Daniel

Have no fear, friend, I have not missed the point. The point is "what is the true meaning of non-dual?" You brought 2 statements of meaning. Both are categorical. In order for them to be literally true, there can be no valid counter-examples. I brought valid counter-examples. There are 2 and only 2 options if the true meaning of non-dual is being presented. The statements brought will need to be adjusted to exclude any and all counter-examples. The statements are qualified as non-literal ( figurative or exaggerated for effect ). If we are at the stage of logical refutation, then, hopefully my posts are considered accurately in the intention to which they are being written. In some ways it's accurate for you to adopt the role as teacher, and for me to adopt the role as student, but, in some ways this is potenntially problematic. The student loves their teacher, wants to please them, and eventually they are likely to acquiesce for a number of other reasons besides what you have written. Primarily, the student will have become exhausted. In each and every discussion I have had regarding the meaning of non-dual, my conversation partner exhausts long before me. Often hostility is projected on to me, when, that is not happening at all. Being seperated by a screen is fertile ground for these sort of projections. What's actually happening, imo, is the individual I am speaking with has adopted the "teacher" role. Because of this they project the "student" role onto me. My objections are assumed to be hostile, because, a student would not naturally challenge their beloved teacher unless it is out of hostility. ( Although I do reserve the right to have natural reactions, specifically a reaction of frustration when time spent writing a reply is determined to be wasted because it is not read and the individual is simply preaching from a virtual pulpit. ) These are the faults of the teacher-student model for this discussion. Instead a much better model is ... sparring partners. In my community there is an expression which translates to "debate in heaven's name" or "for the sake of heaven". It is a partnership. It is teamwork. The two ( or more ) are ascending together in a spiral where each one adopts the other position and attacks it. Then they trade roles. Each of the pair learns both sides of every argument for the purpose of co-rising together. I will be so happy for you and with you to acheive the goal of presenting the true meaning of non-dual. I will gleefully laugh in supreme joy and pleasure after being knocked to the ground if I am looking up at what we have built together. But I will not quit, and I should not quit until the the task is complete. This is for both of our benefit. It is oppositional, which is out of character for the student, but, is natural, normal, and encouraged for the sparring partner. If we work together, only good things can result. It is not hostile in any way. "What is not known is going to be known" <----- maybe, maybe not. The reality of what is unknown is independent of awareness of it. I gave you an couple of good examples. I didn't ask why something is known or unknown. I gave examples of phenomena which pre-date awareness. Regarding a realm of awareness: if this is defined as the combined collection of all that is known AND all that is unknown, that is a way to move forward. If that is the intended meaning, please let me know. Regarding the domain of the mind: what you've written confirms that there are at least 2 minds, because, I know things which you do not. Please confirm? Sure, but that is assuming "unknown" is a positive assertion of an object. Example: It, the object, is unknown. This only occurs after the object exists in thought. The "unknown" is not a positive assertion. Is it completely outside of awareness. I can post repeatedly volumes of examples of ideas which are completely disconnected from your awareness. You would never ever be able to claim them as "unknown" because you do not know them. Their existence pre-dates your awareness of them. One way to resolve the problem is to qualify this to an individual's experiences. You previously used the word for what is known as a "thought object". Let's use that instead of "thing". "Nonduality means that no thought is apart from awareness." What do you think of this? It's true and there are no counter-examples. Is there anything lost by defining it this way? The only problem I am seeing is that it is no longer profound. It's obviously true. Similarly, this phrase is much much better if "thing" is replaced with "thought" per what you have written. "every thought is made of and is an appearance of awareness to awareness" "awareness to awareness" is still a problem. This is a problem when considering inanimate objects which show no signs of awareness. This is a restatement of the first. When "thing" is replaced with "thought" it is true and consistent. Also, when a "thing" is a nothing more than a thought, these concepts naturally and automatically are limited to individuals. Each indivdual has their own mind, their own awareness, their own thoughts, their own experiences. All of these can be understoodd as singular non-dual unit per individual without any logical contradiction at all. But there are many different individuals, objects, phenomena which are beyond this inner non-duality.

In general, I think many do, but it is a transient experience which is a glimmer of what is possible. In particular, everyone is different. Eventhough there are nearly infinite paths of connection from the heart, that does not mean that each individual is inclined towards of all of those paths. Also, these paths are an opportunity. Even the glimmer of the infinite is itself infinite which greatly reduces the urgency of the pursuit. Because of this, many do not feel compelled to probe any further beyond what happens naturally. Beautiful. The answer to your question below is in the quote above. It doesn't need to traverse. Spirit is omnipresent and concurrent. "The centre is there." Here, there, everywhere, always and forever. The intellectual path is nearly infinitely broadening the path. In this way, 1 path is equivilant to nearly infinite paths. But there are nearly infinite obstacles to achieving this goal.

From my perspective, it can be achieved intellectually, but it is much more difficult. There are nealy infinite paths of connection from the heart (emotive) which are absolutely 100% true. There is only 1 path of connection from mind (intellect) which is absolutely 100% true. Because of this, the connection from the mind is highly error prone, but, it is still rewarding. I personally prefer the paths of the heart, but, sadly, some are not capable of this through no fault of their own. In addition, as time has progressed, knowledge has increased. This is discouraging working with the heart in favor of working with the mind. Where it is not discouraged it is often neglected. Because of this, I think it's important at this time to learn and teach the path of the mind so that those who want it and/or need it have access to it.

"the world that is observed is just a series of thought patterns appearing in the student’s mind" <---- true "So the “world” doesn’t really have a separate existent reality apart from the mind." <---- false The corrected version is below: "So the “world that is observed” doesn’t really have a separate existent reality apart from the mind. <---- true There is a world apart from the mind which is producing the "world that is observed". The easiest way to prove it is to show someone an obscure language and ask them to translate it. If they cannot, then this proves there is a world outside of their mind. The language is understood in a mind that is not their own, thus, there are at least two minds which are isolated from each other. The one mind is literally apart from the other mind.

If this were true, there would be no illness prior to being aware of the symptoms. No seed would ever germinate below the surface of the ground.

It is known that there are celestial bodies ( planets, stars, and moons ) that are beyond the atmosphere. Scientists have been able to determine the approximate age of these objects. Their age pre-dates the awareness of them. In a similar manner, cancer cells can be collected and their age can be determined. The cancer cells predates the awareness of it.

3 is possibly the most important number in engineering. It's best known best for its remarkable strength and stability.

First, thank you for the very detailed write-up. I understand what is written here, but, this is not literally true, correct? Perhaps in the past ancient philosophers did not consider what was happening beneath the surface of a distant star? Or, maybe they simply did not care about what was happening "there" for various reasons. I'm not criticising, because, there is good reason not to concern oneself with what is happening far beyond one's awareness. On the other hand, I think there are good reasons not to deny that there is a great deal which is apart from awareness. Clearly this is false. Each and every new discovery existed prior to the awareness of it. Its existence is not dependent in any way on awareness of it. If this were true, cancer would not exist.

matter is energy, light is energy, energy is dual

Chaos and disorder are useful. Random genetic mutations are an important evolutionary survival advantage.

The distinction is the awareness is incomplete. Reality is not ( with possibly only one exception ). I agree, but, I respectfully request that this is applied to both sides fairly. "Non-dual reality" = the mind of buddha qualifies as obtruse speculation. But "non-dual awareness" seems like a perfect fit. Let me type it out: "Buddhists would define the non-dual reality awareness as the mind of the Buddha (in calm equipose)" I can't argue with that ^^. That's saying something. Mark it on the calendar... "Nov. 20, A statement exists which is immune from Daniel's arguing." The answers to the questions are irrelevant to what I wrote. All that matters is that if reality consisted of one or the other then it is not the same reality where you and I and all the others co-exist. Asking the questions in the manner which you did confirms that each one is unique and individually significant. The point: In the model of reality that is described by purusha and prakriti, there are 3 fundemental components. purusha <----co-emergence----> prakriti purusha prakriti co-emergence There is no way consider it without some form of multiplicity. All three are co-dependent. Removing any one of them breaks the model. In this way, it cannot be considered literally non-dual. However. There are good strong reasons to consider the co-dependence as much more important that the multiplicity, but, if the co-dependence is that highly significant, then none of the members of the partnership can be denied. If they are ever denied, then the co-dependence is also being denied. If any of the three can be removed without producing a significant change, then the trio was never actually co-dependent. Among other reasons, this is why I strongly encourage an awareness of co-dependence, simultaneity, as the focus if, big IF, non-dual is not monism. So far, it seems, there is nothing lost and much to gain from this because it resolves the contradictions. The only thing that I can think of as a potential loss, is the omission of the word "literal" from "non-dual". It cannot be considered literally non-dual without it being monist. From here, it's possible to consider the chain of causation. This fits nicely because it is emphasizing co-dependence, but, the impermanence is the focus. If nothing is permanent, then nothing is significant with one and only one exception, "now". This is also a form of non-dual awareness, but, the reality is not literally non-dual for the reasons I mentioned previously. Each link in the chain of causation is significant, therefore reality cannot be literally non-dual. Again, the only thing that is lost here from a conceptual persective is word the word "literal". To me this is a small price to pay in order to have a method for describing "non-dual" which is logically consistent and avoids contraditctions. The focus is on either co-dependence which is singular ( non-dual ) or impermanence which results in a singular ( non-dual ) focus of significance. If there is buddhist scripture or teachings which assert a literal non-dual reality, so far, there is no way to avoid logical inconsistencies and contradiction. It's simply unavoidable. However, there is a secret option #3. Instead of non-duality from an intellectual perspective, it can be discussed as a feeling of a literally non-dual reality which is ineffable. The nice thing about this, is, it does match what so many report "I can't describe it, it has to be experienced..." The down-side is, at this point the word "non-dual" ceases to have any meaning. It might as well be called a mystical reality, because they are having a mysterious ineffable experience. We're back to sitting chatting with biscuits ( sat-chit-ananda ), or some other experience, which may very well be influenced by the expectations of the participant. Speaking of it this way reduces it to an experience in which the participant hopes is "the truth". None the less, calling it a non-dual "experience" is a good way to avoid the contradictions as well. So those are the three choices: co-dependence, impermanence, mystical-experience non-dual awareness of co-dependence non-dual focus on "now" non-dual mystical experience which feels non-dual, for lack of a better word All three, it seems to me, can be easily folded into the context of reducing ( or elimination ) of suffering and permit discussion without falling into any logical or linguistic contradictions.

No problem! If what I wrote inspired your participation, that makes me happy.

My vote? Daoism is a way of life, a way of viewing life and reality, a way of understanding success and failure and what produces them. Because life is diverse, daoism is diverse. Because life is evolving, daosim is evolving. Because life is all inclusive, daoism is all inclusive. If daoism is all-inclusive, then, daoism includes all ways of life. If it is a way of life that includes all ways of life, then, it is not only a way life. It is the "no-way way-of-life".

I think you can trust yourself when it comes to the "«correct» amount of freedom". I think you can and should trust those "alarmbells". Although it is ironic, because you've posted a song twice recently where the lyrics are written from the perspective of a human "talking on behalf of God", and you like this. If you look back at what I wrote, I am certainly not talking on behalf of God. I am encouraging you. I am not discouraging you. But, if you are cautious of those "talking on behalf of God", that should also include any inner-dialogue which is masquerading as "God" or a "god". I am encouraging you to pay attention and trust your own inner moral compass. If you ever find yourself entertained and pleased by imagining what is conventionally considered rape, murder, and theft, then it might be a good idea to doubt the inner moral compass. I would be shocked if this ever happens to you, but, it can happen. For example: if your attitude about rape flipped for some reason, based on what you have shared about yourself, I would either consider that a form of insanity ( hopefully temporary ), or, I would consider it as if you had become a totally different person. These "forces" are nothing more than thought forms. They're nothing to be afraid of, but they are oppositional and they can be highly deceptive, but they are vital, important, necessary. All of them are employed when rising up against any tyrannt against what appears to be insurrmountable odds. The problem is, the freedom fighter often becomes the tyrannt themself. Ending the cycle comes from moderation, but this moderation, itself, cannot be applied in the extreme. This is a paradox, but, as we say in my own tradition, "it's only a paradox". True moderation includes itself; it does not exclude itself. Moderating-moderation means that in some cases it's OK to take a strong stand. So, how does one know? When should moderation be applied? When should moderation be ignored? It's hard work coming up with these answers. In some ways, what you're doing is reinventing the wheel. In general, in most cases, it's good to be cautious. That's the origin of rules and warnings. Rules and warnings are human. They are not even close to being flawless. It's good to question them. Rules and warnings have reasons, but, as humans we have a tendancy to very quickly forget them. Questioning rules and warnings is a way to re-establish those reasons and make sure that they are still valid, but, even this questioning needs moderation because it can be taken too far. In so many ways, the heart is smarter than the mind, but it gets very little credit for being intelligent. Incesssant questioning can overide the inherent brilliance of the understanding of the human heart ( not literally the heart, you know what I mean ). It's something to be aware of, but, it should not discourage questioning.

Thank you, I think that has a great deal of potential for common ground between my point of view and buddhist teachings. I need to re-read the references you brought and ponder it. If you are inclined, it would be helpful for me if you would summarize what you posted in your own words. I think I understand how it applies to the post you quoted, but, I'm not sure.

Absolute freedom permits things I think you would find abhorent. If there is a divinity ( angel, demon, whatever moniker you choose to apply to it ) which is advocating absolute freedom then it is dangerous if, big IF, it is permitted without any restrictions. Knowledge is dangerous in a similar manner if it is not moderated by the understanding that knowledge is always and forever incomplete. ( you don't know what you don't know ). Incomplete knowledge, which is ignorant or in denial of its own ignorance is what perpetuates needless conflict. Everything that exists which passes through human thought, word, and deed is capable of causing great harm if it is not moderated including moderation itself. Most of these "forces" that you are being warned about resist moderation, or gradually lead away from moderation.

I agree with everything you wrote, with the exception that I still think that the words "veil" and "illusion" are useful terms. I especially agree with what you wrote, "both are real". I tried to convey this same idea in the post which you quoted, but I did not make that clear enough. The illusion I was referring to was that there was one or the other, not both. Thank you,

"I'm tired of debating you" Ah. So you were the one agitated not me. It doesn't need to be a debate, it could be a discussion. If one individual in a discussion repeatedly dodges questions and avoids answering by posting big irrelevant diagrams, or making out of context remarks, it might become a debate if the other party pushes them for answers.

You asked a question, I answered it. Did you read it or not?

You asked a question, I answered it. 2 minutes later, you're reciting buddhist doctrine as if you didn't read anything I wrote. Typical.

I'm not in the least agitated. That is just a projection of a fault onto me. The answer to your question of "why?" has 2 parts: 1) If you do not know what happens after the end of incarnation, then, it could be much much worse than what is happening as an incarnated being. I think this is important. Any responsible practioner should share this sort of ambiguity with the one they are counseling: "Here is a perscription to end your suffering, but, after it is gone I don't know what is going to happen to you. Hopefully it is good or at least better than your current situation, but, you should be aware, that no one actually knows. Buddha was asked many times and never answered." Anything less than this ^^ is irresponsible and reckless. 2) Any intelligent mature person should be capable of discussing what it means to end all incarnation for every"thing". Whether or not buddha answered it or not is irelevant. If it literally cannot be discussed due to a cognitive problem, I think that is significant. What produces this cognitive deficency? Is it a consequence of being trained in buddhism and practicing buddhism? This ^^ is of specific concern because unlike the previous problem where the "after-life" lacking incarnation is unknown, it could be better or it could be worse, this is a cognitive regression here and now. It is an undisclosed loss of function. If this buddhist practice of detachment is producing a significant loss in cognitive function, I think that's important. Just like any other responsible professional consultant, someone promoting a practice to others should be knowledgable of the potential for harm and disclose it. Perhaps a good analog is "cross-fit" where there is significant risk, but there was a time when the adherents would rarely if ever disclose them. To be clear, I do not think it always produces this deficency, and even further, I am not convinced that the practice actually causes any deficiency at all. That is why am phrasing my objections in the form of questions with question marks. They are questions. It is more likely, in my view, that it is simply common, "garden-variety" religious adherence which prohibits the adherent from being objective about the implications of their own beloved religion. In some ways this is like the "problem of evil" in my own religious community. Or other implications in Christianity which the religious adherent cannot tolerate nor speak about, so they ignore or deomize the one making the objection. It just so happens that this specific religion, buddhism, is supposed to prevent these sorts of denials, and avoidance, and illogical religious doctrine. Although, it could be, in addition to the religious adherence, there is an actual cognitive deficency being promoted and practiced without full disclosure. So, there's 3 reasons for my public objections: If it is literally true that incarnations, all of them cease, then this could be a disaster for the individual and many others. I think there is good reason to discuss it, yet, I have never met a buddhist wiiling to do so for various reasons, and none of those reasons are good. If buddhism is actually intending to prevent denial, avoidance, and religious doctrine, then pointing out the denial, avoidance, and religious doctrine of the buddhist themself should be welcome and useful. It could be that there is at least one undisclosed cognitive loss of function produced by buddhist practice by trading one problem for another. If so, it would be good to analyze this; determine the factors which contribute to it; develop methods to prevent it, or, at least disclose it as a potential unintended side-effect.

Since this is not describing me, then it's not relevant. The reason that I referred back to the original question is that it demonstates there was an intention to discuss feelings and mental perceptions, mindfulness without any negative biases or judgements. There was a geniune desire ( please refrain from judgement ) to discuss detachment and the corresponding concepts in a positive, useful, and friendly manner. Since the question was dodged and avoided repeatedly, my reaction has nothing to do with non-attachment. My reaction is to the denial and avoidance ( potentially it's ignorance ) to implications of this practice assuming that it is literally true. Yes, yes, I know that denial and avoidance is supposed to be antithetical to buddhism.

Sure. The buddha would not have been able to answer it because that was almost 2000 years ago. Modern science of brain development did not exist at the that time. Just because "the-buddha" would not have answered it, doesn't mean that the question cannot and should not be answered now. Naturally. What I don't like is dishonesty and deception. If the goal is to end all suffering which in turn ends all incarnation, then, it is dishonest to deny that this goal is total extinction. If the goal is to end all suffering which in turn ends all incarnation, then it is deceptive to dodge and change the subject and not to admit it openly. If the goal is to end all suffering which in turn ends all incarnation, then it is deceptive to only teach about the end of suffering without teaching about end of all incarnation. Secret option #4: It could be that many/most buddhist teachers have not realized the implications of what they are teaching if it is understood literally. This is ignorant. It's not their "fault", but it is techhnically ignorant. Not only have they never been taught the implication, they are being discouraged from using their mind to derive implications. Implication is a projection, an expectation, which is a cognitive process that requires attachment. Those who are being trained to detach and are practicing detachment, if the training and practice is successful, they will not be able to do this accomplish this congitive function. They will have detached from any care or concern from the existence of any one or anything that is not currently in focus in the "now". This diagram has absolutely nothing to do with non-physical existence. It's just another dodge. "... without really trying to understand it" <--- projecting failure on others.

And, I think it's important to note: I asked a simple question about whether or not infants were naturally mindful by default. This question was dodged and avoided probably because it is yet another disproof of buddhist teachings ( or at least how buddhism is being understood and spoken about here ). But, it's a valid question, and I think its useful on its own outside of any buddhist context relating to feelings, mental perceptions, and the nature of suffering as contrasted with pain.

Wait. That's a flip-flop. According to what you wrote, the physical incarnation (birth) is considered suffering because it perpetuates your existence in samsara. Therefore any perpetuation is the cause. Physical incarnation is a perpetuation of your existence in samsara. ... by eliminating its physical existence. And all physical existence. What do you know about non-physical existence?