Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2216
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by runstrails » Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:41 pm

Hi Gen6,
I think James nails it well in his post. These teachings offer only pointers. If these pointers don't resonate with you, then by all means, drop them. I know many agnostic people who are at peace, and many religious people who are at peace too. No one group has exclusive rights to interpretation of reality. In my case, after many years of intellectual seeking, I've found that mind based seeking did not work for me. On the other hand, what I experience non-conceptually simply cannot be described in language or concepts. So yes, if you take anything said on this forum literally, then it does turn into a belief. And such a belief is as useful or useless as any other interpretation of reality.

So thank you for your posts which have indeed helped remind us that nothing said here should be taken as a belief, only as a pointer to direct experience (which is impossible to conceptualize or describe in words/labels). I hope you continue to find peace within yourself, and perhaps you'll share that with us.

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by Ananda » Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:24 pm

Hello Severin :)
You take existence as the absolute premise and relish in it, but I still fail to understand what enlightenment can be gleaned from that. In my opinion it leads to little more than stagnation.
The word 'existence' translates in direct experience to pure awareness in which all life unfolds presently, fluidly, constantly new in every moment. Ideas stagnate, but not reality.
Nonduality places itself beyond logic, it relies on some initial and (I hesitate to say) subjective experience, and that's why it can't be refuted by logic.
Nonduality is supported by logic but it cannot be proven by it. There does need to be direct investigation involving one's own immediate subjective experience in order to apply the teachings and have them produce fruit outside of a mere mental understanding of the teaching itself. Direct investigation is the most important aspect of nonduality- without it the teaching becomes an idea only to be assimilated or accepted by reason- which is missing the point. This is very, very different from religious belief which asks to put reason aside when reason disagrees with the belief, or with any position accepted without rigorous testing and enquiry for oneself. The proof of nonduality is the result of earnest self-enquiry and introspective practices, and not found in philosophical discussion or its sound reasoning, which are just its supports.

Still, I could easily turn into the nasty skeptic and put into question even existence.
To question existence is to put yourself in a logical trap whereby you contradict your premise (no existence) each and every time you make a statement regarding it. Knowledge always presupposes existence- as whatever is known is done so (objectification) by your existence as the Subject by which this knowledge is arrived at. To make a statement regarding either existence or non-existence presupposes the Subject by which this particular knowledge is objectified, or known. To say ' there is no existence', for example, would require your existence first, and then your knowledge regarding this particular absence of existence, which in turn makes the whole premise self-defeating.

Infact, the only way in which the premise could ever be true was if there was never any knowledge regarding anything existing or not existing- and even then there would be no chance of knowing the accuracy of it since you wouldn't exist either in order to know it. As I said previously, the Subject can never be escaped in reality, as it really does exist. Any thought regarding non-existence is only permissable on account of the apriori existence of the Subject, so it really is just speculation or fantasy to ever be skeptical about existence.
It could be that only thinking is beyond true doubt
And yet, how is thinking also known? That thinking is known is a statement of knowledge regarding the existence of the object in question (thinking). Thinking is known also by a further knower- and that is the Subject, the witness or seer of the mind. We know that thinking is true because we exist first in order to know and objectify it- that it could ever be doubted is also possible due to the presence of the Subject during times in which thinking is not present (such as states of deep relaxation, meditation, samadhi, sleep, swoon etc).

My assumptions are dualistic, yours are monistic. In order for there to be any logical argument, some assumption need be taken for granted, otherwise we can't do anything.
I try not to make any assumptions. It's probably fair to say we all grow up with a dualistic mindset, it is how we are taught and conditioned to see the world and ourself. For me, monism as a conceptual set of ideas came about after much rigorous self-enquiry and introspection on my part, the words I use are just the window dressing for the direct insights and experiences i've had. I really don't rely on monism as an idea so much, it is the experience which matters- the ideas I use are just a way of explaining my insights in a logical and coherent way, not an appeal for them to be accepted by others because they fit nicely in the mind.
What need is there of 'negation of immediate objects', 'self awareness or samadhi' and 'direct experience', when the Subject is within us as it is. In other words, in order for you to be consistent, you can't answer to my question of 'How is it done in practice?' You can only answer that it is already done, so for me, your reasoning is no less circular. It's just that, as I said, we take on different standpoints.
You are certainly the Self, however, the nature of the Self is unknown when false ideas are superimposed onto it. This superimposition of ignorance (avidya) covers the Self with attributes that don't belong to it, and hence arises the apparent misery of egoic, individual existence. All of the sufferings of the body become my suffering, all of the personal drama becomes my drama. A common analogy used is a pool of water that has a layer of filth on it- all of the water appears filthy when we don't scoop away the filth. When we finally do remove the filth then the naturally clear nature of the water is revealed. In the same way, due to ignorance, the Self appears to be identical to the body and subject to its experiences and sufferings- through the practice of self-enquiry and other methods this ignorance is removed and the true knowledge of the Self as it is dawns on us, thus freeing us from the apparent misery of limited existence.

The result is called jnana - knowledge, but not a conceptual kind of knowledge- a direct and immediate experience of the Self as the secondless and eternal substrate, the absolute reality behind all relative appearance. That, then, is freedom, and total peace of mind.

The bondage to limited existence is false, but appears true without discrimination, without investigation. Liberation is also false, as it is the result of a non-existence cause, only an apparent one. It is a recognition, more than a realization- as jnana is to know what always has been so, and always will be- it is freedom from the ignorance of what is not always true, that is why it is called absolute knowledge.
For you phenomena are unreal, only the noumenon is real. For me phenomena are real and the noumenon (after applying Occam's razor) of no consequence whatsoever. It may be real, it may not for all I care. I prefer (dealing with) the appearances of things even if they are unreal or false.
For me, I can enjoy the world more now than I ever did previously as I seek no personal investment in it. Self-knowledge means freedom from experience, but also freedom to experience, since my nature is never limited or changed by it. :)

On a side-note, I am truly interested what books of (Western) philosophy do you hold dear, for you are obviously versed in it.
I actually read very little books on philosophy- even more so western philosophy. I probably should do, however. :) I've been reading Schopenhauer's World as Will and Idea, which ,while interesting, is quite pedantic.


Nice talking to you. :)




Hello gen6,
Since the whole philosophy of enlightenment and nondualism is based on something that cannot be proven, on some experience, on something so subjective,..it's up to you to believe in it, just as it's up to you to believe in religion or God or some flying invisible unicorn.
The proof is in the experience itself- it isn't offered up to you on a plate as an idea to ingest and accept. Ideas by themselves offer little in the way of insight into reality, they are frameworks, blueprints, and explanations; maps, not the destination. That being said, the former 'experience' doesn't precede the latter 'belief'. You aren't asked to believe in anything, only to investigate, only to question. Beliefs are dead things, accepting something as true without your own knowledge or input of it is completely useless in terms of nonduality and self-enquiry.

Which part of this;
Through direct experience, negating (or discriminating) all objects of knowledge from the Subject itself (apperception) until the Subject alone remains. It is 'recognised' when one's being is no longer being conflated with objects- it remains as partless, formless and non-dual awareness, pure subjectivity. That is the noumenon, the infinite and eternal substrate or substance out of which all form takes its appearance.

Turning one's awareness onto awareness itself negates all objects of knowledge- remaining alone with one's nature where the distinction of seer, seeing, and seen collapses. All ignorance pertaining to the body and false views of individuality are burned off, and Self-knowledge is the fruit.
Asks, requests, or requires your belief in it? It's a direction, a command or a pointer, not a mental creed or a piece of information to be swallowed blindly. Non-duality is about investigation and scrutiny, not belief or ideas- although of course it is entirely your perogative how you choose to view it, your life is in your own hands.

Happy new year.


:)

runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2216
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by runstrails » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:02 am

I love this quote from Jeff Foster. It sums it up nicely for me.
Jeff Foster writes:
You have no way of knowing what you are, beyond the story of what you are. There is just the not-knowing.
Any explanation in words or labels of the mystery of life is yet another story, another mind-made concept or a belief.

So I say dive into that not-knowing, it's very liberating!

erbeeflower
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: eastbourne east sussex england

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by erbeeflower » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:15 pm

hello all, runstrails i think the quote does sum it up from the perspective of a 'non duallist'.

Ananda, we've talked before and you said you could be called a Hindu because you resonate with Hindu teachings and beliefs.

You ask:


"Which part of this;

Through direct experience, negating (or discriminating) all objects of knowledge from the Subject itself (apperception) until the Subject alone remains. It is 'recognised' when one's being is no longer being conflated with objects- it remains as partless, formless and non-dual awareness, pure subjectivity. That is the noumenon, the infinite and eternal substrate or substance out of which all form takes its appearance.

Turning one's awareness onto awareness itself negates all objects of knowledge- remaining alone with one's nature where the distinction of seer, seeing, and seen collapses. All ignorance pertaining to the body and false views of individuality are burned off, and Self-knowledge is the fruit.


Asks, requests, or requires your belief in it? It's a direction, a command or a pointer, not a mental creed or a piece of information to be swallowed blindly. Non-duality is about investigation and scrutiny, not belief or ideas- although of course it is entirely your perogative how you choose to view it, your life is in your own hands"

You seem to assume that everyone who follows the above can only come to the "Self-knowledge is the fruit" bit.If they don't they aren't doing the enquiry thing properly.This reminds me of my 30 years of being a mormon,where i was 'directed'.This directing led to interpreting my experience in a certain way.

As i've said before,In my opinion, no single philosophy,religion or ideology should govern,confine or limit a person.That's because there is no one ultimate way that is more true or accurate etc to live life by.
I'm still enjoying thinking and exploring too much to get stuck here :-)

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

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by arel » Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:54 pm

erbeeflower,

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what Ananda is saying. He is not offering beliefs or concepts to consider. He points at yours and mine and his own direct experience. Rather to what makes the experiences possible. That Knowing of our distinct experiences is the same. This knowing is present, here, in the present moment, alive and aware now, as the knowing of everything. Knowing is the same even if yours, his, and mine experience of the world, with its beliefs and concepts are different. That's all.. Very simple..
What I say is only my viewpoint.

User avatar
gen6
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by gen6 » Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:06 pm

Ananda wrote:
Hello gen6,
Since the whole philosophy of enlightenment and nondualism is based on something that cannot be proven, on some experience, on something so subjective,..it's up to you to believe in it, just as it's up to you to believe in religion or God or some flying invisible unicorn.
The proof is in the experience itself- it isn't offered up to you on a plate as an idea to ingest and accept. Ideas by themselves offer little in the way of insight into reality, they are frameworks, blueprints, and explanations; maps, not the destination. That being said, the former 'experience' doesn't precede the latter 'belief'. You aren't asked to believe in anything, only to investigate, only to question. Beliefs are dead things, accepting something as true without your own knowledge or input of it is completely useless in terms of nonduality and self-enquiry.
Hello Ananda :)

What I don't want to do is to question myself for the sake of removing the so called ,,ignorance,, . If I remove the ,,ignorance,, I will have to do in order to achieve the ,,happy life,, . Thing is that I am happy just right now, I love , I adore myself, I don't want to change anything anyhow, everything is working perfectly for me the way it is, with all the ignorance and duality I have, it's working so perfectly that I don't want to change it.
Moreover I don't think I can ever have my hands on the ,,proof,, by having the direct experience, I consider that whatever life changing experience you had, it's wrongly labeled(i.e. you have explained it for yourself in a wrong way), many people have life changing experiences, even of such type. Jill Taylor, a neurologist who experienced a stroke and lost most of the functions of her left brain hemisphere, experienced Samadhi...she however didn't label it Samadhi but approached very scientifically explaining it as a right brain hemisphere phenomenon, I'm sure if you read her experience, it doesn't differ much from Samadhi.

I just consider that trying to remove some phantom ignorance in order to achieve ,,happy life,, and remove all troubles is very misleading.
Furthermore In order for me to even begin removing the ,,ignorance,, I have to believe in this system, I have to believe that what I want to remove is ignorance and not something that somebody else calls ignorance. What I refuse to do is to believe in this system since the lack of proof and that it's based on something so subjective namely your experience which you may interpret in thousand of ways, just like Jill Taylor, she could also interpret hers in thousand of ways, including your way. Since these factors are present I won't believe in this for the same reason I don't believe in invisible unicorns and without believing in the system I cannot even start executing what it wants me to do namely to remove my ,,ignorance,,.


One more important thing which should not be underestimated. The bare fact that one should fully accept and truly believe that everything he/she knows so far(thought schemes, concepts etc) is ignorance and he/she should remove it in order to be happy and cured is very depressing and can have devastating effects on the human psyche.

The bare idea that something is not right with you and you should do something to remove it, in our case, to remove ignorance is depressing. And just imagine, when one does not succeed to remove the ,,ignorance,, how depressed one can get? This is the same as if to search for invisible unicorn that will cure all of your problems and after 20 years of searching you don't find it, what could be more depressing than that?
That's why I find all of this quite dangerous.
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.

User avatar
gen6
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by gen6 » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:18 am

Severin sends his regards. He saw your last post, smiled, and said that there we went in circles again and he could, of course, write a reply, but he doesn't have the time anymore (has exams to take) and the discussion would have anyway become redundant, as the same arguments would've been restated.

Enough for him, now, as I followed and reread the discussion few questions popped in my head...
Why do you say you can't doubt existence? Just imagine predictions come true and the end of the world really does come in 2012 and life as we know it disappears? What happens to your theory if there are no living things? Won't the Subject disappear also, then? I mean, there would be only objects then, only rocks, seas, planets,stars... only the things outside of us, only those seen, not observed by any seer.
Or you may say that they would become their own Subject. Everything would be Subject (existent), just as it is now. But if everything is Subject and there's no one to objectify things (that is, people with their minds and ignorant ideas about duality), then everything is also eternal, right? But nothing is eternal in the universe, except possibly the universe itself. Even without any living things, metals would still rust and disappear with time. If everything is only Subject and eternal, timless, then time as we know it should stop, right? Everything becomes still and a non-changing present, since there is no one to observe the flow of time (past>present>future). There should be only present then, right? But of course, the planets won't stop turning just because we aren't there to see them, so here you have a paradox. Your theory falls apart if you exclude your own existence. And this is quite possible, what if a meteor hits the Earth?

Following this logic, dualistic principle is at the base of everything. Time and Existence are always connected, we cannot have one without the other. Existence cannot be without time, and time cannot be without existence.
Last edited by gen6 on Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.

erbeeflower
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: eastbourne east sussex england

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by erbeeflower » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:01 pm

I see time as the phenomenon of the sun rising and setting. :wink:
I'm still enjoying thinking and exploring too much to get stuck here :-)

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by enigma » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:50 pm

I see the perception of sun rising and setting as a phenomenon of time. :wink:

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by Ananda » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:04 pm

Hello folks,


erbeeflower :)
You seem to assume that everyone who follows the above can only come to the "Self-knowledge is the fruit" bit.If they don't they aren't doing the enquiry thing properly.
Can you quote me where I said that this was the only way to Self-knowledge? I have never said such a thing, and in my previous posts I've expressed admiration and resonance with other teachings and traditions, such as Mahayana Buddhism and Sufism.

I speak from my own experience, and use terminology which fits in best with it, which for me is Hindu terminology. Take out the terminology if it doesnt suit you, do your own practice, whatever works best for you is best for you- doesn't matter what anybody else does. I answered Severin's exchanges in the only reasonable way that I could, which is to speak from my own experience and with ideas that I find most suitable to describe and explain it.
As i've said before,In my opinion, no single philosophy,religion or ideology should govern,confine or limit a person.That's because there is no one ultimate way that is more true or accurate etc to live life by.
And you will certainly have an impossible search trying to find anywhere on this forum where I've ever said anything to the contrary.



Hello gen6 :)

Thing is that I am happy just right now, I love , I adore myself, I don't want to change anything anyhow, everything is working perfectly for me the way it is, with all the ignorance and duality I have, it's working so perfectly that I don't want to change it.
I am glad you are happy :)
Moreover I don't think I can ever have my hands on the ,,proof,, by having the direct experience, I consider that whatever life changing experience you had, it's wrongly labeled(i.e. you have explained it for yourself in a wrong way), many people have life changing experiences, even of such type
You won't know until you try. If you are unwilling to try, then that is with you - and not with the teaching or the enquiry. You might consider my explanations to be 'wrong' but you certainly haven't demonstrated why so in any logical or reasonable way. I suspect it is your attempt to rationalise your own unwillingness to put it to the test for yourself, and because of this you have to explain away how others explain their own experiences to make yourself feel justified. Not that you aren't justified in choosing not to pursue investigation - as you say, if you are happy, why bother?
Jill Taylor, a neurologist who experienced a stroke and lost most of the functions of her left brain hemisphere, experienced Samadhi...she however didn't label it Samadhi but approached very scientifically explaining it as a right brain hemisphere phenomenon, I'm sure if you read her experience, it doesn't differ much from Samadhi.
Jill had a stroke, whatever experience she had as a result was purely unintentional- not the product of self-enquiry, discrimination, reasoning or practice. Furthermore, she had no control over it and it took her a very long time to recover from the damage done to her brain. I think while subjective experience comes in all forms and flavours, it is unfair to compare samadhi, which is an intentional, repeatable, beneficial and sustainable state of awareness, to a blood clot in the brain and its myriads of crippling effects.
Furthermore In order for me to even begin removing the ,,ignorance,, I have to believe in this system, I have to believe that what I want to remove is ignorance and not something that somebody else calls ignorance. What I refuse to do is to believe in this system since the lack of proof and that it's based on something so subjective namely your experience which you may interpret in thousand of ways, just like Jill Taylor, she could also interpret hers in thousand of ways, including your way.
I've explained the concept of ignorance to you in the previous thread- such things as the 'i am the body' idea, these things are common to all people, and explained in a reasonable and logical way, it is not an issue of belief. One subjective experience doesn't amount to much proof, but when everybody has the same subjective experience of identifying the Subject with the body then this is as close as you can get to proving the validity of ignorance. You do not need to rely on the testimony of others and their own subjective experiences in order to have proof- the whole point is to investigate your experience, not mine, yours, so that you can come to similar conclusions. If you are unwilling to investigate on the basis that the subjective experience of others is not reliable, then you are missing the point of enquiry, which is to investigate your own experience only.

I won't believe in this for the same reason I don't believe in invisible unicorns
There is no evidence for the existence of invisible unicorns, they cannot be observed, tested, repeatedly observed and scrutinized with logic and reason. Self-enquiry requires logic, reason, repeated observation and commitment, testing, investigation and its evidence comes in the form of insight and knowledge. The comparison is baseless.
without believing in the system I cannot even start executing what it wants me to do namely to
You are unwilling to investigate it for yourself, therefore you do not believe in it, therefore you cannot begin it. Your argument is circular. It is up to you completely whether or not to explore Self-enquiry, but if you don't -don't blame it on Self-enquiry.
The bare fact that one should fully accept and truly believe that everything he/she knows so far(thought schemes, concepts etc) is ignorance and he/she should remove it in order to be happy and cured is very depressing and can have devastating effects on the human psyche.


This is a strawman. Self-enquiry recommends doubt and questioning firmly held concepts and beliefs in order to experience the reality of one's nature, not the complete denial of all objective knowledge.
The bare idea that something is not right with you and you should do something to remove it, in our case, to remove ignorance is depressing.
You are the Self, there is nothing wrong with you. Do we cause the illness and prescribe the cure? No, ignorance is already there, it does not begin with the teaching, it is already there, the teaching just points it out. It is ignorance which ever makes you think 'something is not right with me', and the teaching is you are the Self which is always free from misery.


Severin sends his regards. He saw your last post, smiled, and said that there we went in circles again and he could, of course, write a reply, but he doesn't have the time anymore (has exams to take) and the discussion would have anyway become redundant, as the same arguments would've been restated.
Send him my regards. :)
Why do you say you can't doubt existence?
Because to doubt also requires existence. Non-existence is a fantasy.
Just imagine predictions come true and the end of the world really does come in 2012 and life as we know it disappears? What happens to your theory if there are no living things?
It depends how you define life, doesn't it?
Won't the Subject disappear also, then?
If by 'living things' you mean bodies and animals etc, and if by the Subject dissapearing you equate the Subject to these living things, then yes the Subject will dissapear. However, the Subject is not these living things, as these are also objects within the Subject itself.
I mean, there would be only objects then, only rocks, seas, planets,stars... only the things outside of us, only those seen, not observed by any seer.
No object can be admitted without the Subject. Your sentence assumes that objective reality is 'outside' of the Subject (which begs the question, if it were, then how do you know objects?), there can never be 'only' the seen as the existence of the seen always has for it's predicate the seer, the Subject, which is existence itself. You can never conceive of an objective reality apart from a Subject, it is like saying something can exist outside of existence. All conceptions and ideas of non-existence themselves depend upon existence, upon the Subject, there is no outside except in your mind, non-existence is a fallacy.
But if everything is Subject and there's no one to objectify things (that is, people with their minds and ignorant ideas about duality), then everything is also eternal, right?
I don't understand this question.
If everything is only Subject and eternal, timless, then time as we know it should stop, right?
Time is subjective, as knowledge of cause and effect rely on the body, senses/mind. Time means change, and change is known to the unchanging Subject. Time is of relative reality, just like the universe itself, the universe is an appearance in reality, existence. Eternal reality already is, right now, time also is- there's no conflict.
There should be only present then, right? But of course, the planets won't stop turning just because we aren't there to see them, so here you have a paradox.
By we I assume you mean the body and equate the body with the Subject? The paradox doesn't seem to be mine, it seems to be yours, or a result of your trying to understand non-dualism.
Your theory falls apart if you exclude your own existence. And this is quite possible, what if a meteor hits the Earth?
Is the Self in space? Earth is in space, is the Self? Space is in the Self. Objects are defined by their relationships in space and their changeful nature, none of this applies to the Subject. So what if a meteor hits earth? Life as you know it might be destroyed like the dinosaurs, all human beings might be extinct. What does this have to do with the Self? Life finds a way marvellously. Stop identifying yourself with the body and you will see the fallacy in equating the Subject to a multiplicity of changeful objects in space.
Existence cannot be without time, and time cannot be without existence.
Time is the measurement of change. Change cannot be without a non-changing substrate, which is existence. Existence is the Self and time is an appearance within it. The Self is one without a second, non dual.

:)

User avatar
gen6
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by gen6 » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:34 pm

Hmmm , hmm, hmm :roll:

How do you define life ?
How do you define time ?


Is it possible there to be only existance(Subject) without time?


To get things straight, you are saying that two things that are absolutely contradictory such as finity and infinity coexist together and finity appears in the infinity as illusion, meaning that everything finite is an illusion, including all objects..and time may be?
Change cannot be without a non-changing substrate, which is existence.
Why would you claim that and how can you prove it?
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by Ananda » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:51 pm

How do you define life ?

:lol:

Hmmm, personally I might define it as 'existence' , or the totality of the subject-object experience. It is very vague though, a word with as many meanings as there are folks for it to have meaning.


How do you define time ?
Time for me is the measurement or process of change from one thing to another thing- it could be a particular object, an event, or a state of experience.
Is it possible there to be only existance(Subject) without time?
Well, did time have a beginning, and will it have an end? In terms of the universe time obviously exists but I don't know whether time ever had an origin - that would depend on whether or not the universe ever had a particular origin, and that's something which is still being explored. If we look at it from the position of the Self then time is already unreal, because the Self, being reality, is unchanging and so not conditioned by time.
To get things straight, you are saying that two things that are absolutely contradictory such as finity and infinity coexist together and finity appears in the infinity as illusion, meaning that everything finite is an illusion, including all objects..and time may be?
If by illusion we could say 'unreal', unreal meaning having no independent existence and being impermanent, then yes it would be fair to say that whatever is finite and measurable in terms of time and objective qualities is an illusion and no different from the infinite reality.

Change cannot be without a non-changing substrate, which is existence.
Why would you claim that and how can you prove it?
Well, if you look at it closely, could it be otherwise? If all things change then knowledge could never arise. Knowledge presupposes existence, and if existence is itself changeful then there is no possible way of knowing anything either changing or non-changing. Basically, if everything changes then you wouldn't recognise change- as a permanent reality is necessary in order to have knowledge of the impermanence of other things. If you also examine your own experience you will see that all states of experience (waking, dreaming etc) and their results (such as sense perception, memory, intellect, and objective knowledge) are also changeful. In fact, the only thing that cannot be said to change is nothing within your awareness but awareness itself, which is the substrate of experience, and therefore the Subject.

:)

vera
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:43 pm

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by vera » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:36 am

Hi Ananda. I mainly lurk around here these days but just wanted to say that the clarity coming from people like yourself and enigma is so helpful in terminating any wild goose chases. I really get a lot from your posts and often return to them weeks or months later when something relevant comes up. So thanks :P

erbeeflower
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:53 pm
Location: eastbourne east sussex england

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by erbeeflower » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:01 pm

Hello everyone, what an interesting thread this is... for the subject matter,yes, but also the tone and manner of the responses.
Thanks to the admins and moderators to allow such open and honest debating.
Ananda,could you agree that your opinions and views discussed here are static, permanent beliefs? If not, could you summarize them?
vera,i ask you the same,plus what do you mean by "terminating any wild goose chases"?

enigma,how about you? i do understand the distinction you make by the way :D

arel,same question please... is your view fixed?(please excuse terminology)

You all seem to have this overview that is non-negotiable, discovered by the act of 'self inquiry'. I'll say that again...
You all seem to have this overview that is non-negotiable, discovered by the act of 'self inquiry'
Thanks again for this lively debate. Love Tim. (erbeeflower)
I'm still enjoying thinking and exploring too much to get stuck here :-)

vera
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:43 pm

Re: Why absolute Monism (Nonduliasm) is impossible

Post by vera » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:46 pm

Hi erbeeflower. I’m not sure I understand the question about beliefs. There is direct experience and everything else is a belief of some kind, isn’t it? As far as reading and hearing the words of others is concerned there is either a response of “yes” or there isn’t. This response isn’t a decision or based on a belief, it’s just seeing myself.

Post Reply