Differences between dualism and non-dualism

[Apech]

2 hours ago, steve said:

 

Yes, you made that gratuitous assertion before but still offer nothing to support it. That’s your prerogative but certainly not a compelling argument. It is not the case according to quantum physics or environmental biology. It is also not the case according to Bön and Buddhist metaphysics or my personal experience. I view it as a misconception fostered by a lifetime of materialistic indoctrination and by virtue of our unique sensory apparatus and ability to ambulate. 

 

Samkhya philosophy which is the ancestor of all dharmic metaphysics does posit both a real universal substance (objectively real) and real observing selves (purusha).  I don't think they were being 'gratuitous' in doing so - in fact their system and terminology/taxonomy are fundamental to vedanta, yoga, Buddhism, Jainism etc. etc.

[Apech]

42 minutes ago, C T said:

The assignation of names to objects, followed by meanings, labels, definitions, time span, location, and their subsequent imprints on the sense doors present the perceiver with only an image of objects' apparentness, and not its true existence. The compounding of meanings, labels, definitions, time span, location, and degree of impingement on the senses is whats appears to clarify shape, colour, sound, taste and so on. 

 

An object appearing, given a name and meaning, remaining for a period of time, and then breaks apart (time span) cannot be said to have intrinsic existence. Such that, what is conventionally known as a cup isn't a cup in the real sense. It is a made-up term, a convenient rendering related to its coming into view, and also its usage (location). Moreover, its visible and tangible form depended on many other factors and conditions, whether complex or simple, coming together before it got to be what it is, in its temporary state of existence. Including its hollowness. Especially its hollowness, without which.... no object can exist that can be labelled 'cup'. Same  goes for 'human being', and every other dependently originated matter. When matter is considered in the complete sense, then both form and emptiness needs attention, but most (objectivists), choosing to rest their assumptions only on the tangibility of matter, will intentionally stop short of the emptiness aspect.and equation. An imbalanced view is not conducive to establishing a proper spiritual foundation. 

 

Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. 

 

Anyone who's dedicated to cultivating the subtle body and other mystical powers to ultimate fruition will do well to first unravel this simple yet profound truth. 

 

'Object' means literally what is 'thrown out' and so to posit an objectively real world simply means that the products of activity do actually exist or that the substance from which they are made is real.  Empirical experience backs up this belief because the objective world is reliable, in that things are stable within the field in which they operate.  A chair does not suddenly become a motor car, air does not become earth and so on.

 

 

[steve]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

I don't think they were being 'gratuitous' in doing so

 

Do they offer a rationale or arguable basis for their assertion?

[Miffymog]

My logic goes like this. What I'm experiencing is only in the now, and all ideas I have about the past are again the only in the now. However, what I am experiencing in the now has not just come into existence out of nowhere, but is the consequence of events in the past. My pen, for example, did not just come out of nowhere, it has a history.

 

Therefore, although I only experience the present, I'm absolutely certain there has been a past which came before. For me, this is enough evidence of there being a timeline.

 

I can happy extend this time to before when I existed, and extend it further to before there was any conscious awareness anywhere in the universe.

 

This results in my being able to define two universes, my universe and the universe. My universe is the universe I bring into existence by virtue of my own awareness, and the universe which gives me some understanding of how and why things are as they are in the moment.

 

My pen has its own history, and would exist without me, only I would of course not know about it.

[Apech]

31 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Do they offer a rationale or arguable basis for their assertion?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

[steve]

19 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

 

A little complicated for me to try and answer my question at the moment, but thanks. I’ll leave it an open question until I have more enthusiasm or an assist. 

[Bindi]

3 hours ago, C T said:

The assignation of names to objects, followed by meanings, labels, definitions, time span, location, and their subsequent imprints on the sense doors present the perceiver with only an image of objects' apparentness, and not its true existence. The compounding of meanings, labels, definitions, time span, location, and degree of impingement on the senses is whats appears to clarify shape, colour, sound, taste and so on. 

 

An object appearing, given a name and meaning, remaining for a period of time, and then breaks apart (time span) cannot be said to have intrinsic existence. Such that, what is conventionally known as a cup isn't a cup in the real sense. It is a made-up term, a convenient rendering related to its coming into view, and also its usage (location). Moreover, its visible and tangible form depended on many other factors and conditions, whether complex or simple, coming together before it got to be what it is, in its temporary state of existence. Including its hollowness. Especially its hollowness, without which.... no object can exist that can be labelled 'cup'. Same  goes for 'human being', and every other dependently originated matter. When matter is considered in the complete sense, then both form and emptiness needs attention, but most (objectivists), choosing to rest their assumptions only on the tangibility of matter, will intentionally stop short of the emptiness aspect.and equation. An imbalanced view is not conducive to establishing a proper spiritual foundation. 

 

Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. 

 

Anyone who's dedicated to cultivating the subtle body and other mystical powers to ultimate fruition will do well to first unravel this simple yet profound truth. 

The phrase ‘Form is emptiness; emptiness is form’ is not a necessary foundation of subtle body cultivation IME, and I wouldn’t need to unravel the meaning of this phrase if it doesn’t affect my subtle body cultivation. It seems more likely that we have different concepts of what the subtle body is and how it is cultivated. I don’t need to understand this phrase to feel an emotion, or do a specific posture, or have a working understanding of dantians and chakras and Nadi’s, and these are the basis of subtle body work for me. 

[Apech]

45 minutes ago, steve said:

 

A little complicated for me to try and answer my question at the moment, but thanks. I’ll leave it an open question until I have more enthusiasm or an assist. 

 

If you have a mind to understand it and a little time you could try  Chapter 4 esp. pgs 235 onward of https://www.amazon.co.uk/Indian-Philosophy-Vol-Classic-Reprint/dp/0331896737/ref=sr_1_6?crid=AF1DXKWM4I7R&keywords=indian+philosophy+vol+2&sprefix=indian+philosophy+vol+2%2Caps%2C194&sr=8-6

 

 

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, steve said:

 

Yes, you made that gratuitous assertion before but still offer nothing to support it. That’s your prerogative but certainly not a compelling argument. It is not the case according to quantum physics or environmental biology. It is also not the case according to Bön and Buddhist metaphysics or my personal experience. I view it as a misconception fostered by a lifetime of materialistic indoctrination and by virtue of our unique sensory apparatus and ability to ambulate. 

 

New experiment demonstrates that reality might actually be real

Forget theoretical physics, let's talk about experimental reality

 

April 19, 2022 - 9:12 pm

 

A team of scientists recently conducted an exciting quantum physics experiment allowing them to demonstrate that reality might actually be real.

https://thenextweb.com/news/new-experiment-demonstrates-reality-might-actually-be-real

[Cobie]

20 minutes ago, Bindi said:

… reality might actually be real. 

Much better. 
 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Cobie

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

Samkhya is indeed the foundation for indic cosmology. It proposes two primordial "realities" - Consciousness (Purusha) and Nature (Prakriti). But Samkhya was also very effectively & publicly countered by the Buddha/Buddhists and the Advaita Vedantins, not to mention the Kashmiri Shaivites.

 

Some claim that Yoga is the practical aspect of Samkhya, but Yoga also leads to nirvikalpa samadhi, which is the penultimate condition in Nondual traditions. So Nonduality doesn't really "reject" Samkhya, but rather resolves the essential dichotomy of the duality between Purusha and Prakriti. One doesn't need to do anything but understand their own everyday experiences to realize why Samkhya is incomplete/flawed. 

 

That being said, FWIW, modern philosophers are gravitating towards the Samkhya model in the form of panpsychism. They'll eventually get around to understanding the nondual view. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by dwai

[Cobie]

Removed, posted in the wrong thread.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Cobie

[Apech]

14 minutes ago, dwai said:

Samkhya is indeed the foundation for indic cosmology. It proposes two primordial "realities" - Consciousness (Purusha) and Nature (Prakriti). But Samkhya was also very effectively & publicly countered by the Buddha/Buddhists and the Advaita Vedantins, not to mention the Kashmiri Shaivites.

 

Some claim that Yoga is the practical aspect of Samkhya, but Yoga also leads to nirvikalpa samadhi, which is the penultimate condition in Nondual traditions. So Nonduality doesn't really "reject" Samkhya, but rather resolves the essential dichotomy of the duality between Purusha and Prakriti. One doesn't need to do anything but understand their own everyday experiences to realize why Samkhya is incomplete/flawed. 

 

That being said, FWIW, modern philosophers are gravitating towards the Samkhya model in the form of panpsychism. They'll eventually get around to understanding the nondual view. 

 

Well sure I guess - but it is a good (probably the best) example of a coherent dualism - which is what I was trying to say to steve.

[steve]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Well sure I guess - but it is a good (probably the best) example of a coherent dualism - which is what I was trying to say to steve.

 

I didn’t mean to imply that all dualistic philosophies are somehow gratuitous… Good arguments can no doubt be made in their favor. Nevertheless the foundation of materialism is slowly losing support among the sciences and long ago lost the support of many spiritual traditions.

[steve]

52 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

New experiment demonstrates that reality might actually be real

Forget theoretical physics, let's talk about experimental reality

 

April 19, 2022 - 9:12 pm

 

A team of scientists recently conducted an exciting quantum physics experiment allowing them to demonstrate that reality might actually be real.

https://thenextweb.com/news/new-experiment-demonstrates-reality-might-actually-be-real

 

Over my head but I have little doubt reality is real. 

😁

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Over my head but I have little doubt reality is real. 

😁

When we start to question the Reality of reality, we are really having fun 😂

[C T]

The contact of an object with the senses does not a chair make. 

 

One perceives outline, shape and colour, but the term 'chair' is a conventional (convenient) designation relative to its temporal formation and/or existence. The pieces of material in a flat pack that can be assembled into a chair is no less solid individually, yet its not possible to identify any single part as a 'chair' despite the presence of an inherent 'chairness'. McGyver could assemble the parts into a box cart by adding four roundy things into the mix, does this remove the 'chairness' of the parts in any way? 

 

What qualities must a chair possess anyway for it to be thus named? Is it more of a chair if it has 5 legs, or less if it merely has 3? 

[Mark Foote]

11 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

From the Chandogya Upanishad, 8th Prapathaka, 1st Khanda.

 

3. Then he should say: 'As large as this ether (all space) is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever there is of him (the Self) here in the world, and whatever is not (i. e. whatever has been or will be), all that is contained within it .'

 

 

When Layman Pang took leave..., (he) pointed to the snow in the air and said, "Good snowflakes--they don't fall in any other place."

(Case 42 "The Blue Cliff Record", Yuanwu, tr. Cleary & Cleary, p 253)

 

An update of some remarks I made in 2014 that concern the infinity of ether, and also the experience of action of the body in the absence of volition, which the Japanese call "ishinashini" (and which the late Sasaki roshi of Mt. Baldy in L.A. cited as a justification for his groping his female disciples):
 

Gautama mentions extending the mind of compassion in the ten directions to infinity, and says the "excellence of the heart's release" in such an extension is the attainment of the realm of infinite ether (the first arupa jhana, or immaterial trance).

 

Lately I’m on a lot about proprioception in equalibrioception– “with no part of the body left out”, a singularity in the sense of location and a freedom of the sense of location to move.

 

More correctly, though, it’s got to be all of the senses including touch “with no part left out”, where “with no part left out” is the extension of the mind of compassion in the ten directions to infinity. An openness to all parts informing a singularity in the location of awareness.

 

And a relinquishment of volition in activity, with self-surrender the object of thought, so that when the wind blows from the realm of infinite ether the limbs can move, so to speak.

 

Or not. I guess the relinquishment of volition is a matter of well-being, the well-being that draws us all as a source of non-material happiness, and whether or not the windy element moves the body is hardly significant. Except to me, because of the lack of doubt I experience in being drawn along.

 

It gets complicated when people like Sasaki claim that they did their misdeeds as a matter of ishinashini, that their hand was will-less. Belief is involved, so although a lot of folks see Zen as somehow beyond reason, the fact is that reason doesn’t go away and belief is involved, even when volition ceases.

 

The realm of infinite ether with its "motile air" (as in the Visuddhimagga) doesn't move me from any other place.  

 

[Bindi]

41 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Over my head but I have little doubt reality is real. 

😁

The linked article refers to reality as “objective physical realism”. You don’t doubt that there is an objective physical reality? 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

When we start to question the Reality of reality, we are really having fun 😂

But seriously, is reality really real? 
 

https://www.livescience.com/38234-is-reality-real-or-not.html

[old3bob]

so simple mind can not comprehend...

[steve]

37 minutes ago, Bindi said:

The linked article refers to reality as “objective physical realism”. You don’t doubt that there is an objective physical reality? 

 

I definitely do not doubt that reality is real but that is little more than a tautology, I meant it as a play on words.

 

As for the nitty gritty details as worked out by philosophers and scientists, I don't put too much time or effort into understanding and adopting conceptual models for reality. I do resonate strongly with Carlo Rovelli's relational interpretation of quantum mechanics. I have enough of a grasp of the science to be excited about how close QM can come to agreeing with my own personal experiences and with the teachings of the wisdom traditions, particularly regarding non-duality. I will admit a strong bias there. I can't say much about the article you linked as it was really over my head, the "explanation" given didn't really tell me much so I don't have a good enough grasp or appreciation for its veracity or implications. There are so many papers that come out making this or that claim about QM and other physics topics, way too much for an amateur like me to try and sift through and collate in any meaningful way. For me it is enough to do my practice and read the occasional pop physics book (Rovelli's book Helgoland is wonderful). I am also very excited about seeing what the Webb telescope has to teach us... won't be long to begin seeing some data and images, I think early July.

[Bindi]

12 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I definitely do not doubt that reality is real but that is little more than a tautology, I meant it as a play on words.

 

As for the nitty gritty details as worked out by philosophers and scientists, I don't put too much time or effort into understanding and adopting conceptual models for reality. I do resonate strongly with Carlo Rovelli's relational interpretation of quantum mechanics. I have enough of a grasp of the science to be excited about how close QM can come to agreeing with my own personal experiences and with the teachings of the wisdom traditions, particularly regarding non-duality. I will admit a strong bias there. I can't say much about the article you linked as it was really over my head, the "explanation" given didn't really tell me much so I don't have a good enough grasp or appreciation for its veracity or implications. There are so many papers that come out making this or that claim about QM and other physics topics, way too much for an amateur like me to try and sift through and collate in any meaningful way. For me it is enough to do my practice and read the occasional pop physics book (Rovelli's book Helgoland is wonderful). I am also very excited about seeing what the Webb telescope has to teach us... won't be long to begin seeing some data and images, I think early July.

In a sense the linked article proves what I was saying earlier to manitou, one can find just about anything to support their view, doesn’t mean it’s right. And you are drawn to those papers and wisdom traditions that confirm your own view/experience. So you are trusting your experience and it’s confirmation to be the truth. 
 

Statistically speaking, what you believe to be true is more likely to be one part of the elephant. 

[dwai]

9 minutes ago, Bindi said:

In a sense the linked article proves what I was saying earlier to manitou, one can find just about anything to support their view, doesn’t mean it’s right. And you are drawn to those papers and wisdom traditions that confirm your own view/experience. So you are trusting your experience and it’s confirmation to be the truth. 
 

Statistically speaking, what you believe to be true is more likely to be one part of the elephant. 

Who was there to corroborate this so-called proof of “independent existence of objective reality”?  

The game is rigged, so to speak - the house (consciousness) always wins. Even when it seems it loses  

[steve]

45 minutes ago, Bindi said:

In a sense the linked article proves what I was saying earlier to manitou, one can find just about anything to support their view, doesn’t mean it’s right. And you are drawn to those papers and wisdom traditions that confirm your own view/experience. So you are trusting your experience and it’s confirmation to be the truth. 
 

Statistically speaking, what you believe to be true is more likely to be one part of the elephant. 

 

Do you think there is a need to believe in any particular truth?