITHOUT interprating what you are observing.
Taking the argument 'ad absurdum' , you are observing the killing of a 10 year old girl, and you tell me that you will not interprate what you see....only observe it, 'in wonder'?
Gentlemen, please consider the above comments offered only for debate, not in any way intended to be disdainful of your world view. It would be very hypocritical for me to do so because
I have very little 'faith' that our human brain matter ,(consciousness), can formulate any objective truths......only subjective ones.
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 04:11 pm
twyvel:
My apologies for having misquoted you
in me last post. I have a bad habit of not re-reading carefully what I intend to post, before posting it. I will try not to do it so again.
I wrote that you said "a nondestructive state=mysticism..." whereas I should have written what you actually said which was , ofcourse,
"a nondualistic state=mysticism...". Sorry about that!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2005 04:49 pm
Alikimr, seeing without interpreting /experiencing without attachment is the central aspect of (zen) meditation. Your example of observing the murder of a young girl without interpretation, is not the same as observing it with indifference. Indifference is an interpretive stance. Most likely the zen observer will (as did the mature Samurai) move to save the girl without thinking. His unattached orientation will not necessarily, or even likely, motivate him to do nothing. By unattached observation I am referring to one's unification with what is being seen, i.e., the murder of a child, the approach of a tiger, the beauty of a flower, a pile of excrement, whatever. Zen buddhist stress that one's mind is unattached, when we see with no-mind (mu-shin), as they call it, one's behavior is appropriate to the situation. It is virtually automatic and probably highly conventional. But I can't swear by that.
0 Replies
 
alikimr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2005 11:24 pm
JLN:
I read your last post to categorically state
that 'unattached ' observation means 'unification'
with what is being observed. In other words by
unattachment you are unified.
I realize that you are using language to describe a state which obviously cannot be described by words, but I believe that attemting to do so does not help in the understanding....it only
accentuates the mystical aspects of what the Buddhist considers awareness/enlightenment to be..
I don.t see the necessity of this at all....a satory is
a beautiful "aha", a recognition , a synthesis of something that was not understood before...a unification of the components of a whole that were
not recognizable as a unity.
I think that the only way out of this
problem is the use of a Buddhist Dictionary, giving
the 'required' meaning to the words that are used to describe the Buddhist state of mind at its most constructive level. I know this sounds very presumptious, but it would avoid the usual type of discussion we get ourselves into. And I must add
that it was first suggested during a discussion by a
Samballa Buddhist,( here in my home town,during
a discussion with me.....who is a professional
psychologist),......although I must say he offered the idea in a half-serious manner.
How do we get out of this mental maze
of meaning, John.?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2005 12:15 pm
Alikimr, another good question. As "I" see it, ego is what is attached. To be attached is not just, as some think, to have desire for something. It is to see anything (or all things) as "objects" of perception--such "objects" can be either desired, feared, or of neutral interest. Either way, this means that the "subject"(ego) comes into being. No object, no subject. This means: no ego, no alienation from experience. To learn to experience pre-cognitively is to realize one's unity with the world, which is immediate (or unmediated) experience, which is your true nature. For essentially instrumental reasons we must objectify the content of experience in order to categorize "them" as desireable or undesireable with respect to our survival. Ego has great evolutionary survival value, but it is an illusion, just as the dualistic notion that we are separate from the "objects" of experience is illusory (two ways of saying the same thing).
Satori is, as you say, an 'aha" experience, but it is not the sudden realization of an idea. Were that so, people who have experienced satori could simply teach us that idea. But, as I understand it, satori is an awakening to an awareness of the primacy of non-dualistic experience, a realization that you are your consciousness of whatever is present to mind, that you are the content of experience. This is why one zen buddhist proclaimed "All things enlighten me". Another way of saying "All things reveal my true nature." This cannot be learned philosophically; it can only result from meditation or some functional equivalent.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2024 at 05:51:33