Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
User avatar
rachMiel
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: inner space
Contact:

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by rachMiel » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:47 pm

arel wrote:Look around you right now... There is space around and within every object that you see. Within and around any sensation, sound, feeling, object, etc. It's everywhere,
Please explain what you mean by space. :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by arel » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:54 pm

rachMiel wrote:
arel wrote:Look around you right now... There is space around and within every object that you see. Within and around any sensation, sound, feeling, object, etc. It's everywhere,
Please explain what you mean by space. :-)
Obviously you mean this question in the context of this forum. Because if not, as you know, there are much "smarter" people that talk about "space" in scientific contexts for example.

For me the context here is realizing what I am.

So the space and everything contained in it is what I am. Silence and every sound it contains is what I am. Knowing and the feelings/sensations and movements in it is what I am... You probably get my point...This by the way cannot be dis proven once it is known. Like 2+2=4 cannot be dis proven. (want to play along with me and disprove that you are not space? :) ) It's quite revealing. Also it seems to be useful to hold this knowledge in mind as much as we have been holding on to thinking that we are a person. But it doesn't ultimately matter, I think I've given you this opinion before. What do you think?
What I say is only my viewpoint.

User avatar
rachMiel
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: inner space
Contact:

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by rachMiel » Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:30 pm

arel wrote:So the space and everything contained in it is what I am.
Okay, I understood. (I think.)
Silence and every sound it contains is what I am. Knowing and the feelings/sensations and movements in it is what I am... You probably get my point...This by the way cannot be dis proven once it is known. Like 2+2=4 cannot be dis proven. (want to play along with me and disprove that you are not space? :) ) It's quite revealing.
Sure. Sounds like fun!

How about instead of space we say: everything. It's the same thing, right? And it's easier for me to grok "everything" than "space" (used in this way).

I'll play "I am not everything" and you play "I am everything" and we'll see where it goes. Sound good?

Your turn. :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by arel » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:29 pm

rachMiel wrote:I'll play "I am not everything" and you play "I am everything" and we'll see where it goes. Sound good?

Your turn. :-)
First, it's not fair, you say "I'm not everything" without any proof and say it's my turn. I guess "life is not fair", so I'll go...
Would you agree that every perception has a subject? Would you say that that subject is what we call "I"? We all use use the word "I" in that way, no? So all different objects appear to have one thing in common, the subject. So the subject is "in" every object and there lies my proof that "I am the subject in every object and therefore I am everything and nothing can be without me".
Your turn..
What I say is only my viewpoint.

User avatar
rachMiel
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: inner space
Contact:

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by rachMiel » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:12 pm

arel wrote:Would you agree that every perception has a subject?
Apparently, yes: the I/self. I.e., that's what it feels like to us humans. But "what it feels like" and "reality" are not necessarily even in the same ballpark.

Ultimately, no. When one perceives an object, it is simply a DNA/conditioning-driven neurochemical process in a brain residing in a skull. There is no ultimate "owner" of this brain/skull. The brain/skull and neurochemical process are all objects, so what's happening is: objects are "perceiving" objects. There's no ultimate subject in the picture, despite the fact that it feels to us like "I am perceiving" (or to Advaitins like "Self is perceiving").

I think I'll stop there, because the rest of what you wrote depends on the notion that there is a subject doing the perceiving.

(P.S. Remember, I'm taking the "I am not everything" side in this game; so please don't mistake what I say for what I actually think/believe.)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by arel » Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:03 pm

rachMiel wrote:But "what it feels like" and "reality" are not necessarily even in the same ballpark.
I believe reality is what and how you perceive through this human form. My world/lens here is different and apparently similar to yours over there in many ways. There is no other reality.
The brain/acskull and neurochemical process are all objects, so what's happening is: objects are "perceiving" objects. There's no ultimate subject in the picture, despite the fact that it feels to us like "I am perceiving" (or to Advaitins like "Self is perceiving").
Ok, you call it "an object (brain process)" that perceives other objects. I call it a "subject". It doesn't change that I am/ you are / that. And is everything and is apparently the same between you and I, and only "in two separate locations" in our imagination. I for example can't imagine it dying...
What I say is only my viewpoint.

User avatar
rachMiel
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: inner space
Contact:

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by rachMiel » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:17 am

arel wrote:
rachMiel wrote:But "what it feels like" and "reality" are not necessarily even in the same ballpark.
I believe reality is what and how you perceive through this human form. My world/lens here is different and apparently similar to yours over there in many ways. There is no other reality.
I believe there is an objective reality that interacts with the human mind/lens.
The brain/skull and neurochemical process are all objects, so what's happening is: objects are "perceiving" objects. There's no ultimate subject in the picture, despite the fact that it feels to us like "I am perceiving" (or to Advaitins like "Self is perceiving").
Ok, you call it "an object (brain process)" that perceives other objects. I call it a "subject". It doesn't change that I am/ you are / that.
"I am" implies that I is a concrete entity, the center of a person's IS-ness. But isn't I just a bundle of brain-driven habits/patterns that keep playing themselves out in different combinations over a lifetime? No center, no essence, no one at the helm: no I.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

Narin
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:36 am

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by Narin » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:34 pm

I've been reading this thread with interest.

I think I'll take rachMiel's side and argue for "I am not everything" and "reality existed before consciousness."

I'm going to take a quote from the first page from runstrails:
runstrails wrote:This awareness is what you really are and to what everything is appearing to. It's nature is often described as witness-consciousness or witnessing in Advaita (it's footprint is also experienced as stillness or silence or spaciousness). This impersonal awareness is untouched by the object and experiences that appear in it. It can be the only true reality---since everything appears in it.
Let's take it as truth that this impersonal awareness is "untouched by the object and experiences that appear in it." How then can it affect the human mind? Obviously there must be some exchange between awareness and material reality since the molecules in our brain reconfigure themselves when this awareness is felt. If awareness were detached from the mind, how could the mind ever detect it and respond to it in such as a way as to create new thoughts that end suffering, change our lives, etc?

Many say that "awareness recognizes itself," but the impersonal recognizing the impersonal would not result in changes in the brain. So, despite claims to the contrary, it would seem awareness IS NOT independent of the mind if the mind is be affected by it.

Is it not more likely that we are simply touching the part of our brain that, by necessity, must exist in order for the brain to function at all? Everything seen must be contrasted against the unseen. Awareness in this case is the "paper" to reality's "drawings" - that which allows manifestations to come into existence. If we take the simplified idea that the left brain contains our "ego" and our right brain our "presence" then is it not possible we could simply shut off the content "left brain" to experience the formless awareness the right brain is providing in order for the left brain to come online?



Excuse me if my argument isn't clear or it's flat-out nonsensical, it's very early morning and my mind is rusty on these topics. I hope this contributes to the evolution of this debate in some form. :D

User avatar
rachMiel
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: inner space
Contact:

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by rachMiel » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:49 pm

Narin wrote:Awareness in this case is the "paper" to reality's "drawings" - that which allows manifestations to come into existence.
Nice. The metaphor for pure awareness that works best for my noggin' is that of a radio receiver. When it's turned on, at the ready, but not picking up any signal, it's pure awareness = unreflected consciousness. When it picks up a signal (sensation, thought, feeling, emotion, etc.) it's reflected consciousness.

I'll respond to more of your post later today, Narin. :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by arel » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:05 pm

rachMiel wrote:I believe there is an objective reality that interacts with the human mind/lens.
I think I know what you mean and can relate to that. Even that reality though is part of human mind I would say. Everything is. And that's fine, defining whether it is or not does not matter, it's just mechanics. I used to insist that it is not part of mind, but now I would say it is... I'm bringing up this point because the knowledge the mind holds has effect on experience. So the real issue here is how and what we experience ourselves to be. Are we fighting against the world, or does the world happen in us? There is a reason there are teachings of "Who am I?" and "I am that".

And sure I know what you mean: "No center, no essence, no one at the helm: no I." But it's again just a perspective. But then you are addressing me, and say the world "I", and then have to answer the question "Who are you?" if I ask you. This has effect on your experience. If I am beyond and much bigger then the bundle of fear, "the center of a person" as you called it, it changes my experience, and this is the value of this knowledge, besides just it being interesting. And also talking about awareness, the unchanging witness to experience, the only thing that doesn't change, so intimate and ever present, that saying "I am that, that's what I am" just seems right if I were to put it into language right now..
What I say is only my viewpoint.

tod
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by tod » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:35 pm

Narin wrote:Let's take it as truth that this impersonal awareness is "untouched by the object and experiences that appear in it." How then can it affect the human mind?
Consider the dawning of a new age as the result of a quantum leap occurring to increasing numbers of humans. This leap being a movement from mind. The realised human has moved from being identified by mind to identifying mind as a form of consciousness whereby consciousness is identified, known.

User avatar
rachMiel
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: inner space
Contact:

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by rachMiel » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:48 am

arel wrote:
rachMiel wrote:I believe there is an objective reality that interacts with the human mind/lens.
I think I know what you mean and can relate to that. Even that reality though is part of human mind I would say. Everything is.
So do you think that before human mind, there was no objective reality? That objective reality emerged with the emergence of the human mind?

That seems solipsistic to me, as if objective reality only came into being when human consciousness showed up on the scene. It doesn't seem likely. (As if I knew!) But I do think that the human mind collaborates with objective reality to create "what is." It's like a beautiful pas de deux. :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

User avatar
rachMiel
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: inner space
Contact:

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by rachMiel » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:17 am

Narin wrote:Let's take it as truth that this impersonal awareness is "untouched by the object and experiences that appear in it." How then can it affect the human mind?
The way Advaita Vedanta would answer your question, I think, is something like this.

From the frame of reference of the relative, phenomenal world (vyavahAra), the human mind/brain's plastic form changes. From the frame of reference of the absolute, noumenal truth (paramArtha), all is brahman and brahman is changeless.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

User avatar
SandyJoy
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:42 am

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by SandyJoy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:11 pm

rachMiel wrote:That seems solipsistic to me,
This reminded me that my teacher used to use the word "Deific Solipsism". ---meaning that Godhead is All there is and God is the Only Mind seeing and being.

As in; the whole argument/discourse as to whether mind is in the brain or brain is in the mind of 'man' form or man is in his own mind --- it's neither.

There is only One Mind and It 'belongs' to God. There is no 'other' here to possess that Mind. All forms are within the one and only Mind of God. All that seems tangible in time are Ideas appearing as form within the One Mind That Is Being All That Is.

It's more a matter of letting go our perception that there is another mind called 'human' that belongs to a personal separate being at all---In the Light of Truth we'd say there is "no other" than God's Mind Alone.

So, if we begin with that 'way of seeing' then we would say all brains and all sense of separation and all ideas and all thoughts from millions of different minds are really all God's and one else is Here; Deific Solipsism.

Just change the discussion from 'a personal you' to God Is All That Is and then you get the picture. Which in very simple terms would be realizing that nothing is outside of God's Infinite Divinely Intelligent Mind, even you and me and our brains our minds are all, everything, thoughts within the Mind of Godhead All.

It is God's Solipsistic Universe of His Own Being.
You are not finished, until you play in that meadow and live there. You can, you know. But only you can take yourself there.

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Non-dualism, dualism: Does it matter?

Post by arel » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:00 am

rachMiel wrote:
arel wrote:
rachMiel wrote:I believe there is an objective reality that interacts with the human mind/lens.
I think I know what you mean and can relate to that. Even that reality though is part of human mind I would say. Everything is.
So do you think that before human mind, there was no objective reality? That objective reality emerged with the emergence of the human mind?

That seems solipsistic to me, as if objective reality only came into being when human consciousness showed up on the scene. It doesn't seem likely. (As if I knew!) But I do think that the human mind collaborates with objective reality to create "what is." It's like a beautiful pas de deux. :-)
Yes that's what I think. I also think that I can't fathom the reality beyond the human mind. But what I can fathom, the simple unchanging background that is always here now, of which I can be aware of, and is what I am. I'm also acutely aware that it is a human knowledge that I'm speaking of and it's not that important in the grand scheme of things.
What I say is only my viewpoint.

Post Reply