Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I'll share something I've been going through lately that your words somehow touch upon.  I haven't seen my mom for several years now because of the pandemic.  She's been hesitant to see me because she's worried that I might infect her and her older partner, particularly because I'm unvaccinated.  We talked and I think we are going to see each other this summer but I'll stay at a hotel rather than at her house, meet up mostly outside, wear masks, and forego hugging.  And I get it, I do.  The last thing I want to do is give her or her partner Covid.  But meanwhile my brother and his vaccinated family are seeing her regularly, going maskless, and hugging.

 

Is there scientific justification for my mom to treat me and my brother differently?  Intelligent people can probably disagree on this point but I'll admit that my proverbial panties are somewhat twisted.  I tell my partner all the time that my mom doesn't love me, even though, deep down, I know this is a lie.  But the lizard brain part of me somehow believes this.  

 

Anyway, here's the point.  What if I'm not a victim?  What if the universe and I are dancing a perfect dance and this situation is precisely what I need to take the next step towards being the person I want to be?  Seeing it this way takes the sting out.  

  

 

SUFFERING:

Does everything, particularly ‘suffering’ happen for a purpose?

The short and quick answer is that there is no hidden “purpose” to anything, going by the Advaita scriptures. But people including many pundits do speak of a purpose or talk of ‘suffering’ as a redemption of past sins or say that suffering is due to the effect of the innate tendencies (vasanas) or karma etc. etc. — these are all just ideas to help the “person” who is suffering so that he/she can “cope up” with the problem on hand.

“To cope up” means attend to the problem at the physical level (take appropriate medicine etc.) and manage day to day life without blaming others or regretting one’s own life. The “coping mechanisms” help to reduce the mental agitation / worry and help in a calm assessment so that the “person” can find proper steps to alleviate the “suffering.” Therefore, there is no harm if a person thinks in terms of a purpose etc. for the suffering, if it helps him/her to attend to the immediate needs of a problem.

The separate “me” is the “doer” for the actions or “owner” (claimant) for what happens. Say, suffering happens and the separate “me” claims that suffering as “mine”.  Then I become the owner for the suffering and hence I suffer. If there is no owner, the suffering will be orphaned. Unpossessed by anybody, the ‘suffering’ does not get strength and attenuates by itself.

As you know already, Non-duality tells us that a separate “me” is merely an imagination, it does not exist. The Unfindable Inquiry of Scott shows that a “me” cannot be found at all because it does not exist. So the “me” is an imagination.

If the “me” is an imagination, the claimant of “suffering” as the “owner of suffering” is also an imagination.  As long as a “person” thinks that he/she exists as a separate individual human being and that he is the sufferer, the suffering continues. Once he finds that there is no individual “person” there with a solid human body “claiming” the suffering to be his, who is there as the sufferer i.e. the owner of the suffering?

Then nobody would need the “coping mechanisms” of inventing a purpose, or karma etc.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/a-question-on-causality-purpose-and-suffering-in-non-duality/

 

Is there a universal nondual truth in relation to suffering, or do you just go with what makes you feel better, because that’s ok too?

 

[Bindi]

4 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

I don't doubt that most everybody here would agree that it's all Mind.  I think that science, specifically quantum physics, is walking up the same hill on a different and is in the process of meeting philosophy, such as we talk about here; what the mystics have known for millenia.   If this is the case, that it's all Mind and that developing our wakefulness is why we're here to begin with, it does stand to reason to me that we do manifest, from the inside to the outside, our physical ailments.  Where it gets woo-woo is when it seems that we manifest accidents or living conditions to bring about a particular physical state of affairs; but that very state of affairs (and the remedy) is the very thing that we need in order to bring about the needed conditions that the I Am inside of us 'wants' for our completion.  For our total integration, which would include mind and body.

 

Christian Science healers have utilized this very concept since Mary Baker Eddy triangulated all the 'red words of Jesus' in the bible, along with all reported healings.  When the Nazarene said things like 'go and sin no more', I don't think he was talking about the black and white 'sin' that has been wrongfully attached to his words.  I think he knew exactly Who he was, and he knew exactly Who the person he was healing was, too.  He was trying to get them to change their mindset, to think differently about themselves; to realize that their 'sins were forgiven' because of the same conditioning enigma that we all have to live with.  If I grew up with the same conditioning you did, I'd behave the same way.  I believe he was saying that the healee's mental process has been the very thing that has caused the condition, and that they could cut loose of the guilt and manifestations they were carrying, because life is actually a pretty no-fault situation.  There but by the grace of god go I,  getting back to the conditioning question.

 

I have seen dramatic healings done utilizing this very dynamic.  I have seen a young man healed of quadriplegia because of a ceremony changing the life dynamics that had occurred previously.  As seemingly horrible as the boy's causative situation was, the entire process 'healed' not only his body, but a longstanding and nasty dynamic with his father that got in the way of further progress on the life path for either one of them.  I have seen different forms of cancer healed, by one who triangulated the causative dynamic and reversed it with ceremony.  All based on the premise that linear time is not Really a Thing, that the days come and go because of planetary rotation, not because time is a separate entity of its own.  With what I've seen, it would be real hard to convince me that mind isn't the very thing that causes malady.  And the malady is often the very 'tell' that tells the healer what dynamic to look for.

Sometimes it is the mind that causes the malady, sometimes it is genetics, sometimes it is deterioration over time. Is it your mind that causes you to age and develop conditions associated with aging, or is it the lymph system not working well, and organs degenerating. If it was all in the mind, the right mind set could choose to live to 100 in perfect health, and why not 200, 400, 1000? 

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

SUFFERING:

Does everything, particularly ‘suffering’ happen for a purpose?

The short and quick answer is that there is no hidden “purpose” to anything, going by the Advaita scriptures. But people including many pundits do speak of a purpose or talk of ‘suffering’ as a redemption of past sins or say that suffering is due to the effect of the innate tendencies (vasanas) or karma etc. etc. — these are all just ideas to help the “person” who is suffering so that he/she can “cope up” with the problem on hand.

“To cope up” means attend to the problem at the physical level (take appropriate medicine etc.) and manage day to day life without blaming others or regretting one’s own life. The “coping mechanisms” help to reduce the mental agitation / worry and help in a calm assessment so that the “person” can find proper steps to alleviate the “suffering.” Therefore, there is no harm if a person thinks in terms of a purpose etc. for the suffering, if it helps him/her to attend to the immediate needs of a problem.

The separate “me” is the “doer” for the actions or “owner” (claimant) for what happens. Say, suffering happens and the separate “me” claims that suffering as “mine”.  Then I become the owner for the suffering and hence I suffer. If there is no owner, the suffering will be orphaned. Unpossessed by anybody, the ‘suffering’ does not get strength and attenuates by itself.

As you know already, Non-duality tells us that a separate “me” is merely an imagination, it does not exist. The Unfindable Inquiry of Scott shows that a “me” cannot be found at all because it does not exist. So the “me” is an imagination.

If the “me” is an imagination, the claimant of “suffering” as the “owner of suffering” is also an imagination.  As long as a “person” thinks that he/she exists as a separate individual human being and that he is the sufferer, the suffering continues. Once he finds that there is no individual “person” there with a solid human body “claiming” the suffering to be his, who is there as the sufferer i.e. the owner of the suffering?

Then nobody would need the “coping mechanisms” of inventing a purpose, or karma etc.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/a-question-on-causality-purpose-and-suffering-in-non-duality/

 

Is there a universal nondual truth in relation to suffering, or do you just go with what makes you feel better, because that’s ok too?

 

 

I don't buy into the nihilistic type gobbledygook of that quote... of course we exist as separate, unique and evolving souls or soul bodies created/woven/emanated in the image of and as facets of "God";  and doing so for countless eons until or when soul finally and fully evolves and merges back into the Ocean from which it came.  (btw. if we want to get abstract and cryptic we can say that it never really left, which is nice sounding and true in a transcendental way)  but in the meantime does soul also suffer besides the suffering of all the vehicles it takes on, I'd say yes which is why soul is seeking it's Soul.

 

(my take on such matters)

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by old3bob

[Bindi]

9 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

I don't buy into the nihilistic type gobbledygook of that quote... of course we exist as separate, unique and evolving souls or soul bodies created/woven/emanated in the image of and as facets of "God",  and doing so for countless eons until or when soul finally and fully evolves and merges back into the Ocean from which it came.  So does soul also suffer besides the suffering of all the vehicles it takes on, I'd say yes which is why soul is seeking it's Soul.

 

 

Just to be clear, my quote is just a ‘nondual’ quote, not something I personally recommend. 

[C T]

7 hours ago, Bindi said:

Sometimes it is the mind that causes the malady, sometimes it is genetics, sometimes it is deterioration over time. Is it your mind that causes you to age and develop conditions associated with aging, or is it the lymph system not working well, and organs degenerating. If it was all in the mind, the right mind set could choose to live to 100 in perfect health, and why not 200, 400, 1000? 

 

Isn't the mind the seat of observation that dis-ease comes in different forms, has different causes, and manifests to affect various states of being, at varying periods? What you termed 'deterioration' dependent again on a dualistic, subject/object premise - its the only convenient premise where an approximation (or value) can be derived, or relative measurements made to allow for intervention. Not saying this is objectionable, or to be discarded in pursuit of a higher, nobler, more transcendent view. The relative is useful. In fact, its essential for existence. But those poised for spiritual evolvement know there's something more, something that connects the being to higher levels of consciousness, or realms beyond this relative world, where space/time loses its meaning, equivalence, and influence. Without this connection, I think metaphysical work will be exasperating, like running around in circles each time an attempt is made. 

With the connection formed, then, terms like perfect health/ill health, mortality/immortality, short/long lifespan, and other such dichotomies will be resolved. Again... in the mind. Not that such resolutions will make one live to 400, or 1000, or certain physical impairments will be made whole within it, but I think definitely its a prerequisite for inner work to happen. 

 

Quote

The 19th-century Tibetan contemplative Düdjom Lingpa described the common experience of many generations of Buddhist contemplatives who have engaged in such intensive full-time meditative training as follows: “By applying yourself to this practice continuously at all times, both during and between meditation sessions, eventually all coarse and subtle thoughts will be calmed in the empty expanse of the essential nature of your mind.…finally, because the ordinary mind of an ordinary being, as it were, disappears, discursive thoughts go dormant, and roving thoughts vanish into the space of awareness…” -- Alan Wallace

 

In the discovery and practice of remaining in this space of awareness, a marked clarity will eventually surface. At that point, any and all kinds of practices that one chooses to adopt/integrate will be more defined, meaningful, and fruition attained with ease. 

[C T]

Quote source -- https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/mind-and-consciousness/

[steve]

1 hour ago, C T said:

Quote source -- https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/mind-and-consciousness/

 

I just got a copy of his book - Choosing Reality, which goes into more depth on these issues. Looking forward to reading it.

[Apech]

14 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I'll share something I've been going through lately that your words somehow touch upon.  I haven't seen my mom for several years now because of the pandemic.  She's been hesitant to see me because she's worried that I might infect her and her older partner, particularly because I'm unvaccinated.  We talked and I think we are going to see each other this summer but I'll stay at a hotel rather than at her house, meet up mostly outside, wear masks, and forego hugging.  And I get it, I do.  The last thing I want to do is give her or her partner Covid.  But meanwhile my brother and his vaccinated family are seeing her regularly, going maskless, and hugging.

 

Is there scientific justification for my mom to treat me and my brother differently?  Intelligent people can probably disagree on this point but I'll admit that my proverbial panties are somewhat twisted.  I tell my partner all the time that my mom doesn't love me, even though, deep down, I know this is a lie.  But the lizard brain part of me somehow believes this.  

 

Anyway, here's the point.  What if I'm not a victim?  What if the universe and I are dancing a perfect dance and this situation is precisely what I need to take the next step towards being the person I want to be?  Seeing it this way takes the sting out.  

  

 

I'm triple vaxxed and caught covid from another vaxxed person and we regularly wear masks.

 

There is no harm in sensible precautions of course - but this is something we are going to have to live with - some people are more high risk from serious illness of course but I fit the bill for that also but for me Covid was unpleasant but only lasted about a week.

 

 

[dwai]

11 hours ago, Bindi said:

Does everything, particularly ‘suffering’ happen for a purpose?

 

Suffering occurs due to our resistance to circumstances/happenings. There is no "purpose" for suffering - it is entirely self-inflicted. 

[ralis]

17 minutes ago, dwai said:

Suffering occurs due to our resistance to circumstances/happenings. There is no "purpose" for suffering - it is entirely self-inflicted. 

 

That is very cruel! 40-50 million died during WWII and all the suffering was self inflicted? History is replete with human suffering and Dark Ages thinking is no excuse for condemnation of others! 

[natural]

21 minutes ago, dwai said:

Suffering occurs due to our resistance to circumstances/happenings. There is no "purpose" for suffering - it is entirely self-inflicted. 

 

I am not so sure that suffering doesn't have an educational "purpose".

Unprovoked animal attacks?

Are they self-inflicted?

 

How about collateral damage by drive by shooters?

The children in the Texas mass shooting?
 

[dwai]

8 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

That is very cruel! 40-50 million died during WWII and all the suffering was self inflicted? History is replete with human suffering and Dark Ages thinking is no excuse for condemnation of others! 

Suffering as I am viewing it is a very specific mental phenomenon, that entails resistance to any "change" in the status quo. Yes, terrible things happen due to wars, famines, pandemics, etc. But whether someone "suffers" or not is dependent on their frame of mind. Suffering is a psychological phenomenon. Pain, illness, poverty,  etc are terrible things, some inflicted by nature, other by circumstances while others by members of the society. 

13 minutes ago, natural said:

am not so sure that suffering doesn't have an educational "purpose".

Unprovoked animal attacks?

Are they self-inflicted?

 

How about collateral damage by drive by shooters?

The children in the Texas mass shooting?

I'm not trying to dismiss others' suffering as unimportant or insignificant. Rather, I'm suggesting that for the majority of humanity (outside of things like wars, famines, etc) it is a self-inflicted problem of the mind. 

[natural]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

Suffering as I am viewing it is a very specific mental phenomenon, that entails resistance to any "change" in the status quo. Yes, terrible things happen due to wars, famines, pandemics, etc. But whether someone "suffers" or not is dependent on their frame of mind. Suffering is a psychological phenomenon. Pain, illness, poverty,  etc are terrible things, some inflicted by nature, other by circumstances while others by members of the society. 

I'm not trying to dismiss others' suffering as unimportant or insignificant. Rather, I'm suggesting that for the majority of humanity (outside of things like wars, famines, etc) it is a self-inflicted problem of the mind. 

 

So, mind over matter?

What about the developing mind of an infant or child?

Please don't play the "Karma card".

Suffering maybe buffered by a mature fully developed individual, and may be an issue for we of the great unwashed (unenlightened) masses.

[liminal_luke]

51 minutes ago, dwai said:

Suffering occurs due to our resistance to circumstances/happenings. There is no "purpose" for suffering - it is entirely self-inflicted. 

 

26 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

That is very cruel! 

 

Whether a given statement is cruel or compassionate depends a great deal on interpersonal context.  Suppose a mother lost her son in a drive by shooting.  In almost all cases telling such a mother that her suffering is optional would be cruel.  But there are a few mothers for whom that statement would be a healing balm.  How the words are heard depends entirely on the mother.  

[natural]

Just now, liminal_luke said:

 

 

Whether a given statement is cruel or compassionate depends a great deal on interpersonal context.  Suppose a mother lost her son in a drive by shooting.  In almost all cases telling such a mother that her suffering is optional would be cruel.  But there are a few mothers for whom that statement would be a healing balm.  How the words are heard depends entirely on the mother.  

 

And their particular circumstances, however I suspect the few mothers that find "healing balm" in the worn out "suffering is a choice are as common as chickens with teeth.

Sure, it happens but is such an anomaly as to be considered abnormal.

[liminal_luke]

7 minutes ago, natural said:

 

And their particular circumstances, however I suspect the few mothers that find "healing balm" in the worn out "suffering is a choice are as common as chickens with teeth.

Sure, it happens but is such an anomaly as to be considered abnormal.

 

I agree that it's the unusual mother who would find the "suffering is optional" phrase a healing balm, especially at the beginning of her journey through grief.  But consider the alternative statement: suffering is compulsory.  To my ear this sounds even more cruel.  At some point we all have the right to put down our burdens.

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, natural said:

 

And their particular circumstances, however I suspect the few mothers that find "healing balm" in the worn out "suffering is a choice are as common as chickens with teeth.

Sure, it happens but is such an anomaly as to be considered abnormal.

One of my chickens was killed by a weasel last night so please show some sensitivity to her toothlessness.

[natural]

2 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I agree that it's the unusual mother who would find the "suffering is optional" phrase a healing balm, especially at the beginning of her journey through grief.  But consider the alternative statement: suffering is compulsory.  To my ear this sounds even more cruel.  At some point we all have the right to put down our burdens.

 

I am not regulating suffering, just acknowledging it occurs, is not an option to most of us.

I shed tears daily on the inhumanity we impose on others with such disregard.

[silent thunder]

12 hours ago, Bindi said:

Sometimes it is the mind that causes the malady, sometimes it is genetics, sometimes it is deterioration over time. Is it your mind that causes you to age and develop conditions associated with aging, or is it the lymph system not working well, and organs degenerating. If it was all in the mind, the right mind set could choose to live to 100 in perfect health, and why not 200, 400, 1000? 

You describe mind.  Lymph is mind.  Body is mind.  World is mind.

 

What that is spoken of and perceived is not mind?  It's all mind. 

 

When mind turns outward, it identifies with projection, assumption, conditioning.

When turned inward, with the natural state.

 

There are no things, only mind.  No thing abides but for a brief interlude of mind propping it up. 

There is only awareness.

 

Suffering is a projection of mind, what mind creates.

Suffering is a crisis of perception.

(in my experience)

[natural]

3 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

You describe mind.  Lymph is mind.  Body is mind.  World is mind.

 

What that is spoken of and perceived is not mind?  It's all mind. 

 

When mind turns outward, it identifies with projection, assumption, conditioning.

When turned inward, with the natural state.

 

There are no things, only mind.  No thing abides but for a brief interlude of mind propping it up. 

There is only awareness.

 

Suffering is a projection of mind, what mind creates.

Suffering is a crisis of perception.

(in my experience)

Well thank you for that!

I had a neighbor who was working on a vehicle, when the gas began to leak, and ignited covering him in flames.

His scream was horrific, something I can recall today.

 

I rushed to him a African American and he appeared pink, yet in shock. I shouted follow me as I phoned 911 and ran as fast as i could while cajoling him to follow.

 

I don't believe he was suffering a crisis of perception as he endured a 3 month medical induced coma as they grew and grafted new skin tissue.

 

I still suffer from the memory, is that what you describe?

[dwai]

I find all discussions keep coming back to a fundamental difference in opinion/understanding of how words are used. What does “suffering” mean?

 

Is all pain suffering?

 

If not, what pain constitutes suffering and what doesn’t?  What separates pain from suffering? 
 

 

 

[natural]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

I find all discussions keep coming back to a fundamental difference in opinion/understanding of how words are used. What does “suffering” mean?

 

Is all pain suffering?

 

If not, what pain constitutes suffering and what doesn’t?  What separates pain from suffering? 
 

 

 

On a basic level pain is a warning alert, suffering usually occurs, but not always when we ignore the pain and carry on, so not all pain is suffering.

Ignoring pain almost always results in suffering in my experience. Put your hand in a flame, ignore the pain from the heat and remain there is a surefire way to suffer. Pun intended!

[Cobie]

13 minutes ago, natural said:

Well thank you for that!

I had a neighbor who was working on a vehicle, when the gas began to leak, and ignited covering him in flames.

His scream was horrific, something I can recall today.

 

I rushed to him a African American and he appeared pink, yet in shock. I shouted follow me as I phoned 911 and ran as fast as i could while cajoling him to follow.

 

I don't believe he was suffering a crisis of perception as he endured a 3 month medical induced coma as they grew and grafted new skin tissue.

 

I still suffer from the memory, is that what you describe?

Exactly. Kudos to you for helping.  Wishing you well.

[johndoe2012]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

 

Whether a given statement is cruel or compassionate depends a great deal on interpersonal context.  Suppose a mother lost her son in a drive by shooting.  In almost all cases telling such a mother that her suffering is optional would be cruel.  But there are a few mothers for whom that statement would be a healing balm.  How the words are heard depends entirely on the mother.  

 

The problem is a lot of spiritual people suppress their natural emotions of grief anger sadness etc. Thus you get the mental problems you see everywhere on forums. 

[liminal_luke]

2 minutes ago, johndoe2012 said:

 

The problem is a lot of spiritual people suppress their natural emotions of grief anger sadness etc. 

 

I've heard this from a lot of people so I assume it's true.  My experience is quite the opposite however: I suppress my emotions in everyday life and when I do almost any kind of spiritual practice I become more aware of my feelings.