Bindi

Differences between dualism and non-dualism

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, ralis said:

 

What about others that you spread Covid to when you are infected? If they die, is that love or compassion? 

 

Not this again !    have I returned to DBs in a time warp ?

 

Look you guys ... I am missing all the 'fun' of 'current events ' forum     'cause I refuse to join in just so I can avoid this stuff .

 

Not fair !

 

 

- you are making me suffer !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, natural said:

I continue to wonder why when things go bad and I get/accept the blame, but don't get nor expect credit when things go well. ; )

 

In my case I think that is because the best way to effect positive change is to  trick 'the people' into thinking they came up with the solutions themselves .

 

;)

 

The other side ( the blame , going wrong stuff ) is an interesting dynamic ;

 

Me;  ' Dont do  that   ..... it will cause   (  whatever bad results , that are glaringly obvious to me, but seem hidden to them ) .

 

response ;   " Your 'criticisms'   might actually cause those bad things to happen !  "

 

 -  Ooooh ... me and my 'negative vibes'   ! 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old3bob said:

"I fought the law and the law won", (their headgear must be great for below freezing temps)
 

download.jpg.2a7d75cad14e4abc3cc896a20a7f7411.jpg

 

I fought the law ( well, fought  the State's  bullshit interpretation of the law foisted upon us by the Attorney General / public prosecutor  )

 

... and I won !

 

image.png.a46ca900e3bf1df8109e70933ce78cb0.png

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depersonalisation vs transcending the personality. My take would be if the mind leaves the body because the feelings are overwhelming this is depersonalisation. If the ‘spiritual’ glimpse happened during trauma, then perhaps the stage is set for fascination with depersonalisation and that state’s ability to avoid pain. To transcend the personality I propose that consciousness needs to travel deeper and deeper within the body to the very centre, through emotions and thoughts, not away from them, but deeper within, to a place where emotions and thoughts inform the Self, but the Self is not limited by these earthly feedback systems. The subtle body inhabits the inner space, not depersonalised space. Ultimately I am not everyone, I am only the deepest essence of myself, a subtle body, which can be developed beyond my physical body, and which when developed is free to travel through space at will, but I am not that space, nor what inhabits that space. While I am alive my home is in my physical body space. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Nungali said:

Dualism :

 

image.png.db540ec6eca2877fc158be6540fc1c16.png        /   image.png.787cf8a5ea8f3214d473e6b0726ca092.png

 

                                                                                                                 this could be a "cable guy" Larry's cousin...

Edited by old3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bindi said:

Depersonalisation vs transcending the personality. My take would be if the mind leaves the body because the feelings are overwhelming this is depersonalisation. If the ‘spiritual’ glimpse happened during trauma, then perhaps the stage is set for fascination with depersonalisation and that state’s ability to avoid pain. To transcend the personality I propose that consciousness needs to travel deeper and deeper within the body to the very centre, through emotions and thoughts, not away from them, but deeper within, to a place where emotions and thoughts inform the Self, but the Self is not limited by these earthly feedback systems. The subtle body inhabits the inner space, not depersonalised space. Ultimately I am not everyone, I am only the deepest essence of myself, a subtle body, which can be developed beyond my physical body, and which when developed is free to travel through space at will, but I am not that space, nor what inhabits that space. While I am alive my home is in my physical body space. 

 

Id say one can travel all the realms including the most subtle, and across all time and space (galaxies and the universe)  but even that is not enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, dwai said:
Two birds of beautiful plumage perched on the tree,
One bound to the world and the other eternally free.
 
The free bird, serene, stood still on the tree-top,
Watching the lower one, bound, on the twigs do a hop.
 
Eating the fruits both sweet and bitter,
Spend its time and resources in a fritter.
 
The serene transcended both pleasure and pain,
Eating the fruits, the bound remained in chain.
 
The pain of bitter fruits taught it lessons of regret,
The pleasure of sweet fruits made it forget.
 
The pain of bitterness made the bound to ponder,
Resolving to reach the serene on the yonder.
 
Relinquishing its resolve with the arrival of pleasure,
Indulges in eating fruits again to go beyond at its leisure.
 
But the frequent bitterness in fruits kept it in remind,
To reach the serene as the goal of the mind.
 
Rises up to reach the serene, it will, only if little by little
At its own pace and measure to prove its mettle.
 
Approaching the serene it no longer remains bound
It and the serene were always One and so It found.

 

 

This is wonderful!!!  Thank you so much for looking this up and posting it.

 

 

 

 

Edited by manitou
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bindi said:

Depersonalisation vs transcending the personality. My take would be if the mind leaves the body because the feelings are overwhelming this is depersonalisation. If the ‘spiritual’ glimpse happened during trauma, then perhaps the stage is set for fascination with depersonalisation and that state’s ability to avoid pain. To transcend the personality I propose that consciousness needs to travel deeper and deeper within the body to the very centre, through emotions and thoughts, not away from them, but deeper within, to a place where emotions and thoughts inform the Self, but the Self is not limited by these earthly feedback systems. The subtle body inhabits the inner space, not depersonalised space. Ultimately I am not everyone, I am only the deepest essence of myself, a subtle body, which can be developed beyond my physical body, and which when developed is free to travel through space at will, but I am not that space, nor what inhabits that space. While I am alive my home is in my physical body space. 

 

 

Read the poem.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nungali said:

In my case I think that is because the best way to effect positive change is to  trick 'the people' into thinking they came up with the solutions themselves .

 

 

Sez the DDJ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

Read the poem.

:)


The poem supports your view, it isn’t a truth to prove your view. I could quote any text to support just about any view, I could ‘prove’ in this way that your best course of action is to kill an infidel to obtain paradise. Clearly not true according to me and probably you. At most texts and poems either reflect or guide your view. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

Id say one can travel all the realms including the most subtle, and across all time and space (galaxies and the universe)  but even that is not enough.


As to what the ‘Self’ is capable of, maybe it’s what you say here, maybe it’s not, experience of the Self is the only way to be sure to me. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

Sez the DDJ!

 

Lotza stuff in that book works    :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bindi said:


As to what the ‘Self’ is capable of, maybe it’s what you say here, maybe it’s not, experience of the Self is the only way to be sure to me. 

 

true, concepts and or experiential recounts or reflections from someone else are never enough,  although they can be of help.

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A pointing to Brahman/Self for anyone interested:

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

 

"...1. Harih, Om. There is this city of Brahman (the body), and in it the palace, the small lotus (of

the heart), and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether, that is to be sought for, that is to be understood.

 

2. And if they should say to him: 'Now with regard to that city of Brahman, and the palace in it,  the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for, or that is to be understood?'

 

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 .'

 

4. And if they should say to him: 'If everything that exists is contained in that city of Brahman, all beings and all desires (whatever can be imagined or desired), then what is left of it, when old age reaches it and scatters it, or when it falls to pieces?'

 

5. Then he should say: 'By the old age of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) does not age; by the death of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) is not killed. That (the Brahman) is the true Brahma-city (not the body ). In it all desires are contained. It is the Self, free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine. Now as here on earth people follow as they are commanded, and depend on the object which they are attached to, be it a country or a piece of land,

 

6. 'And as here on earth, whatever has been acquired by exertion, perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by sacrifices and other good actions performed on earth. Those who depart from hence without having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart from hence, after having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is freedom in all the worlds..."

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/6/2022 at 1:49 AM, 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)


Different objects might be perceived differently depending on the senses of the perceiver, but objects have their intrinsic nature, even if not perfectly perceived. Lymph is not mind, it is lymph, and we comprehend part of its nature. The body is beyond amazing, and we comprehend part of it, but it exists beyond mind, and beyond perception. If no one was here to perceive a body, there would still be the object, it doesn’t disappear just because no mind perceives it. 
 

When mind turns inwards, there are also a myriad of possibilities that mind perceives. My mind perceives something different to your mind. You perceive the ‘natural state’, I perceive a subtle body that wants to develop according to a blueprint that I am not privy to except in bits along the way. 
 

Mind is limited, granted, but it doesn’t mean that what it perceives doesn’t exist, what exists is always more complicated than perception, but it’s existence doesn’t change, only the perceptions of it change. 

 

If you have found that your mind can disengage from suffering that is a good thing in the short term if you were initially suffering physically or mentally, but beyond the issue of suffering there are other developments within that are not intertwined with suffering or not suffering, there is another agenda that is barely heard, that is more important than not suffering. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bindi said:

If no one was here to perceive a body, there would still be the object, it doesn’t disappear just because no mind perceives it. 

 

How do you know?

What form has the “object” that has no subject?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, steve said:

 

How do you know?

What form has the “object” that has no subject?


Don’t you have an existence beyond my perception of you? Planets exist whether I know of them or not. My perception is limited, but it still gives me some small clue about what exists in the world and the universe/s. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Don’t you have an existence beyond my perception of you?

 

Of course, because I am here to perceive. Your comment was:

 

If no one was here to perceive a body, there would still be the object, it doesn’t disappear just because no mind perceives it. 

 

I find it to be valuable and instructive to think about what an object is in the absence of a subject. What is color without an eye and the one interpreting the eyes’ information? Where is taste without a tongue and the taster? I think we are a bit misled by our materialistic conditioning and by virtue of our unique sensory apparatus, something that is being revealed in modern physics and biology. 

 

Like yin and yang, I propose subject and object define and require one another and cannot exist independently. I am not saying that nothing exists without a subject but I am saying that objects do not exist without a subject. It’s a meaningful distinction for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bindi said:


Don’t you have an existence beyond my perception of you? Planets exist whether I know of them or not. My perception is limited, but it still gives me some small clue about what exists in the world and the universe/s. 

There are three forms of valid knowledge. Direct experience - which is what you're referring to. Indirect knowledge via intuition (such as intuiting there is a fire by seeing smoke in the air), and testimony of a reliable witness (such as books, experts etc). There can be no object without a subject (irrespective of whether there is direct knowledge or indirect knowledge). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Of course, because I am here to perceive. Your comment was:

 

If no one was here to perceive a body, there would still be the object, it doesn’t disappear just because no mind perceives it. 

 

I find it to be valuable and instructive to think about what an object is in the absence of a subject. What is color without an eye and the one interpreting the eyes’ information? Where is taste without a tongue and the taster? I think we are a bit misled by our materialistic conditioning and by virtue of our unique sensory apparatus, something that is being revealed in modern physics and biology. 

 

Like yin and yang, I propose subject and object define and require one another and cannot exist independently. I am not saying that nothing exists without a subject but I am saying that objects do not exist without a subject. It’s a meaningful distinction for me.


The object exists in all its undiminished glory whether it is perceived or not. FWIW the subtle body too exists in all its potential glory whether it is perceived or not. The object doesn’t require someone to perceive it to exist. Once perceived the perceiver can affect the object according to quantum physics, but fundamentally the object exists whether perceived or not. The only difference is whether the object is acted upon or not, not whether it exists or not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bindi said:


The object exists in all its undiminished glory whether it is perceived or not. FWIW the subtle body too exists in all its potential glory whether it is perceived or not. The object doesn’t require someone to perceive it to exist. Once perceived the perceiver can affect the object according to quantum physics, but fundamentally the object exists whether perceived or not. The only difference is whether the object is acted upon or not, not whether it exists or not. 

 

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites